{"id":"court_ctb_3091_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3091,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-04-12","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":"有限异议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #3091（2024-04-12立案）。Blueberry Builders, LLC 对受托人修改撤销权追索程序的动议提出有限异议，主张拟议程序强加了高昂的调解费用并强行推进证据开示，对不知情的善意供应商构成不公。","summary_en":"Limited Objection — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #3091 (filed 2024-04-12). Blueberry Builders, LLC filed a limited objection to the Trustee's motion to modify avoidance action procedures, arguing the proposed rules unfairly burden bona fide vendors with simultaneous discovery and costly mediation while shielding transfer schedules under seal.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*,\n\nDebtors.[1](#page-0-0)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n# **LIMITED OBJECTION OF BLUEBERRY BUILDERS, LLC TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION, PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) AND 363, FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 7016, 7026, AND 9006, AND DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULE 7016-1, TO MODIFY PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO AVOIDANCE CLAIM ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS TO INCLUDE PROCEDURES FOR MEDIATION OF AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nBlueberry Builders, LLC (\"BBB\"), as the defendant in the adversary proceeding captioned *Luc A. Despins v. Blueberry Builders, LLC (In re Ho Wan Kwok), LLC*, Adv. Pro. No. 24-05007 (the \"Adversary Proceeding\"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby objects (this \"Limited Objection\") to (i) the *Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 363, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7016, 7026, and 9006, and District of Connecticut Local Bankruptcy Rule 7016-1, to Modify Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings to Include Procedures for Mediation of Avoidance Actions* [Docket No. 3003] (the \"Motion\") and (ii) the revised proposed order granting the Motion [Docket No. 3035, Ex. A] (the \"Proposed Order\"). [2](#page-0-1) In support of this Limited Objection to the Chapter 11 Trustee's (the \"Trustee\") Motion, BBB respectfully states as follows:\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><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<span id=\"page-0-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Motion or the Proposed Order, as applicable.\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT[3](#page-1-0)**\n\n1. BBB does not object to the approval of avoidance action and mediation procedures generally. As the Trustee noted, such procedures are routinely approved in similar cases to promote efficient administration and expeditious resolution of litigation where, as here, a trustee is prosecuting hundreds of avoidance actions.\n\n2. However, those procedures must not put the thumb on the scale in favor of any litigant or stack the litigation deck against any party. Rather, the purpose of these procedures should be to preserve the rights of all parties while permitting the efficient and cost-effective resolution of disputes. The proposed Amended Procedures contain several provisions that give the Trustee an unfair advantage by foisting burdensome, inappropriate, and expensive procedures on defendants.\n\n3. As set forth in further detail below, the Amended Procedures should be modified to ensure that defendants are not prejudiced. As currently drafted, the Amended Procedures would put many defendants at a significant disadvantage by allowing the Trustee to proceed full bore with discovery against many defendants, such as BBB, while at the same time requiring these defendants to simultaneously engage in costly mediations. This is particularly unfair because the Trustee has had years to develop his strategy and achieve the benefit of economies of scale given the number of adversary proceedings he is prosecuting.\n\n4. Even worse, the Amended Procedures allow the Trustee to sidestep the basic pleading standards under the Federal Rules by filing basic schedules of transfers under seal and then refusing to provide defendants or their counsel unredacted versions of the schedules unless\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> Capitalized terms used in this Preliminary Statement shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the body of the Objection.\n\nthey consent to an extensive, pre-negotiated protective order *for discovery* that goes far beyond the scope of the contents of the complaint. Schedules of transfers contains the most simple and basic level of facts needed to assert the fundamental elements of *the Trustee's prima facie case* and cannot possibly contain confidential information. Without these schedules, an avoidance complaint does not state a claim for relief under Federal Rules 8 and 9. Defendants should not be required to waste time and resources jumping through procedural hoops where the Trustee fails to reveal and allege some of the most basic facts necessary to state a simple claim for relief.\n\n5. The Amended Procedures must be modified to rectify these issues. While it is important to promote an expeditious resolution process, that process must also be fair and reasonable to defendants—and in particular, defendants such as BBB that were bona fide vendors who provided valuable goods and services to entities that were allegedly affiliated with the Debtor, who had no knowledge whatsoever of the fraud alleged in the complaint, and are being sued for relatively modest amounts in the context of the very large dollars involved in the Debtor's bankruptcy case.\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n6. BBB is an entity that is in the business of providing construction services and building services. Without knowledge of the fraudulent scheme that the Trustee has alleged in its Complaint (as defined below) BBB was retained by one or more entities that the Trustee has alleged was an alter ego to the Debtor to perform construction and related services in connection with the renovation of certain office space at 3 Columbus Circle in New York City. Over the course of slightly less than two years, BBB competently and fully performed these requested services (including, in certain instances, retaining and paying certain subcontractors and suppliers) in good faith.\n\n### **A. The Adversary Proceeding**\n\n7. On February 9, 2024, Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 cases (the \"Chapter 11 Cases\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), commenced the Adversary Proceeding by filing his Adversary Complaint and certain exhibits (the \"Schedules\") thereto [Adv. Proc. Docket No. 1], attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (collectively, the \"Complaint\"). The Schedules were filed under seal.\n\n8. The Complaint seeks avoidance and recovery of prepetition and postpetition\n\ntransfers in the aggregate amount of \\$498,972.50. Compl. ¶¶ 1–5.\n\n9. Paragraph 35 of the Complaint provides:\n\nPrior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter ego shell company Lexington, HCHK Technologies, and GFNY, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Prepetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n10. Paragraph 36 of the Complaint provides:\n\nSubsequent to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his shell companies, Lexington and HCHK Property, or otherwise, transferred property of the estate to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Postpetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE B** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n11. On February 14, 2024, the Trustee filed the *Notice of Applicability of*\n\n*Avoidance Action Procedures* [Adv. Proc. Docket No. 4] (the \"Procedures Notice\"), which\n\nprovides that the avoidance action procedures (the \"Original Procedures\") set forth in the *Order*\n\n*Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings* [Docket No. 2578]\n\n(the \"Procedures Order\") is made applicable to and governs the Adversary Proceeding.\n\n12. On March 15, 2024, the Trustee filed the Motion to amend the Original Procedures to incorporate mediation procedures. On March 22, 2024, the Trustee filed a revised Proposed Order further modifying the Original Procedures (the procedures set forth in the revised Proposed Order, the \"Amended Procedures\").\n\n13. On March 22, 2024, counsel to BBB emailed counsel to the Trustee requesting unredacted copies of the Schedules.\n\n14. On March 26, 2024, counsel to the Trustee advised that the Complaint was filed partially under seal because certain information contained in the Schedules is subject to confidentiality designations by one or more third parties pursuant to the *Protective Order* dated October 6, 2022 [Docket No. 923] (the \"Protective Order\"). Counsel to the Trustee further advised that pursuant to the Procedures Order, both BBB and Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, P.C. (\"Pashman\") must execute consents to the Protective Order before the Trustee can provide the unsealed version of the Complaint.\n\n15. As of the date hereof, neither BBB nor Pashman has executed a consent to the Protective Order and therefore have not received an unsealed version of the Complaint.\n\n16. Pursuant to a stipulation entered into between the Trustee and BBB, BBB's deadline to respond to the Complaint (the \"Response Date\") is currently May 15, 2024. *See* Adv. Pro. Docket No. 9.\n\n#### **LIMITED OBJECTION**\n\n17. To be clear: BBB does not object to the approval of avoidance action procedures or mediation generally. However, the Amended Procedures contain several inappropriate and unfair provisions that desperately need to be revised so that the procedures are\n\n5\n\nfair, reasonable and to all parties and do not require defendants to sign away their rights merely to\n\nhave the opportunity to learn of the alleged transfers that are the basis of the Trustee's complaints.\n\n# **I. Defendants Should Not Be Forced to Consent to a Protective Order to Receive an Unsealed Copy of the Complaint, Including Schedules.**\n\n18. Paragraph 2(d) of the Amended Procedures provides as follows (emphasis\n\nadded): [4](#page-5-0)\n\n> To the extent that an Avoidance Complaint (including exhibits) contains information that is designated confidential or highly confidential pursuant to the Protective Order [Main Case ECF No. 923] (the \"Protective Order\") and the Stipulated Addendum to Protective Order [Main Case ECF No. 2460] (the \"P.O. Addendum\"), the Trustee may file the Avoidance Complaint under seal (a \"Sealed Avoidance Complaint\"), provided, however, the Trustee shall file unsealed a copy of the Avoidance Complaint that redacts any information that is designated confidential or highly confidential (a \"Redacted Avoidance Complaint\"). Service of a Redacted Avoidance Complaint shall constitute sufficient service of a complaint as required by Bankruptcy Rule 7004. *Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Protective Order and the P.O. Addendum, upon any Avoidance Defendant and its counsel each executing copies of Exhibit A to the Protective Order and, if applicable, Exhibit A to the P.O. Addendum, the Trustee may provide a copy of the unredacted Avoidance Complaint to such Avoidance Defendant.*\n\n> 19. Here, BBB cannot even obtain the unsealed Complaint without signing (and\n\nrequiring Pashman to sign) the Protective Order. [5](#page-5-1) The Trustee has provided *no authority* for the\n\nproposition that a party must enter into a protective order (let alone a protective order governing\n\nsubsequent discovery) in order to have the privilege of reviewing a complaint so that it may file\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> BBB is aware that this provision of the Avoidance Action Procedures was already approved pursuant to the Procedures Order. However, the Trustee did not commence the Adversary Proceeding until *after* the Procedures Order was entered and therefore BBB did not receive notice or have an opportunity to object. As such, BBB asserts that it is not bound by the Procedures Order.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-1\"></span><sup>5</sup> The Protective Order is problematic for several reasons, including, but not limited to, the following:\n\n<sup>•</sup> Paragraph 5(c) allows *any* party to designate material Confidential or Highly Confidential regardless of whether that party is the producing/disclosing party; however, the disclosing party will almost certainly be in the best position to assess whether information is Confidential/Highly Confidential.\n\n<sup>•</sup> Paragraph 21 provides: \"Nothing in this Order shall affect any Party's rights or obligations unrelated to the confidentiality of Discovery Materials.\" This statement is not accurate because the Protective Order severely impairs BBB's rights. If BBB cannot obtain materials referenced in and central to the Complaint, the Protective Order affects BBB's ability to respond to the Complaint.\n\nan answer or other response. To add insult to injury, the sealed information is, according to the Complaint filed against BBB, just two lists of transfers—information that could not possibly be confidential.\n\n20. Even if the sealed information were confidential (which it is not), there is no authority or valid reason that BBB or Pashman should be required to enter into an overly broad, 19-page confidentiality order regarding *discovery materials* in order to receive a list of transfers attached to a complaint. Nor should a defendant be required to negotiate the terms of a discovery confidentiality agreement (which goes far beyond whatever confidential information may be in a complaint) as a condition of merely receiving an unsealed complaint.\n\n21. Accordingly, the procedures should be modified to provide that, at minimum, to the extent redacted information in the Complaint is a simple schedule of transfers, the Trustee must provide defendants and their counsel with unsealed copies of the transfer schedules without requiring them to sign on to the Protective Order (or any other confidentiality agreement).\n\n## **II. Provision of Unredacted Schedules of Transfers to Defendants Is Required to Satisfy Applicable Rules of Procedure.**\n\n22. Without a schedule of transfers, an avoidance complaint cannot satisfy the requirements in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\") (made applicable to the Adversary Proceeding pursuant to Rules 7008 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\")) that the complaint must state a claim upon which relief may be granted.\n\n23. Federal Rule 8 requires that a complaint must contain \"sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'\" *Ashcroft v. Iqbal*, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting *Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly*, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).\n\n7\n\nAlthough Rule 8(a)(2) does not require a pleading to state the elements of a *prima facie* case, it does require the pleading to \"give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.\" *In re Motors Liquidation Co.*, 576 B.R. 325, 392 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting *Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo*, 544 U.S. 336, 348 (2005)) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). \"Although a court must accept the truth of factual allegations, it need not credit 'a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.'\" *New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. The Royal Bank of Scotland Grp, Plc*, 709 F.3d 109, 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting *Twombly*, 550 U.S. at 555). \"Thus, a pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.\" *Id.* (quoting *Twombly*, 550 U.S. at 555) (internal quotation marks omitted). \"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.\" *Iqbal*, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting *Twombly*, 550 U.S. at 555).\n\n24. Because the Trustee alleges actual fraud in the Complaint, Federal Rule 9(b) also requires him to \"state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.\" \"The rule is designed to provide a defendant with fair notice of a plaintiff's claim, enable preparation of a defense, protect a defendant from harm to his reputation, and reduce the number of strike suits.\" *Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp.*, 12 F.3d 1170, 1175 (2d Cir.1993) (citing *DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Indus.*, 822 F.2d 1242, 1247 (2d Cir.1987). \"To state a plausible claim for an intentional fraudulent transfer under section 548(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff must allege (1) an interest in the debtor's property was transferred; (2) the transfer was made within two years before the petition was filed; and (3) the transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. *Furthermore, the fraud alleged must relate to a specific transfer or payment and not to the overall course of business*.\" *NCA Investors Liquidating Trust v. A. Pappajohn Construction Co.*\n\n*(In re Seaboard Hotel Member Assocs., LLC)*, Adv. Pro. No. 19-5015 (JAM), 2021 WL 4243444, at \\*8 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sept. 16, 2021) (emphasis added) (dismissing fraudulent transfer complaint) (citing *In re Sharp Int. Corp.*, 403 F.3d 43, 56 (2d Cir. 2005)) (internal citations omitted). The elements of an actual fraud claim cannot possibly be satisfied without a schedule of transfers.\n\n## **III. Discovery Should Be Stayed Until Conclusion of Mediation for Certain Defendants.**\n\n25. The Amended Procedures would provide for (a) a stay of Avoidance Actions solely implicating transfers by the Debtor via alter egos (\"Omnibus Alter Egos\") that are at issue 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.* (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. *See Notice of Filing [Revised Proposed] Amended Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings* [Docket No. 3035] at 2. BBB's Adversary Proceeding is listed as an Avoidance Action that would be subject only to a partial stay. *Id.* at Ex. 3-B.\n\n26. The Amended Procedures should provide for a full stay of discovery on *all*  issues while the parties are in mediation so that parties with modest amounts in controversy are not overwhelmed by discovery burdens while they attempt to resolve their adversary proceedings. In addition, due to a desire to reach a resolution (and the mediator's inherent powers), they will have every incentive to provide information sufficient to foster productive settlement discussions with the Trustee. Similarly, initial pretrial conferences should not be scheduled prior to the termination of mediation unless each party consents. The Amended Procedures frustrate the\n\npurpose of mediation by requiring defendants to engage in full-blown litigation discovery on everything except alter ego issues during a process that is intended to promote expeditious and efficient resolutions without burdening the parties with litigation costs.\n\n27. As described above, BBB had an arms' length third-party agreement to provide construction services to one or more entities purportedly controlled by the Debtor. BBB provided those services and was completely unaware of the fraud alleged in the Complaint. Discovery should be stayed entirely for BBB and similarly situated parties that have relatively small amounts at stake; these parties should be permitted to mediate without running up unnecessary litigation expenses. Given the amounts at issue and those defendants' lack of involvement in the Debtor's fraudulent scheme, staying discovery as to all issues will not unfairly prejudice the Trustee because those cases do not involve issues that will affect the proceedings as a whole. Moreover, if the parties cannot settle, all of the Trustee's rights will be preserved to take all the discovery permitted by the Bankruptcy Rules.