{"id":"court_ctb_1415_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1415,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-01-30","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"受托人综合回复意见及送达证明 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1415（2023-01-30立案）。第11章破产受托人 Luc Despins 提交回复，进一步支持其封存反对债务人罢免受托人动议所附保密证言的动议，主张出于证人人身安全保护需要，该机密文件应仅限外部律师查阅（Attorneys-Eyes-Only），并禁止债务人家属及内部律师 Aaron Mitchell 等人接触。","summary_en":"Chapter 11 Trustee's Omnibus Reply and Certificate of Service — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1415 (filed 2023-01-30). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins filed this reply supporting his motion to seal a confidential declaration submitted with his objection to the Debtor's removal motion, arguing that restricting access strictly to outside counsel on an attorneys'-eyes-only basis and excluding in-house counsel like Aaron Mitchell is warranted to protect witness safety.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | | :
:
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------- | | x | |\n\n# **OMNIBUS REPLY OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER SEALING CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBIT TO OBJECTION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ORDER REMOVING TRUSTEE AND RELATED RELIEF**\n\nLuc Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Individual Debtor\"), hereby submits this reply (the \"Reply\") in further support of the *Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion for Entry of Order Sealing Confidential Exhibit to Objection to Debtor's Motion for Order Removing Trustee and Related Relief* (the \"Sealing Motion\")2 and in response to the objections filed by (a) the Individual Debtor [Main Case Docket No. 1400] and (b) Mei Guo and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC [Main Case Docket No. 1401] (together, the \"Objections\"). In further support of the Sealing Motion, the Trustee respectfully state as follows:\n\n1 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\n2 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Motion to Expedite have the meanings set forth in the Sealing Motion.\n\n### **REPLY**\n\n1. Despite the Objections attempts to obfuscate the purpose of the Motion to Seal, it really is very straightforward, and very important. It requests that the Court allow a highly confidential declaration to be filed on an attorneys-eyes-only basis as an exhibit under seal in connection the Trustee's objection to the Removal Motion, with the added protection that access to the document and the identity of the declarant be limited to Z&Z and CSG.\n\n2. Producing exhibits and testimony on an attorneys' eyes only basis is already provided for in this case. 3 The Protective Order allows for documents to be produced on an attorneys' eyes only basis through their designation as \"Highly Confidential.\" The Debtor and his counsel have produced numerous documents in discovery with Highly Confidential designations, with the Debtor going so far as to assert that his entire deposition in connection with the Ace Decade proceeding had to be treated as Highly Confidential prior to a single question even being asked. Moreover, the Debtor and Ms. Guo have asserted that some information does not even have to be disclosed for alleged security reasons, such as the Debtor's asylum application (with respect to which the Debtor sought a protective order) or Ms. Guo's address (which her counsel recently instructed her not to disclose at her deposition on grounds of a security concern, despite counsel for the Trustee stating to her counsel that if he had a concern he could designate that part of the transcript as Highly Confidential). In fact, to date the Debtor and his prior counsels have designated thousands documents as attorney's eyes only.\n\n3 It is also commonplace for such protective orders to restrict disclosure to outside counsel only, the same level of protection being requested in the Sealing Motion. *See e.g. Sony Computer Ent. Am., Inc. v. NASA Elecs. Corp.,* 249 F.R.D. 378, 383 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (\"it is appropriate to permit an 'attorneys' eyes only' designation, which is restricted to outside counsel . . . without prejudice, however, to the right of Plaintiff to seek to lift this designation as to particular information if necessary to do so in the litigation of this case\"); *Field Turf USA, Inc. v. Sports Const. Grp., LLC*, No. 1:06 CV 2624, 2007 WL 4412855, at \\*1 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 12, 2007) (protective order \"provides that 'attorneys' eyes only' material may be disclosed only to the receiving party's 'outside counsel'\").\n\n3. Thus, the real issue being objected to is the Trustee's request to extend the scope of protections afforded Highly Confidential documents to further exclude Aaron Mitchell and other \"in-house\" counsel for the Debtor and his family and who, like Mr. Mitchell, have not appeared before this Court for purposes of any substantive matters. 4 As discussed further below, the Trustee believes such additional protection is eminently reasonable given the concerns the Witness has expressed with respect to the Witness's personal safety.\n\n4. Restricting the Debtor's other counsel, including Aaron Mitchell and Melissa Francis, from seeing the Confidential Exhibit is warranted by the unique relationship these attorneys have with the Debtor Parties, whom they serve as in-house counsel in connection with numerous matters. Mitchell and Francis have for years acted as intermediaries between the Debtor Parties and their outside counsel, relaying instructions and information. Mitchell's law office was at one point located at the same address used by the Debtor and numerous of his shell companies, 162 E. 164th Street, New York, New York.5 Mitchell and Francis have also advised the Debtor in connection with this chapter 11 case without filing proper disclosures regarding their compensation.6 For these reasons, Mitchell and Francis are not, in the Trustee's view, true outside counsel in the same manner as Z&Z and CSG, and the Trustee has legitimate concerns about their ability to keep confidential information from the Debtor and his associates. Indeed, as the Court is aware, Mitchell was previously implicated in the violation of the non-disclosure\n\n4 This latter group notably includes Melissa Francis and Daniel Podhaskie, counsel who have registered no appearances before this Court but have previously been actively involved in matters on behalf of the Debtor and Ms. Guo in connection with the Debtor's numerous other business dealings.\n\n5 *See Consent to Change Attorney*, filed by Mitchell in connection with the PAX litigation before Justice Ostrager and dated November 14, 2019, Index No. 652077/207, NYSECF 338, attached hereto as **Exhibit A.**\n\n6 Mitchell filed a notice of appearance on July 11, 2022 [Docket No. 530], but has never disclosed his compensation as required of a Debtor's counsel under the Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Francis has not filed either a notice of appearance or disclosure regarding compensation.\n\nagreement related to the meeting held between the Trustee and the Debtor on November 17, 2022, which violation this Court found was committed by \"[t]he Debtor, or someone the Debtor controls or directs.\"7\n\n5. The Debtor Parties' efforts to downplay the Witness's safety concerns should be rejected. The Trustee will not belabor the point given the Court's familiarity with both the Debtor's well-documented methods of organizing his followers to harass perceived opponents (actions that have resulted in violence on multiple occasions in the past8 ), as well as the Debtor's history of violating court orders. Suffice it to say that the Witness's safety concerns are eminently well-founded based on the record before the Court.\n\n6. Furthermore, the Objections filed by the Debtor, Mei Guo, and HK USA (together, the \"Debtor Parties\") miscomprehend the nature of the relief sought in the Sealing Motion, accusing the Trustee of attempting to deprive the Debtor Parties of their right to confront adverse witnesses. That is not correct. The Witness has not even been introduced as a witness in connection with a hearing on the removal motion, the PJR hearing, or any other matter, and the Confidential Exhibit has not yet been offered into evidence. Although the Trustee intends to introduce the Confidential Exhibit at the PJR hearing (and to potentially call the Witness to testify), its admissibility for that purpose is not before the Court at this time. Moreover, nothing\n\n7 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, Adv. Proc. No. 22- 05032 [Docket No. 133] ¶ 74. The Debtor's other counsel present at the meeting, Stephen Kindseth, testified that he did not breach the agreement.\n\n8 *See, e.g.*, Friedman, Dan. \"A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued.\" *Mother Jones*, March – April 2022, http (\"At least two Guo-inspired protests have led to violence. On September 21, 2020, after Guo lashed out at \"fake pro-democracy activists\" who \"should be beaten up as soon as we see them,\" a Los Angeles–based anti-CCP activist who goes by Mang Liuzi was assaulted by a Guo acolyte protesting outside his home. A couple months later, two men protesting outside the Vancouver home of Gao Bingchen, a journalist Guo had denounced, attacked a friend of Gao's, kicking him repeatedly in the head and neck as he lay crumpled on the pavement.\"). This violent history belies the Debtor's contention that he merely \"fights with the pen.\"\n\nin the Sealing Motion seeks to prohibit the Debtor Parties from asking this Court to remove or modify the confidentiality restrictions applicable to the Confidential Exhibit after they receive and review the document. Their rights in that regard, as set forth in the Protective Order, are fully preserved.9 The Trustee's counsel reached out to Z&Z to propose a consensual arrangement under which the Confidential Exhibit would be provided to outside counsel (to Z&Z, initially, and subsequently to both Z&Z and CSG), without any prejudice to the Debtor's ability to request that the Confidential Exhibit be subject to further disclosure. 10 They declined to receive the document on this basis.\n\n7. Finally, the Trustee is not seeking a litigation advantage, as the Debtor Parties contend. Mei Guo and HK USA assert that that the Trustee \"admits\" in paragraph 9 to the Sealing Motion that his basis in seeking to prevent Aaron Mitchell from seeing the Confidential Exhibit is a supposed litigation advantage. This assertion is a misrepresentation of the Sealing Motion, which says at paragraph 9 that \"Z&Z and CSG are serving as outside counsel to the Debtor only in connection with this case\" and that \"[t]hus, the need for Z&Z and CSG to have access to the Confidential Exhibit differs from that of any other counsel, including Attorney Mitchell and Attorney Francis.\" The point here is obviously not that preventing Mitchell and Francis from seeing the Confidential Exhibit would give the Trustee a litigation advantage, but just the opposite: that it would not give the Trustee a litigation advantage given that the primary counsel handling this litigation would be able to see the document.\n\n9 For this reason, the cases cited by the Debtor regarding the rights of parties to confront witnesses are inapposite. Similarly inapposite are the cases cited by the Debtor in which courts ruled that attorneys-eyes-only protective orders were not appropriate. In this case, the Protective Order employs an attorney-eyes-only designation, has already been approved, and has not been challenged by the Debtor on that basis.\n\n10 An email sent to Z&Z by the Trustee's counsel with this proposal is attached hereto as **Exhibit B.**\n\n8. Because the Sealing Motion seeks relief necessary to protect the safety of a key witness in this case, and because the Debtor Parties will suffer no prejudice given that their rights to seek further disclosure of the Confidential Exhibit in accordance with the Protective Order are fully preserved, the Sealing Motion should be granted.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank.*]\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee requests that the Court enter an\n\norder granting the relief requested in the Sealing Motion and such other relief as is just and\n\nproper.\n\nDated: January 30, 2023 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n### LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) G. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/19/2019 08:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 338 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/19/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1415 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 20:16:12 Page 9 of 13\n\n### SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\n# PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nIndex No.: 652077/2017\n\nv. Consent to Change Attorney\n\nKWOK HO WAN, a/ka KWOK HO, aka GWO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, a/k/a GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC\n\nDefendants.\n\nIT IS HEREBY CONSENTED that LAWALL & MITCHELL LLC be substituted as\n\nattorney of record for Defendants GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and GENEVER\n\nHOLDINGS, LLC, in the above-captioned action in place and stead of HODGSON RUSS LLP\n\nas of the date hereof.\n\nDated: November 14, 2019 New York, NY\n\nRespectfully, Respectfully,\n\nMark A. Harmon, sq. Aaron A. Mitchell, Esq. 605 Third Ave, Suite 2300 162 E. 64th Street New York, NY 10158 New York, NY 10065 mharmon's hodesonruss.com aaron@imesq.com 212-751-4300 973-285-3280\n\nOutgoing Attorneys for Defendants Incoming Attorneys for Defendants Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings, LLC Genever Holdings, LLC\n\nHODGSON RUSS LLP LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/19/2019 08:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 338 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/19/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1415 Filed 01/30/23 Entered 01/30/23 20:16:12 Page 10 of 13\n\nAcknowledged,\n\nGuo Wengui, as Director, Gen ver Holdings Corporation\n\nState of New York } } ss.: County of New York }\n\nOn the M(A day of November, 2019, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared GUO WENGUI, on behalf of Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings, LLC, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument.\n\nNotary Public\n\nKARIN MAISTRELLO NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF NEW YORK Registration No. orMA637665+ Qualified in NY County Commision expiresJune, 18aoza\n\n# **EXHIBIT B**\n\n**Subject:** FW: [EXT] RE: HK USA PJR Hearing\n\nFrom: Bassett, Nicholas > Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 6:54 PM To: Eric Henzy >; James Moriarty > Cc: Aaron A. Romney >; Despins, Luc A. >; Luft, Avi E. >; Barron, Douglass E. > Subject: HK USA PJR Hearing\n\nExternal E-mail - CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Firm. Do NOT reply, click links or open attachments, unless you recognize the sending email address and know the content is safe..\n\nEric and Jim,\n\nThe Trustee has obtained a declaration from a witness that the Trustee may rely upon at the upcoming PJR hearing in the HK USA adversary proceeding. The declarant has expressed concerns about their safety and has instructed us to take all appropriate steps to protect their identity. With that in mind, we are prepared to share a copy of the declaration with you on a Highly Confidential, Zeisler-eyes-only basis under the Protective Order [ECF 923]. Pursuant to paragraph 10(a)(iii) of the Protective Order, we are only consenting at this time to sharing the declaration with Zeisler upon your execution of Exhibit A to the Protective Order. This means that, absent either the Trustee's consent or further order of the Court, only Zeisler attorneys may have access to the declaration and the information contained therein (including without limitation the identity of the declarant and the contents of the declaration), and neither the declaration nor such information may be shared with the Debtor, his other lawyers and advisors, or anyone else.\n\nPlease confirm that you will accept the declaration on this basis, subject to your rights under the Protective Order, and we will send you a copy. If you do not agree to proceed on this basis, we will need to raise the issue with the Court.\n\nRegards,\n\nNick\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | | :
:
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------- | | x | |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned certifies that on January 30, 2023, the foregoing Reply (including the exhibits thereto) was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties able to receive electronic notice by operation of the Court's electronic filing system (\"CM/ECF\"). Parties may access these filings by CM/ECF.\n\nDated: January 30, 2023 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n> By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 821-2000 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n1 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（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n:\n: 第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）,\n等人， :\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\n: （合并审理）\n---------------------------------------------------------- x\n第 11 章受托人支持就债务人要求免除受托人职务及相关救济的动议提出异议时所附保密证据进行封存之命令申请的综合答辩书\n\nLuc Despins，以在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“个人债务人”）第 11 章破产案中指定的第 11 章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，特此提交本答辩书（以下简称“答辩书”），以进一步支持《第 11 章受托人关于对债务人要求免除受托人职务及相关救济之动议的异议所附保密证据进行封存之命令的动议》（以下简称“封存动议”）2，并回应由 (a) 个人债务人 [主案卷宗号 1400] 以及 (b) Mei Guo（郭美）和 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）[主案卷宗号 1401] 所提交的异议（合称“异议”）。为进一步支持封存动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人是 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）和 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（仅用于接收通知和沟通目的）。\n\n2 在本加快审理动议中使用但未另作定义的专有名词，具有封存动议中所规定的含义。\n答辩\n\n1. 尽管这些异议试图混淆封存动议的目的，但该目的实际上非常明确且至关重要。它请求法院允许在受托人反对免除动议的异议中，将一份高度保密的声明书作为封存证据仅限律师查阅（attorneys-eyes-only）提交，并附加保护措施，即查阅该文件及了解声明人身份的权限仅限于 Z&Z 和 CSG。\n\n2. 在本案中，按“仅限律师查阅”方式提供证据和证词已有所规定。3 保护令允许通过将文件标为“高度保密”来按仅限律师查阅的方式提供。债务人及其律师在证据开示中提供了大量标有“高度保密”的文件，债务人甚至主张其在 Ace Decade 诉讼程序中的整场宣誓证词在被问及任何一个问题之前就必须被视为高度保密。此外，债务人和郭女士还声称，出于所谓的安全原因，某些信息甚至根本无需披露，例如债务人的庇护申请（债务人就此申请了保护令）或郭女士的地址（尽管受托人律师曾向郭女士的律师表示，如果他有顾虑可以将笔录的该部分标为“高度保密”，但其律师最近仍在郭女士的宣誓证词中指示她以安全顾虑为由不予披露）。事实上，迄今为止债务人及其前任律师已将数千份文件标为仅限律师查阅。\n\n3 此类保护令通常也会将披露范围限制为仅限外聘律师，这与封存动议中所请求的保护级别相同。参见，例如 Sony Computer Ent. Am., Inc. v. NASA Elecs. Corp., 249 F.R.D. 378, 383 (S.D. Fla. 2008)（“允许‘仅限律师查阅’的标记是恰当的，该标记限制为仅限外聘律师……但在不损害原告权利的前提下，如果在本案诉讼中有必要，原告有权就特定信息寻求解除该标记”）；Field Turf USA, Inc. v. Sports Const. Grp., LLC, No. 1:06 CV 2624, 2007 WL 4412855, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 12, 2007)（保护令“规定‘仅限律师查阅’的材料仅可向接收方的‘外聘律师’披露”）。\n\n3. 因此，异议所针对的真正问题，是受托人请求扩大对高度保密文件所给予的保护范围，以进一步排除 Aaron Mitchell 以及债务人及其家族的其他“内聘”律师，且这些人与 Mitchell 先生一样，并未为了任何实质性事项而在本法院出庭。4 如下文进一步论述，鉴于证人对自身人身安全所表达的担忧，受托人认为此类额外保护是非常合理的。\n\n4. 限制债务人的其他律师（包括 Aaron Mitchell 和 Melissa Francis）查看保密证据是合理的，因为这些律师与债务人各方有着特殊关系，他们在涉及众多事项中担任债务人各方的内聘律师。多年来，Mitchell 和 Francis 一直在债务人各方与其外聘律师之间充当撮合中介，转达指示和信息。Mitchell 的律师事务所曾一度位于债务人及其众多空壳公司所使用的同一地址：162 E. 164th Street, New York, New York。5 Mitchell 和 Francis 还就本第 11 章案件向债务人提供咨询，但未就其报酬提交适当的披露说明。6 基于这些原因，受托人认为，Mitchell 和 Francis 并非像 Z&Z 和 CSG 那样的真正外聘律师，并且受托人对他们向债务人及其关联人员隐瞒保密信息的能力存在合理的担忧。事实上，正如本法院所知，Mitchell 先前曾卷入违反保密协议的事件，\n\n4 后者尤其包括 Melissa Francis 和 Daniel Podhaskie，这些律师未向本法院登记出庭，但此前曾在涉及债务人众多其他商业交易的事项中代表债务人和郭女士积极参与。\n\n5 参见 Mitchell 在 Ostrager 法官审理的 PAX 诉讼案中提交的日期为 2019 年 11 月 14 日的《同意变更代理律师》（Consent to Change Attorney），Index No. 652077/207，NYSECF 338，附于本答辩书作为附件 A。\n\n6 Mitchell 于 2022 年 7 月 11 日提交了出庭通知 [卷宗号 530]，但从未按照《破产法典》和《联邦破产诉讼规则》对债务人律师的要求披露其报酬。Francis 既未提交出庭通知，也未提交关于报酬的披露说明。\n\n该协议涉及受托人与债务人于 2022 年 11 月 17 日举行的会议，本法院认定该违约行为是由“债务人，或受债务人控制或指示的人”实施的。7\n\n5. 债务人各方淡化证人安全顾虑的企图应当予以驳回。鉴于法院既熟悉债务人组织其追随者骚扰其认定的对手这一有据可查的手段（这些行为过去多次导致暴力事件 8），也熟悉债务人违反法院命令的前科，受托人不再赘述。只要说明：根据法院面前的记录，该证人的安全顾虑是完全有充分根据的，这就足够了。\n\n6. 此外，债务人、Mei Guo（郭美）和 HK USA（合称“债务人各方”）提交的异议误解了封存动议所寻求救济的性质，指责受托人试图剥夺债务人各方面对不利证人的权利。这是不正确的。在涉及罢免动议的听证会、PJR 听证会或任何其他事项中，该证人甚至尚未被引入作为证人，并且保密证据也尚未作为证据提出。虽然受托人打算在 PJR 听证会上引入保密证据（并可能传唤该证人作证），但其用于该目的的可采性目前并未摆在法院面前。而且，封存动议中没有任何内容\n\n7 《关于部分准予初步禁令动议的判决备忘录（更正版）》，对抗性诉讼程序编号 22-05032 [卷宗号 133] 第 74 段。出席会议的债务人另一位律师 Stephen Kindseth 作证称他没有违反协议。\n\n8 参见，例如 Friedman, Dan. \"A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued.\" Mother Jones, 2022 年 3 月 – 4 月，http（“至少有两起由郭煽动的抗议导致了暴力。2020 年 9 月 21 日，在郭猛烈抨击‘一看到就该暴打’的‘假民运人士’后，一名名为 Mang Liuzi（盲流子）的洛杉矶反共人士遭到在其住所外抗议的郭追随者的袭击。几个月后，两名在郭所谴责的记者 Gao Bingchen（高冰尘）位于温哥华的住所外抗议的男子袭击了高的一位朋友，在他蜷缩在人行道上时反复踢踹其头部和颈部。”）。这一暴力史击碎了债务人所谓其仅仅“以笔为戈”的主张。\n\n旨在禁止债务人各方在收到并审阅该文件后，请求本法院解除或修改适用于保密证据的保密限制。他们在该方面的权利正如保护令所规定的一样得到了完全保留。9 受托人的律师已与 Z&Z 联系，提议达成一项合意安排，据此将保密证据提供给外聘律师（起初提供给 Z&Z，随后同时提供给 Z&Z 和 CSG），且完全不影响债务人请求对保密证据作进一步披露的权利。10 他们拒绝在此基础上接收该文件。\n\n7. 最后，受托人并不像债务人各方所主张的那样是在寻求诉讼优势。Mei Guo 和 HK USA 声称，受托人在封存动议第 9 段中“承认”其寻求阻止 Aaron Mitchell 查看保密证据的依据是所谓的诉讼优势。这一说法是对封存动议的曲解，该动议在第 9 段中指出“Z&Z 和 CSG 仅就本案担任债务人的外聘律师”，并且“因此，Z&Z 和 CSG 查阅保密证据的需求不同于任何其他律师，包括 Mitchell 律师和 Francis 律师”。这里的要点显然不是说阻止 Mitchell 和 Francis 查看保密证据会给受托人带来诉讼优势，而恰恰相反：由于处理本诉讼的主要律师将能够查看该文件，这不会给受托人带来诉讼优势。\n\n9 正因如此，债务人引用的关于当事人面对证人权利的判例是不适用的。同样不适用的还有债务人引用的法院裁定“仅限律师查阅”保护令不恰当的判例。在本案中，保护令采用了“仅限律师查阅”的标记，已获批准，且债务人并未以此为由提出质疑。\n\n10 受托人律师向 Z&Z 发送的载有该提议的电子邮件作为附件 B 附于本答辩书。\n\n8. 由于封存动议所寻求的救济对于保护本案关键证人的安全是必要的，并且鉴于债务人各方根据保护令寻求进一步披露保密证据的权利得到了完全保留，债务人各方不会受到任何损害，因此应当准予封存动议。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白。]\n\n为此，基于上述理由，受托人请求法院作出一项裁定，批准封存动议中所请求的救济，以及其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：2023年1月30日 康涅狄格州纽黑文\nLUC A. DESPINS，第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted pro hac vice（特别出庭许可）) PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所） 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted pro hac vice（特别出庭许可）) G. Alexander Bongartz (admitted pro hac vice（特别出庭许可）) PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人代理律师\n证据 A\n归档：纽约县文书官 11/19/2019 08:30 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 338 NYSCEF 接收：11/19/2019 案号 22-50073 文件 1415 归档于 01/30/23 录入于 01/30/23 20:16:12 第 9 页，共 13 页\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）\n\n原告，\n\n索引号：652077/2017\n\n对 同意变更代理律师\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO、GWO WENGUI、GUO WENGUI（郭文贵）、GUO WEN-GUI、WAN GUE HAOYUN、MILES KWOK、HAOYUN GUO，以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION 和 GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC\n\n被告。\n\n特此同意，自本文件签署之日起，在上述标明案件中，由 LAWALL & MITCHELL LLC 接替并取代 HODGSON RUSS LLP 担任被告 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION 及 GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC 的记录在案代理律师。\n\n日期：2019年11月14日 纽约州纽约市\n\n此致， 此致，\n\nMark A. Harmon, Esq. Aaron A. Mitchell, Esq. 605 Third Ave, Suite 2300 162 E. 64th Street New York, NY 10158 New York, NY 10065 mharmon@hodgsonruss.com aaron@lmesq.com 212-751-4300 973-285-3280\n\n离任被告代理律师（Genever Holdings Corporation 及 Genever Holdings, LLC） 继任被告代理律师（Genever Holdings Corporation 及 Genever Holdings, LLC）\n\nHODGSON RUSS LLP LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC\n归档：纽约县文书官 11/19/2019 08:30 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 338 NYSCEF 接收：11/19/2019 案号 22-50073 文件 1415 归档于 01/30/23 录入于 01/30/23 20:16:12 第 10 页，共 13 页\n\n确认无误，\n\n郭文贵（Guo Wengui），以 Genever Holdings Corporation 董事身份\n\n纽约州 } } 证明属实： 纽约县 }\n\n于2019年11月14日，在本人——该州所设的下署公证人面前，GUO WENGUI（郭文贵）代表 Genever Holdings Corporation 及 Genever Holdings, LLC 亲自出面，其为本人所熟知或基于充分证据向本人证明其确系在本文书上署名之人，并向本人确认其以其相应身份签署了该文书，且通过其在文书上的签字，该个人或该个人所代表签署的主体签署了本文书。\n\n公证人\n\nKARIN MAISTRELLO 纽约州公证人 登记号 01MA6376654 纽约县合格 佣金期满于2021年6月18日\n证据 B\n\n主题：转发：[EXT] 回复：HK USA PJR 听证会\n\n发件人：Bassett, Nicholas > 发送时间：2023年1月9日，星期一 6:54 PM 收件人：Eric Henzy >; James Moriarty > 抄送：Aaron A. Romney >; Despins, Luc A. >; Luft, Avi E. >; Barron, Douglass E. > 主题：HK USA PJR 听证会\n\n外部电子邮件 - 警告：此电子邮件源自律所外部。除非您确认发件人电子邮件地址并确信内容安全，否则请勿回复、点击链接或打开附件。\n\nEric 和 Jim：\n\n受托人已从一名证人处取得一份声明书，受托人可能会在即将召开的 HK USA 附随诉讼 PJR 听证会上引用该声明书。声明人对其人身安全表示担忧，并已指示我们采取一切适当措施保护其身份。基于这一点，我们准备根据《保护令》[ECF 923]，在高度机密且仅限 Zeisler 律所查阅（Zeisler-eyes-only）的原则下与你们共享该声明书的副本。根据《保护令》第 10(a)(iii) 段的规定，我们目前仅同意在你们签署《保护令》附件 A 后向 Zeisler 共享该声明书。这意味着，在未经受托人同意或法院进一步下达命令的情况下，只有 Zeisler 的律师可以查阅该声明书及其包含的信息（包括但不限于声明人的身份及声明书的内容），且该声明书及此类信息均不得与债务人、其其他律师和顾问或任何其他人共享。\n\n请确认你们将在上述基础上接受该声明书（受限于你们在《保护令》下的权利），我们将向你们发送一份副本。如果你们不同意在此基础上进行，我们将需要向法院提出该问题。\n\n谨致问候，\n\nNick\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n:\n: 第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等， :\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\n: （合并审理）\n---------------------------------------------------------- x\n送达证明书\n\n下署人证明，于2023年1月30日，上述答辩书（包括其所附证据）已通过电子方式归档。此归档通知已通过法院电子归档系统（\"CM/ECF\"）的操作，通过电子邮件发送给所有能够接收电子通知的当事方。各当事方可通过 CM/ECF 查阅这些归档文件。\n\n日期：2023年1月30日 康涅狄格州纽黑文\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) 821-2000 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及诸多其他化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Luc A. Despins（作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人，仅用于通知和通讯目的）。","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","Luc Despins","GETTR","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":338,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":923,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2975,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-30 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-30","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:34:25"}