had been willing to account for whether estate assets were or were not used to purchase the WSFS Claim, the Debtor’s undisclosed involvement in the transaction constituted a violation of his fiduciary obligation as a debtor-in-possession. See, e.g., Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Cybergenics Corp. ex rel. Cybergenics Corp. v. Chinery, et al., 330 F.3d 548, 573 (3d Cir.2003) (recognizing that a debtor has a fiduciary duty to maximize the value of its estate); In re Sharon Steel Corp., 871 F.2d 1217, 1228 (3d Cir.1989); In re Pacific Forest Indus., Inc., 95 B.R. 740, 743 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1989). The Third Circuit has recognized that the availability of claims for purchase at a discount constitutes a corporate opportunity. In re Papercraft Corp., 160 F.3d 982, 988 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Presbyterian Ministers, 484 F.2d 998
holding that insider violated fiduciary duty by failing to disclose to debtors board its intent to purchase claims holding that several claims including one for breach of fiduciary duty against a volunteer school board member were timely without addressing the merits of the claims holding that employer breached fiduciary duty to disclose that it was considering allowing employees to participate in benefit plan holding that an independent fiduciary duty arises from a brokers purchase and sale of securities holding that whether attorney complied with fiduciary duty to disclose all material information was question of fact