{"id":"court_sdny_89_3","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":89,"sub_number":3,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2023-06-08","title":"EXHIBIT C | <b>UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT</b><br><b>DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT</b><br><b>BRIDGEPORT DIVISION</b>","summary_zh":"破产受信人诉状 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #89（2023-06-08 提交）。康州破产法庭第 11 章诉讼，Trustee Luc A. Despins 代表破产产业诉称 HCHK Technologies 等实体为 Debtor 替代人格，其资产应归入破产产业，并寻求宣告转让契约无效。","summary_en":"Bankruptcy Trustee Complaint — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #89 (filed June 8, 2023). Chapter 11 adversary proceeding in Connecticut Bankruptcy Court by Trustee Luc A. Despins alleging HCHK Entities are alter egos of debtor and seeking declaration that their assets constitute property of debtor's estate and voiding of assignment deeds.","body_en":"# **EXHIBIT C**\n\n| <b>UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT</b><br><b>DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT</b><br><b>BRIDGEPORT DIVISION</b>                    |                           |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------X                                                        |                           |\n|                                                                                                                          | :                         |\n| In re:                                                                                                                   | : Chapter 11              |\n|                                                                                                                          | :                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK, <i style=\"font-style: italic;\">et al.</i> , <span style=\"vertical-align: super; font-size: 0.7em;\">1</span> | : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                                                                                          | :                         |\n| Debtors.                                                                                                                 | : (Jointly Administered)  |\n|                                                                                                                          | :                         |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------X                                                        |                           |\n|                                                                                                                          | :                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11                                                                                               | :                         |\n| TRUSTEE,                                                                                                                 | :                         |\n|                                                                                                                          | :                         |\n| Plaintiff,                                                                                                               | : Adv. Proceeding No. [ ] |\n|                                                                                                                          | :                         |\n| v.                                                                                                                       | :                         |\n|                                                                                                                          | : June 8, 2023            |\n|                                                                                                                          | :                         |\n| HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,                                                                                                 | :                         |\n| HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.,                                                                                          | :                         |\n| LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC.,                                                                                   | :                         |\n| HOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD.,                                                                                      | :                         |\n| ANTHONY DIBATTISTA, YVETTE WANG,                                                                                         | :                         |\n| and BRIAN HOFMEISTER (in his capacity                                                                                    | :                         |\n| as assignee),                                                                                                            | :                         |\n|                                                                                                                          | :                         |\n| Defendants.                                                                                                              | :                         |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------X                                                        |                           |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 105, 362, 363, 541, 542, 544, AND 549 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE SEEKING (I) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., AND LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC. ARE (A) ALTER EGOS OF DEBTOR; OR, (B) IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER THAT DEBTOR EQUITABLY OWNS SUCH ENTITIES AND/OR THEIR PROPERTY; AND (II) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF**\n\nThe Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this adversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendants: (a) HCHK Technologies, Inc. (\"HCHK Technologies\"); (b) HCHK Property Management, Inc. (\"HCHK Property\"); (c) Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc. (\"Lexington Property,\" and, together with HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property, the \"HCHK Entities\"); (d) Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Ltd. (\"Holy City\"); (e) Yvette Wang; (f) Anthony DiBattista; and (g) Brian Hofmeister, in his capacity as assignee of the HCHK Entities (the \"Assignee Defendant,\"<sup>2</sup> and, together with the HCHK Entities, Holy City, Yvette Wang, and Anthony DiBattista, the \"Defendants\"). In support of this Complaint, the Trustee states as follows:\n\n# **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee files this Complaint and his accompanying motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to bring valuable assets into the chapter 11 estate and to urgently prevent those assets from being dissipated to the detriment of the Debtor's creditors. As this Court well knows, the Debtor has a history of using shell companies, family members, and close associates to help keep his assets outside the reach of his creditors, such as when he used Hong Kong International Investments (USA) Limited (\"HK USA\"), nominally owned by his daughter, to create the fiction that his *Lady May* yacht and approximately \\$33 million in escrow funds were not property of this estate. The Court rightfully ignored that fiction in granting summary judgment for the Trustee on his alter ego claim against HK USA.\n\nThe Trustee, as of the time of the filing this Complaint, has no information regarding the Assignee Defendant's actual knowledge or lack of actual knowledge of the facts alleged in this Complaint. However, the relief sought in this complaint is amply justified, regardless of such actual knowledge by the Assignee Defendant.\n\n2. The Debtor and his associates are deploying the same tactics with the HCHK Entities, using them to hold over \\$35 million in cash that should be property of the estate. The HCHK Entities are nominally owned by Yvette Wang, the Debtor's close associate and codefendant in the U.S. Government's billion-dollar criminal fraud and money-laundering case. The reality, however, is that Ms. Wang takes direction from the Debtor, and the HCHK Entities, just like HK USA and numerous of the Debtor's other shell companies before them, are mere extensions of the Debtor himself, designed to conduct his business and keep his valuable assets from creditors.\n\n3. While the Debtor's use of the HCHK Entities as mere alter egos is nothing new, the circumstances at issue are even more troubling than they have been in the past because the Debtor and his associates are *presently engaged in a scheme to transfer the HCHK Entities' valuable assets to other shell companies of the Debtor*. Specifically, on April 20, 2023, the Debtor's employees nominally in management positions at the HCHK Entities, executed Deeds of Assignment with respect to each of the HCHK Entities purporting to assign all of their assets to the Assignee Defendant. The Assignee Defendant then filed an affidavit and petition with respect to each of the HCHK Entities (each, an \"Assignee Affidavit\" and, together, the \"Assignee Affidavits\") in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County (the \"State Court\"). The Assignee Affidavits requested the commencement of an assignment for the benefit of creditors proceeding under the Debtor Creditor Law of New York (each, an \"Assignment Proceeding,\" and, together, the \"Assignment Proceedings\"). The documents filed with the Assignee Affidavits include schedules of the purported creditors of the HCHK Entities listing entities associated with the Debtor such as ACA Capital, Golden Spring, and Saraca Media (each defined below), as well as unnamed individuals who, upon information and belief,\n\nare associates or relatives of the Debtor.<sup>3</sup> The Assignee Affidavits and related documents were sent to the Trustee on May 30, 2023, accompanied, with respect to the Assignment Proceedings for HCHK Technologies and Lexington Property, by orders to show cause why orders commencing the Assignment Proceedings should not be entered, with response dates of **June 15, 2023** for HCHK Technologies, and **June 21, 2023** for Lexington Property. On June 5, 2023, the Trustee was sent an order to show cause why an order commencing the Assignment Proceeding of HCHK Property should not be entered, with a response date of **June 27, 2023**. These are proceedings in which the Debtor and persons he controls are attempting to create their own version of a chapter 11 case without the supervision and involvement of the Trustee and the Court.\n\n4. Abundant evidence demonstrates that the HCHK Entities are alter egos of or equitably owned by the Debtor<sup>4</sup> and, thus, the Assignment Proceedings are clear attempts to divert the HCHK Entities' valuable assets from this chapter 11 estate. At all relevant times, the HCHK Entities (a) were nominally owned and staffed by the Debtor's employees; (b) were affiliates of the Debtor's \"G-Series\" entities, such as Gettr, GTV, GClubs, GFashion, and GMusic (the \"G-Series Entities\"), which this Court has already found to be controlled by or to serve as business vehicles for the Debtor;<sup>5</sup> (c) paid the Debtor's expenses, including with respect to the *Lady May* and the Debtor's Bombardier jet (which Mei Guo testified was sold in the summer of 2022); and (d) were funded by the Debtor through associates, controlled entities, and\n\nIn other words, the Assignee Defendant, who was assigned the assets of the HCHK Entities \"on behalf of creditors,\" has ostensibly been assigned the assets of the HCHK Entities \"on behalf of\" a collection of the Debtor's associates and controlled entities.\n\nThe Trustee's equitable ownership claims encompass equitable ownership of the HCHK Entities (i.e., the shares representing the ownership interests in such entities) and/or the assets of the HCHK Entities. 5\n\nThe Court also found that: \"The G in GSeries stands for Guo.\" *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Jan. 13, 2023) [Docket No. 133] (the \"PI Decision\").\n\nrepresentatives. The U.S. Government, as part of its criminal prosecution of the Debtor and Yvette Wang, has similarly asserted that the Debtor controls HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property. The Debtor, for his part, has not disagreed, as he invoked the Fifth Amendment at his deposition when asked about his control and ownership of HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property.<sup>6</sup>\n\n5. The Trustee seeks in this Complaint an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, that the HCHK Entities are alter egos of the Debtor and/or equitably owned by him, and an order, pursuant to sections 105, 362, 363, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code, enjoining the Defendants and any party acting in concert with them from commencing or continuing the Assignment Proceedings, and enjoining any transfer or use of the assets, including cash, of the HCHK Entities, except as authorized by the Trustee or this Court. The requested injunction is warranted because the Assignment Proceedings will have an immediate adverse consequence for the Debtor's estate by effectively permitting the continued violation of the automatic stay so that the HCHK Entities and the Defendants may engage in parallel proceedings that are both duplicative of and decidedly inferior to this Chapter 11 Case. Allowing the Assignment Proceedings to continue will also encourage the Debtor to commence new assignment proceedings with his other alter ego entities as a strategy to bypass the scrutiny of the Trustee and this Court.