{"id":"court_ctb_204_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":204,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS
HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC | DEFENDANTS
Ho Wan Kwok and Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity
Fund L.P. | | | |\n| ATTORNEY'S (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.)
Stephen M. Kindseth / Aaron A. Romney
Zeisler & Zeisler, PC
10 Middle St., 15thFl., Bridgeport, CT 06604 203.368.4234 | ATTORNEYS (If Known) William Baldiga - Brown Rudnick LLP wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com
Robert Stark - Brown Rudnick LLP rstark@brownrudnick.com
Peter Friedman - O'Melveny & Myers LLP pfriedman@omm.com
Stuart Sarnoff - O'Melveny & Myers LLP ssarnoff@omm.com | | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)
O U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
o Debtor
Creditor
Other
Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
Debtor
O U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
C Creditor
O Other
O Trustee | | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION (WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED)
Declaratory Relief pursuant to 28 USC Sections 2201-2202 regarding whether a Vessel is property of the estate within
the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 541 | | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT
(Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) - Recovery of Money/Property
I 1-Recovery of money/property - \\$542 turnover of property
12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference
13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer
14-Recovery of money/property - other | FRBP 7001(6) - Dischargeability (continued)
السا 61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support
68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(2) - Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | (other than domestic support)
65-Dischargeability - other | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) - Approval of Sale of Property
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | FRBP 7001(7) - Injunctive Relief
71-Injunctive relief - imposition of stay
72-Injunctive relief - other | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) - Objection/Revocation of Discharge
41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest
81-Subordination of claim or interest | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) - Revocation of Confirmation
51-Revocation of confirmation | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment
91-Declaratory judgment | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) - Dischargeability
1 66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims
- 62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
01-Determination of removed claim or cause | | | |\n| actual fraud
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny
(continued next column) | Other
SS-SIPA Case - 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court
if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | | |\n| Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law | Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | | |\n| Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ | | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | | |\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR
Ho Wan Kwok | | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO.
22-50073 (JAM) | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING
Connecticut | | DIVISION OFFICE
Bridgeport | NAME OF JUDGE
Julie A. Manning | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING NO. | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | | |\n| /s/Aaron A. Romney | | | | |\n| DATE | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | |\n| April 11, 2022 | | Aaron A. Romney | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| In
re: | :
CHAPTER
11 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|\n| HO
WAN
KWOK, | :
:
CASE
NO.
22-50073
(JAM) |\n| Debtor. | :
: |\n| __________________________________________ :
HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS
(USA) LIMITED, LLC | :
ADV. PRO. NO. __________
: |\n| Plaintiff,
v. | :
:
: |\n| HO WAN KWOK and
PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY
FUND L.P., | :
:
:
: |\n| Defendants.
__________________________________________ : | :
:
APRIL 11, 2022 |\n\n## **COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF**\n\nPursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 2201-2202 and Fed. R. Bank. 7001(2) & (9), Plaintiff, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), a party in interest, hereby brings its complaint against the defendants, the debtor in possession, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), and Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P (\"PAX\"), seeking a declaratory judgment that a certain vessel known as the Lady May (the \"Lady May\") is not property of the Debtor's Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Estate (the \"Estate\") within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 541. In support thereof, HK USA alleges as follows:\n\n## **I. SUMMARY OF HK USA'S CAUSE OF ACTION**\n\nThis Court has exclusive jurisdiction over what constitutes property of the Debtor's bankruptcy estate. It is not disputed that HK USA is the registered owner of the Lady May—a forty-four-meter pleasure yacht. As set forth below, PAX had repeatedly claimed that the Debtor\n\nis the \"true owner\" of the Lady May. HK USA disputes this contention and asserts that it is, in fact, the Lady May's exclusive owner. Thus, there exists an actual controversy appropriate for this Court's adjudication by way of a declaratory judgment.\n\nThis Adversary Proceeding follows years of litigation between PAX and the Debtor *to which HK USA was not a party*. Throughout, PAX has alleged that the Debtor and certain entities that he allegedly controls (not including HK USA) owe PAX tens of millions of dollars related to an alleged business loan and guaranty. On September 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, granted PAX summary judgment against the Debtor on the issue of liability, with damages and the issue of whether the \"corporate defendants\" are the Debtor's alter egos to be determined at a later date. HK USA is not and never has been one of those alleged corporate defendants.\n\nFollowing summary judgment, PAX commenced a procedure to attempt to force the Debtor—based on his alleged ability to \"control\" the Lady May—to restrain the use of the Lady May. PAX initially obtained an order compelling the Debtor to return the Lady May to the United States, and, subsequently, an order of contempt when the Debtor failed to do so. To this day PAX has never made HK USA a party to these proceedings. Thus, by this action, HK USA seeks this Court's declaration that it—not the Debtor—is the lawful owner of the Lady May, and, therefore, that the Lady May is not property of the Debtor's Estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 541.\n\n### **II. FACTS**\n\n#### **A. The Parties**\n\n1. Plaintiff, HK USA is a Delaware limited liability company with an address located at 203 NE Front Street, Suite 101, Milford, Delaware.\n\n2. HK USA is the registered owner of the Lady May. The Lady May is registered in the Cayman Islands\n\n3. Non-party, Ms. Mei Guo, is HK USA's sole shareholder and the Debtor's daughter. She currently resides in the United States and is seeking political asylum in the United States due to her treatment in the People's Republic of China by the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\").\n\n4. The Debtor resides at 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut.\n\n5. Upon information and belief, Defendant PAX is an investment fund organized as an exempted limited partnership under the laws of the Cayman Islands. PAX has a registered office located at P.O. Box 472, 2 nd Floor, Harbour Place, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands.\n\n### **B. Jurisdiction, Venue and the Nature of This Proceeding**\n\n6. The Debtor filed for protection under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") on February 15, 2022.\n\n7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 2201-2202 and Fed. R. Bank. 7001(2) & (9), this Complaint initiates an adversary proceeding seeking a declaratory judgment that the Lady May is not property of the Estate within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code § 541.\n\n8. This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334(b), because the claims asserted herein arise under the Bankruptcy Code and arise in a case pending under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division.\n\n9. This Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine what property is, and is not, property of the Estate within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code § 541.\n\n10. This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) because it concerns the administration of the Debtor's Estate.\n\n11. Venue of this adversary proceeding in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a), because the Debtor's bankruptcy case is pending in this district and division.\n\n#### **C. The History of the Lady May and its Ownership**\n\n12. The Lady May was built in 2014.\n\n13. Until October 2014, the Debtor owned an entity known as Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). In October 2014, the Debtor transferred his interest in HK International to Ms. Qu Guo Jiao (\"Ms. Qu\"). Ms. Qu was a trusted business partner of Ms. Guo's older brother, Qiang Guo.\n\n14. The Debtor has not owned an interest in HK International since October 2014.\n\n15. In early 2015, the Debtor fled Hong Kong to the United States after learning that the CCP was going to arrest him on politically motivated charges based on fabricated evidence. Within days from when the Debtor fled Hong Kong to the United States, the CCP detained Ms. Guo and her mother for approximately ten (10) days.\n\n16. In February of 2015, Ms. Guo's brother funded the purchase of the Lady May through HK International as a gift for Ms. Guo.\n\n17. Qiang Guo, along with other members of Ms. Guo's family, have enjoyed many years of financial success that were independent from the Debtor and his businesses.\n\n18. In December 2016, the CCP detained Ms. Guo a second time, this time alone for approximately forty (40) days. During this period of detention, Ms. Guo was physically and psychologically tortured including sleep deprivation for periods of approximately forty-eight (48) hours and physical restraint from moving or using the bathroom.\n\n19. In the spring of 2017, the CCP allowed Ms. Guo and her mother to travel to the United States—accompanied by a high ranking Chinese official and a security detail—in an attempt to coerce the Debtor to return to China in exchange for their freedom.\n\n20. On May 16, 2017, Ms. Guo, her mother, the high ranking Chinese official and the security detail departed for the United States. Despite the Chinese official's demands, the Debtor, Ms. Guo and her mother refused to return to China, and Ms. Guo was able to escape her captors. She has remained in the United States ever since and is currently seeking political asylum here.\n\n21. Because the Lady May was originally purchased for Ms. Guo, Ms. Qu transferred ownership of HK International to her on June 27, 2017, once she was safely in the United States. In addition, by that time Ms. Qu was also under threat from the CCP in Hong Kong.\n\n22. When Ms. Guo acquired HK International, HK International's sole asset was the Lady May. Because HK International acquired the Lady May after the Debtor divested his interest in HK International, Ms. Guo did not receive anything from the Debtor, directly or indirectly, when she received HK International.\n\n23. On April 17, 2020, HK International transferred ownership of the Lady May to HK USA, a Delaware limited liability company, which placed the Lady May in a United States based entity. The Lady May continued to be registered in the Cayman Islands.\n\n24. At no time since Ms. Guo owned the Lady May through HK International and/or HK USA has either entity ever held a bank account. The Lady May's expenses were previously funded through Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\"). Now they are funded by Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\"). Ms. Guo's brother owns Golden Spring, and he indirectly owns Lamp Capital. Thus, Ms. Guo's brother, originally through Golden Spring and now through Lamp Capital, funds the expenses to manage, operate and maintain the Lady May.\n\n25. Ms. Guo, directly and through her representatives, is solely responsible for directing the Lady May's operations and movements. Ms. Guo personally countersigns agreements with the Lady May's crew members and/or its yacht management company.\n\n26. For many years, the Lady May has traditionally been located in the Northeast United States from May to mid-October and it travels South for the winter. This movement is typical for boats similar to the Lady May, which are not designed to be used or operated in cold weather. HK USA's representatives always directed the Lady May's captain to move the Lady May from the North to the South (and vice versa) when the seasons changed. The Debtor never had the authority to give the Lady May's captain these directives and he never did.\n\n27. Similar to many other pleasure yachts, the Lady May often hosts guests. No guest, including the Debtor, is permitted to board the Lady May without Ms. Guo's permission.\n\n28. The Debtor has no legal or equitable ownership interest in HK USA or the Lady May.\n\n#### **D. PAX's Efforts to Restrain the Lady May**\n\n29. On September 15, 2020, PAX obtained summary judgment against the Debtor as to liability only on its claim for breach of a guaranty in the action captioned *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P v. Kwok Ho Wan et al*, Index 652077/2017 (the \"New York Action\"). Neither HK USA nor Ms. Guo personally were parties to the New York Action.\n\n30. On October 15, 2020, PAX obtained an ancillary order against the Debtor under NY CPLR 5229 purporting to restrain the Debtor \"and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, the 'Lady May' . . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with [the Lady May].\"\n\n31. NY CPLR 5229 applies to adverse parties against whom a verdict or decision has been made. Neither Ms. Guo nor HK USA were adverse parties in the New York Action, and no verdict or decision had been rendered against them.\n\n32. On March 16, 2021, the New York Supreme Court found the Debtor in contempt because the Lady May was removed from the jurisdiction of the United States. No contempt order entered against HK USA or Ms. Guo because they were not parties to the New York Action or the contempt proceeding.\n\n33. On February 9, 2022, following an evidentiary hearing on February 2, 2022, the New York Supreme Court entered a final order of contempt against the Debtor. The Court drew substantial adverse interests against the Debtor because he exercised his Fifth Amendment right and declined to testify.\n\n34. Ms. Guo testified as a witness but neither she nor HK USA were parties to that proceeding. As such, the New York Supreme Court made no finding regarding the extent of HK USA's interest in the Lady May. Rather, the \"fundamental issue [in the contempt proceeding was] who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020.\"\n\n35. On March 1, 2022, PAX filed in this Court a Motion for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 363(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code (the \"Stay Motion\"). (Doc. No. 57). In the Stay Motion, PAX contends that the Lady May is a \"critical estate asset.\" (Id. at 14).\n\n36. PAX repeatedly seeks judicial determinations and actions concerning the Lady May and the Debtor's alleged interest in it, but it has yet to include HK USA or Ms. Guo as parties\n\nto any of those proceedings, despite the fact that HK USA is indisputably the registered owner of the Lady May.\n\n37. PAX contends that the Lady May is a critical asset of the Debtor's Estate that should \"benefit all creditors\" (Doc. No. 52 at 14), but no Court has made any determination as to HK USA's interest in the Lady May and, with the commencement of the Debtor's bankruptcy case, only this Court may determine if the Lady May is property of the Debtor's Estate within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code § 541.\n\n38. Thus, there is an actual, bona fide, and substantial issue in controversy regarding the extent of the Debtor's and HK USA's interest in the Lady May the resolution of which will significantly impact the administration of the Debtor's estate and resolve otherwise ongoing uncertainty.\n\n## **COUNT ONE: DECLARATORY RELIEF: THE LADY MAY IS NOT PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE WITHIN THE MEANING OF 11 U.S.C § 541**\n\n39. HK USA repeats and realleges each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n40. HK USA is the exclusive legal owner of the Lady May.\n\n41. The Debtor does not hold an ownership interest in the Lady May.\n\n42. The Lady May does not constitute property of the Debtor's bankruptcy estate\n\nwithin the meaning of Bankruptcy Code § 541.\n\n**WHEREFORE**, HK USA seeks a judicial declaration from this Court that the Lady May is not property of the Debtor's Estate within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code § 541.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 11th day of April, 2022.\n\n# HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC\n\nBy: */s/ Aaron A. Romney*\n\nStephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 (203) 368-4234 (203) 549-0872 (fax) skindseth@zeislaw.com [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) Its Attorneys","body_zh":"对抗性诉讼封面页\n（说明见背面） 对抗性诉讼案号\n（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 被告\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）以及 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）\n律师（律所名称、地址及电话）\nStephen M. Kindseth / Aaron A. Romney\nZeisler & Zeisler, PC\n10 Middle St., 15thFl., Bridgeport, CT 06604 203.368.4234 律师（如已知） William Baldiga - Brown Rudnick LLP wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\nRobert Stark - Brown Rudnick LLP rstark@brownrudnick.com\nPeter Friedman - O'Melveny & Myers LLP pfriedman@omm.com\nStuart Sarnoff - O'Melveny & Myers LLP ssarnoff@omm.com\n当事人（仅勾选一项）\nO 美国受托人/破产管理人\no 债务人\n债权人\n其他\n受托人 当事人（仅勾选一项）\n债务人\nO 美国受托人/破产管理人\nC 债权人\nO 其他\nO 受托人\n诉由（简要陈述诉由，包括所涉及的所有美国制定法）\n根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 寻求宣告性救济，关于某一船舶在 11 U.S.C. § 541 的含义下是否属于破产财产\n诉讼性质\n（最多为五 (5) 个方框编号，主要诉由填 1，第一备选诉由填 3 等）\nFRBP 7001(1) - 追回金钱/财产\nI 11-追回金钱/财产 - §542 财产交还\n12-追回金钱/财产 - §547 偏颇清偿\n13-追回金钱/财产 - §548 欺诈性转让\n14-追回金钱/财产 - 其他 FRBP 7001(6) - 可免责性（续）\n61-可免责性 - §523(a)(5)，家庭抚养\n68-可免责性 - §523(a)(6)，蓄意和恶意伤害\n63-可免责性 - §523(a)(8)，学生贷款\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、优先顺序或范围\n21-留置权或财产其他权益的有效性、优先顺序或范围（家庭抚养除外）\n65-可免责性 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(3) - 批准财产出售\n31-批准出售破产财产及共同所有人财产 - §363(h) FRBP 7001(7) - 禁令救济\n71-禁令救济 - 施加中止\n72-禁令救济 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(4) - 异议/撤销免责\n41-异议/撤销免责 - §727(c),(d),(e) FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的次级化\n81-债权或权益的次级化\nFRBP 7001(5) - 撤销确认\n51-撤销确认 FRBP 7001(9) 宣告性判决\n91-宣告性判决\nFRBP 7001(6) - 可免责性\n1 66-可免责性 - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税务债权\n- 62-可免责性 - §523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、 FRBP 7001(10) 被移转诉讼的裁定\n01-被移转债权或诉由的裁定\n实际欺诈\n67-可免责性 - §523(a)(4)，信义欺诈、挪用、侵吞\n（续见下一栏） 其他\nSS-SIPA 案件 - 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa 等\n02-其他（例如，如果与破产案无关则本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼）\n若本案涉及州法的实体问题请勾选 若主张为 FRCP 23 项下的集体诉讼请勾选\n若起诉书中要求陪审团审判请勾选 请求金额 $\n寻求的其他救济\n\n引发本对抗性诉讼的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名\nHo Wan Kwok 破产案件案号\n22-50073 (JAM)\n案件未结的地区\nConnecticut（康涅狄格区） 分部办公室\nBridgeport（布里奇波特） 法官姓名\nJulie A. Manning\n关联对抗性诉讼（如有）\n原告 被告 对抗性诉讼案号\n对抗性诉讼未结的地区 分部办公室 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/Aaron A. Romney\n日期 律师（或原告）姓名正楷\nApril 11, 2022 Aaron A. Romney\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分部\n\n关于：\n第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK，\n案件案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\n__________________________________________ :\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC\n对抗性诉讼案号 __________\n\n原告，\n诉\n\nHO WAN KWOK 和\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n被告。\n__________________________________________ :\n2022年4月11日\n宣告性救济起诉书\n\n根据 28 U.S.C §§ 2201-2202 以及 Fed. R. Bank. 7001(2) 与 (9)，利害关系方原告 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK USA”）特此对被告即自行管理的债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”或“Kwok”）以及 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P（“PAX”）提起起诉，寻求宣告性判决，确认名为 Lady May（“Lady May”）的特定船舶在 11 U.S.C. § 541 的含义下不属于债务人第 11 章破产财产（“破产财产”）。为此，HK USA 提出如下主张：\nI. HK USA 诉由摘要\n\n本法院对何为债务人破产财产拥有专属管辖权。无可争议的是，HK USA 是 Lady May（一艘四十四米的游艇）的登记所有人。如下所述，PAX 多次主张债务人\n\n是 Lady May 的“真正所有人”。HK USA 对此主张持有异议，并坚持认为其自身事实上是 Lady May 的唯一所有人。因此，存在一项适合本法院通过宣告性判决进行裁决的实际争议。\n\n本对抗性诉讼发生于 PAX 与债务人之间历时数年且 HK USA 并非其中当事人的诉讼之后。在整个过程中，PAX 一直指控债务人及其据称控制的某些实体（不包括 HK USA）因涉嫌的一笔商业贷款及担保而欠 PAX 数千万美元。2020年9月15日，Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County（纽约州最高法院纽约县分院）在责任问题上作出了支持 PAX 针对债务人的即决判决，而赔偿金以及“公司被告”是否为债务人的人格混同体的问题则留待日后裁定。HK USA 现在不是、也从未是那些涉案的公司被告之一。\n\n在即决判决作出后，PAX 启动了一项程序，试图基于债务人据称具有“控制”Lady May 的能力，强迫债务人限制使用 Lady May。PAX 最初获得了一项责令债务人将 Lady May 运回美国的命令，随后在债务人未能照办时获得了一项藐视法庭命令。截至今日，PAX 从未让 HK USA 成为这些诉讼程序的当事人。因此，通过本诉讼，HK USA 寻求本法院作出宣告：其自身——而非债务人——是 Lady May 的合法所有人，且因此，Lady May 在 11 U.S.C. § 541 的含义下不属于债务人的破产财产。\nII. 事实\nA. 当事人\n\n1. 原告 HK USA 是一家 Delaware（特拉华州）有限责任公司，地址位于 203 NE Front Street, Suite 101, Milford, Delaware。\n\n2. HK USA 是 Lady May 的登记所有人。Lady May 在 Cayman Islands（开曼群岛）登记。\n\n3. 非当事人 Mei Guo（郭美）女士是 HK USA 的唯一股东，也是债务人的女儿。她目前居住在美国，并因其在 People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国）遭受 Chinese Communist Party（“CCP”，中国共产党）的对待而正在美国寻求政治庇护。\n\n4. 债务人居住在 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut。\n\n5. 据知情和确信，被告 PAX 是一家依据开曼群岛法律设立为受豁免有限合伙的投资基金。PAX 的注册办事处位于 P.O. Box 472, 2 nd Floor, Harbour Place, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands。\nB. 管辖权、审判地及本诉讼的性质\n\n6. 债务人于 2022年2月15日 根据《美国法典》第 11 编（“《破产法典》”）第 11 章申请保护。\n\n7. 根据 28 U.S.C §§ 2201-2202 以及 Fed. R. Bank. 7001(2) 与 (9)，本起诉书开启了一项对抗性诉讼，寻求确认 Lady May 在《破产法典》§ 541 的含义下不属于破产财产的宣告性判决。\n\n8. 本法院根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334(b) 对本诉讼拥有管辖权，因为此处主张的请求产生于《破产法典》，且产生于 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division（美国破产法院康涅狄格区布里奇波特分部）审理中的《破产法典》项下案件。\n\n9. 本法院拥有专属管辖权，以确定何种财产在《破产法典》§ 541 的含义下属于、以及不属于破产财产。\n\n10. 本事项属于 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) 项下的核心诉讼，因为它涉及债务人破产财产的管理。\n\n11. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a)，本对抗性诉讼在本法院的审判地是适当的，因为债务人的破产案件正在本地区和本分部审理中。\nC. Lady May 的历史及其所有权\n\n12. Lady May 建造于 2014年。\n\n13. 截至 2014年10月，债务人拥有一家名为 Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（“HK International”）的实体。2014年10月，债务人将其在 HK International 的权益转让给了 Qu Guo Jiao（“Qu 女士”，屈国娇）。Qu 女士是郭女士的哥哥 Qiang Guo（郭强）所信任的商业伙伴。\n\n14. 自 2014年10月 以来，债务人未曾拥有过 HK International 的权益。\n\n15. 2015年 初，债务人在得知 CCP 将根据捏造的证据以出于政治动机的指控逮捕他后，从香港逃往美国。在债务人从香港逃往美国后的数日之内，CCP 将郭女士及其母亲拘留了大约十 (10) 天。\n\n16. 2015年2月，郭女士的哥哥通过 HK International 出资购买了 Lady May，作为送给郭女士的礼物。\n\n17. Qiang Guo 以及郭女士家族的其他成员，多年来享有独立于债务人及其业务的财务成功。\n\n18. 2016年12月，CCP 第二次拘留了郭女士，这次是单独拘留，为期约四十 (40) 天。在被拘留期间，郭女士遭受了肉体和精神上的折磨，包括长达约四十八 (48) 小时的剥夺睡眠，以及限制其活动或上厕所的人身拘束。\n\n19. 2017年 春，CCP 允许郭女士及其母亲前往美国——由一名中国高级官员和随行安保人员陪同——企图迫使债务人返回中国以换取她们的自由。\n\n20. 2017年5月16日，郭女士、其母亲、中国高级官员以及随行安保人员启程前往美国。尽管有该中国官员的要求，债务人、郭女士及其母亲仍拒绝返回中国，郭女士得以摆脱控制她的人。自那以后她一直留在美国，目前正在此寻求政治庇护。\n\n21. 由于 Lady May 最初是为郭女士购买的，在她安全抵达美国后，Qu 女士于 2017年6月27日 将 HK International 的所有权转让给了她。此外，彼时 Qu 女士在香港也面临着来自 CCP 的威胁。\n\n22. 当郭女士取得 HK International 时，HK International 的唯一资产就是 Lady May。因为 HK International 是在债务人剥离其在 HK International 的权益之后购入 Lady May 的，郭女士在接收 HK International 时，没有直接或间接地从债务人处获得任何东西。\n\n23. 2020年4月17日，HK International 将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了一家特拉华州有限责任公司 HK USA，从而将 Lady May 置于一家总部位于美国的企业名下。Lady May 继续在开曼群岛登记。\n\n24. 自从Ms. Guo（郭女士）通过HK International（香港国际）和/或HK USA（香港美国）拥有Lady May（梅号）游艇以来，这两个实体均从未开设过银行账户。「Lady May」号的费用此前由Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（「Golden Spring」）提供资金。目前由Lamp Capital LLC（「Lamp Capital」）提供资金。郭女士的哥哥拥有Golden Spring，并且他间接拥有Lamp Capital。因此，郭女士的哥哥最初通过Golden Spring、现通过Lamp Capital，为管理、运营和维护「Lady May」号的费用提供资金。\n\n25. 郭女士直接以及通过其代表，全权负责指挥「Lady May」号的运营和航行。郭女士亲自连署与「Lady May」号船员和/或其游艇管理公司的协议。\n\n26. 多年以来，「Lady May」号传统上于5月至10月中旬位于美国东北部，并在冬季向南航行。这种航行方式对于类似「Lady May」号的船只而言十分典型，这类船只并非设计用于在寒冷天气中使用或操作。每逢换季，HK USA的代表总是指示「Lady May」号的船长将「Lady May」号从北部调往南部（反之亦然）。债务人从未有权向「Lady May」号船长下达这些指令，且其亦从未下达过。\n\n27. 与许多其他游乐游艇类似，「Lady May」号经常接待宾客。未经郭女士许可，任何宾客（包括债务人）均不得登上「Lady May」号。\n\n28. 债务人在HK USA或「Lady May」号中均不享有任何法定所有权权益或衡平法所有权权益。\nD. PAX为限制「Lady May」号所作的努力\n\n29. 2020年9月15日，在题为Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P v. Kwok Ho Wan et al（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金诉郭浩云等人案），Index 652077/2017（「纽约诉讼」）的案件中，PAX就其违反保证书的申索获得了针对债务人的仅就责任成立的即决判决。HK USA和郭女士本人均非纽约诉讼的当事人。\n\n30. 2020年10月15日，PAX根据NY CPLR 5229获得了针对债务人的附随命令，意在限制债务人「和/或……游艇『Lady May』号的登记所有人……进行或导致任何出售、让与、转让或干扰[Lady May号]的行为」。\n\n31. NY CPLR 5229适用于已被作出裁决或决定的不利当事人。郭女士和HK USA均非纽约诉讼中的不利当事人，亦未有针对他们作出任何裁决或决定。\n\n32. 2021年3月16日，New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）判定债务人藐视法庭，因「Lady May」号被移出了美国的管辖范围。未对HK USA或郭女士发出藐视法庭裁定，因为他们并非纽约诉讼或藐视法庭程序的当事人。\n\n33. 2022年2月9日，在2022年2月2日举行证据听证会后，纽约州最高法院对债务人作出了最终藐视法庭裁定。该法院对债务人作出了重大不利事实推定，因其行使了第五修正案权利并拒绝作证。\n\n34. 郭女士作为证人出庭作证，但她和HK USA均非该程序的当事人。因此，纽约州最高法院未就HK USA在「Lady May」号中享有的权益范围作出任何认定。相反，藐视法庭程序中的「根本问题在于2020年10月是谁指示将该游艇移出本法院管辖范围」。\n\n35. 2022年3月1日，PAX向本法院提交了一项《关于根据破产法第363(d)(2)条确认自动中止不适用或备选请求免除自动中止的命令的动议》（「中止动议」）。(Doc. No. 57)。在《中止动议》中，PAX主张「Lady May」号是「关键的破产财产资产」。(Id. at 14)。\n\n36. PAX一再就「Lady May」号及债务人据称在其中享有的权益寻求司法裁决和行动，但尽管HK USA无可争议地是「Lady May」号的登记所有人，PAX仍未将HK USA或郭女士列为任何该等程序的当事人。\n\n37. PAX主张「Lady May」号是债务人破产财产的关键资产，应当「使所有债权人受益」(Doc. No. 52 at 14)，但尚无任何法院就HK USA在「Lady May」号中的权益作出任何认定，且随着债务人破产案件的启动，只有本法院可以认定「Lady May」号是否属于破产法第541条含义范围内的债务人破产财产。\n\n38. 因此，关于债务人和HK USA在「Lady May」号中所享权益的范围，存在实际、真实且重大的争议事项，该事项的解决将对债务人破产财产的管理产生重大影响，并解决原本持续存在的不确定性。\n第一项诉讼请求：宣告性救济：LADY MAY号不属于11 U.S.C § 541含义范围内的债务人破产财产\n\n39. HK USA重申并重新主张第1段至第38段中陈述的各项指控，如同在此处完整陈述一样。\n\n40. HK USA是「Lady May」号的唯一合法所有人。\n\n41. 债务人不享有「Lady May」号的所有权权益。\n\n42. 「Lady May」号不构成破产法第541条含义范围内的债务人破产财产。\n\n为此，HK USA请求本法院作出司法宣告，确认「Lady May」号不属于破产法第541条含义范围内的债务人破产财产。\n\n日期：2022年4月11日，于康涅狄格州布里奇波特\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC\n\n签署人：/s/ Aaron A. Romney\n\nStephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 (203) 368-4234 (203) 549-0872 (传真) skindseth@zeislaw.com [aromney@zeislaw.com] 其代理律师","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","CCP","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2972,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:55:56"}