With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". exists after confirmation of a plan only for those matters expressly reserved by the confirmation. See, e.g., In re Johns-Manville Corp., 7 F.3d 32, 34 (2d Cir.1993). Other courts have held that jurisdiction extends to proceedings designed to interpret, enforce or aid the operation of the reorganization plan. See, e.g., In re Erie Hilton Joint Venture, 137 B.R. 165, 170 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1992). We, however, need not decide the general scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction following the confirmation of a plan, for at a minimum it would have jurisdiction over a case otherwise within its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 if, as here, the court has reopened a case after confirmation and converted it to a Chapter 7 case. See Walnut Assocs. v. Saidel, 164 B.R. 487, 493-94 (E.D.Pa.1994) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that the status of the case

A: holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court
B: holding that reopening closed case was necessary for bankruptcy court jurisdiction
C: holding that a bankruptcy appellate panel abuses its discretion by preventing a bankruptcy trustee from reopening a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding when reopening the case would potentially benefit creditors
D: holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case
B.