{"id":"court_ctb_102_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":102,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re Chapter 11","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n**In re Chapter 11**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\n# **a/k/a WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES GUO,**\n\n **Debtor.**\n\n## **UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE APPOINTMENT OF AN EXAMINER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE APPOINTMENT OF A CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nWilliam K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (\"United States Trustee\"), in furtherance of his duties and responsibilities set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 586(a)(3), (a)(5), and (a)(8) respectfully moves, through counsel, for an order directing the appointment of an examiner under 11 U.S.C. § 1104(c)(1) and/or (2) for the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo a/k/a Miles Guo (\"Debtor\" and/or \"Kwok\"). In the alternative, the United States Trustee moves for an order directing the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee under 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(2) based on the best interests of creditors and the estate. In support of this motion, the United States Trustee, through counsel, respectfully represents and alleges as follows:\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nThe Debtor is a public figure who, according to numerous news reports and postings on the internet, is a self-proclaimed billionaire living in exile from his native China.[1](#page-0-0) While seemingly having access to significant funds, including the ability to procure a \\$1 million dollar\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup>*See, e.g,,* Lauren Hilgers, *The Mystery of the Exiled Billionaire Whistle-Blower*, New York Times Magazine, January 10, 2018; Alexander Gladstone, *Exiled Chinese Businessman Guo Wengui Files for U.S. Bankruptcy*, Wall Street Journal, February 16, 2022.\n\nretainer for his counsel, the Debtor, in his chapter 11 filing to date, claims that he has no regular income and virtually no assets. The limited assets identified to date by the Debtor amount to less than \\$10,000, with the majority, including certain causes of action, being valued at \"unknown.\" Despite his alleged minimal assets and lack of income, the Debtor lists unsecured debts exceeding \\$373 million, an incredible figure for an individual debtor, particularly one with such limited assets. ECF 1; 20; and 78.[2](#page-1-0) All of this raises many questions.\n\nThe odd combination of what appears to be artificial self-created \"poverty\" by the Debtor to insulate himself from creditors and the Debtor's emergency filing of chapter 11 to obtain protection from creditors owed millions gives rise to obvious concerns. Validating these concerns is the Debtor's marginalization of his schedules and statement of financial affairs to the point of being meaningless. In these documents, the Debtor brazenly disclaims any responsibility or liability for any of the information in the bankruptcy documents pursuant to self-serving, antifiduciary language in the \"Global Notes.\" *See* ECF 77 at pages 1 to 3. The plainly exculpatory language in the Global Notes telegraphs the Debtor's inability and/or unwillingness to recognize and accept his obligations to provide full, complete and accurate information, to fulfill fiduciary obligations to his estate and his creditors, and to meet his obligations as a debtor in possession.\n\nA related and relevant concern is that the Debtor's pre-petition history of avoiding creditors and asserting the Fifth Amendment in response to questions about his assets and his financial dealings. In fact, this chapter 11 case was filed in response to a \\$134 million dollar contempt award against the Debtor in a New York state court action arising out of the Debtor's\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> Unless otherwise noted, references herein to \"ECF \\_\\_\" are to documents filed in the Debtor's case. Due to the length of the various \"ECF\" documents referred to herein that are filed in the Debtor's case, the United States Trustee has not attached them hereto, but does incorporate them herein by reference and reliance thereon.\n\ninvolvement in secreting a luxury yacht out of New York to protect it from being seized by creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"). As discussed more fully *infra*, the contempt decision and other decisions issued in the New York state court action contain multiple findings regarding the Debtor's concerted and deceitful efforts to evade his creditors and to defy the court. The Debtor's pre-petition conduct in other litigation has also evidenced a persistent unwillingness to respond to questions about his assets, his money, and corporate entities, and a frequent assertion of his Fifth Amendment right.\n\nTo protect the integrity and transparency of the bankruptcy process, and to protect the estate and its creditors, the appointment of an examiner to investigate the Debtor's financial interests and dealings is imperative to develop a true and accurate picture of the Debtor's financial condition, which can be reported to the Court. Section 1104(c) authorizes the Court to direct the United States Trustee to appoint an examiner, upon the request of a party in interest or the United States Trustee, where such appointment is in the interests of creditors and other interests of the estate or where a debtor's fixed, liquidated unsecured debts exceed \\$5 million dollars, exclusive of debts owed for goods, services, taxes or debts to insiders. Because the Debtor's fixed, liquidated unsecured debts exceed \\$5 million dollars and because the Debtor's assets, income, and corporate interests lack transparency, the appointment of an examiner is warranted in this case. Accordingly, the United States Trustee requests that the Court direct the United States Trustee to appoint an examiner in this case to conduct an investigation concerning the Debtor's assets, post-petition income and post-petition expenses as follows: (1) identify the Debtor's post-petition income from all sources, (2) identify the Debtor's uses of post-petition income, (3) identify and understand the Debtor's interests, including beneficial, control, equitable and legal, in corporate entities across the globe, and identify and understand the assets\n\nand liabilities of those corporate entities; and (4) examine whether the Debtor is fulfilling all of his fiduciary duties and complying with all the reporting requirements imposed upon debtors-inpossession, including the disclosure of all assets and causes of action.\n\nAlternatively, the United States Trustee seeks an order directing the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee. The Debtor claims that he has no meaningful assets, no income, and no employment, but that he owes over \\$373 million to creditors. He further attempts to avoid any responsibility or liability for his bankruptcy documents and his signatures under penalty of perjury on those documents. Against that backdrop, the Debtor has publicly maintained thus far that he will fund payments to creditors from future litigation winnings and help from family, friends or others. The pre-petition litigation history as told by PAX, however, paints a picture of a Debtor who has flouted court orders and been repeatedly found (by the court in the PAX litigation in New York) to be obstructive, evasive and unwilling to pay his debts while sheltering, hiding, and protecting his assets using friends, family and corporate entities. The level of acrimony and distrust between the Debtor's largest creditor PAX and the Debtor is evident and not likely to dissipate. That acrimony, along with the Debtor's conduct thus far in this chapter 11 case regarding his bankruptcy documents, warrants the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee.\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 586, the United States Trustee is generally charged with monitoring the federal bankruptcy system. *See United States Trustee v. Columbia Gas Sys., Inc. (In re Columbia Gas Sys., Inc.)*, 33 F.3d 294, 295-296 (3d Cir.1994) (noting that United States Trustee has \"public interest standing\" under 11 U.S.C. § 307 which goes beyond mere pecuniary\n\n4\n\ninterest); *Morgenstern v. Revco D.S., Inc. (In re Revco D.S., Inc.)*, 898 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1990) (describing United States Trustee as \"watchdog\").\n\n2. Under 11 U.S.C. §§ 307 and 1104, the United States Trustee has standing to raise and be heard on this Motion.\n\n3. The United States Trustee has solicited for the formation of a committee of unsecured creditors in this case. As of the filing of this motion, the United States Trustee has not yet appointed an official committee of unsecured creditors.\n\n4. The appointment of an examiner is necessary to protect the estate and its creditors and to preserve the integrity of the Chapter 11 process. Section 1104(c)(1) authorizes the appointment of an examiner, upon the request of a party in interest or the United States Trustee, where such appointment is in the interests of creditors and other interests of the estate and Section 1104(c)(2) requires such an appointment where a debtor's fixed, liquidated unsecured debts exceed \\$5 million dollars, exclusive of debts owed for goods, services, taxes or debts to insiders. The Debtor's Summary of Schedules reflects approximately \\$374 million in unsecured debt, zero secured debt, and zero priority unsecured debt. ECF 78 at page 1. Of the general unsecured debt listed on Schedule E/F, the Debtor lists fixed and non-contingent debt of approximately \\$278 million owed to an aggregate of fourteen (14) creditors who are not known to be insiders.