In re: THG Holdings LLC, 1:19-cv-01714

True Health received 2017 and 2019 CMS suspension notices halting 100% of Medicare payments based on allegations of fraud tied to a handful of claims.
True Health filed Chapter 11 on July 30, 2019 and filed an adversary complaint plus a preliminary-injunction motion seeking enforcement of the automatic stay to compel CMS to release post-petition Medicare payments.
The Bankruptcy Court (Aug. 29, 2019) held that post-petition Medicare reimbursements are property of the estate, found CMS violated § 362(a), and ordered release of withheld post-petition payments and continuation of payments until final judgment or further order.
Defendants (HHS/CMS) appealed and sought a stay; the district court denied a stay pending appeal and considered whether the appeal must be dismissed because the Bankruptcy Court order is interlocutory and Defendants did not obtain leave under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8004(a).
After asset sales True Health ceased operations and moved to voluntarily dismiss the adversary; most payments ordered released have been paid, but the adversary remains pending and the district court evaluated interlocutory-appeal standards and mootness concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (True Health)	Defendant's Argument (Defendants/HHS & CMS)	Held
Is the Bankruptcy Court Order final or interlocutory?	Order is interlocutory (expires on final judgment or further order).	Order is final because it granted the principal relief and directed payment.	Interlocutory — pragmatic finality factors do not favor finality.
Is the Order immediately appealable as injunctive relief without leave?	Even if injunction-like, appeals of bankruptcy interlocutory injunctions require leave.	Injunctive nature gives an immediate right to appeal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(c)(2) and 1292(a).	No immediate right; interlocutory bankruptcy orders require leave to appeal.
Should the court grant leave to appeal under § 1292(b) standards?	N/A (True Health opposes leave).	Exceptional circumstances exist warranting interlocutory review (ongoing investigations and large payments).	Leave denied — defendants failed to show controlling legal issue with substantial doubt or that immediate appeal would materially advance litigation.
Does potential mootness / completed payments counsel against immediate appeal?	The appeal may be moot because operations ceased and most payments were received; allowing Bkrtcy Court to complete record avoids piecemeal review.	CMS could be entitled to recover funds if appeal succeeds; not moot.	Potential mootness and need for a full factual record weigh against interlocutory review.

University Medical Center v. Sullivan, 973 F.2d 1065 (3d Cir. 1992) (bankruptcy court may enjoin CMS over Medicare payments when independent bankruptcy jurisdiction exists)
Marvel Entm't Grp., Inc. v. (In re Marvel Entm't Grp., Inc.), 140 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 1998) (pragmatic finality factors govern appealability of bankruptcy orders)
U.S. v. Nicolet, Inc., 857 F.2d 202 (3d Cir. 1988) (finality precepts apply; orders requiring further factual development are not final)
Gruntz v. County of Los Angeles, 202 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2000) (automatic stay is self-effectuating upon petition)
Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 545 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2008) (orders finding automatic-stay violations can be interlocutory)
Carte Blanche Corp. v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. 1974) (standards for interlocutory review and what constitutes a controlling question of law)
Gillette v. Prosper, 858 F.3d 833 (3d Cir. 2017) (prudential reasons to allow bankruptcy court to develop full record before appellate review)