12 -35 15 -bk , 1 2-3 61 8-b k, 12 -39 01 -bk

I n r e I ndu Cr aft UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SECOND CI RCUI T SUMMAR

Y ORDER RULING S BY SUM M ARY O RDER DO NOT HA VE PRECEDENT IAL EFFECT. CITAT ION TO A SUM M ARY O RDER FILED ON O R AFTER JA NUARY 1 , 2 00 7, IS PERM ITT ED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APP ELL ATE PROCEDURE 32 .1 AND THIS CO URT’S LOCAL RULE 32 .1. 1. WHEN CITING

A SUM M ARY O RDER IN A DO CUM ENT FILE D WITH THIS COUR T, A PAR TY M UST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APP ENDIX OR AN ELE CTRONIC DATABA SE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUM M ARY O RDER”). A P ARTY CITING A SUM M ARY O RDER M UST SERVE A CO PY OF IT ON ANY P ARTY NOT REPRESENTE D B Y COU NSEL. At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurg ood Marsha ll United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City

of Ne w York on the 10 day of Oc tober, two thousand f ourtee n. t h Present: ROSEMARY S. P OOL ER,

REENA RAGGI , PETER W . HAL L ,

Circuit Judges
.

_____________________________________________________ I N THE MATT ER OF: I

NDU CRAFT I

NC., Debtor.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TRENDI SPOR TSW EAR, I

NC

. , Appellant , v. No. 12-3515-bk BA NK OF BA RODA, Appellee
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- I NDU CRAFT I

NC., Appellant , v. No. 12-3618-bk BA NK OF BA RODA, Appellee
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --TZ E WUNG CONSUL TANTS, L TD., Appellant , v. No. 12-3901-bk BA NK OF BA RODA,

Appellee
.

________________________________________ Appea ringfor Appe llants: Krishnan Chittur, Chitt ur & Associates, P.C., New Y ork, N.Y., for

Trendi Sportsw ear, Inc

. J ohn D’Er cole, Robinson Br og L einwand G ree ne Ge novese & Gluck, P.C. (Fe licia Ennis, J onathan W. Rich, on the brief ) Ne w York, N.Y ., for Indu Craft Inc. J oel L ewittes, Ne w York, N .Y., for Tze W ung Consultant

s, Ltd. Appea ringfor Appe llee: Wil liam J . Hanson, Sey far th Shaw L L P, (Richard S. Miller, Br ian D. Kossed K& LGates L L P, New Yor k, N.Y. on the brief

), Boston, MA. Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York, (F urman, J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AND DECREED that the judg ment of said District Court be a nd it hereby

is AF F IRMED
. Indu Craft Inc., Tze Wung Consultants L td., and Tre ndi Sportswear, Inc. appe al from the J uly 27, 2012 decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Y ork (F urman, J

.) af firming the orde r of the United States Ba nkruptcy Court (Dra in, B.J. ) that denie d appellants’ motion to modify Indu Craft’s Sec ond Amended Plan of Reorg anization (the “Plan”)
. We assume the par

ties’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, proc edura l history , and spec ification of issues for r eview. The district cour

t below conc luded that it need not addr ess the issue of whether the B ank of B aroda has standingto participate , finding that “whe ther or not the B ank has standing , the Ba nkruptcy Court had an indepe ndent authority , if not obligation, to ex amine Appe llants’ motions, see 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), a nd this Court has jurisdiction t o revie w the B ankruptc y Court’s final orde rs on appe al, see28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) .” In re I ndu Craft , Nos. 11 Civ. 5996 (J MF), 11 Civ. 6303 (J MF), 11 Civ. 6304 (JMF), 2012 WL3070387, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2012). Appellants re new the c halleng e to B ank of B aroda ’s standingon appea l. See I n re Teligent, Inc ., 417 B.R. 197, 210–11 (B ankr. S.D.N.Y . 2009) (“ [A] person whose only interest is as a pa

rty defe ndant has no pe cuniar y interest in a c ourt order

authorizing the suit ag ainst that appellant a nd 2no standing to appeal that order. ” (e mphasis added) ) , aff’d , No. 09 Civ. 09674 (PKC), 2010 WL 2034509 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2010), aff’d , 640 F.3d 53 ( 2d Cir. 2011). Ba nk of B aroda ’s singula r role be fore the district court a nd this Court has been that of a ppellee. It has not itself appea led any

order . Thus, it is notappar ent that its standing is an issue. We do not pursue the matter, howe ver, be cause g iven B ank of B aroda ’s equitable inter est in the outcome of this ca se, we sua sponte g rant B ank of B aroda status as amicus cur iae in ea ch of the appea ls, and consider the ar g uments it presented to this Court. See, e .g. , NML Capi tal, Lt d. v. Re public of Argentina , 727 F.3d 230, 240 ( 2d Cir. 2013) (allowingparties to proc eed a s amici curia e so that their arguments might be c onsidered by the cour t). Preclusion applies in bankr uptcy matters. Evans v. O ttimo , 469 F.3d 278, 281 ( 2d Cir. 2006). As to both res judicata and c ollatera l estoppel, the pre clusive ef fec ts of a fina l judgment are not “alter ed by

the fa ct that the judg ment may have be en wr ong or re sted on a leg al principle subsequently

overr uled in another

case .” Fede rated Dep’ t Stores, Inc. v . Moitie , 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981); see also Travele rs Indem. Co. v. B ailey , 557 U.S. 137, 152 (2009) (onc e confirmation orders be came final, they beca me re s judicata to “pa

rties and those in privity

with them, not only

as to eve ry

matter whic h was off

ere d and re ceive d to sustain or defe at the cla im or demand, but as to a

ny other a dmissibl e matter

which mig ht have be en off ere d for that pur

pose.” (citation and inter

nal quotation marks omitted). We affir m for substantially

the re asons set for

th in the district court’s thorough and we llrea soned opinion. We note that any modification of the Plan wa s barr ed by Section 1127(b) of the B ankruptc y

Code bec ause, a s the courts be low found, the Plan wa s “substantially consummated.” “‘It is just as important that there should be a plac e to end a s that there should be a plac e to beg in liti g ation.’” Travelers Inde m ., 557 U.S. at 154 (quoting Stoll v. Gottlieb , 305 U.S. 165, 172 (1938)). We a g ree with the district court that “in this case , the place to end the litigation has c ome and g one.” In re I ndu Craft , 2012 WL3070387, at *2. We have c onsidered the rema inder of a ppellants’ ar g uments and find them to be without merit. Acc ording ly , the orde r of the district c ourt here by is AFF I RMED. The motion to strike pendingin No. 12-3515-bk is DI SMI SSED as moot. Each side to bea r its own costs. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk

3