Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): case. Between the doctrine’s inapplicability here, coupled by the fact that neither the Bankruptcy Code nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure compel the fusion of both issues, this Court holds that Plaintiff did not waive its right to recover on an alleged preferential transfer. Y. Conclusion This Court concludes that § 502(d) does not preclude Plaintiff from bringing a preference action against Morris. Plaintiff was not required by the Bankruptcy Code to object to Morris’s c us. Holdings, Inc.), 2003 WL 1818177 (Bankr.D.Del. Apr. 2, 2003) (same); LaRoche Indus., Inc. v. Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. (In re LaRoche), 284 B.R. 406 (Bankr. D.Del. Sept.23, 2002) (same). But see Homeplace of Am., Inc. v. Salton, Inc. (In re Waccamaw’s Homeplace), 325 B.R. 524, 535 (Bankr.D.Del. May 31, 2005) (<HOLDING>); TWA Inc. Post Confirmation Estate v. City & 
 Holding statements: (A) holding defendant to a preference action has a right to a jury trial pursuant to the seventh amendment of the united states constitution but that right can be waived by filing a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings (B) holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee (C) holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection (D) holding that party waived an objection to choice of law (E) holding trustee has not waived the right to bring a preference objection
Output (English): holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee