The H onorab le A m y J. St. Ev e, D is tr ic t J ud ge f or the United 1 St at es Dis t ri c tCour t, Northe rn D i s t ri c tofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 09

- 2984, 09

- 2985 I N RE : M AR K R AY an d B ERWI CK B LA CK C ATTL E C O ., D ebto rs . A PP E A L OF : B EC KER & P OLIAKOFF , P
. A.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No s. 09 CV1120, 09 CV1121

—Mi ch ael M . M ihm, Judge
.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 22, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 8, 2010

Befo re R IPPLE a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges , a nd S T . E VE , D i s t r i ctJudg e . 1 S T . E VE , D i s t r i ctJudg e . A p p ell an t B e c k er & Poli akoff, P. A. ( “Be ck er ”) s ee k s to a ppea l fr o m a n o r dero fthe dist ri ct c ourtaffi rm i ng the bankruptcy cour t’ s di sm i ssa l of tw o Ch ap t e r 1 1 ban krup tcy ca ses. Bec ker, how ever,2 N os. 09

- 2984, 09

- 2985 lacks stan d ing to ap p eal t h e ban krup tcy cou rt’s order. A ccor dingl y, the j ud gm ent of the dist ri ct cour t th at B ecke r had stan d ing to ap p eal the ban krup tcy cou rt’s o r de r i s v a c a t e d.

I . F AC T UAL B AC KGR OUND This appeal ar i ses fr om the dism i ssa l o fthe Ch apter11 bankr up tcy proce edi ngs ofdebto rs M ar k Rayand Berwick Blac k Cattl e Com pany ( col l ecti vel y, “Debto rs ”)
. A pp el l ees W ar d Feed Yard, I nc. , I LS Financi ng, I nc. ( col l ecti vel y, “W ar d”), and H i gh Pl ai ns Credi t PCA (“H igh Pl ai ns”) ( col l ecti vel y with W ar d, “A p p ell ees ”) ar e cr edi tor s o f Deb to r s . D e b t o r s we r e i n th e b u s i n e s s o fb u y i n g, s e l l i ng an d r ai singc at tl e. I nv o l unt ar y Cha pte r 1 1 pet i ti o ns we r e fi l e d a g a i ns tthe De b t o r s o n De c e mbe r 2 6 , 2 0 0 6
. On Febr uary15 , 20 07, the U ni ted S tat es Truste e ( “Truste e”) ap p oin te d a n U n offic ial a n d O fficia l C om m itt ee of C re d itor s Hol ding U nsecure d C l ai m s ( the “ Com m i tte e”) to r e pr e s e ntDe b t o r s ’ c r e di t o r s . T he Co mm i t t e e r e t a i ne d B ec ke r, a Flo rid a-b as ed law firm , as litig at ion co u n se l. A t t h e o u ts et o ft h e b an kr u p tc y c as es , su b st an tia lly all ofDebto rs ’ as set s were l i quidate d i n the or d i naryco urse ofbusi ness. The sa l e o fas set s a nd o perat i ons f ailed to produce suffi ci ent cash pr oce eds as proj ecte d by Debto rs , and cre dit or s were l eft with u nd er secur ed orunsecur ed claim s. A s p erm it t e d b y a series offinan cing ord ers e nt e r e d b y the bank r up t c y c o ur t, the Co mm i t t e e fi l e d a se r i es o fa dve r sa r y c o m pl aint s ag ains t H i g h P l ains a nd W ar d , w h ich so u gh t re c ov er y of, inte r alia , a ll eged preferen ti al an d f r au dul en t tr an sfer s. I n J une 20 08 , Deb to r s, theN os. 09

- 2984, 09

- 2985 3 Com m i tte e, W ar d and H i gh P l ai ns neg oti ate d an agr eed p lan f o r r eo r g an i za ti o n. On S ept embe r 2 3, 2 00 8, the bankr up tcy cou rt ente re d an or der denyi ng co nfi rm ati on ofth e pl an afterfi nd i ng tha t the ge nera l r el eas es pr o v i de d t o Hi g h Pl a i ns a nd War d we r e o v e rb r o a d. Als o i n S ept embe r 2 00 8, Be ck erfi l ed fee a ppl i ca ti o ns w i th the bankruptcy cour t f orthe fees , co sts and adm i ni str ati ve expenses i t incurr ed a s counselto the Com m i tte e. Shor tl y a fterfi l i ng i ts fi nal fee appli cati on, the Becker shar ehol der who had the pr i m ar y r esponsibilityf or th e rep resen tation of the C om m ittee, I van J
. Reich, l eft B e c k e r a nd j o i n e d th e l a w fi r m o fG r a y R o b i n s o n, P
. A. ( “Gray Robi nson”)
. By or der date d October22 , 20 08, Gray Robi nson s ubsti tuted f orB ec keras l i ti gat i on co unsel to the Com m i tte e. A fterdeni alo fthe parti es’ pro posed r eor gani zati on pl an and fur therf ai l ed nego ti ati ons, o n Decem ber9, 20 08, De b t o r s fi l e d a mo t i o n t o di s mi s s the b a nk r up t c y cas es f orcause pursuant to Se cti on 11 12 (b ) o fthe Bankruptcy Code du e to the continuing dim i nuti on o fthe est ate
. H i gh Pl ai ns a nd War d s up po r t e d the mo t i o n t o di s mi s s . On Decem ber11 , 20 08, th e T rust ee fi l ed a m oti on t o co nv ert the De bt o r s’ c as es t o Cha pte r 7c as es o r, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , t o a p p o i n ta C h a p t e r 1 1 t r u s t e e . O n D e c e mber 12, 2008, th e C om m ittee fi led a m ot io n t o conv ert or, a lte rnati vel y, f orappoi ntm ent o fa Ch apter11 tr ustee
. Becke r did notfi l e a ny m oti ons obj ecting to these subm i ssi ons to d i sm i ss orto co nver t the bank

ruptcy case s. On D ecem ber23 , 20 08, the bankr up tcy cour t hel d an o m nibus he ar i ng on al l pe ndi ngmot i o ns , i nc l udi ngthe4 N os. 09

- 2984, 09

- 2985 Deb to r s’ mot i o n t o di smi ss a nd th e Comm i tt ee ’ s an d Truste e’ s m oti ons to conve rto r appointa Ch apter 11 tr ustee
. N o att or n ey f ro m the Beckerfi rm appeare d at the he ar i ng. M r. Rei ch, co unse l t o the Com m i tte e, appe ar ed f o r the Co m m i tt ee . Duri ngthe he ar i ng, the bankr up tcy cour t hea rd a rg u m ent fro m co unsel f orDebto r s, the Co m m i tt ee , the Tr us te e, W ar d, Hi g h P l ains , a nd addi ti o na l credi to r s. M r . Re i chr epr es en te d dur i ngthe he ar i ngtha t no e vi den ce was ne ce ss ar y t o r es o l ve the que st i o ns pr es en ted to the b an k r upt cyc o ur t r eg ar di ng dism i ssa l o r conve rs ion o fthe bankr up tcy proce edi ngs. N o pa r ti es o bj ec te d t o thi s r epr es en ta ti o n. On January 15, 20 09, the bankr up tcy cour t e nter ed an opi ni on a nd o rderdi sm i ssi ng the D eb tors’ Chapter 11 c a s e s du e t o the u t t e r i ns o l v e nc y o fthe e s t a t e s . On J an ua r y 2 6, 2 00 9, Be ck erfi l ed tw o e m er g en cymot i o ns requ e s t ing recon side ration of the ban krup tcy cou rt’s Ja n u a ry 15, 2009 dism issal ord er. Th e ban krup tcy cou rt denie d Becker ’ s m oti ons on J anuary28 , 20 09. On F eb r ua r y 5 , 2 00 9, Be ck er fil ed ana ppea l wi ththe di st r i ctc o ur t. No o th erparty fil ed ana ppea l

