context: Finally, as to the fifth Chateaugay II factor, the appellants did avail themselves of their opportunity to seek a stay of the Settlement Order, both before the Bankruptcy Court and before this Court. But the appellants' diligence alone is insufficient to avoid equitable mootness in light of the unavailability of effective relief and the other considerations discussed above.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 20 F.3d 766, 769-70
citation_a.parenthetical: "[A] stay not sought, and a stay sought and denied, lead equally to the implementation of the plan of reorganization."
citation_a.sentence: See In re UNR Indus., 20 F.3d 766, 769-70 (7th Cir.1994) (“[A] stay not sought, and a stay sought and denied, lead equally to the implementation of the plan of reorganization.”); cf. In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 383, 387-89 (2d Cir.1997) (appeal of sale pursuant to bankruptcy court auction was moot despite two unsuccessful attempts to obtain a stay).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 126 F.3d 380, 383, 387-89
citation_b.parenthetical: appeal of sale pursuant to bankruptcy court auction was moot despite two unsuccessful attempts to obtain a stay
citation_b.sentence: See In re UNR Indus., 20 F.3d 766, 769-70 (7th Cir.1994) (“[A] stay not sought, and a stay sought and denied, lead equally to the implementation of the plan of reorganization.”); cf. In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 383, 387-89 (2d Cir.1997) (appeal of sale pursuant to bankruptcy court auction was moot despite two unsuccessful attempts to obtain a stay).