FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT APR 7 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1183 0 D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 80 68 0 C V-W PD BKCY No . 00 -3 51 79 -BKC- PGH In Re: EMPIR E OF CAROLINA, INC., EM PIRE IN DU ST RIE S, IN C.

D eb tor s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ ALPHA INTERNATIONA L, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us GENE RAL FO AM P LA ST ICS, De fendant-Appellee.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida (A pr il 7, 200 6) Before AN DE RSO N and DU BIN A, Circuit Judges, and AL BRITT ON *, D istrict Judg e.

____ ____ ____ ____ __ *Honora ble Will iam H. Albritton, I I I , Uni t ed S tates District Judge f or the Middle District of Alabama sitti ngby desig nation.The fir st order on appea l is an Orde r Gra nting Motion of GFP for Rehe aring , to Vacate Fina l 1 J udg ment, and for

Interve ntion and Gra

nting in Part and Deny

ing in Par t Alpha’s Motion to Reopen Adver sary

Pro ce ed i n g, Amend Stipulation, and for Entry of Amende d Stipul ation of Judgment (“Rehe aring Orde r”)
. The second orde r on appe al is an Amende d Final Judgment. The third order on appea l is an Order

Deny ing A lpha’s Motion to Amend the Rehea ringOrde r and the Amended Final Judgment (“ Orde r De nying Amendment Motion”).
2 PE R CU RIA M: I. BACKG ROUND Ap p el l an t , Al p h a I n t ern at i o n al (“Al p h a” ), ap p ea l s th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s affir m ance of thre e orders of the U .S . B ankruptcy Court for the S outh ern D istrict 1 of Florida, which, am ong o ther things , per m itted Appellee, Ge neral Foam Plastics Co rp . ( “ G FP ”) , to int er

ve ne a s athi rd

part y w ith out be ing bound b y

the r es ult ing
or de rs . T his li tig at ionari se s ou t of the bankr

upt cy c ourt, w ithA lph a atte m

pti ng t o cl ar if y the te rm s of

a200 1 A sse t P ur ch as e A gr ee m en t ( “ A PA ”) in w hic h it pur ch as ed

sub stanti al ly

a ll the a sse ts o f tw o bu sin es se s inbankr upt cy , E m

pir e of Caro lin a, I nc . and E m

pir e In dustri es , I nc . ( “ D eb tor s” ). A lph a atte m pte d to do s o by sti pul at ionw iththe D eb tor s, w hic h w as inc or por at ed int o aF ina l Ju dgm en t i n the bankr upt cy c ourt. G FP , w ho w as opp osi ng A lph a in s ep ar at e lit igatio n, f eare d the langua ge in the F ina l Ju dgm en t c oul d harm it s in te re st i n th e oth er

li tig at ion3

and m oved to in tervene. T he bankruptcy court perm itted interventio n, and alter ed the F ina l Ju dgm en t a cc or din g to G FP ’ s w ish es . O n a ppe al , the dis tr ic t c ourt, in a 26 -p ag e o pi ni on , affi rm edth e b an krup tc y co ur t’s o rd ers . II. ISS UES The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether G FP w as properly perm itted to i nte rv en e; ( 2) w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in te rp re ta tio n of the A sse t P ur ch as e A gr ee m en t w as c or

re ct ; ( 3) w he the r G FP ’ s li m ite d in te rv en tio n r equir ed it be boun d by the Am ended Final Judg m ent and whether the bankruptcy court abused its dis cr et ionin pe rm itt ing suc h li m ite d in te rv en tio n; and ( 4) w he the r the f orm of the A m en de d F ina l Ju dgm en t w as in fu ll ac co rd w iththe de ci sio n of

the bankr upt cy c ourt. III. STA ND AR DS OF RE VIEW Factual and legal deter

m ination s m ade by

the bankruptcy

court are ind ep en de ntl y

r ev ie w ed by thi s c ourt, usi ng the sam e standard s of r ev ie wa s th e di st ric t co ur t. In re Int'l. Adm in. Servs. Inc. , 40 8 F .3d68 9, 6 98 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ).

