{"id":"court_ctb_2985_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2985,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | In re:                              | Chapt","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| In re:                              | Chapter 11               |\n|-------------------------------------|--------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)  |\n| Debtor.                             | (Jointly Administered)   |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, Chapter 11 Trustee, | Adv. Proceeding 24-05001 |\n| Plaintiff,                          |                          |\n| v.                                  |                          |\n| DEFENG CAO,                         |                          |\n|                                     |                          |\n\nDefendant.\n\n# **DEFENDANT DEFENG CAO'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT**\n\nDefendant Defeng Cao (\"Defendant\"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, as and for its answer to the complaint filed in the within Adversary Proceeding, hereby alleges as follows:\n\n# **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n2. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, except admits that he is the boyfriend of the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo, and has, at certain times since 2017, lived with the Debtor's family.\n\n3. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except admits that the Motorcycles are currently parked at the Mahwah Mansion, and prior to that have been parked at the home on Taconic Road.\n\n4. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 4, although admits he did not select or purchase the Motorcycles.\n\n5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n6. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n7. Paragraph 7 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n8. Paragraph 8 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n### **PARTIES**\n\n9. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.\n\n10. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, except responds that Defendant has moved his principal place of residence to a unit in Union City, New Jersey.\n\n11. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.\n\n# **FACTS**\n\n### **I. Debtor's Prolific Use of Shell Companies and Nominal Owners**\n\n12. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.\n\n13. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.\n\n14. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n#### **II. Cao's Close Relationship With Debtor's Family**\n\n15. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.\n\n16. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, except admits that he is in a romantic relationship with Mei Guo and he has previously vacationed with her and her family.\n\n17. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, except admits that in September 2017 he submitted an affidavit noting that he was employed by the Debtor at that time.\n\n18. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, except admits that he previously oversaw certain construction and renovation projects at the Mahwah Mansion, and that he draws a salary from a Chinese-based entity, as reflected in his paystub previously produced to the Trustee.\n\n19. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, except admits that on July 12, 2022 he received a check from Greenwich Land LLC.\n\n#### **III. The Vehicles**\n\n20. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.\n\n21. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.\n\n22. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.\n\n23. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.\n\n24. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.\n\n#### **IV. Cao is Only the Nominal Owner of the Motorcycles**\n\n25. Paragraph 25 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required, except admits that the four Motorcycles are titled and registered in New Jersey in Defendant's name.\n\n26. Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that it is inconsistent with the portion of the deposition transcript cited, except admits that title to each of the four Motorcycle was issued to him on October 6, 2022 and refers to the transcript for the content cited.\n\n27. Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that it is inconsistent with the portion of the deposition transcript cited and refers to the transcript for the content cited.\n\n28. Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that it is inconsistent with the portion of the deposition transcript cited and refers to the transcript for the content cited.\n\n29. Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that it is inconsistent with the portion of the deposition transcript cited and refers to the transcript for the content cited.\n\n30. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.\n\n31. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.\n\n### **V. Debtor Is True Owner of Motorcycles**\n\n32. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.\n\n33. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.\n\n34. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.\n\n35. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.\n\n36. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.\n\n37. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.\n\n38. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.\n\n39. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.\n\n### **VI. Fraudulent Transfer of Land Rover Defender and Dodge Ram**\n\n40. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.\n\n41. Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that it is inconsistent with the portion of the deposition transcript cited and refers to the transcript for the content cited.\n\n42. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.\n\n43. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.\n\n44. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, except admits that the Defender and the Ram were gifted to him by the Debtor's son, Mileson Guo.\n\n45. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.\n\n46. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.\n\n47. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint.\n\n48. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.\n\n49. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.\n\n### **First Claim**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of the Motorcycles and Ordering Turnover of Motorcycles to Trustee)**\n\n50. Defendant restates and incorporates by reference all of his responses to the crossreferenced allegations as applicable.\n\n51. Paragraph 51 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n52. Paragraph 52 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n53. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 53 of the Complaint.\n\n54. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 54 of the Complaint.\n\n55. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.\n\n56. Paragraph 56 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n# **Second Claim**\n\n# **Avoidance of Transfers of Motorcycles As Unauthorized Post-petition Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 549 (Asserted in the Alternative to First Claim)**\n\n57. Defendant restates and incorporates by reference all of his responses to the crossreferenced allegations as applicable.\n\n58. Paragraph 58 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n59. Paragraph 59 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n60. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 60 of the Complaint.\n\n61. Paragraph 61 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n62. Paragraph 62 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n#### **Third Claim**\n\n# **(Avoidance of Transfers of Land Rover Defender and Dodge Ram As Actually Fraudulent Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 548(a)(1)(A))**\n\n63. Defendant restates and incorporates by reference all of his responses to the crossreferenced allegations as applicable.\n\n64. Paragraph 64 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n65. Paragraph 65 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n66. Paragraph 66 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n67. Paragraph 67 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n68. Paragraph 68 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n#### **Fourth Claim**\n\n# **(Avoidance of Transfers of Land Rover Defender and Dodge Ram As Actually Fraudulent Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 544(b) and Section 25:2-25 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes)**\n\n69. Defendant restates and incorporates by reference all of his responses to the crossreferenced allegations as applicable.\n\n70. Paragraph 70 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n71. Paragraph 71 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n72. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 72 of the Complaint.\n\n73. Paragraph 73 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n74. Paragraph 74 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n#### **Fifth Claim**\n\n#### **(Recovery of Avoided Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 550)**\n\n75. Defendant restates and incorporates by reference all of his responses to the crossreferenced allegations as applicable.\n\n76. Paragraph 76 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n77. Paragraph 77 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n78. Paragraph 78 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n79. Paragraph 79 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no response is required.\n\n#### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nDefendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in its Prayer for Relief.\n\n### **AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES**\n\nWithout assuming any burden of proof or persuasion that rests with Plaintiff, Defendant hereby asserts the following defenses. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses as its investigation into the facts and circumstances herein alleged continues during the course of this litigation, including discovery, trial, or otherwise.\n\n### **FIRST DEFENSE**\n\nThe Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.\n\n#### **SECOND DEFENSE**\n\nPlaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations and/or administrative filing periods and/or by failure to satisfy the statutory and administrative prerequisites to the bringing of Plaintiff's claims.\n\n### **THIRD DEFENSE**\n\nPlaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel.\n\n### **FOURTH DEFENSE**\n\nPlaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of laches.\n\nDated: New York, New York March 8, 2024\n\n# PARRETT, PORTO, PARESE & COLWELL, PC\n\nBy: */s/ Michael A. Carbone* Michael A. Carbone 2319 Whitney Avenue, Ste 1-D Hamden, CT 06518 (203) 281-2700 Fax 203.281.0700\n\n## OLSHAN FROME WOLOSKY LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Adam H. Friedman*\n\nAdam H. Friedman Katherine E. Mateo 1325 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 (212) 451-2300\n\n*Attorneys for Defendant Defeng Cao*","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部）\n\n关于：第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。（合并审理）\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章破产受托人，对抗性程序 24-05001\n原告，\n诉\nDEFENG CAO（曹德丰），\n被告。\n被告 DEFENG CAO（曹德丰）对起诉状的答辩状\n\n被告 Defeng Cao（曹德丰，下称“被告”），经由其下述署名律师，针对在本对抗性程序中提起的起诉状作出如下答辩，特此主张如下：\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 起诉状第 1 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n2. 被告否认起诉状第 2 款中的指控，除承认其系债务人之女 Mei Guo（郭美）的男友，且自 2017 年以来的某些时期曾与债务人一家共同生活之外。\n\n3. 被告否认起诉状第 3 款中的指控，除承认这些摩托车目前停放在 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅），且在此之前曾停放在位于 Taconic Road（塔科尼克路）的住宅之外。\n\n4. 被告否认第 4 款中的指控，但承认其并未挑选或购买这些摩托车。\n\n5. 起诉状第 5 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n6. 起诉状第 6 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n7. 起诉状第 7 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n管辖权与审判地\n\n8. 起诉状第 8 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n当事人\n\n9. 被告承认起诉状第 9 款的指控。\n\n10. 被告承认起诉状第 10 款的指控，除回应称被告已将其主要居住地搬迁至新泽西州 Union City（联合市）的一处单元之外。\n\n11. 被告承认起诉状第 11 款的指控。\n事实\nI. 债务人大肆使用空壳公司与名义所有人之情形\n\n12. 被告缺乏足够的知识或信息来对起诉状第 12 款所含指控的真实性形成确信。\n\n13. 被告缺乏足够的知识或信息来对起诉状第 13 款所含指控的真实性形成确信。\n\n14. 起诉状第 14 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\nII. 曹与债务人家族的密切关系\n\n15. 被告承认起诉状第 15 款的指控。\n\n16. 被告否认起诉状第 16 款中的指控，除承认其与郭美存在恋爱关系且曾与她及其家人一同度假之外。\n\n17. 被告否认起诉状第 17 款中的指控，除承认在 2017 年 9 月其曾提交一份宣誓书载明当时受雇于债务人之外。\n\n18. 被告否认起诉状第 18 款中的指控，除承认其此前曾监督马瓦豪宅的若干建造及翻修项目，且其从一家总部位于中国的实体领取薪资（正如先前向受托人出示的工资单所反映的那样）之外。\n\n19. 被告缺乏足够的知识或信息来对起诉状第 19 款所含指控的真实性形成确信，除承认于 2022 年 7 月 12 日其曾收到一张来自 Greenwich Land LLC 的支票之外。\nIII. 涉案车辆\n\n20. 被告承认起诉状第 20 款的指控。\n\n21. 被告承认起诉状第 21 款的指控。\n\n22. 被告缺乏足够的知识或信息来对起诉状第 22 款所含指控的真实性形成确信。\n\n23. 被告承认起诉状第 23 款的指控。\n\n24. 被告承认起诉状第 24 款的指控。\nIV. 曹仅为摩托车的名义所有人\n\n25. 起诉状第 25 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应，除承认该四辆摩托车均在新泽西州登记并登记于被告名下之外。\n\n26. 在与所引用的证词笔录部分不一致的范围内，被告否认该指控，除承认该四辆摩托车中每一辆的产权证书均于 2022 年 10 月 6 日签发给其本人之外，并提请参照笔录了解所引用的具体内容。\n\n27. 在与所引用的证词笔录部分不一致的范围内，被告否认该指控，并提请参照笔录了解所引用的具体内容。\n\n28. 在与所引用的证词笔录部分不一致的范围内，被告否认该指控，并提请参照笔录了解所引用的具体内容。\n\n29. 在与所引用的证词笔录部分不一致的范围内，被告否认该指控，并提请参照笔录了解所引用的具体内容。\n\n30. 被告否认起诉状第 30 款的指控。\n\n31. 被告否认起诉状第 31 款的指控。\nV. 债务人系摩托车的真正所有人\n\n32. 被告否认起诉状第 32 款的指控。\n\n33. 被告缺乏足够的知识或信息来对起诉状第 33 款所含指控的真实性形成确信。\n\n34. 被告缺乏足够的知识或信息来对起诉状第 34 款所含指控的真实性形成确信。\n\n35. 被告否认起诉状第 35 款的指控。\n\n36. 被告缺乏足够的知识或信息来对起诉状第 36 款所含指控的真实性形成确信。\n\n37. 被告缺乏足够的知识或信息来对起诉状第 37 款所含指控的真实性形成确信。\n\n38. 被告否认起诉状第 38 款的指控。\n\n39. 被告缺乏足够的知识或信息来对起诉状第 39 款所含指控的真实性形成确信。\nVI. 路虎卫士及道奇公羊的欺诈性转让\n\n40. 被告承认起诉状第 40 款的指控。\n\n41. 在与所引用的证词笔录部分不一致的范围内，被告否认该指控，并提请参照笔录了解所引用的具体内容。\n\n42. 被告缺乏足够的知识或信息来对起诉状第 42 款所含指控的真实性形成确信。\n\n43. 被告承认起诉状第 43 款的指控。\n\n44. 被告否认起诉状第 44 款中的指控，除承认卫士和公羊系由债务人之子 Mileson Guo（郭强）赠予其之外。\n\n45. 被告否认起诉状第 45 款的指控。\n\n46. 被告缺乏足够的知识或信息来对起诉状第 46 款所含指控的真实性形成确信。\n\n47. 被告缺乏足够的知识或信息来对起诉状第 47 款所含指控的真实性形成确信。\n\n48. 被告否认起诉状第 48 款的指控。\n\n49. 被告否认起诉状第 49 款的指控。\n第一项主张\n（宣告债务人为摩托车的衡平法所有人并命令将摩托车移交予受托人之确认之诉判决）\n\n50. 被告重申并在适用范围内援引并入其针对交叉引用的指控所作的全部回应。\n\n51. 起诉状第 51 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n52. 起诉状第 52 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n53. 被告否认起诉状第 53 款的指控。\n\n54. 被告否认起诉状第 54 款的指控。\n\n55. 被告否认起诉状第 55 款的指控。\n\n56. 起诉状第 56 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n第二项主张\n根据《破产法典》第 549 条撤销作为未经授权的申请后转让的摩托车转让（作为第一项主张的备位主张提出）\n\n57. 被告重申并在适用范围内援引并入其针对交叉引用的指控所作的全部回应。\n\n58. 起诉状第 58 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n59. 起诉状第 59 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n60. 被告承认起诉状第 60 款的指控。\n\n61. 起诉状第 61 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n62. 起诉状第 62 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n第三项主张\n（根据《破产法典》第 548(a)(1)(A) 条撤销作为实际欺诈的路虎卫士及道奇公羊的转让）\n\n63. 被告重申并在适用范围内援引并入其针对交叉引用的指控所作的全部回应。\n\n64. 起诉状第 64 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n65. 起诉状第 65 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n66. 起诉状第 66 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n67. 起诉状第 67 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n68. 起诉状第 68 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n第四项主张\n（根据《破产法典》第 544(b) 条及《新泽西州修订成文法》第 25:2-25 条撤销作为实际欺诈的路虎卫士及道奇公羊的转让）\n\n69. 被告重申并在适用范围内援引并入其针对交叉引用的指控所作的全部回应。\n\n70. 起诉状第 70 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n71. 起诉状第 71 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n72. 被告承认起诉状第 72 款的指控。\n\n73. 起诉状第 73 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n74. 起诉状第 74 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n第五项主张\n（根据《破产法典》第 550 条追回被撤销的转让）\n\n75. 被告重申并在适用范围内援引并入其针对交叉引用的指控所作的全部回应。\n\n76. 起诉状第 76 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n77. 起诉状第 77 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n78. 起诉状第 78 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n\n79. 起诉状第 79 款意图陈述法律结论，无需对此作出回应。\n诉讼请求\n\n被告否认原告有权获得其在诉讼请求中所要求的任何救济。\n积极抗辩及其他抗辩\n\n在不承担原告所负有的任何举证责任或说服责任的前提下，被告特此提出以下抗辩。随着对本案所指控的事实和情况的调查在本次诉讼过程（包括证据开示、审理或其他程序）中继续进行，被告保留提出追加抗辩的权利。\n第一项抗辩\n\n起诉状未能陈述足以构成可给予救济之诉由的事实。\n第二项抗辩\n\n原告的主张全部或部分因适用的诉讼时效和/或行政提交期限，和/或因未能满足提出原告主张的法定及行政前置条件而被禁止。\n\n第三项抗辩\n\n原告的主张全部或部分因禁止反言原则而被禁止。\n\n第四项抗辩\n\n原告的主张全部或部分因懈怠请求权的衡平法原则而被禁止。\n\n日期：New York, New York（纽约州纽约市） 2024年3月8日\nPARRETT, PORTO, PARESE & COLWELL, PC（帕雷特·波尔托·帕雷塞与科尔韦尔律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ Michael A. Carbone（迈克尔·A·卡博内） Michael A. Carbone\n2319 Whitney Avenue, Ste 1-D Hamden, CT 06518\n电话：(203) 281-2700 传真：203.281.0700\n\nOLSHAN FROME WOLOSKY LLP（奥尔珊·弗罗姆·沃洛斯基有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ Adam H. Friedman（亚当·H·弗里德曼）\n\nAdam H. Friedman Katherine E. Mateo（凯瑟琳·E·马特奥）\n1325 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019\n(212) 451-2300\n\n被告 Defeng Cao（曹德丰）的代理律师","key_entities":["Je","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2059,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:06:34"}