{"id":"court_ctb_579_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":579,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(
Instructions on Reverse)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(
Instructions on Reverse) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS | DEFENDANTS
Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo a/k/a Miles Guo a/k/a | | | |\n| Rong Zhang, Xiaodan Wang and Chong Shen Raphanella | Miles Kwok a/k/a Nan Wu a/k/a Haoyun Guo | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.)
(203)
777-5501; Thomas J. Sansone, Carmody Torrance | ATTORNEYS (If Known)
Brown Rudnick LLP, Seven Times Square, New York | | | |\n| Sandak & Hennessey LLP, P.O. Box 1950, New Haven, | NY 10036 and Zeisler & Zeisler PC, 10 Middle | | | |\n| CT 06509-1950 | Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604 | | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only) | PARTY (Check One Box Only) | | | |\n| o
o U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
Debtor | o U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
or Debtor | | | |\n| o Other
ra Creditor | o Other
o Creditor | | | |\n| o
Trustee | o Trustee | | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION (WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED) | | | | |\n| Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the debt owed by the debtor is non-dischargeable because it resulted from the debtor's false
pretenses, false representations and/or actual fraud, regarding the sale of securities to the plaintiffs. | | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT | | | | |\n| (Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1,
first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | | |\n| •
FRBP 7001(1) — Recovery of Money/Property | •
FRBP 7001(6)— Dischargeability (continued) | | | |\n| 11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property | - §523(a)(5), domestic support
61-Dischargeability | | | |\n| •
12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference | 3
•
- §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
68-Dischargeability | | | |\n| •
•
13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer | •
- §523(a)(8), student loan
63-Dischargeability | | | |\n| 14-Recovery of money/property - other | - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation
64-Dischargeability | | | |\n| •
FRBP 7001(2) — Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien | •
than domestic support)
(other
65-Dischargeability
- other | | | |\n| 21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) — Approval of Sale of Property | •
FRBP 7001(7)
— Injunctive Relief
relief— imposition of stay
71-Injunctive | | | |\n| 31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | •
72-Injunctive
relief— other | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4)— Objection/Revocation of Discharge | Subordination of Claim or Interest
FRBP 7001(8) | | | |\n| ri 41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | •
of claim or interest
81-Subordination | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5)— Revocation of Confirmation | Declaratory Judgment
FRBP 7001(9) | | | |\n| •
51-Revocation of confirmation | ri 91-Declaratory
judgment | | | |\n| •
FRBP 7001(6) — Dischargeability | Determination of Removed Action
FRBP 7001(10) | | | |\n| 66-Dischargeability - §523(aX1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims | •
of removed claim or cause
01
-Determination | | | |\n| El 62-Dischargeability - §523(aX2), false pretenses, false representation, | | | | |\n| actual fraud
3 | Other
3 | | | |\n| 67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny | Case — 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
SS-SIPA
3
(e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court
02-Other | | | |\n| (continued next column) | if unrelated
to bankruptcy case) | | | |\n| N Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law | at Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | | |\n| o Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ 114,000,000.00 | | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | | |\n| Declaratory judgment, finding debtor's debt to plaintiffs and class members are non-dischareable | | | | |\n\n#### B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR
HO WAN KWOK | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO.
22-50073 | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING
CONNECTICUT | | DIVISION OFFICE
BRIDGEPORT | NAME OF JUDGE
JULIE A. MANNING | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING NO. | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
/s/ Thomas J Sansone | | | | |\n| DATE
07/20/2022 | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
Thomas J. Sansone | | |\n\n#### INSTRUCTIONS\n\nThe filing of a bankruptcy case creates an \"estate\" under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court which consists of all of the property of the debtor, wherever that property is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there may be lawsuits over the property or property rights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtor's discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding.\n\nA party filing an adversary proceeding must also must complete and file Form 1040, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically through the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF). (CM/ECF captures the information on Form 1040 as part of the filing process.) When completed, the cover sheet summarizes basic information on the adversary proceeding. The clerk of court needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity.\n\nThe cover sheet and the information contained on it do not replace or supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, the Bankruptcy Rules, or the local rules of court. The cover sheet, which is largely selfexplanatory, must be completed by the plaintiffs attorney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover sheet must be submitted to the clerk for each complaint filed.\n\nPlaintiffs and Defendants. Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the complaint.\n\nAttorneys. Give the names and addresses of the attorneys, if known.\n\nParty. Check the most appropriate box in the first column for the plaintiffs and the second column for the defendants.\n\nDemand. Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint.\n\nSignature. This cover sheet must be signed by the attorney of record in the box on the second page of the form. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, a member of the firm must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not represented by an attorney, the plaintiff must sign.\n\n#### UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n| | Chapter 11 Case No. | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--|\n| In Re: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | | |\n| Debtor. | | |\n| RONG ZHANG, XIAODAN WANG, and
CHONG SHEN RAPHANELLA, | Adv. Proc. No. | |\n| Plaintiffs,
v. | July 20, 2022 | |\n| HQ WAN KWOK, a/k/a Wengui Guo, a/k/a
M
iles Guo, a/k/a/ Miles Kwok, a/k/a Nan Wu,
a/k/a Haoyun Guo, | | |\n| Defendant. | | |\n\n# CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT\n\nPursuant to Section 523 of Title 11 of the United States Code (as amended, the\n\n\"Bankruptcy Code\"),Rong Zhang, Xiaodan Wang, and Chong Shen Raphanella (\"Plaintiffs\"),\n\nindividually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, file this complaint seeking a\n\ndetermination that certain debts due and owing to Plaintiffs and members of the putative Class\n\n(defined below) are non-dischargeable (this \"Complaint\"),and allege as follows:\n\n### THEPARTIES:\n\n- 1. Plaintiff Rong Zhang is a resident of the State of California.\n- 2. Plaintiff Xiaodan Wang is a resident of Canada.\n- 3. Plaintiff Chong Shen Raphanella is a resident of the State of Maryland.\n\n4. Ho Wan Kwok, a/k/a Wengui Guo, a/k/a Miles Guo, a/k/a Miles Kwok, a/k/a Nan Wu a/k/a Haoyun Guo (the \"Debtor\")is a debtor pursuant to section 101(13) of the Bankruptcy Code. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"),the Debtor filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (this \"Cour\"t ) under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor is an individual who alleges that he is a resident of the State of Connecticut, having an address of 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut 06831.\n\n5. As of the Petition Date, the Debtor owed the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class in excess of \\$114 million in compensatory damages from the fraudulent scheme described herein, exclusive of costs and interest.\n\n### JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n- 6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§157 and 1334.\n- 7. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(I).\n- 8. Venue of this action is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1409(a).\n\n# FACTUAL ALLEGATIONSCOMMON TOALLCLAIMS\n\n9. On June 21, 2021, Plaintiffs commenced a class action (the \"Class Action\") entitled Rang Zhang, et al. v. Voice of Guo Media Inc, et al., No. CV-21-01079-PHX-SMB, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (the \"Class Action Court\")against the Debtor, GTV Media Group Inc. (\"GTV\"), Saraca Media Group Inc. (\"Saraca\")(GTV and Saraca are collectively referred to as the \"MediaEntities\"),Sara Wei (\"Wei\"), Voice of Guo Media Inc. (\"VOG\"), and the Rule of Law Foundation III Inc. and the Rule of Law Society IV Inc. (the \"ROL Entities\").The Class Action alleged, among other things, that the Debtor and his codefendants engaged in a scheme to defraud investors, including Plaintiffs, through the sale of unregistered securities of GTV (the \"Stock Offering\").\n\n10. Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint (the \"FAC\") on November 5, 2021. The FAC asserted the following claims against the Debtor: violation of ARS §44-1991 (Fraud in the Purchase or Sale of Securities); violation of ARS §44-1998 (Offers and sales; Liability), common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The FAC is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference herein.\n\n1 1. On December 17, 2021, the Debtor (along with the Media Entities) moved to dismiss the claims in the FAC for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. Such motion did not seek to dismiss the statutory and common law fraud, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims. The ROL Entities separately moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them on both substantive and jurisdictional grounds.\n\n12. On February 15, 2022, after the motions were sub judice, the Debtor commenced a bankruptcy case under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, thus triggering an automatic stay for himself in the Class Action.\n\n13. On June 2, 2022, the Clerk of the Class Action Court entered a default against defendants Wei and VOG.\n\n14. On July 6, 2022, the Class Action Court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the FAC. In the July 6, 2022 Order (the \"Order\"),a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference herein, the Class Action Court denied the motion by the Debtor and the Media Entities to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim, but granted that portion of the negligent misrepresentation claim to the extent that it sought recovery\n\nregarding statements about future actions. Nevertheless, due to the automatic stay, the Order only decided the motion to dismiss as made by the Media Entities and did not make any determinations as to the Debtor.\n\n15. The Order also granted the motion of the ROL Entities to dismiss, solely on jurisdictional grounds.\n\n### CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS\n\n16. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and/or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as incorporated by Rule 7023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy, on behalf of all persons who made payments to VOG to purchase GTV securities and never received such securities or a refund of the money paid, and were damaged thereby (the \"Class\").\n\n17. Excluded from the Class are the Debtor, Wei, and their families, heirs, and assigns, Saraca, GTV, VOG, and their directors, officers, legal representatives, employees, agents, successors, subsidiaries, assigns and affiliates. Plaintiffs reserve the right to revise the Class definition based on information subsequently obtained.\n\n18. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are more than 4500 members of the Class, many of whom reside in the United States. Class member may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. mail, electronic mail, internet postings and/or published notice.\n\n19. The Plaintiffs' claims described above and asserted in the FAC are typical of the claims of the Class. The Plaintiffs and Class members all sustained damages arising out of the Debtor's same course of conduct in a substantially identical manner.\n\n20. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class, which predominate over questions that may affect individual Class members, include, inter alia:\n\na. Whether the Debtor offered and sold unregistered securities in violation of the Arizona Revised Statutes;\n\nb. Whether the Debtor, by his involvement and participation in a scheme to offer and sell unregistered securities, employed a device, scheme or artifice to defraud the Plaintiffs and Class members, or engaged in transactions, practice or course of business, which operated as fraud;\n\nc. Whether the Debtor breached his fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and the Class;\n\nd. Whether the Debtor, by his involvement and participation in a scheme to offer and sell unregistered securities, conspired to defraud and/or breach his fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the Class;\n\ne. Whether the Debtor was unjustly enriched by his conduct;\n\nf. Whether the Debtor failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in connection with the offer and sale of unregistered securities and negligently misrepresented facts regarding the Stock Offering to Plaintiffs and the Class;\n\ng. Whether the members of the Class have sustained damages as a result of the Debtor's conduct; and\n\nh. Whether the Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to a declaration that the claims described above and asserted in the FAC are non-dischargeable.\n\n21. Plaintiffs will adequately protect the interests of the Class and have retained counsel experienced in class action litigation. Plaintiffs have no interests that conflict with those of the other members of the Class.\n\n22. Class action status is also warranted under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Bankruptcy Rule 7023 because the Debtor acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Class, thereby making final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.\n\n23. Class action status is also warranted under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Bankruptcy Rule 7023 because questions of law or fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy.\n\n## COUNTI:DECLARATORY JUDGMENT\n\n### Nondischargeability, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A)\n\n24. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each paragraph above as if fully set forth herein.\n\n25. The claims described above and asserted in the FAC against the Debtor, which is incorporated herein by reference, for violations of ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998, common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment are not dischargeable because they arise from \"money...obtained by — ... false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor's or an insider's financial condition.\"\n\n26. As alleged in the FAC, the claims against the Debtor derive from money provided by investors, including the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, based on false\n\nrepresentations the Debtor made to such investors with the intent to deceive, the Plaintiffs' and the members of the Class's justifiable reliance on the representations, and the damages the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class sustained as a result of those representations.\n\n27. The claims against the Debtor in the FAC arise from money obtained by false representations or actual fraud within the meaning of section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, in the event that the Debtor is determined in the Class Action or any other proceeding to be liable on such claims, the Debtor's liability to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class should be determined to be non-dischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n# COUNTII:DECLARATORYJUDGMENT\n\n### Nondischargeability, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§523(a)(4)\n\n28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each paragraph above as if fully set forth herein.\n\n29. The claims described above and asserted in the FAC against the Debtor, which is incorporated herein by reference, for violations of ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998, common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment are not dischargeable because, at all relevant times, the Debtor served in a fiduciary capacity to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class.\n\n30. As alleged in the FAC, by soliciting the sale of unregistered securities to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, the Debtor served in a fiduciary capacity to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, committed fraud while acting in that fiduciary capacity, and the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class sustained monetary damages as a result of the fraud. In Arizona, the promoters of a corporation assume a fiduciary duty to stockholder investors. Johnson v. Nychyk, 517 P.2d 1079, 1081 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974); see also Facciola v. Greenberg\n\nTraurig, LLP, 781 F. Supp. 2d 913, 924 (D. Ariz. 2011), aff'd, 593 F. App'x 723 (9th Cir. 2015). The Order determined that the FAC asserted facts sufficient to establish the existence of a fiduciary duty.\n\n31. The claims against the Debtor in the FAC are for fraud or defalcation while the Debtor was acting in a fiduciary capacity within the meaning of Section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, in the event that the Debtor is determined in the Class Action or any other proceeding to be liable on such claims, the Debtor's liability to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class should be determined to be non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n## COUNTIII:DECLARATORY JUDGMENT\n\n### Nondischargeability, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6)\n\n32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each paragraph above as if fully set forth herein.\n\n33. The claims described above and asserted in the FAC against the Debtor, which is incorporated herein by reference, for violations of ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998, common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment are not dischargeable because they arise from conduct that was (a) willful, because the Debtor intended to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, (b) malicious, because it was wrongful, done intentionally, and necessarily caused injury and (c) in fact caused substantial injury to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class.\n\n34. The claims against the Debtor in the FAC are for willful and malicious actions within the meaning of Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, in the event that the Debtor is determined in the Class Action or any other proceeding to be liable on such claims,\n\nthe Debtor's liability to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class should be determined to be non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n# COUNTIV:DECLARATORYJUDGMENT\n\n#### Nondischargeability, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(19)\n\n35. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each paragraph above as if fully set forth herein.\n\n36. The claims described above and asserted in the FAC against the Debtor, which is incorporated herein by reference, for violations of ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998, common law fraud and civil conspiracy are not dischargeable because Section 523(a)(19) specifically exempts debt that \"(A) is for (i) the violation of any of the Federal securities laws ... any of the State securities laws, or any regulation or order issued under such Federal or State securities laws; or (ii) common law fraud, deceit, or manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of any security; and (B) results, before, on, or after the date on which the petition was filed, from (i) any judgment, order, consent order, or decree entered in any Federal or State judicial or administrative proceeding; (ii) any settlement agreement entered into by the debtor; or (iii) any court or administrative order for any damages, fine, penalty, citation, restitutionary payment, disgorgement payment, attorney fee, cost, or other payment owed by the debtor.\"\n\n37. Accordingly, in the event that the Debtor is determined in the Class Action or any other proceeding to be liable on such claims, the Debtor's liability to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class should be determined to be non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(19) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### RELIEFREQUESTED\n\nWHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully requests judgment from the Court:\n\n(a) Declaring the liability of Debtor to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class for violations of ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998, common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, as determined in the Class Action or any other proceeding, are non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n(b) Declaring the liability of Debtor to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class for violations of ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998, common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, as determined in the Class Action or any other proceeding, are non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n(c) Declaring the liability of Debtor to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class for violations of ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998, common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment, as determined in the Class Action or any other proceeding, are non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n(d) Declaring the liability of Debtor to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class for violations of ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998, common law fraud and civil conspiracy, as determined in the Class Action or any other proceeding, are non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(19) of the Bankruptcy Code; and\n\n(e) Granting such other and further relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: July 20, 2022 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n/s/ Thomas J. Sansone\n\nThomas J. Sansone Federal Bar No. ct00671 Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP 195 Church Street P.O. Box 1950 New Haven, CT 06509-1950 Telephone: (203) 777-5501 Fax No. (203) 784-3199 E-mail: tsansone@carmodylaw.com","body_zh":"B1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面页\n（\n背面说明） 对抗程序编号\n（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告 被告\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），又名 Wengui Guo，又名 Miles Guo，又名\nRong Zhang（张荣）、Xiaodan Wang（王小丹）及 Chong Shen Raphanella Miles Kwok，又名 Nan Wu，又名 Haoyun Guo\n律师（律师事务所名称、地址及电话号码）\n(203)\n777-5501；Thomas J. Sansone，Carmody Torrance 律师（如已知）\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克有限责任合伙律师事务所），Seven Times Square，New York\nSandak & Hennessey LLP，P.O. Box 1950，New Haven， NY 10036，以及 Zeisler & Zeisler PC，10 Middle\nCT 06509-1950 Street，Bridgeport，CT 06604\n当事人（仅勾选一个方框） 当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\no\no 美国受托人/破产管理人\n债务人 o 美国受托人/破产管理人\n或债务人\no 其他\nra 债权人 o 其他\no 债权人\no\n受托人 o 受托人\n诉因（请简要说明诉因，包括所涉全部美国法条）\n原告请求宣告债务人所欠债务不可免责，因为该债务源于债务人就向原告出售证券所作出的虚假借口、虚假陈述及/或实际欺诈。\n诉讼性质\n（最多为五（5）个方框编号，从主要诉因编号为1开始，\n第一备选诉因为2，第二备选诉因为3，依此类推。）\n•\nFRBP 7001(1) — 追偿金钱/财产 •\nFRBP 7001(6) — 可免责性（续）\n11—追偿金钱/财产 — §542 财产交付 — §523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n61—可免责性\n•\n12—追偿金钱/财产 — §547 优先受偿 3\n•\n— §523(a)(6)，故意且恶意造成的损害\n68—可免责性\n•\n•\n13—追偿金钱/财产 — §548 欺诈性转让 •\n— §523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n63—可免责性\n14—追偿金钱/财产 — 其他 — §523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n64—可免责性\n•\nFRBP 7001(2) — 留置权的效力、优先顺位或范围 •\n家庭扶养以外）\n（其他\n65—可免责性\n— 其他\n21—留置权或其他财产权益的效力、优先顺位或范围\nFRBP 7001(3) — 批准出售财产 •\nFRBP 7001(7)\n— 禁令救济\n救济—施加中止\n71—禁令\n31—批准出售破产财产及共同所有人财产 — §363(h) •\n72—禁令\n救济—其他\nFRBP 7001(4)—对免责提出异议/撤销免责 债权或权益从属\nFRBP 7001(8)\nri 41—对免责提出异议/撤销免责 — §727(c),(d),(e) •\n债权或权益\n81—从属\nFRBP 7001(5)—撤销确认 确认判决\nFRBP 7001(9)\n•\n51—撤销确认 ri 91—确认\n判决\n•\nFRBP 7001(6) — 可免责性 已移送诉讼的裁定\nFRBP 7001(10)\n66—可免责性 — §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税款债权 •\n已移送的债权或诉因\n\n—裁定\nEl 62—可免责性 — §523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈\n3 其他\n\n67—可免责性 — §523(a)(4)，受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃 案件 — 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\nSS—SIPA\n\n（例如，如与破产案件无关，本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼\n02—其他\n（续见下一栏） ）\nN 如本案涉及州法实体问题，请勾选 at 如本案主张依据 FRCP 23 提起集体诉讼，请勾选\no 如诉状中要求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额 \\$ 114,000,000.00\n请求的其他救济\n确认判决，认定债务人对原告及集体成员所负债务不可免责\nB1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所产生的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名\nHO WAN KWOK 破产案件编号\n22-50073\n案件审理地区\nCONNECTICUT（康涅狄格州） 分院办公室\nBRIDGEPORT（布里奇波特） 法官姓名\nJULIE A. MANNING\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告 被告 对抗\n程序编号\n对抗程序审理地区 分院办公室 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/ Thomas J Sansone\n日期\n07/20/2022 律师（或原告）正楷姓名\nThomas J. Sansone\n说明\n\n提交破产案件将在破产法院管辖下设立“财产集合”，其中包括债务人的全部财产，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财产集合范围广泛且法院管辖权宽泛，可能会就该财产集合的财产或财产权利发生诉讼。也可能发生关于债务人免责的诉讼。此类诉讼如在破产法院提起，称为对抗程序。\n\n提交对抗程序的一方还必须填写并提交表格1040，即《对抗程序封面页》，除非该方通过法院案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗程序。（CM/ECF 将表格1040中的信息作为提交程序的一部分予以获取。）填写完成后，该封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记员需要该信息以处理对抗程序并编制有关法院活动的必需统计报告。\n\n该封面页及其中所载信息不替代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规所要求的诉状或其他文书的提交和送达。该封面页大部分内容不言自明，必须由原告律师填写（如原告没有律师代理，则由原告填写）。每一份提交的诉状均须向书记员单独提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。请准确列明原告和被告在诉状中所载的姓名。\n\n律师。如已知，请列明律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。在第一栏为原告勾选最适当的方框，并在第二栏为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。在诉状中填入所请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由登记在案的律师在表格第二页的方框中签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，必须由该事务所的一名成员签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则必须由原告签署。\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格州地区 布里奇波特分院\n\n第11章案件编号\n\n关于： 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n债务人。\nRONG ZHANG（张荣）、XIAODAN WANG（王小丹）及\nCHONG SHEN RAPHANELLA， 对抗程序编号\n原告，\n诉 2022年7月20日\nHQ WAN KWOK，又名 Wengui Guo，又名\nMiles Guo，又名 Miles Kwok，又名 Nan Wu，\n又名 Haoyun Guo，\n被告。\n集体诉讼诉状\n\n根据经修订的《美国法典》第11编第523条（以下简称“《破产法》”），Rong Zhang、Xiaodan Wang及 Chong Shen Raphanella（以下简称“原告”）以个人身份并代表所有其他处境相同的人士，提交本诉状，请求裁定原告及拟议集体（定义见下文）成员应收的某些债务不可免责（以下简称“本诉状”），并陈述如下：\n当事人：\n\n1. 原告 Rong Zhang 是 California（加利福尼亚州）居民。\n\n2. 原告 Xiaodan Wang 是 Canada（加拿大）居民。\n\n3. 原告 Chong Shen Raphanella 是 Maryland（马里兰州）居民。\n\n4. Ho Wan Kwok，又名 Wengui Guo，又名 Miles Guo，又名 Miles Kwok，又名 Nan Wu，又名 Haoyun Guo（以下简称“债务人”），系《破产法》第101(13)条所称的债务人。2022年2月15日（以下简称“申请日”），债务人根据《破产法》第11章向 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院，以下简称“本法院”）提交了自愿破产申请。债务人为个人，其称自己是 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）居民，地址为 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut 06831。\n\n5. 截至申请日，债务人因本文所述欺诈计划欠付原告及集体成员超过 \\$114 million 的补偿性损害赔偿，不包括费用和利息。\n管辖权与审判地\n\n6. 本法院根据 28 U.S.C. §§157 and 1334 对本案拥有管辖权。\n\n7. 本案根据 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(I) 属于核心程序。\n\n8. 根据 28 U.S.C. §1409(a)，本案在本地区的审判地适当。\n所有请求共通的事实主张\n\n9. 2021年6月21日，原告在 United States District Court for the District of Arizona（美国亚利桑那州联邦地区法院，以下简称“集体诉讼法院”）提起题为 Rang Zhang, et al. v. Voice of Guo Media Inc, et al., No. CV-21-01079-PHX-SMB 的集体诉讼（以下简称“集体诉讼”），被告包括债务人、GTV Media Group Inc.（以下简称“GTV”）、Saraca Media Group Inc.（以下简称“Saraca”）（GTV 和 Saraca 合称“媒体实体”）、Sara Wei（以下简称“Wei”）、Voice of Guo Media Inc.（以下简称“VOG”），以及 Rule of Law Foundation III Inc. 和 Rule of Law Society IV Inc.（以下简称“ROL 实体”）。集体诉讼主张，其中包括，债务人及其共同被告通过出售未经登记的 GTV 证券（以下简称“股票发行”）实施了一项欺诈包括原告在内投资者的计划。\n\n10. 原告于 2021年11月5日提交了经修订的集体诉讼诉状（以下简称“FAC”）。FAC 对债务人提出以下请求：违反 ARS §44-1991（证券购买或出售中的欺诈）；违反 ARS §44-1998（要约和出售；责任）、普通法欺诈、违反信义义务、民事共谋、过失性失实陈述及不当得利。FAC 作为附件1附于本文件，并通过援引纳入本文。\n\n11. 2021年12月17日，债务人（连同媒体实体）提出动议，请求驳回 FAC 中关于违反信义义务和过失性失实陈述的请求。该动议未请求驳回法定及普通法欺诈、民事共谋和不当得利请求。ROL 实体另行提出动议，请求基于实体和管辖权理由驳回对其提出的请求。\n\n12. 2022年2月15日，在各项动议提交审理后，债务人根据《破产法》第11章启动破产案件，从而触发集体诉讼中针对其本人的自动中止。\n\n13. 2022年6月2日，集体诉讼法院书记员对被告 Wei 和 VOG 作出缺席登记。\n\n14. 2022年7月6日，集体诉讼法院部分准许、部分驳回驳回 FAC 的动议。在 2022年7月6日裁定（以下简称“该裁定”）中，该裁定副本作为附件2附于本文件，并通过援引纳入本文，集体诉讼法院驳回了债务人和媒体实体请求驳回违反信义义务请求的动议，但准许了过失性失实陈述请求中寻求就未来行为陈述获得追偿的部分。\n\n然而，由于自动中止，该裁定仅裁决了媒体实体提出的驳回动议，且未对债务人作出任何裁定。\n\n15. 该裁定还仅基于管辖权理由准许了 ROL 实体的驳回动议。\n集体诉讼主张\n\n16. 原告根据经《联邦破产程序规则》第7023条纳入的《联邦民事诉讼规则》第23(a)、(b)(2)及/或(b)(3)条，为其自身并以集体诉讼方式代表所有向 VOG 支付款项以购买 GTV 证券、但从未收到该等证券或所付款项退款并因此受损的人员（以下简称“集体”）提起本案。\n\n17. 债务人、Wei 及其家属、继承人和受让人，Saraca、GTV、VOG 及其董事、高级职员、法定代表人、雇员、代理人、继承人、子公司、受让人及关联方，均不属于该集体。原告保留根据随后获得的信息修改集体定义的权利。\n\n18. 本类成员人数众多，无法将全体成员合并参加诉讼。据知悉和相信，本类成员超过4500人，其中许多人居住在美国。可通过经认可并经法院批准的通知发送方式，将本案待决情况通知本类成员，该等方式可包括美国邮件、电子邮件、互联网公告和/或公告通知。\n\n19. 上述原告主张并在FAC中提出的请求，与本类的请求具有典型性。原告和本类成员均因债务人相同的行为过程，以实质相同的方式遭受损害。\n\n20. 在法律和事实问题上存在明确界定的共同利益。优先于可能影响个别本类成员的问题、且为本类成员所共同具有的法律和事实问题包括但不限于：\n\na. 债务人是否违反Arizona Revised Statutes（亚利桑那州修订法典）而要约和出售未经登记的证券；\n\nb. 债务人是否通过参与要约和出售未经登记证券的计划，采用欺骗原告和本类成员的手段、计划或诡计，或从事构成欺诈的交易、行为或业务过程；\n\nc. 债务人是否违反其对原告和本类所负的信义义务；\n\nd. 债务人是否通过参与要约和出售未经登记证券的计划，共谋欺诈和/或违反其对原告和本类所负的信义义务；\n\ne. 债务人是否因其行为而获得不当得利；\n\nf. 债务人是否未就要约和出售未经登记证券尽到合理注意或具备合理胜任能力，并就股票发行向原告和本类作出过失性事实虚假陈述；\n\ng. 本类成员是否因债务人的行为而遭受损害；以及\n\nh. 原告和本类是否有权获得宣告，确认上述在FAC中提出的请求不得免除。\n\n21. 原告将充分保护本类的利益，并已聘请具有集体诉讼经验的律师。原告不存在与本类其他成员利益冲突的利益。\n\n22. 根据Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）Rule 23(b)(2)及Bankruptcy Rule（破产程序规则）7023，本案亦符合以集体诉讼方式进行的条件，因为债务人基于普遍适用于本类的理由采取或拒绝采取行动，从而使得就本类整体作出最终禁令救济或相应宣告性救济具有适当性。\n\n23. 根据Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）Rule 23(b)(3)及Bankruptcy Rule（破产程序规则）7023，本案亦符合以集体诉讼方式进行的条件，因为本类成员共同具有的法律或事实问题优先于仅影响个别成员的任何问题，且集体诉讼是公平、高效裁决本争议的优于其他可用方法的方式。\n\n第一罪名项：宣告判决\n依据11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A)的不得免除性\n\n24. 原告重述并再次主张以上各段，如同在此完整列明。\n\n25. 上述在FAC中针对债务人提出的、通过援引并入本文的关于违反ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998、普通法欺诈、违反信义义务、民事共谋、过失性虚假陈述及不当得利的请求不得免除，因为该等请求源于“通过——……虚假借口、虚假陈述或实际欺诈（但不包括关于债务人或内部人财务状况的陈述）……取得的金钱”。\n\n26. 如FAC所述，针对债务人的请求源于包括原告和本类成员在内的投资者提供的资金，该等资金系基于债务人为欺骗该等投资者而作出的虚假陈述、原告和本类成员对该等陈述的正当信赖，以及原告和本类成员因该等陈述所遭受的损害。\n\n27. FAC中针对债务人的请求，源于《破产法》section 523(a)(2)(A)所指通过虚假陈述或实际欺诈取得的金钱。因此，如在集体诉讼或任何其他程序中认定债务人应就该等请求承担责任，则应认定债务人对原告和本类成员所负的责任，根据《破产法》section 523(a)(2)(A)不得免除。\n\n第二罪名项：宣告判决\n依据11 U.S.C. §§523(a)(4)的不得免除性\n\n28. 原告重述并再次主张以上各段，如同在此完整列明。\n\n29. 上述在FAC中针对债务人提出的、通过援引并入本文的关于违反ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998、普通法欺诈、违反信义义务、民事共谋、过失性虚假陈述及不当得利的请求不得免除，因为在所有相关期间，债务人对原告和本类成员负有信义义务。\n\n30. 如FAC所述，债务人通过向原告和本类成员招揽出售未经登记的证券，对原告和本类成员负有信义义务，在履行该信义义务期间实施了欺诈，且原告和本类成员因该欺诈遭受了金钱损害。在亚利桑那州，公司发起人对股东投资者承担信义义务。Johnson v. Nychyk, 517 P.2d 1079, 1081 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974); see also Facciola v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 781 F. Supp. 2d 913, 924 (D. Ariz. 2011), aff'd, 593 F. App'x 723 (9th Cir. 2015). 该命令认定，FAC陈述的事实足以确立信义义务的存在。\n\n31. FAC中针对债务人的请求，系指债务人在以信义身份行事期间实施的欺诈或侵占，属于《破产法》Section 523(a)(4)所规定的情形。因此，如在集体诉讼或任何其他程序中认定债务人应就该等请求承担责任，则应认定债务人对原告和本类成员所负的责任，根据《破产法》Section 523(a)(4)不得免除。\n\n第三罪名项：宣告判决\n依据11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6)的不得免除性\n\n32. 原告重述并再次主张以上各段，如同在此完整列明。\n\n33. 上述在FAC中针对债务人提出的、通过援引并入本文的关于违反ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998、普通法欺诈、违反信义义务、民事共谋及不当得利的请求不得免除，因为其源于以下行为：(a) 故意的行为，因为债务人意图对原告和本类成员造成损害；(b) 恶意的行为，因为该行为不当、故意实施，并必然造成损害；以及(c) 实际对原告和本类成员造成实质性损害的行为。\n\n34. FAC中针对债务人的请求，系指《破产法》Section 523(a)(6)所指的故意及恶意行为。因此，如在集体诉讼或任何其他程序中认定债务人应就该等请求承担责任，则应认定债务人对原告和本类成员所负的责任，根据《破产法》Section 523(a)(6)不得免除。\n\n第四罪名项：宣告判决\n依据11 U.S.C. §523(a)(19)的不得免除性\n\n35. 原告重述并再次主张以上各段，如同在此完整列明。\n\n36. 上述在FAC中针对债务人提出的、通过援引并入本文的关于违反ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998、普通法欺诈及民事共谋的请求不得免除，因为Section 523(a)(19)明确排除下列债务：“(A) 属于(i) 违反任何联邦证券法……任何州证券法，或根据该等联邦或州证券法发布的任何规章或命令；或(ii) 与购买或出售任何证券有关的普通法欺诈、欺骗或操纵；以及(B) 在提交申请之日之前、当日或之后，因(i) 在任何联邦或州司法或行政程序中作出的任何判决、命令、同意命令或裁决；(ii) 债务人订立的任何和解协议；或(iii) 关于债务人应付的任何损害赔偿、罚金、处罚、罚款、赔偿性付款、追缴付款、律师费、费用或其他付款的任何法院或行政命令而产生的债务。”\n\n37. 因此，如在集体诉讼或任何其他程序中认定债务人应就该等请求承担责任，则应认定债务人对原告和本类成员所负的责任，根据《破产法》Section 523(a)(19)不得免除。\n\n请求的救济\n\n因此，原告恭请法院作出判决：\n\n(a) 宣告债务人因违反ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998、普通法欺诈、违反信义义务、民事共谋、过失性虚假陈述及不当得利而对原告和本类成员承担的责任，如在集体诉讼或任何其他程序中确定，根据《破产法》Section 523(a)(2)不得免除；\n\n(b) 宣告债务人因违反ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998、普通法欺诈、违反信义义务、民事共谋、过失性虚假陈述及不当得利而对原告和本类成员承担的责任，如在集体诉讼或任何其他程序中确定，根据《破产法》Section 523(a)(4)不得免除；\n\n(c) 宣告债务人因违反ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998、普通法欺诈、违反信义义务、民事共谋及不当得利而对原告和本类成员承担的责任，如在集体诉讼或任何其他程序中确定，根据《破产法》Section 523(a)(6)不得免除；\n\n(d) 宣告债务人因违反ARS §§44-1991 and 44-1998、普通法欺诈及民事共谋而对原告和本类成员承担的责任，如在集体诉讼或任何其他程序中确定，根据《破产法》Section 523(a)(19)不得免除；以及\n\n(e) 准予其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：July 20, 2022 New Haven（纽黑文）, Connecticut（康涅狄格州）\n\n/s/ Thomas J. Sansone\n\nThomas J. Sansone（托马斯·J·桑松）\nFederal Bar No. ct00671\nCarmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP（卡莫迪·托伦斯·桑达克和亨尼西律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nP.O. Box 1950\nNew Haven, CT 06509-1950\n电话：(203) 777-5501\n传真：(203) 784-3199\n电子邮箱：tsansone@carmodylaw.com","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","GTV","Ho Wan Kwok","Saraca","Miles Guo","Je","CIPA","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3825,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:01:30"}