OPINION

Because we write solely for the benefit of the parties, we do not recount the facts giving rise to this appeal. We note merely that the underlying dispute involves the *274 alleged breach of a $4 million unsecured revolving line of credit and cash management facility and a $2 million secured equipment line of credit extended by Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company (“M&T”) 1 to CCI Construction Company (“CCI”).

CCI initiated this lender liability action against M&T after successfully completing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of M&T on the basis of the Court’s conclusion that because CCI failed to disclose (or pursue) M&T’s alleged liability during the course of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, it was equitably estopped from pursuing the claim after the bankruptcy. We review the District Court’s conclusion de novo, Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 231 (3d Cir. 2001), and for the reasons stated below affirm its judgment. 2

As the District Court concluded, this case is controlled by Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 848 F.2d 414 (3d Cir. 1988). 3 There we held that “[i]n order to preserve the requisite reliability of disclosure statements [in bankruptcy proceedings] and to provide assurances to creditors regarding the finality of plans [of reorganization] which they have voted to approve, ... under the facts ... presented] Oneida’s failure to announce [its] claim against a creditor [during its bankruptcy proceedings] preclude[d] it from litigating the cause of action .... ” Id. at 418. The undisputed (or undisputable) facts before us render this case factually indistinguishable from Oneida in any material way. Thus we reach the same result — CCI’s actions make it equitably estopped from litigating lender liability claims against M&T.

There is no dispute that CCI failed to disclose its potential claim against M&T during its bankruptcy case notwithstanding that it was well aware of the significant likelihood that it would pursue such a claim. 4 Oneida and subsequent precedent leave no doubt of CCI’s obligation to make such a disclosure. M&T negotiated several aspects of the bankruptcy case proceedings, ultimately compromising in many (if not most) instances and voting to confirm CCI’s reorganization plan under the assumption that confirmation would yield a *275 final peace. M&T took steps to validate this assumption; the record demonstrates that it successfully sought clarification of certain ambiguous provisions in the plan that could have been construed to preserve claims against it. M&T voted in favor of the plan only after that clarification was secured.

On the basis of these facts, there can be no dispute that Oneida controls. For the reasons described in the District Court’s thorough opinion, Oneida demands the conclusion that CCI is equitably estopped from pursuing its claim against M&T. We thus affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of M&T.