The majority on a Third Circuit panel decided that a confirmation order many years earlier prevented one nondebtor from suing another nondebtor on an issue that wouldn’t affect the debtor’s estate but did entail interpreting the confirmation order.
In a chapter 7 case, a disappointed bidder wasn’t required to show Article III standing but was still required to demonstrate prudential standing as falling within the class of persons protected by Section 363.
The opinion reads like an invitation for the Eleventh Circuit to sit en banc and reconsider circuit authority holding that a claims-processing deadline is not subject to equitable tolling.
Not much caselaw on the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over breach of a contract made during a chapter 11 case when the breach occurred after confirmation.
The concurring opinion in Bestwall could be read to suggest that Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee might have an open mind if a confirmed plan comes to the Fourth Circuit on appeal.
The Bestwall dissenter understands the Bankruptcy Clause as having the 18th century definition of ‘bankruptcy,’ thus requiring insolvency or inability to pay debts.
Fourth Circuit majority and dissenting opinions might be read to suggest that Bestwall could have tough sledding on an appeal from confirmation since the debtor is solvent.