Debtor Arnold and Baker Farms petitioned for relief under Chapter 11 and filed a plan of reorganization which proposed to satisfy the claims of the creditors by transferring real property to them — colloquially known as a “dirt for debt” plan. When Arnold and Baker’s largest creditor, the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), objected to the plan, Arnold and Baker invoked the “cram down” provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 1129 (b). The question presented is whether the plan’s proposal to transfer to FmHA a portion of the collateral securing FmHA’s claim will provide FmHA with the “indubitable equivalent” of its secured claim, as required by the “cram down” provision. See 11 U.S.C. § 1129 (b)(2)(A)(iii).

We adopt and quote verbatim the statement of facts set forth by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel at United States v. Arnold and Baker Farms (In re Arnold and Baker Farms), 177 B.R. 648, 652-53 (9th Cir. BAP 1994):

(End of quote from 177 B.R. at 652-53 ).

FmHA appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”), which reversed the bankruptcy court’s order confirming the plan. In consolidated appeals, Arnold and Baker and Western Cotton appeal the BAP’s reversal.

We first consider the issue of mootness. Appellant Western Cotton 1 argues that the BAP lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal from the bankruptcy court insofar as the appeal related to the transfer of the 130 acres to Western Cotton, because the transfer was carried out before FmHA obtained a stay of the order confirming the plan. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the plan on May 5, 1993, and FmHA filed its timely notice of appeal on May 14, one day before the expiration of the automatic stay provided in Bankruptcy Rule 7062. Three days later, on May 17, FmHA filed an emergency motion for a stay of plan confirmation pending appeal. The bankruptcy court held a preliminary hearing on the stay motion on May 20 and issued a temporary stay. However, 36 minutes before that hearing, Arnold and Baker quitclaimed the property to Western Cotton. In a motion for rehearing filed with the BAP, Western Cotton argued that the BAP lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the appeal was moot as to Western Cotton. 2 The BAP denied the motion. 3

Mootness is a jurisdictional issue which we review de novo. Baker & Drake, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n (In re Baker & Drake, Inc.), 35 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir.1994). Western Cotton argues that FmHA’s failure to obtain a stay until after the property was quitclaimed to Western Cotton rendered the appeal moot because the transfer extinguished or modified rights to the extent that a court would be unable to fashion effective judicial relief if FmHA prevailed on appeal.

However, this case presents neither of the two situations in which a dismissal for mootness is warranted. First, a court can dismiss an appeal as moot “if a party opposing a reorganization plan has failed to obtain a stay pending appeal, and the plan has been carried out to ‘substantial [culmination].’” Baker & Drake, 35 F.3d at 1351 (quoting In re Public Serv. Co. (Rochman v. Northeast Utils. Serv. Group), 963 F.2d 469 , 473 n. 13 (1st Cir.1992)) (alteration in original). For example, in Trone v. Roberts Farms Inc., (In re Roberts Farms, Inc.), 652 F.2d 793 (9th Cir.1981), the court affirmed a dismissal for mootness of an appeal from an order confirming a plan of reorganization, because “the many intricate and involved transactions” called for by the plan had been “so far implemented that it [was] impossible to fashion effective relief for all concerned.” Id. at 797 . Here, in contrast, only a single transaction has been carried out. Fashioning effective judicial relief would hardly require “putting Humpty Dumpty together again.” Baker & Drake, 35 F.3d at 1352 .

The other situation in which a court can dismiss an appeal on the ground of mootness is “when an appellant neglected to obtain a *1420 stay pending appeal and the rights of third parties have intervened.” In re Spirtos (Spirtos v. Moreno), 992 F.2d 1004, 1006 (9th Cir.1993). “The classic example of mootness in the bankruptcy context is a case in which the debtor has failed to seek a stay of foreclosure and the debtor’s property has been sold. The transfer to a third party precludes meaningful relief.” Baker & Drake, 35 F.3d at 1351 . See also Matter of Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 189 (9th Cir.1977) (dismissing as moot appeals from orders approving and confirming sales and leases made to third parties not before the court). This case does not present such a situation because both Arnold and Baker and Western Cotton are parties to the appeal. 4 The bankruptcy court could fashion effective relief simply by ordering Western Cotton to return the 130 acres to Arnold and Baker. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal is not moot as to Western Cotton.

III

We now turn to the merits. Appellant Arnold and Baker argues that the BAP erred in reversing the confirmation of the plan on the ground that the proposed transfer of 566.5 acres to FmHA would not provide “for the realization by [FmHA] of the indubitable equivalent” of its secured claim, as required by § 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii). 5

Because FmHA objected to confirmation of the plan, Arnold and Baker invoked the “cram down” provision of Chapter 11, which provides that the court, on request of the proponent of the plan, shall confirm the plan notwithstanding the objection of an impaired creditor “if the plan does not discriminate unfairly, and is fair and equitable, with respect to each class of claims or interests that is impaired under, and has not accepted, the plan.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129 (b)(1). To be “fair and equitable” the plan must satisfy, with respect to secured claims, one of the following three tests:

See 11 U.S.C. § 1129 (b)(2)(A). 6

The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan on the ground that the plan satisfied the *1421 third requirement. After an evidentiary hearing on the issue of valuation, the court found that the property was worth $7,300 per acre. It then concluded that the receipt of 566.5 acres at $7,300 per acre would provide for FmHA to realize the indubitable equivalent of its secured claim.

As an initial matter, we must address the appropriate standard of review of such a determination. Arnold and Baker argues that the question of indubitable equivalence is a question of fact to be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. We disagree. Although the value of the land is a finding of fact which we review for clear error, the ultimate conclusion of indubitable equivalence is a question of law which we review de novo because it requires analysis of the meaning of the statutory language in the context of the Bankruptcy Code’s “cram down” scheme. See Woods v. Pine Mountain, Ltd. (In re Pine Mountain), 80 B.R. 171, 172 (9th Cir. BAP 1987) (‘Whether a plan provides a secured creditor with the indubitable equivalent of its claim is ... a mixed question of law and fact. Although the facts underlying such a determination are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, the question of whether the legal standard has been satisfied is reviewed de novo.”) (citing United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1201-03 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc)). But see Matter of James Wilson Assocs., 965 F.2d 160, 172 (7th Cir.1992) (holding that indubitable equivalence is a question of fact reviewed for clear error).

The BAP reviewed de novo the bankruptcy court’s determination that the proposed transfer would provide FmHA with the indubitable equivalent of its secured claim, and reversed. Stressing that “[t]he determination of whether a partial dirt for debt distribution will provide the creditor with the indubitable equivalence of its secured claim must be made on a case-by-case basis,” Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. at 662 , the BAP reasoned that the bankruptcy court’s valuation of the property was an insufficient basis on which to conclude that the property was the indubitable equivalent of FmHA’s secured claim. Again, we adopt and quote verbatim from the BAP’s opinion at 177 B.R. at 661 -62:

(End of quote from 177 B.R. at 661-62 ).

Arnold and Baker challenges the BAP’s decision on the ground that it conflicts with *1423 Matter of Sandy Ridge Development Corp., 881 F.2d 1346 (5th Cir.1989), 9 in which the Fifth Circuit held that a “dirt for debt” plan satisfied the indubitable equivalence standard. 10 The BAP distinguished Sandy Ridge on the ground that the plan in that case provided for the transfer of all of the secured creditor’s collateral, rather than only a portion of the collateral as in the present ease. Arnold and Baker argues that even in the Sandy Ridge situation, the court’s valuation of the collateral is critical to the creditor’s substantive rights because the valuation directly impacts the creditor’s rights regarding an unsecured deficiency claim, as was the case in Sandy Ridge.

However, this argument misapprehends the indubitable equivalence analysis. Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) does not require that a creditor receive the indubitable equivalent of its entire claim, but only of its secured claim. See Sandy Ridge, 881 F.2d at 1350 ; 11 U.S.C. § 1129 (b)(2)(A)(iii) (“With respect to a class of secured claims, the plan provides ... (iii) for the realization by such holders of the indubitable equivalent of such claims.”) (emphasis added). Sandy Ridge explained that, in the case of an undersecured creditor,

Sandy Ridge, 881 F.2d at 1349 (citations omitted). In other words, the value of the secured portion of an undersecured creditor’s total claim is by definition equal to the value of the collateral securing it. Therefore, a creditor necessarily receives the indubitable equivalent of its secured claim when it receives the collateral securing that claim, regardless of how the court values the collateral. For this reason, the Sandy Ridge court did not need a judicial determination of value, explaining that “for the present analysis, the exact value of [the collateral] is unimportant.” Id. at 1349 . The court’s valuation of the collateral does, as Arnold and Baker observes, determine the amount of any remaining unsecured claim, but the Code requires only that the creditor receive the indubitable equivalent of its secured claim.

