where the case is pending.”); Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of W. Va., Inc. (In re Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.), 108 B.R. 82, 85 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1989) ("Public policy and inconvenience require us to deny enforcement of Blue Cross’s forum selection clause.”); Banque Prancaise du Commerce Exterieur v. Rio Grande Trading, Inc., 17 B.R. 134 (Bankr. S.D.Tex.1981) (“It would be contrary to the theme of the Bankruptcy Reform Act to permit parties by agreement to defeat the jurisdiction of the court.... [Circumstances could exist under which the bankruptcy court will enforce such a clause and abstain from hearing a case, but not here.”); see also Ellwood City Iron & Wire Co. v. Flakt, Inc. (In re Ellwood City Iron & Wire Co.), 59 B.R. 53, 55 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1986) (<HOLDING>), 22 . See, e.g., Matter of Pease, 195 B.R.
recognizing heightened importance of bankruptcy forum after passage of bankruptcy amendments and federal judgeship act of 1984 holding the broad jurisdictional grant given the bankruptcy courts under the 1978 bankruptcy act unconstitutional holding that an attorney licensed in texas and admitted to practice before a federal bankruptcy court in michigan was authorized to practice federal bankruptcy law in michigan even though he was not licensed in michigan because the bankruptcy courts rules permitted the attorney not only to appear before the bankruptcy court but also to counsel clients in bankruptcy actions or proceedings holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added