{"id":"court_ctb_1770_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1770,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-03-20","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":"上诉期间暂缓执行动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1770（2023-03-20立案）。HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC、郭美及代理律师提出动议，请求在向二巡/上诉法庭提起上诉期间，暂缓执行法院于2023年4月21日作出的制裁裁定（该裁定判定向破产财产支付 83,370.26 美元律师费以转付普衡律师事务所）。","summary_en":"Motion for Stay Pending Appeal — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui / 郭文贵), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1770 (filed 2023-03-20). HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, Mei Guo, and their counsel moved for a stay pending appeal of the court's April 21, 2023 sanctions order awarding $83,370.26 in legal fees to the estate for payment to Paul Hastings LLP.","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## **MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER AWARDING FEES OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE AND HIS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO SANCTIONS ORDER**\n\nPursuant to Fed. R. Bank. P. 8007(a), HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, Mei Guo, Lee Vartan, Esq., and Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (the \"HK Parties\"), through their undersigned counsel, respectfully move for a stay (the \"Motion to Stay\") pending appeal of the Court's April 21, 2023, Order Awarding Fees of Chapter 11 Trustee and His Counsel Pursuant to Sanctions Order (the \"Sanctions Order\") [Doc. No. 1693], which awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of \\$83,370.26 to the Individual Debtor's Estate for payment to Paul Hastings LLP with said fees to be paid on or before May 5, 2023, and the Court's May 1, 2023 Order [Docket No. 1733] denying the HK Parties' Motion to Reconsider the Sanctions Order ) the \"Reconsideration Order.\"\n\n#### **I. RELEVANT FACTS**\n\n1. On March 10, 2023, the Court entered an Order Holding the HK Parties in Contempt of Court and Sanctioning HK Parties, Attorney Vartan and Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (the \"Contempt Order\") [Doc. No. 1537]. In accordance with the Contempt Order, HK USA and Guo were held in civil contempt of Court for purportedly failing to comply with (i) the Court's January 20, 2023 Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance With Rule 2004 Subpoenas, filed by Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\") for the estate of\n\ndebtor Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") [ECF No. 1353]; and (ii) the Court's February 13, 2023 Order Granting in Part Motion for Order to Appear and Show Cause Why the Court Should Not Hold the HK Parties in Contempt of Court, filed by the Trustee [ECF No. 1455].\n\n2. In addition, the Contempt Order held that HK USA, Guo, Vartan and CSG Law were jointly and severally liable for and sanctioned, as compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs related to Trustee's efforts to secure compliance with the Rule 2004 Subpoenas and prosecution of the Moton to Compel. The Contempt Order also held that the Trustee's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs associated with securing compliance with the Rule 2004 Subpoenas, would \"be determined by the Court upon the fee application(s) of the Trustee, which applications(s) are to be submitted on or before March 24, 2023.\" *See Contempt Order*, at 26.