{"id":"court_ctb_2165_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2165,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-09-04","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"紧急禁令修正动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2165（2023-09-04立案）。第 11 章破产信托人 Luc A. Despins 提请紧急动议，要求法院发布禁令，禁止债务人郭文贵在纽约南区联邦刑事案件中继续推动中止破产程序的动议，主张该行为违反自动中止规则并侵犯破产法院管辖权。","summary_en":"Amended Emergency Motion for Injunction — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073, ECF #2165 (filed 2023-09-04). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins filed an amended emergency motion seeking an order enjoining debtor Ho Wan Kwok from prosecuting a motion in his SDNY criminal case to stay the bankruptcy proceedings, arguing it violates the automatic stay and Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | 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# **AMENDED 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 amended 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, the \"Criminal Case\") seeking to stay the above-captioned chapter 11 cases and all related\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\nadversary proceedings. This Motion is amended solely to address the letter filed by Yanping Wang (\"Ms. Wang\") in the Criminal Case joining the Debtor's Stay Motion [Criminal Case ECF No. 135] (the \"Joinder\"). 3 A comparison of this amended Motion and the original form of Motion filed September 1, 2023 [ECF No. 2160] is attached hereto as **Exhibit B**. 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, and the Trustee has requested 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\n\n<sup>3</sup> A copy of the Joinder is attached as Exhibit A to the Debtor's objection to the Trustee's motion seeking an expedited hearing of this Motion [ECF No. 2164].\n\nstay 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 creditors, 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 1334. 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.\n\n3\n\nDespins 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 associates. 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\n4\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, 4 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) modify 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>5</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\n\n<sup>4</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\n<sup>5</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\nof 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\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>6</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,\n\n<sup>6</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\nfor 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 of 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## **RESPONSE TO MS. WANG'S JOINDER**\n\n23. On September 1, 2023, Ms. Wang filed her Joinder, adopting the Debtor's arguments in his Stay Motion and joining in the requested relief. The Joinder further argues that Ms. Wang may be impacted by the Trustee's control of the Debtor's privilege (*see Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information* [ECF No. 856] (the \"Privileges Order\")) and the Trustee's investigation of the Debtor's finances and prosecution of estate claims. (Joinder at 1-4.)\n\n24. Ms. Wang's arguments—like those in the Debtor's Stay Motion—mischaracterize the proceedings in this chapter 11 case and related adversary proceedings. For example, while Ms. Wang contends that she would not have opportunity to assert her rights before this Court, she omits\n\nto discuss that she has consistently evaded service and declined to participate in this chapter 11 case—while simultaneously interfering with this Court's orders concerning estate property. 7 Moreover, Ms. Wang fails to disclose that the Privileges Order expressly preserves the Debtor's rights to assert privilege where material sought by the Trustee \"could result in personal harm to the Debtor if disclosed to the Trustee …\" (Privileges Order at ¶ 7.)\n\n25. To the extent that Ms. Wang's Joinder merely endorses the relief sought by the Stay Motion, it is sufficient for this Court to enjoin the Debtor's prosecution of the Stay Motion. To the extent, however, that Ms. Wang's Joinder constitutes an independent request to interfere with the administration of this chapter 11 case—that would stand even upon this Court enjoining the Debtor's prosecution of the Stay Motion—then this Court should similarly enjoin Ms. Wang's prosecution of the Joinder for the same reasons that apply to the Debtor.\n\n26. If Ms. Wang believes that this chapter 11 case impacts her rights—including those under the Fifth Amendment—she is free to appear and make those arguments here.