{"id":"court_ctb_1061_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1061,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-11-02","title":"EXHIBIT A","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT**\n\n**A**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1061-1 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 16:17:29 Page 2 of 12\n\n### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| __________________________________________ | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|\n| In re | :
:
Chapter 11 |\n| HO WON KWOK, | :
:
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.
__________________________________________: | :
: |\n\n## **REVISED PRIVILEGE LOG DOCUMENTS OF VERDOLINO & LOWEY AND BROWN RUDNICK**\n\n| Bates | Date | Custodia | Type of | Parties | Subject | Claimed | Personal Harm |\n|-------|----------|----------------------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | n | Document | | | Privilege | |\n| None | 10/19/21 | Verdolino
& Lowey | Agreement | Golden Spring
(New York)
Ltd., Kwok Ho
Wan, Ace
Decade
Holdings
Limited and
Dawn State | Litigation
Funding | Attorney-Work
Product.1 | The withheld document
relates to an action
pending in the United
Kingdom styled Kwok
Ho Wan v. UBS AG,
Claim No. CL-2020-
000345 (High Court of
Justice Business and |\n| | | | | Limited | | | Property Courts of |\n| | | | | | | | England and
Wales |\n| | | | | | | | Commercial Court)
(the |\n\n1 *See Cont'l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp*, 435 F. Supp. 3d 1014, 1021 (D. AZ 2020) (concluding that litigation funding agreements were prepared because of litigation and therefore constitute attorney work product). *See also Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC v. Seagate Tech (US) Holdings, Inc.*, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215773, \\*16-\\*17 (W.D. Pa, Jan. 18, 2018) (holding that communications with litigation funders and funding agreement are work product and denying motion to compel the production of same).\n\n| | | | \"UK Action\"). The |\n|--|--|--|----------------------------|\n| | | | Bankruptcy Court's |\n| | | | September 14, 2022, |\n| | | | Consent Order |\n| | | | Regarding Control of |\n| | | | Attorney-Client |\n| | | | Privilege and Work |\n| | | | Product Protection |\n| | | | Related to Rule 2004 |\n| | | | Subpoenaed
Documents |\n| | | | and Information (the |\n| | | | \"Privilege Order\") |\n| | | | specifically recognizes |\n| | | | that the Debtor may |\n| | | | have privileges under |\n| | | | the laws of the United |\n| | | | Kingdom that could be |\n| | | | asserted
by the Debtor |\n| | | | in the UK Action. See |\n| | | | Privilege Order, at sec. |\n| | | | 9. The Debtor has thus |\n| | | | withheld
this document |\n| | | | from
production for the |\n| | | | express purpose of |\n| | | | ensuring that he is |\n| | | | preserving, and not |\n| | | | waiving, any privilege |\n| | | | that he may have
to |\n| | | | assert against production |\n| | | | or disclosure
of the |\n| | | | same document in the |\n| | | | UK Action. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1061-1 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 16:17:29 Page 4 of 12\n\n| BR_ | 10/19/21 | Brown | Agreement | Golden Spring | Litigation | Attorney-Work | The withheld document |\n|----------|----------|---------|-----------|-------------------|------------|------------------|----------------------------|\n| KWOK | | Rudnick | | (New York) | Funding | Product; | relates to the UK |\n| 00020991 | | | | Ltd., Kwok Ho | | Common Interest | Action. The
Privilege |\n| | | | | Wan, Ace | | | Order
specifically |\n| | | | | Decade | | | recognizes that the |\n| | | | | Holdings | | | Debtor may have |\n| | | | | Limited and | | | privileges under the |\n| | | | | Dawn State | | | laws of the United |\n| | | | | Limited | | | Kingdom that could be |\n| | | | | | | | asserted
by the Debtor |\n| | | | | | | | in the UK Action. See |\n| | | | | | | | Privilege Order, at sec. |\n| | | | | | | | 9. The Debtor has thus |\n| | | | | | | | withheld
this document |\n| | | | | | | | from
production for the |\n| | | | | | | | express purpose of |\n| | | | | | | | ensuring that he is |\n| | | | | | | | preserving, and not |\n| | | | | | | | waiving, any privilege |\n| | | | | | | | that he may have
to |\n| | | | | | | | assert against production |\n| | | | | | | | or disclosure
of the |\n| | | | | | | | same document in the |\n| | | | | | | | UK Action. |\n| BR_ | 3/9/22 | Brown | Email | Melissa Francis, | Advice | Attorney-Client. | The withheld document |\n| KWOK | | Rudnick | Thread | Esq.,
Jennifer | regarding | | relates to advice from |\n| 00028970 | | | | Morrisey, | litigation | | counsel representing the |\n| | | | | Damon Parker, | fees and | | Debtor in UK Action |\n| | | | | Edward | the | | and the impact
that the |\n| | | | | Argles,2 | potential | | production of a |\n\n2 Ms. Morrisey, Mr. Parker and Mr. Argles are, or were at the time of the email, professionals employed by Harcus Parker Limited, the Debtor's UK counsel in the UK Action.\n\n| | | | | Bennett
Silverberg,
Esq., Aaron
Mitchell,
Esq.,
and Robert
Stark, Esq. | harm to the
Debtor in
the UK
Action of
the
production
of the UBS
litigation
funding
agreement
in response
to
discovery
requests
made to the
Debtor in
his
Bankruptcy
case. | | document in the
Debtor's Bankruptcy
case could have on the
Debtor in the UK
Action.
The
Privilege
Order
specifically
recognizes that the
Debtor may have
privileges under the
laws of the United
Kingdom that could be
asserted
by the Debtor
in the UK Action. See
Privilege Order, at sec.
9. The Debtor has thus
withheld
this document
from
production for the
express purpose of
ensuring that he is
preserving, and not
waiving, any privilege
that he may have
to
assert against production
or disclosure of the
same document in the
UK Action. |\n|-----------------------------------|--------|------------------|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| BR_
KWOK
00028562;
22535 | 3/3/22 | Brown
Rudnick | Invoice | Lalive SA –
Debtor's Swiss
counsel in
connection with
UBS action. | Invoice | Attorney-Client
(privilege may be
governed by
Swiss law) | The withheld document
is an invoice from
counsel representing the
Debtor in an action
pending in Switzerland
which action was filed
solely to preserve the |\n\n| | | | Debtor's rights to |\n|--|--|--|-----------------------------|\n| | | | pursue UBS in |\n| | | | Switzerland in the event |\n| | | | that a motion filed in the |\n| | | | UK
Action to move the |\n| | | | case from the UK to |\n| | | | Switzerland was |\n| | | | granted, it was not. The |\n| | | | case filed in |\n| | | | Switzerland,
and to |\n| | | | which the invoice |\n| | | | relates, is effectively the |\n| | | | same case as the UK |\n| | | | Action. The
Privilege |\n| | | | Order
specifically |\n| | | | recognizes that the |\n| | | | Debtor may have |\n| | | | privileges under the |\n| | | | laws of the United |\n| | | | Kingdom that could be |\n| | | | asserted
by the Debtor |\n| | | | in the UK Action. See |\n| | | | Privilege Order, at sec. |\n| | | | 9. The Debtor has thus |\n| | | | withheld
this document |\n| | | | from
production for the |\n| | | | express purpose of |\n| | | | ensuring that he is |\n| | | | preserving, and not |\n| | | | waiving, any privilege |\n| | | | that he may have
to |\n| | | | assert against production |\n| | | | or disclosure
of the |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1061-1 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 16:17:29 Page 7 of\n\n| | | | | | | | same document in the
UK Action, whether
under UK law or Swiss
law. |\n|-------------------------|--------|------------------|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| BR_
KWOK
00027065 | 3/9/22 | Brown
Rudnick | Email
Thread | Melissa Francis,
Esq.,
Jennifer
Morrisey,
Damon Parker,
Edward Argles,
Bennett
Silverberg,
Esq., Aaron
Mitchell, Esq.,
and Robert
Stark, Esq. | Advice
regarding
litigation
fees and
the
potential
harm to the
Debtor in
the UK
Action of
the
production
of the UBS
litigation
funding
agreement
in response
to
discovery
requests
made to the
Debtor in
his
Bankruptcy
case. | Attorney-Client. | The withheld document
relates to advice from
counsel representing the
Debtor in UK Action
and the impact
that the
production of a
document in the
Debtor's Bankruptcy
case could have on the
Debtor in the UK
Action.
The
Privilege
Order
specifically
recognizes that the
Debtor may have
privileges under the
laws of the United
Kingdom that could be
asserted
by the Debtor
in the UK Action. See
Privilege Order, at sec.
9. The Debtor has thus
withheld
this document
from
production for the
express purpose of
ensuring that he is
preserving, and not
waiving, any privilege
that he may have
to |\n| | | | | | | | assert against production |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1061-1 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 16:17:29 Page 8 of\n\n| | | | | | | | or disclosure of the |\n|----------|---------|---------|--------|-------------------|-------------|------------------|------------------------------|\n| | | | | | | | same document in the |\n| | | | | | | | UK Action. |\n| BR_ | 3/17/22 | Brown | Email | Melissa Francis, | Comments | Attorney-Client. | The withheld document |\n| KWOK | | Rudnick | Thread | Esq.,
Jennifer | from the | | relates to advice from |\n| 00023917 | | | | Morrisey, | Debtor's | | counsel representing the |\n| | | | | Edward Argles, | UK Action | | Debtor in UK Action |\n| | | | | Bennett | counsel | | regarding disclosures
to |\n| | | | | Silverberg, | regarding | | be made by the Debtor |\n| | | | | Esq., | the | | in his Bankruptcy Court |\n| | | | | | description | | filings related to the
UK |\n| | | | | | of the UK | | Action. The
Privilege |\n| | | | | | Action to | | Order
specifically |\n| | | | | | be utilized | | recognizes that the |\n| | | | | | in the | | Debtor may have |\n| | | | | | Debtor's | | privileges under the |\n| | | | | | affidavit | | laws of the United |\n| | | | | | and other | | Kingdom that could be |\n| | | | | | Bankruptcy | | asserted
by the Debtor |\n| | | | | | Court | | in the UK Action. See |\n| | | | | | filings. | | Privilege Order, at sec. |\n| | | | | | | | 9. The Debtor has thus |\n| | | | | | | | withheld
this document |\n| | | | | | | | from
production for the |\n| | | | | | | | express purpose of |\n| | | | | | | | ensuring that he is |\n| | | | | | | | preserving, and not |\n| | | | | | | | waiving, any privilege |\n| | | | | | | | that he may have
to |\n| | | | | | | | assert against production |\n| | | | | | | | or disclosure of the |\n| | | | | | | | same document in the |\n| | | | | | | | UK Action. |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1061-1 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 16:17:29 Page 9 of\n\n| BR_ | 3/17/22 | Brown | Email | Melissa Francis, | Comments | Attorney-Client. | The withheld document |\n|----------|---------|---------|--------|-------------------|-------------|------------------|------------------------------|\n| KWOK | | Rudnick | Thread | Esq.,
Jennifer | from the | | relates to advice from |\n| 00023528 | | | | Morrisey, | Debtor's | | counsel representing the |\n| | | | | Edward Argles, | UK Action | | Debtor in UK Action |\n| | | | | Bennett | counsel | | regarding disclosures
to |\n| | | | | Silverberg, | regarding | | be made by the Debtor |\n| | | | | Esq., | the | | in his Bankruptcy Court |\n| | | | | | description | | filings related to the
UK |\n| | | | | | of the UK | | Action. The
Privilege |\n| | | | | | Action to | | Order
specifically |\n| | | | | | be utilized | | recognizes that the |\n| | | | | | in the | | Debtor may have |\n| | | | | | Debtor's | | privileges under the |\n| | | | | | affidavit | | laws of the United |\n| | | | | | and other | | Kingdom that could be |\n| | | | | | Bankruptcy | | asserted
by the Debtor |\n| | | | | | Court | | in the UK Action. See |\n| | | | | | filings. | | Privilege Order, at sec. |\n| | | | | | | | 9. The Debtor has thus |\n| | | | | | | | withheld
this document |\n| | | | | | | | from
production for the |\n| | | | | | | | express purpose of |\n| | | | | | | | ensuring that he is |\n| | | | | | | | preserving, and not |\n| | | | | | | | waiving, any privilege |\n| | | | | | | | that he may have
to |\n| | | | | | | | assert against production |\n| | | | | | | | or disclosure of the |\n| | | | | | | | same document in the |\n| | | | | | | | UK Action. |\n| BR_ | 3/17/22 | Brown | Email | Melissa Francis, | Comments | Attorney-Client. | The withheld document |\n| KWOK | | Rudnick | Thread | Esq., Jennifer | from the | | relates to advice from |\n| 00021709 | | | | Morrisey, | Debtor's | | counsel representing the |\n\n| Edward Argles, | UK Action | |\n|----------------|-----------|--|\n| Bennett | counsel | |\n\n| Debtor in UK Action |\n|------------------------------|\n| regarding disclosures
to |\n| be made by the Debtor |\n| in his Bankruptcy Court |\n| filings related to the
UK |\n| Action. The
Privilege |\n| Order
specifically |\n| recognizes that the |\n| Debtor may have |\n| privileges under the |\n| laws of the United |\n| Kingdom that could be |\n| asserted
by the Debtor |\n| in the UK Action. See |\n| Privilege Order, at sec. |\n| 9. The Debtor has thus |\n| withheld
this document |\n| from
production for the |\n| express purpose of |\n| ensuring that he is |\n| preserving, and not |\n| waiving, any privilege |\n| that he may have
to |\n| |\n\n| | | | | Silverberg,
Esq., | regarding
the
description
of the UK
Action to
be utilized
in the
Debtor's
affidavit
and other
Bankruptcy
Court
filings. | | be made by the Debtor
in his Bankruptcy Court
filings related to the
UK
Action. The
Privilege
Order
specifically
recognizes that the
Debtor may have
privileges under the
laws of the United
Kingdom that could be
asserted
by the Debtor
in the UK Action. See
Privilege Order, at sec.
9. The Debtor has thus
withheld
this document
from
production for the
express purpose of
ensuring that he is
preserving, and not
waiving, any privilege
that he may have
to
assert against production
or disclosure of the
same document in the
UK Action. |\n|-------------------------|---------|------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| BR_
KWOK
00021713 | 3/17/22 | Brown
Rudnick | Attachment
to email | Jennifer
Morrisey,
Edward Argles, | Comments
from the
Debtor's
UK Action
counsel
regarding | Attorney-Client | The withheld document
relates to advice from
counsel representing the
Debtor in UK Action
regarding disclosures
to
be made by the Debtor |\n\n| | | | | | the
description
of the UK
Action to
be utilized
in the
Debtor's
affidavit
and other
Bankruptcy
Court
filings. | | in his Bankruptcy Court
filings related to the
UK
Action. The
Privilege
Order
specifically
recognizes that the
Debtor may have
privileges under the
laws of the United
Kingdom that could be
asserted
by the Debtor
in the UK Action. See
Privilege Order, at sec.
9. The Debtor has thus
withheld
this document
from
production for the
express purpose of
ensuring that he is
preserving, and not
waiving, any privilege
that he may have
to
assert against production
or disclosure of the
same document in the
UK Action. |\n|-------------------------|---------|------------------|-------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| BR_
KWOK
00011133 | 5/10/22 | Brown
Rudnick | Email | William R.
Baldaga, Esq.,
Melissa Francis,
Esq., Bennett
Silverberg,
Esq.,
Jeffrey
Jonas, Esq.,
taxelrod@
brownrudnick.c | Advice
concerning
effect
of
dismissal
of
bankruptcy
case on
future
bankruptcy | Attorney-Client | The privileged advice in
the redacted portion
of
the email does not relate
to Investigation
Topics
as that term is defined in
the Privilege Order and
no showing of personal
harm is required to
withhold the document |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1061-1 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 16:17:29 Page 12 of 12\n\n| om (BCC), | filings. | on the basis of attorney |\n|---------------|-------------|--------------------------|\n| kaulet@brownr | (requires | client privilege. |\n| udnick.com | redaction). | |\n| (BCC) | | |","body_zh":"证据附件\n\nA\n\n案件 22-50073；文书 1061-1；提交 11/02/22；录入 11/02/22 16:17:29；第 2 页，共 12 页\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分部）\n\n关于：\nHO WON KWOK（郭文贵），\n债务人。\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nVERDOLINO & LOWEY（韦尔多利诺与洛伊律师事务所）和 BROWN RUDNICK（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）修订后的特权日志文件\n\n贝茨编号　日期　保管人　文件类型　当事人　主题　主张的特权　个人损害\n\n无　10/19/21　Verdolino & Lowey　协议　Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）、Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）、Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯迪凯德控股有限公司）及 Dawn State Limited（道恩州有限公司）　诉讼资助　律师工作成果。1　被扣留文件涉及一宗在英国待决、案名为 Kwok Ho Wan v. UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）、Claim No. CL-2020-000345、由 High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Commercial Court（英格兰和威尔士高等法院商事法院）审理的诉讼（以下简称“英国诉讼”）。破产法院 2022 年 9 月 14 日作出的《关于与 Rule 2004 传唤文件及信息有关的律师—委托人特权和工作成果保护控制权的同意命令》（以下简称“特权令”）明确承认，债务人可能享有英国法律下的特权，并可由债务人在英国诉讼中主张。见特权令，第 9 节。因此，债务人为明确确保其保留而非放弃其可能享有的、可针对在英国诉讼中出示或披露同一文件而主张的任何特权，未将该文件用于出示。\n\n1 见 Cont'l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp, 435 F. Supp. 3d 1014, 1021 (D. AZ 2020)（认定诉讼资助协议系因诉讼而准备，因而构成律师工作成果）。另见 Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC v. Seagate Tech (US) Holdings, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215773，第 *16-*17 页 (W.D. Pa, Jan. 18, 2018)（认定与诉讼资助人之间的通信及资助协议属于工作成果，并驳回强制出示该等材料的动议）。\n\n案件 22-50073；文书 1061-1；提交 11/02/22；录入 11/02/22 16:17:29；第 4 页，共 12 页\n\nBR_KWOK00020991　10/19/21　Brown Rudnick　协议　Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.、Kwok Ho Wan、Ace Decade Holdings Limited 及 Dawn State Limited　诉讼资助　律师工作成果；共同利益特权　被扣留文件涉及英国诉讼。特权令明确承认，债务人可能享有英国法律下的特权，并可由债务人在英国诉讼中主张。见特权令，第 9 节。因此，债务人为明确确保其保留而非放弃其可能享有的、可针对在英国诉讼中出示或披露同一文件而主张的任何特权，未将该文件用于出示。\n\nBR_KWOK00028970　3/9/22　Brown Rudnick　电子邮件串　Melissa Francis, Esq.（梅利莎·弗朗西斯律师）、Jennifer Morrisey（詹妮弗·莫里西）、Damon Parker（达蒙·帕克）、Edward Argles（爱德华·阿格尔斯）、Bennett Silverberg, Esq.（贝内特·西尔弗伯格律师）、Aaron Mitchell, Esq.（亚伦·米切尔律师）及 Robert Stark, Esq.（罗伯特·斯塔克律师）　关于诉讼费用，以及因应债务人在其破产案件中收到的证据开示请求而出示 UBS 诉讼资助协议，可能对债务人在英国诉讼中造成的损害的意见　律师—委托人特权。　被扣留文件涉及代表债务人参与英国诉讼的律师提供的意见，以及在债务人的破产案件中出示文件可能对债务人在英国诉讼中造成的影响。特权令明确承认，债务人可能享有英国法律下的特权，并可由债务人在英国诉讼中主张。见特权令，第 9 节。因此，债务人为明确确保其保留而非放弃其可能享有的、可针对在英国诉讼中出示或披露同一文件而主张的任何特权，未将该文件用于出示。\n\n2 Morrisey 女士、Parker 先生及 Argles 先生为，或在该电子邮件发出时曾为 Harcus Parker Limited（哈克斯·帕克有限公司）聘用的专业人员；该公司为债务人在英国诉讼中的英国律师。\n\nBR_KWOK00028562; 22535　3/3/22　Brown Rudnick　发票　Lalive SA（拉利夫股份公司）——债务人就 UBS 诉讼事项聘请的瑞士律师　发票　律师—委托人特权（特权可能受瑞士法律管辖）　被扣留文件是一份由代表债务人参与一宗在瑞士待决诉讼的律师出具的发票。该诉讼仅为在英国诉讼中提出的、要求将案件从英国移送瑞士的动议获准时保全债务人在瑞士追诉 UBS 的权利而提起；该动议未获准。于瑞士提起且该发票所涉的案件，实质上与英国诉讼为同一案件。特权令明确承认，债务人可能享有英国法律下的特权，并可由债务人在英国诉讼中主张。见特权令，第 9 节。因此，债务人为明确确保其保留而非放弃其可能享有的、可针对在英国诉讼中出示或披露同一文件而主张的任何特权，未将该文件用于出示，无论该特权依据英国法律还是瑞士法律。\n\n案件 22-50073；文书 1061-1；提交 11/02/22；录入 11/02/22 16:17:29；第 7 页，共\n\nBR_KWOK00027065　3/9/22　Brown Rudnick　电子邮件串　Melissa Francis, Esq.、Jennifer Morrisey、Damon Parker、Edward Argles、Bennett Silverberg, Esq.、Aaron Mitchell, Esq. 及 Robert Stark, Esq.　关于诉讼费用，以及因应债务人在其破产案件中收到的证据开示请求而出示 UBS 诉讼资助协议，可能对债务人在英国诉讼中造成的损害的意见　律师—委托人特权。　被扣留文件涉及代表债务人参与英国诉讼的律师提供的意见，以及在债务人的破产案件中出示文件可能对债务人在英国诉讼中造成的影响。特权令明确承认，债务人可能享有英国法律下的特权，并可由债务人在英国诉讼中主张。见特权令，第 9 节。因此，债务人为明确确保其保留而非放弃其可能享有的、可针对在英国诉讼中出示或披露同一文件而主张的任何特权，未将该文件用于出示。\n\n案件 22-50073；文书 1061-1；提交 11/02/22；录入 11/02/22 16:17:29；第 8 页，共\n\nBR_KWOK00023917　3/17/22　Brown Rudnick　电子邮件串　Melissa Francis, Esq.、Jennifer Morrisey、Edward Argles 及 Bennett Silverberg, Esq.　债务人的英国诉讼律师就债务人宣誓书及其他破产法院提交文件中拟使用的英国诉讼描述提出的意见　律师—委托人特权。　被扣留文件涉及代表债务人参与英国诉讼的律师就债务人在与英国诉讼有关的破产法院提交文件中应作出的披露提供的意见。特权令明确承认，债务人可能享有英国法律下的特权，并可由债务人在英国诉讼中主张。见特权令，第 9 节。因此，债务人为明确确保其保留而非放弃其可能享有的、可针对在英国诉讼中出示或披露同一文件而主张的任何特权，未将该文件用于出示。\n\n案件 22-50073；文书 1061-1；提交 11/02/22；录入 11/02/22 16:17:29；第 9 页，共\n\nBR_KWOK00023528　3/17/22　Brown Rudnick　电子邮件串　Melissa Francis, Esq.、Jennifer Morrisey、Edward Argles 及 Bennett Silverberg, Esq.　债务人的英国诉讼律师就债务人宣誓书及其他破产法院提交文件中拟使用的英国诉讼描述提出的意见　律师—委托人特权。　被扣留文件涉及代表债务人参与英国诉讼的律师就债务人在与英国诉讼有关的破产法院提交文件中应作出的披露提供的意见。特权令明确承认，债务人可能享有英国法律下的特权，并可由债务人在英国诉讼中主张。见特权令，第 9 节。因此，债务人为明确确保其保留而非放弃其可能享有的、可针对在英国诉讼中出示或披露同一文件而主张的任何特权，未将该文件用于出示。\n\nBR_KWOK00021709　3/17/22　Brown Rudnick　电子邮件串　Melissa Francis, Esq.、Jennifer Morrisey、Edward Argles 及 Bennett Silverberg, Esq.　债务人的英国诉讼律师就债务人宣誓书及其他破产法院提交文件中拟使用的英国诉讼描述提出的意见　律师—委托人特权。　被扣留文件涉及代表债务人参与英国诉讼的律师就债务人在与英国诉讼有关的破产法院提交文件中应作出的披露提供的意见。特权令明确承认，债务人可能享有英国法律下的特权，并可由债务人在英国诉讼中主张。见特权令，第 9 节。因此，债务人为明确确保其保留而非放弃其可能享有的、可针对在英国诉讼中出示或披露同一文件而主张的任何特权，未将该文件用于出示。\n\nBR_KWOK00021713　3/17/22　Brown Rudnick　电子邮件附件　Jennifer Morrisey、Edward Argles　债务人的英国诉讼律师就债务人宣誓书及其他破产法院提交文件中拟使用的英国诉讼描述提出的意见　律师—委托人特权　被扣留文件涉及代表债务人参与英国诉讼的律师就债务人在与英国诉讼有关的破产法院提交文件中应作出的披露提供的意见。特权令明确承认，债务人可能享有英国法律下的特权，并可由债务人在英国诉讼中主张。见特权令，第 9 节。因此，债务人为明确确保其保留而非放弃其可能享有的、可针对在英国诉讼中出示或披露同一文件而主张的任何特权，未将该文件用于出示。\n\nBR_KWOK00011133　5/10/22　Brown Rudnick　电子邮件　William R. Baldaga, Esq.（威廉·R·巴尔达加律师）、Melissa Francis, Esq.、Bennett Silverberg, Esq.、Jeffrey Jonas, Esq.（杰弗里·乔纳斯律师）、taxelrod@brownrudnick.com（密送）、kaulet@brownrudnick.com（密送）　关于驳回破产案件对未来破产提交文件影响的意见（需要删节）　律师—委托人特权　电子邮件删节部分中的特权意见不涉及特权令所定义的“调查议题”，且无需证明个人损害，即可基于律师—委托人特权扣留该文件。\n\n案件 22-50073；文书 1061-1；提交 11/02/22；录入 11/02/22 16:17:29；第 12 页，共 12 页","key_entities":["Kwok","Je"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2917,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-11-02 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-11-02","updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:57:32"}