{"id":"court_ctb_416_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":416,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re Chapter 11","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n**In re Chapter 11**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\n**a/k/a WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES GUO,**\n\n**Debtor.**\n\n## **UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S POSITION STATEMENT REGARDING REQUIRED RELIEF UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nIn accordance with the Court's directive on May 17, 2022 at a status conference held in this case, William K. Harrington (ECF 381), the United States Trustee for Region 2 (\"United States Trustee\"), respectfully submits, through counsel, his position statement in connection with 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 (ECF 102) and the Motion to Dismiss or, In The Alternative, Partial Joinder to the United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee filed by creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") (ECF 183).\n\n#### **STATEMENT**\n\nThe Court has directed parties to file position papers as to which of the only three options available to the Court, dismissal, conversion or alternatively, the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee, it should elect, after the Court having made a finding that \"*cause\"* exists under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) (\"Section 1112(b)\"), based on consensus and agreement of all parties in interest. These cases involve a myriad of allegations by a variety of interested parties against the Debtor regarding, among others, the fulsomeness of his disclosures and his ability to meet his obligations as a debtor in possession and contrasting viewpoints as to the appropriate remedy to resolve these issues and concerns. While the United States Trustee takes no position as to which of the three available options is appropriate, the United States Trustee files this position statement to: (1) urge the Court to make an immediate decision as to the appropriate remedy as the United States Trustee believes that allowing the debtor to\n\nremain as a debtor in possession is an abuse of the bankruptcy process and impacts the integrity of the bankruptcy system; (2) address the applicable legal standards; (3) raise issues and concerns regarding certain of the available remedies; and (4) reserve his rights to raise any issue at the hearing as to the appropriate remedy following a finding that \"cause\" exist pursuant to Section 1112(b).<sup>1</sup>\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n1. The Debtor filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition (\"Petition\") on February 15, 2022 (\"Petition Date\"). ECF 1.<sup>2</sup> The Debtor filed his chapter 11 case just days after the February 2022 Contempt Decision in the PAX Lawsuit<sup>3</sup> in New York State Court and on eve of the deadline to pay PAX a contempt award of \\$134,000,000 imposed by the February 2022 Contempt Decision due to the Debtor's failure to return the yacht known as the Lady May to the jurisdiction of New York.\n\n2. While seemingly having access to significant funds, including the ability to procure a \\$1 million dollar retainer for his counsel,<sup>4</sup> the Debtor, in his chapter 11 filing to date, claims that he has no regular income and virtually no assets. The limited assets identified to date by the Debtor amount to less than \\$20,000, with the majority, including certain causes of action, being valued at \"unknown.\" ECF 1; 20; 77, 78 and 79. Despite his alleged minimal assets and lack of income, the Debtor lists unsecured debts exceeding \\$373 million. *Id*. All of this raises many questions, many of which remain unanswered despite the three-month pendency of this case.\n\n<sup>1</sup> To the extent that the Court immediately makes the election of an appropriate remedy, the United States Trustee's request for the appointment of an examiner pursuant to the United States Trustee's motion for the appointment of an examiner or, in the alternative, for the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee (\"UST Trustee Motion\") filed on March 19, 2022 shall be rendered moot. ECF 102.\n\n<sup>2</sup> A company connected to the Debtor, Genever Holdings, LLC (\"GH\"), has a current pending chapter 11 case in the Southern District of New York bearing case number 20-12411-jlg (\"GH Bankruptcy Case\"). GH is a single member New York limited liability company. *See* GH's Disclosure Statement filed on January 7, 2022 at ECF 165 in the GH Bankruptcy Case (\"GH ECF 165\") and GH's Liquidating Plan filed on January 7, 2022 at ECF 164 in the GH Bankruptcy Case; *see also* Statement of Financial Affairs at ECF 4 in the GH Bankruptcy Case. The sole member of GH is Genever Holdings Corporation (\"GH Corp\"). *Id*. The Debtor personally manages GH Corp. *Id.* The primary asset of GH is the NYC Residence, a luxury apartment and auxiliary units that occupy the entire 18th floor of The Sherry-Netherland Inc. on Fifth Avenue in New York City purchased for approximately \\$70 million in 2015. *See* GH ECF 165 and GH ECF 164; *see also* GH Bankruptcy Case at ECF 1 and 83. *It is important to note that should the Court direct the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee in this case, the chapter 11 trustee will have responsibilities in the GH Bankruptcy Case. Similarly, a chapter 7 trustee will also have responsibilities in the GH Bankruptcy Case.*\n\n<sup>3</sup> Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the UST Trustee Motion. ECF 102.\n\n<sup>4</sup> The Debtor procured a \\$1 million dollar retainer for his counsel. *See* ECF 54; ECF 86; ECF 77 at page 17; ECF 78 at page 20.\n\n3. From the start, it was obvious that the Debtor's calculated chapter 11 filing was not about marshalling assets to pay the millions he owes to creditors, but instead to insulate himself from the February 2022 Contempt Decision, to re-litigate the PAX Lawsuit, and to frustrate PAX's collection efforts.\n\n4. Another example of a strategic move designed to achieve his goals was the Debtor's filing of a plan and touting it to the Court as proof of his good intentions. ECF 197. The Court has already noted that the plan suffers from several flaws. From the United States Trustee's perspective, as well as the perspective of PAX and the Committee, the plan is a complete non-starter and is not confirmable.\n\n5. To both fund and control the chapter 11 case, the Debtor arranged for funding from Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\"), an alleged secured creditor and an insider purportedly owned and controlled by the Debtor's son. The Debtor proposed that Golden Spring would lend up to \\$9 million dollars to the Debtor and his estate to fund professionals, which included a \\$1 million set-aside that would not be available for professionals. ECF 117, 260, 315 (collectively \"DIP Financing\").<sup>5</sup> The Court did not approve the DIP Financing. Thwarted by this turn of events and facing PAX's opposition to the Debtor remaining in chapter 11, as well as the opposition from both PAX and the United States Trustee to the Debtor remaining in control as a debtor in possession, the Debtor filed a pleading on May 11, 2022 consenting to dismissal of his case and withdrew the motion for DIP Financing. ECF 344, 345.\n\n6. At a hearing held on May 17, 2022, the Debtor, PAX, the Committee and certain creditors advised the Court that they were in unanimous agreement that *cause* exists under Section 1112(b) and that the only issue in dispute is what form of relief is appropriate: dismissal, chapter 11 trustee, or conversion to chapter 7. ECF 381.\n\n<sup>5</sup> The original terms of the DIP Financing contained termination events that, if approved, would have had the practical effect of dictating to this Court and creditors that the Debtor would remain in control of this case whatever his conduct and eviscerating the rights provided in the Bankruptcy Code to remove the Debtor as a debtor-in-possession.\n\n## **LEGAL ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. The Court Must Select and Impose Relief Under Section 1112(b).**\n\nSection 1112(b)<sup>6</sup> mandates that the Court dismiss or convert a chapter 11 case where any of the acts or omissions identified as \"cause\" in Section 1112(b) exist.<sup>7</sup> *SWJ Management, LLC v. Coan (In re SWJ Management, LLC),* 551 B.R 93, 97 (D. Conn. 2015); *Vega v. United States Trustee (In re Vega),* 2014 WL 4843698, \\*3 (D. Conn. September 29, 2014); *In re Van Eck*, 425 B.R. 54, 58-59 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2010); *In re First Connecticut Consulting Group, Inc.*, 2018 WL 2121531, \\*3-4 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018); *In re Julian*, 2012 WL 506572, \\*3-4 (Bankr. D. Conn. February 15, 2012); *In re Emergystat of Sulligent, Inc.*, 2008 WL 597613, \\*5-6 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2008); *In re Gateway Access Solutions, Inc.*, 374 B.R. 556, 560 (Bankr. M. D. Pa. 2007); *In re TCR of Denver, LLC*, 338 B.R. 494, 498 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006). The mandatory language of Section 1112(b) is a substantial departure from the former law, which left dismissal or conversion entirely in the Court's discretion. *In re Emergystat of Sulligent, Inc.*, 2008 WL 597613, \\*5-6; *In re Gateway Access Solutions, Inc.*, 374 B.R. at 560. \"Congress has purposefully limited the role of this Court in deciding issues of conversion or dismissal, such that this Court has no choice, and no discretion, in that it 'shall' dismiss or convert a case under Chapter 11 if the elements for 'cause' are shown under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4).\" *In re TCR of Denver, LLC*, 338 B.R. at 498.\n\n<sup>6</sup> Section 1112(b) governs conversion and dismissal of chapter 11 cases and states in relevant part as follows: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (c), 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 court determines that the appointment under section 1104(a) of a trustee or an examiner is in the best interests of creditors and the estate. (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 -- (A) there is a reasonable likelihood that a plan will be confirmed within the timeframes established in sections\n\n<sup>1121(</sup>e) and 1129(e) of this title . . .; and\n\n<sup>(</sup>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<sup>(</sup>i) for which there exists a reasonable justification for the act or omission; and\n\n<sup>(</sup>ii) that will be cured within a reasonable period of time fixed by the court.\n\n<sup>7</sup> The limited exception under Section 1112(b)(2) applies if a debtor shows that there is \"reasonable justification\" for the deficiencies in the case, those deficiencies \"will be cured within a reasonable period of time,\" and there is a reasonable likelihood that the debtor will confirm a plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(2); *Vega v. United States Trustee,* 2014 WL 4843698, \\*3; *In re Van Eck*, 425 B.R. at 58-59; *In re Emergystat of Sulligent, Inc.*, 2008 WL 597613, \\*5-6; *In re Gateway Access Solutions, Inc.*, 374 B.R. at 561. No such circumstances exist in this case, and the Debtor has consented to dismissal.\n\nWhere \"cause\" has been found, a court cannot leave a debtor in control of the chapter 11 case. *In re*\n\n*Herb Philipson's Army and Navy Stores, Inc.*, 2019 WL 11031654, \\*7 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. December 19, 2019)\n\n(\"[h]aving found cause under §1112(b)(4)(A), the Court cannot leave Debtor in control of the case\"; *citation*\n\n*omitted*). As one court succinctly put it:\n\nDismissal or conversion of a Chapter 11 case must be granted, under 11 U.S.C. [§1112\\(b\\),](http)#co_pp_a83b000018c76) if the moving party demonstrates \"cause\" for that relief, and if the Court finds that exceptions under 11 U.S.C. §§1112(b)(1) and (2) do not apply. The exception under [11](http)#co_pp_3fed000053a85) U.S.C. [§1112\\(b\\)\\(1\\)](http)#co_pp_3fed000053a85) arises where, on request of a party in interest, the Court determines that the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee, rather than conversion or dismissal, is in the best interests of creditors and the estate … The exception under 11 [U.S.C.](http)#co_pp_c0ae00006c482) [§1112\\(b\\)\\(2\\)](http)#co_pp_c0ae00006c482) only applies where the Court finds and identifies unusual circumstances establishing that conversion or dismissal is not in the best interests of creditors and the estate, coupled with a showing under 11 U.S.C. [§1112\\(b\\)\\(2\\)\\(A\\)](http)#co_pp_1eca000045f07) and (B).\n\n*In re MCM Natural Stone, Inc.*, 2022 WL 1074065, \\*4 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. April 8, 2022) *(citations omitted)*.\n\nHere, *cause* exists and all constituencies have so agreed. The Debtor consents to dismissal and no unusual circumstances under Section 1112(b)(2) are present. Because the alternative relief of a chapter 11 trustee is also squarely before the Court, the Court must choose between (i) dismissal, (ii) conversion to chapter 7, or (iii) a chapter 11 trustee. There is no option to do nothing and leaving the debtor in possession would be an abuse of the bankruptcy process and impact the integrity of the bankruptcy system.\n\n#### **II. Chapter 11 Trustee Must Have Full Statutory Powers**\n\nIf the Court elects the alternative option of appointing a chapter 11 trustee, the Court must ensure that the trustee will fulfill her full mandate bestowed by congress. The authority under chapter 11 to manage the debtor's assets and affairs lies exclusively with a chapter 11 trustee or the debtor as a debtor in possession. \"These is no such entity as a limited purpose trustee under the Code.\" *Official Comm. Of Asbestos Pers. Injury Claimants v. Sealed Air Corp. and Cryovac, Inc. (In re W.R. Grace & Co.),* 285 B.R. 148, 157 (Bankr. D. Del. 2002). The appointment of a chapter 11 trustee displaces a debtor in possession. *See* 11 U.S.C. §1101(1) (defining debtor in possession as the debtor \"except when a person that has qualified under section 322 of this title is serving as trustee\"); *see generally* Richard Levin & Henry J. Sommer, 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUTPCY Par. 1107.01 (16th ed. 2020).\n\nOnce the Court directs the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee, the Code imposes mandatory obligations upon the selected individual. Simply put, Section 1106 imposes a series of consistent and predictable trustee requirements. Thus, for example, a trustee may not act beyond the scope of Section 1106. *See, e.g., Mancuso v. Sullivan (In re Sullivan)*, 153 B.R. 751 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1993) (chapter 11 trustee was not authorized to oppose discharge because that action was not authorized under 11 U.S.C. §1106).