{"id":"court_ctb_2036_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2036,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT HO WAN KWOK, *et al.*, ) (Jointly Administered)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*, ) (Jointly Administered)\n\n)\n\n)\n\n)\n\nDebtors.1\n\nIn re: ) Chapter 11 ) Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n) Re: ECF No. 1805, 1896\n\n## **ORDER REQUIRING MEI GUO TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT**\n\nBefore the Court is the May 18, 2023 Motion for Entry of Order Holding Hudson Diamond Holding LLC in Civil Contempt for Failing to Respond to Rule 2004 Subpoenas (the \"Contempt Motion\"),2 ECF No. 1805, filed by Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") for the bankruptcy estate of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok, and the Consent Order Regarding Contempt Motion (the \"Consent Order\"), ECF No. 1896. For the reasons stated below, the Court issues this Order to Appear and Show Cause.\n\nA hearing was held on the Contempt Motion on June 6, 2023. During the hearing, the Trustee and counsel for Hudson Diamond NY LLC and Hudson Diamond Holding LLC (collectively, the \"Hudson Diamond Entities\") read into the record a stipulation regarding the Hudson Diamond Entities' compliance with the Rule 2004 subpoenas served on them. Following the hearing, on June 8, 2023, the Court entered the Consent Order Regarding\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> Various pleadings and orders discussed in this Order were omnibus in nature. For the sake of clarity, the titles of pleadings and orders are set forth herein only as they concern Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC.\n\nContempt Motion (the \"Consent Order\"). (ECF No. 1896.) Pursuant to the Consent Order, the Hudson Diamond Entities were to comply with the Trustee's subpoenas on or before June 15, 2023.\n\nIn accordance with the Consent Order and subsequent scheduling orders, a continued hearing on the Contempt Motion was held on July 11, 2023. During the continued hearing, the Trustee argued that Hudson Diamond Holding LLC had not complied with the Consent Order and pressed his argument that Hudson Diamond Holding LLC was in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with the Rule 2004 subpoena. Hudson Diamond Holding LLC argued that it had complied with the Consent Order, or at least diligently attempted to comply, referring the Court to the efforts detailed during the hearing and in the Declaration of Aaron A. Romney (the \"Romney Declaration\"), ECF No. 1988. Hudson Diamond Holding LLC represented that it had produced the operating agreement and articles of organization for Hudson Diamond Holding LLC and that, despite the efforts of Ms. Mei Guo (\"Ms. Guo\"), the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, and counsel, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC had been unable to obtain and produce further documents that may be in the possession of Ms. Yvette Wang and Mr. Max Krasner.\n\nThis Court has the power to hold parties in contempt of court under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9020. *Taggart v. Lorenzen ex rel. Brown*, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801 (2019); *PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Sensenich ex rel. Gravel (In re Gravel)*, 6 F.4th 503, 512 (2d Cir. 2021); *Mar. Asbestosis Legal Clinic v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chauteaugay Corp.)*, 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990). Contempt may be sought to \"'coerce the defendant into compliance'\" with a court order or to \"'compensate the complainant for losses'\" resulting from noncompliance with a court order. *Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1801 (citing *United States v. United Mine Workers*, 330 U.S. 258,\n\n303–04 (1947)). A finding of civil contempt requires that \"(1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner.\" *King v. Allied Vision, Ltd.*, 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995). The contemnor must also have notice of the relevant order. *Gravel*, 6 F.4th at 512.\n\nRegarding notice and service, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC has notice and service of the Rule 2004 subpoena. On December 2, 2022, the Court entered the Second Supplemental Rule 2004 Order authorizing in pertinent part the Rule 2004 subpoena directed to Hudson Diamond Holding LLC. (ECF No. 1184.) On December 7, 2022, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC was served with the Rule 2004 subpoena at Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 3411 Silverside Road, Tatnall Building, Suite 104, Wilmington, DE via personal service upon an agent authorized by appointment to receive service at that address. (ECF No. 1805 Decl. of Avram E. Luft Ex. C-7.) In the Consent Order, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC stipulates that service of the Rule 2004 subpoena was proper. (ECF No. 1896.)