a party to the reorganization proceedings in federal court, although not “formally named” as such, by “participating” and being “actively involved in the reorganization proceedings.” 742 F.2d 862, 867-68, 870 (5th Cir.1984). On that basis, because he had been a party to the earlier reorganization proceeding, we held that he was barred by res judicata from challenging the transfer of the company’s real property to its former lender as part of the Chapter 10 reorganization in a later state court action (arising from the same conduct) he brought against the former lender and new owner of the company’s real estate holdings. Id. at 870. The present case is similar in principle: Ríes, on behalf of the estate, actively pursued the sanctions against Paige by filing with the bankruptcy co 002) (<HOLDING>); In re Baudoin, 981 F.2d at 742 (“[o]rder
holding that a bankruptcy courts sale order is a final order for res judicata purposes holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment holding that an unappealed contempt order by a bankruptcy court is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes