{2387/000/00519459} 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 

In re: 

HELLENIC PETROLEUM, LLC, Case No. 21-12317-EPK 

 Alleged Debtor. Chapter 7 (Involuntary) 

_____________________________________/ 

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF AN INTERIM TRUSTEE PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 303(g) 

Alleged Debtor, Hellenic Petroleum, LLC ("Hellenic"), responds in opposition to the 

Emergency Motion for Appointment of an Interim Trustee Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 303(g) (the 

"Motion") [ECF No. 7] filed by Petitioning Creditor, Pro Petroleum, LLC ("Pro Petroleum"). In 

support of its response Hellenic states: 

INTRODUCTION 

An involuntary bankruptcy petition is an extreme remedy with serious consequences to the 

alleged debtor.1

 The appointment of an interim trustee under 11 U.S.C. § 303(g), prior to the entry 

of an order for relief, is an even more extreme remedy. Through it, creditors can forcibly divest a 

company of its management and assets in a manner of days. It is an exceptional tool to be 

employed in extremely limited circumstances. Cases analyzing § 303(g) appointments are indeed 

limited, "no doubt because the request for such relief is rare."2

Ignoring these realities, Pro Petroleum requests an interim trustee on two equally meritless 

theories. First, Pro Petroleum seeks the appointment due to allegations such as "Hellenic is not 

1

 In re Diamondhead Casino Corp., 540 B.R. 499, 505 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015) (footnote and quotation omitted). 

2

 Diamondhead Casino, 540 B.R. at 505. 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

paying its debts and obligations as they come due," and "Hellenic is not meeting its contractual 

obligations to vendors and customers."3

 These mundane observations, which could be applied to 

almost every debtor in bankruptcy, were largely precipitated by the bankruptcy filing itself and do 

not approach the high standard required for § 303(g) relief. Second, Pro Petroleum speculates that 

Hellenic is engaged in a "bust-out" and is running up debts, which it has no intention of paying, 

for the benefit of a successor entity. As set forth infra, that allegation is devoid of factual 

underpinnings and is frivolous. 

For these reasons, as well as the likelihood that the petition against Hellenic will be 

dismissed, the Court should deny the Motion. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. Hellenic. 

1. Hellenic is a Florida limited liability company formed in 2016. The company is 

engaged in the fuel industry. Its business practices include: (a) buying and selling fuel, whether 

diesel, renewable or biodiesel marine, (b) storing and transporting fuel, and (c) delivering fuel to 

truck stops and gas stations. Hellenic owns a California facility of three acres at which trucks and 

fuel are stored. 

2. Hellenic generates revenues via cash on delivery. Revenues received by Hellenic 

are used to pay operational expenses and to reduce payables. Recent expenses related to the 

COVID-19 pandemic, together with substantial fluctuations in fuel prices, have caused the 

company to run a negative cash flow. 

3

 See Mot. 17. 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

3. The principal of Hellenic is an individual named Panagiotis "Pete" Kechagias ("Mr. 

Kechagias"). 

B. Pro Petroleum is a Competitor Who Improperly Filed an Involuntary Petition 

to Put Hellenic Out of Business. 

4. Pro Petroleum is a Delaware limited liability company that conducts business in 

Florida. 

5. Upon information and belief, third-party, Pilot Travel Centers, LLC d/b/a Pilot 

Flying J ("Pilot"), is the majority owner of and controls Pro Petroleum. An article from the 

publication Transport Topics, which references Pilot's majority interest in Pro Petroleum, is 

attached as EXHIBIT "A".

4

6. Pilot operates a chain of truck stops in the United States and Canada, and is the 

largest purveyor of over-the-road diesel fuel in the United States. Hellenic and Pilot are 

competitors in that each entity sells diesel fuel to truck stops. 

7. On or about October 20, 2020 Hellenic entered into an agreement with Pro 

Petroleum to purchase diesel fuel on credit. At that time, Hellenic was unaware that Pilot was the 

majority owner of Pro Petroleum. 

8. Hellenic initially made purchases without incident and ordinary course payments 

to Pro Petroleum under the credit agreement. At all relevant times, Pro Petroleum encouraged 

Hellenic to run up its credit and purchase fuel. Indeed, Pro Petroleum continued to sell fuel to 

Hellenic even after ordinary course payments ceased and defaults existed under the credit 

agreement. 

