With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Second Policy The court initially considers the Second Policy, acquired by TEI seventeen months postconfirmation on the life of Roger Troutman in the amount of $1,000,000. TEI, as the Reorganized Debtor, was the original owner of the Policy and was the named beneficiary at all times under the Policy. Pursuant to the above analysis, TEI, operating postconfirmation as the Reorganized Debtor, was fully authorized to conduct its business affairs and, as a result of the Confirmed Amended Plan and the effect of § 1141(b) & (c), hold assets separate and apart from the original property of the Chapter 11 estate. Such assets are not included as property of a converted debtor’s estate. See Still v. Rossville Bank (In re Chattarwoga Wholesale Antiques, Inc.), 930 F.2d 458, 462 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Carter v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. (In re

A: holding postconfirmation preconversion payments made by a reorganized debtor could not be recovered by the chapter 7 trustee upon conversion because the payments had been made from property which had revested in the reorganized debtor upon confirmation and was no longer property of the estate
B: holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default
C: recognizing the distinction between the reorganized debtor and the converted debtor and holding an asset which was not property of the original chapter 11 estate does not become property of the converted chapter 7 estate
D: holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank
A.