{"id":"court_ctb_3093_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3093,"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\nIN RE:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al.,\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nDebtors.\n\n# DEFENDANT LEICESTER HILL INFROMATICES LLC'S RESPONSE TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO MODIFY PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO AVOIDANCE CLAIM ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS TO INCLUDE PROCEDURES FOR MEDIATION OF AVOIDANCE ACTIONS\n\nLeicester Hill Infromatices LLC, the defendant in Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Leicester Hill Infromatices LLC., Adversary Proceeding No. 24-05074 (the \"Movant\"), respectfully submits this response (the \"Response\") to the Motion, Pursuant to 1 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) And 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 [ECF No. 3003] filed by Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\") in the above-captioned bankruptcy matter.\n\n## PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\nMovant does not object to conducting mediation in these cases. However, the Motion includes mediation provisions that would prevent the defendants from conducting discovery prior to the mediation. Movant considers that such provisions should be revised prior to entry of any Order approving the Motion.\n\n#### RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY\n\n1. with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Court\") a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n2. unsecured creditors (\"Committee\") in this Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed in the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n3. No. 465] (the \"Trustee Order\") directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to the Trustee Order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee.\n\n4. Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7016, 7026, and 9006, and District of Connecticut Local Bankruptcy Rule 7016-1, to Approve Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings [ECF No. 2532] (the \"Avoidance Procedures Motion\"). The Trustee requested that the Court approve Avoidance Action Procedures to govern numerous Avoidance Actions contemplated by the Trustee.\n\n5. To Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings [ECF No. 2578] (the \"Avoidance Procedures Order\") granting the Trustee's Avoidance Procedures Motion.\n\n6. The Trustee commenced adversary proceedings to avoid and recover certain prepetition and postpetition transfers (the \"Avoidance Actions\"). On February 10, 2024, the\n\nTrustee filed the Complaint against the Movant, seeking to avoid transfers as alleged fraudulent conveyances.\n\n7. On March 15, 2024, the Trustee filed the Motion.\n\n8. On March 22, 2024, the Trustee filed the Notice of Filing [Revised Proposed] Amended Order Approving Procedures Applicable To Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings [ECF No. 3035] (the \"Proposed Amended Order\").\n\n9. On March 22, 2024, the Trustee filed a Scheduling Order Regarding Trustee's Motion to Modify Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings to Include Procedures For Mediation of Avoidance Actions [ECF No. 3037] (the \"Scheduling Order\").\n\n10. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, any responses to the Motion and/or any Supplemental Filings (i.e., any revised proposed order with respect to the Motion) shall be made in writing and filed on or before April 12, 2024. Therefore, this Response is timely.\n\n#### MOVANT'S ARGUMENTS\n\n#### The Parties Should be Allowed to Conduct Discovery Prior to Mediation\n\n11. Pursuant to 12 (h) of the Motion and Proposed Amended Order, soon after the deadline to respond to the Complaints, the parties shall confer pursuant to Civil Rule 26(f) and, thereafter, the parties shall file a joint proposed scheduling order governing discovery, summary judgment, and other pretrial proceedings, subject to Court approval.\n\n12. However, pursuant to 92 (i) of the Motion and Proposed Amended Order, upon the filing of a response to the Complaint, the Avoidance Action shall be automatically referred to mediation, and the Avoidance Action shall be \"stayed.\"\n\n13. The Motion and Proposed Amended Order are unclear as to whether this stay of the Adversary Proceeding will also stay the discovery deadlines agreed upon by the parties in their\n\njoint scheduling order. However, the Defendants assume that the discovery deadlines will be subject to stay and, therefore, the parties will not be able to conduct discovery while the mediation process is pending.\n\n14. The discovery process serves the important purposes of expediting the litigation, identifying and narrowing issues, uncovering facts, preserving evidence for trial, and expediting trial preparation by committing parties or witnesses to particular versions of facts.\n\n15. Moreover, the discovery process also encourages settlements by educating the parties as to the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases, exposing doubtful claims or defenses, and providing information for an informed case evaluation.\n\n16. In the Adversary Proceedings, the Trustee asserts four causes of actions against the Movant, involving: 1) Avoidance and Recovery of Actual Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550(a); 2) Avoidance and Recovery of Actual Fraudulent Transfers pursuant to New York state law; 3) Avoidance and Recovery of Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §§ 548(a)(1)(B) and 550(a); and 4) Avoidance and Recovery of Constructive Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to New York state law.\n\n17. We consider that the facts recited in the Complaint in support of the Trustee's causes of action do not provide the Movant with the necessary particularity concerning the specific nature of the fraud claims alleged against the Movant. \"In alleging fraud . . . a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Novak v. Rogers (In re Rogers), Nos. 18-20833 (JJT), 19-02018 (JJT), 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 5, at \\*12 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 5, 2021). In addition, a necessary element for the constructive fraudulent conveyance claims is that the transfer involves a \" ... debtor's interest in property ... \" Katz v. Anderson (In re Anderson),\n\n623 B.R. 199, 215 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2020). However, based on the allegations in the Complaint, it is not clear that the alleged transfers to the Movant involved Debtor's interest in property.\n\n18. In other words, the Movant does not know why it is being sued by the Trustee. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the Movant can only make an educated guess as to the reasons why the Trustee brought actions against them.\n\n19. Notwithstanding this situation, it appears defendants would be forced to spend time, costs and attorney's fees in participating in a mediation process, without sufficient discovery or without reliable means to fully obtain evidence and understand the facts of the case to defend against such claims.\n\n20. Movant has a well-founded fear that the Avoidance Action and its potential resolution would not be advanced by having discovery restricted prior to conducting mediation.\n\n21. Movant considers that conducting mediation without any discovery would be a futile exercise. Movant would need to conduct some form of discovery to address the Trust's claims against Movant.\n\n22. Therefore, Movant would be severely disadvantaged in the mediation process if it were forced to participate without conducting any form of discovery under such circumstances.