{"id":"court_ctb_1345_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1345,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------                                                                                                                                         |                          | x                                                                  |                                    |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|\n| In re:                                                                                                                                                                                              |                          | :<br>:<br>:                                                        | Chapter 11                         |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                                                                                                                                                        |                          | :                                                                  | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)            |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                     | Debtors.                 | :<br>:                                                             | (Jointly Administered)             |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA<br>OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,<br>v.<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>----------------------------------------------------------- | Plaintiff,<br>Defendant. | :<br>x<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>x | Adv. Proceeding No. 22-05032 (JAM) |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                     |                          |                                                                    |                                    |\n\n# **EMERGENCY MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE AND GENEVER DEBTORS FOR ENTRY OF ORDER (A) COMPELLING INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR TO COMPLY WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS PROCESS, (B) QUASHING INDIVIDUAL DEBTORS' OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS, AND (C) BARRING INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR FROM FILING FURTHER OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS, ABSENT LEAVE OF COURT**\n\nLuc Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Individual Debtor\"), Genever Holdings Corporation\n\n(\"Genever (BVI)\"), and Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever (US)\" and, together with the Trustee,\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nand Genever (BVI), the \"Movants\"), by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this emergency motion requesting entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"), (a) compelling the Individual Debtor and anyone in active concert or participation with the Individual Debtor to comply with the *Corrected Order Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. Proc. Docket No. 134] (the \"Preliminary Injunction Order\") issued by this Court in the above-captioned adversary proceeding (the \"PI Adversary Proceeding\") and to cease all activities interfering with the claims process, (b) quashing the Individual Debtor's recently filed objections to three proofs of claim [Main Case Docket Nos. 1332, 1334, 1335] (the \"Claims Objections\"), and (c) barring the Individual Debtor from filing any further objections to claims without first obtaining prior leave of this Court. In support of this Motion, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. As the Court is well aware, since the Trustee's appointment on July 8, 2022, the Individual Debtor has waged a non-stop battle against the Trustee's efforts to investigate the Individual Debtor's financial affairs and recover assets for the benefit of the Individual Debtor's creditors. Indeed, not only has the Trustee's investigation \"been met with opposition at every step in the process,\" 2 but the Individual Debtor's out-of-court intimidation and harassment campaign against, among others, the Trustee, his family members, and his counsel has forced the Trustee to expend substantial resources to seek injunctive relief from this Court as well as slowed down the Trustee's investigation into the Individual Debtor's assets and financial\n\n<sup>2</sup> *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. Proc. Docket No. 133] (the \"Memorandum Decision\") at 38.\n\naffairs—all of which was undoubtedly one of the principal purposes of the Individual Debtor's extra-judicial campaign.\n\n2. Worse, even after this Court enjoined the Individual Debtor from \"interfering *in any way with the integrity of his Chapter 11 case,*\" 3 the Individual Debtor has continued his efforts to hijack these chapter 11 cases. In particular, the Trustee has recently become aware that the Individual Debtor is using his social media presence and his network of followers to (i) harass creditors who have filed proofs of claim in these chapter 11 cases and (ii) encourage his followers to file non-meritorious proofs of claim in these chapter 11 cases. In addition, earlier this week, the Individual Debtor also filed three objections to proofs of claim filed on the Court's claims register, even though an out-of-possession and out-of-the-money debtor does *not* have the right to do so—as this Court has previously recognized. 4\n\n3. The Individual Debtor's objective is clear: intimidate creditors into not filing proofs of claim, flood the claims register with non-meritorious claims, and thereby delegitimize the entire claims process and render the process cost-prohibitive for the Trustee. 5 As a result, the Trustee is again forced to expend time and resources addressing the Individual Debtor's efforts to undermine the integrity of these chapter 11 cases—in clear violation of the preliminary injunction entered by this Court only a week ago. This must stop. Now.\n\n<sup>3</sup> Preliminary Injunction Order ¶ 2 (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>4</sup> While there are exceptions to this rule (such as when there is a surplus in the estate), given that the Individual Debtor takes the position that he is penniless, the possibility of any surplus in these chapter 11 cases is speculative, at best. Nor should the Individual Debtor be allowed to hijack these cases based on the possibility that his family may fund a hypothetical future chapter 11 plan that would pay creditors in full, especially in light of his recent statement that \"the Debtor and, more importantly, the Debtor's immediate and extended family members (because they would fund payments to creditors under any consensual plan) will not deal with the Trustee. At this point, the options are removal of the Trustee or years of expensive and uncertain litigation.\" *Motion for Order Removing Trustee* [Main Case Docket No. 1274] (the \"Removal Motion\") ¶ 40.\n\n<sup>5</sup> The Trustee is still evaluating the impact of the Individual Debtor's actions on the claims filing process. The Trustee reserves the right to move to extend the bar date to the extent such relief is necessary to remedy the harm caused by the Individual Debtor.\n\n4. Accordingly, by this Motion, Movants request entry of an order (which, in the Court's discretion, may be an order of contempt) compelling the Individual Debtor and anyone in active concert or participation with the Individual Debtor to comply with the terms of the Preliminary Injunction Order and immediately cease all out-of-court and in-court activities interfering with the claims process, including any attempts to intimidate creditors into not filing claims (including by publishing creditors' personal information on social media) or in any way suggesting to the Individual Debtor's followers that they should file non-meritorious claims.\n\n5. In addition, Movants request that the Individual Debtor's Claims Objections be quashed (without prejudice to Movants' right to object to such claims at a later date) because, at this juncture in these chapter 11 cases, the Individual Debtor has no right to object to claims filed in these cases.\n\n6. Finally, Movants request that the Individual Debtor be barred from filing any objections to claims, without first obtaining prior leave of this Court, except that the Individual Debtor may file, without seeking prior leave of this Court, objections to claims that are the subject of an adversary proceeding in these chapter 11 cases challenging the dischargeability of such claim (collectively, the \"Dischargeability Adversary Proceedings\"), but subject to any stay currently in effect with respect to these proceedings. Absent such relief, the claims process will be bogged down by the Individual Debtor's incessant efforts to interfere with the integrity of these cases. 6\n\n<sup>6</sup> While the Preliminary Injunction Order was entered in PI Adversary Proceeding, it clearly applies to these chapter 11 cases as a whole, and, accordingly, Movants are requesting that the relief sought in this Motion apply to all three jointly administered chapter 11 cases. **For that reason, Movants are filing this Motion in both the PI Adversary Proceeding and the main chapter 11 case.**\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n#### **A. Preliminary Injunction Order**\n\n7. On January 11, 2023, the Court issued the Preliminary Injunction Order (a corrected version of which was filed on January 13, 2023) in the PI Adversary Proceeding, which was commenced by Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\" and, together with the Trustee, the \"Plaintiffs\") in response to the intimidation campaign unleashed by the Individual Debtor against the Trustee and PAX.\n\n8. Among other things, the Preliminary Injunction Order enjoins the Individual Debtor \"from interfering *in any way with the integrity of his Chapter 11 case*, the Chapter 11 case of Genever Holdings, LLC and the chapter 11 case of Genever Holdings Corporation, which have been jointly administered in this Court . . .\" 7\n\n9. The Preliminary Injunction Order applies not only the Individual Debtor, but also \"his officers, his agents, his servants, his employees, his attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with the Debtor, his officers, his agents, his servants, his employees, and his attorneys . . upon receiving actual notice by personal service or otherwise.\"<sup>8</sup> In this regard, the Court specifically found that the Individual Debtor's officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with the Individual Debtor including the following individuals and entities:\n\n> (a) the individuals Fay Fay, Beile Li, Huo Lai, Pamela Tsai, Roy Guo, Jiao Bing Shang, Shan Mu, Yaqin Li, Ziheng Cheng, and Elliot Dordick and (b) the entities New Federal State of China; Himalaya Global Alliance and other Himalaya entities, such as Himalaya Exchange, Himalaya Farms, and Himalaya New World, Inc.; the Rule of Law Foundation; and G-Series entities, including, without limitation, GTV\n\n<sup>7</sup> Preliminary Injunction Order ¶ 2 (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>8</sup> *Id.* ¶ 5.\n\nand G-News, as well as any persons or entities acting at their direction or on their behalf. 9\n\n## **B. Individual Debtor's Campaign to Undermine Claims Process**\n\n10. It was recently brought to the Trustee's attention that the Individual Debtor is using his social media presence and his network of followers to (i) harass certain creditors who recently filed proofs of claim in these chapter 11 cases by, among other things, publishing their personal information online, and threaten others who might file claims with a similar harassment campaign and (ii) encourage his followers to file non-meritorious proofs of claim.\n\n11. In particular, on January 6, 2023, Qiu Yu (\"Ms. Yu\") filed two proofs of claim in the Individual Debtor's chapter 11 case (the \"Proofs of Claim\"), which claims were entered on the Court's claims register on January 9, 2023. <sup>10</sup> Shortly thereafter, the Individual Debtor (and various other social media accounts associated with the New Federal State of China (\"NFSC\")) 11 began making malicious and/or harassing statements on social media directed at Ms. Yu, including the following:\n\n> • On January 10, 2023, the Individual Debtor, on a Gettr live broadcast (the \"January 10 Broadcast\"),<sup>12</sup> publicly threatened investors who filed claims in these chapter 11 cases, including, specifically, Ms. Yu.<sup>13</sup> Among other things, during the January 10 Broadcast, the Individual Debtor made the following statements:\n\n<sup>9</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>10</sup> *See* Proof of Claim 16-1 and Proof of Claim 17-1. Because the Proofs of Claim were submitted to the Bankruptcy Court (and not the claims agent), these claims, including the claimant's name and contact information, are publicly available.\n\n<sup>11</sup> As the Court is well aware, the Individual Debtor is the founder and leader of NFSC. Memorandum Decision ¶¶ 1, 7. Moreover, the Court previously found that NFCS is an entity \"in active concert or participation\" with the Individual Debtor. Preliminary Injunction Order ¶ 5.\n\n<sup>12</sup> The January 10 Broadcast can be viewed at http tr-\\_2023.01.10\\_.mp4\n\n<sup>13</sup> In the January 10 Broadcast, the Individual Debtor made repeated reference to a Gong Zu. The Trustee understands, based on other posts with Ms. Yu's image that have circulated on social media accounts associated with the Individual Debtor and his various organizations, that Gong Zu is a nickname for Ms. Yu.\n\n- o \"[Ms. Yu's behavior] is *completely gangster behavior*. She dares to go to the bankruptcy court in Connecticut and list herself as a debtor, ah, as a creditor.\"<sup>14</sup>\n- o \"[Ms. Yu] is lying and faking it 100%.\"<sup>15</sup>\n- o \"Now these spies like [Ms. Yu] have come out.\"<sup>16</sup>\n- o \"Every person who reports their case must show up in court. Everything you said will be published, including everything about you. Let's see.\" 17\n- On January 10, 2023, Gettr account @OXVDESIGN posted that Ms. Yu listed herself as a creditor in the case, and posted a picture of Ms. Yu with text reading \"Yu Qiu (nickname is Gong Zu) went to the bankruptcy court in Connecticut, USA and joined the list of creditors using a \\$5000 claim (and) *help Luc vilify the Whistleblower Revolution*.\"<sup>18</sup>\n- On January 10, 2023, Gettr account @piaochanghai posted an image of Ms. Yu's German Identity Card stating \"*expose another little bastard* discord called Gong Zu, real name Yu Qiu, fellow fighters dig it up, heard that (she) is very close to Dai Jian Feng. Any fellow fighter know (her)?\"<sup>19</sup>\n\nThe message to potential claimants is clear: if you file a claim we will expose you and your\n\npersonal information.\n\n12. In addition, on January 13, 2023, the Individual Debtor posted on the @MilesGuo\n\nGettr account that Paul Hastings was launching a \"creditor registration operation\" suggesting that\n\n- <sup>15</sup> *See* January 10 Broadcast 3:37 3:39.\n- <sup>16</sup> *See* January 10 Broadcast 6:34 6:37.\n- <sup>17</sup> *See* January 10 Broadcast 7:10 7:20.\n\n<sup>14</sup> *See* January 10 Broadcast 3:05 – 3:14 (emphasis added). These and the below statements have been informally translated from Chinese into English. Given the emergency nature of the relief sought in this Motion, Movants did not have sufficient time to obtain an official translation; however, they would be happy to do so if requested by the Court.\n\n<sup>18</sup> *See* @OXVDESIGN, GETTR (January 10, 2023, 11:40 AM), http (last accessed January 12, 2023) (emphasis added). A screenshot of that image is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Douglass Barron (the \"Barron Declaration\") filed concurrently with this Motion. The Gettr account @OXVDESIGN is associated with NFSC, as indicated by the banner at the top of the Gettr account of @OXVDESIGN. A screenshot of the banner is attached to the Barron Declaration as Exhibit 2.\n\n<sup>19</sup> *See* @piaochanghai, GETTR (Jan. 10, 2023, 10:53 AM), http (last accessed January 12, 2023). A screenshot of that image is attached to the Barron Declaration as Exhibit 3. The Gettr account @piaochanghai is associated with NFSC, as indicated by the banner at the top of the Gettr account of @piaochanghai. A screenshot of the banner is attached to the Barron Declaration as Exhibit 4.\n\nhis followers should register with the Court (*i.e.*, file claims), and that doing so could result in them becoming billionaires. In particular, the post stated:\n\n> • \"If there are fellow fighters who are not steadfast! Feel that your own investment and past investment! No sense of security and need to be a debtor [sic]. <sup>20</sup> If you think this is a better choice, then you must contact Paul Hastings as soon as possible to register with the Connecticut bankruptcy court . . . *Maybe you can become a billionaire*.\"<sup>21</sup>\n\nAgain, the message is not subtle: Let's all file claims to introduce chaos into the claims process.\n\n13. Finally, and most recently, the Individual Debtor filed three Claims Objections [Main Case Docket Nos. 1332, 1334, and 1135] seeking to disallow three proofs of claim recently filed on the Court's claims register, namely the two Proofs of Claims filed by Ms. Yu (*i.e.*, Claim Nos. 16-1 and 17-1) and Claim No. 18-1. The Claims Objections purport to require the claimants to file a written response with the Court by February 17, 2023.\n\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n14. The Court has jurisdiction to consider this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and\n\n1334. Venue is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to, among others, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).\n\n### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n15. Movants seek entry of an order (a) compelling the Individual Debtor and anyone in active concert or participation with the Individual Debtor to comply with the Preliminary Injunction Order and immediately cease to interfere with the integrity of the claims process,<sup>22</sup> (b)\n\n<sup>20</sup> The reference to \"debtor\" is likely meant to be \"creditor.\"\n\n<sup>21</sup> *See* @MilesGuo, GETTR (Jan. 13, 2023, 10:45 AM), http (last accessed January 15, 2023) (emphasis added). A screenshot of that image is attached to the Barron Declaration as Exhibit 5.\n\n<sup>22</sup> As noted, Movants defer to the Court as to whether, at this stage, to also hold the Individual Debtor and persons in active concert or participation with the Individual Debtor in contempt for violating the terms of the Preliminary Injunction Order.\n\nquashing the Claims Objections, and (c) barring the Individual Debtor from filing any further objections to claims, absent first obtaining prior leave of this Court, except that the Individual Debtor may file, without prior leave of this Court, objections to claims that are the subject of a Dischargeability Adversary Proceeding (subject to any stay currently in effect with respect to these proceedings).\n\n### **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n16. Intimidation of creditors and interference with the claims process are serious issues. As the Court observed in its Memorandum Decision, \"[b]ankruptcy is a process through which a debtor's financial affairs are put in order and *all claims against the debtor are treated fairly and equitably*. . . . It is a benefit to the public to have such a system and for that reason, its integrity must be maintained.\" 23 Indeed, in connection with the bar date order entered in these chapter 11 cases, the Court already recognized the need to give individual creditors the option to keep their names and contact information confidential given the risk that creditors may otherwise refrain from filing a proof of claim out of concerns that the Individual Debtor will retaliate against them.<sup>24</sup> The Individual Debtor's and his followers' most recent harassment of creditors not only validates these concerns, but further heightens the need for additional relief to bring the Individual Debtor's incessant efforts to derail these chapter 11 cases to an end.\n\n## **A. Court Should Compel Individual Debtor to Comply With Preliminary Injunction Order**\n\n17. The Preliminary Injunction Order is clear: the Individual Debtor is enjoined \"from interfering *in any way with the integrity of his Chapter 11 case*, the Chapter 11 case of Genever\n\n<sup>23</sup> Memorandum Decision at 55 (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>24</sup> *See Order Establishing Deadlines for Filing Proofs of Claim and Approving Form and Manner of Notice Thereof* [Main Case Docket No. 1297] ¶ 4 (establishing procedures for individual claimants to submit their proofs of claim on a confidential basis so as to keep their names and contact information confidential).\n\nHoldings, LLC and the chapter 11 case of Genever Holdings Corporation, which have been jointly administered in this Court . . .\" 25 This language clearly encompasses the Individual Debtor's latest efforts to interfere with the claims process, which is obviously an integral part of these chapter 11 cases. The Preliminary Injunction Order is also clear that the foregoing injunction applies not only to the Individual Debtor but also all persons \"who are in active concert or participation with the Debtor,\" which the Court specifically found to include NFCS.<sup>26</sup>\n\n18. It goes well beyond the pale for an out-of-possession debtor to single out individual creditors, publicly distribute personal information about such creditors, and then harass such creditors—all for the obvious purpose of discouraging other creditors from filing claims. But the Individual Debtor did not stop there. By suggesting to his followers that they could become billionaire by filing a claim, the Individual Debtor not only makes a mockery of the claims process, but is inviting his followers to file non-meritorious claims. These types of statements directly harm the legitimacy of the claims process and, moreover, could result in the filing of a plethora of non-meritorious claims, all of which would need to be reviewed and analyzed by the Trustee and his counsel, furthering delaying the administration of the Debtors' estates and causing additional expense. 27\n\n19. Accordingly, in the interest of protecting the integrity of the claims process and these chapter 11 cases, the Individual Debtor (and anyone in active concert or participation with the Individual Debtor) should be ordered to immediately cease (a) making harassing statements directed at Ms. Yu and any other creditors who file, have filed, or may file a proof of claim in\n\n<sup>25</sup> Preliminary Injunction Order ¶ 2 (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>26</sup> *Id.* ¶ 5.\n\n<sup>27</sup> To be clear, the Trustee reserves all rights with respect to any fraudulent claims.\n\nthese chapter 11 cases, (b) suggesting, in any way, that his followers file non-meritorious claims, and (c) otherwise interfering with the claims process.\n\n## **B. Individual Debtor's Claims Objections Should Be Quashed Because He Has No Right to Object to Claims**\n\n20. The Claims Objections should be quashed (without prejudice for the Movants' right to object to such claims at a later time) because the Individual Debtor has no right to pursue such objections. As a matter of general principles, \"in the bankruptcy context, standing requires an \"aggrieved person … directly and adversely affected pecuniarily\" by the order of a bankruptcy court. *[Licensing](http)%2C+240+B.R.+664%2C+668+(Bankr.+D.+Conn.+1999)&pdproductcontenttypeid=urn%3Apct%3A30&pdiskwicview=false&ecomp=zssyk&prid=83c0f6dd-86ca-4c0f-a91c-35b084f0715a) by Paolo, Inc. v. Sinatra (In re Gucci)*, 126 F.3d 380, 388 (2d Cir. [1997\\).](http)%2C+240+B.R.+664%2C+668+(Bankr.+D.+Conn.+1999)&pdproductcontenttypeid=urn%3Apct%3A30&pdiskwicview=false&ecomp=zssyk&prid=83c0f6dd-86ca-4c0f-a91c-35b084f0715a) Accordingly, a debtor \"has standing to object to a sale of the assets, or otherwise participate in litigation surrounding the assets of the estate, *only if there could be a surplus after all creditors' claims are paid*.\" *See In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc.*, 218 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir. 2000) (emphasis added); *see also In re Licata*, 659 Fed. Appx. 704, 706 (2d Cir. 2016) (debtor \"has the burden of showing that there is at least a reasonable possibility of a surplus\"). Indeed, this Court previously determined in *In re Cole*, No. 10-50091 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.) that a debtor lacked standing to seek removal of the trustee where the debtor had failed to show that a surplus would remain after creditors' claim were satisfied.<sup>28</sup>\n\n21. Likewise, courts generally hold that a debtor lacks standing to object to claims unless \"the debtor can show a 'reasonable possibility of a surplus once all claims are paid.'\" *Pascazi v. Fiber Consultants, Inc.*[, 445 B.R. 124, 127–28 \\(S.D.N.Y. 2011\\)](http) (quoting *[In re](http) Ulz*,\n\n<sup>28</sup> *See, e.g.*, Aug. 6, 2019 Hearing Transcript at 39:7-9, 67:1-4, *In re Cole*, No. 10-50091 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.) (\"[debtor does not] have standing to make these arguments. The debtor has no rights anymore as a chapter 7 debtor unless and until there's clearly a surplus.\") [Docket No. 1267], attached to the Barron Declaration as Exhibit 6; Aug. 10, 2019 Hearing Transcript at 11:6-9, *In re Cole*, No. 10-50091 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.) (\"a debtor doesn't have standing to raise issues unless there is going to be some surplus from the estate.\") [Docket No. 1270], attached to the Barron Declaration as Exhibit 7.\n\n[401 B.R. 321, 328 \\(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009\\);](http) *see also In re Ferraro*, No. 13-30996 (AMN), 2017 WL 874977, at \\*3 (Bankr. D. Conn. Mar. 3, 2017) (\"[T]he general rule is that a debtor lacks standing to object to a claim because bankruptcy proceedings absolve the debtor of any liability to creditors and the debtor has no interest in the distribution of the estate's property since the property has passed to the trustee.\") (quoting *Licata v. Coan*, Docket No. 3:14-cv-1754 (MPS), 2015 WL 9699304, at \\*5 (D. Conn. Sept. 22, 2015)); *In re I & F Corp.,* 219 B.R. 483, 484 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1998) (\"The vast majority of courts have held that a chapter 7 trustee alone may file objections to proofs of claim.\"); *Caserta v. Tobin*, 175 B.R. 773, 775 (S.D. Fla. 1994) (\"As a chapter 7 debtor in a case where a trustee has been appointed and where no surplus will exist to create a pecuniary interest on behalf of the debtor, [debtor] lacks standing to object to his creditor Tobin's claims.\").\n\n22. Here, the Individual Debtor has not made (and cannot make) any showing whatsoever that there would be a surplus once all claims are paid. To the contrary, throughout these chapter 11 cases, the Individual Debtor has asserted that he is penniless.<sup>29</sup> Nor is this a situation where the Individual Debtor's Claims Objection, if successful, would result in a surplus in the estate. And the possibility that the Individual Debtor's family may, at some point in the future, fund a hypothetical chapter 11 plan that would pay creditors in full is far too speculative to allow the Individual Debtor to object to claims. This is especially true in light of the Individual Debtor's recent statement that \"the Debtor and, more importantly, the Debtor's immediate and extended family members (because they would fund payments to creditors under\n\n<sup>29</sup> It would be the height of irony if the Individual Debtor were granted standing because of the possibility that the Trustee—over the strenuous resistance of the Individual Debtor—recover sufficient assets for the benefit of these estates such that there would be a surplus.\n\nany consensual plan) will not deal with the Trustee. At this point, the options are removal of the Trustee or years of expensive and uncertain litigation.\"<sup>30</sup>\n\n23. In the Claims Objections, the Individual Debtor asserts that, notwithstanding the foregoing, he has standing to object to claims because this rule, according to the Individual Debtor, applies only to a chapter 7 debtor, as opposed to an out-of-possession debtor in a chapter 11 case. This is not the law.\n\n24. Courts have consistently applied the surplus analysis to standing in a chapter 11 case, both in the context of claims objections and other areas of bankruptcy law. In *In re Visiting Nurse Ass'n*, 176 B.R. 748, 750 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1995), the chapter 11 debtor had proposed a liquidating plan of reorganization, and filed an objection to the claim of a creditor. The creditor asserted that the chapter 11 debtor lacked standing because the liquidating plan did not show a surplus, and the debtor responded that the cases cited by the creditor were all in the context of a chapter 7 and, therefore, \"inapposite.\" *Id.* at 750. The court did not accept this argument, which would have easily resolved the issue. Instead, while the court allowed the debtor's claim objection to proceed, the court did so because there had \"been no Trustee appointed to take over the Debtor's affairs\" and because the court was unable \"at this juncture [to] declare unequivocally that the Debtor will not produce a surplus from its liquidation.\" *Id.* at 751. Further embracing the surplus analysis, the court concluded that it was still possible that \"the Debtor is a party which will economically affected by the determination of Godwin's claim.\" *Id.*\n\n25. *In re Olympia Office LLC*, 574 B.R. 38 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017), similarly demonstrates that principles of prudential standing limit claim objections in a chapter 11 case. In that case, the chapter 11 debtors had objected to the claim filed by certain noteholders, and the\n\n<sup>30</sup> Removal Motion ¶ 40.\n\ncourt noted that it was not going to address standing because the noteholders had not raised the issue. The court did \"note, however, that if Debtor's pending claims objections were fully sustained, a legitimate prospect of a surplus does exist.\" *Olympia Office LLC*, 574 B.R. at 46 n.5. And in *In re McCorhill Pub., Inc.*, 89 B.R. 393 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988), the court explained that a \"debtor has a pecuniary interest in the equity of the estate if all the creditors can be paid in full, or if each class of impaired claims accepts the plan,\" and, in \"such case, the chapter 11 debtor possesses a direct pecuniary interest in the estate.\" 89 B.R. at 396. Because the out of possession chapter 11 debtor sought to bring certain claims that would have \"create[d] an equity for the debtor,\" the court allowed the debtor \"to protect its equity interests, if any,\" and held that the debtor would \"be regarded as a party in interest with standing to object to [the secured creditor]'s claim.\" *Id.*\n\n26. These cases are consistent with the approach adopted by Collier on Bankruptcy, which explains that \"[i]n a chapter 7 case, *or a chapter 11 case in which the debtor is not in possession and there is no possibility of a surplus being returned to the debtor*, the debtor usually has no pecuniary interest in the outcome of claims objections and thus no standing to object to claims.\" Collier on Bankruptcy § 502.02[2][c] (emphasis added). It is also consistent with the undisputed general rule that a bankruptcy trustee, whether a chapter 7 or a chapter 11 trustee, is the only person in charge of administering the estate. *See, e.g.*, *In re Bay Voltex Corp.*, No. 03 42684 EDJ, 2006 WL 3834300, at \\*1 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2006), *aff'd,* No. BAP.NC-08-1069-DJUT, 2008 WL 8444794 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2008), *aff'd,* 371 F. App'x 820 (9th Cir. 2010) (\"Neither a chapter 7 debtor no[r] a chapter 11 debtor out of possession is a trustee, and neither represents the estate.\"); *Morrison v. U.S. Trustees*, No. 09-CV-3565 (CBA), 2010 WL 2653394, at \\*5 (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010) (same). As the Second Circuit has\n\nexplained, this rule limits the standing of an out-of-possession debtor. *See In re Dawnwood Properties/78*, 209 F.3d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 2000) (\"Once the trustee was appointed to maximize the assets of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy estate, neither Rooney nor Dawnwood had standing to bring this adversary proceeding on Dawnwood's behalf; that authority instead rested solely with the trustee.\").\n\n27. Ignoring these authorities, the Individual Debtor supports his contention that \"chapter 11 is different\" only by reference to section 1121(c) of the Bankruptcy Code for the proposition that \"even where there is a trustee appointed the Debtor is a party in interest, who can, *inter alia*, file a plan.\"<sup>31</sup> The Individual Debtor's argument, therefore, is dependent entirely on its conclusory \"*inter alia*\" language: according to the Individual Debtor, if a debtor out of possession can file a plan, it must also be able to file a claim objection and otherwise interfere with the administration of the estate. Again, this is not the law.\n\n28. It is true that, pursuant to section 1121(c), an out-of-possession chapter 11 debtor may have standing to file a plan. *See In re McCorhill Pub., Inc.*, 89 B.R. at 396 (under section 1121 of the Bankruptcy Code \"Chapter 11 trustee does not have exclusive authority to file a plan of reorganization\"). \"*Nonetheless, the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee pursuant to [11](http))  [U.S.C. § 1104](http)) terminates the debtor in possession's trustee-like authority under [11 U.S.C.](http))  § [1107](http))*.\" *Id.* (emphasis added). \"The appointed Chapter 11 trustee then assumes the duties expressed in [11 U.S.C. § 1106,](http)) including most of the duties specified in [11 U.S.C. § 704.](http))\" *Id.* Included in those duties is the duty to object to examine and object to proofs of claim. *See [11](http))  [U.S.C. § 704\\(](http))a)(5).* Unlike filing a plan, the out-of-possession chapter 11 debtor retains\n\n<sup>31</sup> *See, e.g.*, *Objection to Claim Number 16 of Qiu Yu* ¶ 8.\n\nauthority to file a claim objection under section 704 only to the extent the debtor \"has a pecuniary interest in the equity of the estate.\" *In re McCorhill Pub., Inc.*, 89 B.R. at 396.\n\n29. The Trustee recognizes that courts have also allowed out-of-possession debtors to object to claims under certain limited circumstances, such as where \"the trustee failed or refused to object to the claim or claims in question; and/or . . . the debtor's objection would not undermine the efficient administration of the estate.\" *In re Choquette*, 290 B.R. 183, 187-88 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2003). However, the Trustee is not refusing to object to the claims in question. The claims in question were only filed a little over a week ago, and the general bar date is not until February 17, 2023. The Trustee will analyze these (and other claims) in due course, and, based on his analysis of these claims, will make a determination as to whether to object to these claims.\n\n30. Relatedly, the weight given by courts to the final factor—whether the debtor's objection would undermine the efficient administration of the estate—cannot be overstated. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that the need to preserve the trustee's ability to efficiently administer the estate is a basis to prevent other parties in interest from filing claims objections, whether in chapter 7 or chapter 11 cases. *See, e.g.*, *In re Simon*, 179 B.R. 1, 7 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1995) (\"if every creditor were entitled to challenge the claim of another creditor filed in a particular case, an orderly administration could degrade to chaos\"); *In re Thompson*, 965 F.2d 1136, 1147 (1st Cir. 1992) (\"absent leave of court, the chapter 7 trustee alone may interpose objections to proofs of claim\"); *In re Chi. Invs., LLC*, 470 B.R. 32 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012) (concerns for orderly administration \"echo those raised by the First Circuit in the context of Chapter 7\").\n\n31. As one court has explained, the \"phrase 'parties in interest' in section 502(a) applies to those who have some interest in the assets of the debtor being administered in the case. Under such definition, the debtor's creditors are the primary parties in interest . . . . *Yet the needs of orderly and expeditious administration do not permit the full and unfettered exercise of such right. It is the trustee who acts as the spokesman for all creditors in discharge of the trustee's duty unless the trustee refuses to take action.*\" *In re Dow Corning Corp.*, 244 B.R. 721, 750 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1999) (as modified) (internal references omitted) (emphasis in original). \"For this policy reason . . . where a trustee is charged with administering a bankruptcy estate, a creditor can object to the claim of another creditor only if, upon demand, the trustee refuses to do so and the court grants the creditor the right to act on behalf of the trustee.\" *Id*.\n\n32. These concerns apply with particular force here, where the Individual Debtor's out-of-court intimidation tactics are well-documented, as are his efforts to undermine the Trustee's performance of his statutory duties. Allowing the Individual Debtor to pursue the Claims Objections (or any other claim objections for that matter) would unquestionably jeopardize the efficient administration of these chapter 11 estates. Indeed, there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to why the Individual Debtor chose to object to claims now or why he chose to object to the three particular claims in question (out of the nineteen claims filed on the Court's claims register)—other than, of course, as part of his larger campaign to intimidate creditors into not filing claims.\n\n33. Finally, the Individual Debtor argues in the Claims Objections that he has standing to object because certain other claimants have asserted that their claims are nondischargeable. However, while some courts have endorsed a theory of standing based on the pecuniary effect that the disallowance of a particular claim could have on distribution to other\n\ncreditors and, hence, the debtor's remaining exposure to non-dischargeable claims, other courts\n\nhave rejected this approach, and for good reason. As one bankruptcy court observed:\n\nThe problem with this theory is twofold. First, standing requires that the court's order affect the debtor's pecuniary interest \"directly and adversely.\" But the effect that the [debtors] and the cases supporting them describe is at best indirect: the administration of the estate produces no surplus, and so the trustee pays no money to the debtor himself, but payments the trustee makes to certain creditors arguably alter the debtor's post-bankruptcy liability to those creditors. Courts adopting the [debtors'] standing theory describe this effect as \"direct.\" If so, it is hard to imagine what an \"indirect\" effect would be.\n\nSecond, granting standing to every debtor who happens to be subject to some nondischargeable claim would interfere with the administration of chapter 7 cases. Many debtors are subject to nondischargeable claims. If every such debtor were suddenly entitled to take an active role in the trustee's administration of the case, the result would slow down the bankruptcy system and make it more costly. . . .\n\nThe bankruptcy system works because it processes cases expeditiously, and it will continue to work only as long as it does so. The public policy goal of \"swift and efficient\" bankruptcy administration is \"achieved primarily by narrowly defining who has standing in a bankruptcy proceeding.\" Adding exceptions that expand the standing of chapter 7 debtors beyond the single exception for surplus cases \"would complicate the process unnecessarily.\"\n\n*In re Adams*, 424 B.R. 434 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010) (internal citations omitted).\n\n34. That said, the Trustee does not dispute that a debtor has standing to object to\n\nspecific claims that may not be discharged. *See Willard v. O'Neill (In re Willard)*, 240 B.R. 664,\n\n668 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1999) (finding that chapter 7 debtor had standing to object to claim that\n\nmay never be discharged because debtor holds a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of\n\ndisallowance action).Here, however, the Claims Objections are not directed at claims that are\n\nsubject to any action challenging dischargeability.\n\n35. For all these reasons, Movants submits that the Individual Debtor lacks standing to pursue the Claims Objections, and, accordingly, Movants respectfully requests that the Claims Objections be quashed.\n\n## **C. Individual Debtor Should Be Barred From Filing Objections to Claims Absent Leave of Court**\n\n36. Given the Individual Debtor's established track-record of seeking to slow down the Trustee's investigation and the administration of these chapter 11 cases, the Trustee submits that it is appropriate for the Court to bar the Individual Debtor from filing any further objections to claims unless the Individual Debtor first obtains leave of Court to do so.<sup>32</sup> To be clear, the foregoing limitation would *not* preclude the Individual Debtor from prosecuting the Dischargeability Adversary Proceedings or objecting to the claims that are the subject of such actions (subject to any stay currently in effect with respect to these proceedings).\n\n37. It is well established that bankruptcy courts in the Second Circuit, like all federal courts, \"possess the inherent authority to prohibit abusive and vexatious litigation practices through the issuance of filing injunctions.\" *Seaport Capital Partners v Speer (In re Speer),* No. 14-21007 (AMN), AP No. 15-2031, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 4523 at \\*18-19 (Bankr. D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2017) (citing *In re Belmonte,* 524 B.R. 17, 33 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2015)). A prefiling order that includes a \"leave of court\" requirement before a vexatious litigant may file future pleadings, motions, or appeals, is a common remedy under such circumstances. *See, e.g., Coan v. Peia (In re Peia),* 212 B.R. 217, 219-220 (D. Conn. 1997).\n\n38. The need for a prefiling order is particularly acute when a vexatious debtor seeks to disrupt the administration of the estate by harassing a bankruptcy trustee. *See, e.g. In re*\n\n<sup>32</sup> The Trustee will consider seeking broader relief (e.g., barring the Individual Debtor from seeking any affirmative relief, absent prior leave of court) if the Individual Debtor continues to flaunt orders of this Court through his in-court and out-of-court activities. The Trustee reserves all rights in this regard.\n\n*Armstrong,* 297 B.R. 154, 162 (Bankr. D. Utah 2003) (granting chapter 11 trustee's motion for vexatious debtor filing restrictions), *aff'd, In re Armstrong,* 309 B.R. 799 (10th Cir. BAP 2004); *In re Melcher,* BAP No. NC-13-1168, 2014 WL 1410235, at \\*12 (9th Cir. BAP April 11, 2014) (applying *Safir, see infra*, and remanding for entry of order granting chapter 7 trustee's motion for order including prefiling review requirement).\n\n39. In *Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc.,* 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986), the Second Circuit provided five elements to consider when a court decides whether to restrict a party's ability to file pleadings in federal court:\n\n- 1. The litigant's history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits;\n- 2. the litigant's motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?;\n- 3. whether the litigant is represented by counsel;\n- 4. whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and\n- 5. whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.\n\n*Safir,* 792 F2d at 24. Here, a limited prefiling order is necessary and appropriate to reduce the costs and expenses of the administration of the estate.\n\n40. As the Court recognized in its Memorandum Decision, the Individual Debtor has\n\nopposed the Trustee's investigation \"at every step in the process.\"<sup>33</sup> Moreover, the\n\nMemorandum Decision recounts, in minute detail, the Individual Debtor's extensive out-of-court\n\ncampaign to harass and intimidate, among others, the Trustee, his family, and his counsel, as\n\nwell as the estate's largest unsecured creditor (PAX), thereby undermining the integrity of these\n\n<sup>33</sup> Memorandum Decision at 38.\n\nchapter 11 cases. The Individual Debtor's motives in pursuing the Claims Objections are not merely suspicious, they are plain: to harass creditors and intimidate them into not filing proofs of claim.\n\n41. Further, the burden that the Individual Debtor's tactics (both in-court and out-ofcourt) have put on the Trustee and the administration of these estates are already significant, including millions of dollars of professional fees and substantial delay. Absent a bar on filing objections to the claims, the Individual Debtor will no doubt continue to undermine the administration of these chapter 11 cases. Also, to reiterate, the relief requested is narrowly tailored, as it would only bar the Individual Debtor from filing of objection to claims (not pleadings in general), absent leave of this Court. And, as noted, Movants are not seeking to preclude the Individual Debtor from objecting to claims that are the subject of a Dischargeability Adversary Proceeding.\n\n42. Finally, at this point, after a two-month long distraction due to the PI Adversary Proceeding alone, Movants respectfully submit that there are no viable alternatives than barring the Individual Debtor from filing objections to claim, subject to the aforementioned exceptions.\n\n#### **NO PRIOR REQUEST**\n\n43. Movants have not previously sought the relief requested herein from this or any other court.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank.*]\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Movants requests that the Court enter an order\n\ngranting the relief requested in this Motion and such other relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: January 19, 2023 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 821-2000 (203) 821-2000 dskalka@npmlaw.com dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for Genever Holdings LLC and Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession*\n\n#### GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION G. Alexander Bongartz, Esq.\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* 200 Park Avenue Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) New York, New York 10166 Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) (212) 318-6472 NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee* New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 821-2000 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for Genever Holdings Corporation Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession*\n\n### GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\n Luc A. Despins, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP\n\n## **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Proposed Order**\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT |\n|--------------------------------|\n| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT        |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION            |\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------                                                                        | x                                                                          |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In re:<br>1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                                                                             | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11<br>:<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)                  |\n| Debtors.                                                                                                                           | :<br>:<br>(Jointly Administered)<br>:                                      |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA<br>OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,<br>Plaintiff,<br>v. | x<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>Adv. Proceeding No. 22-05032 (JAM)<br>:<br>:<br>: |\n| HO WAN KWOK,<br>Defendant.<br>-----------------------------------------------------------                                          | :<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>x                                                      |\n\n# **ORDER (A) COMPELLING INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR TO COMPLY WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS PROCESS, (B) QUASHING INDIVIDUAL DEBTORS' OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS, AND (C) BARRING INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR FROM FILING FURTHER OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS, ABSENT LEAVE OF COURT**\n\nUpon the motion (the \"Motion\")<sup>2</sup> of Luc Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee\n\n(the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Individual Debtor\"),\n\nGenever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever (BVI)\"), and Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever (US)\"\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Motion.\n\nand, together with the Trustee and Genever (BVI), the \"Movants\") requesting entry of an order (a) compelling the Individual Debtor and anyone in active concert or participation with the Individual Debtor to comply with the Preliminary Injunction Order issued by this Court in the PI Adversary Proceeding and to cease all activities interfering with the claims process, (b) quashing the Individual Debtor's Claims Objections, and (c) barring the Individual Debtor from filing any further objections to claims without first obtaining prior leave of this Court, all as more fully set forth in the Motion; and it appearing that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the Standing Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended); and consideration of the Motion and the relief requested therein being a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); and venue being proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; and the Court having found that that it may enter a final order consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution; and due and sufficient notice of the Motion having been given; and it appearing that no other or further notice need be provided; and the Court having found and determined that the legal and factual bases set forth in the Motion establish just cause for the relief granted herein; and it appearing that the relief requested by the Motion is in the best interest of the Debtors' estates and creditors; and upon all of the proceedings had before the Court and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, itis hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. The Motion is granted as set forth herein.\n\n2. The Individual Debtor is hereby directed to comply with the Preliminary Injunction Order and immediately cease to interfere with the integrity of the claims process, including (a) disseminating or threatening to disseminate on social media or otherwise any personal information of claimants and their relatives (including names, contact information, pictures of the claimants or\n\ntheir relatives, and other identifying information) (\"Personal Creditor Information\"), whether or not such creditor has filed a claim, (b) taking any act to threaten, and/or directing or encouraging others to take any act that threatens, the safety of any claimant that files, has filed, or may file a claim in these chapter 11 cases and any of such person's relatives, and (c) in any way suggesting or encouraging anyone to file claims that are not meritorious.\n\n3. The Individual Debtor is directed to take down all existing social media posts on accounts he uses or controls, including, without limitation, the Gettr accounts with the (former) handles @Miles, @MilesGuo, and @MilesGuoLive, that contain (a) any Personal Creditor Information, (b) in any way suggesting or encouraging his followers to file claims that are not meritorious, and/or (c) encourage, incite, or suggest any activity enjoined in paragraph 2 above.\n\n4. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2), the Individual Debtor, his officers, his agents, his servants, his employees, his attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with the Individual Debtor, his officers, his agents, his servants, his employees, and his attorneys are bound by this Order upon receiving actual notice by personal service or otherwise. For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Injunction Order and the Memorandum Decision, the Court has found that (a) the individuals Fay Fay, Beile Li, Huo Lai, Pamela Tsai, Roy Guo, Jiao Bing Shang, Shan Mu, Yaqin Li, Ziheng Cheng, and Elliot Dordick and (b) the entities New Federal State of China; Himalaya Global Alliance and other Himalaya entities, such as Himalaya Exchange, Himalaya Farms, and Himalaya New World, Inc.; the Rule of Law Foundation; and G-Series entities, including, without limitation, GTV and G-News, as well as any persons or entities acting at their direction or on their behalf are the Debtor's officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and/or other persons who are in active concert or participation with the Individual Debtor, his officers, his agents, his servants, his employees, and his attorneys.\n\n5. Movants are authorized to serve the Individual Debtor, his officers, his agents, his servants, his employees, his attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with the Individual Debtor, his officers, his agents, his servants, his employees, and/or his attorneys, including, without limitation, the persons and entities explicitly listed in paragraph 4, with notice of this Order.\n\n6. The Claims Objections are hereby quashed, without prejudice to the Movants' right to object to such claims at a later date.\n\n7. The Individual Debtor is hereby barred from filing any further objections to claims, absent first obtaining prior leave of this Court, except that the Individual Debtor may file, without prior leave of this Court, objections to claims that are the subject of a Dischargeability Adversary Proceeding (subject to any stay currently in effect with respect to these proceedings).\n\n8. Movants are authorized and empowered to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted in this Order.\n\n9. The terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry.\n\n10. This Order shall remain in effect until (a) further order of this Court, (b) the dismissal or closure of the Individual Debtor's Chapter 11 case, or (c) one year after its entry, unless further order of this Court extends its duration.\n\n11. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding to ensure compliance with this Order and for all other purposes related to the PI Adversary Proceeding and the chapter 11 cases. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters arising from the implementation, interpretation, and/or enforcement of this Order.\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT<br>DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT<br>BRIDGEPORT DIVISION                                                                                                                    |                          |                                                                                                     |  |  |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| -----------------------------------------------------------                                                                                                                                         |                          | x<br>:                                                                                              |  |  |\n| In re:                                                                                                                                                                                              |                          | :<br>Chapter 11                                                                                     |  |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                                                                                                                                                        |                          | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)                                                                   |  |  |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                     | Debtors.                 | :<br>:<br>(Jointly Administered)<br>:                                                               |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA<br>OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,<br>v.<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>----------------------------------------------------------- | Plaintiff,<br>Defendant. | x<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>Adv. Proceeding No. 22-05032 (JAM)<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>x |  |  |\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on January 19, 2023, the foregoing Motion, and the related Barron Affidavit, were electronically filed. Notice of these filings was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned adversary proceeding by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.<sup>2</sup> They may be accessed by the CM/ECF system.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> To the extent that the foregoing was filed outside regular business hours, service by mail on recipients unable or not qualified to accept electronic notice was made on the next business day.\n\nDated: January 19, 2023 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n> By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n *Counsel for the Movants*","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院 布里奇波特分院\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:\n:　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:　（合并管理）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA\nOPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n诉\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n-----------------------------------------------------------　原告，\n被告。　:\nx\n\nx　对抗程序案号 22-05032 (JAM)\n\n第11章受托人及 GENEVER 债务人紧急动议，请求作出命令：(A) 强制个人债务人就债权申报程序遵守初步禁令；(B) 撤销个人债务人对债权提出的异议；以及 (C) 禁止个人债务人在未经法院许可的情况下进一步提出债权异议\n\nLuc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）以其作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“个人债务人”）、Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）\n\n（“Genever (BVI)”）以及 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）\n\n（“Genever (US)”；其与受托人及 Genever (BVI) 合称“动议方”）第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）之身份，经由其下述签署律师，谨此恭敬提交本紧急动议，请求作出一项实质上采用随附附件A所载形式的命令（以下简称“拟议命令”），(a) 强制个人债务人及任何与个人债务人积极协同行动或参与者遵守本院在上述标题所示对抗程序（以下简称“PI对抗程序”）中作出的《部分准许初步禁令动议的更正命令》[Adv. Proc. Docket No. 134]（以下简称“初步禁令命令”），并停止一切干扰债权申报程序的活动；(b) 撤销个人债务人近期对三项债权证明提出的异议[Main Case Docket Nos. 1332, 1334, 1335]（以下简称“债权异议”）；以及 (c) 禁止个人债务人在未先获得本院事先许可的情况下进一步提出任何债权异议。为支持本动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人：Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅限于通知和通信之目的）。\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 如本院所深知，自受托人于 July 8, 2022 获任命以来，个人债务人一直不断阻挠受托人为调查个人债务人的财务状况并为个人债务人的债权人利益追回资产所作的努力。事实上，受托人的调查不仅“在程序的每一步均遭遇反对”，2 而且个人债务人针对受托人、其家庭成员及其律师等人开展的庭外恐吓和骚扰活动，已迫使受托人耗费大量资源向本院寻求禁令救济，并延缓了受托人对个人债务人资产及财务状况的调查——而所有这些无疑正是个人债务人庭外活动的主要目的之一。\n\n2 《部分准许初步禁令动议的更正裁决备忘录》[Adv. Proc. Docket No. 133]（以下简称“裁决备忘录”）第38页。\n\n2. 更糟的是，即使本院已禁止个人债务人“以任何方式干扰其第11章案件的完整性”，3 个人债务人仍持续试图劫持这些第11章案件。具体而言，受托人最近获悉，个人债务人正利用其社交媒体影响力及其追随者网络，(i) 骚扰已在这些第11章案件中提交债权证明的债权人，以及 (ii) 鼓励其追随者在这些第11章案件中提交无实质依据的债权证明。此外，本周早些时候，个人债务人还就法院债权登记册中提交的债权证明提出三项异议，尽管未占有财产且无剩余权益的债务人无权如此行事——正如本院此前已确认的那样。4\n\n3. 个人债务人的目的十分明确：恐吓债权人不提交债权证明，以无实质依据的债权充斥债权登记册，从而使整个债权申报程序失去正当性，并使该程序对受托人而言成本高得难以承受。5 因此，受托人再次被迫耗费时间和资源，应对个人债务人破坏这些第11章案件完整性的企图——这明显违反了本院仅在一周前作出的初步禁令。这种行为必须立即停止。\n\n3 初步禁令命令第2段（强调系后加）。\n\n4 尽管该规则存在例外情形（例如遗产存在盈余时），但鉴于个人债务人主张其身无分文，这些第11章案件中存在任何盈余的可能性至多只是推测。也不应允许个人债务人基于其家人可能为一项假设的未来第11章计划提供资金、从而全额偿付债权人的可能性而劫持这些案件，特别是考虑到其近期陈述：“债务人，并且更重要的是，债务人的直系及旁系家庭成员（因为他们将根据任何合意计划为向债权人的付款提供资金）不会与受托人打交道。在此时，选项是罢免受托人，或者进行数年成本高昂且结果不确定的诉讼。”《请求作出罢免受托人命令的动议》[Main Case Docket No. 1274]（以下简称“罢免动议”）第40段。\n\n5 受托人仍在评估个人债务人的行为对债权申报程序的影响。受托人保留在为补救个人债务人造成的损害而有必要时申请延长申报截止日的权利。\n\n4. 因此，动议方通过本动议请求作出一项命令（本院酌情可作出藐视法庭命令），强制个人债务人及任何与个人债务人积极协同行动或参与者遵守初步禁令命令的条款，并立即停止一切干扰债权申报程序的庭外及庭内活动，包括任何企图恐吓债权人不提交债权的行为（包括通过在社交媒体上公布债权人的个人信息），或以任何方式向个人债务人的追随者暗示其应提交无实质依据的债权。\n\n5. 此外，动议方请求撤销个人债务人的债权异议（不妨碍动议方日后对该等债权提出异议的权利），因为在这些第11章案件的现阶段，个人债务人无权对在这些案件中提交的债权提出异议。\n\n6. 最后，动议方请求禁止个人债务人在未先获得本院事先许可的情况下提出任何债权异议；但个人债务人可在无需寻求本院事先许可的情况下，对属于这些第11章案件中质疑该等债权可免责性的对抗程序标的之债权提出异议（统称“可免责性对抗程序”），但须遵守目前对该等程序有效的任何中止令。如无此项救济，债权申报程序将因个人债务人不断企图干扰这些案件完整性的行为而陷于停滞。6\n\n6 尽管初步禁令命令是在PI对抗程序中作出的，但其显然适用于这些第11章案件整体；因此，动议方请求将本动议所寻求的救济适用于全部三个合并管理的第11章案件。因此，动议方在PI对抗程序及主第11章案件中均提交本动议。\n\n背景\n\nA. 初步禁令命令\n\n7. 在 January 11, 2023，本院在PI对抗程序中作出初步禁令命令（其更正版本于 January 13, 2023 提交）；该程序由 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“PAX”；其与受托人合称“原告”）针对个人债务人向受托人及PAX发起的恐吓活动而提起。\n\n8. 除其他事项外，初步禁令命令禁止个人债务人“以任何方式干扰其第11章案件、Genever Holdings, LLC 的第11章案件以及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的第11章案件的完整性；该等案件已由本院合并管理……”。7\n\n9. 初步禁令命令不仅适用于个人债务人，还适用于“其高级职员、代理人、雇员、员工、律师，以及与债务人、其高级职员、代理人、雇员、员工和律师积极协同行动或参与的其他人员……在通过个人送达或其他方式实际收到通知后。”8 就此，本院特别认定，个人债务人的高级职员、代理人、雇员、员工、律师，以及与个人债务人积极协同行动或参与的其他人员，包括下列个人和实体：\n\n(a) Fay Fay、Beile Li、Huo Lai、Pamela Tsai、Roy Guo、Jiao Bing Shang、Shan Mu、Yaqin Li、Ziheng Cheng 及 Elliot Dordick 等个人；以及 (b) New Federal State of China；Himalaya Global Alliance 及其他 Himalaya 实体，例如 Himalaya Exchange、Himalaya Farms 和 Himalaya New World, Inc.；Rule of Law Foundation；以及 G-Series 实体，包括但不限于 GTV\n\n7 初步禁令命令第2段（强调系后加）。\n\n8 同上，第5段。\n\n和 G-News，以及任何按照其指示或代表其行事的个人或实体。9\n\nB. 个人债务人破坏债权申报程序的活动\n\n10. 受托人最近获悉，个人债务人正利用其社交媒体影响力及其追随者网络，(i) 通过在线公布其个人信息等方式骚扰近期在这些第11章案件中提交债权证明的某些债权人，并以类似的骚扰活动威胁其他可能提交债权者，以及 (ii) 鼓励其追随者提交无实质依据的债权证明。\n\n11. 具体而言，在 January 6, 2023，Qiu Yu（以下简称“Yu女士”）在个人债务人的第11章案件中提交两项债权证明（以下简称“债权证明”），该等债权于 January 9, 2023 录入法院债权登记册。10 此后不久，个人债务人（及与 New Federal State of China（以下简称“NFSC”）有关联的多个其他社交媒体账户）11 开始在社交媒体上发布针对Yu女士的恶意和/或骚扰性言论，包括如下内容：\n\n• 在 January 10, 2023，个人债务人在 Gettr 直播（以下简称“January 10 Broadcast”）12 中公开威胁在这些第11章案件中提交债权的投资者，其中明确包括Yu女士。13 除其他事项外，个人债务人在 January 10 Broadcast 中作出如下陈述：\n\n9 同上。\n\n10 见债权证明 16-1 及债权证明 17-1。由于该等债权证明提交给破产法院（而非债权代理人），故该等债权，包括债权人的姓名和联系信息，均可公开获取。\n\n11. 如法院所熟知，个别债务人是 NFSC 的创始人和领导人。备忘录裁决 ¶¶ 1, 7。此外，法院此前认定，NFCS 是与个别债务人“积极协同行动或参与”的实体。初步禁令命令 ¶ 5。\n\n12. 可在 http tr-\\_2023.01.10\\_.mp4 观看 1 月 10 日广播。\n\n13. 在 1 月 10 日广播中，个别债务人多次提及一名“公主”。受托人了解到，根据在与个别债务人及其各个组织有关联的社交媒体账户上传播的、带有余女士图像的其他帖子，“公主”是余女士的昵称。\n\n- o “［余女士的行为］完全是黑帮行为。她竟敢去康涅狄格州破产法院，把自己列为债务人，啊，列为债权人。”14\n- o “［余女士］百分之百是在撒谎和造假。”15\n- o “现在像［余女士］这样的间谍都出来了。”16\n- o “每个申报其案件的人都必须出庭。你所说的一切都会被公布，包括关于你的一切。走着瞧。”17\n- 2023 年 1 月 10 日，Gettr 账户 @OXVDESIGN 发帖称余女士在本案中将自己列为债权人，并发布了一张余女士的照片，配文为：“余秋（昵称为公主）前往美国康涅狄格州破产法院，凭借一项 \\$5000 的债权加入债权人名单（并且）帮助 Luc 诋毁爆料革命。”18\n- 2023 年 1 月 10 日，Gettr 账户 @piaochanghai 发布了一张余女士德国身份证的图像，并称：“揭露另一个叫公主的小王八蛋 discord，真名余秋，战友们把她挖出来了，听说（她）和戴建峰很亲近。有战友认识（她）吗？”19\n\n向潜在债权人传递的信息很明确：如果你申报债权，我们将曝光你及你的个人信息。\n\n12. 此外，2023 年 1 月 13 日，个别债务人在 @MilesGuo Gettr 账户上发帖称，Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）正在开展一项“债权人登记行动”，暗示其追随者应向法院登记（即申报债权），并且这样做可能使他们成为亿万富翁。该帖子具体称：\n\n> • “如果有不坚定的战友！觉得自己的投资和过去的投资！没有安全感，并且需要成为债务人［原文如此］。20 如果你认为这是更好的选择，那么你必须尽快联系 Paul Hastings，向康涅狄格州破产法院登记……也许你可以成为亿万富翁。”21\n\n再次重申，该信息并不隐晦：让我们都申报债权，以在债权程序中制造混乱。\n\n13. 最后，就在最近，个别债务人提交了三项债权异议［主案卷宗编号 1332、1334 和 1135］，请求不予认可最近在法院债权登记册上提交的三份债权证明，即余女士提交的两份债权证明（即债权编号 16-1 和 17-1）以及债权编号 18-1。该等债权异议表面上要求债权人于 2023 年 2 月 17 日前向法院提交书面答复。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n14. 法院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334 对审理本事项具有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，审判地适格。本案属于包括 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) 在内的规定所指的核心程序。\n\n请求的救济\n\n15. 动议提出人请求作出一项命令：(a) 强制个别债务人以及任何与个别债务人积极协同行动或参与的人遵守初步禁令命令，并立即停止干扰债权程序的完整性；22 (b)\n\n20. 对“债务人”的提及很可能意指“债权人”。\n\n21. 参见 @MilesGuo，GETTR（Jan. 13, 2023, 10:45 AM），http（last accessed January 15, 2023）（强调添加）。该图像的截图作为道格拉斯·巴伦（Douglass Barron）声明（“巴伦声明”）的证物 5 附于本动议并同时提交。\n\n22. 如前所述，动议提出人尊重法院对于是否应在现阶段同时认定个别债务人及与其积极协同行动或参与的人因违反初步禁令命令的条款而构成藐视法庭的决定。\n\n撤销该等债权异议；以及 (c) 禁止个别债务人未经本法院事先许可就债权提出任何进一步异议，但个别债务人可以不经本法院事先许可，就作为可解除债务性对抗程序标的的债权提出异议（但须受目前对该等程序有效的任何中止所限）。\n\n救济依据\n\n16. 恐吓债权人和干扰债权程序是严重问题。正如法院在其备忘录裁决中指出：“［破产］是一项通过其整理债务人的财务事务并公平、公正地处理针对债务人的所有债权的程序……拥有这样一个制度符合公众利益，因此必须维护其完整性。”23 事实上，就在这些 chapter 11 案件中作出的债权申报截止日期命令而言，法院已鉴于债权人可能因担心个别债务人会对其进行报复而不申报债权证明的风险，承认有必要给予个人债权人选择对其姓名和联系信息予以保密的权利。24 个别债务人及其追随者最近对债权人的骚扰，不仅证实了这些担忧，而且进一步加剧了对额外救济的需要，以终止个别债务人为破坏这些 chapter 11 案件而持续不断作出的努力。\n\nA. 法院应强制个别债务人遵守初步禁令命令\n\n17. 初步禁令命令十分明确：个别债务人被禁止“以任何方式干扰其 Chapter 11 案件、Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司）的 Chapter 11 案件以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever 控股公司）的 chapter 11 案件的完整性，该等案件已在本法院合并管理……”25 该措辞显然涵盖个别债务人最近干扰债权程序的努力，而债权程序显然是这些 chapter 11 案件的组成部分。初步禁令命令还明确规定，上述禁令不仅适用于个别债务人，也适用于所有“与债务人积极协同行动或参与”的人，法院已明确认定其中包括 NFCS。26\n\n18. 一名不占有财产的债务人挑出个别债权人，公开传播该等债权人的个人信息，继而骚扰该等债权人——其明显目的均在于阻止其他债权人申报债权——已远远超出容许范围。但个别债务人并未止步于此。个别债务人向其追随者暗示，他们可以通过申报债权成为亿万富翁，这不仅是对债权程序的嘲弄，而且是在邀请其追随者申报无依据的债权。这类言论直接损害债权程序的正当性，而且还可能导致提交大量无依据的债权，所有这些债权均需由受托人及其律师审查和分析，进一步延误对债务人财产的管理并造成额外费用。27\n\n19. 因此，为保护债权程序及这些 chapter 11 案件的完整性，应命令个别债务人（以及任何与个别债务人积极协同行动或参与的人）立即停止：(a) 针对余女士及任何在这些 chapter 11 案件中申报、已经申报或可能申报债权证明的其他债权人发表骚扰性言论；(b) 以任何方式暗示其追随者申报无依据的债权；以及 (c) 以其他方式干扰债权程序。\n\nB. 个别债务人的债权异议应予撤销，因为其无权对债权提出异议\n\n20. 该等债权异议应予撤销（但不影响动议提出人在日后对该等债权提出异议的权利），因为个别债务人无权继续进行该等异议。作为一般原则，“在破产语境中，诉讼资格要求当事人为因破产法院命令而‘直接且不利地受到金钱影响的受不利影响之人’。” Licensing by Paolo, Inc. v. Sinatra (In re Gucci), 126 F.3d 380, 388 (2d Cir. 1997). 因此，债务人“仅在所有债权人的债权均获清偿后可能仍有剩余财产时，才有资格对资产出售提出异议，或以其他方式参与围绕破产财产资产的诉讼。”参见 In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc., 218 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir. 2000)（强调添加）；另参见 In re Licata, 659 Fed. Appx. 704, 706 (2d Cir. 2016)（债务人“负有证明至少存在剩余财产合理可能性的责任”）。事实上，本法院此前在 In re Cole, No. 10-50091 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.) 中认定，债务人未能证明在债权人的债权获得清偿后仍会有剩余财产时，该债务人无资格请求撤换受托人。28\n\n21. 同样，法院通常认为，除非“债务人能够证明‘在所有债权均获清偿后存在剩余财产的合理可能性’”，否则债务人无资格对债权提出异议。Pascazi v. Fiber Consultants, Inc.[, 445 B.R. 124, 127–28 \\(S.D.N.Y. 2011\\)]（引述 [In re] Ulz，\n\n28 参见，例如，Aug. 6, 2019 Hearing Transcript at 39:7-9, 67:1-4, In re Cole（科尔案）, No. 10-50091 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.)（“［债务人并］无当事人资格提出这些论点。作为第 7 章债务人，除非且直至明确存在剩余财产，否则债务人不再享有任何权利。”）[Docket No. 1267]，作为 Exhibit 6 附于 Barron Declaration（巴伦声明）；Aug. 10, 2019 Hearing Transcript at 11:6-9, In re Cole, No. 10-50091 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.)（“除非破产财产将有某种剩余，否则债务人无当事人资格提出争议。”）[Docket No. 1270]，作为 Exhibit 7 附于 Barron Declaration。\n\n[401 B.R. 321, 328 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009);]；另见 In re Ferraro（费拉罗案）, No. 13-30996 (AMN), 2017 WL 874977, at *3 (Bankr. D. Conn. Mar. 3, 2017)（“［一］般规则是，债务人无当事人资格对债权提出异议，因为破产程序使债务人免除其对债权人的任何责任，并且由于财产已移交受托人，债务人对破产财产的分配不享有任何利益。”）（引自 Licata（利卡塔）v. Coan（科恩）, Docket No. 3:14-cv-1754 (MPS), 2015 WL 9699304, at *5 (D. Conn. Sept. 22, 2015)）；In re I & F Corp.（I & F 公司案）, 219 B.R. 483, 484 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1998)（“绝大多数法院认为，只有第 7 章受托人可以对债权证明提出异议。”）；Caserta（卡塞塔）v. Tobin（托宾）, 175 B.R. 773, 775 (S.D. Fla. 1994)（“作为已指定受托人且不会存在为债务人产生经济利益的剩余财产案件中的第 7 章债务人，［债务人］无当事人资格对其债权人 Tobin 的债权提出异议。”）。\n\n22. 在本案中，个人债务人并未（且无法）作出任何证明，表明在所有债权获得清偿后将存在剩余财产。恰恰相反，在整个这些第 11 章案件中，个人债务人一直主张其身无分文。29 如果个人债务人的债权异议获得支持，本案也不会因此在破产财产中产生剩余。并且，个人债务人的家庭成员将来可能在某个时候为一项假设的第 11 章计划提供资金，从而全额偿付债权人，这种可能性过于推测性，不能据此允许个人债务人对债权提出异议。鉴于个人债务人近期声明：“债务人以及更重要的是债务人的直系和大家庭成员（因为他们将根据任何协商一致的计划为向债权人的付款提供资金）将不会与受托人打交道。目前，可选方案是撤换受托人，或者进行多年成本高昂且结果不确定的诉讼。”30，这一点尤其如此。\n\n29. 如果个人债务人因受托人——在个人债务人的强烈反对下——为这些破产财产的利益追回足够资产，以致存在剩余财产的可能性而被赋予当事人资格，那将是极具讽刺意味的。\n\n30. Removal Motion ¶ 40。\n\n23. 在债权异议中，个人债务人主张，尽管有上述规定，其仍有当事人资格对债权提出异议，因为个人债务人认为，该规则仅适用于第 7 章债务人，而不适用于第 11 章案件中的非占有债务人。这并非法律规定。\n\n24. 法院一贯将剩余财产分析适用于第 11 章案件中的当事人资格，无论是在债权异议的情形下，还是在破产法的其他领域。于 In re Visiting Nurse Ass'n（访问护士协会案）, 176 B.R. 748, 750 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1995) 中，第 11 章债务人提出了一项清算性重组计划，并对一名债权人的债权提出异议。该债权人主张，第 11 章债务人无当事人资格，因为清算计划未显示存在剩余财产；债务人则回应称，债权人援引的案件均属于第 7 章背景，因此“并不适用”。Id. at 750。法院未采纳这一本可轻易解决该问题的论点。相反，尽管法院允许债务人的债权异议继续进行，但其理由是“尚未指定受托人接管债务人的事务”，且法院在“目前阶段［无法］毫无疑义地宣告债务人不会从其清算中产生剩余财产”。Id. at 751。法院进一步采纳剩余财产分析，认定仍有可能“债务人是一个将因 Godwin（戈德温）债权的裁定而受到经济影响的当事人”。Id.\n\n25. In re Olympia Office LLC（奥林匹亚办公有限责任公司案）, 574 B.R. 38 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017)，同样表明，审慎性当事人资格原则限制第 11 章案件中的债权异议。在该案中，第 11 章债务人对某些票据持有人提出的债权提出异议，法院指出其不会处理当事人资格问题，因为票据持有人尚未提出该问题。法院“但指出，如果债务人待决的债权异议全部获得支持，确实存在剩余财产的合理前景”。Olympia Office LLC, 574 B.R. at 46 n.5。并且，于 In re McCorhill Pub., Inc.（麦考希尔出版公司案）, 89 B.R. 393 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) 中，法院说明，如果所有债权人均能获得全额清偿，或者每一类受损债权均接受计划，“债务人对破产财产中的权益享有经济利益”，并且在“此种情形下，第 11 章债务人对破产财产享有直接的经济利益”。89 B.R. at 396。由于非占有中的第 11 章债务人寻求提出某些将会“为债务人创造权益”的请求，法院允许债务人“保护其权益利益，如有”，并认定债务人将“被视为具有当事人资格、可对［有担保债权人］的债权提出异议的利害关系方”。Id.\n\n26. 这些案件与 Collier on Bankruptcy（《Collier 破产法》）所采取的方法一致，该书说明：“在第 7 章案件中，或者在债务人并非占有中的债务人且不可能向债务人返还剩余财产的第 11 章案件中，债务人通常对债权异议的结果不享有经济利益，因此无当事人资格对债权提出异议。”Collier on Bankruptcy § 502.02[2][c]（着重号已加）。这也与无争议的一般规则一致，即无论是第 7 章受托人还是第 11 章受托人，破产受托人均是唯一负责管理破产财产的人。参见，例如，In re Bay Voltex Corp.（Bay Voltex 公司案）, No. 03 42684 EDJ, 2006 WL 3834300, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2006), aff'd, No. BAP.NC-08-1069-DJUT, 2008 WL 8444794 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2008), aff'd, 371 F. App'x 820 (9th Cir. 2010)（“第 7 章债务人和非占有中的第 11 章债务人均非受托人，二者均不代表破产财产。”）；Morrison（莫里森）v. U.S. Trustees（美国受托人）, No. 09-CV-3565 (CBA), 2010 WL 2653394, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010)（同上）。正如 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）所说明的，该规则限制了非占有债务人的当事人资格。参见 In re Dawnwood Properties/78（Dawnwood Properties/78 案）, 209 F.3d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 2000)（“一旦指定受托人以最大化第 11 章破产财产的资产，Rooney（鲁尼）和 Dawnwood 均无当事人资格代表 Dawnwood 提起本对抗程序；该权限仅属于受托人。”）。\n\n27. 个人债务人无视这些权威依据，仅援引 Bankruptcy Code（《破产法典》）第 1121(c) 条来支持其“第 11 章不同”的主张，并据此提出，“即使已指定受托人，债务人仍是利害关系方，且尤其可以提交一项计划。”31 因此，个人债务人的论点完全依赖于其结论性的“尤其”措辞：根据个人债务人的观点，如果非占有债务人可以提交计划，其也必定能够提交债权异议，并以其他方式干扰破产财产的管理。再次重申，这并非法律规定。\n\n31. 参见，例如，Objection to Claim Number 16 of Qiu Yu（邱钰）¶ 8。\n\n28. 的确，根据第 1121(c) 条，非占有中的第 11 章债务人可能有当事人资格提交计划。参见 In re McCorhill Pub., Inc., 89 B.R. at 396（根据 Bankruptcy Code 第 1121 条，“第 11 章受托人不具有提交重组计划的专属权限”）。“尽管如此，根据 [11 U.S.C. § 1104] 指定第 11 章受托人，终止了占有中债务人根据 [11 U.S.C. § 1107] 所享有的类似受托人的权限。”Id.（着重号已加）。“随后，被指定的第 11 章受托人承担 [11 U.S.C. § 1106] 所规定的职责，包括 [11 U.S.C. § 704] 所规定的大部分职责。”Id. 这些职责包括审查并对债权证明提出异议的职责。参见 [11 U.S.C. § 704(a)(5)]。与提交计划不同，非占有中的第 11 章债务人仅在其“对破产财产中的权益享有经济利益”的范围内，保留根据第 704 条提交债权异议的权限。In re McCorhill Pub., Inc., 89 B.R. at 396。\n\n29. 受托人承认，法院在某些有限情形下也允许非占有债务人对债权提出异议，例如，“受托人未能或拒绝对所涉债权提出异议；及／或……债务人的异议不会损害破产财产的有效管理”。In re Choquette（肖凯特案）, 290 B.R. 183, 187-88 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2003)。然而，受托人并未拒绝对所涉债权提出异议。所涉债权仅在一周多前提交，而一般申报截止日期要到 February 17, 2023 才届至。受托人将适时分析这些债权（以及其他债权），并将基于其对这些债权的分析，决定是否对这些债权提出异议。\n\n30. 与此相关，法院对最后一项因素——债务人的异议是否会损害破产财产的有效管理——所赋予的权重，怎么强调都不为过。法院反复强调，维护受托人有效管理破产财产的能力，是阻止其他利害关系方在第 7 章或第 11 章案件中提交债权异议的依据。参见，例如，In re Simon（西蒙案）, 179 B.R. 1, 7 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1995)（“如果每一债权人都有权质疑在某一特定案件中提交的另一债权人的债权，有序管理可能会沦为混乱”）；In re Thompson（汤普森案）, 965 F.2d 1136, 1147 (1st Cir. 1992)（“除非法院准许，只有第 7 章受托人可以对债权证明提出异议”）；In re Chi. Invs., LLC（Chi. Invs. 有限责任公司案）, 470 B.R. 32 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012)（对有序管理的担忧“呼应了第一巡回上诉法院在第 7 章背景下提出的担忧”）。\n\n31. 正如一法院所说明，第 502(a) 条中的“‘利害关系方’这一用语适用于对本案中正在管理的债务人资产享有某种利益的人。依此定义，债务人的债权人是主要的利害关系方……然而，有序且迅速管理的需要并不允许充分且不受限制地行使该项权利。除非受托人拒绝采取行动，否则受托人在履行其职责时作为全体债权人的代言人。”In re Dow Corning Corp.（陶氏康宁公司案）, 244 B.R. 721, 750 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1999)（经修正）（省略内部引注）（原文着重）。“基于这一政策理由……在受托人负责管理破产财产的情形下，债权人只有在经请求后受托人拒绝这样做且法院准许该债权人代表受托人行事时，方可对另一债权人的债权提出异议。”Id.\n\n32. 这些关切在本案中尤为突出，因为已有充分记录证明，个人债务人在庭外采取恐吓手段，以及其试图妨碍受托人履行法定职责。允许个人债务人提出债权异议（或就此而言提出任何其他债权异议），无疑将危及这些第11章破产财产的高效管理。事实上，个人债务人为何现在选择对债权提出异议，或者为何选择对所涉三项特定债权提出异议（在本法院债权登记册上登记的十九项债权中），似乎毫无章法可言——当然，除非将其视为其更大规模行动的一部分，即恐吓债权人，使其不提出债权申报。\n\n33. 最后，个人债务人在债权异议中主张，其具有提出异议的资格，因为某些其他债权人已主张其债权不可免除。然而，尽管一些法院认可这样一种资格理论，即否决某一特定债权可能对向其他债权人的分配产生金钱上的影响，并因此影响债务人对不可免除债权的剩余责任，但其他法院已拒绝这种做法，且理由充分。如一家破产法院所述：\n\n该理论的问题有两方面。第一，资格要求法院的命令「直接且不利地」影响债务人的金钱利益。但[债务人]及支持其主张的判例所描述的影响，充其量是间接的：破产财产的管理并未产生任何剩余，因此受托人不会向债务人本人支付任何款项，但受托人向某些债权人支付的款项可以说会改变债务人在破产后对该等债权人的责任。采纳[债务人]资格理论的法院将此种影响称为「直接」影响。若果真如此，则很难想象何为「间接」影响。\n\n第二，赋予每一名恰好受制于某项不可免除债权的债务人以资格，将会干扰第7章案件的管理。许多债务人都受制于不可免除债权。如果每一名该等债务人突然都有权在受托人管理案件中发挥积极作用，结果将会拖慢破产制度并增加其成本。……\n\n破产制度之所以能够运作，是因为其迅速处理案件；且唯有继续如此，方能继续运作。「迅速而高效」管理破产案件这一公共政策目标，「主要通过严格界定谁有资格参与破产程序」来实现。增加例外情形，使第7章债务人的资格超出针对有剩余案件的唯一例外，「将不必要地使程序复杂化」。\n\nIn re Adams, 424 B.R. 434 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010)（内部引注略）。\n\n34. 尽管如此，受托人并不否认，债务人有资格对可能无法免除的特定债权提出异议。参见 Willard v. O'Neill (In re Willard), 240 B.R. 664, 668 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1999)（认定第7章债务人有资格对可能永远无法免除的债权提出异议，因为债务人对于否决债权之诉的结果具有直接的金钱利益）。然而，在本案中，债权异议并非针对受制于任何可免除性争议诉讼的债权。\n\n35. 基于上述所有理由，动议人主张个人债务人不具有提出债权异议的资格，因此，动议人恭请本法院撤销债权异议。\n\nC. 个人债务人应被禁止在未经本法院许可的情况下提出债权异议\n\n36. 鉴于个人债务人已有试图拖延受托人调查及这些第11章案件管理的记录，受托人主张，本法院应禁止个人债务人提出任何进一步的债权异议，除非个人债务人事先取得本法院许可。32 为明确起见，上述限制不会妨碍个人债务人推进可免除性对抗程序，或对作为该等诉讼标的的债权提出异议（但须遵守目前对该等程序有效的任何中止）。\n\n37. 已充分确立的是，第二巡回区的破产法院与所有联邦法院一样，「拥有通过发布提交禁令禁止滥用性及缠讼性诉讼行为的固有权力。」Seaport Capital Partners v Speer (In re Speer), No. 14-21007 (AMN), AP No. 15-2031, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 4523 at \\*18-19 (Bankr. D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2017) (citing In re Belmonte, 524 B.R. 17, 33 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2015)). 在缠讼当事人可以提交未来诉状、动议或上诉之前，包含「法院许可」要求的预先提交命令，是此类情形下常见的救济措施。参见，例如，Coan v. Peia (In re Peia), 212 B.R. 217, 219-220 (D. Conn. 1997)。\n\n38. 当缠讼债务人通过骚扰破产受托人试图扰乱破产财产管理时，对预先提交命令的需求尤为迫切。参见，例如，In re Armstrong, 297 B.R. 154, 162 (Bankr. D. Utah 2003)（准予第11章受托人关于对缠讼债务人施加提交限制的动议）, aff'd, In re Armstrong, 309 B.R. 799 (10th Cir. BAP 2004); In re Melcher, BAP No. NC-13-1168, 2014 WL 1410235, at \\*12 (9th Cir. BAP April 11, 2014)（适用 Safir，见下文，并发回以作出命令，准予第7章受托人关于作出包含预先提交审查要求之命令的动议）。\n\n32. 如个人债务人继续通过其庭内及庭外活动蔑视本法院命令，受托人将考虑寻求更广泛的救济（例如，禁止个人债务人在未经法院事先许可的情况下寻求任何积极救济）。受托人就此保留所有权利。\n\n39. 在 Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986) 一案中，第二巡回区提出了法院决定是否限制一方当事人在联邦法院提交诉状能力时应考虑的五项要素：（1）诉讼当事人的诉讼历史，尤其是该历史是否包括缠讼性、骚扰性或重复性诉讼；（2）诉讼当事人提起诉讼的动机，例如，该诉讼当事人是否对胜诉具有客观、善意的预期；（3）该诉讼当事人是否由律师代理；（4）该诉讼当事人是否给其他当事人造成不必要的费用，或给法院及其工作人员施加不必要的负担；以及（5）其他制裁措施是否足以保护法院及其他当事人。\n\nSafir, 792 F2d at 24. 在本案中，有限的预先提交命令对于减少破产财产管理的成本和费用是必要且适当的。\n\n40. 正如本法院在其备忘录裁定中所确认，个人债务人在「程序的每一步」都反对受托人的调查。33 此外，备忘录裁定详细记载了个人债务人广泛的庭外骚扰和恐吓行动；其骚扰和恐吓对象包括受托人、其家人及其律师，以及破产财产的最大无担保债权人（PAX），从而损害了这些第11章案件的完整性。个人债务人提出债权异议的动机不仅可疑，而且显而易见：骚扰债权人，并恐吓其不提出债权证明。\n\n41. 此外，个人债务人的手段（无论庭内还是庭外）已给受托人及这些破产财产的管理造成重大负担，包括数百万美元的专业费用及实质性延误。如不禁止其提出债权异议，个人债务人无疑将继续破坏这些第11章案件的管理。还应重申，所请求的救济经过严格限定，因为其仅禁止个人债务人在未经本法院许可的情况下提出债权异议（而非一般性地提交诉状）。并且，如前所述，动议人并不寻求禁止个人债务人对作为可免除性对抗程序标的的债权提出异议。\n\n42. 最后，截至目前，仅因 PI 对抗程序造成的为期两个月的干扰之后，动议人恭请本法院认定，除在上述例外情形限制下禁止个人债务人提出债权异议外，已不存在其他可行替代方案。\n\n此前未曾请求\n\n43. 动议人此前未曾向本法院或任何其他法院请求本文件所请求的救济。\n\n［本页其余部分有意留白。］\n\n因此，基于上述理由，动议人请求本法院作出命令，准予本动议所请求的救济及其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：January 19, 2023，康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S.·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616)\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S.·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616)\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R.·林西）(ct29437)\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R.·林西）(ct29437)\n\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（NEUBERT、PEPE 与 MONTEITH 专业公司）\n\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（NEUBERT、PEPE 与 MONTEITH 专业公司）\n\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\n\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n(203) 821-2000\n\n(203) 821-2000\n\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\n\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\n\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）及债务人和占有中债务人的律师\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings 公司）\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz, Esq.（G. Alexander Bongartz 律师）\n\n署名：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\n200 Park Avenue\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S.·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616)\n\nNew York, New York 10166\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R.·林西）(ct29437)\n\n(212) 318-6472\n\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（NEUBERT、PEPE 与 MONTEITH 专业公司）\n\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\n\n第11章受托人的律师\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n(203) 821-2000\n\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\n\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\nGenever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings 公司）债务人和占有中债务人的律师\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE（Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人）\n\n署名：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\n署名：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nLuc A. Despins, Esq.（Luc A. Despins 律师）\n\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n\n附件 A\n\n拟议命令\n\n美国破产法院\n\n康涅狄格州联邦地区\n\n布里奇波特分院\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　：\n：\n第11章\n：\n：\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：\n（合并管理）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA\nOPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n原告，\n诉　x\n\nAdv. Proceeding No. 22-05032 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n被告。\n\nx\n\n命令：（A）责令个人债务人就债权程序遵守初步禁令；（B）撤销个人债务人对债权提出的异议；以及（C）禁止个人债务人在未经本法院许可的情况下进一步对债权提出异议\n\n经 Luc Despins（卢克·A.·德斯平斯）以其作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称「个人债务人」）、Genever Holdings Corporation（下称「Genever (BVI)」）及 Genever Holdings LLC（下称「Genever (US)」）的第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（下称「受托人」）之身份提出的动议（下称「本动议」）2，\n\n1. 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2. 本文件中使用但未定义的首字母大写术语，应具有本动议中赋予该等术语的含义。\n\n以及与受托人及 Genever (BVI) 共同（以下统称“动议申请人”）请求作出一项命令：（a）责令个人债务人及与个人债务人积极协同行动或参与的任何人士遵守本院在 PI 对立程序中作出的初步禁令命令，并停止一切干扰债权申报程序的活动；（b）撤销个人债务人的债权异议；及（c）禁止个人债务人在未事先获得本院许可的情况下进一步提出任何债权异议，详情载于本动议；并且本院似乎根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区美国联邦地区法院）的转介常设命令（经修订）对本事项具有管辖权；并且审议本动议及其中所请求的救济构成 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 所规定的核心程序；并且根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本院为适当的审判地；并且本院已认定其可作出符合 United States Constitution（美国宪法）第三条的终局命令；并且已就本动议发出适当且充分的通知；并且似乎无需提供任何其他或进一步通知；并且本院已认定，本动议所载的法律及事实依据确立了授予本命令所列救济的正当理由；并且似乎本动议所请求的救济符合债务人财产及债权人的最佳利益；并且在本院进行的一切程序之后，经适当审议且有充分理由，现命令如下：\n\n1. 本动议按本命令所载内容获准。\n\n2. 现责令个人债务人遵守初步禁令命令，并立即停止干扰债权申报程序完整性的行为，包括：（a）在社交媒体或以其他方式传播或威胁传播债权人及其亲属的任何个人信息（包括姓名、联系信息、债权人或其亲属的照片及其他识别信息）（“债权人个人信息”），无论该债权人是否已提交债权申报；（b）实施任何威胁，和/或指示或鼓励他人实施任何威胁，在本第 11 章案件中提出、已经提出或可能提出债权申报的任何债权人及该人士任何亲属安全的行为；及（c）以任何方式暗示或鼓励任何人提出无正当依据的债权申报。\n\n3. 责令个人债务人删除其使用或控制的账户上的所有现有社交媒体帖文，包括但不限于原用户名为 @Miles、@MilesGuo 及 @MilesGuoLive 的 Gettr 账户中包含以下内容的帖文：（a）任何债权人个人信息；（b）以任何方式暗示或鼓励其追随者提出无正当依据的债权申报；和/或（c）鼓励、煽动或暗示上文第 2 段所禁止的任何活动。\n\n4. 根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)，个人债务人、其高级人员、其代理人、其雇员、其工作人员、其律师，以及与个人债务人、其高级人员、其代理人、其雇员、其工作人员及其律师积极协同行动或参与的其他人士，在通过亲自送达或其他方式获得实际通知后，均受本命令约束。基于初步禁令命令及备忘录裁定中所述理由，本院已认定：（a）Fay Fay（菲菲）、Beile Li（李贝勒）、Huo Lai（霍莱）、Pamela Tsai（蔡帕梅拉）、Roy Guo（郭罗伊）、Jiao Bing Shang（尚焦冰）、Shan Mu（穆山）、Yaqin Li（李雅琴）、Ziheng Cheng（程子恒）及 Elliot Dordick（埃利奥特·多迪克）等个人；以及（b）New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）、Himalaya Global Alliance（喜马拉雅全球联盟）及其他 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）实体，例如 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）、Himalaya Farms（喜马拉雅农场）及 Himalaya New World, Inc.（喜马拉雅新世界公司）；Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）；以及 G-Series（G 系列）实体，包括但不限于 GTV（GTV）及 G-News（G-News）；以及任何依其指示或代表其行事的个人或实体，均为债务人的高级人员、代理人、雇员、工作人员、律师和/或与个人债务人、其高级人员、其代理人、其雇员、其工作人员及其律师积极协同行动或参与的其他人士。\n\n5. 授权动议申请人向个人债务人、其高级人员、其代理人、其雇员、其工作人员、其律师，以及与个人债务人、其高级人员、其代理人、其雇员、其工作人员和/或其律师积极协同行动或参与的其他人士，包括但不限于第 4 段明确列举的个人及实体，送达本命令的通知。\n\n6. 现撤销债权异议，但不影响动议申请人在日后对该等债权提出异议的权利。\n\n7. 现禁止个人债务人在未事先获得本院许可的情况下进一步提出任何债权异议；但个人债务人可无需事先获得本院许可，对作为债务可免责性对立程序标的的债权提出异议（但须遵守目前对该等程序有效的任何中止）。\n\n8. 授权并赋予动议申请人采取一切必要行动以实现本命令所授予的救济。\n\n9. 本命令的条款及条件自录入之日起立即生效并可执行。\n\n10. 除非本院另行命令延长其期限，本命令持续有效，直至：（a）本院进一步命令；（b）个人债务人的第 11 章案件被驳回或结案；或（c）自其录入之日起一年后，以较早发生者为准。\n\n11. 本院保留对本对立程序的管辖权，以确保遵守本命令，并处理与 PI 对立程序及第 11 章案件有关的所有其他事项。本院保留管辖权，以审理和裁定因实施、解释和/或执行本命令而产生的所有事项。\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分庭）\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：\n第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等人，　：\n：\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：\n（合并管理）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA\nOPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n诉\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n-----------------------------------------------------------　原告，\n被告。　x\n\n对立程序案号 22-05032 (JAM)\n\nx\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，于 January 19, 2023，前述动议及相关的 Barron Affidavit（巴伦宣誓书）已以电子方式提交。根据本院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统的运作，已通过电子邮件向上述标题所示对立程序的所有当事人发送该等提交文件的通知；或者，已按电子提交通知中所示，以邮件向无法接受电子提交的任何人士发送通知。2 该等文件可通过 CM/ECF 系统查阅。\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）、Miles Guo（郭文贵）及 Miles Kwok（郭文贵），以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 财产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n2 如前述文件在正常营业时间以外提交，则对无法或无资格接受电子通知的收件人进行的邮寄送达，于下一个营业日完成。\n\n日期：January 19, 2023　New Haven, Connecticut（康涅狄格州纽黑文）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩及蒙泰斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n动议申请人代理律师","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","GETTR","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Himalaya","Despins","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","Luc Despins","GTV","Himalaya Exchange"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":8771,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:55:50"}