Sansom Property. Rather than distribute the Debtor’s pro rata share of the proceeds to his estate, the Debtor caused the Sansom Partnership to divert these proceeds by (1) funding the purchase of the WSFS Claim, and (2) issuing checks to entities owned by the Debtor. The Debtor’s diversion of estate assets constituted mismanagement sufficiently egregious to justify the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee under both § 1104(a)(1) and § 1104(a)(2). In re PRS Insurance Group, Inc., 274 B.R. 381, 385 (Bankr.D.Del.2001); Intercat, Inc., 247 B.R. 911, 923 (Bankr.S.D.Ga.2000); In re V. Savino Oil & Heating Co., Inc., 99 B.R. 518, 527 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1989); In re Main Line Motors, Inc., 9 B.R. 782, 784-85 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1981). The Debtor’s diversion of estat 40 B.R. 174, 177 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1984) (<HOLDING>). As stated by in PRS Insurance, If there is a
holding that the debtor lacked standing to bring a claim against the internal revenue service for the improper assessment of a tax deficiency because the cause of action was the property of the estate and had not been abandoned to the debtor holding that  727a2a does not apply to the transfer of the assets of a corporation in which the debtor is a shareholder holding that transferees failed to satisfy element of defense where they were aware of debtors financial problems at the time of transfer had lent money to debtor prior to transfer and not all money had been repaid recognizing cause for appointment existed where debtor had failed to establish adequate controls necessary to prevent the transfer and depletion of estate assets holding that an undisclosed cause of action which existed at the time of filing remained an asset of the estate and allowing the debtor to reopen the case to formally schedule the cause of action