determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. Fed. R. BaNkrJP. 9011(a)-(c). Rule 9011 conforms to Fed. R.Civ.P. 11, and accordingly, “[c]ourts may look to case law interpreting Rule 11 when deciding cases under Bankruptcy Rule 9011.” In re Babcock, 258 B.R. 646, 651 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2001) (citing McGahren v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. (In re Weiss), 111 F.3d 1159, 1170 (4th Cir.1997)); In re Atlas Mach. & Iron Works, Inc., 190 B.R. 796, 806 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1995). The primary purpose of Rule 11 is “to deter baseless filings ... and thus, streamline the administrat nkr.LEXIS at *9 (<HOLDING>). In the present case, neither Beneficial nor
holding that case law interpreting rule 11 may be use to interpret rule 9011 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 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 that misrepresentations in documents filed in state court in no way constituted a basis for imposing federal rule 11 sanctions 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