. W ar d a nd H i gh Pl ai ns o bj ecte d to the a pp ealand ar gued that B ecke r l acke d stan d ing to ap p eal the ban krup tcy cou r t ’s di smi ss alo r der

. Al th o ug h W ar d and Hi g h P l ains c o ntended that Beckerf ai l ed to appear at the hea ri ng o r otherw ise o bj ect to the m oti on t o dism i ss fi l ed by De b t o r s , wi tho uta ddr e ssi ngthe i s s ue s o fBe c k e r ’ s a ppeara nce o r obj ecti on, the dist ri c t courtco ncl ud ed that B ecke r ha d a p ecu niary interest in th e ban krup tcy c o urt ’s dism i ssa l o rderand th er efor e qual i fi ed as a per son ag-N os. 09

- 2984, 09

- 2985 5 gr i eve d w i th st anding to appeal

. A fter fi nd i ng that Becker h a d s t a n d i n g t o a p p e a l, th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a ffi r m ed th e or der o fthe b an kr up tcy cour t di sm i ssi ng the Chapter 11 p r o c e e d i n g s . B e c k e r n o w a p p e a l s th e d i s mi s s a l o ft he Ch apter11 pro ceedi ngs.

II. A N A L Y S IS B ec ke r c on te n d s t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rte r r ed in affi r m i ngthe b an k r upt cyc o ur t’ s di smi ss al ofthe Cha pte r 11 pro c e e d i n g s . Wa r d a n d Hi g h P l a i ns conte nd thatthe dist ri ct c ourti m proper l y dete rm i ned that Beckerhad sta nd i ng to appealthe bankr up tcy c o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o r d e r . B e c a u s e i ti s d i s p o s i t i ve , we on ly a d d re ss th e is su e o f B ec ke r’s st an d in g t o a p p ea l.

A. B a nkrupt c ySt a ndi ng Ba nk r up t c ys t a nd i ngi s n a r r o we r tha n Ar t i c l e I I Is t a nd

i ng. In re Stinne tt, 4 65 F
. 3d 30 9, 3 15 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( ci ting In r e Cu l t Aware n e s s Net work, Inc. , 151 F. 3d 605, 60 7- 08 (7th C ir. 1998)); In re C arbi de Cutoff, Inc. , 70 3 F.2d 259, 264 ( 7th Ci r. 19 83)
. “Onl y a‘ perso n agg ri eve d’ has sta nd i ng to appealan o rdero fthe bankr up tcy cour t. ” In r eSc hul tz M

f g. & Fa b r i ca t i ng Co. , 956 F.2d 686, 690 (7th C ir. 1992 ) ( ci ti ng In reUNR Indus. , Inc. , 72 5 F
. 2d 1111 , 11 20 ( 7th Ci r. 19 84)); see al s o In reCar b i deCut of f , Inc . , 70 3 F
. 2d a t2 6 4
. “ Pr er equi s i t e s f o r b e i nga ‘ pe r s o n a g g r i e v e d’ ar e a tte nd an ce a nd o bj ecti on a t a bank ruptcy cour t pr oceedi ng. ” Id. ( ci ti ng In r eC om m e r ci al W
. Fin
. Corp. , 76 1 F
. 2d 13 29 , 133 4-3 5 (9 th C ir. 19 85 )); see also In reWe s t on , 18 F. 3d6 N os. 09

