{"id":"court_ctb_1408_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1408,"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## DECLARATION OF LISA J. FRIED IN SUPPORT OF UBS AG'S OPPOSITION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\nI, Lisa J. Fried, declare as follows:\n\n1. I am a partner of Herbert Smith Freehills New York LLP, 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, 10017, counsel to non-party UBS AG (\"UBS\") in connection with the above-captioned bankruptcy proceeding. I submit this declaration in support of UBS's opposition to the Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Compelling UBS AG to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena [ECF No. 1362] (the \"Motion\") and in particular to provide the Court with information relating to the meet-and-confer process in which the parties participated before the Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\") filed the Motion.\n\n2. The Trustee served the Rule 2004 subpoena to UBS at issue in the Motion (the \"Subpoena\") on September 26, 2022, demanding that UBS produce a broad range of information and documents relating to Debtor Ho Wan Kwok and 26 other individuals and entities purportedly associated with him (the \"2004 Discovery Targets\").\n\n3. On October 12, 2022, UBS served its objections to the Subpoena (the \"Objection\"). (See Motion, Ex. B). Among other objections, UBS objected: (i) to producing documents relating to accounts located outside the US, noting that \"employees of UBS entities in jurisdictions outside\n\n1\n\nof the United States could face criminal penalties\" if they were to produce documents in response to a subpoena; (ii) to producing documents relating to any regulator of UBS; (iii) on the basis that the Subpoena is overly broad and unduly burdensome; (iv) because certain of the materials requested in the Subpoena could be sought from the parties to the proceeding; (v) to the lack of particularity of the Subpoena and its failure to identify a reasonable time period; (vi) to the extent that it improperly seeks documents in the possession, custody or control not of UBS but of UBS's affiliates; and (vii) on the basis of attorney-client and other applicable privileges. The Objection also stated, \"UBS will not produce documents from UBS's offices or those of its affiliates or subsidiaries located outside of the United States that would violate the laws of any other jurisdiction.\" UBS also reserved the right to supplement or amend the Objection and offered to meet and confer with the Trustee to narrow or eliminate areas of dispute.\n\n4. The Trustee's counsel, Patrick R. Linsey, and I, along with Theodore Wills, Head of Legal Execution Services for UBS Group AG, communicated via email to schedule a mutually convenient time to meet and confer and ultimately spoke by telephone on November 28, 2022. During that call, Mr. Linsey indicated that the Trustee was seeking discovery not only relating to accounts within the US but also relating to accounts located elsewhere in the world. Mr. Wills and I reiterated that UBS objected to producing materials relating to accounts outside the US, and Mr. Wills said that UBS personnel in certain jurisdictions—e.g., Switzerland—could face criminal penalties if they produced documents.\n\n5. During that call, and in subsequent discussions, UBS 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, its employees, and agents in legal jeopardy abroad. Following each of the parties' meet-and-confer calls, UBS and its counsel have worked diligently – across multiple time zones, and over the Lunar New Year holidays when business activity in Hong Kong and the PRC slows considerably – to obtain information for the Trustee.\n\n6. Mr. Linsey, Mr. Wills and I communicated again at various times following the November 28, 2022 call, and I describe particularly relevant communications here:\n\n7. Mr. Linsey, Mr. Wills and I spoke on December 20, 2022. During that call, Mr. Wills and I indicated that it would be helpful to know if there were particular jurisdictions in which the Trustee was interested. Mr. Linsey said that he was aware that the Trustee suspected that the 2004 Discovery Targets may have had dealings and / or accounts with UBS in Hong Kong, the UK, the US, and possibly the People's Republic of China (the \"PRC\"). He added that he would discuss our request with the Trustee and would let us know if there were other jurisdictions on which they were primarily focused. Mr. Linsey emailed us following our call to add the British Virgin Islands to the list.\n\n8. Mr. Linsey and I spoke again on December 29, 2022. During that call, Mr. Linsey advised that the Trustee was particularly interested in the existence of accounts in the name of Bravo Luck Limited, if any, at UBS. Mr. Linsey requested that UBS search for and produce, among other things, account statements reflecting money into and out of any such account and any records UBS had reflecting who was an authorized owner or signatory of the account, with the ability to instruct that payments be made out of it.\n\n9. On January 10, 2023, Mr. Linsey 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 PRC, and Switzerland.\n\n10. On the parties' most recent meet-and-confer telephone call on January 20, 2023, I\n\ninformed Mr. Linsey 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 the 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 I 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. I—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- 11. Mr. Linsey and I spoke again on January 20, 2023, at which point he stated that the\n\nTrustee planned to file the Motion.\n\n12. UBS subsequently confirmed that, as of June 14, 2015, all Swiss-booked wealth\n\nmanagement and retail and corporate accounts were transferred from UBS to an affiliated entity,\n\nUBS Switzerland AG, as a consequence of a spin-off of the Swiss-booked business into a\n\nseparately incorporated entity in response to a request by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory\n\nAuthority, the Swiss financial market regulator.\n\nPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted on January 30, 2023.\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Lisa J. Fried","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，\n\n第11章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n（合并审理）\n\nLisa J. Fried 支持 UBS AG 反对第11章受托人强制动议的声明\n\n我，Lisa J. Fried（丽莎·J·弗里德），声明如下：\n\n1. 我是 Herbert Smith Freehills New York LLP（史密夫斐良纽约有限责任合伙律师事务所，地址：450 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, 10017）的合伙人，在该案由破产程序中担任非当事方 UBS AG（瑞士银行，下称“UBS”）的代理律师。我提交本声明，以支持 UBS 反对第11章受托人请求作出命令强制 UBS AG 遵守第2004条传票的动议 [ECF No. 1362]（下称“该动议”），特别是向法院提供有关各方在第11章受托人（下称“受托人”）提交该动议之前参与协商会商程序的信息。\n\n2. 受托人于 2022年9月26日 向 UBS 送达了该动议所涉的第2004条传票（下称“该传票”），要求 UBS 提供与债务人 Ho Wan Kwok 及据称与其相关的其他26名个人和实体（下称“2004证据开示目标”）有关的广泛信息和文件。\n\n3. 2022年10月12日，UBS 送达了对该传票的异议（下称“该异议”）。（见该动议，附件B）。在其他异议中，UBS 提出异议的事项包括：(i) 拒绝提供与位于美国境外的账户有关的文件，指出“如果美国境外管辖区的 UBS 实体员工”因响应传票而提供文件，“可能会面临刑事处罚”；(ii) 拒绝提供与 UBS 的任何监管机构有关的文件；(iii) 理由是该传票范围过宽且负担过重；(iv) 理由是该传票要求的某些材料可以向该程序的当事方索取；(v) 异议于该传票缺乏针对性且未能确定合理的时间范围；(vi) 异议于该传票不当地索取并非由 UBS 占有、保管或控制，而是由 UBS 的关联公司占有、保管或控制的文件；以及 (vii) 基于律师与客户保密特权及其他适用特权提出异议。该异议还声明：“UBS 不会从 UBS 或其位于美国境外的关联公司或子公司的办事处提供会违反任何其他管辖区法律的文件。”UBS 还保留了补充或修改该异议的权利，并提议与受托人进行协商会商，以缩小或消除争议领域。\n\n4. 受托人的代理律师 Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）与我，连同 UBS Group AG（瑞银集团）法律执行服务主管 Theodore Wills（西奥多·威尔斯），通过电子邮件沟通以安排双方均方便的协商会商时间，并最终于 2022年11月28日 进行了电话沟通。在该次通话中，Linsey 先生表示受托人不仅寻求与美国境内账户有关的证据开示，还寻求与世界其他地方账户有关的证据开示。Wills 先生和我重申 UBS 反对提供与美国境外账户有关的材料，Wills 先生表示，某些管辖区（例如瑞士）的 UBS 人员如果提供文件可能会面临刑事处罚。\n\n5. 在该次通话以及随后的讨论中，UBS 一直本着诚信原则，努力向受托人提供其在不违反 UBS 运营所在管辖区法律的前提下能够提供的信息，并提出相关程序建议，以使受托人能够寻求该传票中要求的额外信息，而不会使 UBS 及其员工和代理人面临海外法律风险。在各方每次协商会商通话之后，UBS 及其代理律师一直勤勉尽责地跨越多个时区开展工作，甚至在香港和 People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国，下称“PRC”）商业活动大幅放缓的农历新年假期期间也是如此，以便为受托人调取信息。\n\n6. Linsey 先生、Wills 先生和我于 2022年11月28日 通话后又在不同时间进行了沟通，我在此说明特别相关的沟通情况：\n\n7. Linsey 先生、Wills 先生和我于 2022年12月20日 进行了交谈。在该次通话中，Wills 先生和我表示，如果能知道受托人是否有特别感兴趣的特定管辖区，将会有所帮助。Linsey 先生表示，他知道受托人怀疑2004证据开示目标可能与 UBS 在香港、英国、美国以及可能在 PRC 存在业务往来和/或开立有账户。他补充称，他将与受托人讨论我们的请求，并会在他们有主要关注的其他管辖区时告知我们。Linsey 先生在通话后向我们发送电子邮件，将 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）添加至名单中。\n\n8. Linsey 先生和我于 2022年12月29日 再次交谈。在该次通话中，Linsey 先生告知，受托人特别关注 UBS 是否存在以 Bravo Luck Limited 为名的账户。Linsey 先生要求 UBS 查找并提供反映任何此类账户进出款项的对账单，以及 UBS 拥有的反映谁是该账户的授权所有人或签字人并有权发出付款指示的任何记录等材料。\n\n9. 2023年1月10日，Linsey 先生确认，受托人主要感兴趣的管辖区为美国、英国、英属维尔京群岛、香港、PRC 和瑞士。\n\n10. 在各方于 2023年1月20日 进行的最近一次协商会商电话会议上，我向 Linsey 先生告知：\n\n- a. UBS 在美国、英国或英属维尔京群岛未发现任何与2004证据开示目标相关的应答账户，但那些同时也是这些索赔人与 UBS 之间在英国未决诉讼程序中的索赔人的目标除外；\n- b. UBS 预计很快能够就 PRC 方面的情况向受托人提供最新信息，但需要额外时间，部分原因是由于农历新年假期（2023年1月22日至2月5日庆祝），在此期间 PRC 的商业放缓情况类似于美国圣诞节至元旦期间的假期；以及\n- c. 关于瑞士和香港，假设 UBS 在这些管辖区拥有任何应答材料，UBS 在不违反这些管辖区法律的情况下，将无法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，在某些情况下甚至包括刑事处罚。然而，正如我在各方此前几次协商会商电话中所解释的那样，受托人可以改为通过以下方式寻求在这些管辖区进行披露：(i) 根据《Hague Evidence Convention（海牙取证公约）》进行程序，或者 (ii) 在香港寻求对本美国破产案件的司法承认，这可能会促成当地法院作出 UBS 可以遵守的命令，从而消除其违反这些管辖区法律的风险。我——再次且并非首次——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的方式进行，UBS 不会提出异议，并且在瑞士或香港存在任何潜在应答材料的范围内，UBS 准备在受托人根据《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供提供，以避免在这些管辖区签发要求提供材料的适当法院命令后出现任何延误。\n\n11. Linsey 先生和我于 2023年1月20日 再次交谈，当时他表示受托人计划提交该动议。\n\n12. UBS 随后确认，截至 2015年6月14日，由于响应瑞士金融市场监管机构 Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority（瑞士金融市场监督管理局）的要求将瑞士记账业务分拆为独立注册实体，所有在瑞士记账的财富管理、零售及企业账户均已从 UBS 转移至关联实体 UBS Switzerland AG（UBS瑞士股份公司）。\n\n根据 28 U.S.C. § 1746，我谨在受伪证罪处罚的原则下声明，上述内容真实且正确。\n\n签署日期：2023年1月30日。\n\n___________________________ Lisa J. Fried","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1362,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1346,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:49:05"}