court detailing its assets and liabilities, as well as a plan of reorganization outlining how it intended to pay res creditors. One of its assets was its stayed claim against Nestlé Waters. The disclosure statement described the claim as “a counterclaim asserted by the Debtor against Nestlé Waters North American, Inc. in arbitration pending in Chicago, IL,” which “remain[ed] unliquidated and ha[d] unknown value.” B.R. 169, Pg. ID 3. And Mountain Glacier’s plan indicated that this arbitration claim would be transferred to the “Reorganized Debtor”—i.e., Mountain Glacier—upon the plan’s confirmation. B.R. 203, Pg. ID 8-9. Nestlé Waters says that res judi-cata bars Mountain Glacier’s attempt to restart the companies’ arbitration. See Browning v. Levy, 283 F.3d 761, 772 (6th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). But, as all parties here recognize, res
holding that earlier suits different legal theory did not save the later action from the res judicata bar because the central factual issues are identical holding that res judicata barred a claim that had been voluntarily abandoned in a previous litigation holding that res judicata can bar later litigation of reorganized debtors preexisting legal claims 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 does not bar those claims that arose after the original pleading is filed in the earlier proceeding