### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-10717

In the Matter of: TEXAS WYOMING DRILLING, INC.,

Debtor

------------------------ ------
JOHN DEE SPICER, Chapter 7 Trustee for Texas Wyoming Drilling, Inc.,

Appellee,

v.

L A G U N A MADRE OIL & GAS II, L.L.C.; PALOMA VENTURES; RONALD KNECHT; STEPHEN L. DANCHOK ; G ARTH STANGER, Trustee of the Stanger Family Trust; WILLIAM E. WALTHERS; DONALD ANDERSON, T rustee of the Anderson Living Trust; TRUSTEE OF THE DALE AND CAROLYN HANST TRUST; ERIC KIERSH; MICHAEL HUMPHREY, Trustee

o f t h e Humphrey Family Trust; WADE VESSEY; KAREN VESSEY; KEITH HANST; LEO HANLY; DANNY JACKSON; GARY G RACE; WILLIAM BRINKOP; DAN PETERS,

Appellants.

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D July 21, 2 011

Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 10-10717 Document: 00511546943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2011No. 10-10717

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:
Laguna Ma d r e O i l & Gas II, L.L.C., et al., (“Laguna”), appeals the
bankruptcy court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment. We AFFIRM.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

T e x a s W y o m in g D rillin g , I n c

. ( “T W D ”) file d a v o lu n ta ry p e titio n fo r

b a n k ru p tcy u n d e r C h a p te r 1 1

. T h e re a fte r, T W D file d its d isclo su re sta te m e n t

a n d p la n , b o th o f w h ich w e re a p p ro v e d b y th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt. A m o n g o th e r

th in g s, th e p la n e lim in a te d a ll o f T W D ’s sh a re h o ld e rs’ sto ck in te re sts in T W D

. C e n tra l to th is d isp u te a r e t h e t e r m s o f t h e p l a n a n d t h e d i s c l o s u re

sta te m e n t; n a m e ly

, w h e th e r th e te rm s pr es er ved TWD’ s c l ai ms agai ns t Lagu n a

. U n d e r th e se ctio n e n title d “R e te n tio n o f C a u se s o f A ctio n ,” th e p la n p ro v id e s

th a t “[t]h e R e o rg a n ize d D e b to r s h a l l re ta in a ll rig h ts, cla im s, d e fe n se s, a n d

ca u se s o f a ctio n in clu d in g , b u t n o t lim ite d to
, th e E sta te A ctio n s, a n d sh a ll h a v e

so le a u th o rity to p r o s e c u t e a n d /o r se ttle su ch a ctio n s.” (R

. 1 2 2 ). “E sta te

A ctio n s” is d e fin e d to in clu d e cla im s u n d e r C h a p te r 5 o f th e B a n k ru p tcy C o d e

. 1
(R

. 1 2 6 -2 7 ). T h e d isclo su re sta te m e n t a lso sta te s th a t “[t]h e D e b to r re se rv e s a ll
rig h ts to p u rsu e , a t its so le d iscre tio n , a n y E s t a t e A ctio n s n o t lim ite d to b u t

in clu d in g a n y p re fe re n ce to th e fu ll e x te n t a llo w e d u n d e r th e B a n k ru p tcy C o d e

a n d a p p lica b le sta te la w s. T h e D e b to r m a y a lso p u rsu e o th e r a ctio n s in clu d in g

b u t n o t lim ite d to a ctio n s u n d e r se ctio n s 5 4 2 a n d 5 4 9 o f th e B a n k ru p tcy C o d e .”
(R

. 1 1 3 ). T h e d isclo su re sta te m e n t a g a in d e fin e s “E sta te A ctio n s” to in clu d e
“v a rio u s p o te n tia l a v o id a b le tra n sfe rs th a t ca n b e re co v e re d u n d e r C h a p te r 5 .”

Avo i d a n c e act ions aris e unde r Chapt er 5 of the Bank rup tcy Code

, sp ecif ical ly 11 1 U. S. C. §§ 544- 51.

