we should ask whether we want to encourage or discourage reliance by investors and others on the finality of bankruptcy confirmation orders. The strong public policy in favor of maximizing debtors’ estates and facilitating successful reorganization, reflected in the Code itself, clearly weighs in favor of encouraging such reliance.” 91 F.3d at 565. IV. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1 . The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d)(1) and 1291. 2 . Manchester argues that equitable mootness should not apply because the claim could be paid as an administrative expense without requiring amendment of the Plan. We reject ed that argument in Continental I. 91 F.3d at 566 (<HOLDING>)- 3 . Manchester argues additionally that the
holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely holding that rookerfeldman does not apply to state administrative decisions holding that a plans provision of a mechanism by which a reorganized debtor can pay an administrative claim does not mean that equitable mootness does not apply holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that  727a2a does not apply to the transfer of the assets of a corporation in which the debtor is a shareholder