with prejudice under section 349(a), because Colony asserts it was filed in bad faith. The Debtors contend that the petition was filed in good faith with an honest intent to reorganize their affairs and maximize value for all their constituents. Good faith is a predicate to the right to file a petition in bankruptcy, as only the “honest but unfortunate debtor” is eligible to avail itself of the protections afforded by the Bankruptcy Code. Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., 549 U.S. 365, 374, 127 S.Ct. 1105, 166 L.Ed.2d 956 (2007) (quoting Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 287, 111 S.Ct. 654, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991)). The Third Circuit has addressed this issue several times in the context of corporate debtors. See, e.g., In re 15375 Memorial Corp., 589 F.3d 605, 609, 619 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); In re Integrated Telecom Express, Inc., 384
holding that a collection agency who filed suit against debtors is a supplier holding that petitions filed by affiliated debtors who were no longer operating were filed in bad faith primarily as a litigation tactic to protect the debtors parent and not designed to maximize the value of the estates holding that the debtors had standing to challenge the settlement of the estates right to sue various entities because the outcome of this litigation could potentially have a huge effect on the liabilities of the debtors and could give them a substantial surplus upon emerging from bankruptcy holding that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding bad faith and denying a debtors amended claim of exemption based upon evidence that the debtors undervalued their home in the schedules to reflect no equity holding that second and third state habeas petitions that were dismissed as impermissible successive petitions were properly filed