{"id":"court_ctb_2007_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2007,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*,\n\nDebtors.<sup>1</sup>\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nJuly 14, 2023\n\n## **G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC'S SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE TO MODIFY THE REVISED PROPOSED ORDER RELATING TO MOTION, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 9019, REGARDING SETTLEMENT WITH ASSIGNEE OF HCHK ENTITIES UNDER NEW YORK COURT ASSIGNMENT PROCEEDINGS**\n\nG Club Operations LLC (\"**G Club**\"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby supplements its original Notice (ECF No. 1977) regarding the *Motion, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, Regarding Settlement with Assignee of HCHK Entities Under New York Court Assignment Proceedings* (ECF No. 1936, the \"**9019 Motion**\") to highlight additional modifications to the recently filed revised Proposed Order allowing the 9019 Motion (the \"**Revised Proposed Order**\") (ECF No. 2004) which are necessary to (1) protect G Club's rights and claims and confidential and privileged communications and data administered for G Club by HCHK Technologies, Inc. (\"**G Club Materials**\") from improper disclosure and (2) establish a process pursuant to which the G Club Materials can be reviewed, analyzed and, if not confidential and privileged, produced to the Trustee.<sup>2</sup> To be clear, G Club is not seeking a ruling now that G Club Materials are confidential and privileged or that limits the Trustee's ability to challenge any\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (the \"Debtor\"), 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> As of the filing of this Supplemental Notice, G Club has produced over 125,000 non-privileged documents to the Trustee responding to his Rule 2004 Subpoena to G Club.\n\nassertion of confidentiality or privilege by G Club or this Court's ability to decide whether any or all of the G Club Materials are confidential or privileged and thus not subject to production to the Trustee through discovery.<sup>3</sup> G Club only seeks the implementation of a defined process that protects and preserves rights and privileges. In support of this request for additional modifications to the Revised Proposed Order, G Club states as follows:\n\n1. Following arguments at the hearing on the 9019 Motion held on July 11, 2023, the Court ordered that the Trustee file a revised proposed order that only sought to resolve the U.S. Trustee's Objections, but no other objections or notice lodged by any party, including the issues raised by G Club in its original Notice or at the hearing. The Court also ordered that any further or additional issues by those parties who had lodged concerns be filed by 5:00 pm (ET) on July 14, 2023.\n\n2. G Club retained HCHK Technologies, Inc. to administer a cloud-based storage and email system for its communications and financial documentation and to provide additional services, including certain legal services. As such, G Club Materials include *all* emails, including materials with respect to which G Club would assert privilege, including attorney-client privilege,\n\n<sup>3</sup> Although the Trustee contends that the Debtor and G Club are alter egos, he has not filed any action seeking that finding. Indeed, the Trustee glosses the legal hurdles that he must first overcome to establish an alter ego, and even then, the assets of the Debtor's alter ego do not automatically become assets of this chapter 11 estate. *See e.g., FIH, LLC v. Barr*, No. X08FSTCV206045676S, 2022 WL 18110170, at \\*10 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 28, 2022)(\"[A]lthough a piercing the corporate veil claim might be framed as an independent cause of action, the claim is nothing more than a remedial request to enforce a judgment against a party not primarily liable.