# Eletson Holdings Inc.

> United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · November 19, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11205753

## Case

- **Full name:** In re: Eletson Holdings Inc.,1 Debtor.
- **Court:** United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** November 19, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11205753

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x FOR PUBLICATION
:
In re: : Chapter 11
:
ELETSON HOLDINGS INC.,1 : Case No. 23-10322 (JPM)
:
:
Debtor. :
:
---------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING ELETSON HOLDINGS INC.’S
AND LEVONA HOLDINGS LTD.'S JOINT MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE
CYPRIOT ENTITIES, VASSILIS KERTSIKOFF AND LASKARINA KARASTAMATI

1 Prior to November 19, 2024, the debtors in these cases were: Eletson Holdings Inc., Eletson Finance (US) LLC, and
Agathonissos Finance LLC (the “Debtors”). On March 5, 2025, the Court entered a final decree and order closing the
Chapter 11 cases of Eletson Finance (US) LLC and Agathonissos Finance LLC. Commencing on March 5, 2025, all
motions, notices, and other pleadings relating to any of the Debtors shall be filed in the Chapter 11 case of Eletson
Holdings Inc. The Debtor’s mailing address is c/o Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, 1177 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, New York 10036.
JOHN P. MASTANDO III
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is the joint motion (“Motion”) of Debtor Eletson Holdings Inc.
(“Holdings”) and Levona Holdings Ltd. (“Levona”) (together, “Movants”) for sanctions against
Apargo Limited, Desimusco Trading Limited, and Fentalon Limited (the three “Cypriot
Nominees”), as well as against Vassilis Kertsikoff and Laskarina Karastamati (together with the
Cypriot Nominees, “Alleged Violating Parties”). Dkt. No. 1809 (Motion).2 In support of the
Motion are declarations of Kyle Ortiz and Isaac Nesser. Dkt. Nos. 1810 (Ortiz Decl.), 1811
(Nesser Decl.).

The Motion argues that the Alleged Violating Parties have failed to comply with this
Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting, In Part, Levona Holdings Ltd.’s Motion to
Enforce the Stipulated Stay Relief Order And For Sanctions Against the Purported Preferred
Nominees Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code dated August 1, 2025 (“August
Contempt Opinion and Order”). Dkt. No. 1809 (Motion); see also Dkt. No. 1759 (August
Contempt Opinion and Order). The August Contempt Opinion and Order determined that certain
corporate actions taken by the Cypriot Nominees on or around February 26, 2024, discussed
further below, were violations of this Court’s Stipulation and Order Granting Alleged Debtor’s
Motion for Relief From Stay To Proceed With, Or To Confirm The Inapplicability Of, The

Automatic Stay To Prepetition Arbitration Proceedings dated April 17, 2023 (“Stay Relief
Order”). Dkt. No. 1759 (August Contempt Opinion and Order) at 8, 17–20; Dkt. No. 48 (Stay
Relief Order).

2 All references to “Dkt. No.” refer to the docket in this case.
The Cypriot Nominees filed an opposition (“Cypriot Nominees’ Opp.”), supported by a
declaration of Hal Shaftel. Dkt. Nos. 1850 (Cypriot Nominees’ Opp.), 1851 (Shaftel Decl.). The
Movants filed a reply (“Movants’ Reply”), supported by a declaration of Jared Borriello. Dkt.
Nos. 1863 (Movants’ Reply), 1864 (Borriello Decl.).3

The Court held a hearing on the Motion on November 3, 2025.
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
II. JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(a) and
(b)(1) and the Amended Standing Order of Reference dated January 31, 2012 (Preska, C.J.). This
is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).
III. BACKGROUND
A. The Arbitration, Stay Relief Order, and August Contempt Opinion and Order
In July 2022, Holdings and Eletson Corporation filed an arbitration against Levona to
resolve a dispute over the ownership of the preferred shares in Eletson Gas, LLC (“Gas”), and

“thereby the control over [Gas’s] decision making and assets.” Eletson Holdings, Inc. v. Levona
Holdings Ltd., 731 F. Supp. 3d 531, 545–46 (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
In March 2023, while the arbitration was pending, certain creditors (Pach Shemen, VR
Global, and Alpine) filed involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petitions against the Debtors in this
Court. Involuntary Petition Against a Non-Individual, Dkt. No. 1 (03/07/23 Pet.).4,5

3 The exhibits to the Borriello declaration were filed under seal. Order Authorizing The Filing Under Seal Of Certain
Exhibits And Information Relating to Eletson Holdings Inc.’s And Levona Holdings Ltd.’s Reply In Further Support
Of The Joint Sanctions Motion, Dkt. No. 1870 (10/30/25 Or.).

4 In September 2023, the Debtors voluntarily stipulated to convert the Chapter 7 cases to Chapter 11 cases. Order
Converting These Cases To Cases Under Chapter 11, Dkt. No. 215 (09/25/23 Or.).

5 Familiarity with the prior proceedings in this matter is presumed. A background of the case can be found in the
District Court’s September 2025 opinion dismissing various appeals from this Court and affirming certain of this
In April 2023, this Court entered the Stay Relief Order to modify:
“[t]he automatic stay under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code . . . with respect
to the Arbitration solely to the extent necessary and for the sole purpose of
permitting a trial, any related pre-trial proceedings (including any remaining
discovery), any related post-trial proceedings or briefing, and a final determination
or award to be made by the Arbitrator, including any appeals, with respect to the
claims currently pending in the Arbitration (the ‘Arbitration Award’).”

Dkt. No. 48 at 3. However, the Stay Relief Order explicitly stated further that “no
Arbitration Party shall transfer, dispose of, transact in, hypothecate, encumber, impair or otherwise
use any such Arbitration Award or any asset or property related thereto absent a further order of
this Court.” Id. at 4.
In September 2023, the arbitrator issued a Final Award, finding, inter alia, that the
preferred shares had been transferred to the Cypriot Nominees by Levona, after Gas in March
2022 had exercised its right to a buyout option by transferring its ownership shares in two ships
to Levona. Eletson Holdings, 731 F. Supp. 3d at 559–62, 594. On February 9, 2024, the District
Court confirmed the arbitration award in part,6 but the District Court subsequently granted
Levona leave to file an amended answer to assert fraud as a basis for vacating the award.
Eletson Holdings, Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 23-cv-7331, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160367,
at *1–2, 25 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2024) (ruling that “newly-produced documents . . . tend to show
fraud in the arbitration proceeding”). The District Court also issued an order “to make clear that
the confirmation of the [Arbitration] Award was subject to the resolution of Levona’s pending
motion to vacate the award and its defense based on fraud in the arbitration.” Eletson Holdings
Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 23-cv-7331, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107138, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.

Court’s prior sanctions orders. In re Eletson Holdings Inc., No. 25-cv-1312, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187947, at *4–
28 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2025).

6 Eletson Holdings, 731 F. Supp. 3d at 615–16; see also Eletson Holdings Inc. et al v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 23-
cv-7331 S.D.N.Y., Dkt. No. 105 (04/19/24 Or. correcting typographical error in 02/09/24 Or.).
June 2, 2025).
On February 26, 2024, the Cypriot Nominees took certain actions to enforce the arbitration
award, despite failing to obtain any further relief or order from this Court (the “February 26
Corporate Actions”): 1) they authorized Gas to record the Cypriot Nominees’ purported ownership

of the preferred shares, based on the arbitration award, in Gas’s share registry (the “Demand for
Registration of Preferred Units of Eletson Gas LLC”); 2) they removed the then-current board
members who had been appointed by Levona, and appointed new directors, again based on the
same ownership claim (the “Notice of Removal and Appointment of New Directors”); and 3) the
newly-constituted board executed a written consent authorizing any action to enforce the
arbitration award (the “Unanimous Written Consent of the Board of Directors of Eletson Gas
LLC”).7 Dkt. No. 1759 (August Contempt Opinion and Order) at 8; Dkt. No. 1367 (Levona
Holdings Ltd.’s Motion to Enforce the Stipulated Stay Relief Order And For Sanctions Against (A)
The Purported Preferred Nominees And (B) Reed Smith LLP Pursuant To Section 105(a) Of The
Bankruptcy Code And Inherent Authority) (“Levona’s January 2025 Sanctions Motion”) at 14.8

In August 2025, this Court found the Cypriot Nominees in contempt of the Stay Relief
Order because of the February 26 Corporate Actions. Dkt. No. 1759 (August Contempt Opinion
and Order) at 17–20. As an initial matter, the Court found that the Cypriot Nominees were bound
by the terms of the Stay Relief Order, despite not being parties to the arbitration, as “the Stay
Relief Order applies generally and broadly,” as “[t]he general application of the Stay Relief Order

7 Levona does not concede that the February 26 Corporate Actions were effective. For purposes of the present Motion,
this issue is not before the Court, as “[t]he Cypriot Nominees do not refute that such actions were undertaken.” Dkt.
No. 1759 (August Contempt Opinion and Order) at 26.

8 The documents evidencing the February 26 Corporate Actions were filed under seal, Dkt. No. 1478 (Nesser Decl.)
(Ex. 1), but were quoted in their entirety in the publicly-filed version of the motion granted in part by the August
Contempt Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 1367 (Levona’s January 2025 Sanctions Motion) at 14.
serves to prevent the use of the Arbitration Award until the proceedings related to the Arbitration
conclude.” Id. at 14. The Court found that construing the Stay Relief Order as applying to only
the arbitration parties would “render the [Stay Relief] Order ineffectual.” Id. at 16. The Court
then held that the February 26 Corporate Actions violated the Stay Relief Order. Id. at 17–20. The

Court ruled that the Demand for Registration of Preferred Units of Eletson Gas and the Unanimous
Written Consent of the Board of Directors of Eletson Gas LLC “openly appear[ed] to be enforcing
the Arbitration Award and Judge Liman’s partial confirmation thereof,” and that the Notice of
Removal and Appointment of New Directors “expressly request[ed] a change of the Gas board.”
Id. at 18–19. The Court further found that “[c]hanging the official share registry to reflect a new
controlling interest is a significant corporate event,” and that “updating the share registry and
changing the board violate the Stay Relief Order because such changes can only occur if the
Cypriot Nominees hold the preferred interests, which is an issue that is still being determined in
the District Court.” Id. at 19.
The Court thus concluded that the Stay Relief Order was clear and unambiguous, id. at 23–

24; that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Cypriot Nominees had failed to comply
with the Stay Relief Order, as “the Cypriot Nominees and/or their representatives acted based on
the Arbitration Award . . . by effectuating the February 26 Corporate Actions,” id. at 25; and that
the Cypriot Nominees had not diligently attempted to comply with the Stay Relief Order in a
reasonable manner, as the “February 26 Corporate Actions [sought] to enforce and effectuate the
Arbitration Award in violation of the Stay Relief Order,” id. at 27.
The Court ordered the Cypriot Nominees “within five (5) business days to rescind their
changes to the share registry and to the board of directors of Eletson Gas LLC.” Id. at 29 (emphasis
added). The Court further ordered that “[i]f the Cypriot Nominees do not comply within five (5)
business days of entry of this Order, the Court will impose coercive monetary sanctions in the
amount of $1,000 per day per party against the Cypriot Nominees until compliance with this Order
has been effectuated.” Id. (emphasis added).
B. The Parties’ Arguments

On August 8, 2025, five business days after the August Contempt Opinion and Order, the
Cypriot Nominees filed a letter (“Purported Compliance Letter”) stating that they had “today
provided timely notice to Eletson Gas that they rescind the prior instructions covered by the
[August Contempt Opinion and] Order.” Dkt. No. 1771 (Purported Compliance Letter) at 1. The
Purported Compliance Letter also claimed that the Cypriot Nominees “understand that the current
management of Eletson Gas remains in place consistent with the rationale of the Status Quo
Injunction,”9 that “[n]o part of the [August Contempt Opinion and] Order . . . addresses, let alone
disturbs, the mechanics of the daily operations of Eletson Gas consistent with the Status Quo
Injunction or the identity of the day-to-day management team, including Mr. Kertsikoff
(President/Treasurer) and Ms. Karastamati (Secretary),” and that “[i]n the current procedural

posture, both the Status Quo Injunction and Final Award represent at the very least a binding
contract on the parties.” Id. at 2.
Floyd Zadkovich LLP, claiming to represent Gas, thereafter filed a letter stating that none
of Gas’s lawful board, Holdings, or Levona had received notice of the purported rescission, and
requested that the Cypriot Nominees provide a certificate of incumbency from the Marshall Islands
as evidence of compliance with the August Contempt Opinion and Order. Dkt. No. 1773 at 1–2.
They also noted that the status quo injunction had been vacated by the District Court, and thus that

9 The Status Quo Injunction refers to an injunction that had been issued by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings,
enjoining any action to transfer or sell assets of Gas or to notice or conduct board meetings for that purpose. Eletson
Holdings, 731 F. Supp. 3d at 553–54.
injunction could not support the position that Kertsikoff and Karastamati remained day-to-day
management of Gas. Id. at 2. Indeed, the Court notes that the District Court has found that “[t]he
status quo injunction by the arbitrator is no longer in effect.” Dkt. No. 1796 (Letter to the
Honorable John P. Mastando Regarding Aug. 19, 2025 D. Ct. Hearing Transcript, attaching D.

Ct. 8/19/25 Hr’g Tr.) at 24; see also Eletson Holdings, 731 F. Supp. 3d at 616 (vacating ¶A.7 of
the final arbitration award).
On August 12, 2025, the Cypriot Nominees filed a letter in response, stating that “the client
that the Floyd Zadkovich firm represents is not the bona fide Eletson Gas,” and that “the notices
were provided in the same manner as the original notices that were rescinded.” Dkt. No. 1777 at
1–2.
On September 8, 2025, Holdings and Levona filed the Motion, which seeks to increase the
sanctions against the Cypriot Nominees to $5,000 per day, to sanction Kertsikoff and Karastamati
at $1,000 per day, and to enjoin the Alleged Violating Parties from exercising control over Gas.
Dkt. No. 1809 at 9.

First, the Movants argue that the Cypriot Nominees bear the burden of proving their
compliance with this Court’s August Contempt Opinion and Order, and that they have not done
so. Id. at 10. Movants argue that the Cypriot Nominees’ statement that they sent a notice
“rescind[ing] the prior instructions” gives “no indication what the notice said, or if it was
implemented,” which “would have been simple to provide.” Id. at 11. Movants further claim that
“[t]he Cypriot [Nominees] were also required to rescind the prior filings in the Marshall Islands,
and they should be required to provide evidence of what the current registry states with respect to
the shares and board of Eletson Gas.” Id.
Second, the Movants assert that the Alleged Violating Parties incorrectly rely on the status
quo injunction in asserting that they control Gas, as “Judge Liman has made clear that the status
quo injunction is no longer in place.” Id. at 11–12. Movants assert that “Holdings and Levona
collectively control” Gas, as Levona owns the preferred shares of Gas, pending a further ruling
from the District Court on the arbitration award. Id. at 12.

The Cypriot Nominees argue in opposition that they were “not required by the [August
Contempt Opinion and] Order to do so,” but they nonetheless “advised the Court in writing . . .
that they complied.” Dkt. No. 1850 (Cypriot Nominees’ Opp.) at 1. They argue that the burden
is on the Movants to establish contempt, not on the Cypriot Nominees to prove that their contempt
has been purged or that they have complied with the August Contempt Opinion and Order. Id. at
7–8. And regardless of burden, the Cypriot Nominees assert that they complied by “timely
transmit[ing] two formal notices . . . which unequivocally rescinded their two prior notices,” and
by “advis[ing] the Court on the public docket . . . even though the [August Contempt Opinion and]
Order did not mandate it.” Id. at 8. The Cypriot Nominees claim that “[t]here can be no claim of
non-compliance by not voluntarily furnishing copies” of the notices, that they “reported that they

rescinded,” and that this Court did not “instruct[] [them] to provide notice of their compliance.”
Id. at 8–9 (emphasis in original). The two alleged rescission notices were attached to the Shaftel
Declaration in support of the Cypriot Nominees’ opposition. Id. at 9 (citing Dkt. No. 1851 (Shaftel
Decl.) at 50–51 (Ex. B), 53–54 (Ex. C.)).
The Cypriot Nominees argue further that the alleged rescission notices “could not be
clearer in stating that . . . the Cypriot Nominees repealed their notices regarding the board nominees
and stock registry listing.” Id. at 10. And they assert that their statements that the (i) rationale of
the status quo injunction remains correct, and (ii) that management of Gas should continue
consistent with that rationale, do “not relate . . . to compliance with the [August Contempt Opinion
and] Order.” Id. at 11–12, 22–23. They further argue that Kertsikoff and Karastamati (whom they
do not represent) are not covered by the August Contempt Opinion and Order. Id. 1 at n.2, 13–14.
The Cypriot Nominees also claim that there is no basis for injunctive relief, as Gas is outside the
bankruptcy estate, id. at 14–17, and the Movants have improperly filed their request in a contested

matter as opposed to an adversary proceeding, and have not met the standard for that relief
(including posting a bond), id. at 17–24.
The Movants reply that the Cypriot Nominees “have failed to submit corrective Marshall
Island filings or any actual evidence demonstrating they have rescinded” the February 26
Corporate Actions, and that this Court’s August Contempt Opinion and Order “requires them to
‘rescind their changes’ . . . not to request that the changes be rescinded.” Dkt. No. 1863 (Movants’
Reply) at 2–4. The Movants further argue that they do not seek new injunctive relief, rather they
“seek enforcement of the Court’s prior orders.” Id. at 5–7. Lastly, the Movants argue that
Kertsikoff and Karastamati “as related parties acting in concert with the Cypriot [Nominees] . . .
are bound by the [August Contempt Opinion and] Order.” Id. at 7–8.

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
“There can be no question that courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with
their lawful orders through civil contempt.” Worms v. Rozhkov (In re Markus), 78 F.4th 554,
564 (2d Cir. 2023) (citation modified); see also Dkt. No. 1759 (August Contempt Opinion and
Order) at 22. “[T]his power is governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily
vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases.” Worms, 78 F.4th at 564 (citation modified). Accordingly, “a bankruptcy
court’s inherent sanctioning authority includes the power to impose civil contempt sanctions in
non-nominal amounts to compensate an injured party and coerce future compliance with the
court’s order.” Id. at 570. Additionally, “[t]he court may issue any order, process, or judgment
that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of [the Bankruptcy Code].” 11 U.S.C.
§ 105(a); see also Solow v. Kalikow (In re Kalikow), 602 F.3d 82, 96 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The

statutory contempt powers given to a bankruptcy court under § 105(a) complement the inherent
powers of a federal court to enforce its own orders.”).
To obtain a finding of contempt and an order imposing sanctions, the movant must
establish that: “(1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2)
the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has not diligently
attempted to comply in a reasonable manner.” King v. Allied Vision, Ltd., 65 F.3d 1051, 1058
(2d Cir. 1995); see also Dkt. No. 1759 (August Contempt Opinion and Order) at 22. “In the
context of civil contempt, the clear and convincing standard requires a quantum of proof
adequate to demonstrate a reasonable certainty that a violation occurred.” Levin v. Tiber Holding
Corp., 277 F.3d 243, 250 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation modified).

B. The Cypriot Nominees’ Failure to Comply With The August Contempt Opinion
and Order
As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Movants that they do not seek new injunctive
relief, but rather compliance with this Court’s prior orders, including the August Contempt
Opinion and Order. Dkt. No. 1759 (August Contempt Opinion and Order) at 29; Dkt. No. 1863
(Movants’ Reply) at 5–7.
Indeed, on August 1, 2025, this Court found that the Cypriot Nominees were in contempt
based on their violations of the Stay Relief Order. Dkt. No. 1759 (August Contempt Opinion and
Order) at 22–29. The Court specified that the Cypriot Nominees were in violation of the Stay
Relief Order because of the February 26 Corporate Actions, as “the Cypriot Nominees and/or their
representatives acted based on the Arbitration Award . . . by effectuating the February 26 Corporate
Actions.” Id. at 17–20, 25 (emphasis added). The Court ordered the Cypriot Nominees “within
five (5) business days to rescind their changes to the share registry and to the board of directors of

Eletson Gas LLC.” Id. at 29 (emphasis added). The Court further ordered that “[i]f the Cypriot
Nominees do not comply within five (5) business days of entry of this Order, the Court will impose
coercive monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000 per day per party against the Cypriot
Nominees until compliance with this Order has been effectuated.” Id. (emphasis added). To the
extent necessary, the Court now concludes that the August Contempt Opinion and Order, like the
Stay Relief Order, was clear and unambiguous. King, 65 F.3d at 1058.
In response, the Cypriot Nominees submitted a letter claiming that they had complied. Dkt.
No. 1771 (Purported Compliance Letter). Movants dispute that alleged compliance, and the parties
disagree on whose burden it is to demonstrate compliance or lack of compliance. Dkt. No. 1809
(Motion) at 10; Dkt. No. 1850 (Cypriot Nominees’ Opp.) at 7–8; Dkt. No. 1863 (Movants’ Reply)

at 1–2.
Regardless of burden,10 the Court agrees with Movants that the Cypriot Nominees have

10 The caselaw cited by the Movants as to burden addresses a contemnor’s burden to purge a contempt finding by
showing inability to comply, typically because of financial inability to pay a sanction. Dkt. No. 1809 (Motion) at 10;
Dkt. No. 1863 (Movants’ Reply) at 1–2; see, e.g., Huber v. Marine Midland Bank, 51 F.3d 5, 10 (2d Cir. 1995) (“[A]
party’s complete inability, due to poverty or insolvency, to comply with an order to pay court-imposed monetary
sanctions is a defense to a charge of civil contempt. . . . The alleged contemnor bears the burden of producing evidence
of his inability to comply.”). The Cypriot Nominees cite caselaw as to the movant’s burden to establish contempt in
the first instance. Dkt. No. 1850 (Cypriot Nominees’ Opp.) at 7–8. Neither party cites caselaw addressing exactly
the situation here, when a Court has already determined that a party is in contempt, gives the violating party a further
period to comply to avoid sanctions, and then that party claims to have complied, but that compliance is in dispute.
While the Court need not decide the issue (as the Cypriot Nominees clearly have not complied with the August
Contempt Opinion and Order, regardless of the precise burden), the Court notes that Movants’ caselaw weighs towards
finding the burden to be on the Cypriot Nominees, and that a reasonable standard would place the burden on the
Cypriot Nominees to demonstrate that they have complied with the initial contempt order. See, e.g., SEC v. Platinum
Inv. Corp., No. 02-cv-6093, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16763, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2004) (“In order to purge a civil
contempt citation, a contemnor must establish ‘clearly, plainly and unmistakably’ that compliance with the underlying
order has either been accomplished or is impossible.” (citing Huber, 51 F.3d at 10) (emphasis added)); see also SEC
failed to rescind the changes to the share registry and to the board of directors of Gas as effectuated
by the February 26 Corporate Actions, and thus that the Cypriot Nominees’ compliance with the
August Contempt Opinion and Order has not been effectuated. This Court ordered the Cypriot
Nominees to “rescind their changes to the share registry and to the board of directors of Eletson

Gas LLC” within 5 business days. Dkt. No. 1759 (August Contempt Opinion and Order) at 29.
The Court further ordered sanctions “until compliance with this Order has been effectuated.” Id.
(emphasis added). The Court now concludes that compliance has not been effectuated, and, to the
extent necessary, that the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and that the Cypriot
Nominees have not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner. King, 65 F.3d at 1058.
While the Cypriot Nominees’ letter states that they “today provided timely notice to
Eletson Gas that they rescind the prior instructions covered by the [August Contempt Opinion and]
Order,” Dkt. No. 1771 (Purported Compliance Letter) at 1, the letter did not assert that any changes
were actually made, nor did the letter provide the actual notice purportedly sent to Gas.11 This

v. Res. Dev. Int’l LLC, 217 F. App’x. 296, 299 (5th Cir. 2007) (finding no abuse of discretion in district court’s denial
of a motion to purge contempt, based on the district court’s conclusion that the contemnor had made “some efforts to
comply” that “did not go far enough,” and that there was clear and convincing evidence of noncompliance based on
the contemnor’s “claims that he has no assets” and his “fail[ure] to produce documentation to the district court
regarding the source of the more than $75,000 he used to pay accounting fees”); MAS Wholesale Holdings LLC v. NW
Rosedale Inc., No. 19-cv-1294, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136039, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2021) (concluding that after
“Plaintiff sued Defendants for contempt and won . . . [t]he burden then fell to Defendants to comply with the Court’s
Contempt Order”); Trujillo v. Williams, No. 04-cv-635, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66172, at *9 (D.N.M. Apr. 18, 2019)
(concluding that “[i]n the face of . . . clear and convincing evidence, Defendants have not established, as they must,
that they have complied with either the Contempt Order or the [Order Underlying the Contempt Order], or that they
could not comply with either Order”).

11 This Court has previously sanctioned the Former Majority Shareholders (Lassia Investment Company, Glafkos Trust
Company, and Family Unity Trust Company) and other violating parties for somewhat similar conduct, which has
been affirmed on appeal by the District Court. See In re Eletson Holdings Inc., No. 25-cv-1312, 2025 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 187947, at *52–82 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2025). In affirming the sanctions, the District Court noted that “[t]he
Confirmation Plan’s language that [the Former Majority Shareholders] cooperate in ‘good faith’ clearly cover[ed]
[their] vexatious conduct.” Id. at 63–64 (citing Inst. Of Cetacean Rsch. v. Sea Shepard Cons. Soc’y, 774 F. 3d 935,
945–55 (9th Cir. 2014) (“By construing their obligations narrowly to include only refraining from acts specifically
enumerated in the injunction, and not acts likely to nullify the injunction, the Defendants assumed the risk that their
attempts at technical compliance would prove wanting. We accordingly reject the Defendants’ good faith argument,
and hold [Defendants] in civil contempt.”)). The District Court also concluded that the Former Majority Shareholders’
argument challenging the clarity of this Court’s orders was frivolous, id. at 73–76; that the proof of noncompliance
Court ordered the Cypriot Nominees to “rescind their changes,” Dkt. No. 1759 (August Contempt
Opinion and Order) at 29 (emphasis added), not to rescind their instructions, which is all their
letter purports to do.
Nearly two months after the deadline issued by this Court, in their opposition to the present
Motion, the Cypriot Nominees first included the purported rescission notices.12 Dkt. No. 1851

(Shaftel Decl.) at 50–51 (Ex. B), 53–54 (Ex. C.). As compared to the documents that purported to
effectuate the February 26 Corporate Actions, id. at 56 (Ex. D), 58 (Ex. E), which provide notice
of changes that purportedly had occurred, the recent purported rescission notices merely state that
the Cypriot Nominees “rescind[] . . . [their] requested changes,” as opposed to providing proof of
or notice of actual or effectuated changes.
The Court agrees with Movants that the Cypriot Nominees could have rescinded the
changes purportedly effectuated by the February 26 Corporate Actions in the same manner and
form as the Cypriot Nominees originally purported to cause them to occur. Dkt. No. 1863
(Movants’ Reply) at 2–4. The Cypriot Nominees do not contest that these changes were originally

made through the February 26 Corporate Actions, nor have they provided any evidence that they
were unable to rescind them in the same manner that they originally purported to cause them to
occur. The Court further agrees with Movants that compliance with this Court’s August Contempt
Opinion and Order requires more than merely sending a letter requesting changes, which is all

was clear and convincing, id. at 76; and that this Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Former Majority
Shareholders did not diligently attempt to comply in a reasonable manner, as “not only did the parties not meet [their]
burden [to prove that compliance was not possible]; their own declarations demonstrate that they could have complied,
or attempted compliance, but did not,” id. at 79.

12 Movants argue that the purported rescission notices are inadmissible, because they are attached to the declaration
of the Cypriot Nominees’ counsel as opposed to declarations of the signatories of the purported notices. Dkt. No.
1863 (Movants’ Reply) at 4. The Court need not decide the issue, because, even if admissible, the purported notices
do not even purport to allege that compliance with this Court’s August Contempt Opinion and Order has been
effectuated.
their Purported Compliance Letter claims to do. Id. And similarly, the Court agrees that simply
sending notices that have the word “rescission” is insufficient to effectuate the changes that needed
to be accomplished to comply with the August Contempt Opinion and Order. Id. For example,
the Notice of Removal and Appointment of New Directors evinces that the Cypriot Nominees, as

part of the February 26 Corporate Actions, purported to both remove the prior board members and
to appoint new board members. Dkt. No. 1851 (Shaftel Decl.) at 58 (Ex. E.). To undo these
changes, the Cypriot Nominees needed to both remove their own purported board members, and
to reappoint the prior board members as they were prior to the February 26 Corporate Actions.
The Cypriot Nominees’ purported rescission notice, however, merely states that “each of the
[Cypriot] Nominees rescinds . . . its requested changes to the board of directors.” Dkt. No. 1851
(Shaftel Decl.) at 53–54 (Ex. C). It does not state that any changes have occurred, like the
reappointment of the members of the previously constituted board.
Moreover, the Cypriot Nominees have only provided purported rescission notices as to two
of the three corporate actions for which this Court found them in contempt. See Dkt. No. 1759

(August Contempt Opinion and Order) 8, 17–20. Absent from the Cypriot Nominees’ opposition
is any statement that they also rescinded the changes caused by the Unanimous Written Consent
of the Board of Directors of Eletson Gas LLC, which purported to authorize any action to enforce
the arbitration award on behalf of the board as constituted by the Cypriot Nominees’ board
appointments. Id. In addition, as Movants argue, the Cypriot Nominees have also not supported
their contention that they have rescinded the February 26 Corporate Actions by providing any
relevant or required filings from the Marshall Islands. See Dkt. No. 1367 (Levona’s January 2025
Sanctions Motion) at 4 (asserting that “the purported corporate governance changes [in the
February 26 Corporate Actions] were filed with the Trust Company of the Marshall Islands, Inc. .
. . in September 2024”); Dkt. No. 1863 (Movants’ Reply) at 1 (“[T]he purported changes to Eletson
Gas’s share register and board of directors . . . [i]s reflected in . . . filings made in the Marshall
Islands.”) (citing Dkt. No. 1864 (Borriello Decl.) (Ex. A) (filed under seal)).
Finally, the Court notes that the District Court has concluded that probable cause exists

that a fraud was committed on the arbitrator, related to the issue of who owns the preferred shares
of Gas. Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 23-cv-7331, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
184584, at *4–6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2025) (concluding that there is “probable cause to believe
that Eletson, under its prior management, contrived an after-the-fact and false story that the [the
Cypriot Nominees] had been nominated to receive the Preferred Shares of Eletson Gas in order to
keep those shares remote from an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding”).
Accordingly, the Motion is granted as to the Cypriot Nominees.
C. Kertsikoff and Karastamati’s Failure to Comply With The August Contempt
Opinion and Order
As to Kertsikoff and Karastamati, the Motion is also granted. As an initial matter, neither

Kertsikoff nor Karastamati have responded to the Motion, and the Court can thus grant the Motion
by default. Bermudez v. Reid, 733 F.2d 18, 21 (2d Cir. 1984) (“[I]n civil cases, where a party fails
to respond, after notice the court is ordinarily justified in entering a judgment against the defaulting
party.”). In any event, the Court agrees with Movants that Kertsikoff and Karastamati “as related
parties acting in concert with the Cypriot [Nominees] . . . are bound by the [August Contempt
Opinion and] Order.” Dkt. No. 1863 (Movants’ Reply) at 7–8. The Cypriot Nominees
acknowledge in their opposition that Kertsikoff and Karastamati have “voluntarily . . . acted as . . .
‘representatives’” for two of the Cypriot Nominees. Dkt. No. 1850 (Cypriot Nominees’ Opp.) at
5. And as Judge Liman has previously found, there is “little difficulty in concluding that Gas,
Laskarina Karastamati, Vassilis Kertsikoff, Vassilis Hadjieleftheriadis, Lassia Investment
Company, Family Unity Trust Company, and Glafkos Trust Company are sufficiently in privity
with, in active concert with, aiding or abetting [the Cypriot Nominees] to bring them within range
of the Court’s contempt power.” Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 23-cv-7331,

2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107138, at *30–31 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2025) (citation modified).
Accordingly, the Motion is also granted as to Kertsikoff and Karastamati.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED, and it is HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. The Cypriot Nominees (Desimusco Trading Co., Apargo Ltd., and Fentalon Ltd.) are
found to continue to be in contempt for violating the Stay Relief Order, and they are found to be
in contempt, to the extent such a finding is necessary, of the August Contempt Opinion and Order.
2. The Cypriot Nominees are sanctioned at $1,000 per party per day, running from the
period of August 8th, 2025, to the date of the entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, and

$5,000 per party per day commencing on the date of the entry of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order.
3. Vassilis Kertsikoff and Laskarina Karastamati are found in contempt for violating the
Stay Relief Order and the August Contempt Opinion and Order.
4. Vassilis Kertsikoff and Laskarina Karastamati are sanctioned at $1,000 per party per
day, commencing on the date of the entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
5. All sanctions arising from the August Contempt Opinion and Order and this
Memorandum Opinion and Order shall continue until compliance with the August Contempt
Opinion and Order and this Memorandum Opinion and Order has been effectuated. All sanctions
arising from the August Contempt Opinion and Order and this Memorandum Opinion and Order
are in addition to any sanctions this Court may have previously awarded against any party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2025 /s/ John P. Mastando III
New York, New York HONORABLE JOHN P. MASTANDO III
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11205753. Public record. Not legal advice.