However, unlike Brentano's, Inc. which refused to stay a contract action not involving the Debtor, NAAT's state court action intimately involves the Debtor. In re Sentinel Energy Control Systems, Inc., 27 B.R. 795 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1983) is more analogous to the case at bar. There, a state court contempt action against the non-debtor president of a chapter 11 debtor was enjoined by the bankruptcy court under section 105(a).

"[T]o enjoin a creditor from proceeding with a state court action against a non-debtor, the court must find that failure to enjoin would affect the bankruptcy estate and would adversely or detrimentally influence and pressure the debtor through that third party." In re Sondra, Inc., 44 B.R. 205, 207 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1984) (citing Otero Mills, 21 B.R. at 778; In re Sentinel Energy Control Systems, Inc., 27 B.R. 795, 800 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1983); In re Lahman Mfg. Co., Inc., 33 B.R. 681, 682-83 (Bankr. D. S.D. 1983); Matter of Precision Colors, Inc., 36 B.R. 429, 431 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1984); In re Century Machine Tools, Inc., 33 B.R. 606, 607 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1983); Mahaffey v. E-C-P of Arizona, Inc., 40 B.R. 469, 471-72 (D. C.D. Colo. 1984).a. Danger of imminent, irreparable harm to the estate or to debtor's ability to reorganize

In fact, the Debtor's Plan of Reorganization has been confirmed and an Order of Confirmation is about to be entered. See In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 828 F.2d 1023 (4th Cir. 1987); In re Otero Mills, Inc., 25 B.R. 1018 (D.N.M. 1982); In re Keyco,Inc., 49 B.R. 507 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 1985); In re Sentinel Energy Control Systems, Inc., 27 B.R. 795 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1983); In re Lahman Mfg. Co., 33 B.R. 681 (Bankr.D.S.D. 1983); Matter of Precision Colors, Inc., 36 B.R. 429 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1984); In re Major Dynamics, Inc., 14 B.R. 969 (Bankr.S.D.Ca. 1981). Although the Stipulation executed by the Debtor, non-debtor individuals and NYS, was "so ordered" by this Court, that did not and could not have the effect of extending this Court's jurisdiction over the dispute between the non-debtor and NYS. The parties to an action cannot give to this Court subject matter jurisdiction where none existed.

Furthermore, this Court is a court of equity and may hear claims for equitable relief in proceedings arising in or under the case. See Chinichian v. Campolongo (In re Chinichian), 784 F.2d 1440, 1443 (9th Cir. 1986); Ranch House of Orange Brevard, Inc. v. Gluckstern (In re Ranch House of Orange Brevard, Inc.), 773 F.2d 1166, 1169 (11th Cir. 1985); MPM Worldwide Corp. v. Sentinel Telecommunications Systems (In re Sentinel Telecommunications Systems), 27 B.R. 795, 799 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1983). We limit these determinations, however, only to M.S.V., Specialty, and Martin, the debtors who have filed petitions with this Court.

In Larmar Estates, supra, the Court also upheld the Court's power to issue such an injunction but denied such relief to the debtor where no irreparable harm was shown to the debtor by pursuing its guarantors, where such an injunction was not shown to be necessary and appropriate to carry out the Bankruptcy Code and there was no indication that the debtors were close to having a plan confirmed. The following cases have also upheld such injunctive powers in the Bankruptcy Court: In re Century Tools, Inc., 33 B.R. 606 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 1983); In Re Keyco Inc., 49 B.R. 507 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 1985); In re Sentinel Energy Control Systems, Inc., 27 B.R. 795, 800 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1983); In re Lanham Mfg. Co., Inc., 33 B.R. 681, 682-83 (Bankr.D.S.D. 1983); Matter of Precision Colors, Inc., 36 B.R. 429, 431 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1984); In Re Anje Jewlery Co., Inc., 47 B.R. 485 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 1983); In the Matter of B.O.S.S. Partners I, 37 B.R. 348 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1984); In re Northlake Bldg. Partners, 41 B.R. 231 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1984); In Re Brentano's, Inc., 36 B.R. 90 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); Maheffery v. E-C-P of Arizona, Inc., 40 B.R. 469 (Bankr.D.Colo. 1984) and In re Lion Capital Group, Inc., 44 B.R. 690 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1984).

