in Bartley-Williams, “[a] bankruptcy trustee occupies a different position than the bankrupt” because under the bankruptcy rules, property not abandoned or administered remains property of the estate. Id. at 101; accord 11 U.S.C. § 554(d). The Bartley-Williams court reasoned that prohibiting a bankruptcy trustee from “pursuing [a] claim on behalf of the estate” ignored the role of the trustee in bankruptcy proceedings and could “create a windfall for the party seeking to invoke judicial estoppel at the expense of the bankruptcy creditors.” 134 Wn. App. at 102. The Bartley-Williams court held that the “correct solution” was to allow the trustee to “ ‘determine whether to deal with the cause of action for the benefit of the estate.’ ” Id. at 102 (quoting Cheng 70, 774 (W.D. Wash. 2006) (<HOLDING>); Martin v. U.S. Bank, No. 4:04CV01527, 2005
recognizing that in a derivative action the corporation for whose benefit suit is brought is a necessary party to the action holding that a bankruptcy trustee is barred from pursuing claims for injuries particularized to certain creditors holding that it is improper for a trustee to liquidate claims that benefit only select creditors with the only benefit to the estate being the recoupment of administrative costs holding that there is a difference between a debtor attempting to pursue an action for his own benefit and a trustee pursuing an action for the benefit of the creditors holding that a plantshutdown benefit is not an optional form of benefit