4

 The article is also available on the internet at https://www.ttnews.com/articles/pilot-flying-j-changes-nameexpands-energy-market. 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 3 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

9. Upon information and belief, Pro Petroleum acted in this manner for two reasons. 

First, Cynthia Maurycy, Pro Petroleum's account manager for Hellenic, wished to sell more 

product in order to inflate her sales numbers. Hellenic indeed believes that Ms. Maurycy may 

have delayed submitting invoices to Pro Petroleum's credit department in order to maximize sales 

in the short term. Second, it is a common practice in the oil and gas industry for a supplier to 

create a dependent customer by selling products in excess of the customer's repayment ability. If 

the customer does substantial business such that it might compete with the supplier or its affiliates, 

the supplier can then cut off sales and force the customer to shut down. That is exactly what 

happened here—Pilot, via Pro Petroleum, used its leverage as a supplier to indebt Hellenic and 

then push it into bankruptcy. 

C. The Bankruptcy Filing and Frivolous Allegations of a "Bust-Out." 

10. On March 10, 2021 Pro Petroleum filed an involuntary petition for relief under 

chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code against Hellenic. ECF No. 1. 

11. The deadline to respond to the petition is April 1, 2021, and the Court has not 

entered an order for relief. 

12. Pro Petroleum filed the Motion on March 19, 2021, through which it seeks the 

appointment of an interim trustee under 11 U.S.C. § 303(g). ECF No. 7. 

13. Perhaps recognizing the extraordinary nature of the relief it seeks, Pro Petroleum 

accuses Hellenic of engaging in sweeping misconduct, including making a "calculated run" on fuel 

in furtherance of a "bust-out," and comingling assets with affiliates. See Mot. ¶¶ 19–47. 

14. However, these allegations are based on vanishingly small amounts of actual 

evidence. For example, the bust-out theory alleged by Pro Petroleum is based on the following 

factual allegations: 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 4 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

 By March 2, 2021, Hellenic had incurred some $2.3 million in debt owing 

to Pro Petroleum and defaulted under the credit agreement. Mot. ¶¶ 20–25. 

 On March 8, 2021 Hellenic fired its employees. Id. at ¶ 27. 

 Mr. Kechagias has been replaced by a husband and wife, Salvador Estrada 

("Mr. Estrada") and Olga Estrada ("Mrs. Estrada"), as the management of 

Hellenic. Id. at ¶ 28. 

 The manager and registered agent for a third-party entity, Central Coast 

Petroleum, LLC ("Central Coast") is Mrs. Estrada. Id. at ¶¶ 30–34. 

 "Upon information and belief," Hellenic purchased two trailers, with one 

trailer paid for by Central Coast. Id. at ¶ 34. 

 Mr. Kechagias stated he was in discussions with a creditor of Hellenic, 

Diesel Direct, to purchase Hellenic. Id. at ¶ 36. 

 On March 10, 2021 Hellenic entered into a settlement with a separate 

creditor, Mansfield Energy Corp., to maintain access to its fuel supply. Id.

at ¶ 37. 

15. Each of these allegations is either false, innocuous or in fact contradicts the bustout theory posited by Pro Petroleum. In particular: 

 While Hellenic has purchased substantial amounts of fuel from Pro 

Petroleum on credit, this was done in response to increased marketplace 

demand. As stated supra, this was also done with the active encouragement 

of Pro Petroleum. Allegations of stockpiling are meritless. 

 Hellenic has not fired all of its employees. The company retains seven 

employees in California (five drivers and two administrative workers) and 

six in Florida. All payroll is processed in Florida. 

 Mr. and Mrs. Estrada have not replaced Mr. Kechagias as the management 

of Hellenic. Mr. Kechagias is the sole owner and manager of the company. 

Rather, Mr. and Mrs. Estrada are each employees of Hellenic. Mr. Estrada 

attends to supplier purchasing and relationships while Mrs. Estrada focuses 

on logistics, scheduling and driver coordination. 

 Central Coast is an entity formed by the Estradas to purchase trailers and 

lease them to Hellenic. This is not unusual, as Hellenic often leases 

transport equipment to maintain fuel deliveries. Mr. Kechagias has no 

ownership interest in, control over or affiliation with Central Coast. The 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 5 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

allegation that Hellenic is incurring debt and being hollowed out for the 

benefit of Central Coast is meritless. 

 Mr. Kechagias has discussed a potential sale of Hellenic to Diesel Direct. 

However, this fact weakens, rather than strengthens, other allegations made 

by Pro Petroleum. For example, if the Estradas replaced Mr. Kechagias as 

the managers of Hellenic, as Pro Petroleum contends, why is Mr. Kechagias 

the individual negotiating with Diesel Direct? Moreover, if Hellenic is 

being stripped of its assets for the benefit of Central Coast, how could it be 

a candidate for sale to a third party? The Motion is silent as to these obvious 

follow-up questions and contradictions. 

 Similarly, Hellenic is attempting to maintain access to fuel supply through, 

inter alia, discussions with Mansfield Energy Corp. Again, however, this

fact undermines the case Pro Petroleum is attempting to construct. If 

Hellenic is not operating, as Pro Petroleum claims, why is it actively 

attempting to maintain access to its fuel supply? And why would it do so if 

its business is being transferred to Central Coast? Again, the Motion does 

not even attempt to reconcile these contradictory allegations. 

16. An additional theory forwarded by Pro Petroleum, that of asset comingling by 

affiliates, is based on even less evidence than that of the bust-out. In the Motion, Pro Petroleum 

list a number of entities with respect to which Mr. Kechagias is a registered agent or officer. Mot. 

¶ 45. Based on nothing more than the fact that "[s]everal of these entities currently have or have 

had the same principal business address as Hellenic," Pro Petroleum muses, "It is unclear whether 

any of these entities have respected corporate formalities...Certainly, a trustee would be best suited 

to quickly investigate these entities, and, more importantly, Central Coast Petroleum, and their 

relationship to Hellenic..." Id. at ¶¶ 46–47. 

17. The comingling allegation is unfounded and meritless. Mr. Kechagias, like any 

number of Florida entrepreneurs, utilizes common addresses for entities he owns or controls. 

There is nothing remotely inappropriate in doing so. The reliance of Pro Petroleum on that fact, 

in requesting the extreme remedy of an interim trustee appointment, smacks of a rushed, faulty 

investigation and bankruptcy filing. 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 6 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

D. Damages to Hellenic. 

18. Although a response to the involuntary petition itself is not yet due, it is imperative 

to note the significant damages sustained by Hellenic as a result of this bankruptcy filing. Due to 

the filing, no suppliers are prepared to do business with Hellenic. The suppliers and their credit 

lines are the lifeblood of Hellenic—without the ability to purchase fuel, Hellenic has no fuel to 

sell. If the supplier dynamic is not rectified in the near future, it will prove fatal to the company. 

The Hellenic Petroleum name, which is trademarked in the United States and Dubai, is now 

synonymous with bankruptcy. A potential purchase of an Ohio refinery has evaporated, as the 

investors participating in the project have left. 

19. These damages were not inevitable. They were the result of a deliberate choice by 

Pro Petroleum to shoot the proverbial gun first and ask questions later. 

20. Other suppliers have not taken the drastic step of filing or joining an involuntary 

petition. Hellenic notes, for example, that it owes Direct Diesel in excess of $10 million for fuel 

purchases. However, Direct Diesel did not file a bankruptcy petition and, upon information and 

belief, declined to join the instant petition after an invitation from Pro Petroleum. The reason for 

this discrepancy arises from the motivations stated supra—Pro Petroleum is not acting as a good 

faith creditor seeking mere repayment of its debt. This bankruptcy was precipitated by a desire to 

shut down Hellenic as a competitor. 

21. Hellenic is confident that the petition will ultimately be dismissed, and intends to 

seek damages under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i). 

ARGUMENT 

 Section 303 of the Bankruptcy Code permits one or more petitioning creditors to 

commence an involuntary case against an alleged debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 303(b). An "involuntary 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 7 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

petition is an extreme remedy with serious consequences to the alleged debtor, such as loss of 

credit standing, inability to transfer assets and carry on business affairs, and public 

embarrassment." In re Forever Green Athletic Fields, Inc., 804 F.3d 328, 335 (3d Cir. 2015) 

(citation omitted). Given these serious consequences, "courts should be wary of creditors who 

may find alluring the 'retributive quality' of thrusting a debtor into bankruptcy," and "should not 

lightly enter an order for relief." Forever Green, 804 F.3d at 328 (footnote omitted); Diamondhead 

Casino, 540 B.R. at 505. 

 Generally, the Bankruptcy Code permits an alleged debtor to acquire or dispose of property 

until an order for relief is entered. See 11 U.S.C. § 303(f). In addition to taking the aggressive 

step of filing an involuntary petition, however, creditors may seek "[a]n even more extreme 

remedy"—the appointment of an interim trustee under § 303(g). Diamondhead Casino, 540 B.R. 

at 505. 

 "There is limited case law applying section 303(g), no doubt because the request for such 

relief is rare." Id. By its terms, however, § 303(g) conditions the appointment of a trustee for 

situations where it is "necessary to preserve the property of the estate or to prevent loss to the 

estate..." 11 U.S.C. § 303(g). Given this language, "[t]he case law that does exist counsels that a 

request for an interim trustee should be denied in the absence of an exceptionally strong need for 

doing so or where no facts are alleged showing a necessity for the appointment." Diamondhead 

Casino, 540 B.R. at 505 (footnotes and quotations omitted) (emphases supplied). "In order to 

appoint a trustee, a movant must show a substantial risk of loss to the estate." Diamondhead 

Casino, 540 B.R. at 505 (footnote omitted). "Further, in order to avoid the appointment of an 

interim trustee in an involuntary case that may be dismissed, the court must determine, as a 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 8 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

preliminary matter, that there is a reasonable likelihood that an order for relief will be entered." 

Id.

 In this case the Court should deny the Motion because (1) there is not a reasonable 

likelihood that an order for relief will be entered, and (2) there is not a substantial risk of loss to 

the estate. 

A. There is Not a Reasonable Likelihood That an Order for Relief Will be 

Entered. 

1. The petition has not been joined by the requisite number of creditors. 

Section 303(b) sets forth two main scenarios for filing an involuntary petition. In cases 

where an alleged debtor possesses twelve or more creditors, excluding employees, insiders, and 

recipients of voidable transfers, three or more creditors must file the petition. By contrast, if the 

alleged debtor possesses fewer than twelve such creditors, only one or more creditors need file the 

petition. Compare 11 U.S.C. § 303(b)(1) with (b)(2). 

As a threshold matter, an order for relief will not be entered because an insufficient number 

of creditors have filed the petition against Hellenic. Although Hellenic is still in the process of 

identifying all of its outstanding payables, it has provided Pro Petroleum with the preliminary chart 

attached hereto as EXHIBIT "B". The chart identifies more than thirty creditors who hold claims 

against Hellenic. Given this, the petition filed against Hellenic must comply with § 303(b)(1) and 

be joined by three or more creditors whose claims are not subject to a bona fide dispute. See 11 

U.S.C. § 303(b)(1). To date, however, no creditors other than Pro Petroleum have joined the 

petition. Nor, in light of the distinct possibility of § 303(i) sanctions being imposed in this case, 

Hellenic does anticipate that other creditors will do so. 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 9 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

Absent the requisite number of petitioning creditors, there is not a reasonable possibility 

that an order for relief will be entered in this case. The Court can and should deny the Motion for 

this reason alone. 

2. The petition was filed in bad faith. 

In addition to not complying with the plain language of § 303(b), there is a strong likelihood 

that the Court will dismiss the petition as being filed in bad faith. 

 Although § 303 does not explicitly refer to good faith filings, involuntary petitions "must 

be made in good faith." In re Manhattan Indus., Inc., 224 B.R. 195, 201 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1997) 

(citation omitted). There are five accepted tests for determining whether an involuntary petition 

was filed in bad faith: (a) the subjective test, (b) the improper purpose test, (c) the objective test, 

(d) the improper use test, and (e) the combined test. In re Ballato, 252 B.R. 553, 558 (Bankr. M.D. 

Fla. 2000) (citing In re Apache Trading Group, Inc., 229 B.R. 891 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1999); In re 

Landmark Distrib., Inc., 189 B.R. 290, 309 (Bankr. D. N.J. 1995)). 

 Under the improper use test, bad faith is found when a petitioning creditor files an 

involuntary petition to obtain a disproportionate benefit for itself, rather than to protect against 

other creditors gaining disproportionate advantages. Id. (quotation omitted). The improper 

purpose test finds bad faith based upon the petitioner's improper motivation for filing the petition, 

such as ill will, malice, or harassment. Id. (citations omitted). The objective test questions whether 

a reasonable person would have filed the involuntary petition under the same circumstances. Id. 

The subjective test "looks to the subjective motivation of the petitioning creditor for the filing." 

Id. Finally, the combined test evaluates "bad faith by the subjective and objective standards 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 10 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

contained in Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure." In re Apache Trading, 

229 B.R. at 893 (quoting In re Reveley, et al., 148 B.R. 398, 407 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. 1992)). 

As stated supra, the true motivation of Pro Petroleum in filing the petition has been to place 

a competitor out of business. The filing has certainly not improved creditors' prospects for 

repayment—Hellenic has been cut off from its fuel suppliers, its trademarked name has been 

damaged and future business opportunities have been lost. Other creditors in communication with 

Hellenic are aghast at the deterioration in their repayment prospects and have refused to join the 

petition after solicitations from Pro Petroleum. These creditors, unlike Pro Petroleum, recognize 

that their best chance at a recovery lies in Hellenic restoring access to its suppliers and resuming 

its prepetition business. 

The lack of rational motivation in filing the petition, coupled with Hellenic's competition 

with Pilot, support a finding of bad faith under the tests referenced supra. The bad faith nature of 

the petition precludes determining that an order for relief will likely be entered, and the Court 

should deny the Motion. 

B. There is Not a Substantial Risk of Loss to the Estate. 

Even assuming arguendo the Pro Petroleum acted in good faith and filed a petition that 

complied with § 303—which is not the case—the Court should deny the Motion because Pro 

Petroleum has failed to demonstrate a substantial risk of loss to the estate. 

Pro Petroleum lists its reasons for appointing a trustee in a series of thirteen bullet points 

in the Motion. See Mot. 17–18 (allegations supporting a trustee). 

Broadly speaking, the bullet points can be divided into two, equally unpersuasive 

categories. In the first category, Pro Petroleum recites general, unremarkable allegations about 

Hellenic being in financial distress. In addition to being precipitated by the bankruptcy filing itself, 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 11 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

however, these allegations could be applied to almost any debtor in any bankruptcy case in the 

country. They do not even approach the showing of an "exceptionally strong need" for a trustee 

that is required under § 303(g). See Diamondhead Casino, 540 B.R. at 505 (footnotes and 

quotations omitted) (emphases supplied). Those bullet points, with Hellenic's responses, are as 

follows: 

 "Hellenic is no longer operating a business in the ordinary course, as 

admitted by Kechagias." 

Response: The Debtor is attempting to operate its business and maintains 

employees; however, its access to suppliers has been imperiled by the 

bankruptcy filing itself. An interim trustee would add administrative 

expenses to the case without resolving this issue. 

 "Hellenic likely has no source of income with which to operate its business, 

as admitted by Kechagias." 

Response: Again, Hellenic's access to suppliers and income has been 

imperiled by the bankruptcy filing itself. An interim trustee would add 

administrative expenses to the case without resolving this issue. 

 "Hellenic is not paying its debts and obligations as they came due." 

Response: In general Hellenic was paying its debts and obligations as they 

became due prepetition. Its ability to do so has been threatened by the 

bankruptcy filing. An interim trustee would add administrative expenses to 

the case without resolving this issue.

 "Hellenic is not meeting its contractual obligations to its vendors and 

customers." 

Response: In general Hellenic was meeting its obligations prepetition. Its 

ability to do so has been threatened by the bankruptcy filing. An interim 

trustee would add administrative expenses to the case without resolving this 

issue. 

 "Hellenic is not communicating with or providing meaningful information 

to, nor addressing the concerns of its creditors (but is instead referring them 

to its attorney), evidencing an intent to hinder, delay or defraud them." 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 12 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

Response: This allegation is frivolous. Pro Petroleum placed Hellenic into 

an involuntary bankruptcy. The parties are litigating and each is represented 

by counsel. Referring creditors and adverse parties to counsel does not 

evidence an intent to hinder, delay or defraud or warrant the appointment of 

a § 303(g) trustee. 

 "Hellenic has breached significant and material provisions of its contracts 

with creditors." 

Response: Again, Hellenic was generally meeting its obligations 

prepetition. Its ability to do so has been threatened by the bankruptcy filing. 

An interim trustee would add administrative expenses to the case without 

resolving this issue. 

See Mot. 17–18. 

In contrast to preceding allegations, which contain some measure of accuracy—albeit, 

nothing that supports appointing a trustee—the second category of bullet points are simply 

erroneous. Those latter bullet points, with Hellenic's responses, are again as follows: 

 "All essential employees for business operations (including drivers and 

office staff) have been terminated by Hellenic." 

Response: This allegation is false. Hellenic retains seven employees in 

California (five drivers and two administrative workers) and six in Florida.

 "It is unknown and uncertain whether Hellenic's trucks and other business 

assets, including a potential truck stop and fueling location in Fresno, 

California, have been secured and insured." 

Response: Pro Petroleum is attempting to conceal its lack of due diligence 

by prefacing this allegation with "it is unknown and uncertain" language. 

Regardless, the allegation is false. Hellenic's assets are insured. 

 "The location and condition of Hellenic's assets, including its fuel 

inventory, trucks, cash, and receivables, is unknown and uncertain." 

Response: Pro Petroleum is again attempting to conceal its lack of due 

diligence by utilizing "unknown and uncertain" language. Mr. Kechagias 

will be present at trial to testify as to the assets of Hellenic. The fact that 

Pro Petroleum has not conducted a diligent inquiry into this matter is not 

grounds for the appointment of a trustee. 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 13 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

 "Hellenic has made misrepresentations to creditors, evidencing an intent to 

hinder, delay, or defraud them, not only in obtaining their funding or 

products, but also in forestalling their discovery of Hellenic's fraud and 

enforcement of their rights and interests." 

Response: This is a bare legal allegation without any factual underpinning. 

Nonetheless, Hellenic categorically denies this allegation. 

 "Hellenic has engaged in fraudulent conduct in the way it obtained fuel, 

loans and funding." 

Response: Again, this is a bare legal allegation without any factual 

underpinning. Hellenic categorically denies this allegation. 

 "It is unknown whether Hellenic's fuel supply has or will have possessory 

liens against it as a result of Hellenic's likely failure to pay storage." 

Response: Hellenic is current on storage costs and is unaware of related 

possessory liens at this time. 

 "Given the creation of Central Coast Petroleum (in the name of Salvador 

and Olga Estrada, with the business address at their home, and the purchase 

of a truck), and given Hellenic's eleventh hour 'settlement' with a supplier 

apparently so that Central Coast Petroleum would have a source of fuel to 

sell, it is likely and highly probable that there have been preferential and/or 

fraudulent transfers of assets (and Hellenic's business) to the detriment of 

Hellenic's creditors." 

Response: As stated supra, Central Coast is a separate entity owned by the 

Estradas that leases two trailers to Hellenic. The theory that Hellenic is 

running a "bust-out" for the benefit of Central Coast has no basis in reality 

and is denied categorically by Hellenic. 

See id.

 Hellenic has thus refuted each bullet point set forth in the Motion. Pro Petroleum is seeking 

the drastic remedy of an interim trustee by asserting a combination of: (1) mundane allegations of 

financial distress that were, in large part, caused by the bankruptcy filing itself, (2) baseless 

speculations arising from a lack of due diligence, which are cloaked in "it is unknown whether" 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 14 of 20
{2387/000/00519459} 

language, and (3) frivolous allegations that are denied, such as the "bust-out" theory involving 

Central Coast. 

 Pro Petroleum has not come close to meeting its heavy burden under § 303(g). The Court 

should deny the Motion. 

WHEREFORE, Hellenic respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion and grant 

such other relief as it deems appropriate. 

ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION 

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Florida and I am in compliance with the additional qualifications to 

practice in this Court set forth in Local Rule 2090-1(A). 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via 

Notice of Electronic Filing by CM/ECF to all parties registered to receive such service in this case 

on March 26, 2021.

 Respectfully submitted, 

 SHRAIBERG, LANDAU & PAGE, P.A. 

 Attorneys for Hellenic 

 2385 NW Executive Center Drive, #300 

 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

 Telephone: 561-443-0800 

 Facsimile: 561-998-0047 

 bss@slp.law 

 pdorsey@slp.law 

 

 By: /s/ Bradley Shraiberg___________ 

 Bradley S. Shraiberg, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 121622 

 Patrick Dorsey, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 0085841 

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 15 of 20
EXHIBIT A

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 16 of 20
In part one of a two-part exploration of

autonomous technology today, our

latest RoadSigns podcast

revisits conversations with CEOs Alex

Rodrigues of Embark and Cetin

Mericli of Locomation. Hear them

explain what testing automated trucks

and developing platooning technology

Catherine Ngai | Bloomberg News

January 24, 2020 3:00 PM, EST

Pilot Flying J Changes Corporate Name, Expands Into

Energy Market

(Getty Images)

[Stay on top of transportation news: Get TTNews in your inbox.]

America’s largest truck-stop company is rebranding as it grows its market share in both retail

fuel and energy divisions.

Pilot Flying J is changing its corporate name and structure to be called Pilot Co. after a two-year

push into the energy business, a growth area that has included building out a Houston oce,

acquiring pipeline and storage assets and buying fuel from across the world.

“We had to change and evolve with the times,”

Pilot Co. CEO Jimmy Haslam said in an interview.

“We got to the point where we started looking

around and saying, what could be the next

growth vehicle? We didn’t want to do something

that was totally dierent. So we took a step back

and thought, what could we do to leverage our

current platform?”

The solution was an expansion into the energy

sector, increasing its so-called vertical

integration. Under the leadership of Chief

Strategy Ocer Shameek Konar — an alum of

Castleton Commodities International, Mercuria

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 17 of 20
has taught them about the road ahead

— and get new perspective with host

commentary. Listen to a snippet from

Rodrigues above, and to hear the full

episode, go to RoadSigns.TTNews.com.

Energy Trading SA and Goldman Sachs Group

Inc. — Pilot has shifted from solely focusing on

its travel centers and retail fuel sales to also

snatching up midstream infrastructure and

expanding into water disposal, blending, crude

hauling and other business segments.

Energy Footprint

The moves come after Warren Buett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. paid $2.76 billion for a 38.6%

stake in the Knoxville, Tenn.-based rm in 2017, with plans to increase that stake to 80% by

2023.

Last year, Forbes ranked Pilot as the No. 10 largest private company in the U.S. It also ranked

No. 33 on Transport Topics’ 2019 Top 100 Private Carriers list, logging 1,061 tractors, 35 trucks

and 1,405 trailers.

The rm, which operates more than 750 travel centers across the U.S. and Canada, already

supplies about one-sixth of the nation’s diesel consumption. Now, it’s focused on widening its

footprint. Last year, it acquired NGL Energy Partners LP’s TransMontaigne Products Services,

giving Pilot an increased presence on the Colonial Pipeline, a vital conduit connecting the Gulf

Coast and East Coast. The rm can access 21 terminals along the pipeline, shipping some

80,000 barrels a day.

Pilot also took a majority stake in Pro Petroleum a year prior, giving the company access to the

West Coast as well as Arizona, Nevada and West Texas markets. The rm has the third-largest

tanker eet in North America with more than 1,500 trucks able to move energy products

including diesel, gasoline, diesel exhaust uid, biodiesel, crude, water and sand.

For now, the company’s expansion plans don’t include operating a renery, but Pilot’s

evaluating options for protecting its fuel margins, including an equity interest, said Konar.

Want more news? Listen to today's daily brieng:

Transport Topics (March 26, 2021)

© 2021 Transport Topics All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy

00:00 02:35

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 18 of 20
EXHIBIT B

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 19 of 20
Vendor/Creditor Contact Person Address Phone Nature of Debt Approx. Amount Owed

Business Capital Loan Andrew Spern 2501 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 210, Hollywood, FL 33020 954‐364‐7792 Revolving lines $ 2,148,900.00

Cedar Advance Loan Simon Cshonbrun 718‐400‐9030 ext 101 Revolving lines 467,688.00 $

Affinity Truck 2707 S East Avenue 559‐266‐9531 Truck purchases $ 92,476.76

Seperation by Design Load Cart $ 50,778.98

Fairmont Capital Richy  333 Pearsall Avenue Suite 207, Cedar, NY 11516 310‐706‐8905 Revolving lines $ 2,879,282.00

Fresh Funding 42 Broadway Street 1815 New York 10004 888‐355‐4352 Revolving lines $ 616,875.00

Global Funding Expert 2701 Queen Plaza North, Sute 802 Long Island City, NY 11101 1‐877‐253‐7686 Revolving lines $ 2,529,450.00

Payroll Liability  Payroll  $360,512.04

Mansfield Oil (Settlement Agreement COGS $ 800,000.00

Sacremento Energy (Settlement Agreement) COGS $800,000.00

Elbow River COGS $ 1,500,000.00

Petrola Oil George Michaelos 7000 West Palmetto Park Rd.  954‐599‐3997 COGS $ 1,000,000.00

Diesel Direct West 3861 Duck Creek Drive. Stockton, CA 95215 COGS $ 15,896,435.58

Indigo Direct West P.O. Box 2535 Gainsville, GA 30503 678‐513‐9114 COGS $ 247,933.95

Motiva Enterprise COGS $ 281,628.62

Renewable Energy Group 416 South Bell Avenue, Ames, IA 50010 515‐239‐8000 COGS $ 507,207.37

Shell Oil Products (Equilon Enterprises) 3515 Navy Drive, Stockton, CA 95203 COGS $614,800.90

Huth Family Partnership Steve Huth  326 Prosperity Circle Porterville, CA  559‐783‐1207 Mortgage (March) $24,488.35

Andreini Insurance  Cindy Tarango 220 W. 20th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403 805‐981‐9585 Insurance  $30,589.04

Aramark  PO Box 101179 Pasadeno, CA 91189 800‐504‐0328 Mats and laundry ( Truck Stop) $615.72

Prime Towing  1250 South O St. Tulare, CA 93274 559‐684‐7796 tow on 2/18/2021 $925.00

Core‐Mark Vicki Taylor 661‐201‐7020 products sold in Truck Stop $4,000.00

Office City  Claudia Parsons (accounting) 3167 Corporate Place Hayward, CA  209‐444‐5442 Office supplies FL & CA $3,450.00

Lynco Products  Beth Mosley (accounting) 1410 11th St. Milan , IL 61264 309‐283‐2197 Truck parts sold (Truck Stop) $3,100.00

Select Management Services Denee Bracey Davis  PO Box 681055 Franklin TN 37068 615‐790‐1627 $1,000.00

Malaga County Water District  3580 S. Frank Fresno, CA 93725 559‐485‐7353 water service Truck Stop $724.15

Tank Specialties Nacole Venegas 2695 S, Fourth St. Fresno, CA 93725 559‐579‐1450 Tank Repairs $1,474.70

Comcast 855‐281‐5742 Phone & Internet (Truck Stop) $355.00

Merry Maids Brad 120 N. Valley Oaks Dr. Suite A Visalia 93292 559‐734‐3320 Cleaning Service (Pville) $1,156.00

Stop Alarm  65 S. Hockett St. Porterville, CA 93257 559‐781‐3310 Alarm Service (Pville) $100.00

J.C. Martin & Son 215 Old Line Ct. Exeterm CA 93221 559‐280‐2919 Truck Repair $2,500.00

Fresno Truck Center 2727 E Central Fresno, CA 93725 800‐999‐9152 Wrecked Truck Repair $22,111.56

$ 30,890,558.72

Case 21-12317-EPK Doc 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 20 of 20