{"id":"court_ctb_1416_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1416,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-01-30","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"强制执行传票回复备忘录及送达证明 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1416（2023-01-30立案）。第11章破产受托人 Luc Despins 提交回复备忘录，进一步支持其强制 UBS AG 遵从破产法第2004条传票的动议，反驳 UBS 提出的《海牙取证公约》替代方案，指出海牙途径受香港、瑞士及中国内地的保留限制，无法切实满足破产财产调查的紧迫需求。","summary_en":"Trustee's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel UBS AG and Certificate of Service — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1416 (filed 2023-01-30). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins submitted this reply memorandum in support of his motion to compel UBS AG to comply with a Rule 2004 subpoena, arguing that Hague Convention discovery alternatives proposed by UBS are illusory and unviable due to reservations entered by Hong Kong, Switzerland, and China.","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### **REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER COMPELLING UBS AG TO COMPLY WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENA**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in Ho Wan Kwok's (the \"Individual Debtor\") chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"), hereby files this reply memorandum (the \"Reply\") in support of his Motion for Entry of Order Compelling UBS AG to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena [ECF No. 1345] (the \"Motion to Compel\") and in response to UBS's Objection thereto dated January 30, 2023 [ECF No. 1407] (the \"Objection\"). 2 In support of the Motion to Compel, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n## **UBS HAS NOT PROPOSED FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES**\n\n1. **The purported \"alternatives\" UBS asserts that the Trustee should pursue to obtain documents and information are illusory.** UBS knows from the parties' extensive discovery conferences that neither Hague Convention discovery nor foreign recognition\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 All capitalized terms not expressly defined in this Reply adopt the definitions as set forth in the Motion to Compel.\n\nproceedings are viable courses for the Trustee on account of the urgency of the Trustee's investigation and the lack of funds in the estate to pay for foreign proceedings. Further, these purported alternatives would likely be unworkable even without regard to time or expense.\n\n#### **Hague Convention Discovery Is Not a Viable Alternative**\n\n2. The Objection, and several of the lengthy declarations attached thereto, suggest that the Trustee should pursue Hague Discovery. It is highly doubtful that the Trustee could **ever** obtain compliance with the UBS Subpoena using the Hague Convention.\n\n3. Discovery under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 is \"exceptionally broad.\" *In re Rafsky*, 300 B.R. 152, 153 (D. Conn. 2003) (*citing In re Duratech Indus., Inc.*, 241 B.R. 283, 289 (E.D.N.Y. 1999); *In re GHR Energy Corp.*, 33 B.R. 451, 453-54 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1983)). \"Examinations under [Bankruptcy] Rule 2004 are allowed for the purpose of discovering assets and unearthing frauds and have been compared to a fishing expedition.\" *In re Rafsky*, 300 B.R. at 153 (internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n4. By contrast, the path UBS proposes under the Hague Convention is both narrow and fraught with legal and practical peril. Generally, Hague Convention discovery requires the pursuit of documents by \"letters of request\" or \"letters rogatory\" – which must be submitted to and approved by foreign judicial authorities. *See* Eric D. Schwartz and Jose F. Bibiloni, \"Does Seeking Discovery on Parties in Foreign Countries Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Make Sense,\" *American Bankruptcy Institute Global Insolvency*, *available at* http (\"Schwartz and Bibiloni\") (attached hereto as **Exhibit A**). The use of Hague Discovery would thus put the Trustee's investigation at the mercy of foreign tribunals where the Court's Rule 2004 Order and its mandate to investigate the Individual Debtor's financial affairs would not apply.\n\n5. The standards necessary to obtain discovery under the Hague Convention – even at their most permissive – are substantially stricter than under Bankruptcy Rule 2004. For example, the Hague Convention expressly forbids its use to obtain documents that are \"not intended for use in judicial proceedings, commenced or contemplated.\" The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, March 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, 847 U.N.T.S. 231 at art. 1 *available at* http\n\n6. Further, many developed countries that are party to the Hague Convention have joined only with express \"reservations\" that additionally restrict the availability of discovery. *See* Schwartz and Bibiloni (\"A letter of request that seeks discovery within the scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2004, such as a request targeting information that is designed to test the strength of an estate claim prior to litigation, may be barred by a reservation entered by the country where such discovery is sought.