was inconsistent with his obligations as a debtor-in- possession and merited a finding of mismanagement sufficient to justify the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee. This Court was unimpressed by the Debtor’s post hoc justification for his violation of his fiduciary obligations and his diversion of estate assets. At the October 15th hearing, the Debtor argued that his purchase of the WSFS Claim resulted in a net benefit to his estate that should inoculate his bad acts. Whether or not his purchase of the WSFS Claim resulted in a net benefit to his estate is irrelevant. See, e.g., In re Free, 466 B.R. 48, 54 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.2012) (refusing to credit debtor’s “no harm, no foul” defense to alleged misconduct); In re Johnson, Bky. No. 05-14164, 2009 WL 65246, *13 (Bankr.D.Del. Jan. 9, 2009) (<HOLDING>); In re Coram Healthcare Corp., 271 B.R. 228,
holding that the purpose of the bankruptcy codes avoidance provisions is to prevent a debtor from making transfers that diminish the bankruptcy estate to the detriment of creditors recognizing that noncompliance with bankruptcy codes disclosure requirements may not be excused by a no harm no foul defense holding no irreparable harm and thus no jurisdiction where no existing employeeemployer relationship holding that trial court abused its discretion in ordering disclosure of informants identity based solely on defense counsels unsworn representations that disclosure would be relevant and helpful to his defense holding that no seizure occurred where officers boarded bus and began questioning passengers gave passengers no reason to believe that they required an answer and tjhere was no application of force no intimidating movement no overwhelming show of force no brandishing of weapons no blocking of exits no threat no command not even an authoritative tone of voice