2 Case: 10-10717 Document: 00511546943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2011No. 10-10717

(R

. 1 1 3 ). In clu d e d w ith in t h e d isclo su re sta te m e n t w a s a ch a rt o u tlin in g
“v a rio u s cla im s a n d ca u se s o f a ctio n th e D e b to r o r th e R e o rg a n ize d D e b to r m a y

p u rsu e o n b e h a lf o f th e D e b to r’s e sta te .” (R

. 1 1 4 -1 5 ). A s o n e o f th e p o te n tia l

d e fe n d a n ts, th e ch a rt liste d “V a rio u s p re -p e titio n sh a re h o ld e rs o f th e D e b to r”

w h o m ig h t b e su e d fo r “fra u d u le n t tra n sfe r a n d re co v e ry o f d iv id e n d s p a id to

sh a re h o ld e rs,” v a lu in g th e cla im s a t a p p ro x im a te ly $ 4 m illio n . (R . 1 1 5 ).

A fe w m o n th s a fte r co n firm a tio n o f th e p la n , T W D su e d th irty -tw o o f its

fo rm e r sh a re h o ld e rs, in clu d in g th e a p p e lla n ts h e re , fo r p re -p e t i t i o n d iv id e n d

p a y m e n ts th a t w e re a lle g e d ly fra u d u le n t tra n sfe rs u n d e r 1 1 U .S .C

. § § 5 4 4
, 5 4 8

,

a n d 5 5 0

, a n d th e T e x a s B u sin e ss a n d C o m m e rce C o d e , a lle g in g th a t th e fo rm e r
sh a re h o l d e rs h a d re ce iv e d d iv id e n d s a n d o th e r tra n sfe rs e q u a lin g m illio n s o f

d o lla rs w h ile T W D w a s in so lv e n t (“A v o id a n ce A ctio n s”). (R . 2 4 -2 9 ).

L a g u n a file d a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, a rg u in g th a t T W D h a d n o

sta n d in g b e ca u se T W D ’s p la n d id n o t a d e q u a te ly re ta in th e A v o id a n ce A ctio n s

u n d e r 1 1 U .S .C

. § 1 1 2 3

. In th e a lte rn a tiv e , L a g u n a a rg u e d th a t T W D ’s cla im s

w e re b a rre d b y re s ju d ica ta a n d ju d icia l e sto p p e l. T h e d a y b e fo re th e h e a rin g

o n L a g u n a ’s m o tio n , th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt su a sp o n te co n v e rte d T W D ’s C h a p te r

1 1 b a n k ru p tcy to a C h a p te r 7 b a n k ru p tcy b e ca u se T W D h a d m a te r i a l ly

d e fa u lte d u n d e r th e plan. The trustee automatically succeeded TWD as the
plaintiff in the Avoidance Actions proceedings against Laguna. The bankruptcy

court th e n d e n ie d L a g u n a ’s m o tio n , h o ld in g th a t th e d e fe n se s w e re m e ritle ss,

b u t th a t, e v e n if a n y o f th e m h a d m e rit, th e co u rt’s co n v e rsio n o f th e ca se m e a n t

th a t th e C h a p te r 7 tru ste e c o u ld p u rsu e th e cla im s e v e n th o u g h th e p o stco n firm a tio n C h a p te r 1 1 d e b to r co u ld n o t. At Laguna’s request, the bankruptcy

court certi f

i e d t h e order for direct appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2), and this

3 Case: 10-10717 Document: 00511546943 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2011No. 10-10717

court granted Laguna’s petition for permission to appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo

. Fahim v. Marriott

Hotel Servs., Inc.

, 551 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 8 )

. S ummary judgment is
appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispu t e as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F E D

. R. C I V

. P. 56(a). We review questions of jurisdiction, including standing, de novo

. Bonds v. Tandy

, 457 F.3d 409, 411 (5th Cir. 2006). If the district court expressly

or implicitly resolved any factual disputes in making its jurisdictional ruling, we
review such findings for clear error. See Ped e r son v. La. State Univ.

, 213 F.3d

858, 869 (5th Cir. 2000). “[B ]e ca u se ‘ju d icia l e sto p p e l is a n e q u ita b le d o ctr i n e ,

a n d th e d e cisio n w h e th e r to in v o k e it [is] w ith in th e co u rt’s d iscre tio n , w e

re v ie w fo r a b u se o f d iscre tio n ’ th e lo w e r co u rt’s d e cisio n to in v o k e it.” K a n e v

. N a t’l U n io n F ire In s. C o

. , 5 3 5 F .3 d 3 8 0 , 3 8 4 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (cita tio n o m itte d ).

“T h e re s ju d ica ta e ffe ct o f a p rio r ju d g m e n t is a q u e stio n o f la w th a t w e re v ie w
d e n o v o .” D a v is v

. D a lla s A rea R a p id T ra n sit

, 3 8 3 F .3 d 3 0 9

, 3 1 3 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ).

DISCUSSION

I. Standing
“[A ]fte r co n firm a tio n o f a p la n , th e a b ility o f th e d e b to r to e n fo rce a cla im

o n ce h e ld b y th e e sta te is lim ite d to th a t w h ich h a s b e e n re ta in e d i n t h e [b a n k ru p tcy ] p la n .” D y n a sty O il & G a s, L .L .C

. v . C itizen s B a n k (In re U n ited

O p era tin g , L .L .C .)

, 5 4 0 F .3 d 3 5 1
, 3 5 5 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); see a lso 1 1 U .S .C

. § 1 1 2 3 (b )(3 ) (“[A ] p la n m a y

. . . p ro v id e fo r

. . . th e re te n tio n a n d e n fo rce m e n t [o f

a n y cla im ] b y th e d e b to r.”). “F o r a d e b t o r to p re se rv e a cla im

, th e p la n m u st

e x p re ssly re ta in t h e rig h t to p u rsu e su ch a ctio n s. T h e re se rv a tio n m u st b e

4 Case: 10-10717 Document: 00511546943 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/21/2011No. 10-10717

sp e cific a n d u n e q u iv o ca l.” In re U n ited O p era tin g , 5 4 0 F

. 3 d a t 3 5 5 (cita tio n s

a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ); see a lso N a t’l B en ev o len t A ss’n o f th e
C h ristia n C h u rch v

. W eil, G o tsh a l & M

a n g es, L L P (In re N

a t’l B en ev o len t A ss’n

o f th e C h ristia n C h u rch )

, 3 3 3 F

. A p p ’x 8 2 2

, 8 2 6 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). “If a d e b to r h a s

n o t m a d e a n e ffe ctiv e re se rv a tio n , th e d e b to r h a s n o sta n d in g to p u rsu e a cla im

th a t th e e sta te o w n e d b e fo re it w a s d isso lv e d

. T h is is a lo g ica l co n se q u e n c e o f

th e n a tu re o f a b a n k ru p tcy
, w h ich is d e sig n e d p rim a rily to se cu re p ro m p t,

e ffe ctiv e a d m in istra tio n a n d se t tle m e n t o f a ll d e b to r's a sse ts a n d lia b ilitie s

w ith in a l i m i t e d tim e .” In re U n ited O p era tin g , 5 4 0 F .3 d a t 3 5 5 (in te rn a l

q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T h e p u rp o se o f th e ru le is to p u t “cre d ito rs o n n o tice

o f a n y c l a i m [th e d e b to r] w ish e s to p u rsu e a fte r co n firm a tio n ” a n d e n a b le

“cre d ito rs to d e te rm in e w h e th e r a p ro p o se d p la n re so lv e s m a tte rs sa tisfa cto rily

b e fo re th e y v o te to a p p ro v e it.” Id

. “[A ]b se n t sp e cific a n d u n e q u iv o ca l re te n tio n
la n g u a g e in th e p la n , cre d ito rs la ck su fficie n t i n fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g th e ir

b e n e fi t s a n d p o te n tia l lia b ilitie s to ca st a n in te llig e n t v o te .” Id

. (in te rn a l

q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).

a . D isclo su re S ta te m e n t

W e first a d d re ss L a g u n a ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th is co u rt m a y n o t co n sid e r th e

d isclo su re sta te m e n t a lo n g sid e th e p la n to d e te rm in e w h e th e r th e tru ste e h a s

sta n d in g

. Although no court o f a p p e a l s has addressed whether the disclosure

statemen t m ay be consulted for purposes of standing, courts routinely consult

the disclosure statement in deciding whether res judicata and judicial estoppel
apply. See, e.g. , Browning Mfg. v. Mims (In re Coastal Plains, Inc.)

