The district court considered, on interlocutory appeal, whether the bankruptcy court erred in deciding that creditor's cause of action to recover funds that were transferred by debtor-in-possession to its attorney, allegedly in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 363(c)(2), was a core bankruptcy proceeding. The district court concluded that the bankruptcy court had properly decided that creditor's cause of action was a core matter, since the claim asserted unauthorized use of cash collateral under the bankruptcy code. The district court also rejected appellant's argument that dismissal of the bankruptcy case should also have resulted in dismissal of the adversary proceeding, concluding that the underlying bankruptcy case was closed, rather than dismissed, and therefore the bankruptcy court had discretion to hear the adversary matter. Finally, the district court rejected appellant's claim that creditors cannot recover against third-parties under § 363(c)(2), concluding that a party whose rights were created by bankruptcy law may pursue violations of those rights in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court's order was affirmed.