{"id":"court_sdny_50_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":50,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 50","summary_zh":"债权人异议状 —— Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）破产案，美国破产法院康涅狄格州地区，案号 22-50073 (JAM)，ECF #50。债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（PAX）反对债务人延期提交资产负债表及财务事项声明的动议，指债务人申请书中存在多处失实陈述，并涉嫌通过 Golden Spring 等关联实体隐匿、转移资产，主张法院应驳回延期请求并要求立即如实披露。","summary_en":"Creditor's opposition brief — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), Bankr. D. Conn., Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), ECF #50. Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (PAX) opposes the debtor's motion to extend the deadline for filing bankruptcy schedules and statements of financial affairs, alleging multiple false statements in the petition and concealment or transfer of assets through related entities such as Golden Spring, and asks the court to deny the extension and compel immediate, accurate disclosure.","body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK,¹\n\nDebtor.\n\nChapter 11 Case No.\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nFebruary 28, 2022\n\n# **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE SCHEDULES OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS**\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") files this opposition to debtor Ho Wan Kwok's (\"Kwok\") *Motion to Extend Time to File Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs* [ECF No. 27] (the \"Motion\"). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion should be denied.\n\n## **INTRODUCTION**\n\nKwok seeks an extension of time to file his Schedules and SOFAs,² arguing that his case is \"extraordinary.\" It is extraordinary, but only because of the remarkable extent of Kwok's prolonged pattern of deceitful and contumacious behavior. Days before Kwok filed his chapter 11 petition, New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager entered a final contempt order against Kwok for his continued failure to return his yacht, the Lady May—purchased for €28 million in 2015—to the New York court's jurisdiction.³ This contempt is just one of many\n\n¹ The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n² Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs are referred to as \"Schedules and SOFAs\" throughout this Opposition.\n\n³ *Declaration of Peter Friedman in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Response in Opposition to Ho Wan Kwok's Motion to Extend Time*, attached hereto as Exhibit A (\"Friedman Decl.\") at Ex. 1, Decision + Order on Mot. at 10, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (Feb. 9, 2022, N.Y. Sup. 2022), Dkt No. 1181 (\"February 9 Contempt Order\").\n\nexamples in which Kwok—who invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to all of PAX's postjudgment discovery requests—has flouted court orders and abused the judicial process in an attempt to evade enforcement of the \\$116 million judgment PAX won against him. As Justice Ostrager found, \"Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"⁴ As a result of his elaborate schemes to avoid his creditors, the New York Supreme Court docket amassed over 1,180 entries, \"almost all of which involve . . . [Kwok's] efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members.\"⁵ Kwok's chapter 11 petition is just his latest dishonest gambit. As detailed below, there are at least three materially false and/or misleading statements in his petition. Most notably, Kwok's sworn (mis)representation that he has less than \\$100,000 in assets is completely incompatible with Justice Ostrager's finding just days before that Kwok \"holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May.\"⁶ Second, Kwok falsely stated under penalty of perjury in his petition that none of his affiliates had filed bankruptcy petitions, despite the ongoing chapter 11 proceedings in the Southern District of New York of Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever NY\"), a Kwok-related shell entity. And, third, he listed as his second largest \"creditor\" an obvious \"insider\" entity that he set up as part of the maze of family entities he uses to hold his own assets and fund his lifestyle. In his Initial Debtor Interview with the United States Trustee he admitted that this entity, Golden Spring (New York), pays for \"all of his living expenses.\"⁷\n\n⁴ *Id* at 1.\n\n⁵ *Id*.\n\n⁶ *Id.*at 9.\n\n⁷ *See* United States Trustee's Objection to Debtor's Motion for Extension of Time to File Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs [ECF No. 49] (\"UST Objection\") at ¶ 12.; *see also* Official Form 104, List of Creditors Who have the 20 Largest Unsecured Claims Against You and Are Not Insiders [ECF No. 20] (\"Unsecured Creditors List\") at 1 (listing Golden Spring New York).\n\nThis Court should not allow Kwok to delay timely filing of his Statements and SOFAs until May 2, 2022, because, as the falsehoods in his petition make clear, Kwok cannot be permitted to drag his feet on filing complete and accurate disclosures. Creditors need immediate disclosures so they can conduct a fulsome inquiry of the debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 341, and immediate disclosure will also aid in determining whether there is any purpose to a reorganization for Kwok instead of conversion (or dismissal) of this case.