MEMORANDUM OPINION

MARVIN ISGUR, Bankruptcy Judge.

This Memorandum Opinion resolves Shamrock Management, LLC's motion for relief from the automatic stay at ECF No. 967. In it motion, Shamrock seeks relief from the stay to file a lawsuit against the Platinum Parties1 in Louisiana state court. On July 28, 2016, the Court held a hearing on Shamrock's motion. The Court instructed Shamrock to file a new proposed pleading that set forth allegations constituting a direct cause of action against the Platinum Parties. (ECF No. 1243 at 35). The Court required that the pleading contain sufficient information that it would satisfy Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure2. (Id. at 33).

Jurisdiction and Authority

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334. Determining whether an asset is estate property is a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157. In re Velo Holdings, Inc., 475 B.R. 367, 386 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012); Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc. (In re Cont'l Airlines, Inc.), 138 B.R. 442, 445 (D. Del. 1992).

Analysis

Although the proposed Verified First Supplemental and Amending Petition filed at ECF No. 1278-1 sets forth allegations of substantial fraudulent conduct by the Platinum Parties, the vast majority Shamrock's injury from the alleged fraud resulted from generalized injury to Black Elk. It is the estate, not Shamrock, that has standing to assert these claims. Matter of Educators Grp. Health Trust, 25 F.3d 1281, 1284 (5th Cir. 1994). The alleged improper payments and funds diversions, if true, would have directly affected Black Elk and all of its (now unpaid) creditors. The fact that Shamrock was one of those creditors does not give it the type of direct injury for which it can sue under Fifth Circuit law as set forth in Educators. Id.

Nevertheless, Shamrock has alleged some facts that resulted in a direct injury to Shamrock. Shamrock alleged that Black Elk—at Platinum's direction—fraudulently promised payments that induced Shamrock to continue to provide goods and services to Black Elk. The fraud allegations are contained in paragraphs 47, 49, 51, and 53 of the Verified First Supplemental and Amending Petition. (ECF No. 1278-1 at 15-17). No fraud directed at Shamrock is alleged to have occurred with respect to goods or services provided prior to January 29, 2014. Shamrock alleges that on January 29, 2014, Mr. Hoffman sent an email to Shamrock stating that Black Elk "will get [Shamrock] payment ASAP", when in fact Black Elk (acting under Platinum's control and direction) had no intention of paying Shamrock. Shamrock alleges that Hoffman sent this email at Platinum's direction. Similarly, on February 3, 2014, Mr. Larin told Shamrock that "[w]e are working on two events that would bring in the liquidity needed to bring [Shamrock's] account back up to speed. We should know more later in the week." (Id. at 15). This email was followed by a February 7, 2014, email requesting from Shamrock an accounts receivable aging. (Id. at 16). Presumably, this type of an email would help establish that Black Elk actually intended to pay Shamrock. The allegations, if proven, would demonstrate that Mr. Larin sent these two emails at Platinum's direction at a time when Platinum had no intention of allowing the proceeds from the events to be used to pay Shamrock or other vendors.

On February 17, 2014 Mr. Fuerst allegedly sent an email promising payment of invoices that were over 90-days old. The promise was that the payments would be made on February 28, 2014. Again, Shamrock alleges that Black Elk, acting at Platinum's direction, had no intention of making the February 28, 2014 payment. (Id. at 17).

Shamrock alleges that, in reliance on these false statements, Shamrock continued to provide goods and services to Black Elk. In its complaint, Shamrock does not identify the extent of the goods and services provided after February 3, 2014. Shamrock acknowledges that it received a $355,848.71 payment on March 27, 2014 from Black Elk. To the extent that Shamrock provided in excess of $355,848.71 in goods and services after February 3, 2014, it has stated a case of direct injury from the Platinum Defendant's fraudulent conduct.

The balance of the allegations in the petition set forth a claim of injury to Black Elk (resulting in an injury to Shamrock), but not a direct injury to Shamrock.

Shamrock filed its proof of claim in the Black Elk bankruptcy case, under penalty of perjury, on August 13, 2015. On September 17, 2015, Shamrock filed its amended proof of claim. Attached to the proof of claim are 860 pages of invoices. The amended proof of claim alleges that Black Elk owes $982,443.77 "plus punitive damages, attorney fees and legal interest" to Shamrock. The following invoices reflect goods and services delivered after February 3, 2014:

As set forth above, the total Shamrock asserts in its proof of claim against Black Elk for actual damages from failure to pay for goods and services is $982,443.77. This total includes the credited $355,848.71 payment Shamrock received on March 27, 2014. This receipt occurred after the alleged fraudulent inducement upon which Shamrock relied when it continued to provide goods and services beyond January 29, 2014. Accordingly, as of February 3, 2014, Shamrock was owed:

Accepting all of the allegations in the Verified First Supplemental and Amending Petition and all of the allegations in the proof of claim, but for the alleged fraudulent statements, Shamrock would be owed $522,012.61. Further accepting those same allegations, Shamrock is now owed $982,443.77. Accordingly, but for the alleged fraud, Shamrock's losses with Black Elk would have been $460,431.16 less:

Accordingly, Shamrock has established that the automatic stay should be lifted to allow Shamrock to pursue fraud damages as follows:

Conclusion

The Court will issue an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.