{"id":"court_ctb_50_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":50,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK,<sup>1</sup>\n\nDebtor.\n\nChapter 11 Case No.\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nFebruary 28, 2022\n\n# **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE SCHEDULES OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS**\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") files this opposition to debtor Ho Wan Kwok's (\"Kwok\") *Motion to Extend Time to File Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs* [ECF No. 27] (the \"Motion\"). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion should be denied.\n\n## **INTRODUCTION**\n\nKwok seeks an extension of time to file his Schedules and SOFAs,<sup>2</sup> arguing that his case is \"extraordinary.\" It is extraordinary, but only because of the remarkable extent of Kwok's prolonged pattern of deceitful and contumacious behavior. Days before Kwok filed his chapter 11 petition, New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager entered a final contempt order against Kwok for his continued failure to return his yacht, the Lady May—purchased for €28 million in 2015—to the New York court's jurisdiction.<sup>3</sup> This contempt is just one of many\n\n<sup>1</sup> The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n<sup>2</sup> Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs are referred to as \"Schedules and SOFAs\" throughout this Opposition.\n\n<sup>3</sup> *Declaration of Peter Friedman in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Response in Opposition to Ho Wan Kwok's Motion to Extend Time*, attached hereto as Exhibit A (\"Friedman Decl.\") at Ex. 1, Decision + Order on Mot. at 10, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (Feb. 9, 2022, N.Y. Sup. 2022), Dkt No. 1181 (\"February 9 Contempt Order\").\n\nexamples in which Kwok—who invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to all of PAX's postjudgment discovery requests—has flouted court orders and abused the judicial process in an attempt to evade enforcement of the \\$116 million judgment PAX won against him. As Justice Ostrager found, \"Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"<sup>4</sup> As a result of his elaborate schemes to avoid his creditors, the New York Supreme Court docket amassed over 1,180 entries, \"almost all of which involve . . . [Kwok's] efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members.\"<sup>5</sup> Kwok's chapter 11 petition is just his latest dishonest gambit. As detailed below, there are at least three materially false and/or misleading statements in his petition. Most notably, Kwok's sworn (mis)representation that he has less than \\$100,000 in assets is completely incompatible with Justice Ostrager's finding just days before that Kwok \"holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May.\"<sup>6</sup> Second, Kwok falsely stated under penalty of perjury in his petition that none of his affiliates had filed bankruptcy petitions, despite the ongoing chapter 11 proceedings in the Southern District of New York of Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever NY\"), a Kwok-related shell entity. And, third, he listed as his second largest \"creditor\" an obvious \"insider\" entity that he set up as part of the maze of family entities he uses to hold his own assets and fund his lifestyle. In his Initial Debtor Interview with the United States Trustee he admitted that this entity, Golden Spring (New York), pays for \"all of his living expenses.\"<sup>7</sup>\n\n<sup>4</sup> *Id* at 1.\n\n<sup>5</sup> *Id*.\n\n<sup>6</sup> *Id.*at 9.\n\n<sup>7</sup> *See* United States Trustee's Objection to Debtor's Motion for Extension of Time to File Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs [ECF No. 49] (\"UST Objection\") at ¶ 12.; *see also* Official Form 104, List of Creditors Who have the 20 Largest Unsecured Claims Against You and Are Not Insiders [ECF No. 20] (\"Unsecured Creditors List\") at 1 (listing Golden Spring New York).\n\nThis Court should not allow Kwok to delay timely filing of his Statements and SOFAs until May 2, 2022, because, as the falsehoods in his petition make clear, Kwok cannot be permitted to drag his feet on filing complete and accurate disclosures. Creditors need immediate disclosures so they can conduct a fulsome inquiry of the debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 341, and immediate disclosure will also aid in determining whether there is any purpose to a reorganization for Kwok instead of conversion (or dismissal) of this case.<sup>8</sup> In any event, Kwok's extremely dubious claim that his assets are worth less than \\$100,000 undercuts his own assertion that additional time is needed to prepare the requisite schedules. It cannot be both true that he has virtually no material assets and that he requires significant additional time to identify them. As for Kwok's counsel's assertions (based on no supporting evidence) that Kwok needs more time to identify potential malpractice suits and defamation cases, court docket searches reveal he has been an active plaintiff over the years already, with precious little to show for it.<sup>9</sup> In any event, those lawsuits are known and can be scheduled immediately. And, delaying the schedule in light of those claims would in any event be the tail wagging the dog – Kwok owns and controls massive, real assets. He should focus first on identifying those assets and bringing them into his estate for the creditors' benefit. Kwok should also be scheduling claims against the myriad shell \"corporations, trusted confidants and family members\" in which he has parked his substantial assets.