\n\nHudson Diamond Holding LLC has notice of and was served with the Contempt Motion. On May 23, 2023, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC was served with the Notice of Hearing regarding the Hearing on the Contempt Motion at Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 3411 Silverside Road, Tatnall Building #104, Wilmington, DE 19810. (ECF No. 1826.)\n\nFinally, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC has notice of and was served with the Consent Order it entered into. On June 1, 2023, Attorney Romney filed an appearance for Hudson Diamond Holding LLC in these jointly administered Chapter 11 cases. (ECF No. 1848.)\n\n3\n\nThereafter, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC has received service of all relevant pleadings through Notices of Electronic Filing electronically served on its counsel, including the Consent Order.\n\nWith respect to the first element of whether a party should be held in contempt, an order is clear and unambiguous where \"there is [no] *fair ground of doubt* as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct.'\" *Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1801 (citing *Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor*, 113 U.S. 609 (1885)). Hudson Diamond Holding LLC raises no argument that there is a fair ground of doubt as to the meaning of the Consent Order, which states that Hudson Diamond Holding LLC \"shall have until June 15, 2023 to complete [its] production to the Trustee.\" (ECF No. 1896.) The Court finds that there is no fair ground of doubt as to the meaning of the Consent Order.\n\nAs to the remaining elements, the Court has an insufficient record as to whether Hudson Diamond Holding LLC complied or diligently attempted to comply. The Trustee argues that if Ms. Guo as sole member of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC is truly in control of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, there should be more documents she can produce beyond the operating agreement and articles of incorporation. Hudson Diamond Holding LLC seems to be arguing both that it is impossible for it to produce documents in the control or possession of its agents Ms. Wang and Mr. Krasner, *United States v. Wendy*, 575 F.2d 1025, 1030 (2d Cir. 1978) (\"A long recognized defense to a civil contempt citation is the cited individual's inability to comply with the court's order.\"), and/or that it has diligently attempted to produce such documents.\n\nIn his argument, the Trustee pointed to certain exhibits to the Declaration of Avram E. Luft attached to the Contempt Motion, namely exhibits G, H, I, J, T, U, and V, to support his contention that Hudson Diamond Holding LLC should have access to more than two documents. While it appears that exhibit G has not been filed on the docket, exhibits H, I, J, T, U, and V are\n\n4\n\na series of documents indicating that: (i) Ms. Guo is the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC; (ii) she signed various corporate documents on its behalf; (iii) Ms. Wang and Mr. Krasner are its officers; (iv) Hudson Diamond Holding LLC is the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York LLC, and (v) Hudson Diamond New York LLC is or was the record owner of a Rolls Royce and at least explored entering into various real estate transactions. These exhibits indicate that Hudson Diamond Holding LLC conducted business, regarding which there should be documents within its possession, custody, or control.\n\nDuring the hearing, counsel for Hudson Diamond Holding LLC represented to the Court that they were not present when Ms. Guo went through her files searching for documents responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoenas or when Ms. Guo attempted to contact Mr. Krasner. Counsel did not themselves go through Ms. Guo's documents or attempt to contact Mr. Krasner. Counsel also represented that neither Ms. Guo nor they attempted to contact Ms. Wang because she is presently incarcerated pending a criminal trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\nOther than communications through counsel with Hodgson Russ regarding Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC's argument relies on actions taken by Ms. Guo outside of the presence and/or without assistance of counsel. Ms. Guo has not filed a declaration and has not testified. Therefore, Ms. Guo's testimony is necessary to determine whether Hudson Diamond Holding LLC has complied, or diligently attempted to comply, with the Consent Order compelling its production of non-privileged documents responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoena. Moreover, while Ms. Wang is presently detained pending trial, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC did not establish that it cannot contact her – through counsel if necessary.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby\n\n5\n\n**ORDERED:** A continued hearing on the Contempt Motion, ECF No. 1805, shall be held on August 22, 2023 at 2:00 p.m.. During the continued hearing, Ms. Mei Guo, in her capacity as sole member of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, shall appear and testify as to why Hudson Diamond Holding LLC should not be held in civil contempt of court; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** On or before August 17, 2023, Ms. Guo, in her capacity as sole member of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, shall file a sworn declaration detailing her efforts to bring Hudson Diamond Holding LLC into compliance with the Consent Order, ECF No. 1896, and produce documents responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoena of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, including but not limited to her search for documents in the possession, custody, and control of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC and her attempts to contact present or past managers, employees, and agents of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC. During the continued hearing, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC may seek to submit Ms. Guo's declaration as her direct testimony. Nevertheless, Ms. Guo must appear at the continued hearing and be available for cross-examination.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 28th day of July, 2023.","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）, et al., ) （合并审理）\n\n)\n\n)\n\n)\n\n债务人。1\n\n事由： ) 第 11 章 ) 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n) 涉及：ECF No. 1805, 1896\n命令 MEI GUO（郭美）出庭并陈述不应判定 HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC 藐视法庭之理由的裁定\n\n本法院审理的是 Luc A. Despins 先生以 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产财产的第 11 章受托人（下称“受托人”）身份于 2023年5月18日 提交的《关于就未对第 2004 条传票作出回应而判定 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 民事藐视法庭的裁定准许动议》（下称“藐视动议”），2 ECF No. 1805，以及《关于藐视动议的同意裁定》（下称“同意裁定”），ECF No. 1896。基于下文所述理由，本法院作出本项出庭并陈述理由裁定。\n\n本法院于 2023年6月6日 就藐视动议举行了听证会。在听证会期间，受托人以及 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（统称“Hudson Diamond 实体”）的法律顾问将关于 Hudson Diamond 实体遵守送达给它们的第 2004 条传票的约定记录在案。听证会后，于 2023年6月8日，本法院签署了《关于\n\n1 本批第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（又名 Guo Wengui、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）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 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知和联络）。\n\n2 本裁定中讨论的各项诉状和裁定具有综合性质。为明确起见，在此列出的诉状和裁定标题仅限与 Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC 相关的部分。\n\n藐视动议的同意裁定》（下称“同意裁定”）。(ECF No. 1896.) 根据同意裁定，Hudson Diamond 实体应在 2023年6月15日 或之前遵守受托人的传票要求。\n\n根据同意裁定及随后的日程安排裁定，关于藐视动议的后续听证会于 2023年7月11日 举行。在后续听证会期间，受托人主张 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 未遵守同意裁定，并坚持其主张，即 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 因未能遵守第 2004 条传票而构成民事藐视法庭。Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 则主张其已遵守同意裁定，或至少已尽职尽责地尝试遵守，并提请法院注意听证会期间详述的努力以及在 Aaron A. Romney 的声明（下称“Romney 声明”），ECF No. 1988 中详述的努力。Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 表示，其已提供了 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 的运营协议和成立章程，并且尽管 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 的唯一成员 Mei Guo 女士（下称“Guo 女士”）及法律顾问作出了努力，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 仍未能获取并提供可能由 Yvette Wang（王雁平）女士和 Max Krasner 先生占有的其他文件。\n\n根据 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) 和 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9020，本法院有权判定当事人藐视法庭。Taggart v. Lorenzen ex rel. Brown, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801 (2019); PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Sensenich ex rel. Gravel (In re Gravel), 6 F.4th 503, 512 (2d Cir. 2021); Mar. Asbestosis Legal Clinic v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chauteaugay Corp.), 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990)。寻求藐视法庭判定可用于“‘强迫被告遵守’”法院命令，或“‘赔偿申诉人因未遵守法院命令而遭受的损失’”。Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1801 (citing United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258,\n\n303–04 (1947))。认定民事藐视法庭要求满足：“(1) 被指控藐视人未能遵守的裁定是明确且无歧义的，(2) 未遵守的证据是清晰且有说服力的，以及 (3) 被指控藐视人未以合理方式尽职尽责地尝试遵守。” King v. Allied Vision, Ltd., 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995)。被指控藐视人还必须收到相关裁定的通知。Gravel, 6 F.4th at 512。\n\n关于通知和送达，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 已收到第 2004 条传票的通知和送达。2022年12月2日，本法院签署了《第二份补充第 2004 条裁定》，在相关部分授权向 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 发出第 2004 条传票。(ECF No. 1184.) 2022年12月7日，第 2004 条传票通过亲自送达的方式，送达至 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，地址为 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 3411 Silverside Road, Tatnall Building, Suite 104, Wilmington, DE，交由该地址获授权接收送达的代理人。(ECF No. 1805 Decl. of Avram E. Luft Ex. C-7.) 在同意裁定中，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 约定第 2004 条传票的送达是正当合法的。(ECF No. 1896.)\n\nHudson Diamond Holding LLC 已收到藐视动议的通知并获送达。2023年5月23日，关于藐视动议听证会的听证通知已送达至 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，地址为 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 3411 Silverside Road, Tatnall Building #104, Wilmington, DE 19810。(ECF No. 1826.)\n\n最后，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 已收到其达成的同意裁定的通知并获送达。2023年6月1日，Romney 律师在这些合并审理的第 11 章案件中为 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 提交了出庭代理声明。(ECF No. 1848.)\n此后，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 已通过电子方式向其法律顾问送达的《电子归档通知》接收了所有相关诉状的送达，包括同意裁定。\n\n关于是否应判定一方当事人藐视法庭的第一个要素，当“对于被告行为的不当性[不]存在合理怀疑的余地”时，该裁定即为明确且无歧义。Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1801 (citing Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609 (1885))。Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 未提出任何主张认为对同意裁定的含义存在合理怀疑的余地，该裁定明确指出 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC“应在 2023年6月15日 之前完成对受托人的[其]文件提供”。(ECF No. 1896.) 本法院认定，对同意裁定的含义不存在合理怀疑的余地。\n\n至于其余要素，本法院就 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 是否已遵守或是否已尽职尽责地尝试遵守的案卷记录尚不充分。受托人主张，如果郭女士作为 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 的唯一成员确实控制着 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，那么除了运营协议和成立章程之外，她应该能提供更多文件。Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 似乎同时在主张：其不可能提供由其代理人王女士和 Krasner 先生控制或占有的文件，United States v. Wendy, 575 F.2d 1025, 1030 (2d Cir. 1978)（“民事藐视法庭指控中一项长期公认的抗辩是被指控个人无力遵守法院裁定。”），以及/或者其已尽职尽责地尝试提供此类文件。\n\n在其论述中，受托人指出了藐视动议所附 Avram E. Luft 声明中的某些证据，即证据 G、H、I、J、T、U 和 V，以支持其关于 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 应能接触到两份以上文件的主张。虽然证据 G 似乎尚未归档到案件卷宗中，但证据 H、I、J、T、U 和 V 是\n一系列文件，表明：(i) 郭女士是 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 的唯一成员；(ii) 她代表该公司签署了多份公司文件；(iii) 王女士和 Krasner 先生是其高级职员；(iv) Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 是 Hudson Diamond New York LLC 的唯一成员；以及 (v) Hudson Diamond New York LLC 是或曾是一辆劳斯莱斯汽车的登记所有人，并且至少探讨过开展多项房地产交易。这些证据表明 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 开展了业务，关于这些业务，应该有属于其占有、保管或控制范围内的文件。\n\n在听证会期间，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 的法律顾问向法庭表示，当郭女士查阅其文件以寻找回应第 2004 条传票的文件时，或者当郭女士试图联系 Krasner 先生时，他们均不在场。法律顾问自身并未查阅郭女士的文件，也没有尝试联系 Krasner 先生。法律顾问还表示，郭女士和他们均未尝试联系王女士，因为她目前因刑事审判被羁押在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）。\n\n除了通过法律顾问与 Hodgson Russ 就 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 事项进行沟通之外，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 的抗辩主张均依赖于郭女士在法律顾问不在场和/或没有法律顾问协助的情况下采取的行动。郭女士尚未提交书面声明，也未出庭作证。因此，有必要由郭女士作证，以确定 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 是否已遵守、或尽职尽责地尝试遵守强制其提供回应第 2004 条传票的非特权文件的同意裁定。此外，虽然王女士目前处于候审羁押状态，但 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 并未证明其无法联系到她——如有必要，可通过法律顾问联系。\n\n因此，特此\n裁定：关于藐视动议（ECF No. 1805）的后续听证会将于 2023年8月22日 下午 2:00 举行。在后续听证会期间，Mei Guo 女士应以 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 唯一成员的身份出庭并作证陈述为何不应判定 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 民事藐视法庭；并且进一步\n\n裁定：在 2023年8月17日 或之前，郭女士应以 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 唯一成员的身份提交一份经宣誓的声明，详述其为使 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 遵守同意裁定（ECF No. 1896）并提供回应 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 第 2004 条传票的文件所作出的努力，包括但不限于她对 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 占有、保管和控制的文件进行的搜寻，以及她尝试联系 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 现任或前任管理人员、雇员和代理人的努力。在后续听证会期间，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 可寻求将郭女士的声明作为其直接证词提交。尽管如此，郭女士仍必须出席后续听证会并接受交叉询问。\n\n2023年7月28日 签署于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1184,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1805,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1826,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1848,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1896,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1988,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1830,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:58:56"}