Consolidated Appeals moot. A plain reading and specific application of § 1127(b) indicate that it has no relevancy either to the Consolidated or to the Confirmation Appeals, each of which was brought by a creditor and challenger of the Plan. It seems to be true that § 1127(b) of the Bankruptcy Code—which provides that the debtor or proponent of a confirmed reorganization plan may modify the plan before it has been substantially consummated—is “the sole means for modification of the plan of reorganization after it has been confirmed.” 7 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1127.04 (15th ed. rev. 2009). It can also operate to prohibit other actions in the bankruptcy court that are essentially attempted modifications to a confirmed plan. See In re U.S. Brass Corp. 301 F.3d 296, 306-08 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). However, § 1127(b) does not apply to
holding client suffered ascertainable damages when settlement agreement was entered into not when court confirmed the rights were lost holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it holding that the debtor had the right to cure the default because the foreclosure sale was not complete under state law until it was confirmed by a court holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that a proposed settlement agreement between the debtor and its claimants would modify the confirmed plan and was prohibited by  1127b