{"id":"court_ctb_160_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":160,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re Chapter 11","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n### **In re Chapter 11**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\n**a/k/a WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES GUO,**\n\n **Debtor. Re: ECF 117**\n\n# **UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF INTERIM AND FINAL DIP ORDERS (I) AUTHORIZING THE DEBTOR TO OBTAIN UNSECURED, SUBORDINATED POSTPETITION FINANCING AND (II) SCHEDULING INTERIM AND FINAL HEARINGS, AND (III) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nWilliam K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (\"United States Trustee\"), through counsel, hereby objects to Debtor's Motion For Entry Of Interim And Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing The Debtor To Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing, And (II) Scheduling Interim And Final Hearings, And (III) Granting Related Relief (ECF 117) (\"DIP Financing Motion\") filed by chapter 11 debtor Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo a/k/a Miles Guo (\"Debtor\" and/or \"Kwok\"). In support of his objection to the DIP Financing Motion, the United States Trustee states follows:\n\n## **Preliminary Statement**\n\nOrdinarily, a debtor's request for approval of a DIP financing motion, which ostensibly seeks approval of an unsecured subordinated DIP loan, would appear to be a positive development in a chapter 11 case. However, like all of Debtor's filings to date in this case, the DIP Financing Motion raises more questions than it answers.\n\nThe DIP Financing Motion provides little to no information regarding the identity of the Proposed DIP lender, Golden Spring NY, and its relationship to the Debtor. Throughout the case, the Debtor has maintained that he is not employed, has no income, and no assets, other than certain potential litigation claims. However, the DIP Financing Motion contains no information regarding why the Proposed DIP Lender is willing to make such a significant and generous loan to the Debtor, who has no disclosed ability to satisfy the loan in the future. The Debtor also has claimed to have no ownership interest in or control over the Proposed DIP Lender, which may or may not be controlled by his son or a member of his family. However, the Proposed DIP Lender has in the past - allegedly without being reimbursed - gifted funds to the Debtor to pay for all of his living expenses and has also paid for litigation expenses. Furthermore, the DIP Motion provides no information as to why the proposed DIP Lender has included certain onerous and inappropriate default provisions in its proposed terms, which seemingly inure to the sole benefit of the Debtor allowing the Debtor to exert inappropriate leverage over the bankruptcy process to the potential detriment of his current creditors including the proposed DIP Lender.\n\nAs noted above, the DIP Financing Motion seemingly offers funding to the Debtor's estate in a package that is enticing at first glance and appears to be on favorable terms to the Debtor and his creditors, but contained therein are a number of onerous and improper provisions designed to allow the Debtor to manipulate and control his chapter 11 case through an insider entity allegedly owned by the Debtor's son or a member of his family and to leverage the bankruptcy process to the potential detriment of his creditors. The DIP Financing Motion proposes an \\$8 million dollar loan in exchange for, among other things, the *quid pro quo* of the Court's denial of the pending motion for relief from stay filed by creditor Pacific Alliance Asia\n\nOpportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") and the Court not appointing a chapter 11 trustee at any time during the pendency of the chapter 11 case.\n\nAccordingly, the DIP Financing Motion, while seemingly a positive development in the case, is in reality a tool designed by the Debtor to implement the Debtor's one-sided agenda, to continue to frustrate his creditors, to protect himself from the consequences of his conduct in the litigation with PAX in New York, and to continue his litigation tactics. But even worse than that, it seeks to tie the Court's hands and simultaneously cede, for all practical purposes, control of the chapter 11 case to the Debtor through terms and conditions imposed by an insider the Proposed DIP Lender. The DIP Financing Motion should not be approved.\n\n### **Background Facts**\n\n1. The Debtor, also known as Wengui Guo, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases, filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition (\"Petition\") on February 15, 2022. ECF 1.\n\n2. The Debtor's Petition was filed by the firm of Brown Rudnick LLP (\"BR Counsel\"). ECF 1. The Debtor has filed an application to employ BR Counsel as his chapter 11 counsel and that application is scheduled to be heard on April 13, 2022. ECF 86 and ECF 123.\n\n3. The Debtor is currently managing his financial affairs and his business interests pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n4. On March 1, 2022, creditor PAX filed a motion for relief from stay to return to the litigation against the Debtor pending in Supreme Court of the State of New York (\"PAX Lawsuit\") to pursue return of the yacht known as the Lady May to New York (\"PAX Stay Relief Motion\"). ECF 57. The Debtor filed his chapter 11 case just days after a February 9, 2022 decision in the PAX Lawsuit that imposed a contempt award of \\$134,000,000 due to the\n\nDebtor's failure to return the Lady May to New York (\"February 2022 Contempt Decision\"). *Id.*\n\n5. The PAX Stay Relief Motion, and the Debtor's objection thereto, was preliminarily considered by the Court on March 22, 2022 and continued for further hearing on April 13, 2022. ECF 57, 83, 98, 122. The Debtor also subsequently filed a supplemental brief in support of his objection to the PAX Stay Relief Motion. ECF 141.\n\n6. On March 19, 2022, the United States Trustee the filed a motion seeking an order directing the appointment of an examiner or, in the alternative, an order directing the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee (\"UST Examiner/Trustee Motion\"). ECF 102. The UST Examiner/Trustee Motion is scheduled for a hearing on April 13, 2022.\n\n7. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (\"Committee\") in this case. ECF 108. To date, the Committee has not filed an application to employ counsel.\n\n8. The meeting of creditors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §341(a) (\"341 Meeting\") commenced on March 21, 2022 and will reconvene on April 6, 2022. ECF 6; ECF 112.\n\n## *DIP Financing Motion*\n\n9. The DIP Financing Motion seeks approval of an \\$8 million dollar loan (\"DIP Loan\") from Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring NY\" or the \"Proposed DIP Lender\"), an insider and alleged secured creditor of the Debtor. ECF 117. Attached to the DIP Financing Motion is a proposed interim order, a proposed final order, and a loan document (\"DIP Loan Document\"). *Id.*\n\n10. The DIP Financing Motion states that the DIP Loan is necessary to (a) retain and employ estate professionals, as well as to pay estate professionals, and (b) pay administrative expenses of the chapter 11 case. ECF 117 at ¶ 15, at chart on page 9, and at ¶26 and ¶ 34.\n\nWithout the DIP Loan, the Debtor asserts that he will be unable to retain and compensate his litigation professionals needed to pursue his litigation assets and will not be able to employ restructuring professionals to pursue reorganization. ECF 117 at ¶¶ 34, 26. The DIP Financing Motion does not discuss the fact that BR is currently holding \\$948,164.80 as a retainer (\"Retainer\") funded by a loan to the Debtor from another insider. ECF 86 at ¶ 17; ECF 142 at ¶¶ 7, 8.\n\n11. In the DIP Financing Motion, the Debtor claims that the proposed lender, Golden Spring NY, is allegedly owned by his son, Qiang Guo. ECF 117 at ¶¶ 2, 17.\n\n12. In other documents filed in this case, Golden Spring NY is also known as the \"family office\" and \"my son's family office,\" but such term has not yet adequately been explained by the Debtor. ECF 107 at ¶ 17; ECF 77. The Debtor has not disclosed the assets of Golden Spring NY. [1](#page-4-0)\n\n13. The Debtor has no bank accounts, no credit cards, is not employed such that he earns income, and all of his living expenses are paid for and through Golden Spring NY. ECF 107 at ¶ 17; ECF 78.\n\n14. The Debtor's Schedule D lists Golden Spring NY as a secured creditor owed an undetermined amount and secured by unidentified collateral. ECF 78. The chart for Schedule D fails to provide a real answer to the type of collateral for each of the secured debts, stating only\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor has stated in other court pleadings that Golden Spring NY was established to find investors interested in investing in Ace Decade Holdings Limited, that Golden Spring NY is incorporated in Delaware, and that Golden Spring NY registered to do business in New York in March 2015. *Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. UBS AG*, Supreme Court of New York, Index No. 653316/2015, ECF 37, ¶ 58 -60. The Debtor further stated that around that time he transferred funds from his accounts at UBS to Golden Spring NY, and that he conducted business for Golden Spring NY through at least May 1, 2016. *Id.