[3](#page-4-0) ECF 78 at pages 10, 11, 19-21. Of this \\$278 million, \\$254 million is owed to PAX. ECF 78 at page 20. The Debtor's Schedule E/F therefore reflects debts that meet the threshold requirements of Section 1104(c)(2) for the appointment of an examiner. The assets and\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> The Debtor's Second Amended List of 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors filed on February 23, 2022 lists debts totaling approximately \\$376,439,784.00, of which approximately \\$254,000,000.00 is owed to \"Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity,\" which is PAX. ECF 20. As discussed *infra*, the sum of approximately \\$116 million is owed to PAX by virtue of a judgment entered in 2021.\n\nincome of the Debtor should be investigated by an independent party and publicly reported to the Court to further the Bankruptcy Code's goals of transparency and disclosure to parties in interest.\n\n5. The United States Trustee seeks the appointment of an examiner to conduct an investigation concerning the Debtor's assets, post-petition income, and post-petition expenses as follows: (1) identify the Debtor's post-petition income from all sources, (2) identify the Debtor's uses of post-petition income, (3) identify and understand the Debtor's interests, including beneficial, control, equitable and legal, in corporate entities across the globe, and identify and understand the assets and liabilities of those corporate entities; and (4) examine whether the Debtor is fulfilling all of his fiduciary duties and complying with all the reporting requirements imposed upon debtors-in-possession, including disclosure of all assets and causes of action.\n\n6. Alternatively, the United States Trustee seeks the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee under Section 1104(a)(2) to protect the interests of creditors and the estate.\n\n#### **FACTS**\n\n7. The Debtor, also known as Wengui Guo and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases, filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition (\"Petition\") on February 15, 2022 (\"Petition Date\"). ECF 1.[4](#page-5-0)\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> The Debtor's Petition does not disclose the Debtor's actual residential address and uses a \"residential address\" that is c/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\") in New York City. According to information provided by the Debtor's counsel during a call with the Office of the United States Trustee on February 16, 2022 (\"Initial Call\") and confirmed by a February 18, 2022 letter to Assistant U.S. Trustee Kim McCabe (\"BR Initial Letter\"), the Debtor has resided in Connecticut since February 2020. In contrast, the Debtor's residence has been disclosed as The Sherry-Netherland Inc. on Fifth Avenue in New York City (\"NYC Residence\") as of October 2020 and as of April 2021. *See*  footnote 5 *infra* and first day declaration dated October 20, 2020 in the GH Bankruptcy Case at ECF 1 at paragraph 12; *see also* transcript of Deposition of Ho Wan Kwok (\"Kwok April 2021 Transcript\") at pages 11-12, 77 taken in the lawsuit known as *Cheng v. Kwok*, Case No. 1:20-cv-05678-KPF pending in the Southern District of New York (\"Cheng Case\"), attached as Exhibit A. As instructed by the Court on March 1, 2022 in response to concerns raised by the United States Trustee about the Debtor's failure to disclose his residence on the Petition, the Debtor filed a change of address form on March 10, 2022 which reported his mailing address in Greenwich, Connecticut. ECF 81.\n\n8. The Debtor is a public figure who has claimed he is seeking asylum in the United States after fleeing his native China. ECF 27, 77. He claims to have \"amassed a following on various digital and media platforms where he shares his personal views and opinions concerning the People's Republic of China (the \"PRC\") and other world-affairs.\" ECF 27 at ¶ 5.\n\n9. The Debtor is currently managing his financial affairs and his business interests pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.[5](#page-6-0)\n\n10. No trustee or examiner has been appointed in this case. Prior to this motion, no party has sought the appointment of a trustee or an examiner.\n\n11. The Debtor's Petition was filed by the firm of Brown Rudnick LLP (\"BR\n\nCounsel\"). ECF 1. The Debtor recently filed an application to employ BR Counsel as his chapter\n\n11 counsel. ECF 86. BR Counsel was paid \\$1 million dollars pre-petition from Lamp Capital,\n\nLLC arising from a loan taken out by the Debtor from Lamp Capital, LLC. *See* ECF 54; ECF 86;\n\nECF 77 at page 17; ECF 78 at page 20. The Court has scheduled a hearing on April 12, 2022 to\n\nconsider the application to employ BR Counsel. ECF 91.\n\n12. The Debtor has also recently filed an application to employ Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. as his financial advisor and Stretto, Inc. as a claims and noticing agent. ECF 90 and 87. Both applications are scheduled to be considered by the Court on April 12, 2022. ECF 91.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> A company connected to the Debtor, Genever Holdings, LLC (\"GH\"), has a current pending chapter 11 case in the Southern District of New York bearing case number 20-12411-jlg (\"GH Bankruptcy Case\"). GH is a single member New York limited liability company. *See* GH's Disclosure Statement filed on January 7, 2022 at ECF 165 in the GH Bankruptcy Case (\"GH ECF 165\") and GH's Liquidating Plan filed on January 7, 2022 at ECF 164 in the GH Bankruptcy Case; *see also* Statement of Financial Affairs at ECF 4 in the GH Bankruptcy Case. The sole member of GH is Genever Holdings Corporation, a special purpose entity organized in the British Virgin Islands. *Id*. The Debtor personally manages Genever Holdings Corporation (\"GH Corp\"). *Id.* The primary asset of GH is the NYC Residence, a luxury apartment and auxiliary units that occupy the entire 18th floor of The Sherry-Netherland Inc. on Fifth Avenue in New York City purchased for approximately \\$70 million in 2015. *See* GH ECF 165 and GH ECF 164; *see also* GH Bankruptcy Case at ECF 1 and 83.\n\n13. The meeting of creditors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §341(a) is scheduled for March 21, 2022. ECF 6.\n\n14. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed a Debtor's Chapter 11 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income (Form 122B) (\"Chapter 11 Income Statement\"). ECF 3.\n\n15. On February 24, 2022, the Debtor filed a motion for extension of time seeking an approximately sixty (60) day extension of time to May 2, 2022 to file his required schedules of assets and liabilities and his statement of financial affairs, without prejudice to seek a further extension (\"Extension Motion\"). ECF 27. The Extension Motion characterized the requested extension as \"short\" despite the fact that the original deadline to file these documents was March 1, 2022 and the requested extension would be to a date that is six (6) weeks after the scheduled date for the 341 Meeting. ECF 27 at ¶ 13. Additionally, the Extension Motion appeared to posit that orders approving the employment of professionals, including bankruptcy counsel, litigation counsel, and potentially a financial advisor, as well as an order approving a funding mechanism for the chapter 11 professionals, were both necessary pre-requisites to the Debtor filing his schedules of assets and liabilities and his statement of financial affairs. ECF 27 at ¶¶ 9 and 10.\n\n16. After considering the objections of PAX and the United States Trustee to the Extension Motion, the Court granted a limited extension to March 9, 2022. ECF 49, 50, 60.\n\n17. On March 9, 2022, the Debtor filed his Summary of Your Assets and Liabilities and Certain Statistical Information (\"Summary\"), his Schedules A/B through J (\"Schedules\"), and his Declaration About An Individual's Schedules (\"Declaration\"). ECF 78 and 79. The Debtor's handwritten signature appears on the Declaration below a declaration of penalty of perjury attesting that the Summary and Schedules are true and accurate. ECF 79.\n\n8\n\n18. On March 9, 2022, the Debtor filed his Statement of Financial Affairs (\"SOFA\"). ECF 77. The Debtor's handwritten signature appears on page 7 of SOFA below a declaration of penalty of perjury attesting that the answers on the SOFA are true and accurate. ECF 77 at page 20 of 25.\n\n19. On March 9, 2022, the Debtor filed an amended Debtor's Chapter 11 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income (Form 122B) (\"Amended Chapter 11 Income Statement\"). ECF 80.\n\n20. Also on March 9, 2022, as part of the SOFA, the Debtor filed \"Global Notes\" and \"Specific Notes\" which refer to and comment upon the information contained in in the Schedules and SOFA, provide some additional information, and purport to limit, disclaim, and/or eliminate the Debtor's responsibility, accountability and liability for the information in the Schedules and the SOFA notwithstanding the fact that the Summary, Schedules and the SOFA are signed by the Debtor under penalty of perjury. ECF 77 and 78. The \"Global Notes\" span 3 pages. ECF 77 at pages 1 to 3. The \"Specific Notes\" span 9 pages. ECF 77 at pages 4 to 13. Neither the \"Global Notes\" or the \"Specific Notes\" are directly supported by a signature of the Debtor. In pertinent part, the \"Global Notes\" contain the following:\n\n- a. The last paragraph on page 1 of ECF 77 states that \"nothing contained in the Schedules, SOFA, or Notes shall constitute a waiver of the Debtor's rights or *an admission with respect to his chapter 11 case*.\" ECF 77 at page 1 (emphasis added);\n- b. Paragraph 8 on pages 2 and 3 of ECF 77 contains 6 sub-paragraphs that purport to limit the Debtor's liability with respect to his Schedules and SOFA and reserve his rights to change/modify/edit/dispute/challenge the\n\ninformation contained therein; and\n\nc. Paragraph 9 on page 3 of ECF 77 states the following: \"Global Notes Control. In the event that the Schedules or SOFA differ from any of the Global Notes, the Global Notes shall control.\"\n\n#### *Initial Debtor Interview*\n\n21. By email dated February 18, 2022 to BR Counsel, the United States Trustee requested to schedule the Initial Debtor Interview (\"IDI\") with the Debtor for February 28, 2022. In connection with the IDI, the United States Trustee requested that the Debtor provide a variety of financial information, including tax returns. The Debtor has provided tax returns for the years 2019 and 2020.\n\n22. On February 28, 2022, representatives of the United States Trustee conducted the IDI with the Debtor. BR Counsel attended the IDI, as did litigation and other counsel. An interpreter hired by the United States Trustee translated for the Debtor, and the Debtor also had in-person access to a personal translator. During the IDI, the Debtor disclosed he has no bank accounts, no credit cards, is not employed such that he earns income, and that all of his living expenses are paid for and through Golden Spring.[6](#page-9-0) The Debtor also disclosed that he does not directly own any real estate, does not own any cars, and does not insure any assets. Further, the\n\n<span id=\"page-9-0\"></span><sup>6</sup> Consistent with this, according to the Initial Call and/or the BR Initial Letter, the Debtor is not employed (such that he receives direct compensation from employment), has no regular source of income, has no credit cards issued in his name, and has no financial accounts (bank, brokerage or any other financial accounts). Also according to the Initial Call and/or the BR Initial Letter, Golden Spring and/or family members and/or corporate entities (unspecified) fund all of the Debtor's living expenses. The BR Initial Letter also states that the Golden Spring is a Delaware corporation and the parent company of Golden Spring is a company known as China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Ltd, which is based in Hong Kong and owned by the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo (\"Son\").\n\nDebtor disclosed that he is not leasing any real or personal property and does not have any secured creditors. Lastly, the Debtor disclosed that he has over forty (40) creditors, some of which have filed lawsuits.\n\n#### *Assets, Liabilities, Income, and Expenses – Schedules A/B to J*\n\n23. The Debtor's Petition discloses estimated assets of \\$50,000.00 to \\$100,000.00 and estimated debts of \\$100 million to \\$500 million. ECF 1.\n\n24. Schedule A/B requires a debtor to disclose \"legal or equitable\" interests in all types of personal and real property. The Debtor's Schedule A/B discloses no real estate, no vehicles, no watercraft or recreational vehicles, no cash, no financial accounts of any kind, no household goods, no jewelry, no collectibles, no firearms, no stock or interests in businesses (incorporated or unincorporated, LLC, partnership, or joint venture), no security deposits, no retirement or pension accounts, no annuities, no trusts (or equitable or future interests in property), and no inheritances. *See* Schedule A/B at ECF 78 at pages 3 to 7.\n\n25. The Debtor's sole assets according to Schedule A/B are: clothing (value unknown), a family dog (value unknown), non-negotiated tax refunds and Covid-related relief valued at a total of \\$3,850.00, lawsuits and claims against third parties (not described/listed, value unknown; *see* questions 30, 33, 34 which simply refer to SOFA at question 9), health insurance policy (no value), and a potential malpractice claim against Boies Schiller (value unknown). *See* Schedule A/B at ECF 78 at pages 3 to 7.[7](#page-10-0)\n\n<span id=\"page-10-0\"></span><sup>7</sup> Additionally, the Debtor did not directly answer question 53 on Schedule A/B which requires the Debtor to disclose any other property of any kind that is not already listed in Schedule A/B, and instead responded only: \"Refer to Question 53 in Global Notes.\" *See* Schedule A/B at ECF 78 at page 7. In the \"Specific Notes,\" there is a reference to question 53 which mentions the Debtor's membership at The Mar-a-Lago Club through his family. ECF 77 at page 8.\n\n26. Schedule A/B at question 30 required the Debtor to disclose \"other amounts someone owes you\" and the Debtor responded by saying he is a plaintiff in a number of actions (not specified) and referred to SOFA at question 9, and he listed the value of such actions as \"unknown.\" *See* Schedule A/B at ECF 78 at page 6. As one point of unexplained contrast, the \"Specific Notes,\" disclose the Debtor was awarded \\$12,000 from a judgment in his favor in a lawsuit in Virginia and that such funds are being held by \"counsel for the Debtor\" (unclear what \"counsel\" that refers to). *See* ECF 77 at page 8 at ¶ q. That \\$12,000 does not appear to be listed elsewhere in Schedule A/B.\n\n27. The total value of the Debtor's assets as listed on Scheduled A/B is \\$3,850.00. *See* Schedule A/B at ECF 78 at page 7.\n\n28. The Debtor's Schedule C (exemptions) reflects no claims of exemption in any property. *See* Schedule C at ECF 78 at page 8.\n\n29. The Debtor did not fill out the forms for Schedules D, E/F, G or H. *See* ECF 78 at pages 9 to 13. Instead, the Debtor's responses to the questions on Schedules D, E/F, G and H refer to attached charts which purport to contain the information required by the specific schedules. *Id.* The attached charts, however, are incomplete and do not provide all of the\n\ninformation required by the various questions in Schedules D,[8](#page-12-0) E/F,[9](#page-12-1) G[10](#page-12-2) and H.[11](#page-12-3)\n\n30. The Debtor's Schedule I (income) reports that the Debtor is not employed and has no income of any kind from any source. *See* ECF 78 at pages 14 to 15. The Debtor did not disclose on Schedule I that he receives financial support from family and other sources to pay his regular life expenses (or that others directly pay his regular life expenses). *See* lines 8a, 8b, 8c and 11 of Schedule I at ECF 78 at pages 14 to 15.[12](#page-12-4)\n\n<span id=\"page-12-2\"></span><sup>10</sup> The chart for Schedule G lists 17 parties. *See* ECF 78 at page 22. The chart for Schedule G, however, does not disclose the nature of the agreements, stating only \"engagement letter\" *Id.*\n\n<span id=\"page-12-3\"></span><sup>11</sup> The chart for Schedule H lists 38 parties. *See* ECF 78 at page 23. The chart for Schedule H, however, does not provide the information required by Schedule H in that it does not disclose/correlate the parties to debts on Schedules D, E/F, or G. *Id.* Further, the chart for Schedule H does not list addresses for 26 of the 38 listed parties. *Id.*\n\n<span id=\"page-12-4\"></span><sup>12</sup> The Debtor's Chapter 11 Income Statement filed on February 15, 2022 reports that the Debtor is married and that the Debtor's current monthly income from other sources that is used to pay his household expenses is \\$19,488.00. ECF 3 at line 4. No information about the source of this income was included with the Chapter 11 Income Statement. The Chapter 11 Income Statement also reports no income from wages (line 2), no income from operation of business or profession (line 5), no income from rental or real property (line 6), and no income from interest, dividends or royalties (line 7). *Id.* In contrast, the Debtor's Amended Debtor's Chapter 11 Income Statement filed on March 9, 2022 discloses no income of any kind from any source. ECF 80.\n\n<span id=\"page-12-0\"></span><sup>8</sup> The Debtor's chart for Schedule D lists only one secured creditor, Golden Spring, yet lists this creditor 5 times with the exact same information. *See* ECF 78 at page 18. The chart for Schedule D does not disclose the amounts of the secured claims held by Golden Spring, nor the dates the debt was incurred. *Id.* The chart for Schedule D also fails to provide a real answer to the type of collateral for each of the secured debts, stating only \"certain claims and recoveries therto [sic].\" *Id*. No explanation is given on the chart for Schedule D as to what the claims and/or recoveries are or what they might be, thus there is no disclosure of the scope of Golden Spring's security interests.\n\n<span id=\"page-12-1\"></span><sup>9</sup> The Debtor's Schedule E/F reflects that the Debtor does not have any priority unsecured debt. *See* Schedule E/F at ECF 78 at page 10. The Debtor's Schedule E/F states that the Debtor has general unsecured debt totaling \\$373,803.498.09. *See* Schedule E/F at ECF 78 at pages 10 and 11. The Debtor's chart for Schedule F lists 159 unsecured creditors. *See* ECF 78 at pages 19 to 21. Of the total unsecured debt listed of \\$373,803,498.09, the sum of \\$278,445,685 is listed as disputed, but the Debtor did not list the debts as unliquidated and contingent. *Id.* In other words, while the amount of \\$278,445,685 is disputed, this debt is also fixed and not contingent. *Id.* Additionally, the chart for Schedule F does not list addresses for all creditors (36 are missing addresses) and two of the creditors without addresses also do not appear to have full names (see Weng and Moa-Fu on page 20 of ECF 78). Further, the chart for Schedule F does not list the dates of the debt, nor whether the debt is subject to offset, nor whether there are others obligated on the debts. *See* chart for Schedule F at ECF 78 at pages 19 to 21.\n\n31. Debtor's Schedule J (expenses) lists no expenses of any kind. *See* ECF 78 at pages 16 to 17. Schedule J discloses the Debtor is married and does not have any dependents. *See* ECF 78 at page 16.\n\n#### *SOFA*\n\n32. The Debtor's SOFA reflects limited information, with most of the questions being answered with \"no.\" *See* ECF 77.\n\n33. In response to question 18 of the SOFA which asks if the Debtor transferred any property outside the ordinary course of business or financial affairs within the two-year period prior to the bankruptcy, the Debtor responded \"no.\" *See* ECF 77 at page 17. This response appears to be contradicted by the Global Notes which discloses, in vague terms, the Debtor's granting of security interests in litigation outcomes to litigation funding sources. *See* ECF 77 at page 13.\n\n34. In response to question 23 of the SOFA which asks if the Debtor holds or controls any property that someone else owns, the Debtor did not provide a substantive answer and instead responded only \"refer to the Global Notes Question 23.\" *See* ECF 77 at page 18. The Global Notes regarding question 23 refer to the residence in Greenwich, vehicles, and household items that the Debtor uses but claims not to legally own. *See* ECF 77 at page 13.\n\n35. In response to question 27 of the SOFA which requires disclosure of businesses owned by the Debtor, or connected to the Debtor, within the four-year period prior to the bankruptcy filing, the Debtor disclosed only GH Corp, Shiny Times Holdings, LTD, and Well Origin Limited. *See* ECF 77 at page 19. This response appears to be at odds with the Debtor's list of lawsuits in response to question 9 of the SOFA which include a litany of corporate entities, as well as pleadings filed by PAX. *See* ECF 50 and 57.\n\n#### *Disputes with PAX*\n\n36. The Debtor lists disputed unsecured debt of \\$254,000,000 owed to PAX. *See* ECF 78 at page 20. The Debtor does not claim the debt owed to PAX is unliquidated or contingent. *Id.*\n\n37. The debt to PAX arises out of debt guaranteed by the Debtor and pursued in a collection case known as *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Kwok Ho a/k/a Gwo Wen Gui a/k/a Guo Wengui a/k/a Guo Wen-Gui a/k/a Wan Gue Haoyun a/k/a Miles Kwok a/k/a Haoyun Guo, et al*, Case No. 652077/2017 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (\"PAX Lawsuit\"). The PAX Lawsuit was instituted in 2017 against the Debtor, GH, and GH Corp to recover on certain loan obligations.\n\n38. On February 3, 2021, a judgment was entered in the PAX Lawsuit against the Debtor in the total amount of \\$116,402,019.57 (\"PAX Judgment\"). *See* PAX Lawsuit at NYSCEF Doc. No. 716, copy attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Debtor timely appealed the PAX Judgment to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (Case No. 2021-00740) and such appeal was pending and undecided as of the chapter 11 filing. No stay was imposed.\n\n39. Subsequent to the PAX Judgment, PAX engaged in efforts to locate and collect on assets of the Debtor. Such efforts were met with resistance by the Debtor and difficulty in collection because the Debtor \"had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\" *See* February 9, 2022 decision of the Hon. Barry R. Ostrager (\"NY Court\") in the PAX Lawsuit at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181 at page 1 (\"February 2022 Contempt Decision,\" copy attached as Exhibit C). The Debtor filed his chapter 11 case just days after the February 2022 Contempt Decision and on eve of the deadline to pay PAX a contempt award of\n\n\\$134,000,000 imposed by the February 2022 Contempt Decision.\n\n#### *Facts from the PAX Lawsuit Relevant to the Need for an Examiner*\n\n40. The February 2022 Contempt Decision in the PAX Lawsuit discusses the Debtor's unwillingness and/or refusal to cooperate with court orders and with the post-judgment discovery issued by PAX. *See* Exhibit C. The February 2022 Contempt Decision begins with the statement that almost all of the 1,180 docket entries in the PAX Lawsuit involve the Debtor's \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members.\" *See* Exhibit C at page 1. The NY Court went on to state that the Debtor had engaged in a \"scheme\" to \"assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle.\" *Id.*\n\n41. On October 15, 2020, the NY Court issued an order in the PAX Lawsuit restraining the Debtor and/or the registered owners of a 152-foot yacht known as the Lady May and restricting the Lady May from leaving the jurisdiction of New York. *See* Exhibit C at page 2.\n\n42. On March 16, 2021, the NY Court issued a contempt order in the PAX Lawsuit in response to a motion by PAX about the movement of the Lady May outside of the jurisdiction of New York. *See* PAX Lawsuit at NYSCEF Doc. No. 728 (\"March 2021 Contempt Order,\" copy attached as Exhibit D).\n\n43. The March 2021 Contempt Order imposed a \\$500,000 per day fine on the Debtor for every day the Lady May is outside the jurisdiction of the NY Court. *See* Exhibit D. The March 2021 Contempt Order states that \"it is clear that there has been an intolerable amount of gamesmanship, dissembling, and deceit in proceedings before this Court\" and notes the \"many 'shell games'\" the Debtor \"has engaged in with the assistance of counsel who should know better.\" *Id.* at page 2.\n\n44. In defiance of the restraining orders, the Lady May left the jurisdiction of New York and remained outside the jurisdiction for 268 days as of February 7, 2022. *See* Exhibit C at page 10. The NY Court held an evidentiary hearing in the PAX Lawsuit on February 2, 2022 to address the disputes over ownership and control of the Lady May. *See* Exhibit C. At this hearing, evidence was presented about the purchase of the Lady May for the sum of GBP £ 28 million in 2015 by a company known as Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). *See* Exhibit C at page 4. The Debtor was the sole shareholder of HK International in 2014 and transferred his 100% interest to Qu Guo Jiao in 2014 for no consideration. *Id.*\n\n45. After considering all of the evidence presented, the NY Court concluded in the February 2022 Contempt Decision that the \"evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok [the Debtor] holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May.\" *See* Exhibit C at page 9. Further, the NY Court stated that the Debtor \"has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht [Lady May] from his creditors.\" *See* Exhibit C at page 9.\n\n46. As noted in the February 2022 Contempt Decision, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right to decline or testify or respond to the discovery requests, including discovery related to the Lady May, in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery efforts. *See* Exhibit C at pages 3 and 9; *see also* PAX pre-hearing brief filed at PAX Lawsuit at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1172 at page 5 stating that Kwok's counsel had informed PAX in March 2021 that \"Kwok is asserting his Fifth Amendment right in response to all discovery addressed to him individually and declines to provide any additional and/or further information and/or documents\"; copy attached as Exhibit E). Notably, the Debtor also failed to testify at the February 2, 2022 evidentiary hearing. *See* Exhibit C at page 3.\n\n47. To protect himself from further orders of the NY Court, the Debtor filed this chapter 11 case on the eve of a deadline to pay PAX the contempt award of \\$134,000,000 imposed by the February 2022 Contempt Decision.\n\n48. On March 1, 2022, PAX filed a motion for relief from stay to return to the NY Court to pursue return of the Lady May to New York (\"PAX Stay Relief Motion\"). ECF 57. The PAX Stay Relief Motion is scheduled to be heard by the Court on March 22, 2022.\n\n#### *Other Assertions of the Fifth Amendment by the Debtor in 2021*\n\n49. In a recent lawsuit involving Logan Cheng f/k/a Shuiyan Cheng, the Debtor repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to answer basic questions about his assets and income.\n\n50. At a deposition held on April 1, 2021 in the Cheng Case, the Debtor, through counsel, asserted his Fifth Amendment right in response to questions about the following, among many others, as reflected in the Kwok April 2021 Transcript (*see* Exhibit A):\n\n- a. How much the Debtor gets paid for his work as a consultant and for being in \"broadcasting\" (page 12);\n- b. What the Debtor's relationship is to Golden Spring (page 24);\n- c. Why Golden Spring pays the Debtor's bills (page 40);\n- d. Whether the Debtor has had any income in the last five years (pages 41- 42);\n- e. Whether the Debtor paid any taxes to New York State or the federal government for the year 2020 (page 44);\n- f. Why Golden Spring is paying the Debtor's legal bills for the PAX Lawsuit (pages 47-48);\n- g. What are the assets of Golden Spring (page 50);\n- h. Why Golden Spring is paying for the Debtor's groceries and his clothes (page 76);\n- i. What and when was the Debtor's last paid employment job (page 89); and\n- j. Whether the Debtor has ever been employed in the United States (page\n\t- 91).\n\n#### **LEGAL ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. The Court Should Order the Appointment of an Examiner under Section 1104(c)(1) and/or (2) of the Bankruptcy Code.**\n\nBased on all the circumstances which include, but are not limited to, the Debtor's numerous deficiencies in his Schedules and his SOFA, the over \\$373 million dollars in unsecured debt, and the NY Court's February 2022 findings that the Debtor has engaged in \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors\" and has taken \"extraordinary steps\" to shield a multimillion dollar yacht from his creditors, the Debtor's chapter 11 case warrants immediate investigation by an examiner. *See* Exhibit C at page 9. Bankruptcy is meant to be a safe harbor for the honest but unfortunate debtor. The bankruptcy system depends on full disclosure by a debtor and the public confidence in the bankruptcy system is eroded when there is a lack of transparency and when debtors are evasive about their financial affairs. It is in the best interest of the Debtor's creditors that a neutral party be appointed to investigate and publicly disclose the Debtor's finances and assets and address the questions of what the Debtor has done or is doing with his money.\n\n*a. Standard for appointment of an examiner.*\n\nThe appointment of a chapter 11 examiner is governed by 11 U.S.C. § 1104(c), which\n\nprovides as follows:\n\n(c) If the court does not order the appointment of a trustee under this section, then at any time before the confirmation of a plan, on request of a party in interest or the United States Trustee, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall order the appointment of an examiner to conduct such an investigation of the debtor as is appropriate, including an investigation of any allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct, mismanagement, or irregularity in the management of the affairs of the debtor of or by current or former management of the debtor, if –\n\n> (1) such appointment is in the interests of creditors, any equity security holders, and other interests of the estate; or\n\n(2) the debtor's fixed, liquidated, unsecured debts, other than debts for goods, services, or taxes, or owing to an insider, exceed \\$5,000,000.\n\n#### 11 U.S.C. § 1104(c).\n\nSection 1104(c) expressly provides that the court cannot appoint an examiner if a trustee is appointed. This limitation, however, was not intended to require the denial of a motion to appoint a trustee as a precondition to the appointment of an examiner. *See Keene Corp. v. Coleman (In re Keene Corp.)*, 164 B.R. 844, 855 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994). In *Keene*, the court rejected the creditors' committee's argument that the court could not appoint an examiner unless it first refused to appoint a trustee, holding that \"[a] motion to appoint an examiner stands on its own, and need not be part of an unsuccessful motion to appoint the trustee.\" *Id.; see also In re Gilman Serv., Inc.*, 46 B.R. 322, 327 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1985) (court granted United States Trustee's motion to appoint examiner, where no separate motion to appoint a trustee had been filed).\n\nFrom the express language of the statute, it is apparent that appointment of an examiner is premised on four factors being satisfied: First, the debtor must still be in possession of the estate and a trustee must not have been appointed. Second, a plan must not have been confirmed. Third, a party in interest or the United States Trustee, as is the case here, must request the appointment. Lastly, one of the conditions set out in (c)(1) or (c)(2) must be satisfied: either the appointment of the examiner is in the best interests of the creditors or the specified unsecured debts exceed \\$5 million. *See, e.g., In re UAL Corp.*, 307 B.R. 80, 84 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 2004) (\"[A]ppointment of an examiner is mandatory if the four conditions are met, but the court retains the discretion to determine the nature and scope of the examiner's investigation\"); *In re Residential Capital, LLC*, 474 B.R. 112 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012) (discussing mandatory requirement to appoint when conditions are met).\n\nThe appointment of an examiner is mandatory if the Court finds that the specific debt threshold provisions of Section 1104(c)(2) are met. *See, e.g., Morgenstern v. Revco D.S., Inc. (In re Revco D.S., Inc.)*, 898 F.2d 498, 500-501 (6th Cir. 1990); *Loral Stockholders Protective Comm. v. Loral Space & Commc'ns, Ltd. (In re Loral Space & Commc'ns, Ltd.),* 2004 WL 2979785, \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2004), *rev'g*, 313 B.R. 57 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004); *Walton v. Cornerstone Ministries, Invs., Inc. (In re Cornerstone Ministries Invs., Inc.)*, 398 B.R. 77, 84 (N.D. Ga. 2008). Debts listed as \"disputed\" can be included in the calculation of the debt threshold. *In re Vision Development Group of Broward County, LLC*, 2008 WL 2676827, \\*3 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. June 30, 2008) (Section 1104(c) does not use the word \"undisputed\" and does not require debts to be undisputed).\n\n#### *b. An examiner is warranted and appropriate in the Debtor's case.*\n\nHere, there cannot be any disagreement that all of the factors of Section 1104(c) are met and that an examiner is appropriate. The Debtor is operating as a debtor in possession, no plan has been proposed (or confirmed), the Debtor's fixed debts exceed the statutory threshold, and the United States Trustee is seeking the appointment of an examiner. Lastly, the Debtor has a pre-petition history of being unwilling to explain and disclose his financial affairs. Against this backdrop, the Debtor has disclosed an estimated asset range of \\$50,000 to \\$100,000 on his Petition despite being the beneficial owner of a 152-foot luxury yacht and managing an entity that indirectly owns an entire floor of The Sherry-Netherland. To ensure full understanding and transparent disclosure of the Debtor's assets and his financial dealings, it is in the best interest of the Debtor's creditors that the Debtor's financial affairs be investigated by a neutral party. For all of the factual reasons set forth herein, the appointment of an examiner is required and is clearly in the best interests of the estate and its creditors.\n\n## **II. In the alternative, the Court Should Order the Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee under Section 1104(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.**\n\nIf the Court determines that, based upon the circumstances and facts of this case, the preferable remedy is the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee under Section 1104(a)(2), the United States Trustee will promptly select an appropriate candidate and present the candidate for approval by the Court.\n\nSection 1104(a) provides that the Court may order the appointment of a trustee at any time after the commencement of the case, but prior to confirmation of a plan, on request of a\n\nparty in interest or the United States Trustee, and after notice and a hearing. 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a). This provision sets forth the following grounds for the appointment of a trustee:\n\n> (1) for cause, including fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor ...;\n\n(2) if such appointment is in the interests of creditors, any equity security holders, and other interests of the estate ...\n\n11 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1) and (2).\n\nA number of courts have indicated that grounds for the appointment of a trustee must be established by clear and convincing evidence. *See In re Bayou Group LLC*, 564 F.3d 541, 546 (2nd Cir. 2009); *see also In re Tripodi*, 313 B.R. 358 (Bankr. D.Conn. 2004). Other courts, however, have held that the appropriate burden of proof is \"preponderance of the evidence.\" *See Tradex Corp. v. Morse*, 339 B.R. 823, 829-32 (D. Mass. 2006).\n\n*A Chapter 11 Trustee would be in the Best Interests of Creditors*\n\nSection 1104(a)(2) allows appointment of a trustee even when no \"cause\" exists. *See In re Sharon Steel Corp.*, 871 F.2d 1217, 1226 (3d Cir. 1989); *In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.*, 113 B.R. 164, 168 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990). Under Section 1104(a)(2), the Court may appoint a trustee, in its discretion, to address the \"interests of the creditors, any equity security holders, and other interests of the estate.\" 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(2). *See, e.g., In re Sharon Steel*, 871 F.2d at 1226; *Comm. of Dalkon Shield Claimants v. A.H. Robins Co.*, 828 F. 2d 239, 242 (4th Cir. 1987).\n\n Under Section 1104(a)(2), courts look to the practical realities and necessities. *In re Adelphia Comm's Corp.*, 336 B.R. 610, 658 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006), *aff'd*, 342 B.R. 122 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); *In re Euro-American Lodging Corp.*, 365 B.R. 421, 427 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007). Accordingly, the standard for appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee under Section 1104(a)(2) is flexible. *In re Adelphia*; 336 B.R. at 658; *In re The 1031 Tax Group, LLC*, 374\n\nB.R. 78, 90-91 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007). The factors considered by the courts in assessing motions brought under Section 1104(a)(2) include: (1) the trustworthiness of the debtor, (2) the debtor's past and present performance and prospects for rehabilitation, (3) the confidence – or lack thereof – of the business community and of creditors in present management, and (4) the benefits derived from the appointment of a trustee, balanced against the cost of the appointment. *In re Adelphia*; 336 B.R. at 658; *In re Euro-American*, 365 B.R. at 427; *In re 1031 Tax Group*, 374 B.R. at 91.\n\n Acrimony between a debtor and creditors is a well-known basis to appoint a trustee. *See, e.g., In re Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc.*, 140 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 1998); *In re ElJamal*, 2018 WL 4735719 (S.D.N.Y. September 28, 2018); *In re Eurospark Indus., Inc.*, 424 B.R. 621 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2010). As one court has stated, \"it is important to note that the '[a]ppointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, pursuant to § 1104(a)(2), is not punishment, nor does it imply a finding of fault'\" and instead the purpose is the facilitation of a chapter 11 case that is productive. *In re ElJamal*, 2018 WL 4735719 at \\*9 (internal citations omitted); *see also In re China Fishery Group Limited (Cayman)*, 2016 WL 6875903 \\*14-18 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. October 28, 2016) (same). The appointment of a chapter 11 trustee can be the right move to achieve forward progress, and while \"'the debtor loses a degree of personal control over the estate, the responsibilities of a Chapter 11 trustee are, in almost every respect, no different than those already held by the debtor-in-possession.'\" *In re ElJamal*, 2018 WL 4735719 at \\*9 (internal citation omitted).\n\nHere, years of litigation between PAX and the Debtor led to the filing of this chapter 11. PAX has filed three pleadings in this case to date, an objection to the Extension Moton, the PAX Stay Relief Motion and a reply to the Debtor's objection to same, which collectively outline a long and difficult history of litigation with the Debtor. ECF 50, 57, and 98. The Debtor, rather\n\nthan comply with the February 2022 Contempt Decision, filed this chapter 11 to stall PAX and to frustrate its collection efforts. The Debtor, through the Extension Motion, the Global Notes, the disclosure of limited assets, the suggestion that payments to creditors would be funded by litigation winnings, as well as his pre-petition conduct, has set the stage for a long, protracted case that features countless disputes with PAX. Further, the Global Notes cause real concern that the Debtor is unable or unwilling to respect and perform the fiduciary duties necessary to administer his estate. The interests of creditors and the estate are best served by an independent trustee who can devote undivided attention to the bankruptcy case and who will assure the proper administration of the Debtor's bankruptcy estate and preserve its assets.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nWHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the Court direct the appointment of an examiner to investigate and report on the following: (1) identify the Debtor's post-petition income from all sources, (2) identify the Debtor's uses of post-petition income, (3) identify and understand the Debtor's interests, including beneficial, control, equitable and legal, in corporate entities across the globe, and identify and understand the assets and liabilities of those corporate entities; and (4) examine whether the Debtor is fulfilling all of his fiduciary duties and complying with all the reporting requirements imposed upon debtors-in-possession, including disclosure of all assets and causes of action. In the alternative, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the Court direct the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee. Lastly, the United States Trustee respectfully reserves\n\nthe right to supplement this motion should it become appropriate to do so.\n\nDated: March 19, 2022 Respectfully submitted,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2\n\n> By: /s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn\n\n> > /s/ Steven E. Mackey Steven E. Mackey\n\n Trial Attorneys Office of the United States Trustee Giaimo Federal Building, Room 302 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510 Holley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov Federal Bar No.: ct17216 (Connecticut) [Steven.E.Mackey@usdoj.gov](mailto:Steven.E.Mackey@usdoj.gov) Federal Bar No: ct09932 (Connecticut) (203) 773-2210\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n**In re Chapter 11**\n\n**a/k/a WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES GUO,**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\n **Debtor.**\n\n# *PROPOSED* **ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE APPOINTMENT OF AN EXAMINER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE APPOINTMENT OF A CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nThe United States Trustee having moved for an order directing the appointment of an examiner under 11 U.S.C. § 1104(c)(1) and/or (2) for the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo a/k/a Miles Guo (\"Debtor\" and/or \"Kwok\"), or in the alternative, an order directing the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee under 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(2) based on the best interests of creditors and the estate (\"Motion\"), and a hearing having been held on the Motion on\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2022 and the Court having found cause to grant the Motion, it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED** that the Motion is granted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1104(c)(1) and (2); and it\n\nis further\n\n**ORDERED** that the United States Trustee is directed to appoint an examiner in the\n\nDebtor's case; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED** that the examiner shall perform the duties set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 1104(d) and those that may be ordered by the Court upon future order, and in particular, the examiner shall investigate and report on the following: (1) identify the Debtor's post-petition income from all sources, (2) identify the Debtor's uses of post-petition income, (3) identify and understand the Debtor's interests, including beneficial, control, equitable and legal, in corporate entities across the globe, and identify and understand the assets and liabilities of those corporate entities; and (4) examine whether the Debtor is fulfilling all of his fiduciary duties and complying with all the reporting requirements imposed upon debtors-in-possession, including disclosure of all assets and causes of action.","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n又名 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵） 又名 MILES GUO（郭文贵），\n\n债务人。\n美国受托人关于申请裁定指示任命审查员，或备选申请裁定指示任命第11章受托人的动议\n\n________________________________________________________________________________\n\n第2区美国受托人 William K. Harrington（威廉·K·哈灵顿）（“美国受托人”）为履行其在 28 U.S.C. §§ 586(a)(3), (a)(5), and (a)(8) 规定的职责和责任，现通过律师，谨申请裁定，指示根据 11 U.S.C. § 1104(c)(1) 和/或 (2) 为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）又名 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）又名 Miles Guo（郭文贵）（“债务人”和/或“Kwok”）的第11章案件任命一名审查员。作为备选，美国受托人基于债权人及破产财产的最佳利益，申请裁定，指示根据 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(2) 任命一名第11章受托人。为支持本动议，美国受托人通过律师，谨陈述并主张如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n债务人是一名公众人物，根据大量新闻报道和互联网帖子，其自称为一名流亡于其祖国中国的亿万富翁。[1] 尽管其表面上似乎可获得大量资金，包括有能力为其律师筹措 $1 million dollar 预付律师费，\n\n1 参见，例如，Lauren Hilgers（劳伦·希尔格斯），《流亡亿万富翁告密者之谜》，《纽约时报杂志》，2018年1月10日；Alexander Gladstone（亚历山大·格拉德斯通），《流亡中国商人郭文贵申请美国破产》，《华尔街日报》，2022年2月16日。\n\n但债务人迄今在其第11章申请中声称，其没有固定收入且几乎没有资产。债务人迄今列明的有限资产总额不足 $10,000，其中大部分资产，包括某些诉因，估值为“未知”。尽管其声称资产极少且没有收入，债务人列示的无担保债务却超过 $373 million；对于一名个人债务人而言，这一数额令人难以置信，尤其是其资产如此有限。ECF 1; 20; and 78.[2] 所有这些都引发了诸多疑问。\n\n债务人为使自己免受债权人追索而看似人为造成的“贫困”，与其为获得对数百万债权人债权的保护而紧急提出第11章申请，这一不同寻常的组合引发了显而易见的担忧。进一步证实这些担忧的是，债务人将其财产清单和财务状况说明边缘化到毫无意义的程度。在这些文件中，债务人依据“Global Notes”中的自利、反受托语言，公然否认其对破产文件中任何信息负有任何责任或承担任何义务。参见 ECF 77 第 1 至 3 页。Global Notes 中明显免责的措辞表明，债务人无法和/或不愿承认并接受其提供充分、完整和准确信息的义务，履行其对破产财产及其债权人的受托义务，以及履行其作为占有债务人的义务。\n\n另一项相关且重要的担忧是，债务人在申请破产前曾规避债权人，并在被问及其资产及财务交易时援引美国宪法第五修正案。事实上，本第11章案件系为应对债务人在纽约州法院诉讼中被裁定承担的 $134 million 藐视法庭罚金而提出；该诉讼源于债务人参与将一艘豪华游艇从纽约秘密转移，以防止债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业，以下简称“PAX”）将其扣押。如下文将更充分讨论，该纽约州法院诉讼中作出的藐视法庭裁决及其他裁决，包含多项关于债务人为逃避债权人及藐视法院而协同行事并实施欺骗性努力的认定。债务人在申请破产前其他诉讼中的行为也表明，其一贯不愿回答有关其资产、资金和公司实体的问题，并频繁援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n为保护破产程序的完整性和透明度，并保护破产财产及其债权人，任命一名审查员调查债务人的财务权益和交易，对于形成债务人财务状况真实、准确的图景并向本院报告至关重要。第 1104(c) 条授权本院在利害关系方或美国受托人提出请求时，在此类任命符合债权人和破产财产其他利益，或债务人的确定、已清算无担保债务超过 $5 million dollars（不包括因货物、服务、税款或对内部人士所负债务）时，指示美国受托人任命一名审查员。由于债务人的确定、已清算无担保债务超过 $5 million dollars，且债务人的资产、收入和公司权益缺乏透明度，本案应当任命审查员。因此，美国受托人请求本院指示美国受托人在本案中任命一名审查员，对债务人的资产、申请破产后收入及申请破产后支出进行如下调查：（1）确定债务人来自所有来源的申请破产后收入；（2）确定债务人对申请破产后收入的用途；（3）确定并了解债务人在全球各公司实体中的权益，包括受益权、控制权、衡平权益和法定权益，并确定及了解该等公司实体的资产\n\n和负债；以及（4）审查债务人是否履行其全部受托义务，并遵守对占有债务人施加的所有报告要求，包括披露全部资产和诉因。\n\n作为备选，美国受托人寻求一项指示任命第11章受托人的裁定。债务人声称其没有实质性资产、没有收入、也没有工作，但其欠债权人超过 $373 million。其还试图避免对其破产文件以及其在该等文件上作出的伪证处罚声明签名承担任何责任或义务。在此背景下，债务人迄今公开表示，其将通过未来诉讼获胜所得以及家人、朋友或其他人士的帮助，为向债权人付款提供资金。然而，PAX 所述的申请破产前诉讼历史描绘出这样一名债务人：其无视法院命令，并被反复认定（由纽约 PAX 诉讼中的法院认定）具有阻挠性、逃避性且不愿清偿债务，同时利用朋友、家人和公司实体庇护、隐藏和保护其资产。债务人最大债权人 PAX 与债务人之间的敌意和不信任程度显而易见，且不大可能消散。该等敌意，加之债务人迄今在本第11章案件中有关其破产文件的行为，证明任命第11章受托人具有正当性。\n\n背景\n\n1. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 586，美国受托人通常负责监督联邦破产制度。参见 United States Trustee v. Columbia Gas Sys., Inc. (In re Columbia Gas Sys., Inc.), 33 F.3d 294, 295-296 (3d Cir.1994)（指出，美国受托人根据 11 U.S.C. § 307 具有“公共利益诉讼资格”，超出单纯金钱利益）；Morgenstern v. Revco D.S., Inc. (In re Revco D.S., Inc.), 898 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1990)（将美国受托人描述为“监督者”）。\n\n2. 根据 11 U.S.C. §§ 307 and 1104，美国受托人有资格提出本动议并就本动议陈述意见。\n\n3. 美国受托人已就本案无担保债权人委员会的组建进行征集。截至提交本动议之日，美国受托人尚未任命无担保债权人正式委员会。\n\n4. 为保护破产财产及其债权人并维护第11章程序的完整性，有必要任命审查员。第 1104(c)(1) 条授权在利害关系方或美国受托人提出请求时，在该任命符合债权人和破产财产其他利益的情况下任命审查员；第 1104(c)(2) 条要求在债务人的确定、已清算无担保债务超过 $5 million dollars（不包括因货物、服务、税款或对内部人士所负债务）时作出此类任命。债务人的财产清单摘要显示，无担保债务约为 $374 million，有担保债务为零，优先无担保债务为零。ECF 78 第 1 页。在附表 E/F 所列的一般无担保债务中，债务人列示其对合计十四（14）名非已知内部人士债权人所负的确定且非或有债务约为 $278 million。[3] ECF 78 第 10、11、19-21 页。在该 $278 million 中，$254 million 系欠付 PAX。ECF 78 第 20 页。因此，债务人的附表 E/F 显示的债务符合第 1104(c)(2) 条关于任命审查员的门槛要求。债务人的资产和\n\n3 债务人于 2022年2月23日提交的第二次修正二十大无担保债权人名单列示债务总额约为 $376,439,784.00，其中约 $254,000,000.00 欠付“Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity”，即 PAX。ECF 20。如下文所述，约 $116 million 因 2021年作出的判决而欠付 PAX。\n\n收入应由独立方调查，并向本院公开报告，以进一步实现《破产法典》对利害关系方透明度和信息披露的目标。\n\n5. 美国受托人寻求任命一名审查员，对债务人的资产、申请破产后收入及申请破产后支出进行如下调查：（1）确定债务人来自所有来源的申请破产后收入；（2）确定债务人对申请破产后收入的用途；（3）确定并了解债务人在全球各公司实体中的权益，包括受益权、控制权、衡平权益和法定权益，并确定及了解该等公司实体的资产和负债；以及（4）审查债务人是否履行其全部受托义务，并遵守对占有债务人施加的所有报告要求，包括披露全部资产和诉因。\n\n6. 作为备选，美国受托人根据第 1104(a)(2) 条寻求任命一名第11章受托人，以保护债权人和破产财产的利益。\n\n事实\n\n7. 债务人，又名 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）和 Miles Kwok（郭文贵），以及众多其他别名，于 2022年2月15日提交了自愿第11章申请书（“申请书”）（“申请日”）。ECF 1.[4]\n\n4 债务人的申请书未披露债务人的实际居住地址，而是使用了纽约市 Golden Spring（New York）Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring”）的“居住地址”作为转交地址。根据债务人律师在 2022 年 2 月 16 日与 United States Trustee（美国受托人）办公室通话期间提供的信息（以下简称“初始通话”），以及致 Assistant U.S. Trustee Kim McCabe（助理美国受托人 Kim McCabe）的 2022 年 2 月 18 日函件（以下简称“BR 初始函”）所确认的信息，债务人自 2020 年 2 月起居住于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）。相比之下，截至 2020 年 10 月及截至 2021 年 4 月，债务人的住所被披露为位于纽约市 Fifth Avenue（第五大道）的 The Sherry-Netherland Inc.（谢里-荷兰公司，以下简称“纽约市住所”）。见下文脚注 5，以及 GH Bankruptcy Case（GH 破产案件）中日期为 2020 年 10 月 20 日的首日声明，ECF 1 第 12 段；另见 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的证言笔录（以下简称“Kwok 2021 年 4 月笔录”）第 11-12、77 页，该笔录系在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）待决、案号为 1:20-cv-05678-KPF、名为 Cheng v. Kwok（Cheng 诉 Kwok 案，以下简称“Cheng 案”）的诉讼中取得，并作为附件 A 附具。针对美国受托人就债务人未在申请书中披露其住所提出的疑虑，法院于 2022 年 3 月 1 日作出指示后，债务人于 2022 年 3 月 10 日提交了地址变更表，报告其在 Greenwich, Connecticut（康涅狄格州格林尼治）的邮寄地址。ECF 81。\n\n8. 债务人为公众人物，其声称在逃离其祖国 China（中国）后正在 United States（美国）寻求庇护。ECF 27, 77。其声称已“在多个数字和媒体平台上积累了追随者，在这些平台上其分享其关于 People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国，以下简称“PRC”）及其他世界事务的个人观点和意见。”ECF 27 第 ¶ 5 段。\n\n9. 债务人目前正依照 Bankruptcy Code（《破产法》）第 1107 和 1108 条管理其财务事务及商业利益。[5]\n\n10. 本案尚未指定任何受托人或审查人。在本动议之前，未有任何一方寻求指定受托人或审查人。\n\n11. 债务人的申请书由 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所，以下简称“BR Counsel”）提交。ECF 1。债务人最近提交申请，拟聘用 BR Counsel 作为其第 11 章律师。ECF 86。BR Counsel 在申请提交前由 Lamp Capital, LLC（灯资本有限责任公司）支付 $1 million dollars，该款项源自债务人向 Lamp Capital, LLC 取得的一笔贷款。见 ECF 54；ECF 86；ECF 77 第 17 页；ECF 78 第 20 页。法院已安排于 2022 年 4 月 12 日举行听证，以审议聘用 BR Counsel 的申请。ECF 91。\n\n12. 债务人最近还提交申请，拟聘用 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（Verdolino & Lowey 专业公司）作为其财务顾问，并聘用 Stretto, Inc.（Stretto 公司）作为债权申报及通知代理人。ECF 90 和 87。两项申请均安排由法院于 2022 年 4 月 12 日审议。ECF 91。\n\n5 与债务人有关联的一家公司 Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司，以下简称“GH”）目前在纽约南区有一宗待决的第 11 章案件，案号为 20-12411-jlg（以下简称“GH 破产案件”）。GH 是一家单一成员的 New York（纽约州）有限责任公司。见 GH 于 2022 年 1 月 7 日在 GH 破产案件中提交的披露声明，ECF 165（以下简称“GH ECF 165”），以及 GH 于 2022 年 1 月 7 日在 GH 破产案件中提交的清算计划，ECF 164；另见 GH 破产案件中的财务事务陈述，ECF 4。GH 的唯一成员为 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings 公司），该公司是于 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）设立的特殊目的实体。同上。债务人亲自管理 Genever Holdings Corporation（以下简称“GH Corp”）。同上。GH 的主要资产是纽约市住所，即位于纽约市第五大道 The Sherry-Netherland Inc. 整个第 18 层的一套豪华公寓及附属单元，该物业于 2015 年以约 $70 million 购得。见 GH ECF 165 和 GH ECF 164；另见 GH 破产案件 ECF 1 和 83。\n\n13. 根据 11 U.S.C. §341(a) 举行的债权人会议安排于 2022 年 3 月 21 日举行。ECF 6。\n\n14. 2022 年 2 月 15 日，债务人提交了债务人第 11 章当前月收入陈述（表格 122B）（以下简称“第 11 章收入陈述”）。ECF 3。\n\n15. 2022 年 2 月 24 日，债务人提交延期动议，寻求将其提交所需资产和负债明细表及财务事务陈述的期限延长约六十（60）日，至 2022 年 5 月 2 日，并保留寻求进一步延期的权利（以下简称“延期动议”）。ECF 27。延期动议将所请求的延期描述为“短期”，尽管提交这些文件的原定截止日期为 2022 年 3 月 1 日，且所请求延期至的日期是在安排举行 341 会议之日后六（6）周。ECF 27 第 ¶ 13 段。此外，延期动议似乎认为，批准聘用专业人士（包括破产律师、诉讼律师及可能的财务顾问）的命令，以及批准第 11 章专业人士资金机制的命令，均为债务人提交其资产和负债明细表及财务事务陈述所必需的先决条件。ECF 27 第 ¶¶ 9 和 10 段。\n\n16. 在审议 PAX 和美国受托人对延期动议提出的异议后，法院准予有限延期至 2022 年 3 月 9 日。ECF 49, 50, 60。\n\n17. 2022 年 3 月 9 日，债务人提交了其资产和负债及若干统计信息摘要（以下简称“摘要”）、其附表 A/B 至 J（以下简称“附表”），以及其关于个人附表的声明（以下简称“声明”）。ECF 78 和 79。债务人的手写签名出现在声明中伪证处罚声明的下方，该声明证明摘要和附表真实准确。ECF 79。\n\n18. 2022 年 3 月 9 日，债务人提交了其财务事务陈述（以下简称“SOFA”）。ECF 77。债务人的手写签名出现在 SOFA 第 7 页伪证处罚声明的下方，该声明证明 SOFA 中的答复真实准确。ECF 77，第 25 页中的第 20 页。\n\n19. 2022 年 3 月 9 日，债务人提交了经修订的债务人第 11 章当前月收入陈述（表格 122B）（以下简称“经修订第 11 章收入陈述”）。ECF 80。\n\n20. 同于 2022 年 3 月 9 日，作为 SOFA 的一部分，债务人提交了“全球说明”和“具体说明”，其中提及并评论了附表和 SOFA 所载信息，提供了一些补充信息，并意图限制、否认和／或免除债务人对附表及 SOFA 中信息的责任、问责义务和法律责任，尽管摘要、附表及 SOFA 均由债务人在伪证处罚下签署。ECF 77 和 78。“全球说明”共 3 页。ECF 77 第 1 至 3 页。“具体说明”共 9 页。ECF 77 第 4 至 13 页。“全球说明”和“具体说明”均未直接由债务人签名支持。相关部分，“全球说明”载有如下内容：\n\na. ECF 77 第 1 页最后一段规定，“附表、SOFA 或说明中所载的任何内容，均不构成对债务人权利的放弃，亦不构成就其第 11 章案件作出的承认。”ECF 77 第 1 页（着重号为原文所加）；\n\nb. ECF 77 第 2 和 3 页的第 8 段含有 6 个子段，意图限制债务人就其附表和 SOFA 所承担的责任，并保留其变更／修改／编辑／争议／质疑其中所载信息的权利；以及\n\nc. ECF 77 第 3 页的第 9 段规定如下：“全球说明优先。在附表或 SOFA 与任何全球说明不一致的情况下，应以全球说明为准。”\n\n初始债务人访谈\n\n21. 美国受托人于 2022 年 2 月 18 日致 BR Counsel 的电子邮件中，请求安排于 2022 年 2 月 28 日与债务人进行初始债务人访谈（以下简称“IDI”）。就 IDI 而言，美国受托人要求债务人提供各种财务信息，包括纳税申报表。债务人已提供 2019 年和 2020 年的纳税申报表。\n\n22. 2022 年 2 月 28 日，美国受托人的代表与债务人进行了 IDI。BR Counsel 出席了 IDI，诉讼律师及其他律师亦出席。美国受托人聘请的一名口译员为债务人进行翻译，债务人亦可当面使用一名个人翻译。债务人在 IDI 期间披露，其没有银行账户、没有信用卡、未受雇从而赚取收入，且其全部生活开支均由 Golden Spring 支付并通过 Golden Spring 支付。[6] 债务人还披露，其不直接拥有任何不动产、不拥有任何汽车，且未为任何资产投保。此外，\n\n6 与此一致，根据初始通话和／或 BR 初始函，债务人未受雇（因此未从就业中直接获得报酬）、没有固定收入来源、没有以其名义签发的信用卡，也没有任何金融账户（银行、经纪或任何其他金融账户）。同样根据初始通话和／或 BR 初始函，Golden Spring 和／或家庭成员和／或公司实体（未具体说明）为债务人的全部生活开支提供资金。BR 初始函还称，Golden Spring 是一家 Delaware（特拉华州）公司，而 Golden Spring 的母公司是一家名为 China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Ltd（中国金泉集团（香港）有限公司）的公司，该公司位于 Hong Kong（香港），由债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强，以下简称“儿子”）所有。\n\n债务人披露，其未租赁任何不动产或动产，且没有任何有担保债权人。最后，债务人披露其有逾四十（40）名债权人，其中一些已提起诉讼。\n\n资产、负债、收入和支出——附表 A/B 至 J\n\n23. 债务人的申请书披露估计资产为 $50,000.00 至 $100,000.00，估计债务为 $100 million 至 $500 million。ECF 1。\n\n24. 附表 A/B 要求债务人披露其对各类动产和不动产所享有的“法定或衡平”权益。债务人的附表 A/B 未披露任何不动产、车辆、船舶或休闲车辆、现金、任何种类的金融账户、家居用品、珠宝、收藏品、枪支、股票或企业权益（公司制或非公司制、LLC、合伙企业或合资企业）、保证金、退休或养老金账户、年金、信托（或财产上的衡平权益或未来权益）及继承遗产。见 ECF 78 中附表 A/B 第 3 至 7 页。\n\n25. 根据附表 A/B，债务人的唯一资产为：衣物（价值不明）、一只家庭犬（价值不明）、总价值为 $3,850.00 的未经协商的退税及与 Covid 有关的救济、针对第三方的诉讼和请求权（未描述／列明，价值不明；见问题 30、33、34，该等问题仅提及 SOFA 的问题 9）、健康保险单（无价值），以及针对 Boies Schiller（博伊斯·席勒律师事务所）的潜在失职索赔（价值不明）。见 ECF 78 中附表 A/B 第 3 至 7 页。[7]\n\n7 此外，债务人未直接回答附表 A/B 中的问题 53，该问题要求债务人披露尚未在附表 A/B 中列出的任何其他种类财产，而仅答复：“请参见全球说明中的问题 53。”见 ECF 78 中附表 A/B 第 7 页。在“具体说明”中，提及问题 53 的部分提到债务人通过其家人拥有 The Mar-a-Lago Club（海湖庄园俱乐部）的会员资格。ECF 77 第 8 页。\n\n26. 附表A/B第30项要求债务人披露“他人欠付给您的其他款项”，债务人答复称其在若干诉讼中担任原告（未具体说明），并援引财务状况说明（SOFA）第9项，且将该等诉讼的价值列为“未知”。见ECF 78第6页附表A/B。作为一项未获解释的对照，“具体说明”披露，债务人在弗吉尼亚州的一宗诉讼中获得一项对其有利的判决，获判$12,000，且该等款项正由“债务人的律师”保管（不清楚该“律师”所指为何人）。见ECF 77第8页¶ q。该$12,000似乎未在附表A/B的其他部分列明。\n\n27. 债务人在附表A/B中列示的资产总价值为$3,850.00。见ECF 78第7页附表A/B。\n\n28. 债务人的附表C（豁免）显示，其未就任何财产主张豁免。见ECF 78第8页附表C。\n\n29. 债务人未填写附表D、E/F、G或H的表格。见ECF 78第9至13页。相反，债务人对附表D、E/F、G和H中问题的答复援引所附图表，该等图表声称载有各具体附表所要求的信息。同上。然而，所附图表并不完整，且未提供附表D[8]、E/F[9]、G[10]和H[11]中各项问题所要求的全部信息。\n\n30. 债务人的附表I（收入）载明，债务人未受雇，且没有来自任何来源的任何种类收入。见ECF 78第14至15页。债务人未在附表I中披露其从家人及其他来源获得经济支持以支付其日常生活开支（或他人直接支付其日常生活开支）。见ECF 78第14至15页附表I第8a、8b、8c及11行。[12]\n\n10 附表G的图表列有17方当事人。见ECF 78第22页。然而，附表G的图表未披露协议的性质，仅写明“聘用函”。同上。\n\n11 附表H的图表列有38方当事人。见ECF 78第23页。然而，附表H的图表未提供附表H所要求的信息，因为其未披露或将当事人与附表D、E/F或G中的债务相对应。同上。此外，附表H的图表未列明所列38方当事人中26方的地址。同上。\n\n12 债务人于February 15, 2022提交的第11章收入报表载明，债务人已婚，且债务人用于支付其家庭开支的来自其他来源的当前月收入为$19,488.00。ECF 3第4行。第11章收入报表未载明该收入来源的任何信息。第11章收入报表还载明无工资收入（第2行）、无营业或专业经营收入（第5行）、无租赁或不动产收入（第6行），以及无利息、股息或特许权使用费收入（第7行）。同上。与此相反，债务人于March 9, 2022提交的经修正债务人第11章收入报表披露，其没有来自任何来源的任何种类收入。ECF 80。\n\n8 债务人就附表D提交的图表仅列有一名有担保债权人Golden Spring（黄金泉），但以完全相同的信息将该债权人列了5次。见ECF 78第18页。附表D的图表未披露Golden Spring持有的有担保债权金额，亦未披露债务发生日期。同上。附表D的图表还未就各项有担保债务的担保物类型作出实质性答复，仅写明“certain claims and recoveries therto [sic]”。同上。附表D图表未说明该等请求权和／或追偿款为何物或可能为何物，因而未披露Golden Spring担保权益的范围。\n\n9 债务人的附表E/F显示，债务人不存在任何优先无担保债务。见ECF 78第10页附表E/F。债务人的附表E/F载明，债务人共有$373,803.498.09的一般无担保债务。见ECF 78第10及11页附表E/F。债务人就附表F提交的图表列有159名无担保债权人。见ECF 78第19至21页。在所列$373,803,498.09无担保债务总额中，$278,445,685被列为有争议，但债务人并未将该等债务列为未确定或附条件债务。同上。换言之，虽然$278,445,685金额存在争议，该债务亦为固定且非附条件的债务。同上。此外，附表F的图表未列明所有债权人的地址（36名债权人的地址缺失），且其中两名未列地址的债权人似乎也未列出全名（见ECF 78第20页的Weng和Moa-Fu）。此外，附表F的图表未列明债务日期、债务是否可予抵销，或是否有其他人对该等债务负有义务。见ECF 78第19至21页附表F图表。\n\n31. 债务人的附表J（开支）未列示任何种类的开支。见ECF 78第16至17页。附表J披露债务人已婚且无任何受扶养人。见ECF 78第16页。\n\n财务状况说明\n\n32. 债务人的财务状况说明所反映的信息有限，大多数问题均答复为“否”。见ECF 77。\n\n33. 对财务状况说明第18项的答复中，该项询问债务人在破产前两年内是否在正常营业或财务事务范围外转让任何财产，债务人答复为“否”。见ECF 77第17页。该答复似与综合说明相矛盾；综合说明以含糊的措辞披露，债务人向诉讼融资来源授予了诉讼结果的担保权益。见ECF 77第13页。\n\n34. 对财务状况说明第23项的答复中，该项询问债务人是否持有或控制属于他人的任何财产，债务人未提供实质性答复，而仅答复“参见综合说明第23项”。见ECF 77第18页。关于第23项的综合说明提及债务人使用但主张并不合法拥有的Greenwich（格林尼治）住所、车辆及家庭物品。见ECF 77第13页。\n\n35. 对财务状况说明第27项的答复中，该项要求披露债务人在破产申请前四年内拥有或与其有关联的企业，债务人仅披露GH Corp、Shiny Times Holdings, LTD和Well Origin Limited。见ECF 77第19页。该答复似与债务人对财务状况说明第9项所作的诉讼清单相矛盾，该清单包括一长串公司实体以及PAX提交的诉状。见ECF 50和57。\n\n与PAX的争议\n\n36. 债务人列示其欠付PAX的$254,000,000无担保债务存在争议。见ECF 78第20页。债务人未主张欠付PAX的债务为未确定或附条件债务。同上。\n\n37. 对PAX的债务源于由债务人担保的债务，并在一宗名为Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Kwok Ho a/k/a Gwo Wen Gui a/k/a Guo Wengui a/k/a Guo Wen-Gui a/k/a Wan Gue Haoyun a/k/a Miles Kwok a/k/a Haoyun Guo, et al（Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.诉Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）等）的追偿案件中被追索，该案案号为纽约州最高法院Case No. 652077/2017（“PAX诉讼”）。PAX诉讼于2017年对债务人、GH及GH Corp提起，以追索若干贷款义务。\n\n38. 于February 3, 2021，PAX诉讼中作出针对债务人的判决，判决总额为$116,402,019.57（“PAX判决”）。见PAX诉讼，NYSCEF Doc. No. 716，副本附后作为证物B。债务人及时向New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department（纽约州最高法院上诉分庭第一司法部门）提起对PAX判决的上诉（Case No. 2021-00740），且截至第11章申请之日，该上诉尚在审理且未作出裁决。未实施中止执行。\n\n39. PAX判决之后，PAX采取措施查找并追收债务人的资产。债务人对该等措施予以抵制，且由于债务人“已将其资产藏匿于公司实体及家庭成员构成的迷宫之中”，追收工作面临困难。见Hon. Barry R. Ostrager（Barry R. Ostrager阁下）（“纽约法院”）于February 9, 2022在PAX诉讼中作出的裁决，NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181第1页（“February 2022藐视法庭裁决”，副本附后作为证物C）。债务人在February 2022藐视法庭裁决作出仅数日后，并在根据该裁决向PAX支付$134,000,000藐视法庭罚款的截止日期前夕，提交了其第11章案件申请。\n\nPAX诉讼中与指定审查员必要性有关的事实\n\n40. PAX诉讼中的February 2022藐视法庭裁决讨论了债务人不愿意和／或拒绝配合法院命令及PAX进行的判决后取证。见证物C。February 2022藐视法庭裁决开篇即称，PAX诉讼中几乎所有1,180项案卷记录均涉及债务人“通过将其大量个人资产置于一系列公司、受信任的知己及家庭成员名下，从而逃避并欺骗其债权人的努力”。见证物C第1页。纽约法院继而称，债务人从事了一项“计划”，以“主张其虽过着奢靡生活但没有资产”。同上。\n\n41. 于October 15, 2020，纽约法院在PAX诉讼中发布命令，限制债务人和／或一艘名为Lady May的152英尺游艇的登记所有人，并限制Lady May离开纽约司法管辖区。见证物C第2页。\n\n42. 于March 16, 2021，纽约法院就PAX提出的关于Lady May移出纽约司法管辖区的动议，在PAX诉讼中作出藐视法庭命令。见PAX诉讼NYSCEF Doc. No. 728（“March 2021藐视法庭命令”，副本附后作为证物D）。\n\n43. March 2021藐视法庭命令规定，就Lady May位于纽约法院司法管辖区外的每一日，对债务人处以每日$500,000的罚款。见证物D。March 2021藐视法庭命令称，“显然，在本院审理程序中存在令人无法容忍的策略性操作、掩饰和欺骗”，并指出债务人在“本应更为审慎的律师”协助下所从事的“诸多‘障眼法’”。同上，第2页。\n\n44. 违反限制命令，Lady May离开纽约司法管辖区，并截至February 7, 2022已在该司法管辖区外停留268日。见证物C第10页。纽约法院于February 2, 2022在PAX诉讼中举行证据听证会，以处理有关Lady May所有权及控制权的争议。见证物C。在该听证会上，提出了有关一家名为Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司）（“HK International”）的公司于2015年以GBP £ 28 million购得Lady May的证据。见证物C第4页。债务人于2014年系HK International的唯一股东，并于2014年无对价地将其100%权益转让给Qu Guo Jiao（曲国娇）。同上。\n\n45. 在审议所有提交的证据后，纽约法院在February 2022藐视法庭裁决中认定，“证据清楚且令人信服地证明，Kwok［债务人］持有Lady May的受益权益并控制Lady May”。见证物C第9页。此外，纽约法院称，债务人“采取了非常措施，以保护该游艇［Lady May］免受其债权人的追索”。见证物C第9页。\n\n46. 如2022年2月藐视法庭裁定所述，债务人为回应PAX在判决后进行的证据开示工作，主张其《美国宪法第五修正案》赋予的拒绝作证或回应证据开示请求的权利，包括与Lady May（“Lady May”号）有关的证据开示。见附件C第3页和第9页；另见PAX在PAX诉讼案中提交的庭前陈述，载于NYSCEF文件编号1172第5页，其中称，Kwok（郭文贵）的律师于2021年3月告知PAX：“Kwok就向其个人提出的所有证据开示主张其《第五修正案》权利，并拒绝提供任何额外和/或进一步的信息和/或文件”；副本附为附件E）。值得注意的是，债务人亦未在2022年2月2日的证据听证会上作证。见附件C第3页。\n\n47. 为保护自身免受纽约州法院（NY Court）进一步命令的影响，债务人在支付2022年2月藐视法庭裁定所判令向PAX支付$134,000,000藐视法庭裁决款期限届满前夕，提交了本第11章案件。\n\n48. 2022年3月1日，PAX提交解除自动中止动议，以返回纽约州法院寻求将Lady May返还纽约（“PAX解除中止动议”）。ECF 57。PAX解除中止动议定于2022年3月22日由本院审理。\n\n债务人在2021年其他援引《第五修正案》权利的情形\n\n49. 在近期一宗涉及Logan Cheng（原名Shuiyan Cheng）的诉讼中，债务人多次主张其《第五修正案》反对自证其罪的权利，拒绝回答有关其资产和收入的基本问题。\n\n50. 如Kwok 2021年4月笔录所反映（见附件A），在Cheng案中于2021年4月1日举行的一次证言录取中，债务人通过律师就下列问题以及其他许多问题主张其《第五修正案》权利：\n\na. 债务人作为顾问工作及从事“广播”所获得的报酬数额（第12页）；\n\nb. 债务人与Golden Spring之间的关系为何（第24页）；\n\nc. Golden Spring为何支付债务人的账单（第40页）；\n\nd. 债务人在过去五年中是否有任何收入（第41-42页）；\n\ne. 债务人是否就2020年度向纽约州或联邦政府缴纳任何税款（第44页）；\n\nf. Golden Spring为何支付债务人在PAX诉讼案中的律师费（第47-48页）；\n\ng. Golden Spring的资产为何（第50页）；\n\nh. Golden Spring为何支付债务人的食品杂货和服装费用（第76页）；\n\ni. 债务人最后一份有报酬的工作是什么以及何时从事该工作（第89页）；以及\n\nj. 债务人是否曾在美国受雇（第91页）。\n\n法律论证\n\n一、本院应当根据《破产法》第1104(c)(1)条和/或第1104(c)(2)条命令任命审查员。\n\n基于包括但不限于下列全部情形：债务人在其资产负债表（Schedules）和财务状况说明书（SOFA）中的诸多缺陷、超过$373 million dollars的无担保债务，以及纽约州法院于2022年2月认定债务人一直在“试图逃避和欺骗其债权人”，并采取了“非常措施”以保护一艘价值数百万美元的游艇免受其债权人追索，债务人的第11章案件应立即由审查员进行调查。见附件C第9页。破产制度旨在为诚实但遭遇不幸的债务人提供安全港。破产制度依赖于债务人的充分披露；当缺乏透明度以及债务人对其财务事务闪烁其词时，公众对破产制度的信心将受到侵蚀。由中立方被任命调查并公开披露债务人的财务状况和资产，并处理债务人已经或正在如何处置其资金的问题，符合债务人债权人的最佳利益。\n\na. 任命审查员的标准。\n\n第11章审查员的任命受11 U.S.C. § 1104(c)管辖，该条规定如下：\n\n(c) 如法院未根据本条命令任命受托人，则在计划确认前的任何时间，经利害关系方或美国受托人请求，并在通知及听证后，法院应当命令任命一名审查员，对债务人进行适当调查，包括调查债务人现任或前任管理层在管理债务人事务时或就债务人事务所涉任何欺诈、不诚实、无能、不当行为、管理不善或违规的指控，如——\n\n(1) 该项任命符合债权人、任何股权证券持有人及财产其他利益相关方的利益；或\n\n(2) 债务人的固定、已确定、无担保债务，除货物、服务或税款债务，或欠付内部人的债务外，超过$5,000,000。\n\n11 U.S.C. § 1104(c)。\n\n第1104(c)条明确规定，如已任命受托人，法院不得任命审查员。然而，该限制并非意图要求将驳回任命受托人动议作为任命审查员的前提条件。见Keene Corp. v. Coleman (In re Keene Corp.), 164 B.R. 844, 855 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994)。在Keene案中，法院驳回了债权人委员会关于除非法院首先拒绝任命受托人，否则法院不得任命审查员的主张，并裁定：“任命审查员的动议独立成立，无须作为一项未获成功的任命受托人动议的一部分。”同上；另见In re Gilman Serv., Inc., 46 B.R. 322, 327 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1985)（在未提交单独任命受托人动议的情况下，法院准许美国受托人任命审查员的动议）。\n\n从该法规的明文可知，任命审查员以下列四项因素得到满足为前提：第一，债务人必须仍作为占有中的债务人管理破产财产，且尚未任命受托人。第二，计划尚未获得确认。第三，利害关系方或如本案中的美国受托人必须请求该项任命。最后，必须满足(c)(1)或(c)(2)项规定的条件之一：任命审查员符合债权人的最佳利益，或者特定无担保债务超过$5 million。见，例如，In re UAL Corp., 307 B.R. 80, 84 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 2004)（“如果四项条件得到满足，任命审查员即属强制性要求，但法院仍有裁量权决定审查员调查的性质和范围”）；In re Residential Capital, LLC, 474 B.R. 112 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012)（讨论条件满足时任命的强制性要求）。\n\n如本院认定第1104(c)(2)条所规定的特定债务门槛条款得到满足，则任命审查员属强制性要求。见，例如，Morgenstern v. Revco D.S., Inc. (In re Revco D.S., Inc.), 898 F.2d 498, 500-501 (6th Cir. 1990); Loral Stockholders Protective Comm. v. Loral Space & Commc'ns, Ltd. (In re Loral Space & Commc'ns, Ltd.), 2004 WL 2979785, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2004), rev'g, 313 B.R. 57 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004); Walton v. Cornerstone Ministries, Invs., Inc. (In re Cornerstone Ministries Invs., Inc.), 398 B.R. 77, 84 (N.D. Ga. 2008)。被列为“有争议”的债务可计入债务门槛的计算。In re Vision Development Group of Broward County, LLC, 2008 WL 2676827, *3 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. June 30, 2008)（第1104(c)条并未使用“无争议”一词，也未要求债务必须无争议）。\n\nb. 在债务人的案件中，任命审查员具有依据且属适当。\n\n在此，各方不可能对第1104(c)条的所有因素均已满足以及任命审查员属适当这一点存在任何异议。债务人正作为占有中的债务人经营，尚未提出（或确认）任何计划，债务人的固定债务超过法定门槛，并且美国受托人正在寻求任命审查员。最后，债务人在申请前一直不愿说明和披露其财务事务。在此背景下，尽管债务人是长152英尺的豪华游艇的实益所有人，并管理一个间接拥有The Sherry-Netherland整层楼面的实体，其仍在其申请书中披露估计资产范围为$50,000至$100,000。为确保对债务人资产及其金融交易的充分了解和透明披露，由中立方调查债务人的财务事务符合债务人债权人的最佳利益。基于本文所述的一切事实理由，任命审查员是必要的，并且显然符合破产财产及其债权人的最佳利益。\n\n二、作为替代方案，本院应当根据《破产法》第1104(a)(2)条命令任命第11章受托人。\n\n如果本院认定，根据本案的情形和事实，较佳救济措施是依据第1104(a)(2)条任命第11章受托人，美国受托人将立即遴选一名适当候选人，并将该候选人提交本院批准。\n\n第1104(a)条规定，在案件开始后的任何时间但在计划确认之前，经利害关系方或美国受托人请求，并在通知及听证后，本院可命令任命受托人。11 U.S.C. § 1104(a)。该条规定了任命受托人的下列理由：\n\n(1) 有正当理由，包括欺诈、不诚实、无能，或对债务人事务的严重管理不善……；\n\n(2) 如该项任命符合债权人、任何股权证券持有人及破产财产其他利益相关方的利益……\n\n11 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1) and (2)。\n\n一些法院表示，任命受托人的理由必须以清楚且令人信服的证据加以证明。见In re Bayou Group LLC, 564 F.3d 541, 546 (2nd Cir. 2009); 另见In re Tripodi, 313 B.R. 358 (Bankr. D.Conn. 2004)。然而，其他法院认为，适当的证明标准是“优势证据”。见Tradex Corp. v. Morse, 339 B.R. 823, 829-32 (D. Mass. 2006)。\n\n第11章受托人将符合债权人的最佳利益\n\n第1104(a)(2)条即使在不存在“正当理由”时也允许任命受托人。见In re Sharon Steel Corp., 871 F.2d 1217, 1226 (3d Cir. 1989); In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., 113 B.R. 164, 168 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990)。根据第1104(a)(2)条，本院可依其裁量权任命受托人，以处理“债权人、任何股权证券持有人及破产财产其他利益相关方的利益”。11 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(2)。见，例如，In re Sharon Steel, 871 F.2d at 1226; Comm. of Dalkon Shield Claimants v. A.H. Robins Co., 828 F. 2d 239, 242 (4th Cir. 1987)。\n\n根据第1104(a)(2)条，法院着眼于实际情形和必要性。In re Adelphia Comm's Corp., 336 B.R. 610, 658 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006), aff'd, 342 B.R. 122 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); In re Euro-American Lodging Corp., 365 B.R. 421, 427 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)。因此，根据第1104(a)(2)条任命第11章受托人的标准具有灵活性。In re Adelphia; 336 B.R. at 658; In re The 1031 Tax Group, LLC, 374 B.R. 78, 90-91 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)。法院在评估根据第1104(a)(2)条提出的动议时考虑的因素包括：(1) 债务人的可信赖性；(2) 债务人过去和目前的表现以及重整前景；(3) 商业界和债权人对现任管理层的信心——或缺乏信心；以及(4) 任命受托人所带来的利益，并与任命成本相衡量。In re Adelphia; 336 B.R. at 658; In re Euro-American, 365 B.R. at 427; In re 1031 Tax Group, 374 B.R. at 91。\n\n债务人与债权人之间的敌对关系，是任命受托人的一项众所周知的依据。参见，例如，In re Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc.（漫威娱乐集团公司）, 140 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 1998); In re ElJamal（埃尔贾马尔）, 2018 WL 4735719 (S.D.N.Y. September 28, 2018); In re Eurospark Indus., Inc.（欧罗火花工业公司）, 424 B.R. 621 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2010)。正如一法院所述，“重要的是应当注意，根据 § 1104(a)(2) 对第11章受托人的‘[任]命并非惩罚，也并不意味着作出过错认定’”，其目的在于促进富有成效的第11章案件。In re ElJamal, 2018 WL 4735719 at \\*9（省略内部引文）；另见 In re China Fishery Group Limited (Cayman)（开曼中国渔业集团有限公司）, 2016 WL 6875903 \\*14-18 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. October 28, 2016)（同上）。任命第11章受托人可能是实现向前推进的适当举措，而且，尽管“‘债务人会在一定程度上失去对破产财产的个人控制权，但第11章受托人的职责，几乎在所有方面都与占有中债务人已承担的职责并无不同。’”In re ElJamal, 2018 WL 4735719 at \\*9（省略内部引文）。\n\n本案中，PAX（PAX）与债务人之间多年的诉讼导致本第11章案件的提交。迄今为止，PAX已在本案中提交三份诉状，即对延期动议的异议、PAX解除自动中止动议，以及对债务人就该等事项提出异议的答复；这些文件共同概述了其与债务人之间漫长而艰难的诉讼历史。ECF 50, 57, and 98。债务人未遵守 February 2022 Contempt Decision，而是提交本第11章案件，以拖延PAX并阻挠其追偿工作。债务人通过延期动议、Global Notes（全球说明）、对有限资产的披露、关于向债权人付款将由诉讼所得提供资金的暗示，以及其申请破产前的行为，为一宗漫长且旷日持久、充斥着与PAX无数争议的案件奠定了基础。此外，Global Notes引发了真正的担忧，即债务人无法或不愿尊重并履行管理其破产财产所必需的信义义务。债权人和破产财产的利益，最适宜由一名能够全力投入破产案件、并将确保债务人破产财产得到适当管理及其资产得以保全的独立受托人来维护。\n\n结论\n\n因此，基于前述所有理由，美国受托人恭请法院命令任命一名审查员，就下列事项进行调查并提交报告：(1) 确定债务人来自所有来源的申请破产后收入；(2) 确定债务人对申请破产后收入的用途；(3) 确定并了解债务人在全球各公司实体中享有的权益，包括受益权益、控制权、衡平权益和法定权益，并确定及了解该等公司实体的资产和负债；以及 (4) 审查债务人是否正在履行其全部信义义务，并遵守对占有中债务人施加的全部报告要求，包括披露所有资产和诉因。作为替代请求，美国受托人恭请法院命令任命一名第11章受托人。最后，美国受托人恭请保留在适当情况下补充本动议的权利。\n\n日期：March 19, 2022　谨此提交，\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut　WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON（威廉·K·哈林顿）\n美国第2区受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍利·L·克莱伯恩）\n\n/s/ Steven E. Mackey\nSteven E. Mackey（史蒂文·E·麦基）\n\n诉讼代理律师\n美国受托人办公室\nGiaimo Federal Building, Room 302\n150 Court Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\nHolley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov\nFederal Bar No.: ct17216 (Connecticut)\n[Steven.E.Mackey@usdoj.gov]\nFederal Bar No: ct09932 (Connecticut)\n(203) 773-2210\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格州地区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分部）\n\nIn re　第11章\n\n亦称 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵）\n亦称 MILES GUO（郭文贵），\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）　Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n拟议命令：准许美国受托人提出的命令任命审查员的动议，或作为替代请求，命令任命第11章受托人的动议\n\n________________________________________________________________________________________________\n\n美国受托人已提出动议，请求根据 11 U.S.C. § 1104(c)(1) and/or (2)，就 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），亦称 Wengui Guo（郭文贵），亦称 Miles Guo（郭文贵）（“债务人”和/或“Kwok”）的第11章案件，作出命令任命一名审查员；或作为替代请求，根据 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(2)，基于债权人和破产财产的最佳利益，作出命令任命一名第11章受托人（“动议”）；并且法院已于\n\n____________, 2022 就该动议举行听证会，且法院认定存在准许该动议的理由，现据此\n\n命令：根据 11 U.S.C. § 1104(c)(1) and (2)，准许该动议；并且\n\n进一步命令：指示美国受托人在债务人案件中任命一名审查员；并且\n\n进一步命令：审查员应履行 11 U.S.C. § 1104(d) 规定的职责，以及法院可通过日后命令指派的职责，尤其是，审查员应就下列事项进行调查并提交报告：(1) 确定债务人来自所有来源的申请破产后收入；(2) 确定债务人对申请破产后收入的用途；(3) 确定并了解债务人在全球各公司实体中享有的权益，包括受益权益、控制权、衡平权益和法定权益，并确定及了解该等公司实体的资产和负债；以及 (4) 审查债务人是否正在履行其全部信义义务，并遵守对占有中债务人施加的全部报告要求，包括披露所有资产和诉因。","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":6,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":20,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":27,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":49,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":50,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":54,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":79,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":80,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":81,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":86,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":90,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":91,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":164,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":165,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":8685,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:34:20"}