spreadsheet is untitled and its origin was never explained at the hearing or in, any of LVNV’s affidavits, Neither were any of these documents offered into evidence. 8 . The Debtors principally complain in their objections to LVNV’s affidavits that the affidavits contain inadmissible hearsay and that LVNV did not lay a proper foundation for its bills of sale, which are also hearsay. [Docket No. 80-84.] 9 . Indeed, LVNV had nearly a month following the initial hearing on July 21, 2008, to prepare for the August 18, 2008 hearing. 10 . It could also be argued, persuasively, that LVNV’s failure to provide evidence that it owns claims 22 through 28 deprives LVNV of standing in the Debtors’ case. See, e.g., Fla. Dept. of Ins. v. Chase Bank of Tex., N.A., 274 F.3d 924, 929-32 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Redmon v. Griffith, 202 S.W.3d 225, 239 (Tex.
holding that it is not holding that a receiver appointed for the parent corporation of the debtor was not a custodian of the debtorsubsidiary because the receiver was not appointed to take control of the debt ors assets for the benefit of the debtors creditors holding that a contractor lacked standing because it failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error holding claims for negligent procurement of insurance accrued on date the insured purchased the insurance policies holding that a receiver of insurance policies did not have standing because it failed to prove it was the assignee of the policyholders claims