\n\n### **III. Dismissal vs. Conversion vs. Chapter 11 Trustee**\n\nAs noted above, there are contrasting viewpoints as to the appropriate remedy to resolve the myriad of allegations raised by a variety of interested parties against the Debtor regarding, among others, the fulsomeness of his disclosures and his ability to meet his obligations as a debtor in possession. The United States Trustee takes no position as to which of the only three remedies available to the Court, dismissal, conversion or alternatively, the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee is appropriate, but urges the Court to make an immediate decision as to the appropriate remedy as leaving the debtor in possession upon a finding that \"cause\" exist is an abuse of the bankruptcy process and impacts the integrity of the bankruptcy system. Because *cause* exists under Section 1112(b), this Court must make an expedient choice between the options of dismissal, appointment of a chapter 11 trustee, or conversion to chapter 7 and thereby meet its inherent obligation to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy process.\n\nThe Debtor filed this case to protect himself from the February 2022 Contempt Decision and from PAX's collection efforts related to that decision. PAX has argued that this bankruptcy filing was a strategic move in a two-party dispute designed to improperly shield the Debtor from PAX's collection efforts and thus, dismissal is the most appropriate option. <sup>8</sup> The Debtor consents to dismissal. The Committee has argued that dismissal is not\n\n<sup>8</sup> The size and nature of the debt to PAX, as well as the Debtor's conduct in the PAX Lawsuit, are important components for the Court to evaluate in making its decision. The PAX judgment is in the amount of \\$116,402,019.57, and is the largest liquidated debt owed by Debtor. The Debtor's appeal of the PAX Judgment was pending and undecided as of the chapter 11 filing, but no stay was imposed. PAX's prepetition efforts to locate and collect on assets of the Debtor to satisfy the PAX Judgment were met with resistance by the Debtor and difficulty in collection because the Debtor \"had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\" *See* February 2022 Contempt Decision. The February 2022 Contempt Decision begins with the statement that almost all of the 1,180 docket entries in the PAX Lawsuit involve the Debtor's \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members,\" and goes on to state that the Debtor had engaged in a \"scheme\" to \"assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle.\" *Id.*\n\nin the best interest of creditors because of the loss of powers and causes of action provided by the Code which could be used for the benefit of all unsecured creditors.\n\nWhile the United States Trustee takes no position on appropriate remedy, the United States is cognizant and sympathetic to the arguments raised by PAX and the Committee. On the one hand, the United States Trustee shares the Committee's concerns regarding the impact dismissal may have on smaller creditors and the loss of powers bestowed by the Code. However, the United States Trustee also has concerns with conversion and alternatively, the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee given the Debtor's conduct and disclosures in his current case and the absence of funding, which would impair future actions of a chapter 7 or 11 trustee. The United States Trustee acknowledges that there are valid arguments and reasons for the Court to choose either a chapter 11 trustee or conversion to chapter 7, and should the Court pick either option, the United States Trustee will work to fulfil the obligation to locate and appoint an appropriate trustee.