[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

Nos. 20-12361; 20-12368

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

IN RE: KK-PB FINANCIAL, LLC,

Debtor,

KK-PB FINANCIAL, LLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

160 ROYAL PALM, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee.

USCA11 Case: 20-12361 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 20-12361

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:19-cv-80342-RLR; 9:20-cv-80216-RLR

____________________

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

KK-PB Financial (“KK-PB”) appeals from an order of the district court dismissing two of its bankruptcy appeals as equitably and 

constitutionally moot. Largely for the reasons stated in the district 

court’s order, see D.E. 67 in Case No. 19-cv-80342-RLR, we affirm.

The two bankruptcy appeals filed by KK-PB are from (1) the 

bankruptcy court’s confirmation of the debtor’s bankruptcy plan, 

and (2) the bankruptcy court’s determination that KK-PB’s claim as 

a creditor was fraudulent, and therefore valued at zero. The district 

court concluded that the two appeals were moot under Eleventh 

Circuit precedent for a number of reasons. See generally In re Club 

Associates, Inc., 956 F.2d 1065, 1069 n.11 (11th Cir. 1992) (setting 

out relevant factors in equitable mootness analysis). 

First, KK-PB had not obtained a stay of either order—it had

unsuccessfully sought a stay of the valuation order at the district 

court and the Eleventh Circuit and had unsuccessfully sought a stay 

of the confirmation order in the district court but not the Eleventh 

Circuit. The district court concluded that this factor did not weigh 

USCA11 Case: 20-12361 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 Page: 2 of 4
20-12361 Opinion of the Court 3

strongly in favor of either side but tended to weigh in favor of dismissal due to KK-PB’s failure to seek a stay of the confirmation order in the Eleventh Circuit. See D.E. 67 at 3-4. 

Second, the district court concluded—as the parties had 

agreed—that the bankruptcy plan had been substantially consummated under 11 U.S.C. § 1101. The debtor’s property (the hotel) 

had been transferred to a third party; the debtor had disbursed almost $32 million to creditors; the debtor had paid $100,000 to the 

Town of Palm Beach; and the debtor had paid a large amount of 

fees to the U.S. Trustee for the management of the property. See 

D.E. 67 at 4-5.

Third, the district court concluded that the relief sought by 

KK-PB—permitting its claim to be included in a class of allowed 

secured claims and striking a certain contingent lien—could not be 

granted because it was contrary to law. As to the merits of KK-PB’s 

claim, the district court pointed out that the Eleventh Circuit had 

already rejected KK-PB’s contention when it affirmed the sale of 

the debtor’s property in 2019. See In re 160 Royal Palm, 785 F. 

App’x 829 (11th Cir. 2019). With respect to the lien issue, the district court explained that striking the contingent lien (which would 

activate if the Supreme Court reversed the sale of the property) 

would not aid KK-PB and would instead harm the purchaser of the 

property. See D.E. 67 at 5-6. 

Applying de novo review, see Bennett v. Jefferson County, 

899 F.3d 1240, 1246 (11th Cir. 2018), we find no error. For example, 

with respect to consummation, the parties agreed that the plan has 

USCA11 Case: 20-12361 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 20-12361

been substantially consummated. The fact that the debtor’s plan 

did not involve unusually complex transactions does not bar a finding of equitable mootness. See In re Hazon, 10 F.4th 1244, 1255 

(11th Cir. 2021). And we are not convinced by KK-PB’s argument 

that its so-called “narrowly-tailored remedy” would be easy to implement. In fact, KK-PB itself suggests that it would have to pursue 

the debtor’s bankruptcy counsel for a portion of their fees. See Appellant’s Br. at 17.

KK-PB may be correct in arguing that the district court conflated the merits with equitable mootness when it reasoned that 

the relief sought was contrary to law. Be that as it may, KK-PB does 

not satisfactorily explain why its requested relief (which potentially 

runs in the millions of dollars) would not create problems for others. 

Given that the appeal of the confirmation order is equitably 

moot, KK-PB’s appeal of the valuation order is constitutionally 

moot. The confirmed plan, which stands, is binding on all parties 

and payments contrary to the plan are prohibited. See 11 U.S.C. § 

1141(a). There is no way to modify the plan, as KK-PB suggests, if 

the appeal of the plan’s confirmation is equitably moot. See Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S.Ct. 1652, 

1660 (2019) (case is moot “only if it is impossible for a court to grant 

any effectual relief whatever to [a party] assuming it prevails”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 20-12361 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 Page: 4 of 4