{"id":"court_ctb_2545_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2545,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT )","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n)\n\n)\n\n)\n\nDebtors.1\n\nIn re: ) Chapter 11 ) Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, *et al.*, ) (Jointly Administered)\n\n) Re: ECF Nos. 1805, 1896.\n\n# **ORDER HOLDING HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC IN CONTEMPT**\n\n#### **I. INTRODUCTION**\n\nBefore the Court is the Motion for Entry of Order Holding Hudson Diamond Holding LLC and Hudson Diamond NY LLC in Civil Contempt for Failing to Respond to Rule 2004 Subpoenas (the \"Contempt Motion\"),2 (ECF No. 1805), filed by Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") for the bankruptcy estate of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok. For the reasons stated below, the Court holds Hudson Diamond Holding LLC (\"HD Holding\") in contempt of court.\n\n### **II. BACKGROUND**\n\nOn May 18, 2023, the Trustee filed the Contempt Motion. (ECF No. 1805.) Attached to the Contempt Motion is the Declaration of Avram E. Luft (the \"Luft Declaration\"), which itself has attached exhibits. (*Id.*) A hearing was held on the Contempt Motion on June 6, 2023.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> Various pleadings and orders discussed in this Order were omnibus in nature. For the sake of clarity, the titles of pleadings and orders are set forth herein only as they concern Hudson Diamond Holding LLC.\n\nDuring the hearing, the Trustee and counsel for Hudson Diamond NY LLC (\"HD NY\") and HD Holding (collectively, the \"HD Entities\") read into the record a stipulation regarding the HD Entities' compliance with the Rule 2004 subpoenas served on them. Following the hearing, on June 8, 2023, the Court entered the Consent Order Regarding Contempt Motion (the \"Consent Order\"). (ECF No. 1896.) Pursuant to the Consent Order, the HD Entities were to comply with the Trustee's subpoenas on or before June 15, 2023.\n\nIn accordance with the Consent Order and subsequent scheduling orders, a continued hearing on the Contempt Motion was held on July 11, 2023. During the continued hearing, the Trustee argued that HD Holding had not complied with the Consent Order and pressed his argument that HD Holding was in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with the Rule 2004 subpoena. HD Holding argued that it had complied with the Consent Order, or at least diligently attempted to comply, referring the Court to the efforts detailed during the hearing and in the Declaration of Aaron A. Romney (the \"Romney Declaration\"), filed in connection with a related motion by counsel to, among others, the HD Entities. (ECF No. 1988.) Through counsel, HD Holding represented that it had produced the operating agreement and articles of organization for HD Holding and that, despite the efforts of Ms. Mei Guo (\"Ms. Guo\"), the sole member of HD Holding, and counsel, HD Holding had been unable to obtain and produce further documents that may be in the possession of Ms. Yvette Wang (\"Ms. Wang\"), also known as, among other names, Ms. Yanping Wang, and Mr. Max Krasner (\"Mr. Krasner\"), who had conducted the business of HD Holding.\n\nDuring the July 11, 2023 hearing, the Trustee also pressed his argument that HD NY was in civil contempt of Court. The Trustee argued that the documents already in his possession indicated that HD NY was the wholly owned subsidiary of HD Holding and that HD NY owned\n\nluxury automobiles and had at least explored real estate transactions. Counsel to HD NY did not oppose the entry of an order holding HD NY in contempt because, subsequent to his appearance as counsel for HD NY and entry into the Consent Order on its behalf, he had come to be deeply confused and uncertain as to whether HD NY was a wholly owned subsidiary of HD Holding as he had erstwhile believed and, for that reason, had not produced any documents for HD NY.\n\nAfter the July 11, 2023 hearing, the Court (i) issued an order for Ms. Guo to appear and testify as to why HD Holding should not be held in civil contempt of court (the \"Show Cause Order\") (ECF No. 2036); and (ii) held HD NY in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with the Consent Order and the Rule 2004 subpoena (the \"HD NY Contempt Order\") (ECF No. 2009). The Show Cause Order scheduled a continued hearing on the Contempt Motion for August 22, 2023 and required Ms. Guo to appear and testify because HD Holding's argument that it had either complied or diligently attempted to comply with the Consent Order and Rule 2004 subpoena, except as it involved discussion with Hodgson Russ LLP (\"Hodgson Russ\") regarding HD NY, involved actions taken by Ms. Guo outside the presence and without the assistance of counsel.