{"id":"court_ctb_1401_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1401,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | In re:                                | Cha","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| In re:                                | Chapter 11              |\n|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                  | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.                              |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          |                         |\n| Movant,                               |                         |\n| v.                                    |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |                         |\n\nRespondent.\n\n## **HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC AND MEI GUO'S LIMITED OBJECTION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER SEALING EXHIBIT A TO OBJECTION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ORDER REMOVING TRUSTEE AND RELATED RELIEF**\n\n1. The Trustee's Motion is styled as a motion seeking the sealing of an exhibit (the \"Confidential Exhibit\") that is relevant to the Trustee's opposition to the Debtor's motion seeking the Trustee's removal. Notwithstanding the caption, the Trustee makes clear that he intends to use the Confidential Exhibit in the HK Adversary Proceeding, including in the prejudgment remedy evidentiary hearing (\"PJR Hearing\") that was scheduled to commence on February 8, 2023. (*See*  Motion ¶ 11). Accordingly, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HKI\") and Mei Guo file this separate opposition to the Motion.<sup>1</sup>\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Motion wrongly states that CSG Law is counsel to the Debtor. We are not. CSG Law is counsel to HKI and Ms. Guo individually.\n\n2. The Motion should be denied for several reasons.\n\n3. First, the PJR Hearing will determine whether the \\$37 million in Escrow Funds will remain with the Trustee until the conclusion of the HK Adversary Proceeding or be returned to HKI to payback the loan it took—and Ms. Guo personally guaranteed—from Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd (\"Himalaya\"). The stakes could not be any higher for HKI and Ms. Guo. For every day the Himalaya loan remains unpaid, HKI and Ms. Guo incur approximately \\$37,000 in interest, or over \\$1 million every month.\n\n4. It is the Trustee's burden to demonstrate that the Escrow Funds are attachable. The whole point of the PJR Hearing is to determine whether the Trustee can meet his burden with live witness testimony where HKI and Ms. Guo will have an opportunity to cross examine the Trustee's witnesses and challenge his proofs.\n\n5. The Motion contemplates something far different for the PJR Hearing. Rather than calling live witnesses, the Trustee intends to conduct a hearing by declaration. And not only a hearing by declaration, but a hearing by declaration where HKI and Ms. Guo cannot even know the name of the declarant or the substance of the declarant's statements. The Trustee cites no caselaw for this remarkable proposition.\n\n6. He cannot because a hearing by declaration is an obvious violation of HKI and Ms. Guo's due process rights. *See, e.g.*, *United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property,* 510 U.S. 43, 55 (1993) (\"Fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights. ... No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.\"); *Mathews v. Eldridge,* 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (\"The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.\"); *Goldberg v.*  *Kelly,* 397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970) (\"In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.\"); *Rafter v. Bank of Am.*, No. 04 Civ. 3341(JSR)(KNF), 2011 WL 2897331, at \\*6 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2011) (refusing to consider an affidavit submitted after an evidentiary hearing).\n\n7. Second, not only is the Motion without any basis in law, it is also without any basis in fact. HKI and Ms. Guo have not \"protest[ed], dox[ed] [or] harass[ed]\" anyone—ever. (Motion ¶ 13). There is no evidence before the Court that disclosing the Confidential Exhibit to HKI and Ms. Guo would risk the declarant's safety. (*See, e.g.*, Motion ¶ 6 (\"The Trustee shares the declarant's concerns in light of, among other things, *the Debtor's conduct* in this case toward the Trustee and his professionals and the Court's recent finding that *the Debtor's pattern of harassing and intimidating conduct* …)) (emphasis added). And whatever the imagined safety risk may be, it is far outweighed by HKI and Ms. Guo's right to know who is testifying against them and what that person has said. HKI and Ms. Guo cannot prepare a defense otherwise.\n\n8. Third, even if it were somehow appropriate for the Court to accept into evidence a secret declaration not subject to cross examination or any meaningful rebuttal as the basis for attaching \\$37 million, it is not appropriate for the Trustee to declare which attorneys get to see that Confidential Exhibit and which do not. That is not the Protective Order the Trustee negotiated. The AEO provision is just that, attorneys' eyes only. Not CSG Law's eyes only. Or Zeisler & Zeisler's eyes only.\n\n9. There is no basis for the Trustee to declare that Aaron Mitchell, who has been Ms. Guo's attorney for years, cannot see the Confidential Exhibit. The only basis is litigation advantage for the Trustee. He admits as much. (*See* Motion ¶ 9).\n\n3\n\n10. CSG Law was just recently retained. We do not have the long history that Mr. Mitchell has with HKI or Ms. Guo. If the Confidential Exhibit is kept from HKI and Ms. Guo, and also Mr. Mitchell, there would be no way for CSG Law to even attempt to rebut what is said by a declarant who we will likely have no familiarity with. We cannot ask our client about the declarant, and if the Trustee has his way, we cannot even ask our client's longtime counsel about the declarant.\n\n11. The Trustee's Motion should be seen for what it is: an attempt by the Trustee to gain every conceivable litigation advantage in the PJR Hearing while kneecapping HKI and Ms. Guo's ability to meaningfully participate in the hearing and secure the release of \\$37 million in assets wrongly held.\n\nDated at Roseland, New Jersey this 27th day of January, 2023.\n\n## **HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC AND MEI GUO**\n\n*/s/ Lee Vartan*  Lee Vartan Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 105 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 530-2107 Email: [lvartan@csglaw.com](mailto:lvartan@csglaw.com) *Attorneys for HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC and Mei Guo*\n\nStephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Email: [skindseth@zeislaw.com](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) *Local Counsel for HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC and Mei Guo*\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 27th day of January, 2023, 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 of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ Lee Vartan* Lee Vartan","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\n关于：第 11 章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等， 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\nHo Wan Kwok，\n动议人，\n诉\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n第 11 章受托人\n\n被申请人。\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）与 Mei Guo（郭美）关于第 11 章受托人请求作出命令将针对债务人请求撤换受托人及相关救济之动议的异议书附件 A 予以封存之动议的有限异议\n\n1. 受托人的动议形式上是一项请求封存某份证据附件（即“机密附件”）的动议，该附件与受托人反对债务人请求撤换受托人的动议相关。尽管标题如此，受托人明确表示其打算在 HK 对抗性诉讼程序中使用该机密附件，包括在原定于 February 8, 2023 开始的判决前救济证据听证会（“PJR 听证会”）中使用。（见动议第 11 段）。因此，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“HKI”）与郭美针对该动议单独提出本异议。1\n\n1 动议中错误地指出 CSG Law（CSG 律师事务所）为债务人的法律顾问。我们不是。CSG Law 分别担任 HKI 和郭美女士个人的法律顾问。\n\n2. 该动议基于以下几项理由应当予以驳回。\n\n3. 首先，PJR 听证会将裁决这 $37 million 托管资金是在 HK 对抗性诉讼程序结束前继续由受托人保留，还是返还给 HKI 以偿还其向 Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司，“Himalaya”）所借——且由郭美女士个人提供担保——的贷款。对于 HKI 和郭美女士而言，利益攸关，莫大于此。Himalaya 的贷款每拖欠一天，HKI 和郭美女士就会产生约 $37,000 的利息，或每月超过 $1 million。\n\n4. 证明托管资金具有可扣押性是受托人的举证责任。PJR 听证会的全部核心在于通过证人到庭作证来确定受托人能否完成其举证责任，在此过程中 HKI 和郭美女士将有机会对受托人的证人进行交叉质询并对其证据提出质疑。\n\n5. 该动议对 PJR 听证会的设想则完全不同。受托人并不打算传唤证人到庭，而是打算通过书面声明进行听证。不仅是通过书面声明进行听证，而且是在 HKI 和郭美女士甚至无法知晓声明人姓名或声明人陈述实质内容的情况下通过声明进行听证。对于这一异乎寻常的主张，受托人没有引用任何判例法。\n\n6. 他无法引用，因为通过书面声明进行听证显系对 HKI 和郭美女士正当程序权利的侵犯。参见例如 United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 55 (1993)（“通过秘密、单方面认定对权利具有决定性意义的事实，极难实现公正。……要查明真相，莫过于向处于面临重大损失危险中的当事人告知针对其的诉讼案情并给予其应对的机会，目前尚无比这更优的手段。”）；Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)（“正当程序的基本要求是在有意义的时间以有意义的方式获得陈述意见的机会。”）；Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970)（“在几乎所有重大决定取决于事实问题的场合，正当程序都要求有权对不利证人进行当面对质和交叉质询。”）；Rafter v. Bank of Am., No. 04 Civ. 3341(JSR)(KNF), 2011 WL 2897331, at *6 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2011)（拒绝审酌在证据听证会后提交的宣誓书）。\n\n7. 其次，该动议不仅在法律上毫无根据，在事实上也毫无根据。HKI 和郭美女士从未——从来没有——“抗议、人肉搜索[或]骚扰”过任何人。（动议第 13 段）。法庭面前没有任何证据表明向 HKI 和郭美女士披露该机密附件会危及声明人的安全。（参见例如动议第 6 段（“鉴于除其他事项外债务人在本案中针对受托人及其专业人员的行为，以及法庭最近关于债务人骚扰和恐吓行为模式的认定，受托人与声明人有着同样的担忧……”）（强调为后加））。无论所想象的安全风险是什么，HKI 和郭美女士知晓谁在针对他们作证以及该人说了什么的权利都远重于此。否则 HKI 和郭美女士将无法准备抗辩。\n\n8. 第三，即使法庭以一份不经交叉质询或任何有意义反驳的秘密声明作为扣押 $37 million 的依据在某种程度上被视为可被采纳为证据，受托人也无权宣布哪些律师可以查看该机密附件而哪些律师不能查看。这并非受托人所协商的保护令内容。AEO（仅限律师查阅）条款就是字面意思，即仅限律师查阅。而不是仅限 CSG Law 查阅，或者仅限 Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）查阅。\n\n9. 受托人没有任何依据宣布多年来一直担任郭美女士律师的 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）不能查看该机密附件。唯一的依据就是为受托人谋求诉讼优势。他对此予以承认。（见动议第 9 段）。\n\n10. CSG Law 是最近刚被聘请的。我们并不具备米切尔先生与 HKI 或郭美女士那样长期的合作历史。如果向 HKI 和郭美女士以及米切尔先生隐瞒该机密附件，CSG Law 将根本无法尝试反驳我们很可能完全不熟悉的声明人所说的话。我们无法向我们的委托人询问有关声明人的情况，而且如果任由受托人按其意图行事，我们甚至无法向我们委托人的长期律师询问有关声明人的情况。\n\n11. 受托人的动议应当被如实看待：这是受托人试图在 PJR 听证会中获取一切可能获得的诉讼优势，同时摧毁 HKI 和郭美女士有意义地参与听证会并争取解除对被错误扣押的 $37 million 资产的扣押的能力。\n\n日期：2023年1月27日 于 Roseland, New Jersey（新泽西州罗斯兰）\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC AND MEI GUO\n\n/s/ Lee Vartan\nLee Vartan（李·瓦坦）\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC\n105 Eisenhower Parkway\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n电话：(973) 530-2107\n电子邮箱：lvartan@csglaw.com\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 与 Mei Guo 的代理律师\n\nStephen M. Kindseth（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞斯）(ct14640)\nAaron A. Romney（亚伦·A·罗姆尼）(ct28144)\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n电子邮箱：skindseth@zeislaw.com\naromney@zeislaw.com\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 与 Mei Guo 的本地代理律师\n\n送达证书\n\n本人特此证明，于 2023年1月27日，前述文书的副本已通过电子方式归档。此项归档的通知将通过法庭电子归档系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人，或按照电子归档通知上的注明，以邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子归档的任何人。当事人可通过法庭的 CM/ECF 系统查阅此项归档文书。\n\n/s/ Lee Vartan\nLee Vartan","key_entities":["Guo","Himalaya","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1180,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:46:51"}