himself planned to do so.” Id. at 13,120 S.Ct. 1942. The Court carefully noted, however, that it did “not address whether a bankruptcy court can allow other interested parties to act in the trustee’s stead in pursuing recovery under § 506(c).” Id. at 13 n. 5, 120 S.Ct. 1942. Noting the “practice of some courts of allowing creditors ... a derivative right to bring avoidance actions when the trustee refuses to do so, even though the applicable Code provisions mention only the trustee,” the Court explained that this practice “ha[d] no analogous application here, since [Hartford] did not ask the trustee to pursue payment ... and did not seek permission from the Bankruptcy Court to take such action i enics Corp. ex rel. Cybergenics Corp. v. Chinery, 330 F.3d 548, 580 (3d Cir.2003) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Two other circuits have continued to approve
holding that bankruptcy courts can authorize creditors committees in chapter 11 proceedings to sue derivatively to avoid fraudulent transfers for the benefit of the estate notwithstanding hartford underwriters holding that the purpose of the bankruptcy codes avoidance provisions is to prevent a debtor from making transfers that diminish the bankruptcy estate to the detriment of creditors holding that derivative standing is available to a creditor to pursue avoidance actions when it shows that a chapter 7 trustee or debtorinpossession in the case of chapter 11 is unable or unwilling to do so notwithstanding hartford underwriters holding that a creditors security was preserved notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the debtor holding that the transfers at issue were not fraudulent transfers because  they did not diminish the debtors estate