Did lower courts err in ruling that a bankruptcy debtor lacked standing to object to settlement of claims against third parties despite evidence of a likely estate surplus?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did lower courts err when they ruled that a bankruptcy debtor did not have standing to object to settlement of his claims against third parties despite evidence that the bankruptcy estate would likely have a surplus? 2. Did lower courts deny due process to a bankruptcy debtor when they refused standing to hear the merits of his solvency? 3. Should this Court exercise supervisory authority to examine and remediate indicia of systemic and operational deficiencies presented in the bankruptcy court’s valuation of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate? ii