{"id":"court_ctb_419_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":419,"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|        | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |                           |       |\n|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-------|\n|        |                                                                       | :                         |       |\n| In re: |                                                                       | :<br>Chapter 11           |       |\n|        |                                                                       | :                         |       |\n|        | Ho Wan Kwok,                                                          | :<br>Case No.<br>22-50073 | (JAM) |\n|        |                                                                       | :                         |       |\n|        |                                                                       | :<br>Date:                |       |\n|        | 1<br>Debtor.                                                          | :<br>Time:                |       |\n|        |                                                                       | :                         |       |\n|        | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |                           |       |\n\n### **DEBTOR'S STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUES RAISED BY PAX AND THE OBJECTING CREDITORS**\n\nPursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), as made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") 9014 and 9016, Mr. Ho Wan Kwok, the debtor and debtor-in-possession (\"Mr. Kwok\" or the \"Debtor\") in the above-captioned chapter 11 case, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this statement, regarding the proper remedy with regard to the *Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case or, In the Alternative, Partial Joinder to United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee* (the \"Motion to Dismiss\").\n\n## **RELEVANT BACKGROUND**\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor commenced this Chapter 11 case by filing a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor is a debtor-in-possession pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 1107(a) and 1108. No trustee or examiner has been appointed in this Chapter 11 case.\n\n2. On April 6, 2022, Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\") filed the Motion to Dismiss, seeking to dismiss this Chapter 11 case. On May 11, 2022, the Debtor\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\nconsented to the entry of an order dismissing this case because there was no longer any source of funds for the payment of the administrative expenses of the estate. Docket No. 344 (the \"Consent to Motion to Dismiss\").\n\n3. Two parties filed objections notwithstanding the Consent to Motion to Dismiss – the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"Committee\") and Rui Ma, Zheng Wu, and Weican Meng (together, the \"Objecting Individual Creditors,\" and collectively with the Committee the \"Objecting Creditors\"). The Objecting Creditors have since indicated a preference for conversion or the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, as opposed to dismissal.\n\n### **STATEMENT REGARDING APPROPRIATE RELIEF FOR THE MOTION TO DISMISS**\n\n4. The Debtor concedes that \"cause\" exists here under section 1112(b)(4)(A) (and only under that section). The expenses of this case create a substantial and continuing loss to, and diminution of, the estate and given the unrelenting opposition of PAX and the lack of DIP funding in this case, there is no longer a realistic prospect of confirming a Chapter 11 plan. PAX's claims of \"bad faith\" have been proven hollow: the Debtor made every effort to utilize the Bankruptcy Code for the appropriate purposes set forth in the Code. The Debtor met every obligation under the Code: he sat for every scheduled 341 meeting, he has timely complied with all filing and disclosure requirements, and he has scrupulously followed every order of this Court. PAX's allegations of \"bad faith\" made by PAX lack any evidence and boil down to an utterly uncontested issue: that Mr. Kwok filed for bankruptcy when faced with a directive that he immediately pay a more than \\$130 million fine that he could not pay. *See* Docket No. 392 (the \"PAX Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss\") ¶ 7. Of course, Mr. Kwok filed for bankruptcy when faced with a debt he could not pay, instead of when an adverse judgment was entered that he appealed and had not yet been required to pay. PAX offers no caselaw whatsoever to suggest this is bad faith.[2](#page-2-0)\n\n5. Although creditors (including PAX) have challenged Mr. Kwok's honesty, recent events confirm the veracity of the Debtor's account. As set forth in his first day declaration, the Debtor is a fierce critic of the People's Republic of China (the \"PRC\") and the Chinese Communist Party (the \"CCP\"). *See* Docket No. 107 (the \"Kwok Declaration\"). The creditors in this case have claimed that Mr. Kwok's account is a fantasy and that has not been persecuted by the CCP. *See*, *e.g.*, Motion to Dismiss ¶ 34 (denying Mr. Kwok is a dissident of the CCP).\n\n6. Yet just this week, the Department of Justice (the \"DOJ\") filed a lawsuit demonstrating the veracity of Mr. Kwok's account, alleging that Steven Wynn (\"Wynn\"), a billionaire fundraiser and former finance chair for the Republican National Committee with substantial business interests in Macau, acted as an unregistered agent of the PRC in seeking Mr. Kwok's extradition, and that Wynn should thus be compelled to register as a foreign agent of China. *See U.S. v. Wynn*, Case No. 22-cv-01372, Docket No. 1 (D.D.C. May 17, 2022) (the \"DOJ Complaint\"). [3](#page-2-1) The importance of the DOJ's suit against Wynn is underscored by the fact\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> PAX makes a wide variety of unsupported allegations of bad faith, improper conduct in the bankruptcy proceeding, and otherwise in the PAX Reply to Motion to Dismiss. PAX has failed to prove any of those claims, waived any right to support those claims by improperly refusing to provide discovery to test them, and Mr. Kwok denies them. Importantly, however, PAX repeatedly has claimed that Mr. Kwok filed in bad faith because he lacks an ongoing business. *See* Motion to Dismiss at ¶¶ 41-42; 57. PAX ignores directly applicable, controlling Supreme Court precedent (as interpreted by this Court) that imposes no \"business purpose\" requirement on an individual Chapter 11 filer. *See In re Lucarelli*, 517 B.R. 42, 46 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2014) (Manning, J.) (recognizing that \"[t]he plain language of the Bankruptcy Code permits individual debtors not engaged in business to file for relief under Chapter 11\") (quoting *Toibb v. Radloff*, 501 U.S. 157, 166 (1991)); *Toibb v. Radloff*, 501 U.S. at 166 (1991) (\"Although the structure and legislative history of Chapter 11 indicate that this Chapter was intended primarily for the use of business debtors, the Code contains no \"ongoing business\" requirement for Chapter 11 reorganization, and we find no basis for imposing one.\").\n\n<span id=\"page-2-1\"></span><sup>3</sup> The DOJ Complaint is available at Docket No. 400, Exhibit D, and also available at: [http](http) Although the DOJ Complaint refers to Mr. Kwok only as a \"PRC national\" it is without question referring to Mr. Kwok. This is clear from a comparison of the information in the DOJ Complaint to the Kwok Declaration (e.g. the dates of the individual's exit from China, the timeframe in which the individual has filed for asylum, and the charges and interpol red notice China has asserted against the individual). The Associated Press also has\n\nthat, as the head of the Justice Department's national security division recognized, this is the first lawsuit of its kind in nearly three decades. [4](#page-3-0)\n\n7. In its pleading, the Department of Justice alleged that the parties involved in this corrupt lobbying effort were aware that President Xi Jinping (China's supreme leader) had raised the issue directly with then-President Trump (DOJ Complaint ¶ 21c, \"President Xi Jinping mentioned to President Trump at Mar-A-Lago that he would like [the PRC national] returned.\"). This lobbying effort involved Sun Lijun, the former PRC Vice Minister for Public Security, who sought to have Wynn directly pressure President Trump to have Mr. Kwok placed on the no-fly list and ensure his visa expired. (*Id.* ¶ 21a). The PRC Vice Minister promised to, in exchange for Mr. Kwok's return to China, to \"return certain US citizens held hostage by China\" plus other, more normal, political incentives such as aiding the United States with regard to North Korea. (*Id.* ¶ 21c).\n\n8. To pass on these PRC requests to the Trump Administration, Wynn sought to organize meetings with senior officials on the National Security Council at the White House (*Id.* ¶ 25); had contact with multiple Trump Administration officials (*Id.* ¶ 25a); had contacts with the White House Chief of Staff on multiple occasions (*Id.* ¶ 25b); had unscheduled meetings with President Trump (*Id.* ¶ 25d); and had calls with President Trump (*Id.* ¶ 25e). Wynn's efforts were compelled by the CCP, which was holding Wynn's business interests hostage in Macau.\n\nidentified Mr. Kwok as the PRC national referenced in the Complaint. *See*  [http](http)[39f30c1b3dd32e6b2ef122301817c156](http) (\"The dissident was not referred to by name by prosecutors, but it matches the description of Guo Wengui.\"). Further, the Wall Street Journal notes that in 2020, \"two of Mr. Wynn's associates admitted in plea agreements with the Justice Department that in June and July 2017, they had discussed Mr. Guo's removal with Mr. Wynn and helped facilitate calls between Mr. Wynn and a Chinese government official about Beijing's desire for Mr. Guo's removal from the U.S.\" and also identifies the PRC national in the DOJ Complaint as Mr. Guo (Mr. Kwok's Chinese name). *See* <http> (attached to Docket No. 400 as Exhibit E).\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> *See* <http>\n\n(*Id.* ¶¶ 26-27). Wynn was told that President Xi Jinping himself had expressed appreciation for Wynn's corrupt efforts on the PRC's behalf. (*Id.* ¶ 22a).\n\n9. Fortunately for Mr. Kwok, Wynn's efforts on behalf of China were unsuccessful and the Trump Administration took no action against Mr. Kwok. Wynn admitted defeat in a text message to a PRC official, but stated that if there were other ways in which the PRC believed he could be of assistance, \"[he] would of course be anxious to help\" and \"remain[ed] grateful for the privilege of being part of the Macau and PRC business community.\" (*Id.* ¶¶ 27-28).\n\n10. The DOJ Complaint makes plain what Mr. Kwok has consistently said: that because of his efforts to speak out against the CCP's corruption and human rights abuses, he has been targeted by the highest levels of the Chinese government.\n\n11. However, those are now issues for another day, in another courtroom. Here, all that is left is the question of how this bankruptcy proceeding shall be resolved. For the reasons set forth below, the Debtor submits that dismissal is the only proper result.\n\n12. *First*, there is no value to be accrued through a trustee – whether Chapter 7 or Chapter 11. PAX, the estate's largest creditor – and the only one holding a judgment (though that judgment is on appeal) – feels fully capable of enforcing its rights outside of a bankruptcy proceeding. No party (whether PAX or an Objecting Creditor) has asserted claims that can be brought only in this bankruptcy proceeding. *See In re Mazzocone*, 183 B.R. 402, 412 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1995), *aff'd*, 200 B.R. 568 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (lack of bankruptcy claims, such as preference claims, that would be lost weighed in favor of dismissal).\n\n13. *Second*, continuing in this bankruptcy case would come at a substantial cost, without any source of funding for those costs. This is true regardless of whether a trustee appointed is appointed under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11. *See In re McKenna*, 580 B.R. 1, 17\n\n5\n\n(Bankr. D.R.I. 2017) (dismissing individual chapter 11 case as administrative costs of chapter 7 would outweigh any benefit given the debtor's resources). Further, as PAX recognized in its reply, the non-PAX claims are largely speculative litigation claims, far from judgment. *See* PAX Reply to Motion to Dismiss ¶ 6 fn.5. As a result, a trustee would be required to defend those litigation claims (not just marshal assets) at a substantial cost to the estate.\n\n14. *Third*, the Objecting Creditors seek, by conversion, to accomplish an involuntary bankruptcy filing to help them vis-à-vis another creditor – PAX. *See* Docket No. 347 (the \"Individual Creditor Objection\") ¶ 7. In support of this effort, they complain that PAX may seek to enforce a judgment before they are able to obtain favorable verdicts and judgments of their own, and they seek to hold the Debtor in bankruptcy proceedings to allow them time to litigate their claims outside of this Court. However, Congress has made clear the standard for an involuntary filing: three creditors with *non-contingent, liquidated claims not subject to bonafide dispute*. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 303. Critically, the Objecting Individual Creditors include *no* such claimants: they hold only litigation claims that have not proceeded to verdict, let alone judgment and are thus the subject of bona fide dispute (and the Debtor believes that he will prevail in defending against these claims). [5](#page-5-0) Congress has determined that these kinds of claimants are not entitled to interfere with a debtor and a creditor with a liquidated claim through the filing of an\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> The lawsuit with regard to Zheng (\"Bruno\") Wu was early in discovery when it was ordered to mediation on December 2, 2022. It has since remained in mediation, and another mediation session was set to take place in May 2022, prior to the application of the automatic stay. Weican Meng's litigation had numerous motions were pending with the court when the bankruptcy stay took effect, including defendant/counterclaimant's motion to compel discovery, defendant/counterclaimant's motion to amend the counterclaims, defendant/counterclaimant's motion to vacate the note of issue, and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to the counterclaims only (acknowledging that the plaintiffs' claims would need to proceed to trial). As to the Rui Ma case, several motions were pending with the Court when the bankruptcy stay occurred, including defendants' motions to vacate and extend the note of issue and plaintiff's motions to quash and for a protective order with respect to numerous subpoenas served by defendants on non-parties. Additionally, there were other non-party discovery issues for which defendants anticipated having to file motions with the Court. Legal fees in all three of these cases against Mr. Kwok, among others, are being funded by Bruno Wu, and thus the Defendant expects they will remain hotly contested (which, inter alia, would raise the costs to the estate to defend if a trustee were appointed).\n\ninvoluntary bankruptcy based solely on a speculative litigation claim where liability has not even been established. *See, e.g., In re TPG Troy, LLC,* 492 B.R. 150, 159 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013), *subsequently aff'd*, 793 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2015) (collecting cases reflecting that pending state court litigation shows bona fide dispute that bars a creditor from being entitled to file an involuntary petition). This Court should not permit the Objecting Creditors to obtain an involuntary bankruptcy through conversion of this case to Chapter 7. If the Objecting Creditors believe they are entitled to secure an involuntary bankruptcy, this Court should require them to do so (as they assert they will). In any event, the Debtor's consent to dismissal should be given great weight unless the Objecting Creditors can show a plain legal prejudice from dismissal. *See In re Kimble*, 96 B.R. 305, 308 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1988) (where a debtor consents to dismissal, the case ordinarily ought to be dismissed unless an objecting creditor is able to show a \"plain legal prejudice\" that will result from dismissal); *In re Hull*, 339 B.R. 304, 309 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2006) (same, and holding that a short length of time between filing and dismissal is one of the most significant indicators of lack of prejudice from voluntary dismissal).\n\n15. The Debtor filed this bankruptcy case in good faith, seeking to use the bankruptcy process to subject himself to the scrutiny of both this Court and to an examiner, believing that, in doing so, he could create circumstances that would allow for the resolution of the claims asserted against him. Mr. Kwok's son, through Golden Spring, was willing to support that effort. However, as has been previously stated, Mr. Kwok's hope of a reaching consensual resolution through this bankruptcy case has proven impossible. Mr. Kwok will continue his efforts to resolve the claims against him outside this bankruptcy proceeding and he has every intention of satisfying his legitimate debts.\n\n7\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Debtor respectfully requests the entry of an order dismissing\n\nthis bankruptcy case.\n\nDated: May 20, 2022\n\n#### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**\n\nBy: /s/ *William R. Baldiga* BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Attn: Dylan Kletter, Esq. Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6653 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Kenneth J. Aulet, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrudnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com kaulet@brownrudnick.com\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\nDebtor.[1](#page-8-0) :\n\nIn re: : Chapter 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI, Kenneth J. Aulet, hereby certify that on the 20th day of May, 2022, the Debtor's Motion for Protective Order was sent by e-mail to all appearing parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system\n\nDated: May 20, 2022\n\n#### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**\n\nBy: /s/ *Kenneth J. Aulet* BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Attn: Dylan Kletter, Esq. Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6653 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Kenneth J. Aulet, Esq. (*pro hac vice*)\n\n<span id=\"page-8-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：:\n第 11 章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），:\n案号\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n日期：\n\n债务人。:\n时间：\n\n债务人就 PAX 及异议债权人提出的问题之陈述\n\n根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)（经 Fed. R. Bankr. P.（下称《破产规则》）9014 及 9016 条适用于本程序），上述第 11 章案件中的债务人及占有中债务人 Ho Wan Kwok 先生（下称“Kwok 先生”或“债务人”），特此通过其下述署名律师提交本陈述，以说明针对《驳回第 11 章案件之动议，或备选加入联邦破产受托人关于指令任命第 11 章受托人之动议》（下称“驳回动议”）的适当救济。\n\n相关背景\n\n1. 2022年2月15日，债务人通过根据《破产法典》第 11 篇第 11 章提出自愿救济申请，启动了本第 11 章案件。根据《破产法典》第 1107(a) 条和第 1108 条，债务人为占有中债务人。在本第 11 章案件中未任命任何受托人或审查员。\n\n2. 2022年4月6日，Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋亚洲联盟机会基金有限合伙，下称“PAX”）提交了驳回动议，请求驳回本第 11 章案件。2022年5月11日，债务人\n\n1 债务人已知姓名如下：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n同意作出驳回本案的裁定，因为已不再有任何资金来源用于支付破产财团的行政管理费用。参见卷宗编号 344（下称“同意驳回动议”）。\n\n3. 尽管有同意驳回动议，仍有两方当事人提出了异议——无担保债权人官方委员会（下称“委员会”）以及 Rui Ma（马蕊）、Zheng Wu（吴征）和 Weican Meng（孟维参）（合称“异议个人债权人”，并与委员会统称为“异议债权人”）。异议债权人此后表示倾向于案件转程序或任命第 11 章受托人，而非驳回。\n\n关于针对驳回动议采取适当救济的陈述\n\n4. 债务人承认，根据第 1112(b)(4)(A) 条（且仅根据该条款），此处存在“事由”。本案的费用对破产财团造成了重大且持续的损失与减损，鉴于 PAX 的坚决反对以及本案缺乏占有中债务人融资（DIP funding），确认第 11 章重整计划已不再具有现实前景。PAX 关于“不诚信”的主张已被证明毫无根据：债务人已尽一切努力按照《破产法典》规定的正当目的利用该法典。债务人履行了《破产法典》项下的每一项义务：他出席了每一次排定的 341 条会议，及时遵守了所有申报和披露要求，并严格遵循了本法院的每一项命令。PAX 提出的“不诚信”指控缺乏任何证据，归结为一个完全无可争议的问题：即 Kwok 先生在面临被要求立即支付其无力偿还的超过 1.3 亿美元罚款的指令时申请了破产。参见卷宗编号 392（下称“PAX 支持驳回动议之答辩意见”）¶ 7。当然，Kwok 先生是在面临其无力偿还的债务时申请了破产，而不是在作出不利判决但其已提起上诉且尚未被要求付款时申请破产。PAX 根本未提供任何判例法来表明此举构成不诚信。[2]\n\n5. 尽管债权人（包括 PAX）对 Kwok 先生的诚实度提出了质疑，但最近的事件证实了债务人陈述的真实性。正如其首日声明中所述，债务人是 People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国，下称“中国”）及 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，下称“中共”）的激烈批评者。参见卷宗编号 107（下称“Kwok 声明”）。本案中的债权人声称 Kwok 先生的陈述纯属幻想，且其并未受到中共的迫害。参见例如：驳回动议 ¶ 34（否认 Kwok 先生是中共的异见人士）。\n\n6. 然而就在本周，Department of Justice（司法部，下称“DOJ”）提起了一项诉讼，证明了 Kwok 先生陈述的真实性，指控在澳门拥有巨额商业利益的亿万富翁筹款人、前共和党全国委员会财务主席 Steven Wynn（史蒂芬·永利，下称“Wynn”）作为中国的未注册代理人谋求引渡 Kwok 先生，因此应强制 Wynn 注册为中国的外国代理人。参见 U.S. v. Wynn, 案号 22-cv-01372, 卷宗编号 1 (D.D.C. 2022年5月17日)（下称“DOJ 起诉书”）。[3] 司法部对 Wynn 提起诉讼的重要性在于，正如司法部国家安全司主管所承认的，这是近三十年来首起此类诉讼。[4]\n\n2 PAX 在 PAX 对驳回动议的答辩意见中提出了关于不诚信、破产程序中的不当行为以及其他方面的各种无根据指控。PAX 未能证明其中任何一项主张，因不当拒绝提供用于检验这些主张的证据开示而放弃了支持这些主张的任何权利，且 Kwok 先生对这些指控予以否认。然而重要的是，PAX 反复声称 Kwok 先生系不诚信申请，因为其缺乏持续经营的企业。参见驳回动议 ¶¶ 41-42; 57。PAX 无视了直接适用且具约束力的最高法院判例（经本法院解释），该判例并未对个人第 11 章申请人强加“商业目的”要求。参见 In re Lucarelli, 517 B.R. 42, 46 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2014) (Manning, J.)（确认“《破产法典》的明文语言允许未从事商业活动的个人债务人申请第 11 章救济”）（援引 Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. 157, 166 (1991)）；Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. at 166 (1991)（“尽管第 11 章的结构和立法历史表明该章主要旨在供企业债务人使用，但法典并未对第 11 章重组包含‘持续经营企业’的要求，且我们认为没有任何依据强加此项要求。”）。\n\n3 DOJ 起诉书可见于卷宗编号 400，附件 D，亦可见于：[http]。尽管 DOJ 起诉书仅将 Kwok 先生称为“中国公民”，但毫无疑问指的是 Kwok 先生。将 DOJ 起诉书中的信息与 Kwok 声明进行比对后即可明确这一点（例如该个人离开中国的时间、该个人申请庇护的时间段，以及中国针对该个人提出的指控和国际刑警组织红色通缉令）。美联社亦\n\n7. 司法部在其诉状中指控，参与此项腐败游说活动的各方知晓习近平主席（中国最高领导人）已直接向时任特朗普总统提出了该问题（DOJ 起诉书 ¶ 21c，“习近平主席在海湖庄园向特朗普总统提及，希望将[该中国公民]遣返。”）。该游说活动涉及前中国公安部副部长孙力军，其试图让 Wynn 直接向特朗普总统施压，将 Kwok 先生列入禁飞名单并确保其签证过期。（同上 ¶ 21a）。该中国副部长承诺，作为遣返 Kwok 先生回中国的交换，将“释放被中国扣为人质的某些美国公民”，并提供其他更为常规的政治激励措施，例如在朝鲜问题上协助美国。（同上 ¶ 21c）。\n\n8. 为将中国的这些请求传达给特朗普政府，Wynn 试图在白宫安排与国家安全委员会高级官员的会面（同上 ¶ 25）；与多名特朗普政府官员进行了接触（同上 ¶ 25a）；多次与白宫幕僚长接触（同上 ¶ 25b）；与特朗普总统进行了非排定会面（同上 ¶ 25d）；并与特朗普总统通了电话（同上 ¶ 25e）。Wynn 的行为是受到中共的强迫，因为中共将 Wynn 在澳门的商业利益扣为人质。\n\n已确认 Kwok 先生为起诉书中所提及的中国公民。参见 [http][39f30c1b3dd32e6b2ef122301817c156]（“检察官并未指名道姓提及该异见人士，但其与郭文贵的描述相符。”）。此外，《华尔街日报》指出，2020年，“Wynn 先生的两名合伙人在与司法部的认罪协议中承认，他们在2017年6月和7月曾与 Wynn 先生讨论过遣返郭先生的事宜，并协助促成了 Wynn 先生与一名中国政府官员之间的通话，内容关于北京希望将郭先生从美国遣返”，并同样确认 DOJ 起诉书中的中国公民为郭先生（Kwok 先生的中文名）。参见（作为附件 E 附于卷宗编号 400）。\n\n4 参见\n\n（同上 ¶¶ 26-27）。Wynn 被告知，习近平主席本人对 Wynn 代表中国所做的腐败努力表示了感谢。（同上 ¶ 22a）。\n\n9. 对 Kwok 先生而言幸运的是，Wynn 代表中国的努力并未成功，特朗普政府未对 Kwok 先生采取任何行动。Wynn 在给一名中国官员的短信中承认失败，但表示如果中国认为他还能在其他方面提供协助，“[他]当然会急切地想要帮忙”，并且“对能够成为澳门及中国商界一员的特权始终心怀感激”。（同上 ¶¶ 27-28）。\n\n10. DOJ 起诉书清楚地证明了 Kwok 先生一直以来的说法：即由于他公开发声揭露中共的腐败与侵犯人权行为，他已成为中国政府最高层的针对目标。\n\n11. 然而，那些问题如今已留待他日在另一个法庭上解决。在此处，剩下的全部问题就是如何解决本破产程序。基于下文阐述的理由，债务人认为驳回是唯一恰当的结果。\n\n12. 首先，无论是任命第 7 章还是第 11 章受托人，均无法产生任何价值。破产财团的最大债权人——也是唯一持有判决的债权人（尽管该判决正在上诉中）——PAX 认为自己完全有能力在破产程序之外行使其权利。没有任何一方当事人（无论是 PAX 还是异议债权人）提出了仅能在本破产程序中提起的债权请求。参见 In re Mazzocone, 183 B.R. 402, 412 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1995), aff'd, 200 B.R. 568 (E.D. Pa. 1996)（缺乏若驳回则将丧失的破产债权请求（如偏颇性清偿请求），此点支持驳回）。\n\n13. 其次，继续进行本破产案件将产生巨额费用，且没有任何资金来源用于支付这些费用。无论任命的受托人是根据第 7 章还是第 11 章任命，情况皆是如此。参见 In re McKenna, 580 B.R. 1, 17 (Bankr. D.R.I. 2017)（鉴于债务人的资产状况，第 7 章的行政管理费用将超过任何收益，故驳回个人第 11 章案件）。此外，正如 PAX 在其答辩意见中承认的那样，非 PAX 债权在很大程度上属于投机性诉讼请求，远未作出判决。参见 PAX 对驳回动议之答辩意见 ¶ 6 附注 5。因此，受托人将被要求对这些诉讼请求进行应诉抗辩（而不仅仅是清点归集资产），从而给破产财团带来巨大的费用负担。\n\n14. 第三，提出异议的债权人企图通过案件转换来实现强制破产申请，以协助他们应对另一位债权人——PAX。见 Docket No. 347（《个人债权人异议书》）第 7 段。为了支持这一举动，他们抱怨称 PAX 可能会在他们自身取得有利裁决和判决之前寻求执行判决，并且他们企图将债务人扣留在破产程序中，以便为他们在该法院之外诉讼其主张争取时间。然而，国会已明确规定了强制破产申请的标准：三名持有无附加条件、已确定数额且不存在真实争议的主张的债权人。见 11 U.S.C. § 303。关键在于，提出异议的个人债权人中不包含此类权利主张人：他们仅持有尚未进入裁决阶段的诉讼主张，更不用说判决了，因此属于真实争议的标的（且债务人相信其在针对这些主张的抗辩中将取得胜诉）。[5] 国会已认定，此类权利主张人无权仅仅基于责任尚未确立的推测性诉讼主张，通过申请强制破产来干涉债务人以及持有已确定数额主张的债权人。参见例如 In re TPG Troy, LLC, 492 B.R. 150, 159 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区破产法院）2013)，其后经 793 F.3d 228 (2d Cir.（第二巡回法院）2015) 维持原判（汇编案例表明，未决的州法院诉讼显示存在真实争议，从而剥夺了债权人提出强制申请的资格）。本法院不应允许提出异议的债权人通过将本案转换为第 7 章程序来获得强制破产。如果提出异议的债权人认为他们有权取得强制破产，本法院应当要求他们依程序提起（正如他们声称将要进行的那样）。无论如何，除非提出异议的债权人能够证明驳回将造成明显的法律损害，否则债务人对驳回的同意应被赋予极大分量。参见 In re Kimble, 96 B.R. 305, 308 (Bankr. D. Mont.（蒙大拿区破产法院）1988)（在债务人同意驳回的情况下，除非异议债权人能够证明驳回将导致“明显的法律损害”，否则案件通常应当予以驳回）；In re Hull, 339 B.R. 304, 309 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.（纽约东区破产法院）2006)（同上，并认定从申请到驳回的时间间隔较短，是自愿驳回未造成损害的最重要指征之一）。\n\n5 关于 Zheng (\"Bruno\") Wu（吴征）的诉讼在 2022年12月2日 被命令进行调解时正处于证据开示的早期阶段。此后该案一直处于调解中，且在自动中止适用之前，原定于 2022年5月 举行另一次调解会议。Weican Meng（孟维参）的诉讼在破产中止生效时，有数项动议正处于法院未决状态，包括被告/反诉原告强迫开示证据的动议、被告/反诉原告修改反诉的动议、被告/反诉原告撤销审理备忘录（note of issue）的动议，以及原告仅针对反诉提出的即决判决动议（承认原告的主张需要进入审判阶段）。至于 Rui Ma（马蕊）案，在发生破产中止时，有数项动议正处于法院未决状态，包括被告撤销及延期审理备忘录的动议，以及原告针对被告向非当事人送达的众多传票提出的撤销及寻求保护令的动议。此外，还存在其他非当事人证据开示问题，被告预计须就此向法院提出动议。在针对 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）等人的这全部三起案件中，诉讼费均由 Bruno Wu 资助，因此被告预计这些案件仍将受到激烈抗辩（除其他事项外，如果指定了受托人，这将增加破产财团的抗辩成本）。\n\n15. 债务人基于善意提出了本破产案申请，旨在利用破产程序使自己接受本法院和审查官的审查，并相信通过这样做，他能够创造有助于解决针对其提出的主张的环境。Kwok 先生的儿子通过 Golden Spring（金泉）愿意支持这一努力。然而，如前所述，Kwok 先生通过本破产案达成共识性解决方案的希望已被证明是不可能的。Kwok 先生将继续努力在本破产程序之外解决针对他的主张，并且他完全有意清偿其合法债务。\n\n结论\n\n为此，债务人谨请求作出裁定驳回本破产案。\n\n日期：2022年5月20日\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗鲁德尼克律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ William R. Baldiga BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 收件人：Dylan Kletter, 律师 电话：(860) 509-6500 传真：(860) 509-6653 电子邮件：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 收件人：William R. Baldiga, 律师（临时执业） 收件人：Jeffrey L. Jonas, 律师（临时执业） 收件人：Bennett S. Silverberg, 律师（临时执业） 收件人：Kenneth J. Aulet, 律师（临时执业） 电话：(212) 209-4800 传真：(212) 209-4801 电子邮件：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrudnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com kaulet@brownrudnick.com\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n债务人。[1] :\n\n案由： : 第 11 章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）， : 案号 22-50073\n\n送达证书\n\n我，Kenneth J. Aulet，特此证明于 2022年5月20日，债务人的保护令动议已通过法院电子归档系统的运作，以电子邮件方式发送给所有出庭当事人。\n\n日期：2022年5月20日\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ Kenneth J. Aulet BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 收件人：Dylan Kletter, 律师 电话：(860) 509-6500 传真：(860) 509-6653 电子邮件：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 收件人：William R. Baldiga, 律师（临时执业） 收件人：Jeffrey L. Jonas, 律师（临时执业） 收件人：Bennett S. Silverberg, 律师（临时执业） 收件人：Kenneth J. Aulet, 律师（临时执业）\n\n1 债务人已知姓名如下：Guo Wengui（郭文贵）；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","Miles Guo","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2915,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:30:43"}