On review, the District Court accepted the Bankruptcy Court's determination that the Plan was substantially consummated and accordingly found Appellants subject to a presumption that their appeals were equitably moot.
at 483, under which we examine conclusions of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error, see Highmark Inc. These cases suggest that the doctrine of equitable mootness has already been accorded broad reach, without apparent ill effect.
the Bar Date Order required Borders to notify potential prepetition creditors of the bankruptcy proceedings in several ways, including by publishing notice of the Bar Date in the national edition of The New York Times at least twenty-eight days before the Bar Date, and by serving notice of the Bar Date via first-class mail to, among others, "all known creditors and other known holders of claims." No appeal was taken from the Bar Date Order. For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the District Court correctly applied the doctrine of equitable mootness in the context of this Chapter 11 liquidation and that it committed no abuse of discretion in determining that Appellants' claims are equitably moot. Bankruptcy Rule 2002, entitled "Notices to Creditors, Equity Security Holders, [and others]," governs, inter alia, how a debtor must provide notice to creditors in a bankruptcy action. The Plan provided primarily that, as of the effective date, the Debtors would dissolve, and the Liquidating Trust — managed by the Liquidating Trustee under the supervision of a Liquidating Trust Committee — would liquidate the Debtors' remaining assets and make distributions to unsecured creditors after paying administrative, secured, and unsecured priority claims.
In April 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order (the "Bar Date Order") establishing June 1, 2011 (the "Bar Date"), as the deadline for claims to be filed by purported creditors of Borders on debts arising before Borders filed its bankruptcy petition (the "prepetition creditors"). 6, 2014) (explaining that the doctrine of equitable mootness "has been applied in a variety of contexts" (footnotes omitted)); Cadle Company II, Inc. entered the bankruptcy litigation and the Plan was confirmed indicates the lack of diligence with which Appellants moved."); see also In re Metromedia Fiber, 416 F.3d at 144-45 (relying on a failure to seek a stay of the confirmation order and a failure to seek expedited review of the order to uphold the district court's finding of equitable mootness). This figure did not include the 0.5 million in unredeemed balances associated with approximately 17.7 million gift cards then outstanding. In particular, the Bankruptcy Court required Borders to disseminate by November 16, 2011, notice of the confirmation hearing to the following groups: (1) persons or entities identified in Borders' schedule of liabilities; (2) parties that had filed proofs of claim; (3) registered holders of Borders' debt and equity securities; and (4) any other "known holders of claims against" or equity interests in Borders.4. In an earlier appeal in the same bankruptcy, we found, in contrast, that an appeal was properly dismissed as equitably moot.
7 (2d Cir.2006); and ordering the sale of closely held real estate corporations in a Chapter 11 proceeding, see Kassover v. In any event, Appellants have forfeited any challenge to the Bankruptcy Court's finding of substantial consummation by failing to raise it in their opening brief.
In those orders, the Bankruptcy Court found that the Plan was substantially consummated, and (1) denied the motion of Appellants Eric Beeman and Jane Freij for leave to file untimely proofs of claim; (2) rejected and discharged Appellant Robert Traktman's untimely proof of claim; and (3) denied as moot the motion for class certification pursued by all three Appellants, none of whom appeared in the case until after the Plan was confirmed.
Concluding further that Appellants had failed to overcome that presumption, the District Court dismissed the appeals.
(“BGI”) and its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Chapter 11 cases") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court").
These Chapter 11 cases were jointly administered under case number Case No. On December 21, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order (“Confirmation Order”) confirming the First Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Proposed by the Debtors and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the "Plan"), and on January 12, 2012, the Plan became effective.