Acheron Capital, Ltd. v. Barry Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979

Mutual Benefits sold fractional interests in viatical‑settlement life‑insurance policies; the SEC sued for misrepresenting life‑expectancy data and the district court placed policy administration in receivership.
Investors could "keep" policies or direct the receiver to sell; some investors defaulted on premiums, and Acheron (through portfolio companies) bought fractional interests from the receiver and later from the Trustee.
In 2009 a trustee (Barry Mukamal) took title to the Keep Policies; the trust agreement authorized the Trustee to sell policies if continued servicing became unfeasible.
A 2015 agreement gave Acheron special bidding/"last look" rights on policy‑by‑policy sales, per Acheron’s interpretation; Acheron later disputed the Trustee’s management and sale plan.
The Trustee moved to wind down the trust and sell whole policies; the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report permitting the Trustee to pursue auction/sale of whole policies and preserved Acheron’s ability to object to later steps.
Acheron appealed the Instructions Order; the Eleventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding the order was not final and not appealable under §1292(a)(2) or collateral/practical‑finality doctrines.

Issue	Acheron’s Argument	Trustee’s Argument	Held
Whether the Instructions Order is a "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. §1291	Order finally resolves the postjudgment dispute and is immediately appealable	Wind‑down and sale process remains ongoing; other related motions pending	Not final: related proceedings remain and additional district‑court approvals (e.g., sale approval) are required
Whether the collateral‑order doctrine permits immediate appeal	Contract rights and economic harm warrant immediate review	Issue is not separable from merits and can be reviewed after final sale; stay available	Collateral order fails: not an issue of sufficiently high order and reviewable on later appeal
Whether the Forgay (practical finality) rule applies	Order authorizes sale of property and delay would cause irreparable harm	Order merely authorizes a future sale step; no immediate turnover or irreparable harm shown	Forgay does not apply: no immediate execution directed and no irreparable harm established
Whether 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(2) authorizes interlocutory appeal	Precedent ("A" Manufacturing) allows appeals from interlocutory orders that take steps to accomplish receivership purposes (e.g., sales)	§1292(a)(2)’s text does not cover this order; the order did not direct a receiver to sell	No jurisdiction under §1292(a)(2): even if reconciling precedent, this order did not direct a receiver to sell; appeal dismissed

Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Mutual Benefits Corp., 408 F.3d 737 (11th Cir. 2005) (background case describing viatical‑settlement scheme)
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Mutual Benefits Corp., [citation="810 F. App'x 770"] (11th Cir. 2020) (prior postjudgment ruling in same receivership litigation)
Mayer v. Wall St. Equity Grp., Inc., 672 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2012) (two‑step framework for postjudgment finality)
Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) (framework for collateral‑order doctrine)
Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (limits on collateral‑order appeals)
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (policy against piecemeal appeals)
United States v. "A" Mfg. Co., 541 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1976) (Fifth Circuit precedent interpreting §1292(a)(2) to allow appeals from sale‑related interlocutory orders)
Wark v. Spinuzzi, 376 F.2d 827 (5th Cir. 1967) (earlier precedent limiting §1292(a)(2) appealability)
Belleair Hotel Co. v. Mabry, 109 F.2d 390 (5th Cir. 1940) (holding §1292(a)(2) did not permit appeal of certain receivership orders)