Preemption of State Statutes of Repose. Trustee sued debtor’s law firm for pre-petition negligence within the limitations period of § 108 but beyond the one-year period afforded by the state’s statute of repose. Defendant argued that, unlike a limitations period, which bars enforcement of a legal right, the expiration of a statute of repose extinguishes the substantive right itself and § 108 cannot revive that right. Noting an absence of authority on point, court held that § 108 preempted the statute of repose. Bankruptcy law takes precedence over state law by virtue of bankruptcy and supremacy clauses, and broad language and policy of § 108 demonstrate intent that it reaches “any action,” including those controlled by statutes of repose. Stanley v. Trinchard, 579 F.3d 515 (5^th Cir. 2009).