Lindsey v. Pinnacle National Bank, 726 F.3d 857

Debtor William Lindsey filed a Chapter 11 petition and proposed a reorganization plan that would let him retain most of his assets, including real property.
Three impaired creditor banks (Pinnacle National Bank, First Bank, Mountain National Bank) opposed confirmation, arguing the plan violated the absolute priority rule.
Lindsey argued the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) eliminated the absolute priority rule for individual Chapter 11 debtors.
The bankruptcy court refused to confirm the plan, concluding the absolute priority rule still applies to individual debtors; the district court affirmed.
Lindsey appealed to the Sixth Circuit; neither party had sought final-judgment certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) nor interlocutory certification under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2) / § 1292(b).
The Sixth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal from the nonfinal order, dismissed the appeal, and vacated the district court’s decision for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court order rejecting a Chapter 11 confirmation plan is a "final" appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1)	Lindsey: the district court’s rejection should be appealable now	Banks: rejection is not final; further proceedings (new plan or confirmation) remain	Rejection of plan is not a final order under § 158(d)(1); appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (absent § 54(b) or § 158(d)(2) certification)
Whether BAPCPA eliminated the absolute priority rule for individual Chapter 11 debtors	Lindsey: BAPCPA abrogates the absolute priority rule for individuals	Banks: absolute priority rule remains applicable to individuals	Sixth Circuit did not reach the merits because of lack of appellate jurisdiction; lower courts’ rulings were vacated for lack of jurisdiction

Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197 (1988) (supreme court discussion of the absolute priority rule in Chapter 11)
Settembre v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Ins. Co., 552 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2009) (district remand orders to bankruptcy court are not final unless ministerial)
Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) (statutory text controls interpretation of appeal jurisdiction)
In re Lievsay, 118 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 1997) (order rejecting plan is not final)
In re Lewis, 992 F.2d 767 (8th Cir. 1993) (order rejecting confirmation not final)
In re Simons, 908 F.2d 643 (10th Cir. 1990) (same)
In re Maiorino, 691 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1982) (same)
Mort Ranta v. Gorman, 721 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2013) (contrary view treating plan rejection as appealable)
In re Armstrong World Indus., 432 F.3d 507 (3d Cir. 2005) (contrary view)
In re Bartee, 212 F.3d 277 (5th Cir. 2000) (contrary view)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (courts must be cautious about advising filing deadlines)
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (advice about statutory interpretation and finality)