Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Financial was ever an unincorporated division of Dow Electronics. In fact, Dow has provided affidavit which plainly explains this. 6 . Plaintiff has cited no authority in support of her position in this regard, and for their part, defendants have not even acknowledged her assertion of this argument and have not bothered to provide the court with any argument or authority on this issue. In fact, defendants assert that "[p]laintiff has not and cannot plausibly argue that this case is not at least ‘related to' Dow’s bankruptcy.” 7 . None of the parties actually provided any authority or even much in the way of argument in support of their position on that issue, and the cases touching this subject are not altogether consistent. See Back v. LTV Corp., 213 B.R. 633, 639 n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>); but see In re Poplar Run Five Ltd. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that postconfirmation claims against the debtors themselves have a conceivable effect on their estates (B) holding that res judicata did not bar debtors objection to creditors proof of claim where the plan expressly reserved the general right to assert postconfirmation objections to claims (C) holding that debtors have no right to jury trial on malpractice claims against their attorneys (D) holding that the debtors had standing to challenge the settlement of the estates right to sue various entities because the outcome of this litigation could potentially have a huge effect on the liabilities of the debtors and could give them a substantial surplus upon emerging from bankruptcy (E) holding that debtors failure to pay postconfirmation taxes pursuant to terms of court order constituted cause for dismissal as a lack of good faith
Output (English): holding that res judicata did not bar debtors objection to creditors proof of claim where the plan expressly reserved the general right to assert postconfirmation objections to claims