\n\n28. Furthermore, BBB is aware that other defendants have objected to the Amended Procedures and BBB reserves its rights to join in those arguments at the hearing on the Amended Procedures. Without limitation, BBB agrees that the cost of the mediator should be paid exclusively by the Trustee as the party that brought these adversary proceedings.\n\n### **RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\n29. BBB expressly reserves all of its rights in all respects, including, without limitation, its rights to supplement this Limited Objection, to object to any amended mediation and/or avoidance action procedures proposed by the Trustee or any other party in these chapter 11 cases, and to move for additional and further relief.\n\n10\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3091 Filed 04/12/24 Entered 04/12/24 16:11:51 Page 11 of 13\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\n**WHEREFORE**, BBB requests (i) that the Proposed Order be revised as set forth herein\n\nand (ii) such further and additional relief as the Court deems proper and just.\n\nDefendant Blueberry Builders, LLC\n\nDated: April 12, 2024 By: /s/ David B. Zabel\n\nDavid B. Zabel, Esq. Federal Bar No. ct01382 Marino, Zabel & Schellenberg, PLLC 657 Orange Center Road Orange, CT 06477 Tele: (203) 864-4511 Fax: (203) 456-8249 E-mail: [dzabel@mzslaw.com](mailto:dzabel@mzslaw.com)\n\n*Local Counsel to Blueberry Builders, LLC*\n\n- and –\n\n#### **PASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN, P.C.**\n\nHenry J. Jaffe Gregg H. Hilzer Amy M. Oden 1007 North Orange Street 4th Floor, Suite 183 Wilmington, DE 19801 (201) 488-8200\n\n*Counsel to Blueberry Builders, LLC*\n\n### **CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on April 12, 2024, a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance was filed electronically. Notice of filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system and by mail to any parties who are unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.\n\nParties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\n /s/ David B. Zabel David B. Zabel","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格区（District of Connecticut）布里奇波特分部（Bridgeport Division）\n\n关于：\n\n第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n债务人。[1]\n\n（合并审理）\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nBLUEBERRY BUILDERS, LLC 就第11章受托人依据《美国法典》第11编第105(a)条和第363条（11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 363）、《联邦破产程序规则》（Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure）第7016条、第7026条和第9006条以及《康涅狄格区地方破产规则》（District of Connecticut Local Bankruptcy Rule）第7016-1条提出的修改适用于撤销权诉辩程序以纳入撤销诉讼调解程序的动议提出的有限异议\n\nBlueberry Builders, LLC（“BBB”）作为题为 Luc A. Despins 诉 Blueberry Builders, LLC（In re Ho Wan Kwok），诉辩程序案号 Adv. Pro. No. 24-05007（“诉辩程序”）的诉辩程序中的被告，由其下述签字律师代表，特此对以下事项提出异议（本“有限异议”）：(i)《第11章受托人依据 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) 和 363、《联邦破产程序规则》第7016条、第7026条和第9006条以及《康涅狄格区地方破产规则》第7016-1条提出的修改适用于撤销权诉辩程序以纳入撤销诉讼调解程序的动议》[Docket No. 3003]（“动议”）以及 (ii) 批准该动议的经修订拟定裁定 [Docket No. 3035, Ex. A]（“拟定裁定”）。[2] 为支持对第11章受托人（“受托人”）该动议的本有限异议，BBB 谨陈述如下：\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称为 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及其他诸多化名）（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，以 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人身份（仅用于通知与联络目的）。\n\n2 本文中使用但未另行定义的首字母大写术语，应具有动议或拟定裁定（视情况而定）中赋予它们的含义。\n\n初步陈述[3]\n\n1. BBB 大体上并不反对批准撤销诉讼及调解程序。正如受托人所指出的，在类似案件中，当受托人（如本案般）提起数百起撤销诉讼时，此类程序通常会获得批准，以促进高效管理并迅速解决诉讼。\n\n2. 然而，这些程序绝不能偏袒任何一方诉讼当事人，也不能使任何一方处于不利的诉讼地位。相反，这些程序的目的应当是在允许高效、经济地解决争议的同时，维护各方当事人的权利。拟议的《经修订程序》包含若干条款，通过将繁重、不当且昂贵的程序强加于被告，赋予了受托人不公平的优势。\n\n3. 如下文更详细所述，《经修订程序》应当予以修改，以确保被告的利益不受损害。按照目前的起草方式，《经修订程序》将使许多被告处于显著劣势，因为它允许受托人对包括 BBB 在内的许多被告全力进行证据开示（discovery），同时又要求这些被告同步参与费用高昂的调解。鉴于受托人提起的诉辩程序数量众多，他已有数年时间来制定其策略并获得规模经济效益，因此这尤其不公平。\n\n4. 更糟糕的是，《经修订程序》允许受托人通过将基本转让明细表封存提交，然后拒绝向被告或其律师提供未涂黑版本的明细表，除非\n\n3 本初步陈述中使用的首字母大写术语，应具有本异议正文中赋予它们的含义。