these two entities do not have the same incentives and considerations in pursuing avoidance actions. A debtor in possession’s primary concern is preserving the business and keeping it operating; thus, it is often not in the best interest of the debtor in possession to pursue avoidance actions which may isolate and alienate creditors whose support is vital to the reorganization of the business and whose votes the debtor in possession may need to solicit in order to confirm a plan. See McCuskey, 37 F.3d at 1331; In re Maxway, 27 F.3d at 984; In re Farrell & Howard Auctioneers, Inc., 172 B.R. at 715; In re National Steel Service Center, Inc., 170 B.R. at 748. See also Katon v. International Bank of Miami, N.A. (In re Tamiami Range & Gun Shop, Inc.), 130 B.R. 617, 619 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1991) (<HOLDING>). A trustee, whose primary concern is
holding that a compulsory counterclaim was barred by pennsylvanias twoyear statute of limitations notwithstanding that the plaintiff filed his complaint late in the twoyear limitations period holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable recognizing that a debtor in possession may intentionally delay a chapter 11 administration beyond the twoyear statute of limitations without pursuing an avoidance action so as to bar action against family or friends holding that a twoyear delay did not bar the motion where there was no demonstration of unfair prejudice holding that an over twoyear delay without any excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law