have been in outside of bankruptcy upon his filing the appropriate motion for sequestration or receivership with the bankruptcy court. In the appeals court opinion in the Butner case, for example, the court spoke approvingly of granting the mortgagee the right to rents if he took action in the bankruptcy court which was “equivalent” to the action he would have to take under state law to obtain the rents. The actions deemed equivalent by the appeals court (but not passed upon by the Supreme Court) were: (1) obtaining the bankruptcy court’s consent to foreclose; (2) petitioning the bankruptcy court for sequestration of rents; and (3) obtaining the appointment of a receiver. See Golden Enterprises, Inc. v. United States (In re Golden Enterprises, Inc.), 566 F.2d 1207, 1210 (4th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>); see also 4A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 70.16
holding that the bankruptcy code endows the bankruptcy trustee with the exclusive right to sue on behalf of the estate holding that each state law claim was a noncore proceeding in part because no claim invoked a substantive right created by bankruptcy law and each claim could arise outside of bankruptcy law 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 holding bankruptcy trustee entitled to rents because mortgagee took no action during bankruptcy proceeding equivalent to action under state law necessary to activate its right to rents holding that defamation action is not a proceeding arising in a bankruptcy case