{"id":"court_sdny_465_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":465,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 465","summary_zh":"破产法院裁定书 —— Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）破产案，美国破产法院康涅狄格州地区，案号 22-50073 (JAM)，ECF #465。法院就是否驳回、转换程序或指定 Chapter 11 受托人作出裁决与命令：驳回撤案动议但不禁止再提，转而裁定指定 Chapter 11 受托人接管债务人财产（案情涉及游艇「Lady May」、纽约公寓等资产），理由包括对潜在欺诈、失信或管理不善的担忧。","summary_en":"Bankruptcy court memorandum of decision and order — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), Bankr. D. Conn., Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), ECF #465. The court denies the motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case without prejudice and instead grants appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee over the debtor's estate — a record that references assets including the yacht \"Lady May\" and a New York apartment — citing concerns over potential future fraud, dishonesty, or mismanagement.","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":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n\n债务人。\n\n____________________________________\n\n案号：CASE No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n第 11 章（CHAPTER 11）\n\n____________________________________ 涉及：ECF No. 183\n\n出庭律师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（美迈斯律师事务所），1625 Eye Street NW Washington, DC 20006，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）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（马蕊）、Weican Meng（孟维参）及 Zheng Wu（吴征）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，Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）代理律师\n\n关于不予支持驳回动议（不具预先约束力）并支持追加指定第 11 章受托人动议的裁定备忘录及命令\n\nI. 导言\n\n2022年2月15日，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）提交了自愿第 11 章申请书，从而开启了本案。尽管债务人一案仅审理了四个月，但债务人、美国受托人办公室、债权人以及与债务人相关的实体或个人已提交了大量动议和申请。法院已举行了数次广泛的听证会，包括最近一次就驳回债务人案件或指定第 11 章受托人的动议举行的证据听证会。1\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 亦出席了关于驳回动议的听证会。\n\n各方当事人在大量诉状中提出的争议，以及在本案举行的听证会期间所出示的信息和证据均证实，债务人一案极不寻常、错综复杂且屡屡发生激烈争议。基于本案的具体事实和情况，包括对案卷记录的审查、各方当事人出示的证据，以及呈递至本法院的复杂事实与法律争议，依据 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)，本法院认定，此时不驳回或不转换债务人的案件，而是指定一名第 11 章受托人，符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益。2\n\n2 Section 1112(b)(3) 要求法院在听证会开始后 15 天内对驳回动议作出裁决。在 2022年6月9日旨在处理驳回动议听证会官方记录修正事宜的案情通报会上，法院告知各方当事人，出于若干原因，包括债务人案件的复杂性以及在 15 天期限内排期举行的其他案件的大量听证会，关于驳回动议的裁决可能会在听证会后超过 15 天方予发布。\n\nII. 管辖权\n\n依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334，本法院对本动议拥有管辖权。依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，本案属于核心程序。依据 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区联邦地区法院）于 1984年9月21日 签署的移交总命令（General Order of Reference），本法院有权审理本案事项。\n\nIII. 诉讼历史\n\n审查债务人案件中发生的各项事件，对于确定驳回、转换还是指定第 11 章受托人最符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益至关重要。债务人案件的核心在于一艘名为“Lady May”（梅号）的豪华游艇（据称以 €41,000,000.00 购入），以及其他可能属于债务人的资产，包括据称于 2015年 以约 $70,000,000.00 购入的位于曼哈顿 Sherry-Netherlands Hotel（雪莉荷兰酒店）的一套公寓。从整体上看，围绕债务人案件的种种情形表明了为什么指定一名第 11 章受托人（而非驳回或转换债务人的案件）最符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n债务人关于延长提交资产负债表与财务状况说明书期限的动议\n\n如上所述，债务人于 2022年2月15日 通过提交自愿第 11 章申请书启动了本案。债务人随申请书一并提交了前二十大无担保债权人名单，并认定 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）（以下简称“PAX”）为债务人的最大债权人，债务金额约为 $254,000,000.00。ECF No. 4 第 1 页。\n\n债务人未随其申请书提交资产负债表（Schedules）或财务状况说明书（Statement of Financial Affairs），但在法定期限内提交了关于将提交资产负债表或提供所需信息的截止日期延长至 2022年5月2日 的动议（以下简称“延长提交资产负债表及说明书期限的动议”，ECF No. 27）。在支持所申请的延期理由中，债务人称其“背景无可否认地异乎寻常”，额外的时间将使他能够聘请必要的专业人士协助准备和提交资产负债表与说明书，并获得管理其第 11 章案件所需的融资。ECF No. 27 第 2 页。\n\n2022年2月28日，Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）（以下简称“UST”）和 PAX 对延长提交资产负债表及说明书期限的动议提出了强烈异议。在异议中，UST 和 PAX 均主张，债务人提出本案申请系直接应对针对债务人作出的一项金额为 $134,000,000.00 的蔑视法庭命令，该命令源于其参与将 Lady May 秘密转移出纽约以防其被扣押的行为。PAX 的异议还指称，债务人藐视纽约州法院的命令并滥用司法程序，企图逃避执行 PAX 针对其胜诉获得的 $116,000,000.00 判决。PAX 指出，纽约州法院裁定“自称亿万富翁的郭文贵将其资产隐藏在错综复杂的公司实体网络和家族成员名下”，并且由于他为逃避债权人而设立的精心策划的计划，纽约州最高法院的诉讼记录包含了 1,180 多个条目，“几乎所有条目都涉及……[郭文贵]通过将巨额个人资产放置于一系列公司、受信任的心腹和家族成员名下，企图逃避和欺骗债权人的行为。”PAX 异议书，ECF No. 50 第 2 页。此外，PAX 指称债务人的申请书中存在至少三处重大虚假和/或误导性陈述，包括其宣誓所作的（虚假）陈述称其名下资产不足 $100,000.00，而这与纽约州法院仅在几天前作出的郭文贵“在 Lady May 中享有实益权益并对其实施控制”的认定完全矛盾。同上。\n\nPAX 的自动中止动议\n\n2022年3月1日，即债务人案件提交仅两周后，PAX 提交了一份关于作出确认自动中止不适用或备选请求解除自动中止命令的动议（以下简称“自动中止动议”，ECF No. 57）。自动中止动议对债务人提出了广泛、详尽且严重的指控。PAX 主张，由于申请前纽约州法院诉讼中对债务人施加了制裁，自动中止在本案中并不适用。PAX 称，法院的制裁判定债务人民事蔑视法庭，原因是其违反法院命令未将 Lady May 归还纽约。债务人对自动中止动议提交了异议，其中债务人并未对制裁的施加提出异议，而是辩称其并不拥有或控制 Lady May。债务人对自动中止动议的异议书，ECF No. 83 第 7 页。\n\n债务人的资产负债表及财务状况说明书\n\n2022年3月9日，债务人提交了其财务状况说明书（ECF No. 77）和资产负债表（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的资产价值为 $3,850.00，并列出了金额为 $373,803,498.09 的负债。在对债务人在财务状况说明书中依据伪证罪罚则所作声明予以限制和免责的整体附注（global notes）中，债务人进一步主张他：(i) 对位于康涅狄格州格林威治、由其妻子全资拥有的有限责任公司所持有的不动产享有使用和占有权，但没有所有权；(ii) 全资拥有另一家有限责任公司的成员权益，而该有限责任公司为其儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）拥有的另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 一套公寓的全部合作股份；以及 (iii) 有权使用由 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited（以下简称“HK”，一家由其女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）拥有的有限责任公司）所拥有的 Lady May。ECF No. 77 第 4-5 页。\n\nUST 要求指定审查人或第 11 章受托人的动议\n\n2022年3月18日，在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 提交了一份关于指示指定一名审查人的命令动议，或备选请求指示指定一名第 11 章受托人的命令动议（以下简称“UST 要求指定审查人或第 11 章受托人的动议”，ECF No. 102）。UST 主张，指定一名审查人或受托人符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益，因为作为流亡自中国本土的公众人物和自称亿万富翁的债务人，声称自己没有固定收入且几乎没有任何资产，但似乎拥有获取巨额资金的途径，包括能够为其在本案中的律师支付 $1,000,000.00 的聘请费。UST 指出其所关切的问题在于“债务人似乎人为制造‘贫困’以使自己免受债权人追索的怪异组合现象”，以及债务人提出本案申请旨在“从被拖欠数百万美元的债权人处获取保护”。ECF No. 102 第 2 页。此外，UST 称其关切得到了以下事实的证实：(i) “债务人对其资产负债表和财务状况说明书予以淡化边缘化，以至于毫无意义”；(ii) 债务人“根据‘整体附注’中自私自利的、反受托责任的措辞，公然拒绝对破产文件中的任何信息承担任何责任或义务”；以及 (iii) “债务人无法和/或不愿认识并接受其提供充分、完整和准确信息的义务，无法履行其对破产财产及其债权人的受托义务，亦无法履行其作为占有中债务人（debtor in possession）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 提交要求指定审查人或第 11 章受托人的动议三天后，UST 在本案中提交了《指定债权人委员会通知》（ECF No. 108）。Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）（以下简称“委员会”）的成员属于债务人的最大无担保债权人，并已表示愿意在委员会中任职，他们包括以下债权人：(i) Rui Ma（马蕊），(ii) Ning Ye（叶宁），以及 (iii) Samuel Dan Nunberg。\n\nDIP 融资动议\n\n2022年3月22日，即委员会指定一天后，债务人提交了一份关于作出债务人占有期融资（DIP融资）临时和最终命令的动议（以下简称“DIP 动议”，ECF No. 117）。在 DIP 动议中，债务人寻求批准向破产财产提供金额为 $8,000,000.00 的无担保贷款，该贷款次于以下债权人的求偿权：\n\n债务人的申请前债权人，没有任何行政管理或优先受偿权。该贷款将可用于支付破产财产的专业人员费用，并且当且仅当债务人债权人的所有获准债权均已全额支付或根据重整计划的条款以其他方式获得清偿时，方予偿还。拟议的贷款人 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（「DIP 贷款人」）是由债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）拥有并控制的实体。\n\nDIP 动议主张，债务人提起其第 11 章案件旨在：(a) 建立一个统一的法庭，以有序处理针对其提出的各项竞合债权；(b) 为利害关系人提供高效调查其资产、负债和财务状况的机会；(c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财产，进而可用于分配给获准债权的持有人；以及 (d) 与其债权人就根据第 11 章计划公平合理地解决债权和分配资产达成共识。DIP 动议，ECF No. 117 第 5 页。\n\nPAX 的驳回动议与参加诉讼\n\n2022年4月6日，即 UST 申请指定审查人或第 11 章受托人的动议及 DIP 动议提交约三周后，PAX 提交了驳回动议，或在备选情况下，部分参加 UST 申请指定第 11 章受托人的动议（「驳回或参加动议」，ECF No. 183）。为支持驳回或参加动议，PAX 辩称，债务人提起本案是债务人「拖延、欺骗和诈骗其债权人，并继续逃避正当法院命令的最新且最强硬的策略」，且债务人的「运作方式（modus operandi）是通过家庭成员和空壳公司放置、隐匿和藏匿其资产，以保护其财产并避免向 PAX 偿还债务」。ECF No. 183 第 7 页。PAX 辩称，债务人「将其资产藏匿在错综复杂的法人实体网络中以及家庭成员处」。同上，第 7-8 页。\n\n在提交驳回或参加动议的同时，PAX 提交了就驳回或参加动议排定进展状态日程的动议。法院部分支持了 PAX 的动议，并排定于 2022年4月13日举行关于驳回或参加动议的进展状态会议，该日期也是审理该案其他若干事项的听证会日期，包括关于自动中止动议的续行听证会，以及关于指定审查人或第 11 章受托人动议和 DIP 动议的首次听证会。\n\n债务人的第 11 章重整计划\n\n2022年4月10日，债务人提交了拟议的第 11 章重整计划（「该计划」，ECF No. 197）。除其他事项外，该计划规定设立一个以所有拥有获准债权的债权人为受益人的「债权人信托」。ECF No. 197 第 20-24 页。该计划进一步规定，Lady May（五月夫人号）的所有权将转让给该债权人信托，以使所有拥有获准债权的债权人受益。ECF No. 197 第 21 页。\n\nHK 关于自动中止动议的陈述书\n\n2022年4月11日，即债务人提交该计划的次日，HK（如上所述，系由债务人的女儿拥有的有限责任公司）提交了一份关于自动中止动议的陈述书（「陈述书」，ECF No. 203）。在陈述书中，HK 主张其为 Lady May 的注册代理人，并且其同意法院签署一份拟议命令，责令其在特定条件下将 Lady May 运送并交付至 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的可通航水域。HK 进一步主张，其已将该拟议命令的副本提供给 PAX、债务人、UST 及委员会的法律顾问以征求各自的意见，且签署责令 HK 将 Lady May 送回康涅狄格州的拟议命令将使自动中止动议「失去实际意义（moot）」。陈述书第 2 页。\n\n2022年4月13日听证会\n\n若干事项排定于 2022年4月13日进行审理，包括关于自动中止动议的续行听证会，以及关于 DIP 动议和 UST 指定审查人或第 11 章受托人动议的首次听证会。在漫长的听证会结束时，法院再次推迟了关于 PAX 自动中止动议的听证会，推迟了关于 UST 指定审查人或第 11 章受托人动议的听证会，并排定于 2022年4月27日就 DIP 动议和债务人聘请财务顾问的申请举行证据开示听证会。\n\n2022年4月27日证据开示听证会、自动中止动议的解决，以及关于驳回或参加动议证据开示听证会的排期\n\n债务人、PAX、UST、委员会、债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）和 Zheng Wu（吴征）、Golden Spring 以及 HK 出席了4月27日的证据开示听证会。听证会开始时，债务人的法律顾问向法院报告，各方当事人已就自动中止动议达成解决方案。该解决方案的主要条款为：由 HK 提供 $37,000,000.00 美元并存入第三方托管账户，直至 Lady May 返回康涅狄格州的可通航水域。各方当事人一致同意，自动中止动议已达成解决方案，但须经审查和修改拟提交给法院的约定命令。随后，HK 的法律顾问获准离开听证会，以继续修改约定命令的草案。法院在记录中，并最终在案卷记录中载明，在各方于 2022年5月2日或之前向法院提交商定命令的前提下，自动中止动议已由各方当事人通过协议解决。\n\n各方还就债务人聘请财务顾问的动议以及 DIP 动议提出了证词、证据和辩论意见。在证据开示听证会结束时，法院对债务人聘请财务顾问的动议作出了留待斟酌决定，并\n\n将关于 DIP 动议的听证会延期至 2022年5月4日。此外，关于驳回或参加动议的证据开示听证会的排期命令条款已由各方当事人在记录中达成一致。2022年4月28日，法院签署了《关于驳回动议的排期命令》，排定证据开示听证会于 2022年5月24日举行。\n\n关于 Lady May 的约定命令\n\n2022年4月29日，法院签署了《责令 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 运送并交付特定游艇“Lady May”的约定命令》，该命令由 HK、PAX、债务人、委员会以及债权人马蕊和吴征共同签署（「约定命令」，ECF No. 299）。除其他事项外，约定命令规定：(i) HK 已将 $37,000,000.00 美元存入第三方托管；(ii) HK 将在 2022年7月15日或之前将 Lady May 交付至康涅狄格州的可通航水域；以及 (iii) Lady May 的船长和声称的游艇管理公司应提交一份声明，确认各自均受本法院管辖并受约定命令条款的约束，包括在获得本法院进一步命令之前，禁止他们将 Lady May 移出康涅狄格州的可通航水域。\n\n续行的 DIP 动议听证会、同意驳回，以及撤回 DIP 动议\n\n2022年5月3日，债务人就 DIP 动议提交了一份修正后的拟议命令。修正后的拟议命令包含一张图表，指明了 DIP 资金的支出时间和金额。修正后的拟议命令规定按周支付专业人员费用，包括债务人律师和委员会律师的费用。\n\n2022年5月4日，举行了关于 DIP 动议的续行听证会。债务人和委员会辩称应批准 DIP 动议并签署修正后的拟议命令。PAX 和 UST 重申了各自对 DIP 动议的异议。随后，法院就声称需要在 2022年5月底前支付数百万美元专业人员费用的问题提出了若干疑问。在听证会结束时，法院表示将就 DIP 动议作出裁定，以确定截至 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《同意驳回案件的通知》（「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他带来了巨大开销，且他无法获取资金来支付这些费用，因此他同意驳回其案件。同样在 2022年5月11日，当 DIP 动议正在审阅斟酌中且法院正准备对该动议作出裁定时，债务人提交了《撤回 DIP 动议》。\n\n关于驳回或参加动议的证据开示听证会\n\n2022年5月24日，举行了关于 PAX 驳回或参加动议的证据开示听证会。听证会开始时，所有当事方均承认同意驳回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、或指定第 11 章受托人的正当理由（cause）。PAX 和债务人主张应驳回债务人的案件。委员会和某些债权人主张案件转换最为适当，但在不转换的情况下，应指定第 11 章受托人。UST 并未明确支持这三种备选方案中的任何一种，但敦促法院尽快对此事作出裁决。\n\nIV. 分析\n\n《破产法典》第 1112(b) 条规定：\n\n经利害关系人请求，并在发出通知和举行听证会后，法院应将本章项下的案件转换为第 7 章项下的案件，或驳回本章项下的案件，以符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益为准，基于正当理由，除非法院认定根据第 1104(a) 条指定受托人或审查人符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益。\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在关于驳回或参加动议的证据开示听证会期间，所有当事方均约定同意，存在驳回案件、将案件转换为第 7 章或指定第 11 章受托人的正当理由。债务人主张，根据第 1112(b)(4)(A) 条存在驳回其案件的正当理由，因为破产财产遭受了重大或持续的损失或减少，且不存在重整恢复的合理可能性。PAX 辩称，根据第 1112(b) 条存在驳回案件的正当理由，原因有多种，包括债务人提起本案据称具有恶意，以及债务人对破产财产存在重大管理不善。由于各方当事人已约定同意第 1112(b) 条项下的正当理由存在，法院无需确定具体的「正当理由」。法院唯一需要决定的问题是：驳回、案件转换或指定第 11 章受托人，何者符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n通过权衡检验，法院必须根据案件记录确定三种替代方案——驳回、转为其他程序还是指定第11章受托人——中哪一种最符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益。In re Products Intern. Co., 395 B.R. at 108。在确定哪种选择最符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益时，法院应当评估债权人债权的追收和受偿前景等因素。In re Corona Care Convalescent Corp., 527 B.R. 379, 384 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2015)（加利福尼亚中区破产法院2015年）。“在考虑指定受托人还是将案件转为第7章程序时，‘区分因素……在于第11章中受托人利用独立判断和良好管理指导破产财产事务（包括持续运营，如有）以优化债权人和破产财产追偿的更大可能性。’”In re NOA, LLC, 578 B.R. 534, 541 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2017)（弗吉尼亚东区破产法院2017年）。\n\n在本案中指定第11章受托人是合理的，因为案卷记录显示了追收和清偿债权人债权的前景。在本案审理期间，债务人已证明其能够获得数百万美元的资金，包括作为DIP（债务人自行管领）动议标的的$8,000,000.00。债务人还在本案初期提出了一项第11章计划，除其他事项外，该计划规定将Lady May（梅号游艇）的所有权转让给一个为所有债权人利益设立的债权人信托。此外，在案件审理的四个月中，存在分歧的各方就解决自动中止动议的一项约定进行了深入谈判。约定裁定导致$37,000,000.00被存入托管账户，以换取将Lady May交付至Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的可航行水域，债务人此前曾对此表示反对，以至于在New York（纽约州）法院的诉讼中被处以藐视法庭制裁。履行约定裁定中最重要的义务——将Lady May交付至康涅狄格州的可航行水域——尚未到期。然而，约定裁定的其他条款已得到及时遵守。HK已提交进展报告，表明已对Lady May进行了维修，且Lady May可能会在2022年7月15日约定裁定的交付日期之前抵达康涅狄格州的可航行水域。驳回债务人的案件，或将债务人的案件转为第7章程序，将抹杀就Lady May取得的重大进展。第11章受托人可以充当独立方，以确保继续遵守约定裁定，并可协助制定具有合理确认可能性的第11章计划。指定第11章受托人还将坚持执行和解协议的政策，避免争相诉诸法院，并为债权人提供符合Bankruptcy Code（《破产法典》）清偿优先顺序方案的按比例受偿机会。参见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争相诉诸法院）。\n\n在多份诉状中，债务人声明其提起本案是为了建立一个单一的审理平台，以有序解决针对其提出的相互冲突的索赔，并为利益相关方提供有效调查其资产、负债和财务事务的机会。驳回债务人的案件将破坏债务人提起本案的陈述理由。同样，将本案转为第7章程序将无法有序清算针对债务人提出的相互竞争的索赔。指定第11章受托人是解决针对债务人提出的相互冲突的债权人索赔（包括待定和未清算的人身伤害侵权索赔）的最有效和有力的方法。指定第11章受托人还将使对债务人的资产、负债和财务事务进行有效调查成为可能。因此，在权衡是驳回、转换还是指定第11章受托人时，记录支持以下结论：在本案中指定第11章受托人符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n在根据第1112(b)条面临类似选择时，破产法院指定了第11章受托人，而不是驳回或转换案件。例如，Sillerman案涉及一名作为连环创业者的个人债务人。该债务人在其财产目录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了多家企业，并提出了一项第11章计划，一旦债务人能够获得融资投资于某些关联实体，该计划即可获得资金支持。Sillerman, 605 B.R. at 636。Sillerman案的债权人首先提出指定审查员的动议，因为他们主张“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，并且债务人“利用涉及复杂公司结构的多层交易”使其资产难以查找。同上，第636-37页。此后在案件中指定的Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）则动议指定第11章受托人，或者在备位上请求作出将案件转为第7章案件的裁定。鉴于债务人案件的整体情况，Sillerman法院认定，指定第11章受托人而不是转换案件符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益。同上，第657页。\n\n与Sillerman案中的债权人一样，PAX、委员会和其他债权人主张，债务人及其家族在众多有限责任公司中拥有权益，这可能会掩盖债务人资产的真实性质和价值。他们还主张，债务人从事了涉及Golden Spring、Genever Holdings、Lamp Funding和HK等复杂公司结构的多层交易，导致难以识别和定位债务人的资产。PAX引用了New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的裁定，即债务人“将其资产隐匿在公司实体迷宫中以及家族成员处”，并且数千项案卷记录“涉及被告Kwok（郭）通过将巨额个人资产存放于一系列公司、受信赖的亲信和家族成员处，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为”。ECF No. 183 at p. 7-8。在与驳回或转换程序进行权衡时，本案中债务人财务事务的复杂性以及缺乏独立的管理监督，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产的利益调查、识别和定位债务人的资产。\n\n在债务人违反约定裁定的情况下，破产法院也曾指定第11章受托人，而不是驳回或转换案件。在NOA案中，债务人故意违反了债务人与债权人之间的约定裁定，该裁定明确限制债务人在收到全部货款之前将大宗服装运出美国。578 B.R. at 537-40。法院指定了第11章受托人，因为“在第11章中，受托人利用独立判断和良好管理指导破产财产事务（包括持续运营，如有）以优化债权人和破产财产追偿的更大可能性”。同上，第541页。正如NOA案中的情况一样，本案各方通过谈判达成了约定裁定。如上所述，将Lady May交付至康涅狄格州可航行水域的履行期尚未届满。指定第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裁定，并为债权人和破产财产优化资产追偿。\n\nCorona Care是破产法院在债务人违反对约定条款时行使裁量权指定第11章受托人而非驳回或转换案件的另一个案例。Corona Care, 527 B.R. at 387。在Corona Care案中，债务人与无担保债权人官方委员会及其他利害关系方达成了一项约定，驳回了对部分盈利能力较强的养老院设施的联合管辖案件，以便让其余债务人有更多时间确认重组计划。527 B.R. at 380。随后，债务人违反了约定协议的条款。同上，第385页。在评估向债权人追收和清偿债权的前景时，Corona Care法院认定，出售债务人的业务为债权人获得清偿提供了一定前景，因为资产将被变现用于偿还其债权，这反映了在约定中达成的交易。同上，第384-85页。同样，将Lady May交付至康涅狄格州的可航行水域将带来追收和清偿债权人债权的前景，其中可能包括将Lady May质押给第11章计划，以及/或者认定Lady May属于债务人破产财产。\n\nTP, Inc.是另一起指定第11章受托人而非驳回或转换债务人案件的破产案例。455 B.R. at 459。在TP, Inc.案中，Bank of America（美国银行）在州法院对TP, Inc.、其负责人及其负责人的妻子提起了止赎程序，并获得了针对作为本票担保人的负责人及负责人妻子的判决。同上，第456页。在案件审理期间，债务人的负责人在未经法院批准的情况下出租了美国银行的担保物，并收取了属于该担保物的租金。同上。TP, Inc.法院裁定，债务人滥用作为美国银行担保物的多处不动产，以及滥用从该担保物中获得的现金担保租金，证明有必要指定第11章受托人。同上，第459页。法院指出，其对未来可能发生欺诈、无能、不诚实或严重管理不善的担忧，是其认定指定第11章受托人（而非驳回或转换）最符合债权人和破产财产最佳利益的原因，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。同上。在本案中，州法院同样基于本票违约对债务人作出了判决，并因其违反限制债务人等人将Lady May移出纽约州可航行水域的州法院命令而作出了藐视法庭裁定。与TP, Inc.案的裁定相似，在本案中指定第11章受托人将解决对债务人未来任何不当行为的担忧，同时引入独立判断和良好管理以指导破产财产事务并优化所有债权人的追偿。\n\nV. 结论\n\n鉴于各方当事人约定，根据 1112(b) 条之规定，存在驳回本案、将本案转换为第 7 章（Chapter 7）项下案件或指定一名第 11 章受托人（Chapter 11 trustee）的事由，本法院已评估（除其他事项外）清偿及支付所有债权人债权的前景。本法院认定，指定一名第 11 章受托人符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益，因为第 11 章受托人能够：(i) 运用独立判断和良好管理来指导破产财产事务，以试图清偿债权人的债权；(ii) 确定该债务人（Debtor）是否存在合理的重组复兴可能性，包括能否提出并确认一份重组计划（Plan of Reorganization）；以及 (iii) 通过允许第 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《约定裁定》（Stipulated Order）的各项规定等方式，使债权人和破产财产的受偿最大化。\n\n据此，特此：\n\n裁定：根据 11 U.S.C. §§ 1112(b)，就驳回动议（Motion to Dismiss）或参加诉讼申请（Joinder）目前请求驳回债务人案件而言，予以无偏见驳回；就应在债务人案件中指定一名第 11 章受托人而言，予以批准；且进一步\n\n裁定：第 11 章受托人应履行 11 U.S.C. § 1106 中规定的所有职责；且进一步\n\n裁定：在指定第 11 章受托人后十四（14）日内，应安排一次案件进展听证会（Status Conference），以讨论（除其他事项外）第 11 章受托人根据 11 U.S.C. §§ 1106(a)(4) 及 (a)(5) 提交陈述书的进展情况、《约定裁定》的遵守情况、第 11 章受托人提议的破产财产管理方案，以及债务人案件的持续管理。\n\n日期：2022年6月15日，于 Bridgeport, Connecticut（康涅狄格州布里奇波特）。","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5914,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:44:29"}