{"id":"court_ctb_168_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":168,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ In re : Chapter 11 : Ho Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073 : Debtor.<sup>1</sup> : : \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n# **LIMITED OBJECTION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS 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\nThe Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"Committee\") of Debtor and Debtor in Possession, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), herby submits this Limited Objection to the 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 (the \"DIP Motion\").\n\nIn support of this Limited Objection, the Committee respectfully represents as follows:\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. By the DIP Motion and the loan for which it seeks court approval (the \"DIP Loan\"), the Debtor and his son, Qiang Guo (the \"Son\")<sup>2</sup> , have dangled the carrot of a postpetition loan to the Debtor of up to \\$8 million to fund professional fees and other\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\n<sup>2</sup> The proposed loan is, in name, to be extended by Golden Spring (New York), Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\"), which the Debtor maintains is \"an entity owned and controlled by [his] son\" (DIP Motion ¶2). The Debtor acknowledges that, in effect, it is his Son who is offering to provide the loan (DIP Motion ¶15) (\"… the Debtor asked his son to extend additional credit to that end\").\n\nadministrative expenses to be incurred in this case, but only on terms that co-opt and otherwise leverage the chapter 11 process by making it an event of default, thereby terminating the availability of funding, if any one of the following events occurs: (i) the Bankruptcy Court shall enter an order granting relief from the automatic stay in connection with *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup.) (the \"PAX Litigation\"); (ii) the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York shall deny a motion to transfer venue of the PAX Litigation<sup>3</sup> ; (iii) without the consent of the DIP Lender, the Debtor's chapter 11 case is dismissed or converted to a case under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or the Debtor shall file a motion or other pleading seeking the dismissal of the case or seeking conversion of it to a case under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code; (iv) there shall be appointed a chapter 11 trustee, or the Debtor shall file a motion or other pleading seeking such appointment; or (v) the Bankruptcy Court shall terminate the Debtor's exclusive right to file a plan of reorganization pursuant to section 1121(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (DIP Motion, Ex. C<sup>4</sup> , Debtor-In-Possession Credit Agreement (the \"DIP Loan Agreement\") § 8.01(e)-(h)) (collectively, the \"Offending Provisions\").\n\n<sup>3</sup> On March 15, 2022, the Debtor filed with the New York Supreme Court a Notice of Removal of the PAX Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Doc. No. 1195), and on March 18, 2022, followed that up with the filing of a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 22-cv-2258 (MKV). The District Court immediately referred the removed action to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on March 21, 2022, where it remains pending under Case No. 22-1073, styled as *PAX v. Kwok*. On March 23, 2022, the Debtor filed a Motion to Transfer Case with the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York (ECF No. 4), requesting that the removed action be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, for referral to this Court.\n\n<sup>4</sup> There are actually two Exhibit Cs to the DIP Motion – the Appendix H Checklist for Motions and Orders Pertaining to the Use of Cash Collateral and Post-Petition Financing (\"DIP Checklist\") (ECF No. 117 at 52-53), and the DIP Loan Agreement (ECF No. 117 at 58-59).