{"id":"court_ctb_1050_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1050,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION § § § § §","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n§ § § § §\n\nIN RE:\n\nHO WAN KWOK\n\nDebtor.\n\nCHAPTER 11 CASE NO. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n## **THE DEBTOR'S, MEI GUO'S AND HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENT (USA) LIMITED, LLC'S OBJECTION TO MOTION, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 9006(c)(1), TO EXPEDITE HEARING ON CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL**\n\nHo Wan Kwok, the debtor (the \"Debtor\") in the above-captioned bankruptcy case (the \"Bankruptcy Case\"), Mei Guo (\"Ms. Guo\"), and HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\" Collectively the \"Respondents\"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby object to the Motion, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(c)(1), to Expedite Hearing (the \"Motion to Expedite\") (Doc. No. 1048) on the Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Compelling, [among others] the Debtor, [Ms.] Guo, [and HK USA] to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoenas (the \"Motion to Compel\") (Doc. No. 1046), filed by Luc A. Despins, the Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\"), on October 28, 2022. In support of their Objection, the Respondents respectfully represent as follows:\n\n1. The Trustee filed the underlying Motion to Compel and Motion to Expedite on Friday, October 28, 2022, at 11:00 pm with the thinly veiled intention of precluding a substantive response by the Respondents to the Motion to Expedite and the Motion to Compel, because the Trustee knows that both are meritless, at least as they relate to the Respondents.\n\n2. Indeed, the Trustee seeks to expedite a hearing on a Motion to Compel that the Trustee admits was ripe for filing nearly six weeks ago following the September 22, 2022, final meet and confer between the Trustee's counsel and the Respondents' counsel to discuss the very issues that the Trustee seeks to have adjudicated through the Motion to Compel. If there was urgency to the Motion to Compel as it related to the Respondents the Trustee would have filed it a long time ago, and if he had, that timely filed motion would be fully briefed and ready for adjudication even if it had proceeded on a regular motion track pursuant to the Local Rules.\n\n3. Instead, the Trustee sat on the ostensibly urgent Motion to Compel for nearly six weeks, and now, as he has done with nearly every filing in this case, seeks to severely prejudice the Respondents' rights by forcing them to respond to the Motion to Compel on an expedited basis knowing that at the same time Respondents' counsel is, without limitation, preparing: i) to review documents on an expedited basis that will be forthcoming from Williams & Connelly LLP following this Court's entry of an October 28, 2022 \"consent order\" (on which the Debtor was never consulted) concerning the procedure for review of Williams & Connelly documents prior to production to the Trustee [ECF 1042]; ii) for a November 15, 2022, hearing on the Trustee's Motion for Contempt, which is being heard on an expedited basis [ECF 1044], and iii) for a November 30, 2022, hearing on the Trustee's prejudgment remedy and injunction application (the \"PJR Application\") filed against Ms. Guo and HK USA, which was also initially to be heard on an expedited basis but continued by agreement. [1](#page-1-0)\n\n4. Jamming another response down the Respondent's throat on an expedited basis, especially when the Trustee sat on the underlying Motion to Compel, is fundamentally unfair. The Trustee has failed to establish the requisite cause necessary for this Court to grant the\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor's counsel is also (i) reviewing 2,177 documents preliminarily identified by Baker Hostetler, LLP as potential Personal Harm documents and preparing a privilege log that is due today; (ii) responding to an inquiry from Clark Hill regarding its document production to the Trustee; and (iii) addressing the Trustee's purported demand, made at 5:11 pm on Friday, October 28, 2022, that the Debtor supplement his privilege log concerning Brown Rudnick's initial production to the Trustee by close of business today. Given these facts, none of which are disputable, the Trustee's ongoing narrative that the Debtor is acting to delay is frivolous.\n\nMotion to Expedite, and the Motion to Expedite should be denied. *See In re Schindler*, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 1208, \\*7 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2011) (\"However, cause under Rule 9006(c) . . . 'is not shown when the cause for expedited hearing is one of movant's own making.'\") (Citation omitted).\n\n5. The Motion to Expedite should also be denied because the Trustee's statement in paragraph 13 of the Motion to Expedite that \"[t]ime is particularly of the essence for the relief requested in the Motion to Compel due to the pending hearing on the Trustee's motions for prejudgment and injunctive relief as against [Ms. Guo and HK USA]\" is wholly disingenuous and misleading.\n\n6. Indeed, the Trustee fails to inform the Court that the parties have agreed to a schedule for expedited discovery in connection with the PJR Application, and in connection with that schedule the parties to the PJR Application have already served one another with requests for production (the \"PJR Requests\"), and the Trustee has issued subpoenas to, among others, the Debtor and Golden Spring (New York) Limited.\n\n7. The Trustee, Ms. Guo and HK USA have agreed to exchange responses to the PJR Requests and produce responsive documents, if any, by November 8, 2022, before the Motion to Compel would even be heard on an expedited basis. Thus, the parties' agreement to conduct discovery related to the PJR Application on an expedited basis cuts against an expedited hearing on the Motion to Compel and the Motion to Expedite should be denied. [2](#page-2-0)\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> For the avoidance of doubt, and to avoid any claim that the Respondent's counsel has misled the Court, Ms. Guo and HK USA are not representing that there will be large document productions forthcoming in response to the PJR Requests, only that the parties to the PJR Application have agreed to a process for discovery related to the PJR Application that is outside of the Rule 2004 Subpoena discovery, and that the Trustee will obtain discovery related to the PJR Application, including depositions, through that process.\n\n8. Lastly, the Trustee's investigation is moving forward expeditiously. The Trustee has received and continues to receive tens of thousands of documents, totaling hundreds of thousands of pages, from the Debtor's professionals, including, among others, Brown Rudnick and Verdolino and Lowey, who represented the Debtor in this case prior to the Trustee's appointment, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, counsel in connection with the 2015 purchase of the Sherry Netherlands apartment by Bravo Luck, which is a primary focus of the Trustee's investigation, and Baker Hostetler, LLP, the Debtor's most recent counsel in the PAX litigation that was pending in New York State Supreme Court—from where the contempt order related to the Lady May emanates. Thus, denying the Motion to Expedite and allowing the Motion to Compel to proceed on a regular motion track, with the Respondents' opposition due in 21-days, will not forestall the Trustee's investigation in this case where, as the Court has been informed, the parties are continuing discussions concerning a possible global resolution of the case.\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Debtor requests that the Court deny the Motion to Expedite, and grant him such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 31st day of October, 2022.\n\n## **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK, AND THE RESPONDENTS MEI GUO AND HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENT (USA) LIMITED, LLC**\n\n*/s/ James M. Moriarty*  Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) James M. Moriarty (ct21876) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com)\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 31st day of October, 2022, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice ofElectronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n*/s/ James M. Moriarty*  James M. Moriarty","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n§ § § § §\n\n案件关联：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n债务人。\n\n第11章破产案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人、MEI GUO（郭美）及HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENT (USA) LIMITED, LLC依据《破产程序规则》第9006(c)(1)条对加快审理第11章受托人强制作为动议之动议的异议\n\n上述标题所示破产案件（下称“破产案件”）中的债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，下称“债务人”）、Mei Guo（郭美，下称“郭女士”）以及HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC（下称“HK USA”，合称“被答辩人”），通过其下述署名律师，特此对第11章受托人Luc A. Despins（下称“受托人”）于2022年10月28日提交的、请求就《第11章受托人请求作出强制[其中包括]债务人、[郭]女士[以及HK USA]遵守第2004条传票之命令的动议》（下称“强制作为动议”）（文件编号：1046）加快审理的《依据〈破产程序规则〉第9006(c)(1)条加快审理的动议》（下称“加急动议”）（文件编号：1048）提出异议。为支持其异议，被答辩人谨陈述如下：\n\n1. 受托人于2022年10月28日星期五晚上11:00提交了作为基础的强制作为动议和加急动议，其意图显而易见，即阻止被答辩人对加急动议和强制作为动议作出实质性回应，因为受托人明知这两项动议均毫无根据，至少就其涉及被答辩人的部分而言是如此。\n\n2. 事实上，受托人试图加快审理的一项强制作为动议，受托人自己也承认，早在将近六周前，即受托人律师与被答辩人律师于2022年9月22日举行最后一次会商以讨论受托人试图通过强制作为动议予以裁决的完全相同的问题之后，该动议就已成熟并可提交。如果该强制作为动议中涉及被答辩人的部分确有紧迫性，受托人早就应该提交了；而如果他当时提交了，即使按照《地方法院规则》通过常规动议流程进行，该及时提交的动议现在也早已完成全部辩论文书的提交并准备好接受裁决了。\n\n3. 相反，受托人将这份表面上紧急的强制作为动议搁置了近六周，而现在，正如他在本案中几乎每次提交文件时所做的那样，试图通过强迫被答辩人在加急的基础上对强制作为动议作出回应来严重损害被答辩人的权利，而他明知与此同时被答辩人的律师正在准备（包括但不限于）：i) 在本法院于2022年10月28日就向受托人出示前审查Williams & Connelly LLP文件的程序作出一项“同意裁定”（在作出该裁定时从未征求债务人的意见）之后，在加急的基础上审查即将由Williams & Connelly出示的文件 [ECF 1042]；ii) 准备出席定于2022年11月15日就受托人的藐视法庭动议举行的加急听证会 [ECF 1044]；以及 iii) 准备出席定于2022年11月30日就受托人针对郭女士和HK USA提起的判决前救济和禁令申请（下称“PJR申请”）举行的听证会，该听证会最初也拟在加急基础上审理，但经协议延期。[1]\n\n4. 在加急的基础上将又一份答辩强加给被答辩人，尤其是在受托人搁置了作为基础的强制作为动议的情况下，是根本不公平的。受托人未能确立本法院批准该\n\n1 债务人的律师还正在：(i) 审查Baker Hostetler, LLP初步认定为潜在“人身伤害”文件的2,177份文件，并准备一份于今日到期的特权清单；(ii) 回应Clark Hill关于其向受托人出示文件情况的询问；以及 (iii) 处理受托人于2022年10月28日星期五下午5:11提出的所谓要求，即要求债务人在今日下班前就Brown Rudnick向受托人的首次出示补充其特权清单。鉴于这些无可争议的事实，受托人一贯声称债务人正在故意拖延的说法是毫无根据的。\n\n加急动议所必需的正当理由，该加急动议应予驳回。参见 In re Schindler, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 1208, *7 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2011)（“然而，第9006(c)条下的正当理由……‘在加快审理的由头系由动议人自身造成时不予成立。’”）（引文省略）。\n\n5. 加急动议还应予以驳回，因为受托人在加急动议第13段中所作的陈述——“鉴于受托人针对[郭女士和HK USA]提起的判决前和禁令救济动议正等待听证，强制作为动议中所请求的救济在时间上尤为紧迫”——完全是不真诚且具误导性的。\n\n6. 事实上，受托人未告知法院的是，各方当事人已就与PJR申请相关的加急证据开示时间表达成一致，并且根据该时间表，PJR申请的各方当事人已互相送达了出示请求（下称“PJR请求”），且受托人已向包括债务人和Golden Spring (New York) Limited在内的主体发出了传票。\n\n7. 受托人、郭女士和HK USA已同意在2022年11月8日之前（该时间甚至早于强制作为动议在加急基础上举行听证的时间）交换对PJR请求的答复并出示符合要求的文件（如有）。因此，各方当事人关于在加急基础上进行与PJR申请相关的证据开示的协议，恰恰不利于就强制作为动议举行加急听证，该加急动议应予驳回。[2]\n\n2 为免生疑问，并为避免被指责被答辩人的律师误导法院，郭女士和HK USA并未声明后续将针对PJR请求出示大量文件，仅声明PJR申请的各方当事人已就与PJR申请相关的证据开示程序达成一致，该程序独立于第2004条传票证据开示之外，且受托人将通过该程序获得与PJR申请相关的证据开示，包括宣誓录供。\n\n8. 最后，受托人的调查正在迅速推进。受托人已经并持续从债务人的专业人士处收到数万份文件，共计数十万页，这些专业人士包括但不限于：在受托人获任命前在本案中代表债务人的Brown Rudnick以及Verdolino and Lowey；在2015年Bravo Luck购买Sherry Netherlands公寓一事（此乃受托人调查的重点）中担任律师的Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison；以及债务人在曾悬于New York State Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的PAX诉讼中的最近代理律师Baker Hostetler, LLP——与Lady May（梅号游艇）相关的藐视法庭命令即源于该诉讼。因此，驳回加急动议并允许强制作为动议按常规动议流程进行（被答辩人的反对意见于21天内到期），不会阻碍受托人在本案中的调查；而正如已向法院报告的那样，各方当事人目前正就可能全面解决本案继续进行讨论。\n\n为此，债务人请求法院驳回加急动议，并给予其本法院认为公正妥当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2022年10月31日，于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n债务人HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及被答辩人MEI GUO（郭美）与HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENT (USA) LIMITED, LLC\n\n/签名/ James M. Moriarty  Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) James M. Moriarty (ct21876) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 电话：(203) 368-4234 传真：(203) 368-5487 电子邮件：[aromney@zeislaw.com] [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com]\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于2022年10月31日，前述文件的副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交文件的通知将通过法院电子归档系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人，或者按照《电子归档通知》所示，通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子归档的任何人。当事人可通过法院的CM/ECF系统查阅本文件。\n\n/签名/ James M. Moriarty  James M. Moriarty","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1042,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1044,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1351,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:50:11"}