{"id":"court_ctb_179_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":179,"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,<sup>1</sup>\n\nChapter 11 Case No.\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n# **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'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\nTO THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this objection (the \"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* [ECF No. 117] (the \"Motion\").<sup>2</sup> In support of this Objection, PAX respectfully states as follows:\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\" or the \"DIP Lender\") is the quintessential \"insider\" entity that was formed and funded by the Debtor<sup>3</sup> and now is allegedly\n\n<sup>1</sup> The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Objection shall have meanings given to such terms in the Motion.\n\n<sup>3</sup> *See Declaration of Peter Friedman in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'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*, attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Friedman Decl.\"), Ex. 1, Feb. 5, 2016 Aff. of Kwok Ho Wan at ¶ 36, *Ace*\n\ncontrolled by the Debtor's son. It serves as the Debtor's \"family office\" that pays for most, if not all, of the Debtor's enormous living and legal expenses. Under the guise of the Debtor's \"business judgment,\" the Motion seeks authorization for Golden Spring to make a purported loan of additional money to a debtor who (i) claims under oath to have no business, assets, or cash flow, (ii) commenced this case for the purpose of re-litigating his liabilities to PAX, and (iii) based on his portrayal of his assets, has no chance to confirm a chapter 11 plan.\n\n2. Boiled down to its essence, the Debtor wants to borrow \\$8,000,000 from his family to defend purported assets of \\$3,850. The Court can infer two things from this proposed transaction: First, the Debtor knows that his asset disclosures are materially false and Golden Spring's cash is readily available to defend his falsehoods. Second, Golden Spring will spend massive sums to manipulate this proceeding to protect itself from alter ego, veil piercing, and substantive consolidation claims. Otherwise, spending over 2,000 times the amount of the Debtor's alleged assets<sup>4</sup> to fund a chapter 11 case makes no sense. A debtor-in-possession (\"DIP\") loan designed to protect false disclosures and a third party's assets should not receive this Court's blessing.\n\n3. Moreover, the Debtor is seeking to burden his estate with additional debt that, depending on the outcome of numerous case-deciding motions pending against him, could lead to the incurrence of at least \\$2,000,000 in super-priority administrative expenses that would benefit no one except the Debtor and his son. The Proposed DIP Facility is pre-wired to default if, among other things, a trustee is appointed or stay relief is granted and is designed to force the court to choose between DIP defaults and granting the substantive relief to which PAX is entitled. As such,\n\n*Decade Holdings Limited v. UBS AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 27 (\"Feb. 5, 2016 Kwok Aff.\").\n\n<sup>4</sup> \\$8,000,000/\\$3,850=2,078.\n\nthe Proposed DIP Facility provides no benefit to the Debtor's estate and would allow the Debtor and his insider \"lender\" to abuse the bankruptcy process to the detriment of the Debtor's noninsider creditors. Accordingly, the Motion should be denied.<sup>5</sup>\n\n# **OBJECTION<sup>6</sup>**\n\n# **I. THE PROPOSED DIP FACILITY IS AN UNFAIR INSIDER TRANSACTION**\n\n4. Troublingly, the Debtor argues that the business judgment standard applies to this transaction, because he contends Golden Spring is not an insider. *See* Motion at ¶ 19. He specifically denies the DIP Lender is an insider: in the *Checklist for Motions and Orders for Use of Cash Collateral and Post-Petition Financing* attached as Exhibit C to the Motion (excerpt pasted below), the Debtor checks the \"no\" box in response to the question \"Is the lender an insider\" in section 6(e) of the checklist. This is dishonest and incorrect.<sup>7</sup>\n\n![](_page_2_Figure_5.jpeg)\n\n5. Courts find parties to be non-statutory insiders where there are close relationships and non-arm's length transactions between the parties. *See In re Bruno Mach. Corp.,* 435 B.R. 819, 835 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2010). In *Bruno Mach. Corp*., the court examined the relationship between the debtor, its majority shareholder and president (\"Bruno\"), and Bruno's long-time friend\n\n<sup>5</sup> PAX also adopts and joins in the arguments set forth in the *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* [ECF No. 160].\n\n<sup>6</sup> PAX reserves its rights to supplement this Objection based on information it learns in discovery from the Debtor, Golden Spring, and their advisors.\n\n<sup>7</sup> It should be noted that the Debtor also failed to certify to the accuracy of the information contained in the *Checklist for Motions and Orders for the Use of Cash Collateral and Post-Petition Financing*, as required by Appendix H of the Local Bankruptcy Rules.\n\n(\"Chorbajian\") and his company (\"TDC\"). *Id.* at 828. In finding that a non-statutory insider relationship existed between the debtor and TDC, the court examined the relationship between Bruno and Chorbajian, holding that \"the closeness of the relationship between Chorbajian and Bruno, the unusual nature of their business transactions, and the general lack of formality surrounding these transactions lead the court to conclude that both Chorbajian and TDC are nonstatutory insiders of [the debtor].\" *Id.* at 835. Moreover, the court found that because the parties \"engaged in less-than-arm's length transactions\" it was not necessary for the court to also find that control was exercised over the debtor. *Id.* at 836.\n\n6. Here, the DIP Lender is obviously a non-statutory insider. The relationship involves a father and son—one significantly closer than the friendship at issue in *Bruno Mach. Corp.—*and includes numerous non-arm's length transactions that lack formality:\n\n- In March 2015, the Debtor \"set[] up [Golden Spring] by transferring funds from one of [his] accounts at UBS to [Golden Spring]'s JPMorgan Chase bank account.\"<sup>8</sup>\n- The DIP Lender is wholly owned by China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong Limited),<sup>9</sup> which purportedly is technically owned by the Debtor's son.\n- The DIP Lender operates as the Debtor's \"family office.\"<sup>10</sup>\n- The DIP Lender funds the Debtor's lavish lifestyle,<sup>11</sup> including paying millions of dollars in expenses related to his living expenses,<sup>12</sup> funding the Debtor's counsel in\n\n<sup>8</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, Feb. 5, 2016 Kwok Aff. at ¶ 36.\n\n<sup>9</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, May 19, 2021 Aff. of Yanping Wang at ¶ 3, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan*, Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 806.\n\n<sup>10</sup> *See Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions* [ECF No. 107] (the \"First Day Decl.\") at ¶ 17.\n\n<sup>11</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Hr'g Tr. at 9:25–10:3*, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 27, 2021), NYSCEF Doc. No. 833 (the Court found that \"[i]t's quite undisputed that Golden Spring[] has funded seven-figure payments to facilitate Mr. Kwok's lifestyle . . . .\"); *see also* First Day Decl. at ¶ 17.\n\n<sup>12</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Feb. 21, 2021 Ltr., *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 765 (Letter from M. Carvalho to E. Moss stating that \"[the Debtor's] expenses during the relevant time period have been paid for by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.\"); *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, 341 Meeting Tr. at 21–22, *In re Genever Holdings LLC*, No. 20-12411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2020) (\"This family office [Golden Spring] pays some of the expenses related to the Sherry apartment also, which is about like 1.8 million in total so far.\").