\n\n2. While, according to the Debtor, the DIP Loan \"provides for a fair opportunity for an investigation into [the Debtor's] affairs\" and that \"the Chapter 11 case will provide a forum to conclusively determine which other assets potentially comprise [the Debtor's] bankruptcy estate\" (Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions (\"Kwok Dec.\") ¶¶36, 41), the DIP Loan is demonstrably rigged to tilt the chapter 11 process in the direction the father and Son want it to go. Accordingly, unless the Offending Provisions of the DIP Loan are removed, the Committee objects to its approval by the Court.\n\n#### **RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY**\n\n3. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"). Since that time, the Debtor has remained a debtor-in-possession pursuant to §§1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n4. No trustee or examiner has yet been appointed in the Debtor's bankruptcy case, although on March 19, 2022, the United States Trustee (\"UST\") filed a Motion for Order Directing Appointment of an Examiner, or in the alternative, Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Examiner/Trustee Motion\"). The Examiner/Trustee Motion is scheduled for hearing on April 13, 2022, and according to the UST's Amended Proposed Order at n. 1 (ECF No. 116), the Debtor has agreed to the Court's directing the UST to appoint an examiner in this case.\n\n4. On March 21, 2022, the Committee was officially appointed by the United States Trustee and on March 28, 2022, selected Pullman & Comley, LLC (\"P&C\") as its counsel.<sup>5</sup>\n\n<sup>5</sup> The Committee filed an application for authority to employ P&C on April 5, 2022.\n\n5. On March 1, 2022, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") filed its Motion of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code (the \"PAX Motion\"). On March 15, 2022, the Debtor filed its Objection to the PAX Motion, to which PAX filed a Reply on March 18, 2022 (ECF No. 98) (the \"PAX Reply\"). On March 28, 2022, the filed a Supplemental Objection to the PAX Motion (the \"Debtor Supp. Obj.\").\n\n6. By the PAX Motion, PAX seeks to return to the PAX Litigation for purposes of compelling the Debtor to return to U.S. jurisdiction a yacht known as the Lady May, which the Debtor and/or the registered owners of the Lady May had been ordered not to remove, but did remove, from the New York court's jurisdiction well over one year ago (PAX Motion, Ex. A, February 2, 2022 Decision and Order of Judge Barry R. Ostrager, the \"February 2, 2022 Decision,\" at 2).\n\n- 7. Of relevance to the DIP Motion, the February 2, 2022 Decision found that:\n- the Debtor had engaged in \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members\" (p. 1)\n- the Debtor had \"secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members\" (p. 1)\n- the Debtor \"and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas\" in violation of a September 2020 restraining order (p. 2)\n- the Debtor's daughter testified \"that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place\" (p. 6)\n- according to testimony of the managing director of the Lady May's yacht management company, he communicated with Golden Spring and HK USA, apparently the legal titleholder, concerning the Lady May (p. 6).\n\n8. Accordingly, the so-called \"DIP Lender\" here, Golden Spring, appears to have been directly involved in, and aided and abetted, the Debtor's violations of the New York court's orders. Golden Spring, in collaboration with the Debtor, is now attempting to dictate what must or must not occur in this Court and in the Southern District of New York by conditioning the continued availability of the DIP Loan on certain outcomes not taking place in this case and in the removed case. *See supra.* n. 3. The Court should not abide this gambit.