{"id":"court_ctb_3089_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3089,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | In re:                              | Chapt","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|                                     |                                    |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, |                                    |\n| Plaintiff,                          |                                    |\n| v.                                  | Adv. Proceeding No. 24-05015 (JAM) |\n| FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC,              |                                    |\n| Defendant.                          |                                    |\n|                                     |                                    |\n\n# **LIMITED OBJECTION TO PROPOSED AMENDED ORDER APPROVING PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO AVOIDANCE CLAIM ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS**\n\nFox News Network, LLC (\"FNN\") hereby objects to the motion of the Trustee to modify\n\nthe Court'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*\n\n#### **OBJECTION**\n\nFNN does not object to mediation in this case. Nor does FNN 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 FNN. As shown below, FNN 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\n\nAvoidance Defendants with the opportunity to object to substantive determinations that the Trustee\n\nor the Bankruptcy Judge supervising the Mediation Procedures, Hon. James J. Tancredi, will make.\n\nBelow 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 substantive provisions of the Mediation Procedures, including the\n\n*Actions*, filed by the Trustee on March 15, 2024, at ECF Doc. No 3003, in the Debtors' Chapter 11 Case (Case No. 22-50073), and on March 18, 2024, at ECF Doc. No. 6, in the separate FNN Avoidance Action (Case No. 24-05015).\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 FNN'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 FNN on March 22, 2024 (Case No. 24-05015, at ECF No. 12).\n\ncategorization 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 providing notice or an opportunity to be heard to Avoidance Defendants.\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 FNN.\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\n\nallow 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, FNN 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, Connecticut\n\n# FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP\n\nBy: /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\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 Fox News Network, LLC*\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（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：第11章（Chapter 11）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1 联合审理\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章破产受托人，\n原告，\nv. 对抗性程序案号：24-05015 (JAM)\nFOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC（福克斯新闻网络有限责任公司），\n被告。\n\n对批准适用于撤销权诉讼对抗性程序之拟议修正裁定书的有限异议\n\nFox News Network, LLC（福克斯新闻网络有限责任公司，简称“FNN”）特此对破产受托人的动议（下称“动议”）2提出异议，该动议旨在修改法院先前作出的《批准适用于撤销权诉讼对抗性程序之程序的裁定》（ECF No. 3003）（下称“《撤销程序裁定》”），除其他事项外，以纳入若干调解程序。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Guo、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, 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\n2 受托人在债务人的第11章案件及相关撤销权诉讼的案卷中均提交了该动议。