\n\n23. Other bankruptcy courts have approved procedures orders implementing mediation procedures in which the defendants can opt out of the mediation, or allowed the parties to conduct informal discovery pending the mediation. See In re Southern Foods Group, LLC, et al., case No. 19-36313-DRJ (Bankr. S.D. Tex. April 20, 2009), ECF No. 3646, p. 2 (Defendants had the option not to opt into the mediation program); In re Sears Holdings Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-\n\n23538-RDD (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2019), ECF No. 6282, Exh. 2, p. 15 (\"Procedures order included language incorporated by the Debtor in Possession stating that the parties could exchange documents and information informally in an attempt to resolve the avoidance actions prior to the mediation); In re Port Neches Fuels, LLC, Case No. 22-10500-CTG (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 21, 2023), ECF No. 211, p. 3 (same).\n\n24. Accordingly, the Movant respectfully requests that the Motion and Proposed Amended Order be revised to allow all defendants to opt out of the mediation process until after discovery is completed, or to allow the parties to conduct either formal or informal discovery prior to the mediation.\n\nWHEREFORE, the Movant respectfully requests that the Court (i) revise the Proposed Amended Order according to this Response, and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: April 12, 2024.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nLAW OFFICES OF RONALD I. CHORCHES, LLC. By: /s/ Ronald I. Chorches Ronald I. Chorches, Esq. Fed Bar #ct08720 Law Offices of Ronald I. Chorches, LLC 82 Wolcott Hill Rd Wethersfield, CT 06109 Tel: (860) 563-3955/Fax: (860) 513-1577 Email: ronchorcheslaw@sbcglobal.net Counsel for the Movant Leicester Hill Infromatices LLC\n\n## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nIN RE:\n\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al.,\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors.\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nOn April 12, 2024, the foregoing was filed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case using the Court's case management/electronic case files system (\"CM/ECF\"). Notice of this filing was sent via email automatically by operation of CM/ECF on the date hereof to all copies appearing in the above-captioned chapter 11 case eligible to receive electronic notice.\n\nDated: April 12, 2024 Wethersfield, Connecticut\n\n# LAW OFFICES OF RONALD I. CHORCHES, LLC.\n\nBy: /s/ Ronald I. Chorches Ronald I. Chorches, Esq. Fed Bar #ct08720 Law Offices of Ronald I. Chorches, LLC 82 Wolcott Hill Rd Wethersfield, CT 06109 Tel: (860) 563-3955/Fax: (860) 513-1577 Email: ronchorcheslaw@sbcglobal.net Counsel for Movant Leicester Hill Infromatices LLC","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相关案件：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并审理）\n\n债务人。\n\n被告 LEICESTER HILL INFROMATICES LLC 对第 11 章托管人关于修改适用于撤销权主张对抗性诉讼程序的动议（以纳入撤销诉讼调解程序）的回应\n\nLuc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Leicester Hill Infromatices LLC.，对抗性诉讼案号 24-05074 中的被告 Leicester Hill Infromatices LLC（“动议人”），谨对第 11 章托管人（“托管人”）Luc A. Despins 在上述破产案件中提交的《根据 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) 及《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 7016、7026 和 9006 条以及《康涅狄格区本地破产规则》第 7016-1 条关于修改适用于撤销权主张对抗性诉讼程序的动议（以纳入撤销诉讼调解程序）》[ECF No. 3003]（“动议”）提交本回应（“回应”）。\n\n初步声明\n\n动议人并不反对在这些案件中进行调解。然而，该动议包含阻止被告在调解前进行证据开示的调解条款。动议人认为，在作出任何批准该动议的命令之前，应修改此类条款。\n\n相关背景与诉讼历程\n\n1. 向 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）（“法院”）提交了根据《破产法典》第 11 章寻求救济的自愿破产申请。\n\n2. 本第 11 章案件中的无担保债权人（“委员会”）。在本第 11 章案件中未指定审查员。\n\n3. No. 465]（“托管人命令”），指示美国受托人（United States Trustee）在本第 11 章案件中指定一名第 11 章托管人。根据托管人命令，美国受托人选定 Luc A. Despins 为托管人。\n\n4. 根据《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 7016、7026 和 9006 条以及《康涅狄格区本地破产规则》第 7016-1 条提交了《关于批准适用于撤销权主张对抗性诉讼程序的动议》[ECF No. 2532]（“撤销程序动议”）。托管人请求法院批准撤销诉讼程序，以规制托管人拟提起的诸多撤销诉讼。\n\n5. 适用于撤销权主张对抗性诉讼程序[ECF No. 2578]（“撤销程序命令”），准许了托管人的撤销程序动议。\n\n6. 托管人提起了对抗性诉讼，以撤销并追回某些申请前和申请后的财产转移（“撤销诉讼”）。2024年2月10日，托管人对动议人提起起诉书，寻求以涉嫌欺诈性转让为由撤销财产转移。\n\n7. 2024年3月15日，托管人提交了该动议。\n\n8. 2024年3月22日，托管人提交了《关于提交[修订拟议]批准适用于撤销权主张对抗性诉讼程序修改命令的通知》[ECF No. 3035]（“拟议修改命令”）。\n\n9. 2024年3月22日，托管人提交了《关于托管人修改适用于撤销权主张对抗性诉讼程序以纳入撤销诉讼调解程序之动议的排期命令》[ECF No. 3037]（“排期命令”）。\n\n10. 根据排期命令，对动议的任何回应及/或任何补充文件（即针对动议的任何修订拟议命令）均应以书面形式提出，并于2024年4月12日或之前提交。因此，本回应是及时的。\n\n动议人的主张\n各方应获准在调解前进行证据开示\n\n11. 根据动议及拟议修改命令第 2(h) 段，在对起诉书作出回应的截止日期后不久，各方应根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 26(f) 条进行协商，其后，各方应提交一份规制证据开示、即决判决及其他审前程序的联合拟议排期命令，由法院审批。\n\n12. 然而，根据动议及拟议修改命令第 2(i) 段，在对起诉书提交回应后，撤销诉讼应自动移交调解，且撤销诉讼应被“中止”。\n\n13. 动议及拟议修改命令并未明确说明对抗性诉讼的这一中止是否也将中止各方在其联合排期命令中商定的证据开示截止日期。然而，被告推断证据开示截止日期将被中止，因此，在调解程序进行期间，各方将无法进行证据开示。\n\n14. 证据开示程序具有加快诉讼进程、确定并缩小争议焦点、揭示事实、为庭审保全证据以及通过使当事人或证人确立特定事实版本来加快庭审准备的重要作用。\n\n15. 此外，证据开示程序还通过让各方了解各自案情的优势与弱点、暴露存疑的诉求或抗辩，并为知情评估案情提供信息，从而促进和解。\n\n16. 在对抗性诉讼中，托管人对动议人主张了四项诉由，涉及：1）根据《破产法典》第 548(a)(1)(A) 和 550(a) 条撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让；2）根据纽约州法律撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让；3）根据《破产法典》§§ 548(a)(1)(B) 和 550(a) 撤销并追回推定欺诈性转让；以及 4）根据纽约州法律撤销并追回推定欺诈性转让。\n\n17. 我们认为，起诉书中支持托管人诉由所叙述的事实，并未向动议人提供有关针对动议人所指控的欺诈主张具体性质的必要细节。“在指控欺诈时……当事人必须具体说明构成欺诈的情由。”《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 9(b) 条。Novak v. Rogers (In re Rogers), Nos. 18-20833 (JJT), 19-02018 (JJT), 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 5, at *12 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 5, 2021)。此外，推定欺诈性转让主张的一个必要构成要件是该转让涉及“……债务人在财产中的权益……”Katz v. Anderson (In re Anderson), 623 B.R. 199, 215 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2020)。然而，根据起诉书中的指控，并不清楚向动议人所作的涉嫌转让是否涉及债务人在财产中的权益。\n\n18. 换言之，动议人不知为何被托管人起诉。根据起诉书中的指控，动议人只能对托管人为何对其提起诉讼的原因作出合理猜测。\n\n19. 尽管存在这种情况，被告似乎将被迫投入时间、费用和律师费来参与调解程序，而在缺乏充分证据开示的情况下，或者在没有可靠途径充分获取证据并了解案件事实以抗辩此类主张的情况下参与调解。\n\n20. 动议人有充分理由担心，在进行调解前限制证据开示将无助于推进撤销诉讼及其潜在解决。\n\n21. 动议人认为，在没有任何证据开示的情况下进行调解将是徒劳之举。动议人需要进行某种形式的证据开示，以应对托管机构针对动议人的主张。\n\n22. 因此，在此类情况下，如果动议人被迫在未进行任何形式的证据开示的情况下参与调解程序，将处于极其不利的地位。\n\n23. 其他破产法院已批准了实施调解程序的程序命令，其中被告可以选择退出调解，或者允许各方在调解期间进行非正式证据开示。参见 In re Southern Foods Group, LLC, et al., case No. 19-36313-DRJ (Bankr. S.D. Tex. April 20, 2009), ECF No. 3646, p. 2（被告有权选择不加入调解计划）；In re Sears Holdings Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-23538-RDD (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2019), ECF No. 6282, Exh. 2, p. 15（“程序命令包含了占有中债务人纳入的措辞，规定各方可以非正式地交换文件和信息，以试图在调解前解决撤销诉讼”）；In re Port Neches Fuels, LLC, Case No. 22-10500-CTG (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 21, 2023), ECF No. 211, p. 3（同前）。\n\n24. 因此，动议人谨请求对动议及拟议修改命令进行修改，以允许所有被告选择退出调解程序，直至证据开示完成之后，或者允许各方在调解前进行正式或非正式的证据开示。\n\n据此，动议人谨请求法院 (i) 根据本回应修改拟议修改命令，并给予法院认为公正妥当的此类其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2024年4月12日。\n\n谨呈，\n\nLAW OFFICES OF RONALD I. CHORCHES, LLC.\n签署人：/s/ Ronald I. Chorches\nRonald I. Chorches, 律师\n联邦律师执业号 #ct08720\nLaw Offices of Ronald I. Chorches, LLC\n82 Wolcott Hill Rd\nWethersfield, CT 06109\n电话：(860) 563-3955/传真：(860) 513-1577\n电子邮箱：ronchorcheslaw@sbcglobal.net\n动议人 Leicester Hill Infromatices LLC 之法律顾问\n\nUNITED 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相关案件：\n\n第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n（合并审理）\n\n送达证明\n\n2024年4月12日，前述文件已使用法院的案件管理/电子案卷系统（“CM/ECF”）在上述第 11 章案件中提交。本提交通知已于本日通过 CM/ECF 系统的运作，自动通过电子邮件发送给上述第 11 章案件中出现且有资格接收电子通知的所有主体。\n\n日期：2024年4月12日 康涅狄格州韦瑟斯菲尔德\nLAW OFFICES OF RONALD I. CHORCHES, LLC.\n\n签署人：/s/ Ronald I. Chorches\nRonald I. Chorches, 律师\n联邦律师执业号 #ct08720\nLaw Offices of Ronald I. Chorches, LLC\n82 Wolcott Hill Rd\nWethersfield, CT 06109\n电话：(860) 563-3955/传真：(860) 513-1577\n电子邮箱：ronchorcheslaw@sbcglobal.net\n动议人 Leicester Hill Infromatices LLC 之法律顾问","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":211,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2532,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2578,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3003,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3035,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3037,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3646,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":6282,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1564,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:56:25"}