With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.2d at 797. We have also held, however, that an appellant’s failure to obtain a stay before appealing a bankruptcy court’s award of fees does not necessarily render the appeal equitably moot. See In re Cascade Roads, Inc., 34 F.3d 756 (9th Cir.1994); In re Spirtos, 992 F.2d 1004 (9th Cir.1993); In re International Envtl. Dynamics, Inc., 718 F.2d 322 (9th Cir.1983). In International Environmental Dynamics, even though the appellant failed to obtain a stay before appealing the bankruptcy court’s order granting the debtor’s counsel attorney fees, we held that the appeal was not equitably moot because the counsel was a party before the bankruptcy court and knew the appellant contested the fee award. See International Envtl. Dynamics, 718 F.2d at 326; see also Cascade Roads, 34 F.3d at 761 (<HOLDING>); Spirtos, 992 F.2d at 1006-07 (same). In re

A: 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
B: holding that even though the appeal was not moot because effective relief was possible it was inequitable to require that the debtors counsel disgorge fees and costs awarded by the bankruptcy court
C: 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
D: holding that an assignment was recognized by the government because the government issued a check made payable to the assignee as payment under the contract
C.