In this case, in contrast, the amount of collateral deemed to be the indubitable equivalent of FmHA’s secured claim depends entirely on the court’s valuation of the collateral. If the court had found that the land was worth more than $7,300 per acre, FmHA would receive correspondingly less land, and if the court had found that the land was worth less, FmHA would receive correspondingly more. Our holding that this plan does not satisfy the indubitable equivalent requirement is therefore entirely consistent with Sandy Ridge’s holding that the plan in that ease did.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, while we do not hold that the indubitable equivalent standard can never as a matter of law be satisfied when a creditor receives less than the full amount of the collateral originally bargained for, we do *1424 hold, as did the BAP, that the Arnold and Baker plan does not provide FmHA with the indubitable equivalent of its secured claim as required by the Bankruptcy Code.

The judgment of the BAP reversing the bankruptcy court’s order confirming the plan is AFFIRMED.

. Western Cotton is now known as Anderson Clayton Financial Services Corporation. We use its former name for the sake of consistency with the BAP opinion.

. Western Cotton also appeals the BAP’s denial of Western Cotton's motion for an extension of time for filing the motion for rehearing. Because the BAP addressed the motion for rehearing on the merits notwithstanding its denial of the extension, we do not address this issue.

.The BAP based its denial of the motion on Western Cotton’s concession at oral argument that the appeal was not moot. However, Western Cotton correctly points out that mootness is a jurisdictional issue, which this court must consider despite Western Cotton’s apparent concession. Baker & Drake, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n (In re Baker & Drake, Inc.), 35 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir.1994).

. Western Cotton responds that the transfer did affect the rights of others who are not parties to the appeal, namely, certain other entities who are co-liable on the indebtedness. However, Western Cotton cites nothing in the record identifying any such entities or evidencing any co-liability on their part.

. Appellee FmHA, in addition to addressing this issue, also raises a number of other issues apparently as alternative grounds for denying confirmation of the plan. FmHA argues that the bankruptcy court's valuation of the land was clearly erroneous and that the bankruptcy court erred in holding that the plan satisfied the "best interests of the creditors” test provided in § 1129(a)(7) and the requirement of good faith provided in § 1129(a)(3). Because we affirm the BAP on the issue of indubitable equivalence, we need not address the other issues raised by FmHA.

. The full text of the statute provides, in relevant part:

. The disparity was due in part to the parties' disagreement about the highest and best use of the property. Arnold and Baker argued that it was for land development, whereas FmHA maintained that it was for an irrigated farm. See Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. at 655 .

. The legislative history of § 1129 indicates that Murel Holding was the source of the "indubitable equivalence” standard. See Matter of Sandy Ridge Development Corp., 881 F.2d 1346, 1350 (5th Cir.1989); 124 Cong.Rec. H 11089 (daily ed. September 28, 1978) (statement of Rep. Edwards), reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6436 at 6475.

. Arnold and Baker also cites a number of decisions from bankruptcy courts approving dirt for debt plans. See Matter of Atlanta Southern Business Park, Ltd., 173 B.R. 444 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1994) (plan called for part of collateral plus sum of cash to be transferred to creditor in full satisfaction of creditor's claim); In re Simons, 113 B.R. 942 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1990) (plan called for part of collateral to be transferred in exchange for credit against claim; balance of claim to be paid off by deferred payments and secured by lien on remaining collateral); In re Elm Creek Joint Venture, 93 B.R. 105 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1988) (same); In re Bernard, 70 B.R. 181, 185 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1986) (same); In re Shorten, 49 B.R. 722, 724 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1985) (same).

However, none of the plans in these cases required a secured creditor to accept part of its collateral in full satisfaction of its secured claim.

. A subsequent opinion denying the petition for rehearing clarifies that this was the holding of Sandy Ridge. See Matter of Sandy Ridge Development Corp., 889 F.2d 663, 663 (5th Cir.1989) (Sandy Ridge II) (“In denying the petition for rehearing, we observe that we have held that ... the plan in question meets the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129 (b)(2)(A)(iii)....”).