context. Therefore, the matters in dispute here do not create core jurisdiction in the bankruptcy courts. B. Whether this is a non-core proceeding. Appellee has also failed to prove that non-core jurisdiction exists in this case. In the absence of core matter jurisdiction, a non-core proceeding is the only opportunity for a bankruptcy court to hear the dispute. A matter is non-core if it does not arise under a bankruptcy case, but is “otherwise related to a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). A proceeding is related to bankruptcy if “the outcome of the proceeding could conceivably have an effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.” Lemco Gypsum, 910 F.2d at 788 (quoting Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3rd Cir.1984)); see also Heath, 115 F.3d at 524 (<HOLDING>). The outcome affects the estate when “the
holding claimant waived right to jury trial on claims brought against it on behalf of bankruptcy estate when it submitted its proof of claim against the estate and subjected itself to the equitable powers of the bankruptcy court holding that if dispute involves funds that are not property of estate it cannot be maintained in the bankruptcy court unless it is related to the bankruptcy proceeding which means it is likely to affect the debtors 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 holding directors and officers liability policy was not property of the estate because it did not increase or decrease the worth of the bankruptcy estate holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1