{"id":"court_ctb_2319_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2319,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| In re: | :
:
Chapter 11 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., | :
:
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors | :
:
(Jointly Administered)
: |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR
THE ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK, | :
:
Adv. P. No. 23-05013 (JAM)
: |\n| Plaintiff,
v. | :
:
:
November 9, 2023
: |\n| HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HCHK
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING,
INC., HOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES,
LTD., ANTHONY DIBATTISTA, YVETTE
WANG, and BRIAN W. HOFMEISTER,
ASSIGNEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CREDITORS | :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: |\n| Defendants. | :
:
: |\n\n**OBJECTION OF SHIN HSIN YU AND JIE ZHANG TO EIGHTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 2004 AND LOCAL RULE 2004-1 AUTHORIZING DISCOVERY WITH RESPECT TO ADDITIONAL RELEVANT BANKS**\n\n Shin Hsin Yu (\"Mr. Yu\") and Jie Zhang (\"Mrs. Zhang\" and together, the \"Objecting Parties\"), by their attorneys Pastore LLC, hereby respectfully object to the Eighth Supplemental Motion of Luc A. Despins, the Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\"), for Entry of Order under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Additional Relevant Banks (the \"Motion,\" Main Case, ECF No. 3304), and state as follows:\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Trustee seeks an order authorizing him to subpoena eight banks (*see* Motion at 3) for a sweeping range of banking and financial documents related not only to the Debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), but to many other persons and entities, including the Objecting Parties.\n\n2. At least 25 new entities, including the Objecting Parties, have been added to the Trustee's definition of \"2004 Discovery Targets\" since his seventh request for similar relief filed less than a month ago. (*Compare* Main Case, ECF No. 2249, Exh. C-1 to Motion, Exh. C-1).\n\n3. As the Court is aware, Mr. Yu is one of the three Proposed Intervenors seeking to intervene in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding.1 Mrs. Zhang is the individual designated by GWGOPNZ Limited, another Proposed Intervenor, as its corporate representative. The Trustee has taken discovery of Mr. Yu and Mrs. Zhang in the Adversary Proceeding, and that discovery has shown that neither transacted with, or has a close relationship with, the Debtor.\n\n4. Accordingly, no good cause exists for the Trustee's request for \"all documents\" related to Objecting Parties' bank accounts and financial transactions. The Trustee's Motion, at\n\n1 As the Court is aware, on June 8, the Trustee filed a Complaint against HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management Inc. (together, the \"HCHK Entities\") and others, alleging, in sum, that the HCHK Entities are merely alter egos of the Debtor. (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05013, June 8, 2023) [Docket No. 1] (the \"HCHK Adversary Proceeding\"). On July 17, Mr. Yu, 1332156 B.C. LTD, and GWGOPNZ Limited (collectively, the \"Proposed Intervenors\"), who are bona fide creditors of the HCHK Entities, moved to intervene in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding to protect their interests in the funds they loaned to the HCHK Entities. (\"Motion to Intervene,\" HCHK Adv. Proc., Docket No. 60).