Issue link: https://mbozikis.ufcontent.com/i/1422521
148 action was taken in the best interests of the company."). Courts are normally reluctant to second-guess the ordinary course business decisions of a debtor-in-possession or trustee except upon a showing that the trustee acted in bad faith. See, e.g., In re Nellson Nutraceutical, Inc., 369 B.R. 787, 797 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007) (stating that a "Court will not entertain an objection to [a] transaction, provided that the conduct involves a business judgment made in good faith upon a reasonable basis and within the scope of authority under the Bankruptcy Code."). 3. Suits Against Fiduciaries for Actions Taken While Operating the Business Notwithstanding the foregoing favorable doctrines, however, operation of a debtor's business by a trustee or debtor-in- possession is not free from risk. Just as is the case outside of bankruptcy, "[t]rustees, receivers or managers of any property, including debtors-in-possession, may be sued, without leave of the court appointing them, with respect to any of their acts or transactions in carrying on business connected with such property." 28 U.S.C. § 959(a). Such actions shall be subject to the general equity power of the court appointing them so far as may be necessary to serve the ends of justice. Id. Additionally, Chapter 11 trustees (and debtors-in-possession) are required to manage and operate the property in their possession in compliance with applicable State law. 28 U.S.C. § 959(b). Estate fiduciaries are, however, protected by what is known as the "Barton Doctrine" against liability for acts taken in furtherance of the administration of the case (as opposed to the operation of the debtor's business). Vass v. Conron Bros. Co., 59 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1932). Since Vass, a long line of cases has held that, as a matter of Federal common law, individuals who wish to sue a trustee must "first obtain leave of the court that appointed the trustee." See Peia v. Coan, No. 05-cv-1029, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12811, at *2–3 (D. Conn. Mar. 23, 2006). This doctrine also has been applied in other contexts to protect an auctioneer of a debtor's property as well as a U.S. Marshal and the U.S. Trustee. See