MEMORANDUM DECISION DENYING REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 303(f)
On August 20, 1993, an involuntary case under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) was commenced against Alexander D. DiLorenzo, III (“DiLorenzo” or “Alleged Debtor”). Chadbourne & Parke (“Chad-bourne”), one of the petitioning creditors herein, has moved pursuant to § 303(f) of the Code for an order conditioning the Alleged Debtor’s right to utilize his property during the gap period. Chadbourne asks that DiLo-renzo be required to give petitioning creditors at least ten days notice of any intention to encumber, transfer or otherwise dispose of any asset, other than as necessary to meet reasonable living expenses, and to disclose in such notice the nature of the proposed transaction and its principal terms, including, without limitation, the identity of the proposed transferee and transferee’s relationship to the Aleged Debtor. Chadbourne insists that the relief is necessary to prevent DiLorenzo from transferring his assets for less than fair consideration to members of his family. The Alleged Debtor opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, we *753find that Chadbourne’s motion should be denied.1
Facts
On or about August 20, 1993, an involuntary petition (the “August Petition”) under Chapter 7 of the Code was filed against the Alleged Debtor by six creditors holding unpaid judgment claims aggregating $328,000.2 On September 21, 1993, Barclays Business Credit, Inc. (“Barclays”), a judgment creditor in the approximate sum of $1,067,000, intervened as a petitioning creditor in accordance with § 303(c) of the Code. By agreement between petitioning creditors and Todtman, Young, Tunick, Nachamie, Hendler, Spizz & Drogan, P.C. (“Todtman Young”), the Alleged Debtor’s former counsel, DiLorenzo’s time to respond to the August Petition was extended up through and including October 22, 1993.3
The Alleged Debtor’s assets consist of interests in family owned or controlled corporations and limited and general partnerships. Just prior to the October 22, 1993 deadline, Todtman Young determined that because it represents various general and limited partnerships in which DiLorenzo is the general partner, it could not represent him in the involuntary case. Accordingly, on or about October 21, 1993, DiLorenzo retained his present counsel who promptly moved pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) for an order further extending his time to move or otherwise respond to the August Petition up through and including November 22, 1993. Over the objection of the petitioning creditors we extended the Alleged Debtor’s time to move or otherwise respond to the petition through November 12, 1993.4
On or about November 12, 1993, the Alleged Debtor moved pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b), as made applicable herein by Bankruptcy Rules 1011(b), 7012 and 9014 (the “Rule 12(b) motion”), for an order dismissing the case and the August Petition. The gravamen of the motion was that the petition was defective on its face and thus failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted, because it did not allege that petitioning creditors were eligible under § 303(b) to file the August Petition.5
On November 30, 1993, without leave of the Court, Chadbourne and Messrs. Wallis and Friedman filed an amended involuntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Code which cured the pleading defect contained in the August Petition. On or about December 2, 1993, Chadbourne submitted papers in opposition to the Rule 12(b) motion. The next day Chadbourne moved by Order to Show Cause for the relief sought herein. The Rule 12(b) motion was resolved by agreement. The parties stipulated that the August Petition would be deemed amended as of December 8,1993, that the amendment would relate *754back to August 20,1993 and that the Alleged Debtor’s time to respond to that petition would be extended through December 20, 1993. Accordingly, the only matter left for us to determine is whether relief should be granted under § 303(f) of the Code.
Discussion
During the gap period, an alleged debtor is afforded different types of protection by the Code. For example, the filing of an involuntary petition creates an estate and the alleged debtor benefits from the protection of the automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 541(a) and 362(a). Pursuant to § 303(f), unless the court orders otherwise, the alleged debtor is free to continue to operate his business and use, acquire and dispose of his property free from the constraints imposed by § 363, as if the involuntary petition was not filed.6 That right has been described as “[t]he most important protection given [an alleged debtor] by the Code ...” Benjamin Weintraub & Alan N. Resnick, Bankruptcy Law Manual, ¶ 2.14, at 2-43 (Warren, Gordon & Lamont, Inc., 3d ed. 1992). The statute does not specify either the cause sufficient to give rise to relief thereunder, or the nature of the relief available to an aggrieved party.7 However, the legislative history instructs that an alleged debtor should remain in control of his assets unless it is shown that he “may attempt to abscond with assets, dispose of them at less than their fair market value, or dismantle his business, all to the detriment of [his] creditors.” H.R.Rep. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 323 (1977); Senate Rep. No. 95-989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 33 (1978), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, 5787, 6279, 5819.8
Chadbourne argues that relief under § 303(f) is warranted because it reasonably believes that unless cheeked, DiLorenzo will transfer estate assets to family members for less than fair consideration. As support for that contention Chadbourne points to the fact that DiLorenzo not only was sanctioned by the state court in his litigation with Barclays for failing to comply with Barclays’ post-judgment discovery requests, but that the court issued an Order of Commitment fining him and directing that he appear for a hearing to determine whether he should be incarcerated as punishment for his contempt of court. In issuing that order, the state court found that DiLorenzo’s “failure and neglect ... to comply with the [discovery order] was calculated to, and actually did defeat, impair, impede and prejudice the rights and remedies of [Barclays].”
We need not determine whether Chad-bourne’s interpretation of § 303(f) is correct9, because there is no evidence in this *755record which supports its “fear” that DiLo-renzo will transfer assets from his estate if left to his own devices. The state court order addressed DiLorenzo’s failure to provide information about his assets to Barclays, and nothing more. The lack of evidence is particularly glaring because Chadbourne has not even attempted to obtain discovery on these matters from DiLorenzo. See Bankruptcy Rules 1018, 2004. We do not condone DiLorenzo’s actions in the state court. However, we cannot conclude that the entry of the Order of Commitment in and of itself is a predicate for relief in this instance.10
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Chadbourne’s motion pursuant to § 308(f) is denied. An appropriate order shall be issued.