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)
99-20260•In Re: Appletree
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-20260
_____________________
In The Matter Of: APPLETREE MARKETS, INC.,
Debtor.
---------------------------
CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST
AREAS PENSION FUND,
Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
versus
LONG-TERM CREDIT BANK OF JAPAN, LTD.,
Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
(H-98-CV-3163)
_________________________________________________________________
April 10, 2000
Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
After reviewing the record, studying the briefs, and
considering the points made by counsel at oral argument, we agree
with the bankruptcy court, as affirmed by the district court, that
the release provided under the Plan is effective to preclude the
claims Central States now attempts to raise against LTCB.
-- 1 of 2 --
1The judgment of the district court, affirming the judgment of
the bankruptcy court, denying LTCB’s request for attorney’s fees
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1401 & 1451 is AFFIRMED.
2
Furthermore, Central States is entitled to no relief under
Bankruptcy Rule 9024 on the basis that the bankruptcy court acted
in excess of its authority or jurisdiction in discharging the
liability of a third party. At best, the bankruptcy court’s orders
in this respect are voidable, not void, and as such can not be
collaterally attacked in this proceeding. See Republic Supply Co.
v. Shoaf, 815 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir. 1987); In re Edwards, 962 F.2d
641, 644 (7th Cir. 1992); 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2862, at pp. 322-32 (1995).
We thus conclude that the judgment of the district court,
affirming the judgment of the bankruptcy granting summary judgment
for LTCB, should be, and the same is
A F F I R M E D.1
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.