{"id":"court_ctb_2292_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2292,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse) | | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE | DEFENDANTS
LAMP CAPITAL LLC, INFINITY TREASURY
MANAGEMENT INC., HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC, HUDSON
DIAMOND HOLDING LLC, LEADING SHINE NY LTD., MEI GUO, AND
YANPING, A/K/A \"YVETTE\", WANG, | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.) | ATTORNEYS
(If Known) | | |\n| Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166
Tel: 318-6000, Attn: Douglass Barron | | See Schedule 1 | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee
x | □
Debtor
□
Creditor
□
Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□
U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□
Other
x | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION
(WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED)
Declaratory Judgment and Turnover of Lamp Capital's Assets to Trustee. Declaratory Judgment and Turnover of Ownership of Lamp Capital and/
or Its Assets to Trustee. Declaratory Judgment and Turnover of Hudson Diamond NY's Assets to Trustee. Declaratory Judgment and Turnover of
Ownership of Hudson Diamond NY and/or Its Assets to Trustee. Declaratory Judgment and Turnover of Leading Shine NY's Assets to Trustee.
Declaratory Judgment and Turnover of Ownership of Leading Shine NY and/or Its Assets to Trustee. | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT
(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| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property
□
x
11-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(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
□ | □
□
□
□
□ | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)
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
(other than domestic support)
65-Dischargeability - other | |\n| 21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property
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 | □
x | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment
91-Declaratory judgment | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability
□
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims
□
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation,
actual fraud
□
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny
(continued next column) | □
Other
□
□ | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
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
x | □ | 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#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR
Ho Wan Kwok | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO.
22-50073 | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| Connecticut | | Julie A. Manning | | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| | | ADVERSARY | | |\n| | | PROCEEDING NO. | | |\n| | | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| /s/ Douglass Barron | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | Bridgeport
DEFENDANT
PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
Douglass 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.\n\n### SCHEDULE 1\n\nAttorney for Hudson Diamond Entities and Mei Guo c/o Aaron A. Romney Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Tel: 203-368-4234\n\nAttorney for Yvette Wang c/o Alex Lipman Lipman Law PLLC 147 W. 25th St. 12th Fl New York, New York 10001 Tel: 212-401-0070\n\nc/o Emil Bove Blanche Law PLLC 99 Wall Street Suite 4460 New York, NY 10005 Tel: 212-716-1250\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION
----------------------------------------------------------------
x | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| In re: | :
:
Chapter 11 | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,1 | :
:
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n| Debtors. | :
:
(Jointly Administered)
: | |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAMP CAPITAL LLC, INFINITY TREASURY
MANAGEMENT INC., HUDSON DIAMOND NY
LLC, HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC,
LEADING SHINE NY LTD., MEI GUO, AND
YANPING, A/K/A \"YVETTE\", WANG,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------- | x
:
:
:
:
Adv. Proceeding No. [
]
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
x | |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 541, 542, AND 544 OF BANKRUPTCY CODE SEEKING (I) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT EACH OF LAMP CAPITAL LLC, HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC, AND LEADING SHINE NY LTD. IS ALTER EGO OF DEBTOR, AND (II) RELATED RELIEF**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\n\n1 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\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendants: (a) Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\"), (b) Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (\"Infinity Treasury Management\"), (c) Hudson Diamond NY LLC (\"Hudson Diamond NY\"), (d) Hudson Diamond Holding LLC (\"Hudson Diamond Holding\"), (e) Leading Shine NY Ltd. (\"Leading Shine NY\"), (f) Mei Guo, and (g) Yvette Wang (together with Lamp Capital, Infinity Treasury Management, Hudson Diamond NY, Hudson Diamond Holding, Leading Shine NY, and Mei Guo, the \"Defendants\"). In support of this Complaint, the Trustee states as follows:\n\n#### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Debtor's pervasive use of shell companies to conceal his business dealings and hide his valuable assets from his creditors has been well-chronicled in these chapter 11 cases. This Complaint relates to the Debtor's use of three entities—Lamp Capital, Hudson Diamond NY, and Leading Shine NY (together, the \"Alter Ego Defendants\")—as his personal slush funds to move millions between various shell companies and to pay his personal expenses, including his legal fees. The Trustee seeks a ruling that the Alter Ego Defendants are the Debtor's alter egos and that the Debtor equitably owns the Alter Ego Defendants and their assets.\n\n2. Despite the Debtor's efforts to distance himself from the Alter Ego Defendants on paper, the Debtor dominated and controlled the Alter Ego Defendants and their assets at all relevant times. Among other things, the Alter Ego Defendants were managed by the Debtor through his agents (including Yvette Wang, Max Krasner, and/or Daniel Podhaskie), were funded by other entities controlled by the Debtor, and were used to funnel money to other Debtor shell companies and family members and to pay a variety of the Debtor's personal expenses. In addition, one of the Alter Ego Defendants, Hudson Diamond NY, helped fund the purchase of\n\nthe Debtor's real property that he owned through Greenwich Land LLC. This entity also, upon information and belief, owned at least one of the Debtor's luxury vehicles.\n\n3. The Debtor has not denied these allegations. Rather, when asked about his ownership and control over the Alter Ego Defendants, the Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer the Trustee's questions. The Court can and should draw a negative inference against the Defendants from this testimony.\n\n4. Based on these and the other facts set forth below, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code declaring that (i) each of Lamp Capital, Hudson Diamond NY, and Leading Shine NY is an alter ego of the Debtor, and (ii) each of Lamp Capital, Hudson Diamond NY, and Leading Shine NY and/or their assets are equitably owned by the Debtor.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334(b).\n\n6. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(a). Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n#### **THE PARTIES**\n\n7. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n8. Lamp Capital is a Delaware limited liability company.\n\n9. Infinity Treasury Management Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is the purported sole member of Lamp Capital.\n\n10. Hudson Diamond NY is a New York limited liability company.\n\n11. Hudson Diamond Holding is a Delaware limited liability company that is the purported sole member of Hudson Diamond NY.2\n\n12. Leading Shine NY is a Delaware corporation.\n\n13. Mei Guo is the Debtor's daughter. She has asserted that she is the beneficial owner of Leading Shine NY. She is also the purported sole member of Hudson Diamond Holding.\n\n14. Yvette Wang is the Debtor's close associate and alleged co-conspirator in the criminal action pending against the Debtor and Ms. Wang in New York federal court. Ms. Wang has asserted that she is the beneficial owner of Leading Shine NY.\n\n#### **FACTS**\n\n#### **I. Background: Debtor's Prolific Use of Shell Companies**\n\n15. As the Court is by now well aware, 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 Debtor'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. Indeed, in addition to the Alter Ego Defendants, the Court is already familiar with numerous of these entities, including:\n\n> a. **HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\")**, purportedly owned by the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo and used by the Debtor to hold title to the *Lady May* yacht, which this Court and Justice Ostrager ruled was\n\n2 In June 2023, Hudson Diamond NY's counsel Aaron Romney of Zeisler & Zeisler P.C. filed a motion to withdraw as counsel to Hudson Diamond NY, claiming to be unsure who the ultimate beneficial owner of the company was, despite corporate documents showing that Hudson Diamond NY's purported sole member was Hudson Diamond Holding and that Hudson Diamond Holding's purported sole member was Mei Guo, which motion was denied [Main Case Docket No. 2220]. In the court's decision denying withdrawal, the Court noted, among other things, that the exhibits presented by the Trustee \"seem to confirm that Ms. Guo had authority to retain [Attorney Romney] and Attorney Vartan because HD Holding is the sole member of HD NY.\" *Id.* at 5.\n\nbeneficially owned by the Debtor.3 The Court also ruled HK USA to be the Debtor's alter ego.4\n\n- b. **Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich Land\")**, purportedly owned by the Debtor's wife, and used by the Debtor to hold title to the Debtor's mansion in Greenwich, Connecticut.5\n- c. **Whitecroft Shore Limited and Anton Development Limited**, entities purportedly owned by Mei Guo and used by the Debtor to hold title to the Debtor's Bombardier Global XRS private jet.6\n- d. **HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., and Lexington Property, Inc. (collectively, the \"HCHK Entities\")**, each of which is purportedly owned (a) 99.9999% by a British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") company purportedly owned by the Debtor's personal assistant, Yvette Wang and (b) 0.0001% by a long-time employee of the Debtor, Anthony DiBattista.7 The HCHK Entities were used by the Debtor to, among other things, run his media operations and hold title to significant assets, including over \\$38 million in cash.\n- e. **Taurus Fund, LLC**, purportedly managed by the Debtor's bodyguard and chauffer, Scott Barnett, and used by the Debtor to hold title to his mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey.8\n\n 3 *Supplemental Memorandum of Decision in Support of Oral Ruling Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment*, at 31 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Mar. 30, 2023) [Docket No. 177] (\"the issue of the Individual Debtor's beneficial ownership and control of the Lady May 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\n\nclear and convincing evidence that the Individual Debtor beneficially owned and controlled the Lady May\"). 4 *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.\"). 5\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]. 6\n\nThese two companies, along with other companies purportedly owned by Mei Guo, are subjects of adversary proceeding 23-05008. *See 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 Is Property of Estate and (II) Related Relief* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, May 16, 2023) [Docket No. 1]. 7\n\nThe Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against these entities in adversary proceeding 23-05013, in connection with which the Court entered a temporary restraining order on June 12, 2023. *See Order Granting in Part Emergency* Ex Parte *Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, June 12, 2023) [Docket No. 18]. 8\n\nThe Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against Taurus Fund LLC in adversary proceeding 23-05017, in connection with which the Court entered a preliminary injunction order on August 24, 2023. *See Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017, August 24, 2023) [Docket No. 47].\n\n- f. **Ace Decade Limited (\"Ace Decade\")**, which this Court found was beneficially owned by the Debtor.9 The Court also found that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade's nominee owner, Yvette Wang.10 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 date11), 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- g. **Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\")**, which is the Debtor's family office purportedly owned by the Debtor's son. Golden Spring was, among other things, funded by the Debtor, used by the Debtor to hold his assets and pay his expenses, and managed and staffed by the Debtor's employees.12\n- h. **Gettr, GFashion, GMusic, GClubs, GNews, and GEdu (the \"G-Series Entities\"), New Federal State of China (\"NFSC\"), and Rule of Law Foundation (\"ROLF\")**, as well as other purportedly independent entities and organizations, which this Court found were controlled by the Debtor,13 led by the Debtor,14 and/or served \"the purposes of . . . and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.15 The Court also found that the members of these entities and organizations were \"personally loyal to the Debtor.\"16\n- 16. These entities are the tip of the iceberg. According to the United States\n\nGovernment, the Debtor and his co-defendants William Je and Yvette Wang \"utilized more than\n\n9 *Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order* ¶ 1 (Jan. 24, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1372] (the \"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\"). 10 Corp. Governance Contempt Order ¶ 4.\n\n11 *See Order Regarding Partial Resolution of Trustee's Contempt Motion* ¶ 1 (Nov. 17, 2022) [Main Case Docket\n\nNo. 1110]. 12 The Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against Golden Spring in adversary proceeding 23-05018, in connection with which the clerk of the court has entered defaults against Golden Spring, *see Entry of Default* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05018, Sept. 20, 2023) [Docket No. 17], and against its purported parent company China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited. *See Entry of Default* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05018, Oct. 17, 2023)\n\n[Docket No. 20]. 13 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No.\n\n22-05032, Jan. 13, 2023 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\"). 14 *Id.* ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, and Himalaya.\"). 15 *Id.* (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor,\n\nserve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\"). 16 *Id.*\n\napproximately 500 accounts held in the names of *at least 80 different entities or individuals* to launder more than \\$1 billion in fraud proceeds.\"17\n\n17. In sum, while this Complaint focuses on Lamp Capital, Hudson Diamond NY, and Leading Shine NY, the context regarding the Debtor's wide-ranging strategy of using shell companies to shield assets from creditors is highly relevant. The Trustee reserves his rights to pursue additional actions against other entities at the appropriate time.\n\n### **II. Lamp Capital Is Alter Ego of and Equitably Owned by Debtor**\n\n### **A. Lamp Capital Formed by Debtor Through His Counsel**\n\n18. Lamp Capital was formed in Delaware on September 4, 2020,18 and registered to do business in New York on September 14, of 2020.19 Lamp Capital's sole member is Infinity Treasury Management, of which Qiang Guo, the Debtor's son, is the purported sole shareholder.20\n\n19. The Debtor's counsel who assisted the Debtor in forming Lamp Capital was Hodgson Russ LLP (\"Hodgson Russ\"). Valerie Stevens, a partner at Hodgson Russ, signed Lamp Capital's certificate of formation as \"Organizer.\"21 Hodgson Russ also handled corporate filings related to Lamp Capital's authorization to do business in New York state.22\n\n 17 *See Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release* (the \"USAO Memorandum\"), at 29, attached as Exhibit B in the Reply of Chapter 11 Trustee to G Club Operations LLC's Supplemental Objection to Trustee's Motion to Compel and Request for\n\nRelated Relief (the \"G-Club Reply\") (June 23, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1934]. 18 Ex. 1, Certificate of Formation of Lamp Capital LLC, attached as Ex. B to the Affidavit of Bernardo Enriquez in Support of Non-Party Lamp Capital's Motion to Quash or Modify, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund*\n\n*L.P. v. Kwok et al*., Index No. 652077/2017, NYSCEF Doc. No. 936, Nov 5, 2021 (the \"Enriquez Affidavit\"). 19 Ex. 2, Application for Authority of Lamp Capital LLC, dated Sept. 11, 2020, filed with the State of New York,\n\nattached as Ex. C to Enríquez Affidavit. 20 Ex. 3, Limited Liability Company Agreement of Lamp Capital LLC, attached as Ex. D to Enriquez Affidavit. 21 Ex. 1, Certificate of Formation of Lamp Capital LLC.\n\n22 Ex. 2, Application for Authority of Lamp Capital LLC.\n\n20. In addition to its work with respect to Lamp Capital, Hodgson Russ was counsel to the Debtor, his family members, his close associates, and his shell companies in comection with numerous matters, including, among others:23\n\n\n\n#### B. Lamp Capital Managed by Debtor Through Debtor's Agents\n\n21. 9 Prior to June 10, 2021, Daniel Podhaskie served as sole director, president, and treasurer of Infinity Treasury Management, the sole member of Lamp Capital.24 Mr. Podhaskie was also an authorized signatory for Lamp Capital who, among other things, opened bank accounts on Lamp Capital's behalf.25\n\n22. Mr. Podhaskie was, at all relevant times, an agent of the Debtor. Mr. Podhaskie acted on the Debtor's behalf. He served as the Debtor's personal attorney and as general counsel of Golden Spring, another one of the Debtor's shell companies. He also served as a corporate representative of Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holdings Corporation, entities owned by\n\n23 Ex. 4.\n\n24 Ex. 5, Unanimous Written Consent in Lieu of Special Meeting of Sole Shareholder of Infinity Treasury Management, Inc., attached as Ex. F to Enriquez Affidavit.\n\n25 Ex. 6, Account Agreement for Lamp Capital LLC with The Bank of Princeton for the account ending 0389, dated Sept. 10, 2020; Ex. 7, Account Agreements for Lamp Capital LLC with The Bank of Princeton for the accounts ending 0306, 0322, and 0314 dated Sept. 15, 2020.\n\nthe Debtor. Mr. Podhaskie served the Debtor in numerous other roles as well, including as officer and/or authorized signatory for Greenwich Land, Hudson Diamond Holding, and Hudson Diamond NY 26 When the Debtor was asked at his deposition whether Mr. Podhaskie was his employee and agent, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment rights.27\n\n23. On June 10, 2021, Max Krasner replaced Mr. Podhaskie as sole director and president of Infinity Treasury Management. Like Mr. Podhaskie, Mr. Krasner was an agent of the Debtor. Mr. Krasner acted on the Debtor's behalf and worked for the Debtor as a subordinate to Yvette Wang. Mr. Krasner was a Golden Spring employee who also served in roles at numerous other Debtor shell companies, including serving as an employee, officer and/or authorized signatory of Greenwich Land, Hudson Diamond Holding, Hudson Diamond NY, Rule of Law Foundation, and one or more of the HCHK Entities.28 When asked at his deposition whether Mr. Krasner was his employee and agent, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment rights.29\n\n24. With respect to Yvette Wang, 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\n\n26 See. e.g.\n\nEx. 9, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated December 4, 2020; Ex. 10, Daniel Podhaskie resignation as President of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, dated January 4, 2021; Ex. 11, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting; Ex. 12, Daniel Podhaskie resignation as President of Hudson Diamond NY LLC, dated January 4, 2021.\n\n27 Ex. 13, Ho Wan Kwok Dep. Tr., dated March 2, 2023, at 86:14-18.\n\n28 Ex. 14, Ex. 15. Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019 (reflecting Mr. Krasner as the vice president); Ex. 16. Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019; Ex. 18, Limited Liability Company Agreement of Lamp Capital, LLC, dated September 8, 2020; Ex. 19, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Foundation (Form 990, Page 7, listing Max Krasner as \"President, Treasurer. Director\"); Ex. 20, Email by and among Max Krasner, Anthony DiBattista and attorneys from Marcum on the HCHK 2022 Bank Statements in January 2023.\n\n29 Ex. 13, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 34:6-20.\n\nproperties such as the Sherry-Netherland apartment.\"30 Apart from her role at Hudson Diamond NY, Ms. Wang has also served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as an officer and/or authorized signatory of Golden Spring, Greenwich Land, Leading Shine NY, Saraca, GTV Media Group, Inc., Ace Decade Limited, and Genever Holdings LLC.31 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 rights.32\n\n25. 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 alleged criminal fraud and money-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.\"33\n\n# **C. Lamp Capital Funded by Debtor**\n\n26. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Lamp Capital has been funded entirely by the Debtor through entities he controls and would have had no capitalization absent such funding.\n\n30 Corp. Governance Contempt Order ¶ 4.\n\n31 Ex. 21, 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. 15, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019 (rendering Ms. Wang signatory); Ex. 22, Ex. 23, Himalaya Coin Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020; Ex. 24, Himalaya Dollar Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020; Ex. 25, 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\"); Ex. 84, Particular of Claims, *Kwok Ho Wan & Ors. v. UBS*, Cl-2020-000345, at 38, High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court, dated September 23, 2020 (\"UK Complaint\") (signed by Yvette Wang on behalf of Ace Decade); *Debtor's Declaration Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2* ¶ 1, (Case No. 22-50592, Oct. 12, 2020) [Docket No. 1]; Ex. 14, Greenwich Land, LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated\n\nJanuary 19, 2021. 32 Ex. 13, Kwok Dep. Tr., at 33:11-13.\n\n33 Ex. 26, United States Letter in Opposition to Yvette Wang's Motion for Bond, at 18, *U.S. v. Yanping Wang, a/k/a \"Yvette*,*\"* (Mar. 29, 2023) [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT, Docket No. 10].\n\n27. Lamp Capital has received funding from numerous other Debtor-controlled entities. Among other things, Lamp Capital received transfers of at least\n\n34 at least \\$9 million from Greenwich Land, 35 at least \\$9 million from\n\nACA Capital,36 and at least \\$5 million from Savio Law LLC.37 Upon information and belief,\n\nLamp Capital received no funding other than from other Debtor-controlled entities.\n\n# D. Lamp Capital Used Same Address as Other Debtor Shell Companies\n\n28. Lamp Capital used 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York, as its address. 38\n\n162 East 64th Street has been used as an address by the Debtor himself,39 his counsel Aaron\n\nMitchell,40 and a number of the Debtor's shell companies, including Golden Spring,41 HK\n\n| 34 | Ex. 59. | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|\n| | x. 60.
x. 61 | |\n| | | and Ex. |\n| | 62, Lamp Capital Dime Bank statement for December 2021 (showing another transfer from Hudson Diamond | |\n| | NY of approximately \\$500,000 on December 21, 2021). | |\n\n- 35 Ex. 63, Lamp Capital November 2020 account statement at The Bank of Princeton (showing a transfer of \\$9 million from an account ending 0199 to Lamp Capital's account ending 0389). See also Ex. 64, Greenwich Land, LLC November 2020 account statement at The Bank of Princeton (showing a transfer of \\$9 million from its account ending 0199 to an account ending 0389).\n- 36 Ex. 65, Lamp Capital Dime Bank statement for November 2021 (showing an approximately \\$2 million transfer from ACA Capital on November 17, 2021); Ex, 62 (showing a transfer of approximately \\$2 million from ACA Capital on December 6, 2021); Ex. 6, Lamp Capital Dime Bank statement for January 2022 (showing an approximately \\$2 million transfer from ACA Capital on January 26, 2022); and Ex. 67, Lamp Capital Dime Bank statement for February 2022 (showing a \\$3 million transfer from ACA Capital on February 16, 2022). As the Court may recall from the Trustee's counterclaims filed in his litigation with HK USA, ACA Capital is a Hong Kong entity that has numerous links to the Debtor and is purportedly owned by the Debtor's criminal codefendant, William Je. See Chapter 11 Trustee's Answer and Counterclaims, Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Dkt. No. 36 at ¶ 86(d). When asked at his March 2, 2023 deposition whether he had beneficial ownership or exclusive control of ACA Capital, the Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment. See Ex. 13, Kwok Depo Tr., at 73:23-74:11. See also Ex. 33, Debtor's Swom Declaration, ¶ 62 (asserting Fifth Amendment regarding control over ACA Capital).\n- 37 Ex. 68, Lamp Capital account statement at The Bank of Princeton for October 2020 (showing a transfer of \\$5 million from Savio Law LLC on October 15, 2020). Savio Law firm of attorney Nicholas Savio (now employed at the firm of the Debtor's attorney Aaron Mitchell, LLC). See LinkedIn profile of Nicholas Savio, at http and profile of Nick Savio, of counsel at Lawall & Mitchell, at http\n- 38 See e.g., Ex. 69, Lamp Capital's Certificate of Beneficial Owner(s) at Dime Bank (identifying the physical business address of Lamp Capital to be at 162 E 64th Street, New York).\n- 39 See Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Main Case Docket No. 1].\n- 40 Ex. 27, Consent to Change Attorney, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 338.\n- 41 Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Main Case Docket No. 1].\n\nUSA,42 GTV Media Group, Inc.,43 Saraca,44 Hudson Diamond Holding,45 Hudson Diamond NY LLC,46 and Rule of Law Foundation.47\n\n# **E. Debtor Used Lamp Capital to Pay His Expenses**\n\n29. The Debtor used Lamp Capital to pay his expenses. In fact, Lamp Capital was a\n\ncritical part of the Debtor's arrangement for living a life of luxury while at the same time\n\nasserting that he was effectively judgment proof, as exemplified by the Schedules of Assets and\n\nLiabilities filed in this Chapter 11 Case, where the Debtor claimed to hold assets of \\$3,850.00.48\n\nThe examples of Lamp Capital functioning in this way are legion. Among others:\n\n- a. Lamp Capital paid the \\$1 million retainer of the Debtor's initial bankruptcy counsel, Brown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\").49\n- b. Lamp Capital paid numerous of the Debtor's legal fees and expenses associated with litigation involving the Debtor, including to the Debtor's law firms such as Lawall & Mitchell, LLC, The Casper Firm, The Francis Firm PLLC, Baker Hostetler LLP, Hodgson Russ, Schulman Bhattacharya LLC, and Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP, and Clayman & Rosenberg LLP.50 Lamp Capital has\n\n 42 Ex. 28, Limited Liability Company Agreement of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC,\n\ndated April 1, 2019. 43 Ex. 29, OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results registration search results for GTV\n\nMedia Group Inc. 44 Ex. 30, Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results. 45 Ex. 31, Hudson Diamond NY LLC fact sheet from Hodgson Russ (showing 162 E 64th St. as LLC address). 46 *Id.* (showing 162 E 64th St. as Hudson Diamond Holding address). 47 Ex. 32, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.\n\n48*See* Official Form 106, at 5 (Mar. 9, 2022) [Main Case Docket No. 78]. 49 This payment was made using the proceeds of a purported \\$1 million loan from Lamp Capital to the Debtor that were remitted directly from Lamp Capital to Brown Rudnick. *See Application of the Debtor for Entry of an Order Authorizing the Employment and Retention of Brown Rudnick LLP as Counsel for the Debtor* ¶ 17, [Main Case Docket No. 86]; Ex. 46, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated April 6, 2022 at 49: 22-24. At his April 6, 2022 Section 341 meeting, the Debtor testified that this loan was not in writing and that he did not\n\nknow the terms of the loan, why the money had been lent, or what the source of the money was. *Id.* at 49-51. 50 See e.g., Ex. 56, check from Lamp Capital to U.S. Legal Support, Inc. on January 12, 2022; Ex. 94, check from Lamp Capital to The Francis Firm PLLC on January 11 2022; Ex. 95, check from Lamp Capital to Schuman Bhattacharya, LLC on November 17, 2021; Ex. 96, check from Lamp Capital to The Casper Firm on January 26, 2022; Ex. 97, check from Lamp Capital to Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP on October 13, 2021; Ex. 98, check from Lamp Capital to Roy D. Simmon on October 28, 2021; Ex. 99, check from Lamp Capital to Veritext on October 13, 2021; Ex 100, check from Lamp Capital to Baker Hostetler LLP on December 27, 2021; Ex. 101, check from Lamp Capital to Lawall & Mitchell on November 17, 2021; Ex. 102, check from Lamp Capital to Clayman & Rosenberg LLP on January 11, 2022; Ex. 103, check from Lamp Capital to Hodgson Russ on November 12, 2021; Ex. 104, check from Lamp Capital to William Bradley Wendel on November 10, 2021.\n\nalso made numerous payments of the Debtor's fees owed to other providers of legal or expert witness services such as Veritext, US Legal Support Inc., Roy D. Simon, and William Bradley Wendel.51\n\n- c. Lamp Capital paid expenses associated with the Debtor's yacht, the *Lady May*, 52 as well as the maintenance fees associated with the Sherry Netherland Apartment.53 Lamp Capital has also made numerous payments to ACASS Canada Ltd., Wings Insurance Agency Inc., and SAAM Verspieren Group,54 in connection with the operation and maintenance of the Debtor's private jet, the Bombardier Global XRS (which is subject to another adversary proceeding filed by the Trustee against Mei Guo).\n- d. Lamp Capital made multiple transfers to the Bento for Business accounts of Debtor-controlled companies,55 from which pre-paid Bento debit cards were issued to the Debtor's family members and associates and used on spending to support the Debtor's luxurious lifestyle.56\n- e. Lamp Capital has paid the Mar-a-Lago Club on behalf of the Debtor in connection with the membership there held in his name.57\n\n# **F. Lamp Capital Had No Business Other Than to Hold Debtor's Property and/or Pay His Expenses**\n\n30. As discussed further herein, Lamp Capital's only documented activities consisted\n\nof holding the Debtor's assets and paying his expenses. Lamp Capital did nothing other than\n\n 51 *Id*. Upon information and belief, Lamp Capital paid certain of these legal fees pursuant to purported litigation funding agreements under which no proceeds of successful litigation by the Debtor would have ever become the\n\nDebtor's property, but would instead be paid directly to Golden Spring. 52 Ex. 65 (showing a transfer of approximately \\$290,000 to Yachtzoo Yacht Management LLC on November 18, 2021); Ex. 66 (showing an approximately \\$245,000 transfer to Yachtzoo on January 26, 2022); Ex. 70, Lamp Capital Dime Bank account statement for February 2022 (showing a transfer of approximately \\$460,000 to Yachtzoo on February 23, 2022); and Ex. 68 (showing a transfer of \\$272, 525 to Moran Yacht Management Inc.\n\non October 29, 2020). 53 *See e.g*., Ex. 75, a check from Lamp Capital's account at Dime Bank to the Sherry-Netherland Inc. on March 3,\n\n2022 for \\$2,020.71. 54 *See e.g*., Ex. 71, Lamp Capital Dime Bank March 2022 statement (showing a transfer of approximately \\$18,000 to Wings Insurance Agency on March 3, 2022, and \\$46,880 to SAAM Verspieren Group on March 10, 2020). Ex., 72, Lamp Capital Dime Bank account statement for account ending 6250 for January 2022 (showing a transfer of \\$117,428.82 to ACASS Canada Ltd.); Ex. 73, Lamp Capital Dime Bank account statement for account ending 6250 for November 2021 (showing two transfers of approximately \\$615,000 to ACASS Canada\n\nLtd.) 55 *See e.g*., Ex. 72 (showing three transfers to Bento for a total of \\$150,000); Ex. 73 (showing two transfers of a\n\ntotal of \\$10,000 transfer to Bento) 56 *See Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Summary Judgment with Respect to Alter Ego and Equitable Ownership Claims* ¶¶ 7-12, in the adversary proceeding\n\nagainst Greenwich Land and Hing Chi Ngok [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Doc No. 78]. 57 *See e.g.*, Ex. 74, a check from Lamp Capital's account at Dime Bank to the Mar-a-lago Club on December 6, 2021 for \\$300 on behalf of the Debtor (memo of the check identifies the Debtor with a member ID).\n\nreceive funding from other Debtor-controlled companies, hold cash in bank accounts, and pay for the Debtor's expenses.58\n\n# **G. Debtor Asserted Fifth Amendment Regarding Control Over Lamp Capital**\n\n31. The Debtor has asserted the Fifth Amendment on multiple occasions when questioned regarding his control over Lamp Capital. At his March 2, 2023 deposition, the Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked:\n\n- a. whether he was the equitable owner of Lamp Capital;\n- b. whether he was the beneficial owner of Lamp Capital;\n- c. whether he had exclusive control over Lamp Capital; and\n- d. whether he had exclusive control over the assets of Lamp Capital.59\n- 32. In the Debtor's sworn declaration dated May 11, 2023, the Debtor again invoked\n\nthe Fifth Amendment when asked whether he controlled Lamp Capital. 60\n\n33. Similarly, the Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment regarding his control over the\n\nparent company of Lamp Capital, Infinity Treasury Management.61\n\n### **III. Hudson Diamond NY Is Alter Ego of and Equitably Owned by Debtor**\n\n### **A. Hudson Diamond NY Formed by Debtor Through Debtor's Counsel**\n\n34. 62\n\n62 *See* Ex. 34,\n\n 58 Lamp Capital failed to produce any documents in connection with Rule 2004 discovery and, on April 26, 2023, this Court found Lamp Capital to be in civil contempt of Court for failing to comply with or respond to the Trustee's Rule 2004 discovery subpoenas [Main Case Docket No. 1709]. Given Lamp Capital's noncompliance with its discovery obligations, the Trustee is unable at this time to determine with precision the\n\nvalue of Lamp Capital's assets, and the Trustee's investigation remains ongoing. 59 *See* Ex. 13, Kwok Dep. Tr., at 27:22-28:3, 28:10-29:20. 60 *See* Ex. 33, Debtor's Sworn Declaration Regarding Responses to Particular Questions, ¶ 154. 61 Ex. 13, Kwok Depo. Tr., at 54:4-13,\n\n.63 During her deposition, Mei Guo asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment with respect to whether the Debtor installed her as the nominal sole member of Hudson Diamond Holding.64\n\n| 35. | | |\n|-----|-------|--|\n| | | |\n| | ર્ણ્ટ | |\n\n36. Hudson Diamond NY was another entity created on behalf of the Debtor for the purpose of acquiring real property. References to the \"principal\" in correspondence related to Hudson Diamond and produced to the Trustee by the Debtor's counsel, Hodgson Russ, were references to the Debtor.\n\n### B. Hudson Diamond Managed by Debtor Through Debtor's Agents\n\n37. authorized signatories of Hudson Diamond NY, as well as its purported sole member Hudson Diamond Holding.69\n\n70 38.\n\nYvette Wang also signed an \"Exclusive Right to Represent Buyer Agreement\" on behalf of\n\n63 Ex. 35,\n\n64 Ex. 36, Mei Guo Depo. Tr., Sep 13, 2023, at 26:4-7.\n\n65 Ex. 34,\n\n66 Ex. 37, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated August 31, 2020; Ex. 9, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated December 4, 2020;\n\n67 Id .; see also Ex. 16, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019.\n\n68 See Ex. 16, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019.