F.2d 1138, 1143-44 (5th Cir.1990). In bankruptcy cases, the confirmation order is the first judgment. Eubanks v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 977 F.2d 166, 170 (5th Cir.1992). Res judicata does not apply here. The defendants have not pointed to a prior final judgment on the merits of the Avoidance Actions. “A judgment that expressly leaves open the opportunity to bring a second action on specified parts of the claim or cause of action that was advanced in the first action should be effective to forestall preclusion.” Vines v. Univ. of La. at Monroe, 398 F.3d 700, 712 (5th Cir.2005). “Res judicata does not apply where a claim is expressly reserved by the litigant in the earlier bankruptcy proceeding.” Browning, 283 F.3d at 774; Ries v. Paige (In re Paige), 610 F.3d 865, 875 (5th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). The confirmation order here provided that TWD
holding that the plaintiffs claims were barred by res judicata when the federal courts judgment was finalized by denial of his petition for certiorari holding that a trustees claim was barred by res judicata and stating that the trustee could have asked the bankruptcy court to reserve his fraud claims for later adjudication which would have avoided his claims being barred holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action holding that collateral attacks on bankruptcy courts jurisdiction are barred by res judicata holding that lender liability claims are noncore and thus not barred by res judicata effect of bankruptcy proceedings