\n\nvarious litigations,<sup>13</sup> and paying for the upkeep of, employees working on, and legal counsel for the Lady May,<sup>14</sup> which the Debtor likely paid for and \"beneficially owns and controls.\"<sup>15</sup>\n\n# **A. The Motion is Subject to Heightened Scrutiny**\n\n7. Contrary to the Debtor's claim, because this is an insider transaction, the Court must examine the Proposed DIP Facility with heightened scrutiny and cannot defer to the Debtor's business judgment. *See In re Latam Airlines Group S.A.,* 620 B.R. 722, 769 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020) (\"By definition, the business judgment rule is not applicable to transactions among a debtor and an insider of the debtor.\"); *WHBA Real Estate Ltd. P'ship v. Lafayette Hotel P'ship (In re Lafayette Hotel P'ship)*, 227 B.R. 445, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (\"[S]ince there is an incentive and opportunity to take advantage . . . insiders' loans in a bankruptcy must be subject to rigorous scrutiny.\" (internal citations omitted)), *aff'd*, 198 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 1999). \"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.\" *In re Innkeepers USA Trust*, 442 B.R. 227, 231 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010).\n\n<sup>13</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, Apr. 7, 2021 Ltr., *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 766 (Letter from K. Kearney of Hodgson Russ to E. Moss explaining that the firm has represented Kwok in various matters and that payments received by the firm for its services were made by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.); *see also* Schedule D [ECF No. 78] (listing Golden Spring as a secured creditor in an unknown amount for \"Litigation Funding\") and Schedule F [ECF No. 78] (listing Golden Spring as an unsecured creditor for approximately \\$21,000,000 in \"Litigation Funding\").\n\n<sup>14</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 7, Evidentiary Hr'g Tr. at 55:21–56:23; 64:21–65:5, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 2, 2022 ), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n<sup>15</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 8, Decision + Order on Mot. at 4, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), NYSCEF Doc. No*.* 1181 (\"The testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May . . . . [A] reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht.\").\n\n### **B. The Proposed DIP Facility Is Inherently Unfair**\n\n8. Bankruptcy courts are reluctant to approve postpetition financing schemes that leverage the bankruptcy process and for which the underlying purpose of the proposed financing is to benefit a party in interest rather than the debtor's estate. *See, e.g., In re Barbara K. Enters.*, Inc., No. 08-11474 (MG), 2008 WL 2439649, at \\*14 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2008) (\"The Court is aware that its normal function in reviewing requests for post-petition 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 reorganization to one party in interest.\" (internal citation omitted)); *In re Tamarack Resort, LLC*., No. 09-03911-TLM, 2010 WL 4117459, at \\*11 (Bankr. N.D. Idaho Oct. 19, 2010) (\"[C]ourts look to whether the proposed terms would prejudice the powers and rights that the Code confers for the benefit of all creditors and leverage the Chapter 11 process by granting the lender excessive control over the debtor or its assets as to unduly prejudice the rights of other parties in interest.\" (internal citation omitted)); *In re Tenney Village Co., Inc.*, 104 B.R. 562, 568 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1989) (finding that the proposed financing \"would pervert the reorganizational process from one designed to accommodate all classes of creditors and equity interests to one specially crafted for the benefit of the [lender] and the Debtor's principals who guaranteed its debt\").\n\n9. In *Norris Square Civic Ass'n v. St. Mary Hospital (In re St. Mary Hospital)*, the bankruptcy court denied the debtor's proposed postpetition financing arrangement with its parent because the proposed arrangement gave the parent a superpriority lien on all unencumbered assets of the debtor, which the court found was not fair and reasonable in light of the relationship between the parties and the results of the transaction as a whole. 