547”. (Disclosure Statement at 69; Plan § 12.10.) Therefore, Defendant knew or should have known that the Trustee could have commenced the instant action post-confirmation and as such, Defendant cannot now claim that such action is barred. For the reasons discussed above, I reject the rationale of those cases which hold that res judicata bars a subsequent action unless the debtor’s disclosure statement and/or plan specifically reserves the right to litigate that specific claim, and choose to follow those courts which hold that a subsequent action is not barred by a prior confirmation hearing under the doctrine of res judicata where the disclosure statement and plan contain a general reservation of the right to pursue preference actions post-confirmation. See Weidel, 208 B.R. at 853-54 (<HOLDING>); see also Envirodyne Indus., Inc. v. Conn.
holding that res judicata did not bar debtors objection to creditors proof of claim where the plan expressly reserved the general right to assert postconfirmation objections to claims holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment holding that res judicata does not bar those claims that arose after the original pleading is filed in the earlier proceeding holding that res judicata can bar later litigation of reorganized debtors preexisting legal claims holding that lear does not abrogate general principles of res judicata or the res judicata effect of a consent decree regarding patent validity