⁸ In any event, Kwok's extremely dubious claim that his assets are worth less than \\$100,000 undercuts his own assertion that additional time is needed to prepare the requisite schedules. It cannot be both true that he has virtually no material assets and that he requires significant additional time to identify them. As for Kwok's counsel's assertions (based on no supporting evidence) that Kwok needs more time to identify potential malpractice suits and defamation cases, court docket searches reveal he has been an active plaintiff over the years already, with precious little to show for it.⁹ In any event, those lawsuits are known and can be scheduled immediately. And, delaying the schedule in light of those claims would in any event be the tail wagging the dog – Kwok owns and controls massive, real assets. He should focus first on identifying those assets and bringing them into his estate for the creditors' benefit. Kwok should also be scheduling claims against the myriad shell \"corporations, trusted confidants and family members\" in which he has parked his substantial assets.¹⁰ Claims against these entities and individuals are already known to Kwok\n\n⁸ Kwok's statements (referenced in the UST Objection) that he has no assets, property, bank accounts, and has no income raise very serious questions about the legitimacy of this case. *See* UST Objection at ¶ 12.\n\n⁹ For example, Kwok was awarded \\$100,00 after prevailing on one defamation lawsuit where the defendant called him a \"Chinese spy.\" *See* Friedman Decl, Ex. 2 Complaint, *Kwok v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.*, Case No. 9:19 cv-81099 (D. Fla. 2019), ECF No. 1. Another defamation lawsuit against a large media corporation in which Kwok claimed damages of not less than \\$50 million was also settled in August 2019. *See* Friedman Decl., Ex 3, Notice of Settlement, *Kwok v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.*, Case No. 9:19-cv-81099 (D. Fla. 2019), ECF No. 25. Given that Kwok asserts he has less than \\$100,000 in assets, either the settlement was of very limited value or he fraudulently transferred the proceeds away at a time when he owed PAX on his personal guarantee.\n\n¹⁰ Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1.\n\nand they should be identified immediately. If other potential causes of action for malpractice or defamation materialize (for which there is no evidence of their existence), those can be identified on amended Statements and SOFAs. Therefore, PAX respectfully requests that this Court deny Kwok the opportunity to further frustrate creditors, and reject his dilatory request for an extension of time to file his Schedules and SOFAs.\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n1. In 2011, PAX signed a loan agreement with a Kwok-owned entity called Shiny Times.¹¹ Kwok personally guaranteed that loan.¹² Despite multiple repayment extensions and numerous attempts by PAX to settle the debt, Kwok never repaid the loan.¹³\n\n2. As a result, PAX sued Kwok for breach of contract on April 18, 2017 in New York State Supreme Court (Hon. Barry M. Ostrager presiding).¹⁴ After nearly four years of litigation, on February 3, 2021, the New York court issued a judgment against Kwok for \\$116,402,019.57.¹⁵ PAX then \"undertook a year's-long effort to enforce [the] judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States.\"¹⁶ This was no small task because, as Justice Ostrager found, \"Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"¹⁷ And just about a month after the summary judgment decision was issued, on March 11, 2021, Kwok invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to all of PAX's post-judgment discovery requests. Kwok has yet to repay any of the \\$116,402,019.57 judgment, which (at least until this\n\n¹⁶ Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1.\n\n¹¹ Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Decision + Order on Mot. at 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 549.\n\n¹² *Id*. at 5-7.\n\n¹³ *Id.*\n\n¹⁴ Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Compl., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2017), ECF No. 2.\n\n¹⁵ Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, Judgment at 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 716.\n\n¹⁷ *Id*.\n\nbankruptcy filing) accrued 9% post-judgment interest.¹⁸\n\n3. One of Kwok's identifiable assets is a yacht named the Lady May, which was purchased in 2015 for €28 million. On September 30, 2020, Justice Ostrager issued a temporary restraining order preventing Kwok \"from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any property in which he has an interest….\"¹⁹ Two weeks later, on October 15, 2020, Justice Ostrager specified that the September 30 order included the Lady May.²⁰ But unbeknownst to Justice Ostrager and PAX, the Lady May had already left New York for Florida on or about October 9.²¹ The yacht then went to the Bahamas, and finally to Europe, where PAX understands it remains to this day.²²\n\n4. In response to its discovery that the Lady May had left, and remained outside of,\n\nNew York in violation Justice Ostrager's orders, PAX filed a civil contempt motion²³ and on\n\nMarch 16, 2021, the court issued a conditional order of civil contempt directing Kwok or the\n\nboat's registered owner to return the Lady May to the court's jurisdiction in New York by May\n\n15, 2021, and imposing a \\$500,000 fine for every day thereafter that the yacht remained away.²⁴\n\nThe New York Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the trial court's\n\n²¹ *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 2; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 10, VESSELFINDER, Voyage Analyzer,(last visited Feb. 28, 2022); *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 11, Feb. 2, 2022 Hr'g Tr., *PAX v. Kwok*., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), at 84:10–86:12 (Captain Heaslop testifying that although he could not remember the exact day he left, he thought he took the Lady May down to Florida the first week of October, 2020).\n\n¹⁸ N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5004 (McKinney's 2022); Friedman Decl., Ex. 4 at 7; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 7, Statement of Material Facts in Support of Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 23 at KWOK000652, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 455 (\"2011 Personal Guarantee\").\n\n¹⁹ Friedman Decl., Ex. 8, Order to Show Cause, *PAX v. Kwok*, 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 590 at 1–2. ²⁰ Friedman Decl., Ex. 9, Decision + Order on Mot. at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 630.\n\n²² As of the morning of February 28, 2022, the Lady May is located in Genoa, Italy. See Friedman Decl., Ex. 10.\n\n²³ *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 12, PAX Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 689; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 13, PAX Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. For Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 709.\n\n²⁴ Friedman Decl., Ex. 14, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 728 (\"Initial Contempt Order\"). In other words, the court provided Mr. Kwok a full two-month grace period to return the yacht and thereby avoid any fine at all.\n\norder, finding that (i) PAX had \"established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] had violated a lawful clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to [PAX's] rights…\"; and (ii) \"the daily fine of \\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage [Kwok] to purge himself of the contempt.\"²⁵ Accordingly, the First Department instructed Justice Ostrager to \"proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties\" before issuing a final contempt order.²⁶\n\n5. Justice Ostrager held that evidentiary hearing on February 2, 2022. After receiving testimony from seven witnesses, Justice Ostrager concluded that \"[t]he testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of [Kwok]'s witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\"²⁷ The court further found that notwithstanding that Kwok's daughter technically holds the yacht's title, \"Kwok control[s] the yacht, [and] it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\"²⁸ As a result, Justice Ostrager entered the February 9 Contempt Order, directing Kwok to remit \\$134,000,000 to PAX by February 16, 2022, among other things, or else run the risk that the court would exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753.²⁹\n\n6. The same day the Contempt Order was entered, Kwok stated his intention, in a public social media posting, to \"start an all-out war with the PA[X]\" and to flee the United\n\n²⁵ *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan*, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021).\n\n²⁶ *Id*.\n\n²⁷ Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 4.\n\n²⁸ *Id*. at 8.\n\n²⁹ *Id.* at 10.\n\nStates.³⁰ Kwok also sought to avoid paying the civil contempt fine by seeking an emergency administrative stay of the February 9 Contempt Order pending appeal. That request was summarily denied, ³¹ and on the night before his \\$134 million payment was to become due, Kwok filed this chapter 11 case.³²\n\n7. Kwok filed an amended petition over a week after filing his original chapter 11 petition.³³ Tellingly, neither the original nor amended filing included the value of the Lady May as an asset, despite Justice Ostrager's clear ruling just six days before the bankruptcy filing that \"Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May.\"³⁴ Even if Kwok disputes that finding, a complete and truthful petition would have disclosed the value of the yacht to this Court and Kwok's creditors. Instead, in order to benefit from additional time to avoid making mandatory disclosures, Kwok now seeks a 60-day delay to file his required Schedules and SOFAs. 11 U.S.C. § 521; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(b)–(c).\n\n8. Given Kwok's prolonged history of contumacious behavior, evading disclosure of valuable assets, and \"secret[ing] his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members,\"³⁵ this Court should minimize Kwok's time to secrete his assets further by denying Kwok's Motion.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. THE GOVERNING LAW SUPPORTS DENYING KWOK'S MOTION**\n\n9. It is hornbook law that the chapter 11 process is designed to \"maximiz[e] the\n\n³⁰ *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 15, Feb. 15, 2022 Letter from S. Sarnoff to Clerk of the Appellate Division, First Department at 3, *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022), ECF No. 4; *see also* Miles Kwok (@MilesGuo) Feb. 9, 2022 Post, GETTR, http (last visited Feb. 28, 2022).\n\n³¹ Friedman Decl., Ex. 16, Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 2022-00609; 2022-00610, (App. Div. 2022), ECF No. 5, at 2.\n\n³² *Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy*, ECF No. 1, at 7.\n\n³³ *Amended Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy*, ECF No. 19.\n\n³⁴ Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 4.\n\n³⁵ *Id.* at 1.\n\nvalue of the bankruptcy estate\" for the benefit of creditors. *Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp*., 137 S.Ct. 973, 986 (2017) (citing *Toibb v. Radloff*, 501 U.S. 157, 163–64 (1991)). Crucial to this objective is the timely and accurate filing of Schedules and SOFAs. In a voluntary case, a debtor is required to file Schedules and SOFAs with, or within 14 days of, the petition. *See* Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(c). \"The purpose of filing properly completed and timely schedules is to 'furnish the trustee and creditors with detailed information about the debtor's financial condition.'\" *In re McDermitt*, No. 05-11710, 2006 WL 1582390, at \\*3 (D. Vt. May 30, 2006); *see also In re Eldorado Canyon Props., LLC*, 505 B.R. 601, 604 (1st Cir. B.A.P. 2014) (\"Bankruptcy schedules serve the important purpose of ensuring that adequate information is available for the trustee and creditors.\"). Indeed, the \"[t]he effective administration of a bankruptcy case\" depends on \"the filing of complete and accurate schedules within the prescribed time period.\" *Eldorado Canyon Props., LLC*, 505 B.R. at 604 (emphasis added). Without timely and accurate Schedules and SOFAs, courts, the Office of the United States Trustee, and creditors cannot accurately evaluate a debtor's financial position, nor can they determine whether the bankruptcy petition has been filed in good faith. *See In re Anvil Holdings* LP, 595 B.R. 622, 627–28 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2019) (without accurate and complete financial documents the court and parties could not make sense of the debtor's financial operations and the court was concerned the debtor was acting in bad faith).\n\n10. Uncertainty respecting these important issues is intolerable as the protections of the Bankruptcy Code, and the concomitant suspension of creditors rights, are effective immediately upon filing a petition. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 362; *Rexnord Holdings, Inc. v. Bidermann*, 21 F.3d 522, 527 (2d Cir. 1994) (\"The stay is effective immediately upon the filing of the petition.\"). Creditors cannot be left in limbo, without the ability to assess their rights against a\n\n8\n\ndebtor, while their rights and remedies outside of bankruptcy are placed on hold. And courts do not permit debtors to enjoy the protections of the Bankruptcy Code without timely adhering to the duties of disclosure. *See* 9 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1007.03 (16th ed. 2021) (\"If the schedules, statements, or other documents are not filed on time, the United States trustee may move to dismiss the case\"); *In re Mutty*, No. 04-10634, 2004 WL 2647705, at \\*7 (Bankr. D. Vt. Nov. 19, 2004) (dismissing case for failure to file accurate schedules with good faith and candor); *Eldorado Canyon Properties*, 505 B.R. at 604–05 (affirming dismissal of bankruptcy case for failure to timely file Schedules and SOFAs). As one court in this Circuit noted:\n\nthe benefits received by an honest debtor in a bankruptcy case, including a discharge of all dischargeable debts, a 'fresh start,' are extraordinarily disproportionate to the few demands and expectations placed upon a debtor by the Bankruptcy Code and Rules. One of these few, but very important duties, which is seemingly easy for any debtor, even a consumer or typical individual debtor to perform, is to ensure that all of their assets are properly scheduled.\n\n*In re Ptasinski*, 290 B.R. 16, 26 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2003). That court emphasized that debtors and their attorneys must ensure that schedules are \"complete and accurate to the best of the debtor's knowledge and information\" because the protections of the Bankruptcy Code are not available to those who \"play fast and loose with their assets or with the reality of their affairs.\" *Id.* at 26–27 (citing *In re Tully*, 818 F.2d 106, 110 (1st Cir. 1987)).\n\n## **II. KWOK'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME SHOULD BE DENIED GIVEN THE \"EXTRAORDINARY\" CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED HERE**\n\n11. Kwok's \"extraordinary\" behavior raises numerous red flags, and weighs strongly against his extension request. Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order chronicles Kwok's long history of flagrant disregard for court orders.³⁶ Even so, Kwok has now upped his \"gamesmanship, dissembling, and deceit.\"³⁷ The same day that Justice Ostrager issued the\n\n³⁶ Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order).\n\n³⁷ Friedman Decl., Ex. 14 (Initial Contempt Order) at 2.\n\nFebruary 9 Contempt Order (less than three weeks ago), Kwok publicly announced his intention to \"start an all-out war with the PA[X]\" and flee the country.³⁸ And one week later, on the eve of the February 9 Contempt Order compliance date, Kwok filed for bankruptcy.\n\n12. As previewed above, Kwok's bankruptcy petition is materially false and misleading in at least three respects. First, the sworn representation by Kwok — a selfproclaimed billionaire — that his assets are valued between \\$50,001 and \\$100,000 is belied by Justice Ostrager's finding that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May. It also directly undercuts any claim that he needs significantly more time to identify those (purportedly non-existent) assets. This is only bolstered by Kwok's statements to the Office of the United States Trustee that Kwok has no bank accounts, credit cards, is not employed, does not directly own any real estate, cars and does not insure any assets.³⁹\n\n13. Second, Kwok misrepresented that he had no affiliates in bankruptcy proceedings. The one asset that Kwok admits owning is a holding company established in the British Virgin Islands called Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\").⁴⁰ Genever BVI, in turn, owns 100 percent of the voting equity of Genever NY,⁴¹ a New York entity that owns a luxury, fullfloor apartment at the Sherry Netherland Hotel in New York City that Kwok bought for nearly \\$70 million in March 2015 and in which he has lived.⁴² Genever NY filed a chapter 11 case in the Southern District of New York in late 2020 on the heels of PAX winning summary judgment\n\n³⁸ *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 15 at 3.\n\n³⁹ UST Objection at ¶ 12.\n\n⁴⁰ Friedman Decl., Ex. 17, Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at 16:8–12, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021),.\n\n⁴¹ Friedman Decl., Ex. 18, Def. Kwok's Resps. & Objections to Pl. [PAX]'s Third Set of Interrogatories, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, ECF No. 756 at 9.\n\n⁴² *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 19, Exhibit 11 to PAX's Mem. of Law. In Supp. of Mot. for Pre-J. Attachment at SN0036, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2018), ECF No. 256 (Executed Contract of Sale listing \"Genever Holdings LLC\" as the purchaser); *see also id.* at SN 0047 (Purchase Application listing \"'Miles' Kwok Ho Wan (Genever Holdings LLC)\" as the applicant).\n\nagainst Kwok.⁴³ Because Kwok indirectly controls the voting equity of Genever NY, it is his affiliate under 11 U.S.C. § 101(2)(B). Kwok's failure to list that proceeding was thus dishonest.\n\n14. Third, and equally disturbing, is Kwok's listing of Golden Spring New York (\"GSNY\") in his top 20 \"non-insider\" creditor list. *See* Unsecured Creditors List, [ECF No. 20] at 1; 11 U.S.C. § 101(31)(A). The instructions on the chapter 11 petition form are clear that only *non-insiders* should be listed in the top 20 creditors. Kwok \"set[] up [GSNY]. . . by transferring funds from one of [his] accounts at UBS to Golden Spring New York's JPMorgan Chase bank account.\"⁴⁴ After funding GSNY with his own money, Kwok has used it as his personal piggy bank to pay virtually all of his multi-million dollar personal living, and legal, expenses.⁴⁵ Indeed, in addition to Justice Ostrager,⁴⁶ at least one federal court has also found that GSNY is Kwok's company that he maintains as a \"family office.\"⁴⁷ And Kwok not only listed GSNY as one of his top 20 non-insider creditors, but in the same sworn petition, he listed GSNY and its address as \"[w]here [he] live[s].\"⁴⁸ These facts show that GSNY is anything but an arm's-length creditor and easily meets the test of non-statutory insider.⁴⁹ Thus, Kwok's listing of GSNY as a non-insider purported creditor is outright deceptive and fraudulent.⁵⁰\n\n15. In addition to these above-described material misstatements and omissions,\n\n⁴³ *See In re Genever Holdings LLC*, Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).\n\n⁴⁴ Friedman Decl., Ex. 20, Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan in Supp. of Pl.'s Opp. to Def's Mot. to Dismiss the Compl., *Ace Decade Holdings Ltd. v. UBS AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. 2016), ECF No. 27, at ¶ 36.\n\n⁴⁵ Friedman Decl., Ex. 21, May 27, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at 9:25–10:3, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 833 (\"It's quite undisputed that Golden Springs has funded seven-figure payments to facilitate Mr. Kwok's lifestyle, and Mr. Kwok leads a rather extravagant lifestyle\").\n\n⁴⁶ Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 5, 9.\n\n⁴⁷ Friedman Decl., Ex. 22, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 2, *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, Case No. 1:18-cv-02185-LJL (S.D.N.Y. 2021), ECF No. 372.\n\n⁴⁸ Amended Voluntary Petition, ECF No. 19 at 2 (in response to \"Where you live,\" Kwok stated \"c/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., 162 East 64th Street, New York, NY 10065\")\n\n⁴⁹ Even on Kwok's version of events, GSNY is purportedly owned by a Hong Kong company that—like other companies in which Kwok shields his assets—is owned by Kwok's son, Qiang Guo. Friedman Decl., Ex. 23, Kwok Dep. Tr., *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 785 at 63:17–18.\n\n⁵⁰ As PAX will demonstrate at the appropriate time, the same is true for \"insider\" Lamp Capital, a smaller top 20 purported \"creditor\" (technically owned by his son) that Kwok has listed on his schedule.\n\nKwok's penchant for using his family members to shield his assets⁵¹ creates an additional concern. Kwok stated an intention to seek debtor-in-possession financing and that he \"will need the support of his family members to fund an exit from [C]hapter 11.\"⁵² Although the appropriateness of debtor-in-possession financing is not the subject of this filing, the notion that Kwok cannot file Statements and SOFAs until he engages in more shuffling of money around among family members under the guise of arms-length \"loans\" raises the very serious concern that he intends to use his *own money* to leapfrog PAX and other creditors in priority, thereby effectively giving himself an unlawful preference and first claim to assets of the estate. These anticipated machinations provide no basis for granting the Motion or delaying disclosures.\n\n16. Taken together, Kwok's protracted pattern of deception and misbehavior precludes PAX — or this Court — from having any confidence in his *bona fides* in filing for bankruptcy, or his professed \"clear intention of satisfying his creditors' allowed claims in full.