86 B.R. 393, 401-03 (Bankr E.D. Pa. 1988).\n\n10. Contrary to the Debtor's allegations regarding the \"generous\" financing provided by the DIP Lender, the Proposed DIP Facility contains several provisions that are crafted to provide the DIP Lender with a superpriority claim at the expense of the Debtor's estate if the Debtor defaults under the DIP Loan Agreement:\n\n- Events of Default. The following events of default<sup>16</sup> are prewired to trigger based on the Court's determination of certain motions pending before it:<sup>17</sup>\n\t- o entry of an order granting relief from the automatic stay in connection with the PAX Litigation, and/or the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denies a motion to transfer venue of the PAX Litigation;\n\t- o without the consent of the DIP Lender, this chapter 11 case is dismissed or converted to a case under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code; or\n\t- o if a chapter 11 trustee is appointed.\n- Remedies. Upon an event of default, the DIP Lender is \"automatically granted an administrative expense claim having priority over any or all other administrative expenses of any kind . . . in an amount equal to the Undisbursed DIP Loans.\"<sup>18</sup>\n- 11. There is no evidence of arm's length, good faith negotiations on these terms\n\nbetween the Debtor and the DIP Lender.<sup>19</sup> Further, as discussed below, the Debtor has failed to provide *any* analyses regarding the need and propriety of the Proposed DIP Facility beyond his conclusory statements regarding how \"generous\" the Proposed DIP Facility is. But if the Court granted the Debtor's request for interim financing and subsequently grants the Stay Motion, Trustee Motion, and/or the Dismissal Motion, the DIP Lender could walk away from the case with a \\$2,000,000 superpriority administrative claim at the expense of the Debtor's other creditors. This should not be countenanced.\n\n<sup>16</sup> *See* DIP Loan Agreement at §§ 8.01 (e)-(g).\n\n<sup>17</sup> *See 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* [ECF No. 57] (the \"Stay Motion\"); *United States Trustee's 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* [ECF No. 102] (the \"Trustee Motion\"); *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case or, In the Alternative, Partial Joinder to the United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee,* filed contemporaneously herewith (the \"Dismissal Motion\").\n\n<sup>18</sup> *See* DIP Loan Agreement at § 8.02 (b).\n\n<sup>19</sup> If the Court does not deny the Motion outright, it should defer consideration of the Motion until it determines whether a trustee should be appointed, the automatic stay should be lifted, or PAX's forthcoming motion to remand its state court lawsuit against the Debtor is granted rather than approving a DIP loan that may default imminently.\n\n12. Moreover, the vastly disproportionate amount of professional fees the Proposed DIP Facility provides for compared to the Debtor's purported assets (again, over a 2,000:1 ratio) is suspicious, suggesting the Debtor and the DIP Lender are both colluding to use the Proposed DIP Facility to fund a re-litigation of state court claims (which is not an appropriate use of the Bankruptcy Code), and to use this case improperly to try to insulate the DIP Lender from liability on claims like veil piercing, alter ego, and substantive consolidation. This too should be prevented.\n\n## **II. THE DIP FINANCING IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE**\n\n13. The Motion states that the Debtor \"requires access to postpetition financing to continue his litigation, potentially to judgment, for the benefit of his creditors [and] to negotiate and achieve confirmation of a plan of reorganization.\" Motion at ¶ 34.\n\n14. As an initial matter, no budget is attached to the Motion, which makes an evaluation of the proposed use of the DIP proceeds impossible. But one can surmise that the vast majority of the DIP proceeds will be devoted to the Debtor's efforts to improperly re-litigate against PAX and to fight against—rather than for the benefit of—other creditors. Second, contrary to the examples cited in the Motion, this is not a case where a debtor is seeking financing to remain in business. *See, e.g., In re Ames Dep't Stores, Inc.,* 115 B.R. 34 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990) (operating business sought non-insider financing to continue purchasing inventory and conducting business in chapter 11). There *is nothing* to reorganize here. The Debtor has represented under oath that he has no business, assets, or cash flow. While the Debtor makes conclusory statements that he intends to pay all creditors in full, there is no evidence of how an \\$8 million DIP loan advances that goal. If the Debtor and his family want to pay creditors in full, they can and should use the vast amounts of cash available to them for that purpose. No DIP financing is needed, nor is a chapter 11 plan required, to do so.\n\n15. The Debtor wants his creditors to bear the risk of burdening the estate with additional debt when his chapter 11 case is objectively futile. *Barbara K. Enterprises* (cited by the Debtor) highlights this issue: the court denied the debtor's DIP motion because the \"business [had] no meaningful business plan or budget going forward.\" *In re Barbara K. Enters., Inc.,* 2008 WL 2439649, at \\*15. The court found that the \"Debtor's proposal for moving forward with this bankruptcy case and with the future operations of the company is akin to a start-up business, as opposed to a business seeking to reorganize through chapter 11.\" *Id.* at \\*14. Based on the debtor's pattern of \"generalized statements\" regarding the debtor's business plan, the court denied the proposed financing because of the \"highly unlikely prospects for a successful reorganization of the Debtor.\" *Id.*\n\n16. Taken at his word, the Debtor merits financing even less than a start-up business, because he has no economic prospects at all. The Motion is based on unsupported, speculative assertions regarding the benefits of the Proposed DIP Facility and the Debtor's prospects for confirming a chapter 11 plan. This is not a legitimate chapter 11 reorganization and the Motion is a transparent attempt to get this Court to bless the Debtor's improper attempt to finance his relitigation efforts against his creditors, both for his own benefit and that of his family.\n\n### **III. SECTION 364(e) IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE DIP LENDER**\n\n17. Section 364(e) of the Bankruptcy Code protects the validity and priority of loans made under section 364 in the event of a subsequent reversal of the financing order if the loan was made by, or priority granted to, \"an entity that extended such credit in good faith, whether or not such entity knew of the pendency of the appeal,\" unless the order was stayed pending appeal. 11 U.S.C. § 364(e). Section 364(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not protect a lender \"[w]here it is evident from the loan agreement itself that the transaction has an intended effect that is improper under the Bankruptcy Code, the lender is not in good faith, and it is irrelevant what the improper purpose is.\" *In re EDC Holding Co.*, 676 F.2d 945, 948 (7th Cir. 1982) (finding that where a lender extended credit to debtor for an ulterior purpose that was improper under the Bankruptcy Code, the lender was not acting in good faith within the meaning of section 364(e)).\n\n18. The Debtor contends that \"the Court should find that the DIP Lender is a 'good faith' lender within the meaning of section 364(e)\" because \"the terms and conditions of the DIP Financing are fair and reasonable, and purposefully designed to avoid prejudice to the interests of any creditor.\" Motion at ¶ 40. But, that is wrong. The Proposed DIP Facility is inherently unfair and betrays the Debtor's attempt to benefit himself and his insiders rather than his estate. The absence of good faith is unmistakable, and the protections of section 364(e) should accordingly be denied.