{"id":"court_ctb_297_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":297,"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 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部）\n\n关于：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根据《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条和第 9016 条以及《康涅狄格区破产本地规则》第 2004-1 条申请授权对 GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD. 进行调查并发出传票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”）的无担保债权人官方委员会（以下简称“委员会”）特此根据《联邦破产诉讼规则》（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 条提交本《授权对 Golden Spring (New York), Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司）进行调查并发出传票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》，委员会恭敬陈述如下：\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 编（以下简称“《破产法典》”）第 11 章提交了自愿救济申请。自那时起，根据《破产法典》§§ 1107 和 1108 的规定，债务人一直作为占有中债务人运作。\n\n1 债务人已知姓名如下：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任何受托人或调查员，但 2022年3月19日，United States Trustee（美国联邦破产受托人，以下简称“UST”）提交了《要求下达命令指定调查员的动议，或在备选情况下，要求下达命令指定第 11 章受托人的动议》（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）已对《调查员/受托人动议》提出异议。2022年4月13日，在就《调查员/受托人动议》及本案中提交的其他动议和申请举行听证后，《调查员/受托人动议》被排定于 2022年4月27日召开以确定日程安排为目的的现状会议。\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（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. 要求作出确认自动中止不适用或在备选情况下根据〈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，以期迫使债务人将名为 Lady May（梅号）的游艇带回美国司法管辖区内，而早在一年前，债务人和/或 Lady May 的登记所有人已被命令不得将该游艇移出纽约法院的管辖范围，但其仍将该游艇移出（《PAX 动议》，附件 B，Peter Friedman 的声明，以下简称“《Friedman 声明》”，¶ 2，附件 1，Judge Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）2022年2月9日的裁定与命令，即“《2022年2月9日裁定》”，第 2 页）。\n\n2 委员会于 2022年4月5日提交了聘用 P&C 的授权申请。该申请已排定于 2022年4月27日举行听证。\n\n8. 因其未能归还 Lady May 的藐视法庭行为，债务人被命令在 Ostrager 法官的《最终民事藐视法庭命令》送达后五日内向 PAX 支付 134,000,000 美元的藐视法庭罚款，若未支付，法院将“行使《纽约州司法法》§ 753 规定的全部权力”（《Friedman 声明》，附件 5）。债务人在该藐视法庭罚款到期应付的前一天提交了其自愿破产申请。\n\n9. 尽管 Ostrager 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权利”，因为“似乎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日裁定》第 8 页），债务人仍坚持主张 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，Guo 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，且她的哥哥 Qiang Guo（郭强）为她购买了 Lady May，并且是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人（《2022年2月9日裁定》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 的唯一资产即为 Lady May，但在听证会稍后阶段，HK USA 提出提供 3700 万美元的现金保证金，以使债务人免于继续对《PAX 动议》进行抗辩，且若获批准，进而免于因债务人的藐视法庭行为而直接面对 Ostrager 法官。商讨该保证金细节的现状会议已排定于 2022年4月18日举行；若《PAX 动议》无法解决，《PAX 动议》及针对该动议的异议和回应已排定于 2022年4月27日举行听证。\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. 为债权申报及通知代理人，以及 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，其他申请和异议则被排定于 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《要求作出（I）授权债务人获得无担保、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 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》”），债务人及其儿子 Qiang Guo（以下简称“儿子”）3 通过该儿子的公司 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，以资助本案中将发生的专业人员费用和其他行政管理费用，但该贷款附带终止事件条款，这些条款构成了杠杆手段并不当试图影响本案的方向和第 11 章的程序。UST、PAX、委员会以及债权人 Rui Ma 和 Weican Meng 已对《DIP 动议》提出了异议。在 2022年4月13日举行听证后，针对《DIP 动议》及相关异议的继续听证排定于 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，债务人坚称该实体为“由[其]儿子所有并控制的实体”（《DIP 动议》¶ 2）。债务人承认，实际上是他的儿子提出提供该贷款（《DIP 动议》¶ 15）（“……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《要求作出授权（I）聘用常态下使用的专业人员并向其付款，（II）偿付申请前债权，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日举行听证后，《OCP 动议》被驳回。\n\n16. 在债务人聘请 Brown Rudnick 的申请中披露，支付给 Brown Rudnick 的 100 万美元预付款，资金来源于其儿子另一家公司 Lamp Capital, LLC 向债务人提供的一笔贷款的收益款项。\n\n17. 债务人拥有的另一项重大资产（但他坚称该资产是为其儿子信托持有）是他对位于纽约州纽约市第五大道 781 号的 Sherry-Netherland（雪梨荷皇）公寓的权益，债务人于 2015年3月通过 Genever Holdings LLC（以下简称“Genever NY”）以 6750 万美元购买了该公寓（以下简称“Sherry-Netherland 公寓”）（见《PAX 动议》注释 36 及其中引用的材料，以及《Ho Wan Kwok 先生支持第 11 章案件和某些动议的声明》（以下简称“《Kwok 声明》”）¶ 17）。\n\n18. 与本动议特别相关的是，《2022年2月9日裁定》认定：\n\n- 债务人存在“通过将自己数额巨大的个人资产存放在一系列公司、亲信及家庭成员名下来规避并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由公司实体和家庭成员构成的迷宫中”（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，随后驶往巴哈马”，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“是 Golden Spring 建议她需要将该游艇转移到更温暖的地方”（第 6 页）\n- 根据 Lady May 的游艇管理公司常务董事的证词，他就 Lady May 的相关事宜与 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. 债务人在其声明中陈述，其申请第 11 章案件的目的包括：“……(b) 鉴于[他]察觉到在这方面的误解，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产，并进而可供分配给获准债权的持有人”（《Kwok 声明》¶ 3）。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n20. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334，本法院对本《第 2004 条动议》拥有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，审判地是适当的。本文所寻求救济的成文法依据为 11 U.S.C. § 1103(c)(2)、105(a)、《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条以及《康涅狄格区破产本地规则》第 2004-1 条。\n\n请求的救济\n\n21. 根据《破产规则》第 2004 条，委员会寻求一项大体采用本动议所附格式的裁定，授权：(i) 委员会通过适格的公司代表对 Golden Spring 进行第 2004 条调查；以及 (ii) 向 Golden Spring 发出大体采用本动议附件“A”格式的传票（以下简称“《传票》”）。该《传票》应指令 Golden Spring：(i) 在《传票》送达后 14 个日历日内出示符合《传票》要求的文件；以及 (ii) 在 Golden Spring 按照《传票》出示文件后的 21 个日历日内委员会可接受的日期出庭接受宣誓调查。\n\n请求救济的依据\n\n22. 《破产规则》第 2004(a) 条允许“对任何实体进行调查”。由证词和文件出示构成的该调查，“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，“该调查还可涉及任何业务的运营及该业务继续存续的必要性、债务人为完成重组计划而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组计划相关的任何其他事项”。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)（强调为后加）。\n\n23. 《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 1103(c)(2) 条呼应了《破产规则》（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此类业务的适宜性，以及与本案或制定重整计划相关的任何其他事项。”\n\n24. 《破产规则》第 2004(c) 条规定：“可以按照《[破产]规则》第 9016 条规定的在听证会或审判中强制作证的方式，强制实体出席接受调查和提供书面证据。”Fed R. Bankr. P. 2004(c)。\n\n25. “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、揭示资产、审查交易以及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)（内部引用和引证已略）。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. 与债务人存在关系的第三方可以成为第 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)。“法院常规性地允许对知晓债务人作为、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)（引证已略）。\n\n27. 更具体地说，多项法院裁决已认定，“利用第 2004 条开示程序来确定或评估针对[第三方]的可能诉求，完全属于第 2004 条的范围之内。”In re Transmar Commodity Group, Ltd., Case No. 16-13625, 2018 WL 4006324, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)（援引 In re Gawker Media LLC, No. 16-11700, 2017 WL 2804870, at *6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2017)，该案准许了受托人的第 2004 条开示申请，其中该请求的声明目的是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)，声明“代表债务人调查潜在诉求并非对第 2004 条开示程序的不当使用”）。\n\n28. 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)（内部引用和引证已略）。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 条的显而易见的目的在于发现破产财产以及揭露欺诈行为”）（引证已略）；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诉讼以追回破产财产”）。\n\n29. 第 2004 条调查所允许的范围极为宽泛，且通常被公认为具有“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\n30. 司法实践已认可第 2004 条调查可以单方面（ex parte）下达裁定，参见 In re Meticom, Inc., 318 B.R. 263, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)，并且“破产法院拥有准许进行第 2004 条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)。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\n31. 当调查及文件调取请求的目的并非为了在未决诉讼中获取优势，亦非为了滥用或骚扰时，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“在第 2004 条调查系确立寻求调查一方的主张所必需，或者若拒绝该请求将给调查人造成不当困难或不公平时即告成立”）。\n\n32. 有充分理由授权对 Golden Spring（金泉）进行第 2004 条调查并责令其提交文件，该主体很可能是 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官所认定的债务人存放其资产的公司实体或“家庭成员”之一，或者如奥斯特拉格法官进一步认定的，属于债务人用于隐匿其资产的“错综复杂的公司实体迷宫”或“家庭成员”之一。\n\n为此，委员会谨请求法院通过签署基本符合本申请所附格式的裁定，准许本第 2004 条动议，并准许法院认为公正、衡平且适当的此类其他或进一步救济。\n\n日期：康涅狄格州布里奇波特 2022年4月29日\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）","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 13:23:12"}