--- type: court_doc id: "court_ctb_418_0" court: "CTB" case_no: "22-50073" doc_number: 418 doc_type: "ORDER" filed_date: "2022-03-19" lang: "zh" machine_translated: true url: "https://mubeitech.com/court/court_ctb_418_0" original_text_url: "https://mubeitech.com/en/court/court_ctb_418_0" json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_ctb_418_0" --- # 郭文贵破产案 · 裁定 · ECF #418 > **中文为机器翻译，仅供查阅，以英文原文为准：https://mubeitech.com/en/court/court_ctb_418_0** 案号、ECF 编号、金额与日期均保留原文。 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院） : In re: : 关于： : HO WAN KWOK,1 : CHAPTER 11 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），1 : 第 11 章 Debtor. : 债务人。 : : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) : 案号：22-50073 (JAM) : Hearing Date: May 25, 2022 : 听证日期：2022 年 5 月 25 日 SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF CREDITORS RUI MA, ZHENG WU AND WEICAN MENG IN SUPPORT OF CONVERSION OF CASE 债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）、Zheng Wu（吴征）和 Weican Meng（孟维参）支持转换案件程序的补充陈述书 Creditors Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and Weican Meng ("Creditors"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Supplemental Statement in Support of Conversion of Case ("Supplemental Statement"),2 and respectfully state as follows: 债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）、Zheng Wu（吴征）和 Weican Meng（孟维参）（以下简称“各债权人”）通过其在下文签字的律师，特此提交本份《支持转换案件程序的补充陈述书》（以下简称“《补充陈述书》”），2 并恭敬陈述如下： PRELIMINARY STATEMENT3 初步陈述3 1. The Creditors join in and adopt by reference the supplemental memorandum of law of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the "Committee") addressing the alternatives of dismissal, conversion or the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee [ECF No. 408], filed contemporaneously with this Supplemental Statement to the extent not inconsistent herewith. 1. 在与本《补充陈述书》不相抵触的范围内，各债权人加入并援引 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）（以下简称“委员会”）针对驳回、转换或指定第 11 章受托人等备选方案的法律补充备忘录 [ECF No. 408]，该备忘录与本《补充陈述书》同时提交。 2. The Creditors' Initial Objection to PAX Dismissal Motion was premised on the then-existing proposed DIP financing by a Debtor's insider entity Golden Springs (New York) 2. 各债权人对 PAX 驳回动议的初步异议，是以当时拟议由债务人的内部人实体 Golden Springs (New York) 1 The above-named Debtor and Debtor in Possession, Ho Wan Kwok (the "Debtor" or "Kwok") is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok. 1 上述具名债务人兼占有债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（债务人或“郭”）以以下姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。 2 This briefing supplements the Creditors' (i) Objection ("Creditors' Initial Objection to PAX Dismissal Motion") [ECF NO. 347] to the motion of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. ("PAX") for dismissal of this case or, in the alternative, for appointment of a trustee (the "PAX Dismissal Motion") [ECF No. 183], and (ii) Limited Objection [ECF No. 170] to United States Trustee's ("UST") Motion For An Order Directing The Appointment Of An Examiner Or, In The Alternative, Motion For Order Directing The Appointment Of A Chapter 11 Trustee filed March 19, 2022 ("Examiner/Trustee Motion") [ECF No. 102]. On May 18, 2022, PAX filed an omnibus reply in support of PAX Dismissal Motion ("PAX Reply"). [ECF No. 392]. 2 本份书面意见补充了各债权人的以下文件：(i) 对 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）（以下简称“PAX”）请求驳回本案或在备选方案下请求指定受托人的动议（以下简称“PAX 驳回动议”）[ECF No. 183] 所提出的异议（以下简称“各债权人对 PAX 驳回动议的初步异议”）[ECF NO. 347]，以及 (ii) 对 United States Trustee（美国联邦破产受托人）（以下简称“UST”）于 2022 年 3 月 19 日提交的《请求下达命令指令指定调查员或在备选方案下请求下达命令指令指定第 11 章受托人的动议》（以下简称“调查员/受托人动议”）[ECF No. 102] 所提出的有限异议 [ECF No. 170]。2022 年 5 月 18 日，PAX 提交了支持 PAX 驳回动议的综合答辩书（以下简称“PAX 答辩书”）。[ECF No. 392]。 3 Capitalized terms used but not defined in this preliminary statement have the meaning ascribed to such terms below or in the Creditors' Initial Objection to PAX Dismissal Motion. 3 本初步陈述中使用但未予定义的首字母大写术语，具有下文或各债权人对 PAX 驳回动议的初步异议中所赋予该等术语的含义。 Ltd. ("GSNY"), the Debtor's (and his counsel's) representations that funding would be provided for creditors to be able to investigate the Debtor's assets and financial affairs, and an agreement for the Lady May to be returned to the U.S. jurisdiction by July 15, 2022 (with $37 million being held in escrow subject to the return of the yacht). The Creditors' position in the Initial Objection to PAX Dismissal Motion was simply that even though the Debtor filed chapter 11 to protect himself from incarceration, there were legitimate bankruptcy purposes of the Case and, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the Court should allow additional time to see whether the Debtor does the right thing through this Case (as he and his counsel assured the Court he would), such as providing proper funding, or shows his true colors and continues with his prior egregious conduct of fraud, deception and abuse of process.4 Well, it did not take long for the Debtor to confirm his true colors. The Debtor filed his "Consent to Dismissal of Case" and response to the Dismissal Motion [ECF No. 344] and caused the funding of the proposed DIP to be withdrawn.5 The Debtor then based his consent to dismissal on lack of funds due to GSNY's withdrawal of its funding commitment.6 His Consent to Dismissal of Case also noted: Ltd.（源泉（纽约）有限公司）（以下简称“GSNY”）提供 DIP（占有债务人）融资、债务人（及其律师）陈述将提供资金使债权人能够调查债务人的资产和财务状况、以及达成一项协议使 Lady May（梅女士号）游艇在 2022 年 7 月 15 日之前返回美国管辖区（其中 3700 万美元被置于第三方代管，视该游艇的返回情况而定）为前提的。各债权人在对 PAX 驳回动议的初步异议中的立场仅仅是：尽管债务人申请第 11 章破产是为了保护自己免受监禁，但本案存在合法的破产目的，且鉴于案情的总体情况，法院应当给予更多时间，以观察债务人是否会通过本案做出正确的行为（正如他及其律师向法院保证的那样），例如提供适当的资金支持，还是暴露出其真实面目并继续其先前欺诈、欺骗和滥用诉讼程序的恶劣行径。4 然而，债务人没过多久就证实了自己的真实面目。债务人提交了其《对驳回案件的同意书》及对驳回动议的答复 [ECF No. 344]，并促使拟议的 DIP 融资被撤回。5 随后，债务人以因 GSNY 撤回其出资承诺而缺乏资金为由，同意驳回案件。6 其《对驳回案件的同意书》还指出： The Lady May is returning to the United States largely due to the engagement by the Court to help resolve PAX's lift-stay motion and remedy the circumstances that led to the New York Court's findings of contempt. The Court also provided Mr. Kwok the opportunity to testify in support of his chapter 11 case and tell his side of the story in open court for the first time since PAX initiated suit against him nearly five years ago. “Lady May 号返回美国，主要归功于法院的介入，以协助解决 PAX 请求解除自动中止的动议，并补救导致纽约州法院认定藐视法庭的情形。法院还为郭先生提供了作证支持其第 11 章案件的机会，使他自近五年前 PAX 对其提起诉讼以来，首次得以在公开法庭上陈述自己的一方说法。” 4 See Creditors' Initial Objection to PAX Motion to Dismiss, ¶ 34 and fn. 8. 4 参见《各债权人对 PAX 驳回动议的初步异议》，第 34 段及脚注 8。 5 Prior to the Consent to Dismissal, the Debtor agreed to the Court's directing the UST to appoint an examiner in this case. [ECF No. 116]. Based on the facts and circumstances already presented to the Court, an inference can be made that if the Debtor wanted the DIP funding then GSNY would provide such funding. In addition to the $9 million in potential DIP financing, the Debtor was able to obtain funding for $1 million retainer for his counsel, and $37 million to be put in escrow regarding the Lady May. In addition, the New York State Court observed that it was "quite undisputed that [GSNY] has funded seven-figure payments to facilitate Mr. Kwok's lifestyle [despite] purport[ing] to have zero assets whatsoever." PAX Dismissal Motion at p.16. 5 在同意驳回之前，债务人同意法院指令 UST 在本案中指定一名调查员。[ECF No. 116]。根据已向法院呈现的事实和情况，可以合理推断，如果债务人希望获得 DIP 融资，GSNY 就会提供该等资金。除了 900 万美元的潜在 DIP 融资外，债务人还能够为其律师筹集 100 万美元的聘用费预付款，以及就 Lady May 号置于代管的 3700 万美元。此外，纽约州法院指出，“[GSNY] 支付了七位数的款项以便利郭先生的生活方式，[尽管] 其声称完全没有任何资产，这一点是毫无争议的。”见 PAX 驳回动议第 16 页。 6 See Consent to Dismissal of Case, ¶ 6. The Debtor included as a reason for his consent that PAX has been overly litigious and "the Court has indicated that it does not intend to approve the committed financing." See Consent to Dismissal, ¶¶ 5, 6. However, while the Court may have previewed its thoughts, it did not rule yet. Neither of these facts are surprising for this type of case. This excuse by the Debtor simply demonstrates the Debtor's dissatisfaction with not being able to bulldoze its way through this Case and unwillingness to abide by the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code. 6 参见《对驳回案件的同意书》，第 6 段。债务人将其表示同意的理由列为：PAX 过度滥诉，且“法院已表明无意批准已承诺的融资”。参见《对驳回案件的同意书》，第 5、6 段。然而，尽管法院可能预先表达了其想法，但尚未作出裁定。对于此类案件而言，这两项事实均不足为奇。债务人的这一借口仅仅表明了债务人对其无法在本案中强行推进的不满，以及不愿遵守《破产法典》规定的态度。 Consent to Dismissal of Case, ¶ 7. 《对驳回案件的同意书》，第 7 段。 3. Clearly, now that the Debtor obtained certain benefits of bankruptcy that he desired (i.e., a breathing spell to deal with the Lady May issue while avoiding (or delaying) incarceration), the Debtor seeks to support dismissal to avoid the burdens on a debtor in chapter 11, to the detriment of his creditors. The Court should not reward the Debtor's gamesmanship by allowing dismissal of the Case. 3. 显然，既然债务人已经获得了他所渴望的某些破产利益（即处理 Lady May 号问题的喘息之机，同时避免（或推迟）被监禁），债务人便企图支持驳回案件以逃避第 11 章中债务人所承担的负担，从而损害其债权人的利益。法院不应通过准许驳回本案来纵容债务人的投机取巧。 4. Based on the change of circumstances caused by the Debtor's recent actions, the Creditors now agree that the requisite "cause" exists to convert or dismiss the Case, or to appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee. There is no doubt, a fiduciary needs to be appointed. The Debtor's potential funding has now been withdrawn and he is unable or unwilling to respect and perform the fiduciary duties necessary to administer his estate. And there is ample basis to expect that if the PAX Dismissal Motion is granted, the Debtor will continue with his efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by secreting his assets and "parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members", as found by Judge Ostrager in the February 9 Contempt Order. 4. 基于债务人近期行为导致的情况变化，各债权人现一致认为，存在转换或驳回本案、或指定第 11 章受托人所必需的“法定事由”。毫无疑问，必须指定一名受信人。债务人的潜在资金现已被撤回，且其无法或不愿尊重并履行管理其破产财产所必需的受信义务。并且有充分根据可以预料，如果准许 PAX 驳回动议，债务人将继续通过隐匿其资产并如 Ostrager 法官在 2 月 9 日的藐视法庭裁定中所认定的那样“将其巨额个人资产放置于一系列公司、心腹亲信和家庭成员名下”，来逃避并欺骗其债权人。 5. Further, while PAX continues to try to minimize the relevance of other unsecured creditors impacted by the Debtor's actions and this case, PAX is not the only creditor that has spent years in litigation with the Debtor (and aggrieved by his shenanigans) at great expense.7 Also, the New York Court already determined the Debtor has an interest in certain valuable assets. Dismissal of the Case, therefore, would allow PAX to "race to the courthouse" and seize the Debtor's assets to the detriment of other legitimate creditors. The Bankruptcy Court provides a 5. 此外，尽管 PAX 继续试图淡化受债务人行为及本案影响的其他无担保债权人的关联性，但 PAX 并不是唯一付出巨大代价与债务人进行了数年诉讼（并受其诡计所害）的债权人。7 而且，纽约州法院已经判定债务人对某些有价值的资产享有权益。因此，驳回本案将使 PAX 能够“抢先诉诸法院”并扣押债务人的资产，从而损害其他合法债权人的利益。破产法院提供了一个 7 Creditors, Ms. Ma and Mr. Meng each commenced their actions against the Debtor in 2017, and filed Notes of Issue, placing their litigations on the trial calendar. Their litigations have been stayed by the filing of this Case. Mr. Wu commenced his action against the Debtor in 2018, and that proceeding has been subject to ongoing mandatory mediation, which has been stayed by the filing of this Case. The Debtor has replaced counsel several times delaying the proceedings. See filed Claim Nos. 1-3 and attachments thereto. 7 各债权人中，Ma（马）女士和 Meng（孟）先生各自于 2017 年对债务人提起诉讼，并提交了审理通知书（Notes of Issue），将其诉讼列入审理日程表。他们的诉讼已因本案的申请而中止。Wu（吴）先生于 2018 年对债务人提起诉讼，该诉讼程序一直在进行强制调解，现已因本案的申请而中止。债务人多次更换律师以拖延诉讼程序。参见已提交的第 1-3 号债权申报及其附件。 unique central forum to marshal the Debtor's assets and pursue equality of distribution among creditors in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme. The Creditors are in the process of seeking to obtain interim funding to provide a chapter 7 trustee (until longer term contingency-based funding can be obtained). The interests of creditors and the estate are best served by an independent trustee who can devote attention to the bankruptcy case and who have the legal tools and authority to conduct a proper investigation into the financial affairs of the Debtor, and ensure the proper administration of the Debtor's bankruptcy estate, preserving its assets for the benefit of all creditors. Accordingly, this Case should be converted, not dismissed. 独特的集中管辖论坛，以根据《破产法典》的优先受偿序列对债务人的资产进行归集并在债权人之间实现平等分配。各债权人目前正在设法获取临时资金以提供给第 7 章受托人（直至能够获取基于风险代理的长期资金）。由一位能够专注于破产案件、并拥有法定手段和权力对债务人的财务事务进行正当调查、且能确保债务人破产财产得到正当管理以维护全体债权人利益而保全其资产的独立受托人来履职，最符合债权人和破产财产的利益。因此，本案应当转换程序，而非予以驳回。 ARGUMENT 论证 I. CONVERSION IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND THE ESTATE. I. 转换程序符合债权人和破产财产的最大利益。 6. As set forth on the record of the Status Conference held May 17, 2022, the parties have agreed that "cause" exists to convert or dismiss the Case, or to appoint a chapter 11 trustee. Therefore, in considering the PAX Dismissal Motion8 and UST's Examiner/Trustee Motion, the issue before the Court is which alternative relief is in the best interest of the creditors and the estate -- conversion, dismissal, or appointment of a chapter 11 trustee. Here, the interests of creditors and the estate are best served by conversion. 6. 正如 2022 年 5 月 17 日举行的案件进展会议记录所述，各方当事人已一致同意存在转换或驳回本案、或指定第 11 章受托人的“法定事由”。因此，在审议 PAX 驳回动议8 和 UST 的调查员/受托人动议时，法院面临的问题是哪种备选救济措施最符合债权人和破产财产的利益——转换程序、驳回案件、还是指定第 11 章受托人。在此，转换程序最符合债权人和破产财产的利益。 7. First, in light of the fact that currently there is (a) no funding for a chapter 11 trustee and (b) PAX has stated a clear intention of obstructing any plan confirmation process (Dismissal Motion, ¶ 61), appointment of a chapter 11 trustee is not a genuine viable option at this juncture. Regardless, without the cooperation of the parties, administration of the estate in a chapter 11 through a chapter 11 trustee will be unnecessarily more expensive than a liquidation in chapter 7. 7. 首先，鉴于目前 (a) 没有用于第 11 章受托人的资金，且 (b) PAX 已明确表示有意阻挠任何重整计划确认程序（见驳回动议，第 61 段），在当前关头指定第 11 章受托人并非切实可行的选择。无论如何，在没有各方当事人配合的情况下，在第 11 章程序中通过第 11 章受托人来管理破产财产，将比在第 7 章中进行清算徒增不必要的费用。 8 A motion that seeks only dismissal is not a bar to conversion if the Court determines that conversion is in the best interest of the creditors and the estate. See In re Sullivan, 522 B.R. 604, 613 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2014) (bankruptcy court erred in not considering conversion in connection with motion to dismiss). 8 如果法院认定转换程序符合债权人和破产财产的最大利益，则仅请求驳回的动议并不构成转换程序的障碍。参见 In re Sullivan, 522 B.R. 604, 613 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2014)（破产法院在审理驳回动议时未考虑转换程序属于错误）。 Accordingly, absent a further agreement among the parties, the Court is really deciding between dismissal or conversion. 因此，在各方当事人未达成进一步协议的情况下，法院实质上是在驳回还是转换程序之间作出抉择。 8. Second, dismissal of the Case at this juncture would solely benefit the Debtor and one creditor, PAX, and is not in the best interest of creditors or the estate. Courts consider several factors when determining whether dismissal or conversion is in the best interest of the creditors and the estate: 8. 其次，在当前关头驳回本案将仅使债务人和 PAX 这一名债权人获益，并不符合债权人或破产财产的最大利益。法院在确定驳回还是转换程序符合债权人和破产财产的最大利益时，会考虑若干因素： - 1. Whether some creditors received preferential payments, and whether equality of distribution would be better served by conversion rather than dismissal. - 1. 是否有部分债权人获得了偏颇清偿，以及转换程序是否比驳回案件能更好地实现平等分配。 - 2. Whether there would be a loss of rights granted in the case if it were dismissed rather than converted. - 2. 如果案件被驳回而非转换程序，是否会导致本案中已赋予权利的丧失。 - 3. Whether the debtor would simply file a further case upon dismissal. - 3. 债务人在案件被驳回后是否会仅仅再次提出破产申请。 - 4. The ability of the trustee in a chapter 7 case to reach assets for the benefit of creditors. - 4. 第 7 章案件中的受托人为了债权人的利益而触及和追索资产的能力。 - 5. In assessing the interest of the estate, whether conversion or dismissal of the estate would maximize the estate's value as an economic enterprise. - 5. 在评估破产财产的利益时，转换程序还是驳回案件能最大限度地提高破产财产作为经济实体的价值。 - 6. Whether any remaining issues would be better resolved outside the bankruptcy forum. - 6. 是否任何遗留问题在破产法庭之外能够得到更好的解决。 - 7. Whether the estate consists of a "single asset." - 7. 破产财产是否仅由“单一资产”构成。 - 8. Whether the debtor had engaged in misconduct and whether creditors are in need of a chapter 7 case to protect their interests. - 8. 债务人是否存在不当行为，以及债权人是否需要第 7 章案件来保护其利益。 - 9. Whether a plan has been confirmed and whether any property remains in the estate to be administered. - 9. 是否已有重整计划获得确认，以及破产财产中是否仍有任何财产尚待管理。 - 10. Whether the appointment of a trustee is desirable to supervise the estate and address possible environmental and safety concerns. - 10. 是否有必要指定受托人以监督破产财产并解决可能存在的环境和安全关切。 See In re BH S&B Holdings, LLC, 439 B.R. 342, 346 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010) (applying factors in determining conversion, not dismissal was warranted) (citing 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1112.04[7]. (16th ed.)); In re Just Plumbing & Heating Supply, Inc., 2011 WL 4962993 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011) (denying debtor's motion to dismiss because there were substantial assets that could be liquidated for benefit of all creditors); In re FRGR Managing Member LLC, 419 B.R. 576, 580-81 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) (same); In re Fleetstar LLC, 614 B.R. 767 (Bankr. E.D. PA 参见 In re BH S&B Holdings, LLC, 439 B.R. 342, 346 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)（适用上述因素以确定应予转换程序而非驳回）（援引 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1112.04[7]. (16th ed.)）；In re Just Plumbing & Heating Supply, Inc., 2011 WL 4962993 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011)（驳回债务人的驳回动议，因为存在可以为了全体债权人利益而进行清算的巨额资产）；In re FRGR Managing Member LLC, 419 B.R. 576, 580-81 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009)（同上）；In re Fleetstar LLC, 614 B.R. 767 (Bankr. E.D. PA 2020年（裁定转换程序而非驳回申请是合理的，除其他原因外，这可以使债务人的财务状况由一位无利害关系的专业人士进行审查）。 A. 部分债权人是否获得了优先清偿，以及相比驳回申请，转换程序是否能更好地服务于公平分配。 9. 该因素明显支持转换程序。PAX（以及其他债权人）可能在优先权期间获得了债务人财产的某些权益。在此情况下，并无证据表明 Kwok（郭文贵）能够 100% 清偿所有债权。9 相反，迄今为止查明的各种已知资产甚至无法满足 PAX 超过 2.5 亿美元的债权。10 因此，任何向 PAX（或其他人）转让财产的行为都可能构成优先清偿，破产财团的受托人应当对此进行评估。 10. 显然，相比驳回申请，转换程序能更好地服务于公平分配。PAX 是唯一在申请日前夕即将查封债务人资产的无担保债权人，而这将损害其他债权人的利益。参见 PAX 驳回动议第 32 页。此外，债务人迄今为止成功阻挠 PAX（及其他债权人）的情况表明，如果债务人受制于《破产法典》和本法院的权力，所有债权人的处境可能会更好。 11. 尽管 PAX 继续对其他非内部人无担保债权人的合法性或重要性提出异议（PAX 答复第 2-3 页；第 5 页脚注 5），但破产法院已指出： § 1112(b) 的明文规定仅指示本法院考虑“债权人和破产财团的最佳利益”。《破产法典》将“债权人”在相关部分定义为“在对债务人的救济命令作出之时或之前对债务人享有债权的实体”。11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A)。并且《破产法典》对“债权”作出了宽泛的定义，包括任何“付款请求权，无论该权利是否已形成判决书、是否已确定数额、未确定数额、固定、附条件、已到期、未到期、有争议、无争议、普通法上、衡平法上、有担保或无担保”。11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A)。非内部人无担保债权人的债权可能数额未定且存在争议，但它们 9 尽管 PAX 反复质疑债务人的公信力（例如 PAX 驳回动议第 68 段），但 PAX 同时（且不真诚地）继续依据郭文贵声明其打算在未来满足其合法债权人的主张这一事实来支持驳回申请。[PAX 答复第 2 段]。如果 PAX 真的相信债务人会自愿向所有合法债权人足额清偿，债权人们将会感到震惊。这是 PAX 希望驳回本案的一个原因——以便抢在其他债权人之前赶到法院。[PAX 答复第 11 段]。债务人尚未表现出满足其合法债权人主张的真正意愿——反而将继续拖延、阻碍并逃避向其他债权人付款。 10 Lady May（梅号游艇）、Sherry Netherlands（雪莉荷兰公寓）以及债务人位于康涅狄格州格林威治的住宅（登记在其妻子名下）加在一起，预计甚至无法覆盖 PAX 所主张债权的一半。 “仍然属于‘债权’，本法院在评估驳回申请或转换程序是否符合债权人和破产财团的最佳利益时必须予以考虑”。 In re Fleetstar LLC 案，614 B.R. 767，脚注 9（Bankr. E.D. LA. 2020）（强调为后加）。 12. 在本案中，如果案件被驳回且 PAX 查封债务人的关键资产以满足其超过 2.5 亿美元的债权（其中一半以上由惩罚性藐视法庭制裁构成，仅约 4600 万美元反映 PAX 的本金实际损失主张），无担保债权人将无法获得公平分配。 B. 如果案件被驳回而非转换程序，是否会导致案件中授予的权利丧失。 13. 《游艇交付命令》规定，在 Lady May 归还之前，3700 万美元将保留在托管账户中——并且 Lady May 预定于 2022 年 7 月 15 日前归还至美国司法管辖区。然而，如果本案被驳回，根据《游艇交付命令》，托管资金将被移交给纽约法院，用于与 PAX 的诉讼相关事宜——而没有其他债权人是该诉讼的当事人。该因素倾向于支持转换程序。 C. 债务人是否会在驳回申请后单纯再次提出破产申请。 14. 债务人不太可能在驳回申请后立即重新申请破产。该因素呈中性。 D. 第 7 章案件中的破产受托人是否能够为了债权人的利益获取资产。 15. 该因素极大地倾向于支持转换程序。债务人已被认定持续向债权人隐匿其资产。因此，在本法院集中处理涉及债务人的争议将有利于债权人和破产财团。第 7 章破产受托人将拥有破产法院所具备的扩大的调查权、撤销权和衡平法权力（例如《破产程序规则》第 2004 条调查、撤销内部人及其他优先交易、债务性质重新认定、衡平法顺位降低以及实质性合并），这些在任何非破产替代方案中均不存在。第 7 章受托人可以代表所有债权人（包括 PAX） 开展此类工作，而无需每个债权人自行耗费时间和金钱去调查和追索债务人的资产。债权人目前正在寻求为第 7 章程序获得初期资金，该资金随后可由长期和/或附条件律师费安排所取代。 E. 在评估破产财团的利益时，转换程序或驳回破产财团的申请是否能使破产财团作为经济实体的价值最大化。 16. 本案涉及一名个人，而非企业。然而，如上所述，债务人声称资产极少（除投机性诉讼外），并且对资产予以否认，而非采取任何努力来清理和归集更多资产。根据 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官已作出的认定，一位开展调查、追回或交付工作的受托人将使破产财团的价值最大化以造福所有债权人（而非驳回申请）。事实上，本案可能是债权人从债务人处获得清偿的最佳机会——这从以下事实即可证明：自申请日以来，这些程序促成了 3700 万美元存入美国境内的托管账户，以待 Lady May 的归还。 17. 第 7 章受托人不仅拥有州法院可用的所有救济手段——包括但不限于因抗拒法庭行为而将债务人收监的能力以及适用“人格混同”理论进行追索的能力——还拥有仅在破产程序中可获得的诸多益处，例如对第三方发出第 2004 条披露调查的权力（委员会已启动该调查）、对债务人行为能力的监督和限制、更大的撤销并追回优先清偿或欺诈性转让的权力、将所谓借款重新认定为股权的权力、在衡平法上降低债权顺位或以其他方式对内部人和非内部人债权人给予差别待遇的权力，以及在适当情况下将债务人与非债务人实体进行实质性合并的权力。适当的调查将查明债务人真实资产的范围，并评估债务人及其共谋者是否犯有破产欺诈（或其他欺诈）。这些益处对于本案一般无担保债权人实现回收最大化可能至关重要。因此，该因素支持转换程序。 F. 任何剩余问题在破产法庭之外是否能得到更好的解决。 18. 除了某些应由其他法院确定数额的债权人主张外，不存在任何在破产法庭之外能得到更好解决的关键问题——相反，本法院作为集中审理法庭是最佳法庭。参见前引第 9-17 段。 G. 破产财团是否由“单项资产”构成。 19. 尽管债务人声称资产极少，但各方均承认本案不是“单项资产”案件。参见 PAX 答复第 26 段（“PAX 可以附条件认可其认为债务人拥有不止一项资产”）。纽约州法院已认定债务人在 Lady May 和 Sherry Netherlands 公寓中享有受益所有权权益，两者的估值均超过 3000 万美元。因此，该因素倾向于支持转换程序。 H. 债务人是否存在不当行为，以及债权人是否需要第 7 章案件来保护其利益。 20. 该因素极大地倾向于支持转换程序。本案记录（包括 PAX 提交的诉状和证据）充满了债务人不当行为的例证。另请参见前引第 9-17 段关于需要第 7 章受托人来保护债权人利益的说明。 I. 破产重组计划是否已被确认，破产财团中是否仍有财产可供管理。 21. 尚无计划获得确认。破产财团中仍有资产可供管理。 参见前引第 19 段。该因素支持转换程序。 J. 是否有必要指定一名受托人来监督破产财团并处理可能的环境与安全问题。 22. 不存在已知的环境或安全问题，因此该因素呈中性。 23. 因此，本案应转换为第 7 章程序并指定一名第 7 章受托人，以调查债务人的资产和负债，并在适当情况下清理和归集债务人的资产，以便按照《破产法典》的清偿优先顺序进行分配。如果受托人随后 得出驳回申请符合破产财团及其债权人最佳利益的结论，受托人可以提出 该动议。值得注意的是，一旦驳回申请成立，将无法轻易撤销。 II. 备选方案：任何驳回申请均应附带条件。 24. 如果法院倾向于准予驳回申请，任何此类驳回均应以下列事项为条件： - i. 支付破产管理费用，特别是委员会律师的费用和开支以及 UST（美国受托人）费用； - ii. 通过向在本案中耗费了大量时间和资金的债权人支付其开支（包括律师费和诉讼成本），使债权人恢复到申请日前的原状地位；以及 - iii. 债务人律师就其自收到最初 100 万美元预付金以来所收到的与本案相关的任何款项（或付款承诺）作出补充披露。 结论 综上所述，基于前述理由，债权人请求法院 (a) 准予转换程序，(b) 在与转换程序不一致的范围内驳回 PAX 驳回动议和 UST 的指定审查员/受托人动议，以及 (c) 准予其他及进一步公正适当的救济。 日期：2022 年 5 月 20 日 /签名/ Kristin B. Mayhew Kristin B. Mayhew-ct20896 MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP 30 Jelliff Lane Southport, CT 06890 (203) 319-4000 kmayhew@mdmc-law.com - 以及 - Carollynn H.G. Callari（特别许可出庭代理律师） David S. Forsh（特别许可出庭代理律师） CALLARI PARTNERS LLC One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 (212) 202-3050 ccallari@callaripartners.com dforsh@callaripartners.com Rui Ma（马锐）、Zheng Wu（吴征）和 Weican Meng（孟维参）的代理律师 送达证书 本人 Kristin B. Mayhew 特此证明，上述《债权人 Rui Ma、Zheng Wu 和 Weican Meng 支持转换案件程序的补充声明》的真实准确副本已于 2022 年 5 月 20 日提交给法院。该提交通知将通过法院电子归档系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本份归档文件。 > /签名/ Kristin B. Mayhew Kristin B. Mayhew --- 英文原文全文（逐字镜像，同一份 ECF 文件）：https://mubeitech.com/en/court/court_ctb_418_0