to an appeal in a Chapter 7 liquidation. Yet, there is no reason to make such a comprehensive statement here. Instead, we find that under traditional equitable mootness analysis, this case is not moot. We start with some standard qualifiers to equitable mootness. “Substantial consummation of a reorganization plan is a momentous event, but it does not necessarily make it impossible or inequitable for an appellate court to grant effective relief.” In re Manges, 29 F.3d at 1042-43 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, “equitable mootness need not foreclose an appeal from aspects of Chapter 11 plan confirmation that solely concern professional compensation and releases.” In re Hilal, 534 F.3d at 501; see In re SI Restructuring, Inc., 542 F.3d 131, 136-37 (5th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Whatever else may be equitably moot, the
holding that consideration of a moot case was not required when there was no award of attorneys fees that would be affected by appellate review and the issue has not been preserved for appeal holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees holding that a challenge to the disbursement of attorneys fees was not equitably moot holding that an appeal was not equitably moot because the person who was issued the money was a party and was aware when the payment was made that the award would be appealed holding that issues as to whether declaratory relief should be granted had become moot and would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but that under hallman the entire appeal was not moot because there still was a live controversy as to whether appellee was entitled to recover attorneys fees under the declaratory judgments act and therefore issues regarding attorneys fees were not moot and would be decided