\n\nOn the other hand, dismissal would return creditors to where they were when this case was commenced just three months ago and acknowledges that the chapter 11 filing was arguably an abuse of process. From day one, the Debtor has prioritized his objective of delay and obfuscation, starting with a 60-day extension request to file schedules and continuing to deny ownership of any assets, despite findings to the contrary in the PAX Lawsuit in New York State Court. While none of the remedies offered by Section 1112(b) are perfect given the circumstances of this particular case, the Court must choose one without delay. Delay only rewards the Debtor and prejudices his creditors.\n\nDated: May 20, 2022 Respectfully submitted,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2\n\n> By: /s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn Trial Attorney Office of the United States Trustee Giaimo Federal Building, Room 302 150 Court Street, New Haven, CT 06510 Holley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov Federal Bar No.: ct17216 (Connecticut) (203) 773-2210\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on May 20, 2022, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically through the Court's CM/ECF System. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the court's electronic filing system. Parties in interest may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> By: */s/ Holley L. Claiborn* Holley L. Claiborn","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于第 11 章案件\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n又名 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵） 又名 MILES GUO（郭文贵），\n\n债务人。\n\nUNITED STATES TRUSTEE（美国联邦破产受托人）关于《美国法典》第 11 编第 1112(b) 条项下必要救济的立场声明\n\n_________________________________________________________________________________\n\n根据本法院于 2022年5月17日 在本案召开的现状听证会上作出的指示，第2区美国联邦破产受托人 William K. Harrington（威廉·K·哈灵顿）（ECF 381）（下称「美国联邦破产受托人」）谨通过律师就以下事项提交其立场声明：美国联邦破产受托人提交的《关于指示指定审查员的命令动议，或在备选方案下，关于指示指定第11章受托人的命令动议》（ECF 102），以及债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，下称「PAX」）提交的《驳回动议，或在备选方案下，关于部分加入美国联邦破产受托人请求指示指定第11章受托人的命令动议》（ECF 183）。\n\n声明\n\n在本法院根据所有利害关系方达成的共识与协议认定《美国法典》第 11 编第 1112(b) 条（下称「第 1112(b) 条」）项下的「法定事由」存在之后，法院已指示各方就法院仅有的三种可选方案——驳回申请、转入其他清算程序、或者在备选方案下指定第11章受托人——提交立场文件，阐明应选择哪一种方案。这些案件涉及各利害关系方对债务人提出的诸多指控，其中包括关于其披露的充分性以及其履行作为占有中债务人义务的能力，并且各方在解决这些问题与关切的适当救济措施上存在不同观点。虽然美国联邦破产受托人对三种可选方案中哪一种最为适当不持立场，但美国联邦破产受托人提交本立场声明旨在：(1) 敦促法院立即就适当的救济作出决定，因为美国联邦破产受托人认为允许债务人继续作为占有中债务人构成对破产程序的滥用，并损害破产制度的完整性；(2) 阐述适用的法律标准；(3) 就部分可选救济措施提出问题和关切；以及 (4) 保留在根据第 1112(b) 条认定「法定事由」存在之后的听证会上就适当救济提出任何问题的权利。1\n\n背景\n\n1. 债务人于 2022年2月15日（下称「申请日」）提交了自愿第11章破产申请书（下称「申请书」）。ECF 1。2 债务人在纽约州法院 PAX Lawsuit（PAX 诉讼案）3 中作出 2022年2月 藐视法庭裁定后仅数天，且在因债务人未能将名为 Lady May（梅女士号）的游艇归还至纽约管辖范围内而被该 2022年2月 藐视法庭裁定责令向 PAX 支付 $134,000,000 藐视法庭裁决金的最后期限前夕，提交了其第11章案件申请。\n\n2. 尽管债务人看似能够获取巨额资金，包括能够为其律师筹措 $1,000,000 美元的聘用定金，4 但债务人在迄今提交的第11章案件文件中声称自己没有固定收入，且几乎没有任何资产。债务人迄今列明的有限资产总额不足 $20,000，其中绝大多数（包括某些诉由）的价值均被列为「未知」。ECF 1；20；77、78 及 79。尽管其声称资产微薄且缺乏收入，债务人列出的无担保债务却超过 $373,000,000 美元。同上。所有这些都引发了诸多疑问，尽管本案已悬而未决达三个月之久，其中许多疑问仍未得到解答。\n\n1 在法院立即就适当救济作出选择的范围内，美国联邦破产受托人根据其于 2022年3月19日 提交的《指定审查员动议，或在备选方案下，指定第11章受托人动议》（下称「UST 受托人动议」）所提出的指定审查员请求，将因失去实际意义而归于无效。ECF 102。\n\n2 与债务人关联的一家公司 Genever Holdings, LLC（下称「GH」）目前在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）有一宗正在审理中的第11章案件，案号为 20-12411-jlg（下称「GH 破产案」）。GH 是一家单一成员的纽约有限责任公司。参见 GH 于 2022年1月7日 在 GH 破产案中提交的披露声明，载于 ECF 165（下称「GH ECF 165」），以及 GH 于 2022年1月7日 在 GH 破产案中提交的清算方案，载于 ECF 164；亦参见 GH 破产案中 ECF 4 的财务状况声明。GH 的唯一成员是 Genever Holdings Corporation（下称「GH Corp」）。同上。债务人个人管理 GH Corp。同上。GH 的主要资产是 NYC Residence（纽约住所），这是一套位于纽约市第五大道 The Sherry-Netherland Inc.（雪梨-尼德兰公司）整整第18层的豪华公寓及附属单元，于 2015年 以约 $70,000,000 美元购得。参见 GH ECF 165 及 GH ECF 164；亦参见 GH 破产案 ECF 1 及 83。*需要特别指出的是，如果本法院在本案中指示指定第11章受托人，该第11章受托人将在 GH 破产案中承担相应职责。同样，第7章受托人亦将在 GH 破产案中承担相应职责。*\n\n3 本文中使用但未予定义的首字母大写术语应具有 UST 受托人动议中所规定的含义。ECF 102。\n\n4 债务人为其律师筹措了 $1,000,000 美元的聘用定金。参见 ECF 54；ECF 86；ECF 77 第 17 页；ECF 78 第 20 页。\n\n3. 