{"id":"court_ctb_1288_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1288,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*[,](#page-0-0) 1\n\nDebtor.\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n **Re: Docket No. 1257**\n\n# **OBJECTION OF BRAVO LUCK LIMITED TO MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AND GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 327, 328, AND 363, FOR ENTRY OF ORDER FURTHER EXTENDING (I) SALE PROCESS OF SHERRY NETHERLAND APARTMENT AND (II) RETENTION OF SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY AS BROKER**\n\nBravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\"), by and through its counsel, hereby objects (this \"Objection\") to the *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee, Genever Holdings Corporation, and Genever Holdings LLC, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 327, 328, and 363, for Entry of Order Further Extending (I) Sale Process of Sherry Netherland Apartment and (II) Retention of Sotheby's International Realty as Broker* (Docket No. 1257) (the \"Motion\")[2](#page-0-1) filed by Luc Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Individual Debtor\"), Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever (BVI)\"), and Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever (US)\" and, together with the Trustee, and Genever (BVI), the \"Movants\"). In support of this Objection, Bravo Luck respectfully states as follows:\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<span id=\"page-0-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall be ascribed the definitions provided to them in the Motion.\n\n### **OBJECTION**\n\n1. In Genever (US)'s bankruptcy case, Genever (US), Bravo Luck and PAX carefully crafted the Settlement Agreement, after months of hard-fought negotiations, in order to establish a framework for the sale of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment, including, among other things, the appointment of the Sales Officer and real estate broker and payment of the resulting sale proceeds into an escrow account, not to be released unless and until notice of any distribution was provided with an opportunity for objection and entry of a court order. Also as part of this comprehensive Settlement Agreement, Bravo Luck and PAX were granted specific consent and consultation rights related to the sale and marketing process. Without these guaranteed consent and consultation rights, the settlement never would have been reached and numerous concessions by Bravo Luck would never have been made.\n\n2. As part of the Settlement Agreement, the sale process was limited to 180 days from the retention of a real estate broker, \"subject to extension upon written agreement of the Debtor [Genever (US)], Bravo Luck, and PAX, or by further order of the Court for cause shown.\" Settlement Agreement, ¶ 4(e). Additionally, the Settlement Agreement provides that it may only be modified or amended by written agreement of Genever (US), Bravo Luck, and PAX.\n\n3. By the Motion, the Movants do not simply request that the sale process in accordance with the Settlement Agreement be extended through February 1, 2023, without the prior written authorization of Bravo Luck as required by paragraph 4(e) of the Settlement Agreement. The Motion goes well beyond a simple extension request[3](#page-1-0) and seeks to terminate Bravo Luck's consent and consultation rights as expressly negotiated and provided by the\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> To be clear, Bravo Luck's objection is solely as to the request to eliminate the consent and consultation rights granted pursuant to the Settlement Order and Settlement Agreement. Bravo Luck is not otherwise objecting to the extension of the sale and marketing process in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Order and Settlement Agreement.