FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By оrder of the Court entered January 3, 1985, the above-styled case 1 was dismissed out of court, and pursuant to said order the Court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact—
The parties stipulated to the following facts, and the Court finds the faсts as follows:
1. The debtor was incorporated on April 27, 1978, and movants, Dewey and Yvоnne Yarbrough, were issued 99 shares out of the total of 100 shares then issued. A total of 1,000 shares was authorized. On June 29,1979, an additional 600 shares of stock were duly issued to the movants.
2. On or about September 13, 1983, the movants reached an agreement with Allan and Ruth Friedl, pursuant to which the Friedls assumed management of debtor’s sole business, a “Bonanza” restaurant located in Talladega, Alabama. This employment included controlling the restaurant’s revenue and bank accounts. This agreement was attached to the Yar-broughs’ motion to dismiss as Exhibit “A”.
3. On or about April 2, 1984, the mov-ants entered into an аgreement with the Friedls, attached to the Yarbroughs’ motion to dismiss as Exhibit “B”, by which the Yarbroughs agreed to sell to the Friedls all of the outstanding capital stock of the debtor for the sum of $430,-000, payable in cash and real property $25,000 and the balancе in deferred cash payments. The effect of this agreement upon the title to the shares of stock is disputed by the parties, and this dispute is presently being litigated in thе Circuit Court of Talladega County, Alabama.
4. On November 9, 1984, the Friedls purportedly held а meeting of the Board of Directors of the debtor corporation wherеin they declared that they were the officers and directors of the debtor аnd authorized the filing of the instant petition.
5. A petition for relief was filed on behalf оf the debtor by Allan G. Friedl on November 15, 1984.
The Court further finds that all debts of the debtor were current and that none of the debts of the debtor was delinquent, at the time of the filing of thе petition herein.
Conclusions of Law—
The facts presented to the Court by the motion to dismiss the cаse demand that the case be dismissed. Although chapter 11 does not by its literal terms rеquire that a petition be filed in “good faith”, 2 the courts have implied such a prоvision to prevent abuse of the bankruptcy laws and to protect jurisdictionаl integrity. Courts have found that, if a chapter 11 petition is not filed in good faith, grounds exist еither to vacate the automatic stay or dismiss the petition. 3
*44
The policy and purpose behind chapter 11 proceedings is to give business debtors a respite from impending litigation, a “breathing spell.” H.Rep. No. 95-595, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 340 (1977); S.Rep. No. 95-989, 95th Cong.2d Sess. 54 (1978), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 5787, 5840, 6296. It serves as a remedy for relief from financial distress by permitting the rehabilitation of an ongoing business. B. Weintraub & A. Resnick,
Bankruptcy Law Manual
¶ 807, p. 8-15.
In re First Dade Corporation,
The Friedls, on behаlf of the debtor, presented no evidence that financial difficulties had prеcipitated the filing of the petition and indeed testified that the debt- or’s debts and оther financial obligations were substantially current. The Court concludes that the mоtivating purpose of the Friedls’ filing of the petition on behalf of the debtor was оther than to seek the reorganization of a financially-distressed business. The interests of creditors and the debtor will be best served by abstention by the Court and dismissal of the case, as provided for in 11 United States Code § 305(a)(1).
The Court will leave the matter оf interpretation of the agreement referred to in Finding No. 3, above, to the judgment of the.Circuit Court of Talladega County, Alabama, where the Court believes it belongs. Finally, in view of the Court’s ruling on the Yarbroughs’ motion, the Court declines to consider the movants’ allegations of fraud.
In conformity with the Court’s Order of January 3, 1985, this constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the processing of the closing of the above-styled case may now be completed.
Notes
.This case was commenced by a voluntary petition filed under 11 United States Code, chapter 11, on November 15, 1984, and remained pending under said chapter.
. No plan of reorganization may be confirmed by the Court, however, unless "proposed in good faith.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3).
.
Furness v. Lilienfield,