* at ¶ 60. The Debtor is currently a plaintiff in litigation against UBS in London, which action appears to be a \"re-do\" of the New York action against UBS that was dismissed. ECF 117 at ¶ 13.\n\n\"certain claims and recoveries therto [sic].\" *Id*. No explanation is given on the chart for Schedule D as to what the claims and/or recoveries are or what they might be, thus there is no disclosure of the scope of Golden Spring NY's security interests. The DIP Financing Motion does not disclose or discuss the fact that the Debtor's Schedule D lists Golden Spring NY as a secured creditor of the Debtor, nor the fact that Golden Spring NY may have an security interest in the litigation that the Debtor intends to fund using the DIP Loan.[2](#page-5-0)\n\n# *DIP Loan Terms*\n\n15. The loan terms of the DIP Loan are inextricably entwined with the outcome of certain events in this case.\n\n16. The DIP Loan ostensibly is an unsecured loan, accruing interest at 5% and subordinated in payment to general unsecured creditors. The DIP Loan terms, however, contain events of default which, if they occur, would terminate the loan and under certain circumstances give Golden Spring NY an automatic super-priority administrative claim that includes default interest, costs, expenses that are not challengeable.\n\n17. The events of default in Section 8 of the DIP Loan Document include: (1) granting of the PAX Stay Relief Motion, (2) appointment of a chapter 11 trustee, or consent of the Debtor to appointment of a chapter 11 trustee, (3) breach of budgeting information obligations by the Debtor, (4) lack of a final order on the DIP Financing Motion within 45 days of the interim order approving the DIP Financing Motion, (5) dismissal or conversion of the Debtor's case without the consent of Golden Spring NY, and (6) termination of exclusivity. ECF\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> Paragraph 13 of the DIP Financing Motion states that the Debtor's son (not Golden Spring NY) funded prepetition legal fees relating to the litigation against UBS AG and Clark Hill, and that the son expects to be repaid from \"anticipated recoveries.\" ECF 117 at ¶ 13. It is unclear if the Debtor's son funded other litigation and whether the Debtor's son will assert a secured position with respect to recoveries in other litigation.\n\n117 at pages 65-66 of 70. Notably, the appointment of an examiner is *not* an event of default.\n\n18. Paragraph 9 of the proposed interim order also permits Golden Spring NY to declare a default if the Debtor has violated the interim order in a way that in Golden Spring NY's \"reasonable discretion that has an adverse effect on\" Golden Spring NY. ECF 117 at proposed interim order at paragraph 9. This is an entirely subjective event of default and permits Golden Spring NY to have unfettered control.\n\n19. In the event of a default, under Section 8 of the DIP Loan Document, the DIP Loan matures and Golden Spring NY is entitled to immediate payment of all monies loaned, plus interest and all costs associated with making and enforcing the DIP Loan. DIP Loan Document at Section 8. Additionally, Golden Spring NY is entitled to an automatic super-priority administrative claim for unreturned funds without the option for parties to dispute the amount that Golden Spring NY claims is due. *Id.*\n\n20. Two events of default loom over the Debtor's case right now: the PAX Stay Relief Motion and the UST Examiner/Trustee Motion. The DIP Loan is conditioned on the Court denying PAX relief from the automatic stay and on the Court not ordering the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee in this case.\n\n21. If the DIP Financing Motion is approved on an interim basis, only the first \\$2 million dollars of the DIP Loan will be made available and is restricted to fund **only** the ordinary course professionals pursuant to the Debtor's Motion For Entry Of An Order Authorizing (I) Employment And Payment Of Professionals Utilized In The Ordinary Course, (II) Payment Of Prepetition Claims And (III) Granting Related Relief (ECF 119) (\"OCP Motion\"). ECF 117 at proposed interim order at paragraphs F, 7, and 8.\n\n7\n\n22. The DIP Loan Document segregates the use of the \\$8 million loan into two components of \\$4 million each: (a) the Debtor's professionals, and (b) Committee professionals, any examiner appointed, and chapter 11 quarterly fees. ECF 117 at DIP Loan Document at Section 2.04. The chapter 11 quarterly fees are not protected with a first priority position.\n\n23. The DIP Loan terms are binding on any future trustee (chapter 11 or 7). ECF 117 at proposed interim order at paragraph 12. The interim order also provides that any monies loaned are (a) protected by the terms of the order and the terms of the DIP Loan Document and (b) cannot be changed, challenged, modified or vacated by any subsequent order in this case or in any superseding case of the Debtor. ECF 117 at proposed interim order at paragraph 10.