{"id":"court_ctb_735_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":735,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"In re Ho Wan Kwok,* **Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) REPORT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE ON (I) COORDINATION OF CHAPTER 11","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# *In re Ho Wan Kwok,* **Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\n#### **REPORT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE ON (I) COORDINATION OF CHAPTER 11 CASES OF GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC AND HO WAN KWOK AND (II) HOUSEKEEPING MATTERS**\n\n# **AUGUST 12, 2022 STATUS CONFERENCE**\n\nDisclaimer: This presentation is based on preliminary observations of the Chapter 11 Trustee based on information available at this time and remains subject to ongoing review and investigation. Accordingly, the information contained herein remains subject to material changes. In addition, certain sections reflect the Chapter 11 Trustee's views on legal issues and no assurances can be given that the Court (or any other court) would agree with the Chapter 11 Trustee's views on such legal issues.\n\n\n\n# **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n| A. | In
du
io
tro
t
c
n | 2-
3 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|\n| B. | Co
d
in
io
f
Ge
U
S
d
In
d
iv
i
du
l
De
b
C
ha
1
1
Ca
t
to
te
or
a
n
o
ne
ve
r
an
a
r
p
r
se
s | 4-
1
0 |\n| C. | Tr
fe
f
Ve
f
Ge
U
S
C
ha
1
1
Ca
te
an
s
r o
nu
e
o
ne
ve
r
p
r
se | 1
1-
1
4 |\n| D. | Ho
ke
in
Ma
t
te
us
e
ep
g
rs | 1
1
5-
7 |\n\n\n\n# **A. INTRODUCTION**\n\n#### **1. This Chapter 11 Case and the Genever US Chapter 11 Case Are Closely Linked**\n\n- The chapter 11 cases of (a) Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Individual Debtor\") and (b) Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever US\"), the single asset real estate entity through which the Individual Debtor owns the apartment on the 18th floor of the Sherry Netherland (the \"Apartment\"), are closely linked.\n\t- o Both cases were filed in an attempt to protect the Individual Debtor's key identified U.S. assets—the Sherry Netherland Apartment and the *Lady May* yacht—from his creditors.\n\t- o Both cases raise the question of whether these assets in fact belong to the Individual Debtor (and, consequently, his chapter 11 estate).\n\t- o The chart on the following page summarizes the relationships between the Individual Debtor, his children, certain affiliated entities, and these two key identified assets.\n\n# **A. INTRODUCTION**\n\n**2. Chart Showing the Individual Debtor's Family Members and Certain Related Entities and Key Identified Assets**\n\n\n\n### **ALLEGED CORPORATE AND ASSET OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE. SUBJECT TO FURTHER DILIGENCE**.\n\nPAGE 3\n\n- **1. Genever US and Individual Debtor Chapter 11 Cases Arise from Same Asset Protection Strategy**\n\t- The filing of both the Genever US chapter 11 case and this chapter 11 case arise from the same legal strategy pursued by the Individual Debtor—shielding assets from his creditors, and doing so through transactions involving family members and related entities.\n\t- Both chapter 11 filings were precipitated by events in the New York Supreme Court (the \"NYS Court\") litigation (the \"PAX Litigation\") by Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") against the Individual Debtor.