{"id":"court_ctb_1445_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1445,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-01-24","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":"上诉通知书及所附裁定 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1445-1（2023-01-24立案）。债务人郭文贵就破产法院 2023 年 1 月 24 日作出的民事藐视法庭裁定（ECF #1372）提起上诉；该裁定认定郭文贵未按公司治理命令移交 Ace Decade 等实体控制权，责令其于 2023 年 3 月 6 日前纠正藐视行为，否则将承担受托人律师费等制裁。","summary_en":"Notice of Appeal and Attached Order — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB Case No. 22-50073 ECF #1445-1 (filed Jan 24, 2023). Debtor Ho Wan Kwok filed a notice of appeal regarding the Bankruptcy Court's January 24, 2023 order (ECF #1372), which held the Debtor in civil contempt for failure to comply with the Corporate Governance Order concerning entities including Ace Decade. The attached order gave the Debtor until March 6, 2023 to purge the contempt or face fee sanctions.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK,\n\nDebtor.\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n# **NOTICE OF APPEAL**\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE** that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), the Debtor, Ho Wan Kwok, hereby appeals to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut from the January 24, 2023, *Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order,* (ECF No. 1372) (the \"Order\"), entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (Hon. Julie A. Manning) finding the Debtor in civil contempt for failing to fully comply with the Court's August 10, 2022, Order granting the July 23, 2022, Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 541, 1108, and 1505, (A) Confirming that Chapter 11 Trustee Holds all of Debtor's Economic and Corporate Governance Rights in Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Act in Any Foreign Country on Behalf of Estate, and (C) Granting Related Relief (ECF No. 598). A copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The names of all parties to the Order and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of their respective counsel are as follows:\n\n| 22 | |\n|----|--|\n\n| PARTY | ATTORNEYS |\n|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok –
The Debtor | ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. |\n| | Eric Henzy |\n| | Stephen M. Kindseth |\n| | Aaron A. Romney |\n| | James M. Moriarty |\n| | John L. Cesaroni |\n| | 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor |\n| | Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 |\n| | Tel: (203) 368-4234 |\n| | ehenzy@zeislaw.com |\n| | skindseth@zeislaw.com |\n| | aromney@zeislaw.com |\n| | jmoriarty@zeislaw.com |\n| | jcesaroni@zeislaw.com |\n| | |\n| | LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC |\n| | Aaron A Mitchell |\n| | 55 Madison Ave, Suite 400 |\n| | Morristown, NJ 07960 |\n| | Tel: (973)-285-3280 |\n| | aaron@lmesq.com |\n\n22\n\nDouglas Skalka James C. Graham Patrick R. Linsey Lucas B. Rocklin\n\n(203) 781-2847\n\ndskalka@npmlaw.com jgraham@npmlaw.com [plinsey@npmlaw.com](mailto:plinsey@npmlaw.com)\n\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\nLuc A. Despins-Chapter 11 Trustee NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n\nrocklin@npmlaw.com PAUL HASTINGS LLP Nicholas A. Bassett 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902\n\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com -and-Luc A. Despins Avram E. Luft Douglass Barron G. Alexander Bongartz 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 lucdespins@pauhastings.com aviluft@paulhastings.com [douglassbarron@paulhastings.com](mailto:douglassbarron@paulhastings.com)\n\nalexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\nDated: Bridgeport, Connecticut, February 7, 2023\n\n# **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Eric Henzy* Eric Henzy (ct12849) Stephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) James M. Moriarty (ct21876) John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [ehenzy@zeislaw.com](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) [skindseth@zeislaw.com](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 7 th day of February 2023, a copy of foregoing Notice of Appeal 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.\n\n/s/ Eric Henzy\n\n# **Exhibit A**\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 1 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 7 of 22\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n)\n\n)\n\n)\n\nIn re: ) Chapter 11 ) Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, *et al.*, ) (Jointly Administered)\n\nDebtors. ) Re: ECF Nos. 717 and 913\n\n# **ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO HOLD DEBTOR IN CONTEMPT OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ORDER**\n\n## **I. INTRODUCTION**\n\nBefore the Court is the motion of Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the Chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") for the estate (the \"Estate\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), to hold the Debtor in civil contempt. (ECF No. 913, the \"Contempt Motion.\") The Contempt Motion asserts that the Debtor has not complied with the Court's order regarding the transfer of economic and corporate governance rights from the Debtor to the Trustee. (ECF No. 717, the \"Corporate Governance Order.\") For the reasons stated below, the Court finds the Debtor in civil contempt and will sanction him reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the event he fails to purge himself of contempt.\n\n## **II. BACKGROUND**\n\nOn February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed his voluntary Chapter 11 petition, commencing this case. (ECF No. 1.) His individual case is jointly administered with two affiliated corporate cases. (ECF Nos. 970 and 1141.) On June 15, 2022, after developments the Court has discussed in a prior opinion, the Court ordered the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. *In re Kwok*, 640 B.R. 514 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2022). (ECF No. 465.) On July 8, 2022, the Court appointed Mr. Despins as the Chapter 11 Trustee. (ECF No. 523.)\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 2 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 8 of 22\n\nOn July 23, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion to confirm that he held the Debtor's economic and corporate governance rights. (ECF No. 598, the \"Corporate Governance Motion.\") On July 29, 2022, the Debtor filed an objection to the Corporate Governance Motion, which he supplemented with a further objection on August 4, 2022. (ECF Nos. 643 and 678.) Also on August 4, 2022, the Trustee filed a reply in support of the Corporate Governance Motion. (ECF No. 679.) That same date, a hearing was held on the Corporate Governance Motion. The Court granted the Corporate Governance Motion during the hearing and entered the Corporate Governance Order on August 10, 2022. (ECF No. 717.)