Alpha Invesco Corp v. Fed Deposit Ins Corp

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 23, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-20572
Summary Calendar
ALPHA INVESCO CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-3730
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alpha Invesco Corporation (“Alpha”) filed the instant
breach of contract suit against the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (“FDIC”) after that agency refused to repurchase a loan
Alpha had purchased from it. Alpha argued that FDIC was obligated
to repurchase this loan under the terms of an agreement the two
parties entered into in conjunction with FDIC’s sale of a loan
portfolio to Alpha. FDIC argued that it was not obligated to

-- 1 of 3 --

2
repurchase the loan because the conditions precedent to repurchase
specified in the agreement had not been satisfied. The magistrate
judge granted FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, and Alpha appeals
this judgment. This court reviews a district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo. Threadgill v. Prudential Sec. Group,
Inc., 145 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1998).
Alpha argues that the magistrate judge erred in
determining that the repurchase provision in the agreement was
triggered only if two separate individuals were released of their
obligations by a judgment and in giving an unreasonably restrictive
interpretation to the term “holding.” The magistrate judge’s
interpretation of the contract was in accordance with the plain
language of that document as it is written. See Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. C.A. Turner Constr. Co., 112 F.3d
184, 186 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s
interpretation of the contract is not erroneous, and Alpha has not
shown otherwise.
Alpha further argues that the judgment of the magistrate
judge cannot be affirmed on the alternate theories put forth by
FDIC, that the instant suit is blocked by res judicata and that
Alpha cannot now complain about its inability to foreclose on the
collateral for one loan due to the “as-is” provisions of the
contract between the parties. The magistrate judge did not discuss
these theories, and her judgment is not erroneous. There is thus

-- 2 of 3 --

3
no need to consider these arguments. The judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --