{"id":"court_ctb_4339_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4339,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"NOTICE","filed_date":"2025-04-22","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| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 | |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n| Debtors. | :
:
: | (Jointly Administered) | |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | | |\n\n#### **NOTICE OF FILING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S PRESENTATION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE ON APRIL 22, 2025**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok, hereby files his *Presentation* for the status conference scheduled for April 22, 2025, at 1 p.m., attached hereto as **Exhibit A**.\n\nDated: April 22, 2025 LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11\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\n1 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#### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
x | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 | | |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
:
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | | |\n| Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) | | |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
x | | | | |\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe foregoing, and the attachment thereto, was filed electronically on the date hereof in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"). Notice was sent upon filing to all appearing parties eligible to receive electronic notice in the Chapter 11 Case automatically via email by operation of the Court's case management/electronic case files system.\n\nDated: April 22, 2025\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\n1 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#### **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**(Mediation Presentation)**\n\n# **APRIL 22, 2025 TRUSTEE'S CASE STATUS CONFERENCE** *In re Ho Wan Kwok,* **Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\n\n\n# **A. INTRODUCTION**\n\n### **Case Status Update**\n\n- The Kwok case (in contrast to Genever) has been pending for 38 months, and, as of July, the Trustee will have been in place for 36 months.\n- Case Highlights:\n\t- More than \\$130 million has been recovered to date.\n\t- More than 4300 docket entries on the main docket.\n\t- Hundreds of orders entered on the main docket.\n\t- As of March 28, 2025, more than 1,600 claims have been filed, asserting \\$32 billion in claims.\n\t- Thus far, in total, 83 appeals have been filed, with all issued appellate decisions affirming this Court's rulings. Further, several appeals have been dismissed as interlocutory. There have also been nine motions to withdraw the reference filed, one of which has been ruled on and denied.\n- Although the Court is intimately familiar with the issues pending before it, there is a lot of activity on the international front, and it is important to have an update regarding such matters and how they affect the management of the overall case.\n\n### **1. Introduction**\n\n- The orders entered by the Bankruptcy Court regarding foreign defendants are often not subject to \"simple\" enforcement/execution in foreign courts for reasons that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.\n\t- This raises the obvious question of why the Trustee is seeking entry of Bankruptcy Court orders in instances when defendants are located abroad.\n- There are a number of reasons why it makes sense for the Trustee to seek and for the Court to enter such orders, even in default scenarios:\n\t- First, some foreign defendants do appear in the Bankruptcy Court. There is no way to know, before the filing of the complaints, whether a particular defendants will appear to defend the claims asserted.\n\t- Second, in some foreign jurisdictions, the Trustee is able to assert the U.S. law claims in a foreign court and therefore the roadmap that the Bankruptcy Court's default order provides, although not binding, is critical.\n\t- Third, in some foreign jurisdictions, the Trustee should be able to get recognition of a Bankruptcy Court order against a foreign defendant.\n\t- Fourth, the foreign defendants may have, now or in the future, assets subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, and the judgment may be executed through attachment of such assets.\n\n### **1. Introduction**\n\n#### **Risks/Rewards of Foreign Proceedings**\n\n- Foreign proceedings are, by their nature, uncertain in terms of outcome and costs.\n- The uncertainty often relates to the fact that the foreign courts do not have the same in-depth knowledge of the case and the facts surrounding the various schemes used by the Debtor and his affiliates\n- Foreign proceedings are also generally more expensive to conduct because foreign courts can sometimes require substantial court fees to be paid or deposits to be made with the court to protect a defendant from the costs of defense if the foreign court eventually determines that the claims asserted by the Trustee were not meritorious.\n- Some foreign defendants have structured their activities to render any collection actions by the Trustee very difficult and/or very expensive.\n- There is an implicit duplication of work when commencing a foreign proceeding because foreign counsel need guidance and supervision from the Trustee's U.S. team.\n\n### **2. BVI – Ace Decade**\n\n#### **Ownership of Ace Decade and Dawn State**\n\n- For more than two-and-a-half years, the Trustee has been attempting to obtain control over Ace Decade Holdings Limited (\"Ace Decade\") and its wholly-owned subsidiary Dawn State Limited (\"Dawn State\").\n\t- Absent control over Ace Decade and Dawn State, the Trustee is not able to take full take control over the litigation commenced by the Debtor—together with Ace Decade and Dawn State as co-plaintiffs against UBS in English court. In that litigation, the Debtor, Ace Decade and Dawn State have asserted damages of nearly \\$500 million.\n\t- To date, English counsel to Ace Decade and Dawn State (Harcus Parker) has refused to accept instructions from the Trustee with respect to the litigation against UBS.\n- As the Court will recall, in October 2022, the Trustee sought to hold the Debtor in contempt for failure to transfer his share in Ace Decade—notwithstanding numerous statements by the Debtor, including under oath, that he was the owner of Ace Decade, and, by extension, its wholly-owned subsidiary Dawn State.\n\t- In an order, dated November 17, 2022, this Court found that (i) the Debtor exclusively beneficially owned and controlled Ace Decade and (ii) Yvette Wang is not and has never been a beneficial owner of the shares in Ace Decade. The Debtor did not contest these findings and agreed not to appeal that order.\n\n\n\n#### **2. BVI – Ace Decade**\n\n- Moreover, by order dated January 24, 2023, this Court held the Debtor in contempt, including because he failed to cooperate with the Trustee regarding the Trustee's control of Ace Decade and failed to surrender the Ace Decade share to the Trustee. The Court also held that the Yvette Wang was the nominee owner of Ace Decade for the benefit of the Debtor.\n- **Transfer of Ace Decade Share By Yvette Wang to Rui Hao**\n\t- Notwithstanding the Court's rulings, in January 2023, Ms. Wang purported to transfer the Ace Decade share to Mr. Hao (an individual with various connections to the Debtor). Thereafter, in December 2023, the Trustee commenced an adversary proceeding against Ms. Wang, Mr. Hao, and Ace Decade seeking declarations that, among other things, the transfer of Ace Decade's share by Ms. Wang to Mr. Hao in January 2023 was in violation of the automatic stay and, therefore, void ab initio, and the Ace Decade share is and remains property of the Debtor's estate.\n\t\t- Ms. Wang initially appeared in the adversary proceeding to seek to dismiss the claims against her, but after the Court denied her motion to dismiss, Ms. Wang failed to answer the complaint.\n\t\t- Mr. Hao was served in Switzerland in accordance with the Hague Convention, but did not respond to the complaint. He now claims that this service was not effective.\n\n#### **2. BVI – Ace Decade**\n\n- On July 22, 2024, the Court entered a default judgment against Ms. Wang and Ace Decade as to liability (but not damages), and on September 12, 2024, the Court entered a default judgment against Mr. Hao as to liability (but not damages).\n\t- On February 4, 2025, the Court granted the Trustee's motion for pre-judgment remedies against Yvette Wang, authorizing the Trustee to attach property of Ms. Wang, including an apartment and accounts in the amount of up to \\$1.29 million.\n\t- On April 14, 2025, the Trustee filed his motion requesting entry of a money judgment against Yvette Wang in the amount of \\$1.39 million, resulting from Mr. Wang's willful and malicious conduct.\n- **BVI Liquidation Proceedings Regarding Ace Decade and Dawn State**\n\t- In June 2024, Mr. Hao commenced liquidation proceedings with respect to Ace Decade and Dawn State in the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\").\n\t\t- Apparently, following the transfer of the Ace Decade share in January 2023, Mr. Hao also instructed Ace Decade to transfer the Dawn State share to himself in June 2023—such that Mr. Hao now purports to be the sole owner of both the Ace Decade share and the Dawn State share.