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\n19. For the reasons stated above, and while reserving all other rights and remedies, PAX respectfully requests that this Court: (i) deny the relief requested in the Motion and (ii) grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. In the event the Court grants the Motion, paragraph 9 of the proposed interim and final orders should be modified to require the DIP Lender to provide written notice of the occurrence of an \"Event of Default\" or violation of a provision of the DIP orders to the Court, the U.S. Trustee, PAX, and counsel to the official committee of unsecured creditors. Limiting notice to the Debtor under these provisions is improper given the insider relationship between the Debtor and the DIP Lender.\n\n### *[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]*\n\nDated: April 6, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By*: */s/ Patrick M. Birney*\n\nPatrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP**  280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP**  7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on April 6, 2022, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically through the Court's CM/ECF System. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties receiving notice by operation of the court's electronic filing system. Parties in interest may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> /s/ *Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick M. Birney","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），1\n\n第11章破产案号\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 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）准予相关救济的临时与最终 DIP 命令的动议的异议\n\n致美国破产法官 JULIE A. MANNING 阁下：\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，下称「PAX」）通过其下述署名律师，谨此就《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）准予相关救济的临时与最终 DIP 命令的动议》[ECF No. 117]（下称「动议」）提交本异议（下称「异议」）。2 为支持本异议，PAX 谨此陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，下称「Golden Spring」或「DIP 贷款人」）是一家典型的「内部人」实体，由债务人3设立并出资，且据称目前\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号的后四位数字为 9595。\n\n2 本异议中使用但未作定义的词首大写术语，应具有动议中赋予此类术语的含义。\n\n3 参见随附于此作为附件 A 的《Peter Friedman 支持 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 对债务人关于作出（I）授权债务人获得无担保、次级申请后融资以及（II）安排临时及最终听证会，和（III）准予相关救济的临时与最终 DIP 命令的动议的异议的声明》（下称「Friedman 声明」），附件 1，2016年2月5日 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云/郭文贵）宣誓书第 36 段，Ace\n\n由债务人的儿子控制。它充当债务人的「家族办公室」，为债务人支付绝大部分（即便不是全部）巨额生活和法律费用。在债务人「商业判断」的幌子下，动议请求授权 Golden Spring 向一位（i）宣誓称自己没有业务、资产或现金流，（ii）为就其对 PAX 的债务责任重新进行诉讼而提起本案，且（iii）基于其对自身资产的描绘根本不可能确认第11章重组计划的债务人，提供一笔所谓额外资金的贷款。\n\n2. 归根结底，债务人企图从其家族借款 $8,000,000，以保全据称仅为 $3,850 的资产。法院可以从该提议的交易中推断出两点：第一，债务人明知其资产披露存在重大虚假，而 Golden Spring 的现金随手可得，用于维护其谎言。第二，Golden Spring 将不惜花费巨资操纵本诉讼程序，以保护自身免受另一个人格（alter ego）、揭开公司面纱（veil piercing）和实质合并（substantive consolidation）的主张追索。否则，花费超过债务人声称资产4 2,000倍以上的金额去资助一起第11章案件毫无道理。旨在保护虚假披露和第三方资产的占有中债务人（「DIP」）贷款不应获得本法院的批准。\n\n3. 此外，债务人正试图让其破产财团承担额外的债务，根据针对他悬而未决的若干项决定性动议的结果，这可能导致产生至少 $2,000,000 的超级优先行政管理费用，而除了债务人及其儿子之外，没有任何人能从中受益。拟议的 DIP 信贷安排被预先设定为在（除其他事项外）指定受托人或准予中止救济时即发生违约，其设计目的是迫使法院在 DIP 违约与准予 PAX 有权获得的实质性救济之间作出选择。因此，\n\nDecade Holdings Limited v. UBS AG, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 27（「2016年2月5日郭氏宣誓书」）。\n\n4 $8,000,000 / $3,850 = 2,078。\n\n拟议的 DIP 信贷安排未给债务人的破产财团带来任何利益，并将允许债务人及其内部人「贷款人」滥用破产程序，从而损害债务人的非内部人债权人的利益。因此，动议应予以驳回。5\n\n异议6\n\nI. 拟议的 DIP 信贷安排是一项不公平的内部人交易\n\n4. 令人不安的是，债务人辩称商业判断标准适用于本交易，因为他主张 Golden Spring 不是内部人。见动议第 19 段。他明确否认 DIP 贷款人是内部人：在作为动议附件 C 附上的《使用现金担保及申请后融资的动议和命令清单》（节录粘贴于后）中，债务人在清单第 6(e) 条针对「贷款人是否为内部人」的问题勾选了「否」框。这是不诚实且不正确的。7\n\n5. 在当事人之间存在密切关系且进行非正常商业交易（non-arm's length transactions）的情况下，法院认定当事人为非法定内部人（non-statutory insiders）。参见 In re Bruno Mach. Corp., 435 B.R. 819, 835 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2010)。在 Bruno Mach. Corp. 案中，法院审查了债务人、其大股东兼总裁（「Bruno」）与 Bruno 的多年好友\n\n5 PAX 亦采纳并加入《美国受托人对债务人关于作出（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）准予相关救济的临时与最终 DIP 命令的动议的异议》[ECF No. 160] 中阐述的论点。\n\n6 PAX 保留根据从债务人、Golden Spring 及其顾问处的证据开示中所了解到的信息补充本异议的权利。\n\n7 应当指出的是，债务人亦未能按照《本地破产规则》附录 H 的要求，对《使用现金担保及申请后融资的动议和命令清单》中所包含信息的准确性作出证明。\n\n（「Chorbajian」）及其公司（「TDC」）之间的关系。同上，第 828 页。