that such authority might be granted upon showings of particularly extraordinary circumstances. 91 B.R. 655, 656-57 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988); see In re Munoz, 111 B.R. 928, 931 (D.Colo.1990) (for a creditor to assert an avoidance power, “courts have found it imperative that the creditor first seek approval from the bankruptcy court”); In re Curry & Sorensen, Inc., 57 B.R. 824, 828 (9th Cir. BAP 1986) (creditors lacked standing to bring avoidance action without prior court approval); In re Toledo Equip., 35 B.R. 315, 320 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1983) (creditors committee must first make appropriate showing that debtor-in-possession has un justifiably failed to prosecute preference action before commencing action itself); see also In re Chernicky Coal Co., Inc., 67 B.R. 828, 832 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1986) (<HOLDING>). We therefore do not foreclose the possibility
holding that creditor who did not seek authorization from bankruptcy court could nevertheless assert claim under  549 in chapter 11 case because appropriate circumstances were shown  ie there was no trustee to file the claim the debtor had no reason to file a claim and the successful avoidance of the transfer would have increased the debtors liability holding that because creditor did not file a proof of claim on a prepetition contract matter the peculiar powers of the bankruptcy court had not been invoked holding that the operative fact is whether or not the creditor has notice of the debtors bankruptcy proceeding in time to file a timely proof of claim holding in a case where a chapter 11 trustee was appointed after a period during which the debt or had operated as debtor in possession that a chapter 11 trustee has two years from the date of his appointment not from the commencement of the chapter 11 case to bring avoidance actions holding that in chapter 7 context the debtors had no power to transfer the property without the approval of the trustee