Case Name: In the Matter of: BP RE, L.P., Debtor. BP RE, L.P., Appellant, v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C.; RML-McLarty-Landers Automotive Holdings, L.L.C; RML Waxahachie Ford, L.L.C; RML Waxahachie GMC, L.L.C.; RLJ-McLarty-Landers Automotive Group, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-28
Citations: 744 F.3d 1371
Docket Number: Nos. 12-51270, 12-51279
Parties: In the Matter of: BP RE, L.P., Debtor. BP RE, L.P., Appellant, v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C.; RML-McLarty-Landers Automotive Holdings, L.L.C; RML Waxahachie Ford, L.L.C; RML Waxahachie GMC, L.L.C.; RLJ-McLarty-Landers Automotive Group, Appellees.
Judges: Before SMITH, GARZA, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 508
Pages: 1371–1373

Head Matter:
In the Matter of: BP RE, L.P., Debtor. BP RE, L.P., Appellant, v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C.; RML-McLarty-Landers Automotive Holdings, L.L.C; RML Waxahachie Ford, L.L.C; RML Waxahachie GMC, L.L.C.; RLJ-McLarty-Landers Automotive Group, Appellees.
Nos. 12-51270, 12-51279.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 28, 2014.
Kevin James Terrazas (argued), Esq., Weisbart Springer Hayes, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Appellant.
Lyndel Anne Mason, Esq., Senior Counsel, Cavazos, Hendricks, Poirot & Smit-ham, P.C., Rodney Lawrence Poirot, Michael Wayne Sebesta, Cavazos, Hendricks, Poirot & Smitham, P.C., Dallas, TX, Rodney Fred Page (argued), Esq., U.S. Attorney, Washington, DC, Brian Christopher Walsh, Esq., Bryan Cave, L.L.P., Saint Louis, MO, for Appellees.
Stephen W. Sather, Barron, Newburger & Sinsley, P.L.L.C., Austin, TX, for Ami-cus Curiae, Commercial Law League of America.
Before SMITH, GARZA, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
. Judge E. Grady Jolly concurs only to the extent that he considers it imprudent to enforce the panel’s opinion in light of the anticipated opinion of the Supreme Court in Executive Benefits.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The court having been polled at the request of one of its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed. R.App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. 35), the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.
In the en banc poll, 6 judges voted in favor of rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges Jolly, Davis, Dennis, Graves, and Higginson), and 8 judges voted against rehearing (Judges Jones, Smith, Clement, Prado, Owen, Elrod, Southwiek, and Haynes).