{"id":"court_ctb_1149_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1149,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT :","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\nIn re : Chapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK, : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor. : \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n# **JOINT LIMITED OBJECTION OF MEI GUO AND HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC TO THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 2004 AND LOCAL RULE 2004-1 AUTHORIZING DISCOVERY WITH RESPECT TO ADDITIONAL LEGAL AND FINANCIAL ADVISORS TO THE INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR, ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS AFFILIATED WITH DEBTOR, RELEVANT BANKS AND ENTITIES DOING BUSINESS WITH DEBTOR AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES**\n\nMei Guo (\"Ms. Guo\"), a counterclaim defendant in the Adversary Proceeding captioned *HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC v. Ho Wan Kwok*, Adv. Pro. No. 22- 05003 (the \"Adversary\"), and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), the plaintiff and a counterclaim defendant in the Adversary, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby object (the \"Limited Objection\") to the motion (Doc. No. 1116, the \"Motion\") filed by Luc A. Despins as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") seeking this Court's authority to conduct certain examinations and issue subpoenas pursuant to Rule 2004. In support of their Limited Objection, Ms. Guo and HK USA respectfully state as follows.\n\n# **I. Preliminary Statement**\n\n1. The Trustee seeks this Court's authority to conduct examinations and issue subpoenas under Rule 2004 – often described as a \"fishing expedition\" – on matters that directly relate to claims and counterclaims asserted in the Adversary. However, as a matter of law and as detailed herein, the Trustee may not circumvent the protections afforded to Ms. Guo and HK USA in the Adversary by the Fed. R. Bankr. P. and Fed. R. Civ. P. by seeking discovery related to the\n\nAdversary via Rule 2004. Such discovery, if conducted at all, *must* be conducted in the Adversary. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth below, this Court should deny the Motion.\n\n### **II. Background**\n\n2. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Individual Debtor\") filed his voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, thereby commencing this bankruptcy case.\n\n3. On April 11, 2022, HK USA initiated the Adversary seeking a declaration that it, and not the Individual Debtor, is the lawful owner of the Lady May.\n\n4. On September 23, 2022, the Trustee filed a massive 62-page, 141 paragraph counterclaim with more than 3,100 pages of exhibits in the Adversary (Doc. No. 36 in the Adversary, the \"Counterclaim\"). The Counterclaim greatly expands the scope of the Adversary to include, *inter alia*, claims that the HK USA is an alter ego of the Individual Debtor, HK USA \"was the recipient of an actual fraudulent transfer by the Debtor consisting of the value of the Lady May and/or the funds used to purchase the Lady May,\" and \"a negligence claim against HK USA based on HK USA having taken and kept the Lady May overseas in violation of court orders….\" (*See*  Counterclaim, at 7-8).\n\n5. On November 18, 2022, the Trustee filed the instant Motion wherein he requests that this Court \"direct[] the examination of the Examinees\" (as defined in the Motion) and \"direct[] the production of certain documents as set forth in the Requests for Production of Documents\" in the 53 subpoenas attached to the Motion. (Motion, at 15).\n\n## **III. Argument**\n\n6. \"Under the [pending proceeding rule], 'once an adversary proceeding or contested matter is commenced, discovery should be pursued under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and\n\n2\n\nnot by Rule 2004,' *In re Enron Corp.*, 281 B.R. 836, 840 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002), *In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996) ('The well recognized rule is that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter has been commenced, discovery is made pursuant to [Rule] 7026 *et seq.*, rather than by a [Rule] 2004 examination.')….\" *In re SunEdison, Inc.*, on, 490 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017); *see also*, *In re Cambridge Analytica LLC*, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019); *In re Ecam Publ'ns, Inc.*, 131 B.R. 556, 559 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991).\n\n7. \"The pending proceeding rule is based on the different safeguards that attend Rule 2004 and civil litigation discovery, and reflects a concern that a party to litigation could circumvent his adversary's rights by using Rule 2004 rather than civil discovery to obtain documents or information relevant to the lawsuit.\" *In re SunEdison, Inc*., 572 B.R. at 490.\n\n8. In the 53 subpoenas that the Trustee seeks to serve on the Examinees there are dozens of requests for information concerning the Lady May that directly relate to claims and counterclaims made in the Adversary, specifically regarding the ownership of the Lady May made by HK USA and the Trustee's wide-ranging claims set forth in the Counterclaim.\n\n9. In particular, the subpoenas directed at Apsley Yachts Ltd. (\"Apsley\") and DWF LLP (\"DWF\") contain very broad demands seeking, *inter alia*, documents concerning (i) the Lady May, (ii) \"the ownership or control\" of the Lady May, (iii) \"any money or value paid or given\" related to the Lady May \"and the source thereof,\" (iv) \"any money or value generated or obtained related to\" the Lady May \"and the disposition thereof,\" (v) \"the use of\" the Lady May by the Individual Debtor and his family, (vi) the \"operation, maintenance, service, or overhaul\" of the Lady May, (vii) the \"lease or rental\" of the Lady May, and (viii) \"the purchase sale or marketing of\" the Lady May. (Exhibit C-17 (the \"Aspley Subpoena\") and Exhibit C-18 (the \"DWF Subpoena\"), attached to the Motion). These requests are clearly designed to collect documents for use in the Adversary, primarily the ownership, use, and control of the Lady May and financial matters relating to the Lady May.\n\n10. In addition to the Apsley Subpoena and the DWF Subpoena, 43 other subpoenas (collectively, the \"Other Subpoenas\") attached to the Motion contain broad demands seeking, *inter alia*, \"[a]ll [d]ocuments regarding any property ever occupied or used by the [Individual] Debtor, including without limitation the Lady May\" or \"[a]ll [d]ocuments regarding the Lady May[.]\" (*See*  Exhibits C-1-16, 19-21, 27-28, 31-52). Considering the breadth of these document requests in the Other Subpoenas and the entities to which the Trustee directs these document requests (including professional firms, individuals, and other business entities) these requests are intended to capture, among other things, documentation for use by the Trustee in the Adversary.\n\n11. Thus, Aspley Subpoena and the DWF Subpoena, in their entirety, and the Other Subpoenas, in part, seek information directly related to the allegations at issue in the Adversary. As a matter of law, the Trustee may not circumvent the protections afforded to Ms. Guo and HK USA in the Adversary by the Fed. R. Bankr. P. and Fed. R. Civ. P. by seeking discovery related to the Adversary via Rule 2004. *See In re SunEdison, Inc*., 572 B.R. at 490; *In re Ecam Publ'ns, Inc.*, 131 B.R. at 559; *In re Enron Corp.*, 281 B.R. 836, at 841. The Trustee cannot be permitted to end run those rules by using Rule 2004 to obtain discovery that is clearly intended to be used in the Adversary.\n\n12. The Trustee concedes that the discovery sought via the Motion overlaps with the discovery that could be sought in the Adversary. (Motion, at 12, n. 3). The Trustee's attempts to excuse his effort to abuse Rule 2004 with conclusory statements and without citation to any legal authority all fail. Indeed, the Trustee is simply incorrect in asserting that \"[t]he pending proceeding doctrine… would not prevent the Trustee from seeking Rule 2004 discovery from individuals or\n\n4\n\nentities who are not parties to the adversary proceeding concerning the Lady May.\" (*Id.*) Though the Trustee \"may conduct Rule 2004 examinations of entities which are not parties to or are not affected by the pending adversary proceeding(s)[,]… discovery of evidence related to the pending proceeding must be accomplished in accord with more restrictive provisions of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Thus a trustee… must look to Rule 7026 *et seq.* after an adversary proceeding is commenced for discovery as to both entities affected by the proceeding and issues addressed in the proceeding.\" *In re Martelli*, Nos. 16-20983-PRW, 16-20316-PRW, 16-20968- PRW, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 2015, at \\*12-13 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. July 20, 2017) (quotations omitted), *citing In re Wash. Mut., Inc.*, 408 B.R. 45, 51 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009); *In re Szadkowski*, 198 B.R. 140, 142 (Bankr. D. Md. 1996).<sup>1</sup>\n\n13. Accordingly, the Motion must be denied insofar as it seeks this Court's authorization for the Trustee issue the Aspley Subpoena and the DWF Subpoena as well as the Other Subpoenas to the extent that they seek information directly related to the allegations at issue in the Adversary. The Trustee should be ordered to pursue any additional discovery as issues concerning the ownership of the Lady May and the Trustee's Counterclaim, including the discovery sought via the Motion, in the Adversary.\n\n**WHEREFORE,** Ms. Guo and HK USA respectfully request that the Court deny the Motion as set forth herein and grant them such other and further relief as justice requires.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Trustee's other justifications are equally unavailing. Indeed, though the Trustee's efforts to seek discovery \"relat[ing] to the overall pattern of conduct by the Individual Debtor\" might be broader than some aspects of claims in the Adversary, that does not excuse the Trustee from seeking discovery *that is related to the claims* in the Adversary *via that proceeding*. Likewise, though the Trustee might think it \"inefficient\" to pursue discovery inside and outside the Adversary, such alleged inefficiency (assuming it exists) does not justify denying the undersigned non-debtors the rights and protections afforded to them under the Fed. R. Bank. P. and Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 22nd day of November, 2022.\n\n# **HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC, AND MEI GUO**\n\n*/s/ John L. Cesaroni* James M. Moriarty (ct21876) John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5467 Email: [Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 22nd day of November, 2022, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice ofElectronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ John L. Cesaroni* John L. Cesaroni (ct29309)","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n关于：第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）：案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。：________________________________________:\n\n________________________________________\nMEI GUO（郭美）与 HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）对第11章破产受托人根据《破产程序规则》第2004条及《本地规则》第2004-1条请求作出裁定以授权对个人债务人的额外法律与财务顾问、与债务人关联的实体和个人、相关银行以及与债务人及关联实体有业务往来的实体进行证据开示的第二次补充综合动议的联合有限异议\n\nMei Guo（郭美，简称“郭女士”），系题为 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 诉 Ho Wan Kwok 案（对抗辩诉案号 22-05003，简称“对抗程序”）中的反诉被告，以及 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，简称“HK USA”），系对抗程序中的原告兼反诉被告，特通过其下述署名律师，在此对 Luc A. Despins 作为第11章破产受托人（简称“受托人”）所提交的、请求本法院授权依据第2004条进行若干审查并发出传票的动议（文件编号 1116，简称“动议”）提出异议（简称“有限异议”）。为支持其有限异议，郭女士与 HK USA 谨陈述如下。\n\n一、初步陈述\n\n1. 受托人请求本法院授权依据第2004条进行审查并发出传票——这通常被称为“钓鱼执法”（fishing expedition）——其所涉事项直接关系到对抗程序中提出的主张和反诉。然而，根据法律规定且如本异议书所详述，受托人不得通过依据第2004条寻求与对抗程序相关的证据开示，来规避《联邦破产诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Bankr. P.）和《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Civ. P.）在对抗程序中赋予郭女士及 HK USA 的保护。此类证据开示即使可以进行，也必须在对抗程序内进行。因此，基于下述理由，本法院应驳回该动议。\n\n二、背景\n\n2. 2022年2月15日（简称“申请日”），Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，简称“个人债务人”）根据《破产法典》第11章提交了自愿救济申请，从而启动了本破产案件。\n\n3. 2022年4月11日，HK USA 提起了对抗程序，请求确认其自身而非个人债务人才是 Lady May 号（梅号游艇）的合法所有人。\n\n4. 2022年9月23日，受托人在对抗程序中提交了一份篇幅达62页、141个段落且附有3100余页证据附件的庞大反诉书（对抗程序中文件编号 36，简称“反诉书”）。该反诉书极大地扩大了对抗程序的范围，包括但不限于指控 HK USA 是个人债务人的另我（alter ego）、HK USA “是债务人实际欺诈性转让的接收方，该转让包括 Lady May 号的价值和/或用于购买 Lady May 号的资金”，以及“基于 HK USA 违反法院命令将 Lady May 号带至海外并扣留而对 HK USA 提起的过失诉求……”（参见反诉书，第7-8页）。\n\n5. 2022年11月18日，受托人提交了本动议，在动议中请求本法院“下令对被审查人进行审查”（如动议中所定义），并“下令按照动议随附的53份传票中的《文件出示请求》出示特定文件”。（动议，第15页）。\n\n三、论证\n\n6. “根据[系属案件规则]（pending proceeding rule），‘一旦对抗程序或争议事项启动，应当根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》而非第2004条进行证据开示’，In re Enron Corp.（安然公司案）, 281 B.R. 836, 840 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)；In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)（‘公认的规则是，一旦对抗程序或争议事项启动，证据开示应依据[规则]第7026条及后续条款进行，而非通过[规则]第2004条审查。’）……”。In re SunEdison, Inc., 572 B.R. 482, 490 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)；另见 In re Cambridge Analytica LLC（剑桥分析有限公司案）, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)；In re Ecam Publ'ns, Inc., 131 B.R. 556, 559 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991)。\n\n7. “系属案件规则的基础在于伴随第2004条与民事诉讼证据开示的不同保护措施，它反映了这样一种担忧：诉讼当事人可能会利用第2004条而非民事证据开示来获取与诉讼相关的文件或信息，从而规避其对手方的权利。” In re SunEdison, Inc., 572 B.R. at 490。\n\n8. 在受托人试图向被审查人送达的53份传票中，有数十项关于 Lady May 号的信息请求直接涉及对抗程序中提出的主张与反诉，特别是关于 HK USA 主张的 Lady May 号的所有权以及受托人在反诉书中提出的广泛主张。\n\n9. 特别是，针对 Apsley Yachts Ltd.（简称“Apsley”）和 DWF LLP（简称“DWF”）发出的传票包含了极其宽泛的要求，除其他事项外，还索取有关以下内容的文件：(i) Lady May 号；(ii) Lady May 号的“所有权或控制权”；(iii) 与 Lady May 号相关的“任何已支付或给付的款项或价值及其来源”；(iv) 与 Lady May 号相关的“任何产生或获得的款项或价值及其处置”；(v) 个人债务人及其家庭对 Lady May 号的“使用”；(vi) Lady May 号的“运营、维护、服务或大修”；(vii) Lady May 号的“租赁或出租”；以及 (viii) Lady May 号的“买卖或营销”。（动议随附的证据 C-17（简称“Apsley 传票”）及证据 C-18（简称“DWF 传票”））。这些请求显然是为了收集用于对抗程序的文件，主要是关于 Lady May 号的所有权、使用、控制权以及与 Lady May 号相关的财务事项。\n\n10. 除了 Apsley 传票和 DWF 传票之外，动议随附的其他43份传票（统称“其他传票”）也包含宽泛的要求，除其他事项外，索取“[个人]债务人曾占用或使用的任何财产的所有文件，包括但不限于 Lady May 号”或“关于 Lady May 号的所有文件”。（参见证据 C-1-16, 19-21, 27-28, 31-52）。考虑到其他传票中这些文件请求的广度，以及受托人针对这些文件请求所指向的实体（包括专业机构、个人及其他商业实体），这些请求旨在获取供受托人在对抗程序中使用的文件等材料。\n\n11. 因此，Apsley 传票和 DWF 传票的全部内容，以及其他传票的部分内容，所寻求的信息均直接关系到对抗程序中争议的指控事项。根据法律规定，受托人不得通过依据第2004条寻求与对抗程序相关的证据开示，来规避《联邦破产诉讼规则》和《联邦民事诉讼规则》在对抗程序中赋予郭女士及 HK USA 的保护。参见 In re SunEdison, Inc., 572 B.R. at 490；In re Ecam Publ'ns, Inc., 131 B.R. at 559；In re Enron Corp., 281 B.R. 836, at 841。绝不能允许受托人通过利用第2004条获取显然打算在对抗程序中使用的证据开示来绕过这些规则。\n\n12. 受托人承认，通过本动议寻求的证据开示与在对抗程序中可能寻求的证据开示存在重叠。（动议，第12页，注3）。受托人试图以结论性的陈述且不引用任何法律依据来为其滥用第2004条的行为进行辩解，这些辩解均告失败。事实上，受托人声称“[系属案件原则]……不会阻止受托人向非涉及 Lady May 号的对抗程序当事方的个人或实体寻求第2004条证据开示”，这一断言完全是错误的。（同上）。尽管受托人“可以对非未决对抗程序当事方或不受其影响的实体进行第2004条审查，但是……与未决程序相关的证据的开示必须依照《联邦破产诉讼规则》更为严格的规定进行。因此，受托人……在对抗程序启动后，无论是针对受程序影响的实体还是程序中涉及的争议焦点进行证据开示，都必须遵循第7026条及后续条款。” In re Martelli, 案号 16-20983-PRW, 16-20316-PRW, 16-20968-PRW, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 2015, at *12-13 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2017年7月20日)（引文省略），引述 In re Wash. Mut., Inc.（华盛顿互惠银行案）, 408 B.R. 45, 51 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009)；In re Szadkowski, 198 B.R. 140, 142 (Bankr. D. Md. 1996)。1\n\n13. 因此，就动议请求本法院授权受托人发出 Apsley 传票和 DWF 传票，以及其他传票中寻求直接与对抗程序中争议指控相关的信息的部分而言，该动议必须予以驳回。应责令受托人在对抗程序中就涉及 Lady May 号所有权的问题以及受托人的反诉进行任何进一步的证据开示，包括通过本动议所寻求的证据开示。\n\n具状请求：郭女士与 HK USA 谨请求法院驳回本文件所述的动议，并依正义所需给予其其他及进一步的救济。\n\n1 受托人的其他理由同样不成立。事实上，尽管受托人寻求“与个人债务人的总体行为模式相关”的证据开示的努力可能比对抗程序中某些方面的主张更为广泛，但这并不能免除受托人通过该程序寻求与对抗程序中的主张相关的证据开示的义务。同样，尽管受托人可能认为在对抗程序内外分别进行证据开示是“低效的”，但这种所谓的低效（假定其存在）并不能成为剥夺下述署名的非债务人依据《联邦破产诉讼规则》和《联邦民事诉讼规则》所享有的权利和保护的正当理由。\n\n签署于康涅狄格州布里奇波特，2022年11月22日。\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC 与 MEI GUO\n\n/签名/ John L. Cesaroni James M. Moriarty (ct21876) John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 电话: (203) 368-4234 传真: (203) 368-5467 电子邮件: [Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com] [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n送达证明书\n\n本人特此证明，于2022年11月22日，本文件副本已通过电子方式归档。本归档通知将通过法院电子归档系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事方，或根据《电子归档通知》所示，通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子归档的任何人。当事方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次归档内容。\n\n/签名/ John L. Cesaroni John L. Cesaroni (ct29309)","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1757,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:59:12"}