Undersecured creditor appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of its motion to either dismiss or grant relief from stay. The district court concluded that the bankruptcy court had not abused its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss debtor's chapter 11 petition based on creditor's failure to establish that debtor filed its petition in bad faith. The district court also considered whether the bankruptcy stay should be lifted, based on lack of adequate protection, concluding that a claim secured by real property having lesser value than the claim is adequately protected by preservation of the status quo, which is accomplished by protection of the property from diminution in value, rejecting an "equity cushion" approach. The district court agreed with the bankruptcy court that transfer of the secured property by an individual to a newly created corporate debtor that immediately filed its bankruptcy petition did not make the transfer fraudulent and thus remove the property from debtor's estate, particularly since the individual could have accomplished the same thing by filing her own chapter 11 petition. Finally, the district court held that, even if the stay had terminated pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 4001(b)'s 30-day limit between the hearing on the motion for relief and issuance of an order on that motion, the bankruptcy court's order denying stay relief, entered outside of that time period, invoked the court's equitable power under 11 U.S.C. § 105 to reinstate the stay. Additionally, the court's § 105 equitable powers need not be specifically referenced for them to be deemed invoked. The bankruptcy court's decision was affirmed.