{"id":"court_sdny_913_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":913,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 913","summary_zh":"蔑视法庭动议——联邦破产法庭康州分庭，Case No. 22-50073，ECF #913（2022年10月提交）。Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins 申请对破产人 Ho Wan Kwok（又名郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo）执行民事蔑视制裁，指控其违反法庭关于公司治理权的命令，拒绝向受信人转移 Ace Decade Holdings Limited 股份。","summary_en":"Motion for Civil Contempt — United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut, Case No. 22-50073, ECF #913 (filed October 2022). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins seeks civil contempt sanctions against debtor Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui/Miles Guo/Miles Kwok) for violating the Court's order regarding corporate governance rights and refusing to transfer shares in Ace Decade Holdings Limited to the trustee.","body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x           |                         |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                 | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                           | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.1                                               | :<br>:      |                         |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x           |                         |\n\n# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER HOLDING DEBTOR IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS ORDER**\n\n Luc Despins, as the appointed Chapter 11 Trustee to the Debtor's estate (the \"Trustee\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, submits this motion (the \"Motion\") for entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"), pursuant to section 105 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and Rule 9014 and 9020 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), holding Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") in civil contempt for failure to comply with the Court's *Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 541, 1108, and 105, (A) Confirming that Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All of Debtor's Economic and Corporate Governance Rights in Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Act in Any Foreign Country on Behalf of Estate, and (C) Granting Related Relief* [Docket No. 761] (the \"Corporate Governance Rights Order\") and imposing appropriate sanctions until the Debtor complies with his obligations under\n\n 1 Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases. The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\nthe Corporate Governance Rights Order. In support of this Motion, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. In order to assist the Trustee in fulfilling his duties with respect to the Debtor's assets and affairs, the Trustee previously requested, and the Court granted, an order that, among other things, (a) confirms the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to all corporate entities owned and/or controlled by the Debtor (the \"Debtor-Controlled Entities\") and (b) directs the Debtor to \"cooperate with the Trustee to enable the Trustee to perform his duties\" and \"surrender to the Trustee all property of the estate and any recorded information, including, without limitation, books, documents, records, and papers relating to property of the estate.\"2 Despite the Court's clear directive in the Corporate Governance Rights Order, the Debtor refuses to transfer the shares in Ace Decade Holdings Limited (\"Ace Decade\") to the Trustee or provide the Trustee with any corporate documents regarding Ace Decade or its wholly owned subsidiary Dawn State Limited (\"Dawn State\"), even though the Debtor has attested on multiple occasions—at the creditors' meeting in this chapter 11 case as well as in various in court filings—that he owns Ace Decade and that Ace Decade wholly owns Dawn State.3\n\n2. Unfortunately, the Debtor's refusal to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order is not an isolated incident but is part of a larger pattern of disregard for the judicial\n\n<sup>2</sup> Corporate Governance Rights Order ¶¶ 2, 3.\n\n<sup>3</sup> At the September 27, 2022 status conference before this Court, Debtor' counsel argued, for the first time (and almost a month after the Trustee's August 31, 2022 letter requesting the Debtor to transfer the shares in Ace Decade to the Trustee as required by the Corporate Governance Rights Order), that the Debtor's statements at the creditors' meeting were purportedly not translated correctly. As discussed below, this argument is not credible and is belied by the Debtor's other statements, including verified statements in U.K. court filings, that he owns Ace Decade.\n\nprocess. As New York Supreme Court Justice Ostrager observed, the Debtor \"has utter contempt for [the New York state court] and the judicial process.\"4 Indeed, this latest episode echoes the Debtor's tactics during the PAX<sup>5</sup> litigation, when he sought to disavow, during his deposition, his signature on a personal guarantee, even though he had previously sponsored the authenticity of that very document before the same court. In response, Justice Ostrager judicially estopped the Debtor from challenging the authenticity of such documents.6\n\n3. The Court should not tolerate the Debtor's latest maneuver to keep his assets beyond the reach of his creditors. Accordingly, the Trustee requests that the Debtor be held in civil contempt and the Court impose appropriate sanctions until such time as the Debtor demonstrates that he is in compliance with his obligations under the Corporate Governance Rights Order regarding the transfer of Ace Decade to the Trustee.7\n\n## **BACKGROUND**\n\n## **I. Debtor's Chapter 11 Case**\n\n4. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed with the Court a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n5. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (\"Committee\") in the Debtor's chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"). No examiner has been appointed in the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n 4 Decision and Order on Motion, dated February 9, 2022 (the \"Final Contempt Decision\"), *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Doc. No. 1181, at 4. A copy of the Final Contempt Decision is attached hereto as **Exhibit B**.\n\n<sup>5</sup> PAX refers to Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n<sup>6</sup> Decision and Order on Motion, dated July 7, 2020 (the \"Judicial Estoppel Decision\"), *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Doc. No. 404. A copy of the Judicial Estoppel Decision is attached hereto as **Exhibit C**.\n\n<sup>7</sup> The Trustee reserves all its rights with respect to the Debtor's failure to comply with any other aspect of the Corporate Governance Rights Order.\n\n6. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Docket No. 465] (the \"Trustee Decision\") directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to the Trustee Order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee.\n\n7. The Trustee Decision concluded, among other things, that \"[w]hen balanced against dismissal or conversion, the complexity of the Debtor's financial affairs and lack of independent managerial oversight in this case warrants the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee who can investigate, identify, and locate the Debtor's assets for the benefit of creditors and the estate.\"8 The Trustee Decision further provides that \"[t]he appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee will also allow for the effective investigation of the Debtor's assets, liabilities, and financial affairs\" and \"[t]he Chapter 11 trustee shall perform all of the duties set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 1106.\"<sup>9</sup>\n\n8. On July 7, 2022, the United States Trustee filed the Notice of Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee [Docket No. 514] appointing Luc Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered an order [Docket No. 523] granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee.\n\n## **II. Corporate Governance Rights Motion and Order**\n\n9. On July 23, 2022, the Trustee filed the *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 541, 1108, and 105, (A) Confirming That Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All of Debtor's Economic Rights in Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Act in Any Foreign Country on Behalf of the Estate, and*\n\n<sup>8</sup> Trustee Decision at 15-16.\n\n<sup>9</sup> *Id.* at 14, 18.\n\n*Granting Related Relief* [Docket No. 598] (the \"Corporate Governance Rights Motion\"). Among other things, the Corporate Governance Rights Motion sought entry of an order confirming that the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights, for the benefit of the Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\"), with respect to all Debtor-Controlled Entities. As detailed in the Corporate Governance Rights Motion, the Trustee sought such relief because\n\n> the Debtor has shown a willingness to defy court orders, suggesting that the Debtor and related persons (whether acting individually or through the Debtor-Controlled Entities) may try to take advantage of any ambiguity or misunderstanding concerning the Trustee's rights in order to frustrate the Trustee's efforts to identify and recover property of the Estate.10\n\n10. On August 10, 2022, the Court granted the Corporate Governance Rights Motion and entered the Corporate Governance Rights Order. The Corporate Governance Rights Order confirms that the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and corporate governance rights with respect to all Debtor-Controlled Entities and, moreover, directs the Debtor to \"cooperate with the Trustee to enable the Trustee to perform his duties\" and \"surrender to the Trustee all property of the estate and any recorded information, including, without limitation, books, documents, records, and papers relating to property of the estate.\"11 The foregoing provisions are in full force and effect.12\n\n11. While the Corporate Governance Rights Order also contains detailed provision regarding the transfer of the Debtor's shares in Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever\n\n<sup>10</sup> Corporate Governance Rights Motion ¶ 1.\n\n<sup>11</sup> Corporate Governance Rights Order ¶¶ 2, 3.\n\n<sup>12</sup> While the Debtor has sought a stay pending appeal of certain portions of the Corporate Governance Rights Order (namely, as it relates to the letter to be provided to UK counsel), the Debtor has **not** sought a stay pending appeal as it relates to the Bankruptcy Court's other rulings in the Corporate Governance Rights Order, including that (a) the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to Debtor-Controlled Entities and (b) the Debtor is required to cooperate with the Trustee and surrender to the Trustee all estate property and any recorded information related thereto. *See* Debtor's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal of the Corporate Governance Rights Order [Docket No. 761].\n\n(BVI)\"), including a form of share transfer instrument and a form of director's resolution, the Debtor's obligations under the Corporate Governance Rights Order are **not** limited to Genever (BVI) but extend to all Debtor-Controlled Entities.13 Indeed, Genever (BVI) and the form of transfer documents attached to the Corporate Governance Rights Order merely serve as the blueprint for transferring the Debtor's shares in other Debtor-Controlled Entities.\n\n## **III. Debtor's Ownership of Ace Decade and Dawn State**\n\n12. The Debtor has repeatedly admitted, in court filings and under oath, that he owns Ace Decade and, indirectly, Dawn State Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ace Decade.\n\n13. For example, in 2015, the Debtor entered into a securities transaction with UBS regarding an investment by the Debtor in a Chinese securities firm. Following that transaction, the Debtor commenced litigation in a U.K. court against UBS asserting claims for breach of contract based on alleged misrepresentations made by UBS in connection with the transaction and seeking damages of at least \\$495,300,000.14 In that litigation, the Debtor and his coplaintiffs—*i.e.*, Ace Decade and Dawn State—attested that the Debtor owns Ace Decade. For example, the \"Particulars of Claims\"15 (the \"U.K. Complaint\"), filed in September 2020, states that \"Ace Decade was *acquired on 10 November 2014 by Mr. Kwok* for the purpose of acting as\n\n<sup>13</sup> *See, e.g.*, Corporate Governance Rights Order ¶ 2 (\"the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights, for the benefit of the Estate, with respect to all Debtor-Controlled Entities, including, without limitation, Genever (BVI).\"); ¶ 3 (directing Debtor to \"surrender to the Trustee all property of the estate and any recorded information, including, without limitation, books, documents, records, and papers relating to property of the estate (including, without limitation, his shares in Genever (BVI) and all related corporate governance documents)\").\n\n<sup>14</sup> Particular of Claims, *Kwok Ho Wan & Ors. v. UBS*, Cl-2020-000345, High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court, dated September 23, 2020. A copy of the Particular of Claims is attached hereto as **Exhibit D**.\n\n<sup>15</sup> The Particulars of Claims is the U.K. equivalent of a complaint.\n\n[an] investment vehicle.\"16 The U.K. Complaint also asserted that \"[s]ince 18 September 2015, *Dawn State has been owned and controlled by Ace Decade*.\"17\n\n14. In addition, throughout the Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the Debtor caused and/or permitted Ace Decade and Dawn State to take various actions, including with respect to a co-investment agreement, financing letter, and lending documents.18 The U.K. Complaint was signed and attested to not only by the Debtor but also a representative of Ace Decade and Dawn State.19\n\n15. Moreover, at the April 6, 2022 meeting of creditors under section 341 of the Bankruptcy Code (the \"Section 341 Meeting\"), the Debtor again confirmed, under oath, that he is the sole owner of Ace Decade. In particular, during the Section 341 Meeting, counsel to the United States Trustee questioned the Debtor as follows:\n\n- Q Are you [Mr. Kwok] the only legal owner of Ace Decades?\n- A I am a legal representing owner.\n- Q Are there any other owners of Ace Decade?\n- A No.\n- Q When did you become an owner of Ace Decade Holdings Limited?\n- A At the end of 2014.<sup>20</sup>\n\n16. This pointed exchange was not the only time during the Section 341 Meeting that the Debtor acknowledged, explicitly or implicitly, that he owns Ace Decade. Indeed, there are numerous other examples:\n\n<sup>16</sup> U.K. Complaint ¶ 24 (emphasis added). *See also id.* ¶ 2 (\"Ace Decade was incorporated on 18 June 2014 and *acquired by Mr Kwok* on or around 10 November 2014.\") (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>17</sup> *Id.* ¶ 4 (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>18</sup> *See, e.g.*, *id.* ¶ 86.\n\n<sup>19</sup> *See id.* at 37-38\n\n<sup>20</sup> Tr. of Section 341 Meeting at 61:3-10, dated April 6, 2022 [Docket No. 848]. The transcript of the Section 341 Meeting is attached hereto as **Exhibit E**.\n\n- Q This is a long question. In your litigation in London against UBS, you are an individual plaintiff. What is the basis for your claim as an individual plaintiff?\n- A Because I'm the 100 percent representative for Ace Decade.21\n- . . .\n\n. . .\n\n- Q Mr. Kwok, do you own an interest in any company aside from Ace Decade?\n- A No, but the -- I own the Bravo Luck, the apartment, only for a few months, some of the interest. And because the apartment is a co-op, so they used my name to buy the apartment after I -- after we bought apartment, and then we returned the stock interest back.22\n- Q Other than Ace Decade, do you own an interest in any other company right now?\n- A No. I only owned the Orange and Shiny Time before, but not right now.23\n\n# **IV. Debtor's Violation of Corporate Governance Rights Order**\n\n17. On August 31, 2022, the Trustee sent a letter to Debtor's counsel (the \"August 31,\n\n2022 Letter\") requesting that the Debtor cause his shares in Ace Decade to be transferred to the\n\nTrustee no later than September 6, 2022.24 The August 31 Letter also requested that the share\n\ntransfer instrument and the related director's resolution be in the same form as the corresponding\n\ndocuments related to the transfer of shares of Genever (BVI) (which documents had been\n\nattached as Exhibit A to the Corporate Governance Rights Order).\n\n<sup>21</sup> *Id.* at 61:11-16.\n\n<sup>22</sup> *Id.* at 63:25-64:7.\n\n<sup>23</sup> *Id.* at 65:8-11.\n\n<sup>24</sup> A copy of the August 31, 2022 Letter is attached hereto as **Exhibit F**.