从一开始就显而易见的是，债务人精心算计的第11章申请并非为了归集资产以偿还其欠债权人的数百万美元，而是为了使自己免受 2022年2月 藐视法庭裁定的约束，为了对 PAX 诉讼案重新进行诉讼，以及为了挫败 PAX 的追偿努力。\n\n4. 债务人旨在实现其目的的另一项策略性举措是提交重组方案，并向法院吹嘘该方案以此证明其良好意图。ECF 197。法院已经指出该方案存在多处缺陷。从美国联邦破产受托人以及 PAX 和债权人委员会的角度来看，该方案完全不可行且不具备获确认的条件。\n\n5. 为了对第11章案件提供资金并施加控制，债务人安排了来自 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，下称「Golden Spring」）的资金，该公司据称是一名有担保债权人，且是一家据称由债务人之子拥有并控制的内部关联方。债务人提议 Golden Spring 将向债务人及其破产财团借贷高达 $9,000,000 美元用于支付专业人员费用，其中包括一笔不得用于专业人员费用的 $1,000,000 美元专项预留资金。ECF 117、260、315（统称「DIP 融资」）。5 法院未批准该 DIP 融资。由于这一事态转变受阻，并面对 PAX 对债务人继续留在第11章程序中的反对，以及 PAX 和美国联邦破产受托人双方对债务人继续作为占有中债务人掌权的反对，债务人于 2022年5月11日 提交了一份诉辩文书，同意驳回其案件，并撤回了关于 DIP 融资的动议。ECF 344、345。\n\n6. 在 2022年5月17日 举行的听证会上，债务人、PAX、债权人委员会及某些债权人告知法院，各方一致同意第 1112(b) 条项下的法定事由存在，且唯一存在争议的问题是何种形式的救济是适当的：驳回申请、指定第11章受托人，还是转入第7章。ECF 381。\n\n5 DIP 融资的原始条款包含了终止事件，如果获得批准，在实际效果上将向本法院和债权人强制规定无论债务人行为如何，债务人都将继续控制本案，并剥夺《破产法典》所规定的免除债务人作为占有中债务人地位的权利。\n\n法律论点\n\nI. 法院必须根据第 1112(b) 条选择并实施救济。\n\n第 1112(b) 条6 强制规定，凡存在第 1112(b) 条中被认定为「法定事由」的任何作为或不作为时，法院应当驳回或转换第11章案件。7 SWJ Management, LLC v. Coan (In re SWJ Management, LLC), 551 B.R 93, 97 (D. Conn. 2015)；Vega v. United States Trustee (In re Vega), 2014 WL 4843698, *3 (D. Conn. September 29, 2014)；In re Van Eck, 425 B.R. 54, 58-59 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2010)；In re First Connecticut Consulting Group, Inc., 2018 WL 2121531, *3-4 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018)；In re Julian, 2012 WL 506572, *3-4 (Bankr. D. Conn. February 15, 2012)；In re Emergystat of Sulligent, Inc., 2008 WL 597613, *5-6 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2008)；In re Gateway Access Solutions, Inc., 374 B.R. 556, 560 (Bankr. M. D. Pa. 2007)；In re TCR of Denver, LLC, 338 B.R. 494, 498 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006)。第 1112(b) 条的强制性用语与以往将驳回或转换完全交由法院自由裁量的旧法相比是一项重大改变。In re Emergystat of Sulligent, Inc., 2008 WL 597613, *5-6；In re Gateway Access Solutions, Inc., 374 B.R. at 560。「国会特意限制了本法院在裁决转换或驳回问题上的作用，以至于如果证明存在《美国法典》第 11 编第 1112(b)(4) 条项下『法定事由』的要件，本法院别无选择，亦无自由裁量权，其『应当』驳回或转换第11章项下的案件。」In re TCR of Denver, LLC, 338 B.R. at 498。\n\n6 第 1112(b) 条管辖第11章案件的转换与驳回，并在相关部分规定如下：(1) 除第(2)款和(c)小节另有规定外，应利害关系方的请求，经通知和听证后，只要符合债权人和破产财团的最佳利益，法院应当因法定事由将本章项下的案件转换为第7章项下的案件或驳回本章项下的案件，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和破产财团的最佳利益。(2) 如果法院认定并具体查明存在证明转换或驳回案件不符合债权人和破产财团最佳利益的特殊情形，并且债务人或任何其他利害关系方证明满足以下条件，则法院不得将本章项下的案件转换为第7章项下的案件或驳回本章项下的案件：(A) 有合理的可能性在根据本编第 1121(e) 条和第 1129(e) 条确定的时间框架内确认方案……；以及 (B) 转换或驳回案件的理由包括债务人除第(4)(A)项规定以外的作为或不作为——(i) 对该作为或不作为存在合理正当的理由；并且 (ii) 该缺陷将在法院确定的合理期限内得到补救。\n\n7 第 1112(b)(2) 条项下的有限例外适用于债务人证明对案件中的缺陷存在「合理正当的理由」，这些缺陷「将在合理期限内得到补救」，并且债务人有合理可能性确认方案的情形。11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(2)；Vega v. United States Trustee, 2014 WL 4843698, *3；In re Van Eck, 425 B.R. at 58-59；In re Emergystat of Sulligent, Inc., 2008 WL 597613, *5-6；In re Gateway Access Solutions, Inc., 374 B.R. at 561。本案中不存在此类情形，且债务人已同意驳回申请。\n\n在认定存在「法定事由」的情况下，法院不能让债务人继续控制第11章案件。In re Herb Philipson's Army and Navy Stores, Inc., 2019 WL 11031654, *7 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. December 19, 2019)（「在认定存在第 1112(b)(4)(A) 条项下的法定事由后，法院不能让债务人继续控制该案件」；引文省略）。正如一家法院言简意赅地指出的那样：\n\n根据 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)，如果动议方证明存在支持该项救济的「正当理由（cause）」，且法院认定 11 U.S.C. §§ 1112(b)(1) 和 (2) 项下的例外情形不适用，则必须准予驳回或转换第 11 章案件。11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) 项下的例外情形发生在：经利害关系方请求，法院认定指定第 11 章受托人（而非转换或驳回）符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益……11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(2) 项下的例外情形仅适用于：法院认定并查明存在不同寻常的情形，证明转换或驳回不符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益，并结合 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(2)(A) 和 (B) 项下的证明。\n\nIn re MCM Natural Stone, Inc., 2022 WL 1074065, *4 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y.