Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): In re Glenn Electric Sales, 99 B.R. 596, 599 (D.N.J.1988); Diamond Lumber, Inc. v. Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (In re Diamond Lumber, Inc.), 88 Bankr. 773, 776 (N.D.Tex.1988). The duty of disclosure is so important that the failure of an attorney to disclose all of his or her relevant connections is an independent basis for the disallowance of fees. In re Leslie Fay Cos., 175 B.R. at 533, citing Futuronics Corp. v. Arutt, Nachamie & Benjamin (In re Futuronics Corp.), 655 F.2d 463, 469 (2d Cir.1981); In re Arlan’s, 615 F.2d at 933; Rome v. Braunstein, 19 F.3d at 59; In re Granite Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 159 B.R. 840, 847 (Bankr.S.D.Ill.1993); In re Envirodyne Industries Inc., 150 B.R. 1008, 1021 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1993); see also In re Fretter, Inc., 219 B.R. 769 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998) (<HOLDING>). It is clear that BG & S did not comply with 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing power of bankruptcy court to impose sanctions on parties and counsel who willfully abuse the judicial process but not finding sanctions appropriate against debtor and his attorney for their repeated bankruptcy filings (B) holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case (C) holding that while appropriate sanctions may vary in the courts discretion denial of all fees is required when an attorney willfully disregards the fiduciary obligations under the disclosure rules (D) holding that a court has broad discretion in awarding attorney fees under the eaja but is not required to make an award in all cases where a party seeks supplemental or increased fees (E) holding under third circuit law that denial of rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion
Output (English): holding under third circuit law that denial of rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion