of injunctive relief to effectuate the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157 to administer the reorganization.”). 5 . Bank of America argues that the Guarantor Arbitration will have no preclusive effect on the Adversary Proceeding, citing to Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985). The Court in Dean Witter specifically declined to decide what preclusive effect the arbitration proceedings in that case would have because the issue was not before the Court. Id. at 223, 105 S.Ct. 1238. 6 . The decisions relied upon by Bank of America are distinguishable from the circumstances surrounding the Guarantor Arbitration and its likely effect on the debtors’ bankruptcy cases. See In re W.R. Grace & Co., 591 F.3d 164, 171 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>) (citing In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., 300
holding that a lawsuit alleging malpractice by an accountant in a bankruptcy case was a core matter within a bankruptcy courts jurisdiction 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 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 bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code holding that an inchoate claim of common law is not in and of itself enough to establish the bankruptcy courts subject matter jurisdiction and that in order for a bankruptcy court to have relatedto jurisdiction to enjoin a lawsuit that lawsuit must affect the bankruptcy  without the intervention of yet another lawsuit 