In re: Peabody Energy Corporation, Debtor.Ad Hoc Committee of Non-Consenting Creditors, Appellant v. Peabody Energy Corporation; Citibank, N.A.; Aurelis Capital Management, LP; Elliott Management Corporation; South Dakota Investment Council; Panning Capital Management, LP; PointState Capital, LP; Contrarian Capital Management, LLC; Discovery Capital Management; South Dakota Retirement System; Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB; Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Peabody Energy Corporation, Appellees, 933 F.3d 918

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-Court did not decide whether a determination that the 11 U.S.C.S. § 1123(a)(4) equal-treatment rule was satisfied was a factual finding subject to clear-error review or a legal conclusion subject to de novo review because, even assuming the standard of review was de novo, its conclusion would be the same; [2]-Bankruptcy court properly determined that the plan did not violate § 1123(a)(4), as the opportunity to participate in a private placement was not "treatment for" participating creditors' claims but rather, consideration for valuable new commitments made by participating creditors; [3]-Bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that debtors proposed their plan in good faith, 11 U.S.C.S. § 1129(a)(3) where they mediated with creditors to resolve a major dispute between those creditors and reached a settlement with substantial input from the negotiating parties.