{"id":"court_ctb_1862_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1862,"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>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                |          | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                             | Debtors. | :<br>:<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------  |          | x           |                         |\n\n# **REPLY OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO GREENWICH LAND LLC AND HING CHI NGOK'S OBJECTION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS RULE 2004 MOTION**\n\nLuc A. 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 support of the Trustee's *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* [ECF No. 1789] (the \"2004 Motion\") and in response to the Greenwich Land, LLC's (\"Greenwich Land\") and Hing Chi Ngok's (\"Ms. Ngok\" and, together with Greenwich Land, collectively, the \"Objectors\") *Objection* thereto [ECF No. 1813] (the \"Objection\").<sup>2</sup> In Reply to the Objection, the Trustee respectfully states the following:\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 Motion to Expedite have the meanings set forth in the 2004 Motion.\n\n1. The Objection fails, because this Court already ruled – quite correctly – that the \"pending-action\" doctrine does not prohibit the Trustee from conducting a Bankruptcy Rule 2004 investigation as to examinees that are non-parties to a pending adversary proceeding, merely because the Trustee's investigation could uncover information relevant to the existing litigation.\n\n2. Indeed, last November, another combination of family member and shell company\n\nassociated with the Debtor (*i.e.*, Mei Guo and HK International Funds Investment (USA) Ltd.,\n\nLLC (the \"Prior Objectors\")) objected to the Trustee's *Second Supplemental Omnibus Motion for*\n\n*2004 Examination* for substantially the same reasons as those that premise the instant Objection.\n\n3. Following briefing and a lengthy hearing, the Court conclusively rejected the Prior\n\nObjectors' arguments:\n\nUpon consideration of the pleadings, the arguments advanced at the hearing, the facts and circumstances of this case, and the applicable law, the Court finds the pending proceeding doctrine is not a bar to the examinations of Apsley Yachts Ltd. and DWF LLP because they are not parties to the pending adversary *HK Int'l Funds Invs. (USA) Ltd., LLC v. Despins ex rel. Kwok*, Case No. 22-05003 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. 2022). *Compare In re SunEdison*, 572 B.R. 482, 490 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017) (\"The Debtors are not parties to the State Court Action, and hence, the rule does not apply to them.\"); *In re Washington Mutual, Inc.*, 408 B.R. 45, 53 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009) (\"The possibility that JPM may intervene in the DC Action is not a sufficient reason to deny the Debtors' Motion at this time. The 'pending proceeding' rule is predicated on there actually being a pending action involving the two parties. JPM has not cited any authority for the proposition that a Rule 2004 examination of an entity is improper when a proceeding is pending in another venue against a third party and there is a 'substantial likelihood' that the examinee may intervene.\") (internal citations omitted); *In re Ecam Publications, Inc.*, 131 B.R. 556, 560–61 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y 1991) (allowing 2004 examination by trustee of parties, against whom the trustee had bought but not yet brought claims) *with In re Martelli*, Nos. 16-20983- PRW, 16-20316-PRW, 16-20968-PRW, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 2015, at \\*12-13 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. July 20, 2017) (applying pending proceeding rule to nonparties to that proceeding because the material was sought by a party to the proceeding and was related to the proceeding); *In re Enron Corp.*, 281 B.R. 836, 838 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) (applying pending proceeding rule to a non-party to that proceeding because \"no party disputes that the automatic discovery stay of the [Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(b)(3)(B)] applies to McKinsey.\"); *cf. In re Cambridge Analytica, LLC*, 600 B.R. 750 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019) (unclear who was the target of the 2004 examination); *In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 30 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996) (applying pending proceeding rule where discovery was sought by a party to the proceeding against a third-party defendant to that proceeding); *Sweetland v. Szadkowski (In re Szadkowski)*, 198 B.R. 140 (Bankr. D. Md. 1996) (applying pending proceeding doctrine a party to the proceeding was seeking discovery against another party to that proceeding.).\n\n*Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Second Supplemental Omnibus Motion for 2004 Examination* [ECF No. 1184] (the \"Prior Decision\").\n\n4. The Court's Prior Decision is law of the case, and it is fatal to this recycled Objection. \"Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, once a court has ruled on an issue, that decision should generally be adhered to by that court in subsequent stages in the same case.\" *VFI KR SPE I, LLC v. Caldwell (In re ServiCom, LLC)*, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 424, \\*42, 2021 WL 825155 (Bankr. D. Conn. Feb. 24, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (*citing U.S. v. Carr*, 557 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2009); *United States v. Quintieri*, 306 F.3d 1217, 1225 (2d Cir.2002)). The doctrine provides that the Court's ruling on legal issues should continue to govern in a case, \"unless cogent and compelling reasons militate otherwise. Cogent and compelling reasons include an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.\" *Coan v. Licata (In re First Conn. Consulting Grp., Inc.)*, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 852, \\*76 (Bankr. D. Conn. March 31, 2023) (*citing Quintieri*, 306 F.3d at 1230).\n\n5. The Objectors offer nothing approaching this demanding standard. Rather, curiously, the instant Objection obliquely cites to the Prior Decision by ECF and page number – but only to purport that \"[c]ases previously relied upon by the Trustee to avoid the pending action doctrine are inapplicable to the current Rule 2004 Motion and Defendants.\" (Objection at ¶ 11.) But the Prior Decision is not merely argument by the Trustee. Rather, it is this Court's conclusive ruling rejecting the very basis for this new Objection. Moreover, the authority discussed by the\n\nCourt in the Prior Decision is on point and that offered by the Objectors is inapposite.\n\n6. Nor would granting the Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery sought by the 2004 Motion prejudice the Objectors. The Trustee, based on his investigation, understands Bento Technologies, Inc. (\"Bento\") to be a spending management platform used by the Debtor to distribute funds to and track the spending of various associated individuals and entities – including, but notably not limited to, Greenwich Land. This use of Bento is consistent with the Debtor's *modus operandi* – *i.e.*, a shell game involving a vast web of companies through which his cash and other assets have flowed.\n\n7. To the extent that the Objectors have had financial dealings involving Bento, they should already have any relevant records and should have produced them to the Trustee themselves in response to the Bankruptcy Rule 2004 subpoenas that the Trustee issued to the Objectors. If the Objectors failed to do so, and now legitimately believe that they need discovery to uncover their own financial conduct, then they are free to undertake that discovery in the pending adversary proceeding. Nothing about the Trustee's more general Bankruptcy Rule 2004 investigation forecloses the Objectors' rights to seek discovery in the adversary proceeding.\n\n8. By contrast, embracing the Objectors' argument – that the Trustee should not be permitted Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery if the subject matter could possibly implicate an existing adversary proceeding – would hobble the Trustee's investigation. The Debtor's financial affairs are convoluted by design. The transactions of one shell company often implicate the financial affairs of numerous other entities and individuals associated with the Debtor. Demanding the Trustee completely \"carve-out\" subject matter that might be relevant to pending adversary proceedings from Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery is impractical if not impossible.\n\n4\n\n9. The Objectors' other arguments (*i.e.*, those regarding use of the fruits of a Bankruptcy Rule 2004 investigation in an adversary proceeding (*e.g.*, Objection at ¶¶ 10-11)) are not properly before the Court. The Trustee reserves his rights to address those arguments if and when any such disagreements arise.\n\n10. The Objectors' interest in obstructing the Trustee's investigation is unsurprising, but their efforts to recycle arguments previously rejected by the Court are inappropriate. The Court should overrule the Objection and grant the 2004 Motion.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Court should overrule the Objection, grant\n\nthe 2004 Motion, and grant such other and further relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: June 2, 2023 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n#### LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* 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\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>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.3                                                   | :<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\nNew Haven, Connecticut\n\nDated: June 2, 2023 Luc A. Despins, as Chapter 11 Trustee\n\n By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*  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\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n<sup>3</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\n（美国康涅狄格区联邦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）\n等，　:\n:　案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:\n:　（合并审理）\n----------------------------------------------------------　x\n第 11 章受托人对 GREENWICH LAND LLC 与 HING CHI NGOK（岳庆芝）就第 11 章受托人根据破产法第 2004 条提出的第五次补充综合动议所提异议的答辩书\n\nLuc A. Despins 以其在上述标头的 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”）第 11 章案件（下称“第 11 章案件”）中获任命的第 11 章受托人（下称“受托人”）身份，特此提交本答辩书（下称“本答辩书”），以支持受托人的《第 11 章受托人根据破产规则第 2004 条及本地规则第 2004-1 条申请下达裁定以授权对与债务人关联的其他实体和个人以及与债务人及其关联实体开展业务的实体进行证据开示的第五次补充综合动议》[ECF No. 1789]（下称“《2004 动议》”），并针对 Greenwich Land, LLC（下称“Greenwich Land”）和 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）（下称“Ngok 女士”，与 Greenwich Land 合称“异议人”）对此提出的异议 [ECF No. 1813]（下称“《异议》”）作出回应。2 就对该《异议》的答辩，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 及 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）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 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（仅用于通知与联络目的）。\n\n2 本动议中已使用但未另行定义的大写术语具有《2004 动议》中所规定的涵义。\n\n1. 该《异议》不能成立，因为本法院此前已经作出裁定——且完全正确——即“未决诉讼”原则并不禁止受托人针对属于未决附随诉讼之非当事人的被审查人开展 Bankruptcy Rule 2004（破产规则第 2004 条）调查，仅仅因为受托人的调查可能会发现与现有诉讼相关的信息。\n\n2. 事实上，去年 11 月，与债务人相关的另一组家庭成员及空壳公司（即 Mei Guo（郭美）与 HK International Funds Investment (USA) Ltd., LLC（下称“前次异议人”））曾对受托人申请进行 2004 审查的第二次补充综合动议提出异议，其理由与本案《异议》所依据的理由基本相同。\n\n3. 经过书面意见交换和漫长的听证会后，法院终局性地驳回了前次异议人的论点：\n\n经审议诉状、听证会上提出的论点、本案的事实和情况以及适用法律，本法院认定，未决诉讼原则并不构成对 Apsley Yachts Ltd. 和 DWF LLP 进行审查的障碍，因为它们并非未决附随诉讼 HK Int'l Funds Invs. (USA) Ltd., LLC v. Despins ex rel. Kwok, Case No. 22-05003 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. 2022) 的当事人。对比 In re SunEdison, 572 B.R. 482, 490 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)（“债务人并非州法院诉讼的当事人，因此该规则不适用于他们。”）；In re Washington Mutual, Inc., 408 B.R. 45, 53 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009)（“JPM 可能介入哥伦比亚特区诉讼的可能性不足以构成目前驳回债务人动议的充分理由。‘未决诉讼’规则以涉及双方当事人的实际未决诉讼为前提。JPM 并未引用任何判例支持以下主张：即当在另一审判地对第三方提起的诉讼悬而未决且被审查人‘极有可能’介入时，对某一实体进行第 2004 条审查是不正当的。”）（引文省略）；In re Ecam Publications, Inc., 131 B.R. 556, 560–61 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y 1991)（允许受托人对其实际已收购但尚未提出索赔诉讼的当事人进行 2004 审查）；与 In re Martelli, Nos. 16-20983-PRW, 16-20316-PRW, 16-20968-PRW, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 2015, at *12-13 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. July 20, 2017)（将未决诉讼规则适用于该诉讼的非当事人，因为该材料是由诉讼当事人寻求且与诉讼有关）；In re Enron Corp., 281 B.R. 836, 838 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)（将未决诉讼规则适用于该诉讼的非当事人，因为“各方当事人对 [1995年《私人证券诉讼改革法》, 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(b)(3)(B)] 的证据开示自动中止适用于麦肯锡一事均无争议”）；亦可参见 In re Cambridge Analytica, LLC, 600 B.R. 750 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)（不清楚谁是 2004 审查的目标）；In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 30 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)（在诉讼当事人向该诉讼的第三方被告寻求证据开示的情况下适用未决诉讼规则）；Sweetland v. Szadkowski (In re Szadkowski), 198 B.R. 140 (Bankr. D. Md. 1996)（在诉讼的一方当事人向该诉讼的另一方当事人寻求证据开示时适用未决诉讼原则）。\n\n《准许第 11 章受托人申请进行 2004 审查的第二次补充综合动议的裁定书》[ECF No. 1184]（下称“《前次裁定》”）。\n\n4. 法院的《前次裁定》属于既立案法（law of the case），对这一翻版的《异议》是致命的。“根据既立案法原则，一旦法院就某一问题作出裁定，该法院在同一案件的后续阶段通常应遵循该决定。”VFI KR SPE I, LLC v. Caldwell (In re ServiCom, LLC), 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 424, *42, 2021 WL 825155 (Bankr. D. Conn. Feb. 24, 2021)（内部引号省略）（引用 U.S. v. Carr, 557 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2009); United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217, 1225 (2d Cir.2002)）。该原则规定，法院对法律问题的裁定应在案件中继续具有约束力，“除非存在令人信服且不可抗拒的相反理由。令人信服且不可抗拒的理由包括具有约束力的法律发生中途变更、新证据的出现，或者纠正明显错误或防止显失公正的需要。”Coan v. Licata (In re First Conn. Consulting Grp., Inc.), 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 852, *76 (Bankr. D. Conn. March 31, 2023)（引用 Quintieri, 306 F.3d at 1230）。\n\n5. 异议人未能提供任何接近这一严苛标准的内容。相反，奇怪的是，本案《异议》仅通过 ECF 编号和页码间接提及了《前次裁定》——但其目的仅是声称“[受托人此前为规避未决诉讼原则所依赖的案例不适用于当前的第 2004 条动议及各被告]。”（《异议》第 11 段。）但《前次裁定》不仅仅是受托人的主张。相反，它是本法院终局性驳回这项新《异议》之根本依据的裁定。此外，法院在《前次裁定》中讨论的权威判例完全对准要点，而异议人提供的先例则不相关。\n\n6. 准许《2004 动议》所寻求的破产规则第 2004 条证据开示也不会损害异议人的利益。根据受托人的调查，受托人获悉 Bento Technologies, Inc.（下称“Bento”）是一个支出管理平台，债务人利用该平台向多名关联个人和实体（包括但值得注意的是不仅限于 Greenwich Land）分发资金并跟踪其支出。对 Bento 的这种使用与债务人的惯用手法（modus operandi）相一致——即涉及庞大公司网络的空壳把戏，其现金和其他资产正是通过该网络流转。\n\n7. 只要异议人曾发生涉及 Bento 的财务交易，他们就应当已经拥有任何相关记录，并且本应在回应受托人向异议人发出的破产规则第 2004 条传票时自行将这些记录提交给受托人。如果异议人未能这样做，且现在合理地认为他们需要通过证据开示来查明他们自己的财务行为，那么他们完全可以在未决的附随诉讼中开展该项证据开示。受托人开展的更具普遍性的破产规则第 2004 条调查绝不会剥夺异议人在附随诉讼中寻求证据开示的权利。\n\n8. 相反，如果采纳异议人的论点——即只要调查标的可能牵涉现有的附随诉讼，受托人就不应被允许进行破产规则第 2004 条证据开示——将会阻碍受托人的调查。债务人的财务事务在设计上就是错综复杂的。一家空壳公司的交易往往牵涉到与债务人相关的众多其他实体和个人的财务事务。要求受托人在破产规则第 2004 条证据开示中完全“剥离”可能与未决附随诉讼相关的标的事项，即使不是不可能，也是不切实际的。\n\n9. 异议人的其他论点（即关于在附随诉讼中使用破产规则第 2004 条调查成果的论点（例如《异议》第 10-11 段））未适当地呈递于法院面前。受托人保留在出现任何此类分歧时处理这些论点的权利。\n\n10. 异议人阻挠受托人调查的企图并不令人意外，但他们翻炒此前已被法院驳回的论点的做法是不恰当的。法院应当驳回该《异议》并准许《2004 动议》。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n据此，基于前述理由，法院应当驳回该《异议》，准许《2004 动议》，并准予公正且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/ Patrick R. Linsey 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\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n（美国康涅狄格区联邦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:\n:　案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。3　:\n:　合并审理\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n送达证明\n\n下述签名人特此证明，于 2023年6月2日，前述文件已通过电子方式归档。此归档通知已通过电子邮件发送至上述标头的第 11 章案件中所有能够通过法院电子归档（“CM/ECF”）系统运行接收电子通知的当事人。各方当事人均可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本文件。\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\n日期：2023年6月2日 Luc A. Despins，以第 11 章受托人身份\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey 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\n\n第 11 章受托人之代理律师\n\n3 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 及 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）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 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（仅用于通知与联络目的）。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1184,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1789,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1813,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1865,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:04:24"}