of claim only includes equitable remedies if they “[give] rise to a right to payment.” 11 U.S.C. 101(5)(B). Therefore, according to the Plaintiff, to the extent the remedy of reinstatement .does not include payment of money her claim should be all .3d 120, 135-36 (3d Cir.1997) (analogizing to reinstatement when explaining that the airline pilots’ equitable remedy of seniority integration could give rise to a right to payment and thus fall within the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of claim); see also In Re The Ground Round, Inc., 482 F.3d 15, 20 (1st Cir.2007) (stating that because a damage claim is an alternative to a request for specific performance the definition of claim would arguably include the equitable remedy); Cf. In Re Ben Franklin Hotel Assocs., 186 F.3d 301, 305 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Thus, where an award of monetary damages is a
recognizing that same principle applies where defendant is general partner of limited partnership which in turn is general partner of limited partnership with contacts with state holding that the information contained in the certificate of limited partnership binds the partnership and the partners with respect to third parties holding that claim for reinstatement into a partnership agreement is not a claim when the partnership was comprised of a unique business opportunity not capable of valuation holding that limited partner does not have standing to sue for injuries to partnership that merely diminish value of that partners interest recognizing partnership by estoppel only with respect to claims by persons who have reasonably relied upon outward representations of partnership