{"id":"court_ctb_408_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":408,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re : Chapter 11 : Ho Wan Kwok, : Case No.","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re : Chapter 11 : Ho Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) : Debtor.<sup>1</sup> : : \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n#### **SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS ADDRESSING THE ALTERNATIVES OF DISMISSAL, CONVERSION OR THE APPOINTMENT OF A CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE<sup>2</sup>**\n\nThe Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"Committee\") of the above-named Debtor and Debtor in Possession, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), hereby submits this Supplemental Memorandum of Law Addressing the Alternatives of Dismissal, Conversion or the\n\nAppointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee in respect of PAX's Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case\n\nor, in the Alternative, Partial Joinder to United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing\n\nthe Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee, filed on April 6, 2022 (the \"Dismissal Motion\").<sup>3</sup>\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nTo further its own uniquely situated interests as an unsecured creditor of this estate,\n\nwhich by necessary implication it claims must be given predominance over the interests of all\n\n<sup>2</sup>At a status conference held on May 17, 2022, the Committee and PAX reported their agreement that \"cause\" exists under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1112(b)(1) and 1104(a)(1) for dismissal, conversion or the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee, and that the proceedings on the Dismissal Motion would be confined to addressing and asking the Court to decide which of those alternatives should be chosen as a form of relief on the Dismissal Motion and the United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of an Examiner or, in the Alternative, Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Examiner/Trustee Motion\"). The court permitted supplemental briefing on that issue.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\n<sup>3</sup> Capitalized terms that were defined in the Committee's Opposition to the Dismissal Motion (ECF No. 346) (the \"Committee Opposition\"), if used herein, shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Committee Opposition.\n\nother unsecured creditors, PAX has moved for a dismissal of this chapter 11 case for \"cause\" under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) on the grounds that the Debtor is \"misusing the bankruptcy system,\" filed his chapter 11 petition in bad faith, and is grossly mismanaging the estate. The transparent purpose of PAX's request for dismissal is to enable it to realize for itself all the Debtor's assets which PAX itself maintains belong to the Debtor, notwithstanding the Debtor's claims to the contrary. As more fully set forth below, the profile of this case demands either its conversion to chapter 7 or the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee so that a proper investigation into the Debtor's affairs can be conducted and assets in which the Debtor clearly has an interest can be marshalled and liquidated for the benefit of all creditors.\n\n#### **BRIEF RELEVANT BACKGROUND**\n\nPrior to the Petition Date, the Debtor was found to have \"a beneficial interest in … the Lady May,\" and \"ha[d] taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors.\" (February 9, 2022 Decision at 9). This interest is unquestionably a valuable asset that should be available to all creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding and can easily be realized through the pending adversary proceeding initiated by HK USA in this Court (Adv. 22-5003) (the \"Boat Adversary Proceeding\") and the advancement, by dispositive motion, of the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and/or the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Debtor's interest in the Lady May is property of the estate and is not subject to any lien of PAX.\n\nStill further, the Debtor acknowledges holding the 100% equity interest in Genever Holdings Corp. (\"Genever BVI\"), which, in turn, holds the membership interests in Genever Holdings, LLC (\"Genever US\"), the record owner of the 18th Floor of the Sherry Netherland apartment on Fifth Avenue in New York (the \"Sherry Netherland Apartment\") (Kwok Dec. ¶33b). Kwok claims, however, that it is held in trust for his son's company, Bravo Luck Limited\n\n2\n\n(\"Bravo Luck\") (*Id.*). The issue of ownership of the Sherry Netherland Apartment is currently the subject of a settlement agreement approved in the chapter 11 case of Genever US, Case No., Case No. 20-12411-JLG (\"Genever Chapter 11 Case\") 4 , whereby the parties (PAX, Bravo Luck and Genever US) agreed that PAX could litigate to conclusion the ownership issue in the New York Supreme Court Action (Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 652077/2017) (Genever Chapter 11 Case, ECF No. 131-1, at 7). Of note, the Sherry Netherland Apartment was purchased for \\$70 million (Friedman Dec., Ex. 11) and prior to the Petition Date, Kwok's equity interest therein was subject to a turnover order (Friedman Dec., Ex. 30) (the \"Turnover Order\") and a motion for contempt against Kwok for not complying with the Turnover Order (Friedman Ex. 31). Hon. Melanie L. Cyganowski (Ret.) was approved by court order to be the Sales Officer for the Sherry Netherland Apartment (Genever Chapter 11 Case, ECF No. 142), Sotheby's International Realty was authorized to be retained as the broker (Genever Chapter 11 Case, ECF No. 168), and the Sherry Netherland Apartment is currently listed for sale at \\$38,500.000.00. 5 The Debtor's equity interest in Genever BVI is clearly property of his estate, and is not subject to any lien of PAX. Yet other potential assets of the estate are two properties in Greenwich, Connecticut (373 Taconic Rd. and 33 Ferncliff Rd.) which Kwok claims are owned by a company owned by his wife, Greenwich Land, LLC.\n\nIn addition, Kwok was found by Judge Ostrager (after presiding over a case with 1,180 docket entries) to have engaged in \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidents, and family members\"\n\n<sup>4</sup> The settlement agreement is the Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement (Genever Chapter 11 Case, ECF No. 131-1) (the \"Genever Settlement Agreement\"), and was approved by order entered October 8, 2021 (Genever Chapter 11 Case, ECF No. 141).\n\n<sup>5</sup> The listing can be found at http fifth-avenue-18fl-upper-east-side-new-york-ny-10022.\n\n(February 9, 2022 Decision at 1), and PAX itself has acknowledged it is \"on the cusp of reaching\" Kwok's \"hidden assets\" (Dismissal Motion at 32). PAX also has substantial veil piercing claims pending in the New York Supreme Court Action (Friedman Dec., Ex. 4) and in the British Virgin Islands<sup>6</sup> that are assets of this estate.\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\n# **I.**\n\n#### **ONCE CAUSE IS FOUND, THE COURT MUST DETERMINE WHETHER CONVERSION, DISMISSAL OR THE APPOINTMENT OF A CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND THE ESTATE**\n\n\"Once 'cause' [under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1)] is established by the moving party, … the Court must determine whether a Chapter 11 trustee should be appointed or the case should be dismissed or converted to one under Chapter 7.\" *In re Products International Co.*, 395 B.R. 101, 111 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2008). *See also* 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1112.04[7], at 1112- 48 (Richard Levin & Henry Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2022) (identifying options of conversion, dismissal or appointment of a chapter 11 trustee as ones that must be considered once \"cause for relief under section 1112(b) is established\"). \"If the parties disagree on conversion, dismissal or appointment of trustee or examiner, the court should evaluate and choose the alternative that would be most advantageous to the parties and the estate as a whole.\" 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1112.04[7], at 1112-49 (Richard Levin & Henry Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2022).\n\nThe necessary determination of conversion, dismissal or the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee must be made regardless of whether the singular form of relief sought by the moving party is dismissal, in which case the moving party bears the burden to demonstrate that dismissal\n\n<sup>6</sup> *See* Pax's Amended Statement of Claim dated October 16, 2020 and Pax's Reply to the Defence of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants and Defence to the Counterclaim of the Second and Fourth Defendants dated January 29, 2021 in *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP v. Genever Holdigns Corp. et al*, Claim No. BVIHCM 0137 of 2020 (Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Virgin Islands, Commercial Division)\n\nis in the best interests of creditors and the estate. *See SWJ Management, LLC v. Coan*, 551 B.R. 93, 98 (D. Conn. 2015) (\"[w]hen a party moves for one of conversion or dismissal rather than the other, the movant bears the burden to show its preferred action is in the best interests of creditors and the estate\"), *appeal dismissed* No. 15-3338 (2d Cir. Dec. 16, 2015). *See also In re Julian*, No. 11-30151 (LMW), 2012 WL 506573, at \\*1, 5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Feb. 15, 2012) (creditor that had moved to dismiss case established \"cause\" based on debtor's bad faith, but court converted case to chapter 7 instead so that a trustee could investigate \"irregularities with respect to Debtor's prepetition and postpetition conduct\").\n\nIt matters not that the Debtor himself favors dismissal of this case. *SWJ*, 551 B.R. at 98 (\"[a] chapter 11 debtor's preference for dismissal is not dispositive\" and \"[i]f dismissal will prejudice the parties, a court may refuse to allow the debtor to dismiss the petition\") (internal quotation and citation omitted). *See also Francis v. Harrington* (*In re Francis*), BAP No. MB 18-012, 2019 WL 1265316, at \\*7 (1st Cir. BAP Mar. 14, 2019) (\"the Debtor's desire to extricate himself from bankruptcy does not impact the analysis\").\n\n#### **II. PAX CANNOT SHOW THAT DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND THE ESTATE**\n\nIn determining what is in the best interests of creditors and the estate,\n\nthe bankruptcy court has an independent obligation under § 1112 to consider a dismissal's impact on what would happen to all creditors on dismissal and, in light of its analysis, whether dismissal or conversion would be in the best interest of all creditors, *not just the largest and most vocal creditor* [citing authority]. Indeed, a bankruptcy court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider whether conversion or dismissal is in the creditors' and the estate's best interests.\n\n*In re Premier Golf Properties, LP*¸ 564 B.R. 710, 723 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2016) (emphasis added).\n\nIn the analysis, the Bankruptcy Code's \"fundamental policy of achieving equality among\n\ncreditors\" must be considered, and \"it is not served by merely tallying the votes of the unsecured\n\ncreditors and yielding to the majority interest.