在认定债务人与 TDC 之间存在非法定内部人关系时，法院审查了 Bruno 与 Chorbajian 之间的关系，裁定「Chorbajian 与 Bruno 之间关系的亲密程度、其商业交易的异常性质以及围绕这些交易普遍缺乏形式规范，促使法院认定 Chorbajian 和 TDC 均属于[债务人的]非法定内部人。」同上，第 835 页。此外，法院认为，由于当事人「进行了非正常的商业交易」，法院无需另行查明是否对债务人实施了控制。同上，第 836 页。\n\n6. 在本案中，DIP 贷款人显系非法定内部人。该关系涉及父子——其亲密度显著高于 Bruno Mach. Corp. 案中涉及的朋友关系——且包含大量缺乏形式规范的非正常商业交易：\n\n- 2015年3月，债务人「通过将其在 UBS（瑞士联合银行）的一个账户中的资金转移到[Golden Spring]的 JPMorgan Chase（摩根大通）银行账户，设立了[Golden Spring]。」8\n- DIP 贷款人由 China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong Limited)（中国金泉集团（香港有限公司））9全资拥有，而该公司据称在技术层面上由债务人的儿子拥有。\n- DIP 贷款人充当债务人的「家族办公室」。10\n- DIP 贷款人资助债务人的奢靡生活方式，11包括支付与其生活费用相关的数百万美元支出，12在各项诉讼中资助债务人的律师，13以及为 Lady May 号游艇14支付维护费用、受雇员工薪酬及法律顾问费用，而债务人极可能为该游艇支付了款项且「对其享有实益拥有权并实施控制」。15\n\n8 Friedman 声明，附件 1，2016年2月5日郭氏宣誓书第 36 段。\n\n9 Friedman 声明，附件 2，2021年5月19日 Yanping Wang（王雁平）宣誓书第 3 段，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 806。\n\n10 参见《Ho Wan Kwok 先生支持第11章案件及若干动议的声明》[ECF No. 107]（下称「首日声明」）第 17 段。\n\n11 Friedman 声明，附件 3，庭审记录第 9:25–10:3 页，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 27, 2021), NYSCEF Doc. No. 833（法院认定「毫无争议的是，Golden Spring 资助了七位数的款项以维持郭先生的生活方式……」）；亦见首日声明第 17 段。\n\n12 Friedman 声明，附件 4，2021年2月21日信函，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 765（M. Carvalho 致 E. Moss 的信函，声明「[债务人]在相关期间的费用已由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 支付」）；亦见 Friedman 声明，附件 5，341号会议记录第 21–22 页，In re Genever Holdings LLC, No. 20-12411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2020)（「该家族办公室[Golden Spring]也支付了与 Sherry 公寓相关的一些费用，迄今总计约 180 万左右。」）。\n\nA. 动议须接受严格审查\n\n7. 与债务人的主张相反，正因为这是一项内部人交易，法院必须以严格审查（heightened scrutiny）来审查拟议的 DIP 信贷安排，而不能遵循债务人的商业判断。参见 In re Latam Airlines Group S.A., 620 B.R. 722, 769 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020)（「根据定义，商业判断规则不适用于债务人与其内部人之间的交易。」）；WHBA Real Estate Ltd. P'ship v. Lafayette Hotel P'ship (In re Lafayette Hotel P'ship), 227 B.R. 445, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)（「[鉴于]存在利用优势的动机和机会……破产案件中内部人的贷款必须接受严格的审查。」（引文省略）），aff'd, 198 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 1999)。「在适用严格审查时，法院关注涉案交易的完整性与彻底公平性，通常审查拟议交易的过程和价格是否不仅看起来公平而且实质公平，以及是否妥善考虑了信托义务。」In re Innkeepers USA Trust, 442 B.R. 227, 231 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)。\n\n13 Friedman 声明，附件 6，2021年4月7日信函，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 766（Hodgson Russ 律所的 K. Kearney 致 E. Moss 的信函，解释该律所曾在各项事务中代表郭氏，且该律所因其服务收到的款项系由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 支付）；亦见清单 D [ECF No. 78]（将 Golden Spring 列为金额未知的「诉讼资助」有担保债权人）及清单 F [ECF No. 78]（将 Golden Spring 列为约 $21,000,000「诉讼资助」的无担保债权人）。\n\n14 Friedman 声明，附件 7，证据听证会记录第 55:21–56:23 页；64:21–65:5 页，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 2, 2022), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179。\n\n15 参见 Friedman 声明，附件 8，关于动议的决定+命令第 4 页，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181（「听证会上被告证人口中提供的证言清楚且有说服力地证明，郭氏对 Lady May 号享有实益拥有权并实施控制……合理的推论是，郭氏向 HK International 提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。」）。\n\nB. 拟议的 DIP 信贷安排本质上是不公平的\n\n8. 破产法院不愿批准利用破产程序、且拟议融资的根本目的是使利害关系方而非债务人财产受益的申请后融资方案。参见，例如，In re Barbara K. Enters., Inc.，案号 08-11474 (MG)，2008 WL 2439649，第 *14 页（Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区破产法院）2008年6月16日）（“本法院知悉，其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，只要融资请求没有‘利用破产程序’并向一方利害关系方不公地出让重组控制权。”（引文省略））；In re Tamarack Resort, LLC.，案号 09-03911-TLM，2010 WL 4117459，第 *11 页（Bankr. N.D. Idaho（爱达荷北区破产法院）2010年10月19日）（“法院会审查拟议条款是否会损害《破产法典》为全体债权人利益所赋予的权力和权利，并通过赋予贷款人对债务人或其资产的过度控制权而利用第11章程序，从而不当地损害其他利害关系方的权利。”（引文省略））；In re Tenney Village Co., Inc.，104 B.R. 562, 568（Bankr. D.N.H.（新罕布什尔区破产法院）1989年）（裁定拟议融资“会将重组程序从旨在兼顾所有级别债权人和股权利益的程序，曲解为专门为[贷款人]以及为其债务提供担保的债务人负责人的利益而精心设计的程序”）。\n\n9. 在 Norris Square Civic Ass'n v. St. Mary Hospital (In re St. Mary Hospital) 一案中，破产法院驳回了债务人与其母公司拟议的申请后融资安排，因为拟议安排赋予了母公司对债务人所有未设定负担资产的超级优先权留置权，法院认为鉴于双方之间的关系以及交易的整体结果，这既不公平也不合理。86 B.R. 393, 401-03（Bankr E.D. Pa.（宾夕法尼亚东区破产法院）1988年）。\n\n10. 与债务人关于 DIP Lender（DIP贷款人）提供“慷慨”融资的主张相反，拟议 DIP 授信包含若干条款，这些条款旨在如果债务人违反《DIP贷款协议》，则以牺牲债务人财产为代价向 DIP 贷款人提供超级优先权主张：\n\n- 违约事件。以下违约事件16被预设为根据本法院对摆在其面前的某些待决动议的裁决而触发：17\n\t- o 就不动产自动中止作出准予救济 PAX Litigation（PAX诉讼）相关命令，及/或 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 PAX 诉讼的移送管辖动议；\n\t- o 未经 DIP 贷款人同意，本第11章案件被驳回或转为《破产法典》第7章项下的案件；或\n\t- o 如果指定了第11章受托人。