Case Name: In the Matter of HALLWOOD ENERGY L.P., Debtor. Ray Balestri, Trustee of the Hallwood Energy I Creditors' Trust, as Successor in Interest to Hallwood Energy L.P., Plaintiff-Appellee, Hall Phoenix/Inwood L.T.D., Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The Hallwood Group Incorporated, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-07
Citations: 520 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 12-10553
Parties: In the Matter of HALLWOOD ENERGY L.P., Debtor. Ray Balestri, Trustee of the Hallwood Energy I Creditors’ Trust, as Successor in Interest to Hallwood Energy L.P., Plaintiff-Appellee, Hall Phoenix/Inwood L.T.D., Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The Hallwood Group Incorporated, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 497
Pages: 257–257

Head Matter:
In the Matter of HALLWOOD ENERGY L.P., Debtor. Ray Balestri, Trustee of the Hallwood Energy I Creditors’ Trust, as Successor in Interest to Hallwood Energy L.P., Plaintiff-Appellee, Hall Phoenix/Inwood L.T.D., Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The Hallwood Group Incorporated, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10553.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 7, 2013.
Frank Jennings Wright, Wright Ginsberg Brusilow, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lisa Staler Gallerano, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Frank Jennings Wright, for Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Steven Werbner, E. Sawyer Neely, William S. Snyder, Sayles Werbner, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This dispute, ultimately decided in bankruptcy proceedings, arose from agreements entered into for oil exploration. The defendant appeals a large damage award based variously on theories including breach of contract, fraud, and tortious interference with contract. The bankruptcy court issued a lengthy opinion, containing findings and conclusions, with which the district court largely agreed in affirming.
We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and pertinent portions of the record. The judgment works no injustice under the facts as shown, and, expressing no view on the specific reasoning of the bankruptcy and district courts in view of the arguments presented, we find no reversible error.
AFFIRMED.
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.