\n\nleast as to the Objecting Parties, represents an overreaching and unfettered, abusive foray into the private financial affairs of the Objecting Parties without a showing that would justify such an invasion of privacy. Accordingly, the Motion should be denied.\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n5. The Trustee has engaged in extensive discovery of Proposed Intervenors in connection with the Motion to Invervene, including obtaining documents from and depositions of the Proposed Intervenors.2\n\n6. The Trustee's discovery efforts have failed to demonstrate any transactional relationships with the Debtor that would justify further inquiry. These are not the Debtor's daughter or right-hand woman. Mr. Yu unambiguously testified:\n\n> [a]ll my investment, including investment in HCoin and also HCHK, has nothing to do with Mr. Kwok. This is investment that I -- I do it willingly. It has nothing to do with Mr. Kwok … So there is no such thing about businesses related to Mr. Kwok. All my communication with Mr. Kwok revolves around the Taiwan Strait war and the CCP infiltration into Taiwan.3\n\n7. Similarly, Mrs. Zhang testified that she is not personally familiar with the Debtor and has never spoken to the Debtor, his family or any person that she understood to be representing the Debtor.4\n\n8. On November 2, 2023, the Trustee filed his Motion, representing his eighth request for authorization to conduct discovery and including an additional 25 entities in his definition of \"2004 Discovery Targets\" without any justification, evidence or facts to demonstrate a nexus between the Objecting Parties' private financial documents and the Debtor's estate.\n\n2 Mr. Yu and Mrs. Zhang testified overnight from Taiwan and New Zealand, respectively.\n\n3 Dep. of Hsin Yu Shih, 152:6-23 (Sept. 8, 2023).\n\n4 Dep. of Jie Zhang, 37:18 – 39:20 (Sept. 6, 2023).\n\n9. The first place the Objecting Parties' names appear in the Motion are on page 28 of the 152-page PDF, on page 8 of the first proposed subpoena, buried in paragraph 7 of the Definitions, which contains more than 125 names in a narrative paragraph (not a list).\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n#### **A. The Motion is an Abusive Foray Into the Private Affairs of the Objecting Parties**\n\n10. The Trustee's Motion seeks to invade the Objecting Parties' private financial records without good cause or establishing any connection to the Debtor. Such a request is abusive, and goes beyond the permissible bounds of discovery. While the Objecting Parties have nothing to hide, that is not the point. The Objecting Parties object to the invasion of their privacy and infringement of their due process rights, which should be zealously protected, without justification.\n\n11. While discovery under Rule 2004 is broad, there are limits to its use. *In re Bellville*, No. 00-11144, 2002 WL 31761279, at \\*2 (Bankr. D. Vt. Aug. 9, 2002). \"[E]xamination of a witness about matters having no relationship or no effect on the administration of an estate is improper.\" *In re Johns–Manville, Inc*., 42 B.R. 362, 364 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Rule 2004 examinations \"may not be used to annoy, embarrass or oppress the party being examined.\" *In re Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc*., 123 B.R. 702, 712 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991).\n\n12. Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004, even in a broad discovery context, there must be some showing of a connection to the administration of the estate. Yet, the Motion merely states that the Trustee \"has identified more entities with **possible knowledge** of the Debtor's assets and financial activities.