Brown v. Pyatt (In re Pyatt), 486 F.3d 423, 428 (8th Cir.2007). After discussing the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning and finding it unpersuasive, the Ninth Circuit concluded: “Section 542(a)’s plain language, pre-Code practice, and other Code provisions compel our holding that a trustee may seek turnover from an entity that had ‘possession, custody, or control’ of the subject property during the bankruptcy case whether or not the entity had ‘possession, custody, or control’ at the time the turnover motion is filed.” Shapiro, 739 F.3d at 1199, 1204. More recently the Ninth Circuit wrote: “The trustee is not required to make any demand for turnover of estate property.” APJL Consulting, LLC v. Treasures, Inc. (In re Treasures, Inc.), 2015 WL 925957, *21 (9th Cir. BAP Mar. 3, 2015) (slip copy) (<HOLDING>). As noted in Collier’s: “By its express terms,
holding that section 890041 is not a jurisdictional requirement rather a requirement to maintain suit holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that turnover requirement of  542 is selfexecuting holding requirement nonjurisdictional and remanding for a possible eeoc waiver of that requirement holding that the words without notice or demand in an optional acceleration clause do not negate the requirement that the holder affirmatively elect to accelerate the debt because the option is not selfexecuting it is mandatory that some definitive action be made on the part of the lender citation omitted