{"id":"court_ctb_465_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":465,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT IN RE: )","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nIN RE: )\n\nHO WAN KWOK, )\n\nDEBTOR. )\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n) CASE No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n) CHAPTER 11\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_) RE: ECF No. 183\n\n# **APPEARANCES1**\n\nJeffrey L. Jonas Brown Rudnick LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 *Attorney for the Debtor*\n\nPeter Friedman O'Melveny & Myers LLP 1625 Eye Street NW Washington, DC 20006 *Attorney for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.*\n\nCarollynn Callari Callari Partners, LLC One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor New York, New York 10020 *Attorney for Creditors Rui Ma, Weican Meng, and Zheng Wu*\n\nHolley L. Claiborn Office of the United States Trustee 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 *Attorney for the United States Trustee*\n\nIrve J. Goldman Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street, 8th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 *Attorney for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors*\n\n## **MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND GRANTING JOINDER TO MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\n#### **I. Introduction**\n\nOn February 15, 2022, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), filed a voluntary Chapter 11\n\npetition commencing this case. Although the Debtor's case has been pending for only four\n\n<sup>1</sup> William R. Baldiga and Bennett S. Silverberg for the Debtor, Laura Aronsson and Patrick M. Birney for PAX, and Kristin Mayhew for Creditors Ma, Meng, and Wu also appeared at the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss.\n\nmonths, numerous motions and applications have been filed by the Debtor, the Office of the United States Trustee, creditors, and entities or individuals related to the Debtor. Several extensive hearings have been held, including the most recent evidentiary hearing on a motion to dismiss the Debtor's case or appoint a Chapter 11 trustee.\n\nThe issues raised by the parties in the voluminous pleadings, and the information and evidence presented during hearings held in this case, confirm that the Debtor's case is unusual, complicated, and often contentious. Based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case, including the review of the record, the evidence presented by the parties, and the complex factual and legal issues that have been brought before the Court, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b), the Court finds that it is in the best interests of creditors and the estate not to dismiss or convert the Debtor's case at this time and to instead appoint a Chapter 11 trustee.2\n\n### **II. Jurisdiction**\n\nThis Court has jurisdiction over this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). This Court has the authority to hear this matter pursuant to the General Order of Reference entered on September 21, 1984 by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.\n\n#### **III. History of Proceedings**\n\nIt is essential to examine the events that have occurred in the Debtor's case to determine whether dismissal, conversion, or the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee is in the best interests\n\n<sup>2</sup> Section 1112(b)(3) requires the Court to rule on a Motion to Dismiss within 15 days after commencement of the hearing. During a June 9, 2022, status conference to address corrections to the official transcript of the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, the Court informed the parties that a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss would likely be issued more than 15 days after the hearing for several reasons, including the complexity of the Debtor's case and numerous hearings scheduled to be held in other cases during the 15-day period.\n\nof creditors and the estate. At the core of the Debtor's case is a luxury yacht known as the \"Lady May,\" allegedly purchased for €41,000,000.00, and other assets that may belong to the Debtor including an apartment in the Sherry-Netherlands Hotel in Manhattan allegedly purchased for approximately \\$70,000,000.00 in 2015. When viewed as a whole, the circumstances surrounding the Debtor's case demonstrate why the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, as opposed to dismissal or conversion of the Debtor's case, is in the best interests of creditors and the estate.\n\n### **The Debtor's Motion to Extend Time to File Schedules and Statements**\n\nAs noted above, the Debtor commenced this case on February 15, 2022, by filing a voluntary Chapter 11 petition. The Debtor filed the list of the twenty largest unsecured creditors with the petition and identified Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") as the Debtor's largest creditor with a debt of approximately \\$254,000,000.00. ECF No. 4 at p. 1.\n\nThe Debtor did not file the Schedules or the Statement of Financial Affairs with his petition, but did timely file a Motion to Extend Deadline to File Schedules or Provide Required Information to May 2, 2022 (the \"Motion to Extend Time to File Schedules and Statements,\" ECF No. 27). In support of the requested extension of time, the Debtor states that his 'background is admittedly extraordinary\" and additional time would allow him to retain professionals necessary to assist with the preparation and filing of the Schedules and Statements and to secure the financing to administer his Chapter 11 case. ECF No. 27 at p. 2.\n\nOn February 28, 2022, the Office of the United States Trustee (the \"UST\") and PAX filed strenuous objections to the Motion to Extend Time to File Schedules and Statements. In the objections, both the UST and PAX assert the Debtor's case was filed in direct response to a \\$134,000,000.00 contempt order entered against the Debtor arising out of his involvement in\n\nsecreting the Lady May out of New York to protect it from being seized. PAX's objection also asserts that the Debtor has flouted the New York state court orders and abused the judicial process in an attempt to evade enforcement of the \\$116,000,000.00 judgment PAX won against him. PAX notes that the New York state court found \"Kwok, who is a self-declared multibillionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members,\" and as a result of his elaborate schemes to avoid his creditors, the New York Supreme Court docket contains over 1,180 entries, \"almost all of which involve . . . [Kwok's] efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members.\" PAX Objection, ECF No. 50 at p. 2. Furthermore, PAX asserts that there are at least three materially false and/or misleading statements in the Debtor's petition, including his sworn (mis)representation that he has less than \\$100,000.00 in assets which is completely incompatible with the New York state court's finding just days before that Kwok \"holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May.\" *Id*.\n\n#### **PAX's Automatic Stay Motion**\n\nOn March 1, 2022, just two weeks after the Debtor's case was filed, PAX filed a Motion for Entry of Order Confirming Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay (the \"Automatic Stay Motion,\" ECF No. 57). The Automatic Stay Motion sets forth extensive, detailed, and serious allegations against the Debtor. PAX argues that the automatic stay did not apply in this case due to the imposition of sanctions entered against the Debtor in the pre-petition New York state court action. PAX states that the court's sanctions held the Debtor in civil contempt for failure to return the Lady May to New York in violation of its orders. The Debtor filed an Objection to the Automatic Stay Motion, in which the Debtor does not dispute the imposition of the sanctions, but instead argues that he does not\n\nown or control the Lady May. Debtor's Objection to Automatic Stay Motion, ECF No. 83 at p. 7.\n\n### **The Debtor's Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs**\n\nOn March 9, 2022, the Debtor filed his Statement of Financial Affairs, ECF No. 77, and Schedules, ECF No. 78. The Debtor asserts in the Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs that he owns assets valued at \\$3,850.00 and lists liabilities in the amount of \\$373,803,498.09. In global notes that limit and disclaim the Debtor's declarations made under penalty of perjury in the Statement of Financial Affairs, the Debtor further asserts he: (i) has the use and occupancy of, but not title to, real property in Greenwich, Connecticut owned by a limited liability company wholly owned by his wife; (ii) wholly owns the membership interests in another limited liability company that holds all of the cooperative shares in an apartment in the Sherry-Netherlands Hotel in Manhattan in trust for a separate limited liability company owned by his son, Qiang Guo; and (iii) had access to the use of the Lady May owned by HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited (\"HK\"), a limited liability company owned by his daughter, Mei Guo. ECF No. 77 at p. 4-5.\n\n### **The UST Motion for Examiner or Chapter 11 Trustee**\n\nOn March 18, 2022, less than two weeks after the Debtor filed his Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs, the UST filed a Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of an Examiner, or in the alternative, Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"UST Motion for Examiner or Chapter 11 Trustee,\" ECF No. 102). The UST argues that it is in the best interests of creditors and the estate to appoint an examiner or a trustee because the Debtor, a public figure and a self-proclaimed billionaire living in exile from his native China, claims that he has no regular income and virtually no assets yet seemingly has\n\naccess to significant funds, including the ability to procure a \\$1,000,000.00 retainer for his counsel in this case. The UST notes its concerns about the \"odd combination of what appears to be artificial self-created 'poverty' by the Debtor to insulate himself from creditors\" and the Debtor's filing of this case to \"obtain protection from creditors owed millions.\" ECF No. 102 at p. 2. Furthermore, the UST states that its concerns are validated by: (i) \"the Debtor's marginalization of his schedules and statement of financial affairs to the point of being meaningless;\" (ii) the Debtor \"brazenly disclaims any responsibility or liability for any of the information in the bankruptcy documents pursuant to self-serving, anti-fiduciary language in the 'Global Notes;'\" and (iii) \"the Debtor's inability and/or unwillingness to recognize and accept his obligations to provide full, complete and accurate information, to fulfill fiduciary obligations to his estate and his creditors, and to meet his obligations as a debtor in possession.\" *Id*.\n\n### **The Notice of Appointment of the Committee of Unsecured Creditors**\n\nOn March 21, 2022, three days after the UST filed the Motion for Examiner or Chapter 11 Trustee, the UST filed a Notice of Appointment of Creditor Committee in this case (ECF No. 108). The members of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"Committee\"), who are among the largest unsecured creditors of the Debtor and have indicated a willingness to serve on the Committee, are the following creditors: (i) Rui Ma, (ii) Ning Ye, and (iii) Samuel Dan Nunberg.\n\n#### **The DIP Financing Motion**\n\nOn March 22, 2022, one day after the appointment of the Committee, the Debtor filed a Motion for Entry of Interim and Final Debtor in Possession Financing Orders (the \"DIP Motion,\" ECF No. 117). In the DIP Motion, the Debtor seeks approval of a loan in the amount of \\$8,000,000.00 to be made to the estate on an unsecured basis, subordinated to the claims of the\n\nDebtor's pre-petition creditors, without any administrative or priority repayment rights. The loan would be available to pay the estate's professionals and would be repaid if, and only if, all allowed claims of the Debtor's creditors are paid in full or otherwise satisfied pursuant to the terms of a plan. The proposed lender, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (the \"DIP Lender\"), is an entity owned and controlled by the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo.\n\nThe DIP Motion asserts that the Debtor filed his Chapter 11 case to: (a) create a single forum to orderly address the various competing claims asserted against him; (b) afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate his assets, liabilities, and financial affairs; (c) establish what assets are estate property and, in turn, available for distribution to holders of allowed claims; and (d) reach consensus with his creditors on a fair and equitable resolution of claims and distribution of assets pursuant to a Chapter 11 plan. DIP Motion, ECF No. 117 at p. 5.\n\n### **PAX's Motion to Dismiss and Joinder**\n\nOn April 6, 2022, approximately three weeks after the UST's Motion for Appointment of Examiner or Chapter 11 Trustee and DIP Motion were filed, PAX filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Partial Joinder to the USTs Motion for the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Motion to Dismiss or Joinder,\" ECF No. 183). In support of the Motion to Dismiss or Joinder, PAX argues that the filing of the Debtor's case \"is the latest, most strident gambit\" of the Debtor to \"delay, deceive, and defraud his creditors, and to continue to evade legitimate court orders\" and that the Debtor's \"*modus operandi* is to park, shield and secrete his assets through family members and shell companies to protect his fortune and to avoid repaying his debt to PAX.\" ECF No. 183 at p. 7. The Debtor, PAX argues, has \"secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\" *Id*. at p. 7-8.\n\nAlong with the Motion to Dismiss or Joinder, PAX filed a Motion to schedule status on the Motion to Dismiss or Joinder. The Court granted PAX's motion in part and scheduled a Status Conference on the Motion to Dismiss or Joinder to be held on April 13, 2022, the same date of a hearing on several other matters in the case, including the continued hearing on the Automatic Stay Motion and the initial hearing on the Motion for Appointment of Examiner or Chapter 11 Trustee and the DIP Motion.\n\n### **The Debtor's Chapter 11 Plan**\n\nOn April 10, 2022, the Debtor filed a proposed Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization (the \"Plan,\" ECF No. 197). Among other things, the Plan provides for the creation of a \"Creditor Trust\" for the benefit of all creditors with allowed claims. ECF No. 197 at p. 20-24. The Plan further provides that title to the Lady May will be transferred to the Creditor Trust for the benefit of all creditors with allowed claims. ECF No. 197 at p. 21.\n\n### **HK's Statement regarding the Automatic Stay Motion**\n\nOn April 11, 2022, the day after the Debtor filed the Plan, HK (which as noted above is a limited liability company owned by the Debtor's daughter) filed a Statement regarding the Automatic Stay Motion (the \"Statement,\" ECF No. 203). In the Statement, HK asserts that it is the registered agent of the Lady May and that it consents to the entry of a proposed order compelling it to transport and deliver the Lady May to the navigable waters of Connecticut under certain conditions. HK further asserts that it provided a copy of the Proposed Order to counsel for PAX, the Debtor, the UST, and the Committee for their respective comments and that entry of the proposed order compelling HK to return the Lady May to Connecticut would \"moot\" the Automatic Stay Motion. Statement at p. 2.\n\n### **The April 13, 2022 hearing**\n\nSeveral matters were scheduled to be heard on April 13, 2022, including the continued hearing on the Automatic Stay Motion and the initial hearing on the DIP Motion and the UST Motion for Examiner or Chapter 11 Trustee. At the conclusion of the lengthy hearing, the Court again continued the hearing on PAX's Automatic Stay Motion, continued the hearing on the UST Motion for Examiner or Chapter 11 Trustee, and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the DIP Motion and the Debtor's Application to Employ Financial Advisor to be held on April 27, 2022.\n\n## **April 27, 2022 evidentiary hearing, the resolution of the Automatic Stay Motion, and the scheduling of an evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Dismiss or Joinder**\n\nThe Debtor, PAX, the UST, the Committee, the creditors Rui Ma and Zheng Wu, Golden Spring, and HK appeared at the April 27th evidentiary hearing. At the start of the hearing, counsel for the Debtor reported to the Court that the parties had resolved the Automatic Stay Motion. The predominant terms of the resolution were that \\$37,000,000.00 would be posted by HK and held in escrow pending the return of the Lady May to the navigable waters of Connecticut. The parties agreed that a resolution of the Automatic Stay Motion had been reached subject to the review of and revisions to a stipulated order that would be submitted to the Court. Counsel for HK was then excused from the hearing to continue revisions to the draft of a stipulated order. The Court noted on the record, and ultimately on the docket, that the Automatic Stay Motion was resolved by agreement of the parties subject to an agreed upon order to be submitted to the Court on or before May 2, 2022.\n\nTestimony, evidence, and arguments were also presented regarding the Debtor's Motion to Retain a Financial Advisor and the DIP Motion. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the Court took the Debtor's Motion to Retain a Financial Advisor under advisement and\n\ncontinued the hearing on the DIP Motion to May 4, 2022. In addition, the provisions of a scheduling order regarding an evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Dismiss or Joinder were agreed to by the parties on the record. On April 28, 2022, the Court entered a Scheduling Order Regarding the Motion to Dismiss scheduling the evidentiary hearing for May 24, 2022.\n\n### **The Stipulated Order regarding the Lady May**\n\nOn April 29, 2022, the Court entered the Stipulated Order Compelling HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC to Transport and Deliver that Certain Yacht, the \"Lady May,\" which was executed by and among HK, PAX, the Debtor, the Committee, and the creditors Rui Ma and Zheng Wu (the \"Stipulated Order,\" ECF No. 299). Among other things, the Stipulated Order provides: (i) HK has deposited \\$37,000,000.00 into escrow; (ii) HK will deliver the Lady May to the navigable waters of Connecticut on or before July 15, 2022; and (iii) the captain of the Lady May and the purported yacht management company will submit a declaration that each shall be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and are bound by the provisions of the Stipulated Order, including that they are restrained from removing the Lady May from the navigable waters of Connecticut until further order of this Court.\n\n## **The continued DIP Motion hearing, the Consent to Dismissal, and the Withdrawal of the DIP Motion**\n\nOn May 3, 2022, the Debtor filed an amended proposed order regarding the DIP Motion. The amended proposed order contained a chart indicating when and in what amount the DIP funds would be spent. The amended proposed order provided that professional fees would be paid on a weekly basis, including the fees of the Debtor's counsel and counsel for the Committee.\n\nOn May 4, 2022, the continued hearing on the DIP Motion was held. The Debtor and the Committee argued that the DIP Motion should be granted and the amended proposed order should enter. PAX and the UST reiterated their respective objections to the DIP Motion. The Court then asked several questions about the asserted need to pay several million dollars of professional fees through the end of May, 2022. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court stated that a ruling on the DIP Motion would issue which would determine the appropriate amounts to be spent through the end of May, 2022.\n\nOn May 11, 2022, one week after the conclusion of the DIP Motion hearing, the Debtor filed a Notice of Consent to Dismissal of Case (the \"Consent to Dismissal\"). In the Consent to Dismissal, the Debtor asserts that he consents to dismissal of his case due to the tremendous costs imposed on him from unrelenting litigation by PAX and others, and his inability to access funds to meet those costs. Also on May 11, 2022, while the DIP Motion was under advisement and the Court was preparing to rule on the motion, the Debtor filed a Withdrawal of the DIP Motion.\n\n#### **The Evidentiary Hearing on the Motion to Dismiss or Joinder**\n\nOn May 24, 2022, the evidentiary hearing on PAX's Motion to Dismiss or Joinder was held. At the start of the hearing, all of the parties acknowledged that the Consent to Dismissal changed the posture of the Debtor's case. In addition, all of the parties agreed that cause exists under section 1112(b) to dismiss or convert the Debtor's case or to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee. PAX and the Debtor argued that the Debtor's case should be dismissed. The Committee and certain creditors argued that conversion is most appropriate, but absent conversion, a Chapter 11 trustee should be appointed. The UST did not argue in favor of any one of the three alternatives, but urged the Court to decide the matter as quickly as possible.\n\n### **IV. Analysis**\n\nSection 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:\n\n[O]n 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.\n\n11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1); *see also In re Sillerman*, 605 B.R. 631, 657 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019); *In re TP, Inc.*, 455 B.R. 455, 457 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2011); *In re Products Intern. Co.*, 395 B.R. 101, 107 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2008).\n\nDuring the evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Dismiss or Joinder, all of the parties stipulated that cause exists to dismiss the case, convert the case to Chapter 7, or to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee. The Debtor asserts that cause exists to dismiss his case under section 1112(b)(4)(A) because there was a substantial or continuing loss to or diminution of the estate and the absence of a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation. PAX argues that cause exists to dismiss the case under section 1112(b) for many reasons, including the Debtor's alleged bad faith in filing the case and the Debtor's gross mismanagement of the estate. Because the parties stipulated that cause exists under section 1112(b), the Court does not need to determine the specific \"cause.\" The only issue the Court needs to decide is whether dismissal, conversion, or appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee is in the best interests of creditors and the estate.\n\nThrough a balancing test, a court must determine which of three alternatives—dismissal, conversion, or the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee—is in the best interests of creditors and the estate based on the record of the case. *In re Products Intern. Co.*, 395 B.R. at 108. In determining which option is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, a court should evaluate, among other things, the prospects for collection and payment of the claims of creditors. *In re Corona Care Convalescent Corp.*, 527 B.R. 379, 384 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2015). \"When considering appointing a trustee or converting the case to one under chapter 7, 'the distinguishing factor . . . is the expanded possibility in Chapter 11 for a trustee using independent judgment and good management to direct the affairs of the estate[] including on-going operations (if any) in order to optimize recovery for the creditors and the estate.'\" *In re NOA, LLC*, 578 B.R. 534, 541 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2017).\n\nThe appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee in this case is warranted because the record suggests a prospect for collection and payment of creditors' claims. During this case, the Debtor has demonstrated he can obtain millions of dollars in funds, including the \\$8,000,000.00 that was the subject of the DIP Motion. The Debtor also proposed a Chapter 11 plan in the early stages of this case which provided, among other things, the transfer of title to the Lady May to a creditor trust for the benefit of all creditors. In addition, during the four months that the case has been pending, divergent parties heavily negotiated a stipulation resolving the Automatic Stay Motion. The Stipulated Order resulted in \\$37,000,000.00 being placed in escrow in exchange for the delivery of the Lady May to the navigable waters of Connecticut, something the Debtor opposed to the point of having contempt sanctions entered against him in the New York state court action. Performance of the most significant obligation in the Stipulated Order—the delivery of the Lady May to the navigable waters of Connecticut—is not yet due. However, there has been timely compliance with other provisions of the Stipulated Order. HK has filed progress reports indicating that repairs to the Lady May have been made and that the Lady May may arrive in the navigable waters of Connecticut ahead of the July 15, 2022 Stipulated Order delivery date. Dismissal of the Debtor's case, or conversion of the Debtor's case to Chapter 7, would erase the substantial progress made with respect to the Lady May. A Chapter 11 trustee can serve as an\n\nindependent party to ensure continued compliance with the Stipulated Order and can assist with the development of a Chapter 11 plan with a reasonable likelihood of confirmation. The appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee will also uphold the policy of enforcement of settlements, avoid a race to the courthouse, and provide the opportunity for a pro rata distribution to creditors consistent with the priority scheme in the Bankruptcy Code. *See Corona Care*, 527 B.R. at 387 (appointing a trustee to uphold the policy of enforcement of settlements and avoid a race to the courthouse).\n\nIn several pleadings, the Debtor has stated that he filed this case to create a single forum to orderly address competing claims asserted against him and to afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate his assets, liabilities, and financial affairs. Dismissal of the Debtor's case would defeat the Debtor's stated reasons for filing this case. Similarly, conversion of this case to Chapter 7 will not allow for the orderly liquidation of competing claims asserted against the Debtor. The appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee is the most efficient and effective method to address competing creditor claims asserted against the Debtor, including contingent and unliquidated personal injury tort claims. The appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee will also allow for the effective investigation of the Debtor's assets, liabilities, and financial affairs. Accordingly, when balancing whether to dismiss, convert, or appoint a Chapter 11 trustee, the record supports the conclusion that the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee in this case is in the best interests of creditors and the estate.\n\nWhen faced with a similar choice under section 1112(b), bankruptcy courts have appointed a Chapter 11 trustee as opposed to dismissing or converting the case. For example, the *Sillerman* case concerned an individual debtor who was a serial entrepreneur. The debtor listed his interests in forty-seven limited liability companies in his schedules, had sold multiple\n\nbusinesses for billions of dollars, and proposed a Chapter 11 plan that would be funded once the debtor was able to secure financing to invest in certain affiliated entities. *Sillerman*, 605 B.R. at 636. The *Sillerman* creditors first filed a motion for appointment of an examiner because they asserted that the \"lack of independent managerial oversight\" allowed the debtor to avoid disclosing the true nature and value of his assets and that the debtor's \"use of multilayered transactions involving complicated corporate structures\" made his assets difficult to find. *Id.* at 636-37. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed later in the case instead moved for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee or, in the alternative, an order converting the case to a Chapter 7 case. Given the totality of the circumstances in the debtor's case, the *Sillerman* court held that the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, instead of conversion of the case, was in the best interests of creditors and the estate. *Id.* at 657.\n\n Like the creditors in *Sillerman,* PAX, the Committee, and other creditors have argued that the Debtor and his family have interests in numerous limited liability companies that may obfuscate the true nature and value of the Debtor's assets. They also argue that the Debtor has engaged in multilayer transactions involving complicated corporate structures like Golden Spring, Genever Holdings, Lamp Funding, and HK that make it difficult to identify and locate the Debtor's assets. PAX cites to the findings of the New York Supreme Court that the Debtor had \"secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members\" and that the thousands of docket entries \"involve defendant Kwok's efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members.\" ECF No. 183 at p. 7-8. When balanced against dismissal or conversion, the complexity of the Debtor's financial affairs and lack of independent managerial oversight in this\n\ncase warrants the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee who can investigate, identify, and locate the Debtor's assets for the benefit of creditors and the estate.\n\n Bankruptcy courts have also appointed a Chapter 11 trustee rather than dismiss or convert a case in situations where a debtor has violated a stipulated order. In *NOA*, the debtor willfully violated a stipulated order between the debtor and creditors specifically restraining the debtor from shipping bulk clothing out of the United States until full payment for the goods was received. 578 B.R. at 537-40. The court appointed a Chapter 11 trustee because of the \"expanded possibility in Chapter 11 for a trustee using independent judgment and good management to direct the affairs of the estate[] including on-going operations (if any) in order to optimize recovery for the creditors and the estate.\" *Id.* at 541. As was true in *NOA*, the parties in this case negotiated the Stipulated Order. As noted above, performance of the delivery of the Lady May to the navigable waters of Connecticut is not yet due. The appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee will enable that trustee to use independent judgment to ensure compliance with the Stipulated Order and to optimize recovery of assets for the creditors and the estate.\n\n*Corona Care* is another case in which a bankruptcy court exercised its discretion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee instead of dismissing or converting a case where a debtor defaulted under the terms of a stipulation. *Corona Care*, 527 B.R. at 387. In *Corona Care*, the debtors entered into a stipulation with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and other partiesin-interest dismissing some of the jointly administered cases of the more profitable nursing facilities to allow the remaining debtors more time to confirm a plan of reorganization. 527 B.R. at 380. The debtors then defaulted under the terms of the stipulated agreement. *Id.* at 385. In evaluating the prospects for collection and payment of the claims to creditors, the *Corona Care* court found that a sale of the debtors' businesses offered some prospect of payment of creditors\n\nbecause the assets would be monetized for the payment of their claims, which reflected the bargain reached in the stipulation. *Id.* at 384-85. Likewise, delivery of the Lady May to the navigable waters of Connecticut will result in the prospect of collection and payment of creditor claims which may include the pledge of the Lady May to a Chapter 11 plan and/or a finding that the Lady May is property of the Debtor's estate.\n\n*TP, Inc*. is another bankruptcy case in which a Chapter 11 trustee was appointed as opposed to dismissing or converting the debtor's case. 455 B.R. at 459. In *TP, Inc.*, Bank of America had commenced a foreclosure proceeding in state court against TP, Inc., its principal, and its principal's wife, and had obtained a judgment against the principal and principal's wife, who were guarantors of the promissory note. *Id.* at 456. The debtor's principal leased Bank of America's collateral during the pendency of the case without court approval and collected rents attributable to that collateral. *Id*. The *TP, Inc*. court held that the debtor's misuse of numerous parcels of real property that served as Bank of America's collateral, and the misuse of the cash collateral rents derived from that collateral, warranted the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. *Id.* at 459. The court pointed to its concerns about future instances of fraud, incompetence, dishonesty, or gross mismanagement in deciding that the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee was in the best interests of creditors and the estate, as opposed to dismissal or conversion, because a trustee could use independent judgment and good management to direct the affairs of the estate. *Id*. In this case, a state court similarly entered a judgment against the Debtor based on a default on a promissory note and a contempt order for contravention of a state court order restraining the Debtor, among others, from removing the Lady May from the navigable waters of New York. Like the decision in *TP, Inc*., the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee in this case will address concerns about any future misconduct by the Debtor while bringing independent\n\njudgment and good management to direct the affairs of the estate and optimize recovery for all creditors.\n\n### **V. CONCLUSION**\n\n Because the parties stipulate that cause exists under section 1112(b) to dismiss this case, convert this case to a case under Chapter 7, or appoint a Chapter 11 trustee, the Court has evaluated, among other things, the prospects for collection and payment of the claims of all creditors. The Court finds that the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee is in the best interests of creditors and the estate because a Chapter 11 trustee can: (i) use independent judgment and good management to direct the affairs of the estate to attempt to satisfy the claims of creditors; (ii) determine whether a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation exists for this Debtor, including whether a Plan of Reorganization can be proposed and confirmed; and (iii) optimize recovery for the creditors and the estate by, among other things, allowing the Chapter 11 trustee to investigate the Debtor's assets, liabilities, and financial affairs and to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Stipulated Order.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby:\n\n**ORDERED:** Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 1112(b), the Motion to Dismiss or Joinder is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the extent it seeks to dismiss the Debtor's case at this time and is GRANTED to the extent that a Chapter 11 trustee shall be appointed in the Debtor's case; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** The Chapter 11 trustee shall perform all of the duties set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 1106; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** Within fourteen (14) days of the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, a Status Conference will be scheduled to discuss, among other things, the progress of the Chapter 11 trustee regarding the statements to be filed in accordance with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1106(a)(4) and\n\n(a)(5), compliance with the Stipulated Order, the Chapter 11 trustee's proposed management of the estate, and the continued administration of the Debtor's case.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 15th day of June, 2022.","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n\n关于：)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），)\n\n债务人。)\n\n____________________________________________________________\n\n) 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n) 第11章\n\n____________________________________________________________) 关于：ECF No. 183\n出庭人员1\n\nJeffrey L. Jonas，Brown Rudnick LLP，Seven Times Square，New York, NY 10036，债务人代理律师\n\nPeter Friedman，O'Melveny & Myers LLP，1625 Eye Street NW，Washington, DC 20006，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.代理律师\n\nCarollynn Callari，Callari Partners, LLC，One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor，New York, New York 10020，债权人Rui Ma、Weican Meng和Zheng Wu的代理律师\n\nHolley L. Claiborn，Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室），150 Court Street, Room 302，New Haven, CT 06510，美国受托人代理律师\n\nIrve J. Goldman，Pullman & Comley，850 Main Street, 8th Floor，Bridgeport, CT 06604，无担保债权人正式委员会代理律师\n驳回撤案动议但不妨碍再次提出并准许加入任命第11章受托人动议的决定备忘录及命令\n一、引言\n\n2022年2月15日，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”）提交了一份自愿第11章破产申请，从而启动本案。尽管债务人的案件仅待决四个月，\n\n1 William R. Baldiga和Bennett S. Silverberg代表债务人、Laura Aronsson和Patrick M. Birney代表PAX，以及Kristin Mayhew代表债权人Ma、Meng和Wu，亦出席了关于撤案动议的听证会。\n\n但债务人、美国受托人办公室、债权人以及与债务人有关的实体或个人已提交了大量动议和申请。已举行数次广泛的听证会，其中包括最近就撤销债务人案件或任命第11章受托人的动议举行的证据听证会。\n\n当事人在大量诉状中提出的问题，以及本案听证会中提交的信息和证据，证实债务人的案件不同寻常、复杂且常有争议。基于本案的具体事实和情形，包括对案卷、当事人提交的证据，以及提交本院审理的复杂事实及法律问题的审查，本院依据11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)认定，此时不撤销或转换债务人的案件，而改为任命第11章受托人，最符合债权人和破产财团的利益。2\n二、管辖权\n\n本院依据28 U.S.C. §§ 157和1334对本动议具有管辖权。依据28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，本案属于核心程序。本院依据United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦地区法院）于1984年9月21日作出的转介总命令，有权审理本事项。\n三、程序经过\n\n为确定撤销、转换或任命第11章受托人是否最符合债权人和破产财团的利益，审查债务人案件中发生的事件至关重要。债务人案件的核心是一艘名为“Lady May”的豪华游艇，据称以€41,000,000.00购得，以及可能属于债务人的其他资产，包括Manhattan（曼哈顿）Sherry-Netherlands Hotel（雪莉-荷兰酒店）内的一套公寓，据称于2015年以约$70,000,000.00购得。整体来看，围绕债务人案件的情形表明，任命第11章受托人而非撤销或转换债务人的案件，最符合债权人和破产财团的利益。\n债务人延长提交清单和陈述书期限的动议\n\n如上所述，债务人于2022年2月15日提交自愿第11章破产申请，从而启动本案。债务人随申请书提交了二十大无担保债权人名单，并确认Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）为债务人的最大债权人，其债权约为$254,000,000.00。ECF No. 4 at p. 1.\n\n债务人未随申请书提交财产清单或财务状况陈述书，但及时提交了将提交清单或提供所需信息的期限延长至2022年5月2日的动议（下称“延长提交清单和陈述书期限动议”，ECF No. 27）。为支持所请求的延期，债务人称其“背景确属非同寻常”，额外的时间将使其能够聘请协助编制和提交财产清单及陈述书所必需的专业人士，并获得管理其第11章案件的融资。ECF No. 27 at p. 2.\n\n2022年2月28日，美国受托人办公室（下称“UST”）和PAX对延长提交清单和陈述书期限动议提出强烈异议。在异议中，UST和PAX均主张，债务人提交本案是对一项针对债务人作出的$134,000,000.00藐视法庭命令的直接回应；该命令源于其将Lady May秘密转移出纽约，以保护其免遭扣押。PAX的异议还主张，债务人藐视纽约州法院命令，并滥用司法程序，试图规避执行PAX对其赢得的$116,000,000.00判决书。PAX指出，纽约州法院认定，“自称为亿万富翁的Kwok（郭文贵）将其资产隐藏在错综复杂的公司实体和家庭成员之中”；由于其为逃避债权人而实施的精心策划，New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的案卷中有超过1,180项记录，“其中几乎所有记录均涉及……[Kwok]通过将其大量个人资产置于一系列公司、可信赖的亲信和家庭成员名下来逃避和欺骗债权人的努力。”PAX Objection, ECF No. 50 at p. 2. 此外，PAX主张，债务人的申请书中至少有三项重大虚假和/或误导性陈述，包括其经宣誓作出的（错误）陈述，即其资产不足$100,000.00；这与纽约州法院仅在数日前作出的Kwok“对Lady May享有受益权益并控制该船”的认定完全不相容。Id.\nPAX关于自动中止的动议\n\n2022年3月1日，即债务人案件提交仅两周后，PAX提交了确认自动中止不适用的命令动议，或备选地请求解除自动中止的动议（下称“自动中止动议”，ECF No. 57）。自动中止动议针对债务人提出了广泛、详细且严重的指控。PAX主张，由于在申请破产前的纽约州法院诉讼中对债务人施加了制裁，自动中止在本案中不适用。PAX称，法院的制裁因债务人违反法院命令、未将Lady May返还纽约而认定其构成民事藐视法庭。债务人对自动中止动议提出异议；债务人在其中并不争议制裁的施加，而是主张其并不拥有或控制Lady May。Debtor's Objection to Automatic Stay Motion, ECF No. 83 at p. 7.\n债务人的财产清单和财务状况陈述书\n\n2022年3月9日，债务人提交了其财务状况陈述书，ECF No. 77，及财产清单，ECF No. 78。债务人在财产清单和财务状况陈述书中主张，其拥有价值$3,850.00的资产，并列明负债金额为$373,803,498.09。在限制并否认债务人于财务状况陈述书中在伪证处罚下作出的陈述的总说明中，债务人进一步主张其：(i) 使用和占有位于Greenwich, Connecticut（康涅狄格州格林尼治）的不动产，但不拥有该不动产的所有权；该不动产由其妻子全资拥有的一家有限责任公司所有；(ii) 全资拥有另一家有限责任公司的成员权益，该有限责任公司以信托形式持有Manhattan的Sherry-Netherlands Hotel内一套公寓的全部合作公寓股份，以供其儿子Qiang Guo（郭强）拥有的一家独立有限责任公司受益；以及(iii) 曾可使用由其女儿Mei Guo（郭美）拥有的有限责任公司HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited（“HK”）所拥有的Lady May。ECF No. 77 at p. 4-5.\nUST请求任命审查员或第11章受托人的动议\n\n2022年3月18日，即债务人提交其财产清单和财务状况陈述书不足两周后，UST提交了请求作出指示任命审查员命令的动议，或备选地请求作出指示任命第11章受托人命令的动议（下称“UST请求任命审查员或第11章受托人的动议”，ECF No. 102）。UST主张，任命审查员或受托人最符合债权人和破产财团的利益，因为债务人是一名公众人物，是一名自称的亿万富翁，流亡于其祖国中国之外；其主张自己没有固定收入且几乎没有资产，但似乎可动用大量资金，包括能够为其在本案中的律师筹得$1,000,000.00预付费用。UST指出，其担忧债务人“似乎人为自设的‘贫困’以使其免受债权人追索”与债务人为“获得对被欠数百万美元债权人的保护”而提交本案之间的“奇怪组合”。ECF No. 102 at p. 2. 此外，UST称，以下事项验证了其担忧：(i)“债务人将其财产清单和财务状况陈述书边缘化至毫无意义的程度”；(ii)债务人“在‘总说明’中依据自利、反受托义务的措辞，公然否认对破产文件中任何信息承担任何责任或义务”；以及(iii)“债务人不能和/或不愿承认并接受其提供全面、完整和准确信息的义务，履行对其破产财团和债权人的受托义务，并履行其作为占有中债务人的义务。”Id.\n任命无担保债权人委员会的通知\n\n2022年3月21日，即UST提交请求任命审查员或第11章受托人动议三日后，UST在本案中提交了任命债权人委员会通知（ECF No. 108）。无担保债权人正式委员会（下称“委员会”）的成员均为债务人最大的无担保债权人之一，并表示愿意在委员会中任职；该等债权人为：(i) Rui Ma，(ii) Ning Ye，以及(iii) Samuel Dan Nunberg。\n占有中债务人融资动议\n\n2022年3月22日，即任命委员会一天后，债务人提交了请求作出临时和最终占有中债务人融资命令的动议（下称“DIP动议”，ECF No. 117）。在DIP动议中，债务人请求批准一笔金额为$8,000,000.00的贷款，以无担保方式向破产财团提供，并从属于以下债权的\n\n债务人在申请破产前的债权人，且不享有任何行政费用或优先受偿权。该贷款将可用于支付破产财产的专业人士费用，并且仅在债务人的债权人的所有获准债权均已获得全额支付，或以其他方式按照计划条款得到清偿时，才予以偿还。拟议贷款人 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（Golden Spring（纽约）有限公司，以下简称“DIP 贷款人”）是一家由债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）拥有并控制的实体。\n\nDIP 融资动议称，债务人提出其第11章案件是为了：(a) 建立一个统一平台，以有序处理针对其提出的各种相互竞争的债权主张；(b) 为利益相关方提供高效机会，以调查其资产、负债及财务事务；(c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财产，并进而可供向获准债权持有人分配；以及 (d) 根据第11章计划，就公平且衡平地解决债权主张及分配资产，与其债权人达成共识。DIP Motion, ECF No. 117 at p. 5.\n\nPAX（PAX）的驳回动议及参加申请\n\n2022年4月6日，即 UST（UST）提出任命审查员或第11章受托人动议以及 DIP 融资动议约三周后，PAX 提交了一项驳回动议，或作为替代方案，部分参加 UST 关于任命第11章受托人的动议（以下简称“驳回动议或参加申请”，ECF No. 183）。为支持驳回动议或参加申请，PAX 主张，债务人提起本案“是其为‘拖延、欺骗和欺诈其债权人，并继续逃避合法法院命令’而采取的最新、最强硬的手段”，并且债务人的“惯常做法是通过家庭成员和空壳公司停放、遮蔽和隐匿其资产，以保护其财富并避免偿还其对 PAX 的债务。”ECF No. 183 at p. 7。PAX 主张，债务人“已将其资产隐匿于错综复杂的公司实体和家庭成员之中。”Id. at p. 7-8.\n\n除驳回动议或参加申请外，PAX 还提出了一项动议，请求就驳回动议或参加申请安排状态会议。本院部分准许了 PAX 的动议，并安排于 2022年4月13日就驳回动议或参加申请举行状态会议；该日期亦为本案其他若干事项的听证日期，包括就自动停止动议继续举行听证，以及就任命审查员或第11章受托人动议和 DIP 融资动议举行初步听证。\n\n债务人的第11章计划\n\n2022年4月10日，债务人提交了一份拟议的第11章重整计划（以下简称“计划”，ECF No. 197）。除其他事项外，该计划规定，为所有拥有获准债权的债权人的利益设立一项“债权人信托”。ECF No. 197 at p. 20-24。该计划进一步规定，Lady May（“Lady May”号）游艇的所有权将转移给债权人信托，以惠及所有拥有获准债权的债权人。ECF No. 197 at p. 21.\n\nHK 就自动停止动议提交的声明\n\n2022年4月11日，即债务人提交该计划的次日，HK（如上所述，该公司是一家由债务人女儿拥有的有限责任公司）就自动停止动议提交了一份声明（以下简称“声明”，ECF No. 203）。在该声明中，HK 主张其为“Lady May”号的登记代理人，并同意在特定条件下作出拟议命令，强制其将“Lady May”号运输并交付至康涅狄格州的通航水域。HK 进一步主张，其已将拟议命令副本提供给 PAX、债务人、UST 及委员会各自的律师征求意见，并且作出强制 HK 将“Lady May”号返还康涅狄格州的拟议命令将使自动停止动议“失去实际意义”。Statement at p. 2.\n\n2022年4月13日听证会\n\n多项事项原定于 2022年4月13日审理，包括就自动停止动议继续举行听证，以及就 DIP 融资动议和 UST 关于任命审查员或第11章受托人的动议举行初步听证。在这场长时间听证会结束时，本院再次延续审理 PAX 的自动停止动议，延续审理 UST 关于任命审查员或第11章受托人的动议，并安排于 2022年4月27日就 DIP 融资动议和债务人聘用财务顾问申请举行证据听证会。\n\n2022年4月27日证据听证会、自动停止动议的解决，以及就驳回动议或参加申请安排证据听证会\n\n债务人、PAX、UST、委员会、债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）和 Zheng Wu（吴政）、Golden Spring 及 HK 出席了 4月27日的证据听证会。听证会开始时，债务人的律师向本院报告，各方已解决自动停止动议。解决方案的主要条款为，HK 将提供并存入托管 $37,000,000.00，直至“Lady May”号被返还至康涅狄格州的通航水域。各方同意，自动停止动议已获解决，但须经审查及修订一项将提交本院的协议命令。随后，HK 的律师获准退出听证会，以继续修订协议命令草案。本院在庭审记录中，且最终在案卷中，指出自动停止动议已由各方协议解决，但须于 2022年5月2日或之前向本院提交一项经同意的命令。\n\n各方还就债务人聘用财务顾问动议和 DIP 融资动议提出了证词、证据和辩论。在证据听证会结束时，本院将债务人聘用财务顾问动议留待裁定，并将 DIP 融资动议的听证会延续至 2022年5月4日。此外，各方在庭审记录中同意了一项关于就驳回动议或参加申请举行证据听证会的排期命令条款。2022年4月28日，本院作出关于驳回动议的排期命令，将证据听证会安排在 2022年5月24日举行。\n\n关于“Lady May”号的协议命令\n\n2022年4月29日，本院作出《强制 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK International Funds Investments（USA）Limited, LLC）运输并交付特定游艇“Lady May”号的协议命令》，该命令由 HK、PAX、债务人、委员会及债权人 Rui Ma 和 Zheng Wu 签署（以下简称“协议命令”，ECF No. 299）。除其他事项外，该协议命令规定：(i) HK 已将 $37,000,000.00 存入托管；(ii) HK 将于 2022年7月15日或之前将“Lady May”号交付至康涅狄格州的通航水域；以及 (iii) “Lady May”号的船长及所称游艇管理公司将提交声明，表示各自均应受本院管辖并受协议命令条款约束，包括在本院进一步命令作出前，均被禁止将“Lady May”号移离康涅狄格州的通航水域。\n\n继续审理 DIP 融资动议、同意驳回及撤回 DIP 融资动议\n\n2022年5月3日，债务人就 DIP 融资动议提交了一份修订后的拟议命令。修订后的拟议命令载有一张图表，表明 DIP 资金将在何时及以何种金额支出。修订后的拟议命令规定，专业费用将按周支付，包括债务人律师及委员会律师的费用。\n\n2022年5月4日，继续审理 DIP 融资动议的听证会举行。债务人和委员会主张应准许 DIP 融资动议，并作出修订后的拟议命令。PAX 和 UST 重申了各自对 DIP 融资动议的异议。本院随后就所主张的、至 2022年5月底前支付数百万美元专业费用的必要性提出若干问题。在听证会结束时，本院表示将就 DIP 融资动议作出裁定，以确定至 2022年5月底前适当的支出金额。\n\n2022年5月11日，即 DIP 融资动议听证会结束一周后，债务人提交了《同意驳回案件通知》（以下简称“同意驳回”）。在同意驳回中，债务人主张，由于 PAX 及其他人持续不断的诉讼给其施加了巨额费用，以及其无法获得资金以支付该等费用，其同意驳回其案件。同样在 2022年5月11日，在 DIP 融资动议留待裁定且本院正准备就该动议作出裁定期间，债务人提交了撤回 DIP 融资动议的文件。\n\n就驳回动议或参加申请举行的证据听证会\n\n2022年5月24日，就 PAX 的驳回动议或参加申请举行了证据听证会。听证会开始时，所有各方均承认，同意驳回改变了债务人案件的态势。此外，所有各方均同意，根据第 1112(b) 条，存在驳回或转换债务人案件，或任命第11章受托人的理由。PAX 和债务人主张应驳回债务人案件。委员会及某些债权人主张转换最为适当，但如不转换，则应任命第11章受托人。UST 未主张三种替代方案中的任何一种，但敦促本院尽快裁决该事项。\n\nIV. 分析\n\n《破产法典》第 1112(b) 条规定：\n\n“[应]利害关系方的请求，并在通知和听证后，法院应将本章下的案件转换为第7章下的案件，或者驳回本章下的案件，以最符合债权人和破产财产利益者为准；但如法院认定根据第 1104(a) 条任命受托人或审查员最符合债权人和破产财产的利益，则不在此限。”\n\n11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1); see also In re Sillerman, 605 B.R. 631, 657 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019); In re TP, Inc., 455 B.R. 455, 457 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2011); In re Products Intern. Co., 395 B.R. 101, 107 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2008).\n\n在就驳回动议或参加申请举行的证据听证会上，所有各方均约定，存在驳回案件、将案件转换为第7章案件或任命第11章受托人的理由。债务人主张，根据第 1112(b)(4)(A) 条，存在驳回其案件的理由，因为破产财产发生了重大或持续损失或减损，且不存在合理的重整可能性。PAX 主张，根据第 1112(b) 条，存在诸多驳回案件的理由，包括债务人提起案件时被指称的恶意，以及债务人对破产财产的严重管理不善。由于各方约定根据第 1112(b) 条存在理由，本院无需确定具体的“理由”。本院唯一需要裁决的问题是，驳回、转换，还是任命第11章受托人最符合债权人和破产财产的利益。\n\n通过利益衡量测试，法院必须根据本案记录确定三种方案——驳回、转换或任命第11章受托人——中的哪一种最符合债权人和破产财产的利益。In re Products Intern. Co., 395 B.R. at 108。在确定何种方案最符合债权人和破产财产利益时，法院除其他事项外，应评估债权人债权获得收回和清偿的前景。In re Corona Care Convalescent Corp., 527 B.R. 379, 384 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2015)。“在考虑任命受托人或将案件转换为第7章案件时，‘区别性因素……在于，第11章为受托人运用独立判断和良好管理来处理破产财产事务提供了更广阔的可能性，包括持续经营活动（如有），以便为债权人和破产财产实现最大限度的回收。’”In re NOA, LLC, 578 B.R. 534, 541 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2017)。\n\n本案任命第11章受托人具有正当性，因为案卷表明存在收回和清偿债权人债权的前景。在本案期间，债务人已表明其能够获得数百万美元资金，包括作为 DIP 动议标的的 $8,000,000.00。债务人还在本案早期提出了一项第11章计划，该计划除其他事项外规定，将 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）的所有权转让给一项债权人信托，以惠及全体债权人。此外，在本案待决的四个月期间，各方存在分歧的当事人就解决自动中止动议的约定进行了深入谈判。约定命令促成将 $37,000,000.00 存入第三方保管账户，以换取将 Lady May 交付至 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的通航水域；债务人对此持反对态度，以至于纽约州法院诉讼中对其作出了藐视法庭制裁。履行约定命令中最重要的义务——将 Lady May 交付至 Connecticut 的通航水域——尚未到期。然而，约定命令的其他规定已得到及时遵守。HK（HK）已提交进展报告，表明 Lady May 的维修已经完成，并且 Lady May 可能会早于 July 15, 2022 的约定命令交付日期抵达 Connecticut 的通航水域。驳回债务人的案件，或将债务人的案件转换为第7章，将抹去就 Lady May 已取得的重大进展。第11章受托人可以作为独立方，确保继续遵守约定命令，并可协助制定具有合理确认可能性的第11章计划。任命第11章受托人还将维护执行和解的政策，避免争相向法院提起诉讼，并为按照《破产法》优先顺位制度向债权人按比例分配提供机会。参见 Corona Care, 527 B.R. at 387（任命受托人以维护执行和解的政策并避免争相向法院提起诉讼）。\n\n债务人在数份诉状中称，其提出本案是为了建立一个统一的审理平台，以有序处理针对其提出的相互竞争的债权主张，并为利益相关方提供高效机会，以调查其资产、负债和财务状况。驳回债务人的案件将挫败债务人提出本案时所述的理由。同样，将本案转换为第7章将无法有序清算针对债务人提出的相互竞争的债权主张。任命第11章受托人是处理针对债务人提出的相互竞争债权人主张的最有效率且最有效的方法，其中包括或有和未确定数额的人身伤害侵权债权。任命第11章受托人还将有助于有效调查债务人的资产、负债和财务状况。因此，在衡量是驳回、转换还是任命第11章受托人时，案卷支持以下结论：本案任命第11章受托人最符合债权人和破产财产的利益。\n\n在面临根据第 1112(b) 条作出的类似选择时，破产法院曾任命第11章受托人，而非驳回或转换案件。例如，Sillerman 案涉及一名连环创业者个人债务人。该债务人在其清单中列出了其在四十七家有限责任公司中的权益，曾以数十亿美元出售多项企业，并提出了一项第11章计划，该计划将在债务人能够获得融资以投资于某些关联实体后得到资金支持。Sillerman, 605 B.R. at 636。Sillerman 债权人最初提出任命审查员的动议，因为其主张“缺乏独立的管理监督”使债务人得以避免披露其资产的真实性质和价值，而债务人“使用涉及复杂公司结构的多层交易”使其资产难以查找。Id. at 636-37。本案后期任命的无担保债权人正式委员会转而申请任命第11章受托人，或作为替代请求，作出将本案转换为第7章案件的命令。鉴于债务人案件的整体情况，Sillerman 法院认定，任命第11章受托人而非转换案件最符合债权人和破产财产的利益。Id. at 657。\n\n与 Sillerman 案中的债权人一样，PAX（PAX）、委员会及其他债权人主张，债务人及其家人在众多有限责任公司中拥有权益，这可能掩盖债务人资产的真实性质和价值。他们还主张，债务人曾参与涉及 Golden Spring（黄金泉）、Genever Holdings（杰尼弗控股）、Lamp Funding（兰普融资）和 HK 的复杂公司结构的多层交易，使识别和查找债务人的资产变得困难。PAX 援引 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的认定，即债务人“将其资产秘密藏匿于公司实体和家庭成员组成的迷宫之中”，且数千项案卷记录“涉及被告 Kwok（郭文贵）试图通过将其巨额个人资产停放在一系列公司、信赖的亲信和家庭成员名下来逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为。”ECF No. 183 at p. 7-8。与驳回或转换相衡量，本案中债务人财务状况的复杂性以及缺乏独立管理监督，证明应任命第11章受托人，由其为债权人和破产财产的利益调查、识别和查找债务人的资产。\n\n在债务人违反约定命令的情况下，破产法院也曾任命第11章受托人，而非驳回或转换案件。在 NOA 案中，债务人故意违反了债务人与债权人之间的一项约定命令，该命令明确限制债务人在收到货物全额付款之前将大宗服装运出美国。578 B.R. at 537-40。法院任命第11章受托人，是因为“第11章为受托人运用独立判断和良好管理来处理破产财产事务提供了更广阔的可能性，包括持续经营活动（如有），以便为债权人和破产财产实现最大限度的回收。”Id. at 541。如同 NOA 案，本案各方就约定命令进行了谈判。如上所述，将 Lady May 交付至 Connecticut 的通航水域的履行义务尚未到期。任命第11章受托人将使该受托人能够运用独立判断，确保遵守约定命令，并为债权人和破产财产实现资产回收最大化。\n\nCorona Care 是另一案件，其中债务人未履行约定条款，破产法院行使其裁量权任命第11章受托人，而非驳回或转换案件。Corona Care, 527 B.R. at 387。在 Corona Care 案中，债务人与无担保债权人正式委员会及其他利害关系方达成约定，驳回部分共同管理案件中盈利能力较强的护理机构案件，从而使其余债务人获得更多时间确认重组计划。527 B.R. at 380。债务人随后未履行约定协议的条款。Id. at 385。在评估债权人债权收回和清偿的前景时，Corona Care 法院认定，出售债务人的企业为清偿债权人提供了一定前景，因为资产将被变现以支付其债权，这反映了约定中达成的交易。Id. at 384-85。同样，将 Lady May 交付至 Connecticut 的通航水域，将产生收回和清偿债权人债权的前景，其中可能包括将 Lady May 质押用于第11章计划和／或认定 Lady May 属于债务人破产财产的财产。\n\nTP, Inc. 是另一宗任命第11章受托人而非驳回或转换债务人案件的破产案件。455 B.R. at 459。在 TP, Inc. 案中，Bank of America（美国银行）已在州法院对 TP, Inc.、其负责人及该负责人的妻子提起止赎程序，并已就作为本票保证人的负责人及其妻子作出判决书。Id. at 456。案件待决期间，债务人的负责人未经法院批准出租了美国银行的担保物，并收取了归属于该担保物的租金。Id.。TP, Inc. 法院认定，债务人对作为美国银行担保物的多处不动产的滥用，以及对从该担保物取得的现金担保物租金的滥用，证明应任命第11章受托人。Id. at 459。该法院指出，其对未来可能发生的欺诈、无能、不诚实或严重管理不善行为的担忧，促使其认定，与驳回或转换相比，任命第11章受托人最符合债权人和破产财产的利益，因为受托人可以运用独立判断和良好管理来处理破产财产事务。Id.。在本案中，州法院同样基于债务人未履行本票付款义务作出判决书，并因债务人等人违反限制其将 Lady May 驶离 New York（纽约州）通航水域的州法院命令而作出藐视法庭命令。如同 TP, Inc. 案的裁决，本案任命第11章受托人将解决对债务人今后任何不当行为的担忧，同时引入独立判断和良好管理以处理破产财产事务，并为全体债权人实现回收最大化。\n\nV. 结论\n\n鉴于各方约定，根据第1112(b)条，存在理由驳回本案、将本案转换为第7章案件，或指定一名第11章受托人，法院已评估了包括全体债权人债权的收取和支付前景在内的事项。法院认定，指定一名第11章受托人最符合债权人和破产财团的利益，因为第11章受托人可以：(i) 运用独立判断和良好管理，指导破产财团事务，以尝试清偿债权人的债权；(ii) 确定该债务人是否存在合理的重整可能性，包括是否可以提出并确认一项重整计划；以及 (iii) 通过包括允许第11章受托人调查债务人的资产、负债和财务事务，并确保遵守约定命令的规定在内的方式，使债权人和破产财团的回收最大化。\n\n据此，特此：\n\n命令：依据 11 U.S.C. §§ 1112(b)，驳回动议或参加动议在其请求目前驳回债务人案件的范围内不妨碍再行提出地予以驳回；在其请求于债务人案件中指定一名第11章受托人的范围内予以准许；并进一步\n\n命令：第11章受托人应履行 11 U.S.C. § 1106 规定的全部职责；并进一步\n\n命令：在指定第11章受托人后十四（14）日内，将安排一次状态会议，以讨论包括第11章受托人就根据 11 U.S.C. §§ 1106(a)(4) 和\n\n(a)(5) 应提交的陈述所取得的进展、对约定命令的遵守情况、第11章受托人拟议的破产财团管理方案，以及对债务人案件的持续管理在内的事项。\n\n2022年6月15日于康涅狄格州布里奇波特签署。","key_entities":["Kwok","CIPA","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":4,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":27,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":50,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":83,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":102,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":108,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":117,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":183,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":197,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":203,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":299,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":5914,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:01:05"}