\n\n9. On March 19, 2022, the United States Trustee filed a Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of an Examiner or, in the Alternative, Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Examiner/Trustee Motion\").\n\n10. On March 20, 2022, the Debtor filed the DIP Motion.\n\n11. Interestingly, while the Debtor acknowledges that Golden Spring is owned and controlled by his Son, he maintained in the DIP Checklist that Golden Spring, the proposed DIP Lender, is not an insider. While Golden Spring may not fit into the category of \"insider\" listed in section 101(31)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, there should be no dispute that Golden Spring is a non-statutory insider based on its close connection with persons who are statutory insiders, *viz*. the Debtors' Son. *See Mishkin v. Siclari* (*In re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp.*), 277 B.R. 520, 565 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) (\"insider\" is any person with a \"close personal relationship with a statutory insider\"). The Debtor's Son is an insider under section 101(31)(A)(i) and his company, Golden Spring, is an insider by virtue of being owned and controlled, ostensibly, by the Debtor's Son.\n\n12. The PAX Motion, the Examiner/Trustee Motion, the DIP Motion and the retention applications for certain professionals of the Debtor are scheduled for hearing on April 13, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n13. This Court has jurisdiction over the DIP Motion and the contested matter initiated thereby pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein are 11 U.S.C. §§ 363(b), 364, 105(a), Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014, and D. Conn. LBR 9014-1.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n# **I. THE OFFENDING PROVISIONS IMPROPERLY LEVERAGE THE CHAPTER 11 PROCESS AND THUS, THE DIP LOAN SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED UNLESS THEY ARE REMOVED**\n\n14. Preliminarily, it is open to question whether a proposed postpetition loan such as the DIP Loan – which is not in the Debtor's ordinary course of business and does not seek an administrative priority or lien<sup>6</sup> – falls within the scope of section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code. Decisions under section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code are nonetheless relevant to considering the propriety of the DIP Loan, as the Debtor's DIP Motion acknowledges.\n\n15. The leading case on whether provisions of the type proposed by the DIP Loan are\n\npermissible is *In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.*, 115 B.R. 34 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990). Most relevant\n\nto the DIP Loan proposed here is the following admonition in the *Ames* decision:\n\nAcknowledging that Congress, in Chapter 11, delicately balanced the hope of debtors to reorganize and the expectations of creditors for payment, the courts have focused their attention on proposed 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*.\n\n<sup>6</sup> The DIP Loan seeks only a superpriority administrative expense for any \"Undisbursed DIP Loans\" (DIP Loan Agreement § 8.02(b), which would likely never come into effect considering that the Debtor's financial advisor, Verdolino & Lowery, PC, will be holding any \"Undisbursed DIP Loans\" in the \"Debtor Account\" (DIP Loan Agreement at 2).\n\n*Id.* at 37 (emphasis added).\n\n16. In particular, the court in *Ames* expressly disapproved of the same Offending\n\nProvisions that infect the DIP Loan here:\n\nIt is similarly the practice of this Court not to approve financing arrangements containing clauses triggering default on the appointment of a trustee or examiner under section 1104. Such entrenchment of management may not be in the best interests of the estate and only precludes parties-in-interest from seeking to redress fraud or gross mismanagement through such an appointment. Nor are clauses requiring debtor retention of exclusivity approved. Clauses providing for absolute control over fees and entrenchment of management clauses skew the carefully designed balance of debtor and creditor protections that Congress drew in crafting Chapter 11.