{"id":"court_ctb_1335_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1335,"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 #1335（2023-01-17立案）。债务人郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）针对债权人 Lee Chu 提出的第18号债权证明提起正式异议，主张该笔主张被欺诈投资、总额达9,809,860.00美元的非优先无担保债权不属于对债务人的有效债权，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 #1335 (filed Jan 17, 2023). Debtor Ho Wan Kwok objects pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502 to Claim No. 18 filed by Lee Chu, requesting the complete disallowance of the asserted $9,809,860.00 non-priority unsecured claim on grounds that it is not enforceable against the debtor.","body_en":"# Case 22-50073 Doc 1335 Filed 01/17/23 Entered 01/17/23 15:02:25 Page 1 of 15\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| 18        | Lee Chu   |  |\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| Case No. : | 22-50073 |\n|------------|----------|\n| Chapter:   | 11       |\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| LEE CHU              |           |            |\n|                      | Claimant. |            |\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n### **OBJECTION TO CLAIM NUMBER 18 OF LEE CHU**\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 18 (\"Claim 18\"), asserting a non-priority unsecured claim against the Debtor's estate in the amount of \\$9,809,860.00 and filed by the claimant, Lee Chu (\"Claimant\"), in this bankruptcy case on January 11, 2023. The entire amount of Claim 18 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 11, 2023, Claimant filed Claim 18, asserting a non-priority unsecured claim in the amount of \\$9,809,860.00. The Claimant alleges the basis of the claim is that \"Miles Guo fraudulently induced me to wire money to a number of entities.\"\n\n- 6. In addition, Claimant attaches several documents to Claim 18: [1](#page-3-0)\n\t- a. A wire transfer receipt of a transfer from Ming Liao (\"Liao\") to Crane Advisory Group LLC (\"Crane\") in the amount of \\$700,050.00; Claim 18, p. 4;\n\t- b. A wire transfer receipt of a transfer from Liao to ACA Capital Group Limited (\"ACA\") in the amount of \\$1,915,554.15; *id.*, p. 5;\n\t- c. A wire transfer receipt of a transfer from Liao to ACA in the amount of \\$162,000.00; *id.*, p. 6;\n\t- d. A wire transfer receipt of a transfer from Liao to ACA in the amount of \\$300,000.00; *id.*, p. 7;\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor identifies what the documents attached to Claim 18 purport to be and reserves all his rights to challenge the authenticity and admissibility of the documents identified herein.\n\n- e. A wire transfer receipt of a transfer from Pixshow Film Inc. (\"Pixshow\") to ACA in the amount of \\$200,000.00; *id.*, pp. 8-9;\n- f. A loan agreement (the \"2021 USHC Agreement\") between Claimant, as lender, and US Himalaya Capital Inc. (\"USHC\"), as borrower, dated February 27, 2021, with a loan amount of \\$339,300.13; *id.*, pp. 10-17;\n- g. A loan agreement (the \"2021 UHL Agreement\") between Claimant, as lender, and UHL Capital Ltd. (\"UHL\"), as borrower, dated November 4, 2021, with a loan amount of \\$600,000.00; *id.*, pp. 18-25;\n- h. A loan agreement (the \"2020 USHC Agreement\") between Claimant, as lender, and USHC, as borrower, dated August 23, 2020, with a loan amount of \\$50,000.00; *id.*, pp. 26-33;\n- i. A loan agreement (the \"2020 UHL Agreement\" and collectively with the 2021 USHC Agreement, the 2021 UHL Agreement, 2020 USHC Agreement, the \"Agreements\") between Claimant, as lender, and UHL, as borrower, dated November 30, 2020, with a loan amount of \\$1,600,020.00; *id.*, pp. 34-41;\n- j. A share certificate of GTV Media Group Inc. (\"GTV\") for 1,999,980 shares in the name of \"Chu Lee\"; *id.*, p. 42;\n- k. A payment instruction by Claimant to send \\$2,000,000.00 to Saraca Media Group Inc. US (\"Saraca\"); *id.*, p. 43;\n- l. A poor-quality payment instruction that appears to be to send \\$50,000.00 to USHC; *id.*, p. 44;\n- m. Several illegible pages; *id*., pp. 45-49;\n- n. A document titled \"UK Farm Agent Service Agreement\" that appears to be an\n\nunsigned statement by an unidentified declarant (the \"Anonymous Statement\"); *id*., pp. 50-51;\n\n- o. Blank forms; *id*., pp. 52-54;\n- p. An unidentified document in a foreign language; *id*., p. 55;\n- q. A transaction receipt regarding Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC; *id*., p. 56;\n- r. Further unidentified document in a foreign language; *id*., p. 57;\n- s. What appear to be screen captures of G Clubs website; *id*., pp. 58-59;\n- t. Bank statements for Tin Luk Capital Corp. (\"Tin Luk\"); *id*., pp. 60-61;\n- u. A wire receipt from \"Jianfeng\" to Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. (\"HIC\") for \\$1.6 million; *id.*, pp. 62-64;\n- v. An unidentified screenshot showing a credit of \\$2,599,980.00, and partially illegible wire instructions for \\$2.6 million; *id.*, p.65;\n- w. An unidentified screenshot purporting to show Himalaya Dollar and Himalaya Coin balances; *id.*, p. 66;\n- x. An unidentified document in a foreign language; *id.*, p. 67; and\n- y. Spreadsheets partially in a foreign language; *id*., pp. 68-69.\n\n#### **II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n7. 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 18**\n\n8. Section 502(a)[2](#page-6-0) 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\n9. 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-6-0\"></span><sup>2</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\n10. 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 18, 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 18 is disallowed.\n\n# **B. Claim 18 Is Not** *Prima Facie* **Valid Because It Does Not Contain Sufficient Allegations or Documentation**\n\n11. 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\n\nsufficient 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\n12. Here, Claimant has failed to allege facts or attach sufficient documents to support Claim 18. While there were a number of documents attached to Claim 18, the only document that even mentions the Debtor is the Anonymous Statement. Obviously, an unsigned declaration by an anonymous person is not admissible evidence and should not be considered by the Court. *See Do No Harm v. Pfizer, Inc.*, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227006, at \\*25 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2022). Moreover, the Anonymous Statement is confusing, at best, and does not support Claimant's unsupported assertion that the Debtor \"fraudulently induced me to wire money to a number of entities.\"\n\n13. None of the other documents submitted with Claim 18 support Claimant's claim of fraud. There are a number of wire transfer receipts or instructions showing transfers from Liao to Crane and ACA, Pixshow to ACA, Claimant to Saraca, and an unidentified transfer to USHC. Thus, only one of these transfers was even made by Claimant, and even in that case, there is no indication that the Debtor was involved in any way. In fact, the transfers are all to non-debtor entities. There are also the Agreements, which are not loan agreements with the Debtor, but rather, non-debtor entities. The Agreements are only signed by Claimant and have printed on them what purport to be the seals of the borrower entities. It is not clear if these are authentic seals or sufficient to otherwise bind those parties. There are also bank statements from Tin Luk, not Claimant, and a\n\nnumber of screenshots from what appear to be unidentified accounts and websites. These, of course, do nothing to support Claim 18.\n\n14. Moreover, there are documents in a foreign language, 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 18, the Court should not consider the attachments to Claim 18 that are not in the English language as evidence in support thereof.\n\n15. In sum, there are no allegations or documents provided that in any way showing that the Debtor fraudulently induced Claimant to do anything – i.e., there are no alleged facts showing that Claimant has any claims against the debtor. Thus, in a hearing in this matter, Claimant should have the burden of proving the validity of Claim 18 because there are not sufficient allegations or documentation to support the presumption of the *prima facie* validity of Claim 18.\n\n## **C. Claimant Cannot Prove the Validity of Claim 18 Because It Is Not a Claim against the Debtor**\n\n16. Claimant cannot carry her burden of persuasion that Claim 18 valid because it is based on allegations that sums of money were paid to non-debtor third parties, and only in one instance by Claimant rather than some other person or entity. Moreover, the Debtor has no interest in any of the entities identified in the documentation attached to Claim 18. The Debtor did not fraudulently induce Claimant into making investments in any entities. Alternatively, even if the Court concludes that Claim 18 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 she cannot do.\n\n17. 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 18 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\n18. Thus, even assuming, *arguendo*, that the Debtor has the initial burden of proof as to the validity of Claim 18, it is clear that the Debtor has challenged the legal validity of Claim 18, which is sufficient to shift the burden back to Claimant to demonstrate the validity of her 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\n19. As the Debtor will demonstrate, if necessary, at a hearing, he had (and has) no\n\ninterest in the entities identified in the documents attached to Claim 18. Additionally, it is unclear exactly what Claimant's allegations are against the Debtor as she only vaguely alleges that the Debtor \"fraudulently induced me to wire money to a number of entities.\" 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 18 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| LEE CHU              |           |                         |\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 18, filed pursuant to Fed.\n\nR. 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 Lee Chu, Claim No. 18, in the amount of \\$9,809,860.00 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| LEE CHU              |           |            |\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 18 of Lee Chu, 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 18 of Lee Chu, and Proposed Order were sent to the Claimant, Lee Chu, via First Class United States mail, to the address provided for notices in Claim number 18 as follows:\n\nMichael Balmer Weightmans LLP 100 Old Hall Street Liverpool L3 9QJ United Kingdom\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 1335 Filed 01/17/23 Entered 01/17/23 15:02:25 Page 1 of 15\n\n康涅狄格州本地格式 420B（债权异议通知书） 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章：11\n债权异议通知书\n\n债权编号：　债权人：\n\n18　Lee Chu（朱利）\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（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、修改或予以剔除。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：除非法院另有命令，否则您选择的答辩日期必须至少在提交《债权异议书》之日起三十（30）日之后。]\n\n如果您不希望法院剔除或变更您的债权，则您或您的律师必须在\n\n2023年2月17日\n\n或之前向法院提交对该异议的书面答辩，阐明您的立场。\n\n如果您通过邮寄方式向法院提交答辩以供归档，您必须尽早寄出，以便法院在上述日期或之前收到。您的答辩应邮寄至：\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut 915 Layfayette Boulevard, Bridgeport CT 06604\n\n康涅狄格州本地格式 420B（债权异议通知书） 12/2020\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您答辩的副本亦应邮寄至：\n\nJohn L. Cesaroni, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., 10 Middle St., 15th Fl., Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\n（提出异议方及提出异议方律师（如适用）的姓名/名称与地址）\n\n（待送达的其他人员的姓名/名称与地址）\n\n如果您或您的律师未采取上述步骤，法院可认定您不反对对您债权提出的异议。\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案号：22-50073\n\n章：11\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, et al.（郭文贵等），\n债务人。\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n提出异议方，\n诉\nLEE CHU（朱利），\n债权人。\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n对 LEE CHU（朱利）第 18 号债权的异议书\n\n根据 11 U.S.C. § 502、Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007 以及 Local Bankr. R. 3007-1，自然人债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”），由其下述签字的代理律师事务所 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 代表，特此对第 18 号债权（以下简称“第 18 号债权”）提出异议；该债权系债权人 Lee Chu（朱利）（以下简称“债权人”）于 2023年1月11日 在本破产案中提出、向债务人破产财产主张金额为 \\$9,809,860.00 的非优先无担保债权。第 18 号债权的全部金额均应不予支持，因其并非对债务人具有可执行性的债权。为支持其异议，债务人陈述如下：\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，破产法院签发了其《关于在不予剥夺起诉权的情况下驳回撤案动议并批准合并指定第11章受托人动议的裁决备忘录及裁定》（ECF Doc. No. 465），命令（除其他事项外）在本破产案中指定一名第 11 章受托人。\n\n3. 2022年7月7日，美国受托人提交了一份指定第 11 章受托人的通知，指定 Luc A. Despins（以下简称“受托人”）作为本破产案的受托人（ECF Doc. No. 514），并提交了《关于批准指定第11章受托人的命令申请书》（ECF Doc. No. 515），请求法院批准对受托人的指定。\n\n4. 2022年7月8日，法院作出了其《批准指定第11章受托人的裁定》（ECF Doc. No. 523），批准指定该受托人作为本破产案的第 11 章受托人。\n\n5. 2023年1月11日，债权人提交了第 18 号债权，主张金额为 \\$9,809,860.00 的非优先无担保债权。债权人声称该债权的事实依据为“Miles Guo（郭文贵）欺诈性地诱导我向多家实体电汇资金”。\n\n- 6. 此外，债权人在第 18 号债权后附了数份文件：[1]\n\t- a. 一份从 Ming Liao（廖明，以下简称“Liao”）向 Crane Advisory Group LLC（以下简称“Crane”）电汇 \\$700,050.00 的电汇收据；第 18 号债权，第 4 页；\n\t- b. 一份从 Liao 向 ACA Capital Group Limited（以下简称“ACA”）电汇 \\$1,915,554.15 的电汇收据；同上，第 5 页；\n\t- c. 一份从 Liao 向 ACA 电汇 \\$162,000.00 的电汇收据；同上，第 6 页；\n\t- d. 一份从 Liao 向 ACA 电汇 \\$300,000.00 的电汇收据；同上，第 7 页；\n\n1 债务人指明了第 18 号债权所附文件据称是什么，并保留其对本文所指明文件的真实性和可采性提出质疑的所有权利。\n\n- e. 一份从 Pixshow Film Inc.（以下简称“Pixshow”）向 ACA 电汇 \\$200,000.00 的电汇收据；同上，第 8-9 页；\n- f. 一份出借人为债权人、借款人为 US Himalaya Capital Inc.（以下简称“USHC”）、日期为 2021年2月27日、借款金额为 \\$339,300.13 的借款协议（以下简称“2021年USHC协议”）；同上，第 10-17 页；\n- g. 一份出借人为债权人、借款人为 UHL Capital Ltd.（以下简称“UHL”）、日期为 2021年11月4日、借款金额为 \\$600,000.00 的借款协议（以下简称“2021年UHL协议”）；同上，第 18-25 页；\n- h. 一份出借人为债权人、借款人为 USHC、日期为 2020年8月23日、借款金额为 \\$50,000.00 的借款协议（以下简称“2020年USHC协议”）；同上，第 26-33 页；\n- i. 一份出借人为债权人、借款人为 UHL、日期为 2020年11月30日、借款金额为 \\$1,600,020.00 的借款协议（以下简称“2020年UHL协议”，与 2021年USHC协议、2021年UHL协议、2020年USHC协议合称为“诸份协议”）；同上，第 34-41 页；\n- j. 一份登记在“Chu Lee”名下、包含 1,999,980 股的 GTV Media Group Inc.（以下简称“GTV”）股票证书；同上，第 42 页；\n- k. 一份由债权人向 Saraca Media Group Inc. US（以下简称“Saraca”）汇出 \\$2,000,000.00 的付款指令；同上，第 43 页；\n- l. 一份质量较差、看似为向 USHC 汇出 \\$50,000.00 的付款指令；同上，第 44 页；\n- m. 若干页无法辨认的文件；同上，第 45-49 页；\n- n. 一份题为“UK Farm Agent Service Agreement”（英国农场代理服务协议）的文件，看似为未具名声明人未签署的声明（以下简称“匿名声明”）；同上，第 50-51 页；\n- o. 空白表格；同上，第 52-54 页；\n- p. 一份未注明的外国语文件；同上，第 55 页；\n- q. 一份关于 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC 的交易收据；同上，第 56 页；\n- r. 另一份未注明的外国语文件；同上，第 57 页；\n- s. 看似为 G Clubs 网站的屏幕截图；同上，第 58-59 页；\n- t. Tin Luk Capital Corp.（以下简称“Tin Luk”）的银行对账单；同上，第 60-61 页；\n- u. 一份从“Jianfeng”向 Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.（以下简称“HIC”）电汇 \\$1.6 million（160万美元）的电汇收据；同上，第 62-64 页；\n- v. 一份未注明的屏幕截图，显示有 \\$2,599,980.00 的贷记款项，以及部分无法辨认的 \\$2.6 million（260万美元）电汇指令；同上，第 65 页；\n- w. 一份未注明的屏幕截图，据称显示了喜马拉雅美元和喜马拉雅币的余额；同上，第 66 页；\n- x. 一份未注明的外国语文件；同上，第 67 页；以及\n- y. 部分使用外国语的电子表格；同上，第 68-69 页。\nII. 管辖权与审判地\n\n7. 本法院根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334 对本案具有管辖权。本异议属于 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) 项下的核心程序。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 及 1409，本法院在本司法管辖区属于正当审判地。\nIII. 寻求救济的法律依据\nA. 债务人具有对第 18 号债权提出异议的主体资格\n\n8. 第 502(a) 条[2]相关部分规定，“根据本编第 501 条提交证明的债权或权益，应视为已获支持，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、受托人、债权人委员会、股权持有人委员会、债权人、股权持有人或任何契约受托人’。”Pascazi v. Fiber Consultants, Inc., 445 B.R. 124, 127 (S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区） 2011)（引自 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中对债权提出异议的主体资格。In re Futterman, 602 B.R. 465, 472 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区破产法院） 2019)。\n\n9. 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书》（Doc. No. 1326）中辩称，由于受托人的指定，除非在偿付债权人后可能存在剩余财产，否则债务人无权参与涉及破产财产的诉讼。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, 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.（康涅狄格区） Sept. 28, 2022)。本案显然属于第 11 章案件，且即使已指定受托人，债务人亦属利害关系方，其有权（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、受托人、债权人委员会、股权持有人委员会、债权人、股权持有人或任何契约受托人，可以且仅可以在下列情况下提交计划：(1)已根据本章指定了受托人。\n\n2 本文所指“条”均指《美国破产法典》（11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.）各条，除非另有说明。\n\n……”）。\n\n10. 此外，即使在第 7 章案件中，法院亦已认可债务人可以对债权提出异议的若干种情形，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)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清算管理。参见 In re Stylianou, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 5524, at *78 n.48 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区破产法院） Aug. 21, 2009); McGuirl v. White, 86 F.3d 1232, 1235 (D.C. Cir. 1996)。退一步假设（arguendo）第 7 章的判例适用于本案，现已有数起针对债务人提起的不可免责确认诉状，尽管债务人否认这些债权属于不可免责并确信其将在该等诉讼中胜诉，但他亦认识到所有诉讼均存在固有风险。此外，受托人并未对第 18 号债权提出异议，债务人的异议亦不会妨碍债务人破产财产的管理。本异议属于独立的附随争议程序，仅会影响第 18 号债权是否不予支持以及在何种程度上不予支持。\nB. 第 18 号债权不具有表面有效性，因其不包含充分的主张或证明文件\n\n11. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f) 规定，“根据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表面证据。”\n\n因此，破产债权程序中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，则推进举证的责任随之转移至提出异议方，由其提出在证明力上至少与债权证明所提供证据相当的证据，且该等证据如若属实，将反驳对该债权在法律充分性上至关重要的至少一项主张。……如果提出异议方满足了上述证据要求，则推进举证的责任将转移回债权人，由其承担最终的说服责任，以优势证据确立该债权的有效性及金额。……但是，如果债权人未能在债权证明中主张足以构成\n\n足以支持该主张，例如未能附上符合 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c) 规定的充分文件，该债权主张并不会被自动驳回；相反，它仅仅是被剥夺了其本来可能获得的任何表面有效性。……\n\nIn re Jorczak, 314 B.R. 474, 481 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2004)（引自 In re Rally Partners, L.P., 306 B.R. 165, 168-69 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2003)）（引文省略）。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（引自 In re Stoecker, 5 F.3d 1022, 1028 (7th Cir. 1993)）。\n\n12. 在本案中，索赔人未能主张事实或附上充分的文件来支持第 18 号债权。虽然第 18 号债权附有若干文件，但其中唯一提及债务人的文件是《匿名声明》。显而易见，匿名人士未经签署的声明并非可采纳的证据，法院不应予以考虑。参见 Do No Harm v. Pfizer, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227006, at *25 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2022)。此外，《匿名声明》充其量令人困惑，并且无法支持索赔人关于债务人“欺诈性地诱导我向多家实体电汇资金”这一缺乏依据的主张。\n\n13. 随第 18 号债权提交的其他文件均不支持索赔人的欺诈主张。其中有若干电汇收据或指示，显示从 Liao（廖）汇至 Crane 和 ACA，从 Pixshow 汇至 ACA，从索赔人汇至 Saraca，以及一笔向 USHC 的未指明汇款。因此，这些汇款中仅有一笔是由索赔人进行的，而且即便是在该笔汇款中，也没有任何迹象表明债务人以任何方式参与其中。事实上，所有汇款对象全是非债务人实体。此外还有各项《协议》，这些并非与债务人签订的借款协议，而是与非债务人实体签订的。这些《协议》仅由索赔人签署，并印有所谓借款实体的印章。目前尚不清楚这些印章是否真实，或者是否足以对相关各方产生约束力。此外还有来自 Tin Luk（并非索赔人）的银行对账单，以及若干看似来自未指明账户和网站的屏幕截图。当然，这些都丝毫无助于支持第 18 号债权。\n\n14. 此外，其中还有外语文件，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而提出的即决判决动议时，In re Solar Trust of Am., LLC, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 3487, at *7-10 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 18, 2014) 一案中的法院拒绝考虑构成该债权依据的德国上诉法院判决书的不完整译本。正如法院认定，“如果一份文件是用外语书写，且提交方未能提供英文译本，法院可以在即决判决中适当地拒绝将该文件作为案卷记录的一部分予以考虑。”同上，at *8（援引案例）。同样地，在本案中，针对第 18 号债权提出异议的语境下，法院不应将第 18 号债权所附的非英文附件作为支持该债权的证据予以考虑。\n\n15. 总之，没有任何指控或提供的文件以任何方式表明债务人欺诈性地诱导索赔人采取任何行动——即没有任何指控的事实表明索赔人对债务人享有任何债权主张。因此，在本案的听证会中，索赔人应承担证明第 18 号债权有效性的举证责任，因为没有充分的事实主张或文件能够支持第 18 号债权具有表面有效性的推定。\n\nC. 索赔人无法证明第 18 号债权的有效性，因为该债权并非针对债务人的债权主张\n\n16. 索赔人无法完成证明第 18 号债权有效的说服责任，因为该债权所依据的主张是款项支付给了非债务人第三方，且仅在一种情况下是由索赔人支付而非由其他个人或实体支付。此外，债务人在第 18 号债权随附文件中确定的任何实体中均不享有任何权益。债务人并未欺诈性地诱导索赔人向任何实体进行投资。或者，即便法院认定第 18 号债权享有表面有效性推定，债务人也将在听证会上提出充分的证据，将举证责任转移给索赔人以证明其债权的有效性，而她根本无法做到这一点。\n\n17. 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准许该债权，除非（除其他情形外）“(1) 根据任何协议或适用法律，该债权不可对债务人及债务人的财产强制执行，但因该债权属附条件或未到期债权的情形除外[。]”显而易见，第 18 号债权若要有效，必须是针对债务人提出的债权主张。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) 一案中，法院认定举证责任转移至索赔人，要求其证明依据债务人既非当事方亦非担保人的本票和抵押贷款对债务人享有有效债权。法院认定索赔人未能完成其举证责任，因为其“未能出示任何证据证明债务人是以个人身份作为该期票的出票人、共同签署人、担保人或在其他方面作为债务人，或是抵押人。”同上，at *8。\n\n18. 因此，即便退一步假设债务人对第 18 号债权的有效性负有初步举证责任，显而易见的是，债务人已经对第 18 号债权的法律有效性提出了质疑，这足以将举证责任转移回索赔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能够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\n19. 正如债务人在听证会上将要证明的那样（如有必要），他过去和现在均未在第 18 号债权所附文件中指明的实体中享有任何权益。此外，索赔人对债务人的具体指控究竟为何尚不明确，因为她仅含糊地声称债务人“欺诈性地诱导我向多家实体电汇资金”。然而，债务人从未针对索赔人从事过任何欺诈行为，且索赔人在听证会上也无法证明这一点。\n\nIV. 结论\n\n综上所述，债务人谨请求法院作出一项裁定，全部驳回第 18 号债权，并依司法公正之需给予其其他及进一步的救济。\n\n日期：2023年1月17日于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Bridgeport（布里奇波特）。\n债务人，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ 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电子邮箱：[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案件涉及：第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n债务人。\n\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n异议人，\n诉\nLEE CHU（李初）\n索赔人。\n\n拟定支持对债权证明异议之裁定\n\n关于依据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007 提出的、日期为 2023年1月17日对 Qiu Yu（邱宇）的第 18 号债权证明的异议（下称“债权异议”，ECF 编号：___），经通知并举行听证后已提交本法院审理，参见 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)，且经法院审议债权异议以及针对债权异议提交的任何答复，支持该债权异议的事由似乎成立；特此\n\n裁定：Lee Chu（李初）金额为 $9,809,860.00 的第 18 号债权证明特此全部予以驳回。\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案件涉及：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\nLEE CHU（李初）\n索赔人。\n\n案件编号：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 Lee Chu（李初）第 18 号债权的异议以及拟定裁定的副本已通过电子方式归档。本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指示邮寄给无法接受电子归档的任何人。当事人可以通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次归档内容。\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 Lee Chu（李初）第 18 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索赔人 Lee Chu（李初），邮寄至第 18 号债权中所提供的通知地址如下：\n\nMichael Balmer\nWeightmans LLP\n100 Old Hall Street\nLiverpool L3 9QJ\nUnited Kingdom\n\n债务人，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ 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电子邮箱：[jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Himalaya","Miles Guo","Saraca","GTV","Despins","G Clubs","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3742,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-17 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-17","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:45:42"}