{"id":"court_ctb_1791_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1791,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT HO WAN KWOK, *et al.*,","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*,\n\n ) )\n\n1\n\n)\n\nIn re: ) Chapter 11 ) Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) ) (Jointly Administered)\n\nDebtors. ) Re: ECF No. 1770\n\n## **ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL**\n\n Before the Court is the motion of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), Ms. Mei Guo (together with HK USA, the \"HK Parties\"), Attorney Lee Vartan, and Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (\"CSG\" and together with Attorney Vartan, collectively, the \"HK Attorneys\") for a stay pending appeal of this Court's Order Awarding Fees of Chapter 11 Trustee and His Counsel Pursuant to Sanctions Order (ECF No. 1693, the \"Order Awarding Amount of Sanctions\") and Order Denying Motion for Relief from Judgment/Order (ECF No. 1733, the \"Order Denying Reconsideration\"). (ECF No. 1770, the \"Motion for Stay.\")\n\nThe Order Awarding Amount of Sanctions determined the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") for the estate of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok, to compel the HK Parties to comply with Court-authorized subpoenas. The HK Parties and the HK Attorneys were jointly and severally sanctioned the fees and costs as compensatory damages for discovery abuses pursuant to Fed. R.\n\n<sup>1</sup> 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\nCiv. P. 37(b)(2)(C) by the Order Holding HK Parties in Contempt of Court and Sanctioning HK Parties, Attorney Vartan and Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC. (ECF No. 1537, the \"Sanctions Order.\") For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the Motion for Stay.\n\n There are four elements that must be established for a stay pending appeal, namely, \"the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury if a stay is denied, substantial injury to the party opposing a stay if one is issued, and the public interest.\" *Mohammed v. Reno*, 309 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2002). As with the Second Circuit's preliminary injunction standard, the movant's burden on the first element – likelihood of success on the merits – varies depending on the strength or weakness of the movant's argument on the other elements under the specific facts and circumstances of the case. *Reno*, 309 F.3d at 100–01; *see Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd.*, 598 F.3d 30, 35–38 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding *Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc.*, 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 1979) remains the law of the Second Circuit). Therefore, the Court will first consider those other elements.\n\nThe HK Parties and the HK Attorneys argue that they will suffer irreparable harm because the HK Parties are subject to a preliminary injunction and a prejudgment remedy and do not have substantial liquidity. However, there is no evidence in the record that establishes the extent of Ms. Guo's assets. Furthermore, while HK USA has repeatedly asserted under oath that its only asset is the Lady May, it also owned the Lady May II, a fact that was not disclosed and only discovered after the entry of the preliminary injunction and prejudgment remedy. It is therefore possible other assets exist. Accordingly, the HK Parties have not met their burden to establish that paying the sanction will result in irreparable harm. For their part, the HK Attorneys advance no argument as to how the HK Attorneys would be irreparably harmed. Therefore, the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys have not established irreparable harm.\n\n2\n\n As to the next element, the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys argue that there is no prejudice to the Trustee because he can otherwise seek compensation from Mr. Kwok's estate in the ordinary course. However, it is well established in this case that the Trustee's ability to seek compensation from Mr. Kwok's estate is extremely limited given the paucity of assets Mr. Kwok admits he owns. Moreover, the purpose of the sanction is not to provide compensation from Mr. Kwok's estate, but rather to require the payment of expenses caused by the failure of the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys to comply with subpoenas and court orders relating to the discovery dispute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37, made applicable in this case by D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 1001-1(a)(1) and 2004-1(a). Accordingly, the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys have not established lack of prejudice to the Trustee.\n\n With regard to the public interest element, the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys argue that the public interest supports a stay because the contempt power should not be lightly used. The Court does not understand this argument: As noted above, while the HK Parties – but not the HK Attorneys – were found in contempt, the sanction of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs was issued under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) – not as a sanction for contempt, but due to the failure to comply with the subpoenas and court orders. Nevertheless, the Court did not use the contempt power lightly. Nor did it award the payment of expenses under Rule 37(b)(2)(C) lightly. The public has an interest in the integrity of the modern discovery regime established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and parties involved in civil litigation must respect and abide those rules. For these reasons, the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys have not established that the public interest supports a stay pending appeal.\n\nReturning to the element of likelihood of success on the merits, the Court concludes the HK Parties' and the HK Attorneys' burden is heavier because they have failed to establish the\n\n3\n\nother elements. The HK Parties and the HK Attorneys argue that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their pending appeals of the Sanctions Order, the Order Awarding Amount of Sanctions, and the Order Denying Reconsideration. They argue that the Court erred in entering the Sanctions Order because the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys diligently attempted to comply with the Court's Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas (ECF No. 1353, the \"Order Compelling Production\") and/or they misunderstood an ambiguous order. They additionally argue that the Court erred in entering the Order Awarding Amount of Sanctions and the Order Denying Reconsideration because the Court did not afford the HK Parties 21 days to object to the Trustee's fees and the Trustee's fees are unreasonable.\n\nThe Motion for Stay does not seek to stay the Sanctions Order pending appeal. Nevertheless, because the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys raised the issue, the Court has considered whether the HK Parties diligently attempted to comply and whether there was a fair ground of doubt as to the terms of the Order Compelling Production. Upon continuing review of the facts and circumstances of this case, and its conclusion in the Sanctions Order that the HK Parties did not diligently attempt to comply and that the Order Compelling Production was clear and unambiguous, the Court determines that its conclusions in the Sanctions Order were appropriate. The Court concludes that the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys have not established a probability or possibility of success on appeal of the Sanctions Order.\n\nAs to the Order Awarding Amount of Sanctions and the Order Denying Reconsideration, the Court notes that the submission of the Trustee's fees was not a general-purpose fee application for compensation from estate assets. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(a)(6) provides that, unless a court orders otherwise, debtors, trustees, creditors, and indenture trustees (notably, the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys are none of these things) must be given 21 days' notice of an\n\n4\n\napplication for more than \\$1,000 compensation from the estate. The purpose of this Rule is that debtors, trustees as fiduciaries, creditors, and indenture trustees potentially have a pecuniary interest in assets of the estate and, hence, in the amount of compensation awarded from the assets of the estate.\n\nNo such pecuniary interest is at issue here. The Trustee's counsel are to be paid as compensatory damages through a sanction issued against the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys – an estate asset that does not exist but for the sanction. In sum, the submission of the Trustee's fees was ordered by this Court and was a *special* purpose application to determine the extent of compensatory damages due for disobeying the subpoenas and court orders, to which application Rule 2002(a)(6) is inapplicable.\n\nThe Court entered the Order Awarding Amount of Sanctions after a thorough review of the time entries, considering the nature of the work described. The Court is intimately aware of the work the Trustee's counsel had to do in seeking compliance with subpoenas and court orders and was well equipped to assess the reasonableness of the expenses awarded. As to the specific arguments raised by the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys, the Court concludes, as stated in the Order Denying Reconsideration, that they lack merit. By way of example, the following are arguments raised that are without merit:\n\n1. The HK Parties and HK Attorneys argue that the Trustee's approach of reducing by 50% the fees associated with time entries relating to the prosecution of the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 1046) addressing collectively Mr. Kwok and the HK Parties is unreasonable.\n\nThe Court disagrees. The 50% reduction approach is reasonable on these facts and circumstances. The prosecution of the Motion to Compel against Ms. Hing Chi Ngok and Greenwich Land LLC has been proceeding through a series of consent orders. The Trustee's application did not bill for these hours. The prosecution of the Motion to Compel against Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and Lamp Capital, LLC has proceeded through efforts to elicit a response where none has been forthcoming and, ultimately, to hold them in contempt. The Trustee's application did not bill for these hours. Mr. Kwok, however, made the same arguments as the HK Parties through the same attorneys in the\n\nsame pleadings and at hearings for much of the prosecution of the Motion to Compel. The Trustee's application billed for these shared hours and reduced the bill by half. Pointedly, the Trustee did not bill for the subsequent litigation about Mr. Kwok's invocation of the fifth amendment.\n\n2. The HK Parties and HK Attorneys argue that New York rates are unreasonable.\n\nThe Court disagrees. New York rates are reasonable because (i) Paul Hastings was retained at New York rates and (ii) these cases are extraordinary within this district.\n\n3. The HK Parties and HK Attorneys argue that the number of partner and of counsel hours worked are unreasonable.\n\nThe Court disagrees. The number of partner and of counsel hours worked was reasonable given the extent of the litigation related to this discovery dispute.\n\n4. The HK Parties and HK Attorneys argue that the fees sought are unreasonable because the HK Parties' objection to the Motion to Compel was partially sustained.\n\nThe Court disagrees. The Second Circuit, as the Court previously noted in the Sanctions Order, has held that it does not matter that the HK Parties objections to the Motion to Compel were partially sustained. *Liebowitz v. Bandshell Artist Mgmt.*, 6 F.4th 267, 288 (2d. Cir. 2021) (sanctions of attorneys' fees and costs discussed in different context).\n\nIn sum, the Court concludes that the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys have not established a\n\npossibility, probability, or likelihood of success on the merits.\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, the HK Parties and the HK Attorneys have not\n\nestablished the requisite elements for a stay pending appeal. Accordingly, it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED:** The Motion for Stay is **DENIED**.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 15th day of May, 2023.","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n债务人。\n\n关于：\nIn re:（案由：）\nChapter 11（第11章）\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)（案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)）\n(Jointly Administered)（合并审理）\nRe: ECF No. 1770（关于：ECF 第 1770 号文件）\n\nORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL（驳回上诉期间中止执行动议裁定书）\n\n提交本院审理的是 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，以下简称“HK USA”）、Mei Guo（郭美）女士（与 HK USA 合称“HK 当事方”）、Lee Vartan（李·瓦坦）律师以及 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC（以下简称“CSG”，与瓦坦律师合称“HK 代理律师”）提出的动议，请求在上诉期间中止执行本院的《根据制裁裁定授予第11章受托人及其律师费用的裁定》（ECF No. 1693，即“授予制裁金额裁定”）和《驳回从判决/裁定中请求救济的动议的裁定》（ECF No. 1733，即“驳回重新审议裁定”）。（ECF No. 1770，即“中止执行动议”。）\n\n《授予制裁金额裁定》确定了 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）先生以 Ho Wan Kwok 先生破产财产的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，为迫使 HK 当事方遵守法院授权的传票而产生的合理律师费和诉讼费用的金额。根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C)（《联邦民事诉讼规则》第37条第(b)款第(2)项第(C)目），通过《认定 HK 当事方藐视法庭并对 HK 当事方、瓦坦律师及 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 处以制裁的裁定》（ECF No. 1537，即“制裁裁定”），HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师被连带处以该等费用及支出，作为证据开示滥用行为的补偿性损害赔偿。¹ 基于下述理由，本院驳回中止执行动议。\n\n¹ 本批第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。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），地址：200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins（作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人，仅用于通知和通讯目的）。\n\n在上诉期间准予中止执行必须确立四个要件，即“实体胜诉的可能性、若拒绝中止将造成不可弥补的损害、若发布中止将对反对中止的一方造成重大损害，以及公共利益”。Mohammed v. Reno, 309 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2002)。与 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）的初步禁令标准一样，动议人对第一要件——实体胜诉可能性——的举证责任，取决于动议人在该案具体事实和情况下对其他要件的主张的强弱程度。Reno, 309 F.3d at 100–01；参见 Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30, 35–38 (2d Cir. 2010)（裁定 Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 1979) 仍为第二巡回法院的法律准则）。因此，本院将首先审查那些其他要件。\n\nHK 当事方和 HK 代理律师辩称，他们将遭受不可弥补的损害，因为 HK 当事方受到初步禁令及判决前救济的约束，并且没有大量的流动性。然而，记录中并无证据确立郭女士资产的范围。此外，虽然 HK USA 反复在宣誓后声称其唯一资产是 Lady May（梅号游艇），但它还拥有 Lady May II（梅号二号），这一事实未被披露，并且只是在作出初步禁令和判决前救济后才被发现。因此，可能还存在其他资产。据此，HK 当事方未能完成其举证责任，以证明支付制裁费用将导致不可弥补的损害。至于 HK 代理律师，他们并未就 HK 代理律师自身将如何受到不可弥补的损害提出任何论点。因此，HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师未能确立不可弥补的损害。\n\n关于下一个要件，HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师辩称，受托人不会遭受任何损害，因为他本可以在通常程序中从郭先生的破产财产中寻求报酬。然而，在本案中已明确确立的是，鉴于郭先生承认其拥有的资产极其匮乏，受托人从郭先生破产财产中寻求报酬的能力极其有限。此外，该制裁的目的并非从郭先生的破产财产中提供报酬，而是根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 和 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37（《康涅狄格区民事本地规则》第37条，依据 D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 1001-1(a)(1) 和 2004-1(a)《康涅狄格区破产本地规则》适用于本案），要求支付因 HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师未能遵守与证据开示争议相关的传票及法院命令而造成的费用支出。据此，HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师未能确立受托人未受损害这一要件。\n\n关于公共利益要件，HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师辩称，公共利益支持中止执行，因为藐视法庭权力不应被轻率使用。本院不理解该论点：如上所述，虽然 HK 当事方——但非 HK 代理律师——被认定藐视法庭，但合理律师费和诉讼费用的制裁是根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) 作出的——并非作为藐视法庭的制裁，而是由于未能遵守传票和法院命令。尽管如此，本院并未轻率使用藐视法庭权力。本院也未轻率裁定根据 Rule 37(b)(2)(C) 支付费用。公众对《联邦民事诉讼规则》所确立的现代证据开示制度的完整性享有利益，参与民事诉讼的各方当事人必须尊重并遵守这些规则。基于这些理由，HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师未能确立公共利益支持上诉期间中止执行。\n\n回到实体胜诉可能性这一要件，本院认定 HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师的举证责任更加沉重，因为他们未能确立其他要件。HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师辩称，他们就其待决的针对《制裁裁定》、《授予制裁金额裁定》和《驳回重新审议裁定》的上诉具有实体胜诉的可能性。他们辩称，本院在作出《制裁裁定》时犯了错误，因为 HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师曾尽力试图遵守本院的《部分准予强迫遵守第2004条传票动议的裁定》（ECF No. 1353，即“强迫提供证据裁定”），并且/或者他们对一份存在歧义的裁定产生了误解。他们还辩称，本院在作出《授予制裁金额裁定》和《驳回重新审议裁定》时犯了错误，因为本院没有给予 HK 当事方 21 天的时间来对受托人的律师费提出异议，且受托人的律师费是不合理的。\n\n《中止执行动议》并未请求在上诉期间中止执行《制裁裁定》。然而，由于 HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师提出了这一问题，本院已考虑了 HK 当事方是否曾尽力试图遵守，以及对《强迫提供证据裁定》的条款是否存在合理怀疑理由。在持续审查本案事实和情况，并结合其在《制裁裁定》中得出的 HK 当事方并未尽力试图遵守且《强迫提供证据裁定》清晰明确的结论后，本院认定其在《制裁裁定》中的结论是适当的。本院认定，HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师未能在对《制裁裁定》的上诉中确立胜诉的几率或可能性。\n\n关于《授予制裁金额裁定》和《驳回重新审议裁定》，本院指出，受托人律师费用的提交并非是从破产财产资产中获得报酬的通用性费用申请。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(a)(6)（《联邦破产诉讼规则》第2002条第(a)款第(6)项）规定，除非法院另有命令，对于从破产财产中获得超过 $1,000 报酬的申请，必须给予债务人、受托人、债权人和契约受托人（值得注意的是，HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师均非上述任何一种身份）21 天的通知期。该规则的目的在于，债务人、作为受托人的受托人、债权人和契约受托人对破产财产的资产、并因而对从破产财产资产中授予的报酬金额潜在享有金钱利益。\n\n此处并不涉及任何此类金钱利益。受托人的代理律师将通过对 HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师作出的制裁作为补偿性损害赔偿获得支付——若非该制裁，该破产财产资产便不存在。总而言之，受托人费用的提交是由本院命令的，是一项用于确定因不服从传票和法院命令而应支付的补偿性损害赔偿范围的专项申请，Rule 2002(a)(6) 不适用于该申请。\n\n本院在全面审查工时记录并考虑所描述工作的性质后，作出了《授予制裁金额裁定》。本院对受托人的代理律师在寻求遵守传票和法院命令方面所必须进行的工作非常清楚，并完全有能力评估所授予费用的合理性。关于 HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师提出的具体论点，如《驳回重新审议裁定》中所述，本院认定这些论点缺乏依据。举例来说，以下提出的论点均无依据：\n\n1. HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师辩称，受托人将涉及同时针对郭先生和 HK 当事方推进《强迫执行动议》（ECF No. 1046）的工时记录扣减 50% 费用的做法是不合理的。\n\n本院不同意。在这些事实和情况下，50% 扣减的做法是合理的。针对 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）女士和 Greenwich Land LLC 推进《强迫执行动议》一直是通过一系列同意裁定进行的。受托人的申请并未就这些工时计费。针对 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（源泉（纽约）有限公司）和 Lamp Capital, LLC 推进《强迫执行动议》是通过在未得到任何回应的情况下努力争取回应，并最终追究其藐视法庭责任的方式进行的。受托人的申请并未就这些工时计费。然而，在推进《强迫执行动议》的大部分过程中，郭先生通过相同的代理律师，在相同的诉讼文书和听证会上提出了与 HK 当事方相同的论点。受托人的申请对这些共同的工时进行了计费，并将账单扣减了一半。值得指出的是，受托人并未对随后关于郭先生援引第五修正案的诉讼进行计费。\n\n2. HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师辩称纽约费率是不合理的。\n\n本院不同意。纽约费率是合理的，因为 (i) 聘用普衡律师事务所时采用的就是纽约费率，并且 (ii) 这些案件在本司法辖区内属于非同寻常的案件。\n\n3. HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师辩称合伙人和顾问律师的工作小时数是不合理的。\n\n本院不同意。鉴于与该证据开示争议相关的诉讼范围，合伙人和顾问律师的工作小时数是合理的。\n\n4. HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师辩称所请求的费用是不合理的，因为 HK 当事方对《强迫执行动议》的异议获得了部分支持。\n\n本院不同意。正如本院此前在《制裁裁定》中所指出的，第二巡回法院已认定，HK 当事方对《强迫执行动议》的异议获得部分支持并不重要。Liebowitz v. Bandshell Artist Mgmt., 6 F.4th 267, 288 (2d. Cir. 2021)（在不同语境下讨论了律师费和诉讼费用的制裁）。\n\n综上所述，本院认定 HK 当事方和 HK 代理律师未能确立在实体上具有任何几率、概率或可能性获得胜诉。\n\n基于上述理由，HK Parties（香港当事方）与 HK Attorneys（香港代理律师）未能确立上诉期间中止执行所需的法定要件。据此，特此\n\n裁定：中止动议予以驳回。\n\n2023年5月15日订于 Bridgeport, Connecticut（康涅狄格州布里奇波特）。","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Despins","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1046,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1353,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1537,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1693,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1733,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1770,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2036,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:02:46"}