\n\nOn August 17, 2023, HD Holding filed the Declaration of Mei Guo (the \"Guo Declaration\"). (ECF No. 2092.) On August 22, 2023, a continued hearing was held on the Contempt Motion. During the hearing, the Guo Declaration was admitted as Ms. Guo's direct testimony, Ms. Guo was cross-examined by the Trustee, and HD Holding asked a few questions on redirect. Additionally, the Trustee moved for the admission of eight exhibits (each an \"Trustee Exhibit,\" and, collectively, the \"Trustee Exhibits\") into evidence. All were admitted in full. These Trustee Exhibits were subsequently filed on the docket. (ECF Nos. 2123, 2124.)\n\nThe Contempt Motion is ripe for decision.\n\n## **III. JURISDICTION**\n\nThe United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). This Court has authority to hear and determine this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and the Order of Reference of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dated September 21, 1984. The instant proceedings are statutorily core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). The Court concludes its exercise of jurisdiction is not precluded by Constitutional concerns. *Cf. Stern v. Marshall*, 564 U.S. 462, 487–99 (2011).\n\nVenue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n# **IV. DISCUSSION3**\n\n# **A. Contempt**\n\nThis Court has the power to hold parties in contempt of court under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9020. *Taggart v. Lorenzen ex rel. Brown*, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801 (2019); *PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Sensenich ex rel. Gravel (In re Gravel)*, 6 F.4th 503, 512 (2d Cir. 2021); *Mar. Asbestosis Legal Clinic v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chauteaugay Corp.)*, 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990). Contempt may be sought to \"coerce the defendant into compliance\" with a court order or to \"compensate the complainant for losses\" resulting from noncompliance with a court order. *Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1801 (citing *United States v. United Mine Workers*, 330 U.S. 258, 303–04 (1947)). A finding of civil contempt requires that \"(1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner.\" *King v.*\n\n<sup>3</sup> The following constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court pursuant to Rule 7052 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which is made applicable to contested matters by Rule 9014(c).\n\n*Allied Vision, Ltd.*, 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995). Contempt also requires that (4) the contemnor has notice of the relevant order. *Gravel*, 6 F.4th at 512.\n\nFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(1) and 37(b)(2)(A)(vii), made applicable by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37 and D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 1001-1(a)(1) and 2004-1(a), provide further authority to hold parties in contempt of an order compelling production of discovery materials, such as the Consent Order.\n\n#### **1. Consent Order Is Clear and Unambiguous**\n\nAn order is clear and unambiguous where \"there is [no] *fair ground of doubt* as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct.\" *Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1801 (citing *Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor*, 113 U.S. 609 (1885)). As noted in the Show Cause Order, HD Holding raises no argument that there is a fair ground of doubt as to the meaning of the Consent Order, which states that HD Holding \"shall have until June 15, 2023 to complete [its] production to the Trustee.\" (ECF No. 1896.) HD Holding could only withhold responsive discovery materials on privilege grounds. (*Id.*) The Court concludes that there is no fair ground of doubt as to the meaning of the Consent Order and, accordingly, the Consent Order is clear and unambiguous. *See King*, 65 F.3d at 1058.\n\n#### **2. HD Holding Did Not Comply**\n\nThe Trustee must make a clear and convincing showing that HD Holding did not comply with the Consent Order. *King*, 65 F.3d at 1058. The Trustee argues that in turning over two (2) documents, HD Holding did not comply with the Consent Order. In particular, the Trustee focuses on HD Holding's failure to produce the documents of HD NY – which, the Trustee argues, is its wholly owned subsidiary – as required by the Rule 2004 subpoena and that, therefore, HD Holding did not comply with the Consent Order. The Trustee also argues that HD\n\nHolding's documents in the control of Ms. Wang and Mr. Krasner must be turned over and that Ms. Guo's account of her review of her own records is not credible. HD Holding argues that those two (2) documents – the operating agreement and articles of organization for HD Holding – represent all documents in the possession, custody, and/or control of HD Holding and that HD Holding was not required to produce the documents of HD NY, especially where, as here, counsel for HD Holding has expressed confusion as to whether HD Holding truly is the sole member of HD NY.<sup>4</sup>\n\nThe Court agrees with the Trustee. The Rule 2004 subpoena served on HD Holding, admitted into evidence as Trustee Exhibit 1, states that \"'You' or 'Your' or 'Yourself' means and refers to Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, together with all of its affiliates, divisions, agencies, instrumentalities, departments, offices, partners, officers, directors, agents, attorneys, representatives, employees, and/or anyone acting on its behalf.