Full opinion text
BERZON, Circuit Judge: AMENDED OPINION Richard Sherman (Sherman) was the attorney for several defendants in an enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and in other actions in which those defendants were parties. Sherman and his wife, Andrea Sherman, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The SEC brought a motion to dismiss the Shermans’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(a), maintaining that there was “cause” for dismissal. Although the bankruptcy court denied the SEC’s motion, the district court reversed. We are presented with three questions on appeal. First, we must consider whether the SEC has standing. The SEC has an interest in the Shermans’ bankruptcy petition because part of the debt that the Shermans sought to discharge resulted from orders against Sherman issued in the SEC enforcement action. Before the district court decided the appeal, however, Sherman and Thomas Lennon, the receiver appointed in the SEC action (Receiver), entered into a settlement agreement. We must initially decide whether the SEC had an interest in the Shermans’ bankruptcy petition sufficient to confer standing. We must then decide whether the settlement agreement extinguished any interest the SEC initially had in the Shermans’ bankruptcy petition, divesting the SEC of standing to proceed. Second, we address whether this appeal is moot because the bankruptcy court has already granted the Shermans a discharge. Finally, we are presented with a merits question: Did the bankruptcy court err in denying the SEC’s motion to dismiss the petition for cause? We hold that the SEC has standing because it retained a pecuniary interest as a creditor in some of the Shermans’ debt, an interest not extinguished by the settlement agreement between Sherman and the Receiver. In addition, we conclude that this case is not moot, because the grant of the motion to dismiss could have had an impact on the parties despite the grant of a discharge order while the appeals were pending. Finally, we decide that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying the SEC’s motion to dismiss the petition for cause. Other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code address the misconduct that the SEC argued constituted “cause” justifying dismissal. Thus, under Neary v. Padilla (In re Padilla), 222 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir.2000), the petition could not be dismissed for “cause” under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a). I. Factual and Procedural Background The current appeal arises from a somewhat Byzantine set of events: In 1997, the SEC commenced a securities fraud action against Whitworth Energy Resources, Ltd., Williston Basin Holding Corp., and Amerivest Financial Group, Inc., along with their principals (Whitworth action), in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants operated a Ponzi-like scheme by representing that investors were receiving income from oil and gas production when, in fact, distributions were made from receipts obtained from new investors or assessments of existing investors. The district court entered an order freezing the corporate entities’ assets and appointing Thomas Lennon as permanent receiver for the defendant entities and their subsidiaries and affiliates, including Oxford Oil and Gas, Inc. and the Oxford Group of Companies, Ltd. The district court ordered that the Receiver was to have full powers of an equity receiver, including, but not limited to, full power over all funds, assets, property, securities, premises (whether owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled), choses in action, books, records, and other property belonging to or in the possession of or control of Whitworth, Williston, Ameri-vest, and any of their subsidiaries and affiliates. The district court granted the SEC’s partial summary judgment motion, con-eluding that the principal defendants had violated section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. In 1999, the district court entered final judgment. The relief ordered included an injunction and provisions requiring the principal defendants to disgorge specified amounts of ill-gotten gains to the Receiver and pay civil penalties. Appellant Richard Sherman, an attorney for several of the defendants in the Whit-worth action, violated the Whitworth district court’s freeze order by withdrawing a total of $54,980 from the companies’ litigation trust account and soliciting additional funds from investors. The SEC and the Receiver sought a judgment of civil contempt against Sherman from the Whitworth district court. In February 2000, that court found Sherman in contempt and ordered him to disgorge “to the Receiver” $54,980 plus prejudgment interest. We affirmed. SEC v. Whitworth Energy Res. Ltd., 243 F.3d 549 (9th Cir.2000) (unpublished table decision). In separate proceedings, commenced before the Whitworth action, the Oxford companies had filed, in state court, several suits concerning the ownership rights to various natural gas assets in Texas (contingency suits). Sherman represented the Oxford companies’ investors in these actions, pursuant to a contingency fee agreement. The agreement provided that Sherman was to receive forty percent of the amount of benefits paid to the plaintiffs after deducting litigation-related costs and disbursements. Also, the Oxford companies were to pay Sherman periodically throughout the litigation as an advance against his contingency fees, and any money Sherman retained in excess of his fees would be treated as an interest-free loan. In early 2001, the Receiver settled the contingency suits. A year later, the Receiver filed a motion in the Whitworth suit seeking an order requiring Sherman to disgorge money he had received and retained, but not earned, in connection with his representation in the contingency suits. The SEC joined the motion shortly thereafter. Four days before the hearing on the disgorgement motion, Sherman and his wife, Andrea Sherman, filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition with the bankruptcy court. Sherman did not file an opposition to the disgorgement motion with the Whitworth district court, nor did he appear at the hearing on the motion. In March 2002, the Whitworth district court issued its decision on the disgorgement motion. It found that the Receiver was subject to the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), but that, under § 362(b)(4), the SEC was not. On the merits, the district court found that the Receiver had settled the contingency suits for $750,000, and that Sherman was therefore entitled to $300,000 in fees. The court also found that as of the time of the settlement, Sherman had collected $881,313.43 in advances. Thus, pursuant to the contingency fee agreement, Sherman owed the Oxford companies $581,313.43, the difference between the advances Sherman had received and retained and the actual fee for his representation. The district court granted the motion for disgorgement (disgorgement judgment) and ordered Sherman to pay $581,313.43 plus interest. The disgorgement order did not specify to whom Sherman was to remit this money. In May 2002, the SEC filed a motion in bankruptcy court to dismiss the Shermans’ Chapter 7 petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(a). The Receiver joined the motion shortly thereafter. A few weeks later, the Receiver independently filed an action (nondischarge action) against Sherman in bankruptcy court, seeking a determination that the debt Sherman owed the Receiver for the contempt judgment and the retention of money in excess of his fees in connection with the contingency suits, totaling $636,293.43, was nondischargeable. The bankruptcy court denied the SEC’s motion to dismiss the bankruptcy in June 2002, stating that “[t]his is just a run-of-the-mill bankruptcy.” The SEC filed a notice of appeal in July 2002. The appeal was heard by the Whitworth district court. On October 1, 2002, while the appeal was pending in the district court, the bankruptcy court entered an order granting the Shermans a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. In December 2002, Sherman and the Receiver entered into a settlement agreement (Agreement). As part of the Agreement, Sherman “agree[d] to execute a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in the amount of $636,293.43 plus interest.” The bankruptcy court entered an order shortly thereafter granting the stipulation for entry of judgment. In relevant part, the stipulation stated the following: A. On February 28, 2000, the U.S. District Court, Central District of California (the “District Court”) in SEC v. Whitworth Energy Resources entered a contempt judgment against Defendant [Sherman] and various other individuals (the “Contempt Judgment”). The Contempt Judgment found that Defendant received $54,980 in violation of a TRO and Preliminary Injunction previously issued by the District Court. B. In addition, the Receiver has asserted a claim against Defendant for $581,313.43 plus interest for attorneys’ fees Defendant received as purported advances against an anticipated contingent fee (the “Disgorgement Claim”). D. On May 24, 2002, Plaintiff [the Receiver] filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against Defendant pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 523 to determine the dischargeability of debts totaling $636,293.43 plus interest based on the Contempt Judgment and the Disgorgement Claim (the “Adversary Action”). NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals set forth above, and in consideration of the mutual promises, undertakings, terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties stipulate as follows: 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and for the sole purposes of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant agrees and stipulates that the Contempt Judgment and Disgorgement Claim are nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a). 2. Defendant agrees to make payments totaling $50,000 to Plaintiff as follows in full and final settlement of Plaintiffs claims against Defendant as set forth in the Adversary Action.... 3. Defendant stipulates to entry of a judgment in the amount of $636,293.43 plus interest (the “Judgment”), based on the following terms and conditions: As long as Defendant makes all payments ..., Receiver shall forebear from filing, entering, recording, enforcing or executing on the Judgment.... 5. Upon receipt of the Final Payment ..., the Receiver shall immediately dismiss the Adversary Action. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court’s order denying the SEC’s motion to dismiss the petition. The court concluded that there was no specific remedy under the Bankruptcy Code for the SEC to pursue, and that under our opinion in Padilla, it could therefore proceed to the “cause” inquiry. Analyzing the SEC’s motion to dismiss the Shermans’ petition for “cause” under § 707(a), the district court held that the timing and circumstances of the Shermans’ petition, along with the misrepresentations made in it, were sufficient to constitute “cause.” Specifically, the district court held that Sherman filed for bankruptcy to prevent this Court from ordering Sherman to disgorge the funds he wrongfully obtained from the companies. By filing for bankruptcy, the Court finds that Sherman intended to obtain a discharge of his obligations to the SEC, while simultaneously — because he turned over no assets for liquidation — maintaining the lifestyle he currently enjoys, a lifestyle funded in part by the money Sherman obtained by deceiving his clients and by violating this Court’s orders. The district court therefore reversed the bankruptcy court and remanded with instructions to dismiss “for cause,” pursuant to § 707(a). From this decision the Sher-mans timely appeal. II. Standing On appeal, the Shermans argue for the first time that the SEC lacks standing to seek dismissal of their Chapter 7 petition, because the SEC’s interest in the contempt and disgorgement judgments was extinguished when the Receiver and Sherman entered into the Agreement. We must address Article III standing questions regardless of whether they were raised below. See Biggs v. Best, Best & Krieger, 189 F.3d 989, 998 & n. 7 (9th Cir.1999). To establish standing under Article III, a party must demonstrate that “(1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000)). At argument, the SEC expressly waived any contention that its role as statutory guardian of the federal securities laws supplies a non-pecuniary interest sufficient to create standing. Cf. SEC v. U.S. Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U.S. 434, 459-60, 60 S.Ct. 1044, 84 L.Ed. 1293 (1940). Instead, the SEC now premises its standing solely on its asserted status as a “creditor” under the Bankruptcy Code with respect to the contempt and disgorgement judgments. The SEC argues that because it is a “creditor” under the Bankruptcy Code and its debts could be discharged if the petition is not dismissed, it has Article III standing. We therefore must decide whether the SEC is a “creditor” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code with respect to the contempt judgment or the disgorgement judgment. We conclude that the SEC is a creditor with respect to the disgorgement judgment. Because we so conclude, we do not reach the question of whether the SEC is also creditor with respect to the contempt judgment. In Part 11(A), we explain why the SEC was a creditor under the Bankruptcy Code in the absence of a settlement agreement, and in Part 11(B), we address why the Agreement between Sherman and the Receiver did not extinguish the SEC’s right to enforce the disgorgement judgment. A. SEC’s Right To Enforce the Disgorgement Judgment We first decide whether the SEC is a “creditor” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code with respect to the disgorgement judgment, assuming the absence of a settlement agreement. Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal court of appeals has addressed the question whether the SEC can be a creditor under the Bankruptcy Code if the agency has obtained a monetary judgment entered in an SEC enforcement action. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit and several bankruptcy courts have, however, concluded that the SEC can in such circumstances have standing as a creditor under the Bankruptcy Code. See, e.g., SEC v. Cross (In re Cross), 218 B.R. 76, 78-80 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.1998); SEC v. Hodge (In re Hodge), 216 B.R. 932, 935-36 (Bankr. S.D.Ohio 1998); SEC v. Kane (In re Kane), 212 B.R. 697, 700 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1997); SEC v. Maio (In re Maio), 176 B.R. 170, 171-72 (Bankr.S.D.Ind.1994). In concert with these tribunals, we hold that in the present case, the SEC is a “creditor” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, assuming the absence of a settlement agreement extinguishing its rights. The Bankruptcy Code’s definition of “creditor” includes an “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A). The Code provides that the term “ ‘entity’ includes ... governmental unit,” id. § 101(15), and the Code defines “claim” as a (A) right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured; or (B) right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured. Id. § 101(5). The Supreme Court has stated that “Congress intended by this language to adopt the broadest available definition of ‘claim’” and has held that “ ‘right to payment’ [means] nothing more nor less than an enforceable obligation.” Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 83, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991) (alteration in original) (one set of internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Penn. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 559, 110 S.Ct. 2126, 109 L.Ed.2d 588 (1990)). Applying these provisions to the present case, we see that whether the SEC is a creditor turns on whether it “has” a “right to payment” — i.e., an “enforceable obligation” — “against” the Shermans with respect to the disgorgement judgment. 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A), (5); Johnson, 501 U.S. at 88, 111 S.Ct. 2150. This determination depends, in turn, on the nature of the disgorgement judgment entered in favor of the SEC, the consideration to which we now turn. Under the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), “[wjhenever it shall appear to the [SEC] that any person is engaged or is about to engage in acts or practices” that violate the securities laws, the SEC may bring an action “to enjoin such acts or practices.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(l) (covering the 1934 Act); see also id. § 77t(b) (covering the 1933 Act and using materially identical language). Although injunctive relief is the only relief that the statutes expressly authorize, we have held that federal courts have “inherent equitable authority to issue a variety of ‘ancillary relief measures in actions brought by the SEC to enforce the federal securities laws.” SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363, 1369 (9th Cir.1980). In particular, a court may impose a receivership, see id., freeze assets, see SEC v. Hickey, 322 F.3d 1123, 1131 (9th Cir.2003), amended on other grounds on denial of reh’g, 335 F.3d 834 (9th Cir.2003), and order the disgorgement of . the proceeds of fraud held by defendants, see SEC v. Wencke, 783 F.2d 829, 837 n. 9 (9th Cir.1986), and by third-party nominal defendants, SEC v. Colello, 139 F.3d 674, 676-77 (9th Cir.1998). In the present case, the SEC brought the Whitworth action pursuant to its authority under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(l) and 77t(b). The SEC obtained the disgorgement judgment against Sherman pursuant to Colello. See id. at 677. Colello authorizes courts to order the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains held by third parties who are acting as depositories and have no legitimate claim to the funds. See id. Here, the $581,313.43 at issue in the disgorgement judgment was money Sherman retained in excess of his fee for the services rendered in the contingency suits. According to the contingency fee agreement, Sherman was to return this money to the Oxford companies. In the meantime, he was effectively acting as a depository for those funds, as he legitimately obtained them in the first place but no longer had a valid claim to retain them. Although the disgorgement motion was brought by both the Receiver and the SEC, the disgorgement judgment was rendered pursuant to the motion of the SEC alone, because the Receiver, but not the SEC, was subject to the automatic stay. The pertinent question is whether the SEC’s interest in the disgorgement judgment is sufficient to confer creditor status on it for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code even though the SEC was not to obtain any funds for its own coffers. In Nathanson v. NLRB, 344 U.S. 25, 73 S.Ct. 80, 97 L.Ed. 23 (1952), the Supreme Court considered the circumstances in which a governmental entity can, by virtue of its authority to require payments from one party to another, be a creditor under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898. Na-thanson held that the National Labor Relations Board (Board) was a creditor under the Bankruptcy Act with respect to the Board’s order to a debtor to pay certain employees back pay, notwithstanding that it was the employees, and not the Board, who would eventually receive the money at issue. See id. at 26-27, 73 S.Ct. 80. The Court reasoned as follows: The Board is the public agent chosen by Congress to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. A back pay order is a reparation order designed to vindicate the public policy of the statute by making the employees whole for losses suffered on account of an unfair labor practice. Congress has made the Board the only party entitled to enforce the Act. A back pay order is a command to pay an amount owed the Board as agent for the injured employees. The Board is therefore a claimant in the amount of the back pay. Id. at 27, 73 S.Ct. 80 (citations omitted). Under Nathanson, the SEC has standing as a creditor with respect to these judgments. Like the Board in Nathanson, the SEC in the present case “is the public agent chosen by Congress to enforce” the securities laws. Id. In addition, the disgorgement judgment is “designed to vindicate the public policy of the statute.” Id. As we explained in SEC v. Rind, 991 F.2d 1486 (9th Cir.1993), “[b]y deterring violations of the securities laws, disgorgement actions further the[SEC’s] public policy mission of protecting investors and safeguarding the integrity of the markets.” Id. at 1491. In Colello, we explained that “the SEC may name a non-party depository as a nominal defendant to effect full relief in the marshalling of assets that are the fruit of the underlying fraud.” 139 F.3d at 677. The present case may at first seem different from Nathanson in two respects. First, Nathanson noted that the Board was the “only party entitled to enforce the” statute at issue, 344 U.S. at 27, 73 S.Ct. 80 (emphasis added), but the SEC is not the only enforcer of some of the sections of the statute at issue in the Whit-worth action. In the Whitworth action, the SEC was enforcing two statutes and one rule promulgated thereunder: section 17(a) of the 1933 Act, section 10(b) of the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thei'eunder. While there is no express private cause of action under any of these provisions and no implied private cause of action under section 17(a) of the 1933 Act, see Puchall v. Houghton, Cluck, Coughlin & Riley (In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig.), 823 F.2d 1349, 1357-58 (9th Cir.1987) (en banc), there is an implied private cause of action under section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, see Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 380, 103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983); Superintendent of Ins. v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U.S. 6, 13 n. 9, 92 S.Ct. 165, 30 L.Ed.2d 128 (1971). Second, Nathan-son stated that “[a] back pay order is a command to pay an amount owed the Board as agent for the injured employees,” 344 U.S. at 27, 73 S.Ct. 80 (emphasis added), but the disgorgement order in the present case is not to be paid directly to the SEC as agent for the injured investors. As explained below, however, we conclude that these possible distinctions lack force, and that the SEC has creditor status under the Bankruptcy Code. First, that the SEC is not the sole enforcer of all sections of the statute at issue in the Whitworth action does not deprive the SEC of creditor status. The two circuits that have addressed whether an entity can be a creditor if it is not the sole enforcer of a statute have come to conclusions in some tension with each other. Compare Davis, 194 F.3d at 575 (“[A]gen-cies need not be the only party entitled to enforce the Acts as their standing as creditors in the nondischargeability actions obtains regardless of whether the actual beneficiaries were authorized under federal law to prosecute the action in their own right.”), with, Missouri ex rel. Ashcroft v. Cannon (In re Cannon), 741 F.2d 1139, 1142 (8th Cir.1984) (holding that the state of Missouri was not a creditor under the statute at issue and distinguishing Na-thanson by noting, among other differences, that “under the Missouri statutory scheme, the Attorney General is not the only party entitled to enforce” the statute because it “provides for a private right of action”). In accordance with the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Davis, we hold that the fact that the SEC is not the sole enforcer of the securities laws does not deprive it of creditor status. To hold otherwise “would be contrary to legislative intent.” Maio, 176 B.R. at 172. Congress created an express cause of action for violations of section 17(a) of the 1933 Act, section 10(b) of the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, but it did so only for the SEC, not for private parties. See 15 U.S.C. § 77t(b) (expressly creating a cause of action for the SEC under the 1933 Act); id. § 78u(d)(l) (expressly creating a cause of action for the SEC under the 1934 Act and rules promulgated thereunder). And, although courts have implied a private cause of action under section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5, see Herman & MacLean, 459 U.S. at 380, 103 S.Ct. 683, they have not done so under section 17(a) of the 1933 Act, see Puchall, 823 F.2d at 1353-58. By creating an express cause of action only for the SEC under these sections and by implicitly precluding a private cause of action under section 17(a) of the 1933 Act, Congress evinced an intent not to leave enforcement of the securities laws to private parties. To hold that, nonetheless, the SEC has lesser status in bankruptcy proceedings when private enforcement is permitted would both reverse Congress’s assignment of basic enforcement authority to the SEC and “unduly hinder enforcement of the Securities Act.” Maio, 176 B.R. at 172. That private parties may have been able to bring actions seeking payment of some or all of the money at issue in the disgorgement judgment should not affect the SEC’s ability to enforce the disgorgement order that it did obtain. Otherwise, the ultimate enforcement of securities laws would depend, in part, on potential action by private parties, as only private parties to securities actions could have creditor status in bankruptcy, participate in distribution of the estate, and file nondischarge actions. Yet, the decided congressional preference was for SEC enforcement of securities laws. Private parties may not always have the incentive or financial wherewithal to enforce those laws, and can only do so to the extent that they can recover for their own losses. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 90 F.3d 1442, 1446 (9th Cir.1996). We therefore hold that the fact that the SEC is not the sole enforcer of the securities laws does not deprive it of creditor status. Nor does it matter to the SEC’s status as a creditor that the Receiver may have an enforceable interest as well in the disgorgement judgment. That judgment does not make clear to whom the money at issue is to be paid. Even if the Receiver could enforce the disgorgement judgment on the ground that he was the intended recipient of the funds at issue, the Receiver’s right to enforce the judgment should not strip the SEC of its right to do so. We agree with the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Cross: As the chief enforcer of the securities laws, the [SEC] should not have to depend on the Receiver to enforce its judgments. In some cases, limited funds in the receivership estate might actually prevent the Receiver from doing so. This result, however, conflicts with the Commission’s role as a statutory guardian charged with safeguarding the public interest. In addition, any costs incurred by the receivership estate in connection with enforcing the Disgorgement Judgment would reduce recovery to the defrauded investors in this case, whereas allowing the Commission to proceed preserves resources. 218 B.R. at 79. Second, while Nathanson stated, vaguely, that “a back pay order is a command to pay an amount owed the Board as agent for the injured employees,” 344 U.S. at 27, 73 S.Ct. 80 (emphasis added), the fact that the disgorgement order in the present case is not paid to the SEC, even in the first instance, does not affect the SEC’s creditor status. As an initial matter, we do not read the quoted statement in Nathanson as indicating that the funds were literally to be paid to the Board. Earlier in the opinion, the Court characterized the Board’s order by noting that the Board “ordered the bankrupt to pay certain employees back pay.” Id. at 26, 73 S.Ct. 80 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the underlying Board order at issue in Nathan-son stated that the respondent companies were to “make [the discriminatees] whole for any loss of pay ... by payment to each of them of a sum of money.” In re Hill Transp. Co., 75 N.L.R.B. 1203, 1216 (1948) (emphasis added). Thus, Nathanson could not have meant that the Board had creditor status because payment was actually to be deposited with the Board, as the order in question did not so require. It must have meant merely that the back pay order was to be considered, for purposes of the Bankruptcy Act, as an “amount owed the Board.” Moreover, even if the Court in Nathan-son did assume that the payment was to be made to the Board in the first instance, we do not think creditor status could turn on that circumstance. Whether a governmental agency initially collects a back pay award for distribution to the directly affected individuals or, instead, simply obtains in its name an equitable order requiring payments directly to private individuals does not in any meaningful way affect the agency’s interest in the money in question. In either instance, the authority to enforce the order to make payment of funds resides in the holder of the judgment — in Nathanson, the Board, here, the SEC. In either instance, the agency does not end up with the funds, but assures that affected individuals are compensated. And in either event, the agency has an “enforceable obligation” to require the debtor to pay money, Johnson, 501 U.S. at 88, 111 S.Ct. 2150, the sine qua non of creditor status. Thus, the fact that the disgorgement judgment did not order that Sherman deposit the money at issue with the SEC does not affect the SEC’s creditor status. Cf. Cross, 218 B.R. at 79 (“The Receiver’s role as depository [for disgorged funds] ... did not deprive the [SEC] of creditor status [for purposes of a § 523 discharge-ability action related to a disgorgement judgment].”) We conclude that the SEC is a “creditor” in the present case, as that term is used by the Bankruptcy Code, unless the Agreement extinguished its interest in the disgorgement judgment, a consideration to which we now turn. B. Whether the Agreement Extinguished the SEC’s Rights We conclude that the Agreement, entered into after the bankruptcy court denied the SEC’s dismissal motion, did not extinguish the SEC’s right to enforce the disgorgement judgment. First, the Receiver did not purport to settle the SEC’s claim. Second, the Receiver and the SEC are independent entities, and the Receiver did not have the authority to compromise the SEC’s claim. Third, the rights at issue in the Agreement are different from the rights at issue in the disgorgement judgment. As to the first point, the Receiver did not purport to settle the SEC’s claim with respect to the disgorgement judgment. Although the Agreement was reached while the SEC’s appeal of its motion to dismiss was pending, the SEC was not a party to the Agreement. Only Sherman and the Receiver were parties. In addition, the Agreement stated that “[e]ach of the Parties to this Agreement acknowledges that no other party, nor any agent or attorney of any other party, has made any promise, representation, inducement or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, which is not expressly contained in this Agreement.” The SEC thus never itself relinquished its rights to enforce the disgorgement judgment or to pursue its motion to dismiss the bankruptcy petition, and the Agreement so recognized. Moreover, the only pending action addressed in the Agreement was the Receiver’s nondischarge action. The stipulation filed pursuant to the Agreement noted that Sherman’s payments would be “in full and final settlement of[the Receiver’s] claims against Defendant as set forth in the [Receiver’s nondischarge action].” The SEC’s disgorgement judgment was not at issue in the nondischarge action. Instead, the non-discharge action involved only a separate, unadjudicated claim, albeit for the same money at issue in the disgorgement judgment: The stipulation stated that “the Receiver has asserted a claim against Defendant for $581,313.43 plus interest for attorneys’ fees Defendant received as purported advances against an anticipated contingent fee (the ‘Disgorgement Claim’),” and noted that the Receiver’s nondischarge action was based on the “Contempt Judgment and the Disgorgement Claim.” (emphasis added). The SEC’s pending appeal of the bankruptcy court’s denial of its motion to dismiss is not mentioned in the stipulation or in the Agreement, nor is the disgorgement judgment in favor of the SEC. Thus, the Receiver did not purport to compromise the disgorgement judgment entered in favor of the SEC. As to the second point, the Receiver had no authority to compromise claims of the SEC. True, the Receiver was appointed pursuant to the SEC’s motion, but the Receiver’s authority is circumscribed by the order appointing him. That order makes clear that he is to marshal the assets of the receivership estates and can bring actions to do so, but it does not give him authority to compromise judgments in favor of the SEC or otherwise act on behalf of the agency. Thus, the Receiver did not have the authority to settle the SEC’s claims against Sherman. Finally, as to the third point, the rights at issue in the Agreement were not the same as the rights at issue in the SEC’s disgorgement judgment, and the latter rights were not fully extinguished when the former rights were. The SEC and the Receiver played different roles with respect to the money at issue in the disgorgement judgment and had interests in the money predicated on separate legal theories. The Receiver’s claim for this money stemmed from his role as the collector of the assets of the corporations and was premised on two independent theories for collecting the money: (1) the Receiver was entitled to the money under the terms of the contract Sherman and the Oxford companies entered into for Sherman’s representation in the contingency suits; and (2) the Receiver was entitled to the money under the California Rules of Professional Conduct, which state that attorneys shall “[promptly pay or deliver, as requested by the client, any funds ... in the possession of the [attorney] which the client is entitled to receive.” Cal. Rules Of Prof’l Conduct R. 4-100(B)(4), available at http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/ethics/ 2006 — Rules-Prof-Conduct.pdf. In contrast, the SEC’s claim to this money stemmed from its role as the public enforcer of the federal securities laws and was obtained under a Colello theory. Under Colello, so long as Sherman retained some of the funds fraudulently obtained by his clients as a deposit on possible future fees, the SEC retained an interest in requiring that he disgorge those funds. Such a disgorgement would further the SEC’s goals of deterring securities laws violations and compensating defrauded investors. See Colello, 139 F.3d at 677. That the Receiver recovered some of the money at issue in the disgorgement judgment to settle his contract and ethics claims does not mean that the SEC’s securities law claim was extinguished. For all of these reasons, the Agreement did not entirely extinguish the SEC’s right to enforce the disgorgement judgment. The SEC is therefore a creditor under the Bankruptcy Code with respect to the disgorgement judgment. As a creditor, the SEC has Article III standing to pursue the dismissal of the Shermans’ bankruptcy petition because, given that status, it satisfies all three prongs of the Article III standing test. First, the SEC suffered the requisite “injury in fact” because the pendency of the bankruptcy action did affect the SEC’s ability to enforce its judgments: If the bankruptcy petition was not dismissed, Sherman’s debt resulting from the SEC’s disgorgement judgment, like all of his other debts, might be discharged. Second, the SEC’s injury is “fairly traceable” to the Shermans’ bankruptcy petition, City of Sausalito, 386 F.3d at 1197 (internal quotation marks omitted), because the filing of the bankruptcy petition made it likely that the disgorgement judgment would not be fully paid. Third, “it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative” that the SEC’s injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, as such a result would mean that the disgorgement judgment will not be discharged in bankruptcy. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). III. Mootness The Shermans argue that even if the SEC did have standing, this appeal is moot because the bankruptcy court has already entered an order granting them a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. We conclude, however, that although the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to enter an order granting the discharge while the SEC appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss, this appeal is not moot because the entry of a discharge order alone did not terminate the Shermans’ bankruptcy petition, and a grant of the dismissal order could have triggered reconsideration of the discharge order. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4004 determines when a bankruptcy court may grant a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. The version of Rule 4004(c) in effect prior to the Shermans’ discharge stated that on the “expiration of the time fixed for filing a complaint objecting to discharge and the time fixed for filing a motion to dismiss the case under Rule 1017(e) [which governs motions to dismiss under § 707(b)], the court shall forthwith grant the discharge,” unless one of several conditions exists, none of which are present in the instant case. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004(c) (2000) (amended 2002). Rule 4004(a) states that a “complaint objecting to the debtor’s discharge under § 727(a) of the Code shall be filed no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under § 341(a).” Fed. R. Bankr. P. § 4004(a). It appears that the first date set for the meeting of creditors was March 25, 2002. The expiration of the time fixed for filing a complaint was therefore May 24, 2002. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(a) (describing rules for time computations). Because none of the conditions listed in Rule 4004(c) applied to the present case, Rule 4004(c) called for the bankruptcy court to grant the discharge “forthwith”— that is, soon after May 24, 2002, the end of the sixty-day objection period. At that time, the SEC’s motion to dismiss was pending in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court did not, however, enter a formal order granting the discharge until October 1, 2002. By that date, the bankruptcy court had denied the SEC’s motion to dismiss, the SEC had filed a notice of appeal, and the appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss was pending in the district court. No party objected to the delay in issuing the discharge order. The Shermans argue that although the bankruptcy court did not enter a formal order granting the discharge until October 1, 2002, we should deem the discharge to have been entered on the first business day following the date the sixty-day period expired, citing Ross v. Mitchell (In re Dietz), 914 F.2d 161 (9th Cir.1990), for this proposition. As the sixty-day period expired on May 24, 2002, the discharge, using that approach, would be deemed entered on May 28, 2002. Citing In re Morgan, 290 B.R. 246 (Bankr.D.Del.2003), the Shermans argue that this case is moot because the discharge was deemed granted while the motion to dismiss was pending in bankruptcy court, prior to the date that the SEC filed its notice of appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss. While the argument is creative, we cannot accept it. The statute says nothing about an automatic discharge, nor does it specify a date on which a discharge is “deemed” to occur, without an order so stating. Where, as here, a motion that would obviate the viability of a discharge order was pending when the sixty-day period expired, there was good reason for the bankruptcy court to refrain from issuing a discharge order. Moreover, Dietz did not hold that the discharge must be deemed to have been entered upon the expiration of the sixty-day period. Rather, Dietz held that a bankruptcy court may deem the discharge to have been entered at that time, as doing so is ordinarily “consistent ] with the spirit of the bankruptcy rules.” 914 F.2d at 164. In Dietz, the bankruptcy court itself retroactively deemed the discharge to have been entered upon the expiration of the sixty-day period, so that it could cure a statutory gap that would have otherwise precluded a motion to revoke the discharge; there was no other later order that purported to be an order of discharge. See id. We upheld the bankruptcy court’s discretion to deem the discharge to have been entered upon the expiration of the sixty-day period. See id. In the present case, in contrast, the record does not reveal that the bankruptcy court ever deemed the discharge to have been entered at any time prior to the formal order granting the discharge, issued on October 1, 2002. Indeed, there would have been no reason to enter the October 1 order if the bankruptcy court believed that there had been a “deemed” discharge months earlier. We therefore consider the discharge entered on October 1, 2002, not earlier. The discharge order was entered, then, after the SEC filed its notice of appeal. We conclude that the bankruptcy court nonetheless retained jurisdiction to enter the discharge order but that under the particular facts of this case, the appeal is not moot. The timely filing of a notice of appeal to either a district court or bankruptcy appellate panel will typically divest a bankruptcy court of jurisdiction “over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” See Padilla, 222 F.3d at 1190; 10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 8001.04 (15th ed.2006). The bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over all other matters that it must undertake “to implement or enforce the judgment or order,” although it “may not alter or expand upon the judgment.” See Padilla, 222 F.3d at 1190. If a party wants to stay all of the proceedings in bankruptcy court while an appeal is pending, it must file a motion for a stay. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8005 (instructing the appealing party to file “[a] motion for a stay of the judgment, order, or decree of a bankruptcy judge ... pending appeal”). In the instant case, the SEC did not obtain such a stay. As a result, the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to enter the discharge order; the only matter over which it lacked jurisdiction was the motion to dismiss — the very order being appealed. See In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 201-03 (9th Cir.1977) (holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to vacate an order that had been appealed once the notice of appeal had been filed, but also recognizing that the bankruptcy court, absent a stay, could continue to exercise jurisdiction over other proceedings related to the petition). Despite this set of circumstances, this appeal is not moot. A bankruptcy court proceeding is not moot even after a discharge order has been entered so long as “the appellate court [can] fashion relief that is both effective and equitable.” See Spirtos v. Moreno (In re Spirtos), 992 F.2d 1004, 1006 (9th Cir.1993). In determining whether effective and equitable relief is available, we consider first, (1) whether both parties are still before the court, and (2) whether they were both aware of the pending appeal. See id. at 1007 (holding that it could address the merits on appeal because both parties were part of the appeal, and because it was the debtor who “filed a notice of appeal to this court long after the assets [at issue] were distributed”); Salomon v. Logan (In re Int’l Envtl. Dynamics, Inc.), 718 F.2d 322, 326 (9th Cir.1983); Credit Alliance Corp. v. Dunning-Ray Ins. Agency, Inc. (In re Blumer), 66 B.R. 109, 113 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.1986). Here, both the SEC and the Shermans remain parties to the appeal and both parties knew that the motion to dismiss was still being litigated. In fact, like the debtor in Spirtos, the Shermans filed the notice of appeal before this court. We next consider whether there would be the possibility of effective relief were we to reverse the bankruptcy court’s decision. See Spirtos, 992 F.2d 1004, 1006. Here, such relief was a possibility because the entry of a discharge order alone does not irrevocably terminate bankruptcy proceedings. See Martinson v. Michael (In re Michael), 163 F.3d 526, 529 (9th Cir.1998) (“A case is not closed simply because a discharge of the debtor has been granted.”); In re Myatt, 101 B.R. 197, 199 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.1989). Instead, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding is only officially closed after a final report has been filed and the estate has been certified as “fully administered.” See 11 U.S.C. § 350(a); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5009. The Shermans’ bankruptcy petition, therefore, valid discharge order notwithstanding, remained open during the appeal and subject to the jurisdiction of this court. Contra Trone v. Roberts Farms, Inc. (In re Roberts Farms, Inc.), 652 F.2d 793, 797 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that a case was moot, but only because the reorganization plans had been implemented to the point where it was impossible to fashion effective relief). Were we to affirm the district court and grant the SEC’s motion to dismiss the Shermans’ petition, all recourse by the SEC would not have been foreclosed: The agency could have relied, for example, on Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to obtain relief from the bankruptcy court’s discharge order on the ground that that court’s denial of the motion to dismiss was in error. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (allowing a party to use Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to apply for relief from a judgment or order). In short, while the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to enter the discharge order on October 1, 2002, this case is not moot because entry of the discharge order alone did not irrevocably terminate the bankruptcy proceedings, thus leaving us able to fashion effective and equitable relief. IV. Dismissal “for Cause” This multitude of preliminaries over, we now reach the merits of the appeal: Should the SEC’s motion to dismiss the petition “for cause” under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a) have been granted, as the district court maintained, or not, as the bankruptcy court decided? We hold that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying the SEC’s motion to dismiss the bankruptcy petition. In so holding, we do not suggest that no vehicles were available to the SEC to ensure that Sherman paid the contempt and disgorgement judgment debts or to sanction Sherman for the behavior that the district court found reprehensible. To the contrary, our holding is that the SEC and the district court chose the wrong vehicle— § 707(a) — for ensuring that Sherman paid the contempt and disgorgement judgment debts and did not misuse the bankruptcy process. We review the district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court de novo. See Preblich v. Battley, 181 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.1999). We review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo. See Hanf v. Summers (In re Summers), 332 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir.2003). Thus, we review de novo whether a type of misconduct can constitute “cause” under § 707(a). Cf. Padilla, 222 F.3d at 1190-91 (“In essence, we review de novo whether the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that bad faith is a ground for dismissal under § 707(a).”). Having done so, we review a bankruptcy court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss for misconduct that constitutes “cause” for abuse of discretion. See Price v. U.S. Tr. (In re Price), 353 F.3d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir.2004) (holding, in a case addressing § 707(b), that “[w]e review a bankruptcy court’s decision to dismiss a case for abuse of discretion”). Under § 707(a), a “court may dismiss a case under this chapter only after notice and hearing and only for cause, including” three enumerated causes. 11 U.S.C. § 707(a); see also Padilla, 222 F.3d at 1193 (holding that “cause” rather than “bad faith” is the proper standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss under § 707(a)). No party contends that any of the three “causes” listed in § 707(a) apply to the present case. That being so, Padilla prescribes a two-part inquiry: First, we must consider whether the circumstances asserted to constitute “cause” are “contemplated by any specific Code provision applicable to Chapter 7 petitions.” Id. If the asserted “cause” is contemplated by a specific Code provision, then it does not constitute “cause” under § 707(a). See id. at 1194. If, however, the asserted “cause” is not contemplated by a specific Code provision, then we must further consider whether the circumstances asserted otherwise meet the criteria for “cause” for discharge under § 707(a). See id. at 1193-94. The SEC alleges that the Shermans engaged in three interrelated types of misconduct that together constitute “cause.” First, the SEC alleges that “the Shermans used the bankruptcy as a refuge from the district court’s jurisdiction, and to thwart the Commission’s efforts to obtain a disgorgement judgment.” Second, the SEC alleges that the Shermans used the bankruptcy as a “ ‘scorched earth’ tactic” to disfavor the SEC. Third, the SEC alleges that the Shermans “deliberately exaggerated their liabilities and expenses in order to create the misleading impression that they were in dire financial need of bankruptcy relief.” The only sensible way to approach the first part of the Padilla inquiry is to examine whether other specific Code provisions address the type of misconduct alleged, not whether other specific provisions covering the actual misconduct alleged would give rise to relief under the Code. If another Code provision addresses the general type of misconduct but does not cover the actual misconduct, that omission is best understood as demonstrating that Congress did not mean to reach the actual misconduct at issue. Any other approach would preclude bankruptcy relief in circumstances in which all indications suggest that Congress made a considered decision about the coverage of the Code and intended to provide bankruptcy relief. We assume, but do not decide, that the record substantiates that the Shermans engaged in the three types of misconduct the SEC alleges. So assuming, we hold that the asserted misconduct cannot constitute “cause” under § 707(a). These three types of misconduct are each contemplated by a specific Bankruptcy Code provision, and therefore, under Padilla, cannot constitute “cause” for § 707(a) purposes. First, § 362 addresses misconduct related to using bankruptcy as a refuge from the jurisdiction of other courts. Section 362(a) provides that the filing of a bankruptcy petition automatically operates as a stay of judicial actions, except for actions enumerated in § 362(b). 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Section 362(b) excepts several types of judicial actions from imposition of the automatic stay, id. § 362(b), and § 362(d) provides a mechanism for “parties] in interest” to challenge the imposition of the stay in several circumstances, including “for cause,” id. § 362(d)(1). The Bankruptcy Code therefore accounts for the fact it may not always be appropriate to permit debtors to take advantage of the automatic stay. Thus, to the extent that debtors like the Shermans use bankruptcy to seek refuge from another court, § 362(b) and (d) describe the circumstances in which such conduct is impermissible, which parties may challenge such conduct, and the appropriate remedy. There is nothing problematic about an individual filing a legitimate bankruptcy petition with the intention of taking advantage of the automatic stay provisions. Indeed, the legislative history of the Bankruptcy Code makes clear that one of the purposes of the automatic stay is to give a debtor a “breathing spell from his creditors” during which the debtor can “attempt a repayment ... plan, or simply ... be relieved of the financial pressures that drove him into bankruptcy.