{"id":"court_ctb_4310_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4310,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*, 1\n\nDebtors.\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nApril 11, 2025\n\n# **MOTION OF THE SHERRY-NETHERLAND, INC. FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DEBTOR GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC TO IDENTIFY A SOURCE OF FUNDING TO PAY MONTHLY POST-PETITION MAINTENANCE CHARGES**\n\nThe Sherry-Netherland, Inc. (the \"Sherry-Netherland\"), secured creditor of Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever (US)\"), one of the debtors in these above-captioned jointly administered cases, hereby files this motion (the \"Motion\") for entry of an order, substantially in the form of the proposed order attached as **Exhibit 1** hereto (the \"Proposed Order\"), pursuant to section 105(a) of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), directing Genever (US) to identify a source of funding to pay ongoing monthly post-petition maintenance charges assessed by the Sherry-Netherland as the charges come due, in view of the nearly-depleted security deposit being used thus far to pay such charges. In support of the Motion, the Sherry-Netherland respectfully states as follows:\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT<sup>2</sup>**\n\n1. The Sherry-Netherland is a secured creditor of Genever (US). For more than four years, the Sherry-Netherland has supported Genever (US)'s efforts at rehabilitation through chapter 11. Genever (US)'s only remaining assets are its interest in the Apartment at the Sherry-Netherland and its right to recover against AIG for alleged breach of contract claims. For more than three years, Genever (US) has been attempting to sell its interest in the Apartment as its only realistic path to emerge from chapter 11. Although Genever (US)'s sale efforts were obviously hindered by the fire that broke out at the Building in early 2023, the remediation efforts are complete now and Genever (US) appears no closer to obtaining an executable offer for its interest in the Apartment.\n\n2. Meanwhile, the Sherry-Netherland has continued to perform all of the obligations it owes to Genever (US). And, to date, Genever (US) has likewise satisfied most (but not all) of its post-petition obligations to the Sherry-Netherland. As relevant to the Motion, and as previously authorized by the Court, the Sherry-Netherland has been able to draw down, on a monthly basis, on Genever (US)'s Security Deposit to cover post-petition maintenance fees assessed against Genever (US)'s interest in the Apartment. But the Security Deposit is a finite source of funds. And, because Genever (US)'s chapter 11 case has dragged on for more than four years, that source will be depleted entirely in June 2025.\n\n3. Through this Motion, the Sherry-Netherland seeks limited relief; specifically, an order directing Genever (US) to identify a source of funding to pay its ongoing monthly postpetition maintenance charges. The Sherry-Netherland has tried to get confirmation from Genever (US) that it will continue to stay current on its post-petition obligations even after the Security\n\n<sup>2</sup> Undefined capitalized terms used in the Preliminary Statement are defined below.\n\nDeposit runs out, but, to date, Genever (US) has not provided a satisfactory response. This is concerning. Genever (US) has already admitted that its failure to honor its obligations to the Sherry-Netherland will cause the estate irreparable harm and could lead to it losing its interest in the Apartment, its only remaining asset. And, other than the Security Deposit – which is nearly depleted – and the financing available to it under the DIP Order, Genever (US) has *no other access to cash*. Once the Security Deposit is fully depleted, Genever (US) should use the financing available to it under the DIP Order to continue paying its post-petition maintenance obligations and should, if necessary, seek to increase that financing. If Genever (US) is refusing to identify a source of funding to pay its post-petition obligations because it has no present ability to fund them and does not want (or cannot obtain) additional financing, that would raise serious questions about whether this case should be converted to chapter 7 or dismissed outright, again, a possibility Genever (US) has already acknowledged.\n\n4. The Sherry-Netherland does not want any of those outcomes to come to bear. But it must receive assurance from Genever (US) that there is a source of funding available from which it will be able to continue to pay its post-petition maintenance charges as they come due. If Genever (US) is unwilling to identify such a source voluntarily, the Court should order it to do so.\n\n### **JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STATUTORY BASIS**\n\n5. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n\n6. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n7. The statutory basis for the relief requested in this Motion is section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n# **I. Genever (US)'s obligation to pay all rents, maintenance charges, and additional rents associated with its interest in the Apartment.**\n\n8. The Sherry-Netherland is a cooperative housing corporation and the owner of the land and the building in New York City known as \"The Sherry-Netherland\" and by the street address 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (the \"Building\"). The Sherry-Netherland leases the apartments in the Building to the several owners of its capital shares by instruments known as proprietary leases.\n\n9. Genever (US) owns the shares of the Sherry-Netherland that have been allocated to the entire 18th floor of the Building, Apartment MR 2219, and Apartment MR 719 (collectively, the \"Apartment\").