Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): The bankruptcy court lacks discretion, however, to alter the scope of the assignment. That being so, the bankruptcy court’s order finally assigned the assets to Baum. See, e.g., Poole, 796 F.2d at 321 (stating that a bankruptcy court’s order is final if “further bankruptcy court proceedings would not affect the scope of the order”). Turning to the second criterion, the assignment transferred the only significant assets from the estates. Therefore, the assignment seriously affected the rights of all creditors, including Duckor, to receive payment for their claims. We conclude that the district court did not err by holding that the order was “final” for the purposes of appellate review. Cf. Law Offices of Nicholas A. Franke v. Tiffany (In re Lewis), 113 F.3d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Stone (In re Stone), 6 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that companys president was trustee of trust funds because he had control and direction over the funds (B) holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (C) holding that ncaa was not an indirect recipient of federal funds even though it received dues from schools that received federal funds (D) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (E) holding that an order to disgorge funds was final even though the order did not distribute the funds
Output (English): holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds