                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                           FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                           _____________________

                                No. 99-20260
                           _____________________



In The Matter Of:    APPLETREE MARKETS, INC.,

                                                                         Debtor.
---------------------------

CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST
AREAS PENSION FUND,


                                                Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

                                     versus

LONG-TERM CREDIT BANK OF JAPAN, LTD.,

                                        Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Southern District of Texas
                          (H-98-CV-3163)
_________________________________________________________________
                          April 10, 2000

Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*


     After     reviewing     the    record,   studying   the    briefs,     and

considering the points made by counsel at oral argument, we agree

with the bankruptcy court, as affirmed by the district court, that

the release provided under the Plan is effective to preclude the

claims   Central    States    now    attempts   to   raise     against    LTCB.

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Furthermore,   Central   States   is   entitled   to   no   relief   under

Bankruptcy Rule 9024 on the basis that the bankruptcy court acted

in excess of its authority or jurisdiction in discharging the

liability of a third party. At best, the bankruptcy court’s orders

in this respect are voidable, not void, and as such can not be

collaterally attacked in this proceeding.     See Republic Supply Co.

v. Shoaf, 815 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir. 1987);      In re Edwards, 962 F.2d

641, 644 (7th Cir. 1992);   11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 2862, at pp. 322-32 (1995).

     We thus conclude that the judgment of the district court,

affirming the judgment of the bankruptcy granting summary judgment

for LTCB, should be, and the same is

                                                       A F F I R M E D.1




    1
     The judgment of the district court, affirming the judgment of
the bankruptcy court, denying LTCB’s request for attorney’s fees
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1401 & 1451 is AFFIRMED.




                                   2
