ADDITIONAL CASES Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; Purdue Pharma Manufacturing L.P.; Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.; Purdue Transdermal Technologies L.P.; Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P.; Purdue Pharma of Puerto Rico; Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P.; Rhodes Technologies; and Avrio Health L.P., Plaintiffs v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company f/k/a American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company; Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd.; American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company; American International Reinsurance Company f/k/a Starr Excess Liability Insurance International Limited; Arch Reinsurance Ltd., Certain Member Companies of the International Underwriting Association of London Subscribing to Policy No. 823/KE0002108; Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd. f/k/a Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd.; Evanston Insurance Company; Gulf Underwriters Insurance Company; HDI Global SE f/k/a Gerling-Konzern General Insurance Company; Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company f/k/a TIG Specialty Insurance Company; Liberty Insurance Corporation; Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company; Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe Se f/k/a Liberty International Insurance Company; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA; Navigators Specialty Insurance Company; North American Elite Insurance Company; St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company; Steadfast Insurance Company; Swiss RE International S.E. f/k/a SR International Business Insurance Company also f/k/a Zurich Reinsurance (London) Limited; Tenecom Limited f/k/a Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company; XL Bermuda Ltd. f/k/a XL Insurance Company, Ltd., XL Insurance America, Inc.; New Hampshire Insurance Company; Darag Insurance UK Limited; QBE UK Limited; Zurich Specialties London Limited; SR International Business Company Se; and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants OPINION AND ORDER In this District, any case or proceeding arising under the Bankruptcy Code is automatically referred to the Bankruptcy Court. In re Standing Order of Reference Re: Title 11, 12 MC 32 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012) (Doc. #1). Before the Court is a motion that seeks to withdraw to this Court an automatically referred adversary proceeding currently pending in the Bankruptcy Court. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334. BACKGROUND The debtors (collectively, “Purdue”) manufacture pharmaceuticals, including the prescription opioid OxyContin. Facing mounting lawsuits alleging misconduct in its manufacture, marketing, and sale of OxyContin, Purdue filed voluntary petitions for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 15 and 16, 2019. “At the time [of the bankruptcy filing], the Debtors were facing over 2,600 governmental enforcement actions and private lawsuits in state and federal courts…, each of which alleged that Purdue’s manufacture, promotion, and sale of prescription painkillers contributed to the ongoing opioid crisis that has killed hundreds of thousands and left millions more struggling with addiction.” In re Purdue Pharms. L.P., 619 B.R. 38, 41 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2020). Purdue estimates the opioid-related claims against it total more than 140 trillion dollars. (Adv. Pro. Doc. #1 (“Compl.”) 7).1 On March 15, 2021, Purdue filed its proposed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. (Bankr. Doc. #2487). Purdue filed its proposed twelfth amended Chapter 11 plan on September 2, 2021 (Bankr. Doc. #3726 (“Plan”)), which was confirmed on September 17, 2021. In re Purdue Pharma L.P., — BR —, 2021 WL 4240974 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2021). For the purposes of the plan, Purdue divides the claims against it into several categories, one of which it calls “PI Claims.” (Plan §4.10). “PI Claims” are claims “for alleged opioid-related personal injury.” (Id. at 21, 25, 27; see, e.g., Bankr. Doc. #2598, at 1 (“Purdue Pharma has cost me loved ones I will never see again.”)). The plan provides for the creation of the “PI Trust,” which will administer all PI Claims. (Plan at 28). The trust will be funded with an initial distribution of $300 million on the effective date of the Chapter 11 plan, followed by a distribution of $200 million in 2024, and distributions of $100 million in 2025 and 2026. (Bankr. Doc. #2983 (“Disclosure Statement”) at 6-7). In sum, “[t]he PI Trust will receive at least $700 million in value, and may receive an additional $50 million depending on the amount of proceeds received on account of certain of Purdue’s insurance policies.” (Id. at 7 n.10). The plan further provides that Purdue’s ability to recover from its insurers will be vested in a “Master Disbursement Trust,” or “MDT.” (Plan §5.6; Disclosure Statement at 130). To the extent any proceeds are recovered from Purdue’s insurers with respect to the PI Claims, up to $450 million of those proceeds will be channeled from the MDT to the PI Trust. (Disclosure Statement at 106-07). However, the PI Trust will be funded regardless of whether anything is recovered from Purdue’s insurers. (See id. at 7 n.10). Instead, “[d]istributions to the PI Trust are subject to prepayment on a rolling basis as insurance proceeds from certain of Purdue’s insurance policies are received by the MDT and paid forward to the PI Trust.” (Id. at 7 n.9). The Purdue entities subject to PI Claims (“plaintiffs”), together with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the Ad Hoc Committee of Governmental and Other Contingent Litigation Claimants in the Chapter 11 Cases, commenced this adversary proceeding on January 29, 2021. (Compl. at 1 n.1).2 Plaintiffs allege they hold insurance policies with each defendant, and the policies were entered into before they filed for bankruptcy protection. In the adversary proceeding, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment as to the scope of their coverage under these policies. Plaintiffs contend their insurance policies obligate defendants to indemnify them for, among other things, the PI Claims, and estimate the policy limits exceed $3.3 billion. On March 22, 2021, defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Liberty Insurance Corporation (“Liberty Mutual”) moved to withdraw the reference of the adversary proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court. (Doc. #1).3 Certain defendants — principally foreign insurers — joined in the motion and argued separately the motion to withdraw the reference should be granted in light of their unique defenses, namely, lack of personal jurisdiction and that any claims against them are subject to mandatory arbitration. (Doc. ##9-10). In particular, these defendants pointed to their unresolved motion to stay the adversary proceeding against them pending mandatory arbitration. The Bankruptcy Court granted the stay as to these defendants on June 21, 2021. In so doing, the court found the claims against them were non-core. (Doc. #49 Ex. A (“Tr.”), at 93:08-:18). On July 1, 2021, this Court requested additional briefing from the parties on the impact of this ruling on the pending motions. (Doc. #50). Plaintiffs contend the ruling has no impact on this Court’s decision, and defendants argue this Court should heed the Bankruptcy Court’s determination and find here the adversary proceeding is non-core. (Doc. #51). DISCUSSION I. Legal Standard 28 U.S.C. §157(d) authorizes withdrawal of Bankruptcy Court references on both mandatory and permissive grounds. District courts must withdraw a reference when “substantial and material consideration of non-Bankruptcy Code federal statutes is necessary for the resolution of the proceeding.” In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., 922 F.2d 984, 995 (2d Cir. 1990).4 As for permissive withdrawal, courts in the Second Circuit follow a two-step inquiry to determine if withdrawal is appropriate. First, a court must evaluate whether the bankruptcy proceeding is “core or non-core,” In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d 1095, 1101 (2d Cir. 1993), “core proceedings” being “those that arise in a bankruptcy case or under Title 11.” Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 476 (2011). If it is a core proceeding, the court should also consider whether the bankruptcy court has the power to enter a final judgment. See id. at 502-03 (holding bankruptcy courts lack constitutional authority to enter final judgment in certain core proceedings). Second, the court must “weigh questions of efficient use of judicial resources, delay and costs to the parties, uniformity of bankruptcy administration, the prevention of forum shopping, and other related factors.” In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d at 1101. Ultimately, the permissive withdrawal analysis comes down to whether efficiency and uniformity would be better served by litigating in the district court. See In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d at 1101; Mishkin v. Ageloff, 220 B.R. 784, 800 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“[T]he critical question is efficiency and uniformity.”). District courts “ha[ve] broad discretion to withdraw the reference for cause.” In re Enron Corp., 295 B.R. 21, 25 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The movant bears the burden of showing withdrawal is warranted. See In re Ames Dep’t Stores Inc., 512 B.R. 736, 741 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 18 F. Supp. 3d 553, 557 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). II. Permissive Withdrawal Liberty Mutual asserts permissive withdrawal is appropriate because (i) the adversary proceeding is non-core, and (ii) the remaining Orion factors weigh in favor of withdrawal of the reference from the Bankruptcy Court. Moreover, Liberty Mutual argues permissive withdrawal is appropriate given its demand for a jury trial, which it contends the Bankruptcy Court may not conduct absent consent, which Liberty Mutual says it will not provide.5 These arguments are addressed in turn. A. Core or Non-Core Liberty Mutual contends the adversary proceeding is “non-core.” The Court agrees. 1. Legal Standard “The Bankruptcy Code divides claims in bankruptcy proceedings into two principal categories: ‘core’ and ‘non-core.’” In re U.S. Lines, Inc., 197 F.3d 631, 636 (2d Cir. 1999). Under the Code, and subject to the limits of Article III, bankruptcy courts may adjudicate core proceedings to final judgment. 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(1); Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. at 502-03. In non-core proceedings, bankruptcy courts “submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.” 28 U.S.C. §157(c)(1). Any objections to the bankruptcy court’s findings are reviewed de novo. Id. Section 157(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code enumerates a non-exhaustive list of “core” proceedings. These include, for example, “matters concerning the administration of the estate” and “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship.” 11 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(A), (O). “[W]hether a contract proceeding is core depends on (1) whether the contract is antecedent to the reorganization petition; and (2) the degree to which the proceeding is independent of the reorganization.” In re U.S. Lines, Inc., 197 F.3d at 637. The answer to the first question depends on whether the contract was formed before the bankruptcy filing, not whether the breach occurred before the filing. See, e.g., DeWitt Rehab. & Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 464 B.R. 587, 591-92 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). The answer to the second question is determined by “the nature of the proceeding.” In re U.S. Lines, Inc., 197 F.3d at 637. “A proceeding’s nature can be core if either (1) the type of the proceeding is unique to or uniquely affected by the bankruptcy proceeding, or (2) the proceeding directly affects a core bankruptcy function.” In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc., 419 F.3d 83, 97 (2d Cir. 2005). “Core bankruptcy functions include fixing the order of priority claims against a debtor, placing the property of the bankrupt, wherever found, under the control of the court, for equal distribution among the creditors, and administering all property in the bankrupt’s possession.” Id. For example, a contract dispute with the potential to have “significant impact on the administration of the estate and undercut the creditor relief provided by the” reorganization plan may be deemed a “core” proceeding. In re Relativity Fashion, LLC, 696 F. App’x 26, 29 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order). 2. Application Plaintiffs assert this is a core proceeding under Sections 157(b)(2)(A) (“matters concerning the administration of the estate”) and 157(b)(2)(O) (“other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship”). (Compl. 51). Moreover, plaintiffs argue the insurance proceeds constitute “a very substantial asset” of the bankruptcy estate and, because of this, the outcome of this proceeding is likely to affect the “core bankruptcy function” of distributing the estate among Purdue’s creditors. (Id. 51(a)-(b)). Further, plaintiffs contend “piecemeal litigation” of each insurance policy is incompatible with the policy goals of bankruptcy; namely, preservation of the bankruptcy estate and equitable distribution among creditors. (Id. 51(c)). Plaintiffs also hypothesize the adversary proceeding is core because its resolution will turn on their conduct in the bankruptcy. (Doc. #35, at 16-19). The Court disagrees, and finds the adversary proceeding is non-core. First, the insurance policies pre-date the bankruptcy filing. Second, the “nature of the proceeding” is non-core. As the Bankruptcy Court observed, this adversary proceeding “is fundamentally a contract dispute.” (Tr. at 89:06-:07). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment as to the parties’ rights under insurance policies governed by state or foreign law. (See Compl.
