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 TO
DISQUALIFY SPECIAL COUNSEL LOUCAS
HAVIARAS/HAVIARAS & PHILIPPOU LLC
AND MPH LAW SERVICES LIMITED
(No hearing noticed)
The Court, having reviewed and considered the motion of debtor Ashot Gevork
Egiazarian (the “Debtor”) to disqualify Loucas Haviaras, Haviaras & Philippou LLC and
MPH Law Services Ltd. (collectively, the “Attorneys”) from serving as special counsel to
the chapter 7 trustee in the above case (the “Trustee”) filed April 13, 2026, as docket
no. 217 (the “Motion”), hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of
law:
1. The Trustee moved for authority to retain the Attorneys as his special
counsel in the Republic of Cyprus by application filed and served July 7,
2025, as docket no. 29 (the “Application”).
FILED & ENTERED
APR 17 2026
CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
Central District of California
BY DEPUTY CLERK	evangeli
Case 2:25-bk-13838-BB Doc 223 Filed 04/17/26 Entered 04/17/26 06:20:44 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 Application was served electronically on Debtor’s then counsel of record
on July 7, 2025.
3. As set forth in the Application, the deadline for the filing of oppositions to the
Application was 14 days after service of the Application, or July 21, 2025.
4. Debtor did not file an opposition to the Application by July 21, 2025.
5. The Court resolved the timely opposition to the Motion filed by the Debtor’s
ex-wife and entered an order granting the Application on September 15, 2025
[Docket No. 94].
6. Debtor neither served notice of the date, time and place of a hearing on the
Motion nor utilized the procedures necessary to have a motion determined
upon notice of and opportunity to request a hearing, as required by the
provisions of Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1.
7. The prior representations that the Debtor claims disqualify the Attorneys from
serving as special counsel for the Trustee all occurred before the deadline for
filing oppositions to the Application, and the Debtor was aware of these prior
representations at the time the Application was served. Thus, there is no
reason for this Court to consider what is, in effect, an objection to the
Application filed almost 8 months after the deadline for the filing of such
objections passed.
8. Bankruptcy Code section 327(e) expressly permits the trustee to employ for a
specified special purpose “an attorney that has represented the debtor,” if
such employment is in the best interest of the estate and the attorney does
not (currently) hold or represent an interest adverse to the debtor or the
estate with respect to the matter for which he is to be employed.
9. The Trustee disclosed in the Application that the Attorneys had previously
represented the Debtor in connection with matters that the firm would be
handling for the Trustee:
To ensure full and proper administration of assets of the Debtor’s estate,
the Trustee must participate in various international proceedings already
Case 2:25-bk-13838-BB Doc 223 Filed 04/17/26 Entered 04/17/26 06:20:44 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
pending, and may need to initiate other such proceedings. Among the
pending proceedings are:
(a) Winding Up Application of NGY Holdings Limited - No. IJ 559/22
with the District Court of Nicosia;
(b) Application to restore NGY Holdings Limited - IJ 106/2025 with
the District Court of Nicosia;
(c) Appeal No. IJ 69/23 against the interim judgement dated
05/10/2023 issued by the District Court of Nicosia in the context of
Winding Up Application IJ 559/22 (see below) for the appointment of a
provisional liquidator;
(d) Norwich pharmacal action and application IJ 1173/24 with the
District Court of Nicosia filed on behalf of the Debtor against the service
provider of Mikhail Fridman;
(e) Action 1103/19 with the District Court of Nicosia, by Suren
Eyiazaryian against the Debtor, Dovroco Limited, MPH Law Services and
Skendleby Investments Limited for unjust enrichment (186,600,000 USD);
and
(f) Application in aid of foreign proceedings no. 21Φ/2024 with the
District Court of Nicosia. Application submitted by on behalf of the Debtor
and Natalia Tsagolova, against Skendleby Investments Limited, Dovroco
Limited and Suren Eyiazaryian in aid of the US proceedings
20STFL03636, California.
Some of these matters involve entities which themselves may be,
at least in part, property of the estate, and that either directly or indirectly
hold assets that may be property of the estate, including NGY Holdings
Limited and Skendleby Investments Limited. Other matters were
previously initiated by or against the Debtor, and may need to be pursued
on behalf of the estate, or at a minimum monitored. The Firm is very
familiar with all of these matters, as it has previously represented the
Debtor in connection therewith, and in general has been the legal advisor
of the Debtor in the Republic of Cyprus since 2008. Therefore, the Trustee
seeks to engage the Firm to render legal services in the Republic of
Cyprus, to assist with the pending proceedings, as well as any other
issues or proceedings that may need to be addressed in the Republic of
Cyprus, as needed.
***
Here, the Firm does not hold any interest adverse to the Debtor or
the estate with regard to the matters pending in the Republic of Cyprus. It
did previously represent the Debtor in connection with matters in that
country. However, the Trustee believes that this actually provides a benefit
to the estate, for several reasons. First, because the Firm is already
familiar with the matters in the Republic of Cyprus, it does not need to
spend the time – or expend estate resources – learning the background
necessary to commence with representation of the Trustee. Second, the
Firm obtained information in connection with its prior representation of the
Case 2:25-bk-13838-BB Doc 223 Filed 04/17/26 Entered 04/17/26 06:20:44 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
Debtor that it believes will be useful in connection with efforts to preserve
and recover the Debtor’s assets for the benefit of the estate.
10. The Debtor’s objection to the employment of the Attorneys appears to be,
at least in part, his concern that, during the course of their representation of him, the
Attorneys “obtained confidential information about the Debtor’s assets, strategies, and
vulnerabilities” and could now use that knowledge as special counsel to the Trustee
against him. See Motion, p. 6 of 107, last paragraph. The Debtor is confused as to the
nature of the services being performed by the Attorneys. They were employed to assist
the Trustee in asserting rights as against third parties for the benefit of the estate that
the estate acquired when it stepped into the Debtor’s shoes at the time of the
bankruptcy filing. There is nothing inappropriate about the Debtor’s former counsel
using the knowledge and experience that it obtained during the course of its
representation of the Debtor to enable the Trustee to maximize the value of assets
available to satisfy claims against the estate.
11. The Debtor complains further that, “On or about April 6, 2026, MPH Law
Services Limited – Mr. Haviaras’s own nominee company – filed an application in a
Cyrus court proceeding without the Debtor’s knowledge and without any written
instruction from the Debtor.” Motion, p. 4 of 107, last paragraph. This is as it should be.
It was a condition of the Attorneys’ employment, and it was expressly discussed at the
hearing on the Application, that the Attorneys would be taking direction from the
Trustee and not from the Debtor in connection with the matters for which they were to
be employed. When the Debtor filed chapter 7, subject to the Debtor’s ability to retain
exempt assets, “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property” that existed as
of that date became property of his bankruptcy estate under the control of the Trustee.
11 U.S.C. § 541(a).
12. The Trustee is the party authorized to administer assets of the Debtor’s
bankruptcy estate – not the Debtor. Attempts by the Debtor to interfere with the
Trustee’s administration of these assets, to exercise control over assets that now
Case 2:25-bk-13838-BB Doc 223 Filed 04/17/26 Entered 04/17/26 06:20:44 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
belong to his bankruptcy estate or to divert to his own personal use assets that belong
to his bankruptcy estate are not only violations of the automatic stay under Bankruptcy
Code section 362(a)(3), they may also constitute violations of Section 152 of Title 18 of
the United States Code for which fines, imprisonment, or both, may be imposed.
13. The Debtor states in paragraph 11 of the declaration that he filed in
support of the Motion that he received an email on April 12, 2026, from counsel for the
Trustee in which counsel says, “this should help us to get a deal finalized with Natalia.”
The Debtor then goes on to complain, “I was not aware of any negotiations between the
Trustee’s team and Ms. Tsagolova. These negotiations were not disclosed to me or to
this Court.” The Debtor is mistaken. Counsel for both the Trustee and Ms. Tsagolova
have disclosed to the Court on several occasions over the course of the last few months
that they have been engaged in negotiations in an effort to resolve consensually the
issues that exist between them. It is unclear why the Debtor feels entitled to be kept
apprised of the existence or status of these negotiations. The Trustee has no duty to
keep the Debtor in this or any other loop. The Trustee is the party with authority to
administer assets of the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate, not the Debtor. And, in any event,
no compromise as between Ms. Tsagolova, on the one hand, and the Trustee and the
estate, on the other, will be binding or become effective unless and until it has been
approved by the Court after notice and an opportunity for hearing under Bankruptcy
Rule 9019.
14. Nothing contained in the Motion or in the accompany declaration identifies
any respect in which the Attorneys have been acting contrary to the interests of the
estate.
Case 2:25-bk-13838-BB Doc 223 Filed 04/17/26 Entered 04/17/26 06:20:44 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 HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED on
both substantive and procedural grounds.
# # #
Date: April 17, 2026
Case 2:25-bk-13838-BB Doc 223 Filed 04/17/26 Entered 04/17/26 06:20:44 Desc
Main Document Page 6 of 6