Unpublished Dispositionin Re Farm Bureau Services, Inc., Debtor,theron K. Carter; Rosemary K. Bellinger; Robert A.geering; Herbert Witt; and William F. Bellinger;richard Sharp; Jason Shinn; and Marylou Shinn, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Farm Bureau Services, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 835 F.2d 877 (6th Cir. 1987)

Appellants filed their notice of appeal from an order of the District Court dated November 24, 1986 denying appellants' motions for reconsideration of orders of the District Court which affirmed preliminary and final allocation orders of the Bankruptcy Court.

Appellants were tort claimants in this Chapter 11 proceeding. Pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization, a claim fund was created to be allocated between persons who had filed claims for personal injury and property damages due to the accidental mixing of PBB, a flame retardant, in feed sold by the debtor, Farm Bureau Services, Inc. The United States District Court subsequently confirmed and ratified the Plan of Reorganization. Farm Bureau Services, Inc. was discharged of all PBB claims upon the establishment of the PBB claim fund and had no interest or part in the allocation process.

The settlement stipulation, incorporated in the Plan of Reorganization, and the confirmation order outlined the procedure for allocating the PBB claim fund among PBB-related claimants. Appellants object to the manner in which the fund was distributed, alleging that the procedure used did not conform to the confirmation order and settlement stipulation. Appellants acknowledge that the fund has now been completely allocated and distributed to claimants.

Appellants Carter and Bellinger sought a stay of the final distribution order, in conjunction with an earlier appeal (No. 85-1851). The motion was denied by a panel of this Court on May 21, 1986. The panel dismissed that appeal on April 6, 1987 because it was taken from a non-final order dated December 28, 1984 remanding the case to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings.

Appellants are not entitled to relief from Farm Bureau Services, Inc. It was discharged from liability to claimants by establishment of the fund. There can be no relief against the fund since it has been distributed.

We can afford no relief against other claimants since appellants did not seek below to have them refund monies they received. Nor did appellants bring any proceedings below against the allocators individually. "Mootness results when events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief." Carras v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1286, 1289 (6th Cir. 1986). Since there is no person or persons against whom this Court can afford appellants relief, the appeal is dismissed.