validity of any debt so incurred, or any priority or lien so granted, to an entity that extended such credit in good faith, whether or not such entity knew of the pendency of the appeal, unless such authorization and the ■incurring of such debt, or the granting of such priority or lien, were stayed pending appeal. Id. (emphasis added). Thus, they contend, Weinstein has no remedies because it failed to obtain a stay of the bankruptcy court’s order pending the appeal and because the bankruptcy court expressly found that Comerica extended credit in good faith. Weinstein’s claim is- therefore mooted, they urge, because any relief the Weinstein firm seeks would “affect the validity of [the] debt.” See Bennett v. Gemmill (In re Combined Metals Reduction Co.), 557 F.2d 179, 187 (9th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). A Specifically, the Weinstein firm seeks
holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record  there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding holding that because appellate jurisdiction was lacking the court can express no position on  whether the sierra clubs case was moot when filed holding that an appeal is properly dismissed as moot when an appellate court lacks power to provide an effective remedy for the appellant should it find in his favor holding that appeals are moot when appellate courts can provide no effective relief holding that an appeal is not moot so long as the appellate court can fashion relief that is both effective and equitable internal quotation marks omitted alteration in original