Is the Second Circuit's decision in conflict with In re: Matthew N. Murray (Wilk Auslender LLP v Murray), Popular Auto, Inc. v. Reyes-Colon (In re Reyes-Colon), and Law v. Siegel?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : ; Involuntary bankruptcies are rare as they should be. They are a last resort after all state remedies have been : “exhausted, and are not a tool to be used in order to solve two party disputes. The questions presented are as follows: A. Is the Second Circuit's decision in conflict with In re: Matthew N. Murray (Wilk Auslender LLP v Murray) 900 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2018), Popular Auto, Inc. v. Reyes-Colon (In re Reyes-Colon), Nos. 17-1971, 17-1972, 2019 WL 1785039 (1st Cir. April 24, 2019) and this : Court's holdings in Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415, 421(2014)? B. Did the Bankruptcy Court violate the Colorado River and other Abstention 7 Doctrines? : C. Did the Bankruptcy Court lack subject matter ~ jurisdiction to grant the involuntary petition? D. Did the Second Circuit condone a profound abuse of the involuntary bankruptcy process? : @)