With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". defendants, including Duckor and Baum, and the right to avoid various transactions (thereby returning property to the estates). The transfer of those rights and claims left the estates without any other significant asset. Moreover, the transfer led the bankruptcy court to authorize the abandonment of the claims against Baum — obviously, Baum cannot sue itself and will not avoid any transactions involving itself. In the circumstances, Duckor appears to have standing. Baum nevertheless suggests three reasons why the principles from the foregoing cases do not apply here. First, this case involves the transfer of intangible assets rather than money or other tangible property. However, the reasoning of the cited cases applies equally to intangible assets. Cf. Andreuccetti, 975 F.2d at 417 (<HOLDING>). Second, Baum suggests that, unlike the money

A: 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
B: holding bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue injunction of state court litigation against debtors principal stating this power under 11 usc  105a  includes the authority to enjoin litigants from pursuing actions in other courts that threaten the integrity of the debtors estate
C: holding that postconfirmation claims against the debtors themselves have a conceivable effect on their estates
D: holding pursuant to bankruptcy rule 7004b9 that because the creditor mailed the complaint and summons to the debtors attorney and to the address listed in the debtors bankruptcy petition service of process was sufficient even if the debtors were out of the country and did not actually receive notice of the complaint and summons
A.