Corp., 711 F.2d 441 (1st Cir.1983), Justice Breyer, then a First Circuit judge, traced the concept of finality in bankruptcy proceedings and concluded that considerations unique to bankruptcy appeals, such as the protracted nature of the proceedings and the large number of interested parties, require a less rigorous application of the finality rule. See id. at 443-48. Put differently, “[t]o avoid the waste of. time and resources that might result from reviewing discrete portions of the action only after a plan of reorganization is approved, courts have permitted appellate review of orders that in other contexts might be considered interlocutory.” Dalkon Shield, 828 F.2d at 241 (quoting In re Amatex Corp., 755 F.2d at 1039); see also In re Mason, 709 F.2d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Thus, for example, the decision to appoint a
holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding that finality must be determined in light of the unique nature of bankruptcy procedure and not with blind adherence to the rules of finality holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court holding rules of appellate procedure are obviously procedural in nature recognizing that notwithstanding the finality of such orders for appeal purposes the underlying investigative proceeding persists