differ when the positions of the parties are reversed.” 156 F.3d at 1009. Thus, "[t]he practice of netting out the claims of debtors and their creditors only makes sense when a counterclaim for recoupment on a creditor's claim is involved.” Id. at 1008. 9 . Appellees argue that Focus has waived its Rule 1003 argument by failing to raise it at the summary judgment stage before the bankruptcy court or at all before the district court. Even assuming a waiver occurred, the issue is one of law, and the record has been adequately developed because the bankruptcy court in fact considered (and rejected) Focus' argument that ABC’s affiliates were disqualified as petitioners under Rule 1003. We therefore reach the merits of Focus' claim. See Bolker v. Comm’r, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Consistent with the parties’ agreement,
holding exception to the waiver rule exists when the issue presented is purely one of law and either does not depend on the factual record developed below or the pertinent record has been fully developed holding ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be decided on direct appeal where the district court has developed a record on the ineffectiveness issue holding we may consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal when the issue presented is purely one of law and  depends on the factual record developed below recognizing discretion to consider argument raised for first time on appeal if issue is matter of law and either does not depend on the factual record or the pertinent record has been fully developed holding that the record on direct appeal was insufficiently developed to permit the appellate court to assess the merits of the claim