{"id":"court_ctb_247_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":247,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ In re : Chapter 11 : Ho Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073 : Debtor.<sup>1</sup> : : \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n# **MOTION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF DEBTOR FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT AN EXAMINATION OF HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENT (USA) LIMITED, LLC AND TO SUBPOENA PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. BANKR. P. 2004 AND 9016 AND D. CONN. BANKR. L.R. 2004-1**\n\nThe Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"Committee\") of Debtor and Debtor in Possession, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby submits this Motion for Authorization to Conduct an Examination of HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC and Subpoena Production of Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 and 9016 and D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 2004-1 (the \"Rule 2004 Motion\")\n\nIn support of its Rule 2004 Motion, the Committee respectfully represents as follows:\n\n## **RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY**\n\n1. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"). Since that time, the Debtor has remained a debtor-in-possession pursuant to §§1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\n2. No trustee or examiner has yet been appointed in the Debtor's bankruptcy case, although on March 19, 2022, the United States Trustee (\"UST\") filed a Motion for Order Directing Appointment of an Examiner, or in the alternative, Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Examiner/Trustee Motion\").\n\n3. Oppositions to the Examiner/Trustee Motion have been filed by the Committee, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\"), and creditors Rui Ma and Weican Meng. On April 13, 2022, after a hearing held on the Examiner/Trustee Motion and other motions and applications filed in the case, the Examiner/Trustee Motion was scheduled for a status conference for scheduling purposes on April 27, 2022.\n\n4. On March 21, 2022, the Committee was officially appointed by the United States Trustee and on March 28, 2022, selected Pullman & Comley, LLC (\"P&C\") as its counsel.<sup>2</sup>\n\n5. On March 1, 2022, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") filed its Motion of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code (the \"PAX Motion\").\n\n6. On March 15, 2022, the Debtor filed its Objection to the PAX Motion, to which PAX filed a Reply on March 18, 2022 (ECF No. 98) (the \"PAX Reply\"). On March 28, 2022, the Debtor filed a Supplemental Objection to the PAX Motion (the \"Debtor Supp. Obj.\"), and on April 6, 2022, the Committee filed its Position Statement in limited support of the PAX Motion.\n\n7. By the PAX Motion, PAX seeks to return to the PAX Litigation for purposes of compelling the Debtor to return to U.S. jurisdiction a yacht known as the Lady May, which the\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Committee filed an application for authority to employ P&C on April 5, 2022. The application has been scheduled for a hearing on April 27, 2022.\n\nDebtor and/or the registered owners of the Lady May had been ordered not to remove, but did remove, from the New York court's jurisdiction well over one year ago (PAX Motion, Ex. B, Declaration of Peter Friedman, hereinafter the \"Friedman Dec.,\" ¶2, Ex. 1, February 9, 2022 Decision and Order of Judge Barry R. Ostrager, the \"February 9, 2022 Decision,\" at 2).\n\n8. For his contemptuous conduct in failing to return the Lady May, the Debtor was ordered to pay a contempt fine to PAX in the amount of \\$134,000,000 within five days of service of Judge Ostrager's Final Order of Civil Contempt, failing which the court would \"exercise its full authority under New York Judiciary Law § 753\" (Friedman Dec., Ex. 5). The Debtor filed his voluntary petition the day before the contempt fine was due to be paid.\n\n9. Notwithstanding Judge Ostrager's finding that the Debtor not only controls, but \"has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May,\" as it \"appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht\" (February 9, 2022 Decision at 8), the Debtor continues to maintain that the Lady May is owned by an entity known as HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), which is owned by his daughter, Mei Guo.\n\n10. At a February 2, 2022 hearing before Judge Ostrager, Ms. Guo testified that HK (USA) advised her to move the Lady May out of the New York court's jurisdiction and that her brother, Qiang Guo, bought the Lady May for her and is the sole owner of HK (USA) (February 9, 2022 Decision at 5-6).\n\n11. At the April 13, 2022 hearing on the PAX Motion, counsel for HK USA represented that HK USA's only asset was the Lady May, but later in the hearing, HK USA offered to post a \\$37 million cash bond in order to free the Debtor from having to further defend the PAX Motion and, if granted, from then having to confront Judge Ostrager for the Debtor's acts of contempt. A\n\nstatus conference to discuss the particulars of the bond was held on April 18, 2022; if the PAX Motion cannot be resolved, the PAX Motion and the objections and responses thereto have been scheduled for a hearing on April 27, 2022.\n\n12. On March 16, 2022, the Debtor filed a series of applications seeking to retain Brown Rudnick LLP as his counsel, Stretto, Inc. as a claims and noticing agent, and Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. as his financial advisor. Objections to these applications were filed by the UST, PAX, the Committee and creditors, Rui Ma and Weican Meng; at a hearing held on April 13, 2022, the Debtor withdrew his application to retain Stretto, Inc and the other applications and objections were scheduled for a continued hearing on April 27, 2022.\n\n13. On March 22, 2022, the Debtor filed a Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing, and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief (the \"DIP Motion\").\n\n14. By the DIP Motion and the loan for which it seeks court approval (the \"DIP Loan\"), the Debtor and his son, Qiang Guo (the \"Son\")<sup>3</sup> , through the Son's company, HK (USA), have dangled the carrot of a postpetition loan to the Debtor of up to \\$8 million to fund professional fees and other administrative expenses to be incurred in this case, but it comes with termination events that leverage and improperly attempt to influence the direction of this case and the chapter 11 process. Objections to the DIP Motion have been filed by the UST, PAX, the Committee and creditors, Rui Ma and Weican Meng. After a hearing held on April 13, 2022, a continued hearing on the DIP Motion and the objections thereto was scheduled for April 27, 2022.\n\n<sup>3</sup> The proposed loan is, in name, to be extended by Golden Spring (New York), Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\"), which the Debtor maintains is \"an entity owned and controlled by [his] son\" (DIP Motion ¶2). The Debtor acknowledges that, in effect, it is his Son who is offering to provide the loan (DIP Motion ¶15) (\"… the Debtor asked his son to extend additional credit to that end\").\n\n15. On March 22, 2022, the Debtor filed a Motion for Entry of an Order Authorizing (I) Employment and Payment of Professionals Utilized in the Ordinary Course, (II) Payment of Prepetition Claims, and (III) Granting Related Relief (the \"OCP Motion\"). The OCP Motion was denied after a hearing held on April 13, 2022.\n\n16. In the Debtor's application to retain Brown Rudnick, it was disclosed that Brown Rudnick was paid a \\$1 million retainer with the proceeds of a loan to the Debtor from another one of his Son's companies, Lamp Capital, LLC.\n\n17. Another significant asset owned by the Debtor, but which he maintains is held in trust for his Son, is his interest in the Sherry-Netherland apartment located at 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, which the Debtor purchased in March 2015 for \\$67.5 million through Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever NY\") (the \"Sherry-Netherland Apartment\") (*See* PAX Motion n. 36 and materials cited therein, and Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions (Kwok Dec.\") ¶17).\n\n18. Of particular relevance to the instant motion, the February 9, 2022 Decision found that:\n\n- the Debtor had engaged in \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members\" (p. 1)\n- the Debtor had \"secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members\" (p. 1)\n- the Debtor \"and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas\" in violation of a September 2020 restraining order (p. 2)\n- the Debtor's daughter testified \"that it was HK (USA) that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place\" (p. 6)\n\n• according to testimony of the managing director of the Lady May's yacht management company, he communicated with Golden Spring and HK (USA), apparently the legal titleholder, concerning the Lady May (p. 6).\n\n19. In his declaration, the Debtor represents that among the purposes for filing his chapter 11 case were \"to … (b) afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate [his] assets, liabilities, and financial affairs, given what [he] perceive[d] to be misunderstandings in that regard; [and] (c) establish what assets are estate property and, in turn, available for distribution to holders of allowed claims\" (Kwok Dec. ¶3).\n\n20. HK USA filed an appearance in this matter and on April 11, 2022, HK USA filed a Statement concerning the Pax Motion, again implying its intent to challenge Judge Ostrager's rulings, and offered additional details as to the status of the Lady May. ECF No. 203.\n\n21. On April 10, 2022, the Debtor filed a Notice of Filing of Proposed Chapter 11 Plan of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Plan,\" ECF No. 197), wherein the Debtor proposed that HK USA would contribute the Boat to the Creditor Trust (as defined therein) and identified HK USA as a Plan Funder, wherein HK USA would be eligible for a release under the Plan.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n22. This Court has jurisdiction over the Rule 2004 Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein are 11 U.S.C. § 1103(c)(2), 105(a), Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004, and D. Conn. LBR 2004-1.\n\n### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n23. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004, the Committee seeks an order, substantially in the form attached hereto authorizing: (i) the Committee to take a Rule 2004 examination of HK (USA), by a proper corporate representative; and (ii) issue a subpoena to HK (USA), substantially\n\nin the form attached hereto as Exhibit \"A\" (the \"Subpoena\"). The Subpoena shall direct HK (USA) to: (i) produce documents responsive to a Subpoena within 14 calendar days of service of the Subpoena; and (ii) appear for an examination under oath on a date acceptable to the Committee within 21 calendar days after the production of documents by HK (USA) in compliance with the Subpoena.\n\n#### **BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n24. Bankruptcy Rule 2004(a) permits \"the examination of any entity.\" The examination, consisting of testimony and document production, \"may relate only to the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to matter which may affect the administration of the debtor's estate,\" and in a chapter 11 case, \"the examination may also relate to the operation of any business and the desirability of its continuance, the source of any money or property acquired or to be acquired by the debtor for purposes of consummating a plan and the consideration given or offered therefor, and any other matter relevant to the case or to the formulation of a plan.\" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b) (emphasis added).\n\n25. Section 1103(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code tracks Bankruptcy Rule 2004(b) by authorizing a creditors' committee to \"investigate the acts, conduct, assets, liabilities, and financial condition of the debtor, the operation of the debtor's business and the desirability of the continuance of such business, and any other matter relevant to the case or to the formulation of a plan.\"\n\n26. Bankruptcy Rule 2004(c) provides that \"[t]he attendance of an entity for examination and the production of documentary evidence may be compelled in the manner provided in [Bankruptcy] Rule 9016 for the attendance of witnesses at a hearing or trial.\" Fed R. Bankr. P. 2004(c).\n\n27. \"The purpose of a Rule 2004 examination is to assist a party in interest in determining the nature and extent of the bankruptcy estate, revealing assets, examining transactions and assessing whether wrongdoing has occurred.\" *In re Transmar Commodity Group Ltd.*, 2018 WL 4006324, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted). This includes assisting the investigator in revealing the nature and extent of the estate and in discovering assets of the debtor that may have been intentionally or unintentionally concealed*. See In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996).\n\n28. A third party who has a relationship with the debtor may be the subject of a Rule 2004 examination in order to aid in the discovery of assets. *See In re Ionesphere Clubs, Inc*., 156 B.R. 414, 432 (S.D.N.Y.), *aff'd*, 17 F.3d 600 (2d Cir. 1994). \"[C]ourts routinely permit the examination of witnesses having knowledge of the debtor's acts, conduct, liabilities, assets, etc.\" *In re Transmar Commodity Group, Ltd.*, Case No. 16-13625, 2018 WL 4006324, at \\*9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (citation omitted).\n\n29. More specifically, it has been held by numerous court decisions that \"the use of Rule 2004 discovery to identify or evaluate possible claims against [a third party] fits squarely within the scope of Rule 2004.