may sell property ... free and clear of any interest in such property of an entity other than the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 363(f). In this case, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued its Consummation Order during a reorganization pursuant to section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, which permits “property dealt with by the plan” to be transferred to a reorganized entity “free and clear of all claims of the debtor, its stockholders and creditors.” 11 U.S.C. § 205(f) (1970). Despite this error, the district court correctly ruled that the Consummation Order did not extinguish plaintiffs’ easements. Bankruptcy courts cannot extinguish the interests of parties who lacked notice of or did not participate in the proceedings. See, e.g., In re Johns-Manville Corp., 600 F.3d 135, 153-54 (2d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc., 467 B.R.
recognizing that party is not permitted to use the accident of a remand to raise an issue that it could just as well have raised in the first appeal internal quotation marks and alterations omitted holding that bankruptcy is no exception to the due process principle that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party to or to which he has not been made a party by service of process internal quotation marks omitted holding on summary judgment that where a party purposely signed a writing with blanks left to be filled in by the other party the person signing is bound by it internal marks omitted holding that a foreign entity without property or presence in this country has no constitutional rights under the due process clause or otherwise internal quotation marks omitted holding that successful party is one who is the ultimate prevailing party in the litigation