Pacific Mut. Life Ins. v. First Republicbank

Full title: PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. FIRST…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: May 26, 1995

53 F.3d 1409 (5th Cir. 1995)

Opinion

No. 92-1662.

May 26, 1995.

Stewart M. Weltman, Chicago, IL, for appellant.

Scott R. McIntosh and Barbara C. Biddle, Appellate Staff, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for intervenor U.S.

Hannah Berkowitz and James W.B. Benkard, Davis, Polk Wardwell, New York City, for Morgan Stanley Co.

Eldon Olson, Gen. Counsel, New York City and Jon N. Ekdahl, Chicago, IL, for amici Anderson, et al.

James L. Truitt, Hutcheson Grundy, Dallas, TX, for Morgan Stanley Co.

Robert G. Cohen, Kathryn Oberly, Ernest Young; Jonathan M. Hoff, Morton Lee Susman, Weil, Gotshal Manges, New York City, Morton Lee Susman, Weil, Gotshal Manges, Houston, TX, for Ernst Young.

Ernest E. Figari, Jr., Donald Colleluori, Figiari Davenport, Dallas, TX, Theodore Gewertz, Robert B. Mazur, and Claire D. Chappell, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen Katz, New York City, for Saloman Bros.

Marvin S. Sloman, Carrington, Coleman, Sloman Blumenthal, Dallas, TX, and William Norfolk, Theodore Edelman, and Tariq Maudaya, Sullivan Cromwell, New York City, for Goldman Sachs.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Barefoot Sanders, Judge.

Prior report: 806 F.Supp. 108 (N.D.Tex.), ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1789, 131 L.Ed.2d 718, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1789, 131 L.Ed.2d 718.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We reversed the judgment of the district court with opinion at 997 F.2d 39 (5th Cir. 1993), and the Supreme Court affirmed by an equally divided vote. Our mandate has not been issued to the district court. The Supreme Court has now held § 27A(b) to be an unconstitutional breach of separation of powers. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). Under that decision the claims of plaintiff are barred, and the district court would be unable to do more than repeat its prior judgment. Therefore, our opinion and judgment are vacated, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.