<sup>10</sup> Claims against these entities and individuals are already known to Kwok\n\n<sup>8</sup> Kwok's statements (referenced in the UST Objection) that he has no assets, property, bank accounts, and has no income raise very serious questions about the legitimacy of this case. *See* UST Objection at ¶ 12.\n\n<sup>9</sup> For example, Kwok was awarded \\$100,00 after prevailing on one defamation lawsuit where the defendant called him a \"Chinese spy.\" *See* Friedman Decl, Ex. 2 Complaint, *Kwok v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.*, Case No. 9:19 cv-81099 (D. Fla. 2019), ECF No. 1. Another defamation lawsuit against a large media corporation in which Kwok claimed damages of not less than \\$50 million was also settled in August 2019. *See* Friedman Decl., Ex 3, Notice of Settlement, *Kwok v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.*, Case No. 9:19-cv-81099 (D. Fla. 2019), ECF No. 25. Given that Kwok asserts he has less than \\$100,000 in assets, either the settlement was of very limited value or he fraudulently transferred the proceeds away at a time when he owed PAX on his personal guarantee.\n\n<sup>10</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1.\n\nand they should be identified immediately. If other potential causes of action for malpractice or defamation materialize (for which there is no evidence of their existence), those can be identified on amended Statements and SOFAs. Therefore, PAX respectfully requests that this Court deny Kwok the opportunity to further frustrate creditors, and reject his dilatory request for an extension of time to file his Schedules and SOFAs.\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n1. In 2011, PAX signed a loan agreement with a Kwok-owned entity called Shiny Times.<sup>11</sup> Kwok personally guaranteed that loan.<sup>12</sup> Despite multiple repayment extensions and numerous attempts by PAX to settle the debt, Kwok never repaid the loan.<sup>13</sup>\n\n2. As a result, PAX sued Kwok for breach of contract on April 18, 2017 in New York State Supreme Court (Hon. Barry M. Ostrager presiding).<sup>14</sup> After nearly four years of litigation, on February 3, 2021, the New York court issued a judgment against Kwok for \\$116,402,019.57.<sup>15</sup> PAX then \"undertook a year's-long effort to enforce [the] judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States.\"<sup>16</sup> This was no small task because, as Justice Ostrager found, \"Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"<sup>17</sup> And just about a month after the summary judgment decision was issued, on March 11, 2021, Kwok invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to all of PAX's post-judgment discovery requests. Kwok has yet to repay any of the \\$116,402,019.57 judgment, which (at least until this\n\n<sup>16</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1.\n\n<sup>11</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Decision + Order on Mot. at 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 549.\n\n<sup>12</sup> *Id*. at 5-7.\n\n<sup>13</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>14</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Compl., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2017), ECF No. 2.\n\n<sup>15</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, Judgment at 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 716.\n\n<sup>17</sup> *Id*.\n\nbankruptcy filing) accrued 9% post-judgment interest.<sup>18</sup>\n\n3. One of Kwok's identifiable assets is a yacht named the Lady May, which was purchased in 2015 for €28 million. On September 30, 2020, Justice Ostrager issued a temporary restraining order preventing Kwok \"from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any property in which he has an interest….\"<sup>19</sup> Two weeks later, on October 15, 2020, Justice Ostrager specified that the September 30 order included the Lady May.<sup>20</sup> But unbeknownst to Justice Ostrager and PAX, the Lady May had already left New York for Florida on or about October 9.<sup>21</sup> The yacht then went to the Bahamas, and finally to Europe, where PAX understands it remains to this day.<sup>22</sup>\n\n4. In response to its discovery that the Lady May had left, and remained outside of,\n\nNew York in violation Justice Ostrager's orders, PAX filed a civil contempt motion<sup>23</sup> and on\n\nMarch 16, 2021, the court issued a conditional order of civil contempt directing Kwok or the\n\nboat's registered owner to return the Lady May to the court's jurisdiction in New York by May\n\n15, 2021, and imposing a \\$500,000 fine for every day thereafter that the yacht remained away.<sup>24</sup>\n\nThe New York Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the trial court's\n\n<sup>21</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 2; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 10, VESSELFINDER, Voyage Analyzer,<http>(last visited Feb. 28, 2022); *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 11, Feb. 2, 2022 Hr'g Tr., *PAX v. Kwok*., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), at 84:10–86:12 (Captain Heaslop testifying that although he could not remember the exact day he left, he thought he took the Lady May down to Florida the first week of October, 2020).\n\n<sup>18</sup> N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5004 (McKinney's 2022); Friedman Decl., Ex. 4 at 7; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 7, Statement of Material Facts in Support of Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 23 at KWOK000652, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 455 (\"2011 Personal Guarantee\").\n\n<sup>19</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 8, Order to Show Cause, *PAX v. Kwok*, 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 590 at 1–2. <sup>20</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 9, Decision + Order on Mot. at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 630.\n\n<sup>22</sup> As of the morning of February 28, 2022, the Lady May is located in Genoa, Italy. See Friedman Decl., Ex. 10.\n\n<sup>23</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 12, PAX Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 689; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 13, PAX Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. For Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 709.\n\n<sup>24</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 14, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 728 (\"Initial Contempt Order\"). In other words, the court provided Mr. Kwok a full two-month grace period to return the yacht and thereby avoid any fine at all.\n\norder, finding that (i) PAX had \"established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] had violated a lawful clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to [PAX's] rights…\"; and (ii) \"the daily fine of \\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage [Kwok] to purge himself of the contempt.\"<sup>25</sup> Accordingly, the First Department instructed Justice Ostrager to \"proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties\" before issuing a final contempt order.<sup>26</sup>\n\n5. Justice Ostrager held that evidentiary hearing on February 2, 2022. After receiving testimony from seven witnesses, Justice Ostrager concluded that \"[t]he testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of [Kwok]'s witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\"<sup>27</sup> The court further found that notwithstanding that Kwok's daughter technically holds the yacht's title, \"Kwok control[s] the yacht, [and] it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\"<sup>28</sup> As a result, Justice Ostrager entered the February 9 Contempt Order, directing Kwok to remit \\$134,000,000 to PAX by February 16, 2022, among other things, or else run the risk that the court would exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753.<sup>29</sup>\n\n6. The same day the Contempt Order was entered, Kwok stated his intention, in a public social media posting, to \"start an all-out war with the PA[X]\" and to flee the United\n\n<sup>25</sup> *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan*, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021).\n\n<sup>26</sup> *Id*.\n\n<sup>27</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 4.\n\n<sup>28</sup> *Id*. at 8.\n\n<sup>29</sup> *Id.* at 10.\n\nStates.<sup>30</sup> Kwok also sought to avoid paying the civil contempt fine by seeking an emergency administrative stay of the February 9 Contempt Order pending appeal. That request was summarily denied, <sup>31</sup> and on the night before his \\$134 million payment was to become due, Kwok filed this chapter 11 case.<sup>32</sup>\n\n7. Kwok filed an amended petition over a week after filing his original chapter 11 petition.<sup>33</sup> Tellingly, neither the original nor amended filing included the value of the Lady May as an asset, despite Justice Ostrager's clear ruling just six days before the bankruptcy filing that \"Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May.\"<sup>34</sup> Even if Kwok disputes that finding, a complete and truthful petition would have disclosed the value of the yacht to this Court and Kwok's creditors. Instead, in order to benefit from additional time to avoid making mandatory disclosures, Kwok now seeks a 60-day delay to file his required Schedules and SOFAs. 11 U.S.C. § 521; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(b)–(c).\n\n8. Given Kwok's prolonged history of contumacious behavior, evading disclosure of valuable assets, and \"secret[ing] his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members,\"<sup>35</sup> this Court should minimize Kwok's time to secrete his assets further by denying Kwok's Motion.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. THE GOVERNING LAW SUPPORTS DENYING KWOK'S MOTION**\n\n9. It is hornbook law that the chapter 11 process is designed to \"maximiz[e] the\n\n<sup>30</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 15, Feb. 15, 2022 Letter from S. Sarnoff to Clerk of the Appellate Division, First Department at 3, *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022), ECF No. 4; *see also* Miles Kwok (@MilesGuo) Feb. 9, 2022 Post, GETTR, http (last visited Feb. 28, 2022).\n\n<sup>31</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 16, Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 2022-00609; 2022-00610, (App. Div. 2022), ECF No. 5, at 2.\n\n<sup>32</sup> *Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy*, ECF No. 1, at 7.\n\n<sup>33</sup> *Amended Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy*, ECF No. 19.\n\n<sup>34</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 4.\n\n<sup>35</sup> *Id.* at 1.\n\nvalue of the bankruptcy estate\" for the benefit of creditors. *Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp*., 137 S.Ct. 973, 986 (2017) (citing *Toibb v. Radloff*, 501 U.S. 157, 163–64 (1991)). Crucial to this objective is the timely and accurate filing of Schedules and SOFAs. In a voluntary case, a debtor is required to file Schedules and SOFAs with, or within 14 days of, the petition. *See* Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(c). \"The purpose of filing properly completed and timely schedules is to 'furnish the trustee and creditors with detailed information about the debtor's financial condition.'\" *In re McDermitt*, No. 05-11710, 2006 WL 1582390, at \\*3 (D. Vt. May 30, 2006); *see also In re Eldorado Canyon Props., LLC*, 505 B.R. 601, 604 (1st Cir. B.A.P. 2014) (\"Bankruptcy schedules serve the important purpose of ensuring that adequate information is available for the trustee and creditors.\"). Indeed, the \"[t]he effective administration of a bankruptcy case\" depends on \"the filing of complete and accurate schedules within the prescribed time period.\" *Eldorado Canyon Props., LLC*, 505 B.R. at 604 (emphasis added). Without timely and accurate Schedules and SOFAs, courts, the Office of the United States Trustee, and creditors cannot accurately evaluate a debtor's financial position, nor can they determine whether the bankruptcy petition has been filed in good faith. *See In re Anvil Holdings* LP, 595 B.R. 622, 627–28 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2019) (without accurate and complete financial documents the court and parties could not make sense of the debtor's financial operations and the court was concerned the debtor was acting in bad faith).\n\n10. Uncertainty respecting these important issues is intolerable as the protections of the Bankruptcy Code, and the concomitant suspension of creditors rights, are effective immediately upon filing a petition. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 362; *Rexnord Holdings, Inc. v. Bidermann*, 21 F.3d 522, 527 (2d Cir. 1994) (\"The stay is effective immediately upon the filing of the petition.\"). Creditors cannot be left in limbo, without the ability to assess their rights against a\n\n8\n\ndebtor, while their rights and remedies outside of bankruptcy are placed on hold. And courts do not permit debtors to enjoy the protections of the Bankruptcy Code without timely adhering to the duties of disclosure. *See* 9 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1007.03 (16th ed. 2021) (\"If the schedules, statements, or other documents are not filed on time, the United States trustee may move to dismiss the case\"); *In re Mutty*, No. 04-10634, 2004 WL 2647705, at \\*7 (Bankr. D. Vt. Nov. 19, 2004) (dismissing case for failure to file accurate schedules with good faith and candor); *Eldorado Canyon Properties*, 505 B.R. at 604–05 (affirming dismissal of bankruptcy case for failure to timely file Schedules and SOFAs). As one court in this Circuit noted:\n\nthe benefits received by an honest debtor in a bankruptcy case, including a discharge of all dischargeable debts, a 'fresh start,' are extraordinarily disproportionate to the few demands and expectations placed upon a debtor by the Bankruptcy Code and Rules. One of these few, but very important duties, which is seemingly easy for any debtor, even a consumer or typical individual debtor to perform, is to ensure that all of their assets are properly scheduled.\n\n*In re Ptasinski*, 290 B.R. 16, 26 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2003). That court emphasized that debtors and their attorneys must ensure that schedules are \"complete and accurate to the best of the debtor's knowledge and information\" because the protections of the Bankruptcy Code are not available to those who \"play fast and loose with their assets or with the reality of their affairs.\" *Id.* at 26–27 (citing *In re Tully*, 818 F.2d 106, 110 (1st Cir. 1987)).\n\n## **II. KWOK'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME SHOULD BE DENIED GIVEN THE \"EXTRAORDINARY\" CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED HERE**\n\n11. Kwok's \"extraordinary\" behavior raises numerous red flags, and weighs strongly against his extension request. Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order chronicles Kwok's long history of flagrant disregard for court orders.<sup>36</sup> Even so, Kwok has now upped his \"gamesmanship, dissembling, and deceit.\"<sup>37</sup> The same day that Justice Ostrager issued the\n\n<sup>36</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order).\n\n<sup>37</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 14 (Initial Contempt Order) at 2.\n\nFebruary 9 Contempt Order (less than three weeks ago), Kwok publicly announced his intention to \"start an all-out war with the PA[X]\" and flee the country.<sup>38</sup> And one week later, on the eve of the February 9 Contempt Order compliance date, Kwok filed for bankruptcy.\n\n12. As previewed above, Kwok's bankruptcy petition is materially false and misleading in at least three respects. First, the sworn representation by Kwok — a selfproclaimed billionaire — that his assets are valued between \\$50,001 and \\$100,000 is belied by Justice Ostrager's finding that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May. It also directly undercuts any claim that he needs significantly more time to identify those (purportedly non-existent) assets. This is only bolstered by Kwok's statements to the Office of the United States Trustee that Kwok has no bank accounts, credit cards, is not employed, does not directly own any real estate, cars and does not insure any assets.<sup>39</sup>\n\n13. Second, Kwok misrepresented that he had no affiliates in bankruptcy proceedings. The one asset that Kwok admits owning is a holding company established in the British Virgin Islands called Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\").<sup>40</sup> Genever BVI, in turn, owns 100 percent of the voting equity of Genever NY,<sup>41</sup> a New York entity that owns a luxury, fullfloor apartment at the Sherry Netherland Hotel in New York City that Kwok bought for nearly \\$70 million in March 2015 and in which he has lived.<sup>42</sup> Genever NY filed a chapter 11 case in the Southern District of New York in late 2020 on the heels of PAX winning summary judgment\n\n<sup>38</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 15 at 3.\n\n<sup>39</sup> UST Objection at ¶ 12.\n\n<sup>40</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 17, Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at 16:8–12, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021),.\n\n<sup>41</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 18, Def. Kwok's Resps. & Objections to Pl. [PAX]'s Third Set of Interrogatories, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, ECF No. 756 at 9.\n\n<sup>42</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 19, Exhibit 11 to PAX's Mem. of Law. In Supp. of Mot. for Pre-J. Attachment at SN0036, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2018), ECF No. 256 (Executed Contract of Sale listing \"Genever Holdings LLC\" as the purchaser); *see also id.* at SN 0047 (Purchase Application listing \"'Miles' Kwok Ho Wan (Genever Holdings LLC)\" as the applicant).\n\nagainst Kwok.<sup>43</sup> Because Kwok indirectly controls the voting equity of Genever NY, it is his affiliate under 11 U.S.C. § 101(2)(B). Kwok's failure to list that proceeding was thus dishonest.\n\n14. Third, and equally disturbing, is Kwok's listing of Golden Spring New York (\"GSNY\") in his top 20 \"non-insider\" creditor list. *See* Unsecured Creditors List, [ECF No. 20] at 1; 11 U.S.C. § 101(31)(A). The instructions on the chapter 11 petition form are clear that only *non-insiders* should be listed in the top 20 creditors. Kwok \"set[] up [GSNY]. . . by transferring funds from one of [his] accounts at UBS to Golden Spring New York's JPMorgan Chase bank account.\"<sup>44</sup> After funding GSNY with his own money, Kwok has used it as his personal piggy bank to pay virtually all of his multi-million dollar personal living, and legal, expenses.<sup>45</sup> Indeed, in addition to Justice Ostrager,<sup>46</sup> at least one federal court has also found that GSNY is Kwok's company that he maintains as a \"family office.\"<sup>47</sup> And Kwok not only listed GSNY as one of his top 20 non-insider creditors, but in the same sworn petition, he listed GSNY and its address as \"[w]here [he] live[s].\"<sup>48</sup> These facts show that GSNY is anything but an arm's-length creditor and easily meets the test of non-statutory insider.<sup>49</sup> Thus, Kwok's listing of GSNY as a non-insider purported creditor is outright deceptive and fraudulent.<sup>50</sup>\n\n15. In addition to these above-described material misstatements and omissions,\n\n<sup>43</sup> *See In re Genever Holdings LLC*, Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).\n\n<sup>44</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 20, Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan in Supp. of Pl.'s Opp. to Def's Mot. to Dismiss the Compl., *Ace Decade Holdings Ltd. v. UBS AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. 2016), ECF No. 27, at ¶ 36.\n\n<sup>45</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 21, May 27, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at 9:25–10:3, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 833 (\"It's quite undisputed that Golden Springs has funded seven-figure payments to facilitate Mr. Kwok's lifestyle, and Mr. Kwok leads a rather extravagant lifestyle\").\n\n<sup>46</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 5, 9.\n\n<sup>47</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 22, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 2, *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, Case No. 1:18-cv-02185-LJL (S.D.N.Y. 2021), ECF No. 372.\n\n<sup>48</sup> Amended Voluntary Petition, ECF No. 19 at 2 (in response to \"Where you live,\" Kwok stated \"c/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., 162 East 64th Street, New York, NY 10065\")\n\n<sup>49</sup> Even on Kwok's version of events, GSNY is purportedly owned by a Hong Kong company that—like other companies in which Kwok shields his assets—is owned by Kwok's son, Qiang Guo. Friedman Decl., Ex. 23, Kwok Dep. Tr., *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 785 at 63:17–18.\n\n<sup>50</sup> As PAX will demonstrate at the appropriate time, the same is true for \"insider\" Lamp Capital, a smaller top 20 purported \"creditor\" (technically owned by his son) that Kwok has listed on his schedule.\n\nKwok's penchant for using his family members to shield his assets<sup>51</sup> creates an additional concern. Kwok stated an intention to seek debtor-in-possession financing and that he \"will need the support of his family members to fund an exit from [C]hapter 11.\"<sup>52</sup> Although the appropriateness of debtor-in-possession financing is not the subject of this filing, the notion that Kwok cannot file Statements and SOFAs until he engages in more shuffling of money around among family members under the guise of arms-length \"loans\" raises the very serious concern that he intends to use his *own money* to leapfrog PAX and other creditors in priority, thereby effectively giving himself an unlawful preference and first claim to assets of the estate. These anticipated machinations provide no basis for granting the Motion or delaying disclosures.\n\n16. Taken together, Kwok's protracted pattern of deception and misbehavior precludes PAX — or this Court — from having any confidence in his *bona fides* in filing for bankruptcy, or his professed \"clear intention of satisfying his creditors' allowed claims in full.\"<sup>53</sup> His threat to \"start an all-out war with the PA[X]\" and to flee the United States on the same day that Justice Ostrager issued the February 9 Contempt Order only underscores what Justice Ostrager deemed Kwok's \"utter contempt for the Court and the judicial process\"<sup>54</sup> and the urgent need for his prompt compliance with the Bankruptcy Rules. There is no reason to believe this bankruptcy filing was a watershed moment for Kwok that signals a change of heart after somber and careful reflection. It was just the latest card Kwok had to play after years of delay and obfuscation, and he was only forced to play it after pushing Justice Ostrager to the point of all but threatening to issue an arrest warrant if he failed to comply with the February 9 Contempt\n\n<sup>51</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1 (referencing Kwok's \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members….\").\n\n<sup>52</sup> Debtor's Motion to Extend Time at ¶¶ 10, 12.\n\n<sup>53</sup> *Id* at ¶ 12.\n\n<sup>54</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 4.\n\nOrder.\n\n#### **RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\nNotwithstanding anything in this Opposition, PAX reserves all rights, claims and defenses with respect to these chapter 11 proceedings, including but not limited to the right to contest venue, seek dismissal of the case, and any other remedy.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nPAX is justifiably very concerned that this forum is only the latest one that Kwok will seek to exploit in his ongoing effort to further obstruct and delay PAX's legitimate judgment collection efforts. Accordingly, Kwok's motion for an extension of time should be denied, and this Court should require Kwok to timely file the complete and accurate Schedules and SOFAs required by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\nDated: Hartford, Connecticut February 28, 2022\n\n## **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By: /s/ Patrick M. Birney*\n\n Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP**  280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP**  Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2293 E-Mail: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com","body_zh":"康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）1，\n\n债务人。\n\n第 11 章案件编号\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nFebruary 28, 2022\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）就反对债务人延长提交资产与负债明细表及财务状况说明书期限之动议的答复\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）现就债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（“Kwok”）提出的《延长提交资产与负债明细表及财务状况说明书期限之动议》[ECF No. 27]（下称“该动议”）提交本反对意见。基于下述理由，该动议应予驳回。\n\n引言\n\nKwok 请求延长提交其明细表及 SOFAs2 的期限，理由是其案件“非同寻常”。该案件确实非同寻常，但仅仅是因为 Kwok 长期持续实施欺骗性及蔑视法庭行为的程度令人瞩目。在 Kwok 提交其第 11 章申请前数日，New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）法官 Barry Ostrager（巴里·奥斯特拉格）因 Kwok 持续未将其于 2015 年以 €28 million 购得的游艇 Lady May（“Lady May”号）交还纽约法院管辖，作出针对 Kwok 的终局藐视法庭命令。3 此次藐视法庭只是众多事例之一；在这些事例中，Kwok——针对 PAX 的所有判后证据开示请求均援引第五修正案——无视法院命令并滥用司法程序，试图规避执行 PAX 对其获得的 $116 million 判决。正如 Ostrager 法官所认定：“Kwok 自称为亿万富翁，其将资产隐藏于错综复杂的公司实体网络及家庭成员之中。”4 由于其为逃避债权人而实施的精心策划，纽约州最高法院的案卷累计了 1,180 多项记录，“几乎均涉及……[Kwok] 通过将其大量个人资产存放于一系列公司、受信任的密友及家庭成员名下，从而逃避及欺骗其债权人的努力。”5 Kwok 的第 11 章申请只是其最新的欺骗性策略。如以下详述，其申请中至少有三项重大虚假和／或误导性陈述。最值得注意的是，Kwok 经宣誓作出的（错误）陈述，即其资产不足 $100,000，与 Ostrager 法官数日前作出的认定完全不相容；该认定称 Kwok“对 Lady May 持有受益权益并对其实施控制”。6 其次，Kwok 在其申请中以伪证处罚为担保，虚假陈述其关联方均未提交破产申请，尽管与 Kwok 有关联的空壳实体 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever NY”）在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）进行中的第 11 章程序客观存在。第三，其将一个明显的“内部人”实体列为其第二大“债权人”；该实体是其作为家庭实体网络的一部分设立，用于持有其自身资产并资助其生活方式。在其与 United States Trustee（美国受托人）进行的首次债务人访谈中，他承认该实体 Golden Spring (New York) 支付“其所有生活开支”。7\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号码的最后四位数字为 9595。\n\n2 本反对意见全文将资产与负债明细表及财务状况说明书称为“明细表及 SOFAs”。\n\n3 支持 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 就反对 Ho Wan Kwok 延长时间动议所作答复的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）声明，作为附件 A 附于本文（“Friedman Decl.”），附件 1，第 10 页《关于动议的裁决及命令》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (Feb. 9, 2022, N.Y. Sup. 2022), Dkt No. 1181（“February 9 Contempt Order”）。\n\n4 同上，第 1 页。\n\n5 同上。\n\n6 同上，第 9 页。\n\n7 参见 United States Trustee 对债务人延长提交资产与负债明细表及财务状况说明书期限之动议的异议 [ECF No. 49]（“UST Objection”）第 ¶ 12；另参见 Official Form 104，列明对您拥有 20 项最大无担保债权且非内部人的债权人清单 [ECF No. 20]（“Unsecured Creditors List”）第 1 页（列示 Golden Spring New York）。\n\n本院不应允许 Kwok 将其提交财务状况说明书及 SOFAs 的时间拖延至 May 2, 2022，因为如其申请中的虚假陈述所清楚表明，不能允许 Kwok 在提交完整且准确的披露材料方面拖延。债权人需要立即获得披露，以便其可根据 11 U.S.C. § 341 对债务人进行全面审查；立即披露也将有助于确定，相较于将本案转换程序（或驳回），是否存在对 Kwok 进行重整的任何目的。8 无论如何，Kwok 关于其资产价值不足 $100,000 的极其可疑主张，削弱了其自身关于需要额外时间编制所需明细表的断言。不可能既是其几乎没有任何重大资产，又是其需要大量额外时间来识别这些资产。至于 Kwok 律师所作的断言——该等断言没有任何支持性证据——即 Kwok 需要更多时间来识别潜在的律师执业过失诉讼及诽谤案件，法院案卷检索显示，其多年来已是一名积极的原告，但收效甚微。9 无论如何，该等诉讼为已知诉讼，可以立即列入明细表。而且，鉴于该等请求权而延迟明细表，无论如何都是本末倒置——Kwok 拥有并控制大量真实资产。他应首先集中识别该等资产，并为债权人的利益将其纳入其破产财产。Kwok 还应将其针对其存放大量资产的无数空壳“公司、受信任的密友及家庭成员”的请求权列入明细表。10 针对该等实体及个人的请求权已为 Kwok 所知，应立即予以识别。如存在其他潜在的律师执业过失或诽谤诉因（尚无其存在的证据），可在经修订的财务状况说明书及 SOFAs 中予以识别。因此，PAX 恭请本院拒绝让 Kwok 进一步阻挠债权人，并驳回其拖延提交明细表及 SOFAs 的延期请求。\n\n背景\n\n1. 2011 年，PAX 与一家由 Kwok 所有、名为 Shiny Times（“Shiny Times”）的实体签订贷款协议。11 Kwok 对该贷款作出个人担保。12 尽管 PAX 多次延长还款期限并多次尝试和解该债务，Kwok 从未偿还该贷款。13\n\n2. 因此，PAX 于 April 18, 2017 在 New York State Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）（由 Barry M. Ostrager（巴里·M·奥斯特拉格）法官主持）起诉 Kwok 违约。14 经历近四年诉讼后，纽约法院于 February 3, 2021 作出针对 Kwok 的 $116,402,019.57 判决。15 随后，PAX“通过首先识别、继而试图对 Kwok 在美国的资产实施扣押，进行了长达一年的执行[该]判决的努力”。16 这绝非易事，因为正如 Ostrager 法官所认定：“Kwok 自称为亿万富翁，其将资产隐藏于错综复杂的公司实体网络及家庭成员之中。”17 而在简易判决裁定作出约一个月后，即 March 11, 2021，Kwok 针对 PAX 的所有判后证据开示请求援引第五修正案。Kwok 至今未偿还 $116,402,019.57 判决中的任何款项；该判决（至少在本次破产申请之前）累计了 9% 的判后利息。18\n\n16 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1.\n\n11 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Decision + Order on Mot. at 2, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 549.\n\n12 同上，第 5-7 页。\n\n13 同上。\n\n14 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Compl., PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2017), ECF No. 2.\n\n15 Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, Judgment at 2, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 716.\n\n17 同上。\n\n3. Kwok 的一项可识别资产是一艘名为 Lady May 的游艇，其于 2015 年以 €28 million 购得。September 30, 2020，Ostrager 法官作出临时限制令，禁止 Kwok“就其享有任何权益的任何财产进行或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干扰……。”19 两周后，即 October 15, 2020，Ostrager 法官明确 September 30 命令包括 Lady May。20 但在 Ostrager 法官和 PAX 均不知情的情况下，Lady May 已于 October 9 前后离开纽约前往佛罗里达。21 此后，该游艇前往巴哈马，最终前往欧洲；据 PAX 了解，其至今仍停留在那里。22\n\n4. PAX 发现 Lady May 已离开且仍在纽约境外，违反 Ostrager 法官的命令后，提出民事藐视法庭动议23；March 16, 2021，法院作出附条件民事藐视法庭命令，指示 Kwok 或该船登记船主于 May 15, 2021 前将 Lady May 送回纽约法院的管辖范围，并规定自此后游艇每继续离境一日，处以 $500,000 罚款。24 New York Appellate Division, First Department（纽约州上诉分院第一部门）一致维持初审法院的裁定。\n\n21 参见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 2；另参见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 10, VESSELFINDER, Voyage Analyzer,(last visited Feb. 28, 2022)；另参见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 11, Feb. 2, 2022 Hr'g Tr., PAX v. Kwok., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), at 84:10–86:12（Heaslop 船长作证称，尽管其无法记起离开的确切日期，但其认为自己在 October, 2020 的第一周将 Lady May 驶往佛罗里达）。\n\n18 N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5004 (McKinney's 2022); Friedman Decl., Ex. 4 at 7；另参见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 7, Statement of Material Facts in Support of Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 23 at KWOK000652, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 455（“2011 Personal Guarantee”）。\n\n19 Friedman Decl., Ex. 8, Order to Show Cause, PAX v. Kwok, 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 590 at 1–2。20 Friedman Decl., Ex. 9, Decision + Order on Mot. at 1, PAX v. Kwok, 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 630。\n\n22 截至 February 28, 2022 上午，Lady May 位于意大利热那亚。参见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 10。\n\n23 参见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 12, PAX Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 689；另参见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 13, PAX Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. For Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 709。\n\n24 Friedman Decl., Ex. 14, Decision + Order on Mot., PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 728（“Initial Contempt Order”）。换言之，法院给予 Kwok 整整两个月的宽限期以归还游艇，从而避免任何罚款。\n\n裁定，认定：(i) PAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）“以明确且令人信服的证据证明，[Kwok（郭文贵）]违反了其知悉的法院合法明确命令，且该等违反行为损害了[PAX]的权利……”；以及 (ii)“每日$500,000的罚款旨在强力促使[Kwok]消除其藐视法庭行为。”25 因此，第一部门指示Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格法官）在作出最终藐视法庭裁定之前，“举行证据听证，以解决有关游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。”26\n\n5. Ostrager法官于February 2, 2022举行了该证据听证。在听取七名证人的证词后，Ostrager法官得出结论：“在听证会上从[Kwok]证人口中获得的证词，以明确且令人信服的方式证明，Kwok实益拥有并控制Lady May号游艇，并且对本院及司法程序怀有彻底的蔑视。”27 法院进一步认定，尽管Kwok的女儿在技术上持有该游艇的所有权证书，“Kwok控制该游艇，[并且]看来是他提供了购买该游艇的资金，且他是主要享用该游艇的人。”28 因此，Ostrager法官作出February 9藐视法庭裁定，除其他事项外，命令Kwok于February 16, 2022前向PAX支付$134,000,000，否则将面临法院依据Judiciary Law § 753行使其全部权限的风险。29\n\n6. 在作出藐视法庭裁定的同日，Kwok在一则公开社交媒体帖子中表示，他打算“对PA[X]发动全面战争”，并逃离United States（美国）。30 Kwok还试图通过申请在上诉期间紧急行政中止执行February 9藐视法庭裁定，以避免支付民事藐视法庭罚款。该请求被即刻驳回，31 而在其$134 million付款到期前一晚，Kwok提起了本chapter 11案件。32\n\n25 Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021).\n\n26 同上。\n\n27 Friedman声明，附件1（February 9藐视法庭裁定）第4页。\n\n28 同上，第8页。\n\n29 同上，第10页。\n\n7. Kwok在提交其最初的chapter 11申请一周多后，提交了一份修正申请。33 值得注意的是，最初申请和修正申请均未将Lady May号游艇的价值列为资产，尽管Ostrager法官在破产申请提交前仅六日已明确裁定“Kwok实益拥有并控制Lady May号游艇。”34 即使Kwok对该认定提出争议，一份完整且真实的申请也应当向本院及Kwok的债权人披露该游艇的价值。相反，为从额外时间中获益以避免作出强制披露，Kwok现寻求延迟60日提交其应提交的资产负债表和财务状况说明书。11 U.S.C. § 521; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(b)–(c).\n\n8. 鉴于Kwok长期以来的抗命行为、逃避披露有价值资产，以及“将其资产藏匿于错综复杂的公司实体和家庭成员之中”，35 本院应通过驳回Kwok的动议，尽量缩短Kwok进一步藏匿其资产的时间。\n\n论证\n\nI. 适用法律支持驳回KWOK的动议\n\n9. chapter 11程序旨在为债权人的利益“最大化破产财产的价值”，此乃基本法律原则。Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S.Ct. 973, 986 (2017) (citing Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. 157, 163–64 (1991)). 及时且准确地提交资产负债表和财务状况说明书，对实现该目标至关重要。在自愿案件中，债务人必须随申请书一并提交，或在提交申请书后14日内提交资产负债表和财务状况说明书。见 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(c). “提交适当完成且及时的资产负债表的目的，在于‘向受托人和债权人提供有关债务人财务状况的详细信息。’” In re McDermitt, No. 05-11710, 2006 WL 1582390, at *3 (D. Vt. May 30, 2006); see also In re Eldorado Canyon Props., LLC, 505 B.R. 601, 604 (1st Cir. B.A.P. 2014)（“破产资产负债表具有确保受托人和债权人可获得充分信息这一重要目的。”）。事实上，“破产案件的有效管理”取决于“在规定期限内提交完整且准确的资产负债表。” Eldorado Canyon Props., LLC, 505 B.R. at 604（着重号为原文所加）。如未及时且准确地提交资产负债表和财务状况说明书，法院、Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）及债权人便无法准确评估债务人的财务状况，亦无法确定破产申请是否出于善意提出。见 In re Anvil Holdings LP, 595 B.R. 622, 627–28 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2019)（若无准确完整的财务文件，法院及当事人便无法理解债务人的财务运作，且法院担忧债务人系恶意行事）。\n\n10. 对这些重要问题存在不确定性是不可容忍的，因为Bankruptcy Code（《破产法》）的保护以及随之而来的对债权人权利的中止，在提交申请书后立即生效。见 11 U.S.C. § 362; Rexnord Holdings, Inc. v. Bidermann, 21 F.3d 522, 527 (2d Cir. 1994)（“中止在提交申请书后立即生效。”）。在债权人于破产程序之外的权利和救济被搁置期间，不能让债权人处于悬而未决的状态，无法评估其针对债务人的权利。法院也不会允许债务人在未及时履行披露义务的情况下享受《破产法》的保护。见 9 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1007.03 (16th ed. 2021)（“如未及时提交资产负债表、声明或其他文件，美国受托人可申请驳回案件”）；In re Mutty, No. 04-10634, 2004 WL 2647705, at *7 (Bankr. D. Vt. Nov. 19, 2004)（因未以善意及坦诚态度提交准确的资产负债表而驳回案件）；Eldorado Canyon Properties, 505 B.R. at 604–05（确认因未及时提交资产负债表和财务状况说明书而驳回破产案件）。正如本巡回区一家法院指出：\n\n诚实债务人在破产案件中获得的利益，包括免除所有可免除债务以及“重新开始”，与《破产法》和规则对债务人提出的少数要求和期望相比，极不成比例。这些为数不多但极为重要的义务之一，对任何债务人而言——即使是消费者或典型的个人债务人——似乎都很容易履行，即确保其所有资产均被适当列入资产负债表。\n\nIn re Ptasinski, 290 B.R. 16, 26 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2003). 该法院强调，债务人及其律师必须确保资产负债表“在债务人所知及所掌握信息的最佳范围内完整且准确”，因为《破产法》的保护不适用于那些“在其资产或其事务实际情况上投机取巧”的人。Id. at 26–27 (citing In re Tully, 818 F.2d 106, 110 (1st Cir. 1987)).\n\nII. 鉴于本案所呈现的“非同寻常”情形，应驳回KWOK延长时间的请求\n\n11. Kwok“非同寻常”的行为引发诸多警示信号，且强烈不利于其延期请求。Ostrager法官的February 9藐视法庭裁定记载了Kwok长期公然无视法院命令的历史。36 即便如此，Kwok现已加剧其“投机取巧、掩饰和欺骗。”37 Ostrager法官作出\n\n36 Friedman声明，附件1（February 9藐视法庭裁定）。\n\n37 Friedman声明，附件14（初步藐视法庭裁定）第2页。\n\nFebruary 9藐视法庭裁定（不足三周前）的同日，Kwok公开宣布其打算“对PA[X]发动全面战争”并逃离该国。38 而一周后，即February 9藐视法庭裁定履行日期前夕，Kwok申请破产。\n\n12. 如上所述，Kwok的破产申请至少在三个方面存在重大虚假和误导性陈述。第一，Kwok——一名自称亿万富翁的人——经宣誓表示其资产价值介于$50,001和$100,000之间，而Ostrager法官认定Kwok实益拥有并控制Lady May号游艇，这一认定与该表示相矛盾。这也直接削弱了他需要显著更多时间来识别该等（据称不存在的）资产的任何主张。Kwok向美国受托人办公室所作的陈述进一步印证了这一点：Kwok没有银行账户、信用卡，未受雇佣，不直接拥有任何不动产、汽车，也不为任何资产投保。39\n\n13. 第二，Kwok虚假陈述其不存在处于破产程序中的关联方。Kwok承认拥有的唯一资产是一家于British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）设立的名为Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）的控股公司。40 Genever BVI继而拥有Genever NY 100 percent的有表决权股权，41 后者是一家New York（纽约）实体，拥有位于New York City（纽约市）Sherry Netherland Hotel（谢里-内德兰酒店）的一套豪华整层公寓；Kwok于March 2015以近$70 million购得该公寓，并一直居住于此。42 在PAX针对Kwok赢得简易判决后不久，Genever NY于late 2020在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）提起chapter 11案件。\n\n38 见 Friedman声明，附件15第3页。\n\n39 UST异议第¶ 12段。\n\n40 Friedman声明，附件17，Sept. 22, 2021听证记录第16:8–12页，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021),.\n\n41 Friedman声明，附件18，被告Kwok对原告[PAX]第三套询问书的答复及异议，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017, ECF No. 756第9页。\n\n42 见 Friedman声明，附件19，PAX支持判决前扣押动议的法律备忘录附件11，SN0036，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2018), ECF No. 256（已签署的买卖合同将“Genever Holdings LLC”列为买方）；另见同上SN 0047（购买申请将“‘Miles’ Kwok Ho Wan (Genever Holdings LLC)”列为申请人）。\n\n43 由于Kwok间接控制Genever NY的有表决权股权，根据11 U.S.C. § 101(2)(B)，该公司为其关联方。因此，Kwok未列明该程序的行为并不诚实。\n\n14. 第三，同样令人不安的是，Kwok在其前20名“非内部人”债权人清单中列入Golden Spring New York（“GSNY”）。见 无担保债权人清单，[ECF No. 20]第1页；11 U.S.C. § 101(31)(A). chapter 11申请表的说明明确规定，前20名债权人中仅应列出非内部人。Kwok“通过将其在UBS的一个账户中的资金转入Golden Spring New York的JPMorgan Chase（摩根大通）银行账户，设立了[GSNY]……”。44 在用其自身资金向GSNY注资后，Kwok将其用作个人小金库，用以支付几乎其全部数百万美元的个人生活费用及法律费用。45 事实上，除Ostrager法官外，46 至少一家联邦法院亦认定GSNY是Kwok作为“家族办公室”维持的公司。47 Kwok不仅将GSNY列为其前20名非内部人债权人之一，还在同一份经宣誓的申请中将GSNY及其地址列为“[其]居住之处”。48 这些事实表明，GSNY绝非独立交易的债权人，并且显然符合非制定法内部人的标准。49 因此，Kwok将GSNY列为据称的非内部人债权人的行为，是彻头彻尾的欺骗和欺诈。50\n\n15. 除上述重大虚假陈述和遗漏之外，\n\n43 参见 In re Genever Holdings LLC（关于 Genever Holdings LLC 有限责任公司案），Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020)。\n\n44 Friedman 声明，附件 20，Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）宣誓书，支持原告反对被告驳回起诉书动议之意见书，Ace Decade Holdings Ltd.（Ace Decade Holdings 有限公司） v. UBS AG（瑞银集团），Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. 2016), ECF No. 27, at ¶ 36。\n\n45 Friedman 声明，附件 21，2021 年 5 月 27 日听证会记录第 9:25–10:3 页，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 833（“Golden Springs 已向郭先生支付七位数款项以维持其生活方式，这一点并无实质争议；郭先生过着相当奢华的生活”）。\n\n46 Friedman 声明，附件 1（2 月 9 日藐视法庭裁定）第 5、9 页。\n\n47 Friedman 声明，附件 22，事实认定与法律结论第 2 页，Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd.（Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. 公司）v. Strategic Vision US LLC（Strategic Vision US LLC 有限责任公司），Case No. 1:18-cv-02185-LJL (S.D.N.Y. 2021), ECF No. 372。\n\n48 修订后的自愿申请书，ECF No. 19 at 2（针对“您的居住地为何处”这一问题，Kwok 陈述：“c/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.，162 East 64th Street, New York, NY 10065”）\n\n49 即使按照 Kwok 对事件的说法，GSNY 据称由一家香港公司所有；与 Kwok 用以隐匿其资产的其他公司一样，该香港公司由 Kwok 的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）所有。Friedman 声明，附件 23，Kwok 证言记录，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 785 at 63:17–18。\n\n50 如 PAX 将在适当时候证明的，对于“内部人士”Lamp Capital（Lamp Capital）的情形亦是如此；该公司是 Kwok 在其清单中列明的一家规模较小、名列前 20 位的据称“债权人”（技术上由其儿子所有）。\n\nKwok 倾向于利用其家庭成员隐匿资产的做法51引发了额外担忧。Kwok 表示有意寻求债务人占有期间融资，并称其“将需要其家庭成员的支持，以资助退出第 11 章破产程序”。52 尽管债务人占有期间融资是否适当并非本文件的主题，但认为 Kwok 在以独立交易“贷款”为名与家庭成员之间进一步调拨资金之前无法提交财务状况说明及 SOFA 表格，这一看法引发了极其严重的担忧：其意图利用自己的资金，在优先顺位上超越 PAX 及其他债权人，从而实际上给予自己非法优先受偿及对破产财产资产的第一顺位请求权。这些预期中的操作并不构成为准许该动议或延迟披露的任何依据。\n\n16. 综合而言，Kwok 长期持续的欺骗和不当行为模式，使 PAX——或本院——无法对其申请破产的诚信，或其所声称的“明确意图，即全额清偿其债权人获准债权”53抱有任何信心。在 Ostrager 法官（Ostrager）作出 2 月 9 日藐视法庭裁定的同一天，他威胁要“与 PAX 开展全面战争”并逃离美国，这只会进一步表明 Ostrager 法官所认定的 Kwok 对“法院和司法程序的彻底蔑视”54，并凸显其立即遵守《破产规则》的迫切必要性。没有理由相信，这一破产申请是 Kwok 经严肃、审慎反思后表明其改变心意的转折点。这不过是 Kwok 在多年拖延和混淆视听之后不得不打出的最新一张牌；只有在其将 Ostrager 法官逼至几乎要威胁称，若其不遵守 2 月 9 日藐视法庭裁定便会签发逮捕令的地步后，他才被迫打出这张牌。\n\n51 参见 Friedman 声明，附件 1（2 月 9 日藐视法庭裁定）第 1 页（提及 Kwok “试图通过将其巨额资产存放于一系列公司、受信赖的知己及家庭成员名下，以逃避并欺骗其债权人……”）。\n\n52 债务人延期动议第 ¶¶ 10, 12 段。\n\n53 同上，第 ¶ 12 段。\n\n54 Friedman 声明，附件 1（2 月 9 日藐视法庭裁定）第 4 页。\n\n裁定。\n\n权利保留\n\n尽管本反对意见中有任何规定，PAX 保留就本第 11 章破产程序所享有的一切权利、请求权及抗辩，包括但不限于对审判地提出异议、寻求驳回本案以及寻求任何其他救济的权利。\n\n结论\n\nPAX 有充分理由深切担忧，本审理地仅是 Kwok 在其持续进一步阻挠和拖延 PAX 合法判决执行工作中将试图加以利用的最新一个场所。因此，应驳回 Kwok 的延期动议，并且本院应要求 Kwok 及时提交《破产法典》所要求的完整且准确的清单及 SOFA 表格。\n\n日期：2022 年 2 月 28 日\n地点：康涅狄格州哈特福德\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）\n\n代理人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\n\nPatrick M. Birney（CT No. 19875）\nAnnecca H. Smith（CT No. 31148）\nROBINSON & COLE LLP\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 275-8275\n传真：(860) 275-8299\n电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com\nasmith@rc.com\n\nPeter Friedman（获准临时执业）\nStuart M. Sarnoff（获准临时执业）\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2293\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\nssarnoff@omm.com","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","GETTR","CIPA","Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":5,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":19,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":20,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":25,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":27,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":49,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":256,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":372,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":455,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":549,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":590,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":689,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":709,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":756,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":785,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":833,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4735,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:37:53"}