In one opinion, the Tenth Circuit examined all three flavors of appellate mootness: constitutional mootness, equitable mootness and statutory mootness.
The bankruptcy court had approved a settlement calling for one party to pay the other $100,000, requiring dismissal of an appeal and allowing a claim for more than $23 million. The opponent of the settlement obtained a stay pending appeal to district court but lost on the merits. The appellant did not seek a stay pending appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
The appellees contended that the appeal was moot because they had consummated the settlement once the initial stay terminated.
The Tenth Circuit, in a non-precedential opinion on June 14, concluded that the appeal was not moot under any theory, because the court could fashion some relief even though it could not resurrect the appeal that had been dismissed.
In the constitutional sense requiring the presence of a case or controversy, the appeal was not moot because it was conceivable that the court could grant “partial relief” by adjusting the amount of the allowed claim. The circuit court said that the party advocating mootness bears the “burden of showing the absence of any meaningful relief.”
With regard to equitable mootness, which ordinarily applies to appeals from chapter 11 confirmation orders, the appeals court said that the circuit was yet to decide whether the doctrine applies in chapter 7 cases. The court did not reach the issue because the “parties have not explicitly argued for equitable mootness.”
The appellees argued that the appeal was statutorily moot under Section 363(m) because the settlement entailed a sale. The appeal was not statutorily moot, the circuit court said, because the bankruptcy court had not made any findings on “good faith.”
On the merits, the judges upheld the settlement.
In one opinion, the Tenth Circuit examined all three flavors of appellate mootness: constitutional mootness, equitable mootness and statutory mootness.