\n\n18. To date the Debtor has not transferred the shares in Ace Decade to the Trustee, nor has the Debtor provided any corporate documents or any evidence that the Debtor is not the owner of Ace Decade.\n\n19. On September 12, 2022, the Trustee filed a notice (a) advising the Court and parties in interest of the Debtor's admission, at the Section 341 Meeting, that he owns Ace Decade and (b) attaching the relevant except of the transcript of that meeting.\n\n20. The Trustee also raised the August 31, 2022 Letter and the Debtor's noncompliance at the status conference on September 6, 2022,25 the hearing on September 13, 2022,26 and the status conference on September 27, 2022. Counsel to the Debtor was present on each occasion; however, it was not until the September 27, 2022 status conference that counsel for the Debtor asserted, for the first time, that the Debtor purportedly does not own Ace Decade and that his admission at the Section 341 Meeting to the contrary was purportedly the result of a series of mistranslations. As detailed below, the Trustee submits that the Debtor's latest assertion strains credulity.\n\n## **JURISDICTION, VENUE, STATUTORY BASES**\n\n21. The Court has jurisdiction to consider this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and\n\n1334. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).\n\n- 22. Venue is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n- 23. The statutory and legal bases for the relief requested in the Motion are section\n\n105(a) of Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules 9014 and 9020.\n\n 25 *See* Sept. 6, 2022 Tr. at 9:12-10:16. The transcript of the September 6, 2022 status conference is attached hereto as **Exhibit G**. In response to a request for assurance that he would respond to the August 31 Letter, Debtor's counsel stated: \"I'm going to work on it. I'm going to move with all due speed, but I don't know how long it's going to take me.\" *Id.* at 24:21-23.\n\n<sup>26</sup> At the September 13, 2022 hearing, Debtor's counsel stated that he could not speak to these issues because another attorney was handling this matter and that attorney was not present at the hearing.\n\n#### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n24. By this Motion, the Trustee requests entry of the Proposed Order (a) holding the Debtor in civil contempt for failure to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order as it relates to the transfer of Ace Decade and (b) issuing appropriate sanctions until such time as the Debtor complies with his obligation to transfer Ace Decade to the Trustee and provide the Trustee with all corporate documents with respect to Ace Decade and Dawn State.\n\n#### **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n#### **I. Debtor Is in Violation of Corporate Governance Rights Order**\n\n25. This Court has the express authority to compel compliance with its orders. *See U.S. Lines, Inc. v. GAC Marine Fuels, Ltd. (In re McLean Indus.)*, 68 B.R. 690, 695 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986) (\"The duty of any court to hear and resolve legal disputes carries with it the power to enforce the order.\"); *Milner v. Duncklee*, 460 F. Supp. 2d 360, 375 (D. Conn. 2006) (\"[A] court has the power, under appropriate circumstances, to enforce its own orders . . . .\").\n\n26. The Corporate Governance Rights Order makes clear that the Trustee holds all the economic and governance rights with respect to all Debtor-Controlled Entities. The Corporate Governance Rights Order also explicitly directs the Debtor to cooperate with the Trustee and to surrender to the Trustee all property of the estate and any recorded information relating to property of the estate.\n\n27. The Debtor has stated on multiple occasions, including in the U.K. Complaint and at the Section 341 Meeting, that he is the sole owner of Ace Decade. As noted, in the U.K. Complaint (filed in September 2020), the Debtor stated that he has owned Ace Decade since 2014, and, moreover, a representative of Ace Decade and Dawn State Limited also attested to the\n\naccuracy of the statements made in the U.K. Complaint.27 Moreover, in April 2022, at the Section 341 Meeting, the Debtor confirmed, upon questioning by counsel to the United States Trustee, that he is the sole owner of Ace Decade since \"the end of 2014.\"28 The Debtor cannot now be heard, at the eleventh hour, to make self-serving statements—without any evidence contradicting years of prior representations made in court filings and/or under oath.\n\n28. The Debtor's continued lack of response to the Trustee's August 31, 2022 Letter, his failure to produce any corporate documents related to Ace Decade, and his failure to transfer the shares of Ace Decade to the Trustee all constitute a clear violation of the Corporate Governance Rights Order.\n\n## **II. Finding of Contempt and Issuing of Sanctions Are Appropriate**\n\n29. A bankruptcy court has the ability under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to \"issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of [the Bankruptcy Code].\" 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Pursuant to section 105(a), the Court has the authority to hold a party in contempt, which \"inherently include[s] the ability to sanction a party.\" *In re Dickerson*, No. 08-33071, 2009 WL 4666457, at \\*9 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Dec. 8 2009) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting *Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Nosek (In re Nosek)*, 544 F.3d 34, 43-44 (1st Cir. 2008)); *see also In re Chauteaugay Corp.*, 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990); *In re Ditech Holding Corp.*, No. 19-10412 (JLG); 2021 WL 3716398, at \\*7 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2021); *In re Bambi*, 492 B.R. 183, 191 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). In addition,\n\n<sup>27</sup> U.K. Complaint at 38 (signature by Yanping (Yvette) Wang on behalf of Ace Decade and Dawn State affirming U.K. Complaint).\n\n<sup>28</sup> Tr. of Section 341 Meeting at 61:3-10.\n\nBankruptcy Rule 9020 expressly contemplates that a bankruptcy court may issue an order of contempt under the appropriate circumstances.<sup>29</sup>\n\n30. A party \"may be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with a court order if (1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner. It need not be established that the violation was willful.\" *Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda v. GE Medical Sys. Info. Technologies, Inc.*, 369 F.3d 645, 655 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Sanctions for civil contempt \"may be imposed both to coerce future compliance with a court order issued for another party's benefit and to 'compensate for any harm that previously resulted' from the noncompliance.\" *In re 1990's Caterers Ltd. d/b/a Vina de Villa Caterers*, 531 B.R. 309, 319 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting *In re Chief Executive Officers Clubs, Inc.*, 359 B.R. 527, 534 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)). The sanctions a bankruptcy court may impose in response to civil contempt are \"many and varied,\" encompassing \"an indeterminate period of confinement,\" fines, reimbursement, or any combination of these. *In re Vaso Active Pharms., Inc.*, 514 B.R. 416, 423 (Bankr. D. Del. 2014) (citation omitted). In this regard, the court may also \"award[] attorneys' fees and costs to a contempt victim.\" *Al Hirschfeld Found. v. Margo Feiden Galleries Ltd.*, 438 F. Supp. 3d. 203, 208 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).\n\n31. Here, the terms of the Corporate Governance Rights Order are clear and unambiguous. In fact, the principal purpose of seeking entry of the Corporate Governance Rights Order was to clarify—in light of the Debtor's prior willingness to defy court orders—\n\n<sup>29</sup> *See* Bankruptcy Rule 9020 (\"Rule 9014 governs a motion for an order of contempt made by the United States trustee or a party in interest.\")\n\n(a) the Trustee's economic and corporate governance rights with respect to Debtor-Controlled Entities and (b) the Debtor's obligations to corporate with the Trustee and surrender property of the Estate to the Trustee.\n\n32. Nor can there be any serious dispute that the Debtor previously admitted, in court filings and/or under oath, that he owns Ace Decade. The efforts by Debtor's counsel at the September 27, 2022 status conference to blame the Debtor's statements at the Section 341 Meeting on inaccurate translations are not credible.\n\n33. For one, the Debtor's statements at the Section 341 Meeting were made in response to three short questions from counsel to the U.S. Trustee. The Debtor's equally short responses clearly and unambiguously confirm that the Debtor owns Ace Decade. It strains credulity that the Debtor somehow misunderstood these simple questions or that these short questions and responses were not properly translated—especially since **two** translators (one selected by the U.S. Trustee and one selected by the Debtor) participated in the Section 341 Meeting. Moreover, it is clear from videos in which the Debtor appears that he understands basic English language concepts, such as whether he owns something.<sup>30</sup>\n\n34. It is also compelling that at no point, whether at the Section 341 Meeting or in the six months since then, has the Debtor attempted to \"correct\" his statements that he owns Ace Decade. Certainly, there were multiple opportunities to do so, including at the Section 341 Meeting itself, when counsel to the U.S. Trustee continued her questioning related to Ace Decade and other entities owned by the Debtor. In any event, the Debtor's statements at the Section 341 Meeting are not the only times he admitted that he owns Ace Decade, and Debtor's\n\n<sup>30</sup> *See* VICE News, Exiled Chinese Billionaire Uses YouTube to Wage a War on Corruption, YouTube (original air date on HBO, Nov. 15, 2017), http (last visited on Oct. 3, 2022), at 1:20.\n\ncounsel has not even attempted to explain why other statements to the same effect, including those in the U.K. Complaint (which were also attested to by a representative of Ace Decade and Dawn State Limited), are now purportedly inaccurate.\n\n35. Finally, the Debtor's recent disavowal of his prior admissions that he owns Ace Decade is not an isolated incident. This maneuver is just another tool in the Debtor's tool kit to keep creditors at bay. For example, during the PAX litigation, the Debtor similarly attempted to disavow his signature on certain transaction documents, including a personal guarantee, after having previously sponsored the authenticity of these documents in the PAX litigation, including in an affidavit by his representative attaching true and correct copies of these documents.31 Indeed, the Debtor had initially sought (unsuccessfully) to dismiss the PAX litigation on *forum non conveniens* grounds because he claimed that he had executed the personal guarantee in Asia.32 Against this record, Justice Ostrager judicially estopped the Debtor from challenging the authenticity of these documents, including the personal guarantee.33\n\n36. For all these reasons, the Court should enter the Proposed Order holding the Debtor in contempt and imposing appropriate sanctions until the Debtor complies with the Corporate Governance Rights Order, including by (a) executing and/or causing any nominee shareholder of Ace Decade to execute a share transfer instrument to transfer all of the Debtor's shares in Ace Decade (including all shares beneficially owned by the Debtor through any\n\n<sup>31</sup> *See* Affirmation of Fiona Yu in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Doc. No. 11, ¶ 3 (\"Attached to this Affirmation are true and correct copies of: . . . Personal Guarantee between Mr. Kwok and PAX LP, dated March 16, 2011.\").\n\n<sup>32</sup> Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, dated June 29, 2017, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Doc. No. 8, at 6 (\"In 2009, Shiny Times assumed Spirit Charter's repayment obligations and Kwok executed a personal guarantee of this debt, again in China. In 2011, PAX LP and Shiny Times entered into another written agreement and Kwok executed another personal guarantee, in China.\").\n\n<sup>33</sup> Judicial Estoppel Decision at 2.\n\nnominee shareholder) to the Trustee, (b) executing and/or causing the director(s) of Ace Decade to execute a director's resolution approving such transfer of the shares in Ace Decade to the Trustee, and (c) providing the Trustee with all corporate documents with respect to Ace Decade and Dawn State.34 In addition, and regardless of the Debtor's compliance with the foregoing, the Debtor should be judicially estopped from asserting in this chapter 11 case that he does not own Ace Decade.\n\n#### **NO PRIOR REQUEST**\n\n37. The Trustee has not previously sought the relief requested herein from this or any other court.\n\n## **CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL**\n\n38. As set forth above, counsel for the Trustee has attempted to resolve this dispute at numerous prior occasions, but without success.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\n<sup>34</sup> For the avoidance of doubt, the share transfer instrument and the related director's resolution shall be in the same form as the corresponding documents related to the shares of Genever (BVI), as attached as Exhibit A to the Corporate Governance Rights Order.\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the\n\nProposed Order granting the relief requested in this Motion to Compel and such other relief as is\n\njust and proper.\n\nDated: October 4, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Douglas S. Skalka*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n *and*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"美国联邦破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分院\n------------------------------------------------------ x\n关于： :\n: | 第 11 章 |\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， :\n:\n: | 案号 22-50073 (JAM) |\n债务人。1 :\n------------------------------------------------------ x\n第 11 章受托人请求作出裁定判定债务人未遵守公司治理权裁定构成民事藐视法庭之动议\n\nLuc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）作为被指定的债务人破产财产第 11 章受托人（以下简称“受托人”），由其下述签字律师代表，依据《美国法典》第 11 篇（以下简称《破产法典》）第 105 条以及《联邦破产程序规则》（以下简称《破产规则》）第 9014 条和第 9020 条，提交本动议（以下简称“本动议”），请求依据实质上如本动议附件 A（以下简称“拟定裁定”）所示的形式作出裁定，判定 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“债务人”）未遵守本法院的《依据破产法典第 363、521、541、1108 及 105 条作出的裁定：(A) 确认第 11 章受托人享有债务人在债务人控制实体中的所有经济及公司治理权利，(B) 授权第 11 章受托人代表破产财产在任何外国采取行动，及 (C) 给予相关救济》[诉讼记录第 761 号]（以下简称《公司治理权裁定》）之行为构成民事藐视法庭，并施加适当制裁，直至债务人履行其在\n\n1 尽管债务人的法定姓名为 Ho Wan Kwok，但其亦被称为郭文贵（Guo Wengui）、Miles Guo 以及 Miles Kwok，并拥有众多其他化名。债务人纳税人识别号的后四位数字为 9595。\n\n《公司治理权裁定》项下的义务。为支持本动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n初步陈述\n\n1. 为协助受托人就债务人的资产和事务履行其职责，受托人此前曾提出申请，且本法院已批准了一项裁定，该裁定除其他事项外：(a) 确认受托人享有债务人在由债务人拥有和/或控制的所有公司实体（以下简称“债务人控制实体”）中的所有经济与治理权利，以及 (b) 责令债务人“与受托人配合，以使受托人能够履行其职责”并“向受托人移交所有破产财产以及任何记录信息，包括但不限于与破产财产有关的账簿、文件、记录和文据。”2 尽管本法院在《公司治理权裁定》中有明确指令，债务人仍拒绝将 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（源德控股有限公司，以下简称“Ace Decade”）的股份转让给受托人，亦拒绝向受托人提供有关 Ace Decade 或其全资子公司 Dawn State Limited（曙邦有限公司，以下简称“Dawn State”）的任何公司文件，即便债务人已在多一场合——在本第 11 章案件的债权人会议上以及在多份法庭文件中——证实其拥有 Ace Decade 且 Ace Decade 全资拥有 Dawn State。3\n\n2. 不幸的是，债务人拒绝遵守《公司治理权裁定》并非孤立事件，而是其藐视司法\n\n2 《公司治理权裁定》第 2、3 段。\n\n3 在 2022 年 9 月 27 日本法院举行的案件进展会议上，债务人的律师首次辩称（且是在受托人于 2022 年 8 月 31 日发函要求债务人按照《公司治理权裁定》的要求将 Ace Decade 的股份转让给受托人近一个月之后），债务人在债权人会议上的陈述据称翻译不准确。如下文所述，该辩解并不可信，且被债务人的其他陈述（包括在英国法庭文件中关于其拥有 Ace Decade 的经核实陈述）所推翻。\n\n程序的更大惯常模式的一部分。正如纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court）Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官所指出的，债务人“对[纽约州法院]及司法程序怀有极度的藐视。”4 事实上，这一最新插曲呼应了债务人在 PAX5 诉讼期间的策略，当时他在宣誓录供中试图否认自己在个人担保书上的签名，尽管他此前曾向同一法院主张该文件的真实性。作为回应，Ostrager 法官在司法上禁止（judicially estopped）债务人质疑此类文件的真实性。6\n\n3. 本法院不应容忍债务人为使其资产脱离债权人追索范围而采取的最新手段。因此，受托人请求判定债务人构成民事藐视法庭，并由本法院施加适当制裁，直至债务人证明其已遵守《公司治理权裁定》项下关于向受托人转让 Ace Decade 的义务。7\n背景\nI. 债务人的第 11 章案件\n\n4. 2022 年 2 月 15 日（以下简称“申请日”），债务人向本法院提交了依据《破产法典》第 11 章寻求救济的自愿申请书。\n\n5. 2022 年 3 月 21 日，美国联邦破产受托人（United States Trustee）在债务人的第 11 章案件（以下简称“第 11 章案件”）中指定了无担保债权人官方委员会（以下简称“委员会”）。本第 11 章案件中未指定审查官（examiner）。\n\n4 2022 年 2 月 9 日作出的动议决定与裁定（以下简称《最终藐视裁定》），PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），文件编号 1181，第 4 页。《最终藐视裁定》的副本作为附件 B 附于本动议。\n\n5 PAX 是指 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）。\n\n6 2020 年 7 月 7 日作出的动议决定与裁定（以下简称《司法禁反言裁定》），PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），文件编号 404。《司法禁反言裁定》的副本作为附件 C 附于本动议。\n\n7 受托人就债务人未遵守《公司治理权裁定》任何其他方面之行为保留其全部权利。\n\n6. 2022 年 6 月 15 日，本法院作出了决定备忘录与裁定 [诉讼记录第 465 号]（以下简称《受托人决定》），责令美国联邦破产受托人在本第 11 章案件中指定一名第 11 章受托人。依据《受托人裁定》，美国联邦破产受托人选定了 Luc A. Despins 作为受托人。\n\n7. 《受托人决定》得出的结论除其他外包括：“在与驳回案件或案件转换程序相权衡时，本案中债务人财务事务的复杂性以及缺乏独立管理层监督的情况，支持指定一名第 11 章受托人，以便为债权人和破产财产的利益调查、识别并定位债务人的资产。”8 《受托人决定》进一步规定：“指定第 11 章受托人亦将有助于对债务人的资产、负债和财务事务进行有效调查”，且“第 11 章受托人应履行 11 U.S.C. § 1106 中规定的所有职责。”9\n\n8. 2022 年 7 月 7 日，美国联邦破产受托人提交了《指定第 11 章受托人通知》[诉讼记录第 514 号]，指定 Luc Despins 为本第 11 章案件的受托人。2022 年 7 月 8 日，本法院作出裁定 [诉讼记录第 523 号]，批准指定 Luc A. Despins 为受托人。