The court nonetheless dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim based upon the policy behind section 109. In urging that I grant this injunction notwithstanding section 109, Deltacorp relies heavily on the recent decision in MCorp. Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, (In re MCorp Inc.), 101 B.R. 483 (S.D.Tex. 1989). But a careful reading of MCorp, which did not involve section 109, indicates that injunctive relief is not appropriate here.

The relief was granted principally because otherwise the debtor would have gone out of business. Two other cases include: In re MCorp, 101 B.R. 483 (S.D.Tex. 1989) (enjoining Federal Reserve System from prosecuting administrative action against debtor — a nonbank corporation holding company); In re Richmond Paramedical Serv., Inc., 94 B.R. 881 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1988) (enjoining Department of Health and Human Services from excluding provider that was chapter 11 debtor from Medicare and Medicaid programs for 60 days). See also In re Kaiser Steel Corp., 87 B.R. 662, 665-66 (Bankr.D.Colo.

The injunction restrained the Board from exercising "its authority over bank holding companies. . . . to attempt to effect, directly or indirectly, a reorganization of the MCorp group [of companies] except through participation in the bankruptcy proceedings." In re MCorp, 101 B.R. 483, 491. The Board appealed.

That irrelevant usage to one side, one case denies that there is such a thing as a preliminary declaratory judgment, Sigel v. Salisbury, 379 F. Supp. 317, 324 (W.D.Pa. 1974), while other cases affirm its existence. In re MCorp, 101 B.R. 483, 485 (S.D.Tex. 1989), vacated on other grounds under the name MCorp Financial, Inc. v. Board of Governors, 900 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1990), aff'd and rev'd, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 459, 116 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991); In re Public Service Co., 108 B.R. 854, 867 (Bankr.N.H. 1989); Pletz v. Secretary of State, 125 Mich. App. 335, 372, 336 N.W.2d 789, 807 (1983). But the essential point is that no counterpart to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) authorizes an appeal from a nonfinal declaratory judgment.

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve appeals an order of the district court, sitting in bankruptcy, enjoining the Board from pursuing its enforcement actions against MCorp without district court approval. 101 B.R. 483. Because the Board's source of strength proceedings exceed its statutory authority, we remand with instructions to enjoin the Board from further prosecution of these charges.

In re MCorp, 101 B.R. 483, 489 (S.D.Tex.1989), vacated on other grounds, MCorp Financial, Inc. v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System of United States, 900 F.2d 852 (5th Cir.1990). In the case at bar, the New York state regulatory scheme is somewhat equivalent to a state receivership.

In that case involving a bank holding company the district court resolved the conflict in favor of the bankruptcy law, holding that the general bankruptcy process superseded the federal regulation of banking. In re MCorp, 101 B.R. 483 (S.D.Tex. 1989). The Fifth Circuit court, however, disagreed, stating that the district court's holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1334 superseded 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i) effectively repealed § 1818(i).

Further, this court finds that the movant's actions are not solely for pecuniary purposes but also further the state's goals in the regulation of the public welfare, and are an attempt to minimize the injury to the depositors. See In re MCorp., 101 B.R. 483 (S.D.Tex. 1989) reversed, vacated and remanded on other grounds, MCorp Financial, Inc. v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System of United States, 900 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1990) for a summary of the application of the governmental unit exception to the automatic stay. See also, SEC v. First Financial Group, 645 F.2d 429 (5th Cir. 1981).

In re Ionosphere Clubs Inc., 98 B.R. 174, 176-77 (Bankr.S.D.N Y 1989) (quoting Bildisco Bildisco, 465 U.S. at 528, 104 S.Ct. at 1197). Although there are no reported cases on point with the situation herein, the analysis used in the case of In re MCorp., 101 B.R. 483 (S.D.Tex. 1989) is analogous and therefore quite helpful. The situation in MCorp.

Nevertheless, governmental actions such as license suspensions are exempt from the automatic stay provisions articulated in § 362 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. 101 B.R. 483 (S.D. Tx. 1989). Aside from the Division's award of restitution, its remaining claims against the Appellants arise from its regulatory and policing authority.