, 179 F.3d 197,

208 (5th C i r

. 1999) (explaining that claims must be revealed in plan and

disclosure statement or trustee may be judicially estopped from pursuing them);

5 Case: 10-10717 Document: 00511546943 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/21/2011No. 10-10717

Browning v. Levy

, 2 8 3 F.3d 761, 774 (6th Cir. 2002) (considering whether the

disclosure statement properly p r e s erved claims or whether res judicata and
judicial estoppel should be applied); In re Kelley , 199 B.R. 698, 704 (B.A.P. 9th

Cir. 1996) (holding that “if the debtor fails to mention the caus e o f action in

either his schedules, disclosure statement, or plan

, then he will be precluded

from asserting it postconfirmation”). In addition, several lower courts have held
that, with respect to standing, “[c]ourts are to consider the disclosure statement

as well as the terms of a plan of reorganizat i o n

. ” F l o yd v. CIBC World Mkts.,

Inc.

, 426 B.R. 622, 637-38 (S.D. Tex. 2009). By contrast, at least one other court

has held that language in the disclosure statement cannot satisfy the statutory
requirement in 11 U.S.C. § 1 1 2 3(b)(3)(B) that the “retention and [right of]

enforcement” of claims “be set forth i n t h e [p]lan.” S ee Ice C rea m L iq u id a tio n , In c. v

. C a lip D a iries, In c. (In re Ice C rea m L iq u id a tio n )

, 3 1 9 B .R

. 3 2 4
, 3 3 3 n .1 4
(B a n k r. D

. C o n n

. 2 0 0 5 ). But § 1123(b)(3)(B) does not explicitl y o r implicitly
address whether claims may also be preserved in the disclosure statement.

W e o b s e r v e that the disclosure statement is the primary notice m e c h a n i s m informing a creditor’s vote for or agains t a plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 1125.
Considering the disclosure statement to determine whether a post-confirmation

debtor has standing is consistent with the pur p o s e o f In re United Operating ’s
requirement: placing creditors on notice of the claims the post- c o n f irmation

debtor intends to pursue. See 5 4 0 F .3 d a t 3 5 5

. In lig h t o f th e ro le se rv e d b y th e

d isclo su re sta te m e n t, th e p u rp o se b e h in d th e ru le in In re U n ited O p era tin g ,

a n d th e fa ct th a t, in sim ila r co n te x ts, co u rts ro u tin e ly co n s i d e r t h e d isclo su re

sta te m e n t to d e te rm in e w h e th e r a cla im is p re se rv e d

, w e h o ld th a t co u rts m a y

co n su lt th e d isclo su re sta te m e n t in a d d itio n to th e p la n to d e te rm in e w h e th e r

6 Case: 10-10717 Document: 00511546943 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/21/2011No. 10-10717

a p o st-co n firm a tio n d e b to r h a s sta n d in g

. b. Language in Plan and Disclosure Statement

L a g u n a a sse rts th a t u n d e r th is co u rt’s p re ce d e n t in In re U n ited

O p era tin g , T W D fa ile d to re ta in th e A v o id a n ce A ctio n s in th e p la n a n d th e

tru ste e la ck s sta n d in g to p u rsu e th e se cla im s. A fte r co n firm a t i o n o f th e p la n , th e In re U

n ited O p era tin g d e b to r so u g h t to b rin g co m m o n -la w cla im s a g a in st

its cre d ito rs, in clu d in g m a la d m in istra tio n ca u se s o f a ctio n

. Id

. a t 3 5 6

. T h e p la n

co n ta in e d o n ly a b la n k e t re se rv a tio n o f “a n y a n d a ll cla im s” a risin g u n d e r th e

B a n k ru p tcy C o d e , a s w e ll a s sp e cific re se rv a tio n s o f o th e r ty p e s o f cla im s a lso

a risin g u n d e r th e C o d e

. Id

. T h e re w a s n o m e n tio n o f a n y co m m o n -la w cla im s.