\n\nOn October 4, 2022, the Trustee filed the Contempt Motion asserting that the Debtor had failed to comply with the Corporate Governance Order and requesting that he be held in civil contempt of court. (ECF No. 913.) On October 25, 2022, the Debtor filed his objection to the Contempt Motion. (ECF No. 1026, the \"Objection.\") On November 14, 2022, the Trustee filed his reply. (ECF No. 1092, the \"Reply.\") The instant matter is fully briefed.\n\nAn evidentiary hearing (the \"Hearing\") on the Contempt Motion was held on November 16, 17, and 18, 2022. On November 17, 2022, the Court entered an order partially resolving the Contempt Motion (ECF No. 1110, the \"Partial Resolution Order\"), which Order the Debtor insisted the Court enter prior to continuing with the evidentiary hearing. During the Hearing, no testimony was heard but evidence, including excerpts from deposition testimony, was admitted.\n\n## **III. JURISDICTION**\n\nThe United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). This Court has authority to hear and determine this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and the Order of Reference of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dated September 21, 1984. The instant proceedings are\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 3 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 9 of 22\n\nstatutorily core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E). This Court explicitly retained jurisdiction over all matters all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of the Corporate Governance Order. There is no constitutional issue precluding the exercise of jurisdiction in the instant case. *Cf*. *Stern v. Marshall*, 564 U.S. 462, 487–99 (2011).\n\nVenue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n## **IV. FINDINGS OF FACT**\n\nThe Court has already made the findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 below, as set forth in the Partial Resolution Order:\n\n1. The Debtor exclusively beneficially owned and controlled Ace Decade Holdings Limited (\"Ace Decade\") on the February 15, 2022 petition date (the \"Petition Date\") and maintained such exclusive beneficial ownership and control up to and including immediately prior to the date of the Trustee's appointment, and (ii) Dawn State Limited (\"Dawn State\" and, together with Ace Decade, the \"Ace Decade Entities\") is Ace Decade's wholly-owned subsidiary and is exclusively owned and controlled by Ace Decade. For the avoidance of doubt, Yanping \"Yvette\" Wang (hereinafter, Ms. Wang) is not and has never been a beneficial owner of the shares in Ace Decade or Dawn State. (Trustee 6–7, 10, 15.)1\n\n2. But for the Trustee's appointment and his rights under the Bankruptcy Code and the Corporate Governance Order, the Debtor would still exclusively beneficially own and control Ace Decade. (Trustee 6–7, 10, 15.)\n\n1 Exhibits submitted during the Hearing by the Trustee will be styled Trustee [No.] and exhibits submitted by the Individual Debtor will be styled Kwok [Letter].\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 10 of 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 4 of 16 22\n\nFrom the evidence on the record and introduced during the Hearing, the Court makes the following additional findings of fact:\n\n3. Ms. Yvette Wang is the nominee owner of Ace Decade for the benefit of the Debtor. (Trustee 27.)\n\n4. The Debtor has control over Ms. Wang. The Debtor has employed Yvette Wang for several years, and has directed her to take actions on his behalf, including directing her to act on his behalf to purchase properties such as the Sherry-Netherland apartment. (Trustee 29 and 30.)\n\n5. The Debtor did not sufficiently establish that the letter (the \"Letter,\" Kwok B) and the purportedly attached share transfer instrument and share transfer resolution were delivered to Ms. Wang directing her to transfer the corporate and economic rights of Ace Decade to the Trustee. The Debtor represented he does not believe he has any ability to take the actions he directs Ms. Wang to take in the Letter. (Trustee 27, at 87:3–13.) The Debtor represents he sent the Letter to Ms. Wang via personal delivery (Kwok B), and asserts this personal delivery was completed through his personal bodyguards. However, the Debtor does not remember which bodyguard he directed to deliver the Letter, and \"can never remember the names\" of his security guards. (Trustee 27, at 88:3–13.) Beyond the Debtor's deposition testimony and the description \"via personal delivery\" on the Letter, there is no evidence to support the Letter was actually delivered. The Letter does not contain an address. (Kwok B.) There is no receipt nor sworn affidavit regarding service or delivery of the Letter from the unidentified bodyguard. (*Id.)*\n\n6. Even if the Letter was delivered, the language in it signals to its reader that the Debtor does not fully support executing the share transfer instrument. Instead, the Letter states \"The Trustee believes that I control Ace Decade and that I utilize that perceived control to direct you to execute the Share Transfer Instrument and Share Transfer Resolution.\" [emphasis added].\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 11 of 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 5 of 16 22\n\nThe Letter further states, \". . . in compliance with the Trustee's demands and to the extent that I may have any authority over Ace Decade, I hereby direct you to execute the attached Share Transfer Instrument and Share Transfer Resolution.\" (Kwok B.)\n\n7. The Debtor represents he has had no communications of any kind with Yvette Wang about the contempt motion. (Trustee 27, at 84:5–85:5.)\n\n8. The Trustee has been unable to service Yvette Wang with a subpoena. (Trustee 32– 33).\n\n## **V. DISCUSSION**\n\n## **a. Legal Standard**\n\nThis Court has the power to hold parties in contempt of court under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9020. *Taggart v. Lorenzen ex rel. Brown*, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801 (2019); *PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Sensenich ex rel. Gravel (In re Gravel)*, 6 F.4th 503, 512 (2d Cir. 2021); *Mar. Asbestosis Legal Clinic v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chauteaugay Corp.)*, 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990). Contempt may be sought to \"'coerce the defendant into compliance'\" with a court order or to \"'compensate the complainant for losses'\" resulting from noncompliance with a court order. *Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1801 (citing *United States v. United Mine Workers*, 330 U.S. 258, 303–04 (1947)). A finding of civil contempt requires \"(1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner.\" *King v. Allied Vision, Ltd.*, 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995); *see Gravel*, 6 F.4th at 512 (adding that the contemnor must have notice of the order). \"A long recognized defense to a civil contempt citation is the cited individual's inability to comply with the court's order.\" *United States v. Wendy*, 575 F.2d 1025, 1030 (2d Cir. 1978).\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 12 of 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 6 of 16 22\n\nContempt \"'should not be resorted to where there is [a] *fair ground of doubt* as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct.'\" *Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1801 (citing *Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor*, 113 U.S. 609 (1885)). This standard is generally objective – a \"party's subjective belief that she was complying with an order ordinarily will not insulate her from civil contempt if that belief was objectively unreasonable.\" *Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1802 (citing *McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co.*, 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949) (\"The absence of wilfulness [sic] does not relieve from civil contempt.\")). Nevertheless, a party's bad faith may justify \"placing 'the burden of any uncertainty in the decree . . . on [the] shoulders' of the party who violated the court order,\" and \"a party's good faith, even where it does not bar civil contempt, may help to determine an appropriate sanction.\" *Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1802 (citing *McComb*, 336 U.S. at 192–93 and *Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A.*, 481 U.S. 787, 801 (1987)).\n\n## **b. Conclusions of Law**\n\n## **1. The Debtor Had Notice of the Corporate Governance Order**\n\nThe Court concludes that the Individual Debtor had notice of the Corporate Governance Order. *See Gravel*, 6 F.4th at 512. As outlined above, he litigated its entry. Furthermore, he did not contest notice in his Objection or during the Hearing.\n\n# **2. The Corporate Governance Order Clearly and Unambiguously Directs the Debtor to Cooperate with the Trustee**\n\nThe Court concludes that the Corporate Governance Order is clear and unambiguous, s*ee King*, 65 F.3d at 1058, and that there is no fair ground of doubt as to its meaning, *see Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1801. Under the Corporate Governance Order, the Debtor is required to cooperate with the Trustee regarding the Trustee's control of the Ace Decade Entities and also required to\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 13 of 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 7 of 16 22\n\nsurrender the Ace Decade Entities, ownership interests in the Ace Decade Entities, and corporate governance documents relating to the Ace Decade Entities.\n\nThe Trustee argues that paragraph 2 of the Corporate Governance order needs to be read in concert with paragraph 3 and the underlying provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. In this context, the Trustee argues that the Debtor was clearly and unambiguously directed to cooperate with the Trustee and turn over assets of the Estate and related records to the Trustee. The Debtor argues that the Trustee obtained control over the Ace Decade Entities via operation of law under paragraph 2 of the Corporate Governance Order and, therefore, the Debtor need not do anything to comply with the Corporate Governance Order. The Debtor further argues that the Trustee can assert control over the Ace Decade Entities and the present dispute is manufactured and unnecessary.\n\nThe Court agrees with the Debtor that there is no fair ground of doubt that paragraph 2 of the Corporate Governance Order allows the Trustee to act of his own accord to assert control over corporate entities, including the Ace Decade Entities. Paragraph 2 provides in pertinent part:\n\nFor the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing rights include the Trustee's asserted authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager, or similar person of the Debtor-Controlled Entities. As part of the foregoing, to the extent necessary, the Trustee is authorized to act, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee in this Chapter 11 Case, as any such officer, director, manager, or similar person who has been removed.\n\nParagraph 2 does allow the Trustee to issue new shares or membership interests and appoint new directors in the Debtor's corporate entities. However, paragraph 2 does not require the Trustee to do so. Even if the Trustee did issue new shares or membership interests or appoint new directors in the Ace Decade Entities, without the corporate documents and access to any\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 14 of 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 8 of 16 22\n\ncorporate accounts, it is unclear how the Trustee would operate the Ace Decade Entities. The Trustee's desire for an orderly and complete transition is reasonable.\n\nMoreover, recourse to self-help may be in contravention of applicable non-bankruptcy law or existing governance documents and could create legal problems for the Trustee. The Debtor raised this exact issue during the August 4th hearing on the Corporate Governance Motion and noted that paragraph 2 would \"give [the Trustee] authority that may not be provided for under applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents of particular entities.\" (ECF No. 746, at 63:15–18.) The Trustee assured the Court that his intent was to act where he had authority under applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents. (*Id.* at 64:14–15.) The Trustee stated\n\nThe reason we asked for blanket authority is because we will not exercise that right unless we believe through due diligence we have the power to do it. And if we're doubtful, we'll come back to the Court. But we cannot be in a position where there's a satellite litigation open whether – what state law provides, what foreign law provides, because that's a – that's going to be another case basically.\n\n(*Id.* at 64:19–65:1.) The Debtor then insisted that his intent was not to enter into litigation about corporate governance, but that he was concerned about the Trustee acting contrary to applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents of particular entities. (*Id.* at 65:2–8.) In response to the Debtor's concern, the Court inserted the word \"asserted\" into paragraph 2 of the Corporate Governance Order to address this issue. (*Id.* at 65:11–21.) At that point, the Debtor did not press his objection to paragraph 2. (*Id.* at 65:23–24.) The Court finds the Trustee's desire to avoid \"satellite litigation\" about corporate governance is reasonable. However, despite paragraph 2 of the Corporate Governance Order and the Debtor's stated intent not to engage in satellite litigation, the Trustee has had to engage in litigation against the Debtor and the Ace Decade Entities in the High Court of England and Wales, Chancery Division, regarding\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 15 of 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 9 of 16 22\n\nrecognition of these bankruptcy cases in the United Kingdom. *See* Despins v Kwok (Re Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006) [2023] EWHC 74 (Ch) (20 January 2023). Ace Decade argued against the Trustee's application seeking recognition under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (the \"CBIR\") of the Debtor's Chapter 11 case in that court.\n\nThe Court also disagrees with the Debtor that the Trustee's rights in paragraph 2 end the analysis. Simply because the Trustee has recourse to self-help under paragraph 2 of Corporate Governance Order, does not mean that the Trustee has no other recourse under its terms.\n\nWith respect to paragraph 3 of the Corporate Governance Order, the Court concludes that it clearly and unambiguously directs the Debtor to cooperate with the Trustee. There is no fair ground of doubt that paragraph 3 requires the Debtor's cooperation with the Trustee in locating the Debtor's nominee, Ms. Wang, and in effectuating turnover of her ownership interest in Ace Decade.\n\nParagraph 3 clearly and unambiguously states, in pertinent part:\n\nIn accordance with [section] 521(a)(3) . . . of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor is hereby directed to . . . (a) cooperate with the Trustee as necessary to enable the Trustee to perform his duties, including, without limitation, the Trustee's investigation into the assets of the Debtor . . ..\"\n\nSection 521 of the Bankruptcy Code is entitled \"Debtor's duties.\" Section 521(a)(3)'s language is almost identical to the language of the Corporate Governance Order: \"The debtor shall . . . if a trustee is serving in the case . . . cooperate with the trustee as necessary to enable the trustee to perform the trustee's duties under this title.\" The duty to cooperate under section 521(a)(3) is interpreted broadly. *In re Cambridge Analytica LLC*, 596 B.R. 1, 8 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019) (\"Section 521(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code similarly requires a debtor to 'cooperate with the trustee as necessary to enable the trustee to perform the trustee's duties.' ''Cooperate' is a broad term, indeed, and must be construed that whenever the trustee calls upon\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 10 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 16 of 22\n\nthe debtor for assistance in the performance of his duties, the debtor is required to respond, at least if the request is not unreasonable.' 'Indeed, '[i]t is well settled that a trustee should not be required to drag information from a reluctant and uncooperative debtor. Because of the extraordinary relief offered under the Bankruptcy Code delay and avoidance tactics are inconsistent with, and offensive to, its purpose and spirit.'\") (internal citations omitted); *see Beach v. Morris (In re Beach)*, 281 B.R. 917, 921 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2002) (\"In addition to imposing affirmative duties on the Debtors, these provisions impress the policy that a debtor who voluntarily submits him or herself to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to obtain the benefit of a discharge of debts, must fulfill certain duties to insure that estate assets are administered in accordance with applicable law.\"); *see also* 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 521.15[5] (16th ed. 2022) (\"The debtor's cooperation may involve informing the trustee of and assisting in locating property of the estate in the possession of third parties, executing documents necessary to convey property and assisting in the collection of accounts receivable.\"). Given the close resemblance of the text of the Bankruptcy Code and the explicit cite to section 521 in the Corporate Governance Order, it is clear and unambiguous that paragraph 3 should be read similarly broadly.\n\nAs set forth above and in the uncontested Partial Resolution Order, the Debtor has been found to have exclusively beneficially owned and controlled Ace Decade and, through it, Dawn State, as of the petition date and as of the appointment of the Trustee. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Corporate Governance Order, the Trustee \"holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights, for the benefit of the Estate, with respect to all Debtor-Controlled Entities.\" Therefore, the Trustee holds the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to the Ace Decade Entities in furtherance of his duties to the Estate. The Debtor no longer contests this fact. The Debtor is required by the clear terms of paragraph 3 to cooperate with the Trustee as\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 11 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 17 of 22\n\nnecessary to realize this assertion of control and possession over the Ace Decade Entities for the benefit of the Estate, whether that furthers the Trustee's investigation of assets or some other duty to the Estate. *See Star Direct Telecom, Inc. v. Glob. Crossing Bandwidth, Inc.*, 272 F.R.D. 350, 356 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (\"First, Global Crossing offers no authority, nor is this Court aware of any, to support its argument that the clause \"including, without limitation\" should be read as a limiting clause.\"); *Shugrue v. Cont'l Airlines*, 977 F. Supp. 280, 285 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (\"Even assuming there is some ambiguity as to what was actually attached to the first page of Schedule C, the language on that first page—'[a]ll of Eastern[ ]'s computer programs and software, including without limitation'—makes it clear that the attached list was not an exclusive list.\").\n\nThe Court further holds that there is no fair ground of doubt under paragraph 3 of the Corporate Governance Order that the Debtor is required to surrender to the Trustee the Ace Decade Entities, including the ownership interests in the Ace Decade Entities and corporate governance documents relating to the Ace Decade Entities. Paragraph 3 clearly and unambiguously states, in pertinent part and in language closely mirroring § 521(a)(4):\n\nIn accordance with [section] . . . 521(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor is hereby directed to . . . (b) surrender to the Trustee all property of the estate and any recorded information, including, without limitation, books, documents, records, and papers relating to property of the estate (including, without limitation, his shares in Genever (BVI) and all related corporate governance documents).\n\nSection 521(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Corporate Governance Order based on its language, reaches all equitable interests a debtor may have, such as beneficial ownership in corporate entities. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). The Debtor is required under section 521(a)(4) and the Corporate Governance Order to promptly surrender assets and documents relating to assets upon request. *See Beach*, 281 B.R. at 921; 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 521.16.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 12 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 18 of 22\n\nBecause the Debtor exclusively beneficially owned and controlled the Ace Decade Entities as of the petition date and as of the appointment of the Trustee, under paragraph 2 of the Corporate Governance Order, the Trustee controls the Ace Decade Entities for the benefit of the Estate. As noted above, the Debtor does not contest this fact. The Debtor is required by the clear terms of paragraph 3 to surrender the Ace Decade Entities to the Trustee, which includes all recorded information relating the Ace Decade Entities, such as shares and corporate governance documents. *See Star Direct*, 272 F.R.D. at 356; *Shugrue*, 977 F. Supp. at 285.\n\nThe Debtor argued in the alternative that the Corporate Governance Order was unclear and ambiguous because paragraphs 2 and 3 of the corporate governance order were in conflict with each other, trapping the Debtor in a \"Catch-22.\" The Debtor argues that paragraph 2 strips him of the economic and corporate governance rights required to comply with paragraph 3.\n\nThe Court holds, however, that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Corporate Governance Order are not in conflict. While the Trustee came into *de jure* control of the Estate and the Debtor's economic and corporate governance rights by operation of law, the Bankruptcy Code – and the clear and unambiguous Corporate Governance Order – require turnover of *de facto* possession and control pursuant to the Trustee's rights under the Corporate Governance Order. Courts routinely provide remedies that bring parties' *de facto* rights in line with their *de jure* rights. There is nothing in this case to create a fair ground of doubt as to what conduct the Corporate Governance Order is requiring.\n\nThe Court further finds the Debtor's argument regarding a conflict between paragraphs 2 and 3 would render 11 U.S.C. §§ 521(a)(3)–(4) useless and cannot be correct as a matter of law. The Debtor is directed by the Bankruptcy Code and the Corporate Governance Order to cooperate with the Trustee and surrender assets of the Estate and related records, even if by\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 13 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 19 of 22\n\noperation of law control has already passed to the Trustee. Complying would not have frustrated the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the Corporate Governance Order, but rather would have furthered them.\n\nAlthough the Court finds the Corporate Governance Order clearly required the Debtor to cooperate with the Trustee, if a reviewing court were to find the Corporate Governance Order is unclear, the burden of that uncertainty is not upon the Trustee, but upon the Debtor, on account of the Debtor's bad faith. *See Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1802. As detailed above, the Court is not persuaded by the Debtor's interpretation of the Order, and, since the burden has been shifted by the Debtor's bad faith, it is sufficient for the Court to find this element in the Trustee's favor.\n\nThe Court finds the Debtor has acted in bad faith for several reasons. Until the hearing, the Debtor's primary argument in his Objection and in his deposition testimony was that he did not own Ace Decade, beneficially or otherwise, as of the petition date and as of the Trustee's appointment. However, during the Hearing he abandoned this argument, sought the entry of the Partial Resolution Order prior to continuing the Hearing, and agreed not to appeal the Partial Resolution Order. Nevertheless, the Partial Resolution Order is not a consent order. The Debtor would not consent to findings in the Partial Resolution Order, which is in tension with his abandonment of his Objection file prior to the Hearing and his agreement not to appeal the order.\n\nFurthermore, the Debtor's only alleged attempt to comply with the Corporate Governance Order came on November 10, 2022, several months after it entered, one month after the Contempt Motion was filed, and less than one week before the Hearing was scheduled to begin. In addition, the Debtor's alleged attempt to comply with the Corporate Governance Order obscured the location of his nominee – Ms. Wang – from the Trustee, who has been unable to serve her with a subpoena. During the Hearing, the Debtor highlighted the Trustee's lack of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 14 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 20 of 22\n\ncommunication with Ms. Wang despite only informing him she was the nominee owner of Ace Decade shortly before the Hearing. Finally, the Debtor has not sufficiently shown that the Letter was sent to Ms. Wang. The Letter contains no address for Ms. Wang and the Debtor could not remember which of his bodyguards purportedly personally delivered the Letter to Ms. Wang.\n\n## **3. The Debtor Has Not Complied with Corporate Governance Order**\n\nThe Court concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Debtor has not complied with the Corporate Governance Order. *See King*, 65 F.3d at 1058. The Debtor has not surrendered the Ace Decade Entities, ownership interests in them, or their corporate governance documents to the Trustee. If he had, the Motion would be moot. The Debtor's only purported compliance was the Letter allegedly sent to Ms. Wang, which he failed to sufficiently establish was sent. The Debtor has not cooperated with the Trustee's attempt to locate Ms. Wang and effectuate a surrender. The Debtor only belatedly disclosed that Ms. Wang was the nominee owner of Ace Decade Entities. The Letter, which was produced to the Trustee and during the Hearing, lacks an address for Ms. Wang. The Debtor did not produce the bodyguard who purportedly knew how to find Ms. Wang or otherwise tell the Trustee how to locate Ms. Wang.\n\n## **4. The Debtor Has Not Diligently Attempted to Comply**\n\nThe Court further concludes that the Debtor has not diligently attempted to comply with the Corporate Governance Order in a reasonable manner. *See id.* As noted immediately above, the only alleged attempt to either cooperate or effectuate a turnover was the Letter. No evidence was introduced to establish that the Letter was sent to Ms. Wang. Nevertheless, assuming the Letter was sent, it was dilatory – not diligent – coming a month after the Contempt Motion was filed and several months after the Corporate Governance Order was entered. Furthermore, again assuming the Letter was sent, it was not sent in a reasonable manner. There is no address on the\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 15 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 21 of 22\n\nLetter. There is no post-mark. There is no acknowledgment of receipt. The Debtor does not even know which of his bodyguards allegedly personally delivered the Letter.\n\n## **5. The Debtor Could Have Complied**\n\nFinally, the Court concludes that it is not impossible for the Debtor to comply with the Corporate Governance Order. *See Wendy*, 575 F.2d at 1030. The Debtor abandoned his argument that he did not beneficially own or control Ace Decade and, through it, Dawn State, as of the petition date and the appointment of the Trustee. Therefore, it was not impossible for the Debtor to cooperate or to surrender the Ace Decade Entities to the Trustee for the reasons stated above.\n\nThe Trustee introduced into evidence email exchanges showing that Ms. Wang, the nominee owner of Ace Decade, acted under the direction of the Debtor in other transactions, including the New York litigation involving Ace Decade and also matters involving the Sherry Netherland Apartment. (Trustee 29 and 30.) On the basis of this evidence, the Court determines that the Debtor could cause her to turnover her ownership interest over to the Trustee. As of yet, he has not.\n\n## **VI. CONCLUSION & ORDER**\n\nFor the reasons stated above, the Court finds the Debtor in civil contempt of court. It is hereby\n\n**ORDERED:** The Debtor has until at or before 5:00 p.m. (17:00) on March 6, 2023, to purge himself of contempt; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** If the Debtor does not purge himself of contempt at or before 5:00 p.m. (17:00) on March 6, 2023, he will be sanctioned reasonable attorneys' fees and costs that the Trustee has had to incur in pursuing compliance with the Corporate Governance Order as it\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 16 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 22 of 22\n\nrelates to the Ace Decade Entities, which reasonable fees will be determined by the Court, and will be paid to the Estate; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** The Court may, upon notice, issue further sanctions to secure compliance with the Corporate Governance Order, should the Debtor persist in contempt.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 24th day of January, 2023.","body_zh":"康涅狄格联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n\n债务人。\n\n第11章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n上诉通知\n\n特此通知，根据 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)，债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）现就康涅狄格联邦破产法院（Julie A. Manning 法官）于 January 24, 2023 作出的《准许要求认定债务人藐视公司治理命令的动议之命令》(ECF No. 1372)（下称“该命令”），向康涅狄格联邦地区法院提起上诉。该命令认定债务人因未能全面遵守本院于 August 10, 2022 作出的命令而构成民事藐视法庭；该命令准许了第11章受托人于 July 23, 2022 提出的动议，即根据《破产法典》第 363、541、1108 和 1505 条作出命令：(A) 确认第11章受托人持有债务人在其控制实体中的全部经济权利和公司治理权利；(B) 授权第11章受托人代表破产财产在任何外国行事；及 (C) 准予相关救济 (ECF No. 598)。该命令副本作为附件A附于本通知。该命令所涉各方当事人及其各自律师的姓名、地址和电话号码如下：\n\n当事人 律师\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—\n债务人 ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒专业公司）\nEric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐）\nStephen M. Kindseth（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思）\nAaron A. Romney（亚伦·A·罗姆尼）\nJames M. Moriarty（詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂）\nJohn L. Cesaroni（约翰·L·切萨罗尼）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\nehenzy@zeislaw.com\nskindseth@zeislaw.com\naromney@zeislaw.com\njmoriarty@zeislaw.com\njcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n\nLAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）\nAaron A Mitchell（亚伦·A·米切尔）\n55 Madison Ave, Suite 400\nMorristown, NJ 07960\n电话：(973)-285-3280\naaron@lmesq.com\nDouglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡） James C. Graham（詹姆斯·C·格雷厄姆） Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林齐） Lucas B. Rocklin（卢卡斯·B·罗克林）\n\n(203) 781-2847\n\ndskalka@npmlaw.com jgraham@npmlaw.com [plinsey@npmlaw.com]\n\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平）—第11章受托人 NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思专业公司）\n\nrocklin@npmlaw.com PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所） Nicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特） 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902\n\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com -and-Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平） Avram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特） Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦） G. Alexander Bongartz（G·亚历山大·邦加茨） 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 lucdespins@pauhastings.com aviluft@paulhastings.com [douglassbarron@paulhastings.com]\n\nalexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n日期：Bridgeport, Connecticut, February 7, 2023\n债务人，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ Eric Henzy Eric Henzy（ct12849） Stephen M. Kindseth（ct14640） Aaron A. Romney（ct28144） James M. Moriarty（ct21876） John L. Cesaroni（ct29309） 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 电话：(203) 368-4234 传真：(203) 368-5487 电子邮箱：[ehenzy@zeislaw.com] [skindseth@zeislaw.com] [aromney@zeislaw.com] [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com] [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 February 7, 2023，前述《上诉通知》的副本已以电子方式提交。根据本院电子提交系统的运行，该提交的通知将通过电子邮件发送给所有当事人；或按《电子提交通知》中所示，通过邮件发送给无法接受电子提交的任何人。当事人可通过本院 CM/ECF 系统查阅该提交文件。\n\n。\n\n/s/ Eric Henzy\n附件A\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 1 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 7 of 22\n康涅狄格联邦破产法院\n\n)\n\n)\n\n)\n\n关于： ) 第11章 ) 案号 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， ) （合并管理）\n\n债务人。 ) 关于：ECF Nos. 717 and 913\n准许要求认定债务人藐视公司治理命令的动议之命令\n\n一、引言\n\n本院审理的是 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平）以 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”）破产财产（下称“破产财产”）第11章受托人（下称“受托人”）身份提出的动议，要求认定债务人民事藐视法庭。(ECF No. 913，下称“藐视法庭动议”。) 藐视法庭动议主张，债务人未遵守本院关于将经济权利和公司治理权利从债务人转移给受托人的命令。(ECF No. 717，下称“公司治理命令”。) 基于下述理由，本院认定债务人民事藐视法庭；如其未能消除其藐视法庭状态，本院将对其处以合理律师费和费用的制裁。\n\n二、背景\n\n于 February 15, 2022，债务人提交其自愿第11章申请，由此启动本案。(ECF No. 1.) 其个人案件与两个关联公司案件合并管理。(ECF Nos. 970 and 1141.) 于 June 15, 2022，在本院已于先前意见书中讨论的事态发展后，本院命令指定第11章受托人。In re Kwok, 640 B.R. 514 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2022). (ECF No. 465.) 于 July 8, 2022，本院指定 Despins 先生为第11章受托人。(ECF No. 523.)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 2 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 8 of 22\n\n于 July 23, 2022，受托人提出动议，请求确认其持有债务人的经济权利和公司治理权利。(ECF No. 598，下称“公司治理动议”。) 于 July 29, 2022，债务人对公司治理动议提出异议，并于 August 4, 2022 提交进一步异议予以补充。(ECF Nos. 643 and 678.) 同于 August 4, 2022，受托人提交支持公司治理动议的答复。(ECF No. 679.) 同日，就公司治理动议举行了听证会。本院在听证会上准许公司治理动议，并于 August 10, 2022 作出公司治理命令。(ECF No. 717.)\n\n于 October 4, 2022，受托人提出藐视法庭动议，主张债务人未遵守公司治理命令，并请求认定其民事藐视法庭。(ECF No. 913.) 于 October 25, 2022，债务人提交其对藐视法庭动议的异议。(ECF No. 1026，下称“异议”。) 于 November 14, 2022，受托人提交其答复。(ECF No. 1092，下称“答复”。) 本事项的书面陈述已完备。\n\n就藐视法庭动议举行的证据听证会（下称“听证会”）于 November 16、17 和 18, 2022 举行。于 November 17, 2022，本院作出一项部分解决藐视法庭动议的命令 (ECF No. 1110，下称“部分解决命令”)；债务人坚持要求本院在继续进行证据听证会之前作出该命令。在听证会期间，未听取任何证言，但接纳了包括证言笔录摘录在内的证据。\n\n三、管辖权\n\n康涅狄格联邦地区法院根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本事项具有管辖权。本院根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) 以及康涅狄格联邦地区法院于 September 21, 1984 作出的移送命令，有权审理和裁决本事项。本程序属于\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 3 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 9 of 22\n\n法定核心程序。28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E). 本院明确保留对因实施、解释和执行公司治理命令而产生或与之相关的所有事项的管辖权。本案不存在妨碍行使管辖权的宪法问题。参见 Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 487–99 (2011)。\n\n根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本地区为适当审判地。\n\n四、事实认定\n\n本院已作出下文第 1 和 2 段所载的事实认定，如部分解决命令所述：\n\n1. 于 February 15, 2022 的申请日期（下称“申请日”），债务人独家实益拥有并控制 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（下称“Ace Decade”），且维持该等独家实益所有权和控制权直至并包括紧接受托人获指定之日前；以及 (ii) Dawn State Limited（下称“Dawn State”，与 Ace Decade 合称“Ace Decade实体”）是 Ace Decade 的全资子公司，并由 Ace Decade 独家拥有和控制。为免疑义，Yanping “Yvette” Wang（王艳萍，下称“王女士”）不是且从未是 Ace Decade 或 Dawn State 股份的实益所有人。(Trustee 6–7, 10, 15.)1\n\n2. 若非指定受托人以及其根据《破产法典》和公司治理命令享有的权利，债务人仍将独家实益拥有并控制 Ace Decade。(Trustee 6–7, 10, 15.)\n\n1 受托人在听证会期间提交的证物将标注为 Trustee [No.]，个人债务人提交的证物将标注为 Kwok [Letter]。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 10 of 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 4 of 16 22\n\n根据记录中的证据及听证会期间提出的证据，本院作出以下补充事实认定：\n\n3. 王艳萍是为债务人利益持有 Ace Decade 的名义所有人。(Trustee 27.)\n\n4. 债务人控制王女士。债务人已雇佣王艳萍数年，并指示她代表其采取行动，包括指示她代表其购买诸如 Sherry-Netherland apartment（雪莉-荷兰公寓）等房产。(Trustee 29 and 30.)\n\n5. 债务人未能充分证明，该函件（下称“该函件”，Kwok B）及据称随附的股份转让文书和股份转让决议已交付给王女士，以指示其将 Ace Decade 的公司权利和经济权利转让给受托人。债务人表示，其不认为自己有能力采取其在该函件中指示王女士采取的任何行动。(Trustee 27, at 87:3–13.) 债务人表示其通过亲自递送方式向王女士寄送该函件 (Kwok B)，并主张该亲自递送由其私人保镖完成。然而，债务人不记得其指示哪位保镖递送该函件，并且“永远记不住”其保安人员的姓名。(Trustee 27, at 88:3–13.) 除债务人的证言笔录和该函件上“通过亲自递送”的说明外，没有证据支持该函件实际上已被递送。该函件未载明地址。(Kwok B.) 没有未具名保镖关于送达或递送该函件的收据或经宣誓的宣誓书。(Id.)\n\n6. 即使该函件已被递送，其中的措辞也向其读者表明，债务人并不完全支持签署股份转让文书。相反，该函件称：“受托人认为我控制 Ace Decade，并认为我利用该被认知的控制权指示你签署股份转让文书和股份转让决议。”[强调为原文所加]。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1445-1 Filed 02/07/23 Entered 02/07/23 15:40:12 Page 11 of 1372 Filed 01/24/23 Entered 01/24/23 13:01:58 Page 5 of 16 22\n\n该函件进一步称：“……为遵守受托人的要求，并在我可能对 Ace Decade 具有任何权力的范围内，我特此指示你签署所附股份转让文书和股份转让决议。”(Kwok B.)\n\n7. 债务人表示，其未曾就藐视法庭动议与王艳萍进行任何形式的沟通。(Trustee 27, at 84:5–85:5.)\n\n8. 受托人一直无法向王艳萍送达传票。(Trustee 32–33).\n\n五、讨论\na. 法律标准\n\n本院有权依据 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) 及 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9020 对当事人作出藐视法庭的认定。Taggart v. Lorenzen ex rel. Brown, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801 (2019); PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Sensenich ex rel. Gravel (In re Gravel), 6 F.4th 503, 512 (2d Cir. 2021); Mar. Asbestosis Legal Clinic v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chauteaugay Corp.), 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990)。可以寻求藐视法庭认定，以“迫使被告遵守”法院命令，或“赔偿申诉人因不遵守法院命令而遭受的损失”。Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1801 (citing United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303–04 (1947))。作出民事藐视法庭认定要求：“(1) 被认定藐视法庭者未遵守的命令明确且无歧义，(2) 不遵守的证据清楚且具有说服力，以及 (3) 被认定藐视法庭者未以合理方式勤勉地尝试遵守。”King v. Allied Vision, Ltd., 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995); see Gravel, 6 F.4th at 512（补充指出，被认定藐视法庭者必须知悉该命令）。“对于民事藐视法庭指控，一项长期获认可的抗辩理由是被指控个人无能力遵守法院命令。”United States v. Wendy, 575 F.2d 1025, 1030 (2d Cir. 1978)。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1445-1 提交于 02/07/23 录入于 02/07/23 15:40:12 第 12 页，共 1372 页 提交于 01/24/23 录入于 01/24/23 13:01:58 第 6 页，共 16 页 22\n\n在“对于被告行为是否错误存在[合理]疑问依据”的情况下，“不应诉诸藐视法庭”。Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1801 (citing Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609 (1885))。该标准通常是客观的——“当事人主观上认为其正在遵守命令，若该信念在客观上不合理，通常不能使其免于民事藐视法庭认定。”Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1802 (citing McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949) (“缺乏故意性 [原文如此] 并不能免于民事藐视法庭认定。”))。尽管如此，一方当事人的恶意可证明“将‘判令中的任何不确定性……置于’违反法院命令一方的‘肩上’”具有正当性，而且“一方当事人的善意，即使并不阻却民事藐视法庭认定，亦可能有助于确定适当的制裁”。Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1802 (citing McComb, 336 U.S. at 192–93 and Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 801 (1987))。\n\nb. 法律结论\n\n1. 债务人知悉公司治理命令\n\n本院认定，个人债务人知悉公司治理命令。See Gravel, 6 F.4th at 512。如上所述，他曾就该命令的作出进行诉讼。此外，他在其异议或听证期间均未对其知悉该命令提出争议。\n\n2. 公司治理命令明确且无歧义地指示债务人与受托人合作\n\n本院认定，公司治理命令明确且无歧义，see King, 65 F.3d at 1058，其含义不存在任何合理疑问依据，see Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1801。根据公司治理命令，债务人须就受托人对 Ace Decade Entities（Ace Decade 实体）的控制与受托人合作，并且还须\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1445-1 提交于 02/07/23 录入于 02/07/23 15:40:12 第 13 页，共 1372 页 提交于 01/24/23 录入于 01/24/23 13:01:58 第 7 页，共 16 页 22\n\n交出 Ace Decade Entities、其在 Ace Decade Entities 中的所有权权益，以及与 Ace Decade Entities 有关的公司治理文件。\n\n受托人主张，公司治理命令第 2 段须与第 3 段及《破产法》的基础性规定一并解读。在此背景下，受托人主张，债务人被明确且无歧义地指示与受托人合作，并将破产财团资产及相关记录移交给受托人。债务人主张，受托人依据公司治理命令第 2 段的法律效力取得了对 Ace Decade Entities 的控制，因此债务人无需采取任何行动以遵守公司治理命令。债务人进一步主张，受托人能够对 Ace Decade Entities 主张控制权，目前的争议系人为制造且无必要。\n\n本院同意债务人的如下主张：对于公司治理命令第 2 段允许受托人自行采取行动以对包括 Ace Decade Entities 在内的公司实体主张控制权，不存在任何合理疑问依据。第 2 段相关内容规定：\n\n为免生疑问，上述权利包括受托人所主张的、替换债务人控制实体中任何现任高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员的权限。作为上述事项的一部分，在必要范围内，受托人获授权以其在本 Chapter 11 Case（第 11 章案件）中第 11 章受托人的身份，担任任何已被免职的该等高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员。\n\n第 2 段确实允许受托人在债务人的公司实体中发行新股份或成员权益，并任命新董事。但是，第 2 段并未要求受托人如此做。即使受托人在 Ace Decade Entities 中发行了新股份或成员权益，或任命了新董事，如无公司文件及进入任何\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1445-1 提交于 02/07/23 录入于 02/07/23 15:40:12 第 14 页，共 1372 页 提交于 01/24/23 录入于 01/24/23 13:01:58 第 8 页，共 16 页 22\n\n公司账户的权限，尚不清楚受托人将如何运营 Ace Decade Entities。受托人希望实现有序且完整的过渡，属合理之举。\n\n此外，诉诸自行救济可能违反适用的非破产法或现有治理文件，并可能给受托人造成法律问题。债务人在 8 月 4 日就公司治理动议举行的听证中提出了这一确切问题，并指出第 2 段将“赋予[受托人]适用的非破产法及特定实体的治理文件可能未规定的权限”。(ECF No. 746, at 63:15–18。) 受托人向本院保证，其意图是在其根据适用的非破产法及治理文件拥有权限时采取行动。(Id. at 64:14–15。) 受托人陈述：\n\n我们请求概括性授权的原因，是除非我们通过尽职调查认为自己有权这样做，否则我们不会行使该项权利。如果我们存有疑问，我们会回到本院。但是，我们不能处于这样一种境地，即就——州法规定什么、外国法规定什么——存在附带诉讼，因为那——基本上会成为另一个案件。\n\n(Id. at 64:19–65:1。) 随后，债务人坚持称，其意图并非就公司治理进行诉讼，但其担忧受托人会违反适用的非破产法及特定实体的治理文件而行事。(Id. at 65:2–8。) 为回应债务人的担忧，本院在公司治理命令第 2 段中加入“所主张的”一词，以处理该问题。(Id. at 65:11–21。) 在此之后，债务人未再坚持其对第 2 段的异议。(Id. at 65:23–24。) 本院认定，受托人希望避免有关公司治理的“附带诉讼”，属合理之举。然而，尽管存在公司治理命令第 2 段以及债务人所述不参与附带诉讼的意图，受托人仍不得不在 High Court of England and Wales, Chancery Division（英格兰和威尔士高等法院衡平法庭）就承认这些破产案件在英国的效力，对债务人及 Ace Decade Entities 提起诉讼。See Despins v Kwok (Re Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006) [2023] EWHC 74 (Ch) (20 January 2023)。Ace Decade 就受托人在该法院根据 Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006（2006 年跨境破产条例）（“CBIR”）申请承认债务人的 Chapter 11 Case 提出反对。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1445-1 提交于 02/07/23 录入于 02/07/23 15:40:12 第 15 页，共 1372 页 提交于 01/24/23 录入于 01/24/23 13:01:58 第 9 页，共 16 页 22\n\n本院亦不同意债务人关于受托人在第 2 段中的权利终结分析的主张。仅因受托人根据公司治理命令第 2 段可以诉诸自行救济，并不意味着受托人根据该命令条款没有其他救济途径。\n\n关于公司治理命令第 3 段，本院认定其明确且无歧义地指示债务人与受托人合作。对于第 3 段要求债务人与受托人合作，以寻找债务人的代名人 Wang 女士，并促成其在 Ace Decade 中的所有权权益的移交，不存在任何合理疑问依据。\n\n第 3 段相关内容明确且无歧义地规定：\n\n根据《破产法》第 521(a)(3) 条……，兹指示债务人……(a) 在必要范围内与受托人合作，使受托人能够履行其职责，包括但不限于受托人对债务人资产的调查……。”\n\n《破产法》第 521 条题为“债务人的义务”。第 521(a)(3) 条的措辞与公司治理命令的措辞几乎完全相同：“债务人应当……如案件中有受托人履职……在必要范围内与受托人合作，使受托人能够履行其根据本法所负职责。”第 521(a)(3) 条项下的合作义务被作广义解释。In re Cambridge Analytica LLC, 596 B.R. 1, 8 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)（“《破产法》第 521(a)(3) 条同样要求债务人‘在必要范围内与受托人合作，使受托人能够履行受托人的职责。’‘合作’确实是一个宽泛术语，且必须被解释为：每当受托人要求\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1372 提交于 01/24/23 录入于 01/24/23 13:01:58 第 10 页，共 16 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1445-1 提交于 02/07/23 录入于 02/07/23 15:40:12 第 16 页，共 22 页\n\n债务人协助履行其职责时，债务人均须作出回应，至少在该请求并非不合理的情况下如此。’‘事实上，‘已确定的是，不应要求受托人从不情愿且不合作的债务人处强行获取信息。鉴于《破产法》提供的非同寻常救济，拖延及规避策略与其宗旨和精神不相容，且有悖于其宗旨和精神。’”）（内部引文省略）；see Beach v. Morris (In re Beach), 281 B.R. 917, 921 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2002)（“除对债务人施加积极义务外，这些规定还体现如下政策：自愿服从破产法院管辖以取得债务免除利益的债务人，必须履行某些义务，以确保破产财团资产依适用法律得到管理。”）；see also 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 521.15[5] (16th ed. 2022)（“债务人的合作可能包括：告知受托人由第三方占有的破产财团财产并协助寻找该等财产，签署转让财产所必需的文件，以及协助收回应收账款。”）。鉴于《破产法》文本与公司治理命令文本的密切相似性，以及公司治理命令明确援引第 521 条，显然且毫无歧义地应以同样广泛的方式解读第 3 段。\n\n如上所述，并如无争议的《部分解决命令》所认定，截至申请日及受托人获任命之日，债务人被认定为对 Ace Decade 享有排他性的受益所有权并实施控制，并通过该实体对 Dawn State 享有排他性的受益所有权并实施控制。根据《公司治理命令》第2段，受托人“就所有由债务人控制的实体，代表破产财产持有债务人的全部经济权利和治理权利。”因此，为履行其对破产财产的职责，受托人持有债务人就 Ace Decade Entities 所享有的经济权利和治理权利。债务人不再对该事实提出异议。根据第3段的明确条款，债务人必须在为破产财产实现对 Ace Decade Entities 的该等控制和占有权所必需的范围内与受托人合作，无论该合作是为推进受托人对资产的调查，还是履行对破产财产的其他职责。参见 Star Direct Telecom, Inc. v. Glob. Crossing Bandwidth, Inc., 272 F.R.D. 350, 356 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)（“第一，Global Crossing 未提出任何权威依据，本院亦不知悉有任何权威依据，支持其关于‘including, without limitation’条款应被解读为限制性条款的主张。”）；Shugrue v. Cont'l Airlines, 977 F. Supp. 280, 285 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)（“即使假定对于实际附于附件C第一页的内容存在某种歧义，该第一页中的文字——‘[a]ll of Eastern[ ]'s computer programs and software, including without limitation’——也明确表明，所附清单并非排他性清单。”）。\n\n法院进一步认定，根据《公司治理命令》第3段，不存在任何公平合理的疑义认为债务人必须向受托人交付 Ace Decade Entities，包括其在 Ace Decade Entities 中的所有权权益以及与 Ace Decade Entities 有关的公司治理文件。第3段以与 § 521(a)(4) 极为相似的清晰且毫不含糊的措辞，在相关部分规定：\n\n根据《破产法典》第 . . . 521(a)(4) 条，特此命令债务人……（b）向受托人交付全部破产财产以及任何记录的信息，包括但不限于与破产财产有关的账簿、文件、记录和文书（包括但不限于其在 Genever (BVI) 中持有的股份及所有相关公司治理文件）。\n\n《破产法典》第521(a)(4)条及基于其措辞作出的《公司治理命令》，涵盖债务人可能享有的所有衡平权益，例如对公司实体的受益所有权。11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)。根据第521(a)(4)条和《公司治理命令》，债务人应在被要求时立即交付资产及与资产有关的文件。参见 Beach, 281 B.R. at 921；4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 521.16。\n\n由于截至申请日及受托人获任命之日，债务人对 Ace Decade Entities 享有排他性的受益所有权并实施控制，根据《公司治理命令》第2段，受托人为破产财产的利益控制 Ace Decade Entities。如上所述，债务人不对该事实提出异议。根据第3段的明确条款，债务人必须向受托人交付 Ace Decade Entities，其中包括与 Ace Decade Entities 有关的所有记录信息，例如股份和公司治理文件。参见 Star Direct, 272 F.R.D. at 356；Shugrue, 977 F. Supp. at 285。\n\n债务人备选地辩称，《公司治理命令》不清楚且含糊不明，因为公司治理命令第2段和第3段彼此冲突，使债务人陷入“Catch-22”困境。债务人主张，第2段剥夺了其为遵守第3段所必需的经济权利和公司治理权利。\n\n然而，法院认定，《公司治理命令》第2段和第3段并不冲突。尽管受托人依法律实施而取得了对破产财产以及债务人经济权利和公司治理权利的法定控制权，《破产法典》——以及清晰明确的《公司治理命令》——仍要求依照受托人在《公司治理命令》下的权利，移交事实上的占有和控制权。法院通常会提供救济，使当事人的事实权利与其法定权利相一致。本案不存在任何情形会对《公司治理命令》所要求的行为产生公平合理的疑义。\n\n法院进一步认定，债务人关于第2段与第3段冲突的主张将使 11 U.S.C. §§ 521(a)(3)–(4) 失去作用，并且在法律上不可能正确。《破产法典》和《公司治理命令》指示债务人与受托人合作，并交付破产财产的资产及相关记录，即使控制权已经因法律实施而转移给受托人。遵守该等规定不会妨碍《破产法典》和《公司治理命令》的条款，反而会促进其实现。\n\n尽管法院认定《公司治理命令》明确要求债务人与受托人合作，但即使复审法院认定《公司治理命令》不清楚，该不确定性的负担也不应由受托人承担，而应由债务人承担，原因在于债务人的恶意。参见 Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1802。如上文详述，法院不认同债务人对该命令的解释，并且由于债务人的恶意已导致举证负担转移，法院认定该要件对受托人有利即属充分。\n\n法院基于若干理由认定债务人存在恶意。在听证会之前，债务人在其异议及其证言中的主要主张是，截至申请日及受托人获任命之日，其未以受益所有权或其他方式拥有 Ace Decade。然而，在听证会期间，其放弃了该主张，在听证会继续进行之前寻求作出《部分解决命令》，并同意不对《部分解决命令》提出上诉。尽管如此，《部分解决命令》并非同意命令。债务人不同意《部分解决命令》中的认定，这与其在听证会前放弃其提出的异议以及其同意不对该命令提出上诉相矛盾。\n\n此外，债务人唯一声称为遵守《公司治理命令》所作的尝试发生于 2022年11月10日，即该命令作出数月后、蔑视法庭动议提出一个月后，以及听证会预定开始前不足一周。另者，债务人声称为遵守《公司治理命令》所作的尝试，向受托人隐瞒了其名义持有人——Ms. Wang（王女士）——的所在地，受托人一直无法向其送达传票。在听证会期间，尽管债务人在听证会前不久才告知受托人王女士是 Ace Decade 的名义所有人，债务人却强调受托人与王女士之间缺乏沟通。最后，债务人未能充分证明该信函已寄送给王女士。该信函未载明王女士的地址，且债务人无法记起其哪一名保镖据称亲自将该信函交付给王女士。\n\n3. 债务人未遵守《公司治理命令》\n\n法院根据清晰且令人信服的证据认定，债务人未遵守《公司治理命令》。参见 King, 65 F.3d at 1058。债务人未向受托人交付 Ace Decade Entities、其在该等实体中的所有权权益或其公司治理文件。若其已交付，本动议将失去争议意义。债务人唯一声称的遵守行为是据称寄给王女士的信函，但其未能充分证明该信函已寄出。债务人未配合受托人寻找王女士并完成交付的努力。债务人仅在迟延后才披露王女士是 Ace Decade Entities 的名义所有人。向受托人提供并在听证会上出示的该信函未载明王女士的地址。债务人未提供据称知道如何找到王女士的保镖，亦未以其他方式告知受托人如何找到王女士。\n\n4. 债务人未勤勉地尝试遵守命令\n\n法院进一步认定，债务人未以合理方式勤勉地尝试遵守《公司治理命令》。参见同上。如紧接上文所述，唯一声称为合作或完成交付所作的尝试是该信函。未提出任何证据证明该信函已寄给王女士。尽管如此，即使假定该信函已寄出，其亦属拖延而非勤勉，因为其是在提出蔑视法庭动议一个月后以及作出《公司治理命令》数月后才发出。此外，即使再次假定该信函已寄出，其发送方式亦不合理。信函上没有地址。没有邮戳。没有收讫确认。债务人甚至不知道其哪一名保镖据称亲自交付了该信函。\n\n5. 债务人本可以遵守命令\n\n最后，法院认定，债务人遵守《公司治理命令》并非不可能。参见 Wendy, 575 F.2d at 1030。债务人已放弃其关于截至申请日及受托人获任命之日其并未对 Ace Decade 及经由该实体对 Dawn State 享有受益所有权或实施控制的主张。因此，基于上述理由，债务人与受托人合作或向受托人交付 Ace Decade Entities 并非不可能。\n\n受托人提出了电子邮件往来作为证据，显示 Ace Decade 的名义所有人王女士在其他交易中依照债务人的指示行事，包括涉及 Ace Decade 的纽约诉讼，以及涉及 Sherry Netherland Apartment 的事项。（Trustee 29 and 30。）基于该证据，法院认定债务人能够促使其将其所有权权益移交给受托人。截至目前，其尚未如此行事。\n\nVI. 结论及命令\n\n基于上述理由，法院认定债务人构成民事藐视法庭。特此\n\n命令：债务人须在 2023年3月6日 5:00 p.m. (17:00) 时或之前消除其藐视法庭状态；并进一步\n\n命令：如债务人未在 2023年3月6日 5:00 p.m. (17:00) 时或之前消除其藐视法庭状态，其将被制裁支付受托人为促使其遵守与 Ace Decade Entities 有关的《公司治理命令》而不得不支出的合理律师费和费用，该等合理费用将由法院确定，并将支付给破产财产；并进一步\n\n命令：如债务人持续藐视法庭，法院可在通知后作出进一步制裁，以确保遵守《公司治理命令》。\n\n于2023年1月24日签署于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":523,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":598,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":679,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":717,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":746,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":913,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1026,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1092,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1110,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1372,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":5824,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:08:53"}