\")(internal quotation marks omitted). Further, even if the Trustee were successful in asserting proving that the Debtor and G Club are alter egos, no court has held or been asked to hold that the Debtor and G Club (or any other entity for that matter) should be substantively consolidated such that G Club's independent existence and rights do not exist. To eliminate the distinction between the Debtor and any other entity requires substantive consolidation which, assuming it is available as between debtors and non-debtors, would have the effect of \"pooling the assets of, and the claims against, the two entities.\" *In re Augie/Restivo Baking Co., Ltd*., 860 F.2d 515, 518 (2d Cir. 1988). The Second Circuit has warned, however, that substantive consolidation should be used sparingly; \"[b]ecause of the dangers in forcing creditors of one debtor to share on a parity with creditors of a less solvent debtor, we have stressed that substantive consolidation is no mere instrument of procedural convenience ... but a measure vitally affecting substantive rights.\" *Id.* (internal citations and quotations omitted).\n\nas well as non-privileged communications and data which may be responsive to the Trustee's Rule 2004 Subpoena, and non-responsive information.\n\n3. Neither the Revised Proposed Order nor the proposed settlement agreement it approves protects from disclosure G Club Materials that are not responsive to the Rule 2004 Subpoena or in which G Club may assert privilege.<sup>4</sup> To the contrary, the Revised Proposed Order and underlying settlement agreement create uncertainty around these fundamental protections that may be irreparably compromised even before there is any final resolution of the Trustee's Adversary Proceeding No.23-05013-1 against the HCHK Entities, or any assertion by G Club that specific G Club Materials are not responsive to the Rule 2004 Subpoena or are privileged.\n\n4. Specifically, Paragraph 6 of the Revised Proposed Order states:\n\n**\"Corporate Records.** The Assignee shall immediately make available to the Trustee all non-privileged corporate records (including in electronic form) and other documents pertaining to the HCHK Entities in the possession of the Assignee. All such corporate records and other documents shall be considered documents designated as \"confidential\" and subject to the protective order entered in this Chapter 11 Case on October 6, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 923].\n\n(ECF 2004).\n\n5. The uncertainty in this Paragraph 6 arises from the phrase \"all non-privileged corporate records (including in electronic form) and other documents pertaining to the HCHK Entities in the possession of the Assignee.\" First, are G Club Materials \"corporate records\" of the HCHK Entities or \"other documents pertaining to the HCHK Entities\"? Arguably they are not, but the Revised Proposed Order should make clear that they are not so that G Club's rights and privileges are not made meaningless though a wholesale turnover of documents to the Trustee.\n\n6. Second, it is unclear whether the turnover of only \"non-privileged\" documents\n\n<sup>4</sup> G Club has not and does not waive any claim to privilege.\n\nrequires the Assignee to withhold documents in which G Club might assert privilege (or which G Club might assert are not responsive to the Rule 2004 Subpoena), even if the Assignee knew the positions G Club might take on these issues – which, of course, he does not.\n\n7. Third, designating turned-over documents as \"confidential\" under the protective order is insufficient to protect G Club's rights and privileges. Even with respect to G Club Materials which may be responsive and non-privileged, there are documents that likely would be \"Highly Confidential.\" G Club is the party in the first instance but subject to challenge that should designate the level of confidentiality that attaches the G Club Materials.\n\n8. Fourth, even if the Court were to give G Club the right to review, designate and claw back documents after they are wholesale made available to the Trustee, its rights and privileges would not be adequately protected. Unlike the situation of an inadvertent disclosure of limited privileged materials by a party, disclosure here may not be limited at all, and will not be subject to review and sorting by G Club before the Trustee obtains control over them. Indeed, G Club has not reviewed all of the G Club Materials because it presently does not have access to all the data administered by HCHK Technologies.\n\n- 9. Finally, the Revised Proposed Order requires further revisions because:\n\t- a. HCHK Technologies is legally precluded from disclosing confidential information belonging to G Club pursuant to contractual obligations in the Master Services Agreement between G Club and HCHK Technologies which have been made known to the Trustee, the Assignee, and HCHK Technologies.\n\t- b. HCHK Technologies lacked authority to assign any administrative or management rights to the Assignee.\n\t- c. The Assignee lacks the authority to assign any administrative or management\n\nrights to the Trustee.\n\n10. To preserve G Club's rights and privileges, the Trustee's ability to challenge the assertion of those rights and privileges, and the Court to rule on any challenge, the Revised Proposed Order should be further revised to (a) prohibit the Assignee from turning over any G Club Material to the Trustee, (b) require the turnover (either directly or providing G Club with electronic access) of all G Club Material to G Club, (c) compel the Trustee and G Club to negotiate, in good faith, a schedule for the review and production of responsive, non-privileged G Club Materials in response to the Rule 2004 Subpoena, after access is provided and volume assessed, to be submitted to the Court for entry as an order and (d) provide that the Court will resolve any scheduling disputes or other disputes regarding withheld documents and privilege assertions.\n\n11. Specifically, paragraph 6 of the Revised Proposed Order should be modified as follows:\n\nThe Assignee shall make available to the Trustee all non-privileged corporate records (including in electronic form) and other documents pertaining *only* to the HCHK Entities and specifically excluding all records and documents or communications relating to G Club or sent to or by G Club and administered by HCHK Technologies, Inc. (the \"**G Club Materials**\"). The Assignee shall immediately return administrative and management rights for G Club Materials to G Club Operations (or physically turnover G Club Materials to G Club). The Assignee shall not provide the Trustee or any other person or entity with access to, or copies of, G Club Materials. Once G Club receives administrative and management rights for G Club Materials (or those materials are physically turned over G Club), G Club and the Trustee will (a) negotiate, in good faith, a schedule for the review and production of additional responsive, non-privileged G Club Materials in response to the Rule 2004 Subpoena, presenting that schedule to the Court for separate approval and (b) provide this Court will resolve any scheduling disputes or other disputes regarding withheld documents and privilege assertions by G Club.<sup>5</sup>\n\n<sup>5</sup> G Club is a creditor of HCHK Technologies which was provided with a retainer for services that, in fact, were not rendered. G Club reserves all rights with respect to this and other claims against the HCHK Entities (and others).\n\n**WHEREFORE**, for the reasons set forth above, G Club request that paragraph 6 of the\n\nRevised Proposed Order be further revised as set forth in Paragraph 11 above, and for such other relief as is just and proper.\n\n## **G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC**\n\nBy: */s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz*  GREEN & SKLARZ LLC Jeffrey M. Sklarz (ct20938) Kellianne Baranowsky (ct26684) One Audobon St, 3rd Floor New Haven, CT 06511 Tel: 203-285-8545 jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\n> PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP Carolina A. Fornos (*pro hac vice*) 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Tel: 212-858-1558 carolina.fornos@pillsburylaw.com\n\n*Attorney for G Club Operations LLC*\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on the date set forth below, a copy of the foregoing was served by CM/ECF and/or mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\nDate: July 14, 2023 /s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格区破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n债务人。1\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并审理）\n\n2023年7月14日\nG CLUB OPERATIONS LLC 依据《破产规则》第 9019 条关于修改涉及与纽约州法院转让程序下 HCHK 实体受让人和解之动议的修订拟定裁定书的补充通知\n\nG Club Operations LLC（“G Club”）通过其下述署名律师，特此对其原《通知》（ECF No. 1977）进行补充，该原通知系关于《依据〈破产规则〉第 9019 条关于与纽约州法院转让程序下 HCHK 实体受让人达成和解的动议》（ECF No. 1936，即“9019 动议”），以强调对近期提交的准许 9019 动议的修订拟定裁定书（“《修订拟定裁定书》”）（ECF No. 2004）作出的必要进一步修改，旨在 (1) 保护 G Club 的权利与主张，以及由 HCHK Technologies, Inc. 为 G Club 管理的保密和受特权保护的通信及数据（“G Club 材料”）免遭不当披露，以及 (2) 确立一项程序，据此可以对 G Club 材料进行审查、分析，并在非保密且不受特权保护的情况下向受托人（Trustee）移交。2 为明确起见，G Club 目前并非寻求法院裁定 G Club 材料属于保密和受特权保护，亦非限制受托人对 G Club 提出的任何保密性或特权主张提出质疑的能力，或限制本法院判定 G Club 材料的任何或全部是否属于保密或受特权保护从而无需通过证据开示向受托人移交的能力。3 G Club 仅寻求落实一项明确的程序，以保护并保留相关权利与特权。为支持对《修订拟定裁定书》作出进一步修改的请求，G Club 陈述如下：\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）（“债务人”）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Luc A. Despins（作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团的受托人，仅用于接收通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2 截至本补充通知提交之日，G Club 已向受托人移交了超过 125,000 份非特权文件，以回应受托人向 G Club 发出的《破产规则》第 2004 条传票。\n\n3 尽管受托人主张债务人与 G Club 构成人格混同（alter egos），但他尚未提起任何寻求作出该认定的诉讼。事实上，受托人掩盖了他要确立人格混同必须首先克服的法律障碍，而且即便如此，债务人的人格混同实体的资产也不会自动成为本第 11 章破产财团的资产。参见例如 FIH, LLC v. Barr, No. X08FSTCV206045676S, 2022 WL 18110170, at *10 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 28, 2022)（“[A]lthough a piercing the corporate veil claim might be framed as an independent cause of action, the claim is nothing more than a remedial request to enforce a judgment against a party not primarily liable.”）（内部引号省略）。此外，即便受托人成功主张并证明债务人与 G Club 构成人格混同，也没有任何法院判定或被请求判定债务人与 G Club（或任何其他实体）应当进行实质性合并（substantively consolidated），以致于 G Club 独立的存续与权利不复存在。要消除债务人与任何其他实体之间的区别，需要进行实质性合并，假设实质性合并在债务人与非债务人之间适用，其效果将是“汇集这两个实体的资产以及针对这两个实体的债权”。In re Augie/Restivo Baking Co., Ltd., 860 F.2d 515, 518 (2d Cir. 1988)。然而，第二巡回法院曾警告，实质性合并应当审慎使用；“[b]ecause of the dangers in forcing creditors of one debtor to share on a parity with creditors of a less solvent debtor, we have stressed that substantive consolidation is no mere instrument of procedural convenience ... but a measure vitally affecting substantive rights.” Id.（内部引文和引号省略）。\n\n1. 在 2023年7月11日 举行的 9019 动议听证会上的辩论之后，法院命令受托人提交一份修订拟定裁定书，该裁定书仅旨在解决联邦破产受托人（U.S. Trustee）的异议，而不解决任何当事人提出的任何其他异议或通知，包括 G Club 在其原通知中或在听证会上提出的问题。法院还命令，提出顾虑的各方如有任何进一步或额外的问题，应在 2023年7月14日 下午 5:00（东部时间）前提交。\n\n2. G Club 聘请了 HCHK Technologies, Inc. 为其通信和财务文件管理一套基于云的存储和电子邮件系统，并提供额外服务，包括某些法律服务。因此，G Club 材料包括所有电子邮件，包括 G Club 将主张特权（包括律师-委托人特权）的材料，以及可能回应受托人《第 2004 条传票》的非特权通信和数据，以及不相关的无回应性信息。\n\n3. 《修订拟定裁定书》及其批准的拟定和解协议均未保护不属于《第 2004 条传票》回应范围或 G Club 可能对其主张特权的 G Club 材料免遭披露。4 相反，《修订拟定裁定书》及基础和解协议围绕这些根本性保护制造了不确定性，这些保护甚至在受托人针对 HCHK 实体的第 23-05013-1 号对抗诉讼（Adversary Proceeding No. 23-05013-1）取得任何最终解决之前，或在 G Club 主张特定 G Club 材料不属于《第 2004 条传票》回应范围或受特权保护之前，就可能受到不可挽回的损害。\n\n4 G Club 过去未曾且现在亦未放弃任何特权主张。\n\n4. 具体而言，《修订拟定裁定书》第 6 段规定：\n\n“公司记录。受让人应立即向受托人提供受让人占有的与 HCHK 实体有关的所有非特权公司记录（包括电子形式）及其他文件。所有此类公司记录及其他文件应被视为指定为‘保密’的文件，并受本第 11 章案件于 2022年10月6日 签署的保护令 [主案卷宗号 923] 的约束。\n\n(ECF 2004)。\n\n5. 本第 6 段中的不确定性源于“受让人占有的与 HCHK 实体有关的所有非特权公司记录（包括电子形式）及其他文件”这一表述。首先，G Club 材料是否属于 HCHK 实体的“公司记录”或“与 HCHK 实体有关的其他文件”？可以说它们不是，但《修订拟定裁定书》应当明确它们不是，以使 G Club 的权利和特权不至于因向受托人全盘移交文件而失去意义。\n\n6. 其次，目前尚不清楚仅移交“非特权”文件是否要求受让人扣留 G Club 可能对其主张特权的文件（或 G Club 可能主张对《第 2004 条传票》不具有回应性的文件），即便受让人知晓 G Club 在这些问题上可能采取的立场——当然，他并不知晓。\n\n7. 第三，根据保护令将移交的文件指定为“保密”不足以保护 G Club 的权利和特权。即使对于可能具有回应性且不受特权保护的 G Club 材料，也存在很可能属于“高度保密”的文件。G Club 是应在第一道环节指定附随于 G Club 材料的保密级别的当事人（但该指定可受质疑）。\n\n8. 第四，即使法院赋予 G Club 在文件全盘提供给受托人之后进行审查、定级和追回（claw back）的权利，其权利和特权也无法得到充分保护。与当事人疏忽披露有限特权材料的情况不同，此处的披露可能完全不受限，并且在受托人获得控制权之前将不经由 G Club 审查和分类。事实上，G Club 尚未审查全部 G Club 材料，因为其目前无法访问由 HCHK Technologies 管理的全部数据。\n\n9. 最后，《修订拟定裁定书》需要进一步修改，因为：\n- a. 根据 G Club 与 HCHK Technologies 之间的《主服务协议》中的合同义务，HCHK Technologies 在法律上被禁止披露属于 G Club 的保密信息，该义务已告知受托人、受让人和 HCHK Technologies。\n- b. HCHK Technologies 缺乏向受让人转让任何行政或管理权的权限。\n- c. 受让人缺乏向受托人转让任何行政或管理权的权限。\n\n10. 为了保留 G Club 的权利和特权、受托人对主张这些权利和特权提出质疑的能力，以及法院对任何质疑作出裁决的权力，《修订拟定裁定书》应作进一步修改，以 (a) 禁止受让人向受托人移交任何 G Club 材料，(b) 要求将所有 G Club 材料移交（无论是直接移交还是向 G Club 提供电子访问权限）给 G Club，(c) 强制受托人和 G Club 在提供访问权限并评估容量后，就审查并移交回应《第 2004 条传票》的具有回应性、非特权的 G Club 材料的时间表达成善意协商，并提交法院作为裁定签署生效，以及 (d) 规定法院将解决任何时间表争议或关于扣留文件和特权主张的其他争议。\n\n11. 具体而言，《修订拟定裁定书》第 6 段应修改如下：\n\n受让人应向受托人提供仅与 HCHK 实体有关的、且明确排除与 G Club 有关或由 G Club 发送或接收并由 HCHK Technologies, Inc. 管理的所有记录和文件或通信（“G Club 材料”）的所有非特权公司记录（包括电子形式）及其他文件。受让人应立即将 G Club 材料的行政和管理权归还给 G Club Operations（或将 G Club 材料实物移交给 G Club）。受让人不得向受托人或任何其他个人或实体提供对 G Club 材料的访问权限或副本。一旦 G Club 获得 G Club 材料的行政和管理权（或该等材料实物移交给 G Club），G Club 与受托人将 (a) 善意协商一份关于审查并移交回应《第 2004 条传票》的额外的、具有回应性且非特权的 G Club 材料的时间表，并将该时间表提交法院予以单独批准，以及 (b) 规定本法院将解决任何时间表争议或关于 G Club 扣留文件和特权主张的其他争议。5\n\n5 G Club 是 HCHK Technologies 的债权人，后者曾收取了实际上并未提供之服务的预付费用。G Club 保留就此项及针对 HCHK 实体（及其他主体）的其他主张的一切权利。\n\n因此，基于上述理由，G Club 请求将《修订拟定裁定书》第 6 段按上述第 11 段所列作进一步修改，并请求获得其他公正适当的救济。\n\nG CLUB OPERATIONS LLC\n\n代表签署：/s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz\nGREEN & SKLARZ LLC\nJeffrey M. Sklarz (ct20938)\nKellianne Baranowsky (ct26684)\nOne Audobon St, 3rd Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n电话：203-285-8545\njsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com\nkbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nPILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP（必百瑞律师事务所）\nCarolina A. Fornos（卡罗琳娜·A·福诺斯）(pro hac vice)\n31 West 52nd Street\nNew York, NY 10019\nTel: 212-858-1558\ncarolina.fornos@pillsburylaw.com\n\nG Club Operations LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）代理律师\n送达证明（CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE）\n\n我特此证明，在下文所列日期，前述文件的一份副本已通过 CM/ECF 和/或邮寄方式送达给任何无法接收电子提交文件的人士。通过法院电子提交系统的运行机制，本次提交的通知将通过电子邮件发送给所有当事方。各当事方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\nDate: July 14, 2023 /s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz（杰弗里·M·斯克拉茨）","key_entities":["HCHK","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1936,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1977,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2004,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2004,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:04:12"}