{"id":"court_ctb_252_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":252,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","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 GETTR USA, INC. 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\"), herby submits this Motion for Authorization to Conduct an Examination of Gettr USA, Inc. 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\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\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\nDirecting 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 Debtor 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,\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\nDeclaration 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 acts 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\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 I perceive 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. One of the potential assets for inclusion in the Debtor's bankruptcy estate is his widely reported \"interest\" in the newly created company, Gettr USA, Inc. (\"Gettr\"), which, according the The Wall Street Journal and other reports, was launched in July 2021 by former Trump advisor Jason Miller as a conservative social media platform designed to compete with Twitter. *See* Keach Hagey and Brian Spegele, *Ex-Trump Advisor Jason Miller Says New Social App Gettr is Backed by Foundation Tied to Guo Wengui*, ᴛʜᴇ ᴡᴀʟʟ sᴛʀᴇᴇᴛ ᴊᴏᴜʀɴᴀʟ, [http](http)[guo-wengui-tied-foundation-11625199130](http) (July 2, 2021) (last visited April 23, 2022) (the \"WSJ Gettr Article\"). 4 It has been widely reported in the media that the intellectual property for\n\nFeng, *Steve Bannon's Billionaire Backer Guo Wengui Reveal's He's Bankrupt*, ɴᴇᴡsᴡᴇᴇᴋ, <http> (Feb. 16, 2022) (last visited April 23, 2022) (stating that \"[a] foundation owned by Guo is also behind the operations of Gettr\").\n\n<sup>4</sup> According to the WSJ Gettr Article, Mr. Miller attributes Gettr's financial backing to a \"Guo family foundation\" and claims that the Debtor does not have a \"*direct* financial stake or *direct* role in Gettr.\" (emphasis added). The deliberate use of the word, \"direct,\" of course, implies that the Debtor at least has some indirect interest or role in Gettr, which would be consistent with Judge Ostrager's finding that the Debtor is hiding his assets in a \"maze of corporate entities and with family members.\" *See also* John\n\nGettr's platform was the \"brainchild\" of the Debtor and that the Debtor exercises control over and is otherwise substantially involved in Gettr's business affairs. 5 Reuters has reported that Gettr has \"6.8 million installations.\" [http](http)[tech-execs-quit-truth-social-after-troubled-app-launch-2022-04-04/.](http) The data Gettr collects from its users has substantial monetary value.\n\n21. Yet another linkage of the Debtor to Gettr is the fact that his profile, @Miles, is\n\none of the few accounts which is \"Verified\" on the social media service. He is even using Gettr\n\nnow [\\(http)](http) to, *inter alia*, promote his brand as well as business endeavors.\n\nFor instance, just several days ago on April 20th, Debtor used his Gettr account to promote\n\n\" HCoin, Tang Ping Coin, and HPay,\" [\\(http)](http).\n\n<sup>5</sup> Will Sommer, Adam Rawnsley, A. Suebsaeng, ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴀɪʟʏ ʙᴇᴀsᴛ,\n\n<http> (July 5, 2021, 12:19 p.m.) (last visited April 23, 2022) (reporting that \"sites associated with the billionaire have suggested that Gettr is Guo's brainchild,\" and attributing to a host on GTV, \"a media outlet that serves as a mouthpiece for Guo,\" the observation that Gettr was \"'the concentration of Miles's whole life work',\" and adding that \"Guo had come up with the idea for Gettr's logo, a torch\"). Still further, the Daily Beast article notes that \"[a]n earlier version of Gettr called 'Getome,' which Guo once praised as a key part of his global strategy, also suggests that the billionaire has significant ties to Gettr.\" *Id.* A more recent article published several weeks before the Petition Date captured WhatsApp text messages from the Debtor dispensing business advice \"(arguably instructions)\" to Jason Miller, Gettr's CEO, about how to handle a celebrity that initially gave prominence to Gettr but then soured on it, and reports that \"Gettr is based on a nearly identical social media application that Guo first developed called Getter (and before that Getome).\" Dan Friedman and Ali Breland, ᴍᴏᴛʜᴇʀ ᴊᴏɴᴇs, *Leaked Messages Show Gettr in Crisis Mode Over Joe Rogan Criticism* (January 21, 2022) (last visited April 23, 2022). The WhatsApp colloquy between the two suggests that Mr. Miller reports directly to the Debtor and even receives and accepts instructions from him. What provides even greater need to investigate Gettr for this case is the \"legal document obtained by *Mother Jones*\" which reveals that although Gettr reports a business address at 3 Columbus Circle, New York, NY, paychecks for its employees bear the address of \"an Upper East Side building that houses Guo's commercial and nonprofit ventures.\" *Id.* The building is \"what Guo calls the 'Himalaya Embassy' of the New Federal State of China, the supposed government government-inwaiting dedicated to CCP's overthrow that Guo and [Steve] Bannon launched in 2020.\" *Id.* An even more recent article reports that according to former employees of Gettr, the Debtor and \"his \"'handpicked' chief technology officer [for Gettr], Joe Wang,\" \"disagreed with Gettr's information technology and cybersecurity teams\" about security protocols and that the Debtor was responsible for the Gettr's site's security problems. Daniel Villarreal, ɴᴇᴡsᴡᴇᴇᴋ, *Staff Laid Off From Gettr Blame Chinese*\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 Gettr, by a proper corporate representative, Jason Miller; and (ii) issue a subpoena to Gettr, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit \"A\" (the \"Subpoena\"). The Subpoena shall direct Gettr 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 seven calendar days after the production of documents by Gettr 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\n\n*Investor for Platform's Floundering*[, http](http)[investor-platforms-floundering-1676047](http) (Feb. 3, 2022) (last visited April 23, 2022).\n\na 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.\"\n\n9\n\n*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\n\n10\n\n(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 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\n34. There is abundant cause to authorize a Rule 2004 examination of, and document production from, Gettr, based on the extensive public reporting that the Debtor or a \"family foundation owned\" by him is Gettr's financial backer, that he likely has at least an indirect interest in Gettr and was responsible for its business model, if not its intellectual property, and is otherwise intimately involved in its business affairs. In the Debtor's own words, an examination of, and document production from, Gettr is necessary to \"afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate [his] assets, liabilities, and financial affairs,\" and to find out \"what assets are estate property and, in turn, available for distribution to holders of allowed claims\" (Kwok Dec. ¶3).\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 25, 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（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n_____________________________________________\n案件：第 11 章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），案件编号：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 条和第 9016 条以及《康涅狄格州破产诉讼本地规则》第 2004-1 条申请授权对 Gettr USA, Inc. 进行审查并发出传票调取文件的动议\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 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会，以下简称“委员会”）特此提交本《依据〈联邦破产诉讼程序规则〉第 2004 条和第 9016 条以及〈康涅狄格州破产诉讼本地规则〉第 2004-1 条申请授权对 Gettr USA, Inc. 进行审查并发出传票调取文件的动议》（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相关程序历史\n\n1. 2022年2月15日（以下简称“申请日”），债务人依据《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，债务人一直依据《破产法典》第 1107 条和第 1108 条保持占有中债务人地位。\n\n2. 债务人的破产案件中尚未指定托管人或审查人，尽管在2022年3月19日，United States Trustee（美国破产信托人，以下简称“UST”）提交了一份《指示指定审查人的裁定申请动议，或者备选地，指示指定第 11 章托管人的裁定申请动议》（以下简称“《审查人/托管人动议》”）。\n\n1 债务人以下列姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n指示指定审查人的命令，或者备选地，指示指定第 11 章托管人的裁定申请动议（以下简称“《审查人/托管人动议》”）。\n\n3. 委员会、Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（以下简称“PAX”）以及债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）和 Weican Meng（孟维参）均已对《审查人/托管人动议》提出异议。2022年4月13日，在就《审查人/托管人动议》以及本案中提交的其他动议和申请举行听证会后，该《审查人/托管人动议》被排期于2022年4月27日举行确定日程的案情通报会。\n\n4. 2022年3月21日，委员会由美国破产信托人正式指定，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. 申请作出确认自动中止不适用或备选地依据〈破产法典〉第 362(d)(2) 条解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日对此提交了答复意见（ECF No. 98）（以下简称“《PAX 答复意见》”）。2022年3月28日，债务人对《PAX 动议》提交了补充异议（以下简称“《债务人补充异议》”），2022年4月6日，委员会提交了其有限支持《PAX 动议》的立场声明。\n\n7. 通过《PAX 动议》，PAX 寻求恢复 PAX 诉讼，旨在强迫债务人将一艘名为 Lady May 的游艇归还至美国管辖范围内，而债务人和/或 Lady May 的登记所有人早在一年多以前就被命令不得将该游艇移出纽约法院的管辖范围，但他们却移出了（《PAX 动议》，附件 B，\n\n2 委员会于2022年4月5日提交了聘用 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\nPeter Friedman 的声明，以下简称“《Friedman 声明》”，第 2 段，附件 1，Judge Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）2022年2月9日的判决与裁定，即“《2022年2月9日判决》”，第 2 页）。