Kaufman v. Feldman, et al

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 15, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-40457
Summary Calendar
In The Matter Of: CHARLES B. FELDMAN
Debtor
----------------------------
COLIN KELLY KAUFMAN, Trustee
Appellant,
versus
CHARLES B. FELDMAN; MICHAEL BOULDOUCHE, Trustee
Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal, Colin Kelly Kaufman (hereinafter “Kaufman”)
appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division, entered on
March 25, 2004, in Civil Action No.B-03-072 styled “In Re:
Charles B. Feldman d/b/a Charles Feldman Investments.” That
district court order considered Kaufman’s appeal from the
decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Brownsville Division, in bankruptcy case 90-

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 04-40457
-2-
01254-B-1 in Chapter 11 styled “Charles B. Feldman d/b/a Charles
B. Feldman Investments, Debtor” filed January 27, 2003, in which
the bankruptcy court concluded that Kaufman lacked “standing to
object to this Settlement Agreement” under consideration therein,
and found that such Settlement Agreement “has been entered into
in good faith, is in the best interest of the Estate and is the
settlement of doubtful and disputed claims and meets the
elements” set forth in Protective Committee for Independent
Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414
(1968). In its order, the district court reversed the decision of
the bankruptcy court by holding that “Kaufman has standing to
challenge the Motion of Approval of Compromise and to Approve
Settlement Agreement and has standing to file this appeal.” The
district court, however, affirmed the conclusions of the
bankruptcy court that “the settlement of doubtful and disputed
claims” for $25,000 was “entered into in good faith” and “was in
the best interest of the Estate.” Kaufman timely appealed the
decision of the district court to this court.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply briefs, the
record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. We
review findings of fact by the bankruptcy court under the clearly
erroneous standard and decide issues of law de novo. In re
Hickman, 260 F.3d 400, 401 (5th Cir. 2001). For the reasons
stated by the district court in its order entered under date of
March 25, 2004, we AFFIRM the order of the district court that

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 04-40457
-3-
concluded Kaufman had standing to appeal and we AFFIRM the order
of the district court that affirms the decision of the bankruptcy
court to approve the Compromise and Settlement Agreement.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --