Boeing’s argument that parties will shield improper conditions of sale from appellate review by claiming that they are integral to the transaction ignores the fact that § 363(m) provides review of authorized sales for those parties that obtain a stay. Consequently, the creation of the Trust is entitled to § 363(m) protection. B. Having concluded that the Debtors’ formation of the Trust is deserving of § 363(m) protection, and recognizing that its execution was not stayed, we must now determine whether granting Boeing its requested relief, vacating the Trust, would “affect the validity of the sale.” Krebs, 141 F.3d at 499. Courts undertaking this analysis focus on whether relief would impact the transaction as executed by the parties pursuant to the court’s authorization. See id. (<HOLDING>); United Bank, Inc. v. Howard (In re Howard),
holding that allowing the debtor to reject buysell agreement affects the validity of the sale because it would necessitate reversing the subsequent assumption and assignment of the underlying franchises holding plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the validity of an assignment from mers to bac because she was not a party to the assignment and the assignment did not affect her underlying obligation to make timely payments holding the assignment of the mortgage once the original grant by the mortgagor to the mortgagee has been perfected does not involve a transfer of the property of the debtor  holding that the validity of a contract for a commission for the sale of real estate is determined by the law of the state where the contract is made holding that subsequent to a judicial sale the report of the sale must be made to and ratified by the court before a deed for the property is given by the trustee to the purchaser