Owen Wilson appeals from the district court's order denying his appeal of the bankruptcy court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of its dismissal of a petition filed under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court dismissed his petition upon a finding of bad faith, supported, in part, by a petition filed by him under Chapter 7 less than six years earlier. Although we agree with the district court's conclusion that the bankruptcy court's finding of bad faith was not clearly erroneous, we disagree with the district court's application of 11 U.S.C. § 727(a).

The district court denied Wilson's appeal, holding that he had failed to overcome the presumption of bad faith created by the sixyear refiling prohibition found in 11 U.S.C. § 727(a). This section provides that a discharge in bankruptcy shall be granted unless the debtor has been granted a discharge in a case commenced within six years before the date the current petition was filed. However, this section is inapplicable to this case for two reasons: (1) no discharge was previously granted because the prior Chapter 7 petition was dismissed for failure to pay the required filing fee; and (2) section 727(a) applies only to Chapter 7 proceedings. 11 U.S.C. § 103(b). Nevertheless, we find that the bankruptcy court's finding of bad faith is supported by other grounds.

Although no single factor necessarily leads to a finding of bad faith filing, the courts generally agree on what factors are relevant. See Carolin Corporation v. Miller, 886 F.2d 693 (4th Cir.1989); In re Natural Land Corp., 825 F.2d 296 (11th Cir.1987); In re Winshall Settlor's Trust, 758 F.2d 1136 (6th Cir.1985). Such factors include (1) whether there is a lack of real financial distress, considering whether there are any unsecured creditors, assets to protect, and a legitimate ongoing business to reorganize, and (2) whether there is a realistic possibility of effective reorganization. Wilson's own admissions support the bankruptcy court's finding of bad faith under both of these factors. In his brief filed with the district court, Wilson states that "Howil Development Corp. [51% owned by Wilson] is now in liquidation," and that "none of the companies debtor represented were in any kind of financial difficulty ... [o]n the contrary, all were highly successful." Accordingly we affirm the order of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.*

AFFIRMED.