Opinion ID: 2734198
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Post-Confirmation Dispute

Text: In October 2012, Intertek filed in the Bankruptcy Court the motion and adversary complaint that are the subject of this appeal. Those filings purported not to attack the Buyback Order and Plan Confirmation Order, which, of course, had become final a year and a half earlier, but rather argued that those documents by their terms provided tort claimants with a priority interest over other unsecured general creditors in the Chartis Proceeds and therefore sought to “enforce” that interpretation of the Buyback Order and Plan. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, finding that the Plan provided for the Chartis Proceeds to be distributed on a pro rata basis to all general unsecured creditors, and dismissed the adversary complaint on the stipulation of the parties. On appeal, the 2 Section 5.5(a) provides for deduction of costs and expenses in connection with the administration of distributions to the holders of Allowed General Unsecured Claims, including “the allowance and administration of General Unsecured Claims (including Tort Claims).” J.A. 969. Section 6.2(c)(iv) specifically designates the first $3.9 million 6 District Court affirmed those orders, rejecting certain newly-raised arguments as waived and concluding that Intertek’s arguments constituted a time-barred collateral attack on the Plan itself, that the terms of the Buyback Order and Plan were unambiguous as to the rights of tort claimants, and that, even if there were ambiguity, the Bankruptcy Court’s interpretation of those orders was not unreasonable. Intertek filed a timely notice of appeal.3