Third Circuit’s Mootness Debate Avoids Reversal of Confirmation Order

Two groups of claimant-appellants (A and B” sought to “reverse the Confirmation Order and vacate the Plan in its entirety.” Id., at *9. Because the Plan’s confirmation order “contains the authorization of the sale of [the debtor’s] insurance policies,” said the court’s majority, these appeals “would reverse … an authorization made pursuant to [Bankruptcy Code] §363(b),” a result barred by Code §363(m) (good-faith purchaser of property protected from reversal on appeal of sale order unless order stayed). In short, said the majority, A and B’s appeals were taken “from an authorization of the sale,” when “the purchase was made in good faith,” and when “the sale was not stayed.” Id., at *7, quoting In re Energy Future Holdings, 949 F. 3d 806, 821 (3d Cir. 2020). A and B’s appeals “would necessarily affect the sale’s validity,” requiring their appeals to be dismissed as statutorily moot.