Lundell

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants Audre Recognition Systems, Inc., et al. appeal the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of Audre’s objection to Donald Lundell’s administrative expense claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm the district court’s ruling.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recount them in detail except as necessary.

For purposes of an administrative claim, “[t]he claimant must show that the debt asserted to be an administrative expense (1) arose from a transaction with the debtor-in-possession as opposed to the preceding entity (or, alternatively, that the claimant gave consideration to the debtor-in-possession); and (2) directly and substantially benefitted the estate.” Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus. (In re DAK Indus.), 66 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir.1995). Once the claimant has made a showing, the bankruptcy court has broad discretion to determine whether to grant such claims. Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Dant & Russell, Inc. (In re Dant & Russell, Inc.), 853 F.2d 700, 707 (9th Cir.1988).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in treating Lundell’s claim as an *927 administrative…