presented to the court on what appears to be a relatively simple statute under the bankruptcy code section three a through the bankruptcy code outlines a very specific process for an involuntary not paying their debts as they can do check the court shall order relief later it goes i and then bed faith and good faith what have you didn't i i take this is your honor all the cases point to a sort of strict liability type of statute but if you don't comply with b then there have been cases that say well if you've shown good faith we're going to let you  a poly centennial insurance is a case where there were supposedly three predators there weren't the court found there were two two bonafide predators only two and the court would not all the circumstances are tissue and and says in in complete review of all of the facts and circumstances this petition is not presented here for a valid accuracy purpose this petition is without equity on or that's why congress wrote in these these minimum requirements are for the other side all these cases cases the talk about their day to dismiss something if it like integrated it's about the debtors conduct so here let's are not acting in a certain fashion the court shell had congress wanted that sort of equitable play to exist in like an eye with the sanctions provisions it would have said may and i don't i don't recall what the provision is but forever green their judgments so there's no really need to analyze how they got them but two were by consent there's a fourth action that the courts have looked to and it's this fourth action that they were trying to determine best fake and that's not appropriate to reach beyond the judgment creditors that were in place look to this for the action and how this judgment creditor's impacted the fourth  again was removed into the bankruptcy it doesn't make sense to stop the action if it's removed into the bankruptcy so can proceed so it actually could have been heard within the bankruptcy in fact it's an asset it's one of the receivables no money no nothing went into the form of a green account it is a financial possibility off the legal financial possibility that you collect money and it doesn't go into your account and it's not there so there was money that was coming in but that didn't appear anywhere in fact judge comment on the suspicious ended up ignoring that back in the findings and conclusions but that's in the findings was she was she said on this in the record during the trial she said this doesn't make much sense and that's where they're going to meaning the creditors that their assets there's enough practice case that's also there we and that's sort of why the provision doesn't say three creditors not paying your bills and you have to show balance sheet test so in fact legislative intent from congress specifically denounced the balance sheet past this idea of let's look at assets and liabilities in the legislative fitch history the statute that says now we're not looking at that so that we set forth a relatively standard test but if we look even beyond we don't have any knowledge of needing to go beyond that there are more than twelve creditors sort of an indication of we only did one when mr dawson could have been replaced yes and we asked for that and we'd asked for that right he asked for  the court made that fine and then said well you didn't comply and since you didn't comply and we felt there was a bit face or later analysis for noncompliance we're not going to let you cure in fact the hartford had come in and said we want to see the new search was this case brought by mr dawson not through any sincere belief that he needed to protection of the involuntary bankruptcy but that he wanted to stop the arbitration and having made that finding then if one follows the rationale and norton that taints the whole proceeding and you are going to look around for other creditors to bring in you are going to see because of the  found that the statements indicate bad faith on his part and having initiated the petition for involuntary bankruptcy in bad faith the court is not going to look around to find other creditors to come in bankruptcy petitions whether under chapter seven chapter eleven were chapter thirteen are subject to dismissal if they are filed in bad faith in re integrity integrated telecom it is a two thousand and four decision of this court now that was in in re ronald to mickey which is a two thousand decision of this court this court affirmed in that context it was a chapter seven voluntary petition but the court affirmed the dismissal of that bone terry chapter seven petition because the debtor acted in bad faith in reading william daley that's a decision of this court of two thousand and two and i will point out to the court that it's a non published opinion but it has significance because this work basically said that under this circuit's case law an involuntary chapter seven petition filed in bad faith subject to dismissal and the court went on to cite three other presidential decisions of the circuit the first being to mickey again dismissed for bad faith and also in re lilly which was a one nine hundred ninety six decision of this court in that case it was a chapter thirteen petition also dismissed because it was filed in bad faith also point out basically provide that an involuntary chapter seven bankruptcy petition is subject to dismissal it is filed in bad faith we believe the next step is now what is the test that the bankruptcy court should follow when it believe something he did the former and therefore i thought the writer flows from it we believe what the bankruptcy court here did was obviously proper i do want to point i want point out for this court that this court has actually established a test now that me on that i can move on if that is conceded roddick's so in this particular case the bankruptcy court utilized the test that was been adopted by this court which is the tally of the circumstance test to determine if the involuntary petition against forever green was filed in bethink and what the court took specific note up is the record it was a two days of hearings held evidentiary testimony presented and what the court took special note of is the conduct of this petition creditor and what happened here is back in zero five or evergreen had commenced litigation against an entity called pro green and other seeking damages in excess of five million dollars this was a arising from the diversion of corporate assets an opportunit that action it was mr dawson who played the central role in that underlying scheme and use his position he was a sales rep in the past for forever agreeing to divert these corporate assets so litigation was commenced in june of  five in bucks county that action was then removed in july of zero five to the eastern district of pennsylvania before the district court at the same time that mr dawson removed that action he then proceeded in louisiana to file an action against for evergreen and it to officers seeking unpaid commissions within a ledge for evergreen otu mr dawson and his wife so while the litigation is going on in louisiana the district