{"id":"court_ctb_1942_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1942,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:      | (Jointly Administered)  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |\n\n## **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S REPLY TO OBJECTION TO MOTION TO QUASH AND OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION TO ADJOURN SALE HEARING**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the Debtor's Chapter 11 Case, in reply and opposition (as to the relief sought by cross-motion) to the HK Parties' *(A) Objection to Trustee's Emergency Motion for Order Quashing Subpoenas and Denying Them Discovery in Connection with the Trustee's Sale Motion, and (B) Cross-Motion to Adjourn the Hearing on the Sale Motion* [ECF No. 1926] (the \"Objection and Cross-Motion\"), and in support of the Trustee's Motion to Quash, hereby states the following:<sup>2</sup>\n\n# **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Opposition and Cross-Motion are but the latest salvos in the HK Parties' unrelenting campaign to thwart the proposed sale of the Lady May at all costs. The Court has already ruled that the HK Parties hold no interest in the Lady May, and they have obtained no stay pending appeal. Undeterred by this Court's summary judgment rulings and their resulting lack of\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein adopt the definitions set forth in the Trustee's Emergency Motion for Order Quashing Subpoenas and Denying the HK Parties Discovery in Connection with the Trustee's Sale Motion [ECF No. 1912] (the \"Motion to Quash\").\n\nstanding to be heard, the HK Parties sought depositions related to the Sale Motion. Now they seek to delay the sale, which will effectively prevent it from happening, at least at the current price. The HK Parties are not entitled to discovery, and their request to delay the sale should be denied.\n\n2. As described in the Trustee's opposition to the HK Parties' motion for stay pending appeal (which is being filed concurrently herewith), the HK Parties have inexplicably sat on their rights since the Court issued the Lady May SJ Order in March 2023, waiting nearly three months, until earlier this week, to move for a stay pending appeal. Apparently acknowledging the futility of their stay motion, the HK Parties are now alternatively seeking to delay the sale through the Objection and Cross-Motion, ostensibly on the basis that they need time to obtain depositions prior to the hearing. But this request, too, is just as untimely as it is meritless.\n\n3. The Trustee announced that there was a winning bidder (and the timing of the anticipated sale) on May 31 and filed the Sale Motion disclosing the winning bidder on June 2. At any time since then, the HK Parties could have served their subpoenas on the Trustee and the broker. Instead, they waited nearly two weeks (until June 14) to do so and then asked to schedule the depositions on less than one week's notice. Given this delay, the HK Parties cannot now complain about the lack of time for depositions should they defeat the Motion to Quash. Had they served their subpoenas weeks ago, plenty of time would have existed for the Court to determine whether the depositions were appropriate and, if so, allow them to occur. Any prejudice relating to the timing of the sale hearing is thus entirely of the HK Parties' own making.\n\n4. Because the HK Parties have no standing and are not entitled to notice depositions, and because there is no basis to delay the sale hearing, the Court should both grant the Motion to Quash and deny the Cross-Motion.\n\n2\n\n#### **REPLY AND OPPOSITION**\n\n#### **A. HK Parties Lack Standing to be Heard**\n\n5. The HK Parties claim it is \"absurd\" to suggest they lack standing to be heard in response to the Sale Motion. Yet they simply ignore the case law and legal arguments contained in the Motion to Quash. The HK Parties do not—because they cannot—dispute the immutable principle of bankruptcy law that once the court has rejected a party's claimed basis for having an interest in a chapter 11 case, such party no longer has the right to be heard in that case unless it obtains a stay pending appeal. *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.\"). Because they have not obtained a stay, the fact that the HK Parties have appealed this Court's summary judgment ruling is meaningless. The pending appeal, standing alone, does nothing to give them standing to be heard.\n\n6. The HK Parties also claim that Mei Guo must have standing because she now faces liability as guarantor of the alleged \"loan\" HK USA received from the Debtor's criminal coconspirator, William Je, a/k/a \"Uncle William.\" But even assuming that loan is real (which it is not), Mei Guo has not even attempted to file a proof of claim, contingent or otherwise, based on her alleged guarantor liability. Moreover, her argument that her alleged guarantee of the purported loan gives her standing is inconsistent with the HK Parties' argument that the Court's ruling on the Trustee's alter ego claim does not collapse HK USA into the estate but, rather, merely renders the estate the owner of HK USA's assets. (Objection and Cross-Motion ¶¶ 10-11.) If that is the result of the alter ego ruling, then any claim Mei Guo may end up holding on account of her alleged guarantee liability would be a claim against HK USA, not against the chapter 11 estate.\n\n7. Finally, the HK Parties are wrong that HK USA is free to continue participating on all issues in this chapter 11 case notwithstanding the Court's alter ego ruling. The HK Parties can, of course, pursue their appeal of the Alter Ego SJ Order, and the Trustee has never contended otherwise. What the HK Parties cannot do, however—absent a stay pending appeal—is take any other actions that are inconsistent with the Court's ruling, including exercising other legal rights that are now property of the estate. (*See* Motion to Quash ¶ 25.) Again, the HK Parties simply ignore this well-settled legal principle in their objection. If the HK Parties' position were correct, any creditor whose claim is disallowed could continue to be heard in a chapter 11 case potentially for years, even though such creditor has no legal stake in the case. This result would be absurd.\n\n#### **B. Proposed Discovery is Not Sought in Good Faith**\n\n8. Even if the HK Parties had standing to be heard, the discovery they seek is still not appropriate. It is clear from the history of this case and the HK Parties' arguments in their motion for a stay pending appeal and in the Objection and Cross-Motion that their actual objective is to prevent the sale of the Lady May from occurring at any price.\n\n9. In other words, the HK Parties do not really take issue with the adequacy of the proposed sales price; they take issue with the idea of any sale at all. But the discovery they pretend to need relates solely to the adequacy of the marketing process the Trustee has undertaken and the resulting sale price. This discovery has nothing to do with the HK Parties' real objective but rather is simply pretext to derail the sale process by delay.\n\n10. If the HK Parties were legitimately concerned with protecting their rights pending the appeal, their only avenue to obtain that relief would be a motion for a stay. The have recently\n\n4\n\nfiled that motion—in dramatically belated fashion—and the Court will decide it in due course.<sup>3</sup> But the discovery they seek regarding the Sale Motion is irrelevant and unnecessary.\n\n### **C. Delaying Sale Would Severely Prejudice Estate**\n\n11. The Trustee has worked tirelessly for more than two months to sell the Lady May in an efficient, value-maximizing process. He and his counsel poured hundreds of hours of time into sale and marketing efforts and obtained the assistance of an experienced broker and other professionals. As described in the Sale Motion, and as will be demonstrated in further detail at the hearing on such motion, the resulting sale process was thorough, consistent with industry standards, and has achieved a resoundingly successful result that is in the best interests of all the Debtor's creditors. In fact, the evidence at the sale hearing will show that the resulting sales price is much better than what the broker himself ever imagined.\n\n12. The baseless aspersions that the HK Parties cast on the sale process misapprehend the unique market for ultra-luxury yachts and how a marketing process for such assets is typically conducted. The HK Parties' ignorance reveals their true motive, which is not to ensure that the sale maximizes value but rather to scare away the buyer so that there can be no sale at all.\n\n13. Make no mistake, the delay the HK Parties seek would be devastating to this estate. The Trustee understands that the winning bidder is insistent on closing the sale by no later than June 30, and, if the sale does not close by that date, he will no longer be interested. Similarly, the Trustee understands that the second and third highest bidders are also no longer interested.\n\n14. If the sale process is delayed, the best the Trustee can hope for is that the other bidders, who originally indicated an interest in purchasing the yacht in the \\$20 million or less range (*i.e.*, at least \\$3-\\$4 million less than the current purchase price), might possibly be interested in\n\n<sup>3</sup> As the Trustee discusses in his opposition to the HK Parties' last-minute motion for stay, the timing of that motion reeks of gamesmanship.\n\nreengaging. But there is no guarantee they would have such interest, especially as the summer wears on, and the market for luxury yachts in the Northeast all but disappears. At that point, the yacht would have to be moved to Florida and remarketed.\n\n15. But the risk of a diminished sale price is only part of the problem. The Trustee has already incurred significant time, fees, and expenses in connection with marketing the Lady May and negotiating the current proposed sale. These expenses will have been incurred for nothing if the sale hearing is delayed and the sale does not close. And as time drags on, further expenses will necessarily be incurred to maintain the Lady May, including salaries for the captain and crew, operational expenses (such as dockage fees, fuel, electricity, and supplies), repairs, and insurance premiums, which can range between \\$100,000 to \\$300,000 per month (depending on when such amounts come due). Finally, the Trustee would end up incurring additional costs and expenses in restarting a new sale process.\n\n16. Given these severe threats to the estate, the sale should not be delayed. This is especially so where, as here, the HK Parties could have avoided the need to seek adjournment of the sale hearing by simply being more diligent in protecting their rights. If they had promptly sought discovery, there would have been plenty of time to resolve the Motion to Quash and, if necessary, to allow discovery to proceed. To be clear, even if sought earlier, the discovery would have been improper, and the Trustee still would have moved to quash. But if the HK Parties had acted diligently, there would be no need to rush to resolve the issue prior to the sale hearing and no basis for the HK Parties to seek to delay the hearing. Having sat on their hands, the HK Parties must bear the consequences of their inaction.\n\n17. For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons discussed in the Motion to Quash, the Court should grant the Motion to Quash, and overrule and deny (as applicable) the Objection and Cross-Motion.\n\n*[THE REST OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\nDated: June 25, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalk@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| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:      | (Jointly Administered)  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on June 25, 2023, the foregoing 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 26, 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 25, 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\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).","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\nx\n\n关于：　:\n:　第 11 章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n等人，　:\n:\n:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:　（合并审理）\n\nx\n第 11 章受托人对撤销传票动议之异议的答辩及对推迟出售听证会交叉动议的反对意见\n\nLuc A. Despins 以其在债务人第 11 章案件中被任命的第 11 章受托人（下称“受托人”）身份，针对 HK Parties（香港各方）提交的《(A) 对受托人关于撤销传票并拒绝其就受托人出售动议进行证据开示的紧急动议的异议，以及 (B) 推迟出售动议听证会的交叉动议》[ECF No. 1926]（下称“异议与交叉动议”）作出答辩并提出反对意见（就交叉动议所寻求的救济而言），且为支持受托人的撤销动议，特此陈述如下：2\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 反对意见与交叉动议只不过是香港各方不惜一切代价阻挠拟议出售 Lady May 号（梅号游艇）的不懈行动中的最新攻势。法院已经裁定香港各方对梅号游艇不享有任何权益，且他们并未获得上诉期间的暂缓执行令。本法院的即决判决裁定及其导致的主体资格缺失并未让香港各方退缩，\n\n1 本案各第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及其他诸多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 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 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知和联络之目的）。\n\n2 本文书中未另行定义的词首字母大写术语，均采用《受托人关于撤销传票并拒绝香港各方就受托人出售动议进行证据开示之命令的紧急动议》[ECF No. 1912]（下称“撤销动议”）中所载的定义。\n\n他们依然就出售动议要求进行宣誓取证。现在他们又企图推迟出售，这将切实阻止出售的达成，至少在当前价格下是如此。香港各方无权进行证据开示，其推迟出售的请求应予驳回。\n\n2. 正如受托人在对香港各方申请上诉期间暂缓执行动议的反对意见（与本文书同时提交）中所述，自法院于 2023 年 3 月作出梅号游艇即决判决裁定以来，香港各方莫名其妙地坐视自己的权利不顾，等待了近三个月，直至本周早些时候才提出上诉期间暂缓执行的动议。显然是意识到其暂缓动议毫无成效，香港各方现在退而求其次，试图通过异议与交叉动议来推迟出售，表面上的理由是他们需要在听证会前获取宣誓证词的时间。但这一请求同样既不及时也毫无依据。\n\n3. 受托人于 5 月 31 日宣布已有中标竞买人（以及预期的出售时间安排），并于 6 月 2 日提交了披露中标竞买人的出售动议。从那时起的任何时候，香港各方本都可以向受托人和经纪人送达传票。然而，他们拖延了近两周（直到 6 月 14 日）才付诸行动，随后又要求在不足一周的提前通知期内安排宣誓取证。鉴于这种拖延，即使香港各方能够击退撤销动议，现在也不能抱怨宣誓取证的时间不足。如果他们在几周前送达传票，法院就会有充足的时间来裁定宣誓取证是否适当，若适当则准予进行。因此，任何与出售听证会时间安排相关的损害，完全是由香港各方自己造成的。\n\n4. 鉴于香港各方没有陈述意见的主体资格且无权发出宣誓取证通知，并且没有任何推迟出售听证会的理由，法院应同时批准撤销动议并驳回交叉动议。\n\n答辩与反对意见\nA. 香港各方缺乏陈述意见的主体资格\n\n5. 香港各方声称，认为他们在应对出售动议时缺乏陈述意见的主体资格是“荒谬的”。然而，他们直接无视了撤销动议中所包含的判例法和法律论据。香港各方并未——因为他们无法——反驳破产法中这项不可动摇的原则：一旦法院驳回了某一方当事人在第 11 章案件中享有权益的权利主张，除非该方当事人获得上诉期间的暂缓执行令，否则其不再享有在该案件中陈述意见的权利。参见 In re Kreisler Group, Inc., 648 F.2d 86, 88 (2d Cir. 1981)（“我们认为，关于这些异议以及 Seventh Avenue 对和解计划确认提出的其他异议，鉴于已有有效裁决判定其并非债权人，Seventh Avenue 现无权提出异议。”）。因为他们并未获得暂缓执行令，香港各方针对本法院即决判决裁定提出上诉这一事实毫无意义。仅凭悬而未决的上诉本身，绝不能赋予他们陈述意见的主体资格。\n\n6. 香港各方还声称 Mei Guo（郭美）必定具备主体资格，因为她现在作为 HK USA 从债务人的刑事同谋 William Je（余建明，又名“William 叔叔”）处获得的所谓“贷款”的担保人而面临责任。但即使假设该笔贷款属实（事实并非如此），郭美甚至从未试图根据其所谓的担保人责任提交过任何债权申报书（附条件的或其他性质的）。此外，她主张其对所谓贷款的涉称担保赋予了其主体资格，这一论点与香港各方的另一论点相互矛盾——香港各方主张法院对受托人代位人/另我（alter ego）权利主张的裁定并没有将 HK USA 并入破产财产，而仅仅是使破产财产成为 HK USA 资产的所有人。（异议与交叉动议第 10-11 段。）如果这便是另我裁定的结果，那么郭美因其所谓的担保责任最终可能持有的任何索赔要求，都将是对 HK USA 的索赔，而不是对第 11 章破产财产的索赔。\n\n7. 最后，香港各方关于尽管法院作出了另我裁定、HK USA 仍可自由继续参与本第 11 章案件中所有事项的主张是错误的。香港各方当然可以继续对其《另我即决判决裁定》的上诉，受托人也从未提出过相反的主张。然而，在缺乏上诉期间暂缓执行令的情况下，香港各方不能做的是采取任何与法院裁定不一致的其他行动，包括行使现在属于破产财产财产的其他法律权利。（参见撤销动议第 25 段。）同样，香港各方在异议中直接无视了这一确立已久的法律原则。如果香港各方的立场是正确的，那么任何债权被驳回的债权人都可以在第 11 章案件中继续陈述意见，甚至可能长达数年，即使该债权人在案件中没有任何法律权益。这种结果将是荒谬的。\nB. 拟议的证据开示并非出于善意而寻求\n\n8. 即使香港各方具备陈述意见的主体资格，他们所寻求的证据开示仍然是不适当的。从本案的历史以及香港各方在上诉期间暂缓执行动议和异议与交叉动议中的论点可以清楚看出，他们的实际目的是阻止梅号游艇在任何价格下完成出售。\n\n9. 换言之，香港各方并不是真正对拟议出售价格的充分性存有异议；他们反对的是进行任何出售这一想法本身。但他们假装需要的证据开示仅仅涉及受托人所采取的营销程序的充分性以及最终的出售价格。这项证据开示与香港各方的真实目的毫无关系，而纯粹是通过拖延来破坏出售程序的借口。\n\n10. 如果香港各方真的是为了在审理上诉期间保护自己的权利，他们获得该项救济的唯一途径就是提出暂缓动议。他们最近已经提交了该动议——以一种极度拖延的方式——法院将在适当的时候对此作出裁定。3 但他们就出售动议所寻求的证据开示是毫无关联且没有必要的。\nC. 推迟出售将严重损害破产财产的利益\n\n11. 两个多月来，受托人不知疲倦地开展工作，以便通过高效、价值最大化的程序出售梅号游艇。他和他的法律顾问在出售和营销工作上倾注了数百小时的时间，并获得了经验丰富的经纪人和其他专业人士的协助。正如出售动议中所述，并且将在该动议的听证会上作进一步详细证明的那样，由此形成的出售程序是严谨周密的，符合行业标准，并取得了完全成功的成果，符合债务人所有债权人的最大利益。事实上，出售听证会上的证据将表明，最终达成的出售价格远优于经纪人本人曾设想的水平。\n\n12. 香港各方对出售程序进行的毫无依据的诋毁，是对超豪华游艇独特市场以及此类资产营销程序通常如何开展的错误理解。香港各方的无知暴露了其真实动机，即根本不是为了确保出售实现价值最大化，而是为了吓跑买家，从而根本无法实现任何出售。\n\n13. 毫无疑问，香港各方所寻求的拖延对本破产财产将是毁灭性的。受托人获悉，中标竞买人坚持不迟于 6 月 30 日完成出售交易，如果出售未在该日期前完成交割，他将不再有兴趣。同样，受托人获悉，出价第二高和第三高的竞买人也已不再感兴趣。\n\n14. 如果出售程序被拖延，受托人所能指望的最好情况是，那些最初表示有兴趣在 $20 million（2000 万美元）或更低区间内购买游艇的其他竞买人（即比当前购买价格至少低 $3-$4 million（300 万至 400 万美元）），可能会有兴趣\n\n3 正如受托人在对香港各方在最后时刻提出的暂缓动议的反对意见中所讨论的那样，该动议的提交时机充斥着策略操弄的意味。\n\n重新参与。但这不能保证他们会抱有此种兴趣，尤其是随着夏季流逝，美国东北部的豪华游艇市场几乎彻底沉寂。届时，该游艇将不得不被运往佛罗里达州并重新推向市场。\n\n15. 但售价降低的风险仅是问题的一部分。受托人在营销梅号游艇以及就当前拟议出售进行谈判的过程中，已经投入了大量的时间、费用和开支。如果出售听证会延期且出售无法交割，这些开支将被白白浪费。随着时间推移，维护梅号游艇必然会产生进一步的开支，包括船长和船员的薪资、运营费用（如停泊费、燃油费、电费和补给费）、维修费以及保险费，每月可能在 $100,000 到 $300,000 之间（取决于此类款项的到期时间）。最后，受托人还将因重启新的出售程序而最终承担额外的成本和开支。\n\n16. 鉴于对破产财产的这些严重威胁，出售不应被推迟。特别是在本案这种情况下更是如此：HK Parties（香港各方）本可以通过在保护其权利方面更加勤勉，从而避免寻求推迟出售听证会的需要。如果他们及时寻求证据开示，原本会有充裕的时间来解决撤销动议（Motion to Quash），并在必要时允许证据开示继续进行。需要明确的是，即使更早提出请求，该证据开示也是不当的，受托人仍会提出撤销动议。但如果香港各方勤勉行事，就无需在出售听证会前匆忙解决该问题，香港各方也没有任何依据寻求推迟听证会。由于香港各方袖手旁观、怠于行事，他们必须承担不作为的后果。\n\n17. 基于上述理由以及撤销动议中所阐述的理由，法院应当批准撤销动议，并驳回和否决（视适用情况而定）异议与交叉动议。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白。]\n\n日期：2023年6月25日 康涅狄格州纽黑文（New Haven, Connecticut） LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人（CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林西）(ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalk@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）(特许临时执业（admitted pro hac vice）) PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所） 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·拉夫特）(特许临时执业（admitted pro hac vice）) Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）(特许临时执业（admitted pro hac vice）) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人代理律师\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分庭）\n\nx\n\n关于：\n第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等人，\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n（合并审理（Jointly Administered））\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n送达证书（CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE）\n\n下签署人特此证明，于 2023年6月25日，上述文件已通过电子方式提交。本提交件的通知将通过法院的电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统运作，通过电子邮件发送给上述标题下的第 11 章案件的所有当事人，或者于 2023年6月26日，按照电子提交通知上的指示，通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子提交的任何人。当事人可以通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅该提交件。\n\n日期：2023年6月25日 康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\n签署人：/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 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及众多其他化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 以及 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 破产财产的受托人，仅用于接收通知和联络目的）。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","CIPA","William Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1912,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1926,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2486,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:15:47"}