- 2984, 09

- 2985 860, 86 4 ( 10th Cir
. 19 94). These re quir em ents re fl ect the ne ed f oreco nom y a nd effi ci ency i n the ban kr up tcy sy st em . In reCom m e r ci al W
. Fi n. Corp. , 76 1 F .2d at13 35 . I f a par ty f ai l s t o appear a t a hear i ng o r obj ect to a m oti on orpro ceedi ng, i t ca n n ot expect ori m plo re the bankruptcy cour t t o a dd re ss the i ssues r ai sed bythe m oti on orpro ceedi ng f ora seco nd ti m e. Because “the re quir em en ts of d u e p ro c es s o u tw ei gh th os e o f j u d icia l effici en cy, ” ho wev er, the se pr er equi si te s ar e ex cus ed “i fthe obj ecting p ar ty did notr ecei ve propernot i ce o fthe proceedi ngs b el ow and o f h is opportunity t o obj ect to the a cti on pro posed to be tak en. ” Id. ( i nt erna l c i ta ti o ns om itted ). I n a ddi t i o n t o the a pp e a r a nc e a nd o b j ecti on p re re q u isit es , “[o]n ly t h os e p er so n s a ffec te d p ec u n iar ily by a ba nkruptcy ord er have st anding to appeal that or der. ” In re Stinne tt, 46 5 F
. 3d 309, 31 5 ( 7th Ci r. 200 6) ( ci ti ng In re C ult A w arene ss Net w ork, Inc. , 15 1 F .3d at 607

- 08)
. “[ A ] per son has s tandi ng to o bj ect to an o rderi fthat per so n c an‘ demons tr at e th atthe o r derdi m inis he s th e perso n’s pro p erty, i ncre ase s the per son’ s bur dens, o r i m pai rs the perso n’s r i ghts. ’ ” In r e C ult A w a reness N etw o rk, 151 F .3d at60 8 ( ci ti ng In re D uP age B o iler Worke rs , Inc. , 965 F
. 2 d 2 9 6 , 2 9 7( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) a nd In re A ndreu cc etti, 9 75 F
. 2d 41 3, 4 16 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 2) )
. The pu rpos e o fthi s s tanda rd is to i nsure “ ‘ that bankr up tcy proce edi ngs ar e not unreas onabl y del aye d b y protr acte d l i ti gat i on byal l owing onl y th os e perso ns wh ose i nter est s a re di re ctl y a ffecte d by a bank ruptcy or der t o appeal

. ’ ” Id. ( ci ti ng In re A ndreucc et ti, 975 F.2d at 416 -17). I nd eed, “[ c] ourt s co nsi ste ntl y hav e no ted a pu blic pol i cyN os. 09

- 2984, 09

- 2985 7 i nter esti n re du ci ng the num b er o fanci l l ar y s uit s that can be br ought i n t h e bankruptcy conte xt so as to adv an ce the s wi ft a nd e ffi ci en t admi ni st r at i o n o fthe bankr up t’ s e sta te. Thi s g oali s a chi eved p ri m ar i l y b y narr owly defini ng wh o has s tandi ng i n a b ankruptcy proce edi ng. ” Id. ( ci ti ng In reRi ch m an , 10 4 F
. 3d 654, 656-57 (4th Cir. 1997)).

B. A pp l i cat i on t o Be cker H i gh Pl ai ns and W ar d conte n d thatBecke r does not have sta nd i ng to appealfro m the fi nal j u d gm ent e nter ed by th e b an kr up tcy cour t be cause Beckerf ai l ed to appear oro bj ect to the r equeste d d ism i ssa l and has not est abli sh ed that the d is m is sal order affected i ts p ecu niary rig h ts
. W h e t h er an ap p ella n t is a “p er so n ag gr iev ed ” is a q u es tio n of fac t, an d a d ist r i c t c ou rt ’s ru lin g is re vie w ed for c lea r er ro r. D epoi s t e r v. M ary M
. Hol l oway Fou nd. , 36 F. 3d 582, 585 (7th Cir. 1994). A s a n init ial m at te r, B ec ke r c on te n d s t h at, as a res u lt o fthei r f ai l ur e to fi l e a cr o ss - appe al, Hi g h P l ains a nd W ar d ha ve no t pr es er ve d the i ss ue o fBe ck er ’ s st an di ng to ap p ea l. It is w ell se tt led t h a t t h e is su e o f A rt icle II I ap p ella te st an d in g “is no t su b j ec t to w aiv er or fo r feiture
. ” See, e . g. , Free dom from R el ig io n Found., Inc. v. N ichols on , 53 6 F. 3d 730, 737 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( ci ti ng FW /PB S, Inc . v. C ity o f D al l as , 49 3 U.S
. 21 5, 23 0- 31, 11 0 S
. Ct. 59 6, 10 7 L. Ed. 2d 60 3 ( 19 90 ) )
. T his appe al, ho wev er, pr es en ts the q u es tio n of w h et h er B ec ke r h ad ba n kr u p tc y s ta n d in g, a f or m o fprudenti alst anding w hi ch i s m or e co nfined th an A rt i cl e I I Ist anding, to appealthe bankr up tcy8 N os. 09

