EL ECTRONI C CI TATI ON: 2006 FE D App. 0006P (6th Cir.) File Na me: 06b0006p.06
BA NK RU P TC Y A P P ELLA TE P AN EL OF THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
I n re UNI TED PRODUCERS, I NC. and PRODUCERS CREDI T CORP.,

De bto rs
.

_________________________________________________ G.E. CATTL E CO., GERAL D and NA NCY EGGERL I

NG, J AMES and MARCEL L A EGGERL I NG, EGGERL I

NG F ARMS, I

NC., R L FI

NANCI AL , I

NC., RI CK and DIANE KU CHTA, KUCHTA F ARMS, I NC., RANDY OERTWI CH d/b/a Oertwic h Fa rms, I nc., CU RRE YS O F NE B RA SKA , I NC ., PRO DU CER S L I VESTOCK CREDI T CORP., and HARRY HAYES, Ap pe lla nts ,

v. No. 05-8077
UNI TED PRODUCERS, I NC. and PRODUCERS CREDI T CORP., Ap pe lle e s.

_________________________________________________

Appea l from the United States B ankruptc y Court for the Souther

n District of Ohio, Easte rn Division. Nos. 05-55272 and 05- 55273, J ointly Administered
Submit ted: Aug ust 18, 2006
Dec ided and F iled: October 6, 2006
B e fo re : G REG G, PAR SON S, a nd WHI PPL E, B ank

ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l Judg e s.2 ____________________ CO UN SEL
O N B RI E F: Jame s F

. Cann , DO MI NA L AW GR OU P, Om aha , N e br a sk a , f or Ap pe lla nts . Ph ili p F. Dow ney , Randall D. L aTour, V ORYS, SATER, S EYMOUR & PEASE, Col umbus, Ohio, for Ap pe lle e s.

____________________ OP IN ION

____________________ MARCI A PHI L L I PS P ARSONS, Bankr uptcy Appellate Panel J udg e. Presently befor e the Ba nkruptcy Appellate Pane l (“B AP”) is the Appellee s’ motion for an or der dismissing this appe al of the ba nkruptcy court’s pla

n confirmation or ders beca use of equitable mootness. For the re asons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED a nd this appeal is her eby

DI SMI SSED.
I. ISS UE
Th e iss ue be fo re the Pane l is wh e the r t he Pane l c an g ra

nt e ff e c tiv e re lie f t o th e Ap pe lla nts in this appeal without aff ectingthe s u cc es s o f the Appellee s’ substantially consummated plan or the rig hts of third parties not bef ore the court.
II. JU RI SDI CT ION
The B AP has jurisdiction to decide this appea l. The United S t at es District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has a uthorized appea ls to the BA P, and a fina l order of the bankr

uptcy

c ourt may be a

pp e a le d by ri g ht un de r 28 U. S.C. § 1 58 (a )( 1) . A n o rd e r, fo r t he purp os e of

an a pp e a l, is final if it “ends the litigation on the merits and leave s nothing for the cour t to do but ex ecute the judgme nt.” Midland Asphalt Cor p. v. United States , 489 U. S. 794, 798, 109 S. C t. 1494, 1497 (1989). The bankruptc y

court’s or ders ove rruling the Appe l l an t s ’ objections and c onfirming the Appellee s’ j oint plan are final or ders. See Sanders Confectionary Prods., Inc. v. Heller Fin., Inc ., 973 F.2d 474, 480 ( 6th Cir. 1992) (“Confirmation of a plan of r eo rga n i z at i o n constitutes a final judgme nt in bankruptcy

proce eding s.”).3 III . F AC TS AND P ROCEDURAL HISTORY
United Produce rs, I nc. (“U PI ”) is an ag ricultural c ooperative that provides fa rm financ ing thr o u g h it s s u

b s id ia r y Pr o d u c e r s Cr e d it

Co r p
. ( “ PC C” )

