{"id":"court_ctb_1860_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1860,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- |          | x           |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      |          | :<br>:<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                |          | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                             | Debtors. | :<br>:      | (Jointly Administered)  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------  |          | x           |                         |\n\n# **REPLY OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO DEBTOR'S LIMITED OBJECTION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS RULE 2004 MOTION**\n\nLuc Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby submits this reply (the \"Reply\") in response to the limited objection filed by the Debtor [Docket No. 1814] (the \"Objection\") to the *Fifth Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Additional Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor, and Entities Doing Business with Debtor and Affiliated Entities* (the \"2004 Motion\"), 2 and respectfully states as follows:\n\n# **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Debtor's Objection to the Trustee's motion seeking Rule 2004 investigation\n\nof Nodal Partners LLC (\"Nodal\") is the latest, but far from the first, time the Debtor has\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\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Reply have the meanings set forth in the 2004 Motion.\n\nmisconstrued his role in this Chapter 11 Case to be that of the Trustee's antagonist. That is not the role of a debtor-out-of-possession. Rather, the Bankruptcy Code is explicit that such a debtor is supposed to cooperate with and assist a trustee. The Debtor is doing the opposite here by baselessly objecting to the Trustee's request for Rule 2004 discovery of a third party, Nodal, when even Nodal raises no objection to the 2004 Motion, and by also seeking the right to participate in every Rule 2004 deposition, which is not warranted and would only frustrate the Trustee's investigation into the Debtor's assets and affairs.\n\n2. Nodal, like Golden Spring (New York) Limited (\"Golden Spring\") and Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp\") before it, is paying the Debtor's legal fees without any transparency regarding the source of its funds, or what control the Debtor has over Nodal. These subjects are ripe for investigation. The Debtor acknowledges that Nodal is run by both a friend of the family and a supporter of the Debtor—the exact profile the Debtor has repeatedly used in other circumstances to try to obfuscate his control and ownership over valuable legal entities and place a buffer between his assets and his creditors. It is thus highly likely that Nodal may possess documents related to potential estate assets. The Debtor's objective in opposing the investigation of Nodal is transparent: to prevent the Trustee from learning about the true source of funding the Debtor is using to pay his legal fees and to hinder the Trustee's efforts to further unravel the complex web of entities the Debtor uses to hide his assets and conduct his business. Because the investigation of Nodal is appropriate, and because the Debtor has no standing to object to it in any event, his objection should be overruled.\n\n3. Finally, the Debtor's assertion that he has not received proper notice of the Rule 2004 investigation—and that he is entitled to notice of all future depositions—is based on a deliberate misreading of this Court's rules. The Debtor has been provided with the exact notice provided for under Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1(c) for this and every other Rule 2004 motion. There is no rule or law that supports the Debtor's new demand that he be included in each step of the Trustee's Rule 2004 investigation, nor is such a request appropriate, particularly given the Debtor's penchant for weaponizing these proceedings for seemingly the sole purpose of manufacturing cost and delay for his estate against the interest of his creditors.\n\n4. The Debtor voluntarily sought the protections provided pursuant to filing under Chapter 11. Along with the benefits the Bankruptcy Code affords the Debtor, he must also comply with its requirements. It is long past time for the Debtor to cease obstructing this case and allow it to proceed as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. The Debtor's Objection should be rejected for lack of standing and merit.\n\n### **ARGUMENT**\n\n### **A. Debtor Lacks Standing to Object to 2004 Motion**\n\n5. The Debtor has no standing to object to the 2004 Motion. In the bankruptcy context, standing requires an \"aggrieved person … directly and adversely affected pecuniarily\" by an order of a bankruptcy court. *Licensing by Paolo, Inc. v. Sinatra (In re Gucci)*, 126 F.3d 380, 388 (2d Cir. 1997). Generally, a debtor out-of-possession \"is not considered a 'party in interest' because he or she often lacks a pecuniary interest in property of the bankruptcy estate.\" *In re Yerushalmi*, No. 8-07-72816-LAS, 2019 WL 2385188, at \\*10 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2019). Accordingly, a debtor out-of-possession has standing to object to issues involving the administration of the estate \"only if there could be a surplus after all creditors' claims are paid.\" *See In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc.*, 218 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir. 2000); *see also In re Symka, Inc.*, 518 B.R. 888, 890 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2014) (denying a debtor out-of-possession's order to show cause requiring trustee to explain why trustee had not yet recovered certain alleged estate\n\nassets: \"It is a long-standing principle of bankruptcy administration that where all claims of creditors will not be paid and there will be no surplus to the debtor, *there is no standing to object to the administration [of the estate]* for lack of any pecuniary interest in the liquidation of assets and distributions to creditors\" (emphasis added); *In re Licata*, 659 Fed. Appx. 704, 706 (2d Cir. 2016) (debtor \"has the burden of showing that there is at least a reasonable possibility of a surplus\").<sup>3</sup> This Court has already determined—in light of the Debtor having asserted in his schedules that he has \\$3,850 in assets, no income, and no expectation of a change in his income, and has \\$373,803,498.09 in non-priority unsecured debt<sup>4</sup>—that the Debtor had failed to \"sufficiently establish[] that there is a reasonable possibility of a surplus in this case.\"<sup>5</sup>\n\n6. Accordingly, as a debtor out-of-possession, the Debtor has no standing to object to a 2004 motion directed to a third party that seeks to uncover assets belonging to the estate.\n\n### **B. Rule 2004 Investigation of Nodal is Appropriate and Necessary**\n\n7. Even if the Debtor had standing to object to the 2004 Motion—which he does not—the Trustee's 2004 Motion seeking investigation of Nodal is plainly merited. Nodal is the latest in a series of entities purporting to pay the Debtor's legal fees. 6\n\n8. The Debtor has repeatedly used entities believed to be controlled by the Debtor,\n\n<sup>3</sup> While a debtor out-of-possession has been found to have standing in some instances, such standing is limited to matters that might impact the debtor out-of-possession financially, such as objecting to nondischargeable claims, *see In re Yerushalmi*, 2019 WL 2385188, at \\*11 (\"[C]ourts . . . have found that a debtor [out-ofpossession] has standing where a debt is nondischargeable\"), or to standing explicitly granted under the Bankruptcy Code, such as the right to file a plan of reorganization, *see In re Potter*, 292 B.R. 711 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2002) (\"[A] debtor out of possession [retains] the right to file a plan of reorganization.\").\n\n<sup>4</sup> *See* the Debtor's schedules [Docket No. 78].\n\n<sup>5</sup> *Order Overruling Objections to Claims 16, 17, and 18*, at 3 (Docket No. 1399).\n\n<sup>6</sup> *See Third Supplemental Statement Re: Disclosure of Compensation of Attorneys for Debtor*, ¶ 2 (Docket No. 1774) (the \"Disclosure\").\n\nsuch as Lamp and Golden Spring, to pay his legal fees and expenses. 7 Frequently, these corporate entities purport to be controlled by the Debtor's family or his supporters, yet upon investigation their sources of funds all appear to lead back to the Debtor.\n\n9. Similarly, Nodal is described by counsel for the Debtor as being controlled by a friend of the Debtor's daughter and to be one of \"the Debtor's supporters.\"<sup>8</sup> That the Trustee seeks to understand, among other things, whether the funds being used to pay the Debtor's legal fees are actually estate assets, whether they are subject to a loan or funding agreement with the Debtor, or if Nodal is another vehicle for the Debtor's movement of funds and assets, is well within the scope of Rule 2004. *See In re Brown,* No. 18-10617-JLG, 2018 WL 4944816, at \\*3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2018) (\"Third parties . . . are subject to Rule 2004 examination 'if they possess knowledge of the debtor's acts, conduct, or financial affairs which relate to the bankruptcy proceedings.'\") (quoting *In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)); *In re Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund L.P.*, 583 B.R. 803, 810-11 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018) (\"The language of Rule 2004 is permissive and in the proper context the Court may authorize the examination of third parties that possess knowledge of the debtor's acts, conduct, liabilities or financial condition.\") (internal quotations omitted).\n\n10. The specific information that the Trustee seeks pursuant to his subpoena to Nodal is plainly appropriate. Among other things, the financial data that the Trustee has requested, and that the Debtor desperately seeks to keep hidden by claiming without basis that it may not be\n\n<sup>7</sup> *See Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor* [Docket No. 54] (disclosing that the source of compensation paid to former bankruptcy counsel of the Debtor was Lamp); Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated April 6, 2022 at 85:17-19 (Debtor stating that Golden Spring has paid his expenses since 2015).\n\n<sup>8</sup> *See* Objection at 4. Given these admissions, along with the Debtor's statement that the \"request are simply meant to harass Nodal based *solely on its relationship with the Debtor*,\" the Debtor's statement to the Court that Nodal \"has no apparent connection to the Debtor,\" *id.* at 2, is flatly baseless.\n\ninvestigated, is the very information the Trustee needs to understand the nature of Nodal's payments of the Debtor's legal fees, the source of the funding of those payments, and the relationship between Nodal and the Debtor. These types of documents are classic targets of any Rule 2004 investigation, as they bear directly on the Debtor's affairs and may shed light on potential assets of his estate.\n\n### **C. Debtor's Assertion That He Was Not Given Proper Notice Under Local Rule 2004-1 is Baseless**\n\n11. The Debtor argues that Local Rule 2004-1 requires \"that the Debtor and other parties in interest are entitled to notice of the date, time and place of a Rule 2004 examination at least a reasonable time prior to the examination taking place.\"<sup>9</sup> To support this assertion, the Debtor cites Local Rule 2004-1(b), which applies only to a 2004 examination agreed to orally or in writing between a party seeking a 2004 examination and a party to be examined (a \"2004 Agreement\"), and provides for the notice the Debtor now demands. Yet, Local Rule 2004-1(b) applies only to a 2004 Agreement, which neither the Nodal subpoena nor any other Rule 2004 investigation taken by the Trustee is based on. Rather, as the Court is aware, all Rule 2004 investigations in this case have been sought by motion, and thus are governed by Local Rule 2004-1(c). Local Rule 2004-1(c) provides that a party filing a Rule 2004 motion must provide the Debtor notice of the Rule 2004 motion itself but notably does not require any additional notice regarding the proposed examinations. 10\n\n12. With Local Rule 2004-1 clearly contradicting the Debtor's notice contention, the Debtor turns to a sleight of hand, stating that when Rule 2004-1(b) and (c) are \"read together,\n\n<sup>9</sup> Objection at 4.\n\n<sup>10</sup> It is undisputed that Trustee has always given the proper notice required by Local Rule 2004-1(c) in connection with his 2004 Motion examinations.\n\n[they] clearly establish\" that the Debtor is entitled to the notice provided for a 2004 Agreement. But there is no \"and\" or other conjoining language between Rule 2004-1(b) and (c), nor any other basis to suggest that the two rules are intended to be read together. Notably, the Debtor does not cite any law in support of his reading, nor would such a reading make sense; Rule 2004- 1(b) provides for the notice it affords in connection with a private 2004 Agreement because, otherwise, there would be no filing in the Court, and no interested parties would even be aware that a Rule 2004 examination was proceeding. A 2004 examination undertaken upon formal motion has no such issue, as all interested parties will receive notice of the motion upon filing.\n\n13. Despite the fact that he is not entitled to notice of the Trustee's examinations, the Debtor contends he requires notice to \"protect his interests.\" But, tellingly, the Debtor—despite having notice of every prior 2004 Motion examination—has never previously sought to participate in 2004 Motion examinations in the case.<sup>11</sup> In any event, even if the Debtor were correct that he is entitled to notice of the Trustee's examinations under Rule 2004-1 (which he is not), nothing in the rule even arguably gives the Debtor the right to attend and participate in those examinations.\n\n14. There is good reason to not include the Debtor in the Trustee's Rule 2004 examinations. As a debtor out-of-possession of an estate that has no prospect of a surplus, the\n\n<sup>11</sup> The one Rule 2004 Examination the Debtor did attend was that of Williams & Connolly, who requested that the Debtor's counsel be in attendance given the scope of Williams & Connolly's prior representation of the Debtor and its concern that the \"personal harm\" carve out of the *Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information* [Docket No. 856] (the \"Privileges Order\") might become an issue. No other Rule 2004 examinee has made a similar request, despite all being provided the Privileges Order, nor has the Debtor previously demanded to attend Rule 2004 examinations of his former counsel despite being aware that they had been served with subpoenas calling for their depositions. Moreover, counsel for the Debtor has repeatedly taken the position with regard to Rule 2004 investigations of his former counsel that it is incumbent upon those counsel, not his current bankruptcy counsel, to determine if sharing information with the Trustee is in compliance with the Privileges Order, and that the Debtor's current bankruptcy counsel did not want to be obligated to review all privileged information before it is produced to the Trustee.\n\nDebtor has no need to attend examinations for the purpose of protecting a pecuniary interest. The Debtor's presence, if anything, will only interfere with the Trustee's investigation. The Debtor has a history of suing counsel for malpractice and orchestrating protests against those he views as potentially harming him, and thus his participation in the Trustee's examinations many of which are of the Debtor's former counsel and his other advisors and associates—may have a chilling effect on the Trustee's investigation. Moreover, in a case such as this one, where employees and affiliates of the Debtor have worked tirelessly to avoid being served with Rule 2004 subpoenas, where the Debtor and his affiliates are alleged to have flagrantly moved assets out of the estate during the Chapter 11 Case, and where previously active Debtor-controlled entities such as Lamp Capital and Golden Spring have gone silent and refused to comply or reply when faced with Rule 2004 discovery, there is serious concern that the Debtor is trying to \"peer over the shoulder\" of the Trustee's investigation in an effort to stay one step ahead of the Trustee and the creditors of his estate.\n\n15. The 2004 Motion should be granted because the Debtor lacks standing to object to the 2004 Motion, the Motion seeks relief necessary to advance the Trustee's investigation, and because it is fully compliant with the Local Rules.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank.*]\n\nWHEREFORE, because the Objection fails both procedurally and on the merits, the\n\nCourt should overrule the Objection, grant the 2004 Motion, enter the proposed orders filed\n\ntherewith, and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: June 2, 2023 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n### LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Douglas S. Skalka*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) G. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| HO WAN KWOK et al.,                                         | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.12                                                  | :<br>:<br>: | Jointly Administered    |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on June 2, 2023, the foregoing was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case able to receive electronic notice by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDated: June 2, 2023 Luc A. Despins, as Chapter 11 Trustee New Haven, Connecticut By: */s/ Douglas S. Skalka*  Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n<sup>12</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 Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:\n:　第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n等人，　:\n:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:　（合并审理）\n----------------------------------------------------------　x\n第 11 章受托人对债务人关于第 11 章受托人依据《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条提出的第五次补充综合动议之有限异议的答辩\n\n在上述题头标注的 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称「债务人」）第 11 章案件（下称「第 11 章案件」）中获委任的第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins（下称「受托人」），特此提交本答辩（下称「答辩」），以回应债务人就《第 11 章受托人依据〈联邦破产诉讼规则〉第 2004 条及〈本地规则〉第 2004-1 条请求作出授权就与债务人相关的其他实体和个人以及与债务人及其关联实体进行业务往来的实体进行证据开示的命令之第五次补充综合动议》（下称「2004 动议」）所提交的有限异议 [案卷编号 1814]（下称「异议」），2 并谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 债务人对受托人请求依据第 2004 条对 Nodal Partners LLC（下称「Nodal」）进行调查的动议提出异议，这是债务人最近一次、但绝非首次将其在该第 11 章案件中的角色误解为受托人的对立面。这并非丧失财产管理权的债务人（debtor-out-of-possession）的角色。相反，《美国破产法典》明确规定，此类债务人应当与受托人合作并向其提供协助。债务人在本案中却反其道而行之，不仅对受托人请求对第三方 Nodal 进行依据第 2004 条的证据开示提出毫无根据的异议（即便 Nodal 本身对 2004 动议均未提出任何异议），而且还试图寻求参与每一次第 2004 条宣誓取证调查的权利，该项请求毫无依据，且只会阻碍受托人对债务人财产和事务的调查。\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称为郭文贵、Miles Guo 以及 Miles Kwok，并使用众多其他化名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 以及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于接收通知和联络之目的）。\n\n2 本答辩中使用但未另作定义的首字母大写术语具有 2004 动议中所规定的含义。\n\n2. Nodal 与此前的 Golden Spring (New York) Limited（下称「Golden Spring」）和 Lamp Capital LLC（下称「Lamp」）一样，正在为债务人支付律师费，而对其资金来源或债务人对 Nodal 拥有何种控制权却毫无透明度可言。这些事项完全属于调查的时机已成熟的范畴。债务人承认 Nodal 由其家族的一位友人兼债务人的一位支持者所经营——这与债务人此前在其他情况下反复用来试图混淆其对高价值法律实体的控制权及所有权、并在其资产与债权人之间设立缓冲带的手法如出一辙。因此，Nodal 极有可能持有与潜在破产财产相关的档。债务人反对对 Nodal 进行调查的目的显而易见：即阻止受托人了解债务人用于支付其律师费的真实资金来源，并阻挠受托人进一步理清债务人用于隐匿其资产并开展其业务的复杂实体网络。由于对 Nodal 进行调查是正当合理的，且无论如何债务人均无资格对其提出异议，其异议应予以驳回。\n\n3. 最后，债务人声称其未收到关于第 2004 条调查的正当通知——且其有权收到未来所有宣誓取证调查的通知——是建立在故意曲解本法院规则的基础之上的。就本次及所有其他依据第 2004 条提出的动议而言，债务人均已收到了《本地破产规则》第 2004-1(c) 条所规定的确切通知。没有任何规则或法律支持债务人关于必须让其参与受托人依据第 2004 条调查的每一步骤的新要求，且此类请求亦不恰当，特别是鉴于债务人屡屡将这些程序武器化，其表面上的唯一目的就是损害债权人的利益，为其破产财产制造费用和拖延。\n\n4. 债务人是自愿依据第 11 章申请破产保护以寻求救济的。在享受《美国破产法典》赋予债务人的利益的同时，其亦必须遵守法典的各项要求。债务人停止阻碍本案并让其尽可能迅速、高效推进的时机早已过去。债务人的异议因缺乏诉讼资格和实体理由而应予以拒绝。\n\n辩论理由\n\nA. 债务人缺乏对 2004 动议提出异议的诉讼资格\n\n5. 债务人无权对 2004 动议提出异议。在破产语境下，诉讼资格要求主体必须是因破产法院的命令而在财产上受到「直接且不利影响」的「受侵害之人」。Licensing by Paolo, Inc. v. Sinatra (In re Gucci), 126 F.3d 380, 388 (2d Cir. 1997)。通常而言，丧失财产管理权的债务人「不被视为『利害关系方』，因为其往往对破产财产不具有金钱利益。」In re Yerushalmi, No. 8-07-72816-LAS, 2019 WL 2385188, at *10 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2019)。因此，丧失财产管理权的债务人「仅在所有债权人的债权获得清偿后可能存在剩余资产的情况下」，方具有对涉及破产财产管理事务提出异议的诉讼资格。参见 In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc., 218 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir. 2000)；亦参见 In re Symka, Inc., 518 B.R. 888, 890 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2014)（驳回丧失财产管理权的债务人要求受托人解释为何尚未追回某些声称属于破产财产的资产之陈述理由令申请：「破产管理中有一项长期确立的原则，即在并非所有债权人债权都能获得清偿且对债务人而言不会产生剩余资产的情况下，因其对资产变现及向债权人分配不享有任何金钱利益，故不存在对 [破产财产的] 管理提出异议的诉讼资格」（强调为原文所加）；In re Licata, 659 Fed. Appx. 704, 706 (2d Cir. 2016)（债务人「负有举证责任以证明至少存在获得剩余资产的合理可能性」）。3 本法院此前已经认定——鉴于债务人在其财产明细表中声称其仅有 $3,850 的资产、无收入且预计收入不会发生变化，并负有 $373,803,498.09 的非优先无担保债务4——债务人未能「充分证明在本案中存在获得剩余资产的合理可能性」。5\n\n6. 因此，作为丧失财产管理权的债务人，债务人无权对向第三方发出的、旨在查明属于破产财产的资产的 2004 动议提出异议。\n\nB. 依据第 2004 条对 Nodal 进行调查是正当且必要的\n\n7. 即使债务人享有对 2004 动议提出异议的诉讼资格（而其实际上并不享有），受托人请求对 Nodal 进行调查的 2004 动议也显然是完全有理由的。Nodal 是声称为债务人支付律师费的一系列实体中的最新一家。6\n\n8. 债务人反复使用据信由债务人控制的实体（例如 Lamp 和 Golden Spring）来支付其律师费和开支。7 这些公司实体往往声称由债务人的家属或其支持者控制，然而经调查发现，其资金来源似乎最终全部指向债务人。\n\n3 虽然在某些情况下认定丧失财产管理权的债务人具有诉讼资格，但该等诉讼资格仅限于可能在财务上对丧失财产管理权的债务人产生影响的事项，例如对不可免责的债权提出异议，参见 In re Yerushalmi, 2019 WL 2385188, at *11（「法院……已认定，在债务属于不可免责的情况下，[丧失财产管理权的] 债务人享有诉讼资格」），或限于《美国破产法典》明确赋予的诉讼资格，例如提交重整计划的权利，参见 In re Potter, 292 B.R. 711 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2002)（「丧失财产管理权的债务人 [保留] 提交重整计划的权利。」）。\n\n4 参见债务人的财产明细表 [案卷编号 78]。\n\n5 驳回对第 16、17 和 18 号债权之异议的裁定，第 3 页（案卷编号 1399）。\n\n6 参见《关于债务人律师报酬披露的第三次补充声明》，第 2 段（案卷编号 1774）（下称「披露声明」）。\n\n9. 同样，债务人的代理律师将 Nodal 描述为由债务人女儿的一位友人所控制，且为「债务人的支持者」之一。8 受托人试图查明（除其他事项外）用于支付债务人律师费的资金是否实际上属于破产财产、是否受制于与债务人达成的借款或资助协议、或者 Nodal 是否是债务人转移资金和资产的又一工具，这完全属于第 2004 条的调查范围之内。参见 In re Brown, No. 18-10617-JLG, 2018 WL 4944816, at *3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区破产法院）Oct. 11, 2018)（「如果第三方『知悉与破产程序相关的债务人之作为、行为或财务状况』，则其属于依据第 2004 条接受审查的对象。」）（援引 In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)）；In re Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund L.P., 583 B.R. 803, 810-11 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018)（「第 2004 条的措辞具有许可性，在适当情形下，法院可授权对知悉债务人的作为、行为、负债或财务状况的第三方进行审查。」）（引文内部引号省略）。\n\n10. 受托人依据向 Nodal 发出的传票所请求调取的特定信息显然是正当适宜的。除其他事项外，受托人所请求的财务数据（即债务人毫无根据地声称不得进行调查而极力试图隐瞒的数据），正是受托人用于了解 Nodal 为债务人支付律师费的性质、该等付款的资金来源以及 Nodal 与债务人之间关系所必需的信息。此类文件属于任何依据第 2004 条调查的典型标的，因其直接关涉债务人的事务，并可能有助于查明其破产财产的潜在资产。\n\n7 参见《债务人律师报酬披露》[案卷编号 54]（披露支付给债务人前破产法律顾问的报酬来源为 Lamp）；2022 年 4 月 6 日《第 341 条电话债权人会议记录》，第 85:17-19 页（债务人陈述称 Golden Spring 自 2015 年起为其支付各项开支）。\n\n8 参见《异议》，第 4 页。鉴于这些自认，以及债务人关于相关「请求纯粹旨在仅仅基于其与债务人的关系而骚扰 Nodal」的陈述，债务人向法院作出的关于 Nodal「与债务人无明显关联」的陈述（同前，第 2 页）完全是毫无根据的。\n\nC. 债务人关于未根据《本地规则》第 2004-1 条获得正当通知的主张毫无根据\n\n11. 债务人主张，《地方规则》（Local Rule）2004-1 要求“债务人及其他利害关系方有权在进行《规则 2004》（Rule 2004）调查前至少一段合理时间内，获得关于该调查的日期、时间和地点的通知”。9 为支持此项主张，债务人援引了《地方规则》2004-1(b)，但该款仅适用于寻求 2004 调查的一方与接受调查的一方之间通过口头或书面形式达成的 2004 调查协议（以下简称“2004 协议”），并规定了债务人目前所要求的通知。然而，《地方规则》2004-1(b) 仅适用于 2004 协议，而受托人签发的 Nodal 传票或采取的任何其他《规则 2004》调查均非基于此类协议。相反，正如本法院所知，本案中所有的《规则 2004》调查均是通过动议提出的，因此受《地方规则》2004-1(c) 管辖。《地方规则》2004-1(c) 规定，提交《规则 2004》动议的一方必须向债务人提供该《规则 2004》动议本身的通知，但值得注意的是，该款并不要求就拟进行的调查提供任何额外通知。10\n\n12. 鉴于《地方规则》2004-1 明确与债务人关于通知的主张相抵触，债务人便玩起了花招，声称当《规则 2004-1(b)》和 (c) 款“结合在一起解读时，\n\n9 异议书第 4 页。\n\n10 毫无争议的是，受托人就其 2004 动议调查一直提供了《地方规则》2004-1(c) 所要求的正当通知。\n\n[它们] 明确确立了”债务人有权获得针对 2004 协议所规定的通知。但是，《规则》2004-1(b) 和 (c) 之间并无“和”或其他连接性表述，亦无任何其他依据表明这两条规则应当结合解读。值得注意的是，债务人并未援引任何法律来支持其解读，且此类解读也毫无道理；《规则》2004-1(b) 之所以就私下达成的 2004 协议规定了其所赋予的通知，是因为若非如此，法院将没有任何案卷记录，利害关系方甚至根本不会知晓正在进行《规则 2004》调查。而依据正式动议开展的 2004 调查则不存在此类问题，因为所有利害关系方在动议提交时都会收到该动议的通知。\n\n13. 尽管债务人无权获得受托人调查的通知，但其辩称其需要通知以“保护其利益”。然而，耐人寻味的是，尽管债务人收到了本案中以往每一次 2004 动议调查的通知，但他此前从未谋求参与本案中的任何 2004 动议调查。11 无论如何，即使债务人依据《规则 2004-1》有权获得受托人调查通知的主张是正确的（事实并非如此），该规则中也绝对没有任何内容可被认为赋予了债务人出席并参与这些调查的权利。\n\n14. 不让债务人参与受托人的《规则 2004》调查是有充分理由的。作为破产财产无任何盈余希望的非占有债务人（debtor out-of-possession），\n\n11 债务人唯一参与过的《规则 2004》调查是针对 Williams & Connolly（威廉姆斯与康诺利律师事务所）的调查，鉴于 Williams & Connolly 此前代表债务人的范围，以及其担心《关于与规则 2004 传票调取的文件和信息相关的律师-委托人保密特权和工作成果保护控制权的同意命令》[案卷号 856]（以下简称“特权命令”）中关于“个人损害”的除外条款可能引发争议，该所请求债务人的律师出席。尽管所有其他接受《规则 2004》调查的人员均已收到该《特权命令》，但并无其他人提出类似请求；债务人此前在明知其前任律师已收到要求其作证的传票的情况下，也从未要求出席对其前任律师的《规则 2004》调查。此外，债务人的律师针对其前任律师的《规则 2004》调查曾反复表明立场，认为应由那些前任律师而非其现任破产律师来判定向受托人分享信息是否符合《特权命令》，且债务人的现任破产律师不希望承担在所有特权信息提供给受托人之前对其进行审查的义务。\n\n债务人无需为了保护财产利益而出席调查。如果有任何影响的话，债务人的出席只会干扰受托人的调查。债务人素有起诉律师执业过错并对其认为可能伤害他的人组织抗议的历史，因此，他参与受托人的调查——其中许多调查对象是债务人的前任律师及其其他顾问和关联人士——可能会对受托人的调查产生寒蝉效应。此外，在诸如本案的案件中，债务人的雇员和关联方竭尽全力逃避接受《规则 2004》传票的送达，债务人及其关联方被指控在第 11 章案件（Chapter 11 Case）期间公然将资产转移出破产财产，且此前活跃的由债务人控制的实体（如 Lamp Capital 和 Golden Spring）在面临《规则 2004》证据开示时陷入沉默并拒绝配合或答复，在此情况下，存在严重的担忧，即债务人正试图对受托人的调查进行“从旁窥视”，以期比受托人和其破产财产的债权人领先一步。\n\n15. 本 2004 动议应予准许，因为债务人缺乏对 2004 动议提出异议的主体资格，该动议寻求推进受托人调查所必需的救济，且该动议完全符合《地方规则》。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n综上所述，由于异议书在程序和实体上均不能成立，\n\n法院应当驳回异议书，准许 2004 动议，签署随其一同提交的拟议命令，并给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2023年6月2日 康涅狄格州纽黑文\nLUC A. DESPINS，第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglas S. Skalka\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（经特许出庭（admitted pro hac vice））PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft（经特许出庭）G. Alexander Bongartz（经特许出庭）PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人之法律顾问\nUNITED 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院）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， :\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。12 :\n:\n: 联合审理\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n送达证书\n\n下述署名人特此证明，于 2023年6月2日，上述文件已完成电子提交。本提交文件的通知已通过电子邮件发送给上述第 11 章案件中所有能够通过本法院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统运行接收电子通知的各方当事人。各方当事人可通过本法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本提交文件。\n\n日期：2023年6月2日 Luc A. Despins，作为第 11 章受托人 康涅狄格州纽黑文 签署人：/s/ Douglas S. Skalka Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com 第 11 章受托人之法律顾问\n\n12 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（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, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知和联络目的）。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Miles Guo","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3181,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:36:39"}