{"id":"court_ctb_1057_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1057,"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| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |        |                         |  |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |  |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                             | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |  |\n| Debtors.1                                                        | :<br>: | Jointly Administered    |  |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | :<br>x |                         |  |  |  |\n\n# **REPLY OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO OBJECTIONS TO MOTION, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 9006(c)(1), TO EXPEDITE HEARING ON MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER COMPELLING DEBTOR, MEI GUO, HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC, HING CHI NGOK, GREENWICH LAND LLC, LAMP CAPITAL LLC, AND GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD. TO COMPLY WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS**\n\nLuc A. Despins, chapter 11 trustee in the chapter 11 case of the Individual Debtor (the \"Trustee\"), hereby respectfully submits his reply (the \"Reply\") in support of his *Motion, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(c)(1), to Expedite Hearing on Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Compelling Debtor, Mei Guo, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, Hing Chi Ngok, Greenwich Land LLC, Lamp Capital LLC, and Gold Spring (New York) Ltd. To Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoenas* [Docket No. 1048] (the \"Motion to Expedite\") and in response to the objections thereto filed by the Individual Debtor, Mei Guo, and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC [Docket No. 1050] (the \"Zeisler-Represented Parties'\n\n<sup>1</sup> The 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) (the \"Individual Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Genever BVI Debtor\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever BVI Debtor 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\nObjection\") and by Hing Chi Ngok (*i.e.*, the individual alleged to be the Individual Debtor's Wife) and Greenwich Land LLC [Docket No. 1055] (the \"HCN/GLL Objection\").\n\n### **THE TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL**\n\n1. The Motion to Expedite requests that the Court schedule an expedited hearing next week with respect to the *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Compelling Debtor, Mei Guo, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, Hing Chi Ngok, Greenwich Land LLC, Lamp Capital LLC, and Gold Spring (New York) Ltd. To Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoenas*  [Docket No. 1046] (the \"Motion to Compel\"), which in turn requests, among other things, that the Court compel compliance with the Trustee's Rule 2004 Subpoenas by parties-in-interest including the Individual Debtor, Mei Guo, and HK USA (together, collectively, the \"Zeisler-Represented Parties\") and Ngok and Greenwich Land (together, collectively, \"HCN/GLL\").<sup>2</sup>\n\n2. As discussed at greater length in the Motion to Compel, the Zeisler-Represented Parties' and HCN/GLL's persistent noncompliance with their obligations to comply with the Rule 2004 Subpoenas has delayed and obstructed the Trustee's investigation—in keeping with the conduct of the Individual Debtor and his allies since the Trustee's appointment.\n\n### **REPLY TO THE ZEISLER-REPRESENTED PARTIES' OBJECTION**\n\n3. The Zeisler-Represented Parties contend that the Trustee has created a false emergency for the sole purpose of prejudicing their ability to adequately respond to the Motion to Compel. This assertion has no merit. The urgency is real, and the Zeisler-Represented Parties have plenty of time and ability to respond to the Motion to Compel on the timetable the Trustee has proposed.\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein adopt the definitions set forth in the Motion to Compel.\n\n4. As the Court knows, the Trustee—through the first nearly four months of his appointment—has needed to scratch and claw at every turn to obtain cooperation from the Individual Debtor and his relatives and advisors with respect to the Trustee's investigation. The Trustee has already been before the Court on, among other things, contested Rule 2004 motions, disputes relating to the Individual Debtor's erroneous privilege assertions, and disputes seeking to hold the Individual Debtor in contempt of Court for failing to comply with his obligations to cooperate with the Trustee under existing orders of the Court and the Bankruptcy Code, including section 521(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n5. To give a late-breaking example of the Individual Debtor's obstructionist conduct, this afternoon the Trustee received an email from the Individual Debtor's counsel in this case stating that such counsel is not authorized to accept service on behalf of the Individual Debtor of the recognition papers the Trustee has filed in the United Kingdom to facilitate his request for documents from the Individual Debtor's UK counsel in the UBS litigation. This response is perfectly consistent with the Individual Debtor's ongoing strategy of making everything as difficult for the Trustee as possible.<sup>3</sup>\n\n6. If the Trustee were forced to proceed on regular notice every time he needs to seek relief from the Court relating to the Individual Debtor's obstructionist tactics, the Trustee would practically never make progress in this case and the Individual Debtor would be rewarded for his improper conduct.<sup>4</sup>\n\n<sup>3</sup> Indeed, it was counsel to the Individual Debtor that had insisted at the August 4, 2022 hearing that the Trustee must seek such recognition, only to now refuse to accept service of the very recognition application. See Aug. 4, 2022 Hr'g Tr. at 11:16-19 (\"There's a right way to do this, Your Honor, I think. Mr. Despins needs to take steps to have himself recognized as a party in the U.K. action and that privilege issue then I think needs to be worked through.\").\n\n<sup>4</sup> The Court has recognized this concern in the past, including when it issued the Privileges Order, which set out a mechanism for resolving issues related to the Individual Debtor's privilege assertions on an expedited basis.\n\n7. The Zeisler-Represented Parties contend in their objection that the Trustee could have filed the Motion to Compel in late September after initial meet-and-confer discussions occurred. As explained in the Motion to Expedite (and in the Motion to Compel), however, the Trustee has been in continuing discussions with the Zeisler-Represented Parties and other subpoena recipients over the last month on issues related to the assertion of privileges and other document production issues. As these discussions evolved, the relief the Trustee intended to seek via the Motion to Compel remained a moving target. The Trustee thus chose to wait for certain of these discussions to conclude before filing the Motion to Compel so as to avoid burdening the Court with multiple, overlapping motions. The Trustee's decision turned out to be a sound one, as he was able to resolve his disputes with certain parties that are not subjects of the Motion to Compel.\n\n8. Regardless, the timetable the Trustee has now proposed for resolving the Motion to Compel is not prejudicial to the Zeisler-Represented Parties. By their own admission, the Zeisler-Represented Parties have been well aware of the issues raised by the Motion to Compel—including their refusal to search for documents related to assets not owned by the Individual Debtor, the Individual Debtor's refusal to search the files of his advisors and other professionals, and the Individual Debtor's general failure to conduct an adequate search for responsive documents—for over a month. The Zeisler-Represented Parties know full well what positions they are going to take in response to these issues, and they should have no problem articulating them in an objection to the Court on five days' notice.\n\n9. The Zeisler-Represented Parties attempt to erect another strawman by arguing that the discovery underlying the Motion to Compel is not relevant to the prejudgment attachment and preliminary injunction hearing (collectively, the \"PJR Hearing\") scheduled to commence on\n\n4\n\nNovember 30, 2022. While the Trustee, HK USA, and Mei Guo have agreed among themselves on a schedule for discovery related to the PJR Hearing, the Trustee never said he would not use documents he is seeking in parallel in his ongoing Rule 2004 investigation. In fact, it should be obvious that he *does* intend to do so given that his subpoenas pursuant to the Rule 2004 motion plainly seek information directly relevant to issues that will be heard and resolved at the PJR Hearing.\n\n10. Similarly unavailing is the Zeisler-Represented Parties' suggestion that they should be excused from compliance with the Rule 2004 Subpoenas because the Trustee has obtained some discovery from third parties (including certain of the Individual Debtor's former counsel). First, the Individual Debtor's conduct with respect to, among others, Brown Rudnick LLP, reflects that documents obtained elsewhere have not been thanks to the Individual Debtor's help but rather despite his obstruction and interference. Further, while other parties have been producing documents, the Individual Debtor himself has produced virtually no documents to date and, of course, his documents are likely the most centrally relevant to the Trustee's investigation. The documents specifically addressed in the Motion to Compel—*i.e.*, documents related to potential estate assets in the hands of third parties—are exactly the types of documents the Trustee urgently needs to make progress in his investigation.\n\n11. Finally, the Individual Debtor's alleged attempts to negotiate a potential consensual resolution of this case with certain stakeholders provides even more reason to expedite determination of the Motion to Compel. To the extent a settlement is proposed, it must be evaluated in light of all the evidence available, including, in particular, the information the Trustee is seeking in the Motion to Compel. The Trustee, other parties-in-interest, and ultimately the Court cannot assess the veracity of the Individual Debtor's representations regarding his financial\n\n5\n\ncondition unless the Zeisler-Represented Parties produce documents related to the assets they claim to be owned by the Individual Debtor's family and family office—*i.e.*, the very instruments he has been found to use to obscure his holdings. So long as the Individual Debtor can continue to hide the location of his assets, he has no incentive to come clean and take meaningful steps to repay his creditors.\n\n12. Moreover, the Individual Debtor's mention of settlement discussions as a basis for denying the Motion to Expedite is precious, coming from the person who is an expert in breaching settlements he has previously executed. Apparently now, the Individual Debtor thinks he can simply utter the words \"possible global resolution\" and suspend the Trustee's investigation and all progress in this chapter 11 case. The Court knows that the Trustee will explore all potential settlements in good faith, but the Court should also know that it is the Trustee's progress in the case thus far that has forced the Individual Debtor to consider the reality that he will not get away with the schemes that the New York Supreme Court has found he engaged in to hide his assets. It would be entirely counter-productive and, to state it bluntly, naïve, to believe that it is in the interest of the estate to put the chapter 11 case on hold and hope for the best from the Individual Debtor. Indeed, time and again, from proceeding to proceeding, the Individual Debtor's conduct reflects that he responds not to trust or warnings but only to a firm hand and tangible consequences.\n\n#### **REPLY TO THE HCN/GLL OBJECTION**\n\n13. HCN/GLL suggest that the consent order they reached with the Trustee [Docket No. 1022] (the \"Consent Order\") obviates the need to resolve their pending objections as discussed in the Motion to Compel. HCN/GLL are wrong. Rather, the Consent Order calls for the production of documents on November 8, 2022, but it does not resolve HCN/GLL's objection (as expressed in meet-and-confer discussions) to searching for documents related to assets held by non-debtors as the other Noncompliant Respondents.\n\n14. In fact, when HCN/GLL and the Trustee negotiated the Consent Order, Trustee's counsel specifically asked HCN/GLL's counsel whether HCN/GLL continued to stand on their objection. After HCN/GLL's counsel answered in the affirmative, Trustee's counsel stated that HCN/GLL would be included in the Trustee's Motion to Compel. HCN/GLL's counsel never suggested that the Consent Order would somehow prevent or delay adjudication of the objection. Accordingly, that issue is ripe for decision.\n\n15. Further, even if the circumstances surrounding the Trustee's discussions with HCN/GLL were different because of the consent order or otherwise (they are not), it would be highly inefficient for the Court to hear the Motion to Compel relating to the other Noncompliant Respondents on a separate schedule when it involves the exact same issue. Rather, this issue should be determined now so that HCN/GLL's production includes all documents to which the Trustee is entitled—not merely those that they deign to produce.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor all of these reasons, and those discussed in the Motion to Expedite, it is important that the Motion to Compel be promptly adjudicated. The Trustee therefore respectfully requests that the Motion to Expedite be granted by entry of the proposed order filed therewith.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\nDated: November 1, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*  Douglas 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 *(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 *(pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice*) 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*\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                             | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |  |\n| Debtors.1                                                        | :<br>:      | Jointly Administered    |  |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |  |  |\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on November 1, 2022, the foregoing Motion was\n\nelectronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned\n\nchapter 11 case able to receive electronic notice by operation of the Court's electronic filing\n\n(\"CM/ECF\") system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\n| Dated: | November 1, 2022       | LUC A. DESPINS,    |  |\n|--------|------------------------|--------------------|--|\n|        | New Haven, Connecticut | CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |  |\n|        |                        |                    |  |\n|        |                        |                    |  |\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*  Douglas 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\n<sup>1</sup> The 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) (the \"Individual Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Genever BVI Debtor\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever BVI Debtor 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\nNicholas A. Bassett *(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 *(pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice*) 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":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\nx\n\n案件涉及： :\n: 第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人， :\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1 :\n: 联合审理\n\nx\n第11章受托人依据《破产规则》第9006(c)(1)条对要求加快审理第11章受托人申请签发命令强制债务人、MEI GUO（郭美）、HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC、HING CHI NGOK（岳庆芝）、GREENWICH LAND LLC、LAMP CAPITAL LLC 以及 GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD. 遵守《规则》第2004条传票的动议的异议的回复\n\n个人债务人第11章案件中的第11章受托人Luc A. Despins（下称“受托人”）特此恭敬地提交其回复（下称“回复”），以支持其《依据〈破产规则〉第9006(c)(1)条加快审理第11章受托人申请签发命令强制债务人、Mei Guo、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC、Hing Chi Ngok、Greenwich Land LLC、Lamp Capital LLC 及 Gold Spring (New York) Ltd. 遵守〈规则〉第2004条传票的动议》[案卷号 1048]（下称“加急动议”），并回应个人债务人、Mei Guo 及 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 对此提交的异议 [案卷号 1050]（下称“Zeisler代理当事方\n\n1 这些第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称为郭文贵、Miles Guo 以及 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）（下称“个人债务人”）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（下称“Genever BVI 债务人”）。受托人和 Genever BVI 债务人的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于通知与联络目的）。\n\n异议”）以及 Hing Chi Ngok（即被指为个人债务人妻子的人士）和 Greenwich Land LLC 提交的异议 [案卷号 1055]（下称“HCN/GLL异议”）。\n受托人的强制执行动议\n\n1. 加急动议请求法院就《第11章受托人申请签发命令强制债务人、Mei Guo、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC、Hing Chi Ngok、Greenwich Land LLC、Lamp Capital LLC 及 Gold Spring (New York) Ltd. 遵守〈规则〉第2004条传票的动议》[案卷号 1046]（下称“强制动议”）安排在下周举行加急听证会，该强制动议反过来除其他事项外，请求法院强制包括个人债务人、Mei Guo 以及 HK USA（合称“Zeisler代理当事方”）和 Ngok 与 Greenwich Land（合称“HCN/GLL”）在内的利害关系方遵守受托人的《规则》第2004条传票。2\n\n2. 正如在强制动议中所详述的那样，Zeisler代理当事方和 HCN/GLL 持续不履行其遵守《规则》第2004条传票的义务，已经延误并阻碍了受托人的调查——这与受托人获任命以来个人债务人及其同盟者的行为如出一辙。\n对ZEISLER代理当事方异议的回复\n\n3. Zeisler代理当事方声称受托人制造虚假的紧急情况，其唯一目的是损害他们充分回应强制动议的能力。这一主张毫无事实依据。紧迫性是真实的，且 Zeisler代理当事方完全有充足的时间和能力在受托人提出的时间表内对强制动议作出回应。\n\n2 本文中未作其他定义的首字母大写术语均采用强制动议中所述的定义。\n\n4. 诚如法院所知，受托人在其获任命的最初近四个月里，在每一个关头都必须费尽周折，才能在受托人的调查方面获得个人债务人及其亲属和顾问的配合。受托人此前就已因多项事宜出庭，其中包括有争议的《规则》第2004条动议、涉及个人债务人错误主张特权的争议，以及因个人债务人未能遵守法院现有命令及《破产法典》（包括《破产法典》第521(a)(3)条）项下与受托人配合的义务而请求裁定个人债务人蔑视法庭的争议。\n\n5. 举一个个人债务人阻挠行为的最新例证：今天下午，受托人收到个人债务人在本案中的律师发来的电子邮件，声称该律师未获授权代表个人债务人接收受托人在英国提起的承认程序文件的送达，该文件系受托人为了便于向个人债务人在 UBS 诉讼中的英国律师调取文件而提交的。这一回应完全符合个人债务人一贯企图让受托人的所有工作都尽可能陷入困境的策略。3\n\n6. 如果受托人每次针对个人债务人的阻挠手段向法院寻求救济时都被迫走常规通知程序，受托人在本案中实际上将寸步难行，而个人债务人的不当行为反而会受到纵容。4\n\n3 事实上，正是在 2022年8月4日 的听证会上，个人债务人的律师坚称受托人必须寻求此类承认，结果现在却拒绝接受该承认申请本身的送达。见 2022年8月4日 听证会记录第 11:16-19 行（“法官阁下，我认为有正确的处理方式。Despins 先生需要采取措施让自己在英国诉讼中被承认为当事方，然后我认为那一特权问题需要得到解决。”）。\n\n4 法院过去曾认识到这一令人担忧的问题，包括在签发《特权命令》时，该命令规定了一项在加急基础上解决与个人债务人特权主张相关问题的机制。\n\n7. Zeisler代理当事方在其异议中主张，受托人在九月下旬初步会商讨论发生后本就可以提交强制动议。然而，正如加急动议（以及强制动议）中所解释的，过去一个月里，受托人一直就特权主张及其他文件提供问题与 Zeisler代理当事方和其他传票接收方进行持续讨论。随着这些讨论的推进，受托人打算通过强制动议寻求的救济范围始终处于动态变化之中。因此，受托人选择等待其中某些讨论结束后再提交强制动议，以避免因多项重叠的动议而增加法院的负担。事实证明受托人的决定是合理的，因为他成功解决了与某些并未列为强制动议对象的当事方之间的争议。\n\n8. 不论如何，受托人目前提议的解决强制动议的时间表并没有损害 Zeisler代理当事方的利益。根据他们自己的承认，Zeisler代理当事方在一个多月前就已经充分知悉强制动议所提出的各项问题——包括他们拒绝搜查与非个人债务人拥有的资产相关的文件、个人债务人拒绝搜查其顾问及其他专业人士的档案，以及个人债务人普遍未能对符合要求的应交文件进行充分搜查。Zeisler代理当事方对其在回应这些问题时将采取何种立场心知肚明，他们完全能够在提前五天通知的情况下毫无困难地向法院提交异议并陈述这些立场。\n\n9. Zeisler代理当事方试图树立另一个稻草人谬论，声称强制动议所涉及的证据开示与定于 2022年11月30日 开始的判决前扣押及初步禁令听证会（合称“PJR听证会”）无关。虽然受托人、HK USA 和 Mei Guo 之间已就与 PJR 听证会相关的证据开示时间表达成一致，但受托人从未表示不会使用其在正在进行的《规则》第2004条调查中并行索取的文件。事实上，他确实打算这样做应当是不言自明的，因为他依据《规则》第2004条动议发出的传票显然是在索取与将在 PJR 听证会上接受审理并解决的问题直接相关的信息。\n\n10. 同样站不住脚的是 Zeisler代理当事方的如下主张：由于受托人已从第三方（包括个人债务人的某些前律师）处获得了部分证据开示，因此他们应当被免除遵守《规则》第2004条传票的义务。首先，个人债务人对待 Brown Rudnick LLP 等机构的行为表明，从其他渠道获取的文件绝非由于个人债务人的协助，而是在他百般阻挠和干预的情况下取得的。此外，虽然其他当事方一直在提供文件，但个人债务人本人迄今为止几乎没有提供任何文件，当然，他的文件极可能是与受托人调查最为核心相关的文件。强制动议中明确涉及的文件——即与第三方持有的潜在破产财产资产相关的文件——正是受托人为了推进其调查所急需的文件类型。\n\n11. 最后，个人债务人所称的试图与某些利益相关方协商本案潜在和解方案的举动，更为加急裁定强制动议提供了更充分的理由。只要有和解方案被提出，就必须根据所有可获得的证据进行评估，特别是包括受托人在强制动议中所索取的信息。受托人、其他利害关系方以及最终的法院，均无法评估个人债务人关于其财务状况陈述的真实性，除非 Zeisler代理当事方提供与他们声称属于个人债务人家族及家族办公室所有的资产相关的文件——而这恰恰是他已被认定用来隐匿其资产的工具。只要个人债务人能够继续隐匿其资产的位置，他就没有任何动力如实交待并采取实质性步骤偿还其债权人。\n\n12. 此外，个人债务人将和解讨论作为驳回加急动议的依据，这由一个违约自己先前所签和解协议的“惯犯”说出来实在可笑。显然，个人债务人现在认为他只要说出“潜在的一揽子解决方案”这几个字，就能中止受托人的调查以及本第11章案件中的一切进展。法院深知受托人会秉持善意探讨所有潜在的和解方案，但法院也应当知道，正是受托人迄今为止在该案件中取得的进展，迫使个人债务人不得不面对现实：他将无法逃脱 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）已裁定他所参与的隐匿资产的种种伎俩。如果认为搁置第11章案件并对个人债务人抱以最好期望符合破产财产的利益，那将是彻底适得其反的，直白地说，是天真的。事实上，从一个诉讼程序到另一个诉讼程序，个人债务人的行为一次又一次地表明，他所回应的绝非信任或警告，而只有强硬的手段和切实可见的后果。\n对HCN/GLL异议的回复\n\n13. HCN/GLL 称其与受托人（Trustee）达成的合意命令［Docket No. 1022］（以下简称《合意命令》（\"Consent Order\"））免除了解决《强迫履行动议》（Motion to Compel）中所讨论的其尚未决异议的必要性。HCN/GLL 的说法是错误的。相反，《合意命令》要求在 November 8, 2022 提供文件，但并未解决 HCN/GLL（在会商讨论中表达的）针对像其他未合规答辩人一样对非债务人所持资产相关文件进行检索的异议。\n\n14. 事实上，当 HCN/GLL 与受托人协商《合意命令》时，受托人律师曾明确询问 HCN/GLL 的律师是否继续坚持其异议。在 HCN/GLL 的律师给予肯定回答后，受托人律师表示 HCN/GLL 将被列入受托人的《强迫履行动议》中。HCN/GLL 的律师从未表示过《合意命令》会以某种方式阻止或延迟对该异议的裁决。因此，该问题已成熟至可作出裁决的阶段。\n\n15. 此外，即使受托人与 HCN/GLL 之间的讨论情况因合意命令或其他原因而有所不同（事实并非如此），鉴于涉及完全相同的问题，法院在单独的时间表中审理涉及其他未合规答辩人的《强迫履行动议》也将是极其低效的。相反，该问题应立即予以裁定，以便 HCN/GLL 提供的文件涵盖受托人有权获得的所有文件——而不仅仅是他们屈尊愿意提供的文件。\n\n结论\n\n基于所有这些理由以及《加急动议》（Motion to Expedite）中所讨论的理由，迅速对《强迫履行动议》作出裁决至关重要。因此，受托人谨请求通过签署随附提交的拟议裁定，批准《加急动议》。\n\n［本页其余部分有意留白。］\n\n日期：November 1, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），Connecticut（康涅狄格州）New Haven 第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey  Douglas 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以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (pro hac vice) PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所） 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft (pro hac vice) Douglass Barron (pro hac vice) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人律师\n\nUNITED 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院）\n\nx\n\n关于： :\n: 第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， :\n:\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1 :\n: 联合审理\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n送达证明\n\n下述签署人特此证明，于 November 1, 2022，上述动议已完成电子提交。本提交事项的通知已通过电子邮件发送给上述标题所列第 11 章案件中所有能够通过本院电子提交系统（\"CM/ECF\"）接收电子通知的各方当事人。各方当事人可通过本院 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n日期：November 1, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS，\n\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州）New Haven 第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey  Douglas 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以及\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称为 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他多个化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）（以下简称「个人债务人」）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（以下简称「Genever BVI 债务人」）。受托人和 Genever BVI 债务人的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知和联络之目的）。\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (pro hac vice) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft (pro hac vice) Douglass Barron (pro hac vice) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人律师","key_entities":["Je","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2587,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:22:06"}