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 340 (1977), as reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 6296-97 (observing that another purpose of the automatic stay is to protect creditors by providing “an orderly liquidation procedure under which all creditors are treated equally” rather than “a race of diligence by creditors for the debtor’s assets”); see also Stringer v. Huet (In re Stringer), 847 F.2d 549, 551-52 (9th Cir.1988) (citing this legislative history and noting the purposes of the automatic stay). While it is troubling to allow an individual filing an illegitimate bankruptcy petition, such as one based on misrepresentations, to take advantage of automatic stay provisions, the viability of such a bankruptcy petition is addressed under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that protect against illegitimate filings of petitions (such as § 727) and under the “cause” provision of § 362(d)(1). The remedy in the “cause” provision of § 362(d)(1) is a considerably more direct way to deal with a debtor who is improperly using bankruptcy as a refuge from the jurisdiction of another court than the remedy in the “cause” provision of § 707(a). Preventing a debtor from taking advantage of the stay is a remedy tailored to the problem of improper avoidance of jurisdiction of another court. In contrast, § 707(a)’s remedy — the dismissal of the bankruptcy petition altogether — is too powerful a medicine for the problem at hand, as it precludes adjudication of the bankruptcy even where there are debts aside from pending litigation that exceed assets. It is worth noting that in this case, any attempt to avoid entirely the jurisdiction of the district court in the disgorgement action did not work, precisely because of the operation of § 362. The district court found the exception contained in § 362(b)(4) applicable and did adjudicate the disgorgement motion to judgment. To now include an unsuccessful attempt to avoid jurisdiction as an aspect of “cause” to dismiss the bankruptcy petition altogether is to tinker with a complex statutory scheme that specifies when — and how— to deal with various kinds of debtor misconduct and, as the fate of the automatic stay argument in this case indicates, is fully capable of doing so. In contrast, were we to hold that the Shermans’ use of bankruptcy to avoid the jurisdiction of another court is “cause” to dismiss the bankruptcy, we would be sanctioning a readjustment of the finely wrought statutory scheme. See Knupfer v. Lindblade (In re Dyer), 322 F.3d 1178, 1190 (9th Cir.2003) (describing Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, 276 F.3d 502 (9th Cir.2002), as “[njoting that ‘it is not up to us to read other remedies into the carefully articulated set of rights and remedies set out in the Bankruptcy Code’ ” and “reject[ing] Walls’ invitation to read § 105(a) as a catch-all private right of action for the enforcement of other Bankruptcy Code provisions” (quoting Walls, 276 F.3d at 507)). Second, § 547(b) addresses misconduct related to using bankruptcy as what the SEC terms a “scorched earth” tactic. Section 547(b) makes certain prepetition transfers of a debtor’s interest in property “avoid[able]” as a preference. 11 U.S.C. § 547(b). To be avoidable, such transfers must meet several requirements, including that they were made “to or for the benefit of a creditor,” and “on or within 90 days before the date of the filing of the petition” or “between ninety days and one year before the date of the filing of the petition, if such creditor at the time of such transfer was an insider.” Id. § 547(b)(1), (4). The Bankruptcy Code thus “contemplates” the notion that a debtor may favor some creditors over others by making prepetition transfers, and describes the circumstances in which such conduct is impermissible, which parties may challenge such conduct, and the appropriate remedy for the misconduct. Ordinarily, an avoidance action under § 547 can be filed only by a trustee, not a creditor. See id. § 547(b) (“/T]he trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property .... ” (emphasis added)); Avalanche Mar., Ltd. v. Parekh (In re Parmetex, Inc.), 199 F.3d 1029, 1031 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that although “a trustee must generally file an avoidance action under Chapter 7,” creditors may bring such an action “where the trustee stipulated that the Creditors could sue on his behalf and the bankruptcy court approved that stipulation”). That a creditor cannot usually file an avoidance action is not, however, inconsistent with the conclusion that the Bankruptcy Code “contemplates” the “misconduct” of debtors who use “scorched earth” tactics. To the contrary, that restriction provides support for the notion that courts should not allow other parties to seek similar relief under § 707(a), as doing so would undermine Congress’s considered judgment regarding who may seek such relief. Like the remedy under § 362, the remedy under § 547 is tailored to deal with a particular tactic, including, as in this instance, a debtor attempting to use bankruptcy to hurt a particular, disfavored creditor. If, therefore, the Shermans impermissibly engaged in a so-called “scorched earth” tactic, then the appropriate vehicle for dealing with such misconduct is § 547(b). Third, § 727(a)(4)(A) addresses misconduct related to debtors’ misrepresentations of liabilities and expenses. Section 727(a)(4)(A) states that “[t]he court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless ... the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case [ ] made a false oath or account.” 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). This mechanism for dealing with debtors who make misrepresentations describes the circumstances in which such conduct is impermissible, which parties may challenge such conduct, and the appropriate remedy for the misconduct. In particular, the Bankruptcy Code imposes a mens rea element, indicating that Congress intended to sanction only culpable misrepresentations. To the extent, then, that the allegations of misstating liabilities and expenses are true, the proper remedy is in the bankruptcy court under § 727(a)(4)(A). Notably, the SEC does not argue that there was any debt-specific misconduct, which would, alone or in conjunction with other misconduct, constitute “cause” under § 707(a) for dismissal of the petition. Had the SEC made such an argument, we would need to decide whether § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, the section that makes specific debts nondischargeable, “contemplated” such misconduct. See, e.g., id. § 523(a)(2), (4), (6), (7); see also id. § 523(a)(19) (Supp. II 2002). Thus, under the first part of the Padilla inquiry, because other Code provisions contemplate (1) taking refuge from the jurisdiction of another court; (2) engaging in a “scorched earth” tactic against a particular creditor; and (3) making misrepresentations in bankruptcy filings, we conclude that there is no “cause” to dismiss the Shermans’ bankruptcy petition because of any such behavior. To respect the complex statutory scheme that Congress has created to deal with malfeasance associated with bankruptcy petitions, we are loath to hold that a factor constitutes “cause” unless the Bankruptcy Code regime is incapable of righting wrongs of the kind alleged. Our holding hardly leaves the SEC unprotected, as the SEC could have pursued — and did pursue — several vehicles fo