{"id":"court_ctb_1805_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1805,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","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| -------------------------------------------------------<br>x |        |                         |  |  |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--|--|\n|                                                              | :      |                         |  |  |\n| In re:                                                       | :      | Chapter 11              |  |  |\n|                                                              | :      |                         |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                         | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |\n| Debtors.1                                                    | :      | Jointly Administered    |  |  |\n|                                                              | :      |                         |  |  |\n| ------------------------------------------------------<br>x  |        |                         |  |  |\n\n## **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER COMPELLING GTV MEDIA GROUP, INC., SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC., AND G-CLUB OPERATIONS LLC TO COMPLY WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS AND FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER HOLDING G-CLUB US OPERATIONS LLC, G-CLUB US OPERATIONS INC., HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC, HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC, G-FASHION LLC, GNEWS LLC, US HIMALAYA CAPITAL INC., NEW YORK MOS HIMALAYA LLC, CRANE ADVISORY GROUP LLC, AND MAYWIND TRADING LLC IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO RESPOND TO RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed with respect to the Debtor's chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"), hereby files this motion (the \"Motion to Compel\") for entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"), pursuant to Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\"), and Rules 2004 and 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), compelling GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV Media\"), Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca Media\"), and G-Club Operations LLC (\"G-Club Operations,\" and together with GTV Media and Saraca Media, the \"Noncompliant Respondents\"), G-Club US\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span> <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) (the \"Debtor \") and Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Genever BVI Debtor\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever BVI Debtor 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\nOperations LLC, G-Club US Operations, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC (\"Hudson Diamond NY\"), Hudson Diamond Holding LLC (\"Hudson Diamond Holding\"), G-Fashion LLC (\"G-Fashion\"), GNews LLC (\"GNews\"), US Himalaya Capital Inc. (\"US Himalaya Capital\"), New York MOS Himalaya LLC (\"New York MOS Himalaya\"), Crane Advisory Group LLC (\"Crane Advisory Group\"), and Maywind Trading LLC (\"Maywind Trading\" and together with G-Club US Operations LLC, G-Club US Operations, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY, Hudson Diamond Holding, G-Fashion, GNews, US Himalaya Capital, New York MOS Himalaya, and Crane Advisory Group, the \"Defaulting Respondents\" and collectively with the Noncompliant Respondents, the \"Respondents\") to comply with this Court's Rule 2004 Orders[2](#page-1-0) and with the subpoenas (the \"Subpoenas\")[3](#page-1-1) the Trustee issued pursuant to such orders.[4](#page-1-2) In support of the Motion to Compel, the Trustee submits the *Declaration of Avram E. Luft in Support of Motion to Compel* (the \"Luft Declaration\"),[5](#page-1-3) and respectfully states as follows:\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. Since his appointment, the Trustee has been conducting an investigation at the Court's direction to identify potential assets of the Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\") notwithstanding\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span> <sup>2</sup> The term \"Rule 2004 Orders\" shall mean the Court's (i) *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Rule 2004 Discovery with Respect to Various Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor* [ECF No. 758] (the \"Associated Entity Rule 2004 Order\"), (ii) *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Second Supplemental Omnibus Motion for 2004 Examination* [ECF No. 1184] (the \"Second Supplemental Rule 2004 Order\"), and (iii) *Order Granting Third Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for entry of Order under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with respect to Additional Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor, Relevant Banks and Entities Doing Business with Debtor and Affiliated Entities* [ECF No. 1339] (the \"Third Supplemental Rule 2004 Order\").\n\n<span id=\"page-1-1\"></span><sup>3</sup> A copy of each Subpoena is attached to the Luft Declaration (as defined herein) at **Exs. B-1 to B-13**.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-2\"></span><sup>4</sup> In addition to the Respondents, the Trustee has also served Subpoenas on the following entities believed to be now dissolved: Infinity Treasury Management Inc., GNews Media Group Inc., Gbroadcast, LLC, and GLive, LLC.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-3\"></span><sup>5</sup> The Luft Declaration is being filed contemporaneously herewith.\n\nthe Debtor's contention that he has virtually no assets to his name. The Trustee's primary means of conducting the investigation thus far has been by seeking document productions pursuant to seven Rule 2004 Orders. The Trustee has served no less than 105 Subpoenas and corresponding Document Requests on Rule 2004 targets, and has received over 100,000 documents in response to those Requests. Yet, key Respondents have not complied with their Subpoenas, impeding the Trustee's investigation as to key investigation targets, and others have failed to respond altogether.\n\n2. Specifically, as set forth herein, the Noncompliant Respondents have refused to comply with the Subpoenas. Two Noncompliant respondents—GTV Media and Saraca Media who were served with Subpoenas in August, responded initially to their Subpoenas through counsel, but after lengthy meet and confers (but no productions of even a single document), their mutual counsel abruptly resigned, instead referring the Trustee's counsel to Aaron Mitchell, who has disclaimed any knowledge or responsibility for Saraca Media and has failed to provide Trustee's counsel the contact information of new counsel retained by GTV, if any. Since then, neither entity has communicated with the Trustee, much less produced any documents in response to their Subpoenas.\n\n3. The third Noncompliant Respondent, G-Club Operations initially objected to every single request in its Subpoena and refused to produce a single document, first claiming that it was willing to comply provided the requests were limited due to G-Clubs Operations' very limited connection to the Debtor (saying his only connection was as an unpaid spokesperson), and then, after it was pointed out that based on information presented to the Court, it had already been recognized by the Court that there was in fact a distinct connection between the Debtor and G-Club, G-Club Operations did another about face, asserting that it would again not agree to comply with the Subpoena because its client was insulted by counsel for the Trustee referencing the Debtor's connection to G-Club—a connection found to exist by this Court. More recently, counsel for G-Club Operations once more changed its tune, indicated a new willingness to comply, but noting that senior members of G-Club Operations' management team resigned following the organization being named in the March 15, 2023 SEC Complaint[6](#page-3-0) and that the entity was in the process of onboarding an independent director/manager, who would allegedly place responding to the Subpoena at the top of their priority list. However, despite multiple promises that only a day or two was needed, for the onboarding to happen and the production to start, we are now weeks later, and G-Club Operations still has not produced a single document responsive to the Subpoena.\n\n4. Further, the Trustee seeks relief against the Defaulting Respondents for failure to comply in any way with the Trustee's Subpoenas. The Defaulting Respondents, all of which have been served with Subpoenas, have failed to (i) communicate or meet and confer with the Trustee, despite multiple attempts by the Trustee to do so, (ii) serve responses and objections, or (iii) produce any responsive documents. The Defaulting Respondents should be held in civil contempt for such failure.\n\n5. All the Respondents addressed by this Motion are closely linked with the Debtor and are key targets to the Trustee's investigation into the Debtor's affairs. For instance, Saraca Media, the parent company to both GTV Media, GNews, and the other Kwok related G-media enterprises,\n\n. Saraca Media is also the registered owner of\n\ntrademarks associated with the Debtor's name and likeness. GTV Media, Saraca Media, Hudson Diamond NY, and Hudson Diamond Holding also all share a mailing address with Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., the Debtor's purported home office. G-Club Operations, G-Club US Operations\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>6</sup> Capitalized terms not defined within this Preliminary Statement take the meaning assigned to them, below.\n\nInc., G-Club US Operations LLC, G-Fashion, and GNews are all part of the Debtor's G-Series entities—entities that this Court held serve as business vehicles for the Debtor.\n\n### **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n### **I. Trustee's Rule 2004 Motions, Orders, and Subpoenas**\n\n6. On July 28, 2022 the Trustee filed a motion for Rule 2004 discovery as to various entities and individuals affiliated with the Debtor, including GTV Media and Saraca Media (the \"Associated Entity Rule 2004 Motion\").[7](#page-4-0)\n\n7. On August 16, 2022, the Court entered the Associated Entity Rule 2004 Order[8](#page-4-1) authorizing the Trustee to examine GTV Media and Saraca Media pursuant to Rule 2004 and serve the Subpoenas and document requests attached thereto. The Associated Entity Rule 2004 Order directed GTV Media and Saraca Media to, among other things: (i) \"produce all documents within 30 days of the service of the Subpoena, or such other time as agreed upon by the Trustee[,]\" and (ii) \"ensure that all documents and other information, including without limitation in any electronic format . . . are available for production . . . [and] are not destroyed.\"[9](#page-4-2)\n\n8. On August 19, 2022, the Trustee served a Subpoena on GTV Media via email.[10](#page-4-3) On August 22, 2022, the Trustee served a Subpoena on Saraca Media via process server.[11](#page-4-4) The Subpoenas directed GTV Media and Saraca Media to produce documents responsive to between twenty (20) and twenty-two (22) requests for production (\"Requests\") concerning the Debtor's\n\n<span id=\"page-4-2\"></span><sup>9</sup> *See id.