Tommy's Fort Worth, LLC, 671 B.R. 712

Tommy’s Fort Worth, LLC and affiliates (“Debtors”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after business collapse stemming from disputes with their main boat supplier, Malibu Boats, and lender, M&T Bank.
Matthew Borisch, President and owner of the Debtors, personally guaranteed certain loans and claims to have suffered individual harm from actions by Malibu and M&T.
Borisch, after the Trustee (Mark E. Andrews) was appointed, filed lawsuits in his own name against Malibu and sought to bring counterclaims against M&T—even after the Trustee dismissed similar claims held by the bankrupt estates.
The Trustee moved to enforce the automatic stay, arguing Borisch was asserting causes of action that actually belong to the bankruptcy estates—not to him personally—as these claims were for harms suffered by the Debtors.
Procedurally, Borisch objected that such enforcement required an adversary proceeding and challenged the substance of the Trustee’s ownership claim.
The court considered the parties’ disputes, applying the standards for what constitutes property of the estate and whether procedural missteps (failure to file an adversary proceeding) affected the outcome.

Issue	Borisch’s Argument	Trustee’s Argument	Held
Must relief enforcing the stay be brought as an adversary proceeding?	Yes, declaratory/injunctive relief requires an adversary proceeding.	No, stay enforcement can proceed by motion; form should not control over substance if full process is given.	Mere failure to file adversary proceeding not fatal where full process provided; right to adversary proceeding was waived.
Ownership of claims Borisch asserted vs. estate	All asserted claims are his personal claims—even if based on same facts.	Most claims are for estate injuries; only direct individual harms belong to Borisch.	Claims for direct injury to Debtors are estate property; only direct personal injury claims belong to Borisch.
Whether Borisch’s lawsuits violated the automatic stay	No, as he is asserting his own rights and suffered personal damages.	Yes, as he seeks to exercise control over estate property (the claims).	Yes, Borisch violated the automatic stay by asserting claims for estate injury; must withdraw such claims.
Effect of prior cash collateral order with “carve-out” for Borisch	The carve-out allows him to pursue any claims/defenses against M&T.	Carve-out only preserves rights he actually owns or has standing to bring—not estate claims.	Carve-out does not allow assertion of estate claims; only personal or granted claims can proceed.

In re Seven Seas Petroleum, Inc., 522 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard for determining whether claims belong to the bankruptcy estate)
In re Educators Group Health Trust, 25 F.3d 1281 (5th Cir. 1994) (framework for evaluating whether claims are estate property or individual)
In re Zale Corp., 62 F.3d 746 (5th Cir. 1995) (waiver of right to adversary proceeding if parties afforded full process)
Louisiana World Exposition v. Fed. Ins. Co., 858 F.2d 233 (5th Cir. 1988) (standing and property of the estate concepts for bankruptcy claims)
S.I. Acquisition, Inc. v. Eastway Delivery Serv., Inc., 817 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1987) (applicability of section 362 automatic stay)