The parties to this appeal, debtor and buyer, had a dispute over buyer's payment of a deposit to debtor, after the purchase was not consummated. Buyer obtained a district court judgment against debtor, in the amount of $30,000 plus interest, which debtor appealed to the Tenth Circuit. In taking the appeal, debtor posted a $40,000 supersedeas bond. Debtor assigned its interest in the supersedeas bond to its attorney and, approximately seven months later, filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Despite the pending bankruptcy, the Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of buyer and released the supersedeas bond to debtor. Buyer's motions seeking various alternative relief were all denied by the bankruptcy court. On appeal, the district court denied the bankruptcy trustee's motion to dismiss, concluding that it had jurisdiction to hear both final and interlocutory bankruptcy orders, and that there was ample cause to review the bankruptcy court's decision. The district court agreed with the bankruptcy court's ruling that buyer improperly sought to establish a constructive trust on the supersedeas bond by motion instead of by adversary complaint. However, the district court disagreed that the case was "inappropriate" for such a trust, concluding that such a determination would depend on fact-findings that had not been made. The district court also concluded that the bankruptcy court had erred by failing to state reasons for denial of buyer's motion for stay relief. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

Debtor was the sub-lessee of a 15-year lease to mine coal on real property located in West Virginia. In May 1984, debtor failed to make its annual rent payment for the first time and, shortly thereafter, filed a bankruptcy petition. Landlords in West Virginia have a statutory lien on any personal property brought onto their property by the lessee. Subsequent to debtor's sub-lease, debtor granted bank a security interest in its assets, the majority of which were located on the leased property. The bankruptcy court granted trustee's request to sell debtor's coal mining equipment free of liens, with valid liens to attach to the proceeds, and the equipment was sold. Later, trustee avoided the statutory landlord's lien on debtor's property, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 545, and the lien was preserved for the benefit of the estate by 11 U.S.C. § 551. Trustee then filed an adversary action against bank to determine the validity, priority, and extent of the competing liens. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the bankruptcy court ruled that the landlord's lien had priority over bank's security interest, and that the annual rent payment would be apportioned from the date it was due to the date when the trustee rejected the lease and surrendered the real property. On appeal, the district court considered whether the amount of the landlord's lien was the entire annual missed payment, or whether it was subject to apportionment. The court held that it had the equitable power under the Bankruptcy Code to apportion the rent, even though the state statute may apply the rule of non-apportionment. The district court further held that, although the bankruptcy court had properly applied apportionment to the rent, it had not properly defined the apportionment period, which should have been from the rent's due date to the date the petition was filed. Postpetition, lessor is entitled to the reasonable value of debtor's use of the premises as an administrative claim. Finally, the district court ruled that the bankruptcy court erred in not adding interest to the landlord's lien amount, which was clearly provided by state law.

Debtor, which had sublet retail property from Albertson's, appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of its motion to extend its time to assume or reject the sublease. On appeal, debtor moved to both stay the bankruptcy court's order and enjoin Albertson's from alienating debtor's leasehold interest during the appeal. The district court determined that it had authority under Bankruptcy Rule 8005 to grant the relief debtor sought, and identified four factors that should be weighed in making a decision to either grant or deny such relief. Those factors are (1) irreparable injury to debtor, (2) likelihood of the appeal's success, (3) harm suffered by Albertson's, and (4) harm to the public interest. Based on its consideration of those factors, the district court determined that the bankruptcy court's order should be stayed, and Albertson's should be enjoined from transferring debtor's leasehold interest, while the appeal was pending.

Trustee for Ponzi scheme debtor filed an adversary complaint seeking recovery of payments made by debtor to defendant as fraudulent conveyances under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(2). The court found that trustee had failed to offer sufficient evidence of debtor's insolvency at the time of the payments, which was an element of its claim against defendant. The court considered whether it could take judicial notice of debtor's schedules and a stipulation entered in another adversary proceeding in which defendant was not a party, as proof of debtor's insolvency. The court concluded that it could not take judicial notice of those documents as proof of insolvency because they did not meet the "not subject to reasonable dispute" standard of Fed. R. Evid. 201 (FRBP 9017). Trustee's complaint was dismissed.