\n\n24. Lastly, pursuant to Section 9.04 of the DIP Loan Document, the DIP Loan is governed by New York law and disputes are to be heard in New York courts.\n\n### **DISCUSSION**\n\nThe DIP Financing Motion posits that the Debtor's case has no ability to move forward without funding and that the DIP Loan is the best option available for the estate. The DIP Loan, however, is designed to protect the Debtor's status as a debtor in possession while abdicating control of the case to Golden Spring NY, and at the same time dictate to the Court and creditors how the chapter 11 case will proceed. The DIP Financing Motion is yet another example of the Debtor's unwillingness to recognize his fiduciary obligations to his creditors and his estate and to make decisions that are in their best interest.\n\nLoans from an insider, such as here, require heightened scrutiny. *See, e.g., In re Latam Airlines Group S.A.*, 620 B.R. 722, 769-770 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020). Insider transactions are \"inherently suspect because they are rife with the possibility of abuse.\" *Id.* at 769 *(internal quotation and citation omitted; citing cases*). Because of this, insider transactions are evaluated using the \"entire fairness\" standard, not the business judgment rule. *Id.* (*citing cases*). The burden is on the insider to demonstrate the good faith and fairness of the transaction. *Id.* (*citing cases*).[3](#page-8-0)\n\nThe terms of the DIP Loan are an intentional move to persuade the Court, the creditors and the United States Trustee to keep this case in chapter 11 and to oppose/deny the PAX Stay Relief Motion. That is because the granting of the PAX Stay Relief Motion in any form is an event of default that terminates/matures the DIP Loan. The PAX Stay Relief Motion is scheduled for the same hearing date as the DIP Financing Motion and thus sets up an immediate conflict to be considered by the Court. When proposed financing is considered, the impact on the case and its future must be evaluated. *See In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.*, 115 B.R. 34, 37 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (in considering financing requests that meet threshold requirements, court should focus attention on \"terms that would tilt the conduct of the bankruptcy case; prejudice, at an early stage, the powers and rights that the Bankruptcy Code confers for the benefit of all creditors or leverage the Chapter 11 process by preventing motions by parties-in-interest from being decided on their merits\"); *In re Barbara K. Enters., Inc*., No. 08-11474 (MG), 2008 WL 2439649, at \\*14 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2008) (denying post-petition financing in exercise of the court's \"important oversight role\" and finding that the court's \"normal function in reviewing requests for postpetition financing is to defer to a debtor's own business judgment so long as a request for financing does not 'leverage the bankruptcy process' and unfairly cede control of the\n\n<span id=\"page-8-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> Should the Court determine some form of the DIP Loan is appropriate, the Court should not permit Golden Spring NY to have a super-priority administrative claim on chapter 5 causes of actions or their proceeds. Avoidance actions are rights held by the estate for the benefit of unsecured creditors. *See In re Cybergenics, Corp.*, 226 F. 3d 237, 244 (3d Cir. 2000).\n\nreorganization to one party in interest.\" (*citation omitted*)).\n\nThe DIP Financing Motion is a non-starter in its current form. It undermines the integrity of the bankruptcy process and should not be approved. The Debtor filed this case to avoid the repercussions of the New York Supreme Court's February 2022 Contempt Decision, benefit from the automatic stay while frustrating his creditors and litigants suing him, and surreptitiously maintain control and possession of the Lady May. Knowing the cost of his intentions would be significant, the Debtor used a \\$1 million loan from another insider to fund the professional fees of his chapter 11 counsel so they would be willing to initiate this chapter 11 case. Borrowing now from Golden Spring NY under the terms proposed is plainly another attempt to control and impair creditors, and to manipulate the chapter 11 process by dictating to the Court how this case should proceed.