Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-116_9o6b.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

mation process as the “proceeding,” not the ruling on each
specific plan.

In Bullard’s view the debtor can appeal the denial of the 
first plan he submits to the bankruptcy court.  If the court 
of  appeals  affirms  the  denial,  the  debtor  can  then  revise 
the  plan.  If  the  new  plan  is  also  denied  confirmation,
another  appeal  can  ensue.    And  so  on.    As  Bullard’s  case 
shows, each climb up the appellate ladder and slide down
the  chute  can  take  more  than  a  year.  Avoiding  such  de­
lays and inefficiencies is precisely the reason for a rule of 
finality.  It does not make much sense to define the perti­
nent  proceeding  so  narrowly  that  the  requirement  of 
finality would do little work as a meaningful constraint on 
the availability of appellate review.

Bullard  responds  that  concerns  about  frequent  piece­
meal  appeals  are  misplaced  in  this  context.  Debtors  do 
not typically have the money or incentives to take appeals 
over  small  beer  issues.    They  will  only  appeal  the  rela­
tively  rare  denials  based  on  significant  legal  rulings—
precisely  the  cases  that  should  proceed  promptly  to  the
courts of appeals.  Brief for Petitioner 43–46. 

Bullard’s assurance notwithstanding, debtors may often 

view,  in  good  faith  or  bad,  the  prospect  of  appeals  as  im­
portant  leverage  in  dealing  with  creditors.    An  appeal
extends  the  automatic  stay  that  comes  with  bankruptcy,
which  can  cost  creditors  money  and  allow  a  debtor  to
retain property he might lose if the Chapter 13 proceeding
turns out not to be viable.  These concerns are heightened 
if  the  same  rule  applies  in  Chapter  11,  as  the  parties 
assume.  Chapter  11  debtors,  often  business  entities,  are 
more likely to have the resources to appeal and may do so
on  narrow  issues.    See  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  51.    But  even  if 
Bullard is correct that such appeals will be rare, that does 
not much support his broader point that an appeal of right 
should  be  allowed  in  every  case.    It  is  odd,  after  all,  to 
argue  in  favor  of  allowing  more  appeals  by  emphasizing