\" (Tr. Ex. 1, at \\*7.) To comply with the Rule 2004 subpoena – as compelled by the Consent Order – HD Holding must turn over documents related to all these parties that fit within several categories documents. (Tr. Ex. 1, at \\*10 (defining document), 12–15 (document requests).)\n\nThe Guo Declaration, submitted as Ms. Guo's direct testimony during the evidentiary hearing, states that \"Yvette Wang and Max Krasner handled the business and affairs of Holding.\" (ECF No. 2092 ¶ 5.) Ms. Wang and Mr. Krasner are, therefore, at least persons \"acting on [HD Holding's] behalf\", from whom HD Holding was compelled by the Consent Order – and indeed, *agreed* – to produce documents and records. (Tr. Ex. 1, at \\*7 (defining you, your, and yourself),\n\n<sup>4</sup> After this matter was taken under advisement, counsel for HD Holding has admitted that HD Holding is the sole member of HD NY. (Mot. to Set Aside Default at 3 n. 1, *Despins v. Lamp Capital (In re Kwok)*, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), Adv. P. No. 23-05023 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 2, 2024), ECF No. 30.)\n\n10 (defining document), 12–15 (document requests).) No document from Ms. Wang or Mr. Krasner was produced.\n\nThe Court has already concluded, on the basis of documents then in the record, including the documents now marked Trustee Exhibits 3 and 5, that HD Holding is the sole member of HD NY. (ECF No. 2220.) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, made applicable to this contested matter by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(c), it is within the Court's discretion whether this conclusion is law of the case. *Cangemi v. United States*, 13 F.4th 115, 140 (2d Cir. 2021). The Court concludes it is law of the case and incorporates its rationale in the prior order by reference.\n\nMoreover, Trustee Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 further support the conclusion that HD Holding is the sole member of HD NY. Trustee Exhibit 3, which was previously filed on the docket as exhibit T to the Luft Declaration, is a corporate document of HD NY dated December 4, 2020 and Executed January 4, 2021 and entitled \"Consent of Sole Member without a Meeting.\" (Tr. Ex. 3.) Trustee Exhibit 3 bears the signature of Ms. Guo, signing as sole member of HD Holding, the sole member of HD NY. (Tr. Ex. 3; Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 2168, at 138:14–23; *see* Guo Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5; Romney Decl. ¶ 13.) Trustee Exhibit 5 – the Romney Declaration – has attached to it as exhibit A an email chain between attorneys for the HD Entities and Hodgson Russ, wherein Hodgson Russ does not dispute that Ms. Guo came to control HD NY through HD Holding at some point. (Romney Decl. Ex. A, at \\*1.) Trustee Exhibits 6 and 8 show account summaries for a bank account of HD NY. (Tr. Exs. 6, 8.) Trustee Exhibit 7 shows that, as of May 14, 2021, a \"Yangping Wang\" and \"Mei Guo\" were the signatories for this bank account of HD NY. (Tr. Ex. 7.) While Ms. Guo invoked5 her Fifth Amendment right against self-\n\n<sup>5</sup> The Court grants the Motion by Ms. Guo's criminal counsel to strike the answer she made before being advised to invoke the Fifth Amendment, without prejudice to the Trustee's objection to the propriety of her invocation.\n\nincrimination in response to questioning about whether Trustee Exhibit 7 bears her signature, as the Trustee requests, the Court draws an adverse inference against her based on the evidence before the Court. *See Mirlis v. Greer*, 952 F.3d 36, 47 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing *Baxter v. Palmigiano*, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976) (\"[T]he Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them: the Amendment 'does not preclude the inference where the privilege is claimed by a party to a civil cause.\") (emphasis in original)); *Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer*, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir. 2000) (\"[A]n adverse inference can be drawn when independent evidence exists of the fact to which the party refuses to answer.\")). (Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 2229, at 7:21–8:23.) Finally, in context of this body of evidence it is proper to draw an adverse inference against HD Holding based on Ms. Guo's invocation of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination regarding HD Holding's sole membership in HD NY. *See Mirlis*, 952 F.3d at 47; *Glanzer*, 232 F.3d at 1264. (Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 2168, at 27:2–8.)\n\nFor all these reasons,6 in addition to the matter being law of the case, the Court concludes that HD NY is an \"affiliate\" of HD Holding as defined in the Rule 2004 subpoena and HD Holding was compelled to produce its documents responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoena. (Tr. Ex. 1, at \\*7 (defining you, your, and yourself), 10 (defining document), 12–15 (document requests).) As is true of Ms. Wang and Mr. Krasnser, no document from HD NY was produced. Indeed, the Court has already held HD NY in contempt of court for failing to comply with a Rule 2004 subpoena seeking substantially identical categories of discovery materials as the Rule 2004 subpoena served on HD Holding. (ECF No. 2009.) The Court, within its discretion, concludes that this is also law of the case. *See Cangemi*, 13 F.4th at 140.\n\n<sup>6</sup> In addition to these reasons, counsel has subsequently admitted that HD Holding is the member of HD NY. *See* note 4, *supra*.\n\nFinally, the Court concludes that Ms. Guo was not a persuasive witness as to the issues before it. The Guo Declaration does not show cause as to why HD Holding should not be held in contempt in light of the concerns raised by the Show Cause Order and the evidentiary record before the Court. In this connection, the lack of testimony from Ms. Guo going beyond the Guo Declaration is problematic for HD Holding. When questioned about the content of the Guo Declaration, Ms. Guo almost uniformly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination, including on issues about which HD Holding's counsel (who are also her personal counsel in these Chapter 11 cases and related adversary proceedings) had made prior statements and indeed *sworn* statements to the Court. (*See, e.g.*, Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 2168, at 23:24–24:12, 27:2–8, 41:12–42:10, 50:24–52:23, 57:18–67:10, 72:15–73:2, 76:20–78:23, 79:22–82:14, 84:7– 24, 85:7–93:7, 93:24–94:24, 101:4–103:7, 118:11–123:22.) Moreover, Ms. Guo has made contradictory statements under oath about her access to Mr. Krasner's phone number. (Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 2168, at 85:7–87:22.) The Court concludes there is no credible evidence that HD Holding performed a complete review of its documents and records and produced its responsive documents.\n\n Therefore, for all of the reasons above, the Court concludes that the Trustee has established by clear and convincing evidence that HD Holding did not comply with the Consent Order and failed to produce documents responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoena.\n\n#### **3. HD Holding Did Not Diligently Attempt to Comply in a Reasonable Manner**\n\nFor HD Holding to be held in contempt, the Court must conclude that HD Holding has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner. *King*, 65 F.3d at 1058. The Trustee argues that (i) Ms. Guo's account of her efforts on behalf of HD Holding are not credible; and (ii) HD Holding's efforts to produce documents of HD NY were insufficiently diligent. HD\n\nHolding argues that (1) Ms. Guo tried, but failed, to contact Mr. Krasner; (2) HD Holding did not have to attempt to contact Ms. Wang because she is presently detained pending trial in the District Court for the Southern District of New York; and (3) Attorneys Romney and Vartan were stonewalled by Hodgson Russ in their attempt to obtain documents related to HD NY.\n\nThe Court agrees with the Trustee. The Romney Declaration states that Ms. Guo attempted to access the HD NY account at Capital One but was refused access because \"her name was not on the account.\" (Romney Decl. ¶ 9.) This is contradicted by Trustee Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 discussed above. (Tr. Exs. 6, 7, 8.) HD Holding provides no explanation for this contradiction, such as testimony about how, why, and when Ms. Guo's name was removed from the account – if it indeed was. The Guo Declaration only reiterates that HD Holding had no account at Capital One and does not discuss attempts to access the HD NY account. (Guo Decl. ¶¶ 6, 13.) In the presence of counsel, Ms. Guo only asked Capital One about HD Holding – *not* HD NY. (*Id.* ¶ 13.)\n\nThe Romney Declaration mentions no attempt to contact Ms. Wang. (Romney Decl. ¶ 8.) Similarly, the Guo Declaration mentions no attempt to contact Ms. Wang. (Guo Decl. ¶ 5.) This is despite Ms. Wang handling the business affairs of HD Holding in conjunction with Mr. Krasner. (*Id.*) The rationale behind declining to contact Ms. Wang appears to be that she is presently detained pending trial in the Southern District of New York. (*Id.*) This rationale, however, offers no support for failing to make any attempt to contact Ms. Wang. Ms. Wang has obligations to the HD Entities and Ms. Guo, in her capacity as HD Holding's sole member. HD Holding can reach out to Ms. Wang through her criminal counsel. There is no justifiable reason this has not occurred. Perhaps Ms. Wang will invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-\n\nincrimination regarding requests for documents regarding the HD Entities. If so, the Trustee is entitled to that record.\n\nThe Romney Declaration mentions attempts to contact Mr. Krasner – outside the presence of counsel, but alleges such attempts were unsuccessful. (Romney Decl. ¶ 8.) The Guo Declaration, submitted as Ms. Guo's direct testimony, affirms this statement and states further attempts were made to contact Mr. Krasner in the presence of counsel. (Guo Decl. ¶¶ 5, 12.) As noted above, Ms. Guo's testimony regarding her attempts to contact Mr. Krasner is not persuasive – at different points she has made contradictory statements under oath about her ability to reach Mr. Krasner. (Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 2168, at 85:7–87:22.) It is concerning that HD Holding is apparently indifferent towards one of its officers not responding to its sole member about its documents and records. This is particularly concerning because HD Holding (a) is a subpoena target; (b) has *consented* to an order compelling production; and (c) has been ordered to *show cause why it should not be held in contempt*. There is no indication that there were repeated attempts to contact Mr. Krasner outside of two isolated attempts. (Guo Decl. ¶¶ 5, 12.) There is no indication HD Holding subpoenaed Mr. Krasner or initiated any legal process against him.\n\nThe Romney Declaration, which Ms. Guo testifies is \"true and accurate\" (Guo Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4), discusses a series of communications with Hodgson Russ regarding HD NY and HD Holding's interest in HD NY. (Romney Decl. ¶¶ 10–25.) As discussed above, the Court concludes on the basis of the record before it that HD Holding is the sole member of HD NY. Nevertheless, the Court observes that the confusion of Attorney Romney centered on whether Ms. Guo or her brother, Mr. Qiang Guo (\"Mr. Guo\"), also known as Mr. Mileson Guo,\n\ncontrolled the sole member of HD NY. (*Id.*) 7 Despite this, HD Holding apparently made no attempt to reach out to Mr. Guo about this issue to clarify the membership of HD NY.\n\nMs. Guo's testimony and the Romney Declaration do not satisfactorily explain the failure to comply with the Consent Order. As noted above, the Court finds that Ms. Guo was not a credible witness when questioned about these issues. Therefore, the Court concludes that no diligent attempt to comply with the Consent Order occurred. Indeed, the record before the Court indicates that HD Holding has affirmatively chosen not to comply.\n\n# **4. HD Holding Has Notice**\n\nThe parties do not contest that HD Holding has notice of and was properly served with the Consent Order, the Rule 2004 subpoena, and other relevant pleadings and orders. Nevertheless, the Court sets out how HD Holding was served and received notice below.\n\nHD Holding was properly served with and has notice of the Rule 2004 subpoena. On December 2, 2022, the Court entered the Second Supplemental Rule 2004 Order authorizing in pertinent part the Rule 2004 subpoena directed to HD Holding. (ECF No. 1184.) On December 7, 2022, HD Holding was served with the Rule 2004 subpoena at Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 3411 Silverside Road, Tatnall Building, Suite 104, Wilmington, DE via personal service upon an agent authorized by appointment to receive service at that address. (Luft Decl. Ex. C-7.) In the Consent Order, HD Holding stipulates that service of the Rule 2004 subpoena was proper. (ECF No. 1896.)\n\nHD Holding was also properly served with and has notice of the Contempt Motion. On May 23, 2023, HD Holding was served with the Notice of Hearing regarding the Hearing on the\n\n<sup>7</sup> *See* note 4, *supra*.\n\nContempt Motion at Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 3411 Silverside Road, Tatnall Building #104, Wilmington, DE 19810. (ECF No. 1826.)\n\nOn June 1, 2023, Attorney Romney filed an appearance for HD Holding in these jointly administered Chapter 11 cases. (ECF No. 1848.) Thereafter, HD Holding has received service of all relevant pleadings through Notices of Electronic Filing electronically served on its counsel, including the Consent Order (to which HD Holding is, moreover, a party), the orders scheduling the July 11, 2023 continued hearing, and the Show Cause Order. Hence, HD Holding had notice of these pleadings and orders. Moreover, the Guo Declaration acknowledges HD Holding's receipt of the Show Cause Order. (ECF No. 2092 ¶ 1.)\n\nAccordingly, HD Holding had notice of the Consent Order and related hearings, pleadings, orders, and the underlying Rule 2004 subpoena. *Gravel*, 6 F.4th at 512.\n\n## **5. HD Holding Is in Contempt of Court**\n\nAll four elements of contempt having been established, the Court holds HD Holding in civil contempt of Court for failure to comply with the Consent Order. *See King*, 65 F.3d at 1058; *Gravel*, 6 F.4th at 512.\n\n#### **V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER**\n\nAccordingly pursuant to the Court's inherent contempt powers and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(1) and 37(b)(2)(A)(vii), made applicable by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37 and D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 1001-1(a)(1) and 2004-1(a), it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED:** The Hudson Diamond Holding LLC (\"HD Holding\") are in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with the Consent Order Regarding Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of an Order Holding Hudson Diamond NY LLC and Hudson Diamond Holding LLC in Civil Contempt for Failing to Respond to Rule 2004 Subpoenas (the \"Consent Order\") (ECF No.\n\n1896), which Consent Order compelled production responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoena served on HD Holding by Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") for the bankruptcy estate of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok. Should HD Holding fail to purge itself of contempt on or before March 1, 2024, the Trustee may seek appropriate sanctions.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 1st day of February, 2024.","body_zh":"United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n)\n\n)\n\n)\n\n债务人。1\n\n关于： ) 第11章 ) 案件编号：22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， )（合并审理）\n\n) 涉及：ECF 编号 1805、1896。\n裁定 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 构成藐视法庭的命令\nI. 引言\n\n本法院审理的是 Luc A. Despins 先生以 Ho Wan Kwok 先生破产财产的第11章受托人（下称「受托人」）身份提起的《关于请求作出因未对第 2004 条传票作出回应而裁定 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 和 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 构成民事藐视法庭之命令的动议》（下称「藐视法庭动议」）2（ECF 编号 1805）。基于下述理由，本法院裁定 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（下称「HD Holding」）构成藐视法庭。\nII. 背景\n\n2023年5月18日，受托人提交了《藐视法庭动议》。（ECF 编号 1805。）《藐视法庭动议》附有 Avram E. Luft 的书面证词（下称「Luft 证词」），该证词本身附有相关证物。（同上。）法院于 2023年6月6日 就《藐视法庭动议》举行了听证会。\n\n1 这些第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 以及 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于通知与联络目的）。\n\n2 本命令中讨论的各项诉答文书和命令在性质上属于综合性的。为清晰起见，此处列出的诉答文书和命令标题仅涉及与 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 相关的部分。\n\n在听证会期间，受托人与 Hudson Diamond NY LLC（下称「HD NY」）及 HD Holding（统称「HD 实体」）的代理律师在记录中宣读了一项关于 HD 实体配合送达给它们的第 2004 条传票的约定协议。听证会后，法院于 2023年6月8日 作出了《关于藐视法庭动议的同意命令》（下称「同意命令」）。（ECF 编号 1896。）根据该《同意命令》，HD 实体应于 2023年6月15日 或之前配合受托人的传票要求。\n\n根据《同意命令》及随后的日程安排命令，于 2023年7月11日 举行了关于《藐视法庭动议》的后续听证会。在后续听证会期间，受托人主张 HD Holding 未遵守《同意命令》，并坚持其关于 HD Holding 因未配合第 2004 条传票而构成民事藐视法庭的主张。HD Holding 则主张其已遵守了《同意命令》，或至少已尽职努力尝试遵守，并请法院注意听证会期间详述的努力，以及在 HD 实体等各方的代理律师就一项相关动议提交的 Aaron A. Romney 的书面证词（下称「Romney 证词」）中详述的努力。（ECF 编号 1988。）HD Holding 通过其代理律师陈述称，其已出示了 HD Holding 的运营协议和组织章程，并且尽管 HD Holding 的唯一成员 Mei Guo 女士（郭美，下称「Guo 女士」）和律师作出了努力，HD Holding 仍无法获取并出示可能由 Yvette Wang 女士（王雁平，下称「Wang 女士」，亦被称为 Yanping Wang 女士等名字）和 Max Krasner 先生（下称「Krasner 先生」）持有的进一步文件，而后两人曾负责处理 HD Holding 的业务。\n\n在 2023年7月11日 的听证会期间，受托人亦坚持其关于 HD NY 构成民事藐视法庭的主张。受托人主张，其已持有的文件表明 HD NY 是 HD Holding 的全资子公司，且 HD NY 拥有\n\n豪华汽车并至少探讨过房地产交易。HD NY 的代理律师未反对作出裁定 HD NY 构成藐视法庭的命令，因为在其作为 HD NY 的代理律师出庭并代表其签署《同意命令》之后，他对于 HD NY 是否如其此前所认为的那样系 HD Holding 的全资子公司产生了极大的困惑与不确定，并因此未出示 HD NY 的任何文件。\n\n在 2023年7月11日 听证会后，本法院 (i) 作出命令要求 Guo 女士出庭作证，说明为何不应裁定 HD Holding 构成民事藐视法庭（下称「说明理由命令」）（ECF 编号 2036）；以及 (ii) 裁定 HD NY 因未遵守《同意命令》和第 2004 条传票而构成民事藐视法庭（下称「HD NY 藐视法庭命令」）（ECF 编号 2009）。《说明理由命令》将《藐视法庭动议》的后续听证会定于 2023年8月22日 举行，并要求 Guo 女士出庭作证，因为 HD Holding 主张其已遵守或尽职努力尝试遵守《同意命令》和第 2004 条传票的理由中，除涉及与 Hodgson Russ LLP（下称「Hodgson Russ」）就 HD NY 进行的讨论外，均涉及 Guo 女士在代理律师未在场且无律师协助的情况下所采取的行动。\n\n2023年8月17日，HD Holding 提交了 Mei Guo 的书面证词（下称「Guo 证词」）。（ECF 编号 2092。）2023年8月22日，就《藐视法庭动议》举行了后续听证会。在听证会期间，Guo 证词被采纳为 Guo 女士的直接证词，受托人对 Guo 女士进行了交叉询问，HD Holding 进行了简短的再询问。此外，受托人申请将八份证物（每份为一项「受托人证物」，统称「受托人各证物」）作为证据采纳。全部证物均被完整采纳。这些受托人各证物随后已在案件卷宗中归档。（ECF 编号 2123、2124。）\n\n该《藐视法庭动议》现已具备作出裁决的条件。\nIII. 管辖权\n\n根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)，United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区地方法院）对本事项拥有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) 以及美国康涅狄格区地方法院于 1984年9月21日 作出的移送审理命令，本法院有权审理并裁决本事项。本诉讼程序在法定层面上属于核心程序。28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)。本法院认定，其行使管辖权不受宪法层面关切的阻碍。参见 Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 487–99 (2011)。\n\n根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本司法管辖区的审判地适格。\nIV. 讨论3\nA. 藐视法庭\n\n根据 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) 和《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 9020 条，本法院有权裁定当事人构成藐视法庭。Taggart v. Lorenzen ex rel. Brown, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801 (2019); PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Sensenich ex rel. Gravel (In re Gravel), 6 F.4th 503, 512 (2d Cir. 2021); Mar. Asbestosis Legal Clinic v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chauteaugay Corp.), 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990)。寻求藐视法庭裁定可以是为了「强迫被告遵守」法院命令，也可以是为了对因未遵守法院命令而造成的损失「补偿申诉人」。Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1801（援引 United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303–04 (1947)）。认定民事藐视法庭要求具备以下条件：「(1) 藐视法庭者未予遵守的命令清晰且明确，(2) 未予遵守的证据清楚且令人信服，以及 (3) 藐视法庭者未以合理方式尽职努力尝试遵守。」King v.\n\n3 依据《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 7052 条（该条通过第 9014(c) 条适用于争议事项），以下内容构成由本法院作出的事实认定和法律结论。\n\nAllied Vision, Ltd., 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995)。藐视法庭还要求：(4) 藐视法庭者已收到相关命令的通知。Gravel, 6 F.4th at 512。\n\n经《康涅狄格区联邦地方法院民事诉讼本地规则》第 37 条及《康涅狄格区联邦破产法院本地规则》第 1001-1(a)(1) 和 2004-1(a) 条适用的《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 37(b)(1) 条和第 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) 条，为裁定当事人因违反强制作证材料出示命令（如《同意命令》）而构成藐视法庭提供了进一步的权力依据。\n1. 同意命令清晰且明确\n\n当「对于被告行为的违法性[不]存在合理的怀疑理由」时，一项命令即为清晰且明确。Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1801（援引 Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609 (1885)）。如《说明理由命令》中所述，HD Holding 并未提出任何主张认为对《同意命令》的含义存在合理的怀疑理由，该《同意命令》明确规定 HD Holding「应在 2023年6月15日 之前完成对受托人的出示」。（ECF 编号 1896。）HD Holding 仅能基于特权理由扣留相关证据开示材料。（同上。）本法院认定，对于《同意命令》的含义不存在合理的怀疑理由，因此，《同意命令》清晰且明确。参见 King, 65 F.3d at 1058。\n2. HD Holding 未予遵守\n\n受托人必须通过清楚且令人信服的证明表明 HD Holding 未遵守《同意命令》。King, 65 F.3d at 1058。受托人主张，HD Holding 仅交出两 (2) 份文件即未遵守《同意命令》。受托人尤其指出，第 2004 条传票要求 HD Holding 出示 HD NY（受托人主张其为 HD Holding 的全资子公司）的文件，而 HD Holding 未能出示，因此 HD Holding 未遵守《同意命令》。受托人还主张，处于\n\nWang 女士和 Krasner 先生控制之下的 HD Holding 文件必须交出，且 Guo 女士对其自身记录审查情况的陈述不可信。HD Holding 则主张，这两 (2) 份文件——HD Holding 的运营协议和组织章程——代表了 HD Holding 所占有、保管和/或控制的全部文件，并且 HD Holding 无需出示 HD NY 的文件，特别是在本案中 HD Holding 的代理律师对于 HD Holding 是否确系 HD NY 的唯一成员表示困惑的情况下。4\n\n本法院认同受托人的意见。送达给 HD Holding 并作为受托人证物 1 采纳为证据的第 2004 条传票规定，「『你』或『你的』或『你自己』是指 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 连同其所有的关联方、分部、代理机构、执行机构、部门、办事处、合伙人、高级职员、董事、代理人、律师、代表、雇员和/或任何代表其行事的人。」（受托人证物 1，第 *7 页。）为了遵守第 2004 条传票——正如《同意命令》所强制要求的那样——HD Holding 必须交出属于若干文件类别、与所有上述主体相关的文件。（受托人证物 1，第 *10 页（文件定义），第 12–15 页（文件请求）。）\n\n作为 Guo 女士在证据听证会上的直接证词提交的 Guo 证词陈述称，「Yvette Wang 和 Max Krasner 经办了 Holding 的业务和事务。」（ECF 编号 2092 第 5 段。）因此，Wang 女士和 Krasner 先生至少属于「代表 [HD Holding] 行事」的人员，根据《同意命令》的强制要求——且事实上其也已同意——HD Holding 须出示来自这两人的文件和记录。（受托人证物 1，第 *7 页（定义你、你的和你自己），\n\n4 在本案进入审议裁决阶段后，HD Holding 的代理律师已承认 HD Holding 是 HD NY 的唯一成员。（《撤销缺席裁决动议》第 3 页注 1，Despins v. Lamp Capital (In re Kwok)，案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)，附随诉讼程序编号：23-05023 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. 2024年1月2日)，ECF 编号 30。）\n\n第 10 页（文件定义），第 12–15 页（文件请求）。）来自 Wang 女士或 Krasner 先生的文件无一被出示。\n\n本法院已根据当时记录在案的文件，包括现标记为受托人证据 3 和 5 的文件，认定 HD Holding（HD 控股公司）是 HD NY（HD 纽约公司）的唯一成员。(ECF No. 2220.) 根据经 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(c)（《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 9014(c) 条）适用于本争议事项的 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54（《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》第 54 条），该认定是否构成既定法则是本法院的自由裁量权范围内的事项。Cangemi v. United States, 13 F.4th 115, 140 (2d Cir. 2021)。本法院认定其为既定法则，并通过援引将先前裁定中的理由并入本裁定。\n\n此外，受托人证据 2、3、5、6、7 和 8 进一步支持 HD Holding 为 HD NY 唯一成员的结论。受托人证据 3 此前作为 Luft 声明的附件 T 归档在案卷中，是一份日期为 2020 年 12 月 4 日、签署于 2021 年 1 月 4 日、题为「未经会议的唯一成员同意书」的 HD NY 公司文件。(Tr. Ex. 3.) 受托人证据 3 上有 Ms. Guo（郭女士）的签名，其以 HD NY 的唯一成员 HD Holding 之唯一成员的身份签署。(Tr. Ex. 3; Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 2168, at 138:14–23; see Guo Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5; Romney Decl. ¶ 13.) 受托人证据 5——即 Romney 声明——所附附件 A 为 HD 实体律师与 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）之间的电子邮件链，其中 Hodgson Russ 对郭女士在某个节点通过 HD Holding 获得对 HD NY 的控制权一事不持异议。(Romney Decl. Ex. A, at \\*1.) 受托人证据 6 和 8 显示了 HD NY 一个银行账户的账户明细汇总。(Tr. Exs. 6, 8.) 受托人证据 7 显示，截至 2021 年 5 月 14 日，一名「Yangping Wang（王雁平）」和「Mei Guo（郭美）」为 HD NY 该银行账户的授权签署人。(Tr. Ex. 7.) 尽管郭女士在被问及受托人证据 7 上是否为其签名时援引了5 其反自证其罪的第五修正案权利，但应受托人请求，本法院根据在案证据对她作出不利推定。参见 Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 36, 47 (2d Cir. 2020)（引用 Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)（「[当民事诉讼当事人面对针对其提出的具有证明力的证据而拒绝作证时，第五修正案并不禁止对其作出不利推定：当特权由民事诉讼当事人主张时，该修正案『并不排除该推定』。」）（原文强调））；Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir. 2000)（「当存在独立证据证明当事人拒绝回答的事实时，可以作出不利推定。」））。(Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 2229, at 7:21–8:23.) 最后，结合整套在案证据，基于郭女士就 HD Holding 在 HD NY 的唯一成员资格问题援引其反自证其罪的第五修正案权利，对 HD Holding 作出不利推定是正当的。参见 Mirlis, 952 F.3d at 47; Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1264。(Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 2168, at 27:2–8.)\n\n5 本法院准许郭女士的刑事辩护律师提出的动议，剔除她在被告知援引第五修正案之前所作的回答，但不影响受托人对她援引该权利的正当性提出异议。\n\n基于所有这些理由，6 除了该事项属于既定法则之外，本法院认定 HD NY 是 Rule 2004 subpoena（《破产规则》第 2004 条传票）中所定义的 HD Holding 的「关联方」，且 HD Holding 被强制要求交出符合《破产规则》第 2004 条传票要求的相关文件。(Tr. Ex. 1, at \\*7（定义你、你的以及你自己）, 10（定义文件）, 12–15（文件调取请求）。) 与 Ms. Wang（王女士）和 Mr. Krasner（克拉斯纳先生）的情况一样，未交出任何来自 HD NY 的文件。事实上，本法院此前已裁定 HD NY 藐视法庭，因其未能遵守一份旨在调取与送达给 HD Holding 的《破产规则》第 2004 条传票所要求的证据开示材料类别实质相同的《破产规则》第 2004 条传票。(ECF No. 2009.) 本法院行使其自由裁量权，认定这也构成既定法则。参见 Cangemi, 13 F.4th at 140。\n\n6 除了这些理由外，律师随后承认 HD Holding 是 HD NY 的成员。参见前注 4。\n\n最后，本法院认定郭女士就呈递给法庭的事项而言并非具有说服力的证人。鉴于《说明理由裁定书》提出的关切以及本法院面前的证据记录，郭声明并未说明为何不应裁定 HD Holding 藐视法庭的合理理由。就此而言，郭女士缺乏超出郭声明范围的证词对 HD Holding 是不利的。当就郭声明的内容接受询问时，郭女士几乎一律援引其反自证其罪的第五修正案权利，包括涉及 HD Holding 的律师（他们同时也是她在这些第 11 章破产案件和相关对抗性程序中的个人律师）此前曾向本法院发表陈述乃至作过宣誓陈述的事项。(See, e.g., Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 2168, at 23:24–24:12, 27:2–8, 41:12–42:10, 50:24–52:23, 57:18–67:10, 72:15–73:2, 76:20–78:23, 79:22–82:14, 84:7–24, 85:7–93:7, 93:24–94:24, 101:4–103:7, 118:11–123:22.) 此外，郭女士宣誓后就其获取克拉斯纳先生电话号码的能力发表了前后矛盾的陈述。(Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 2168, at 85:7–87:22.) 本法院认定，没有可信证据表明 HD Holding 对其文件和记录进行了全面审查并交出了其应交的文件。\n\n因此，基于上述所有理由，本法院认定受托人已用确凿且有说服力的证据证明，HD Holding 未遵守《合意裁定书》，且未能交出符合《破产规则》第 2004 条传票要求的文件。\n\n3. HD Holding 未以合理方式勤勉地尝试遵守\n\n要认定 HD Holding 藐视法庭，本法院必须认定 HD Holding 未以合理方式勤勉地尝试遵守。King, 65 F.3d at 1058。受托人主张：(i) 郭女士对其代表 HD Holding 所作努力的叙述不可信；且 (ii) HD Holding 为调取 HD NY 文件所作的努力不够勤勉。HD Holding 主张：(1) 郭女士曾尝试但未能联系到克拉斯纳先生；(2) HD Holding 无需尝试联系王女士，因为她目前在 District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）候审期间被羁押；以及 (3) Romney 律师和 Vartan 律师在试图获取与 HD NY 相关的文件的过程中遭到了 Hodgson Russ 的阻挠拖延。\n\n本法院同意受托人的意见。Romney 声明称，郭女士曾尝试获取 Capital One（第一资本银行）的 HD NY 账户信息，但因「其姓名不在账户上」而被拒绝查阅。(Romney Decl. ¶ 9.) 这与上文讨论的受托人证据 6、7 和 8 相矛盾。(Tr. Exs. 6, 7, 8.) HD Holding 对此矛盾未提供任何合理解释，例如关于郭女士的姓名如何、为何以及何时从该账户中被移除（如果确实被移除的话）的证词。郭声明仅重申 HD Holding 在 Capital One 没有账户，并未讨论尝试查阅 HD NY 账户的情况。(Guo Decl. ¶¶ 6, 13.) 在律师在场的情况下，郭女士仅向 Capital One 询问了关于 HD Holding 的情况——而非 HD NY。(Id. ¶ 13.)\n\nRomney 声明未提及任何联系王女士的尝试。(Romney Decl. ¶ 8.) 同样，郭声明也未提及任何联系王女士的尝试。(Guo Decl. ¶ 5.) 尽管王女士与克拉斯纳先生共同处理 HD Holding 的商业事务。(Id.) 放弃联系王女士背后的理由似乎是她目前在纽约南区候审期间被羁押。(Id.) 然而，该理由并不能支持不作任何联系王女士的尝试。王女士对 HD 实体以及作为 HD Holding 唯一成员身份的郭女士负有义务。HD Holding 可以通过王女士的刑事辩护律师与她取得联系。没有正当理由可以解释为何没有这样做。王女士或许会就关于 HD 实体的文件调取请求援引其反自证其罪的第五修正案权利。如果是这样，受托人有权获得该项记录。\n\nRomney 声明提到了在律师不在场的情况下尝试联系克拉斯纳先生，但声称此类尝试未获成功。(Romney Decl. ¶ 8.) 作为郭女士直接证词提交的郭声明确认了该陈述，并称在律师在场的情况下作出了进一步联系克拉斯纳先生的尝试。(Guo Decl. ¶¶ 5, 12.) 如上所述，郭女士关于其尝试联系克拉斯纳先生的证词不具说服力——在不同时间点，她就自己联系克拉斯纳先生的能力在宣誓后作出了前后矛盾的陈述。(Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 2168, at 85:7–87:22.) 令人关切的是，对于其管理人员之一不就其文件和记录向其唯一成员作出回复，HD Holding 显然表现得漠不关心。这尤其令人关切，因为 HD Holding (a) 是传票的目标对象；(b) 已签署同意强制交出文件的裁定；且 (c) 已被命令说明为何不应被认定为藐视法庭的理由。没有任何迹象表明，除了两次孤立的尝试之外，曾反复尝试联系克拉斯纳先生。(Guo Decl. ¶¶ 5, 12.) 没有任何迹象表明 HD Holding 向克拉斯纳先生送达了传票或对他提起了任何法律程序。\n\n郭女士作证称「真实准确」（Guo Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4）的 Romney 声明讨论了与 Hodgson Russ 之间就 HD NY 以及 HD Holding 在 HD NY 中的权益所进行的一系列沟通。(Romney Decl. ¶¶ 10–25.) 如上所述，本法院根据在案记录认定 HD Holding 是 HD NY 的唯一成员。尽管如此，本法院注意到 Romney 律师的困惑主要集中在究竟是郭女士还是其兄长 Mr. Qiang Guo（郭强先生，下称「郭先生」），亦称 Mr. Mileson Guo，控制了 HD NY 的唯一成员。(Id.) 7 尽管如此，HD Holding 显然没有尝试就此问题联系郭先生以澄清 HD NY 的成员资格。\n\n郭女士的证词和 Romney 声明未能对未遵守《合意裁定书》作出令人满意的解释。如上所述，本法院认定郭女士在就这些问题接受质询时并非可信证人。因此，本法院认定未曾发生过为遵守《合意裁定书》而进行的勤勉尝试。事实上，在案记录表明 HD Holding 明确选择不遵守。\n\n4. HD Holding 已获通知\n\n各方对 HD Holding 已获通知并已被正当送达《合意裁定书》、《破产规则》第 2004 条传票及其他相关诉答文书和裁定不持异议。尽管如此，本法院在下文阐明 HD Holding 是如何被送达并收到通知的。\n\nHD Holding 已被正当送达《破产规则》第 2004 条传票并已知悉该传票。2022 年 12 月 2 日，本法院作出了《第二份补充破产规则第 2004 条裁定》，在相关部分授权针对 HD Holding 发出《破产规则》第 2004 条传票。(ECF No. 1184.) 2022 年 12 月 7 日，针对 HD Holding 的《破产规则》第 2004 条传票送达至 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 3411 Silverside Road, Tatnall Building, Suite 104, Wilmington, DE，系通过当面送达给在该地址获指定有权代受送达的代理人完成。(Luft Decl. Ex. C-7.) 在《合意裁定书》中，HD Holding 约定《破产规则》第 2004 条传票的送达程序是正当合法的。(ECF No. 1896.)\n\nHD Holding 也已被正当送达《藐视法庭动议》并已知悉该动议。2023 年 5 月 23 日，关于《藐视法庭动议》听证会的《听证通知》送达至位于 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 3411 Silverside Road, Tatnall Building #104, Wilmington, DE 19810 的 HD Holding。(ECF No. 1826.)\n\n7 参见前注 4。\n\n2023年6月1日，Romney（罗姆尼）律师在这些合并审理的第11章破产案件中为 HD Holding（HD控股）提交了出庭通知。(ECF No. 1848.) 此后，HD控股已通过向其律师电子送达的电子归档通知（Notices of Electronic Filing）收到了所有相关诉状的送达，包括《同意令》（Consent Order，且HD控股亦为其当事方）、安排2023年7月11日继续举行听证会的各项命令，以及《说明理由令》（Show Cause Order）。因此，HD控股已知晓上述诉状及各项命令。此外，《郭氏声明》（Guo Declaration）亦承认HD控股收到了《说明理由令》。(ECF No. 2092 ¶ 1.)\n\n据此，HD控股已知晓《同意令》及相关听证会、诉状、各项命令以及作为基础的第2004条规则传票（Rule 2004 subpoena）。Gravel, 6 F.4th at 512.\n\n5. HD控股构成藐视法庭\n\n鉴于藐视法庭的全部四项要件均已成立，本法院认定HD控股因未能遵守《同意令》而构成民事藐视法庭。参见 King, 65 F.3d at 1058；Gravel, 6 F.4th at 512。\n\nV. 结论与命令\n\n据此，依据本法院固有的藐视法庭惩戒权以及《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Civ. P.）第 37(b)(1) 条和第 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) 条（通过《康涅狄格区联邦地区法院民事地方规则》（D. Conn. L. Civ. R.）第 37 条及《康涅狄格区联邦破产法院地方规则》（D. Conn. Bankr. L.R.）第 1001-1(a)(1) 条和第 2004-1(a) 条适用），特此\n\n裁定如下：Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司，简称“HD控股”）因未能遵守《关于第11章受托人请求作出裁定认定 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 因未能对第2004条规则传票作出答复而构成民事藐视法庭的动议的同意令》（简称为“《同意令》”）(ECF No. 1896) 而构成民事藐视法庭，该《同意令》强制要求就 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）先生以 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生破产财产的第11章受托人（简称为“受托人”）身份向HD控股送达的第2004条规则传票进行应答性文件提供。若HD控股未能在2024年3月1日或之前消除其藐视法庭行为，受托人可寻求适当的制裁措施。\n\n2024年2月1日订于康涅狄格州布里奇波特（Bridgeport, Connecticut）。","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","Je","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":30,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1184,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1805,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1826,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1848,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1896,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1988,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2009,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2036,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2092,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2168,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2220,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2229,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4313,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:54:34"}