\n\n他们同意接受一份范围远远超出诉状内容、广泛且预先协商好的证据开示保护令，从而规避了《联邦民事诉讼规则》规定的基本诉答标准。转让明细表包含主张受托人初步表面证据（prima facie case）成立的基本要素所需的最简单、最基础的事实，绝不可能包含保密信息。缺少了这些明细表，撤销诉状便无法根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第8条和第9条构成支持救济的主张。在受托人未能披露和指控陈述简单救济请求所必需的最基本事实的情况下，不应要求被告浪费时间和资源去应付繁琐的程序关卡。\n\n5. 必须对《经修订程序》进行修改以纠正这些问题。尽管推进迅速解决的程序非常重要，但该程序也必须对被告公平合理——特别是像 BBB 这样的被告，他们作为善意供应商，向据称与债务人有关联的实体提供了有价值的货物和服务，对诉状中所指控的欺诈行为毫不知情，并且在债务人破产案涉及巨额资金的背景下，因相对微不足道的金额而被起诉。\n\n背景\n\n6. BBB 是一家从事建筑服务和施工服务业务的实体。在对受托人在其诉状（定义见下文）中所指控的欺诈计划不知情的情况下，BBB 被受托人指控为债务人另我（alter ego）的一个或多个实体聘用，就纽约市哥伦布圆环3号（3 Columbus Circle in New York City）某些办公空间的装修提供建筑及相关服务。在近两年的时间里，BBB 善意、称职且完整地履行了这些要求的服务（包括在某些情况下聘用并付款给特定分包商和供应商）。\n\nA. 诉辩程序\n\n7. 2024年2月9日，Luc A. Despins 以在上述标题项下 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）的第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中指定的第11章受托人（“受托人”）身份，通过提交其诉辩起诉状及某些附件（“明细表”）[Adv. Proc. Docket No. 1]（作为附件A附于本异议后，统称“诉状”），提起了诉辩程序。明细表系以封存形式提交。\n\n8. 诉状请求撤销并追回总计金额为 $498,972.50 的申请前及申请后转让。诉状第 1–5 段（Compl. ¶¶ 1–5）。\n\n9. 诉状第35段规定：\n\n在申请日之前，债务人利用其另我空壳公司 Lexington、HCHK Technologies 和 GFNY，或通过其他方式，将债务人的财产转让给了被告（统称“申请前转让”），包括但不限于如下内容：\n\n参见作为附件并构成其一部分的附表 A。\n\n10. 诉状第36段规定：\n\n在申请日之后，债务人通过其空壳公司 Lexington 和 HCHK Property，或通过其他方式，将破产财产转让给了被告（统称“申请后转让”），包括但不限于如下内容：\n\n参见作为附件并构成其一部分的附表 B。\n\n11. 2024年2月14日，受托人提交了《撤销诉讼程序适用通知》[Adv. Proc. Docket No. 4]（“程序通知”），其中规定《批准适用于撤销权诉辩程序之程序的裁定》[Docket No. 2578]（“程序裁定”）中规定的撤销诉讼程序（“原程序”）适用于并管辖该诉辩程序。\n\n12. 2024年3月15日，受托人提交了修改原程序以纳入调解程序的动议。2024年3月22日，受托人提交了一份进一步修改原程序的经修订拟定裁定（经修订拟定裁定中规定的程序，即“《经修订程序》”）。\n\n13. 2024年3月22日，BBB 的律师向受托人的律师发送电子邮件，索取未经涂黑的明细表副本。\n\n14. 2024年3月26日，受托人的律师告知，诉状之所以部分封存提交，是因为根据2022年10月6日的保护令 [Docket No. 923]（“保护令”），明细表中包含的某些信息受到一个或多个第三方的保密指定。受托人的律师进一步告知，根据程序裁定，在受托人提供未封存版本的诉状之前，BBB 与 Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, P.C.（“Pashman”）均必须签署对保护令的同意书。\n\n15. 截至本异议提交之日，BBB 和 Pashman 均未签署对保护令的同意书，因此尚未收到未封存版本的诉状。\n\n16. 根据受托人与 BBB 之间达成的约定，BBB 对诉状作出答复的截止日期（“答复日”）目前为2024年5月15日。参见 Adv. Pro. Docket No. 9。\n\n有限异议\n\n17. 明确而言：BBB 大体上并不反对批准撤销诉讼程序或调解。然而，《经修订程序》包含若干不当且不公平的条款，迫切需要进行修改，以使这些程序对所有当事方均公平、合理，且不要求被告仅仅为了有机会了解构成受托人起诉依据的被指控转让，就签字放弃自身的权利。\n\nI. 不应强迫被告同意保护令以获取包括明细表在内的诉状未封存副本。\n\n18. 《经修订程序》第2(d)段规定如下（强调为后加）：[4]\n\n在撤销诉状（包括附件）包含根据《保护令》[主案 ECF No. 923]（“保护令”）和《保护令约定附录》[主案 ECF No. 2460]（“保护令附录”）被指定为保密或高度保密的信息的范围内，受托人可以封存提交撤销诉状（“封存撤销诉状”），但前提是受托人应以未封存形式提交一份涂黑了任何被指定为保密或高度保密信息的撤销诉状副本（“涂黑撤销诉状”）。送达涂黑撤销诉状应构成《破产规则》第7004条所要求的充分诉状送达。尽管《保护令》及《保护令附录》中有任何相反规定，在任何撤销诉讼被告及其律师各自签署《保护令》附件A以及（如适用）《保护令附录》附件A的副本后，受托人可向该撤销诉讼被告提供一份未涂黑的撤销诉状副本。\n\n19. 在本案中，BBB 若不签署（并要求 Pashman 签署）保护令，甚至无法获得未封存的诉状。[5] 对于一方当事人必须签署保护令（更不用说是管辖后续证据开示的保护令）才能享有审阅诉状以便其能够提起……的特权这一主张，受托人未提供任何法律依据。\n\n4 BBB 知悉《撤销诉讼程序》的该项条款已根据《程序裁定》获得批准。然而，受托人是在《程序裁定》作出后才提起诉辩程序的，因此 BBB 未收到通知，也没有机会提出异议。因此，BBB 主张其不受《程序裁定》的约束。\n\n5 该《保护令》存在问题的原因有数项，包括但不限于以下各点：\n\n• 第 5(c) 段允许任何当事人将材料指定为机密（Confidential）或高度机密（Highly Confidential），无论该当事人是否为出示/披露方；然而，披露方几乎必然最适合评估信息是否属于机密/高度机密。\n\n• 第 21 段规定：“本裁定中的任何内容均不得影响任何当事人与证据开示材料保密性无关的权利或义务。”该陈述并不准确，因为《保护令》（Protective Order）严重损害了 BBB 的权利。如果 BBB 无法获得起诉书中所引用且属于核心内容的材料，则《保护令》将影响 BBB 对起诉书作出答辩或其他回应的能力。更令人难以接受的是，根据针对 BBB 提起的起诉书，被封存的信息仅仅是两份转账清单——这些信息根本不可能是机密的。\n\n20. 即使被封存的信息属于机密（事实并非如此），也没有任何法律依据或正当理由要求 BBB 或 Pashman 为接收附于起诉书后的转账清单，而必须签署一份长达 19 页、针对证据开示材料的过于宽泛的保密裁定。被告也不应仅仅为了收到一份未封存的起诉书，就被迫就证据开示保密协议的条款进行谈判（该协议的范围远超起诉书中可能包含的任何机密信息）。\n\n21. 因此，应当对相关程序作出修改，规定至少在起诉书中的涂黑遮蔽信息仅为简单转账明细表的范围内，受托人必须向被告及其律师提供转账明细表的未封存副本，且不得要求其签署《保护令》（或任何其他保密协议）。\nII. 为符合适用的程序规则，必须向被告提供未涂黑遮蔽的转账明细表。\n\n22. 如果没有转账明细表，撤销之诉起诉书便无法满足《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Federal Rules of Civil Procedure，简称“《联邦规则》”）（根据《联邦破产诉讼规则》（Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure，简称“《破产规则》”）第 7008 条适用于本对抗性程序）第 8 条关于起诉书必须阐明可获救济的请求权的主张要求。\n\n23. 《联邦规则》第 8 条要求起诉书必须包含“在被推定为真实的情况下足以‘陈述在表面上具有合理可信性的救济请求’的充分事实依据”。Ashcroft 诉 Iqbal，556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)（引用 Bell Atl. Corp. 诉 Twombly，550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)）。虽然第 8(a)(2) 条不要求诉状陈述表面成立案件的构成要件，但它确实要求诉状“向被告合理告知原告的主张是什么以及该主张所依据的理由”。In re Motors Liquidation Co.，576 B.R. 325, 392 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区破产法院）2017)（引用 Dura Pharms., Inc. 诉 Broudo，544 U.S. 336, 348 (2005)）（引用及内部引号省略）。“虽然法院必须采信事实指控的真实性，但不必采信‘被包装为事实指控的法律结论’。”New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund 诉 The Royal Bank of Scotland Grp, Plc，709 F.3d 109, 120 (2d Cir.（第二巡回上诉法院）2013)（引用 Twombly，550 U.S. at 555）。“因此，提供‘标签和结论’或‘对诉讼请求要件进行公式化背诵’的诉状是不够的。”同上（引用 Twombly，550 U.S. at 555）（内部引号省略）。“当原告陈述的事实内容能够让法院合理推断被告应对所指控的不当行为承担责任时，该请求权便具有表面合理可信性。”Iqbal，556 U.S. at 678（引用 Twombly，550 U.S. at 555）。\n\n24. 由于受托人在起诉书中指控了实际欺诈，《联邦规则》第 9(b) 条还要求其“详细说明构成欺诈的情形”。“该规则旨在向被告合理告知原告的主张，使其能够准备抗辩，保护被告免受名誉损害，并减少敲诈性诉讼的数量。”Mills 诉 Polar Molecular Corp.，12 F.3d 1170, 1175 (2d Cir. 1993)（引用 DiVittorio 诉 Equidyne Extractive Indus.，822 F.2d 1242, 1247 (2d Cir. 1987)）。“为了对第 548(a)(1)(A) 条项下的故意欺诈性转让提出合理可信的主张，原告必须指控：(1) 债务人财产中的权益发生了转让；(2) 转让发生在提交破产申请前两年内；以及 (3) 转让具有阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人的实际意图。此外，所指控的欺诈必须涉及特定的转让或付款，而非整体业务过程。”NCA Investors Liquidating Trust 诉 A. Pappajohn Construction Co. (In re Seaboard Hotel Member Assocs., LLC)，Adv. Pro. No. 19-5015 (JAM)，2021 WL 4243444, at *8 (Bankr. D. Conn.（康涅狄格区破产法院）Sept. 16, 2021)（强调为后加）（驳回欺诈性转让起诉书）（引用 In re Sharp Int. Corp.，403 F.3d 43, 56 (2d Cir. 2005)）（内部引用省略）。如果没有转账明细表，实际欺诈主张的构成要件根本不可能得到满足。\nIII. 对部分被告而言，在调解结束前应当中止证据开示。\n\n25. 《修改后的程序》将规定：(a) 针对仅涉及债务人通过受托人于 2024 年 2 月 15 日提起的统括性确认之诉（即 Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 诉 ACA Capital Group Ltd.（Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249）（“统括性另我对抗性程序”））中所涉另我（“统括性另我”）进行转让的撤销诉讼，予以中止诉讼程序；以及 (b) 针对同时涉及债务人通过统括性另我以及通过较早对抗性程序中所述及的另我进行转让的撤销诉讼，予以部分中止诉讼程序。见《关于提交[修改后的拟议]批准适用于撤销请求权对抗性程序之程序的修改后裁定的通知》[Docket No. 3035]第 2 页。BBB 的对抗性程序被列为仅适用部分中止的撤销诉讼。同上，附件 3-B。\n\n26. 《修改后的程序》应当规定，在当事人进行调解期间，就所有争议事项全面中止证据开示，以使涉案金额较小的当事人在试图解决其对抗性程序时，不至于被沉重的证据开示负担所压垮。此外，出于达成和解的愿望（以及调解员的固有权力），他们将有充分的动力提供足以促进与受托人进行建设性和解讨论的信息。同样地，除非各方当事人均表示同意，否则在调解终止之前不应安排初次审前会议。《修改后的程序》破坏了调解的目的，因为在一个旨在促进快捷高效解决争议、避免当事人承担诉讼成本负担的过程中，它却要求被告就除另我问题之外的所有事项进行全面的诉讼证据开示。\n\n27. 如上所述，BBB 曾订立一项公平交易的第三方协议，向据称由债务人控制的一家或多家实体提供建筑施工服务。BBB 提供了这些服务，并且对起诉书中所指控的欺诈行为完全不知情。对于 BBB 以及具有相对较小涉案金额的类似处境当事人，证据开示应当予以全面中止；应当允许这些当事人在不产生不必要诉讼费用的情况下进行调解。鉴于涉案金额以及这些被告并未参与债务人的欺诈计划，就所有事项中止证据开示不会对受托人造成不公平的偏见，因为这些案件不涉及会影响整个诉讼程序的问题。此外，如果当事人无法达成和解，受托人进行《破产规则》所允许的一切证据开示的所有权利都将得以保留。\n\n28. 此外，BBB 知悉其他被告已对《修改后的程序》提出异议，BBB 保留在《修改后的程序》听证会上加入这些论点的权利。在不作限制的前提下，BBB 同意调解员的费用应完全由提起这些对抗性程序的当事人——受托人承担。\n保留权利\n\n29. BBB 在各方面明确保留其所有权利，包括但不限于补充本《有限异议》的权利、对受托人或这些第 11 章案件中的任何其他当事人所提议的任何修改后的调解和/或撤销诉讼程序提出异议的权利，以及申请其他及进一步救济的权利。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3091 Filed 04/12/24 Entered 04/12/24 16:11:51 Page 11 of 13\n结论\n\n为此，BBB 请求 (i) 按照本文所述对《拟议裁定》进行修改，以及 (ii) 获得法院认为正当且恰当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n被告 Blueberry Builders, LLC\n\n日期：2024 年 4 月 12 日 签署人：/s/ David B. Zabel\n\nDavid B. Zabel, Esq. 联邦律师号：ct01382 Marino, Zabel & Schellenberg, PLLC 657 Orange Center Road Orange, CT 06477 电话：(203) 864-4511 传真：(203) 456-8249 电子邮件：[dzabel@mzslaw.com]\n\nBlueberry Builders, LLC 的当地律师\n\n– 以及 –\nPASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN, P.C.\n\nHenry J. Jaffe Gregg H. Hilzer Amy M. Oden 1007 North Orange Street 4th Floor, Suite 183 Wilmington, DE 19801 (201) 488-8200\n\nBlueberry Builders, LLC 的律师\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于 2024 年 4 月 12 日，上述《出庭通知书》的一份副本已通过电子方式提交。提交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，并根据《电子提交通知》的指示，以邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子提交的任何当事人。\n\n当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本文件。\n\n /s/ David B. Zabel David B. Zabel","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","HCHK","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":923,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2460,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3377,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-04-12 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-04-12","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:42:00"}