3 . Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9014 provides: In a contested matter in a case under the Code • not otherwise governed by these rules, relief shall be requested by motion, and reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing shall be afforded the party against whom relief is sought. 4 . Tully conceded at oral argument that it did request documents from the Trustee but stated that none were produced. Apparently, Tully did not follow up on its request before the hearing. See J.A. at 46. 5 . We note that we are not faced with the issue of cross-collateralization, whereby a lender obtains a security interest in assets of the debtor not only for a post-petition loan, but also as collateral for pre-petition debt. E.g., In re Saybrook Manufacturing Co., 963 F.2d 1490, 1491-92, 1495-96 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). We express no opinion about the use of
holding pursuant to 11 usc sections 544b and 548a of the bankruptcy code a fraudulent transfer claim is available only to a bankruptcy trustee not to a creditor holding that crosscollateralization is an impermissible method of postpetition financing because it is not authorized under 11 usc  364 and is contrary to the fundamental priority scheme of the bankruptcy code holding that it is not holding that the question of whether an interest is a claim for bankruptcy purposes is to be resolved by reference to the text history and purpose of the bankruptcy code holding that a postpetition claim under section 1305 is a liability that arises postpetition and relates only to postpetition activity