\n\nSince Golden Spring NY has, according to the Debtor, funded his living expenses for the past several years and will continue to fund them, Golden Spring NY can fund the costs of this chapter 11 without any strings or controls over the direction of the case. Golden Spring NY should do so because the Debtor wants to be in chapter 11 and protected from creditors and the Debtor has stated he has no funds to facilitate the expenses associated with chapter 11. Alternatively, Golden Spring NY can fund expenses of this chapter 11 on its own without an approved loan, like it was doing pre-petition by funding the Debtor's litigation. The Court should not approve the DIP Financing Motion.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nWHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the Court deny the DIP Financing Motion as proposed. Should Golden Spring NY wish to fund this chapter 11 case without attaching any strings of any kind and with repayment\n\nsubordinated in full to the payment of all allowed unsecured claims, the United States Trustee would support same. Until then, the Court should see the DIP Financing Motion for what it is – an improper attempt to tie the Court's hands and control the chapter 11 process so that the Debtor can avoid the consequences of his contemptuous conduct – and the Court should deny it.\n\nDated: April 6, 2022 Respectfully submitted,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2\n\n> By: /s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn\n\n> > /s/ Steven E. Mackey Steven E. Mackey\n\n Trial Attorneys Office of the United States Trustee Giaimo Federal Building, Room 302 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510 Holley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov Federal Bar No.: ct17216 (Connecticut) [Steven.E.Mackey@usdoj.gov](mailto:Steven.E.Mackey@usdoj.gov) Federal Bar No: ct09932(Connecticut) (203) 773-2210\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned certifies that the foregoing objection was served on all appearing parties via the Court's electronic case filing system noted below:\n\nWilliam Baldiga on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com](mailto:wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com)\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com](mailto:wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com)\n\nPatrick M. Birney on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [pbirney@rc.com,](mailto:pbirney@rc.com) [ctrivigno@rc.com](mailto:ctrivigno@rc.com)\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma [ccallari@callaripartners.com](mailto:ccallari@callaripartners.com)\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng [ccallari@callaripartners.com](mailto:ccallari@callaripartners.com)\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu [ccallari@callaripartners.com](mailto:ccallari@callaripartners.com)\n\nDavid S. Forsh on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma [dforsh@callaripartners.com](mailto:dforsh@callaripartners.com)\n\nDavid S. Forsh on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng [dforsh@callaripartners.com](mailto:dforsh@callaripartners.com)\n\nDavid S. Forsh on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu [dforsh@callaripartners.com](mailto:dforsh@callaripartners.com)\n\nPeter Friedman on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [pfriedman@omm.com](mailto:pfriedman@omm.com)\n\nIrve J. Goldman on behalf of Creditor Committee Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors [igoldman@pullcom.com,](mailto:igoldman@pullcom.com) [rmccoy@pullcom.com](mailto:rmccoy@pullcom.com)\n\nDavid V. Harbach, II on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [dharbach@omm.com](mailto:dharbach@omm.com)\n\nJonathan Kaplan on behalf of Creditor Committee Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors [jkaplan@pullcom.com,](mailto:jkaplan@pullcom.com) [prulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com](mailto:prulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com)\n\nDylan Kletter on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [dkletter@brownrudnick.com,](mailto:dkletter@brownrudnick.com) [adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@bro](mailto:adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@brownrudnick.com) [wnrudnick.com](mailto:adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@brownrudnick.