NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL
- TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0012n.06

Case No. 15

- 1754
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

In re: THE VILLAGE AT KNAPP’S CROSSING, LLC , Debtor

.

_____________________________________
THE VILLAGE AT KNAPP’S CROSSING, LLC, Appellant ,

v. PIONEER VENTURES, LLC, Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BEFORE: MOORE and COOK, Circuit Judges; PEARSON, District Judge. 

PER CURIAM. This appeal turns on whether the sale of t he Debtor’s primary asset
mooted its appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order converting the Debtor’s bankruptcy case from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 of the B ankruptcy C ode. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) held

 The Honorable Benita Y. Pearson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.Case No. 15

- 1754

In re: The Village at Knapp’s Crossing, LLC

- 2

- that the sale mooted the conversion

- order appeal . The Debtor now appeals the BAP’s mootness determination, as well as the bankruptcy court’s conversion order. We AFFIRM. The Debtor appealed to the BAP from a bankruptcy

- court order converting its case from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 of the B ankrup t cy C ode, but failed to seek or obtain a stay of the
conversion order during the appeal’s pendency

. Following the case’s conversion to Chapter 7 , the bankruptcy court authorized the sale of the Debtor’s primary asset

— three properties located at a busy inte rsection in Grand Rapids, Michigan that the Debtor intended to develop as a shopping complex (VKC Property). Yet t he D ebtor neither obtain ed a stay nor appeal ed the
order au thorizing the VKC Property sale. Pioneer Ventu res, LLC purchased that p roperty. T he Debtor’s Chapter 11 plan depended on its developing the VKC Property, and the conversion

order appeal offered no mechanism to return the asset to the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate

. Determining that a favorable decision would therefore afford the Debtor n o relief, the BAP
dismissed the conversion

- order appeal as constitutionally moot

. We review mootness determinations de novo, Coal. for Gov’t Procurement v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc. , 365 F.3d 435, 458 (6th Cir. 2004) , affirming if events occur “during th e pendency of the appeal that make it ‘impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief
whatever.’” Id. ( quoting Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States , 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) ). We agree with the BAP that the VKC Property sale mooted the Deb tor’s appeal of the
conversion orde r. As Debtor’s counsel concedes , the Debtor’s Chapter 11 plan cannot succeed without the VKC Property. Debtor not only failed to obtain a stay of either the conversion order
or sale

- authorization order, b ut also failed to appeal the sale

- authorization order. This appeal of
the conversion order therefor e offers no mechanism to unwind the VKC Property sale

. Without a path to provide effective relief, the Debtor’s appeal is moot. See In re Roller , 999 F.2d 346Case No. 15

- 1754

In re: The Village at Knapp’s Crossing, LLC

- 3

- (8th Cir. 1993) (affirming the dismissal as moot of bankruptcy petitioners’ appeal from an order reinstating their Chapter 12 bankruptcy petition because the petitioners’ assets had been liquidated following the case’s conversion from Chapter 12 to Chapter 7 , and th e petitioners failed to obtain a stay of either the conversion order or liquidation sales); In re Cook , 730 F.2d 1324, 1326 (9th Cir. 1984) (dismissing as moot an appeal of a forfeiture decree

— entered under Chapter 11

— that sought the return of property dis charged under Chapter 7 because “the propriety of the discharge under Chapter 7 has not bee n appealed and is not before us ”). The Bankruptcy Code bolsters our conclusion that we lack a procedural path to provide
effective relief

. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(m)

. Because the bankruptcy court ordered the VKC Property sale pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b) , and the Debtor neither obtained a stay of th e sale

authorization order nor argued that Pioneer lacked good faith in purchasing the VKC Property, § 363(m) prevents th is court from affecting the sale’s validity. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) (preventing a “reversal or modification on appeal of an authoriz ation” to sell property under § 363(b) from “affect[ing] the validity of a sale . . . unde r such authorization” to a good

- f aith purchaser unless the sale was stayed pending appeal). Section 363(m) also prevents the Debtor’s
indirect attack on the sale

- authorization order by way of this conversion

- order appeal. See In re
Parker , 499 F.3d 616, 620 (6th Cir. 2007) (determining that 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) prevented indirect attempts to attack the validity of a bankruptcy court’s order of sale issued under § 363 when the appellant failed to obtain a stay of that order ). Agreeing that the VKC Property sale mooted this appeal, we A FFIRM

.