\" *In re Transmar Commodity Group, Ltd.*, Case No. 16-13625, 2018 WL 4006324, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (citing *In re Gawker Media LLC*, No. 16-11700, 2017 WL 2804870, at \\*6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2017), which granted a trustee's Rule 2004 discovery where the stated purpose of the request was to determine whether trustee should commence litigation against the examinees); and *In re Hughes*, 281 B.R. 224, 226 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002), stating that \"the investigation of potential claims on behalf of a debtor is not an improper use of Rule 2004 discovery.\").\n\n30. Indeed, it has been observed that \"[l]egitimate goals of Rule 2004 examinations include discovering assets, examining transactions, and determining whether wrongdoing has occurred.\" *In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC*, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted). *See also In re Symington*, 209 B.R. 678, 683-84 (Bankr. D. Md. 1997) (\"obvious purposes [of Rule 2004] are the discovery of assets of the estate and the exposure of fraudulent conduct.\") (citations omitted); *In re Ecam Publications, Inc.*, 131 B.R. 556, 560 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991) (rejecting argument by witnesses that trustee is improperly using Rule 2004 to take discovery in preparation for asserting claims against them and noting that Rule 2004's intended use is to \"determine whether there are grounds to bring an action to recover property of the estate.\")\n\n31. The permissible scope of a Rule 2004 examination is very broad and is commonly recognized as in the nature of a \"fishing expedition.\" *See In re Corso*, 328 B.R. 375, 383 (E.D.N.Y. 2005); *In re Hughes*, 281 B.R. 224, 226 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002); *In re Balakis*, 199 B.R. 443, 447 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1996); *In re Table Talk, Inc*., 51 B.R. 143, 145 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1985).\n\n32. It has been recognized that a Rule 2004 examination may be ordered *ex parte*, s*ee In re Meticom, Inc.*, 318 B.R. 263, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), and that \"[t]he Bankruptcy Court has the discretion to grant a request for a Rule 2004 examination.\" *In re Cambridge Analytica, LLC*¸ 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019). *See also In re Bd. of Dirs. of Hopewell Int'l Ins. Ltd.,* 258 B.R. 580, 587 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Rule 2004 affords the court \"significant discretion\").\n\n33. When the purpose of the examination and document requests is not to gain an advantage in pending litigation or to abuse or harass, the requests should be granted. *See In re Meticom, Inc.*, 318 B.R. 263, 268 (\"good cause\" for Rule 2004 examination is generally \"shown\n\nif the Rule 2004 examination is necessary to establish the claim of the party seeking the examination, or if denial of such request would cause the examiner undue hardship or injustice\").\n\n34. There is abundant cause to authorize a Rule 2004 examination of, and document production from, HK (USA), which is likely one of corporate entities or \"family members\" where Judge Ostrager found the Debtor to have parked his assets or, as further found by Judge Ostrager, is among \"the maze of corporate entities\" or \"family members\" used by the Debtor to secret his assets. Additionally, the Judge Ortrager found that the Debtor not only controls, but \"has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May,\" as it \"appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht\" (February 9, 2022 Decision at 8).\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Committee respectfully requests that the Court grant the Rule 2004 Motion by entry of an order substantially in the form annexed hereto and grant such other or further relief as it may deem just, equitable and proper.\n\nDated: Bridgeport, Connecticut April 22, 2022\n\n### **OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF HO WAN KWOK**\n\nBy: */s/Irve J. Goldman* Irve J. Goldman Jonathan A. Kaplan Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street, 8th Floor PO Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006 (203) 330-2213 [igoldman@pullcom.com](mailto:igoldman@pullcom.com)\n\nIts Attorneys (Application Pending)","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分院\n\n_________________________________________________\n关于：\n第11章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n案号：22-50073\n债务人。1\n_________________________________________________\n\n债务人无担保债权人官方委员会依据《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第2004条和第9016条以及《康涅狄格区破产本地规则》第2004-1条请求授权对HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENT (USA) LIMITED, LLC进行质询并传票调取文件的动议\n\n债务人及留任债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”）的无担保债权人官方委员会（下称“委员会”）特此提交本依据《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》（Fed. R. Bankr. P.）第2004条和第9016条以及《康涅狄格区破产本地规则》（D. Conn. Bankr. L.R.）第2004-1条请求授权对HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC进行质询并传票调取文件的动议（下称“《第2004条动议》”）。\n\n为支持其《第2004条动议》，委员会恭敬陈述如下：\n\n相关程序历史\n\n1. 2022年2月15日（下称“申请日”），债务人依据《美国法典》第11篇（下称《破产法典》）第11章提出了自愿救济申请。自那时起，债务人依据《破产法典》第1107条和第1108条一直作为留任债务人。\n\n1 债务人已知姓名包括：郭文贵（Guo Wengui）；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n2. 债务人的破产案件中尚未指定受托人或审查官，尽管在2022年3月19日，美国联邦破产受托人（United States Trustee，下称“UST”）提交了《关于请求下达命令指定审查官，或者选择性指定第11章受托人的动议》（下称“《审查官/受托人动议》”）。\n\n3. 委员会、Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，下称“PAX”）以及债权人Rui Ma（马蕊）和Weican Meng（孟维参）已针对《审查官/受托人动议》提交了异议。2022年4月13日，在就《审查官/受托人动议》及本案提交的其他动议和申请举行听证会后，该《审查官/受托人动议》被排期于2022年4月27日举行确定日程的进展会议。\n\n4. 2022年3月21日，委员会由美国联邦破产受托人正式指定，并于2022年3月28日选定Pullman & Comley, LLC（下称“P&C”）作为其法律顾问。2\n\n5. 2022年3月1日，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）提交了其《Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.请求下达确认自动中止不适用或选择性依据〈破产法典〉第362(d)(2)条免除自动中止的命令的动议》（下称“《PAX动议》”）。\n\n6. 2022年3月15日，债务人对《PAX动议》提交了反对意见，PAX于2022年3月18日对此提交了答辩状（ECF No. 98）（下称“《PAX答辩状》”）。2022年3月28日，债务人提交了针对《PAX动议》的补充反对意见（下称“《债务人补充反对意见》”），2022年4月6日，委员会提交了有限支持《PAX动议》的立场声明。\n\n7. 通过《PAX动议》，PAX寻求重回PAX诉讼程序，以便强令债务人将名为Lady May（梅号）的游艇运回美国管辖范围内，而\n\n2 委员会于2022年4月5日提交了聘请P&C的授权申请。该申请已排期于2022年4月27日举行听证会。\n\n债务人和/或Lady May的登记所有人此前已被命令不得将其移出纽约法院的管辖范围，但在一年多以前却将其移出（《PAX动议》，附件B，Peter Friedman的声明，以下简称“《Friedman声明》”，第2段；附件1，Barry R. Ostrager法官2022年2月9日的裁决与命令，下称“《2022年2月9日裁决》”，第2页）。\n\n8. 因其未能归还Lady May的蔑视法庭行为，债务人被命令在Ostrager法官的《民事蔑视法庭最终命令》送达后五日内向PAX支付金额为$134,000,000的蔑视法庭罚款，若未支付，法院将“充分行使《纽约州司法法》第753条赋予的全部职权”（《Friedman声明》，附件5）。债务人在该笔蔑视法庭罚款到期应付的前一天提出了自愿申请。\n\n9. 尽管Ostrager法官认定债务人不仅控制而且“对Lady May拥有远超实益权益的权利”，“因为看起来是他提供了购买游艇的资金，且他是主要享有该游艇使用权的人”（《2022年2月9日裁决》第8页），债务人仍坚称Lady May由一家名为HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC（下称“HK USA”）的实体所有，而该实体由其女儿Mei Guo（郭美）所有。\n\n10. 在2022年2月2日Ostrager法官主持的听证会上，郭女士作证称是HK (USA)建议她将Lady May移出纽约法院的管辖范围，并且她的哥哥Qiang Guo（郭强）为她购买了Lady May且是HK (USA)的唯一所有人（《2022年2月9日裁决》第5-6页）。\n\n11. 在2022年4月13日就《PAX动议》举行的听证会上，HK USA的法律顾问陈述称HK USA的唯一资产就是Lady May，但在听证会稍后，HK USA提出提供一笔$37 million的现金保证金，以使债务人免于进一步就《PAX动议》进行抗辩，并且在该动议获准的情况下，免于随后因债务人的蔑视法庭行为而不得不面对Ostrager法官。\n\n讨论该保证金细节的进展会议已于2022年4月18日举行；若《PAX动议》无法解决，该《PAX动议》及针对其提出的异议和回应已排期于2022年4月27日举行听证会。\n\n12. 2022年3月16日，债务人提交了一系列申请，请求聘请Brown Rudnick LLP作为其法律顾问，Stretto, Inc.作为债权申报和通知代理人，以及Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.作为其财务顾问。UST、PAX、委员会以及债权人Rui Ma和Weican Meng针对这些申请提交了异议；在2022年4月13日举行的听证会上，债务人撤回了聘请Stretto, Inc的申请，其他申请和异议则被排期于2022年4月27日继续举行听证会。\n\n13. 2022年3月22日，债务人提交了《关于请求下达(I)授权债务人获得无担保、次级申请后融资，(II)排期举行临时和最终听证会，以及(III)给予相关救济的临时和最终DIP命令的动议》（下称“《DIP动议》”）。\n\n14. 通过《DIP动议》及其请求法院批准的贷款（下称“《DIP贷款》”），债务人及其儿子Qiang Guo（郭强，下称“儿子”）3通过儿子的公司HK (USA)，抛出了向债务人提供高达$8 million申请后贷款的诱饵，以支付本案中将发生的专业人员费用和其他行政管理费用，但该贷款附带的终止事件构成了施压，并企图不当影响本案的走向和第11章程序。UST、PAX、委员会以及债权人Rui Ma和Weican Meng已针对《DIP动议》提交了异议。在2022年4月13日举行听证会后，针对《DIP动议》及其异议的继续听证会已排期于2022年4月27日举行。\n\n3 拟议的贷款名义上由Golden Spring (New York), Ltd.（下称“Golden Spring”）提供，债务人坚称该公司是“一家由[其]儿子所有并控制的实体”（《DIP动议》第2段）。债务人承认，实际上是其儿子提议提供该笔贷款（《DIP动议》第15段）（“……债务人为此请求其儿子提供额外信贷”）。\n\n15. 2022年3月22日，债务人提交了《关于请求下达授权(I)聘请并在日常业务过程中向受聘专业人员支付报酬，(II)支付申请前债权，以及(III)给予相关救济的命令的动议》（下称“《OCP动议》”）。在2022年4月13日举行听证会后，《OCP动议》被驳回。\n\n16. 在债务人聘请Brown Rudnick的申请中披露，Brown Rudnick收到的$1 million预付聘金来自于其儿子名下另一家公司Lamp Capital, LLC向债务人提供的一笔贷款的收益款项。\n\n17. 由债务人拥有、但其坚称是为其儿子代持的另一项重大资产，是其在位于纽约州纽约市第五大道781号的Sherry-Netherland公寓中的权益，债务人于2015年3月通过Genever Holdings LLC（下称“Genever NY”）以$67.5 million购买了该公寓（下称“Sherry-Netherland公寓”）（参见《PAX动议》脚注36及其中引用的材料，以及《Ho Wan Kwok先生支持第11章案件和若干动议的声明》（下称“《Kwok声明》”）第17段）。\n\n18. 与本动议特别相关的是，《2022年2月9日裁决》认定：\n\n- 债务人曾“通过将其实质性个人资产存放于一系列公司、受信任的心腹和家庭成员处，实施了逃避并欺诈其债权人的行为”（第1页）\n- 债务人“将他的资产隐匿于错综复杂的公司实体迷宫中以及家庭成员处”（第1页）\n- 债务人“及其同伙安排Lady May于2020年10月初驶往佛罗里达州，随后驶往巴哈马”，违反了2020年9月的限制令（第2页）\n- 债务人的女儿作证称“是HK (USA)建议她游艇需要移往更温暖的地方”（第6页）\n- 根据Lady May游艇管理公司常务董事的证言，他曾就Lady May与Golden Spring及HK (USA)（显然为法定所有权人）进行沟通（第6页）。\n\n19. 在其声明中，债务人陈述其提出第11章案件的目的包括“……(b) 鉴于[其]认为在资产方面存在误解，为利益相关方提供调查[其]资产、负债和财务事务的有效机会；[以及] (c) 查明哪些资产属于破产财产，从而可用于向获准债权的持有者进行分配”（《Kwok声明》第3段）。\n\n20. HK USA在本案中提交了出庭通知，并于2022年4月11日提交了关于《PAX动议》的陈述，再次暗示其意图质疑Ostrager法官的裁定，并就Lady May的现状提供了更多细节。ECF No. 203。\n\n21. 2022年4月10日，债务人提交了《关于提交Ho Wan Kwok拟议第11章计划的通知》（下称“《计划》”，ECF No. 197），其中债务人提议HK USA将该船只注入债权人信托（定义见该计划），并将HK USA列为计划出资人，据此HK USA将有资格在《计划》项下获得免责。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n22. 依据《美国法典》第28篇第157条和第1334条，本法院对《第2004条动议》享有管辖权。依据《美国法典》第28篇第1408条和第1409条，本审判地正当。本动议所寻求救济的法定依据为《美国法典》第11篇第1103(c)(2)条、第105(a)条、《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第2004条以及《康涅狄格区本地破产规则》第2004-1条。\n\n所请求的救济\n\n23. 依据《破产规则》第2004条，委员会请求下达大体符合本动议后附格式的命令，授权：(i) 委员会通过适格的公司代表对HK (USA)进行第2004条质询；以及(ii) 向HK (USA)发出大体符合本动议后附附件“A”格式的传票（下称“《传票》”）。\n\n该《传票》应指令HK (USA)：(i) 在《传票》送达后14个日历日内提交对《传票》作出响应的文件；以及(ii) 在HK (USA)按照《传票》提交文件后21个日历日内的委员会可接受之日期，出席宣誓质询。\n\n所请求救济的依据\n\n24. 《破产规则》（Bankruptcy Rule）第 2004(a) 条允许“对任何实体进行询问调查”。该询问调查由证词陈述和文件提交组成，“可仅涉及债务人的行为、作为或财产，或涉及债务人的债务和财务状况，或涉及可能影响债务人破产财产管理的事项”，而在第 11 章案件中，“询问调查还可涉及任何业务的运营及其实续的可行性、债务人为了达成重组计划之目的已经取得或将要取得的任何款项或财产的来源以及为此给付或提供的对价，以及与案件或重组计划制定相关的任何其他事项”。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)（后加强调）。\n\n25. 《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 1103(c)(2) 条对应《破产规则》第 2004(b) 条，授权债权人委员会“调查债务人的作为、行为、资产、负债和财务状况、债务人业务的运营以及该等业务存续的可行性，以及与案件或重组计划制定相关的任何其他事项”。\n\n26. 《破产规则》第 2004(c) 条规定，“可按照［《破产规则》］第 9016 条规定的在听证会或审判中强迫证人出庭的方式，强迫实体出庭接受询问调查并提交书面证据”。Fed R. Bankr. P. 2004(c)。\n\n27. “第 2004 条询问调查的目的是协助利害关系方确定破产财产的性质和范围、揭示资产、审查交易并评估是否发生了不当行为。”In re Transmar Commodity Group Ltd., 2018 WL 4006324, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区破产法院）Aug. 17, 2018)（内部引文和出处省略）。这包括协助调查人员揭示破产财产的性质和范围，并发现债务人可能故意或无意隐匿的资产。参见 In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y.（纽约北区破产法院）1996)。\n\n28. 与债务人存在关联的第三方可以成为第 2004 条询问调查的对象，以协助发现资产。参见 In re Ionesphere Clubs, Inc., 156 B.R. 414, 432 (S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦地区法院）), aff'd, 17 F.3d 600 (2d Cir.（第二巡回上诉法院）1994)。“法院常规允许对知悉债务人作为、行为、负债、资产等情况的证人进行询问调查。”In re Transmar Commodity Group, Ltd., 案号 16-13625, 2018 WL 4006324, at *9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)（引文省略）。\n\n29. 更具体而言，多项法院裁决认定，“利用第 2004 条证据开示来确定或评估针对［第三方］的潜在诉求，完全属于第 2004 条的管辖范围”。In re Transmar Commodity Group, Ltd., 案号 16-13625, 2018 WL 4006324, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)（引用 In re Gawker Media LLC, 案号 16-11700, 2017 WL 2804870, at *6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2017)，该案中请求的声明目的为确定受托人是否应当对被询问人提起诉讼，法院据此准予了受托人的第 2004 条证据开示；以及 In re Hughes, 281 B.R. 224, 226 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)，指出“代表债务人调查潜在诉求并非对第 2004 条证据开示的不当使用”）。\n\n30. 确实，已有判例指出，“第 2004 条询问调查的正当目标包括发现资产、审查交易以及确定是否发生了不当行为”。In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del.（特拉华区破产法院）2016)（内部引文和出处省略）。亦参见 In re Symington, 209 B.R. 678, 683-84 (Bankr. D. Md.（马里兰区破产法院）1997)（“［第 2004 条］的显见目的是发现破产财产的资产并揭露欺诈行为”）（引文省略）；In re Ecam Publications, Inc., 131 B.R. 556, 560 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991)（驳回证人关于受托人不正当地利用第 2004 条进行证据开示以为对其主张诉求做准备的辩解，并指出第 2004 条的既定用途是“确定是否有理由提起追回破产财产的诉讼”）。\n\n31. 第 2004 条询问调查的允许范围极其宽泛，通常被公认为具有“摸底调查”（fishing expedition）的性质。参见 In re Corso, 328 B.R. 375, 383 (E.D.N.Y.（纽约东区联邦地区法院）2005)；In re Hughes, 281 B.R. 224, 226 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)；In re Balakis, 199 B.R. 443, 447 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.（纽约东区破产法院）1996)；In re Table Talk, Inc., 51 B.R. 143, 145 (Bankr. D. Mass.（马萨诸塞区破产法院）1985)。\n\n32. 司法实践已确认，第 2004 条询问调查可依单方申请作出裁定，参见 In re Meticom, Inc., 318 B.R. 263, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)，且“破产法院拥有准予第 2004 条询问调查请求的自由裁量权”。In re Cambridge Analytica, LLC, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)。亦参见 In re Bd. of Dirs. of Hopewell Int'l Ins. Ltd., 258 B.R. 580, 587 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)（第 2004 条赋予法院“重大自由裁量权”）。\n\n33. 当询问调查和文件提交请求的目的不是为了在未决诉讼中获取优势，也不是为了滥用权利或骚扰时，该等请求应当获得准予。参见 In re Meticom, Inc., 318 B.R. 263, 268（进行第 2004 条询问调查的“正当理由”通常在“如果第 2004 条询问调查对于确立寻求调查一方的主张是必要的，或者如果拒绝该请求将给调查方造成不当困难以致不公时得以证明”）。\n\n34. 有充分理由授权对 HK (USA) 进行第 2004 条询问调查并要求其提交文件，该实体很可能是 Ostrager 法官认定的债务人存放其资产的法人实体或“家族成员”之一，或者正如 Ostrager 法官进一步认定的，属于债务人用来隐匿其资产的“错综复杂的法人实体网络”或“家族成员”之一。此外，Ostrager 法官认定债务人不仅控制着“梅夫人号”（Lady May），而且“在梅夫人号上拥有的远不止是受益权益”，因为“看来是他提供了购买该游艇的资金，而且他是主要享有该游艇使用权的人”（2022 年 2 月 9 日裁决书第 8 页）。\n\n为此，委员会谨请求法院准予第 2004 条动议，签署大体采用本动议附件形式的命令，并给予法院认为公正、公平和适当的其他或进一步救济。\n\n日期：康涅狄格州布里奇波特 2022 年 4 月 22 日\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）官方无担保债权人委员会\n\n签署人：/s/Irve J. Goldman\nIrve J. Goldman\nJonathan A. Kaplan\nPullman & Comley, LLC\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor\nPO Box 7006\nBridgeport, CT 06601-7006\n(203) 330-2213\n[igoldman@pullcom.com]\n\n其代理律师（申请尚在审理中）","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":98,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":197,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":203,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3056,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:27:55"}