Opinion ID: 693409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 9 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 158(b). 10 Northwestern argues for the first time that the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction over this case. Although jurisdiction was not raised in the bankruptcy court, we must consider the issue on appeal. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.1992) (jurisdiction must be considered sua sponte ). 11 The bankruptcy court did have jurisdiction because this case involves a core proceeding. Core matters  'concern[ ] the administration of the estate.'  In re Intl Nutronics, Inc., 28 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 577, 130 L.Ed.2d 493 (1994); See In re Cinematronics, Inc., 916 F.2d 1444, 1449-50 (9th Cir.1990); see also Latham v. Wells Fargo, 896 F.2d 979, 983-84 (5th Cir.1990). Because this case evokes the Bankruptcy Act's imposition of duties on trustees to administer estate property and a surety's liability on its bond for the benefit of the estate, it cannot be gainsaid that it involves a core issue. See In re American Solar King, 142 B.R. 772, 773 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1992). It is also particularly germane to the bankruptcy proceeding context, for it involves the very bankruptcy process itself. Nothing could be more important to the handling of a bankruptcy estate than the fidelity of those who are entrusted with its assets. 12 Northwestern also challenges Walsh's standing to maintain an action to obtain the auction proceeds. While standing is a jurisdictional argument, we will discuss it when we discuss the merits of the claim that the proceeds are not part of the estate assets. We will do that because we see this as just another iteration of Northwestern's theme that the peculated assets cannot be recovered by the estate, a claim which we reject.