{"id":"court_ctb_185_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":185,"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\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n## **MOTION OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT WITH RESPECT TO ITS MOTION TO DISMISS CHAPTER 11 CASE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL JOINDER TO UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE APPOINTMENT OF A CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), creditor of the above-captioned\n\ndebtor (\"Kwok\" or the \"Debtor\"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves (the\n\n\"Motion\") for authorization to exceed any page limit requirements for *Pacific Alliance Asia*\n\n*Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case or, in the Alternative, Partial*\n\n*Joinder to United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter*\n\n*11 Trustee* (the \"Dismissal Motion\"), filed concurrently herewith. In support of the Motion,\n\nPAX respectfully states as follows:\n\n## **BACKGROUND**\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor commenced this case following the February 9\n\nentry of a contempt order by the New York Supreme Court (Hon. Barry R. Ostrager) and a\n\n\\$134,000,000.00 fine payable within five business days of the order.<sup>2</sup>\n\n<sup>1</sup> The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n<sup>2</sup> *See* Ex. 1 to Ex. B to the *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].\n\n2. As described in the Dismissal Motion, (i) Kwok is abusing the bankruptcy system; (ii) Kwok is acting in bad faith by improperly attempting to make PAX relitigate already-resolved legal issues in a new forum; (iii) Kwok's estate is diminishing and has no reasonable prospect of rehabilitation, an enumerated cause for dismissal under the Bankruptcy Code; and (iv) Kwok's behavior constitutes \"gross mismanagement of the estate,\" as set forth in section 1112(b)(4)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n3. To address the numerous concerns raised by the Debtor's behavior and his inability to rehabilitate through this chapter 11 case, the Dismissal Motion provides uncontroverted facts through multiple state court records, decisions, and proceedings that substantiate dismissal. Further, the Dismissal Motion also analyzes the relevant multi-factor tests for dismissal and the voluminous facts supporting the analysis. The Dismissal Motion also seeks the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee as alternative relief. As a result, the Dismissal Motion totals forty (40) pages.\n\n## **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n4. Local Rule 7007-2(a) provides, among other things, that a \"brief shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages (excluding the table of contents and table of authorities).\" Local Bankr. R. 7007-2(a). Although Local Rule 7007-2(a) applies on its face only to briefs in adversary proceedings (and not expressly to contested matters) in an abundance of caution PAX seeks leave of the Court to exceed the 25 pages, and cause exists to grant the requested relief.\n\n5. The Dismissal Motion seeks two forms of alternative relief: either dismissal of the case under section 1112(b)(1) \"for cause\" or appointment of a trustee pursuant to section1104(a) of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"). Accordingly, the Dismissal Motion concerns multiple legal standards, as well as a complex factual background.\n\n6. Among other arguments, the Dismissal Motion enumerates three distinct ways this chapter 11 case represents a misuse of the bankruptcy system; facts that demonstrate the twelve *Syndicom* and *C-TC* factors considered when examining subjective bad faith; the objective futility of this chapter 11 proceeding; why there is no reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation; and examples of \"gross mismanagement\" of the bankruptcy estate.\n\n7. Seeking alternative forms of relief through a single motion serves the same interests of efficiency as the page limits imposed by the Local Rules. In addition, section 1112(b)(1) specifically states that dismissal is appropriate \"for cause unless the court determines that the appointment under section 1104(a) of a trustee or an examiner is in the best interests of creditors and the estate.\" Thus, the Dismissal Motion presents the necessary factual and legal support for both dismissal for cause or, in the alternative, appointment of a trustee, which requires significant pages.\n\n8. For these reasons, should Local Rule 7007-2(a) apply to the Dismissal Motion, cause exists to grant PAX leave to exceed the page limit.\n\nWHEREFORE, PAX respectfully requests the entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, granting (i) PAX leave to exceed the page limitation imposed by Local Rule 7007-2(a) and (ii) such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n[*Signature page on following page]*\n\nDated: April 6, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut **The Movant,**  Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P\n\n*By*: */s/ Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick 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","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）1\n\n第 11 章案号\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）就其驳回第 11 章案件之动议或备选的对美国受托人请求指令任命第 11 章受托人之动议的部分加入申请超出页数限制许可的动议\n\n上述标题所示债务人（“Kwok”或“债务人”）之债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”），通过其下述署名律师，特此动议（下称“本动议”），请求批准其与本动议同时提交的《Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 驳回第 11 章案件之动议或备选的对美国受托人请求指令任命第 11 章受托人之动议的部分加入》（下称“驳回动议”）超出任何适用的页数限制要求。为支持本动议，PAX 谨陈述如下：\n\n背景\n\n1. 2022年2月15日，在 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）（Hon. Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官））于2月9日下达藐视法庭裁定并处以须在裁定作出后五个工作日内支付的 $134,000,000.00 罚款后，债务人提起了本案诉讼。2\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号的后四位为 9595。\n\n2 参见《Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 请求作出确认自动中止不适用或备选的根据〈破产法典〉第 362(d)(2) 条免除自动中止之裁定的动议》[ECF No. 57] 附件 B 之附件 1。\n\n2. 正如驳回动议所述：(i) Kwok 正在滥用破产制度；(ii) Kwok 存在恶意行为，不当地企图迫使 PAX 在新的司法辖区重新诉讼已决的法律问题；(iii) Kwok 的破产财产正在减损且没有合理的重整前景，这是《破产法典》列明的驳回理由；以及 (iv) Kwok 的行为构成了《破产法典》第 1112(b)(4)(B) 条规定的“对破产财产的严重管理不善”。\n\n3. 为解决债务人的行为及其无法通过本第 11 章案件进行重整所引发的诸多关切，驳回动议通过多份州法院记录、裁判和诉讼程序提供了无可争议的事实以证实驳回的必要性。此外，驳回动议还分析了驳回的相关多因素标准及支持该分析的海量事实。驳回动议还寻求任命第 11 章受托人作为备选救济。因此，驳回动议总计达四十（40）页。\n\n救济依据\n\n4. 《本地规则》第 7007-2(a) 条规定，除其他事项外，“书状不得超过二十五（25）页（不包括目录和引用判例表）”。Local Bankr. R. 7007-2(a)。尽管《本地规则》第 7007-2(a) 条从字面上仅适用于对抗性诉讼中的书状（并未明确适用于有争议事项），但出于审慎考虑，PAX 谨向法院申请超出 25 页的许可，且存在批准所请求救济的正当理由。\n\n5. 驳回动议寻求两种形式的备选救济：要么根据第 1112(b)(1) 条“基于正当理由”驳回案件，要么根据《美国法典》第 11 编（下称“《破产法典》”）第 1104(a) 条任命受托人。因此，驳回动议涉及多项法律标准以及复杂的事实背景。\n\n6. 在其他主张中，驳回动议列举了本第 11 章案件构成对破产制度之滥用的三种不同方式；证明在审查主观恶意时所考量的十二项 Syndicom 和 C-TC 因素的事实；本第 11 章程序的客观无效性；为何不存在重整的合理可能性；以及对破产财产“严重管理不善”的事例。\n\n7. 通过单一动议寻求备选形式的救济，符合《本地规则》设定页数限制所追求的效率利益。此外，第 1112(b)(1) 条明确规定，驳回适用于“存在正当理由的情形，除非法院认定根据第 1104(a) 条任命受托人或审查人最符合债权人和破产财产的利益”。因此，驳回动议为基于正当理由驳回或备选的任命受托人均提供了必要的事实和法律依据，这需要相当大的篇幅。\n\n8. 基于上述理由，若《本地规则》第 7007-2(a) 条适用于驳回动议，则存在准许 PAX 超出页数限制的正当理由。\n\n为此，PAX 谨请求法院作出基本上与本动议附件 A 格式相同的裁定：(i) 准许 PAX 超出《本地规则》第 7007-2(a) 条规定的页数限制；以及 (ii) 给予法院认为公正恰当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n[签名页见下页]\n\n日期：2022年4月6日 康涅狄格州哈特福德 动议人：Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) ROBINSON & COLE LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 电话：(860) 275-8275 传真：(860) 275-8299 电子邮箱：pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-以及-\n\nPeter Friedman（特许出庭律师） Stuart M. Sarnoff（特许出庭律师） O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 电话：(212) 326-2000 传真：(212) 326-2061 电子邮箱：pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":863,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:36:05"}