The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-2115•In re: Silver Clipper, Incorporated
03-2115Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 18, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2115
In Re: SILVER CLIPPER, INCORPORATED,
Debtor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SILVER CLIPPER, INCORPORATED,
Debtor - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE W. LIEBMANN,
Trustee - Appellee.
No. 03-2116
In Re: SILVER CLIPPER, INCORPORATED,
Debtor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RON MORGAN,
Claimant - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE W. LIEBMANN,
Trustee - Appellee.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-
1730-AMD; CA-03-1729-AMD; BK-01-5-9209-SD)
Submitted: April 21, 2004 Decided: May 18, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John B. Stolarz, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Orbie R.
Shively, LIEBMANN & SHIVELY, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Silver Clipper, Inc., and Ron Morgan, the sole
shareholder of Silver Clipper, appeal from the district court’s
order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving the
settlement of the claims of Kirk Carter and Reginald Fitzgerald
against Silver Clipper. We have reviewed the record, the parties’
briefs, and the lower courts’ opinions and find no reversible
error. See Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer
Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424-25 (1968). Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Silver
Clipper, Inc. v. Liebmann, Nos. CA-03-1730-AMD; CA-03-1729-AMD; BK-
01-5-9209-SD (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2003). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.