potentially creating an enormous windfall for the current shareholders. Bangor Punta, 417 U.S. at 716, 94 S.Ct. 2578. Here, in contrast, any recovery by Plaintiff Trust will be for the benefit of Think3’s creditors and will not result in a windfall for Think3’s current shareholders, as discussed below. Second, the Bangor Punta doctrine is not applicable in bankruptcy proceedings brought for the benefit of creditors. The Supreme Court in Bangor Punta indicated that the doctrine does not apply to actions that are brought “on behalf of any creditors.” Bangor Punta, 417 U.S. at 718 n. 15, 94 S.Ct. 2578. In bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, courts have found that the unjust enrichment rationale of Bangor Punta is inapplicable. See Meyers v. Moody, 693 F.2d 1196, 1207 (5th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); KSC Recovery, Inc. v. The First Boston
recognizing that the bangor punta doctrine was not applicable to suit brought by receiver of insolvent insurance company for the benefit of creditors recognizing doctrine holding that directors of an insolvent corporation are trustees for the creditors recognizing under analogous section of california code that the right to recover property conveyed by a decedent in fraud of creditors is an asset of his insolvent estate and that the executor or administrator is a trustee thereof for the benefit of creditors 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