quotation marks omitted); see Glinka v. Murad (In re Housecraft Indus. USA, Inc.),.310 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir.2002) (applying Commodore to derivative suits by a secured creditor). “This approach permits a reasoned and practicable division of labor between the creditors’ committee [and individual creditors] and the debtor in possession or trustee.” In re Commodore Int’l, 262 F.3d at 100. Critically, however, it “also provid[es] bankruptcy courts with significant authority both to manage the litigation and check any potential for abuse by the parties.” Id. As our sister circuits that permit derivative standing have recognized, the bankruptcy court plays a vital gatekeeper role in determining whether derivative standing is appropriate in a given case. See, e.g., Cybergenics, 330 F.3d at 580 (<HOLDING>); Fogel, 221 F.3d at 965 (recognizing
holding that creditor lacked appellate standing to appeal order of bankruptcy court absent permission of bankruptcy court holding that a bankruptcy courts jurisdiction is derivative and dependent upon these three bases recognizing derivative standing that bankruptcy courts can authorize recognizing derivative standing if the bankruptcy court determines that certain conditions exist and certain prerequisites are met recognizing bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over such a collateral attack