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nTimothy D. Miltenberger on behalf of Interested Party Golden Spring (New York) LTD [Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com,](mailto:Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com) [msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com](mailto:msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com)\n\nScott D. Rosen on behalf of Interested Party Golden Spring (New York) LTD [srosen@cb-shea.com,](mailto:srosen@cb-shea.com) [kseaman@cbshealaw.com](mailto:kseaman@cbshealaw.com)\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [ssarnoff@omm.com](mailto:ssarnoff@omm.com)\n\nBennett Silverberg on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com](mailto:bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com)\n\nAnnecca H. Smith on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [asmith@rc.com](mailto:asmith@rc.com)\n\nJay Marshall Wolman on behalf of Creditor Logan Cheng [jmw@randazza.com,](mailto:jmw@randazza.com) [ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com](mailto:ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com)\n\nPeter J. Zarella on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma [pzarella@mdmc-law.com](mailto:pzarella@mdmc-law.com)\n\nPeter J. Zarella on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng [pzarella@mdmc-law.com](mailto:pzarella@mdmc-law.com)\n\nPeter J. Zarella on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu [pzarella@mdmc-law.com](mailto:pzarella@mdmc-law.com)\n\nBy: /s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn","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部）\n关于第 11 章案件\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n又名 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵） 又名 MILES GUO（郭文贵），\n\n债务人。 相关案卷：ECF 117\n**UNITED STATES TRUSTEE（美国联邦破产受托人）对债务人关于作出准予债务人获得无担保、次级申请后融资的临时及最终 DIP 裁定、安排临时及最终听证会并给予相关救济的动议的异议**\n\n_________________________________________________________________________________\n\nWilliam K. Harrington（威廉·K·哈灵顿），Region 2（第二区）的 United States Trustee（美国联邦破产受托人，下称“联邦破产受托人”），通过其法律顾问，特此对第 11 章债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，又名 Wengui Guo、Miles Guo，下称“债务人”和/或“郭”）提交的《债务人关于作出准予债务人获得无担保、次级申请后融资的临时及最终 DIP 裁定、安排临时及最终听证会并给予相关救济的动议》（ECF 117）（下称“DIP 融资动议”）提出异议。为支持其对 DIP 融资动议的异议，联邦破产受托人陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n通常情况下，债务人申请批准表面上旨在寻求批准一笔无担保次级 DIP 贷款的 DIP 融资动议，在第 11 章案件中似乎是一项积极的进展。然而，与债务人迄今为止在本案中提交的所有文件一样，该 DIP 融资动议引发的疑问远多于其给出的答案。\n\nDIP 融资动议几乎没有提供关于拟议 DIP 贷方 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，下称“Golden Spring NY”）的身份及其与债务人关系的任何信息。在整个案件过程中，债务人一直坚称自己无工作、无收入、无资产（某些潜在的诉讼索赔除外）。然而，DIP 融资动议并未包含任何关于为何拟议 DIP 贷方愿意向债务人提供如此大额且优厚的贷款的信息，而债务人并未披露任何未来偿还该贷款的能力。债务人还声称对拟议 DIP 贷方不拥有任何所有权权益或控制权，而该贷方可能受或不受其儿子或其家族成员的控制。然而，拟议 DIP 贷方过去曾据称在未获偿还的情况下向债务人赠予资金以支付其全部生活费用，并且还支付了诉讼费用。此外，DIP 动议未提供任何信息解释为何拟议 DIP 贷方在其拟议条款中包含了某些苛刻且不当的违约条款，这些条款表面上完全有利于债务人，允许债务人对破产程序施加不当影响力，从而可能损害其现有债权人（包括拟议 DIP 贷方）的利益。\n\n如上所述，DIP 融资动议表面上以乍看诱人且看似对债务人及其债权人有利的条款向债务人财产提供资金方案，但其中包含的一系列苛刻且不当的条款，旨在允许债务人通过一家据称由其儿子或其家族成员拥有的内部人实体操纵和控制其第 11 章案件，并利用破产程序可能损害其债权人的利益。DIP 融资动议提议提供一笔 800 万美元的贷款，以换取（其中包括）作为交换条件的法院驳回债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，下称“PAX”）提交的未决解除中止动议，以及法院在第 11 章案件审理期间的任何时候均不指定第 11 章破产受托人。\n\n因此，DIP 融资动议虽然看似是本案的一项积极进展，但实际上是债务人设计的一项工具，用以贯彻债务人单方面的图谋、继续挫败其债权人、保护自己免受其在纽约与 PAX 诉讼中行为之后果的影响，并继续其诉讼策略。但比这更恶劣的是，它企图束缚法院的手脚，同时通过内部人拟议 DIP 贷方强加的条款和条件，在所有实际意义上将第 11 章案件的控制权让渡给债务人。DIP 融资动议不应予以批准。\n\n背景事实\n\n1. 债务人（又名郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）于 2022 年 2 月 15 日提交了自愿第 11 章破产申请书（下称“申请书”）。ECF 1。\n\n2. 债务人的申请书由 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗鲁德尼克有限责任合伙律师事务所，下称“BR 顾问”）提交。ECF 1。债务人已提交聘用 BR 顾问作为其第 11 章法律顾问的申请，该申请定于 2022 年 4 月 13 日开庭审理。ECF 86 及 ECF 123。\n\n3. 债务人目前根据《破产法典》第 1107 条和第 1108 条管理其财务事务及其商业利益。\n\n4. 2022 年 3 月 1 日，债权人 PAX 提交了解除中止动议（ECF 57），以重返在 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）针对债务人未决的诉讼（下称“PAX 诉讼”），寻求将名为 Lady May（梅号）的游艇归还纽约（下称“PAX 解除中止动议”）。债务人提出第 11 章案件的时间，距 PAX 诉讼于 2022 年 2 月 9 日作出的裁决仅数日，该裁决因债务人未能将 Lady May 归还纽约而对其处以 134,000,000 美元的藐视法庭裁决罚金（下称“2022 年 2 月藐视法庭裁决”）。同上。\n\n5. 法院于 2022 年 3 月 22 日对 PAX 解除中止动议及债务人对此提出的异议进行了初步审理，并延期至 2022 年 4 月 13 日进一步审理。ECF 57、83、98、122。随后，债务人还提交了一份补充辩护状以支持其对 PAX 解除中止动议的异议。ECF 141。\n\n6. 2022 年 3 月 19 日，联邦破产受托人提交了一项动议，寻求作出指示指定审查员的裁定，或者作为备选方案，寻求作出指示指定第 11 章破产受托人的裁定（下称“受托人审查员/破产受托人动议”）。ECF 102。受托人审查员/破产受托人动议定于 2022 年 4 月 13 日举行听证会。\n\n7. 2022 年 3 月 21 日，联邦破产受托人在本案中指定了 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会，下称“委员会”）。ECF 108。迄今为止，委员会尚未提交聘用法律顾问的申请。\n\n8. 根据 11 U.S.C. § 341(a) 召开的债权人会议（下称“341 会议”）于 2022 年 3 月 21 日开始，并将于 2022 年 4 月 6 日继续进行。ECF 6；ECF 112。\n\nDIP 融资动议\n\n9. DIP 融资动议寻求批准由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，下称“Golden Spring NY”或“拟议 DIP 贷方”）提供的一笔 800 万美元的贷款（下称“DIP 贷款”），该贷方为债务人的内部人兼据称的有担保债权人。ECF 117。DIP 融资动议附有一份拟议临时裁定、一份拟议最终裁定以及一份贷款文件（下称“DIP 贷款文件”）。同上。\n\n10. DIP 融资动议称，DIP 贷款对于以下事项是必要的：(a) 聘请和雇用破产财产专业人员，以及向破产财产专业人员支付报酬；以及 (b) 支付第 11 章案件的行政费用。ECF 117 第 15 段、第 9 页表格、第 26 段及第 34 段。若没有 DIP 贷款，债务人声称其将无法聘请和补偿追偿其诉讼资产所需的诉讼专业人员，也无法聘用重组专业人员来推进重组。ECF 117 第 34、26 段。DIP 融资动议未提及以下事实：BR 目前持有 948,164.80 美元作为预付款（下称“预付款”），该笔款项由另一名内部人向债务人提供的贷款资助。ECF 86 第 17 段；ECF 142 第 7、8 段。\n\n11. 在 DIP 融资动议中，债务人声称拟议贷方 Golden Spring NY 据称由其儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）拥有。ECF 117 第 2、17 段。\n\n12. 在本案提交的其他文件中，Golden Spring NY 也被称为“家族办公室”和“我儿子的家族办公室”，但债务人尚未充分解释该术语。ECF 107 第 17 段；ECF 77。