FCR Guardian Trust, et al v. Lothian Oil, Inc., No. 10-50764 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 10-50764 Document: 00511381784 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED February 14, 2011 No. 10-50764 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk IN THE MATTER OF: LOTHIAN OIL INCORPORATED, Debtor --------------------------------------------------------------------FCR GUARDIAN TRUST; MYG TRUST; HERZBERG FAMILY TRUST; YYSD TRUST; FEINBERG FAMILY TRUST; SPITZER FAMILY TRUST; MOSES FAMILY TRUST; BRENDA CRAYK; HIRSHBERG FAMILY TRUST; EDMOND BALAKHANE JG TRUST; ALBERT BALAKHANE; S. POLLAK AUDIOLOGICAL P.C. PROFIT SHARING PLAN, Appellants v. LOTHIAN OIL, INC., Jointly Administered Cases Lothian Oil (USA), Incorporated, Lothian Oil Texas I, Incorporated, Lothian Oil Texas II, Incorporated, Lothian Oil Investments I, Incorporated, Lothian Oil Investments II, Incorporated, LeaD I JVGP, Incorporated, Appellee Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No.7:09-CV-71 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. Case: 10-50764 Document: 00511381784 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2011 No. 10-50764 PER CURIAM:* On this appeal, Appellants challenge the bankruptcy court s entry of summary judgment ordering pro rata distribution of the funds of the debtor, Lothian Oil, Inc. ( Lothian ), to holders of Lothian s preferred stock. Appellants make this challenge despite the fact that they took a contrary position in the bankruptcy court when they urged the court to make the pro rata distribution at the summary judgment hearing. Appellants apparently hired a different attorney to appeal the summary judgment entered by the bankruptcy court. The district court, in a straightforward order, affirmed the bankruptcy court s order and rejected replacement counsel s argument that Appellants other attorney was not authorized to argue in favor of the proposed distribution. The record contains no support for replacement counsel s contention. We agree with the district court that this argument is unsupported and without merit. We also agree with the district court that Appellants are barred on appeal by the doctrine of judicial estoppel from making arguments contrary to the position they took during the summary judgment proceedings in the bankruptcy court. For these reasons and the reasons assigned by the district court, the district court s order is 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. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
