{"id":"court_ctb_2160_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2160,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-09-01","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"紧急动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2160（2023-09-01立案）。第11章破产受托人依据《美国破产法》第105(a)条和第362条提请紧急动议，请求法院下令禁止债务人郭文贵继续推进其在纽约南区联邦地区法院刑事案（案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT）中提起的暂停破产程序动议，主张该行为违反了自动中止原则并侵犯了破产法院的管辖权。","summary_en":"Emergency Motion — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2160 (filed Sep 01, 2023). The Chapter 11 Trustee moves pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 362 for an emergency order enjoining Kwok from prosecuting his motion filed in the SDNY criminal case (No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT) that sought to stay the bankruptcy cases and related adversary proceedings, asserting it violates the automatic stay and infringes upon the bankruptcy court's exclusive jurisdiction.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |        |                         |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |  |\n|                                                                  | :      |                         |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :      | (Jointly Administered)  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | :<br>x |                         |  |\n|                                                                  |        |                         |  |\n\n# **EMERGENCY MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, UNDER 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) AND 362, TO ENJOIN DEBTOR'S PROSECUTION OF MOTION IN CRIMINAL CASE FOR ORDER STAYING CHAPTER 11 CASES AND ASSOCIATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this emergency motion (the \"Motion\") seeking entry of an order under 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 362, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"), enjoining the prosecution of the Debtor's *Motion for an Order and Writ Staying Bankruptcy Cases or in the Alternative for Other Relief* [Criminal Case ECF No. 129] (the \"Stay Motion\")<sup>2</sup> filed in the criminal case pending against him in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT] (the \"Criminal Court\" and the case,\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> The Stay Motion can be found at Ex. A and Ex. B to the Trustee's *Notice Of Debtor's Motion In Criminal Case For An Order Staying These Chapter 11 Cases And Associated Adversary Proceedings* [Docket No. 2158].\n\nthe \"Criminal Case\") seeking to stay the above-captioned chapter 11 cases and all related adversary proceedings. In support of his Motion, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. Through the Stay Motion, the Debtor asks the Criminal Court to, among other things, stay this chapter 11 case in its entirety until the conclusion of the Criminal Case. In addition to being meritless, the Stay Motion is a flagrant violation of the automatic stay and a direct encroachment upon this Court's jurisdiction over this case and the chapter 11 estate. By this Motion, the Trustee requests an order immediately enjoining the Debtor's prosecution of the Stay Motion. If the Debtor wishes to seek to a stay of this chapter 11 case, he can file a motion in this Court, the only Court that has jurisdiction to consider it, and the Trustee will respond accordingly. The Debtor cannot, however, unilaterally ask another court to usurp this Court's jurisdiction.\n\n2. The Criminal Court has instructed that the Government file any response to the Stay Motion by September 21, 2023. The Criminal Court has not expressly permitted any other parties, such as the Trustee, to respond, although the Trustee will request the opportunity to do so if necessary. In light of the timing of the Stay Motion, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court grant the relief requested herein as soon as possible on an emergency basis so the estate does not have to spend any resources litigating in the Criminal Court.\n\n3. Although the Trustee does not address herein the merits of the Stay Motion, he reserves all rights to do so if and when necessary. For the avoidance of doubt, no basis exists to stay any aspect of this chapter 11 case. The Debtor voluntarily commenced the case in this Court in February 2022 for his own benefit; staying the case at this juncture, after more than eighteen months of extensive docket activity and in the midst of the Trustee's ongoing Rule 2004 investigation and asset-recovery litigation, would be extraordinarily prejudicial to the Debtor's\n\n2\n\ncreditors, especially given the abundant evidence that the Debtor (despite his incarceration) and his associates are presently continuing their efforts to move and conceal assets. The Debtor's purported Fifth Amendment concerns are without merit and, in any event, could be addressed, if necessary, through other measures short of staying this entire case.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n4. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and\n\n1334. Venue to hear this Application is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n5. This matter is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).\n\n6. The bases for the relief requested herein are sections 105(a) and 362 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n7. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed with the Court a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of Bankruptcy Code.\n\n8. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (\"Committee\") in the Debtor's chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"). No examiner has been appointed in the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n9. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Docket No. 465] (the \"Trustee Order\") 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. 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\n10. Since his appointment, the Trustee has been conducting an in-depth investigation into the Debtor's assets and affairs, including by seeking discovery from the Debtor and his\n\n3\n\nassociates. The Debtor refused to comply with his discovery obligations and, on January 20, 2023, following multiple hearings, the Court issued an order compelling the Debtor to produce documents [Docket No. 1353] (the \"Order Compelling Production\").\n\n11. On March 15, 2023, a twelve-count indictment (the \"Indictment\") was unsealed in the Criminal Court in which the United States Government (the \"Government\") has charged the Debtor and certain of his associates with various federal crimes.\n\n12. After the announcement of the criminal charges, on April 10, 2023, the Debtor, through his prior criminal counsel, Brown Rudnick LLP, filed a motion to stay the Order Compelling Production; he did not, however, seek to stay this chapter 11 case. In fact, he expressly declined to do so. *See Debtor's Motion for a Limited Stay of Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoena*, ¶25 [Docket No. 1649].\n\n13. On or about July 11, 2023, the Debtor retained his current counsel in the Criminal Case, and Brown Rudnick LLP withdrew as counsel.\n\n14. On July 26, 2023, the Court entered a further order holding the Debtor in contempt of Court [Docket No. 2035] (the \"Contempt Order\") for failing to comply with the Order Compelling Production. The Contempt Order allows the Debtor to purge his contempt by, among other things, requesting the Criminal Court's permission to provide certain documents to the Trustee. The Debtor has appealed the Contempt Order.