(“General unsecured claimants including tort claimants have no specific interest in debtor’s property. Therefore, § 363 is inapplicable for sale free and clear of such claims.”); Wilkerson, supra, 237 N.J.Super. at 293, 567 A.2d 598 (Law Div.1989) (An “order under section [363] can only protect the purchaser of ... property against ‘any interest in such property.’ Plaintiffs [product liability suit is not] an interest in the purchased property and [§ 363] does not affect plaintiffs claim.”) (citing Volvo White Truck, supra, 75 B.R. at 948). A potential cause of action, a chose in action, is clearly neither an “interest in property” nor a “lien” 11 U.S.C.A. § 363(f)(3). Cf In re All American of Ashbum, Inc., 56 B.R. 186, 189-90 (Bank.N.D.Ga.1986), aff'd, 805 F.2d 1515 (11 Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). We consider Volvo White Truck, supra, to be
holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine holding that  363 precludes the application of the successor liability doctrine because person alleging product defect obtains a priority over other claimants in the bankruptcy and imposition of the doctrine would devalue the debtors assets holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury recognizing doctrine holding that jurisdiction must be resolved before applying the act of state doctrine because that doctrine is a substantive rule of law