action could be barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel). Section 1144 provides a means, within a prescribed time limit, to revoke a confirmation order under limited circumstances. F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank v. Emmer Bros. Co. (In re Emmer Bros. Co.), 52 B.R. 385, 390 (D.Minn.1985). A collateral attack brought outside Section 1144’s strict time limit represents nothing more than an impermissible attempt to enlarge the time limit. See id. at 391 (noting that the Section 1144 time limit cannot be enlarged, and later noting that if an action for fraud is construed as an attempt to revoke the confirmation order, then it is barred by the limitations period in Section 1144). An attempt to revoke a confirmation order in a separate proceeding is a collateral attack on the order. See id. (<HOLDING>). An action which, in effect, attempts to
holding that petitioner could not collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of an agency decision holding that creditors complaint was not an attempt to revoke or otherwise collaterally attack the confirmation order that is subject to the limitations period of section 1144 holding that a habeas petitioner cannot collaterally attack the conviction serving as a predicate for a removal order holding an unsecured creditors postconfirmation suit against a secured creditor for fraudulent misrepresentation at a creditors meeting constituted a collateral attack on the confirmation order holding after comprehensive analysis that the postconfirmation dismissal of a chapter 11 case does not vacate the order of confirmation or revoke the debtors discharge