. B o th

e n ti ti e s f il e d f o r b an kr u p tc y relief under c hapter

11 on April 1, 2005; their bankr uptcy case s were jointly

administered; and they

filed a joint, a nd subsequently amende d, plan of re org anization. The Appellants, holder s of pre petition jud g me nts a g a ins t U PIin t he a pp ro xima te a mount

of $1 7 mi lli on

fo r f ra ud , b re a c h o f c on tr a c t,

c on ve rs ion , a

nd Pa c ke rs and

Sto c ky ard s Ac t vio la tio ns ari sin g ou t of c a ttl e mark e tin g , o bje c te d to the amende d plan on numerous g rounds, includi n g t h e as s ertions t hat the plan ha d not been proposed in good fa ith, failed to provide them with more than they would rec eive in a liquidation under c hapter

7, was not fe asible, a n d o t h er wi s e was not fa ir and e quitable with respe ct to the Ap pe lla nts ’ c la ss o f c la ims . 1 1 U .S. C. § 11 29 (a )( 3) , (7 ), (1 1) & (b )( 1) a nd (2 ). Th e Ap pe lla

nts a lso objected on the basis that the continuanc e of U PI ’s cur rent mana g ement, due to their pre petition misconduct which led to A ppellants’ judgme nts, w as inconsistent w ith the interests of cre ditors and equity secur ity holders and w ith public policy . 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(5) (A).
After a confirmation he aring on September 28 a nd 29, 2005, the bankr

uptcy court e ntere d an orde r on September

30, 2005, finding that the amende d plan met all the conf irmation standards of the B ankruptc y

Code and dire cting the submission of a s eparate c onfirmation orde r. Subsequently , on October 6, 2005, the court enter ed an order confirming the amende d plan. The Appellants timely appea led both the September 30 and October 6, 2005 orde rs (“ Confirmation Orde rs”) , but did not seek a stay of the orde rs.
On No ve mbe r 21, 20 05 , the c ha pte r 11 de bto rs , th e Ap pe lle e s h e re in, mov e d to dis mis s th is

a pp e a l a s e qu ita

bly moo t. T he y

a sse rt e d th a t th e c on fi rm e d plan ha s b e e n s ub sta nti a lly

c on su mmate d a

nd that th e re ve rs a l of

the Con fi rm a tio n O rd e rs a s soug ht by the Ap pe lla

nts wo uld both adver s ely

aff ect third pa

rties not befor e the c ourt and the suc cess of the consummated pla

n. B e c a us e the Ap pe lla

nts dis pu te d the se c on te nti on s, thi s Pane l on F e br ua ry 27 , 20 06 , r e mand e d th is

c a se to t he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt fo r a de te rm inatio n o f w he the r t he pla n h a s been

su bs tanti a lly consummated a

nd the ex tent of any

relianc e by

third parties upon the steps taken to implement the plan. See In re Hamady B ros. Food Mkts., Inc ., 110 B.R. 815, 818-19 ( E.D. Mich. 1990) ( rema nd4

a pp ro pr ia te wh e re fa c tua l disp ute s existe d as to w he the r p os t- c on fi rm a tio n p lan tr ans a c tio ns c ou ld be undone a

nd if the intere sts of third parties would be impair ed by doing so)

. On July 6, 20 06 , a ft e r a

n e vid e nti ary

he ari ng on J un e 29 , 2 00 6, a t w hic h th e so le wi tne ss was De nnis Bolling, pr esident and c hief e x ecutive of fice r of both Appe llees, the ba nkruptcy court enter ed an or der entitled “Supplemental F indings a nd Conclusions Rega

rding Orde r of Rema

nd of the B ankruptc y

Appellate Pane l.” The c ourt conc luded in the orde r that “the Amended Plan ha s been substantially

consummated” and “innoc ent t h ird parties ha ve re lied on the sig nificant steps take n to imp le me nt t

he Am e nd e d Plan to the ir

de tr ime nt. ” Up on

the tr ans mit ta l of

tha t or de r t o th is Panel, we enter ed an order g iving the parties an opportunity to f ile supplemental brief

