{"id":"court_ctb_1912_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1912,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-06-19","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"撤销传票紧急动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1912（2023-06-19立案）。第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提出紧急动议，请求法院撤销郭美（Mei Guo）及 HK USA 就「Lady May」号游艇出售动议向受托人及其经纪人发出的取证与调卷传票，理由是法院已裁定游艇及 HK USA 属于破产财产，相关方缺乏参与该出售动议的诉讼主体资格（standing）。","summary_en":"Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1912 (filed 2023-06-19). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins filed an emergency motion requesting an order to quash deposition and document subpoenas served by Mei Guo and HK USA in connection with the Lady May yacht sale motion, arguing that the HK Parties lack standing to seek discovery following prior court orders establishing that the yacht and HK USA belong to the bankruptcy estate.","body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
:
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n\n## **EMERGENCY MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULES 9014(c) AND 9016, QUASHING SUBPOENAS AND CONFIRMING THAT HK PARTIES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY IN CONNECTION WITH TRUSTEE'S LADY MAY SALE 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\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully moves (the \"Motion to Quash\"), under Rules 9014(c) and 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), for entry of an order, substantially in the form of the proposed order attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"), (a) quashing the Subpoenas (defined below) directed to the Trustee and to the Trustee's broker, by Mei Guo and Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\" and, together with Mei Guo, the \"HK Parties\") in connection with the Trustee's *Motion, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 105 and 363, Bankruptcy Rules 2002, 6004(C), and 9014, and Local Rules 6004-1 and 6004 2, Seeking Entry Of Order: (I) Authorizing and Approving Sale of the Lady May Free and Clear Of Liens, Claims, Interests, and Encumbrances,*\n\n1 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*(II) Authorizing and Approving Purchase and Sale Agreement, and (III) Granting Related Relief* [Docket No. 1858] (the \"Sale Motion\"), and (b) confirming that the HK Parties are not entitled to any discovery in connection with the Sale Motion. In support of the Motion to Quash, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. On June 14 and 16, 2023, the HK Parties emailed the Trustee's counsel subpoenas demanding depositions and document productions \"in connection with the Lady May Sale\" from the Trustee2 and the Trustee's broker.3 The dates for the proposed depositions are June 20 and 21, respectively. Because the HK Parties lack standing to be heard on the Sale Motion, they have no authority to issue the Subpoenas, and the Subpoenas should be quashed.\n\n2. The HK Parties were previously participants in this chapter 11 case based on HK USA's purported ownership interest in the Lady May. On March 27, 2023, however, the Court entered its order granting the Trustee's motion for summary judgment declaring that the Lady May is property of the estate, thus paving the way for its sale (the \"Lady May SJ Order\"). 4 The Lady May SJ Order was effective immediately by its terms, and the HK Parties have not obtained a stay pending appeal—in fact, the HK Parties *did not even move for a stay pending appeal of the Lady May SJ order until today,* nearly three months after its entry. The Trustee intends to oppose the stay motion, including on the grounds that it is untimely.\n\n3. In addition, neither of the HK Parties has asserted a proof of claim against the chapter 11 estate. Because the HK Parties have no ownership interest in the Lady May, and\n\n2 A true and accurate copy of the HK Parties' subpoena directed to the Trustee (the \"Trustee Subpoena\") is attached hereto as **Exhibit B**.\n\n3 A true and accurate copy of the HK Parties' subpoena (the \"Broker Subpoena\" and, together with the Trustee Subpoena, collectively, the \"Subpoenas\") directed to Dirk Johnson (\"Mr. Johnson\"), a sales broker with Edmiston and Company Limited (the \"Broker\"), is attached hereto as **Exhibit C.**\n\n4 The Lady May SJ Order appears at docket number 172 in Adv. Proceeding No. 22-05003.\n\nbecause they are not otherwise creditors or parties in interest in this case, they lack standing to be heard on the Sale Motion and may not seek discovery with respect to that motion.\n\n4. HK USA separately lacks authority to issue the Subpoenas in light of the Court's May 18, 2023 summary judgment decision declaring that the Debtor owns and controls HK USA as his alter ego (the \"Alter Ego SJ Order\"). The Alter Ego SJ Order, which has not been stayed and thus is immediately effective, explicitly provides that HK USA \"is and was at all relevant times the alter ego of\" the Debtor and that all of HK USA's property interests belong to the estate.5 Because the Trustee has stepped into the shoes of the Debtor, the Trustee now controls HK USA, and neither Mei Guo nor anyone else has authority to act on its behalf.\n\n5. The Trustee's counsel raised these issues by email with counsel for the HK Parties, who responded by refusing to withdraw the Subpoenas and inviting the Trustee to file this Motion to Quash. 6 That the Trustee is yet again needing to litigate against the Debtor's family members who seem determined to interfere with the Trustee's work is frustrating to say the least. Accordingly, not only should the Motion to Quash be granted, but the Trustee reserves all rights to seek reimbursement for his fees and expenses in filing the motion. For the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee will not be appearing at the noticed deposition on June 20, 2023 and, to the extent necessary, requests a stay of such noticed deposition pending resolution of this motion.7\n\n5 Alter Ego SJ Order, at 36.\n\n6 *See* Email exchange between Sam Della Fara and Nicholas Bassett, attached hereto as **Exhibit D**.\n\n7 The HK Parties have been aware of the timing of the filing of the Sale Motion and its hearing at least since their counsel attended a status conference regarding the sale on May 31, 2023 [Docket No. 1838]. (*See also* ¶ 16 *infra*.) The HK Parties then waited more than two weeks to issue the Subpoenas, which purport to schedule depositions on two- and three-business-days' notice. By failing to seek discovery promptly, the HK Parties necessitated the filing of this Motion to Quash on an emergency basis.\n\n### **JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STATUTORY BASIS**\n\n6. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Court\") has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. This Motion is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n\n7. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n8. The basis for the relief sought by this Motion is Bankruptcy Rules 9014(c) and 9016 (incorporating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45).\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n### **Procedural Background**\n\n9. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed with the Court a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of Bankruptcy Code.\n\n10. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the Debtor's chapter 11 case No examiner has been appointed.\n\n11. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Docket No. 465] directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to the Trustee Order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee.\n\n12. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [Docket No. 523].\n\n### **Relevant Proceedings Concerning HK USA and Lady May**\n\n13. On March 27, 2023, the Court entered the Lady May SJ Order [Docket No. 172 in Adv. Proc. No. 22-5003], finding, among other things, that the Lady May is property of the Debtor's estate.8 On April 10, 2023, the HK Parties filed a notice of appeal from the Lady May SJ Order [Docket 197 in Adv. Proc. No. 22-5003]. On June 19, 2023, nearly three months later, the HK Parties filed a motion for stay of the Lady May SJ Order pending appeal.\n\n14. On April 18, 2023, the Trustee filed his application [Docket No. 1675] (the \"Broker Retention Application\") to retain the Broker as broker for the sale of the Lady May (as well as the Lady May II). On April 27, 2023, the Court entered an order [Docket No. 1717] (the \"Broker Retention Order\") granting the Broker Retention Application.