{"id":"court_ctb_2369_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2369,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- |          | x |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|---|-------------------------|\n|                                                             |          | : |                         |\n| In re:                                                      |          | : | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                             |          | : |                         |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                |          | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                             |          | : |                         |\n|                                                             | Debtors. | : | (Jointly Administered)  |\n|                                                             |          | : |                         |\n\n---------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n# **OMNIBUS REPLY OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO (A) G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC LIMITED'S OBJECTION AND (B) SHIN HSIN YU AND JIE ZHANG'S OBJECTION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S EIGHTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS RULE 2004 MOTION**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby submits this reply (the \"Reply\") in support of the Trustee's *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* [ECF No. 2304] (the \"Eighth 2004 Motion\") and in response to the G Club Operations LLC Limited's (\"G-Club\"), Shin Hsin Yu's (\"Mr. Yu\"), and Jie Zhang's (\"Ms. Zhang\" and, together with G-Club and Mr. Yu, collectively, the \"Objectors\") *Objections* thereto [ECF Nos. 2319 and 2320] (collectively, the \"Objections\"). In Reply to the Objections, the Trustee respectfully states the following:\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#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Eighth 2004 Motion provides for the Trustee to obtain Rule 2004 discovery from eight banks (the \"Banks\") where the Trustee understands that entities or individuals associated with the Debtor have held funds or otherwise done business. The Trustee thus reasonably believes that these Banks likely possess information and documents related to the Debtor's financial affairs—and that may shed light on the estate's property interests.\n\n2. The Eighth 2004 Motion does not provide for any of the Objectors to be subpoenaed at all. Rather, the Objectors are merely included as several of the many subjects of discovery in document requests appended to the proposed subpoenas. It is altogether appropriate that the Banks' production include documents relating to the Objectors, because—as discussed herein each of the Objectors is associated with the Debtor and his financial affairs.\n\n3. Moreover, Mr. Yu's and Ms. Zhang's arguments regarding notice and the pending proceeding doctrine are frivolous—this Court having several times dispensed with these arguments in its orders overruling similar objections by the Debtor and others of his associates to prior Rule 2004 motions. The Court should grant the Eighth 2004 Motion and overrule the Objections forthwith so that the Trustee may continue his investigation without delay.\n\n#### **COURT SHOULD OVERRULE G-CLUB'S OBJECTION**\n\n#### **Rule 2004 Investigation is Appropriate and Necessary as to Mr. Childe**\n\n4. G-Club contends in its Objection that including Mr. Childe as one of the individuals and entities as to which Banks must produce responsive documents extends beyond the bounds of Rule 2004 discovery. G-Club is wrong.