s reg arding the Appellee s’ motion to dis miss. S uch brie fs have now bee n filed.
IV . D ISC USS ION “Applied pr incipally

in b an kruptcy

proce eding s beca

use of the e quitable nature of ba nk ru ptc y jud g me nts ,” the do c tr ine of e qu ita ble moo tne ss h a s b e e n d e sc ri be d a s a “ pr a g ma tic principle, g rounded in the notion that, with the passa g e of ti m e after a judg ment in equity and implementation of t hat j udg ment, eff ective r elief on a

ppeal be comes imprac tical, imprudent, and there fore inequitable.” MA C Pa ne l Co . v
. Vi rg ini a Pa ne l Co rp ., 283 F.3d 622, 625 ( 4th Cir. 2002). I n the contex t of a confirme d chapte r 11 pl an, application of the “doc trine see ks to prevent pa rties from upsetting a plan of reor g anization onc e it is well underway .” In re Ar bo rs o f H ou sto n A sso c s. L td. P’ sh ip , 1 72 F.3d 47 ( Table) , 1999 WL 17649 (6th Cir. J an. 4, 1999). I n this circuit, an

a p p e ll a te c o u rt a s k e d

to d is mi s s a na

p p e a l f o r e qu it a b le mo o tn e s s mu s t c o n s id e r th e f o llowing fa c to rs : ( 1) wh e the r a

sta y ha s b e e n o bta ine d; ( 2) wh e the r t he pla n h a s b e e n s ub sta

nti a lly consummated; a n d (3) most importantly , whether the re lief re quested would a ffe ct the rig hts of parties not bef

ore the court or the succe ss of the plan. In re Am. Hom ePatient , Inc ., 420 F.3d 559, 563-64 (6th Cir. 2005) (a d o p t i n g fa ctors espouse d by the Fif th Circuit in In re M

anges , 29 F.3d 1034 (5th Cir. 1994)). Apply ing the se fa ctors, it is undisputed that no stay of t he Confirmation Orde rs was soug ht by the Ap pe lla

nts . In th e ir su

pp le me nta l br ie f o pp os ing the dis mis sa l mo tio n, the Ap pe lla nts state5

that a sta y wa s “ an imp os sib ili ty fo r the a pp e a lin g pa

rt ie s in vie w o f t he c os t of a bo nd .” Re g a rd le ss of the a ccur acy

of this assertion, the Appe llants corre ctly point out that “the fa ilure to seek a stay

. . . is not nece ssarily fata l to the appellant’ s ability to proce ed.” In re Am . HomePatient , Inc ., 420 F.3d at 564 (quoting City of Cov ing ton v . Co v ing ton Lan din g Lt d. P’ sh ip , 7 1 F .3 d 1 22 1, 12 25 (6 th Cir. 1995)). Re qu e sti nga sta y is n ot a mand a tor

y ste p c omp ara

ble to f ili nga tim e ly no tic e of a

pp e a l. Th e sig nif

ic anc e of an a

pp lic a tio n fo r a sta

y lie s in t he op po rt un ity it affor ds to hold thi ng s in stasis, to prevent relianc e on the plan of re org anization while the appe al proc eeds. . . . And, it is the reliance inter es t s engende red by the pla n, c ou ple d wi th the dif

fic ult yof r e v e rsi ng

thec rit ic al t

ra ns ac tio ns , th at c ou ns e ls ag ain st a tte mp ts to u nwi nd

thi ng s o n a pp e al. City of Covington , 7 1 F. 3 d at 1 2 2 6 (q u o t i n g In re UNR Indus., Inc