- 2984, 09

- 2985

co ur t’ s o r der

. I n M ainst re etO rg. of Realt ors v. Ca lum etCity, 505 F. 3d 742, 74 7- 49 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , we hel d that nonconst i tuti onalo r pr u denti all ack ofst anding m ay be wai ved by a par ty that f ai l s t o tim ely ra i se the i ssue, but t h at a co urt m ay al so ra i se and add re ss a quest i on o fp r u d e n t i a l s t a n d i n go fi ts owna c c o r d

. Wh i l e we ha ve di sc r et i o n t o de em th atBe ck era nd H i g h P l ains w aiv ed th e i s s u e o f st an d in g b y fa ilin g t o ra ise it in th e low er co u rt, h e r e w e c h oo se to ad d re ss th e is su e, a p rerequ isi t e to the C ou rt reach ing the m erits ofBe cker’s ap p ea l. B ecke r conc ed es th at ap p earan ce an d o bj ection are re quir ed f orbank ruptcy sta nd i ng. B ecker subm i ts that it m et thi s r equi re m ent thro ugh the appearance o f at to r ne y Re i ch, c o uns elt o the Co m m i tt ee , a t th e o m nibus he ar i ngi n the b an kr upt cyc o ur t. M r . Re i ch, ho wev er, ne ve r s ubmi tt ed an appe ar an ce o n be ha l fo fthe Bec k erfi r m i n the b an k r upt cyc o ur t. M o r eover, a t th e om nibu s hea ring, M r. Re ic h introd uc ed him self as “h ere f orthe Com m i tte e” and ne veri denti fi ed hi m sel fas r epresenting the Becke r firm o r any a dm i ni str ati ve cl ai m ant. Infac t, th e t ra n sc rip t o f th e o m n ibu s h ea rin g is d ev oid o fa ny ment i o n o fthe Be ck erfi r m b y M r . Re i cho r a ny othe r party
. Fur ther m or e, ther e i s n o ev i dence that M r . R e i c he v e r i n f o r me d th e b a n k r u p t c y c o u r tth a the w as ap p earing on beh alfof B ecke r. To support i ts cl ai m that M r. Rei ch r epres ented Becke r atthe hear i ng, Be ck era l l eg es tha t i t an d s ubs eque nt c ou n se l to t h e C om m itt ee , M r . R eic h, rec og n ize d th eir unifi ed i nter esti n opposi ng di sm i ssa l

