{"id":"court_ctb_1334_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1334,"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":"债权异议通知及申请 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1334（2023-01-17立案）。债务人郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）依据《美国破产法》第502条等规定对债权人仇宇（Qiu Yu）提出的第17号债权证明提出正式异议，主张该笔金额为200,200.00美元的非优先无担保债权对债务人不具有法律约束力，请求法院予以全额驳回。","summary_en":"Objection to Proof of Claim — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1334 (filed Jan 17, 2023). Debtor Ho Wan Kwok objects pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502 to Claim No. 17 filed by Qiu Yu, seeking to completely disallow the asserted $200,200.00 non-priority unsecured claim for lack of enforceable liability against the debtor.","body_en":"# Case 22-50073 Doc 1334 Filed 01/17/23 Entered 01/17/23 14:52:53 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| 17        | 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\nConnecticut Local Form 420B (Notice of Objection to Claim) 12/2020\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|  | Chapter:<br>11 |  |\n|--|----------------|--|\n|--|----------------|--|\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**OBJECTION TO CLAIM NUMBER 17 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 17 (\"Claim 17\"), asserting a non-priority unsecured claim against the Debtor's estate in the amount of \\$200,200.00 and filed by the claimant, Qiu Yu (\"Claimant\"), in this bankruptcy case on January 6, 2023. The entire amount of Claim 17 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 17, asserting a non-priority unsecured claim in the amount of \\$200,200.00. The only basis alleged by Claimant in support of Claim 17 is \"investment fraud\". The only documents attached to Claim 17 are what appear to a wire transfer confirmation and bank form, both in German, regarding a transfer to Crane Advisory Group, LLC (\"Crane\").\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\n#### **III. LEGAL BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n#### **A. The Debtor Has Standing to Object to the Claim 17**\n\n7. Section 502(a)[1](#page-3-0) provides in relevant part that \"[a] claim or interest, proof of which\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></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\nis 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\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 17, 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 17 is disallowed.\n\n# **B. Claim 17 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\n\nB.R. 165, 168-69 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2003)) (citations omitted). Thus, if the presumption of validity\n\ndoes not arise, \"'the creditor cannot rest on the proof of claim.'\" *Id.* (quoting *In re Stoecker*, 5 F.3d\n\n1022, 1028 (7th Cir. 1993)).\n\n11. Here, Claimant has failed to allege facts or attach sufficient documents to support Claim 17. All that Claim 17 purports to show is that there was a wire transfers made to Crane. There are no allegations or documents provided that in any way connect the transfer to this nondebtor entity 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 17, the Court should not consider the attachments to Claim 17 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 17 because there are not sufficient allegations or documentation to support the presumption of the *prima facie* validity of Claim 17.\n\n### **C. Claimant Cannot Prove the Validity of Claim 17 Because It Is Not a Claim against the Debtor**\n\n13. Claimant cannot carry their burden of persuasion that Claim 17 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,\n\n5\n\neven if the Court concludes that Claim 17 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 17 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 17, it is clear that the Debtor has challenged the legal validity of Claim 17, 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, if necessary, at a hearing, he had (and has) no\n\ninterest 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 17. 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\n\ndisallowing Claim 17 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 17, 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\n\nthat cause exists to sustain the Objection to Claim; it is hereby\n\nORDERED: The Proof of Claim of Qiu Yu, Claim No. 17, in the amount of \\$200,200.00 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 17 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 17 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 17 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 1334 Filed 01/17/23 Entered 01/17/23 14:52:53 Page 1 of 12\n\n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）等人\n\n又名 Miles Kwok、Miles Guo、Wengui Guo\n\n债务人\n\n案号：22-50073\n\n适用章节：11\n债权异议通知\n\n债权编号： 索赔人：\n\n17 Qiu Yu（邱宇）\n\n债务人郭文贵已在本破产案中对您的债权提出异议。\n\n您的债权可能会被核减、修改或取消。您应仔细阅读这些文件，并与您的律师（如有）进行讨论。\n\n[对提出异议方的提示：除另有命令外，您选择的答复日期必须至少在提交《债权异议》之日后三十（30）天。]\n\n如果您不希望法院取消或变更您的债权，那么在\n\n2023年2月17日或之前\n\n您或您的律师必须向法院提交针对该异议的书面答复，阐明您的立场。\n\n如果您通过邮寄方式向法院提交答复，您必须尽早寄出，以确保法院在上述日期或之前收到。您的答复应邮寄至：\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut 915 Layfayette Boulevard, Bridgeport CT 06604\n\n康涅狄格州本地表格 420B（债权异议通知）12/2020\n\n关于：郭文贵等人\n\n又名 Miles Kwok、Miles Guo、Wengui Guo\n\n债务人\n\n您的答复副本也应邮寄至：\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的姓名/名称与地址，如适用）\n\n（其他待送达人的姓名/名称与地址）\n\n如果您或您的律师未采取上述步骤，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\n\n适用章节：\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索赔人。\n\n对邱宇第 17 号债权的异议\n\n根据 11 U.S.C. § 502、《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》（Fed. R. Bankr. P.）第 3007 条以及《本地破产规则》（Local Bankr. R.）第 3007-1 条，个人债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）通过其下述签字的代理律师 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.，特此对索赔人 Qiu Yu（邱宇）（以下简称“索赔人”）于 2023年1月6日 在本破产案中提交的第 17 号债权（以下简称“第 17 号债权”）提出异议，该债权主张针对债务人破产财产的金额为 $200,200.00 的非优先无担保债权。第 17 号债权的全部金额均应不予支持（disallowed），因为该债权并非可对债务人强制执行的债权。为支持其异议，债务人陈述如下：\n\nI. 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《关于在不影响再次起诉权利的前提下驳回撤案动议并准许加入指定第 11 章托管人动议的裁决备忘录与裁定》（ECF Doc. No. 465），裁定（除其他事项外）在本破产案中指定一名第 11 章托管人。\n\n3. 2022年7月7日，United States Trustee（美国破产受托人）提交了指定第 11 章托管人 Luc A. Despins（以下简称“托管人”）为本破产案托管人的通知（ECF Doc. No. 514），以及《关于批准指定第 11 章托管人的裁定申请书》（ECF Doc. No. 515），请求法院批准对该托管人的指定。\n\n4. 2022年7月8日，法院作出了《准许指定第 11 章托管人的裁定》（ECF Doc. No. 523），批准指定该托管人作为本破产案的第 11 章托管人。\n\n5. 2023年1月6日，索赔人提交了第 17 号债权，主张金额为 $200,200.00 的非优先无担保债权。索赔人为主张第 17 号债权所指控的唯一依据是“投资欺诈”。随附于第 17 号债权的唯一文件似乎是电汇确认书和银行表格，两者均为德语，涉及向 Crane Advisory Group, LLC（以下简称“Crane”）的一笔转账。\n\nII. 管辖权与审判地\n\n6. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334，本法院对本案事项享有管辖权。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，本法院在康涅狄格区是适当的审判地。\n\nIII. 请求救济的法律依据\nA. 债务人具备对第 17 号债权提出异议的主体资格\n\n7. 第 502(a) 条[1]在相关部分规定，“根据本编第 501 条提交债权证明的债权或权益，\n\n1 除非另有说明，本文件中提及的“第……条”（Section(s)）均指《美国破产法典》11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. 的相关条款。\n\n均被视为获得准许，除非利害关系方……提出异议”。“就第 11 章程序而言，‘利害关系方’包括‘债务人、托管人、债权人委员会、股权证券持有人委员会、债权人、股权证券持有人或任何信托契约受托人’”。Pascazi v. Fiber Consultants, Inc., 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，即使已指定托管人，债务人仍具备对其破产案中的债权提出异议的主体资格。In re Futterman, 602 B.R. 465, 472 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)。\n\n8. 债务人注意到，托管人在其《第 11 章托管人对免除托管人职务裁定动议的异议》（Doc. No. 1326）中辩称，由于指定了托管人，债务人无权参与涉及破产财产的诉讼，除非在清偿债权人后可能存在剩余财产。然而，托管人所引用的所有判例均为第 7 章案件。参见 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)。而本案显然是一起第 11 章案件，且即使已指定托管人，债务人仍然是利害关系方，可以（除其他事项外）提交重整计划。11 U.S.C. § 1121(c)（“任何利害关系方，包括债务人、托管人、债权人委员会、股权证券持有人委员会、债权人、股权证券持有人或任何信托契约受托人，当且仅当——(1)根据本章已指定托管人时……可提交计划”）。\n\n9. 此外，即使在第 7 章案件中，法院也认可债务人可以对债权提出异议的若干情形，包括：(1) 可能存在归属于债务人的剩余财产；(2) 存在针对债务人的不可免责债权；(3) 托管人未能或拒绝就该债权提出异议；或 (4) 异议不会干扰破产财产的管理。参见 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)。退一步假设第 7 章判例适用于本案，已有若干针对债务人提起的不可免责性申诉，虽然债务人否认这些债权属于不可免责并确信自己将在这些诉讼中胜诉，但他认识到所有诉讼都存在固有的风险。此外，托管人并未对第 17 号债权提出异议，且债务人的异议亦不会干扰债务人破产财产的管理。这是一项单独的争议程序，仅会影响第 17 号债权是否以及在何种程度上不予支持。\n\nB. 第 17 号债权不具备初步有效性，因其缺乏充分的主张指控或文件证明\n\n10. 《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 3001(f) 条规定，“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表面证据。”\n\n因此，破产债权程序下的说服责任始终由索赔人承担，索赔人必须遵守《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 3001 条，在债权证明中指控足以支持该债权的事实。如果索赔人满足了这些要求，则举证推进责任转移至提出异议方，由其出示在证明力上至少等同于债权证明所提供证据的证据，且该等证据一旦被采信，将反驳对该债权在法律上充分成立至关重要的至少一项指控。……如果提出异议方符合了这些证据要求，则举证推进责任重新转回给索赔人，由其以优势证据证明债权的有效性和金额，以承担其最终的说服责任。……但是，如果索赔人未能在债权证明中指控足以支持该债权的事实，例如未能随附符合《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 3001(c) 条的充分证明文件，则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, 314 B.R. 474, 481 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2004)（援引 In re Rally Partners, L.P., 306 B.R. 165, 168-69 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2003)）（引用省略）。因此，如果未产生有效性推定，“‘债权人便不能仅依赖债权证明。’”同上（援引 In re Stoecker, 5 F.3d 1022, 1028 (7th Cir. 1993)）。\n\n11. 在本案中，索赔人未能指控事实或随附充分文件来支持第 17 号债权。第 17 号债权声称展示的全部内容仅是向 Crane 进行的一笔电汇。未提供任何指控或文件将向该非债务人实体的转账与债务人以任何方式联系起来——即，不存在任何指控的事实表明索赔人对债务人享有任何债权。此外，所提供的唯一文件为德语，法院不应将这些文件视为案卷记录的一部分。在审理债权人针对清算托管人提出的债权异议而提交的即决判决动议时，In re Solar Trust of Am., LLC, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 3487, at *7-10 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 18, 2014) 案中的法院拒绝考虑作为债权依据的一份德国上诉法院判决书的不完整翻译。正如该法院所认定，“如果一份文件是用外语书写的，且提交方未能提供英文翻译，法院可以适当地拒绝将该文件作为即决判决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 17 号债权的异议背景下，法院不应将第 17 号债权的附件作为支持该债权的证据予以考虑。\n\n12. 因此，在本案的听证会中，索赔人应当承担证明第 17 号债权有效性的举证责任，因为没有充分的指控或文件来支持对第 17 号债权初步有效性的推定。\n\nC. 索赔人无法证明第 17 号债权的有效性，因为该债权并非针对债务人的债权\n\n13. 索赔人无法承担其证明第 17 号债权有效的说服责任，因为该债权是基于向非债务人第三方支付款项的指控。此外，债务人在 HIC 或 Deltec 均无权益，亦未在 Deltec 开立账户。此外，他未对索赔人实施过任何类型的“投资欺诈”（无论在何种情况下）。退一步讲，即使法院认定第 17 号债权享有初步有效性推定，债务人也将在听证会上出示充分证据，将举证责任转移给索赔人以证明其债权的有效性，而索赔人无法做到这一点。\n\n14. 第 502(b) 条规定，在就债权异议发出通知并举行听证后，法院应确定该债权的金额并予以准许，除其他情形外，以下情形除外：“(1) 依据任何协议或适用法律，基于非该债权属于附条件或未到期债权之原因，该债权对债务人及债务人财产不可强制执行[。]”显而易见，第 17 号债权若要有效，必须是对债务人主张的债权。参见 Osborne v. Aravena (In re Aravena), 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1826, at \\*4 (Bankr. D. Conn. Apr. 20, 2012)。因此，在 In re Friedberg, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1194, at \\*7-8 (Bankr. D. Conn. Mar. 21, 2012) 案中，法院认定举证责任转移至债权人，由其证明其根据债务人既非当事人亦非担保人的本票及抵押贷款对债务人享有有效债权。法院认定债权人未能承担其举证责任，因为其“未提供任何证据证明债务人以个人身份系该本票的出票人、共同签署人、担保人或其他债务人，亦非抵押人。”同上，at \\*8。\n\n15. 因此，退一步讲，即使假设债务人就第 17 号债权的有效性承担初步举证责任，显而易见的是，债务人已对第 17 号债权的法律有效性提出质疑，这足以将举证责任转回给债权人以证明其债权的有效性。参见同上；Constant v. Nissan Infiniti LT (In re Constant), 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 2569, at \\*6 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sep. 20, 2021)（“债务人的异议通过否定存在约束其支付到期金额的合同义务，直接对第 2-2 号债权的法律充分性提出了质疑。”）。\n\n16. 正如债务人在听证会上将证明的（如有必要），他在 HIC 或 Deltec（德尔泰克）中过去（以及现在）均无任何权益，也从未在 Deltec 开立过账户。此外，债权人针对债务人究竟提出了何种指控尚不明确，因为他们仅主张“投资欺诈”作为第 17 号债权的依据。然而，债务人从未针对债权人从事过任何欺诈行为，且债权人在听证会上也无法证明这一点。\n\nIV. 结论\n\n据此，债务人谨请求法院作出命令，全面驳回第 17 号债权，并依据司法公正的要求向其授予其他及进一步的救济。\n\n日期：2023年1月17日，于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n\n债务人：HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/签名/ John L. Cesaroni\nJohn 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\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分院\n\n案由：第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n债务人。\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n异议人，\nv.\nQIU YU（邱宇）\n债权人。\n\n支持对债权证明提出异议的拟定命令\n\n关于对 Qiu Yu（邱宇）的债权证明（第 17 号债权）提出的异议，该异议系依据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007（《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 3007 条）于 2023年1月17日 提交（“债权异议”，ECF No. \\_\\_\\_），在发出通知并举行听证后已提交本院审理，参见 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)，经本院审议该债权异议及对该债权异议提交的任何答复，认为存在支持该债权异议的正当理由；特此\n\n裁定：Qiu Yu（邱宇）金额为 $200,200.00 的债权证明（第 17 号债权）在此被全面驳回。\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分院\n\n案由：第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n债务人。\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n异议人，\nv.\nQIU YU（邱宇）\n债权人。\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n送达证明书\n\n我谨此证明，于 2023年1月17日，前述债权异议通知、针对 Qiu Yu（邱宇）第 17 号债权的异议以及拟定命令的副本已通过电子方式归档。此归档通知将通过法院电子归档系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人，或按照电子归档通知上的注明，通过邮寄方式发送给任何无法接受电子归档的人员。各方当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅此归档文件。\n\n我谨此进一步证明，于 2023年1月17日，前述债权异议通知、针对 Qiu Yu（邱宇）第 17 号债权的异议以及拟定命令的副本已通过美国普通一级邮件（First Class United States mail）寄送给债权人 Qiu Yu（邱宇），邮寄至第 17 号债权中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/签名/ John L. Cesaroni\nJohn 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","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2917,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-17 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-17","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:26:24"}