creditors holding provable claims of the requisite amount, the insolvency of the defendant and the commission of an act of bankruptcy within the preceding four months, clearly gives the bankruptcy court jurisdiction of the proceeding. Id. at 248, 44 S.Ct. at 68. Trusted Net seizes on this language, arguing that Canute indicates that § 303(b)’s requirements are subject matter jurisdictional. But we do not read the Supreme Court’s use of the word “jurisdiction” in Canute to mean that the involuntary petition requirements at issue there were a matter of subject matter jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court recently noted, “the word ‘jurisdiction’ does not in every context connote subject-matter jurisdiction.” Rockwell, 127 S.Ct. at 1405; see also Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 90, 118 S.Ct. at 1010 (<HOLDING>). And the Supreme Court in Canute, in the
recognizing cause of action holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action holding that the elements of a cause of action were not subject matter jurisdictional simply because the statute that created the cause of action provided that district courts shall have jurisdiction of such actions recognizing the cause of action holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act