signed it, the represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction.” Courts have found the principal in a closely-held corporation who signs a document, although in his official capacity, or causes a false or misleading document to be filed in bad-faith personally liable for Rule 9011 sanctions. See In re Memorial Estates, Inc., 116 B.R. 108 (N.D.Ill.1990); Midwest Properties No. Two v. Big Hill Investment Co., 93 B.R. 357 (N.D.Tex.1988); In re D & V Construction, 150 B.R. 362 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. 1993); County of Chesterfield v. Tamojira, Inc., 197 B.R. 815 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1995); accord, Jones v. Bank of Santa Fe (In re Courtesy Inns, Ltd. Inc.), 40 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir.1994); In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc., 136 B.R. 545 (9th Cir. BAP 1992) on appeal after remand 77 F.3d 278, 282 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); but see In re Chisholm Co., 166 B.R. 706
holding that filing a bankruptcy petition days before an important state court deadline amounted to bad faith and upholding sanctions under rule 9011 holding that the bankruptcy court has the inherent power to award sanctions for badfaith conduct in a bankruptcy court proceeding holding that regarding rule 9011 this court is only concerned with documents filed  in this court and thus filings in state court provide no basis to impose sanctions under rule 9011 holding sanction of 250000 under federal rule of bankruptcy procedure 9011 to be excessive and reducing to 5000 holding that rule 9011 allows a bankruptcy court to sanction attorneys parties and individuals that sign and file false documents in badfaith with the court