cour here the parties mr dawson being a party in that basically agree that we should go to binding arbitration and forever green agrees the program parties mr dawson they agree they sign an arbitration a binding arbitration agreement on april dawson and his wife and against forever green for three hundred six thousand dollars no sooner is that consent drug entered that what happens is they file a petition in front of the arbitrator here in pennsylvania on this record action to basically say we want to terminate the arbitration and they're basis for trying to terminate your arbitration is there for evergreen is insolvent that neither it nor its officer mr de or his colleague or and his law firm because he was in fact holding the balance of an advance the positon fees in response to that action mr the arbitrator basically said he's now in a position of being adverse to the parties and and the implications of that are i have to suspend the arbitration forever green in response to that files a complaint in philadelphia court a common pleas seeking the cleric tory relief basically seeking to reinstate the arbitration relief was basically was whether the payment made to the arbitrator inclusive of the defense the posit were removed from garnishment and free of claims of mr dawson scheduling the order is issued by march thirt law why because before that they came on april twentieth two thousand and twelve they filed this involuntary petition against for evergreen but not only did they find ovi involuntary petition they filed the petition and then immediately you know but yes your honor and what happens now is the philadelphia court of common pleas is stayed on this involuntary and basically on may fourteenth mr dawson then proceeds to remove the arbitration of that action to the bankruptcy court normally it's the debtors that are doing these types of actions not a creditor now you step back and say well why why would he be doing all this well we depose mr dawson in the context of the involuntary and this is what his the three key points of his that been in that position as the bankruptcy judge noted were one it taint the consent judgment because he wanted to get paid to he was going to find any available asset that forever three may have to try to use to lean up to lean upon and seize it and three he did this because he wanted to stop that arbitration now while this was going on before the involuntary was filed for evergreen receives a call f aeonic counsel that too is very telling because that counsel basically says well if in fact you're prepared to do a couple of things we can settle this globally one will give you favorable testimony in connection with your malpractise action which was pending in louisiana and if you're willing to basically pay our judgment for we'll provide that testimony to some of thought his partners had a guarantee for woman can trust which eventually became an empty bank if you could have taint a release of those personal guarantees we would discharge this judgment and by the way if you don't make a deal with us with this arbitration will be an indefinite status of suspension and unless until our judgment is paid we will not allow this arbitration to go forward it is all of those facts that were put into the record and at the testimony supported the cause the bankruptcy court issued a decision it did we believe that the bankruptcy court after considering the talent of the circumstances and the facts and the record that was established by the preponderance of the evidence she made very significant findings all of cites to section three of the three c and he says that they request a tying to conduct discovery of joining additional creditors under three o three c and that such request was not ruled upon by the bankruptcy court at trial i heard three more all argument that there was a statement that it was denied but i'm going to proceed and tell the court what we believe has happened what the record actually shows but the appellant prefer also goes on to say that the bankruptcy court should have provided an opportunity add addition creditors to the involuntary petition to cure a deficient pilot we don't believe that is accurate either now if you review the trial transcript on page thirty nine of the appellant brief they cite to the trial appendix a three one through to read the additional pages which is page three twenty three lines eight through twenty five and and a three twenty four lines one through twenty when the colloquy continues between mr eisenberg and the bankruptcy court the court goes on to say so i'm either going to find mr dawson had filed in good faith because if he didn't fall in good faith i don't have three creditors and mr eisenberg referencing section three of three now they have had been going back into the work on three or three c that's what he was mentioning  the court then says look i want to make it clear i'm not going to provide any advisory opinion on this point mr eisenberg states he's not seeking an advisory paying it and would file an appropriate motion to put the issue before the court the court then continues to say i'm not ruling i'm definitely not going to look at this issue until it's filed because you may never file it so i have to look at what i haven't come down to a crawl if you file something or not that hearing for place on at the time of the hearing further any ark so it's our position that the argument that somehow he has a right to join others has been wake but if you do a literal reading of section three zero three see we believe that a reading of three of three  thank you honors i go back to landan v hans another case with an involuntary another case where three o three b was not compliant lyndon b honda's about to test those but for fifteen thousand dollars was a two hundred twenty thousand dollars desk and it was involuntary involuntary bankruptcy was used as a litigation tactic as to the underlying claim that was the court to that involuntary bankruptcy you get to deal with the complexities of an involuntary case we have three judgment creditors complies with big h not paying their debts in a timely fashion shall as they become do because the exact the court shall order relief the other cases about good faith bad face bad faith it says basically concealing assets basically acts of bad faith looking to that or failing to file schedules conduct of the better and seven most seven those are the bad faith examinations in chapter seven in chapter eleven looking at robin twelve b again actions that are to conceal assets not proposing a valid plan and again in chapter thirteen first chapter that which was good use of good faith a plan has to be a person good faith thirteen a seven and thirteen twenty five thirteen or seven makes mention to conduct of the better thirteen twenty five says a plan has to be present good faith use the word good faith this statute the real three the said i'm making the payments that was sufficient but the evidence showed as mr testified that there's a culture still being collected into the company as mr de testified and the money is not in the bank accounts it's going elsewhere