Opinion ID: 77241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Redefinition of the Term Allowed

Text: 27 Enron also argues that it has been adversely affected by what it alleges to be the Plan's effective redefinition of the term Allowed in § 1.4 of the Second Amended Plan. Enron argues that the addition of the words subject to the provisions of paragraph 12.1 hereof, to the definition effectively destroys the presumption that its Class 9 and 11 claims will be allowed. Because this is the first time Enron has made this argument, it is not properly before us. See, e.g., Sterling Fin. Inv. Group, Inc. v. Hammer, 393 F.3d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir.2004) (The law in our circuit is clear that arguments not presented in the district court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.). 28 To the extent that this argument is not based on the addition to the definition of Allowed but on the effect of § 12.1 on Enron's claims and interests, it is similar to the argument we addressed in part II.A.1. Enron's argument that the status of its claims was somehow altered from the First to the Second Amended Plan is unavailing. Part V.B of the disclosure statement filed in connection with the First Amended Plan provides that a claim or interest will fall within a particular Class only to the extent that the Claim or Interest qualifies within the description of that Class. R-Exh.3-530 at 27. Part IV.L. explains the court's appointment of an examiner and the subject matter of his investigation. Id. at 21-22. As the bankruptcy court noted, these two sections, read together, put Enron on notice that its claims would be investigated by the examiner and that its secured claim in Operating Company could be recharacterized as an equity interest in Holdings, and, in turn, classified within Class 9. R-Exh.1-931 at 13. Again, because the examiner's powers come not from the Second Amended Plan, but from the bankruptcy court's examiner order, the Second Amended Plan, including the addition to the definition of Allowed, only more clearly laid out what Enron could expect concerning its claims and interests than did the First Amended Plan. 8 The Second Amended Plan itself did nothing to change the status of those claims or interests and § 12.1 has no material or adverse effect thereon. The disclosure statement filed in connection with the First Amended Plan provides adequate information as to Enron's claims and interests.