Ashot Gevork Egiazarian

-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES DIVISION
In re:
Ashot Gevork Egiazarian
Debtor(s).
Case No.: 2:25-bk-13838-BB
CHAPTER 7
ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING
CONVERSION
(No hearing required)
The Court, having reviewed and considered the April 13, 2026 motion of debtor
Ashot Gevork Egiazarian (the “Debtor”) for reconsideration of its April 2, 2026 order
denying his motion to convert this case to a case under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code (the “Denial Order”), hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions
of law:
1. The “new evidence” that the Debtor claims is sufficient to warrant
reconsideration of the Denial Order has no bearing on whether this case
should be converted to a case under chapter 11.
FILED & ENTERED
APR 17 2026
CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
Central District of California
BY DEPUTY CLERK	milano
Case 2:25-bk-13838-BB Doc 225 Filed 04/17/26 Entered 04/17/26 16:36:39 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 6

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. The Debtor provides the following quote from an email sent by counsel for the
chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”) on April 12, 2026:
We’re clearly doing something right, and seem to have hit a nerve. If
nothing else, this should help us to get a deal finalized with Natalia – she
can’t really think that we’re conspiring with the Debtor at this point.
3. The Debtor asserts that this communication reflects “ongoing undisclosed
settlement negotiations with Natalia Tsagolova” that “were not disclosed on
the record at the April 2 hearing and materially affect the Court’s assessment
of the neutrality of the Chapter 7 administration, the feasibility analysis, and
the appropriateness of conversion.” No, it doesn’t.
a. The settlement negotiations referenced in the foregoing email cannot
in any sense be described as “undisclosed.” They have been
repeatedly disclosed to the Court and other parties in interest at
hearings held in this chapter 7 case. Counsel for the Trustee and Ms.
Tsagolova have been telling the Court for months that they are
engaged in negotiations and are close to reaching a settlement.
b. The existence of these negotiations do not affect the Court’s
assessment of the neutrality of the Trustee’s administration. Disputes
exist as between the estate and Ms. Tsagolova. Whenever disputes
exist, either those disputes can be resolved consensually, if the parties
are able to negotiate a resolution of their disputes, or they can be
resolved through litigation. A consensual resolution of disputes
ordinarily saves both time and money for all parties concerned and is
generally the more desirable alternative for everyone. If parties are
unable to negotiate a consensual resolution of a dispute without
assistance, the Court often orders the parties to engage in mediation in
an effort to help them negotiate a settlement. There is nothing
inappropriate about the Trustee’s attempts to negotiate a settlement
Case 2:25-bk-13838-BB Doc 225 Filed 04/17/26 Entered 04/17/26 16:36:39 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 6

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with Ms. Tsagolova, and there is nothing untoward about the fact that
the Trustee has not kept the Debtor apprised of the status of these
negotiations. The Debtor is not entitled to this information.
c. The fact that these negotiations are moving forward and appear likely
to result in a proposed settlement (that will be presented to the Court
for approval) does not make the Court believe that this case should be
converted to chapter 11 or that the Trustee should be replaced with
someone else. The progress of these negotiations underscores and
reinforces the Court’s conclusion that the Trustee has been handling
the administration of this estate in an appropriate and desirable
manner.
4. The Debtor also points to an email from special counsel John Genga (Exhibit
N) in which Mr. Genga writes, “I assume this is legally meaningless, but WTF
is going on here?” The Debtor claims that this reaction confirms that “even
the Trustee’s own counsel was surprised by the scope of the documented
conflicts.” No, it doesn’t.
a. From the context, it is the Court’s understanding that the “this”
referenced in Mr. Genga’s email was the Debtor’s motion to disqualify
special counsel Loucas Haviaras and his firm (Docket No. 217).
b. By saying that he assumes that the disqualification motion is “legally
meaningless,” Mr. Genga means that the motion was frivolous. The
Court agrees.
c. By asking “WTF is going on here,” Mr. Genga was asking the Trustee,
Why is the Debtor doing this? What is he trying to accomplish? Mr.
Genga is wondering why the Debtor would act this way. He is not
expressing concern over “facts” alleged by the Debtor.
5. The Debtor complains that there were procedural irregularities at the April 2
hearing on this motion sufficient to justify reconsideration or a limited
Case 2:25-bk-13838-BB Doc 225 Filed 04/17/26 Entered 04/17/26 16:36:39 Desc
Main Document Page 3 of 6

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
evidentiary hearing because the Debtor, who describes himself as a native
Russian speaker with limited English proficiency, claims to have received
“meaningful interpretation for approximately two minutes out of a hearing
lasting approximately one hour.”
6. The Court provided a Russian language interpreter who participated in the
April 2 hearing by telephone. The court repeatedly asked the translator to
translate the Court’s comments into Russian for the benefit of the Debtor and
listened for an extended period while the translator communicated her
remarks to the Debtor and the Debtor’s remarks to the Court. The Court
takes judicial notice of the fact that the translation process continued for
much, much longer than 2 minutes.
7. The Court is not in a position to assess the quality of the translations provided
in either direction, and the declaration provided by the Debtor does not
address this issue. However, the Court notes that all three of the motions that
the Debtor has filed in the case within the last few weeks – his motion to
convert; his motion to disqualify counsel; and this motion for reconsideration –
were written in English by someone with a high level of proficiency in the
language. If these documents were not written by the Debtor, and the Debtor
is not satisfied by the quality of the translation services available through the
Court, he should provide his own translator at future hearings or hire counsel
who is proficient in English to advocate on his behalf.
8. The Debtor reports further in the Motion that, after the Court announced its
ruling on April 2, Suren Egiazarian’s son represented that Suren controls
approximately 30 percent of the entity or entities that own the Moscow
shopping mall, and that any buyout transaction would not be able to proceed
without Suren’s consent. Based on this, the Debtor argues that, “If such a
holder can block implementation of a transaction, Chapter 7 liquidation
mechanics are structurally constrained.” Once again, the Debtor is confused
Case 2:25-bk-13838-BB Doc 225 Filed 04/17/26 Entered 04/17/26 16:36:39 Desc
Main Document Page 4 of 6

-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
as to how things work in bankruptcy. Any constraints that may exist on
transactions that may be accomplished without Suren’s consent apply to the
same extent in chapter 11 as they do in chapter 7. None of this suggests that
conversion would be a desirable alternative.
9. According to the Motion, the Debtor “does not seek to act as a debtor-in-
possession.” What he really wants is to use the conversion as a mechanism
for replacing the existing Trustee with a different trustee. See Motion at p. 7,
lines 17-20. A motion to convert to chapter 11 is not the appropriate vehicle
for replacing a trustee, and the Debtor has not identified any facts or
circumstances sufficient to suggest that the existing trustee ought to be
replaced.
10. This is a complex case, with multiple assets in multiple countries as to which
title is disputed. The Debtor, who claims to have only limited proficiency in
English, does not currently reside in the United States and does not have
counsel to represent him in a chapter 11 case.1 The Debtor has admitted to
having a history of hiding his assets from creditors by putting them in the
name of nominees and has filed schedules that demonstrate in black and
white that the Debtor has not been forthcoming about his true income stream
or how he has been able to pay his living expenses.
11. On these facts, the Court finds that:
a. the Debtor is not acting in good faith in requesting that this case be
converted to chapter 11;
b. the Debtor has no prospect of confirming a plan of reorganization
within a reasonable period; and
c. it was therefore appropriate for this Court to deny his request to
convert this case to a case under chapter 11.
1 The Disclosure of Compensation form that Levene, Neale, Bender, Yoo & Golubchik, LLP filed in this case (see p.
44 of Docket No. 15) provides that, with the exception of the four items identified in section 6 of the form (which
relate to preparing schedules and appearing at 341(a) meetings) “all other matters are excluded.”
Case 2:25-bk-13838-BB Doc 225 Filed 04/17/26 Entered 04/17/26 16:36:39 Desc
Main Document Page 5 of 6

-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/ / /
In light of the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the Debtor’s motion for reconsideration of the Denial Order
be and hereby is DENIED.
# # #
Date: April 17, 2026
Case 2:25-bk-13838-BB Doc 225 Filed 04/17/26 Entered 04/17/26 16:36:39 Desc
Main Document Page 6 of 6