\n\nSettlement Agreement, which Settlement Agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to the Settlement Order. The Movants cannot pick and choose between aspects of the Settlement Agreement that benefit the Trustee and Debtors and eliminate provisions of the Settlement Agreement—such as Bravo Luck's consent and consultation rights—that the Movants dislike and would rather not be bound by despite the binding and final Settlement Order.\n\n4. The Movants argue that \"there is no basis . . . to allow Bravo Luck or PAX to continue to have consent and consultation rights during the sale and marketing process, now that an independent fiduciary oversees that process.\" Motion, ¶ 30. The Movants, however, are placing the burden on the wrong party. The Settlement Agreement granted express consent and consultation rights related to the sale and marketing of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment to Bravo Luck and PAX. A final court order approved the Settlement Agreement, including such consent and consultation rights.\n\n5. The Movants' only semblance of an argument for unilaterally seeking to amend the Settlement Agreement to eliminate Bravo Luck's contractual consent and consultation rights is because the Trustee has been appointed as an independent fiduciary for the Individual Debtor's estate and now has indirect corporate control over Genever (US).\n\n6. While the Trustee's appointment may resolve PAX's concerns (which Bravo Luck cannot speak to), it certainly does not satisfy Bravo Luck's purpose for entering into the Settlement Agreement, which was motivated by its asserted ownership interest in the Sherry-Netherland Apartment and, thus, the marketing process for, and disposition of the resulting proceeds of, any sale of the property until such ownership issues are resolved. Moreover, the Trustee's appointment is not an automatic veto over provisions of a settlement agreement bargained-for by parties and approved by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York prior to the Trustee's involvement. Nor is Bravo Luck's ability to object to any future motion to approve the sale of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment a substitute for Bravo Luck's bargainedfor consent and consultation rights under the Court-approved Settlement Agreement.\n\n7. The Movants also make a weak argument that the Settlement Agreement's consent rights are vague and may provide Bravo Luck and PAX with a veto right over a sale. *See* Motion, ¶ 31. To be sure, the Settlement Agreement's terms are not vague,[4](#page-3-0) however, the issue regarding interpretation of the Settlement Agreement is not ripe at the moment. If an issue arises as to the extent of Bravo Luck's consent and consultation rights, the parties to the Settlement Agreement can make any such arguments at that time and ask this Court to make a determination.[5](#page-3-1) Speculation about a potential disagreement related to the consent and consultation rights in the future is not a basis for improperly amending the Settlement Agreement and depriving Bravo Luck of its contractual rights.\n\n8. By the Motion, the Movants are impermissibly attempting to circumvent the correct procedure for seeking relief from a final Settlement Order as required under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Civil Procedure Rules\") as incorporated into Rule 9024 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"). Rule 60 (as incorporated by Bankruptcy Rule 9024) provides:\n\n> (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> Without waiving any of its rights or arguments should a disagreement about Bravo Luck's consent and consultation rights arise in the future, there are multiple provisions throughout the Settlement Agreement that make clear that the Sales Officer has final authority over many aspects of the sale process, including selection of the winning bid. *See* Settlement Agreement, ¶¶2, 5(b), 5(f) (\"The sale process shall include consultation rights for the Debtor, Bravo Luck and PAX, with the SO to have final authority in the event of any dispute pursuant to the authority granted to Ms. Cyganowski as an officer under Section 9.3 of the Operating Agreement.