  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Although section 1123(b)(3)(B) is not an express disclosure or notice statute, some courts have viewed it as serving this function. See, e.g., Harstad v. First Am. Bank, 39 F.3d 898, 903 (8th Cir. 1994) ("[w]e view § 1123(b)(3)(B) as, at least in part, a notice provision. Creditors have the right to know of any potential causes of action that might enlarge the estate and that could be used to increase payment to the creditors . . . . Compliance with § 1123(b)(3) gives notice of that intent."); Cohen v. TIC Fin. Sys. (In re Ampace Corp.), 279 B.R. 145, 157-160 (Bankr. D. Del. 2002) (in determining whether liquidating trustee was barred from prosecuting avoidance actions post-confirmation under doctrine of res judicata, court held general statement reserving claims in plan and disclosure statement was sufficient to meet notice requirements). Because the debtor is providing notice of its intent to reserve estate claims and causes of action for post-confirmation litigation, the plan must adequately identify and describe the claims and causes of action that are being retained. See Kmart, 310 B.R. at 120.
To properly reserve a claim or cause of action for post-confirmation enforcement, a plan must clearly evince the debtor's intent to reserve such claim or cause of action and not just be a mere blanket reservation. See, D&K, 112 F.3d at 261. A blanket reservation that seeks to reserve all causes of action generally reserves nothing. For instance, a blanket reservation such as "all causes of action which the debtor may choose to institute" has been held insufficient to prevent the application of res judicata to a specific action." See, e.g., In re Huntsville Small Engines, Inc., 228 B.R. 9, 13 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1998) (preference action precluded by res judicata where "plan only contained a general retention clause reserving the debtor's right to purse post- confirmation all pre-petition causes of action without specifically disclosing the cause of action against [defendant]."). Courts are divided, however, over just how much specificity is required