W e h e ld th a t “[i]f [th e d e b to r] h a d w a n te d to b rin g a p o st-co n firm a tio n a c t i o n
fo r m a la d m in istra tio n o f th e e sta te ’s p ro p e rty d u rin g t h e b a n k ru p tcy
, it w a s

re q u ire d to sta te a s m u ch cle a rly in th e [p ]la n ” a n d t h a t th e u se o f g e n e ric

la n g u a g e re se rv in g “a n y a n d a l l cla im s” u n d e r th e C o d e w a s in su fficie n t to

re ta in a cla im fo r m a la d m in istra tio n o f th e e sta te

. Id

. U n lik e th e p la n in In re

U n ited O p e r a t i n g , w h ich co n ta in e d o n ly a b la n k e t re se rv a tio n o f “a n y a n d a ll

cla im s,” T W D ’s p la n a n d d isclo su re sta t e m e n t re v e a le d th e e x iste n ce o f th e

A v o id a n ce A ctio n s, th e p o ssib le a m o u n t o f re co v e ry to w h ich th e y w o u ld le a d

, th e b a sis fo r th e a ctio n s (n a m e ly

, p re -p e titio n d iv id e n d s a n d tra n sfe rs to e q u ity

in te re st h o ld e rs), a n d t h a t th e re o rg a n ize d d e b to r in te n d e d to p u rsu e th e
cla im s. T h e te rm s o f T W D ’s p la n a n d d isclo su re sta te m e n t a re fa r m o re sp e cific

th a n th o se in In re U

n ited O p era tin g

. A d d itio n a lly

, L a g u n a co n te n d s th a t b e ca u se th e p la n a n d d iscl o su re

sta te m e n t d id n o t n a m e th e in d iv id u a l d e fe n d a n ts, th e d e b to r fa ile d to re ta in

th e A v o id a n ce A ctio n s u n d e r In re U n ited O p era tin g

. W e o b s e r v e t h a t In re

7 Case: 10-10717 Document: 00511546943 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/21/2011No. 10-10717

U n ited O p era tin g fo cu se d e x clu siv e ly o n th e re te n tio n o f cla im s

. It n e v e r h e ld

th a t in t e n d e d d e fe n d a n ts m u st b e n a m e d in th e p la n

. B u t it d id cite w ith

a p p ro v a l In re Ice C rea m L iq u id a tio n , fo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t “th e p la n ’s

ca te g o rica l re se rv a tio n o f ‘p re fe re n ce ’ cla im s w a s su fficie n tly sp e cific; p la n n e e d

n o t ite m ize in d iv id u a l tra n sfe rs th a t m a y b e p u r s u e d a s p re fe re n tia l.” In re
United Operating, 5 4 0 F .3 d a t 3 5 5 (citin g In re Ice C rea m L iq u id a tio n , 3 1 9 B .R

.

a t 3 3 7 -3 8 ). In re Ice C rea m L iq u id a tio n h e ld th a t w h ile cre d ito rs m u st b e to ld

in th e p la n th a t a v o id a n ce a ctio n s w ill b e p u rsu e d p o st-co n firm a tio n , in d iv id u a l

p ro sp e ctiv e d e fe n d a n ts d id n o t h a v e to b e id e n tifie d . 3 1 9 B .R . a t 3 3 7 -3 8

. In re U n ited O p era tin g ’s cita tio n to In re Ice C rea m L iq u id a tio n ’s h o ld in g

su p p o rts th e tru ste e ’s a rg u m e n t th a t a p la n n e e d n o t id e n tify th e p ro sp e ctiv e
d e fe n d a n ts. H o w e v e r, w e n e e d n o t d e cid e w h e t h e r a d e b to r w h o se p la n fa ils

to id e n tify a n

y p ro sp e ctiv e d e fe n d a n ts h a s sta n d in g to p u r s u e p o stco n fo rm a tio n cla im s a g a in st su b se q u e n tly -n a m e d d e fe n d a n ts. H e re , th e

d isclo su re sta te m e n t d id id e n tify th e p ro sp e ctiv e d e fe n d a n ts a s “[v ]a rio u s p re

p e titio n sh a re h o ld e rs o f th e Debt or ” wh o m ig h t b e su e d fo r “fra u d u le n t tra n sfe r

a n d re co v e ry o f d iv id e n d s p a id to sh a re h o ld e rs.” W e h o ld th a t w h e re th e p la n

a n d d isclo su re sta te m e n t re se rv e d th e rig h t to p u rsu e th e A v o id a n ce A ctio n s

a g a in st p re -p e titio n sh a re h o ld e rs o f T W D

, th e re o rg a n ize d d e b to r sp e cifica lly

a n d u n e q u iv o ca lly re ta in e d th e se cla im s u n d e r In re U n ited O p era t i n g

. T h e

tru ste e th e re fo re h a s sta n d in g to p u rsu e th e A v o id a n ce A ctio n s, a n d th e 2

Laguna als o argues that beca use the plan expli cit ly rele ase d one for me r sha reho lde r 2 fr om all liabi l i t y , i t wa s requ ired to nam e the indi vidual def enda nts agains t wh om it wo uld bring sui t. Not wi ths tand ing the plan ’s rele ase of one for me r sha reho lde r, beca use the plan and dis clos ure st atem ent suf fic ient ly res erved the right to bring the Avoida nce Acti ons , the tru st ee has s tand ing t o p urs ue them

.