. , 20 F.3d 766, 769- 770 (7th Cir. 1994)).
The sec ond fac tor, whethe r the plan ha s been substantially consummated, wa s disputed by the Ap pe lla

nts wh e n th e Ap pe lle e s f

ir st f ile d th e ir mot ion to d ism iss . H ow e ve r, the Ap pe lla nts ’ supplemental brief

does not addre ss the issue, and the bankruptcy court noted in its J uly

6, 2006 order that the Appellants c oncede d substantial consummation of t he plan during the J une 29, 2006

e vid e nti ary

he ari ng . N otw ith sta

nd ingAp pe lla

nts ’ c on c e ssi on , the ba

nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s or de r d e ta ils in twenty numbere d para g raphs “ the most significa nt actions” take n by

the debtors to implement the plan duringthe ni ne mont hs betwee n the entry of t he Confirmation Orde rs and the e videntiary h e ar i n g
. T h e s e a c t i o n s i n c l u d e t h e t e r m i n a t i o nan d i s s u an c e o f n e w m e mb e r s h i p i n t e r e s t s i nU P I; the c oll e c tio n b y

UPI of $4 95 ,0 00 in ne w me mbe rs hip fe e s a nd $4 00 ,0 00 in n e w p e r u

nit re ta ins ; the liq uid a tio n and dis so lut ion of the re la te d e nti ty UPH C, L L C, wh ic h pe rm itt e d th e tr ans fe r t o U PI of 14 par cels of r eal pr operty and ca pital stock; the canc ellation of UPI ’s 100 share s of common stock in PCC and the issuanc e of 100 ne w share s; the canc ellation of 208 share s of PCC’s prefer red stock held by

Southern Sta t es C ooperative, I nc.; the closing and fundingof exit financing by CoB ank in t he a mou nt o f $ 75 mil lio n, se c ur e d b y UPI ’s ne w sto c k in

PCC a nd va ri ou s mo rt g a g e s, permitting the Appellee s to pa y off the debtor-in- possession loa n and fund pla

n distributions ; the settlement of a $5 million clai m aga i n s t t h e Appe llees and f inal distribution on t hat claim; plan distribution t o priority

and g ener al unsec ured c reditors whic h “re prese nt[ ed] the distributi on of6

a pp ro xima te ly

a ll of the re ma ini ng ba lanc e in the po ol .

. . e sta bli sh e d to pa

y c la ims ; and

the sa le by UPIof its West P lains, Missouri facility

. The B ankruptc y

Code define s “substant ial consummation” as “ (A) tr ansfe r of a ll or substantially

all of the prope rty

proposed by

the plan to be transfe rre d; (B) assumption by the debtor

o r b y t he succ essor to the de btor under the plan of the business or of the mana g ement of a ll or substantially

all of the proper

ty dealt with by the plan; and (C) c ommenceme nt of distribution under the plan.” 11 U .S.C. § 1101(2). The Appe llees ar g ue in their supplementa l brief that the e vidence produce d at the hea

ring establish that all three of these e lements have been satisfied. They note that “all prope rty

contemplated to be transfe rre d by the P lan has be en tra nsfer red; that “ the debtors unde r t h e P l an h av e assumed the businesses and the ma nag ement of a ll property

not to be transfe rre d under the plan”; and that “distribution under the Plan not only has been commence d but in f act ha s completed.” As noted, the Appe llants do not dispute these contentions in their supplemental brie f and it appea

rs from a compar ison of the plan with the finding s of fa ct set for th in the bankruptcy court’s July

6, 2006 order

that the Appellee s are corr ect.
Th e pr ima

ry po int of c on te nti on

and the “ mos t im

po rt ant f a c tor ” in the e qu ita

ble moo tne ss analy sis a ccor ding to the Six th Circ uit Court of Appea ls is whether the re lief re quested would a ffe ct either the rig hts of parties not bef ore the court or the succe ss of the p l an
. See I n re Am. HomeP atient , Inc ., 42 0 F .3 d at 56 4. Th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt in i ts Jul y

6, 20 06 or de r a

ns we re d b oth

o f these que stions in t he af firmative. The court noted that both of the Appellee s have c ontinued the ir bu sin e ss o pe ratio ns and