* at 2.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span> <sup>7</sup> *See* [ECF No. 638].\n\n<span id=\"page-4-1\"></span><sup>8</sup> *See* [ECF 758].\n\n<span id=\"page-4-3\"></span><sup>10</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-1**.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-4\"></span><sup>11</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-2**.\n\nacts, conduct, and/or property, among other topics related to the Debtor's financial condition and affairs.[12](#page-5-0)\n\n9. On September 7, 2022, the Trustee submitted his first supplemental motion for Rule 2004 discovery with respect to additional professionals, persons and entities related to the Debtor, and relevant financial institutions (the \"First Supplemental Rule 2004 Motion\").[13](#page-5-1) On September 21, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the First Supplemental Rule 2004 Motion.[14](#page-5-2)\n\n10. On November 18, 2022, the Trustee filed a second supplemental omnibus motion for Rule 2004 discovery with respect to additional professionals, persons and entities related to the Debtor, and relevant financial institutions (the \"Second Supplemental Rule 2004 Motion\").[15](#page-5-3) On December 2, 2022 the Court entered the Second Supplemental Rule 2004 Order. [16](#page-5-4) The Second Supplemental Rule 2004 Order directed G-Club Operations, G-Club US Operations LLC, G-Club US Operations, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY, Hudson Diamond Holding, G-Fashion, GNews, and US Himalaya Capital, among others, to: (i) \"produce all documents within 30 days of the service of the subpoena, or such other time as agreed upon by the Trustee[,]\" and (ii) \"ensure that all documents and other information, including without limitation in any electronic format . . . are available for production . . . [and] are not destroyed.\"[17](#page-5-5)\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span> <sup>12</sup> The Requests are attached as Exhibit A to each of the Subpoenas. *See* n.3, *supra*.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-1\"></span><sup>13</sup> *See* [ECF No. 839].\n\n<span id=\"page-5-2\"></span><sup>14</sup> *See* [ECF No. 866].\n\n<span id=\"page-5-3\"></span><sup>15</sup> *See* [ECF No. 1116].\n\n<span id=\"page-5-4\"></span><sup>16</sup> *See* [ECF No. 1184].\n\n<span id=\"page-5-5\"></span><sup>17</sup> *Id.* at 3.\n\n11. Between December 7, 2022 and December 9, 2022, counsel to the Trustee served Subpoenas on G-Club Operations,[18](#page-6-0) G-Club US Operations LLC,[19](#page-6-1) G-Club US Operations, Inc.,[20](#page-6-2) Hudson Diamond NY,[21](#page-6-3) Hudson Diamond Holding,[22](#page-6-4) G-Fashion,[23](#page-6-5) GNews,[24](#page-6-6) and US Himalaya Capital. [25](#page-6-7) The Subpoenas directed each entity to produce documents responsive to twenty-one (21) Requests concerning the Debtor's acts, conduct, and/or property, among other topics related to the Debtor's financial condition and affairs.[26](#page-6-8)\n\n12. On December 21, 2022, the Trustee filed a third supplemental omnibus motion for Rule 2004 discovery with respect to additional professionals, persons and entities related to the Debtor, and relevant financial institutions (the \"Third Supplemental Rule 2004 Motion\").[27](#page-6-9) On January 18, 2023, the Court entered the Third Supplemental Rule 2004 Order.[28](#page-6-10) The Third Supplemental Rule 2004 Order directed New York MOS Himalaya, Crane Advisory Group, and Maywind Trading, among others, to: (i) \"produce all documents within 30 days of the service of the Subpoena, or such other time as agreed upon by the Trustee[,]\" and (ii) \"ensure that all\n\n<span id=\"page-6-2\"></span><sup>20</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-5**.\n\n- <span id=\"page-6-4\"></span><sup>22</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-7**.\n- <span id=\"page-6-5\"></span><sup>23</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-8**.\n- <span id=\"page-6-6\"></span><sup>24</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-9**.\n- <span id=\"page-6-7\"></span><sup>25</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-10**.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span> <sup>18</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-3**.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-1\"></span><sup>19</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-4**.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-3\"></span><sup>21</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-6**.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-8\"></span><sup>26</sup> The Requests are attached as Exhibit A to each of the Subpoenas. *See* n.3, *supra*.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-9\"></span><sup>27</sup> *See* [ECF No. 1259].\n\n<span id=\"page-6-10\"></span><sup>28</sup> *See* [ECF 1339].\n\ndocuments and other information, including without limitation in any electronic format . . . are available for production . . . [and] are not destroyed.\"[29](#page-7-0)\n\n13. Between January 25, 2023 and January 31, 2023, counsel to the trustee served Subpoenas on New York MOS Himalaya,[30](#page-7-1) Crane Advisory Group,[31](#page-7-2) and Maywind Trading. [32](#page-7-3) The Subpoenas directed each entity to produce documents responsive to twenty-one (21) Requests concerning the Debtor's acts, conduct, and/or property, among other topics related to the Debtor's financial condition and affairs.[33](#page-7-4)\n\n### **II. Background Regarding Respondents**\n\n14. Each of the Respondents is an entity associated with the Debtor. These Respondents are important discovery targets that are uniquely situated to have information directly related to the issues the Trustee is investigating, as follows:\n\n15. *GTV Media and Saraca Media***:** GTV Media is a media platform that acts as a centralized video platform hosting content that supports the Debtor's social media presence. Saraca Media is the parent company to GTV Media. Both Saraca Media and GTV Media list 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York as a corporate mailing address—the same address the Debtor listed as his address in his Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition.[34](#page-7-5)\n\n> . [35](#page-7-6)\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span> 29 *Id.* at 1, 2.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-1\"></span><sup>30</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-11**.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-2\"></span><sup>31</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-12**.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-3\"></span><sup>32</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. C-13**.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-4\"></span><sup>33</sup> The Requests are attached as Exhibit A to each of the Subpoenas. *See* n.3, *supra*.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-5\"></span><sup>34</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. O** (Saraca Media); **Ex. P** (GTV Media). *See also* [ECF No. 1].\n\n<span id=\"page-7-6\"></span><sup>35</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. G at HR0002388**.\n\n16.\n\n[36](#page-8-0) Saraca Media also\n\nis the registered owner with the United States Patent and Trademarks Office of the marks \"Miles Kwok,\" \"Miles Guo,\" and \"Guo Wengui.\"[37](#page-8-1) Finally, Saraca Media registered \"Himalaya Coin\" and \"Himalaya Dollar\" as its assumed names in the State of New York, using filings signed by Yvette Wang, president of Golden Spring.[38](#page-8-2)\n\n17. Saraca Media and GTV Media were the subject of an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the \"September 13, 2021 SEC Order\"), which resulted in an aggregate obligation to pay to the SEC more than \\$539 million in civil penalties, disgorgement, and interest.[39](#page-8-3) The September 13, 2021 SEC Order found that GTV Media and Saraca Media (along with Voice of Guo Media, Inc., who is not a Respondent to this Motion) conducted an illegal unregistered offering of GTV Media's common stock, and charged GTV Media and Saraca Media with an illegal unregistered offering of a crypto currency referred to as G-Coin or G-Dollar.\n\n18. *G-Club Operations, G-Club US Operations Inc., G-Club US Operations LLC, G-Fashion, and GNews*: The Debtor has a web of \"GSeries\" entities comprised of for-profit and notfor profit entities that are used as vehicles for the Debtor's commercial interests. The three G-Club\n\n<span id=\"page-8-0\"></span><sup>36</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. K**.\n\n<span id=\"page-8-1\"></span><sup>37</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. L**.\n\n<span id=\"page-8-2\"></span><sup>38</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. M** (Himalaya Coin Certificate of Assumed Name); **Ex. N** (Himalaya Dollar Certificate of Assumed Name).\n\n<span id=\"page-8-3\"></span><sup>39</sup> *See* U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Order, In the Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., and Voice of Guo Media, Inc., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-20537, Release No. 10979 (dated Sept. 13, 2021).\n\nRespondents offer a membership service which purports to provide \"'concierge customer service' and special access to [Debtor's] fashion collections, music releases, and an annual GSummit.\"[40](#page-9-0) G-Fashion is a clothing brand created and promoted by the Debtor. GNews is owned by Saraca Media and \"runs articles summarizing [Debtor's] pronouncements.\"[41](#page-9-1)\n\n19. In a Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the \"Preliminary Injunction Decision\"), this Court found that \"The GSeries includes the following entities: Himalaya Exchange, Gettr, **GFashion**, GMusic, **GClubs**, **GNews**, and GEdu\";[42](#page-9-2) \"The G in GSeries stands for Guo\";[43](#page-9-3) and \"The Debtor is the leader of the Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, and Himalaya. The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, **GSeries**, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\"[44](#page-9-4)\n\n20. *Hudson Diamond NY and Hudson Diamond Holding*: Hudson Diamond Holding is a Delaware limited liability company purportedly owned by Mei Guo.[45](#page-9-5) Hudson Diamond NY is a subsidiary of Hudson Diamond Holding. Both entities list 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York as a corporate mailing address. [46](#page-9-6) Both Yvette Wang[47](#page-9-7) and Max Krasner, acting as employees\n\n<span id=\"page-9-0\"></span> <sup>40</sup> *See* Dan Friedman, *A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued. The weird, wild, and scary tale of Miles Guo*, Mother Jones (March-April 2022 Issue) (last visited March 20, 2022), http).\n\n<span id=\"page-9-1\"></span><sup>41</sup> *Id.*\n\n<span id=\"page-9-2\"></span><sup>42</sup> Adv. P. No 22-05032 ECF No. 133 at pg. 10, ¶ 2 (emphasis added).\n\n<span id=\"page-9-3\"></span><sup>43</sup> *Id.* at pg. 10, ¶ 3.\n\n<span id=\"page-9-4\"></span><sup>44</sup> *Id.* at pg. 11, ¶7 (emphasis added).\n\n<span id=\"page-9-5\"></span><sup>45</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. G at HR0002387**.