In Re: Revlon, Inc.

Background

Revlon, Inc. and its affiliates were involved in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. The appellants—Bonita Newman, Derenna Moon, Jamey Capers, and Tamera Keys—were claimants who allegedly used Revlon hair-straightening products associated with a higher risk of cancer.

The Bankruptcy Court set October 24, 2022, as the deadline for filing written proofs of claim. After a study about the risks associated with hair-straightening chemicals was published, other claimants sought an extension for claims based on using Revlon’s hair-straightening products. Revlon requested an extension only for those claims and asked that claimants use a customized proof-of-claim form.

On March 7, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court extended the deadline for those claims to April 11, 2023, and required use of the customized form. The form allowed claimants to complete it to the best of their ability and to amend or supplement their claims as permitted by the Bankruptcy Code. The appellants timely filed customized forms. Some also filed standard forms. The appellants did not identify any errors, omissions, or objections in their forms.

Issues and arguments

The appellants challenged the Bankruptcy Court’s order on procedural due-process grounds. They argued that Revlon had not provided adequate notice that claimants would be required to use the customized form and that the Bankruptcy Court lacked authority to require it. They sought an order stating that standard forms filed by the extended deadline could not be disallowed.

The appellants also initially appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of their motion for reconsideration, but the opinion states that they abandoned that part of the appeal.

Standing and appellate jurisdiction

A federal court may decide only a live case or controversy. Standing is a requirement that the party seeking relief show a concrete injury connected to the challenged action that a court decision could remedy. Bankruptcy appeals use a stricter standard: the appellant generally must be a person directly and financially harmed by the Bankruptcy Court’s order, or must be protecting an appropriate public interest.

Judge Caproni held that the appellants lacked appellate standing. They had timely filed the customized forms, could amend them if necessary, and did not identify any actual problem with their claims. Their only asserted injury was the possibility that Revlon might object to their claims in the future. The court held that potential future harm and the possibility of later litigation were not enough to support an appeal.

The court also found no public-interest basis for appellate standing. The appellants had not identified a public interest supporting the appeal, and their effort to obtain contingent relief for themselves did not establish one.

Disposition

The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and close the case. The district court therefore did not decide the appellants’ due-process or Bankruptcy Code arguments. The opinion notes that the Bankruptcy Court had separately considered and rejected those arguments after finding that the appellants lacked standing to seek reconsideration.