is therefore violating the Sale Order. Hence, the Plaintiff is requesting a temporary injunction to stop the Defendants from continuing to prosecute the State Court Suit. The resolution of the dispute largely turns on the question of whether the State Court Claims are derivative or direct, If any of the State Court Claims are derivative, then they comprise part of the Sale Order Claims that the Plaintiff purchased from the Trustee. [See id.]. This is so because any derivative claims that the Debtor had against Krasoff already existed on the Petition Date, which means that these claims were property of the Debtor’s estate that only the Trustee could prosecute — and therefore sell to third parties (such as the Plaintiff). In re MortgageAmerica Corp., 714 F.2d 1266, 1274-77 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Texas law is clear that “[a] cause of action
holding that causes of action for age and sex discrimination that arose prepetition were property of the bankruptcy estate holding contingent prepetition property rights were sufficiently rooted in the prebankruptcy past to be part of the bankruptcy estate under 11 usc  541 recognizing the distinction between the reorganized debtor and the converted debtor and holding an asset which was not property of the original chapter 11 estate does not become property of the converted chapter 7 estate holding that claims harming the debtor corporation that arose from prepetition conduct become property of the estate under 11 usc  541a1 holding that legal malpractice claim against chapter 7 debtor arose prepetition when the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred and therefore was subject to the debtors discharge