<sup>8</sup> That Ms. Wang, like the Debtor, has instead filed papers in a collateral proceeding seeking a blanket stay over proceedings as to which this Court has exclusive jurisdiction reveals her true motive: to permit further dissipation of the Debtor's assets without any recourse for the estate's creditors while the Criminal Case remains pending. Neither the Debtor nor Ms. Wang may abrogate this Court's jurisdiction, nor may they violate the automatic stay.\n\n*[The rest of this page is intentionally blank.]*\n\n<sup>7</sup> The Court has previously determined that Ms. Wang was employed and controlled by the Debtor. (*See Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order* [ECF No. 1372]).) As previously reported to the Court, Ms. Wang sought to transfer her interest in Ace Decade Holdings Limited (\"Ace Decade\") after the Court had already determined that Ace Decade was property of the Debtor's estate. (*See Order Granting in Part Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023 ECF No. 18] at 5.)\n\n<sup>8</sup> From her Joinder, it appears that Ms. Wang is already substantially familiar with the proceedings in this chapter 11 case. This is unsurprising inasmuch as the law firm representing Ms. Wang in the Criminal Case (*i.e.*, Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC) already represents the Debtor's daughter and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC) in these matters.\n\nWHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and enter the Proposed Order, enjoining the Debtor's Stay Motion and the Joinder, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.\n\nDated: September 4, 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 2165 Filed 09/04/23 Entered 09/04/23 22:36:58 Page 11 of 33\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 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\") and Yanping Wang's (\"Ms. Wang\") letter joining the Debtor's Stay Motion [Criminal Case ECF No. 135] (the \"Joinder\") filed in the criminal case pending against them 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\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\nfound that the relief requested in the Motion is in the best interests of the estate, its creditors, and other parties in interest; 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. Ms. Wang's Joinder before the Criminal Court is hereby stayed and enjoined until further order of this Court. Ms. Wang must immediately withdraw the Joinder.\n\n4. The Trustee is authorized to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted in this order in accordance with the Motion.\n\n5. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this order.\n\n## **EXHIBIT B**\n\n**Blackline (Amended Motion v. Original Motion)**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nx\n\n: : : :\n\nIn re:\n\n: : :\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*., 1 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Jointly Administered)\n\nChapter 11\n\nDebtors.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n## **AMENDED 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 amended 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, the \"Criminal Case\") seeking to stay the above-captioned chapter 11 cases and all related\n\n**Formatted:** Justified\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\nadversary proceedings. This Motion is amended solely to address the letter filed by Yanping Wang (\"Ms. Wang\") in the Criminal Case joining the Debtor's Stay Motion [Criminal Case ECF No. 135] (the \"Joinder\"). 3 A comparison of this amended Motion and the original form of Motion filed September 1, 2023 [ECF No. 2160] is attached hereto as **Exhibit B**. 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 and the Trustee will has requested 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\n\n**Formatted:** Justified, Indent: Left: 0\", Hanging: 0.25\"\n\n**Formatted:** Underline\n\n<sup>3</sup> A copy of the Joinder is attached as Exhibit A to the Debtor's objection to the Trustee's motion seeking an expedited hearing of this Motion [ECF No. 2164].\n\nstay 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 creditors, 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 1334. 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 associates. 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, 4 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) modify 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>5</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\n\n**Formatted:** Justified\n\n<sup>4</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\n<sup>5</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\nof 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\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*\n\n*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>6</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,\n\n<sup>6</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\nfor 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 of 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### **RESPONSE TO MS. WANG'S JOINDER**\n\n23. On September 1, 2023, Ms. Wang filed her Joinder, adopting the Debtor's arguments in his Stay Motion and joining in the requested relief. The Joinder further argues that Ms. Wang may be impacted by the Trustee's control of the Debtor's privilege (*see Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information* [ECF No. 856] (the \"Privileges Order\")) and the Trustee's investigation of the Debtor's finances and prosecution of estate claims. (Joinder at 1-4.)\n\n24. Ms. Wang's arguments—like those in the Debtor's Stay Motion—mischaracterize the proceedings in this chapter 11 case and related adversary proceedings. For example, while Ms. Wang contends that she would not have opportunity to assert her rights before this Court, she omits **Formatted:** Font: (Default) +Headings (Times New Roman), Bold\n\n**Formatted:** Font: Bold\n\n**Formatted:** Font: (Default) +Headings (Times New Roman), Bold, Underline\n\n**Formatted:** Normal, Centered, No bullets or numbering\n\n**Formatted:** Font: Bold\n\nto discuss that she has consistently evaded service and declined to participate in this chapter 11 case—while simultaneously interfering with this Court's orders concerning estate property. 7 Moreover, Ms. Wang fails to disclose that the Privileges Order expressly preserves the Debtor's rights to assert privilege where material sought by the Trustee \"could result in personal harm to the Debtor if disclosed to the Trustee …\" (Privileges Order at ¶ 7.)\n\n25. To the extent that Ms. Wang's Joinder merely endorses the relief sought by the Stay Motion, it is sufficient for this Court to enjoin the Debtor's prosecution of the Stay Motion. To the extent, however, that Ms. Wang's Joinder constitutes an independent request to interfere with the administration of this chapter 11 case—that would stand even upon this Court enjoining the Debtor's prosecution of the Stay Motion—then this Court should similarly enjoin Ms. Wang's prosecution of the Joinder for the same reasons that apply to the Debtor.\n\nIf Ms. Wang believes that this chapter 11 case impacts her rights—including those under the Fifth Amendment—she is free to appear and make those arguments here.<sup>8</sup> That Ms. Wang, like the Debtor, has instead filed papers in a collateral proceeding seeking a blanket stay over proceedings as to which this Court has exclusive jurisdiction reveals her true motive: to permit further dissipation of the Debtor's assets without any recourse for the estate's creditors while the Criminal Case remains pending. Neither the Debtor nor Ms. Wang may abrogate this Court's jurisdiction, nor may they violate the automatic stay.\n\n26.\n\n**Formatted:** Font: Bold\n\n**Formatted:** Font: Bold **Formatted:** Justified, Indent: Left: 0\", First line: 0.5\", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25\" + Indent at: 0.5\" **Formatted:** Font: (Default) +Headings (Times New Roman) **Formatted:** Font: (Default) +Headings (Times New Roman) **Formatted:** Font: (Default) +Headings (Times New Roman) **Formatted:** Font: (Default) +Headings (Times New Roman) **Formatted:** Font: (Default) +Headings (Times New Roman) **Formatted:** Font: (Default) +Headings (Times New Roman) **Formatted:** Font: (Default) +Headings (Times New Roman) **Formatted:** Font: (Default) +Headings (Times New Roman) **Formatted:** Font: (Default) +Headings (Times New Roman) **Formatted:** Font: (Default) +Headings (Times New Roman)\n\n**Formatted:** Justified, Indent: Hanging: 0.06\"\n\n<sup>7</sup> The Court has previously determined that Ms. Wang was employed and controlled by the Debtor. (*See Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order* [ECF No. 1372]).) As previously reported to the Court, Ms. Wang sought to transfer her interest in Ace Decade Holdings Limited (\"Ace Decade\") after the Court had already determined that Ace Decade was property of the Debtor's estate. (*See Order Granting in Part Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023 ECF No. 18] at 5.) <sup>8</sup> From her Joinder, it appears that Ms. Wang is already substantially familiar with the proceedings in this chapter 11 case. This is unsurprising inasmuch as the law firm representing Ms. Wang in the Criminal Case (*i.e.*, Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC) already represents the Debtor's daughter and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC) in these matters.\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\n\nProposed Order, enjoining the Debtor's Stay Motion and the Joinder, and for such other and further\n\nrelief as the Court may deem just and proper.\n\nDated: September 14, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew 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\n**Formatted:** Indent: First line: 0\", Widow/Orphan control\n\n## **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Proposed Order**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\n: : : Chapter 11\n\n> : : : :\n\nx\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*., 1 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Jointly Administered)\n\nDebtors.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\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\n\nof Ho Wan Kwok's (the \"Debtor\") *Notice of Motion for an Order and Writ Staying Bankruptcy*\n\n*Cases or in the Alternative for Other Relief* [Criminal Case ECF No. 129] (the \"Stay Motion\") and\n\nYanping Wang's (\"Ms. Wang\") letter joining the Debtor's Stay Motion [Criminal Case ECF No.\n\n135] (the \"Joinder\") filed in the criminal case pending against him them 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\n\n**Formatted:** Justified\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\nhaving found that the relief requested in the Motion is in the best interests of the estate, its creditors, and other parties in interest; 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. Ms. Wang's Joinder before the Criminal Court is hereby stayed and enjoined until further order of this Court. Ms. Wang must immediately withdraw the Joinder.\n\n3.4. The Trustee is authorized to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted in this order in accordance with the Motion.\n\n5. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this order.\n\n## **EXHIBIT B**\n\n**Blackline (Amended Motion v. Original Motion)**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n: : : : : : :\n\n---------------------------------------------------------- x\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*., 1\n\nDebtors.\n\nChapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Jointly Administered)\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on September 4, 2023, the foregoing Motion to Expedite, and all declarations, exhibits and attachments thereto, was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 cases eligible to receive electronic notice by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system, including the Debtor and the United States Trustee. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nIn addition, undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on September 4, 2023, the foregoing Motion was sent via electronic mail to counsel to the Debtor and Ms. Wang in the Criminal Case as follows:\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![](_page_30_Figure_1.jpeg)\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 September 4, 2023, the foregoing Motion to Expedite, and all declarations, exhibits and attachments thereto, was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 cases eligible to receive electronic notice by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system, including the Debtor and the United States Trustee. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nIn addition, undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on September 4, 2023, the foregoing Motion was sent via electronic mail to counsel to the Debtor and Ms. Wang in the Criminal Case as follows:\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\nSidharda Kamaraju (skamaraju@pyrorcashman.com) Matthew S. Barkan (mbarkan@pyrorcashman.com) Daniel J. Pohlman (dpohlman@pyrorcashman.com) John M. Kilgard (jkilgard@pyrorcashman.com) Clare P. Tilton (ctilton@pyrorcashman.com) Pryor Cashman LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036-6569\n\n## *Counsel to the Debtor in the Criminal Case*\n\nEmil Bove (ebove@csglaw.com) Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 11 Times Square, 34th Floor New York, NY 10036\n\n*and*\n\nAlex Lipman (alexlipman@lipmanpllc.com) Lipman Law PLLC 147 W. 25th St. 12th Fl New York, NY 10001\n\n*Counsel to Ms. Wang in the Criminal Case*\n\nDated: September 4, 2023 New Haven, Connecticut\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) 821-2000 plinsey@npmlaw.com","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\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。　：　（合并管理）\n\nx\n\n第11章受托人根据11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a)和362提出的经修订紧急动议，请求禁止债务人在刑事案件中推进请求中止第11章案件及相关对抗性程序的命令之动议\n\nLuc A. Despins，以其在上述标题所列Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”）第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（下称“受托人”）身份，通过其下列签署的代理律师，特此提交本经修订紧急动议（下称“本动议”），请求根据11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a)和362作出一项裁定，其格式实质上如随附附件A（下称“拟议裁定”）所示，禁止债务人在United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）[Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT]（下称“刑事法院”，该案件下称“刑事案件”）中对其提起的刑事案件内推进其已提交的《请求作出命令及令状以中止破产案件，或备选请求其他救济的动议》[Criminal Case ECF No. 129]（下称“中止动议”）2，该动议请求中止上述标题所列第11章案件及所有相关对抗性程序。本动议仅为回应Yanping Wang（王艳萍，以下简称“王女士”）在刑事案件中提交的加入债务人中止动议的信函[Criminal Case ECF No. 135]（下称“加入”）而作出修订。3 本经修订动议与2023年9月1日提交的原动议文本[ECF No. 2160]之比较，作为附件B随附于此。为支持其动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 债务人通过中止动议请求刑事法院，除其他事项外，中止整个第11章案件，直至刑事案件终结。中止动议不仅毫无根据，而且公然违反自动中止，并直接侵夺本院对本案及第11章财产的管辖权。受托人通过本动议请求作出裁定，立即禁止债务人推进中止动议。债务人如希望请求中止本第11章案件，可向本院提出动议；本院是唯一有管辖权审理该请求的法院，受托人将相应作出回应。然而，债务人不得单方面请求另一法院篡夺本院的管辖权。\n\n2. 刑事法院已指示政府于2023年9月21日前提交对中止动议的任何回应。刑事法院并未明确允许受托人等其他当事方作出回应；如有必要，受托人已请求获得作出回应的机会。鉴于中止动议的时间安排，受托人谨请求本院在紧急基础上尽快准予本动议所请求的救济，以使财产无需耗费任何资源在刑事法院进行诉讼。\n\n3. 虽然受托人未在此处理中止动议的实体理由，但其保留在必要时处理该等理由的一切权利。为免生疑，任何理由均不足以中止本第11章案件的任何方面。债务人为自身利益，于2022年2月自愿在本院启动本案；在经历逾十八个月的大量案卷活动之后，并在受托人持续进行Rule 2004调查及资产追索诉讼期间，于此时中止本案，将对债务人的债权人造成极大不利影响，尤其鉴于有大量证据表明债务人（尽管其被羁押）及其关联人士目前仍在继续努力转移和隐匿资产。债务人所称的第五修正案疑虑毫无根据；无论如何，如有必要，可通过不足以中止整个案件的其他措施予以解决。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n4. 本院根据28 U.S.C. §§ 157和1334对审理本申请具有管辖权。根据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408和1409，本申请的审判地适当。\n\n5. 本事项属于28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)所称的核心程序。\n\n6. 本动议所请求救济的依据为United States Code（美国法典）第11编（下称“破产法”）第105(a)和362条。\n\n背景\n\n7. 2022年2月15日（下称“申请日”），债务人向本院提交了根据破产法第11章请求救济的自愿申请。\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（下称“第11章案件”）中任命了Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人正式委员会，以下简称“委员会”）。第11章案件中未任命审查员。\n\n9. 2022年6月15日，本院作出一份裁决备忘录及命令[Docket No. 465]（下称“受托人命令”），指示美国受托人在第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，本院作出命令，批准任命Luc A. Despins为第11章案件的受托人[Docket No. 523]。\n\n10. 自获任命以来，受托人一直对债务人的资产及事务进行深入调查，包括向债务人及其关联人士寻求证据开示。债务人拒绝履行其证据开示义务；在举行多次听证后，本院于2023年1月20日作出命令，强制债务人提交文件[Docket No. 1353]（下称“强制提交命令”）。\n\n11. 2023年3月15日，刑事法院解封了一份包含十二项罪名项的起诉书（下称“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士犯有多项联邦罪行。\n\n12. 在刑事指控宣布后，债务人于2023年4月10日通过其先前的刑事代理律师Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）提交动议，请求中止强制提交命令；但其未请求中止本第11章案件。事实上，其明确拒绝提出该请求。参见《债务人关于有限中止部分准许要求遵守Rule 2004传票之强制动议的命令的动议》，¶25 [Docket No. 1649]。\n\n13. 约于2023年7月11日，债务人聘请其现任刑事案件代理律师，Brown Rudnick LLP退出代理。\n\n14. 2023年7月26日，本院作出进一步命令，因债务人未遵守强制提交命令而认定其藐视法庭[Docket No. 2035]（下称“藐视法庭命令”）。藐视法庭命令允许债务人通过包括请求刑事法院许可其向受托人提供某些文件在内的方式消除其藐视法庭状态。债务人已对藐视法庭命令提出上诉。\n\n15. 2023年8月30日，债务人在未事先通知受托人且未通知本第11章案件任何其他当事方的情况下，4 提交中止动议，请求刑事法院中止第11章案件及所有相关对抗性程序；或备选地，请求：(i) 修改刑事案件中的保护令，允许向受托人提交刑事案件中的证据开示材料；(ii) 指示债务人的刑事代理律师辩护团队在刑事案件审理期间继续获准进入位于675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430的不动产（下称“Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）”）；(iii) 禁止政府在刑事案件审理期间协助出售本案中的马瓦庄园；以及(iv) 命令政府不得向受托人征求或接收任何受债务人享有的任何特权保护的信息或记录，并识别受托人已经提供的任何该等材料。5\n\n16. 2023年8月31日，刑事法院作出命令，指示政府于2023年9月21日前提交对中止动议的任何回应[Criminal Case Docket No. 132]。刑事法院的命令并未明确允许任何其他当事方作出回应。\n\n所请求救济的依据\n\n17. 根据28 U.S.C. 1334，本院对本第11章案件的管理及财产拥有专属管辖权。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)（“破产程序正在审理的法院，对案件启动时债务人无论位于何处的全部财产以及财产拥有专属管辖权。”）；另参见Sinatra v. Gucci (In re Gucci), 309 B.R. 679, 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)（“司法法典第1334(e)条赋予破产程序正在审理的地区法院‘对案件启动时债务人无论位于何处的全部财产以及财产拥有专属管辖权。’”）。\n\n18. 根据《破产法典》第362条，未经本院许可，干预或试图对破产财产行使控制权，均构成违反自动中止。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》的自动中止条款除其他事项外，禁止‘任何取得……破产财产占有，或对破产财产行使控制权的行为。’”）（引自 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)）。自动中止适用于在其他法院采取的、可能干预破产财产和/或第11章案件管理的司法行动。例如，参见 Bayview Loan Servicing LLC（湾景贷款服务有限责任公司）v. Fogarty（福格蒂）（In re Fogarty）, 39 F.4th 62, 71 (2d Cir. 2022)（“《破产法典》第362条规定的自动中止条款，通过限制任何可能耗散破产财产资产或干扰受托人有序管理破产财产的正式或非正式行为或法律程序，保护破产财产。”）。破产法院有广泛权力禁止任何违反中止的司法行动，并对任何故意违反中止的一方施加制裁。Id. at 77（“由于 Bayview 在［州法院程序中］故意违反自动中止，Fogarty 有权根据［《破产法典》］第362(k)条获得制裁。”）。\n\n19. 相关地，联邦最高法院（Supreme Court）在 Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881) 中裁定，“一方在因破产受托人或由破产法院指定的其他官员以其职务身份所为行为，而在另一法院对其提起诉讼之前，必须首先获得破产法院的许可。”所谓的“Barton doctrine（巴顿原则）”仍然是有效法律。参见 In re Crown Vantage, Inc., 421 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2005)（“我们与姊妹巡回法院一致认为，一方在因破产受托人……以其职务身份所为行为，而在另一法院对其提起诉讼之前，必须首先获得破产法院的许可。”）（尤其引述 In re Lehal Realty Assocs., 101 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1996)）。Barton 原则所依据的原则是，涉及破产案件管理的问题，必须首先提交破产法院（而非任何其他法院）审理。\n\n20. 在此，毫无疑问，中止动议构成对自动中止的违反，本院可以且应当立即予以禁止。事实上，中止动议是对自动中止的终极违反，因为其所寻求的不仅是干预或对某些破产财产或案件内某些事项行使控制权，而是完全停止整个案件及所有对抗程序。中止本案及所有对抗程序，必然会干预全部破产财产，包括受托人目前正在追诉的诉因，以及现金和有价值的硬资产，例如作为待决对抗程序标的的资产。必须禁止中止动议。参见 In re Johns-Manville Corp., 91 B.R. 225, 227 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)（禁止州法院案件，该案“将对债务人及其各自的破产财产造成不可弥补的损害，且如继续进行，将完全破坏重整程序”）。6\n\n21. 债务人作为寻求该项救济的一方这一事实，使该中止违反更加严重。尽管破产法院禁止在其他法院进行干预第11章案件的诉讼的其他例子，往往可能涉及不知道待决破产案件的债权人所采取的行动，但在本案中，债务人自愿在本院启动第11章案件，\n\n6 《破产法典》第362(b)(1)条规定，对债务人的刑事诉讼不受自动中止约束。在此，受托人并非寻求中止刑事案件本身，而是寻求阻止债务人请求刑事法院中止本第11章案件。该等救济必须适当地向本院请求。\n\n为其利益，并且此后已广泛参与本案的各个方面。债务人及其律师完全知晓，如债务人希望获得影响本第11章案件的救济，尤其包括中止其任何部分，他需要向本院寻求该等救济。事实上，债务人在其对强制提交裁定的答复中，明确提及请求本院中止整个第11章案件的可能性，但其当时拒绝寻求该等救济。在此背景下，债务人在未事先通知本院、受托人或任何其他利害关系方的情况下，决定向刑事法院提交中止动议，尤为肆无忌惮，并且只能被视为对本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。\n\n22. 为防止持续违反自动中止，并保护本院的管辖权，受托人谨请求作出命令，立即禁止债务人在刑事法院继续推进中止动议。受托人保留因债务人故意违反中止而寻求制裁的一切权利。\n\n对王女士加入书的答复\n\n23. 2023年9月1日，王雁平（Yanping Wang，以下简称“王女士”）提交其加入书，采纳债务人在其所提中止动议中的论点，并加入所请求的救济。加入书还主张，王女士可能受到受托人对债务人特权的控制（参见《有关与根据规则2004传唤的文件和信息相关的律师—当事人特权及工作成果保护控制权的同意裁定》[ECF No. 856]（“特权裁定”））以及受托人对债务人财务的调查和对破产财产请求权的追诉所影响。（加入书，第1-4页。）\n\n24. 王女士的论点——如同债务人中止动议中的论点——歪曲了本第11章案件及相关对抗程序中的程序。例如，尽管王女士主张她将没有机会在本院主张其权利，但她未提及，她一直在逃避送达并拒绝参与本第11章案件——同时干预本院关于破产财产的命令。7 此外，王女士未披露，特权裁定明确保留债务人在受托人所寻求的材料“如向受托人披露，可能对债务人造成个人损害……”时主张特权的权利。（特权裁定，第7段。）\n\n25. 就王女士的加入书仅仅赞同中止动议所请求的救济而言，本院禁止债务人继续推进中止动议即已足够。然而，就王女士的加入书构成干预本第11章案件管理的独立请求——即使本院禁止债务人继续推进中止动议，该请求仍将继续存在——则本院也应基于适用于债务人的相同理由，禁止王女士继续推进加入书。\n\n26. 如王女士认为本第11章案件影响其权利——包括其在《美国宪法第五修正案》下的权利——她可自由出庭并在此提出该等论点。8 王女士与债务人一样，反而在附带程序中提交文书，寻求对本院拥有专属管辖权的程序全面中止，这揭示了她的真正动机：在刑事案件待决期间，允许债务人的资产进一步耗散，而破产财产的债权人对此没有任何追索权。债务人和王女士均不得废止本院的管辖权，也不得违反自动中止。\n\n［本页其余部分特意留白。］\n\n7 本院此前已认定，王女士受雇于并受债务人控制。（参见《准许动议以认定债务人藐视公司治理裁定的裁定》[ECF No. 1372]。）如先前向本院报告，王女士试图在本院已认定 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司，以下简称“Ace Decade”）为债务人破产财产后，转让其在 Ace Decade 中的权益。（参见《部分准许临时限制令和初步禁令动议的裁定》[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023 ECF No. 18]，第5页。）\n\n8 从其加入书看来，王女士已对本第11章案件中的程序有实质性了解。鉴于在刑事案件中代理王女士的律师事务所（即 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC（基耶萨·沙希尼安和詹托马西律师事务所））已在这些事项中代理债务人的女儿及 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司），这并不令人意外。\n\n因此，受托人谨请求本院准许本动议并作出拟议裁定，禁止债务人的中止动议及加入书，并给予本院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2023年9月4日　康涅狄格州纽黑文　LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙泰思专业公司）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2165 Filed 09/04/23 Entered 09/04/23 22:36:58 Page 11 of 33\n\n附件A\n\n拟议裁定\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格区\n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，　：\n：　Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：\n：　（联合管理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n［拟议］裁定：禁止债务人在刑事案件中继续推进请求中止第11章案件及相关对抗程序的动议\n\n本院审议了请求作出一项裁定的动议（“本动议”）2，该裁定禁止 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“债务人”）提出的《请求作出裁定及令状以中止破产案件，或备选地请求其他救济的动议通知》[Criminal Case ECF No. 129]（“中止动议”），以及 Yanping Wang（王雁平，以下简称“王女士”）提交的、加入债务人中止动议的信函[Criminal Case ECF No. 135]（“加入书”）；该等文件在针对他们、于 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）[Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT] 待决的刑事案件中提交（“刑事法院”及该案件“刑事案件”），请求中止上述第11章案件及所有相关对抗程序；并且本院认定，根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408(2) and 1409，本区为本程序及本动议的适当审判地；并且本院已经\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2 本文所用但未另行定义的首字母大写术语，具有本动议中规定的含义。\n\n认定动议中所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；且鉴于在具体情形下已就该动议作出适当且充分的通知；且看来无需作出任何其他或进一步通知；且基于本院此前进行的全部程序；且对本文件所请求救济提出的任何异议均已撤回或经实体审理被驳回；并经适当审议且存在充分理由，现特此命令如下：\n\n1. 动议按本文件所述予以准许。\n\n2. 债务人在刑事法院提出的暂缓动议，现予暂缓并禁止继续推进，直至本院进一步命令。债务人必须立即撤回该暂缓动议。\n\n3. 王女士在刑事法院提出的加入申请，现予暂缓并禁止继续推进，直至本院进一步命令。王女士必须立即撤回该加入申请。\n\n4. 受托人获授权采取一切必要行动，以根据该动议落实本命令所准许的救济。\n\n5. 对于因执行、解释及强制实施本命令而产生或与之相关的一切事项，本院保留专属管辖权。\n\n附件B\n\n修订动议与原动议对比稿\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\nx\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1                                  案号：22-50073 (JAM)（合并管理）\n\n第11章\n\n债务人。\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n第11章受托人根据11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a)和362提出的修订紧急动议，请求禁止债务人在刑事案件中继续推进其请求下令暂缓第11章案件及相关对抗程序的动议\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其作为上述标题所列Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，通过其下列签署律师，特此提交本修订紧急动议（“本动议”），请求根据11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a)和362作出命令，命令的实质形式如随附附件A（“拟议命令”）所示，禁止债务人继续推进其在United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）[案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT]审理的针对其本人的刑事案件中提交的《请求作出命令及令状以暂缓破产案件，或备选请求其他救济的动议》[刑事案件ECF编号129]（“暂缓动议”）2；该刑事法院及该案件以下分别称为“刑事法院”和“刑事案件”。该暂缓动议请求暂缓上述第11章案件及所有相关对抗程序。本动议仅为处理Yanping Wang（王雁平，“王女士”）在刑事案件中提交的、加入债务人暂缓动议的函件[刑事案件ECF编号135]（“加入申请”）而作出修订。3 本修订动议与2023年9月1日提交的原动议版本[ECF编号2160]的对比稿随附于本文件，作为附件B。为支持其动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 通过暂缓动议，债务人请求刑事法院，除其他事项外，暂缓整个第11章案件，直至刑事案件终结。暂缓动议不仅毫无依据，而且公然违反自动中止，并直接侵害本院对本案及第11章破产财产的管辖权。受托人通过本动议请求作出命令，立即禁止债务人继续推进暂缓动议。如果债务人希望寻求暂缓本第11章案件，其可向本院——唯一有管辖权审理该事项的法院——提出动议，受托人将相应作出回应。然而，债务人不得单方面请求另一法院篡夺本院的管辖权。\n\n2. 刑事法院已指示政府最迟于2023年9月21日提交对暂缓动议的任何回应。刑事法院并未明确允许受托人等其他当事人作出回应，尽管受托人已请求在必要时获得该机会。鉴于暂缓动议的时间安排，受托人恭请法院以紧急方式尽快准许本文件所请求的救济，以使破产财产无需花费任何资源在刑事法院进行诉讼。\n\n3. 虽然受托人并未在本文件中处理暂缓动议的实体问题，但其保留在必要时及必要情况下处理该问题的一切权利。为免生疑，不存在任何依据可暂缓本第11章案件的任何部分。债务人于2022年2月为其自身利益自愿在本院启动该案件；在经历逾十八个月的大量案卷活动之后，并正值受托人持续进行Rule 2004调查及资产追回诉讼之际，暂缓该案件将对债务人的债权人造成极大不利，特别是鉴于大量证据表明债务人（尽管其被羁押）及其同伙目前仍在继续努力转移和隐匿资产。债务人所声称的第五修正案顾虑毫无依据，而且无论如何，如有必要，均可通过不致暂缓整个案件的其他措施予以解决。\n\n管辖权及审判地\n\n4. 本院根据28 U.S.C. §§ 157和1334对审理本申请拥有管辖权。根据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408和1409，在本院审理本申请的审判地适当。\n\n5. 本事项属于28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)所称的核心程序。\n\n6. 本文件所请求救济的依据为United States Code（美国法典）第11编第105(a)条和第362条（“破产法”）。\n\n背景\n\n7. 2022年2月15日（“申请日”），债务人向本院提交了根据破产法第11章请求救济的自愿申请。\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（“第11章案件”）中任命了Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人正式委员会，“委员会”）。第11章案件中尚未任命审查员。\n\n9. 2022年6月15日，本院作出备忘录式裁定及命令[案卷编号465]（“受托人命令”），指示美国受托人在第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，本院作出命令，批准任命Luc A. Despins为第11章案件的受托人[案卷编号523]。\n\n10. 自获任命以来，受托人一直对债务人的资产及事务进行深入调查，包括向债务人及其同伙寻求证据开示。债务人拒绝履行其证据开示义务，并且在经过多次听证后，本院于2023年1月20日作出命令，强制债务人提交文件[案卷编号1353]（“强制提交命令”）。\n\n11. 2023年3月15日，刑事法院公开了一份包含十二项罪名的起诉书（“起诉书”），其中United States Government（美国政府，“政府”）指控债务人及其若干同伙犯有多项联邦罪行。\n\n12. 刑事指控公布后，债务人于2023年4月10日通过其先前的刑事辩护律师Brown Rudnick LLP提交动议，请求暂缓强制提交命令；但其并未请求暂缓本第11章案件。事实上，其明确拒绝如此请求。见《债务人请求有限暂缓部分准许强制遵守Rule 2004传票动议的命令之动议》，第25段[案卷编号1649]。\n\n13. 大约于2023年7月11日，债务人在刑事案件中聘请了其现任律师，Brown Rudnick LLP则退出担任律师。\n\n14. 2023年7月26日，本院作出进一步命令，因债务人未遵守强制提交命令而认定其藐视法庭[案卷编号2035]（“藐视法庭命令”）。该藐视法庭命令允许债务人通过以下方式等清除其藐视状态：请求刑事法院许可其向受托人提供某些文件。债务人已对该藐视法庭命令提出上诉。\n\n15. 2023年8月30日，债务人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人的情况下，4 提交了暂缓动议，请求刑事法院暂缓第11章案件及所有相关对抗程序，或备选地，(i) 修改刑事案件中的保护令，以允许向受托人提交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（“Mahwah Mansion”）；(iii) 禁止政府在刑事案件审理期间促成本案中Mahwah Mansion的出售；以及(iv) 命令政府不得向受托人征求或接收任何受债务人所享有特权保护的信息或记录，并确认受托人已提供的任何该等材料。5\n\n16. 2023年8月31日，刑事法院作出命令，指示政府最迟于2023年9月21日提交对暂缓动议的任何回应[刑事案件案卷编号132]。刑事法院命令未明确允许任何其他当事人作出回应。\n\n请求救济的依据\n\n17. 根据28 U.S.C. 1334，本院对本第11章案件的管理及破产财产拥有专属管辖权。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)（“破产程序正在审理的法院，对债务人在该案件启动时的所有财产——无论位于何处——以及财产拥有专属管辖权”）。\n\n4 债务人的刑事辩护律师在暂缓动议提交后，通过电子邮件向受托人的律师发送了暂缓动议副本。据受托人所知，债务人未向其他重要利害关系方提供有关暂缓动议的任何通知，例如无担保债权人正式委员会和PAX。\n\n5 为免生疑，受托人并未请求本院暂缓所请求的备选救济中未寻求干扰本第11章案件的部分。具体而言，受托人不反对修改刑事案件中保护令的请求。\n\n“属于破产财产。”；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) 条赋予破产程序正在审理的地区法院对‘债务人在该案开始时位于任何地点的全部财产，以及破产财产，’的专属管辖权。”）。\n\n18. 根据《破产法》第 362 条，未经本院许可，干扰破产财产或者试图对破产财产行使控制权，违反自动中止。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》的自动中止规定产生禁令效力，禁止包括‘任何取得……破产财产占有或者对其行使控制权的行为。’”）（引自 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)）。自动中止适用于在其他法院采取的、可能干扰破产财产和/或第 11 章案件管理的司法行为。例如，见 Bayview Loan Servicing LLC v. Fogarty (In re Fogarty), 39 F.4th 62, 71 (2d Cir. 2022)（“《破产法》第 362 条规定的自动中止条款，通过限制任何可能耗散破产财产资产或干扰受托人有序管理破产财产的正式或非正式行为或法律程序，保护破产财产。”）。破产法院拥有广泛权力，可禁止任何违反中止的司法行为，并可对任何故意违反中止的一方施加制裁。Id. at 77（“由于 Bayview 在[州法院程序中]故意违反自动中止，Fogarty 有权根据[《破产法》]第 362(k) 条获得制裁。”）。\n\n19. 与此相关，最高法院在 Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881) 中裁定，“一方当事人在其他法庭对破产受托人或破产法院指定的其他官员，就该官员以其公务身份所实施的行为提起诉讼之前，必须首先取得破产法院的许可。”所谓“Barton doctrine（巴顿原则）”仍为有效法律。见 In re Crown Vantage, Inc., 421 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2005)（“我们与其他巡回法院一致认为，一方当事人在其他法庭对破产受托人……就该官员以其公务身份所实施的行为提起诉讼之前，必须首先取得破产法院的许可。”）（引用包括 In re Lehal Realty Assocs., 101 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1996) 在内的判例）。Barton 所依据的原则是，涉及破产案件管理的问题，首先必须提请破产法院注意（而非任何其他法院）。\n\n20. 在此，毫无疑问，中止动议构成对自动中止的违反，本院可以且应当立即予以禁止。事实上，中止动议是对自动中止最严重的违反，因为其寻求的不仅是干扰或控制某些破产财产或案件中的某些事项，而是完全停止整个案件及所有对抗程序。中止本案及所有对抗程序，必然会干扰全部破产财产，包括受托人目前正在主张的诉因，以及现金和有价值的硬资产，例如作为待决对抗程序标的的资产。必须禁止中止动议。见 In re Johns-Manville Corp., 91 B.R. 225, 227 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)（禁止州法院案件，该案件“将对债务人及其各自的破产财产造成不可弥补的损害，且如继续进行，将完全破坏重组程序”）。6\n\n21. 债务人作为寻求该救济的一方这一事实，使该中止违反更加严重。尽管破产法院禁止在其他法院进行干扰第 11 章案件的诉讼的其他案例，通常可能涉及不了解待决破产程序的债权人所采取的行为，但在此，债务人自愿在本院启动第 11 章案件，\n\n6 《破产法》第 362(b)(1) 条规定，对债务人的刑事诉讼不受自动中止约束。在此，受托人并不寻求中止刑事案件本身，而是寻求防止债务人请求刑事法院中止本第 11 章案件。该等救济必须适当地向本院请求。\n\n以使其受益，并且此后广泛参与本案的各个方面。债务人及其律师完全知悉，如果债务人希望获得影响本第 11 章案件的救济，尤其包括中止其任何方面，他需要向本院寻求该等救济。事实上，在其对强制提交命令的答复中，债务人明确提到可能请求本院中止整个第 11 章案件，但其当时拒绝寻求该等救济。在此背景下，债务人决定在未事先通知本院、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，尤其肆无忌惮，并且只能被视为对本院先前命令的附带攻击，包括目前正在向地区法院上诉的藐视法庭命令。\n\n22. 为防止持续违反自动中止，并保护本院的管辖权，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。受托人保留就债务人故意违反中止而寻求制裁的一切权利。\n\n对王女士加入申请的答复\n\n23. 2023 年 9 月 1 日，Yanping Wang（王雁平，以下简称“王女士”）提交其加入申请，采纳债务人在其《中止动议》中的论点，并加入所请求的救济。加入申请进一步主张，王女士可能受到受托人对债务人特权的控制（见《关于与 Rule 2004 传票文件和信息相关的律师—委托人特权及工作成果保护控制权的同意命令》[ECF No. 856]（“特权命令”））、受托人对债务人财务的调查以及对破产财产请求权的追诉之影响。（加入申请第 1-4 页。）\n\n24. 王女士的论点——与债务人中止动议中的论点相同——歪曲了本第 11 章案件及相关对抗程序中的程序。例如，尽管王女士主张她将没有机会在本院主张其权利，但她未提及，她一直规避送达并拒绝参与本第 11 章案件——同时干扰本院关于破产财产的命令。7 此外，王女士未披露，特权命令明确保留债务人就受托人所寻求的材料“如向受托人披露，可能对债务人造成个人损害……”而主张特权的权利。（特权命令第 ¶ 7 段。）\n\n25. 就王女士的加入申请仅支持中止动议所请求的救济而言，本院禁止债务人推进中止动议即已足够。然而，就王女士的加入申请构成独立请求、意图干扰本第 11 章案件管理——即使本院禁止债务人推进中止动议后仍会继续存在——而言，则本院亦应基于适用于债务人的相同理由，禁止王女士推进加入申请。\n\n如果王女士认为本第 11 章案件影响其权利——包括第五修正案项下的权利——她可以自由出庭并在此提出该等论点。8 王女士与债务人一样，反而在附带程序中提交文件，寻求对本院拥有专属管辖权的程序实施全面中止，这揭示了她的真实动机：在刑事案件待决期间，允许债务人的资产进一步耗散，而破产财产债权人对此无任何救济。债务人和王女士均不得废止本院的管辖权，亦不得违反自动中止。\n\n26.\n\n7 本院此前已认定，王女士受债务人雇佣和控制。（见《准许认定债务人违反公司治理命令的动议的命令》[ECF No. 1372]。）如先前向本院报告，王女士试图转让其在 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（“Ace Decade”）中的权益，而本院此前已认定 Ace Decade 属于债务人的破产财产。（见《部分准许临时限制令和初步禁令动议的命令》[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023 ECF No. 18] 第 5 页。）8 从她的加入申请看来，王女士已对本第 11 章案件中的程序有相当程度的了解。这并不令人意外，因为在刑事案件中代理王女士的律师事务所（即 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC）已在这些事项中代理债务人的女儿及 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n因此，受托人谨请求本院准许本动议并作出所提议命令，禁止债务人的中止动议及加入申请，并给予本院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：September 14, 2023                         LUC A. DESPINS，\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut                            第 11 章受托人\n\n代理人：/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（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nDouglass Barron（获准 pro hac vice 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 章受托人的律师\n\n附件 A\n\n所提议命令\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n\n：\n：\n：第 11 章\n\n>\n：\n：\n：\n\nx\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1                         案号：22-50073 (JAM)（联合管理）\n\n债务人。\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n[所提议]禁止债务人在刑事案件中推进请求中止第 11 章案件及相关对抗程序的动议的命令\n\n本院审议了请求作出命令、禁止推进 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“债务人”）的《请求作出命令和令状以中止破产案件，或备选请求其他救济的动议通知》[Criminal Case ECF No. 129]（“中止动议”）及 Yanping Wang（王雁平，以下简称“王女士”）加入债务人中止动议的信函[Criminal Case ECF No.\n\n135]（“共同加入申请”）在针对其等人于 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）[Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT]（“刑事法院”，该案件称为“刑事案件”）待决的刑事案件中提交，请求中止上述标题所示的第 11 章案件及所有相关对抗程序；且本院已认定，根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408(2) and 1409，本程序及本动议在本地区的审理地点适格；且本院\n\n格式：两端对齐\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever 控股公司）。受托人、Genever 控股有限责任公司及 Genever 控股公司的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），作为郭文贵破产财产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2 本文中使用但未另行定义的首字母大写术语，具有本动议中规定的含义。\n\n已认定本动议所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；且鉴于具体情形，已就本动议发出适当且充分的通知；且看来无需发出任何其他或进一步通知；且基于本院已进行的一切程序；且对本文所请求救济的任何异议已被撤回或经实体审理后驳回；且经适当审议并有充分理由，现据此命令：\n\n1. 本动议按本文所述予以批准。\n\n2. 债务人在刑事法院提出的中止动议，现予中止并禁止，直至本院作出进一步命令。债务人必须立即撤回该中止动议。\n\n3. 王女士在刑事法院提出的共同加入申请，现予中止并禁止，直至本院作出进一步命令。王女士必须立即撤回该共同加入申请。\n\n4. 授权受托人依照本动议采取一切必要行动，以落实本命令授予的救济。\n\n5. 对于因实施、解释和执行本命令而产生或与之有关的一切事项，本院保留专属管辖权。\n\n附件 B\n\n修订对照（修订后动议与原动议）\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（康涅狄格联邦地区破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n---------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1\n\n债务人。\n\nChapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)（联合管理）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n送达证明\n\n下方签署人特此证明，于 September 4, 2023，前述申请加速处理的动议及其所有声明、附件和附属文件，已以电子方式提交。通过法院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统，已通过电子邮件向上述标题所示第 11 章案件中有资格接收电子通知的所有当事方，包括债务人和 United States Trustee（美国受托人），发送本次提交的通知。当事方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交。\n\n此外，下方签署的律师特此证明，于 September 4, 2023，前述动议已通过电子邮件发送给刑事案件中债务人及王女士的律师，具体如下：\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为郭文贵（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever 控股有限责任公司（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever 控股公司。受托人、Genever 控股有限责任公司及 Genever 控股公司的邮寄地址为保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所，200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交卢克·A·德斯平斯，作为郭文贵破产财产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nx\n\n关于：　：\n：　第 11 章\n\n郭文贵，\n等人，　：\n：\n：　Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：　（联合管理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n送达证明\n\n下方签署人特此证明，于 September 4, 2023，前述申请加速处理的动议及其所有声明、附件和附属文件，已以电子方式提交。通过法院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统，已通过电子邮件向上述标题所示第 11 章案件中有资格接收电子通知的所有当事方，包括债务人和美国受托人，发送本次提交的通知。当事方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交。\n\n此外，下方签署的律师特此证明，于 September 4, 2023，前述动议已通过电子邮件发送给刑事案件中债务人及王女士的律师，具体如下：\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为郭文贵（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever 控股有限责任公司（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever 控股公司。受托人、Genever 控股有限责任公司及 Genever 控股公司的邮寄地址为保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所，200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交卢克·A·德斯平斯，作为郭文贵破产财产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\nSidharda Kamaraju（西达尔达·卡马拉朱）（skamaraju@pyrorcashman.com）\nMatthew S. Barkan（马修·S·巴尔坎）（mbarkan@pyrorcashman.com）\nDaniel J. Pohlman（丹尼尔·J·波尔曼）（dpohlman@pyrorcashman.com）\nJohn M. Kilgard（约翰·M·基尔加德）（jkilgard@pyrorcashman.com）\nClare P. Tilton（克莱尔·P·蒂尔顿）（ctilton@pyrorcashman.com）\nPryor Cashman LLP（普赖尔·卡什曼律师事务所）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036-6569\n刑事案件中债务人的律师\n\nEmil Bove（埃米尔·博韦）（ebove@csglaw.com）\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC（基耶萨·沙希尼安及贾恩托马西专业公司）\n11 Times Square, 34th Floor\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n以及\n\nAlex Lipman（亚历克斯·利普曼）（alexlipman@lipmanpllc.com）\nLipman Law PLLC（利普曼法律专业有限责任公司）\n147 W. 25th St. 12th Fl\nNew York, NY 10001\n\n刑事案件中王女士的律师\n\n日期：September 4, 2023\nNew Haven, Connecticut\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）（ct00616）\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437）\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙泰思专业公司）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 821-2000\nplinsey@npmlaw.com","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Je","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","CIPA","Kamaraju","Pryor Cashman"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":18,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":129,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":135,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":856,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1372,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2160,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2164,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":8548,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-09-04 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-09-04","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:40:46"}