consolidation of CitX and PRSI and [creation of] an [sic] constructive trust for the benefit of the creditors of CitX.” Id. ¶ (h). Reading counts V through VII together, I conclude that the trustee does not seek to equitably subordinate — ie., reduce the priority of — the receiver’s allowed claim in this bankruptcy case. Instead, he is directly challenging the receiver’s control over PRSI property — as authorized by the state court of Florida — by maintaining that PRSI and CitX should be treated as one entity, presumably with the assets of that consolidated entity under the control of this court — given 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e), which provides the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all property of the debtor. See, e.g., In re Simon, 153 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. Hong Kong and Shanghai
holding that a party cannot waive in rem jurisdiction under florida law and a court proceeding pursuant to in rem jurisdiction must actually possess in rem jurisdiction over the property that is the subject of the matter holding that the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state holding that where prior state court had in rem jurisdiction district court could maintain in personam jurisdiction and simply deny requests for conflicting in rem relief because district court is fully capable of preventing inappropriate conversion of the suit to a proceeding truly in rem recognizing that 28 usc  1334e provides exclusive in rem jurisdiction over all property of the bankruptcy estate 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