{"id":"court_ctb_1381_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1381,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al.,\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors.\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n# UBS AG'S MOTION TO (1) VACATE ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING ON MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER COMPELLING UBS AG TO COMPLY WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENA (\"MOTION TO COMPEL\"), PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 9024 AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60, AND (2) ENLARGE TIME FOR UBS TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO COMPEL TO FEBRUARY 13, 2023 AND ADJOURN HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 9006(b)(1)\n\nNon-party UBS AG (\"UBS\"), by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this motion (1) pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9024 and Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to vacate the Order Granting Motion to Expedite Hearing (the \"Order Expediting Hearing,\" [ECF No. 1370]), entered by the Court on January 24, 2023, granting the Motion to Expedite the Hearing on the Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Compelling UBS to Comply With Rule 2004 Subpoena (the \"Motion to Compel,\" [ECF No. 1362]), filed on January 23, 2023 by Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\"); and (2) pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1), to enlarge the time for UBS to respond to the Motion to Compel to February 13, 2023. UBS would be prepared to attend a hearing on the Motion to Compel after that date, at the Court's convenience, but in light of the just-filed Order Directing the Parties to Mediation [ECF No. 1373], entered on January 24, 2023 – which inter alia stayed all hearings after January 31, 2023 (see id. at 6) – UBS does not now propose a new hearing date. UBS remains willing to meet and confer with the Trustee's counsel in the meantime, to see if further progress can be made toward resolving or limiting the issues in dispute.\n\nThe Order Expediting Hearing, entered this morning, provides UBS with only four days in which to respond to the Motion to Compel (which, together with the Motion to Expedite Hearing, was only filed yesterday). The Court granted the Motion to Expedite before UBS responded, although UBS's counsel had notified the Court and the Trustee's counsel earlier this morning of UBS's intention to respond to the Motion to Expedite today. UBS respectfully submits that the Order Expediting Hearing should be vacated, because the Trustee failed to make even a bare showing of the requisite \"cause\" for his request to shorten UBS's time and require it to file its response no later than January 27, 2023, and UBS will suffer substantial prejudice if the Order Expediting Hearing remains in effect.\n\n UBS requires more than four days in which to support its response to the Motion to Compel with: (i) declarations on foreign law explaining that complying with the Rule 2004 Subpoena served on UBS (the \"Subpoena\") would require UBS to violate the law of certain jurisdictions, setting out the adverse consequences UBS could suffer in those jurisdictions if it were ordered to comply with the Subpoena, and describing alternative methods the Trustee could use to pursue the discovery requested in the Subpoena that would not require UBS to violate foreign law; and (ii) declarations of one or more UBS representatives establishing the impracticability of compliance with the Subpoena for UBS, given its scale and breadth of operations in multiple jurisdictions and the almost limitless range of documents the Trustee seeks in the Subpoena. UBS therefore requests that the Order Expediting Hearing be vacated and UBS's time to respond to the Motion to Compel be enlarged to February 13, 2023.