. Becke r re l i es on a nN os. 09

- 2984, 09

- 2985 9

A t or al argu m en t, the Co urt off ered Becker an add it ional 2 att em pt to cl ari fy and i dentify in the re cord “w hen counsel ap p ear ed a nd o b jected in th e b an k ru p tcy cou rt.” In ad d ition to res pon ding to thi s inquir y, i n it s subm is si on to the Cou rt Bec ke r al s o pr es en t ed a no velar gum en t thati tdi d not rec ei ve notic e ofthe D ece m ber 23, 2008 hea ri n g a nd that ther ef ore the app earance and object ion requir em en ts a re w a i v e d a s t o B e c k e r . “ [ A ] r g u me n t s r a i s e d f o r th e fi r s tt i me in o r a l a r g u m en t o r in su p p le m en ta l fili n g s a re w a iv ed ,” howeve r, an d t he C ou rt wil l no tc ons i der thi s unt i m el y a rg um en t. U n ite d S ta te s v . B ell , 58 5 F .3d 10 4 5 , 10 5 5 (7t h C ir . 20 0 9 ). affi davi t s ubm i tte d to the distri ct c ourti n w hi ch M r. Rei c h d eta i l s hi s a gr eem ent t o re prese nt the i nter est s ofBecke r i n the b ankr uptcy co urt. Becke r al so re l i es on M r. Rei ch’s affi davi t t o est ablis h that M r. Rei ch r epresente d Beckerwith r espectto a fee appli cati on th at was noti ced fo r, b ut notaddress ed at, the Decem ber23 , 20 08 he ar i ng . Not wi th st an di nga n un di sc l o se d a g r ee m en t betw een M r . Reich and Be cker su bseq ue nt to M r. Reich ’s de pa r t ur e fr o m t he Be c k e r fi r m, h o we v e r, the c r i ti cal i ssue re m ai ns wh ether th er e i s a ny ev i dence i n the bankruptcy cour t r eco rd t h at M r. Rei ch fi l ed an appear ance on be hal fo fBecker or inf or m ed the bankr up tcy cour t o r the parties that Gra y Rob i nson r epres ented Becke r w i th resp ect to th e d ism issal ord er, fee ap p li cation or oth erwi se . The r ec o r d i s dev o i d o fa ny s uchi ndi ca ti o n. 2 Bec k er ’ s r el i an ce o n In re R ec ord Club of A m eric a , Inc
. , 28 B
. R. 9 96 , 9 99 ( M
. D. Pa
. 1 98 3) a nd O s b or n v . Bank o f the U nited Sta tes , 2 2 U. S
. 7 38 , 6 L. Ed. 2 04 (18 24 ) f o r the propos ition that ther e i s a pre sum pti on that a n att or ney10 N os. 09

- 2984, 09

- 2985

re p re se n ts th e p ar tie s h e p u r p or ts to rep re se n t is inap p osi te
. The c as e l aw c i te d b y Be ck er, whi l e r ev ea l i ng th at ev id en c e b ey on d an ap p ea ra n c e is n otn ec es sa rily re quir ed to dem onst ra te that an at torne y repr ese nts a p a r t y , d oe s n ot h in g t o s av e B ec ke r’s cla im . N ot h in g in th e re c or d rev e a l s a n ap p ea ra n c e o n be h alf ofB ec ke r in the b ankr up tcy cour t. Be c k e r fur the r ma i nt a i ns tha ta n i ndepe nd e nta pp e a r a n c e wa s n o t r e q u i r e d f o r B e c k e r b e c a u s e t he Co mm i tt ee ’ s co ns ti tu en cyi nc l ude d Be ck er, a c r edi to r a nd admi ni st r at i ve c l ai m an t unde r the Ba nk r upt cyCo de, a nd th e te no r o fM r . Re i ch ’ s ar g um en t at th e o m nibus he ar i ng r efl ec te d tha t he was a dvo ca tingo n Be ck er ’ s be ha l f

. The he ar i ngt r an sc r i pt be l i es thi s co nt en ti o n. Dur i ngthe om nibus hear i ng, M r. Reich neve r re fer s t o the Beck er fi rm , and w hi l e he m ake s r efer ence to the a dm i ni str ati ve cl ai m ants, M r. Rei ch neve r ass er ts that he i s there to re prese nt tho se enti ti es. Becke r’ s r eas oning i s probl e mat i c f o r a no the r r e a s o n a s we l l