债务人未披露 Golden Spring NY 的资产。[1]\n\n13. 债务人没有银行账户，没有信用卡，未受雇以赚取收入，其所有生活费用均由 Golden Spring NY 承担并通过其支付。ECF 107 第 17 段；ECF 78。\n\n14. 债务人的表 D 将 Golden Spring NY 列为有担保债权人，所欠金额未定，且由未明确的担保物进行担保。ECF 78。表 D 的表格未能对各项有担保债务的担保物类型提供实质性答复，仅声明为“对此处的某些索赔和追偿款项 [原文如此]”。同上。表 D 的表格中未对索赔和/或追偿款项是什么或可能是什么作出任何解释，因此没有披露 Golden Spring NY 担保权益的范围。DIP 融资动议未披露或讨论以下事实：债务人的表 D 将 Golden Spring NY 列为债务人的有担保债权人；也未披露或讨论 Golden Spring NY 可能对债务人拟使用 DIP 贷款资助的诉讼享有担保权益这一事实。[2]\n\n[1] 债务人在其他法院诉讼文书中陈述，Golden Spring NY 的成立是为了寻找有意投资 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（源德控股有限公司）的投资者，Golden Spring NY 在特拉华州注册成立，且 Golden Spring NY 于 2015 年 3 月在纽约州登记开展业务。Ace Decade Holdings Limited 诉 UBS AG（瑞士银行），Supreme Court of New York（纽约州最高法院），索引号 653316/2015，ECF 37，第 58-60 段。债务人进一步陈述，大约在那个时候，他将其在 UBS 的账户资金转入 Golden Spring NY，并且他至少在 2016 年 5 月 1 日之前一直在为 Golden Spring NY 开展业务。同上，第 60 段。债务人目前是在伦敦针对 UBS 的诉讼中的原告，该诉讼似乎是对在纽约针对 UBS 已被驳回之诉讼的“重来”。ECF 117 第 13 段。\n\nDIP 贷款条款\n\n15. DIP 贷款的贷款条款与本案中某些事件的结果存在着不可分割的交织关系。\n\n16. DIP 贷款表面上是一笔无担保贷款，按 5% 计息，且受偿顺序次于普通无担保债权人。然而，DIP 贷款条款包含了违约事件，若发生这些事件，将终止贷款，并在某些情况下赋予 Golden Spring NY 一项自动的、包含不可抗辩的违约利息、成本和费用的超级优先行政费用索赔权。\n\n17. DIP 贷款文件第 8 条中的违约事件包括：(1) 批准 PAX 解除中止动议；(2) 指定第 11 章破产受托人，或债务人同意指定第 11 章破产受托人；(3) 债务人违反预算信息义务；(4) 在批准 DIP 融资动议的临时裁定作出后 45 天内未能作出关于 DIP 融资动议的最终裁定；(5) 未经 Golden Spring NY 同意驳回或转换债务人的案件；以及 (6) 独占期的终止。ECF 117 第 65-66 页（共 70 页）。值得注意的是，指定审查员并不属于违约事件。\n\n[2] DIP 融资动议第 13 段指出，债务人的儿子（而非 Golden Spring NY）资助了与针对 UBS AG 和 Clark Hill 诉讼相关的申请前律师费，并且其儿子期望从“预期追偿款项”中获得偿还。ECF 117 第 13 段。目前尚不清楚债务人的儿子是否资助了其他诉讼，以及债务人的儿子是否会就其他诉讼中的追偿款项主张有担保地位。\n\n18. 拟议临时裁定第 9 段还允许 Golden Spring NY 在债务人以 Golden Spring NY“合理酌情认为对其产生不利影响”的方式违反临时裁定时宣布违约。ECF 117 拟议临时裁定第 9 段。这是一项完全主观的违约事件，并允许 Golden Spring NY 拥有不受约束的控制权。\n\n19. 根据《DIP 贷款文件》（DIP Loan Document）第 8 条，一旦发生违约事件，DIP 贷款即行到期，Golden Spring NY（纽约金泉公司）有权要求立即偿还所出借的全部款项，外加利息以及与发放和执行 DIP 贷款相关的所有费用。见《DIP 贷款文件》第 8 条。此外，Golden Spring NY 对未归还资金自动享有超级优先行政管理费债权，各方无权对 Golden Spring NY 主张的应付金额提出异议。同上。\n\n20. 目前有两起违约事件笼罩着债务人的案件：PAX 中止救济动议（PAX Stay Relief Motion）和 UST 审查员/受托人动议（UST Examiner/Trustee Motion）。DIP 贷款以法院拒绝给予 PAX 自动中止救济，以及法院不命令在本案中指定第 11 章受托人为生效条件。\n\n21. 若 DIP 融资动议以临时基础获得批准，则仅能提供 DIP 贷款的前 200 万美元，且该笔资金仅限于根据债务人的《关于提请作出授权（I）聘用并支付通常业务中所聘专业人员、（II）支付破产申请前债权以及（III）给予相关救济的命令的动议（ECF 119）》（Motion For Entry Of An Order Authorizing (I) Employment And Payment Of Professionals Utilized In The Ordinary Course, (II) Payment Of Prepetition Claims And (III) Granting Related Relief (ECF 119)）（“OCP 动议”）向通常业务专业人员提供资金。见 ECF 117 拟议临时命令第 F、7 和 8 段。\n\n22. 《DIP 贷款文件》将这笔 800 万美元贷款的使用分立为两部分，各为 400 万美元：(a) 债务人的专业人员；以及 (b) 委员会专业人员、任何获指定的审查员以及第 11 章季度规费。见 ECF 117《DIP 贷款文件》第 2.04 条。第 11 章季度规费不享有第一顺位优先受偿地位的保护。\n\n23. DIP 贷款条款对任何未来的受托人（第 11 章或第 7 章）均具有约束力。见 ECF 117 拟议临时命令第 12 段。该临时命令还规定，出借的任何款项 (a) 受到本命令条款和《DIP 贷款文件》条款的保护，且 (b) 不得被本案或债务人的任何后继案件中的任何后续命令予以变更、质疑、修改或撤销。见 ECF 117 拟议临时命令第 10 段。\n\n24. 最后，根据《DIP 贷款文件》第 9.04 条，DIP 贷款受纽约州法律管辖，争议应由纽约州法院审理。\n\n论证\n\nDIP 融资动议断言，若无资金支持，债务人的案件便无力推进，且 DIP 贷款是破产财产可获得的最佳选择。然而，DIP 贷款的设立旨在保护债务人作为占有中债务人（debtor in possession）的地位，同时将案件的控制权拱手让给 Golden Spring NY，并同时向法院和债权人发号施令，指示第 11 章案件应如何进行。DIP 融资动议是债务人不愿意承认其对债权人和破产财产负有信义义务、也不愿意做出符合其最大利益决定的又一例证。\n\n来自内部人（insider）的贷款（如本案的情形）需要受到更严格的审查。参见如 In re Latam Airlines Group S.A., 620 B.R. 722, 769-770 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020)（纽约南区破产法院 2020 年）。内部人交易“本质上是可疑的，因为其充满滥用的可能性。”同上，第 769 页（内部引文和引证省略；援引先例）。正因如此，对内部人交易的评估适用“完全公平”（entire fairness）标准，而非商业判断规则（business judgment rule）。同上（援引先例）。证明交易的善意和公平性的举证责任在内部人一方。同上（援引先例）。[3]\n\nDIP 贷款的各项条款是一种蓄意之举，旨在说服法院、债权人和 United States Trustee（美国受托人）将本案维持在第 11 章程序中，并反对/拒绝 PAX 中止救济动议。这是因为以任何形式准予 PAX 中止救济动议均构成终止 DIP 贷款/致使 DIP 贷款到期的违约事件。PAX 中止救济动议与 DIP 融资动议定于同一开庭日审理，从而构成了需由法院裁量的直接冲突。在考虑拟议融资时，必须评估其对本案及其未来的影响。参见 In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc., 115 B.R. 34, 37 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)（纽约南区联邦地方法院 1990 年）（在考虑符合门槛要求的融资请求时，法院应将注意力集中于“会使破产案件的进行发生倾斜；在早期阶段损害《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）为全体债权人利益所赋予的权力与权利；或通过阻止利害关系方的动议根据其实质内容获得裁决而对第 11 章程序施加不当筹码的条款”）；In re Barbara K. Enters., Inc., No. 08-11474 (MG), 2008 WL 2439649, at *14 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2008)（纽约南区破产法院 2008 年 6 月 16 日）（在行使法院的“重要监督职责”时拒绝给予申请后融资，并认定法院“在审查申请后融资请求时的通常职能是尊重债务人自身的商业判断，只要融资请求不‘对破产程序施加不当筹码’并不公地将重整控制权出让给某一方利害关系人。”（引文省略））。\n\n3 若法院认定某种形式的 DIP 贷款是适当的，法院也不应允许 Golden Spring NY 对第 5 章诉由或其收益享有超级优先行政管理费债权。撤销权诉讼（avoidance actions）是破产财产为了无担保债权人的利益而持有的权利。参见 In re Cybergenics, Corp., 226 F. 3d 237, 244 (3d Cir. 2000)（联邦第三巡回上诉法院 2000 年）。\n\nDIP 融资动议以其当前形式来看是根本行不通的。它损害了破产程序的完整性，不应予以批准。债务人提起本案是为了规避 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）2022 年 2 月藐视法庭裁决（February 2022 Contempt Decision）的后果，从自动中止中获益，同时阻碍其债权人和起诉他的诉讼当事人，并暗中维持对 Lady May（梅号游艇）的控制和占有。债务人明知其意图的代价十分高昂，便利用来自另一名内部人的 100 万美元贷款为其第 11 章律师的专业人员费用提供资金，以便他们愿意启动本第 11 章案件。