that Defendants’ objections to the plan were never ruled on, since the parties settled their dispute with regard to the Plan. Next, Trustee’s contention that Defendants essentially waived their standing objection is unavailing. Standing, a jurisdictional question, cannot be waived. Wiggins v. Martin, 150 F.3d 671, 673 (7th Cir.1998). While “[i]t is a well-established principle of bankruptcy law that a party with adequate notice of a bankruptcy proceeding cannot ordinarily attack a confirmed plan,” In re Harvey, 213 F.3d 318, 321 (7th Cir.2000) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1327(a)), confirmation of a bankruptcy plan “is res judicata only as to issues that can be raised in the less formal procedure for contested matters[.]” Strong v. IRS (In re Strong), 203 B.R. 105, 114 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1996) (<HOLDING>). “[A] confirmed plan acts more or less like a
holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding holding that illinois federal court erred in giving preclusive effect to minnesota state courts dismissal of action on statute of limitations grounds based on minnesotas treatment of statutes of limitations as procedural in nature and without preclusive effect holding that previous ordered entered with prejudice did not have preclusive effect holding that while an original bankruptcy proceeding where the state is not named as a defendant is not a suit an adversary proceeding directly against the state would be holding that confirmation generally cannot have preclusive effect as to the validity of a lien which must be resolved in an adversary proceeding as man by fedrbankrp 70012