In re Crescent Resources, LLC

2 Citing cases

  1. Wayne Servs. Legacy v. Donlen Tr. (In re Toys "R" Us, Inc.)

    615 B.R. 96 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    A turnover action may be brought after plan confirmation if the confirmation order preserves the debtor's, or its successor's, right to bring turnover actions. SeeIn re Crescent Res., LLC , 455 B.R. 115 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2011) ; Petrowax P.A., Inc. v. C & C Petroleum & Chem. Grp. (In re Petrowax P.A., Inc.) , 200 B.R. 538 (Bankr. D. Del. 1996). Article IV, § L of the Plan preserves "any and all Causes of Action."

  2. VML Co. v. Meguiar's, Inc. (In re VML Co.)

    Case No. 09-24507-E (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. Mar. 10, 2017)

    " In re Pen Holdings at 502. The bankruptcy court in In re Crescent Resources, LLC, 455 B.R. 115 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2011) found that language in the debtor's plan, which described the causes of action belonging to a litigation trust as, "[t]he Litigation Trust Assets shall include, but are not limited to, those Causes of Action arising under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code including those actions which could be brought by the Debtors under §§ 544, 547, 548, 549, 550, and 551 against any Person or Entity other than the Litigation Trust Excluded Parties," was specific and unequivocal enough to retain a turnover cause of action under § 542. In that case, the bankruptcy court, based on the importance of notice to creditors, stated that to determine if plan language meets the specific and unequivocal requirement, the court should look to the plan first. If the plan language does not meet the specificity requirement, the court can look outside the plan to the disclosure statement to determine the expectation of creditors.