\n\n*Id.* at 38.\n\n17. The DIP Loan's Offending Provisions which trigger a default if the PAX Motion is granted, the PAX Litigation is not transferred to this district, a chapter 11 trustee is appointed or the Debtor's exclusive period is terminated, are precisely the types of provisions that leverage and indeed offend the chapter 11 process and should not be countenanced. Unless they are removed, the DIP Loan should not be approved.\n\n## **II. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A FINDING OF GOOD FAITH AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED INTERIM DIP ORDER MUST BE MODIFIED**\n\n18. The proposed Interim DIP Order calls for a finding of good faith in the negotiations of the DIP Loan Documents and for all extensions of credit under the DIP Loan \"within the meaning of section 364(e) of the Bankruptcy Code\" (Interim DIP Order ¶H. *See also*  Interim DIP Order ¶3). The Committee has not even begun its investigation into whether Golden Spring, as well as other companies ostensibly owned or controlled by the Son or other Kwok family members, are among the \"maze of corporate entities' which Judge Ostrager found were\n\nacting as fronts for the Debtor's assets. A finding of \"good faith,\" therefore, should not even be considered until such an investigation is completed.\n\n19. In any event, section 364(e) of the Bankruptcy Code only attaches significance to a finding of good faith for purposes of protecting loan advances made during the pendency of an appeal when \"an authorization under this section\" is reversed or modified on appeal. As noted, it is questionable whether section 364 even applies to the DIP Loan as it is purportedly not ordinary course credit giving rise to an administrative expense, 11 U.S.C. § 364(a), nor does it purportedly seek an administrative expense, superpriority administrative expense, or a lien on property of the estate. 11 U.S.C. §§ 364(b), (c), (d). As such, a finding of good faith is not necessary.\n\n20. The Committee also objects to the proposed findings that there is good cause for the DIP Loan so that the Debtor can confirm a plan of reorganization and that the Debtor's estate will be irreparably harmed if the Interim DIP Order is not entered (Interim DIP Order ¶2). These findings are unnecessary and unsupported.\n\n21. The Committee further objects to any default remedies that are not preceded with adequate notice (more than three days) to the Committee and other parties in interest and a right to contest the existence or legitimacy of any default before the Court. Under ¶9 of the Interim DIP Order, if the DIP Lender believes there is an \"Event of Default,\" it is \"fully authorized, in its sole discretion,\" to \"accelerate the DIP Loan Obligations\" and \"decline to issue any Subsequent Advances.\" When the transaction is between the Debtor and his Son, safeguards are absolutely necessary to ensure fairness and transparency.\n\n22. Paragraph 9 of the Interim DIP Order also improperly provides that upon a finding of an Event of Default, the \"DIP Lender may otherwise take any appropriate action and\n\n8\n\nexercise all applicable remedies under the DIP Loan Documents and applicable law that may be necessary and appropriate by the DIP Lender *to collect the DIP Loan Obligations*, to proceed against or realize the Proceeds as if this Chapter11 case or any superseding Chapter 7 case were not pending and otherwise to enforce the DIP Loan Documents or this Interim Order.\" (emphasis added). If, as the Debtor proposes, the DIP Loan will be an unsecured loan that is subordinate to payment of the claims of general unsecured creditors, this proposed enforcement provision is wholly inappropriate and should be removed.