Opinion ID: 3034505
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Permissibility of Merger under the Terms of the

Text: Pension Plan [1] Before the district court and in this appeal, Crown has argued that the terms of its pension plan do not permit a merger as a means of termination. Crown failed to raise this argument before the bankruptcy court. As a general rule, we do not consider issues argued for the first time on appeal. Citibank (S.D.), W.A. v. Eashai (In re Eashai), 87 F.3d 1082, 1085 n.2 (9th Cir. 1996). This rule applies to appeals from bankruptcy proceedings. In re Southland Supply, Inc., 657 F.2d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 1981). We conclude that none of our recognized exceptions to this rule applies to this case. Cf. Cold Mountain v. Garber, 375 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2004); Eashai, 87 F.3d at 1085 n.2. We therefore deem this argument waived.