\n\n# **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334(b).\n\nIn his sworn declaration dated May 11, 2023, the Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked to state that he had control over Yvette Wang. *Debtor's Sworn Declaration Regarding Responses to Particular Questions*, ¶ 46 (invoking the Fifth Amendment in response to question regarding his control over numerous other entities and individuals), attached hereto as Ex. 1.\n\n7. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(a).\n\n# **THE PARTIES**\n\n8. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n9. HCHK Technologies is a Delaware corporation.\n\n10. HCHK Property is a Delaware corporation.\n\n11. Lexington Property is a Delaware corporation.\n\n12. Holy City is a British Virgin Islands corporation that nominally owns a 99.9999% equity interest in each of the HCHK Entities. Holy City is nominally owned 100% by Yvette Wang.\n\n13. Yvette Wang is an individual who is the nominal 100% owner of Holy City.\n\n14. Anthony DiBattista is an individual who nominally owns a 0.0001% equity interest in each of the HCHK Entities.\n\n15. The Assignee Defendant is the managing partner of the law firm of Brian W. Hofmeister, LLC. The Assignee Defendant is assignee in connection with a Deed of Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors executed by a purported representative of each of the HCHK Entities on April 20, 2023 and purporting to transfer all assets of each of the HCHK Entities to the Assignee Defendant.\n\n# **FACTS**\n\n# **I. Background: Debtor's Prolific Use of Shell Companies**\n\n16. The Debtor is a prolific user of shell companies, purportedly owned by family members or business subordinates, to shield his assets and activities from creditors. The\n\nDebtor's \"shell game\" has allowed him to continue to deny ownership of assets, refuse to pay debts, and—until his recent arrest by the FBI—live a life of luxury.\n\n17. Among other examples, shell companies purportedly owned by the Debtor's son (specifically, Lamp Capital LLC and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.) have paid the Debtor's living expenses and legal fees; a shell company purportedly owned by his daughter Mei Guo (HK USA), recently ruled by this Court to be the Debtor's alter ego,<sup>7</sup> has held title to the Debtor's yacht, which this Court and Justice Ostrager had previously ruled was the Debtor's property despite its nominal ownership by HK USA;<sup>8</sup> and another shell company purportedly owned by the Debtor's wife (Greenwich Land LLC) holds title to the Debtor's Connecticut residence.<sup>9</sup> The Debtor also claims that his apartment at the Sherry Netherland Hotel is held in trust for the benefit of yet another shell company (Bravo Luck Limited) purportedly owned by his son.10 Similarly, the Debtor has used Anton Development Limited and Whitecroft Short\n\n<sup>7</sup> *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Second Counterclaim*, at 35 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, May 18, 2023) [Docket No. 221] (\"HK USA is the alter ego of the Individual\n\nDebtor.”). <sup>8</sup> *Supplemental Memorandum of Decision in Support of Oral Ruling Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment*, at 31 (Adv. Proc. No. 22005003, Mar. 30, 2023) [Docket No. 177] (\"the issue of Individual Debtor's beneficial ownership and control of the Lady is decisive as to the First Counterclaim and the identical issue was necessarily decided by Justice Ostrager in the Final Contempt Decision, which found by clear and convincing evidence that the Individual Debtor beneficially owned and controlled the Lady May\"). 9\n\nThe Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against this entity in adversary proceeding 23-05005, in connection with which the Court entered a prejudgment remedy and temporary restraining order against Greenwich Land LLC and the Debtor's wife. *See Order Granting in Part Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Mar. 28, 2023) [Docket No. 14]; *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Amended Application for Ex Parte Prejudgment Remedy* (Adv. Proc. No.\n\n<sup>23-05005,</sup> Mar. 28, 2023) [Docket No. 15]. 10 The Trustee has challenged Bravo Luck Limited's asserted interest in the Sherry Netherland apartment in his *Amended Adversary Complaint Against Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Seeking (I) Invalidation of Purported Trust Agreement in Favor of Bravo Luck and, (II) in Alternative, Ruling that Debtor Effectuated Fraudulent Transfer in Favor of Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Pursuant to Section 276 of New York Debtor and Creditor Law, Made Applicable by Section 544 of Bankruptcy Code* (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, Feb. 28, 2023) [Docket No. 40], in connection with which the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, has defaulted. *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Entry of Default Judgment against Qiang Guo* (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, June 2, 2023) [Docket No. 93].\n\nLimited, entities purportedly owned by the Debtor's daughter, to hold title to the Debtor's private Bombardier aircraft (which Mei Guo testified was sold in the summer of 2022).11\n\n18. Previously, Judge Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found, in a 2021 decision, that Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, another company purportedly held by the Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.12 Eastern Profit Corporation Limited was one of numerous purportedly independent entities whose financial accounts were identified by a 2018 Hong Kong court order to be \"subject to the effective control\" of the Debtor.13\n\n19. Relatedly, a confidential witness declaration filed by the Trustee under seal at Docket No. 1327 (the \"Confidential Witness Declaration\") and incorporated by reference as an exhibit in support of this Complaint, establishes, among other things\n\n![](_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg)\n\n20. Most importantly, this Court has issued rulings that entities and individuals at issue in this adversary proceeding are under the Debtor's control. Specifically, this Court found that numerous purportedly independent entities and organizations involved in the Debtor's recent social media and protest campaign, including G-Series Entities Gettr, GFashion, GMusic,\n\n 11 *Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for (I) Declaratory Judgment, Pursuant to Sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 7001, that Property Held by Mei Guo*\n\n*is Property of Estate and (II) Related Relief* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, May 16, 2023) [Docket No. 1]. 12 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n<sup>13</sup> Ex. 2, Hong Kong Restraint Order, at 7-18.\n\nGClubs, GNews, and GEdu,<sup>14</sup> were controlled by the Debtor,<sup>15</sup> led by the Debtor,<sup>16</sup> and/or served \"the purposes of . . . and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.17\n\n21. This Court separately found, in its order holding the Debtor in contempt for violating the Court's corporate governance order, that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade Limited (and, through it, Dawn State Limited), and that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade Limited's nominee owner, Yvette Wang.18 The Trustee has since learned that Yvette Wang, while the Ace Decade proceedings were ongoing (but after the Court found, on November 17, 2022, that the Debtor exclusively beneficially owned and controlled Ace Decade as of the February 15, 2022 petition date<sup>19</sup>), transferred the stock of Ace Decade that she nominally owned to an individual located in Switzerland (who, upon information and belief, is another associate of the Debtor).\n\n# **II. HCHK Entities Are Alter Egos of or Equitably Owned by Debtor**\n\n# **A. HCHK Entities Nominally Owned and Staffed by Debtor's Employees**\n\n22. Each of the HCHK Entities has the exact same ownership structure, which points directly to their control by the Debtor. Each HCHK Entity is directly owned 99.9999% by Holy City and 0.0001% by a long-time employee of the Debtor, Anthony DiBattista, who is also\n\n<sup>14</sup> PI Decision ¶ 2 (\"The GSeries includes the following entities: Himalaya Exchange, Gettr, GFashion, GMusic, GClubs, GNews, and GEdu.\").\n\n<sup>15</sup> PI Decision ¶ 3 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\").\n\n<sup>16</sup> *Id.* ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, and Himalaya.\").\n\n<sup>17</sup> *Id.* (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\").\n\n<sup>18</sup> *Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order* ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1372] (the \"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\").\n\n<sup>19</sup> *See Order Regarding Partial Resolution of Trustee's Contempt Motion* ¶ 1 (Nov. 17, 2022) [Main Case Docket No. 1110].\n\ndirector and president of HCHK Property and Lexington Property. Holy City is 100% owned by the Debtor's assistant, Yvette Wang.20\n\n23. This Court has already ruled that \"[t]he Debtor has control over Ms. Wang\" and that he \"has employed Yvette Wang for several years, and has directed her to take actions on his behalf, including directing her to act on his behalf to purchase properties such as the Sherry-Netherland apartment.\"21 Ms. Wang has served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as an officer and/or authorized signatory of Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Limited, Saraca Media Group, Inc., GTV Media Group, Inc., and Genever Holdings LLC.22 The Trustee in his investigation has learned that Ms. Wang was widely known to be the Debtor's personal assistant. When asked at his deposition whether Ms. Wang was his employee, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.<sup>23</sup>\n\n24. On March 15, 2023, Ms. Wang was arrested in connection with charges that she had, among other things, conspired with the Debtor in connection with his criminal fraud and\n\n 20 Lan Mu (Ya Li), a purported director of Holy City who signed the Written Consent of Shareholders authorizing the Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of HCHK Technologies is, upon information and belief, a close associate of the Debtor. It is not clear at what point Lan Mu (Ya Li) became a director of Holy City given the U.S. Government's allegation that Yvette Wang was the sole director of Holy City. *See* Ex. 3*,* Letter, at 4 n.2, *United States v. Kwok,* No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2023) [Docket No. 10] (the \"Kwok Criminal Case Letter\"). (\"The defendant is listed as the sole director of Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd., and she signed various HCHK corporate documents, including shareholder resolutions, in that capacity on behalf of Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.\").\n\n<sup>21</sup> Corp. Governance Contempt Order ¶ 4. 22 Ex. 4, Affidavit of Yan Ping Wang ¶ 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2018) [Docket No. 182] (\"I am the President of Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., and in that capacity serve as an administrator for the interests of [the Debtor] and his family.\"); Ex. 5, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019 (rendering Ms. Wang signatory) (HR0010121); Ex. 6, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, (HR0020577); Ex. 7, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, (HR0039240); Ex. 8,\n\n<sup>;</sup> Ex. 9, Himalaya Coin Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020; Ex. 10, Himalaya Dollar Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020; Ex. 11, Complaint ¶ 9a, *United States v. Wang*, No. 1:23-mj-02007-UA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2023) [Docket No. 1] (\"Wang was an Executive Director of GTV\"); *Debtor's Declaration Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2* ¶ 1, (Case No.\n\n<sup>22-50592,</sup> Oct. 12, 2020) [Docket No. 1]. 23 Ex. 12, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 33:11-13 (Mar. 2, 2023).\n\nmoney-laundering activities. According to the U.S. Government, Ms. Wang played an \"instrumental role\" in the Debtor's fraud scheme as his \"trusted chief of staff who is tasked with managing operations at even those entities with which she has no formal affiliation.\"24\n\n25. Anthony DiBattista is also a long-standing employee of the Debtor, serving in various roles at different Debtor-controlled companies. Mr. DiBattista was employed at Golden Spring, and has served the Debtor as a corporate officer of GTV,<sup>25</sup> GFashion,<sup>26</sup> and GClubs.<sup>27</sup> When the Debtor was asked at his deposition whether Mr. DiBattista was his employee, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.28\n\n26. In addition to Mr. DiBattista, key personnel of the HCHK Entities are former employees or officers of the Debtor's \"family office,\" Golden Spring. These other Golden Spring personnel who moved to the HCHK Entities include Max Krasner,<sup>29</sup> Joe Wang,<sup>30</sup> Bernardo Enriquez,<sup>31</sup> and Alex Hadjicharalambous.32 Upon information and belief, the HCHK Entities are merely a continuation of Golden Spring with new corporate letterhead. Other HCHK personnel include Elliott Dordick,<sup>33</sup> an individual this Court found to be an employee of Gettr,<sup>34</sup>\n\n<sup>24</sup> Ex. 3, Kwok Criminal Case Letter, at 18. 25 *See* PI Decision ¶ 3 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV,' which is commonly referred to collectively as GTV.\").\n\n<sup>26</sup> *See id.* (\"The Debtor created GFashion.\").\n\n<sup>27</sup> The U.S. Government has alleged that GClubs \"was functionally controlled by\" the Debtor, Ex. 24, Indictment ¶ 10, *United States v. Kwok*, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT, (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2023) [Docket No. 2], that the Debtor and William Je used GClubs to \"fraudulently obtain[] more than \\$250 million,\" *id*. ¶ 14, and that GClubs funds\n\nwere used to pay personal expenses of the Debtor and his family. *Id*. ¶ 15. 28 Ex. 12, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 87:6-8 29 Mr. Krasner, in addition to his work at the HCHK entities, was an employee of Golden Spring who also served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as officer and/or authorized signatory of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (parent company of Lamp Capital LLC), and Rule of Law Foundation.\n\n<sup>30</sup> Mr. Wang is VP of Technology of HCHK Technologies and was formerly employed as Chief Technology\n\nOfficer, or in a similar role, at Golden Spring. 31 Mr. Enriquez, in addition to his work at the HCHK Entities, worked at Golden Spring and served as Treasurer of Lamp Capital LLC, among other roles.\n\n<sup>32</sup> Mr. Hadjicharalambous, in addition to his work at the HCHK Entities, worked for several years at other Debtorcontrolled entities such as Golden Spring, GClubs, and Freedom Media Ventures Ltd.\n\n<sup>33</sup> Elliot Dordick, Esq., LinkedIn, http\n\n<sup>34</sup> PI Decision ¶ 13.\n\nan entity that is part of the G-Series Entities which this Court found \"serve the purposes of the Debtor\" and \"serve as business vehicles for the Debtor.\"35 As the Court may recall, Mr. Dordick was involved in the Debtor's protest campaign against the Trustee and PAX.\n\n# **B. HCHK Entities Are Affiliates of G-Series Entities**\n\n27. The HCHK Entities are not, as the Assignee Defendant's filings with the State Court seem to suggest, independent businesses that simply happen to have done business with entities linked to the Debtor.36 They are affiliates of the Debtor's G-Series Entities that, together with such entities, comprised a single enterprise controlled by the Debtor and dedicated to promoting the Debtor's interests.\n\n28. As discussed in the Assignee's Affidavits, the HCHK Entities' business was located at 3 Columbus Circle, in New York City, where HCHK Property and Lexington Property sublet office space. This is the location where associates of the Debtor, acting at the Debtor's behest, filmed videos in support of the Debtor, including videos in late 2022 calling for protests against the Trustee, PAX, and their counsel. These activities led to the Court's issuance of its preliminary injunction decision [Docket No. 133 in Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032] where the Court found, among other things, that the Debtor controlled the G-Series Entities. Upon information and belief, these videos attacking the Trustee and PAX were produced using the video and electronic equipment disclosed by the Assignee Defendant as purported assets of HCHK Technologies.37\n\n<sup>35</sup> PI Decision ¶ 7.\n\n<sup>36</sup> The Assignee Defendant's description of HCHK Technologies, for example, states that HCHK Technologies is an \"emerging global technology and consulting firm that provides strategic solutions across multiple business lines. Functioning comparably to a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), the Assignor offers its clients professional a la carte consulting services across Technology, Product Development, Engineering, Human Resources, Recruitment, Legal, Finance, and R&D.\" Ex. 13, Order to Show Cause, Affidavit & Petition of Brian Hofmeister ¶ 4, *HCHK Tech., Inc. v. Hofmeister*, Index No. 510008/2023, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 18, 2023) (the \"HCHK Tech. Aff.\"). 37 Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff., Ex. B, Deed of Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors.\n\n29. Documents produced by the HCHK Entities' accounting firm, Marcum LLP, (\"Marcum\") show the degree to which the HCHK Entities and the G-Series Entities operated as a single business on behalf of the Debtor. Among other things, the documents show that Marcum had no doubt who controlled the HCHK Entities and G-Series Entities. As stated in an internal April 2021 email by one Marcum accountant, \"[w]e are representing entities **indirectly owned by Miles Kwok**, owner of GTV media.\"38\n\n30. Moreover, a brief review of the Marcum documents (which require further examination) shows that the role of the HCHK Entities was, among other things, to serve as a \"piggy bank\" for the Debtor's businesses. It was for this reason that Marcum's engagement letter provided that Marcum would provide services to Lexington Property \"and Affiliates,\" and Marcum was explicitly tasked with preparing not only the tax returns of the HCHK Entities, but also those of other Debtor-controlled entities as well, including GFashion and GTV.39 Similarly, Marcum classified HCHK Technologies' assets to include bank accounts corresponding to Gettr, GFashion, and \"FMV\" (an acronym that, upon information and belief, refers to another Debtorcontrolled company called Freedom Media Ventures). This \"piggy bank\" role is consistent with the schedule of assets filed by the Assignee Defendant with respect to HCHK Technologies, which discloses accounts receivable of \\$12,559,423.06. Upon information and belief, these accounts receivable include obligations purportedly owed to HCHK Technologies by G-Series Entities or other companies controlled by the Debtor.\n\n# **C. HCHK Entities Pay Debtor's Expenses**\n\n31. Financial documents in the possession of the Trustee also show that the Debtor used the HCHK Entities to pay a variety of his expenses. While the Trustee's analysis of these\n\n<sup>38</sup> Ex. 14, Email to Keady from Hirschfeld, April 23, 2021. 39 Ex. 15, Marcum Engagement Letter, April 14, 2022, Attachment B.\n\ndocuments is not complete, some examples of the HCHK Entities' payments on behalf of the\n\nDebtor include, among others:\n\n- a. In October 2022, HCHK Technologies paid \\$123,452.00 to Yachtzoo Ltd. (together with its affiliates, \"Yachtzoo\"). Yachtzoo is the management company for the *Lady May*, which Justice Ostrager and this Court ruled was the Debtor's yacht.\n- b. In September 2021, HCHK Technologies paid \\$215,018.00 to ACASS Canada Ltd. (together with its affiliates, \"ACASS\"). ACASS was at that time the management company for the Debtor's Bombardier aircraft (which Mei Guo testified was sold in the summer of 2022).\n- c. In November 2021, HCHK Technologies paid \\$2,788,680.00 to the aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Industries, Inc., or affiliates thereof. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this payment was to purchase a new private plane for the Debtor, the Cirrus SF50 jet that has been cited in filings in connection with the Debtor's criminal case.40\n- 32. Moreover, according to documents in the possession of the Trustee, Lexington Property, though ostensibly only in the business of subleasing office space (at least according to the Assignee's Affidavits41), has made numerous payments to entities and individuals associated with the Debtor, which payments were made, upon information and belief, on behalf of the Debtor. Recipients of these payments included, among others:\n\t- a. Yvette Wang;\n\t- b. Max Krasner (employee of the Debtor with numerous roles at Debtorcontrolled companies);\n\t- c. Scott Barnett (believed to be another driver and bodyguard of the Debtor);\n\t- d. Aaron Mitchell (essentially the Debtor's general counsel);\n\n 40 Ex. 16, Motion for Relief from Order Denying Pre-Trial Releases, at 20, *United States v. Kwok*, No. 23-6421\n\n<sup>(2</sup>d Cir. May 5, 2023) [Docket No. 6.1]. 41 *See* Ex. 17, Order to Show Cause, Affidavit & Petition of Brian Hofmeister ¶ 5, *Lexington Prop. & Staffing, Inc. v. Hofmeister*, Index No. 510007/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 25, 2023) (the \"Lexington Aff.\") (\"Upon information and belief, the Assignor and HCHK Property were both formed, essentially, to function as the tenant (or subtenant) and as a property management companies with respect to their respective 3 Columbus Circle office spaces.\").\n\n- e. Lawall & Mitchell, LLC42 (Aaron Mitchell's law firm, and one of the \"ordinary course professionals\" proposed by the Debtor in March 2022 [Docket No. 119]);\n- f. Baker & Hostetler LLP (the Debtor's personal counsel in the litigation before Justice Ostrager, and one of the \"ordinary course professionals\" proposed by the Debtor in March 2022 [Docket No. 119]);\n- g. Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC and Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (law firms representing GTV43);\n- h. Phillips Nizer LLP (which served as counsel to Lamp Capital LLC in the litigation before Justice Ostrager);\n- i. Himalaya Ventures, LLC (an entity, upon information and belief, affiliated with one or more of the Debtor's \"Himalaya Farm\" organizations);\n- j. Beile (\"Prince\") Li (prominent associate of the Debtor and leading participant in protests against the Trustee and PAX);\n- k. Yan Yan Tsang (upon information and belief, an employee of the Debtor who, along with the Debtor, Yvette Wang, the Debtor's wife and daughter, and Han Chunguang (one of the Debtor's bodyguards), filed a lawsuit against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in support of the Debtor's asylum application and their own asylum applications);\n- l. Yinying Wang (upon information and belief, the secretary of Qidong Xia, an individual who, upon information and belief, is currently acting as the Debtor's second-in-command with respect to multiple Debtor-controlled entities and organizations); and\n- m. An entity called 17 Miles LLC (recipient of \\$146,795.63 in 2021 and, upon information and belief, affiliated with the Debtor).\n\n 42 The \"Lawall\" of Lawall & Mitchell is Dara Lawall, who, upon information and belief, is the daughter of Francis Lawall of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, counsel to Bravo Luck Limited. Dara Lawall is also, upon information and belief, the wife of Aaron Mitchell, who is thus, upon information and belief, Mr. Lawall's son-\n\nin-law. 43 Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC also represents Anthony DiBattista in connection with the Trustee's Bankruptcy Rule 2004 investigation.\n\n# **D. HCHK Entities Financed by Debtor**\n\n33. The Assignee Defendant's filings in the State Court contain disclosures regarding the creditors44 of the HCHK Entities which show that the HCHK Entities have received their funding from the Debtor through the Debtor's associates, controlled entities, and representatives.\n\n# **i. HCHK Technologies' Creditors**\n\n34. The Assignee Defendant has disclosed that HCHK Technologies' financial\n\ncreditors consist exclusively of multiple unnamed individuals (the \"Undisclosed Creditors\") owed a total of \\$51,684,947.50<sup>45</sup> (as compared to HCHK Technologies' disclosed assets of approximately \\$17,500,000 in value46), whose \"names are being withheld for confidentiality purposes.\"47 The Assignee Defendant in his affidavit states, referring to these Undisclosed Creditors, that:\n\nUpon information and belief, aside from business revenues, [HCHK Technologies] has also received funding from certain individual investors, who are Chinese dissidents and identify as being part of a social network and movement to expose the alleged corruption and human rights abuses of the CCP . . . The [Undisclosed Creditors] are extremely sensitive about disclosing their names and personal contact information in connection with these proceedings out of fear for retribution by the CCP. For this reason, [HCHK Technologies] has represented to me that the Investors have appointed six individuals, who are comfortable disclosing their names and contact information, to serve as their agents and representatives in this matter.<sup>48</sup>\n\n35. This description of the Undisclosed Creditors, which mirrors the arguments used\n\nby the Debtor to explain his own desire for secrecy, indicates that the Undisclosed Creditors are\n\n 44 The disclosures take the form of lists of creditors which, along with lists of assets, are attached to the Deeds of Assignment submitted with the Assignee Affidavits. These lists were, according to the Deeds of Assignment, delivered by the HCHK Entities to the Assignee Defendant, and so apparently constitute representations made by the HCHK Entities (controlled by the Debtor and his associates), not the result of any analysis or\n\ninvestigation conducted by the Assignee Defendant. 45 Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff., Ex. B, HCHK Technologies' list of creditors. In addition to these financial creditors, the creditor list discloses vendors holding claims of \\$206,703.19, which amount includes a \\$51,000 claim owed\n\nto HCHK Property. 46 Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 19. 47 Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff., Ex. B HCHK Technologies' list of creditors, n.5.\n\n<sup>48</sup> Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 8.\n\nassociates of the Debtor. That indication is confirmed by the identities of the six creditor representatives, which are disclosed on HCHK Technologies' list of creditors filed by the Assignee Defendant (the \"Creditor Representatives\").<sup>49</sup> These individuals are all, upon information and belief, associates of the Debtor.\n\n36. Four of the six Creditor Representatives, Yumei Hao, Hao (Gavin) Li, Yongping Yan, and Yinying Wang, are particularly well known associates of the Debtor. Yumei Hao has, upon information and belief, worked for the Debtor at GClubs and other entities and organizations controlled by the Debtor. Hao (Gavin) Li and Yongping Yan both protested against the Trustee in Grand Central Station in New York City near the entrance to the offices of Paul Hastings, appeared in video broadcasts in support of the Debtor, and dined with the Debtor at the Sherry Netherland. Yinying Wang is, upon information and belief, the secretary of Qidong Xia, an individual who, upon information and belief, is currently acting as the Debtor's secondin-command with respect to multiple Debtor-controlled entities and organizations.\n\n# **ii. HCHK Property's Creditors**\n\n37. The situation with respect to HCHK Property is nearly identical. The Assignee Defendant has disclosed that HCHK Property has multiple \"creditors and/or investors\" owed a total of \\$48,187,299.77<sup>50</sup> (as compared to HCHK Property's disclosed assets of approximately \\$29,785,936 in value51) whose \"names are being withheld for confidentiality purposes.\"52 In\n\n<sup>49</sup> The names of these Creditor Representatives are: Hao (Gavin) Li, Yinying (Aila) Wang, Chris Lee, Yongping Yan, Jintao Li, and Yumei Hao.\n\n<sup>50</sup> Ex. 18, Order to Show Cause, Affidavit & Petition of Brian Hofmeister, Ex. B, HCHK Property's list of creditors, *HCHK Prop. Mgmt., Inc., v. Hofmeister*, Index No. 510006/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 23, 2023) (the \"HCHK Prop. Aff.\").\n\n<sup>51</sup> Ex. 18, HCHK Prop. Aff. ¶ 20.\n\n<sup>52</sup> Ex. 18, HCHK Prop. Aff., Ex. B, HCHK Property's list of creditors, n.4.\n\nther words, these are the Undisclosed Creditors, represented by the Creditor Representatives\n\nho, as discussed above, are associates of the Debtor.\n\n38. Finally, the list of creditors of Lexington Property discloses total claims of at least\n\n\\$32,183,837.03^{53}\\$ (as compared to HCHK Technologies' disclosed assets of approximately\n\n\\$2 million in value\\$^{54)}\\$ owed to the following Debtor-affiliated entities:\n\n-\n-\n-\n\nt his deposition whether he owned and controlled Leading Shine, the Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment.⁶¹\n\n-\n-\n\nsum, upon information and belief, Savio Law LLC is a representative of the Debtor and any payments it made to Lexington Property were payments made on behalf of the Debtor.\n\n39. In pleadings filed in connection with its criminal prosecution against the Debtor\n\nYvette Wang, the U.S. Government has alleged, among other things:\n\n. HCHK Technologies is a “Kwok controlled company that . . . sent employees to the [United Arab Emirates] earlier this year to establish bank accounts that, as Kwok claimed, would be beyond the ‘long-arm jurisdiction’ of the United States.”67 These employees “spent more than approximately six weeks in the UAE, apparently to assist in moving Kwok’s and [William] Je’s operations abroad.”68\n\n61 Ex. 12, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 49:15-50:7.\n\n68 Ex. 3, Kwok Criminal Case Letter, at 3-4.\n\n- b. Gettr and **HCHK Technologies** are \"Kwok- and [William] Je-controlled companies that are funded, in part, using fraud proceeds.\"69 Gettr \"is a social media company that Kwok controls through a series of shell companies,\" and \"Gettr and **the HCHK entities** . . . operate out of the same office location.\"<sup>70</sup>\n- c. \"Photographs of annotated documents located inside a folder in [Yvette Wang's] purse at her apartment appear to reflect, in substance and in part, certain transactions and balances for six bank accounts held in the names of **HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property Management** . . . GFNY, Inc. (i.e., GFashion), and GF Italy (i.e., GFashion Italy).\"<sup>71</sup>\n- d. \"A photograph of another document located inside the folder in [Yvette Wang's] purse at her apartment appears to reflect, in sum and in substance, that [Yvette Wang] signed payroll expenses associated with various Kwok-controlled entities . . . . The document further indicates how certain payroll expenses were to be allocated among affiliated entities, **including HCHK**.\"<sup>72</sup>\n\n# **F. Debtor Asserts Fifth Amendment When Questioned About HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property**\n\n40. In his deposition on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether he owned and\n\ncontrolled HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property. The Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment\n\nin response.73\n\n# **III. Assignment for Benefit of Creditors Should Be Enjoined**\n\n# **A. Assignment Proceedings**\n\n41. On April 20, 2023, each of the HCHK Entities executed a Deed of Assignment\n\npurporting to assign all of their assets to the Assignee Defendant.\n\n42. On April 25, 2023, each of the Deeds of Assignment was filed with the clerk of\n\nthe State Court.\n\n<sup>69</sup> Ex. 3, Kwok Criminal Case Letter, at 18. 70 Ex. 3, Kwok Criminal Case Letter, at 8 n.5. 71 Ex. 23, Kwok Criminal Case Letter Response, at 3. 72 Ex. 23, Kwok Criminal Case Letter Response, at 3-4.\n\n<sup>73</sup> Ex. 12, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 84:22-85:3.\n\n43. On May 10, 2023, the Assignee Defendant filed his Assignee Affidavit and related documents with respect to HCHK Technologies, and, on May 18, 2023, the State Court issued an order to show cause why an Assignment Proceeding should not be commenced with respect to HCHK Technologies, with an objection deadline of **June 15, 2023** and a hearing date of June 20, 2023 (on papers only, without oral argument). The Trustee's counsel was emailed a copy of the order to show cause, Assignee Affidavit, and related documents on May 30, 2023.\n\n44. On May 23, 2023, the Assignee Defendant filed his Assignee Affidavit and related documents with respect to Lexington Property, and on May 25, 2023, the State Court issued an order to show cause why an Assignment Proceeding should not be commenced with respect to Lexington Property, with an objection deadline of June 21, 2023 and a hearing date of June 28, 2023 (on papers only, without oral argument). The Trustee's counsel was emailed a copy of the order to show cause, Assignee Affidavit, and related documents on May 30, 2023.\n\n45. On May 23, 2023, the Assignee Defendant filed his Assignee Affidavit and related documents with respect to HCHK Property, and on May 31, 2023, the State Court issued an order to show cause why an Assignment Proceeding should not be commenced with respect to HCHK Property, with an objection deadline of June 27, 2023 and a hearing date of June 30, 2023 (on papers only, without oral argument). The Trustee's counsel was emailed a copy of the order to show cause, Assignee Affidavit, and related documents on June 5, 2023 (after having been emailed these same materials, absent the entered order to show cause, on May 30, 2023).\n\n# **B. Assignee Affidavits**\n\n46. The Assignee Affidavits contain descriptions of each of the HCHK Entities. The related documents filed with the Assignee Affidavits include schedules, prepared by the HCHK Entities, purporting to show the assets of each of the HCHK Entities and the claims of creditors\n\nagainst them. According to these documents, the HCHK Entities possess significant assets, including over \\$35 million in cash, but, assuming the validity of disclosed claims, are each insolvent: (a) HCHK Technologies possesses assets of approximately \\$17.5 million in value, of which \\$4.5 million is cash, as compared to financial creditor claims of \\$51,684,947.50 and vendor creditor claims of \\$206,703.19;<sup>74</sup> (b) HCHK Property possesses assets of approximately \\$29,785,936 in value,<sup>75</sup> the entirety of which consists of cash, as compared to creditor claims of \\$48,187,299.77;76 and (c) Lexington Property possesses assets of approximately \\$2 million, the entirety of which consists of cash, as compared to creditor claims of at least \\$32,183,837.03.77\n\n47. The Assignee Affidavits describe the HCHK Entities using innocuous corporate jargon, implying that they are independent companies that simply happen to have as clients certain entities affiliated with the Debtor.78 For example, HCHK Technologies is described as \"an emerging global technology and consulting firm that provides strategic solutions across multiple business lines\" that \"offers its clients professional a la carte consulting services across Technology, Product Development, Engineering, Human Resources, Recruitment, Legal, Finance, and R&D.\"79\n\n48. The Assignee Defendant notes Yvette Wang's ownership of the HCHK Entities and the fact that she and the Debtor were arrested and jailed, explaining that Ms. Wang's\n\n<sup>74</sup> Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff., Ex. B, HCHK Technologie's creditor list. These vendor creditor claims include a \\$51,000 claim owed to HCHK Property. 75 Ex. 18, HCHK Prop. Aff. ¶ 20.\n\n<sup>76</sup> Ex. 18, HCHK Prop. Aff., Ex. B, HCHK Property's list of creditors. 77 Ex. 17, Lexington Aff., Ex. B, Lexington list of creditors.\n\n<sup>78</sup> *See* Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff. at 5 n.1 (noting that Club, G Music, GFNY, and G Fashion \"are affiliated with Ho Wan Kwok . . . a Chinese dissident with a prolific online presence and large social media following, outspoken criticism of the Chinese Communist Party\" and that \"[o]n February 15, 2022, Kwok commenced a voluntary chapter 11 case in the United Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, which remains pending\").\n\n<sup>79</sup> Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 4.\n\nimprisonment was a catalyst for the Deeds of Assignment.80 The Assignee Defendant does not mention Yvette Wang's employment by the Debtor (as found by this Court), or that she is the Debtor's \"trusted chief of staff\" (as described in the U.S. Government's filings).81 Similarly, the Assignee Defendant does not discuss the Debtor's links with Gettr, stating only that certain G-Series Entities other than Gettr are affiliated with the Debtor.\n\n49. The Assignee Defendant does not disclose the identities of the creditors of HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property, claiming that these Unnamed Creditors are individuals whose names cannot be revealed due to their fear of CCP reprisals. While the Assignee Defendant does disclose the names of the Creditor Representatives, he does not point out that they include associates of the Debtor whose protest activities on behalf of the Debtor and at the Debtor's direction were subject to orders of this Court.\n\n50. Moreover, while the Assignee Defendant discloses that the creditors of Lexington Property consist of ACA Capital, Golden Spring, Leading Shine, Saraca Media, and Savio Law, he does not disclose the connections between these entities and the Debtor, many of which are matters of public record in this Chapter 11 Case, such as, for example, Yvette Wang's role as president of Golden Spring, or the Court's finding that the Debtor controls Saraca Media.<sup>82</sup>\n\n51. In sum, while the Assignee Affidavits and related filings submitted to the State Court provide important information regarding the HCHK Entities, they do not present a complete picture of the nature of the HCHK Entities and their connection to the Debtor.\n\n<sup>80</sup> *See, e.g.*, Ex. 13, HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 10 (\"Following Yvette's incarceration, as well as the Assignor's loss of GETTR as its primary customer, the Assignor determined, in the exercise of its business judgment, that it was in the best interests of the Assignor and all of its stakeholders to assign all its assets to me, an independent fiduciary, for the benefit of creditors.\").\n\n<sup>81</sup> Ex. 3, Kwok Criminal Case Letter, at 18. 82 PI Decision ¶ 3.\n\n52. What does come across from the Assignee Affidavits and related filings is that the HCHK Entities should be subject to a federal bankruptcy process. Among other things, they are insolvent, require investigation with respect to their assets, liabilities, and financial condition, and the individual nominally in charge of the HCHK Entities, Yvette Wang, is now in prison.\n\n# **C. Assignee Defendant's Intentions with Respect to Assignment Proceeding**\n\n53. The Assignee Affidavits and related documents filed by the Assignee Defendant, including proposed orders setting forth the relief sought by the Assignee Defendant from the State Court, make clear that the Assignee Defendant intends to commence what is essentially a separate state law chapter 11 process for the HCHK Entities, with the Assignee Defendant to play a role analogous to that of a bankruptcy trustee (except that he has been selected by the HCHK Entities, not the United States Trustee).\n\n54. According to the Assignment Affidavits, the Assignee Defendant intends to \"investigate and analyze the [HCHK Entities'] books and records and potential claims and causes of action that may be brought on behalf of the [HCHK Entities'] estates and prosecute such claims as may be warranted,\" \"pursue a sale of some or substantially all of the [HCHK Entities'] non-cash assets through a public sale or as otherwise ordered by the Court,\" and \"after giving all creditors and stakeholders (including appropriate governmental authorities) due and proper notice and opportunity to submit claims, to verify, reconcile, and make distributions to provable claims against the [HCHK Entities'] estates in accordance with their respective legal priorities as set forth in the Deeds and applicable law.\"83 Under the Deeds of Assignment, the Assignee Defendant is given the power to \"settle any and all claims against or in favor of Assignor, with the full power to compromise, or, **in Assignee's sole discretion**, to sue or be\n\n<sup>83</sup> Ex. 17, Lexington Aff. ¶ 12.\n\nsued, and to prosecute or defend any claim or claims of any nature whatsoever existing in favor of Assignor.