MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert L. ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant, 232 F. App'x 427

PER CURIAM: The District Court granted Matsushita Electric Corporation of America(“MECA”)’s motion for partial

summary judgment issuing a declaratory judgment that Robert L. Adams’ claims against MECA are barred by res judicata and issue preclusion; that MECA neither owed nor breached any fiduciary duty to Mr. Adams or Axeess Global Communications of American Group, Axeess Global Commuications Corp. or Axeess USA Corp. (collectively, “Axeess”); and that neither Mr. Adams nor Axeess stated a claim against MECA for securities fraud or lender liability. After considering the parties’ written and oral arguments in light of the record designated for our review, we AFFIRM for the reasons assigned by the District Court:

(1) When Mr. Adams purchased Axcess’s claims against MECA from Axcess’s bankruptcy estate the automatic stay ceased to affect those claims because they were no longer property belonging to that bankruptcy estate.

(2) The claims of Axeess and Mr. Adams against MECA are barred by res judicata because: (

a) MEI and MECA were in privity with each other in the prior Louisiana state court action in which valid final judgments were rendered in their favor against Axeess; (

b) Mr. Adams was in privity with Axeess in that state court action because he was a successor in interest to Axcess’s claims, he appeared in the same capacity as Axeess by claiming damages on behalf of Axeess, he actively participated as a witness and deponent for Axeess in that litigation, and his interests were adequately and virtually represented by Axeess therein; further, he was Axcess’s president, majority shareholder, chairman of its board and chief executive in the activities giving rise to Axcess’s claims asserted in that state court action. (c)Moreover, Mr.

Adams’ personal claims as well as those he purchased from Axcess were based on and arose out of the same transaction that formed the basis of Axcess’ unsuccessful state court action against MEI; and he stood to recover $200 million from the damages sought by Axcess in that state court action.

(3) The remainder of Mr. Adams’s claims were not properly and timely raised and are therefore waived. See Savers Federal Sav. & Loan Assoc’n. v. Reetz, 888 F.2d 1497, 1501 (5th Cir.1989) (“the parties cannot ... advance new theories or raise new issues in order to secure a reversal of the lower court’s grant of

summary judgment.”). For these reasons the judgment of the District Court 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.