Opinion ID: 774142
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Relief Requested Would Affect the Success of the Plan

Text: 44 We also consider whether Appellants' concerns could be remedied without unraveling the entirety of the plan or whether they seek to knock the props out from under the authorization for every transaction that has taken place and create an unmanageable, uncontrollable situation for the Bankruptcy Court. Chateaugay Corp. v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 10 F.3d 944, 952 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1993); see also In Re Roberts Farms, 652 F.2d 793, 798 (9th Cir. 1981). 45 Appellants challenge the valuation of Zenith, and this price is the very centerpiece of the plan. As the District Court noted, the agreed-upon valuation permitted: 1) LGE's emergence as the sole shareholder with no consideration paid to the minority shareholders, and 2) the bondholders' acceptance of new bonds worth roughly one half the value of the old bonds. The plan would no longer be viable without these agreements, and the future relationship between LGE and Zenith would be cast in doubt. Without LGE, Zenith would likely be forced to liquidate under Chapter 7 since their recent recovery is contingent upon the plan. Thus, Appellants do not challenge an intermediate element of the plan that could be altered while maintaining the overall integrity of the plan, as in PWS Holding Corp., 228 F.3d 224. 46 Appellants explicitly indicated during oral argument that it was their intention to dissolve the plan: This is one of [those plans] where the plan can and should be unravel'ed. Okay? I do want to make that clear. Again, if it was vague from my papers, let me make it absolutely clear. Appellants seek nothing less than a wholesale annihilation of the Plan, In re Manges, 29 F.3d at 1043, and this proposed relief would affect the re-emergence of the debtor as a revitalized entity. See In re Club Assocs., 956 F.2d 1065, 1069 (11th Cir. 1992). The District Court thus properly found that this element of the equitable mootness doctrine weighs against Appellants. 47