\n\n8. 因其未能归还 Lady May 的蔑视法庭行为，债务人被命令在奥斯特拉格法官的民事蔑视法庭终审裁定送达后五日内向 PAX 支付 134,000,000 美元的蔑视法庭罚款，若不照办，法院将“行使《纽约州司法法》第 753 条赋予的全部权力”（《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交了自愿申请。\n\n9. 尽管奥斯特拉格法官认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利益”，因为“看来是他提供了购买资金，且他是主要享用该游艇的人”（《2022年2月9日判决》第 8 页），债务人仍然坚持主张 Lady May 归一家名为 HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC（以下简称“HK USA”）的实体所有，而该实体归其女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）所有。\n\n10. 在2022年2月2日于奥斯特拉格法官面前举行的听证会上，郭女士作证称，是 Golden Spring 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 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人（《2022年2月9日判决》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 的律师陈述称 HK USA 的唯一资产就是 Lady May，但在听证会稍后，HK USA 提出交纳 3700 万美元的现金保证金，以使债务人免于进一步抗辩《PAX 动议》，且若该动议获准，使债务人免于随后因其蔑视法庭行为而面对奥斯特拉格法官。讨论保证金具体细节的案情通报会已排期于2022年4月18日举行；如果《PAX 动议》无法解决，则《PAX 动议》及其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，寻求聘请 Brown Rudnick LLP 作为其法律顾问，聘请 Stretto, Inc. 作为债权申报及通知代理，以及聘请 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 对这些申请提出了异议；在2022年4月13日举行的听证会上，债务人撤回了聘请 Stretto, Inc 的申请，其他申请和异议则排期于2022年4月27日举行继续听证会。\n\n13. 2022年3月22日，债务人提交了一份《申请作出（I）授权债务人获取无担保、从属性的申请后融资，及（II）安排临时和最终听证会，以及（III）准予相关救济的临时和最终 DIP 裁定的动议》（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》”），债务人及其儿子 Qiang Guo（以下简称“儿子”）3 通过儿子的公司 Golden Spring，抛出了向债务人提供高达 800 万美元申请后贷款的诱饵，用于支付本案中发生的专业人员费用和其他行政管理费用，但该贷款附带了某些终止事件，这些事件被用作筹码并不当地企图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”）发放，债务人坚称该公司是“由[其]儿子拥有和控制的实体”（《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）（“……债务人要求其儿子为此目的提供额外信贷”）。\n\n就《DIP 动议》及其异议举行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，债务人提交了一份《申请作出（I）授权聘用及支付日常业务过程中雇用的专业人员，（II）清偿申请前债权，以及（III）准予相关救济的裁定的动议》（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 获得支付的 100 万美元预付款，资金来自其儿子另一家公司 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（但他坚称是为其儿子代持）是他位于 New York, NY（纽约州纽约市）781 Fifth Avenue 的 Sherry-Netherland 公寓的权益，该公寓系债务人于2015年3月通过 Genever Holdings LLC（以下简称“Genever NY”）以 6750 万美元购得（以下简称“Sherry-Netherland 公寓”）（参见《PAX 动议》注 36 及其引用的材料，以及《Mr. Ho Wan Kwok 为支持第 11 章案件和某些动议的声明》（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日判决》认定：\n\n- 债务人曾“通过将自己数额庞大的个人资产存放在一系列公司、亲信和家庭成员处，实施了逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为”（第 1 页）\n- 债务人“将自己的资产隐匿在错综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月初驶往佛罗里达州，并在此后驶往巴哈马”，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 Golden Spring 建议她该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词，他曾就 Lady May 事宜与 Golden Spring 以及显然是法定产权持有人的 HK USA 进行沟通（第 6 页）。\n\n19. 在其声明中，债务人陈述称其申请第 11 章案件的目的包括“……(b) 鉴于我认为在这方面存在误解，为利益相关方提供一个调查[其]资产、负债和财务事务的有效机会；[以及] (c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财团财产，并进而可供分配给获准债权的持有人”（《Kwok 声明》第 3 段）。\n\n20. 债务人破产财团潜在包含的资产之一，是他被广泛报道的在初创公司 Gettr USA, Inc.（以下简称“Gettr”）中拥有的“权益”。据 The Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》）和其他报道称，该公司由前特朗普顾问 Jason Miller 于2021年7月推出，作为旨在与 Twitter 竞争的保守派社交媒体平台。参见 Keach Hagey 和 Brian Spegele 著《前特朗普顾问 Jason Miller 称新社交应用 Gettr 得到与郭文贵有关的基金会支持》，《华尔街日报》，[http][guo-wengui-tied-foundation-11625199130]（2021年7月2日）（最后访问于2022年4月23日）（以下简称“《WSJ Gettr 文章》”）。4 媒体已广泛报道称，Gettr 平台的知识产权是\n\nFeng 著《Steve Bannon 的亿万富翁金主郭文贵披露其已破产》，《新闻周刊》，（2022年2月16日）（最后访问于2022年4月23日）（指出“郭拥有的一家基金会也是 Gettr 运营的幕后推手”）。\n\n4 根据《WSJ Gettr 文章》，Miller 先生将 Gettr 的资金支持归功于一个“郭氏家族基金会”，并声称债务人在 Gettr 中没有“直接财务利益或直接角色”。（重点为后加）。当然，故意使用“直接”一词，暗示了债务人在 Gettr 中至少拥有某种间接权益或角色，这与奥斯特拉格法官认定债务人将资产隐匿在“错综复杂的公司实体网络和家庭成员之中”是一致的。亦见 John\n\n债务人的“心血结晶”，且债务人对 Gettr 的商业事务行使控制权并深度参与其中。5 路透社曾报道称 Gettr 拥有“680 万次安装量”。[http][tech-execs-quit-truth-social-after-troubled-app-launch-2022-04-04/.] Gettr 从其用户处收集的数据具有巨大的金钱价值。\n\n21. 债务人与 Gettr 的又一联系在于，他在该社交媒体服务上的个人资料 @Miles 是\n\n少数获得“已认证”的账户之一。他甚至正在使用 Gettr\n\n目前 [\\(http)]，除其他目的外，还用于推广其个人品牌及商业事业。\n\n例如，就在几天前的 4 月 20 日，债务人（Debtor）使用其 Gettr 账户推广\n\n“喜币（HCoin）、躺平币（Tang Ping Coin）和喜支付（HPay）”[\\(http)]。\n\n5 Will Sommer, Adam Rawnsley, A. Suebsaeng, ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴀɪʟʏ ʙᴇᴀsᴛ（《每日野兽》），\n\n(2021年7月5日，下午12:19)（最后访问日期：2022年4月23日）（报道称“与该亿万富翁相关的网站暗示 Gettr 是郭的心血结晶”，并引述 GTV——“一家充当郭之喉舌的媒体机构”——某主持人的观察，称 Gettr 是“‘Miles（迈尔斯）毕生心血的凝聚’”，并补充道“郭想出了 Gettr 的徽标创意，即一支火炬”）。更进一步，《每日野兽》的文章指出，“[一]个名为‘Getome’的早期版本 Gettr（郭曾称赞其为其全球战略的关键组成部分）亦表明该亿万富翁与 Gettr 存在重大联系。”同上（Id.）。在申请日（Petition Date）前几周发表的一篇更新的文章截获了债务人向 Gettr 首席执行官（CEO）Jason Miller 发送的 WhatsApp 短信，其中就如何应对一位最初为 Gettr 带来知名度但随后对其产生恶感的名人提供商业建议“（可以说是指示）”，并报道称“Gettr 建立在郭最初开发的一款名为 Getter（在此之前称为 Getome）的几乎完全相同的社交媒体应用程序的基础之上。”Dan Friedman 和 Ali Breland, ᴍᴏᴛʜᴇʀ ᴊᴏɴᴇs（《母亲琼斯》），《泄露的信息显示 Gettr 因乔·罗根的批评而陷入危机模式》（Leaked Messages Show Gettr in Crisis Mode Over Joe Rogan Criticism）（2022年1月21日）（最后访问日期：2022年4月23日）。两人之间的 WhatsApp 对话表明，Miller 先生直接向债务人汇报，甚至接受并遵从其指示。更凸显本案调查 Gettr 必要性的是“《母亲琼斯》获得的一份法律文件”，该文件揭示，尽管 Gettr 申报的营业地址为 3 Columbus Circle, New York, NY（纽约州纽约市哥伦布圆环3号），但其员工工资单上的地址却是“一座容纳郭的商业和非营利事业的上东区大楼”。同上。该建筑即“郭所称的‘新中国联邦’（New Federal State of China）的‘喜马拉雅大使馆’，该组织是郭与 [Steve] Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年发起、致力于推翻中共的所谓待命政府”。同上。一篇更新的文章报道称，据 Gettr 前员工透露，债务人及其“为 [Gettr] ‘亲自挑选’的首席技术官 Joe Wang”“就安全协议与 Gettr 的信息技术和网络安全团队存在分歧”，且债务人对 Gettr 网站的安全问题负有责任。Daniel Villarreal, ɴᴇᴡsᴡᴇᴇᴋ（《新闻周刊》），《Gettr 被裁员工指责中国\n\n管辖权与审理地点\n\n22. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334，本法院（Court）对本《第 2004 条规则动议》（Rule 2004 Motion）具有管辖权。依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 及 1409，审理地点（Venue）正当。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\n23. 依据《破产规则》（Bankruptcy Rule）第 2004 条，委员会（Committee）请求法院作出一项大体依随附格式的命令（order），授权：(i) 委员会通过适格的公司代表 Jason Miller 对 Gettr 进行第 2004 条规则调查（Rule 2004 examination）；以及 (ii) 向 Gettr 发出传票，其大体格式见随附之附件“A”（下称“《传票》”）。《传票》应指令 Gettr：(i) 在送达《传票》后 14 个日历日内提供回应《传票》的文件；以及 (ii) 在 Gettr 依循《传票》提供文件后七个日历日内的委员会可接受之日期出席宣誓调查。\n\n请求救济的理由\n\n24. 《破产规则》第 2004(a) 条允许“对任何实体进行调查”。由证词和文件提交组成的该调查“可仅涉及债务人的作为、行为或财产，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”，并且在第 11 章案件中，“调查还可涉及任何业务的运营及该业务继续经营的必要性、债务人为履行\n\n投资者致使平台陷入困境》[, http][investor-platforms-floundering-1676047] (2022年2月3日)（最后访问日期：2022年4月23日）。\n\n重整计划而获得或将要获得的任何金钱或财产的来源以及为此给付或提供的对价，以及与案件或重整计划制定相关的任何其他事项。”Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)（强调为后加）。\n\n25. 《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 1103(c)(2) 条与《破产规则》第 2004(b) 条保持一致，授权无担保债权人委员会“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继续经营该等业务的必要性，以及与案件或重整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，“可依循[破产]规则第 9016 条关于传唤证人出席听证会或审判之方式，强制实体出席调查并提交书证。”Fed R. Bankr. P. 2004(c)。\n\n27. “第 2004 条规则调查之目的在于协助利害关系方确定破产财产的性质和范围、查明资产、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. Aug. 17, 2018)（内部引文及引用省略）。这包括协助调查人查明破产财产的性质和范围，并发现债务人可能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. 1996)。\n\n28. 与债务人存在关联的第三方可成为第 2004 条规则调查的对象，以协助发现资产。参见 In re Ionesphere Clubs, Inc., 156 B.R. 414, 432 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 17 F.3d 600 (2d Cir. 1994)。“法院常规性地准许对知悉债务人作为、行为、负债、资产等情况的证人进行调查。”\nIn re Transmar Commodity Group, Ltd., 案号 16-13625, 2018 WL 4006324, at *9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)（引用省略）。\n\n29. 更具体而言，诸多法院判决均认定，“利用第 2004 条规则调查取证来确认或评估针对[第三方]的潜在主张完全属于第 2004 条规则的适用范围。”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)，该判决准许了破产受托人提出的第 2004 条规则取证请求，其中所载请求目的为确定受托人是否应当对受调查人提起诉讼；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主张并非对第 2004 条规则取证的不当利用。”）。\n\n30. 事实上，已有裁判指出，“第 2004 条规则调查的合法目的包括发现资产、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. 2016)（内部引文及引用省略）。亦见 In re Symington, 209 B.R. 678, 683-84 (Bankr. D. Md. 1997)（“[第 2004 条规则]的显而易见之目的在于发现破产财产资产以及揭露欺诈行为。”）（引用省略）；In re Ecam Publications, Inc., 131 B.R. 556, 560 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991)（驳回证人关于受托人不正当利用第 2004 条规则取证以便准备对其提起主张的抗辩，并指出第 2004 条规则的预定用途即在于“确定是否存在提起诉讼以追回破产财产的理由。”）\n\n31. 第 2004 条规则调查的允许范围极为广泛，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\n(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. 判例已确认，第 2004 条规则调查可通过单方申请（ex parte）下达，参见 In re Meticom, Inc., 318 B.R. 263, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)，且“[破产法院]对是否批准第 2004 条规则调查请求拥有自由裁量权。”In re Cambridge Analytica, LLC, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)。亦见 In re Bd. of Dirs. of Hopewell Int'l Ins. Ltd., 258 B.R. 580, 587 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)（第 2004 条规则赋予法院“重大自由裁量权”）。\n\n33. 当调查及文件请求的目的并非为了在未决诉讼中获取优势，亦非为了滥用或骚扰时，该等请求应当予以批准。参见 In re Meticom, Inc., 318 B.R. 263, 268（进行第 2004 条规则调查的“正当理由（good cause）”通常“在第 2004 条规则调查对于确立寻求调查一方的主张确属必要，或者驳回该请求将给调查人造成不当困难或不公正时即可证明成立”）。\n\n34. 鉴于广泛的公开报道表明债务人或其“拥有的家族基金会”系 Gettr 的财务支持者，其极有可能对 Gettr 至少享有间接权益，且对 Gettr 的商业模式（即使不是其知识产权）负有责任，并深度参与其业务事务，因此完全有充分理由授权对 Gettr 进行第 2004 条规则调查并责令其提交文件。用债务人自己的话来说，对 Gettr 进行调查并责令其提供文件是必要的，旨在“为利益相关方提供高效调查[其]资产、负债和财务事务的机会”，并查明“哪些资产属于破产财产，进而可用于向获准债权（allowed claims）持有人进行分配”（郭声明第3段 [Kwok Dec. ¶3]）。\n\n为此，委员会谨请求法院通过签署大体依随附格式的命令以批准本《第 2004 条规则\n\n动议》，并准予法院认为公正、公平和适当的其他或\n\n进一步救济。\n\n日期：康涅狄格州布里奇波特 2022年4月25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 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]\n\n其代理律师（申请待决）","key_entities":["GETTR","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Miles Guo","Himalaya","GTV","CCP","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":98,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3690,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:45:03"}