\n\nక్ర See, e.g., id. 70 See e.g., Ex. 91, 92. Ex. 93,\n\nHudson Diamond with Emile de Neree, the real estate broker who assisted the Debtor in the purchase of the Taconic Property. 71\n\n39. As discussed above, each of Yvette Wang, Max Krasner, and Daniel Podhaskie were at all relevant times agents of the Debtor.\n\n# C. Hudson Diamond NY Funded by the Debtor\n\n40. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Hudson Diamond NY has been funded entirely by the Debtor through entities he controls, and would have had no capitalization absent such funding.\n\n41. Hudson Diamond NY has received funding from numerous other Debtor-\n\ncontrolled entities, including, among others, 12 and\n\n.73 Upon information and belief, Hudson Diamond NY receives no\n\nfunding other than from other Debtor-controlled entities.\n\n# H. Hudson Diamond NY Used Same Address as Other Debtor Shell Companies\n\n42.\n\n.74 162 East 64th Street has been used as an address by the Debtor himself, 5 his counsel\n\nAaron Mitchell, 16 and a number of the Debtor's shell companies, including: Golden Spring, 7 HK\n\n71 Ex. 38, Exclusive Right to Represent Buyer Agreement (containing the Debtor's name, \"Miles Guo\" on the bottom right comer of every page of the document near the line for inserting the buyer's initials). See also Ex. 39, Emile de Neree August 24, 2023 Depo. Tr.\n\n72 Ex. 40. 73 Ex. 76, 74 Ex. 41.\n\n75 Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Docket No. 1].\n\n76 Ex. 27, Consent to Change Attorney, PAX v. Kvok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 338.\n\n77 Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Docket No. 1].\n\nUSA,78 GTV Media Group, Inc.,79 Saraca,80 Hudson Diamond Holding,81 Lamp Capital,82 and Rule of Law Foundation.83\n\n#### **D. Debtor Used Hudson Diamond NY for His Real Estate Transactions**\n\n43. Hudson Diamond NY was created by the Debtor to acquire real property. To that end, the law firm of Whitman, Breed, Abbott & Morgan LLC (\"Whitman Breed\") was engaged by Hodgson Russ to represent Hudson Diamond NY, as well as Greenwich Land LLC, in connection with the Debtor's purchase or contemplated purchase of real estate in Connecticut.84\n\n44. Whitman Breed partner Margaret Conboy has testified, among other things, that as part of her representation of Hudson Diamond NY and Greenwich Land, she referred to the Debtor as her client,85 received instructions from Max Krasner,86 and was advised on multiple occasions that the Debtor was making decisions,87 including as to the acceptance of offers,88 the selection of furniture,89 and whether to move forward on any potential property purchase.90\n\n45. The Debtor has used Hudson Diamond NY to fund real estate purchases under the name of his shell company, Greenwich Land, purportedly held in the name of the Debtor's wife,\n\n-\n-\n\n78 Ex. 28, Limited Liability Company Agreement of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, dated April 1, 2019. 79 Ex. 29, OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results registration search results for GTV\n\nMedia Group Inc. 80 Ex. 30, Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results. 81 Ex. 42,\n\n82 *See e.g.*, Ex. 69, Lamp Capital's Certificate of Beneficial Owner(s) at Dime Bank (identifying the physical business address of Lamp Capital to be at 162 E 64th Street, New York). 83 Ex. 32, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.\n\n84 Ex. 43, 85 Ex. 45, Margaret Conboy Sept. 12, 2023 Depo. Tr. at 33:12-23, 33:25-34:4, and 37:13-38:1. *See also* Ex. 46, and Ex. 77, email between Margaret Conboy and Kevin Walsh on Oct. 3, 2019. 86 *Id.* at 51:16-25, 66:22-25. 87 *Id.*, at 51:16-25, 52:19-53:22. 88 *See e.g.*, Ex. 46, Email between Margaret Conboy and Robert Mowbray on January 22, 2019. 89 *See e.g.,* Ex. 47, Email between Louise Camuto and Yvette Wang, copying Max Krasner, Karin Maistrello, on\n\nJuly 12, 2019. 90 *See, e.g.*, Ex. 45, Margaret Conboy Sept. 12, 2023 Depo. Tr. at 52:2-10 (\"Q. What he's saying specifically to\n\nyou is: I just spoke with Miles, and he advised the team he will not move forward on this property. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And you understood that Miles is reference to Miles Kwok? A. Yes.\").\n\n\n\n46. D During her deposition, Mei Guo, purported sole member of Hudson Diamond\n\nHolding, the purported sole member of Hudson Diamond NY, asserted her rights under the Fifth\n\n| Amendment when asked whether her father, the Debtor, |\n|------------------------------------------------------|\n| |\n| તેરિ |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n\nવેર See Ex. 50.\n\n91 This payment was made using the proceeds of a purported \\$1 million loan from Lamp Capital to the Debtor that were remitted directly from Lamp Capital to Brown Rudnick. See Application of the Debtor for Entry of an Order Authorizing the Employment and Retention of Brown Rudnick LLP as Counsel for the Debtor. Docket No. 86, at ¶ 17; Ex. 48, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated April 6, 2022 at 49: 22-24. At his April 6, 2022 Section 341 meeting, the Debtor testified that this loan was not in writing and that he did not know the terms of the loan, why the money had been lent, or what the source of the money was. Id. at 49-51.\n\n92 Ex. 49.\n\nਹੇਤੇ See Ex. 50, at GREE000195.\n\n94 Ex. 49.\n\n96 Ex. 36, Mei Guo Depo. Tr. at 65:12-21, 67:6-25, and 69:24-70:5.\n\n\n\n| | 102 | | |\n|-----------|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | | |\n| | | 49. The Debtor has used the Taconic Property as his residence, 103 | |\n| | | | |\n| | | 104 | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| 97 | Ex. 51 | ; Ex. 85. | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| 08 | Ex. 51. | | |\n| 09
100 | | See Ex. 52, at GREE000330. | |\n| 101 | Ex. 51. | | |\n| | Ex. 51. | | |\n| | | 102 Ex. 36, Mei Guo Depo. Tr. at 65:12-21, 67:6-25, and 69:24-70:5. | |\n| | 107 . | 103 Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions ¶ 6 [Docket No.
104 Ex. 53, at 80:23-81:13; see also Id., at 75:21-24, 76:5-15. | |\n\n# E. Debtor Used Hudson Diamond NY to Transfer Money to Other Debtor-Controlled Shell Companies and Family Members\n\n50. Bank records show that, apart from funding real estate transactions, the Debtor\n\nalso used Hudson Diamond NY to transfer millions of dollars to other shell companies,\n\n105 ,106 and 107 as well as including, for example,\n\nto transfer funds to his daughter, Mei Guo, and his wife, Hing Chi Ngok.\n\n51. In addition, upon information and belief, Hudson Diamond NY owned one of the\n\nDebtor's Rolls Royce luxury automobiles. 108\n\n# I. Hudson Diamond NY Had No Business Other Than to Hold Debtor's Property and/or Pay His Expenses\n\n52. As discussed further herein, Hudson Diamond NY's only documented activities\n\nconsisted of holding the Debtor's assets and paying his expenses. Hudson Diamond NY did\n\nnothing other than receive funding from other Debtor-controlled companies, hold cash in bank\n\naccounts (in addition to holding the Debtor's Rolls Royce and potentially other assets), and pay\n\nfor the Debtor's expenses. 109\n\n# F. Debtor and Mei Guo Asserted Fifth Amendment Regarding Control Over Hudson Diamond NY and Its Sole Member Hudson Diamond Holding\n\n53. The Debtor has asserted the Fifth Amendment when questioned regarding his\n\ncontrol over Hudson Diamond NY and its sole member Hudson Diamond Holding. At his\n\n| 105 | Ex. 59 | |\n|-----|---------|---------|\n| 106 | Ex. 78, | |\n| | | Ex. 79, |\n| 107 | Ex. 79 | |\n\n108 Ex. 54, AIG Automobile Declarations Page for Hudson Diamond NY.\n\n109 Hudson Diamond NY was found to be in civil contempt of Court for failing to comply with or respond to the Trustee's Rule 2004 discovery subpoenas [Main Case Docket No. 2009]. Given Hudson Diamond NY's noncompliance with its discovery obligations, the Trustee is unable at this time to determine with precision the value of Hudson Diamond's assets, and the Trustee's investigation remains ongoing.\n\nMarch 2, 2023 deposition, the Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment right when asked whether he owns and controls all assets of Hudson Diamond Holding and Hudson Diamond NY.110\n\n54. Similarly, during her deposition, Mei Guo, purported sole member of Hudson Diamond Holding, the purported sole member of Hudson Diamond NY, asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment with respect to whether the Debtor owned and controlled Hudson Diamond NY and directed transfers of its money. 111\n\n55. In addition, Mei Guo invoked the Fifth Amendment in testimony before this Court when asked, among other things, whether Hudson Diamond NY was created at the Debtor's direction to acquire real property112 and whether the Debtor at all times has controlled Hudson Diamond NY and its assets, 113\n\n### IV. Leading Shine NY Is Alter Ego of and Equitably Owned by Debtor\n\n### A. Leading Shine NY Managed by Debtor Through Debtor's Agents\n\n56. Juleading Shine NY was formed in Delaware on January 3, 2019, 114 and registered to do business in New York in January 2019.115\n\n\n\n116 Ex. 56\n\n117 Compare Ex. 56,\n\nwith Ex. 82,\n\n110 See Ex. 13, Kwok Dep. Tr., at 49:15-50:22.\n\n111 Ex. 36, Mei Guo Depo. Tr. at 40:17-44:17, 68:13-21, 74:15-75:20.\n\n112 Ex. 55, August 22, 2023 Hearing Tr. in In re Ho Wan Kwok at 65:18-23.\n\n113 Id. at 25:10-24.\n\n114 Ex. 80, Certificate of Incorporation of Leading Shine NY.\n\n115 Ex. 81, Application for Authority of Leading Shine NY.\n\n58.\n\n118 See Ex. 56.\n\nMr. Han has served as, among other things, the purported equity holder of Debtor shell companies Eastern Profit Corporation Limited and Anton Development Limited. 119\n\n### B. Leading Shine NY Funded by Debtor\n\n59. At all relevant times, Leading Shine NY has been funded entirely by the Debtor through entities he controls, and would have had no capitalization absent such funding.\n\n60. Leading Shine NY has received funding from numerous other Debtor-controlled\n\n121 122 entities, including, among others, and from other Kwok-controlled entities.\n\n# C. Leading Shine NY Used Same Address as Other Debtor Shell Companies\n\n61. Jul Leading Shine NY used 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York, as its\n\naddress.124 162 East 64th Street has been used as an address by the Debtor himself,125 his counsel\n\n| | See Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for (1) Declaratory Judgment, Pursuant to |\n|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 7001, That Property Held by Mei Guo |\n| | is Property of Estate and (II) Related Relief, ¶ 21-25 Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Doc No. 1]. |\n| 120 | Ex. 89. |\n| | Ex. 90. |\n| | |\n| 121 | See e.g., Ex. 79, |\n| | |\n| 122 | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n124 See e.g., Ex. 69, Lamp Capital's Certificate of Beneficial Owner(s) at Dime Bank (identifying the physical business address of Lamp Capital to be at 162 E 64th Street, New York).\n\n125 Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Docket No. 1].\n\nAaron Mitchell, 126 and a number of the Debtor's shell companies, including: Lamp Capital, 127 Golden Spring,128 HK USA,129 GTV Media Group, Inc.,130 Saraca,131 Hudson Diamond Holding, 132 Hudson Diamond NY, 133 and Rule of Law Foundation. 134\n\n# D. Debtor Used Leading Shine NY to Transfer Money to Other Debtor-Controlled Shell Companies\n\n# 62. Jul Leading Shine NY was actively involved in the movement of money to other shell\n\ncompanies controlled by the Debtor. For example, Leading Shine NY has transferred funds to\n\n137 an 136 and Golden Spring, 135\n\nentity purportedly owned by Mei Guo that received \\$875,000 from the postpetition sale of the\n\nFerncliff Property.138\n\n# E. Debtor Used Leading Shine NY to Pay His Expenses\n\n| 10
UJI | |\n|-----------|--|\n| | |\n| | |\n\n126 Ex. 27, Consent to Change Attorney, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NY SCEF Doc. No. 338.\n\n127 See e.g., Ex. 69, Lamp Capital's Certificate of Beneficial Owner(s) at Dime Bank (identifying the physical business address of Lamp Capital to be at 162 E 64th Street, New York).\n\n128 Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Docket No. 1].\n\n129 Ex. 28, Limited Liability Company Agreement of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, dated April 1, 2019.\n\n130 Ex. 29, OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results registration search results for GTV Media Group Inc.\n\n131 Ex. 30, Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results.\n\n132 Ex. 31, Hudson Diamond NY LLC fact sheet from Hodgson Russ (showing 162 E 64th St. as LLC address).\n\n133 Id. (showing 162 E 64th St. as Hudson Diamond Holding address).\n\n134 Ex. 32, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.\n\n135 Ex. 105, Golden Spring's account statement at Santander for July - September 2020 (showing over \\$2 million in transfers from Leading Shine).\n\n136 Ex. 85, Ex. 44.\n\n137 See, e.g. Ex. 87,\n\n138 See Local Rule 56(a) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 18 [Adv. Proc. 23-05005, Doc No. 79].\n\n\n\nAs the Court will recall, a Berkeley Rowe attorney even attempted to provide testimony in support of HK USA at the March 15, 2023 hearing in the adversary proceeding with respect to HK USA, which request the Court denied.141 Berkeley Rowe also appears to have assisted the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, in connection with the submission of his proof of claim in the Genever Holdings LLC chapter 11 case, given that Qiang Guo used Berkeley Rowe as his personal address on his proof of claim form.142\n\n\n\n140 Id. (transfer of \\$39,527.55).\n\n141 See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Leave to Supplement HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, and Mei Guo's Witness and Exhibit List (Adv. Proc. 22-05003) [Docket No. 136].\n\n142 See Proof of Claim 3-1, In re Genever Holdings LLC, Case No. 22-50592.\n\n143 See Ex. 87,\n\n144 See Ex. 88, Motion for Relief from Order Denying Pre-Trial Releases, at 20, United States v. Kwok, No. 23-6421 (2d Cir. May 5, 2023) [Docket No. 6.1].\n\n### **J. Leading Shine NY Had No Business Other Than to Hold Debtor's Property and/or Pay His Expenses**\n\n66. As discussed further herein, Leading Shine NY's only documented activities consisted of holding the Debtor's assets and paying his expenses. Leading Shine NY did nothing other than receive funding from other Debtor-controlled companies, hold cash in bank accounts, and pay for the Debtor's expenses.145\n\n# **F. Debtor Asserted Fifth Amendment Regarding Control Over Leading Shine NY.**\n\n67. The Debtor has asserted the Fifth Amendment on multiple occasions when questioned regarding his control over Leading Shine NY. During his March 2, 2023 deposition, when asked whether he controlled and owned Leading Shine NY, the Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment.146\n\n68. In the Debtor's sworn declaration dated May 11, 2023, the Debtor again invoked\n\nthe Fifth Amendment when asked whether he controlled Leading Shine NY.147\n\n### **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Lamp Capital is the Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of Lamp Capital's Assets to Trustee)**148\n\n69. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68.\n\n 145 Leading Shine NY failed to respond to or produce any documents in connection with Trustee's Rule 2004 discovery subpoenas. Given Leading Shine NY's non-compliance with its discovery obligations, the Trustee is unable at this time to determine with precision the value of Leading Shine NY's assets and the Trustee's\n\ninvestigation remains ongoing. 146 *See* Ex. 13, Kwok Dep. Tr., at 49:15-50:22. 147 Ex. 33, Debtor's Sworn Declaration Regarding Responses to Particular Questions, ¶ 158. 148 This claim seeks relief only with respect to defendants Lamp Capital and/or its purported sole member, Infinity Treasury Management, as applicable.\n\n70. Delaware law applies to this alter ego claim because Lamp Capital is a Delaware entity.149\n\n71. 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 Lamp Capital will focus on (1) whether the Debtor and Lamp Capital operated as a single economic unit and (2) whether there was an overall element of injustice or unfairness. In determining whether the Debtor and Lamp Capital operated as a single economic unit, a court applying Delaware law would consider a number of factors, including, among others, whether Lamp Capital was adequately capitalized, observed corporate formalities, and was a facade for the Debtor.150 This \"list of factors is not exhaustive and no single factor is dispositive.\"151\n\n72. The Debtor exercised control and dominion over Lamp Capital such that Lamp Capital had no independent existence from the Debtor and the Debtor used the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud and injustice. Lamp Capital is an alter ego of the Debtor, because, among other reasons:\n\n- a. Lamp Capital was formed by the Debtor through his counsel.\n- b. Lamp Capital was managed by the Debtor through his agents.\n- c. Lamp Capital was funded by the Debtor.\n- d. Lamp Capital used same address as other Debtor shell companies.\n- e. The Debtor used Lamp Capital to pay his expenses.\n\n149 *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.\"). 150 *Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG*, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010) (Noting the factors that the Third\n\nCircuit 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.\"). 151 *Id.* at 471.\n\n- f. Lamp Capital had no business other than to hold the Debtor's property and/or pay his expenses.\n- g. The Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment regarding his control over Lamp Capital.\n\n73. 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\n74. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Lamp Capital was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Lamp Capital 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 Lamp Capital at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Lamp Capital to the Trustee.\n\n#### **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n### **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of Lamp Capital and/or Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Lamp Capital and/or Its Assets to Trustee)**152\n\n75. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68.\n\n76. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that Lamp Capital is an alter ego of the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of Lamp Capital and/or its assets.153\n\n152 This claim seeks relief only with respect to defendants Lamp Capital and/or its purported sole member, Infinity\n\nTreasury Management, as applicable. 153 *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\n77. 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\n78. Because Lamp Capital was equitably owned by the Debtor, the ownership and corporate control rights over Lamp Capital, and/or the assets of Lamp Capital, were, following the Petition Date, property of the Estate.\n\n79. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Lamp Capital purportedly held by Infinity Treasury Management, and/or the assets of Lamp Capital, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Lamp Capital, and/or the assets of Lamp Capital, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n### **(Declaratory Judgment that Hudson Diamond NY is the Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of Hudson Diamond NY's Assets to Trustee)**154\n\n80. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68.\n\n81. New York law applies to this alter ego claim because Hudson Diamond NY is a New York entity.155\n\n82. Under New York law, a party seeking an alter ego ruling must show \"(1) the alleged alter ego 'exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue; and (2) such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the party seeking to pierce the corporate veil.'\" *Sentry Ins. v. Brand Mgmt. Inc.,* 120 F. Supp. 3d\n\n154 This claim seeks relief only with respect to defendants Hudson Diamond NY and/or its purported sole member,\n\nHudson Diamond Holding, as applicable. 155 *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\n277, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), *aff'd sub nom. Sentry Ins. a Mut. Co. v. Weber,* 720 F. App'x 639 (2d\n\nCir. 2017) (quoting *Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd.,* 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 296\n\n(E.D.N.Y.2014)). The domination referenced in the first prong is determined based on\n\nconsidering ten equitable factors.\n\n(1) the absence of formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arm['s] length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own.\n\n83. *Id.* (quoting *Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd.,* 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 296\n\n(E.D.N.Y.2014)). Assuming domination can be established, to recover, a plaintiff must then show \"(1) 'the existence of a wrongful or unjust act toward that party,' and (2) that 'the act caused the party's harm.'\" *Id.* (quoting *Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd.,* 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 297 (E.D.N.Y.2014)).\n\n84. Here, the facts demonstrate that Hudson Diamond NY was the Debtor's alter ego under New York law, among other things:\n\n- a. Hudson Diamond NY was formed by the Debtor through his counsel.\n- b. Hudson Diamond NY was managed by the Debtor through his agents.\n- c. Hudson Diamond NY was funded by the Debtor.\n- d. Hudson Diamond NY used same address as other Debtor shell companies.\n- e. The Debtor used Hudson Diamond NY to transfer money to other Debtor shell companies and family members.\n- f. Hudson Diamond NY had no business other than to hold the Debtor's property and/or pay his expenses.\n- g. The Debtor and Mei Guo asserted the Fifth Amendment regarding control over Hudson Diamond NY.\n\n85. 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\n86. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Hudson Diamond NY was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Hudson Diamond NY 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 Hudson Diamond NY at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Hudson Diamond NY to the Trustee.\n\n### **FOURTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of Hudson Diamond NY and/or Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Hudson Diamond NY and/or Its Assets to Trustee)**156\n\n87. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68.\n\n156 This claim seeks relief only with respect to defendants Hudson Diamond NY and/or its purported sole member, Hudson Diamond Holding, as applicable.\n\n88. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that Hudson Diamond NY is an alter ego of the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of Hudson Diamond NY and/or its assets.157\n\n89. 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\n90. Because Hudson Diamond NY was equitably owned by the Debtor, the ownership and corporate control rights over Hudson Diamond NY, and/or the assets of Hudson Diamond NY, were, following the Petition Date, property of the Estate.\n\n91. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Hudson Diamond NY purportedly held by Hudson Diamond Holding, and/or the assets of Hudson Diamond NY, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Hudson Diamond NY, and/or the assets of Hudson Diamond NY, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **FIFTH CLAIM**\n\n### **(Declaratory Judgment that Leading Shine NY is the Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of Leading Shine NY's Assets to Trustee)**158\n\n92. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68.\n\n157 *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). 158 This claim seeks relief only with respect to defendants Leading Shine NY and/or its purported sole member,\n\nMei Guo or Yvette Wang, as applicable.\n\n93. Delaware law applies to this alter ego claim because Leading Shine NY is a Delaware entity.159\n\n94. 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 Leading Shine NY will focus on (1) whether the Debtor and Leading Shine NY operated as a single economic unit and (2) whether there was an overall element of injustice or unfairness. In determining whether the Debtor and Leading Shine NY operated as a single economic unit, a court applying Delaware law would consider a number of factors, including, among others, whether Leading Shine NY was adequately capitalized, observed corporate formalities, and was a facade for the Debtor.160 This \"list of factors is not exhaustive and no single factor is dispositive.\"161\n\n95. The Debtor exercised control and dominion over Leading Shine NY such that Leading Shine NY had no independent existence from the Debtor and the Debtor used the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud and injustice. Leading Shine NY is an alter ego of the Debtor, because, among other reasons:\n\n- a. Leading Shine NY was managed by the Debtor through his agents.\n- b. Leading Shine NY was funded by the Debtor.\n- c. Leading Shine NY used same address as other Debtor shell companies.\n- d. Debtor used Leading Shine NY to transfer money to other Debtor shell companies.\n- e. The Debtor used Leading Shine NY to pay his expenses.\n\n159 *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.\"). 160 *Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG*, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010) (Noting the factors that the Third\n\nCircuit 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.\"). 161 *Id.* at 471.\n\n- f. Leading Shine NY had no business other than to hold the Debtor's property and/or pay his expenses.\n- g. The Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment regarding his control over Leading Shine NY.\n\n96. 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\n97. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Leading Shine NY was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Leading Shine NY 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 Leading Shine NY at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Leading Shine NY to the Trustee.\n\n#### **SIXTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of Leading Shine NY and/or Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Leading Shine NY and/or Its Assets to Trustee)**162\n\n98. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68.\n\n162 This claim seeks relief only with respect to defendants Leading Shine NY and/or its purported sole member, Mei Guo or Yvette Wang, as applicable.\n\n99. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that Leading Shine NY is an alter ego of the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of Leading Shine NY and/or its assets.163\n\n100. 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\n101. Because Leading Shine NY was equitably owned by the Debtor, the ownership and corporate control rights over Leading Shine NY, and/or the assets of Leading Shine NY, were, following the Petition Date, property of the estate.\n\n102. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Leading Shine NY purportedly held by Mei Guo or Yvette Wang, and/or the assets of Leading Shine NY, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Leading Shine NY, and/or the assets of Leading Shine NY, to the Trustee.\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 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Lamp Capital was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Lamp Capital any time prior to the Debtor's\n\n163 *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\npetition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Lamp Capital at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Lamp Capital to the Trustee;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Lamp Capital purportedly held by Infinity Treasury Management and/or the assets of Lamp Capital, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Lamp Capital, and/or the assets of Lamp Capital, to the Trustee;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Hudson Diamond NY was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Hudson Diamond NY 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 Hudson Diamond NY at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Hudson Diamond NY to the Trustee;\n\n4. On the Fourth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Hudson Diamond NY purportedly held by Hudson Diamond Holding, and/or the assets of Hudson Diamond NY, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of\n\nownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Hudson Diamond NY, and/or the assets of Hudson Diamond NY, to the Trustee;\n\n5. On the Fifth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Leading Shine NY was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Leading Shine NY 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 Leading Shine NY at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Leading Shine NY to the Trustee;\n\n6. On the Sixth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Leading Shine NY purportedly held by Mei Guo or Yvette Wang, and/or the assets of Leading Shine NY, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Leading Shine NY, and/or the assets of Leading Shine NY, to the Trustee;\n\n7. Reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action; and\n\n8. 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\nDated: October 26, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Douglass Barron*\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 douglassbarron@paulhastings.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\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*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"B1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面表\n（背面说明） 对抗程序编号\n（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章\n受托人 被告\nLAMP CAPITAL LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司），INFINITY TREASURY\nMANAGEMENT INC.（无限财务管理公司），HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司），HUDSON\nDIAMOND HOLDING LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司），LEADING SHINE NY LTD.（领耀纽约有限公司），MEI GUO（郭美），以及\nYANPING（燕萍），又名“YVETTE（伊薇特）”的WANG（王），\n律师（律所名称、地址和电话号码） 律师\n（如已知）\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·哈斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166\n电话：318-6000，收件人：Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦） 见附表1\n当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国\n受托人/破产管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人\nx □\n债务人\n□\n债权人\n□\n受托人 当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□\n美国受托人/破产管理人\n□\n其他\nx\n诉因\n（简要说明诉因，包括所涉及的全部美国法条）\n请求宣告性判决并将Lamp Capital的资产移交受托人。请求宣告性判决并将Lamp Capital的所有权及/\n或其资产移交受托人。请求宣告性判决并将Hudson Diamond NY的资产移交受托人。请求宣告性判决并将\nHudson Diamond NY及/或其资产的所有权移交受托人。请求宣告性判决并将Leading Shine NY的资产移交受托人。\n请求宣告性判决并将Leading Shine NY及/或其资产的所有权移交受托人。\n诉讼性质\n（最多编号五（5）个方框，将主要诉因编号为1，第一个备选诉因编号为2，第二个备选诉因编号为3，依此类推。）\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追偿金钱/财产\n□\nx\n11-追偿金钱/财产 - §542 财产移交\n□\n12-追偿金钱/财产 - §547 偏颇清偿\n□\n13-追偿金钱/财产 - §548 欺诈性转让\n□\n14-追偿金钱/财产 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的有效性、优先权或范围\n□ □\n□\n□\n□\n□ FRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（续）\n61-可免责性 - §523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n68-可免责性 - §523(a)(6)，故意及恶意损害\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\n（家庭扶养除外）\n65-可免责性 - 其他\n21-留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先权或范围\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准出售财产\n□\n31-批准出售破产财团财产及共同所有人财产 - §363(h) □\n□ 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) – 对免责提出异议/撤销免责\n□\n41-对免责提出异议/撤销免责 - §727(c),(d),(e) □ FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的劣后受偿\n81-债权或权益的劣后受偿\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n□\n51-撤销确认 □\nx FRBP 7001(9) 宣告性判决\n91-宣告性判决\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性\n□\n66-可免责性 - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税务债权\n□\n62-可免责性 - §523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈\n□\n67-可免责性 - §523(a)(4)，作为受托人的欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（续见下一栏） □\n其他\n□\n□ FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n01-对移送债权或诉因的裁定\nSS-SIPA案件 – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\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□\n如本案涉及州法实体争议，请勾选\nx □ 如主张本案为依据FRCP 23提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如在起诉书中要求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额 $\n请求的其他救济\nB1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所源自的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 破产案件编号\n22-50073\n\n分部办事处 法官姓名\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州） Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n对抗\n程序编号\n\n对抗程序待决地区 分部办事处 法官姓名\n\n/s/ Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）\n\nBridgeport（布里奇波特）\n被告\n律师（或原告）姓名正楷\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）\n说明\n\n提交破产案件会在破产法院管辖下形成“破产财团”，其中包括债务人的全部财产，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财团范围广泛且法院管辖权极其广泛，可能会就破产财团的财产或财产权产生诉讼。也可能会有关于债务人免责的诉讼。如在破产法院提起该等诉讼，则称为对抗程序。\n\n提交对抗程序的一方还必须填写并提交表格1040，即对抗程序封面表，除非该方通过法院的案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗程序。（CM/ECF在提交过程中采集表格1040中的信息。）填写完成后，封面表概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记员需要该等信息以处理对抗程序，并编制关于法院活动所需的统计报告。\n\n封面表及其中所载信息并不取代或补充法律、破产规则或法院地方法规所要求提交和送达的诉状或其他文件。该封面表大部分内容不言自明，必须由原告律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每份提交的起诉书均须向书记员提交单独的封面表。\n\n原告和被告。请准确填写起诉书中所列的原告和被告姓名。\n\n律师。如已知，请填写律师姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。请在第一栏中为原告勾选最适当的方框，并在第二栏中为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填写起诉书中所请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面表必须由登记在案的律师在表格第二页的方框内签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，必须由该律所的一名成员签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则必须由原告签署。\n\n附表1\n\nHudson Diamond实体及Mei Guo的律师，转交Aaron A. Romney（阿伦·A·罗姆尼），Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒专业公司），10 Middle Street, 15th Floor, Bridgeport, CT 06604，电话：203-368-4234\n\nYvette Wang的律师，转交Alex Lipman（亚历克斯·利普曼），Lipman Law PLLC（利普曼律师事务所），147 W. 25th St. 12th Fl, New York, New York 10001，电话：212-401-0070\n\n转交Emil Bove（埃米尔·博韦），Blanche Law PLLC（布兰奇律师事务所），99 Wall Street Suite 4460, New York, NY 10005，电话：212-716-1250\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州地区\n布里奇波特分部\n\nx\n\n关于： :\n:\n第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1 :\n:\n案件编号22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\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\nLAMP CAPITAL LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司），INFINITY TREASURY\nMANAGEMENT INC.（无限财务管理公司），HUDSON DIAMOND NY\nLLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司），HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司），\nLEADING SHINE NY LTD.（领耀纽约有限公司），MEI GUO（郭美），以及\nYANPING（燕萍），又名“YVETTE（伊薇特）”的WANG（王），\n被告。\n---------------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n对抗程序编号[\n]\n\nx\n依据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，由HO WAN KWOK破产财团第11章受托人提起的起诉书，请求：（一）宣告LAMP CAPITAL LLC、HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC及LEADING SHINE NY LTD.中的每一者均为债务人的另一个自我；及（二）相关救济\n\nLuc A. Despins以获任命担任Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，提起本\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（亦称Guo Wengui、Miles Guo及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok破产财团受托人（仅为通知及通讯之目的）。\n\n对抗性起诉书（“起诉书”），起诉下列被告：（a）Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp Capital”），（b）Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（“Infinity Treasury Management”），（c）Hudson Diamond NY LLC（“Hudson Diamond NY”），（d）Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（“Hudson Diamond Holding”），（e）Leading Shine NY Ltd.（“Leading Shine NY”），（f）Mei Guo，以及（g）Yvette Wang（与Lamp Capital、Infinity Treasury Management、Hudson Diamond NY、Hudson Diamond Holding、Leading Shine NY及Mei Guo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. 债务人广泛利用空壳公司隐瞒其商业交易，并向其债权人隐匿其有价值资产，在这些第11章案件中已有充分记载。本起诉书涉及债务人将三个实体——Lamp Capital、Hudson Diamond NY及Leading Shine NY（合称“另一个自我被告”）——用作其个人小金库，在各空壳公司之间转移数百万资金，并支付其个人开支，包括其律师费。受托人请求裁定，另一个自我被告系债务人的另一个自我，且债务人衡平地拥有另一个自我被告及其资产。\n\n2. 尽管债务人试图在书面文件上与另一个自我被告保持距离，但债务人在所有相关时期支配并控制另一个自我被告及其资产。除其他事项外，债务人通过其代理人（包括Yvette Wang、Max Krasner和/或Daniel Podhaskie）管理另一个自我被告；另一个自我被告由债务人控制的其他实体提供资金，并被用于向其他债务人空壳公司及家庭成员输送资金，以及支付债务人的各种个人开支。此外，另一个自我被告之一Hudson Diamond NY协助为\n\n债务人通过Greenwich Land LLC持有的房地产购买提供资金。该实体还据悉及相信拥有债务人的至少一辆豪华车辆。\n\n3. 债务人并未否认这些指控。相反，在被问及其对另一个自我被告的所有权及控制权时，债务人援引美国宪法第五修正案，拒绝回答受托人的问题。法院可以且应当根据该证词对被告作出不利推定。\n\n4. 基于上述及下文所述其他事实，受托人请求法院依据《破产法典》第541、542及544条作出裁定，宣告：（i）Lamp Capital、Hudson Diamond NY及Leading Shine NY中的每一者均为债务人的另一个自我；以及（ii）Lamp Capital、Hudson Diamond NY及Leading Shine NY中的每一者和/或其资产均由债务人衡平地拥有。\n\n管辖权及审判地\n\n5. 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. 本对抗程序根据28 U.S.C. §157(a)移交本法院审理。根据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本法院为适当审判地。\n\n当事人\n\n7. 受托人系第11章案件中的第11章受托人，依据法院于July 8, 2022作出的命令[主案件案卷编号523]任命。\n\n8. Lamp Capital是一家特拉华州有限责任公司。\n\n9. Infinity Treasury Management Inc.是一家特拉华州公司，据称是Lamp Capital的唯一成员。\n\n10. Hudson Diamond NY是一家纽约州有限责任公司。\n\n11. Hudson Diamond Holding是一家特拉华州有限责任公司，据称是Hudson Diamond NY的唯一成员。2\n\n12. Leading Shine NY是一家特拉华州公司。\n\n13. Mei Guo是债务人的女儿。她主张其为Leading Shine NY的受益所有人。她亦据称是Hudson Diamond Holding的唯一成员。\n\n14. Yvette Wang（王雁平）是债务人的密切关联人，并且是在纽约联邦法院针对债务人和王女士待决刑事诉讼中的被指控共同共谋者。王女士主张其为Leading Shine NY（领先光耀纽约）的实益所有人。\n\n事实\n\nI. 背景：债务人频繁使用空壳公司\n\n15. 如本院目前已充分知悉，债务人频繁利用据称由其家庭成员或业务下属拥有的空壳公司，以向债权人隐匿其资产和活动。债务人的“空壳公司把戏”使其得以持续否认其对资产的所有权、拒绝偿还债务，并且——直至其最近被FBI逮捕——过着奢华生活。事实上，除另我被告外，本院已熟悉众多此类实体，其中包括：\n\na. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，简称“HK USA”），据称由债务人的女儿Mei Guo（郭美）拥有，并被债务人用于持有Lady May游艇的所有权；本院及Ostrager法官均裁定该游艇由债务人实益拥有。3 本院还裁定HK USA为债务人的另我。4\n\n2 2023年6月，Hudson Diamond NY（哈德逊钻石纽约）的律师、Zeisler & Zeisler P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）的Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼）提交动议，请求辞任Hudson Diamond NY的律师，称其不确定该公司的最终实益所有人是谁，尽管公司文件显示Hudson Diamond NY据称的唯一成员为Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股），而Hudson Diamond Holding据称的唯一成员为Mei Guo；该动议被驳回[主案卷宗编号2220]。在驳回辞任请求的裁定中，本院尤其指出，受托人提交的证据附件“似乎确认，郭女士有权聘请[Romney律师]和Vartan律师，因为HD Holding是HD NY的唯一成员。”同上，第5页。\n\nb. Greenwich Land, LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司，简称“Greenwich Land”），据称由债务人的妻子拥有，并被债务人用于持有其位于康涅狄格州格林威治的豪宅的所有权。5\n\nc. Whitecroft Shore Limited（怀特克罗夫特海岸有限公司）及Anton Development Limited（安东开发有限公司），据称由Mei Guo拥有，并被债务人用于持有其Bombardier Global XRS私人飞机的所有权。6\n\nd. HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK物业管理公司）及Lexington Property, Inc.（列克星敦物业公司）（统称“HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）”），其中每一家据称均由：(a) 99.9999%由一家据称属于债务人私人助理Yvette Wang的英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）公司拥有；及(b) 0.0001%由债务人的长期雇员Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）拥有。7 债务人使用HCHK实体从事包括经营其媒体业务及持有重大资产所有权在内的活动，其中包括逾$38 million现金。\n\ne. Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司），据称由债务人的保镖兼司机Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）管理，并被债务人用于持有其位于新泽西州Mahwah的豪宅的所有权。8\n\n3 支持准许部分简易判决动议之口头裁定的补充裁决备忘录，第31页（对抗程序编号22-05003，Mar. 30, 2023）[案卷编号177]（“个人债务人对Lady May的实益所有权及控制权问题，对于第一项反诉具有决定性意义；而Ostrager法官在最终藐视法庭裁定中已必然裁决了相同问题，该裁定以明确且令人信服的证据认定，个人债务人实益拥有并控制Lady May”）。\n\n4 准许第二项反诉部分简易判决动议的裁决备忘录及命令，第35页（对抗程序编号22-05003，May 18, 2023）[案卷编号221]（“HK USA是个人债务人的另我。”）。\n\n5 受托人已在对抗程序23-05005中寻求针对该实体作出另我判决；就此，本院已对Greenwich Land LLC及债务人的妻子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）[案卷编号14]；准许第11章受托人经修订单方判决前救济申请的命令（对抗程序编号23-05005，Mar. 28, 2023）[案卷编号15]。\n\n6 该两家公司连同其他据称由Mei Guo拥有的公司，均为对抗程序23-05008的对象。见第11章受托人代表Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）遗产提出的起诉状，请求：(I) 依据《破产法典》第541、542及544条以及《破产规则》第7001条作出确认判决，确认由Mei Guo持有的财产为遗产财产；及(II) 相关救济（对抗程序编号23-05008，May 16, 2023）[案卷编号1]。\n\n7 受托人已在对抗程序23-05013中寻求针对这些实体作出另我判决；就此，本院于June 12, 2023作出临时限制令。见部分准许紧急单方临时限制令及初步禁令动议的命令（对抗程序编号23-05013，June 12, 2023）[案卷编号18]。\n\n8 受托人已在对抗程序23-05017中寻求针对Taurus Fund LLC作出另我判决；就此，本院于August 24, 2023作出初步禁令命令。见部分准许初步禁令动议的裁决备忘录及命令（对抗程序编号23-05017，August 24, 2023）[案卷编号47]。\n\nf. Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司，简称“Ace Decade”），本院认定其由债务人实益拥有。9 本院还认定，债务人控制并雇佣了Ace Decade的名义所有人Yvette Wang。10 受托人此后获悉，在Ace Decade程序进行期间（但在本院于November 17, 2022认定债务人于February 15, 2022申请日独占性地实益拥有并控制Ace Decade之后11），Yvette Wang将其名义持有的Ace Decade股份转让给了一名位于瑞士的个人（据所知及所信，该个人为债务人的另一名关联人）。\n\ng. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司，简称“Golden Spring”），该公司是据称由债务人之子拥有的债务人家族办公室。Golden Spring尤其由债务人提供资金，被债务人用于持有其资产及支付其费用，并由债务人的雇员管理和配备人员。12\n\nh. Gettr、GFashion、GMusic、GClubs、GNews及GEdu（“G-Series Entities（G系列实体）”）、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦，简称“NFSC”）及Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会，简称“ROLF”），以及其他据称独立的实体和组织；本院认定其受债务人控制，13 由债务人领导，14 和/或服务于“债务人的目的……并作为债务人的商业载体”。15 本院还认定，这些实体和组织的成员“个人上忠于债务人”。16\n\n16. 这些实体仅是冰山一角。据United States Government（美国政府）称，债务人及其共同被告William Je（杰文凯）和Yvette Wang“利用以至少80个不同实体或个人名义持有的约500个账户，对超过$1 billion的欺诈所得进行洗钱。”17\n\n17. 总而言之，尽管本起诉状聚焦于Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）、Hudson Diamond NY及Leading Shine NY，但有关债务人利用空壳公司向债权人隐匿资产这一广泛策略的背景情况具有高度相关性。受托人保留在适当时候针对其他实体提起额外诉讼的权利。\n\nII. Lamp Capital是债务人的另我，并由债务人在衡平法上拥有\n\nA. 债务人通过其律师设立Lamp Capital\n\n18. Lamp Capital于September 4, 2020在Delaware（特拉华州）设立，18 并于September 14, 2020登记获准在New York（纽约州）经营。19 Lamp Capital的唯一成员为Infinity Treasury Management（无限国库管理公司），该公司据称的唯一股东为债务人之子Qiang Guo（郭强）。20\n\n19. 协助债务人设立Lamp Capital的债务人律师为Hodgson Russ LLP（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所，简称“Hodgson Russ”）。Hodgson Russ的合伙人Valerie Stevens（瓦莱丽·史蒂文斯）以“组织人”身份签署了Lamp Capital的设立证书。21 Hodgson Russ还处理了与Lamp Capital获准在纽约州经营有关的公司申报事宜。22\n\n17 见United States of America（美利坚合众国）反对被告Yanping Wang（王雁平）审前释放动议的法律备忘录（“USAO备忘录”），第29页，作为第11章受托人就G Club Operations LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）对受托人强制执行动议及相关救济请求提出的补充异议所作答复（“G-Club答复”）之附件B（June 23, 2023）[主案卷宗编号1934]。\n\n18 证据附件1，Lamp Capital LLC设立证书，作为Bernardo Enriquez（贝尔纳多·恩里克斯）为支持非当事人Lamp Capital提出的撤销或修改动议而提交的宣誓书之附件B，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉Kwok等，索引编号652077/2017，NYSCEF文件编号936，Nov 5, 2021（“Enriquez宣誓书”）。\n\n19 证据附件2，Lamp Capital LLC授权申请，日期为Sept. 11, 2020，向纽约州提交，作为Enríquez宣誓书之附件C。\n\n20 证据附件3，Lamp Capital LLC有限责任公司协议，作为Enriquez宣誓书之附件D。\n\n21 证据附件1，Lamp Capital LLC设立证书。\n\n22 证据附件2，Lamp Capital LLC授权申请。\n\n20. 除与Lamp Capital有关的工作外，Hodgson Russ还在众多事项中担任债务人、其家庭成员、其密切关联人及其空壳公司的律师，包括但不限于：23\n\nB. 债务人通过其代理人管理Lamp Capital\n\n21. 在June 10, 2021之前，Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波德哈斯基）担任Infinity Treasury Management的唯一董事、总裁及财务主管；Infinity Treasury Management是Lamp Capital的唯一成员。24 Podhaskie先生还是Lamp Capital的获授权签字人，并且尤其代表Lamp Capital开立银行账户。25\n\n22. 在所有相关期间，Podhaskie先生均为债务人的代理人。Podhaskie先生代表债务人行事。他担任债务人的私人律师，并担任Golden Spring——债务人的另一家空壳公司——的总法律顾问。他还担任Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）和Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）的公司代表，该等实体由\n\n23 证据附件4。\n\n24 证据附件5，Infinity Treasury Management, Inc.唯一股东代替特别会议的一致书面同意，作为Enriquez宣誓书之附件F。\n\n25 证据6，Lamp Capital LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）与 The Bank of Princeton（普林斯顿银行）就尾号为0389的账户签订的账户协议，日期为 Sept. 10, 2020；证据7，Lamp Capital LLC 与 The Bank of Princeton 就尾号为0306、0322和0314的账户签订的账户协议，日期为 Sept. 15, 2020。\n\n债务人。Podhaskie 先生还以众多其他身份为债务人服务，包括担任 Greenwich Land（格林威治地产）、Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股）及 Hudson Diamond NY（哈德逊钻石纽约）的高级职员和/或授权签字人。26 当在其证言录取中被问及 Podhaskie 先生是否为其雇员及代理人时，债务人行使了其第五修正案权利。27\n\n23. 于 June 10, 2021，Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）接替 Podhaskie 先生，成为 Infinity Treasury Management（无限资金管理）的唯一董事及总裁。与 Podhaskie 先生一样，Krasner 先生也是债务人的代理人。Krasner 先生代表债务人行事，并作为 Yvette Wang（王雁平）的下属为债务人工作。Krasner 先生是 Golden Spring（黄金春天）的一名雇员，同时还在债务人的众多其他空壳公司任职，包括担任 Greenwich Land、Hudson Diamond Holding、Hudson Diamond NY、Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）以及一个或多个 HCHK Entities（HCHK 实体）的雇员、高级职员和/或授权签字人。28 当在其证言录取中被问及 Krasner 先生是否为其雇员及代理人时，债务人行使了其第五修正案权利。29\n\n24. 关于 Yvette Wang，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，并指示她代表其采取行动，包括指示她代表其购买诸如 Sherry-Netherland 公寓之类的\n\n26 参见，例如：\n\n证据9，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司），《唯一成员无需召开会议的同意书》，日期为 December 4, 2020；证据10，Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波德哈斯基）辞去 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 总裁职务，日期为 January 4, 2021；证据11，Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司），《唯一成员无需召开会议的同意书》；证据12，Daniel Podhaskie 辞去 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 总裁职务，日期为 January 4, 2021。\n\n27 证据13，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）证言笔录，日期为 March 2, 2023，第86:14-18页。\n\n28 证据14，证据15。Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，《唯一成员无需召开会议的同意书》，日期为 July 17, 2019（显示 Krasner 先生为副总裁）；证据16。Hudson Diamond NY LLC，《唯一成员无需召开会议的同意书》，日期为 July 17, 2019；证据18，Lamp Capital, LLC《有限责任公司协议》，日期为 September 8, 2020；证据19，Rule of Law Foundation 的 CHAR 500 表格（Form 990，第7页，将 Max Krasner 列为“总裁、财务主管、董事”）；证据20，Max Krasner、Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）与来自 Marcum 的律师之间及相互发送的、关于 HCHK 2022 年银行对账单的电子邮件，时间为 January 2023。\n\n29 证据13，Kwok 证言笔录，第34:6-20页。\n\n不动产。”30 除其在 Hudson Diamond NY 的职务外，Wang 女士还以众多其他身份为债务人服务，包括担任 Golden Spring、Greenwich Land、Leading Shine NY（领耀纽约）、Saraca（萨拉卡）、GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司）、Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）及 Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）的高级职员和/或授权签字人。31 Wang 女士被广泛认为是债务人的私人助理。当在其证言录取中被问及 Wang 女士是否为其雇员时，债务人行使了其第五修正案权利。32\n\n25. 于 March 15, 2023，Wang 女士因被指控（其中包括）就债务人涉嫌的刑事欺诈及洗钱活动与债务人共谋而被逮捕。根据 U.S. Government（美国政府）的说法，Wang 女士作为债务人的“受信任的幕僚长，负责管理甚至与其没有正式关联的实体的运营”，在债务人的欺诈计划中发挥了“关键作用”。33\n\nC. 债务人为 Lamp Capital 提供资金\n\n26. 根据所知及相信，在所有相关期间内，Lamp Capital 的资金完全由债务人通过其控制的实体提供；若无该等资金，其将不会拥有任何资本。\n\n30 公司治理藐视法庭命令 ¶ 4。\n\n31 证据21，Yan Ping Wang（王雁平）宣誓书 ¶ 1，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2018) [Docket No. 182]（“我是 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 的总裁，并以该身份担任[债务人]及其家人利益的管理人。”）；证据15，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，《唯一成员无需召开会议的同意书》，日期为 July 17, 2019（指定 Wang 女士为签字人）；证据22，证据23，Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币）《假定名称证书》，日期为 March 14, 2020；证据24，Himalaya Dollar（喜马拉雅元）《假定名称证书》，日期为 March 14, 2020；证据25，起诉书 ¶ 9a，United States v. Wang，No. 1:23-mj-02007-UA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2023) [Docket No. 1]（“Wang 曾任 GTV 的执行董事”）；证据84，索赔明细，Kwok Ho Wan & Ors. v. UBS，Cl-2020-000345，第38页，High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court（英格兰和威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法院），日期为 September 23, 2020（“英国起诉书”）（由 Yvette Wang 代表 Ace Decade 签署）；债务人根据 Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2 提交的声明 ¶ 1，(Case No. 22-50592, Oct. 12, 2020) [Docket No. 1]；证据14，Greenwich Land, LLC，《唯一成员无需召开会议的同意书》，日期为\n\nJanuary 19, 2021。32 证据13，Kwok 证言笔录，第33:11-13页。\n\n33 证据26，美国反对 Yvette Wang 保释动议的信函，第18页，U.S. v. Yanping Wang, a/k/a “Yvette,” (Mar. 29, 2023) [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT, Docket No. 10]。\n\n27. Lamp Capital 已从债务人控制的众多其他实体获得资金。其中，Lamp Capital 至少收到过34、至少来自 Greenwich Land 的 $9 million、35 至少来自 ACA Capital（ACA 资本）的 $9 million，36 以及至少来自 Savio Law LLC（萨维奥律师事务所有限责任公司）的 $5 million 的转账。37 根据所知及相信，Lamp Capital 除从债务人控制的其他实体外，未获得任何资金。\n\nD. Lamp Capital 使用了与债务人其他空壳公司相同的地址\n\n28. Lamp Capital 使用 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 作为其地址。38 162 East 64th Street 曾被债务人本人、39 其律师 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）、40 以及债务人的若干空壳公司用作地址，其中包括 Golden Spring、41 HK USA、42 GTV Media Group, Inc.、43 Saraca、44 Hudson Diamond Holding、45 Hudson Diamond NY LLC、46 及 Rule of Law Foundation。47\n\n34 证据59。\n\n证据60。\n\n证据61及证据62，Lamp Capital 于 December 2021 的 Dime Bank 银行对账单（显示于 December 21, 2021 从 Hudson Diamond NY 收到另一笔约 $500,000 的转账）。\n\n35 证据63，Lamp Capital 于 November 2020 在 The Bank of Princeton 的账户对账单（显示从尾号为0199的账户向 Lamp Capital 尾号为0389的账户转入 $9 million）。另见证据64，Greenwich Land, LLC 于 November 2020 在 The Bank of Princeton 的账户对账单（显示从其尾号为0199的账户向尾号为0389的账户转入 $9 million）。\n\n36 证据65，Lamp Capital 于 November 2021 的 Dime Bank 银行对账单（显示于 November 17, 2021 从 ACA Capital 转入约 $2 million）；证据62（显示于 December 6, 2021 从 ACA Capital 转入约 $2 million）；证据6，Lamp Capital 于 January 2022 的 Dime Bank 银行对账单（显示于 January 26, 2022 从 ACA Capital 转入约 $2 million）；以及证据67，Lamp Capital 于 February 2022 的 Dime Bank 银行对账单（显示于 February 16, 2022 从 ACA Capital 转入 $3 million）。正如本院可能从受托人在其与 HK USA 诉讼中提出的反诉中所记得的，ACA Capital 是一家香港实体，与债务人存在众多关联，并据称由债务人的刑事共同被告 William Je（威廉·杰）所有。参见 Chapter 11 Trustee's Answer and Counterclaims，Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003，Dkt. No. 36 at ¶ 86(d)。当在其 March 2, 2023 证言录取中被问及其是否对 ACA Capital 拥有受益所有权或排他性控制权时，债务人行使了第五修正案权利。参见证据13，Kwok 证言笔录，第73:23-74:11页。另见证据33，债务人的宣誓声明 ¶ 62（就对 ACA Capital 的控制权行使第五修正案权利）。\n\n37 证据68，Lamp Capital 于 October 2020 在 The Bank of Princeton 的账户对账单（显示于 October 15, 2020 从 Savio Law LLC 转入 $5 million）。Savio Law 是律师 Nicholas Savio（尼古拉斯·萨维奥）的律师事务所（其现受雇于债务人律师 Aaron Mitchell, LLC 的律师事务所）。参见 Nicholas Savio 的 LinkedIn 个人资料，网址为 http，以及 Lawall & Mitchell 的顾问律师 Nick Savio 的个人资料，网址为 http\n\n38 参见，例如，证据69，Lamp Capital 在 Dime Bank 的《受益所有人证书》（确认 Lamp Capital 的实体营业地址为 162 E 64th Street, New York）。\n\n39 参见债务人的破产申请书 [Main Case Docket No. 1]。\n\n40 证据27，《变更律师同意书》，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 338。\n\n41 债务人的破产申请书 [Main Case Docket No. 1]。\n\nE. 债务人使用 Lamp Capital 支付其费用\n\n29. 债务人使用 Lamp Capital 支付其费用。事实上，Lamp Capital 是债务人在声称其实际上无法被执行判决的同时过着奢华生活这一安排的关键组成部分；在本 Chapter 11 Case（第11章案件）中提交的资产和负债清单即为例证，其中债务人声称其持有 $3,850.00 的资产。48 Lamp Capital 以此方式运作的例子不胜枚举。其中包括：\n\na. Lamp Capital 支付了债务人最初的破产律师 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）（“Brown Rudnick”）的 $1 million 预付聘金。49\n\nb. Lamp Capital 支付了债务人的众多律师费以及与涉及债务人的诉讼有关的费用，包括支付给债务人的律师事务所，如 Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）、The Casper Firm（卡斯珀律师事务所）、The Francis Firm PLLC（弗朗西斯律师事务所 PLLC）、Baker Hostetler LLP（贝克·霍斯特勒律师事务所）、Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）、Schulman Bhattacharya LLC（舒尔曼·巴塔查亚有限责任公司）、Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP（甘弗·肖尔·利兹与佐德勒律师事务所）及 Clayman & Rosenberg LLP（克莱曼与罗森伯格律师事务所）。50 Lamp Capital 已\n\n42 证据28，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK 国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司）《有限责任公司协议》，日期为 April 1, 2019。\n\n43 证据29，OpenGovNY 纽约州公司登记册关于 GTV Media Group Inc. 的登记查询结果。\n\n44 证据30，Saraca Media Group Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）OpenGovNY 纽约州公司登记册查询结果。\n\n45 证据31，Hodgson Russ 出具的 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 情况说明书（显示 162 E 64th St. 为有限责任公司地址）。\n\n46 同上（显示 162 E 64th St. 为 Hudson Diamond Holding 地址）。\n\n47 证据32，Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.（法治协会 IV 公司）的 CHAR 500 表格。\n\n48 参见 Official Form 106，第5页 (Mar. 9, 2022) [Main Case Docket No. 78]。\n\n49 该笔付款使用了一笔据称由 Lamp Capital 向债务人提供的 $1 million 贷款所得款项，该款项由 Lamp Capital 直接汇给 Brown Rudnick。参见债务人申请作出裁定授权聘用及留任 Brown Rudnick LLP 作为债务人律师 ¶ 17，[Main Case Docket No. 86]；证据46，电话举行的 341 债权人会议记录，日期为 April 6, 2022，第49:22-24页。在其 April 6, 2022 的 Section 341 会议上，债务人证称该贷款没有书面文件，且其没有\n\n知悉该贷款的条款、借出该款项的原因，或该款项的来源。Id. at 49-51。50 参见，例如，证据56号，Lamp Capital（灯资本）于 January 12, 2022 向 U.S. Legal Support, Inc.（美国法律支持公司）开具的支票；证据94号，Lamp Capital 于 January 11 2022 向 The Francis Firm PLLC（弗朗西斯律师事务所 PLLC）开具的支票；证据95号，Lamp Capital 于 November 17, 2021 向 Schuman Bhattacharya, LLC（舒曼·巴塔查里亚有限责任公司）开具的支票；证据96号，Lamp Capital 于 January 26, 2022 向 The Casper Firm（卡斯珀律师事务所）开具的支票；证据97号，Lamp Capital 于 October 13, 2021 向 Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP（甘弗·肖尔·利兹及扎德勒律师事务所 LLP）开具的支票；证据98号，Lamp Capital 于 October 28, 2021 向 Roy D. Simmon（罗伊·D·西蒙）开具的支票；证据99号，Lamp Capital 于 October 13, 2021 向 Veritext（维瑞文本）开具的支票；证据100号，Lamp Capital 于 December 27, 2021 向 Baker Hostetler LLP（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所 LLP）开具的支票；证据101号，Lamp Capital 于 November 17, 2021 向 Lawall & Mitchell（劳尔及米切尔律师事务所）开具的支票；证据102号，Lamp Capital 于 January 11, 2022 向 Clayman & Rosenberg LLP（克莱曼及罗森伯格律师事务所 LLP）开具的支票；证据103号，Lamp Capital 于 November 12, 2021 向 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）开具的支票；证据104号，Lamp Capital 于 November 10, 2021 向 William Bradley Wendel（威廉·布拉德利·温德尔）开具的支票。\n\n还支付了债务人应付给其他法律服务或专家证人服务提供者（例如 Veritext、US Legal Support Inc.、Roy D. Simon 和 William Bradley Wendel）的多笔费用。51\n\nc. Lamp Capital 支付了与债务人的游艇 Lady May（“梅女士号”）52 有关的费用，以及与 Sherry Netherland Apartment（谢里·内德兰公寓）有关的维护费。53 Lamp Capital 还向 ACASS Canada Ltd.（ACASS 加拿大有限公司）、Wings Insurance Agency Inc.（翼保险代理公司）和 SAAM Verspieren Group（SAAM Verspieren 集团）支付了多笔款项，54 用于债务人的私人飞机 Bombardier Global XRS（庞巴迪环球 XRS）的运营和维护（该飞机是受托人对 Mei Guo（郭梅）提起的另一宗对立程序的标的）。\n\nd. Lamp Capital 向债务人控制公司的 Bento for Business（Bento 商务）账户进行了多笔转账，55 债务人的家庭成员和关联人士获发预付 Bento 借记卡，并使用该等卡片进行消费，以维持债务人的奢华生活方式。56\n\ne. Lamp Capital 代表债务人，就以其名义持有的 Mar-a-Lago Club（海湖庄园俱乐部）会员资格，向该俱乐部付款。57\n\nF. Lamp Capital 除持有债务人财产和/或支付其费用外没有其他业务\n\n30. 如下文进一步论述，Lamp Capital 有据可查的唯一活动是持有债务人的资产并支付其费用。Lamp Capital 除了\n\n51 Id. 据知情和相信，Lamp Capital 根据所谓的诉讼融资协议支付了其中部分法律费用；根据该等协议，债务人成功诉讼的任何所得款项均不会成为债务人的财产，而将直接支付给 Golden Spring（黄金泉）。52 证据65号（显示于 November 18, 2021 向 Yachtzoo Yacht Management LLC（Yachtzoo 游艇管理有限责任公司）转账约 \\$290,000）；证据66号（显示于 January 26, 2022 向 Yachtzoo 转账约 \\$245,000）；证据70号，Lamp Capital 于 February 2022 的 Dime Bank（迪姆银行）账户对账单（显示于 February 23, 2022 向 Yachtzoo 转账约 \\$460,000）；以及证据68号（显示于 October 29, 2020 向 Moran Yacht Management Inc.（莫兰游艇管理公司）转账 \\$272,525）。53 参见，例如，证据75号，Lamp Capital 在 Dime Bank 的账户于 March 3, 2022 向 Sherry-Netherland Inc.（谢里-内德兰公司）开具的 \\$2,020.71 支票。54 参见，例如，证据71号，Lamp Capital 于 March 2022 的 Dime Bank 对账单（显示于 March 3, 2022 向 Wings Insurance Agency 转账约 \\$18,000，并于 March 10, 2020 向 SAAM Verspieren Group 转账 \\$46,880）。证据72号，Lamp Capital 截尾号为 6250 的账户于 January 2022 的 Dime Bank 账户对账单（显示向 ACASS Canada Ltd. 转账 \\$117,428.82）；证据73号，Lamp Capital 截尾号为 6250 的账户于 November 2021 的 Dime Bank 账户对账单（显示向 ACASS Canada Ltd. 两次转账、合计约 \\$615,000）。55 参见，例如，证据72号（显示向 Bento 三次转账，合计 \\$150,000）；证据73号（显示向 Bento 两次转账，合计转账 \\$10,000）。56 参见《支持 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）财产的 Chapter 11 受托人就另我人格及衡平所有权主张提出简易判决动议的法律备忘录》¶¶ 7-12，载于针对 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）和 Hing Chi Ngok 的对立程序[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Doc No. 78]。57 参见，例如，证据74号，Lamp Capital 在 Dime Bank 的账户于 December 6, 2021 代表债务人向 Mar-a-Lago Club 开具的 \\$300 支票（支票备注以会员 ID 标明债务人）。\n\n从其他由债务人控制的公司获得资金、在银行账户中持有现金，以及支付债务人的费用外，未从事任何其他事项。58\n\nG. 债务人就其对 Lamp Capital 的控制权主张第五修正案权利\n\n31. 债务人在被问及其对 Lamp Capital 的控制权时，多次主张第五修正案权利。在其 March 2, 2023 的证言录取中，债务人在被问及下列问题时援引第五修正案：\n\na. 他是否为 Lamp Capital 的衡平所有人；\n\nb. 他是否为 Lamp Capital 的受益所有人；\n\nc. 他是否对 Lamp Capital 享有独占控制权；以及\n\nd. 他是否对 Lamp Capital 的资产享有独占控制权。59\n\n32. 在债务人日期为 May 11, 2023 的经宣誓声明中，债务人在被问及其是否控制 Lamp Capital 时，再次援引第五修正案。60\n\n33. 同样，债务人就其对 Lamp Capital 的母公司 Infinity Treasury Management（无限资金管理）的控制权主张第五修正案权利。61\n\nIII. Hudson Diamond NY（纽约哈德逊钻石）是债务人的另我人格并由其衡平所有\n\nA. Hudson Diamond NY 由债务人通过债务人的律师设立\n\n34. 62 参见证据34号。63 在其证言录取期间，Mei Guo 就债务人是否将其安排为 Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股）的名义唯一成员一事，主张其根据第五修正案享有的权利。64\n\n35.\n\n36. Hudson Diamond NY 是代表债务人设立的另一实体，其目的在于取得不动产。债务人的律师 Hodgson Russ 向受托人提供的、与 Hudson Diamond 有关的通信中对“principal”的提及，系指债务人。\n\nB. Hudson Diamond 由债务人通过债务人的代理人管理\n\n37. Hudson Diamond NY 及其所谓唯一成员 Hudson Diamond Holding 的获授权签字人。69\n\n38. Yvette Wang（王悦）还代表 Hudson Diamond，与协助债务人购买 Taconic Property（塔科尼克房产）的房地产经纪人 Emile de Neree（埃米尔·德·内雷）签署了一份《买方独家代理权协议》。71\n\n39. 如上所述，Yvette Wang、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）和 Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波德哈斯基）在所有相关期间均为债务人的代理人。\n\nC. Hudson Diamond NY 由债务人出资\n\n40. 据知情和相信，在所有相关期间，Hudson Diamond NY 完全由债务人通过其控制的实体出资；若无该等资金，Hudson Diamond NY 将不会有任何资本金。\n\n41. Hudson Diamond NY 已从众多其他由债务人控制的实体获得资金，其中包括 12 和 。73 据知情和相信，Hudson Diamond NY 除其他由债务人控制的实体外，未获得任何其他资金。\n\nH. Hudson Diamond NY 与其他债务人空壳公司使用同一地址\n\n42. 。74 162 East 64th Street（东64街162号）已被债务人本人、75 其律师 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）、76 以及债务人的多家空壳公司用作地址，包括：Golden Spring、77 HK USA、78 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司）、79 Saraca（萨拉卡）、80 Hudson Diamond Holding、81 Lamp Capital、82 以及 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）。83\n\nD. 债务人将 Hudson Diamond NY 用于其房地产交易\n\n43. Hudson Diamond NY 由债务人设立，以取得不动产。为此，Hodgson Russ 聘请律师事务所 Whitman, Breed, Abbott & Morgan LLC（“Whitman Breed”）代表 Hudson Diamond NY 以及 Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司），处理债务人在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）购买或拟购买房地产事宜。84\n\n44. Whitman Breed 合伙人 Margaret Conboy（玛格丽特·康博伊）已作证称，除其他事项外，作为其对 Hudson Diamond NY 和 Greenwich Land 的代理的一部分，她称债务人为其客户，85 从 Max Krasner 收到指示，86 并多次被告知债务人正在作出决定，87 包括关于是否接受要约、88 选择家具，89 以及是否推进任何潜在房产购买。90\n\n45. 债务人曾使用 Hudson Diamond NY，以其空壳公司 Greenwich Land 的名义为房地产购买提供资金；该公司据称由债务人的妻子名义持有，\n\n78 证据28号，日期为 April 1, 2019 的 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK 国际基金投资〈美国〉有限公司）有限责任公司协议。79 证据29号，OpenGovNY（纽约开放政府）对 GTV Media Group Inc. 的纽约州公司登记册搜索结果。80 证据30号，Saraca Media Group Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）的 OpenGovNY 纽约州公司登记册搜索结果。81 证据42号。\n\n82 参见，例如，证据69号，Lamp Capital 在 Dime Bank 的受益所有人证明书（将 Lamp Capital 的实际营业地址确定为 162 E 64th Street, New York）。\n\n83 证据32号，Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.（法治协会 IV 公司）的 CHAR 500 表格。\n\n84 证据43号。85 证据45号，Margaret Conboy September 12, 2023 证言录取笔录，第 33:12-23、33:25-34:4 及 37:13-38:1 页。另见证据46号及证据77号，Margaret Conboy 与 Kevin Walsh（凯文·沃尔什）于 Oct. 3, 2019 之间的电子邮件。86 Id. at 51:16-25, 66:22-25。87 Id., at 51:16-25, 52:19-53:22。88 参见，例如，证据46号，Margaret Conboy 与 Robert Mowbray（罗伯特·莫布雷）于 January 22, 2019 之间的电子邮件。89 参见，例如，证据47号，Louise Camuto（路易丝·卡穆托）与 Yvette Wang 之间、抄送 Max Krasner、Karin Maistrello（卡琳·迈斯特雷洛）的 July 12, 2019 电子邮件。90 参见，例如，证据45号，Margaret Conboy September 12, 2023 证言录取笔录，第 52:2-10 页（“问：他具体对你所说的是：我刚与 Miles 交谈过，他告知团队，他不会推进该房产。你看到了吗？答：是。问：而你理解 Miles 是指 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）？答：是。”）。\n\n46. D 在其证言录取期间，Mei Guo，即 Hudson Diamond Holding 的所谓唯一成员、Hudson Diamond NY 的所谓唯一成员，就其父亲即债务人是否\n\n参见证据50号。\n\n91 该笔付款使用的是Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）向债务人提供的一笔名义上为$1 million贷款的所得款项，该款项由Lamp Capital直接汇付给Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）。参见债务人关于请求作出裁定授权聘用及继续聘用Brown Rudnick LLP担任债务人法律顾问的申请，Docket No. 86，第¶ 17段；Ex. 48，日期为April 6, 2022的债权人电话341会议记录，第49页：22-24行。在其April 6, 2022举行的Section 341会议上，债务人作证称，该贷款并无书面文件，且其不知道贷款条款、出借款项的原因，或该款项的来源。同上，第49-51页。\n\n92 Ex. 49。\n\n参见Ex. 50，GREE000195。\n\n94 Ex. 49。\n\n96 Ex. 36，Mei Guo（郭美）证言记录，第65:12-21行、第67:6-25行及第69:24-70:5行。\n\n49. 债务人一直将Taconic Property（塔科尼克房产）用作其住所。103\n\n97 Ex. 51；Ex. 85。\n\n98 Ex. 51。\n\n100 参见Ex. 52，GREE000330。\n\n101 Ex. 51。\n\nEx. 51。\n\n102 Ex. 36，Mei Guo证言记录，第65:12-21行、第67:6-25行及第69:24-70:5行。\n\n103 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生为支持Chapter 11案件及若干动议所作的声明，第¶ 6段[Docket No. 107]。\n\n104 Ex. 53，第80:23-81:13行；另参见同上，第75:21-24行、第76:5-15行。\n\nE. 债务人利用Hudson Diamond NY（纽约哈德逊钻石）向其他由债务人控制的空壳公司及家庭成员转移资金\n\n50. 银行记录显示，除为房地产交易提供资金外，债务人还利用Hudson Diamond NY向其他空壳公司转移数百万美元，105、106及107，并且例如向其女儿Mei Guo及其妻子Hing Chi Ngok（邢志岳）转移资金。\n\n51. 此外，根据所知及相信，Hudson Diamond NY拥有债务人的一辆Rolls Royce（劳斯莱斯）豪华汽车。108\n\nI. Hudson Diamond NY除持有债务人的财产及／或支付其费用外并无其他业务\n\n52. 如下文进一步所述，Hudson Diamond NY仅有记录可查的活动包括持有债务人的资产及支付其费用。Hudson Diamond NY除从其他由债务人控制的公司接收资金、在银行账户中持有现金（除持有债务人的Rolls Royce及可能的其他资产外）以及支付债务人的费用外，未从事其他任何活动。109\n\nF. 债务人及Mei Guo就对Hudson Diamond NY及其唯一成员Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股）的控制权主张第五修正案权利\n\n53. 债务人在被问及其对Hudson Diamond NY及其唯一成员Hudson Diamond Holding的控制权时主张第五修正案权利。在其March 2, 2023的证言录取中，债务人在被问及其是否拥有并控制Hudson Diamond Holding及Hudson Diamond NY的全部资产时援引第五修正案权利。110\n\n105 Ex. 59。\n\n106 Ex. 78。\n\nEx. 79。\n\n107 Ex. 79。\n\n108 Ex. 54，Hudson Diamond NY的AIG Automobile Declarations Page。\n\n109 Hudson Diamond NY因未遵守或回应受托人根据Rule 2004发出的证据开示传票而被裁定构成藐视法庭的民事行为[Main Case Docket No. 2009]。鉴于Hudson Diamond NY未履行其证据开示义务，受托人目前无法准确确定Hudson Diamond资产的价值，且受托人的调查仍在进行中。\n\n54. 同样，在其证言录取中，作为Hudson Diamond Holding名义上唯一成员、Hudson Diamond NY名义上唯一成员的Mei Guo，就债务人是否拥有并控制Hudson Diamond NY以及是否指示转移其资金，主张其在第五修正案下的权利。111\n\n55. 此外，Mei Guo在本法院作证时，在被问及包括Hudson Diamond NY是否依债务人的指示设立以取得不动产112，以及债务人是否始终控制Hudson Diamond NY及其资产113等事项时，援引第五修正案权利。\n\nIV. Leading Shine NY（纽约领先耀光）是债务人的另一个自我，且在衡平法上归债务人所有\n\nA. Leading Shine NY由债务人通过其代理人管理\n\n56. Leading Shine NY于January 3, 2019在Delaware（特拉华州）设立，114 并于January 2019登记获准在New York（纽约州）经营。115\n\n116 Ex. 56。\n\n117 比较Ex. 56与Ex. 82。\n\n58.\n\n118 参见Ex. 56。\n\nHan（韩）先生曾担任包括债务人空壳公司Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司）和Anton Development Limited（安东发展有限公司）名义上的股权持有人等职务。119\n\nB. Leading Shine NY由债务人提供资金\n\n59. 在所有相关期间，Leading Shine NY完全由债务人通过其控制的实体提供资金；若无该等资金，Leading Shine NY将不会拥有资本。\n\n60. Leading Shine NY已从众多其他由债务人控制的实体获得资金，121、122其中包括其他由Kwok控制的实体。\n\nC. Leading Shine NY与其他债务人空壳公司使用相同地址\n\n61. Leading Shine NY使用162 East 64th Street, New York, New York作为其地址。124 162 East 64th Street曾被债务人本人125、其律师Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）126及债务人的多家空壳公司用作地址，包括：Lamp Capital，127 Golden Spring（黄金之春），128 HK USA（香港美国），129 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司），130 Saraca（萨拉卡），131 Hudson Diamond Holding，132 Hudson Diamond NY，133以及Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）。134\n\n参见Ho Wan Kwok遗产Chapter 11受托人关于请求作出确认判决，即根据《破产法》第541、542及544条和《破产程序规则》7001，Mei Guo持有的财产属于遗产财产，以及请求相关救济的起诉书，第¶ 21-25段[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Doc No. 1]。\n\n120 Ex. 89。\n\nEx. 90。\n\n121 例如，参见Ex. 79。\n\n124 例如，参见Ex. 69，Lamp Capital在Dime Bank的实益所有人证明书（载明Lamp Capital的实际营业地址为162 E 64th Street, New York）。\n\n125 债务人的破产申请书[Docket No. 1]。\n\n126 Ex. 27，律师变更同意书，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NY SCEF Doc. No. 338。\n\n127 例如，参见Ex. 69，Lamp Capital在Dime Bank的实益所有人证明书（载明Lamp Capital的实际营业地址为162 E 64th Street, New York）。\n\n128 债务人的破产申请书[Docket No. 1]。\n\n129 Ex. 28，日期为April 1, 2019的HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC有限责任公司协议。\n\n130 Ex. 29，OpenGovNY纽约州公司登记册中对GTV Media Group Inc.的登记查询结果。\n\n131 Ex. 30，Saraca Media Group Inc.的OpenGovNY纽约州公司登记册查询结果。\n\n132 Ex. 31，Hodgson Russ提供的Hudson Diamond NY LLC情况说明书（显示162 E 64th St.为LLC地址）。\n\n133 同上（显示162 E 64th St.为Hudson Diamond Holding地址）。\n\n134 Ex. 32，Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.的CHAR 500表格。\n\nD. 债务人利用Leading Shine NY向其他由债务人控制的空壳公司转移资金\n\n62. Leading Shine NY积极参与向债务人控制的其他空壳公司转移资金。例如，Leading Shine NY已向Golden Spring135、136及137转移资金，并向一家名义上由Mei Guo拥有的实体转移资金；该实体从Ferncliff Property（芬克利夫房产）的破产申请后出售中收取了$875,000。138\n\nE. 债务人利用Leading Shine NY支付其费用\n\n126 Ex. 27，律师变更同意书，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NY SCEF Doc. No. 338。\n\n127 例如，参见Ex. 69，Lamp Capital在Dime Bank的实益所有人证明书（载明Lamp Capital的实际营业地址为162 E 64th Street, New York）。\n\n128 债务人的破产申请书[Docket No. 1]。\n\n129 Ex. 28，日期为April 1, 2019的HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC有限责任公司协议。\n\n130 Ex. 29，OpenGovNY纽约州公司登记册中对GTV Media Group Inc.的登记查询结果。\n\n131 Ex. 30，Saraca Media Group Inc.的OpenGovNY纽约州公司登记册查询结果。\n\n132 Ex. 31，Hodgson Russ提供的Hudson Diamond NY LLC情况说明书（显示162 E 64th St.为LLC地址）。\n\n133 同上（显示162 E 64th St.为Hudson Diamond Holding地址）。\n\n134 Ex. 32，Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.的CHAR 500表格。\n\n135 Ex. 105，Golden Spring在Santander的July - September 2020账户对账单（显示来自Leading Shine的转账超过$2 million）。\n\n136 Ex. 85，Ex. 44。\n\n137 例如，参见Ex. 87。\n\n138 参见支持受托人简易判决动议的无争议重大事实Local Rule 56(a)陈述，第¶ 18段[Adv. Proc. 23-05005, Doc No. 79]。\n\n如法院所知，在有关HK USA的对抗程序中，一名Berkeley Rowe（伯克利·罗律师事务所）律师甚至试图在March 15, 2023的听证会上提供支持HK USA的证言，但法院驳回了该请求。141 鉴于Qiang Guo（郭强）在其债权申报表上将Berkeley Rowe用作其个人地址，Berkeley Rowe似乎还协助债务人的儿子Qiang Guo，就其在Genever Holdings LLC chapter 11案件中提交债权申报事宜提供协助。142\n\n140 同上（转账$39,527.55）。\n\n141 参见部分准许及部分驳回请求许可补充HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited和Mei Guo证人及证据清单的动议的命令(Adv. Proc. 22-05003)[Docket No. 136]。\n\n142 参见Proof of Claim 3-1，In re Genever Holdings LLC，Case No. 22-50592。\n\n143 参见Ex. 87。\n\n144 参见Ex. 88，请求免除驳回审前释放命令的动议，第20页，United States v. Kwok，No. 23-6421 (2d Cir. May 5, 2023)[Docket No. 6.1]。\n\nJ. Leading Shine NY除持有债务人的财产及／或支付其费用外并无其他业务\n\n66. 如下文进一步所述，Leading Shine NY仅有记录可查的活动包括持有债务人的资产及支付其费用。Leading Shine NY除从其他由债务人控制的公司接收资金、在银行账户中持有现金以及支付债务人的费用外，未从事其他任何活动。145\n\nF. 债务人就对Leading Shine NY的控制权主张第五修正案权利\n\n67. 债务人在被问及其对Leading Shine NY的控制权时，曾多次主张第五修正案权利。在其March 2, 2023的证言录取中，当被问及其是否控制并拥有Leading Shine NY时，债务人援引第五修正案权利。146\n\n68. 在债务人日期为May 11, 2023的宣誓声明中，债务人在被问及其是否控制Leading Shine NY时，再次援引第五修正案权利。147\n\n第一项请求\n\n（确认Lamp Capital为债务人的另一个自我，并命令向受托人交付Lamp Capital资产的确认判决）148\n\n69. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至68段所载的指控。\n\n145 Leading Shine NY未就受托人根据Rule 2004发出的证据开示传票作出回应或提交任何文件。鉴于Leading Shine NY未履行其证据开示义务，受托人目前无法准确确定Leading Shine NY资产的价值，且受托人的调查仍在进行中。\n\n146 参见Ex. 13，Kwok证言记录，第49:15-50:22行。\n\n147 Ex. 33，债务人关于对特定问题答复的宣誓声明，第¶ 158段。\n\n148 本项请求仅在适用情况下寻求针对被告Lamp Capital及／或其名义上唯一成员Infinity Treasury Management（无限财政管理）的救济。\n\n70. 由于Lamp Capital是Delaware实体，Delaware法律适用于该另一个自我请求。149\n\n71. 根据Delaware揭开公司面纱的两项检验标准，法院在将Delaware的另一个自我分析适用于债务人与Lamp Capital之间的关系时，将重点审查：(1)债务人与Lamp Capital是否作为单一经济单位运营；以及(2)是否存在整体上的不公正或不公平因素。在确定债务人与Lamp Capital是否作为单一经济单位运营时，适用Delaware法律的法院将考虑若干因素，其中包括Lamp Capital是否获得充分资本化、是否遵守公司形式要件，以及是否为债务人的幌子。150 该“因素清单并非穷尽，且没有任何单一因素具有决定性。”151\n\n72. 债务人对Lamp Capital行使控制和支配，以致Lamp Capital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正行为。Lamp Capital是债务人的另一个自我，原因包括：\n\na. Lamp Capital由债务人通过其律师设立。\n\nb. Lamp Capital由债务人通过其代理人管理。\n\nc. Lamp Capital由债务人提供资金。\n\nd. Lamp Capital与其他债务人空壳公司使用相同地址。\n\ne. 债务人利用Lamp Capital支付其费用。\n\n149 参见，例如，Universitas Education, LLC（Universitas教育有限责任公司）v. Benistar（贝尼斯塔尔）, No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM), 2021 WL 965794, at \\*7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021)（“由于[被告]是在特拉华州注册成立，我必须适用特拉华州法律，以决定其是否可能因反向刺破公司面纱责任而受到另一自我主张。”）。150 Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG（英飞凌科技股份公司）, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010)（指出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营时所考虑的因素；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“严重资本不足；未遵守公司形式……[以及]该公司是否仅为一层幌子。”）。151 Id. at 471.\n\nf. Lamp Capital（朗普资本）除持有债务人的财产及/或支付其费用外，没有其他业务。\n\ng. 债务人就其对朗普资本的控制援引了宪法第五修正案。\n\n73. 在所有相关期间，债务人欠负一名或多名债权人债务。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\n74. 因此，受托人依据《破产法》第541、542和544条请求作出裁定：（1）宣告：(a) 朗普资本在任何时候均为债务人的另一自我；(b) 朗普资本在债务人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) 朗普资本自债务人于2022年2月15日提出第11章申请之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，视情况而定，过去及现在均构成债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及（2）命令将朗普资本的任何及全部资产交付给受托人。\n\n第二项请求\n（确认判决：债务人为Lamp Capital及/或其资产的衡平法所有人，并命令将Lamp Capital及/或其资产的所有权交付给受托人）152\n\n75. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至68段所载的指控。\n\n76. 上述证明朗普资本为债务人另一自我的相同事实，也支持债务人为朗普资本及/或其资产的衡平法所有人的结论。153\n\n152 本项请求仅在适用情况下针对被告Lamp Capital及/或其声称的唯一成员Infinity Treasury Management（无限国库管理）寻求救济。153 Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc.（复杂计算公司）, 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对[该公司]行使了相当大的权力……以至于完全无视公司形式，并将[其]资产视为仅由其本人管理。”）（强调系后加）。\n\n77. 在所有相关期间，债务人欠负一名或多名债权人债务。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\n78. 由于朗普资本由债务人衡平法上所有，朗普资本的所有权及公司控制权，及/或朗普资本的资产，于申请日后属于破产财产。\n\n79. 因此，受托人依据《破产法》第541、542和544条请求作出裁定：（1）宣告由Infinity Treasury Management声称持有的朗普资本所有权权益，及/或朗普资本的资产，属于债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及（2）命令将朗普资本的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，及/或朗普资本的资产，交付给受托人。\n\n第三项请求\n（确认判决：Hudson Diamond NY（纽约哈德逊钻石）为债务人的另一自我，并命令将Hudson Diamond NY的资产交付给受托人）154\n\n80. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至68段所载的指控。\n\n81. 纽约州法律适用于本项另一自我主张，因为Hudson Diamond NY为纽约州实体。155\n\n82. 根据纽约州法律，寻求另一自我裁定的一方必须证明：“（1）被指称的另一自我‘就争议交易而言对公司实施了完全支配；以及（2）该等支配被用于实施欺诈或不法行为，从而损害了寻求刺破公司面纱的一方。’” Sentry Ins.（哨兵保险）v. Brand Mgmt. Inc.（品牌管理公司）, 120 F. Supp. 3d 277, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), aff'd sub nom. Sentry Ins. a Mut. Co. v. Weber（韦伯）, 720 F. App'x 639 (2d Cir. 2017)（引自Liberty Synergistics, Inc.（自由协同公司）v. Microflo Ltd.（微流有限公司）, 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 296 (E.D.N.Y.2014)）。第一项要件所称的支配，应基于对十项衡平因素的考量予以确定。\n\n（1）作为公司存续不可或缺部分的形式手续和标志的缺失，即发行股票、选举董事、保存公司记录等；（2）资本不足；（3）资金是否出入公司系为个人目的而非公司目的；（4）所有权、高管、董事及人员的重叠；（5）公司实体共用办公场所、地址及电话号码；（6）被指称受支配的公司所展现的商业裁量程度；（7）关联公司是否以独立交易原则与受支配公司交易；（8）各公司是否被视为独立的利润中心；（9）集团内其他公司对受支配公司债务的偿还或担保；以及（10）涉案公司是否拥有被其他公司如同其自有财产般使用的财产。\n\n83. Id.（引自Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 296 (E.D.N.Y.2014)）。假定能够证明存在支配，为获得救济，原告还必须证明：“（1）‘针对该方存在不法或不公正行为’，以及（2）‘该行为造成了该方的损害。’” Id.（引自Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 297 (E.D.N.Y.2014)）。\n\n84. 在本案中，除其他事项外，事实表明，根据纽约州法律，Hudson Diamond NY为债务人的另一自我：\n\na. Hudson Diamond NY由债务人通过其律师设立。\n\nb. Hudson Diamond NY由债务人通过其代理人管理。\n\nc. Hudson Diamond NY由债务人出资。\n\nd. Hudson Diamond NY使用与债务人其他空壳公司相同的地址。\n\ne. 债务人利用Hudson Diamond NY向债务人的其他空壳公司及家庭成员转移资金。\n\nf. Hudson Diamond NY除持有债务人的财产及/或支付其费用外，没有其他业务。\n\ng. 债务人和Mei Guo（郭美）就对Hudson Diamond NY的控制援引了宪法第五修正案。\n\n85. 在所有相关期间，债务人欠负一名或多名债权人债务。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\n86. 因此，受托人依据《破产法》第541、542和544条请求作出裁定：（1）宣告：(a) Hudson Diamond NY在任何时候均为债务人的另一自我；(b) Hudson Diamond NY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) Hudson Diamond NY自债务人于2022年2月15日提出第11章申请之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，视情况而定，过去及现在均构成债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及（2）命令将Hudson Diamond NY的任何及全部资产交付给受托人。\n\n第四项请求\n（确认判决：债务人为Hudson Diamond NY及/或其资产的衡平法所有人，并命令将Hudson Diamond NY及/或其资产的所有权交付给受托人）156\n\n87. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至68段所载的指控。\n\n156 本项请求仅在适用情况下针对被告Hudson Diamond NY及/或其声称的唯一成员Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股）寻求救济。\n\n88. 上述证明Hudson Diamond NY为债务人另一自我的相同事实，也支持债务人为Hudson Diamond NY及/或其资产的衡平法所有人的结论。157\n\n89. 在所有相关期间，债务人欠负一名或多名债权人债务。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\n90. 由于Hudson Diamond NY由债务人衡平法上所有，Hudson Diamond NY的所有权及公司控制权，及/或Hudson Diamond NY的资产，于申请日后属于破产财产。\n\n91. 因此，受托人依据《破产法》第541、542和544条请求作出裁定：（1）宣告由Hudson Diamond Holding声称持有的Hudson Diamond NY所有权权益，及/或Hudson Diamond NY的资产，属于债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及（2）命令将Hudson Diamond NY的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，及/或Hudson Diamond NY的资产，交付给受托人。\n\n第五项请求\n（确认判决：Leading Shine NY（纽约领耀）为债务人的另一自我，并命令将Leading Shine NY的资产交付给受托人）158\n\n92. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至68段所载的指控。\n\n157 Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对[该公司]行使了相当大的权力……以至于完全无视公司形式，并将[其]资产视为仅由其本人管理。”）（强调系后加）。158 本项请求仅在适用情况下针对被告Leading Shine NY及/或其声称的唯一成员Mei Guo或Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）寻求救济。\n\n93. 特拉华州法律适用于本项另一自我主张，因为Leading Shine NY为特拉华州实体。159\n\n94. 根据特拉华州刺破公司面纱的两项检验标准，对于债务人与Leading Shine NY之间关系适用特拉华州另一自我分析的法院，将重点考察：（1）债务人与Leading Shine NY是否作为单一经济单元运营；以及（2）是否存在整体性的不公正或不公平要素。在确定债务人与Leading Shine NY是否作为单一经济单元运营时，适用特拉华州法律的法院将考虑若干因素，其中包括Leading Shine NY是否资本充足、是否遵守公司形式手续，以及是否为债务人的幌子。160 该“因素清单并非穷尽，且任何单一因素均不具有决定性。”161\n\n95. 债务人对Leading Shine NY行使控制和支配，以致Leading Shine NY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。Leading Shine NY为债务人的另一自我，原因包括：\n\na. Leading Shine NY由债务人通过其代理人管理。\n\nb. Leading Shine NY由债务人出资。\n\nc. Leading Shine NY使用与债务人其他空壳公司相同的地址。\n\nd. 债务人利用Leading Shine NY向债务人的其他空壳公司转移资金。\n\ne. 债务人利用Leading Shine NY支付其费用。\n\n159 参见，例如，Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar（Universitas Education, LLC 诉 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.”）。160 Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG（Blair 诉 Infineon Tech., AG）, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010)（指出美国联邦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营时所考虑的因素，其中尤其不包括有关个人是否为该实体的股东，但包括“严重资本不足；未遵守公司形式……[以及]公司是否仅为幌子。”）。161 同上，at 471。\n\n- f. Leading Shine NY 除持有债务人的财产和/或支付其费用外，没有其他业务。\n- g. 债务人就其对 Leading Shine NY 的控制权主张第五修正案权利。\n\n96. 在所有相关期间，债务人均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，寻求受托人在此所请求的救济。\n\n97. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544，请求作出裁定：（1）宣告：(a) Leading Shine NY 在所有期间均为债务人的另一自我；(b) Leading Shine NY 在债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交破产申请之日前任何时间持有的任何及全部资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Leading Shine NY 自债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交 chapter 11 破产申请之日起至今任何时间持有的任何及全部资产，视具体情况而定，曾构成并构成债务人 chapter 11 破产财团的财产；以及（2）命令将 Leading Shine NY 的任何及全部资产移交给受托人。\n\n第六项请求\n（宣告债务人为 Leading Shine NY 和/或其资产的衡平所有人，并命令将 Leading Shine NY 和/或其资产的所有权移交给受托人）162\n\n98. 受托人重述并再次主张第 1 至 68 段所载的指控。\n\n162 本项请求仅就被告 Leading Shine NY 和/或其名义上的唯一成员 Mei Guo（郭梅）或 Yvette Wang（王雁），视具体情况而定，请求救济。\n\n99. 上文所讨论的、证明 Leading Shine NY 为债务人另一自我的相同事实，也支持债务人为 Leading Shine NY 和/或其资产的衡平所有人的结论。163\n\n100. 在所有相关期间，债务人均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，寻求受托人在此所请求的救济。\n\n101. 由于 Leading Shine NY 由债务人衡平所有，于申请日之后，对 Leading Shine NY 的所有权及公司控制权，以及/或 Leading Shine NY 的资产，均为破产财团的财产。\n\n102. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544，请求作出裁定：（1）宣告由 Mei Guo 或 Yvette Wang 名义上持有的 Leading Shine NY 所有权权益，以及/或 Leading Shine NY 的资产，均为债务人 chapter 11 破产财团的财产；以及（2）命令将 Leading Shine NY 的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，以及/或 Leading Shine NY 的资产，交还给受托人。\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. 就第一项请求，根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544，作出命令：（1）宣告：(a) Lamp Capital 在所有期间均为债务人的另一自我；(b) Lamp Capital 在债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交破产申请之日前任何时间持有的任何及全部资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Lamp Capital 自债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交 chapter 11 破产申请之日起至今任何时间持有的任何及全部资产，视具体情况而定，曾构成并构成债务人 chapter 11 破产财团的财产；以及（2）命令将 Lamp Capital 的任何及全部资产移交给受托人；\n\n163 Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc.（Freeman 诉 Complex Computing Co., Inc.）, 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对[该公司]行使了相当大的权力……以至于完全无视公司形式，并将[其]资产视为仅由其本人管理。”）（着重号为后加）。\n\n2. 就第二项请求，根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544，作出命令：（1）宣告由 Infinity Treasury Management 名义上持有的 Lamp Capital 所有权权益和/或 Lamp Capital 的资产，均为债务人 chapter 11 破产财团的财产；以及（2）命令将 Lamp Capital 的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，以及/或 Lamp Capital 的资产，交还给受托人；\n\n3. 就第三项请求，根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544，作出命令：（1）宣告：(a) Hudson Diamond NY 在所有期间均为债务人的另一自我；(b) Hudson Diamond NY 在债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交破产申请之日前任何时间持有的任何及全部资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Hudson Diamond NY 自债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交 chapter 11 破产申请之日起至今任何时间持有的任何及全部资产，视具体情况而定，曾构成并构成债务人 chapter 11 破产财团的财产；以及（2）命令将 Hudson Diamond NY 的任何及全部资产移交给受托人；\n\n4. 就第四项请求，根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544，作出命令：（1）宣告由 Hudson Diamond Holding 名义上持有的 Hudson Diamond NY 所有权权益和/或 Hudson Diamond NY 的资产，均为债务人 chapter 11 破产财团的财产；以及（2）命令将 Hudson Diamond NY 的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，以及/或 Hudson Diamond NY 的资产，交还给受托人；\n\n5. 就第五项请求，根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544，作出命令：（1）宣告：(a) Leading Shine NY 在所有期间均为债务人的另一自我；(b) Leading Shine NY 在债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交破产申请之日前任何时间持有的任何及全部资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Leading Shine NY 自债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交 chapter 11 破产申请之日起至今任何时间持有的任何及全部资产，视具体情况而定，曾构成并构成债务人 chapter 11 破产财团的财产；以及（2）命令将 Leading Shine NY 的任何及全部资产移交给受托人；\n\n6. 就第六项请求，根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544，作出命令：（1）宣告由 Mei Guo 或 Yvette Wang 名义上持有的 Leading Shine NY 所有权权益，以及/或 Leading Shine NY 的资产，均为债务人 chapter 11 破产财团的财产；以及（2）命令将 Leading Shine NY 的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，以及/或 Leading Shine NY 的资产，交还给受托人；\n\n7. 本案发生的合理律师费、诉讼费用及开支；以及\n\n8. 法院在具体情形下认为公正、适当或符合衡平原则的其他及进一步救济。\n\n[本页其余部分故意留白]\n\n日期：October 26, 2023\nLUC A. DESPINS\nNew Haven, Connecticut\nCHAPTER 11 受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglass Barron\n\nAvram E. Luft（待准许 pro hac vice）\nDouglass Barron（待准许 pro hac vice）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（待准许 pro hac vice）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\nChapter 11 受托人代理律师","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","GTV","Saraca","HCHK","Despins","Himalaya","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","Je","William Je","GETTR","CIPA","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":36,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":13282,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:45:47"}