With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 547”. (Disclosure Statement at 69; Plan § 12.10.) Therefore, Defendant knew or should have known that the Trustee could have commenced the instant action post-confirmation and as such, Defendant cannot now claim that such action is barred. For the reasons discussed above, I reject the rationale of those cases which hold that res judicata bars a subsequent action unless the debtor’s disclosure statement and/or plan specifically reserves the right to litigate that specific claim, and choose to follow those courts which hold that a subsequent action is not barred by a prior confirmation hearing under the doctrine of res judicata where the disclosure statement and plan contain a general reservation of the right to pursue preference actions post-confirmation. See Weidel, 208 B.R. at 853-54 (<HOLDING>); see also Envirodyne Indus., Inc. v. Conn.

A: 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
B: holding that res judicata does not bar those claims that arose after the original pleading is filed in the earlier proceeding
C: holding that res judicata can bar later litigation of reorganized debtors preexisting legal claims
D: holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment
A.