\n- 救济措施。一旦发生违约事件，DIP 贷款人即“自动获得对任何或所有其他种类的行政管理费用均具有优先权的行政管理费用主张……其金额等于未支付的 DIP 贷款金额。”18\n- 11. 在债务人与 DIP 贷款人之间，没有任何关于这些条款进行公平、善意谈判的证据。19 此外，如下文所述，除有关拟议 DIP 授信何其“慷慨”的结论性陈述外，债务人未能就拟议 DIP 授信的必要性和合宜性提供任何分析。但如果法院批准了债务人的临时融资请求，随后又准许了中止动议、受托人动议及/或驳回动议，则 DIP 贷款人便可以带走 2,000,000 美元的超级优先权行政主张离开本案，而这是以牺牲债务人的其他债权人为代价的。这是不应被容许的。\n\n16 参见《DIP贷款协议》第 8.01 (e)-(g) 节。\n\n17 参见《Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 申请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) 条准予自动中止救济的命令之动议》[ECF No. 57]（即“中止动议”）；《美国受托人申请作出指令指定审查员，或备选地，指令指定第11章受托人的命令之动议》[ECF No. 102]（即“受托人动议”）；与本文件同时提交的《Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 驳回第11章案件，或备选地，部分加入美国受托人申请作出指令指定第11章受托人的命令之动议》[ECF No. 未填]（即“驳回动议”）。\n\n18 参见《DIP贷款协议》第 8.02 (b) 节。\n\n19 如果法院不直接驳回该动议，则应当推迟对该动议的审议，直至其确定是否应指定受托人、是否应解除自动中止，或者 PAX 即将提出的将其针对债务人的州法院诉讼发回重审的动议是否获得准许，而不是去批准一笔可能迫在眉睫发生违约的 DIP 贷款。\n\n12. 此外，与债务人声称的资产相比，拟议 DIP 授信中规定的专业人员费用数额极不相称（同样，比例超过 2,000:1），令人起疑，这表明债务人和 DIP 贷款人正合谋利用拟议 DIP 授信来资助州法院主张的重新诉讼（这不是《破产法典》的正当用途），并试图不当利用本案使 DIP 贷款人免受揭开公司面纱、另一个人格以及实质合并等主张的责任。这也应当予以制止。\n\nII. DIP 融资不符合债务人财产的最佳利益\n\n13. 动议中称，债务人“需要获得申请后融资以继续其诉讼，可能直至判决，以维护其债权人的利益，[并]协商并取得重组计划的确认。”动议第 34 段。\n\n14. 首先，动议未附预算，这使得评估拟议 DIP 收益的用途变得不可能。但可以推测，DIP 收益的绝大部分将被用于债务人针对 PAX 进行不当重新诉讼的努力，并用于对抗其他债权人，而不是为了其他债权人的利益。其次，与动议中所引用的先例相反，本案不是债务人寻求融资以维持营业的案件。参见，例如，In re Ames Dep't Stores, Inc.，115 B.R. 34（Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990年）（经营性企业寻求非内部人融资以继续采购存货并在第11章中开展业务）。在此处没有任何可以重组的内容。债务人曾在宣誓下陈述其没有业务、资产或现金流。尽管债务人作出其打算全额偿付所有债权人的结论性陈述，但没有任何证据表明一笔 800 万美元的 DIP 贷款如何推进该目标的实现。如果债务人及其家族想要全额偿付债权人，他们完全可以并且应当将他们可获得的巨额现金用于该目的。为此既不需要 DIP 融资，也不需要第11章计划。\n\n15. 债务人希望在其第11章案件在客观上毫无希望的情况下，由其债权人来承担以额外债务加重破产财产负担的风险。债务人引用的 Barbara K. Enterprises 案突出了这一问题：法院驳回了债务人的 DIP 动议，因为该“企业未来没有任何有意义的商业计划或预算。”In re Barbara K. Enters., Inc.，2008 WL 2439649，第 *15 页。法院认定，“债务人推进本破产案件以及公司未来运营的提议类似于初创企业，而不是寻求通过第11章进行重组的企业。”同上，第 *14 页。基于债务人就其商业计划所作的一贯“笼统陈述”，法院以“债务人成功重组的前景极低”为由驳回了拟议融资。同上。\n\n16. 就按其自述而言，债务人甚至比初创企业更不配获得融资，因为他根本没有任何经济前景。该动议完全建立在关于拟议 DIP 授信的好处以及债务人确认第11章计划前景的无支持的投机性断言之上。这不是正当的第11章重组，该动议是一次赤裸裸的企图，旨在让本法院认可债务人为其自身及其家族利益、为其针对债权人进行重新诉讼筹集资金的不当企图。\n\nIII. 第 364(e) 条不适用于 DIP 贷款人\n\n17. 《破产法典》第 364(e) 条规定，在融资命令随后被撤销的情况下，如果贷款是由“善意提供此类信贷的实体”发放，或优先权是由其获得，“无论该实体是否知悉上诉处于待决状态”，除非该命令在上诉期间被暂缓执行，否则根据第 364 条发放的贷款的有效性和优先权受法律保护。11 U.S.C. § 364(e)。《破产法典》第 364(e) 条不保护此类贷款人：“如果从贷款协议本身即可明显看出该交易具有《破产法典》项下不当的预期目的，则该贷款人不属于善意，且该不当目的究竟为何无关紧要。”In re EDC Holding Co.，676 F.2d 945, 948（7th Cir.（第七巡回上诉法院）1982年）（裁定如果贷款人出于《破产法典》项下不当的别有用心的目的向债务人提供信贷，则该贷款人不属于第 364(e) 条含义内的善意行为）。\n\n18. 债务人主张“法院应当认定 DIP 贷款人属于第 364(e) 条含义内的‘善意’贷款人”，因为“DIP 融资的条款和条件是公平合理的，并且是特意为避免损害任何债权人的利益而设计的。”动议第 40 段。但是，这是错误的。拟议 DIP 授信本质上是不公平的，并且暴露了债务人企图使其自身及其内部人受益而非使其财产受益的企图。善意的缺失是显而易见的，因此应相应地剥夺第 364(e) 条的保护。\n\n结论\n\n19. 基于上述理由，并在保留所有其他权利和救济措施的同时，PAX 谨请求本法院：(i) 驳回动议中请求的救济，以及 (ii) 准予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。如果法院准许该动议，则拟议的临时和最终命令的第 9 段应予以修改，以要求 DIP 贷款人在发生“违约事件”或违反 DIP 命令的规定时，向法院、美国受托人、PAX 以及无担保债权人官方委员会的律师提供书面通知。鉴于债务人与 DIP 贷款人之间的内部人关系，根据这些规定将通知仅限于债务人是不当的。\n\n[本页余下部分特意留白]\n\n日期：2022年4月6日 哈特福德，康涅狄格州\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\n\nPatrick M. Birney（康涅狄格州执业号：19875）\nAnnecca H. Smith（康涅狄格州执业号：31148）\nROBINSON & COLE LLP\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 275-8275\n传真：(860) 275-8299\n电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com\nasmith@rc.com\n\n-以及-\n\nPeter Friedman（经特许出庭（pro hac vice））\nStuart M. Sarnoff（经特许出庭（pro hac vice））\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2000\n传真：(212) 326-2061\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\nssarnoff@omm.com\n\n送达证书\n\n我特此证明，于2022年4月6日，前述文件的副本已通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统进行了电子提交。该提交的通知将通过电子邮件发送给通过法院电子提交系统的运行而接收通知的所有当事方。利害关系方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本提交文件。\n\n/s/ Patrick M. Birney\nPatrick M. Birney","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":102,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":117,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":160,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3805,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:49:10"}