\"84 In addition, the Assignee Defendant seeks authority from the State Court to retain counsel and a financial advisor, including the law firm of McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC, which has represented the HCHK Entities in connection with the Trustee's investigation in this Chapter 11 Case.<sup>85</sup>\n\n# **D. Necessity of Injunction of Assignment Proceedings**\n\n55. According to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals:\n\nSection 105(a) is to be 'construed liberally to enjoin suits that might impede the reorganization process'—or, as here, the process of liquidation. Liberal construction reflects 'the underlying principle of preserving the debtor's estate for the creditors and funneling claims to one proceeding in the bankruptcy court.' We have held that § 105(a) is properly used to enjoin creditors' lawsuits against third parties where 'the injunction plays an important part in the debtor's reorganization plan,' or where the action to be enjoined 'will have an immediate adverse economic consequence for the debtor's estate.'\n\n*In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec., LLC*, 512 F. App'x 18, 20 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal citations removed).\n\n56. An injunction against the continuation of the Assignment Proceedings is\n\nwarranted pursuant to sections 105, 362, 363, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code for a number of reasons.\n\n57. First, allowing the Assignment Proceeding to continue would give a \"green light\" to the violation of the automatic stay. The Trustee asserts that the HCHK Entities are alter egos of or equitably owned by the Debtor. If the Trustee prevails on his alter ego claim, it will mean that the HCHK Entities will be merged with the Debtor's estate and all of the assets of the\n\n<sup>84</sup> Ex. 17, Lexington Aff., Ex. B, Deeds of Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors ¶ 4(f). 85 *See e.g., HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc. and Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc's Objection To Production Request, Motion To Quash and/or Motion to Modify 2004 Examination Subpoenas* [Main Case Docket No. 1291].\n\nHCHK Entities will constitute estate property as of the date of the Debtor's chapter 11 filing on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"). In that scenario, the Deeds of Assignment represent null and void violations of the automatic stay committed by individuals who wrongfully transferred estate assets to the Assignee Defendant, or, at the very least, exerted control over the HCHK Entities.<sup>86</sup> If the Trustee instead prevails on his equitable ownership claim in connection with the HCHK Entities and/or their assets, it will similarly mean (a) that ownership interests in the HCHK Entities and related rights of corporate control constituted property of the estate as of the Petition Date, and the usurpation of these rights to execute the Deeds of Assignment would represent a null and void stay violation,<sup>87</sup> and/or (b) that the estate was the equitable owner of the assets of the HCHK entities, the transfer of which to the Assignee Defendant would be a clear stay violation.\n\n58. Second, the Assignment Proceedings represent duplicative proceedings that threaten to splinter the Debtor's Chapter 11 Case into separate pieces and create costly and timeconsuming challenges to estate administration. Already, the Assignment Proceedings have created multiple and imminent filing deadlines with respect to which the Trustee must respond, and, if allowed to proceed, the Assignment Proceedings will result in the inevitable multiplication of pleadings, deadlines, and hearings. Unchecked, the Assignee Defendant will proceed with a duplicative investigation and claims allowance process; a recipe for disaster,\n\n<sup>86</sup> And, even if not null and void as stay violations, the Deeds of Assignment would represent transfers of estate property prohibited and avoidable under section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and impermissible under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which only allows estate assets to be used, sold, or leased outside of the\n\nordinary course of business after notice and a hearing before this Court. 87 Moreover, putting aside the usurpation of corporate control, the Deeds of Assignment would violate the stay in the event that the HCHK Entities are equitably owned by the Debtor (as opposed to being the Debtor's alter egos), because the automatic stay would apply to the HCHK Entities as wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Debtor. *See Queenie, Ltd. v. Nygard Int'l,* 321 F.3d 282, 287 (2d Cir. 2003) (\"the stay applies to Queenie because it is wholly owned by Gardner, and adjudication of a claim against the corporation will have an immediate adverse economic impact on Gardner\").\n\nespecially considering all the delay and cost the Debtor has already imposed on his creditors by creating hundreds of shell companies to hide his assets, something the Trustee is attempting to reverse by bringing assets into one insolvency process where all the Debtor's creditors can seek a recovery. Indeed, it is a core principle of our bankruptcy laws that there should be one forum in which a Debtor's financial affairs are resolved, militating strongly in favor of enjoining the Defendants and any party acting in concert with them from commencing or continuing the Assignment Proceedings.\n\n59. Third, the Assignment Proceedings are not only duplicative, but decidedly inferior to the Chapter 11 Case before this Court. For one thing, the Chapter 11 Case provides a more robust legal framework: to give one example, state law cannot impose an automatic stay like the Bankruptcy Code can. More importantly, as practical matter, putting the Debtor's insolvency process before a State Court unfamiliar with the Debtor is completely nonsensical given the complexity of the Debtor's affairs. Only this Court has the benefit not only of its experience with the Debtor and his affiliated entities, but of key precedential rulings and findings (which the Debtor and his associates will surely seek to challenge or deviate from if they are in another forum). Moreover, it is this Court that already established and conducted a process for the filing of claims, including with expansive notice procedures and procedures for the confidential submission of claims, resulting in the filing of over a thousand claims by the Debtor's creditors. It is unclear how these creditors will be notified about, much less participate adequately in, the Assignment Proceedings. Indeed, it seems likely that these creditors will be shut out of the Assignment Proceedings and denied any recovery from the HCHK Entities' assets, thus suffering extreme prejudice. Even those creditors able to participate in the Assignment Proceeding will suffer unwarranted prejudice because they will have been forced to\n\nundergo the effort and expense (and, without adequate confidentially procedures, significant personal risks) of submitting claims in a new and unfamiliar proceeding.\n\n60. In addition, the Trustee is leaps and bounds ahead of the Assignee Defendant in connection with his investigation of the HCHK Entities, as demonstrated in this Complaint, which seeks to incorporate the HCHK Entities and their assets into the estate for the benefit of the Debtor's creditors based on voluminous evidence gathered in the Trustee's ongoing investigation (evidence that the Trustee will develop further in the course of this adversary proceeding). By contrast, the Assignee Defendant appears to not yet be aware of key facts in connection with the HCHK Entities, as demonstrated by the examples of important information omitted from the Assignee Affidavits, as discussed above. These omissions suggest that the HCHK Entities, under the control of the Debtor, chose to pursue the Assignee Proceeding as a way to avoid the Trustee and this Court and find a different court where they could \"start afresh\" and more easily craft a favorable narrative.\n\n61. A key dynamic here is that the Debtor and his associates do not want to be scrutinized by this Court or investigated by the Trustee. The Debtor has continually opposed the Trustee's involvement and on two occasions sought to replace the Trustee with someone else. If the Assignment Proceedings are allowed to go forward, the Debtor and his associates will no doubt seek to avoid the Trustee and this Court by pursuing assignments for the benefit of creditors with respect to other entities that, like the HCHK Entities, are subject to the Trustee's investigation and facing imminent alter ego or other actions by the Trustee. The Debtor and his associates will seek to use such state court proceedings as a way to distribute assets to \"friendly\" creditors (such as the creditors listed in the Assignment Affidavits for the HCHK Entities) rather than allow those assets to be distributed to the Debtor's victims who have filed claims in the\n\nChapter 11 Case. In other words, allowing the Assignment Proceedings for the HCHK Entities to go forward is likely to result in even more assignment proceedings being commenced, resulting in an even greater multiplication of duplicative proceedings, expense, delay, and confusion. That is an outcome that would play directly into the hands of the Debtor and result in manifest injustice for the Debtor's numerous creditors who look to this Court and this Chapter 11 Case for some recovery on their claims.\n\n# **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that HCHK Entities are the Debtor's Alter Egos, that Assignment of HCHK Entities' Assets Violated Automatic Stay and Is Null and Void, and Ordering Turnover of HCHK Entities' Assets to Trustee)**\n\n62. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-61.\n\n63. Delaware law applies to the alter ego claim because the HCHK Entities are Delaware entities.<sup>88</sup>\n\n64. Under Delaware's two-pronged test for piercing the corporate veil, a court\n\napplying Delaware's alter ego analysis to the Debtor's relationship with the HCHK Entities will focus on (1) whether the Debtor and the HCHK Entities operated as a single economic unit and (2) whether there was an overall element of injustice or unfairness. In determining whether entities operated as a single economic unit, a court applying Delaware law would consider a number of factors, including, among others, whether the HCHK Entities were adequately\n\n<sup>88</sup> *See, e.g.*, *Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar*, No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM), 2021 WL 965794, at \\*7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021) (\"[B]ecause [defendant] is incorporated in Delaware, I must apply Delaware law to decide if it may be subject to an alter ego claim for reverse veil piercing liability.\").\n\ncapitalized, observed corporate formalities, and were a facade for the Debtor.89 This \"list of factors is not exhaustive and no single factor is dispositive.\"<sup>90</sup>\n\n65. The Debtor exercised control and dominion over the HCHK Entities such that the HCHK Entities had no independent existence from the Debtor and the Debtor used the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud and injustice. The HCHK Entities are an alter ego of the Debtor, because, among other reasons, the HCHK Entities:\n\n- a. were nominally owned and staffed by the Debtor's employees;\n- b. are affiliates of the Debtor's G-Series Entities that this Court has already found to be controlled by or to serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, as part of a single enterprise controlled by and serving the interests of the Debtor;\n- c. paid the Debtor's expenses, including with respect to the *Lady May* and the Debtor's Bombardier jet (which Mei Guo testified was sold in the summer of 2022); and\n- d. were funded by the Debtor through the Debtor's associates, controlled companies, and representatives.\n\n66. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n67. Because the HCHK Entities were at all times alter egos of the Debtor, their assets\n\nwere, following the Petition Date, assets of the Debtor's estate. Therefore, the Deeds of\n\nAssignment represent null and void transfers of estate assets in violation of the automatic stay,\n\n 89 *Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG*, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010) (Noting the factors that the Third Circuit considers in determining whether a corporation operated as a single economic entity, which notably would not include whether the relevant individual is a shareholder of the entity, but would include \"gross undercapitalization; failure to observe corporate formalities . . . [and] whether the corporation is merely a facade.\").\n\n<sup>90</sup> *Id.* at 471.\n\nwhich prohibits, among other things, \"any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate,\" 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3), and \"any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title.\" 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6).\n\n68. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 362, 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times the HCHK Entities were an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by the HCHK Entities at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by the HCHK Entities at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, including the HCHK Entities' \\$35 million in cash, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; (2) declaring the Deeds of Assignment and assignments of assets pursuant thereto to be null and void; and (3) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of the HCHK Entities to the Trustee.\n\n# **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n# **(In Alternative)**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of HCHK Entities, that Assignment of HCHK Entities' Assets Violated Automatic Stay and Is Null and Void, and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of the HCHK Entities and/or their Assets to Trustee)**\n\n69. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-61.\n\n70. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that the HCHK Entities are alter\n\negos of the Debtor, also support the alternative conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner\n\nof the HCHK Entities and/or their assets.<sup>91</sup>\n\n<sup>91</sup> *Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc*., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997) (defendant that \"exercised considerable authority over [the corporation] . . . to the point of completely disregarding the corporate form and *acting as though [its] assets were his alone to manage.\"*) (emphasis added).\n\n71. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n72. Because the HCHK Entities were equitably owned by the Debtor, the ownership and corporate control rights over the HCHK Entities, and/or the assets of the HCHK Entities, were, following the Petition Date, property of the Estate. The use of those ownership and corporate control rights in connection with the execution of the Deeds of Assignment and the purported assignment of the HCHK Entities' assets to the Assignee Defendant violated the automatic stay, which prohibits \"any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate.\" 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). Therefore, the Deeds of Assignment and assignments of assets pursuant thereto are null and void.\n\n73. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 362, 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in the HCHK Entities purportedly held by Holy City and Anthony DiBattista, and/or the assets of the HCHK Entities (including but not limited to assets purportedly transferred to the Assignee Defendant and/or held by the Assignee Defendant), are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; (2) declaring the Deeds of Assignment and assignments of assets pursuant thereto to be null and void; and (3) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in the HCHK entities, and/or the assets of the HCHK Entities, to the Trustee.\n\n# **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n# **(Injunctive Relief Under Section 105, 362, 363, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code)**\n\n74. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-61.\n\n75. Section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that \"[t]he court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.\" 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).\n\n76. Section 362's automatic stay prohibits, among other things, \"any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate.\" 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).\n\n77. Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code permits the use, sale, or lease of estate property, other than in the ordinary course of business, but only \"after notice and a hearing.\" 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1).\n\n78. Section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for the avoidance of a transfer of property of the estate \"that occurs after the commencement of the case\" and \"that is not authorized under this title or by the court.\" 11 U.S.C. § 549(a)(1)(B).\n\n79. An injunction against the continuation of the Assignment Proceedings is warranted pursuant to section 105, 362, 363, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code because, if allowed to continue, the Assignment Proceedings will have an immediate adverse consequence for the Debtor's estate. Among other things, allowing the Assignment Proceedings to go forward would effectively permit the continued violation of the automatic stay, the Assignment Proceedings are both duplicative of and decidedly inferior to the Chapter 11 Case, and allowing them to continue will encourage the Debtor to commence new assignment proceedings with his other alter ego entities as a strategy to bypass scrutiny by the Trustee and this Court.\n\n80. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 105, 362, 363, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code, enjoining the Defendants and any party acting in concert with them from commencing or continuing the Assignment Proceedings (or any other judicial,\n\nadministrative, or other actions or proceedings with respect to the HCHK Entities and/or their assets), enjoining any transfer or use of the assets, including cash, of the HCHK Entities (including but not limited to such assets purportedly transferred to the Assignee Defendant and/or held by the Assignee Defendant), or ownership interests in the HCHK Entities, except as authorized or directed by the Trustee or this Court, and requiring that the Defendants immediately notify the State Court of such injunction.\n\n# **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n1. On the First Claim, an order pursuant to sections 362, 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times the HCHK Entities were an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by the HCHK Entities at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by the HCHK Entities at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, including the HCHK Entities' \\$345 million in cash, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; (2) declaring the Deeds of Assignment and assignments of assets pursuant thereto to be null and void; and (3) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of the HCHK Entities to the Trustee;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 362, 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in the HCHK Entities purportedly held by Holy City and Anthony DiBattista, and/or the assets of the HCHK Entities, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; (2) declaring the Deeds of\n\nAssignment and assignments of assets pursuant thereto to be null and void; and (3) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in the HCHK entities, and/or the assets of the HCHK Entities, to the Trustee;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 105, 362, 363, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code, enjoining the Defendants and any party acting in concert with them from commencing or continuing the Assignment Proceedings (or any other judicial, administrative, or other actions or proceedings with respect to the HCHK Entities and/or their assets), enjoining any transfer or use of the assets, including cash, of the HCHK Entities (including but not limited to such assets purportedly transferred to the Assignee Defendant and/or held by the Assignee Defendant), or ownership interests in the HCHK Entities, except as authorized or directed by the Trustee or this Court, and requiring that the Defendants immediately notify the State Court of such injunction;\n\n4. Reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action; and 5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nDated: June 8, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(pro hac vice* pending) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"证物 C\n美利坚合众国破产法院\n康涅狄格区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于： : 第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等 ， 1 : 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 : （合并审理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章 :\n受托人， :\n原告， : 辩论程序编号 [ ]\nv. :\n: 2023年6月8日\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.， :\nHCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.， :\nLEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC.， :\nHOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD.， :\nANTHONY DIBATTISTA（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔），YVETTE WANG（王雁平）， :\n以及 BRIAN HOFMEISTER（布莱恩·霍夫迈斯特）（以受让人身份）， :\n被告。 :\n\n郭文贵破产财产第 11 章受托人根据《破产法典》第 105、362、363、541、542、544 和 549 条提起的诉状，请求：(I) 作出宣告性判决，确认 HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.、HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. 和 LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC. 为 (A) 债务人的另我（ALTER EGO）；或 (B) 备位请求，裁定债务人衡平法上拥有上述实体及/或其财产；以及 (II) 禁令救济\n\n上述第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Luc A. Despins（以 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人身份）（仅用于送达通知与联络）。\n\nLuc A. Despins 以在 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”或“郭”）的第 11 章案件（“第 11 章案件”）中被任命的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）身份，对以下被告提起本对抗程序起诉状（“诉状”）：(a) HCHK Technologies, Inc.（“HCHK Technologies”）；(b) HCHK Property Management, Inc.（“HCHK Property”）；(c) Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.（“Lexington Property”，并与 HCHK Technologies 和 HCHK Property 合称为“HCHK 实体”）；(d) Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Ltd.（“Holy City”）；(e) Yvette Wang（王雁平）；(f) Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）；以及 (g) Brian Hofmeister（布莱恩·霍夫迈斯特）（以 HCHK 实体受让人身份，即“受让人被告”2，并与 HCHK 实体、Holy City、王雁平和安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔合称为“被告”）。为支持本诉状，受托人陈述如下：\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本诉状及随附的临时限制令与初步禁令动议，旨在将有价值的资产纳入第 11 章破产财产，并紧急防止这些资产遭到挥霍损耗从而损害债务人债权人的利益。正如本法院所深知，债务人一贯有利用空壳公司、家族成员和亲信协助将其资产置于其债权人触及范围之外的前科，例如他曾利用名义上归其女儿所有的 Hong Kong International Investments (USA) Limited（“HK USA”），制造出其“Lady May”号游艇和约 3300 万美元托管资金不属于本破产财产的假象。本法院在就受托人针对 HK USA 提起的另我主张作出即决判决时，正确地不予理会该假象。\n\n截至提交本诉状之时，受托人尚无关于受让人被告对本诉状所指控事实是否实际知情或缺乏实际知情的信息。然而，无论受让人被告是否实际知情，本诉状中所请求的救济均具有充分的正当理由。\n\n2. 债务人及其同伙正在对 HCHK 实体采取相同的伎俩，利用它们持有本应属于破产财产的超过 3500 万美元现金。HCHK 实体名义上由王雁平所有，王雁平是债务人的亲信，也是美国政府数十亿美元刑事欺诈和洗钱案中的共同被告。然而事实是，王女士听从债务人的指示，而 HCHK 实体正如先前的 HK USA 以及债务人的其他众多空壳公司一样，纯粹是债务人本人的延伸，旨在经营其业务并向债权人隐匿其有价值的资产。\n\n3. 虽然债务人将 HCHK 实体纯粹用作另我已非新鲜事，但当前争议中的情况比以往更加令人不安，因为债务人及其同伙目前正在实施一项计划，将其 HCHK 实体的有价值资产转移至债务人的其他空壳公司。具体而言，2023年4月20日，在 HCHK 实体名义上担任管理职位的债务人雇员，就各个 HCHK 实体签署了《转让契约》，意图将其所有资产转让给受让人被告。随后，受让人被告向 New York County（纽约县）的 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）（“州法院”）就各个 HCHK 实体分别提交了宣誓书和申请书（各项称为一份“受让人宣誓书”，合称为“受让人宣誓书”）。受让人宣誓书请求根据《纽约州债务人与债权人法》启动为债权人利益转让程序（各项称为一项“转让程序”，合称为“转让程序”）。随受让人宣誓书一同提交的文件包括 HCHK 实体据称债权人的清单，其中列出了与债务人相关的实体，例如 ACA Capital、Golden Spring 和 Saraca Media（各项均在下文定义），以及据信\n\n是债务人同伙或亲属的未具名个人。3 受让人宣誓书及相关文件于 2023年5月30日 送达给受托人，随附关于 HCHK Technologies 和 Lexington Property 转让程序的说明理由令，要求就为何不应作出启动转让程序的命令说明理由，HCHK Technologies 的答辩截止日期为 2023年6月15日，Lexington Property 的答辩截止日期为 2023年6月21日。2023年6月5日，受托人收到了关于为何不应作出启动 HCHK Property 转让程序命令的说明理由令，答辩截止日期为 2023年6月27日。在这些程序中，债务人及其控制的人员企图在没有受托人和本法院监督与参与的情况下，创建属于他们自己的第 11 章案件版本。\n\n4. 充分的证据表明，HCHK 实体是债务人的另我或在衡平法上归债务人所有4，因此，上述转让程序显然是企图将 HCHK 实体的有价值资产从本第 11 章破产财产中剥离转移。在所有相关时间内，HCHK 实体 (a) 名义上由债务人的雇员所有并配备人员；(b) 为债务人“G系列”实体的关联方，例如 Gettr、GTV、GClubs、GFashion 和 GMusic（“G系列实体”），本法院已认定这些实体受债务人控制或作为债务人的商业工具；5 (c) 支付债务人的开支，包括与“Lady May”号及债务人的庞巴迪飞机相关的开支（Mei Guo 证实该飞机已于 2022 年夏季售出）；以及 (d) 由债务人通过其同伙、受控实体及\n\n换言之，被“代表债权人”转让了 HCHK 实体资产的受让人被告，表面上是“代表”债务人的一众同伙及受控实体而被转让了 HCHK 实体的资产。\n\n受托人的衡平法所有权主张包括对 HCHK 实体的衡平法所有权（即代表此类实体所有权权益的股份）及/或 HCHK 实体的资产。5\n\n本法院亦认定：“GSeries 中的 G 代表 Guo（郭）。”《关于部分准予初步禁令动议的决定修正备忘录》第 3 段（Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032，2023年1月13日）[诉讼案卷编号 133]（“初步禁令决定”）。\n\n代表提供资金。美国政府在其对债务人和王雁平的刑事起诉中，同样主张债务人控制 HCHK Technologies 和 HCHK Property。债务人方面对此并未提出异议，因为他在宣誓证词中被问及其对 HCHK Technologies 和 HCHK Property 的控制和所有权时，援引了《第五修正案》。6\n\n5. 受托人在本诉状中根据《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条请求作出命令，裁定 HCHK 实体是债务人的另我及/或在衡平法上归其所有；并根据《破产法典》第 105、362、363 和 549 条请求作出命令，禁止被告及与他们协同行动的任何当事人启动或继续上述转让程序，并禁止对 HCHK 实体的资产（包括现金）进行任何转让或使用，除非得到受托人或本法院的授权。请求的禁令是有理有据的，因为转让程序将通过实际允许继续违反自动中止机制，从而对债务人的破产财产造成直接的不利后果，使得 HCHK 实体和被告可以进行平行程序，而这些平行程序既与本第 11 章案件重复，又显然逊色于本案。允许转让程序继续还将鼓励债务人利用其其他另我实体启动新的转让程序，以此作为绕过受托人和本法院审查的策略。\n管辖权与审判地\n\n6. 根据 28 U.S.C. §1334(b)，本法院对本辩论程序具有标的管辖权。\n\n在日期为 2023年5月11日 的宣誓声明中，当被要求说明是否对王雁平拥有控制权时，债务人援引了《第五修正案》。《债务人关于特定问题答复的宣誓声明》第 46 段（就关于其对其他众多实体及个人的控制权的问题援引《第五修正案》），作为证物 1 附于本诉状。\n\n7. 根据 28 U.S.C. §157(a)，本辩论程序已移送至本法院。\n诉讼当事人\n\n8. 根据本法院于 2022年7月8日 作出的命令 [主案卷编号 523]，受托人是本第 11 章案件中的第 11 章受托人。\n\n9. HCHK Technologies 是一家特拉华州公司。\n\n10. HCHK Property 是一家特拉华州公司。\n\n11. Lexington Property 是一家特拉华州公司。\n\n12. Holy City 是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，名义上持有各个 HCHK 实体 99.9999% 的股权权益。Holy City 名义上由王雁平 100% 所有。\n\n13. 王雁平是一名个人，是 Holy City 名义上的 100% 所有人。\n\n14. 安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔是一名个人，名义上持有各个 HCHK 实体 0.0001% 的股权权益。\n\n15. 受让人被告是 Brian W. Hofmeister, LLC 律师事务所的管理合伙人。受让人被告是与各个 HCHK 实体的据称代表于 2023年4月20日 签署的《为债权人利益转让契约》相关的受让人，该契约意图将各个 HCHK 实体的全部资产转让给受让人被告。\n事实\nI. 背景：债务人频繁使用空壳公司\n\n16. 债务人频繁使用据称归家族成员或商业下属所有的空壳公司，以向债权人隐匿其资产和活动。\n\n债务人的“空壳骗局”使他得以继续否认对资产的所有权、拒绝偿还债务，并且——直到他最近被 FBI（联邦调查局）逮捕之前——一直过着奢侈的生活。\n\n17. 除其他例证外，据称由债务人之子所有的空壳公司（具体为 Lamp Capital LLC 以及 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司））已支付了债务人的生活开支和律师费；据称由其女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）所有的空壳公司 HK USA（最近被本法院裁定为债务人的 alter ego（另我）7），持有债务人游艇的所有权，而本法院和 Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）此前曾裁定，尽管该游艇名义上由 HK USA 所有，但仍属于债务人的财产8；另一家据称由债务人妻子所有的空壳公司（Greenwich Land LLC）则持有债务人康涅狄格州住所的所有权9。债务人还声称，其在 Sherry Netherland Hotel（雪莉-荷兰酒店）的公寓是为据称由其子所有的又一家空壳公司（Bravo Luck Limited）的利益而信托持有的10。同样，债务人曾利用 Anton Development Limited 和 Whitecroft Short\n\n7 Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Second Counterclaim（《关于就第二项反请求准予部分简易判决动议的裁决与命令备忘录》），第 35 页（Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003，2023年5月18日）[Docket No. 221]（“HK USA 是个人债务人的另我。”）。\n\n8 Supplemental Memorandum of Decision in Support of Oral Ruling Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment（《支持准予部分简易判决动议之口头裁定的补充裁决备忘录》），第 31 页（Adv. Proc. No. 22005003，2023年3月30日）[Docket No. 177]（“个人债务人对 Lady May 游艇的实益所有权和控制权问题对第一项反请求具有决定性意义，且同一问题必然已由奥斯特拉格法官在《最终蔑视法庭判定》中作出认定，该裁决以清晰且有说服力的证据认定个人债务人实益拥有并控制 Lady May 游艇”）。\n\n9 托管人已在第 23-05005 号对抗程序中针对该实体提起了另我判决之诉，在该诉讼中，法院对 Greenwich Land LLC 及债务人之妻签发了判决前救济和临时限制令。参见 Order Granting in Part Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction（《部分准予单方申请临时限制令及初步禁令动议的命令》）（Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005，2023年3月28日）[Docket No. 14]；Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Amended Application for Ex Parte Prejudgment Remedy（《准予第11章托管人单方申请判决前救济之修正申请的命令》）（Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005，2023年3月28日）[Docket No. 15]。\n\n10 托管人在其针对 Bravo Luck 和 Qiang Guo（郭强）提起的 Amended Adversary Complaint Against Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Seeking (I) Invalidation of Purported Trust Agreement in Favor of Bravo Luck and, (II) in Alternative, Ruling that Debtor Effectuated Fraudulent Transfer in Favor of Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Pursuant to Section 276 of New York Debtor and Creditor Law, Made Applicable by Section 544 of Bankruptcy Code（《修正对抗诉状：起诉 Bravo Luck 及郭强，请求(I)确认有利于 Bravo Luck 的所谓信托协议无效，以及(II)或者依据《破产法典》第 544 条所适用的《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 276 条，裁定债务人向 Bravo Luck 及郭强实施了欺诈性转让》）（Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027，2023年2月28日）[Docket No. 40] 中，对 Bravo Luck Limited 主张的雪莉-荷兰公寓的权益提出了质疑，在该诉讼中，债务人之子郭强已缺席。Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Entry of Default Judgment against Qiang Guo（《Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产财团第11章托管人申请对郭强作出缺席判决的动议》）（Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027，2023年6月2日）[Docket No. 93]。\n\nLimited（两家据称由债务人女儿所有的实体）持有债务人的 Bombardier（庞巴迪）私人飞机的所有权（郭美作证称该飞机已于2022年夏天售出）11。\n\n18. 此前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的 Judge Liman（李曼法官）在2021年的一项裁决中认定，另一家据称由债务人女儿持有的公司 Eastern Profit Corporation Limited，“实质上是债务人的空壳公司”12。Eastern Profit Corporation Limited 是2018年香港法院命令认定“受债务人实际控制”的众多据称独立实体之一，其金融账户亦包含其中13。\n\n19. 与此相关的是，托管人在 Docket No. 1327 密封提交的保密证人声明（下称“《保密证人声明》”），并作为支持本诉状的证物引述并入，证明了（除其他事项外）\n\n![](_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg)\n\n20. 最重要的是，本法院已作出裁定，认定本对抗程序中涉及的实体和个人均处于债务人的控制之下。具体而言，本法院认定，参与债务人近期社交媒体和抗议活动的众多据称独立的实体和组织，包括 G系列实体 Gettr、GFashion、GMusic、\n\n11 Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for (I) Declaratory Judgment, Pursuant to Sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 7001, that Property Held by Mei Guo is Property of Estate and (II) Related Relief（《Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团第11章托管人诉状：请求依据《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条及《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 7001 条作出的宣告性判决，确认郭美持有的财产属于破产财产，以及(II)相关救济》）（Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008，2023年5月16日）[Docket No. 1]。\n\n12 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC，No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL)，2021 WL 2554631，at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021)。\n\n13 证物 2，《香港限制令》，第 7-18 页。\n\nGClubs、GNews 和 GEdu14，均受债务人控制15、由债务人领导16，并且/或者服务于债务人的“目的……并充当其商业工具”17。\n\n21. 本法院在其认定债务人因违反法院公司治理命令而构成蔑视法庭的命令中另行认定，债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（以及通过该公司持有 Dawn State Limited）的实益拥有人，且债务人控制并雇用了 Ace Decade Limited 的名义所有人 Yvette Wang（王雁平）18。托管人后来获悉，王雁平在 Ace Decade 程序进行期间（但在法院于2022年11月17日认定债务人自2022年2月15日申请破产之日起排他性地实益拥有并控制 Ace Decade 之后19），将其名义持有的 Ace Decade 股份转让给了一名位于瑞士的个人（据信该人是债务人的另一名同伙）。\n\nII. HCHK 实体是债务人的另我或由其享有衡平法所有权\nA. HCHK 实体名义上由债务人的雇员所有并由其任职\n\n22. 每一家 HCHK 实体都具有完全相同的股权结构，这直接表明其受到债务人的控制。每家 HCHK 实体均由 Holy City 直接持股 99.9999%，并由债务人的长期雇员 Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）持股 0.0001%，该雇员同时也是\n\n14 初步禁令裁决第 2 段（“G系列包括以下实体：Himalaya Exchange、Gettr、GFashion、GMusic、GClubs、GNews 和 GEdu。”）。\n\n15 初步禁令裁决第 3 段（“债务人还控制 Saraca Media Group 以及相关实体‘GTV’”）。\n\n16 同上，第 7 段（“债务人是爆料革命（The Whistleblower Movement）、新中国联邦（NFSC）、法治基金/社会（ROLF）和喜马拉雅（Himalaya）的领导人。”）。\n\n17 同上（“爆料革命、NFSC、ROLF、G系列和喜马拉雅服务于债务人的目的，充当债务人的商业工具，且其成员在个人层面上效忠于债务人。”）。\n\n18 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order（《准予认定债务人违反公司治理命令构成蔑视法庭之动议的命令》）第 1、4 段（2023年1月24日）[主案 Docket No. 1372]（下称“《公司治理蔑视法庭命令》”）。\n\n19 参见 Order Regarding Partial Resolution of Trustee's Contempt Motion（《关于部分解决托管人蔑视法庭动议的命令》）第 1 段（2022年11月17日）[主案 Docket No. 1110]。\n\nHCHK Property 和 Lexington Property 的董事兼总裁。Holy City 则由债务人的助理王雁平 100% 持有20。\n\n23. 本法院已裁定“债务人对王女士拥有控制权”，且债务人“已雇用王雁平数年，并指示她代表其采取行动，包括指示她代表其购买诸如雪莉-荷兰公寓等房产”21。王女士还曾为债务人担任过众多其他职务，包括担任 Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond Holding LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Leading Shine NY Limited、Saraca Media Group, Inc.、GTV Media Group, Inc. 以及 Genever Holdings LLC 的管理人员和/或授权签署人22。托管人在调查中了解到，王女士被广泛公认为债务人的个人助理。在宣誓作证（deposition）中被问及王女士是否为其雇员时，债务人主张了其反对自证其罪的《宪法第五修正案》权利23。\n\n24. 2023年3月15日，王女士被捕，涉及指控包括其就债务人的刑事欺诈和\n\n20 Lan Mu (Ya Li)（木兰（李亚）），据称是 Holy City 的董事，其签署了授权 HCHK Technologies 进行为债权人利益之转让（Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors）的《股东书面同意书》，据信其为债务人的亲密同伙。鉴于美国政府指控王雁平是 Holy City 的唯一董事，目前尚不清楚木兰（李亚）是在何时成为 Holy City 董事的。参见证物 3，信函，第 4 页脚注 2，United States v. Kwok，No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2023) [Docket No. 10]（下称“《郭氏刑事案件信函》”）（“被告被列为 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. 的唯一董事，且她以该身份代表 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. 签署了多份 HCHK 公司文件，包括股东决议。”）。\n\n21 《公司治理蔑视法庭命令》第 4 段。\n\n22 证物 4，Affidavit of Yan Ping Wang（《王雁平宣誓书》）第 1 段，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2018) [Docket No. 182]（“我是 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 的总裁，并以该身份作为[债务人]及其家族利益的管理人”）；证物 5，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，未召开会议之唯一成员同意书，日期为2019年7月17日（使王女士成为签署人）(HR0010121)；证物 6，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，未召开会议之唯一成员同意书 (HR0020577)；证物 7，Hudson Diamond NY LLC，未召开会议之唯一成员同意书 (HR0039240)；证物 8，；证物 9，Himalaya Coin 假定名称证书，日期为2020年3月14日；证物 10，Himalaya Dollar 假定名称证书，日期为2020年3月14日；证物 11，诉状第 9a 段，United States v. Wang，No. 1:23-mj-02007-UA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2023) [Docket No. 1]（“王是 GTV 的执行董事”）；Debtor's Declaration Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2（《债务人依据<本地破产规则>第 1007-2 条作出的声明》）第 1 段（Case No. 22-50592，2020年10月12日）[Docket No. 1]。\n\n23 证物 12，郭氏宣誓作证笔录，第 33:11-13 页（2023年3月2日）。\n\n洗钱活动与债务人共谋等罪名。据美国政府称，王女士在债务人的欺诈计划中扮演了“关键角色”，是债务人“值得信赖的幕僚长，负责管理各项业务运营，甚至包括那些她没有正式隶属关系的实体”24。\n\n25. Anthony DiBattista 也是债务人的长期雇员，在债务人控制的不同公司中担任多项职务。DiBattista 先生曾受雇于 Golden Spring，并作为 GTV25、GFashion26 和 GClubs27 的公司管理人员为债务人效力。当债务人在宣誓作证中被问及 DiBattista 先生是否为其雇员时，债务人主张了其反对自证其罪的《宪法第五修正案》权利28。\n\n26. 除 DiBattista 先生外，HCHK 实体的关键人员均为债务人“家族办公室”Golden Spring 的前雇员或管理人员。转入 HCHK 实体的这些其他 Golden Spring 人员包括 Max Krasner29、Joe Wang30、Bernardo Enriquez31 和 Alex Hadjicharalambous32。据信，HCHK 实体仅仅是换了新公司信笺抬头的 Golden Spring 的延续。其他 HCHK 人员还包括 Elliott Dordick33（本法院认定其为 Gettr 雇员的个人）34\n\n24 证物 3，《郭氏刑事案件信函》，第 18 页。\n\n25 参见初步禁令裁决第 3 段（“债务人还控制 Saraca Media Group 以及相关实体‘GTV’，两者通常统称为 GTV。”）。\n\n26 参见同上（“债务人创建了 GFashion。”）。\n\n27 美国政府指控 GClubs“在实际功能上受债务人控制”，证物 24，起诉书第 10 段，United States v. Kwok，No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2023) [Docket No. 2]，指控债务人与 William Je（余建明）利用 GClubs“欺诈性获取超过 2.5 亿美元”，同上第 14 段，且 GClubs 的资金\n\n被用于支付Debtor（债务人，指郭文贵）及其家人的个人开支。同前，第15段。28 见证据12，Kwok Dep. Tr.（郭文贵证词笔录）第87:6-8页。29 Krasner（克拉斯纳）先生除了在HCHK各实体的职务外，还是Golden Spring（金泉公司）的员工，他还以多种其他身份为债务人服务，包括担任Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（无限资金管理公司，系Lamp Capital LLC（灯塔资本有限责任公司）的母公司）以及Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金）的高管和/或授权签字人。\n\n30 Wang（王）先生是HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）的技术副总裁，此前曾在金泉公司担任首席技术官或类似职务。31 Enriquez（恩里克斯）先生除了在HCHK各实体的职务外，还在金泉公司工作，并担任灯塔资本有限责任公司的财务总监等职务。\n\n32 Hadjicharalambous（哈吉查拉兰布斯）先生除了在HCHK各实体的职务外，还曾在其他由债务人控制的实体工作多年，如金泉公司、GClubs（G系列俱乐部）和Freedom Media Ventures Ltd.（自由媒体风投有限公司）。\n\n33 Elliot Dordick, Esq.（埃利奥特·多尔迪克律师），领英，http\n\n34 初步禁令裁定第13段。\n\n该实体是G系列实体的一部分，本法院认定其“服务于债务人的目的”并“充当债务人的商业工具”。35 法院或许还记得，多尔迪克先生曾参与债务人针对Trustee（受托人）和PAX（太盟）的抗议活动。\nB. HCHK各实体系G系列实体的关联方\n\n27. HCHK各实体并非如Assignee Defendant（受让人被告）向州法院提交的文件所暗示的那样，是恰好与债务人关联实体发生业务往来的独立企业。36 它们是债务人G系列实体的关联方，与这些实体共同构成了由债务人控制并致力于提升债务人利益的单一企业整体。\n\n28. 正如受让人的宣誓书所论述的，HCHK各实体的业务位于纽约市Columbus Circle 3号（哥伦布圆环3号），HCHK Property（HCHK置业）和Lexington Property（莱克星顿置业）在此转租办公空间。这正是债务人的同伙在债务人授意下录制支持债务人的视频的地点，包括2022年末呼吁针对受托人、太盟及其法律顾问进行抗议的视频。这些活动导致法院作出了初步禁令裁定［Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032案卷第133号］，法院在其中认定（除其他事项外）债务人控制了G系列实体。据信，这些攻击受托人和太盟的视频是使用受让人被告所披露的、据称属于HCHK科技公司资产的视频和电子设备制作的。37\n\n35 初步禁令裁定第7段。\n\n36 例如，受让人被告对HCHK科技公司的描述称，HCHK科技公司是一家“在新兴全球科技和咨询公司，跨多条业务线提供战略解决方案。受让方的运作方式类似于专业雇主组织（PEO），向其客户提供涵盖技术、产品开发、工程、人力资源、招聘、法务、财务和研发等方面的专业自选咨询服务。”见证据13，Brian Hofmeister（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特）的《说明理由令、宣誓书及请愿书》第4段，HCHK Tech., Inc. v. Hofmeister案，索引号510008/2023，（N.Y. Sup. Ct.（纽约州最高法院）2023年5月18日）（简称“HCHK科技宣誓书”）。37 见证据13，HCHK科技宣誓书，附件B，《债权人利益转让契约》。\n\n29. HCHK各实体的会计师事务所Marcum LLP（“Marcum”，马库姆有限责任合伙）提供的文件显示了HCHK各实体与G系列实体代表债务人作为单一业务运营的程度。除此之外，文件表明马库姆对于是谁控制了HCHK各实体和G系列实体毫无疑问。正如一名马库姆会计师在2021年4月的一封内部电子邮件中所陈述的，“我们代表的是由GTV media（GTV媒体）所有者Miles Kwok（郭文贵）间接拥有的实体。”38\n\n30. 此外，对马库姆文件（尚需进一步审查）的简要审阅表明，HCHK各实体的作用除其他外，是充当债务人各业务的“存钱罐”。正是出于这个原因，马库姆的聘用函规定马库姆将向莱克星顿置业“及关联方”提供服务，并且马库姆不仅被明确要求编制HCHK各实体的纳税申报表，还要编制其他由债务人控制的实体的纳税申报表，包括GFashion和GTV。39 同样，马库姆将HCHK科技公司的资产归类为包含对应于Gettr、GFashion和“FMV”（据信，该首字母缩写指由债务人控制的另一家名为Freedom Media Ventures的公司）的银行账户。这种“存钱罐”角色与受让人被告就HCHK科技公司提交的资产清单相符，该清单披露了12,559,423.06美元的应收账款。据信，这些应收账款包括G系列实体或其他由债务人控制的公司据称欠HCHK科技公司的债务。\nC. HCHK各实体支付债务人的开支\n\n31. 受托人持有的财务文件亦显示，债务人使用HCHK各实体支付其各项开支。虽然受托人对这些\n\n38 见证据14，2021年4月23日Hirschfeld（赫希菲尔德）致Keady（凯迪）的电子邮件。39 见证据15，2022年4月14日马库姆聘用函，附件B。\n\n文件的分析尚未完成，但HCHK各实体代表债务人支付款项的部分示例包括但不限于：\n\n- a. 2022年10月，HCHK科技公司向Yachtzoo Ltd.（与其关联方统称“Yachtzoo”）支付了123,452.00美元。Yachtzoo是Lady May（梅号）游艇的管理公司，Ostrager法官和本法院均裁定该游艇为债务人的游艇。\n- b. 2021年9月，HCHK科技公司向ACASS Canada Ltd.（与其关联方统称“ACASS”）支付了215,018.00美元。ACASS当时是债务人的庞巴迪飞机的管理公司（Mei Guo（郭美）作证称该飞机已于2022年夏季出售）。\n- c. 2021年11月，HCHK科技公司向飞机制造商Cirrus Industries, Inc.（西锐工业公司）或其关联方支付了2,788,680.00美元。据信，该笔付款的目的是为债务人购买一架新的私人飞机，即西锐SF50喷气式飞机，该飞机已在与债务人刑事案件相关的诉讼文件中被提及。40\n- 32. 此外，根据受托人持有的文件，莱克星顿置业虽然表面上仅从事办公空间转租业务（至少根据受让人的宣誓书所称41），却向与债务人相关的实体和个人进行了大量付款，据信这些付款是代表债务人进行的。这些款项的收款人包括但不限于：\n\t- a. Yvette Wang（王雁平）；\n\t- b. Max Krasner（债务人的雇员，在债务人控制的多家公司担任职务）；\n\t- c. Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特，据信是债务人的另一名司机兼保镖）；\n\t- d. Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔，实质上是债务人的总法律顾问）；\n\n 40 见证据16，《不服拒绝审前释放裁定的救济动议》，第20页，United States v. Kwok案，案号23-6421\n\n（2d Cir.（第二巡回上诉法院）2023年5月5日）［案卷第6.1号］。41 见证据17，布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特的《说明理由令、宣誓书及请愿书》第5段，Lexington Prop. & Staffing, Inc. v. Hofmeister案，索引号510007/2023（纽约州最高法院2023年5月25日）（简称“莱克星顿宣誓书”）（“据信，转让方与HCHK置业的设立，实质上都是为了就其各自在哥伦布圆环3号的办公空间充当租户（或次承租人）以及物业管理公司。”）。\n\n- e. Lawall & Mitchell, LLC42（阿伦·米切尔的律师事务所，亦是债务人于2022年3月提议的“日常业务专业机构”之一［案卷第119号］）；\n- f. Baker & Hostetler LLP（贝克豪斯托勒有限责任合伙，债务人在Ostrager法官面前诉讼中的个人代理律师，亦是债务人于2022年3月提议的“日常业务专业机构”之一［案卷第119号］）；\n- g. Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC以及Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP（开希尔戈登有限责任合伙）（代表GTV的律师事务所43）；\n- h. Phillips Nizer LLP（在Ostrager法官面前的诉讼中担任灯塔资本有限责任公司的代理律师）；\n- i. Himalaya Ventures, LLC（喜马拉雅风投有限责任公司，据信是与债务人的一个或多个“喜马拉雅农场”组织关联的实体）；\n- j. Beile (\"Prince\") Li（李宝亮（“王子”），债务人的重要同伙，针对受托人和太盟抗议活动的主要参与者）；\n- k. Yan Yan Tsang（曾炎炎，据信是债务人的雇员，其与债务人、王雁平、债务人的妻子及女儿，以及Han Chunguang（韩春光，债务人的保镖之一）一同对United States Citizenship and Immigration Services（美国公民及移民服务局）提起诉讼，以支持债务人的庇护申请及其本人的庇护申请）；\n- l. Yinying Wang（王银英，据信是Qidong Xia（夏其东）的秘书，据信夏其东目前在多个由债务人控制的实体和组织中担任债务人的副手）；以及\n- m. 名为17 Miles LLC（17英里有限责任公司）的实体（2021年收取了146,795.63美元，且据信与债务人存在关联）。\n\n 42 Lawall & Mitchell事务所中的“Lawall”指Dara Lawall（达拉·拉瓦尔），据信她是Bravo Luck Limited（宝禄有限公司）代理律师——Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP（创普律师事务所）的Francis Lawall（弗朗西斯·拉瓦尔）的女儿。据信达拉·拉瓦尔亦是阿伦·米切尔的妻子，因此据信米切尔先生是拉瓦尔先生的女婿。43 Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC亦代表Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）处理与受托人根据《破产程序规则》第2004条进行的调查相关的事宜。\nD. HCHK各实体由债务人资助\n\n33. 受让人被告在州法院提交的文件中包含了有关HCHK各实体债权人44的披露，这些披露表明HCHK各实体是通过债务人的同伙、受控实体及代表从债务人处获得资金的。\ni. HCHK科技公司的债权人\n\n34. 受让人被告已披露，HCHK科技公司的金融\n\n债权人完全由数名未具名个人（简称“未披露债权人”）组成，共计被欠51,684,947.50美元45（相比之下，HCHK科技公司披露的资产价值约为17,500,000美元46），这些个人的“姓名出于保密目的予以保留”。47 受让人被告在其宣誓书中提及这些未披露债权人时表示：\n\n据信，除营业收入外，［HCHK科技公司］还从某些个人投资者处获得了资金，这些投资者是中国异见人士，自称属于揭露中共涉嫌腐败和侵犯人权行为的社交网络和运动的一部分……出于对中共报复的恐惧，［未披露债权人］对披露其在这些程序中的姓名和个人联系方式极为敏感。出于这个原因，［HCHK科技公司］向我表示，投资者已指定了六名愿意披露姓名和联系方式的个人，在此事项中担任其代理人和代表。48\n\n35. 这种对未披露债权人的描述与债务人用来解释其自身保密愿望的论点如出一辙，表明未披露债权人\n\n 44 这些披露采取债权人名单的形式，与资产清单一起附在随受让人宣誓书提交的《转让契约》后。根据《转让契约》，这些名单是由HCHK各实体交付给受让人被告的，因此显然构成了由HCHK各实体（受债务人及其同伙控制）作出的陈述，而非任何分析或\n\n由受让人被告（Assignee Defendant）进行的调查。45 证物 13，HCHK Tech. Aff.，证物 B，HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）的债权人名单。除这些金融债权人外，债权人名单还披露了持有 $206,703.19 索赔额的供应商，该金额包括欠 HCHK Property（HCHK物业公司）的 $51,000 索赔额。46 证物 13，HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 19。47 证物 13，HCHK Tech. Aff.，证物 B，HCHK Technologies 的债权人名单，附注 5。\n\n48 证物 13，HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 8。\n\n债务人（Debtor）的关联人士。该迹象由受让人被告提交的 HCHK Technologies 债权人名单上披露的六名债权人代表（“债权人代表”，Creditor Representatives）的身份予以证实。49 依据信息与见解，这些个人均为债务人的关联人士。\n\n36. 六名债权人代表中的四名，即 Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）、Hao (Gavin) Li（李豪）、Yongping Yan（闫永平）和 Yinying Wang（王银营），均为债务人尤其知名的关联人士。依据信息与见解，郝玉梅曾为债务人在 GClubs 以及由债务人控制的其他实体和组织工作。李豪和闫永平均曾在纽约市大中央车站靠近 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）办公室入口处抗议受托人（Trustee），在支持债务人的视频直播中出镜，并曾与债务人在 The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉荷兰酒店）共进晚餐。依据信息与见解，王银营是 Qidong Xia（夏启东）的秘书，而依据信息与见解，夏启东目前在涉及债务人控制的多个实体和组织中担任债务人的副手。\n\nii. HCHK Property 的债权人\n\n37. 涉及 HCHK Property 的情况几乎完全相同。受让人被告披露，HCHK Property 拥有多名“债权人和/或投资者”，共被欠款 $48,187,299.77 50（相比之下，HCHK Property 披露的资产价值约为 $29,785,936 51），其“姓名/名称出于保密目的予以保留”。52 换\n\n49 这些债权人代表的姓名包括：Hao (Gavin) Li（李豪）、Yinying (Aila) Wang（王银营）、Chris Lee、Yongping Yan（闫永平）、Jintao Li（李金涛）和 Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）。\n\n50 证物 18，责令出示理由令、Brian Hofmeister 的宣誓书及请愿书，证物 B，HCHK Property 的债权人名单，HCHK Prop. Mgmt., Inc., v. Hofmeister，索引号 510006/2023（纽约州最高法院，2023年5月23日）（“HCHK Prop. Aff.”）。\n\n51 证物 18，HCHK Prop. Aff. ¶ 20。\n\n52 证物 18，HCHK Prop. Aff.，证物 B，HCHK Property 的债权人名单，附注 4。\n\n言之，这些就是未披露的债权人，由如前所述作为债务人关联人士的债权人代表所代表。\n\n38. 