tort and equitable claims as well. D. Oklahoma Claims Under the PRSA IC-CO raises tort claims under Oklahoma’s PRSA. IC-CO alleges that these tort claims are a separate issue that was not litigated before. Further, IC-CO argues that none of the statutory defenses apply to these tort claims. J. Aron argues that this claim is barred by collateral estoppel because it was already decided previously by this Court. Even if collateral estoppel does not preclude review, J. Aron argues that the statute has not been violated and it has no application past the first purchaser. The Court finds that collateral estoppel does not apply to IC-CO’s tort claims because the issues are sufficiently separate. See Samson Res. Co. v. SemCrude, L.P. (In re SemCrude, L.P.), 407 B.R. 140, 143 (Bankr.D.Del.2009) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, IC-CO’s tort claims must fail
holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act  against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract holding that claims under 42 usc  1983 are not personal injury tort claims holding that the oklahoma prsa did not create a trust but not evaluating possible tort claims holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act