{"id":"court_ctb_3943_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3943,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","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| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                          | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |\n| Debtors.1                                                        | :<br>:<br>: | Jointly Administered    |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |  |\n\n### **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**fG GH5HIG F9EDF**T REGARDING MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR HEARINGS ON JANUARY 15, 2025 AND PROPOSED DISCUSSION POINTS FOR JANUARY 8, 2025 STATUS CONFERENCE**\n\nEgU 9\\* =Web[`e( [` Z[e USbSU[fk Se fZW UZSbfWd -- fdgefWW &fZW nTrusteeo' Sbba[`fWV [` fZW chapter 11 case &fZW nChapter 11 Caseo' aX Aa OS` Dia] &fZW nDebtoro'( hereby respectfully submits his status report and proposed discussion points &fZ[e nReporto' in advance of the status conference concerning the January 15, 2025 hearings &Ua^^WUf[hW^k( fZW nJanuary 15 Hearingso' scheduled in this Chapter 11 Case with respect to: (a) joint briefing authorized by the Court (the nJoint Briefingo' and undertaken by cerfS[` Sha[VS`UW VWXW`VS`fe &fZW nJoint Defendantso'<sup>2</sup> ; and\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Joint Defendants are: Cloudflare, Inc.; Amazon.com, Inc.; Indium Software Inc.; Amazon Web Services, Inc.; Flat Rate Movers, Ltd.; 3 Columbus Circle LLC; ModSquad Inc.; Phillips Nizer LLP; 270 W. 39th St. Co., LLC; Agora Lab, Inc.; GroCyber, LLC; Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder LLP; Jamestown Associates, LLC; Target Enterprises, LLC; Conservative Campaign Technology, LLC; Miller Motorcars Inc.; Mark Gunderson; On the Spot Home Improvement, Inc.; Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello; Putnam's Landscaping LLC; Jason Miller; Ohtzar Shlomo Solomon Treasure LLC; Sedgwick Realty Corp.; Direct Persuasion LLC; Anthem Health Plans, Inc.; American Express Company; Fox News Network, LLC; Marcum LLP; B&H Foto & Electronics Corp.; Federal Express Corporation; Cirrus Design Corporation; Teris-Phoenix, LLC; Zeta Global Corp.; Nardello & Co., LLC; Arri Americas Inc.; Anthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc.; DJD Creative, LLC; and McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC.\n\n(b) regarding certain motions (the \"Non-Joint Motions\") pending in adversary proceedings (the \"Other Adversary Proceedings\") related to the Chapter 11 Case. Further to his Report, the Trustee respectfully states the following:\n\nConsistent with the Joint Briefing, the Trustee views the following issues as before the Court on January 15, 2025 with respect to the Joint Defendants (the \"Joint Briefing Issues\"), although the Trustee does not agree that all of these arguments are appropriately raised on a motion to dismiss and reserves all rights with respect to these arguments: (a) whether the defendants' claims of prejudice based on their purported \"innocence\" preclude veil-piercing and alter ego relief for the relevant transferor entities at issue in the Trustee's complaints; (b) whether alter ego rulings result in the entities' assets being considered property of the Debtor/Estate (as applicable) and whether avoiding transfers made via shell companies requires substantive consolidation; (c) whether the Trustee may avoid transfers that occurred prior to the date that the Court made its alter ego rulings (i.e., what the joint defendants deem \"retroactive\" or \"nunc pro tunc\" relief); and (d) the preclusive effect of the Court's prior alter ego rulings under the doctrine of \"law of the case.\"\n\nThe Trustee understands that the Joint Defendants wish to present oral argument on the foregoing Joint Briefing Issues through three counsel, each of whom would present argument on discrete issues. Subject to the Court's views regarding the format of the hearing, the Trustee does not object to the Joint Defendants' proposal, provided, however, the Trustee has requested that the Joint Defendants identify which counsel they propose to argue which discrete issues so that the Trustee may organize his responsive argument accordingly.\n\n<sup>3</sup> The relevant transferor entities are: Lamp Capital LLC, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., Greenwich Land LLC, Lexington Property & Staffing, Inc., and Leading Shine NY Ltd.\n\nThe Trustee has also considered the issues raised in the fifteen Non-Joint Motions scheduled to be heard at the January 15 Hearingsm*i.e.*, fourteen motions to dismiss filed by various avoidance defendants (all but one of which is not a Joint Defendant<sup>4</sup> ) S`V fZW LdgefWWpe \\_af[a` Xad judgment on the pleadings against Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. A list of the Non-Joint Motions with bullet points that describe (in summary form and without limitation) issues implicated by each such motion is attached hereto as **Exhibit A**.\n\nIn the interests of efficiency and judicial economy, the Trustee believes that the Court should only consider the Non-Joint Motions at the January 15 Hearings to the extent they implicate Joint Briefing Issues.<sup>5</sup> While most of the Non-Joint Motions do implicate Joint Briefing Issues to varying degrees, these motions also raise numerous issues that are *not* Joint Briefing Issues, as reflected on Exhibit A &fZW nNon-Joint Issueso'. Many of the Non-Joint Issues involve matters and allegations specific to particular adversary proceedings. Examples include, without limitation: (a) iZWfZWd fZW LdgefWWpe actual fraudulent transfer claims plausibly allege fraudulent intent; (b) UWdfS[` VWXW`VS`fep claims that they provided value in consideration for transfers; and (c) as to four Non-Joint Motions, disputes as to the <agdfpe bWdea`S^ \\gd[eV[Uf[a` (the briefing of which has typically required the filing of affidavits and evidence relevant to jurisdictional analyses, including exhibits filed under seal with respect to defendants Harcus Parker Limited, Berkeley Rowe Limited, and ACASS Canada Limited). The Trustee is concerned that trying to include argument\n\n<sup>4</sup> The exception is Jason Miller, who is both a Joint Defendant (by virtue of a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5219 Docket No. 23)) and a movant with respect to a separate motion to dismiss that is a Non-Joint Motion (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5219 Docket No. 14).