\n\n15. On May 18, 2023, the Court entered the Alter Ego SJ Order [Docket No. 221 in Adv. Proc. No. 22-5003] finding, among other things, that HK USA is and was at all relevant times the Debtor's alter ego, and that all of its property is property of the Debtor's estate. The HK Parties filed a notice of appeal [Docket No. 224 in Adv. Proc. No. 22-5003] and moved for a stay pending appeal, which the Trustee has opposed [Docket Nos. 227, 235 in Adv. Proc. No. 22-5003]. As the Court noted at a hearing on the HK Parties' motion for stay on June 13, 2023, there is presently no stay in effect with respect to the Alter Ego SJ Order.\n\n16. Prior to the filing of the Sale Motion, on May 23, 2023, and May 31, 2023, the Court held status conferences concerning the marketing and anticipated sale of the Lady May. At the May 31, 2023 status conference, the Trustee discussed the selection of a successful buyer for the Lady May, subject to the Court's consideration of a motion approving the sale, and the buyer's condition to close the sale by the end of June.\n\n8 On March 31, 2023, the Court entered the Amendment to Order Granting Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Partial Summary Judgment [Docket No. 182 in Adv. Proc. No. 22-5003] to also include a finding that the Lady May II is property of the Debtor's estate.\n\n17. On June 2, 2023, the Trustee filed the Sale Motion, which motion is pending before the Court. A hearing has been scheduled on the Sale Motion to begin on June 27, 2023, and to continue (if necessary) on June 28, 2023 [Docket No. 1859].\n\n### **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **A. HK Parties Lack Standing Because They Have Not Obtained Stays of Court's Summary Judgment Orders and are Not Parties In Interest**\n\n18. Neither HK Party is a creditor of the Debtor's estate or otherwise a party in interest who has legally cognizable interests in this chapter 11 case. Section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code defines \"party in interest\" to include the debtor, any trustee, creditors, and any official committees. 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b). Although this list of persons is not exhaustive, the law is clear that \"party in interest\" status is limited to those persons who have \"a direct financial stake in the [particular] proceeding in which [they] seek[] to be heard.\" *In re China Fishery Grp. Ltd. (Cayman)*, No. 16-11895 (JLG), 2018 WL 6824074, at \\*3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2018).\n\n19. The HK Parties have no stake in the sale of the Lady May. They are not creditors who stand to benefit from the estate's receipt of the sale proceeds, nor do they have any other interest in the outcome of the sale. Accordingly, they have no right to be heard.\n\n20. HK USA may contend it has standing because it is appealing the Lady May SJ Order, but that argument fails because HK USA has not obtained a stay pending appeal. The law is settled that holder of a disallowed claim lacks standing to be heard because disallowance constitutes a judicial determination that the holder has no right to payment—contingent or otherwise—from a debtor's estate. *See In re Kreisler Group, Inc.*, 648 F.2d 86, 88 (2d Cir. 1981) (\"We think that with respect to these and Seventh Avenue's other objections to the confirmation of the plan of arrangement, Seventh Avenue now has no standing to object, in view of the valid determination that it is not a creditor.\").\n\n21. Here, the Court has already entered the Lady May SJ Order and the Alter Ego SJ Order, overruling the only bases on which HK USA has ever claimed a stake in this chapter 11 case. These orders were effective immediately by their terms and are final notwithstanding HK USA's appeals. *See In re Bicoastal Corp.*, 146 B.R. 492, 494 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1992) (\"Since the last controlling Order entered by this Court is one which disallowed the claims of California and Mathews and there is no stay granted pending appeal, neither California nor Mathews have at this time an allowed claim and, therefore, they do not have a right to vote. The fact that the Order of Disallowance is challenged on appeal is of no moment because no stay pending appeal was sought or obtained.\"). Unless and until HK USA prevails on its appeal of the Lady May SJ Order, it has no standing to be heard and no ability to issue a subpoena relating to the Sale Motion. 9\n\n### **B. HK USA Lacks Authority to Serve Subpoenas**\n\n22. In addition to not being a party in interest under section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, HK USA lacks the ability to serve a subpoena (or take any other unilateral action) in light of the Alter Ego SJ Order. Pursuant to that order, the Court found and ordered that HK USA \"is and was at all relevant times the alter ego of\" the Debtor, based on, among other things, the Debtor's exclusive control of HK USA.10 The Court further held that all of HK USA's property\n\n9 Even if the pending appeal would somehow provide HK USA standing to oppose the Sale Motion (which it does not), it could not provide Mei Guo standing. Mei Guo is one step further removed in that she is the purported nominal member of HK USA, meaning her interest (if any) in the Lady May is derivative of HK USA's. Only parties who hold a direct interest in a bankruptcy estate are parties in interest with standing to be heard. *See Southern Blvd., Inc. v. Martin Paint Stores*, 207 B.R. 57, 61 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (\"A creditor, under the Code, is one who has a claim *against the debtor* or the estate. The concept does not, according to the Second Circuit, encompass a creditor of one of the debtor's creditors.\" (emphasis in original); *Heller v. Emanuel (In re Emanuel),* 450 B.R. 1, 7-8 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (creditor of creditor lacked standing to assert his own interest in the bankruptcy estate); *In re Lifeco Inv. Grp., Inc.*, 173 B.R. 478, 487 (Bankr. D. Del. 1994) (\"I find no statutory or judicial support to conclude that a creditor of a creditor has standing in a bankruptcy case. Indeed, numerous cases state the contrary.\"); *see also In re Greene Ave. Restoration II Corp*., 597 B.R. 202, 217 n. 14 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2019) (\"An entity that does not hold a financial stake in the case is generally excluded from the definition of 'party in interest.'\") (citing *In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.*, 101 B.R. 844, 849–50 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989)).\n\n10 Alter Ego SJ Order, at 36.\n\nis now property of the estate.11 Given this decision, other than actions that may be necessary to cause compliance with the Alter Ego SJ Order, only the Trustee—and not HK USA or Mei Guo or anyone else—has the ability to direct HK USA's actions and control its property. Accordingly, HK USA has no authority to issue the Subpoenas.\n\n23. The HK Parties claimed in email correspondence that the Alter Ego SJ Order merely rendered HK USA liable for the debts of the Debtor and transferred HK USA's assets into the estate. The Alter Ego SJ Order did not, they maintain, \"deem the [Debtor and HK USA] the same.\"12 This argument is both wrong and misses the point.\n\n24. As an initial matter, the Court did hold in its SJ Alter Ego Order that the Debtor and HK USA are one and the same. Indeed, it is for precisely this reason the Court found that the Stipulated Delivery Order (as defined in the Alter Ego SJ Order) was void *ab initio* on the grounds that it constituted a contract entered into by one party (the Debtor) with itself (HK USA).13\n\n25. Moreover, even if some distinction continues as to the Debtor and HK USA, the Alter Ego SJ Order unquestionably prohibits HK USA from serving the Subpoenas. The order clearly provides on its face that all property of HK USA is property of the estate under the exclusive control of the Trustee. Under the Bankruptcy Code, property of the estate includes legal rights in litigation. *In re Keener*, No. AP 14-09061, 2015 WL 1777446, at \\*4 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Apr. 16, 2015), *amended*, No. AP 14-09061, 2015 WL 5118691 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Aug. 28, 2015) (\"Property of the estate includes all of debtor's legal rights\"); *In re Atl. Gulf Communities Corp.*, 326 B.R. 294, 299 (Bankr. D. Del. 2005) (\"litigation rights are property of the estate\"). HK USA,\n\n11 *Id.*\n\n12 *See* Ex. D.\n\n13 *See* Alter Ego SJ Order at 30-31.