Lindsey v. Pinnacle National Bank (In Re Lindsey), 726 F.3d 857

Lindsey filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in April 2010 seeking to retain assets, including real property, under a plan with twelve creditor classes.
Three banks (Pinnacle National Bank, First Bank, Mountain National Bank) objected, claiming the plan failed the fair and equitable requirement and violated the absolute priority rule if Lindsey kept assets.
Lindsey argued that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 abrogated the absolute priority rule as to individuals.
The bankruptcy court refused to confirm, and the district court affirmed; Lindsey sought appellate review.
The court discusses finality under 28 U.S.C. §158(d) and whether the district court’s rejection of the plan is a final, appealable order, ultimately dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The court notes Lindsey may propose a new plan and, after further proceedings, appeal may be possible either under §158(d)(1) or §158(d)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the district court's rejection of a Chapter 11 plan a final order under §158(d)(1)?	Lindsey argued the district court’s decision is a final order subject to immediate appeal.	Banks argued finality requires a complete end to the case or entry of a final judgment.	No; rejection is not final until post-confirmation steps, so appeal is not proper under §158(d)(1).
Can §158(d)(2) certification permit immediate appeal of the rejection?	Lindsey could seek interlocutory review if the order implicates a controlling legal question or advances the case.	Certification was not properly sought or timely granted by the district court in this case.	No; lacking timely and proper certification, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Settembre v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Co., 552 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2009) (finality and remand non-ministerial for §158(d) purposes; need for finality certification)
In re Lievsay, 118 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 1997) (final judgment concept in bankruptcy context; more than ministerial tasks remain)
In re Lewis, 992 F.2d 767 (8th Cir. 1993) (finality in bankruptcy appeals; narrow scope for interlocutory review)
In re Simons, 908 F.2d 643 (10th Cir. 1990) (finality considerations in bankruptcy order appeals)
In re Maiorino, 691 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1982) (finality principles; chapter 11 context)
In re Armstrong World Indus., 432 F.3d 507 (3d Cir. 2005) (debtor-creditor framework; §158(d) interplay with finality)
In re Bartee, 212 F.3d 277 (5th Cir. 2000) (interlocutory review in bankruptcy contexts; finality distinctions)
Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) (finality and appealability under bankruptcy-related decisions)