Member Articles
2nd Circ. Favors Appellees Under Equitable Mootness
by Gregory G. Hesse and Henry P. Long III, Hunton & Williams LLP
Published: October, 2012
Submission: December, 2012
Related Articles inDispute Resolution
More Dispute Resolution Aricles → Latest Firm's PressHunton Andrews Kurth LLP
On Aug. 31, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in In re Charter Communications Inc., (2d Cir. Aug. 31, 2012), expressly adopting an abuse of discretion standard for reviewing equitable mootness determinations. The Charter Communications decision also reaffirmed the Second Circuit’s rebuttable presumption of equitable mootness upon substantial consummation of a debtor’s reorganization plan, which places the burden on appellants to overcome equitable mootness. Accordingly, the Charter Communications decision is significant because the adoption of the abuse of discretion standard for review coupled with the rebuttable presumption signifies that appellants likely face a difficult task appealing bankruptcy court decisions in Equitable Mootness DoctrineDoctrine of “equitable mootness” is not based on statute. Rather, the doctrine is unique to bankruptcy proceedings and was judicially created to address situations where redress is possible, but it would be inequitable to overturn a confirmed reorganization plan. In other words, “[i]n the bankruptcy context, ‘where the ability to achieve finality is essential to the fashioning of effective remedies,’ equitable mootness serves as ‘a prudential doctrine ... that is invoked to avoid disturbing a reorganization plan once implemented.’” R2 Investments LDC v. Charter Communications Inc. (In re Charter Communications Inc.), 449 B.R. 14, 22 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see Bank of New York Trust Co. v. Pacific Lumber Co. (In re ScoPac), 624 F.3d 274, 281 (5th Cir. 2010) (“Equitable mootness is not an Article III inquiry into whether a live case or controversy exists, but rather a recognition that there is a point beyond which a court cannot order fundamental changes in reorganization actions.”).
|
Related Articles in
Dispute Resolution
- Do I Need to Disclose my Assets on Divorce?
January, 2021 - Bankruptcy Moratorium Expiration: The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Clarifies a Number of Key Issues
January, 2021 - Family Resources on Divorce
January, 2021 - California Proposes Significant Change to Limit Use of Short-Form Proposition 65 Warning For Consumer Products
January, 2021
More Dispute Resolution Aricles →
Latest Firm's Press
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Advises on Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation's Offering of $200 Million of First Mortgage Bonds
November, 2020 - Hunton Andrews Kurth Advises on NiSource Inc.’s $2 Billion SEC-Registered Debt Offerings and Concurrent Debt Tender Offers
August, 2020 - Hunton Advises on Florida Power & Light Company $1.1 Billion First Mortgage Bond Offering
March, 2020