最后，Lexington Property（莱克星顿物业公司）的债权人名单披露了欠以下债务人附属实体的总计至少 $32,183,837.03 53 的索赔额（相比之下，HCHK Technologies 披露的资产价值约为 $200 万 54）：\n\n在其作证陈述中被问及是否拥有并控制 Leading Shine 时，债务人援引了第五修正案。61\n\n-\n-\n\n总而言之，依据信息与见解，Savio Law LLC 是债务人的代表，其向 Lexington Property 支付的任何款项均为代表债务人支付的款项。\n\n39. 在就针对债务人及 Yvette Wang（王雁平）的刑事起诉所提交的诉状中，美国政府指控称，除其他事项外：\n\na. HCHK Technologies 是一家“由郭控制的公司，该公司……在今年早些时候派员工前往[阿拉伯联合酋长国]开设银行账户，如郭所称，这些账户将超出美国的‘长臂管辖权’。”67 这些员工“在阿联酋逗留了六周以上，显然是为了协助将郭和 William Je（余建明）的业务转移到国外。”68\n\n61 证物 12，Kwok 作证陈述笔录，49:15-50:7。\n\n68 证物 3，郭刑事案信函，第 3-4 页。\n\n- b. Gettr 和 HCHK Technologies 是“由郭和余建明控制的公司，部分资金使用欺诈收益。”69 Gettr 是“郭通过一系列空壳公司控制的社交媒体公司”，且“Gettr 与 HCHK 实体……在同一办公地点运营。”70\n- c. “在[王雁平]公寓内其手提包中的一个文件夹里发现的带批注文件的照片，在实质和部分上似乎反映了以 HCHK Technologies 和 HCHK Property Management……GFNY, Inc.（即 GFashion）以及 GF Italy（即 GFashion Italy）名义持有的六个银行账户的某些交易和余额。”71\n- d. “在[王雁平]公寓内其手提包中的文件夹里发现的另一份文件的照片，总体及实质上似乎反映了[王雁平]签署了与各种郭控制的实体相关的薪酬支出……。该文件进一步表明了某些薪酬支出应如何在包括 HCHK 在内的关联实体之间进行分摊。”72\n\nF. 债务人在被问及 HCHK Technologies 和 HCHK Property 时援引第五修正案\n\n40. 在2023年3月2日的作证陈述中，债务人被问及是否拥有并控制 HCHK Technologies 和 HCHK Property。债务人援引第五修正案作为回应。73\n\nIII. 应禁止为债权人利益进行的转让\n\nA. 转让程序\n\n41. 2023年4月20日，各 HCHK 实体分别签署了一份《转让契据》（Deed of Assignment），意图将其所有资产转让给受让人被告。\n\n42. 2023年4月25日，各《转让契据》均已提交至州法院书记官处。\n\n69 证物 3，郭刑事案信函，第 18 页。70 证物 3，郭刑事案信函，第 8 页附注 5。71 证物 23，郭刑事案信函回复，第 3 页。72 证物 23，郭刑事案信函回复，第 3-4 页。\n\n73 证物 12，Kwok 作证陈述笔录，84:22-85:3。\n\n43. 2023年5月10日，受让人被告就 HCHK Technologies 提交了其受让人宣誓书（Assignee Affidavit）及相关文件；2023年5月18日，州法院发布了一份责令出示理由令，要求说明为何不应就 HCHK Technologies 启动转让程序（Assignment Proceeding），并规定异议截止日期为 2023年6月15日，听证日期为 2023年6月20日（仅作书面审理，不进行口头辩论）。受托人的律师于2023年5月30日通过电子邮件收到了该责令出示理由令、受让人宣誓书及相关文件的副本。\n\n44. 2023年5月23日，受让人被告就 Lexington Property 提交了其受让人宣誓书及相关文件；2023年5月25日，州法院发布了一份责令出示理由令，要求说明为何不应就 Lexington Property 启动转让程序，并规定异议截止日期为 2023年6月21日，听证日期为 2023年6月28日（仅作书面审理，不进行口头辩论）。受托人的律师于2023年5月30日通过电子邮件收到了该责令出示理由令、受让人宣誓书及相关文件的副本。\n\n45. 2023年5月23日，受让人被告就 HCHK Property 提交了其受让人宣誓书及相关文件；2023年5月31日，州法院发布了一份责令出示理由令，要求说明为何不应就 HCHK Property 启动转让程序，并规定异议截止日期为 2023年6月27日，听证日期为 2023年6月30日（仅作书面审理，不进行口头辩论）。受托人的律师于2023年6月5日通过电子邮件收到了该责令出示理由令、受让人宣誓书及相关文件的副本（此前已于2023年5月30日通过电子邮件收到除已签署的责令出示理由令之外的相同材料）。\n\nB. 受让人宣誓书\n\n46. 受让人宣誓书载有对各 HCHK 实体的描述。随受让人宣誓书一同提交的相关文件包括由各 HCHK 实体编制的附表，意图显示各 HCHK 实体的资产以及债权人对其持有的索赔权。根据这些文件，各 HCHK 实体拥有巨额资产，包括超过 $3500 万 的现金，但若假设所披露索赔权的有效性，则各实体均已资不抵债：(a) HCHK Technologies 拥有价值约 $1750 万 的资产，其中 $450 万 为现金，相比之下金融债权人索赔额为 $51,684,947.50，供应商债权人索赔额为 $206,703.19；74 (b) HCHK Property 拥有价值约 $29,785,936 的资产，75 全部由现金构成，相比之下债权人索赔额为 $48,187,299.77；76 以及 (c) Lexington Property 拥有约 $200 万 的资产，全部由现金构成，相比之下债权人索赔额至少为 $32,183,837.03。77\n\n47. 受让人宣誓书使用无害的公司行话描述 HCHK 实体，暗示它们是独立的机构，只不过恰好以与债务人附属的某些实体为客户。78 例如，HCHK Technologies 被描述为“一家新兴的全球技术与咨询公司，跨多个业务线提供战略解决方案”，并且“向其客户提供涵盖技术、产品开发、工程、人力资源、招聘、法律、财务和研发的专业自选咨询服务”。79\n\n48. 受让人被告指出了王雁平对 HCHK 实体的所有权以及她与债务人被捕入狱的事实，解释称王女士的\n\n74 证物 13，HCHK Tech. Aff.，证物 B，HCHK Technologies 的债权人名单。这些供应商债权人索赔额包括欠 HCHK Property 的 $51,000 索赔额。75 证物 18，HCHK Prop. Aff. ¶ 20。\n\n76 证物 18，HCHK Prop. Aff.，证物 B，HCHK Property 的债权人名单。77 证物 17，Lexington Aff.，证物 B，Lexington 的债权人名单。\n\n78 参见 证物 13，HCHK Tech. Aff. 第 5 页附注 1（指出 G Clubs、G Music、GFNY 和 G Fashion“均隶属于 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）……一名拥有广泛网络影响力和庞大社交媒体追随者、直言不讳批评中国共产党的中国持不同政见者”，并且“于2022年2月15日，郭在美国康涅狄格区破产法院启动了一起自愿第11章破产案，该案目前仍在审理中”）。\n\n79 证物 13，HCHK Tech. Aff. ¶ 4。\n\n监禁是促成《转让契据》的催化剂。80 受让人被告并未提及王雁平受雇于债务人（如本法院所认定），也未提及她是债务人的“深受信赖的幕僚长”（如美国政府的文件所述）。81 同样，受让人被告没有讨论债务人与 Gettr 的关联，仅声称除 Gettr 之外的某些 G系列实体（G-Series Entities）隶属于债务人。\n\n49. 受让人被告未披露 HCHK Technologies 和 HCHK Property 债权人的身份，声称这些未具名债权人因害怕中共报复而无法透露姓名。尽管受让人被告确实披露了债权人代表的姓名，但他并未指出他们包括债务人的关联人士，而这些人代表债务人并在债务人指示下进行的抗议活动曾受到本法院命令的约束。\n\n50. 此外，虽然受让人被告披露了 Lexington Property 的债权人包括 ACA Capital、Golden Spring、Leading Shine、Saraca Media 和 Savio Law，但他并未披露这些实体与债务人之间的关联，其中许多关联在本第11章案件中属于公开记录事项，例如，王雁平担任 Golden Spring 总裁的角色，或法院认定债务人控制 Saraca Media。82\n\n51. 总之，虽然提交给州法院的受让人宣誓书及相关文件提供了有关 HCHK 实体的关键信息，但它们并未呈现 HCHK 实体的性质及其与债务人关联的全貌。\n\n80 参见，例如，证物 13，HCHK Tech. 宣誓书 第 10 段（“在 Yvette 被监禁以及转让人失去 GETTR 作为其主要客户之后，转让人经行使商业判断后认定，为了转让人及其所有利益相关者的最大利益，将其全部资产转让给我作为独立受托人，以为了债权人的利益。”）。\n\n81 证物 3，Kwok 刑事案件信函，第 18 页。82 初步禁令裁定 第 3 段。\n\n52. 从受让人宣誓书及相关文件中所体现出的是，HCHK Entities（HCHK 实体）应当接受联邦破产程序的管辖。除其他事项外，它们已资不抵债，需要对其资产、负债和财务状况进行调查，且名义上掌管 HCHK 实体的个人 Yvette Wang（王雁平）现已入狱。\n\nC. 受让人被告关于转让程序的意图\n\n53. 受让人被告提交的受让人宣誓书及相关文件（包括载明受让人被告向州法院寻求救济的拟定命令）明确表明，受让人被告意图为 HCHK 实体启动实质上是一个单独的州法第 11 章程序，并由受让人被告扮演类似于破产受托人的角色（不同之处在于他是由 HCHK 实体选定的，而非由 United States Trustee（美国受托人）选定）。\n\n54. 根据转让宣誓书，受让人被告意图“调查并分析[HCHK 实体]的账簿和记录以及可能代表[HCHK 实体]破产财产提起的潜在索赔和诉由，并按合理必要起诉此类索赔”、“通过公开拍卖或法院另行命令的方式，寻求出售[HCHK 实体]的部分或绝大部分非现金资产”，并在“向所有债权人和利益相关者（包括相关政府机构）发出充分适当的通知并给予其提交索赔的机会后，根据转让契约和适用法律规定的各自法定受偿顺序，核实、核对并向针对[HCHK 实体]破产财产的可证明索赔进行分配”。83 根据《转让契约》，受让人被告被授予“和解针对或有利于转让人的任何及所有索赔的权力，拥有完全的和解权，或者由受让人全权酌情决定提起诉讼或应诉，以及起诉或辩护有利于转让人存在的任何性质的任何索赔”。84 此外，受让人被告向州法院申请聘请法律顾问和财务顾问的授权，包括 McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC 律师事务所，该事务所曾在此第 11 章案件中就受托人的调查代表过 HCHK 实体。85\n\n83 证物 17，Lexington 宣誓书 第 12 段。\n\nD. 对转让程序实施禁令的必要性\n\n55. 根据 Second Circuit Court of Appeals（联邦第二巡回上诉法院）：\n\n《破产法》第 105(a)条应被“作扩大解释，以禁止可能阻碍重组程序——或如本案中，清算程序——的诉讼”。扩大解释体现了“为债权人保全债务人破产财产并将索赔集中至破产法院单一程序中的基本原则”。我们曾裁定，在“禁令在债务人的重组计划中发挥重要作用”，或拟被禁令禁止的诉讼“将对债务人破产财产产生直接不利经济后果”的情况下，适用第 105(a)条禁止债权人针对第三方的诉讼是正当适用的。\n\nIn re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec., LLC, 512 F. App'x 18, 20 (2d Cir. 2013)（去除内部引文）。\n\n56. 依据《破产法》第 105、362、363 和 549 条，对继续进行转让程序下达禁令是完全正当合理的，原因有多方面。\n\n57. 第一，允许转让程序继续进行将为违反自动中止提供“绿灯”。受托人主张 HCHK 实体是债务人的第二人格（alter ego）或由债务人衡平所有。如果受托人在其第二人格主张上胜诉，这将意味着 HCHK 实体将与债务人的破产财产合并，并且 HCHK 实体的所有资产将构成截至债务人于 2022年2月15日 提出第 11 章申请之日（“申请日”）的破产财产。\n\n84 证物 17，Lexington 宣誓书，证物 B，为债权人利益的转让契约 第 4(f) 段。85 参见例如，HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, Inc. 和 Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc 对提供文件请求的异议、撤销动议及/或修改 2004 条调查传票的动议 [主案卷宗号 1291]。\n\n在这种情况下，《转让契约》即构成无效的、对自动中止的违反，系由非法将破产财产资产转移给受让人被告、或至少对 HCHK 实体实施了控制的个人所犯下的违规行为。86 如果受托人转而在其关于 HCHK 实体及/或其资产的衡平所有权主张上胜诉，同样意味着 (a) HCHK 实体的所有权权益及相关公司控制权自申请日起构成破产财产，而篡夺这些权利以签署《转让契约》将构成无效的违反中止行为，87 及/或 (b) 破产财产是 HCHK 实体资产的衡平所有人，将这些资产转移给受让人被告将构成对自动中止的公然违反。\n\n58. 第二，转让程序属于重复程序，有可能将债务人的第 11 章案件分裂成碎片，并对破产财产管理造成耗费高昂且费时耗力的挑战。转让程序已经造成了受托人必须予以回应的多个迫在眉睫的提交期限，如果允许其继续进行，转让程序将不可避免地导致诉状、期限和听证会成倍增加。若不加制止，受让人被告将开展重复的调查和索赔确认程序；这是一场灾难的根源，\n\n86 而且，即使不因违反中止而自始无效，《转让契约》也构成了根据《破产法》第 549(a)条应予禁止和可撤销的破产财产转让，并且根据《破产法》第 363(b)条是不允许的，该条仅允许在本法院发出通知并举行听证后，在常规业务范围之外使用、出售或租赁破产财产资产。87 此外，撇开篡夺公司控制权不谈，如果 HCHK 实体由债务人衡平所有（而非作为债务人的第二人格），《转让契约》亦将违反自动中止，因为自动中止将适用于作为债务人全资子公司的 HCHK 实体。参见 Queenie, Ltd. v. Nygard Int'l, 321 F.3d 282, 287 (2d Cir. 2003)（“中止适用于 Queenie，因为其由 Gardner 全资拥有，且对针对该公司的索赔进行裁判将对 Gardner 产生直接的不利经济影响”）。\n\n特别是考虑到债务人已经通过建立数百家空壳公司隐匿其资产，给其债权人造成了所有的延误和成本，受托人正在试图通过将资产纳入所有债务人债权人均可寻求受偿的统一破产清偿程序来扭转这一局面。事实上，应当在一个法庭中解决债务人的财务事务是我们破产法的核心原则，这极为有力地支持对被告及与其串通行动的任何当事人发布禁令，禁止其启动或继续进行转让程序。\n\n59. 第三，转让程序不仅是重复的，而且明显劣于本法院审理的第 11 章案件。首先，第 11 章案件提供了更为强有力的法律框架：举例来说，州法无法像《破产法》那样施加自动中止。更重要的是，从实际角度来看，鉴于债务人事务的复杂性，将债务人的破产清偿程序置于不熟悉债务人的州法院面前是完全毫无意义的。唯有本法院不仅享有对债务人及其关联实体的审理经验，还拥有关键的先例裁决和认定（如果进入其他法院，债务人及其同伙必将试图质疑或偏离这些裁决和认定）。此外，正是本法院已经建立并执行了索赔提交程序，包括广泛的通知程序和保密提交索赔的程序，致使债务人的债权人提交了一千多项索赔。目前尚不清楚这些债权人将如何获得关于转让程序的通知，更不用说充分参与其中了。事实上，这些债权人很可能会被排除在转让程序之外，并被剥夺从 HCHK 实体资产中获得任何受偿的权利，从而遭受极大的损害。即使是那些能够参与转让程序的债权人也将遭受不合理的损害，因为他们将被迫\n\n付出精力与费用（且在缺乏充分保密程序的情况下承担重大的个人风险）在全新的、陌生的程序中提交索赔。\n\n60. 此外，受托人对 HCHK 实体的调查远远领先于受让人被告，正如本起诉状所证明的那样，本起诉状旨在根据受托人持续调查中收集的大量证据（受托人将在本抗辩程序过程中进一步充实这些证据），将 HCHK 实体及其资产并入破产财产以造福债务人的债权人。相比之下，受让人被告似乎尚未知悉与 HCHK 实体有关的关键事实，如上文所讨论的受让人宣誓书中遗漏重要信息的实例所证明的那样。这些遗漏表明，由债务人控制的 HCHK 实体选择寻求受让人程序，是作为避开受托人和本法院并寻找另一个可以“重新开始”且更容易构建有利说辞的法院的一种途径。\n\n61. 这里的关键动态在于，债务人及其同伙不希望受到本法院的审查或受托人的调查。债务人持续反对受托人的介入，并两次试图用他人取代受托人。如果允许转让程序继续进行，债务人及其同伙无疑将试图通过就其他与 HCHK 实体一样受到受托人调查并面临受托人即将提起的第二人格或其他诉讼的实体寻求为债权人利益的转让，从而避开受托人和本法院。债务人及其同伙将试图利用此类州法院程序作为向“友好”债权人（例如 HCHK 实体转让宣誓书中列出的债权人）分配资产的手段，而不是允许将这些资产分配给已在下列案件中提交索赔的债务人受害者：\n\n第 11 章破产案件（Chapter 11 Case）。换言之，允许 HCHK 实体（HCHK Entities）的转让程序（Assignment Proceedings）继续进行，可能会导致启动更多的转让程序，从而造成重复程序、费用、延误和混乱的进一步加剧。这一结果将直接正中债务人（Debtor）的下怀，并对指望本法院（this Court）和本第 11 章案件以使其债权获得部分清偿的债务人众多债权人造成显失公平的不公后果。\n\n第一项权利主张\n（确认判决：裁定 HCHK 实体为债务人的另我/替身，HCHK 实体的资产转让违反自动中止且自始无效，并命令向受托人移交 HCHK 实体的资产）\n\n62. 受托人（Trustee）重申并再次主张第 1 至 61 段中所包含的主张。\n\n63. 特拉华州（Delaware）法律适用于该另我（alter ego）权利主张，因为 HCHK 实体是特拉华州实体。88\n\n64. 根据特拉华州揭开公司面纱的两分法标准，适用特拉华州另我分析来审查债务人与 HCHK 实体关系的法院，将着重审查：(1) 债务人与 HCHK 实体是否作为一个单一经济实体运作；以及 (2) 是否存在不正义或不公平的总体要素。在确定各实体是否作为一个单一经济实体运作时，适用特拉华州法律的法院会考虑多项因素，其中包括但不限于 HCHK 实体是否具备充足资本、是否遵守了公司形式要件，以及是否系债务人的伪装外衣。89 该“因素清单并非详尽无遗，且没有任何单一因素具有决定性意义。”90\n\n88 参见，例如，Universitas Education, LLC 诉 Benistar 案，案号 No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM), 2021 WL 965794, at *7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021)（“［因］［被告］在特拉华州注册成立，我必须适用特拉华州法律来判定其是否可能因反向揭开公司面纱责任而受到另我权利主张的约束。”）。\n\n65. 债务人对 HCHK 实体实施控制与支配，以至于 HCHK 实体脱离债务人便不存在独立人格，且债务人利用公司形式实施了欺诈与不公。HCHK 实体是债务人的另我，其原因包括但不限于 HCHK 实体：\n\n- a. 名义上由债务人的雇员持有并由其配备人员；\n- b. 是债务人的 G 系列实体（G-Series Entities）的关联方，而本法院已认定这些实体由债务人控制或充当债务人的商业工具，属于由债务人控制并为其利益服务的单一企业的一部分；\n- c. 支付了债务人的开支，包括关于 Lady May 号游艇以及债务人的庞巴迪（Bombardier）私人飞机的开支（Mei Guo［郭美］作证称该飞机已于 2022 年夏季出售）；以及\n- d. 由债务人通过债务人的关联人员、受控公司及代表提供资金。\n\n89 Blair 诉 Infineon Tech., AG 案，720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010)（指出第三巡回法院在判定一家公司是否作为单一经济实体运作时所考虑的因素，值得注意的是，这些因素不包括相关个人是否为该实体的股东，但包括“严重资本不足；未能遵守公司形式要件……［以及］公司是否仅仅是一层伪装外衣。”）。\n\n90 同上，第 471 页。\n\n66. 在所有相关时间内，债务人均对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可以在行使其债权人权利时寻求受托人在此所寻求的救济。\n\n67. 由于 HCHK 实体在所有时间均系债务人的另我，其资产在申请日（Petition Date）后即属于债务人破产财团的资产。因此，转让契据（Deeds of Assignment）构成对破产财团资产的转让，违反了自动中止（automatic stay）规定，因而自始无效；自动中止禁止（其中包括）“任何旨在取得破产财团财产或取自破产财团之财产的占有，或对破产财团财产行使控制的行为”，11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)，以及“任何旨在收取、评定或追索在本篇项下案件开始前产生的针对债务人的债权的行为”。11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6)。\n\n68. 据此，受托人根据《美国破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 362、541、542 和 544 条寻求裁定：(1) 宣告：(a) HCHK 实体在所有时间均系债务人的另我；(b) HCHK 实体在债务人 2022 年 2 月 15 日的破产申请日之前的任何时间所持有的任何及全部资产均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) HCHK 实体自债务人 2022 年 2 月 15 日提出第 11 章破产申请之日起至今的任何时间所持有的任何及全部资产，包括 HCHK 实体的 3500 万美元现金，相应地曾构成且目前构成债务人第 11 章破产财团的财产；(2) 宣告转让契据以及据此进行的资产转让自始无效；以及 (3) 命令向受托人移交 HCHK 实体的任何及全部资产。\n\n第二项权利主张\n（备位主张）\n（确认判决：裁定债务人为 HCHK 实体的衡平法所有权人，HCHK 实体的资产转让违反自动中止且自始无效，并命令向受托人移交 HCHK 实体的所有权及/或其资产）\n\n69. 受托人重申并再次主张第 1 至 61 段中所包含的主张。\n\n70. 上文所讨论的证明 HCHK 实体为债务人另我的相同事实，亦支持得出备位结论：即债务人是 HCHK 实体及/或其资产的衡平法所有权人（equitable owner）。91\n\n91 Freeman 诉 Complex Computing Co., Inc. 案，119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对［该公司］行使了相当大的权力……以至于完全无视公司形式，并表现得好像［其］资产全凭他一人管理一样。”）（强调为后加）。\n\n71. 在所有相关时间内，债务人均对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可以在行使其债权人权利时寻求受托人在此所寻求的救济。\n\n72. 由于 HCHK 实体在衡平法上归债务人所有，对 HCHK 实体的所有权和公司控制权，及/或 HCHK 实体的资产，在申请日之后均属于破产财团的财产。在签署转让契据以及据称向受让人被告（Assignee Defendant）转让 HCHK 实体资产的过程中行使该等所有权和公司控制权，违反了自动中止规定；该规定禁止“任何旨在取得破产财团财产或取自破产财团之财产的占有，或对破产财团财产行使控制的行为”。11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)。因此，转让契据以及据此进行的资产转让自始无效。\n\n73. 据此，受托人根据《美国破产法典》第 362、541、542 和 544 条寻求裁定：(1) 宣告据称由 Holy City（圣城）和 Anthony DiBattista 持有的 HCHK 实体所有权权益，及/或 HCHK 实体的资产（包括但不限于据称已转让给受让人被告及/或由受让人被告持有的资产），属于债务人第 11 章破产财团的财产；(2) 宣告转让契据以及据此进行的资产转让自始无效；以及 (3) 命令向受托人交出 HCHK 实体的所有权权益和相关的公司控制权，及/或 HCHK 实体的资产。\n\n第三项权利主张\n（根据《美国破产法典》第 105、362、363 和 549 条申请禁令救济）\n\n74. 受托人重申并再次主张第 1 至 61 段中所包含的主张。\n\n75. 《美国破产法典》第 105 条规定，“法院可以签发为执行本篇规定所必要或适当的任何命令、令状或判决。”11 U.S.C. § 105(a)。\n\n76. 第 362 条的自动中止禁止（其中包括）“任何旨在取得破产财团财产或取自破产财团之财产的占有，或对破产财团财产行使控制的行为”。11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)。\n\n77. 《美国破产法典》第 363 条允许在常规业务过程之外使用、出售或出租破产财团财产，但仅限在“发出通知并举行听证之后”进行。11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)。\n\n78. 《美国破产法典》第 549 条规定可撤销“在案件开始后发生”且“未依据本篇或未经法院授权”的破产财团财产转让。11 U.S.C. § 549(a)(1)(B)。\n\n79. 根据《美国破产法典》第 105、362、363 和 549 条，对转让程序的继续进行发布禁令是正当合理的，因为如果任由转让程序继续，将对债务人的破产财团造成直接的不利后果。除其他事项外，允许转让程序继续进行将实际等同于允许对自动中止的持续违反，转让程序既与第 11 章案件重复，又显然逊色于第 11 章案件，且允许其继续进行将鼓励债务人利用其其他另我实体启动新的转让程序，以此作为规避受托人和本法院审查的策略。\n\n80. 据此，受托人根据《美国破产法典》第 105、362、363 和 549 条寻求裁定：禁止各被告以及与各被告协同行动的任何当事方启动或继续进行转让程序（或针对 HCHK 实体及/或其资产的任何其他司法、行政或其他诉讼或程序）；禁止对 HCHK 实体的资产（包括现金）（包括但不限于据称已转让给受让人被告及/或由受让人被告持有的该等资产）或 HCHK 实体的所有权权益进行任何转让或使用，除非得到受托人或本法院的授权或指示；并要求各被告立即将该等禁令通知州法院（State Court）。\n\n救济请求\n\n为此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项权利主张而言，根据《美国破产法典》第 362、541、542 和 544 条作出命令：(1) 宣告：(a) HCHK 实体在所有时间均系债务人的另我；(b) HCHK 实体在债务人 2022 年 2 月 15 日的破产申请日之前的任何时间所持有的任何及全部资产均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) HCHK 实体自债务人 2022 年 2 月 15 日提出第 11 章破产申请之日起至今的任何时间所持有的任何及全部资产，包括 HCHK 实体的 3.45 亿美元现金，相应地曾构成且目前构成债务人第 11 章破产财团的财产；(2) 宣告转让契据以及据此进行的资产转让自始无效；以及 (3) 命令向受托人移交 HCHK 实体的任何及全部资产；\n\n2. 就第二项权利主张而言，根据《美国破产法典》第 362、541、542 和 544 条作出命令：(1) 宣告据称由 Holy City 和 Anthony DiBattista 持有的 HCHK 实体所有权权益，及/或 HCHK 实体的资产，属于债务人第 11 章破产财团的财产；(2) 宣告转让契据以及据此进行的资产转让自始无效；以及 (3) 命令向受托人交出 HCHK 实体的所有权权益和相关的公司控制权，及/或 HCHK 实体的资产；\n\n3. 就第三项主张，根据《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 105、362、363 及 549 条发布命令，禁止被告及任何与其协同行动的当事方启动或继续转让程序（Assignment Proceedings）（或针对 HCHK 实体（HCHK Entities）和/或其资产的任何其他司法、行政或其他诉讼或程序），禁止对 HCHK 实体的资产（包括现金，包括但不限于据称已转让给受让人被告（Assignee Defendant）和/或由受让人被告持有的此类资产）或 HCHK 实体的所有权权益进行任何转移或使用，但经受托人或本法院授权或指示的除外，并要求被告立即将该禁令通知州法院（State Court）；\n\n4. 本诉讼中发生的合理律师费、诉讼费和开支；以及 5. 法院在具体情况下认为公正、适当或公平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n[以下页面特意留白]\n\n日期：2023年6月8日 LUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯），\n康涅狄格州纽黑文（New Haven, Connecticut） 第11章破产受托人（CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（临时出庭申请（pro hac vice）审理中）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft（临时出庭申请待决）\nDouglass Barron（临时出庭申请待决）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章破产受托人代理律师","key_entities":["HCHK","Kwok","Je","Guo","GETTR","GTV","Ho Wan Kwok","Himalaya","Saraca","Despins","Paul Hastings","CCP","CIPA","Miles Guo","William Je","Himalaya Exchange","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":11506,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-06-08 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-06-08","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:18:02"}