{"id":"court_ctb_575_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":575,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| --------------------------------------------------------------- | x                                         |  |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                          | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11                      |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                    | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073<br>(JAM)<br>: |  |\n| Debtor.                                                         | :<br>:                                    |  |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------- | x                                         |  |\n\n## **OBJECTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER APPOINTING LUC A. DESPINS AS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\nTo the Honorable United States Bankruptcy Judge Julie A. Manning:\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as trustee in the above-captioned case filed under chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Trustee\"), respectfully submits this objection (the \"Objection\") to the *Debtor's Motion for Relief from Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee* [Docket No. 561] (the \"Motion\"). In support of the Objection, the Trustee states as follows:\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. Like any other chapter 11 trustee, the Trustee has only one goal in this chapter 11 case: to retrieve the Debtor's assets and distribute as much thereof as possible and as promptly as possible to holders of allowed claims. The various unrelated allegations raised in the Motion are just a distraction in which neither this Court nor the Trustee should have to get involved. The Motion is a transparent effort by the Debtor to obstruct and delay the Trustee's key task in this chapter 11 case—the collection of estate assets for the benefit of the Debtor's creditors—through the propogation of baseless conspiracy theories. Ordinarily, a debtor and his chapter 11 trustee should be aligned in the objective of locating property of the estate and making such property\n\navailable to creditors, but this Debtor's demonstrated objective through years of litigation with his creditors has been to keep his purported billions of dollars in assets outside of their reach through shell companies and transfers to his family members, while he simultaneously retains all the benefits of those assets and uses them to enable his lavish lifestyle. The Debtor is therefore highly motivated to object to the Trustee's appointment on any and all grounds, regardless of how meritless they may be, to maximize his prospects of maintaining this hidden wealth, both during and after this case.\n\n2. As explained by Justice Ostrager in his opinion issued after years of litigation and holding the Debtor in contempt for violating orders of the New York Supreme Court, the Debtor \"is a self-declared multi-billionaire\" who \"secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members\" in a scheme that \"has enabled [the Debtor] to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle.\"<sup>1</sup> Thus, the same Debtor who represents himself to this Court as a pauper has, among other things: (a) \"exercised dominion and control\"<sup>2</sup> over the *Lady May*, the 150-foot yacht that he now alleges is owned by a company owned by his daughter; (b) continues to enjoy, upon information and belief, the use of the penthouse apartment in the Sherry-Netherland on Fifth Avenue in New York, purchased for more than \\$70 million, that he now alleges is held in trust for the benefit of a company owned by his son; and (c) maintains a residence in a multi-million dollar estate in Greenwich, Connecticut, that he alleges is owned by a company owned by his wife. 3 In connection with this case, the Debtor's family members\n\n<sup>1</sup> Decision + Order on Motion, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P*. *V. Ho Wan Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Feb. 9, 2022) (the \"Ostrager Decision\"), at 1. The Ostrager Decion is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n<sup>2</sup> *Id.* at 2.\n\n<sup>3</sup> According to Zillow, the Debtor's residence at 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, CT 06831 was purchased in February 2020 for approximatley \\$4.6 million, has a \"Zestimate\" of approximately \\$6.4 million, and features, among other amenities, 7 bedrooms, 10 bathrooms, over 12,000 square feet of liveable space, a pool, and a tennis court. *See* [http](http)\n\nostensibly offered to fund a \\$9 million DIP loan and funded a \\$37 million escrow account to guarantee the return of the *Lady May* yacht to the United States. Incredibly, the Debtor has apparently been chauffeured to this Court in a luxurious Maybach automobile, likely funded as part of the extravagant sums being spent to support the Debtor's lifestyle, as disclosed in the Debtor's filed Monthly Operating Reports, which show, for example, purported third party disbursements made for the benefit of the Debtor of **\\$161,323.00** for February 2022, a disclosure period of only thirteen days between when the case was filed on February 15, 2022, and February 28, 2022. 4\n\n3. In fact, the Debtor has publicy boasted, as recently as November 2017, about what he once described as \"his\" assets—assets that he only now claims not to own. These assets include, among others: the apartment at the Sherry Netherland overlooking Central Park (\"I buy the apartment\"<sup>5</sup> ); the *Lady May* (\"my yacht\" <sup>6</sup> ); another luxurious apartment in London (\"I have the most luxurious apartment in London\"<sup>7</sup> ); two private jets (\"I have two private jets\"<sup>8</sup> ); and hundreds of race cars (\"I have hundreds of race cars\"<sup>9</sup> ). Indeed, the Debtor's wealth is such that he has stated, \"I have the wealthy life that everyone in the world dreams about,\"<sup>10</sup> and \"I don't have any material needs anymore.\"<sup>11</sup>\n\n- 8 *Id.* at 6:57.\n- 9 *Id.* at 7:01.\n- <sup>10</sup> *Id.* at 6:46.\n- <sup>11</sup> *Id.* at 7:06.\n\n<sup>(</sup>last visited on July 20, 2022).\n\n<sup>4</sup> Monthly Operating Report for February 2022, at 2 [Docket No. 120].\n\n<sup>5</sup> *See*, VICE News, *Exiled Chinese Billionaire Uses YouTube to Wage a War on Corruption,* YouTube (original air date on HBO, Nov. 15, 2017),<http> (last visited on July 19, 2022), at 1:20.\n\n<sup>6</sup> *Id.* at 4:26.\n\n<sup>7</sup> *Id.* at 6:51.\n\n4. The Debtor's strategy for protecting his wealth apparently revolves around the perpetuation of outlandish conspiracy theories and fanciful allegations that have no basis in reality. One need only look at his social media account for a sampling of the numerous unhinged conspiracy theories and attacks he has launched against the Trustee, Paul Hastings, the United States Trustee Program, the United States Department of Justice, and others. For example, on July 13, 2022, he wrote: \"Ms. Holley L. Claiborn of the DOJ replaced the trustee with Luc A. Despins, who is a scumbag in the legal community, and this was done in a criminal-like manner. This is an insult to the American judicial system and to all Americans!\"<sup>12</sup> He also wrote that \"Paul Hastings law firm is a dark door that opens the political, legal and economic [communication] between China and the US,\" <sup>13</sup> and the \"DOJ collude[d] with the CCP [the Chinese Communist Party] regarding the appointment of the trustee.\" 14\n\n5. These baseless allegations are mere drops from the vast ocean of outlandish conspiracy theories propogated by the Debtor in recent years.<sup>15</sup> Among many other examples, the Debtor has theorized that the Chinese Communist Party \"completely corrupted the American justice system,\" that \"the promotion of vaccines is nonsense,\" and that \"[t]he American economy is in Jewish hands.\"<sup>16</sup> Multiple media outlets have reported on the Debtor's *modus operandi* of\n\n<sup>12</sup> Miles Guo, GETTR, July 13, 2022, <http> (last visited July 19, 2022).\n\n<sup>13</sup> Miles Guo, GETTR, July 11, 2022, <http> (last visited July 19, 2022) (this quote has been informally translated from Chinese).\n\n<sup>14</sup> Miles Guo, GETTR, July 16, 2022, [http](http)last visited July 19, 2022).\n\n<sup>15</sup> Notably, the Debtor's accusations have reportedly provoked past incidents of physical violence. *See e.g.,* Dan Friedman, *A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued.,* Mother Jones (March – April 2022) [http](http)[bannon/](http) (\"On September 21, 2020, after Guo [i.e., the Debtor] lashed out at 'fake pro-democracy activists' who 'should be beaten up as soon as we see them,' a Los Angeles–based anti-CCP activist who goes by Mang Liuzi was assaulted by a Guo acolyte protesting outside his home. A couple months later, two men protesting outside the Vancouver home of Gao Bingchen, a journalist Guo had denounced, attacked a friend of Gao's, kicking him repeatedly in the head and neck as he lay crumpled on the pavement.\").\n\n<sup>16</sup> Each of these quotes is attributed to the Debtor on one of his own websites, GNews. *See Highlights of Mr. Miles Guo's Live Broadcast on October 10th, 2021*, GNews (Oct. 11, 2021[\\) http](http)\n\nspreading misinformation using a network of affiliated websites, social media platforms, companies, and (alleged) non-profit organizations in order to support, among other things, highly questionable business ventures involving the purported sale of securities or cryptocurrency, as well as vitriolic attacks on perceived enemies.<sup>17</sup> Unsurprisingly, the Debtor is facing a large number of securities fraud and defamation lawsuits,<sup>18</sup> and a proof of claim was recently filed against the Debtor by the Securities and Exchange Commission.<sup>19</sup>\n\n6. The Debtor's assertions in the Motion are more of the same. The Debtor devotes most of his attention to a lengthy discussion of numerous incidents and legal proceedings that have nothing to do with this chapter 11 case.<sup>20</sup> The only allegations he raises that purportedly have some connection to this chapter 11 case relate to Paul Hastings' (i) past representation of entities related to the ultimate parent company of PAX (the \"PAG Entities\") in unrelated matters\n\n*See also*, *e.g.*, Brian Schwartz, *Chinese exile Guo Wengui uses misinformation network to push unproven drugs to treat Covid,* CNBC (Sept. 7, 2021) [http](http)[misinformation-network.html;](http) [http](http)[conspiracies-disinformation/.](http)\n\n<sup>17</sup> *See e.g.,* Dan Friedman, *A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued,* Mother Jones (March – April 2022) [http](http)[gettr-steve-bannon/;](http) Jeanne Whalen, Craig Timberg and Eva Dou, *Chinese businessman with links to Steve Bannon is driving force for a sprawling disinformation network, researchers say*, Washington Post (May 17, 2021, 8:00 a.m. EDT) [http](http)[steve-bannon/;](http) Echo Hui and Hagar Cohen, *They once peddled misinformation for Guo Wengui and Steve Bannon. Now they're speaking out*, ABC News (Oct. 31, 2020, 3:12 p.m.) [http](http) [11-01/behind-the-scenes-of-the-guo-and-bannon-led-propaganda-machine/12830824/.](http)\n\n<sup>18</sup> *See* Statement of Financial Affairs, at 3 [Docket No. 77].\n\n<sup>19</sup> *See* Proof of Claim No. 11, Attachment A (describing claim as one for \"penalties, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest arising from possible violations of the federal securities laws\" and stating that \"[t]he Securities and Exchange Commission . . . has been conducting an investigation into certain prebankruptcy conduct involving the debtor\"). *See also GTV Media Group, Inc*., Securities Act Release No. 10979, 2021 WL 4149064 ¶ 1, 5 (Sept. 13, 2021) (finding that companies that have been associated with the Debtor (i.e., GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\"), Saraca Media Group, Inc., and Voice of Guo Media, Inc.) violated the Securities Act in connection with \"solicit[ing] thousands of individuals to invest in an offering of GTV common stock\" and \"solicit[ing] individuals to invest in their offering of a digital asset security that was referred to as either G-Coins or G-Dollars,\" thus allowing these companies to \"collectively raise[] approximately \\$487 million from more than 5,000 investors, including individuals in the United States, through approximately July 2020\").\n\n<sup>20</sup> *See* Motion ¶¶ 18-27.\n\nand (ii) offices and business in China. Neither of these things creates a legitimate issue, however. The first was addressed in the supplemental declaration filed by the Trustee on July 12, 2022 [Docket No. 538] (the \"Supplemental Declaration\"), and the second, assuming *arguendo* that the Debtor's outlandish fantasies were true, is irrelevant to the Trustee's appointment, because neither the Chinese government nor the Chinese Communist Party (collectively, the \"Chinese Government\") is a creditor, or party in interest, in the case.\n\n7. The Debtor's only actual legal argument—that he is somehow entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(2) and Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Rules,\" and each, a \"Rule\")<sup>21</sup>—is equally erroneous. The Debtor falls well short of meeting his burden in connection with the seeking such relief, which case law establishes is only available in exceptional or extraordinary situations.\n\n8. The Motion should be denied, so that the Trustee may continue the serious business of investigating the Debtor's assets and financial affairs and collecting estate assets in order to maximize recoveries for creditors.\n\n## **OBJECTION**\n\n## **I. Debtor Fails to Meet Burden for Relief Under Rule 60(b)(2)**\n\n9. Rule 60(b)(2) allows a court, at its discretion, to grant relief from a final judgment in the event of \"newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).\" *See Reese v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,* 293 F.R.D. 617, 621–22 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), *aff'd sub nom. Reese v. Bahash,* 574 F. App'x 21 (2d Cir. 2014) (\"The decision whether to grant such a motion rests within the district\n\n<sup>21</sup> With the exception of certain circumstances not relevant here, Rule 60 is applicable to bankruptcy cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024.\n\ncourt's sound discretion.\" (quoting *United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters,* 247 F.3d 370, 391 (2d Cir. 2001)).\n\n10. A motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) is \"generally not favored\" and is \"properly\n\ngranted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.\" *United States v. Int'l Bhd. of*\n\n*Teamsters,* 247 F.3d 370, 391 (2d Cir. 2001); *see also Nemaizer v. Baker,* 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d\n\nCir.1986) (\"Since 60(b) allows extraordinary judicial relief, it is invoked only upon a showing of\n\nexceptional circumstances.\").\n\n11. Moreover, as explained by the Court in *Reese v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc*.,\n\nciting *United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters*:\n\nA party seeking relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) must meet an \"**onerous**\" standard, and it has the burden of demonstrating each of the following four elements:\n\n> (1) the newly discovered evidence was of facts that existed at the time of trial or other dispositive proceeding, (2) the movant must have been justifiably ignorant of them despite due diligence, (3) the evidence must be admissible and of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome, **and** (4) the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching.\n\n*Id*. (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). *See also Emp. Wellness Servs., Inc. v. APS*\n\n*Healthcare Bethesda, Inc.,* No. 11 CIV. 9718 (ER), 2017 WL 456466, at \\*7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1,\n\n2017 (same); *Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Crow & Sutton Assocs.,* 228 F.R.D. 125, 129\n\n(N.D.N.Y. 2005), *aff'd sub nom. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Crow & Sutton Assocs., Inc.,* 172\n\nF. App'x 382 (2d Cir. 2006) (same).\n\n12. Here, the Debtor has failed to meet the onerous burden imposed by Rule 60(b)(2).\n\nThe Motion raises no newly discovered evidence of which the Debtor was justifiably ignorant\n\ndespite due diligence or that would have been of such importance that it would have changed the\n\noutcome of the hearing on the Trustee's appointment (the \"July 8 Hearing\").\n\n13. The fact that Paul Hastings (like numerous other U.S. law firms) has offices in China and does business in China was public knowledge that the Debtor or his counsel could have discovered in a few minutes of internet research upon the United States Trustee's appointment of the Trustee becoming public on July 7, 2022, the day before the hearing. <sup>22</sup> This is not newly discovered evidence of which the Debtor was justifiably ignorant.\n\n14. Nor would information regarding Paul Hastings' business in China have changed the outcome of the July 8 Hearing. Among many other reasons, this is because the Chinese Government is not a creditor or party in interest in this chapter 11 case: the Debtor did not list the Chinese Government on his schedules, and the Chinese Government has not filed a proof claim, notice of appearance, or other pleading. *See In re MF Glob. Holdings Ltd.,* 469 B.R. 177, 188 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012) (\"an entity that does not hold a financial stake in the case is generally excluded from the definition of 'party in interest.'\" (citing 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1109.03 (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2011))); *In re City of Bridgeport*, 128 B.R. 30, 31-32 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1991) (concept of party in interest \"has come to mean an entity that has a direct legal interest at issue in the case\"). Therefore, the disclosure that the Debtor apparently thinks was required—regarding all of Paul Hastings' business and clients in China—would be irrelevant for purposes of the issue of the Trustee's disinterestedness and appointment.\n\n15. Fundamentally, the entire premise underlying the Motion—that a U.S.-based law firm doing business in China must be beholden to or controlled by the Chinese government—is the stuff of unhinged internet conspiracy theories. By the Debtor's logic, every U.S. company\n\n<sup>22</sup> *See* Notice of Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee [Docket No. 514]; Application for Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee [Docket No. 515].\n\ndoing business in China would be tainted by, and doing the bidding of, the Chinese Government. The Court cannot permit the Debtor to delay the progress of this chapter 11 case using these kinds of baseless allegations. As Justice Ostrager warned after the Debtor's \"evasive and contemptuous act[s]\"<sup>23</sup> had dragged out litigation with PAX in the New York Supreme Court for five years, \"if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law.\" 24 The Debtor should not be allowed to play the same games before this Court.\n\n16. Similarly, no newly discovered evidence regarding Paul Hastings' relationship with the PAG Entities could justify Rule 60(b)(2) relief. The Debtor's counsel was aware of the existence of the connection with the PAG Entities disclosed at the July 8 Hearing and, when pressed by the Court, refused to object to the appointment of the Trustee.<sup>25</sup> The issue was then addressed and disposed of in the Supplemental Declaration.\n\n17. Given the above, the Court should deny the Debtor's request for relief under Rule 60(b)(2).\n\n# **II. Debtor Fails to Meet Burden Under Rule 60(b)(6)**\n\n18. Rule 60(b)(6), under which a court may, at its discretion, grant relief from a final judgment based on \"any other reason that justifies relief,\" imposes an even more difficult burden upon the movant than Rule 60(b)(2). Such relief is rarely appropriate and only available in\n\n<sup>23</sup> Ostrager Decision, at 7. (\"The machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\").\n\n<sup>24</sup> *Id.* at 10.\n\n<sup>25</sup> *See* Transcript, July 8, 2022 Hearing, attached hereto as Exhibit B, at 13:14-24 (in response to Court's statement that \"unless someone has some other concern or argument that they want to advance about Mr. Despins being the Chapter 11 trustee, then I'm going to grant the United States Trustee's application and enter an order approving the appointment of Mr. Despins as the Chapter 11 trustee in this case . . . I'm giving everyone one last opportunity to tell me why I should not do that,\" Debtor's counsel replied, \"[w]e have nothing further to add other than what I already said\").\n\n\"extraordinary circumstances.\" *See Gainey v. Murray*, No. 05-CV-00532F, 2013 WL 5488452, at \\*2 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2013) (\"Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is . . . rare, and viable only in extraordinary circumstances [and] [s]uch relief is to be used sparingly.\") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); s*ee also Gonzalez v. Crosby*, 545 U.S. 524, 535, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2649, 162 L. Ed. 2d 480 (2005) (\"[C]ases have required a movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) to show extraordinary circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment.\") (internal citations and quotation marks removed); *178 E. 80th St. Owners, Inc. v. Jenkins,* No. 00 CIV 5959RCCFM JM, 2001 WL 619063, at \\*9 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2001) (Rule 60(b)(6) is \"properly invoked only when the movant establishes the existence of extraordinary circumstances or that the judgment would work an extreme and undue hardship.\" (citing *In re Emergency Beacon Corp.,* 666 F.2d 754, 758–59 (2d Cir.1981))). Moreover, the movant under Rule 60(b)(6) must provide \"highly convincing\" evidence justifying relief. *See In re Taub*, 421 B.R. 37, 42 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting *Boehner v. Heise,* No. 03 Civ. 05453 (THK)*,* 2009 WL 1360975, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2009)).\n\n19. Here, the Debtor bases his argument in favor of Rule 60(b)(6) relief on the same \"newly discovered evidence\" theory that, as discussed above, could never support relief under Rule 60(b)(2), let alone Rule 60(b)(6). 26 The Debtor has failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances supported by highly convincing evidence that could justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6), and his request for such relief should be denied.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\n20. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the Debtor's Motion.\n\n<sup>26</sup> *See* Motion ¶ 47 (\"Because the Court relied upon incomplete evidence in entering the Despins Appointment Order as a result of the failure of the Trustee and the UST to make full disclosures to the Court, justice is best served by vacating the Despins Appointment Order.\").\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court\n\ndeny the Motion.\n\nDated: July 20, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n:\n第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， :\n:\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 :\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------- x\n第11章受托人对债务人请求解除任命LUC A. DESPINS为第11章受托人之命令的动议的异议\n\n致尊敬的美国联邦破产法官Julie A. Manning：\n\nLuc A. Despins以其在依据《美国法典》第11编第11章提起的上述标题案件中担任受托人的身份（以下简称“受托人”），谨此对债务人请求解除任命Luc A. Despins为第11章受托人之命令的动议[案卷号 561]（以下简称“本动议”）提出本异议（以下简称“本异议”）。为支持本异议，受托人陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 与任何其他第11章受托人一样，受托人在本第11章案件中只有一个目标：追回债务人的资产，并尽可能多、尽可能快地将其分配给获准债权持有人。本动议中提出的各项无关指控纯属干扰视线，本法院和受托人本无需卷入其中。本动议是债务人通过散布毫无根据的阴谋论，企图阻挠和拖延受托人在本第11章案件中的核心任务——为了债务人债权人的利益而收缴破产财团资产——的昭然若揭的企图。通常情况下，债务人及其第11章受托人在查明破产财团财产并将其提供给债权人这一目标上应当是一致的，但该债务人多年来与其债权人诉讼中所展现出的目标，一直是利用空壳公司以及向其家庭成员转移财产，将其据称价值数十亿美元的资产置于债权人触及范围之外，同时他自己却保留这些资产带来的全部利益并用其维系其奢靡的生活方式。因此，该债务人具有极强的动机以任何及所有理由对受托人的任命提出异议，不论这些理由多么站不住脚，以此使其在案件审理期间及结案后维持这笔隐秘财富的机会最大化。\n\n2. 正如Ostrager法官在经过多年诉讼并裁定债务人因违反New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的命令而构成藐视法庭的意见书中所解释的那样，该债务人“是一个自封的亿万富翁”，他“将自己的资产隐匿在迷宫般的公司实体和家庭成员手中”，这一行径“使得[债务人]能够一边维持其奢靡的生活方式，一边声称自己身无分文”。1 因此，就是同一个在本法院面前自称穷困潦倒的债务人，除其他事项外：(a)对“Lady May”（梅号）——一艘长达150英尺的游艇——“行使了支配与控制”2，而他现在声称该游艇归其女儿名下的一家公司所有；(b)据信仍在继续使用位于纽约Fifth Avenue（第五大道）Sherry-Netherland（雪梨内瑟兰公寓）耗资逾7000万美元购买的顶层顶楼公寓，而他现在声称该公寓是为其儿子名下的一家公司的利益而信托持有的；以及(c)居住在位于康涅狄格州Greenwich（格林威治）一处价值数百万美元的庄园内，而他声称该庄园归其妻子名下的一家公司所有。3 与本案相关的是，债务人的家庭成员表面上提出提供一笔900万美元的DIP贷款（破产重整期间债务人融资），并资助了一个3700万美元的托管账户以担保Lady May游艇返回美国。令人难以置信的是，债务人显然是乘坐豪华迈巴赫轿车被专车接送至本法院的，该开销很可能是用于支持债务人生活方式的奢侈开支的一部分，正如债务人提交的《月度经营报告》所披露的那样，例如该报告显示，在2022年2月期间为债务人的利益进行的所谓第三方支出达161,323.00美元，而该披露期仅为案件于2022年2月15日提起至2022年2月28日之间的短短十三天。4\n\n1 参见《动议决定与裁定》，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 诉 Ho Wan Kwok，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院，2022年2月9日）（以下简称“Ostrager决定”），第1页。Ostrager决定作为附件A附于本文件后。\n\n2 同上，第2页。\n\n3 根据Zillow的数据，债务人位于373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, CT 06831的住所于2020年2月以约460万美元购入，“Zestimate”估价约为640万美元，其便利设施包括7间卧室、10间浴室、超过12,000平方英尺的居住空间、一个游泳池和一个网球场等。参见 [http]\n\n4 2022年2月《月度经营报告》，第2页 [案卷号 120]。\n\n3. 事实上，就在2017年11月，债务人还曾公开夸耀他曾称之为“他自己的”资产——而这些资产他直到现在才声称不归其所有。这些资产除其他外包括：位于Sherry Netherland俯瞰中央公园的公寓（“我买下了这套公寓”5）；Lady May（“我的游艇”6）；位于伦敦的另一套豪华公寓（“我拥有伦敦最豪华的公寓”7）；两架私人飞机（“我有两架私人飞机”8）；以及数百辆赛车（“我有数百辆赛车”9）。确实，债务人的财富达到了他在声明中宣称的程度：“我过着世界上每个人都梦寐以求的富足生活”10，以及“我不再有任何物质需求。”11\n\n5 参见 VICE News，《流亡中国亿万富翁利用YouTube发起反腐战争》，YouTube（原HBO播出日期：2017年11月15日），（最后访问于2022年7月19日），1:20处。\n\n6 同上，4:26处。\n\n7 同上，6:51处。\n\n8 同上，6:57处。\n\n9 同上，7:01处。\n\n10 同上，6:46处。\n\n11 同上，7:06处。\n\n（最后访问于2022年7月20日）。\n\n4. 债务人保护其财富的策略显然围绕着不断散布荒诞离奇的阴谋论和脱离现实的凭空指控。人们只需查看其社交媒体账号，便可略见其对受托人、Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）、United States Trustee Program（美国受托人项目）、United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）及其他人发起的诸多失去理智的阴谋论和攻击。例如，在2022年7月13日，他写道：“DOJ（司法部）的Holley L. Claiborn女士以类似犯罪的方式，将受托人更换为Luc A. Despins，他是法律界的一个败类。这是对美国司法系统和所有美国人的侮辱！”12 他还写道：“普衡律师事务所是开启中美之间政治、法律和经济[交流]的黑门”13，并且“DOJ在任命受托人一事上与CCP（中国共产党）勾结。”14\n\n12 Miles Guo，GETTR，2022年7月13日，（最后访问于2022年7月19日）。\n\n13 Miles Guo，GETTR，2022年7月11日，（最后访问于2022年7月19日）（此引用非正式译自中文）。\n\n14 Miles Guo，GETTR，2022年7月16日，[http]（最后访问于2022年7月19日）。\n\n5. 这些毫无根据的指控不过是债务人近年来散布的大量荒诞阴谋论中的沧海一粟。15 在诸多其他例子中，债务人曾提出诸如中国共产党“彻底腐蚀了美国司法系统”、“推广疫苗是胡说八道”以及“[美]国经济掌握在犹太人手中”等理论。16 多家媒体报道了债务人利用由附属网站、社交媒体平台、公司和（所谓的）非营利组织构成的网络来散布虚假信息的惯用手法，其目的是支持（其中包括）涉及所谓销售证券或加密货币的极具问题的商业冒险，并对被视作敌人的人进行恶毒攻击。17 意料之中的是，债务人正面临大量的证券欺诈和诽谤诉讼18，且Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）近期对债务人提交了一份债权证明。19\n\n15 值得注意的是，据报道，债务人的指控曾引发过去的肢体暴力事件。参见例如 Dan Friedman，《流亡中国大亨结识史蒂夫·班农，虚假信息大混乱随之而来》，Mother Jones（2022年3月至4月）[http][bannon/]（“2020年9月21日，在Guo[即债务人]猛烈抨击‘一见到就该打’的‘假民运人士’之后，一名化名为‘莽流子’的洛杉矶反共人士在其住所外抗议的郭氏信徒袭击。几个月后，两名在郭所谴责的记者高冰尘温哥华住所外抗议的男子袭击了高的一位朋友，在被害人蜷缩在人行道上时对其头部和颈部反复踢打。”）。\n\n16 这些言论均是在债务人自己的网站GNews上被归于债务人名下。参见《Miles Guo先生2021年10月10日直播精彩回顾》，GNews（2021年10月11日）[\\) http]\n\n亦见，例如 Brian Schwartz，《中国流亡者郭文贵利用虚假信息网络推销未经证实的治疗新冠药物》，CNBC（2021年9月7日）[http][misinformation-network.html;] [http][conspiracies-disinformation/.]\n\n17 参见例如 Dan Friedman，《流亡中国大亨结识史蒂夫·班农，虚假信息大混乱随之而来》，Mother Jones（2022年3月至4月）[http][gettr-steve-bannon/;] Jeanne Whalen, Craig Timberg 与 Eva Dou，《研究人员称与史蒂夫·班农有关联的中国商人是庞大虚假信息网络的幕后推手》，华盛顿邮报（2021年5月17日，美国东部夏令时间上午8:00）[http][steve-bannon/;] Echo Hui 与 Hagar Cohen，《他们曾为郭文贵和史蒂夫·班农贩卖虚假信息，如今他们站了出来》，ABC News（2020年10月31日，下午3:12）[http] [11-01/behind-the-scenes-of-the-guo-and-bannon-led-propaganda-machine/12830824/.]\n\n18 参见《财务状况说明书》，第3页 [案卷号 77]。\n\n19 参见第11号债权证明附件A（将该债权描述为“因可能违反联邦证券法而产生的罚款、追缴违法所得和判决前利息”，并指出“[美国]证券交易委员会……一直在对涉及债务人的某些破产前行为进行调查”）。另见 GTV Media Group, Inc.，《证券法发布令第10979号》，2021 WL 4149064 第1、5段（2021年9月13日）（认定与债务人有关联的公司（即GTV Media Group, Inc.（“GTV”）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.和Voice of Guo Media, Inc.）因“招揽数千名个人投资认购GTV普通股”以及“招揽个人投资认购其被称为G-Coins或G-Dollars的数字资产证券”而违反了《证券法》，从而使得这些公司“截至约2020年7月，共同从包括美国个人在内的5000多名投资者处筹集了约4.87亿美元”）。\n\n20 参见本动议第18-27段。\n\n6. 债务人在本动议中的主张亦是如出一辙。债务人将其绝大部分注意力放在对与本第11章案件毫无关系的众多事件和法律程序的冗长讨论上。20 他提出的据称与本第11章案件有某种关联的唯一指控，涉及普衡律师事务所(i)过去在无关事务中代理与PAX最终母公司相关的实体（以下简称“PAG实体”）以及(ii)在中国的办公室和业务。然而，这两项内容均未构成任何合理的问题。第一点已在受托人于2022年7月12日提交的补充声明[案卷号 538]（以下简称“补充声明”）中予以说明；至于第二点，退一步讲即使债务人离奇的幻想属实，也与受托人的任命无关，因为中国政府和中国共产党（统称“中国政府”）均不是本案中的债权人或利害关系方。\n\n7. 债务人唯一实际的法律抗辩主张——即他不知何故有权依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Federal Rules of Civil Procedure，下称“《规则》”，单独一条下称“《规则》某条”）21第 60(b)(2) 条和第 60(b)(6) 条获得救济——同样是错误的。债务人完全未能达到寻求此类救济所承担的举证责任，而判例法确立了此类救济仅在例外或极其特殊的情况下才可适用。\n\n8. 该动议（Motion）应予驳回，以便受托人（Trustee）可以继续开展调查债务人资产及财务状况、追收破产财产资产以实现债权人追偿最大化这一严肃事务。\n异议\nI. 债务人未达到依据第 60(b)(2) 条获得救济的举证责任\n\n9. 第 60(b)(2) 条允许法院在出现“经合理勤勉仍无法及时发现以依据第 59(b) 条申请重新审理的新发现证据”时，依其自由裁量权对终审判决给予救济。参见 Reese v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 293 F.R.D. 617, 621–22 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd sub nom. Reese v. Bahash, 574 F. App'x 21 (2d Cir. 2014)（“是否准予此类动议的决定属于地区\n\n21 除某些与本案无关的情形外，依据《联邦破产诉讼规则》（Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure）第 9024 条，第 60 条适用于破产案件。\n\n法院合理的自由裁量权范围。”（引自 United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d 370, 391 (2d Cir. 2001)））。\n\n10. 依据第 60(b)(2) 条提出的动议“通常不受青睐”，且“唯有在证明存在例外情形时才宜予准许”。United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d 370, 391 (2d Cir. 2001)；另见 Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir.1986)（“鉴于 60(b) 条允许非常规的司法救济，其仅在证明存在例外情形时方可援引。”）。\n\n11. 此外，正如法院在 Reese v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 案中所阐述的，援引 United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters 案：\n\n依据第 60(b)(2) 条寻求救济的当事人必须符合“严苛的”标准，并负有证明下列全部四项要件的举证责任：\n\n(1) 新发现的证据属于在审理或其他决定性程序进行时即已存在的事实；(2) 尽管已尽合理勤勉，动议人必定是具有合理解释地对此不知情；(3) 该证据必须具备可采性，且其重要程度很可能会改变判决结果；以及 (4) 该证据不得仅仅是累加性或弹劾性的。\n\n同上（强调为后加）（内部引文省略）。另见 Emp. Wellness Servs., Inc. v. APS Healthcare Bethesda, Inc., No. 11 CIV. 9718 (ER), 2017 WL 456466, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2017)（同理）；Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Crow & Sutton Assocs., 228 F.R.D. 125, 129 (N.D.N.Y. 2005), aff'd sub nom. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Crow & Sutton Assocs., Inc., 172 F. App'x 382 (2d Cir. 2006)（同理）。\n\n12. 在本案中，债务人未能达到第 60(b)(2) 条所施加的严苛举证责任。该动议并未提出任何债务人尽到合理勤勉仍有合理解释不知情的新发现证据，亦未提出任何重要到足以改变关于受托人任命听证会（下称“7月8日听证会”）结果的新发现证据。\n\n13. Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）（如同许多其他美国律师事务所一样）在中国设有办公室并在中国开展业务的事实属于公开常识，在 United States Trustee（美国联邦破产受托人）对受托人的任命于听证会前一天即 2022年7月7日 公开后，债务人或其法律顾问只需进行几分钟的互联网检索便可发现。22 这并非属于债务人具有合理解释而不知情的新发现证据。\n\n14. 关于 Paul Hastings 在中国业务的信息亦不会改变 7月8日听证会 的结果。在诸多原因中，这是由于中国政府并非本第 11 章破产案件中的债权人或利害关系人（party in interest）：债务人未在其资产负债表中列出中国政府，且中国政府亦未提交过债权申报证明、出庭通知书或其他诉状。参见 In re MF Glob. Holdings Ltd., 469 B.R. 177, 188 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012)（“在本案中不具有财务利益的实体通常被排除在‘利害关系人’的定义之外。”（引自 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1109.03 (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2011)））；In re City of Bridgeport, 128 B.R. 30, 31-32 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1991)（利害关系人的概念“已逐渐指代在本案中具有直接系争法律利益的实体”）。因此，债务人显然认为被要求的披露——即关于 Paul Hastings 在中国的所有业务和客户——就受托人的无利害冲突性（disinterestedness）和任命问题而言，是无关紧要的。\n\n15. 从根本上讲，支撑该动议的整个前提——即一家在中国开展业务的美国本土律师事务所必定受控于中国政府或听命于中国政府——完全是疯狂的互联网阴谋论的产物。按照债务人的逻辑，每一家\n\n22 参见《第 11 章受托人任命通知书》（Notice of Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee）[Docket No. 514]；《第 11 章受托人任命申请书》（Application for Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee）[Docket No. 515]。\n\n在中国开展业务的美国公司都将受到中国政府的玷污并听从其吩咐。法院决不能允许债务人利用此类毫无根据的指控来拖延本第 11 章案件的进程。正如 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官在债务人的“规避与蔑视法庭行为”23导致其与 PAX 在 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的诉讼被拖延达五年之久后所警告的：“如果身为亿万富翁的诉讼当事人可以在蓄意且故意违反法院命令的同时，在纽约及美国其他地方企图利用法院程序，那么法治将不复存在。”24 债务人不应被允许在本法院面前耍弄同样的把戏。\n\n16. 同样地，关于 Paul Hastings 与 PAG Entities（太盟实体）关系的任何所谓新发现证据，都无法支持依据第 60(b)(2) 条给予救济。债务人的法律顾问在 7月8日听证会 上知晓了已披露的与 PAG 实体之间关联的存在，并在法院追问时拒绝就受托人的任命提出异议。25 该问题随后已在《补充声明》（Supplemental Declaration）中予以处理并解决。\n\n17. 鉴于上述情况，法院应驳回债务人依据第 60(b)(2) 条请求救济的主张。\nII. 债务人未达到依据第 60(b)(6) 条的举证责任\n\n18. 第 60(b)(6) 条规定法院可依其自由裁量权基于“证明救济合理的任何其他理由”对终审判决给予救济，该条向动议人施加了比第 60(b)(2) 条更为严苛的举证责任。此类救济极少适用，且仅在\n\n23 Ostrager 裁定书，第 7 页。（“Kwok（郭文贵）针对 Lady May（梅号游艇）精心策划的空壳骗局所涉及的手段，与郭文贵在长达五年的未决诉讼期间所采取的每一次规避和蔑视法庭行为如出一辙，这就是为什么本案有 1,180 项诉讼记录条目的原因所在。”）。\n\n24 同上，第 10 页。\n\n25 参见附于本文件作为附件 B 的 2022年7月8日听证会 记录副本，第 13:14-24 行（针对法院关于“除非有人对任命 Despins 先生担任第 11 章受托人有其他顾虑或理由想要提出，否则我将准予 United States Trustee 的申请并下达裁定，批准任命 Despins 先生为本案的第 11 章受托人……我给所有人最后一次机会来说明为什么我不应该这样做”的声明，债务人的法律顾问答复称：“[除]了我已经说过的内容之外，我们没有其他要补充的了”）。\n\n“极其特殊的情形”下才可获得。参见 Gainey v. Murray, No. 05-CV-00532F, 2013 WL 5488452, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2013)（“第 60(b)(6) 条项下的救济……极为罕见，且仅在极其特殊的情形下方具可行性，[且]此类救济应审慎使用。”）（内部引文及引号省略）；另见 Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2649, 162 L. Ed. 2d 480 (2005)（“[先]例要求寻求第 60(b)(6) 条救济的动议人证明存在证明重新启动终审判决合理性的极其特殊情形。”）（内部引文及引号删除）；178 E. 80th St. Owners, Inc. v. Jenkins, No. 00 CIV 5959RCCFM JM, 2001 WL 619063, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2001)（第 60(b)(6) 条“仅在动议人证明存在极其特殊的情形，或者判决将造成极端和不当的困境时，方可适当地援引。”（引自 In re Emergency Beacon Corp., 666 F.2d 754, 758–59 (2d Cir.1981)））。此外，第 60(b)(6) 条项下的动议人必须提供证明救济合理的“高度令人信服的”证据。参见 In re Taub, 421 B.R. 37, 42 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009)（引自 Boehner v. Heise, No. 03 Civ. 05453 (THK), 2009 WL 1360975, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2009)）。\n\n19. 在本案中，债务人支持依据第 60(b)(6) 条给予救济的主张建立在相同的“新发现证据”理论之上，正如上文所讨论的，该理论甚至根本无法支持依据第 60(b)(2) 条给予救济，更不用说第 60(b)(6) 条了。26 债务人未能证明存在由高度令人信服的证据所支持的、能够证明依据第 60(b)(6) 条给予救济合理的极其特殊情形，其对此类救济的请求应予驳回。\n结论\n\n20. 基于上述理由，法院应驳回债务人的动议。\n\n26 参见动议第 47 段（“由于受托人和 UST 未向法院进行充分披露，导致法院在做出《Despins 任命裁定》（Despins Appointment Order）时依赖了不完整的证据，因此撤销《Despins 任命裁定》最符合正义原则。”）。\n\n综上所述，基于前述理由，受托人谨请求法院驳回该动议。\n\n日期：2022年7月20日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（临时出庭律师申请待批）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com","key_entities":["GETTR","Guo","Despins","Paul Hastings","Kwok","Miles Guo","GTV","Chinese Communist Party","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","Murray","Saraca"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3578,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:46:52"}