\" (Motion ¶ 2) (emphasis added). Thus, the Trustee \"believes these [Banks] may possess information and documents related to the Debtor's commercial activities and other conduct … **potentially relevant** to the administration of the Debtor's estate and may hold assets of the Debtor.\" (Motion ¶ 8) (emphasis added).\n\n13. However, the information the Trustee seeks from the Banks goes far beyond\n\n\"documents related to the Debtor's commercial activities\" and the requests are in no way limited to documents related to the Debtor. Each of the Proposed Subpoenas demands, without limitation:\n\n- All Documents related to any account held by, on behalf, of or otherwise related *to any of the 2004 Discovery Targets*\n- All Documents *related to any of the 2004 Discovery Targets*, including any and all account statements; and\n- All Documents related to *any communications with the 2004 Discovery Targets*. 5\n\n14. The Trustee has offered nothing to show any connection between the Objecting Parties' financial records and the administration of the estate. The Objecting Parties are a creditor and a creditor representative of the HCHK Entities, not the Debtor. The Trustee has *alleged* that the HCHK Entities are *alter egos* of the Debtor. At this stage, however, those allegations are just that – mere allegations that have not been proven. Even if the HCHK Entities are affiliates of the Debtor, that is not a sufficient basis to demand private financial documents from HCHK *creditors*.\n\n## **B. The Motion Fails to Provide Adequate Notice to the Objecting Parties**\n\n15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, made applicable to these proceedings by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, requires notice to all parties before service of the subpoena. *Henry v. Bristol Hosp., Inc*., No. 3:13- CV-00826 AVC, 2015 WL 3466807, at \\*3 (D. Conn. June 1, 2015).\n\n16. The Motion was not filed in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding. The Objecting Parties' names are buried in the exhibits attached to the Motion, embedded in a long paragraph listing more than 125 persons and entities. It is objectively unreasonable to expect non-parties to scrutinize every page of every document filed on a docket containing 2300+ entries to ensure their rights are not infringed by the Trustee's overreaching. Burying the Objecting Parties' names in the Motion in this manner is not fair or adequate notice.\n\n 5 (*See* Motion, Exhs. C-1 to C-8).\n\n17. Accordingly, the Objecting Parties request that the Court direct the Trustee to provide specific notice of any future filing in which they or the Proposed Intervenors are mentioned, so that they can correct mischaracterizations and protect their rights.\n\n### **C. The Trustee Seeks to Avoid the Discovery Restrictions Under the Federal Rules**\n\n18. The Trustee should not be permitted to conduct further discovery relevant to the Motion to Intervene. \"Once an adversary proceeding or another contested matter has been initiated, parties must proceed with discovery for that litigation pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\" *In re Ecam Publications, Inc.,* 131 B.R. 556, 559 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991).\n\n19. If the Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene is granted, Mr. Yu will be a party to the HCHK Adversary Proceeding and Mrs. Zhang will be a party representative. The Trustee has already taken discovery of the Objecting Parties in connection with the Adversary Proceeding, and discovery has been closed for two months. (HCHK Adv. Proc. ECF No. 82 ¶ 7).\n\n20. With this Motion, the Trustee seeks to side-step the application of the pending proceeding rule by directing his discovery at non-party banks rather than the actual \"2004 Discovery Targets.\" While this Court has previously ruled with respect to other parties that the pending proceeding rule did not apply (*see* ECF Nos. 1184 and 1891), here, permitting the Trustee to take his requested 2004 Discovery would work an injustice against innocent creditors.\n\nWHEREFORE, the Objecting Parties respectfully request that the Court:\n\n- a. Strike from the Proposed Subpoenas the names of the Objecting Parties;\n- b. Require the Trustee to provide specific and clear notice in any future filings that mention the Objecting Parties or the Proposed Intervenors or seek relief affecting the Objecting Parties or Proposed Intervenors; and\n- c. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: November 9, 2023 Stamford, Connecticut\n\n#### **OBJECTING PARTIES**\n\nBy:\n\nJoseph M. Pastore III (ct11431) Melissa Rose McClammy (ct31199) Paul Fenaroli (ct31403) Tyler W. Rutherford (ct31528) Pastore LLC Juris No. 433711 4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor Stamford, CT 06905 203-658-8454 (Tel.) Jpastore@pastore.net Mmcclammy@pastore.net Pfenaroli@pastore.net Trutherford@pastore.net","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\n事项：\n第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人\n（合并审理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），作为 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）破产财产的第 11 章受托人，\n对抗性诉讼案号：23-05013 (JAM)\n原告，\nv.\n2023年11月9日\n\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.、HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.、LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC.、HOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD.、ANTHONY DIBATTISTA、YVETTE WANG（王雁平）以及 BRIAN W. HOFMEISTER（债权人利益受让人）\n\n被告。\n\nSHIN HSIN YU（余新新）与 JIE ZHANG（张洁）对第 11 章受托人关于根据《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条及《本地规则》第 2004-1 条做出裁定授权对其他相关银行进行证据开示的第八次补充综合动议的异议\n\nShin Hsin Yu（余新新）（“余先生”）与 Jie Zhang（张洁）（“张女士”，与余先生合称“异议方”）通过其代理律师 Pastore LLC，特此对第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）关于根据《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条及《本地规则》第 2004-1 条做出裁定授权对其他相关银行进行证据开示的第八次补充动议（“本动议”，主案，ECF 编号：3304）恭敬提出异议，并陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 受托人请求法院做出命令，授权其向八家银行发出传票（参见本动议第 3 页），以获取范围极为广泛的银行和财务文件，这些文件不仅与债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）有关，还涉及许多其他个人和实体，包括各异议方。\n\n2. 自受托人在不到一个月前提交第七次类似救济请求以来，已有至少 25 个新实体（包括各异议方）被添加到受托人对“2004 条证据开示目标”的定义中。（对比主案，ECF 编号：2249，附件 C-1 与本动议附件 C-1）。\n\n3. 诚如法庭所知，余先生是请求参加 HCHK 对抗性诉讼的三名拟参加诉讼人之一。1 张女士是另一名拟参加诉讼人 GWGOPNZ Limited 指定为其法人代表的个人。受托人已在对抗性诉讼中对余先生和张女士进行了证据开示，且该证据开示表明，两人均未与债务人进行过交易，也与债务人不存在密切关系。\n\n4. 因此，受托人要求获取与异议方银行账户及财务交易相关的“所有文件”的请求并不存在正当理由。受托人的动议，\n\n1 诚如法庭所知，6月8日，受托人对 HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management Inc.（合称“HCHK 实体”）及其他人提起诉状，总的来说指控 HCHK 实体仅仅是债务人的另我（alter ego）。（对抗性诉讼编号：22-05013，2023年6月8日）[案件卷号第 1 项]（“HCHK 对抗性诉讼”）。7月17日，作为 HCHK 实体善意债权人的余先生、1332156 B.C. LTD 以及 GWGOPNZ Limited（统称“拟参加诉讼人”）提出参加诉讼动议，请求参加 HCHK 对抗性诉讼，以保护其向 HCHK 实体出借资金的权益。（“参加诉讼动议”，HCHK 对抗性诉讼，案件卷号第 60 项）。\n\n至少就异议方而言，构成了在未作出足以证明侵犯隐私具有正当性的证明的情况下，对异议方私人财务事务进行的越权、无拘束且滥用性的侵犯。因此，本动议应予驳回。\n\n背景情况\n\n5. 受托人已就参加诉讼动议对拟参加诉讼人进行了广泛的证据开示，包括从拟参加诉讼人处获取文件并对其进行宣誓录供。2\n\n6. 受托人的证据开示工作未能证明存在任何足以证明有必要进一步调查的与债务人的交易关系。这些人并不是债务人的女儿或左膀右臂。余先生明确作证称：\n\n> 我所有的投资，包括对喜币（HCoin）以及 HCHK 的投资，都与郭先生没有任何关系。这是我——我自愿进行的投资。它与郭先生没有任何关系……所以根本不存在与郭先生相关的业务这回事。我与郭先生的所有交流都是围绕台海战争和中共对台渗透展开的。3\n\n7. 同样，张女士作证称，她个人对债务人并不熟悉，也从未与债务人、其家人或任何她理解为代表债务人的人交谈过。4\n\n8. 2023年11月2日，受托人提交了本动议，这是其第八次请求授权进行证据开示，并在其“2004 条证据开示目标”的定义中额外纳入了 25 个实体，却没有任何正当理由、证据或事实来证明异议方的私人财务文件与债务人的破产财产之间存在关联。\n\n2 余先生和张女士分别从台湾和新西兰彻夜作证。\n\n3 Hsin Yu Shih（施新雨/余新新）宣誓录供证词，152:6-23（2023年9月8日）。\n\n4 Jie Zhang（张洁）宣誓录供证词，37:18 – 39:20（2023年9月6日）。\n\n9. 异议方的姓名在本动议中首次出现是在 152 页 PDF 文件的第 28 页、第一份拟发传票的第 8 页，被埋在“定义”第 7 段中，该段以叙述性段落（而非清单）的形式包含了 125 多个名称。\n\n论证\n\nA. 本动议是对异议方私人生态的滥用性侵犯\n\n10. 受托人的动议试图在没有正当理由或未确立与债务人有任何关联的情况下侵入异议方的私人财务记录。此类请求属于滥用权利，且超出了证据开示的允许范围。虽然异议方没有什么可隐瞒的，但这并不是重点。异议方反对在毫无正当理由的情况下侵犯其隐私并侵犯其本应受到坚决保护的正当程序权利。\n\n11. 尽管第 2004 条项下的证据开示范围广泛，但其使用是有限度的。In re Bellville, No. 00-11144, 2002 WL 31761279, at *2 (Bankr. D. Vt. Aug. 9, 2002)。“对证人就与破产财产管理无关或对其没有影响的事项进行询问是不当的。”In re Johns–Manville, Inc., 42 B.R. 362, 364 (S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦地方法院）1984)。第 2004 条询问“不得用于烦扰、使难堪或压迫被询问方。”In re Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 123 B.R. 702, 712 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦破产法院）1991)。\n\n12. 根据《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条，即使在广泛的证据开示语境下，也必须对与破产财产管理的关联性作出一定证明。然而，本动议仅陈述称，受托人“已确定了更多可能了解债务人资产和财务活动的实体。”（动议第 2 段）（强调为后加）。因此，受托人“认为这些[银行]可能持有与债务人商业活动及其他行为相关的信息和文件……可能与债务人破产财产的管理相关，并可能持有债务人的资产。”（动议第 8 段）（强调为后加）。\n\n13. 然而，受托人向银行索取的信息远远超出了\n\n“与债务人商业活动相关的文件”，且这些请求绝不限于与债务人相关的文件。每份拟发传票均无限制地要求提供：\n\n- 与 2004 条证据开示目标中任何一方持有、代表其持有或以其他方式与其相关的任何账户相关的所有文件；\n- 与 2004 条证据开示目标中任何一方相关的所有文件，包括任何及所有账户对账单；以及\n- 与 2004 条证据开示目标的任何通信相关的所有文件。5\n\n14. 受托人未提供任何材料来证明异议方的财务记录与破产财产管理之间存在任何关联。异议方是 HCHK 实体的债权人和债权人代表，而非债务人的债权人或代表。受托人指控 HCHK 实体是债务人的另我。但在现阶段，这些指控仅仅是——尚未得到证实的单纯指控。即使 HCHK 实体是债务人的关联方，这也不是向 HCHK 债权人索取私人财务文件的充分依据。\n\nB. 本动议未能向异议方提供充分的通知\n\n15. 经《联邦破产程序规则》第 9016 条适用于本程序的《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45 条规定，在送达传票之前须通知所有当事方。Henry v. Bristol Hosp., Inc., No. 3:13-CV-00826 AVC, 2015 WL 3466807, at *3 (D. Conn.（康涅狄格区联邦地方法院）June 1, 2015)。\n\n16. 本动议并未在 HCHK 对抗性诉讼中提交。异议方的姓名被掩埋在本动议所附的附件中，嵌入在一个列有 125 多个个人和实体的冗长段落里。指望非当事方仔细审查包含 2300 多个条目的案卷上提交的每一份文件的每一页，以确保其权利不受受托人越权行为的侵害，这在客观上是不合理的。以这种方式将异议方的姓名埋在本动议中，不构成公平或充分的通知。\n\n5（参见动议附件 C-1 至 C-8）。\n\n17. 因此，异议方请求法院指示受托人在今后提及他们或拟参加诉讼人的任何提交文件中提供具体通知，以便他们能够纠正错误定性并保护自身权利。\n\nC. 受托人试图规避联邦规则下的证据开示限制\n\n18. 不应允许受托人进行与参加诉讼动议相关的进一步证据开示。“一旦对抗性诉讼或其他争议事项启动，各方当事人必须根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》进行该诉讼的证据开示。”In re Ecam Publications, Inc., 131 B.R. 556, 559 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦破产法院）1991)。\n\n19. 如果拟参加诉讼人的参加诉讼动议获得批准，余先生将成为 HCHK 对抗性诉讼的一方当事人，张女士将成为当事人代表。受托人已经就对抗性诉讼对异议方进行了证据开示，且证据开示程序已结束两个月。（HCHK 对抗性诉讼 ECF 编号：82 第 7 段）。\n\n20. 通过本动议，受托人试图通过将其证据开示对象指向非当事方银行而非实际的“2004 条证据开示目标”，来绕开未决诉讼规则（pending proceeding rule）的适用。尽管本法院此前曾就其他当事方裁定未决诉讼规则不适用（参见 ECF 编号：1184 和 1891），但在本案中，允许受托人进行其所请求的 2004 条证据开示将对无辜债权人造成不公。\n\n为此，异议方恭敬请求法院：\n\n- a. 从拟发传票中删除异议方的姓名；\n- b. 要求受托人在今后提及异议方或拟参加诉讼人、或寻求影响异议方或拟参加诉讼人的救济的任何提交文件中提供具体且明确的通知；以及\n- c. 给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2023年11月9日 康涅狄格州斯坦福\n异议方\n\n签署人：\n\nJoseph M. Pastore III (ct11431)\nMelissa Rose McClammy (ct31199)\nPaul Fenaroli (ct31403)\nTyler W. Rutherford (ct31528)\nPastore LLC\n执业编号：433711\n4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor\nStamford, CT 06905\n203-658-8454 (电话)\nJpastore@pastore.net\nMmcclammy@pastore.net\nPfenaroli@pastore.net\nTrutherford@pastore.net","key_entities":["Je","HCHK","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":82,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2249,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3304,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1823,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:06:50"}