A secured creditor filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay to allow it to repossess collateral.  The creditor asserted as basis for relief (1) that it lacked adequate protection under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) because the debtor had not made any payments to it since the commencement of the case, no proposal for adequate protection had been made, and the stay was resulting in a decrease in the interest in the property; (2) that the Debtor’s pre-petition default in the security agreement was cause, arguing that the default could not be cured in a chapter 11 plan because it resulted from the debtor’s misrepresentation; (3) that relief should be granted because the debtor filed the petition in bad faith, arguing that the debtor filed its petition just four days after the creditor filed an action for prejudgment attachment of the collateral in state court and, because the schedules were not filed until sixteen days after the petition date and none of the motions typically brought early in a chapter 11 case had been filed; and (4) that under § 362(d)(2) the debtor had no equity in the collateral and it was not necessary for an effective reorganization.

            The Court noted that in order to make out a prima facie case for relief from the stay for cause under § 362(d)(1), the movant must generally show that the continuation of the stay will cause some affirmative harm to it.  The Court concluded that the creditor failed to meet its burden of proof on the first three counts but did meet its burden on the § 362(d)(2) claim.  Weighing the balance of potential harm to the parties by the continuation of the stay, the Court concluded that it was appropriate to continue the stay in effect upon certain conditions.