SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Sapere Wealth Management LLC, Granite Asset Management, and Sa-pere CTA Fund, L.P. (together, “Sa-pere”) 1 appeal from the judgment of the District Court dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from the February 1, 2012 opinion and order of the Bankruptcy Court (Martin Glenn, Judge) (the “Bankruptcy Order”) on the basis that the Bankruptcy Order was interlocutory rather than final. The only issue on appeal is whether the District Court correctly determined that the Bankruptcy Order was not final for the purposes of an appeal as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). 2 Familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case is presumed.

The Bankruptcy Order denied Sapere’s December 5, 2011 motion — part of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy action instituted by MF Global Holdings, Ltd. (“MFGH”) — to direct that the estates of MFGH and its affiliates (together, “Chapter 11 Debtors”) be administered pursuant to subchapter IV of chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 761-767), and Part 190 of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) regulations (17 C.F.R. § 190). In denying the motion, the Bankruptcy Court “emphasize[d] that the denial of Sapere’s Motion ... does not determine the rules that apply to distributions from the Chapter 11 Debtors’ estates to MFGI customers.” In re MF Global Holdings Ltd., 465 B.R. 736, 744 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2012). We agree with the District Court that, because the Bankruptcy Order did not foreclose Sapere’s ability to continue to assert a priority right to distributions from the Chapter 11 Debtors’ estates, the Bankruptcy Order is not a final order. 3 Cf. In re *58 Chateaugay Corp., 838 F.2d 59, 62 (2d Cir. 1988) (holding that a district court’s order remanding to bankruptcy court was interlocutory where “the district court’s opinion is replete with expressions of non-finality [and] contemplates significant further proceedings in the bankruptcy court [to determine the rights of the parties]”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court dismissing the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ arguments on appeal and AFFIRM the October 9, 2012 judgment of the District Court.