“ pro vi de e sse nti a l se rv ic e s to a pp ro xima te ly

68 ,0 00 [] thir d p a rt ie s, pr ima ri ly fa rm e rs and me a t process in g co mpa

nie s. ” Ac c or din g to t

he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt , th e e xit financ ing utilized by

the Appellee s would be in j eopar dy if confir mation of their joint plan wer e
re ve rs e d an d th e re wo uld be no wa

y fo r A pp e lle e s to c on tin

ue pa y me nts that are du e to

a pp r o xi m a t e l y 6 8 , 0 0 0 f

ar m e r s
. T h e c o u rt f

o u n d t h a t t h e A p p e l l e e s ’ d a i l y s a l e s v o l u m e is

a pp ro xima te ly

$3 mil lio n; t

he su m of $9 mil lio n in che c ks is out sta nd ing a t any

tim e ; and if the e xit financi n g we re froz en, the c lear ance of these c hecks w ould no longe r be a ssured a nd substantial harm to customer

confide nce w ould likely

result. The ba

n k ru p t cy co u rt also found that pa cking

cus t o m er s who re ly

upon UPIfor de livery

of livestock would be a dverse ly aff ecte d by any7

disruption in business and in turn mig ht not be able to deliver to their g roce ry

store and r estaura

nt clients. The c ourt observe d that approximately 68,000 far

mers have rec eived notice o f c o n f ir ma tion

an d i n r e l i a n c e t h e r e o nh a v e b e g u n p a yi n g n e w m e m b e r s h i p f e e s an d p e r u n i tr e t a i n s t o U P I. Acc ording to the bankruptc y court, PCC has approxim ately $68 milli on in loans in place f or cr ops
and liv e sto c k, and any re ve rs a l of co nf ir ma tio n w iththe re la te d la c k o f f ina nc ingwo uld

re nd e r P CC unable to continue loan funding to farme rs and possibly rende r it more diffic ult for PCC t o collect pay ments on exi sting loans. In the cour t’s view, rev er s al of conf irmation could nec essitate the

rec overy of the sig nificant distributions that had alre ady been ma de to admini strative, priority and g ener al unsec ured creditors and potentially upset the new stoc k and member ship interests that have been issued in r eliance on confirmation of the amende d plan. I n conclusion, the ba nkruptcy court stated: [T]he va c a tio n o f t he c on fi rm a tio n o rd e r at th is la te po int , w ill pla c e the bu sin e ss op e ratio ns of UPI and PCC [in] je op ard y , a nd make the c on tin

uatio n o f s e rv ic e s to their appr ox imately

68,000[] customers diff

i cu l t if not imposs ible. Fur ther, leg al issues over the va lidity

of transa ctions and distributions that were ma de in re liance upon confirmation will arise. The Appe llants did not present any evidenc e to the c on tr ary , o r c le arl y

art ic ulate ho w the c on fi rm a tio n o rd e r c an b e va c a te d, a t th is l a te juncture, w ithout causing substantial harm to the businesses an d i n n o cent third pa rt ie s. Th e Ap pe lle e s c ite th e for ego ingfi nd ing s a nd c on c lus ion s b y

the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt in support of their a ssertio n t h at the third fac tor in the equitable mootness test has be en satisfied. Acc ording to Appellees, “ the Plan has now been completed a nd final distribution has been made in eac h case ” and “[n] othing could aff ect more adver sely a fully completed and succe ssful Plan than to unrave l i t co m p l etely

and totally

start over , as Appe llants urg e in this appea l.” Simil arly , the Appellee s argue that the farmer s who depend upon UPI ’s marke ts and PCC ’s financ ing should not be put at risk “by

the re versa l of a c onfirmed plan that has alre ad y re s u l t ed in a succ essful

reor g anization.”