（纽约西区破产法院）April 8, 2022)（省略引文）。\n\n本案中，正当理由存在，且所有相关各方均已对此表示同意。债务人同意驳回，且不存在第 1112(b)(2) 条项下的不同寻常的情形。由于指定第 11 章受托人的备选救济也明确摆在法院面前，法院必须在以下选项中作出选择：(i) 驳回，(ii) 转换为第 7 章，或 (iii) 指定第 11 章受托人。没有任何不作为的选项，且继续保留占有中债务人地位将构成对破产程序的滥用，并损害破产制度的完整性。\n\nII. 第 11 章受托人必须拥有全部法定权力\n\n如果法院选择指定第 11 章受托人这一备选方案，法院必须确保受托人将履行国会赋予其的全部职责。第 11 章项下管理债务人资产和事务的权力，专属于第 11 章受托人或作为占有中债务人的债务人。「根据破产法典，不存在有限目的受托人这种主体。」Official Comm. Of Asbestos Pers. Injury Claimants v. Sealed Air Corp. and Cryovac, Inc. (In re W.R. Grace & Co.), 285 B.R. 148, 157 (Bankr. D. Del.（特拉华区破产法院）2002)。指定第 11 章受托人将取代占有中债务人。参见 11 U.S.C. § 1101(1)（将占有中债务人定义为债务人，「但根据本篇第 322 条具备资格的人员担任受托人的情况除外」）；并普遍参见 Richard Levin 和 Henry J. Sommer 所著《COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY》第 7 卷第 1107.01 段（第 16 版 2020）。\n\n一旦法院下令指定第 11 章受托人，破产法典便会对所选定的人员施加强制性法定义务。简而言之，第 1106 条规定了一系列一致且可预测的受托人要求。因此，例如，受托人不得超出第 1106 条的范围行事。参见，例如，Mancuso v. Sullivan (In re Sullivan), 153 B.R. 751 (Bankr. N.D. Tex.（德克萨斯北区破产法院）1993)（第 11 章受托人无权反对免责，因为该行为未获 11 U.S.C. § 1106 的授权）。\n\nIII. 驳回 vs. 转换 vs. 第 11 章受托人\n\n如上所述，针对各利害关系方就债务人提出的多项指控（其中包括其披露的充分性以及其作为占有中债务人履行义务的能力），在采取何种适当救济来解决这些问题上存在截然不同的观点。United States Trustee（联邦破产受托人）对于法院仅有的三种可用救济——驳回、转换或备选的指定第 11 章受托人——中哪一种最为适当不持立场，但敦促法院就适当的救济立即作出决定，因为在认定存在「正当理由」的情况下仍保留占有中债务人是对破产程序的滥用，并会损害破产制度的完整性。由于第 1112(b) 条项下的正当理由存在，本法院必须在驳回、指定第 11 章受托人或转换为第 7 章这些选项之间迅速作出选择，从而履行其维护破产程序完整性的固有职责。\n\n债务人提起本案是为了保护其自身免受 2022 年 2 月藐视法庭裁定以及 PAX 就该裁定开展的催收行动的影响。PAX 主张，本次破产申请是双方争议中的一项策略性举动，旨在不当地为债务人提供屏障以规避 PAX 的催收行动，因此，驳回是最为适当的选项。8 债务人同意驳回。委员会则主张，驳回不\n\n8 对 PAX 负债的规模和性质，以及债务人在 PAX 诉讼中的行为，是法院在作出决定时需要评估的重要组成部分。PAX 判决的金额为 $116,402,019.57，是债务人所欠金额最大的确定债务。截至提出第 11 章申请时，债务人对 PAX 判决的上诉尚在审理且未决，但并未实施中止。PAX 在破产申请前为查找和催收债务人资产以清偿 PAX 判决所作的努力遭到了债务人的抗拒，且催收十分困难，因为债务人「将他的资产隐匿在迷宫般的公司实体中以及家庭成员处」。参见 2022 年 2 月藐视法庭裁定。2022 年 2 月藐视法庭裁定开篇即指出，PAX 诉讼中 1,180 项案件记录索引项几乎全部涉及债务人「试图通过将巨额个人资产放置于一系列公司、亲信和家庭成员名下来逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为」，并进而指出债务人参与了一项「计划」，「尽管过着奢华的生活，却声称自己没有任何资产」。同上。\n\n符合债权人的最佳利益，因为这将丧失破产法典所规定且可用于保护全体无担保债权人利益的权力和诉由。\n\n尽管联邦破产受托人对适当的救济不持立场，但合众国知悉并理解 PAX 和委员会提出的论点。一方面，联邦破产受托人赞同委员会关于驳回可能对较小债权人造成影响以及丧失破产法典赋予的权力的担忧。然而，鉴于债务人在本案中的行为和披露情况以及缺乏资金支持（这将损害第 7 章或第 11 章受托人未来的诉讼行为），联邦破产受托人同样对转换以及备选的指定第 11 章受托人存有疑虑。联邦破产受托人承认，法院选择指定第 11 章受托人或转换为第 7 章均存在合理论据和理由；若法院选择其中任一选项，联邦破产受托人将努力履行其寻找并指定合适受托人的职责。\n\n另一方面，驳回将使债权人回到三个月前本案刚启动时的状态，并承认第 11 章的申请可以说构成了程序滥用。从第一天起，债务人就将拖延和混淆视听作为其首要目标，先是请求延长 60 天提交财产清册，并继续否认拥有任何资产，尽管 New York State Court（纽约州法院）在 PAX 诉讼中作出了相反的认定。尽管鉴于本案的具体情况，第 1112(b) 条提供的救济方案没有一个是完美的，但法院必须毫不迟疑地选择其一。拖延只会奖赏债务人并损害其债权人的利益。\n\n日期：2022 年 5 月 20 日\n谨此提交，\n\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州）New Haven\nWILLIAM K. HARRINGTON\n第 2 区联邦破产受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn\n出庭律师\n联邦破产受托人办公室\nGiaimo Federal Building, Room 302\n150 Court Street, New Haven, CT 06510\nHolley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov\n联邦律师执照号：ct17216（康涅狄格州）\n(203) 773-2210\n\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于 2022 年 5 月 20 日，前述文书的一份副本已通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统以电子方式归档。本项归档的通知将依据法院电子归档系统的运行，通过电子邮件发送给所有当事人。利害关系方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本项归档文书。\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":54,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":86,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":102,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":117,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":164,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":165,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":183,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":197,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":344,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":381,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3294,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:35:38"}