\"); 6.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-1\"></span><sup>5</sup> To date, the exercise of the consultation rights has been wholly productive by allowing parties with the most interest in the Sherry- Netherland Apartment to share their views with the Sales Officer for purposes of obtaining the highest and best price.\n\n(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);\n\n(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;\n\n(4) the judgment is void;\n\n(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or\n\n(6) any other reason that justifies relief.\n\n(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.\n\n(1) *Timing.* A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.\n\n(2) *Effect on Finality.* The motion does not affect the judgment's finality or suspend its operation.\n\nFED. R. CIV. P. 60.[6](#page-4-0)\n\n9. At this time, the Movants cannot make arguments under Bankruptcy Rule\n\n9024 and Civil Procedure Rule 60 without providing a new notice period to affected parties, such as Bravo Luck. Moreover, a motion for relief from a final order \"must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.\" FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1). The Motion was filed well after a year from the date the Settlement Order was entered on October 8, 2021. Additionally, the Motion was\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>6</sup> Bankruptcy Rule 9024 incorporates Civil Procedure Rule 60 as follows:\n\nRule 60 F.R.Civ.P. applies in cases under the Code except that (1) a motion to reopen a case under the Code or for the reconsideration of an order allowing or disallowing a claim against the estate entered without a contest is not subject to the one year limitation prescribed in Rule 60(c), (2) a complaint to revoke a discharge in a chapter 7 liquidation case may be filed only within the time allowed by § 727(e) of the Code [11 USCS § 727(e)], and (3) a complaint to revoke an order confirming a plan may be filed only within the time allowed by § 1144, § 1230, or § 1330 [11 USCS § 1144, 1230, or 1330]. In some circumstances, Rule 8008 governs post-judgment motion practice after an appeal has been docketed and is pending.\n\nfiled almost six months after the Trustee's appointment and after multiple extensions of the sale process were sought after the Trustee's appointment and approved by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Genever (US)'s bankruptcy case. *See* Case No. 20-12411 (JLG), Docket No. 202 (extending sale process to September 12, 2022); Docket No. 222 (extending sale process to October 31, 2022).\n\n10. Thus, even if the Movants had properly asserted grounds to strike Bravo Luck's consent and consultation rights from the Settlement Agreement (which it has not and cannot do), such request was brought outside of a reasonable time and should be denied.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Bravo Luck respectfully requests\n\nthat the Court deny the Motion.\n\nDated: January 4, 2023\n\n### Amston, CT BRAVO LUCK LIMITED\n\nBy: /s/ David M. S. Shaiken, Esq. David M. S. Shaiken Shipman, Shaiken & Schwefel, LLC Its Counsel 433 South Main Street, Suite 319 West Hartford, CT 06110 Telephone: (860) 606-1703 Facsimile: (866) 431-3248 E-mail: [david@shipmanlawct.com](mailto:david@shipmanlawct.com) Fed. Bar. No. ct02297\n\n## **TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP**\n\nBy: /*s/ Francis J. Lawall*  Francis J. Lawall 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Telephone: (215) 981-4000 Facsimile: (215) 981-4750 E-mail: francis.lawall@troutman.com *Counsel for Bravo Luck Limited*\n\n# **Certification of Service**\n\nThe foregoing Objection was served this 4th day of January, 2023, via the Court's electronic filing system or by United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, on all parties listed on the Service List.