\n\t- Since the commencement of the BVI liquidations, the Trustee has been in discussions with the joint liquidators regarding a resolution of the ownership dispute. The joint liquidators appear supportive of rectifying the share register to reflect the estate as the owner of Ace Decade, but they would leave it to the parties in interest to present their respective evidence for or against rectification to the BVI court.\n\n#### **2. BVI – Ace Decade**\n\n- However, at the direction of the BVI court, the joint liquidators did file an application in the BVI court to \"rectify\" the ownership of the Ace Decade and Dawn State shares, in which proceedings the respective parties in interest, i.e., the Trustee and Mr. Hao, would be able to present evidence as to their ownership claims.\n- In February 2025, the Trustee and Mr. Hao submitted declarations in support of their respective positions. Notably, Mr. Hao's declaration offered no substantive evidence, but instead Mr. Hao claimed that an individual located in China (whose identity he could not reveal due to purported security concerns) was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade.\n\t- Also, in February 2025, in order to ensure that all ownership issues were properly joined before the BVI court, the Trustee also filed his own application to determine the ownership of the Ace Decade and Dawn State shares.\n- Since then, Mr. Hao has continued to try to slow down the BVI proceedings by raising procedural objections to the Trustee's application (including that it is supposedly a nullity) and insisting that the Trustee commence new proceedings, separate from the pending applications in the BVI liquidation proceedings.\n\t- While the Trustee disputes that his application was a nullity, to avoid further delay, the Trustee did file new proceedings on April 15, 2025. A directions hearing before the BVI court as to next steps is expected in the near future.\n\n- **K Legacy and London Apartment**\n\t- K Legacy Ltd. (\"K Legacy\") a BVI company nominally owned by the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo (\"Mileson\"), is the registered owner of a luxurious apartment in London purchased in 2016 for £33 million (the \"London Apartment\"). The Trustee asserted in his first omnibus Alter Ego Action that K Legacy and its assets, including the London Apartment were beneficially owned by the Debtor\n\t- On September 12, 2024, the Court entered a default judgment [Adv. Proc. No. 24-02459, ECF No. 76] against Mileson and K Legacy with respect to the Trustee's claims that the Debtor was the true beneficial owner of K Legacy its assets, including the London Apartment.\n\n- **Trustee Obtains Injunctions From BVI Court Related to London Apartment.**\n\t- On March 22, 2024, the Trustee requested from the BVI court the entry of an ex parte injunction to prevent the transfer of the London Apartment or shares in K Legacy absent prior notification to the Trustee.\n\t- On March 27, 2024, the BVI court granted the Trustee's injunction request and entered an interim injunction, which, per an April 18, 2024 continuation order, was then extended until further order of the BVI court.\n\t- Further injunctive relief was granted by the BVI court against K Legacy and Mileson by interim order dated October 1, 2024, continued by order dated 24 October 2024 restraining, among other things, any transfer of the London Apartment or the shares in K Legacy.\n\t- The BVI court's injunctions have been registered in the London Apartment's property records and thus should provide a meaningful deterrent to any party interested in purchasing the London Apartment.\n\n- **Trustee's Litigation Against K Legacy and Mileson in BVI**\n\t- The Trustee has determined, as a first step, to commence litigation asserting his claims as to K Legacy and the London Apartment in the BVI, because K Legacy is a BVI company.\n\t- On September 30, 2024, the Trustee filed his application and points of claim in the BVI court seeking, among other things, rulings that the shares of K Legacy and the London Apartment were held in trust for and beneficially owned by the Debtor.\n\t\t- On January 13, 2025, Mileson and K Legacy filed their response (or \"defence\"), in which they disputed the Trustee's allegations, and the Trustee filed his reply on February 24, 2025.\n\t\t- The BVI court has currently scheduled trial dates in this matter for the 25-27 of November and 1-2 of December of 2025.\n\n- **Privilege Waiver Issues**\n\t- Due to an upcoming May 16, 2025 deadline for the parties to disclose documents relevant to their claims, the Trustee is faced with an issue arising from the fact that certain documents that the Trustee would rely on in this BVI litigation have been produced to the Trustee by certain of the Debtor's counsels pursuant to the Court's September 14, 2022 order regarding the control of privileges related to documents produced in Rule 2004 discovery [ECF 856] (the \"Privileges Order\").\n\t\t- As the Court may recall, the Privileges Order allows the Trustee to waive such privileges if authorized by the Bankruptcy Court.\n\t- The Trustee understands that BVI law governs the disclosure of privileged documents in BVI court matters and, further, that under BVI law a trustee does not have the right to waive the Debtor's privilege.\n\t\t- As such, in order to disclose privileged documents as part of the discovery process in the K Legacy litigation, the Trustee would not only need this Court's permission under the Privileges Order, but the documents in question would need to be made publicly available, for example by publishing them on the case website, such that they could no longer be considered privileged under BVI law.\n\t- The Trustee is working on identifying the documents that must be disclosed in the BVI proceeding, which may be numerous, and plans to then file a motion seeking permission to waive the privilege as to such documents and to publish them on the case website as necessary.\n\n### **4. Switzerland**\n\n#### **Update on Swiss Investigation**\n\n- During his investigation, the Trustee has learned that the Debtor (through his alter ego entities) and his son, Mileson, hold significant assets in Switzerland, including bank accounts with a number of Swiss banks.\n- On May 21, 2024, the Trustee filed an application in Swiss court seeking to recognize this chapter 11 case in Switzerland as a foreign proceeding, without the need to commence separate ancillary proceedings in Switzerland. The application was granted on July 24, 2024 (as to recognition) and September 19, 2024 (as to lack of ancillary proceedings).\n\t- In addition, the Trustee has learned that Mileson purportedly purchased a multi-million dollar residence in Weggis, Switzerland (the \"Weggis Property\") in December 2022. The Trustee believes that the purchase of the Weggis Property and related personal property (for approximately 31 million Swiss francs, or \\$33 million, in the aggregate) was funded by the Debtor (through his alter ego entities).\n\t- Since then, the Trustee has expanded his investigation into the Debtor's and Mileson's assets in Switzerland, including by sending information requests to numerous financial institution.\n\n### **4. Switzerland**\n\n- **Update on Swiss Investigation**\n\t- While not all parties have cooperated with the Trustee's requests, the Trustee was able to obtain important additional information regarding Mileson's bank accounts in Switzerland, including as to transfers made by the Debtor's alter ego entities to Mileson. The Trustee's investigation remains ongoing.\n\n### **4. Switzerland**\n\n- **Swiss Attachment Proceeding Regarding Assets Controlled by Mileson**\n\t- As this Court is aware, the Trustee is pursuing multiple adversary proceedings in this Court against the Debtors' son, Qiang Guo (aka Mileson), asserting more than \\$100 million in fraudulent transfer claims against Mileson.\n\t\t- To date, the Trustee has obtained default judgments against Mileson in two such adversary proceedings, namely (a) approximately \\$20 million in fraudulent transfers made by one of the Debtor's alter egos (Lamp Capital) and (b) approximately \\$4 million in fraudulent transfers made by the Debtor's alter egos (Lamp Capital, HCHK Technologies, and Leading Shine NY) related to the purchase of the Cirrus aircraft for the benefit of Mileson.\n\t- On February 12, 2025, the Trustee commenced proceedings in Switzerland to attach the Weggis Property and various other assets of Mileson (including luxury vehicles and bank accounts), so as to secure payment of the fraudulent transfer claims asserted against Mileson (including the default judgments).\n\t\t- The Weggis Property, a Ferrari, and Mileson's accounts at Gonet Bank and Lucerne Cantonal Bank have all been attached pursuant to court order.\n\t\t- The Trustee is in the process of seeking to attach additional assets in Switzerland.\n\n### **4. Switzerland**\n\n- **Next Steps**\n\t- The Trustee anticipates that Mileson will oppose the attachment of Swiss assets, which would then require the Trustee to commence formal litigation in Swiss court seeking (a) recognition of this Court's default judgments against Mileson, or (b) in the alternative, merits rulings from the Swiss court that the challenged transfers are avoidable under U.S. and/or Swiss law.\n\t- During his investigation, the Trustee learned that the Weggis Property may be allegedly encumbered by millions of dollars of \"bearer mortgage notes\" (which are unregistered notes payable to whoever holds such notes). The Trustee is informed that these notes are held by an entity in Liechtenstein.\n\t\t- To further investigate these matters and seek relief in regard to the bearer mortgage notes, the Trustee intends to retain Liechtenstein counsel. (The retention application will be filed in the coming days.)\n\n### **5. Cyprus**\n\n- Bouillor Holdings Limited (\"Bouillor*\"*) is a Cyprus entity nominally owned by Mileson that holds title to a luxury apartment in Limassol, Cyprus (the \"Cyprus Apartment\"), purchased for approximately \\$3.9 million in 2015.\n- On August 15, 2024, the Trustee commenced an adversary proceeding (the \"Bouillor Action\") seeking, among other things, rulings that Bouillor and the Cyprus apartment are nominally owned by the Debtor, or, in the alternative, the avoidance of the transfer of the funds used to purchase the Cyprus Apartment.\n\n\n\n\n\n### **5. Cyprus**\n\n- On September 20, 2024, the Trustee commenced litigation in Cyprus (the \"Cyprus Litigation\") seeking the imposition of an injunction to block the transfer of the Cyprus Apartment or Bouillor pending the Trustee obtaining judgment in the Bouillor Action from this Court and seeking to enforce such judgment in Cyprus.\n\t- The Trustee obtained the imposition of this injunction on a temporary *ex parte* basis per an order issued on September 27, 2024, which was then extended (made absolute), per an order dated October 21, 2024, after notice and a hearing at which Bouillor and Mileson failed to appear.\n\t- On 21 February 2025, Bouillor and Mileson filed an application in the Cyprus court seeking to overturn the injunction based largely on procedural arguments, such as that Mileson was not properly served and is outside the Cyprus court's jurisdiction because he resides in Switzerland and challenging the enforceability of a judgment in the Bouillor Action in Cyprus. They also assert that the injunction is unnecessary because they have no intention selling the Cyprus Apartment.\n\t\t- The Trustee's response is due May 15, 2025. Following further submissions, a hearing is scheduled to be held after November 10, 2025.\n\n### **6. United Kingdom**\n\n- **Hamilton Capital**\n\t- Hamilton Capital Holding Limited (\"Hamilton Capital\") is a company registered in the UK and nominally owned by the Debtor's co-defendant, the fugitive William Je, that helped operate the Debtor's \"Himalaya Exchange\" scheme.\n\t\t- The Trustee has alleged in his first omnibus Alter Ego Action that Hamilton Capital and its assets are beneficially owned by the Debtor. In this action, Hamilton Capital is represented by Mr. Conway and its motion to dismiss was argued on January 28, 2025.\n\t\t- The Trustee has also sought, in the alternative, the avoidance of tens of millions of dollars of transfers made by the Debtor to Hamilton Capital.\n- **Hamilton Capital Commences Administration Proceeding**\n\t- On July 19, 2024, Hamilton Capital appointed insolvency administrators (the \"Administrators\"), thus initiating an administration process under UK law. Notice of the appointment of the Administrators was publicly filed on July 30, 2024.\n\t\t- Notice of the administration was not provided to the Trustee until August 16, 2024, when Mr. Conway mentioned it in an email to the Trustee related to another issue.\n\n### **6. United Kingdom**\n\n#### **Trustee's Concerns Regarding Administration Proceeding**\n\n- The Administrators filed a \"Statement of Affairs\" (similar to Schedules of Assets and Liabilities) on August 13, 2024, signed by Hamilton Capital's director, stating that the company held approximately £6 million of assets (including \\$3 million in US accounts seized by the U.S. government) and over £40 million in liabilities.\n- The Hamilton Capital administration raised numerous \"red flags.\" Among other things, the Administrators initially appeared to take the position that the Himalaya Exchange was a viable business that could be resuscitated despite the Himalaya Exchange's website being taken down by the FBI following the Debtor's criminal conviction, and the Administrators were initially represented by Berkeley Rowe, a law firm with a long history of involvement in the affairs of the Debtor.\n- Perhaps most troubling, however, was the presence of entities that the Trustee has alleged are beneficially owned by the Debtor, such as ACA Capital Group Limited, listed in the Statement of Affairs as creditors of Hamilton Capital, suggesting that the Debtor and William Je were use this administration as a way to \"cleanse\" Hamilton Capital's funds by having them distributed in a UK court process.\n\t- This appeared to the Trustee to be the same type of \"cleansing\" strategy that was attempted by the HCHK entities in April 2023 when they commenced a New York law assignment proceeding which the Trustee successfully had enjoined by this Court in connection with his action to have the HCHK entities declared alter egos of the Debtor. The assignee had similarly listed as creditors of HCHK various individuals and entities linked to the Debtor.\n\n### **6. United Kingdom**\n\n#### **Trustee's Involvement in Administration Proceeding**\n\n- After becoming aware of the administration proceeding, the Trustee, first informally and then through his UK solicitors at Pallas Partners engaged in correspondence with the Administrators regarding his concerns.\n\t- In sum, the Trustee sought a commitment from the Administrators that Hamilton Capital's assets (to which the Trustee claimed ownership in his Alter Ego Action) would not be distributed and that the Administrators, prior to the resolution of the Alter Ego Action, would obtain permission from the UK court before paying fees and expenses from such assets.\n\t- The Administrators in their responses to the Trustee's correspondence were generally unresponsive the Trustee's concerns (though they did eventually abandon the proposition that the Himalaya Exchange was a viable business that could be continued).\n- On August 23, 2024, the Trustee was informed of an application (the \"Gold Application\") made by the Administrators seeking the UK Court's permission to sell 26 kilograms of gold bullion held by Hamilton Capital and valued in the Statement of affairs at approximately £ 1.5 million. The gold had been subject to a worldwide injunction against William Je entered in another UK litigation where a victim of the Himalaya Exchange accused William Je of fraud.\n- On October 25, 2024, the Trustee filed papers (the \"Trustee's Application\") with the UK court opposing the distribution of assets to which he claimed ownership, including any proceeds from the sale of gold sought by the Administrators.\n\n### **6. United Kingdom**\n\n#### **Trustee's Agreement with Administrators**\n\n- A hearing before the UK court in connection with the Gold Application and the Trustee's Application was held on April 1, 2025, at which the UK court appeared to be broadly supportive of the Trustee's position.\n- During a recess in the hearing, counsel to the Administrators conferred with counsel to the Trustee and agreed to resolve their dispute through an agreed upon stipulated order. The UK court granted the Gold Application and stayed the Trustee's Application subject to the terms of such stipulated order, under which, among other things:\n\t- The Administrators made an undertaking that they will not distribute any proceeds of assets of Hamilton Capital to its purported creditors nor to use the same to discharge the costs and expenses of the administration (save as might be agreed by the Trustee) prior to the dismissal of the related Alter Ego Action.\n\n#### **7. Mauritius**\n\n- Himalaya International Clearing Limited (\"Himalaya International Clearing\"), is a BVI company, nominally owned by William Je, that helped operate the Debtor's \"Himalaya Exchange\" scheme. The Trustee asserts in his first omnibus Alter Ego Action that Himalaya International Clearing and its assets are property of the Debtor.\n- In August 2024, the Trustee learned that in January 2024 Himalaya International Clearing had initiated litigation in Mauritius to compel Silver Bank, a Mauritius bank in conservatorship proceedings, to allow Himalaya International Clearing to transfer \\$15 million it had deposited with Silver Bank to an account at another bank in Malaysia. Silver Bank had opposed this request, and the litigation remained pending on the e-filing system of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court.\n- To prevent the potential dissipation of assets to Malaysia, in October 2024 the Trustee requested and obtained recognition in Mauritius as foreign representative of the Debtor's estate and the Trustee further filed an application to intervene in Himalaya International Clearing's litigation against Silver Bank. Himalaya International Clearing has filed papers in opposition, though the litigation and the Trustee's application are currently pending on the e-filing system of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court as no further filings have been made by parties.\n- The Trustee has concerns regarding the outcome of the Silver Bank conservatorship and may seek to scale back his activities there depending on the progress of such conservatorship.\n\n#### **8. United Arab Emirates**\n\n- The Trustee's investigation has revealed that the Debtor and his associates (including Mileson) have been active in the United Arab Emirates (the \"UAE\").\n\t- Among other things, it appears that the Debtor directed the flow of tens of millions of dollars to UAE bank accounts, and that the UAE became a base of operations for the Debtor's G Club and Himalaya Exchange schemes, and it is believed that William Je fled to the UAE from the United Kingdom around the time of the Debtor's arrest and, further, that Mileson is attempting to obtain a residency status there.\n\t- The Trustee has engaged Kobre & Kim as UAE counsel to pursue his investigation in the UAE and intends to seek recognition in the UAW under the model insolvency law in order to facilitate his investigation.\n\n## **C. MILESON SERVICE ISSUES**\n\n#### **1. Mileson Service Procedures**\n\n#### **Mileson's Involvement in Chapter 11 Case**\n\n- As the Court may recall, the Debtor's son, Mileson, has assiduously avoided personally involving himself in his father's chapter 11 case or related adversary proceedings, preferring to default rather than participate.\n\t- That being said, Mileson has been heavily involved in these matters through companies he nominally owns, such as Lamp Capital and Bravo Luck, and he did file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case of Genever Holdings LLC.\n\n#### **Prior Service on Mileson In London**\n\n- Mileson has been a defendant in a number of the adversary proceedings commenced by the Trustee, and the Trustee has served Mileson with documents in these matters at the address of the apartment in London nominally owned by Mileson through the BVI company K Legacy (the \"London Apartment\"), discussed in more detail below.\n\t- In his investigation, the Trustee obtained numerous pieces of evidence pointing to the London Apartment as Mileson's address.\n\n## **C. MILESON SERVICE ISSUES**\n\n#### **1. Mileson Service Procedures**\n\n#### **Mileson's Assertion of Swiss Address**\n\n- In recent months, Mileson has asserted in foreign proceedings, in particular in the Trustee's litigation against him in Cyprus, that he has not resided in London for several years and that he lives in Switzerland.\n- Mileson's assertion of a Swiss address (which, however, the Trustee does not concede) raises service issues because the Trustee understands that Swiss law:\n\t- strictly prohibits (including through criminal sanctions) the mailing of foreign court documents to parties in Switzerland and\n\t- requires that all legal documents (including those initiating adversary proceedings as well as subsequent documents) be served through Switzerland's centralized service agency pursuant to the Hague Convention, a time-consuming process that can delay the service of documents by several months.\n- Further, the Trustee suspects that Mileson is asserting his Swiss residency strategically to delay the Trustee's litigation.\n\n# **C. MILESON SERVICE ISSUES**\n\n#### **1. Mileson Service Procedures**\n\n- **Trustee's Motion for Service Procedures**\n\t- To address these service issues, the Trustee recently filed a motion in the main case and in the adversary proceedings in which Mileson is a defendant to confirm the effectiveness of prior service and allow for alternative service procedures with respect to Mileson in adversary proceedings in which he is a defendant, main case matters, and any future adversary proceedings against him.\n\t\t- The proposed order presented by the Trustee would (1) confirm the effectiveness of prior service on Mileson in London and (2) allow for any future service of documents on Mileson to be sufficient upon the mailing of such documents to Mileson's London address, the emailing of such documents to Mileson and his foreign counsel, and the publication of such documents on the case website.\n\t\t- The Trustee intends to serve this motion on Mileson in Switzerland through the Hague Convention methods to thereby avoid any disputes or assertions that Mileson has somehow been prejudiced.\n\t\t- Given the extended time frame of Hague Convention service, the Trustee proposes that the hearing and response deadline related to the Mileson service motion not be scheduled until such service has been effectuated.\n\n### **1. Background**\n\n- The superseding indictment filed in connection with the Debtor's criminal trial has a list, several pages long, of the assets the government believes are subject to forfeiture. The vast majority of those assets are (i) personal and real property, such as luxury cars and \\$60,000 mattresses, and (ii) hundreds of millions of dollars held in approximately 25 accounts. None of these assets are held directly in the Debtor's name. The government has seized, and is holding, approximately \\$642 million (plus interest).\n- Yvette Wang, one of the Debtor's co-defendant's, has pleaded guilty. In connection with her guilty plea, and her sentencing, the government (as it did with the Debtor) has published a list of assets that it believes are subject to forfeiture. Those assets overlap significantly with the assets listed in the Debtor's indictment.\n- The District Court has entered a preliminary order of forfeiture as against Wang. No such order has been entered as against the Debtor.\n- The Trustee believes that many, if not all, of these assets are properly property of the estate that should be administered in the Debtor's chapter 11 bankruptcy case.\n\n#### **2. Discussions with Government**\n\n- The existence of parallel bankruptcy and criminal cases raises important and complex legal and factual issues. However, the Debtor is not the first person subject to parallel criminal and bankruptcy cases.\n- In most of these cases these issues, and the potential for a conflict between the government and the bankruptcy trustee, have been resolved consensually, usually by a so-called \"coordination agreement.\"\n\t- For example, such an agreement was reached in connection with the Goldberg case handled in the Connecticut district and bankruptcy court; the government and the estate representatives also reached consensual agreements in the *Dreier* and *FTX* bankruptcies.\n\t- The Trustee has had extensive discussions with the government about the possibility of such an agreement in this case, which would (i) result in hundreds of millions of dollars coming back to the estate and (ii) avoid the expense of litigating these complex and novel issues\n- Notwithstanding these extensive discussions, those efforts have, so far, been unsuccessful. It is the Trustee's understanding that, as of now, the government is prepared to litigate instead of settling.\n- Briefly stated, the Trustee's principal contention is that (i) the government's rights in forfeited assets are entirely derivative of the criminal defendant's and (ii) hundreds of millions of dollars deposited, by third parties, into accounts held by the Debtor's alter egos after the petition date belong to the estate—and *never* belonged to the Debtor.\n\n#### **3. Potential Litigation**\n\n- As noted, none of the assets the government has identified as subject to forfeiture are held in the Debtor's name directly. This includes over **\\$700 million** of assets held by entities subject to alter ego rulings and/or alter ego complaints. For example:\n\t- The Lady May is identified as subject to forfeiture, but this court and the district court have already held that it is property of the estate.\n\t- The cash seized by the government was held in accounts nominally held by entities subject to the pending omnibus alter ego complaints.\n- In addition to the Trustee's alter ego litigation, the intersection of forfeiture and bankruptcy law raises complicated issues, such as the relation back doctrine, the difference between \"substitute assets\" and \"criminal proceeds,\" the estate's ownership of post-petition assets, and the legal and factual complexity of tracing.\n- The Trustee believes that application of the relevant law to the unique facts here which include the sui generis issue of post-petition criminal conduct – is such that the estate has strong legal claims to hundreds of millions of dollars currently being held by the government.\n- Because settlement discussions have so far not been fruitful, the Trustee is preparing to litigate those issues.\n\n#### **4. Current Status and Timing of Litigation**\n\n- As noted, the District Court has entered a preliminary order of forfeiture in connection with Yvette Wang. The entry of such an order usually triggers a process through which other parties can assert that items identified for forfeiture cannot be forfeited to the government because such other parties have a superior interest. The Trustee, on behalf of the estate, would be such a party.\n- However, on April 15, 2024, the District Court entered an order staying all proceedings related to the Yvette Wang forfeiture until a preliminary order of forfeiture is entered as against the Debtor. This order, which granted a motion filed by the government following discussions with the Trustee, recognizes the extensive overlap between the forfeiture process for Wang and the process for the Debtor.\n- As of now, the Debtor's sentencing is currently scheduled for September 8, 2025, and the timing of the Debtor's accompanying forfeiture process remains uncertain. However, entry of this order allows the estate to avoid the significant time and expense of litigating in connection with the Wang forfeiture and then repeating that litigation in connection with the Debtor's forfeiture process.\n- As things stand, the Trustee has no choice but to join issue with the government on the legal and factual issues raised by the intersection of forfeiture and bankruptcy law and will do so in accordance with the schedule set by the District Court. Of course, the Trustee remains open to a consensual resolution.\n\n### **1. Remediation of Sherry Netherland Apartment**\n\n- As previously reported to the Court, the remediation of the Sherry Netherland apartment following the March 2023 fire were substantially completed in August 2024.\n\t- Formal sign-off on the remediation was provided by the NYC building department in February 2025.\n\t- The total cost of remediating and cleaning the apartment (including the fees of the architect) was approximately \\$1.7 million. See Docket No. 4208.\n\t- Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever US\") funded the remediation cost by borrowing from the Kwok estate under a \\$3 million interdebtor DIP facility. After taking into account other borrowings, including to pay Genever US's legal counsel in the AIG adversary proceeding, the remaining borrowing available under the DIP facility is approximately \\$500,000.\n\n\n\n#### **2. Continuing Efforts to Sell Sherry Netherland Apartment**\n\n- Shortly after completion of the remediation, starting in September 2024, the apartment was re-listed for sale by Sotheby's International Realty, i.e., the real estate broker of Genever US.\n\t- Immediately prior to the March 2023 fire, the apartment had been listed at \\$32.5 million.\n\t- Starting September 2024, the apartment was listed at \\$24 million, which listing price was subsequently lowered to \\$19.5 million (in November 2024) and then \\$16 million (in February 2025).\n\t- Genever US intends to further reduce the listing price to \\$12 million.\n- Genever US also requested, and the court granted, the continued retention of Sotheby's International Realty as its real estate broker. See Docket No. 3660.\n- To date, Genever US has not received any actionable purchase offer.\n\t- The sale process remains challenging because of (a) substantial monthly maintenance charges in the amount of \\$90,000, (b) substantial cost that a future buyer will likely have to expend to renovate and modernize the apartment, and (c) the current uncertain economic climate.\n\n#### **3. AIG Insurance Litigation**\n\n- In addition to undertaking the remediation project, Genever US has also commenced an adversary proceeding against its insurer, AIG, seeking a declaration that AIG must provide coverage for its property loss under its insurance policy.\n\t- Genever US filed its motion for summary judgment on October 6, 2023, and the hearing on the motion was held on January 30, 2024. The motion remains sub judice.\n\t- Since the hearing on the summary judgment motion, the parties have engaged in fact and expert discovery. Fact discovery concluded in December 2024.\n\t- In December 2024, AIG submitted additional materials in connection with the summary judgment motion, and Genever US filed its response.\n\n#### **4. Other Recent Developments**\n\n- Recently, the Sherry Netherland filed a motion seeking to compel Genever US to identify a source of funding to pay \\$90,000 a month in maintenance fees.\n\t- To date, the monthly maintenance fees have been applied against the security deposit (as permitted under the settlement agreement, dated September 24, 2021). However, the security deposit is expected to be depleted in June 2025.\n- The deadline to object to the Sherry Netherland's motion is April 24, 2025, and the Trustee and Genever US intend to file a response. The hearing on the motion is scheduled for April 29, 2025.\n\n### **1. Sale of Mahwah Mansion**\n\n- The Trustee has moved for summary judgment in his action against Taurus Fund LLC to establish that the castle-style mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey is property of the estate. That motion was argued and is fully briefed, including supplemental briefing permitted by the Court earlier this year.\n- The Trustee is also marketing the Mahwah mansion for sale. The Court approved the marketing process after the Debtor's associates terminated their funding of the expenses for the property, which are considerable and are now borne by the estate.\n- The Trustee has engaged Compass to market the property. The property was initially listed for \\$33 million, and earlier this month the Trustee lowered the listing price to \\$26.9 million to stimulate further interest.\n- The costs of maintaining the mansion are excessively high and the mansion continues to be uninsured.\n\n\n\n#### **2. Auction of Personal Property**\n\n- On January 31, 2025, an application [ECF 4021] was filed to retain an auctioneer to sell personal property. An Order was entered on February 27, 2025 [ECF 4180], granting the retention application in part (with respect to the sale of motor vehicles). Because the retention application did not include a catalog of the furniture to be sold, the balance of the retention application was adjourned at the request of the US Trustee's Office until a catalog could be filed in connection with an application to sell personal property.\n- On April 8, a sale application was filed with respect to the motor vehicles [ECF 4301], which was scheduled for hearing on May 13 at 1 pm. We have requested that the balance of the retention application also be heard at that time.\n\t- The sale application seeks approval of an online auction of 4 motor vehicles (3 motorcycles and a Lexus) and the Sherry Netherland furniture (which has now been catalogued). To date, no objections have been filed to the sale application or the retention application.\n\t- Harley Davidson motorcycles held by the auctioneer are not included in the Sale Application because the keys are missing, which have been ordered from Harley Davidson, though no delivery date has been provided.\n- In addition to the Sherry Netherland furniture, there are two other groups of personal property being held in the New Jersey storage facility--office furniture that had been in the HCHK offices and furniture from the Greenwich Land mansion. The Trustee will determine the approach for the sale of these assets following the results of the auction of the Sherry Netherland furniture.\n\n### **3. Sale of Cirrus Jet**\n\n- *Despins v. Cirrus Design Corporation, et al.* (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5225) involves fraudulent transfers that funded the purchase of aircraft for the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo (aka Mileson). The Trustee has asserted claims against Cirrus as the initial transferee and a claim against Mileson as the recipient of the benefit of the transfers.\n- On November 20, 2024, the Trustee obtained a default judgment against Mileson in the amount of \\$3,915,140.00. The Trustee's claims against Cirrus remain pending.\n- In February of 2025, the Court granted the Trustee's motion to enforce his judgment against Qiang Guo by requiring that title to a Cirrus \"personal jet\" aircraft be turned over to the Trustee. A U.S. company that had held title to the Cirrus jet for Qiang Guo's benefit complied with the Court's order and transferred title to the Trustee.\n- The Trustee has obtained control of the Cirrus jet. The Trustee will file a motion requesting authority to sell the jet and apply the proceeds to the Trustee's judgment against Mileson as soon as the Cirrus jet is in a position where it can be sold.\n\n\n\n#### **4. Maybach in New Jersey Parking Lot**\n\n- The Trustee has identified a Maybach luxury sedan titled to Golden Spring (New York) Ltd that is in the possession of a towing company in northern New Jersey.\n- The towing company has threatened to auction the vehicle. The Trustee has advised the towing company of the automatic stay and the Court's judgment in the Golden Spring adversary proceeding. The Trustee will seek Court intervention, if necessary.\n\n\n\n\n\n#### **5. Claims Reconciliation and Objections**\n\n- As previously mentioned to the Court, the Trustee will seek to open up the claims bar date with respect to claims against adjudged Debtor alter egos. However, it would be premature to do so at this time because there remain a number of pending Alter Ego Actions.\n- The Trustee has been reviewing filed claims and plans to prepare an omnibus claims procedures motion that would allow the Trustee to object on an omnibus basis to proofs of claim that are facially invalid (such as where the proof of claim form has been submitted with not documentary support attached).\n\n### **1. Avoidance Actions Update**\n\n- **Pending Avoidance Actions**\n\t- There are 349 pending avoidance actions against third parties collectively seeking to avoid and recover transfers greater than \\$949 million.\n\t\t- Of these, 207 are fully stayed, 45 are partially stayed, and 50 are in formal mediation proceedings.\n\t\t- The Trustee has reached agreements to settle avoidance claims with 16 transferees.\n\t\t- As to the 50 avoidance defendants in formal mediation, the Trustee will be discussing with Judge Tancredi how many of these defendants should remain in mediation and how many should be moved to a litigation track.\n\t\t\t- This discussion will also cover the topic of next steps with regarding the defendants in mediation who participated in the joint briefing of certain issues resolved by the Court in its joint briefing decision issued on March 4, 2025 (the \"Joint Briefing Defendants\").\n\n### **1. Avoidance Actions Update**\n\n#### **Motions to Dismiss in Avoidance Actions**\n\n- In avoidance actions that are not stayed, and excluding the Joint Briefing Defendants, 17 defendants have filed individual motions to dismiss.\n\t- The Court has denied 10 of these in full (those filed by Harcus Parker, G4S Security Systems, V.X. Cerda & Associates, ACASS Canada, Aaron Mitchell, Lawall & Mitchell, Weddle Law, Boies Schiller Flexner, and Liberty Jet Management).\n\t- As to ACASS USA, the Court has denied the defendant's motion to dismiss except as to one issue (related to the Cape Town Convention), on which the Court has scheduled argument on May 20.\n\t- As to Apple and Meta Platforms, these are scheduled for argument on April 29.\n\t- As to Berkeley Rowe, the Francis Firm, and FFP, these were denied in part pursuant to the joint briefing decision but otherwise not decided.\n\t- Norris McLaughlin more recently filed a motion to dismiss that is not yet fully briefed.\n- The Trustee intends to soon file a discovery procedures motion with respect to all the avoidance actions.\n- \"Law of the Case\" argument.\n\n#### **1. Avoidance Actions Update**\n\n- **Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Against Zeisler & Zeisler**\n\t- This motion is fully briefed, and certain issues were resolved in the Court's March 4 joint briefing decision.\n\t- The parties filed their joint statement of the issues on March 28. As discussed therein, the parties agree on what the remaining issues are, but the Trustee opposes the request made by Zeisler & Zeisler to submit additional briefing on the law of the case issue.\n\n### **2. Alter Ego Actions Update**\n\n- **Alter Ego Rulings in Favor of Trustee**\n\t- As the Court is aware the Trustee has commenced adversary proceedings seeking rulings that numerous entities nominally owned by third parties were in fact alter egos of and/or beneficially owned by the Debtor (the \"Alter Ego Actions\").\n\t- The Trustee has obtained rulings in his favor in the Alter Ego Actions as related to a number entities including:\n\t\t- HK USA\n\t\t- Greenwich Land\n\t\t- Golden Spring\n\t\t- Lamp Capital\n\t\t- Whitecroft Shore Limited\n\t\t- The HCHK entities\n\t\t- K Legacy\n\n#### **2. Alter Ego Actions Update**\n\n- **Pending Alter Ego Actions Regarding Various Entities, Including**:\n\t- Taurus Fund LLC (Mahwah Mansion) [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]: Trustee's motion for summary judgment is fully briefed, including post-hearing briefing, and was argued on November 19, 2024.\n\t- Hudson Diamond NY and Leading Shine NY ) [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023]: Trustee's motion for summary judgment is fully briefed and was argued on December 10, 2024.\n\t- Numerous entities that are the subject of the Trustee's \"first omnibus\" Alter Ego Action commenced in February 2024 [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249]: Motions to dismiss filed by certain defendants, including those associated with the G Club, Himalaya Exchange, and Hamilton schemes, are fully briefed and were argued on January 28, 2025.\n\t\t- Defaulting defendants were placed in the \"severed Alter Ego Action\" [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05138].\n\t- Bouillor, the Cyprus entity nominally owned by the Debtor's son that holds a luxury apartment in Limassol, Cyprus [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05311]: The defendants have defaulted; the Trustee's next step is to file a motion to resolve certain service issues that have arisen related to the Debtor's son.\n\t- Numerous entities that are the subject of the Trustee's \"second omnibus\" Alter Ego Action, filed in December 2024 [Adv. Proc. No. 05322], with respect to a number of which the Trustee will soon seek entries of default.\n\n#### **3. Certain Other Pending Matters**\n\n- **Trustee's Motion Seeking Enforcement of Injunction Against Mei Guo**:\n\t- In its action again Mei Guo related to the Bombardier jet [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008], the Trustee filed a motion seeking sanctions and enforcement of the Court's injunction prohibiting the dissipation of assets held by Mei Guo.\n\t\t- The motion was fully briefed, with an evidentiary hearing held on March 25 and legal argument on March 26, 2025.\n- **Trustee's RICO Action**\n\t- The Trustee's RICO adversary proceeding [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05273] is current stayed pursuant to the Court's stay order entered on December 9, 2024, pending the entry of final non-appealable judgment as to all defendants in the Trustee's first omnibus Alter Ego Action or further order of the Court.\n\t- Although the action is stayed, the Trustee is having discussions with defendants which could lead to the partial resolution of claims asserted in the RICO adversary proceeding.","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格地区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\nx\n\n关于： ：\n： 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等， ：\n： 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n：\n： （合并管理）\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n关于提交第11章受托人于2025年4月22日举行的状态会议陈述材料的通知\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）作为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）第11章案件中的第11章受托人，特此提交其拟于2025年4月22日下午1时举行的状态会议陈述材料，作为附件A随附于此。\n\n日期：April 22, 2025 LUC A. DESPINS，第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Patrick R. Linsey（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思专业公司） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人的律师\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及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP（博钦律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok遗产的受托人（仅用于通知及通信之目的）。\n\n美国康涅狄格地区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\nx\n\n关于： ：\n： 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等， ：\n：\n： 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n： （合并管理）\n\nx\n送达证明\n\n上述文件及其附件已于本文件日期在上述标题所示第11章案件（以下简称“第11章案件”）中以电子方式提交。提交后，法院案件管理/电子案件档案系统自动通过电子邮件向第11章案件中所有有资格接收电子通知的出庭当事人发送了通知。\n\n日期：April 22, 2025\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Patrick R. Linsey（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思专业公司） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\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及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP（博钦律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok遗产的受托人（仅用于通知及通信之目的）。\n\n附件A\n\n（调解陈述材料）\n\n2025年4月22日受托人案件状态会议 关于Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），第11章案件案号22-50073 (JAM)\n\nA. 引言\n\n案件状态更新\n\n• Kwok案件（与Genever案件相对）已审理38个月；截至7月，受托人任职将满36个月。\n\n• 案件要点：\n\n • 迄今已追回超过$130 million。\n\n • 主案卷中已有超过4300项案卷记录。\n\n • 主案卷中已作出数百项裁定。\n\n • 截至March 28, 2025，已提交超过1,600项债权申报，主张的债权金额为$32 billion。\n\n • 迄今共提起83宗上诉，所有已作出的上诉裁决均维持本院的裁定。此外，若干上诉因属中间性上诉而被驳回。另已提出九项撤回管辖权移送的动议，其中一项已获裁定并被驳回。\n\n• 尽管本院对其待决事项非常熟悉，国际层面仍有大量活动，因此，就该等事项及其如何影响整体案件管理作出更新十分重要。\n\n1. 引言\n\n• 破产法院就外国被告作出的裁定，基于各司法管辖区不同的原因，往往不能在外国法院中进行“简单”的执行/实施。\n\n • 这引出了一个显而易见的问题：在被告位于境外的情况下，受托人为何寻求作出破产法院裁定。\n\n• 即使在缺席情形下，受托人寻求并由本院作出该等裁定亦有多项合理理由：\n\n • 第一，一些外国被告确实会在破产法院出庭。在提交起诉状之前，无法得知某一被告是否会出庭对所主张的请求进行抗辩。\n\n • 第二，在某些外国司法管辖区，受托人能够在外国法院主张美国法下的请求；因此，破产法院缺席裁定所提供的路线图虽不具有约束力，却至关重要。\n\n • 第三，在某些外国司法管辖区，受托人应能够使针对外国被告的破产法院裁定获得承认。\n\n • 第四，外国被告现在或将来可能拥有受美国法院管辖的资产，并可通过扣押该等资产执行判决书。\n\n1. 引言\n\n外国程序的风险/收益\n\n• 外国程序就结果和费用而言，其性质本身即具有不确定性。\n\n• 这种不确定性通常涉及以下事实：外国法院并不具备对本案以及债务人及其关联方所采用各种方案周边事实同等深入的了解。\n\n• 外国程序通常也更为昂贵，因为外国法院有时可能要求支付高额诉讼费用，或向法院缴纳保证金，以在外国法院最终认定受托人所主张的请求缺乏依据时，保障被告的抗辩费用。\n\n• 某些外国被告安排其活动的方式，使受托人的任何追偿行动变得极为困难和/或极为昂贵。\n\n• 启动外国程序时存在隐含的工作重复，因为外国律师需要受托人的美国团队提供指导和监督。\n\n2. BVI（英属维尔京群岛）－Ace Decade\n\nAce Decade和Dawn State的所有权\n\n• 两年半多以来，受托人一直试图取得Ace Decade Holdings Limited（Ace Decade Holdings有限公司，以下简称“Ace Decade”）及其全资子公司Dawn State Limited（Dawn State有限公司，以下简称“Dawn State”）的控制权。\n\n • 如无法控制Ace Decade和Dawn State，受托人便无法完全控制债务人提起的诉讼——债务人与Ace Decade及Dawn State作为共同原告，在英国法院对UBS（瑞银集团）提起的诉讼。在该诉讼中，债务人、Ace Decade及Dawn State主张近$500 million的损害赔偿。\n\n • 迄今为止，Ace Decade和Dawn State的英国律师Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克律师事务所）拒绝接受受托人就针对UBS的诉讼所作的指示。\n\n• 正如本院所记得，2022年10月，受托人因债务人未转让其在Ace Decade中的股份而寻求认定债务人藐视法庭——尽管债务人曾多次陈述，包括在宣誓后陈述，其为Ace Decade的所有人，并因此为其全资子公司Dawn State的所有人。\n\n • 在日期为November 17, 2022的裁定中，本院认定：(i) 债务人独占性地实益拥有并控制Ace Decade；及(ii) Yvette Wang（王雁）并非且从未是Ace Decade股份的实益所有人。债务人未对这些认定提出异议，并同意不对该裁定提起上诉。\n\n2. BVI（英属维尔京群岛）－Ace Decade\n\n• 此外，根据日期为January 24, 2023的裁定，本院认定债务人藐视法庭，其中包括因为其未就受托人控制Ace Decade一事与受托人合作，且未向受托人交出Ace Decade股份。本院还认定，Yvette Wang为债务人的利益而作为Ace Decade的名义所有人。\n\n• Yvette Wang向Rui Hao（郝瑞）转让Ace Decade股份\n\n • 尽管本院已作出裁定，王女士仍于2023年1月声称将Ace Decade股份转让给郝先生（一名与债务人有多种关联的个人）。此后，于2023年12月，受托人针对王女士、郝先生及Ace Decade提起对抗程序，请求作出声明，其中包括：王女士于2023年1月向郝先生转让Ace Decade股份违反自动停止，因而自始无效；且Ace Decade股份属于并继续属于债务人遗产财产。\n\n • 王女士最初在对抗程序中出庭，寻求驳回对其提出的请求，但在本院驳回其驳回动议后，王女士未对起诉状作出答辩。\n\n • 郝先生已依照《海牙公约》在瑞士被送达，但未对起诉状作出回应。他现主张该送达并未生效。\n\n2. BVI（英属维京群岛）－Ace Decade\n\n• 于July 22, 2024，本院就责任问题（但不包括损害赔偿）对王女士及Ace Decade作出缺席判决书；于September 12, 2024，本院就责任问题（但不包括损害赔偿）对郝先生作出缺席判决书。\n\n • 于February 4, 2025，本院准许受托人针对Yvette Wang提出的判决前救济动议，授权受托人扣押王女士的财产，包括一套公寓及金额最高达$1.29 million的账户资金。\n\n • 于April 14, 2025，受托人提交动议，请求就王雁故意且恶意的行为，对Yvette Wang作出金额为$1.39 million的金钱判决书。\n\n• 关于Ace Decade和Dawn State的BVI清算程序\n\n • 于June 2024，郝先生在British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛，以下简称“BVI”）就Ace Decade和Dawn State启动清算程序。\n\n • 显然，在2023年1月转让Ace Decade股份后，郝先生还于2023年6月指示Ace Decade将Dawn State股份转让给其本人——因此，郝先生现声称是Ace Decade股份和Dawn State股份的唯一所有人。\n\n • 自BVI清算程序启动以来，受托人一直与共同清算人就解决所有权争议进行讨论。共同清算人似乎支持更正股东名册，以反映遗产为Ace Decade的所有人，但其将由利害关系方在BVI法院提交各自支持或反对更正的证据。\n\n2. BVI（英属维尔京群岛）－Ace Decade\n\n• 然而，依BVI法院的指示，共同清算人确已在BVI法院提交申请，以“更正”Ace Decade和Dawn State股份的所有权；在该程序中，相关利害关系方，即受托人及郝先生，将能够就其各自的所有权主张提交证据。\n\n• 于February 2025，受托人及郝先生分别提交声明以支持各自立场。值得注意的是，郝先生的声明未提出任何实质性证据，而是主张一名位于中国的个人（因声称的安全顾虑而无法披露其身份）为Ace Decade的实益所有人。\n\n • 同样于February 2025，为确保所有权问题均在BVI法院得到适当合并审理，受托人还提交其自身的申请，以确定Ace Decade和Dawn State股份的所有权。\n\n• 自此以后，郝先生继续通过对受托人的申请提出程序性异议（包括主张该申请据称无效）并坚持要求受托人启动新的程序、而非与BVI清算程序中的待决申请一并处理，试图拖延BVI程序。\n\n • 尽管受托人对其申请无效的主张提出异议，为避免进一步拖延，受托人确于April 15, 2025提起新程序。预计BVI法院将于近期举行关于后续步骤的指示聆讯。\n\n－ K Legacy（K Legacy有限公司）及伦敦公寓\n\n － K Legacy Ltd.（K Legacy有限公司，以下简称“K Legacy”）是一家名义上由债务人之子 Qiang Guo（郭强，以下简称“Mileson”）所有的英属维尔京群岛公司，系一套于2016年以£33 million购置的伦敦豪华公寓（以下简称“伦敦公寓”）的登记所有人。受托人在其首次综合另我诉讼中主张，K Legacy及其资产（包括伦敦公寓）由债务人实益所有。\n\n － 2024年9月12日，本法院就受托人关于债务人为K Legacy及其资产（包括伦敦公寓）的真正实益所有人的主张，对Mileson和K Legacy作出缺席判决[Adv. Proc. No. 24-02459, ECF No. 76]。\n\n－ 受托人就伦敦公寓取得英属维尔京群岛法院的禁令。\n\n － 2024年3月22日，受托人向英属维尔京群岛法院请求作出单方禁令，以防止在未事先通知受托人的情况下转让伦敦公寓或K Legacy的股份。\n\n － 2024年3月27日，英属维尔京群岛法院准许受托人的禁令请求并作出临时禁令；根据2024年4月18日的延续命令，该禁令随后获延长，直至英属维尔京群岛法院另行命令为止。\n\n － 英属维尔京群岛法院还于2024年10月1日作出临时命令，对K Legacy和Mileson给予进一步禁令救济，并由2024年10月24日的命令予以延续，禁止包括转让伦敦公寓或K Legacy股份在内的行为。\n\n － 英属维尔京群岛法院的禁令已登记于伦敦公寓的房地产记录中，因此应能对任何有意购买伦敦公寓的一方形成实质性威慑。\n\n－ 受托人在英属维尔京群岛针对K Legacy和Mileson的诉讼\n\n － 受托人已决定，作为第一步，在英属维尔京群岛提起诉讼，主张其有关K Legacy和伦敦公寓的权利，因为K Legacy是一家英属维尔京群岛公司。\n\n － 2024年9月30日，受托人向英属维尔京群岛法院提交申请书及诉请要点，请求作出包括认定K Legacy的股份和伦敦公寓系为债务人以信托方式持有且由债务人实益所有在内的裁决。\n\n － 2025年1月13日，Mileson和K Legacy提交答复（或称“答辩”），对受托人的指称提出异议；受托人于2025年2月24日提交答复。\n\n － 英属维尔京群岛法院目前已将本案审判日期排定为2025年11月25日至27日以及12月1日至2日。\n\n－ 特权放弃问题\n\n － 鉴于各方须于2025年5月16日前披露与其主张相关的文件，受托人面临这样一个问题：受托人拟在本英属维尔京群岛诉讼中依赖的某些文件，系债务人的某些律师根据本法院关于控制与Rule 2004取证中所出示文件有关的特权之2022年9月14日命令[ECF 856]（以下简称“特权命令”）向受托人提供。\n\n － 如本法院可能记得，特权命令允许受托人在破产法院授权的情况下放弃该等特权。\n\n － 受托人理解，英属维尔京群岛法律管辖英属维尔京群岛法院案件中享有特权文件的披露；此外，根据英属维尔京群岛法律，受托人无权放弃债务人的特权。\n\n － 因此，为在K Legacy诉讼的取证程序中披露享有特权的文件，受托人不仅需要获得本法院根据特权命令作出的许可，还需要使相关文件可供公众获取，例如将其公布在案件网站上，从而使其不再根据英属维尔京群岛法律被视为享有特权。\n\n － 受托人正在确定必须在英属维尔京群岛程序中披露的文件，该等文件可能数量众多；其计划随后提交动议，请求获准放弃该等文件的特权，并在必要时将其公布在案件网站上。\n\n4. 瑞士\n\n瑞士调查最新情况\n\n－ 在其调查过程中，受托人获悉，债务人（通过其另我实体）及其儿子Mileson在瑞士持有重大资产，包括在多家瑞士银行开立的银行账户。\n\n－ 2024年5月21日，受托人向瑞士法院提交申请，请求将本chapter 11案件认定为瑞士的外国程序，而无需在瑞士启动单独的辅助程序。该申请于2024年7月24日获准（就承认而言），并于2024年9月19日获准（就无需辅助程序而言）。\n\n － 此外，受托人获悉，Mileson据称于2022年12月在瑞士韦吉斯购置了一处价值数百万美元的住宅（以下简称“韦吉斯房产”）。受托人认为，韦吉斯房产及相关动产的购置（合计约31 million瑞士法郎，或$33 million）由债务人（通过其另我实体）出资。\n\n － 此后，受托人已扩大对债务人和Mileson在瑞士资产的调查，包括向众多金融机构发送信息请求。\n\n4. 瑞士\n\n－ 瑞士调查最新情况\n\n － 虽然并非所有各方均配合受托人的请求，但受托人得以取得有关Mileson在瑞士银行账户的重要补充信息，包括债务人的另我实体向Mileson作出的转账。受托人的调查仍在进行中。\n\n4. 瑞士\n\n－ 关于由Mileson控制资产的瑞士扣押程序\n\n － 如本法院所知，受托人正在本法院针对债务人之子Qiang Guo（又名Mileson）推进多项对抗程序，主张针对Mileson超过$100 million的欺诈性转让请求权。\n\n － 迄今为止，受托人已在其中两项对抗程序中取得针对Mileson的缺席判决，即：(a)债务人的一个另我实体Lamp Capital（Lamp Capital）作出的约$20 million欺诈性转让；以及(b)债务人的另我实体Lamp Capital、HCHK Technologies（HCHK Technologies）和Leading Shine NY（Leading Shine NY）为Mileson利益购买Cirrus飞机而作出的约$4 million欺诈性转让。\n\n － 2025年2月12日，受托人在瑞士启动程序，以扣押韦吉斯房产及Mileson的其他多项资产（包括豪华车辆和银行账户），从而担保针对Mileson主张的欺诈性转让请求权（包括缺席判决）的支付。\n\n － 韦吉斯房产、一辆Ferrari（法拉利）汽车以及Mileson在Gonet Bank（戈内银行）和Lucerne Cantonal Bank（卢塞恩州立银行）的账户，均已根据法院命令被扣押。\n\n － 受托人正在寻求扣押其在瑞士的其他资产。\n\n4. 瑞士\n\n－ 后续步骤\n\n － 受托人预计Mileson将反对扣押瑞士资产，届时将要求受托人在瑞士法院提起正式诉讼，请求：(a)承认本法院针对Mileson作出的缺席判决；或(b)作为替代方案，请求瑞士法院就争议转让根据美国和/或瑞士法律可被撤销作出实体裁决。\n\n － 在调查过程中，受托人获悉，韦吉斯房产可能据称受数百万美元“不记名抵押票据”的负担（即未登记、向持有该等票据的任何人付款的票据）。受托人获悉，该等票据由列支敦士登的一家实体持有。\n\n － 为进一步调查这些事项并就不记名抵押票据寻求救济，受托人拟聘请列支敦士登律师。（聘任申请将在未来数日内提交。）\n\n5. 塞浦路斯\n\n－ Bouillor Holdings Limited（布伊约尔控股有限公司，以下简称“Bouillor”）是一家名义上由Mileson所有的塞浦路斯实体，其持有位于塞浦路斯利马索尔的一套豪华公寓（以下简称“塞浦路斯公寓”）的所有权，该公寓于2015年以约$3.9 million购置。\n\n－ 2024年8月15日，受托人启动一项对抗程序（以下简称“Bouillor诉讼”），请求作出包括认定Bouillor和塞浦路斯公寓由债务人名义所有，或作为替代方案撤销用于购买塞浦路斯公寓的资金转让在内的裁决。\n\n5. 塞浦路斯\n\n－ 2024年9月20日，受托人在塞浦路斯提起诉讼（以下简称“塞浦路斯诉讼”），请求施加禁令，以阻止在受托人从本法院取得Bouillor诉讼的判决并寻求在塞浦路斯执行该判决之前转让塞浦路斯公寓或Bouillor。\n\n － 受托人根据2024年9月27日作出的命令，在临时单方基础上取得该禁令；其后，根据2024年10月21日作出的命令，在通知及听证后，该禁令获延长（转为最终确定），而Bouillor和Mileson未出席该听证。\n\n － 2025年2月21日，Bouillor和Mileson向塞浦路斯法院提交申请，主要基于程序性论点请求撤销禁令，例如Mileson未被适当送达，且因其居住在瑞士而不受塞浦路斯法院管辖，并对Bouillor诉讼判决在塞浦路斯的可执行性提出质疑。他们还主张该禁令没有必要，因为他们无意出售塞浦路斯公寓。\n\n － 受托人的答复到期日为2025年5月15日。在进一步提交书面材料后，听证会定于2025年11月10日之后举行。\n\n6. 英国\n\n－ Hamilton Capital（汉密尔顿资本）\n\n － Hamilton Capital Holding Limited（汉密尔顿资本控股有限公司，以下简称“Hamilton Capital”）是一家在英国注册、名义上由债务人的共同被告、在逃人员William Je（William Je）所有的公司，该公司曾协助运营债务人的“Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）”计划。\n\n － 受托人在其首次综合另我诉讼中主张，Hamilton Capital及其资产由债务人实益所有。在本案中，Hamilton Capital由Conway先生代理，其驳回动议已于2025年1月28日进行辩论。\n\n － 受托人还作为替代方案，请求撤销债务人向Hamilton Capital作出的数千万美元转让。\n\n－ Hamilton Capital启动管理程序\n\n － 2024年7月19日，Hamilton Capital任命破产管理人（以下简称“管理人”），从而根据英国法律启动管理程序。管理人获任的通知于2024年7月30日公开提交。\n\n － 直至2024年8月16日，Conway先生在一封与另一事项有关的致受托人电子邮件中提及该事项时，受托人才获知管理程序的通知。\n\n6. 英国\n\n受托人对管理程序的关切\n\n管理人于 August 13, 2024 提交了一份“事务状况说明书”（类似于资产和负债清单），该说明书由 Hamilton Capital（汉密尔顿资本）的董事签署，称该公司持有约 £6 million 的资产（包括被美国政府扣押的位于美国账户中的 \\$3 million），并负有超过 £40 million 的负债。\n\nHamilton Capital 的管理程序引发了诸多“危险信号”。除其他事项外，管理人起初似乎认为，尽管 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的网站在债务人被刑事定罪后已被 FBI 关闭，喜马拉雅交易所仍是一项可行的业务，可以恢复运营；并且，管理人起初由 Berkeley Rowe（伯克利·罗律师事务所）代理，该律师事务所长期参与债务人的事务。\n\n然而，最令人担忧的或许是，受托人主张由债务人实益拥有的实体，例如 ACA Capital Group Limited（ACA 资本集团有限公司），在事务状况说明书中被列为 Hamilton Capital 的债权人，这表明债务人和 William Je（纪威廉）正在利用该管理程序，通过在英国法院程序中分配资金的方式“洗白”Hamilton Capital 的资金。\n\n在受托人看来，这似乎与 HCHK 实体于 April 2023 尝试采取的“洗白”策略属于同一类型；当时，该等实体启动了纽约州法上的让与程序，而受托人成功请求本院就其要求宣告 HCHK 实体为债务人替身实体的诉讼，对该程序发布禁令。受让人同样将与债务人有关联的各类个人和实体列为 HCHK 的债权人。\n\n6. 英国\n\n受托人参与管理程序\n\n在获悉该管理程序后，受托人先是以非正式方式，随后通过其位于英国的 Pallas Partners（帕拉斯合伙律师事务所）律师，与管理人就其关切进行了通信。\n\n概言之，受托人寻求管理人承诺，Hamilton Capital 的资产（受托人在其替身实体诉讼中主张对该等资产享有所有权）不会被分配，并且管理人在替身实体诉讼得到解决之前，从该等资产中支付费用和开支前，应取得英国法院的许可。\n\n管理人对受托人通信的回复总体上未回应受托人的关切（尽管其最终放弃了喜马拉雅交易所是一项可以继续经营的可行业务这一主张）。\n\n在 August 23, 2024，受托人获悉管理人提出了一项申请（“黄金申请”），请求英国法院许可出售 Hamilton Capital 持有的 26 kilograms 金条；该等金条在事务状况说明书中的估值约为 £ 1.5 million。该黄金受另一宗英国诉讼中针对 William Je 作出的全球禁令约束，在该诉讼中，一名喜马拉雅交易所的受害者指控 William Je 欺诈。\n\n在 October 25, 2024，受托人向英国法院提交文件（“受托人申请”），反对分配其主张享有所有权的资产，包括管理人寻求出售黄金所得的任何收益。\n\n6. 英国\n\n受托人与管理人的协议\n\n英国法院于 April 1, 2025 就黄金申请和受托人申请举行了听证会，英国法院在该听证会上似乎总体支持受托人的立场。\n\n在听证会休庭期间，管理人的律师与受托人的律师进行了协商，并同意通过一项经双方同意的约定命令解决争议。英国法院批准了黄金申请，并根据该约定命令的条款中止审理受托人申请；根据该约定命令，除其他事项外：\n\n管理人作出承诺，在相关替身实体诉讼被驳回之前，其不会向 Hamilton Capital 的所谓债权人分配任何资产收益，也不会使用该等收益偿付管理程序的成本和开支（除非受托人可能同意）。\n\n7. 毛里求斯\n\nHimalaya International Clearing Limited（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司，以下简称“Himalaya International Clearing”）是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，名义上由 William Je 所有，曾协助运营债务人的“喜马拉雅交易所”计划。受托人在其首宗综合性替身实体诉讼中主张，Himalaya International Clearing 及其资产属于债务人的财产。\n\n在 August 2024，受托人得知，Himalaya International Clearing 于 January 2024 在毛里求斯提起诉讼，要求处于接管程序中的毛里求斯银行 Silver Bank（银色银行）允许 Himalaya International Clearing 将其存放于 Silver Bank 的 \\$15 million 转移至其在马来西亚另一家银行的账户。Silver Bank 已反对此项请求，该诉讼仍在最高法院商事庭的电子提交系统中待决。\n\n为防止资产可能被转移至马来西亚，受托人于 October 2024 请求并获准在毛里求斯被承认为债务人破产财产的外国代表；受托人还进一步申请介入 Himalaya International Clearing 对 Silver Bank 提起的诉讼。Himalaya International Clearing 已提交反对文件，但由于各方未再提交文件，该诉讼和受托人的申请目前仍在最高法院商事庭的电子提交系统中待决。\n\n受托人对 Silver Bank 接管程序的结果存有关切，并可能视该接管程序的进展而缩减其在该地的活动。\n\n8. 阿拉伯联合酋长国\n\n受托人的调查显示，债务人及其关联人士（包括 Mileson（米尔森））一直在阿拉伯联合酋长国（“UAE”）活动。\n\n除其他事项外，看来债务人曾指示将数千万美元流入 UAE 银行账户，且 UAE 已成为债务人的 G Club 和喜马拉雅交易所计划的运营基地；并且，据认为，William Je 在债务人被捕前后从英国逃往 UAE，此外，Mileson 正试图在当地取得居留身份。\n\n受托人已聘请 Kobre & Kim（科布雷与金律师事务所）担任其 UAE 律师，以推进其在 UAE 的调查，并拟根据示范破产法在 UAE 寻求承认，以便利其调查。\n\nC. 米尔森送达问题\n\n1. 米尔森送达程序\n\n米尔森参与 Chapter 11 案件\n\n如本院可能记得，债务人的儿子 Mileson 一直刻意避免亲自参与其父亲的 Chapter 11 案件或相关对抗程序，而是宁愿缺席而不参与。\n\n话虽如此，Mileson 通过其名义上拥有的公司，例如 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）和 Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运），深度参与了这些事项；他还在 Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）的破产案件中提交了债权申报。\n\n此前在伦敦向米尔森送达\n\nMileson 是受托人提起的若干对抗程序中的被告，受托人已在一处位于伦敦、由 Mileson 通过英属维尔京群岛公司 K Legacy（K 遗产）名义上拥有的公寓地址，向 Mileson 送达了这些事项中的文件（“伦敦公寓”），如下文将作更详细说明。\n\n在其调查中，受托人取得了大量证据，表明伦敦公寓是 Mileson 的地址。\n\nC. 米尔森送达问题\n\n1. 米尔森送达程序\n\n米尔森主张其地址位于瑞士\n\n近几个月来，Mileson 在外国程序中主张，特别是在受托人于塞浦路斯对其提起的诉讼中主张，其已多年未居住在伦敦，而是居住在瑞士。\n\nMileson 对瑞士地址的主张（但受托人并不承认该主张）引发了送达问题，因为受托人了解到，瑞士法律：\n\n严格禁止（包括通过刑事制裁）将外国法院文件邮寄给位于瑞士的当事人；并且\n\n要求所有法律文件（包括启动对抗程序的文件以及后续文件）均须根据《海牙公约》通过瑞士的集中送达机构送达；该程序耗时较长，可能导致文件送达延迟数月。\n\n此外，受托人怀疑 Mileson 出于策略性目的主张其居住于瑞士，以延迟受托人的诉讼。\n\nC. 米尔森送达问题\n\n1. 米尔森送达程序\n\n受托人关于送达程序的动议\n\n为解决这些送达问题，受托人最近在主案以及 Mileson 为被告的对抗程序中提交了一项动议，请求确认先前送达的效力，并准许就 Mileson 在其为被告的对抗程序、主案事项以及今后针对他的任何对抗程序中采用替代送达程序。\n\n受托人提交的拟议命令将：(1) 确认此前在伦敦向 Mileson 送达的效力；以及 (2) 准许今后向 Mileson 送达任何文件时，只要将该等文件邮寄至 Mileson 的伦敦地址、通过电子邮件发送给 Mileson 及其外国律师，并在案件网站上公布该等文件，即构成充分送达。\n\n受托人拟通过《海牙公约》规定的方法向 Mileson 在瑞士送达该动议，以避免任何关于 Mileson 不知何故受到不利影响的争议或主张。\n\n鉴于通过《海牙公约》送达所需时间较长，受托人提议，在该等送达完成之前，不安排与米尔森送达动议有关的听证会和答复期限。\n\n1. 背景\n\n就债务人刑事审判提交的替代起诉书列有一份长达数页的资产清单，政府认为该等资产应予没收。其中绝大多数资产为：(i) 个人财产和不动产，例如豪华汽车和 \\$60,000 的床垫；以及 (ii) 存放于约 25 个账户中的数亿美元。这些资产均未直接以债务人的名义持有。政府已扣押并持有约 \\$642 million（另加利息）。\n\n债务人的一名共同被告 Yvette Wang（王雁）已认罪。就其认罪答辩及量刑而言，政府（如同其针对债务人所做）已公布了一份其认为应予没收的资产清单。该等资产与债务人起诉书中列明的资产有重大重叠。\n\n地区法院已针对 Wang 作出初步没收命令。尚未针对债务人作出任何此类命令。\n\n受托人认为，这些资产中许多（如非全部）均应适当属于破产财产，并应在债务人的 Chapter 11 破产案件中予以管理。\n\n2. 与政府的讨论\n\n• 并行破产案件和刑事案件的存在提出了重要且复杂的法律及事实问题。然而，债务人并非首个同时涉及并行刑事案件和破产案件的人。\n\n• 在大多数此类案件中，这些问题以及政府与破产受托人之间可能发生冲突的问题，均已通过合意方式解决，通常是通过所谓的“协调协议”。\n\n◦ 例如，在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）地区法院及破产法院审理的 Goldberg（戈德堡）案件中已达成此类协议；政府与财产代表亦在 Dreier（德莱尔）及 FTX（FTX）破产案中达成合意协议。\n\n◦ 受托人已就本案达成此类协议的可能性与政府进行了广泛讨论；该协议将会：(i) 使数亿美元返还至财产，及 (ii) 避免就这些复杂且新颖的问题进行诉讼所产生的费用。\n\n• 尽管进行了这些广泛讨论，该等努力迄今未获成功。据受托人了解，截至目前，政府准备通过诉讼而非和解来解决问题。\n\n• 简而言之，受托人的主要主张是：(i) 政府对被没收资产的权利完全派生于刑事被告的权利；以及 (ii) 第三方在申请日后存入由债务人的另我实体持有账户中的数亿美元，属于财产——且从未属于债务人。\n\n3. 潜在诉讼\n\n• 如前所述，政府认定为应予没收的资产中，没有任何资产直接以债务人名义持有。这包括由受制于另我裁定和/或另我诉状的实体持有的超过 $700 million 资产。例如：\n\n◦ Lady May（Lady May）被认定为应予没收，但本法院及地区法院已裁定其为财产。\n\n◦ 政府扣押的现金存放于名义上由受制于待决综合另我诉状的实体持有的账户中。\n\n• 除受托人的另我诉讼外，没收法与破产法的交叉还引发复杂问题，例如追溯归属原则、“替代资产”与“犯罪收益”之间的区别、财产对申请日后资产的所有权，以及追踪的法律和事实复杂性。\n\n• 受托人认为，将相关法律适用于本案独特事实——其中包括申请日后犯罪行为这一独一无二的问题——表明，财产对目前由政府持有的数亿美元拥有有力的法律请求权。\n\n• 由于和解讨论迄今未能取得成果，受托人正准备就这些问题提起诉讼。\n\n4. 诉讼的当前状态及时间安排\n\n• 如前所述，地区法院已就 Yvette Wang（王雁）作出初步没收命令。作出此类命令通常会触发一项程序，其他当事人可通过该程序主张，认定应予没收的物品不得被没收给政府，因为该等其他当事人具有优先权益。受托人将代表财产作为此类当事人。\n\n• 然而，2024年4月15日，地区法院作出命令，在针对债务人作出初步没收命令之前，中止与 Yvette Wang（王雁）没收相关的一切程序。该命令是在受托人与政府讨论后准许政府提出的动议，承认 Wang（王雁）的没收程序与债务人的程序之间存在广泛重叠。\n\n• 截至目前，债务人的量刑目前定于 September 8, 2025，且债务人相应没收程序的时间安排仍不确定。然而，作出该命令使财产得以避免就 Wang（王雁）的没收进行诉讼所需的大量时间和费用，然后又在债务人的没收程序中重复该等诉讼。\n\n• 按照目前情况，受托人别无选择，只能就没收法与破产法交叉所产生的法律及事实问题与政府进行争讼，并将依照地区法院制定的时间表进行。当然，受托人仍愿意通过合意方式解决。\n\n1. Sherry Netherland Apartment（雪莉·内德兰公寓）的修复\n\n• 如先前向法院报告，2023年3月火灾后对 Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内德兰）公寓进行的修复于 August 2024 基本完成。\n\n◦ NYC building department（纽约市建筑局）于 February 2025 对该修复作出正式验收。\n\n◦ 修复及清洁该公寓的总成本（包括建筑师费用）约为 $1.7 million。见 Docket No. 4208。\n\n◦ Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings LLC）（“Genever US”）通过根据一项 $3 million 债务人间 DIP 融资额度向 Kwok（郭）财产借款，为修复费用提供资金。在考虑其他借款后，包括为支付 Genever US 在 AIG 对抗程序中的法律顾问费用而作的借款，该 DIP 融资额度下剩余可用借款约为 $500,000。\n\n2. 持续出售 Sherry Netherland Apartment（雪莉·内德兰公寓）的努力\n\n• 修复完成后不久，自 September 2024 起，该公寓由 Sotheby's International Realty（苏富比国际地产），即 Genever US 的房地产经纪人，重新挂牌出售。\n\n◦ 紧接在 2023年3月火灾之前，该公寓的挂牌价格为 $32.5 million。\n\n◦ 自 September 2024 起，该公寓挂牌价格为 $24 million，之后下调至 $19.5 million（于 November 2024），继而下调至 $16 million（于 February 2025）。\n\n◦ Genever US 拟进一步将挂牌价格下调至 $12 million。\n\n• Genever US 还请求继续聘用 Sotheby's International Realty（苏富比国际地产）作为其房地产经纪人，法院已予准许。见 Docket No. 3660。\n\n• 截至目前，Genever US 尚未收到任何可实际执行的购买要约。\n\n◦ 出售程序仍面临挑战，原因包括：(a) 每月 $90,000 的高额维护费，(b) 未来买方很可能须支出高额费用以翻新及现代化该公寓，及 (c) 当前不确定的经济环境。\n\n3. AIG Insurance Litigation（AIG 保险诉讼）\n\n• 除开展修复项目外，Genever US 还已对其保险人 AIG（美国国际集团）提起对抗程序，请求作出确认判决，确认 AIG 必须根据其保险单为其财产损失提供保险赔偿。\n\n◦ Genever US 于 October 6, 2023 提交其简易判决动议，并于 January 30, 2024 就该动议举行听证。该动议仍待法院裁决。\n\n◦ 自简易判决动议听证以来，双方已进行了事实取证及专家取证。事实取证于 December 2024 结束。\n\n◦ 于 December 2024，AIG 就简易判决动议提交补充材料，Genever US 已提交其答复。\n\n4. 其他近期进展\n\n• 近日，Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内德兰）提出动议，请求强制 Genever US 确定支付每月 $90,000 维护费的资金来源。\n\n◦ 截至目前，每月维护费均从保证金中抵扣（如 September 24, 2021 的和解协议所允许）。然而，预计保证金将于 June 2025 耗尽。\n\n• 对 Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内德兰）动议提出异议的截止日期为 April 24, 2025，受托人及 Genever US 拟提交答复。该动议的听证定于 April 29, 2025 举行。\n\n1. 出售 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）\n\n• 受托人已在其针对 Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus Fund LLC）的诉讼中提出简易判决动议，以确认位于 New Jersey（新泽西州）Mahwah（马瓦）的城堡式豪宅属于财产。该动议已进行辩论，且已完成全部书面陈述，包括法院于今年早些时候准许提交的补充书面陈述。\n\n• 在债务人的关联人士终止为该物业费用提供资金后，受托人也在推销出售 Mahwah（马瓦）豪宅。该等费用数额可观，目前由财产承担；法院已批准该营销程序。\n\n• 受托人已聘请 Compass（康帕斯）推销该物业。该物业最初以 $33 million 挂牌，本月早些时候，受托人将挂牌价格下调至 $26.9 million，以激发进一步兴趣。\n\n• 维持该豪宅的成本极高，且该豪宅持续未投保。\n\n2. 个人财产拍卖\n\n• 于 January 31, 2025，提交了申请 [ECF 4021]，请求聘用拍卖师出售个人财产。于 February 27, 2025 作出命令 [ECF 4180]，部分准许该聘用申请（就出售机动车辆而言）。由于该聘用申请未包括拟出售家具的目录，应 US Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）请求，该聘用申请的其余部分延期，直至能够就出售个人财产的申请提交目录。\n\n• 于 April 8，就机动车辆提交出售申请 [ECF 4301]，定于 May 13 下午 1 点举行听证。我们已请求届时亦审理该聘用申请的其余部分。\n\n◦ 该出售申请请求批准对 4 辆机动车（3 辆摩托车及一辆 Lexus（雷克萨斯））以及 Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内德兰）家具（现已编目）进行网上拍卖。截至目前，尚未就出售申请或聘用申请提出异议。\n\n◦ 由拍卖师持有的 Harley Davidson（哈雷戴维森）摩托车未包括在出售申请中，因为车钥匙遗失；已向 Harley Davidson（哈雷戴维森）订购钥匙，但尚未提供交付日期。\n\n• 除 Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内德兰）家具外，New Jersey（新泽西州）仓储设施还存放两组其他个人财产——原位于 HCHK（HCHK）办公室的办公家具，以及 Greenwich Land（格林威治地产）豪宅的家具。受托人将在 Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内德兰）家具拍卖结果出来后，决定出售这些资产的方案。\n\n3. 出售 Cirrus Jet（西锐喷气机）\n\n• Despins v. Cirrus Design Corporation, et al.（Despins（德斯潘）诉 Cirrus Design Corporation（西锐设计公司）等）（Adv. Proc. No. 24-5225）涉及为债务人之子 Qiang Guo（郭强）（又名 Mileson）购买飞机提供资金的欺诈性转让。受托人已对 Cirrus（西锐）作为初始受让人提出请求权，并对 Mileson（迈尔森）作为该等转让利益的受领人提出请求权。\n\n• 于 November 20, 2024，受托人取得了针对 Mileson（迈尔森）的缺席判决，金额为 $3,915,140.00。受托人对 Cirrus（西锐）的请求权仍在待决。\n\n• 于 February of 2025，法院准许受托人的动议，通过要求将一架 Cirrus（西锐）“私人喷气机”飞机的所有权移交给受托人，执行其针对 Qiang Guo（郭强）的判决。一家为 Qiang Guo（郭强）利益而持有该 Cirrus（西锐）喷气机所有权的美国公司，已遵从法院命令并将所有权转让给受托人。\n\n• 受托人已取得对该 Cirrus（西锐）喷气机的控制。受托人将在该 Cirrus（西锐）喷气机具备出售条件后，尽快提出动议，请求授权出售该喷气机，并将所得款项用于清偿受托人针对 Mileson（迈尔森）的判决。\n\n4. New Jersey Parking Lot（新泽西州停车场）内的 Maybach（迈巴赫）\n\n• 受托人已确定，一辆登记在 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd（Golden Spring（New York）Ltd）名下的 Maybach（迈巴赫）豪华轿车，目前由 New Jersey（新泽西州）北部的一家拖车公司占有。\n\n• 该拖车公司已威胁拍卖该车辆。受托人已告知该拖车公司自动中止及法院在 Golden Spring（Golden Spring）对抗程序中作出的判决。必要时，受托人将寻求法院介入。\n\n5. 债权核对与异议\n\n• 如先前向法院所述，受托人将寻求重新开放针对经裁定的债务人另我实体提出的债权的申报截止日期。然而，目前这样做尚属过早，因为仍有多起待决的另我实体诉讼。\n\n• 受托人一直在审查已申报的债权，并计划准备一项综合债权程序动议，以允许受托人就表面无效的债权证明提出综合性异议（例如，提交的债权证明表格未附任何书面证据支持）。\n\n1. 撤销之诉更新\n\n• 待决撤销之诉\n\n • 目前有349起针对第三方的待决撤销之诉，合计寻求撤销并追回超过\\$949 million的转移。\n\n • 其中，207起已被全面中止，45起被部分中止，50起正处于正式调解程序中。\n\n • 受托人已与16名受让人达成协议，以和解撤销债权。\n\n • 就处于正式调解中的50名撤销之诉被告而言，受托人将与Tancredi法官讨论其中多少被告应继续接受调解，以及多少被告应转入诉讼程序。\n\n • 此次讨论还将涵盖下一步如何处理参与了联合书面陈述的调解中被告；法院已于March 4, 2025作出的联合书面陈述裁决中解决了该等联合书面陈述所涉的若干问题（以下简称“联合书面陈述被告”）。\n\n1. 撤销之诉更新\n\n撤销之诉中的驳回动议\n\n• 在未被中止的撤销之诉中，除联合书面陈述被告外，已有17名被告分别提交了驳回动议。\n\n • 法院已全部驳回其中10项动议（即由Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克）、G4S Security Systems（G4S安保系统）、V.X. Cerda & Associates（V.X. Cerda律师事务所）、ACASS Canada（ACASS加拿大）、Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）、Lawall & Mitchell（劳沃尔与米切尔）、Weddle Law（韦德尔律师事务所）、Boies Schiller Flexner（博伊斯·席勒·弗莱克斯纳）及Liberty Jet Management（自由喷气机管理）提交的动议）。\n\n • 就ACASS USA（ACASS美国）而言，法院已驳回被告的驳回动议，但有一个问题除外（与Cape Town Convention（开普敦公约）有关）；就该问题，法院已安排于May 20进行辩论。\n\n • 就Apple（苹果）和Meta Platforms（元平台）而言，该等事项已安排于April 29进行辩论。\n\n • 就Berkeley Rowe（伯克利·罗）、the Francis Firm（弗朗西斯律师事务所）及FFP而言，该等动议已根据联合书面陈述裁决被部分驳回，但其余部分尚未作出裁决。\n\n • Norris McLaughlin（诺里斯·麦克劳克林）最近提交了一项驳回动议，尚未完成书面陈述。\n\n• 受托人拟尽快就所有撤销之诉提交一项证据开示程序动议。\n\n• “同案法则”论点。\n\n1. 撤销之诉更新\n\n• 针对Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒）提出的依诉状判决动议\n\n • 该动议已完成书面陈述，法院March 4的联合书面陈述裁决已解决若干问题。\n\n • 双方于March 28提交了争点联合陈述。如其中所述，双方就剩余争点达成一致，但受托人反对Zeisler & Zeisler提出的、就同案法则问题提交额外书面陈述的请求。\n\n2. 另我实体诉讼更新\n\n• 有利于受托人的另我实体裁决\n\n • 如法院所知，受托人已提起对抗程序，请求裁定多家名义上由第三方拥有的实体实际上系债务人的另我实体及／或由债务人实益拥有（以下简称“另我实体诉讼”）。\n\n • 受托人已在涉及包括下列多个实体的另我实体诉讼中获得有利于其的裁决：\n\n • HK USA（香港美国）\n\n • Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产）\n\n • Golden Spring（金泉）\n\n • Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）\n\n • Whitecroft Shore Limited（怀特克罗夫特海岸有限公司）\n\n • The HCHK entities（HCHK实体）\n\n • K Legacy（K传承）\n\n2. 另我实体诉讼更新\n\n• 涉及多个实体的待决另我实体诉讼，包括：\n\n • Taurus Fund LLC（陶鲁斯基金有限责任公司）（Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园））[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]：受托人的简易判决动议已完成书面陈述，包括听证后书面陈述，并已于November 19, 2024进行辩论。\n\n • Hudson Diamond NY（哈德逊钻石纽约）和Leading Shine NY（领耀纽约）) [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023]：受托人的简易判决动议已完成书面陈述，并已于December 10, 2024进行辩论。\n\n • 受托人于February 2024提起的“第一项综合性”另我实体诉讼所涉的多家实体[Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249]：若干被告提交的驳回动议，包括与G Club（G俱乐部）、Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）和Hamilton schemes（汉密尔顿计划）有关的被告所提交的动议，已完成书面陈述，并已于January 28, 2025进行辩论。\n\n • 缺席被告已被列入“分离的另我实体诉讼”[Adv. Proc. No. 24-05138]。\n\n • Bouillor（布伊约尔），由债务人之子名义持有、并持有位于Limassol, Cyprus（塞浦路斯利马索尔）的一套豪华公寓的塞浦路斯实体[Adv. Proc. No. 24-05311]：被告已缺席；受托人的下一步是提交一项动议，以解决与债务人之子有关的若干送达问题。\n\n • 受托人于December 2024提起的“第二项综合性”另我实体诉讼所涉的多家实体[Adv. Proc. No. 05322]；就其中若干实体，受托人将很快申请录入缺席。\n\n3. 其他若干待决事项\n\n• 受托人寻求执行针对Mei Guo（郭美）的禁令的动议：\n\n • 在其针对Mei Guo、与Bombardier jet（庞巴迪喷气机）有关的诉讼[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]中，受托人提交了一项动议，请求实施制裁并执行法院禁止处分Mei Guo持有资产的禁令。\n\n • 该动议已完成书面陈述，并于March 25举行了证据听证，于March 26, 2025进行了法律辩论。\n\n• 受托人的RICO诉讼\n\n • 受托人的RICO对抗程序[Adv. Proc. No. 24-05273]目前根据法院于December 9, 2024作出的中止命令而中止，直至就受托人第一项综合性另我实体诉讼中的所有被告作出不可上诉的终局判决，或法院另行作出命令。\n\n • 尽管该诉讼已中止，受托人正与被告进行讨论，该等讨论可能导致对RICO对抗程序中提出的债权作出部分解决。","key_entities":["Je","Himalaya","forfeiture","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Himalaya Exchange","William Je","HCHK","Despins","CIPA","RICO","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":76,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":856,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4021,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4180,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4301,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":8461,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-04-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-04-22","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:36:05"}