United Surety & Indemnity Co. v. Lopez-Munoz, 983 F.3d 69

Pedro López‑Muñoz filed Chapter 11 on October 1, 2013; United Surety & Indemnity Company (USIC) held an unsecured claim of $2,700,000.
Bankruptcy court vetted competing liquidation/discount analyses and confirmed a reorganization plan on September 18, 2018 under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(7).
Under the confirmed plan USIC would receive a fixed dividend of $243,000, payable in monthly installments of $4,500.
USIC appealed the confirmation to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) on October 2, 2018 but did not move for a stay of the plan’s execution at that time.
López‑Muñoz began making plan payments and filed a Report of Payments and Request for Final Decree on December 14, 2018; USIC then sought a stay in January 2019, which the bankruptcy court denied; a final decree was entered in March 2019.
The BAP dismissed USIC’s appeal as equitably moot on May 23, 2019; the First Circuit affirmed, holding the appeal equitably moot based mainly on USIC’s failure to pursue available stay remedies and the plan’s substantial consummation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (USIC)	Defendant's Argument (López‑Muñoz)	Held
Whether the appeal is equitably moot	Appeal is not moot; relief can be fashioned and third‑party harm is unclear	Appeal is equitably moot because USIC failed to obtain a stay and the plan is substantially consummated	Affirmed: appeal is equitably moot
Whether USIC diligently pursued available stay remedies	USIC delayed but the appeal to BAP was pending; relief still feasible	USIC failed to pursue timely stay, did not appeal stay denial or seek expedition	Court: USIC failed to diligently pursue available remedies
Whether appellate relief would be practicable without harming third parties	Relief could be fashioned; unwinding is not inevitable	Plan substantially consummated and undoing would harm parties relying on it	Court: substantial consummation plus absence of stay creates strong presumption that relief would be impracticable and harmful

In re Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H., 963 F.2d 469 (1st Cir. 1992) (establishes circuit framework and policy favoring finality in equitable mootness analysis)
In re AOV Indus., Inc., 792 F.2d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (articulates substantial‑consummation presumption against appellate annulment)
In re Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc., 416 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasizes fairness where appellants delay seeking stay or expedition)
PPUC Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Gangi, 874 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2017) (discusses court discretion to decline merits under equitable mootness)
In re López‑Muñoz, 866 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2017) (prior appellate decision in this matter)
In re Roberts Farms, Inc., 652 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding appeals equitably moot when appellants fail to obtain stay)
In re United Producers, Inc., 526 F.3d 942 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting risk of adverse effects on plan success and third parties when plan is substantially consummated)