{"id":"court_ctb_1384_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1384,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-01-24","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"第 11 章受托人异议书 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1384（2023-01-24立案）。第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交异议，反对瑞银集团（UBS AG）请求撤销加快审理命令及延期回应受托人关于强制作出 Rule 2004 传票合规动议的申请。受托人主张郭文贵曾在瑞银持有巨额资产并开展涉美业务，瑞银应依法配合调查。","summary_en":"Objection by Chapter 11 Trustee — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB Case No. 22-50073 ECF #1384 (filed Jan 24, 2023). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins filed an objection to UBS AG's motion seeking to vacate the expedited hearing order and extend time regarding the Trustee's motion to compel UBS to comply with a Rule 2004 subpoena. The Trustee argued that UBS held debtor assets and conducted transactions connected to the United States.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |        |                         |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n|                                                                  | :      |                         |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x      |                         |  |\n\n# **OBJECTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO 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\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the Ho Wan Kwok's (the \"Individual Debtor\") chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"), hereby respectfully objects (the \"Objection\") to the *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, 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)* [ECF No. 1381] (the \"Motion to Vacate\") filed January 24, 2023 by UBS AG (\"UBS\") seeking to vacate\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), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation 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\nor modify the Court's Order scheduling a hearing and response deadline (the \"Hearing Order\") with respect to the *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Compelling UBS AG to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena* (the \"Motion to Compel\"). In support of his Objection, the Trustee respectfully states the following:\n\n# **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n# **The Trustee Subpoenaed UBS Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004, Because the Debtor Held Assets at UBS and UBS Undertook Conduct Both Within and Directed Towards the United States**\n\n1. On September 7, 2021, the Trustee filed his First 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 Debtor, Entities and Individuals Affiliates with the Debtor, and Relevant Banks (the \"First Omnibus 2004 Motion\") seeking discovery with respect to various legal and financial advisors to the Individual Debtor, persons affiliated with the Individual Debtor, and, as relevant here, banks at which the Individual Debtor and persons and entities related to the Individual Debtor are believed to have deposited funds or conducted financial transactions.\n\n2. In particular, the Individual Debtor, and individuals and entities controlled by or allied with him, held substantial assets at UBS, borrowed from, and otherwise did business with and through UBS. This is shown by, among other things, documents and information obtained by the Trustee reflecting accounts at UBS in the name of Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\") – an entity the Individual Debtor previously owned (and which is now allegedly owned by the Individual Debtor's son), and which the Trustee's investigation suggests received, held, and distributed millions of dollars on the Individual Debtor's behalf. The Individual Debtor was a signatory with respect to these Bravo Luck accounts.\n\n3. Indeed, UBS's involvement with the Individual Debtor is exemplified by a reference letter that UBS provided to the Sherry Netherland Board of Directors in 2015 (the \"Sherry Netherland Board\"), wherein UBS represented that the Individual Debtor had been \"a client of ours through a personal investment company since July 2012\" with \"funds involved in this banking relationship [of] not less than USD400,000,000.\" UBS issued the UBS Letter from its office in Hong Kong (the \"Hong Kong Branch\") to the Sherry Netherland Board in Manhattan, presumably at the Individual Debtor's direction. 2\n\n4. Still further, the Trustee has obtained records reflecting that the UBS office located in Stamford, Connecticut (the \"Stamford Branch\") was involved in transactions that transferred millions of dollars funds from Bravo Luck's accounts at UBS. Thus, on numerous occasions, UBS has conducted business involving the Individual Debtor either within the United States or, in the case of the UBS Letter, directed to the United States.\n\n5. For these reasons, among others, the Trustee included UBS in his First Rule 2004 Motion. UBS did not object to the First Rule 2004 Motion, which the Court granted by its *Order Granting First 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 Debtor, Entities and Individuals Affiliates with the Debtor, and Relevant Banks* dated September 21, 2022 (ECF No. 866, the \"Rule 2004 Order\").\n\n6. Pursuant to the Rule 2004 Order, the Trustee issued a subpoena to UBS (the \"UBS Subpoena\"), which subpoena was served on UBS at its Stamford Branch on September 26, 2022.\n\n<sup>2</sup> This letter was among the documents that the Sherry Netherland Board relied upon in approving the Individual Debtor's purchase, through co-debtors Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever (BVI)\") and Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever (US)\") and, together with the Individual Debtor and Genever (BVI), collectively, the \"Debtors\"), a condominium at the Sherry Netherland Hotel in Manhattan for approximately \\$70 million.\n\n## **UBS Has Had Months to Comply with the Subpoena – But Refuses to Do So**\n\n7. UBS served the Trustee with blanket objections (the \"Objections\") on October 12, 2022. UBS's Objections did not specifically respond to the requests in the Requests for Production appended to the UBS Subpoena. Rather, they recited a blanket objection to producing documents related to accounts purportedly located in jurisdictions outside of the United States. 3\n\n8. Over a period of several months, the Trustee and UBS met and conferred regarding the UBS Subpoena. The parties' counsel held at least half a dozen telephone conferences and exchanged numerous emails. UBS first requested time to ascertain what documents and information are responsive to the UBS Subpoena and to consider its willingness to comply with the UBS Subpoena. The Trustee cooperated to provide UBS information in an effort to aid and expedite its review and compliance, including a copy of the UBS Letter and information reflecting the involvement of the Stamford Branch with respect to relevant accounts and transactions.\n\n9. UBS eventually informed the Trustee earlier this month that it will not produce *any* documents or information – or even disclose what documents or information exist – responsive to the UBS Subpoena, because of banking privacy laws in foreign jurisdictions. Meanwhile, UBS has refused to confirm the individuals and entities for which it has responsive documents or even list the countries where it alleges responsive documents must be pursued. Thus, following the logic of UBS, in order to obtain documents responsive to the UBS Subpoena<sup>4</sup> , the Trustee would\n\n<sup>3</sup> UBS's Objections also stated blanket objections on other grounds. For the most part, the Trustee understood these to be resolved during the meet-and-confer or subsumed by UBS's objection to production on jurisdictional/foreign law grounds as discussed herein and in the Motion to Compel. With respect to the \"pending proceeding\" doctrine, UBS's discussion of that doctrine is overbroad, and, in any event, UBS did not raise this in its Objections and thus it is waived as grounds to object to production.\n\n<sup>4</sup> UBS has stated only that \"accounts\" do not exist in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the British Virgin Islands. As the map of UBS's global presence reflects, numerous jurisdictions remain scattered across six continents. Throughout the meet-and-confer process, UBS has sought to put the onus on the Trustee to name specific jurisdictions where UBS should search its documents and information. While the Trustee has noted certain jurisdictions of particular interest (again, in the hopes of expediting production), the Trustee has likewise been clear that it is not his obligation to tell UBS where it maintains its own documents and information.\n\nneed to pursue Hague Convention discovery or commence recognition proceedings in *dozens of countries* throughout the world where UBS has branches.\n\n10. Alternatively, UBS has suggested that the Trustee secure consent from individuals and entities associated with the Individual Debtor. Obviously, such consent is not likely to be forthcoming, considering the posture of these cases. Rather, as the Court recently noted, the Trustee's investigation \"has been met with opposition at every step in the process …\" *Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, Adv. Pro. 22- 05032 (Jan. 11, 2023) [ECF No. 128] (the \"Injunction Decision\") at p. 37. <sup>5</sup> The Trustee has explained to UBS that these are not workable alternatives.\n\n### **The Trustee Provided UBS Advance Notice of the Motion to Compel**\n\n11. Accordingly, on January 23, 2023, the Trustee has filed his Motion to Compel requesting that the Court overrule UBS's objections and direct its compliance with the subpoena.\n\n12. To ensure that UBS was provided ample notice, and in the spirit of professional courtesy, as early as January 13, 2023, the Trustee's counsel advised counsel for UBS that the Trustee was contemplating moving to compel compliance, and on January 19, 2023, Trustee's counsel emailed counsel for UBS and stated, among other things: \"Unless UBS is prepared to produce documents responsive to the subpoena in the immediate future, the trustee will be filing a motion to compel.\" In that email, Trustee's counsel also provided relevant Second Circuit authority also included in the Trustee's Motion to Compel.\n\n13. The Trustee moved for expedited determination of the Motion to Compel. Motion, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(c)(1), to Expedite Hearing on *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n<sup>5</sup> The Trustee has already issued subpoenas to several of the entities from which UBS suggests the Trustee seek consent (*i.e.*, Lamp Capital LLC and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.), and the entities simply ignored them. (*See* Motion to Compel [ECF No. 1046].) The notion that such entities would now provide the Trustee consent to obtain records from UBS is absurd.\n\n*for Entry of Order Compelling UBS AG to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena* [ECF No. 1363] (the \"Motion to Expedite\").\n\n14. In addition to discussing the Trustee's urgent need to obtain responsive documents and information from UBS without delay, and the protracted meet-and-confer process, the Motion to Expedite also discussed the advance notice that the Trustee provided UBS.\n\n#### **OBJECTION**\n\n15. Rather than simply responding to the Trustee's twelve-page Motion to Compel, UBS has filed a ten-page Motion to Vacate seeking to relitigate the Court's scheduling of a hearing. This is only the latest development in the more than three months UBS has persisted in its refusal to produce documents and information responsive to the UBS Subpoena. **Enough is enough.**\n\n16. UBS has had months to comply with the UBS Subpoena. Failing voluntary compliance, UBS has had months to articulate its excuses for refusing to comply. The notion that it now requires an additional three weeks to tell the Court why it will not produce responsive documents or information defies logic.\n\n#### **After Three Months, Any Objection that UBS is Unable to Articulate Now Is Waived**\n\n17. Any basis for objection that UBS cannot presently articulate is not timely raised and thus may not excuse compliance. It is axiomatic that discovery objections not timely made are waived. *See, e.g., Cohalan v. Genie Indus*., 276 F.R.D. 161, 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); *Berube v. A&P*, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177, \\*2 (D. Conn. Jan. 3, 2007); *Israel v. Carpenter*, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11792, \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002) (non-party\" waived any objections [to subpoena] by failing to raise them in a timely manner\").\n\n18. During the parties' lengthy meet-and-confer process, UBS repeatedly stated that it was engaging in internal conferences and review with respect to the UBS Subpoena. Finally,\n\n6\n\nearlier this month, UBS claimed that foreign law prevented it from producing any documents or information responsive to the UBS Subpoena. The parties' counsel engaged in three telephone conferences in the last two weeks to discuss UBS's position with respect to foreign law.\n\n19. Now, UBS claims to require an additional three weeks to prepare declarations explaining its theories to refuse compliance. This begs the question: **If UBS cannot immediately explain why it is not complying with the UBS Subpoena, what has UBS been doing for the last three months?** Whatever the answer, it is plain that UBS is not entitled to further delay.\n\n## **The Hearing Notice Provides UBS Adequate Notice to Prepare**\n\n20. The Court's Hearing Order provides UBS sufficient time to address the Motion to Compel. First, the Motion to Vacate omits to discuss advance notice that the Trustee provided UBS of the likelihood the Trustee would be filing a motion to compel, starting January 10, 2023. On January 19, 2023, the Trustee told UBS that it was prepared to file a motion to compel if UBS did not comply with the UBS Subpoena and provided UBS the same line of Second Circuit authority cited in the Trustee's Motion to Compel.\n\n21. That the Court's hearing Order was met only hours later with the Motion to Vacate demonstrates that UBS and its counsel have adequate resources to respond to the Motion to Compel. If UBS wishes to cite or otherwise discuss foreign law, it may do so in its opposition.\n\n22. Moreover, UBS's stated intention to rely on \"declarations on foreign law from legal experts in Hong Kong and Switzerland\" (Motion to Vacate at p. 3) is of dubious import unless UBS also discloses and produces these declarants for cross-examination. If were to do so, UBS should not need to file these declarations by the response date.<sup>6</sup>\n\n<sup>6</sup> To be crystal clear, any purported bases to decline compliance that UBS is unable to plainly articulate in an objection to a Motion to Compel immediately are waived.\n\n23. In any event, the authority set forth in the Trustee's Motion to Compel explains that foreign \"bank secrecy laws are not a 'get out of jail free' card.\" *Nike, Inc. v. Wu*, 349 F. Supp. 3d 346, 364 (S.D.N.Y 2018); *see also Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC*, 706 F.3d 92, 114-116 (2d Cir. 2013).\n\n24. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Trustee does not object to an extension of time for UBS to respond to the Motion to Compel from January 27, 2023, to January 30, 2023, at 12 noon (*i.e.*, the day prior to the hearing).\n\n## **The Court Correctly Granted the Motion to Expedite**\n\n25. The Court's Hearing Order should stand. **As the Court recently found, delay and expense are both immensely prejudicial to the Trustee's investigation and, thus, to these bankruptcy estates.** *See* Injunction Decision at pp. 32-33 (\"The delay is particularly harmful because there may not be an adequate remedy at law to compensate for the delay. The Chapter 11 Trustee cannot hire professionals to assist with the investigation without Estate assets and Estate assets may be placed outside the reach of creditors while the investigation continues to be delayed.\").\n\n26. Moreover, three months have passed since UBS served its Objections. UBS and the Trustee have engaged in at least half a dozen telephone conferences and exchanged numerous emails. This process has culminated with UBS producing no documents or information responsive to the UBS Subpoena.<sup>7</sup> This likewise supports the Court's exercise of its discretion in granting the Motion to Expedite and entering the Hearing Order.\n\n27. The Court determines the existence of cause to shorten time under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(c) by considering the facts and circumstances of a given case. *See, e.g., In re Landmark*\n\n<sup>7</sup> Contrary to the Motion to Vacate at pp. 3-4, information provided by UBS in the nature of its reasoning for not producing materials responsive to the UBS Subpoena, or in the nature of proposing unworkable alternatives, does not represent the provision of documents or information in compliance with the subpoena. The Trustee did not serve the UBS Subpoena to obtain excuses.\n\n*Park Plaza Ltd. Partnership*, 167 B.R. 752, 758 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1994); *Alphas v. Pereira (In re Alphas Co. of N.Y. Inc.)*, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11788, \\*13 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2016).\n\n28. The Court's determination here was appropriate and well within its discretion. Thus, the Court should deny the Motion to Vacate and determination of the Motion to Compel should proceed as set forth under the Hearing Order.\n\n*[THE REST OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the Motion to Vacate and grant such other relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: January 25, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:      | (Jointly Administered)  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on January 25, 2023, the foregoing Objection was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case able to receive electronic notice by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system.\n\nDated: January 25, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\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), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation 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).","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\nx\n\n关于：　:\n:　第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n等人，　:\n:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。　:\n:　（合并审理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n第 11 章受托人对 UBS AG（瑞银集团）依据《破产规则》第 9024 条及《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 60 条提出的关于 (1) 撤销准予加快审理第 11 章受托人请求作出命令强制作出命令强制 UBS AG 遵守第 2004 条传票之动议（“强制动议”）的命令，以及 (2) 依据《破产规则》第 9006(B)(1) 条将瑞银对强制动议作出回应的期限延长至 2023 年 2 月 13 日并推迟强制动议听证会的动议的异议\n\nLuc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）以在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“个人债务人”）第 11 章案件（“第 11 章案件”）中被任命的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）身份，特此恭敬地对 UBS AG（瑞士法团瑞银集团）（“瑞银”）于 2023 年 1 月 24 日提交的《依据〈破产规则〉第 9024 条及〈联邦民事诉讼规则〉第 60 条请求 (1) 撤销准予加快审理第 11 章受托人请求作出命令强制 UBS AG 遵守第 2004 条传票之动议的命令，以及 (2) 依据〈破产规则〉第 9006(b)(1) 条将瑞银对强制动议作出回应的期限延长至 2023 年 2 月 13 日并推迟强制动议听证会的动议》[ECF No. 1381]（“撤销动议”）提出异议（“本异议”），该动议请求撤销\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及其他诸多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 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，以 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人身份（仅用于通知与沟通目的）。\n\n或修改法院就《第 11 章受托人请求作出命令强制 UBS AG 遵守第 2004 条传票之动议》（“强制动议”）排定听证会及答辩截止日期的命令（“听证命令”）。为支持其异议，受托人恭敬陈述如下：\n事实背景\n受托人依据《破产规则》第 2004 条向瑞银发出传票，因债务人在瑞银持有资产，且瑞银在美国境内以及针对美国实施了相关行为\n\n1. 2021 年 9 月 7 日，受托人提交了其《第 11 章受托人请求依据〈破产规则〉第 2004 条及〈本地规则〉第 2004-1 条作出命令批准针对债务人新增法律与财务顾问、与债务人关联之实体与个人以及相关银行进行证据开示的第一份补充综合动议》（“第一份综合 2004 动议”），请求对个人债务人的各类法律与财务顾问、与个人债务人关联的人士，以及与本案相关的、据信个人债务人及与个人债务人相关的人士和实体曾在此存款或进行金融交易的银行展开证据开示。\n\n2. 具体而言，个人债务人以及由其控制或与其联合的个人和实体在瑞银持有大量资产、从瑞银借款，并以其他方式与瑞银进行业务往来或通过瑞银开展业务。受托人获取的文件和信息等证据显示了这一点，这些记录反映了在瑞银以 Bravo Luck Limited（“Bravo Luck”）名义开立的账户——该实体此前由个人债务人拥有（据称现由个人债务人之子拥有），且受托人的调查表明该实体曾代表个人债务人接收、持有和分配数百万美元。个人债务人是这些 Bravo Luck 账户的签署人。\n\n3. 事实上，瑞银与个人债务人的关联在瑞银于 2015 年向 Sherry Netherland Board of Directors（雪莉荷兰酒店董事会）（“雪莉荷兰董事会”）提供的一封推荐信中得到了充分体现，瑞银在该信中声明个人债务人“自 2012 年 7 月起即通过一家个人投资公司成为我们的客户”，“涉及该银行业务关系的资金不少于 400,000,000 美元”。瑞银从其位于 Hong Kong（香港）的办事处（“香港分行”）向位于 Manhattan（曼哈顿）的雪莉荷兰董事会发出了该瑞银信函，据推测系应个人债务人的指示而为。2\n\n4. 此外，受托人获取的记录显示，位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Stamford（斯坦福）的瑞银办事处（“斯坦福分行”）参与了从 Bravo Luck 在瑞银的账户转移数百万美元资金的交易。因此，瑞银在多次场合中开展了涉及个人债务人的业务，这些业务要么发生在美国境内，要么（如瑞银信函的情形）是直接针对美国的。\n\n5. 基于上述及其他原因，受托人在其第一份第 2004 条动议中列入了瑞银。瑞银未对第一份第 2004 条动议提出异议，法院于 2022 年 9 月 21 日签署《准予第 11 章受托人请求依据〈破产规则〉第 2004 条及〈本地规则〉第 2004-1 条作出命令批准针对债务人新增法律与财务顾问、与债务人关联之实体与个人以及相关银行进行证据开示的第一份补充综合动议的命令》（ECF No. 866，“第 2004 条命令”），准予了该动议。\n\n6. 依据第 2004 条命令，受托人向瑞银发出了传票（“瑞银传票”），该传票于 2022 年 9 月 26 日送达至瑞银斯坦福分行。\n\n2 该信函是雪莉荷兰董事会在批准个人债务人通过共同债务人 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever (BVI)”）和 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever (US)”，与个人债务人及 Genever (BVI) 合称“债务人”）以约 70,000,000 美元购买位于曼哈顿雪莉荷兰酒店的一套公寓时所依据的文件之一。\n瑞银已有数月时间遵守传票——但拒绝照办\n\n7. 瑞银于 2022 年 10 月 12 日向受托人送达了概括性异议（“异议”）。瑞银的异议未针对瑞银传票所附文件提供要求中的具体要求作出答复。相反，他们只是宣读了一项概括性异议，拒绝提供与据称位于美国境外法域的账户相关的文件。3\n\n8. 在数月的时间里，受托人与瑞银就瑞银传票进行了会商。双方律师举行了至少半打（六次）电话会议，并交换了大量电子邮件。瑞银最初请求给予时间以查明哪些文件和信息属于对瑞银传票的回应范围，并考虑其是否愿意遵守瑞银传票。受托人予以配合并向瑞银提供了信息，以协助并加快其审查与合规进程，其中包括瑞银信函的副本以及反映斯坦福分行参与相关账户和交易的信息。\n\n9. 瑞银最终于本月初通知受托人，由于外国法域的银行保密法，其不会提供与瑞银传票相符的任何文件或信息——甚至不会披露存在哪些文件或信息。与此同时，瑞银拒绝确认其拥有其回应性文件的个人和实体，甚至拒绝列出其所声称的必须据以调取回应性文件的国家。因此，按照瑞银的逻辑，为了获得对瑞银传票有回应性的文件 4，受托人将\n\n3 瑞银的异议还基于其他理由提出了概括性异议。在绝大程度上，受托人认为这些异议已在会商期间得以解决，或者已被瑞银基于管辖权/外国法理由对提供文件提出的异议所吸收，正如本文件及强制动议中所讨论的那样。关于“待决诉讼程序”原则，瑞银对该原则的论述过于宽泛，且无论如何，瑞银未在其异议中提出此点，因此该理由已被放弃作为反对提供文件的依据。\n\n4 瑞银仅声称在美国、United Kingdom（英国）和 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）不存在“账户”。正如瑞银全球分布图所反映的那样，仍有大量法域分散在六大洲。在整个会商过程中，瑞银一直试图将责任推给受托人，要求受托人指定瑞银应在哪些具体法域检索其文件和信息。虽然受托人指出了某些特别关注的法域（同样是为了加快文件提供），但受托人同样明确表示，告知瑞银其自身在何处保管其文件和信息并非受托人的义务。\n\n需要依据《海牙公约》寻求证据开示，或者在瑞银设有分行的全球数十个国家提起承认程序。\n\n10. 或者，瑞银建议受托人从与个人债务人关联的个人和实体处获得同意。显而易见，考虑到这些案件的态势，不太可能获得此类同意。相反，正如法院近期所指出的，受托人的调查“在这一进程的每一步都遭遇了反对……”《部分准予初步禁令动议之决定备忘录》，Adv. Pro. 22-05032 (2023 年 1 月 11 日) [ECF No. 128]（“禁令决定”）第 37 页。5 受托人已向瑞银解释，这些都不是可行的替代方案。\n受托人已向瑞银提前发出强制动议通知\n\n11. 因此，在 2023 年 1 月 23 日，受托人提交了其强制动议，请求法院驳回瑞银的异议并命令其遵守传票。\n\n12. 为确保瑞银获得充分的通知，并本着行业礼让精神，受托人律师早在 2023 年 1 月 13 日即告知瑞银律师受托人正考虑提起强制合规动议，并于 2023 年 1 月 19 日向瑞银律师发送电子邮件，其中声明：“除非瑞银准备在近期提供符合传票要求的文件，否则受托人将提交强制动议。”在这一电子邮件中，受托人律师还提供了同样包含在受托人强制动议中的 Second Circuit（联邦第二巡回上诉法院）相关判例法依据。\n\n13. 受托人动议请求加快裁定强制动议。《依据〈破产规则〉第 9006(c)(1) 条请求加快审理第 11 章受托人请求作出命令强制 UBS AG 遵守第 2004 条传票之动议的动议》[ECF No. 1363]（“加快动议”）。\n\n14. 除了论述受托人迫切需要毫不拖延地从瑞银获取符合要求的文件和信息，以及漫长的会商进程外，加快动议还论述了受托人向瑞银提供的提前通知。\n异议\n\n15. 瑞银并未直接对受托人长达十二页的强制动议作出答复，而是提交了一份长达十页的撤销动议，试图就法院对听证会的排期进行重复争议。这只是三个多月以来瑞银执意拒绝提供符合瑞银传票要求的文件和信息的最新事态发展。适可而止，不容再拖。\n\n16. UBS（瑞银集团）已有数月时间来遵从 UBS Subpoena（瑞银传票）。在未能自愿遵从的情况下，瑞银已有数月时间来阐述其拒绝遵从的借口。其如今声称需要额外三周时间来告知法院为何不提供具答复性的文件或信息，这一说法荒谬绝伦。\n三个月后，瑞银如今无法阐述的任何异议均已被放弃\n\n17. 瑞银目前无法阐述的任何异议理由均非适时提出，因此不得作为不予遵从的借口。未适时提出的证据开示异议即告放弃，这是不言自明的公理。参见，例如，Cohalan v. Genie Indus., 276 F.R.D. 161, 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)；Berube v. A&P, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177, *2 (D. Conn. Jan. 3, 2007)；Israel v. Carpenter, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11792, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002)（非当事人“因未能适时提出而放弃了[对传票的]任何异议”）。\n\n18. 在双方漫长的会商（meet-and-confer）过程中，瑞银屡次声称其正在就瑞银传票进行内部会议和审查。最终，在本月早些时候，瑞银声称外国法律阻止其提供任何与瑞银传票相关的具答复性文件或信息。双方律师在过去两周内进行了三次电话会议，以讨论瑞银关于外国法律的立场。\n\n19. 如今，瑞银声称需要额外三周时间来准备书面陈述以解释其拒绝遵从的理论依据。这就引出了一个问题：如果瑞银无法立即解释为何不遵从瑞银传票，那么瑞银在过去三个月里究竟在做什么？无论答案为何，显然瑞银无权获得进一步的拖延。\n听证通知已向瑞银提供了充足的准备通知\n\n20. 法院的《听证裁定》（Hearing Order）为瑞银提供了足够的时间来应对《强迫动议》（Motion to Compel）。首先，《撤销动议》（Motion to Vacate）遗漏了自 2023年1月10日 起 Trustee（受托人）向瑞银发出的关于受托人可能会提起强迫动议的事先通知。2023年1月19日，受托人告知瑞银，如果瑞银不遵从瑞银传票，受托人准备提起强迫动议，并向瑞银提供了受托人在《强迫动议》中所引用的同一系列第二巡回法院先例。\n\n21. 法院的听证裁定发出后仅仅数小时便收到了《撤销动议》，这一事实表明瑞银及其律师拥有足够的资源来对《强迫动议》作出答复。如果瑞银希望引用或以其他方式讨论外国法律，其完全可以在其异议书中予以说明。\n\n22. 此外，瑞银声称拟依赖“来自香港和瑞士法律专家关于外国法律的书面陈述”（《撤销动议》第 3 页）这一意图意义可疑，除非瑞银同时披露并让这些陈述人出庭接受交叉询问。如果瑞银准备这样做，瑞银也不需要在答复截止日期前提交这些陈述。6\n\n6 为明确起见，瑞银无法立即在对《强迫动议》的异议中清晰阐述的任何声称拒绝遵从的依据均已被放弃。\n\n23. 无论如何，受托人在《强迫动议》中阐述的权威判例说明，外国的“银行保密法并不是‘免受惩罚’的通行证”。Nike, Inc. v. Wu, 349 F. Supp. 3d 346, 364 (S.D.N.Y 2018)；亦参见 Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 706 F.3d 92, 114-116 (2d Cir. 2013)。\n\n24. 尽管有前述情况，受托人不反对将瑞银对《强迫动议》作出答复的期限从 2023年1月27日 延长至 2023年1月30日 中午 12 点（即听证会前一天）。\n法院正确地批准了《加急动议》\n\n25. 法院的《听证裁定》应当维持。正如法院最近所认定的那样，拖延和费用对受托人的调查造成了巨大的损害，进而对这些破产财产造成了巨大的损害。参见《禁令决定》（Injunction Decision）第 32-33 页（“拖延尤其有害，因为可能没有足够的法律补救措施来弥补这种拖延。在没有破产财产的情况下，第 11 章受托人无法聘请专业人士协助调查，而在调查继续被拖延的同时，破产财产可能会被置于债权人无法触及的地方。”）。\n\n26. 此外，自瑞银送达其异议以来已过去三个月。瑞银与受托人已进行了至少六次电话会议并交换了大量电子邮件。这一过程最终以瑞银未提供任何与瑞银传票相关的具答复性文件或信息而告终。7 这同样支持法院行使其自由裁量权批准《加急动议》（Motion to Expedite）并作出《听证裁定》。\n\n27. 法院通过考量特定案件的事实和情况，来确定根据《破产规则》（Bankruptcy Rule）9006(c) 缩短时间的理由是否存在。参见，例如，In re Landmark\n\n7 与《撤销动议》第 3-4 页相反，瑞银提供的信息属于其不提供与瑞银传票相符材料的理由性质，或属于提出不可行替代方案的性质，这并不代表遵照传票提供了文件或信息。受托人送达瑞银传票并非为了获得借口。\n\nPark Plaza Ltd. Partnership, 167 B.R. 752, 758 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1994)；Alphas v. Pereira (In re Alphas Co. of N.Y. Inc.), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11788, *13 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2016)。\n\n28. 法院在此处的认定是恰当的，完全属于其裁量权范围。因此，法院应驳回《撤销动议》，并应按照《听证裁定》的规定推进《强迫动议》的裁定。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n鉴于上述理由，法院应驳回《撤销动议》，并给予公正和适当的其他救济。\n\n日期：2023年1月25日 LUC A. DESPINS，\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\nx\n\n关于： :\n: 第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等人， :\n:\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\n: （合并审理）\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n送达证明\n\n下述签名人特此证明，于 2023年1月25日，前述异议书已通过电子方式提交。本提交通知已通过电子邮件发送给上述标题所示第 11 章案件中所有能够通过法院电子案件归档（“CM/ECF”）系统接收电子通知的当事人。\n\n日期：2023年1月25日 LUC A. DESPINS，\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称为郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及众多其他化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知和联络之目的）。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":128,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":866,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1046,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1363,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1381,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3153,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:36:36"}