\" *Id.* Indeed, a bankruptcy court's dismissal of the case, rather than conversion, has been vacated where the court yielded to \"the consensus of a majority of [the debtor's] creditors,\" who were in favor of dismissal, and did not compare \"creditors' interests in bankruptcy with those they would have under state law.\" *Rollex Corp. v. Associated Materials Corp.* (*In re Superior Siding & Window, Inc.*), 14 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 1994). The Fourth Circuit explained that \"had [the court] taken into account the interests of all the creditors, the court would have likely concluded … that the interests of the creditors would have been better served by conversion … to a Chapter 7 proceeding.\" *Id.*. *Rollex* remains good law. *See Lakefront Investors LLC v. Clarkson*, 484 B.R. 72, 83-84 (D. Md. 2012).\n\nIt has been held that creditors are best served by the course of action that \"provides the best chance for the largest number of creditors to be paid the largest amount of money in the shortest amount of time.\" *In re 1121 Pier Village LLC*, 635 B.R. 127, 142 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2022). *See also In re Capra,* 614 B.R. 291, 297 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2020). In addition, conversion will be favored over dismissal where \"more investigation is necessary to uncover the debtor's potential hidden assets,\" *Mitan v. Duval* (*In re Mitan*), 573 F.3d 237, 247 (6th Cir. 2009), or to allow a chapter 7 trustee to investigate \"irregularities with respect to the Debtor's prepetition and postpetition conduct.\" *In re Julian*, No. 11-30151 (LMW), 2012 WL 506573, at \\*1, 5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Feb. 15, 2012). *See also SWJ*, 551 B.R. at 99 (citing decision for proposition that \"the need for a neutral, unbiased trustee to investigate transfers favored conversion over dismissal\") (internal quotation and citation omitted). Conversion is also favored where a chapter 7 trustee could pursue estate causes of action, *In re Team Systems International LLC*, Case No. 22-10066 (CTG), at \\*17 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 30, 2022); *In re Westhampton Coachworks, Ltd.*, Nos. 09-73008-ast. 09-73009-ast, 2010 WL 5348422, at \\*7 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.\n\n2010), or \"oversee the liquidation and distribution of assets,\" *In re Speer*, Case No. 3:15-cv-646- RNC, 2018 WL 587313, at \\*1 (D. Conn. Jan. 29, 2018). In particular, \"if the creditors are better served by the centralized collection and disbursement provided by the bankruptcy process, then conversion, rather than dismissal, is in the best interests of creditors and serves as the preferred remedy.\" *In re Babayoff*¸ 445 B.R. 64, 82 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Administrative insolvency, such as exists in this case, also favors conversion over dismissal. *In re BH S&B Holdings, LLC*, 439 B.R. 342, 349 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). Additional factors to consider are \"'whether the debtor had engaged in misconduct and whether creditors are in need of a chapter 7 case to protect their interests'.\" *SWJ*, 551 B.R. at 99 (quoting Collier treatise).\n\nThe profile of this case overwhelmingly suggests that conversion is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, as it will allow the estate's claims to the Lady May and the Sherry Netherland Apartment, as well as the veil piercing claims brought by PAX prepetition, to be adjudicated, marshalled and liquidated in a centralized forum for the benefit of *all* creditors. In contrast, a dismissal will undoubtedly aid PAX in realizing on those assets for itself while other creditors are left behind to engage in a race to the courthouse to obtain their judgments. Conversion will also allow for a proper investigation into the Debtor's \"potential hidden assets\" that PAX says it was on the \"cusp of reaching\" before this case was filed, and creditors are most certainly in need of a chapter 7 case to protect their interests because otherwise, PAX will realize upon all of the Debtor's assets outside of bankruptcy. In that respect, dismissal would be antithetical to the fundamental bankruptcy purpose of equality of distribution among creditors.\n\nAlthough there is currently no funding to litigate estate causes of action, a chapter 7 or 11 trustee would have an opportunity to either obtain litigation funding, which has been approved in\n\n7\n\nbankruptcy cases, *see e.g. Dean v. Seidel*, Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-01834, 2021 WL 1541550 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021), *appeal dismissed* 18 F.4th 842 (5th Cir. 2021); *In re Land Resource, LLC*, 505 B.R. 571, 587 (M.D. Fla. 2014), or locate special counsel who would be willing to be retained on a contingency fee basis.\n\n#### **III. APPOINTMENT OF A CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\nIf the Court is of the view that conversion is not in the best interests of creditors and the estate, the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee is a better alternative than dismissal. Acrimony with creditors and a debtor's inherent conflicts of interests, both of which exist in this case, are sufficient cause to appoint a chapter 11 trustee. *In re Taub*, 427 B.R. 208, 229 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2010), *aff'd* 2011 WL 1322390 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2011). Similarly, as also exists in this case, a debtor's failure to conduct impartial investigations to decide whether to pursue estate recoveries is also cause for the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee. *In re Sillerman*, 605 B.R. 631, 648 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019). In *Sillerman*, the bankruptcy court found cause to convert and for the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee, but chose the latter form of relief at the recommendation of the creditors' committee. *Id.* at 657.\n\nEven when bad faith is found, \"in many situations, the court might be better advised to address the bad faith conduct of the debtor … in a manner other than through dismissal of the proceedings.\" 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1112.07[4], at 1112-64 (Richard Levin & Henry Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2022). The Collier treatise provides the following pertinent example:\n\nthe debtor may be guilty of the most egregious bad faith in the handling of the case, and yet the reorganization might still be in the best interests of all concerned. In situations of this kind, the court might take a more surgical approach, and rather than dismiss the case, the court might simply appoint a chapter 11 trustee. Indeed, if it appears that creditors would be better off with a reorganization notwithstanding the debtor's bad faith, it might be an abuse of discretion for the court to order dismissal.\n\n*Id.*\n\nIn this case, a chapter 11 trustee would have the same ability as a chapter 7 trustee to attract litigation funding or special counsel to pursue estate claims, while the chapter 11 process would remain open for a possible creditor plan of reorganization<sup>7</sup> which could equitably divide estate assets. This is preferable to dismissal.\n\n#### **IV. DISMISSAL**\n\nIf the Court is of the view that the case should be dismissed, dismissal should be conditioned on payment of all professional fees incurred by the Committee for services that were rendered in furtherance of its statutory duties. Further, in consideration of dismissal, the Court should order counsel for the Debtor to disclose whether or not any agreement has been made for payment of its fees that has not been previously disclosed. *See* Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2016(b); 11\n\nU.S.C. § 329(a).\n\nDated: Bridgeport, Connecticut\n\n### May 20, 2022 **OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF HO WAN KWOK**\n\nBy: */s/Irve J. Goldman* Irve J. Goldman Jonathan A. Kaplan Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street, 8th Floor PO Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006 (203) 330-2213 [igoldman@pullcom.com](mailto:igoldman@pullcom.com)\n\nIts Attorneys\n\n<sup>7</sup> The Debtor's exclusivity terminates immediately upon the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee. 11 U.S.C. § 1121(c)(1).\n\n#### **CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE**\n\nI herby certify that on May 20, 2022, the foregoing Supplemental Memorandum of Law was filed via the Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system (\"CM/ECF\"), which sent notice to all parties receiving notification through CM/ECF.\n\n> */s/ Irve J. Goldman* Irve J. Goldman","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院（United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division）\n\n事由：第11章：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），：案号 22-50073 (JAM)：债务人1。：：____________________________________________：\n\n______________________________________________\n无担保债权人官方委员会就驳回、转换或指定第11章受托人的替代方案提交的补充法律备忘录2\n\n上述债务人及占有中债务人（Debtor in Possession）Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”或“Kwok”）的无担保债权人官方委员会（Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors，“委员会”）特此就 PAX 于 2022 年 4 月 6 日提交的《关于驳回第 11 章案件或以备选方式部分加入美国受托人请求下达指令指定第 11 章受托人之动议的动议》（“驳回动议”）3，提交本份《就驳回、转换或指定第 11 章受托人的替代方案的补充法律备忘录》。\n\n前言\n\n为了进一步谋求其作为本破产财团无担保债权人的独特自身利益——依其必然含意，PAX 声称该利益必须优先于所有其他无担保债权人的利益——PAX 依据 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1)，以债务人“滥用破产制度”、出于恶意提交第 11 章破产申请且对破产财团存在重大管理不善为由，基于“正当理由”（cause）动议驳回本第 11 章案件。尽管债务人提出了相反的主张，但 PAX 自身仍坚称所有资产均归债务人所有，其请求驳回的昭然目的，就是为了使其能够将债务人的全部资产据为己有。如下文更详尽阐述，本案的情况要求要么将其转换为第 7 章程序，要么指定一名第 11 章受托人，以便对债务人的事务展开适当调查，并将债务人明显拥有权益的资产予以归集并清算，以维护全体债权人的利益。\n\n2在 2022 年 5 月 17 日举行的地位会议（status conference）上，委员会与 PAX 报告双方达成一致意见，即依据 11 U.S.C. §§ 1112(b)(1) 和 1104(a)(1)，存在用于驳回、转换或指定第 11 章受托人的“正当理由”，且关于驳回动议的审理程序将仅限于讨论并请求法院决定应选择上述哪一种替代方案作为驳回动议及美国受托人（United States Trustee）的《请求下达指令指定审查员之动议，或以备选方式请求下达指令指定第 11 章受托人之动议》（“审查员/受托人动议”）的救济形式。法院准许就该问题提交补充简报。\n\n1 债务人已知姓名如下：Guo Wengui（郭文贵）；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n3 委员会在《对驳回动议的异议》（ECF No. 346）（“委员会异议”）中已定义的专有名词（首字母大写术语），若在此处使用，应具有与委员会异议中赋予它们相同的含义。\n\n简要相关背景\n\n在申请日之前，债务人已被认定“在……Lady May（梅号游艇）中享有实益权益”，并且“采取了非同寻常的手段向其债权人隐匿该游艇”。（2022 年 2 月 9 日裁定，第 9 页）。该权益毫无疑问是一项有价值的资产，理应在破产程序中供全体债权人受偿，并且可以通过 HK USA 在本法院发起的正在审理中的附随诉讼（Adv. 22-5003）（“游艇附随诉讼”）以及通过提出决定性动议主张既判力（res judicata）、争点排除（collateral estoppel）和/或鲁克-费尔德曼教理（Rooker-Feldman doctrine）而轻易变现。债务人在 Lady May 中的权益属于破产财团财产，不受 PAX 的任何留置权约束。\n\n此外，债务人承认持有 Genever Holdings Corp.（“Genever BVI”）100% 的股权，而 Genever BVI 又持有 Genever Holdings, LLC（“Genever US”）的成员权益，后者是位于纽约第五大道雪莉-荷兰公寓（Sherry Netherland Apartment）18 层（“雪莉-荷兰公寓”）的登记所有权人（Kwok 声明，第 33b 段）。然而，Kwok 声称该房产是为其儿子的公司 Bravo Luck Limited（“Bravo Luck”）信托持有的（同上）。雪莉-荷兰公寓的所有权问题目前是 Genever US 第 11 章案件（案号 20-12411-JLG，“Genever 第 11 章案件”）4 中获准的和解协议的主题，各方当事人（PAX、Bravo Luck 和 Genever US）据此同意 PAX 可以在纽约州最高法院诉讼（纽约县最高法院，索引号 652077/2017）中就所有权问题诉讼至终局（Genever 第 11 章案件，ECF No. 131-1，第 7 页）。值得注意的是，雪莉-荷兰公寓是以 7000 万美元购得的（Friedman 声明，附件 11），且在申请日之前，Kwok 在其中的股权已受到移交令（Turnover Order）（Friedman 声明，附件 30）（“移交令”）以及因 Kwok 未能遵守移交令而提起的藐视法庭动议（Friedman 附件 31）的约束。已退休的前法官 Melanie L. Cyganowski（Hon. Melanie L. Cyganowski (Ret.)）经法院裁定批准担任雪莉-荷兰公寓的销售官（Genever 第 11 章案件，ECF No. 142），苏富比国际地产（Sotheby's International Realty）获准被聘为经纪商（Genever 第 11 章案件，ECF No. 168），且雪莉-荷兰公寓目前的挂牌出售价为 38,500,000.00 美元。5 债务人在 Genever BVI 中的股权显然属于其破产财团财产，且不受 PAX 的任何留置权约束。破产财团的另外两项潜在资产是位于康涅狄格州格林威治的两处房产（373 Taconic Rd. 和 33 Ferncliff Rd.），Kwok 声称这两处房产归其妻子拥有的公司 Greenwich Land, LLC 所有。\n\n此外，Ostrager 法官（Judge Ostrager）（在审理了一起包含 1,180 项案卷记录的案件后）认定 Kwok 存在“试图通过将自己的大量个人资产存放在一系列公司、受信赖的心腹以及家族成员处，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为”（2022 年 2 月 9 日裁定，第 1 页），且 PAX 自身也承认其“即将触及”Kwok 的“隐匿资产”（驳回动议，第 32 页）。PAX 在纽约州最高法院诉讼（Friedman 声明，附件 4）以及英属维尔京群岛6中提起的尚在审理的大量刺破公司面纱主张，也均属于本破产财团的资产。\n\n4 该和解协议为《第二次修订及重述和解协议》（Genever 第 11 章案件，ECF No. 131-1）（“Genever 和解协议”），并于 2021 年 10 月 8 日由下达的命令批准（Genever 第 11 章案件，ECF No. 141）。\n\n5 挂牌信息见 http fifth-avenue-18fl-upper-east-side-new-york-ny-10022。\n\n6 参见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP 诉 Genever Holdings Corp. 等人案（索赔号 BVIHCM 0137 of 2020，东加勒比最高法院维尔京群岛商事庭）中 PAX 于 2020 年 10 月 16 日提交的《经修订的索赔声明书》以及 PAX 于 2021 年 1 月 29 日提交的《对第一、第二、第三和第四被告辩诉的答辩及对第二和第四被告反诉的答辩》。\n\n论证\n\nI.\n一旦认定存在正当理由，法院必须确定转换、驳回还是指定第 11 章受托人最符合债权人和破产财团的最佳利益\n\n“一旦动议方确立了‘正当理由’[依据 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1)]，……法院必须确定是应当指定一名第 11 章受托人，还是应当驳回案件，亦或是将案件转换为第 7 章程序。”In re Products International Co., 395 B.R. 101, 111 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2008)。另见 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1112.04[7], at 1112-48 (Richard Levin & Henry Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2022)（指出转换、驳回或指定第 11 章受托人的选项，是“依据第 1112(b) 条获得救济的正当理由确立后”必须予以考虑的选择）。“如果各方当事人在转换、驳回或指定受托人或审查员的问题上存在分歧，法院应当评估并选择对各方当事人以及破产财团整体最有利的替代方案。”7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1112.04[7], at 1112-49 (Richard Levin & Henry Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2022)。\n\n无论动议方所寻求的唯一救济形式是否为驳回案件，都必须对转换、驳回或指定第 11 章受托人作出必要裁定；在仅寻求驳回的情况下，动议方承担证明驳回最符合债权人和破产财团最佳利益的举证责任。参见 SWJ Management, LLC v. Coan, 551 B.R. 93, 98 (D. Conn. 2015)（“当一方当事人动议寻求转换或驳回其中之一而非另一项时，动议方承担证明其倾向的行动最符合债权人和破产财团最佳利益的举证责任”），上诉驳回 No. 15-3338 (2d Cir. Dec. 16, 2015)。另见 In re Julian, No. 11-30151 (LMW), 2012 WL 506573, at *1, 5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Feb. 15, 2012)（动议驳回案件的债权人基于债务人的恶意确立了“正当理由”，但法院转而将案件转换为第 7 章程序，以便受托人能够调查“与债务人在申请前和申请后的行为有关的违规情形”）。\n\n债务人自身赞成驳回本案这一点并不重要。SWJ, 551 B.R. at 98（“第 11 章债务人对驳回的倾向并非决定性的”，且“如果驳回将损害各方当事人的利益，法院可以拒绝允许债务人撤回申请”）（引文及引证省略）。另见 Francis v. Harrington (In re Francis), BAP No. MB 18-012, 2019 WL 1265316, at *7 (1st Cir. BAP Mar. 14, 2019)（“债务人摆脱破产的愿望并不影响该分析”）。\n\nII. PAX 无法证明驳回本案符合债权人和破产财团的最佳利益\n\n在确定何者符合债权人和破产财团的最佳利益时，\n\n根据第 1112 条，破产法院负有独立义务去考虑驳回对所有债权人在驳回后境遇的影响，并根据其分析，判断驳回还是转换符合全体债权人的最佳利益，而不仅仅是最大和发声最响亮的债权人的利益[引述权威案例]。事实上，如果破产法院未能考虑转换还是驳回符合债权人和破产财团的最佳利益，即构成滥用裁量权。\n\nIn re Premier Golf Properties, LP, 564 B.R. 710, 723 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2016)（强调为后加）。\n\n在该分析中，必须考量《破产法典》关于“实现债权人之间平等”的“基本政策”，并且“仅仅统计无担保债权人的票数并屈从于多数人利益并不能达到这一目的。”同上。事实上，如果法院屈从于赞成驳回的“多数[债务人的]债权人的共识”，并且没有将“债权人在破产程序中的利益与其在州法下所拥有的利益”进行权衡比较，破产法院作出的驳回案件而非转换案件的裁定已被撤销。Rollex Corp. v. Associated Materials Corp. (In re Superior Siding & Window, Inc.), 14 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 1994)。第四巡回上诉法院解释称，“如果[法院]考虑了全体债权人的利益，法院很可能会得出结论……将案件转换……为第 7 章程序更能维护债权人的利益。”同上。Rollex 案判例仍然有效。参见 Lakefront Investors LLC v. Clarkson, 484 B.R. 72, 83-84 (D. Md. 2012)。\n\n已有判例认定，最符合债权人利益的做法是采取“为尽可能多的债权人在最短时间内获得尽可能多的清偿提供最大可能”的行动方案。见 In re 1121 Pier Village LLC 案，635 B.R. 127, 142 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2022)；另见 In re Capra 案，614 B.R. 291, 297 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2020)。此外，当“需要进行更多调查以揭示债务人潜在的隐匿资产”时，Mitan v. Duval (In re Mitan) 案，573 F.3d 237, 247 (6th Cir. 2009)，或者为了允许第7章破产受托人调查“债务人在申请破产前及申请破产后行为中的不合规情况”，In re Julian 案，No. 11-30151 (LMW), 2012 WL 506573, at *1, 5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Feb. 15, 2012)，程序转换将优于驳回案件。另见 SWJ 案，551 B.R. at 99（援引判决中“需要一名中立、公正的受托人来调查转移行为，这一需求支持了程序转换而非驳回”的主张）（内部引用与引文省略）。在第7章受托人能够代表破产财产提起诉讼时，程序转换亦受到支持，见 In re Team Systems International LLC 案，Case No. 22-10066 (CTG), at *17 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 30, 2022)；In re Westhampton Coachworks, Ltd. 案，Nos. 09-73008-ast, 09-73009-ast, 2010 WL 5348422, at *7 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2010)，或者在受托人能够“监督资产的清算与分配”时，In re Speer 案，Case No. 3:15-cv-646-RNC, 2018 WL 587313, at *1 (D. Conn. Jan. 29, 2018)。特别是，“如果破产程序所提供的集中归集与清偿分配能够更好地服务于债权人，那么转换程序而非驳回案件便符合债权人的最大利益，且是首选的救济方式。”In re Babayoff 案，445 B.R. 64, 82 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011)（内部引用与引文省略）。破产管理费用无力清偿的情况（正如本案中所存在的那样）也支持转换程序而非驳回案件。In re BH S&B Holdings, LLC 案，439 B.R. 342, 349 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)。其他需要考量的因素包括“‘债务人是否存在不当行为，以及债权人是否需要第7章案件来保护其利益’”。SWJ 案，551 B.R. at 99（援引《科利尔论破产》（Collier treatise））。\n\n本案的整体情况压倒性地表明，转换程序最符合债权人和破产财产的利益，因为这将允许破产财产对 Lady May（梅号游艇）以及 Sherry Netherland Apartment（雪梨荷兰公寓）的主张，以及 PAX（太盟）在申请破产前所提起的揭开公司面纱诉求，在一个集中的司法管辖地中为了全体债权人的利益进行裁判、归集和变现清算。相比之下，驳回案件无疑将帮助太盟将这些资产据为己有变现，而其他债权人则被抛在身后，不得不陷入赶往法院获取判决的争先竞速中。转换程序还将允许对债务人的“潜在隐匿资产”进行适当调查，而太盟称其在本案申请前夕已“即将触及”这些资产；债权人极其需要一个第7章案件来保护其利益，因为否则的话，太盟将在破产程序之外对债务人的全部资产进行变现。就此而言，驳回案件将与破产法在债权人之间公平分配的基本目的背道而驰。\n\n尽管目前尚无资金用于破产财产诉由的诉讼，但第7章或第11章受托人将有机会获得诉讼融资——这已在破产案件中获得批准，参见例如 Dean v. Seidel 案，Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-01834, 2021 WL 1541550 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021), appeal dismissed 18 F.4th 842 (5th Cir. 2021)；In re Land Resource, LLC 案，505 B.R. 571, 587 (M.D. Fla. 2014)——或者寻找愿意以风险代理费方式受聘的特别法律顾问。\n\nIII. 指定第11章受托人\n\n如果法院认为转换程序不符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益，那么指定第11章受托人是比驳回案件更好的替代方案。与债权人之间的敌意以及债务人固有的利益冲突（两者均存在于本案中），均构成指定第11章受托人的充分法定事由。In re Taub 案，427 B.R. 208, 229 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd 2011 WL 1322390 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2011)。同样地，正如本案中所存在的那样，债务人未能开展公正调查以决定是否追索破产财产权益，也是指定第11章受托人的法定事由。In re Sillerman 案，605 B.R. 631, 648 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)。在 Sillerman 案中，破产法院认定存在转换程序以及指定第11章受托人的法定事由，但在债权人委员会的建议下选择了后一种救济形式。同上，第657页。\n\n即使被认定存在恶意，“在许多情况下，法院若以驳回诉讼程序之外的其他方式来处理债务人的恶意行为，可能会更为妥当。”7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1112.07[4], at 1112-64 (Richard Levin & Henry Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2022)。《科利尔论破产》提供了以下切题的示例：\n\n债务人可能在案件处理中犯有最令人发指的恶意行为，但重组仍可能符合所有相关方的最大利益。在此类情况下，法院可以采取更为精准精细的做法，法院可以不驳回案件，而只是简单地指定一名第11章受托人。事实上，如果表明尽管债务人存在恶意，但重组对债权人而言会更有利，那么法院下令驳回案件可能构成滥用裁量权。\n\n出处同上。\n\n在本案中，第11章受托人与第7章受托人一样有能力吸引诉讼融资或特别法律顾问来追索破产财产的主张，同时第11章程序仍将保持开放，以便可能达成债权人重组计划7，从而公平分割破产财产资产。这优于驳回案件。\n\nIV. 驳回案件\n\n如果法院认为应当驳回本案，则驳回应以支付委员会为履行其法定义务而提供服务所产生的所有专业费用为前提条件。此外，在考虑驳回案件时，法院应当命令债务人的代理律师披露是否已就其费用的支付达成了任何此前未曾披露的协议。参见 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2016(b)；11 U.S.C. § 329(a)。\n\n日期：康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n2022年5月20日\n\nOFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF HO WAN KWOK（Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）无担保债权人官方委员会）\n\n签署人：/s/ Irve J. Goldman\nIrve J. Goldman\nJonathan A. Kaplan\nPullman & Comley, LLC\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor\nPO Box 7006\nBridgeport, CT 06601-7006\n(203) 330-2213\n[igoldman@pullcom.com]\n\n其代理律师\n\n7 债务人的专属权在指定第11章受托人后立即终止。11 U.S.C. § 1121(c)(1)。\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于2022年5月20日，上述《补充法律备忘录》已通过法院的 CM/ECF（案件管理/电子案卷系统）电子申报系统（“CM/ECF”）进行提交，该系统已向所有通过 CM/ECF 接收通知的当事方发送了通知。\n\n/s/ Irve J. Goldman\nIrve J. Goldman","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Guo","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":131,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":141,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":142,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":168,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":346,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3053,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:30:40"}