\"⁵³ His threat to \"start an all-out war with the PA[X]\" and to flee the United States on the same day that Justice Ostrager issued the February 9 Contempt Order only underscores what Justice Ostrager deemed Kwok's \"utter contempt for the Court and the judicial process\"⁵⁴ and the urgent need for his prompt compliance with the Bankruptcy Rules. There is no reason to believe this bankruptcy filing was a watershed moment for Kwok that signals a change of heart after somber and careful reflection. It was just the latest card Kwok had to play after years of delay and obfuscation, and he was only forced to play it after pushing Justice Ostrager to the point of all but threatening to issue an arrest warrant if he failed to comply with the February 9 Contempt\n\n⁵¹ *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1 (referencing Kwok's \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members….\").\n\n⁵² Debtor's Motion to Extend Time at ¶¶ 10, 12.\n\n⁵³ *Id* at ¶ 12.\n\n⁵⁴ Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 4.\n\nOrder.\n\n#### **RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\nNotwithstanding anything in this Opposition, PAX reserves all rights, claims and defenses with respect to these chapter 11 proceedings, including but not limited to the right to contest venue, seek dismissal of the case, and any other remedy.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nPAX is justifiably very concerned that this forum is only the latest one that Kwok will seek to exploit in his ongoing effort to further obstruct and delay PAX's legitimate judgment collection efforts. Accordingly, Kwok's motion for an extension of time should be denied, and this Court should require Kwok to timely file the complete and accurate Schedules and SOFAs required by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\nDated: Hartford, Connecticut February 28, 2022\n\n## **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By: /s/ Patrick M. Birney*\n\n Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP** 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP** Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2293 E-Mail: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com","body_zh":"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院）\n\n案件涉及：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），1\n\n债务人。\n\n第11章案件编号：\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n2022年2月28日\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.反对债务人延长提交资产与负债清单及财务状况说明书期限之动议的异议答辩书\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，以下简称“PAX”）特此就债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“郭”）提交的《延长提交资产与负债清单及财务状况说明书期限之动议》[ECF No. 27]（以下简称“本动议”）提出本异议答辩。基于下文阐述的理由，本动议应予驳回。\n\n引言\n\n郭请求延长提交其清单及财务状况说明书（SOFAs）2的期限，辩称其案件属于“特例”。本案确属特例，但仅仅是因为郭长期以来欺诈与抗拒法庭行为的惊人程度。在郭提交其第11章破产申请的数天前，New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）法官Barry Ostrager就郭持续未能将其于2015年以2800万欧元购得的游艇Lady May（梅号）归还至纽约法院管辖范围内一事，对其作出了最终藐视法庭裁定。3该藐视法庭裁定仅仅是众多\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号的后四位数字为9595。\n\n2 本异议答辩书全文将资产与负债清单（Schedules of Assets and Liabilities）和财务状况说明书（Statements of Financial Affairs）统称为“清单及财务状况说明书（Schedules and SOFAs）”。\n\n3 见作为附件A附于本文件的《Peter Friedman支持Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.反对Ho Wan Kwok延长期限动议之异议答辩书的声明》（以下简称《Friedman声明》）附件1，动议判决与裁定第10页，PAX v. Kwok，案号：Index No. 652077/2017 (Feb. 9, 2022, N.Y. Sup. 2022)，Dkt No. 1181（以下简称“2月9日藐视法庭裁定”）。\n\n例证之一，在这些事例中，郭——在回应PAX所有判后证据开示请求时援引了《第五修正案》——蔑视法庭裁定并滥用司法程序，企图逃避执行PAX对其胜诉获得的1.16亿美元判决。正如Ostrager法官所认定：“自称百亿富豪的郭，将其资产隐匿在复杂的公司实体网络及家庭成员处。”4由于他为规避债权人而精心设计的种种计谋，纽约州最高法院的案件卷宗累积了超过1180项记录，“其中几乎全部涉及……[郭]通过将巨额个人资产存放于一系列公司、亲信和家庭成员处，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的行径。”5郭提交的第11章破产申请不过是他最新的不诚实伎俩。如下文详述，其申请中至少包含三处重大虚假和/或误导性陈述。最显而易见的是，郭宣誓（虚假）陈述称其资产不足100,000美元，这与Ostrager法官就在数天前认定的郭“持有Lady May的实益权益并对其实施控制”完全不符。6其次，郭在申请中在受伪证罪处罚的规定下作出了虚假陈述，称其关联方均未提交破产申请，尽管Kwok关联的壳实体Genever Holdings LLC（以下简称“Genever NY”）在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的第11章破产程序仍在进行中。第三，他将其第二大“债权人”列为一个显而易见的“内部人”实体，而该实体正是他用来持有自身资产和资助其奢靡生活的家族实体迷宫中的一部分。在与United States Trustee（美国破产受托人）的首次债务人面谈中，他承认该实体Golden Spring (New York)为其支付“所有生活费用”。7\n\n4 同上，第1页。\n\n5 同上。\n\n6 同上，第9页。\n\n7 参见《美国破产受托人对债务人延长提交资产与负债清单及财务状况说明书期限之动议的异议》[ECF No. 49]（以下简称《UST异议》）第12段；另参见官方表格104《对您享有前20大无担保债权且非内部人的债权人名单》[ECF No. 20]（以下简称《无担保债权人名单》）第1页（列出Golden Spring New York）。\n\n本法院不应准许郭将清单及财务状况说明书的及时提交推迟至2022年5月2日，因为正如其申请中的虚假陈述所表明的那样，绝不能允许郭在提交完整且准确的披露事项上拖延推诿。债权人需要即时披露，以便依据11 U.S.C. § 341对债务人进行全面调查，而且即时披露还将有助于确定对郭进行重组是否有任何实际意义，还是应当将本案转换程序（或驳回）。8无论如何，郭声称其资产价值不足100,000美元这一极度可疑的主张，恰恰削弱了他自己关于需要额外时间来准备必要清单的断言。他不可能既几乎没有实质性资产，同时又需要大量额外时间来确定这些资产。至于郭的律师所提出的（毫无支持证据的）郭需要更多时间来确定潜在的执业过失诉讼和诽谤案件的主张，法院卷宗检索显示，多年来他一直是一名活跃的原告，但几乎毫无成果。9无论如何，这些诉讼是已知的，可以立即列入清单。而且，鉴于这些诉求而推迟清单提交无论如何都是本末倒置——郭拥有并控制着巨额的真实资产。他首先应当专注于查明这些资产并将其归入其破产财产，以维护债权人的利益。郭还应当针对其存放巨额资产的无数壳“公司、亲信及家庭成员”列明权利主张。10针对这些实体和个人的权利主张对郭而言已属已知，\n\n8 郭关于其没有资产、财产、银行账户且没有收入的陈述（引自《UST异议》），对本案的合法性提出了极其严重的质疑。参见《UST异议》第12段。\n\n9 例如，郭在胜诉的一起被告称其为“中国间谍”的诽谤诉讼中获判100,000美元。参见《Friedman声明》附件2起诉书，Kwok v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.，案号：Case No. 9:19-cv-81099 (D. Fla. 2019)，ECF No. 1。另一起针对某大型媒体公司、郭主张不少于5000万美元赔偿的诽谤诉讼也于2019年8月达成和解。参见《Friedman声明》附件3和解通知，Kwok v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.，案号：Case No. 9:19-cv-81099 (D. Fla. 2019)，ECF No. 25。鉴于郭坚称其资产不足100,000美元，要么是该和解金额极少，要么就是他在对PAX负有个人担保责任期间将收益进行了欺诈性转让。\n\n10 《Friedman声明》附件1（2月9日藐视法庭裁定）第1页。\n\n应当立即予以明确。如果其他潜在的执业过失或诽谤诉由得以成形（目前没有任何证据表明其存在），这些诉由可以在修改后的说明书及财务状况说明书中予以明确。因此，PAX谨请本法院剥夺郭进一步挫败债权人的机会，并驳回其延长提交清单及财务状况说明书期限的拖延请求。\n\n背景\n\n1. 2011年，PAX与郭名下一家名为Shiny Times的实体签署了一份贷款协议。11郭对该笔贷款提供了个人担保。12尽管多次展期且PAX多次尝试结清该笔债务，郭从未偿还贷款。13\n\n2. 因此，PAX于2017年4月18日在New York State Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院，由Barry M. Ostrager法官审理）起诉郭违约。14经过近四年的诉讼，纽约法院于2021年2月3日对郭作出了116,402,019.57美元的判决。15PAX随后“开展了长达一年的努力来执行[该]判决，首先是查明然后试图扣押郭在美国的资产。”16这绝非易事，因为正如Ostrager法官所认定，“自称百亿富豪的郭，将其资产隐匿在复杂的公司实体网络及家庭成员处。”17而在简易判决裁定作出大约一个月后的2021年3月11日，郭在回应PAX所有判后证据开示请求时援引了《第五修正案》。郭迄今未偿还116,402,019.57美元判决款项中的任何一分钱，该判决（至少在本次\n\n16 《Friedman声明》附件1（2月9日藐视法庭裁定）第1页。\n\n11 《Friedman声明》附件4，动议判决与裁定第2页，PAX v. Kwok，案号：Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020)，ECF No. 549。\n\n12 同上，第5-7页。\n\n13 同上。\n\n14 《Friedman声明》附件5，起诉书，PAX v. Kwok，案号：Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2017)，ECF No. 2。\n\n15 《Friedman声明》附件6，判决书第2页，PAX v. Kwok，案号：Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)，ECF No. 716。\n\n17 同上。\n\n破产申请提出前）按年利率9%计收判后利息。18\n\n3. 郭可查明的资产之一是一艘名为Lady May的游艇，该游艇于2015年以2800万欧元购得。2020年9月30日，Ostrager法官发布了一项临时限制令，禁止郭“进行或促成对其享有权益的任何财产进行任何出售、转让、让与或干预……”。19两周后的2020年10月15日，Ostrager法官明确说明9月30日的命令包括Lady May。20但在Ostrager法官和PAX不知情的情况下，Lady May已于10月9日或前后离开纽约驶往佛罗里达。21该游艇随后前往巴哈马，最终开往欧洲，据PAX了解，该游艇至今仍停留在欧洲。22\n\n4. 针对发现Lady May已离开且违反Ostrager法官的命令滞留于纽约之外的情况，PAX提交了民事藐视法庭动议23，且法院于\n\n2021年3月16日发布了一项附条件的民事藐视法庭裁定，责令郭或该\n\n船只的登记所有人于2021年5月15日之前将Lady May归还至纽约法院的管辖范围内，\n\n并对逾期未归还的游艇按日加处500,000美元罚款。24\n\nNew York Appellate Division, First Department（纽约州最高法院上诉分部第一分审区）一致维持了初审法院的\n\n21 参见《Friedman声明》附件1（2月9日藐视法庭裁定）第2页；另参见《Friedman声明》附件10，VESSELFINDER，航程分析器（最后访问日期：2022年2月28日）；另参见《Friedman声明》附件11，2022年2月2日庭审笔录，PAX v. Kwok，案号：Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022)，第84:10–86:12行（Heaslop船长作证称，尽管记不清确切离港日期，但他认为是在2020年10月第一周将Lady May开往佛罗里达的）。\n\n18 N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5004 (McKinney's 2022)；《Friedman声明》附件4第7页；另参见《Friedman声明》附件7《支持原告部分简易判决动议的重大事实陈述》，附件23第KWOK000652页，PAX v. Kwok，案号：Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020)，ECF No. 455（“2011年个人担保”）。\n\n19 《Friedman声明》附件8，陈词理由令，PAX v. Kwok，案号：652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020)，ECF No. 590第1–2页。\n20 《Friedman声明》附件9，动议判决与裁定第1页，PAX v. Kwok，案号：652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020)，ECF No. 630。\n\n22 截至2022年2月28日上午，Lady May停泊在意大利热那亚。参见《Friedman声明》附件10。\n\n23 参见《Friedman声明》附件12，《PAX支持针对被告郭作出藐视法庭裁定动议的法律备忘录》，PAX v. Kwok，案号：Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020)，ECF No. 689；另参见《Friedman声明》附件13，《PAX进一步支持针对被告郭作出藐视法庭裁定动议的法律备忘录》，PAX v. Kwok，案号：Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)，ECF No. 709。\n\n24 《Friedman声明》附件14，动议判决与裁定，PAX v. Kwok，案号：Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)，ECF No. 728（“首次藐视法庭裁定”）。换言之，法院给予了郭先生整整两个月的宽限期以归还游艇并从而免受任何罚款。\n\n裁定，认定：(i) PAX（太平洋联盟）已“以清晰且有说服力的证据证明[Kwok（郭文贵）]违反了一项由法院作出的其知情的合法明确命令，且该违反行为对[PAX]的权利造成了损害……”；以及(ii)“每日$500,000的罚款旨在强力促使[郭文贵]消除其蔑视法庭行为。”25 据此，First Department（第一司法部）指示Ostrager法官在发布最终蔑视法庭裁定前，“进行证据听证会，以解决有关该游艇所有权与控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚”。26\n\n5. Ostrager法官于2022年2月2日举行了该项证据听证会。在听取了七名证人的证词后，Ostrager法官得出结论：“听证会上出自[郭文贵]证人口中的证词清晰且有说服力地证明了郭文贵实益拥有并控制Lady May号，且对本法院及司法程序表现出彻底的蔑视。”27 法院进一步认定，尽管从形式上看郭文贵的女儿持有该游艇的产权，“郭文贵控制着该游艇，[且]似乎是他提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享有该游艇使用权的人。”28 因此，Ostrager法官于2022年2月9日作出了蔑视法庭裁定，除其他事项外，责令郭文贵在2022年2月16日之前向PAX汇付$134,000,000，否则将面临法院行使其根据Judiciary Law § 753（《司法法》第753条）所享有的全部权力的风险。29\n\n6. 在蔑视法庭裁定作出的同一天，郭文贵在公开的社交媒体发帖中表示，他打算“与PA[X]开战”并逃离美国。\n\n25 Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021).\n\n26 同上。\n\n27 Friedman Decl.（弗里德曼声明），Ex. 1（2022年2月9日蔑视法庭裁定），第4页。\n\n28 同上，第8页。\n\n29 同上，第10页。\n\n30 郭文贵还试图通过就2022年2月9日蔑视法庭裁定在上诉期间申请紧急行政中止执行，来规避支付民事蔑视法庭罚款。该项请求被当庭简易驳回，31 随后，就在其$134 million付款到期前夕的夜晚，郭文贵提起了本起第11章破产案。32\n\n7. 郭文贵在提交其最初的第11章破产申请书一周多之后，提交了一份修正申请书。33 值得注意的是，尽管Ostrager法官在破产申请提出前仅六天就已作出明确裁定，认定“郭文贵实益拥有并控制Lady May号”，但无论是原始申请还是修正申请均未将Lady May号的价值列为资产。34 即使郭文贵对该项认定存有争议，一份完整且真实的申请书也应当向本法院及郭文贵的债权人披露该游艇的价值。相反，为了争取更多时间以逃避作出强制性披露，郭文贵现在请求延期60天提交其被要求提交的Schedules（资产负债表及明细表）和SOFAs（财务状况说明书）。11 U.S.C. § 521；Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(b)–(c)。\n\n8. 鉴于郭文贵长期以来抗拒法庭、逃避披露高价值资产以及“将其资产隐匿在迷宫般的公司实体中并与家庭成员共同隐匿”的历史，35 本法院应当通过驳回郭文贵的动议，最大限度地减少郭文贵进一步隐匿其资产的时间。\n\n辩理部分\n\nI. 适用法律支持驳回郭文贵的动议\n\n9. 第11章破产程序旨在为了债权人的利益而“使破产财团的价值最大化”，这已是基本的法律常识。Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S.Ct. 973, 986 (2017)（援引Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. 157, 163–64 (1991)）。实现这一目标的关键在于及时且准确地提交Schedules和SOFAs。在自愿申请案件中，债务人须随破产申请书一并提交或在提交申请书后14天内提交Schedules和SOFAs。参见Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(c)。“提交填写完整且及时的明细表的目的是‘向破产管理人和债权人提供有关债务人财务状况的详细信息’。”In re McDermitt, No. 05-11710, 2006 WL 1582390, at *3 (D. Vt. May 30, 2006)；另见In re Eldorado Canyon Props., LLC, 505 B.R. 601, 604 (1st Cir. B.A.P. 2014)（“破产明细表具有确保向破产管理人和债权人提供充分信息的重要目的。”）。诚然，“破产案件的有效管理”取决于“在规定期限内提交完整且准确的明细表”。Eldorado Canyon Props., LLC, 505 B.R. at 604（强调为后加）。若没有及时且准确的Schedules和SOFAs，法院、Office of the United States Trustee（美国破产受托人办公室）以及债权人就无法准确评估债务人的财务状况，也无法判断该破产申请是否出于善意。参见In re Anvil Holdings LP, 595 B.R. 622, 627–28 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2019)（若无准确且完整的财务文件，法院和各方当事人将无法理解债务人的财务运营状况，且法院对债务人是否存在恶意表示担忧）。\n\n30 参见Friedman Decl.，Ex. 15，S. Sarnoff致Appellate Division, First Department（上诉分部第一司法部）书记官的信函（2022年2月15日），第3页，PAX v. Kwok，案号 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)，ECF No. 4；另见Miles Kwok (@MilesGuo) 2022年2月9日发帖，GETTR，http（最后访问日期：2022年2月28日）。\n\n31 Friedman Decl.，Ex. 16，裁定，PAX v. Kwok，案号 2022-00609；2022-00610 (App. Div. 2022)，ECF No. 5，第2页。\n\n32 Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy（非个人破产自愿申请书），ECF No. 1，第7页。\n\n33 Amended Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy（非个人破产自愿申请书修正案），ECF No. 19。\n\n34 Friedman Decl.，Ex. 1（2022年2月9日蔑视法庭裁定），第4页。\n\n35 同上，第1页。\n\n10. 对这些重大问题的不确定性是不可容忍的，因为破产法典的保护措施以及随之而来的对债权人权利的中止，在提交破产申请后立即生效。参见11 U.S.C. § 362；Rexnord Holdings, Inc. v. Bidermann, 21 F.3d 522, 527 (2d Cir. 1994)（“中止在提交破产申请后立即生效。”）。在债权人在破产程序之外的权利和救济手段被搁置的同时，绝不能让债权人处于悬而未决、无法评估其对债务人权利的状态。法院亦不允许债务人在享受破产法典保护的同时不及时履行披露义务。参见9 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1007.03 (16th ed. 2021)（“如果明细表、说明书或其他文件未按时提交，美国破产受托人可以提出动议驳回该案”）；In re Mutty, No. 04-10634, 2004 WL 2647705, at *7 (Bankr. D. Vt. Nov. 19, 2004)（因未能本着善意与坦诚提交准确的明细表而驳回案件）；Eldorado Canyon Properties, 505 B.R. at 604–05（因未能及时提交Schedules和SOFAs而维持驳回破产案件的裁定）。正如本巡回区的一家法院所指出的：\n\n诚实的债务人在破产案件中所获得的利益，包括免除所有可免除的债务、获得“重新开始”，与破产法典和规则对债务人提出的极少数要求和期望相比，是极其不成比例的。这极少数但非常重要的义务之一——对于任何债务人，甚至是消费者或典型的个人债务人而言，似乎都很容易履行——就是确保妥善列明其所有资产。\n\nIn re Ptasinski, 290 B.R. 16, 26 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2003)。该法院强调，债务人及其律师必须确保明细表“尽债务人所知及所获信息达到完整和准确”，因为破产法典的保护并不适用于那些“对其资产或事务的真实情况采取不端和随意手段”的人。同上，第26–27页（援引In re Tully, 818 F.2d 106, 110 (1st Cir. 1987)）。\n\nII. 鉴于此处所呈现的“非同寻常”的情形，应当驳回郭文贵关于额外时间的请求\n\n11. 郭文贵的“非同寻常”行为引发了诸多警示信号，并成为极力反对其延期请求的有力依据。Ostrager法官于2022年2月9日作出的蔑视法庭裁定记录了郭文贵长期公然蔑视法院命令的历史。36 即便如此，郭文贵如今变本加厉地进行“权术玩弄、掩饰真相与欺诈”。37 就在Ostrager法官发布2022年2月9日蔑视法庭裁定的同一天（距今不到三周），郭文贵公开宣布其打算“与PA[X]开战”并潜逃出境。38 一周后，在履行2022年2月9日蔑视法庭裁定之截止日期的前夕，郭文贵申请了破产。\n\n36 Friedman Decl.，Ex. 1（2022年2月9日蔑视法庭裁定）。\n\n37 Friedman Decl.，Ex. 14（初始蔑视法庭裁定），第2页。\n\n12. 如前所述，郭文贵的破产申请至少在三个方面存在重大虚假和误导性。首先，郭文贵——一位自封的亿万富翁——宣誓陈述称其资产价值在$50,001至$100,000之间，这与Ostrager法官认定郭文贵实益拥有并控制Lady May号的事实不符。这亦直接削弱了他关于需要大幅延长的时间来查明那些（据称不存在的）资产的任何主张。郭文贵向美国破产受托人办公室所作的陈述更进一步佐证了这一点，他陈述称其没有银行账户、信用卡，没有受雇就业，未直接拥有任何不动产、车辆，且未对任何资产投保。39\n\n13. 其次，郭文贵虚假陈述称其在破产程序中没有任何关联方。郭文贵承认拥有的唯一一项资产是一家在英属维尔京群岛设立的名为Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）的控股公司。40 进而，Genever BVI持有Genever NY41 100%的有表决权股权，后者是一家纽约实体，在New York City（纽约市）的Sherry Netherland Hotel拥有一套豪华整层公寓，郭文贵于2015年3月以近$70 million的价格购买了该公寓并一直在其中居住。42 在PAX赢得针对郭文贵的即决判决后不久，Genever NY于2020年末在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）提起了第11章破产案。43 鉴于郭文贵间接控制Genever NY的有表决权股权，根据11 U.S.C. § 101(2)(B)，该实体系其关联方。因此，郭文贵未列出该程序属于不诚实行为。\n\n38 参见Friedman Decl.，Ex. 15，第3页。\n\n39 UST Objection（美国破产受托人异议书），第12段。\n\n40 Friedman Decl.，Ex. 17，2021年9月22日听证记录，第16:8–12行，PAX v. Kwok，案号 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)。\n\n41 Friedman Decl.，Ex. 18，被告郭文贵对原告[PAX]第三组质问书的答复及异议，PAX v. Kwok，案号 652077/2017，ECF No. 756，第9页。\n\n42 参见Friedman Decl.，Ex. 19，PAX支持判决前财产保全动议的法律备忘录附件11，SN0036，案号 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2018)，ECF No. 256（将“Genever Holdings LLC”列为购买方的已签署买卖合同）；另见同上，SN 0047（将“'Miles' Kwok Ho Wan (Genever Holdings LLC)”列为申请人的购买申请书）。\n\n14. 第三，且同样令人不安的是，Kwok（郭文贵）在其前20大“非内部人”债权人名单中列入了Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉，简称“GSNY”）。参见《无担保债权人名单》，[ECF No. 20] 第1页；11 U.S.C. § 101(31)(A)。第11章申请表格上的填写说明明确规定，前20大债权人中只能列入非内部人。郭文贵“通过将资金从[其]在UBS（瑞银集团）的账户之一转移到Golden Spring New York在JPMorgan Chase（摩根大通）的银行账户……设立了[GSNY]”。44 在用自己的资金为GSNY注资后，郭文贵将其用作个人储蓄罐，以支付其几乎全部数以百万美元计的个人生活费用和法律费用。45 事实上，除Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）外，46 至少还有一家联邦法院同样认定GSNY是郭文贵作为“家族办公室”维持运营的公司。47 并且，郭文贵不仅将GSNY列为其前20大非内部人债权人之一，还在同一份经宣誓的申请书中将GSNY及其地址列为“[其]居住地”。48 这些事实表明，GSNY绝非正常交易的独立债权人，并完全符合非法定内部人的认定标准。49 因此，郭文贵将GSNY列为所谓的非内部人债权人，完全是欺骗性和欺诈性的。50\n\n15. 除了上述重大不实陈述和遗漏之外，\n\n43 参见 In re Genever Holdings LLC，案号 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020)。\n\n44 Friedman Decl.（弗里德曼声明），附件20，Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云/郭文贵）支持原告反对被告驳回起诉动议的宣誓书，Ace Decade Holdings Ltd. v. UBS AG，索引号 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. 2016)，ECF No. 27，第36段。\n\n45 Friedman Decl.，附件21，2021年5月27日听证记录第9:25–10:3行，PAX v. Kwok，索引号 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)，ECF No. 833（“Golden Springs提供七位数的款项以便利郭先生的生活方式是无可争议的，而郭先生过着相当奢华的生活”）。\n\n46 Friedman Decl.，附件1（2月9日藐视法庭裁定）第5、9页。\n\n47 Friedman Decl.，附件22，《事实认定与法律结论》第2页，Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC，案号 1:18-cv-02185-LJL (S.D.N.Y. 2021)，ECF No. 372。\n\n48 《修改后的自愿申请书》，ECF No. 19 第2页（在回答“您居住何处”时，郭文贵陈述为“c/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., 162 East 64th Street, New York, NY 10065”）。\n\n49 即便按照郭文贵自己对事实的陈述，GSNY据称也是由一家香港公司所有，而该公司与郭文贵用来屏蔽其资产的其他公司一样，由郭文贵的儿子Qiang Guo（郭强）所有。Friedman Decl.，附件23，郭文贵宣誓作证记录，PAX v. Kwok，索引号 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)，ECF No. 785 第63:17–18行。\n\n50 正如PAX在适当时候将证明的那样，郭文贵在其明细表中列出的另一家规模较小的前20大所谓“债权人”——“内部人”Lamp Capital（在法律上归其子所有）也是如此。\n\n郭文贵惯于利用其家庭成员屏蔽其资产的做法51带来了额外的担忧。郭文贵表示有意寻求占有中债务人融资，并表示他“将需要其家庭成员的支持来资助其退出第11章程序”。52 尽管占有中债务人融资的适当性并非本份文书的主题，但认为郭文贵在以正常交易“贷款”为幌子在家庭成员之间进行更多资金腾挪之前无法提交财务状况说明书和SOFA（财务状况声明书）的说法，引发了极其严重的担忧，即他意图使用其自有资金在受偿顺序上超越PAX和其他债权人，从而实质上给予自己非法的优先受偿权以及对破产财产资产的首要受偿请求权。这些预期的花招不能作为准予动议或推迟披露的依据。\n\n16. 综合来看，郭文贵长期以来的欺骗和不当行为模式使PAX——或本法院——无法对其申请破产的善意，或其声称的“全额清偿债权人获准债权的明确意图”产生任何信任。53 在奥斯特拉格法官签发2月9日藐视法庭裁定的当天，他扬言要“对PAX发动全面战争”并逃离美国，这恰恰印证了奥斯特拉格法官所认定的郭文贵“对法院和司法程序的彻底藐视”，54 以及迫切需要其迅速遵守《破产程序规则》。没有任何理由相信此次破产申请对郭文贵而言是一个转折点，标志着他在经过清醒和审慎的反思后洗心革面。这只是郭文贵在经历数年的拖延和混淆视听之后打出的最新底牌，而且他是在将奥斯特拉格法官逼到几乎威胁如果他不遵守2月9日藐视法庭裁定就签发逮捕令的地步后，才被迫打出这张牌的。\n\n51 参见 Friedman Decl.，附件1（2月9日藐视法庭裁定）第1页（提及郭文贵“通过将巨额资产存放在一系列公司、亲信和家庭成员名下，企图规避并欺骗其债权人……”）。\n\n52 《债务人延期动议》第10、12段。\n\n53 同上，第12段。\n\n54 Friedman Decl.，附件1（2月9日藐视法庭裁定）第4页。\n\n裁定。\n\n保留权利\n\n尽管本反对意见书有任何规定，PAX对这些第11章程序保留所有权利、主张和抗辩，包括但不限于对管辖法院提出异议、寻求驳回案件以及任何其他救济的权利。\n\n结论\n\nPAX完全有理由极度担忧，该审判地只是郭文贵在其持续阻碍和拖延PAX合法执行判决的企图中所试图利用的最新场所。因此，郭文贵的延期动议应当予以驳回，本法院应当要求郭文贵按期提交《破产法典》所要求的完整且准确的明细表和SOFA。\n\n日期：康涅狄格州哈特福德 2022年2月28日\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\n\nPatrick M. Birney（康州执业号 19875）\nAnnecca H. Smith（康州执业号 31148）\nROBINSON & COLE LLP（罗宾逊高尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 275-8275\n传真：(860) 275-8299\n电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com\nasmith@rc.com\n\nPeter Friedman（特别出庭代理许可）\nStuart M. Sarnoff（特别出庭代理许可）\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2293\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\nssarnoff@omm.com","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4735,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:42:01"}