intentionally as a waiver, releasing the opponent from proof of fact.” Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, whether to treat prior “statements in briefs as binding judicial admissions of fact ... is within [the Court’s] discretion.” City Nat’l Bank v. United States, 907 F.2d 536, 544 (5th Cir.1990). In the SOFA signed by Tauch under oath and filed in the Debtor’s main bankruptcy case, Tauch expressly represented, not only once, but twice, that the MOU was “never consummated.” [Finding of Fact No. 16]. The Court construes Tauch’s representation to be that the MOU was never finalized — i.e., never took effect. And, because the MOU never took effect, it is not an enforceable contract upon which suit can be brought. See Cantu v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins., Co., 579 F.3d 434, 440 (5th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Romero v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2015 WL 265057,
holding funds received by plaintiff from an insurance policy that was procured by the defendant and for which a premium was paid are not a collateral source holding that district judge did not err in declining to apply a control premium where party advocating application of such a premium did not prove existence of prospective buyer who was willing to pay a premium holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract holding that no binding insurance contract took effect because the initial premium was not paid holding insurers uim offer was ineffectual when it offered no premium price and was on a form that failed to comply with department of insurance guidelines