Reported at 10 B.R. 626. The priorities under 11 U.S.C. sec. 507(a) for employee wage and benefit claims should be construed to enforce the stated legislative intent of giving "comprehensive priority treatment to all forms of employee compensation"

The district court affirmed bankruptcy court's judgment for plaintiff Roth Bros., finding that debtor-defendant was acting as the undisclosed agent of another company when it purchased copper scrap from Roth Bros. for the benefit of the other company

District court affirmed bankruptcy court's order allowing IRS to garnish debtor's funds after debtor failed to comply with a settlement agreement. The order discusses the nature of a final order & the legal formalities of a post-judgment garnishment

Debtor-in-possession's application to borrow money to pay certain farm expenses was granted. The evidence showed that adequate protection existed. Trial would be set on whether objecting party has a valid lien on the collateral for the post-petition loan

Debtor didn't participate in the trial to determine dischargeability under sec. 523(a)(6). The evidence was undisputed that debtor participated in an intentional assault on the plaintiffs. They were awarded a non-dischargeable judgment for their damages

The court denied the trustee's objection to discharge under 11 U.S.C. sec. 727(a)(2) and (a)(3), concluding that the debtor acted under a mistaken belief as to the ownership of certain assets, rather than with bad faith or an intent to conceal the assets

Bankruptcy court refused to grant relief from the automatic stay to permit creditors to proceed with litigation against debtor's officers concerning copper contracts. The court did so because the other lawsuit could adversely affect the bankruptcy case

The debtors' appeal was dismissed as untimely. Even if the debtors' motion to vacate the bankruptcy court's order was construed as a motion that tolls the appeal period under Rule 8002, it was still untimely.

The district court vacated the bankruptcy court's order & remanded the matter for further development of the record as the absence of a transcript of the bankruptcy court hearing prevented the district court from undertaking a fair review of the appeal