\n\n## **Service List**\n\n# a. **Electronic Mail Service**\n\nLaura Aronsson laronsson@omm.com Tristan G. Axelrod taxelrod@brownrudnick.com William R. Baldiga wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com Kellianne Baranowsky kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com, [aevans@gs-lawfirm.com;](mailto:aevans@gs-lawfirm.com) kbaranowsky@ecf.courtdrive.com Douglass E. Barron douglassbarron@paulhastings.com Nicholas A. Bassett nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com, jonathonkosciewicz@paulhastings.com; lucdespins@paulhastings.com; alexbongartz@paulhastings.com; [ezrasutton@paulhastings.com;](mailto:ezrasutton@paulhastings.com) douglassbarron@paulhastings.com; [ecf.frg@paulhastings.com;](mailto:ecf.frg@paulhastings.com) aviluft@paulhastings.com Patrick M. Birney pbirney@rc.com, ctrivigno@rc.com Christopher H. Blau cblau@zeislaw.com G. Alexander Bongartz alexbongartz@paulhastings.com Carollynn H.G. Callari ccallari@callaripartners.com Daniel Cantor dcantor@omm.com John L. Cesaroni jcesaroni@zeislaw.com Scott M. Charmoy scottcharmoy@charmoy.com, [ecf-3ae5beb98d9b@ecf.pacerpro.com;](mailto:ecf-3ae5beb98d9b@ecf.pacerpro.com) charmoysr97992@notify.bestcase.com Holley L. Claiborn holley.l.claiborn@usdoj.gov Samuel Bryant Davidoff sdavidoff@wc.com Luc A. Despins lucdespins@paulhastings.com, [matlaskowski@paulhastings.com;](mailto:matlaskowski@paulhastings.com) davidmohamed@paulhastings.com David S. Forsh dforsh@callaripartners.com Peter Friedman pfriedman@omm.com Taruna Garg tgarg@murthalaw.com, mgarcia@murthalaw.com Irve J. Goldman igoldman@pullcom.com, rmccoy@pullcom.com Evan S. Goldstein egoldstein@uks.com Mia N. Gonzalez mgonzalez@omm.com James C. Graham jgraham@npmlaw.com, [sgibbons@npmlaw.com;](mailto:sgibbons@npmlaw.com) NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net Lawrence S. Grossman LGrossman@gs-lawfirm.com, [aevans@gs-lawfirm.com;](mailto:aevans@gs-lawfirm.com) [ngolino@gs](mailto:ngolino@gs-lawfirm.com;%20lawrencegrossman@ecf.courtdrive.com)[lawfirm.com; lawrencegrossman@ecf.courtdrive.com;](mailto:ngolino@gs-lawfirm.com;%20lawrencegrossman@ecf.courtdrive.com) [mbuckanavage@gs-lawfirm.com;](mailto:mbuckanavage@gs-lawfirm.com) eross@gs-lawfirm.com David V. Harbach, II dharbach@omm.com James J. Healy jhealy@cowderymurphy.com Jeffrey Hellman jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com, christen@jeffhellmanlaw.com Eric A. Henzy ehenzy@zeislaw.com, cjervey@zeislaw.com Jonathan Kaplan jkaplan@pullcom.com, [prulewicz@pullcom.com;](mailto:prulewicz@pullcom.com) rmccoy@pullcom.com Stephen M. Kindseth skindseth@zeislaw.com, cjervey@zeislaw.com\n\nNancy Bohan Kinsella nkinsella@npmlaw.com, [moshea@npmlaw.com;](mailto:moshea@npmlaw.com;%20smowery@npmlaw.com)  [smowery@npmlaw.com;](mailto:moshea@npmlaw.com;%20smowery@npmlaw.com) npm.bankruptcy@gmail.com Andrew V. Layden alayden@bakerlaw.com Patrick R. Linsey plinsey@npmlaw.com, [karguello@npmlaw.com;](mailto:karguello@npmlaw.com) NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net Avram Emmanuel Luft aviluft@paulhastings.com Kristin B. Mayhew kmayhew@pullcom.com, [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com) bdangelo@mdmclaw.com Danielle L. Merola dmerola@bakerlaw.com Sherry J. Millman smillman@stroock.com Aaron A Mitchell aaron@lmesq.com James M. Moriarty jmoriarty@zeislaw.com, cgregory@zeislaw.com Sara Pahlavan spahlavan@omm.com Patrick N. Petrocelli ppetrocelli@stroock.com Lucas Bennett Rocklin lrocklin@npmlaw.com, NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net Aaron Romney aromney@zeislaw.com, swenthen@zeislaw.com Scott D. Rosen srosen@cb-shea.com, [msullivan@cbshealaw.com;](mailto:msullivan@cbshealaw.com) dtempera@cbshealaw.com Thomas J. Sansone tsansone@carmodylaw.com Stuart M. Sarnoff ssarnoff@omm.com, stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com Douglas S. Skalka dskalka@npmlaw.com, [smowery@npmlaw.com;](mailto:smowery@npmlaw.com) NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net Jeffrey M. Sklarz jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com, [aevans@gs-lawfirm.com;](mailto:aevans@gs-lawfirm.com) [mbuckanavage@gs](mailto:mbuckanavage@gs-lawfirm.com)[lawfirm.com;](mailto:mbuckanavage@gs-lawfirm.com) [eross@gs-lawfirm.com;](mailto:eross@gs-lawfirm.com) jsklarz@ecf.courtdrive.com Annecca H. Smith asmith@rc.com John Troy johntroy@troypllc.com Tiffany Troy tiffanytroy@troypllc.com, troylaw@troypllc.com U. S. Trustee USTPRegion02.NH.ECF@USDOJ.GOV Michael S. Weinstein mweinstein@golenbock.com Jay Marshall Wolman jmw@randazza.com, ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com Peter J. Zarella [pzarella@mdmc-law.com](mailto:pzarella@mdmc-law.com)\n\n# b. **Service by United States Mail**\n\n| Brown Rudnick LLP                       | Dundon Advisers LLC            |\n|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------|\n| Attn: President or General Mgr          | Attn: President or General Mgr |\n| One Financial Center                    | 10 Bank Street, Suite 1100     |\n| Boston, MA 02111                        | White Plains, NY 10606         |\n| Chao-Chih Chiu, Huizhen Wang Yunxia Wu, | Peter M. Friedman              |\n| Keyi Zilkie                             | O'Melveny & Myers LLP          |\n| c/o TroyGould PC                        | 1625 Eye Street, NW            |\n| 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor      | Washington, DC 20006           |\n| Attn: Christopher A. Lilly              |                                |\n| Los Angeles, CA 90067-2367              |                                |\n|                                         |                                |\n\nGregory A. Coleman Coleman Worldwide Advisors, LLC PO Box 2839 New York, NY 10008-2839\n\nJ. Ted Donovan and Kevin J. Nash Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP 1501 Broadway 22nd Floor New York, NY 10036\n\nSherry Millman Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038\n\nRichard C. Morrissey Office of the U.S. Trustee 201 Varick Street, Room 1006 New York, NY 10014\n\nEdward Moss, Diana Perez, Stuart Sarnoff, and Daniel Shamah O'Melveny & Myers LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\nAlissa M. Nann Foley & Lardner LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016\n\nIrve Goldman, Esq. Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\nSteven E. Mackey Office of the U.S. Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\nGabriel Sasson Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\nDouglas E. Spelfogel Derek L. Wright Mayer Brown LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1001\n\nStretto Attn: President or General Mgr 410 Exchange, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602\n\nYongbing Zhang 223 West Jackson Blvd. #1012 Chicago, IL 60606\n\nGenever Holdings Corporation P.O. Box 3170 Road Town Tortola, British Virgin Islands\n\nGenever Holdings LLC 781 Fifth Avenue Apt. 1801 New York, NY 10022-5520\n\n/s/ David M. S. Shaiken David M. S. Shaiken","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等 1\n\n债务人。\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并审理）\n\n涉及：Docket No. 1257\nBRAVO LUCK LIMITED 对第 11 章受托人、GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION 及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC 依据《破产法典》第 327、328 及 363 条提起的关于进一步延长 (I) 雪莉-尼德兰公寓出售程序及 (II) 聘请苏富比国际地产公司作为经纪人的命令准予动议的异议\n\nBravo Luck Limited（“Bravo Luck”），由其代理律师代表，特此对 Luc Despins 以 Ho Wan Kwok（“个人债务人”）、Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever (BVI)”）和 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever (US)”，并与受托人及 Genever (BVI) 合称为“动议人”）第 11 章案件中指定的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）身份提交的《第 11 章受托人、Genever Holdings Corporation 及 Genever Holdings LLC 依据〈破产法典〉第 327、328 及 363 条提起的关于进一步延长 (I) 雪莉-尼德兰公寓出售程序及 (II) 聘请苏富比国际地产公司作为经纪人的命令准予动议》（Docket No. 1257）（下称“动议”）[2] 提出异议（下称“本异议”）。