{"id":"court_ctb_1926_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1926,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nIn re:\n\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*, [1](#page-0-0)\n\nDebtors.\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n# **HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC'S AND MEI GUO'S (A) OBJECTION TO TRUSTEE'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENAS AND DENYING THEM DISCOVERY IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO SELL THE LADY MAY (\"SALE MOTION\"), AND (B) CROSS-MOTION TO ADJOURN THE HEARING ON THE SALE MOTION**\n\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\") and Mei Guo (together with HK USA, the \"HK Parties\"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby (a) object to the Emergency Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"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 (the \"Motion to Quash\"), and (b) cross-move to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates for the Sale Motion (the \"Cross-Motion\"), and in support thereof, state as follows:\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><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 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### **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n# **The Sale Motion**\n\n1. The Trustee filed his Motion Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 105 and 363, Bankruptcy Rules 2002, 6004(c), and 9014, and Local Rules 6604-1 and 6004-2, Seeking Entry of an 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 (the \"Sale Motion\") on June 2, 2023 (Docket No. 1858). The hearing on the Sale Motion is scheduled to commence on June 27, 2023, at noon, and will continue as necessary on June 28, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.[2](#page-1-0)\n\n2. By the Sale Motion, the Trustee seeks this Court's approval for the sale of the *Lady May* yacht to Herb Chambers Yachting, LLC, for a downward-revised sale price of \\$23,150,000. *See* Supplement to the Sale Motion (Docket No. 1913) (the \"Sale Motion Supplement\"). The list price initially agreed upon between the Trustee and his retained broker for the yacht, Edmiston and Company Limited (the \"Broker\"), was \\$26,500,000. Declaration of Dirk Johnson in Support of the Sale Motion (the \"Broker's Declaration\") at 2, ¶ 4 (*See* Docket No. 1858). No rationale for that list price has been provided by the Trustee or the Broker. Moreover, contrary to Rule 6004- 2(b)(4) of this Court's Local Rules, the Trustee has failed to obtain any appraisal or other formal valuation of the *Lady May*.\n\n3. It is undisputed that the Trustee did not obtain advance Court approval of bidding procedures relating to his solicitation of offers to purchase the *Lady May.* Sale Motion at 4, ¶ 6. Instead, the Trustee relies on his broker's \"significant marketing\" to thousands of potentially\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> The HK Parties have moved before both this Court and the District Court for the District of Connecticut for a stay of the order granting the Trustee judgment and finding that the *Lady May* is property of the individual debtor's estate.\n\ninterested parties \"[c]onsistent with best industry practices,\" which resulted in formal offers from only five prospective buyers. Sale Motion at 2-3, ¶¶ 2-3; at 9, ¶¶ 23-24. Of the five bidders, only one, the bidder deemed by the Trustee to have submitted the highest and best offer, has been identified by the Trustee and Broker.\n\n4. During the bidding process unilaterally established by the Trustee, the Trustee countered the five bids he received, each of which was materially below the list price, with a proposed sale price of \\$23 million. No basis for a counteroffer in that amount has been offered by the Trustee or the Broker.\n\n5. When the Sale Motion was filed, the proposed sale price for the yacht was \\$24 million. (*See* Docket No. 1858). In the Sale Motion Supplement filed on June 19, 2023, the Trustee disclosed that that sale price is being reduced to \\$23,150,000 based upon certain undisclosed defects allegedly revealed by a survey of the yacht conducted by the proposed buyer. The Trustee has not made a copy of the survey available.\n\n### **The Requested Discovery**\n\n6. On June 14, 2023, nearly two weeks before the scheduled hearing on the Sale Motion, the HK Parties sought basic deposition and document discovery regarding the sale, including with respect to the sale timing, marketing, bidding conditions, and negotiation of price and other terms, from the Trustee and the Broker. Copies of the HK Parties' discovery subpoenas are attached to the Motion to Quash as Exhibits B and C. Attached to each subpoena is a Schedule of Documents to be produced by each of the parties with regard to the sale of the *Lady May.*\n\n7. The subpoenas seek customary information about a sale of a significant asset by a bankruptcy trustee, including copies of communications between and among the Trustee, the Broker, and potential buyers. At their depositions, the HK Parties intend to question the Trustee\n\n3\n\nand the Broker regarding, among other things, the undisclosed other bidders and bids, the basis for the initial listing price and the Trustee's counteroffer, the timing of the sale, and other information relevant to the reasonableness of the sale process, the buyer's good faith, and the other statutory requisites of 11 U.S.C. § 363.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n#### **Objection to the Motion to Quash**\n\n8. The HK Parties are parties-in-interest who have standing to be heard on the Sale Motion. 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b). The Trustee makes much of the fact that the HK Parties have not filed claims in this case. But neither of them were creditors of the Debtor's estate on the chapter 11 petition date. At that time, HK USA had title to the *Lady May* and Mei Guo was not a guarantor of the \\$37 million loan obtained months later to establish the *Lady May* escrow. Consequently, neither of the HK Parties held a claim on the petition date that would require (or even allow) them to file a proof of claim. Circumstances have now changed. HK USA has been stripped of its ownership of the *Lady May*, and Ms. Guo faces significant potential liability as the guarantor of the loan that funded the escrow to secure the return of the *Lady May* to Connecticut—because the Trustee now seeks to take control of those funds to pay administrative and other claims. To suggest that the HK Parties have no financial stake in the sale of the *Lady May*—particularly while their appeal of the Court's order determining that the *Lady May* is property of the Debtor's Estate and their motion to stay that order pending appeal are before the District Court— is absurd.\n\n9. It is equally absurd for the Trustee to argue that HK USA \"has no ability to exercise legal rights in litigation . . . without the Trustee's permission. . . .\" Motion to Quash at 9, ¶ 25. If true, the Trustee's position would preclude HK USA from appealing or otherwise challenging any judicial decision or Trustee action against it. Notwithstanding the Alter Ego SJ Order (as defined in the Motion to Quash), HK USA has continued to appear on its own behalf in this bankruptcy case and in related adversary proceedings and appeals. The Trustee cannot, and should not be permitted to, deny HK USA its right to do so. Nor should the Trustee be permitted to deny the HK Parties basic information about the circumstances surrounding the marketing and sale of the *Lady May*. To allow the Trustee to withhold that information until the Sale Hearing severely compromises the ability of the HK Parties to prepare therefor.\n\n10. The Trustee misconstrues the effect of the Alter Ego SJ Order. The Court's decision, which is not a final order, nowhere finds that the Debtor and HK USA are \"one and the same\"—nor could it have in the context of the Trustee's Second Counterclaim, which was the only Counterclaim at issue in the Alter Ego SJ Order. Indeed, the Alter Ego SJ Order clearly recognized the distinction between the Trustee's claims in his Second (alter ego) and Third (beneficial ownership of HK USA) Counterclaims. Alter Ego SJ Order at 25-26.\n\n11. The alter ego relief sought and granted in connection with the Second Counterclaim, in the words of this Court, merely \"render[ed] one entity [*i.e.*, HK USA] liable for the debts of another individual or entity [*i.e.*, the Debtor,] … thus accomplish[ing] the transfer of [HK USA's] assets into the bankruptcy estate.\" *Id*. at 25. *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\n12. Contrary to the Trustee's position, this Court has never granted to the Trustee any beneficial or other ownership of HK USA. Simply put, the Trustee does not control HK USA.\n\n#### **Cross-Motion to Adjourn the Sale Hearing**\n\n13. Because the Trustee has refused to provide the requested discovery to date, the HK Parties submit that the hearing on the Sale Motion should be delayed until the requested discovery is provided.\n\n14. The HK Parties subpoenaed the depositions of the Trustee and the Broker, for the week of June 20, 2023, well in advance of the sale hearing. By way of the subpoenas, the HK Parties seek to conduct limited, customary discovery in advance of the sale hearing to obtain information on the numerous and serious factual issues raised by the Trustee in the Sale Motion.\n\n15. In addition, the District Court has scheduled a status conference for Monday, June 26, 2023, at 4:30 p.m., on the HK Parties' request for a stay of the Court's order granting summary judgment on the Trustee's First Counterclaim, which the HK Parties filed in order to suspend the sale of the *Lady May* pending the HK Parties' appeal. The HK Parties respectfully submit that the Court should wait to schedule the hearing on the Sale Motion until after the District Court's status conference.\n\n16. Furthermore, under the current schedule, this Court will not hear the Motion to Quash until one hour before the hearing on the Sale Motion is scheduled to begin. Thus, the current schedule operates to *de facto* grant the Motion to Quash. If the Motion to Quash is denied, as it should be, the HK Parties should be given a reasonable opportunity to conduct the requested discovery in advance of a rescheduled sale hearing. Therefore, the HK Parties respectfully request that the Court continue the hearing on the Sale Motion until a reasonable time after the Court has ruled on the Motion to Quash.\n\n6\n\nWHEREFORE, the HK Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order (1) denying the Motion to Quash; (2) continuing the Sale Hearing until a reasonable time after the District Court's status conference concerning the HK Parties' motion for stay pending appeal of the Court's decision granting summary judgment on the Trustee's First Counterclaim; and (3) granting such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: June 22, 2023 */s/ Sam Della Fera, Jr.*  Roseland, New Jersey Sam Della Fera, Jr. (admitted *pro hac vice*) [sdellafera@csglaw.com](mailto:sdellafera@csglaw.com)  Lee Vartan (admitted *pro hac vice*) [lvartan@csglaw.com](mailto:lvartan@csglaw.com) Melissa F. Wernick (admitted *pro hac vice*) [mwernick@csglaw.com](mailto:mwernick@csglaw.com) **CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC** 105 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 325-1500 Facsimile: (973) 325-1501 *Attorneys for Mei Guo and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC*\n\nand\n\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)  James M. Moriarty (ct21876) [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com)  **ZEISLER & ZEISLER PC** 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5485 *Local Counsel for Mei Guo and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC*\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 22nd day of June, 2023, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\nDated: June 22, 2023 */s/ Sam Della Fera, Jr.*  Roseland, New Jersey Sam Della Fera, Jr. (admitted *pro hac vice*) [sdellafera@csglaw.com](mailto:sdellafera@csglaw.com)  Lee Vartan (admitted *pro hac vice*) [lvartan@csglaw.com](mailto:lvartan@csglaw.com) Melissa F. Wernick (admitted *pro hac vice*) [mwernick@csglaw.com](mailto:mwernick@csglaw.com) **CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC** 105 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 325-1500 Facsimile: (973) 325-1501 *Attorneys for Mei Guo and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC*\n\nand\n\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)  James M. Moriarty (ct21876) [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com)  **ZEISLER & ZEISLER PC** 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5485 *Local Counsel for Mei Guo and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC*","body_zh":"United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n\n第 11 章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等人，[1]\n\n债务人。\n\n（联合审理）\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）及 Mei Guo（郭美）关于以下事项的：(A) 对受托人关于撤销传票并拒绝就受托人出售 Lady May 号动议（“出售动议”）向其提供证据开示的紧急动议的异议，以及 (B) 要求推迟出售动议听证会的交叉动议\n\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK USA”）及 Mei Guo（郭美）（与 HK USA 合称为“香港各方”），通过其下述签字律师，特此 (a) 对第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）依据《破产规则》第 9014(c) 条和第 9016 条提起的、请求作出撤销传票并确认香港各方无权就受托人 Lady May 号出售动议获得证据开示之命令的紧急动议（“撤销动议”）提出异议，以及 (b) 提出要求推迟出售动议预定听证日期的交叉动议（“交叉动议”），并为此陈述如下：\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他化名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Luc A. Despins，以 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人身份（仅用于接收通知和通讯目的）。\n事实背景\n出售动议\n\n1. 受托人于 2023年6月2日 依据《破产法典》第 105 条和第 363 条、《破产规则》第 2002 条、第 6004(c) 条和第 9014 条以及《本地规则》第 6604-1 条和第 6004-2 条，提交了其请求作出以下命令的动议：(i) 授权并批准以不附带任何留置权、债权主张、权益和权利负担的方式出售 Lady May 号；(ii) 授权并批准《买卖协议》，以及 (iii) 给予相关救济（“出售动议”）（案卷号 1858）。出售动议的听证会定于 2023年6月27日 中午开始，并将在必要时于 2023年6月28日 上午 10:00 继续进行。[2]\n\n2. 通过出售动议，受托人请求本法院批准以向下修正后的售价 $23,150,000 将 Lady May 号游艇出售给 Herb Chambers Yachting, LLC。参见《出售动议补充文件》（案卷号 1913）（“出售动议补充文件”）。受托人与其聘请的该游艇经纪人 Edmiston and Company Limited（“经纪人”）最初商定的挂牌价为 $26,500,000。参见支持出售动议的《Dirk Johnson 声明》（“经纪人声明”）第 2 页第 4 段（参见案卷号 1858）。受托人或经纪人均未就该挂牌价提供任何依据。此外，受托人未获得关于 Lady May 号的任何评估或其他正式估值，这违反了本法院《本地规则》第 6004-2(b)(4) 条。\n\n3. 无可争议的是，受托人并未就其征集购买 Lady May 号要约的相关竞价程序事先获得法院批准。出售动议第 4 页第 6 段。相反，受托人依赖于其经纪人“[符合]最佳行业惯例”对数千个潜在\n\n2 香港各方已向本法院和 District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区联邦地方法院）提出动议，请求中止执行判给受托人胜诉并认定 Lady May 号属于个人债务人破产财产的命令。\n\n利害关系方进行的“重大营销活动”，而这仅仅促成了来自五位潜在买家的正式要约。出售动议第 2-3 页第 2-3 段；第 9 页第 23-24 段。在这五位竞标人中，受托人和经纪人仅披露了一位，即被受托人认定为提交了最高且最佳要约的竞标人。\n\n4. 在受托人单方面设立的竞价过程中，针对其收到的五份均大幅低于挂牌价的要约，受托人提出了 $23,000,000 的拟议售价进行反要约。受托人或经纪人均未就该金额的反要约提供任何依据。\n\n5. 提交出售动议时，该游艇的拟议售价为 $24,000,000。（参见案卷号 1858）。在 2023年6月19日 提交的《出售动议补充文件》中，受托人披露，根据拟议买方对该游艇进行的检验所据称发现的某些未披露缺陷，该售价正被降至 $23,150,000。受托人并未提供该检验报告的副本。\n请求的证据开示\n\n6. 2023年6月14日，即出售动议预定听证会前近两周，香港各方要求受托人和经纪人就该项出售提供基本的宣誓录供和文件开示，包括有关出售时机、营销、竞价条件以及价格和其他条款的谈判等方面的开示。香港各方的证据开示传票副本作为附件 B 和附件 C 附于撤销动议之后。每份传票均附有一份各方就 Lady May 号出售事宜应出具的文件清单。\n\n7. 这些传票索取的是破产受托人出售重大资产时的惯常信息，包括受托人、经纪人与潜在买家之间的通讯副本。在宣誓录供中，香港各方打算就未披露的其他竞标人和要约、初始挂牌价和受托人反要约的依据、出售时机以及与出售过程合理性、买方善意以及 11 U.S.C. § 363 的其他法定要求相关的其他信息等事项，对受托人和经纪人进行讯问。\n辩论意见\n对撤销动议的异议\n\n8. 香港各方是利害关系方，有资格在出售动议中陈述意见。11 U.S.C. § 1109(b)。受托人竭力强调香港各方未在本案中申报债权这一事实。但在第 11 章申请日，两者均非债务人破产财产的债权人。当时，HK USA 拥有 Lady May 号的所有权，且 Mei Guo 尚未成为数月后为设立 Lady May 号托管账户而获得的 $37,000,000 贷款的担保人。因此，在申请日，香港各方均不持有会要求（甚至允许）其提交债权证明的债权。如今情况已发生变化。HK USA 已被剥夺了对 Lady May 号的所有权，而郭女士作为为确保 Lady May 号返回康涅狄格州而设立托管账户提供资金的贷款担保人，正面临重大的潜在责任——因为受托人现在试图控制这些资金以支付行政管理费用及其他索赔。主张香港各方在 Lady May 号的出售中没有经济利益——尤其是在他们对法院认定 Lady May 号属于债务人破产财产的命令的上诉以及要求在上诉期间中止执行该命令的动议正由联邦地方法院审理之际——是荒谬的。\n\n9. 受托人辩称 HK USA“在未经受托人许可的情况下……无权在诉讼中行使法律权利……”，这同样是荒谬的。撤销动议第 9 页第 25 段。如果属实，受托人的立场将剥夺 HK USA 对针对它的任何司法裁决或受托人行为提起上诉或以其他方式提出质疑的权利。尽管存在《另我简易判决命令》（如撤销动议中所定义），HK USA 仍继续代表自身出现在本破产案件以及相关的附随诉讼和上诉中。受托人不能、也不应被允许剥夺 HK USA 这样做的权利。受托人也不应被允许剥夺香港各方获取有关 Lady May 号营销和出售相关情况的基本信息的权利。允许受托人在出售听证会前隐瞒该信息，将严重损害香港各方为此做好准备的能力。\n\n10. 受托人曲解了《另我简易判决命令》的效力。法院的裁决并非终局命令，其中绝无任何一处认定债务人与 HK USA 是“同一主体”——而且在受托人的第二项反请求（这是《另我简易判决命令》中唯一涉及的反请求）的背景下，法院也不可能作出这样的认定。事实上，《另我简易判决命令》明确承认了受托人在其第二项反请求（另我）与第三项反请求（HK USA 的实益所有权）中的主张之间的区别。《另我简易判决命令》第 25-26 页。\n\n11. 用本法院的话来说，就第二项反请求所寻求并准予的另我救济仅仅是“使一个实体[即 HK USA]对另一个个人或实体[即债务人]的债务承担责任……从而实现将[HK USA 的]资产转移至破产财产中。”同上，第 25 页。另见 RS Air, LLC, et al v. NetJets Aviation, Inc., et al. (In re RS Air), BAP No. NC-23-1008-FSG 第 13 页注 5 (9th Cir. BAP 2023年6月2日)（“尽管另我原则要求证明这两个实体‘作为一个单一经济实体运作’，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)，但其结果并不是认定这些实体为同一主体，而是令一方对其另一方的债务承担责任，参见 Blair v. Infineon Techs. AG, 720 F. Supp. 2d 462, 469 (D. Del. 2010) [括号内容省略]）。”\n\n12. 与受托人的立场相反，本法院从未向受托人授予过 HK USA 的任何实益所有权或其他所有权。简而言之，受托人并不控制 HK USA。\n推迟出售听证会的交叉动议\n\n13. 由于受托人迄今拒绝提供所请求的证据开示，香港各方认为，出售动议的听证会应当推迟至提供所请求的证据开示之后举行。\n\n14. 香港各方已送达传票，要求受托人和经纪人在 2023年6月20日 这一周进行宣誓录供，这远早于出售听证会的时间。通过传票，香港各方寻求在出售听证会之前进行有限的、惯常的证据开示，以获取有关受托人在出售动议中提出的诸多严重事实问题的信息。\n\n15. 此外，联邦地方法院已定于 2023年6月26日 星期一下午 4:30，就香港各方要求中止执行法院就受托人第一项反请求作出简易判决的命令的请求举行案件进展会议，香港各方提出该请求是为了在香港各方上诉期间暂缓出售 Lady May 号。香港各方谨提请法院，应当等到联邦地方法院的案件进展会议结束后，再排定出售动议的听证会。\n\n16. 此外，根据目前的日程安排，本法院将在出售动议听证会预定开始前仅一小时才审理撤销动议。因此，目前的日程安排在事实上起到了准许撤销动议的效果。如果撤销动议如应当的那样被驳回，香港各方应获得合理的机会，以便在重新排定的出售听证会之前进行所请求的证据开示。因此，香港各方谨请求法院将出售动议的听证会延期至法院就撤销动议作出裁决后的合理时间。\n为此，香港各方谨请求法院作出命令：(1) 驳回撤销动议；(2) 将出售听证会延期至联邦地方法院就香港各方关于在上诉期间中止执行法院就受托人第一项反请求作出简易判决之裁决的动议举行案件进展会议之后的合理时间；以及 (3) 给予法院认为公正和适当的其他救济。\n\n日期：June 22, 2023\nRoseland, New Jersey\n/s/ Sam Della Fera, Jr.（小萨姆·德拉·费拉）\nSam Della Fera, Jr.（特别准许出庭律师）[sdellafera@csglaw.com]\nLee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦）（特别准许出庭律师）[lvartan@csglaw.com]\nMelissa F. Wernick（梅丽莎·F·沃尼克）（特别准许出庭律师）[mwernick@csglaw.com]\nCHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC（基耶萨·沙希尼安与贾恩托马西律师事务所）\n105 Eisenhower Parkway\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n电话：(973) 325-1500\n传真：(973) 325-1501\nMei Guo（郭美）及 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）之代理律师\n\n以及\n\nAaron A. Romney（亚伦·A·罗姆尼）(ct28144) [aromney@zeislaw.com]\nJames M. Moriarty（詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂）(ct21876) [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com]\nZEISLER & ZEISLER PC（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5485\n郭美及香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司之本地代理律师\n\n送达证书\n\n本人特此证明，于2023年6月22日，前述文书的一份副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交事项的通知将通过法院电子归档系统的运行向所有当事人发送电子邮件，或按电子归档通知上的注明向任何无法接受电子归档的人员邮寄。各方当事人均可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本提交文件。\n\n日期：June 22, 2023\nRoseland, New Jersey\n/s/ Sam Della Fera, Jr.\nSam Della Fera, Jr.（特别准许出庭律师）[sdellafera@csglaw.com]\nLee Vartan（特别准许出庭律师）[lvartan@csglaw.com]\nMelissa F. Wernick（特别准许出庭律师）[mwernick@csglaw.com]\nCHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC\n105 Eisenhower Parkway\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n电话：(973) 325-1500\n传真：(973) 325-1501\n郭美及香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司之代理律师\n\n以及\n\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144) [aromney@zeislaw.com]\nJames M. Moriarty (ct21876) [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com]\nZEISLER & ZEISLER PC\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5485\n郭美及香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司之本地代理律师","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Miles Guo","Despins","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2290,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:11:08"}