something to do with concluding the administration of the case if it is to be one “arising in” the case, and the debtor’s performance of the contract here had nothing to do with concluding the administration of the case. See Torkelsen v. Maggio (In re Guild and Gallery Plus, Inc.), 72 F.3d at 1178. This case is distinguishable from those in which “arising in” jurisdiction was found to exist with respect to breach of a postpe-tition contract that the trustee (or a debtor in possession exercising a trustee’s powers) entered into during the bankruptcy case. See, e.g., American Freight Sys., Inc. v. Blymyer Engineers, Inc. (In re American Freight Sys., Inc.), 236 B.R. 47 (Bankr.D.Kan.1999); Arnold Print Works, Inc. v. Apkin (In re Arnold Print Works, Inc.), 815 F.2d 165, 168 (1st Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Because the debtor did not serve as a debtor
holding that defamation action is not a proceeding arising in a bankruptcy case holding that debtorinpossessions postpetition contract dispute was a core proceeding thus implicitly holding that for purposes of 28 usc  157b1 the proceeding was one arising in the case and that accordingly for purposes of  1334b as well the proceeding was one arising in the case holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding holding an action for postpetition breach of an agreement to purchase property to be a core proceeding holding that a proceeding under section 547 is a core proceeding