estate or the allocation of its assets among creditors.” Home Ins., 889 F.2d at 749. Even if Mills were successful and attached funds due Patra from the Debtor, that would have no effect on other creditors of the estate — it would neither reduce nor enlarge their entitlements, nor would it even change the amount payable on account of Patra’s claim. Further, the district judge is fully capable of interpreting JMP’s plan of reorganization if required to do so to resolve Mills’ lawsuit. Once this Court confirmed JMP’s plan of reorganization, a contract was created among JMP and its creditors. See In re Potts, 188 B.R. 575, 582 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1995). A bankruptcy court is not unique in its abilities to interpret such a contract. See Paul v. Monts, 906 F.2d 1468, 1475 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). See also In re Page, 118 B.R. 456, 460
holding that the remedies are exclusive holding that a government corporation with respect to actually implementing its contractual remedies after the debtor has filed for relief under chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code  is in the same position as any other party in interest holding that the good faith analysis for evaluating a chapter 11 petition and that in evaluating a chapter 11 plan are distinct holding that remedies provided in the bankruptcy code for enforcing a chapter 11 plan of reorganization are not exclusive holding based on  1127b that only the proponent  of a chapter 11 reorganization plan can seek to have it modified