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）中提交的《修改撤销权诉讼程序以纳入撤销诉讼调解程序之裁定的动议》（ECF Doc. No 3003），以及于 2024年3月18日在单独的 FNN 撤销权诉讼（案号：24-05015）中提交的该动议（ECF Doc. No. 6）。\n\n异议\n\nFNN 不反对本案进行调解。FNN 在总体上也不反对拟议《修改后裁定》3（下称“《调解程序》”）中列明的调解程序。然而，受托人拟议的某些《调解程序》未能向包括 FNN 在内的撤销诉讼被告提供充分的保护。如下所述，FNN 谨此主张，拟议的《调解程序》应进一步予以修改，以保护撤销诉讼被告的权利，并特此恳请法院以本异议所附附件 A 的形式作出受托人《修改后裁定》的修改版本。4\n\n调解程序未就重大事项提供通知或异议机会\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·坦克雷迪阁下）将作出的实体性裁定提出异议的机会。示例如下：\n\n- 《修改后裁定》第 2(l) 条如获作出，将授权 Tancredi 法官下令合并“相关”调解程序，而无需向受此合并影响的撤销诉讼被告提供任何通知或时间，以供其就将其自身主张的调解与据称“相关”的其他撤销诉讼被告之主张的调解进行合并提出异议。\n\n- 《修改后裁定》第 2(r) 条允许受托人就《调解程序》实质性条款的实施（包括撤销权诉讼的分类和/或 Tancredi 法官向法院提出的任何建议）与 Tancredi 法官进行单方面沟通（ex parte communications）。\n\n3 本文未另行定义的首字母大写术语应具有动议中赋予该等术语的含义。\n\n4 本有限异议的附件 A 包含一份修订标记件（blackline），显示了 FNN 对受托人于 2024年3月22日在针对 FNN 的撤销权诉讼（案号：24-05015，ECF No. 12）中提交的《修改后裁定》版本所包含之《调解程序》提出的拟议修改。\n\n- 《修改后裁定》第 2(y) 条还允许受托人制定撤销权诉讼主张的类别，并允许 Tancredi 法官提出法院可在不向撤销诉讼被告提供通知或陈述意见机会的情况下裁定采纳的建议。\n\n2. 在被告未主动采取行动的情况下，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主动采取行动才能免受可能具有重大商业影响的程序的约束。例如，撤销诉讼被告可能希望避免与竞争对手共享保密信息，并认为在合并会议中泄露信息的风险过高。法院至少应批准允许其根据这些关切逐案审查是举行联合调解会议还是举行单次独立会议的程序。未能在诸如合并撤销权诉讼调解等事项上提供合理通知和陈述意见的机会，可能会对包括 FNN 在内的撤销诉讼被告的权利造成严重损害。\n\n3. 应当赋予撤销诉讼被告对受托人、Tancredi 法官或调解小组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单独提出动议。要求撤销诉讼被告通过向法院提出动议才能就这些问题个别陈述意见，不仅会造成案卷堵塞，而且与要求通知和提出异议相比会引起更大的延误。设定一个明确的异议截止日期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，将比分别提交动议和排期审理更为高效。\n\n4. 调解是在脱离《破产规则》（Bankruptcy Rules）、《本地规则》（Local Rules）以及《联邦证据规则》（Federal Rules of Evidence）保护的情况下进行的过程。要求撤销诉讼被告向法院提出动议以应对可能对其业务产生实质性影响的决定，也构成了将确保《调解程序》公平且无偏见实施的举证负担进行了不当转移。受托人和调解员如果希望采用替代性争议解决机制，就必须确保程序的公正；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》任意限制了撤销诉讼被告对指定特定调解员提出异议的权利。按照受托人的提议，《修改后裁定》第 2(n) 条仅允许以潜在利益冲突为由对指定的调解员提出异议。然而，可能还存在其他令人信服的理由表明某位调解员是不合适的。例如，某位调解员可能发表过显示其反对撤销诉讼被告立场的文章；或者某位调解员可能在过去的欺诈性转让调解中因倾向于某一特定立场而闻名。没有任何正当理由去限制撤销诉讼被告对指定特定调解员提出异议的权利，这样做只会阻碍调解成功的机会。《修改后裁定》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，也没有理由强制要求客户必须出席调解会议。《修改后裁定》第 2(s) 条规定，调解会议“应由具有完全和解授权的被告代表出席”。这种现场出席的要求只会降低这些会议的灵活性。根据争议金额的大小，撤销诉讼被告的代表亲自出席调解会议在经济上可能并不合理。由律师出席调解会议，并允许客户代表远程出席或随时准备提供和解授权而无需亲自到场出席会议，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现场出席且其他替代方案切实可行的情况下，免除撤销诉讼被告亲自出席调解会议的负担。\n\n结论\n\n在实践中，确保对各方都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，FNN 谨请法院在未按照本异议附件 A 所述对《调解程序》进行修改的情况下，驳回该动议。\n\n日期：2024年4月12日 康涅狄格州斯坦福\n\nFINN DIXON & HERLING LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ Henry P. Baer, Jr.\nHenry P. Baer, Jr.\nFINN DIXON & HERLING LLP\nSix Landmark Square\nStamford, CT 06901-2704\n电话：(203) 325-5000\n传真：(203) 325-5001\n电子邮箱：hbaer@fdh.com\n\n以及\n\nMINTZ & GOLD LLP\n\nAndrew R. Gottesman（特许出庭律师，pro hac vice）\nMintz & Gold LLP\n600 Third Avenue, 25th Floor\nNew York New York 10016\n电话：(212) 696-4848\n传真：(212) 696-1231\n电子邮箱：gottesman@mintzandgold.com\n\nFox News Network, LLC（福克斯新闻网络有限责任公司）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，前述文件的一份副本已通过电子方式提交，并通过邮寄方式送达给无法接受电子提交的任何人。本提交事项的通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运行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无法接受电子提交的任何人。当事人可通过法院系统查阅此份提交文件。\n\n/s/ Henry P. Baer, Jr.\nHenry P. Baer, Jr.\nFINN DIXON & HERLING LLP\nSix Landmark Square\nStamford, CT 06901-2704\n电话：(203) 325-5000\n传真：(203) 325-5001\n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":1557,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:57:38"}