\n\n10. Genever (US)'s interest in the Apartment is governed by, among other documents, (a) the Proprietary Lease, dated March 6, 2015, from The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., Lessor, to Genever Holdings LLC, Lessee (the \"Proprietary Lease\"); (b) the Agreement and Consent with Respect to Shares and Proprietary Lease, dated as of the 6th day of March, 2015, by and between The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., Genever Holdings LLC, and Mr. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok a/k/a Miles Guo (the \"Agreement\"); and (c) the Security Deposit Agreement, dated March 6, 2015, executed by Genever Holdings LLC (the \"Security Deposit Agreement\"). 3\n\n11. Under the Proprietary Lease, Genever (US) is required to satisfy certain cash requirements, including the payment of monthly rent, maintenance charges, and additional rent based on its proportionate ownership of capital shares of the Sherry-Netherland. *See, e.g.*, Ex. 2 §§ 1.1, 1.2, 3.1. If Genever (US) defaults in its obligations to pay any due and owing rent,\n\n<sup>3</sup> True and correct copies of the Proprietary Lease (**Exhibit 2**), the Agreement (**Exhibit 3**) and the Security Deposit Agreement (**Exhibit 4**) are annexed hereto.\n\nmaintenance charges, or additional rent, and then fails to cure such default, the Sherry-Netherland has the right to terminate the Proprietary Lease. *Id.* § 4.1. Upon termination, Genever (US)'s interest in the Apartment would be forfeited back to the Sherry-Netherland. *Id.* § 4.4.\n\n12. Similarly, in the Agreement, Genever (US) reiterated its obligations to perform \"all the covenants, terms, conditions, and other restrictions or duties specified in the [Proprietary] Lease.\" Ex. 3 § 2. And Genever (US) also \"expressly covenant[ed] and agree[d], without limitation, to comply with the obligation to pay all installments of rent (as defined in the [Proprietary] Lease), additional rent, maintenance charges, assessments, and any and all other charges or sums due to [the Sherry-Netherland] payable under the [Proprietary] Lease.\" *Id.* § 3. If Genever (US) defaults on these obligations in the Agreement, the Sherry-Netherland has, among other remedies, \"the right to terminate the [Proprietary] Lease.\" *Id.* § 11.\n\n13. And finally, the Security Deposit Agreement requires Genever (US) to keep on deposit with the Sherry-Netherland an amount that \"shall always equal sixty (60) times the then current monthly proprietary rent\" allocated to Genever (US)'s interest in the Apartment. Ex. 4 at 1. Genever (US)'s failure to replenish its deposit with the Sherry-Netherland after receiving notice \"shall be deemed a default under the [Proprietary] Lease.\" *Id.* at 2.\n\n14. All of the Sherry-Netherland's shareholders are required to pay monthly maintenance charges based on their proportionate ownership of the Sherry-Netherland's capital shares. The Sherry-Netherland relies on the monthly maintenance payments it receives from its shareholders to pay for critical expenses of the Building, including property taxes, insurance, and mortgage payments. If any of the Sherry-Netherland's shareholders fail to pay their proportionate share of the maintenance charges as those charges come due, then the other shareholders are forced to cover the shortfall. Genever (US)'s non-payment of monthly charges would therefore cause current Sherry-Netherland's shareholders to sustain a disproportionate burden of their own ongoing maintenance obligations.\n\n# **II. Genever (US) will soon be unable to satisfy its post-petition maintenance obligations from the Security Deposit and thus risks forfeiting its interest in the Apartment.**\n\n15. Nearly four-and-a-half years ago, on October 12, 2020, Genever (US) filed a Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Case No. 22-50592, Dkt. No. 1. Genever (US)'s only significant scheduled assets were its interest in the Apartment and the amounts then on deposit with the Sherry-Netherland (the \"Security Deposit\"). Case No. 22- 50592, Dkt. No. 4, Part 12.\n\n16. The Sherry-Netherland has an allowed pre-petition secured claim in the amount of \\$1,096,186.54. Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2193 ¶ 11. That amount remains outstanding [and does not include interest owed to the Sherry-Netherland]. In addition, the Sherry-Netherland is also owed post-petition attorneys' fees under the Proprietary Lease and the Agreement, which likewise remain unpaid.\n\n17. The Sherry-Netherland has a valid and duly perfected security interest in and first lien (the \"Sherry-Netherland First Lien\") on the Apartment and Genever (US)'s interest in the Proprietary Lease to secure all obligations of Genever (US) to the Sherry-Netherland arising under the Proprietary Lease or otherwise, to the extent such obligations are incident to Genever (US)'s ownership interest in the Apartment and/or Genever (US)'s interest in the Proprietary Lease. *See, e.g.*, Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2110 ¶ 19; Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2193 ¶ 6(a).\n\n18. The Sherry-Netherland First Lien extends to all post-petition obligations Genever (US) owes to the Sherry-Netherland, including, but not limited to, Genever (US)'s obligations to pay all post-petition rent, maintenance charges, and additional rent due to the Sherry-Netherland.\n\n19. The Court previously authorized the Sherry-Netherland to use the Security Deposit to satisfy the then-accrued and future monthly post-petition maintenance charges. Case No. 22- 50592, Dkt. No. 107. But that was almost four years ago. And now, the security deposit is almost entirely depleted.\n\n20. As of the filing of this Motion, only \\$157,390.12 remains of the Security Deposit, and the Security Deposit will be completely exhausted by June 2025.\n\n21. Prior to filing this Motion, the Sherry-Netherland asked Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Individual Debtor\"), how the Trustee intended to satisfy Genever (US)'s post-petition obligation to pay maintenance charges once the Security Deposit ran out. The Trustee is the assignee of the Individual Debtor's interests. As the assignee of the Individual Debtor's interests, the Trustee owns and controls debtor Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever (BVI)\"). Genever (BVI) wholly owns Genever (US). Accordingly, the Trustee is the proxy holder of Genever (US) and Genever (BVI) and authorized and required to act on their behalf. *See generally* Case No. 22- 50073, Dkt. No. 2110 ¶¶ 20-24.\n\n22. To date, the Trustee has not given the Sherry-Netherland a satisfactory answer as to how he intends to satisfy Genever (US)'s post-petition obligation to pay maintenance charges once the Security Deposit runs out.\n\n23. If and when, as expected, Genever (US) fails to pay its proportionate share of the monthly maintenance charges imposed on all shareholders of the Sherry-Netherland for June 2025 (or at any time thereafter), Genever (US) will be in default of the Proprietary Lease and the Agreement. *See* Ex. 2 § 4.1; Ex. 3 §§ 2, 3. And, once Genever (US) is in default, the Sherry-Netherland's has the right to terminate the Proprietary Lease and cause Genever (US) to forfeit its\n\ninterest in the Apartment, Genever (US)'s only significant asset other than its pending litigation claims against AIG Property Casualty Company (\"AIG\"). *See* Ex. 2 § 4.4; Ex. 3 § 11.\n\n24. There is no dispute that this chain of events will cause Genever (US) to suffer direct and irreparable harm. Genever (US) made this very point to the Court when faced with the prospect of defaulting on other obligations it owed to the Sherry-Netherland. In the spring of 2023, Genever (US) sued AIG to prevent it from canceling five insurance policies issued to Genever (US), cancellations that, if allowed to go effective, would have resulted in Genever (US) defaulting on certain obligations under the Proprietary Lease. Case No. 23-05007, Dkt. No. 2 ¶¶ 20-23. Genever (US) filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent AIG from canceling the policies. In its preliminary injunction motion, Genever (US) admitted that a default under the Proprietary Lease would cause irreparable harm. In Genever (US)'s own words: \"AIG's purported cancellation of purchased insurance coverage will cause Genever (US) to suffer direct and irreparable harm because the cancellation of insurance creates a default under the Proprietary Lease, and the ultimate consequence of that default could be a loss of ownership of the Apartment by Genever (US).\" *Id.* ¶ 44.\n\n### **III. Genever (US) has the ability to access sufficient funds to allow it to continue paying the ongoing maintenance charges it owes to the Sherry-Netherland.**\n\n25. Although it reserves all its rights, the Sherry-Netherland does not wish to pursue the forfeiture of Genever (US)'s interest in the Apartment. Nor should it have to. Genever (US) has access to sufficient funds to allow it to continue paying the ongoing maintenance charges it owes the Sherry-Netherland even after the Security Deposit is depleted.\n\n26. On September 12, 2023, this Court entered an *Order (I) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Extend Financing Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 363, (II) Authorizing Genever US and Genever BVI to Obtain Post-Petition Financing Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section*\n\n*364, (III) Granting Non-Priming Liens and Providing Superpriority Administrative Expense Claim, (IV) Modifying Automatic Stay, and (V) Granting Related Relief* (the \"DIP Order\"). Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2193.\n\n27. In the DIP Order, the Court authorized the Individual Debtor's estate to extend financing to Genever (US) for Genever (US)'s \"necessary expenses.\" *Id.*, DIP Credit Agreement (annexed as Exhibit 1 to the DIP Order) § 2.1; *see also id.* § E(f) (\"The DIP Borrowers will use the proceeds of the DIP Facility consistent with this Order and as provided in the DIP Credit Agreement and only for purposes that are permissible under the Bankruptcy Code.\"). The credit facility authorized by the DIP Order was originally \\$2 million and was later increased to \\$3 million. *See id.* at 2; Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 3325.\n\n28. The Individual Debtor's estate extended financing to Genever (US) because, as the ultimate equity owner of Genever (US), the estate and its creditors would be the beneficiaries of a successful chapter 11 reorganization of Genever (US). Thus, the Trustee conceded as part of the motion seeking approval of the DIP Order that it was \"in the best interests of the Individual Debtor's chapter 11 estate and its stakeholders\" to extend financing to pay the necessary expenses of Genever (US) \"because [doing so] preserve[d] optionality for a potential value-maximizing transaction at Genever US.\" Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2110 ¶ 5; *see also* Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 3259 ¶ 35 (admitting that it is \"in the best interests of the Individual Debtor's chapter 11 estate, and its creditors and stakeholders, to maximize the value of the two Genever estates\" and that conversion of Genever (US)'s case to a chapter 7 liquidation would \"guarantee[] that the Individual Debtor's estate would not see any recovery from the Genever Debtors' cases\").\n\n29. As of February 28, 2025, Genever (US) has used more than \\$2.4 million of the financing authorized by the DIP Order. *See* Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 4244 at 16. Accordingly, between \\$500,000 and 600,000 remain available to Genever (US) to fund its necessary expenses.\n\nExamples of the expenses Genever (US) has paid pursuant to the DIP Order include:\n\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing<br>Genever US counsel fees (Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC).               | \\$236,452.00 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing<br>Genever US counsel fees (O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen &<br>Bliss PC) | \\$266,602.17 |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing<br>Genever BVI corporate fees (Harneys Corporate Services)             | \\$98,089.58  |\n\n*Id.* at 16.\n\n30. The Sherry Netherland Senior Liens \"have priority in all respects, including payment, to the security interests and liens granted\" to the Individual Debtor's estate by the DIP Order. Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2193 ¶ 6(a)(1).\n\n31. Genever (US) has access to sufficient cash to continue paying the monthly postpetition maintenance charges assessed by the Sherry-Netherland as the charges come due. There are still substantial funds available to Genever (US) under the credit facility authorized by the DIP Order. Moreover, if necessary, the Individual Debtor's estate has more than sufficient access to cash to again increase the amount of facility if Genever (US) needs more time to obtain a value maximizing sale of its assets under chapter 11. *See* Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 4244 at 2 (cash balance at the end of February 2025 exceeded \\$70 million). And finally, Genever (US) also still has the possibility of a successful result in its litigation against AIG, which could likewise result in an infusion of cash into the estate and serve as another source of potential funds to cover postpetition maintenance. *See, e.g.*, Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 3259 ¶¶ 23-27 (discussing status of litigation against AIG).\n\n32. Genever (US) is marketing the 18th floor of the Building for sale. *See* Listing annexed hereto as **Exhibit 5**. The Sherry-Netherland is continuing to be called on by Genever (US) to provide services to the estate attendant to Genever (US)'s ownership of the shares, including in connection with Genever (US)'s efforts to sell the 18th floor of the Building. And Genever (US)'s real estate agent is relying on those services to attract potential buyers: \"Services and amenities offered by The Sherry Netherland include full concierge services, 24-hour doormen and elevator attendants, daily housekeeping, evening turndown services, valet parking, room service provided by the renowned Harry Cipriani, a fitness center, barber shop, and beauty salon.\" *See* Screengrab from Listing annexed hereto as **Exhibit 6**.\n\n33. Genever (US) cannot expect the Sherry-Netherland to provide services to and for the benefit of the estate without Genever (US) also committing to honor its own obligations to the Sherry-Netherland. Moreover, if Genever (US) refuses to honor its obligation to pay its postpetition monthly maintenance charges, those costs will ultimately be borne by the Sherry-Netherland's other shareholders, an inequitable and avoidable outcome.\n\n34. Genever (US) is enjoying the benefits attendant to its ownership interest in the Apartment. It should also satisfy its obligations to ensure it has sufficient resources to cover the ongoing costs of such benefits.\n\n#### **RELIEF SOUGHT**\n\n35. The Sherry-Netherland requests entry of the Proposed Order directing Genever (US) to identify a source of funding to pay the monthly post-petition maintenance charges assessed by the Sherry-Netherland as the charges come due.\n\n#### **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n36. Genever (US), as a debtor-in-possession, \"has a fiduciary duty to maximize the value of the estate for the benefit of its stakeholders.\" *In re Breitburn Energy Partners LP*, 582\n\nB.R. 321, 355 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018); *see also In re Smart World Techs., LLC*, 423 F.3d 166, 175 (2d Cir. 2005) (debtor-in-possession \"is held 'accountable for all property [of the estate] received'\" and requires the debtor-in-possession to \"maximiz[e] the estate's value\"). The Bankruptcy Code also \"makes plain that 'continuing loss to or diminution of the estate and the absence of a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation' are grounds to conclude that a debtor-in-possession has failed in its stewardship.\" *In re Taub*, 427 B.R. 208, 224 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2010).\n\n37. Indeed, \"if there are insufficient assets to cover all administration expenses in a chapter 11 case, typically expenses should not be incurred in the ordinary course of operating the business, but rather the case should be converted to a liquidation proceeding under chapter 7.\" *Id.* For this reason, courts expect that, \"in the usual case,\" a debtor-in-possession will comply with its obligations \"to conduct the estate's business in a manner that avoids continuing loss to or diminution of the estate.\" *Id.* at 224-25. And \"[t]he bankruptcy code presumes … that a debtor-inpossession will generally satisfy its current obligations.\" *In re Sheehan Memorial Hosp.*, 301 B.R. 777, 780 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2003). But, in the *unusual* case where a debtor-in-possession refuses to meet its obligations, \"this Court has the authority and the discretion to issue an order directing such compliance where 'necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions' of the Bankruptcy Code.\" *Taub*, 427 B.R. at 225 (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 105(a)).\n\n38. This case presents the type of unusual circumstance recognized in *Taub*. The Court previously granted the Sherry-Netherland relief from the automatic stay to ensure that Genever (US)'s post-petition maintenance obligations would be satisfied on an ongoing basis. *See* Case No. 22-50592, Dkt. No. 107. Roughly four years have passed and the then-available source of funds identified in the Court's Order is nearly depleted. Absent further action, post-petition administrative expense claims will continue to accrue with no end in sight. Genever (US) has no\n\nplan to deal with this reality. It refused to identify a source of funds from which it intends to meet its obligations to the Sherry-Netherland. To make matters worse, Genever (US) is continuing to call on the Sherry-Netherland to provide services to the estate attendant to Genever (US)'s ownership interest in the Apartment. No doubt, these calls will continue indefinitely in the future while Genever (US) continues its efforts to sell the 18th floor of the Building. Accordingly, the Court should exercise its authority and discretion under the Bankruptcy Code by ordering Genever (US) to identify a source of funding to pay the monthly post-petition maintenance charges assessed by the Sherry-Netherland as the charges come due.\n\n39. Such an order is particularly appropriate under these circumstances because Genever (US) has the ability – at least in the immediate term – to continue paying post-petition maintenance charges as they come due even after the Security Deposit runs out. Genever (US) still has between \\$400,000 and \\$600,000 available to it under the credit facility authorized by the DIP Order. The Trustee should not hesitate to use the available financing for this purpose. He already conceded it is in the best interests of the Individual Debtor's chapter 11 estate and its stakeholders to ensure that Genever (US) does not act in such a way that would threaten its interest in the Apartment or its ability to continue with its chapter 11 case. Allowing Genever (US) to become delinquent on its post-petition maintenance obligations – with no end in sight – would, as the Trustee has recognized, jeopardize the Individual Debtor's estate's ability to realize any value from its equity interest in Genever (US). For similar reasons, if Genever (US) requires *additional* financing in the future to allow it to satisfy its post-petition obligations as they come due, the same considerations that caused the Trustee to extend financing to Genever (US) in the past for other post-petition expenses should likewise compel the Trustee to do so again to remain current on its\n\npost-petition maintenance charges. Simply put, there is no justification for allowing Genever (US) to default on its obligations under the Proprietary Lease or the Agreement.\n\n40. Moreover, it is undisputed that, except for the financing available to Genever (US) under the DIP Order, Genever (US) has \"no cash and no source of income.\" Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2110 ¶ 2. If Genever (US) is refusing to identify a source of funding to pay its ongoing maintenance obligations because it has no funds available to it for this purpose, that would raise serious questions about the continuation of this bankruptcy case under chapter 11. If Genever (US) is unable or unwilling to identify sufficient funds to pay its ongoing obligations, then, as Genever (US) already conceded, it \"will eventually be forced to convert to a chapter 7 liquidation.\" *Id.*\n\n41. The Sherry-Netherland does not wish to see this case dismissed or converted to a chapter 7 liquidation, nor does the Sherry-Netherland want to take other actions detrimental to Genever (US)'s estate, such as moving to foreclose on or terminate Genever (US)'s interest in the Apartment. For nearly four-and-a-half years, the Sherry-Netherland has supported Genever (US)'s efforts at rehabilitation under chapter 11. The Sherry-Netherland supported Genever (US)'s efforts to market the 18th floor for sale or rent for more than one year *before* the first damaged the floor and required significant remediation. The Sherry-Netherland supported Genever (US)'s efforts to obtain the financing authorized by the DIP Order. And, even though the DIP Order expressly authorizes payment of the Sherry-Netherland's \"reasonable post-petition [attorneys'] fees,\" Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2193 ¶ 12, the Sherry-Netherland has not yet pressed for payment of those fees because it has not wanted to deplete the funds available to Genever (US). But the remediation efforts are now complete, and Genever (US) does not appear to be close to finalizing a value maximizing sale of its interest in the Apartment under chapter 11.\n\n42. Now, Genever (US) seemingly appears ready to impose yet another burden on the Sherry-Netherland and its other shareholders. Genever (US) wants the Sherry-Netherland to continue to honor the obligations it owes to Genever (US) as a shareholder. And Genever (US) wants the Sherry-Netherland's *other* shareholders to absorb Genever (US)'s proportionate share of the Sherry-Netherland's property taxes, insurance, mortgage payments, and other expenses covered by the maintenance charges to make up for Genever (US)'s refusal or inability to honor its own obligations.<sup>4</sup>\n\n43. Genever (US)'s refusal or inability to identify a source of funds to pay its ongoing maintenance charges should not be permitted. Genever (US) owes the Sherry-Netherland a duty to act as a responsible steward of Genever (US)'s assets, and that includes acting to ensure that it does not jeopardize its ownership interest in the Apartment. Genever (US)'s failure to pay monthly maintenance fees as they come due is the opposite of responsible stewardship.\n\n44. At the very least, unless and until Genever (US) identifies a source of funds that it will use to pay its post-petition maintenance obligations, the Court should prohibit Genever (US) and Genever (BVI) from using the funds available to it under the DIP Order or otherwise to pay interim compensation to their respective professionals. *See In re Codesco, Inc.*, 15 B.R. 354, 356 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1981) (refusing to approve interim compensation using encumbered funds where \"[t]here are insufficient funds in [the] estate\"); *see also Pa. DOL & Indus. v. Cunningham, P.C. (In re Pannebaker Custom Cabinet Corp.)*, 198 B.R. 453, 463 n.6 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 1996) (in determining whether to award interim compensation, \"the court must consider whether the estate\n\n<sup>4</sup> Some of these shareholders also incurred significant property damage to their own apartments caused by the fire that likewise damaged the 18th floor of the Building.\n\ncontains sufficient funds such that the award to the professional will not jeopardize claims of equal priority held by others\").\n\n### **RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\n45. The Sherry-Netherland hereby reserves all of its rights, including, but not limited to, (a) its rights under the Proprietary Lease, the Agreement, the Security Deposit Agreement, and/or the DIP Order; (b) its right to seek conversion or dismissal of Genever (US)'s chapter 11 case; (c) its rights to interest on unpaid amounts owed to it; (d) its rights to attorneys' fees; and (e) all other rights afforded to the Sherry-Netherland as a secured creditor of Genever (US).\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\n46. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Sherry-Netherland respectfully requests that the Motion should be granted and that Genever (US) should be directed to identify a source of funding to pay the monthly post-petition maintenance charges assessed by the Sherry-Netherland as the charges come due.\n\nDated: April 10, 2025 Taruna Garg (ct28652)\n\nHARRIS BEACH MURTHA CULLINA PLLC 107 Elm Street Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: Facsimile: Email: (203) 653-5400 (203) 653-5444 tgarg@harrisbeachmurtha.com\n\n-and-\n\nPatrick N. Petrocelli\\* HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: Facsimile: Email: (212) 918-3000 (212) 918-3134 patrick.petrocelli@hoganlovells.com\n\n*Counsel for The Sherry Netherland, Inc.*\n\n\\*Admitted *pro hac vice*\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on April 11, 2025, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n| /s/ Taruna Garg |  |\n|-----------------|--|\n| Taruna Garg     |  |","body_zh":"美国破产法院康涅狄格区布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1\n\n债务人。\n\n第11章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并管理）\n\n2025年4月11日\nTHE SHERRY-NETHERLAND, INC.（谢里-内德兰公司）请求作出命令，指示债务人 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（杰内弗控股有限责任公司）确定资金来源以支付破产申请后每月维护费用的动议\n\nThe Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（谢里-内德兰公司，以下简称“Sherry-Netherland”）作为 Genever Holdings LLC（杰内弗控股有限责任公司，以下简称“Genever（美国）”）的有担保债权人，后者为上述标题所列合并管理案件中的债务人之一，现根据《美国法典》第11编（以下简称“破产法”）第105(a)条，提交本动议（以下简称“本动议”），请求作出一项命令，其形式实质上与随附本动议作为附件1的拟议命令（以下简称“拟议命令”）相同，指示 Genever（美国）确定一项资金来源，以便在 Sherry-Netherland 所计收的持续性破产申请后每月维护费用到期时予以支付，鉴于迄今用于支付该等费用的保证金已近乎耗尽。为支持本动议，Sherry-Netherland 谨陈述如下：\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰内弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰内弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）遗产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n初步陈述2\n\n1. Sherry-Netherland 是 Genever（美国）的有担保债权人。四年多来，Sherry-Netherland 一直通过第11章程序支持 Genever（美国）的重整努力。Genever（美国）仅剩的资产为其在 Sherry-Netherland 公寓中的权益，以及其就被指称的违约请求向 AIG（美国国际集团）追偿的权利。三年多来，Genever（美国）一直试图出售其在该公寓中的权益，这是其摆脱第11章程序的唯一现实途径。尽管 Genever（美国）的出售努力显然受到2023年初该建筑发生火灾的阻碍，但修复工作现已完成，而 Genever（美国）看来仍未更接近获得一项可执行的、针对其公寓权益的报价。\n\n2. 与此同时，Sherry-Netherland 一直持续履行其对 Genever（美国）所负的全部义务。截至目前，Genever（美国）也已履行其对 Sherry-Netherland 所负的大部分（但非全部）破产申请后义务。与本动议相关的是，并且如法院此前所授权，Sherry-Netherland 能够每月从 Genever（美国）的保证金中支取，以支付就 Genever（美国）在该公寓中的权益所计收的破产申请后维护费。但保证金是有限的资金来源。由于 Genever（美国）的第11章案件已拖延四年多，该资金来源将在2025年6月完全耗尽。\n\n3. Sherry-Netherland 通过本动议寻求有限救济；具体而言，请求作出一项命令，指示 Genever（美国）确定资金来源以支付其持续性的破产申请后每月维护费用。Sherry-Netherland 已试图从 Genever（美国）处获得确认，即使保证金耗尽后，其仍将持续及时履行其破产申请后义务，但截至目前，Genever（美国）尚未提供令人满意的答复。这令人担忧。Genever（美国）已承认，其未履行对 Sherry-Netherland 的义务将对遗产造成不可弥补的损害，并可能导致其丧失对该公寓的权益，即其唯一剩余资产。而且，除几近耗尽的保证金以及根据 DIP Order（占有债务人融资命令）可获得的融资外，Genever（美国）没有其他现金来源。保证金一旦完全耗尽，Genever（美国）应使用根据 DIP Order 可获得的融资，继续支付其破产申请后维护义务，并且如有必要，应寻求增加该等融资。如果 Genever（美国）拒绝确定用于支付其破产申请后义务的资金来源，是因为其目前无力为该等义务提供资金，且不愿意（或无法获得）额外融资，则将严重引发关于本案是否应转换为第7章程序或直接驳回的问题，这同样是 Genever（美国）已承认的一种可能性。\n\n2 初步陈述中使用但未定义的大写术语，定义如下。\n\n4. Sherry-Netherland 不希望上述任何结果发生。但其必须从 Genever（美国）处获得保证，确认存在可用资金来源，使 Genever（美国）能够在破产申请后维护费用到期时继续支付该等费用。如果 Genever（美国）不愿自愿确定该等资金来源，法院应命令其这样做。\n\n管辖权、审判地及法定依据\n\n5. 法院根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334，以及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区联邦地区法院）作出的移送常设命令，对本事项具有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，本案属于核心程序。\n\n6. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本区为适格审判地。\n\n7. 本动议所请求救济的法定依据为《破产法》第105(a)条。\n\n背景\n\n一、Genever（美国）支付与其在该公寓中的权益相关的全部租金、维护费用及附加租金的义务。\n\n8. Sherry-Netherland 是一家合作住房公司，并且是位于纽约市、名为“The Sherry-Netherland”且街道地址为 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022 的土地及建筑物（以下简称“该建筑”）的所有人。Sherry-Netherland 通过称为专有租赁的文书，将该建筑内的公寓出租给其资本股份的各所有人。\n\n9. Genever（美国）拥有分配给该建筑整层18层、Apartment MR 2219 和 Apartment MR 719 的 Sherry-Netherland 股份（统称“该公寓”）。\n\n10. Genever（美国）在该公寓中的权益受以下文件及其他文件管辖：(a) 由 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（谢里-内德兰公司，出租人）与 Genever Holdings LLC（杰内弗控股有限责任公司，承租人）于2015年3月6日签订的专有租赁协议（以下简称“专有租赁协议”）；(b) 由 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.、Genever Holdings LLC 与 Mr. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok a/k/a Miles Guo（郭文贵，又名 Miles Kwok，又名 Miles Guo）于2015年3月6日签订的关于股份及专有租赁协议的协议及同意书（以下简称“该协议”）；以及 (c) 由 Genever Holdings LLC 于2015年3月6日签署的保证金协议（以下简称“保证金协议”）。3\n\n11. 根据专有租赁协议，Genever（美国）须满足若干现金支付要求，包括根据其对 Sherry-Netherland 资本股份的按比例持有权，支付每月租金、维护费用及附加租金。参见，例如，附件2 §§ 1.1、1.2、3.1。如 Genever（美国）未履行支付任何已到期应付租金、维护费用或附加租金的义务，且未能补救该等违约，Sherry-Netherland 有权终止专有租赁协议。同上，第4.1条。终止后，Genever（美国）在该公寓中的权益将被没收并归还给 Sherry-Netherland。同上，第4.4条。\n\n3 专有租赁协议（附件2）、该协议（附件3）及保证金协议（附件4）的真实、正确副本附于本动议之后。\n\n12. 同样，在该协议中，Genever（美国）重申其履行“[专有]租赁协议中规定的所有契诺、条款、条件及其他限制或义务”的义务。附件3，第2条。Genever（美国）还“明确承诺并同意，在不限于此的情况下，遵守支付[专有]租赁协议所定义的全部分期租金、附加租金、维护费用、摊派款项以及根据[专有]租赁协议应支付给[Sherry-Netherland]的任何及全部其他费用或款项的义务。”同上，第3条。如 Genever（美国）未履行该协议项下的该等义务，Sherry-Netherland 除其他救济外，享有“终止[专有]租赁协议的权利”。同上，第11条。\n\n13. 最后，保证金协议要求 Genever（美国）在 Sherry-Netherland 处维持一笔存款，该金额“应始终等于分配给 Genever（美国）在该公寓中权益的届时每月专有租金的六十（60）倍”。附件4，第1页。Genever（美国）在收到通知后未能补足其在 Sherry-Netherland 处的保证金，“应被视为构成[专有]租赁协议项下的违约”。同上，第2页。\n\n14. Sherry-Netherland 的全体股东均须按其对 Sherry-Netherland 资本股份的按比例持有权支付每月维护费用。Sherry-Netherland 依赖其从股东处收到的每月维护费付款，以支付该建筑的关键费用，包括房地产税、保险费和抵押贷款付款。如任何 Sherry-Netherland 股东未能在维护费用到期时支付其按比例应承担的部分，其他股东将被迫补足缺额。因此，Genever（美国）未支付每月费用将使现有 Sherry-Netherland 股东对其自身持续维护义务承担不成比例的负担。\n\n二、Genever（美国）将很快无法以保证金履行其破产申请后维护义务，因而面临丧失其在该公寓中权益的风险。\n\n15. 近四年半前，即2020年10月12日，Genever（美国）根据《破产法》第11章提交了自愿破产申请。Case No. 22-50592, Dkt. No. 1。Genever（美国）唯一的重要申报资产为其在该公寓中的权益，以及当时存放于 Sherry-Netherland 的款项（以下简称“保证金”）。Case No. 22-50592, Dkt. No. 4, Part 12。\n\n16. Sherry-Netherland 享有金额为 \\$1,096,186.54 的获准破产申请前有担保债权。Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2193 ¶ 11。该金额仍未清偿[且不包括应付给 Sherry-Netherland 的利息]。此外，根据专有租赁协议和该协议，Sherry-Netherland 亦有权获得破产申请后律师费，该等费用同样仍未支付。\n\n17. Sherry-Netherland 对该公寓及 Genever（美国）在专有租赁协议中的权益享有有效且经适当完善的担保权益和第一顺位留置权（以下简称“Sherry-Netherland 第一顺位留置权”），以担保 Genever（美国）因专有租赁协议或其他原因对 Sherry-Netherland 所负的全部义务，但以该等义务附随于 Genever（美国）在该公寓中的所有权权益及／或 Genever（美国）在专有租赁协议中的权益为限。参见，例如，Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2110 ¶ 19；Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2193 ¶ 6(a)。\n\n18. Sherry-Netherland 第一顺位留置权延及 Genever（美国）对 Sherry-Netherland 所负的全部破产申请后义务，包括但不限于 Genever（美国）支付应付给 Sherry-Netherland 的全部破产申请后租金、维护费用和附加租金的义务。\n\n19. 法院此前授权 Sherry-Netherland 使用保证金清偿当时已产生及未来每月的破产申请后维护费用。Case No. 22-50592, Dkt. No. 107。但那已是近四年前。如今，保证金已几乎完全耗尽。\n\n20. 截至提交本动议时，保证金（Security Deposit）仅剩 \\$157,390.12，且该保证金将于 June 2025 前被完全耗尽。\n\n21. 在提交本动议之前，Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰）曾询问 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），其作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“个人债务人”）的 chapter 11 案件中被指定的 chapter 11 受托人（以下简称“受托人”），一旦保证金耗尽，受托人拟如何履行 Genever (US)（吉尼弗〔美国〕）支付维护费的申请后义务。受托人是个人债务人各项权益的受让人。作为个人债务人各项权益的受让人，受托人拥有并控制债务人 Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司，以下简称“Genever (BVI)”）。Genever (BVI) 全资拥有 Genever (US)。因此，受托人是 Genever (US) 和 Genever (BVI) 的代理权持有人，并获授权且有义务代表其行事。一般参见 Case No. 22- 50073, Dkt. No. 2110 ¶¶ 20-24。\n\n22. 截至目前，受托人尚未就保证金耗尽后其拟如何履行 Genever (US) 支付维护费的申请后义务，向 Sherry-Netherland 作出令人满意的答复。\n\n23. 如果并且当 Genever (US) 如预期未能支付其应分摊的 Sherry-Netherland 全体股东 June 2025 月度维护费份额（或此后任何时间的该等费用）时，Genever (US) 将构成违反专有租约（Proprietary Lease）及协议（Agreement）。参见 Ex. 2 § 4.1；Ex. 3 §§ 2, 3。并且，一旦 Genever (US) 构成违约，Sherry-Netherland 有权终止专有租约，并使 Genever (US) 丧失其在该公寓（Apartment）中的权益；除其针对 AIG Property Casualty Company（AIG财产意外保险公司，以下简称“AIG”）的未决诉讼请求外，该公寓是 Genever (US) 唯一的重要资产。参见 Ex. 2 § 4.4；Ex. 3 § 11。\n\n24. 毫无争议的是，该事件链将使 Genever (US) 遭受直接且不可弥补的损害。当 Genever (US) 面临可能违反其对 Sherry-Netherland 所负其他义务时，其曾向本院明确提出这一点。于 2023 年春季，Genever (US) 起诉 AIG，以阻止其取消向 Genever (US) 签发的五份保险单；如该等取消获准生效，将导致 Genever (US) 违反专有租约项下的某些义务。Case No. 23-05007, Dkt. No. 2 ¶¶ 20-23。Genever (US) 提出初步禁令动议，以阻止 AIG 取消该等保险单。在其初步禁令动议中，Genever (US) 承认，违反专有租约将造成不可弥补的损害。用 Genever (US) 自己的话说：“AIG 所称取消已购买的保险保障，将使 Genever (US) 遭受直接且不可弥补的损害，因为取消保险会构成违反专有租约，而该违约的最终后果可能是 Genever (US) 丧失该公寓的所有权。”Id. ¶ 44。\n\n三、Genever (US) 有能力获得足够资金，以继续支付其欠付 Sherry-Netherland 的持续维护费。\n\n25. 尽管保留其一切权利，Sherry-Netherland 不希望寻求没收 Genever (US) 在该公寓中的权益。其也不应当被迫如此。即使保证金被耗尽，Genever (US) 仍可获得足够资金，以继续支付其欠付 Sherry-Netherland 的持续维护费。\n\n26. 于 September 12, 2023，本院作出《（I）授权 Chapter 11 受托人根据 Bankruptcy Code Section 363 提供融资；（II）授权 Genever US（吉尼弗美国公司）及 Genever BVI（吉尼弗英属维尔京群岛公司）根据 Bankruptcy Code Section 364 获得申请后融资；（III）授予非优先留置权并提供超级优先行政费用请求权；（IV）修改自动中止；及（V）授予相关救济的命令》（以下简称“DIP Order（DIP命令）”）。Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2193。\n\n27. 在 DIP Order 中，本院授权个人债务人的破产财产向 Genever (US) 提供融资，用于 Genever (US) 的“必要费用”。Id., DIP Credit Agreement（作为 DIP Order 的 Exhibit 1 所附的 DIP 信贷协议）§ 2.1；另参见 id. § E(f)（“DIP 借款人将依照本命令并按照 DIP Credit Agreement 使用 DIP 融资机制的所得款项，且仅用于 Bankruptcy Code 所允许的目的。”）。DIP Order 所授权的信贷额度最初为 \\$2 million，后增至 \\$3 million。参见 id. at 2；Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 3325。\n\n28. 个人债务人的破产财产向 Genever (US) 提供融资，是因为作为 Genever (US) 的最终股权所有人，该破产财产及其债权人将成为 Genever (US) 成功进行 chapter 11 重整的受益人。因此，受托人在寻求批准 DIP Order 的动议中承认，为支付 Genever (US) 的必要费用而提供融资“符合个人债务人 chapter 11 破产财产及其利益相关方的最佳利益”，因为此举“为在 Genever US 进行可能实现价值最大化的交易保留了选择空间”。Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2110 ¶ 5；另参见 Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 3259 ¶ 35（承认“实现两项 Genever 破产财产的价值最大化符合个人债务人 chapter 11 破产财产及其债权人和利益相关方的最佳利益”，并承认将 Genever (US) 的案件转换为 chapter 7 清算将“保证个人债务人的破产财产无法从 Genever 债务人的案件中获得任何回收”）。\n\n29. 截至 February 28, 2025，Genever (US) 已使用 DIP Order 所授权融资中的超过 \\$2.4 million。参见 Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 4244 at 16。因此，Genever (US) 仍有 \\$500,000 and 600,000 可用于支付其必要费用。\n\nGenever (US) 根据 DIP Order 支付的费用示例包括：\n\n根据 DIP Order 就融资支付款项\nGenever US 律师费（Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC〔萨克斯·多恩伯格与维塔律师事务所〕）　\\$236,452.00\n\n根据 DIP Order 就融资支付款项\nGenever US 律师费（O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss PC〔奥沙利文·麦考马克·詹森与布利斯律师事务所〕）　\\$266,602.17\n\n根据 DIP Order 就融资支付款项\nGenever BVI 公司费用（Harneys Corporate Services〔哈尼公司服务〕）　\\$98,089.58\n\nId. at 16。\n\n30. Sherry Netherland Senior Liens（Sherry Netherland 优先留置权）“在所有方面，包括付款，均优先于”DIP Order 向个人债务人的破产财产授予的担保权益和留置权。Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2193 ¶ 6(a)(1)。\n\n31. Genever (US) 可获得足够现金，以在费用到期时继续支付 Sherry-Netherland 征收的每月申请后维护费。根据 DIP Order 所授权的信贷额度，Genever (US) 仍可获得大量资金。此外，如有必要，如果 Genever (US) 需要更多时间在 chapter 11 下实现其资产的价值最大化出售，个人债务人的破产财产可获得绰绰有余的现金，以再次提高融资额度。参见 Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 4244 at 2（February 2025 末的现金余额超过 \\$70 million）。最后，Genever (US) 针对 AIG 的诉讼仍有可能取得成功结果，这同样可能导致现金注入该破产财产，并作为覆盖申请后维护费的另一潜在资金来源。例如，参见 Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 3259 ¶¶ 23-27（讨论针对 AIG 的诉讼状况）。\n\n32. Genever (US) 正将该大楼（Building）的 18th floor 推向市场出售。参见作为 Exhibit 5 附于本动议的挂牌信息。Sherry-Netherland 继续被 Genever (US) 要求提供与 Genever (US) 持有股份相关、为该破产财产服务并使其受益的服务，包括与 Genever (US) 出售该大楼 18th floor 的努力有关的服务。Genever (US) 的房地产经纪人亦依赖该等服务吸引潜在买家：“The Sherry Netherland 提供的服务和设施包括全方位礼宾服务、24-hour 门卫和电梯服务员、每日客房清洁、晚间夜床服务、代客泊车、由著名的 Harry Cipriani（哈里·奇普里亚尼）提供的客房送餐服务、健身中心、理发店和美容沙龙。”参见作为 Exhibit 6 附于本动议的挂牌信息截屏。\n\n33. Genever (US) 不得期待 Sherry-Netherland 向该破产财产提供服务并使其受益，却不同时承诺履行其对 Sherry-Netherland 自身所负的义务。此外，如 Genever (US) 拒绝履行其支付申请后每月维护费的义务，该等费用最终将由 Sherry-Netherland 的其他股东承担，此为不公平且可避免的结果。\n\n34. Genever (US) 正享受其在该公寓中拥有权益所附带的利益。其亦应履行义务，以确保其拥有足够资源承担该等利益的持续成本。\n\n请求的救济\n\n35. Sherry-Netherland 请求作出拟议命令（Proposed Order），命令 Genever (US) 确定资金来源，以在费用到期时支付 Sherry-Netherland 征收的每月申请后维护费。\n\n救济依据\n\n36. Genever (US) 作为占有中债务人，“负有为其利益相关方的利益而实现破产财产价值最大化的信义义务。”In re Breitburn Energy Partners LP, 582 B.R. 321, 355 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018)；另参见 In re Smart World Techs., LLC, 423 F.3d 166, 175 (2d Cir. 2005)（占有中债务人“须对所收取的全部[破产财产]财产负责”，并要求占有中债务人“实现破产财产价值最大化”）。《破产法典》还“明确表明，‘破产财产的持续损失或价值减损，以及缺乏合理的重整可能性’，是得出占有中债务人未能履行其管理职责这一结论的依据。”In re Taub, 427 B.R. 208, 224 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2010)。\n\n37. 事实上，“如果 chapter 11 案件中资产不足以覆盖全部行政费用，通常不应在企业正常经营过程中产生费用，而应将案件转换为 chapter 7 下的清算程序。”Id.。因此，法院预期“在通常情形下”，占有中债务人将履行其义务，“以避免破产财产持续损失或价值减损的方式经营破产财产的业务。”Id. at 224-25。而且，“《破产法典》推定……占有中债务人通常将履行其当前义务。”In re Sheehan Memorial Hosp., 301 B.R. 777, 780 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2003)。但是，在占有中债务人拒绝履行其义务的非常情形下，“本院有权并有裁量权作出命令，要求其遵守规定，只要该命令为‘实施《破产法典》规定所必需或适当’。”Taub, 427 B.R. at 225（引自 11 U.S.C. § 105(a)）。\n\n38. 本案呈现了 Taub 一案所承认的非常情形。本院先前已向 Sherry-Netherland 授予自动中止救济，以确保 Genever (US) 的申请后维护费义务将得到持续履行。参见 Case No. 22-50592, Dkt. No. 107。约四年已经过去，本院命令中所确定的当时可用资金来源已近耗尽。如不采取进一步行动，申请后行政费用请求权将继续累积，且看不到尽头。Genever (US) 没有\n\n计划应对这一现实。其拒绝指明拟用于履行其对Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）所负义务的资金来源。更糟糕的是，Genever (US)（Genever（美国））仍在要求Sherry-Netherland为该遗产提供与Genever (US)对该公寓（Apartment）的所有权权益相关的服务。毫无疑问，在Genever (US)继续努力出售该大楼（Building）第18层期间，此类要求将无限期地持续下去。因此，法院应根据《破产法》行使其权力和酌处权，命令Genever (US)确定资金来源，以便在Sherry-Netherland计收的申请破产后每月维护费到期时予以支付。\n\n39. 在此情形下，作出此项命令尤为适当，因为Genever (US)有能力——至少在近期内——即使保证金（Security Deposit）耗尽后，仍可在申请破产后维护费到期时继续支付。根据DIP Order（占有债务人融资命令）所授权的信贷安排，Genever (US)仍有$400,000至$600,000可供使用。受托人不应犹豫将可用融资用于此目的。他已承认，确保Genever (US)不以可能威胁其在该公寓中的权益或其继续进行第11章案件能力的方式行事，符合个人债务人（Individual Debtor）第11章财产及其利益相关方的最佳利益。正如受托人所承认的，允许Genever (US)拖欠其申请破产后维护义务——且看不到终止之日——将危及个人债务人财产从其在Genever (US)中的股权权益实现任何价值的能力。基于类似理由，如果Genever (US)日后需要额外融资，以使其能够在申请破产后义务到期时履行该等义务，则此前促使受托人为Genever (US)其他申请破产后费用提供融资的相同考量，也应同样促使受托人再次这样做，以保持其申请破产后维护费的及时支付。简言之，没有理由允许Genever (US)违反其在Proprietary Lease（专有租约）或Agreement（协议）项下的义务。\n\n40. 此外，无争议的是，除根据DIP Order可供Genever (US)使用的融资外，Genever (US)“没有现金，也没有收入来源”。Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2110 ¶ 2。如果Genever (US)因其没有可用于此目的的资金而拒绝确定支付其持续维护义务的资金来源，则将对本第11章破产案件的继续提出严重疑问。如果Genever (US)无法或不愿确定足以支付其持续义务的资金，则正如Genever (US)已承认的，其“最终将被迫转换为第7章清算”。Id.\n\n41. Sherry-Netherland不希望看到本案被驳回或转换为第7章清算，Sherry-Netherland亦不希望采取其他有损于Genever (US)财产的行动，例如申请对Genever (US)在该公寓中的权益进行止赎或终止该权益。近四年半以来，Sherry-Netherland一直支持Genever (US)根据第11章进行重整的努力。在火灾损坏该楼层并使其需要进行重大修复之前的一年多时间内，Sherry-Netherland支持Genever (US)为出售或出租第18层所作的营销努力。Sherry-Netherland支持Genever (US)取得DIP Order授权的融资的努力。而且，尽管DIP Order明确授权支付Sherry-Netherland“合理的申请破产后[律师]费用”，Case No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2193 ¶ 12，Sherry-Netherland迄今尚未要求支付该等费用，因为其不愿耗尽Genever (US)可用的资金。但修复工作现已完成，而且Genever (US)似乎尚未接近根据第11章完成一项使其在该公寓中权益价值最大化的出售交易。\n\n42. 现在，Genever (US)表面上似乎准备对Sherry-Netherland及其其他股东施加又一负担。Genever (US)希望Sherry-Netherland继续履行其作为对Genever (US)负有义务的股东所应履行的义务。Genever (US)还希望Sherry-Netherland的其他股东承担Genever (US)在Sherry-Netherland财产税、保险费、抵押贷款付款及维护费所涵盖的其他开支中的相应份额，以弥补Genever (US)拒绝或无力履行其自身义务的缺口。4\n\n43. 不应允许Genever (US)拒绝或无力确定支付其持续维护费的资金来源。Genever (US)对Sherry-Netherland负有作为Genever (US)资产负责任管理人的义务，其中包括采取行动确保其不会危及其在该公寓中的所有权权益。Genever (US)未能在每月维护费到期时支付该费用，恰恰与负责任的管理相反。\n\n44. 至少在Genever (US)确定其将用于支付申请破产后维护义务的资金来源之前及期间，法院应禁止Genever (US)和Genever (BVI)（Genever（英属维尔京群岛））使用根据DIP Order或以其他方式可供其使用的资金，向其各自的专业人士支付临时报酬。See In re Codesco, Inc., 15 B.R. 354, 356 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1981)（在“[该]财产中资金不足”的情况下，拒绝批准使用受担保资金支付临时报酬）；see also Pa. DOL & Indus. v. Cunningham, P.C. (In re Pannebaker Custom Cabinet Corp.), 198 B.R. 453, 463 n.6 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 1996)（在确定是否授予临时报酬时，“法院必须考虑该财产是否拥有充足资金，从而使向专业人士作出的授予不会危及他人持有的同等优先权债权”）。\n\n权利保留\n\n45. Sherry-Netherland特此保留其全部权利，包括但不限于：(a) 其在Proprietary Lease、Agreement、Security Deposit Agreement（保证金协议）和/或DIP Order项下的权利；(b) 其寻求将Genever (US)的第11章案件转换或驳回的权利；(c) 其就应付未付金额收取利息的权利；(d) 其获得律师费的权利；以及(e) Sherry-Netherland作为Genever (US)有担保债权人所享有的所有其他权利。\n\n结论\n\n46. 基于上述全部理由，Sherry-Netherland谨此请求法院准许该动议，并指示Genever (US)确定资金来源，以便在Sherry-Netherland计收的申请破产后每月维护费到期时予以支付。\n\n日期：April 10, 2025 Taruna Garg（ct28652）\n\nHARRIS BEACH MURTHA CULLINA PLLC（哈里斯·比奇·默萨·库利纳律师事务所） 107 Elm Street Stamford, CT 06902 电话：传真：电子邮箱：(203) 653-5400 (203) 653-5444 tgarg@harrisbeachmurtha.com\n\n-以及-\n\nPatrick N. Petrocelli* HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP（霍金路伟美国有限责任合伙律师事务所） 390 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 电话：传真：电子邮箱：(212) 918-3000 (212) 918-3134 patrick.petrocelli@hoganlovells.com\n\nThe Sherry Netherland, Inc.的代理律师\n\n*经特别许可出庭\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于April 11, 2025，前述文件副本已通过电子方式提交。根据法院电子提交系统的运作，本次提交的通知将通过电子邮件发送给所有当事人；对于无法接受电子提交的人员，将按电子提交通知中所示方式送达。当事人可通过法院的CM/ECF系统查阅本次提交。\n\n/s/ Taruna Garg\n\nTaruna Garg","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Guo","Miles Guo","Despins","Paul Hastings","forfeiture"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2110,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2193,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3259,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3325,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4244,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4946,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:46:47"}