为支持本异议，Bravo Luck 谨陈述如下：\n\n1 本等第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（税号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于通知与联络目的）。\n\n2 本文中使用但未作定义的具有首字母大写的术语，应适用该动议中赋予它们的定义。\n异议\n\n1. 在 Genever (US) 的破产案中，Genever (US)、Bravo Luck 与 PAX 经过数月艰苦激烈的谈判，精心达成了《和解协议》，以确立出售 Sherry-Netherland Apartment（雪莉-尼德兰公寓）的框架，其中包括指定出售专员及房地产经纪人，并将产生的出售收益存入第三方托管账户，除非且直到提供任何分配通知并给予异议机会且法院作出命令，否则不得释放该资金。此外，作为该全面《和解协议》的一部分，Bravo Luck 和 PAX 被赋予了与出售和营销程序相关的特定同意权与协商权。若没有这些有保证的同意权和协商权，该和解协议绝不可能达成，Bravo Luck 也绝不会作出多项让步。\n\n2. 作为《和解协议》的一部分，出售程序被限制在聘请房地产经纪人后的 180 天内，“可经债务人 [Genever (US)]、Bravo Luck 和 PAX 书面协议予以延长，或在说明理由的情况下由法院进一步下达命令予以延长”。《和解协议》第 4(e) 段。此外，《和解协议》规定其只能经 Genever (US)、Bravo Luck 和 PAX 的书面协议进行修改或修订。\n\n3. 通过该动议，动议人不仅请求在未经《和解协议》第 4(e) 段要求的 Bravo Luck 事先书面授权的情况下，将按照《和解协议》开展的出售程序延长至 2023年2月1日。该动议的诉求远远超出了简单的延期请求[3]，企图终止 Bravo Luck 经明确谈判并由\n\n3 澄清而言，Bravo Luck 的异议仅针对取消根据《和解命令》及《和解协议》赋予的同意权与协商权的请求。Bravo Luck 并非在其他方面反对按照《和解命令》及《和解协议》的条款延长出售和营销程序。\n\n《和解协议》所规定的同意权与协商权，而该《和解协议》此前已由破产法院依据《和解命令》予以批准。动议人不能在《和解协议》中有利于受托人和债务人的方面进行挑选采纳，同时又试图取消动议人所不喜且尽管有具约束力和终局性的《和解命令》却宁愿不受其约束的《和解协议》条款——例如 Bravo Luck 的同意权与协商权。\n\n4. 动议人主张，“现在既已由独立受托人监督该程序……便没有任何依据……允许 Bravo Luck 或 PAX 在出售和营销程序期间继续享有同意权与协商权”。动议第 30 段。然而，动议人将举证责任错置在错误的当事人身上。《和解协议》向 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 赋予了与雪莉-尼德兰公寓的出售和营销相关的明确同意权与协商权。法院的终局命令已批准了《和解协议》，包括此项同意权与协商权。\n\n5. 动议人单方面寻求修订《和解协议》以取消 Bravo Luck 合同项下同意权与协商权表面上的唯一理由，仅仅是受托人已被指定为个人债务人破产财团的独立受托人，且目前对 Genever (US) 拥有间接的公司控制权。\n\n6. 虽然受托人的指定可能会解决 PAX 的关切（Bravo Luck 对此无法置评），但它无疑无法满足 Bravo Luck 订立《和解协议》的目的，Bravo Luck 订立协议的动机是基于其对雪莉-尼德兰公寓所主张的所有权权益，因而关系到该房产任何出售的营销程序以及所得收益的处置，直至该等所有权问题得到解决。此外，受托人的指定并不构成对各方当事人谈判达成并在受托人介入前已由 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）破产法院批准的和解协议条款的自动否决。Bravo Luck 对未来批准出售雪莉-尼德兰公寓的任何动议提出异议的能力，也不能替代 Bravo Luck 在法院批准的《和解协议》项下经谈判获得的同意权与协商权。\n\n7. 动议人还提出了一个站不住脚的论点，称《和解协议》的同意权含糊不清，可能赋予 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 对出售的否决权。见动议第 31 段。诚然，《和解协议》的条款并不含糊[4]，然而，关于《和解协议》解释的问题目前尚未成熟。如果对 Bravo Luck 的同意权与协商权范围产生争议，《和解协议》的各方届时可提出任何此类论点并请求本法院作出裁定[5]。对未来与同意权和协商权相关的潜在分歧进行推测，并不能作为不当地修改《和解协议》并剥夺 Bravo Luck 合同权利的依据。\n\n8. 通过该动议，动议人正企图不可接受地规避由 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》）（“《破产程序规则》”）第 9024 条所引用的 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》）（“《民事诉讼程序规则》”）第 60 条所要求的寻求免除终局和解命令约束的正确程序。《民事诉讼程序规则》第 60 条（经《破产程序规则》第 9024 条引用）规定：\n\n(b) 从终局判决、命令或诉讼程序中获得救济的事由。经动议并在公正的条件下，法院可因以下原因免除当事人或其法定代表人从终局判决、命令或诉讼程序中的责任：(1) 错误、疏忽、意外或可宽恕的懈怠；\n\n4 在不放弃其在未来若发生关于 Bravo Luck 同意权与协商权的争议时的任何权利或抗辩的情况下，《和解协议》贯穿始终的多项条款均明确表明出售专员对出售程序的诸多方面拥有最终决定权，包括中标方案的选择。见《和解协议》第 2、5(b)、5(f) 段（“出售程序应包括债务人、Bravo Luck 和 PAX 的协商权，发生任何争议时，由出售专员依据根据《运营协议》第 9.3 条授予 Cyganowski 女士作为高级管理人员的职权行使最终决定权”）；第 6 段。\n\n5 迄今为止，协商权的行使完全是富有成效的，它使对雪莉-尼德兰公寓拥有最大利益的各方能够向出售专员分享其意见，以求获得最高和最优价格。\n\n(2) 经合理勤勉仍无法及时发现以根据第 59(b) 条提请重新审理的新发现证据；\n\n(3) 对方当事人的欺诈（无论先前称为对内欺诈还是对外欺诈）、虚假陈述或不当行为；\n\n(4) 判决无效；\n\n(5) 判决已得到清偿、免除或履行；判决基于一项已被推翻或撤销的早期判决；或前瞻性地适用该判决不再公平；或\n\n(6) 能够证明应予救济的正当理由的任何其他原因。\n\n(c) 动议的时限和效力。\n\n(1) 时限。根据第 60(b) 条提出的动议必须在合理时间内提出——且对于第 (1)、(2) 和 (3) 项事由，不得超过判决或命令作出之日或诉讼程序发生之日后一年。\n\n(2) 对终局性的影响。该动议不影响判决的终局性，亦不中止其执行。\n\nFED. R. CIV. P. 60。[6]\n\n9. 此时，动议人若未向受影响的当事人（如 Bravo Luck）提供新的通知期，则无法依据《破产程序规则》\n\n9024 条和《民事诉讼程序规则》第 60 条提出主张。此外，寻求免除终局命令救济的动议“必须在合理时间内提出——且对于第 (1)、(2) 和 (3) 项事由，不得超过判决或命令作出之日或诉讼程序发生之日后一年”。FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1)。该动议提交之时，早已超过了 2021年10月8日 做出《和解命令》之日后的一年期限。此外，该动议是在\n\n6 《破产程序规则》第 9024 条如下引用《民事诉讼程序规则》第 60 条：\n\n《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》第 60 条适用于本法典项下的案件，但以下情况除外：(1) 申请重新审理本法典项下案件的动议，或对未经异议而作出的准许或不予准许对破产财团债权的命令申请复议的动议，不受第 60(c) 条规定的一年期限限制，(2) 撤销第 7 章清算案件中免责的申诉仅可在本法典第 727(e) 条 [11 USCS § 727(e)] 允许的期限内提出，以及 (3) 撤销确认计划命令的申诉仅可在本法典第 1144 条、第 1230 条或第 1330 条 [11 USCS § 1144, 1230, or 1330] 允许的期限内提出。