\n\n23. Under the proposed Interim DIP Order, no funding of professional fees will be made available except \"to pay the administrative expenses of ordinary course professionals of the Debtor (which shall exclude, for the avoidance of doubt) Brown Rudnick LLP, V&L, and Stretto, Inc.) and, until entry of the Final DIP Order, [the DIP Loan] may not be used to pay the expenses of professionals of the Debtor other than ordinary course professionals\" (DIP Motion at 9). The Committee objects to the selective payment of the Debtor's ordinary course professionals, but not the Committee's professionals, during the period the Interim DIP Order is in effect.\n\n24. Paragraph 15 of the Interim DIP Order provides that the Interim DIP Order shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any rights that the Debtor or the DIP Lender may have to bring or be heard on any matter brought before this Court. This provision should be expanded to reserve rights and protect against a waiver of rights for the Committee or any other estate representative to investigate and pursue any claims or causes of action that may exist against Golden Hill, and to make clear that the approval of the DIP Loan is not to be construed as a finding that Golden Hill is not the alter ego of the Debtor or the recipient of fraudulent\n\n9\n\ntransfers. *See generally In re Sillerman*, 605 B.R. 631 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019), in which the\n\ncourt aptly observed:\n\n…where an individual chapter 11 debtor remains in possession as a fiduciary of his estate and his creditors, it appears to the Court that there is a heightened concern for an inherent conflict of interest that may not exist in the case of a corporate chapter 11 debtor. Tasking the individual debtor with the responsibility of bringing avoidance actions against a family member or an entity in which the debtor has a substantial interest may be daunting. Moreover, the temptation for self-dealing may be heightened in the case of an individual debtor whose natural instinct is to protect his own selfinterest. This scenario demands that the debtor provide full transparency with regard to its activities and that the Court be vigilant where, as here, allegations of conflict of interest or selfdealing are raised.\n\n*Id.* at 647.\n\n#### **III.**\n\n# **IF THE COURT DETERMINES THE DIP LOAN IS NOT GOVERNED BY SECTION 364 OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, IT IS A TRANSACTION OUTSIDE THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS BETWEEN THE DEBTOR AND AN INSIDER AND DEMANDS STRICT SCRUTINY UNDER SECTION 363(b) OF THE BANKRUKPTCY CODE**\n\n25. The Debtor posits that if the DIP Loan does not come within the terms of section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code, it should be tested by the business judgement rule that is applied under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (DIP Motion ¶27) (citing *In re Gen Motors Corp.*, 407 B.R. 463, 493-94 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009)<sup>7</sup> and other cases). The Debtor is mistaken.\n\n26. \"The business judgment rule is not applicable to transactions among a debtor and\n\nan insider of the Debtor.\" *In re Latham Airlines Group S.A.*, Case No. 20-11254, 2022 WL\n\n272167, at \\*14 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2022). Rather, \"courts apply a 'heighted scrutiny' test\n\nin assessing the *bona fides* of a transaction among a debtor and an insider of the debtor.\" *Id.*\n\n(internal quotation and citation omitted). \"In applying heightened scrutiny, courts are concerned with the integrity and entire fairness of the transaction at issue, typically examining whether the process and price of a proposed transaction not only appear fair but are fair and whether fiduciary duties were properly taken into consideration.\" *Id.* (internal quotation and citation omitted).