\n\n15. On August 30, 2023, without prior notice to the Trustee, and with no notice to any other party in this chapter 11 case, 1 the Debtor filed the Stay Motion, requesting that the Criminal Court stay the chapter 11 case and all related adversary proceedings, or, in the alternative, (i)\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtor's criminal counsel emailed a copy of the Stay Motion to counsel for the Trustee after the Stay Motion was filed. To the Trustee's knowledge, the Debtor has not provided any notice of the Stay Motion to other key parties in interest, such as the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and PAX.\n\nmodify the protective order in the Criminal Case to allow production of the discovery in the Criminal Case to the Trustee; (ii) direct that the Debtor's criminal counsel defense team continue to be permitted access to the property located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 (the \"Mahwah Mansion\") through the pendency of the Criminal Case; (iii) preclude the government from facilitating the sale of the Mahwah Mansion in this Case through the pendency of the Criminal Case; and (iv) order that the government not solicit or receive from the Trustee any information or records that are subject to any privileges belonging to the Debtor and identify any such materials already provided by the Trustee.<sup>1</sup>\n\n16. On August 31, 2023, the Criminal Court entered an order instructing the Government to file any response to the Stay Motion by September 21, 2023 [Criminal Case Docket No. 132]. The Criminal Court order does not expressly permit any other parties to respond.\n\n### **BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n17. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334, this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of this chapter 11 case and over property of the estate. *See Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of Am. N.A. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings)*, 535 B.R. 608, 627 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015) (\"The court in which a bankruptcy proceeding is pending has exclusive jurisdiction of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate.\"); *see also Sinatra v. Gucci (In re Gucci)*, 309 B.R. 679, 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (\"Section 1334(e) of the Judicial Code confers on the district court in which a bankruptcy proceeding is pending 'exclusive jurisdiction of all of the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate.'\").\n\n<sup>1</sup> For the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee is not asking this Court to stay aspects of the requested alternative relief that do not seek to interfere with this chapter 11 case. Specifically, the Trustee does not object to the request for modification of the protective order in the Criminal Case.\n\n18. Under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, it is a violation of the automatic stay to interfere with or seek to exercise control over property of the estate without this Court's permission. *See In re Madoff*, 848 F. Supp. 2d 469, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), *aff'd sub nom. In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC*, 740 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2014) (\"The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code operates to enjoin, among other things, 'any act to obtain possession of ... or to exercise control over property of the estate.'\" (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)). The automatic stay applies to judicial actions taken in other courts that may interfere with estate property and/or the administration of a chapter 11 case. *See, e.g., Bayview Loan Servicing LLC v. Fogarty (In re Fogarty)*, 39 F.4th 62, 71 (2d Cir. 2022) (\"The Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provisions, set forth in Section 362, protect bankruptcy estates by restraining any formal or informal action or legal proceeding that might dissipate estate assets or interfere with the trustee's orderly administration of the estate.\"). A bankruptcy court has broad authority to enjoin any judicial action that violates the stay and to impose sanctions upon any party who has violated the stay willfully. *Id*. at 77 (\"Because Bayview willfully violated the automatic stay [in state court proceeding], Fogarty is entitled to sanctions under Section 362(k) [of the Bankruptcy Code].\").\n\n19. Relatedly, the Supreme Court held in *Barton v. Barbour,* 104 U.S. 126 (1881), that \"a party must first obtain leave of the bankruptcy court before it initiates an action in another forum against a bankruptcy trustee or other officer appointed by the bankruptcy court for acts done in the officer's official capacity.\" The so-called \"*Barton* doctrine\" remains good law. *See In re Crown Vantage, Inc.,* 421 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2005) (\"We join our sister circuits in holding that a party must first obtain leave of the bankruptcy court before it initiates an action in another forum against a bankruptcy trustee . . . for acts done in the officer's official capacity.\") (citing, *inter alia*, *In re Lehal Realty Assocs.*, 101 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1996)). The principle underlying *Barton* is that issues going to the administration of a bankruptcy case must be brought to the attention of the bankruptcy court (not to any other court) in the first instance.\n\n20. Here, there is no question that the Stay Motion constitutes a violation of the automatic stay that this Court can and should immediately enjoin. Indeed, the Stay Motion is the ultimate violation of the automatic stay because it seeks not merely to interfere with or exercise control over certain estate property or certain matters within the case but rather to stop the entire case and all adversary proceedings in their entirety. A stay of this case and all adversary proceedings would necessarily interfere with *all* of the estate's property, including the causes of action the Trustee is presently pursuing, as well as cash and valuable hard assets, such as the assets that are the subject of pending adversary proceedings. The Stay Motion must be enjoined. *See In re Johns-Manville Corp.*, 91 B.R. 225, 227 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (enjoining state court case which \"will cause irreparable damage to the Debtors and their respective estates, and if continued will totally undermine the reorganization proceedings\").<sup>1</sup>\n\n21. The fact that the Debtor is the party seeking the relief makes the stay violation all the more egregious. While other examples of bankruptcy courts enjoining litigation in other courts that interfere with a chapter 11 case may often involve actions by creditors who were unaware of the pending bankruptcy, here the Debtor voluntarily commenced the chapter 11 case in this Court, for his benefit, and he has since participated extensively in all aspects of the case. The Debtor and his counsel know full well that, if the Debtor wants to obtain relief impacting this chapter 11 case, including especially a stay of any aspect of it, he needs to seek such relief in this Court. Indeed, in his response to the Order Compelling Production, the Debtor expressly mentioned the possibility\n\n<sup>1</sup> Section 362(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that criminal prosecutions against the debtor are excepted from the automatic stay. Here, the Trustee is not seeking to stay the Criminal Case itself, but rather to prevent the Debtor from asking the Criminal Court to stay this chapter 11 case. Such relief must properly be sought in this Court.\n\nof asking the Court to stay the entire chapter 11 case but he declined to seek such relief at that time. Within this context, the Debtor's decision to file the Stay Motion in the Criminal Court, with no prior notice to this Court, the Trustee, or any other party in interest, is especially brazen and can only be viewed as a collateral attack on the Court's prior orders, including the Contempt Order, which is currently on appeal to the district court.\n\n22. To prevent an ongoing violation of the automatic stay, and to protect this Court's jurisdiction, the Trustee respectfully requests the entry of an order immediately enjoining the Debtor's prosecution of the Stay Motion in the Criminal Court. The Trustee reserves all rights to seek sanctions as a result of the Debtor's willful stay violation.\n\n*[The rest of this page is intentionally blank.]*\n\nWHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and enter the Proposed Order, enjoining the Debtor's Stay Motion, and for such other and further relief as\n\nthe Court may deem just and proper.\n\nDated: September 1, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */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*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 douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2160 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:00:46 Page 10 of 12\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Proposed Order**\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>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |\n\n# **[PROPOSED] ORDER ENJOINING DEBTOR'S PROSECUTION OF MOTION IN CRIMINAL CASE FOR ORDER STAYING CHAPTER 11 CASES AND ASSOCIATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS**\n\nThe Court having considered the motion (the \"Motion\")<sup>2</sup> for entry of an Order enjoining of Ho Wan Kwok's (the \"Debtor\") *Notice of Motion for an Order and Writ Staying Bankruptcy Cases or in the Alternative for Other Relief* [Criminal Case ECF No. 129] (the \"Stay Motion\") filed in the criminal case pending against him in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT] (the \"Criminal Court\" and the case the \"Criminal Case\") seeking to stay the above-captioned chapter 11 cases and all related adversary proceedings; and this Court having found that venue of this proceeding and the Motion in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408(2) and 1409; and this Court having found that the relief requested in the Motion is in the best interests of the estate, its creditors, and other parties in\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 used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Motion.\n\ninterest; and due and sufficient notice of the Motion 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 is granted as set forth herein\n\n2. The Debtor's Stay Motion before the Criminal Court is hereby stayed and enjoined until further order of this Court. The Debtor must immediately withdraw the Stay Motion.\n\n3. The Trustee is authorized to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted in this order in accordance with the Motion.\n\n4. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this order.\n\n2","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:　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:　（合并审理）\n\nx\n\n第 11 章受托人依据 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) 及 362 提起的紧急动议，请求禁止债务人在刑事案件中推进旨在中止第 11 章案件及相关对抗性诉讼程序的命令的动议\n\nLuc A. Despins 作为在上述标题所示的 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“债务人”）第 11 章案件中获任命的第 11 章受托人（以下简称“受托人”），经由其下述署名律师，特此提起本紧急动议（以下简称“本动议”），请求依据 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) 及 362 作出一项实质上采用本动议附件 A 所示形式的命令（以下简称“拟议命令”），禁止推进债务人在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）[案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT]（以下简称“刑事法院”，该案简称\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他多个别名）（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 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（仅用于通知与联络目的）。\n\n2 该《中止动议》见受托人的《关于债务人在刑事案件中提出中止本第 11 章案件及相关对抗性诉讼程序的动议的通知》[案卷号：2158] 附件 A 及附件 B。\n\n“刑事案件”）待决诉讼中所提交的《债务人请求作出中止破产案件或在另选方案中寻求其他救济的命令及令状的动议》[刑事案件 ECF No. 129]（以下简称“《中止动议》”），该动议请求中止上述标题所示的第 11 章案件及所有相关对抗性诉讼程序。为支持本动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n引言\n\n1. 通过《中止动议》，债务人请求刑事法院（除其他事项外）全盘中止本第 11 章案件，直至刑事案件终结。除了毫无根据之外，《中止动议》还公然违反了自动中止原则，并直接侵犯了本法院对本案及第 11 章破产财产的管辖权。受托人特通过本动议请求作出一项命令，立即禁止债务人推进《中止动议》。如果债务人希望申请中止本第 11 章案件，他可以向本法院提起动议——本法院是唯一有管辖权对此进行审理的法院——受托人亦将作出相应回应。然而，债务人无权单方面要求另一家法院剥夺本法院的管辖权。\n\n2. 刑事法院已指示政府须在 2023 年 9 月 21 日之前就《中止动议》提交任何回应意见。刑事法院并未明确允许任何其他当事方（例如受托人）作出回应，尽管受托人在必要时将请求获得该等回应机会。鉴于《中止动议》的时间节点，受托人谨请求法院在紧急程序下尽快批准本动议所请求的救济，以便破产财产无需耗费任何资源在刑事法院进行诉讼。\n\n3. 尽管受托人在此未就《中止动议》的实体理由展开论述，但他保留在必要时予以论述的全部权利。为免生疑问，中止本第 11 章案件的任何方面均不存在任何依据。债务人于 2022 年 2 月为了其自身利益主动在本法院启动本案；在经过十八个多月密集的案卷活动、且受托人正在推进 Rule 2004（第 2004 条规则）调查及资产追回诉讼之际中止本案，将对债务人的债权人造成极其严重的损害，尤其是考虑到已有大量证据表明债务人（尽管已被监禁）及其关联人员目前仍在继续转移和隐匿资产。债务人所谓的《第五修正案》顾虑毫无根据，并且在任何情况下，如果确有必要，都可以通过中止整个案件之外的其他措施予以解决。\n管辖权与审判地\n\n4. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334，本法院对受理本申请拥有管辖权。依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 及 1409，审理本申请的审判地适当。\n\n5. 依 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) 之含义，本事项属于核心诉讼程序。\n\n6. 本动议所请求救济的法律依据为《美国法典》第 11 编（以下简称“《破产法典》”）第 105(a) 条及第 362 条。\n背景事实\n\n7. 2022 年 2 月 15 日（以下简称“申请日”），债务人向本法院提交了依据《破产法典》第 11 章寻求救济的自愿破产申请书。\n\n8. 2022 年 3 月 21 日，United States Trustee（美国受托人）在债务人的第 11 章案件（以下简称“第 11 章案件”）中任命了 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会，以下简称“委员会”）。本第 11 章案件中未任命任何审查员。\n\n9. 2022 年 6 月 15 日，本法院作出一项判决与命令备忘录 [案卷号：465]（以下简称“《受托人命令》”），指示美国受托人在本第 11 章案件中任命一名第 11 章受托人。根据《受托人命令》，美国受托人选定 Luc A. Despins 担任受托人。2022 年 7 月 8 日，本法院作出一项命令，批准任命 Luc A. Despins 担任本第 11 章案件的受托人 [案卷号：523]。\n\n10. 自获得任命以来，受托人一直在对债务人的资产和事务进行深入调查，包括向债务人及其关联人员寻求证据开示。债务人拒绝履行其证据开示义务，在经过多次听证后，本法院于 2023 年 1 月 20 日发布命令，强制债务人提供文件 [案卷号：1353]（以下简称“《强制提供文件命令》”）。\n\n11. 2023 年 3 月 15 日，刑事法院启封了一份包含十二项罪名项的起诉书（以下简称“《起诉书》”），其中 United States Government（美国政府，以下简称“政府”）指控债务人及其若干关联人员犯有多项联邦罪行。\n\n12. 在刑事指控公布之后，2023 年 4 月 10 日，债务人通过其前任刑事辩护律师事务所 Brown Rudnick LLP 提出动议，请求中止执行《强制提供文件命令》；然而，他并未请求中止本第 11 章案件。事实上，他明确拒绝这样做。参见《债务人请求有限中止部分准许强制遵守第 2004 条规则传票动议之命令的动议》第 25 段 [案卷号：1649]。\n\n13. 2023 年 7 月 11 日前后，债务人在刑事案件中聘请了现任律师，Brown Rudnick LLP 退出代理。\n\n14. 2023 年 7 月 26 日，本法院因债务人未能遵守《强制提供文件命令》而作出进一步命令，判定债务人藐视法庭 [案卷号：2035]（以下简称“《藐视法庭命令》”）。《藐视法庭命令》允许债务人通过（除其他事项外）请求刑事法院许可其向受托人提供某些文件来消除其藐视法庭状态。债务人已对《藐视法庭命令》提起上诉。\n\n15. 2023 年 8 月 30 日，在未事先通知受托人且未通知本第 11 章案件中任何其他当事方的情况下，1 债务人提交了《中止动议》，请求刑事法院中止本第 11 章案件及所有相关对抗性诉讼程序，或者作为另选方案：(i)\n\n1 债务人的刑事辩护律师在《中止动议》提交后，通过电子邮件向受托人的律师发送了《中止动议》的副本。据受托人所知，债务人未向其他关键利害关系方（如无担保债权人官方委员会和 PAX）提供关于《中止动议》的任何通知。\n\n修改刑事案件中的保护令，以允许向受托人提供刑事案件中的证据开示材料；(ii) 指示在刑事案件审理期间继续允许债务人的刑事辩护律师团队进入位于 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 的房产（以下简称“马瓦豪宅”）；(iii) 在刑事案件审理期间，禁止政府在本案中协助出售马瓦豪宅；以及 (iv) 命令政府不得向受托人索取或接收受制于属于债务人之任何特权的任何信息或记录，并指明受托人已提供的任何此类材料。1\n\n16. 2023 年 8 月 31 日，刑事法院作出一项命令，指示政府须在 2023 年 9 月 21 日之前对《中止动议》提交任何回应意见 [刑事案件案卷号：132]。刑事法院的命令未明确允许任何其他当事方作出回应。\n所请求救济的依据\n\n17. 依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334，本法院对本第 11 章案件的管理以及破产财产享有专属管辖权。参见 Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of Am. N.A. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings), 535 B.R. 608, 627 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015)（“破产诉讼待决的法院对债务人在该案开始时的所有财产（无论位于何处）以及破产财产享有专属管辖权”）；另见 Sinatra v. Gucci (In re Gucci), 309 B.R. 679, 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)（“《司法法典》第 1334(e) 条赋予破产诉讼待决的地区法院‘对债务人在该案开始时的所有财产（无论位于何处）以及破产财产享有专属管辖权’”）。\n\n1 为免生疑问，受托人并未请求本法院中止所请求的替代救济中不企图干预本第 11 章案件的各方面内容。具体而言，受托人不反对修改刑事案件中保护令的请求。\n\n18. 根据《破产法典》第 362 条，未经本法院许可干涉或试图对破产财产行使控制权，即构成对自动中止的违反。参见 In re Madoff, 848 F. Supp. 2d 469, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd sub nom. In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 740 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2014)（“《破产法典》的自动中止条款起到禁止（除其他事项外）‘任何获取破产财产占有……或对破产财产行使控制权之行为’的作用”（引自 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)））。自动中止适用于在其他法院采取的、可能干涉破产财产和/或第 11 章案件管理的司法行为。例如参见 Bayview Loan Servicing LLC v. Fogarty (In re Fogarty), 39 F.4th 62, 71 (2d Cir. 2022)（“第 362 条规定的《破产法典》自动中止条款通过限制任何可能耗散破产财产或干涉受托人有序管理破产财产的正式或非正式行动或法律程序，来保护破产财产”）。破产法院拥有广泛的权力禁止任何违反自动中止的司法行为，并对故意违反自动中止的任何当事方实施制裁。同上引，第 77 页（“由于 Bayview 故意违反了自动中止[在州法院程序中]，Fogarty 有权依据[《破产法典》]第 362(k) 条获得制裁”）。\n\n19. 与此相关的是，Supreme Court（联邦最高法院）在 Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881) 一案中裁定，“一方当事人在其他裁判机构对破产信托受托人或破产法院指定的其他官员就其以官方身份所作的行为提起诉讼之前，必须首先获得破产法院的许可”。所谓的“Barton doctrine（巴顿原则）”至今仍然是有效法律。参见 In re Crown Vantage, Inc., 421 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2005)（“我们赞同各兄弟巡回法院的意见，认定一方当事人在其他裁判机构对破产信托受托人……就其以官方身份所作的行为提起诉讼之前，必须首先获得破产法院的许可。”）（援引包括但不限于 In re Lehal Realty Assocs., 101 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1996)）。Barton 原则的基础在于，涉及破产案件管理的问题必须首先提请破产法院（而非任何其他法院）注意。\n\n20. 在本案中，毫无疑问，《中止动议》（Stay Motion）构成了对自动中止的违反，本法院可以且应当立即予以禁令禁止。事实上，《中止动议》是对自动中止最根本的违抗，因为它所寻求的不仅是干涉或控制破产财产的某些财产或本案中的某些事项，而是完全停止整个案件及所有附随诉讼程序。对本案及所有附随诉讼程序的中止必然会干涉破产财产的所有财产，包括受托人（Trustee）目前正在进行的诉讼请求，以及现金和贵重的硬资产，例如属于待决附随诉讼程序标的的资产。《中止动议》必须予以禁令禁止。参见 In re Johns-Manville Corp., 91 B.R. 225, 227 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)（对州法院案件签发禁令，该案件“将对债务人及其各自的破产财产造成不可挽回的损害，且如果继续进行将彻底破坏重整程序”）。1\n\n21. 债务人（Debtor）是寻求该救济的一方当事人，这一事实使得违反自动中止的行为更加恶劣。虽然破产法院对其他法院中干涉第11章案件的诉讼签发禁令的其他先例通常可能涉及不知晓待决破产程序的债权人所采取的行动，但在此处，债务人是自愿为了自身利益在本法院提起第11章案件，并且自那以后广泛参与了本案的各个方面。债务人及其律师完全清楚，如果债务人希望获得影响本第11章案件的救济，特别是中止本案的任何方面，他需要在本法院寻求此类救济。事实上，在其对《强制提交命令》（Order Compelling Production）的回应中，债务人明确提到了请求本法院中止整个第11章案件的可能性，但他当时放弃了寻求此类救济。在此背景下，债务人在未事先通知本法院、受托人或任何其他利害关系方的情况下，向刑事法院提交《中止动议》的决定尤为肆无忌惮，只能被视为对本法院先前命令的间接攻击，包括目前正在向地区法院上诉的《藐视法庭裁定》（Contempt Order）。\n\n1 《破产法典》第 362(b)(1) 条规定，针对债务人的刑事起诉属于自动中止的例外。在本案中，受托人并非寻求中止刑事案件本身，而是为了防止债务人请求刑事法院中止本第11章案件。此类救济必须适当地向本法院寻求。\n\n22. 为防止持续违反自动中止，并保护本法院的管辖权，受托人谨请求作出一项命令，立即禁止债务人在刑事法院推进《中止动议》。受托人保留因债务人蓄意违反中止令而寻求制裁的一切权利。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白。]\n\n综上所述，受托人谨请求法院批准本动议并签署《拟议命令》（Proposed Order），禁止债务人的《中止动议》，并给予法院认为公正和适当的此类其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2023年9月1日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文（New Haven, Connecticut）\nLUC A. DESPINS，第11章受托人\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\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（经特别许可出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft（经特别许可出庭）\nDouglass Barron（经特别许可出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2160 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:00:46 Page 10 of 12\n证据附件 A\n\n拟议命令\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区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案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n（合并审理）\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n[拟议]关于禁止债务人在刑事案件中推进要求中止第11章案件及相关附随诉讼程序命令之动议的裁定\n\n经审阅关于签署一项禁止 Ho Wan Kwok（债务人）提交于其在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）[案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT]（“刑事法院”，案件为“刑事案件”）未决刑事案件中的《关于要求中止破产案件或寻求其他替代救济之命令及令状的动议通知》[刑事案件 ECF No. 129]（《中止动议》）的命令的动议（“动议”）2，该《中止动议》寻求中止上述抬头的第11章案件及所有相关附随诉讼程序；且本法院认定根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408(2) 和 1409，本诉讼程序及本动议在本管辖区的审判地是适当的；且本法院认定动议中请求的救济符合破产财产、其债权人及其他利害关系方的最佳利益；且在具体情况下已就本动议发出了适当且充分的通知；且看似无需再发出其他或进一步的通知；且基于向本法院进行的所有诉讼程序；且对本动议所请求救济的任何异议已被撤回或在实体上被驳回；经审慎审议且具有充分理由，特此裁定：\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，以及其他众多化名）（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，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人（仅用于接收通知和通讯目的）。\n\n2 本文中使用但未另作定义的大写术语具有动议中规定的含义。\n\n1. 动议按本文所述予以批准。\n\n2. 债务人在刑事法院提起的《中止动议》特此被中止并予以禁令禁止，直至本法院另有裁定。债务人必须立即撤回《中止动议》。\n\n3. 受托人获授权根据动议采取一切必要行动以落实本命令所授予的救济。\n\n4. 本法院对因本命令的执行、解释和强制执行而产生的或与之相关的所有事项保留专属管辖权。","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Guo","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":129,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3229,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-09-01 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-09-01","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:37:06"}