{"id":"court_ctb_3087_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3087,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | In re                              | :<br>:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n| In re                              | :<br>:<br>(Chapter 11)               |\n|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al                 | :<br>:<br>CASE NO. 22-50073<br>(JAM) |\n| Debtor.                            | :<br>:                               |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, Chapter 11 Trustee | :<br>:<br>:                          |\n| Plaintiff,                         | :<br>:<br>ADV. PRO. NO. 24-05120     |\n| v.                                 | :<br>:                               |\n| 3 COLUMBUS CIRCLE, LLC             | :<br>:                               |\n| Defendant.                         | :<br>:                               |\n|                                    | :<br>:                               |\n|                                    | :<br>APRIL 12, 2024                  |\n\n# **LIMITED OBJECTION TO TRUSTEE'S PROPOSED AMENDED ORDER APPROVING PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO AVOIDANCE CLAIM ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS**\n\nDefendant, 3 Columbus Circle, LLC (\"3 Columbus Circle\" or the \"Defendant\"), by\n\ntheir undersigned attorneys, hereby submits this Limited Objection to the Proposed\n\nAmended Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary\n\nProceedings (AP No. 6; the \"Proposed Revised Order\") filed by Luc A. Despins, Chapter\n\n11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\"), for Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"). In support of its objection,\n\nDefendant states as follows.\n\n#### Background\n\n1. On February 11, 2024, the Trustee commenced an adversary proceeding against Defendant to avoid what were alleged to be certain unauthorized post-petition transfers of estate property by an alleged alter ego of the debtor (HCHK Property Management, Inc.) to Defendant for the lease of commercial office space at 3 Columbus Circle, which was leased pursuant to a written lease agreement. (AP No. 1).1 See also Order Approving 9019 Settlement, Adversary Case No. 23-5013, AP No. 70 (Approving Order permitting stating that Assignee would be permitted to secure the Columbus Circle offices, notify the landlord of the intention to vacate (when appropriate), and arrange for the storage and/or disposition of the Columbus Circle assets).\n\n2. On March 18, 2024, the Trustee filed a Motion for Order seeking to Modifying Avoidance Action Procedures to include Procedures for Mediation of Avoidance Actions (AP No. 5) to include additional procedures to address inevitable case management issues that were likely to arise as result of the Trustee commencing approximately 270 adversary proceedings on the eve to the February 2024 avoidance action deadline.\n\n3. On March 22, 2024, the Trustee filed a Notice of Revised Proposed Order wherein, among other things, the Trustee listed various adversary proceedings that would be subject to a stay of proceedings.\n\n4. Therein, the Trustee sought: \"(a) a stay of Avoidance Actions solely implicating transfers by the Debtor via alter egos (\"Omnibus Alter Egos\") that are at\n\n<sup>1</sup> Among other entities bearing the HCHK designation, HCHK Property Management, Inc. is the subject of Adversary Proceeding No. 23-05013 (the \"HCHK Adversary Proceeding\").\n\nissue in the Trustee's omnibus declaratory judgment action filed February 15, 2024, i.e., *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. ACA Capital Group Ltd, et al*. (Adv. Proc. No. 24- 05249) (the \"Omnibus Alter Ego Adversary Proceeding\"); and (b) a partial stay of Avoidance Actions that implicate both transfers by the Debtor via Omnibus Alter Egos and via alter egos addressed in earlier adversary proceedings (i.e., Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., Greenwich Land LLC, HCHK Property Management, Inc., HCHK Technologies, Inc., Lexington Property and Staffing Inc. . . .)\". (Emphasis added.) AP No. 6, pp. 3-4.2\n\n5. Incorporated into the Proposed Revised Order are various schedules that identify which adversary proceedings the Trustee seeks to stay.\n\n6. The present adversary proceeding is among those that the Trustee does not seek to stay despite the underlying theory of liability being based on conduct of an alleged alter ego, HCHK Property Management, Inc., as referenced in the underlying motion.3\n\n# Defendant's Limited Objection\n\n7. As stated in the motion for stay, the Trustee wishes \"to prevent any possibility of interference with the Debtor's pending Criminal Case, in which trial will soon be commencing.\" Adversary Case No. 24-05249, No. 7, p.10. The Trustee further\n\n<sup>2</sup> In a corresponding footnote, the Trustee states: \"The partial stay applies solely to legal or factual issues concerning whether the Omnibus Alter Egos were alter egos of the Debtor and/or whether the property of such entities was property of the Debtor and/or of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\"\n\n<sup>3</sup> An order of default entered against HCHK Property Management, Inc. for failing to respond to the adversary complaint. *See* HCHK Adversary Proceeding, AP No. 139, 263. The bankruptcy court's denial of HCHK's request to set aside the judgment is presently subject to appeal. *See* HCHK Adversary Proceeding, AP No. 270, 275.\n\nacknowledges that, \"[g]iven the issues and the number of defendants involved, the simultaneous pursuit of these adversary proceedings would be administratively taxing on the parties and on the Court.\" *Id.*\n\n8. As the present adversary proceeding implicates purported transfers by the Debtor via an alleged alter ego entity that is presently the subject of earlier adversary proceedings, and that concerns itself with purported transfers by the Debtor via an alleged alter ego, that is relevant to the Debtor's criminal case and its prosecution, *see* Superseded Indictment, *U.S. v. Kwok, et al*., 23-cr-118, No. 215 (January 3, 2024), the rationale articulated by the Trustee for staying the alter ego adversary proceedings is equally applicable to this case.\n\n9. For avoidance action defendants, such as 3 Columbus Circle, whose sole fault in this case happened to be the unfortunate luck of having engaged in an arm's length transactions with an alleged alter ego of the Debtor, Defendants request that the Trustee not place the cart before the horse, thereby forcing the Defendant to incur the legal expenses in its defense when many of the issues necessary to prove the Trustee's theory are either stayed, subject to a criminal proceeding, or on appeal.\n\n10. While the Defendant understands the demands on the Trustee and circumstances surrounding this case, given the rationale above as well as the presence of a defense with a strong likelihood of a successful in this matter, a stay of the present action is appropriate as it would allow the Trustee additional time to consider the defenses that may be raised by Defendant, thereby saving the estate the costs associated with pursuing an action in which the outcome is uncertain.\n\n4\n\n11. Additionally, Defendant joins in the objections raised by other parties pertaining to the proposed mediation process in that it fails to provide clarity on the hourly rate attributed to the panel mediators or whether those rates would be subject to any reasonable cap. *See* Main Case, ECF No. 3083. While the Defendant is not opposed in theory to mediation, these are cost that should be born by the estate not by the avoidance action defendants.\n\n12. Accordingly, the Defendant objects to the Revised Proposed Order in so far as it fails to include the Defendant among those actions that it seeks to stay.\n\n# DEFENDANT, 3 COLUMBUS CIRCLE LLC\n\nBy: *Matthew Pesce*\n\nRobert Kaelin (ct11631) Matthew Pesce (ct31208) Murtha Cullina LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 240-6036 rkaelin@murthalaw.com mpesce@murthalaw.com *Counsel for 3 Columbus Circle LLC*\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on April 12, 2024 a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n*/s/ Matthew Pesce\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_*","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关于：\n（第 11 章）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人，\n原告，\n对抗诉讼案号：24-05120\n诉\n3 COLUMBUS CIRCLE, LLC，\n被告。\n\n2024年4月12日\n关于受托人提议的批准适用于撤销之诉对抗程序规程之修订命令的有限异议\n\n被告 3 Columbus Circle, LLC（“3 Columbus Circle”或“被告”），由其下述签字律师代表，特此对 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），即 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）提交的《关于批准适用于撤销之诉对抗程序规程的提议修订命令》（AP No. 6；“提议修订命令”）提出本有限异议。为支持其异议，被告陈述如下。\n\n背景\n\n1. 2024年2月11日，受托人对被告提起对抗诉讼，旨在撤销据称由债务人被指称的另我主体（HCHK Property Management, Inc.）向被告作出的、用于租赁 3 Columbus Circle 商业办公空间的若干未经授权的申请后破产财产转让，该租赁系依据一份书面租赁协议进行。（AP No. 1）。1 亦参见《批准9019和解的命令》，对抗案件案号：23-5013，AP No. 70（批准命令，准许并说明受让人将被允许控制 Columbus Circle 办公室、通知房东腾退意图（在适当时机），并安排 Columbus Circle 资产的存放和/或处置）。\n\n2. 2024年3月18日，受托人提交了一份《关于修改撤销诉讼规程以纳入撤销诉讼调解规程的命令动议》（AP No. 5），以增加额外规程，解决因受托人在2024年2月撤销诉讼截止日期前夕提起约270起对抗诉讼而可能不可避免产生的案件管理问题。\n\n3. 2024年3月22日，受托人提交了一份《提议修订命令通知》，其中受托人列出了将受到诉讼中止约束的各类对抗诉讼等内容。\n\n4. 在该文件中，受托人请求：“(a) 中止仅涉及受托人于2024年2月15日提起的综合宣告性判决诉讼中所涉债务人通过另我主体（‘综合另我主体’）进行转让的撤销诉讼，即 Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. ACA Capital Group Ltd, et al.（Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249）（‘综合另我对抗诉讼’）；以及 (b) 部分中止同时涉及债务人通过综合另我主体转让以及通过早期对抗诉讼中涉及的另我主体（即 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.、Greenwich Land LLC、HCHK Property Management, Inc.、HCHK Technologies, Inc.、Lexington Property and Staffing Inc. ……）转让的撤销诉讼。”（强调为原文所加。）AP No. 6，第 3-4 页。2\n\n1 在带有 HCHK 名称的其他实体中，HCHK Property Management, Inc. 是对抗诉讼第 23-05013 号（“HCHK 对抗诉讼”）的主体。\n\n5. 提议修订命令中合并了多份附表，用于确定受托人请求中止哪些对抗诉讼。\n\n6. 本对抗诉讼属于受托人不请求中止的诉讼之一，尽管其潜在的责任理论是基于基础动议中所提及的据称另我主体 HCHK Property Management, Inc. 的行为。3\n\n被告的有限异议\n\n7. 如中止动议所述，受托人希望“防止对债务人即将开始审判的待决刑事案件产生任何干扰的可能性”。对抗案件案号：24-05249，No. 7，第 10 页。受托人进一步\n\n2 在相应的脚注中，受托人声明：“部分中止仅适用于有关综合另我主体是否为债务人的另我主体和/或此类实体的财产是否为债务人和/或债务人第 11 章破产财产的法律或事实问题。”\n\n3 针对 HCHK Property Management, Inc. 未能对对抗诉状作出答复已作出缺席裁定。参见 HCHK 对抗诉讼，AP No. 139, 263。破产法院驳回 HCHK 撤销判决请求的决定目前正处于上诉阶段。参见 HCHK 对抗诉讼，AP No. 270, 275。\n\n承认，“鉴于所涉及的问题和被告人数，同时进行这些对抗诉讼将给各方当事人和法院带来沉重的行政负担。”同上。\n\n8. 鉴于本对抗诉讼涉及债务人通过目前作为先前对抗诉讼主体的据称另我实体所进行的据称转让，且其本身涉及债务人通过据称另我主体进行的据称转让，这与债务人的刑事案件及其起诉相关，参见《替代起诉书》，U.S. v. Kwok, et al., 23-cr-118, No. 215（2024年1月3日），受托人提出的中止另我对抗诉讼的理由同样适用于本案。\n\n9. 对于像 3 Columbus Circle 这样的撤销诉讼被告而言，其在本案中唯一的过错恰好是不幸与债务人据称的另我主体进行了公平独立交易，被告请求受托人不要本末倒置，从而在证明受托人理论所必需的许多问题要么被中止、要么处于刑事诉讼中、要么处于上诉状态时，强迫被告承担应诉的法律费用。\n\n10. 虽然被告理解对受托人的要求以及围绕本案的情况，但鉴于上述理由以及在本案中存在极有可能胜诉的抗辩，中止本诉讼是适当的，因为这将使受托人有额外的时间考虑被告可能提出的抗辩，从而为破产财产节省因进行一项结果不确定的诉讼而产生的相关费用。\n\n11. 此外，被告支持其他当事人就提议的调解程序提出的异议，因为该程序未能明确指定调解人小组的小时费率，也未明确这些费率是否会受到任何合理的上限限制。参见主案件，ECF No. 3083。虽然被告在理论上并不反对调解，但这些费用应由破产财产承担，而不是由撤销诉讼被告承担。\n\n12. 因此，被告对提议修订命令提出异议，因为该命令未能将本案列入其请求中止的诉讼之中。\n\n被告，3 COLUMBUS CIRCLE LLC\n\n签署人：Matthew Pesce\n\nRobert Kaelin (ct11631)\nMatthew Pesce (ct31208)\nMurtha Cullina LLP\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n(860) 240-6036\nrkaelin@murthalaw.com\nmpesce@murthalaw.com\n3 Columbus Circle LLC 之代理律师\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于2024年4月12日，上述文件的副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运行，通过电子邮件发送给所有当事人，以及根据电子提交通知所示无法接受电子提交的任何人。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本文件。\n\n/s/ Matthew Pesce_________","key_entities":["Je","HCHK","Kwok","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":3083,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1212,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:48:39"}