\nII. 公司治理权动议与裁定\n\n9. 2022 年 7 月 23 日，受托人提交了《第 11 章受托人请求依据破产法典第 363、541、1108 及 105 条作出裁定：(A) 确认第 11 章受托人享有债务人在债务人控制实体中的所有经济权利，(B) 授权第 11 章受托人代表破产财产在任何外国采取行动，及\n\n8 《受托人决定》第 15-16 页。\n\n9 同上，第 14、18 页。\n\n(C) 给予相关救济之动议》[诉讼记录第 598 号]（以下简称《公司治理权动议》）。除其他事项外，《公司治理权动议》请求作出裁定，确认受托人为了债务人破产财产（以下简称“破产财产”）的利益，享有债务人在所有债务人控制实体中的所有经济与治理权利。正如《公司治理权动议》中所详述的，受托人之所以寻求此类救济，是因为\n\n债务人已表现出蔑视法庭命令的意愿，这表明债务人及相关人员（无论是个人行事还是通过债务人控制实体行事）可能会试图利用有关受托人权利的任何模棱两可或误解，以阻挠受托人识别和追回破产财产的努力。10\n\n10. 2022 年 8 月 10 日，本法院批准了《公司治理权动议》并作出了《公司治理权裁定》。《公司治理权裁定》确认受托人享有债务人在所有债务人控制实体中的所有经济及公司治理权利，此外，还责令债务人“与受托人配合，以使受托人能够履行其职责”并“向受托人移交所有破产财产以及任何记录信息，包括但不限于与破产财产有关的账簿、文件、记录和文据。”11 上述条款均具有完全的法律效力。12\n\n11. 尽管《公司治理权裁定》亦载有关于转让债务人在 Genever Holdings Corporation（以下简称“Genever\n\n10 《公司治理权动议》第 1 段。\n\n11 《公司治理权裁定》第 2、3 段。\n\n12 尽管债务人就《公司治理权裁定》的某些部分（即涉及向英国律师提供的函件的部分）申请了上诉期间中止执行，但债务人并未就破产法院在《公司治理权裁定》中的其他裁决申请上诉期间中止执行，包括 (a) 受托人享有债务人在债务人控制实体中的所有经济与治理权利，以及 (b) 债务人须与受托人配合并向受托人移交所有破产财产及与此相关的任何记录信息。参见债务人提交的《关于请求在上诉期间中止执行公司治理权裁定的动议》[诉讼记录第 761 号]。\n\n(BVI)”）中的股份的详细规定，包括股份转让文书格式和董事决议格式，但债务人在《公司治理权裁定》项下的义务并不限于 Genever (BVI)，而是延伸至所有债务人控制实体。13 事实上，Genever (BVI) 以及附于《公司治理权裁定》的转让文件格式仅作为转让债务人在其他债务人控制实体中股份的范本。\nIII. 债务人对 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 的所有权\n\n12. 债务人曾在法庭文件和宣誓状态下多次承认，其拥有 Ace Decade，并通过其间接拥有 Ace Decade 的全资子公司 Dawn State Limited。\n\n13. 例如，在 2015 年，债务人就其对一家中国证券公司的投资与 UBS（瑞银集团）进行了一笔证券交易。在该交易之后，债务人在英国法院对 UBS 提起诉讼，基于 UBS 在该交易中涉嫌作出的虚假陈述主张违约索赔，并寻求至少 495,300,000 美元的损害赔偿。14 在该诉讼中，债务人及其共同原告——即 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State——证实债务人拥有 Ace Decade。例如，于 2020 年 9 月提交的“索赔详情”15（以下简称《英国起诉状》）陈述道，“Ace Decade 是由郭先生于 2014 年 11 月 10 日收购的，其目的是作为\n\n13 参见，例如，《公司治理权裁定》（Corporate Governance Rights Order）第2段（“托管人（Trustee）为破产财产（Estate）的利益，持有债务人对所有债务人控制实体（Debtor-Controlled Entities）的全部经济权利和治理权利，包括但不限于 Genever (BVI)。”）；第3段（责令债务人（Debtor）“向托管人交出破产财产的所有财产及任何记录信息，包括但不限于与破产财产相关的账簿、文件、记录和文据（包括但不限于其在 Genever (BVI) 的股份及所有相关公司治理文件）”）。\n\n14 《诉讼请求详细陈述》（Particular of Claims），Kwok Ho Wan & Ors. v. UBS（郭文贵等诉瑞银案），案号 Cl-2020-000345，英格兰及威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法庭（High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court），日期为2020年9月23日。《诉讼请求详细陈述》之副本作为附件 D（Exhibit D）随附于本动议。\n\n15 《诉讼请求详细陈述》系英国法下等同于起诉书（complaint）的文书。\n\n[一个]投资载体。”16 该英国起诉书亦主张，“自2015年9月18日起，Dawn State 一直由 Ace Decade 拥有并控制。”17\n\n14. 此外，在整份起诉书中，原告均指控债务人促使和/或允许 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 采取了各项行动，包括涉及共同投资协议、融资函及贷款文件的行动。18 该英国起诉书不仅由债务人签署并宣誓证明，还由 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 的代表签署并宣誓证明。19\n\n15. 此外，在2022年4月6日依据《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第341条召开的债权人会议（即“第341条会议”，Section 341 Meeting）上，债务人再次在宣誓后确认，他是 Ace Decade 的唯一所有人。具体而言，在第341条会议期间，美国破产受托人（United States Trustee）的法律顾问对债务人进行了如下讯问：\n\n- 问：您[郭先生]是 Ace Decades 的唯一法定所有人吗？\n- 答：我是一个法定代表所有人。\n- 问：Ace Decade 还有其他所有人吗？\n- 答：没有。\n- 问：您是什么时候成为 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（鼎胜控股有限公司）的所有人的？\n- 答：在2014年底。20\n\n16. 这一针锋相对的问答并非债务人在第341条会议期间唯一一次明示或暗示承认其拥有 Ace Decade。事实上，还有许多其他例子：\n\n16 英国起诉书第24段（后加强调）。亦见同上第2段（“Ace Decade 于2014年6月18日注册成立，并于2014年11月10日左右被郭先生收购。”）（后加强调）。\n\n17 同上第4段（后加强调）。\n\n18 参见，例如，同上第86段。\n\n19 参见同上第37-38页。\n\n20 2022年4月6日第341条会议笔录第61:3-10行 [案卷号 848]。第341条会议的笔录副本作为附件 E（Exhibit E）随附于本动议。\n\n- 问：这是一个较长的问题。在您于伦敦针对瑞银（UBS）提起的诉讼中，您是个人原告。您作为个人原告提出权利主张的依据是什么？\n- 答：因为我是 Ace Decade 百分之百的代表。21\n- . . .\n\n. . .\n\n- 问：郭先生，除 Ace Decade 之外，您还在任何公司拥有权益吗？\n- 答：没有，但是那个——我拥有 Bravo Luck 那套公寓，只有几个月，部分权益。因为那套公寓是共同产权公寓（co-op），所以在我们买下公寓后，他们用了我的名字来买公寓，然后我们把股份权益退回去了。22\n- 问：除 Ace Decade 之外，您目前还在任何其他公司拥有权益吗？\n- 答：没有。我以前只拥有过 Orange 和 Shiny Time，但现在没有了。23\n\nIV. 债务人违反《公司治理权裁定》\n\n17. 2022年8月31日，托管人向债务人的法律顾问发出一封信函（即“2022年8月31日信函”，August 31, 2022 Letter），要求债务人促使其在 Ace Decade 的股份不迟于2022年9月6日转让给托管人。24 该8月31日信函还要求，股份转让文据及相关的董事决议应与 Genever (BVI) 股份转让的相关对应文件格式相同（该等文件此前已作为附件 A 随附于《公司治理权裁定》）。\n\n21 同上第61:11-16行。\n\n22 同上第63:25-64:7行。\n\n23 同上第65:8-11行。\n\n24 2022年8月31日信函之副本作为附件 F（Exhibit F）随附于本动议。\n\n18. 截至目前，债务人尚未将 Ace Decade 的股份转让给托管人，债务人也未提供任何公司文件或任何证明债务人不是 Ace Decade 所有人的证据。\n\n19. 2022年9月12日，托管人提交了一份通知，(a) 向法院及利害关系方告知债务人在第341条会议上关于其拥有 Ace Decade 的自认，以及 (b) 随附该会议笔录的相关节录。\n\n20. 托管人还在2022年9月6日的案件进展会议（status conference）25、2022年9月13日的听证会26以及2022年9月27日的案件进展会议上提及了2022年8月31日信函及债务人的不遵从行为。债务人的法律顾问每次均出席；然而，直到2022年9月27日的案件进展会议上，债务人的法律顾问才首次主张，债务人据称并不拥有 Ace Decade，且其在第341条会议上的相反自认据称是一系列翻译错误的结果。如下文详述，托管人认为债务人的最新主张令人难以置信。\n\n管辖权、审判地、法定依据\n\n21. 根据《美国法典》第28编第157条和第1334条（28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334），本法院对审理本事项具有管辖权。根据《美国法典》第28编第157(b)(2)条（28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)），本案属于核心程序（core proceeding）。\n\n- 22. 根据《美国法典》第28编第1408条和第1409条（28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409），审判地（venue）正当。\n\n- 23. 本动议所请求救济的成文法及法律依据为《破产法典》第105(a)条以及《联邦破产诉讼规则》（Bankruptcy Rules）第9014条和第9020条。\n\n25 参见2022年9月6日笔录第9:12-10:16行。2022年9月6日案件进展会议的笔录作为附件 G（Exhibit G）随附于本动议。在回应关于确保其会就8月31日信函作出回复的请求时，债务人的法律顾问陈述称：“我正在处理此事。我将以应有的速度推进，但我不知道需要花我多长时间。”同上第24:21-23行。\n\n26 在2022年9月13日的听证会上，债务人的法律顾问表示他无法就这些问题发言，因为另一位律师正在处理该事项，而该律师未出席听证会。\n\n请求的救济\n\n24. 通过本动议，托管人请求法院作出拟议裁定（Proposed Order）：(a) 判定债务人因未遵守《公司治理权裁定》中关于转让 Ace Decade 的规定而构成民事藐视法庭（civil contempt）；以及 (b) 作出适当制裁，直至债务人履行其向托管人转让 Ace Decade 并向托管人提供有关 Ace Decade 及 Dawn State 的所有公司文件的义务为止。\n\n救济依据\n\nI. 债务人违反了《公司治理权裁定》\n\n25. 本法院拥有强制执行其命令的明示权力。参见 U.S. Lines, Inc. v. GAC Marine Fuels, Ltd. (In re McLean Indus.), 68 B.R. 690, 695 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986)（“任何法院审理和解决法律争议的职责均伴随着执行该裁定的权力。”）；Milner v. Duncklee, 460 F. Supp. 2d 360, 375 (D. Conn. 2006)（“在适当情况下，法院有权执行其自身的裁定……。”）。\n\n26. 《公司治理权裁定》明确指出，托管人持有针对所有债务人控制实体的全部经济权利和治理权利。《公司治理权裁定》还明确责令债务人配合托管人，并向托管人交出破产财产的所有财产及与破产财产相关的任何记录信息。\n\n27. 债务人已在多个场合（包括在英国起诉书中及在第341条会议上）陈述其为 Ace Decade 的唯一所有人。如前所述，在英国起诉书（于2020年9月提交）中，债务人陈述其自2014年起即拥有 Ace Decade，而且，Ace Decade 和 Dawn State Limited 的代表亦对英国起诉书中所作陈述的准确性进行了宣誓证明。27 此外，在2022年4月的第341条会议上，债务人在接受美国破产受托人的法律顾问讯问时确认，其自“2014年底”起即为 Ace Decade 的唯一所有人。28 债务人现在不能在最后关头被允许作出利己陈述——且没有任何证据来推翻此前多年在法院文件中和/或宣誓后所作的陈述。\n\n28. 债务人持续对托管人2022年8月31日的信函不予回应、未能出示与 Ace Decade 相关的任何公司文件，以及未能将 Ace Decade 的股份转让给托管人，均构成对《公司治理权裁定》的公然违反。\n\nII. 认定藐视法庭并施加制裁是适当的\n\n29. 根据《破产法典》第105(a)条，破产法院有能力“发布为执行[《破产法典》]之规定所必要或适当的任何命令、程序或判决书”。11 U.S.C. § 105(a)。根据第105(a)条，本法院有权裁定当事人构成藐视法庭，这“固有地包括对当事人施加制裁的能力”。In re Dickerson, No. 08-33071, 2009 WL 4666457, at *9 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Dec. 8 2009)（引文省略）（引自 Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Nosek (In re Nosek), 544 F.3d 34, 43-44 (1st Cir. 2008)）；亦见 In re Chauteaugay Corp., 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990)；In re Ditech Holding Corp., No. 19-10412 (JLG); 2021 WL 3716398, at *7 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2021)；In re Bambi, 492 B.R. 183, 191 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013)。此外，\n\n27 英国起诉书第38页（王雁平（Yanping (Yvette) Wang）代表 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 签字确认英国起诉书）。\n\n28 第341条会议笔录第61:3-10行。\n\n《联邦破产诉讼规则》第9020条明确规定破产法院可在适当情况下作出藐视法庭裁定。29\n\n30. 当事人“在以下情况下可因未能遵守法院裁定而被判定构成民事藐视法庭：(1) 藐视法庭者未能遵守的裁定是清晰且明确的，(2) 不遵从的证明是清晰且有说服力的，以及 (3) 藐视法庭者未曾以合理方式勤勉地尝试遵守。无须证明该违反行为是蓄意的。”Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda v. GE Medical Sys. Info. Technologies, Inc., 369 F.3d 645, 655 (2d Cir. 2004)（引文省略）。民事藐视法庭的制裁“既可用于强制作出该裁定所为之另一方当事人的未来遵从，也可用于‘赔偿先前因不遵从所造成的任何损害’。”In re 1990's Caterers Ltd. d/b/a Vina de Villa Caterers, 531 B.R. 309, 319 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2015)（引自 In re Chief Executive Officers Clubs, Inc., 359 B.R. 527, 534 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)）。破产法院针对民事藐视法庭所能施加的制裁“多种多样”，包括“不定期限的拘禁”、罚款、补偿费用或上述方式的任意组合。In re Vaso Active Pharms., Inc., 514 B.R. 416, 423 (Bankr. D. Del. 2014)（引文省略）。就此而言，法院亦可“向藐视法庭行为的受害方判处律师费及开支”。Al Hirschfeld Found. v. Margo Feiden Galleries Ltd., 438 F. Supp. 3d. 203, 208 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)。\n\n31. 在本案中，《公司治理权裁定》的条款清晰且明确。事实上，鉴于债务人此前对抗法院命令的意向，寻求作出《公司治理权裁定》的主要目的正是为了明确——\n\n29 参见《联邦破产诉讼规则》第9020条（“第9014条适用于由美国破产受托人或利害关系方提起的请求作出藐视法庭裁定的动议。”）\n\n(a) 受托人（Trustee）就债务人控制的实体（Debtor-Controlled Entities）所享有的经济及公司治理权利，以及 (b) 债务人（Debtor）与受托人合作并将破产财产（Estate）移交给受托人的义务。\n\n32. 对于债务人此前曾在法院提交的文件中及/或在宣誓后承认其拥有 Ace Decade（Ace Decade）这一事实，亦不存在任何实质性争议。债务人律师在 2022 年 9 月 27 日的状况会议（status conference）上试图将债务人在第 341 条会议（Section 341 Meeting）上的陈述归咎于翻译不准确，此举并不可信。\n\n33. 其一，债务人在第 341 条会议上的陈述是针对美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）律师提出的三个简短问题作出的。债务人同样简短的回答清晰且明确地确认了债务人拥有 Ace Decade。若说债务人不知何故误解了这些简单的问题，或者这些简短的问答没有被妥当翻译，这是令人难以置信的——特别是考虑到有两名翻译（一名由美国受托人选定，一名由债务人选定）参加了第 341 条会议。此外，从债务人出镜的视频中可以清楚看出，他理解基本的英语概念，例如他是否拥有某物。30\n\n34. 同样具有说服力的是，无论是在第 341 条会议上，还是在随后的六个月内，债务人从未在任何时刻试图“更正”其关于其拥有 Ace Decade 的陈述。当然，此前曾有多次机会这样做，包括在第 341 条会议本身上，当时美国受托人的律师继续就涉及 Ace Decade 及债务人拥有的其他实体进行提问。无论如何，债务人在第 341 条会议上的陈述并非其承认拥有 Ace Decade 的唯一一次，而且债务人的\n\n30 参见 VICE News，《流亡中国亿万富翁利用 YouTube 发起反腐之战》（Exiled Chinese Billionaire Uses YouTube to Wage a War on Corruption），YouTube（原在 HBO 播出日期：2017 年 11 月 15 日），http（最后访问日期：2022 年 10 月 3 日），1:20 处。\n\n律师甚至从未试图解释为何其他具有同等效力的陈述——包括英国起诉状（U.K. Complaint）中的陈述（该陈述亦经 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State Limited 的代表证实）——现在据称是不准确的。\n\n35. 最后，债务人近期对其先前承认拥有 Ace Decade 的反悔并非孤立事件。这一手法只是债务人用来阻挠债权人的又一个工具。例如，在 PAX 诉讼（PAX litigation）期间，债务人在先前已于 PAX 诉讼中支持了某些交易文件（包括一份个人担保）的真实性（包括在其代表的宣誓书中附上了这些文件的真实准确副本）之后，同样试图否认其在这些文件上的签名。31 事实上，债务人最初曾因声称其在亚洲签署了该个人担保而试图（未成功）以不方便法院原则（forum non conveniens）为由驳回 PAX 诉讼。32 基于此记录，Ostrager 法官在司法上禁止（judicially estopped）债务人质疑这些文件（包括个人担保）的真实性。33\n\n36. 基于所有上述理由，法院应作出拟议裁定（Proposed Order），判定债务人藐视法庭并施加适当制裁，直至债务人遵守《公司治理权利裁定》（Corporate Governance Rights Order），包括通过以下方式：(a) 签署及/或促使 Ace Decade 的任何代持股东（nominee shareholder）签署股份转让文书，将债务人在 Ace Decade 的全部股份（包括债务人通过任何\n\n31 参见 Fiona Yu 支持被告驳回动议的确认书（Affirmation of Fiona Yu in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss），PAX 诉 Kwok（PAX v. Kwok），索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院，N.Y. Sup. Ct.），文件号 11，第 3 段（“本确认书附有以下内容的真实准确副本：……郭先生与 PAX LP 之间日期为 2011 年 3 月 16 日的个人担保。”）。\n\n32 日期为 2017 年 6 月 29 日的支持被告驳回原告起诉状动议的法律备忘录（Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint），PAX 诉 Kwok（PAX v. Kwok），索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院，N.Y. Sup. Ct.），文件号 8，第 6 页（“2009 年，Shiny Times 承担了 Spirit Charter 的还款义务，郭对该笔债务签署了个人担保，同样是在中国。2011 年，PAX LP 与 Shiny Times 达成了另一项书面协议，郭再次在中国签署了另一份个人担保。”）。\n\n33 《司法禁反言决定》（Judicial Estoppel Decision）第 2 页。\n\n代持股东实益拥有的全部股份）转让给受托人；(b) 签署及/或促使 Ace Decade 的董事签署董事决议，批准将 Ace Decade 的股份转让给受托人；以及 (c) 向受托人提供有关 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 的所有公司文件。34 此外，无论债务人是否遵守前述规定，均应在司法上禁止债务人在本第 11 章案件中声称其不拥有 Ace Decade。\n此前未提出过请求（NO PRIOR REQUEST）\n\n37. 受托人此前从未向本法院或任何其他法院请求获得本文所请求的救济。\n律师证明（CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL）\n\n38. 如上所述，受托人的律师曾多次尝试解决该争议，但均未成功。\n\n[本页余下部分特意留白]\n\n34 为免生疑问，股份转让文书及相关董事决议的格式应与附于《公司治理权利裁定》附件 A 的有关 Genever (BVI) 股份的相应文件格式相同。\n\n鉴于上述理由，受托人谨请法院作出\n\n拟议裁定，准予本强制执行动议（Motion to Compel）所请求的救济以及\n\n公正恰当的其他救济。\n\n日期：2022 年 10 月 4 日 LUC A. DESPINS，\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文（New Haven, Connecticut） 第 11 章受托人（CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE）\n\n代表签名：/s/ Douglas S. Skalka\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（经特许出庭 / admitted pro hac vice） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft（经特许出庭 / admitted pro hac vice） Douglass Barron（经特许出庭 / admitted pro hac vice） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人律师","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4818,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:42:23"}