{"id":"court_ctb_3088_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3088,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","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.1                                                              | Jointly Administered               |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,<br>Plaintiff,<br>v.<br>MARCUM LLP, | Adv. Proceeding No. 24-05229 (JAM) |\n| Defendant.                                                             |                                    |\n\n## **LIMITED OBJECTION TO PROPOSED AMENDED ORDER APPROVING PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO AVOIDANCE CLAIM ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS**\n\nMarcum LLP (\"Marcum\") hereby objects to the motion of the Trustee to modify the\n\nCourt's previously entered *Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim*\n\n*Adversary Proceedings* (ECF No. 3003) (the \"Avoidance Procedures Order\") to provide for the\n\ninclusion of certain Mediation Procedures, among other things (the \"Motion\").<sup>2</sup>\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these Chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Trustee filed the Motion on the docket of both the Debtors' Chapter 11 Case and the related Avoidance Actions. See *Motion for Order Modifying Avoidance Action Procedures to Include Procedures for Mediation of Avoidance Actions*, filed by the Trustee on March 15, 2024, at ECF Doc. No 3003, in the Debtors' Chapter 11 Case (Case No.\n\n### **OBJECTION**\n\n Marcum does not object to mediation in this case. Nor does Marcum object—in general to the mediation procedures outlined in the proposed Revised Order<sup>3</sup> (the \"Mediation Procedures\"). However, certain of the Trustee's proposed Mediation Procedures do not provide sufficient protections for the Avoidance Defendants, including Marcum. As shown below, Marcum respectfully asserts that the proposed Mediation Procedures should be modified further to protect the rights of the Avoidance Defendants and hereby respectfully requests the entry of a modified version of the Trustee's Revised Order in the form attached to this Objection as **Exhibit A**. 4\n\n## **The Mediation Procedures Do Not Allow for Notice or Objections on Important Issues**\n\n1. The Trustee's version of the proposed Mediation Procedures fails to provide Avoidance Defendants with the opportunity to object to substantive determinations that the Trustee or the Bankruptcy Judge supervising the Mediation Procedures, Hon. James J. Tancredi, will make. Below are some examples:\n\n- Section 2(l) of the Revised Order, if entered, would authorize Judge Tancredi to order the consolidation of \"related\" Mediation Proceedings without providing any notice or time for the Avoidance Defendants affected by such a consolidation to object to consolidating the mediation of their own claims with the mediation of other, purportedly \"related\" Avoidance Defendants' claims.\n- Section 2(r) of the Revised Order allows the Trustee to conduct *ex parte* communications with Judge Tancredi concerning the implementation of\n\n<sup>22-50073),</sup> and on March 18, 2024, at ECF Doc. No. 6, in the separate Marcum Avoidance Action (Case No. 24- 05229).\n\n<sup>3</sup> Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Motion.\n\n<sup>4</sup> **Exhibit A** to the instant Limited Objection contains a blackline showing Marcum's proposed changes from the Mediation Procedures that were included in the version of the Revised Order filed by the Trustee in the Avoidance Action against Marcum on March 22, 2024 (Case No. 24-05229, at ECF No. 12).\n\nsubstantive provisions of the Mediation Procedures, including the categorization of Avoidance Actions and/or any recommendations issued by Judge Tancredi to the Court.\n\n• Section 2(y) of the Revised Order also allows the Trustee to devise categories of Avoidance Action claims and Judge Tancredi to issue recommendations that the Court may order without needing notice or an opportunity to be heard.\n\n2. Failure to provide notice and an opportunity to file objections to substantive decisions affecting the rights of an Avoidance Defendant, absent affirmative action by such a defendant, deprives the Avoidance Defendants of due process. Avoidance Defendants should not be required to take affirmative action to avoid procedures which could have significant business implications. For example, Avoidance Defendants may wish to avoid sharing confidential information with competitors and believe the risk of disclosure to be too high in a consolidated session. At a minimum, the Court should approve procedures that allow it to consider on a caseby-case basis whether to hold joint mediation sessions on the one hand, or one-off sessions on the other, based on these concerns. Failing to provide reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard on matters such as consolidating the mediation of Avoidance Actions risks serious prejudice to the rights of Avoidance Defendants, including Marcum.\n\n3. Avoidance Defendants should be afforded the right to object to and be heard on all substantive determinations made by the Trustee, Judge Tancredi, or any other member of the Mediation Panel without requiring a separate motion in each instance. Requiring the Avoidance Defendants to move the Court to be heard on these issues individually will clog the docket and cause far more delay than requiring notice and objections. One defined objection deadline and one hearing to allow the Court to rule on substantive determinations by the Trustee or mediator will be more streamlined than having individual motions filed and scheduled.\n\n4. Mediation is a process that occurs outside the protections of the Bankruptcy Rules, the Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Requiring Avoidance Defendants to move the Court to address decisions that may have a substantive effect on their business also impermissibly shifts the burden of ensuring fair and unbiased implementation of the Mediation Procedures. The Trustee and the mediators must ensure a fair process if they wish to require an alternative dispute resolution mechanism; that cannot and must not be the burden or the responsibility of the Avoidance Defendants.\n\n#### **The Mediation Procedures Limit The Right of Defendants to Object to Mediators**\n\n5. The current version of the Mediation Procedures arbitrarily limits the rights of Avoidance Defendants to object to the assignment of a particular mediator. As proposed by the *Trustee*, Section 2(n) of the Revised Order allows objections to an assigned mediator solely on a potential conflict of interest. But there may be other compelling reasons to believe a meditator is objectionable. For example, a mediator may have published articles that indicate a resistance to an Avoidance Defendant's position. Or a mediator may have developed a reputation for siding with one particular position in past fraudulent transfer mediations. There is no legitimate reason to limit the rights of an Avoidance Defendant to object to the assignment of a specific mediator, and doing so only hinders the chance of a successful mediation. Section 2(n) of the Revised Order should be modified accordingly.\n\n#### **The Mediation Procedures Place an Unnecessary Burden on Defendants**\n\n6. There is similarly no reason to require the attendance of clients at mediation sessions. Section 2(s) of the Revised Order provides that mediation sessions \"shall be attended by a representative of the Defendant [with] full settlement authority.\" This in-person attendance requirement only reduces the flexibility of those sessions. Depending on the amount at issue, it may not make economic sense for a representative of the Avoidance Defendant to appear at a mediation session personally. It is not uncommon to have counsel attend mediation sessions and allow client representatives to appear remotely or be available to provide settlement authority without attending the session in person. Section 2(s) should, therefore, be revised accordingly to relieve Avoidance Defendants of the burden of personal attendance at mediation sessions in instances where the mediator is satisfied that in-person attendance is unnecessary and other alternatives are practicable.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nPractically, having procedures that ensure fairness to all parties will only enhance the potential for successful mediation. Mediation procedures that limit parties' rights without substantial purpose do the opposite. Accordingly, Marcum respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion absent a modification of the Mediation Procedures as set forth on **Exhibit A** to this Objection.\n\nDated: April 12, 2024 Stamford, CT\n\n# FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP\n\nBy: /s/ Henry P. Baer, Jr.\n\nHenry P. Baer, Jr. FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP Six Landmark Square Stamford, CT 06901-2704 Tel: (203) 325-5000 Fax: (203) 325-5001 E-mail: hbaer@fdh.com\n\nand\n\nMINTZ & GOLD LLP\n\nAndrew R. Gottesman (*pro hac vice*) Mintz & Gold LLP 600 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York New York 10016 Tel: (212) 696-4848 Fax: (212) 696-1231 E:mail: gottesman@mintzandgold.com\n\n*Attorneys for Marcum LLP*\n\n### **CERTIFICATION**\n\nI hereby certify that on April 12, 2024 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.\n\n> /s/ Henry P. Baer, Jr. Henry P. Baer, Jr. FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP Six Landmark Square Stamford, CT 06901-2704 Tel: (203) 325-5000 Fax: (203) 325-5001 E-mail: hbaer@fdh.com","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：第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1 联合审理\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人，\n原告，\n诉\nMARCUM LLP（马库姆有限责任合伙）， 破产衍生诉讼案号：24-05229 (JAM)\n被告。\n对拟议批准适用于撤销权诉讼对抗性程序之程序的修正裁定书之有限异议\n\nMarcum LLP（马库姆有限责任合伙，简称「Marcum」）特此对受托人修改本法院此前作出的《批准适用于撤销权诉讼对抗性程序之程序的裁定》（ECF No. 3003）（简称《撤销程序裁定》）以纳入若干调解程序及其他事项的动议（简称《动议》）提出异议。2\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 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）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 破产财产受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于通知与通讯目的）。\n\n2 受托人已在债务人的第 11 章案件及相关撤销诉讼的案卷中均提交了《动议》。参见受托人于 2024 年 3 月 15 日在债务人第 11 章案件（案号：22-50073）中提交于 ECF Doc. No 3003 的《关于修改撤销诉讼程序以纳入撤销诉讼调解程序之裁定的动议》，以及于 2024 年 3 月 18 日在单独的 Marcum 撤销诉讼（案号：24-05229）中提交于 ECF Doc. No. 6 的该动议。\n\n异议\n\nMarcum 对本案中的调解并无异议。Marcum 对拟议《修改裁定》3 中概述的调解程序（简称《调解程序》）总体上亦无异议。然而，受托人拟议的某些《调解程序》未能向包括 Marcum 在内的撤销诉讼被告提供充分的保护。如下文所示，Marcum 谨主张拟议的《调解程序》应作进一步修改以保护撤销诉讼被告的权利，并特此谨请求本法院按照随本异议作为附件 A 所附形式录入受托人《修改裁定》的修改版本。4\n\n《调解程序》未就在重要问题上发出通知或提出异议作出规定\n\n1. 受托人版本的拟议《调解程序》未能向撤销诉讼被告提供就受托人或监督调解程序的破产法官 Hon. James J. Tancredi（詹姆斯·J·坦克雷迪法官阁下）将作出的实体性裁定提出异议的机会。以下为若干示例：\n\n- 《修改裁定》第 2(l) 条若获录入，将授权 Tancredi 法官命令合并「相关」调解程序，而无需发出任何通知，亦不为受此类合并影响的撤销诉讼被告提供时间以就将其自身诉求的调解与其他据称「相关」的撤销诉讼被告之诉求的调解相合并提出异议。\n- 《修改裁定》第 2(r) 条允许受托人就《调解程序》实体性条款的实施（包括撤销诉讼的分类和/或 Tancredi 法官向法院出具的任何建议）与 Tancredi 法官进行单方面沟通。\n\n3 本文未作另行定义的专有名词首字母大写术语应具有《动议》赋予该等术语的含义。\n\n4 本有限异议之附件 A 包含一份修订对比件，显示了 Marcum 对受托人于 2024 年 3 月 22 日在针对 Marcum 的撤销诉讼（案号：24-05229，ECF No. 12）中提交的《修改裁定》版本所包含之《调解程序》提出的拟议修改。\n\n- 《修改裁定》第 2(y) 条亦允许受托人设计撤销诉讼诉求的类别，并允许 Tancredi 法官出具法院可直接下令实施而无需发出通知或提供陈述意见机会的建议。\n\n2. 在被告未采取积极行动的情况下，未能就影响撤销诉讼被告权利的实体性决定提供通知及提出异议的机会，剥夺了撤销诉讼被告的正当程序权利。不应要求撤销诉讼被告必须采取积极行动来规避可能具有重大商业影响的程序。例如，撤销诉讼被告可能希望避免与竞争对手共享机密信息，并认为在合并调解庭审中披露信息的风险过高。法院至少应当批准允许其根据这些关切逐案审查是举行联合调解庭审还是举行单独庭审的程序。若未能就合并撤销诉讼调解等事项提供合理的通知及陈述意见的机会，将面临严重损害包括 Marcum 在内的撤销诉讼被告权利的风险。\n\n3. 应当赋予撤销诉讼被告就受托人、Tancredi 法官或调解委员会任何其他成员作出的所有实体性裁定提出异议并陈述意见的权利，而无需在每种情况下均提起单独动议。要求撤销诉讼被告向法院提起动议以就这些问题逐一陈述意见，将阻塞案卷并造成远超要求通知和异议程序所带来的延误。设定一个明确的异议截止期限并举行一次听证会以供法院就受托人或调解员作出的实体性裁定作出裁决，将比分别提交和排期审理单独动议更加精简高效。\n\n4. 调解是发生在《破产程序规则》、《本地规则》和《联邦证据规则》保护范围之外的程序。要求撤销诉讼被告向法院提起动议以应对可能对其业务产生实质影响的决定，亦不当地转嫁了确保《调解程序》公平且不带偏见地实施的举证负担。如果受托人和调解员希望要求采用替代性争议解决机制，他们就必须确保程序的公平性；这不能也绝不应当成为撤销诉讼被告的负担或责任。\n\n《调解程序》限制了被告对调解员提出异议的权利\n\n5. 当前版本的《调解程序》武断地限制了撤销诉讼被告对指定特定调解员提出异议的权利。按照受托人的拟议，《修改裁定》第 2(n) 条仅允许基于潜在的利益冲突对指定的调解员提出异议。然而，可能有其他令人信服的理由认为某位调解员是不适当的。例如，调解员可能发表过表明其对撤销诉讼被告立场持抵触态度的文章。或者，调解员可能因在以往的欺诈性转让调解中倾向于某一特定立场而建立起名声。没有任何正当理由来限制撤销诉讼被告对指定特定调解员提出异议的权利，且这样做只会妨碍成功调解的机会。《修改裁定》第 2(n) 条应作相应修改。\n\n《调解程序》给被告施加了不必要的负担\n\n6. 同样没有理由强制要求当事人亲自出席调解庭审。《修改裁定》第 2(s) 条规定，调解庭审「应由具有完全和解决定权的被告代表出席」。这一亲自出席的要求只会降低该等庭审的灵活性。根据涉案金额的不同，撤销诉讼被告的代表亲自出庭参加调解庭审可能在经济上并不合理。由律师出席调解庭审，并允许当事人代表远程出席或随时待命以提供和解授权而无需亲自到场，这种做法并不少见。因此，第 2(s) 条应作相应修改，以在调解员确信无需亲自到场且其他替代方式可行的情况下，免除撤销诉讼被告亲自出席调解庭审的负担。\n\n结论\n\n在实践中，确保各方公平的程序只会增加成功调解的可能性。无实质目的而限制当事人权利的调解程序则会适得其反。因此，Marcum 谨请求法院在未按本异议附件 A 所载对《调解程序》作出修改的情况下，驳回《动议》。\n\n日期：2024 年 4 月 12 日 康涅狄格州斯坦福德\nFINN DIXON & HERLING LLP（芬恩·迪克森与赫林有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ Henry P. Baer, Jr.\n\nHenry P. Baer, Jr. FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP Six Landmark Square Stamford, CT 06901-2704 电话：(203) 325-5000 传真：(203) 325-5001 电子邮箱：hbaer@fdh.com\n\n以及\n\nMINTZ & GOLD LLP（明茨与高德有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n\nAndrew R. Gottesman（特许临时出庭律师） Mintz & Gold LLP 600 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York New York 10016 电话：(212) 696-4848 传真：(212) 696-1231 电子邮箱：gottesman@mintzandgold.com\n\nMarcum LLP 之代理律师\n\n证明书\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，并已通过邮寄方式送达给任何无法接受电子提交的人员。本提交文件的通知将通过本法院电子提交系统的运作以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人，或通过邮寄方式发送给任何无法接受电子提交的人员。各方当事人均可通过本法院系统查阅本提交文件。\n\n/s/ Henry P. Baer, Jr. Henry P. Baer, Jr. FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP Six Landmark Square Stamford, CT 06901-2704 电话：(203) 325-5000 传真：(203) 325-5001 电子邮箱：hbaer@fdh.com","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Despins","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":12,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3003,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1532,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:57:16"}