he argues, the Junior Bondholders received less than what they would have received had the estate been properly valued. To calculate the damages incurred by Prostok and the Junior Bondholders he represents, a court would need to determine not only how much larger the bankruptcy estate would have been but for the defendants’ conduct, but also what percentage of the estate each class of creditors would have been entitled to if the bankruptcy court had considered the larger estate. Thus, while Prostok’s action contemplates relief other than revoking the confirmation order, it necessarily challenges the integrity of the order and results in a review, perhaps a recalculation, of the bankruptcy determinations of the assets to which some claimants are entitled. See Miller, 462 F.2d at 360 (<HOLDING>); Mitchell v. Village Creek Drainage Dist. 158
recognizing collateral attack on void order holding that postconfirmation attempt to equitably subordinate claim of one general unsecured creditor in a class of general unsecured creditors was a violation of  1123a4 holding an unsecured creditors postconfirmation suit against a secured creditor for fraudulent misrepresentation at a creditors meeting constituted a collateral attack on the confirmation order holding that because creditors claim was unsecured after application of section 506a and because section 1325a5 does not apply to unsecured claims creditors lien could properly be avoided holding that unsecured creditor could not appeal decision determining priority among secured creditors because it would not affect the payment of his claims