在某些情况下，上诉已立案且悬而未决之后的判决后动议实践受第 8008 条管辖。\n\n受托人被指定近六个月后才提交的，并且是在受托人指定后多次寻求延长出售程序并经纽约南区破产法院在 Genever (US) 的破产案中批准之后提交的。参见 Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)，Docket No. 202（将出售程序延长至 2022年9月12日）；Docket No. 222（将出售程序延长至 2022年10月31日）。\n\n10. 因此，即便动议人提出了从《和解协议》中剥离 Bravo Luck 同意权与协商权的正当理由（其尚未且无法提出），该请求也是在合理期限之外提出的，应予以驳回。\n结论\n\n综上所述，Bravo Luck 谨请求\n\n法院驳回该动议。\n\n日期：2023年1月4日\n康涅狄格州阿姆斯顿 BRAVO LUCK LIMITED\n\n签署人：/s/ David M. S. Shaiken, Esq.（戴维·M·S·谢肯律师）\nDavid M. S. Shaiken（戴维·M·S·谢肯）\nShipman, Shaiken & Schwefel, LLC（希普曼、谢肯与施韦费尔有限责任合伙）\n其代理律师\n433 South Main Street, Suite 319\nWest Hartford, CT 06110\n电话：(860) 606-1703\n传真：(866) 431-3248\n电子邮箱：[david@shipmanlawct.com]\n联邦律师执业编号：ct02297\nTROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP（特劳特曼·佩珀·汉密尔顿·桑德斯有限责任合伙）\n\n签署人：/s/ Francis J. Lawall（弗朗西斯·J·拉沃尔）\nFrancis J. Lawall（弗朗西斯·J·拉沃尔）\n3000 Two Logan Square\nEighteenth and Arch Streets\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103-2799\n电话：(215) 981-4000\n传真：(215) 981-4750\n电子邮箱：francis.lawall@troutman.com\nBravo Luck Limited（宝禄有限公司）代理律师\n\n送达证明\n\n上述异议已于2023年1月4日，通过法院电子备案系统或通过美国邮政平信、已预付邮资的方式，向送达清单上列明的所有当事人完成送达。\n\n送达清单\na. 电子邮件送达\n\nLaura Aronsson laronsson@omm.com\nTristan G. Axelrod taxelrod@brownrudnick.com\nWilliam R. Baldiga wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\nKellianne Baranowsky kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com, [aevans@gs-lawfirm.com;] kbaranowsky@ecf.courtdrive.com\nDouglass E. Barron douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\nNicholas A. Bassett nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com, jonathonkosciewicz@paulhastings.com; lucdespins@paulhastings.com; alexbongartz@paulhastings.com; [ezrasutton@paulhastings.com;] douglassbarron@paulhastings.com; [ecf.frg@paulhastings.com;] aviluft@paulhastings.com\nPatrick M. Birney pbirney@rc.com, ctrivigno@rc.com\nChristopher H. Blau cblau@zeislaw.com\nG. Alexander Bongartz alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\nCarollynn H.G. Callari ccallari@callaripartners.com\nDaniel Cantor dcantor@omm.com\nJohn L. Cesaroni jcesaroni@zeislaw.com\nScott M. Charmoy scottcharmoy@charmoy.com, [ecf-3ae5beb98d9b@ecf.pacerpro.com;] charmoysr97992@notify.bestcase.com\nHolley L. Claiborn holley.l.claiborn@usdoj.gov\nSamuel Bryant Davidoff sdavidoff@wc.com\nLuc A. Despins lucdespins@paulhastings.com, [matlaskowski@paulhastings.com;] davidmohamed@paulhastings.com\nDavid S. Forsh dforsh@callaripartners.com\nPeter Friedman pfriedman@omm.com\nTaruna Garg tgarg@murthalaw.com, mgarcia@murthalaw.com\nIrve J. Goldman igoldman@pullcom.com, rmccoy@pullcom.com\nEvan S. Goldstein egoldstein@uks.com\nMia N. Gonzalez mgonzalez@omm.com\nJames C. Graham jgraham@npmlaw.com, [sgibbons@npmlaw.com;] NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net\nLawrence S. Grossman LGrossman@gs-lawfirm.com, [aevans@gs-lawfirm.com;] [ngolino@gs-lawfirm.com; lawrencegrossman@ecf.courtdrive.com;] [mbuckanavage@gs-lawfirm.com;] eross@gs-lawfirm.com\nDavid V. Harbach, II dharbach@omm.com\nJames J. Healy jhealy@cowderymurphy.com\nJeffrey Hellman jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com, christen@jeffhellmanlaw.com\nEric A. Henzy ehenzy@zeislaw.com, cjervey@zeislaw.com\nJonathan Kaplan jkaplan@pullcom.com, [prulewicz@pullcom.com;] rmccoy@pullcom.com\nStephen M. Kindseth skindseth@zeislaw.com, cjervey@zeislaw.com\n\nNancy Bohan Kinsella nkinsella@npmlaw.com, [moshea@npmlaw.com;] [smowery@npmlaw.com;] npm.bankruptcy@gmail.com\nAndrew V. Layden alayden@bakerlaw.com\nPatrick R. Linsey plinsey@npmlaw.com, [karguello@npmlaw.com;] NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net\nAvram Emmanuel Luft aviluft@paulhastings.com\nKristin B. Mayhew kmayhew@pullcom.com, [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;] bdangelo@mdmclaw.com\nDanielle L. Merola dmerola@bakerlaw.com\nSherry J. Millman