{"id":"court_ctb_347_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":347,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","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\n| In re:            |         | : |  |\n|-------------------|---------|---|--|\n|                   |         | : |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK, |         |   |  |\n|                   | Debtor. | : |  |\n|                   |         |   |  |\n\n: CHAPTER 11\n\n: Case No. 22-50073(JAM)\n\n: Hearing Date: May 25, 2022\n\n# **OBJECTION OF CREDITORS RUI MA, ZHENG WU AND WEICAN MENG TO THE MOTION OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. FOR DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR APPOINTMENT OF A TRUSTEE**\n\nCreditors Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and Weican Meng (\"**Creditors**\"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit this objection (\"**Objection**\") to the motion of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"**PAX**\") for dismissal of this case or, in the alternative, for appointment of a trustee (the \"**Dismissal Motion**\"), and respectfully state as follows:\n\n# **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**<sup>2</sup>\n\n1. The Creditors join in and adopt by reference the opposition of the Official\n\nCommittee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in this Case (the \"**Committee**\") to the Dismissal\n\nMotion filed contemporaneously with this Objection.\n\n2. By the Dismissal Motion, PAX seeks the extraordinary remedy of dismissing this\n\nChapter 11 Case. Even if the Debtor has engaged in wrongdoing, PAX has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the reorganization process serves no legitimate purpose and would be\n\n<sup>1</sup> The above-named Debtor and Debtor in Possession, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"**Debtor**\" or \"**Kwok**\") is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not defined in this preliminary statement have the meaning ascribed to such terms below or in the Dismissal Motion.\n\nobjectively futile. Moreover, dismissal of the Case at this juncture is not in the best interest of creditors or the estate, and would solely benefit one creditor, PAX.\n\n3. PAX's proclamation of this Case as a typical \"two-party dispute\" is simply wrong -- there are dozens of legitimate creditors in this Case. While purporting to take aim at the Debtor, the Dismissal Motion seeks to allow PAX to jump ahead of the Debtor's other creditors to win the proverbial \"race to the courthouse\" to the detriment of other creditors. This Case should be allowed to proceed (within parameters) to pursue equality of distribution among creditors, which is a legitimate bankruptcy purpose, under the auspices of the Court's oversight and the watchful and discerning eyes of the Committee and the United States Trustee (and, of course, individual creditors such as PAX).\n\n4. Conversely, PAX is not unreasonably prejudiced by denying the Dismissal Motion at this time. PAX's asserted concerns respecting the Debtor's attempt to relitigate issues already determined by Judge Ostrager in the PAX State Court Litigation and of \"continuing loss\" to the estate are not compelling. The Court has repeatedly stated it will not relitigate matters already decided by Judge Ostrager, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. Moreover, currently there is no substantial, if any, diminution in estate assets due to, among other reasons, (a) no funds identified as belonging to the estate are being used to pay any administrative claims, (b) the Boat Delivery Order provides that \\$37 million will remain in escrow pending the return of the Lady May -- and the Lady May is scheduled to be returned to the U.S. jurisdiction by July 15, 2022, and (c) the DIP Lender's claims are subordinated to general unsecured creditors. Moreover, the centralization of disputes concerning the Debtor in this Court, with the expanded investigatory, avoidance and equitable powers that are available in bankruptcy court (such as Rule 2004 examinations, avoidance of insider and other preferential transactions, debt recharacterization, equitable subordination, and substantive consolidation), and the oversight of the Debtor by this Court as well as the United States Trustee and the Committee, has great benefits for general unsecured creditors (including PAX) over any non-bankruptcy alternative. This Case, therefore, has a legitimate purpose. Accordingly, PAX fails to demonstrate that the Case lacks a legitimate purpose and does not preserve values for creditors.\n\n5. While the Creditors' share a concern with PAX about the Debtor potentially abusing the Court process by continuing to obfuscate his assets and not pursuing recovery of assets, a dismissal of the Case now is premature. The Court should grant some leeway and evaluate the progress of this Case. Even if mismanagement of the estate and misconduct against the Debtor are ultimately proven, continuation of the bankruptcy process is still the optimal path to facilitate recoveries for all creditors and the Court can fashion procedures to ensure proper management of the Case going forward. This is an unusual case concerning an individual chapter 11 debtor in which there currently are no operations and only de minimis declared assets for a fiduciary to currently manage. And, despite the Creditors' strong distrust of the Debtor, the fortuity of the Debtor's commencement of this Case may be their best, and possibly only, alternative to obtain any real recovery from the Debtor (or his co-conspirators). Any investigative, clawback or turnover demand responsibilities can and should be performed by the Committee. Currently, the Case presents an opportunity for creditors to have key disputes concerning the Debtor heard in a single forum – before the Court. The Debtor has arranged for initial funding to allow the Committee to investigate the Debtor's assets and financial affairs, including potentially identifying hidden and fraudulently transferred assets. The Committee has begun its investigation process. A bar date motion has been filed by the Debtor and the claims reconciliation process can soon thereafter commence. Within weeks, the Debtor's exclusivity could be terminated, and parties (in addition to the Debtor) could propose a plan in this Case, which *has* the possibility of being confirmed (contrary to PAX's assertion that no plan can be confirmed).\n\n6. In sum, PAX has not demonstrated the requisite \"cause\" to dismiss the Case at this time. To the extent \"cause\" is found to exist, this Case presents unusual circumstances that warrant denying the Dismissal Motion. The Case provides creditors (including PAX) with the opportunity to investigate the Debtor's assets and to ensure equitable distribution of the Debtor's assets to all his creditors – at the expense of non-Debtor insider parties. Indeed, this case potentially is the best chance for creditors to obtain recoveries from the Debtor – as evident by the fact that since the Petition Date, these proceedings have resulted in \\$37 million being deposited into an escrow account within the United States pending the return of the Lady May. The Court has the power to monitor this Case to avoid mismanagement and ensure the Debtor complies with his duties and his (and his counsel's) representations that creditors will be able to fully investigate the Debtor's assets and financial affairs. If the Debtor fails to comply with such obligations causing a stalemate and/or hindering the progress of this Case, dismissal may be warranted at such time. The Court also has the power to avoid the relitigation of issues already decided by other courts of competent jurisdiction, and to ultimately approve or disapprove fees and other administrative expenses in this Case.\n\n7. The Creditors further submit that the Dismissal Motion should be denied as futile. Because of the massive benefits for unsecured creditors from centralizing their disputes, the broad bankruptcy powers to marshal assets, and oversight of this Debtor before this Court as compared to any state court, and to avoid a windfall for PAX of sanctions in an amount more than 100% of its damages claim at the expense of other creditors, if this Case is dismissed the Creditors intend to pursue an involuntary petition against the Debtor. The Dismissal Motion, therefore, serves no effective purpose.\n\n8. Accordingly, the Dismissal Motion should be denied without prejudice for any party to seek dismissal at a future time in the event, among other things, the Debtor fails to cause adequate funding of the Case, hinders the investigation into his assets and/or hinders the progress of this Case toward an orderly resolution of creditors' claims and distribution of the Debtor's assets in accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code (and other applicable laws and rules).\n\n9. At this time, the Creditors also oppose the appointment of a trustee or examiner in this Case.<sup>3</sup> The Creditors submit that it would be in the best interests of all parties involved for this Case to proceed judiciously at least through the end of July. During that time the Committee will be able to pursue its investigations, and the Debtor will either demonstrate its compliance with (or flout) its obligation to return the Lady May to this jurisdiction by July 15th (without additional tactics to hinder such compliance). The Creditors are concerned about the significant delays and the unnecessary additional and substantial administrative expenses that necessarily will be incurred in the event an examiner or trustee is appointed.\n\n10. Although not required pursuant to Section 1112(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, in the event the Court finds that a chapter 11 trustee or examiner must be appointed if the Case is\n\n<sup>3</sup> *See* Creditors' limited opposition to Examiner/Trustee Motion. [ECF No. 170].\n\nnot dismissed, the Creditors strongly urge the Court to opt for the appointment of an examiner with a scope of examination narrowly tailored to work in concert with, and not duplicate, the investigatory efforts of the Committee, which is already in progress. Such appointment, to the extent necessary, would be the most efficient and effective due to the unique facts of this Case – not a trustee as supported by PAX in the Dismissal Motion. Whereas, a trustee would not have any better access (then, for instance, the Committee) to information that is within the control of the individual Debtor, and there currently is no business or accessible assets to \"manage\".\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n#### **A. The Chapter 11 Case.**\n\n11. 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**\") commencing this chapter 11 case (the \"**Chapter 11 Case**\" or \"**Case**\"). Since that time, the Debtor has remained a debtor-in-possession pursuant to §§1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n12. No trustee or examiner has yet been appointed in this Chapter 11 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 May 25, 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\n13. On March 20, 2022, the Debtor filed his Declaration in Support of Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions [ECF No. 107] (\"**Kwok Dec**.\"). In his declaration, the Debtor represents that among the purposes for filing his chapter 11 case \"was to provide a forum to determine, once and for all, the extent of allowed claims against my estate (*see* Kwok Dec., ¶42) and \"to … (b) afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate [his] assets, liabilities, and financial affairs, given what [he] perceive[d] to be misunderstandings in that regard; [and] (c) establish what assets are estate property and, in turn, available for distribution to holders of allowed claims\" (Kwok Dec., ¶3).\n\n14. On March 21, 2022, the Committee was officially appointed by the UST. The Committee has filed motions for authorization to take certain Rule 2004 examinations and issue subpoenas for document production in connection with its investigation into the Debtor's assets and financial affairs. [ECF Nos. 252, 295, 297]. Subject to Court approval, the Committee has also engaged a financial advisor, Dundon Advisers LLC, and Gregory A. Coleman of Coleman Worldwide Advisors LLC, as its fraud investigation consultant, to assist the Committee with, among other things, investigating (and identifying) the Debtor's assets and financial affairs. [ECF Nos. 321, 325].\n\n15. On March 1, 2022, 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 [ECF No. 57] (the \"**PAX Lift Stay Motion**\"). In sum, PAX sought to enforce a Decision and Order of Civil Contempt (the \"**February 9 Contempt Order**\") issued by Judge Barry R. Ostrager (\"**Judge Ostrager**\") on February 9, 2022 in a certain New York state court litigation (the \"**PAX State Court Litigation**\") compelling the Debtor to remit a \\$134 million contempt fine for not returning the \"Lady May\" yacht or face imprisonment.<sup>4</sup> Subsequently, objections and supporting briefs were filed by various parties. After a series of hearings on the PAX Lift Stay Motion, it was resolved by an extensively negotiated Stipulated Order Compelling HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC (\"**HK**\") to Transport and Deliver That Certain Yacht, the \"Lady May\" [ECF No. 299] (the \"**Boat Delivery Order**\"). In summary, pursuant to the Boat Delivery Order, HK posted \\$37 million in cash with U.S. Bank, as escrow agent, to secure the return of the Lady May to this jurisdiction by July 15, 2022.\n\n16. On March 22, 2022, the Debtor filed a 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**\"). Pursuant to the DIP Motion, an insider entity, Golden Spring (New York), Ltd. (the \"**DIP Lender**\"), proposes to provide a postpetition unsecured and subordinated loan to the Debtor of up to \\$8 million. A modified proposed Interim DIP Order was filed with the Court on May 3, 2022 [ECF No. 315]. After briefings and initial hearings, the interim relief sought in the DIP Motion, as modified, is currently under advisement.\n\n## **B. The Dismissal Motion.**\n\n17. On April 6, 2022, PAX filed the Dismissal Motion. In the Dismissal Motion, PAX asserts that the Case should be dismissed \"for cause\" under section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. PAX argues \"cause\" exists due to the Debtor's purported misuse of the Bankruptcy System because (i) the Debtor's purposes for the Case are illegitimate, (ii) the Case fails to preserve value for creditors, and (iii) the Case is a litigation tactic in a \"two-party\n\n<sup>4</sup> PAX initially obtained a judgment for damages in an amount of \\$46,426,489 plus interest, resulting in a total judgment of \\$116,402,019.57. *See* PAX Lift Stay Motion, Exhibit 1 to Exhibit A, at 2.\n\ndispute.\" *See* Dismissal Motion, 23-29. PAX also argues the Case was filed in bad faith. *See Id.*, 29-35. Included in its \"bad faith\" argument, PAX asserts that the Case is futile because purportedly PAX's assent will be necessary to confirm a plan and PAX's opposition will prevent any such confirmation. *Id*. ¶ 61. In addition, PAX asserts \"cause\" also exists to dismiss the Case because purportedly (i) the estate continues to diminish in value and there is no reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation under Section 1112(b)(4)(A), and the Debtor is grossly mismanaging the estate under Section 1112(b)(4)(B). *Id*., 35-38.<sup>5</sup>\n\n18. In the alternative, PAX asserts that a chapter 11 trustee should be appointed as requested by the UST in the Examiner/Trustee Motion. PAX argues that cause exists to appoint a chapter 11 trustee and such appointment is in the interests of all creditors if the Case is not dismissed. *Id*., 39-44.\n\n### **ARGUMENT**\n\n19. PAX fails to establish the requisite \"cause\" for dismissal at this stage of the Case. Moreover, despite PAX's casting the relief request in the Dismissal Motion as beneficial to all creditors (Dismissal Motion ¶¶ 44-46, 65, 71), this Case presents unusual circumstances that establish that dismissal of the Case at this juncture would solely benefit PAX, to the detriment of all other creditors. Accordingly, the Dismissal Motion should be denied.\n\n20. Section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides in relevant part that:\n\n(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (c),<sup>6</sup> on request of a party in interest, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 or dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause unless the\n\n<sup>5</sup> PAX also argues that dismissal rather than conversion or the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee is the best disposition. *Id*., 39.\n\n<sup>6</sup> Section 1112(c) prohibits the involuntary conversion of a chapter 11 case of a farmer or non-for-profit debtor, neither of which is applicable here. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(c).\n\ncourt determines that the appointment under [section 1104\\(a\\)](http)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4) of a trustee or an examiner is in the best interests of creditors and the estate.\n\n(2) The court may not convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 or dismiss a case under this chapter if the court finds and specifically identifies unusual circumstances establishing that converting or dismissing the case is not in the best interests of creditors and the estate, and the debtor or any other party in interest establishes that--\n\n(A) there is a reasonable likelihood that a plan will be confirmed within the timeframes established in [sections 1121\\(e\\)](http)#co_pp_7fdd00001ca15) and [1129\\(e\\)](http)#co_pp_7fdd00001ca15) of this title, or if such sections do not apply, within a reasonable period of time; and\n\n(B) the grounds for converting or dismissing the case include an act or omission of the debtor other than under paragraph (4)(A) -\n\n(i) for which there exists a reasonable justification for the act or omission; and\n\n(ii) that will be cured within a reasonable period of time fixed by the court.\n\n11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1), (2).\n\n21. Section 1112(b)(4) sets forth sixteen non-exclusive grounds for \"cause\", including\n\n(A) substantial or continuing loss to or diminution of the estate and the absence of a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation, and (B) gross mismanagement of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4).\n\n22. The moving party has the burden of demonstrating \"cause\" for dismissal under Section 1112(b). *See In re AdBrite Corp.*, 290 B.R. 209, 218 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003). \"Cause\" must be assessed against the backdrop that dismissal is a \"drastic measure\" and should not be done prematurely. *In re Waterworks, Inc*., 538 B.R. 445, 460 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2015) (*quoting In re Sal Caruso Cheese, Inc*., 107 B.R. 808, 817 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1989)). \"Bankruptcy judges have wide discretion to determine whether cause exists to dismiss or convert a case under section 1112(b).\" *In re Fuschi-Aibel*, 2020 WL 714324, \\* 3 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 24, 2020) (*quoting In re BH S & B Holdings, LLC*, 439 B.R. 342, 346 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)).\n\n23. In the Second Circuit, grounds to dismiss a bankruptcy exist only if it was clear on the filing date that \"there was no reasonable likelihood that the debtor intended to reorganize and no reasonable probability that it would eventually emerge from bankruptcy proceedings.\" *In re C-TC 9th Avenue Partnership*, 113 F.3d 1304, 1309-10 (2d Cir. 1997). \"Dismissal is generally ordered only where there is both objective futility in pursuing a bankruptcy filing and subjective bad-faith in actually following through with a filing.\" *General Growth Properties, Inc.*, 409 B.R. 43, at 57, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)(*citing In re Kingston Square Assoc*., 214 B.R. 713, 725 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997)).\n\n### **I. CAUSE DOES NOT EXIST TO DISMISS THE CHAPTER 11 CASE**\n\n24. The Creditors do not dispute PAX's assertion that the Debtor has engaged in wrongful conduct including \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members\" (February 9 Contempt Order, at 1), \"secret[ing] his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members\" (*Id.*), and orchestrating a \"shell game… with respect to the Lady May\" (*Id.*, at 7) as found by Judge Ostrager in the February 9 Contempt Order. The Creditors also do not dispute that Judge Ostrager already found that \"Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht,\" (*Id.*, at 8) and that these issues should not be relitigated before the Court in this Case. In addition, it is undisputed that one of the reasons the Debtor commenced the Case was because he was facing an imminent risk of incarceration for violating Judge Ostrager's orders. Despite these egregious acts by the Debtor, they do not establish \"cause\" to dismiss this Case at this time. Rather, additional facts are relevant to evaluating the totality of the circumstances, as discussed herein, which dictate denying the Dismissal Motion.\n\n### **A.** *PAX FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THE REQUISITE \"MISUSE\" OF THE BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM BY DEBTOR TO ESTABLISH \"CAUSE\".*\n\n#### *i. A legitimate purpose exists for this Case.*\n\n25. A legitimate purpose exists for this Case. At the time of the Petition Date, the Debtor was a defendant in more than 24 lawsuits. *See Debtor's Statement of Financial Affairs*, Question #9, [ECF No. 77 at pp. 22-25]. The Debtor's list of top creditors identifies non-insider claims in excess of \\$80 million [ECF No. 20], with the three Creditors alone asserting in excess of \\$30 million in claims against the Debtor (which is not much less than PAX's actual damages award (without interest) of approximately \\$46 million). The Debtor's schedules reflect dozens of other non-insider claims asserted against the Debtor with total claim amounts in excess of \\$373 million. (Debtor's Schedules, ECF No. 77 at p.10). A bar date has not yet been set in the Case.\n\n26. The Debtor represents that among the purposes for filing this Case \"was to provide a forum to determine, once and for all, the extent of allowed claims against my estate (*see* Kwok Dec., ECF No. 107, ¶42) and \"to … (b) afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate [his] assets, liabilities, and financial affairs, given what [he] perceive[d] to be misunderstandings in that regard; [and] (c) establish what assets are estate property and, in turn, available for distribution to holders of allowed claims.\" [ECF No. 107, ¶3]. These are legitimate purposes of bankruptcy. These facts also refute PAX's self-centered argument that the Case *solely* involves a two-party dispute -- it does not. The Creditors have valid claims and intend to fully pursue their claims against the Debtor.\n\n#### *ii. The Case Preserves Value for Creditors.*\n\n27. To the extent the Debtor adequately funds this Case to enable creditors to fully investigate the Debtor's assets and financial affairs (as well as funding allowed claims) – as the Debtor and his counsel have represented to the Court (*see Omnibus Reply of Debtor in Support of Entry of Order Approving DIP Facility*, ECF No. 198, ¶¶ 2, 8 and 10), then the Case would preserve value for creditors; contrary to PAX's argument. Properly administered, this Case will indeed benefit legitimate unsecured creditors. The Debtor has taken initial steps to preserve value for creditors. The DIP loan proposed by the DIP Motion, as modified, would provide an unsecured and subordinated loan to the Debtor that will enable the Committee to investigate the Debtor's assets.\n\n28. At minimum, PAX would not jump ahead of other creditors, and funds through gifts and subordinated loans would enable the Committee to investigate the Debtor's assets and financial affairs, which would benefit all creditors. Subject to Court approval, the Committee has engaged Mr. Coleman, the former FBI agent who was instrumental in unwinding the transactions and fraud perpetrated by the \"wolf of wall street\". (*See* ECF No. 325). The Committee should be afforded the opportunity to work with Mr. Coleman to investigate the Debtor's historical transactions in order to identify and clawback, as appropriate, assets of the estate.\n\n29. Moreover, PAX's argument that this Case does not involve an issue of a \"race to the courthouse\" is disingenuous. PAX is well aware that it would jump ahead of other creditors and would seize assets of the Debtor for its own benefit, to the detriment of the remaining creditors whose claims have not yet been liquidated. The Court should not countenance PAX's efforts to leapfrog ahead of other general unsecured creditors. While PAX's claim may be unique from other unsecured creditors in that its claim is liquidated and non-contingent, 7 it does not justify allowing PAX to obtain more favorable treatment from other non-insider unsecured creditors. Moreover, at this time, the Boat Delivery Order and the \\$37 million being held in escrow amply protect PAX's interest in enforcing the Debtor's compliance with the February 9 Contempt Order while this Case proceeds.\n\n30. Therefore, the only obvious goal of PAX to dismiss the Case is to seize assets of the Debtor for itself in contravention of the priority scheme provided by the Bankruptcy Code. This is a classic race to the courthouse situation where substantially all parties benefit from the automatic stay – indeed, because PAX's actual claim for damages has more than doubled by state court penalties that were intended to (but failed) to compel the Debtor's compliance, dismissing the Case would only reward PAX with an unearned windfall in collecting such penalties potentially at the expense of other legitimate creditors in this Case.\n\n### *iii. The Case is Not a Two-Party Dispute.*\n\n31. The Court should also reject PAX's attempt to characterize this case and its facts as a two-party dispute. (Dismissal Motion, ¶¶ 46-51). None of the cases cited by PAX support that characterization. Despite PAX's self-absorbed description, this case does not simply involve a binary dispute between the Debtor and one creditor (PAX). This is not a case involving a sole mortgage lender and a debtor whose only genuine legal issue is an imminent foreclosure. Here, the Debtor had dozens of litigations pending against him as of the Petition Date with potential claims exceeding \\$100 million -- which are now stayed due to the filing of this Case. *See, supra*,\n\n<sup>7</sup> PAX asserts it is the *only* \"current, non-contingent creditor.\" Dismissal Motion, ¶46. Also, a significant portion of PAX's claim is comprised of interest and contempt fines.\n\nat ¶ 25. While PAX has the largest claim in this case, it is readily apparent that there are numerous legitimate non-insider creditors with material claims against the Debtor, including creditors with claims in advanced stages of state court litigation. *See, supra*, at ¶¶ 25, 27-29; *see also* Creditor, Rui Ma's motion for relief from the automatic stay, [ECF No. 206, ¶¶ 6-9].\n\n32. Accordingly, PAX has not demonstrated the requisite \"misuse\" of the bankruptcy system to warrant dismissal of the Case at this time.\n\n## *B. PAX FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THE REQUISITE \"BAD FAITH\" TO WARRANT DISMISSAL.*\n\n33. PAX also contends that cause for dismissal exists because the Case was filed in bad faith. In the Second Circuit, a bad faith filing requires a showing of both \"objective\" and \"subjective\" bad faith. *In re Gen. Growth Props*., 409 B.R. 43, 56 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) (*citing In re Kingston Square Assocs*., 214 B.R. 713, 725 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997)).\n\n34. \"In determining whether good faith is absent (and bad faith is present), the court must consider the totality of the circumstances – not one single factor.\" *In re Encore Management of Western New York, LLC*, 585 B.R. 22, 30 (W.D.N.Y. 2018). Here, the totality of the circumstances demonstrates a valid bankruptcy purpose exists (presuming the Debtor causes adequate funding to be provided to allow for a fulsome investigation into his assets and financial affairs). Essentially PAX argues the Debtor's filing was in bad faith because the bankruptcy filing avoided (at least temporarily) the Debtor being incarcerated and precluded PAX from obtaining first to-the-courthouse, preferential relief to the detriment of Debtor's other creditors. But preventing such an outcome, in favor of affording all stakeholders a collective remedy, in a central forum capable of distributing estate assets ratably and in accordance with law, is precisely one of the purposes the Bankruptcy Code was designed to serve.<sup>8</sup>\n\n35. PAX's analysis of the eight (8) factors identified in *C-TC* as evidence of a bad faith filing twists the facts of the Case to try to fit them within the *C-TC* factors – but application of those factors overwhelmingly weighs in favor of denying dismissal. *See* Dismissal Motion, 31-33; *In re C-TC 9th Avenue Partnership*, 113 F.3d at 1312. Simply, (i) this Case is not a single asset case (there are multiple potential assets at issue in this Case, which are already part of the record of this Case), (ii) this case involves more than a few de minimis creditors -- there are dozens of non-insider creditors listed on the Debtor's schedules with claims totaling in excess of \\$100 million (excluding PAX), (iii) the Debtor's assets involve more than a sole asset subject to foreclosure, (iv) this Case is not simply a two-party dispute (see *supra*, ¶ 32); and (v) at minimum, through gifts and subordinated loans the Debtor can meet his expense obligations (see, *e.g.*, proposed Interim DIP Order, ECF No. 315). Because this chapter 11 case involves an individual debtor (not a corporation) there are no employees at issue, so that factor is neutral. While there is purportedly little or no earned cash flow, the Debtor is able to obtain gifts and loans<sup>9</sup> providing cash to him, as needed, so this factor also is neutral or favors not dismissing the Case. The only genuine factor weighing in PAX's favor is the timing of the filing to avoid the impending imprisonment ramifications of the Debtor's failure to comply with the February\n\n<sup>8</sup> In the event the Debtor's bankruptcy filing is found to be a ruse or abuse of process, then the Debtor should be held accountable for the additional harm he caused to the Creditors and other parties involved with this Case. While reserving all rights to assert fraud by the Debtor, the Creditors point in this Objection is that the Court should reserve ruling (or the effect thereof) to allow time to see whether the Debtor does the right thing through this Case, such as arranging for proper funding, or shows his true colors and continues with his prior egregious conduct of fraud, deception and abuse of process.\n\n<sup>9</sup> The characterization of the source of funds is subject to dispute but are described as gifts and loans for purposes of this Objection since that is how the Debtor (and PAX in the Dismissal Motion) describe them. The Creditors reserve their rights to have such funds declared property of, or properly belonging to, the Debtor.\n\n9 Contempt Order. That factor is not enough to justify a dismissal of the Case when evaluated in the context of the totality of the circumstances of the Case.\n\n36. Similarly, contrary to PAX's application of the *Syndicom* factors (Dismissal Motion, 33-34), as of the Petition Date, the Debtor was involved with more than thirty lawsuits and has creditors asserting claims in excess of \\$373 million.<sup>10</sup> (Debtor's Schedules, ECF No. 77 at p.10). Therefore, the Debtor had and continues to have other financial pressures. Further, other than PAX, unsecured creditors would be prejudiced by the dismissal of the Case because PAX would be able to pursue seizure of the Debtor's assets to the detriment of other unsecured creditors.\n\n37. Moreover, other than precluding the enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order, which has preliminarily been addressed by the Boat Delivery Order (*i.e*., directing the return of the Lady May by July 15th and holding \\$37 million in escrow pending compliance), at this juncture there is no improper \"litigation advantage\" associated with the Debtors' Case. The Debtor's assets will be marshalled and brought into the estate for distribution in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme.\n\n38. PAX also asserts that any plan would be futile and therefore bad faith exists. (Dismissal Motion, ¶¶ 60-61). The Court should reject PAX's claim that its opposition to any potential plan makes this case objectively futile. PAX fails to establish that such purported leverage is absolute (it is not) and that confirmation of any plan is impossible.\n\n39. Moreover, in staking its position that a plan cannot be confirmed in the Case because PAX would not vote to accept any plan (Dismissal Motion, ¶ 61), PAX itself may be\n\n<sup>10</sup> PAX's claim comprises \\$254,000 of such total.\n\nacting in bad faith, and at minimum prematurely. *See General Growth Properties, Inc.*, 409 B.R. 43, at 57, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)(finding lender acting prematurely, and arguably in bad faith, in seeking dismissal of newly filed case based on position that lender's consent to plan was needed for confirmation and lender would never agree to a plan). Parties often find it in their interest to reach an agreement on a plan. *Id*. at 65.\n\n40. Further, the Debtor's exclusive period to file a plan could be terminated within weeks, and a proposed plan could properly provide for separate classification and treatment of contractual claims and non-consensual personal injury claims, or liquidated, non-contingent claims from unliquidated and contingent claims. 11 Under the proposed Interim DIP Order filed with the Court on May 3, 2022, the Committee may seek to terminate the Debtor's exclusive period on or after June 17, 2022, *i.e*., after the initial 120 days from the Petition Date [ECF No. 315, ¶6(c)]. Regardless, after a proper investigation into the Debtor's potential assets and financial affairs, a confirmable plan is reasonably obtainable in this Case. Whether through gifts or unsecured subordinated loans obtained by the Debtor, or through the Committee's investigation and asset recovery process, there is a reasonable likelihood assets will be available to legitimate creditors under a confirmable plan in this Case. It is, therefore, premature for the Court to determine that a plan could not be confirmed.\n\n41. Accordingly, PAX has failed to demonstrate the requisite bad faith to warrant dismissal of the Case.\n\n<sup>11</sup> Of course, the specifics of any such plan will be material to the plan analysis at such time. The Creditors expressly reserve their rights to evaluate the appropriateness of any such classification scheme in the context of a proper plan process.\n\n# *C. PAX FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ESTATE CONTINUES TO DIMINISH IN VALUE AND THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF REHABILITATION UNDER SECTION 1112(b)(4)(A), OR THAT THE DEBTOR IS GROSSLY MISMANAGING THE ESTATE UNDER SECTION 1112(b)(4)(B); ACCORDINGLY, NO CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL EXISTS.*\n\n42. As explained above (s*upra*, ¶¶ 27-30, 38-40), the estate is not diminishing in value and there is a reasonable likelihood that a confirmable plan can be achieved in this Case.<sup>12</sup> Further, while the Creditors agree with PAX that the Debtor is not being transparent with his assets and is not fulfilling all the duties of a fiduciary in the Case by failing to pursue recovery of assets from insiders, there are no operations or cash on hand that require day to day management and thus the estate is not being grossly mismanaged. The Debtor has arranged for an initial DIP financing to allow an investigation into his assets and financial affairs. The Committee is poised to promptly investigate the Debtor's assets and financial affairs and has the ability to seek authority to clawback, or compel turnover, of assets for the benefit of the estate.<sup>13</sup>\n\n43. Therefore, under the circumstances of this Case, PAX has failed to demonstrate the Debtor is grossly mismanaging the estate.\n\n44. Accordingly, PAX has not established that cause exists under Sections 1112(b)(4)(A) or (b)(4)(B) to dismiss the Case.\n\n## **II. THE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE ESTABLISH THAT DISMISSING THE CASE IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF CREDITORS, AND THE DISMISSAL MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED.**\n\n45. Even if \"cause\" was established, which PAX has not established, unusual\n\n<sup>12</sup> This presumes oversight to ensure the Debtor complies with his, and his counsel's representations to the Court of providing transparency and adequate funding to allow for a fulsome investigation into the Debtor's assets and financial affairs.\n\n<sup>13</sup> Subject to Court approval, the Committee would have derivative standing to pursue claims and causes of action on behalf of the estate.\n\ncircumstances exist here establishing that dismissing the Case is not in the best interests of creditors and the estate.\n\n46. Section 1112(b) provides that even if the Court finds that cause is established \"the court may not convert … or dismiss a case under this chapter if the court finds and specifically identifies unusual circumstances establishing that converting or dismissing the case is not in the best interests of creditors and the estate,\" and a party in interest establishes that (a) there is a reasonable likelihood that a plan will be confirmed within the requisite time frame and (b) there exists a reasonable justification for the act or omission that constitute the grounds for converting or dismissing the case or such act or omission will be cured within a reasonable period of time fixed by the court. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1), (2); *In re Ashley Oaks Dev. Corp*., 458 B.R. 280, 284 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2011) (holding that \"unusual circumstances\" exception applies to all \"cause\" shown).\n\n47. The statute does not define \"unusual circumstances,\" but courts generally look for \"unusual facts or circumstances [that] demonstrate that the purpose of chapter 11 would be better served by maintaining the case as a chapter 11 proceeding.\" *In re Orbit Petroleum, Inc*., 395 B.R. 145, 149–50 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2008) (despite finding \"cause\", a proposed plan that proposed to pay creditors in full constituted unusual circumstances justifying denying dismissal or conversion). Bankruptcy courts have wide discretion in making the determination as to whether there are unusual circumstances that should prevent dismissal. *See [In re 1031 Tax Grp.,](http)#co_pp_sp_164_93)  LLC*[, 374 B.R. 78, 93 \\(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007\\)\\)](http)#co_pp_sp_164_93). This Case is full of unusual facts and circumstances that demonstrate that maintaining this Case in chapter 11 is the best way to advance the purpose of a chapter 11 case and protect the interests of all constituents in accordance with\n\nthe policies and requirements of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n- 48. Some unusual facts here include:\n\t- This chapter 11 Case involves an individual debtor (not a corporation). 14\n\t- For years, on social media and in other communications, the Debtor held himself out as a billionaire, but now claims to have little assets (other than a couple of speculative claims or causes of action).\n\t- This individual Debtor is party to dozens of litigations, including one in the British Virgin Islands.\n\t- Courts already have found that the Debtor is highly practiced at obfuscating his assets and interests in shells or behind family or nominees.\n\t- The Debtor faces potential imminent incarceration based on contempt of state court orders (certainly outside of the bankruptcy context).\n\t- There is no clear path for recovery outside of this bankruptcy context for the numerous creditors injured by the Debtor. After obtaining a judgment, each creditor would have to spend time and money trying to trace the Debtor's assets and enforce any judgments ultimately obtained (likely through veil piercing and other litigation procedures). (PAX understands very well how difficult and expensive that task will be for creditors.)\n\t- There is no business or readily accessible assets of the Debtor for a fiduciary such as a trustee to manage at this time.\n\t- The Debtor has arranged for unsecured, subordinated DIP financing, in part, to fund an investigation into his assets and financial affairs in the context of this Case.\n\t- The Debtor has arranged for a \\$37 million bond to be posted to resolve the PAX Lift Stay Motion and preserve values until the Lady May returns to the U.S. jurisdiction.\n\t- The Debtor has access to a substantial, yet unknown amount, of gifts and/or subordinated unsecured loans that could be used to pay allowed claims in the context of this Case, which will likely be unavailable to most creditors outside of this chapter 11 case.<sup>15</sup>\n\t- The Committee has already sought to engage a prominent former FBI agent to investigate the Debtor's financial activities and assets.\n\n<sup>14</sup> While some of these facts alone may not seem unique, they clearly are unique when evaluated in the context of the entirety of this Case.\n\n<sup>15</sup> *See supra*, fn. 8.\n\n- A properly conducted investigation in this Case could identify sufficient assets to provide a full, or very substantial, recovery to all legitimate non-insider creditors – which would be lost outside the context of this Case. A sole *unsecured* creditor asserts a claim that totals more than five times the principal damage amount. (PAX's original damages claim was approximately \\$46 million. Once interest and contempt fines were added, PAX's asserted claim now totals approximately \\$250 million.) And, if this Case is dismissed that same unsecured creditor will leapfrog ahead of all other unsecured creditors seizing assets of the Debtor to the substantial detriment of other unsecured creditors.\n- The proposed Interim DIP Order allows the Committee to seek to terminate exclusivity in approximately three weeks after the hearing on the Dismissal Motion, without violating the terms of the proposed DIP Loan.\n- Vexed creditors, such as the Creditors, do not oppose the Debtor maintaining this Case provided sufficient funding is provided to investigate his assets, transactions and financial affairs, the Debtor does not hinder such investigation and this Case proceeds at an appropriate pace with appropriate processes and protections for creditors.\n- Creditors have indicated an intention to seek an involuntary filing in the event the Case is dismissed at this time.\n\n49. The Court should reject PAX's underlying proposition that the Debtor's creditors will be paid in full whether inside or outside of this bankruptcy case. While the Debtor has made representations of causing payment in full of allowed claims within the context of this Case, no such representations or assurance exists if the Case is dismissed. (Debtor's Motion to Extend Time to File Schedules, ECF No. 27 at ¶ 12) (\"Mr. Kwok filed this Chapter 11 Case with the clear intention of satisfying his creditors' allowed claims in full. Clearly, he will need the support of his family members to fund an exit from chapter 11.\"). Indeed, none of the Debtor's creditors (including PAX) have a clear path for recovery outside of this bankruptcy. As Judge Ostrager has found, the Debtor has made significant \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members\" (February 9 Contempt Order, at 1), and is undeterred by the prospect of perjury or bankruptcy fraud. Even so, the unusual circumstances here dictate that dismissal is contrary to the interests of creditors. In fact, the Debtor's success to date in frustrating PAX suggests that all creditors may fare better with the Debtor under the oversight of this Court, the United States Trustee and the Committee, and subject to the powers of the Bankruptcy Code and this Court.\n\n50. As discussed above, this Case has legitimate purposes -- to centralize dozens of disputes and allow for the marshalling of the Debtor's assets for equitable distribution to creditors holding allowed claims in accordance with the priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code. This Case also has benefits to creditors -- instead of continuing to rely on the same state court remedies that have proven inadequate for years, creditors are better served with the Debtor remaining subject to the powers of the Bankruptcy Code and this Court. This includes not only all remedies available to state courts – including without limitation the ability to imprison the Debtor for contumacious behavior and the ability to pursue alter ego theories – but also numerous benefits only available within bankruptcy, such as the power to issue Rule 2004 discovery to third parties (as has already been commenced by the Committee), oversight for and restrictions on the Debtor's ability to act, increased power to avoid and recover preferential or fraudulent transfers, power to recharacterize purported loans as equity, power to equitably subordinate claims or otherwise to provide for different treatment of insider and non-insider creditors, and power to substantively consolidate the Debtor if appropriate with non-debtor entities. An appropriate investigation will shed light on the scope of the Debtor's true assets and whether bankruptcy fraud (or other fraud) has been committed by the Debtor. These benefits may prove crucial in maximizing recoveries for general unsecured creditors in this Case.\n\n51. In fact, due to the risk of PAX's seizure of the Debtor's assets outside the bankruptcy context and the significant benefits chapter 11 provides creditors generally in this Case, the Creditors intend to seek to have an involuntary petition commenced in the event this Case is dismissed.\n\n52. Accordingly, dismissal of the Case is not in the best interest of creditors or the estate.\n\n53. In contrast, PAX fails to explain why any creditor is unjustly harmed or prejudiced by this Case (presuming the Case proceeds in accordance with applicable laws and rules). As discussed above, there is no substantial or continuing loss to or diminution of the estate in this Case, (*see, supra*, ¶¶ 27-30) and a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation exists. (*see, supra*, ¶¶ 38-40). As noted above, whether through gifts or unsecured subordinated loans obtained by the Debtor, or through the Committee's investigation and asset recovery process, there is a reasonable likelihood that assets will be available for distribution to legitimate creditors under a confirmable plan in this Case.\n\n54. Moreover, PAX's assertion that by this Case the Debtor is attempting to improperly relitigate issues and avoid returning the Lady May to the US jurisdiction are grounds that have been, will or can be cured within a reasonable period. This Court has been clear that it will not relitigate the issues ruled on by Judge Ostrager. That concern has been or can be properly addressed before the Court and resolved rather expeditiously.\n\n55. And, although the Lady May has not yet been returned to this jurisdiction, \\$37 million has been put into escrow on terms acceptable to PAX. Therefore, such grounds for dismissal have been or will be cured in a reasonable period of time. In the event, the Debtor does not cause this Case to be properly funded or the Lady May is not returned by July 15, 2022, those facts may weigh in favor of dismissal at such time; but dismissal now would be premature.\n\n56. In addition, any dismissal grounds based on gross mismanagement (despite the lack of any operating business) can be cured by allowing the Committee to undertake investigatory and asset recovery obligations, and enforcing the Debtor's obligation of accuracy and transparency in his reporting requirements. Hence, currently, it appears any grounds for dismissal have been, will or can be cured within a reasonable period of time.\n\n57. Accordingly, PAX has failed to establish cause for dismissal. Regardless, the unusual circumstances exception under Section 111(b)(2) applies in this Case preventing dismissal. Therefore, the Dismissal Motion should be denied.\n\n### **III. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN EXAMINER SHOULD BE APPOINTED WITH A VERY TAILORED SCOPE OF AUTHORITY AND BUDGET**\n\n58. Even with cause, this Case should not be dismissed because appointment of an examiner would be in the best interests of creditors rather than dismissal. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1). The Creditors submit that under the circumstances here, with an active Committee that is already investigating the Debtor and his affairs, appointment of a new fiduciary with no prior involvement in this Case is not in the best interests of creditors. Rather, allowing the Committee to continue its work is in the best interests of creditors, and, if required, this work can be furthered by an examiner appointed with a targeted scope and budget that works in concert with the Committee's efforts – not duplicates it. The Dismissal Motion seeks to support the appointment of a trustee as requested in the UST's Examiner/Trustee Motion. The Creditors incorporate herein the points and arguments articulated in their objection to the Examiner/Trustee Motion for why a trustee is not an appropriate remedy in this Case, [ECF No. 170], and expect to address this issue in the context of the UST's Examiner/Trustee Motion at the appropriate time.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**<sup>16</sup>\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Creditors request that the Court deny the\n\nDismissal Motion in its entirety, and grant such other and further relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: May 11, 2022 /s/ Kristin B. Mayhew\n\nKristin B. Mayhew-ct20896 **MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP** 30 Jelliff Lane Southport, CT 06890 (203) 319-4000 kmayhew@mdmc-law.com\n\n- and -\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari (*pro hac vice*) David S. Forsh (*pro hac vice*) **CALLARI PARTNERS LLC** One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 (212) 202-3050 ccallari@callaripartners.com dforsh@callaripartners.com\n\n*Attorneys for Rui Ma,* Zheng Wu and *Weican Meng*\n\n<sup>16</sup> Around the time of filing this Objection, the Debtor filed a \"Consent to Dismissal of Case\" and response to the Dismissal Motion. [ECF No. 344] Despite the Debtor's consent to dismissal, the Creditors' objection to the dismissal as set forth herein remains (except that conversion of the Case may now be warranted). As set forth herein, this Case is not just a two-party dispute. Other parties' rights must be considered by the Court, which the Creditors look forward to addressing at the hearing on the Dismissal Motion.\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI, Kristin B. Mayhew, hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Objection of Creditors Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and Weican Meng to the Motion of Pacific Alliance Asia opportunity Fund L.P. for Dismissal of this Case or, in the Alternative, for Appointment of a Trustee was filed with the Court on May 11, 2022. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by operation of the court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> /s/ Kristin B. Mayhew Kristin B. Mayhew","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州地区破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：　：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n债务人。　：\n\n：第11章\n\n：案号：22-50073(JAM)\n\n：听证日期：May 25, 2022\n债权人Rui Ma（马瑞）、Zheng Wu（吴征）及Weican Meng（孟维灿）对Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）提出的驳回本案动议，或备选地指定受托人动议的异议\n\n债权人Rui Ma（马瑞）、Zheng Wu（吴征）及Weican Meng（孟维灿）（以下简称“债权人”），通过其下列签署的律师，特此就Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“PAX”）提出的驳回本案动议，或备选地指定受托人动议（以下简称“驳回动议”）提交本异议（以下简称“异议”），并谨陈如下：\n\n初步陈述2\n\n1. 债权人加入并援引本案中指定的无担保债权人官方委员会（以下简称“委员会”）与本异议同时提交的对驳回动议的反对意见。\n\n2. PAX通过驳回动议寻求驳回本第11章案件这一非常救济。即使债务人存在不当行为，PAX亦未能承担其举证责任，即证明重整程序不服务于任何合法目的且客观上徒劳无益。此外，在目前阶段驳回本案不符合债权人或破产财产的最佳利益，并且只会使一名债权人PAX受益。\n\n1. 上述债务人及占有中的债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”或“Kwok”）亦以以下姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；及Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n2. 本初步陈述中使用但未予定义的首字母大写术语，具有下文或驳回动议中赋予该等术语的含义。\n\n3. PAX宣称本案是典型的“双方争议”，完全错误——本案中存在数十名合法债权人。驳回动议表面上声称针对债务人，实则寻求允许PAX抢在债务人的其他债权人之前，在通常所称的“争先到法院”竞赛中获胜，从而损害其他债权人的利益。本案应当在一定范围内获准继续进行，以在法院监督以及委员会和美国受托人（当然还有诸如PAX的个别债权人）审慎而明辨的关注下，追求债权人之间的平等分配，这属于合法的破产目的。\n\n4. 相反，目前驳回驳回动议不会对PAX造成不合理的损害。PAX所称关于债务人试图重新审理Ostrager法官在PAX州法院诉讼中已裁决问题的担忧，以及关于破产财产“持续损失”的担忧，均不具有说服力。法院已多次表示其不会重新审理Ostrager法官已裁决的事项，且没有理由相信情况会有所不同。此外，目前破产财产资产不存在实质性减损，即使有，也是微乎其微，原因包括：(a) 未有任何被认定属于破产财产的资金被用于支付任何行政债权；(b) 船舶交付命令规定，在Lady May返还之前，$37 million将继续由第三方托管——而Lady May计划于July 15, 2022之前返还至美国管辖范围；以及(c) DIP贷款人的债权次于一般无担保债权人。再者，将有关债务人的争议集中于本法院，并利用破产法院可行使的扩展调查、撤销及衡平权力（例如Rule 2004审查、撤销内部人及其他优先交易、债务重新定性、衡平居次及实质合并），以及本法院、美国受托人和委员会对债务人的监督，相较于任何非破产替代方案，对一般无担保债权人（包括PAX）具有重大益处。因此，本案具有合法目的。据此，PAX未能证明本案缺乏合法目的，且未能为债权人保全价值。\n\n5. 尽管债权人与PAX一样担心债务人可能继续隐瞒其资产且不寻求追回资产，从而滥用法院程序，但目前驳回本案尚属过早。法院应给予一定余地，并评估本案的进展。即使最终证明存在破产财产管理不善及债务人不当行为，继续破产程序仍是促进全体债权人获得追偿的最佳路径，且法院可以制定程序，以确保本案今后得到适当管理。