In a challenge to a confirmed Chapter 11 reorganization plan, the confirmation of the plan is affirmed in part where: 1) certain noteholders did not preserve their challenge to the plan’s treatment of their secured claims; and 2) the plan did not create a substantive consolidation. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the equitable mootness doctrine did not bar review of issues raised on appeal concerning the treatment of noteholders’ secured claims, it did not bar re-evaluation of whether their administrative priority claim was correctly calculated, and it did not bar review of the plan’s release clauses insulating multiple parties from liability; and 2) the bankruptcy court may have made a mathematical error and deprived noteholders of a post-petition administrative priority claim.
Read In the Matter of: Pac. Lumber Co., No. 08-40746
Appellate Information
Filed September 29, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Jones
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