8 Case: 10-10717 Document: 00511546943 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/21/2011No. 10-10717

d istrict co u rt p ro p e rly d e n ie d su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th is g ro u n d

. 3

II. Judicial Estoppel

T h e d e fe n d a n ts a r g u e th a t th e tru ste e is ju d icia lly e sto p p e d fro m

p u rsu in g th e A v o id a n ce A ctio n s b e ca u se T W D fa ile d to d isclo se th e a ctio n s o n
its sch e d u le s. T h is circu it h a s o u tlin e d th re e re q u ire m e n ts fo r j udi c i al e sto p p e l:
(1 ) cle a rly in co n siste n t p o sitio n s; (2 ) th e co u rt’s a cce p ta n c e o f th e p re v io u s

p o sitio n ; a n d (3 ) a b se n ce o f in a d v e rte n ce

. S u p erio r C rew b o a ts, In c. v

. P rim a ry

P & I U n d erw riters (In re S u

p erio r C rew b o a ts, In c.)

, 3 7 4 F .3 d 3 3 0

, 3 3 5 (5 th C ir.

2 0 0 4 ). T h e p u rp o se o f ju d icia l e sto p p e l is “to p ro te ct th e in te g rity o f th e ju d icia l

p ro ce ss” b y p re v e n tin g p a rtie s fro m “ p l a y i n g fa st a n d lo o se ” w ith th e co u rts.

B ra n d o n v

. In te r

f i r s t C o rp

. , 8 5 8 F .2 d 2 6 6

, 2 6 8 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ) (in te rn a l

q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). It is g e n e ra lly in v o k e d w h e re “in te n ti o n a l se lfco n tra d ictio n is b e in g u se d a s a m e a n s o f o b ta in in g u n fa ir a d v a n ta g e in a
fo ru m p ro v id e d fo r su ito rs se e k in g ju stice .” In re S u p erio r C rew b o a ts, In c. , 3 7 4

F .3 d a t 3 3 4 -3 5

. T h e d e fe n d a n t’s a rg u m e n t fo u n d e rs o n th e first re q u ire m e n t b e ca u se

T W D d id n o t ta k e cle a rly in co n siste n t p o sitio n s. A s e x p la in e d a b o v e , T W D ’s

p la n a n d d isclo su re sta t e m e n t re ta in e d th e rig h t to p u rsu e th e A v o id a n ce

A ctio n s. B e ca u se T W D e x p licitly re ta in e d th e sa m e cla im s a g a in st th e
d e f e n d a n ts th a t th e tru ste e is n o w p u rsu in g , th e re is n o in co n siste n cy in its

p o sitio n

. T h e d istrict co u rt’s h o l d i n g th a t th e tru ste e w a s n o t ju d icia lly

e sto p p e d fro m p u rsu in g th e A v o id a n ce A ctio n s w a s n o t a n a b u se o f d iscre tio n

.

Becaus e we ho l d t h a t the plan and dis clos ure st atem ent suf fic ient ly pr es erved the 3 Avoida nce Acti ons , we need not add res s the Shar ehold er’ s ap p e a l of the bank rup tcy cour t’s alte rnat ive find ing that the conver sio n of the TWD ’s Chapt er 11 bank rup tcy into a Chapt er 7 ba nk rup tcy conf

err ed st andi ng up on the new ly-ap poi nted t rus tee of t he es tat e.