\n\n As shown below, the Trustee, in the Motion to Expedite, failed to make any specific showing of urgency and gave short shrift to UBS's record of good-faith cooperation – which the Trustee's counsel acknowledged in his declaration in support of the Motion to Compel [ECF No. 1362, Declaration of Patrick R. Linsey, at ¶ 2] – and provision of extensive information to the Trustee over the course of the meet-and-confer process to date. UBS, moreover, is working diligently to obtain declarations on foreign law from legal experts in Hong Kong and Switzerland, supporting its planned response to the Motion to Compel. However, in light of the challenges posed by coordinating work in multiple time zones and Lunar New Year holidays occurring this week and next in Hong Kong, UBS requires additional time to obtain those declarations as well as to finalize declarations of one or more UBS representatives. UBS will be severely prejudiced if it were required to respond to the Motion to Compel without these declarations.\n\nUBS has accordingly moved for an order (i) vacating the Order Expediting Hearing and (ii) enlarging UBS's time to respond to the Motion to Compel to February 13, 2023, so that it will have sufficient time to substantively respond to the Motion to Compel. In support of its Motion to Vacate and to Enlarge Time, UBS respectfully states as follows:\n\n### BACKGROUND\n\n1. The Trustee served the exceedingly broad Subpoena, demanding that UBS produce a staggering range of information and documents relating to Debtor Ho Wan Kwok and 26 other individuals and entities<sup>1</sup> purportedly associated with him (the \"2004 Discovery Targets\"). The Subpoena seeks numerous types of documents<sup>2</sup> going back 11 years, to January 1, 2012, and the\n\n<sup>1</sup> These are merely the discovery targets that are specifically identified; the Subpoena defines \"Debtor\" to include not only Mr. Kwok but also his \"employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on his behalf,\" making it impossible to know with certainty who the actual discovery targets are.\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Subpoena defines \"Documents\" to include \"electronic mail, computer files maintained in electronic form, correspondence, memoranda, tapes, stenographic or handwritten notes, written forms of any kind, charts, blueprints, drawings, sketches, graphs, plans articles, specification, diaries, letters, telegrams, photographs, minutes,\n\nTrustee's counsel, during the parties' meet and confer discussions, has insisted that the Trustee seeks documents held by UBS anywhere on earth. Nonetheless, in his motion for leave to serve the Subpoena [ECF No. 839], the Trustee indicated that the Subpoena should be directed to \"UBS AG Hong Kong branch\" (see id. at Exhibit B at 4), suggesting that his primary, albeit not sole, jurisdiction of interest is Hong Kong.\n\n2. On October 12, 2022, UBS served its objections to the Subpoena. Counsel for UBS and the Trustee respectively participated in a series of telephonic meet-and-confer discussions commencing on November 23, 2022. Throughout this process, over the past several weeks, UBS – far from \"refusing to comply with the UBS Subpoena\" (Motion to Expedite ¶ 16) – has worked in good faith to provide to the Trustee information it could supply without violating the laws of jurisdictions in which UBS operates and to propose procedures that would enable the Trustee to seek the additional information sought in the Subpoena without putting UBS in legal jeopardy abroad. Among other things, UBS's external counsel asked the Trustee's counsel to provide UBS with a list of jurisdictions of primary interest to the Trustee to assist UBS in responding to the Subpoena. On January 10, 2023, the Trustee's counsel confirmed that the jurisdictions in which the Trustee was primarily interested were the United States, the United Kingdom, the British Virgin Islands, Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China (the \"PRC\"), and Switzerland. UBS subsequently determined the scope of the information potentially responsive to the Subpoena it was able to provide to the Trustee relating to those jurisdictions. On the parties' most recent meet-\n\ncontracts, agreements, surveys, computer printouts, data compilations of any kind, telexes, facsimiles, emails, text messages, instant messages, voice messages, invoices, order forms, checks, drafts, statements, credit memos, reports, position reports, summaries, indices, books, ledgers, notebooks, schedules, transparencies, recordings, catalogs, advertisements, promotional materials, film, video tapes, audio tapes, CDs, computer disks, brochures, pamphlets, punch-cards, time-slips, Tweets, social media posts, or any written or recorded materials of any other kind, and all meta-data thereof, however stored (whether in tangible or electronic form), recorded, produced, or reproduced, and also including but not limited to, drafts or copies of any of the foregoing that contain any notes, comments, or marking of any kind not found on the original documents or that are otherwise not identical to the original documents.\" Subpoena, at 11.\n\nand-confer telephone call on January 20, 2023, UBS's external counsel informed the Trustee's counsel that:\n\n- a. UBS had not identified any responsive accounts in the United States, the United Kingdom or the British Virgin Islands relating to any of the 2004 Discovery Targets that are not also claimants in a pending proceeding between those claimants and UBS in the United Kingdom;\n- b. UBS expected to soon be in a position to update the Trustee with respect to the PRC but would need additional time, in part because of the Lunar New Year holiday (celebrated January 22 through February 5, 2023), during which business in the PRC slows in a manner analogous to the US holiday period between Christmas and New Year's Day; and\n- c. With respect to Switzerland and Hong Kong, assuming that UBS had any responsive materials in those jurisdictions, UBS would not be able to produce any information or documents in response to the Subpoena without violating those jurisdictions' laws, which carry severe, and in certain circumstances criminal, penalties for violation. However, as UBS's external counsel had explained on several of the parties' earlier meet-and-confer calls, the Trustee could instead seek disclosure from those jurisdictions either by (i) proceeding under the Hague Evidence Convention or, (ii) seeking judicial recognition in Hong Kong of this U.S. bankruptcy case, which could lead to local court orders with which UBS could comply, eliminating the risk of it violating the law of those jurisdictions. UBS's external counsel – again, not for the first time – also explained that UBS would not object if the Trustee proceeded via either or both of these alternative paths and that, to the extent any potentially responsive materials existed in Switzerland or Hong Kong, UBS was prepared to review and prepare such materials for production in parallel with the Trustee making his applications under the Hague Evidence Convention or for foreign recognition, to avoid any delay once appropriate court orders were issued requiring production in those jurisdictions.\n\n3. It therefore simply is not true that \"UBS has asserted blanket objections that the documents and information [the Trustee seeks] are related to accounts that are located outside the United States\" (Motion to Expedite ¶ 10) or that \"UBS declined to produce any documents or information in compliance with the UBS Subpoena.\" (Motion to Expedite ¶ 11). Nor did UBS \"insist[] that the Trustee undertake legal process (via Hague Convention discovery or recognition proceedings) throughout the world.\" (Id.; emphasis added). Rather, UBS proposed viable and well-recognized alternative paths for the Trustee to seek the information he requests without putting UBS in violation of other jurisdictions' laws. And, contrary to the Trustee's assertion, those alternatives are anything but \"unworkable.\" (Motion to Expedite ¶ 16). For example, federal courts frequently require litigants to resort to Hague Evidence Convention procedures. See, e.g., Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Qi Andrew, 276 F.R.D. 143, 160 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (magistrate judge's ruling) (directing plaintiffs to request information they sought in China through the Hague Convention), aff'd, 2011 WL 11562419 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). During the January 20, 2023 meet-and-confer telephone call, the Trustee's external counsel stated that, rather than pursue any of the alternative paths UBS had outlined (and agreed not to oppose), the Trustee planned to file the Motion to Compel.