Opinion ID: 1227815
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The motion to dissolve the ACC

Text: The remaining five appellants were among a group of defendants named in the ACC's lawsuit who filed a motion in February 2006 to dissolve the ACC, arguing that it was formed without statutory authority. Their motion was denied by the bankruptcy court in a ruling from the bench that was memorialized in a written order issued in May 2006. Bricker, Babcock, Baske, Evans, and Henning appealed the denial of their motion to the district court. That court refused to hear Bricker's appeal because it held that Bricker had appealed only the oral ruling of the bankruptcy court, and that the oral ruling was not an appealable final order. Bricker v. Official Comm. of Admin. Claimants, No. 1:06CV 1082, 2007 WL 963290 at  (N.D.Ohio Mar.28, 2007). In a separate opinion, the district court held that Babcock, Baske, Evans, and Henning were not persons aggrieved by the bankruptcy court's order, and that they therefore lacked standing to appeal. Babcock v. Official Comm. of Admin. Claimants, No. 1:06CV1081, 1:06CV1503, 2007 WL 950336 at -4 (N.D.Ohio Mar.27, 2007). These five appellants now assert that the district court erred when it declined to hear their appeals on the merits.