\n\t\t- o Genever US filed its chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on **October 12, 2020**. Genever US's only scheduled assets are the Apartment and a related security deposit (for a total scheduled value of \\$73 million).\n\t\t\t- • The Genever US petition was filed (1) shortly after the September 15, 2020 summary judgment order in the NYS Court (Justice Ostrager) holding the Individual Debtor liable to PAX for breach of contract in an amount of \\$116 million; and (2) immediately prior to Justice Ostrager's October 15, 2020 postjudgment restraining order.\n\t\t\t- • The October 15, 2020 restraining order stated that \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, 'the Lady May' are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\"\n\n#### **1. Genever US and Individual Debtor Chapter 11 Cases Arise from Same Asset Protection Strategy [cont'd]**\n\n- oSimilarly, the Individual Debtor filed his chapter 11 petition with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut on **February 15, 2022**, shortly after the entry of Justice Ostrager's decision and order on February 9, 2022 (the \"Final Contempt Order\") ordering the Individual Debtor to pay contempt fines of \\$134 million within five business days. The Individual Debtor has asserted he has essentially nothing in the way of assets beyond certain potential litigation claims.\n\t- • The Individual Debtor's chapter 11 filing gave him bankruptcy protection against PAX on multiple fronts. In addition to protecting him from the consequences of failing to comply with the Final Contempt Order, this chapter 11 filing also stayed PAX's motion (filed in January of 2022) to hold the Individual Debtor in contempt for failing to comply with Justice Ostrager's September 2021 order requiring him to turn over his shares in Genever BVI to PAX. The Individual Debtor remained holder of those shares until the appointment of the Trustee.\n\n#### **2. Genever US and Individual Debtor Chapter 11 Cases Involve Same Issues**\n\nThe Genever US chapter 11 case and this chapter 11 case both involve the same essential question:\n\n## **What assets belonged to the Individual Debtor (and thus his chapter 11 estate) as of the filing of his chapter 11 petition on February 15, 2022?**\n\n- In this chapter 11 case, these issues are already on the table.\n\t- HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited (\"HK USA\"), an entity that is allegedly owned by the Individual Debtor's daughter, has commenced an adversary proceeding seeking a ruling that the *Lady May* is property of HK USA and not of this chapter 11 estate.\n\t- In addition, the Individual Debtor has asserted that he is not the beneficial owner of the Apartment, or the Genever entities, under the theory that they are subject to a February 17, 2015 trust agreement (the \"Purported Trust Agreement\") in favor of Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\"), an entity allegedly owned by the Individual Debtor's son, and that it is Bravo Luck that is beneficial owner of the Apartment.\n\t\t- The Trustee has serious doubts about Bravo Luck's position and is currently reviewing potential challenges to the Purported Trust Agreement, including as to authenticity, validity, and enforceability, as well as actual fraudulent intent transfer challenges.\n\n#### **2. Genever US and Individual Debtor Chapter 11 Cases Involve Same Issues [cont'd]**\n\n- In the Genever US chapter 11 case, Bravo Luck Limited has filed a proof of claim asserting, among other things, that it is the beneficial owner of the Apartment by virtue of the Purported Trust Agreement. In the alternative, Bravo Luck asserts a general unsecured claim against Genever US for approximately \\$76 million based on allegedly supplying the funds used to purchase the Apartment and pay for related expenses.\n\t- o Unsecured claims against Genever US based on payment of Apartment-related expenses have also been filed by Qiang Guo (the Individual Debtor's son) and Golden Spring.\n- Similarly, PAX has filed a \\$116 million claim against Genever US in its chapter 11 case based on the *alter ego* theory it had asserted in NYS Court but which had not yet gone to trial at the time of the Individual Debtor's petition date (*i.e.*, February 15, 2022).\n\n#### **3. Genever US and Individual Debtor Chapter 11 Cases Should Be Closely Coordinated**\n\n- Given that the Genever US chapter 11 case and this chapter 11 case arise from the same circumstances, involve the same central issues, and would involve the same witnesses at trial, the two cases should be closely coordinated.\n\t- o The Individual Debtor's creditors (who may have *alter ego* claims against Genever US based on claims against the Individual Debtor) were **not** notified of the Genever US claims bar date, *i.e.*, March 10, 2021.\n\t- o In the Genever US chapter 11 case, creditors are now barred (absent relief from the court) from filing claims.\n\t\t- • The Genever US bar date notice was not published and was only served upon the Sherry Netherland, Inc., PAX, and Individual Debtor's family or related parties.\n\t\t- • Accordingly, **the only proofs of claim** in the Genever US chapter 11 case were filed by the Sherry Netherland, Inc., PAX, Bravo Luck, Golden State (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden State\"), and Qiang Guo (the Individual Debtor's son) (together, the \"Five Genever US Claimants\"). The Five Genever US Claimants were also the only parties listed as creditors with material claims on Genever US's schedules.\n\t- oNo creditors committee was ever appointed in the Genever US chapter 11 case.\n\t- oBy contrast, in this chapter 11 case, the claims bar date has not yet been set. Numerous parties are listed as creditors on the Individual Debtor's schedules and there is an active creditors committee advised by counsel. Moreover, the Trustee has submitted a draft bar date notice that would be widely published in both English and Mandarin publications.\n\n- **4. Coordination Is Needed to Ensure that the Individual Debtor's Legitimate Creditors Share in Value of Apartment**\n\t- Absent further court relief, because numerous creditors of the Individual Debtor did not receive notice of the deadline to file claims in the Genever US chapter 11 case to assert, for example *alter ego* claims, their claims against the Individual Debtor would be structurally subordinated to the claims of the Five Genever US Claimants in any distribution of the value of the Apartment (as shown in the diagram below) because they would only share in the equity value (if any) that would remain after the Five Genever US Claimants have been paid in full\n\n\n\n## **5. Trustee Opposes Structural Subordination of the Individual Debtor's Creditors**\n\n- Subordinating the Individual Debtor's creditors (who did not receive notice of the Genever US claims bar date) does not appear to be appropriate.\n\t- o If Genever US (and other entities owned by the Individual Debtor or his family members) are found to be *alter egos* of the Individual Debtor, the value of the assets belonging to (all of) these entities (including the Apartment and *Lady* May) should be collected in this estate by the Trustee to fund distributions to all of the Individual Debtor's valid creditors.\n\n## **6. One Bankruptcy Court Should Resolve Ownership Disputes**\n\n Given that the same issues surrounding the Individual Debtor's potential beneficial ownership of key identified assets such as the Apartment and the *Lady May* have arisen in both this and the Genever US chapter 11 cases (and given that both likely involve the same witnesses), the Trustee believes that for reasons of consistency in decision-making and judicial economy, the same court should decide those issues.\n\n## **7. Involvement of Bravo Luck in Individual Debtor Case**\n\n Recently discovered documents tend to indicate that Bravo Luck was involved in the *Lady May* transactions, thereby further supporting the need to have all asset ownership issues and challenges to related transactions centralized in one forum.\n\n- **1. Transfer of Venue of Genever US Chapter 11 Case to Connecticut Bankruptcy Court Appears to Be Appropriate**\n\t- The Trustee intends to seek to transfer the Genever US chapter 11 case to the Connecticut bankruptcy court where it can be administratively consolidated with this chapter 11 case.\n\t- Under Bankruptcy Rule 1014(b), which addresses venue transfer when petitions of a debtor and its affiliate (Genever US is wholly-owned by this estate) are filed in different districts, the court where the first petition was filed, *i.e.*, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Garrity), would decide the venue transfer issue.\n\t\t- o **No assurances can be given that Judge Garrity would grant the Trustee's motion to transfer the Genever US chapter 11 case to the District of Connecticut.**\n\t\t- o **On the other hand, the Trustee does not intend to file such motion if the Connecticut bankruptcy court were to oppose that proposed venue transfer.**\n\n- **1. Transfer of Venue of Genever US Chapter 11 Case to Connecticut Bankruptcy Court Appears to Be Appropriate**\n\t- For all the reasons discussed herein, the Trustee believes that transfer of the Genever US chapter 11 case to the District of Connecticut is appropriate because, among other things, it is in the interest of justice and it is the most efficient solution to address coordination issues.\n\t\t- o Factors commonly considered in connection with venue transfer motions include: (1) the debtor's choice of venue; (2) the proximity of creditors to the court; (3) the proximity of the debtor to the court; (4) the proximity of those persons necessary for the administration of the estate to the court; (5) the location of the debtor's assets; (6) the economic and efficient administration of the estate, including the ability of the different districts to timely consider the case; (7) judicial economy; and (8) general issues of fairness.1 Factor (6), the economic and efficient administration of the estate, is weighed most heavily by many courts considering a change of venue under section 1412.2\n\n1. *See, e.g., In re Commonwealth Oil Refining Co.*, 596 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir. 1979); *In re Condor Exploration, LLC*, 294 B.R. 370 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2003); *In re Land Stewards, L.C.*, 293 B.R. 364 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2002); *In re Enron Corp.*, 274 B.R. 327 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002); *In re Moss*, 249 B.R. 411 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2000).\n\n2. *Id.*\n\nPAGE 12\n\n- **2. Venue Transfer Is Not Incompatible with Settlement Agreement Regarding Sale of Apartment**\n\t- On February 26, 2021, PAX, Bravo Luck, and Genever US entered into a settlement agreement that, following the execution of an amended version of the agreement on September 24, 2021, was approved by Judge Garrity pursuant to an order dated October 8, 2021 (the \"Genever Settlement Agreement\").\n\t- The Genever Settlement Agreement included the following key elements:\n\t\t- o PAX agreed to withdraw motions it had filed for (1) relief from stay to allow it to pursue its *alter ego* claims against Genever US in the PAX Litigation and (2) conversion to chapter 7 or, in the alternative, appointment of a chapter 11 trustee.\n\t\t- o PAX was granted stay relief to pursue the PAX Litigation, with the stay otherwise remaining in place with respect to other purposes, including relating to enforcement or collection of any judgment against Genever US.\n\t\t- o Genever US agreed to appoint Melanie Cyganowski to be its sales officer (the \"Sales Officer\") to control and oversee the sale of the Apartment, with proceeds of such sale to be escrowed pending further order of the bankruptcy court.\n\n- **2. Venue Transfer Is Not Incompatible with Settlement Agreement Regarding Sale of Apartment [cont'd]**\n\t- Importantly, the Genever Settlement Agreement does **not** contain any agreement regarding the appropriate forum or venue to resolve the substantive disputes related to the Sherry Netherland Apartment, such as the ownership thereof, merits of PAX's *alter ego* claim against Genever US, or Bravo Luck's claims of beneficial ownership.\n\t- Indeed, immediately following the provision in the Genever Settlement Agreement providing for stay relief, the Genever Settlement Agreement states textually: **\"Nothing herein shall be construed as an acknowledgement of the appropriate forum outside the bankruptcy court to address any such issues, with all Parties' rights expressly reserved.\"**1\n\t\t- o Similarly, the Genever Settlement Agreement does not address the eventual distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the Apartment to claimants.\n- 1. While the Genever Settlement Agreement also references PAX's litigation in BVI court against Genever BVI, Bravo Luck, the Individual Debtor, and Qiang Guo (the Individual Debtor's son) seeking to enforce the judgment in PAX's NY state court action, the Genever Settlement Agreement provides that nothing therein \"shall prejudice the rights of any party, including Bravo Luck and PAX to proceed with the BVI Litigation\" and that nothing in the Genever Settlement Agreement \"shall prejudice the rights of any Party, including Bravo Luck and PAX, from proceeding with any and all claims . . . In BVI, State Court, or otherwise, and Bravo Luck and PAX reserve all rights to oppose such claims in the applicable forum.\"\n\n# **D. HOUSEKEEPING MATTERS**\n\n## **1. Monthly Operating Reports**\n\n- The Individual Debtor has still not filed monthly operating reports (\"MORs\") for the month of May 2022, June 2022, and the first seven days of July 2022 (*i.e.*, the period prior to the order appointing the Trustee on July 8, 2022 [ECF No. 523].\n\t- o The May 2022 MOR was due on June 21, 2022, the June 2022 MOR was due on July 21, 2022, and the July MOR (for the first 7 days) is due on August 21, 2022.\n\n#### **2. Update re** *Lady May* **Inspection**\n\n- On August 11, 2022, HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), the purported title holder of the *Lady May*, filed a motion for an order establishing a repair reserve for the *Lady May* [ECF No. 728] (the \"Repair Reserve Motion\").\n- HK USA also requested that the Repair Reserve Motion be heard on an expedited basis. The Trustee **opposes** consideration of the motion on an expedited basis.\n- The Trustee is continuing to analyze the Repair Reserve Motion and reserves all rights in this regard.\n\n# **D. HOUSEKEEPING MATTERS**\n\n#### **3. Exercise of Corporate Governance Rights**\n\n- On August 10, 2022, the Court entered the corporate governance rights order [ECF No. 717]. The Trustee has been in contact with counsel for the Individual Debtor to obtain executed copies of the documents (and information to complete the registration form for the new BVI agent) required under the order.\n- Also on August 10, 2022, the Individual Debtor appealed the corporate governance rights order [ECF No. 723].\n\n#### **4. Motions re Privileged Documents**\n\n- As noted at the hearing before the Court on August 4, 2022, the Trustee believes his ownership of the Individual Debtor's privileges is a critical issue that the Court should resolve as soon as possible. The Individual Debtor is affirmatively opposing access to privileged information.\n- The Trustee intends to bring that issue to the Court for resolution in the near future, including without limitation by motions to compel pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9016 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, and the Trustee reserves the right to request that any such motion be heard on shortened notice.\n\n# **D. HOUSEKEEPING MATTERS**\n\n#### **5. Scheduling Next Status Conferences**\n\nProposed dates:\n\n- o Wednesday, August 24\n- o Wednesday, September 7\n- o Wednesday, September 21\n- o Monday, October 3","body_zh":"关于 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）案，第 11 章破产案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n第 11 章破产受托人关于 (I) 协调 Genever Holdings LLC 与 Ho Wan Kwok 第 11 章破产案件及 (II) 程序性事务的报告\n2022年8月12日状况审查会议\n\n免责声明：本陈述系基于第 11 章破产受托人根据目前可得信息作出的初步观察，仍受制于持续的审查和调查。因此，本文所载信息仍可能发生重大变更。此外，某些部分反映了第 11 章破产受托人对法律问题的看法，无法保证本法院（或任何其他法院）会同意第 11 章破产受托人就此类法律问题所持的看法。\n\n目录\n\nA. 导言 2-\nB. Genever US 与个人债务人第 11 章案件的协调 4-\nC. Genever US 第 11 章案件管辖法院的移转 11-\nD. 程序性事务 15-\n\nA. 导言\n1. 本第 11 章案件与 Genever US 第 11 章案件紧密关联\n\n- (a) Ho Wan Kwok（“个人债务人”）与 (b) Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever US”，即个人债务人据以拥有 Sherry Netherland 酒店 18 楼公寓（“该公寓”）的单一资产房地产实体）的第 11 章案件紧密关联。\n- 这两起案件的提起均旨在保护个人债务人已被确认的美国关键资产——Sherry Netherland 公寓和 Lady May（“梅女士号”）游艇——免遭其债权人追索。\n- 两起案件均提出了这些资产在事实上是否属于个人债务人（并进而属于其第 11 章破产财产）的问题。\n- 下页图表概述了个人债务人、其子女、某些关联实体以及这两项已被确认的关键资产之间的关系。\n\nA. 导言\n\n2. 显示个人债务人家属、某些关联实体及已被确认的关键资产的图表\n指称的公司与资产所有权结构。尚待进一步尽职调查。\n\n- 1. Genever US 与个人债务人第 11 章案件源于相同的资产保护策略\n- Genever US 第 11 章案件与本第 11 章案件的提起，均源于个人债务人所采取的同一法律策略——通过涉及家庭成员和关联实体的交易向其债权人隐匿资产。\n- 两起第 11 章申请均由 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”，太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）针对个人债务人提起的 New York Supreme Court（“NYS Court”，纽约州最高法院）诉讼（“PAX 诉讼”）中的事态发展所引发。\n- Genever US 于 2020年10月12日向 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区破产法院）提交了第 11 章破产申请。Genever US 在破产财产清单中列出的唯一资产即该公寓及相关保证金（列明总价值为 7300 万美元）。\n- Genever US 提出破产申请的时间是在：(1) NYS Court（Ostrager 法官）于 2020年9月15日裁定个人债务人因违约对 PAX 承担 1.16 亿美元责任的简易判决命令之后不久；以及 (2) 紧接 Ostrager 法官 2020年10月15日判决后限制令作出之前。\n- 2020年10月15日的限制令指出，“郭先生及/或 (1) Sherry Netherland 酒店住所和 (2) ‘Lady May’游艇的登记所有人，均被禁止对该等资产进行或导致进行任何出售、转让、让与或对其施加干预。”\n\n1. Genever US 与个人债务人第 11 章案件源于相同的资产保护策略 [续]\n\n- 同样，在 Ostrager 法官于 2022年2月9日作出裁定和命令（“最终藐视法庭命令”）责令个人债务人在五个工作日内支付 1.34 亿美元的藐视法庭罚款后不久，个人债务人于 2022年2月15日向 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）提交了第 11 章申请。个人债务人声称，除某些潜在的诉讼请求外，他名下基本没有任何财产。\n- 个人债务人提出的第 11 章申请在多个层面上为其提供了针对 PAX 的破产保护。除了保护其免受未遵守最终藐视法庭命令的后果之外，该第 11 章申请还中止了 PAX 于 2022年1月提出的、指控个人债务人未遵守 Ostrager 法官 2021年9月要求其将 Genever BVI 股份移交给 PAX 之命令而应被裁定藐视法庭的动议。个人债务人一直是这些股份的持有者，直至受托人获任命。\n\n2. Genever US 与个人债务人第 11 章案件涉及相同的问题\n\nGenever US 第 11 章案件与本第 11 章案件均涉及同一个核心问题：\n截至 2022年2月15日个人债务人提交第 11 章破产申请之日，有哪些资产属于个人债务人（并因此属于其第 11 章破产财产）？\n\n- 在本第 11 章案件中，这些问题已摆在案前。\n- 据称由个人债务人女儿拥有的实体 HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited（“HK USA”）已提起对抗性诉讼，请求裁定 Lady May 属于 HK USA 的财产而非本第 11 章破产财产。\n- 此外，个人债务人辩称其并非该公寓或 Genever 各实体的实益所有人，理由是这些资产受制于 2015年2月17日以 Bravo Luck Limited（“Bravo Luck”，据称为个人债务人儿子拥有的实体）为受益人的信托协议（“所谓的信托协议”），而 Bravo Luck 才是该公寓的实益所有人。\n- 受托人对 Bravo Luck 的主张持严重怀疑态度，目前正在审查对所谓的信托协议提出潜在异议的依据，包括针对其真实性、有效性和可执行性，以及针对具有实际欺诈意图的财产转让提出异议。\n\n2. Genever US 与个人债务人第 11 章案件涉及相同的问题 [续]\n\n- 在 Genever US 第 11 章案件中，Bravo Luck Limited 已提交债权申报证明，主张其凭借所谓的信托协议而成为该公寓的实益所有人等。在备位主张中，Bravo Luck 基于据称其提供了用于购买该公寓并支付相关费用的资金，对 Genever US 主张约 7600 万美元的普通无担保债权。\n- Qiang Guo（郭强，个人债务人的儿子）和 Golden Spring 也基于支付公寓相关费用向 Genever US 提出了无担保债权申报。\n- 同样，PAX 基于其曾在 NYS Court 主张但在个人债务人申请破产之日（即 2022年2月15日）尚未进入庭审的另我（alter ego）理论，在 Genever US 的第 11 章案件中对其提出了 1.16 亿美元的债权申报。\n\n3. Genever US 与个人债务人第 11 章案件应当密切协调\n\n- 鉴于 Genever US 第 11 章案件与本第 11 章案件源于相同的事实背景、涉及相同的核心问题，并在庭审中涉及相同的证人，两起案件应当密切协调。\n- 个人债务人的债权人（其可能基于对个人债务人的债权而对 Genever US 享有另我诉求）并未收到 Genever US 债权申报截止日（即 2021年3月10日）的通知。\n- 在 Genever US 第 11 章案件中，债权人现已被禁止申报债权（除非获得法院的救济）。\n- Genever US 的债权申报截止日通知并未公开发布，仅送达给了 Sherry Netherland, Inc.、PAX 以及个人债务人的家属或关联方。\n- 因此，在 Genever US 第 11 章案件中提交债权证明的仅有 Sherry Netherland, Inc.、PAX、Bravo Luck、Golden State (New York) Ltd.（“Golden State”）以及 Qiang Guo（个人债务人的儿子）（统称“Genever US 五名债权申报人”）。Genever US 五名债权申报人也是 Genever US 财产清单上列明的仅有的拥有实质债权的债权人。\n- Genever US 第 11 章案件中从未任命过无担保债权人委员会。\n- 与之形成对比的是，在本第 11 章案件中，债权申报截止日尚未确定。个人债务人的财产清单上列出了众多债权人，并且存在一个由其聘请的律师提供法律意见的活跃的债权人委员会。此外，受托人已提交了一份债权申报截止日通知草案，拟在英文和中文出版物上广泛刊发。\n\n- 4. 为确保个人债务人的合法债权人能够分享该公寓的价值，案件协调是必要的\n- 在未获得法院进一步救济的情况下，由于个人债务人的众多债权人未收到在 Genever US 第 11 章案件中提出索赔（例如主张另我诉求）的申报截止日通知，他们在该公寓价值的任何分配中（如下图所示）对个人债务人的债权将在结构上次级于 Genever US 五名债权申报人的债权，因为他们只能分享 Genever US 五名债权申报人获得全额清偿后所剩余的权益价值（如有）。\n\n5. 受托人反对将个人债务人的债权人置于结构上次级地位\n\n- 将个人债务人的债权人（即未收到 Genever US 债权申报截止日通知的债权人）置于次级地位的做法似乎并不妥当。\n- 如果 Genever US（以及个人债务人或其家庭成员拥有的其他实体）被认定为个人债务人的另我，属于这些（所有）实体的资产价值（包括该公寓和 Lady May）应由受托人归集至本破产财产中，以向个人债务人的所有有效债权人进行分配。\n\n6. 权属争议应当由同一个破产法院解决\n\n鉴于围绕个人债务人对关键已确认资产（如该公寓和 Lady May）的潜在实益所有权所产生的相同问题在本次及 Genever US 第 11 章案件中均已出现（且鉴于两起案件很可能涉及相同的证人），受托人认为，出于裁判一致性和司法经济性的考虑，应由同一个法院对此类问题作出裁决。\n\n7. Bravo Luck 在个人债务人案件中的牵涉\n\n最近发现的文件显示，Bravo Luck 参与了 Lady May 的交易，这进一步支持了将所有资产所有权问题及对相关交易的异议集中在一个司法管辖法院处理的必要性。\n\n- 1. 将 Genever US 第 11 章案件移转至康涅狄格区破产法院管辖似乎是适当的\n- 受托人拟申请将 Genever US 第 11 章案件移转至康涅狄格区破产法院管辖，以便其能与本第 11 章案件进行行政合并审理。\n- 根据关于债务人与其关联方（Genever US 由本破产财产全资拥有）在不同地区提起破产申请时的管辖地移转规定的《破产程序规则》第 1014(b) 条（Bankruptcy Rule 1014(b)），受理第一份申请的法院，即 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（Garrity 法官），将对管辖移转问题作出裁决。\n- 无法保证 Garrity 法官一定会批准受托人将 Genever US 第 11 章案件移转至康涅狄格区的动议。\n- 另一方面，如果康涅狄格区破产法院反对拟议的管辖移转，受托人不打算提交该动议。\n\n- 1. 将 Genever US 的第 11 章案件管辖地移送至康涅狄格州破产法院似乎是适当的\n\n\t- 基于本文所述的全部理由，Trustee（受托人）认为将 Genever US 的第 11 章案件移送至 District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区）是适当的，原因在于（除其他外）这符合司法利益，且是解决协调问题的最有效方案。\n\n\t\t- o 与管辖地移送动议相关的通常考量因素包括：(1) 债务人的管辖地选择；(2) 债权人与法院的邻近程度；(3) 债务人与法院的邻近程度；(4) 破产财产管理所必需的人员与法院的邻近程度；(5) 债务人资产所在地；(6) 破产财产的经济且高效的管理，包括不同辖区及时审理案件的能力；(7) 司法经济；以及 (8) 一般公平问题。1 在依据第 1412 条考量变更管辖地时，许多法院对因素 (6)，即破产财产的经济且高效的管理，赋予最大的权重。2\n\n1. 参见，例如，In re Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 596 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir. 1979); In re Condor Exploration, LLC, 294 B.R. 370 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2003); In re Land Stewards, L.C., 293 B.R. 364 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2002); In re Enron Corp., 274 B.R. 327 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002); In re Moss, 249 B.R. 411 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2000)。\n\n2. 同上。\n\n- 2. 管辖地移送与关于公寓出售的和解协议并不冲突\n\n\t- 2021年2月26日，PAX、Bravo Luck 与 Genever US 订立了一份和解协议，在2021年9月24日签署该协议的修订版本后，经由 Garrity 法官依据日期为2021年10月8日的裁定予以批准（即《Genever 和解协议》）。\n\n\t- 《Genever 和解协议》包含以下关键要素：\n\n\t\t- o PAX 同意撤回其已提交的以下动议：(1) 解除自动中止以允许其在 PAX 诉讼中对 Genever US 主张其实质合并/另我（alter ego）主张，以及 (2) 转换为第 7 章或（备选方案）指定一名第 11 章受托人。\n\n\t\t- o PAX 获准解除中止以继续进行 PAX 诉讼，但关于其他目的（包括与针对 Genever US 的任何判决的执行或追讨相关的目的），中止仍保持有效。\n\n\t\t- o Genever US 同意指定 Melanie Cyganowski 担任其销售官（“销售官”）以控制和监督该公寓的出售，该等出售的收益应提存托管，直至破产法院作出进一步裁定。\n\n- 2. 管辖地移送与关于公寓出售的和解协议并不冲突 [续]\n\n\t- 重要的是，《Genever 和解协议》并未包含关于解决与 Sherry Netherland 公寓相关的实质性争议（例如其所有权、PAX 对 Genever US 提出的另我主张的实体是非、或 Bravo Luck 的实益所有权主张）的适当法庭或管辖地的任何协议。\n\n\t- 事实上，紧随《Genever 和解协议》中规定解除中止的条款之后，《Genever 和解协议》原文明确写道：“本文中的任何内容均不得解释为对破产法院之外解决任何此类问题的适当法庭的承认，且所有各方的权利均明确保留。”1\n\n\t\t- o 同样地，《Genever 和解协议》并未涉及公寓出售收益最终向索赔人的分配。\n\n- 1. 虽然《Genever 和解协议》亦提及 PAX 在 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）法院针对 Genever BVI、Bravo Luck、Individual Debtor（个人债务人）以及 Qiang Guo（郭强，个人债务人之子）提起的旨在执行 PAX 在纽约州法院诉讼中获得的判决的诉讼，但《Genever 和解协议》规定，其中的任何内容均“不得损害包括 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 在内的任何一方继续进行 BVI 诉讼的权利”，且《Genever 和解协议》中的任何内容均“不得损害包括 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 在内的任何一方在 BVI、州法院或其他地方继续推进任何及所有主张……的权利，且 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 保留在适用法庭反对该等主张的所有权利”。\n\nD. 事务性事项\n\n1. 每月运营报告\n\n- 个人债务人仍未提交 2022年5月、2022年6月以及 2022年7月前七天（即 2022年7月8日指定受托人裁定 [ECF No. 523] 之前的期间）的每月运营报告（“MOR”）。\n\n\t- o 2022年5月的 MOR 应于 2022年6月21日提交，2022年6月的 MOR 应于 2022年7月21日提交，而 7月的 MOR（前7天）应于 2022年8月21日提交。\n\n2. 关于 Lady May 号视察的最新情况\n\n- 2022年8月11日，Lady May 号声称的产权持有人 HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK USA”）提交了一项请求作出为 Lady May 号设立修理储备金裁定的动议 [ECF No. 728]（即《修理储备金动议》）。\n\n- HK USA 亦请求以加急程序审理《修理储备金动议》。受托人反对以加急程序审理该动议。\n\n- 受托人正在继续分析《修理储备金动议》，并在此方面保留所有权利。\n\nD. 事务性事项\n\n3. 行使公司治理权\n\n- 2022年8月10日，法院作出了公司治理权裁定 [ECF No. 717]。受托人一直在与个人债务人的律师联系，以获取该裁定所要求的已签署文件副本（以及用于填写新 BVI 代理人注册表格的信息）。\n\n- 同样在 2022年8月10日，个人债务人就公司治理权裁定提起了上诉 [ECF No. 723]。\n\n4. 关于特权文件的动议\n\n- 如在 2022年8月4日法院听证会上所述，受托人认为其对个人债务人特权的拥有权是法院应尽快解决的关键问题。个人债务人正明确反对查阅特权信息。\n\n- 受托人打算在近期将该问题提交法院解决，包括但不限于依据《Bankruptcy Rule 9016》（破产规则第 9016 条）和《Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45》（联邦民事诉讼规则第 45 条）提出强制作出动议，且受托人保留请求在缩短通知期的情况下审理任何此类动议的权利。\n\nD. 事务性事项\n\n5. 安排下一次现状听证会\n\n拟定日期：\n\n- o 8月24日，星期三\n\n- o 9月7日，星期三\n\n- o 9月21日，星期三\n\n- o 10月3日，星期一","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":523,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":717,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":723,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3000,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:32:14"}