{"id":"court_ctb_1399_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1399,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT )","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n)\n\n)\n\n)\n\nDebtors.1\n\nIn re: ) Chapter 11 ) Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, *et al.*, ) (Jointly Administered)\n\n) Re: ECF Nos. 1332, 1334, 1335, 1345\n\n## **ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS 16, 17, AND 18**\n\n On January 6, 2023, Qiu Yu filed Proofs of Claim 16 and 17. On January 11, 2023, Lee Chu (together with Qiu Yu, the \"Creditors\") filed Proof of Claim 18 (together with Proofs of Claim 16 and 17, the \"Claims\").\n\nOn January 17, 2023, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") filed objections to the Claims. (ECF Nos. 1332, 1334–35, collectively the \"Objections to Claims.\") On January 19, 2023, Luc A. Despins, the Chapter 11 Trustee for the estate (the \"Estate\") of the Debtor, (the \"Trustee\") filed a Motion to Compel Compliance With Preliminary Injunction and Quashing Individual Debtor's Claims Objections. (ECF No. 1345, the \"Motion.\") On January 24, 2023, the Debtor filed an objection to the Motion. (ECF No. 1380, the \"Objection.\") On January 25, 2023, the Trustee filed a reply. (ECF No. 1388, the \"Reply.\") A hearing on the Motion was held on January 26, 2023. For the reasons stated on the record and as supplemented below, the Objections to Claims are overruled.\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\nThe Second Circuit has noted that standing in bankruptcy case requires a party be \"directly and adversely affected pecuniarily.\" *Licensing by Paolo, Inc. v. Sinatra ex rel. Gucci (In re Gucci)*, 126 F.3d 380 (2d Cir. 1997). In the Chapter 7 context, the Second Circuit has held that it is \"well-established that a Chapter 7 debtor . . . has standing to object . . . only if there could be a surplus after all creditors' claims are paid.\" *60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc. v. Sapir (In re 60 E. 80th Street Equities, Inc.)*, 218 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir. 2000); *see Cole v. Rescia*, Case No. 3:21-cv-01130-MPS, 2022 WL 4536830, at \\*4–5 (D. Conn. Sept. 28, 2022).\n\nThe Debtor argues that this rule should not apply in Chapter 11 cases because 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b) states \"A party in interest, including the debtor . . . may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in a case under this chapter.\" *Gucci*, however, was a Chapter 11 case – § 1109(b) has been \"restricted through application of principles of standing.\" 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1109.01[3] (16th ed. 2022). Hence, \"[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.\" 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 502.02[2][c]. This is because the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee divests a Chapter 11 debtor of a bankruptcy trustee's powers and duties. *Kraus-Thomson Org., Ltd. v. McCorhill Publ'g, Inc. (In re McCorhill Publ'g, Inc.)*, 89 B.R. 393, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). Nevertheless, a debtor-out-ofpossession \"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 [a] plan in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(8)(A), so that the debtor may retain an equity interest.\" *McCorhill Publ'g*, 89 B.R. at 396.\n\n2\n\nIn his Schedules, the Debtor asserts he has \\$3,850 in assets, no income, and no expectation of a change in his income. (ECF No. 78.) The Debtor lists in his Schedules that he has \\$373,803,498.09 in non-priority unsecured debt. (*Id.*) The Debtor has not, at this time, sufficiently established that there is a reasonable possibility of a surplus in this case. Given the Debtor's lack of income, it is likely any Chapter 11 Plan proposed by the Debtor will not pay creditors in full. Therefore, the rule regarding standing in Chapter 7 cases arguably applies here due to the specific facts and circumstances of the Debtor's case.\n\nThe Debtor further argues that he has standing to object to the Claims because certain creditors have filed non-dischargeability actions against him. The Court finds this argument unconvincing at this time. As far as the Debtor has alleged, the Claims total roughly \\$10,000,000 compared to roughly \\$375,000,000 in scheduled debt. With allegedly less than \\$4,000 in assets, disallowance of the Claims will have no appreciable impact on the amount received by any non-dischargeable claim(s).\n\nIn addition, the Debtor argues that he should be allowed to object to the Claims to assure the Trustee that certain claims the Debtor views as an impediment to settlement should be disallowed. It is the Trustee's duty – not the Debtor's – to determine whether to object to the Claims as his investigation develops. *See McCorhill Publ'g*, 89 B.R. at 396. There is no benefit to the Estate to have the debtor-out-of-possession running a parallel investigation absent any evidence that the Trustee is neglecting his duties. *See Kowal v. Malkemus (In re Thompson),* 965 F.2d 1136, 1147 (1st Cir. 1992); *Merhav Ampal Grp., Ltd. v. Merhav (M.N.F.) Ltd. (In re Ampal-Am. Israel Corp.),* 545 B.R. 802, 809 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016). It has been only 20 days since the first of the Creditors filed their claims. The deadline for filing Proofs of Claim in this case has not yet passed. (ECF No. 1297.)\n\n3\n\nTherefore, the Court finds the Debtor lacks standing to assert the Objections to Claims,\n\nand for that reason, the Objections to Claims are overruled.\n\nFurthermore, the Debtor must obtain this Court's approval before filing any future objections to claims. In making this determination, the Second Circuit requires this Court consider\n\n(1) the [Debtor's] history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the [Debtor's] motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parities our has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.\n\n*Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc.*, 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986). The Court notes the six exhibits introduced into evidence at the hearing. Without ruling at this time on the remaining relief requested by the Motion, these exhibits, coupled with the numerous findings of fact in the Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting In Part Motion For Preliminary Injunction, *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok (In re Kwok)*, Adv. P. No. 22-05032 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 13, 2023), ECF No. 133, raise questions as to why the Debtor would file and prosecute the Claims Objections at this time. The claims process is central to the purpose of bankruptcy. *Cf. Stern v. Marshall*, 564 U.S. 462 (2011). The Court takes the administration of the claims process very seriously.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED:** The Claims Objections are **OVERRULED** without prejudice. The Creditors are not required to file responses to the Claims Objections on or before February 16, 2023. For the avoidance of doubt, the February 16, 2023, response deadlines set by the Claims Objections are null and void; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** The Debtor may not file any future objections to Proofs of Claim in these bankruptcy cases without seeking and obtaining the permission of this Court to do so; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** At or before 5:00 p.m. on January 27, 2023, the Debtor must serve this Order on the Creditors by overnight mail and file a certificate of service demonstrating compliance with this Order at or before 12:00 p.m. on January 30, 2023.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 27th day of January, 2023.","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n债务人。1\n\n案由：第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n（合并审理）\n\n关于：ECF编号 1332, 1334, 1335, 1345\n驳回对第16、17和18号债权异议的裁定\n\n2023年1月6日，Qiu Yu（邱宇）提交了第16和17号债权证明。2023年1月11日，Lee Chu（与邱宇合称“债权人”）提交了第18号债权证明（与第16和17号债权证明合称“债权”）。\n\n2023年1月17日，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）对上述债权提出了异议。（ECF编号 1332, 1334–35，统称“债权异议”。）2023年1月19日，债务人破产财产（“破产财产”）的第11章破产受托人 Luc A. Despins（“受托人”）提交了一份《强制遵守初步禁令并撤销个人债务人债权异议的动议》。（ECF编号 1345，“动议”。）2023年1月24日，债务人对该动议提出了异议。（ECF编号 1380，“异议”。）2023年1月25日，受托人提交了答辩意见。（ECF编号 1388，“答辩意见”。）本院于2023年1月26日就该动议举行了听证会。基于记录在案的理由以及下文所作的补充，对债权的异议予以驳回。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，又名 Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及其他诸多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）和 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 转交 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于接收通知和通讯目的）。\n\nSecond Circuit（第二巡回法院）曾指出，破产案件中的诉讼资格要求当事人“在金钱上受到直接且不利的影响”。Licensing by Paolo, Inc. v. Sinatra ex rel. Gucci (In re Gucci), 126 F.3d 380 (2d Cir. 1997)。在第7章破产的语境下，第二巡回法院认定“确立已久的规则是，第7章债务人……只有在所有债权人的债权均获清偿后可能存在剩余资产的情况下，才具有提出异议的诉讼资格”。60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc. v. Sapir (In re 60 E. 80th Street Equities, Inc.), 218 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir. 2000)；参见 Cole v. Rescia, 案号 3:21-cv-01130-MPS, 2022 WL 4536830, at *4–5 (D. Conn. Sept. 28, 2022)。\n\n债务人主张该规则不应适用于第11章案件，因为 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b) 规定“利害关系方，包括债务人……可在本章管辖的案件中就任何争议问题提出主张、出庭并陈述意见”。然而，Gucci 案本身就是一起第11章案件——§ 1109(b) 已“受到诉讼资格原则适用的限制”。7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1109.01[3] (16th ed. 2022)。因此，“在第7章案件中，或在债务人并非自行管理的占有中债务人且不存在向债务人返还剩余财产可能性的第11章案件中，债务人对债权异议的结果通常没有金钱利益，因而没有资格对债权提出异议”。4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 502.02[2][c]。这是因为指定第11章受托人剥夺了第11章债务人作为破产受托人的权力和职责。Kraus-Thomson Org., Ltd. v. McCorhill Publ'g, Inc. (In re McCorhill Publ'g, Inc.), 89 B.R. 393, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)。尽管如此，非占有中债务人“如果所有债权人都能获得全额受偿，或者如果每一组受减损债权均根据 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(8)(A) 接受了重整计划从而使债务人得以保留股权权益，则在破产财产的权益中享有金钱利益”。McCorhill Publ'g, 89 B.R. at 396。\n\n在其申报表中，债务人声称其拥有 $3,850 的资产，无收入，且预期收入不会发生变化。（ECF编号 78。）债务人在其申报表中列明其拥有 $373,803,498.09 的非优先无担保债务。（同上。）债务人目前尚未充分证明本案存在合理的剩余财产可能性。鉴于债务人缺乏收入，债务人提出的任何第11章重整计划很可能都无法对债权人进行全额清偿。因此，基于债务人案件的具体事实和情况，有关第7章案件诉讼资格的规则在此处同样适用。\n\n债务人进一步辩称，由于某些债权人已对其提起不可免责诉讼，因此他有资格对债权提出异议。本院认为该论点目前缺乏说服力。就债务人的主张而言，相比申报表中约 $375,000,000 的债务，上述债权总额约为 $10,000,000。在据称资产不足 $4,000 的情况下，驳回上述债权对任何不可免责债权所能获得的分配数额不会产生任何实质性影响。\n\n此外，债务人辩称应允许其对债权提出异议，以向受托人确认债务人视为和解阻碍的某些债权应当被驳回。随着调查的展开，由受托人——而非债务人——来决定是否对债权提出异议属于受托人的职责。参见 McCorhill Publ'g, 89 B.R. at 396。在没有任何证据表明受托人玩忽职守的情况下，让非占有中债务人进行平行调查对破产财产没有任何益处。参见 Kowal v. Malkemus (In re Thompson), 965 F.2d 1136, 1147 (1st Cir. 1992)；Merhav Ampal Grp., Ltd. v. Merhav (M.N.F.) Ltd. (In re Ampal-Am. Israel Corp.), 545 B.R. 802, 809 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016)。自第一批债权人提交其债权至今仅过了20天。本案提交债权证明的截止日期尚未届满。（ECF编号 1297。）\n\n因此，本院认定债务人缺乏提出债权异议的诉讼资格，\n\n基于该理由，对债权的异议予以驳回。\n\n此外，债务人在未来提交任何债权异议之前必须获得本院的批准。在作出此项决定时，第二巡回法院要求本院考虑：\n\n(1) [债务人的]诉讼历史，特别是其是否包含滥诉、骚扰性或重复性的诉讼；(2) [债务人]进行诉讼的动机，例如，诉讼当事人是否具有胜诉的客观善意预期？；(3) 诉讼当事人是否有律师代理；(4) 诉讼当事人是否给其他当事人造成了不必要的开支，或者给法院及其工作人员造成了不必要的负担；以及 (5) 其他制裁措施是否足以保护法院和其他当事人。\n\nSafir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986)。本院注意到在听证会上作为证据引入的六份证据。在目前不对动议所请求的其余救济作出裁决的情况下，这些证据连同《关于部分批准初步禁令动议的修正裁定备忘录》（Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok (In re Kwok), 附随诉讼案号 22-05032 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 13, 2023), ECF编号 133）中的多项事实认定，引发了对债务人为何在此刻提交并推进债权异议的质疑。债权审核程序是破产制度目的的核心。参见 Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011)。本院非常严肃地对待债权审核程序的管理。\n\n据此，特此\n\n裁定：债权异议在不影响再次提出权利的前提下予以驳回。债权人无需在2023年2月16日或之前就债权异议提交答辩意见。为免生疑义，债权异议所设定的2023年2月16日答辩截止日期无效；并进一步\n\n裁定：未经向本院申请并获得许可，债务人不得在这些破产案件中就债权证明提出任何未来的异议；并进一步\n\n裁定：债务人必须在2023年1月27日下午5:00或之前通过隔夜特快专递向债权人送达本裁定，并在2023年1月30日中午12:00或之前提交证明符合本裁定要求的送达证明书。\n\n2023年1月27日签发于康涅狄格州布里奇波特（Bridgeport, Connecticut）。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Despins","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":133,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1297,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1345,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1380,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1388,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1391,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:49:45"}