v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 156 B.R. 25, 27 n. 1 (W.D.Va.1993) (citing In re Webb, 54 F.2d 1065 (4th Cir.1932)). Section 554(c), however, does not speak in terms of the trustee’s awareness of the asset, or accept proof of such awareness as an alternative to proof that the asset was scheduled in accordance with section 521(1). See supra note 1; see also In re McCoy, 139 B.R. 430, 431 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1991) (“[T]he word ‘scheduled’ in 554(c) has a specific meaning and refers only to assets listed in a debtor’s schedule of assets and liabilities.”). Consequently, the vast majority of courts have taken the statute at its word, requiring that an asset be scheduled before it can be abandoned, regardless of the trustee’s awareness of it. See Jeffrey v. Desmond, 70 F.3d 183, 186 (1st Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Bittel v. Yamato Int'l Corp., 70 F.3d 1271,
holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee recognizing the cause of action recognizing cause of action recognizing that debtors failure to provide creditors information about business operations justified appointment of trustee holding that debtors alleged discussion with trustee about unscheduled cause of action does not lift requirement that it be scheduled under 5211 to be abandoned under 554c