law. This is so, the Supreme Court stated, even though Congress has enacted a statutory cause of action to avoid a fraudulent conveyance. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H). The Supreme Court distinguished claims based on private rights from those based on public rights. The latter claims likewise stem from statutory rights but, in addition, are “integral parts” of a public regulatory scheme. Granfinanciera, 492 U.S. at 55 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. at 2797 n. 10. The Supreme Court stated that the right to a jury trial may be abrogated as to a claim involving a public right, by virtue of Congress’s committing its adjudication to the bankruptcy court — a forum which the Court indicated may not be empowered to conduct jury trials. However, the right to a jury trial may not be abrogated, the Cou Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>). The motion of Growers Packing to strike the
holding that the eleventh amendment applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought holding claimant waived right to jury trial on claims brought against it on behalf of bankruptcy estate when it submitted its proof of claim against the estate and subjected itself to the equitable powers of the bankruptcy court holding that where plaintiff sought only equitable relief up through the end of trial and only added claim for legal relief posttrial defendant was entitled to demand jury once legal claim was asserted holding that an anticipated tax refund was property of the bankruptcy estate as of the date the bankruptcy case was filed holding that preferential transfer claim was not entitled to jury trial but without any discussion of nature of relief sought or whether a claim against the bankruptcy estate had been filed