{"id":"court_ctb_1332_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1332,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-01-17","title":"Connecticut Local Form 420B (Notice of Objection to Claim) 12/2020 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICU","summary_zh":"债权异议通知及动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1332（2023-01-17立案）。债务人郭文贵对债权人 Qiu Yu 申报的第 16 号无担保债权（金额 14,000.00 美元）提出正式异议。郭文贵主张该主张仅凭「投资欺诈」理由及向第三方机构电汇凭证，对债务人本人不构成可强制执行的合法债务，要求法院全额驳回该债权。","summary_en":"Notice of Objection to Claim — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1332 (filed 2023-01-17). Debtor Ho Wan Kwok filed an objection to Claim No. 16 in the amount of $14,000.00 filed by claimant Qiu Yu. The Debtor argued that the claim, based solely on allegations of investment fraud and wire confirmations to third parties, is not legally enforceable against the Debtor and should be disallowed in its entirety.","body_en":"# Case 22-50073 Doc 1332 Filed 01/17/23 Entered 01/17/23 14:40:22 Page 1 of 12\n\nConnecticut Local Form 420B (Notice of Objection to Claim) 12/2020\n\n# UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT\n\nIn re: Ho Wan Kwok et al.\n\n*a/k/a Miles Kwok, Miles Guo, Wengui Guo*\n\nDebtor(s)\n\n| Case No. : | 22-50073 |\n|------------|----------|\n| Chapter:   | 11       |\n\n# **NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO CLAIM**\n\n| Claim No: | Claimant: |  |\n|-----------|-----------|--|\n| 16        | Qiu Yu    |  |\n\nThe Debtor, Ho Wan Kwok has filed an objection to your claim in this bankruptcy case.\n\n**Your claim may be reduced, modified, or eliminated. You should read these papers carefully and discuss them with your attorney, if you have one.**\n\n[**Note to Objecting Party**: You must choose a response date that is at least thirty (30) days after the date the Objection to Claim is filed, unless otherwise ordered.]\n\nIf you do not want the Court to eliminate or change your claim, then on or before\n\n**February 17, 2023**\n\nyou or your lawyer must file with the Court a written response to the objection, explaining your position.\n\nIf you mail your response to the Court for filing, you must mail it early enough so that the Court will receive it on or before the date stated above. Your response should be mailed to:\n\n> United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut 915 Layfayette Boulevard, Bridgeport CT 06604\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1332 Filed 01/17/23 Entered 01/17/23 14:40:22 Page 2 of 12\n\nConnecticut Local Form 420B (Notice of Objection to Claim) 12/2020\n\nCase No. : 22-50073\n\nChapter: 11\n\nIn re: Ho Wan Kwok et al.\n\n*a/k/a Miles Kwok, Miles Guo, Wengui Guo*\n\nDebtor(s)\n\nA copy of your response should also be mailed to:\n\nJohn L. Cesaroni, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., 10 Middle St., 15th Fl., Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\n(Objector and Objector's attorney, if applicable, name and address)\n\n(Names and addresses of others to be served)\n\nIf you or your attorney do not take these steps, the Court may decide that you do not oppose the objection to your claim.\n\nDate: January 17, 2023 Signature: /s/ John L. Cesaroni\n\nName: John L. Cesaroni\n\nAddress: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., 10 Middle St., 15th Fl., Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\n# **Ho Wan UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| In re:               | Chapter 11              |\n|----------------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.             |                         |\n|                      |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,         |                         |\n| Objector,            |                         |\n| v.                   |                         |\n| QIU YU               |                         |\n| Claimant.            |                         |\n\n# **OBJECTION TO CLAIM NUMBER 16 OF QIU YU**\n\nPursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007, and Local Bankr. R. 3007-1, the individual debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., hereby objects to Claim number 16 (\"Claim 16\"), asserting a non-priority unsecured claim against the Debtor's estate in the amount of \\$14,000.00 filed by the claimant, Qiu Yu (\"Claimant\"), in this bankruptcy case on January 6, 2023. The entire amount of Claim 16 should be disallowed because it is not a claim enforceable against the Debtor. In support of his objection, the Debtor represents as follows:\n\n### **I. BACKGROUND**\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed his voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n2. On June 15, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court issued its Memorandum of Decision and Order Denying Motion To Dismiss Without Prejudice And Granting Joinder To Motion For Appointment Of Chapter 11 Trustee (ECF Doc. No. 465), ordering, among other things, that a chapter 11 trustee be appointed in the bankruptcy case.\n\n3. On July 7, 2022, the United States Trustee filed a notice appointing the Chapter 11 Trustee, Luc A. Despins (the \"Trustee\"), as trustee in this bankruptcy case (ECF Doc. No. 514), and an Application for Order Approving Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (ECF Doc. No. 515), seeking the Court's approval of the appointment of the Trustee.\n\n4. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered its Order Granting Appointment Of Chapter 11 Trustee (ECF Doc. No. 523), granting the appointment of the Trustee as chapter 11 trustee in the bankruptcy case.\n\n5. On January 6, 2023 Claimant filed Claim 16, asserting a non-priority unsecured claim in the amount of \\$14,000.00. The only basis alleged by Claimant in support of Claim 16 is \"investment fraud\". The only documents attached to Claim 16 are what appear to be two wire transfer confirmations, in German – one in the amount of \\$7,000.00 to an entity called Himalaya International Clearing (\"HIC\"), and the other in the same amount to Deltec Bank and Trust Limited (\"Deltec\").\n\n#### **II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This Objection is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). Venue is proper before this Court in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n2\n\n#### **III. LEGAL BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n#### **A. The Debtor Has Standing to Object to the Claim 16**\n\n7. Section 502(a)[1](#page-4-0) provides in relevant part that \"[a] claim or interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 of this title, is deemed allowed, unless a party in interest . . . objects.\" \"For the purposes of Chapter 11 proceedings, a 'party in interest' includes 'the debtor, the trustee, a creditors' committee, an equity security holders' committee, a creditor, an equity security holder, or any indenture trustee.'\" *Pascazi v. Fiber Consultants, Inc.*, 445 B.R. 124, 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 1121(c)). Thus, in a Chapter 11 case, the Debtor has standing to object to a claim in his bankruptcy case even where a trustee has been appointed. *In re Futterman*, 602 B.R. 465, 472 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019).\n\n8. The Debtor notes that the Trustee has argued in his Objection of Chapter 11 Trustee to Motion for Order Removing Trustee (Doc. No. 1326) that the Debtor does not have standing to participate in litigation concerning assets of the estate, unless there could be a surplus after creditors are paid, because of the Trustee's appointment. However, all the cases cited by the Trustee are Chapter 7 cases. *See In 60 E. 80th St. Equities*, 218 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir. 2000); *In re Licata*, 659 Fed. App'x 704, 706 (2d Cir. 2016); *Cole v. Rescia*, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175759, at \\*15-16, 2022 WL 4536830 (D. Conn. Sept. 28, 2022). This, of course, is a Chapter 11 case, and even where there is a trustee appointed the Debtor is a party in interest, who can, *inter alia*, file a plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1121(c) (\"Any party in interest, including the debtor, the trustee, a creditors' committee, an equity security holders' committee, a creditor, an equity security holder, or any indenture trustee, may file a plan if and only if—(1)a trustee has been appointed under this chapter.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> References herein to \"Section(s)\" are to sections of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 *et seq.*, unless otherwise indicated.\n\n. . .\").\n\n9. Moreover, even in a Chapter 7 case, Courts have recognized several situations in which a debtor can object to a claim, including (1) there could be a surplus for the debtor; (2) there are nondischargeable claims against the debtor; (3) the trustee has failed or refused to object to the claim; or (4) the objection will not interfere with the administration of the estate. *See In re Stylianou*, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 5524, at \\*78 n.48 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009); *McGuirl v. White*, 86 F.3d 1232, 1235 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Assuming, *arguendo*, that the Chapter 7 cases apply here, there have been several nondischargeability complaints filed against the Debtor, and while the Debtor denies that the claims are nondischargeable and believes he will prevail in those actions, he recognizes that there is risk inherent in all litigation. Moreover, the Trustee has not objected to Claim 16, nor would the Debtor's objection interfere with the administration of the Debtor's estate. It is a separate contested proceeding that would only affect whether, and to what extent, Claim 16 is disallowed.\n\n# **B. Claim 16 Is Not** *Prima Facie* **Valid Because It Does Not Contain Sufficient Allegations or Documentation**\n\n10. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f) provides that \"[a] proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with these rules shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim.\"\n\nHence, the burden of persuasion under the bankruptcy claims procedure always lies with the claimant, who must comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001 by alleging facts in the proof of claim that are sufficient to support the claim. If the claimant satisfies these requirements, the burden of going forward with the evidence then shifts to the objecting party to produce evidence at least equal in probative force to that offered by the proof of claim and which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim's legal sufficiency. . . . If the objecting party meets these evidentiary requirements, then the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts back to the claimant to sustain its ultimate burden of persuasion to establish the validity and amount of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. . . . If, however, the claimant fails to allege facts in the proof of claim that are sufficient to support the claim, *e.g.,* by failing to attach sufficient documentation to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c), the claim is not automatically disallowed; rather, it is merely deprived of any *prima facie* validity which it could otherwise have obtained. . . .\n\n*In re Jorczak*, 314 B.R. 474, 481 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2004) (quoting *In re Rally Partners, L.P.*, 306 B.R. 165, 168-69 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2003)) (citations omitted). Thus, if the presumption of validity does not arise, \"'the creditor cannot rest on the proof of claim.'\" *Id.* (quoting *In re Stoecker*, 5 F.3d 1022, 1028 (7th Cir. 1993)).\n\n11. Here, Claimant has failed to allege facts or attach sufficient documents to support Claim 16. All that Claim 16 purports to show is that there were wire transfers made to HIC and Deltec. There are no allegations or documents provided that in any way connect the transfers to these non-debtor entities to the Debtor – i.e., there are no alleged facts showing that Claimant has any claims against the debtor. Moreover, the only documentation provided is in German, and the Court should not consider these documents as part of the record. In considering a summary judgment motion filed by a creditor in response to the liquidation trustee's objection to claim, the Court in *In re Solar Trust of Am., LLC*, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 3487, at \\*7-10 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 18, 2014), refused to consider an incomplete translation of a German appellate court decision that formed the basis of the claim. As the Court found, \"[w]here a document is written in a foreign language and the submitting party fails to provide an English translation, a court may appropriately decline to consider the document as part of the record on summary judgment.\" *Id.* at \\*8 (citing cases). Similarly, here, in the context of this objection to Claim 16, the Court should not consider the attachments to Claim 16 as evidence in support thereof.\n\n12. Thus, in a hearing in this matter, Claimant should have the burden of proving the validity of Claim 16 because there are not sufficient allegations or documentation to support the presumption of the *prima facie* validity of Claim 16.\n\n# **C. Claimant Cannot Prove the Validity of Claim 16 Because It Is Not a Claim against the Debtor**\n\n13. Claimant cannot carry their burden of persuasion that Claim 16 valid because it is based on allegations that sums of money were paid to non-debtor third parties. Moreover, the Debtor has no interest in HIC or Deltec and did not have an account at Deltec. Moreover, he did not commit any type of \"investment fraud\" with respect to Claimant (or otherwise). Alternatively, even if the Court concludes that Claim 16 is entitled to the presumption of *prima facie* validity, the Debtor will introduce sufficient evidence at a hearing to shift the burden to Claimant to prove the validity of their claim, which they cannot do.\n\n14. Section 502(b) provides that after notice and a hearing on an objection to claim, the Court shall determine the amount of the claim and allow it except, *inter alia*, if \"(1) such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured[.]\" Obviously, in order for Claim 16 to be valid, it must be a claim asserted against the Debtor. *See Osborne v. Aravena (In re Aravena)*, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1826, at \\*4 (Bankr. D. Conn. Apr. 20, 2012) Thus, in *In re Friedberg*, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1194, at \\*7-8 (Bankr. D. Conn. Mar. 21, 2012), the Court found that the burden shifted to the claimant to demonstrating that it had a valid claim against the debtor pursuant to a note and mortgage to which the debtor was not a party nor a guarantor. The Court concluded that the claimant did not carry its burden because it \"did not produce any evidence that the debtor was a maker, co-signer, guarantor, or otherwise an obligor, of the promissory note or the mortgagor in his individual capacity.\" *Id.* at \\*8.\n\n15. Thus, even assuming, *arguendo*, that the Debtor has the initial burden of proof as to the validity of Claim 16, it is clear that the Debtor has challenged the legal validity of Claim 16, which is sufficient to shift the burden back to Claimant to demonstrate the validity of their claim. *See id.*; *Constant v. Nissan Infiniti LT (In re Constant)*, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 2569, at \\*6 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sep. 20, 2021) (\"Debtor's Objection squarely challenges the legal sufficiency of Claim 2-2 by refuting the existence of a contractual obligation that would bind her to pay the amount due.\").\n\n16. As the Debtor will demonstrate at a hearing, he had (and has) no interest in HIC or Deltec, nor did he ever have an account at Deltec. Additionally, it is unclear exactly what Claimant's allegations are against the Debtor as they only allege \"investment fraud\" as the basis for Claim 16. However, the Debtor never engaged in any fraudulent conduct with respect to Claimant, and Claimant would not be able to demonstrate as much at a hearing.\n\n## **IV. CONCLUSION**\n\n**WHEREFORE,** the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court enter an order disallowing Claim 16 in its entirety and grant him such other and further relief as justice requires.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 17th day of January, 2023.\n\n# **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ John L. Cesaroni*  John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| In re:               |           | Chapter 11              |\n|----------------------|-----------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., |           | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                      | Debtors.  |                         |\n|                      |           |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,         |           |                         |\n|                      | Objector, |                         |\n| v.                   |           |                         |\n| QIU YU               |           |                         |\n|                      | Claimant. |                         |\n\n**PROPOSED ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTION TO PROOF OF CLAIM**\n\nThe Objection to the Proof of Claim of Qiu Yu, Claim number 16, filed pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007 dated January 17, 2023 (the \"Objection to Claim\", ECF No. \\_\\_\\_), having come before the Court after notice and a hearing, *see* 11 U.S.C. § 102(1), and the Court having considered the Objection to Claim and any response filed to the Objection to Claim, it appearing that cause exists to sustain the Objection to Claim; it is hereby\n\nORDERED: The Proof of Claim of Qiu Yu, Claim No. 16, in the amount of \\$14,000.00 is hereby disallowed in its entirety.\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| In re:               |           | Chapter 11 |\n|----------------------|-----------|------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., |           |            |\n|                      | Debtors.  |            |\n|                      |           |            |\n| HO WAN KWOK,         |           |            |\n|                      | Objector, |            |\n| v.                   |           |            |\n| QIU YU               |           |            |\n|                      | Claimant. |            |\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 17th day of January 2023, copies of foregoing Notice of Objection to Claim, Objection to Claim Number 16 of Qiu Yu, and Proposed Order were filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\nI hereby further certify that on this 17th day of January 2023, copies of foregoing Notice of Objection to Claim, Objection to Claim Number 16 of Qiu Yu, and Proposed Order were sent to the Claimant, Qiu Yu, via First Class United States mail to the address provided for notices in Claim number 16 as follows:\n\nQiu Yu Am Grossen Rohrpfuhl 25 Berlin, DE 12355 Germany\n\n# **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ John L. Cesaroni*  John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)","body_zh":"Case 22-50073 Doc 1332 Filed 01/17/23 Entered 01/17/23 14:40:22 Page 1 of 12\n\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州）本地表格 420B（债权异议通知） 12/2020\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等\n\n又名 Miles Kwok、Miles Guo、Wengui Guo\n\n债务人\n\n案号：22-50073\n\n章区：第 11 章\n债权异议通知\n\n债权编号： 债权人：\n\n16 Qiu Yu（邱宇）\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok 已在本破产案件中就您的债权提出异议。\n\n您的债权可能会被减少、变更或取消。您应当仔细阅读这些文件，并与您的律师（如有）进行讨论。\n\n[致提出异议方的注意事项：除非另有命令，您必须选择一个在提出债权异议之日后至少三十（30）天的答复日期。]\n\n如果您不希望法院取消或变更您的债权，则您或您的律师必须在\n\n2023 年 2 月 17 日或之前\n\n向法院提交对异议的书面答复，以说明您的立场。\n\n如果您通过邮寄方式向法院提交答复以供立案，您必须尽早邮寄，以确保法院在上述日期或之前收到。您的答复应邮寄至：\n\n> United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut 915 Layfayette Boulevard, Bridgeport CT 06604\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1332 Filed 01/17/23 Entered 01/17/23 14:40:22 Page 2 of 12\n\n康涅狄格州本地表格 420B（债权异议通知） 12/2020\n\n案号：22-50073\n\n章区：第 11 章\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok 等\n\n又名 Miles Kwok、Miles Guo、Wengui Guo\n\n债务人\n\n您答复的副本也应邮寄至：\n\nJohn L. Cesaroni, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., 10 Middle St., 15th Fl., Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\n（异议人及异议人律师（如适用）的姓名与地址）\n\n（其他待送达人员的姓名与地址）\n\n如果您或您的律师未采取这些步骤，法院可能会认定您对针对您债权的异议不持反对意见。\n\n日期：2023 年 1 月 17 日 签名：/s/ John L. Cesaroni\n\n姓名：John L. Cesaroni\n\n地址：Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., 10 Middle St., 15th Fl., Bridgeport, CT 06604\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于： 第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK 等， 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\nHO WAN KWOK，\n异议人，\n诉\nQIU YU\n债权人。\n对 QIU YU 第 16 号债权的异议\n\n根据 11 U.S.C. § 502、Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007 以及 Local Bankr. R. 3007-1，个人债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）通过其下述署名律师 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.，特此对债权人 Qiu Yu（“债权人”）于 2023 年 1 月 6 日在本破产案件中提交的第 16 号债权（“第 16 号债权”）提出异议，该债权主张针对债务人破产财产的 14,000.00 美元非优先无担保债权。第 16 号债权的全部金额均应不予支持，因为该债权不是针对债务人可执行的债权。为支持其异议，债务人陈述如下：\n一、 背景\n\n1. 2022 年 2 月 15 日，债务人根据《破产法典》第 11 章提交了自愿救济申请书。\n\n2. 2022 年 6 月 15 日，破产法院发布了其《关于在不影响再次起诉的前提下驳回撤案动议并准予加入指定第 11 章受托人动议的裁决备忘录与命令》（ECF 编号 465），裁定（除其他事项外）在本破产案件中指定一名第 11 章受托人。\n\n3. 2022 年 7 月 7 日，United States Trustee（美国受托人）提交了一份关于指定第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（“受托人”）作为本破产案件受托人的通知（ECF 编号 514），以及一份《请求批准指定第 11 章受托人的命令的申请》（ECF 编号 515），请求法院批准受托人的指定。\n\n4. 2022 年 7 月 8 日，法院作出了其《准予指定第 11 章受托人的命令》（ECF 编号 523），准予受托人作为破产案件中的第 11 章受托人的指定。\n\n5. 2023 年 1 月 6 日，债权人提交了第 16 号债权，主张金额为 14,000.00 美元的非优先无担保债权。债权人为支持第 16 号债权所主张的唯一理由是“投资欺诈”。附在第 16 号债权之后的唯一文件看似是两份德语电汇确认函——一份金额为 7,000.00 美元，汇给名为 Himalaya International Clearing（“HIC”，喜马拉雅国际清算）的实体，另一份金额相同，汇给 Deltec Bank and Trust Limited（“Deltec”，德尔泰克银行与信托有限公司）。\n二、 管辖权与审理地\n\n6. 本法院根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334 对本事项享有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B)，本异议属于核心程序。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本案在本地区本法院审理地适当。\n\n三、 救济的法律依据\nA. 债务人具有对第 16 号债权提出异议的当事人资格\n\n7. 第 502(a) 条[1]在相关部分规定，“根据本编第 501 条提交证明的债权或权益，除非利害关系方……提出异议，否则视为成立。”“就第 11 章程序而言，‘利害关系方’包括‘债务人、受托人、债权人委员会、权益证券持有人委员会、债权人、权益证券持有人或任何契约受托人。’”Pascazi 诉 Fiber Consultants, Inc. 案，445 B.R. 124, 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)（援引 11 U.S.C. § 1121(c)）。因此，在第 11 章案件中，即使已指定受托人，债务人仍具有在其破产案件中对债权提出异议的当事人资格。参见 In re Futterman 案，602 B.R. 465, 472 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)。\n\n8. 债务人注意到，受托人在其《第 11 章受托人对撤换受托人命令动议的异议》（文件编号 1326）中辩称，由于受托人的指定，债务人不具有参与涉及破产财产的诉讼的当事人资格，除非在债权人获得偿付后可能存在剩余财产。然而，受托人引用的所有判例均为第 7 章案件。参见 In 60 E. 80th St. Equities 案，218 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir. 2000)；In re Licata 案，659 Fed. App'x 704, 706 (2d Cir. 2016)；Cole 诉 Rescia 案，2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175759，第 *15-16 页，2022 WL 4536830 (D. Conn. Sept. 28, 2022)。当然，本案是一个第 11 章案件，即使在指定了受托人的情况下，债务人也是利害关系方，其除其他事项外，还可以提交重整计划。11 U.S.C. § 1121(c)（“任何利害关系方，包括债务人、受托人、债权人委员会、权益证券持有人委员会、债权人、权益证券持有人或任何契约受托人，均可提交计划，当且仅当——(1) 根据本章已指定受托人。\n\n1 本文中对“第……条”（Section(s)）的引用均指《美国破产法典》（11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.）的条款，除非另有说明。\n\n……”）。\n\n9. 此外，即使在第 7 章案件中，法院也确认了债务人可以对债权提出异议的若干情形，包括 (1) 债务人可能获得剩余财产；(2) 存在针对债务人的不可免责债权；(3) 受托人未能或拒绝就该债权提出异议；或 (4) 该异议不会妨碍破产财产的管理。参见 In re Stylianou 案，2009 Bankr. LEXIS 5524，第 *78 页附注 48 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009)；McGuirl 诉 White 案，86 F.3d 1232, 1235 (D.C. Cir. 1996)。退一步讲，即便假设第 7 章判例适用于本案，目前已有数起针对债务人提起的不可免责申诉，虽然债务人否认该等债权属于不可免责并相信自己将在这些诉讼中胜诉，但他认识到所有诉讼均存在固有风险。此外，受托人并未对第 16 号债权提出异议，债务人的异议也不会妨碍债务人破产财产的管理。这是一起独立的附随争议程序，仅会影响第 16 号债权是否以及在何种程度上不予支持。\nB. 第 16 号债权不具有初步有效性，因其不包含充分的主张或证明文件\n\n10. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f) 规定，“按照本规则签署并提交的债权证明，应构成该债权有效性及金额的初步证据。”\n\n因此，破产债权程序下的说服责任始终由债权人承担，债权人必须遵守 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001，在债权证明中主张足以支持该债权的事实。如果债权人满足了这些要求，则推进证据的责任随后转移给提出异议的一方，以提供在证明力上至少等同于债权证明所提供之证据的证据，且该等证据一旦被采信，将反驳对债权法律充分性至关重要的至少一项主张。……如果提出异议的一方满足了这些举证要求，则推进证据的责任将转回给债权人，由其承担最终的说服责任，以优势证据确立债权的有效性和金额。……但是，如果债权人未能在债权证明中主张足以支持该债权的事实，例如因未能附上充分的证明文件以符合 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c)，该债权并不会自动被不予支持；相反，它只是被剥夺了原本可能获得的任何初步有效性。……\n\nIn re Jorczak 案，314 B.R. 474, 481 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2004)（援引 In re Rally Partners, L.P. 案，306 B.R. 165, 168-69 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2003)）（引用省略）。因此，如果不产生有效性推定，“‘债权人便不能仅依赖债权证明。’”同上（援引 In re Stoecker 案，5 F.3d 1022, 1028 (7th Cir. 1993)）。\n\n11. 在本案中，债权人未能主张事实或附上充分文件来支持第 16 号债权。第 16 号债权意图显示的全部内容仅仅是向 HIC 和 Deltec 进行了电汇。所提供的内容中没有任何主张或文件以任何方式将向这些非债务人实体的汇款与债务人联系起来——即，没有任何指称的事实表明债权人对债务人享有任何债权。此外，所提供的唯一证明文件为德语，法院不应将这些文件作为案卷记录的一部分予以考虑。在审理某债权人针对清算受托人的债权异议所提起的简易判决动议时，In re Solar Trust of Am., LLC 案（2014 Bankr. LEXIS 3487，第 *7-10 页 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 18, 2014)）的法院拒绝考虑构成该债权基础的德意志上诉法院判决的不完整翻译。正如法院认定，“如果一份文件是用外语写成的，且提交方未能提供英语翻译，法院可以适当地拒绝在简易判决中将该文件作为案卷记录的一部分予以考虑。”同上，第 *8 页（援引相关判例）。同样，在本案中，针对第 16 号债权的本异议语境下，法院不应将第 16 号债权的附件作为支持其的证据予以考虑。\n\n12. 因此，在本事项的听证会中，由于没有充分的主张或文件来支持第 16 号债权的初步有效性推定，债权人应当承担证明第 16 号债权有效性的责任。\nC. 债权人无法证明第 16 号债权的有效性，因为该债权并非针对债务人的债权\n\n13. 债权人无法完成证明第 16 号债权有效的说服责任，因为该债权所依据的主张是款项已支付给非债务人的第三方。此外，债务人在 HIC 或 Deltec 中没有任何权益，在 Deltec 也没有账户。而且，他未对债权人实施过任何类型的“投资欺诈”（亦未对其他人实施）。或者，即使法院认定第 16 号债权享有初步有效性推定，债务人也将在听证会上提出充分证据，将证明债权有效性的责任转移给债权人，而债权人无法做到这一点。\n\n14. 第 502(b) 条规定，在就债权异议发出通知并举行听证会后，法院应确定该债权的金额并予以确认，除非（除其他情形外）“(1) 根据任何协议或适用法律，该债权对债务人及债务人的财产不可执行，但该债权属于待确定或未到期的情形除外[。]”显而易见，第 16 号债权若要有效，其必须是对债务人主张的债权。参见 Osborne 诉 Aravena（In re Aravena 案），2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1826，第 *4 页（Bankr. D. Conn.（康涅狄格区破产法院）2012年4月20日）。因此，在 In re Friedberg 案中，2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1194，第 *7-8 页（Bankr. D. Conn. 2012年3月21日），法院认定举证责任转移至债权主张人，由其证明根据一份债务人既非当事人也非担保人的票据及抵押，其对债务人享有有效债权。法院认定债权主张人未完成其举证责任，因为其“未能提供任何证据证明债务人是以个人身份作为该本票的出票人、共同签署人、保证人，或以其他方式作为债务人，亦或是该抵押的抵押人。”同上，第 *8 页。\n\n15. 因此，即使为论证之目的假设债务人对第 16 号债权的有效性负有初步举证责任，显而易见的是，债务人已对第 16 号债权的法律效力提出质疑，这足以将举证责任重新转移给债权主张人以证明其债权的有效性。参见同上；Constant 诉 Nissan Infiniti LT（In re Constant 案），2021 Bankr. LEXIS 2569，第 *6 页（Bankr. D. Conn. 2021年9月20日）（“债务人的异议通过否定存在约束其支付到期款项的合同义务，直接对第 2-2 号债权的法律充分性提出了质疑。”）。\n\n16. 正如债务人将在听证会上证明的那样，他过去（以及现在）在 HIC 或 Deltec（德尔泰克）中没有任何利益，也从未在 Deltec 开立过账户。此外，债权主张人对债务人的指控究竟是什么并不明确，因为他们仅主张“投资欺诈”作为第 16 号债权的依据。然而，债务人从未针对债权主张人从事过任何欺诈行为，债权主张人也无法在听证会上对此进行证明。\n\nIV. 结论\n\n为此，债务人谨请求法院下达命令，全额不予确认第 16 号债权，并在公正需要的情况下给予其其他及进一步的救济。\n\n2023年1月17日订于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n\n债务人，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ John L. Cesaroni  John L. Cesaroni (ct29309)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5487\n电子邮件：[jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区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）等，\n债务人。\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n异议人，\n诉\nQIU YU（邱宇）\n债权主张人。\n\n支持对债权证明提出异议的拟定裁定\n\n关于根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007（《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第3007条）提交的日期为2023年1月17日的对 Qiu Yu（邱宇）第 16 号债权证明的异议（“债权异议”，ECF 编号 ___），经发出通知并举行听证会后已提交法院审理，参见 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)，且法院已审议该债权异议及对该债权异议提交的任何答复，确认存在支持该债权异议的事由；现特此\n\n裁定：Qiu Yu（邱宇）金额为 $14,000.00 的第 16 号债权证明特此全额不予确认。\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区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）等，\n债务人。\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n异议人，\n诉\nQIU YU（邱宇）\n债权主张人。\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于2023年1月17日，上述债权异议通知、对 Qiu Yu（邱宇）第 16 号债权的异议以及拟定裁定的副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交的通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有各方，或按电子提交通知上的指示以邮寄方式发送给任何无法接受电子提交的人员。各方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n我特此进一步证明，于2023年1月17日，上述债权异议通知、对 Qiu Yu（邱宇）第 16 号债权的异议以及拟定裁定的副本已通过美国头等邮件发送给债权主张人 Qiu Yu（邱宇），邮寄至第 16 号债权中所提供的通知地址如下：\n\nQiu Yu\nAm Grossen Rohrpfuhl 25\nBerlin, DE 12355\nGermany\n\n债务人，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ John L. Cesaroni  John L. Cesaroni (ct29309)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5487\n电子邮件：[jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Miles Guo","Despins","Himalaya","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2950,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-17 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-17","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:27:07"}