\n\n3. On March 17, 2023, the Trustee filed an Unopposed Motion Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b), for Entry of an Order Extending Time to File Fee Application Pursuant to the Contempt Order (the \"Motion to Extend Time\") [Doc No. 1558]. Prior to filing the Motion to Extend Time, Trustee's counsel requested the consent of the HK Parties to file the motion through counsel, which consent was agreed to by the HK Parties.\n\n4. By Order dated March 20, 2023, the Court granted the Trustee's Moton to Extend Time which extended the filing date of the fee application by ten days to April 3, 2023. During a status conference on March 30, 2023, counsel for Trustee requested a second extension to file the Fee Application, to April 10, 2023, which was granted by the Court. Thereafter, on April 10, 2023, the Trustee filed the Special Fee Application of Chapter 11 Trustee and his Counsel, Paul Hastings LLP (together, the \"Applicants\"), for Services Rendered in Securing Compliance with Court-Authorized Subpoenas (the \"Fee Application\") [Doc No. 1648].\n\n5. On March 24, 2023, the HK Parties filed a Notice of Appeal of the Contempt Order. [ECF No. 1595]. Initial briefing in connection with the appeal is due on or before May 26, 2023.\n\n6. Pursuant to Rule 2002(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedures, the deadline for the HK Parties to object to the Fee Application was no earlier than May 1, 2023.\n\n7. Notwithstanding Rule 2002(a)(6), and the fact that no other deadline was fixed by this Court for the HK Parties to oppose the Fee Application, the Court entered the Sanctions Order on April 21, 2023.\n\n8. On April 28, 2023, the HK Parties timely filed a motion for reconsideration of the Sanctions Order [ECF No. 1730].\n\n9. On May 1, 2023, the Court entered an order denying the HK Parties' motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 1733].\n\n10. On May 3, 2023, the HK Parties filed a Notice of Appeal from the April 21, 2023 Sanctions Order, as well as the May 1, 2023 Reconsideration Order. The HK Parties intend to consolidate appellate briefing on the Contempt Order, together with Sanctions Order and the Reconsideration Order.\n\n#### **II. ARGUMENT**\n\n11. Fed. R. Bank. P. 8007(a)(1)(A) provides that \"[o]rdinarily a party must move first in the bankruptcy court for … a stay of a judgment, order, or decree of the bankruptcy court pending appeal ….\"\n\n12. The Second Circuit has articulated the following four-prong test in determining whether to issue a stay of an order pending appeal: (a) whether there is a probability or possibility of success, or substantial probability or possibility of success, or serious legal questions going to the merits; (b) irreparable injury, balance of hardships tipping in favor of, or some injury to the\n\n3\n\nmovant if a stay is denied; (c) substantial injury to the party opposing a stay if one is issued; and (d) the public interest. *Mohammed v. Reno*, 309 F.3d 95, 100-01 (2d Cir. 2002); *see also United States v. Grote,* 961 F.3d 105, 122-23 (2d Cir. 2020) (standard is (1) whether a movant will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay, (2) whether a party will suffer substantial injury if a stay is issued, (3) whether the movant has demonstrated a substantial possibility, although less than a likelihood, of success on appeal, and (4) the public interest that may be affected); *Hirschfeld v. Bd. Of Elections of N.Y.*, 984 F.2d 35, 39 (2d Cir. 1993) (same).\n\n13. The \"degree to which a factor must be present varies with the strength of the other factors, meaning more of one excuses less of the other.\" *McCue v. City of New York (In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig.)*, 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); *see also Mohammed*, 309 F.3d at 100-01 (\"[W]e see considerable merit in the approach expressed by the District of Columbia Circuit: 'The necessary 'level' or 'degree' of possibility of success will vary according to the court's assessment of the other [stay] factors.' Applying that test, that Circuit has granted a stay pending appeal where the likelihood of success is not high but the balance of hardships favors the applicant, and has stated that a stay may be granted where the probability of success is 'high' and 'some injury' has been shown. As the Sixth Circuit has explained, 'The probability of success that must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the amount of injury plaintiff[ ] will suffer absent the stay. Simply stated, more of one excuses less of the other.'\" (citations omitted)); *In re Taub*, 470 B.R. 273, 278 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012) (\"The requisite showing of substantial possibility of success is inversely proportional to the amount of injury [the movant] will suffer absent the stay.\").\n\n14. Here, the HK Parties are likely to succeed on their appeal of the underlying Contempt Order, as well as their appeal of the Sanctions Order and the Reconsideration Order.\n\n20. It is axiomatic that a \"bankruptcy court's contempt power, like that of a district court, is 'narrowly circumscribed.'\" *PHH Mortg. Corp v. Sensenich (In re Gravel)*, 6 F.4th 503, 511 (2d Cir. 2021). *See also Perez v. Danbury Hosp*., 347 F.3d 419, 423 (2d Cir. 2003) (\"[O]ur review of a contempt order is more exacting than under the ordinary abuse-of-discretion standard because a district court's contempt power is narrowly circumscribed.\"). This is because \"[t]he judicial contempt power is a potent weapon.\" *Int'l Longshoreman's Ass'n v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n*, 389 U.S. 64, 76 (1967). *See also Taggart v. Lorenzen*, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1802 (2019) (\"[C]ivil contempt is a severe remedy ….\"); *In re Attorney General of U.S.*, 596 F.2d 58, 65 (2d Cir. 1979) (\"[T]he court must not lightly invoke its contempt power.\"); *United States v. Wendy*, 575 F.2d 1025, 1030 (2d Cir. 1978) (recognizing that the \"exercise of the contempt power is awesome in its implications.\"). Accordingly, \"civil contempt 'should not be resorted to where there is a *fair ground of doubt* as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct.'\" *Taggart*, 389 S. Ct. 1801 (quoting *California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor*, 113 U.S. 609, 618 (1885) (emphasis in original)).\n\n21. \"A contempt order is warranted only where the moving party establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor violated the district court's edict. More specifically, a movant must establish that (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*, 65 F.3d at 1058 (citation omitted). *See also Vineyard Vines, LLC v. MacBeth Collection, LLC*, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205502, \\*39 (D. Conn., Dec. 5, 2018) (\"'[T]he moving party …bears the burden of establishing\n\n[these] three factors[.]\") (quoting *Latino Officers Ass'n City of New York, Inc. v. City of New York*, 558 F.3d 159, 164 (2d Cir. 2009)).\n\n22. On appeal, the HK Parties are likely to succeed on their arguments that the Contempt Order was in error given that the HK Parties attempted to comply with the Court's January 20, 2023 Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance With Rule 2004 Subpoenas [ECF No. 1353] and the Court's February 13, 2023 Order Granting in Part Motion for Order to Appear and Show Cause Why the Court Should Not Hold the HK Parties in Contempt of Court [ECF No. 1455]. Further, any purported non-compliance is the result of misunderstanding. *See Federated Dep.'t Stores, Inc. v. Wongco (In re R.H. Macy & Co.)*, 236 B.R. 583, 592 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999) (\"A finding of civil contempt requires a showing that there exists an enforceable order that is clear and specific which unambiguously commands such party to perform or refrain from performing in accordance with the order.\"); *Gucci Am. v. Bank of China*, 768 F.3d 122, 143 (2d Cir. 2014) (\"[U]nlessthe parties can 'ascertain from the four corners of the order precisely what acts are forbidden,' the order cannot form the basis for contempt.\"); *Liberty Propane L.P. v. Feheley*, 522 Fed. Appx. 38, 39 (2d Cir. 2013) (vacating contempt order for failure to produce specific documents where underlying orders regarding production did not expressly require production of those specific documents); *Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa*, 947 F. Supp. 116, 121 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (finding contempt inappropriate where order operated by reference to motion, and thus did not expressly set forth its requirements within the four corners of the order).\n\n23. Moreover, in all cases, the HK Parties are likely to succeed on their arguments that the fees awarded in the Sanctions Order are inflated and should not have been granted without providing the HK Parties with an opportunity to be heard in connection with the Fee Application.\n\n6\n\n24. The HK Parties also satisfy the remaining elements for a stay pending appeal. Among other things, the HK Parties will suffer irreparable harm to the extent the Sanctions Order is not stayed pending appeal given the severe limitations this Court has already placed on the HK Parties' assets. On the other hand, granting a stay will not result in any prejudice to the Trustee. The Trustee may submit applications for fees in the ordinary course of this action.\n\n25. The public interest also militates in favor of a stay. \"The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon,\" *Int'l Longshoreman's Ass'n.* 389 U.S. 64, at 76, that should not be lightly invoked. *In re Attorney General of U.S.*, 596 F.2d 58, at 65. The public has an interest in ensuring that sanctions only issue in narrowly subscribed circumstances.\n\n## **III. CONCLUSION**\n\n26. For the reasons set forth above, this Court should issue a stay of the Sanctions Order pending appeal.\n\nDated: May 5, 2023 */s/ Lee Vartan*\n\nRoseland, New Jersey Lee Vartan (admitted pro hac vice) [lvartan@csglaw.com](mailto:lvartan@csglaw.com) Sam Della Fera, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) [sdellafera@csglaw.com](mailto:sdellafera@csglaw.com)  Melissa F. Wernick (admitted pro hac vice) [mwernick@csglaw.com](mailto:mwernick@csglaw.com) **CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC** 105 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 325-1500 Facsimile: (973) 325-1501 *Attorneys for Mei Guo, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, Lee Vartan, Esq., and Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC*\n\n> *and*  Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)  James M. Moriarty (ct21876)\n\n# [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com)\n\n**ZEISLER & ZEISLER PC** 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5485 *Local Counsel for Mei Guo, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, Lee Vartan, Esq., and Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC*\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK,\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 5th day of May, 2023, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice ofElectronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\nDated: May 5, 2023 */s/ Lee Vartan*\n\n Roseland, New Jersey Lee Vartan (admitted pro hac vice) [lvartan@csglaw.com](mailto:lvartan@csglaw.com) Sam Della Fera, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) [sdellafera@csglaw.com](mailto:sdellafera@csglaw.com)  Melissa F. Wernick (admitted pro hac vice) [mwernick@csglaw.com](mailto:mwernick@csglaw.com) **CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC** 105 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 325-1500 Facsimile: (973) 325-1501 *Attorneys for Mei Guo, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, Lee Vartan, Esq., and Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC*\n\n *and*\n\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)  James M. Moriarty (ct21876) [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com)  **ZEISLER & ZEISLER PC** 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5485 *Local Counsel for Mei Guo, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, Lee Vartan, Esq., and Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC*","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分部）\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关于依据制裁裁定在上诉期间暂缓执行裁决第 11 章受托人及其法律顾问费用的裁定的动议\n\n依据《Fed. R. Bank. P.》（联邦破产诉讼规则）第 8007(a) 条，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）、Mei Guo（郭美）、Lee Vartan 律师以及 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC（合称“HK 方”），通过其署名律师，恭请法院在上诉期间暂缓执行（下称“暂缓执行动议”）本法院于 2023 年 4 月 21 日作出的《依据制裁裁定裁决第 11 章受托人及其法律顾问费用的裁定》（下称“制裁裁定”）[Doc. No. 1693]——该裁定裁决向个人债务人破产财产支付 83,370.26 美元的律师费以转付给 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所），且上述费用须于 2023 年 5 月 5 日或之前支付——以及本法院于 2023 年 5 月 1 日作出的驳回 HK 方对制裁裁定提出重新审议之动议的裁定 [Docket No. 1733]（下称“重新审议裁定”）。\n\n一、 相关事实\n\n1. 2023 年 3 月 10 日，本法院作出了《判定 HK 方藐视法庭并制裁 HK 方、Vartan 律师及 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 的裁定》（下称“藐视法庭裁定”）[Doc. No. 1537]。根据藐视法庭裁定，HK USA 与郭美被判定构成民事藐视法庭，理由是其据称未能遵守：(i) 本法院于 2023 年 1 月 20 日作出的、部分准许债务人郭文贵（下称“债务人”）破产财产之第 11 章受托人（下称“受托人”）Luc A. Despins 所提起的《强令遵守第 2004 条传票的动议》的裁定 [ECF No. 1353]；以及 (ii) 本法院于 2023 年 2 月 13 日作出的、部分准许受托人提起的《要求出庭并陈述不应由本法院判定 HK 方藐视法庭理由之命令的动议》的裁定 [ECF No. 1455]。\n\n2. 此外，藐视法庭裁定还判定 HK USA、郭美、Vartan 以及 CSG Law 就与受托人促使遵守第 2004 条传票的努力及推进强令动议相关的合理律师费和开支承担连带责任，并将该等费用作为补偿性损害赔偿金予以制裁。藐视法庭裁定还判定，受托人因促使遵守第 2004 条传票而产生的合理律师费和开支“应由本法院根据受托人的费用申请予以确定，该等申请须在 2023 年 3 月 24 日或之前提交”。见《藐视法庭裁定》第 26 页。\n\n3. 2023 年 3 月 17 日，受托人依据《破产规则》第 9006(b) 条提交了《关于依据藐视法庭裁定延长提交费用申请时间的未经反对之命令动议》（下称“延期动议”）[Doc No. 1558]。在提交延期动议之前，受托人的律师通过律师请求 HK 方同意提交该动议，HK 方对此表示同意。\n\n4. 依据日期为 2023 年 3 月 20 日的裁定，本法院准许了受托人的延期动议，将费用申请的提交日期延长了十天至 2023 年 4 月 3 日。在 2023 年 3 月 30 日的状况会议期间，受托人的律师请求第二次延长提交费用申请的期限至 2023 年 4 月 10 日，该请求获得了本法院的准许。此后，于 2023 年 4 月 10 日，受托人提交了《第 11 章受托人及其法律顾问 Paul Hastings LLP（统称“申请人”）关于在促使遵守法院授权传票过程中所提供服务的特别费用申请》（下称“费用申请”）[Doc No. 1648]。\n\n5. 2023 年 3 月 24 日，HK 方提交了针对藐视法庭裁定的上诉通知 [ECF No. 1595]。与该上诉相关的初始书面陈述应于 2023 年 5 月 26 日或之前提交。\n\n6. 依据《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2002(a)(6) 条，HK 方对费用申请提出异议的截止日期不得早于 2023 年 5 月 1 日。\n\n7. 尽管有第 2002(a)(6) 条的规定，且本法院并未为 HK 方反对费用申请设定其他截止日期，本法院仍于 2023 年 4 月 21 日作出了制裁裁定。\n\n8. 2023 年 4 月 28 日，HK 方就制裁裁定及时提交了重新审议动议 [ECF No. 1730]。\n\n9. 2023 年 5 月 1 日，本法院作出了驳回 HK 方重新审议动议的裁定 [ECF No. 1733]。\n\n10. 2023 年 5 月 3 日，HK 方针对 2023 年 4 月 21 日的制裁裁定以及 2023 年 5 月 1 日的重新审议裁定提交了上诉通知。HK 方打算将针对藐视法庭裁定的上诉书面陈述与针对制裁裁定及重新审议裁定的书面陈述合并审理。\n\n二、 论证\n\n11. 《Fed. R. Bank. P.》第 8007(a)(1)(A) 条规定：“当事人通常必须首先向破产法院提出动议，以申请……在上诉期间暂缓执行破产法院的判决、裁定或法令……”。\n\n12. 联邦第二巡回上诉法院在确定是否在上诉期间对裁定予以暂缓执行时明确阐述了以下四项测试标准：(a) 是否存在胜诉的盖然性或可能性，或者胜诉的实质性盖然性或可能性，或者涉及实体问题的严肃法律问题；(b) 若拒绝暂缓执行，动议人是否会遭受不可弥补的损害、困境衡量是否向有利于动议人的方向倾斜，或动议人是否会遭受某种损害；(c) 若发出暂缓执行，是否会对反对暂缓执行的一方造成实质性损害；以及 (d) 公共利益。Mohammed v. Reno, 309 F.3d 95, 100-01 (2d Cir. 2002)；另见 United States v. Grote, 961 F.3d 105, 122-23 (2d Cir. 2020)（标准为：(1) 若不予暂缓执行，动议人是否将遭受不可弥补的损害；(2) 若发出暂缓执行，当事人是否将遭受实质性损害；(3) 动议人是否已证明在上诉中具有实质性的胜诉可能性，尽管可能低于优势可能性；以及 (4) 可能受到影响的公共利益）；Hirschfeld v. Bd. Of Elections of N.Y., 984 F.2d 35, 39 (2d Cir. 1993)（同上）。\n\n13. “某项因素必须具备的程度随其他因素的强弱而变化，这意味着某一方面的增强可以弥补另一方面的不足。”McCue v. City of New York (In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig.), 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007)（引文及内部引号省略）；另见 Mohammed, 309 F.3d at 100-01（“我们认为哥伦比亚特区巡回法院所表达的方法具有相当大的合理性：‘胜诉可能性所必需的“水平”或“程度”将根据法院对其他[暂缓执行]因素的评估而有所不同。’在适用该测试时，该巡回法院曾在胜诉可能性不高但困境衡量有利于申请人时准予了上诉期间的暂缓执行，并声明在胜诉概率‘较高’且已证明存在‘某种损害’的情况下可以准予暂缓执行。正如第六巡回法院所解释的那样：‘必须证明的胜诉概率与原告在未获暂缓执行情况下将遭受的损害程度成反比。简而言之，某一方面的增强可以弥补另一方面的不足。’”（引文省略））；In re Taub, 470 B.R. 273, 278 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012)（“证明实质性胜诉可能性的必要程度与[动议人]在未获暂缓执行情况下将遭受的损害程度成反比。”）。\n\n14. 在本案中，HK 方在其对基础藐视法庭裁定的上诉中，以及在其对制裁裁定和重新审议裁定的上诉中，均很有可能胜诉。\n\n20. 不言而喻，“破产法院的藐视法庭管辖权与地区法院一样，是‘受到严格限制的’”。PHH Mortg. Corp v. Sensenich (In re Gravel), 6 F.4th 503, 511 (2d Cir. 2021)。另见 Perez v. Danbury Hosp., 347 F.3d 419, 423 (2d Cir. 2003)（“我们对藐视法庭裁定的审查比通常的滥用裁量权标准更为严格，因为地区法院的藐视法庭管辖权是受到严格限制的。”）。这是因为“司法上的藐视法庭权是一种强有力的武器”。Int'l Longshoreman's Ass'n v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n, 389 U.S. 64, 76 (1967)。另见 Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1802 (2019)（“民事藐视法庭是一种严厉的救济措施……”）；In re Attorney General of U.S., 596 F.2d 58, 65 (2d Cir. 1979)（“法院绝不可轻率动用其藐视法庭管辖权。”）；United States v. Wendy, 575 F.2d 1025, 1030 (2d Cir. 1978)（承认“行使藐视法庭权所带来的后果是令人生畏的”）。因此，“‘凡对被告行为的正当性存在合理怀疑之处，便不应诉诸’民事藐视法庭手段”。Taggart, 389 S. Ct. 1801（援引 California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609, 618 (1885)（原文强调））。\n\n21. “仅当动议方以清晰且有说服力的证据证明被指控的藐视法庭者违反了地区法院的令谕时，作出藐视法庭裁定方具正当性。更具体而言，动议人必须证明：(1) 藐视法庭者未予遵守的裁定是清晰且明确的；(2) 未予遵守的证据是清晰且有说服力的；以及 (3) 藐视法庭者未曾以合理方式努力尝试予以遵守。”King, 65 F.3d at 1058（引文省略）。另见 Vineyard Vines, LLC v. MacBeth Collection, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205502, *39 (D. Conn., Dec. 5, 2018)（“‘动议方……承担确立[这]三项因素的举证责任[。]’”）（援引 Latino Officers Ass'n City of New York, Inc. v. City of New York, 558 F.3d 159, 164 (2d Cir. 2009)）。\n\n22. 在上诉中，鉴于 HK 方已尝试遵守本法院于 2023 年 1 月 20 日作出的《部分准许强令遵守第 2004 条传票之动议的裁定》[ECF No. 1353] 以及本法院于 2023 年 2 月 13 日作出的《部分准许要求出庭并陈述不应由本法院判定 HK 方藐视法庭理由之命令的动议的裁定》[ECF No. 1455]，HK 方主张藐视法庭裁定存在错误的论点很有可能成立。此外，任何据称的未遵守行为均系误解所致。见 Federated Dep.'t Stores, Inc. v. Wongco (In re R.H. Macy & Co.), 236 B.R. 583, 592 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999)（“认定民事藐视法庭需要证明存在一份具有执行力、清晰且具体的裁定，该裁定明确命令该当事人依照裁定履行或不履行某种行为”）；Gucci Am. v. Bank of China, 768 F.3d 122, 143 (2d Cir. 2014)（“除非当事人能够‘从裁定的四角范围之内精确查明何种行为被禁止’，否则该裁定不能作为认定藐视法庭的依据”）；Liberty Propane L.P. v. Feheley, 522 Fed. Appx. 38, 39 (2d Cir. 2013)（在有关提供文件的基础裁定未明确要求提供特定文件的情况下，撤销了因未能提供该等特定文件而作出的藐视法庭裁定）；Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa, 947 F. Supp. 116, 121 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)（认定在裁定是通过援引动议发生效力、从而未在裁定本身的四角范围之内明确规定其要求的情况下，作出藐视法庭裁定是不妥当的）。\n\n23. 此外，在任何情况下，HK 方关于制裁裁定中所裁决的费用虚高且在未向 HK 方提供就费用申请进行陈辩的机会前不应准予该等费用的主张均很有可能成立。\n\n24. HK 方亦满足了在上诉期间暂缓执行的其他要件。除其他事项外，鉴于本法院已对 HK 方的财产施加了严格限制，若在上诉期间不暂缓执行制裁裁定，HK 方将遭受不可弥补的损害。另一方面，准予暂缓执行不会对受托人造成任何损害。受托人可在此诉讼的正常进行过程中提交费用申请。\n\n25. 公共利益亦支持暂缓执行。「司法藐视权力是一件强有力的武器」，Int'l Longshoreman's Ass'n.，389 U.S. 64，第 76 页，不应被轻易动用。In re Attorney General of U.S.，596 F.2d 58，第 65 页。公众享有确保制裁仅在受到严格限制的情形下作出的利益。\n\nIII. 结论\n\n26. 基于上述理由，本法院应在上述上诉审理期间对制裁令（Sanctions Order）签发暂缓执行令。\n\n日期：May 5, 2023 /s/ Lee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦）\n新泽西州罗斯兰（Roseland, New Jersey） Lee Vartan（特别准许出庭律师，admitted pro hac vice）[lvartan@csglaw.com]\nSam Della Fera, Jr.（特别准许出庭律师，admitted pro hac vice）[sdellafera@csglaw.com]\nMelissa F. Wernick（特别准许出庭律师，admitted pro hac vice）[mwernick@csglaw.com]\nCHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC\n105 Eisenhower Parkway\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n电话：(973) 325-1500\n传真：(973) 325-1501\nMei Guo（郭美）、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）、Lee Vartan 律师及 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 之代理律师\n\n以及\n\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144) [aromney@zeislaw.com]\nJames M. Moriarty (ct21876) [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com]\nZEISLER & ZEISLER PC\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5485\nMei Guo、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC、Lee Vartan 律师及 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 之当地代理律师\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分部（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n关于：\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n债务人。\n\n第 11 章（Chapter 11）\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2023 年 5 月 5 日（May 5, 2023），前述文书的一份副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交事项的通知将通过本法院电子提交系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事方，或按照电子提交通知（Notice of Electronic Filing）上的载明，通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子提交的任何人。各当事方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n日期：May 5, 2023 /s/ Lee Vartan\n新泽西州罗斯兰 Lee Vartan（特别准许出庭律师，admitted pro hac vice）[lvartan@csglaw.com]\nSam Della Fera, Jr.（特别准许出庭律师，admitted pro hac vice）[sdellafera@csglaw.com]\nMelissa F. Wernick（特别准许出庭律师，admitted pro hac vice）[mwernick@csglaw.com]\nCHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC\n105 Eisenhower Parkway\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n电话：(973) 325-1500\n传真：(973) 325-1501\nMei Guo、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC、Lee Vartan 律师及 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 之代理律师\n\n以及\n\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144) [aromney@zeislaw.com]\nJames M. Moriarty (ct21876) [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com]\nZEISLER & ZEISLER PC\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5485\nMei Guo、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC、Lee Vartan 律师及 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 之当地代理律师","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Paul Hastings","Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1353,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1455,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1595,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1730,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1733,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2379,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-03-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-03-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:13:10"}