9 Case: 10-10717 Document: 00511546943 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/21/2011No. 10-10717

III. R es J u d ica ta

T h e d e fe n d a n ts a lso a rg u e th a t th e A v o id a n ce A ctio n s a re b a rre d b y re s ju d ica ta b a se d o n th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt’s o rd e r co n firm in g th e p la n

. F o r r e s ju d ica ta to a p p ly : (1 ) th e p a rtie s m u st b e id e n tica l in b o th su its; (2 ) a co u rt o f

co m p e te n t ju risd ictio n m u st h a v e re n d e re d th e p rio r ju d g m e n t; (3 ) th e re m u st

h a v e b e e n a fin a l ju d g m e n t o n th e m e rits in th e p re v io u s d e cisio n ; a n d (4 ) th e

p la in tiff m u st ra ise th e s a m e c a u se o f a ctio n o r cla im in b o th su its. H o w e v

. V a u g h a n (In re H

o w e)

, 9 1 3 F .2 d 1 1 3 8

, 1 1 4 3 -4 4 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). In b a n k ru p tcy

ca se s, th e co n firm a tio n o rd e r is th e first ju d g m e n t. E u b a n k s v

. F ed

. D e p o sit

In s. C o rp

. , 9 7 7 F .2 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 0 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ).

R e s ju d ica ta d o e s n o t a p p ly h e re

. T h e d e fe n d a n ts h a v e n o t p o in te d to a

p rio r fin a l ju d g m e n t o n th e m e rits o f th e A v o id a n ce A ctio n s. “A ju d g m e n t th a t

e x p re ssly le a v e s o p e n th e o p p o rtu n ity t o b r in g a se co n d a ctio n o n sp e cifie d

p a rts o f th e c l a im o r ca u se o f a ctio n th a t w a s a d v a n ce d in th e first a ctio n
sh o u ld b e e ffe ctiv e to fo re sta ll p re clu sio n .” V in es v

. U n iv

. o f L a

. a t M

o n ro e , 3 9 8

F .3 d 7 0 0

, 7 1 2 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). “R e s ju d ica ta d o e s n o t a p p l y w h e re a cla im is

e x p re ssly re se rv e d b y th e litig a n t in th e e a rlie r b a n k r u p t c y p ro ce e d in g .”

B ro w n in g , 2 8 3 F .3 d a t 7 7 4 ; R ies v

. P a ig e (In re P

a ig e)

, 6 1 0 F .3 d 8 6 5

, 8 7 5 (5 th

C ir. 2 0 1 0 ) (h o ld in g th a t a tru ste e ’s cla im w a s b a rre d b y re s ju d ica ta a n d sta tin g

th a t th e tru ste e “co u ld h a v e a sk e d th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt to re se rv e h is fra u d

cla im s fo r la te r a d

ju d ica tio n ,” w h ich w o u ld h a v e a v o id e d h is cla im s b e in g

b a rre d ). T h e co n firm a tio n o rd e r h e re p ro v id e d th a t T W D re ta in e d th e rig h t to

“d e m a n d

, e n fo rce , a n d litig a te E sta te A ctio n s [w h ich in clu d e t h e A v o id a n ce

A ctio n s].” A s th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt h e ld

, “w h e re , a s h e re , a n in te n t to p u rsu e

a cla im p o st-co n firm a tio n h a s b e e n m a n ife ste d in b o th th e co n firm e d p la n a n d

10 Case: 10-10717 Document: 00511546943 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/21/2011No. 10-10717

its a sso cia te d d isclo su re sta te m e n t, th e re s ju d ica ta e ffe ct o f co n firm a tio n

w o u ld n o t

. . . p re clu d e p u rsu it o f th o se cla im s.” S p icer v

. L a

g u n a M a d re O il

& G a s II, L .L .C

. (In re T e x a s W y o m in g D rillin g , In c. ), 4 2 2 B .R

. 6 1 2

, 6 3 6
(B a n k r. N .D

. T e x

. 2 0 1 0 ). T h e co n firm a tio n o rd e r sp e cifica lly le ft o p e n th e

o p p o rtu n ity fo r T W D to b rin g th e cla im s in a se co n d a ctio n , a n d th e cla im s
sh o u ld n o t b e p re clu d e d

. B e ca u se th e co n firm a tio n o rd e r p re se rv e d th e

A v o id a n ce A ctio n s, th e y a re n o t b a rre d b y re s ju d ica ta

. CONCLUSION

The bankr u p t c y court properly denied Laguna’s motion for summary j u dgment because the plan adequately preserved the Avoidance Actions a n d t h e claims were not barred by judicial estoppel or res judicata. We AFFIRM.

11 Case: 10-10717 Document: 00511546943 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/21/2011