\n\n27. The Committee submits that under the heightened scrutiny test, the same\n\nconsiderations that should be taken into account in determining the propriety of the Offending\n\nProvisions and other proposed findings the Committee has challenged, as set forth above, should\n\nalso apply if the transaction is assessed under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Committee respectfully requests that the Court deny the DIP Motion unless and until the objections raised herein are fully and adequately addressed.\n\nDated: Bridgeport, Connecticut April 6, 2022\n\n# **OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF HO WAN KWOK**\n\nBy: */s/Irve J. Goldman*  Irve J. Goldman Jonathan A. Kaplan Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street, 8th Floor PO Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006 (203) 330-2213 igoldman@pullcom.com\n\nIts Attorneys (Application Pending)\n\n<sup>7</sup> *Gen. Motors* applied the business judgment rule in determining whether to approve a § 363 sale. *Gen.Motors*¸ 407 B.R. at 493-94 (\"the inquiry turns to whether the routine requirements for any section 363 sale, and appropriate exercise of the business judgment rule, have been satisfied\").\n\n### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ In re : Chapter 11 : Ho Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073 : Debtor.<sup>1</sup> : : April 6, 2022 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n### **CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE**\n\nI Irve J. Goldman, herby certify that on the 6th day of April, 2022, The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors' (the \"Committee\") *Limited Objection Of The Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors 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* was filed via the Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system (\"CM/ECF\"), which sent notice to all parties receiving notification through CM/ECF.\n\n> */s/ Irve J. Goldman*  Irve J. Goldman\n\nThe last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.","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__________________________________________________\n案件标的：第 11 章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），案号：22-50073\n债务人。1\n__________________________________________________:\n\n无担保债权人官方委员会对债务人关于作出批准（I）授权债务人获得无担保、次级申请后融资，（II）安排临时和最终听证会，以及（III）准予相关救济的临时和最终 DIP 命令之动议的有限异议\n\n债务人及占有中债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”）的无担保债权人官方委员会（下称“委员会”）特此对债务人关于作出批准（I）授权债务人获得无担保、次级申请后融资，（II）安排临时和最终听证会，以及（III）准予相关救济之动议（下称“DIP 动议”）提交本有限异议。\n\n为支持本有限异议，委员会谨陈述如下：\n初步陈述\n\n1. 通过 DIP 动议及其寻求法院批准的贷款（下称“DIP 贷款”），债务人及其儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）（下称“儿子”）2抛出了向债务人提供高达 800 万美元的申请后贷款这一诱饵，用于支付本案中将产生的专业人士费用和其他\n\n1 债务人以下列姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n2 拟议贷款名义上由 Golden Spring (New York), Ltd.（纽约金泉有限公司）（下称“Golden Spring”）发放，债务人坚称该公司是“一家由[其]儿子拥有并控制的实体”（DIP 动议第 2 段）。债务人承认，实际上正是其儿子提议提供该笔贷款（DIP 动议第 15 段）（“……为此，债务人请求其儿子提供额外信贷”）。\n\n行政管理费用，但附带的条款却通过规定以下任一事件发生即构成违约事件（从而终止资金的提供），企图操纵并以其他方式不正当撬动第 11 章程序：(i) 破产法院就 PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup.)（下称“PAX 诉讼”）作出准予免除自动中止的裁定；(ii) United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）驳回移送 PAX 诉讼审理管辖地的动议3；(iii) 未经 DIP 贷款人同意，债务人的第 11 章案件被驳回或转为《破产法典》第 7 章下的案件，或者债务人提交动议或其他诉状寻求驳回该案或寻求将其转为《破产法典》第 7 章下的案件；(iv) 任命了第 11 章托管人，或者债务人提交动议或其他诉状寻求此类任命；或 (v) 破产法院根据《破产法典》第 1121(b) 条终止债务人提交重组计划的专属权利（DIP 动议，附件 C4，占有中债务人信贷协议（下称“DIP 贷款协议”）§ 8.01(e)-(h)）（合称“违规条款”）。\n\n3 2022 年 3 月 15 日，债务人向纽约州最高法院提交了将 PAX 诉讼移送至美国纽约南区联邦地区法院的移送审理通知（文件编号 1195），并于 2022 年 3 月 18 日跟进向美国纽约南区联邦地区法院提交了移送审理通知，民事诉讼案号 22-cv-2258 (MKV)。地区法院于 2022 年 3 月 21 日立即将移送的诉讼移交至 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区破产法院），该案目前仍在审理中，案号为 Case No. 22-1073，案名为 PAX v. Kwok。2022 年 3 月 23 日，债务人向纽约南区破产法院提交了移送案件动议（ECF No. 4），请求将移送的诉讼移送至 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区联邦地区法院），以便移交至本法院。