
    In the Matter of McCOMMAS LFG PROCESSING PARTNERS, L.P., Debtor. EFO Energy, Inc.; ES Energy Solutions, L.P.; EFO Holdings, L.P.; EFO Genpar, Inc.; McCommas LFG Processing Management, L.L.C.; McCommas Landfill Management, L.L.C., Appellants v. Dan Lain, Liquidating Trustee; Bluff Power Partners, L.P., Appellees.
    No. 10-10400.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 3, 2011.
    Christopher Kent Ralston, Harry A. Rosenberg, Esq., Senior Attorney, Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, James N. Henry, Jr., Hallett & Perrin, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Appellant.
    Tricia Robinson Deleon, Trial Attorney, Janelle Suzanne Forteza Samuel M. Stricklin, Bracewell & Giuliani, L.L.P., Robert W. Jones, Esq., Kristen N. Beall, Brent Ryan Mcllwain, Patton Boggs, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, J. Brett Busby, Brace-well & Giuliani, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Appellee.
    Before KING, DeMOSS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The bankruptcy court did not err in granting the Motion for Order Regarding the Liquidating Trustee’s Assignment of Litigation Claims to Bluff Power Partners and ES Energy Solutions L.P. filed by Dan Lain, Liquidating Trustee (the “Liquidating Trustee”), or in denying the related motion to reconsider, nor did the district court err in affirming the bankruptcy court’s rulings. The Liquidating Trustee’s assignment of the litigation claims at issue is expressly permitted in the Trust Agreement (the “Trust Agreement”) created under the Plan of Liquidation confirmed by the bankruptcy court, in such plan, and in the related confirmation order. The role of the Liquidating Trustee is defined by the Trust Agreement and governed by state law, and the actions he took that are at issue here are assessed under the business judgment rule, which he comfortably satisfies.

The bankruptcy court’s orders of August 18, 2008 and September 24, 2008 are AFFIRMED, as is the district court’s judgment affirming such orders.

AFFIRMED. Costs shall be borne by appellants. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
     