to orders interpreting, clarifying or enforcing the provisions thereof[.] Are subdivisions (n) and (q) quoted above, or any other portions of the retained powers, appropriate bases to appoint a post-confirmation trustee? That question requires a negative answer. The word “trustee” does not appear in the Plan. Moreover, such terms as “to enter any order” or “to make such orders as are necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of the Plan” are “general terms of future judicial action necessary to ensure that the plan is not subverted,” Falise v. American Tobacco Co., 241 B.R. 48, 59 (E.D.N.Y.1999), but are insufficient to override the controlling Code provisions, viz., Sections 1104(a) and 1123(b)(3)(B). Cf. Zerand-Bernal Group, Inc. v. Cox, 23 F.3d 159, 164 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re BankEast Corp., 132 B.R. 665, 670
holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court holding that a plan provision purporting to provide jurisdiction over any and all actions involving the debtor postconfirmation was invalid as beyond the scope of the bankruptcy code holding that a bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction postconfirmation to adjudicate adversary proceeding concerning asset purchases at bankruptcy sale notwithstanding inclusion of language in the plan purporting to retain such jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court holding that creditor lacked appellate standing to appeal order of bankruptcy court absent permission of bankruptcy court holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case