It is well-established that a bankruptcy court does not have jurisdiction to enjoin a creditor from proceeding with a state court or federal court action against a non-debtor unless failure to so enjoin would affect the bankruptcy estate and would adversely or detrimentally influence and pressure the debtor through the non-debtor. In re Otero Mills, Inc., 21 B.R. 777, 778 (Bankr.D.N. M. 1982), aff'd, 25 B.R. 1018 (D.N.M. 1982); In re Sondra, Inc., 44 B.R. 205, 207 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1984); In re Sentinel EnergyControl Systems, Inc., 27 B.R. 795, 800 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1983); In re Lahman Mfg. Co., Inc., 33 B.R. 681, 682-83 (Bankr.D.S. D. 1983); Matter of Precision Colors, Inc., 36 B.R. 429, 431 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1984); Also see In re Century Machine Tools, Inc., 33 B.R. 606, 607 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 1983); Mahaffey v. E-C-P of Arizona, Inc., 40 B.R. 469, 471-72 (D.Colo. 1984). Although there has been a hearing on this matter and the parties thereafter submitted briefs, we are unclear as to the basis or bases upon which the debtor has attempted to satisfy the above jurisdictional test.

21 B.R. at 778. That jurisdictional test was specifically endorsed and adopted in the following cases: In re Sentinel Energy Control Systems, Inc., 27 B.R. 795, 800 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass. 1983); In re Lahman Mfg. Co., Inc., 33 B.R. 681, 682-83 (Bkrtcy.D.S.D. 1983); Matter of Precision Colors, Inc., 36 B.R. 429, 431 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1984). See also In re Century Machine Tools, Inc., 33 B.R. 606, 607 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla. 1983); Mahaffey v. E-C-P of Arizona, Inc., 40 B.R. 469, 471-72 (Bkrtcy.D.Colo.

In re Otero Mills, Inc., 21 B.R. 777, 778 (Bankr.D.N.M. 1982), aff'd, 25 B.R. 1018 (D.N.M. 1982). The above-quoted jurisdictional test set forth in Otero Mills was specifically endorsed and adopted in the following cases: In re Sentinel Energy Control Systems, Inc., 27 B.R. 795, 800 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1983); In re Lahman Mfg. Co., Inc., 33 B.R. 681, 682-83 (Bankr.D.S.D. 1983); Matter of Precision Colors, Inc., 36 B.R. 429, 431 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1984). Also see In re Century Machine Tools, Inc., 33 B.R. 606, 607 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 1983); Mahaffey v. E-C-P of Arizona, Inc., 40 B.R. 469, 471-72 (D.Colo. 1984).

After careful consideration, I am satisfied that this court does have jurisdiction to determine whether to enjoin the Bank from attempting to collect from the co-makers of the Chapter 11 debtor's obligation. See the above-cited cases and In re Jon Co., 30 B.R. 831 (Bkrtcy., D.Col. 1983); In re Sentinel Energy Control Systems, Inc., 27 B.R. 795 (Bkrtcy., D.Mass. 1983); In re Larmar Estates, Inc. 5 B.R. 328, 6 B.C.D. 711, B.L.R. (CCH) ¶ 67,661 (Bkrtcy., E.D.N.Y. 1980). Parenthetically, certain aspects of the bankruptcy court jurisdiction, if exercised, should be emphasized.

Accordingly, Stanhope and Stuart, their attorneys, agents and assignees, are hereby Enjoined until further order of this court from seeking a determination of the Debtor's asserted rights and/or interest in the Stanhope Street property in any other forum. 28 U.S.C. § 1471(e); 11 U.S.C. § 362. See generally Sentinel Energy Control Systems, Inc., 27 B.R. 795, 10 B.C.D. 153 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass. 1983). As a final matter, the Court has reviewed Stuart's and Stanhope's Motions to Dismiss the Thomas action and the Debtor's Motion for Summary Judgment in that matter and does not consider the matters raised in these Motions capable of being addressed at this time.