at issue.... In order to preserve the requisite reliability of disclosure statements and to provide assurances to creditors regarding the finality of plans which they have voted to approve, we hold that under the facts here present Oneida’s failure to announce this claim against a creditor precludes it from litigating the cause of action at this time. Id.; see also U.S. ex rel. Gebert v. Transport Admin. Servs., 260 F.3d 909, 917-18 (8th Cir.2001) (upholding the district court’s finding that employees were judicially estopped from asserting a claim against their former employer because they had represented to the bankruptcy court, through their failure to disclose the claim, that they did not possess the claim); Monroe County Oil Co. v. Amoco Oil Co., 75 B.R. 158, 162 (S.D.Ind.1987) (<HOLDING>); USinternetworking, Inc. v. Gen. Growth Mgmt.,
holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations holding that certain claims could not be a class issue in part because the complaint did not mention the claims recognizing rule that state law governs the substance of claims in bankruptcy proceedings recognizing that the power of disallowance of claims conferred on the bankruptcy courts embraces the rejection of claims in whole or in part according to the equities of the case and emphasizing that a bankruptcy court may therefore limit the amount of claims in view of equitable considerations holding equitable estoppel barred the plaintiffs claims because all of the claims of the amended complaint were in existence during the bankruptcy proceedings yet the plaintiff did not disclose any of the claims in its bankruptcy petitions plans of reorganization or disclosure statements