Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01094/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01094-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1094

___________

IN RE: ROCK AIRPORT OF PITTSBURGH, LLC, 

Debtor

ROCK FERRONE,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-14-cv-01456)

District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 20, 2015

Before: FUENTES, SHWARTZ and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 22, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Rock Ferrone appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Pennsylvania (“the District Court”) dismissing as moot his appeal of 

two orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1094 Document: 003112213103 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2016
2

Pennsylvania (“the Bankruptcy Court”). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the 

judgment of the District Court. 

Because we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts, we 

will not recite them except as necessary to the discussion. This appeal arises out of

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings involving Rock Ferrone, the sole owner of Rock 

Airport of Pittsburgh, LLC (“Rock Airport” or “the Debtor”). Ferrone is also the sole 

shareholder of K-Cor, Inc., (“K-Cor”) a Pennsylvania company that designs, 

manufactures, and sells newspaper equipment. 

In April 2009, Rock Airport filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 

of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court. In April 2013, Natalie Lutz Cardiello 

(“Cardiello” or “the Trustee”) was appointed to serve as Trustee over the Rock Airport 

bankruptcy estate. Thereafter, Cardiello filed in the Bankruptcy Court a motion seeking 

an order approving the sale of the Debtor’s assets to Alaskan Property Management 

Company, LLC (“Alaskan”). Listed among those assets was a building and a parcel of 

land located at 1000 Rockpointe Boulevard, at Rock Airport, in Tarentum, Pennsylvania 

(“the Rock Built Parcel”).

Ferrone objected to Cardiello’s motion to approve the sale to Alaskan, arguing that 

K-Cor was, in fact, the owner of the Rock Port Parcel and that, as a result, the property

should not be included in the asset sale. In order to resolve the disputed ownership of the 

Rock Built Parcel, the Bankruptcy Court held an evidentiary hearing to determine 

Case: 15-1094 Document: 003112213103 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2016
3

K-Cor’s alleged ownership of the property. Following the evidentiary hearing, and after 

entertaining additional briefing on the issue, the Bankruptcy Court issued a final ruling on 

September 10, 2014, determining that all of the credible evidence and testimony 

demonstrated that the Debtor owned the Rock Built Parcel. In so holding, the 

Bankruptcy Court noted that K-Cor had failed to demonstrate that an agreement to 

convey the property from Rock Airport to K-Cor had ever existed. Nor had K-Cor 

produced evidence which might have otherwise suggested its ownership of the property 

(e.g., that it had insured the property or paid the property taxes).

Shortly thereafter, in a September 16, 2014 order, the Bankruptcy Court approved

the sale of the Debtor’s assets to Alaskan. The Court noted in its opinion that it had 

determined that Alaskan was a good faith purchaser, that the process complied with the 

applicable bankruptcy rules and code provisions, and that the sale was in the interest of 

the Debtor’s estate. Several days later, Ferrone filed in the Bankruptcy Court an 

emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. After holding a hearing on Ferrone’s 

emergency motion, the Bankruptcy Court denied a stay. On September 30, 2014, the 

Trustee and Alaskan closed on the sale of the Debtor’s assets, which included the Rock 

Built Parcel.

Ferrone timely appealed to the District Court the Bankruptcy Court’s September 

10, 2014 order (ruling that the Debtor owned Rock Built Parcel) as well as its September 

Case: 15-1094 Document: 003112213103 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2016
4

16, 2014 order (approving the sale of the Debtor’s assets to Alaskan).1 The Trustee 

argued that the appeal was moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m). Upon review, the District 

Court entered an order dismissing Ferrone’s appeal as moot. This appeal followed.2

We have jurisdiction over Ferrone’s appeal from the District Court’s order 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. Our review over the District Court’s legal 

conclusions is plenary, see In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., 679 F.3d 132, 139 (3d Cir. 

2012), and we review findings of fact for clear error. See In re Marvel Entm’t Grp, Inc., 

140 F.3d 463, 470 (3d Cir. 1998). 

Sales in bankruptcy are governed by the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 363 which, 

inter alia, authorize the trustee, after notice and a hearing, to use, sell, or lease property 

of a debtor’s estate. 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1). Property of the estate includes “all legal or 

equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” 

11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). To promote certainty and finality with respect to such sales, as 

well as to encourage parties to bid for assets in bankruptcy cases, § 363(m) prohibits the 

reversal of a sale to a good faith purchaser of bankruptcy estate property, 11 U.S.C. § 

363(b)(1), if a party fails to obtain a stay of the sale. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(m);

3 Cinicola 

 

1 We note that the Bankruptcy Court issued a separate order on September 16, 2014, 

approving the Trustee’s Amended Disclosure Statement as well as her Chapter 11 Plan.

However, Ferrone did not appeal that separate order to the District Court.

2 Ferrone did not obtain a stay of the sale from the District Court or this Court either.

3 The statute provides that “[t]he reversal or modification on appeal of an authorization 

. . . of a sale or lease of property does not affect the validity of a sale or lease under such 

Case: 15-1094 Document: 003112213103 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/22/2016
5

v. Scharffenberger, 248 F.3d 110, 121-22 (3d Cir. 2001). In interpreting that provision, 

we previously determined that the following two conditions must be satisfied before an 

appeal may be dismissed as moot under § 363(m): (1) the sale was not stayed pending 

appeal, and (2) reversal or modification of the Bankruptcy Court’s authorization would 

affect the validity of the sale. See Cinicola, 248 F.3d at 128; Krebs Chrysler-Plymouth v. 

Valley Motors, Inc., 141 F.3d 490, 499 (3d Cir. 1998).

Having reviewed the record and the arguments on appeal, we conclude that the 

District Court correctly determined that Ferrone’s appeal had been rendered moot under 

§ 363(m). Although he sought a stay pending appeal, Ferrone was unsuccessful in

securing one. Additionally, despite his repeated assertion that Alaskan did not purchase 

the Debtor’s assets in good faith, we agree with the District Court that there is no 

evidence upon which to conclude that Alaskan was not a good-faith purchaser, or that 

Cardiello and Alaskan acted in bad faith. We further agree that the remedies sought by 

Ferrone on appeal—that K-Cor be deemed the owner of Rock Built Parcel, and that the 

sale of Rock Airport’s assets to Alaskan be voided—would inevitably undermine the 

validity of the sale. As a result, the District Court correctly dismissed Ferrone’s appeal as

moot.

4

 

authorization to an entity that purchased or leased such property in good faith, whether or 

not such entity knew of the pendency of the appeal, unless such authorization and such 

sale or lease were stayed pending appeal.

4 We also agree, for the reasons identified by the District Court—and assuming without 

deciding that such a claim was cognizable—that there was no basis upon which to 

Case: 15-1094 Document: 003112213103 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/22/2016
6

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Ferrone’s

request for oral argument is denied.

 

conclude that Ferrone’s due process rights had been violated during relevant proceedings 

before the Bankruptcy Court.

Case: 15-1094 Document: 003112213103 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/22/2016