that Jartran, after the filing of the petition, requested that appellants continue work on ads for which the closing date had passed_ Thus, it was the pre-petition Jartran and not Jartran as debtor-in-possession that induced appellants to perform these services. To serve the policy of priority, inducement of the creditor’s performance by the debtor-in-possession is crucial to a claim for administrative priority....” In re Jartran, Inc., 732 F.2d at 587 (emphasis in original). Thus, the Court clearly rejected the proposition that the post-petition triggering of the liability incurred by the pre-petition debtor entity could elevate a pre-petition claim to a post-petition administrative priority claim. Id. at 587-88; accord, Amalgamated Ins. Fund v. McFarlin’s, Inc., 789 F.2d at 101 (<HOLDING>); In re Chateaugay Corp., 87 B.R. at 797-99.
holding that licensor was entitled to administrative expense priority claim where debtor remained in possession postpetition of real property under a license agreement holding that when a creditor on multiple debts applies an undesignated partial payment by the debtor to a debt on which the statute of limitations has not yet run the payment tolls the statute of limitations on that debt holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that a debt is not entitled to priority simply because the right to payment arises after the debtor in possession has begun managing the estate holding that a creditor did not incur debt for the purpose of set off where it stopped payment to the debtor