hold an interest. Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co., 81 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir.1996); Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 848 F.2d 414, 417 (3d Cir.1988); In re Tully, 818 F.2d 106, 110 (1st Cir.1987). To allow the Debtor to secrete estate assets based upon a determination made unilaterally by the Debtor and outside the purview of this Court would upend the system of disclosure required to maintain the integrity of the bankruptcy system. Further, a rule that allows a debtor the discretion to pay one creditor outside the supervision of the bankruptcy court would risk the subversion of the integrity of estate administration by eliminating any mechanism to protect the Code’s distribution priorities. See, e.g., In re Foster, 19 B.R. 28, 29 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1982) (<HOLDING>). While this Court’s equitable powers are
holding that an anticipated tax refund was property of the bankruptcy estate as of the date the bankruptcy case was filed holding that the decedents estate had standing because the traditional requirement that the plaintiff show an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant is met by the allegation in the complaint that the defendants actions resulted in the diminishment of the assets of the estate holding that the bankruptcy code endows the bankruptcy trustee with the exclusive right to sue on behalf of the estate holding that the unauthorized transfer of estate assets was in blatant disregard of the integrity of the court as well as the constraints mandated by congress in the bankruptcy code holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code