Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): JT & T parties also appeal the district court’s order reversing the bankruptcy court’s denial of Hyundai’s motion to lift the automatic stay. II. ANALYSIS A. Appellate Standing Hyundai contends that the JT & T parties lack appellate standing to appeal either the district court’s order granting Hyundai’s request for derivative standing or its order granting Hyundai’s motion to lift the automatic stay. Specifically, Hyundai argues that the JT & T parties lack standing under the prudential doctrine of “appellate standing” that applies only in the bankruptcy context. Under that doctrine, which is “more limited than Article III standing or the prudential requirements associated therewith,” standing to appeal a bankruptcy order is limited to “person[s] Co.), 146 F.3d 420, 423 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Squire v. Scher (In re Squire), 282 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added (B) holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal (C) holding that shareholders of debtor corporation lacked appellate standing to appeal bankruptcy courts order awarding insurance proceeds to trustee (D) holding that creditor did not have actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing where the debtor informed creditor of the possibility that a bankruptcy case would be filed (E) holding that creditor lacked appellate standing to appeal order of bankruptcy court absent permission of bankruptcy court
Output (English): holding that shareholders of debtor corporation lacked appellate standing to appeal bankruptcy courts order awarding insurance proceeds to trustee