\n\ntherefore, has no ability to exercise legal rights in litigation, including the issuance of subpoenas, without the Trustee's permission, and any attempt by it to do so violates the automatic stay.14\n\n26. For all of these reasons, neither HK USA nor Mei Guo has standing or authority to issue the Subpoena. The Trustee, therefore, respectfully requests that it be quashed.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant this Motion to Quash, enter the Proposed Order quashing the Subpoenas and ordering that neither the Mei Guo, her counsel, nor HK USA's purported counsel, are permitted to serve discovery in connection with the Sale Motion, and order such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n*[The rest of this page is intentionally blank.]*\n\n14 To the extent that the Court does not quash the Subpoenas and/or permits any discovery on the Sale Motion, the Trustee reserves all rights and bases to challenge any discovery sought for any and all additional reasons not specifically stated herein, including, without limitation, the irrelevance, ambiguity, and over-breadth of particular requests or the extent to which particular requests or areas of inquiry seek to invade the attorney-client privilege or other applicable privileges and protections.\n\nDated: June 19, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut 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\n\n(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*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@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: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :
x | |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on June 19, 2023, the foregoing Motion to Quash, and all exhibits and attachments thereto, was electronically filed. Notice of this filing will sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or, on June 20, 2023, by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDated: June 19, 2023 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n> By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n1 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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1912 Filed 06/19/23 Entered 06/19/23 15:50:19 Page 12 of 29\n\n## **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Proposed Order**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
:
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n\n## **[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING EMERGENCY MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULES 9014(c) AND 9016, QUASHING SUBPOENAS AND CONFIRMING THAT HK PARTIES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY IN CONNECTION WITH TRUSTEE'S LADY MAY SALE MOTION**\n\nUpon the motion (the \"Motion to Quash\")2 of Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), for the entry of an order (this \"Order\"), pursuant to Rules 9014(c) and 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), (a) quashing the Subpoenas directed to the Trustee and the Trustee's broker in connection with the Trustee's *Motion, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 105 and 363, Bankruptcy Rules 2002, 6004(C), and 9014, and Local Rules 6004-1 and 6004 2, Seeking Entry Of Order: (I) Authorizing and Approving Sale of the Lady May Free and Clear Of Liens, Claims, Interests, and Encumbrances, (II) Authorizing and Approving Purchase and Sale Agreement, and (III) Granting Related Relief* [Docket No. 1858] (the \"Sale Motion\"), and (b) confirming that the HK Parties are not entitled to any discovery in\n\n1 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\n2 Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall having the meanings set forth in the Motion.\n\nconnection with the Sale Motion; and this Court having jurisdiction to consider the Motion to Quash and the relief requested therein in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; and consideration of the Motion to Quash and the relief requested therein being a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); and venue being proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; and the Court having found that the relief requested in the Motion to Quash is in the best interest of the Estate, its creditors, and all parties-in-interest; and due and sufficient notice of the Motion to Quash having been given under the particular circumstances; and it appearing that no other or further notice need be given; and upon all of the proceedings had before this Court; and any objections to the relief requested herein having been withdrawn or overruled on the merits; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. The Motion to Quash is granted as set forth herein.\n\n2. The Subpoenas are hereby QUASHED.\n\n3. The HK Parties are not entitled to, and shall not, serve subpoenas or any other requests for discovery on the Trustee, Mr. Johnson or the Broker, or on any other party in connection with the Sale Motion.\n\n4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.\n\n5. The Trustee may, at his discretion, file a supplemental motion requesting that the Court award the Trustee his fees and costs incurred in connection with the Motion to Quash and require payment of same by Mei Guo. All of the Trustee's rights in this respect are reserved.\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1912 Filed 06/19/23 Entered 06/19/23 15:50:19 Page 15 of 29\n\n## **EXHIBIT B**\n\n**Subpoena of Trustee**\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1912 Filed 06/19/23 Entered 06/19/23 15:50:19 Page 16 of 29\n\nB2560 (Form 2560 – Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Bankruptey Case or Adversary Proceeding) (12/15)\n\n## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\n\nDistrict of\n\nCase No.\n\nIn re\n\nHo Wan Kwok, et al. Debtor\n\n(Complete if issued in an adversary proceeding)\n\n11 Chapter\n\nPlaintiff v.\n\nAdv. Proc. No.\n\nConnecticut\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDefendant\n\n## SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A BANKRUPTCY CASE (OR ADVERSARY PROCEEDING)\n\nLuc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee To:\n\n(Name of person to whom the subpoena is directed)\n\n| Y Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a deposition to be taken in this bankruptcy case (or adversary proceeding). If you are an organization, you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment:\n\n| PLACE Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC | DATE AND TIME |\n|---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|\n| 11 Times Square, 34th Floor
New York. NY 10036 | June 20, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. |\n| | |\n\nThe deposition will be recorded by this method:\n\nCourt reporter/stenographer\n\nProduction: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: See attached Schedule of Documents.\n\nThe following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, are attached - Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and 45(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.\n\nJune 14, 2023 Date.\n\nCLERK OF COURT\n\nSignature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk\n\nAttorney's signature Sam Della Fera, Jr/\n\nThe name, address, email address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)Mei Guo and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC , who issues or requests this subpoena, are; Sam Della Fera, Jr., Esq. - Chiesa Shahinian &\n\nOR\n\nGiantomasi PC, 105 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068. Phone: (973) 530-2076; E-mail: sdellafera@csglaw.com\n\n### Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena\n\nIf this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or the inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of this subpoena must be served on each party before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1912 Filed 06/19/23 Entered 06/19/23 15:50:19 Page 17 of 29\n\nB2560 (Form 2560 – Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Bankruptcy Case or Adversary Proceeding) (Page 2)\n\n| | | PROOF OF SERVICE | (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any):
on (date) -------- | | | |\n| | | I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: | |\n| | | contract and and the many on (date) on (date) on the contract of the consister of | |\n| | I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: | | |\n| | | My fees are \\$ for travel and \\$ for services, for a total of \\$ \\$ . | Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the
witness the fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of \\$ \\$ 2 = 1 = = = = = = = = |\n| | | I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true and correct. | |\n| Date: | | | |\n| | | | Server's signature |\n| | | | Printed name and title |\n\nServer's address\n\nAdditional information concerning attempted service, etc .:\n\nB2560 (Form 2560 - Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Bankruptcy Case or Adversary Proceeding) (Page 3)\n\n### Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) (made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Rule 9016, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure)\n\n#### (c) Place of compliance.\n\n(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:\n\n(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or\n\n(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person\n\n(i) is a party or a party's officer; or\n\n(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.\n\n#### (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:\n\n(A) production of documents, or electronically stored information, or things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and\n\n(B) inspection of premises, at the premises to be inspected.\n\n### (d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.\n\n(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees -- on a party or attorney who fails to comply.\n\n#### (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.\n\n(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.\n\n(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises - or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:\n\n(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.\n\n(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.\n\n#### (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.\n\n(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:\n\n(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;\n\n(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c);\n\n(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or\n\n(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.\n\n(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:\n\n(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or\n\n(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.\n\n(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:\n\n(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and\n\n(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.\n\n#### (e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.\n\n(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:\n\n(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.\n\n(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.\n\n(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.\n\n(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.\n\n#### (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.\n\n(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:\n\n(i) expressly make the claim; and\n\n(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.\n\n(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.\n\n(g) Contempt. The court for the district where compliance is required - and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court - may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.\n\nFor access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013)\n\n## SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS\n\n- 1. Any and all documents evidencing any and all communications between you (and/or Paul Hastings LLP) and Edmiston and Company Limited (\"Edmiston\"), the broker for the sale of the Lady May.\n- 2. Any and all documents evidencing communications between you (and/or Paul Hastings LLP) and any potential bidders for the Lady May.\n- 3. Any and all marketing materials relating to Edmiston's marketing campaign to advertise and sell the Lady May.\n- 4. Any and all communications between you (and/or Paul Hastings LLP) and the Initial Bidders (as that term is defined in Declaration of Dirk Johnson in Support of Trustee's Motion to Sell the Lady May [Doc No. 1858] (\"Declaration of Dirk Johnson\").\n- 5. Any and all documents evidencing communications between you (and/or Paul Hastings LLP) and the Second Round Bidders (as that term is defined in paragraph 15 of the Declaration of Dirk Johnson).\n- 6. Any and all documents evidencing communications between you (and/or Paul Hastings LLP) and the Buyer (as that term is defined in paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Dirk Johnson), regarding the Lady May.\n- 7. A copy of any and all appraisals of the Lady May obtained by you (and/or Paul Hastings LLP) or in your possession (or possession of Paul Hastings LLP).\n\n## **EXHIBIT C**\n\n**Subpoena of Broker**\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1912 Filed 06/19/23 Entered 06/19/23 15:50:19 Page 21 of 29\n\nB2560 (Form 2560 - Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Bankruptcy Case or Adversary Proceeding) (12/15)\n\n# UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\n\nConnecticut District of\n\nIn re Ho Wan Kwok, et al.\n\n(Complete if issued in an adversary proceeding)\n\nDebtor\n\n22-50073 (JAM) Case No.\n\n11 Chapter\n\nPlaintiff V.\n\nAdv. Proc. No.\n\nDefendant\n\n## SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A BANKRUPTCY CASE (OR ADVERSARY PROCEEDING)\n\nTo: Dirk Johnson - Edmiston and Company Limited, 2 Marina Plaza, Newport, RI 02840\n\n(Name of person to whom the subpoena is directed)\n\nLXXXestimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a deposition to be taken in this bankruptcy case (or adversary proceeding). If you are an organization, you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment:\n\n| PLACE Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC
11 Times Square
New York, NY 10036 | DATE AND TIME
June 21, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n\nThe deposition will be recorded by this method:\n\nCourt reporter/stenographer\n\nI Production. You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: See attached Schedule of Documents\n\nThe following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, are attached - Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.\n\nJune 14, 2023 Date:\n\nCLERK OF COURT\n\nSignature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk\n\nAttorney's signature Sam Della Fera, Jr/\n\nThe name, address, email address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)Mei Guo and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC , who issues or requests this subpoena, are: Sam Della Fera, Jr., Esq. - Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, 105 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068. Phone: (973) 530-2076; E-mail: sdellafera@csglaw.com\n\nOR\n\n### Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena\n\nIf this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or the inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of this subpoena must be served on each party before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1912 Filed 06/19/23 Entered 06/19/23 15:50:19 Page 22 of 29\n\nB2560 (Form 2560 – Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Bankruptcy Case or Adversary Proceeding) (Page 2)\n\n| | | I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any): | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| on (date)
1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - | | | |\n| | | I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: | |\n| | | on (date) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ; or | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | I I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the
witness the fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of \\$ | |\n| | | My fees are S for travel and \\$ for services, for a total of \\$ | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Date: | | I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true and correct. | |\n\nServer's address\n\nAdditional information concerning attempted service, etc .:\n\nB2560 (Form 2560 - Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Bankruptcy Case or Adversary Proceeding) (Page 3)\n\n### Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) (made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Rule 9016, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure)\n\n#### (c) Place of compliance.\n\n(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:\n\n(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or\n\n(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person\n\n(i) is a party or a party's officer; or\n\n(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.\n\n#### (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:\n\n(A) production of documents, or electronically stored information, or things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and\n\n(B) inspection of premises, at the premises to be inspected.\n\n### (d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.\n\n(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney who fails to comply.\n\n#### (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.\n\n(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.\n\n(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises - or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:\n\n(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.\n\n(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.\n\n#### (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.\n\n(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:\n\n(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;\n\n(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c);\n\n(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or\n\n(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.\n\n(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:\n\n(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or\n\n(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.\n\n(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:\n\n(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and\n\n(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.\n\n#### (e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.\n\n(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:\n\n(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.\n\n(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.\n\n(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.\n\n(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.\n\n### (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.\n\n(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:\n\n(i) expressly make the claim; and\n\n(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.\n\n(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.\n\n(g) Contempt. The court for the district where compliance is required - and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court - may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.\n\nFor access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013)\n\n### SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS\n\n- 1. Any and all documents evidencing communications between Edmiston and Company Limited (\"Edmiston\") and Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee for Debtors, Ho Wan Kwok, et al. (the \"Trustee\"), regarding the sale of the Lady May.\n- 2. Any and all documents and marketing materials referenced in the Declaration of Dirk Johnson in Support of Trustee's Motion to Sell the Lady May [Doc No. 1858] (\"Declaration of Dirk Johnson\") that were used in Edmiston's marketing campaign to advertise and sell the Lady May.\n- 3. Any and all documents and marketing materials described and/or mentioned in paragraphs 6-10, including the documents and marketing materials referenced in footnotes 4-5, of the Declaration of Dirk Johnson.\n- 4. A copy of the five formal offers from the Initial Bidders mentioned in paragraph 11 of the Declaration of Dirk Johnson.\n- 5. Any and all documents evidencing communications between Edmiston and the Initial Bidders, regarding the Lady May.\n- 6. Any and all communications and documents referenced in paragraph 13 of the Declaration of Dirk Johnson between Edmiston and the Initial Bidders, as well as to the other parties that expressed interest in the Lady May.\n- 7. Any and all documents evidencing communications between Edmiston and the Second Round Bidders (as that term is defined in paragraph 15 of the Declaration of Dirk Johnson), regarding the Lady May.\n- 8. Any and all documents evidencing communications between Edmiston and the Buyer (as that term is defined in paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Dirk Johnson), regarding the Lady May.\n\n## **EXHIBIT D**\n\n**Email Exchange between HK Parties' Counsel and Trustee's Counsel**\n\n## Sutton, Ezra\n\n| From: | Bassett, Nicholas | |\n|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Sent: | Friday, June 16, 2023 3:09 PM | |\n| To: | Della Fera, Sam | |\n| Cc: | Luft, Avi E.; Vartan, Lee; Wernick, Melissa F.; Stephen Kindseth; Aaron A. Romney
(aromney@zeislaw.com); Patrick Linsey | |\n| Subject: | Re: In re Kwok - Trustee Deposition Subpoena | |\n| Attachments: | image001.png; image002.png | |\n\nCaution: External Email. Verify you know the sender before clicking a Link.\n\nSam, we are planning to move to quash.\n\nThanks.\n\nNick Bassett, Partner Paul Hastings LLP 2050 M St., N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202.551.1902\n\nOn Jun 15, 2023, at 11:36 AM, Della Fera, Sam wrote:\n\n--- External Email --- Nick:\n\nYou are of course free to move to quash the subpoena for whatever reasons you deem appropriate. As to the standing issue, the Court's decision to which you refer, which is not a final order, clearly noted the distinction between the trustee's claims in his Second and Third Counterclaims. The alter ego relief sought in the Second Counterclaim, and granted by the court, merely \"render[ed] one entity [i.e., HK USA] liable for the debts of another individual or entity [i.e., the Debtor,] … [t]hus accomplishing the transfer of [HK USA's] assets into the bankruptcy estate.\" See also RS Air, LLC, et al v. NetJets Aviation, Inc., et al. (In re RS Air), BAP No. NC-23-1008-FSG at 13 n.5 (9th Cir. BAP June 2, 2023) (\"Although the alter ego doctrine requires a showing that the two entities 'operated as a single economic entity,' Official Unsecured Creditors' Comm. of Broadstripe, LLC v. Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P. (In re Broadstripe, LLC), 444 B.R. 51, 102 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010), the result is not to deem the entities the same, but to hold one liable for the other's debts, see Blair v. Infineon Techs. AG, 720 F. Supp. 2d 462, 469 (D. Del. 2010) [parenthetical omitted]).\"\n\nJudge Manning expressly did not grant in her decision, and has not otherwise granted, to the trustee any beneficial or other ownership of HK USA, as sought in the Third Counterclaim. Furthermore, Mei Guo remains HK USA's sole principal, and we submit that, if necessary, she has standing on that basis.\n\nSam\n\nFrom: Bassett, Nicholas Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 5:58 PM To: Della Fera, Sam ; Luft, Avi E. Cc: Vartan, Lee ; Wernick, Melissa F. ; Stephen Kindseth ; Aaron A. Romney (aromney@zeislaw.com) Subject: RE: In re Kwok - Trustee Deposition Subpoena\n\n\\* External Message \\* Sam,\n\nI noticed you served this as purported counsel to both HK USA and Mei Guo. Given the Court's alter ego decision, you have no authority to act in this manner on HK USA's behalf and any attempt to do so is a violation of the Court's order.\n\nAs to Ms. Guo, please explain how she standing to be heard (and therefore serve discovery) on the motion.\n\nThanks, Nick\n\n \n\nNick Bassett | Partner | Financial Restructuring Group\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nPaul Hastings LLP | 2050 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Direct: +1.202.551.1902 | Main: +1.202.551.1700 | Fax: +1.202.551.0402 | nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com |\n\nwww.paulhastings.com\n\nFrom: Della Fera, Sam >\n\nSent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 5:17 PM\n\nTo: Bassett, Nicholas >; Luft, Avi E. >\n\n>; Stephen Kindseth\n\n>; Aaron A. Romney\n\n(aromney@zeislaw.com) >\n\nCc: Vartan, Lee >; Wernick, Melissa F.\n\nSubject: [EXT] In re Kwok - Trustee Deposition Subpoena\n\n--- External Email ---\n\nNick/Avi:\n\nI have attached for service a subpoena for Luc's deposition as trustee in connection with the sale of the Lady May. The deposition is noticed for Tuesday, June 20, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in our New York office. Please confirm that you accept service of the subpoena. If you would like to discuss the deposition date and/or location, please let me know.\n\nSam\n\n \n\nSAM DELLA FERA, JR.\n\nChair, Bankruptcy & Creditors' Rights Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nO 973.530.2076 sdellafera@csglaw.com 105 Eisenhower Parkway | Roseland, NJ 07068\n\ncsglaw.com |\n\nLinkedIn\n\nPlease Note: The information contained in this email message is a PRIVATE communication that may contain confidential attorney-client information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or use it or others. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.\n\nThank you.\n\nThis message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings' information collection, privacy and security principles please click\n\nHERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.\n\nThis message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings information collection, privacy and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等 :\n:\n: 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\n: （合并管理）\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n第11章受托人根据《破产程序规则》第9014(c)条和第9016条请求作出裁定，撤销传票并确认香港当事方无权就受托人出售 Lady May 的动议进行证据开示的紧急动议\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯平斯）以其作为上述标题所示 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，通过其下列签署律师，现根据《联邦破产程序规则》（“破产规则”）第9014(c)条和第9016条，谨此请求（“撤销动议”）作出一项裁定，其形式实质上与随附附件A所载拟议裁定（“拟议裁定”）一致，以：(a) 撤销 Mei Guo（郭美）及 Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）（“HK USA”，并与 Mei Guo 合称“香港当事方”）就受托人根据《破产法典》第105条和第363条、《破产程序规则》第2002条、第6004(C)条和第9014条以及地方法规第6004-1条和第6004-2条提出的《请求作出裁定的动议：(I) 授权并批准出售 Lady May，且该出售不受留置权、请求权、权益及负担的约束；》\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码末四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码末四位：8202）及 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，收件人：Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 财产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信之目的）。\n\n(II) 授权并批准买卖协议，以及 (III) 准予相关救济》[案卷编号 1858]（“出售动议”）相关事宜中，针对受托人及受托人的经纪人发出的传票（定义如下）；以及 (b) 确认香港当事方无权就出售动议进行任何证据开示。为支持撤销动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 2023年6月14日和16日，香港当事方通过电子邮件向受托人的律师发送传票，要求受托人2及受托人的经纪人3就“与 Lady May 出售相关”事宜接受证言录取并提交文件。拟议证言录取日期分别为6月20日和21日。由于香港当事方无资格就出售动议陈述意见，其无权发出传票，且传票应被撤销。\n\n2. 香港当事方此前基于 HK USA 对 Lady May 所主张的所有权权益而参与本第11章案件。然而，2023年3月27日，本院作出裁定，准予受托人的简易判决动议，宣告 Lady May 为破产财产，从而为其出售铺平道路（“Lady May 简易判决裁定”）。4 Lady May 简易判决裁定依其条款立即生效，且香港当事方未取得上诉期间中止执行；事实上，直至今日，即该裁定作出近三个月后，香港当事方甚至尚未提出在 Lady May 简易判决裁定上诉期间中止执行的动议。受托人拟反对该中止执行动议，包括以其不及时为由提出反对。\n\n3. 此外，两名香港当事方均未就第11章破产财产提出债权申报。由于香港当事方对 Lady May 不享有任何所有权权益，并且其在本案中并非其他债权人或利害关系方，故其无资格就出售动议陈述意见，亦不得就该动议寻求证据开示。\n\n2 香港当事方针对受托人发出的传票（“受托人传票”）的真实准确副本作为附件B随附于此。\n\n3 香港当事方针对 Dirk Johnson（“Johnson 先生”）发出的传票（“经纪人传票”，并与受托人传票合称“传票”）的真实准确副本作为附件C随附于此；Dirk Johnson 是 Edmiston and Company Limited（“经纪人”）的一名销售经纪人。\n\n4 Lady May 简易判决裁定载于对抗程序案号 22-05003 的案卷编号172。\n\n4. 鉴于本院于2023年5月18日作出的简易判决裁定宣告债务人作为其替身实体拥有并控制 HK USA（“替身实体简易判决裁定”），HK USA 亦不具备发出传票的权限。替身实体简易判决裁定尚未被中止执行，因而立即生效；该裁定明确规定，HK USA“在所有相关时间均是且一直是”债务人的替身实体，并且 HK USA 的全部财产权益均属于破产财产。5 由于受托人已承继债务人的地位，受托人现控制 HK USA，Mei Guo 或任何其他人均无权代表其行事。\n\n5. 受托人的律师已通过电子邮件向香港当事方的律师提出这些问题，而后者回复拒绝撤回传票，并要求受托人提交本撤销动议。6 受托人又一次不得不与似乎决意干扰其工作的债务人家庭成员进行诉讼，至少可以说令人沮丧。因此，不仅应准予撤销动议，受托人还保留就提交该动议所产生的费用和支出请求偿还的一切权利。为免疑义，受托人将不会出席定于2023年6月20日进行的证言录取，并在必要范围内请求在本动议裁决前中止该已通知的证言录取。7\n\n5 替身实体简易判决裁定，第36页。\n\n6 见 Sam Della Fara 与 Nicholas Bassett 之间的电子邮件往来，作为附件D随附于此。\n\n7 香港当事方至少自其律师于2023年5月31日出席有关出售的状态会议时起，即已知悉出售动议的提交时间及其听证安排 [案卷编号 1838]。（另见下文第16段。）香港当事方随后等待逾两周才发出传票，该等传票据称以提前两个和三个工作日通知的方式安排证言录取。香港当事方未及时寻求证据开示，致使必须以紧急方式提交本撤销动议。\n\n管辖权、审判地及法定依据\n\n6. 美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院（“本院”）根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334，以及美国康涅狄格州联邦地区法院的移送管辖常设命令，对本事项具有管辖权。本动议属于 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 所称的核心程序。\n\n7. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本地区为适当审判地。\n\n8. 本动议所请求救济的依据为《破产程序规则》第9014(c)条和第9016条（援引《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条）。\n\n背景\n\n程序背景\n\n9. 2022年2月15日，债务人向本院提交了根据《破产法典》第11章请求救济的自愿申请。\n\n10. 2022年3月21日，美国受托人（United States Trustee）在债务人的第11章案件中任命了无担保债权人正式委员会。尚未任命审查员。\n\n11. 2022年6月15日，本院作出决定备忘录及裁定 [案卷编号 465]，指示美国受托人在第11章案件中任命一名第11章受托人。根据受托人裁定，美国受托人选定 Luc A. Despins 为受托人。\n\n12. 2022年7月8日，本院作出裁定，批准任命 Luc A. Despins 为第11章案件中的受托人 [案卷编号 523]。\n\n有关 HK USA 和 Lady May 的相关程序\n\n13. 2023年3月27日，本院作出 Lady May 简易判决裁定 [对抗程序案号 22-5003 中的案卷编号172]，认定包括 Lady May 为债务人破产财产在内的事项。8 2023年4月10日，香港当事方就 Lady May 简易判决裁定提交上诉通知 [对抗程序案号 22-5003 中的案卷编号197]。近三个月后，即2023年6月19日，香港当事方提交了在 Lady May 简易判决裁定上诉期间中止执行的动议。\n\n14. 2023年4月18日，受托人提交申请 [案卷编号 1675]（“聘用经纪人申请”），请求聘用该经纪人担任出售 Lady May（以及 Lady May II）的经纪人。2023年4月27日，本院作出裁定 [案卷编号 1717]（“聘用经纪人裁定”），准予聘用经纪人申请。\n\n15. 2023年5月18日，本院作出替身实体简易判决裁定 [对抗程序案号 22-5003 中的案卷编号221]，认定包括 HK USA 在所有相关时间均是且一直是债务人的替身实体，以及其全部财产均为债务人破产财产在内的事项。香港当事方提交了上诉通知 [对抗程序案号 22-5003 中的案卷编号224]，并提出上诉期间中止执行的动议，受托人已对此提出反对 [对抗程序案号 22-5003 中的案卷编号227、235]。如本院在2023年6月13日就香港当事方中止执行动议举行的听证会上所指出，目前不存在就替身实体简易判决裁定生效的中止执行。\n\n16. 在提交出售动议之前，本院于2023年5月23日和2023年5月31日举行了有关 Lady May 营销及预期出售的状态会议。在2023年5月31日的状态会议上，受托人讨论了 Lady May 成功买方的选定，但须经本院审议批准出售的动议，以及该买方以于6月底前完成出售交易为条件。\n\n8 2023年3月31日，本院作出《修正准予 Ho Wan Kwok 财产第11章受托人部分简易判决动议的裁定》[对抗程序案号 22-5003 中的案卷编号182]，另行加入 Lady May II 为债务人破产财产的认定。\n\n17. 2023年6月2日，受托人提交了出售动议，该动议目前正由本院审理。出售动议的听证会已安排于2023年6月27日开始，并于2023年6月28日继续进行（如有必要）[案卷编号 1859]。\n\n论证\n\nA. 香港当事方因未取得本院简易判决裁定的中止执行，且并非利害关系方，故不具备资格\n\n18. 任何香港当事方均非债务人破产财产的债权人，亦非在本第11章案件中具有法律上可认定权益的其他利害关系方。《破产法典》第1109(b)条将“利害关系方”界定为包括债务人、任何受托人、债权人及任何正式委员会。11 U.S.C. § 1109(b)。尽管该人员清单并非穷尽，但法律明确规定，“利害关系方”地位仅限于在其寻求陈述意见的“[特定]程序中具有直接财务利害关系”的人员。In re China Fishery Grp. Ltd. (Cayman), No. 16-11895 (JLG), 2018 WL 6824074, at \\*3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2018).\n\n19. 香港当事方在 Lady May 的出售中不具有任何利害关系。其并非将从破产财产收取出售所得中受益的债权人，亦不对出售结果享有任何其他权益。因此，其无权陈述意见。\n\n20. HK USA可能主张其因正在对Lady May SJ Order（Lady May简易判决命令）提起上诉而具有诉讼资格，但该论点不能成立，因为HK USA尚未获得上诉待决期间的中止执行。法律已明确规定，被驳回债权申报的持有人不具有陈述意见的诉讼资格，因为驳回构成司法认定，即该持有人对债务人的破产财产不享有任何获得付款的权利，无论该权利是否为或有权利。参见In re Kreisler Group, Inc., 648 F.2d 86, 88 (2d Cir. 1981)（“我们认为，就这些以及第七大道对重整计划确认提出的其他异议而言，鉴于已经有效认定其并非债权人，第七大道现已不具有提出异议的诉讼资格。”）。\n\n21. 在本案中，法院已经作出Lady May SJ Order及Alter Ego SJ Order（另我简易判决命令），驳回了HK USA曾主张其在本第11章案件中具有权益的仅有依据。这些命令依其条款立即生效，且尽管HK USA提出上诉，仍属终局性命令。参见In re Bicoastal Corp., 146 B.R. 492, 494 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1992)（“由于本法院作出的最后一项具有控制力的命令驳回了California和Mathews的债权申报，且未获准上诉待决期间的中止执行，California和Mathews目前均未持有获准债权申报，因此不享有投票权。驳回命令正在上诉中受到质疑这一事实无关紧要，因为未曾申请或获得上诉待决期间的中止执行。”）。除非且直至HK USA在其对Lady May SJ Order提出的上诉中胜诉，其不具有陈述意见的诉讼资格，也无权就出售动议发出传票。9\n\nB. HK USA无权送达传票\n\n22. 除并非《破产法》第1109(b)条规定的利害关系方外，鉴于Alter Ego SJ Order，HK USA亦无权送达传票（或采取任何其他单方行动）。根据该命令，法院认定并命令，HK USA“在所有相关期间均是”债务人的“另我”，其依据包括债务人对HK USA的排他性控制。10 法院进一步裁定，HK USA的全部财产现均为破产财产。11 鉴于该裁定，除为促使遵守Alter Ego SJ Order而可能必要的行动外，只有受托人——而非HK USA、Mei Guo（郭美）或任何其他人——有权指示HK USA的行动并控制其财产。因此，HK USA无权发出该等传票。\n\n9. 即使待决上诉以某种方式会赋予HK USA反对出售动议的诉讼资格（实际上并不会），其亦不能赋予Mei Guo诉讼资格。Mei Guo的关系更为间接，因为她是HK USA所称的名义成员，这意味着她对Lady May的权益（如有）派生自HK USA。只有对破产财产持有直接权益的一方才是具有陈述意见诉讼资格的利害关系方。参见Southern Blvd., Inc. v. Martin Paint Stores, 207 B.R. 57, 61 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)（“根据《破产法》，债权人是指对债务人或破产财产享有债权申报者。根据第二巡回法院的观点，该概念不包括债务人某一债权人的债权人。”（原文强调）；Heller v. Emanuel (In re Emanuel), 450 B.R. 1, 7-8 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)（债权人的债权人不具有就其自身在破产财产中的权益提出主张的诉讼资格）；In re Lifeco Inv. Grp., Inc., 173 B.R. 478, 487 (Bankr. D. Del. 1994)（“我未发现任何制定法或司法依据支持认定债权人的债权人在破产案件中具有诉讼资格。事实上，众多案件持相反立场。”）；另参见In re Greene Ave. Restoration II Corp., 597 B.R. 202, 217 n. 14 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2019)（“通常，不持有本案经济利益的实体被排除在‘利害关系方’的定义之外。”）（引用In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., 101 B.R. 844, 849–50 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989)）。\n\n10. Alter Ego SJ Order，第36页。\n\n23. HK各方在电子邮件通信中主张，Alter Ego SJ Order仅使HK USA对债务人的债务承担责任，并将HK USA的资产转入破产财产。他们坚持认为，Alter Ego SJ Order并未“将[债务人和HK USA]视为同一主体”。12 该论点既错误，又未切中要害。\n\n24. 首先，法院确实在其SJ Alter Ego Order中认定债务人与HK USA实为同一主体。事实上，正是由于这一原因，法院认定Stipulated Delivery Order（定义见Alter Ego SJ Order）自始无效，理由是其构成一方当事人（债务人）与其自身（HK USA）订立的合同。13\n\n25. 此外，即使债务人与HK USA之间仍存在某种区别，Alter Ego SJ Order也毫无疑问地禁止HK USA送达该等传票。该命令表面上明确规定，HK USA的全部财产均为由受托人排他控制的破产财产。根据《破产法》，破产财产包括诉讼中的法定权利。In re Keener, No. AP 14-09061, 2015 WL 1777446, at *4 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Apr. 16, 2015), amended, No. AP 14-09061, 2015 WL 5118691 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Aug. 28, 2015)（“破产财产包括债务人的全部法定权利”）；In re Atl. Gulf Communities Corp., 326 B.R. 294, 299 (Bankr. D. Del. 2005)（“诉讼权利属于破产财产”）。因此，未经受托人许可，HK USA无权行使诉讼中的法定权利，包括发出传票，且其任何此类尝试均违反自动中止。14\n\n11. 同上。\n\n12. 参见附件D。\n\n13. 参见Alter Ego SJ Order，第30-31页。\n\n26. 基于上述所有理由，HK USA与Mei Guo均不具有发出该传票的诉讼资格或权限。因此，受托人谨请求撤销该传票。\n\n结论\n\n因此，基于上述理由，法院应准许本撤销传票动议，作出拟议命令以撤销该等传票，并命令Mei Guo、其律师及HK USA所称律师均不得就出售动议送达证据开示请求，并作出法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白。]\n\n14. 如法院不撤销该等传票和/或允许就出售动议进行任何证据开示，受托人保留就任何寻求的证据开示提出异议的一切权利及依据，包括但不限于未在本文中具体陈述的任何及所有其他理由，包含特定请求的不相关性、模糊性及范围过宽，或特定请求或调查领域试图侵犯律师—当事人特权或其他适用特权及保护的程度。\n\n日期：June 19, 2023\n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\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（获准pro hac vice出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft（获准pro hac vice出庭）\nDouglass Barron（获准pro hac vice出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人律师\n\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等， :\n: 案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\n: （合并管理）\n\nx\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，于June 19, 2023，前述撤销传票动议及其全部证据和附件已以电子方式提交。该提交的通知将通过法院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统的运作，通过电子邮件发送给上述第11章案件中的所有当事人；或于June 20, 2023，通过邮件发送给电子提交通知所示无法接受电子提交的任何人。当事人可通过法院的CM/ECF系统查阅该提交文件。\n\n日期：June 19, 2023\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n1. 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名Guo Wengui、Miles Guo和Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及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，转交Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok破产财产受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n案件22-50073 文件1912 已提交06/19/23 已录入06/19/23 15:50:19 第12页，共29页\n\n附件A\n\n拟议命令\n\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK，\n等， :\n:\n: 案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\n: （合并管理）\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n[拟议]命令：准许第11章受托人根据《破产规则》9014(c)和9016提出的紧急动议，撤销传票并确认HK各方无权就受托人出售LADY MAY动议进行证据开示\n\n经Luc A. Despins先生以其获任为Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）第11章案件第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份提出动议（“撤销传票动议”）2，请求根据《联邦破产程序规则》（“破产规则”）第9014(c)和9016条作出命令（本“命令”），(a) 撤销就受托人根据《破产法》第105和363条、《破产规则》第2002、6004(C)和9014条以及地方法规则第6004-1和6004 2条提出的动议，即《请求作出命令的动议：(I) 授权并批准出售Lady May，且不受留置权、债权申报、权益及负担限制；(II) 授权并批准买卖协议；以及(III) 准予相关救济》[案卷编号1858]（“出售动议”），向受托人及受托人的经纪人发出的传票，以及(b) 确认HK各方无权获得任何证据开示。\n\n1. 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名Guo Wengui、Miles Guo和Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及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，转交Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok破产财产受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2. 本文中使用但未定义的首字母大写术语，应具有本动议中赋予其的含义。\n\n与出售动议有关；且本院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格联邦地区法院）的移送常设命令，对审前传票撤销动议及其中请求的救济具有管辖权；且根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，对审前传票撤销动议及其中请求的救济的审理属于核心程序；且依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本院为适格审理地；且本院已认定，审前传票撤销动议中请求的救济符合遗产、其债权人及所有利害关系方的最佳利益；且在具体情形下，已就审前传票撤销动议发出适当且充分的通知；且显然无需作出其他或进一步通知；且鉴于在本院进行的全部程序；且对本裁定所请求救济提出的任何异议已被撤回或经实体审理驳回；且经适当审议并有充分理由，特此命令如下：\n\n1. 准许本裁定所述的审前传票撤销动议。\n\n2. 特此撤销该等传票。\n\n3. HK各方无权，且不得，就出售动议向受托人、Johnson先生或经纪人，或向任何其他方送达传票或任何其他证据开示请求。\n\n4. 对于因本命令的实施、解释及执行而产生或与之有关的所有事项，本院保留管辖权。\n\n5. 受托人可自行决定提交补充动议，请求法院裁定授予受托人与审前传票撤销动议有关而发生的费用和成本，并责令Mei Guo支付该等费用和成本。受托人在此方面的所有权利均予保留。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1912 Filed 06/19/23 Entered 06/19/23 15:50:19 Page 15 of 29\n附件 B\n\n受托人传票\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1912 Filed 06/19/23 Entered 06/19/23 15:50:19 Page 16 of 29\n\nB2560（表格 2560——破产案件或对抗程序中要求在证言录取时作证的传票）（12/15）\n美国破产法院\n\n地区\n\n案件编号\n\n关于\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等，债务人\n\n（如在对抗程序中签发，则填写）\n\n第 11 章\n\n原告 诉\n\n对抗程序编号\n\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州）\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n被告\n破产案件（或对抗程序）中要求在证言录取时作证的传票\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A. 德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人 致：\n\n（传票所指向人员的姓名）\n\n作证：特此命令你于下列载明的时间、日期和地点出席，就将在本破产案件（或对抗程序）中进行的证言录取作证。如你为组织，必须指定一名或多名高级职员、董事或管理代理人，或指定同意代表你就下列事项或附件所载事项作证的其他人员：\n\n地点 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 日期和时间\n\n11 Times Square, 34th Floor\nNew York. NY 10036 June 20, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.\n\n证言录取将以以下方式记录：\n\n法庭记录员/速记员\n\n提交材料：你或你的代表还必须在证言录取时携带下列文件、电子存储信息或物品，并必须允许对该等材料进行查验、复制、测试或取样：见所附文件清单。\n\n以下 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 的规定，依 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016 适用于破产案件，随附于后：关于履行地点的 Rule 45(c)；关于对作为传票对象的你的保护的 Rule 45(d)；以及关于你回应本传票的义务和未回应的潜在后果的 Rule 45(e) 和 45(g)。\n\nJune 14, 2023 日期。\n\n法院书记官\n\n书记官或副书记官签名\n\n律师签名 Sam Della Fera, Jr.（小萨姆·德拉费拉）\n\n代表（当事人名称）Mei Guo（梅国）和 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 的、签发或请求签发本传票的律师的姓名、地址、电子邮件地址和电话号码为：Sam Della Fera, Jr., Esq. - Chiesa Shahinian &\n\n或\n\nGiantomasi PC, 105 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068. 电话：(973) 530-2076；电子邮件：sdellafera@csglaw.com\n向签发或请求签发本传票者的通知\n\n如本传票命令在审判前提交文件、电子存储信息，或查验场所，则必须在向传票所指向人员送达之前，向每一方送达通知及本传票副本。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4)。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1912 Filed 06/19/23 Entered 06/19/23 15:50:19 Page 17 of 29\n\nB2560（表格 2560——破产案件或对抗程序中要求在证言录取时作证的传票）（第 2 页）\n\n送达证明 （除非 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 要求，否则本节不应向法院提交。）\n\n我于（日期）--------收到向以下人员（个人姓名及职务，如有）发出的本传票：\n我通过如下方式向被指定人员交付副本，以送达本传票：\n于（日期）向合同及其中许多人员送达；于（日期）向该合同的签署人送达。\n我因以下原因未执行即退回本传票：\n我的差旅费用为 \\$，服务费用为 \\$，合计为 \\$ \\$。除非本传票代表 United States（美国）或其官员或代理人签发，我还已向证人支付一天出席费用及法律允许的里程费，金额为 \\$ \\$ 2 = 1 = = = = = = = =\n我在伪证处罚的约束下声明，此信息真实且正确。\n日期：\n送达人签名\n正楷姓名及职务\n\n送达人地址\n\n关于尝试送达等的附加信息：\n\nB2560（表格 2560——破产案件或对抗程序中要求在证言录取时作证的传票）（第 3 页）\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)、(d)、(e) 和 (g)（Effective 12/1/13）（依 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 的 Rule 9016 适用于破产案件）\n(c) 履行地点。\n\n(1) 审判、听证或证言录取。传票仅可按下列方式命令某人出席审判、听证或证言录取：\n\n(A) 在该人居住、受雇或经常亲自经营业务地点的 100 英里范围内；或\n\n(B) 在该人居住、受雇或经常亲自经营业务所在州内，如该人\n\n(i) 为当事人或当事人的高级职员；或\n\n(ii) 被命令出席审判，且不会产生重大费用。\n(2) 其他证据开示。传票可以命令：\n\n(A) 在该人居住、受雇或经常亲自经营业务地点的 100 英里范围内的地点提交文件、电子存储信息或物品；以及\n\n(B) 在应受查验的场所查验该场所。\n(d) 对作为传票对象的人员的保护；执行。\n\n(1) 避免不当负担或费用；制裁。负责签发和送达传票的当事人或律师必须采取合理措施，避免对作为传票对象的人员施加不当负担或费用。要求履行的地区法院必须执行该义务，并对未遵守者的当事人或律师施加适当制裁，该制裁可包括损失的收入和合理的律师费。\n\n(2) 命令提交材料或允许查验。\n\n(A) 无须出席。被命令提交文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，或允许查验场所的人员，无须亲自出现在提交或查验地点，除非亦被命令出席证言录取、听证或审判。\n\n(B) 异议。被命令提交文件或有形物品，或允许查验的人员，可以向传票中指定的当事人或律师送达书面异议，反对查验、复制、测试或取样任何或全部材料，反对查验场所，或反对以所请求的一种或多种形式提交电子存储信息。异议必须在传票规定的履行时间或传票送达后 14 日届满之前较早者送达。如提出异议，适用以下规则：\n\n(i) 送达方可随时在通知被命令人员后，向要求履行的地区法院提出动议，请求作出强制提交或查验的命令。\n\n(ii) 仅可依命令所指示要求实施该等行为，且该命令必须保护非当事人亦非当事人高级职员的人员，使其免于因履行而产生重大费用。\n(3) 撤销或修改传票。\n\n(A) 必须撤销或修改的情形。经及时动议，要求履行的地区法院必须撤销或修改存在下列情形的传票：\n\n(i) 未给予合理的履行时间；\n\n(ii) 要求某人在 Rule 45(c) 规定的地理限制之外履行；\n\n(iii) 要求披露享有特权或受其他保护的事项，而不适用任何例外或豁免；或\n\n(iv) 对某人造成不当负担。\n\n(B) 可以撤销或修改的情形。为保护作为传票对象或受传票影响的人员，要求履行的地区法院可依动议撤销或修改要求下列事项的传票：\n\n(i) 披露商业秘密或其他保密研究、开发或商业信息；或\n\n(ii) 披露未受聘专家的意见或信息，该等意见或信息并非描述争议中的具体事件，且源于任何当事人未请求的该专家研究。\n\n(C) 以规定条件作为替代。在 Rule 45(d)(3)(B) 所述情形下，如送达方：\n\n(i) 表明对该证言或材料具有重大需要，且若不遭受不当困难则无法通过其他方式满足；以及\n\n(ii) 确保被传唤人员将获得合理补偿，\n\n法院可不撤销或修改传票，而命令在规定条件下出席或提交材料。\n(e) 回应传票的义务。\n\n(1) 提交文件或电子存储信息。下列程序适用于提交文件或电子存储信息：\n\n(A) 文件。回应要求提交文件的传票的人员，必须按文件在通常业务过程中保存的方式提交，或必须整理并标注文件，使其与请求中的类别相对应。\n\n(B) 未规定提交电子存储信息的形式。如传票未规定提交电子存储信息的形式，回应人员必须以其通常保存的一种或多种形式，或以合理可使用的一种或多种形式提交。\n\n(C) 电子存储信息仅以一种形式提交。回应人员无须以一种以上形式提交相同的电子存储信息。\n\n(D) 无法访问的电子存储信息。回应人员无须就其认定因不当负担或费用而无法合理访问的来源中的电子存储信息提供证据开示。在提出强制证据开示动议或保护令动议时，回应人员必须证明该信息因不当负担或费用而无法合理访问。如作出该证明，法院在考虑 Rule 26(b)(2)(C) 的限制后，如请求方表明有正当理由，仍可命令对该等来源进行证据开示。法院可规定该证据开示的条件。\n(2) 主张特权或保护。\n\n(A) 扣留的信息。以信息享有特权或受审判准备材料保护为由扣留被传唤信息的人员，必须：\n\n(i) 明确提出该主张；以及\n\n(ii) 以一种在不披露本身享有特权或受保护的信息的情况下，能够使各方评估该主张的方式，说明被扣留文件、通信或有形物品的性质。\n\n(B) 已出示的信息。如为响应传票而出示的信息涉及特权主张或审判准备材料保护主张，提出该主张的人可以将该主张及其依据通知收到该信息的任何当事人。收到通知后，当事人必须立即返还、隔离或销毁所指明的信息及其持有的任何副本；在该主张得到解决之前，不得使用或披露该信息；如当事人在收到通知前已披露该信息，必须采取合理措施追回该信息；并可立即将该信息密封提交至要求履行的地区法院，以裁定该主张。出示该信息的人必须在该主张得到解决之前保存该信息。\n\n(g) 藐视法庭。要求履行的地区法院——以及在动议被移送后，签发法院——可以对已被送达但无充分理由不遵守传票或与其有关的命令的人作出藐视法庭处罚。\n\n有关获取传票材料，见《联邦民事诉讼规则》45(a)委员会说明（2013年）\n文件清单\n\n1．证明您（和/或 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所））与 Lady May 出售经纪人 Edmiston and Company Limited（埃德米斯顿有限公司，以下简称“Edmiston”）之间任何及所有通信的任何及所有文件。\n\n2．证明您（和/或 Paul Hastings LLP）与 Lady May 的任何潜在竞买人之间通信的任何及所有文件。\n\n3．与 Edmiston 为宣传和出售 Lady May 所开展的营销活动有关的任何及所有营销材料。\n\n4．您（和/或 Paul Hastings LLP）与初始竞买人（该术语定义见《Dirk Johnson（德克·约翰逊）为支持受托人出售 Lady May 动议而作的声明》[文件编号1858]（以下简称“Dirk Johnson 声明”））之间的任何及所有通信。\n\n5．证明您（和/或 Paul Hastings LLP）与第二轮竞买人（该术语定义见 Dirk Johnson 声明第15段）之间通信的任何及所有文件。\n\n6．证明您（和/或 Paul Hastings LLP）与买方（该术语定义见 Dirk Johnson 声明第2段）就 Lady May 进行通信的任何及所有文件。\n\n7．您（和/或 Paul Hastings LLP）取得的或由您持有（或由 Paul Hastings LLP 持有）的 Lady May 任何及所有评估报告的副本。\n\n附件C\n\n经纪人传票\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1912 提交于 06/19/23 登记于 06/19/23 15:50:19 第 21 页，共 29 页\n\nB2560（表格2560——破产案件或对抗程序中出席证言录取的传票）（12/15）\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\n\nConnecticut District of（康涅狄格区）\n\n关于 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等人\n\n（如在对抗程序中签发，请填写）\n\n债务人\n\n22-50073 (JAM) 案号\n\n第11章\n\n原告 诉\n\n对抗程序案号\n\n被告\n\n破产案件（或对抗程序）中出席证言录取的传票\n\n致：Dirk Johnson（德克·约翰逊）— Edmiston and Company Limited，2 Marina Plaza, Newport, RI 02840\n\n（传票所指向之人的姓名）\n\n证言：兹命令您于下列载明的时间、日期和地点出席，就本破产案件（或对抗程序）中将进行的证言录取作证。如您为组织，您必须指定一名或多名高级职员、董事或管理代理人，或指定其他同意代表您就下列事项或附件所列事项作证的人：\n\n地点 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC（基耶萨·沙希尼安与贾恩托马西律师事务所）\n11 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036 日期和时间\nJune 21, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.\n\n证言录取将通过以下方式记录：\n\n法庭记录员/速记员\n\n出示。您或您的代表还必须携带下列文件、电子存储信息或物品参加证言录取，并必须允许对该材料进行查验、复制、测试或抽样：见所附文件清单\n\n下列《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条规定，依据《联邦破产程序规则》第9016条适用于破产案件，随附于后：与履行地点有关的第45(c)条；与作为传票对象之人获得保护有关的第45(d)条；以及与您回应本传票的义务及不回应的潜在后果有关的第45(g)条。\n\nJune 14, 2023 日期：\n\n法院书记员\n\n书记员或副书记员签名\n\n律师签名 Sam Della Fera, Jr.（小萨姆·德拉费拉）/\n\n代表（当事人姓名）Mei Guo（梅国）及 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）的、签发或请求签发本传票的律师的姓名、地址、电子邮件地址和电话号码如下：Sam Della Fera, Jr., Esq. — Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, 105 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068。电话：(973) 530-2076；电子邮件：sdellafera@csglaw.com\n\n或\n\n致签发或请求签发本传票之人的通知\n\n如本传票命令在审判前出示文件、电子存储信息或允许检查场所，则必须在向传票所指向之人送达前，向各当事人送达通知及本传票副本。《联邦民事诉讼规则》45(a)(4)。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1912 提交于 06/19/23 登记于 06/19/23 15:50:19 第 22 页，共 29 页\n\nB2560（表格2560——破产案件或对抗程序中出席证言录取的传票）（第2页）\n\n我于（日期）收到本传票，收件人为（个人姓名及职务，如有）：\n\n1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 -\n\n我已按如下方式向被指定人交付副本，从而送达本传票：\n于（日期）= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =；或\n\n我未予执行即退回本传票，原因如下：\n\n除非本传票系代表美国或其高级职员或代理人签发，我还已向证人支付一日出席费用及法律允许的里程费，金额为 \\$\n我的费用为差旅费 S 及服务费 \\$，总计 \\$\n\n日期： 我在伪证处罚的约束下声明，该等信息真实且正确。\n\n送达人地址\n\n有关尝试送达等的补充信息：\n\nB2560（表格2560——破产案件或对抗程序中出席证言录取的传票）（第3页）\n\n《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45(c)、(d)、(e)及(g)条（Effective 12/1/13）（依据《联邦破产程序规则》第9016条适用于破产案件）\n\n(c) 履行地点。\n\n(1) 审判、听证或证言录取。传票仅可按下列方式命令某人出席审判、听证或证言录取：\n\n(A) 在该人居住、受雇或经常亲自营业地点100英里范围内；或\n\n(B) 在该人居住、受雇或经常亲自营业所在州内，如果该人\n\n(i) 是当事人或当事人的高级职员；或\n\n(ii) 被命令出席审判且不会产生重大费用。\n\n(2) 其他取证。传票可以命令：\n\n(A) 在该人居住、受雇或经常亲自营业地点100英里范围内的地点出示文件、电子存储信息或物品；以及\n\n(B) 在拟检查的场所检查场所。\n\n(d) 对作为传票对象之人的保护；执行。\n\n(1) 避免不当负担或费用；制裁。负责签发和送达传票的当事人或律师必须采取合理措施，避免对作为传票对象之人施加不当负担或费用。要求履行的地区法院必须执行该义务，并对未遵守该义务的当事人或律师施加适当制裁，该制裁可包括损失的收入和合理的律师费。\n\n(2) 命令出示材料或允许检查。\n\n(A) 无须出席。被命令出示文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，或允许检查场所之人，无须亲自到出示或检查地点出席，除非其亦被命令出席证言录取、听证或审判。\n\n(B) 异议。被命令出示文件或有形物品，或允许检查之人，可以向传票中指定的当事人或律师送达书面异议，反对检查、复制、测试或抽样全部或部分材料，或反对检查场所，或反对以所要求的一种或多种形式出示电子存储信息。异议必须在规定履行时间或传票送达后14日届满之日中较早者之前送达。如提出异议，适用下列规则：\n\n(i) 经通知被命令之人，送达方可随时向要求履行的地区法院提出动议，请求作出强制出示或检查的命令。\n\n(ii) 仅可依该命令所指示的方式要求实施该等行为，且该命令必须保护既非当事人亦非当事人高级职员之人免于承担因履行而产生的重大费用。\n\n(3) 撤销或修改传票。\n\n(A) 必须撤销或修改的情形。经及时动议，要求履行的地区法院必须撤销或修改下列传票：\n\n(i) 未留出合理履行时间的；\n\n(ii) 要求某人在第45(c)条规定的地理范围以外履行的；\n\n(iii) 要求披露享有特权或受其他保护的事项，且不适用任何例外或放弃的；或\n\n(iv) 对某人造成不当负担的。\n\n(B) 可以撤销或修改的情形。为保护作为传票对象或受传票影响之人，经动议，要求履行的地区法院可以撤销或修改下列传票，如其要求：\n\n(i) 披露商业秘密或其他保密的研究、开发或商业信息；或\n\n(ii) 披露未受聘专家的意见或信息，而该意见或信息并非描述争议中的具体事件，且系源于当事人未请求的该专家研究。\n\n(C) 作为替代方案规定条件。在第45(d)(3)(B)条所述情形下，如送达方：\n\n(i) 证明对证言或材料具有实质需要，且如不遭受不当困难便无法以其他方式满足该需要；并且\n\n(ii) 确保被传唤之人将获得合理补偿，\n\n法院可以不撤销或修改传票，而命令在规定条件下出席或出示。\n\n(e) 回应传票的义务。\n\n(1) 出示文件或电子存储信息。下列程序适用于出示文件或电子存储信息：\n\n(A) 文件。回应要求出示文件的传票之人，必须按照文件在通常业务过程中保存的方式出示文件，或必须将文件整理和标记为与请求中的类别相对应。\n\n(B) 未规定电子存储信息出示形式。如传票未规定电子存储信息的出示形式，回应之人必须以其通常保存的一种或多种形式，或以合理可用的一种或多种形式出示该信息。\n\n(C) 电子存储信息仅以一种形式出示。回应之人无须以一种以上形式出示相同的电子存储信息。\n\n(D) 无法合理访问的电子存储信息。回应之人无须就其认定因不当负担或费用而无法合理访问的来源中的电子存储信息提供取证。对于强制取证动议或保护令动议，回应之人必须证明该信息因不当负担或费用而无法合理访问。如作出该证明，若请求方在考虑第26(b)(2)(C)条的限制后证明有正当理由，法院仍可命令从该等来源进行取证。法院可以规定取证条件。\n\n(2) 主张特权或保护。\n\n(A) 被扣留的信息。依据该等信息享有特权或作为审判准备材料受到保护的主张而扣留被传唤的信息之人，必须：\n\n(i) 明确提出该主张；以及\n\n(ii) 以一种不披露本身享有特权或受到保护的信息、但足以使当事人评估该主张的方式，说明被扣留文件、通信或有形物品的性质。\n\n(B) 已提供的信息。如为回应传票而提供的信息受到特权主张或作为审判准备材料受到保护的主张，提出该主张之人可将该主张及其依据通知任何已收到该信息的当事人。收到通知后，当事人必须立即返还、隔离或销毁指定信息及其持有的任何副本；在该主张得到解决之前，不得使用或披露该信息；如该当事人在收到通知前已披露该信息，必须采取合理措施追回该信息；并可立即将该信息密封提交至要求遵从的地区法院，以裁定该主张。提供该信息之人必须在该主张得到解决之前保存该信息。\n\n(g) 藐视法庭。在要求遵从的地区的法院——以及在动议被移送后，发出传票的法院——可认定已被送达但无充分理由不遵从传票或与之相关的命令之人构成藐视法庭。\n\n有关查阅传票材料，请参见 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) 委员会注释（2013）\n文件清单\n\n1. 证明 Edmiston and Company Limited（埃德米斯顿有限公司，以下简称“Edmiston”）与债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等人的 Chapter 11 受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯，以下简称“受托人”）之间就出售 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）进行通信的任何及所有文件。\n\n2. Dirk Johnson（德克·约翰逊）为支持受托人出售 Lady May 的动议所作声明 [Doc No. 1858]（以下简称“Dirk Johnson 声明”）中提及的、用于 Edmiston 营销活动以宣传和出售 Lady May 的任何及所有文件和营销材料。\n\n3. Dirk Johnson 声明第6至10段所述及/或提及的任何及所有文件和营销材料，包括脚注4至5所提及的文件和营销材料。\n\n4. Dirk Johnson 声明第11段所提及的初始竞买人所作五份正式报价的副本。\n\n5. 证明 Edmiston 与初始竞买人之间就 Lady May 进行通信的任何及所有文件。\n\n6. Dirk Johnson 声明第13段提及的 Edmiston 与初始竞买人之间的任何及所有通信和文件，以及与其他对 Lady May 表示兴趣的各方之间的任何及所有通信和文件。\n\n7. 证明 Edmiston 与第二轮竞买人（该术语定义见 Dirk Johnson 声明第15段）之间就 Lady May 进行通信的任何及所有文件。\n\n8. 证明 Edmiston 与买方（该术语定义见 Dirk Johnson 声明第2段）之间就 Lady May 进行通信的任何及所有文件。\n\n附件D\n\nHK 各方律师与受托人律师之间的电子邮件往来\n\nSutton, Ezra（埃兹拉·萨顿）\n\n发件人：Bassett, Nicholas（尼古拉斯·巴塞特）\n\n发送时间：Friday, June 16, 2023 3:09 PM\n收件人：Della Fera, Sam（萨姆·德拉费拉）\n抄送：Luft, Avi E.（阿维·E·卢夫特）；Vartan, Lee（李·瓦尔坦）；Wernick, Melissa F.（梅利莎·F·韦尼克）；Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞思）；Aaron A. Romney（亚伦·A·罗姆尼）\n(aromney@zeislaw.com); Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛）\n主题：回复：In re Kwok - Trustee Deposition Subpoena\n附件：image001.png；image002.png\n\n注意：外部电子邮件。点击链接前请确认您认识发件人。\n\nSam，我们计划提出撤销动议。\n\n谢谢。\n\nNick Bassett，合伙人，Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）2050 M St., N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202.551.1902\n\n2023年6月15日上午11:36，Della Fera, Sam 写道：\n\n--- 外部电子邮件 --- Nick：\n\n当然，您可基于您认为适当的任何理由提出撤销传票的动议。关于诉讼资格问题，您所提及的法院裁决并非终局命令，该裁决清楚指出了受托人在其第二项和第三项反诉请求中主张的区别。第二项反诉请求所寻求、且获法院准许的替身实体救济，仅仅“使一个实体〔即 HK USA〕对另一名个人或实体〔即债务人〕的债务承担责任，……从而实现将〔HK USA 的〕资产转入破产财产。”另见 RS Air, LLC, et al v. NetJets Aviation, Inc., et al. (In re RS Air), BAP No. NC-23-1008-FSG at 13 n.5 (9th Cir. BAP June 2, 2023)（“尽管替身实体原则要求证明两个实体‘作为单一经济实体运营’，Official Unsecured Creditors' Comm. of Broadstripe, LLC v. Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P. (In re Broadstripe, LLC), 444 B.R. 51, 102 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010)，其结果并非视该等实体为同一实体，而是使其中一方对另一方的债务承担责任，见 Blair v. Infineon Techs. AG, 720 F. Supp. 2d 462, 469 (D. Del. 2010)〔省略括号内引文〕。”）\n\nManning 法官在其裁决中明确未向受托人授予、且亦未以其他方式向受托人授予受托人在第三项反诉请求中所寻求的对 HK USA 的任何受益所有权或其他所有权。此外，Mei Guo（郭梅）仍为 HK USA 的唯一负责人；我们主张，如有必要，她据此享有诉讼资格。\n\nSam\n\n发件人：Bassett, Nicholas 发送时间：Wednesday, June 14, 2023 5:58 PM 收件人：Della Fera, Sam ; Luft, Avi E. 抄送：Vartan, Lee ; Wernick, Melissa F. ; Stephen Kindseth ; Aaron A. Romney (aromney@zeislaw.com) 主题：回复：In re Kwok - Trustee Deposition Subpoena\n\n\\* 外部信息 \\* Sam，\n\n我注意到，您以同时代表 HK USA 和 Mei Guo 的律师身份送达了该文件。鉴于法院关于替身实体的裁决，您无权以该方式代表 HK USA 行事，任何此类尝试均违反法院命令。\n\n关于 Guo 女士，请说明她如何具有在该动议中陈述意见（因而送达证据开示）的诉讼资格。\n\n谢谢，Nick\n\n \n\nNick Bassett 合伙人 金融重组组\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nPaul Hastings LLP 2050 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 直线电话：+1.202.551.1902 总机：+1.202.551.1700 传真：+1.202.551.0402 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\nwww.paulhastings.com\n\n发件人：Della Fera, Sam >\n\n发送时间：Wednesday, June 14, 2023 5:17 PM\n\n收件人：Bassett, Nicholas >；Luft, Avi E. >\n\n>；Stephen Kindseth\n\n>；Aaron A. Romney\n\n(aromney@zeislaw.com) >\n\n抄送：Vartan, Lee >；Wernick, Melissa F.\n\n主题：[外部] In re Kwok - Trustee Deposition Subpoena\n\n--- 外部电子邮件 ---\n\nNick/Avi：\n\n我随附一份传票，拟就 Luc 作为受托人参与出售 Lady May 一事对其进行证言录取。证言录取定于 Tuesday, June 20, 2023, at 11:00 a.m.，在我们纽约办公室进行。请确认您接受该传票的送达。如您希望讨论证言录取日期及/或地点，请告知我。\n\nSam\n\n \n\nSAM DELLA FERA, JR.\n\n主席，破产与债权人权利部，Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC（基耶萨·沙希尼安与贾恩托马西律师事务所）\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n办公电话 973.530.2076 sdellafera@csglaw.com 105 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068\n\ncsglaw.com\n\nLinkedIn\n\n请注意：本电子邮件所含信息属于私人通信，可能包含保密的律师—客户信息。如您不是预定收件人，请勿阅读、复制、使用该信息或向他人使用该信息。如您误收本信息，请立即回复本信息通知发件人，然后从您的系统中删除该信息。\n\n谢谢。\n\n本信息由一家律师事务所发送，可能包含享有特权或保密的信息。如您误收本传送信息，请通过回复电子邮件通知发件人，并删除该信息及任何附件。如您回复本信息，Paul Hastings 可能收集个人信息，包括您的姓名、企业名称及其他联系方式，以及 IP 地址。有关 Paul Hastings 的信息收集、隐私和安全原则的更多信息，请点击\n\nHERE。如有任何问题，请联系 Privacy@paulhastings.com。\n\n本信息由一家律师事务所发送，可能包含享有特权或保密的信息。如您误收本传送信息，请通过回复电子邮件通知发件人，并删除该信息及任何附件。如您回复本信息，Paul Hastings 可能收集个人信息，包括您的姓名、企业名称及其他联系方式，以及 IP 地址。有关 Paul Hastings 信息收集、隐私和安全原则的更多信息，请点击 HERE。如有任何问题，请联系 Privacy@paulhastings.com。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Guo","Paul Hastings","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Miles Guo","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":9405,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-06-19 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-06-19","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:14:30"}