\n\n4 DIP 动议实际上有两个附件 C——关于涉及使用现金担保和申请后融资的动议和裁定的附录 H 清单（下称“DIP 清单”）（ECF No. 117，第 52-53 页），以及 DIP 贷款协议（ECF No. 117，第 58-59 页）。\n\n2. 尽管根据债务人的说法，DIP 贷款“为调查[债务人的]事务提供了公平的机会”，且“第 11 章案件将提供一个论坛，以最终确定哪些其他资产可能构成[债务人的]破产财产”（《郭浩云先生支持第 11 章案件及若干动议的声明》（下称“《郭声明》”）第 36、41 段），但显而易见，DIP 贷款经过精心设计，旨在使第 11 章程序倒向父子二人希望的方向。因此，除非移除 DIP 贷款中的违规条款，否则委员会反对法院对其予以批准。\n相关程序历史\n\n3. 2022 年 2 月 15 日（下称“申请日”），债务人根据《美国法典》第 11 编（下称“《破产法典》”）第 11 章自愿提交了救济申请。自那时起，根据《破产法典》第 1107 条和第 1108 条，债务人一直保持占有中债务人身份。\n\n4. 债务人的破产案件中尚未任命托管人或审查人，尽管在 2022 年 3 月 19 日，United States Trustee（美国受托人）（下称“UST”）提交了《关于指示任命审查人的命令之动议，或者备选地，关于指示任命第 11 章托管人的命令之动议》（下称“审查人/托管人动议”）。审查人/托管人动议定于 2022 年 4 月 13 日举行听证会，且根据 UST 的修订拟议命令第 1 条脚注（ECF No. 116），债务人已同意法院指示 UST 在本案中任命一名审查人。\n\n4. 2022 年 3 月 21 日，委员会由美国受托人正式任命，并于 2022 年 3 月 28 日选定 Pullman & Comley, LLC（下称“P&C”）作为其法律顾问。5\n\n5 委员会于 2022 年 4 月 5 日提交了聘请 P&C 的授权申请。\n\n5. 2022 年 3 月 1 日，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）（下称“PAX”）提交了《Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 关于作出确认自动中止不适用或备选地根据〈破产法典〉第 362(d)(2) 条免除自动中止之命令的动议》（下称“PAX 动议”）。2022 年 3 月 15 日，债务人对其 PAX 动议提交了异议，PAX 于 2022 年 3 月 18 日对此提交了答复（ECF No. 98）（下称“PAX 答复”）。2022 年 3 月 28 日，债务人提交了对 PAX 动议的补充异议（下称“债务人补充异议”）。\n\n6. 通过 PAX 动议，PAX 寻求重回 PAX 诉讼，目的是迫使债务人将名为 Lady May（梅号）的游艇归还至美国管辖范围内，债务人和/或 Lady May 的登记所有人此前已被命令不得将该游艇移出纽约法院管辖范围，但在一年多前却将其移出（PAX 动议，附件 A，Barry R. Ostrager 法官 2022 年 2 月 2 日的决定与裁定，下称“2022 年 2 月 2 日决定”，第 2 页）。\n\n- 7. 与 DIP 动议相关的是，2022 年 2 月 2 日决定认定：\n- 债务人曾从事“通过将巨额个人资产存放在一系列公司、受信赖的亲信和家庭成员名下，企图逃避欺骗其债权人的行为”（第 1 页）\n- 债务人已“将自身资产隐藏在错综复杂的公司实体网络和家庭成员名下”（第 1 页）\n- 债务人“及其同伙违反 2020 年 9 月的限制令，安排 Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月初驶往佛罗里达州，随后驶往巴哈马”（第 2 页）\n- 债务人的女儿作证称“是 Golden Spring 建议她该游艇需要移至更暖和的地方”（第 6 页）\n- 根据 Lady May 游艇管理公司董事总经理的证词，他曾就 Lady May 事宜与 Golden Spring 及看似为法定所有权人的 HK USA 进行沟通（第 6 页）。\n\n8. 因此，本案中所谓的“DIP 贷款人”Golden Spring 似乎直接参与并协助教唆了债务人对纽约法院命令的违反。Golden Spring 正与债务人勾结，企图通过将 DIP 贷款的持续可用性与本案和移送案件中不发生某些结果挂钩，来发号施令要求本法院及纽约南区必须发生或不得发生何种情况。参见前注 3。法院不应容忍这种伎俩。\n\n9. 2022 年 3 月 19 日，美国受托人提交了《关于指示任命审查人的命令之动议，或者备选地，关于指示任命第 11 章托管人的命令之动议》（下称“审查人/托管人动议”）。\n\n10. 2022 年 3 月 20 日，债务人提交了 DIP 动议。\n\n11. 有趣的是，虽然债务人承认 Golden Spring 由其儿子拥有并控制，但他却在 DIP 清单中坚称拟议的 DIP 贷款人 Golden Spring 并非内部人。虽然 Golden Spring 可能不符合《破产法典》第 101(31)(A) 条所列的“内部人”类别，但毫无争议的是，基于 Golden Spring 与法定内部人（即债务人的儿子）之间的密切联系，其属于非狭义法定内部人。参见 Mishkin v. Siclari (In re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp.), 277 B.R. 520, 565 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)（“内部人”是指与“法定内部人具有密切个人关系”的任何人）。债务人的儿子是第 101(31)(A)(i) 条项下的内部人，而其公司 Golden Spring 因表面上由债务人的儿子拥有和控制而属于内部人。\n\n12. PAX 动议、审查人/托管人动议、DIP 动议以及债务人若干专业人士的聘用申请定于 2022 年 4 月 13 日上午 10:00 举行听证会。\n管辖权与审理管辖地\n\n13. 根据《美国法典》第 28 编第 157 条和第 1334 条，本法院对 DIP 动议及由此引发的争议事项具有管辖权。根据《美国法典》第 28 编第 1408 条和第 1409 条，审理管辖地属正当。在此寻求救济的法定依据为《美国法典》第 11 编第 363(b) 条、第 364 条、第 105(a) 条，《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 9014 条，以及《康涅狄格区地方破产规则》第 9014-1 条。\n论证\nI. 违规条款不正当地撬动了第 11 章程序，因此，除非移除这些条款，否则不应批准 DIP 贷款\n\n14. 首先，像 DIP 贷款这样拟议的申请后贷款——既不属于债务人的日常业务，也不寻求行政管理优先权或留置权6——是否属于《破产法典》第 364 条的适用范围，本身存有疑问。尽管如此，正如债务人的 DIP 动议所承认的那样，根据《破产法典》第 364 条作出的裁决仍与考量 DIP 贷款的适当性相关。\n\n15. 关于 DIP 贷款所拟议类型的条款是否\n\n被允许的主导先例是 In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc., 115 B.R. 34 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990)。与此处拟议的\n\nDIP 贷款最相关的是 Ames 裁决中的以下告诫：\n\n法院认识到国会在第 11 章中微妙地平衡了债务人重组的希望与债权人获得偿付的期望，因此将注意力集中在那些会使破产案件的进行发生倾斜、在早期阶段损害《破产法典》为全体债权人利益所赋予的权力和权利、或通过阻止利害关系方的动议获得实体审理来不正当撬动第 11 章程序的拟议条款上。\n\n6 DIP贷款仅就任何“未发放DIP贷款”寻求超级优先行政管理费用（《DIP贷款协议》§ 8.02(b)），考虑到债务人的财务顾问Verdolino & Lowery, PC将在“债务人账户”中持有任何“未发放DIP贷款”，该条款可能永远不会生效（《DIP贷款协议》第2页）。\n\n同上，第37页（强调后加）。\n\n16. 特别是，Ames案法院明确表示不赞同此处侵入DIP贷款的相同违规条款：\n\n本法院的做法同样是不批准包含因根据第1104条任命托管人或审查人而触发违约的条款的融资安排。此类固化管理层的做法可能不符合破产财产的最佳利益，且只会阻止利害关系方通过此类任命来纠正欺诈或严重管理不善行为。要求债务人保留排他期的条款同样不予批准。规定对费用的绝对控制权以及固化管理层的条款，扭曲了国会在制定第11章时精心设计的保护债务人与债权人的平衡机制。\n\n同上，第38页。\n\n17. DIP贷款中的违规条款（规定如果PAX动议获准、PAX诉讼未移送至本区、第11章托管人获任命或债务人的排他期被终止，即触发违约）正是那种利用并不当侵害第11章程序的条款类型，不应予以容忍。