RUDOLPH T. RANDA, United States District Judge
Upon the motion of Defendant-Appellee ("the Department"), the Court being fully advised in the premises,
IT IS ORDERED, that the Court's June 11, 2002 Decision and Order ("the Order") is hereby supplemented by the Court's determination that the Order meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), for the following reasons:
A. The only issue decided by the Order is a pure question of law. It effectively controls whether the Department's wage claim is secured or unsecured. If secured, the Debtor's prepetition lenders, Bank One, Wisconsin, Harris Trust and Savings Bank and Firstar Bank, National Association ("the Lenders"), are obligated to disgorge funds (which the Lenders received on a provisional basis as the proceeds from the bankruptcy sale of their collateral) sufficient to pay the wage claim in full. If unsecured, the Lenders will have no obligation to disgorge funds or otherwise pay any portion of the wage claim. Instead, the claim can only be asserted against the very limited assets of the AR Accessories Group. Inc. Liquidating Trust (the "Trust"), which will undoubtedly result in a much smaller payment, if any, to the Department.
B. The parties' papers suggest there are numerous legal and fact issues yet to be decided by the Bankruptcy Court. If the Department's claim is finally determined to be unsecured, the Lenders will have little material interest in continuing to pursue this litigation. Until a final determination is made on that issue, however, the Lenders will have to continue to participate in the case — simply to protect their interests in the event the lien question is reversed on a final appeal. Additionally, the Trustee has asserted that if the Department's claim is finally determined to be unsecured and is, as the Department has asserted in the alternative, entitled to priority treatment in substantial portion, there will be no estate funds available for distribution to unsecured nonpriority creditors in the Debtor's underlying bankruptcy case. Until this issue is finally resolved, the Trustee contends that he is forced to either continue to work toward resolution of dozens of claims of unsecured creditors, which may ultimately be for naught, or leave all of that work undone and unresolved to be re-started after final resolution of this litigation.
C. There is a substantial difference of opinion on the only legal issue resolved by the Order. Plaintiffs-Appellants' papers cite at least one circuit court decision and the decisions of several lower courts in favor of their interpretation of the subject statute. They also cite what is perhaps the leading treatise on Bankruptcy, COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY. in support of their position. Defendant-Appellee, on the other hand, cites two circuit court decisions and the decisions of several lower courts in support of its interpretation. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has not decided the question.
D. The parties suggest, and the Court believes, that a final determination of the lien question may advance a final resolution of the case. Until this issue is finally resolved, neither the Lenders, the Trustee nor the Department know whether the Department's $5.27 million wage claim is going to be paid in full or paid a (small) pro rata share, nor do they know whose pot of money the payment will come from the Lenders' or the Trust's. If it appears the Department's only recourse is against the Trust, the parties may well choose to settle and end the case, rather than continue a fight over very limited funds. Under the circumstances, the question presented is controlling of the future course of this litigation and the course of the Debtor's bankruptcy case, and resolution of this pure question of law is likely to speed the resolution of both.