这是一起涉及个人第11章债务人的特殊案件，目前没有经营活动，且仅有极少量已申报资产供受托人管理。尽管债权人对债务人深感不信任，但债务人提出本案这一偶然情况，或许是债权人从债务人（或其共同阴谋人）获得任何实际追偿的最佳、并且可能是唯一的替代方案。任何调查、追回或交付要求的责任均可且应由委员会履行。目前，本案为债权人提供了机会，使有关债务人的关键争议能够在单一法庭——即本法院——审理。债务人已安排初始资金，使委员会能够调查债务人的资产和财务事务，包括可能识别隐匿及欺诈性转移的资产。委员会已开始其调查程序。债务人已提交债权申报截止日期动议，债权核对程序随后即可开始。在数周内，债务人的专属权可被终止，且除债务人以外的各方亦可在本案中提出计划，该计划有可能获确认（与PAX所称不存在任何可获确认的计划相反）。\n\n6. 总而言之，PAX未能证明目前驳回本案所需的“理由”。即使认定存在“理由”，本案亦具有特殊情形，足以支持驳回驳回动议。本案使债权人（包括PAX）有机会调查债务人的资产，并确保债务人的资产在其所有债权人之间得到公平分配——费用由非债务人内部人承担。实际上，本案可能是债权人从债务人获得追偿的最佳机会——自申请日起，本程序已使$37 million存入美国境内的托管账户，等待Lady May返还，便是明证。法院有权监督本案，以避免管理不善，并确保债务人履行其义务以及其本人（及其律师）所作的陈述，即债权人将能够充分调查债务人的资产和财务事务。若债务人未能履行该等义务，导致僵局和/或妨碍本案进展，则届时可能有理由予以驳回。法院亦有权避免重新审理其他有管辖权法院已裁决的问题，并最终批准或不批准本案中的费用及其他行政开支。\n\n7. 债权人进一步主张，驳回动议应因徒劳无益而被驳回。鉴于与任何州法院相比，将债权人的争议集中于本法院、行使广泛的破产权力以归集资产，以及由本法院监督该债务人，均可为无担保债权人带来巨大益处；并且为避免PAX以牺牲其他债权人为代价，获得金额超过其损害赔偿请求100%的制裁性意外收益，若本案被驳回，债权人拟对债务人提出非自愿申请。因此，驳回动议不服务于任何有效目的。\n\n8. 因此，应在不妨碍任何一方日后寻求驳回的情况下驳回驳回动议，包括但不限于债务人未能促使本案获得充足资金、妨碍对其资产的调查和/或妨碍本案朝着有序解决债权人债权并依照破产法典（及其他适用法律和规则）分配债务人资产的方向推进时。\n\n9. 目前，债权人亦反对在本案中指定受托人或审查员。3 债权人主张，至少至July月底之前，本案审慎地继续进行将符合所有相关方的最佳利益。在此期间，委员会将能够推进其调查，而债务人将证明其遵守（或公然违反）其于July 15th之前将Lady May返还至本管辖区的义务（且不采取额外策略妨碍该等遵守）。债权人担心，如指定审查员或受托人，必然会产生重大延误及不必要的额外大量行政开支。\n\n10. 尽管破产法典第1112(b)(2)条并无此项要求，但若法院认定本案如不被驳回即必须指定第11章受托人或审查员，3 债权人强烈敦请法院选择指定一名审查员，其审查范围应经过狭义限定，以便与委员会已经进行中的调查工作协同，而非重复该等工作。鉴于本案的特殊事实，此种指定在必要范围内将是最有效率、最有效的做法——而非PAX在驳回动议中支持的受托人。受托人对处于个人债务人控制之内的信息，不会比委员会等主体拥有更好的获取渠道，且目前不存在可供“管理”的业务或可取得资产。\n\n3. 见债权人对审查员/受托人动议的有限反对意见。[ECF No. 170]。\n\n背景\n\nA. 第11章案件。\n\n11. On February 15, 2022（以下简称“申请日”），债务人根据《美国法典》第11编第11章（以下简称“破产法典”）提交了自愿申请，请求救济，从而启动本第11章案件（以下简称“第11章案件”或“本案”）。自此以后，债务人依据破产法典§§1107和1108，始终作为占有中的债务人。\n\n12. 本第11章案件尚未指定受托人或审查员，尽管On March 19, 2022，美国受托人（以下简称“UST”）已提交请求裁定指示指定审查员的动议，或备选地请求裁定指示指定第11章受托人的动议（以下简称“审查员/受托人动议”）。审查员/受托人动议定于May 25, 2022举行听证；根据UST修订后的拟议命令脚注1 [ECF No. 116]，债务人已同意由法院指示UST在本案中指定一名审查员。\n\n13. On March 20, 2022，债务人提交了其支持第11章案件及若干动议的声明[ECF No. 107]（以下简称“Kwok声明”）。债务人在其声明中陈述，提交其第11章案件的目的之一“是提供一个法庭，以一劳永逸地确定针对本人破产财产的获准债权范围（见Kwok声明，第42段）”，以及“……(b) 鉴于[其]认为在该等事项上存在误解，为利益相关方提供有效机会，以调查[其]资产、负债及财务事务；[并且](c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财产，并进而可供向获准债权持有人分配”（Kwok声明，第3段）。\n\n14. 2022年3月21日，委员会由UST正式指定。委员会已就授权进行若干Rule 2004审查以及就其对债务人资产和财务状况的调查签发文件出示传票提出动议。[ECF Nos. 252, 295, 297]。经法院批准，委员会还聘请了财务顾问Dundon Advisers LLC，以及Coleman Worldwide Advisors LLC的Gregory A. Coleman，担任其欺诈调查顾问，以协助委员会进行包括调查（及识别）债务人的资产和财务状况在内的工作。[ECF Nos. 321, 325]。\n\n15. 2022年3月1日，PAX提交了Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）请求作出裁定确认自动中止不适用，或备选地根据《破产法》第362(d)(2)条给予自动中止救济的动议[ECF No. 57]（“PAX解除中止动议”）。概言之，PAX寻求执行Barry R. Ostrager法官（“Ostrager法官”）于2022年2月9日在一宗纽约州法院诉讼（“PAX州法院诉讼”）中作出的民事藐视法庭决定及命令（“2月9日藐视法庭命令”），该命令强制债务人为未返还“Lady May”游艇支付$134 million藐视法庭罚款，否则将面临监禁。4 随后，各方当事人提交了异议及支持性书状。在就PAX解除中止动议举行一系列听证后，该事项通过经广泛协商达成的强制HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK”）运送并交付该“Lady May”游艇的约定命令[ECF No. 299]（“游艇交付命令”）得到解决。概言之，根据游艇交付命令，HK向作为托管代理人的U.S. Bank存入$37 million现金，以担保于2022年7月15日前将Lady May返还至本司法管辖区。\n\n16. 2022年3月22日，债务人提交了请求作出临时及最终DIP命令的动议：(I) 授权债务人取得无担保、次级的申请后融资，(II) 安排临时及最终听证会，以及(III) 给予相关救济（“DIP动议”）。根据DIP动议，一家内部人实体Golden Spring (New York), Ltd.（“DIP贷款人”）提议向债务人提供最高达$8 million的申请后无担保次级贷款。经修改的拟议临时DIP命令于2022年5月3日向法院提交[ECF No. 315]。在提交书状及举行初步听证后，经修改的DIP动议所请求的临时救济目前正在审议中。\n\nB. 驳回动议。\n\n17. 2022年4月6日，PAX提交了驳回动议。在驳回动议中，PAX主张本案应根据《破产法》第1112(b)条“基于事由”予以驳回。PAX主张，因债务人据称滥用破产制度而存在“事由”，原因是：(i) 债务人提起本案的目的不正当，(ii) 本案未能为债权人保全价值，以及(iii) 本案是在一场“两方当事人\n\n4 PAX最初获得了金额为$46,426,489另加利息的损害赔偿判决，判决总额达到$116,402,019.57。见PAX解除中止动议，附件A之附件1，第2页。\n\n争议”中的诉讼策略。见驳回动议，第23-29页。PAX还主张，本案系出于恶意提起。见同上，第29-35页。作为其“恶意”论点的一部分，PAX主张本案无益，因为据称需要PAX同意方能确认一项计划，而PAX的反对将阻止任何此类确认。同上，第61段。此外，PAX主张，亦存在驳回本案的“事由”，因为据称：(i) 财产持续贬值且根据第1112(b)(4)(A)条不存在合理的重整可能性，以及债务人根据第1112(b)(4)(B)条严重管理不善该财产。同上，第35-38页。5\n\n18. 备选地，PAX主张，应按UST在审查员／受托人动议中所请求的那样指定一名第11章受托人。PAX主张，如果本案不被驳回，则存在指定第11章受托人的事由，且该指定符合全体债权人的利益。同上，第39-44页。\n\n论证\n\n19. PAX未能在本案现阶段证明驳回所必需的“事由”。此外，尽管PAX将其在驳回动议中提出的救济请求描述为有利于全体债权人（驳回动议第44-46、65、71段），本案存在特殊情形，表明此时驳回本案将仅有利于PAX，而损害所有其他债权人。因此，驳回动议应予驳回。\n\n20. 《破产法》第1112(b)条相关部分规定：\n\n(1) 除第(2)款及第(c)款另有规定外，6 经利害关系方请求，并在通知及听证后，法院应当为事由将本章下的案件转换为第7章下的案件，或驳回本章下的案件，以符合债权人及财产的最大利益者为准，除非法院认定根据[第1104(a)条]指定受托人或审查员符合债权人及财产的最大利益。\n\n(2) 如法院认定并明确指出，存在表明转换或驳回案件不符合债权人及财产最大利益的特殊情形，且债务人或任何其他利害关系方证明如下情形，法院不得将本章下的案件转换为第7章下的案件，或驳回本章下的案件：\n\n(A) 在本法典[第1121(e)条]及[第1129(e)条]规定的期限内，或如该等条款不适用，则在合理期间内，存在一项计划将获确认的合理可能性；并且\n\n(B) 转换或驳回案件的理由包括债务人作出的行为或不作为，但第(4)(A)款所规定者除外—\n\n(i) 就该行为或不作为存在合理理由；并且\n\n(ii) 该行为或不作为将在法院确定的合理期间内得到补救。\n\n11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1), (2)。\n\n21. 第1112(b)(4)条列举了十六项非排他性的“事由”，包括\n\n(A) 财产遭受重大或持续损失或贬值，且不存在合理的重整可能性，以及(B) 对财产的严重管理不善。11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)。\n\n22. 提出动议的一方负有证明根据第1112(b)条驳回案件的“事由”的举证责任。见In re AdBrite Corp., 290 B.R. 209, 218 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003)。“事由”必须在以下背景下予以评估：驳回是一项“严厉措施”，不应过早作出。In re Waterworks, Inc., 538 B.R. 445, 460 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2015)（引自In re Sal Caruso Cheese, Inc., 107 B.R. 808, 817 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1989)）。“破产法官在确定是否存在根据第1112(b)条驳回或转换案件的事由方面享有广泛酌处权。”In re Fuschi-Aibel, 2020 WL 714324, * 3 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 24, 2020)（引自In re BH S & B Holdings, LLC, 439 B.R. 342, 346 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)）。\n\n23. 在第二巡回区，只有在申请提交之日即已明确“债务人无合理可能意图重整，且无合理可能最终从破产程序中脱离”时，才存在驳回破产案件的理由。In re C-TC 9th Avenue Partnership, 113 F.3d 1304, 1309-10 (2d Cir. 1997)。“通常仅在追求破产申请在客观上无益，且实际推进申请在主观上具有恶意时，方会下令驳回。”General Growth Properties, Inc., 409 B.R. 43, at 57, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)(citing In re Kingston Square Assoc., 214 B.R. 713, 725 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997))。\n\nI. 不存在驳回第11章案件的事由\n\n24. 债权人不争议PAX的主张，即债务人曾从事不当行为，包括“通过将其大量个人资产置于一系列公司、受信赖的亲信及家庭成员名下，试图逃避并欺骗其债权人”（2月9日藐视法庭命令，第1页）、“将其资产隐藏于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员之中”（同上），以及就Lady May“策划一场空壳游戏……”（同上，第7页），以上均为Ostrager法官在2月9日藐视法庭命令中所认定。债权人亦不争议，Ostrager法官已认定“Kwok对Lady May拥有远不止受益权益。不仅Kwok控制该游艇，看来是其提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享用该游艇的人”（同上，第8页），且这些问题不应在本案中于法院面前再次诉讼。此外，无争议的是，债务人提起本案的原因之一，是其因违反Ostrager法官的命令而面临迫在眉睫的监禁风险。尽管债务人存在这些令人震惊的行为，但其并不能构成在此时驳回本案的“事由”。相反，如下文所述，在评估整体情形时，其他事实亦具相关性，该等事实要求驳回驳回动议。\n\nA. PAX未能证明债务人对破产制度存在构成“事由”所必需的“滥用”。\n\ni. 本案具有正当目的。\n\n25. 本案具有正当目的。在申请日时，债务人在超过24宗诉讼中作为被告。见债务人财务状况说明书，第9问，[ECF No. 77 at pp. 22-25]。债务人的主要债权人名单显示，非内部人债权超过$80 million [ECF No. 20]，仅三名债权人即主张对债务人享有超过$30 million的债权（该数额并不比PAX约$46 million的实际损害赔偿裁定额〔不含利息〕低很多）。债务人的财产清单反映，另有数十项针对债务人主张的非内部人债权，债权总额超过$373 million。（债务人财产清单，ECF No. 77 at p.10）。本案尚未设定申报债权截止日。\n\n26. 债务人陈述，提交本案的目的包括“提供一个场所，以一劳永逸地确定对本人财产获准债权的范围（见Kwok Dec., ECF No. 107, ¶42）”，以及“……(b) 鉴于本人认为在该方面存在误解，向利益相关方提供有效机会，以调查[其]资产、负债及财务状况；[并且] (c) 确定哪些资产属于财产，进而可供向获准债权持有人分配。”[ECF No. 107, ¶3]。这些均为破产程序的正当目的。这些事实亦驳斥了PAX以自我为中心的论点，即本案仅涉及两方当事人争议——事实并非如此。债权人拥有有效债权，并拟全面追索其对债务人的债权。\n\nii. 本案为债权人保全价值。\n\n27. 在债务人充分为本案提供资金，以使债权人能够全面调查债务人的资产和财务状况（以及为获准债权提供资金）的范围内——正如债务人及其律师向法院所陈述的（见债务人支持作出批准 DIP 融资安排命令的综合答复，ECF No. 198，第 2、8 和 10 段）——则与 PAX 的论点相反，本案将为债权人保全价值。若得到适当管理，本案确将使合法无担保债权人受益。债务人已采取初步措施，为债权人保全价值。经修订后，DIP 动议所提议的 DIP 贷款将向债务人提供一笔无担保且次级的贷款，使委员会能够调查债务人的资产。\n\n28. 至少，PAX 不会优先于其他债权人，并且通过赠与和次级贷款取得的资金将使委员会能够调查债务人的资产和财务状况，从而使所有债权人受益。在获得法院批准的前提下，委员会已聘请 Coleman 先生（Mr. Coleman），即曾对“华尔街之狼”实施的交易和欺诈进行清理时发挥关键作用的前 FBI 探员。（见 ECF No. 325）。应当给予委员会与 Coleman 先生合作、调查债务人历史交易的机会，以便酌情识别并追回破产财产的资产。\n\n29. 此外，PAX 关于本案不涉及“抢先起诉”问题的论点并不坦诚。PAX 明知其将优先于其他债权人，并将为自身利益扣押债务人的资产，从而损害其债权尚未确定的其他债权人的利益。法院不应容许 PAX 试图超越其他一般无担保债权人的行为。尽管 PAX 的债权可能与其他无担保债权人的债权不同，因为其债权已确定且不附条件，7 但这不足以证明应允许 PAX 获得较其他非内部人无担保债权人更优惠的待遇。此外，目前，《船舶交付命令》以及托管中的 \\$37 million，已充分保障 PAX 在本案进行期间执行债务人遵守 2 月 9 日《藐视法庭命令》的利益。\n\n30. 因此，PAX 寻求驳回本案的唯一明显目的，是违反《破产法》规定的优先顺位制度，为其自身扣押债务人的资产。这是典型的抢先起诉情形，几乎所有当事人均可从自动中止中受益——事实上，由于 PAX 的实际损害赔偿请求额已因州法院原本意在（但未能）促使债务人遵守命令的处罚而增加了一倍以上，驳回本案只会使 PAX 在收取该等处罚时获得不应得的意外收益，并可能以损害本案其他合法债权人为代价。\n\niii. 本案并非双方争议。\n\n31. 法院还应驳回 PAX 将本案及其事实描述为双方争议的企图。（驳回动议，第 46-51 段）。PAX 所援引的任何案件均不支持该种描述。尽管 PAX 作出以自我为中心的描述，本案并非仅涉及债务人与一名债权人（PAX）之间的二元争议。本案并非涉及唯一抵押贷款人及其唯一真正法律问题为即将发生的止赎的债务人的案件。于申请日，债务人面临数十起未决诉讼，潜在债权超过 \\$100 million——该等诉讼现因本案的提起而中止。见上文，\n\n7 PAX 主张其是唯一的“现有、不附条件的债权人”。驳回动议，第 46 段。此外，PAX 债权中的相当大部分由利息和藐视法庭罚款构成。\n\n第 25 段。尽管 PAX 在本案中拥有最大债权，但显而易见，存在众多对债务人享有重大债权的合法非内部人债权人，其中包括其债权已处于州法院诉讼后期阶段的债权人。见上文，第 25、27-29 段；另见债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）提出的解除自动中止动议，[ECF No. 206，第 6-9 段]。\n\n32. 因此，PAX 未能证明在此时有充分的对破产制度的“滥用”，足以支持驳回本案。\n\nB. PAX 未能证明支持驳回所必需的“恶意”。\n\n33. PAX 还主张，因本案系恶意提起，故存在驳回事由。在第二巡回区，恶意提起要求同时证明“客观”和“主观”恶意。In re Gen. Growth Props., 409 B.R. 43, 56 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009)（援引 In re Kingston Square Assocs., 214 B.R. 713, 725 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997)）。\n\n34. “在确定是否不存在善意（且存在恶意）时，法院必须考虑全部情形——而非单一因素。”In re Encore Management of Western New York, LLC, 585 B.R. 22, 30 (W.D.N.Y. 2018)。在本案中，全部情形表明存在正当的破产目的（前提是债务人促使提供充足资金，以对其资产和财务状况进行全面调查）。实质上，PAX 主张债务人的申请具有恶意，因为该破产申请避免了（至少暂时避免了）债务人被监禁，并阻止 PAX 抢先向法院寻求优先救济，从而损害债务人其他债权人的利益。然而，防止此种结果，并使所有利益相关方能够在一个可依比例并依法分配破产财产资产的中央审理平台获得集体救济，恰恰是《破产法》旨在实现的目的之一。8\n\n35. PAX 对 C-TC 所列八（8）项作为恶意申请证据的因素所作的分析，歪曲了本案事实，试图将其纳入 C-TC 因素之中——但适用该等因素压倒性地支持驳回驳回申请。见驳回动议，31-33；In re C-TC 9th Avenue Partnership, 113 F.3d at 1312。简而言之，(i) 本案并非单一资产案件（本案涉及多项潜在资产，且已构成本案记录的一部分），(ii) 本案涉及的不仅是少数几个微不足道的债权人——债务人财产清单中列有数十名非内部人债权人，其债权总额超过 \\$100 million（不包括 PAX），(iii) 债务人的资产不仅包括一项面临止赎的单一资产，(iv) 本案并非单纯的双方争议（见上文，第 32 段）；以及 (v) 至少通过赠与和次级贷款，债务人能够履行其费用义务（例如，见拟议《临时 DIP 命令》，ECF No. 315）。由于本第 11 章案件涉及的是个人债务人（而非公司），并无雇员问题，因此该因素属中性。尽管据称几乎没有或完全没有赚取的现金流，但债务人能够按需要取得向其提供现金的赠与和贷款9，因此该因素亦属中性或支持不驳回本案。唯一真正对 PAX 有利的因素，是为避免债务人未遵守 2 月 9 日《藐视法庭命令》即将导致的监禁后果而选择提出申请的时机。在结合本案全部情形加以评估时，该因素不足以支持驳回本案。\n\n8 若债务人的破产申请被认定为骗局或程序滥用，则债务人应就其对债权人及其他参与本案的当事人造成的额外损害承担责任。债权人在保留主张债务人欺诈的所有权利的同时，在本异议中所强调的是，法院应暂缓作出裁决（或暂缓其效力），以留出时间观察债务人是否会通过本案做正确之事，例如安排适当融资，或显露其本性并继续其先前严重的欺诈、欺骗和程序滥用行为。\n\n9 资金来源的定性存在争议，但为本异议之目的，将其描述为赠与和贷款，因为债务人（以及 PAX 在驳回动议中）正是如此描述该等资金。债权人保留请求宣告该等资金属于债务人财产或适当归属于债务人的权利。\n\n36. 同样，与 PAX 对 Syndicom 因素的适用相反（驳回动议，33-34），截至申请日，债务人涉及三十多起诉讼，并有债权人主张总额超过 \\$373 million 的债权。10 （债务人财产清单，ECF No. 77 at p.10）。因此，债务人曾经并持续面临其他财务压力。此外，除 PAX 外，无担保债权人将因驳回本案而受到损害，因为 PAX 将能够追求扣押债务人的资产，从而损害其他无担保债权人的利益。\n\n37. 此外，除阻止执行 2 月 9 日《藐视法庭命令》之外——该问题已通过《船舶交付命令》初步处理（即，指示于 7 月 15 日前返还 Lady May（“梅号夫人”），并在遵守命令前将 \\$37 million 存入托管）——在目前阶段，债务人的本案并不具有任何不当的“诉讼优势”。债务人的资产将被归集并纳入破产财产，依照《破产法》的优先顺位制度进行分配。\n\n38. PAX 还主张，任何计划均将徒劳无功，因此存在恶意。（驳回动议，第 60-61 段）。法院应驳回 PAX 的主张，即其反对任何潜在计划使本案在客观上毫无希望。PAX 未能证明其所称杠杆绝对有效（事实并非如此），也未能证明任何计划的确认均不可能。\n\n39. 此外，PAX 坚持其立场，认为由于 PAX 不会投票接受任何计划，本案中的计划不可能得到确认（驳回动议，第 61 段），PAX 自身可能正在恶意行事，且至少为时过早。见 General Growth Properties, Inc., 409 B.R. 43, at 57, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)（认定贷款人基于其立场——即确认计划需要贷款人同意，而贷款人永不会同意计划——寻求驳回新近提起的案件，行事为时过早且可能具有恶意）。当事人通常会发现，就计划达成协议符合其自身利益。Id. at 65.\n\n40. 此外，债务人提交计划的专属期间可在数周内终止，并且拟议计划可以适当地对合同债权和非合意人身伤害债权，或已确定、不附条件的债权与未确定和附条件的债权，作出单独分类和处理。11 根据债务人于 May 3, 2022 向法院提交的拟议《临时 DIP 命令》，委员会可于 June 17, 2022 当日或之后寻求终止债务人的专属期间，即申请日起初始 120 日之后 [ECF No. 315，第 6(c) 段]。无论如何，在对债务人的潜在资产和财务状况进行适当调查后，本案合理地能够取得一项可获确认的计划。无论是通过债务人取得的赠与或无担保次级贷款，还是通过委员会的调查和资产追回程序，本案中一项可获确认的计划下，合法债权人有合理可能获得可供分配的资产。因此，法院现在认定计划不可能获得确认，为时过早。\n\n41. 因此，PAX 未能证明支持驳回本案所必需的恶意。\n\n11 当然，任何此类方案的具体内容届时将对方案分析具有重要意义。债权人明确保留在适当的方案程序中评估任何此类分类方案适当性的权利。\n\nC. PAX未能证明，根据第1112(b)(4)(A)条，破产财产价值持续减损且不存在合理的重整可能性，或根据第1112(b)(4)(B)条，债务人严重不当管理破产财产；因此，不存在驳回案件的事由。\n\n42. 如上所述（见上文，第27-30段、第38-40段），破产财产价值并未减损，且在本案中有合理可能实现一项可获确认的方案。12 此外，尽管债权人与PAX一致认为，债务人未就其资产保持透明，且因未寻求向内部人士追回资产而未履行其在本案中作为受托人的全部职责，但并无需要进行日常管理的经营活动或现有现金，因此破产财产并未受到严重不当管理。债务人已安排初始债务人占有期间融资（DIP融资），以便对其资产和财务状况进行调查。委员会准备立即调查债务人的资产和财务状况，并有能力寻求授权，为破产财产的利益追回资产，或强制交付资产。13\n\n43. 因此，在本案情形下，PAX未能证明债务人正在严重不当管理破产财产。\n\n44. 因此，PAX未能证明根据第1112(b)(4)(A)条或第1112(b)(4)(B)条存在驳回本案的事由。\n\nII. 本案中的特殊情形表明，驳回本案不符合债权人的最佳利益，因此应驳回驳回动议。\n\n45. 即使已证明存在“事由”——而PAX并未证明——本案仍存在特殊情形，表明驳回本案不符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n12 这以进行监督为前提，以确保债务人遵守其本人及其律师向法院作出的陈述，即提供透明度和充足资金，以便对债务人的资产和财务状况进行充分调查。\n\n13 经法院批准，委员会将具有代表破产财产提起权利主张和诉因的派生诉讼资格。\n\n46. 第1112(b)条规定，即使法院认定已证明存在事由，“如果法院认定并具体指出存在特殊情形，表明转换或驳回案件不符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益，法院不得转换……或驳回本章项下的案件”，且利害关系方证明：(a) 在法定期限内有合理可能确认一项方案；以及(b) 对构成转换或驳回案件理由的作为或不作为存在合理正当理由，或者该作为或不作为将在法院规定的合理期限内得到补救。见11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1), (2); In re Ashley Oaks Dev. Corp., 458 B.R. 280, 284 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2011)（认定“特殊情形”例外适用于所证明的全部“事由”）。\n\n47. 该法条并未界定“特殊情形”，但法院通常寻求“表明通过维持案件作为第11章程序将能更好地实现第11章目的的特殊事实或情形”。In re Orbit Petroleum, Inc., 395 B.R. 145, 149–50 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2008)（尽管认定存在“事由”，但一项拟向债权人全额支付的拟议方案构成足以拒绝驳回或转换的特殊情形）。破产法院在确定是否存在应阻止驳回的特殊情形时享有广泛裁量权。见In re 1031 Tax Grp., LLC, 374 B.R. 78, 93 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)。本案充满特殊事实和情形，表明将本案维持为第11章案件，是推进第11章案件目的并根据《破产法典》的政策和要求保护所有相关方利益的最佳方式。\n\n48. 本案中的一些特殊事实包括：\n\n本第11章案件涉及一名个人债务人（而非公司）。14\n\n多年来，债务人在社交媒体及其他通讯中一直自称为亿万富翁，但现主张其资产甚少（除若干投机性权利主张或诉因外）。\n\n该个人债务人是数十起诉讼的当事人，其中包括一起在British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）进行的诉讼。\n\n法院已认定，债务人极善于将其资产和权益隐匿于空壳实体中，或置于家人或名义持有人名下。\n\n债务人因藐视州法院命令而面临可能即将被监禁的风险（显然不属于破产程序范畴）。\n\n对于受到债务人损害的众多债权人而言，在本破产程序之外不存在明确的追偿路径。各债权人在获得判决书后，均须耗费时间和金钱，试图追踪债务人的资产并执行最终获得的任何判决书（很可能需要通过揭开公司面纱及其他诉讼程序）。（PAX非常清楚，这项工作对债权人而言将何等困难且昂贵。）\n\n目前不存在债务人的业务或易于取得的资产，供受托人等受托人进行管理。\n\n债务人已安排无担保、次级DIP融资，部分用于在本案框架内为调查其资产和财务状况提供资金。\n\n债务人已安排提交一笔$37 million保证金，以解决PAX解除自动停止动议，并在Lady May（“Lady May”号）返回美国管辖范围之前保全价值。\n\n债务人可获得数额巨大但尚不明确的赠与和/或无担保次级贷款，该等资金可在本案框架内用于支付获准债权，而在本第11章案件之外，该等资金很可能对大多数债权人不可获得。15\n\n委员会已寻求聘请一名知名的前FBI探员，以调查债务人的财务活动和资产。\n\n14 尽管其中某些事实单独来看可能并不独特，但在本案整体背景下评估时，它们显然具有独特性。\n\n15 见上文，脚注8。\n\n如在本案中进行适当调查，可能发现足以向所有合法的非内部人债权人提供全额或极为可观追偿的资产——而在本案框架之外，这将无法实现。一名无担保债权人主张的债权总额超过本金损害赔偿额的五倍。（PAX最初主张的损害赔偿债权约为$46 million。在加上利息和藐视法庭罚款后，PAX现主张的债权总额约为$250 million。）而且，如果本案被驳回，同一无担保债权人将抢先于所有其他无担保债权人，扣押债务人的资产，从而对其他无担保债权人造成重大损害。\n\n拟议的临时DIP命令允许委员会在驳回动议听证会后约三周内寻求终止排他期，而不会违反拟议DIP贷款的条款。\n\n受困扰的债权人，例如债权人，只要提供充足资金以调查债务人的资产、交易和财务状况，债务人不妨碍该等调查，且本案以适当速度并遵循适当程序及为债权人提供适当保护的方式推进，便不反对债务人维持本案。\n\n债权人已表示，如本案目前被驳回，将寻求提出非自愿破产申请。\n\n49. 法院应驳回PAX的基本主张，即债务人的债权人无论在本破产案件内外均将获得全额支付。尽管债务人已陈述将在本案框架内促使获准债权得到全额支付，但如本案被驳回，则不存在此类陈述或保证。（债务人延长提交清单期限的动议，ECF No. 27 at ¶ 12）(“Mr. Kwok（郭文贵先生）提出本第11章案件的明确意图，是全额清偿其债权人的获准债权。显然，他将需要其家庭成员的支持，以筹措退出第11章程序的资金。”)。事实上，债务人的任何债权人（包括PAX）在本破产程序之外均不存在明确的追偿路径。正如Judge Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）所认定，债务人已作出重大“努力，通过将其大量个人资产存放于一系列公司、受信任的亲信和家庭成员名下，以逃避并欺骗其债权人”（February 9 Contempt Order, at 1），且其不因可能构成伪证或破产欺诈而却步。即便如此，此处的特殊情形仍表明驳回本案有悖于债权人的利益。事实上，债务人迄今阻挠PAX的成功，表明所有债权人在债务人受到本法院、United States Trustee（美国受托人）和委员会监督，并受《破产法典》及本法院权力约束的情况下，可能获得更好的结果。\n\n50. 如上所述，本案具有正当目的——集中处理数十项争议，并允许归集债务人的资产，以便按照《破产法典》的优先顺位方案，向持有获准债权的债权人进行公平分配。本案亦为债权人带来益处——债权人无需继续依赖多年来已被证明不足的同一州法院救济，而是在债务人继续受《破产法典》和本法院权力约束的情况下获得更好保障。这不仅包括州法院可获得的全部救济——包括但不限于因债务人藐视法庭行为而监禁债务人的权力，以及追究另我理论的权力——还包括仅在破产程序中可获得的诸多益处，例如向第三方发出Rule 2004取证的权力（委员会已开始采取该措施）、对债务人行为能力的监督和限制、增强撤销和追回优先转让或欺诈性转让的权力、将表面贷款重新定性为股权的权力、公平地将债权次级化或以其他方式对内部人债权人和非内部人债权人给予不同处理的权力，以及在适当情况下将债务人与非债务人实体进行实质合并的权力。适当的调查将揭示债务人真实资产的范围，以及债务人是否实施了破产欺诈（或其他欺诈）。这些益处可能对最大限度提高本案普通无担保债权人的追偿至关重要。\n\n51. 事实上，鉴于PAX在破产程序之外扣押债务人资产的风险，以及第11章在本案中为债权人整体提供的重大益处，如本案被驳回，债权人拟寻求提出非自愿破产申请。\n\n52. 因此，驳回本案不符合债权人或破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n53. 相比之下，PAX未能说明任何债权人为何因本案而受到不公正损害或不利影响（假定本案依照适用法律和规则推进）。如上所述，本案中的破产财产不存在重大或持续损失或价值减损（见上文，第27-30段），且存在合理的重整可能性。（见上文，第38-40段）。如上所述，无论通过债务人取得的赠与或无担保次级贷款，还是通过委员会的调查和资产追回程序，均有合理可能在本案中根据一项可获确认的方案取得可供分配给合法债权人的资产。\n\n54. 此外，PAX 主张，债务人正试图通过本案不当地重新争讼相关争议，并避免将 Lady May（“Lady May”号）返还至美国管辖范围；该等事由已经得到、将会得到或能够在合理期限内得到补救。本院已明确表示，其不会重新审理 Ostrager 法官已裁决的争议。该项关切已经得到或能够在本院得到适当处理，并可较为迅速地解决。\n\n55. 并且，尽管 Lady May 尚未返还至本管辖范围内，$37 million 已按 PAX 可接受的条款存入第三方托管。因此，该等驳回事由已经得到或将在合理期限内得到补救。如果债务人未能促使本案获得适当资金支持，或者 Lady May 未于 July 15, 2022 前返还，该等事实届时可能支持驳回；但现时驳回尚属过早。\n\n56. 此外，任何基于严重管理不善的驳回事由（尽管并无任何持续经营的业务），均可通过允许委员会承担调查及资产追回职责，以及执行债务人就其报告要求所负的准确性和透明度义务而得到补救。因此，目前看来，任何驳回事由已经得到、将会得到或能够在合理期限内得到补救。\n\n57. 因此，PAX 未能证明存在驳回事由。无论如何，Section 111(b)(2) 规定的特殊情形例外适用于本案，从而阻止驳回。因此，应驳回该驳回动议。\n\nIII. 作为替代方案，应任命一名权限范围及预算均高度限定的审查员\n\n58. 即使存在事由，本案也不应被驳回，因为任命一名审查员比驳回更符合债权人的最佳利益。11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1)。债权人主张，在本案情形下，鉴于已有一个正在调查债务人及其事务的活跃委员会，任命一名此前未参与本案的新受托人并不符合债权人的最佳利益。相反，允许委员会继续其工作符合债权人的最佳利益；如有必要，可由一名获任命且具有针对性权限范围和预算、并与委员会工作相配合而非重复其工作的审查员进一步推进该项工作。该驳回动议寻求支持按 UST 的审查员/受托人动议所请求任命一名受托人。债权人援引其对审查员/受托人动议所提异议中阐述的要点和论据，以说明为何受托人并非本案适当的救济措施，[ECF No. 170]，并预计将在适当时候于 UST 的审查员/受托人动议框架下处理该问题。\n\n结论16\n\n因此，基于前述理由，债权人请求本院全面驳回该驳回动议，并给予其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：May 11, 2022 /s/ Kristin B. Mayhew\n\nKristin B. Mayhew-ct20896 MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP 30 Jelliff Lane Southport, CT 06890 (203) 319-4000 kmayhew@mdmc-law.com\n\n- 以及 -\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari（特许出庭）David S. Forsh（特许出庭）CALLARI PARTNERS LLC One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 (212) 202-3050 ccallari@callaripartners.com dforsh@callaripartners.com\n\nRui Ma、Zheng Wu 和 Weican Meng 的代理律师\n\n16 在提交本异议书前后，债务人提交了一份“同意驳回案件”及对该驳回动议的答复。[ECF No. 344] 尽管债务人同意驳回，债权人按本文件所述对驳回提出的异议仍然存在（但现在可能有理由将本案转换）。如本文件所述，本案并非仅为双方之间的争议。本院必须考虑其他当事人的权利，债权人期待在该驳回动议的听证会上就此进行陈述。\n\n送达证明\n\n本人 Kristin B. Mayhew，特此证明，债权人 Rui Ma、Zheng Wu 和 Weican Meng 就 Pacific Alliance Asia opportunity Fund L.P. 提出的要求驳回本案或作为替代方案任命一名受托人的动议所提交的异议书的真实准确副本，已于 May 11, 2022 向本院提交。根据法院电子提交系统的运行机制，本次提交的通知将通过电子邮件发送给所有当事人。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF System 查阅本次提交。\n\n/s/ Kristin B. Mayhew Kristin B. Mayhew","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","CIPA","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":20,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":27,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":116,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":170,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":198,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":206,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":299,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":315,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":325,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":344,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":8331,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:31:15"}