除非删除这些条款，否则不应批准DIP贷款。\n\nII. 认定善意缺乏依据，且拟议DIP临时命令的其他条款必须予以修改\n\n18. 拟议DIP临时命令要求认定在《DIP贷款文件》的谈判中以及在DIP贷款项下的所有展期信贷中均存在“《破产法典》第364(e)条含义内的”善意（《DIP临时命令》第H段。另见《DIP临时命令》第3段）。委员会甚至尚未开始调查Golden Spring（金泉公司）以及表面上由儿子或其他郭氏家族成员拥有或控制的其他公司，是否属于Ostrager法官认定的充当债务人财产幌子的“错综复杂的法人实体迷宫”。因此，在此类调查完成之前，根本不应考虑作出“善意”认定。\n\n19. 无论如何，《破产法典》第364(e)条仅在“本条项下的授权”在上诉中被推翻或修改时，为了保护上诉审理期间发放的贷款垫款的目的，才赋予善意认定以实际意义。如前所述，第364条是否适用于该DIP贷款本身就存疑，因为据称其并非产生行政管理费用的日常业务信贷（11 U.S.C. § 364(a)），据称也未寻求行政管理费用、超级优先行政管理费用或对破产财产设置留置权（11 U.S.C. §§ 364(b), (c), (d)）。因此，作出善意认定并无必要。\n\n20. 委员会亦反对拟议认定中关于进行DIP贷款具有充分理由以便债务人能够确认重组计划，以及若不作出DIP临时命令则债务人的破产财产将遭受不可挽回之损害的主张（《DIP临时命令》第2段）。这些认定毫无必要且缺乏依据支持。\n\n21. 委员会进一步反对在未事先向委员会及其他利害关系方发出充分通知（超过三天）且未给予在法院面前就任何违约的存在或合法性提出异议的权利的情况下实行的任何违约救济措施。根据《DIP临时命令》第9段，如果DIP贷方认为存在“违约事件”，其“完全有权依其自行判断”“加速到期DIP贷款债务”并“拒绝发放任何后续垫款”。当交易发生在债务人与其儿子之间时，绝对有必要设立保障措施以确保公平与透明。\n\n22. 《DIP临时命令》第9段还违规规定，在认定发生违约事件后，“DIP贷方可另行采取任何适当行动，并行使《DIP贷款文件》和适用法律项下由DIP贷方认为可能必要和适宜的所有适用救济措施，以收取DIP贷款债务，对收益进行追索或变现（如同本第11章案件或任何接替的第7章案件未在审理中一样），并另行执行《DIP贷款文件》或本临时命令。”（强调后加）。如果正如债务人所提议的那样，DIP贷款将是一笔从属于一般无担保债权人受偿顺位的无担保贷款，则该拟议的执行条款完全不适当，应当予以删除。\n\n23. 根据拟议《DIP临时命令》，除“用于支付债务人日常专业人士的行政管理费用（为免疑义，该等专业人士应排除Brown Rudnick LLP、V&L以及Stretto, Inc.）外，不提供任何专业人士费用资金，且在作出《DIP最终命令》之前，[DIP贷款]不得用于支付债务人日常专业人士以外的专业人士的费用”（《DIP动议》第9页）。委员会反对在《DIP临时命令》生效期间选择性支付债务人日常专业人士费用而不支付委员会专业人士费用的做法。\n\n24. 《DIP临时命令》第15段规定，《DIP临时命令》不得被解释为债务人或DIP贷方放弃或免除其就提交本法院的任何事项提起诉讼或陈述意见的任何权利。该条款应当予以扩充，以保留委员会或任何其他破产财产代表调查并追究可能针对Golden Hill存在的任何债权或诉由的权利，并防止其权利被放弃，同时明确批准DIP贷款不得被解释为认定Golden Hill不是债务人的另一个人格（alter ego）或不是欺诈性转让的受让人。一般性参见In re Sillerman, 605 B.R. 631 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区破产法院） 2019)案，在该案中法院恰如其分地指出：\n\n……当个人第11章债务人作为其破产财产和债权人的受托人继续占有债务人财产时，在法院看来，对固有利益冲突的担忧会加剧，而这种利益冲突在公司第11章债务人案件中可能并不存在。要求个人债务人承担针对其家庭成员或债务人拥有实质利益的实体提起撤销之诉的责任，可能是令人望而却步的。此外，在保护自身利益出于本能的个人债务人案件中，自我交易的诱惑可能会增加。这种情况要求债务人对其活动提供完全的透明度，并且要求法院在提出利益冲突或自我交易指控（如本案中）时保持警惕。\n\n同上，第647页。\n\nIII. 若法院认定DIP贷款不受《破产法典》第364条管辖，则该贷款属于债务人与内部人之间的非日常业务交易，需根据《破产法典》第363(b)条接受严格审查\n\n25. 债务人主张，如果DIP贷款不属于《破产法典》第364条的规定范围，则应按照《破产法典》第363(b)条适用的商业判断规则对其进行检验（《DIP动议》第27段）（引述In re Gen Motors Corp., 407 B.R. 463, 493-94 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009)7及其他案件）。债务人此言差矣。\n\n26. “商业判断规则不适用于债务人与债务人内部人之间的交易。”In re Latham Airlines Group S.A.案，案号20-11254，2022 WL 272167，第*14页（Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022年1月22日）。相反，“法院在评估债务人与债务人内部人之间交易的真实善意时，适用‘高度审查’标准。”同上（内部引文及引证省略）。“在适用高度审查时，法院关注涉案交易的完整性与全面公平性，通常审查拟议交易的程序与价格是否不仅表面公平而且实质公平，以及是否妥善考虑了信义义务。”同上（内部引文及引证省略）。\n\n27. 委员会认为，根据高度审查标准，如上文所述，在确定违规条款及委员会提出异议的其他拟议认定的适当性时应考虑的相同考量因素，在根据《破产法典》第363(b)条对该交易进行评估时也同样适用。\n\n综上所述，委员会谨请求法院驳回《DIP动议》，除非且直到本意见书提出的异议得到充分且妥善的解决。\n\n日期：康涅狄格州布里奇波特 2022年4月6日\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）官方无担保债权人委员会\n\n签署人：/s/ Irve J. Goldman\nIrve J. Goldman\nJonathan A. Kaplan\nPullman & Comley, LLC\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor\nPO Box 7006\nBridgeport, CT 06601-7006\n(203) 330-2213\nigoldman@pullcom.com\n\n其代理律师（申请待决）\n\n7 Gen. Motors案在决定是否批准第363条出售时适用了商业判断规则。Gen. Motors，407 B.R. at 493-94（“审查转向是否已满足任何第363条出售的常规要求以及商业判断规则的恰当行使”）。\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n债务人。1\n\n第11章\n案号：22-50073\n2022年4月6日\n\n送达证明\n\n我，Irve J. Goldman，特此证明：于2022年4月6日，官方无担保债权人委员会（下称“委员会”）的《官方无担保债权人委员会对债务人关于作出（I）授权债务人获得无担保、次级申请后融资，（II）安排临时及最终听证会，以及（III）准予相关救济之DIP临时及最终命令动议的有限异议》（Limited Objection Of The Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors 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）已通过法院的CM/ECF电子立案系统（“CM/ECF”）提交，该系统已向所有通过CM/ECF接收通知的当事方发送了通知。\n\n/s/ Irve J. Goldman\nIrve J. Goldman\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号的后四位为9595。","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":4,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":98,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":116,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":117,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3646,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:44:14"}