I n r e sp on se , th e Ap pe lla

nts re c ount t

he a lle g e d f

ra ud wh ic h le d to the jud g me nts the y ho ld ag ainst UPIand “vig orously ” ra ise ag ain the merits of their objections to confirmation. Ac cording to Appell an ts , “ [n ]o o n e w il l b e h u rt b y v a c a ti n g th e c o n f

ir mati o no r d e r

e xc e p t U PI ’ s s e n ior manag ement” a

nd “[ r] ev er sal ca

n occur without any

adver se conse quence to others.” In support8

of these pr opositions, Appellants assert that consummation of the plan has re sulted in no chang es in t he Ap pe lle e s’ bu sin e ss o pe ratio ns oth e r t ha n to ri d U PIof App ell ants ’ j ud g me nts ; th e e xit fi na nc ingwi th C oB ank

is s imp ly a re fi na nc ingon the same te rm s of the de bto rs ’ p re pe tit ion de bt; the retire ment of old stoc k in PCC a nd the issuance of newstock is strictly one of f orm rathe r than substance; the sa le of proper ty by UPI was not pur suant to the plan; the merg er that resulted in the elimination of UPI ’s subsidiary was inconseq u enti al bec ause the company had bee n inactive pr e vio us ly ; and

the pla n c ha ng e d n oth ingin t

he re la tio ns hip be tw e e n UPIand its ow ne rs
. Appellants contend that the cross-e x amination of Mr. Bolling at the evide ntiary hear ing c onfirmed that if the plan we re se t aside, “member s would continue to g et the same g oods and ser vices during

a re newe d administration period of ba nkruptcy” and “ CoBank’ s debt would rema in in place.”
As to A pp e lla nts ’ c on te nti on s whi c h the y a sse rt wh e re c on fi rm e d b y

Mr . B oll ing ’s c ro ssexamination, it must be observed that this alleg ed testi mony is contra ry to the bankruptc y

court’s supplemental fin d i n gs and conclusions set forth in the J uly 6, 2006 order . Be cause no transcr ipt of the e vid e nti ary

he ari ngha s b e e n p ro vid e d to the Pa ne l, i t is dif

fi c ult fo r t his Pane l to independe ntly

evaluate the leg itimacy

of the Appe llants’ asser

tions. Cf. Knowles Bldg. Co. v. Zinni ( In re Zinni ), 261 B .R. 196, 201- 02 (B .A.P. 6th Cir. 2001) ( failure of appe llant to provide transc ript “may hinder its ability

to argue that bankruptc y court made an unsupported f inding or fac t or conclusion of law ”). N onetheless, we do not f ind it deter

minative that there may be no sig nificant chang e in the Appe llees’ business ope rations or that if plan confirmation we re reve rsed, membe rs would continue to rec eive the same g oods and ser vices a nd CoBank’ s debt would rema in in place. Reorg anized debtors g ener ally operate the same ty pe of business post-c onfirmation. The diff ere nce is that beca

use of plan c onfirmation and consummation, the Appellees’ pre- confirmation liabili ties have now

been satisfied and numer ous third parties have t ra n s acted business in reliance on confirmation. Old membership int ere sts have be en ca ncelled; ne w member ship interests have be en issued and fe es collec ted; the re org anized PCC has made new loans; stock ha s been c ance lled; new stock issued; and eve n a subsidiary liquidated which re sulted in t h e t ra n s fe r of 14 par cels of r eal pr op e rt y and c a pit a l st oc k. Con tr ary

to t he Ap pe lla

nts ’ a sse rt ion s, we are no t c on vin c e d th a t th e se tr a n s a c t i o n s w e r e m e r e l y f o r m r a t h e r t h ans u b s t an c e
. I n d e e d , t h e y

e s t a b l i s h t h e u n a v o i d a

ble9

conclu s io n th a t th e r e li e f r e qu e s te d b y th e A p p e ll an ts w o u ld a f f e c t th e r ig h ts o f th ir d p arti es that have r elied upon implementation of the c onfirmed plan.
J ust as importantly , althoug h we a re sy mpathetic to the Appe llant s wh o will only rec eive pennies on the dollar

under the confirme d plan, we do not se e how we can g rant the A ppellants any relief in this appeal, eve n if we w ere to find their cla ims meritorious, without unraveling the entire confirme d plan. Each of t he objections to the pl an asserted by the Appellants, a

nd conseque ntly

the iss ue s r a ise d b y

the m in thi s a pp e a l, p e rt a in t o th e he art

and e nti re ty of the pla n, i.e ., g oo d f

a ith , b e st interests, fe asibility , violation of the fair and equitable rule, a

nd the inappropr iateness of reta ining

curr ent manag ement, rather than one discrete aspec t. I n fac t, it is clea r fr om the Appellants’ br iefs that they seek r ever sal of confirmation and a re turn of the ba nkruptcy case to its preconfirmation status, not piecemea l modification. See In re Am . HomeP atient , Inc

. , 4 2 0 F. 3 d at 5 6 3 (q u o t i n g In

re Eagle Piche r Indus., Inc. , 172 F.3d 48 (Table ), 1998 WL 939869, at *4 (6th Cir. Dec

. 21. 1998) (“[W] hen dete rmining the mootness of an appeal of a bankruptcy reor g anization order, this Court inquires as to whe ther the plan has been substantially consummated at the time of the appe al, and if s o , w h e th e r p ie c e me a l mo d if ic a ti o n o f th e b an kr

u p tc y r e o r g an iz a ti o n p la

n is p ossible or desi r a b le

. ” ) )

. B e c a

u s e th e r e qu e s te d r e li e f c an n o t b e g r an te d w it h o u t to ta ll y d is ma

n tl in g the

su bs tanti a lly

c on su mmate d p lan, the c on c lus ion is i ne sc a pa ble that th is a

pp e a l is e qu ita

bly moo t. Cf. In re Am . HomeP atient , Inc ., 420 F.3d at 564-565 (appea l not equitable moot wher e consideration of amount of allowed se cure d claim and a ppropria te intere st rate c ould be made wi tho ut t hw art ingthe pla

n’ s o the r t e rm s or a ff

e c tin g the de bto r’ s o bli g a tio ns to t hir d p art ie s) ; In

re Ar bo rs o

f H ou sto n A sso c s. Ltd

. P ’s hip , 1999 WL 17649, *3 (cour t de clined to a

pply doctrine of equitable mootness bec aus e ap p ellants did not seek to upset the plan a nd court c ould determine whether appellant ha d a sec urity

interest in a pa

rticular pie ce of

rea lty without a ffe cting or upsetting the pla n it se lf ); In re M anges , 29 F.3d at 1043 (appe al di smissed on equitable mootness whe re “ we doubt seriously

that we c ould p l ac e the estate or the pa rties bac k into the status quo as it ex isted be fo re the c on fi rm a tio n o rd e r if we we re to unr a ve l the pla n at this tim e ” ); In re Orm et Corp. , 2:04- C V- 1 1 5 1 , 2 0 0 5 W L 2 0 0 0 7 0 4 , * 8 (S

. D. Oh i o Au g. 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g In re Robe rts Farm, Inc. , 652 F.2d 793, 797 ( 9th Cir. 1981) (appe al dismissed as equitably moot where reve rsal would “‘ knock the pr op s o ut’ fr om und e r the re or g anizatio n plan” that had be e n re lie d upo n by thi rd pa rt ie s to the ir10

detr ime nt) ); In re Bloc k Shim De v. Co.-Irv ing , 1 1 3 B

. R. 2 5 6 , 2 6 2 ( N

. D

. T e x. 1 9 9 0 ) ( a ppeal not equitably moot whe re it wa s possible to adjust partners’ r ights in the e aseme nt without im pacting the re org anization scheme).

V. CO NC LU SION
I n sum, this appea l is equitably moot beca use t he Appellants failed to obtain a stay of the Confirmation Orde rs , t h e Appe llees’ joint plan has be en substantially consummated, a

nd the reque sted relief

would adver sely

aff ect third pa

rties not befor e the court that have r elied upon the p l an ’ s i mp l e m e n t a t i o nan d o t h e r w i s e u n r a v e l t h e A p p e l l e e s ’ r e o r g an i z a t i o n e f f o rt s
. A c c o r d i n g l y, this appeal is DI SMI SSED.