\").\n\n7. **UBS's Objection omits to discuss that all three of the jurisdictions where it suggests the Trustee pursue Hague Convention discovery have issued such reservations further limiting access to documents and information.** In fact, Hong Kong's reservations outright prohibit the execution of letters of request \"for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery and documents.\" Reservations of Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong *available at* http\n\ntable/notifications/?csid=493&disp=resdn.\n\n8. The People's Republic of China and Switzerland have also issued reservations limiting Hague Convention discovery. China limits such discovery to documents that are \"of direct and close connection with the subject matter of the litigation.\" *Id.* But it is fundamental that\n\n3\n\nBankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery does not require litigations or knowledge of particular claims to permit investigatory examinations for the benefit of bankruptcy estates. 3\n\n9. The Trustee would likewise be limited in obtaining deposition testimony under the Hague Convention – to the extent that it would be available at all. *See, e.g.,* \"China Judicial Assistance Information,\" U.S. State Department *available at* http\n\nInformation/China.html (\"China does not permit attorneys to take depositions in China for use in foreign courts.\"); \"Hong Kong Judicial Assistance Information,\" U.S. State Department *available*\n\n*at* http (depositions may not be compelled under Hague Convention in Hong Kong).\n\n10. It is then unsurprising neutral commentators have observed that seeking \"discovery abroad via the Hague Convention may be a cumbersome and complicated process, and especially so for a party that seeks Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery …. Foreign discovery, including Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery, under the Hague Convention may end up being a drawn-out and frustrating endeavor.\" Schwartz and Bibiloni.\n\n#### **The Estate Cannot Endure the Costs and Delays of UBS's Purported \"Alternatives\"**\n\n11. As discussed in the Motion to Compel as well as the Court's Injunction Decision, time and delay are particularly prejudicial to the estates in these chapter 11 cases. (Injunction Decision at pp. 32-33.) UBS is well aware of these realities from its review of the docket in these\n\n3 Switzerland also places limits, including that requests must be \"direct[ly] and necessary[ily] link[ed] with the proceedings in question\" and may not require the party from which discovery is sought to \"indicate what documents relating to the case are or were in his/her possession or keeping or at his/her disposal.\" Reservations of Switzerland *available at* http\n\ncases and from the extensive meet-and-confer process. Indeed, the time that UBS took to reach its outright refusal to comply with the UBS Subpoena has already prejudiced these estates.4\n\n12. Even if the Trustee's investigation could be conducted by Hague Convention discovery (it cannot), the delay and expense inherent to the \"drawn out and difficult process\" render it unworkable here. *See* Schwartz and Bibiloni; *see also Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. District Court*, 482 U.S. 522, 542 (1987) (\"In many situations the Letter of Request procedure authorized by the Convention would be unduly time consuming and expensive, as well as less certain to produce needed evidence than direct use of the Federal Rules.\"); Tony Abdollahi, \"The Hague Convention: A Medium for International Discovery,\" 40 N.C. J. INT'L L. 771 (2014) *available at* http (\"Unlike the comparative predictability of the Federal Rules, discovery under the Convention is often expensive and may yield uncertain results.\").\n\n13. Instituting foreign recognition proceedings for the sole purpose of obtaining discovery from UBS would likewise impose unacceptable delay and expense. The Trustee lacks available funds to hire legal counsel, translators, and other professionals in far flung locations to satisfy UBS's unreasonable demands. Moreover, these chapter 11 cases cannot be put \"on hold\" while Trustee chases documents and information from UBS across the world. The Trustee has made these realities abundantly clear to UBS over the last three months.\n\n14. Accordingly, the \"alternatives\" proposed by UBS are not alternatives at all. UBS must comply with the UBS Subpoena and produce responsive documents and information forthwith.\n\n4 As the Trustee has made clear, UBS telling the Trustee to pursue Hague Convention discovery or institute foreign recognition proceedings does not amount to compliance with the UBS Subpoena.\n\n### **UBS'S RESORT TO FOREIGN PRIVACY LAW IS UNAVAILING**\n\n15. The Second Circuit has instituted a balancing test – based on the Supreme Court's holding in *Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale* and the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States – providing for courts to compel foreign entities to produce documents and information \"notwithstanding competing foreign legal obligations\" under appropriate circumstances. *Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC*, 706 F.3d 92, 114-116 (2d Cir. 2013).\n\n16. The Supreme \"Court held that the operation of foreign law 'do[es] not deprive an American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence even though the act of production may violate that [law].' *Id.* at 109 (*quoting Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale*, 482 U.S. at 544 n. 29). **In particular, 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 Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais, S.A.*, 249 F.R.D. 429, 456 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); *Weiss v. Nat'l Westminster Bank, PLC*, 242 F.R.D. 33, 57-58 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).\n\n17. UBS admits in its Objection (it could not do otherwise) the importance of the documents and information sought to the Trustee's investigation (at ¶ 31) and \"that the United States has an important interest in ensuring that the Trustee is permitted to diligently investigate the Individual Debtor's financial affairs\" (at ¶ 42). UBS ignores the prejudicial impacts of delay and expense on these bankruptcy estates and proposes purported \"alternatives\" that would cause still more delay and expense (before likely failing altogether).\n\n18. UBS also does not contest (again choosing to ignore) its own conduct related to the Individual Debtor and the 2004 Discovery Targets that occurred within and directed towards the United States (*e.g.*, the Objection omits any discussion of the UBS Letter that UBS sent to the Sherry Netherland Board). The Trustee's requests for records relating to the 2004 Discovery\n\n6\n\nTargets are narrowly focused and UBS has prevented further negotiation on the manner of its compliance by its outright refusal to provide documents or information (discussed further below).\n\n19. Applying the circumstances here to the Second Circuit's balancing test in *Linde*, foreign law plainly cannot excuse UBS's compliance with the UBS Subpoena.\n\n### **UBS HAS NOT COOPERATED TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF DISCOVERY**\n\n20. Trustee's counsel consistently stated throughout the parties' discovery conferences that for the parties to consensually narrow any requests in the UBS Subpoena, UBS must provide basic information about its involvement with the Individual Debtor and affiliated entities and individuals (*i.e.*, the 2004 Discovery Targets). In response, UBS was likewise consistent in its refusal to provide this basic information (*e.g.*, even to state which individuals and entities were UBS accountholders/customers or to provide a list of jurisdictions where UBS believed foreign discovery should be sought).\n\n21. Contrary to the statements and insinuations in its Objection (*e.g.*, at ¶¶ 8, 27-29, 35, 57), UBS never sought to negotiate search terms or to narrow the scope of specific requests. Nor is this surprising; UBS's outright refusal to provide responsive documents or information (or even acknowledge the existence of relevant accounts) rendered such discussion pointless.\n\n22. **The Trustee's counsel has repeatedly urged UBS to reconsider this blanket refusal so that the parties may negotiate the particulars of UBS's compliance, as the Trustee's counsel has done with dozens of other Bankruptcy Rule 2004 examinees. Again and again, UBS has refused.**\n\n23. Contrary to UBS's portrayal in its Objection, it would not require inordinate resources for UBS to provide the Trustee with basic information about its relationships with the Individual Debtor and the other 2004 Discovery Targets.\n\n7\n\n24. UBS voluntarily issued the UBS Letter to the Sherry Netherland Board, signed by two of its managing directors, representing that the Individual Debtor was a client with \\$400 million in funds invested through a \"personal investment company.\" Plainly, UBS understands the relevant business relationships and would not be required to resort to \"archive-wide keyword searches\" to uncover them (*see* Objection at ¶ 53).\n\n25. Under these circumstances, UBS's suggestion that it should be entitled to recover costs and attorney's fees from these bankruptcy estates is absurd. The record is clear that whatever fees and costs UBS has incurred were incurred in delaying and obstructing the Trustee's investigation.\n\n26. Rather, the Court should enforce its Rule 2004 Order, order UBS to comply with the UBS Subpoena within fourteen days, and – absent such compliance – award the Trustee his costs and expenses incurred in connection with all efforts (including the Motion to Compel) to obtain UBS's compliance with the subpoena.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.]*\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the\n\nProposed Order granting the relief requested in this Motion to Compel and such other relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: January 31, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew 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## **EXHIBIT A**\n\n# Q\n\nDoes Seeking Discovery on Parties in Foreign Countries Under Bank...\n\n# Matter of the Year Award\n\nThis article addresses foreign discovery pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") and the application of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the \"Hague Convention\" or the \"Convention\") to such discovery. It concludes that discovery under the Hague Convention, including Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery, may end up being a drawn-out and difficult process.\n\n# Bankruptcy Rule 2004\n\nBankruptcy Rule 2004 is an important discovery tool for a party in interest in a chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Bankruptcy Rule 2004(b)'s definition of the scope of discovery is broad and includes any matter that may relate to the property and assets of the estate, to the financial condition of the debtor, or that may affect the administration of the estate.]] | Bankruptcy Rule 2004 is also commonly used as a prelitigation device that affords estate representatives the opportunity to assess whether to pursue estate claims.[2] However, once litigation associated with a bankruptcy case begins, Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery ceases to apply and Bankruptcy Rules 7026-7037]3| govern discovery under the resulting adversary proceeding.[4]\n\n# Application of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence in Civil or Commercial Matters to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Discovery\n\nThe Haque Convention provides a procedure for propounding discovery requests relating to foreign proceedings through the issuance of letters of request (letters of request and letters rogatory are synonymous terms).[5] Article 1 of the Convention provides that \"[i]n civil or commercial matters a judicial authority of a Contracting State may . . . request the competent authority of another Contracting State, by means of a Letter of Request, to obtain evidence.\"][6] Further, Article 1 of the Convention prohibits the use of letters of request to obtain evidence \"which is not intended for use in judicial proceedings, commenced or contemplated.\"]]] Therefore, a letter of request under the Convention must, at the very least, seek discovery in \"contemplated\" judicial proceedings.\n\nArticle 23 of the Convention provides that \"[a] Contracting State may at the time of signature, ratification, or accession, declare that it will not execute Letters of Request issued for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents as known in Common Law countries.\"[]]] Convention signatories may file a complete or limited reservation under Article 23 of the Convention. For example, China's limited reservation states that it will accept letters of request for pretrial discovery \"only |if] the request for obtaining the discovery of documents |is| clearly enumerated in the Letters of Request and of direct and close connection with the subject matter of the litigation.\" []\n\nMany western European nations have also entered reservations disallowing letters of request that seek pretrial discovery.[10] Thus, Article 23 of the Convention presents an obstacle to prosecuting Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery requests abroad. A letter of request that seeks discovery within the scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2004, such as a request targeting information that is designed to test the strength of an estate claim prior to litigation, may be barred by a reservation entered by the country where such discovery is sought. In contrast, discovery sought under the adversary proceeding discovery rules will likely not run into the same problem posed by reservations for Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery.\n\n## Obtaining Discovery Under the Hague Convention\n\n1/3/123, 120ase 22-50073 Doc 14il@seekile@k6d26acieEnteread C6b61b62Bob8aA0:5000aPraggesh3 of 17\n\nThe first step for a party in a United States bankruptcy proceeding that seeks to obtain discovery through the Hague Convention is to file a Motion for the Issuance of Letters of Request for International Judicial Assistance with the bankruptcy court.[]]] If granted, the bankruptcy court issues, or directs the party seeking discovery to forward, the court-approved letter of request to the applicable central authority]]2], of the jurisdiction where discovery is sought. | 13 | Next, the central authority typically forwards the letter of request to the appropriate judicial authority to execute the request. Article 9 of the Convention provides that \"the judicial authority that executes a Letter of Request shall apply its own law to the methods and procedures to be followed.\"]]4] The procedures followed by the central authority and then the judicial authority of the signatory nation that receives the letter of request can vary greatly depending on the law of the receiving jurisdiction.\n\nOne example of the functionality of this discovery procedure is found in the internal procedure of Switzerland. If a party seeks discovery in Switzerland, the bankruptcy court directs the letter of request to the proper central authority at the Swiss cantonal level. Switzerland also requires that the letter of request be translated to the correct language of the cantonal authority requested to execute it.|15| The letter of request should provide specific details about the judicial action and the discovery sought — it should contain the name of the requesting party, the nature of the judicial action, and must specify the discovery it seeks.[]6]. The discovery sought may be a list of documents or the names and addresses of witnesses to examine, accompanied by a statement of the subject matter upon which the witness will be examined.[]]] After discovery is conducted, the Swiss central authority then draws up documents confirming execution in its official language and sends them back to the United States.\n\n# Conclusion\n\nObtaining discovery abroad via the Hague Convention may be a cumbersome and complicated process, and especially so for a party that seeks Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery. A letter of request seeking pretrial discovery through Bankruptcy Rule 2004 may be blocked by a reservation entered by signatory nation pursuant to Article 23 of the Hague Convention. Even when a discovery request made under the adversary proceeding rules is sought by a letter of request, the procedures followed by the receiving jurisdiction vary greatly.\n\n1/3/123, 12980 22-50073 Doc 1416 Sekilediskiditeliaterial Coloristics Coloristics Color Bagerity of 17 Foreign discovery, including Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery, under the Hague Convention may end up being a drawn-out and frustrating endeavor. The United States Department of State counsels generally that service via the letters rogatory process \"is not recommended given the routine time delays of up to a year or more in the execution of requests.\" Thus, parties should be wary of these roadblocks when deciding to pursue foreign discovery.\n\n|]] Bankruptcy Rule 2004's scope is broad because the purpose behind the rule \"is to assist a party in interest in determining the nature and extent of the bankruptcy estate, revealing assets, examining transactions and assessing whether wrongdoing occurred.\" In re Recoton Corp., 307 B.R. 751, 755 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004).\n\n| 2] In re Wash. Mut., Inc., 408 B.R. 45, 53 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009). For example, one bankruptcy court approved a Bankruptcy Rule 2004 request for investigation into a debtor's potential antitrust claims against a third-party manufacturer. In re Table Talk, Inc., 51 B.R. 143, 145 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1985). The court found the requested Bankruptcy Rule 2004 examination proper because the trustee sought to determine \"whether the estate has potential anti-trust claims against [the manufacturer].\" Id.\n\n| 3] These are the rules governing adversary proceedings. They incorporate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026-7037.\n\n[4] Wash. Mut., Inc., 408 B.R. at 50. \"The 'pending proceeding' rule states 'that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter has been commenced, discovery is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7026 et seq., rather than by a [Bankruptcy Rule] 2004 examination.''' Id. (quoting In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)).\n\n| 5] See The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, March 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, 847 U.N.T.S. 231. This multination treaty currently has fifty-nine signatories, including the United States. See Hague Conference on Private International Law, Status Table, http (last updated January 12, 2017).\n\n1/3/123, 120ase 22-50073 Doc 14il@seekile@k6d26acieEnteread C6b61b62Book940.5000aPraggesh5 of 17\n\n[[6] The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, supra note 5, art. 1.\n\n7 Id.\n\n8 Id. art 23.\n\n19] See Hague Conference on Private International Law, supra note 5.\n\n[][0] See id. Spain, for instance, does not accept letters of request seeking pretrial discovery. Id.\n\n[1]] See, e.g., Qimonda Richmond, LLC v. Kingston Technology Int'l (In re Qimonda Richmond, LLC), Adv. Pro. No. 09-52137 (D.I. 47) (Bankr. D. Del. July 19, 2010); SNMP Research Int'l v. Nortel Networks (In re Nortel Networks), Adv. Pro. No. 11-53454 (D.I. 258) (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 4, 2015).\n\n[12] Article 2 of the Convention directs signatories to designate a \"Central Authority\" that will receive letters of request from judicial authorities of other signatories. See The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, supra note 5, art. 2.\n\n| []3] See Qimonda Richmond, LLC v. Kingston Technology Int'l (In re Qimonda Richmond, LLC), Adv. Pro. No. 09-52137 (D.I. 49) (Bankr. D. Del. July 23, 2010); SNMP Research Int'l v. Nortel Networks Inc. (In re Nortel Networks), Adv. Pro. No. 11-53454 (D.I. 281) (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 25, 2015).\n\n| 14 | The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, supra note 5, art. 9.\n\n[15] Id. Depending on which cantonal authority in Switzerland executes the letter of request, that language could be German, French, or Italian.\n\n|16] See Dr. Peter C. Honegger and Andreas Kolb, Mutual Assistance in Switzerland,\n\nhttp c honegger/nkf h...\n\n17 Id.\n\n# AUTHORS\n\n1/31/23, 123680 22-50073 Doc 1416 sektilediddelskielenterentered Collifiek2Book940.5000aPrageshop of 17\n\n\n\nEric D. Schwartz htt\n\n\n\nJose F. Bibiloni\n\n# Location United States\n\n| PUBLICATIONS | | |\n|--------------|--|--|\n| NEWSLETTERS | | |\n\n# ABI INTERNATIONAL BOARD COMMITTEE\n\n## © 2022 Global Insolvency, All Rights Reserved\n\n>\n\n>\n\nン\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | | :
:
: | Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | 1 | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ---------------------------------------------------------- | | x | |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned certifies that on January 31, 2023, the foregoing Reply (including any 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 31, 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":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等 : \n:\n: Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\n: （联合管理）\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n支持第11章受托人请求作出命令，责令 UBS AG（瑞银集团）遵从第2004条规则传票之动议的答复备忘录\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“个人债务人”）第11章案件（以下简称“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，特此提交本答复备忘录（以下简称“答复”），以支持其请求作出命令、责令 UBS AG（瑞银集团）遵从第2004条规则传票的动议 [ECF No. 1345]（以下简称“强制遵从动议”），并回应 UBS 于 January 30, 2023 提出的异议 [ECF No. 1407]（以下简称“异议”）。2 为支持强制遵从动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\nUBS 未提出可行的替代方案\n\n1. UBS 主张受托人应当为获取文件和信息而采取的所谓“替代方案”实属虚幻。UBS 从各方广泛进行的证据开示会议中知悉，鉴于受托人调查的紧迫性以及破产财产缺乏支付境外程序费用的资金，《海牙公约》证据开示或境外承认程序均非受托人可行的途径。此外，即使不考虑时间或费用，这些所谓替代方案也很可能无法实施。\n\n1. 本第11章案件的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），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（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n\n2. 本答复中未明确定义的所有首字母大写术语，均采用强制遵从动议中规定的定义。\n\n鉴于受托人调查的紧迫性以及破产财产缺乏支付境外程序费用的资金，均非受托人可行的途径。此外，即使不考虑时间或费用，这些所谓替代方案也很可能无法实施。\n\n《海牙公约》证据开示并非可行的替代方案\n\n2. 异议以及所附若干冗长声明表明，受托人应当寻求《海牙公约》证据开示。受托人是否能够通过《海牙公约》取得对 UBS 传票的遵从，极为可疑。\n\n3. 根据《破产程序规则》第2004条进行的证据开示“范围异常广泛”。In re Rafsky, 300 B.R. 152, 153 (D. Conn. 2003)（引用 In re Duratech Indus., Inc., 241 B.R. 283, 289 (E.D.N.Y. 1999); In re GHR Energy Corp., 33 B.R. 451, 453-54 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1983)）。“根据[《破产程序》]第2004条进行的审查，旨在发现资产和揭露欺诈，且曾被比作钓鱼式探查。”In re Rafsky, 300 B.R. at 153（省略内部引号）。\n\n4. 相比之下，UBS 根据《海牙公约》提出的路径既狭窄，又充满法律和实践风险。一般而言，《海牙公约》证据开示要求通过“请求书”或“司法协助请求书”追索文件——该等请求书必须提交外国司法机关并经其批准。参见 Eric D. Schwartz（埃里克·D·施瓦茨）和 Jose F. Bibiloni（何塞·F·比比洛尼），《根据〈破产程序规则〉第2004条向外国当事人寻求证据开示是否合理》，American Bankruptcy Institute Global Insolvency，可参见 http（以下简称“Schwartz and Bibiloni”）（作为附件A附于本答复）。因此，使用《海牙公约》证据开示将使受托人的调查受制于外国法庭，而本院的第2004条规则命令及其调查个人债务人财务事务的授权在该等法庭并不适用。\n\n5. 根据《海牙公约》取得证据开示所必需的标准——即便在最宽松的情况下——也比《破产程序规则》第2004条严格得多。例如，《海牙公约》明确禁止将其用于获取“并非拟在已提起或拟议提起的司法程序中使用”的文件。《关于从国外调取民事或商事证据的海牙公约》，March 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, 847 U.N.T.S. 231 at art. 1，可参见 http。\n\n6. 此外，许多作为《海牙公约》缔约方的发达国家，仅在作出明确“保留”的条件下加入，该等保留进一步限制了证据开示的可获得性。参见 Schwartz and Bibiloni（“寻求属于《破产程序规则》第2004条范围内的证据开示的请求书，例如旨在于诉讼前检验破产财产请求权强度的信息请求，可能会受到寻求该等证据开示所在国作出的保留所禁止。”）。\n\n7. UBS 的异议未讨论其建议受托人寻求《海牙公约》证据开示的全部三个法域均已作出此类保留，进一步限制获取文件和信息。事实上，香港的保留明确禁止执行“为获取审前证据开示和文件”目的而提出的请求书。香港特别行政区保留，可参见 http\n\ntable/notifications/?csid=493&disp=resdn。\n\n8. 中华人民共和国和瑞士也作出了限制《海牙公约》证据开示的保留。中国将该等证据开示限制为“与诉讼标的具有直接和密切联系”的文件。同上。但根本的是，《破产程序规则》第2004条下的证据开示并不要求存在诉讼或知悉具体请求权，即可为破产财产利益而允许进行调查性审查。3\n\n9. 受托人同样会受到限制，无法根据《海牙公约》获取证言记录——即使该等证言记录在任何程度上可获得。参见，例如，《中国司法协助信息》，U.S. State Department，可参见 http\n\nInformation/China.html（“中国不允许律师在中国境内为外国法院使用而进行证言记录。”）；《香港司法协助信息》，U.S. State Department，可参见\n\nhttp（在香港不得根据《海牙公约》强制进行证言记录）。\n\n10. 因而，中立评论者指出，通过《海牙公约》“在境外寻求证据开示可能是一个繁琐且复杂的过程，对于寻求《破产程序规则》第2004条证据开示的一方尤其如此……根据《海牙公约》进行的境外证据开示，包括《破产程序规则》第2004条证据开示，最终可能成为一项漫长且令人沮丧的工作”，并不令人意外。Schwartz and Bibiloni。\n\n破产财产无法承受 UBS 所谓“替代方案”的成本和延误\n\n11. 如强制遵从动议以及本院禁令裁决中所述，时间和延误对本第11章案件中的破产财产尤其不利。（Injunction Decision at pp. 32-33。）UBS 通过审阅本案\n\n3. 瑞士亦设有限制，包括请求必须“与所涉程序具有直接和必要的联系”，且不得要求被寻求证据开示的一方“说明与案件有关的哪些文件现在或曾经由其占有、保管或支配。”瑞士保留，可参见 http\n\n案件的案卷以及广泛的会面协商程序，完全知悉这些实际情况。实际上，UBS 作出明确拒绝遵从 UBS 传票决定所耗费的时间，已经对这些破产财产造成不利影响。4\n\n12. 即使受托人的调查可以通过《海牙公约》证据开示进行（事实上不能），该“漫长而困难的过程”所固有的延误和费用也使其在本案中无法实行。参见 Schwartz and Bibiloni；另参见 Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. District Court, 482 U.S. 522, 542 (1987)（“在许多情况下，《公约》授权的请求书程序将不当地耗费时间和费用，且相较于直接使用《联邦规则》，更不能确定地取得所需证据。”）；Tony Abdollahi（托尼·阿卜多拉希），《海牙公约：国际证据开示的媒介》，40 N.C. J. INT'L L. 771 (2014)，可参见 http（“与《联邦规则》的相对可预测性不同，根据《公约》进行的证据开示往往费用高昂，且可能产生不确定的结果。”）。\n\n13. 仅为从 UBS 获取证据开示而启动境外承认程序，同样会造成不可接受的延误和费用。受托人没有可用资金在遥远地点聘请法律顾问、译员及其他专业人士，以满足 UBS 不合理的要求。此外，本第11章案件不能在受托人满世界向 UBS 追索文件和信息期间被“搁置”。受托人在过去三个月中已向 UBS 明确说明这些实际情况。\n\n14. 因此，UBS 提出的“替代方案”根本不是替代方案。UBS 必须遵从 UBS 传票，并立即提交相应文件和信息。\n\n4. 如受托人已明确说明，UBS 要求受托人寻求《海牙公约》证据开示或启动境外承认程序，并不构成对 UBS 传票的遵从。\n\nUBS 援引外国隐私法并无助益\n\n15. 第二巡回上诉法院建立了一项衡量测试——基于最高法院在 Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale 案中的裁决以及《美国对外关系法重述（第三次）》——规定法院在适当情况下可命令外国实体提交文件和信息，“即使存在相冲突的外国法律义务”。Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 706 F.3d 92, 114-116 (2d Cir. 2013)。\n\n16. 最高法院裁定，外国法的适用“并不剥夺美国法院命令受其管辖的一方提交证据的权力，即使提交行为可能违反该[法律]。”Id. at 109（引用 Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 544 n. 29）。尤其是，外国“银行保密法并非‘免罪金牌’。”Nike, Inc. v. Wu, 349 F. Supp. 3d 346, 364 (S.D.N.Y 2018)；另参见 Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais, S.A., 249 F.R.D. 429, 456 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); Weiss v. Nat'l Westminster Bank, PLC, 242 F.R.D. 33, 57-58 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)。\n\n17. UBS 在其异议中承认（其无法作出其他表示）所请求文件和信息对于受托人调查的重要性（at ¶ 31），并承认“美国具有重要利益，以确保允许受托人勤勉调查个人债务人的财务事务”（at ¶ 42）。UBS 忽视延误和费用对这些破产财产的不利影响，并提出所谓“替代方案”，而这些方案将造成更多延误和费用（之后很可能完全失败）。\n\n18. UBS 也未对其自身与个人债务人和第2004条证据开示对象有关、在美国境内发生并指向美国的行为提出异议（再次选择忽视）（例如，异议未讨论 UBS 向 Sherry Netherland Board 发送的 UBS Letter）。受托人关于与第2004条证据开示对象有关记录的请求范围狭窄，且 UBS 通过明确拒绝提供文件或信息，阻止了就其遵从方式进行进一步协商（如下文进一步论述）。\n\n19. 将本案情形适用于第二巡回上诉法院在 Linde 案中采用的衡量测试，外国法显然不能免除 UBS 遵从 UBS 传票的义务。\n\nUBS 未合作缩小证据开示范围\n\n20. 受托人律师在各方的证据开示会议中始终表示，要使各方就缩小 UBS（瑞银）传票中的任何请求范围达成一致，UBS 必须提供其与个人债务人及关联实体和个人（即 2004 年证据开示对象）关系的基本信息。作为回应，UBS 同样始终拒绝提供该等基本信息（例如，甚至拒绝说明哪些个人和实体是 UBS 的账户持有人/客户，或提供 UBS 认为应当在何等司法管辖区寻求境外证据开示的清单）。\n\n21. 与 UBS 在其异议中所作的陈述和暗示相反（例如，见第 ¶¶ 8、27-29、35、57 段），UBS 从未寻求协商检索条件或缩小具体请求的范围。这也不足为奇；UBS 断然拒绝提供回应性文件或信息（甚至拒绝承认相关账户的存在），使此类讨论毫无意义。\n\n22. 受托人律师曾多次敦促 UBS 重新考虑这一一概拒绝的立场，以便各方能够就 UBS 履行义务的具体事项进行协商，正如受托人律师已与数十名其他《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条受询问人所做的那样。UBS 一再拒绝。\n\n23. 与 UBS 在其异议中的描述相反，UBS 向受托人提供有关其与个人债务人及其他 2004 年证据开示对象关系的基本信息，并不需要 UBS 投入不成比例的资源。\n\n24. UBS 自愿向 Sherry Netherland Board（雪莉荷兰董事会）出具了 UBS 信函，该信函由其两名执行董事签署，声明个人债务人是一名客户，其通过一家“个人投资公司”投资了 \\$400 million 的资金。显然，UBS 了解相关业务关系，无须诉诸“全档案关键词检索”来查明该等关系（见异议第 ¶ 53 段）。\n\n25. 在此情形下，UBS 关于其应有权从这些破产财产中收回费用和律师费的主张，实属荒谬。记录清楚表明，UBS 所产生的任何费用和成本，均系为拖延和阻挠受托人的调查而产生。\n\n26. 相反，法院应执行其第 2004 条命令，命令 UBS 于十四日内遵守 UBS 传票，并且——如未遵守——裁定受托人获得其为促使 UBS 遵守该传票所作一切努力（包括强制履行动议）而发生的成本和费用。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求法院作出\n\n拟议命令，准许本强制履行动议所请求的救济，以及其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：January 31, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林sey）（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n附件 A\n\n问\n\n根据破产……在外国对当事人进行证据开示是否……\n\n年度事项奖\n\n本文讨论根据《联邦破产程序规则》（下称“破产规则”）第 2004 条进行的境外证据开示，以及《海牙关于从国外调取民事或商事证据的公约》（下称“海牙公约”或“公约”）对该等证据开示的适用。本文得出结论：根据海牙公约进行的证据开示，包括根据《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条进行的证据开示，最终可能成为一个漫长而困难的过程。\n\n《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条\n\n《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条是第 11 章破产案件中利害关系人的一项重要证据开示工具。《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004(b) 条对证据开示范围的定义十分宽泛，包括可能与破产财产及资产、债务人的财务状况有关，或可能影响破产财产管理的任何事项。[[1]] 《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条也通常被用作诉前工具，使破产财产代表有机会评估是否提起破产财产请求权。[2] 然而，一旦与破产案件相关的诉讼开始，《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条项下的证据开示即不再适用，而《联邦破产程序规则》第 7026-7037 条]3| 则管辖由此产生的对抗程序中的证据开示。[4]\n\n《海牙关于从国外调取民事或商事证据的公约》对《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条证据开示的适用\n\n海牙公约规定了通过签发请求书来提出与境外程序有关的证据开示请求的程序（请求书与司法协助书是同义术语）。[5] 公约第 1 条规定：“在民事或商事事项中，一缔约国的司法机关可……通过请求书，请求另一缔约国的主管机关调取证据。”[6] 此外，公约第 1 条禁止使用请求书调取“并非拟用于已经开始或拟议中的司法程序”的证据。[[7]] 因此，公约项下的请求书至少必须在“拟议中的”司法程序中寻求证据开示。\n\n公约第 23 条规定：“缔约国可在签署、批准或加入时声明，其将不执行为取得普通法国家所称的审前文件证据开示而签发的请求书。”[[8]] 公约签署国可根据公约第 23 条提出完全或有限保留。例如，中国的有限保留规定，其仅接受用于审前证据开示的请求书，“前提是获取文件证据开示的请求在请求书中有明确列举，并且与诉讼标的具有直接和密切的关联。”[9]\n\n许多西欧国家也提出了不允许寻求审前证据开示的请求书的保留。[10] 因此，公约第 23 条对在境外进行《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条证据开示请求构成障碍。寻求属于《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条范围内的证据开示的请求书，例如旨在于诉讼前检验破产财产请求权强度的信息请求，可能会因寻求该等证据开示所在国家作出的保留而被禁止。相比之下，根据对抗程序证据开示规则寻求的证据开示，很可能不会遇到为《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条证据开示所作保留引起的同一问题。\n\n根据海牙公约获取证据开示\n\n1/3/123, 120ase 22-50073 Doc 14il@seekile@k6d26acieEnteread C6b61b62Bob8aA0:5000aPraggesh3 of 17\n\n美国破产程序中的一方如寻求通过海牙公约获取证据开示，第一步是向破产法院提交签发国际司法协助请求书动议。[]]] 如获准，破产法院将签发该请求书，或指示寻求证据开示的一方将经法院批准的请求书转交至寻求证据开示所在司法管辖区的适用中央机关。]]2] 随后，中央机关通常将请求书转交给适当的司法机关以执行该请求。公约第 9 条规定：“执行请求书的司法机关应适用其本国法律规定的方式和程序。”]]4] 中央机关以及接收请求书的签署国司法机关所遵循的程序，可能因接收司法管辖区的法律而存在很大差异。\n\n这一证据开示程序如何运作的一个例子，可见于瑞士的内部程序。如果一方在瑞士寻求证据开示，破产法院将请求书寄送至瑞士州级的适当中央机关。瑞士还要求将请求书翻译成受请求执行该请求书的州级机关所使用的正确语言。|15| 请求书应提供有关司法诉讼和所寻求证据开示的具体细节——应载明请求方的名称、司法诉讼的性质，并且必须明确其寻求的证据开示。[]6]. 所寻求的证据开示可以是文件清单，或者是拟接受询问的证人姓名和地址，并附有将就何种事项询问该证人的说明。[]]] 在完成证据开示后，瑞士中央机关以其官方语言起草确认执行情况的文件，并将其寄回美国。\n\n结论\n\n通过海牙公约在境外获取证据开示可能是一个繁琐且复杂的过程，对于寻求根据《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条进行证据开示的一方尤其如此。通过《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条寻求审前证据开示的请求书，可能会因签署国根据海牙公约第 23 条作出的保留而被阻止。即使通过请求书寻求根据对抗程序规则提出的证据开示请求，接收司法管辖区所遵循的程序也存在很大差异。\n\n1/3/123, 12980 22-50073 Doc 1416 Sekilediskiditeliaterial Coloristics Coloristics Color Bagerity of 17 根据海牙公约进行的境外证据开示，包括《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条证据开示，最终可能成为一项漫长且令人沮丧的工作。美国国务院通常建议，鉴于“执行请求时通常会延误长达一年或更久”，不建议通过司法协助书程序进行送达。因此，当事人在决定寻求境外证据开示时，应警惕这些障碍。\n\n|]] 《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条的范围宽泛，因为该规则的目的“是协助利害关系人确定破产财产的性质和范围、揭示资产、审查交易并评估是否发生不当行为。”In re Recoton Corp., 307 B.R. 751, 755 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004).\n\n2] In re Wash. Mut., Inc., 408 B.R. 45, 53 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009). 例如，一家破产法院批准了一项根据《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条提出的请求，以调查债务人可能对一家第三方制造商提出的反垄断请求权。In re Table Talk, Inc., 51 B.R. 143, 145 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1985). 法院认定所请求的《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条询问适当，因为受托人寻求确定“破产财产是否对[该制造商]拥有潜在的反垄断请求权。”Id.\n\n3] 这些是管辖对抗程序的规则。其纳入了《联邦民事诉讼规则》。见 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026-7037.\n\n[4] Wash. Mut., Inc., 408 B.R. at 50. “‘待决程序’规则规定，‘一旦对抗程序或争议事项已经开始，证据开示即根据《联邦破产程序规则》第 7026 条及以下条款进行，而非通过[《联邦破产程序规则》]第 2004 条询问进行。’”Id.（引自 In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)）。\n\n5] 见 The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, March 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, 847 U.N.T.S. 231. 该多边条约目前有五十九个签署国，包括美国。见 Hague Conference on Private International Law, Status Table, http（最后更新于 January 12, 2017）。\n\n1/3/123, 120ase 22-50073 Doc 14il@seekile@k6d26acieEnteread C6b61b62Book940.5000aPraggesh5 of 17\n\n[[6] The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters，同上注 5，第 1 条。\n\n7 同上。\n\n8 同上，第 23 条。\n\n19] 见 Hague Conference on Private International Law，同上注 5。\n\n[][0] 见同上。例如，Spain（西班牙）不接受寻求审前证据开示的请求书。同上。\n\n[11] 参见，例如，Qimonda Richmond, LLC（奇梦达里士满有限责任公司）v. Kingston Technology Int'l（金士顿科技国际公司）（In re Qimonda Richmond, LLC），Adv. Pro. No. 09-52137 (D.I. 47) (Bankr. D. Del.（特拉华联邦破产法院） July 19, 2010)；SNMP Research Int'l（SNMP国际研究公司）v. Nortel Networks（北电网络）（In re Nortel Networks），Adv. Pro. No. 11-53454 (D.I. 258) (Bankr. D. Del.（特拉华联邦破产法院） Sept. 4, 2015)。\n\n[12] 《The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters》（《关于从国外调取民事或商事证据的海牙公约》）第2条要求缔约方指定一个“中央机关”，该机关将接收其他缔约方司法机关发出的取证请求书。参见 The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters，同前注5，第2条。\n\n[13] 参见 Qimonda Richmond, LLC（奇梦达里士满有限责任公司）v. Kingston Technology Int'l（金士顿科技国际公司）（In re Qimonda Richmond, LLC），Adv. Pro. No. 09-52137 (D.I. 49) (Bankr. D. Del.（特拉华联邦破产法院） July 23, 2010)；SNMP Research Int'l（SNMP国际研究公司）v. Nortel Networks Inc.（北电网络公司）（In re Nortel Networks），Adv. Pro. No. 11-53454 (D.I. 281) (Bankr. D. Del.（特拉华联邦破产法院） Sept. 25, 2015)。\n\n[14] The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters，同前注5，第9条。\n\n[15] 同上。根据瑞士哪个州级机关执行取证请求书而定，该语言可能为德语、法语或意大利语。\n\n[16] 参见 Dr. Peter C. Honegger（彼得·C. 霍内格博士）和 Andreas Kolb（安德烈亚斯·科尔布），Mutual Assistance in Switzerland（瑞士的司法协助），http c honegger/nkf h...\n\n[17] 同上。\n\n作者\n\nEric D. Schwartz（埃里克·D. 施瓦茨）htt\n\nJose F. Bibiloni（何塞·F. 比比洛尼）\n\n所在地：美国\n\n出版物\n\n通讯\n\nABI INTERNATIONAL BOARD COMMITTEE（ABI国际理事会委员会）\n\n© 2022 Global Insolvency（全球破产），保留所有权利\n\n案件编号 22-50073，文书 141，于 01/31/23 提交，第 17 页，共 17 页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT, DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国破产法院康涅狄格区布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n等人，1\n\n债务人。\n\n第11章\n\n案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并管理）\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人证明，于 January 31, 2023，上述答复状（包括其任何附件）已以电子方式提交。法院电子提交系统（“CM/ECF”）已通过电子邮件向所有能够通过该系统接收电子通知的当事人发送本次提交的通知。当事人可通过 CM/ECF 查阅该等提交文件。\n\n日期：January 31, 2023，康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R. 林赛） Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂斯专业公司） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 821-2000 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）、Miles Guo（郭文贵）和 Miles Kwok（郭文贵），以及众多其他化名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司）。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（卢克·A. 德斯平斯），其作为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）财产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Despins","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":14,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1345,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1407,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4182,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-30 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-30","updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:30:07"}