如今按照拟议条款向 Golden Spring NY 借款，显然是企图控制并损害债权人利益、并通过向法院发号施令指示本案应如何进行来操纵第 11 章程序的又一次尝试。\n\n鉴于根据债务人的说法，Golden Spring NY 在过去数年间一直为他的生活费用提供资金且将继续资助，Golden Spring NY 完全可以在不附加任何附加条件或对案件方向施加控制的情况下为本第 11 章案件的费用提供资金。Golden Spring NY 应当这样做，因为是债务人自己希望处于第 11 章程序中并受到免受债权人追索的保护，而且债务人已声明他没有资金来支付与第 11 章相关的费用。或者，Golden Spring NY 可以自行承担本第 11 章案件的费用而无需获得批准的贷款，就像其在申请破产前通过为债务人的诉讼提供资金所做的那样。法院不应批准 DIP 融资动议。\n\n结论\n\n综上所述，因上述所有理由，美国受托人谨请法院驳回所提议的 DIP 融资动议。若 Golden Spring NY 愿在不附加任何形式的任何条件、且偿还顺序完全劣后于所有获准无担保债权受偿的前提下为本第 11 章案件提供资金，美国受托人将对此予以支持。在此之前，法院应当看清 DIP 融资动议的本质——即企图束缚法院手脚并控制第 11 章程序以便债务人能够逃避其藐视法庭行为后果的不当企图——且法院应当予以驳回。\n\n日期：2022 年 4 月 6 日\n谨此提交，\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\nWILLIAM K. HARRINGTON\n第二选区美国受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn\n\n/s/ Steven E. Mackey\nSteven E. Mackey\n\n审判律师\n美国受托人办公室\nGiaimo Federal Building, Room 302\n150 Court Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\nHolley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov\n联邦律师执业证号：ct17216（康涅狄格州）\n[Steven.E.Mackey@usdoj.gov]\n联邦律师执业证号：ct09932（康涅狄格州）\n(203) 773-2210\n\n送达证明\n\n下述签名人证明，上述异议已通过下述法院电子案件备档系统送达给所有出庭方：\n\nWilliam Baldiga 代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com]\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga 代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com]\n\nPatrick M. Birney 代表前 20 大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）[pbirney@rc.com,] [ctrivigno@rc.com]\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari 代表前 20 大债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari 代表前 20 大债权人 Weican Meng（孟维参）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari 代表债权人 Zheng Wu（吴征）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh 代表前 20 大债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）[dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh 代表前 20 大债权人 Weican Meng（孟维参）[dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh 代表债权人 Zheng Wu（吴征）[dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nPeter Friedman 代表前 20 大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）[pfriedman@omm.com]\n\nIrve J. Goldman 代表债权人委员会 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（官方无担保债权人委员会）[igoldman@pullcom.com,] [rmccoy@pullcom.com]\n\nDavid V. Harbach, II 代表前 20 大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）[dharbach@omm.com]\n\nJonathan Kaplan 代表债权人委员会 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（官方无担保债权人委员会）[jkaplan@pullcom.com,] [prulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com]\n\nDylan Kletter 代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[dkletter@brownrudnick.com,] [adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@bro] [wnrudnick.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew 代表前 20 大债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew 代表前 20 大债权人 Weican Meng（孟维参）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew 代表债权人 Zheng Wu（吴征）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nTimothy D. Miltenberger 代表利害关系方 Golden Spring (New York) LTD（金泉（纽约）有限公司）[Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com,] [msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com]\n\nScott D. Rosen 代表利害关系方 Golden Spring (New York) LTD（金泉（纽约）有限公司）[srosen@cb-shea.com,] [kseaman@cbshealaw.com]\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff 代表前 20 大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）[ssarnoff@omm.com]\n\nBennett Silverberg 代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com]\n\nAnnecca H. Smith 代表前 20 大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）[asmith@rc.com]\n\nJay Marshall Wolman 代表债权人 Logan Cheng [jmw@randazza.com,] [ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com]\n\nPeter J. Zarella 代表前 20 大债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）[pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\nPeter J. Zarella 代表前 20 大债权人 Weican Meng（孟维参）[pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\nPeter J. Zarella 代表债权人 Zheng Wu（吴征）[pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Miles Guo","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":6,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":37,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":86,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":102,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":108,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":112,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":117,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":119,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":123,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":141,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":142,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3741,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:52:03"}