Case Name: In re BGI, INC. f/k/a Borders Group, Inc., Debtor. Eric Beeman, Jane Freij, and Robert Traktman, Appellants, v. BGI Creditors' Liquidating Trust, Curtis R. Smith, as the Liquidating Trustee of the BGI Creditors' Liquidating Trust, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-02
Citations: 595 F. App'x 86
Docket Number: No. 14-948-bk
Parties: In re BGI, INC. f/k/a Borders Group, Inc., Debtor. Eric Beeman, Jane Freij, and Robert Traktman, Appellants, v. BGI Creditors’ Liquidating Trust, Curtis R. Smith, as the Liquidating Trustee of the BGI Creditors’ Liquidating Trust, Appellees.
Judges: Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, ROBERT D. SACK, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 528
Pages: 86–78

Head Matter:
In re BGI, INC. f/k/a Borders Group, Inc., Debtor. Eric Beeman, Jane Freij, and Robert Traktman, Appellants, v. BGI Creditors’ Liquidating Trust, Curtis R. Smith, as the Liquidating Trustee of the BGI Creditors’ Liquidating Trust, Appellees.
No. 14-948-bk.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 2, 2015.
Clinton A. Krislov, Krislov & Associates Ltd. (Kenneth T. Goldstein, Krislov & Associates Ltd.; Jay Teitelbaum, Teitelbaum & Baskin, LLP, White Plains, N.Y., on the brief) Chicago, Ill, for Appellant.
Bruce Buechler, Lowenstein Sandler LLP (Andrew Behlmann, on the brief) Roseland, N.J., for Appellee.
Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, ROBERT D. SACK, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Eric Beeman, Jane Freij and Robert Traktman (together, "Appellants") appeal from the March 31, 2014 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Scheindlin, J.) affirming the second distribution order entered May 23, 2013 and dismissing their appeal. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.
Appellants' notice of appeal is limited to the district court's order of March 31, 2014. Appellants direct their briefing to issues raised by the district court's order of January 28, 2014, which are not before us on this appeal. As Appellants fail to present any viable argument as to whether the district court erred in entering the March 31, 2014 order, we affirm the district court order:
We have considered the remainder of Appellants' arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED. Each side to bear its own costs.