{"id":"court_ctb_248_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":248,"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 GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD. 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 Golden Spring (New York), Ltd. 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 Golden Spring 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 Golden Spring (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\n\n3\n\nacts of contempt. A status conference to discuss the particulars of the bond was scheduled for 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\") 3 , through the Son's company, Golden Spring, 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\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\ncontinued hearing on the DIP Motion and the objections thereto was scheduled for April 27, 2022.\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 Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place\" (p. 6)\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- 19. In his declaration, the Debtor represents that among the purposes for filing his\n\nchapter 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\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n20. 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\n21. 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 Golden Spring, by a proper corporate representative; and (ii) issue a subpoena to Golden Spring, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit \"A\" (the \"Subpoena\"). The Subpoena shall direct Golden Spring 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 Golden Spring in compliance with the Subpoena.\n\n#### **BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n22. 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\n23. 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\n24. 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\n25. \"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\n\n7\n\nthe 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\n26. 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\n27. 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\n28. 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\n\nand 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\n29. 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\n30. 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\n31. 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 if 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\n32. There is abundant cause to authorize a Rule 2004 examination of, and document production from, Golden Spring, 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\n\n9\n\nOstrager, is among \"the maze of corporate entities\" or \"family members\" used by the Debtor to secret his assets.\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Committee respectfully requests that the Court grant the Rule 2004\n\nMotion by entry of an order substantially in the form annexed hereto and grant such other or\n\nfurther 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":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：第11章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），案号：22-50073\n债务人。1\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条及第9016条和《康涅狄格区破产本地规则》第2004-1条请求授权对 GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD. 进行审查并传唤提交文件的动议\n\n债务人及占有中债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）的无担保债权人官方委员会（以下简称“委员会”）特此根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 和 9016 以及 D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 2004-1 提交本项请求授权对 Golden Spring (New York), Ltd. 进行审查并传唤提交文件的动议（以下简称“第2004条动议”）\n\n为支持其第2004条动议，委员会谨陈述如下：\n相关诉讼程序历史\n\n1. 2022年2月15日（以下简称“申请日”），债务人根据《美国法典》第11篇（以下简称《破产法典》）第11章提交了自愿救济申请。自那时起，债务人一直根据《破产法典》第1107条和第1108条作为占有中债务人。\n\n1 债务人已知姓名如下：Guo Wengui（郭文贵）；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员，尽管在2022年3月19日，United States Trustee（美国受托人）（以下简称“UST”）提交了一项《关于责令指定审查员，或在备选方案下责令指定第11章受托人的动议》（以下简称“审查员/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合伙，以下简称“PAX”）以及债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）和 Weican Meng（孟维参）已针对审查员/受托人动议提交了反对意见。2022年4月13日，在就审查员/受托人动议以及本案中提交的其他动议和申请举行听证会后，审查员/受托人动议被排期于2022年4月27日举行排期性质的现状会议。\n\n4. 2022年3月21日，委员会由美国受托人正式指定，并于2022年3月28日选定 Pullman & Comley, LLC（以下简称“P&C”）为其法律顾问。2\n\n5. 2022年3月1日，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“PAX”）提交了其《Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 依据破产法典第362(d)(2)条申请作出确认自动中止不适用或在备选方案下免除自动中止的裁定的动议》（以下简称“PAX动议”）。\n\n6. 2022年3月15日，债务人对PAX动议提交了异议，PAX于2022年3月18日就此提交了答辩意见（ECF No. 98）（以下简称“PAX答辩”）。2022年3月28日，债务人提交了针对PAX动议的补充异议（以下简称“债务人补充异议”），2022年4月6日，委员会提交了在有限范围内支持PAX动议的立场声明。\n\n7. 通过PAX动议，PAX寻求重返PAX诉讼，以便强迫债务人将名为 Lady May 的游艇归还至美国管辖范围内，\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而早在一年多以前，债务人和/或 Lady May 的登记所有人已被责令不得将其移出纽约法院的管辖范围，但他们却将其移出（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日的决定与命令，以下简称“2022年2月9日决定”，第2页）。\n\n8. 鉴于债务人未能归还 Lady May 的藐视法庭行为，债务人被责令在送达 Ostrager 法官的《最终民事藐视法庭命令》后五日内向PAX支付 $134,000,000 的藐视法庭罚款，若未支付，法院将“行使其在《纽约州司法法》第753条下的全部权力”（Friedman 声明，附件5）。债务人在该藐视法庭罚款应缴到期日前一天提交了其自愿申请。\n\n9. 尽管 Ostrager 法官裁定债务人不仅控制着 Lady May，而且“对 Lady May 拥有远超实益权益的权益”，因为“看来是他提供了购买该游艇的资金，且他是主要享有该游艇使用权的人”（2022年2月9日决定，第8页），债务人仍坚称 Lady May 由一家名为 HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，以下简称“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日于 Ostrager 法官面前举行的听证会上，郭女士作证称 Golden Spring 建议她将 Lady May 移出纽约法院的管辖范围，且其兄长 Qiang Guo（郭强）为她购买了 Lady May 并是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人（2022年2月9日决定，第5-6页）。\n\n11. 在2022年4月13日关于PAX动议的听证会上，HK USA 的法律顾问陈述称 HK USA 的唯一资产即为 Lady May，但在听证会稍后阶段，HK USA 提出愿意提供 $37 million 的现金保证金，以使债务人免于继续对PAX动议进行抗辩，并在该动议获准的情况下，免于随后因债务人的藐视法庭行为而不得不面对 Ostrager 法官。讨论该保证金细节的现状会议已排期于2022年4月18日举行；若PAX动议无法得到解决，PAX动议及针对该动议的异议和答复已排期于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，寻求聘请 Brown Rudnick LLP 为其法律顾问、Stretto, Inc. 为债权及通知代理机构、Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. 为其财务顾问。UST、PAX、委员会以及债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）和 Weican Meng（孟维参）对这些申请提出了异议；在2022年4月13日举行的听证会上，债务人撤回了其聘请 Stretto, Inc 的申请，其他申请和异议则排期于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《关于作出（I）授权债务人获得无担保、次级申请后融资，及（II）安排临时和最终听证会，及（III）给予相关救济的临时和最终DIP命令的动议》（以下简称“DIP动议”）。\n\n14. 通过DIP动议及其寻求法院批准的贷款（以下简称“DIP贷款”），债务人及其子 Qiang Guo（郭强）（以下简称“儿子”）3 通过其儿子的公司 Golden Spring，向债务人抛出了高达 $8 million 的申请后贷款诱饵，用以支付本案中将产生的专业人员费用及其他行政管理费用，但该贷款附带了某些终止事件，这些事件被用作筹码并试图不当地影响本案的方向以及第11章的程序。UST、PAX、委员会以及债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）和 Weican Meng（孟维参）已针对DIP动议提交了异议。在2022年4月13日举行听证会后，\n\n3 拟议的贷款在名义上由 Golden Spring (New York), Ltd.（以下简称“Golden Spring”）提供，债务人坚称该实体为“由[其]子所有并控制的实体”（DIP动议第2段）。债务人承认，实际上是其儿子提出提供该笔贷款（DIP动议第15段）（“……债务人请求其子为此提供额外的信贷”）。\n\n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\n15. 2022年3月22日，债务人提交了《关于作出授权（I）聘请在日常业务中使用的专业人员并向其支付报酬，（II）清偿申请前债权，及（III）给予相关救济的命令的动议》（以下简称“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。\n\n17. 债务人拥有的另一项重大资产是其在位于 New York, NY（纽约州纽约市）781 Fifth Avenue 的 Sherry-Netherland（雪梨荷兰）公寓中的权益，但债务人坚称该权益是为其子信托持有的；债务人于2015年3月通过 Genever Holdings LLC（以下简称“Genever NY”）以 $67.5 million 购入了该公寓（以下简称“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章案件及某些动议的声明》（以下简称“Kwok 声明”）第17段）。\n\n18. 与本动议特别相关的是，2022年2月9日决定认定：\n\n- 债务人曾“通过将其巨额个人资产存放于一系列公司、亲信和家庭成员处，致力于规避和欺骗其债权人”（第1页）\n- 债务人已“将其资产隐匿于复杂的公司实体网络和家庭成员之中”（第1页）\n- 债务人“及其同伙安排 Lady May 于2020年10月初航行至佛罗里达州，随后航行至巴哈马”，此举违反了2020年9月的限制令（第2页）\n- 债务人的女儿作证称“正是 Golden Spring 建议她游艇需要移往更暖和的地方”（第6页）\n- 根据 Lady May 游艇管理公司常务董事的证言，他就 Lady May 事宜与 Golden Spring 以及显然为法定所有权人的 HK USA 进行了沟通（第6页）。\n- 19. 债务人在其声明中陈述，其提交第11章案件的目的包括“……(b) 鉴于[其]认为在这方面存在误解，为利益相关方提供调查[其]资产、负债和财务状况的有效机会；[以及] (c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财产，进而可用于分配给获准债权的持有人”（Kwok 声明第3段）。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n20. 本法院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334 对本第2004条动议享有管辖权。依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，审判地是适当的。本动议所寻求救济的法定依据为 11 U.S.C. § 1103(c)(2)、105(a)、Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 以及 D. Conn. LBR 2004-1。\n\n请求的救济\n\n21. 依据《破产规则》第2004条，委员会请求作出一项大体符合本动议后附形式的命令，授权：(i) 委员会通过适格的公司代表对 Golden Spring 进行第2004条审查；以及 (ii) 向 Golden Spring 发出大体符合本动议后附附件“A”形式的传票（以下简称“传票”）。该传票应责令 Golden Spring：(i) 在传票送达后14个日历日内提交对传票作出回应的文件；以及 (ii) 在 Golden Spring 遵照传票提交文件后的21个日历日内，于委员会接受的日期出席宣誓审查。\n\n请求救济的依据\n\n22. 《破产规则》第2004(a)条允许“对任何实体进行审查”。该审查包括证言和文件提交，“可仅涉及债务人的行为、作为或财产，或涉及债务人的负债和财务状况，或涉及可能影响债务人破产财产管理的事项”，并且在第11章案件中，“审查还可涉及任何业务的运营以及其继续经营的适宜性、债务人为履行重整计划之目的而已取得或将取得的任何金钱或财产的来源以及为此给付或提供的对价，以及与案件或制定重整计划相关的任何其他事项。”Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)（强调为原文所加）。\n\n23. 《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 1103(c)(2) 条呼应了《破产程序规则》（Bankruptcy Rule）第 2004(b) 条，授权无担保债权人委员会“调查债务人的行为、作为、资产、负债及财务状况，债务人业务的运营以及继续经营此类业务的适宜性，以及与本案或制定重组计划相关的任何其他事项”。\n\n24. 《破产规则》第 2004(c) 条规定，“可按照《[破产]规则》第 9016 条规定的传唤证人出席听证会或审判的方式，强制实体出席接受审查并出示书证。”Fed R. Bankr. P. 2004(c)。\n\n25. “第 2004 条审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存在不当行为。”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)（内部引文和引用省略）。这包括协助调查人揭示破产财产的性质和范围，并发现债务人可能被故意或非故意隐匿的资产。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\n26. 与债务人存在关联的第三方可成为第 2004 条审查的对象，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.（联邦第二巡回上诉法院）1994)。“法院惯常允许审查对债务人的行为、作为、负债、资产等知情的证人。”In re Transmar Commodity Group, Ltd.，Case No. 16-13625，2018 WL 4006324，at *9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)（引用省略）。\n\n27. 更具体而言，众多法院判决裁定，“利用第 2004 条证据开示来确定或评估对[第三方]的潜在诉求完全符合第 2004 条的适用范围。”In re Transmar Commodity Group, Ltd.，Case No. 16-13625，2018 WL 4006324，at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)（引用 In re Gawker Media LLC，No. 16-11700，2017 WL 2804870，at *6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2017)，该案中，在托管人明确申请目的系为确定是否应对受审查人提起诉讼的情况下，法院批准了托管人的第 2004 条证据开示申请；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 条证据开示的不当利用。”）。\n\n28. 事实上，已有意见指出，“第 2004 条审查的合法目标包括发现资产、审查交易以及确定是否存在不当行为。”In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC，562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del.（特拉华区破产法院）2016)（内部引文和引用省略）。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 条的显见目的在于发现破产财产以及揭发欺诈行为。”）（引用省略）；In re Ecam Publications, Inc.，131 B.R. 556, 560 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991)（驳回证人关于托管人不正当利用第 2004 条进行证据开示以准备向其主张权利的抗辩，并指出第 2004 条的预定用途是“确定是否有理由提起追回破产财产的诉讼。”）。\n\n29. 第 2004 条审查的准许范围非常宽泛，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\n30. 既有先例认可第 2004 条审查可循单方申请（ex parte）下达裁定，参见 In re Meticom, Inc.，318 B.R. 263, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)，并且“破产法院拥有批准第 2004 条审查申请的自由裁量权。”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\n31. 当审查及出示文件申请的目的并非为了在未决诉讼中获取优势，亦非为了滥用程序或骚扰时，该等申请应予批准。参见 In re Meticom, Inc.，318 B.R. 263, 268（第 2004 条审查的“正当理由”通常在“第 2004 条审查对于确立申请审查方的诉求属必要，或者若驳回此类申请将给审查人造成不当困难或不公正时即告成立”）。\n\n32. 有充分理由授权对 Golden Spring 进行第 2004 条审查并责令其出示文件，该公司极可能是 Ostrager 法官认定的债务人存放其资产的实体或“家庭成员”之一，或者如 Ostrager 法官进一步认定的那样，属于债务人用于隐匿其资产的“错综复杂的企业实体迷宫”或“家庭成员”之一。\n\n据此，委员会谨请求法院通过作出实质上与本申请附件形式一致的裁定，批准第 2004 条动议，并给予法院认为公正、公平且恰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（指定申请待决中）","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Miles Guo","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":98,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2894,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:23:15"}