smillman@stroock.com\nAaron A Mitchell aaron@lmesq.com\nJames M. Moriarty jmoriarty@zeislaw.com, cgregory@zeislaw.com\nSara Pahlavan spahlavan@omm.com\nPatrick N. Petrocelli ppetrocelli@stroock.com\nLucas Bennett Rocklin lrocklin@npmlaw.com, NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net\nAaron Romney aromney@zeislaw.com, swenthen@zeislaw.com\nScott D. Rosen srosen@cb-shea.com, [msullivan@cbshealaw.com;] dtempera@cbshealaw.com\nThomas J. Sansone tsansone@carmodylaw.com\nStuart M. Sarnoff ssarnoff@omm.com, stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com\nDouglas S. Skalka dskalka@npmlaw.com, [smowery@npmlaw.com;] NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net\nJeffrey M. Sklarz jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com, [aevans@gs-lawfirm.com;] [mbuckanavage@gs-lawfirm.com;] [eross@gs-lawfirm.com;] jsklarz@ecf.courtdrive.com\nAnnecca H. Smith asmith@rc.com\nJohn Troy johntroy@troypllc.com\nTiffany Troy tiffanytroy@troypllc.com, troylaw@troypllc.com\nU.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室） USTPRegion02.NH.ECF@USDOJ.GOV\nMichael S. Weinstein mweinstein@golenbock.com\nJay Marshall Wolman jmw@randazza.com, ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com\nPeter J. Zarella [pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\nb. 美国邮政送达\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克有限责任合伙）\n收件人：总裁或总经理\nOne Financial Center\nBoston, MA 02111\n\nDundon Advisers LLC（敦登顾问有限责任公司）\n收件人：总裁或总经理\n10 Bank Street, Suite 1100\nWhite Plains, NY 10606\n\nChao-Chih Chiu（邱朝枝）, Huizhen Wang（王惠贞）, Yunxia Wu（吴云霞）, Keyi Zilkie（齐尔基克仪）\n转交：TroyGould PC（特洛伊古尔德专业法团）\n收件人：Christopher A. Lilly（克里斯托弗·A·莉莉）\n1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor\nLos Angeles, CA 90067-2367\n\nPeter M. Friedman（彼得·M·弗里德曼）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）\n1625 Eye Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20006\n\nGregory A. Coleman（格雷戈里·A·科尔曼）\nColeman Worldwide Advisors, LLC（科尔曼全球顾问有限责任公司）\nPO Box 2839\nNew York, NY 10008-2839\n\nJ. Ted Donovan（J·特德·多诺万）与 Kevin J. Nash（凯文·J·纳什）\nGoldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP（戈德堡·韦普林·芬克尔·戈德斯坦有限责任合伙）\n1501 Broadway, 22nd Floor\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nSherry Millman（雪莉·米尔曼）\nStroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP（斯特鲁克与斯特鲁克及拉万有限责任合伙）\n180 Maiden Lane\nNew York, NY 10038\n\nRichard C. Morrissey（理查德·C·莫里西）\nOffice of the U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\n201 Varick Street, Room 1006\nNew York, NY 10014\n\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）、Diana Perez（戴安娜·佩雷斯）、Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）及 Daniel Shamah（丹尼尔·沙马）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nAlissa M. Nann（阿里萨·M·南恩）\nFoley & Lardner LLP（福雷与拉德纳有限责任合伙）\n90 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10016\n\nIrve Goldman, Esq.（欧文·戈德曼律师）\nPullman & Comley, LLC（普尔曼与康利有限责任公司）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\nSteven E. Mackey（史蒂文·E·麦基）\nOffice of the U.S. Trustee\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\nGabriel Sasson（加布里埃尔·萨松）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nDouglas E. Spelfogel（道格拉斯·E·斯佩尔福格尔）\nDerek L. Wright（德里克·L·赖特）\nMayer Brown LLP（孖士打律师行/美雅博律师事务所）\n1221 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10020-1001\n\nStretto（斯特雷托公司）\n收件人：总裁或总经理\n410 Exchange, Suite 100\nIrvine, CA 92602\n\nYongbing Zhang（张勇兵）\n223 West Jackson Blvd. #1012\nChicago, IL 60606\n\nGenever Holdings Corporation（源丰控股公司）\nP.O. Box 3170\nRoad Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（源丰控股有限责任公司）\n781 Fifth Avenue, Apt. 1801\nNew York, NY 10022-5520\n\n/s/ David M. S. Shaiken\nDavid M. S. Shaiken","key_entities":["Je","Despins","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","Finkel"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2617,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:32:20"}