{"id":"court_ctb_1897_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1897,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2023-06-08","title":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT<br>DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT<br>BRIDGEPORT DIVISION","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT<br>DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT<br>BRIDGEPORT DIVISION                                                                                                                                                           |                                                                                                    |  |  |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------<br>In re:<br>HO WAN KWOK, et al.,1<br>Debtors.                                                                                                                            | x<br>:<br>:<br>Chapter 11<br>:<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)<br>:<br>:<br>(Jointly Administered) |  |  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------<br>LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11<br>TRUSTEE,<br>Plaintiff,<br>v.                                                                                                             | :<br>x<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>Adv. Proceeding No. [<br>]<br>:<br>:                                 |  |  |\n| HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,<br>HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.,<br>LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC.,<br>HOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD.,<br>ANTHONY DIBATTISTA, YVETTE WANG,<br>and BRIAN HOFMEISTER (in his capacity<br>as assignee), | :<br>:<br>June 8, 2023<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:                                          |  |  |\n| Defendants.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | :<br>:                                                                                             |  |  |\n\n# --------------------------------------------------------------- x **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ESTATE OF**\n\n## **HO WAN KWOK PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 105, 362, 363, 541, 542, 544, AND 549 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE SEEKING (I) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., AND LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC. ARE (A) ALTER EGOS OF DEBTOR; OR, (B) IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER THAT DEBTOR EQUITABLY OWNS SUCH ENTITIES AND/OR THEIR PROPERTY; AND (II) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF**\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 2 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 2 of 38\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this adversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendants: (a) HCHK Technologies, Inc. (\"HCHK Technologies\"); (b) HCHK Property Management, Inc. (\"HCHK Property\"); (c) Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc. (\"Lexington Property,\" and, together with HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property, the \"HCHK Entities\"); (d) Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Ltd. (\"Holy City\"); (e) Yvette Wang; (f) Anthony DiBattista; and (g) Brian Hofmeister, in his capacity as assignee of the HCHK Entities (the \"Assignee Defendant,\"<sup>2</sup> and, together with the HCHK Entities, Holy City, Yvette Wang, and Anthony DiBattista, the \"Defendants\"). In support of this Complaint, the Trustee states as follows:\n\n#### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee files this Complaint and his accompanying motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to bring valuable assets into the chapter 11 estate and to urgently prevent those assets from being dissipated to the detriment of the Debtor's creditors. As this Court well knows, the Debtor has a history of using shell companies, family members, and close associates to help keep his assets outside the reach of his creditors, such as when he used Hong Kong International Investments (USA) Limited (\"HK USA\"), nominally owned by his daughter, to create the fiction that his *Lady May* yacht and approximately \\$33 million in escrow funds were not property of this estate. The Court rightfully ignored that fiction in granting summary judgment for the Trustee on his alter ego claim against HK USA.\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Trustee, as of the time of the filing this Complaint, has no information regarding the Assignee Defendant's actual knowledge or lack of actual knowledge of the facts alleged in this Complaint. However, the relief sought in this complaint is amply justified, regardless of such actual knowledge by the Assignee Defendant.\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 3 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 3 of 38\n\n2. The Debtor and his associates are deploying the same tactics with the HCHK Entities, using them to hold over \\$35 million in cash that should be property of the estate. The HCHK Entities are nominally owned by Yvette Wang, the Debtor's close associate and codefendant in the U.S. Government's billion-dollar criminal fraud and money-laundering case. The reality, however, is that Ms. Wang takes direction from the Debtor, and the HCHK Entities, just like HK USA and numerous of the Debtor's other shell companies before them, are mere extensions of the Debtor himself, designed to conduct his business and keep his valuable assets from creditors.\n\n3. While the Debtor's use of the HCHK Entities as mere alter egos is nothing new, the circumstances at issue are even more troubling than they have been in the past because the Debtor and his associates are *presently engaged in a scheme to transfer the HCHK Entities' valuable assets to other shell companies of the Debtor*. Specifically, on April 20, 2023, the Debtor's employees nominally in management positions at the HCHK Entities, executed Deeds of Assignment with respect to each of the HCHK Entities purporting to assign all of their assets to the Assignee Defendant. The Assignee Defendant then filed an affidavit and petition with respect to each of the HCHK Entities (each, an \"Assignee Affidavit\" and, together, the \"Assignee Affidavits\") in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County (the \"State Court\"). The Assignee Affidavits requested the commencement of an assignment for the benefit of creditors proceeding under the Debtor Creditor Law of New York (each, an \"Assignment Proceeding,\" and, together, the \"Assignment Proceedings\"). The documents filed with the Assignee Affidavits include schedules of the purported creditors of the HCHK Entities listing entities associated with the Debtor such as ACA Capital, Golden Spring, and Saraca Media (each defined below), as well as unnamed individuals who, upon information and belief,\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 4 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 4 of 38\n\nare associates or relatives of the Debtor.<sup>3</sup> The Assignee Affidavits and related documents were sent to the Trustee on May 30, 2023, accompanied, with respect to the Assignment Proceedings for HCHK Technologies and Lexington Property, by orders to show cause why orders commencing the Assignment Proceedings should not be entered, with response dates of **June 15, 2023** for HCHK Technologies, and **June 21, 2023** for Lexington Property. On June 5, 2023, the Trustee was sent an order to show cause why an order commencing the Assignment Proceeding of HCHK Property should not be entered, with a response date of **June 27, 2023**. These are proceedings in which the Debtor and persons he controls are attempting to create their own version of a chapter 11 case without the supervision and involvement of the Trustee and the Court.\n\n4. Abundant evidence demonstrates that the HCHK Entities are alter egos of or equitably owned by the Debtor<sup>4</sup> and, thus, the Assignment Proceedings are clear attempts to divert the HCHK Entities' valuable assets from this chapter 11 estate. At all relevant times, the HCHK Entities (a) were nominally owned and staffed by the Debtor's employees; (b) were affiliates of the Debtor's \"G-Series\" entities, such as Gettr, GTV, GClubs, GFashion, and GMusic (the \"G-Series Entities\"), which this Court has already found to be controlled by or to serve as business vehicles for the Debtor;<sup>5</sup> (c) paid the Debtor's expenses, including with respect to the *Lady May* and the Debtor's Bombardier jet (which Mei Guo testified was sold in the summer of 2022); and (d) were funded by the Debtor through associates, controlled entities, and\n\n<sup>3</sup> In other words, the Assignee Defendant, who was assigned the assets of the HCHK Entities \"on behalf of creditors,\" has ostensibly been assigned the assets of the HCHK Entities \"on behalf of\" a collection of the Debtor's associates and controlled entities. 4\n\nThe Trustee's equitable ownership claims encompass equitable ownership of the HCHK Entities (i.e., the shares representing the ownership interests in such entities) and/or the assets of the HCHK Entities. 5\n\nThe Court also found that: \"The G in GSeries stands for Guo.\" *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Jan. 13, 2023) [Docket No. 133] (the \"PI Decision\").\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 5 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 5 of 38\n\nrepresentatives. The U.S. Government, as part of its criminal prosecution of the Debtor and Yvette Wang, has similarly asserted that the Debtor controls HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property. The Debtor, for his part, has not disagreed, as he invoked the Fifth Amendment at his deposition when asked about his control and ownership of HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property.<sup>6</sup>\n\n5. The Trustee seeks in this Complaint an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, that the HCHK Entities are alter egos of the Debtor and/or HTXLWDEO\\ owned by him, and an order, pursuant to sections 105, 362, 363, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code, enjoining the Defendants and any party acting in concert with them from commencing or continuing the Assignment Proceedings, and enjoining any transfer or use of the assets, including cash, of the HCHK Entities, except as authorized by the Trustee or this Court. The requested injunction is warranted because the Assignment Proceedings will have an immediate adverse consequence for the Debtor's estate by effectively permitting the continued violation of the automatic stay so that the HCHK Entities and the Defendants may engage in parallel proceedings that are both duplicative of and decidedly inferior to this Chapter 11 Case. Allowing the Assignment Proceedings to continue will also encourage the Debtor to commence new assignment proceedings with his other alter ego entities as a strategy to bypass the scrutiny of the Trustee and this Court.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334(b).\n\n<sup>6</sup> In his sworn declaration dated May 11, 2023, the Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked to state that he had control over Yvette Wang. *Debtor's Sworn Declaration Regarding Responses to Particular Questions*, ¶ 46 (invoking the Fifth Amendment in response to question regarding his control over numerous other entities and individuals), attached hereto as Ex. 1.\n\n7. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(a).\n\n#### **THE PARTIES**\n\n8. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the\n\nCourt's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n9. HCHK Technologies is a Delaware corporation.\n\n10. HCHK Property is a Delaware corporation.\n\n11. Lexington Property is a Delaware corporation.\n\n12. Holy City is a British Virgin Islands corporation that nominally owns a 99.9999% equity interest in each of the HCHK Entities. Holy City is nominally owned 100% by Yvette Wang.\n\n13. Yvette Wang is an individual who is the nominal 100% owner of Holy City.\n\n14. Anthony DiBattista is an individual who nominally owns a 0.0001% equity\n\ninterest in each of the HCHK Entities.\n\n15. The Assignee Defendant is the managing partner of the law firm of Brian W. Hofmeister, LLC. The Assignee Defendant is assignee in connection with a Deed of Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors executed by a purported representative of each of the HCHK Entities on April 20, 2023 and purporting to transfer all assets of each of the HCHK Entities to the Assignee Defendant.\n\n#### **FACTS**\n\n#### **I. Background: Debtor's Prolific Use of Shell Companies**\n\n16. The Debtor is a prolific user of shell companies, purportedly owned by family members or business subordinates, to shield his assets and activities from creditors. The\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 7 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 7 of 38\n\nDebtor's \"shell game\" has allowed him to continue to deny ownership of assets, refuse to pay debts, and—until his recent arrest by the FBI—live a life of luxury.\n\n17. Among other examples, shell companies purportedly owned by the Debtor's son (specifically, Lamp Capital LLC and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.) have paid the Debtor's living expenses and legal fees; a shell company purportedly owned by his daughter Mei Guo (HK USA), recently ruled by this Court to be the Debtor's alter ego,<sup>7</sup> has held title to the Debtor's yacht, which this Court and Justice Ostrager had previously ruled was the Debtor's property despite its nominal ownership by HK USA;<sup>8</sup> and another shell company purportedly owned by the Debtor's wife (Greenwich Land LLC) holds title to the Debtor's Connecticut residence.<sup>9</sup> The Debtor also claims that his apartment at the Sherry Netherland Hotel is held in trust for the benefit of yet another shell company (Bravo Luck Limited) purportedly owned by his son.10 Similarly, the Debtor has used Anton Development Limited and Whitecroft Short\n\n<sup>7</sup> *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Second Counterclaim*, at 35 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, May 18, 2023) [Docket No. 221] (\"HK USA is the alter ego of the Individual Debtor.\"). 8\n\n*Supplemental Memorandum of Decision in Support of Oral Ruling Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment*, at 31 (Adv. Proc. No. 22005003, Mar. 30, 2023) [Docket No. 177] (\"the issue of Individual Debtor's beneficial ownership and control of the Lady is decisive as to the First Counterclaim and the identical issue was necessarily decided by Justice Ostrager in the Final Contempt Decision, which found by clear and convincing evidence that the Individual Debtor beneficially owned and controlled the Lady May\"). 9\n\nThe Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against this entity in adversary proceeding 23-05005, in connection with which the Court entered a prejudgment remedy and temporary restraining order against Greenwich Land LLC and the Debtor's wife. *See Order Granting in Part Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Mar. 28, 2023) [Docket No. 14]; *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Amended Application for Ex Parte Prejudgment Remedy* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Mar. 28, 2023) [Docket No. 15]. 10 The Trustee has challenged Bravo Luck Limited's asserted interest in the Sherry Netherland apartment in his\n\n*Amended Adversary Complaint Against Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Seeking (I) Invalidation of Purported Trust Agreement in Favor of Bravo Luck and, (II) in Alternative, Ruling that Debtor Effectuated Fraudulent Transfer in Favor of Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Pursuant to Section 276 of New York Debtor and Creditor Law, Made Applicable by Section 544 of Bankruptcy Code* (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, Feb. 28, 2023) [Docket No. 40], in connection with which the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, has defaulted. *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Entry of Default Judgment against Qiang Guo* (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, June 2, 2023) [Docket No. 93].\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 8 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 8 of 38\n\nLimited, entities purportedly owned by the Debtor's daughter, to hold title to the Debtor's private Bombardier aircraft (which Mei Guo testified was sold in the summer of 2022).11\n\n18. Previously, Judge Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found, in a 2021 decision, that Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, another company purportedly held by the Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.12 Eastern Profit Corporation Limited was one of numerous purportedly independent entities whose financial accounts were identified by a 2018 Hong Kong court order to be \"subject to the effective control\" of the Debtor.13\n\n19. Relatedly, a confidential witness declaration filed by the Trustee under seal at Docket No. 1327 (the \"Confidential Witness Declaration\") and incorporated by reference as an exhibit in support of this Complaint, establishes, among other things\n\n![](_page_7_Picture_4.jpeg)\n\n<sup>11</sup> *Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for (I) Declaratory Judgment, Pursuant to Sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 7001, that Property Held by Mei Guo*\n\n*is Property of Estate and (II) Related Relief* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, May 16, 2023) [Docket No. 1]. 12 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021). 13 Ex. 2, Hong Kong Restraint Order, at 7-18.\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 9 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 9 of 38\n\nGClubs, GNews, and GEdu,14 were controlled by the Debtor,15 led by the Debtor,16 and/or served \"the purposes of . . . and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.17\n\n21. This Court separately found, in its order holding the Debtor in contempt for violating the Court's corporate governance order, that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade Limited (and, through it, Dawn State Limited), and that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade Limited's nominee owner, Yvette Wang.18 The Trustee has since learned that Yvette Wang, while the Ace Decade proceedings were ongoing (but after the Court found, on November 17, 2022, that the Debtor exclusively beneficially owned and controlled Ace Decade as of the February 15, 2022 petition date19), transferred the stock of Ace Decade that she nominally owned to an individual located in Switzerland (who, upon information and belief, is another associate of the Debtor).\n\n#### **II. HCHK Entities Are Alter Egos of or Equitably Owned by Debtor**\n\n#### **A. HCHK Entities Nominally Owned and Staffed by Debtor's Employees**\n\n22. Each of the HCHK Entities has the exact same ownership structure, which points directly to their control by the Debtor. Each HCHK Entity is directly owned 99.9999% by Holy City and 0.0001% by a long-time employee of the Debtor, Anthony DiBattista, who is also\n\n<sup>14</sup> PI Decision ¶ 2 (\"The GSeries includes the following entities: Himalaya Exchange, Gettr, GFashion, GMusic,\n\nGClubs, GNews, and GEdu.\"). 15 PI Decision ¶ 3 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\"). 16 *Id.* ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, and Himalaya.\"). 17 *Id.* (\"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.\"). 18 *Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order* ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023)\n\n<sup>[</sup>Main Case Docket No. 1372] (the \"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\"). 19 *See Order Regarding Partial Resolution of Trustee's Contempt Motion* ¶ 1 (Nov. 17, 2022) [Main Case Docket\n\nNo. 1110].\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 10 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 10 of 38\n\ndirector and president of HCHK Property and Lexington Property. Holy City is 100% owned by the Debtor's assistant, Yvette Wang.20\n\n23. This 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 behalf to purchase properties such as the Sherry-Netherland apartment.\"21 Ms. Wang has served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as an officer and/or authorized signatory of Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Limited, Saraca Media Group, Inc., GTV Media Group, Inc., and Genever Holdings LLC.22 The Trustee in his investigation has learned that Ms. Wang was widely known to be the Debtor's personal assistant. When asked at his deposition whether Ms. Wang was his employee, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.23\n\n24. On March 15, 2023, Ms. Wang was arrested in connection with charges that she had, among other things, conspired with the Debtor in connection with his criminal fraud and\n\n<sup>20</sup> Lan Mu (Ya Li), a purported director of Holy City who signed the Written Consent of Shareholders authorizing the Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of HCHK Technologies is, upon information and belief, a close associate of the Debtor. It is not clear at what point Lan Mu (Ya Li) became a director of Holy City given the U.S. Government's allegation that Yvette Wang was the sole director of Holy City. *See* Ex. 3*,* Letter, at 4 n.2, *United States v. Kwok,* No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2023) [Docket No. 10] (the \"Kwok Criminal Case Letter\"). (\"The defendant is listed as the sole director of Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd., and she signed various HCHK corporate documents, including shareholder resolutions, in that capacity on behalf of\n\nHoly City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.\"). 21 Corp. Governance Contempt Order ¶ 4.\n\n<sup>22</sup> Ex. 4, Affidavit of Yan Ping Wang ¶ 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2018) [Docket No. 182] (\"I am the President of Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., and in that capacity serve as an administrator for the interests of [the Debtor] and his family.\"); Ex. 5, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019 (rendering Ms. Wang signatory) (HR0010121); Ex. 6, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, (HR0020577); Ex. 7, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, (HR0039240); Ex. 8,\n\n<sup>;</sup> Ex. 9, Himalaya Coin Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020; Ex. 10, Himalaya Dollar Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020; Ex. 11, Complaint ¶ 9a, *United States v. Wang*, No. 1:23-mj-02007-UA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2023) [Docket No. 1] (\"Wang was an Executive Director of GTV\"); *Debtor's Declaration Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2* ¶ 1, (Case No. 22-50592, Oct. 12, 2020) [Docket No. 1]. 23 Ex. 12, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 33:11-13 (Mar. 2, 2023).\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 11 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 11 of 38\n\nmoney-laundering activities. According to the U.S. Government, Ms. Wang played an \"instrumental role\" in the Debtor's fraud scheme as his \"trusted chief of staff who is tasked with managing operations at even those entities with which she has no formal affiliation.\"24\n\n25. Anthony DiBattista is also a long-standing employee of the Debtor, serving in various roles at different Debtor-controlled companies. Mr. DiBattista was employed at Golden Spring, and has served the Debtor as a corporate officer of GTV,25 GFashion,26 and GClubs. 27 When the Debtor was asked at his deposition whether Mr. DiBattista was his employee, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.28\n\n26. In addition to Mr. DiBattista, key personnel of the HCHK Entities are former employees or officers of the Debtor's \"family office,\" Golden Spring. These other Golden Spring personnel who moved to the HCHK Entities include Max Krasner,29 Joe Wang,30 Bernardo Enriquez,31 and Alex Hadjicharalambous.32 Upon information and belief, the HCHK Entities are merely a continuation of Golden Spring with new corporate letterhead. Other HCHK personnel include Elliott Dordick,33 an individual this Court found to be an employee of Gettr,34\n\n<sup>24</sup> Ex. 3, Kwok Criminal Case Letter, at 18.\n\n<sup>25</sup> *See* PI Decision ¶ 3 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV,' which is commonly referred to collectively as GTV.\").\n\n<sup>26</sup>*See id.* (\"The Debtor created GFashion.\"). 27 The U.S. Government has alleged that GClubs \"was functionally controlled by\" the Debtor, Ex. 24, Indictment ¶ 10, *United States v. Kwok*, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT, (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2023) [Docket No. 2], that the Debtor and William Je used GClubs to \"fraudulently obtain[] more than \\$250 million,\" *id*. ¶ 14, and that GClubs funds were used to pay personal expenses of the Debtor and his family. *Id*. ¶ 15. 28 Ex. 12, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 87:6-8\n\n<sup>29</sup> Mr. Krasner, in addition to his work at the HCHK entities, was an employee of Golden Spring who also served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as officer and/or authorized signatory of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (parent company of Lamp Capital LLC), and Rule of Law Foundation. 30 Mr. Wang is VP of Technology of HCHK Technologies and was formerly employed as Chief Technology\n\nOfficer, or in a similar role, at Golden Spring. 31 Mr. Enriquez, in addition to his work at the HCHK Entities, worked at Golden Spring and served as Treasurer\n\nof Lamp Capital LLC, among other roles. 32 Mr. Hadjicharalambous, in addition to his work at the HCHK Entities, worked for several years at other Debtor-\n\ncontrolled entities such as Golden Spring, GClubs, and Freedom Media Ventures Ltd. 33 Elliot Dordick, Esq., LinkedIn, http 34 PI Decision ¶ 13.\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 12 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 12 of 38\n\nan entity that is part of the G-Series Entities which this Court found \"serve the purposes of the Debtor\" and \"serve as business vehicles for the Debtor.\"35 As the Court may recall, Mr. Dordick was involved in the Debtor's protest campaign against the Trustee and PAX.\n\n#### **B. HCHK Entities Are Affiliates of G-Series Entities**\n\n27. The HCHK Entities are not, as the Assignee Defendant's filings with the State Court seem to suggest, independent businesses that simply happen to have done business with entities linked to the Debtor.36 They are affiliates of the Debtor's G-Series Entities that, together with such entities, comprised a single enterprise controlled by the Debtor and dedicated to promoting the Debtor's interests.\n\n28. As discussed in the Assignee's Affidavits, the HCHK Entities' business was located at 3 Columbus Circle, in New York City, where HCHK Property and Lexington Property sublet office space. This is the location where associates of the Debtor, acting at the Debtor's behest, filmed videos in support of the Debtor, including videos in late 2022 calling for protests against the Trustee, PAX, and their counsel. These activities led to the Court's issuance of its preliminary injunction decision [Docket No. 133 in Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032] where the Court found, among other things, that the Debtor controlled the G-Series Entities. Upon information and belief, these videos attacking the Trustee and PAX were produced using the video and electronic equipment disclosed by the Assignee Defendant as purported assets of HCHK Technologies.37\n\n<sup>35</sup> PI Decision ¶ 7.\n\n<sup>36</sup> The Assignee Defendant's description of HCHK Technologies, for example, states that HCHK Technologies is an \"emerging global technology and consulting firm that provides strategic solutions across multiple business lines. Functioning comparably to a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), the Assignor offers its clients professional a la carte consulting services across Technology, Product Development, Engineering, Human Resources, Recruitment, Legal, Finance, and R&D.\" Ex. 13, Order to Show Cause, Affidavit & Petition of Brian Hofmeister ¶ 4, *HCHK Tech., Inc. v. Hofmeister*, Index No. 510008/2023, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 18, 2023) (the \"HCHK Tech. Aff.\"). 37 Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff., Ex. B, Deed of Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors.\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 13 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 13 of 38\n\n29. Documents produced by the HCHK Entities' accounting firm, Marcum LLP, (\"Marcum\") show the degree to which the HCHK Entities and the G-Series Entities operated as a single business on behalf of the Debtor. Among other things, the documents show that Marcum had no doubt who controlled the HCHK Entities and G-Series Entities. As stated in an internal April 2021 email by one Marcum accountant, \"[w]e are representing entities **indirectly owned by Miles Kwok**, owner of GTV media.\"38\n\n30. Moreover, a brief review of the Marcum documents (which require further examination) shows that the role of the HCHK Entities was, among other things, to serve as a \"piggy bank\" for the Debtor's businesses. It was for this reason that Marcum's engagement letter provided that Marcum would provide services to Lexington Property \"and Affiliates,\" and Marcum was explicitly tasked with preparing not only the tax returns of the HCHK Entities, but also those of other Debtor-controlled entities as well, including GFashion and GTV.39 Similarly, Marcum classified HCHK Technologies' assets to include bank accounts corresponding to Gettr, GFashion, and \"FMV\" (an acronym that, upon information and belief, refers to another Debtorcontrolled company called Freedom Media Ventures). This \"piggy bank\" role is consistent with the schedule of assets filed by the Assignee Defendant with respect to HCHK Technologies, which discloses accounts receivable of \\$12,559,423.06. Upon information and belief, these accounts receivable include obligations purportedly owed to HCHK Technologies by G-Series Entities or other companies controlled by the Debtor.\n\n#### **C. HCHK Entities Pay Debtor's Expenses**\n\n31. Financial documents in the possession of the Trustee also show that the Debtor used the HCHK Entities to pay a variety of his expenses. While the Trustee's analysis of these\n\n<sup>38</sup> Ex. 14, Email to Keady from Hirschfeld, April 23, 2021.\n\n<sup>39</sup> Ex. 15, Marcum Engagement Letter, April 14, 2022, Attachment B.\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 14 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 14 of 38\n\ndocuments is not complete, some examples of the HCHK Entities' payments on behalf of the\n\nDebtor include, among others:\n\n- a. In October 2022, HCHK Technologies paid \\$123,452.00 to Yachtzoo Ltd. (together with its affiliates, \"Yachtzoo\"). Yachtzoo is the management company for the *Lady May*, which Justice Ostrager and this Court ruled was the Debtor's yacht.\n- b. In September 2021, HCHK Technologies paid \\$215,018.00 to ACASS Canada Ltd. (together with its affiliates, \"ACASS\"). ACASS was at that time the management company for the Debtor's Bombardier aircraft (which Mei Guo testified was sold in the summer of 2022).\n- c. In November 2021, HCHK Technologies paid \\$2,788,680.00 to the aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Industries, Inc., or affiliates thereof. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this payment was to purchase a new private plane for the Debtor, the Cirrus SF50 jet that has been cited in filings in connection with the Debtor's criminal case.40\n- 32. Moreover, according to documents in the possession of the Trustee, Lexington\n\nProperty, though ostensibly only in the business of subleasing office space (at least according to\n\nthe Assignee's Affidavits41), has made numerous payments to entities and individuals associated\n\nwith the Debtor, which payments were made, upon information and belief, on behalf of the\n\nDebtor. Recipients of these payments included, among others:\n\na. Yvette Wang;\n\n- b. Max Krasner (employee of the Debtor with numerous roles at Debtorcontrolled companies);\n- c. Scott Barnett (believed to be another driver and bodyguard of the Debtor);\n- d. Aaron Mitchell (essentially the Debtor's general counsel);\n\n<sup>40</sup> Ex. 16, Motion for Relief from Order Denying Pre-Trial Releases, at 20, *United States v. Kwok*, No. 23-6421\n\n<sup>(2</sup>d Cir. May 5, 2023) [Docket No. 6.1]. 41 *See* Ex. 17, Order to Show Cause, Affidavit & Petition of Brian Hofmeister ¶ 5, *Lexington Prop. & Staffing, Inc. v. Hofmeister*, Index No. 510007/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 25, 2023) (the \"Lexington Aff.\") (\"Upon information and belief, the Assignor and HCHK Property were both formed, essentially, to function as the tenant (or subtenant) and as a property management companies with respect to their respective 3 Columbus Circle office spaces.\").\n\n- e. Lawall & Mitchell, LLC42 (Aaron Mitchell's law firm, and one of the \"ordinary course professionals\" proposed by the Debtor in March 2022 [Docket No. 119]);\n- f. Baker & Hostetler LLP (the Debtor's personal counsel in the litigation before Justice Ostrager, and one of the \"ordinary course professionals\" proposed by the Debtor in March 2022 [Docket No. 119]);\n- g. Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC and Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (law firms representing GTV43);\n- h. Phillips Nizer LLP (which served as counsel to Lamp Capital LLC in the litigation before Justice Ostrager);\n- i. Himalaya Ventures, LLC (an entity, upon information and belief, affiliated with one or more of the Debtor's \"Himalaya Farm\" organizations);\n- j. Beile (\"Prince\") Li (prominent associate of the Debtor and leading participant in protests against the Trustee and PAX);\n- k. Yan Yan Tsang (upon information and belief, an employee of the Debtor who, along with the Debtor, Yvette Wang, the Debtor's wife and daughter, and Han Chunguang (one of the Debtor's bodyguards), filed a lawsuit against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in support of the Debtor's asylum application and their own asylum applications);\n- l. Yinying Wang (upon information and belief, the secretary of Qidong Xia, an individual who, upon information and belief, is currently acting as the Debtor's second-in-command with respect to multiple Debtor-controlled entities and organizations); and\n- m. An entity called 17 Miles LLC (recipient of \\$146,795.63 in 2021 and, upon information and belief, affiliated with the Debtor).\n\n<sup>42</sup> The \"Lawall\" of Lawall & Mitchell is Dara Lawall, who, upon information and belief, is the daughter of Francis Lawall of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, counsel to Bravo Luck Limited. Dara Lawall is also, upon information and belief, the wife of Aaron Mitchell, who is thus, upon information and belief, Mr. Lawall's sonin-law. 43 Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC also represents Anthony DiBattista in connection with the\n\nTrustee's Bankruptcy Rule 2004 investigation.\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 16 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 16 of 38\n\n#### **D. HCHK Entities Financed by Debtor**\n\n33. The Assignee Defendant's filings in the State Court contain disclosures regarding the creditors44 of the HCHK Entities which show that the HCHK Entities have received their funding from the Debtor through the Debtor's associates, controlled entities, and representatives.\n\n#### **i. HCHK Technologies' Creditors**\n\n34. The Assignee Defendant has disclosed that HCHK Technologies' financial\n\ncreditors consist exclusively of multiple unnamed individuals (the \"Undisclosed Creditors\") owed a total of \\$51,684,947.5045 (as compared to HCHK Technologies' disclosed assets of approximately \\$17,500,000 in value46), whose \"names are being withheld for confidentiality purposes.\"47 The Assignee Defendant in his affidavit states, referring to these Undisclosed\n\nCreditors, that:\n\nUpon information and belief, aside from business revenues, [HCHK Technologies] has also received funding from certain individual investors, who are Chinese dissidents and identify as being part of a social network and movement to expose the alleged corruption and human rights abuses of the CCP . . . The [Undisclosed Creditors] are extremely sensitive about disclosing their names and personal contact information in connection with these proceedings out of fear for retribution by the CCP. For this reason, [HCHK Technologies] has represented to me that the Investors have appointed six individuals, who are comfortable disclosing their names and contact information, to serve as their agents and representatives in this matter.<sup>48</sup>\n\n35. This description of the Undisclosed Creditors, which mirrors the arguments used\n\nby the Debtor to explain his own desire for secrecy, indicates that the Undisclosed Creditors are\n\n<sup>44</sup> The disclosures take the form of lists of creditors which, along with lists of assets, are attached to the Deeds of Assignment submitted with the Assignee Affidavits. These lists were, according to the Deeds of Assignment, delivered by the HCHK Entities to the Assignee Defendant, and so apparently constitute representations made by the HCHK Entities (controlled by the Debtor and his associates), not the result of any analysis or\n\ninvestigation conducted by the Assignee Defendant. 45 Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff., Ex. B, HCHK Technologies' list of creditors. In addition to these financial creditors, the creditor list discloses vendors holding claims of \\$206,703.19, which amount includes a \\$51,000 claim owed to HCHK Property. 46 Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 19.\n\n<sup>47</sup> Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff., Ex. B HCHK Technologies' list of creditors, n.5.\n\n<sup>48</sup> Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 8.\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 17 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 17 of 38\n\nassociates of the Debtor. That indication is confirmed by the identities of the six creditor representatives, which are disclosed on HCHK Technologies' list of creditors filed by the Assignee Defendant (the \"Creditor Representatives\").49 These individuals are all, upon information and belief, associates of the Debtor.\n\n36. Four of the six Creditor Representatives, Yumei Hao, Hao (Gavin) Li, Yongping Yan, and Yinying Wang, are particularly well known associates of the Debtor. Yumei Hao has, upon information and belief, worked for the Debtor at GClubs and other entities and organizations controlled by the Debtor. Hao (Gavin) Li and Yongping Yan both protested against the Trustee in Grand Central Station in New York City near the entrance to the offices of Paul Hastings, appeared in video broadcasts in support of the Debtor, and dined with the Debtor at the Sherry Netherland. Yinying Wang is, upon information and belief, the secretary of Qidong Xia, an individual who, upon information and belief, is currently acting as the Debtor's secondin-command with respect to multiple Debtor-controlled entities and organizations.\n\n#### **ii. HCHK Property's Creditors**\n\n37. The situation with respect to HCHK Property is nearly identical. The Assignee Defendant has disclosed that HCHK Property has multiple \"creditors and/or investors\" owed a total of \\$48,187,299.7750 (as compared to HCHK Property's disclosed assets of approximately \\$29,785,936 in value51) whose \"names are being withheld for confidentiality purposes.\"52 In\n\n<sup>49</sup> The names of these Creditor Representatives are: Hao (Gavin) Li, Yinying (Aila) Wang, Chris Lee, Yongping\n\nYan, Jintao Li, and Yumei Hao. 50 Ex. 18, Order to Show Cause, Affidavit & Petition of Brian Hofmeister, Ex. B, HCHK Property's list of creditors, *HCHK Prop. Mgmt., Inc., v. Hofmeister*, Index No. 510006/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 23, 2023) (the \"HCHK Prop. Aff.\"). 51 Ex. 18, HCHK Prop. Aff. ¶ 20.\n\n<sup>52</sup> Ex. 18, HCHK Prop. Aff., Ex. B, HCHK Property's list of creditors, n.4.\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 18 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 18 of 38\n\n-\n-\n-\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 19 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 19 of 38\n\n-\n-\n\n- b. Gettr and **HCHK Technologies** are \"Kwok- and [William] Je-controlled companies that are funded, in part, using fraud proceeds.\"69 Gettr \"is a social media company that Kwok controls through a series of shell companies,\" and \"Gettr and **the HCHK entities** . . . operate out of the same office location.\"<sup>70</sup>\n- c. \"Photographs of annotated documents located inside a folder in [Yvette Wang's] purse at her apartment appear to reflect, in substance and in part, certain transactions and balances for six bank accounts held in the names of **HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property Management** . . . GFNY, Inc. (i.e., GFashion), and GF Italy (i.e., GFashion Italy).\"<sup>71</sup>\n- d. \"A photograph of another document located inside the folder in [Yvette Wang's] purse at her apartment appears to reflect, in sum and in substance, that [Yvette Wang] signed payroll expenses associated with various Kwok-controlled entities . . . . The document further indicates how certain payroll expenses were to be allocated among affiliated entities, **including HCHK**.\"<sup>72</sup>\n\n### **F. Debtor Asserts Fifth Amendment When Questioned About HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property**\n\n40. In his deposition on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether he owned and\n\ncontrolled HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property. The Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment\n\nin response.73\n\n### **III. Assignment for Benefit of Creditors Should Be Enjoined**\n\n### **A. Assignment Proceedings**\n\n41. On April 20, 2023, each of the HCHK Entities executed a Deed of Assignment\n\npurporting to assign all of their assets to the Assignee Defendant.\n\n42. On April 25, 2023, each of the Deeds of Assignment was filed with the clerk of\n\nthe State Court.\n\n 69 Ex. 3, Kwok Criminal Case Letter, at 18.\n\n<sup>70</sup> Ex. 3, Kwok Criminal Case Letter, at 8 n.5.\n\n<sup>71</sup> Ex. 23, Kwok Criminal Case Letter Response, at 3.\n\n<sup>72</sup> Ex. 23, Kwok Criminal Case Letter Response, at 3-4.\n\n<sup>73</sup> Ex. 12, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 84:22-85:3.\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 21 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 21 of 38\n\n43. On May 10, 2023, the Assignee Defendant filed his Assignee Affidavit and related documents with respect to HCHK Technologies, and, on May 18, 2023, the State Court issued an order to show cause why an Assignment Proceeding should not be commenced with respect to HCHK Technologies, with an objection deadline of **June 15, 2023** and a hearing date of June 20, 2023 (on papers only, without oral argument). The Trustee's counsel was emailed a copy of the order to show cause, Assignee Affidavit, and related documents on May 30, 2023.\n\n44. On May 23, 2023, the Assignee Defendant filed his Assignee Affidavit and related documents with respect to Lexington Property, and on May 25, 2023, the State Court issued an order to show cause why an Assignment Proceeding should not be commenced with respect to Lexington Property, with an objection deadline of June 21, 2023 and a hearing date of June 28, 2023 (on papers only, without oral argument). The Trustee's counsel was emailed a copy of the order to show cause, Assignee Affidavit, and related documents on May 30, 2023.\n\n45. On May 23, 2023, the Assignee Defendant filed his Assignee Affidavit and related documents with respect to HCHK Property, and on May 31, 2023, the State Court issued an order to show cause why an Assignment Proceeding should not be commenced with respect to HCHK Property, with an objection deadline of June 27, 2023 and a hearing date of June 30, 2023 (on papers only, without oral argument). The Trustee's counsel was emailed a copy of the order to show cause, Assignee Affidavit, and related documents on June 5, 2023 (after having been emailed these same materials, absent the entered order to show cause, on May 30, 2023).\n\n#### **B. Assignee Affidavits**\n\n46. The Assignee Affidavits contain descriptions of each of the HCHK Entities. The related documents filed with the Assignee Affidavits include schedules, prepared by the HCHK Entities, purporting to show the assets of each of the HCHK Entities and the claims of creditors\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 22 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 22 of 38\n\nagainst them. According to these documents, the HCHK Entities possess significant assets, including over \\$35 million in cash, but, assuming the validity of disclosed claims, are each insolvent: (a) HCHK Technologies possesses assets of approximately \\$17.5 million in value, of which \\$4.5 million is cash, as compared to financial creditor claims of \\$51,684,947.50 and vendor creditor claims of \\$206,703.19;74 (b) HCHK Property possesses assets of approximately \\$29,785,936 in value,75 the entirety of which consists of cash, as compared to creditor claims of \\$48,187,299.77;76 and (c) Lexington Property possesses assets of approximately \\$2 million, the entirety of which consists of cash, as compared to creditor claims of at least \\$32,183,837.03.77\n\n47. The Assignee Affidavits describe the HCHK Entities using innocuous corporate jargon, implying that they are independent companies that simply happen to have as clients certain entities affiliated with the Debtor.78 For example, HCHK Technologies is described as \"an emerging global technology and consulting firm that provides strategic solutions across multiple business lines\" that \"offers its clients professional a la carte consulting services across Technology, Product Development, Engineering, Human Resources, Recruitment, Legal, Finance, and R&D.\"79\n\n48. The Assignee Defendant notes Yvette Wang's ownership of the HCHK Entities and the fact that she and the Debtor were arrested and jailed, explaining that Ms. Wang's\n\n<sup>74</sup> Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff., Ex. B, HCHK Technologie's creditor list. These vendor creditor claims include a \\$51,000 claim owed to HCHK Property. 75 Ex. 18, HCHK Prop. Aff. ¶ 20.\n\n<sup>76</sup> Ex. 18, HCHK Prop. Aff., Ex. B, HCHK Property's list of creditors.\n\n<sup>77</sup> Ex. 17, Lexington Aff., Ex. B, Lexington list of creditors.\n\n<sup>78</sup> *See* Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff. at 5 n.1 (noting that Club, G Music, GFNY, and G Fashion \"are affiliated with Ho Wan Kwok . . . a Chinese dissident with a prolific online presence and large social media following, outspoken criticism of the Chinese Communist Party\" and that \"[o]n February 15, 2022, Kwok commenced a voluntary chapter 11 case in the United Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, which remains pending\"). 79 Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 4.\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 23 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 23 of 38\n\nimprisonment was a catalyst for the Deeds of Assignment.80 The Assignee Defendant does not mention Yvette Wang's employment by the Debtor (as found by this Court), or that she is the Debtor's \"trusted chief of staff\" (as described in the U.S. Government's filings).81 Similarly, the Assignee Defendant does not discuss the Debtor's links with Gettr, stating only that certain G-Series Entities other than Gettr are affiliated with the Debtor.\n\n49. The Assignee Defendant does not disclose the identities of the creditors of HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property, claiming that these Unnamed Creditors are individuals whose names cannot be revealed due to their fear of CCP reprisals. While the Assignee Defendant does disclose the names of the Creditor Representatives, he does not point out that they include associates of the Debtor whose protest activities on behalf of the Debtor and at the Debtor's direction were subject to orders of this Court.\n\n50. Moreover, while the Assignee Defendant discloses that the creditors of Lexington Property consist of ACA Capital, Golden Spring, Leading Shine, Saraca Media, and Savio Law, he does not disclose the connections between these entities and the Debtor, many of which are matters of public record in this Chapter 11 Case, such as, for example, Yvette Wang's role as president of Golden Spring, or the Court's finding that the Debtor controls Saraca Media.<sup>82</sup>\n\n51. In sum, while the Assignee Affidavits and related filings submitted to the State Court provide important information regarding the HCHK Entities, they do not present a complete picture of the nature of the HCHK Entities and their connection to the Debtor.\n\n<sup>80</sup> *See, e.g.*, Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 10 (\"Following Yvette's incarceration, as well as the Assignor's loss of GETTR as its primary customer, the Assignor determined, in the exercise of its business judgment, that it was in the best interests of the Assignor and all of its stakeholders to assign all its assets to me, an independent fiduciary, for the benefit of creditors.\").\n\n<sup>81</sup> Ex. 3, Kwok Criminal Case Letter, at 18.\n\n<sup>82</sup> PI Decision ¶ 3.\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 24 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 24 of 38\n\n52. What does come across from the Assignee Affidavits and related filings is that the HCHK Entities should be subject to a federal bankruptcy process. Among other things, they are insolvent, require investigation with respect to their assets, liabilities, and financial condition, and the individual nominally in charge of the HCHK Entities, Yvette Wang, is now in prison.\n\n#### **C. Assignee Defendant's Intentions with Respect to Assignment Proceeding**\n\n53. The Assignee Affidavits and related documents filed by the Assignee Defendant, including proposed orders setting forth the relief sought by the Assignee Defendant from the State Court, make clear that the Assignee Defendant intends to commence what is essentially a separate state law chapter 11 process for the HCHK Entities, with the Assignee Defendant to play a role analogous to that of a bankruptcy trustee (except that he has been selected by the HCHK Entities, not the United States Trustee).\n\n54. According to the Assignment Affidavits, the Assignee Defendant intends to \"investigate and analyze the [HCHK Entities'] books and records and potential claims and causes of action that may be brought on behalf of the [HCHK Entities'] estates and prosecute such claims as may be warranted,\" \"pursue a sale of some or substantially all of the [HCHK Entities'] non-cash assets through a public sale or as otherwise ordered by the Court,\" and \"after giving all creditors and stakeholders (including appropriate governmental authorities) due and proper notice and opportunity to submit claims, to verify, reconcile, and make distributions to provable claims against the [HCHK Entities'] estates in accordance with their respective legal priorities as set forth in the Deeds and applicable law.\"83 Under the Deeds of Assignment, the Assignee Defendant is given the power to \"settle any and all claims against or in favor of Assignor, with the full power to compromise, or, **in Assignee's sole discretion**, to sue or be\n\n<sup>83</sup> Ex. 17, Lexington Aff. ¶ 12.\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 25 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 25 of 38\n\nsued, and to prosecute or defend any claim or claims of any nature whatsoever existing in favor of Assignor.\"84 In addition, the Assignee Defendant seeks authority from the State Court to retain counsel and a financial advisor, including the law firm of McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC, which has represented the HCHK Entities in connection with the Trustee's investigation in this Chapter 11 Case.<sup>85</sup>\n\n#### **D. Necessity of Injunction of Assignment Proceedings**\n\n55. According to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals:\n\nSection 105(a) is to be 'construed liberally to enjoin suits that might impede the reorganization process'—or, as here, the process of liquidation. Liberal construction reflects 'the underlying principle of preserving the debtor's estate for the creditors and funneling claims to one proceeding in the bankruptcy court.' We have held that § 105(a) is properly used to enjoin creditors' lawsuits against third parties where 'the injunction plays an important part in the debtor's reorganization plan,' or where the action to be enjoined 'will have an immediate adverse economic consequence for the debtor's estate.'\n\n*In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec., LLC*, 512 F. App'x 18, 20 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal citations removed).\n\n56. An injunction against the continuation of the Assignment Proceedings is\n\nwarranted pursuant to sections 105, 362, 363, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code for a number of reasons.\n\n57. First, allowing the Assignment Proceeding to continue would give a \"green light\" to the violation of the automatic stay. The Trustee asserts that the HCHK Entities are alter egos of or equitably owned by the Debtor. If the Trustee prevails on his alter ego claim, it will mean that the HCHK Entities will be merged with the Debtor's estate and all of the assets of the\n\n<sup>84</sup> Ex. 17, Lexington Aff., Ex. B, Deeds of Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors ¶ 4(f).\n\n<sup>85</sup> *See e.g., HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc. and Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc's Objection To Production Request, Motion To Quash and/or Motion to Modify 2004 Examination Subpoenas* [Main Case Docket No. 1291].\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 26 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 26 of 38\n\nHCHK Entities will constitute estate property as of the date of the Debtor's chapter 11 filing on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"). In that scenario, the Deeds of Assignment represent null and void violations of the automatic stay committed by individuals who wrongfully transferred estate assets to the Assignee Defendant, or, at the very least, exerted control over the HCHK Entities.86 If the Trustee instead prevails on his equitable ownership claim in connection with the HCHK Entities and/or their assets, it will similarly mean (a) that ownership interests in the HCHK Entities and related rights of corporate control constituted property of the estate as of the Petition Date, and the usurpation of these rights to execute the Deeds of Assignment would represent a null and void stay violation,87 and/or (b) that the estate was the equitable owner of the assets of the HCHK entities, the transfer of which to the Assignee Defendant would be a clear stay violation.\n\n58. Second, the Assignment Proceedings represent duplicative proceedings that threaten to splinter the Debtor's Chapter 11 Case into separate pieces and create costly and timeconsuming challenges to estate administration. Already, the Assignment Proceedings have created multiple and imminent filing deadlines with respect to which the Trustee must respond, and, if allowed to proceed, the Assignment Proceedings will result in the inevitable multiplication of pleadings, deadlines, and hearings. Unchecked, the Assignee Defendant will proceed with a duplicative investigation and claims allowance process; a recipe for disaster,\n\n<sup>86</sup> And, even if not null and void as stay violations, the Deeds of Assignment would represent transfers of estate property prohibited and avoidable under section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and impermissible under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which only allows estate assets to be used, sold, or leased outside of the\n\nordinary course of business after notice and a hearing before this Court. 87 Moreover, putting aside the usurpation of corporate control, the Deeds of Assignment would violate the stay in the event that the HCHK Entities are equitably owned by the Debtor (as opposed to being the Debtor's alter egos), because the automatic stay would apply to the HCHK Entities as wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Debtor. *See Queenie, Ltd. v. Nygard Int'l,* 321 F.3d 282, 287 (2d Cir. 2003) (\"the stay applies to Queenie because it is wholly owned by Gardner, and adjudication of a claim against the corporation will have an immediate adverse economic impact on Gardner\").\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 27 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 27 of 38\n\nespecially considering all the delay and cost the Debtor has already imposed on his creditors by creating hundreds of shell companies to hide his assets, something the Trustee is attempting to reverse by bringing assets into one insolvency process where all the Debtor's creditors can seek a recovery. Indeed, it is a core principle of our bankruptcy laws that there should be one forum in which a Debtor's financial affairs are resolved, militating strongly in favor of enjoining the Defendants and any party acting in concert with them from commencing or continuing the Assignment Proceedings.\n\n59. Third, the Assignment Proceedings are not only duplicative, but decidedly inferior to the Chapter 11 Case before this Court. For one thing, the Chapter 11 Case provides a more robust legal framework: to give one example, state law cannot impose an automatic stay like the Bankruptcy Code can. More importantly, as practical matter, putting the Debtor's insolvency process before a State Court unfamiliar with the Debtor is completely nonsensical given the complexity of the Debtor's affairs. Only this Court has the benefit not only of its experience with the Debtor and his affiliated entities, but of key precedential rulings and findings (which the Debtor and his associates will surely seek to challenge or deviate from if they are in another forum). Moreover, it is this Court that already established and conducted a process for the filing of claims, including with expansive notice procedures and procedures for the confidential submission of claims, resulting in the filing of over a thousand claims by the Debtor's creditors. It is unclear how these creditors will be notified about, much less participate adequately in, the Assignment Proceedings. Indeed, it seems likely that these creditors will be shut out of the Assignment Proceedings and denied any recovery from the HCHK Entities' assets, thus suffering extreme prejudice. Even those creditors able to participate in the Assignment Proceeding will suffer unwarranted prejudice because they will have been forced to\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 28 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 28 of 38\n\nundergo the effort and expense (and, without adequate confidentially procedures, significant personal risks) of submitting claims in a new and unfamiliar proceeding.\n\n60. In addition, the Trustee is leaps and bounds ahead of the Assignee Defendant in connection with his investigation of the HCHK Entities, as demonstrated in this Complaint, which seeks to incorporate the HCHK Entities and their assets into the estate for the benefit of the Debtor's creditors based on voluminous evidence gathered in the Trustee's ongoing investigation (evidence that the Trustee will develop further in the course of this adversary proceeding). By contrast, the Assignee Defendant appears to not yet be aware of key facts in connection with the HCHK Entities, as demonstrated by the examples of important information omitted from the Assignee Affidavits, as discussed above. These omissions suggest that the HCHK Entities, under the control of the Debtor, chose to pursue the Assignee Proceeding as a way to avoid the Trustee and this Court and find a different court where they could \"start afresh\" and more easily craft a favorable narrative.\n\n61. A key dynamic here is that the Debtor and his associates do not want to be scrutinized by this Court or investigated by the Trustee. The Debtor has continually opposed the Trustee's involvement and on two occasions sought to replace the Trustee with someone else. If the Assignment Proceedings are allowed to go forward, the Debtor and his associates will no doubt seek to avoid the Trustee and this Court by pursuing assignments for the benefit of creditors with respect to other entities that, like the HCHK Entities, are subject to the Trustee's investigation and facing imminent alter ego or other actions by the Trustee. The Debtor and his associates will seek to use such state court proceedings as a way to distribute assets to \"friendly\" creditors (such as the creditors listed in the Assignment Affidavits for the HCHK Entities) rather than allow those assets to be distributed to the Debtor's victims who have filed claims in the\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 29 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 29 of 38\n\nChapter 11 Case. In other words, allowing the Assignment Proceedings for the HCHK Entities to go forward is likely to result in even more assignment proceedings being commenced, resulting in an even greater multiplication of duplicative proceedings, expense, delay, and confusion. That is an outcome that would play directly into the hands of the Debtor and result in manifest injustice for the Debtor's numerous creditors who look to this Court and this Chapter 11 Case for some recovery on their claims.\n\n#### **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n#### **(Declaratory Judgment that HCHK Entities are the Debtor's Alter Egos, that Assignment of HCHK Entities' Assets Violated Automatic Stay and Is Null and Void, and Ordering Turnover of HCHK Entities' Assets to Trustee)**\n\n62. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-61.\n\n63. Delaware law applies to the alter ego claim because the HCHK Entities are\n\nDelaware entities.88\n\n64. Under Delaware's two-pronged test for piercing the corporate veil, a court applying Delaware's alter ego analysis to the Debtor's relationship with the HCHK Entities will focus on (1) whether the Debtor and the HCHK Entities operated as a single economic unit and (2) whether there was an overall element of injustice or unfairness. In determining whether entities operated as a single economic unit, a court applying Delaware law would consider a number of factors, including, among others, whether the HCHK Entities were adequately\n\n<sup>88</sup> *See, e.g.*, *Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar*, No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM), 2021 WL 965794, at \\*7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021) (\"[B]ecause [defendant] is incorporated in Delaware, I must apply Delaware law to decide if it may be subject to an alter ego claim for reverse veil piercing liability.\").\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 30 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 30 of 38\n\ncapitalized, observed corporate formalities, and were a facade for the Debtor.89 This \"list of factors is not exhaustive and no single factor is dispositive.\"<sup>90</sup>\n\n65. The Debtor exercised control and dominion over the HCHK Entities such that the\n\nHCHK Entities had no independent existence from the Debtor and the Debtor used the corporate\n\nform to perpetrate a fraud and injustice. The HCHK Entities are an alter ego of the Debtor,\n\nbecause, among other reasons, the HCHK Entities:\n\n- a. were nominally owned and staffed by the Debtor's employees;\n- b. are affiliates of the Debtor's G-Series Entities that this Court has already found to be controlled by or to serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, as part of a single enterprise controlled by and serving the interests of the Debtor;\n- c. paid the Debtor's expenses, including with respect to the *Lady May* and the Debtor's Bombardier jet (which Mei Guo testified was sold in the summer of 2022); and\n- d. were funded by the Debtor through the Debtor's associates, controlled companies, and representatives.\n\n66. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such\n\ncreditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n67. Because the HCHK Entities were at all times alter egos of the Debtor, their assets\n\nwere, following the Petition Date, assets of the Debtor's estate. Therefore, the Deeds of\n\nAssignment represent null and void transfers of estate assets in violation of the automatic stay,\n\n<sup>89</sup> *Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG*, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010) (Noting the factors that the Third Circuit considers in determining whether a corporation operated as a single economic entity, which notably would not include whether the relevant individual is a shareholder of the entity, but would include \"gross undercapitalization; failure to observe corporate formalities . . . [and] whether the corporation is merely a facade.\").\n\n<sup>90</sup> *Id.* at 471.\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 31 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 31 of 38\n\nwhich prohibits, among other things, \"any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate,\" 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3), and \"any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title.\" 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6).\n\n68. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 362, 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times the HCHK Entities were an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by the HCHK Entities at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by the HCHK Entities at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, including the HCHK Entities' \\$35 million in cash, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; (2) declaring the Deeds of Assignment and assignments of assets pursuant thereto to be null and void; and (3) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of the HCHK Entities to the Trustee.\n\n#### **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n#### **(In Alternative)**\n\n#### **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of HCHK Entities, that Assignment of HCHK Entities' Assets Violated Automatic Stay and Is Null and Void, and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of the HCHK Entities and/or their Assets to Trustee)**\n\n69. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-61.\n\n70. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that the HCHK Entities are alter egos of the Debtor, also support the alternative conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of the HCHK Entities and/or their assets.91\n\n<sup>91</sup> *Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc*., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997) (defendant that \"exercised considerable authority over [the corporation] . . . to the point of completely disregarding the corporate form and *acting as though [its] assets were his alone to manage.\"*) (emphasis added).\n\n71. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n72. Because the HCHK Entities were equitably owned by the Debtor, the ownership and corporate control rights over the HCHK Entities, and/or the assets of the HCHK Entities, were, following the Petition Date, property of the Estate. The use of those ownership and corporate control rights in connection with the execution of the Deeds of Assignment and the purported assignment of the HCHK Entities' assets to the Assignee Defendant violated the automatic stay, which prohibits \"any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate.\" 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). Therefore, the Deeds of Assignment and assignments of assets pursuant thereto are null and void.\n\n73. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 362, 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in the HCHK Entities purportedly held by Holy City and Anthony DiBattista, and/or the assets of the HCHK Entities (including but not limited to assets purportedly transferred to the Assignee Defendant and/or held by the Assignee Defendant), are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; (2) declaring the Deeds of Assignment and assignments of assets pursuant thereto to be null and void; and (3) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in the HCHK entities, and/or the assets of the HCHK Entities, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n#### **(Injunctive Relief Under Section 105, 362, 363, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code)**\n\n74. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-61.\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 33 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 33 of 38\n\n75. Section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that \"[t]he court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.\" 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).\n\n76. Section 362's automatic stay prohibits, among other things, \"any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate.\" 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).\n\n77. Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code permits the use, sale, or lease of estate property, other than in the ordinary course of business, but only \"after notice and a hearing.\" 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1).\n\n78. Section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for the avoidance of a transfer of property of the estate \"that occurs after the commencement of the case\" and \"that is not authorized under this title or by the court.\" 11 U.S.C. § 549(a)(1)(B).\n\n79. An injunction against the continuation of the Assignment Proceedings is warranted pursuant to section 105, 362, 363, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code because, if allowed to continue, the Assignment Proceedings will have an immediate adverse consequence for the Debtor's estate. Among other things, allowing the Assignment Proceedings to go forward would effectively permit the continued violation of the automatic stay, the Assignment Proceedings are both duplicative of and decidedly inferior to the Chapter 11 Case, and allowing them to continue will encourage the Debtor to commence new assignment proceedings with his other alter ego entities as a strategy to bypass scrutiny by the Trustee and this Court.\n\n80. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 105, 362, 363, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code, enjoining the Defendants and any party acting in concert with them from commencing or continuing the Assignment Proceedings (or any other judicial,\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 34 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 34 of 38\n\nadministrative, or other actions or proceedings with respect to the HCHK Entities and/or their assets), enjoining any transfer or use of the assets, including cash, of the HCHK Entities (including but not limited to such assets purportedly transferred to the Assignee Defendant and/or held by the Assignee Defendant), or ownership interests in the HCHK Entities, except as authorized or directed by the Trustee or this Court, and requiring that the Defendants immediately notify the State Court of such injunction.\n\n#### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n1. On the First Claim, an order pursuant to sections 362, 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times the HCHK Entities were an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by the HCHK Entities at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by the HCHK Entities at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, including the HCHK Entities' \\$345 million in cash, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; (2) declaring the Deeds of Assignment and assignments of assets pursuant thereto to be null and void; and (3) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of the HCHK Entities to the Trustee;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 362, 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in the HCHK Entities purportedly held by Holy City and Anthony DiBattista, and/or the assets of the HCHK Entities, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; (2) declaring the Deeds of\n\n# Case 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 35 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 35 of 38\n\nAssignment and assignments of assets pursuant thereto to be null and void; and (3) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in the HCHK entities, and/or the assets of the HCHK Entities, to the Trustee;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 105, 362, 363, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code, enjoining the Defendants and any party acting in concert with them from commencing or continuing the Assignment Proceedings (or any other judicial, administrative, or other actions or proceedings with respect to the HCHK Entities and/or their assets), enjoining any transfer or use of the assets, including cash, of the HCHK Entities (including but not limited to such assets purportedly transferred to the Assignee Defendant and/or held by the Assignee Defendant), or ownership interests in the HCHK Entities, except as authorized or directed by the Trustee or this Court, and requiring that the Defendants immediately notify the State Court of such injunction;\n\n4. Reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action; and\n\n5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 36 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 36 of 38\n\nDated: June 8, 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 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n *and*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(pro hac vice* pending) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 37 of 38\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1-25 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 1 of 2\n\n**B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| (Instructions on Reverse)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | (Court Use Only)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |  |  |  |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |\n| PLAINTIFFS                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | DEFENDANTS                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |  |  |  |\n| Luc<br>A.<br>Despins,<br>Chapter<br>11<br>Trustee                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.; LEXINGTON<br>PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC.; HOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD.;<br>YVETTE WANG; ANTHONY DIBATTISTA ; and BRIAN HOFMEISTER (in his capacity<br>as assignee)                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |  |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | ATTORNEYS (If Known)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |\n| Douglass E. Barron, Esq. , Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue<br>New York, NY 10166, 212-318-6000<br>douglassbarron@paulhastings.com                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             | HCHK Entities: Mcmanimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC, 75 Livingston Avenue, 2nd Floor Roseland,<br>New Jersey 07068; Yvette Wang: ChaudhryLaw PLLC, 147 West 25th Street, 12th Fl, New York, NY<br>10001; Anthony DiBattista: Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC, 565 Fifth Ave, New York,<br>NY 10017; Brian Hoffmeister: Cole Schotz P.C., 1325 Avenue of the Americas, 19th Fl, New York. NY<br>10019 |  |  |  |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)<br>Ƒ<br>Debtor<br>Ƒ867UXVWHH%DQNUXSWF\\Admin<br>Ƒ<br>Creditor<br>Ƒ<br>Other<br>Ƒ<br>Trustee<br>■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | PARTY (Check One Box Only)<br>Ƒ<br>ƑU.S. Trustee/BankruptcyAdmin<br>Debtor<br>Ƒ<br>Ƒ<br>Creditor<br>Other<br>■<br>Ƒ<br>Trustee                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION (WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED)<br>First claim: Declaration that HCHK Entities are the Debtor's alter egos, that assignment of HCHK Entities' assets violated automatic stay, and<br>ordering turnover of HCHK Entities' assets to trustee, pursuant to Bk. Code secs. 362, 541, 542, 544; Second claim (in the alternative):<br>Declaration that Debtor is equitable owner of HCHK Entities, that assignment of HCHK Entities' assets violated automatic stay, and ordering<br>turnover of ownership of the HCHK Entities and/or their assets to Trustee, pursuant to Bk. Code secs. 362, 541, 542, 544; Third Claim: Injunctive<br>relief enjoining the Defendants from commencing or continuing the Assignment Proceedings, pursuant to Bk. Code secs. 105, 362, 363, 549. |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |\n| NATURE OF SUIT<br>(Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property<br>Ƒ<br>■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)<br>Ƒ                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |  |  |  |\n| 11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property<br>Ƒ                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | 61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support<br>Ƒ                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |  |  |  |\n| 12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference<br>Ƒ<br>13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | 68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury<br>Ƒ<br>63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |\n| Ƒ<br>14-Recovery of money/property - other                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | Ƒ<br>64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |  |  |  |\n| FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | (other than domestic support)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |\n| Ƒ<br>21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | Ƒ<br>65-Dischargeability - other<br>FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief<br>Ƒ<br>■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |\n| Ƒ<br>31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | 71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay<br>Ƒ<br>72-Injunctive relief – other                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |\n| Ƒ<br>41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | Ƒ<br>81-Subordination of claim or interest                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |  |  |  |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |  |\n| Ƒ<br>51-Revocation of confirmation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               | Ƒ<br>91-Declaratory judgment                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |  |  |  |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability<br>Ƒ                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |\n| 66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims<br>Ƒ                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             | Ƒ<br>01-Determination of removed claim or cause                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |\n| 62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation,<br>actual fraud                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         | Other                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |\n| Ƒ<br>67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | Ƒ<br>SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |\n| (continued next column)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          | Ƒ<br>■<br>02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court<br>if unrelated to bankruptcy case)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |  |  |  |\n| Ƒ<br>Check if this case involves a substantive issue of statelaw                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | Ƒ<br>Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP23                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |  |  |  |\n| Ƒ Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | Demand \\$                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |  |  |  |\n| Other Relief Sought                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |\n| Declaratory<br>relief<br>as<br>set<br>forth<br>above;<br>injunctive<br>relief<br>as<br>set<br>forth<br>above.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 38 of 38\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1-25 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 2 of 2\n\n**B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES |           |                                       |                              |  |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR<br>Ho Wan Kwok                             |           | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO.<br>22-50073 (JAM) |                              |  |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING<br>Connecticut          |           | DIVISION OFFICE<br>Bridgeport         | NAME OF JUDGE<br>Manning, J. |  |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY)                     |           |                                       |                              |  |\n| PLAINTIFF                                                 | DEFENDANT |                                       | ADVERSARY<br>PROCEEDING NO.  |  |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING                    |           | DIVISION OFFICE                       | NAME OF JUDGE                |  |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)                      |           |                                       |                              |  |\n| /s/<br>Douglass<br>Barron                                 |           |                                       |                              |  |\n|                                                           |           |                                       |                              |  |\n| DATE                                                      |           | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) |                              |  |\n| June<br>8,<br>2023                                        |           | Douglass<br>E.<br>Barron              |                              |  |\n\n#### **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\nThe filing of a bankruptcy case creates an \"estate\" under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court which consists of all of the property of the debtor, wherever that property is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there may be lawsuits over the property or property rights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtor's discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding.\n\nA party filing an adversary proceeding must also must complete and file Form 1040, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically through the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF). (CM/ECF captures the information on Form 1040 as part of the filing process.) When completed, the cover sheet summarizes basic information on the adversary proceeding. The clerk of court needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity.\n\nThe cover sheet and the information contained on it do not replace or supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, the Bankruptcy Rules, or the local rules of court. The cover sheet, which is largely selfexplanatory, must be completed by the plaintiff's attorney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover sheet must be submitted to the clerk for each complaint filed.\n\n**Plaintiffs** and **Defendants.** Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the complaint.\n\n**Attorneys.** Give the names and addresses of the attorneys, if known.\n\n**Party**. Check the most appropriate box in the first column for the plaintiffs and the second column for the defendants.\n\n**Demand.** Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint.\n\n**Signature.** This cover sheet must be signed by the attorney of record in the box on the second page of the form. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, a member of the firm must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not represented by an attorney, the plaintiff must sign.","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州联邦地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1\n债务人。　x\n：\n：\n第11章\n：\n：\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n：\n：\n（合并管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章\n受托人，\n原告，\n诉　：\nx\n\n对抗程序案号 [\n]\n\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.（HCHK科技公司）、\nHCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.（HCHK物业管理公司）、\nLEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC.（莱克星顿物业与人事服务公司）、\nHOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD.（圣城香港创投有限公司）、\nANTHONY DIBATTISTA（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）、YVETTE WANG（王雁）\n及 BRIAN HOFMEISTER（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特）（以其\n受让人身份），　：\n：\nJune 8, 2023\n\n被告。　：\n\n第11章受托人代表 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）遗产，根据《破产法典》第105、362、363、541、542、544及549条提出的起诉书，请求：(I) 作出确认判决，认定 HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.（HCHK科技公司）、HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.（HCHK物业管理公司）及 LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC.（莱克星顿物业与人事服务公司）为：(A) 债务人的另我实体；或 (B) 备选地，作出命令认定债务人在衡平法上拥有该等实体及/或其财产；以及 (II) 判予禁令救济\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 2 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 2 of 38\n\nLuc A. Despins，以其作为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，针对下列被告提起本对抗程序起诉书（“起诉书”）：(a) HCHK Technologies, Inc.（“HCHK Technologies”）；(b) HCHK Property Management, Inc.（“HCHK Property”）；(c) Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.（“Lexington Property”，连同 HCHK Technologies 和 HCHK Property，统称“HCHK实体”）；(d) Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Ltd.（“Holy City”）；(e) Yvette Wang（王雁）；(f) Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）；及 (g) Brian Hofmeister（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特），以其作为HCHK实体受让人的身份（“受让被告”，2 并与HCHK实体、Holy City、Yvette Wang及Anthony DiBattista合称“被告”）。为支持本起诉书，受托人陈述如下：\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提出本起诉书及其随附的临时限制令和初步禁令动议，以将有价值的资产纳入第11章遗产，并紧急防止该等资产被耗散，从而损害债务人的债权人。正如本法院所熟知，债务人曾使用空壳公司、家庭成员和亲密关联人，协助将其资产置于债权人的追索范围之外；例如，他曾利用名义上由其女儿所有的 Hong Kong International Investments (USA) Limited（“HK USA”），制造其 Lady May 游艇及约 $33 million 托管资金并非本遗产财产的假象。本法院在就受托人针对HK USA提出的另我实体主张作出简易判决时，适当地未予理会该等假象。\n\n2 截至提交本起诉书时，受托人并不掌握关于受让被告实际知悉或并未实际知悉本起诉书所述事实的信息。然而，无论受让被告是否实际知悉该等事实，本起诉书所请求的救济均有充分依据。\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 3 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 3 of 38\n\n2. 债务人及其关联人正以同样手法利用HCHK实体持有逾 $35 million 本应属于遗产的现金。HCHK实体名义上由王雁所有；王雁是债务人的亲密关联人，亦为美国政府涉案金额数十亿美元的刑事欺诈及洗钱案件中的共同被告。然而，实际情况是，王雁听从债务人的指示，而HCHK实体如同此前的HK USA及债务人的众多其他空壳公司一样，仅是债务人本人的延伸，旨在经营其业务并使其有价值的资产免受债权人追索。\n\n3. 虽然债务人将HCHK实体仅作为另我实体使用并非新事，但目前所涉情形甚至比过去更令人担忧，因为债务人及其关联人目前正实施一项计划，欲将HCHK实体的有价值资产转移给债务人的其他空壳公司。具体而言，April 20, 2023，债务人的雇员（名义上担任HCHK实体管理职务）就每一HCHK实体签署了转让契据，声称将其全部资产转让给受让被告。受让被告随后就每一HCHK实体向纽约州纽约县最高法院（“州法院”）提交宣誓书和申请书（每份称为“受让人宣誓书”，合称“受让人宣誓书”）。受让人宣誓书请求依据纽约州《债务人与债权人法》启动为债权人利益而作出的转让程序（每项称为“转让程序”，合称“转让程序”）。与受让人宣誓书一并提交的文件包括HCHK实体所谓债权人的清单，其中列有与债务人有关联的实体，例如 ACA Capital、Golden Spring 和 Saraca Media（各定义见下文），以及据悉和确信为债务人关联人或亲属的未具名个人。3\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 4 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 4 of 38\n\n受让人宣誓书及相关文件于 May 30, 2023 送达受托人；其中，就HCHK Technologies及Lexington Property的转让程序，附有要求说明为何不应作出启动转让程序命令的陈述理由令，HCHK Technologies的答复日期为 June 15, 2023，Lexington Property的答复日期为 June 21, 2023。June 5, 2023，受托人收到一项要求说明为何不应作出启动HCHK Property转让程序命令的陈述理由令，答复日期为 June 27, 2023。这些程序中，债务人及其控制之人正试图在没有受托人和本法院监督及参与的情况下，创设其自身版本的第11章案件。\n\n4. 大量证据表明，HCHK实体是债务人的另我实体或在衡平法上由债务人拥有，4 因此，转让程序显然意图将HCHK实体的有价值资产从本第11章遗产中转移。在所有相关期间，HCHK实体 (a) 名义上由债务人的雇员拥有并配备人员；(b) 是债务人“G-Series”实体的关联方，例如 Gettr、GTV、GClubs、GFashion 和 GMusic（“G-Series实体”）；本法院已认定该等实体受债务人控制或作为债务人的商业工具；5 (c) 支付债务人的费用，包括与 Lady May 及债务人的 Bombardier 喷气机有关的费用（Mei Guo 证称该飞机已于 2022 年夏季售出）；以及 (d) 由债务人通过关联人、受控制实体及代表人提供资金。\n\n3 换言之，受让被告获转让HCHK实体资产“代表债权人”行事，表面上是获转让HCHK实体资产“代表”一批债务人的关联人和受控制实体行事。\n\n4 受托人的衡平所有权主张包括对HCHK实体的衡平所有权（即代表该等实体所有权权益的股份）及/或对HCHK实体资产的衡平所有权。\n\n5 本法院还认定：“GSeries中的G代表Guo。”部分准许初步禁令动议的更正决定备忘录，第3段（Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Jan. 13, 2023）[Docket No. 133]（“PI裁决”）。\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 5 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 5 of 38\n\n美国政府在其对债务人和王雁的刑事起诉中，同样主张债务人控制HCHK Technologies和HCHK Property。债务人本人并未提出异议，因为在其证言录取中被问及其对HCHK Technologies和HCHK Property的控制权及所有权时，他援引了《美国宪法》第五修正案。6\n\n5. 受托人在本起诉书中请求本法院根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条作出命令，认定HCHK实体为债务人的另我实体及/或在衡平法上由其拥有；并根据《破产法典》第105、362、363及549条作出命令，禁止被告及与其共同行动的任何一方启动或继续转让程序，并禁止转让或使用HCHK实体的资产（包括现金），除非经受托人或本法院授权。所请求的禁令具有正当依据，因为转让程序将对债务人遗产造成即时不利后果，即实际上允许继续违反自动中止规定，使HCHK实体和被告能够进行与本第11章案件重复且显著不如本第11章案件的平行程序。允许转让程序继续进行，也将鼓励债务人就其其他另我实体启动新的转让程序，以此作为规避受托人和本法院审查的策略。\n\n管辖权及审判地\n\n6. 本法院根据 28 U.S.C. §1334(b) 对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n6 在其日期为 May 11, 2023 的宣誓声明中，债务人在被要求陈述其对王雁拥有控制权时援引了《美国宪法》第五修正案。债务人关于对特定问题答复的宣誓声明，第46段（就其对众多其他实体和个人的控制权问题援引第五修正案），作为证据1附于本起诉书。\n\n7. 本对抗程序已根据 28 U.S.C. §157(a) 移送本法院。\n\n当事人\n\n8. 受托人根据本法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的命令 [Main Case Docket No. 523]，担任第11章案件中的第11章受托人。\n\n9. HCHK Technologies 是一家特拉华州公司。\n\n10. HCHK Property 是一家特拉华州公司。\n\n11. Lexington Property 是一家特拉华州公司。\n\n12. Holy City 是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，名义上拥有每一HCHK实体 99.9999% 的股权权益。Holy City 名义上由王雁 100% 所有。\n\n13. 王雁是Holy City名义上的100%所有人。\n\n14. Anthony DiBattista 是一名个人，名义上拥有每一HCHK实体 0.0001% 的股权权益。\n\n15. 受让被告为 Brian W. Hofmeister, LLC 律师事务所的管理合伙人。受让被告是就每一HCHK实体的一名所谓代表于 April 20, 2023 签署的、为债权人利益而作出的转让契据所涉的受让人；该转让契据声称将每一HCHK实体的全部资产转让给受让被告。\n\n事实\n\nI. 背景：债务人大量使用空壳公司\n\n16. 债务人是空壳公司的大量使用者；这些公司表面上由其家庭成员或商业下属所有，用于保护其资产和活动免受债权人追索。债务人的“空壳游戏”使其得以继续否认对资产的所有权、拒绝偿还债务，并且——直至其最近被 FBI 逮捕——过着奢华的生活。\n\n17. 例如，表面上由债务人之子所有的空壳公司（具体而言，Lamp Capital LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）和 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司））已支付债务人的生活开支和律师费；表面上由其女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）所有的空壳公司 HK USA（美国香港），本院最近裁定该公司是债务人的另我，7，曾持有债务人游艇的所有权；本院和 Ostrager 法官此前均已裁定，尽管该游艇名义上由 HK USA 所有，但其系债务人的财产；8 另一个表面上由债务人之妻所有的空壳公司 Greenwich Land LLC（格林威治地产有限责任公司）持有债务人在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）住所的所有权。9 债务人还声称，其位于 Sherry Netherland Hotel（雪莉荷兰酒店）的公寓由信托持有，以惠及另一个表面上由其儿子所有的空壳公司 Bravo Luck Limited（百乐福有限公司）。10 同样，债务人曾利用表面上由其女儿所有的 Anton Development Limited（安东发展有限公司）和 Whitecroft Short Limited（怀特克罗夫特肖特有限公司）持有其 Bombardier（庞巴迪）私人飞机的所有权（Mei Guo 作证称，该飞机已于 2022 年夏季出售）。11\n\n7 关于准许第二项反诉部分简易判决动议的决定备忘录及命令，第 35 页（对抗程序编号 22-05003，May 18, 2023）[Docket No. 221]（“HK USA is the alter ego of the Individual Debtor.”）。8\n\n支持准许部分简易判决动议之口头裁决的补充决定备忘录，第 31 页（对抗程序编号 22005003，Mar. 30, 2023）[Docket No. 177]（“the issue of Individual Debtor's beneficial ownership and control of the Lady is decisive as to the First Counterclaim and the identical issue was necessarily decided by Justice Ostrager in the Final Contempt Decision, which found by clear and convincing evidence that the Individual Debtor beneficially owned and controlled the Lady May”）。9\n\n受托人已在对抗程序 23-05005 中针对该实体寻求另我判决；就此，本院已对 Greenwich Land LLC 和债务人之妻作出判决前救济及临时限制令。见部分准许单方临时限制令及初步禁令动议的命令（对抗程序编号 23-05005，Mar. 28, 2023）[Docket No. 14]；准许 Chapter 11（第 11 章）受托人经修订的单方判决前救济申请的命令（对抗程序编号 23-05005，Mar. 28, 2023）[Docket No. 15]。10 受托人在其下列文书中对 Bravo Luck Limited 就 Sherry Netherland 公寓主张的权益提出异议：\n\nChapter 11 受托人代表 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）财产针对 Bravo Luck 和 Qiang Guo（郭强）提出的经修订对抗性起诉状，请求：（I）宣告 Bravo Luck 受益的所谓信托协议无效；以及（II）作为备选，请求裁定债务人依照 New York（纽约州）《债务人与债权人法》第 276 条作出有利于 Bravo Luck 和 Qiang Guo 的欺诈性转让，该条经《破产法典》第 544 条适用（对抗程序编号 22-05027，Feb. 28, 2023）[Docket No. 40]；就此，债务人之子 Qiang Guo 已缺席。Chapter 11 受托人代表 Ho Wan Kwok 财产请求对 Qiang Guo 作出缺席判决的动议（对抗程序编号 22-05027，June 2, 2023）[Docket No. 93]。\n\nLimited，即表面上由债务人女儿所有的实体，用于持有债务人的 Bombardier 私人飞机的所有权（Mei Guo 作证称，该飞机已于 2022 年夏季出售）。11\n\n18. 此前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的 Liman 法官在 2021 年的一项裁决中认定，Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司）——另一家表面上由债务人女儿持有的公司——“本质上是”债务人的一家空壳公司。12 Eastern Profit Corporation Limited 是众多表面上独立实体之一；2018 年一项 Hong Kong（香港）法院命令认定其财务账户“受债务人的有效控制”。13\n\n19. 与此相关，受托人以密封方式提交于 Docket No. 1327 的一份保密证人声明（以下简称“保密证人声明”）——并作为支持本起诉状的证据以引用方式并入——除其他事项外表明，GClubs、GNews 和 GEdu，14 受债务人控制，15 由债务人领导，16 和/或服务于债务人的“目的……并作为债务人的商业工具”。17\n\n11 Chapter 11 受托人代表 Ho Wan Kwok 财产提出的起诉状，请求：（I）依照《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条及《破产规则》第 7001 条，作出宣告性判决，认定由 Mei Guo 持有的财产系破产财产；及（II）相关救济（对抗程序编号 23-05008，May 16, 2023）[Docket No. 1]。12 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021)。13 Ex. 2, Hong Kong Restraint Order, at 7-18。\n\n21. 本院在其因债务人违反本院公司治理命令而认定其藐视法庭的命令中，另行认定债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）（以及通过该公司持有的 Dawn State Limited（黎明州有限公司））的受益所有人，并认定债务人控制并雇用 Ace Decade Limited 的名义所有人 Yvette Wang（王燕平）。18 此后，受托人获悉，在 Ace Decade 程序进行期间（但在本院于 November 17, 2022 认定债务人自 February 15, 2022 申请日之日起独家受益所有并控制 Ace Decade 之后19），Yvette Wang 将其名义持有的 Ace Decade 股份转让给一名位于 Switzerland（瑞士）的个人（据所知和所信，该人是债务人的另一名关联人）。\n\nII. HCHK 实体是债务人的另我或由债务人衡平所有\n\nA. 名义上由债务人员工所有并配备人员的 HCHK 实体\n\n22. 每一 HCHK 实体均具有完全相同的所有权结构，这直接表明其受债务人控制。每一 HCHK 实体均由 Holy City（圣城）直接持有 99.9999%，并由债务人的长期雇员 Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）持有 0.0001%；Anthony DiBattista 同时还是 HCHK Property（HCHK 地产）和 Lexington Property（列克星敦地产）的董事及总裁。Holy City 由债务人的助理 Yvette Wang 100% 所有。20\n\n23. 本院已裁定，“债务人对 Wang 女士具有控制权”，且其“已雇用 Yvette Wang 数年，并曾指示其代表自己采取行动，包括指示其代表自己购买诸如 Sherry-Netherland 公寓等房产。”21 Wang 女士还以多种其他身份为债务人服务，包括担任 Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、Leading Shine NY Limited（领先光芒纽约有限公司）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）、GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司）及 Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）的高级职员和/或授权签字人。22 受托人在调查中获悉，Wang 女士被广泛知悉为债务人的私人助理。在其证言录取中被问及 Wang 女士是否为其雇员时，债务人援引其宪法第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利。23\n\n24. On March 15, 2023，Wang 女士因被控除其他事项外就债务人的刑事欺诈及洗钱活动与债务人共谋而被逮捕。据 U.S. Government（美国政府）称，Wang 女士作为债务人“受信赖的幕僚长”，在债务人的欺诈计划中发挥了“关键作用”；其职责包括管理甚至与其不存在正式关联的实体的运营。24\n\n25. Anthony DiBattista 也是债务人的长期雇员，在不同的债务人控制公司担任各种职务。DiBattista 先生曾受雇于 Golden Spring，并曾作为 GTV、25 GFashion（G时尚）、26 和 GClubs。27 的公司高级职员为债务人服务。在其证言录取中被问及 DiBattista 先生是否为其雇员时，债务人援引其宪法第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利。28\n\n26. 除 DiBattista 先生外，HCHK 实体的关键人员均为债务人“家族办公室”Golden Spring 的前雇员或高级职员。这些转至 HCHK 实体的其他 Golden Spring 人员包括 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、29 Joe Wang（乔·王）、30 Bernardo Enriquez（贝尔纳多·恩里克斯）、31 和 Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯）。32 据所知和所信，HCHK 实体仅是使用新公司信笺的 Golden Spring 的延续。其他 HCHK 人员包括 Elliott Dordick（埃利奥特·多迪克），33 本院认定其为 Gettr（盖特尔）的雇员，34\n\n24 Ex. 3, Kwok Criminal Case Letter, at 18.\n\n25 参见初步禁令裁定 ¶ 3（“债务人还控制 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）及关联实体‘GTV’，二者通常合称为 GTV。”）。\n\n26 参见同上（“债务人创立了 GFashion。”）。27 美国政府指称，GClubs“实际上受”债务人控制，证据 24，起诉书 ¶ 10，United States v. Kwok（美国诉郭文贵案）, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT, (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2023) [Docket No. 2]；债务人及 William Je（杰威廉）利用 GClubs“以欺诈方式获取[]超过 $250 million”，同上 ¶ 14；并且 GClubs 的资金被用于支付债务人及其家人的个人开支。同上 ¶ 15。28 证据 12，Kwok Dep. Tr. 第 87:6-8 页\n\n29 除在 HCHK 实体任职外，Krasner 先生还是 Golden Spring（金泉公司）的雇员，并以众多其他身份为债务人服务，包括担任 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（无限资金管理公司，Lamp Capital LLC 的母公司）及 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）的高级管理人员和/或授权签字人。30 Wang 先生是 HCHK Technologies（HCHK 技术公司）的技术副总裁，曾任 Golden Spring 的首席技术官或类似职务。31 除在 HCHK 实体任职外，Enriquez 先生还曾在 Golden Spring 工作，并担任 Lamp Capital LLC（兰普资本有限责任公司）的司库等职务。32 除在 HCHK 实体任职外，Hadjicharalambous 先生还曾多年任职于 Golden Spring、GClubs 及 Freedom Media Ventures Ltd.（自由媒体创投有限公司）等由债务人控制的实体。33 Elliot Dordick, Esq.（艾略特·多迪克律师），LinkedIn，http 34 初步禁令裁定 ¶ 13。\n案件 23-05013 文书 1 已提交 06/08/23 已录入 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 12 页，共 36 页 案件 22-50073 文书 1897 已提交 06/08/23 已录入 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 12 页，共 38 页\n\n该实体属于 G-Series Entities（G 系列实体）的一部分，本院认定该等实体“服务于债务人的目的”并“充当债务人的商业工具”。35 如本院可能记得，Dordick 先生参与了债务人针对受托人和 PAX 的抗议活动。\n\nB. HCHK 实体是 G 系列实体的关联方\n\n27. HCHK 实体并非如受让被告向州法院提交的文件似乎所表明的那样，是仅仅恰好与债务人关联实体开展过业务的独立企业。36 它们是债务人 G 系列实体的关联方，与该等实体共同构成由债务人控制、致力于促进债务人利益的单一企业。\n\n28. 如受让人的宣誓书所述，HCHK 实体的业务场所位于纽约市 3 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环3号），HCHK Property（HCHK 地产公司）和 Lexington Property（列克星敦地产公司）在那里转租办公空间。债务人的关联人员遵照债务人的指示，在该地点拍摄支持债务人的视频，包括于 2022 年末呼吁抗议受托人、PAX 及其律师的影片。这些活动促成本院作出初步禁令裁定 [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032 中的 Docket No. 133]，其中本院尤其认定债务人控制 G 系列实体。据所知及所信，这些攻击受托人和 PAX 的视频，是使用受让被告披露为 HCHK Technologies 名义资产的视频及电子设备制作的。37\n\n35 初步禁令裁定 ¶ 7。\n\n36 例如，受让被告对 HCHK Technologies 的描述称，HCHK Technologies 是一家“新兴的全球技术及咨询公司，为多个业务领域提供战略解决方案。转让人以类似专业雇主组织（PEO）的方式运作，为其客户提供涵盖技术、产品开发、工程、人力资源、招聘、法律、财务及研发的专业单项咨询服务。”证据 13，Order to Show Cause, Affidavit & Petition of Brian Hofmeister（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特的说明理由令、宣誓书及申请书）¶ 4，HCHK Tech., Inc. v. Hofmeister（HCHK 技术公司诉霍夫迈斯特案）, Index No. 510008/2023, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 18, 2023)（“HCHK Tech. Aff.”）。37 证据 13，HCHK Tech. Aff.，证据 B，Deed of Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors（为债权人利益而作出的转让契据）。\n案件 23-05013 文书 1 已提交 06/08/23 已录入 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 13 页，共 36 页 案件 22-50073 文书 1897 已提交 06/08/23 已录入 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 13 页，共 38 页\n\n29. HCHK 实体的会计师事务所 Marcum LLP（马库姆有限责任合伙企业，以下简称“Marcum”）提交的文件显示，HCHK 实体和 G 系列实体代表债务人作为单一企业运作的程度。除其他事项外，这些文件表明，Marcum 对于由谁控制 HCHK 实体和 G 系列实体毫不怀疑。正如 Marcum 一名会计师在 2021 年 4 月的一封内部电子邮件中所述，“[我]们代表由 GTV media 的所有人 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）间接拥有的实体。”38\n\n30. 此外，对 Marcum 文件的简要审阅（仍需进一步审查）表明，HCHK 实体的作用之一是充当债务人各企业的“存钱罐”。正因如此，Marcum 的业务约定书规定，Marcum 将向 Lexington Property“及关联方”提供服务；Marcum 还被明确委托编制不仅是 HCHK 实体、也是其他由债务人控制实体的纳税申报表，包括 GFashion 和 GTV。39 同样，Marcum 将 HCHK Technologies 的资产分类为包括与 Gettr、GFashion 和“FMV”相对应的银行账户（据所知及所信，FMV 是另一家由债务人控制、名为 Freedom Media Ventures 的公司的缩写）。这种“存钱罐”作用与受让被告就 HCHK Technologies 提交的资产清单相一致，该清单披露应收账款为 $12,559,423.06。据所知及所信，这些应收账款包括 G 系列实体或其他由债务人控制的公司据称应向 HCHK Technologies 履行的债务。\n\nC. HCHK 实体支付债务人的开支\n\n31. 受托人持有的财务文件还显示，债务人使用 HCHK 实体支付其各类开支。尽管受托人对这些文件的分析尚未完成，HCHK 实体代表债务人支付的款项例子包括但不限于：\n\n38 证据 14，Hirschfeld（赫希费尔德）致 Keady（基迪）的电子邮件，April 23, 2021。\n\n39 证据 15，Marcum 业务约定书，April 14, 2022，附件 B。\n\n案件 23-05013 文书 1 已提交 06/08/23 已录入 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 14 页，共 36 页 案件 22-50073 文书 1897 已提交 06/08/23 已录入 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 14 页，共 38 页\n\n- a. 2022 年 10 月，HCHK Technologies 向 Yachtzoo Ltd.（游艇动物园有限公司，与其关联方合称“Yachtzoo”）支付 $123,452.00。Yachtzoo 是 Lady May 的管理公司，而 Ostrager 法官及本院均裁定 Lady May 是债务人的游艇。\n\n- b. 2021 年 9 月，HCHK Technologies 向 ACASS Canada Ltd.（ACASS 加拿大有限公司，与其关联方合称“ACASS”）支付 $215,018.00。当时，ACASS 是债务人的 Bombardier（庞巴迪）飞机的管理公司（Mei Guo（郭美）作证称，该飞机于 2022 年夏季出售）。\n\n- c. 2021 年 11 月，HCHK Technologies 向飞机制造商 Cirrus Industries, Inc.（西锐工业公司）或其关联方支付 $2,788,680.00。据所知及所信，该付款目的在于为债务人购买一架新的私人飞机，即在债务人刑事案件相关提交文件中提及的 Cirrus SF50 jet（西锐 SF50 喷气机）。40\n\n- 32. 此外，根据受托人持有的文件，Lexington Property 虽表面上仅从事办公空间转租业务（至少根据受让人的宣誓书是如此41），但其已向与债务人有关联的实体和个人支付多笔款项；据所知及所信，该等付款系代表债务人作出。该等付款的收款人包括但不限于：\n\na. Yvette Wang（王悦）；\n\n- b. Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）（债务人的雇员，在债务人控制的公司担任多项职务）；\n\n- c. Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）（据信是债务人的另一名司机和保镖）；\n\n- d. Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）（实质上为债务人的总法律顾问）；\n\n40 证据 16，Motion for Relief from Order Denying Pre-Trial Releases（请求免除驳回审前释放裁定的动议），第 20 页，United States v. Kwok（美国诉郭文贵案）, No. 23-6421 (2d Cir. May 5, 2023) [Docket No. 6.1]。41 参见证据 17，Order to Show Cause, Affidavit & Petition of Brian Hofmeister（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特的说明理由令、宣誓书及申请书）¶ 5，Lexington Prop. & Staffing, Inc. v. Hofmeister（列克星敦地产及人力服务公司诉霍夫迈斯特案）, Index No. 510007/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 25, 2023)（“Lexington Aff.”）（“据所知及所信，转让人和 HCHK Property 均基本上是为就各自位于 3 Columbus Circle 的办公空间充当承租人（或转租承租人）及物业管理公司而成立的。”）。\n\n- e. Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）42（Aaron Mitchell 的律师事务所，以及债务人于 2022 年 3 月提出的“正常营业过程专业人士”之一 [Docket No. 119]）；\n\n- f. Baker & Hostetler LLP（贝克·霍斯泰特勒有限责任合伙企业）（在 Ostrager 法官审理的诉讼中担任债务人的个人律师，以及债务人于 2022 年 3 月提出的“正常营业过程专业人士”之一 [Docket No. 119]）；\n\n- g. Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC（莫维洛·阿布拉莫维茨·格兰德·亚森及阿内洛专业公司）和 Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP（卡希尔·戈登及林德尔有限责任合伙企业）（代表 GTV 的律师事务所43）；\n\n- h. Phillips Nizer LLP（菲利普斯·尼泽尔有限责任合伙企业）（在 Ostrager 法官审理的诉讼中担任 Lamp Capital LLC 的律师）；\n\n- i. Himalaya Ventures, LLC（喜马拉雅创投有限责任公司）（据所知及所信，与债务人的一个或多个“Himalaya Farm（喜马拉雅农场）”组织有关联的实体）；\n\n- j. Beile（“Prince”）Li（李贝乐，“王子”）（债务人的重要关联人士，以及针对受托人和 PAX 的抗议活动的主要参与者）；\n\n- k. Yan Yan Tsang（曾燕燕）（据所知及所信，债务人的雇员；其与债务人、Yvette Wang、债务人的妻子和女儿以及 Han Chunguang（韩春光）（债务人的一名保镖）共同向 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services（美国公民及移民服务局）提起诉讼，以支持债务人的庇护申请及其自身的庇护申请）；\n\n- l. Yinying Wang（王茵茵）（据所知及所信，Qidong Xia（夏启东）的秘书；据所知及所信，夏启东目前就多个由债务人控制的实体和组织担任债务人的二把手）；以及\n\n- m. 名为 17 Miles LLC（17英里有限责任公司）的实体（2021 年收到 $146,795.63，据所知及所信，与债务人有关联）。\n\n42 Lawall & Mitchell 中的“Lawall”系 Dara Lawall（达拉·劳沃尔）；据所知及所信，其为 Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP（特劳特曼·佩珀·汉密尔顿·桑德斯有限责任合伙企业）的 Francis Lawall（弗朗西斯·劳沃尔）之女，后者为 Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃幸运有限公司）的律师。据所知及所信，Dara Lawall 还是 Aaron Mitchell 的妻子，因此，据所知及所信，Aaron Mitchell 是 Lawall 先生的女婿。43 Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC 还在与受托人依《破产规则》第 2004 条进行的调查有关事项中代理 Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）。\n\n案件 23-05013 文书 1 已提交 06/08/23 已录入 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 16 页，共 36 页 案件 22-50073 文书 1897 已提交 06/08/23 已录入 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 16 页，共 38 页\n\nD. HCHK 实体由债务人提供资金\n\n33. 受让被告向州法院提交的文件中包含有关 HCHK 实体债权人44的披露，表明 HCHK 实体通过债务人的关联人士、控制实体及代表从债务人处获得资金。\n\ni. HCHK Technologies 的债权人\n\n34. 受让被告披露，HCHK Technologies 的金融债权人完全由多名未具名个人构成（“未披露债权人”），应付总额为 $51,684,947.5045（相比之下，HCHK Technologies 披露的资产价值约为 $17,500,00046）；其“姓名因保密目的而予以保留”。47 受让被告在其宣誓书中提及这些未披露债权人时称：\n\n据悉并相信，除营业收入外，[HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）]还从某些个人投资者处获得资金，该等投资者为中国异议人士，并认同自己属于一个旨在揭露中国共产党（CCP）所称腐败和侵犯人权行为的社会网络及运动的一部分……由于担心遭到CCP报复，[未披露债权人]对于在本程序中披露其姓名和个人联系信息极为敏感。因此，[HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）]向本人表示，投资者已指定六名愿意披露其姓名和联系信息的个人，担任其在本案中的代理人和代表。48\n\n35. 对未披露债权人的上述描述，与债务人为解释其自身要求保密所使用的论点如出一辙，表明未披露债权人为债务人的关联人士。该表明得到六名债权人代表身份的证实，该等身份披露于受让人被告提交的HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）债权人名单中（下称“债权人代表”）。49 据悉并相信，该等个人均为债务人的关联人士。\n\n44 该等披露采用债权人名单的形式，该名单连同资产清单附于随受让人宣誓书提交的转让契据。根据转让契据，该等名单由HCHK实体交付给受让人被告，因此显然构成HCHK实体（由债务人及其关联人士控制）作出的陈述，而非受让人被告进行任何分析或调查的结果。\n\n45 证据13，HCHK Tech. Aff.，附件B，HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）的债权人名单。除该等金融债权人外，债权人名单还披露了提出$206,703.19债权的供应商，其中包括应付给HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）的$51,000债权。\n\n46 证据13，HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 19。\n\n47 证据13，HCHK Tech. Aff.，附件B，HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）的债权人名单，注5。\n\n48 证据13，HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 8。\n\n案号23-05013，文件1，于06/08/23提交，于06/08/23 14:47:08录入，第17页，共36页；案号22-50073，文件1897，于06/08/23提交，于06/08/23 16:42:01录入，第17页，共38页\n\n36. 六名债权人代表中，有四人——Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）、Hao (Gavin) Li（李浩〔加文〕）、Yongping Yan（闫永平）和Yinying Wang（王茵莹）——是债务人尤其知名的关联人士。据悉并相信，Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）曾在GClubs及其他由债务人控制的实体和组织为债务人工作。Hao (Gavin) Li（李浩〔加文〕）和Yongping Yan（闫永平）均曾在纽约市Grand Central Station（中央车站）Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）办公室入口附近抗议受托人，在支持债务人的视频直播中出镜，并与债务人在Sherry Netherland（雪梨荷兰酒店）用餐。据悉并相信，Yinying Wang（王茵莹）为Qidong Xia（夏启东）的秘书；据悉并相信，该个人目前就多个债务人控制的实体和组织而言担任债务人的二把手。\n\nii. HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）的债权人\n\n37. 就HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）而言，情况几乎完全相同。受让人被告披露，HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）有多名“债权人和/或投资者”，应付总额为$48,187,299.7750（相比之下，HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）披露的资产价值约为$29,785,93651），其“姓名因保密目的而予以隐去”。52\n\n49 该等债权人代表的姓名为：Hao (Gavin) Li（李浩〔加文〕）、Yinying (Aila) Wang（王茵莹〔艾拉〕）、Chris Lee（李克里斯）、Yongping Yan（闫永平）、Jintao Li（李金涛）和Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）。\n\n50 证据18，Order to Show Cause（说明理由命令），Brian Hofmeister（布莱恩·霍夫迈斯特）的宣誓书及申请书，附件B，HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）的债权人名单，HCHK Prop. Mgmt., Inc.（HCHK地产管理公司）诉Hofmeister（霍夫迈斯特），案卷编号510006/2023（纽约州最高法院，May 23, 2023）（下称“HCHK Prop. Aff.”）。\n\n51 证据18，HCHK Prop. Aff. ¶ 20。\n\n52 证据18，HCHK Prop. Aff.，附件B，HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）的债权人名单，注4。\n\n案号23-05013，文件1，于06/08/23提交，于06/08/23 14:47:08录入，第18页，共36页；案号22-50073，文件1897，于06/08/23提交，于06/08/23 16:42:01录入，第18页，共38页\n\n案号23-05013，文件1，于06/08/23提交，于06/08/23 14:47:08录入，第19页，共36页；案号22-50073，文件1897，于06/08/23提交，于06/08/23 16:42:01录入，第19页，共38页\n\n-\n-\n\n- b. Gettr（盖特尔）和HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）是“由Kwok（郭文贵）和[William] Je（杰威廉）控制、部分使用欺诈所得资助的公司”。69 Gettr（盖特尔）“是一家Kwok（郭文贵）通过一系列空壳公司控制的社交媒体公司”，且“Gettr（盖特尔）和HCHK实体……在同一办公地点运营”。70\n\n- c. “在[Yvette Wang（王雁冰）]公寓内其手提包中一个文件夹里发现的带注释文件的照片，似乎在实质上和部分反映了以HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）、HCHK Property Management（HCHK地产管理公司）……GFNY, Inc.（即GFashion〔G时尚〕）和GF Italy（即GFashion Italy〔G时尚意大利〕）名义持有的六个银行账户的某些交易和余额。”71\n\n- d. “在[Yvette Wang（王雁冰）]公寓内其手提包中该文件夹里发现的另一份文件的照片，似乎总体上并在实质上反映，[Yvette Wang（王雁冰）]签署了与多个由Kwok（郭文贵）控制的实体有关的工资费用……该文件还表明，某些工资费用应如何在关联实体之间分配，包括HCHK。”72\n\nF. 债务人在被问及HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）和HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）时援引第五修正案\n\n40. 在March 2, 2023的证言录取中，债务人被问及其是否拥有并控制HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）和HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）。债务人答复时援引第五修正案。73\n\nIII. 应禁止为债权人利益而进行的转让\n\nA. 转让程序\n\n41. 在April 20, 2023，各HCHK实体均签署了一份转让契据，声称将其全部资产转让给受让人被告。\n\n42. 在April 25, 2023，各份转让契据均向州法院书记员提交。\n\n69 证据3，Kwok（郭文贵）刑事案件函件，第18页。\n\n70 证据3，Kwok（郭文贵）刑事案件函件，第8页，注5。\n\n71 证据23，Kwok（郭文贵）刑事案件函件答复，第3页。\n\n72 证据23，Kwok（郭文贵）刑事案件函件答复，第3-4页。\n\n73 证据12，Kwok（郭文贵）证言记录，第84:22-85:3页。\n\n案号23-05013，文件1，于06/08/23提交，于06/08/23 14:47:08录入，第21页，共36页；案号22-50073，文件1897，于06/08/23提交，于06/08/23 16:42:01录入，第21页，共38页\n\n43. 在May 10, 2023，受让人被告就HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）提交了其受让人宣誓书及相关文件；在May 18, 2023，州法院发布说明理由命令，要求说明为何不应就HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）启动转让程序，异议截止日期为June 15, 2023，听证日期为June 20, 2023（仅依据书面材料，不进行口头辩论）。受托人的律师于May 30, 2023通过电子邮件收到该说明理由命令、受让人宣誓书及相关文件的副本。\n\n44. 在May 23, 2023，受让人被告就Lexington Property（列克星敦地产公司）提交了其受让人宣誓书及相关文件；在May 25, 2023，州法院发布说明理由命令，要求说明为何不应就Lexington Property（列克星敦地产公司）启动转让程序，异议截止日期为June 21, 2023，听证日期为June 28, 2023（仅依据书面材料，不进行口头辩论）。受托人的律师于May 30, 2023通过电子邮件收到该说明理由命令、受让人宣誓书及相关文件的副本。\n\n45. 在May 23, 2023，受让人被告就HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）提交了其受让人宣誓书及相关文件；在May 31, 2023，州法院发布说明理由命令，要求说明为何不应就HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）启动转让程序，异议截止日期为June 27, 2023，听证日期为June 30, 2023（仅依据书面材料，不进行口头辩论）。受托人的律师于June 5, 2023通过电子邮件收到该说明理由命令、受让人宣誓书及相关文件的副本（此前于May 30, 2023已通过电子邮件收到相同材料，但不包括已录入的说明理由命令）。\n\nB. 受让人宣誓书\n\n46. 受让人宣誓书载有对各HCHK实体的说明。随受让人宣誓书提交的相关文件包括由HCHK实体编制的附表，声称列示各HCHK实体的资产及债权人对其提出的债权。\n\n案号23-05013，文件1，于06/08/23提交，于06/08/23 14:47:08录入，第22页，共36页；案号22-50073，文件1897，于06/08/23提交，于06/08/23 16:42:01录入，第22页，共38页\n\n根据该等文件，HCHK实体拥有重大资产，包括超过$35 million的现金；但假定已披露债权有效，其各自均属资不抵债：（a）HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）拥有价值约$17.5 million的资产，其中$4.5 million为现金，相较于金额为$51,684,947.50的金融债权人债权和金额为$206,703.19的供应商债权；74（b）HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）拥有价值约$29,785,936的资产，75全部为现金，相较于金额为$48,187,299.77的债权人债权；76以及（c）Lexington Property（列克星敦地产公司）拥有约$2 million的资产，全部为现金，相较于至少$32,183,837.03的债权人债权。77\n\n47. 受让人宣誓书使用无害的公司术语描述HCHK实体，暗示其为恰好将某些与债务人关联的实体作为客户的独立公司。78 例如，HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）被描述为“一家新兴的全球技术与咨询公司，在多个业务领域提供战略解决方案”，其“向客户提供涵盖技术、产品开发、工程、人力资源、招聘、法律、财务和研发的专业点菜式咨询服务”。79\n\n48. 受让人被告提及Yvette Wang（王雁冰）对HCHK实体的所有权以及她与债务人被逮捕和监禁这一事实，并解释称王女士被监禁是签署转让契据的催化因素。80 受让人被告未提及Yvette Wang（王雁冰）受雇于债务人（如本法院所认定），也未提及她是债务人的“受信任的办公室主任”（如美国政府提交的文件所述）。81 同样，受让人被告未讨论债务人与Gettr（盖特尔）的关联，仅称除Gettr（盖特尔）以外的某些G系列实体与债务人关联。\n\n49. 受让人被告未披露HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）和HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）债权人的身份，声称这些未具名债权人为个人，因担心CCP报复而无法披露其姓名。尽管受让人被告确实披露了债权人代表的姓名，但他未指出其中包括债务人的关联人士；这些关联人士代表债务人并按照债务人的指示进行的抗议活动曾受本法院命令约束。\n\n74 证据13，HCHK Tech. Aff.，附件B，HCHK Technologie的债权人名单。该等供应商债权包括应付给HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）的$51,000债权。\n\n75 证据18，HCHK Prop. Aff. ¶ 20。\n\n76 证据18，HCHK Prop. Aff.，附件B，HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）的债权人名单。\n\n77 证据17，Lexington Aff.，附件B，Lexington（列克星敦）的债权人名单。\n\n78 见证据13，HCHK Tech. Aff.，第5页，注1（指出Club、G Music、GFNY和G Fashion“与Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）……关联；其为一名在网络上极具影响力、拥有大量社交媒体追随者且直言批评中国共产党的中国异议人士”，并指出“[o]n February 15, 2022, Kwok commenced a voluntary chapter 11 case in the United Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, which remains pending”）。\n\n79 证据13，HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 4。\n\n案号23-05013，文件1，于06/08/23提交，于06/08/23 14:47:08录入，第23页，共36页；案号22-50073，文件1897，于06/08/23提交，于06/08/23 16:42:01录入，第23页，共38页\n\n50. 此外，尽管受让人被告披露，Lexington Property（列克星敦地产）的债权人包括 ACA Capital（ACA资本）、Golden Spring（金泉）、Leading Shine（领辉）、Saraca Media（萨拉卡媒体）和 Savio Law（萨维奥律师事务所），但其并未披露这些实体与债务人之间的关联，而其中许多关联均为本第11章案件中的公开记录事项，例如，Yvette Wang（王雁平）担任 Golden Spring 总裁，或者本院认定债务人控制 Saraca Media。82\n\n51. 总之，尽管受让人宣誓书及提交给州法院的相关文件提供了有关 HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）的重要信息，但其并未完整呈现 HCHK 实体的性质及其与债务人的关联。\n\n80 参见，例如，证物 13，HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 10（“在 Yvette 被监禁后，以及让与人失去 GETTR 作为其主要客户后，让与人在行使其商业判断时认定，为了让与人及其所有利益相关方的最佳利益，应将其全部资产让与本人这一独立受托人，以使债权人受益。”）。\n\n81 证物 3，Kwok Criminal Case Letter，第 18 页。\n\n82 PI Decision ¶ 3。\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 24 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 24 of 38\n\n52. 从受让人宣誓书及相关文件中可以看出，HCHK 实体应当接受联邦破产程序。除其他事项外，其已无力偿债，其资产、负债及财务状况需要接受调查，而名义上负责 HCHK 实体的个人 Yvette Wang 现已入狱。\n\nC. 受让人被告就让与程序的意图\n\n53. 受让人被告提交的受让人宣誓书及相关文件，包括载明其向州法院请求救济的拟议命令，清楚表明受让人被告拟为 HCHK 实体启动一项实质上独立的州法第11章程序，并由受让人被告担任类似于破产受托人的角色（但其系由 HCHK 实体选定，而非由 United States Trustee（美国受托人）选定）。\n\n54. 根据让与宣誓书，受让人被告拟“调查和分析 [HCHK Entities'] 的账簿、记录，以及可代表 [HCHK Entities'] 财产提出的潜在请求权和诉因，并在有必要时起诉该等请求权”，“通过公开出售或依本院另行命令，寻求出售 [HCHK Entities'] 的部分或实质上全部非现金资产”，以及“在向所有债权人和利益相关方（包括适当的政府机关）给予适当和妥当的通知及提交债权申报的机会后，依据让与契据及适用法律所规定的各自法定优先顺位，对针对 [HCHK Entities'] 财产的可证明债权进行核实、核对并作出分配。”83 根据让与契据，受让人被告获授权“就让与人提出或针对让与人的任何及全部请求权达成和解，享有完全的和解权，或者由受让人自行酌定提起诉讼或应诉，以及起诉或抗辩任何性质、以让与人为受益人的任何请求权。”84 此外，受让人被告请求州法院授权其聘请律师和财务顾问，包括 McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC（麦克马尼蒙、斯科特兰与鲍曼有限责任公司）；该律师事务所曾就本第11章案件中受托人的调查事宜代理 HCHK 实体。85\n\n83 证物 17，Lexington Aff. ¶ 12。\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 25 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 25 of 38\n\n84 证物 17，Lexington Aff.，证物 B，为债权人利益而作出的让与契据 ¶ 4(f)。\n\n85 参见，例如，HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, Inc. 和 Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc. 对文件出示请求、撤销动议和/或修改 2004 审查传票动议提出的异议 [Main Case Docket No. 1291]。\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 26 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 26 of 38\n\nD. 禁止让与程序的必要性\n\n55. 根据 Second Circuit Court of Appeals（第二巡回上诉法院）的意见：\n\n第105(a)条应“从宽解释，以禁止可能阻碍重整程序的诉讼”——或者如本案所示，阻碍清算程序的诉讼。从宽解释体现了“为债权人保全债务人财产，并将债权集中至破产法院的一项程序中处理的基本原则”。我们认为，在“该禁令是债务人重整计划的重要组成部分”或拟被禁止的诉讼“将对债务人财产产生即时不利经济后果”的情形下，适当援用 § 105(a) 禁止债权人对第三方提起的诉讼。\n\nIn re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec., LLC, 512 F. App'x 18, 20 (2d Cir. 2013)（删除内部引注）。\n\n56. 基于多项理由，根据 Bankruptcy Code（《破产法》）第105、362、363和549条，有必要禁止继续进行让与程序。\n\n57. 第一，允许让与程序继续进行，将为违反自动中止提供“绿灯”。受托人主张，HCHK 实体是债务人的另一个自我实体，或由债务人衡平所有。如果受托人就其另一个自我主张胜诉，则意味着 HCHK 实体将并入债务人的破产财产，且 HCHK 实体的所有资产自债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交第11章申请之日（“申请日”）起即构成破产财产。在该情形下，让与契据构成无效的自动中止违反行为；该等行为系由将破产财产不当转让给受让人被告，或者至少对 HCHK 实体施加控制的个人作出。86 如受托人转而就与 HCHK 实体和/或其资产相关的衡平所有权主张胜诉，则同样意味着：(a) 截至申请日，对 HCHK 实体的所有权权益及相关公司控制权构成破产财产，而篡夺该等权利以签署让与契据将构成无效的中止违反行为，87 和/或 (b) 破产财产为 HCHK 实体资产的衡平所有人，将该等资产转让给受让人被告将构成明显的中止违反行为。\n\n58. 第二，让与程序构成重复程序，可能将债务人的第11章案件分割为若干独立部分，并给破产财产管理造成耗费高昂且耗时的挑战。让与程序已经产生了多个迫近的提交期限，受托人必须对此作出回应；如允许其继续进行，让与程序将不可避免地导致诉状、期限和听证的增加。如不加制止，受让人被告将开展重复的调查和债权确认程序；鉴于债务人已通过设立数百家空壳公司隐藏其资产，给其债权人造成了大量延误和成本，而受托人正试图通过将资产纳入一项破产程序以便所有债务人债权人寻求受偿来扭转该局面，这将成为一场灾难。事实上，我国破产法的一项核心原则是，应有一个审理地处理债务人的财务事务；这强烈支持禁止被告及与其共同行动的任何一方启动或继续进行让与程序。\n\n59. 第三，让与程序不仅重复，而且明显不如本院审理的第11章案件。首先，第11章案件提供了更健全的法律框架：举一例而言，州法无法像《破产法》那样施加自动中止。更重要的是，鉴于债务人事务的复杂性，将债务人的破产程序置于一家不熟悉债务人的州法院审理，在实际操作中完全毫无意义。只有本院不仅具有处理债务人及其关联实体的经验，而且已作出关键的具有先例意义的裁决和认定（债务人及其关联人士如在其他审理地，必将试图对其提出异议或偏离）。此外，正是本院已经建立并实施了债权申报程序，包括广泛的通知程序以及保密提交债权申报的程序，债务人的债权人据此提交了一千多份债权申报。尚不清楚将如何通知这些债权人让与程序的情况，更遑论其如何能够充分参与其中。事实上，这些债权人似乎很可能被排除在让与程序之外，并被拒绝从 HCHK 实体资产中获得任何受偿，从而蒙受极大不利影响。即使是能够参与让与程序的债权人，也将遭受无正当理由的不利影响，因为他们将被迫在一项新的、不熟悉的程序中投入精力和费用（且在缺乏适当保密程序的情况下，面临重大人身风险）提交债权申报。\n\nCase 23-05013 Doc 1 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 14:47:08 Page 28 of 36 Case 22-50073 Doc 1897 Filed 06/08/23 Entered 06/08/23 16:42:01 Page 28 of 38\n\n60. 此外，就其对 HCHK 实体进行的调查而言，受托人远远领先于受让人被告；本起诉状即证明了这一点。本起诉状基于受托人在持续调查中收集的大量证据（受托人将在本对抗程序中进一步发展该等证据），寻求将 HCHK 实体及其资产纳入破产财产，以使债务人的债权人受益。相比之下，如上文所述受让人宣誓书遗漏的重要信息实例所示，受让人被告似乎尚未了解有关 HCHK 实体的关键事实。这些遗漏表明，受债务人控制的 HCHK 实体选择推进受让人程序，是为了规避受托人和本院，并寻找另一家法院，以便其能够“重新开始”并更容易编造对其有利的叙事。\n\n61. 此处的一个关键态势是，债务人及其关联人士不希望受到本院审查或接受受托人调查。债务人一直反对受托人的参与，并曾两次寻求以他人替换受托人。若允许让与程序继续进行，债务人及其关联人士无疑将通过就其他实体进行债权人利益让与，试图规避受托人和本院；该等其他实体与HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）一样，均受受托人调查，并面临受托人即将提起的另我或其他诉讼。债务人及其关联人士将寻求利用此类州法院程序，作为向“友好”债权人（例如HCHK实体《让与宣誓书》中列载的债权人）分配资产的方式，而非允许将该等资产分配给已在本案中申报债权的债务人受害人。\n\n案件 23-05013 文书 1 提交于 06/08/23 登记于 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 29 页，共 36 页　案件 22-50073 文书 1897 提交于 06/08/23 登记于 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 29 页，共 38 页\n\nChapter 11案件。换言之，允许HCHK实体的让与程序继续进行，很可能导致启动更多让与程序，从而使重复程序、费用、拖延和混乱进一步倍增。该结果将直接落入债务人之手，并将对众多依赖本院及本Chapter 11案件就其债权获得一定追偿的债务人债权人造成明显不公。\n\n第一项请求\n\n（确认HCHK实体为债务人的另我，HCHK实体资产的让与违反自动中止且无效，以及命令向受托人移交HCHK实体资产的确认判决）\n\n62. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至61段所载的事实主张。\n\n63. 由于HCHK实体是Delaware（特拉华州）实体，另我请求适用特拉华州法律。88\n\n64. 根据特拉华州揭开公司面纱的双重检验，法院在对债务人与HCHK实体之间关系适用特拉华州另我分析时，将着重考察：(1) 债务人与HCHK实体是否作为单一经济单位运作；以及(2) 是否存在整体性的不公或不公平因素。在确定实体是否作为单一经济单位运作时，适用特拉华州法律的法院将考量诸多因素，其中包括HCHK实体是否具有充足资本、是否遵守公司形式要求，以及其是否为债务人的幌子。89 该“因素清单并非穷尽，且没有任何单一因素具有决定性作用”。90\n\n88 参见，例如，Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar, No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM), 2021 WL 965794, at \\*7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021)（“[B]ecause [defendant] is incorporated in Delaware, I must apply Delaware law to decide if it may be subject to an alter ego claim for reverse veil piercing liability.”）。\n\n案件 23-05013 文书 1 提交于 06/08/23 登记于 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 30 页，共 36 页　案件 22-50073 文书 1897 提交于 06/08/23 登记于 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 30 页，共 38 页\n\n65. 债务人对HCHK实体行使控制和支配，以致HCHK实体相对于债务人不存在独立存在，且债务人利用公司形式实施欺诈和不公。HCHK实体是债务人的另我，原因包括但不限于，HCHK实体：\n\na. 名义上由债务人的雇员拥有并配备人员；\n\nb. 系债务人G-Series Entities（G系列实体）的关联方，本院已认定该等G系列实体由债务人控制，或作为债务人的商业工具，构成由债务人控制并服务于债务人利益的单一企业的一部分；\n\nc. 支付债务人的费用，包括与Lady May（“梅夫人号”）及债务人的Bombardier（庞巴迪）喷气机有关的费用（Mei Guo（郭美）证称，该喷气机已于2022年夏季出售）；以及\n\nd. 由债务人通过债务人的关联人士、受控制公司和代表提供资金。\n\n66. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本案中请求的救济。\n\n67. 由于HCHK实体在任何时候均为债务人的另我，其资产在申请日之后即成为债务人破产财产的资产。因此，《让与契据》构成违反自动中止、对破产财产资产作出的无效让与；自动中止禁止的事项包括：“任何取得破产财产占有、从破产财产取得财产，或对破产财产行使控制的行为”，11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)，以及“任何收取、评估或追偿本法项下案件开始前对债务人产生的债权的行为”。11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6)。\n\n89 Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010)（指出Third Circuit（第三巡回上诉法院）在确定一家公司是否作为单一经济实体运作时所考量的因素；尤其值得注意的是，该等因素不包括相关个人是否为该实体的股东，但包括“gross undercapitalization; failure to observe corporate formalities . . . [and] whether the corporation is merely a facade.”）。\n\n90 同上，at 471。\n\n案件 23-05013 文书 1 提交于 06/08/23 登记于 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 31 页，共 36 页　案件 22-50073 文书 1897 提交于 06/08/23 登记于 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 31 页，共 38 页\n\n68. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第362、541、542和544条请求裁定：(1) 确认：(a) HCHK实体在任何时候均为债务人的另我；(b) HCHK实体在债务人2022年2月15日申请日之前任何时候持有的任何及全部资产均构成债务人的财产；以及(c) 自债务人于2022年2月15日提出Chapter 11申请之日起至今，HCHK实体在任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，包括HCHK实体的\\$35 million现金，视具体情况而定，曾构成且现构成债务人Chapter 11破产财产的财产；(2) 确认《让与契据》及据此作出的资产让与无效；以及(3) 命令将HCHK实体的任何及全部资产移交给受托人。\n\n第二项请求\n\n（备位请求）\n\n（确认债务人为HCHK实体的衡平所有人，HCHK实体资产的让与违反自动中止且无效，以及命令向受托人移交HCHK实体的所有权及/或其资产的确认判决）\n\n69. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至61段所载的事实主张。\n\n70. 上述用于证明HCHK实体为债务人另我的相同事实，亦支持如下备位结论：债务人为HCHK实体及/或其资产的衡平所有人。91\n\n91 Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“exercised considerable authority over [the corporation] . . . to the point of completely disregarding the corporate form and acting as though [its] assets were his alone to manage.”）（原文强调）。\n\n71. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本案中请求的救济。\n\n72. 由于HCHK实体由债务人衡平拥有，HCHK实体的所有权及公司控制权利，及/或HCHK实体的资产，在申请日之后均为破产财产。将该等所有权及公司控制权利用于签署《让与契据》以及将HCHK实体资产表面上让与给受让受托被告的行为，违反了自动中止；自动中止禁止“任何取得破产财产占有、从破产财产取得财产，或对破产财产行使控制的行为”。11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)。因此，《让与契据》及据此作出的资产让与无效。\n\n73. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第362、541、542和544条请求裁定：(1) 确认由Holy City（圣城）和Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）表面上持有的HCHK实体所有权权益，及/或HCHK实体的资产（包括但不限于表面上转让给受让受托被告及/或由受让受托被告持有的资产），为债务人Chapter 11破产财产的财产；(2) 确认《让与契据》及据此作出的资产让与无效；以及(3) 命令将HCHK实体的所有权权益及相关公司控制权利，及/或HCHK实体的资产，交付给受托人。\n\n第三项请求\n\n（根据《破产法》第105、362、363和549条请求禁令救济）\n\n74. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至61段所载的事实主张。\n\n案件 23-05013 文书 1 提交于 06/08/23 登记于 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 33 页，共 36 页　案件 22-50073 文书 1897 提交于 06/08/23 登记于 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 33 页，共 38 页\n\n75. 《破产法》第105条规定：“法院可以发布为实施本法规定所必需或适当的任何命令、程序或判决。”11 U.S.C. § 105(a)。\n\n76. 第362条规定的自动中止禁止的事项包括：“任何取得破产财产占有、从破产财产取得财产，或对破产财产行使控制的行为。”11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)。\n\n77. 《破产法》第363条允许在正常营业过程以外使用、出售或租赁破产财产，但仅可在“通知和听证后”进行。11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)。\n\n78. 《破产法》第549条规定，可撤销“在案件开始后”发生且“未经本法或法院授权”的破产财产转让。11 U.S.C. § 549(a)(1)(B)。\n\n79. 根据《破产法》第105、362、363和549条，有必要就继续进行让与程序发布禁令，因为若允许继续进行，让与程序将对债务人的破产财产立即产生不利后果。除其他事项外，允许让与程序继续进行，将实际上允许持续违反自动中止；让与程序既重复于Chapter 11案件，又明显逊于Chapter 11案件；并且允许其继续进行将鼓励债务人以其其他另我实体启动新的让与程序，作为规避受托人及本院审查的策略。\n\n80. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第105、362、363和549条请求裁定，禁止被告及任何与其共同行动的一方启动或继续进行让与程序（或就HCHK实体及/或其资产提起或继续进行任何其他司法、\n\n案件 23-05013 文书 1 提交于 06/08/23 登记于 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 34 页，共 36 页　案件 22-50073 文书 1897 提交于 06/08/23 登记于 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 34 页，共 38 页\n\n行政或其他诉讼或程序），禁止转让或使用HCHK实体的资产，包括现金（包括但不限于表面上转让给受让受托被告及/或由受让受托被告持有的该等资产），或HCHK实体的所有权权益，但经受托人或本院授权或指示者除外，并要求被告立即将该禁令通知州法院。\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 对于第一项诉请，依据《破产法典》第362、541、542及544条作出命令：（1）宣告：(a) HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）在任何时候均为债务人的另我；(b) HCHK实体于债务人2022年2月15日申请日之前任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) HCHK实体自债务人于2022年2月15日提交第11章申请之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，包括HCHK实体的$345 million现金，视具体情况而定，曾构成并构成债务人第11章财产的财产；（2）宣告《转让契据》及据此进行的资产转让无效；以及（3）命令将HCHK实体的任何及全部资产移交给受托人；\n\n2. 对于第二项诉请，依据《破产法典》第362、541、542及544条作出命令：（1）宣告据称由Holy City（圣城）和Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）持有的HCHK实体所有权权益，和/或HCHK实体的资产，属于债务人第11章财产；（2）宣告《转让契据》及据此进行的资产转让无效；以及（3）命令将HCHK实体的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，和/或HCHK实体的资产，交付给受托人；\n\n案件 23-05013 文件 1 提交日期 06/08/23 录入日期 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 35 页，共 36 页　案件 22-50073 文件 1897 提交日期 06/08/23 录入日期 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 35 页，共 38 页\n\n3. 对于第三项诉请，依据《破产法典》第105、362、363及549条作出命令，禁止被告及与其共同行动的任何一方启动或继续进行转让程序（或有关HCHK实体和/或其资产的任何其他司法、行政或其他诉讼或程序），禁止转让或使用HCHK实体的资产（包括现金）（包括但不限于据称已转让给受让人被告和/或由受让人被告持有的该等资产），或HCHK实体的所有权权益，除非经受托人或本院授权或指示，并要求被告立即将该禁令通知州法院；\n\n4. 本案产生的合理律师费、费用及开支；以及\n\n5. 本院认为在具体情形下公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n［本页其余部分故意留白］\n\n案件 23-05013 文件 1 提交日期 06/08/23 录入日期 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 36 页，共 36 页　案件 22-50073 文件 1897 提交日期 06/08/23 录入日期 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 36 页，共 38 页\n\n日期：June 8, 2023　LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），New Haven, Connecticut　第11章受托人\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.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）　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）（待准许pro hac vice）　PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）　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）（待准许pro hac vice）　Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（待准许pro hac vice）　PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）　200 Park Avenue　New York, New York 10166　(212) 318-6079　aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1897 提交日期 06/08/23 录入日期 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 37 页，共 38 页\n\n案件 23-05013 文件 1-25 提交日期 06/08/23 录入日期 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 1 页，共 2 页\n\nB1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面页　对抗程序编号\n\n（背面说明）　（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告　被告\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人　HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.（HCHK技术公司）；HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.（HCHK物业管理公司）；LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC.（列克星敦物业及人事公司）；HOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD.（圣城香港风险投资有限公司）；YVETTE WANG（王悦）；ANTHONY DIBATTISTA（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）；以及BRIAN HOFMEISTER（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特）（以其受让人身份）\n\n律师（律所名称、地址及电话号码）　律师（如已知）\nDouglass E. Barron, Esq.（道格拉斯·E·巴伦律师），Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所），200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166，212-318-6000\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com　HCHK实体：Mcmanimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC（麦克马尼蒙、斯科特兰及鲍曼有限责任公司），75 Livingston Avenue, 2nd Floor Roseland, New Jersey 07068；Yvette Wang（王悦）：ChaudhryLaw PLLC（乔德里法律专业有限责任公司），147 West 25th Street, 12th Fl, New York, NY 10001；Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）：Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC（莫维洛、阿布拉莫维茨、格兰德、伊森及阿内洛专业公司），565 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10017；Brian Hoffmeister（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特）：Cole Schotz P.C.（科尔·肖茨专业公司），1325 Avenue of the Americas, 19th Fl, New York, NY\n\n当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n☐ 债务人\n☐ 受托人/破产管理人\n☐ 债权人\n☐ 其他\n☐ 受托人\n■　当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n☐　美国受托人/破产管理人\n☐　债务人\n☐　债权人\n☐　其他\n■　☐　受托人\n\n诉因（简要陈述诉因，包括所涉全部美国法条）\n第一项诉请：宣告HCHK实体为债务人的另我，HCHK实体资产的转让违反自动中止，并命令将HCHK实体资产移交给受托人，依据Bk. Code secs. 362, 541, 542, 544；第二项诉请（备选）：宣告债务人为HCHK实体的衡平所有人，HCHK实体资产的转让违反自动中止，并命令将HCHK实体和/或其资产的所有权移交给受托人，依据Bk. Code secs. 362, 541, 542, 544；第三项诉请：禁令救济，禁止被告启动或继续进行转让程序，依据Bk. Code secs. 105, 362, 363, 549。\n\n诉讼性质\n（从主要诉因作为1、第一备选诉因作为2、第二备选诉因作为3等开始，最多填写五（5）个方框。）\n\nFRBP 7001(1)－金钱/财产追回\n☐\n■　FRBP 7001(6)－可免责性（续）\n☐\n11－金钱/财产追回－§542 财产交付\n☐　61－可免责性－§523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n☐\n12－金钱/财产追回－§547 优先受偿\n☐\n13－金钱/财产追回－§548 欺诈性转让　68－可免责性－§523(a)(6)，故意及恶意伤害\n☐\n63－可免责性－§523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n☐\n14－金钱/财产追回－其他　☐\n64－可免责性－§523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\nFRBP 7001(2)－留置权的有效性、优先权或范围　（家庭扶养义务除外）\n☐\n21－留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先权或范围　☐\n65－可免责性－其他\nFRBP 7001(7)－禁令救济\n☐\n■\nFRBP 7001(3)－财产出售批准\n☐\n31－批准出售财产及共同所有人财产－§363(h)　71－禁令救济－施加中止\n☐\n72－禁令救济－其他\nFRBP 7001(4)－对免责的异议/撤销　FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益劣后\n☐\n41－对免责的异议/撤销－§727(c),(d),(e)　☐\n81－债权或权益劣后\nFRBP 7001(5)－撤销确认　FRBP 7001(9) 宣告性判决\n☐\n51－撤销确认　☐\n91－宣告性判决\nFRBP 7001(6)－可免责性\n☐　FRBP 7001(10) 被移送诉讼的裁定\n66－可免责性－§523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税收债权\n☐　☐\n01－对被移送债权或诉因的裁定\n62－可免责性－§523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、实际欺诈　其他\n☐\n67－可免责性－§523(a)(4)，受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃　☐\nSS－SIPA案件－15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n（续下栏）　☐\n■\n02－其他（例如，如与破产案件无关本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼）\n☐\n如本案涉及州法实体问题，请勾选　☐\n如主张本案为依据FRCP23的集体诉讼，请勾选　☐\n如起诉书要求陪审团审判，请勾选　请求金额 $\n请求的其他救济\n如上所述的宣告性救济；如上所述的禁令救济。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1897 提交日期 06/08/23 录入日期 06/08/23 16:42:01 第 38 页，共 38 页\n\n案件 23-05013 文件 1-25 提交日期 06/08/23 录入日期 06/08/23 14:47:08 第 2 页，共 2 页\n\nB1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所产生的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）　破产案件编号\n22-50073 (JAM)\n案件待决地区\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州）　分部办事处\nBridgeport（布里奇波特）　法官姓名\nManning, J.（曼宁法官）\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告　被告　对抗\n程序编号\n对抗程序待决地区　分部办事处　法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/\nDouglass\nBarron\n\n日期　律师（或原告）姓名正楷\nJune\n8,\n2023　Douglass\nE.\nBarron\n\n说明\n\n提交破产案件后，将在破产法院管辖下形成一项“财产”，该财产由债务人无论位于何处的全部财产构成。由于破产财产范围广泛且法院管辖权广泛，可能会就该财产或其财产权利发生诉讼。也可能存在有关债务人免责的诉讼。此类诉讼如在破产法院提起，即称为对抗程序。\n\n提起对抗程序的一方还必须填写并提交表格1040，即《对抗程序封面页》，除非该方通过法院的案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提起对抗程序。（CM/ECF在提交过程中收集表格1040上的信息。）填写完成后，封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记员需要这些信息以处理对抗程序并编制所需的法院活动统计报告。\n\n封面页及其载列的信息，并不替代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规所要求提交及送达的诉状或其他文件。封面页大多不言自明，必须由原告律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每提交一份起诉书，均须向书记员另行提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。准确填写原告和被告在起诉书中显示的姓名。\n\n律师。如已知，填写律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。在第一栏为原告勾选最适当的方框，并在第二栏为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填写起诉书中请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由登记在案的律师在表格第二页的方框中签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，必须由该所成员签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则必须由原告签署。","key_entities":["HCHK","Kwok","Je","Guo","GTV","GETTR","Ho Wan Kwok","Himalaya","Saraca","Despins","Paul Hastings","CCP","CIPA","Miles Guo","William Je","Himalaya Exchange","Chinese Communist Party","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":13263,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-06-08 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-06-08","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:54:08"}