“ W e rev ie w th e fi nd in gs of f actm ad e b y

th e b an krup tc y

co ur t fo r cl ear e rro r. A fa ct ua l f ind ing is not

c le ar ly e rr one ous unl es s th is c ourt, a ft er r ev ie w ing a ll of

the evidence, [ is] left w ith the definite and firm conviction that a m istake has been
com m itted. T his court cond ucts a de nov o rev ie w of d et erm in at io ns of l aw,GFP ac tually intervene d on two aspec ts of t he li tigation– to contest t he re prese ntation that 2 it consented to the Final J udg ment, and to c ontest the languag e amending the APA. Alpha does not contest that it was prope r for the cour t to permit intervention as t o the conse nt, but argues that intervention as to the APA wa s improper. 4 whether from

the bankruptcy

court or the district court." Id

. (citations and int ernal quot ations m arks om itted). Is sue s r el at ing to m an da tor y int er ve nti on are sub

j ec t t o de nov o rev ie w. Lo yd v . A lab am a D ep '

t of Co rr. , 176 F. 3d 13 36, 1339 (11t h Cir. 1999 ). Issues
re la tin g to pe rm iss ive int er ve nti on are r ev ie w ed

f or abuse of dis cr et ion
. P urcell v. B ank A tla nti c F

in. Co rp. , 85 F.3d 15 08 , 15 13 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ).

IV. D ISCU SSION T he bankr

upt cy c ourt di d no t a ddr es s w he the r it gr an te d G FP the r igh t t o int er ve ne und er

m an da tor

y int er ve nti on p ri nc ipl es or

pe rm iss ive int er

ve nti on principles. O n appeal, the district court ruled that intervention was proper under

2 either standard. Beca

use we conclude that int ervention was proper under pe rm is si ve st an da rd s, we h ol d t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n. Fe de ra l R ule of Bankr upt cy P ro ce dur e 7024 (b ) inc or por at es F ed er al Ru le of Ci vil P ro ce dur e 24( b) , and p ro vid es that a c ourt m ay

a llo wpe rm iss ive int er

ve nti on when an applicant’ s claim or defense and the m ain action have a question of law
orfactin co m

m on . P urc el l v

. B ank

A tla nti c F

in. Co rp. , 85 F
. 3d at 15 13 ( an al y zi ng5

de nia l of int er ve nti on unde r Fe d. R. Ci v. P
. 24)
. “ [O ] ur ta sk i s no t t o de te rm ine whether the factors of R

ule 24(b) wer e present, but is rather to determ ine whether t h e t ri al co u rt co m

m i t t ed a c l ea r ab u s e o f d i s cr et i o n i nd en yin g th e mot i o n . We
m ust a ff irm und er the abuse of

dis cr et ionstandard

unl es s w e at

le as t de te rm ine that the district court has m ade a c lear e rror of j udgm ent, or has a pplied an incorrect legal standard. " Id

. (ci ta ti on s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Su ff ic e it to s ay

that w e co nc lud e fr om

the r ec or d th at

G FP w as pr ope rl y pe rm itt ed to int er ve ne on a li m ite d ba sis in the a dve rs ar y a ct ionbe tw ee n A lph a and the Debtors. GF P w as a substantial creditor of the De btors. A s such, it had an int er es t i n a ssuri ng tha t the or igi na l A PAand s al e or de r ap pr ovi ng i t w er e not
m odified unl ess Alpha and the De btor first sough t relief from the final sale order , approvin g the original APA , and the order dism issin g the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases in Februar

y 2003
. Additionally , A lpha’ s final j udgm ent im properly rec ited that G FP c onse nte d to the f ina l j udgm en t; thi s m isr ep re se ntatio n ne ed ed to be
co rr ec te d. Mo re ove r, A lph a sue d G FP in N or th C ar oli naw ithr es pe ct

to the in te ll ect ua l p ro pe rty clai m s t ha t i t s eek s t o e xp an d i n t he pre se ntli ti ga ti on . T he re fo re , giv enit s in te re st a s ac re dit or , A lph a’ s m isr ep re se ntatio n a s to it s
co nse nt, and the pe ndi ng N orth C ar oli naa ct ioninv olv ing int el le ct ua l pr ope rty6

claim s, G FP had a sufficient interest to supp ort perm issiv e intervention un der Ban krup tc y

Ru le 70 24
. Co nc er nin g th e re m ai nin g is sue s pr es en te d inthi s a ppe al , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di spos iti on o f the m ba se d up on i ts w el l- re as one d or de r af fi rm ing the or de rs of

the bankr

upt cy c ourt f ile d onF eb ru ar

y 28, 200 5. AFFIRMED.