{"id":"court_ctb_295_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":295,"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 29, 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_____________________________________________\n关于：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n债务人。1\n第 11 章\n案件编号：22-50073\n_____________________________________________:\n\n债务人无担保债权人官方委员会根据《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 2004 条和第 9016 条以及《康涅狄格区破产法院本地规则》第 2004-1 条申请准许对 HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENT (USA) LIMITED, LLC 进行调查并传唤要求其出示文件的动议\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”）之无担保债权人官方委员会（The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors，以下简称“委员会”），特此提交本份根据《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》（Fed. R. Bankr. P.）第 2004 条和第 9016 条以及《康涅狄格区破产法院本地规则》（D. Conn. Bankr. L.R.）第 2004-1 条申请准许对 HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC 进行调查并传唤要求其出示文件的动议（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\n相关程序历史\n\n1. 2022年2月15日（以下简称“申请日”），债务人根据《美国法典》第 11 编（以下简称“《破产法典》”）第 11 章自愿提交了救济申请。自那时起，债务人一直根据《破产法典》第 1107 条和第 1108 条的规定保持为占有中债务人。\n\n1 债务人已知姓名包括：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调查员，但2022年3月19日，United States Trustee（美国受托人，以下简称“UST”）提交了一份《要求下达指定调查员命令的动议，或在备选情况下，要求下达指定第 11 章受托人命令的动议》（以下简称“调查员/受托人动议”）。\n\n3. 委员会、Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙，以下简称“PAX”）以及债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）和 Weican Meng（孟维参）均已对调查员/受托人动议提出异议。在就调查员/受托人动议及案件中提交的其他动议和申请举行听证后，该调查员/受托人动议于2022年4月13日被排定于2022年4月27日举行排期现状会议。\n\n4. 2022年3月21日，委员会由美国受托人正式任命，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.（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根据〈破产法典〉第 362(d)(2) 条免除自动中止命令的动议》（以下简称“PAX 动议”）。\n\n6. 2022年3月15日，债务人对 PAX 动议提出异议，PAX 于2022年3月18日对此提交了回复意见（ECF No. 98）（以下简称“PAX 回复意见”）。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 寻求重回 PAX 诉讼程序，以便迫使债务人将一艘名为 Lady May（梅号）的游艇归还至美国司法管辖区，而债务人和/或 Lady May 的登记所有人早在一年多以前就已被命令不得将该游艇移出纽约法院的管辖范围，却仍将其移出（PAX 动议附件 B，Peter Friedman 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日判决与裁定，即“2022年2月9日判决”，第 2 页）。\n\n2 委员会于2022年4月5日提交了聘请 P&C 的授权申请。该申请已排定于2022年4月27日举行听证会。\n\n8. 因其未归还 Lady May 的藐视法庭行为，债务人被责令在 Ostrager 法官的《民事藐视法庭最终裁定》送达后五日内向 PAX 支付 134,000,000 美元的藐视法庭罚款，逾期不付，法院将“依据《纽约州司法法》第 753 条行使其全部权力”（Friedman 声明，附件 5）。债务人在该笔藐视法庭罚款应缴日期的前一天提交了自愿申请。\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“看来是他提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享受使用该游艇的人”（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，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 的法律顾问陈述称 HK USA 的唯一资产即为 Lady May，但在听证会后半段，HK USA 提出提供 3700 万美元的现金保证金，以使债务人免于进一步就 PAX 动议进行抗辩，并在动议获准的情况下，免于随后因债务人的藐视法庭行为而不得不面对 Ostrager 法官。一次\n\n用以讨论保证金细节的现状会议于2022年4月18日举行；如果 PAX 动议无法解决，PAX 动议及其异议和答辩已排定于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，聘请 Stretto, Inc. 为债权申报与通知代理，并聘请 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. 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，其他申请和异议被排定于2022年4月27日继续举行听证。\n\n13. 2022年3月22日，债务人提交了《关于作出 (I) 授权债务人获取无担保、次级申请后融资，(II) 排定临时和最终听证，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（郭强）（以下简称“儿子”）3 通过其儿子的公司 HK (USA)，向债务人抛出了最高达 800 万美元申请后贷款的诱饵，用于支付本案中产生的专业人员费用及其他行政管理费用，但该贷款附带了终止事件条款，以此施加杠杆并不当企图影响本案的走向及第 11 章程序。UST、PAX、委员会以及债权人 Rui Ma 和 Weican Meng 已对 DIP 动议提出异议。在2022年4月13日举行听证会后，关于 DIP 动议及其异议的继续听证会排定于2022年4月27日举行。\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，债务人坚称该公司是“由[其]儿子所有并控制的实体”（DIP 动议第 2 段）。债务人承认，实际上提出提供该笔贷款的是其儿子（DIP 动议第 15 段）（“……为此，债务人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《关于作出授权 (I) 聘用并支付日常业务中所使用专业人员费用，(II) 支付申请前债权，以及 (III) 准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 获得的 100 万美元预付定金来自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（但他坚称是为其儿子代持）是他位于纽约州纽约市第五大道 781 号的 Sherry-Netherland（雪梨荷兰）公寓的权益，该公寓是债务人于2015年3月通过 Genever Holdings LLC（以下简称“Genever NY”）以 6750 万美元购买的（以下简称“Sherry-Netherland 公寓”）（参见 PAX 动议脚注 36 及其引用的材料，以及《Ho Wan Kwok 先生支持第 11 章案件和若干动议的声明》（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“通过将巨额个人资产存放在一系列公司、亲信及家庭成员处，实施了逃避和欺诈其债权人的行为”（第 1 页）\n- 债务人“将自身资产隐匿于复杂的公司实体网络以及家庭成员处”（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，随后驶往巴哈马群岛”，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) 建议她需要将游艇移至更暖和的地方”（第 6 页）\n\n• 根据 Lady May 的游艇管理公司常务董事的证词，他就 Lady May 事宜与 Golden Spring 以及显然是法定所有权人的 HK (USA) 进行了沟通（第 6 页）。\n\n19. 在其声明中，债务人陈述其提交第 11 章案件的目的之一是“……(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，进而可供向获准债权的持有人进行分配”（Kwok 声明第 3 段）。\n\n20. HK USA 就本案提交了出庭通知，并于2022年4月11日提交了关于 PAX 动议的声明，再次暗示其有意挑战 Ostrager 法官的裁决，并提供了有关 Lady May 现状的额外细节。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 章重组计划的通知》（以下简称“重组计划”，ECF No. 197），其中债务人提议由 HK USA 将该船只贡献给债权人信托（定义见其中），并将 HK USA 列为计划出资方，据此 HK USA 将有资格根据重组计划获得责任免除。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n22. 根据《美国法典》第 28 编第 157 条和第 1334 条，本法院对本第 2004 条动议具有管辖权。根据《美国法典》第 28 编第 1408 条和第 1409 条，本案审判地正当。在此寻求救济的法定依据为《美国法典》第 11 编第 1103(c)(2) 条、第 105(a) 条、《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 2004 条以及《康涅狄格区破产法院本地规则》第 2004-1 条。\n\n请求的救济\n\n23. 根据《破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条，委员会寻求一项形式实质上如本动议附件所示的裁定，授权：(i) 委员会通过适格的公司代表对 HK (USA) 进行第 2004 条调查；以及 (ii) 向 HK (USA) 发出传票，其形式实质上\n\n如本动议附件“A”所示（以下简称“传票”）。该传票应责令 HK (USA)：(i) 在传票送达后 14 个日历日内出示响应传票的文件；以及 (ii) 在 HK (USA) 遵照传票出示文件后的 21 个日历日内，在委员会认可的日期到场接受宣誓调查。\n\n请求救济的理由\n\n24. 《破产程序规则》（Bankruptcy Rule）第 2004(a) 条允许“对任何实体进行调查”。调查由证言陈述和文件出示组成，“可仅涉及债务人的作为、行为或财产，或债务人的负债和财务状况，或可能影响债务人破产财产管理的事务”，且在第 11 章案件中，“调查还可涉及任何业务的运营及继续经营该业务的可行性、债务人为执行重整计划之目的而取得或拟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，以及与本案或制定重整计划相关的任何其他事务”。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)（强调为后加）。\n\n25. 《美国破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 1103(c)(2) 条对应《破产程序规则》第 2004(b) 条，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，债务人业务的运营及继续经营该业务的可行性，以及与本案或制定重整计划相关的任何其他事务”。\n\n26. 《破产程序规则》第 2004(c) 条规定，“可按照［《破产程序规则》］第 9016 条规定的在听证会或审理中强制证人出庭的方式，强制实体出庭接受调查并出示书证。”Fed R. Bankr. P. 2004(c)。\n\n27. “第 2004 条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、查明资产、审查交易以及评估是否存在不法行为。”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)（内部引文及引用省略）。这包括协助调查人员查明破产财产的性质和范围，以及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.（纽约北区破产法院）1996)。\n\n28. 与债务人存在关联的第三方可成为第 2004 条调查的对象，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）), aff'd, 17 F.3d 600 (2d Cir.（第二巡回法院）1994)。“法院常规性地准许对知晓债务人的作为、行为、负债、资产等情况的证人进行调查。”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\n29. 更具体而言，多项法院裁判均认定，“利用第 2004 条证据开示来确定或评估针对［第三方］可能提出的主张，完全属于第 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)，该案在受托人申请中明确陈述的目的是确定受托人是否应当对被调查人提起诉讼的情况下，准许了受托人的第 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主张并非对第 2004 条证据开示的不当使用。”）。\n\n30. 事实上，已有裁判指出，“第 2004 条调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法行为。”In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del.（特拉华区破产法院）2016)（内部引文及引用省略）。另见 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正在不当使用第 2004 条进行证据开示以为对其主张权利作准备的抗辩，并指出第 2004 条的预期用途是“确定是否有理由提起诉讼以追回属于破产财产的财产。”）。\n\n31. 第 2004 条调查的准许范围非常广泛，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 (E.D.N.Y.（纽约东区）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. 司法裁判已确认，法院可依单方申请（ex parte）下达第 2004 条调查命令，参见 In re Meticom, Inc., 318 B.R. 263, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)，且“破产法院拥有准许第 2004 条调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)。另见 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. 当调查和文件调取请求的目的并非为了在未决诉讼中获取优势，亦非为了滥用程序或进行骚扰时，该等请求应当予以准许。参见 In re Meticom, Inc., 318 B.R. 263, 268（第 2004 条调查的“正当理由”通常在“如果第 2004 条调查为确立申请调查方的权利主张所必需，或者驳回该请求将给调查方造成不当困境或不公正的情况下得以确立”）。\n\n34. 有充分理由授权对 HK (USA) 进行第 2004 条调查并责令其出示文件；该公司很可能是 Ostrager 法官认定的债务人存放其资产的公司实体或“家庭成员”之一，或者如 Ostrager 法官进一步认定的，属于债务人用于隐匿其资产的“错综复杂的公司实体网络”或“家庭成员”之一。此外，Ostrager 法官认定债务人不仅控制着“Lady May（梅号）”，而且“对 Lady May 拥有的远不止受益权益”，因为“看来是他提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享受使用该游艇的人”（2022 年 2 月 9 日判决书第 8 页）。\n\n据此，委员会谨请求法院通过作出实质上与本动议所附表格形式相符的裁定以准许第 2004 条动议，并准许法院认为公正、衡平且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 29 日\nOFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF HO 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）","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 13:27:59"}