\n\n4. On January 23, 2023, the Trustee filed the Motion to Compel and Motion to Expedite. At 8:44 a.m. today, UBS's counsel, copying the Trustee's counsel, sent an email to the Court at \"CourtroomDeputy\\_Bridgeport@ctb.uscourts.gov\" providing the Court and the Trustee's counsel with notice that UBS intended to \"file slightly later this morning an objection to the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion of yesterday seeking an expedited hearing [ECF No. 1363] in connection with the Trustee's motion to compel compliance with Rule 2004 subpoena [ECF No. 1362], and a cross-motion seeking to set the hearing on the Trustee's motion to compel no earlier than February 15 and UBS's time to respond to the motion to compel as February 13.\" The Court issued the Order Expediting Hearing before UBS could file its objection to the Motion to Expedite.\n\n#### ARGUMENT\n\n## The Order Expediting Hearing Should Be Vacated\n\n5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, made applicable by Bankruptcy Rule 9024, provides that the Court may grant relief from an order under various circumstances. Here, where (i) the Trustee failed to make any showing of good \"cause\" in support of his motion for the extraordinary relief of an expedited hearing; (ii) the Order Expediting Hearing will result in serious prejudice to UBS; and (iii) UBS – a non-party to these proceedings – had an insufficient opportunity to respond to a motion that had been filed only the previous day, UBS respectfully submits that the Court should vacate the Order Expediting Hearing.\n\n6. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(c)(1), on which the Trustee based his Motion to Expedite, provides that \"when an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court, the court for cause shown may in its discretion with or without motion or notice order the period reduced.\" (emphasis added). \"In considering such motions, courts should balance possible prejudice to other parties against the reasons advanced for reducing the time.\" 10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 9006.09[2] (Richard Levin & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed.). \"The flexibility written into Bankruptcy Rule 9006 to reduce the time for notice should be sparingly invoked and may be invoked only for cause shown.\" In re Sandra Cotton, Inc., 65 B.R. 153, 156 (W.D.N.Y. 1986) (collecting cases); In re A.H. Coombs, LLC, No. BR 16-25559, 2016 WL 7985367, at \\*3 (Bankr. D. Utah Dec. 22, 2016) (\"motions to expedite should be used sparingly, rather than as a matter of course\"), citing In re Villareal, 160 B.R. 786, 787-88 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1993) (same).\n\n7. UBS does not dispute the generic point that the Trustee's investigation should proceed \"expeditiously and free from obstruction.\" (Motion to Expedite ¶ 16.) And UBS has in no way sought to prevent the investigation from proceeding, despite the Trustee's baseless assertion that UBS has dragged its feet and \"refus[ed] to comply\" (id.). To the contrary, UBS has made clear to the Trustee since the parties first began meeting and conferring that UBS wishes to cooperate and respond to the Subpoena but simply cannot do so without running afoul of foreign legal requirements in jurisdictions where it operates.\n\n8. The Trustee failed to establish the \"cause\" required by Rule 9006(c)(1). In support of his Motion to Expedite, the Trustee stated only in conclusory terms that \"UBS is delaying the Trustee's investigation and prejudicing these estates.\" (Motion to Expedite ¶ 16.) The Trustee, however, nowhere even attempted to explain how the estates would be prejudiced unless UBS was required to respond to a sweeping Motion to Compel on just four days' notice, or to otherwise demonstrate the existence of the \"cause\" that it was his burden to establish to obtain extraordinary relief under Rule 9006(c)(1). Despite asserting that \"it is imperative that the Motion to Compel be heard as soon as possible\" (Motion to Expedite ¶ 18), the Trustee cited no emergency that would occur between January 27 and the response date UBS requests, February 13. The Motion to Expedite therefore should be vacated. See In re S. Willow Creek Farm, 251 B.R. 441 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 1999) (reversing grant of an expedited hearing because the moving party failed to \"provide evidence in its motion that if the motion is not granted there [would be] a danger of irreparable harm or clear prejudice to the moving party\"). Moreover, given the Court's directions in this afternoon's Order Directing the Parties to Mediation [ECF No. 1373], there is no pressing reason for the Court to take up this complicated discovery dispute on an expedited basis.\n\n9. It is of no moment that, as the Trustee argued, \"there are already matters scheduled to be heard on January 31, 2023.\" \"Administrative convenience does not justify an abbreviated notice.\" Sandra Cotton, 65 B.R. at 156. In any event, the Court can always reschedule the hearing for a date convenient to it and the parties.\n\n### UBS's Motion to Enlarge UBS's Response Date to February 13, 2023 Should Be Granted\n\n10. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1), \"when an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specific period . . . by order of court, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion … order the period enlarged if the request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed…\" \"The standard 'for cause shown' is determined on a caseby-case basis, and courts generally grant such motions absent a showing of bad faith or prejudice to the nonmoving party.\" § 5:34. Rule 6: Bankruptcy Rule 9006—Enlargement, 1 Bankruptcy Litigation § 5:34. Here, not only did the Trustee fail to demonstrate \"cause\" for shortening UBS's response time, but UBS has shown \"cause\" for granting its motion to enlarge its response date to February 13, 2023.\n\n11. The Order Expediting Hearing provides UBS with just four days to respond to the Motion to Compel. UBS is in the process of obtaining expert declarations on foreign law from Hong Kong and Switzerland, as well as declarations of one or more UBS representatives to demonstrate that compliance with the Subpoena as drafted would be impracticable, to support its response to the Motion to Compel.\n\n12. In particular, the expert declarations on foreign law will demonstrate to the Court the hardships UBS could suffer if it were required to violate the laws of Hong Kong and Switzerland if it were required to produce information or documents from those jurisdictions except through the Hague Evidence Convention or other appropriate channels. Those declarations will also address the viability and feasibility of those channels, contrary to the Trustee's dismissive ipse dixit assertion that they are \"unworkable.\" As UBS will detail in its response to the Motion to Compel, the hardship to a foreign entity in complying with a U.S. subpoena that raises a conflict with foreign law and the availability of other methods for the production of the documents sought are critical factors in determining whether such a subpoena should be enforced. See, e.g., Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. Of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 543-44 (1987) (identifying factors that courts should consider before overruling foreign entities' comitybased objections); Minpeco, S.A. v. Conticommodity Services, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 517, 529-30 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (holding that balance of relevant factors did not favor compelling disclosure of requested information, which was protected by Swiss bank secrecy laws). Preparation of the expert declarations on foreign law requires close coordination among individuals located in multiple time zones around the world and is further complicated by the fact that the Lunar New Year holiday presently has slowed business in Hong Kong considerably. Case law expounding on the balancing test courts must apply when determining whether to enforce a subpoena against a foreign entity focuses, among other things, on exactly the type of hardship that will be addressed in the declarations being prepared. See, e.g., Minpeco, 116 F.R.D. at 522, 525-26.\n\n#### CONCLUSION\n\n13. In sum: (a) the Court should vacate the Order Expediting Hearing because the Trustee did not establish cause to shorten to four days UBS's time to respond to the Motion to Compel, and UBS will be unfairly prejudiced if required to respond to the Motion to Compel in such an artificially constrained time frame; and (b) UBS's motion to enlarge should be granted because it has established cause for an order, pursuant to Rule 9006(b)(1), setting its time to respond to the Motion to Compel as February 13, 2023 and rescheduling the hearing for a mutually convenient date in the future.\n\nWHEREFORE, UBS respectfully requests that the Court vacate the Order Expediting Hearing and enter an Order enlarging UBS's deadline to respond to the Motion to Compel to February 13, 2023.\n\nDated: January 24, 2023\n\nUBS AG\n\n By: /s/ Marc J. Gottridge\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Marc J. Gottridge (ct12094) Lisa J. Fried (admission pending) HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS NEW YORK LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (917) 542-7600 marc.gottridge@hsf.com lisa.fried@hsf.com\n\nCounsel for Non-Party UBS AG\n\n## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al.,\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors.\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on January 24, 2023, the foregoing Motion was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anybody unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.<sup>3</sup> Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDated: January 24, 2023\n\nUBS AG\n\n By: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_/s/ Marc J. Gottridge\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Marc J. Gottridge (ct12094) Lisa J. Fried (admission pending) HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS NEW YORK LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (917) 542-7600 marc.gottridge@hsf.com lisa.fried@hsf.com\n\nCounsel for Non-Party UBS AG\n\n<sup>3</sup> To the extent that the foregoing was filed outside regular business hours, service by mail on recipients unable or not qualified to accept electronic notice was made on the next business day.","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n（合并审理）\n\nUBS AG（瑞士银行有限公司）依据《破产规则》第 9024 条及《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 60 条请求撤销准许第 11 章受托人关于作出命令强迫 UBS AG 遵守第 2004 条传票的动议（“强迫动议”）之加急听证动议的裁定，以及依据《破产规则》第 9006(b)(1) 条请求将 UBS 对强迫动议作出答辩的期限延长至 2023年2月13日 并推迟强迫动议听证的动议\n\n非当事人 UBS AG（“UBS”），由其下述签字律师代表，谨此提交本动议：(1) 依据《破产规则》第 9024 条及《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 60 条，请求撤销法院于 2023年1月24日 作出的准许加急听证动议的裁定（“加急听证裁定”，[ECF No. 1370]），该裁定准许了第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 以其作为第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）的身份于 2023年1月23日 提交的关于请求作出命令强迫 UBS 遵守第 2004 条传票的动议（“强迫动议”，[ECF No. 1362]）之加急听证动议；以及 (2) 依据《破产规则》第 9006(b)(1) 条，请求将 UBS 对强迫动议作出答辩的期限延长至 2023年2月13日。UBS 准备在该日期之后在法院方便时参加关于强迫动议的听证，但鉴于 2023年1月24日 刚作出的责令各方进行调解的裁定 [ECF No. 1373]——其中除其他事项外中止了 2023年1月31日 之后的所有听证（参见该裁定第 6 页）——UBS 目前不提出新的听证日期建议。UBS 仍愿意在此期间与受托人律师进行碰头协商，以观察在解决或缩小争议问题方面是否能取得进一步进展。\n\n今天上午作出的加急听证裁定仅给予 UBS 四天时间来对强迫动议（该动议与加急听证动议均系昨天方才提交）作出答辩。法院在 UBS 作出回应之前便准许了加急动议，尽管 UBS 的律师今天清晨已通知法院和受托人律师 UBS 打算在今天对加急动议作出回应。UBS 谨此主张加急听证裁定应予以撤销，因为受托人就其缩短 UBS 时间并要求其不迟于 2023年1月27日 提交答辩的请求，甚至未能作出必要“正当理由”的最基本证明，且若加急听证裁定继续有效，UBS 将遭受实质性损害。\n\nUBS 需要超过四天的时间来为其对强迫动议的答辩提供支持，支持材料包括：(i) 外国法声明，用以解释遵守向 UBS 送达的第 2004 条传票（“传票”）将要求 UBS 违反某些司法管辖区的法律，列明 UBS 若被命令遵守传票而在这些司法管辖区可能遭受的不利后果，并说明受托人可用于寻求传票所要求的证据开示且不会要求 UBS 违反外国法的替代方法；以及 (ii) 一名或多名 UBS 代表的声明，鉴于 UBS 在多个司法管辖区的运营规模与广度以及受托人在传票中所寻求的文件范围几乎无限制，用以确立 UBS 遵守传票的不切实际性。因此，UBS 请求撤销加急听证裁定，并将 UBS 对强迫动议作出答辩的时间延长至 2023年2月13日。\n\n如下文所示，受托人在加急动议中未能就紧急性作出任何具体说明，且轻视了 UBS 善意配合的记录——受托人律师在其支持强迫动议的声明中承认了这一点 [ECF No. 1362, Patrick R. Linsey 声明，第 2 段]——以及在迄今为止的碰头协商过程中向受托人提供广泛信息的事实。此外，UBS 正在努力从 Hong Kong（香港）和 Switzerland（瑞士）的法律专家处获取外国法声明，以支持其计划针对强迫动议作出的答辩。然而，鉴于协调多个时区的工作所带来的挑战以及本周和下周在香港正值农历新年假期，UBS 需要额外的时间来获取这些声明以及最终敲定一名或多名 UBS 代表的声明。如果要求 UBS 在没有这些声明的情况下对强迫动议作出答辩，其将受到严重损害。\n\n因此，UBS 已提出动议，请求作出命令 (i) 撤销加急听证裁定，及 (ii) 将 UBS 对强迫动议作出答辩的时间延长至 2023年2月13日，以便其有足够的时间对强迫动议作出实质性答辩。为支持其撤销裁定及延长动议的请求，UBS 谨陈述如下：\n\n背景\n\n1. 受托人送达了范围极广的传票，要求 UBS 提供数量惊人的与债务人 Ho Wan Kwok 以及据称与其有关联的其他 26 名个人和实体1（“2004 条证据开示目标”）有关的信息和文件。传票寻求追溯至 11 年前（即 2012年1月1日）的众多类型的文件2，并且\n\n1 这些仅是明确指明的证据开示目标；传票将“债务人”定义为不仅包括郭先生，还包括其“雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行动的人”，这导致无法确定真正的证据开示目标究竟是谁。\n\n2 传票将“文件”定义为包括“电子邮件、以电子形式维护的计算机文件、通信往来、备忘录、磁带、速记或手写笔记、任何种类的书面形式、图表、蓝图、图纸、草图、图表、计划文章、规格、日记、信件、电报、照片、会议记录、\n\n受托人的律师在双方碰头协商讨论期间坚持认为受托人寻求的是 UBS 在全球任何地方持有的文件。尽管如此，受托人在其请求准予送达传票的动议 [ECF No. 839] 中指出，传票应送达至“UBS AG 香港分行”（参见该动议附件 B 第 4 页），表明其主要（虽非唯一）关注的司法管辖区是香港。\n\n2. 2022年10月12日，UBS 送达了对传票的异议。UBS 与受托人的律师自 2022年11月23日 开始分别参加了一系列的电话碰头协商讨论。在过去的几周中，在整个过程中，UBS 绝非“拒绝遵守 UBS 传票”（加急动议第 16 段），而是善意努力向受托人提供其在不违反 UBS 运营所在司法管辖区法律的前提下能够提供的信息，并提出可行程序，使受托人能够寻求传票中所要求的额外信息而不会使 UBS 在海外陷入法律危险。除其他事项外，UBS 的外部律师要求受托人律师向 UBS 提供受托人主要关注的司法管辖区清单，以协助 UBS 回应传票。2023年1月10日，受托人律师确认受托人主要关注的司法管辖区为 United States（美国）、United Kingdom（英国）、British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）、香港、People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国，简称“PRC”）以及瑞士。UBS 随后确定了其能够向受托人提供的与这些司法管辖区有关的可能符合传票要求的信息范围。在双方于 2023年1月20日 进行的最近一次碰头协商电话会议中，UBS 的外部律师向受托人律师通报：\n\n合同、协议、调查、计算机打印件、任何种类的数据汇编、电传、传真、电子邮件、短信、即时消息、语音留言、发票、订单、支票、汇票、对账单、贷记备忘录、报告、持仓报告、摘要、索引、书籍、总账、笔记本、附表、透明胶片、录音、目录、广告、宣传材料、胶片、录像带、录音带、CD、计算机磁盘、小册子、宣传册、穿孔卡、工时单、推文、社交媒体帖子或任何其他种类的任何书面或记录材料，及其所有元数据，无论以何种方式存储（无论是有形形式还是电子形式）、记录、生成或复制，并且还包括但不限于上述任何内容的草稿或副本，只要其包含未在原始文件中发现的或在其他方面与原始文件不一致的任何注释、评论或标记。”传票，第 11 页。\n\n- a. 对于 2004 条证据开示目标中并非同时也是在英国未决的其与 UBS 之间诉讼程序中之索赔人的任何目标，UBS 尚未在美国、英国或英属维尔京群岛发现任何相符账户；\n- b. UBS 预计很快将能够向受托人提供有关中华人民共和国的最新情况，但需要额外时间，部分原因是农历新年假期（庆祝时间为 2023年1月22日 至 2023年2月5日），在此期间中华人民共和国的业务放缓，类似于圣诞节至元旦期间的美国假期；以及\n- c. 关于瑞士和香港，假设 UBS 在这些司法管辖区拥有任何相符材料，UBS 将无法在不违反这些司法管辖区法律的情况下提供任何信息或文件以响应传票，违反这些法律将受到严厉的处罚，在某些情况下甚至是刑事处罚。然而，正如 UBS 的外部律师在双方此前的多次碰头协商电话中所解释的那样，受托人可以通过以下方式之一从这些司法管辖区寻求披露：(i) 依据《海牙取证公约》进行，或者 (ii) 在香港寻求对本美国破产案件的司法承认，这可能促成当地法院作出 UBS 能够遵守的命令，从而消除其违反这些司法管辖区法律的风险。UBS 的外部律师——同样非首次——还解释称，如果受托人通过这两种替代途径之一或两者并进，UBS 将不予反对；并且在瑞士或香港存在任何可能相符材料的范围内，UBS 准备在受托人依据《海牙取证公约》或申请外国承认的同时，对这些材料进行审查和准备以备交付，以避免在这些司法管辖区发布要求交付证据的适当法院命令后出现任何延误。\n\n3. 因此，“UBS（瑞银）提出了笼统异议，称[受托人寻求的]文件和信息与位于美国境外的账户有关”（《加快审理动议》第 10 段），或者“瑞银拒绝根据瑞银传票提供任何文件或信息”（《加快审理动议》第 11 段），这些说法根本不属实。瑞银也并未“坚持要求受托人在全世界范围内启动法律程序（通过《海牙公约》证据开示或承认程序）”（同上；强调为原文所加）。相反，瑞银提出了可行且获广泛认可的替代路径，供受托人寻求其所要求的资料，同时又不会使瑞银违反其他司法管辖区的法律。而且，与受托人的断言相反，这些替代方案绝非“不可行”（《加快审理动议》第 16 段）。例如，联邦法院经常要求诉讼当事人诉诸《海牙取证公约》程序。参见，例如，Tiffany (NJ) LLC 诉 Qi Andrew，276 F.R.D. 143, 160 (S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦地方法院） 2011)（地方法官裁定）（指示原告通过《海牙公约》请求其在中国寻求的信息），判决维持，2011 WL 11562419 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)。在 2023 年 1 月 20 日的碰头磋商电话会议中，受托人的外部法律顾问表示，受托人计划提起《强迫开示动议》，而不是寻求瑞银所概述（并同意不予反对）的任何替代路径。\n\n4. 2023 年 1 月 23 日，受托人提交了《强迫开示动议》和《加快审理动议》。今天上午 8:44，瑞银的法律顾问在抄送受托人法律顾问的情况下，向法院发送电子邮件至“CourtroomDeputy_Bridgeport@ctb.uscourts.gov”，通知法院及受托人法律顾问，瑞银打算“在今天上午晚些时候提交一份针对第 11 章受托人昨日寻求加快听证动议[ECF No. 1363]（涉及受托人强迫遵守第 2004 条规则传票的动议[ECF No. 1362]）的异议书，以及一份交叉动议，请求将受托人强迫开示动议的听证会安排在不早于 2 月 15 日举行，并将瑞银对该强迫开示动议作出回应的时间定为 2 月 13 日”。在瑞银能够对《加快审理动议》提交异议之前，法院便签发了《加快听证裁定》。\n\n辩论理由\n\n《加快听证裁定》应予撤销\n\n5. 经由《破产规则》（Bankruptcy Rule）第 9024 条适用的《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Civ. P.）第 60 条规定，在各种情形下，法院均可给予免受裁定约束的救济。在下述情况下，瑞银谨此提请法院撤销《加快听证裁定》：(i) 受托人未能提出任何支持其寻求加快听证这一特殊救济动议的正当“理由”；(ii) 《加快听证裁定》将对瑞银造成严重损害；以及 (iii) 瑞银——作为本案程序的非当事人——对前一天才提交的动议缺乏充分的回应机会。\n\n6. 受托人据以提出其《加快审理动议》的《联邦破产诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Bankr. P.）第 9006(c)(1) 条规定，“当本规则、依本规则发出的通知或法院裁定要求或允许在指定时间内完成某一行为时，法院经释明理由，可依其裁量权在有或无动议或通知的情况下裁定缩短该期限”（强调为原文所加）。“在审理此类动议时，法院应权衡对其他当事人可能造成的损害与提出缩短时间的理由。”《科利尔论破产》（10 Collier on Bankruptcy）第 9006.09[2] 段（Richard Levin 与 Henry J. Sommer 编，第 16 版）。“《破产规则》第 9006 条中载明的缩短通知时间的灵活性应谨慎使用，且仅可在释明理由的情况下使用。”In re Sandra Cotton, Inc. 案，65 B.R. 153, 156 (W.D.N.Y.（纽约西区联邦地方法院） 1986)（汇总案例）；In re A.H. Coombs, LLC 案，案号 BR 16-25559, 2016 WL 7985367, 处于第 *3 页 (Bankr. D. Utah（犹他区联邦破产法院） 2016 年 12 月 22 日)（“加快审理动议应谨慎使用，而非照常使用”），援引 In re Villareal 案，160 B.R. 786, 787-88 (Bankr. W.D. Tex.（德州西区联邦破产法院） 1993)（同旨）。\n\n7. 瑞银并不否认受托人的调查应“迅速且不受阻碍地”进行这一一般性原则（《加快审理动议》第 16 段）。尽管受托人毫无根据地断言瑞银拖延推诿并“拒绝遵守”（同上），但瑞银绝没有试图阻止调查的进行。相反，自双方首次开始碰头磋商以来，瑞银就向受托人明确表示，瑞银希望配合并回应传票，但在其开展业务的司法管辖区内，若不违反外国法律要求，则根本无法做到这一点。\n\n8. 受托人未能确立第 9006(c)(1) 条所要求的“理由”。为了支持其《加快审理动议》，受托人仅以结论性措辞声称“瑞银正在拖延受托人的调查并损害这些破产财产的利益”（《加快审理动议》第 16 段）。然而，受托人根本未曾试图解释，为何除非要求瑞银在仅提前四天收到通知的情况下对一份范围广泛的《强迫开示动议》作出回应，否则破产财产就会受到损害；他也未能以其他方式证明存在其依第 9006(c)(1) 条获得特殊救济所负有举证责任的“理由”。尽管受托人坚称“迫切需要尽快审理《强迫开示动议》”（《加快审理动议》第 18 段），但他没有列举在 1 月 27 日至瑞银请求的回应日期 2 月 13 日之间会发生的任何紧急情况。因此，《加快审理动议》应予撤销。参见 In re S. Willow Creek Farm 案，251 B.R. 441 (B.A.P. 10th Cir.（第十巡回上诉法院破产上诉审判庭） 1999)（撤销批准加快听证的决定，原因是动议方未能“在其动议中提供证据证明，如果不批准动议，动议方将面临无法弥补的损害或明显不利的危险”）。此外，鉴于法院在今天下午的《责令当事人进行调解的裁定》[ECF No. 1373]中的指示，法院没有迫切的理由以加急程序处理这一复杂的证据开示争议。\n\n9. 受托人所辩称的“已经安排在 2023 年 1 月 31 日审理某些事项”是无关紧要的。“行政便利并不能证明缩短通知期是合理的。”Sandra Cotton 案，65 B.R. 处于第 156 页。无论如何，法院随时可以将听证会改期至对法院及各方当事人都方便的日期。\n\n应批准瑞银将瑞银的回应日期延长至 2023 年 2 月 13 日的动议\n\n10. 根据《破产规则》第 9006(b)(1) 条，“当某一行为依法院裁定被要求或允许在特定期限内完成时……法院经释明理由，可在其裁量权范围内随时……裁定延长该期限，前提是延期请求是在原定期限届满前提出……”。“‘经释明理由’的标准是逐案确定的，在没有表明存在恶意或对非动议方造成损害的情况下，法院通常会批准此类动议。”《破产诉讼》（Bankruptcy Litigation）第 1 卷第 5:34 节第 6 节：破产规则 9006——延长期限。在本案中，不仅受托人未能证明缩短瑞银回应时间的“理由”，而且瑞银已释明批准其将回应日期延长至 2023 年 2 月 13 日之动议的“理由”。\n\n11. 《加快听证裁定》仅给予瑞银四天时间来回应《强迫开示动议》。瑞银正在获取来自中国香港和瑞士关于外国法律的专家声明，以及一份或多份瑞银代表的声明以证明遵守目前起草的传票是不切实际的，从而为其对《强迫开示动议》的回应提供支持。\n\n12. 特别是，关于外国法律的专家声明将向法院证明，如果瑞银被要求在不通过《海牙取证公约》或其他适当渠道的情况下提供来自这些司法管辖区的信息或文件，从而被要求违反中国香港和瑞士的法律，瑞银可能会遭受的困境。这些声明还将针对这些渠道的可行性和切实操作性进行说明，这与受托人武断认定其“不可行”的主观臆断相反。正如瑞银将在其对《强迫开示动议》的回应中详细说明的那样，外国实体遵守与外国法相抵触的美国传票所面临的困境，以及获取所寻求文件的其他方法的可行性，是决定是否应强制执行该传票的关键考量因素。参见，例如，Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale 诉 U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. Of Iowa，482 U.S. 522, 543-44 (1987)（确定了法院在驳回外国实体基于国际礼让提出的异议之前应当考虑的因素）；Minpeco, S.A. 诉 Conticommodity Services, Inc.，116 F.R.D. 517, 529-30 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)（判定相关因素的权衡不支持强迫披露受瑞士银行保密法保护的请求信息）。准备关于外国法律的专家声明需要全球多个时区的有关人员密切协调，而目前农历新年假期导致中国香港的业务运转大幅放缓，使这一工作更加复杂。阐述法院在决定是否对外国实体强制执行传票时必须适用的利益权衡检验标准的判例法，重点关注的正是正在准备的声明中所要论述的那种困境。参见，例如，Minpeco 案，116 F.R.D. 处于第 522, 525-26 页。\n\n结论\n\n13. 综上所述：(a) 法院应撤销《加快听证裁定》，因为受托人未确立将瑞银回应《强迫开示动议》的时间缩短至四天的理由，且如果要求瑞银在如此人为受限的时间框架内对《强迫开示动议》作出回应，瑞银将受到不公正的损害；以及 (b) 瑞银的延期动议应予批准，因为瑞银已根据第 9006(b)(1) 条确立了正当理由，以获签发将对其回应《强迫开示动议》的时间定为 2023 年 2 月 13 日并将听证会改期至未来双方均方便的日期的裁定。\n\n为此，瑞银谨请法院撤销《加快听证裁定》，并签发裁定将瑞银回应《强迫开示动议》的截止日期延长至 2023 年 2 月 13 日。\n\n日期：2023 年 1 月 24 日\n\nUBS AG（瑞士银行有限公司）\n\n签署人：/s/ Marc J. Gottridge\nMarc J. Gottridge (ct12094)\nLisa J. Fried（执业资格待批准）\nHERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS NEW YORK LLP（史密夫斐良纽约有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n450 Lexington Avenue\nNew York, New York 10017\n(917) 542-7600\nmarc.gottridge@hsf.com\nlisa.fried@hsf.com\n\n非当事人 UBS AG 之代理律师\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院）\n\n案由：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n（合并审理）\n\n送达证书\n\n下述署名人特此证明，于 2023 年 1 月 24 日，上述动议已通过电子方式提交。本提交事项的通知已通过法院电子归档（“CM/ECF”）系统的运作以电子邮件形式发送给上述第 11 章案件的所有当事人，或按照《电子归档通知》所示通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子归档的任何人。3 各方当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本文件。\n\n日期：2023 年 1 月 24 日\n\nUBS AG\n\n签署人：/s/ Marc J. Gottridge\nMarc J. Gottridge (ct12094)\nLisa J. Fried（执业资格待批准）\nHERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS NEW YORK LLP\n450 Lexington Avenue\nNew York, New York 10017\n(917) 542-7600\nmarc.gottridge@hsf.com\nlisa.fried@hsf.com\n\n非当事人 UBS AG 之代理律师\n\n3 如果上述文件是在正常工作时间之外提交的，则对无法或无资格接受电子通知的接收人的邮寄送达已在下一个工作日进行。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":839,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1362,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1363,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1370,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1373,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3613,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:44:15"}