\n\n5. As discussed in the Eighth 2004 Motion, the scope of discovery under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 is exceedingly broad. *See also In re Parikh*, 397 B.R. 518, 525-526 (\"A Rule 2004 examination has been likened to a 'fishing expedition,' the scope of which is broad. The primary purpose of allowing broad discovery in Rule 2004 examinations is to expedite the locating of assets of the estate.\").\n\n6. In fact, G-Club's own Objection acknowledges that Mr. Childe and his team have been responsible for G-Club's day-to-day operations of G-Club since June 1, 2023.<sup>2</sup> Moreover, email correspondence that the Trustee obtained in his Rule 2004 investigation reflects that Mr. Childe was consulted as early as 2019 about providing services with respect to other Debtorassociated entities (*i.e.*, Alfonso Global Limited and Alfa Global Ventures Limited). This correspondence appears to have included a link to a news article discussing a freeze of the Debtor's and his daughter's assets in Hong Kong. (A true and accurate copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as **Exhibit A**.) Thus, the Trustee's inclusion of Mr. Childe in the list of entities and individuals for which the Banks are to produce responsive records is well founded.\n\n7. Contrary to G-Club's portrayal in its Objection, the proposed subpoenas do not specifically target the production Mr. Childe's \"personal\" information as distinguished from records that name him in connection with G-Club or other individuals or entities associated with the Debtor. Rather, Mr. Childe is generally named in the same manner as numerous other individuals and entities associated with the Debtor as among the topics for which the Banks must search their records. Nor has G-Club asserted that any of the Banks (which are set to receive subpoenas *because of the business* that the Debtor and his associates conducted there) have any of the Mr. Childe's personal (as opposed to business) records at all. The Court should overrule G-Club's Objection and grant the Eighth 2004 Motion.\n\n<sup>2</sup> *See* G-Club's Objection at 3.\n\n# **COURT SHOULD OVERRULE MR. YU'S AND MS. ZHANG'S OBJECTION Rule 2004 Investigation is Appropriate and Necessary as to Mr. Yu and Ms. Zhang**\n\n8. The Trustee's Eighth 2004 Motion includes Mr. Yu and Ms. Zhang in the subject matter of searches it requests from the Banks, because of these Objectors' association with the Debtor and his associated entities.\n\n9. Mr. Yu has (falsely) claimed to be a lender with respect to HCHK Property Management, Inc. (\"HCHK Property\"), which entity and its affiliates (collectively, the \"HCHK Entities\") the Trustee understands to be the Debtor's alter egos. *See Order Granting in Part Emergency* Ex Parte *Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013 (the \"HCHK Adversary Proceeding\") ECF No. 18] at 10-13 (determining Trustee had, at minimum, established serious questions as to the merits of Trustee's claims including that HCHK and its affiliates were alter egos of the Debtor or were beneficially owned by Debtor). Mr. Yu's connections to the Debtor are further discussed in sealed filings in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding.<sup>3</sup>\n\n10. More specifically, and as the Trustee discussed in his *Objection to Motion of Proposed Intervenors Shin Hisin Yu, 1332156 B.C. LTD, and GWGOPNZ Limited* [HCHK Adversary Proceeding ECF No. 119] (the \"Intervention Objection\"), to justify his proposed intervention in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding, Mr. Yu fraudulently backdated a purported loan agreement with HCHK Property. (Intervention Objection at ¶ 18.) The Trustee uncovered the forgery by review of metadata contained in the PDF document Mr. Yu produced to the Trustee. (*Id.*) Given Mr. Yu's connections to the Debtor and his fabrications in connection with the HCHK\n\n<sup>3</sup> *See* Declaration of Avram E. Luft in Support of Trustee's Objection to Motion of Proposed Intervenors Shih Hsin Yu, 1332156 B.C. Ltd, and GWGOPNZ Limited to Intervene in Adversary Proceeding, Ex. P. at 87-11-15, 88:14- 89:13 [Adv. Proc. 23-05013 ECF No. 123] (filed under seal).\n\nAdversary Proceeding, there is ample evidence supporting Mr. Yu's involvement with the Debtor and entities associated with the Debtor.\n\n11. Similar to Mr. Yu, Ms. Zhang has substantial ties to several entities associated with the Debtor, including GWGOPNZ Limited (\"GWGOPNZ\"), another proposed intervenor in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding. In fact, GWGOPNZ designated Ms. Zhang as its representative pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) in response to the Trustee's subpoena in connection with GWGOPNZ's proposed intervention. Ms. Zhang's deposition testimony (discussed in the Trustee's sealed filing in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding at ECF No. 122 at ¶¶ 23-24) further reflects her involvement in the Debtor's financial affairs.\n\n12. Considering Mr. Yu's and Ms. Zhang's involvement with the Debtor and his financial affairs, the Trustee appropriately included them in the list of individuals and entities for which the Banks must produce responsive records. The Court should overrule their Objection.\n\n## **Notice of Trustee's Eighth 2004 Motion Was Proper and Objectors Lack Standing**\n\n13. Objectors Mr. Yu and Ms. Zhang contend that the Trustee was required to file his Eighth 2004 Motion in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding to provide them special notice of his intention to subpoena the Banks, because their names are mentioned in the requests for production attached to the subpoenas. (Mr. Yu/Ms. Zhang Objection at ¶¶ 15-17.) These Objectors cite no basis for this proposed requirement, which they have apparently created from whole cloth.<sup>4</sup>\n\n14. In fact, the Trustee appropriately provided notice of the Eighth 2004 Motion pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1(c). Mr. Yu thus *did* receive notice of the Eighth 2004 Motion, because he is appearing (through counsel) in the Debtor's chapter 11 case. (*See* Certificate\n\n<sup>4</sup> Mr. Yu's and Ms. Zhang's reliance on *Henry v. Bristol Hosp., Inc.*, No. 3:13-CV-00826 AVC, 2015 WL 3466807, at \\*3 (D. Conn. June 1, 2015), is inapposite. *Henry* involved a motion to quash subpoenas issued under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 not under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004. The Trustee's Rule 2004 subpoenas are not issued in connection with the HCHK Adversary Proceeding but rather in the Debtor's chapter 11 case.\n\nof Service of Eighth 2004 Motion ECF No. 2315 at p. 8.) At the time that the Eighth 2004 Motion was filed, Ms. Zhang, *i.e.*, GWGOPNZ's corporate representative, was not appearing in the Debtor's chapter 11 case or in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding *at all.* There is no basis for the Court to order the additional notice that Mr. Yu and Ms. Zhang demand.\n\n15. Were this not already obvious from the plain language of the Bankruptcy Rules and this Court's local rules, the Court's prior orders further confirm that the Trustee has properly provided sufficient notice by his service of the Eighth 2004 Motion. In June 2023, the Debtor objected to *Fifth Supplemental Omnibus Motion for 2004 Examination* similarly arguing that additional notice was required beyond that provided for under Local R. Bankr. P. 2004-1. The Court rejected this argument:\n\nThe Debtor reads into Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4) that parties other than the subpoena target must be given advance notice of the date and time of the target's deposition. Rule 45(a)(4) does not say that. Rather, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4) says that if a subpoena seeks 'production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial,' then 'a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party.' The Trustee has done so: the proposed subpoenas are attached to the Motion.\n\n*Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Fifth Omnibus Motion for 2004 Examination* [ECF No.\n\n1891] at 6. Mr. Yu received the same notice (by his appearance in the chapter 11 case) and Ms.\n\nZhang, as a non-party at the time that the Eighth 2004 Motion was filed, was not entitled to\n\nnotice at all.\n\n16. Moreover, neither Mr. Yu nor Ms. Zhang has standing to object to the Eighth 2004 Motion. Nor does G-Club. None of the foregoing has filed a proof of claim. None of the foregoing stands to be issued a subpoena in connection with the Eighth 2004 Motion. Because notice is proper and because the Objectors lack standing, the Court should overrule the Objections to the Eighth 2004 Motion.\n\n#### **\"Pending Proceeding\" Doctrine Does Not Prohibit Trustee's Investigation**\n\n17. Mr. Yu and Ms. Zhang also seek to recycle objections based on the \"pendingproceeding\" doctrine—which the Court has specifically rejected three times in overruling prior objections to Rule 2004 Motions in this chapter 11 case. (Mr. Yu/Ms. Zhang Objection at ¶ 20.)\n\n18. Contrary to Mr. Yu's and Ms. Zhang's position, this Court has repeatedly held that the \"pending proceeding\" doctrine does not prohibit the Trustee from conducting a Bankruptcy Rule 2004 investigation as to examinees that are not parties to a pending adversary proceeding, merely because the Trustee's investigation could uncover information relevant to the existing litigation. *See Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Sixth Supplemental Omnibus Motion for Rule 2004 Examination* [ECF No. 2210]; *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Fifth Supplemental Omnibus Motion for 2004 Examination* [ECF No. 1891]; *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Second Supplemental Omnibus Motion for 2004 Examination* [ECF No. 1184].\n\n19. The Trustee advised counsel for Mr. Yu and Ms. Zhang of these prior rulings in a meet-and-confer held in advance of the filing of this Objection. Nevertheless, Mr. Yu and Ms. Zhang have objected on this basis, as well. Mr. Yu's and Ms. Zhang's insistence on recycling grounds for objection that the Court has previously rejected suggests that their interest in objecting to the Eighth 2004 Motion is primarily calculated to delay and obstruct the Trustee's investigation of the Debtor's finances rather than to resolve legitimate grievances.\n\n20. The Court should overrule Mr. Yu's and Ms. Zhang's Objection and grant the Trustee's Eighth 2004 Motion.\n\n## **COURT'S ORDER SHOULD PROVIDE FOURTEEN DAYS FOR COMPLIANCE**\n\n21. Consistent with proposed orders filed in connection with the Trustee's prior Rule 2004 motions, the proposed order filed with the Eighth 2004 Motion provides thirty days for the Banks to produce responsive documents. In light of exigencies that the Trustee will discuss at a\n\n7\n\nstatus conference to be held on November 28, 2023 (the same date as the hearing on the Eighth 2004 Motion and the Objections), the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court order the Banks be required to comply with the subpoenas within fourteen rather than thirty days from service.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\n WHEREFORE, because the Objections fail on their merits, the Court should overrule the Objections, grant the Eighth 2004 Motion, enter the proposed order filed therewith (modified to provide the Banks fourteen days to comply with the subpoenas), and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: November 22, 2023 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n## LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*  Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| HO WAN KWOK et al.,                                         | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.5                                                   | :<br>:<br>: | Jointly Administered    |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on November 22, 2023, the foregoing was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case able to receive electronic notice by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system, or by U.S. Mail to any parties unable to receive electronic notice. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\n| Dated: November 22, 2023 | Luc A. Despins, as Chapter 11 Trustee |\n|--------------------------|---------------------------------------|\n| New Haven, Connecticut   |                                       |\n|                          | By:<br>/s/<br>Patrick R. Linsey       |\n|                          | Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616)           |\n|                          | Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437)           |\n|                          | NEUBERT,<br>PEPE &<br>MONTEITH, P.C.  |\n|                          | 195 Church Street, 13th Floor         |\n|                          | New Haven, Connecticut 06510          |\n|                          | (203) 781-2847                        |\n|                          | dskalka@npmlaw.com                    |\n|                          | plinsey@npmlaw.com                    |\n|                          | Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee    |\n\n<sup>5</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 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).","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： : 第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n等， : 案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 : （合并审理）\n\n---------------------------------------------------------- x\n第 11 章受托人对 (A) G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC LIMITED 的异议以及 (B) SHIN HSIN YU 和 JIE ZHANG 对第 11 章受托人第八次补充综合第 2004 条规则动议的异议的综合回复\n\nLuc A. Despins 以在上述 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）的第 11 章案件（以下简称“第 11 章案件”）中获任命的第 11 章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，特此提交本回复（以下简称“本回复”），以支持受托人的《第 11 章受托人根据破产规则第 2004 条及本地规则第 2004-1 条请求作出准许对其他相关银行进行调证裁定的第八次补充综合动议》[ECF No. 2304]（以下简称“《第八次 2004 动议》”），并回应 G Club Operations LLC Limited（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司，以下简称“G-Club”）、Shin Hsin Yu（以下简称“Yu 先生”）以及 Jie Zhang（以下简称“Zhang 女士”，与 G-Club 及 Yu 先生合称“异议人”）对此提出的异议 [ECF Nos. 2319 及 2320]（合称“异议”）。针对该等异议，受托人谨回复如下：\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称为 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知和通信）。\n初步陈述\n\n1. 《第八次 2004 动议》规定受托人从八家银行（以下简称“各银行”）获取第 2004 条规则下的调查证据，受托人获悉与债务人相关的实体或个人曾在该等银行存管资金或开展业务。因此，受托人有合理理由相信，该等银行可能持有与债务人财务事务相关、且可能有助于阐明破产财产权益的信息和文件。\n\n2. 《第八次 2004 动议》根本未规定向任何异议人发出传票。相反，异议人仅仅是作为拟签发传票所附文件调取请求中的众多调证对象之一被列入其中。各银行提交的文件中包含与异议人相关的文件是完全正当适用的，因为——正如文中所述——每一位异议人都与债务人及其财务事务存在关联。\n\n3. 此外，Yu 先生和 Zhang 女士关于通知和未决诉讼原则（pending proceeding doctrine）的论点纯属无理辩解——本法院已在驳回债务人及其其他关联方此前针对过往第 2004 条规则动议提出的类似异议的多份裁定中，数次对这些论点作出处置。法院应当准予《第八次 2004 动议》并随即驳回该等异议，以便受托人能够毫不拖延地继续开展调查。\n法院应当驳回 G-CLUB 的异议\n针对 Childe 先生开展第 2004 条规则调查是正当且必要的\n\n4. G-Club 在其异议中主张，将 Childe 先生列为各银行必须据以提交应答文件的个人和实体之一，超出了第 2004 条规则调查的范围。G-Club 的观点是错误的。\n\n5. 正如在《第八次 2004 动议》中所述，《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条项下的调证范围极广。另参见 In re Parikh, 397 B.R. 518, 525-526（“第 2004 条规则下的询问被比作‘摸底调查’（fishing expedition），其范围甚广。在第 2004 条规则询问中允许广泛调证的主要目的是为了加快查明破产财产资产的速度。”）。\n\n6. 事实上，G-Club 自身的异议也承认，自 2023 年 6 月 1 日起，Childe 先生及其团队一直负责 G-Club 的日常运营。2 此外，受托人在其第 2004 条规则调查中获取的电子邮件通信显示，早在 2019 年，就针对其他与债务人相关的实体（即 Alfonso Global Limited 和 Alfa Global Ventures Limited）提供服务事宜咨询过 Childe 先生。该通信中似乎包含了一篇讨论冻结债务人及其女儿在香港资产的新闻文章链接。（该通信的一份真实准确的副本作为附件 A 附于本回复。）因此，受托人将 Childe 先生列入各银行需提交应答记录的实体和个人名单之中是具有充分依据的。\n\n7. 与 G-Club 在其异议中的描述相反，拟签发的传票并未专门针对调取 Childe 先生的“个人”信息，而是调取提及他与 G-Club 或与债务人相关的其他个人或实体存在关联的记录。相反，Childe 先生与债务人相关的众多其他个人和实体一样，仅是被列为各银行检索其记录时所需涵盖的常规主题之一。G-Club 也未主张任何一家银行（各银行拟接收传票是由于债务人及其关联方在各该银行开展了业务）存有 Childe 先生的任何个人（而非商业）记录。法院应当驳回 G-Club 的异议并准予《第八次 2004 动议》。\n\n2 参见 G-Club 的异议第 3 页。\n法院应当驳回 YU 先生和 ZHANG 女士的异议\n针对 Yu 先生和 Zhang 女士开展第 2004 条规则调查是正当且必要的\n\n8. 受托人的《第八次 2004 动议》将 Yu 先生和 Zhang 女士列入请求各银行检索的主题事项之中，是由于该等异议人与债务人及其关联实体存在关联。\n\n9. Yu 先生曾（虚假地）声称自己是 HCHK Property Management, Inc.（以下简称“HCHK Property”）的放贷人，而受托人认为该实体及其关联方（统称“HCHK 实体”）是债务人的替身（alter egos）。参见《部分准许关于临时限制令及初步禁令的紧急单方动议的裁定》[对抗诉讼案号：23-05013（以下简称“HCHK 对抗诉讼”）ECF No. 18] 第 10-13 页（认定受托人至少就其主张的实体胜诉可能性确立了严重争议问题，包括 HCHK 及其关联方属于债务人的替身或由债务人享有实益所有权）。关于 Yu 先生与债务人之间关联的进一步讨论，详见 HCHK 对抗诉讼中的封存案卷材料。3\n\n10. 具体而言，正如受托人在《对拟申请参加诉讼人 Shin Hisin Yu、1332156 B.C. LTD 和 GWGOPNZ Limited 动议的异议》[HCHK 对抗诉讼 ECF No. 119]（以下简称“《参加诉讼异议》”）中所述，为了为其在 HCHK 对抗诉讼中拟申请参加诉讼制造理由，Yu 先生欺诈性地倒签了一份声称与 HCHK Property 签订的贷款协议的日期。（《参加诉讼异议》第 18 段。）受托人通过审查 Yu 先生向受托人提交的 PDF 文档中所包含的元数据，揭露了这一伪造行为。（同上。）鉴于 Yu 先生与债务人的关联以及他在涉及 HCHK\n\n3 参见《Avram E. Luft 支持受托人对拟申请参加诉讼人 Shih Hsin Yu、1332156 B.C. Ltd 和 GWGOPNZ Limited 在对抗诉讼中申请参加诉讼之动议的异议的声明》附件 P 第 87:11-15、88:14-89:13 页 [Adv. Proc. 23-05013 ECF No. 123]（封存提交）。\n\n对抗诉讼中的捏造行为，存在充分证据证明 Yu 先生参与了债务人及与债务人相关的实体的事项。\n\n11. 与 Yu 先生类似，Zhang 女士与若干与债务人相关的实体有着重大实质联系，其中包括 GWGOPNZ Limited（以下简称“GWGOPNZ”），即 HCHK 对抗诉讼中的另一拟申请参加诉讼人。事实上，针对受托人就 GWGOPNZ 拟申请参加诉讼而签发的传票，GWGOPNZ 依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 30(b)(6) 条指定 Zhang 女士为其代表。Zhang 女士的宣誓证词（详见受托人在 HCHK 对抗诉讼中封存提交的案卷 ECF No. 122 第 23-24 段）进一步反映出她参与了债务人的财务事务。\n\n12. 鉴于 Yu 先生和 Zhang 女士对债务人及其财务事务的参与，受托人将他们列入各银行必须据以提交应答记录的个人和实体名单中是恰当适用的。法院应当驳回他们的异议。\n受托人《第八次 2004 动议》的通知符合规定且异议人缺乏诉讼主体资格\n\n13. 异议人 Yu 先生和 Zhang 女士主张，由于传票所附的调取证据请求中提及了他们的姓名，受托人必须在 HCHK 对抗诉讼中提交其《第八次 2004 动议》，以就其向各银行签发传票的意图向他们提供特别通知。（Yu 先生/Zhang 女士异议第 15-17 段。）该等异议人并未为其提出的这一要求援引任何依据，该要求显然是他们凭空捏造的。4\n\n14. 事实上，受托人已依据《本地破产规则》第 2004-1(c) 条妥当送达了《第八次 2004 动议》的通知。Yu 先生因此确实收到了《第八次 2004 动议》的通知，因为他已（通过律师）在债务人的第 11 章案件中出庭。（参见《第八次\n\n4 Yu 先生和 Zhang 女士对 Henry v. Bristol Hosp., Inc., No. 3:13-CV-00826 AVC, 2015 WL 3466807, at *3 (D. Conn. June 1, 2015) 一案的援引并不适用。Henry 案涉及针对依《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45 条而非《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条签发的传票提出的撤销动议。受托人依据第 2004 条规则发出的传票并非与 HCHK 对抗诉讼相关联而签发，而是在债务人的第 11 章案件中签发的。\n\n2004 动议送达证明》ECF No. 2315 第 8 页。）在提交《第八次 2004 动议》之时，Zhang 女士（即 GWGOPNZ 的法人代表）根本未在债务人的第 11 章案件中或在 HCHK 对抗诉讼中出庭。法院没有任何依据去命令发出 Yu 先生和 Zhang 女士所要求的额外通知。\n\n15. 即便从《破产规则》及本法院本地规则的明文规定中这一点尚未显而易见，法院先前的裁定也进一步确认了受托人通过送达《第八次 2004 动议》已依法提供了充分的通知。2023 年 6 月，债务人曾对《关于第 2004 条规则询问的第五次补充综合动议》提出异议，同样主张除《本地破产诉讼规则》第 2004-1 条规定的通知外还需提供额外通知。法院驳回了这一主张：\n\n债务人将《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45(a)(4) 条曲解为传票目标对象以外的当事人必须预先获知该目标对象接受询问的日期和时间。第 45(a)(4) 条并无此规定。相反，《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45(a)(4) 条规定，如果传票要求“在审判前提交文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，或允许勘验场所”，则“必须向每一方当事人送达通知和传票副本”。受托人已按此办理：拟签发的传票已附于动议之后。\n\n《准许第 11 章受托人关于第 2004 条规则询问的第五次综合动议的裁定》[ECF No.\n\n1891] 第 6 页。Yu 先生获得了相同的通知（通过其在第 11 章案件中的出庭），而 Zhang\n\n女士在提交《第八次 2004 动议》时作为非当事人，根本无权获得\n\n通知。\n\n16. 此外，Yu先生（Mr. Yu）与Zhang女士（Ms. Zhang）均无权对《第八次2004动议》提出异议。G-Club亦无权提出异议。上述任何一方均未提交债权证明。上述任何一方亦均不会因《第八次2004动议》而被签发传票。鉴于送达通知正当合规，且异议人缺乏诉讼资格，法院应驳回对《第八次2004动议》的异议。\n\n“未决诉讼”原则并不禁止受托人进行调查\n\n17. Yu先生与Zhang女士还试图重新搬出基于“未决诉讼”原则的异议——法院在驳回本第11章案件此前针对《规则2004动议》的异议时，已明确三次否定了该原则。（《Yu先生/Zhang女士异议》第20段。）\n\n18. 与Yu先生和Zhang女士的立场相反，本法院已反复认定，“未决诉讼”原则并不仅仅因为受托人的调查可能会发现与现有诉讼相关的信息，就禁止受托人对非未决对抗性诉讼当事人的被调查人进行《破产规则2004》调查。参见《关于准予第11章受托人关于规则2004调查的第六次补充综合动议的裁定》[ECF No. 2210]；《关于准予第11章受托人关于2004调查的第五次补充综合动议的裁定》[ECF No. 1891]；《关于准予第11章受托人关于2004调查的第二次补充综合动议的裁定》[ECF No. 1184]。\n\n19. 在提交本异议前举行的碰头协商会议中，受托人已将这些先前的裁定告知Yu先生和Zhang女士的律师。然而，Yu先生和Zhang女士仍然以此为由提出了异议。Yu先生和Zhang女士执意重新搬出法院此前已予驳回的异议理由，这表明他们对《第八次2004动议》提出异议的意图，主要是为了拖延和阻碍受托人对债务人财务状况的调查，而非为了解决合理合法的诉求。\n\n20. 法院应驳回Yu先生与Zhang女士的异议，并准予受托人的《第八次2004动议》。\n\n法院裁定应规定十四日的合规期限\n\n21. 与受托人先前提交的《规则2004动议》所附拟议裁定一致，随《第八次2004动议》一并提交的拟议裁定规定银行有三十日的时间提交响应性文件。鉴于受托人将在2023年11月28日（即审理《第八次2004动议》及各项异议的听证会同日）举行的状况通报会上讨论的紧急情况，受托人谨请求法院下令要求各银行在送达后十四日内（而非三十日内）遵从传票。\n\n[本页以下部分特意留白。]\n\n据此，鉴于各项异议在实体理由上均不能成立，法院应驳回各项异议，准予《第八次2004动议》，签署随附提交的拟议裁定（经修改以规定银行有十四日时间遵从传票），并准予法院认为公正且适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2023年11月22日 康涅狄格州纽黑文\n第11章受托人 LUC A. DESPINS\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， :\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。5 :\n:\n: 联合审理\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n送达证明\n\n下述签名人特此证明，2023年11月22日，上述文书已通过电子方式提交。本提交的通知已通过电子邮件发送给上述标题所列第11章案件中能够通过法院电子案件归档系统（“CM/ECF”）接收电子通知的所有当事人，或通过美国邮政（U.S. Mail）发送给无法接收电子通知的任何当事人。各当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本提交文书。\n\n日期：2023年11月22日 Luc A. Despins，作为第11章受托人\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n签署人：\n/s/\nPatrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT,\nPEPE &\nMONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n第11章受托人之代理律师\n\n5 本案涉及的各第11章债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及若干其他化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于接收通知和通信之目的）。","key_entities":["Je","HCHK","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":18,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":119,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":122,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":123,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1184,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1891,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2210,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2304,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2315,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2718,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:28:28"}