Opinion ID: 3011647
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: General Public Policy Affording Finality

Text: to Bankruptcy Judgments As the District Court stated, the public policy of affording finality to bankruptcy judgments is better described as the lens through which the other equitable mootness factors should be viewed. We described this rationale in Continental Airlines: Our inquiry should not be about the reasonableness of the Investors' reliance or the probability of either party succeeding on appeal. Rather, we should ask whether we want to encourage or discourage r eliance of investors and others on the finality of bankruptcy confirmation orders. The strong public policy in favor of maximizing debtor's estates and facilitating successful reorganization, reflected in the code itself, clearly weighs in favor of encouraging such r eliance. Indeed, the importance of allowing approved reorganizations to go forward in r eliance on bankruptcy court confirmation orders may be the central animating force behind the equitable mootness doctrine. Where, as here, investors and other third parties consummate a massive reorganization in reliance on an unstayed confirmation or der that, explicitly and as a condition of feasibility, denied the claim for which appellate review is sought, the allowance of such appellate review would likely undermine public confidence in the finality of bankruptcy confirmation orders and make successful completion of large reorganization like this more difficult. 91 F.3d 565 (citations omitted). 17 Here, unlike Continental Airlines, LGE is not an outsider but rather had independent financial incentive to facilitate Zenith's recovery. It is therefore less necessary to encourage LGE's reliance on the bankruptcy judgment in this case. However, this plan did enable Zenith to negotiate with several parties and recover from its decline. Likewise, a number of parties relied on the confir mation of the plan, and, as the District Court stated, reversal would be contrary to the public policy of encouraging actions, by outsiders and investors alike, that facilitates successful reorganizations. The District Court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by determining that the public policy of pr omoting the finality of bankruptcy judgements also weighed in favor of dismissing Appellants' appeals.