Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-116_9o6b.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

BULLARD v. BLUE HILLS BANK 

Opinion of the Court 

relationships  among  the  parties,  while  denial  does  not 
have such significant consequences.

Moreover, it is not clear that this asymmetry will always
advantage  creditors.    Consider  a  creditor  who  strongly
supports  a  proposed  plan  because  it  treats  him  well.    If 
the  bankruptcy  court  sustains  an  objection  from  another 
creditor—perhaps  because  the  plan  treats  the  first  credi­
tor  too  well—the  first  creditor  might  have  as  keen  an 
interest in a prompt appeal as the debtor.  And yet, under 
the  rule  we  adopt,  that  creditor  too  would  have  to  await
further developments. 

Bullard also raises a more practical objection.  If denial 
orders  are  not  final,  he  says,  there  will  be  no  effective 
means  of  obtaining  appellate  review  of  the  denied  pro­
posal.  The  debtor’s  only  two  options  would  be  to  seek  or 
accept dismissal of his case and then appeal, or to propose
an amended plan and appeal its confirmation. 

The  first  option  is  not  realistic,  Bullard  contends,  be­
cause  dismissal  means  the  end  of  the  automatic  stay
against creditors’ collection efforts.  Without the stay, the
debtor might lose the very property at issue in the rejected 
plan.  Even  if  a  bankruptcy  court  agrees  to  maintain  the 
stay  pending  appeal,  the  debtor  is  still  risking  his  entire
bankruptcy case on the appeal.

The  second  option  is  no  better,  says  Bullard.  An  ac­
ceptable,  confirmable  alternative  may  not  exist.    Even  if 
one  does,  its  confirmation  might  have  immediate  and 
irreversible  effects—such  as  the  sale  or  transfer  of  prop­
erty—and a court is unlikely to stay its execution.  More­
over, it simply wastes time and money to place the debtor 
in  the  position  of  seeking  approval  of  a  plan  he  does  not 
want. 

All  good  points.  We  do  not  doubt  that  in  many  cases
these options may be, as the court below put it, “unappeal­
ing.”  752 F. 3d, at 487.  But our litigation system has long
accepted  that  certain  burdensome  rulings  will  be  “only