pre-petition conduct in installing its own director, Gregory, at Mezz I, Mezz II, and the Operating Companies and then-directing him to file bankruptcy for Mezz II on the eve of Colony’s foreclosure sale simply to take advantage of the automatic stay is evidence of a bad faith filing. Colony notes that Mezz II filed a bare petition and has sought no additional relief in this Court since filing. Colony contends that the filing of bankruptcy by Mezz II was clearly just a litigation tactic designed to forestall its efforts to foreclose on its collateral, which is an impermissible use of the Bankruptcy Code. See, e.g., 15375 Memorial, 589 F.3d at 620 (rejecting assertion that the automatic stay of litigation without more was a legitimate use of bankruptcy); SGL Carbon, 200 F.3d at 162 (<HOLDING>). In this case, Colony emphasizes that the
holding title company liable for bad faith holding in a case where a chapter 11 trustee was appointed after a period during which the debt or had operated as debtor in possession that a chapter 11 trustee has two years from the date of his appointment not from the commencement of the chapter 11 case to bring avoidance actions holding that chapter 11 case filed by financially healthy company solely to gain a tactical advantage in litigation was in bad faith holding that the good faith analysis for evaluating a chapter 11 petition and that in evaluating a chapter 11 plan are distinct holding that the filing of a chapter 11 merely to avoid the consequences of antitrust litigation while the company was otherwise financially stable did not meet the requirement of a valid reorganizational purpose and consequently the petition was not filed in good faith