. T he Ba nk r up t c y Co de pr o hibi ts c o uns elf o r the Co m m i tt ee fr o m r epr es en ting “any othe r enti ty h av in g an adver se i nter esti n connectio n w ith th e c as e.” 11 U .S.C . § 11 03 (b ). A s B ec ke r its elf h a s r e c o g n i z e d, a s a n a d mi n i s t r a t i v e c l a i ma n ti t s c l a i ms ar e e nti tl ed to pri or i ty ove r the c l ai m s ofthe unsecured c r e di t o r s r e pr e s e nt e d b y the Co mm i t t e e . 1 1 U. S. C. § 5 07(a)(2 )
. I nd eed, GrayRobi nson ul ti m ate l y withd re w as counselto t h e Com m i tte e when i t r eco gni zed that i ts sta tus a s a n adm i ni str ati ve cl ai m ant, c om bi ned w i th the fees i t inc urr ed w hi l e r epres enti ng the Com m i tte e, l ed to a confl i ct o fi nter estwith the Com m i tte e.N os. 09

- 2984, 09

- 2985 11 W e a l s o r ej e c tBe c k e r ’ s arg um e nttha ti tdi r e c t l y a pp e a r e d a n d o b j e c t e d t o th e d i s mi s s a l o r d e r b y fi l i n g t wo em er gencym oti ons f orr eco nsi derat i on in the bankruptcy cour t. Becke r i denti fi es no l ega l autho ri ty to su p p or t i ts conte nti on that the fi l i ng o fa m oti on f or re con sid er ati on cur es a f ai l ure to appear o r obj ect at an ear l i erst age i n the proce edi ngs. M or eov er, g ive n that “[ a] r g um en ts r ai se d o r de ve l o ped f o r the f irst tim e i n a m ot ion to rec on sid er are ge n er ally d ee m ed forfe i te d ,” Becker ’ s m oti ons d o n ot rem edy i ts i ni ti alf ai l ure to appear and pr ese nt i ts obj ecti ons to the b an kruptcy c ou rt
. See Polev. Randolph , 57 0 F. 3d 922, 938 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( ci ti ng M ung o v. Tayl or, 355 F.3d 969 , 978 (7th C ir. 2004)). Th e a pp e a r a nc e a nd no t i c e r e qu i r e men t s s e r v e an i m po r ta nt pur po se to en su r e th at th e par ti es presen t the cour t with al l ev i dence and l ega l autho ri ti es that m ay ai d t h e c ou rtin it s d ec isio n s. In reSc hwin n Co. , 2 09 B. R. 887, 89 2 ( N .D . I l l

. 19 97)
. Becke r shoul d not be per m i tte d to ci rcum vent thi s r equi re m ent b y r ai si ng it s a rgum ents f o r the fi r stt i m e o nl y a fte r the b an k r upt cyc o ur t co nsid er ed a n d r u l ed on th e m ot ion to d ism iss . To p er m it su ch a m otion to cu re th e s tan d ing p roblem w ou ld u nd erm i ne the e co no m y a nd e ffi ci en cyprom ote d b y the sta nd i ng r equi re m ents i n the fi rs t pl ace. Becker ’ s f ai l ure to enteran a pp ear ance or p re sent i ts obj ecti ons to the b ankr upt c y c ou rtpre cl ud ed i t fro m ap p ea lin g t h e d ism iss al o r d e r t o t h e d ist ric t c ou rt
. See In re Schultz , 95 6 F
. 2d at 691 ( parti es l acke d stand i ng to a p p e a l w h er e t h ey failed to en te r an ap p ea ra n c e in the b ankr up tcy case o r pres en t thei r obj ecti ons to a12 N os. 09

- 2984, 09

- 2985 sal e orderto the bankr uptcy co urt)
. The di str i ct c ourtacco r di ng l y e r r ed i n c o nc l udi ngtha t Bec k ers at i sfi ed th e prer equi si tes f orbei n g a “per son agg ri eve d” and had stan d ing to ap p eal the d ism issal ord er.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON B ecau se w e find that Be cker lacks stan d ing, th e C ou rt v a c a t e s the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s j ud g men ta nd r e man ds wi th i nstr ucti on t o dism i ss the a pp ealf orl ack ofst anding.

3- 8- 10