June 18, 2026|Bankruptcy Litigation Blog
Posted in Recent Case Law Developments, Uncategorized
Plan Confirmation and Appeal: In the Del Monte Foods chapter 11 bankruptcy case, the Ad Hoc Group of Minority Secured Lenders sought an emergency stay pending appeal of Bankruptcy Judge Kaplan’s order confirming the Debtors’ First Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization. Following an extensive evidentiary hearing, a 30-page bench ruling, and a 66-page confirmation order, Judge Kaplan denied the motion to stay consummation of the plan. The lenders immediately appealed and requested an emergency stay from the district court, which the Debtors opposed.
In its emergency motion (and subsequent reply), the Ad Hoc Group argued that, absent a stay, the Plan would be substantially consummated and their appeal rendered equitably moot, causing irreparable harm.
The Ad Hoc Group’s Emergency Motion Is Denied by the District Court:
District Judge Kirsch denied the stay, holding—consistent with Third Circuit precedent—that the risk of equitable mootness alone does not constitute irreparable injury. As the Court noted, if it did, “a stay would be issued in every case of this nature pending appeal.” (Citing In re W.R. Grace, 475 B.R. 34, 207 (D. Del. 2012)).
Judge Kirsch further found the alleged harm was fundamentally economic, noting that the Ad Hoc Group conceded that distributions could be clawed back if it prevailed on appeal, indicating an adequate remedy at law.
The Court was also “skeptical” of the Ad Hoc Group’s likelihood of success on the merits, observing that the group claimed the law was unsettled while simultaneously arguing that the Plan violated basic settled bankruptcy principles. The Court agreed with Judge Kaplan that the governing law is “well developed” and that mere disagreement with its application does not render it unsettled.
Finally, the Court held that the remaining two Revel factors (see In re Revel AC, Inc., 802 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2015)), weighed against a stay because (i) hundreds of creditors awaited distributions under a widely supported plan, and (ii) the public interest favored the orderly administration and conclusion of the chapter 11 cases.
Practice Note: In the Third Circuit, the argument that “equitable mootness equals irreparable harm” carries no weight when seeking a stay of a confirmation order pending appeal. Accordingly, to obtain a stay pending appeal of a confirmation order in that Circuit (and others), parties are advised to identify concrete, non-economic, and non-compensable harms beyond the risk that an appeal will become moot.
Ad Hoc Group of Minority Secured Lenders v. Del Monte Foods Corporation et al., (In re Del Monte Foods Corporation II Inc.), No. 26-6259 (D.N.J. June 11, 2026) 2026 WL 1705928
To view the full Bankruptcy Litigation Blog, click here.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
