Opinion ID: 221482
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Language in Plan and Disclosure Statement

Text: Laguna asserts that under this court's precedent in In re United Operating, TWD failed to retain the Avoidance Actions in the plan and the trustee lacks standing to pursue these claims. After confirmation of the plan, the In re United Operating debtor sought to bring common-law claims against its creditors, including maladministration causes of action. Id. at 356. The plan contained only a blanket reservation of any and all claims arising under the Bankruptcy Code, as well as specific reservations of other types of claims also arising under the Code. Id. There was no mention of any common-law claims. We held that [i]f [the debtor] had wanted to bring a post-confirmation action for maladministration of the estate's property during the bankruptcy, it was required to state as much clearly in the [p]lan and that the use of generic language reserving any and all claims under the Code was insufficient to retain a claim for maladministration of the estate. Id. Unlike the plan in In re United Operating, which contained only a blanket reservation of any and all claims, TWD's plan and disclosure statement revealed the existence of the Avoidance Actions, the possible amount of recovery to which they would lead, the basis for the actions (namely, pre-petition dividends and transfers to equity interest holders), and that the reorganized debtor intended to pursue the claims. The terms of TWD's plan and disclosure statement are far more specific than those in In re United Operating. Additionally, Laguna contends that because the plan and disclosure statement did not name the individual defendants, the debtor failed to retain the Avoidance Actions under In re United Operating. We observe that In re United Operating focused exclusively on the retention of claims. It never held that intended defendants must be named in the plan. But it did cite with approval In re Ice Cream Liquidation, for the proposition that the plan's categorical reservation of `preference' claims was sufficiently specific; plan need not itemize individual transfers that may be pursued as preferential. In re United Operating, 540 F.3d at 355 (citing In re Ice Cream Liquidation, 319 B.R. at 337-38). In re Ice Cream Liquidation held that while creditors must be told in the plan that avoidance actions will be pursued post-confirmation, individual prospective defendants did not have to be identified. 319 B.R. at 337-38. In re United Operating 's citation to In re Ice Cream Liquidation 's holding supports the trustee's argument that a plan need not identify the prospective defendants. However, we need not decide whether a debtor whose plan fails to identify any prospective defendants has standing to pursue post-conformation claims against subsequently-named defendants. Here, the disclosure statement did identify the prospective defendants as [v]arious pre-petition shareholders of the Debtor who might be sued for fraudulent transfer and recovery of dividends paid to shareholders. We hold that where the plan and disclosure statement reserved the right to pursue the Avoidance Actions against pre-petition shareholders of TWD, the reorganized debtor specifically and unequivocally retained these claims under In re United Operating. The trustee therefore has standing to pursue the Avoidance Actions, [2] and the district court properly denied summary judgment on this ground. [3]