\n\n<span id=\"page-9-6\"></span><sup>46</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. H** (Hudson Diamond NY LLC); Luft Decl., **Ex. I** (Hudson Diamond Holding)\n\n<span id=\"page-9-7\"></span><sup>47</sup> The Court has already ruled that \"[t]he Debtor has control over Ms. Wang\" and that he \"has employed Yvette Wang for several years, and has directed her to take actions on his behalf, including directing her to act on his\n\nand/or agents of the Debtor, served as officers and/or authorized signatories of both Hudson Diamond NY and Hudson Diamond Holding.[48](#page-10-0) Hudson Diamond NY, through Max Krasner, explored numerous potential real estate purchases on behalf of the Debtor.[49](#page-10-1)\n\n#### 50\n\n21. *US Himalaya Capital and New York MOS Himalaya*: US Himalaya Capital and New York MOS Himalaya have been linked to \"Himalaya Farms,\" which the Preliminary Injunction Decision described as \"social media groups used by members of the [New Federal State of China, a purported government in exile founded by Debtor and Steve Bannon] to communicate with each other.\"[51](#page-10-2)\n\n22. *Crane Advisory*: Crane Advisory is a New York limited liability company believed to have received payments from the Debtor's unregistered security offerings.\n\n23. *Maywind Trading*: Maywind Trading is purportedly owned by Sarah Wei, who is also believed to be associated with GTV Media. Maywind Trading is believed to have received\n\nbehalf to purchase properties such as the Sherry-Netherland apartment.\" Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order ¶ 4 [ECF No. 1372].\n\n<span id=\"page-10-0\"></span><sup>48</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. T** (Wang elected as President and signing officer of Hudson Diamond NY. Krasner elected as Vice President.) ; **Ex. U** (Wang elected President Hudson Diamond Holding. Krasner elected Vice President.).\n\n<span id=\"page-10-1\"></span><sup>49</sup> *See* Luft Decl. **Ex. V** at 87:25-88:12 (Q: \"Were you ever told that there was any decision maker other than Mr. Kwok in connection with real estate transactions related to the work you were doing for Golden Spring, Greenwich Land, or Hudson Diamond [NY]?\" A: \"I was never told who was making the decisions on any of them . . . except in the e-mails, whatever was sent to me, but that was it.\" Q: \"And in those e-mails, the only person referenced was Miles Kwok, correct?\" A: \"Correct\").\n\n<sup>50</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. J**.\n\n<span id=\"page-10-2\"></span><sup>51</sup> Adv. P. No 22-05032 ECF No. 133 at pg. 10, ¶ 2.\n\npayments in connection with the Debtor's promotion of GTV Media and with the Debtor affiliated Himalaya Exchange.\n\n# **III. Noncompliant Respondents' Responses and Objections to Subpoenas**, **Discovery Conferences, and Document Productions**\n\n## **A. Saraca Media and GTV Media**\n\n24. On or around September 13, 2022, Jeremy Temkin of Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC (\"Morvillo\") informed counsel to the Trustee that his firm had been retained to represent GTV Media in response to the Subpoena and Requests. On or around September 16, 2022, Mr. Temkin informed counsel to the Trustee that Morvillo had also been retained to represent Saraca Media in response to its Subpoena and Requests.\n\n25. Counsel to the Trustee subsequently extended the deadline for GTV Media and Saraca Media to respond and object to their Subpoenas until October 3, 2022. The deadline for each entity's document production was extended to that same date.\n\n26. On October 3, 2022, Morvillo served timely objections and responses on behalf of both GTV Media[52](#page-11-0) and Saraca Media.[53](#page-11-1) GTV Media's and Saraca Media's objections and responses contained numerous offers of production subject to various general and specific objections and noted a willingness to meet and confer regarding most other of the Requests.\n\n27. On October 7, 2022, counsel to the Trustee met and conferred with Morvillo regarding GTV Media's and Saraca Media's objections and responses. During that meet and confer, the parties discussed a Relativity database that was set up in connection with document productions made by GTV Media and Saraca Media to the SEC in connection with the\n\n<span id=\"page-11-0\"></span> <sup>52</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. D-1**.\n\n<span id=\"page-11-1\"></span><sup>53</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. D-2**.\n\nSeptember 13, 2021 SEC Order (the \"GTV and Saraca Database\"). Morvillo indicated that it would provide counsel to the Trustee the parameters of the GTV and Saraca Database (the \"GTV and Saraca Database Parameters\"), to better allow counsel to the Trustee to determine the potential responsiveness of the documents in the GTV and Saraca Database to the Trustee's Subpoenas to GTV Media and Saraca Media. For instance, Morvillo indicated that the GTV and Saraca database may not have included documents from custodians potentially important to the Trustee's investigation, such as Aaron Mitchell—who Morvillo indicated served on GTV's Board. Counsel to the Trustee indicated a willingness to consider the documents on the GTV and Saraca Database, but said that without a complete understanding of the Databases parameters, and with key custodians potentially missing, the Trustee could not blindly accept the documents on the GTV and Saraca Database as a complete substitute for targeted searches responsive to the Subpoena and Requests.\n\n28. Counsel to the Trustee did not receive the GTV and Saraca Database Parameters until November 2, 2023.[54](#page-12-0) On November 7, 2022, counsel to the Trustee sent Morvillo a detailed list of questions regarding the GTV and Saraca Database Parameters.[55](#page-12-1)\n\n29. The Trustee never received responses to their follow-up questions regarding the GTV and Saraca Database.[56](#page-12-2)\n\n30. On November 28, 2022, more than fifty days after GTV Media's and Saraca Media's document productions were due, counsel to the Trustee demanded that both entities\n\n<span id=\"page-12-0\"></span> <sup>54</sup> *See* Luft Declaration **Ex. E at E-9**.\n\n<span id=\"page-12-1\"></span><sup>55</sup> *See* Luft Declaration **Ex. E at E-8**.\n\n<span id=\"page-12-2\"></span><sup>56</sup> *See* Luft Declaration **Ex. E at E-5 through E-7**.\n\ncomplete their production of documents (including privilege log(s)) on or before December 2, 2022.[57](#page-13-0)\n\n31. On November 29, 2022, Morvillo responded that it had ceased representing Saraca Media on November 23, 2022 and had ceased representing GTV Media on November 29, 2022.[58](#page-13-1) On December 1, 2022, and upon further inquiry by counsel to the Trustee, Morvillo clarified that it had withdrawn as counsel to both GTV Media and Saraca Media.[59](#page-13-2) On December 14, 2022, Morvillo indicated that all future inquiries regarding the Subpoenas to GTV Media and Saraca Media should be issued to Aaron Mitchell.[60](#page-13-3)\n\n32. On December 15, 2022 Counsel to the Trustee reached out to Aaron Mitchell regarding the Subpoenas to GTV Media and Saraca Media.[61](#page-13-4) On December 16, 2022, Mr. Mitchell indicated that he would speak to Mr. Temkin of Morvillo regarding GTV Media's Subpoena and would provide counsel to the Trustee with GTV Media's new counsel once retained.[62](#page-13-5) Mr. Mitchell indicated that he had no authority to act on behalf of Saraca Media.\n\n33. On December 21, 2022, counsel to the Trustee reached out to Mr. Mitchell inquiring whether GTV Media had retained new counsel.[63](#page-13-6) Counsel to the Trustee also inquired to whom communication should be directed with respect to Saraca Media's Subpoena. Counsel\n\n- <span id=\"page-13-2\"></span><sup>59</sup> *See* Luft Declaration **Ex. E at E-2**.\n- <span id=\"page-13-3\"></span><sup>60</sup> *See* Luft Declaration **Ex. E at E-1**.\n- <span id=\"page-13-4\"></span><sup>61</sup> *See* Luft Declaration **Ex. F at F-1 through F-2**.\n- <span id=\"page-13-5\"></span><sup>62</sup> *See* Luft Declaration **Ex. F at F-1**.\n- <span id=\"page-13-6\"></span><sup>63</sup> *Id.*\n\n<span id=\"page-13-0\"></span> <sup>57</sup> *See* Luft Declaration **Ex. E at E-4**.\n\n<span id=\"page-13-1\"></span><sup>58</sup> *See* Luft Declaration **Ex. E at E-2 through E-3**.\n\nto the Trustee has not received a response to these inquires, and has not received any document productions responsive to GTV Media's or Saraca Media's Subpoenas.\n\n### **B. G-Club Operations**\n\n34. On or around December 21, 2022, Carolina Fornos of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (\"Pillsbury\") reached out to counsel to the Trustee informing counsel to the Trustee that Pillsbury was retained by G-Club Operations to respond to its Subpoena and requesting to extend G-Club Operations' response and objection deadline.\n\n35. On December 21, 2022, counsel to the Trustee consented to a 14-day extension of time for G-Club Operations to respond and object to its Subpoena.\n\n36. On January 4, 2023, Pillsbury requested and was granted an additional 3-day extension to respond and object to G-Club Operations' Subpoena.\n\n37. On January 9, 2023, G-Club Operations served its objections and responses to its Subpoena.[64](#page-14-0) G-Club Operations' objections and responses contained a variety of boilerplate objections around relevance, proportionality, and breadth, among other things. G-Club Operations did not offer to produce any documents in response to its Subpoena.\n\n38. On February 9, 2023 counsel to the Trustee met and conferred with Ms. Fornos regarding G-Club Operations' objections and responses. Ms. Fornos relayed that she believed the Subpoena was too broad as to G-Club Operations, noting that the Debtor's entire relationship to G-Club Operations was that he was only an unpaid spokesperson for the entity. Counsel to the Trustee reiterated the findings that this Court made in the Preliminary Injunction Decision with regards to the Debtor's relationship to the GSeries entities, including the G-Club entities. Noting the Preliminary Injunction Decision, counsel to the Trustee stated that the record to date reflected\n\n<span id=\"page-14-0\"></span> <sup>64</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. D-3**.\n\nthat G-Club Operations was closely linked to the Debtor. Ms. Fornos agreed to re-review the Requests and highlight those requests where G-Club Operations did not have any responsive documents. Counsel to the Trustee agreed to brainstorm ways to focus on the highest priority Requests, potentially through the compilation of targeted search terms, while not agreeing that any requests were inappropriate or need not be responded to.\n\n39. On March 7, 2023, counsel to the Trustee held a second meet and confer with Ms. Fornos. Prior to this second meet and confer, and consistent with the parties' agreement in the first meet and confer, counsel to the Trustee prepared search terms for the highest priority Requests. However, during the second meet and confer, Ms. Fornos, for the first time, said that G-Club Operations was \"extremely troubled\" by the representations regarding the Debtor's relationship to G-Club Operations made during the parties' first meet and confer, where counsel to the Trustee reiterated the findings of this Court in the Preliminary Injunction Decision. Ms. Fornos said that G-Club Operations could not move forward with responding to its Subpoena given the statements by counsel reflecting the Court's decision. Ms. Fornos told counsel to the Trustee that G-Club Operations would inform the Trustee of any relief that G-Club Operations would seek with this Court with respect to the Preliminary Injunction Decision's findings of facts or G-Club Operations' Subpoena by March 10, 2023.\n\n40. Having not heard from Ms. Fornos regarding any relief sought by G-Club Operations, counsel to the Trustee emailed Ms. Fornos on April 6, 2023, demanding that G-Club Operations complete its entire production of responsive documents on or before April 10, 2023.[65](#page-15-0) On April 9, 2023, Ms. Fornos responded, in part, by saying that G-Club Operations \"has been busy understanding the charges that have been filed and how they impact the Trustee's\n\n<span id=\"page-15-0\"></span> <sup>65</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. Q at Q-1**.\n\nrequest.\"[66](#page-16-0) Ms. Fornos also requested another meet and confer to discuss the Trustee's Subpoena.[67](#page-16-1)\n\n41. On April 11, 2023, counsel to the Trustee held a third meet and confer with Ms. Fornos. Ms. Fornos indicated that a number of G-Club Operations' executives, including its chief executive officer, general counsel, and associate general counsel, resigned following the March 15, 2023 SEC Complaint, which named G-Club Operations.[68](#page-16-2) Counsel to the Trustee asked Ms. Fornos to prioritize responsive documents and records concerning G-Club Operations' bank accounts, assets, and any transfers of funds or assets. Ms. Fornos said that she would provide counsel to the Trustee an update no later than April 25, 2023.\n\n42. On April 25, 2023, Ms. Fornos emailed counsel to the Trustee reiterating that G-Club Operations \"experienced significant resignations of senior managers following the recent news relating to Miles Guo.\"[69](#page-16-3) Ms. Fornos said that G-Club Operations \"is in the process of retaining an independent director/manager,\" saying that \"we are optimistic that this can be in place by next week.\"[70](#page-16-4) Ms. Fornos said that once the independent director/manager was in place, the parties could \"discuss a path forward and schedule with respect to the Trustee's Rule 2004 requests[.]\" [71](#page-16-5)\n\n<span id=\"page-16-1\"></span><sup>67</sup> *Id.*\n\n<span id=\"page-16-4\"></span><sup>70</sup> *Id.*\n\n<span id=\"page-16-0\"></span> <sup>66</sup> *Id.*\n\n<span id=\"page-16-2\"></span><sup>68</sup> *See SEC v. Ho Wan Kwok, et. al.*, Complaint, United States District Court Southern District of New York, 1:23 cv-02200-PGG (March 15, 2023) (hereinafter referred to as the \"March 15, 2023 SEC Complaint\").\n\n<span id=\"page-16-3\"></span><sup>69</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. R at R-2**.\n\n<span id=\"page-16-5\"></span><sup>71</sup> *Id.*\n\n43. Counsel to the Trustee spoke with Ms. Fornos on April 28, 2023. Counsel to the Trustee requested that G-Club Operations begin producing responsive documents on May 1, 2023. Ms. Fornos indicated that G-Club Operations was in the process of onboarding the independent director/manager, a process she expected to be concluded in a few days, and said that the Trustee's Subpoena was at the top of the independent director's priority list. Ms. Fornos indicated that she would discuss the Subpoena with the independent director, and would update counsel to the Trustee by no later than May 3, 2023. Ms. Fornos said that she did not anticipate that G-Club Operations would have any difficulties producing responsive documents once the independent director was in place.\n\n44. Having not heard from Ms. Fornos on May 3, 2023, counsel for the Trustee reached out to Ms. Fornos on May 8, 2023 asking for an update as to G-Club Operations' compliance with the Subpoena.[72](#page-17-0) Counsel for the Trustee asked that G-Club Operations begin immediate production of responsive documents, and reserved all rights to seek assistance of this court if G-Club Operations did not begin immediate production.[73](#page-17-1) On May 9, 2023, Ms. Fornos emailed counsel to the Trustee saying, \"GClub Operations continues to actively work to engage an independent director. Although that effort is far along, it is not yet concluded. Once concluded, addressing the Trustee's requests is a top priority. We will provide you with an update next week.\"[74](#page-17-2) Over a month has passed since counsel for G-Club Operations noted the resignations of certain executives, as the third excuse they have offered for why they have not yet complied with their subpoena.\n\n#### **IV. Defaulting Respondents' Failure to Respond to Subpoenas**\n\n<span id=\"page-17-0\"></span> <sup>72</sup> *See* Luft Decl., **Ex. R at R-1.**\n\n<span id=\"page-17-1\"></span><sup>73</sup> *Id.*\n\n<span id=\"page-17-2\"></span><sup>74</sup> See Luft Decl., **Ex. S**.\n\n45. The Defaulting Respondents are G-Club US Operations LLC, G-Club US\n\nOperations Inc., Hudson Diamond NY, Hudson Diamond Holding, G-Fashion, GNews, US\n\nHimalaya Capital, New York MOS Himalaya, Crane Advisory Group, and Maywind Trading.\n\n46. The Trustee has served valid Subpoenas on all Defaulting Respondents.\n\n## Specifically:\n\n- Counsel to the Trustee served **Hudson Diamond NY** via process server on December 7, 2022 at a New York address for its registered agent. Hudson Diamond NY's deadline to serve objections was on December 21, 2022 and its deadline for the production of documents was on January 6, 2023. The Trustee has not received any objections or document productions from Hudson Diamond NY. Counsel to the Trustee sent a letter to the registered agent of Hudson Diamond NY on January 24, 2023 to follow up on the Subpoena. Counsel to the Trustee has received no response to this correspondence.\n- Counsel to the Trustee served **Hudson Diamond Holding** via process server on December 7, 2022 at a Delaware address for its registered agent. Hudson Diamond Holding's deadline to serve objections was on December 21, 2022 and its deadline for the production of documents was on January 6, 2023. The Trustee has not received any objections or document productions from Hudson Diamond Holding. Counsel to the Trustee sent a letter to the registered agent of Hudson Diamond Holding on January 4, 2023 to follow up on the Subpoena. Counsel to the Trustee has received no response to this correspondence.\n- Counsel to the Trustee served **GNews** via process server on December 7, 2022 at a Delaware address for its registered agent. GNews' deadline to serve objections was on December 21, 2022 and its deadline for the production of documents was on January 6, 2023. The Trustee has not received any objections or document productions from GNews.\n- Counsel to the Trustee served **G-Club US Operations LLC** via process server on December 7, 2022 at a Delaware address for its registered agent. G Club US Operations LLC's deadline to serve objections was on December 21, 2022 and its deadline for the production of documents was on January 6, 2023. The Trustee has not received any objections or document productions from G Club US Operations LLC. Counsel to the Trustee sent a letter to the registered agent of G Club US Operations LLC on January 4, 2023 to follow up on the Subpoena. Counsel to the Trustee has received no response to this correspondence.\n- Counsel to the Trustee served **G-Club US Operations Inc.** via process server on December 8, 2022 at a Delaware address for its registered agent. G Club US\n\nOperations Inc.'s deadline to serve objections was on December 22, 2022, and its deadline for the production of documents was on January 9, 2023. The Trustee has not received any objections or document productions from G Club US Operations Inc. Counsel to the Trustee sent a letter to the registered agent of G Club US Operations Inc. on January 4, 2023 to follow up on the Subpoena. Counsel to the Trustee has received no response to this correspondence.\n\n- Counsel to the Trustee served **US Himalaya Capital** via process server on December 8, 2022 at a Delaware address for its registered agent. US Himalaya Capital's deadline to serve objections was on December 22, 2022, and its deadline for the production of documents was on January 9, 2023. The Trustee has not received any objections or document productions from US Himalaya Capital. Counsel to the Trustee sent a letter to the registered agent of US Himalaya Capital on January 4, 2023 to follow up on the Subpoena. Counsel to the Trustee has received no response to this correspondence.\n- Counsel to the Trustee served **G-Fashion** via process server on December 9, 2022 at a Puerto Rico address for its registered agent. G-Fashion's deadline to serve objections was on December 23, 2022, and its deadline for the production of documents was on January 9, 2023. The Trustee has not received any objections or document productions from G-Fashion.\n- Counsel to the Trustee served **New York MOS Himalaya** via process server on January 25, 2023 at a Delaware address for its registered agent. New York MOS Himalaya's deadline to serve objections was on February 8, 2023, and its deadline for the production of documents was on February 27, 2023. The Trustee has not received any objections or document productions from New York MOS Himalaya. Counsel to the Trustee sent a letter to the registered agent of New York MOS Himalaya on February 15, 2023 to follow up on the Subpoena. Counsel to the Trustee has received no response to this correspondence.\n- Counsel to the Trustee served **Crane Advisory Group** via process server on January 25, 2023 at a New York address for its registered agent. Crane Advisory Group's deadline to serve objections was on February 8, 2023, and its deadline for the production of documents was on February 27, 2023. The Trustee has not received any objections or document productions from Crane Advisory Group. Counsel to the Trustee sent a letter to the registered agent of Crane Advisory Group on February 15, 2023 to follow up on the Subpoena. Counsel to the Trustee has received no response to this correspondence.\n- Counsel to the Trustee served **Maywind Trading** via process server on January 31, 2023 at an Illinois address for its registered agent. Maywind Trading's deadline to serve objections was on February 14, 2023, and its deadline for the production of documents was on March 2, 2023. The Trustee has not received any objections or document productions from Maywind Trading. Counsel to the Trustee sent a letter to the registered agent of Maywind Trading on February 15,\n\n2023 to follow up on the Subpoena. Counsel to the Trustee has received no response to this correspondence.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n47. The Court has jurisdiction to consider this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to, *inter alia*, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (A), (E), and (O).\n\n#### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n48. The Trustee seeks entry of the Proposed Order (1) compelling the Noncompliant Respondents to comply with the Rule 2004 Orders by searching for and producing documents responsive to the Requests within 14 days of the Order compelling production and (2) holding the Defaulting Respondents in civil contempt for failing to respond to the Subpoenas.\n\n#### **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n### **I. Noncompliant Respondents Must Produce Documents Responsive to the Subpoena**\n\n49. \"The purpose of a Rule 2004 examination is to assist a party in interest in determining the nature and extent of the bankruptcy estate, revealing assets, examining transactions and assessing whether wrongdoing has occurred.\" *In re Transmar Commodity Grp. Ltd.*, Case No. 16-13625-JLG, 2018 WL 4006324, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted). This includes revealing the nature and extent of the estate and in discovering assets of the debtor that may have been intentionally or unintentionally concealed. *In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996); *see also In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC*, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016) (\"Legitimate goals of Rule 2004 examinations include discovering assets, examining transactions, and determining whether wrongdoing has occurred.\") (internal quotation and citation omitted)); *id.* (noting that \"[u]nlike traditional discovery, which narrowly focuses on the issues germane to the dispute, the\n\nscope of Rule 2004 is broad and unfettered, and has been likened to a fishing expedition and an inquisition\") (internal citations and punctuation omitted); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b) (authorizing scope of 2004 examinations \"relat[ing] . . . to . . . property . . . and financial condition of the debtor, or to *any matter* which may affect the administration of the debtor's estate\") (emphasis added).\n\n50. Here, the Trustee served valid Subpoenas on GTV Media, Saraca Media, and G-Club Operations, and all three have failed to comply with the Subpoenas.\n\n### A. **GTV Media and Saraca Media Must Search for and Produce Documents Responsive to Requests**\n\n51. GTV Media and Saraca Media responded initially to the Trustee's Subpoenas through counsel, but have failed to respond following the sudden withdrawal of their counsel on the eve of a production demand—a demand made after months of delay. However, entities should not be excused from their obligations under an otherwise valid Subpoena due to the withdrawing of previous counsel or their failure to procure new counsel.\n\n52. Accordingly, GTV Media and Saraca Media should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to all of the Trustee's Requests.\n\n## B. **G-Club Operations Must Search for and Produce Documents Responsive to Requests**\n\n53. The Requests to G-Club Operations fall squarely within the universe of appropriate areas for inquiry under Bankruptcy Rule 2004. G-Club Operations did not move to quash the Subpoena and did not otherwise move for a protective order.\n\n54. The Trustee's Requests for information concerning the internal affairs of G-Club Operations, an entity closely associated with the Debtor, is especially appropriate given the Debtor's history of using such persons and entities as repositories of his assets and enablers of his lifestyle. Indeed, multiple courts have already determined that the Debtor hides his assets in shell\n\n22\n\ncompanies and through his family members. *See, e.g.*, *Eastern Profit Corp.,* 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (Eastern Profit is \"in essence, a shell corporation for\" the Debtor\"); Final Contempt Decision at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181 (Debtor had made \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members\").\n\n55. Counsel to G-Club Operations first indicated that G-Club Operations could not move forward in responding to the Subpoena because the requests were allegedly too broad given the (false) claimed tangential relationship between the Debtor and the entity, and then claimed they could not comply due to G-Club Operations' \"fundamental\" disagreement with counsel to the Trustee's referencing the decision of this Court with which G-Club Operations disagrees. More recently, G-Club Operations has delayed responding to the Subpoena for over another month, based on the pre-text that it is in the process of hiring an independent director or manager, and cannot comply with the subpoena until it does so. G-Club Operations' positions are extraordinary and unfounded in the law, and further delay cannot be tolerated. Counsel to the Trustee referenced the Preliminary Injunction Decision, which is law of the case, and the representation was made in direct response to an implausible and unsubstantiated representation made by counsel to G-Club Operations that the Debtor was a \"mere spokesperson\" for G-Club Operations. Mere disagreement with a valid Rule 2004 subpoena does not relieve a party of its obligations under the subpoena. *See, e.g., In re Corso*, 328 B.R. 375, 383 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (\"fishing expedition\" allowed) (citation omitted). Court orders, including Rule 2004 orders and subpoenas, are not mere suggestions or invitations for compliance. *See, e.g.*, *Springman v. City of Venice*, 2010 WL 3958734, at \\*1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2010) (\"Court orders … are not mere suggestions, but rather are directives, compliance with which is required absent an intervening order of the court.\"); *Daubert v. City of Lindsay*, 2011\n\nWL 2360900, at \\*7 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2011) (\"Court's orders are directives that must be followed, and are not mere suggestions.\").\n\n56. Moreover, the alleged fleeing of G-Club executives in the wake of the SEC Complaint are not an excuse to maintain G-Club Operations stonewalling of the Trustee.\n\n57. Accordingly, G-Club Operations should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to all of the Trustee's Requests.\n\n#### **II. The Defaulting Respondents Should be Held in Civil Contempt**\n\n58. As discussed above, the Defaulting Respondents—G-Club US Operations LLC, G-Club US Operations Inc., Hudson Diamond NY, Hudson Diamond Holding, G-Fashion, GNews, US Himalaya Capital, New York MOS Himalaya, Crane Advisory Group, and Maywind Trading—are all closely connected to the Debtor, his property, and his business dealings and are therefore highly likely to have documents relevant to the Trustee's investigation. All of the Defaulting Respondents, however, have failed to respond in any way to the Trustee's Subpoenas.\n\n59. Rule 45(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that \"[f]ailure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued.\" *In re Corso*, 328 B.R. 375, 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting FRCP 45(e)) (quotations omitted); *PaineWebber Inc. v. Acstar Ins. Co.*, 211 F.R.D. 247, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (\"Where a party fails to object to a subpoena and also fails to comply, it may be held in contempt, pursuant to Rule 45[(e)]\") (internal quotations omitted).\n\n60. In order to hold a party in civil contempt, \"the court need only (1) have entered a clear and unambiguous order, (2) find it established by clear and convincing evidence that the order was not complied with, and (3) find that the alleged contemnor has not clearly established\n\n24\n\nhis inability to comply with the terms of the order.\" *Huber v. Marine Midland Bank*, 51 F.3d 5, 10 (2d Cir. 1995) (*citing N.A. Sales Co. v. Chapman Indus. Corp.*, 736 F.2d 854, 857 (2d Cir. 1984)).\n\n61. In a civil contempt proceeding, a finding of contempt will be upheld so long as the order violated \"is clear and unambiguous, the proof of non-compliance [with the order] is clear and convincing, and the contemnor was not reasonably diligent in attempting to comply.\" *Corso*, 328 B.R. at 385 (quoting *United States v. Local 1804–1, Int'l Longshoremen's Assn.*, 44 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir.1995) (quotations omitted) (alterations in original)).\n\n62. Additionally, a party that fails to timely respond or object to a subpoena within the mandated period is not permitted to raise objections at a later time. *See Corso*, 328 B.R. at 384-85 (\"Because [the subpoenaed party] did not raise any timely objections to the Trustee's subpoena, or move to quash it in a timely manner [it] waived its right to object to the Subpoena.\").\n\n63. Finally, courts have found that a party that fails to respond or object to a subpoena may be sanctioned for that failure. *See PaineWebber Inc.*, 211 F.R.D. at 249 (\"Where a party fails to object to a subpoena and also fails to comply, it may be held in contempt, pursuant to Rule 45[(e)], **and sanctions may therefore be imposed**.\") (internal quotations omitted and emphasis added); *Corso*, 328 B.R. at 385-86 (upholding bankruptcy court's sanction of a party which made \"no effort\" to comply with a Rule 2004 subpoena). Specifically, courts in the Second Circuit have awarded attorneys' fees where a party fails to comply with a subpoena. *See Gucci Am., Inc. v. Li*, No. 10-CV-4974 (RJS), 2015 WL 7758872, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2015) (\"[C]ourts in this Circuit have awarded attorneys' fees where a party or a non-party willfully fails to comply with a subpoena.\").\n\n64. Here, service of the Document Requests attached to the Subpoenas on the Defaulting Respondents has occurred, and despite their awareness of the Subpoenas, the\n\n25\n\nDefaulting Respondents have either failed to comply or made no effort whatsoever to comply with the documents requests attached to the Subpoenas. *See id.* (affirming bankruptcy court's Contempt Order where service of subpoena was clear and unambiguous and no effort was made to comply). Accordingly, the Court should issue an order (i) holding the Defaulting Respondents in civil contempt of Court, (ii) preventing them from raising any objections to the Subpoenas, and (iii) ordering them to pay the Trustee's attorneys' fees related to this motion.\n\n#### **NO PRIOR REQUEST**\n\n65. The Trustee has not previously sought the relief requested herein from this or any other court.\n\n### **CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL**\n\n66. As set forth above, counsel to the Trustee has conferred with counsel to the Noncompliant Respondents in good faith via e-mail and in virtual conferences in an effort to resolve this dispute, which efforts were unsuccessful.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the Proposed Order granting the relief requested in this Motion to Compel and such other relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: May 18, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n## **Exhibit A – Proposed Order**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -------------------------------------------------------<br>x |        |                         |  |  |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--|--|\n|                                                              | :      |                         |  |  |\n| In re:                                                       | :      | Chapter 11              |  |  |\n|                                                              | :      |                         |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                         | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |\n| Debtors.1                                                    | :      | Jointly Administered    |  |  |\n|                                                              | :      |                         |  |  |\n| ------------------------------------------------------<br>x  |        |                         |  |  |\n\n## **[PROPOSED] ORDER COMPELLING GTV MEDIA GROUP, INC., SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC., AND G-CLUB OPERATIONS LLC TO COMPLY WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS AND HOLDING G-CLUB US OPERATIONS LLC, G-CLUB US OPERATIONS INC., HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC, HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC, G-FASHION LLC, GNEWS LLC, US HIMALAYA CAPITAL INC., NEW YORK MOS HIMALAYA LLC, CRANE ADVISORY GROUP LLC, AND MAYWIND TRADING LLC IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO RESPOND TO RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS**\n\nUpon consideration of the Motion seeking an order compelling GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV Media\"), Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca Media\"), and G-Club Operations LLC (\"G-Club Operations,\" and together with GTV Media and Saraca Media, the \"Noncompliant Respondents\"), G-Club US Operations LLC, G-Club US Operations, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC (\"Hudson Diamond NY\"), Hudson Diamond Holding LLC (\"Hudson Diamond Holding\"), G-Fashion LLC (\"G-Fashion\"), GNews LLC (\"GNews\"), US Himalaya Capital Inc. (\"US Himalaya Capital\"), New York MOS Himalaya LLC (\"New York MOS Himalaya\"), Crane Advisory Group LLC (\"Crane Advisory Group\"), Maywind Trading LLC (\"Maywind Trading\"\n\n<span id=\"page-28-0\"></span> <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) (the \"Debtor \") and Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Genever BVI Debtor\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever BVI Debtor 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 together with G-Club US Operations LLC, G-Club US Operations, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY, Hudson Diamond Holding, G-Fashion, GNews, US Himalaya Capital, New York MOS Himalaya, and Crane Advisory Group, the \"Defaulting Respondents\" and collectively with the Noncompliant Respondents, the \"Respondents\") to comply with the Court's Rule 2004 Orders[2](#page-29-0) and with the Subpoenas the Trustee issued pursuant to the Rule 2004 Orders, after notice and a hearing, *see* 11 U.S.C. § 102(1), it appearing that cause exists to grant the requested relief as conditioned hereafter; it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED**: The Motion is granted as set forth below.\n\n**ORDERED**: The Noncompliant Respondents must search for and produce documents in response to the Trustee's Subpoena and attached Requests within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order.\n\n**ORDERED**: Within 3 days of entry of this Order, in the event the Defaulting Respondents remain unresponsive to the Subpoenas, the Defaulting Respondents shall be in civil contempt of Court, shall be estopped from raising any objections to the Subpoenas, and shall be required to pay the Trustee's attorneys' fees related to this Motion.\n\nDated: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2023\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n<span id=\"page-29-0\"></span> <sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Order have the meanings set forth in the Motion to Compel.\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -------------------------------------------------------<br>x |        |                         |  |  |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| In re:                                                       | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |  |  |\n|                                                              | :      |                         |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                         | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |\n| Debtors.1                                                    | :      | Jointly Administered    |  |  |\n| ------------------------------------------------------       | :<br>x |                         |  |  |\n|                                                              |        |                         |  |  |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on May 18, 2023, the foregoing Motion was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case 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.[2](#page-30-1) Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDated: May 18, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847\n\n<span id=\"page-30-0\"></span> <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) (the \"Debtor \") and Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Genever BVI Debtor\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever BVI Debtor 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<span id=\"page-30-1\"></span><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\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Truste*","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\nx\n\n关于：　：　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，　：\n：　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1　：　合并管理\n\nx\n第11章受托人提出的请求作出命令，强制 GTV MEDIA GROUP, INC.（GTV媒体集团公司）、SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC.（Saraca媒体集团公司）及 G-CLUB OPERATIONS LLC（G-Club运营有限责任公司）遵从第2004条传票，并请求作出命令，认定 G-CLUB US OPERATIONS LLC（G-Club美国运营有限责任公司）、G-CLUB US OPERATIONS INC.（G-Club美国运营公司）、HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、G-FASHION LLC（G-时尚有限责任公司）、GNEWS LLC（GNews有限责任公司）、US HIMALAYA CAPITAL INC.（美国喜马拉雅资本公司）、NEW YORK MOS HIMALAYA LLC（纽约MOS喜马拉雅有限责任公司）、CRANE ADVISORY GROUP LLC（克兰咨询集团有限责任公司）及 MAYWIND TRADING LLC（Maywind贸易有限责任公司）因未对第2004条传票作出回应而构成民事藐视法庭的动议\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其作为就债务人第11章案件（下称“第11章案件”）指定的第11章受托人（下称“受托人”）之身份，现根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（下称“联邦规则”）第26条及第37条，以及《联邦破产程序规则》（下称“破产规则”）第2004条及第9016条，提交本动议（下称“强制遵从动议”），请求作出实质上采用随附附件A（下称“拟议命令”）形式的命令，强制 GTV Media、Saraca Media及G-Club Operations（下称“G-Club Operations”，并与GTV Media及Saraca Media合称“未遵从答复方”）、G-Club US\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及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）（下称“债务人”）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司）（下称“Genever BVI债务人”）。受托人及Genever BVI债务人的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok遗产的受托人（仅为通知及通讯之目的）。\n\nOperations LLC、G-Club US Operations, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY（下称“Hudson Diamond NY”）、Hudson Diamond Holding（下称“Hudson Diamond Holding”）、G-Fashion（下称“G-Fashion”）、GNews（下称“GNews”）、US Himalaya Capital（下称“US Himalaya Capital”）、New York MOS Himalaya（下称“New York MOS Himalaya”）、Crane Advisory Group（下称“Crane Advisory Group”）及Maywind Trading（下称“Maywind Trading”，并与G-Club US Operations LLC、G-Club US Operations, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY、Hudson Diamond Holding、G-Fashion、GNews、US Himalaya Capital、New York MOS Himalaya及Crane Advisory Group合称“缺席答复方”，且与未遵从答复方合称“答复方”）遵从本院的第2004条命令[2]及受托人依据该等命令发出的传票（下称“传票”）。[3] 为支持强制遵从动议，受托人提交Avram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）支持强制遵从动议的声明（下称“Luft声明”），[5] 并谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 自其获任以来，尽管债务人主张其名下实际上并无资产，受托人一直依照本院指示进行调查，以识别债务人遗产（下称“遗产”）的潜在资产。迄今为止，受托人进行该调查的主要方式，是依据七项第2004条命令寻求文件提交。受托人已向第2004条调查对象送达不少于105份传票及相应的文件请求，并已收到逾100,000份回应该等请求的文件。然而，关键答复方未遵从其传票，妨碍了受托人对关键调查对象的调查，另有答复方则完全未作回应。\n\n2. 具体而言，如下文所述，未遵从答复方拒绝遵从传票。两名未遵从答复方——于8月获送达传票的GTV Media及Saraca Media——最初通过律师就其传票作出回应，但在经历长时间协商（却未提交哪怕一份文件）后，其共同律师突然辞任，转而将受托人的律师引介给Aaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）；后者否认知悉或对Saraca Media负有任何责任，且未向受托人的律师提供GTV新聘律师（如有）的联系信息。自此，两实体均未与受托人沟通，更遑论就其传票提交任何文件。\n\n3. 第三名未遵从答复方G-Club Operations最初对其传票中的每一项请求均提出异议，并拒绝提交任何文件。其先是主张，只要因G-Club Operations与债务人的关联极为有限而限制请求范围，其即愿意遵从（称其唯一关联是作为一名无偿发言人）；其后，在有人指出根据提交本院的信息，本院已确认债务人与G-Club之间事实上存在明确关联后，G-Club Operations又再次改变立场，主张其仍不同意遵从传票，因为受托人的律师提及债务人与G-Club的关联，使其客户受到冒犯——该关联已由本院认定存在。更近时，G-Club Operations的律师再次改变说法，表示愿意遵从，但指出在该组织被列入2023年3月15日的SEC起诉书[6]后，G-Club Operations管理团队的高级成员已辞职，且该实体正在聘任一名独立董事/经理，据称该人士将把回应传票置于优先事项之首。然而，尽管多次承诺只需一两天即可完成聘任并开始提交文件，如今已过去数周，G-Club Operations仍未提交任何一份回应传票的文件。\n\n4. 此外，受托人请求就缺席答复方未以任何方式遵从受托人的传票而获得救济。所有已获送达传票的缺席答复方均未能：(i) 尽管受托人多次尝试与其沟通或协商，却未与受托人沟通或协商；(ii) 送达答复及异议；或(iii) 提交任何回应性文件。缺席答复方应因该等未履行而被认定构成民事藐视法庭。\n\n5. 本动议所涉及的所有答复方均与债务人密切关联，并且是受托人调查债务人事务的关键对象。例如，Saraca Media作为GTV Media、GNews及其他与Kwok有关的G-media企业的母公司，\n\n。Saraca Media亦为与债务人姓名及肖像有关商标的登记所有人。GTV Media、Saraca Media、Hudson Diamond NY及Hudson Diamond Holding还均与债务人所谓的家庭办公室Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.共用一个邮寄地址。G-Club Operations、G-Club US Operations\n\n6 本初步陈述中未定义的首字母大写术语，具有下文赋予其的含义。\n\nInc.、G-Club US Operations LLC、G-Fashion及GNews均属于债务人的G-Series实体——本院认定该等实体充当债务人的商业工具。\n\n事实背景\n\n一、受托人的第2004条动议、命令及传票\n\n6. 2022年7月28日，受托人就与债务人有关联的多个实体及个人（包括GTV Media及Saraca Media）提交第2004条证据开示动议（下称“关联实体第2004条动议”）。[7]\n\n7. 2022年8月16日，本院作出关联实体第2004条命令[8]，授权受托人根据第2004条审查GTV Media及Saraca Media，并送达随附的传票及文件请求。关联实体第2004条命令指示GTV Media及Saraca Media，除其他事项外：(i) “在传票送达后30日内，或在受托人同意的其他期限内，提交所有文件[，]”及(ii) “确保所有文件及其他信息，包括但不限于任何电子格式的信息……可供提交……[且]不被销毁。”[9]\n\n8. 2022年8月19日，受托人通过电子邮件向GTV Media送达传票。[10] 2022年8月22日，受托人通过送达员向Saraca Media送达传票。[11] 该等传票要求GTV Media及Saraca Media提交回应二十（20）至二十二（22）项文件提交请求（下称“请求”）的文件；该等请求涉及债务人的\n\n9 见同上，第2页。\n\n7 见[ECF No. 638]。\n\n8 见[ECF 758]。\n\n10 见Luft声明，附件C-1。\n\n11 见Luft声明，附件C-2。\n\n行为、举止和/或财产，以及与债务人财务状况及事务有关的其他议题。[12]\n\n9. 2022年9月7日，受托人就与债务人有关的其他专业人士、个人及实体以及相关金融机构，提交其首份补充第2004条证据开示动议（下称“首份补充第2004条动议”）。[13] 2022年9月21日，本院作出命令，准许首份补充第2004条动议。[14]\n\n10. 2022年11月18日，受托人就与债务人有关的其他专业人士、个人及实体以及相关金融机构，提交第二份补充综合第2004条证据开示动议（下称“第二份补充第2004条动议”）。[15] 2022年12月2日，本院作出第二份补充第2004条命令。[16] 第二份补充第2004条命令指示G-Club Operations、G-Club US Operations LLC、G-Club US Operations, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY、Hudson Diamond Holding、G-Fashion、GNews及US Himalaya Capital等，(i) “在传票送达后30日内，或在受托人同意的其他期限内，提交所有文件[，]”及(ii) “确保所有文件及其他信息，包括但不限于任何电子格式的信息……可供提交……[且]不被销毁。”[17]\n\n12 该等请求作为附件A附于每份传票。见上文脚注3。\n\n13 见[ECF No. 839]。\n\n14 见[ECF No. 866]。\n\n15 见[ECF No. 1116]。\n\n16 见[ECF No. 1184]。\n\n17 同上，第3页。\n\n11. 2022年12月7日至2022年12月9日期间，受托人的律师向G-Club Operations（G-Club运营公司）[18]、G-Club US Operations LLC（G-Club美国运营有限责任公司）[19]、G-Club US Operations, Inc.（G-Club美国运营股份有限公司）[20]、Hudson Diamond NY（Hudson Diamond纽约）[21]、Hudson Diamond Holding（Hudson Diamond控股）[22]、G-Fashion（G时尚）[23]、GNews（G新闻）[24]及US Himalaya Capital（美国喜马拉雅资本）[25]送达了传票。该等传票指示各实体提交对二十一（21）项请求事项作出回应的文件；该等请求事项涉及债务人的作为、行为和／或财产，以及与债务人财务状况和事务有关的其他主题。[26]\n\n12. 2022年12月21日，受托人就与债务人有关的其他专业人士、个人和实体，以及相关金融机构，提交了第三份补充Rule 2004证据开示综合动议（以下简称“第三份补充Rule 2004动议”）。[27] 2023年1月18日，本院作出第三份补充Rule 2004命令。[28] 第三份补充Rule 2004命令指示New York MOS Himalaya（纽约MOS喜马拉雅）、Crane Advisory Group（Crane咨询集团）和Maywind Trading（Maywind贸易）等实体：(i)“在送达传票后30日内，或在受托人同意的其他期限内，提交所有文件[，]”；及(ii)“确保所有文件和其他信息，包括但不限于任何电子格式的文件和信息……均可供提交……[并且]不被销毁。”[29]\n\n20. 参见Luft声明，第C-5号证物。\n\n22. 参见Luft声明，第C-7号证物。\n\n23. 参见Luft声明，第C-8号证物。\n\n24. 参见Luft声明，第C-9号证物。\n\n25. 参见Luft声明，第C-10号证物。\n\n18. 参见Luft声明，第C-3号证物。\n\n19. 参见Luft声明，第C-4号证物。\n\n21. 参见Luft声明，第C-6号证物。\n\n26. 各传票均将该等请求事项作为附件A附后。参见上文注释3。\n\n27. 参见[ECF No. 1259]。\n\n28. 参见[ECF 1339]。\n\n13. 2023年1月25日至2023年1月31日期间，受托人的律师向New York MOS Himalaya[30]、Crane Advisory Group[31]和Maywind Trading[32]送达了传票。该等传票指示各实体提交对二十一（21）项请求事项作出回应的文件；该等请求事项涉及债务人的作为、行为和／或财产，以及与债务人财务状况和事务有关的其他主题。[33]\n\nII. 关于被申请人的背景情况\n\n14. 每一被申请人均为与债务人有关联的实体。该等被申请人是重要的证据开示对象，因其具有独特条件，掌握与受托人正在调查的问题直接相关的信息，具体如下：\n\n15. GTV Media（GTV媒体）和Saraca Media（Saraca媒体）：GTV Media是一个媒体平台，作为集中式视频平台，托管支持债务人社交媒体活动的内容。Saraca Media是GTV Media的母公司。Saraca Media和GTV Media均将162 East 64th Street, New York, New York列为公司邮寄地址——该地址与债务人在其Chapter 11自愿申请书中所列地址相同。[34]\n\n。[35]\n\n29. 同上，第1、2页。\n\n30. 参见Luft声明，第C-11号证物。\n\n31. 参见Luft声明，第C-12号证物。\n\n32. 参见Luft声明，第C-13号证物。\n\n33. 各传票均将该等请求事项作为附件A附后。参见上文注释3。\n\n34. 参见Luft声明，第O号证物（Saraca Media）；第P号证物（GTV Media）。另参见[ECF No. 1]。\n\n35. 参见Luft声明，第G号证物，第HR0002388页。\n\n16. [36] Saraca Media亦为“Miles Kwok”、“Miles Guo”和“Guo Wengui”商标在United States Patent and Trademarks Office（美国专利商标局）的注册所有人。[37] 最后，Saraca Media使用由Golden Spring（Golden Spring公司）总裁Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）签署的备案文件，在纽约州将“Himalaya Coin”和“Himalaya Dollar”登记为其假定名称。[38]\n\n17. Saraca Media和GTV Media曾是U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会，以下简称“SEC”）提交的启动停止及终止程序命令（以下简称“2021年9月13日SEC命令”）的对象，该命令导致其承担向SEC支付逾\\$539 million民事罚款、追缴款项及利息的合计义务。[39] 2021年9月13日SEC命令认定，GTV Media和Saraca Media（连同并非本动议被申请人的Voice of Guo Media, Inc.（郭媒体之声股份有限公司））进行了GTV Media普通股的非法未注册发行，并指控GTV Media和Saraca Media非法未注册发行一种被称为G-Coin或G-Dollar的加密货币。\n\n18. G-Club Operations、G-Club US Operations Inc.、G-Club US Operations LLC、G-Fashion和GNews：债务人拥有由营利性及非营利性实体组成的“GSeries”实体网络，该等实体被用作服务于债务人商业利益的工具。三名G-Club被申请人提供一项会员服务，据称提供“‘礼宾客户服务’以及获得[债务人]时装系列、音乐发行作品和年度GSummit的特别机会。”[40] G-Fashion是由债务人创立并推广的服装品牌。GNews由Saraca Media拥有，并且“刊载概述[债务人]言论的文章。”[41]\n\n36. 参见Luft声明，第K号证物。\n\n37. 参见Luft声明，第L号证物。\n\n38. 参见Luft声明，第M号证物（Himalaya Coin假定名称证书）；第N号证物（Himalaya Dollar假定名称证书）。\n\n39. 参见U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission，命令，In the Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., and Voice of Guo Media, Inc.，Admin. Proc. File No. 3-20537，Release No. 10979（dated Sept. 13, 2021）。\n\n19. 在本院部分准予初步禁令动议的经更正决定备忘录（以下简称“初步禁令决定”）中，本院认定：“GSeries包括以下实体：Himalaya Exchange、Gettr、GFashion、GMusic、GClubs、GNews和GEdu”；[42]“GSeries中的G代表Guo”；[43]以及“债务人是Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF和Himalaya的领导人。Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries和Himalaya服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员个人上忠于债务人。”[44]\n\n20. Hudson Diamond NY和Hudson Diamond Holding：Hudson Diamond Holding是一家据称由Mei Guo（郭梅）拥有的Delaware（特拉华州）有限责任公司。[45] Hudson Diamond NY是Hudson Diamond Holding的子公司。两家实体均将162 East 64th Street, New York, New York列为公司邮寄地址。[46] Yvette Wang[47]和Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）均以债务人雇员和／或代理人的身份，担任Hudson Diamond NY和Hudson Diamond Holding两家实体的高级职员和／或授权签字人。[48] Hudson Diamond NY通过Max Krasner代表债务人考察了多项潜在房地产购买事项。[49]\n\n40. 参见Dan Friedman，《一名逃亡的中国大亨遇见了Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）。随之而来的是错误信息的混乱。这是关于Miles Guo的怪异、狂野且令人恐惧的故事》，Mother Jones（2022年3月至4月刊）（最后访问于2022年3月20日），http)。\n\n41. 同上。\n\n42. Adv. P. No 22-05032 ECF No. 133 at pg. 10, ¶ 2（着重号为原文所加）。\n\n43. 同上，第10页，第3段。\n\n44. 同上，第11页，第7段（着重号为原文所加）。\n\n45. 参见Luft声明，第G号证物，第HR0002387页。\n\n46. 参见Luft声明，第H号证物（Hudson Diamond NY LLC）；Luft声明，第I号证物（Hudson Diamond Holding）。\n\n47. 本院已经裁定：“债务人对Wang女士具有控制权”，且其“已雇用Yvette Wang数年，并指示其代表其采取行动，包括指示其代表其购买诸如Sherry-Netherland公寓等物业。”《准许认定债务人藐视公司治理命令动议的命令》第4段[ECF No. 1372]。\n\n48. 参见Luft声明，第T号证物（Wang当选为Hudson Diamond NY的总裁及签字高级职员。Krasner当选为副总裁）；第U号证物（Wang当选为Hudson Diamond Holding总裁。Krasner当选为副总裁）。\n\n49. 参见Luft声明，第V号证物，第87:25-88:12页（问：“就你为Golden Spring、Greenwich Land或Hudson Diamond [NY]所从事的工作相关房地产交易而言，是否曾有人告诉你，除Kwok先生外还有其他决策者？”答：“从未有人告诉我由谁就其中任何事项作出决定……除了电子邮件中发送给我的内容，但仅此而已。”问：“而在那些电子邮件中，唯一被提及的人是Miles Kwok，对吗？”答：“对。”）。\n\n21. US Himalaya Capital和New York MOS Himalaya：US Himalaya Capital和New York MOS Himalaya与“Himalaya Farms”有关联；初步禁令决定将其描述为“由[New Federal State of China（新中国联邦，一个由债务人和Steve Bannon创立的据称流亡政府）]成员用于相互交流的社交媒体群组。”[51]\n\n22. Crane Advisory（Crane咨询公司）：Crane Advisory是一家纽约有限责任公司，据信曾收到源于债务人未注册证券发行的付款。\n\n23. Maywind Trading：Maywind Trading据称由Sarah Wei（萨拉·魏）所有，而Sarah Wei亦据信与GTV Media有关联。Maywind Trading据信曾收到与债务人推广GTV Media以及与债务人有关联的Himalaya Exchange有关的付款。\n\n50. 参见Luft声明，第J号证物。\n\n51. Adv. P. No 22-05032 ECF No. 133 at pg. 10, ¶ 2.\n\nIII. 不合规被申请人对传票的回应及异议、证据开示协商和文件提交\n\nA. Saraca Media和GTV Media\n\n24. 约于2022年9月13日，Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC（Morvillo律师事务所，以下简称“Morvillo”）的Jeremy Temkin（杰里米·特姆金）告知受托人的律师，其律师事务所已受聘就传票和请求事项代表GTV Media。约于2022年9月16日，Temkin先生告知受托人的律师，Morvillo亦已受聘就Saraca Media的传票和请求事项代表Saraca Media。\n\n25. 此后，受托人的律师将GTV Media和Saraca Media对其传票作出回应及提出异议的截止日期延至2022年10月3日。各实体提交文件的截止日期亦延至同一日期。\n\n26. 2022年10月3日，Morvillo代表GTV Media[52]和Saraca Media[53]及时送达了异议和回应。GTV Media和Saraca Media的异议及回应载有多项在各种一般性及具体异议限制下提交文件的提议，并表示愿意就大多数其他请求事项进行协商。\n\n27. 2022年10月7日，受托人的律师与Morvillo就GTV Media和Saraca Media的异议及回应进行了协商。在该次协商中，各方讨论了一个Relativity数据库，该数据库系就GTV Media和Saraca Media针对2021年9月13日SEC命令向SEC提交文件而建立（以下简称“GTV和Saraca数据库”）。Morvillo表示，其将向受托人的律师提供GTV和Saraca数据库的参数（以下简称“GTV和Saraca数据库参数”），以更好地使受托人的律师能够确定GTV和Saraca数据库中文件对于受托人向GTV Media和Saraca Media发出的传票的潜在相关性。例如，Morvillo表示，GTV和Saraca数据库可能未包括对受托人调查具有潜在重要性的文件保管人的文件，例如Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）——Morvillo表示其曾任GTV董事会成员。受托人的律师表示愿意考虑GTV和Saraca数据库中的文件，但称，若未能完整了解数据库参数，且关键文件保管人可能缺失，受托人不能盲目接受GTV和Saraca数据库中的文件，将其作为针对传票和请求事项进行定向检索的完整替代。\n\n52. 参见Luft声明，第D-1号证物。\n\n53. 参见Luft声明，第D-2号证物。\n\n28. 直至2023年11月2日，受托人的律师才收到GTV和Saraca数据库参数。[54] 2022年11月7日，受托人的律师向Morvillo发送了一份关于GTV和Saraca数据库参数的详细问题清单。[55]\n\n29. 受托人从未收到对其有关GTV和Saraca数据库的后续问题的回应。[56]\n\n30. 2022年11月28日，在GTV Media（GTV传媒）和Saraca Media（萨拉卡传媒）的文件提交期限届满五十余日后，受托人的律师要求两实体于2022年12月2日或之前完成其文件提交（包括特权日志）。[57]\n\n54 见Luft Declaration（卢夫声明）附件E，第E-9页。\n\n55 见Luft Declaration（卢夫声明）附件E，第E-8页。\n\n56 见Luft Declaration（卢夫声明）附件E，第E-5页至E-7页。\n\n31. 2022年11月29日，Morvillo（莫维洛律师事务所）回复称，其已于2022年11月23日停止代理Saraca Media，并于2022年11月29日停止代理GTV Media。[58] 2022年12月1日，受托人的律师进一步询问后，Morvillo澄清称，其已退出担任GTV Media和Saraca Media的律师。[59] 2022年12月14日，Morvillo表示，今后有关向GTV Media和Saraca Media送达的传票的所有询问，均应向Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）提出。[60]\n\n32. 2022年12月15日，受托人的律师就向GTV Media和Saraca Media送达的传票联系了Aaron Mitchell。[61] 2022年12月16日，Mitchell先生表示，他将就GTV Media的传票与Morvillo的Temkin先生沟通，并将在GTV Media聘请新律师后向受托人的律师提供其新律师的信息。[62] Mitchell先生表示，他无权代表Saraca Media采取行动。\n\n33. 2022年12月21日，受托人的律师联系Mitchell先生，询问GTV Media是否已聘请新律师。[63] 受托人的律师还询问，就Saraca Media的传票而言，应向何人发送通信。受托人的律师尚未收到对这些询问的回复，且尚未收到任何响应GTV Media或Saraca Media传票的文件提交。\n\n59 见Luft Declaration附件E，第E-2页。\n\n60 见Luft Declaration附件E，第E-1页。\n\n61 见Luft Declaration附件F，第F-1页至第F-2页。\n\n62 见Luft Declaration附件F，第F-1页。\n\n63 同上。\n\n57 见Luft Declaration附件E，第E-4页。\n\n58 见Luft Declaration附件E，第E-2页至第E-3页。\n\nB. G-Club Operations（G-Club运营）\n\n34. 约于2022年12月21日，Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP（Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 律师事务所，以下简称“Pillsbury”）的Carolina Fornos（卡罗琳娜·福尔诺斯）联系受托人的律师，告知受托人的律师Pillsbury受G-Club Operations聘请，就其传票作出回应，并请求延长G-Club Operations的答复和提出异议期限。\n\n35. 2022年12月21日，受托人的律师同意将G-Club Operations对其传票作出回应并提出异议的期限延长14日。\n\n36. 2023年1月4日，Pillsbury请求并获准额外延长3日，以对G-Club Operations的传票作出回应并提出异议。\n\n37. 2023年1月9日，G-Club Operations送达了其对传票的异议和答复。[64] G-Club Operations的异议和答复包含多项关于相关性、相称性和范围广泛性等事项的样板式异议。G-Club Operations未提出将提交任何文件以回应其传票。\n\n38. 2023年2月9日，受托人的律师就G-Club Operations的异议和答复与Fornos女士举行了会谈。Fornos女士转达称，她认为就G-Club Operations而言，该传票范围过于广泛，并指出债务人与G-Club Operations的全部关系仅为其是该实体的一名无偿发言人。受托人的律师重申了本院在初步禁令裁定中就债务人与GSeries实体（包括G-Club实体）的关系所作的认定。受托人的律师援引初步禁令裁定称，迄今为止的记录反映，G-Club Operations与债务人关系密切。Fornos女士同意重新审查各项请求，并标明G-Club Operations没有任何响应性文件的请求。受托人的律师同意集思广益，研究如何聚焦于最优先的请求，可能通过汇编有针对性的搜索词，但并未同意任何请求不当或无须作出回应。\n\n64 见Luft Decl.（卢夫声明），附件D-3。\n\n39. 2023年3月7日，受托人的律师与Fornos女士举行了第二次会谈。在此次第二次会谈之前，并根据双方在第一次会谈中达成的协议，受托人的律师为最优先的请求准备了搜索词。然而，在第二次会谈中，Fornos女士首次表示，G-Club Operations对双方第一次会谈中有关债务人与G-Club Operations关系的陈述“极为不安”；在该次会谈中，受托人的律师重申了本院在初步禁令裁定中的认定。Fornos女士表示，鉴于律师所作反映本院裁定的陈述，G-Club Operations无法继续就其传票作出回应。Fornos女士告知受托人的律师，G-Club Operations将于2023年3月10日前告知受托人，其拟就初步禁令裁定中的事实认定或G-Club Operations的传票向本院寻求何种救济。\n\n40. 因未收到Fornos女士关于G-Club Operations所寻求任何救济的消息，受托人的律师于2023年4月6日向Fornos女士发送电子邮件，要求G-Club Operations于2023年4月10日或之前完成其全部响应性文件的提交。[65] 2023年4月9日，Fornos女士回复时部分表示，G-Club Operations“一直忙于了解已提出的指控及其如何影响受托人的请求”。[66] Fornos女士还请求再举行一次会谈，以讨论受托人的传票。[67]\n\n65 见Luft Decl.，附件Q，第Q-1页。\n\n41. 2023年4月11日，受托人的律师与Fornos女士举行了第三次会谈。Fornos女士表示，G-Club Operations的多名高管，包括其首席执行官、总法律顾问和副总法律顾问，在2023年3月15日美国证券交易委员会起诉书将G-Club Operations列名后辞职。[68] 受托人的律师要求Fornos女士优先处理有关G-Club Operations银行账户、资产以及任何资金或资产转移的响应性文件和记录。Fornos女士表示，她将不迟于2023年4月25日向受托人的律师提供最新情况。\n\n42. 2023年4月25日，Fornos女士向受托人的律师发送电子邮件，重申G-Club Operations“在有关Miles Guo（郭文贵）的近期新闻之后经历了高级管理人员的大量辞职”。[69] Fornos女士表示，G-Club Operations“正在聘请一名独立董事/经理”，并称“我们乐观地认为，这可以在下周到位”。[70] Fornos女士表示，一旦独立董事/经理到位，双方即可“讨论就受托人的Rule 2004请求而推进的路径和时间安排”。[71]\n\n67 同上。\n\n70 同上。\n\n66 同上。\n\n68 见SEC v. Ho Wan Kwok（美国证券交易委员会诉郭文贵）等，起诉书，United States District Court Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院），1:23 cv-02200-PGG（2023年3月15日）（以下简称“2023年3月15日SEC起诉书”）。\n\n69 见Luft Decl.，附件R，第R-2页。\n\n71 同上。\n\n43. 受托人的律师于2023年4月28日与Fornos女士交谈。受托人的律师要求G-Club Operations于2023年5月1日开始提交响应性文件。Fornos女士表示，G-Club Operations正在办理独立董事/经理的入职手续，她预计该程序将在数日内完成，并称受托人的传票是独立董事优先事项清单中的首要事项。Fornos女士表示，她将与独立董事讨论该传票，并将不迟于2023年5月3日向受托人的律师提供最新情况。Fornos女士表示，她预计一旦独立董事到位，G-Club Operations在提交响应性文件方面不会有任何困难。\n\n44. 因于2023年5月3日未收到Fornos女士的消息，受托人的律师于2023年5月8日联系Fornos女士，请求提供G-Club Operations遵守传票情况的最新信息。[72] 受托人的律师要求G-Club Operations立即开始提交响应性文件，并保留在G-Club Operations未立即开始提交时寻求本院协助的一切权利。[73] 2023年5月9日，Fornos女士向受托人的律师发送电子邮件称：“GClub Operations继续积极努力聘请一名独立董事。尽管该项工作已取得很大进展，但尚未完成。一旦完成，处理受托人的请求将是首要事项。我们将在下周向您提供最新情况。”[74] 自G-Club Operations的律师将某些高管辞职作为其尚未遵守传票的第三项借口提出以来，已逾一个月。\n\nIV. 未作出回应的受传唤方未回应传票\n\n72 见Luft Decl.，附件R，第R-1页。\n\n73 同上。\n\n74 见Luft Decl.，附件S。\n\n45. 未作出回应的受传唤方为G-Club US Operations LLC（G-Club美国运营有限责任公司）、G-Club US Operations Inc.（G-Club美国运营股份有限公司）、Hudson Diamond NY（哈德逊钻石纽约）、Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股）、G-Fashion（G时尚）、GNews（G新闻）、US Himalaya Capital（美国喜马拉雅资本）、New York MOS Himalaya（纽约MOS喜马拉雅）、Crane Advisory Group（克兰咨询集团）和Maywind Trading（五月风贸易）。\n\n46. 受托人已向所有未作出回应的受传唤方有效送达传票。具体而言：\n\n受托人的律师于2022年12月7日通过送达人员，在Hudson Diamond NY登记代理人的纽约地址向其送达传票。Hudson Diamond NY提出异议的期限为2022年12月21日，提交文件的期限为2023年1月6日。受托人尚未收到Hudson Diamond NY提出的任何异议或文件提交。受托人的律师于2023年1月24日致函Hudson Diamond NY的登记代理人，跟进该传票。受托人的律师未收到对此通信的任何回复。\n\n受托人的律师于2022年12月7日通过送达人员，在Hudson Diamond Holding登记代理人的特拉华州地址向其送达传票。Hudson Diamond Holding提出异议的期限为2022年12月21日，提交文件的期限为2023年1月6日。受托人尚未收到Hudson Diamond Holding提出的任何异议或文件提交。受托人的律师于2023年1月4日致函Hudson Diamond Holding的登记代理人，跟进该传票。受托人的律师未收到对此通信的任何回复。\n\n受托人的律师于2022年12月7日通过送达人员，在GNews登记代理人的特拉华州地址向其送达传票。GNews提出异议的期限为2022年12月21日，提交文件的期限为2023年1月6日。受托人尚未收到GNews提出的任何异议或文件提交。\n\n受托人的律师于2022年12月7日通过送达人员，在G-Club US Operations LLC登记代理人的特拉华州地址向其送达传票。G Club US Operations LLC提出异议的期限为2022年12月21日，提交文件的期限为2023年1月6日。受托人尚未收到G Club US Operations LLC提出的任何异议或文件提交。受托人的律师于2023年1月4日致函G Club US Operations LLC的登记代理人，跟进该传票。受托人的律师未收到对此通信的任何回复。\n\n受托人的律师于2022年12月8日通过送达人员，在G-Club US Operations Inc.登记代理人的特拉华州地址向其送达传票。G Club US\n\nOperations Inc. 提出异议的期限为 December 22, 2022，提交文件的期限为 January 9, 2023。受托人尚未收到 G Club US Operations Inc. 的任何异议或文件提交。受托人的律师于 January 4, 2023 向 G Club US Operations Inc. 的注册代理人致函，就传票进行跟进。受托人的律师未收到对此函件的任何回复。\n\n- 受托人的律师于 December 8, 2022 通过送达人员向 US Himalaya Capital（美国喜马拉雅资本）的注册代理人在 Delaware 的地址送达。US Himalaya Capital 提出异议的期限为 December 22, 2022，提交文件的期限为 January 9, 2023。受托人尚未收到 US Himalaya Capital 的任何异议或文件提交。受托人的律师于 January 4, 2023 向 US Himalaya Capital 的注册代理人致函，就传票进行跟进。受托人的律师未收到对此函件的任何回复。\n\n- 受托人的律师于 December 9, 2022 通过送达人员向 G-Fashion（G-时尚）的注册代理人在 Puerto Rico 的地址送达。G-Fashion 提出异议的期限为 December 23, 2022，提交文件的期限为 January 9, 2023。受托人尚未收到 G-Fashion 的任何异议或文件提交。\n\n- 受托人的律师于 January 25, 2023 通过送达人员向 New York MOS Himalaya（纽约MOS喜马拉雅）的注册代理人在 Delaware 的地址送达。New York MOS Himalaya 提出异议的期限为 February 8, 2023，提交文件的期限为 February 27, 2023。受托人尚未收到 New York MOS Himalaya 的任何异议或文件提交。受托人的律师于 February 15, 2023 向 New York MOS Himalaya 的注册代理人致函，就传票进行跟进。受托人的律师未收到对此函件的任何回复。\n\n- 受托人的律师于 January 25, 2023 通过送达人员向 Crane Advisory Group（克兰咨询集团）的注册代理人在 New York 的地址送达。Crane Advisory Group 提出异议的期限为 February 8, 2023，提交文件的期限为 February 27, 2023。受托人尚未收到 Crane Advisory Group 的任何异议或文件提交。受托人的律师于 February 15, 2023 向 Crane Advisory Group 的注册代理人致函，就传票进行跟进。受托人的律师未收到对此函件的任何回复。\n\n- 受托人的律师于 January 31, 2023 通过送达人员向 Maywind Trading（五月风贸易）的注册代理人在 Illinois 的地址送达。Maywind Trading 提出异议的期限为 February 14, 2023，提交文件的期限为 March 2, 2023。受托人尚未收到 Maywind Trading 的任何异议或文件提交。受托人的律师于 February 15, 2023 向 Maywind Trading 的注册代理人致函，就传票进行跟进。受托人的律师未收到对此函件的任何回复。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n47. 本院根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 对审理本事项具有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，审判地适当。根据包括但不限于 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (A), (E), and (O)，本案属于核心程序。\n\n请求的救济\n\n48. 受托人请求作出拟议命令：(1) 强制未遵从答复方在强制提交命令作出后 14 日内，通过检索并提交回应各项请求的文件，以遵守 Rule 2004 命令；以及 (2) 因未对传票作出回应而认定未答复答复方构成民事藐视法庭。\n\n救济依据\n\nI. 未遵从答复方必须提交回应传票的文件\n\n49. “Rule 2004 审查的目的在于协助利害关系方确定破产财产的性质和范围、揭示资产、审查交易，并评估是否发生不当行为。”In re Transmar Commodity Grp. Ltd., Case No. 16-13625-JLG, 2018 WL 4006324, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (省略内部引文和引证)。这包括揭示破产财产的性质和范围，以及发现债务人可能故意或无意隐匿的资产。In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996); see also In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016)（“Rule 2004 审查的正当目标包括发现资产、审查交易，以及确定是否发生不当行为。”）（省略内部引文和引证）；同上（指出“与狭义聚焦于争议相关问题的传统证据开示不同，Rule 2004 的范围广泛且不受限制，并被比作钓鱼式调查和审问”）（省略内部引证和标点）；Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)（授权进行与“……债务人的财产……及财务状况，或可能影响债务人破产财产管理的任何事项”有关的 2004 审查）（强调为原文所加）。\n\n50. 在本案中，受托人已向 GTV Media（GTV媒体）、Saraca Media（萨拉卡媒体）及 G-Club Operations（G-Club运营）有效送达传票，而该三方均未遵守传票。\n\nA. GTV Media 和 Saraca Media 必须检索并提交回应各项请求的文件\n\n51. GTV Media 和 Saraca Media 最初通过律师对受托人的传票作出回应，但在其律师于文件提交要求前夕突然退出代理后，未再作出回应——该要求是在数月拖延后提出的。然而，实体不应仅因先前律师退出代理或未能聘请新律师，而免除其根据本属有效的传票承担的义务。\n\n52. 因此，应强制 GTV Media 和 Saraca Media 检索并提交回应受托人全部请求的文件。\n\nB. G-Club Operations 必须检索并提交回应各项请求的文件\n\n53. 对 G-Club Operations 提出的请求完全属于《破产规则》Rule 2004 项下适当调查领域的范围。G-Club Operations 未提出动议以撤销传票，亦未以其他方式提出保护令动议。\n\n54. 鉴于债务人曾利用该等人员和实体作为其资产的存放处并助成其生活方式，受托人请求获取有关与债务人关系密切的实体 G-Club Operations 内部事务的信息尤其适当。事实上，多家法院已经认定，债务人通过空壳公司和其家庭成员隐匿资产。See, e.g., Eastern Profit Corp., 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1（Eastern Profit“实质上是”债务人的“空壳公司”）；Final Contempt Decision at 1, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181（债务人曾“通过将其大量个人资产停放于一系列公司、受信赖的密友和家庭成员名下，努力逃避和欺骗其债权人”）。\n\n55. G-Club Operations 的律师最初表示，鉴于债务人与该实体之间被声称存在的（虚假的）间接关系，请求据称过于宽泛，因此 G-Club Operations 无法推进对传票的回应；其后又声称，由于 G-Club Operations 与受托人律师援引本院一项 G-Club Operations 不同意的裁决存在“根本性”分歧，故其无法遵守。最近，G-Club Operations 又以其正在聘请独立董事或经理，且在完成该事项前无法遵守传票这一借口，将对传票的回应再拖延了一个多月。G-Club Operations 的立场异乎寻常，且无法律依据，不能再容忍进一步拖延。受托人的律师援引了初步禁令裁决，该裁决构成本案既判规则；该陈述是直接回应 G-Club Operations 的律师所作的一项难以置信且未经证实的陈述，即债务人只是 G-Club Operations 的“一名发言人”。仅仅不同意一项有效的 Rule 2004 传票，并不能免除一方根据传票承担的义务。See, e.g., In re Corso, 328 B.R. 375, 383 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)（允许“钓鱼式调查”）（省略引证）。法院命令，包括 Rule 2004 命令和传票，并非仅是建议或要求遵守的邀请。See, e.g., Springman v. City of Venice, 2010 WL 3958734, at \\*1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2010)（“法院命令……并非仅是建议，而是指令；除非法院作出中间命令，否则必须遵守。”）；Daubert v. City of Lindsay, 2011 WL 2360900, at \\*7 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2011)（“法院命令是必须遵循的指令，并非仅是建议。”）。\n\n56. 此外，据称在 SEC Complaint 之后 G-Club 高管逃离，不能成为 G-Club Operations 持续阻挠受托人的借口。\n\n57. 因此，应强制 G-Club Operations 检索并提交回应受托人全部请求的文件。\n\nII. 应认定未答复答复方构成民事藐视法庭\n\n58. 如上所述，未答复答复方——G-Club US Operations LLC、G-Club US Operations Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY（哈德逊钻石纽约）、Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股）、G-Fashion、GNews（G新闻）、US Himalaya Capital、New York MOS Himalaya、Crane Advisory Group 和 Maywind Trading——均与债务人、其财产及其商业交易密切相关，因此极有可能持有与受托人调查相关的文件。然而，所有未答复答复方均完全未对受托人的传票作出回应。\n\n59. 《联邦民事诉讼规则》Rule 45(e) 规定：“任何人无充分理由不遵守向其送达的传票，均可被视为藐视发出该传票的法院。”In re Corso, 328 B.R. 375, 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)（引自 FRCP 45(e)）（省略引文）；PaineWebber Inc. v. Acstar Ins. Co., 211 F.R.D. 247, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)（“一方未对传票提出异议且亦未遵守传票时，可根据 Rule 45[(e)] 认定其构成藐视法庭”）（省略内部引文）。\n\n60. 为认定一方构成民事藐视法庭，“法院仅需：(1) 已作出明确且无歧义的命令，(2) 根据明确且令人信服的证据认定该命令未获遵守，以及 (3) 认定被指称的藐视法庭者未能明确证明其无力遵守该命令的条款。”Huber v. Marine Midland Bank, 51 F.3d 5, 10 (2d Cir. 1995)（引自 N.A. Sales Co. v. Chapman Indus. Corp., 736 F.2d 854, 857 (2d Cir. 1984)）。\n\n61. 在民事藐视法庭程序中，只要被违反的命令“明确且无歧义，未遵守[该命令]的证明明确且令人信服，且藐视法庭者未以合理勤勉努力遵守”，对藐视法庭的认定即应维持。Corso, 328 B.R. at 385（引自 United States v. Local 1804–1, Int'l Longshoremen's Assn., 44 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir.1995)（省略引文）（原文改动））。\n\n62. 此外，未在规定期间内及时回应或对传票提出异议的一方，不得在之后提出异议。See Corso, 328 B.R. at 384-85（“由于[被传唤方]未及时对受托人的传票提出任何异议，亦未及时提出动议以撤销该传票，[其]已放弃对该传票提出异议的权利。”）。\n\n63. 最后，法院认定，未对传票作出回应或提出异议的一方可因该等不作为而受到制裁。参见 PaineWebber Inc.（PaineWebber公司）, 211 F.R.D. 第249页（“如一方未对传票提出异议且亦未予遵从，则可依据规则45[(e)]被认定藐视法庭，因而可施加制裁。”）（省略内部引文及着重号）；Corso（科尔索案）, 328 B.R. 第385-86页（维持破产法院对未作出“任何努力”遵从规则2004传票的一方施加的制裁）。具体而言，第二巡回区法院在一方未遵从传票时，已裁定支付律师费。参见 Gucci Am., Inc. v. Li（Gucci America公司诉李案）, No. 10-CV-4974 (RJS), 2015 WL 7758872, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2015)（“本巡回区法院在一方当事人或非当事人故意未遵从传票时，已裁定支付律师费。”）。\n\n64. 在本案中，已向违约被申请人送达附于传票的文件请求；尽管其知悉传票，违约被申请人要么未予遵从，要么完全未作出任何努力以遵从附于传票的文件请求。参见同上（在传票送达明确无误且未作出任何努力予以遵从的情况下，维持破产法院的藐视法庭命令）。因此，法院应发布命令：(i) 认定违约被申请人民事藐视法庭；(ii) 禁止其对传票提出任何异议；以及 (iii) 命令其支付受托人与本动议有关的律师费。\n\n此前未提出请求\n\n65. 受托人此前未曾向本院或任何其他法院寻求本文件所请求的救济。\n\n律师证明\n\n66. 如上所述，受托人的律师已通过电子邮件及线上会议，本着诚信与未遵从被申请人的律师进行协商，试图解决本争议，但该等努力未获成功。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白]\n\n因此，基于前述理由，受托人谨请求作出拟议命令，准予本强制动议所请求的救济，以及其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：May 18, 2023　LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut　Chapter 11受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)　NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙泰斯律师事务所）　195 Church Street, 13th Floor　New Haven, Connecticut 06510　(203) 781-2847　plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（获准 pro hac vice）　PAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）　2050 M Street NW　Washington, D.C., 20036　(202) 551-1902　nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（获准 pro hac vice）　Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（获准 pro hac vice）　PAUL HASTINGS LLP　200 Park Avenue　New York, New York 10166　(212) 318-6079　aviluft@paulhastings.com　douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\nChapter 11受托人律师\n\n附件A－拟议裁定\n\n美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\nx\n\n关于：　：　Chapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，　：\n：　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1　：　合并管理\n\nx\n\n命令 GTV MEDIA GROUP, INC.、SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC. 及 G-CLUB OPERATIONS LLC 遵从规则2004传票，并认定 G-CLUB US OPERATIONS LLC、G-CLUB US OPERATIONS INC.、HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC、HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC、G-FASHION LLC、GNEWS LLC、US HIMALAYA CAPITAL INC.、NEW YORK MOS HIMALAYA LLC、CRANE ADVISORY GROUP LLC 及 MAYWIND TRADING LLC 因未回应规则2004传票而民事藐视法庭的拟议裁定\n\n经审议该动议，该动议请求发布命令，强制 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV Media集团公司）（“GTV Media”）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca Media集团公司）（“Saraca Media”）及 G-Club Operations LLC（G-Club运营有限责任公司）（“G-Club Operations”，并与GTV Media及Saraca Media合称“未遵从被申请人”）、G-Club US Operations LLC、G-Club US Operations, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（Hudson Diamond NY有限责任公司）（“Hudson Diamond NY”）、Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（Hudson Diamond控股有限责任公司）（“Hudson Diamond Holding”）、G-Fashion LLC（G-Fashion有限责任公司）（“G-Fashion”）、GNews LLC（GNews有限责任公司）（“GNews”）、US Himalaya Capital Inc.（美国喜马拉雅资本公司）（“US Himalaya Capital”）、New York MOS Himalaya LLC（纽约MOS喜马拉雅有限责任公司）（“New York MOS Himalaya”）、Crane Advisory Group LLC（Crane咨询集团有限责任公司）（“Crane Advisory Group”）、Maywind Trading LLC（Maywind贸易有限责任公司）（“Maywind Trading”，并与G-Club US Operations LLC、G-Club US Operations, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY、Hudson Diamond Holding、G-Fashion、GNews、US Himalaya Capital、New York MOS Himalaya及Crane Advisory Group合称“违约被申请人”，且与未遵从被申请人合称“被申请人”）遵从法院的规则2004命令[2]及受托人依规则2004命令签发的传票；在通知及听证后，参见 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)，鉴于存在按下文所述条件准予所请求救济的理由；现据此\n\n命令：准予该动议，具体如下。\n\n命令：未遵从被申请人必须于本裁定作出之日起十四（14）日内，检索并提交文件，以回应受托人的传票及所附请求。\n\n命令：于本裁定作出之日起3日内，如违约被申请人仍未回应传票，则违约被申请人应构成民事藐视法庭，不得对传票提出任何异议，并应支付受托人与本动议有关的律师费。\n\n日期：____________________, 2023\n\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁），美国破产法院法官\n\n____________________________________________________________\n\n2 本裁定中使用但未另行定义的首字母大写术语，具有强制动议中赋予该等术语的含义。\n\n美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\nx\n\n关于：　：\n\nHO WAN KWOK等人，　：\n：　Chapter 11\n债务人。1　：　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n：　合并管理\n\nx\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，于 May 18, 2023，上述动议已以电子方式提交。法院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统已通过电子邮件向上述标题所示 Chapter 11 案件的所有当事人发送提交通知，或按电子提交通知所示，通过邮寄向不能接受电子提交的任何人士发送通知。[2] 当事人可通过法院的CM/ECF系统查阅该提交文件。\n\n日期：May 18, 2023　LUC A. DESPINS，New Haven, Connecticut　Chapter 11受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)　NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.　195 Church Street, 13th Floor　New Haven, Connecticut 06510　(203) 781-2847\n\n1 本 Chapter 11 案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 及 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码末四位：9595）（“债务人”）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司）（“Genever BVI债务人”）。受托人及Genever BVI债务人的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok财产的受托人（仅为通知及通讯之目的）。\n\n2 如上述文件于正常营业时间以外提交，则对不能或无资格接受电子通知的收件人以邮寄方式进行的送达，应于下一个营业日完成。\n\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（获准 pro hac vice）　PAUL HASTINGS LLP　2050 M Street NW　Washington, D.C., 20036　(202) 551-1902　nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（获准 pro hac vice）　Douglass Barron（获准 pro hac vice）　PAUL HASTINGS LLP　200 Park Avenue　New York, New York 10166　(212) 318-6079　aviluft@paulhastings.com　douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\nChapter 11受托人律师","key_entities":["GTV","Saraca","Je","Himalaya","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","Despins","Himalaya Exchange","GETTR","RICO","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":133,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":638,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":758,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":839,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":866,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1116,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1184,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1259,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1339,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1372,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":9080,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:58:53"}