Hurray, equitable mootness appears to be dead, at least in the 3rd Circuit.

What is it? In short form, it’s a (nonsensical) rationale for denial of the opportunity to appeal bankruptcy court decisions. Is it in the bankruptcy code? No. Then why does it exist? Because bankruptcy lawyers invented an outcome liked by some, and

Are bankruptcy court injunctions enforceable when they cut off personal injury claims and related rights of co-defendants without meaningful prior notice or adequate representation of the interests of the rights holders? Such persons include 1) the physical victim as well as 2) co-defendants also sued by the physical victim, and  3) may include an insurer.

 April 30, 2014 news reports say that the US treasury now reports losing $11.2 billion on the GM takeover fiasco, and has written off its “investment” in old GM.  (See below for cut and paste.) The government obviously went into the “deal” knowing that the big picture was that jobs and industries would be saved,

As a result of bugging the clerk’s office and the court reporter’s office, the transparency-blocking 90 day veil has now been lifted from some of the General Motors bankruptcy hearing transcripts.

Here is the June 25, 2009 transcript that reflects the asbestos plaintiff’s lawyers withdrawing the request for appointment of a futures representative. The withdrawal

In GM, Judge Gerber denied a stay of the asset sale and denied a direct appeal to the 2d Circuit; the order is here (Docket No. 3046). Basic news articles are here (WSJ) and here (NYT).

What the news articles do not mention is a bankruptcy appeal doctrine known as the “equitable mootness” doctrine. Under

The Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Claimants notice of appeal in GM is here but says only that an appeal is taken (Docket No. 2988). The appeal lists as counsel both Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman + Plifka, as well as the Caplin + Drysdale firm. Like the other product liability claimants, the Ad Hoc Asbestos Claimants