against a defendant with its own proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings (related to different loans than those at issue here). Since UBS’s recovery on its proof of claim may be offset by RFC’s recovery in this case (or vice versa), this case affects the bankruptcy estate in that regard as well. Therefore, the Court finds that this case will have an effect on the administration of the bankruptcy proceedings, which “is one of the more important factors to consider” for permissive abstention. Allstate, 2012 WL 967582, at *6 (citing In re Adelphia Commc’ns Corp., 285 B.R. 127, 144-45 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2002)). Second, although this action involves only state law claims, none of the issues are particularly complex, so comity does not require abstention. See Refco, 628 F.Supp.2d at 446 (<HOLDING>); WorldCom, 293 B.R. at 332 (“NY-CERS has not
holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that the state law claims are straightforward commonlaw claims that do not involve arcane or idiosyncratic provisions of state law that would warrant abstention based on comity concerns internal quotation marks omitted holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that state officials cannot have been expected to predict the future course of constitutional law internal quotation marks omitted holding that qualified immunity applies if either a the defendants action did not violate clearly established law or b it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law internal quotation marks omitted