\n\n<sup>5</sup> While the Trustee believes that parties to Non-Joint Motions should have reasonable opportunity to be heard to the extent that Non-Joint Motions implicate Joint Briefing Issues, the Trustee does not believe that the January 15 Hearings should become an occasion for multiple counsel to offer repetitive argument. Accordingly, counsel for parties to Non-Joint Motions wishing to present argument at the January 15 Hearings should consult with counsel for the Joint Defendants to ensure that arguments will not be duplicative and that the number of counsel addressing the Court will be appropriately limited.\n\non all of the Non-Joint Issues raised by the fifteen Non-Joint Motions into one hearing day could lead to a hearing that is so overly long and complicated that it would ultimately be unworkable.<sup>6</sup> Rather, the Trustee anticipates that the Court would schedule in due course a separate hearing or hearings on the Non-Joint Motions as to Non-Joint Issues.\n\nYesterday, the Trustee shared his views regarding the foregoing with counsel who are representatives for the larger group of Joint Defendants and with counsel for the defendants that are party to Non-Joint Motions. The Trustee will be prepared to discuss these matters and any other issues the Court may wish to discuss regarding the January 15 Hearings at todayps status conference.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\n<sup>6</sup> If the Court disagrees and wishes to entertain argument on both Joint Briefing Issues and Non-Joint Issues at the January 15 Hearings, the Trustee respectfully suggests that the Court establish in advance: (a) time limitations for parties to present oral argument; and (b) the order in which the Court will hear oral argument on the Joint Briefing Issues and on the Non-Joint Motions (with the Non-Joint Motions ordered so that motions as to which defendants are represented by the same counsel are heard together or following one another).\n\nDated: January 8, 2025 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nDouglass Barron (*pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6690 douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n### **Exhibit A**\n\n**(List of Non-Joint Motions and Issues)**\n\n# LIST OF NON-JOINT MOTIONS AND ISSUES\n\n### FFP (BVI) Limited's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5056 Docket No. 17):\n\nJoint Briefing Issues Implicated:\n\n- Whether alter ego rulings result in the entities' assets being considered property of the Debtor/Estate (as applicable) and whether avoiding transfers made via shell companies requires substantive consolidation;\n- Whether the Trustee may avoid transfers that occurred prior to the date that the Court made its alter ego rulings (i.e., what the defendants deem \"retroactivity\" or \"nunc pro tunc\" relief); and\n- The preclusive effect of the Court's prior alter ego rulings under the doctrine of \"law of the case.\"\n\n### Non-Joint Issues:\n\n- Whether the Trustee has standing to pursue avoidance claims as to transfers made via Debtor's alter egos;\n- Whether Trustee adequately pled that shell companies were Debtor's alter ego(s);\n- Whether the Trustee has sufficiently alleged \"badges of fraud\" to support claims for actual intent fraudulent transfer under Bankruptcy Code and applicable state law;\n- Whether Trustee's avoidance claims fail because Trustee filed schedule(s) detailing transfers under seal pursuant to procedures ordered by Bankruptcy Court; and\n- Arguments concerning value this defendant claims to have provided.\n\n## Apple Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5060 Docket No. 32):\n\n## Joint Briefing Issues Implicated:\n\n- Defendant's briefing implicates all Joint Briefing Issues.\n\n- Whether allegations in Complaint state plausible claims for actual intent fraudulent transfer under Bankruptcy Code and applicable state law;\n- Whether Trustee's avoidance claims fail because Trustee filed schedule(s) detailing transfers under seal pursuant to procedures ordered by Bankruptcy Court; and\n- Whether allegations in Complaint state plausible claims for constructive fraudulent transfer under Bankruptcy Code and applicable state law.\n\n## Aaron Mitchell LLC's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5110 Docket No. 19):\n\nJoint Briefing Issues Implicated:\n\n- Whether alter ego rulings result in the entities' assets being considered property of the Debtor/Estate (as applicable) and whether avoiding transfers made via shell companies requires substantive consolidation;\n- Whether the Trustee may avoid transfers that occurred prior to the date that the Court made its alter ego rulings (i.e., what the defendants deem \"retroactivity\" or \"nunc pro tunc\" relief); and\n- - The preclusive effect of the Court's prior alter ego rulings under the doctrine of \"law of the case.\"\n\nNon-Joint Issues:\n\n- Whether the Trustee has standing to pursue avoidance claims as to transfers made via Debtor's alter egos;\n- Whether Trustee adequately pled that shell companies were Debtor's alter ego(s);\n- Whether the Trustee has sufficiently alleged \"badges of fraud\" to support claims for actual intent fraudulent transfer under Bankruptcy Code and applicable state law;\n- Whether Trustee's avoidance claims fail because Trustee filed schedule(s) detailing transfers under seal pursuant to procedures ordered by Bankruptcy Court; and\n- Arguments concerning value this defendant claims to have provided.\n\n## Meta Platforms Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5117 Docket No. 18):\n\nJoint Briefing Issues Implicated:\n\n- Defendant's briefing implicates all Joint Briefing Issues.\n\n- Whether allegations in Complaint state plausible claims for actual intent fraudulent transfer under Bankruptcy Code and applicable state law; and\n- Whether Trustee's avoidance claims fail because Trustee filed schedule(s) detailing transfers under seal pursuant to procedures ordered by Bankruptcy Court.\n\n# V. X. Cerda & Associates P.A. Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5134 Docket No. 16):\n\n# Joint Briefing Issues Implicated:\n\n- Whether alter ego rulings result in the entities' assets being considered property of the Debtor/Estate (as applicable) and whether avoiding transfers made via shell companies requires substantive consolidation;\n- Whether the Trustee may avoid transfers that occurred prior to the date that the Court made its alter ego rulings (i.e., what the defendants deem \"retroactivity\" or \"nunc pro tunc\" relief); and\n- The preclusive effect of the Court's prior alter ego rulings under the doctrine of \"law of the case.\"\n\n### Non-Joint Issues:\n\n- Whether the Trustee has standing to pursue avoidance claims as to transfers made via Debtor's alter egos;\n- Whether Trustee adequately pled that shell companies were Debtor's alter ego(s);\n- Whether the Trustee has sufficiently alleged \"badges of fraud\" to support claims for actual intent fraudulent transfer under Bankruptcy Code and applicable state law;\n- Whether Trustee's avoidance claims fail because Trustee filed schedule(s) detailing transfers under seal pursuant to procedures ordered by Bankruptcy Court; and\n- - Arguments concerning value this defendant claims to have provided.\n\n# Liberty Jet Management Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5135 Docket No. 19):\n\nNon-Joint Issues:\n\n- Whether Trustee's claims fail because Trustee has not negated good/faith value defense to actual intent fraudulent transfer claims; and\n- Whether defendant is an initial or subsequent transferee.\n\n# Harcus Parker Limited's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5163 Docket No. 12):\n\n- Defendant moved to dismiss solely under Civil Rule 12(b)(2) disputing Court's personal jurisdiction; and\n- Evidentiary record on personal jurisdiction includes exhibits filed under seal including exhibits subject to attorney-client privilege.\n\n# The Francis Law Firm PLLC's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5168 Docket No. 15):\n\n## Joint Briefing Issues Implicated:\n\n- Whether alter ego rulings result in the entities' assets being considered property of the Debtor/Estate (as applicable) and whether avoiding transfers made via shell companies requires substantive consolidation;\n- Whether the Trustee may avoid transfers that occurred prior to the date that the Court made its alter ego rulings (i.e., what the defendants deem \"retroactivity\" or \"nunc pro tunc\" relief); and\n- The preclusive effect of the Court's prior alter ego rulings under the doctrine of \"law of the case.\"\n\n#### Non-Joint Issues:\n\n- Whether the Trustee has standing to pursue avoidance claims as to transfers made via Debtor's alter egos;\n- Whether Trustee adequately pled that shell companies were Debtor's alter ego(s);\n- Whether the Trustee has sufficiently alleged \"badges of fraud\" to support claims for actual intent fraudulent transfer under Bankruptcy Code and applicable state law.\n\n# Berkeley Rowe Limited's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Adversary Complaint (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5186 Docket No. 35):\n\n### Joint Briefing Issues Implicated:\n\n- Whether alter ego rulings result in the entities' assets being considered property of the Debtor/Estate (as applicable) and whether avoiding transfers made via shell companies requires substantive consolidation;\n- Whether the Trustee may avoid transfers that occurred prior to the date that the Court made its alter ego rulings (i.e., what the defendants deem \"retroactivity\" or \"nunc pro tunc\" relief); and\n- The preclusive effect of the Court's prior alter ego rulings under the doctrine of \"law of the case.\"\n\n- Whether the Trustee has standing to pursue avoidance claims as to transfers made via Debtor's alter egos;\n- Whether Trustee adequately pled that shell companies were Debtor's alter ego(s);\n- Defendant moved to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(2) disputing Court's personal jurisdiction; and\n- Evidentiary record on personal jurisdiction includes exhibits filed under seal.\n\n## Weddle Law PLLC's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5188 Docket No. 12):\n\nJoint Briefing Issues Implicated:\n\n- Whether alter ego rulings result in the entities' assets being considered property of the Debtor/Estate (as applicable) and whether avoiding transfers made via shell companies requires substantive consolidation;\n- Whether the Trustee may avoid transfers that occurred prior to the date that the Court made its alter ego rulings (i.e., what the defendants deem \"retroactivity\" or \"nunc pro tunc\" relief); and\n- - The preclusive effect of the Court's prior alter ego rulings under the doctrine of \"law of the case.\"\n\nNon-Joint Issues:\n\n- Whether the Trustee has standing to pursue avoidance claims as to transfers made via Debtor's alter egos;\n- Whether Trustee adequately pled that shell companies were Debtor's alter ego(s);\n- Defendant contests personal jurisdiction and venue because it is located in New York;\n- Whether Trustee's claims are barred by judicial or equitable estoppel; and\n- Whether defendant is retroactively entitled to approval of payments it received.\n\n# Lawall & Mitchell LLC's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5199 Docket No. 21):\n\n#### Joint Briefing Issues Implicated:\n\n- Whether alter ego rulings result in the entities' assets being considered property of the Debtor/Estate (as applicable) and whether avoiding transfers made via shell companies requires substantive consolidation;\n- Whether the Trustee may avoid transfers that occurred prior to the date that the Court made its alter ego rulings (i.e., what the defendants deem \"retroactivity\" or \"nunc pro tunc\" relief); and\n- The preclusive effect of the Court's prior alter ego rulings under the doctrine of \"law of the case.\"\n\n- Whether the Trustee has standing to pursue avoidance claims as to transfers made via Debtor's alter egos:\n- Whether Trustee adequately pled that shell companies were Debtor's alter ego(s);\n- Whether Trustee's avoidance claims fail because Trustee filed schedule(s) detailing transfers under seal pursuant to procedures ordered by Bankruptcy Court; and\n- - Arguments concerning value this defendant claims to have provided.\n\n## G4S Security Systems (Hong Kong) Ltd. (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5204 Docket No. 23):\n\nJoint Briefing Issues Implicated:\n\n- Whether alter ego rulings result in the entities' assets being considered property of the Debtor/Estate (as applicable) and whether avoiding transfers made via shell companies requires substantive consolidation;\n- Whether the Trustee may avoid transfers that occurred prior to the date that the Court made its alter ego rulings (i.e., what the defendants deem \"retroactivity\" or \"nunc pro tunc\" relief); and\n- The preclusive effect of the Court's prior alter ego rulings under the doctrine of \"law of the case.\"\n\nNon-Joint Issues:\n\n- Whether the Trustee has standing to pursue avoidance claims as to transfers made via Debtor's alter egos;\n- Whether Trustee adequately pled that shell companies were Debtor's alter ego(s);\n- Whether the Trustee has sufficiently alleged \"badges of fraud\" to support claims for actual intent fraudulent transfer under Bankruptcy Code and applicable state law;\n- Whether Trustee's avoidance claims fail because Trustee filed schedule(s) detailing transfers under seal pursuant to procedures ordered by Bankruptcy Court; and\n- Arguments concerning value this defendant claims to have provided.\n\n# Trustee's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Against Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. (Adv. Proc. No. 24-05208 Docket No. 17):\n\nJoint Briefing Issues Implicated:\n\n- Whether the Trustee may avoid transfers that occurred prior to the date that the Court made its alter ego rulings (i.e., what the defendants deem \"retroactivity\" or \"nunc pro tunc\" relief); and\n- The preclusive effect of the Court's prior alter ego rulings under the doctrine of \"law of the case.\"\n\n- Whether Trustee has standing to seek alter ego ruling: and\n- Whether judgment on the pleadings available where defendant denies allegations in complaint.\n\n## Jason Miller's Motion to Dismiss (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5219 Docket No. 14):\n\nNon-Joint Issues:\n\n- Dispute over choice of law as to applicable state law actual intent fraudulent transfer claim;\n- Whether Trustee has alleged sufficient facts to plead plausible actual intent fraudulent transfer claim; and\n- Whether Trustee's avoidance claims fail because Trustee filed schedule(s) detailing transfers under seal pursuant to procedures ordered by Bankruptcy Court\n\n# ACASS Canada Limited's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5226 Docket No. 26):\n\n## Joint Briefing Issues Implicated:\n\n- Whether alter ego rulings result in the entities' assets being considered property of the Debtor/Estate (as applicable) and whether avoiding transfers made via shell companies requires substantive consolidation;\n- Whether the Trustee may avoid transfers that occurred prior to the date that the Court made its alter ego rulings (i.e., what the defendants deem \"retroactivity\" or \"nunc pro tunc\" relief); and\n- The preclusive effect of the Court's prior alter ego rulings under the doctrine of \"law of the case.\"\n\n- Defendant moved to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(2) disputing Court's personal jurisdiction;\n- Evidentiary record on personal jurisdiction includes exhibits filed under seal;\n- Defendant argues Trustee is limited to seeking relief under section 547 (avoidance of preferences);\n- Whether Trustee adequately pled that shell companies were Debtor's alter ego(s);\n- Whether Trustee has stated plausible claims of actual intent fraudulent transfer under Bankruptcy Code and applicable state law; and\n- Whether Trustee may obtain alter ego relief as to shell companies nominally owned by Debtor's family and associates (rather than directly owned by Debtor).\n\n### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK<br>et al.,                                           | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:      | Jointly Administered    |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |  |\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on the date hereof, the foregoing Status Report and exhibit was electronically filed ge[`Y fZW <agdfpe USeW \\_S`SYW\\_W`f+W^WUfda`[U USeW X[^We ekefW\\_ &nCM/ECFo' [` fZW <ZSbfWd -- <SeW. Notice of this filing will be sent automatically via e-mail by operation of CM/ECF to all appearing parties in the Chapter 11 Case.\n\nIn addition, on the date hereof, the undersigned has caused the foregoing to be served by manual email on counsel for all of the Joint Defendants and on counsel for all defendants that are party to the Non-Joint Motions as set forth on the attached **Exhibit 1**.\n\nDated: January 8, 2025 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n> By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **EXHIBIT 1**\n\n#### **Joint Defendants**\n\nOhtzar Shlomo Solomon Treasure LLC Counsel: Jeffrey Hellman jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com\n\nJason Miller\n\nCounsel: Jeffrey Hellman jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com\n\nAnthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. Counsel: Eric S. Goldstein egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\nAnthem Health Plans, Inc.\n\nCounsel: Eric S. Goldstein egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\nSedgwick Realty Corp. Counsel: Eric S. Goldstein egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\nDirect Persuasion LLC\n\nCounsel: Eric S. Goldstein egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\nIgf`S\\_pe ES`VeUSb[`Y EE<\n\nCounsel: Scott M. Charmoy scottcharmoy@charmoy.com\n\nArri Americas Inc.\n\nCounsel: Michael T. Conway mconway@lpgmalaw.com\n\nFederal Express Corporation\n\nCounsel: Eric S. Goldstein egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\nand\n\nMichael A. Siedband Michael.siedband@fedex.com Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello Counsel: Rowena A. Moffett rmoffett@bswlaw.com\n\nDJD Creative, LLC\n\nCounsel: Louis J. Martocchio III lou@mo-lawfirm.com\n\nand\n\nBret L. Strong Zachary W. Doninger bstrong@thestrongfirm.com zdoninger@thestrongfirm.com\n\nCloudflare, Inc.\n\nCounsel: Ross G. Fingold rfingold@lawssf.com\n\nand\n\nSabrina L. Streusand strausand@slollp.com\n\nCirrus Design Corporation\n\nCounsel: Richard J. Bernard richard.bernard@faegredrinker.com\n\nand\n\nJosh Peterson Josh.peterson@faegredrinker.com\n\nand\n\nJaclyn C. Marasco Jaclyn.marasco@faegredrinker.com\n\nIndium Software, Inc.\n\nCounsel: Benjamin D. Feder Eric R. Wilson bfeder@kelleydrye.com ewilson@kelleydrye.com\n\nand\n\nRichard J. Reding rreding@askllp.com\n\nand\n\nEdward E. Neiger eneiger@askllp.com\n\nTarget Enterprises, LLC\n\nCounsel: John F. Carberry Kara A. Zarchin jcarberry@cl-law.com kzarchin@cl-law.com\n\nJamestown Associates, LLC\n\nCounsel: John F. Carberry Kara A. Zarchin jcarberry@cl-law.com kzarchin@cl-law.com\n\nMark Gundersen\n\nCounsel: David J. Kozlowski dkozlowski@morrisoncohen.com\n\nand\n\nJeffrey Rhodes jrhodes@tlclawfirm.com\n\nMiller Motorcars Inc.\n\nCounsel: Eric Seltzer ehs@gtlslaw.com\n\n3 Columbus Circle, LLC\n\nCounsel: Robert E. Kaelin ekaelin@murthalaw.com\n\nand\n\nMatthew A. Pesce mpesce@murthalaw.com\n\nPhillips Nizer LLP\n\nCounsel: Robert E. Kaelin ekaelin@murthalaw.com and\n\nMatthew A. Pesce mpesce@murthalaw.com\n\nModSquad, Inc.\n\nCounsel: Robert E. Kaelin ekaelin@murthalaw.com\n\nand\n\nMatthew A. Pesce mpesce@murthalaw.com\n\n270 W. 39th St. Co., LLC\n\nCounsel: Robert N. Sensale rns@bvmlaw.com\n\nAgora Lab, Inc.\n\nCounsel: Lindsay C. Stone Benjamin Gilbert lstone@sheppardmullin.com bogilbert@sheppardmullin.com\n\nand\n\nAlan H. Martin amartin@sheppardmullin.com\n\nClayman Rosenberg Kirschner & Linder LLP Counsel: Matthew D. Valauri Matthew.valauri@wilsonelser.com\n\nMcManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC Counsel: Bonnie C. Mangan Bonnie.mangan@manganlaw.com\n\nand\n\nSari B. Placona splacona@msbnk.com\n\nB&H Foto & Electronics Corp. Counsel: Tracy Ellis Williams tewilliams@goodwin.com and\n\nScott M. Kessler Scott.kessler@akerman.com\n\nOn the Spot Home Improvement, Inc. Counsel: Eric S. Goldstein egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\nand\n\nJustin S. Baumgartner jbaumgartner@becker.legal\n\nGroCyber, LLC\n\nCounsel: Nicholas P. Vegliante nvegliante@cbshealaw.com\n\nNardello & Co., LLC\n\nCounsel: Henry P. Baer, Jr. Eilis Meagher hbaer@fdh.com emeagher@fdh.com\n\nTeris-Phoenix, LLC\n\nCounsel: Henry P. Baer, Jr. Eilis Meagher hbaer@fdh.com emeagher@fdh.com\n\nand\n\nAndrea M. Chase achase@spencerfane.com\n\n#### Marcum LLP\n\nCounsel: Henry P. Baer, Jr. hbaer@fdh.com\n\nand\n\nSteven G. Mintz Barry M. Kazan mintz@mintzandgold.com kazan@mintzandgold.com Fox News Network, LLC Counsel: Henry P. Baer, Jr. hbaer@fdh.com\n\nand\n\nSteven G. Mintz Barry M. Kazan mintz@mintzandgold.com kazan@mintzandgold.com\n\nConservative Campaign Technology LLC Counsel: Ilan Markus imarkus@barclaydamon.com\n\nZeta Global Corp.\n\nCounsel: John J. Clarke, Jr. John.clarke@us.dlapiper.com\n\nand\n\nC. Kevin Kobbe Kevin.kobbe@us.dlapiper.com\n\nFlat Rate Movers, Ltd.\n\nCounsel: James J. Costello, Jr. jjcostellojr@norris-law.com\n\nAmerican Express\n\nCounsel: Ronald I. Chorches ronchorcheslaw@sbcglobal.net\n\nand\n\nDarryl S. Laddin Frank N. White Darryl.laddin@agg.com Frank.white@agg.com\n\nAmazon Web Services, Inc. Counsel: Lindsay Sampson Bishop Lindsay.bishop@klgates.com\n\nand\n\nBrian T. Peterson\n\nRuby A. Nagamine Brian.peterson@klgates.com Ruby.nagamine@klgates.com\n\n#### **Defendants Party to Non-Joint Motions**\n\n- FFP (BVI) Limited\n- Counsel: Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky Michelle Amanda Antao jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com mantao@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nAaron Mitchell\n\nCounsel: Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nV.X. Cerda & Associates\n\nCounsel: Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nThe Francis Firm PLLC\n\nCounsel: Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nBerkeley Rowe Limited\n\nCounsel: Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nand\n\nJohn G. Willard Julie Johnston-Ahlen jwillard@atllp.com jjohnston@atllp.com\n\n#### Weddle Law PLLC\n\nCounsel: Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nand\n\nRichard J. Corbi rcorbi@corbilaw.com\n\nLawall & Mitchell, LLC\n\n- Counsel: Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n- G4S Security Systems (Hong Kong) Counsel: Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky Michelle Amanda Antao jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com mantao@gs-lawfirm.com\n\n#### ACASS Canada LTD.\n\nCounsel: Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nand\n\nEric Fishman Eric.fishman@pillburylaw.com\n\n#### Apple Inc.\n\nCounsel: George Angelich Eric Roman Patrick Feeney George.angelich@afslaw.com Eric.roman@afslaw.com Patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\nand\n\nJin Yan Jin.yan@afslaw.com\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc.\n\n-\n- Counsel: George Angelich Eric Roman Patrick Feeney George.angelich@afslaw.com Eric.roman@afslaw.com Patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\nand\n\nJin Yan Jin.yan@afslaw.com\n\nLiberty Jet Management Corp.\n\nCounsel: Gerard R. Luckman gluckman@forchellilaw.com\n\nHarcus Parker Limited\n\nCounsel: Peter C. Netburn Peter.netburn@clydeco.us\n\n#### Jason Miller\n\nCounsel: Jeffrey Hellman jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com\n\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n\nCounsel: Daniel A. Byrd Stephen M. Kindseth James M. Moriarty dbyrd@zeislaw.com skindseth@zeislaw.com jmoriarty@zeislaw.com","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦地区破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\nx\n\n关于：　：\n：　第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　：\n：　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1　：\n：\n：　合并管理\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n第11章受托人就定于2025年1月15日举行听证会的事项提交的状态报告，以及就2025年1月8日状态会议提出的拟讨论要点\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的第11章案件（以下简称“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”），特此谨在本第11章案件中就以下事项定于2025年1月15日举行的听证会（统称“1月15日听证会”）所涉状态会议之前，提交其状态报告及拟讨论要点（以下简称“本报告”）：(a) 经法院授权的联合书面陈述（以下简称“联合书面陈述”），由某些回避被告（以下简称“联合被告”）2 提交；以及\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人：Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2 联合被告包括：Cloudflare, Inc.（云端防护公司）；Amazon.com, Inc.（亚马逊公司）；Indium Software Inc.（铟软件公司）；Amazon Web Services, Inc.（亚马逊云计算服务公司）；Flat Rate Movers, Ltd.（固定费率搬家公司）；3 Columbus Circle LLC（哥伦布圆环3号有限责任公司）；ModSquad Inc.（模组小队公司）；Phillips Nizer LLP（菲利普斯·尼泽律师事务所）；270 W. 39th St. Co., LLC（西39街270号公司有限责任公司）；Agora Lab, Inc.（阿戈拉实验室公司）；GroCyber, LLC（格罗网络安全有限责任公司）；Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder LLP（克莱曼·罗森伯格·柯什纳与林德律师事务所）；Jamestown Associates, LLC（詹姆斯敦联合有限责任公司）；Target Enterprises, LLC（目标企业有限责任公司）；Conservative Campaign Technology, LLC（保守派竞选技术有限责任公司）；Miller Motorcars Inc.（米勒汽车公司）；Mark Gunderson（马克·冈德森）；On the Spot Home Improvement, Inc.（现场家居改造公司）；Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello（莫维洛·阿布拉莫维茨·格兰德·伊亚森与阿内洛律师事务所）；Putnam's Landscaping LLC（普特南园林有限责任公司）；Jason Miller（杰森·米勒）；Ohtzar Shlomo Solomon Treasure LLC（奥扎尔·什洛莫·所罗门宝藏有限责任公司）；Sedgwick Realty Corp.（塞奇威克房地产公司）；Direct Persuasion LLC（直接说服有限责任公司）；Anthem Health Plans, Inc.（安森健康计划公司）；American Express Company（美国运通公司）；Fox News Network, LLC（福克斯新闻网络有限责任公司）；Marcum LLP（马库姆律师事务所）；B&H Foto & Electronics Corp.（B&H摄影与电子公司）；Federal Express Corporation（联邦快递公司）；Cirrus Design Corporation（西锐设计公司）；Teris-Phoenix, LLC（泰里斯-菲尼克斯有限责任公司）；Zeta Global Corp.（泽塔全球公司）；Nardello & Co., LLC（纳德洛公司有限责任公司）；Arri Americas Inc.（阿莱美洲公司）；Anthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc.（安森健康选择保险公司）；DJD Creative, LLC（DJD创意有限责任公司）；以及 McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC（麦克马尼蒙·斯科特兰与鲍曼有限责任公司）。\n\n(b) 与第11章案件相关的对抗程序（以下简称“其他对抗程序”）中待决的某些动议（以下简称“非联合动议”）有关。受托人进一步就其报告谨陈述如下：\n\n与联合书面陈述一致，受托人认为，就联合被告而言，下列问题将于2025年1月15日提交法院审理（以下简称“联合书面陈述问题”）；但受托人不同意所有该等论点均适宜在驳回动议中提出，并保留就该等论点主张的一切权利：(a) 被告基于其所称“无辜”提出的损害主张，是否排除就受托人起诉状中所涉相关转让方实体给予揭开公司面纱及另我实体救济；(b) 另我实体裁定是否导致相关实体的资产被视为债务人／遗产的财产（视情况而定），以及撤销经由空壳公司作出的转让是否需要实质合并；(c) 受托人是否可以撤销在法院作出其另我实体裁定之日前发生的转让（即联合被告所称的“溯及既往”或“nunc pro tunc”救济）；以及 (d) 根据“案件法”原则，法院先前的另我实体裁定所具有的排除效力。\n\n受托人理解，联合被告拟由三名律师就前述联合书面陈述问题进行口头辩论，每名律师将就不同问题提出辩论。受限于法院对听证会形式的意见，受托人不反对联合被告的提议；但前提是，受托人已要求联合被告明确其拟由哪位律师就哪些具体问题进行辩论，以便受托人据此组织其答辩论点。\n\n3 相关转让方实体为：Lamp Capital LLC（兰普资本有限责任公司）、Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）、HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK技术公司）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK物业管理公司）、Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）、Lexington Property & Staffing, Inc.（列克星敦物业与人力配置公司）及 Leading Shine NY Ltd.（纽约领耀有限公司）。\n\n受托人还审议了定于1月15日听证会审理的十五项非联合动议所提出的问题，即由各回避被告提出的十四项驳回动议（其中除一项外，其余动议的提出者均非联合被告4），以及受托人针对 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒专业公司）提出的依诉状判决动议。作为附件A随附的是一份非联合动议清单，其中以要点方式概述但不限于说明每项该等动议所涉及的问题。\n\n为提高效率并节约司法资源，受托人认为，法院应仅在非联合动议涉及联合书面陈述问题的范围内，于1月15日听证会审理非联合动议。5 尽管大多数非联合动议在不同程度上确实涉及联合书面陈述问题，但这些动议亦提出了许多并非联合书面陈述问题的问题，如附件A所示（以下简称“非联合问题”）。许多非联合问题涉及特定对抗程序所特有的事项和指控。例如，包括但不限于：(a) 受托人的实际欺诈性转让请求是否合理地指称了欺诈意图；(b) 某些被告主张其就相关转让提供了对价；以及 (c) 就四项非联合动议而言，关于法院对人身管辖权的争议（通常要求提交宣誓书以及与管辖权分析相关的证据，包括就 Harcus Parker Limited（哈克斯·帕克有限公司）、Berkeley Rowe Limited（伯克利·罗有限责任公司）和 ACASS Canada Limited（ACASS加拿大有限公司）等被告密封提交的附件）。受托人担心，试图将\n\n4 该例外为 Jason Miller（杰森·米勒），其既是联合被告（因其提出了一项依诉状判决动议〔对抗程序案号 24-5219，案卷编号 23〕），也是一项单独驳回动议的提出人，而该动议属于非联合动议（对抗程序案号 24-5219，案卷编号 14）。\n\n5 尽管受托人认为，非联合动议的当事人在非联合动议涉及联合书面陈述问题的范围内，应享有合理的陈述机会，但受托人并不认为1月15日听证会应成为多名律师提出重复论证的场合。因此，希望在1月15日听证会上进行辩论的非联合动议当事人律师，应与联合被告的律师协商，以确保论点不会重复，并适当限制向法院陈述的律师人数。\n\n十五项非联合动议提出的全部非联合问题的辩论纳入一个听证日，可能导致听证会过于冗长和复杂，最终无法实际进行。6 相反，受托人预期法院将在适当时候就非联合动议中的非联合问题另行安排一次或多次听证会。\n\n昨天，受托人与代表较大联合被告群体的律师，以及作为非联合动议当事人的被告律师，分享了其对上述事项的意见。受托人将准备在今日的状态会议上讨论这些事项，以及法院可能希望就1月15日听证会讨论的任何其他问题。\n\n【本页其余部分特意留白。】\n\n6 如法院不同意并希望于1月15日听证会同时审理联合书面陈述问题和非联合问题的辩论，受托人谨建议法院预先确定：(a) 当事人进行口头辩论的时间限制；以及 (b) 法院听取联合书面陈述问题和非联合动议口头辩论的顺序（非联合动议应予排序，以使由同一律师代理的被告所涉动议一并或依次审理）。\n\n日期：January 8, 2025　　　　　　　　　　　　　　LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）\nNew Haven, Connecticut（康涅狄格州纽黑文）　　　　第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙泰斯专业公司）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）(pro hac vice)\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）(pro hac vice)\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6690\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人律师\n\n附件A\n\n（非联合动议及问题清单）\n\n非联合动议及问题清单\n\nFFP (BVI) Limited（FFP〔英属维尔京群岛〕有限公司）提出的驳回起诉状动议（对抗程序案号 24-5056，案卷编号 17）：\n\n所涉联合书面陈述问题：\n\n－另我实体裁定是否导致相关实体的资产被视为债务人／遗产的财产（视情况而定），以及撤销经由空壳公司作出的转让是否需要实质合并；\n\n－受托人是否可以撤销在法院作出其另我实体裁定之日前发生的转让（即被告所称的“溯及既往”或“nunc pro tunc”救济）；以及\n\n－根据“案件法”原则，法院先前的另我实体裁定所具有的排除效力。\n\n非联合问题：\n\n－受托人是否有资格就经由债务人的另我实体作出的转让提出撤销请求；\n\n－受托人是否充分主张空壳公司是债务人的另我实体；\n\n－受托人是否充分指称了“欺诈迹象”，以支持根据《破产法》和适用州法提出的实际意图欺诈性转让请求；\n\n－受托人的撤销请求是否因受托人依破产法院命令规定的程序密封提交了载明转让情况的附表而不能成立；以及\n\n－有关本被告主张其已提供对价的论点。\n\nApple Inc.（苹果公司）提出的驳回起诉状动议（对抗程序案号 24-5060，案卷编号 32）：\n\n所涉联合书面陈述问题：\n\n－被告的书面陈述涉及全部联合书面陈述问题。\n\n－起诉状中的指称是否构成根据《破产法》和适用州法提出实际意图欺诈性转让请求的合理主张；\n\n－受托人的撤销请求是否因受托人依破产法院命令规定的程序密封提交了载明转让情况的附表而不能成立；以及\n\n－起诉状中的指称是否构成根据《破产法》和适用州法提出推定欺诈性转让请求的合理主张。\n\nAaron Mitchell LLC（亚伦·米切尔有限责任公司）提出的驳回起诉状动议（对抗程序案号 24-5110，案卷编号 19）：\n\n所涉联合书面陈述问题：\n\n－另我实体裁定是否导致相关实体的资产被视为债务人／遗产的财产（视情况而定），以及撤销经由空壳公司作出的转让是否需要实质合并；\n\n－受托人是否可以撤销在法院作出其另我实体裁定之日前发生的转让（即被告所称的“溯及既往”或“nunc pro tunc”救济）；以及\n\n－根据“案件法”原则，法院先前的另我实体裁定所具有的排除效力。\n\n非联合问题：\n\n- 受托人是否具有诉讼资格，就经由债务人替身实体作出的转让提出撤销请求；\n- 受托人是否充分主张空壳公司系债务人的替身实体；\n- 受托人是否已充分主张“欺诈迹象”，以支持其依据《破产法典》及适用州法提出的实际欺诈意图转让请求；\n- 受托人的撤销请求是否因其依照破产法院命令的程序密封提交了载明转让详情的附表而不能成立；以及\n- 关于本被告声称其已提供的价值的论点。\n\nMeta Platforms Inc.（Meta Platforms 公司）驳回起诉状动议（对抗程序案号 24-5117，案卷编号 18）：\n\n涉及联合书面陈述的争议事项：\n\n- 被告的书面陈述涉及所有联合书面陈述争议事项。\n\n- 起诉状中的指称是否构成依据《破产法典》及适用州法提出实际欺诈意图转让请求的表面可信请求；以及\n- 受托人的撤销请求是否因其依照破产法院命令的程序密封提交了载明转让详情的附表而不能成立。\n\nV. X. Cerda & Associates P.A.（V. X. Cerda 律师事务所）驳回起诉状动议（对抗程序案号 24-5134，案卷编号 16）：\n\n涉及联合书面陈述的争议事项：\n\n- 替身实体裁定是否导致该等实体的资产被视为债务人／破产财产的财产（如适用），以及撤销经由空壳公司作出的转让是否需要实质合并；\n- 受托人是否可以撤销在法院作出其替身实体裁定之日前发生的转让（即被告所称的“追溯性”或“nunc pro tunc”救济）；以及\n- 法院先前的替身实体裁定依据“案件法则”原则所产生的排除效力。\n\n非联合争议事项：\n\n- 受托人是否具有诉讼资格，就经由债务人替身实体作出的转让提出撤销请求；\n- 受托人是否充分主张空壳公司系债务人的替身实体；\n- 受托人是否已充分主张“欺诈迹象”，以支持其依据《破产法典》及适用州法提出的实际欺诈意图转让请求；\n- 受托人的撤销请求是否因其依照破产法院命令的程序密封提交了载明转让详情的附表而不能成立；以及\n- 关于本被告声称其已提供的价值的论点。\n\nLiberty Jet Management Corp.（Liberty Jet 管理公司）驳回起诉状动议（对抗程序案号 24-5135，案卷编号 19）：\n\n非联合争议事项：\n\n- 受托人的请求是否因其未否定针对实际欺诈意图转让请求的善意且有对价抗辩而不能成立；以及\n- 被告是初始受让人还是后续受让人。\n\nHarcus Parker Limited（Harcus Parker 有限公司）驳回起诉状动议（对抗程序案号 24-5163，案卷编号 12）：\n\n- 被告仅依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》12(b)(2)条提出驳回动议，对法院的人身管辖权提出异议；以及\n- 关于人身管辖权的证据记录包括密封提交的证据材料，其中包括受律师—客户特权保护的证据材料。\n\nThe Francis Law Firm PLLC（Francis 律师事务所 PLLC）驳回起诉状动议（对抗程序案号 24-5168，案卷编号 15）：\n\n涉及联合书面陈述的争议事项：\n\n- 替身实体裁定是否导致该等实体的资产被视为债务人／破产财产的财产（如适用），以及撤销经由空壳公司作出的转让是否需要实质合并；\n- 受托人是否可以撤销在法院作出其替身实体裁定之日前发生的转让（即被告所称的“追溯性”或“nunc pro tunc”救济）；以及\n- 法院先前的替身实体裁定依据“案件法则”原则所产生的排除效力。\n\n非联合争议事项：\n\n- 受托人是否具有诉讼资格，就经由债务人替身实体作出的转让提出撤销请求；\n- 受托人是否充分主张空壳公司系债务人的替身实体；\n- 受托人是否已充分主张“欺诈迹象”，以支持其依据《破产法典》及适用州法提出的实际欺诈意图转让请求。\n\nBerkeley Rowe Limited（Berkeley Rowe 有限公司）驳回经修正的第一份对抗程序起诉状动议（对抗程序案号 24-5186，案卷编号 35）：\n\n涉及联合书面陈述的争议事项：\n\n- 替身实体裁定是否导致该等实体的资产被视为债务人／破产财产的财产（如适用），以及撤销经由空壳公司作出的转让是否需要实质合并；\n- 受托人是否可以撤销在法院作出其替身实体裁定之日前发生的转让（即被告所称的“追溯性”或“nunc pro tunc”救济）；以及\n- 法院先前的替身实体裁定依据“案件法则”原则所产生的排除效力。\n\n- 受托人是否具有诉讼资格，就经由债务人替身实体作出的转让提出撤销请求；\n- 受托人是否充分主张空壳公司系债务人的替身实体；\n- 被告依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》12(b)(2)条提出驳回动议，对法院的人身管辖权提出异议；以及\n- 关于人身管辖权的证据记录包括密封提交的证据材料。\n\nWeddle Law PLLC（Weddle 律师事务所 PLLC）驳回起诉状动议（对抗程序案号 24-5188，案卷编号 12）：\n\n涉及联合书面陈述的争议事项：\n\n- 替身实体裁定是否导致该等实体的资产被视为债务人／破产财产的财产（如适用），以及撤销经由空壳公司作出的转让是否需要实质合并；\n- 受托人是否可以撤销在法院作出其替身实体裁定之日前发生的转让（即被告所称的“追溯性”或“nunc pro tunc”救济）；以及\n- 法院先前的替身实体裁定依据“案件法则”原则所产生的排除效力。\n\n非联合争议事项：\n\n- 受托人是否具有诉讼资格，就经由债务人替身实体作出的转让提出撤销请求；\n- 受托人是否充分主张空壳公司系债务人的替身实体；\n- 被告因其位于纽约而对人身管辖权和审判地提出异议；\n- 受托人的请求是否受司法禁止反言或衡平禁止反言所阻却；以及\n- 被告是否有权追溯性地获得对其收到款项的批准。\n\nLawall & Mitchell LLC（Lawall & Mitchell 有限责任公司）驳回起诉状动议（对抗程序案号 24-5199，案卷编号 21）：\n\n涉及联合书面陈述的争议事项：\n\n- 替身实体裁定是否导致该等实体的资产被视为债务人／破产财产的财产（如适用），以及撤销经由空壳公司作出的转让是否需要实质合并；\n- 受托人是否可以撤销在法院作出其替身实体裁定之日前发生的转让（即被告所称的“追溯性”或“nunc pro tunc”救济）；以及\n- 法院先前的替身实体裁定依据“案件法则”原则所产生的排除效力。\n\n- 受托人是否具有诉讼资格，就经由债务人替身实体作出的转让提出撤销请求：\n- 受托人是否充分主张空壳公司系债务人的替身实体；\n- 受托人的撤销请求是否因其依照破产法院命令的程序密封提交了载明转让详情的附表而不能成立；以及\n- 关于本被告声称其已提供的价值的论点。\n\nG4S Security Systems (Hong Kong) Ltd.（G4S 安保系统〈香港〉有限公司）（对抗程序案号 24-5204，案卷编号 23）：\n\n涉及联合书面陈述的争议事项：\n\n- 替身实体裁定是否导致该等实体的资产被视为债务人／破产财产的财产（如适用），以及撤销经由空壳公司作出的转让是否需要实质合并；\n- 受托人是否可以撤销在法院作出其替身实体裁定之日前发生的转让（即被告所称的“追溯性”或“nunc pro tunc”救济）；以及\n- 法院先前的替身实体裁定依据“案件法则”原则所产生的排除效力。\n\n非联合争议事项：\n\n- 受托人是否具有诉讼资格，就经由债务人替身实体作出的转让提出撤销请求；\n- 受托人是否充分主张空壳公司系债务人的替身实体；\n- 受托人是否已充分主张“欺诈迹象”，以支持其依据《破产法典》及适用州法提出的实际欺诈意图转让请求；\n- 受托人的撤销请求是否因其依照破产法院命令的程序密封提交了载明转让详情的附表而不能成立；以及\n- 关于本被告声称其已提供的价值的论点。\n\n受托人针对 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（Zeisler & Zeisler 专业公司）提出的依诉状判决动议（对抗程序案号 24-05208，案卷编号 17）：\n\n涉及联合书面陈述的争议事项：\n\n- 受托人是否可以撤销在法院作出其替身实体裁定之日前发生的转让（即被告所称的“追溯性”或“nunc pro tunc”救济）；以及\n- 法院先前的替身实体裁定依据“案件法则”原则所产生的排除效力。\n\n- 受托人是否具有请求作出替身实体裁定的诉讼资格；以及\n- 被告否认起诉状中的指称时，是否可以作出依诉状判决。\n\nJason Miller（杰森·米勒）的驳回动议（对抗程序案号 24-5219，案卷编号 14）：\n\n非联合争议事项：\n\n- 就适用州法下的实际欺诈意图转让请求的法律选择争议；\n- 受托人是否已主张足够事实，以提出表面可信的实际欺诈意图转让请求；以及\n- 受托人的撤销请求是否因其依照破产法院命令的程序密封提交了载明转让详情的附表而不能成立。\n\nACASS Canada Limited（ACASS 加拿大有限公司）驳回第二份经修正起诉状动议（对抗程序案号 24-5226，案卷编号 26）：\n\n涉及联合书面陈述的争议事项：\n\n- 替身实体裁定是否导致该等实体的资产被视为债务人／破产财产的财产（如适用），以及撤销经由空壳公司作出的转让是否需要实质合并；\n- 受托人是否可以撤销在法院作出其替身实体裁定之日前发生的转让（即被告所称的“追溯性”或“nunc pro tunc”救济）；以及\n- 法院先前的替身实体裁定依据“案件法则”原则所产生的排除效力。\n\n- 被告依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》12(b)(2)条提出驳回动议，对法院的人身管辖权提出异议；\n- 关于人身管辖权的证据记录包括密封提交的证据材料；\n- 被告主张受托人仅限于依据第547条寻求救济（撤销偏颇性转让）；\n- 受托人是否充分主张空壳公司系债务人的替身实体；\n- 受托人是否已依据《破产法典》及适用州法提出表面可信的实际欺诈意图转让请求；以及\n- 受托人是否可以就名义上由债务人的家属和关联人士（而非债务人直接）拥有的空壳公司取得替身实体救济。\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格地区 布里奇波特分庭\n\nx\n\n关于：　：\n：　第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n等人，　：\n：\n：　案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：　合并管理\n\nx\n\n送达证明\n\n下方签署人特此证明，于本文件日期，上述状态报告及附件已通过法院在第11章案件中的电子案件提交系统（“CM/ECF”）以电子方式提交。CM/ECF 将自动通过电子邮件向第11章案件中的所有出庭当事人发送本次提交的通知。\n\n此外，于本文件日期，下方签署人已安排按照所附附件1所载，通过人工电子邮件向所有共同被告的律师以及所有作为非联合动议当事人的被告的律师送达上述文件。\n\n日期：January 8, 2025  New Haven, Connecticut\n\n> 签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛） Patrick R. Linsey（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（NEUBERT、PEPE & MONTEITH 专业公司） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人律师\n\n附件1\n\n共同被告\n\n ინგლისերեն\n\nOhtzar Shlomo Solomon Treasure LLC\n\n律师：Jeffrey Hellman jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com\n\nJason Miller\n\n律师：Jeffrey Hellman jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com\n\nAnthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc.\n\n律师：Eric S. Goldstein egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\nAnthem Health Plans, Inc.\n\n律师：Eric S. Goldstein egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\nSedgwick Realty Corp.\n\n律师：Eric S. Goldstein egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\nDirect Persuasion LLC\n\n律师：Eric S. Goldstein egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\nIgf`S\\_pe ES`VeUSb[`Y EE<\n\n律师：Scott M. Charmoy scottcharmoy@charmoy.com\n\nArri Americas Inc.\n\n律师：Michael T. Conway mconway@lpgmalaw.com\n\nFederal Express Corporation\n\n律师：Eric S. Goldstein egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\n以及\n\nMichael A. Siedband Michael.siedband@fedex.com Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello\n\n律师：Rowena A. Moffett rmoffett@bswlaw.com\n\nDJD Creative, LLC\n\n律师：Louis J. Martocchio III lou@mo-lawfirm.com\n\n以及\n\nBret L. Strong Zachary W. Doninger bstrong@thestrongfirm.com zdoninger@thestrongfirm.com\n\nCloudflare, Inc.\n\n律师：Ross G. Fingold rfingold@lawssf.com\n\n以及\n\nSabrina L. Streusand strausand@slollp.com\n\nCirrus Design Corporation\n\n律师：Richard J. Bernard richard.bernard@faegredrinker.com\n\n以及\n\nJosh Peterson Josh.peterson@faegredrinker.com\n\n以及\n\nJaclyn C. Marasco Jaclyn.marasco@faegredrinker.com\n\nIndium Software, Inc.\n\n律师：Benjamin D. Feder Eric R. Wilson bfeder@kelleydrye.com ewilson@kelleydrye.com\n\n以及\n\nRichard J. Reding rreding@askllp.com\n\n以及\n\nEdward E. Neiger eneiger@askllp.com\n\nTarget Enterprises, LLC\n\n律师：John F. Carberry Kara A. Zarchin jcarberry@cl-law.com kzarchin@cl-law.com\n\nJamestown Associates, LLC\n\n律师：John F. Carberry Kara A. Zarchin jcarberry@cl-law.com kzarchin@cl-law.com\n\nMark Gundersen\n\n律师：David J. Kozlowski dkozlowski@morrisoncohen.com\n\n以及\n\nJeffrey Rhodes jrhodes@tlclawfirm.com\n\nMiller Motorcars Inc.\n\n律师：Eric Seltzer ehs@gtlslaw.com\n\n3 Columbus Circle, LLC\n\n律师：Robert E. Kaelin ekaelin@murthalaw.com\n\n以及\n\nMatthew A. Pesce mpesce@murthalaw.com\n\nPhillips Nizer LLP\n\n律师：Robert E. Kaelin ekaelin@murthalaw.com 以及\n\nMatthew A. Pesce mpesce@murthalaw.com\n\nModSquad, Inc.\n\n律师：Robert E. Kaelin ekaelin@murthalaw.com\n\n以及\n\nMatthew A. Pesce mpesce@murthalaw.com\n\n270 W. 39th St. Co., LLC\n\n律师：Robert N. Sensale rns@bvmlaw.com\n\nAgora Lab, Inc.\n\n律师：Lindsay C. Stone Benjamin Gilbert lstone@sheppardmullin.com bogilbert@sheppardmullin.com\n\n以及\n\nAlan H. Martin amartin@sheppardmullin.com\n\nClayman Rosenberg Kirschner & Linder LLP\n\n律师：Matthew D. Valauri Matthew.valauri@wilsonelser.com\n\nMcManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC\n\n律师：Bonnie C. Mangan Bonnie.mangan@manganlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nSari B. Placona splacona@msbnk.com\n\nB&H Foto & Electronics Corp.\n\n律师：Tracy Ellis Williams tewilliams@goodwin.com 以及\n\nScott M. Kessler Scott.kessler@akerman.com\n\nOn the Spot Home Improvement, Inc.\n\n律师：Eric S. Goldstein egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\n以及\n\nJustin S. Baumgartner jbaumgartner@becker.legal\n\nGroCyber, LLC\n\n律师：Nicholas P. Vegliante nvegliante@cbshealaw.com\n\nNardello & Co., LLC\n\n律师：Henry P. Baer, Jr. Eilis Meagher hbaer@fdh.com emeagher@fdh.com\n\nTeris-Phoenix, LLC\n\n律师：Henry P. Baer, Jr. Eilis Meagher hbaer@fdh.com emeagher@fdh.com\n\n以及\n\nAndrea M. Chase achase@spencerfane.com\nMarcum LLP\n\n律师：Henry P. Baer, Jr. hbaer@fdh.com\n\n以及\n\nSteven G. Mintz Barry M. Kazan mintz@mintzandgold.com kazan@mintzandgold.com\n\nFox News Network, LLC\n\n律师：Henry P. Baer, Jr. hbaer@fdh.com\n\n以及\n\nSteven G. Mintz Barry M. Kazan mintz@mintzandgold.com kazan@mintzandgold.com\n\nConservative Campaign Technology LLC\n\n律师：Ilan Markus imarkus@barclaydamon.com\n\nZeta Global Corp.\n\n律师：John J. Clarke, Jr. John.clarke@us.dlapiper.com\n\n以及\n\nC. Kevin Kobbe Kevin.kobbe@us.dlapiper.com\n\nFlat Rate Movers, Ltd.\n\n律师：James J. Costello, Jr. jjcostellojr@norris-law.com\n\nAmerican Express\n\n律师：Ronald I. Chorches ronchorcheslaw@sbcglobal.net\n\n以及\n\nDarryl S. Laddin Frank N. White Darryl.laddin@agg.com Frank.white@agg.com\n\nAmazon Web Services, Inc.\n\n律师：Lindsay Sampson Bishop Lindsay.bishop@klgates.com\n\n以及\n\nBrian T. Peterson\n\nRuby A. Nagamine Brian.peterson@klgates.com Ruby.nagamine@klgates.com\n\n非共同动议当事被告\n\nFFP (BVI) Limited\n\n律师：Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky Michelle Amanda Antao jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com mantao@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nAaron Mitchell\n\n律师：Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nV.X. Cerda & Associates\n\n律师：Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nThe Francis Firm PLLC\n\n律师：Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nBerkeley Rowe Limited\n\n律师：Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\n以及\n\nJohn G. Willard Julie Johnston-Ahlen jwillard@atllp.com jjohnston@atllp.com\n\nWeddle Law PLLC\n\n律师：Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\n以及\n\nRichard J. Corbi rcorbi@corbilaw.com\n\nLawall & Mitchell, LLC\n\n律师：Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nG4S Security Systems (Hong Kong)\n\n律师：Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky Michelle Amanda Antao jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com mantao@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nACASS Canada LTD.\n\n律师：Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\n以及\n\nEric Fishman Eric.fishman@pillburylaw.com\n\nApple Inc.\n\n律师：George Angelich Eric Roman Patrick Feeney George.angelich@afslaw.com Eric.roman@afslaw.com Patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\n以及\n\nJin Yan Jin.yan@afslaw.com\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc.\n\n律师：George Angelich Eric Roman Patrick Feeney George.angelich@afslaw.com Eric.roman@afslaw.com Patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\n以及\n\nJin Yan Jin.yan@afslaw.com\n\nLiberty Jet Management Corp.\n\n律师：Gerard R. Luckman gluckman@forchellilaw.com\n\nHarcus Parker Limited\n\n律师：Peter C. Netburn Peter.netburn@clydeco.us\n\nJason Miller\n\n律师：Jeffrey Hellman jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com\n\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n\n律师：Daniel A. Byrd Stephen M. Kindseth James M. Moriarty dbyrd@zeislaw.com skindseth@zeislaw.com jmoriarty@zeislaw.com","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings","Guo","Despins","HCHK","Miles Guo","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4369,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:43:12"}