to be filed). GMX contends that it seeks to enforce the bankruptcy court’s prior orders regarding the sale of the Debtors’ assets and confirmation of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 plan. GMX claims that, in order for the plaintiffs in the Texas case to prevail in that suit, they must prove that the bankruptcy court’s orders regarding the sale of the Debtors’ assets and the assumption and assignment of the executory contracts did not extinguish their interests in the property purchased by GMX from the Debtors. GMX’s interests in this regard may have been sufficient to confer standing for purposes of filing the motion to reopen, but the mere denial of that motion does not directly and adversely affect GMX’s pecuniary interests. In re Lawrence United Corp., 221 B.R. 661, 667 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.1998) (<HOLDING>). The order denying the motion to reopen
holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract holding that a court may review any evidence such as affidavits and testimony to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction holding that resolution of tribal law disputes are not within federal court jurisdiction recognizing the courts jurisdiction to resolve disputes between competing permanency plans that are reasonably plausible recognizing that generally disputes between purchasers of a debtors assets and third parties are not within the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction but recognizing that disputes concerning the sale order itself may be sufficient for subject matter jurisdiction