{"id":"court_ctb_471_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":471,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2022-06-17","title":"United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 471 Filed 06/17/22 Entered 06/18/22 00:15:24 Page 1 of 23\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court\n\nDistrict of Connecticut\n\nDebtor\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE**\n\nDistrict/off: 0205-5 User: admin Page 1 of 4 Date Rcvd: Jun 15, 2022 Form ID: pdfdoc1 Total Noticed: 63\n\nThe following symbols are used throughout this certificate:\n\n**Symbol Definition**\n\n+ Addresses marked '+' were corrected by inserting the ZIP, adding the last four digits to complete the zip +4, or replacing an incorrect ZIP. USPS regulations require that automation-compatible mail display the correct ZIP.\n\n# Addresses marked '#' were identified by the USPS National Change of Address system as requiring an update. While the notice was still deliverable, the notice recipient was advised to update its address with the court immediately.\n\n**Notice by first class mail was sent to the following persons/entities by the Bankruptcy Noticing Center on Jun 17, 2022:**\n\n| Recip ID
db | Recipient Name and Address
+ Ho Wan Kwok, 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, CT 06831-2828 |\n|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| aty | + Andrew M. Carty, Brown Rudnick LLP, Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036-6548 |\n| dbaty | + Brown Rudnick LLP, One Financial Center, Boston, MA 02111-2600 |\n| crcm | + Pullman & Comley, LLC, 850 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604-4988 |\n| 9343455 | + Bi Hai Ge Lin, C/O Kevin Tung, Esq., 38th Avenue, Suite 3d, Flushing, NY 11354 USA 11363 |\n| 9343450 | + Chao-Chih Chiu, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, Attn: Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2302 |\n| 9343406 | + Cheng Jian Wu Jian She, c/o Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F, Flushing, NY 11354-4232, Attn: Kevin
Tung, Esq. |\n| 9343431 | + Chenglong Wang, C/O HGT Law, 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10177-0799, Attn: Hung Ta |\n| 9343452 | + Chong Sheen Raphanella, C/O Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Her, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016-0601, Attn: Matthew
Guiney |\n| 9343457 | + Fu Le Hong Ma, C/O Kevin Tung, Esq., 38th Avenue, Suite 3d, Flushing, NY 11354 USA 11363 |\n| 9343408 | + Gaosheng Guo, c/o Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq., 135-11 38th Avenue, Suite 1A, Flushing, NY 11354-4440, Attn: Ning Ye, Esq. |\n| 9343404 | #+ Golden Spring New York, 162 E. 64th Street, New York, NY 10605 USA 10065-7478, Attn: Max Krasner |\n| 9343410 | + Hong Qi Qu, c/o Kevin Tung, P.C., 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F, Flushing, NY 11354-4232, Attn: Kevin Tung, Esq. |\n| 9343449 | Huizen Wang, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, Attn: Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2367 |\n| 20 | Huizhen Wang, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, Attn: Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2367 |\n| 9343421 | + Jia Li Wang, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq. |\n| 9343435 | + Jiamei Lu, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq. |\n| 9343412 | + Jian Gong, C/O Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D, Flushing, NY 11354-4232, Attn: Kevin Tung, Esq. |\n| 9343434 | + Jianhu Yi and Qiuju Jia, C/O Arthur Angel, Esq., 1305 n. Poinsettia Place, Los Angeles, CA 90046-4305 |\n| 9343419 | + Jun Chen aka Jonathan Ho, C/O Wayne Wei Zhu, Esq., 4125 Kissena Blvd, Suite 112, Flushing, NY 11355-3150, Attn: Wayne Wei Zhu |\n| 9343436 | + Jun Liu, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq. |\n| 9343430 | + Kaixin Hong, C/O HGT Law, 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10177-0799, Attn: Hung Ta |\n| 9343447 | + Keyi Zilkie, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, Attn: Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2302 |\n| 9343418 | + Lamp Capital, LLC, Attn: Bernardo Enriquez, 667 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10065-8029 |\n| 9343415 | + Liehong Zhuang/Xiao Yan Zhu, C/O Trexler & Zhang, LLP, 224 West 35th Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10001-2532, Attn: Jonathan
T. Trexler, Esq. |\n| 9343437 | + Linda Cheng, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq. |\n| 9343425 | + Logan Cheng, c/o Randazza Legal Group, PLLC, 100 Pearl Street, 14th Fl, Hartford, CT 06103-4500 |\n| 9343438 | + Mao-Fu Weng, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq. |\n| 9343411 | + Nan Tong Si Jian, C/O Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F, Flushing, NY 11354-4232, Attn: Kevin Tung,
Esq. |\n| 9343407 | + Ning Ye, c/o Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq., 135-11 38th Avenue, Suite 1A, Flushing, NY 11354-4440, Attn: Ning Ye, Esq. |\n| 9343451 | + Rong Zhang, C/O Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Her, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016-0601, Attn: Matthew Guiney |\n| 9343439 | + RuQin Wang, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq. |\n| 9358088 | + Rui Ma, Carollynn HG Callari, Esq/Callari Partne, 100 Somerset Corporate Blvd., Suite 206, Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2842 |\n| 9343426 | + SHI, C/O Thompson Hine, 20 N. Clark St., Ste 3200, Chicago, IL 60602-5093, Attn: Steven A. Block, Esq. |\n| 9348491 | + Samuel Dan Nunberg, 600 South Dixie Highway, Suite 455, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5851 |\n| 9343417 | + Samuel Nunberg, C/O Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP, 363 Seventh Ave, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10001-3915, Attn: Andrew T.
Miltenberg, Esq. |\n| 9343440 | + Teli Chen, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq. |\n| 9343422 | + WA&HF, LLC/Ruizeng An, C/O AFN Law, 41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor, New York, NY 10010-2345, Attn: Angus Ni, Esq. |\n| 9343427 | + WANG, C/O Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey, 195 Church Street, P.O. Box 1950, New Haven, CT 6509 USA 06509-1950, Attn:
David Grudberg |\n| 9358089 | + Weican Watson Meng and Boxun Inc., Carollynn HG Callari, Esq/Callari Partne, 100 Somerset Corporate Blvd., Suite 206, Bridgewater,
NJ 08807-2842 |\n\nIn re: Case No. 22-50073-jam\n\nHo Wan Kwok Chapter 11\n\nDistrict/off: 0205-5 User: admin Page 2 of 4\n\nDate Rcvd: Jun 15, 2022 Form ID: pdfdoc1 Total Noticed: 63\n\n| 9343441 | + Weiguo Sun, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq. |\n|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 9343442 | + Weixiand Ge, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq. |\n| 9343429 | + Wen Lin, C/O HGT Law, 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10177-0799, Attn: Hung Ta |\n| | |\n\n9343433 + Xiaobo He, C/O HGT Law, 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10177-0799, Attn: Hung Ta\n\n9343453 + Xiaodan Wang, C/O Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Her, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016-0601, Attn: Matthew Guiney\n\n- 9343432 + Xiaoping Luo, C/O HGT Law, 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10177-0799, Attn: Hung Ta\n- 9343443 + Xingyu Yan, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n- 9343454 + Xiong Xian Wei Ye, C/O Kevin Tung, Esq., 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F, Flushing, NY 11354-4232, Attn: Kevin Tung, Esq\n- 9358703 + Xiqiu Bob Fu, c/o Irve J. Goldman, Pullman & Compley, LLC, 850 Main St., P O Box 7006, Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006\n- 9343423 + Xiqiu Fu, c/o The Lanier Law Firm, 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N., Suite 100, Houston, TX 77064-5768, Attn: Lawrence P. Wilson\n- 9343444 + Yan Gao, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n- 9343413 + Yan Zhao, C/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq., 135-11 38th Avenue, Suite 1A, Flushing, NY 11354-4440, Attn: Ning Ye, Esq. 9343409 + Yang Lan and Wu Zheng, 900 Third Avenue, 18th Floor, c/o Arkin Solbakken, LLP, New York, NY 10022-5000, Attn: Robert C.\n\t- Angelillo\n- 9343445 + Yi Li, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n- 9343446 + Ying Liu, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq. 9343414 + Yua Hua Zhuang Shi, C/O Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F, Flushing, NY 11354-4232, Attn: Kevin Tung, Esq.\n- 9344053 + Yue Hua Zhu Shi, 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D, c/o Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., Flushing, NY 11354-4232, Attn: Kevin Tung, Esq. 9343456 + Zhen Yuan Jian Zhu, C/O Kevin Tung, Esq., 38th Avenue, Suite 3d, Flushing, NY 11354 USA 11363\n- 9358087 + Zheng (Bruno) Wu and Yang Lan, Carollynn HG Callari, Esq/Callari Partne, 100 Somerset Corporate Blvd., Suite 206, Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2842\n- 9343428 + Zhengjun Dong, C/O HGT Law, 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10177-0799, Attn: Hung Ta\n- 9343448 + yunxia Wu, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, Attn: Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2302\n\nTOTAL: 61\n\n**Notice by electronic transmission was sent to the following persons/entities by the Bankruptcy Noticing Center.** Electronic transmission includes sending notices via email (Email/text and Email/PDF), and electronic data interchange (EDI). Electronic transmission is in Eastern Standard Time.\n\n| Recip ID
aty
ca | Notice Type: Email Address
+ Email/Text: ustpregion02.nh.ecf@usdoj.gov
+ Email/Text: cr-info@stretto.com | Date/Time
Recipient Name and Address | |\n|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Jun 15 2022 18:27:00 | Steven E. Mackey, Office of the U.S. Trustee, The
Giaimo Federal Building, 150 Court Street, Room
302, New Haven, CT 06510-2022 |\n| | | Jun 15 2022 18:27:00 | Stretto, 410 Exchange, Suite 100, Irvine, CA
92602-1331 |\n\nTOTAL: 2\n\n# **BYPASSED RECIPIENTS**\n\n**The following addresses were not sent this bankruptcy notice due to an undeliverable address, \\*duplicate of an address listed above, \\*P duplicate of a preferred address, or ## out of date forwarding orders with USPS.**\n\n| Recip ID | | Bypass Reason Name and Address |\n|----------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| cr | | Baosheng Guo |\n| intp | | Golden Spring (New York) LTD |\n| intp | | HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, |\n| intp | | Mei Guo |\n| cr | | Ning Ye |\n| crcm | | Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors |\n| cr | | Yan Zhao |\n| cr | | Zheng Wu |\n| 9343402 | | 22-50073 |\n| 9343424 | | Jonathan Young, 141 Allenby Road, Wellington Point, QLD 4160, AUSTRALIA |\n| 20 | | Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. |\n| 20 | | Rui Ma |\n| 20 | | Weican Meng |\n| cr | * | Chao-Chih Chiu, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, Attn: Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA
90067-2367 |\n| cr | *+ | Keyi Zilkie, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, Attn: Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2302 |\n| cr | *+ | Logan Cheng, c/o Randazza Legal Group, PLLC, 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103-4500 |\n| cr | *+ | Yunxia Wu, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, Attn: Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2302 |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 471 Filed 06/17/22 Entered 06/18/22 00:15:24 Page 3 of 23\n\nDistrict/off: 0205-5 User: admin Page 3 of 4 Date Rcvd: Jun 15, 2022 Form ID: pdfdoc1 Total Noticed: 63\n\n## **NOTICE CERTIFICATION**\n\n**I, Gustava Winters, declare under the penalty of perjury that I have sent the attached document to the above listed entities in the manner shown, and prepared the Certificate of Notice and that it is true and correct to the best of my information and belief.**\n\n**Meeting of Creditor Notices only (Official Form 309): Pursuant to Fed .R. Bank. P.2002(a)(1), a notice containing the complete Social Security Number (SSN) of the debtor(s) was furnished to all parties listed. This official court copy contains the redacted SSN as required by the bankruptcy rules and the Judiciary's privacy policies.**\n\nDate: Jun 17, 2022 Signature: /s/Gustava Winters\n\n# **CM/ECF NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING**\n\n**The following persons/entities were sent notice through the court's CM/ECF electronic mail (Email) system on June 15, 2022 at the address(es) listed below: Name Email Address** Aaron Romney on behalf of Interested Party Mei Guo aromney@zeislaw.com swenthen@zeislaw.com Aaron Romney on behalf of Interested Party HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC aromney@zeislaw.com, swenthen@zeislaw.com Aaron Romney on behalf of Plaintiff HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC aromney@zeislaw.com, swenthen@zeislaw.com Annecca H. Smith on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. asmith@rc.com Bennett Silverberg on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com Carollynn H.G. Callari on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu ccallari@callaripartners.com Carollynn H.G. Callari on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma ccallari@callaripartners.com Carollynn H.G. Callari on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng ccallari@callaripartners.com David S. Forsh on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng dforsh@callaripartners.com David S. Forsh on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma dforsh@callaripartners.com David S. Forsh on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu dforsh@callaripartners.com David V. Harbach, II on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. dharbach@omm.com Dylan Kletter on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok dkletter@brownrudnick.com adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@brownrudnick.com Holley L. Claiborn on behalf of U.S. Trustee U. S. Trustee holley.l.claiborn@usdoj.gov Irve J. Goldman on behalf of Creditor Committee Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors igoldman@pullcom.com rmccoy@pullcom.com Jay Marshall Wolman on behalf of Creditor Logan Cheng jmw@randazza.com ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com Jeffrey L Jonas on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok jjonas@brownrudnick.com John L. Cesaroni on behalf of Interested Party Mei Guo jcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 471 Filed 06/17/22 Entered 06/18/22 00:15:24 Page 4 of 23\n\n| District/off: 0205-5
Date Rcvd: Jun 15, 2022 | User: admin
Form ID: pdfdoc1 | Page 4 of 4
Total Noticed: 63 |\n|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|\n| Jonathan Kaplan | on behalf of Creditor Committee Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors jkaplan@pullcom.com
prulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com | |\n| Kenneth Aulet | on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok kaulet@brownrudnick.com | |\n| Kristin B. Mayhew | on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu kmayhew@mdmc-law.com kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com | |\n| Kristin B. Mayhew | on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng kmayhew@mdmc-law.com
kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com | |\n| Kristin B. Mayhew | on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma kmayhew@mdmc-law.com kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com | |\n| Laura Aronsson | on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. laronsson@omm.com | |\n| Mia N. Gonzalez | on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. mgonzalez@omm.com | |\n| Patrick M. Birney | on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. pbirney@rc.com ctrivigno@rc.com | |\n| Patrick M. Birney | on behalf of Defendant Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. pbirney@rc.com ctrivigno@rc.com | |\n| Peter Friedman | on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. pfriedman@omm.com | |\n| Peter Friedman | on behalf of Defendant Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. pfriedman@omm.com | |\n| Peter J. Zarella | on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng pzarella@mdmc-law.com | |\n| Peter J. Zarella | on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma pzarella@mdmc-law.com | |\n| Peter J. Zarella | on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu pzarella@mdmc-law.com | |\n| Sara Pahlavan | on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. spahlavan@omm.com | |\n| Scott D. Rosen | on behalf of Interested Party Golden Spring (New York) LTD srosen@cb-shea.com
msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com | |\n| Stephen M. Kindseth | on behalf of Interested Party HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC skindseth@zeislaw.com,
cjervey@zeislaw.com | |\n| Stephen M. Kindseth | on behalf of Interested Party Mei Guo skindseth@zeislaw.com cjervey@zeislaw.com | |\n| Stuart M. Sarnoff | on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. ssarnoff@omm.com
stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com | |\n| Stuart M. Sarnoff | on behalf of Defendant Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. ssarnoff@omm.com stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com | |\n| Timothy D. Miltenberger | on behalf of Interested Party Golden Spring (New York) LTD Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com
msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com | |\n| U. S. Trustee | USTPRegion02.NH.ECF@USDOJ.GOV | |\n| William Baldiga | on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com | |\n| William R. Baldiga | on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com | |\n| TOTAL: 42 | | |\n\n## **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) ) CHAPTER 11 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_) 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\n1 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\n2 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\n\nthe estate, and the continued administration of the Debtor's case.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 15th day of June, 2022.","body_zh":"案件 22-50073 文书 471 于 06/17/22 提交 于 06/18/22 00:15:24 录入 第 1 页，共 23 页\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court（美国破产法院）\n\nDistrict of Connecticut（康涅狄格州地区）\n\n债务人\n送达证明\n\n地区/办事处：0205-5 用户：admin 第 1 页，共 4 页 收件日期：Jun 15, 2022 表格 ID：pdfdoc1 送达总数：63\n\n本证明书通篇使用以下符号：\n\n符号 定义\n\n标有“+”的地址已通过插入 ZIP 邮政编码、补充 ZIP+4 邮政编码的后四位数字，或替换错误的 ZIP 邮政编码而予以更正。USPS（美国邮政署）法规要求可自动化处理的邮件显示正确的 ZIP 邮政编码。\n标有“#”的地址被 USPS National Change of Address system（美国邮政署全国地址变更系统）认定需要更新。虽然通知仍可送达，但已告知通知收件人立即向法院更新其地址。\n\nBankruptcy Noticing Center（破产通知中心）于 Jun 17, 2022 通过一级邮件向下列个人/实体发送了通知：\n\n收件人 ID\ndb 收件人姓名和地址\n+ Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, CT 06831-2828\n\naty + Andrew M. Carty（安德鲁·M·卡蒂）, Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）, Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036-6548\ndbaty + Brown Rudnick LLP, One Financial Center, Boston, MA 02111-2600\ncrcm + Pullman & Comley, LLC（普尔曼与康利有限责任公司）, 850 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604-4988\n9343455 + Bi Hai Ge Lin（碧海格林）, C/O Kevin Tung, Esq.（董凯文律师）, 38th Avenue, Suite 3d, Flushing, NY 11354 USA 11363\n9343450 + Chao-Chih Chiu（邱兆志）, c/o TroyGould PC（特洛伊·古尔德律师事务所）, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, 收件人：Christopher A. Lilly（克里斯托弗·A·利利）, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2302\n9343406 + Cheng Jian Wu Jian She（城建五建设）, c/o Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C.（董凯文专业公司）, 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F, Flushing, NY 11354-4232, 收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n9343431 + Chenglong Wang（王成龙）, C/O HGT Law（HGT 律师事务所）, 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10177-0799, 收件人：Hung Ta（达洪）\n9343452 + Chong Sheen Raphanella（钟欣·拉法内拉）, C/O Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Her（沃尔夫·哈尔登斯坦·阿德勒·弗里曼律师事务所）, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016-0601, 收件人：Matthew Guiney（马修·吉尼）\n9343457 + Fu Le Hong Ma（富乐红马）, C/O Kevin Tung, Esq., 38th Avenue, Suite 3d, Flushing, NY 11354 USA 11363\n9343408 + Gaosheng Guo（郭高升）, c/o Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.（叶宁律师事务所）, 135-11 38th Avenue, Suite 1A, Flushing, NY 11354-4440, 收件人：Ning Ye, Esq.（叶宁律师）\n9343404 #+ Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）, 162 E. 64th Street, New York, NY 10605 USA 10065-7478, 收件人：Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）\n9343410 + Hong Qi Qu（红旗区）, c/o Kevin Tung, P.C., 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F, Flushing, NY 11354-4232, 收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n9343449 Huizen Wang（王慧珍）, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, 收件人：Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2367\n20 Huizhen Wang, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, 收件人：Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2367\n9343421 + Jia Li Wang（王佳丽）, C/O Thompson Hine（汤普森·海因律师事务所）, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.（布赖恩·P·兰西奥律师）\n9343435 + Jiamei Lu（卢嘉美）, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n9343412 + Jian Gong（龚建）, C/O Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D, Flushing, NY 11354-4232, 收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n9343434 + Jianhu Yi（易建湖）和 Qiuju Jia（贾秋菊）, C/O Arthur Angel, Esq.（阿瑟·安吉尔律师）, 1305 n. Poinsettia Place, Los Angeles, CA 90046-4305\n9343419 + Jun Chen（陈军），又名 Jonathan Ho（何俊）, C/O Wayne Wei Zhu, Esq.（朱伟伟律师）, 4125 Kissena Blvd, Suite 112, Flushing, NY 11355-3150, 收件人：Wayne Wei Zhu\n9343436 + Jun Liu（刘军）, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n9343430 + Kaixin Hong（洪开心）, C/O HGT Law, 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10177-0799, 收件人：Hung Ta\n9343447 + Keyi Zilkie（兹尔基·科仪）, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, 收件人：Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2302\n9343418 + Lamp Capital, LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）, 收件人：Bernardo Enriquez（贝尔纳多·恩里克斯）, 667 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10065-8029\n9343415 + Liehong Zhuang（庄烈宏）/Xiao Yan Zhu（朱小燕）, C/O Trexler & Zhang, LLP（特雷克斯勒与张律师事务所）, 224 West 35th Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10001-2532, 收件人：Jonathan T. Trexler, Esq.（乔纳森·T·特雷克斯勒律师）\n9343437 + Linda Cheng（程琳达）, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n9343425 + Logan Cheng（程洛根）, c/o Randazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团专业有限责任公司）, 100 Pearl Street, 14th Fl, Hartford, CT 06103-4500\n9343438 + Mao-Fu Weng（翁茂福）, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n9343411 + Nan Tong Si Jian（南通四建）, C/O Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F, Flushing, NY 11354-4232, 收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n9343407 + Ning Ye（叶宁）, c/o Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq., 135-11 38th Avenue, Suite 1A, Flushing, NY 11354-4440, 收件人：Ning Ye, Esq.\n9343451 + Rong Zhang（张蓉）, C/O Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Her, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016-0601, 收件人：Matthew Guiney\n9343439 + RuQin Wang（王如琴）, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n9358088 + Rui Ma（马蕊）, Carollynn HG Callari, Esq.（卡罗琳·HG·卡拉里律师）/Callari Partne, 100 Somerset Corporate Blvd., Suite 206, Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2842\n9343426 + SHI（施）, C/O Thompson Hine, 20 N. Clark St., Ste 3200, Chicago, IL 60602-5093, 收件人：Steven A. Block, Esq.（史蒂文·A·布洛克律师）\n9348491 + Samuel Dan Nunberg（塞缪尔·丹·嫩伯格）, 600 South Dixie Highway, Suite 455, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5851\n9343417 + Samuel Nunberg（塞缪尔·嫩伯格）, C/O Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP（内塞诺夫与米尔滕伯格律师事务所）, 363 Seventh Ave, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10001-3915, 收件人：Andrew T. Miltenberg, Esq.（安德鲁·T·米尔滕伯格律师）\n9343440 + Teli Chen（陈特丽）, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n9343422 + WA&HF, LLC（WA&HF 有限责任公司）/Ruizeng An（安瑞增）, C/O AFN Law（AFN 律师事务所）, 41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor, New York, NY 10010-2345, 收件人：Angus Ni, Esq.（倪安格斯律师）\n9343427 + WANG（王）, C/O Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey（卡莫迪·托伦斯·桑达克与亨尼西律师事务所）, 195 Church Street, P.O. Box 1950, New Haven, CT 6509 USA 06509-1950, 收件人：David Grudberg（戴维·格鲁德伯格）\n9358089 + Weican Watson Meng（孟维灿·沃森）和 Boxun Inc.（博讯公司）, Carollynn HG Callari, Esq./Callari Partne, 100 Somerset Corporate Blvd., Suite 206, Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2842\n\n关于：案件编号 22-50073-jam\n\nHo Wan Kwok 第 11 章\n\n地区/办事处：0205-5 用户：admin 第 2 页，共 4 页\n\n收件日期：Jun 15, 2022 表格 ID：pdfdoc1 送达总数：63\n\n9343441 + Weiguo Sun（孙卫国）, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n\n9343442 + Weixiand Ge（葛卫先）, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n9343429 + Wen Lin（林文）, C/O HGT Law, 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10177-0799, 收件人：Hung Ta\n\n9343433 + Xiaobo He（何小波）, C/O HGT Law, 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10177-0799, 收件人：Hung Ta\n\n9343453 + Xiaodan Wang（王小丹）, C/O Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Her, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016-0601, 收件人：Matthew Guiney\n\n9343432 + Xiaoping Luo（罗小平）, C/O HGT Law, 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10177-0799, 收件人：Hung Ta\n9343443 + Xingyu Yan（闫星宇）, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n9343454 + Xiong Xian Wei Ye（熊贤伟业）, C/O Kevin Tung, Esq., 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F, Flushing, NY 11354-4232, 收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n9358703 + Xiqiu Bob Fu（傅希秋·鲍勃）, c/o Irve J. Goldman（欧文·J·戈德曼）, Pullman & Compley, LLC, 850 Main St., P O Box 7006, Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006\n9343423 + Xiqiu Fu（傅希秋）, c/o The Lanier Law Firm（拉尼尔律师事务所）, 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N., Suite 100, Houston, TX 77064-5768, 收件人：Lawrence P. Wilson（劳伦斯·P·威尔逊）\n9343444 + Yan Gao（高燕）, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n9343413 + Yan Zhao（赵岩）, C/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq., 135-11 38th Avenue, Suite 1A, Flushing, NY 11354-4440, 收件人：Ning Ye, Esq.\n9343409 + Yang Lan（杨兰）和 Wu Zheng（郑武）, 900 Third Avenue, 18th Floor, c/o Arkin Solbakken, LLP（阿金·索尔巴肯律师事务所）, New York, NY 10022-5000, 收件人：Robert C. Angelillo（罗伯特·C·安杰利洛）\n9343445 + Yi Li（李毅）, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n9343446 + Ying Liu（刘英）, C/O Thompson Hine, 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-4666, 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n9343414 + Yua Hua Zhuang Shi（玉华装饰）, C/O Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F, Flushing, NY 11354-4232, 收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n9344053 + Yue Hua Zhu Shi（月华珠饰）, 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D, c/o Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., Flushing, NY 11354-4232, 收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n9343456 + Zhen Yuan Jian Zhu（振远建筑）, C/O Kevin Tung, Esq., 38th Avenue, Suite 3d, Flushing, NY 11354 USA 11363\n9358087 + Zheng (Bruno) Wu（吴政〔布鲁诺〕）和 Yang Lan, Carollynn HG Callari, Esq./Callari Partne, 100 Somerset Corporate Blvd., Suite 206, Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2842\n9343428 + Zhengjun Dong（董正军）, C/O HGT Law, 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10177-0799, 收件人：Hung Ta\n9343448 + yunxia Wu（吴云霞）, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, 收件人：Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2302\n\n合计：61\n\nBankruptcy Noticing Center 通过电子传输向下列个人/实体发送了通知。电子传输包括通过电子邮件发送通知（电子邮件/文本和电子邮件/PDF），以及电子数据交换（EDI）。电子传输时间采用美国东部标准时间。\n\n收件人 ID\naty\nca 通知类型：电子邮件地址\n+ 电子邮件/文本：ustpregion02.nh.ecf@usdoj.gov\n+ 电子邮件/文本：cr-info@stretto.com 日期/时间\n收件人姓名和地址\n\nJun 15 2022 18:27:00 Steven E. Mackey（史蒂文·E·麦基）, Office of the U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）, The Giaimo Federal Building（贾伊莫联邦大楼）, 150 Court Street, Room 302, New Haven, CT 06510-2022\nJun 15 2022 18:27:00 Stretto（斯特雷托）, 410 Exchange, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92602-1331\n\n合计：2\n绕过的收件人\n\n由于地址无法投递、*与上列地址重复、\\P 与首选地址重复，或 ## USPS 的转寄指令已过期，下列地址未获发送本破产通知。\n\n收件人 ID 绕过原因 姓名和地址\n\ncr Baosheng Guo（郭宝胜）\nintp Golden Spring (New York) LTD（黄金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）\nintp HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited（香港国际基金投资〔美国〕有限公司）\nintp Mei Guo（郭梅）\ncr Ning Ye\ncrcm Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）\ncr Yan Zhao\ncr Zheng Wu（吴政）\n9343402 22-50073\n9343424 Jonathan Young（乔纳森·杨）, 141 Allenby Road, Wellington Point, QLD 4160, AUSTRALIA\n20 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）\n20 Rui Ma\n20 Weican Meng（孟维灿）\ncr * Chao-Chih Chiu, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, 收件人：Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2367\ncr *+ Keyi Zilkie, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, 收件人：Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2302\ncr *+ Logan Cheng, c/o Randazza Legal Group, PLLC, 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103-4500\ncr *+ Yunxia Wu, c/o TroyGould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, 收件人：Christopher A. Lilly, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2302\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 471 于 06/17/22 提交 于 06/18/22 00:15:24 录入 第 3 页，共 23 页\n\n地区/办事处：0205-5 用户：admin 第 3 页，共 4 页 收件日期：Jun 15, 2022 表格 ID：pdfdoc1 送达总数：63\n通知证明\n\n本人 Gustava Winters（古斯塔瓦·温特斯）谨在伪证罪处罚下声明：本人已按所示方式向上述列明的实体发送所附文件，并编制了送达证明；据本人所知及所信，该证明真实且正确。\n\n仅适用于债权人会议通知（官方表格 309）：根据 Fed .R. Bank. P.2002(a)(1)，已向所列全部当事人提供包含债务人完整社会保障号码（SSN）的通知。本官方法院副本载有依破产规则及司法机关隐私政策要求隐去的 SSN。\n\n日期：Jun 17, 2022 签名：/s/Gustava Winters\nCM/ECF 电子提交通知\n\n下列人员/实体已于 June 15, 2022 通过法院 CM/ECF 电子邮件（Email）系统，向下列地址发送通知：姓名 电子邮件地址\nAaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼），代表利害关系方 Mei Guo（郭美） aromney@zeislaw.com swenthen@zeislaw.com\nAaron Romney，代表利害关系方 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC（美国HK国际基金投资有限责任公司） aromney@zeislaw.com, swenthen@zeislaw.com\nAaron Romney，代表原告 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC aromney@zeislaw.com, swenthen@zeislaw.com\nAnnecca H. Smith（安妮卡·H.·史密斯），代表二十大无担保债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业） asmith@rc.com\nBennett Silverberg（贝内特·西尔弗伯格），代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵） bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com\nCarollynn H.G. Callari（卡罗琳·H.G.·卡拉里），代表债权人 Zheng Wu（吴征） ccallari@callaripartners.com\nCarollynn H.G. Callari，代表二十大无担保债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊） ccallari@callaripartners.com\nCarollynn H.G. Callari，代表二十大无担保债权人 Weican Meng（孟伟灿） ccallari@callaripartners.com\nDavid S. Forsh（大卫·S.·福什），代表二十大无担保债权人 Weican Meng dforsh@callaripartners.com\nDavid S. Forsh，代表二十大无担保债权人 Rui Ma dforsh@callaripartners.com\nDavid S. Forsh，代表债权人 Zheng Wu dforsh@callaripartners.com\nDavid V. Harbach, II（大卫·V.·哈巴赫二世），代表二十大无担保债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. dharbach@omm.com\nDylan Kletter（迪伦·克莱特），代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok dkletter@brownrudnick.com adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@brownrudnick.com\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍利·L.·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人 U. S. Trustee（美国受托人） holley.l.claiborn@usdoj.gov\nIrve J. Goldman（欧文·J.·戈德曼），代表债权人委员会 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人正式委员会） igoldman@pullcom.com rmccoy@pullcom.com\nJay Marshall Wolman（杰伊·马歇尔·沃尔曼），代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程龙） jmw@randazza.com ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com\nJeffrey L Jonas（杰弗里·L.·乔纳斯），代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok jjonas@brownrudnick.com\nJohn L. Cesaroni（约翰·L.·切萨罗尼），代表利害关系方 Mei Guo jcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 471 提交日期 06/17/22 录入日期 06/18/22 00:15:24 第 4 页，共 23 页\n\n地区/办事处：0205-5\n接收日期：Jun 15, 2022 用户：admin\n表格 ID：pdfdoc1 第 4 页，共 4 页\n通知总数：63\n\nJonathan Kaplan（乔纳森·卡普兰），代表债权人委员会 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors jkaplan@pullcom.com\nprulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com\nKenneth Aulet（肯尼斯·奥莱特），代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok kaulet@brownrudnick.com\nKristin B. Mayhew（克里斯汀·B.·梅休），代表债权人 Zheng Wu kmayhew@mdmc-law.com kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com\nKristin B. Mayhew，代表二十大无担保债权人 Weican Meng kmayhew@mdmc-law.com\nkwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com\nKristin B. Mayhew，代表二十大无担保债权人 Rui Ma kmayhew@mdmc-law.com kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com\nLaura Aronsson（劳拉·阿隆松），代表二十大无担保债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. laronsson@omm.com\nMia N. Gonzalez（米娅·N.·冈萨雷斯），代表二十大无担保债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. mgonzalez@omm.com\nPatrick M. Birney（帕特里克·M.·伯尼），代表二十大无担保债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. pbirney@rc.com ctrivigno@rc.com\nPatrick M. Birney，代表被告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. pbirney@rc.com ctrivigno@rc.com\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），代表二十大无担保债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. pfriedman@omm.com\nPeter Friedman，代表被告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. pfriedman@omm.com\nPeter J. Zarella（彼得·J.·扎雷拉），代表二十大无担保债权人 Weican Meng pzarella@mdmc-law.com\nPeter J. Zarella，代表二十大无担保债权人 Rui Ma pzarella@mdmc-law.com\nPeter J. Zarella，代表债权人 Zheng Wu pzarella@mdmc-law.com\nSara Pahlavan（萨拉·帕拉万），代表二十大无担保债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. spahlavan@omm.com\nScott D. Rosen（斯科特·D.·罗森），代表利害关系方 Golden Spring (New York) LTD（黄金泉〈纽约〉有限公司） srosen@cb-shea.com\nmsullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com\nStephen M. Kindseth（斯蒂芬·M.·金德塞思），代表利害关系方 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC skindseth@zeislaw.com,\ncjervey@zeislaw.com\nStephen M. Kindseth，代表利害关系方 Mei Guo skindseth@zeislaw.com cjervey@zeislaw.com\nStuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M.·萨诺夫），代表二十大无担保债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. ssarnoff@omm.com\nstuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com\nStuart M. Sarnoff，代表被告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. ssarnoff@omm.com stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com\nTimothy D. Miltenberger（蒂莫西·D.·米尔滕伯格），代表利害关系方 Golden Spring (New York) LTD Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com\nmsullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com\nU. S. Trustee USTPRegion02.NH.ECF@USDOJ.GOV\nWilliam Baldiga（威廉·巴尔迪加），代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\nWilliam R. Baldiga（威廉·R.·巴尔迪加），代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n总计：42\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）\n\n关于： )\n\nHO WAN KWOK， )\n\n债务人。 )\n\n_____________________________________________________________\n\n ) 案号 22-50073 (JAM) ) 第 11 章\n_____________________________________________________________ ) 关于：ECF No. 183\n出庭人员1\n\nJeffrey L. Jonas\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n债务人代理律师\n\nPeter Friedman\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n1625 Eye Street NW\nWashington, DC 20006\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. 代理律师\n\nCarollynn Callari\nCallari Partners, LLC（卡拉里合伙人有限责任公司）\nOne Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor\nNew York, New York 10020\n债权人 Rui Ma、Weican Meng 及 Zheng Wu 的代理律师\n\nHolley L. Claiborn\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n美国受托人代理律师\n\nIrve J. Goldman\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n无担保债权人正式委员会代理律师\n\n驳回撤诉动议但不妨碍再次提出，并准许加入申请任命第 11 章受托人动议的裁定备忘录及命令\n\nI. 引言\n\n于 February 15, 2022，Ho Wan Kwok（以下简称“债务人”）提交一份自愿第 11 章破产申请，由此启动本案。尽管债务人的案件仅已待决四个月，\n\n1 William R. Baldiga 和 Bennett S. Silverberg 代表债务人，Laura Aronsson 和 Patrick M. Birney 代表 PAX，Kristin Mayhew 代表债权人 Ma、Meng 和 Wu，亦出席了关于撤诉动议的听证会。\n\n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出大量动议和申请。已举行数次广泛听证会，包括最近就撤销债务人案件或任命第 11 章受托人的动议所举行的证据听证会。\n\n当事方在大量书面材料中提出的问题，以及在本案举行的听证会中提交的信息和证据，证实债务人的案件不同寻常、复杂且往往具有争议性。基于本案的具体事实和情形，包括对案卷的审查、当事方提交的证据以及提交本院的复杂事实和法律问题，本院依据 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) 认定，目前不撤销或转换债务人的案件，而是任命一名第 11 章受托人，最符合债权人和破产财产的利益。2\n\nII. 管辖权\n\n本院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 对本动议具有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，本案属于核心程序。本院根据 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦地区法院）于 September 21, 1984 作出的《移送总命令》，有权审理此事。\n\nIII. 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产的利益，审查债务人案件中已经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，包括位于曼哈顿 Sherry-Netherlands Hotel（雪莉-荷兰酒店）的一套公寓，据称于 2015 年以约 \\$70,000,000.00 购得。综合来看，债务人案件的相关情形表明，为何相对于撤销或转换债务人的案件，任命一名第 11 章受托人最符合债权人和破产财产的利益。\n\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 February 15, 2022 通过提交一份自愿第 11 章破产申请启动本案。债务人在申请中提交了二十大无担保债权人名单，并将 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“PAX”）列为债务人的最大债权人，债权约为 \\$254,000,000.00。ECF No. 4 at p. 1.\n\n债务人并未随其申请提交财产清单或财务状况陈述书，但及时提交了《延长提交财产清单或提供所需信息截止日期至 May 2, 2022 的动议》（以下简称“延长提交清单和陈述书期限的动议”，ECF No. 27）。为支持所请求的延长期限，债务人称其“背景诚然不同寻常”，而额外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 章案件所需的融资。ECF No. 27 at p. 2.\n\n于 February 28, 2022，美国受托人办公室（以下简称“UST”）和 PAX 对延长提交清单和陈述书期限的动议提出强烈异议。在异议中，UST 和 PAX 均主张，债务人提出本案申请是直接回应一项针对债务人作出的 \\$134,000,000.00 藐视法庭命令，该命令源于其参与将 Lady May 秘密驶离纽约，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，企图逃避执行 PAX 对其取得的 \\$116,000,000.00 判决书。PAX 指出，纽约州法院认定，“Kwok 是一名自称的亿万富翁，其将资产秘密隐藏于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员之中”；由于其为逃避债权人而实施的精心策划，纽约州最高法院案卷中已有超过 1,180 项记录，“其中几乎全部涉及……[Kwok] 通过将其大量个人资产存放于一系列公司、受信任的密友和家庭成员名下，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的努力。”PAX 异议，ECF No. 50 at p. 2。此外，PAX 主张，债务人的申请中至少有三项实质性虚假和/或误导性陈述，包括其经宣誓作出的（错误）陈述，即其资产少于 \\$100,000.00；该陈述与纽约州法院仅在数日前作出的认定，即 Kwok“对 Lady May 持有受益权益并享有控制权”，完全不相容。同上。\n\nPAX 的自动中止动议\n\n2022年3月1日，即债务人案件提交后仅两周，PAX提出了一项请求作出裁定以确认自动中止不适用的动议，或备选地，请求解除自动中止（“自动中止动议”，ECF No. 57）。自动中止动议载列了针对债务人的大量、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作出的制裁，本案不适用自动中止。PAX称，法院的制裁因债务人违反法院命令、未将Lady May（“Lady May”号）送回纽约，而认定债务人民事藐视法庭。债务人提交了对自动中止动议的异议，其中债务人并不否认制裁的作出，而是主张其并不拥有或控制Lady May。债务人对自动中止动议的异议，ECF No. 83，第7页。\n\n债务人的资产负债表和财务状况说明书\n\n2022年3月9日，债务人提交了其财务状况说明书，ECF No. 77，以及资产负债表，ECF No. 78。债务人在资产负债表和财务状况说明书中主张，其拥有价值为$3,850.00的资产，并列示金额为$373,803,498.09的负债。在限制并否认债务人在财务状况说明书中所作宣誓声明的通用注释中，债务人进一步主张其：(i) 使用并占有位于康涅狄格州格林尼治的不动产，但不拥有其所有权；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，该有限责任公司为其子Qiang Guo（郭强）拥有的一家独立有限责任公司，以信托方式持有位于曼哈顿Sherry-Netherlands Hotel（谢里-荷兰酒店）一套公寓的全部合作公寓股份；以及(iii) 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国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，“HK”）所拥有的Lady May。ECF No. 77，第4-5页。\n\nUST关于指定审查员或第11章受托人的动议\n\n2022年3月18日，即债务人提交其资产负债表和财务状况说明书后不到两周，UST提出了一项请求作出命令以指定审查员的动议，或备选地，提出了一项请求作出命令以指定第11章受托人的动议（“UST关于指定审查员或第11章受托人的动议”，ECF No. 102）。UST主张，指定审查员或受托人符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益，因为债务人是一名公众人物，自称为在其祖国中国流亡的亿万富翁，却称其没有固定收入且几乎没有资产，但表面上可获得大量资金，包括能够为其在本案中的律师筹措$1,000,000.00预付聘金。UST指出，其担忧的是“债务人似乎人为制造‘贫困’以使自己免受债权人追索的奇怪组合”，以及债务人为“获得对被欠数百万美元的债权人的保护”而提交本案。ECF No. 102，第2页。此外，UST称，其担忧得到以下事实验证：(i)“债务人将其资产负债表和财务状况说明书边缘化至毫无意义的程度”；(ii)债务人“通过‘通用注释’中自利且违反信义义务的措辞，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)“债务人无能力及／或不愿承认并接受其提供充分、完整和准确信息的义务，履行其对破产财产及债权人的信义义务，并履行其作为占有中债务人的义务。”同上。\n\n无担保债权人委员会指定通知\n\n2022年3月21日，即UST提出关于指定审查员或第11章受托人的动议后三日，UST在本案中提交了债权人委员会指定通知（ECF No. 108）。无担保债权人正式委员会（“委员会”）的成员，即债务人最大的无担保债权人中的若干人，且已表示愿意在委员会任职的债权人如下：(i) Rui Ma（马蕊），(ii) Ning Ye（叶宁），以及(iii) Samuel Dan Nunberg（塞缪尔·丹·纳恩伯格）。\n\n占有中债务人融资动议\n\n2022年3月22日，即委员会指定后一天，债务人提出了一项请求作出临时及最终占有中债务人融资命令的动议（“DIP动议”，ECF No. 117）。在DIP动议中，债务人请求批准一笔向破产财产提供的金额为$8,000,000.00的贷款；该贷款为无担保贷款，次于债务人申请破产前债权人的债权，且不具有任何行政费用或优先受偿权。该贷款可用于支付破产财产的专业人士，并且仅在债务人债权人的所有获准债权已获全额支付或依计划条款以其他方式得到清偿时，方予偿还。拟议贷款人Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，“DIP贷款人”）是由债务人之子Qiang Guo拥有并控制的实体。\n\nDIP动议主张，债务人提交其第11章案件是为了：(a) 建立一个单一平台，以有序处理针对其提出的各种相互竞争的债权；(b) 向利益相关方提供有效机会，以调查其资产、负债和财务状况；(c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财产，继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及分配资产事宜与其债权人达成共识。DIP动议，ECF No. 117，第5页。\n\nPAX的驳回动议及加入动议\n\n2022年4月6日，在UST关于指定审查员或第11章受托人的动议和DIP动议提出约三周后，PAX提出了一项驳回动议，或备选地，部分加入UST关于指定第11章受托人的动议（“驳回动议或加入动议”，ECF No. 183）。为支持驳回动议或加入动议，PAX主张，债务人提交本案“是其为‘拖延、欺骗及诈欺其债权人，并继续逃避合法法院命令’所采取的最新、最激烈的策略”，且债务人的“惯常做法是通过家族成员和空壳公司停放、隐匿及秘密转移其资产，以保护其财富并避免偿还其对PAX的债务。”ECF No. 183，第7页。PAX主张，债务人“已将其资产秘密藏匿于错综复杂的公司实体和家族成员之中。”同上，第7-8页。\n\n除驳回动议或加入动议外，PAX还提出了一项动议，请求就驳回动议或加入动议安排进度。法院部分准许PAX的动议，并安排于2022年4月13日就驳回动议或加入动议举行进度会议；该日期亦为本案若干其他事项的听证日期，包括自动中止动议的续行听证，以及关于指定审查员或第11章受托人的动议和DIP动议的首次听证。\n\n债务人的第11章计划\n\n2022年4月10日，债务人提交了一项拟议的第11章重整计划（“计划”，ECF No. 197）。除其他事项外，该计划规定设立一项“债权人信托”，以惠及所有拥有获准债权的债权人。ECF No. 197，第20-24页。该计划进一步规定，Lady May的所有权将转移至债权人信托，以惠及所有拥有获准债权的债权人。ECF No. 197，第21页。\n\nHK关于自动中止动议的声明\n\n2022年4月11日，即债务人提交计划后一天，HK（如上所述，其为债务人女儿拥有的一家有限责任公司）提交了一份关于自动中止动议的声明（“声明”，ECF No. 203）。在声明中，HK主张其为Lady May的登记代理人，并同意在特定条件下作出一项拟议命令，强制其将Lady May运送并交付至康涅狄格州的可航行水域。HK进一步主张，其已向PAX、债务人、UST和委员会的律师分别提供了拟议命令副本以征求意见，且作出强制HK将Lady May送回康涅狄格州的拟议命令将使自动中止动议“失去争议意义”。声明，第2页。\n\n2022年4月13日听证\n\n安排于2022年4月13日进行听证的事项包括自动中止动议的续行听证，以及DIP动议和UST关于指定审查员或第11章受托人的动议的首次听证。在冗长听证结束时，法院再次续延了PAX自动中止动议的听证，续延了UST关于指定审查员或第11章受托人的动议的听证，并安排于2022年4月27日就DIP动议和债务人聘用财务顾问申请举行证据听证。\n\n2022年4月27日证据听证、自动中止动议的解决，以及就驳回动议或加入动议安排证据听证\n\n债务人、PAX、UST、委员会、债权人Rui Ma和Zheng Wu（吴征）、Golden Spring以及HK出席了4月27日的证据听证。听证开始时，债务人的律师向法院报告，当事人已解决自动中止动议。该解决方案的主要条款是，HK将提供并托管$37,000,000.00，直至Lady May返回康涅狄格州的可航行水域。当事人同意，已就自动中止动议达成解决方案，但须经法院审查并对将提交法院的协议命令作出修订。随后，HK的律师获准离开听证，以继续修订协议命令草案。法院在庭审记录中，并最终在案卷中，注明自动中止动议已由当事人协议解决，但须在2022年5月2日或之前向法院提交一项约定命令。\n\n就债务人聘用财务顾问动议和DIP动议，亦提出了证词、证据和论点。证据听证结束时，法院将债务人聘用财务顾问动议留待裁决，并将DIP动议的听证续延至2022年5月4日。此外，当事人在庭审记录中同意了关于就驳回动议或加入动议举行证据听证的排期命令条款。2022年4月28日，法院作出了关于驳回动议的排期命令，将证据听证安排于2022年5月24日举行。\n\n关于Lady May的协议命令\n\n2022年4月29日，法院作出了强制HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC运输并交付该游艇“Lady May”的协议命令；该命令由HK、PAX、债务人、委员会以及债权人Rui Ma和Zheng Wu签署（“协议命令”，ECF No. 299）。除其他事项外，协议命令规定：(i) HK已将$37,000,000.00存入托管账户；(ii) HK将于2022年7月15日或之前将Lady May交付至康涅狄格州的可航行水域；以及(iii) Lady May的船长和据称的游艇管理公司将提交声明，声明其各自均受本院管辖，并受协议命令条款约束，包括在本院作出进一步命令之前，不得将Lady May移离康涅狄格州的可航行水域。\n\n续行的DIP动议听证、同意驳回，以及撤回DIP动议\n\n2022年5月3日，债务人就DIP动议提交了一份经修订的拟议命令。该经修订的拟议命令包含一张图表，说明DIP资金将在何时以及以何种金额支出。经修订的拟议命令规定，专业费用将按周支付，包括债务人律师和委员会律师的费用。\n\n2022年5月4日，就DIP动议举行了续行听证会。债务人和委员会主张应当准许DIP动议并签发经修订的拟议命令。PAX和UST分别重申了其对DIP动议的异议。随后，法院就所主张的在2022年5月底前支付数百万美元专业费用的必要性提出了若干问题。听证会结束时，法院表示将就DIP动议作出裁定，以确定在2022年5月底前应支出的适当金额。\n\n2022年5月11日，即DIP动议听证会结束一周后，债务人提交了案件驳回同意通知（以下简称“驳回同意”）。债务人在驳回同意中主张，由于PAX及其他方持续不断的诉讼给其施加了巨额费用，且其无法取得资金以支付该等费用，因此其同意驳回其案件。同于2022年5月11日，在DIP动议尚待裁决且法院正准备就该动议作出裁定期间，债务人提交了DIP动议撤回书。\n\n关于驳回或加入动议的证据听证会\n\n2022年5月24日，就PAX的驳回或加入动议举行了证据听证会。听证会开始时，所有当事方均确认，驳回同意改变了债务人案件的态势。此外，所有当事方均同意，根据第1112(b)条，存在驳回或转换债务人案件，或指定一名第11章受托人的理由。PAX和债务人主张应当驳回债务人案件。委员会和某些债权人主张转换最为适当，但如不转换，则应指定一名第11章受托人。UST未主张三种替代方案中的任何一种，但敦促法院尽快决定此事。\n\nIV. 分析\n\n《破产法典》第1112(b)条规定：\n\n“[依]利害关系方的请求，并在通知及听证后，法院应当为债权人和破产财团的最佳利益，将本章项下案件转换为第7章项下案件，或驳回本章项下案件，但以存在理由为限；除非法院认定，根据第1104(a)条指定受托人或审查员符合债权人和破产财团的最佳利益。”\n\n11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1); 另见 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在就驳回或加入动议举行的证据听证会上，所有当事方均约定，存在驳回案件、将案件转换为第7章案件或指定一名第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，因为破产财团遭受了重大或持续损失或价值减损，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，包括债务人据称在提交案件时缺乏善意，以及债务人对破产财团的严重管理不善。由于当事方约定根据第1112(b)条存在理由，法院无需确定具体的“理由”。法院唯一需要决定的问题是，驳回、转换，还是指定一名第11章受托人，是否符合债权人和破产财团的最佳利益。\n\n法院必须通过利益衡量检验，根据案件记录确定三种替代方案——驳回、转换或指定一名第11章受托人——中的哪一种符合债权人和破产财团的最佳利益。In re Products Intern. Co., 395 B.R. at 108。在确定何种选择符合债权人和破产财团的最佳利益时，法院应当评估包括债权人债权的收回和清偿前景在内的事项。In re Corona Care Convalescent Corp., 527 B.R. 379, 384 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2015)。“在考虑指定受托人或将案件转换为第7章项下案件时，‘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指导破产财团事务[]，包括持续经营（如有），以实现债权人和破产财团回收最大化，提供了更大的可能性。’” In re NOA, LLC, 578 B.R. 534, 541 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2017).\n\n本案有必要指定一名第11章受托人，因为案件记录表明存在收回并清偿债权人债权的前景。在本案期间，债务人已表明其能够取得数百万美元资金，包括DIP动议所涉的\\$8,000,000.00。债务人在本案早期还提出了一项第11章计划，其中除其他事项外，规定将Lady May的所有权转让给为全体债权人利益设立的债权人信托。此外，在本案待决的四个月期间，立场相异的各方就解决自动中止动议的约定进行了深入协商。约定命令的结果是，以将Lady May交付至Connecticut（康涅狄格州）可通航水域为交换，将\\$37,000,000.00存入第三方托管；债务人曾反对此事，甚至导致纽约州法院诉讼中对其作出藐视法庭制裁。约定命令中最重要义务——将Lady May交付至Connecticut可通航水域——的履行期限尚未届至。然而，约定命令的其他条款已得到及时遵守。HK已提交进度报告，表明已对Lady May进行了维修，且Lady May可能会在2022年7月15日约定命令交付日期之前抵达Connecticut可通航水域。驳回债务人案件，或将债务人案件转换为第7章，将抹去就Lady May取得的重大进展。一名第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。指定一名第11章受托人还将维护执行和解的政策，避免竞相向法院起诉，并提供依照《破产法典》优先顺序方案向债权人按比例分配的机会。见 Corona Care, 527 B.R. at 387（指定受托人以维护执行和解的政策并避免竞相向法院起诉）。\n\n债务人在若干诉状中表示，其提交本案是为了建立一个单一平台，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有效机会，以调查其资产、负债和财务状况。驳回债务人案件将违背债务人为提交本案所述的理由。同样，将本案转换为第7章不会允许对针对债务人的相互竞争的债权主张进行有序清算。指定一名第11章受托人，是处理针对债务人提出的相互竞争债权人债权主张的最有效率和最有效的方法，包括附条件且未经清算的人身伤害侵权债权。指定一名第11章受托人还将使得能够有效调查债务人的资产、负债和财务状况。因此，在衡量驳回、转换或指定一名第11章受托人时，案件记录支持以下结论：本案指定一名第11章受托人符合债权人和破产财团的最佳利益。\n\n在面临根据第1112(b)条作出的类似选择时，破产法院曾指定一名第11章受托人，而非驳回或转换案件。例如，Sillerman案涉及一名连续创业的个人债务人。该债务人在其财产申报表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家企业，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案债权人起初申请指定一名审查员，因为他们主张，“缺乏独立管理监督”使债务人得以避免披露其资产的真实性质和价值，而且债务人“使用涉及复杂公司架构的多层交易”使其资产难以查找。Id. at 636-37。该案后期指定的无担保债权人正式委员会则申请指定一名第11章受托人，或作为替代方案，申请作出将案件转换为第7章案件的命令。鉴于债务人案件中的全部情形，Sillerman法院裁定，指定一名第11章受托人而非转换案件，符合债权人和破产财团的最佳利益。Id. at 657.\n\n与Sillerman案中的债权人一样，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，而这些公司可能掩盖债务人资产的真实性质和价值。他们还主张，债务人曾参与涉及复杂公司架构的多层交易，例如Golden Spring、Genever Holdings、Lamp Funding和HK，因此难以识别和定位债务人的资产。PAX援引New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的认定：债务人曾“将其资产隐匿于公司实体和家庭成员构成的迷宫中”，且数千项案卷记录“涉及被告Kwok为逃避和欺骗其债权人，而将其大量个人资产停放于一系列公司、受其信赖的密友和家庭成员名下的行为。”ECF No. 183 at p. 7-8。与驳回或转换相比，债务人财务状况的复杂性以及本案中缺乏独立管理监督，证明有必要指定一名第11章受托人，以便为债权人和破产财团的利益调查、识别和定位债务人的资产。\n\n在债务人违反约定命令的情形中，破产法院也曾指定一名第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United States（美国）。578 B.R. at 537-40。法院指定了一名第11章受托人，原因是“第11章为受托人运用独立判断和良好管理来指导破产财团事务[]，包括持续经营（如有），以实现债权人和破产财团回收最大化，提供了更大的可能性。”Id. at 541。如同NOA案，本案当事方协商达成了约定命令。如上所述，将Lady May交付至Connecticut可通航水域的履行期限尚未届至。指定一名第11章受托人将使该受托人能够运用独立判断，以确保遵守约定命令，并为债权人和破产财团实现资产回收最大化。\n\nCorona Care（科罗纳护理案）是另一宗案件，其中破产法院在债务人未履行协议条款时，行使其裁量权任命了一名第11章受托人，而非驳回案件或将案件转换至其他章节。Corona Care, 527 B.R. at 387。在Corona Care案中，债务人与Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）及其他利害关系方达成协议，驳回部分由共同管理的、较具盈利能力的护理机构案件，以使其余债务人有更多时间确认一项重整计划。527 B.R. at 380。随后，债务人未履行该协议约定的条款。Id. at 385。在评估向债权人收取及支付债权的前景时，Corona Care法院认定，出售债务人的企业提供了向债权人付款的某种前景，因为资产将被变现以支付其债权，这反映了协议中达成的交易。Id. at 384-85。同样，将Lady May（“梅女士”号）交付至Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的通航水域，将带来收取及支付债权人债权的前景，其中可能包括将Lady May作为第11章计划的质押物，和/或认定Lady May属于债务人破产财产。\n\nTP, Inc.（TP公司）是另一宗破产案件，其中任命了一名第11章受托人，而非驳回或转换债务人的案件。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.、其主要负责人及该主要负责人的妻子提起止赎程序，并获得了一项针对该主要负责人及其妻子的判决书；二人均为该本票的保证人。Id. at 456。案件审理期间，债务人的主要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.法院裁定，债务人不当使用了作为美国银行担保物的多处不动产，以及不当使用了源自该担保物的现金担保物租金，足以支持任命一名第11章受托人。Id. at 459。法院指出，其担忧未来可能发生欺诈、无能、不诚实或严重管理不善，因此认定任命第11章受托人符合债权人及破产财产的最佳利益，而非驳回或转换案件，因为受托人可以运用独立判断和良好管理来指导破产财产事务。Id.。在本案中，州法院同样基于债务人未履行本票义务作出针对债务人的判决书，并因债务人违反州法院命令而作出藐视法庭命令；该州法院命令限制债务人及其他人将Lady May从New York（纽约州）的通航水域移走。与TP, Inc.案的裁决相同，本案任命第11章受托人将应对债务人今后任何不当行为的担忧，同时以独立判断和良好管理指导破产财产事务，并为全体债权人实现最佳回收。\n\n五、结论\n\n鉴于当事人约定，根据第1112(b)条，存在驳回本案、将本案转换为第7章案件或任命第11章受托人的事由，法院已评估了包括全体债权人债权的收取及支付前景在内的事项。法院认定，任命第11章受托人符合债权人及破产财产的最佳利益，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产事务，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、负债及财务事务，并确保遵守协议裁定规定在内的方式，为债权人及破产财产实现最佳回收。\n\n据此，现命令如下：\n\n兹命令：根据11 U.S.C. §§ 1112(b)，驳回动议或加入申请在其请求目前驳回债务人案件的范围内，不妨碍其日后再次提出而予以驳回；在其请求于债务人案件中任命一名第11章受托人的范围内，予以准许；并进一步\n\n兹命令：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兹命令：在任命第11章受托人后的十四（14）日内，将安排一次状态会议，讨论包括第11章受托人就依照11 U.S.C. §§ 1106(a)(4)及(a)(5)应提交陈述的进展、对协议裁定的遵守情况、第11章受托人对破产财产拟议的管理，以及对债务人案件的持续管理在内的事项。\n\n日期：2022年6月15日，于Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Bridgeport（布里奇波特）。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"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":8697,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-06-17 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-06-17","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:56:17"}