{"id":"court_ctb_1095_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1095,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","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| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                             | :      |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                        | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.1                                                   | :      | Jointly Administered    |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :<br>x |                         |\n|                                                             |        |                         |\n\n## **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S SEALED MOTION (A) TO SEAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER HOLDING DEBTOR IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS ORDER AND RELATED DOCUMENTS; AND (B) TO ENLARGE PAGE LIMIT FOR REPLY**\n\nLuc A. Despins, as the Chapter 11 Trustee appointed in the Debtor's chapter 11 case (the \"Trustee\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to District of Connecticut Local Rule of Civil Procedure (the \"Local Civil Rules\") 5(e) and District of Connecticut Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Local Bankruptcy Rules\") 7007-2 and 9077-1, hereby respectfully moves (the \"Motion\") for entry of the proposed order filed herewith as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"): (A) preserving essential privileges and confidentiality by permitting the sealed filing of the Trustee's *Reply Memorandum* (the \"Reply\") in support of his *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Holding Debtor in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Corporate Governance Rights Order* [Docket No. 913] (the \"Contempt Motion\")<sup>2</sup> and in response to the objection thereto [Docket No. 1026] (the \"Objection\") filed by the Debtor, and further permitting\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 \"Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and Genever BVI 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\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein adopt the definitions set forth in the Contempt Motion.\n\nthe sealed filing of certain exhibits that the Trustee will offer at the hearing on the Contempt Motion (the \"Hearing\"); and (B) enlarging the page limit for the Trustee's Reply to twenty-five (25) pages. In support of this Motion, the Trustee states as follows:\n\n#### **RELEVANT FACTS**\n\n1. The Trustee filed the Contempt Motion on October 7, 2022, thereby requesting that the Court hold the Debtor in civil contempt for the Debtor's willful failure and refusal to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order as it pertains to Ace Decade and its wholly owned subsidiary, Dawn State. The Debtor has asserted in response to the Contempt Motion, among other things, that he does not own Ace Decade, that other persons do, and that the Debtor is powerless to comply with the Trustee's request.\n\n2. The Debtor's arguments are without merit and have no basis in fact or law. In demonstrating this to the Court, the Trustee will rely upon information and documents obtained in discovery that either (i) are subject to attorney-client privilege and thus are subject to the Court's *Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information* [Docket No. 856] (the \"Privileges Order\") or (ii) have been designated as confidential or highly confidential pursuant to the Court's *Protective Order* [Docket No. 923] (the \"Protective Order\") by the Debtor or by a third-party that produced such material.\n\n3. These materials include privileged email correspondence by and between the Debtor's former counsel (*i.e.*, the Trustee's Hearing Exhibits 21-23), as well as other correspondence between the Debtor's former counsel and the Debtor (Trustee's Hearing Exhibit 20), which the Trustee will offer as exhibits at the Hearing and which are discussed in the Trustee's Reply. Because the Trustee now owns and controls the Debtor's former attorney-client privilege, among other privileges and rights the Trustee may exercise, it is critical that no inadvertent disclosures of privileged materials occur, especially when such disclosures could have a materially negative impact on the Debtor's estate. Permitting only the Trustee and the Debtor, who have already reviewed the privileged documents, along with the Court, to review such privileged materials will ensure that no such harm from disclosure and waiver will arise.\n\n4. Moreover, at present the Debtor's counsel has designated the entirety of the Debtor's deposition testimony (as well as the testimony of a third-party witness listed by the Debtor and also deposed Friday), as \"highly confidential.\" In other examples, law firms responding to the Trustee's Rule 2004 subpoenas have produced documents under only Confidential and Highly Confidential designations. While the Trustee does not in many cases agree that this information is actually confidential, notably with regard to the Debtor and his interpreters deposition transcripts which were designated as highly confidential prior to a single question being asked, the Trustee is required to seek to file it under seal consistent with the plain language of the Protective Order until such time as the confidentiality designations have been removed, or the Court orders otherwise.\n\n### **THE COURT SHOULD SEAL PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS BOTH AS EXHIBITS AND AS INCLUDED IN THE REPLY**\n\n5. It is essential that the Trustee be able to use privileged and confidential documents and information to demonstrate the Debtor's beneficial ownership and control over Ace Decade and thus, in turn, the Debtor's ongoing contempt of the Court's Corporate Governance Rights Order. It is likewise essential that the Trustee not waive any privileges that he controls and nor inadvertently disclose any confidential or highly confidential materials in his possession as a result of this ongoing investigation.\n\n6. Unnecessary disclosure of privileged and confidential information may tangibly prejudice the value of the Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\"). The Debtor and his companies, Ace Decade and Dawn State, have asserted claims against UBS in the United Kingdom to recover what they allege are \\$500 million in losses (the \"UK Litigation\").\n\n7. These claims are property of the Debtor's estate and disclosure of privileged or confidential documents or information could prejudice their value. For example, UBS could conceivably seek to use privileged or confidential information to its advantage in seeking to defend the Estate's claims in the UK Litigation.<sup>3</sup> The Court should preserve the value of the Estate by preserving privilege and maintaining confidentiality to the maximum extent possible.\n\n8. The sealing procedure for the privileged documents will ensure that the only entities that can review them – the Debtor and the Trustee – are ones for whom disclosure will not waive privilege. Furthermore, disclosure of the documents to the Court under this procedure, should be treated in the same way the Court would review privileged documents in camera.\n\n9. Moreover, it is imperative that the Trustee be able to file the Reply and his Hearing exhibits immediately, while at the same time comply with the Privileges Order and the Protective Order. The Trustee should not be hamstrung in holding the Debtor accountable for his contempt while the Debtor and certain third parties refine any confidentiality designations. The Trustee reserves all rights to object to confidentiality designations placed on discovery materials and to request the removal of such designations. To the extent that in the future any confidentiality designations are withdrawn, or if the Court should determine that any documents or information were improperly designated, these may be unsealed by agreement or by future order.\n\n<sup>3</sup> UBS is aware of the proceedings in this chapter 11 case; both from court filings in the United Kingdom and because the Trustee has subpoenaed UBS under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004.\n\n10. Accordingly, the Trustee proposes to file both confidential documents and information (collectively, the \"Confidential Material\") and privileged documents and information (collectively, the \"Privileged Material\" and, together with Confidential Material, collectively, the \"Protected Material\") under seal.\n\n11. Local Civil Rule 5(e), applicable to this contested matter pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9077-1, provides for the Court to permit the filing of documents and information under seal. The requisite factual bases are clearly and compellingly set forth in this Motion and are further included in the proposed order filed herewith; these are more than sufficient to justify the Court's sealing of the Protected Material. *See* Local Civil Rule 5(e)(3). The relief requested by this Motion is narrowly tailored to serve these important interests. *See id.*\n\n12. The Local Civil Rule permits the filing of a sealed motion to seal. *See* Local Civil Rule 5(e)(4). The Trustee has filed this Motion under seal because, in explaining the need for sealed filings, this Motion itself discloses Protected Material. The Trustee also wishes to ensure that the Court is able to review the Trustee's Reply without delay. The Trustee will file a redacted version of this Motion later today.\n\n13. The Trustee thus appends to this Motion as **Exhibit B** an unredacted copy of his Reply with all Confidential Material highlighted in yellow and all Privileged Material highlighted in blue. The Trustee will simultaneously file on the public docket a copy of his Reply with all Protected Material redacted.\n\n14. The Trustee further proposes to designate certain exhibits to be Confidential Material, including, without limitation: Exhibits 21, 27, and such other exhibits that the Trustee designates upon consultation with counsel for the Confidential Parties (as hereinafter defined); and to designate certain exhibits to be Privileged Material, including, without limitation: Exhibits 20,\n\n5\n\n22, 23, and such other exhibits that the Trustee designates upon consultation with counsel for the Debtor. The Trustee requests that the Court permit the Trustee to file all exhibits that are Protected Material under seal on this basis.\n\n15. The Trustee requests that disclosure of Confidential Material, in addition to the Court, be limited to the Trustee, the Debtor, PAX, the Committee, and the United States Trustee (the \"Confidential Parties\"), which are all bound by the Protective Order. Upon the Court's order granting this Motion, the Trustee will circulate a copy of the Reply with all Confidential Material unredacted<sup>4</sup> as well as all exhibits that are Confidential Material to the Confidential Parties.\n\n16. The Trustee requests that disclosure of Privileged Material, in addition to the Court, be limited to the Trustee and the Debtor (the \"Privileged Parties\").\n\n17. Further disclosure of Privileged Material could threaten not only privilege with respect to that material itself but potentially attorney-client privilege more generally with respect to documents relevant to the UK Litigation. The value of the Estate's claims in the UK Litigation is highly important to the Estate and the Trustee's obligation to maximize the value of its assets to ensure the best possible recovery for its creditors.\n\n18. Considering that the Debtor is party to the Privileges Order and the Confidentiality Order, the Trustee has served the Debtor with a copy of this sealed Motion<sup>5</sup> , as well as an unredacted copy of the Trustee's Reply and the Trustee will serve copies of all exhibits that are Privileged Material on the Debtor at or before such time that the Trustee files them under seal.\n\n<sup>4</sup> Information that is Privileged Material will remain redacted in the copy of the Reply circulated to the Confidential Parties and the Trustee will not circulate exhibits that are Privileged Material to parties other than the Debtor.\n\n<sup>5</sup> To preserve applicable privileges with respect to Privileged Material, this Motion will not be served on parties other than the Debtor.\n\n19. The Trustee has drafted the Proposed Order granting this Motion to include particularized findings but to exclude outright disclosure of Protected Material in order to permit it to be filed on the public docket.\n\n#### **THE COURT SHOULD ENLARGE THE PAGE LIMIT FOR THE TRUSTEE'S REPLY**\n\n20. For the Trustee to adequately address the foregoing subject matter in his Reply – including to \"fact-check\" the Debtor's constantly changing positions and representations – the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court extend the page limitation from ten (10) pages to twenty-five (25) pages. *See* Local Bankruptcy Rule 7007-2 (permitting enlargement of page limitations with approval of the Court).\n\n21. Indeed, considering the extent to which the Debtor's purported defense to the Contempt Motion materially changed at his deposition, the Trustee's Reply must address effectively two Oppositions – the one the Debtor's counsel filed, and the one the Debtor articulated for the first time on Friday.\n\n### *[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]*\n\nWHEREFORE, the Court should grant this Motion, permit the filing of Protected Material\n\nunder seal as provided in the Proposed Order, enlarge the page limit for the Trustee's Reply, and\n\ngrant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: November 14, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\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### **EXHIBIT A**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x                                   |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11                |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                        | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)   |\n| Debtors.6                                                   | :<br>:<br>Jointly Administered<br>: |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x                                   |\n\n## **[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S SEALED MOTION (A) TO SEAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER HOLDING DEBTOR IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS ORDER AND RELATED DOCUMENTS; AND (B) TO ENLARGE PAGE LIMIT FOR REPLY**\n\nUPON CONSIDERATION OF the motion (the \"Motion\") of Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins (the \"Trustee\") requesting permission to file under seal his *Reply in Support of Motion for Entry of Order Holding Debtor in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Corporate Governance Rights Order* (the \"Reply\") and certain other documents; and good cause having been shown, and the Court having found that the disclosure of documents or information that are subject to attorney-client privilege (collectively, \"Privileged Material\") or documents or information that are otherwise confidential (collectively, the \"Confidential Material\" and, together with the Privileged Material, the \"Protected Material\") could prejudice the Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\"), including with respect to the value of assets of the Debtor's estate in the nature of pending litigation\n\n<sup>6</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 \"Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and Genever BVI 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\nclaims, the Court having found that permitting the filing of Protected Material under seal is consistent with relevant parties' agreements and expectations under the Privileges Order and the Protective Order<sup>7</sup> , to ensure the parties' compliance with such orders, the relief provided in this Order being narrowly tailored to serve the foregoing purposes, and good cause having thereby and otherwise been shown, it is by the Court, hereby\n\nORDERED, that the Motion is granted as set forth herein; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the Court approves the filing of the Motion and the appended unredacted Reply under seal and the Motion shall remain under seal as well as the unredacted Reply; and it is further;\n\nORDERED, that the Trustee shall file a copy of the Reply on the public docket in this chapter 11 case that has been redacted with respect to any information that the Trustee has designated as Protected Material, provided, however, that the Trustee shall serve the Debtor, PAX, the Committee, and the United States Trustee (together, collectively, the \"Confidential Parties\") with a copy of the Reply with Privileged Material redacted but Confidential Material (that is not otherwise Privileged Material) unredacted, and the Trustee shall serve a fully unredacted copy of the Reply on the Debtor; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the Trustee may file any Hearing exhibits that are Confidential Material under seal, provided, however, the Trustee shall serve all such exhibits (that are not otherwise Privileged Material) on the Confidential Parties upon such sealed filing; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the Trustee may file any Hearing exhibits that are Privileged Material under seal, provided however, the Trustee shall serve all such exhibits on the Debtor upon such sealed filing; and it is further\n\n<sup>7</sup> Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Order shall adopted the definitions set forth in the Motion.\n\nORDERED, that the page limitation applicable to the Trustee's Reply shall be twenty-five (25) pages.\n\n## **EXHIBIT B**\n\n# **UNREDACTED REPLY HIGHLIGHTED TO REFLECT CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL AND PRIVILEGED MATERIAL**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x |                         |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|---|-------------------------|\n|                                                        | : |                         |\n| In re:                                                 | : | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                        | : |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                   | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                        | : |                         |\n| Debtors.1                                              | : | Jointly Administered    |\n|                                                        | : |                         |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x |                         |\n\n# **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER HOLDING DEBTOR IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS ORDER**\n\nLuc Despins, as the Chapter 11 Trustee appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan\n\nKwok (the \"Trustee\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this reply\n\n(the \"Reply\") in support of his *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Holding Debtor*\n\n*in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Corporate Governance Rights Order* [Docket No.\n\n913] (the \"Contempt Motion\")<sup>2</sup> and in response to the objection thereto [Docket No. 1026] (the\n\n\"Objection\") filed by Mr. Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\").\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 \"Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and Genever BVI 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\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein adopt the definitions set forth in the Contempt Motion.\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Debtor's continued non-compliance with the clear and unambiguous directives of this Court's Corporate Governance Rights Order and the requirements of sections 521(a)(3) and (4) of the Bankruptcy Code<sup>3</sup> —along with shifting excuses, obfuscations, and outright misrepresentations to explain such non-compliance—evoke Justice Ostager's admonition in the PAX litigation that \"if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law.\"<sup>4</sup> Justice Ostrager made this statement after observing the Debtor's behavior for five years during the PAX litigation, during which he demonstrated \"utter contempt for [the New York state court] and the judicial process.\"<sup>5</sup>\n\n2. The Debtor is now employing many of the same strategies and tactics in response to the Contempt Motion that led Justice Ostrager to make his findings. One of the Debtor's favorite strategies in the PAX litigation and elsewhere has been to disavow, without any sense of shame or embarrassment, any knowledge of or responsibility for his own words and statements, including those made in court filings and/or under oath, if doing so advances his personal interests. For example, during his deposition in the PAX litigation, the Debtor claimed the signature on his personal guarantee to PAX was forged, even though he had produced that very document and relied on its authenticity when seeking to dismiss the PAX litigation in June\n\n <sup>3</sup> To be clear, nothing in the Corporate Governance Rights Order \"preempted\" the Debtor's requirements to comply with sections 521(a)(3) and (4) of the Bankruptcy Code. *See* Corporate Governance Rights Order ¶ 3 (\"In accordance with sections 521(a)(3) and 521(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor is hereby directed to . . . \").\n\n<sup>4</sup> Decision and Order on Motion, dated February 9, 2022 at 10, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181\n\n<sup>5</sup> *Id.* at 4.\n\n2017.<sup>6</sup> In fact, the Debtor's own counsel previously admitted the guarantee was \"signed by Mr. Kwok.\"<sup>7</sup> The Debtor's incredible about-face caused Justice Ostrager to order him judicially estopped from asserting forgery as a defense to PAX's breach of contract claims. 8 Another of the Debtor's favorite strategies is to baselessly claim that someone else (including a close family member or a trusted confidant) owns an asset of which the Debtor is the true beneficial owner. These same strategies are on full display here. The Debtor is both shamelessly abandoning his prior testimony and concocting an unbelievable story about who supposedly owns and controls Ace Decade in order to serve his own personal interests and shield his assets from creditors. In the past, the Debtor attested in court filings and/or under oath—including at the Section 341 Meeting and in the U.K. Complaint—that he owns Ace Decade. Now, however, the Debtor contends that his testimony at the Section 341 Meeting was somehow mistranslated, even though neither he nor his personal interpreter at the meeting objected to the supposedly incorrect translation at the time or in the six months since then.\n\n3. Specifically, the Debtor contends that he did not testify at the Section 341 Meeting that he is \"a legally representing owner\" of Ace Decade, as reflected in the meeting's official transcript, but rather that he is \"legally representing the owner\"—*i.e.*, that the owner is someone else and that the Debtor serves as a mere representative of that person.\n\n<sup>6</sup> *See* Hearing Ex. 45, Memo in Support of Kwok Motion to Dismiss at 3, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 8; Hearing Ex. 44, Affirmation of Fiona Yu in Support of Kwok Motion to Dismiss at 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 11 (attaching a true and correct copy of the personal guarantee between Kwok and PAX).\n\n<sup>7</sup> Hearing Ex. 47, Email chain between PAX LP and Stevenson Wong, dated March 16, 2011, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 354.\n\n<sup>8</sup> *See* Hearing Ex. 48, Judicial Estoppel Decision, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 404 (\"[T]he Court holds that defendant Kwok is judicially estopped from challenging . . . the authenticity of documents defendant Kwok previously sponsored in proceedings before this Court, notwithstanding that defendant Kwok sought to disavow his signature on those documents during his deposition.\").\n\n9 This alone destroys the Debtor's story, exposing it as a mere fabrication designed to prevent the Trustee from obtaining control of Ace Decade. Making matters worse, the only witness the Debtor has identified to support the alleged translation error-his personal interpreter-testified at her deposition last Friday\n\n4. J The Debtor is also now flatly contradicting his own sworn testimony in other contexts concerning his interests in Ace Decade. The Debtor previously testified that he used Ace Decade to make the UBS investment and that he funded the investment with his own personal funds. At last Friday's deposition, however,\n\n<sup>9</sup>\n\n<sup>10</sup> Nov. 11, 2022 Dep. Tr. of Una Wilkinson (the \"Wilkinson Deposition\") at 20:4-12\n\n<sup>11</sup> Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition at 30:7-8\n\n<sup>12</sup> Id. at 69:9-11\n\n. In 2018, the Debtor testified in a deposition in another litigation—again, without any evidence—that his apartment at the Sherry Netherland in Manhattan was really owned by Mr. Wei.13 But, as the Court is aware, the Debtor now claims in these chapter 11 cases that the Sherry Netherland is and has always been held in trust for the benefit of Bravo Luck Limited, which in turn, again according to the Debtors, is owned by the Debtor's son.14\n\nAll these schemes and ridiculous assertions that need to be investigated and answered by the Trustee (in addition to the Debtor's various attempts to frustrate the Trustee's work) are costing the estate millions of dollars in professional fees. This must stop now.\n\n6.\n\n. In 2016 and again in 2020, the Debtor\n\nstated that Yong Yu was the nominee shareholder of Ace Decade and that he was her\n\n\"employer.\"15 Later, in a deposition held in 2021, the Debtor denied multiple times that he knew\n\nYong Yu.16\n\n 13 *See* Hearing Ex. 39, Oct. 3, 2018 Kwok Dep. Tr. at 125:13-19 (\"Q. And my question is: Is it your position that our client cannot attach the apartment because you don't own it, but rather Zhang Wei does? . . . A. Yes.\").\n\n<sup>14</sup> *See* First Day Declaration, Docket No. 107, ¶ 33 (\"I hold all of the equity of Genever BVI. However, pursuant to a Declaration of Trust and Agreement, dated February 17, 2015 (the 'Trust Date'), I hold such equity in trust for Bravo Luck Limited.\").\n\n<sup>15</sup> Hearing Ex. 15, Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan, dated February 5, 2016, *Ace Decade vs. UBS AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc No. 27, ¶ 1 (\"I am the employer of Yong Yu, the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade.\"). *See also* U.K. Complaint ¶ 24 (identifying Yong Yu as Debtor's employee).\n\n<sup>16</sup> Hearing Ex. 46, July 21, 2021, Dep. of Guo Wengui**,** *Meng v. Guo*, Index No. 159636/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 69, at 159:21-160:5 (\"Q. Okay. Do you know a person named Yong Yu? A. Yong Yu? I'm sorry . . . . Q. It's a person. Do you know a person named Yong Yu? A. I don't know Yong Yu.\").\n\nIn 2018,\n\nthe Debtor stated she was his \"assistant\"18 (which is consistent with numerous documents in the public record and/or produced to the Trustee), 19\n\n7. The Debtor's contradictions also extend to the schedules and declarations he submitted in this chapter 11 case. The Debtor listed the UBS litigation in his schedules as an asset of his estate and stated in his March 20, 2022 declaration (the \"First Day Declaration\"), which he also submitted in support of his request for DIP financing to help fund the UBS litigation, that the proceeds of that litigation could go to creditors and would be used to formulate\n\na plan.21\n\n20 Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition at 77:16-79:13\n\n21 See First Day Declaration ¶ 32, 47 (Debtor states that he \"anticipated that the proceeds of recoveries or settlements in litigations in which I am a plaintiff will be used to fund a Chapter 11 plan.\").\n\n22 Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition at 30:7-8\n\n<sup>17</sup> Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition at 33:3-8.\n\n<sup>18</sup> Hearing Ex. 39, Oct. 3, 2018 Kwok Dep. Tr. at 55:23-25 (\"Q. Who is your assistant? A. . . . [Yvette] Wang.\").\n\n<sup>19</sup> In the Final Arbitration Award issued by arbitrator Frank Maas in connection with the fee dispute between the Debtor and Boies Schiller, Maas referred to Yvette Wang as \"Kwok's chief of staff.\" See Hearing Ex. 13, Arbitration Award at 3, Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP v. Kwok, Index No. 150001/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 6. See also, e.g., Hearing Ex. 31, Yvette Wang Dep. Tr., dated Oct. 11, 2018, at 46:20-25 (\"Q. I'm asking you whether or not you serve as an administrator for Mr. Kwok's interests? A. Yes. Q. What does that mean? A. Translator, assistant.\") (emphasis added); Hearing Ex. 28, Email from Yvette Wang, dated July 11, 2019 (\"[W]e [at Golden Spring] take care of Miles' and his family's business . . . . \");\n\n8. Finally, in a last-minute effort to purportedly \"comply\" with the order the Trustee requests in the Contempt Motion, the Debtor has submitted to the Court a letter he reportedly delivered to Ms. Wang stating that he is instructing her to transfer the shares of Ace Decade to the Trustee to the extent he may have authority over Ace Decade. As discussed further below, the letter—which accomplishes exactly nothing—is a shameless litigation tactic that the Court should reject out of hand.\n\n9. The Court should not countenance the Debtor's latest tactics to avoid compliance with the Corporate Governance Rights Order. If the Debtor were allowed to keep on playing these games, he would make a mockery of this Court and the judicial system. The Debtor is an individual with unlimited funds to hire attorneys to make every argument imaginable to seek to delay and obstruct judicial proceedings. Given the Debtor's refusal to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order and his prior testimony that he owns Ace Decade, the Court should rule that the Debtor is the owner of Ace Decade and that Ace Decade's shares belong to the chapter 11 estate. The Debtor should be held in contempt unless he turns over his shares in Ace Decade within a period of ten (10) days.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. Debtor Has Failed to Comply with Clear Directives of Corporate Governance Rights Order**\n\n10. As an initial matter, the Debtor's Objection attempts to obfuscate the Court's clear directives in the Corporate Governance Rights Order. However, try as he might, the Debtor cannot change the plain language of the Corporate Governance Rights Order, which provides that \"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).\" To implement the foregoing provision, the Corporate Governance Rights Order directs\n\n7\n\nthe 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.\"23 To state the obvious, the Corporate Governance Rights Order is not limited to Genever (BVI), but rather applies to all of the Debtor's property, including Ace Decade, a company that the Debtor has repeatedly admitted, in court filings and/or under oath, he owns.\n\n11. Yet, despite the clear language in the Corporate Governance Rights Order, the Debtor insists that this order does not expressly require him to transfer shares of Ace Decade to the Trustee, and, thus, does not meet the Second Circuit's standard required to find contempt, which requires that \"(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.\" *King v. Allied Vision, Ltd.*, 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995). But the Corporate Governance Rights Order could hardly be clearer, and there are few words less ambiguous than \"all\" property—language which undoubtedly includes his ownership of Ace Decade.\n\n12. Nor does the fact that the Corporate Governance Rights Order only specifically addresses the transfer of the Genever (BVI) shares limit the clear language requiring the Debtor to transfer \"to the Trustee all property of the estate.\" The Corporate Governance Rights Order is clear that the surrender of property of the estate includes \"*without limitation*\" the shares of Genever (BVI)24—language which courts in the Second Circuit have repeatedly found not to be construed as limiting. *See, e.g.*, *Star Direct Telecom, Inc. v. Glob. Crossing Bandwidth, Inc.*,\n\n <sup>23</sup> Corporate Governance Rights Order ¶¶ 2, 3 (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>24</sup> Corporate Governance Rights Order ¶ 3 (emphasis added)\n\n272 F.R.D. 350, 356 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (\"this Court [un]aware of any . . . argument that the clause 'including, without limitation' should be read as a limiting clause.\"); *Shugrue v. Continental Airlines,* 977 F. Supp. 280, 285-86 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (plain language of \"including without limitation\" indicates list in agreement is not exclusive).\n\n13. Additionally, there can be no question that the Trustee has met the \"clear and convincing\" standard as it relates to the Debtor's non-compliance. The Debtor has not surrendered anything to the Trustee with regard to Ace Decade, nor given any serious indication that he plans to do so.\n\n14. The Debtor advances the absurd theory that he cannot comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order because even if he were the owner of Ace Decade, the Trustee now holds all corporate governance rights and thus only the Trustee could direct a transfer of the shares of Ace Decade. This argument is nonsense. At this point, the Trustee is (still) not in control of Ace Decade precisely because the Debtor refuses to cooperate in transferring the Ace Decade shares to the Trustee. The Debtor should not be excused from having to comply with an order (as well as section 521(a)(3) and (4) of the Bankruptcy Code) that requires him to cooperate with the Trustee and surrender his property to the estate on the ground that the very same order supposedly prevents the Debtor from complying with that obligation.\n\n15. Nothing about this analysis is changed by the Debtor's production of a signed letter, dated November 10, 2022 (the \"Share Transfer Letter\"), addressed to Yvette Wang, which states that \"in compliance with the Trustee's demands and to the extent that I may have any authority over Ace Decade, I hereby direct you to execute the attached Share Transfer Instrument and Share Transfer Resolution.\"25 This last-minute tactic is offensive—and sending such a\n\n <sup>25</sup> Debtor's Hearing Ex. B, at 1.\n\n![](_page_21_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\nIronically, the Trustee has attempted to locate Ms. Wang in order to serve her with a subpoena to testify in this matter but the Trustee's process servers have been unable to locate Ms. Wang. 30\n\n17. In sum, the Share Transfer Letter is a cynical, last-minute attempt to avoid a contempt ruling by purporting to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order while in\n\n| ટેર | Hearing         | Kwok Deposition at 85:23-86:8 |\n|-----|-----------------|-------------------------------|\n| 27  | Id. at 48:14-16 |                               |\n| 28  | Id at 83.3-7    |                               |\n\nId. at 83:3-7.\n\n29 Id. at 88:17-25.\n\n<sup>30</sup> Hearing Ex. 32, Affidavit of Attempted Service, dated Nov. 11, 2022 (describing attempts to serve Yvette Wang at multiple addresses, including at her attorney's address, on Nov. 9, 2022). In addition. Ms. Wang's counsel has informed the Trustee that he was not authorized to accept service of the Trustee's subpoena. See Hearing Ex. 33, Email chain between Avi Luft of Paul Hastings LLP and Alex Liman of Lipman Law PLLC, dated Nov. 10, 2022 (with Mr. Lipman noting that he \"is not authorized to accept service\" on Yvette Wang's behalf).\n\nfact taking none of the steps that the Corporate Governance Rights Order would require.\n\nClearly, the Corporate Governance Rights Order requires the Debtor to surrender the Debtor-Controlled Entities to the Trustee, and there can be no question that he has not attempted to comply, despite the clear and unambiguous terms of the order, and that his refusal to do so warrants entry of an order holding him in contempt.\n\n#### **II. UBS Litigation and Related Filings Confirm Debtor's Ownership of Ace Decade**\n\n18. As detailed in the Motion, the U.K. Complaint (filed in September 2020) makes abundantly clear that Ace Decade and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Dawn State, are owned and controlled by the Debtor. According to the U.K. Complaint, the Debtor was the true beneficiary of the equity investment in Haitong Securities Company Limited (\"Haitong\"), with Ace Decade and Dawn State merely acting as his investment vehicles so that the Debtor could avoid having to seek approval from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (\"CSRC\"). Among other things, the Debtor, Ace Decade, and Dawn State alleged in the U.K. Complaint that:\n\n- \"Mr Kwok resolved to invest approximately US\\$3 billion in H-Shares in order to obtain a major stake in Haitong. This investment was to be made through the issue of new H-Shares by Haitong, and their allotment to companies controlled by Mr Kwok.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 7.\n- \"Mr Kwok communicated his intention to acquire a substantial stake in Haitong to Mr Hank Lo, a Hong Kong solicitor and partner in the firm Stevenson, Wong & Co.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 8.\n- \"Mr Kwok's intention was to acquire the shares for himself.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 11(3).\n- UBS advised Mr Kwok \"[n]ot purchase the shares through a company beneficially owned or controlled by him, as this would require CSRC approval,\" and \"[i]nstead, set up a structure (which would be arranged by UBS) under which the UBS H-Shares would be acquired by a company controlled by a third-party intermediary, which acquisition would not require CSRC approval.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 18. That third-party intermediary was Haixia Capital Management Company Ltd (\"Haixia\"), an entity that initially owned and controlled Dawn State. U.K. Complaint ¶ 4.\n- \"Ace Decade was acquired on 10 November 2014 by Mr Kwok for the purpose of acting as the said investment vehicle.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 24.\n- \"Ace Decade, Dawn State and UBS enter[ed] into a series of arrangements designed to allow Ace Decade to participate in the acquisition of UBS H-Shares through Dawn State.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 29.\n- Under this arrangement, \"Ace Decade would have only a contractual right to participate in the Project, and no immediate proprietary interest in Dawn State or the UBS H-Shares which it acquired.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 33(3).<sup>31</sup>\n\nAt no point does the U.K. Complaint even mention Mr. Wei, the relative the Debtor suddenly contends is the company's real owner. The silence in that regard is deafening.\n\n19. While the U.K. Complaint also alleges that \"on the advice of Mr Wong, an\n\nemployee of Mr Kwok, Ms Yu Yong (\"Ms Yu\") became [Ace Decade's] nominee shareholder and director,\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 24, this allegation does not take away from the other statements in the U.K. Complaint that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade. As the Debtor stated in an affidavit filed in a separate litigation by Ace Decade against UBS in New York state court (the \"Kwok/UBS Affidavit\"), Ms. Yu was selected by the Debtor, upon the advice of UBS, in order to satisfy \"know your customer\" requirements of Haixia (*i.e.*, the intermediary for the investment in H-Shares).32 That the Debtor \"appointed\" Ms. Yu to such a position further substantiates that he controls Ace Decade.\n\n<sup>31</sup> On September 18, 2015, Haixia transferred its shares in Dawn State to Ace Decade. U.K. Complaint ¶ 74.\n\n<sup>32</sup> *See* Hearing Ex. 15, Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan, dated February 5, 2016, *Ace Decade vs. UBS AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc No. 27, ¶ 17 (\"Mr. Wong asked to review the resumes of some of my employees to assess whose background would most likely satisfy Haixia's requirements so that such employee could be appointed as the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade. He reviewed these resumes and advised that Ms. Yu's resume and background was best suited to satisfy Haixia's requirements and thus, that I should appoint Ms. Yu as the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade.\").\n\nThe same is true in communications by or regarding Yvette Wang, to whom the Debtor (or his counsel) addressed the Share Transfer Letter. 35\n\n20. All of the foregoing is also consistent with the Debtor's corporate shell game of putting close family members and trusted confidants \"in charge\" of corporate entities to hide the true ownership of his assets from his creditors or regulators. Indeed, as explained in the Kwok/UBS Affidavit, the primary purpose behind using a convoluted intermediary holding structure for the H-Shares (as opposed to the Debtor investing directly) was to avoid detection by Chinese regulatory authorities. 36\n\n21. In his Objection, the Debtor now claims that the statements in the U.K. Complaint merely confirm his ownership of Ace Decade in November 2014. Putting aside that nothing in the U.K. Complaint (which, as noted, was filed in September 2020) suggests that the ownership of Ace Decade has changed, the Objection does not state who, if not the Debtor, is the current owner of Ace Decade, nor does the Objection indicate when Ace Decade's ownership supposedly changed hands.\n\nThis last-\n\n![](_page_24_Figure_5.jpeg)\n\nminute shift in the Debtor's story is simply not credible.\n\n35 See Hearing Ex. 28, Email from Yvette Wang, dated July 11, 2019 (\"[W]e [at Golden Spring] take care of Miles' and his family's business . . . . \");\n\n<sup>36</sup> See Hearing Ex. 15, Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan, dated February 5, 2016, Ace Decade vs. UBS AG, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc No. 27, ¶ 13 (\"[]f I invested through Ace Decade directly, applicable disclosure requirements would require certain filings.\").\n\n22. In any event, the statements in U.K. Complaint are consistent with the statements made in the Section 341 Meeting, and indeed with all statements made by the Debtor until September of this year, when the Trustee requested that the Debtor transfer the shares of Ace Decade to the Trustee. Only then did the Debtor first give any indication that a third party might own Ace Decade—but *all* of his statements to that point were consistent with the fact that he is the owner of Ace Decade.\n\n23. Further, there is voluminous additional documentary evidence demonstrating, beyond any doubt, that the Debtor owns and controls Ace Decade—and none of it even mentions Mr. Wei. For example:\n\n- The Kwok/UBS Affidavit demonstrates that it was the Debtor that funded Ace Decade and that it was the Debtor who made the investment the H-Shares (through Ace Decade):\n\t- o \"Mr. Wong [at UBS] told me that because of the size of the Investment that *I* was planning to make, senior executive from UBS globally would participate in structuring the deal.\" Kwok/UBS Affidavit ¶ 10.\n\t- o \"Based on these representation that senior executives at UBS globally would be involved in structuring and overseeing this Investment and that UBS would act in *my* best interests, *I* entrusted UBS to act as *my* advisor for the Investment.\" *Id.* ¶ 11.\n\t- o \"[UBS] advised *me* on which of my employees to appoint as sole shareholder and Director of Ace Decade, to *utilize Ace Decade* to enter into a side agreement with an intermediary entity that would hold legal title to the Shares, and how best to *transfer the funds necessary for the Investment from one of my UBS accounts to the Ace Decade account*.\" *Id.* ¶ 12.\n\t- o \"UBS advised that because the planned Investment comprised greater than 5% of the outstanding H-shares of Haitong, if *I invested through Ace Decade* directly, applicable disclosure requirements would require certain filings.\" *Id.* ¶ 13.\n- In his First Day Declaration, the Debtor stated that he \"anticipated that the proceeds of recoveries or settlements in litigations in which I am a plaintiff will\n\nbe used to fund a Chapter 11 plan,\"37 and that UBS litigation claims were \"assets that I anticipate relying on to help formulate and potentially confirm a plan of reorganization.\"38 This could only have been true if the proceeds of recoveries to Ace Decade flowed to the Debtor based on his status as owner of Ace Decade.\n\n![](_page_26_Figure_2.jpeg)\n\n· Ace Decade's complaint in the UBS litigation filed in New York state court describes the UBS transaction as arising from plans by the Debtor to invest approximately \\$1 billion \"through Ace Decade.\"45\n\n<sup>39</sup> See Hearing Ex. 41, Dep. Tr. of Ho Wan Kwok, dated November 25, 2019, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 350, at 10:21-24 (Mr. Podhaskie noting his representation of the Debtor in his personal capacity).\n\n![](_page_26_Figure_7.jpeg)\n\n45 See Hearing Ex. 14, Complaint, Ace Decade vs. UBS AG, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc No. 1, ¶20.\n\n<sup>37</sup> First Day Declaration ¶ 47.\n\n<sup>38</sup> First Day Declaration ¶ 54.\n\n- The complaint filed by the Debtor against Boies Schiller, his counsel in the New York UBS litigation, related to a fee dispute, asserts that the Debtor hired Boies Schiller to commence litigation on behalf of Ace Decade based on fraud and misrepresentations made to the Debtor. 46\n- The arbitration award issued in connection with the fee dispute between the Debtor and Boies Schiller states that the Debtor retained Boies Schiller \"on his behalf\" in the lawsuit against UBS and that Boies Schiller billed the Debtor approximately \\$1.5 million.<sup>47</sup>\n\n24. Indeed, if the Debtor does not have an economic interest in Ace Decade why did he commence litigation against UBS (including in New York state court and in U.K. courts) seeking to recover approximately \\$500 million in losses suffered as a result of an investment in the H-Shares? These lawsuits clearly demonstrate that the Debtor sees the investment losses sustained by Ace Decade and Dawn State as his own—exactly as one would expect to be the case for the beneficial owner of Ace Decade and Dawn State.\n\n# **III. The Court Should Reject the Debtor's Attempt to Disavow His Testimony at the Section 341 Meeting**\n\n25. Faced with clear and unambiguous directions under the Corporate Governance Rights Order and his multiple statements, in court filings and/or under oath, that he is the owner of Ace Decade, the Debtor now attempts to challenges the accuracy of the official transcript of the April 6, 2022 meeting of creditors (the \"Section 341 Meeting\"), in which he confirmed, under oath, that he is the sole owner of Ace Decade. To reiterate, during the Section 341 Meeting, counsel to the U.S. Trustee questioned the Debtor as follows:\n\n- Q Mr. Kwok, do you own any interest in a company called Ace Decade Holdings Limited?\n- A *Yes.*\n\n <sup>46</sup> *See* Hearing Ex. 11, Complaint, *Wengui v. Schiller, et al.*, Index No. 150001/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 6-7 (\"The UBS matter involved damages in excess of \\$500 million as a result of UBS' fraud and misrepresentations to Guo . . . .\").\n\n<sup>47</sup> *See* Hearing Ex. 13, Arbitration Award at 2, *Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP v. Kwok*, Index No. 150001/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 6.\n\n| Q | What is the nature of your ownership interest in Ace Decade       |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|   | Holdings Limited?                                                 |\n| A | So I have the interest and ask for UBS to pay back \\$500 million. |\n|   | That kind of interest.                                            |\n|   | .                                                                 |\n| Q | Are you [Mr. Kwok] the only legal owner of Ace Decade?            |\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               |\n|   | Limited?                                                          |\n| A | 48<br>At the end of 2014.                                         |\n|   |                                                                   |\n\n26. At no time during the entire Section 341 Meeting did the Debtor assert that he is\n\nnot the owner of Ace Decade or that the owner of Ace Decade is Mr. Wei.49 Nor did the Debtor dispute the official translation of this portion of the Section 341 Meeting, which the Debtor did on many other occasions during the meeting.50\n\nNor did\n\nthe Debtor subsequently challenge the accuracy of any of these portions of the official transcript—until, of course, the Trustee requested the transfer of the shares in Ace Decade. It was only then that the Debtor asserted, for the first time, that his prior admissions were purportedly the result of a series of mistranslations.\n\n27. In particular, the Debtor now argues that the proper translation of his exchange with counsel to the U.S. Trustee was that she asked him \"[a]re you the only legal owner of Ace Decade?\" to which the Debtor responded: \"I am legally representing the owner.\"51 Putting aside\n\n<sup>48</sup> Tr. of Section 341 Meeting at 60:16-61:10, dated April 6, 2022 (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>49</sup> The Debtor only asserted that Mr. Wei gave the Debtor the \\$500 million in funds that the Debtor then provided to Ace Decade. *See id.* at 62:11-63:1 (Mr. Wei's name transcribed as \"John Way\").\n\n<sup>50</sup> *See, e.g.*, *id.* at 25:8-10; 40:14-23; 47:24-25; 83:22-25; 116:9-10.\n\n<sup>51</sup> Objection ¶ 18.\n\n| 29.                                                                     |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| credibility.53                                                          |\n|                                                                         |\n|                                                                         |\n|                                                                         |\n|                                                                         |\n|                                                                         |\n| 52 Wilkinson Deposition at 20:4-12                                      |\n|                                                                         |\n| 53 The Trustee is moving to exclude Ms. Wilkinson's proposed testimony. |\n| 54 Id. at 26:6-23 (                                                     |\n\n#### CONCLUSION\n\n30. For several years now, the Debtor has asserted that he owns Ace Decade and its wholly owned subsidiary, Dawn State. It was only after the appointment of the Trustee that the Debtor began to change his story to now claim, unconvincingly, that he does not own Ace Decade and Dawn State. The Court should reject the Debtor's latest attempts of obfuscation and misdirection, and enforce the Court's order (as well as the Debtor's duties under the Bankruptcy Code) to cooperate with the Trustee and surrender all property of the estate. The impact of the Debtor's conduct is not limited to the proceedings before this Court. The Debtor's continued subterfuge is allowing Ace Decade and Dawn State to present themselves as \"independent\" of the Debtor and pursue objections to the Trustee's recognition application pending before the UK courts 57\n\n31. For all of these reasons, and those detailed in the Contempt Motion, the Trustee requests that the Contempt Motion be granted, including that the Debtor be held in contempt until he turns over the Ace Decade shares to the Trustee (regardless of who holds them for him) and that the Court hold that the Debtor is the owner of the Ace Decade shares.\n\n#### [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\nરુદ Id. at 112:20-113:6.\n\nરેર Id. at 131:4-11\n\n<sup>57</sup> See Hearing Ex. 51, Letter from Wedlake Bell, dated November 3, 2022.\n\nDated: November 14, 2022 New Haven, Connecticut LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\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*\n\n# **EXHIBIT A [REDACTED]**","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：\n：　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，　：\n：　案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1　：　联合管理\n\nx\n\n第11章受托人提出的密封动议：(A) 请求密封提交支持作出裁定、认定债务人因未遵守公司治理权利命令而构成民事藐视法庭的动议之答复，以及相关文件；及 (B) 请求延长答复的页数限制\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯平斯）作为获任命管理债务人第11章案件的第11章受托人（“受托人”），通过其下列签署律师，依据 District of Connecticut Local Rule of Civil Procedure（康涅狄格区联邦地区法院民事诉讼地方法则）（“民事地方法则”）5(e)及 District of Connecticut Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（康涅狄格区联邦地区法院破产程序地方法则）（“破产地方法则”）7007-2和9077-1，谨此请求（“本动议”）作出作为证物A随附提交的拟议命令（“拟议命令”）：(A) 通过允许密封提交受托人的答复备忘录（“答复”），以维护必要的特权和保密性；该答复系支持其《第11章受托人请求作出裁定、认定债务人因未遵守公司治理权利命令而构成民事藐视法庭的动议》[Docket No. 913]（“藐视法庭动议”）2，并回应债务人提交的对此动议的异议[Docket No. 1026]（“异议”）；并进一步允许密封提交受托人将在藐视法庭动议听证会（“听证会”）上提出的若干证物；及 (B) 将受托人答复的页数限制延长至二十五（25）页。为支持本动议，受托人陈述如下：\n\n1　本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码末四位：9595）（“债务人”）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）。受托人和 Genever BVI 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 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 财产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n2　除非本文件另有定义，首字母大写的术语采用藐视法庭动议中规定的定义。\n\n相关事实\n\n1. 受托人于 October 7, 2022 提交了藐视法庭动议，请求法院认定债务人因其故意未能且拒绝遵守与 Ace Decade 及其全资子公司 Dawn State 有关的公司治理权利命令而构成民事藐视法庭。债务人在回应藐视法庭动议时主张，除其他事项外，其并不拥有 Ace Decade，而是由其他人士拥有，并且债务人无力遵从受托人的请求。\n\n2. 债务人的论点毫无依据，且在事实或法律上均无基础。为向法院证明这一点，受托人将依赖在证据开示中取得的信息和文件，该等信息和文件：(i) 受律师—客户特权保护，因而受法院《关于规则2004传票所要求提供的文件和信息之律师—客户特权控制及工作成果保护的同意命令》[Docket No. 856]（“特权命令”）约束；或 (ii) 已由债务人或提交该等材料的第三方依据法院的保护令[Docket No. 923]（“保护令”）指定为保密或高度保密。\n\n3. 该等材料包括债务人前任律师之间的享有特权的电子邮件通信（即受托人听证会证物21-23），以及债务人前任律师与债务人之间的其他通信（受托人听证会证物20）；受托人将在听证会上将其作为证物提出，并在受托人的答复中予以讨论。由于受托人现控制并拥有债务人原有的律师—客户特权，以及受托人可行使的其他特权和权利，至关重要的是不得发生任何对享有特权材料的无意披露，尤其是在该等披露可能对债务人财产产生重大负面影响的情况下。仅允许已审阅享有特权文件的受托人和债务人，以及法院，审阅该等享有特权材料，将确保不会因披露和放弃而产生该等损害。\n\n4. 此外，目前债务人的律师已将债务人的全部证言（以及债务人列明并同样于周五接受讯问的一名第三方证人的证言）指定为“高度保密”。在其他例子中，回应受托人规则2004传票的律师事务所仅以保密和高度保密指定提交了文件。尽管受托人在许多情况下不同意该等信息实际上属于保密信息，特别是关于债务人及其口译员的证言笔录，在提出任何一个问题之前即被指定为高度保密，受托人仍须依照保护令的明文规定请求将其密封提交，直至保密指定被撤销或法院另有命令为止。\n\n法院应当将作为证物以及载于答复中的享有特权和保密的信息与文件予以密封\n\n5. 受托人能够使用享有特权和保密的文件及信息，以证明债务人对 Ace Decade 的受益所有权和控制权，并进而证明债务人持续藐视法院公司治理权利命令，至关重要。同样至关重要的是，受托人不得放弃其所控制的任何特权，也不得因该持续调查而无意披露其持有的任何保密或高度保密材料。\n\n6. 对享有特权和保密信息的不必要披露可能实质性损害债务人财产（“财产”）的价值。债务人及其公司 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 已在英国对 UBS（瑞银集团）提出权利主张，以追回其所称的 $500 million 损失（“英国诉讼”）。\n\n7. 该等权利主张属于债务人财产，披露享有特权或保密的文件或信息可能损害其价值。例如，UBS 可以设想为在英国诉讼中寻求抗辩财产的权利主张，而试图利用享有特权或保密的信息使其受益。3 法院应通过在最大可能范围内保留特权并维持保密性，以维护财产的价值。\n\n8. 对享有特权文件的密封程序将确保仅有的可以审阅该等文件的主体——债务人和受托人——均为向其披露不会导致特权放弃的主体。此外，依据该程序向法院披露文件，应当按照法院以非公开审阅方式审阅享有特权文件的同一方式处理。\n\n9. 此外，至关重要的是，受托人能够立即提交答复及其听证会证物，同时遵守特权命令和保护令。在债务人和若干第三方完善任何保密指定期间，受托人不应在追究债务人藐视法庭责任时受到束缚。受托人保留反对对证据开示材料作出的保密指定以及请求撤销该等指定的一切权利。在未来任何保密指定被撤回，或者法院认定任何文件或信息被不当指定的范围内，该等材料可经协议或通过日后的命令解除密封。\n\n3　UBS 知悉本第11章案件中的程序；该等知悉既来自英国的法院提交文件，也因为受托人已根据 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004 向 UBS 发出传票。\n\n10. 因此，受托人提议将保密文件和信息（统称为“保密材料”）以及享有特权的文件和信息（统称为“特权材料”，并与保密材料合称为“受保护材料”）均予以密封提交。\n\n11. 依据破产地方法则9077-1适用于本争议事项的民事地方法则5(e)，规定法院可以允许密封提交文件和信息。本动议明确且有力地陈述了所需的事实依据，并且该等依据亦载于随附提交的拟议命令中；该等依据足以证明法院对受保护材料予以密封。参见民事地方法则5(e)(3)。本动议请求的救济经过严格限定，以服务于该等重要利益。参见同上。\n\n12. 民事地方法则允许提交一项请求密封的密封动议。参见民事地方法则5(e)(4)。受托人已将本动议密封提交，因为本动议在说明需要密封提交的理由时，本身披露了受保护材料。受托人还希望确保法院能够不受延误地审阅受托人的答复。受托人将在今日晚些时候提交本动议的删节本。\n\n13. 因此，受托人将其答复的未删节副本作为证物B附于本动议，其中所有保密材料均以黄色标示，所有特权材料均以蓝色标示。受托人将同时在公开案卷中提交其答复的副本，其中所有受保护材料均已删节。\n\n14. 受托人进一步提议将若干证物指定为保密材料，包括但不限于：证物21、27，以及受托人在与保密方（定义如下）的律师协商后指定的其他证物；并将若干证物指定为特权材料，包括但不限于：证物20、22、23，以及受托人在与债务人的律师协商后指定的其他证物。受托人请求法院准许受托人据此将属于受保护材料的所有证物密封提交。\n\n15. 受托人请求，除法院外，对保密材料的披露应限于受托人、债务人、PAX、委员会和美国受托人（“保密方”），其均受保护令约束。在法院作出准许本动议的命令后，受托人将向保密方传阅答复的副本，其中所有保密材料均未删节4，并传阅所有属于保密材料的证物。\n\n16. 受托人请求，除法院外，对特权材料的披露应限于受托人和债务人（“特权方”）。\n\n17. 对特权材料的进一步披露，不仅可能威胁该等材料本身的特权，也可能更普遍地威胁与英国诉讼相关文件的律师—客户特权。财产在英国诉讼中的权利主张价值，对于财产以及受托人为确保其债权人获得尽可能最佳回收而最大化其资产价值的义务，均极为重要。\n\n18. 鉴于债务人是特权命令和保密令的当事方，受托人已向债务人送达本密封动议5的副本，以及受托人答复的未删节副本；受托人将在其密封提交所有属于特权材料的证物时或之前，向债务人送达该等证物的副本。\n\n4　特权材料信息在向保密方传阅的答复副本中将继续被删节，且受托人不会向债务人以外的当事方传阅属于特权材料的证物。\n\n5 为保全与特权材料有关的适用特权，本动议将不向债务人以外的当事人送达。\n\n19. 受托人已起草拟议裁定，以准许本动议，该裁定纳入具体认定，但不直接披露受保护材料，以便其能够在公开案卷中提交。\n\n法院应当延长受托人答复的页数限制\n\n20. 为使受托人能够在其答复中充分处理前述事项——包括对债务人不断变化的立场和陈述进行“事实核查”——受托人谨请求法院将页数限制从十（10）页延长至二十五（25）页。参见 Local Bankruptcy Rule 7007-2（允许经法院批准延长页数限制）。\n\n21. 事实上，鉴于债务人对藐视法庭动议所提出的辩护在其证言记录中发生了实质变化，受托人的答复实际上必须回应两份异议——一份是债务人律师提交的异议，另一份是债务人在星期五首次提出的异议。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白]\n\n据此，法院应当准许本动议，允许按照拟议裁定所规定的方式密封提交受保护材料，延长受托人答复的页数限制，并给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：November 14, 2022\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A. 德斯平斯）\nNew Haven, Connecticut（康涅狄格州纽黑文）\n第11章受托人\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R. 林赛）\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S. 斯卡尔卡） (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙泰斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n附件A\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：\n：\n第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，　：\n：\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。6　：\n：\n合并管理\n：\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n[拟议]裁定：准许第11章受托人提出的密封动议，即：(A) 密封提交支持作出裁定、认定债务人因未遵守公司治理权利裁定而构成民事藐视法庭的动议之答复及相关文件；以及 (B) 延长答复的页数限制\n\n经审议第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A. 德斯平斯）（以下简称“受托人”）提出的动议（以下简称“本动议”），该动议请求准许其密封提交其《支持作出裁定、认定债务人因未遵守公司治理权利裁定而构成民事藐视法庭的动议之答复》（以下简称“答复”）及若干其他文件；且已有正当理由显示，并且法院认定，披露受律师—当事人特权约束的文件或信息（以下统称“特权材料”），或以其他方式属于保密性质的文件或信息（以下统称“保密材料”，与特权材料合称“受保护材料”），可能损害债务人破产财团（以下简称“破产财团”），包括就债务人破产财团中尚未决诉讼请求的价值而言；法院还认定，准许密封提交受保护材料符合相关各方在《特权令》和《保护令》7 下的协议及预期，有助于确保各方遵守该等命令，本裁定所提供的救济经过严格限定以服务于上述目的，且由此及以其他方式均已显示正当理由，故本院特此\n\n6 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）（以下简称“债务人”）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司，以下简称“Genever BVI”）。受托人及 Genever BVI 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团的受托人（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n\n命令如下：本动议按本裁定所载内容获准；并进一步\n\n命令如下：法院批准密封提交本动议及所附未经删节的答复；本动议及未经删节的答复均应继续处于密封状态；并进一步；\n\n命令如下：受托人应在本第11章案件的公开案卷中提交一份答复副本，其中对受托人指定为受保护材料的任何信息作出删节；但条件是，受托人应向债务人、PAX（PAX）、委员会及美国受托人（以下合称“保密方”）送达一份答复副本，其中删节特权材料，但不删节保密材料（非同时构成特权材料的保密材料）；并且受托人应向债务人送达一份完全未经删节的答复副本；并进一步\n\n命令如下：受托人可密封提交任何属于保密材料的听证会证物；但条件是，受托人应在作出该等密封提交时，向保密方送达所有该等证物（非同时构成特权材料的证物）；并进一步\n\n命令如下：受托人可密封提交任何属于特权材料的听证会证物；但条件是，受托人应在作出该等密封提交时，向债务人送达所有该等证物；并进一步\n\n7 本裁定中未另行定义的首字母大写术语，应采用本动议中所载的定义。\n\n命令如下：适用于受托人答复的页数限制应为二十五（25）页。\n\n附件B\n\n为反映保密材料和特权材料而突出显示的未经删节答复\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，　：　Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。1　：　合并管理\n\n------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n第11章受托人支持作出裁定、认定债务人因未遵守公司治理权利裁定而构成民事藐视法庭的动议之答复\n\nLuc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯）作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”），通过其下列签署律师，谨此提交本答复（以下简称“答复”），以支持其第11章受托人提出的关于作出裁定、认定债务人因未遵守公司治理权利裁定而构成民事藐视法庭的动议 [Docket No. 913]（以下简称“藐视法庭动议”）2，并回应 Ho Wan Kwok 先生（郭文贵，以下简称“债务人”）就此提交的异议 [Docket No. 1026]（以下简称“异议”）。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）（以下简称“债务人”）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司，以下简称“Genever BVI”）。受托人及 Genever BVI 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团的受托人（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n\n2 本文中未另行定义的首字母大写术语，采用藐视法庭动议中所载的定义。\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 债务人持续未遵守本院《公司治理权利裁定》明确且毫不含糊的指示，以及《破产法典》第521(a)(3)和(4)条的要求3——连同为解释该等不遵守行为而不断变换的借口、含糊其辞和完全失实陈述——令人想起 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）在 PAX 诉讼中所作的警示：“如果亿万富翁诉讼当事人可以一方面同时寻求利用纽约及美国其他地区的法院程序，另一方面明知且故意违反法院命令，那么就没有法治。”4 Ostrager 法官是在 PAX 诉讼中历经五年观察债务人的行为后作出该陈述的；在此期间，债务人表现出“对[纽约州法院]及司法程序的彻底蔑视”。5\n\n2. 债务人现正采用许多相同的策略和手段回应藐视法庭动议，而正是这些策略和手段导致 Ostrager 法官作出上述认定。债务人在 PAX 诉讼及其他场合最惯用的策略之一，是在有利于其个人利益时，毫无羞耻或尴尬地否认知悉或应对其自身言辞和陈述承担责任，包括在法院提交文件和/或宣誓时作出的言辞和陈述。例如，在 PAX 诉讼中的证言记录期间，债务人声称其向 PAX 作出的个人保证上的签名系伪造，尽管其曾提交该同一文件，并在 June 2017 寻求驳回 PAX 诉讼时依赖该文件的真实性。6 事实上，债务人自己的律师此前承认该保证“由 Kwok 先生签署”。7 债务人这一令人难以置信的彻底转变，导致 Ostrager 法官裁定其不得以司法禁止反言为由，将伪造主张作为对 PAX 违约索赔的抗辩。8 债务人最惯用的另一策略，是毫无根据地声称他人（包括近亲属或受信赖的密友）拥有某项资产，而债务人实为该资产的真正受益所有人。这些相同策略在本案中充分显现。债务人一方面毫无羞耻地放弃其先前证言，另一方面编造关于据称由谁拥有和控制 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的难以置信的故事，以服务其个人利益并使其资产免于债权人追索。债务人过去曾在法院提交文件和/或宣誓时——包括在 Section 341 Meeting（第341条会议）和 U.K. Complaint（英国起诉状）中——证明其拥有 Ace Decade。现在，债务人却主张其在第341条会议中的证言不知何故被错误翻译，尽管其本人及其在该会议中的个人口译员当时均未对据称不正确的翻译提出异议，此后六个月内亦未提出异议。\n\n3. 具体而言，债务人主张，其并未如会议正式记录所反映的那样，在第341条会议中证称其为 Ace Decade 的“一名依法代表的所有人”，而是证称其“依法代表该所有人”——即，所有人为他人，债务人仅作为该人的代表。\n\n6 See Hearing Ex. 45, Memo in Support of Kwok Motion to Dismiss at 3, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 8；Hearing Ex. 44, Affirmation of Fiona Yu in Support of Kwok Motion to Dismiss at 2, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 11（附上 Kwok 与 PAX 之间个人保证的真实且正确副本）。\n\n7 Hearing Ex. 47, Email chain between PAX LP and Stevenson Wong, dated March 16, 2011, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 354。\n\n8 See Hearing Ex. 48, Judicial Estoppel Decision, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 404（“法院认定，被告 Kwok 受到司法禁止反言的限制，不得质疑……被告 Kwok 先前在本院程序中曾支持的文件之真实性，尽管被告 Kwok 在其证言记录期间曾试图否认其在该等文件上的签名。”）。\n\n9. 仅此一点即足以摧毁债务人的说法，揭示该说法不过是旨在阻止受托人取得对 Ace Decade（艾斯十年公司）控制权的捏造。更糟的是，债务人为支持所谓翻译错误而指明的唯一证人——其私人口译员——在上周五的证言录取中作证称\n\n4. 债务人现又公然否认其在其他情境下就其在 Ace Decade 中权益所作的宣誓证言。债务人此前曾证称，他使用 Ace Decade 进行 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）投资，并以其个人资金为该投资提供资金。然而，在上周五的证言录取中，\n\n10 Nov. 11, 2022 Una Wilkinson（乌娜·威尔金森）的证言记录（以下简称“Wilkinson证言”）第20:4-12页\n\n11 Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition 第30:7-8页\n\n12 同上，第69:9-11页\n\n。在2018，债务人在另一宗诉讼的证言录取中再次在没有任何证据的情况下证称，其位于曼哈顿 Sherry Netherland（雪莉-荷兰酒店公寓）的公寓实际上归 Wei（魏先生）所有。13 但是，如本院所知，债务人现于本第11章案件中主张，Sherry Netherland 由来并始终以信托方式为 Bravo Luck Limited（卓越幸运有限公司）之利益持有，而据债务人再次所称，Bravo Luck Limited 由债务人的儿子所有。14\n\n所有这些计划和荒谬主张均须由受托人调查并作出回应（此外还有债务人阻挠受托人工作的各种尝试），致使破产财产支出数百万美元的专业费用。这种情况必须立即停止。\n\n6. 在2016以及2020，债务人称 Yong Yu（俞勇）是 Ace Decade 的名义股东，并称其本人是她的“雇主”。15 此后，在2021举行的一次证言录取中，债务人多次否认其认识 Yong Yu。16\n\n在2018，\n\n债务人称她是其“助理”18（这与公开记录中大量文件和/或向受托人提交的大量文件一致），19\n\n7. 债务人的矛盾还延伸至其在本第11章案件中提交的财产清单和声明。债务人在其财产清单中将 UBS 诉讼列为其破产财产的一项资产，并在其 March 20, 2022 声明（以下简称“首日声明”）中称——该声明亦系其为支持其请求 DIP financing（占有债务人融资）以帮助资助 UBS 诉讼而提交——该诉讼所得款项可支付给债权人，并将用于制定\n\n一项计划。21\n\n20 Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition 第77:16-79:13页\n\n21 见 First Day Declaration 第32、47段（债务人称其“预计，我作为原告的诉讼中获得的追偿或和解款项将用于资助一项第11章计划。”）。\n\n22 Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition 第30:7-8页\n\n17 Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition 第33:3-8页。\n\n18 Hearing Ex. 39, Oct. 3, 2018 Kwok Dep. Tr. 第55:23-25页（“问：谁是你的助理？答：……［Yvette Wang（王雁）］。”）。\n\n19 在仲裁员 Frank Maas（弗兰克·马斯）就债务人与 Boies Schiller（博伊斯·席勒律师事务所）之间费用争议作出的最终仲裁裁决中，Maas 将 Yvette Wang 称为“Kwok 的幕僚长”。见 Hearing Ex. 13, Arbitration Award 第3页，Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP v. Kwok, Index No. 150001/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 6。另见，例如，Hearing Ex. 31, Yvette Wang Dep. Tr., dated Oct. 11, 2018, 第46:20-25页（“问：我问你是否担任 Kwok 先生利益事项的管理人员？答：是。问：那是什么意思？答：翻译、助理。”）（着重号为后加）；Hearing Ex. 28, Email from Yvette Wang, dated July 11, 2019（“［我］们［在 Golden Spring（金泉）］负责 Miles（郭文贵）及其家人的事务…… ”）；\n\n8. 最后，为在表面上“遵守”受托人在藐视法庭动议中所请求的命令而作最后时刻的努力，债务人已向本院提交一封据称其已交付给 Wang 女士的信函，称其指示她在其可能对 Ace Decade 享有权限的范围内，将 Ace Decade 的股份转让给受托人。如以下进一步讨论，该信函——其完全没有实现任何目的——是一种无耻的诉讼策略，本院应径行驳回。\n\n9. 本院不应容忍债务人为规避遵守公司治理权利命令而采取的最新策略。若允许债务人继续玩弄这些手段，他将使本院和司法制度沦为笑柄。债务人拥有无限资金可聘请律师提出一切可以想象的论点，以寻求拖延和阻挠司法程序。鉴于债务人拒绝遵守公司治理权利命令，以及其先前证称其拥有 Ace Decade，本院应裁定债务人是 Ace Decade 的所有人，且 Ace Decade 的股份属于第11章破产财产。除非债务人在十（10）日内交出其在 Ace Decade 中的股份，否则应认定债务人藐视法庭。\n\n论证\n\nI. 债务人未能遵守公司治理权利命令的明确指示\n\n10. 首先，债务人的异议试图混淆本院在公司治理权利命令中作出的明确指示。然而，无论其如何尝试，债务人均无法改变公司治理权利命令的明确措辞；该命令规定：“受托人为破产财产之利益，就所有债务人控制实体，包括但不限于 Genever (BVI)（Genever英属维尔京群岛公司），持有债务人的全部经济权利和治理权利。”为实施上述规定，公司治理权利命令指示债务人“与受托人合作，使受托人能够履行其职责”，并“向受托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有关的账簿、文件、记录和文书。”23 不言而喻，公司治理权利命令并不限于 Genever (BVI)，而是适用于债务人的所有财产，包括 Ace Decade；债务人已在法庭文件中和/或宣誓情况下反复承认其拥有该公司。\n\n11. 然而，尽管公司治理权利命令的措辞明确，债务人仍坚持认为，该命令并未明确要求其向受托人转让 Ace Decade 的股份，因此不符合第二巡回法院认定藐视法庭所要求的标准；该标准要求：“（1）被藐视法庭者未遵守的命令明确且无歧义；（2）不遵守的证据明确且令人信服；以及（3）被藐视法庭者未以合理方式勤勉地尝试遵守。”King v. Allied Vision, Ltd., 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995)。但是，公司治理权利命令几乎不可能更明确，而几乎没有比“所有”财产更无歧义的词语——该措辞无疑包括其对 Ace Decade 的所有权。\n\n12. 公司治理权利命令仅具体提及转让 Genever (BVI) 股份这一事实，也并不限制其要求债务人“向受托人交出破产财产的所有财产”的明确措辞。公司治理权利命令明确规定，交出破产财产包括“但不限于”Genever (BVI) 的股份24——第二巡回法院辖区内的法院一再认定，该措辞不应被解释为限制性措辞。见，例如，Star Direct Telecom, Inc. v. Glob. Crossing Bandwidth, Inc.,\n\n23 Corporate Governance Rights Order 第2、3段（着重号为后加）。\n\n24 Corporate Governance Rights Order 第3段（着重号为后加）\n\n272 F.R.D. 350, 356 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)（“本院并不知悉任何……主张认为‘including, without limitation’条款应被理解为限制性条款。”）；Shugrue v. Continental Airlines, 977 F. Supp. 280, 285-86 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)（“including without limitation”的明确措辞表明协议中的清单并非排他性的）。\n\n13. 此外，毫无疑问，就债务人的不遵守而言，受托人已满足“明确且令人信服”的标准。债务人并未就 Ace Decade 向受托人交出任何东西，也未给出任何其计划如此行事的严肃迹象。\n\n14. 债务人提出一种荒谬理论，即其无法遵守公司治理权利命令，因为即便其是 Ace Decade 的所有人，受托人现持有全部公司治理权利，因此只有受托人可以指示转让 Ace Decade 的股份。该论点毫无道理。此时，受托人（仍然）未控制 Ace Decade，恰恰是因为债务人拒绝配合将 Ace Decade 的股份转让给受托人。债务人不应以同一命令据称阻止其履行该义务为由，而免除其遵守要求其与受托人合作并向破产财产交出其财产的命令（以及《破产法典》第521(a)(3)和(4)条）的义务。\n\n15. 债务人出具一封已签署、日期为 November 10, 2022 的致 Yvette Wang 的信函（以下简称“股份转让函”），其中称：“为遵守受托人的要求，并在我可能对 Ace Decade 享有任何权限的范围内，我特此指示你签署所附的股份转让文书和股份转让决议。”25 这一最后时刻的策略令人反感——而发出这样一封\n\n25 Debtor's Hearing Ex. B, 第1页。\n\n讽刺的是，受托人曾试图找到 Wang 女士，以向其送达传票，要求其就本事项作证，但受托人的送达人员一直未能找到 Wang 女士。30\n\n17. 总而言之，股份转让函是一种愤世嫉俗、最后时刻试图通过表面上遵守公司治理权利命令来规避藐视法庭裁定的做法，而\n\n26 Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition 第85:23-86:8页\n\n27 同上，第48:14-16页\n\n28 同上，第83:3-7页\n\n同上，第83:3-7页。\n\n29 同上，第88:17-25页。\n\n30 Hearing Ex. 32, Affidavit of Attempted Service, dated Nov. 11, 2022（描述于 Nov. 9, 2022 在多个地址——包括其律师地址——向 Yvette Wang 送达的尝试）。此外，Wang 女士的律师已告知受托人，其未获授权接受受托人传票的送达。见 Hearing Ex. 33, Email chain between Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特）of Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）and Alex Liman（亚历克斯·利曼）of Lipman Law PLLC（利普曼律师事务所）, dated Nov. 10, 2022（Lipman 先生指出，其“未获授权”代表 Yvette Wang 接受送达）。\n\n事实上未采取公司治理权利命令所要求的任何步骤。\n\n显然，公司治理权利命令要求债务人将债务人控制实体移交给受托人；毫无疑问，尽管该命令条款清晰明确，他并未尝试遵守，且其拒绝遵守的行为足以支持作出认定其藐视法庭的命令。\n\n二、UBS诉讼及相关提交文件确认债务人对Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的所有权\n\n18. 如动议中详述，英国起诉状（于2020年9月提交）充分明确地表明，Ace Decade及其全资子公司Dawn State（黎明州）由债务人拥有和控制。根据英国起诉状，债务人是对Haitong Securities Company Limited（海通证券股份有限公司，以下简称“Haitong”）进行股权投资的实际受益人，而Ace Decade和Dawn State仅作为其投资工具，以使债务人无需向China Securities Regulatory Commission（中国证券监督管理委员会，以下简称“CSRC”）寻求批准。除其他事项外，债务人、Ace Decade和Dawn State在英国起诉状中主张：\n\n• “Kwok先生决定投资约US$3 billion于H股，以取得Haitong的重要股权。该投资将通过Haitong发行新H股，并将其配发给由Kwok先生控制的公司来进行。”英国起诉状第7段。\n\n• “Kwok先生向香港律师、Stevenson, Wong & Co.（史蒂文森、黄律师事务所）的合伙人Hank Lo（卢亨利）先生表示了其拟取得Haitong大量股权的意图。”英国起诉状第8段。\n\n• “Kwok先生的意图是为其本人取得该等股份。”英国起诉状第11(3)段。\n\n• UBS（瑞银集团）建议Kwok先生“[不]要通过由其实际拥有或控制的公司购买股份，因为这将需要CSRC批准”，而应“[改]为设立一种结构（由UBS安排），据此，UBS H股将由一家由第三方中介控制的公司取得，该项取得无需CSRC批准。”英国起诉状第18段。该第三方中介为Haixia Capital Management Company Ltd（海峡资本管理有限公司，以下简称“Haixia”），该实体最初拥有并控制Dawn State。英国起诉状第4段。\n\n• “Ace Decade于2014年11月10日由Kwok先生收购，目的在于作为上述投资工具。”英国起诉状第24段。\n\n• “Ace Decade、Dawn State和UBS达成一系列安排，旨在使Ace Decade能够通过Dawn State参与取得UBS H股。”英国起诉状第29段。\n\n• 根据该安排，“Ace Decade仅享有参与该项目的合同权利，并不对Dawn State或其所取得的UBS H股享有即时所有权权益。”英国起诉状第33(3)段。31\n\n英国起诉状从未提及Wei先生，即债务人如今突然主张为该公司真正所有人的亲属。对此的沉默震耳欲聋。\n\n19. 尽管英国起诉状还主张，“根据Kwok先生的一名雇员Wong先生的建议，Yu Yong女士（以下简称‘Yu女士’）成为[Ace Decade的]名义股东及董事”，英国起诉状第24段，但该主张并不减损英国起诉状中关于债务人为Ace Decade实际所有人的其他陈述。正如债务人在Ace Decade于纽约州法院对UBS提起的另一诉讼中提交的宣誓书（以下简称“Kwok/UBS宣誓书”）所述，债务人根据UBS的建议选择Yu女士，以满足Haixia（即H股投资的中介方）的“了解你的客户”要求。32 债务人“任命”Yu女士担任该职位这一事实，进一步证实其控制Ace Decade。\n\n31 2015年9月18日，Haixia将其在Dawn State的股份转让给Ace Decade。英国起诉状第74段。\n\n32 见听证会证据15，Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）宣誓书，日期为2016年2月5日，Ace Decade v. UBS AG，Index No. 653316/2015（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），NYSCEF Doc No. 27，第17段（“Wong先生要求审阅我的一些雇员的简历，以评估谁的背景最有可能满足Haixia的要求，从而可任命该雇员为Ace Decade的董事及唯一股东。他审阅了这些简历，并建议Yu女士的简历和背景最适合满足Haixia的要求，因此我应任命Yu女士为Ace Decade的董事及唯一股东。”）。\n\n对于Yvette Wang（王悦维）的通信亦是如此，债务人（或其律师）向其寄送了股份转让函。35\n\n20. 上述所有内容也与债务人的公司空壳把戏相一致，即让亲密家庭成员和受信任的密友“负责”公司实体，以向其债权人或监管机构隐藏其资产的真实所有权。实际上，如Kwok/UBS宣誓书所述，针对H股采用复杂的中介持有结构（而非由债务人直接投资）的主要目的，是避免被中国监管机关发现。36\n\n21. 债务人现于其异议中主张，英国起诉状中的陈述仅确认其于2014年11月对Ace Decade的所有权。姑且不论英国起诉状（如前所述，于2020年9月提交）中没有任何内容表明Ace Decade的所有权已经变更，异议既未说明若非债务人，Ace Decade的现任所有人是谁，也未说明Ace Decade的所有权据称于何时易手。\n\n债务人此等最后时刻改变说辞，根本不可信。\n\n35 见听证会证据28，Yvette Wang电子邮件，日期为2019年7月11日（“[我]们[Golden Spring（金泉）]负责Miles及其家人的业务…… ”）；\n\n36 见听证会证据15，Kwok Ho Wan宣誓书，日期为2016年2月5日，Ace Decade v. UBS AG，Index No. 653316/2015（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），NYSCEF Doc No. 27，第13段（“[]如果我直接通过Ace Decade投资，适用的披露要求将要求进行某些申报。”）。\n\n22. 无论如何，英国起诉状中的陈述与第341条会议中所作的陈述一致，事实上，也与债务人在本年9月之前所作的全部陈述一致；当时受托人要求债务人将Ace Decade的股份转让给受托人。直至此时，债务人才首次表示第三方可能拥有Ace Decade——但他在此之前所作的全部陈述均与其为Ace Decade所有人这一事实一致。\n\n23. 此外，大量其他书面证据毫无疑问地证明债务人拥有并控制Ace Decade——其中没有任何一份甚至提及Wei先生。例如：\n\n• Kwok/UBS宣誓书表明，由债务人为Ace Decade提供资金，且由债务人（通过Ace Decade）对H股进行了投资：\n\n• “Wong先生[在UBS]告诉我，由于我计划作出的投资金额较大，UBS全球的高级管理人员将参与构建该交易。”Kwok/UBS宣誓书第10段。\n\n• “基于UBS全球高级管理人员将参与构建及监督该项投资，以及UBS将以我的最佳利益行事的这些陈述，我委托UBS担任我的该项投资顾问。”同上，第11段。\n\n• “[UBS]就应任命我的哪一名雇员担任Ace Decade的唯一股东及董事、利用Ace Decade与一个将持有该等股份法定所有权的中介实体订立附属协议，以及如何最好地将投资所需资金从我的一个UBS账户转入Ace Decade账户，向我提供建议。”同上，第12段。\n\n• “UBS建议，由于计划投资超过Haitong已发行H股的5%，如果我直接通过Ace Decade投资，适用的披露要求将要求进行某些申报。”同上，第13段。\n\n• 债务人在其首日声明中称，他“预计将把我作为原告的诉讼中追回或和解所得款项用于为第11章计划提供资金”，37 且UBS诉讼请求权是“我预计将依赖以协助制定并可能确认重组计划的资产”。38 只有在Ace Decade的追回所得款项基于债务人作为Ace Decade所有人的身份流向债务人时，这才可能为真。\n\n• Ace Decade在纽约州法院提起的UBS诉讼中的起诉状，将UBS交易描述为源于债务人拟通过Ace Decade投资约$1 billion的计划。45\n\n39 见听证会证据41，Ho Wan Kwok证言记录，日期为2019年11月25日，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），NYSCEF Doc. No. 350，第10:21-24页（Podhaskie先生指出其以债务人个人身份代理债务人）。\n\n45 见听证会证据14，起诉书，Ace Decade v. UBS AG，Index No. 653316/2015（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），NYSCEF Doc No. 1，第20段。\n\n37 首日声明第47段。\n\n38 首日声明第54段。\n\n• 债务人针对Boies Schiller（博伊斯席勒律师事务所）提起的、涉及费用争议的起诉书，主张债务人聘请Boies Schiller代表Ace Decade提起诉讼，所依据的是针对债务人的欺诈和虚假陈述。46\n\n• 就债务人与Boies Schiller之间费用争议作出的仲裁裁决称，债务人在针对UBS的诉讼中“代表其本人”聘请Boies Schiller，且Boies Schiller向债务人收取了约$1.5 million的费用。47\n\n24. 实际上，如果债务人对Ace Decade不享有经济利益，为何他会针对UBS提起诉讼（包括在纽约州法院和英国法院），寻求追回因H股投资所遭受的约$500 million损失？这些诉讼清楚表明，债务人将Ace Decade和Dawn State遭受的投资损失视为其自身损失——这正是人们对Ace Decade和Dawn State实际所有人所应有的预期。\n\n三、法院应驳回债务人试图否认其在第341条会议上证言的企图\n\n25. 面对公司治理权利命令下清晰明确的指示，以及其在法院提交文件中及／或在宣誓后多次作出的、其为Ace Decade所有人的陈述，债务人现试图质疑2022年4月6日债权人会议（以下简称“第341条会议”）正式记录的准确性；他在该会议上宣誓确认其为Ace Decade的唯一所有人。重申，在第341条会议期间，美国受托人办公室的律师对债务人询问如下：\n\n• 问：Kwok先生，您是否拥有一家名为Ace Decade Holdings Limited的公司的任何权益？\n\n• 答：是。\n\n46 见听证会证据11，起诉书，Wengui v. Schiller, et al.，Index No. 150001/2019（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），NYSCEF Doc. No. 1，第6-7段（“UBS事项涉及因UBS对Guo实施的欺诈和虚假陈述而造成的超过$500 million损害……”）。\n\n47 见听证会证据13，第2页仲裁裁决，Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP v. Kwok，Index No. 150001/2019（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），NYSCEF Doc. No. 6。\n\n问：您对Ace Decade Holdings Limited所拥有权益的性质是什么？\n\n答：因此，我拥有该权益，并要求UBS返还$500 million。\n\n就是那种权益。\n\n问：您[Kwok先生]是否为Ace Decade唯一的法定所有人？\n\n答：我是法定代表所有人。\n\n问：Ace Decade是否有其他所有人？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您何时成为Ace Decade Holdings Limited的所有人？\n\n答：48\n\n于2014年底。\n\n26. 在整个第341条会议期间，债务人从未主张其并非Ace Decade的所有人，或Ace Decade的所有人为Wei先生。49 债务人亦未对第341条会议该部分的正式译文提出异议，而在会议期间的许多其他场合，他曾对正式译文提出异议。50\n\n亦未\n\n债务人随后对正式记录中任何这些部分的准确性提出质疑——当然，直至受托人要求转让Ace Decade（艾斯·德凯德）的股份时才提出。债务人仅在那时首次主张，其先前的承认据称是一系列误译所致。\n\n27. 尤其是，债务人现主张，他与美国受托人律师的对话应被正确译为：她问他：“[您]是否为Ace Decade的唯一合法所有人？”债务人回答：“我在法律上代表该所有人。”51 暂且不论\n\n48 2022年4月6日第341条会议记录，第60:16-61:10页（强调部分已添加）。\n\n49 债务人仅主张，Wei先生（魏先生）向债务人提供了$500 million资金，而债务人随后将该资金提供给Ace Decade。见同上，第62:11-63:1页（Wei先生的姓名被记录为“John Way”）。\n\n50 例如，见同上，第25:8-10页；第40:14-23页；第47:24-25页；第83:22-25页；第116:9-10页。\n\n51 异议 ¶ 18。\n\n29.\n\n可信度。53\n\n52 Wilkinson证词记录，第20:4-12页\n\n53 受托人正申请排除Wilkinson女士（威尔金森女士）拟提出的证词。\n54 同上，第26:6-23页（\n结论\n\n30. 数年来，债务人一直主张其拥有Ace Decade及其全资子公司Dawn State（道恩州）。仅在受托人获任命后，债务人才开始改变其说法，现毫无说服力地主张其并不拥有Ace Decade和Dawn State。法院应驳回债务人最新的混淆和误导企图，并执行法院的命令（以及债务人根据《破产法》承担的义务），要求其与受托人合作并交出破产财产中的全部财产。债务人行为的影响并不限于本院审理的程序。债务人持续的欺瞒使Ace Decade和Dawn State得以将自身表述为独立于债务人，并就英国法院待决的受托人承认申请提出异议。57\n\n31. 基于上述全部理由以及藐视法庭动议中详述的理由，受托人请求准许该藐视法庭动议，包括命令债务人在将Ace Decade股份交付受托人之前持续处于藐视法庭状态（无论谁为其持有该等股份），并由法院认定债务人为Ace Decade股份的所有人。\n[本页剩余部分故意留白]\n\n同上，第112:20-113:6页。\n\n同上，第131:4-11页\n\n57 见听证会证物51，Wedlake Bell（韦德莱克·贝尔）2022年11月3日的信函。\n\n日期：2022年11月14日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯潘斯），第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（经特别许可出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft（艾弗拉姆·E·卢夫特）（经特别许可出庭）\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（经特别许可出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人律师\n\n附件A [已删节]\n\n英文","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Despins","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Miles Guo","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":8414,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:40:28"}