by first looking to the plain language of § 502(d), which clearly provides the means by which a trustee or debtor in possession may disallow a creditor’s claim when such creditor owes money or other assets to the estate, e.g., preferential transfers. “Nowhere does the plain language of the statute provide or even suggest a corollary right of creditors to dispute avoidance actions on the basis of previously settled claims.” In re Dornier Aviation, 320 B.R. at 837. As the statute is unambiguous, this Court “may not read into its language unstated or implied meaning.” Id. Second, the Bankruptcy Code does not affirmatively require a party to raise such objections during the claim-allowance process. See In re Rhythms NetConnections Inc., 300 B.R. 404, 410 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Sept.24, 2003) (<HOLDING>); Cohen v. TIC Fin. Sys. (In re Ampace Corp.),
holding that proof that a promise was not kept alone is insufficient to make out a claim of promissory fraud since there is no proof that the defendants made the promise never intending to keep it holding that there is no requirement that preference claims be brought as compulsory counterclaims even to a proof of claim recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct holding that there could be no risk of spillover evidence where there was significant proof that both defendants participated in all the transactions holding trial court should have required segregation because tort claims entailed proof of facts unnecessary for proof of the contract claim