{"id":"court_ctb_3641_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3641,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re Chapter 11","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,**\n\n**[1](#page-0-0) Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\n**Debtor. Re: ECF 3559**\n\n# **UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO SEALING BY CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT**\n\n**\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_**\n\nWilliam K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (the \"United States Trustee\"), through counsel, respectfully submits this objection to the motion of Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins (\"Chapter 11 Trustee\") to compromise with Wildes & Weinberg, P.C. (\"W&W\") settling the Estates[2](#page-0-1) claims against W&W (ECF 3559) (\"W&W Settlement Motion\"). The United States Trustee objects to the sealing and redaction of the W&W Settlement Motion on the grounds the Chapter 11 Trustee has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 107(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 9018, as well as the presumption of public access provided under Section 107(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. In support of this objection, the United States Trustee states as follows:\n\n### **I. FACTS**\n\n1. On September 19, 2024, the Chapter 11 Trustee filed the W&W Settlement Motion seeking approval of a compromise and settlement agreement with W&W. ECF 3559. The W&W Settlement Motion was also filed in the pending adversary proceeding known as\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtors in the main Chapter 11 case are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok) (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.\n\n<span id=\"page-0-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> *See* footnote 1.\n\n*Despins v. Wildes & Weinberg, P.C.*, Adv. Proc. 24-5187 (\"Adversary Proceeding\") at ECF 14.\n\n2. The Chapter 11 Trustee filed the W&W Settlement Motion in a redacted form, sealing the salient settlement terms. ECF 3559. The W&W Settlement Motion is redacted/sealed at ¶ 10, 13(a), 13(c), 13(d), as well as sealing the entirety of the settlement agreement with W&W at Exhibit B. *Id.* The filings in the Adversary Proceeding were similarly sealed/redacted.\n\n3. The Chapter 11 Trustee provided the United States Trustee with an unredacted full copy of the W&W Settlement Motion.\n\n4. Paragraph 21 of the W&W Settlement Motion states that sealing/redaction is appropriate because the \"Trustee believes (a) public disclosure of the settlement terms would harm the Estate, and (b) the settlement terms constitute commercially sensitive and otherwise confidential information.\" *See* W&W Settlement Motion at ¶ 21 (ECF 3559). Paragraph 21 goes on to state that \"disclosure would prejudice the Trustee's ability to resolve similar claims against other defendants and potential defendants; and the terms are otherwise confidential because the Settlement Agreement negotiated by the Parties provides for their confidentiality to be maintained.\" *Id.*\n\n5. The W&W Settlement Motion also relies on the Court's order entered on May 2, 2024 at ECF 3163 (\"Mediation Procedures Order\") as a basis for the filing of the W&W Settlement Motion in a sealed/redacted form. *See* W&W Settlement Motion at ¶ 21 (ECF 3559). The Mediation Procedures Order at paragraph 2(w) on page 10 provides the following regarding sealing settlements:\n\nw. If the Mediator's Report indicates that the Mediation Proceedings resulted in a settlement and the settlement requires approval of the Court, the Trustee shall file a motion requesting such approval within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the Mediator's Report. The Trustee may submit a motion seeking such approval under seal (with access limited to the Trustee, the relevant Avoidance Defendant, the Official Committee of\n\nUnsecured Creditors, and the United States Trustee) to the extent the Trustee believes that public disclosure of the settlement terms would harm the estate and/or would implicate commercially sensitive or otherwise confidential information public disclosure of which would prejudice parties to the settlement. Where a motion is filed under seal, the Trustee shall file on the public docket a copy of the motion that redacts any commercially sensitive or otherwise confidential information.\n\n6. While not specifically referenced in the W&W Settlement Motion, the\n\nsupplemental order entered on August 28, 2024 at ECF 3465 (\"Supplemental Mediation\n\nProcedures Order\") is also relevant. The Supplemental Mediation Procedures Order at paragraph\n\n2(v) on pages 2-3 provides the following regarding sealing settlements:\n\nv. Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a Pre-Litigation/Pre-Appearance Settlement Report, the Trustee shall file a motion requesting the Court's approval of the Pre-Litigation/Pre-Appearance Settlement and attaching the Pre-Litigation/Pre-Appearance Settlement Report. Such motion and Pre-Litigation/Pre-Appearance Settlement Report may be filed under seal, upon notice to counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the United States Trustee, if the Trustee believes that public disclosure of the settlement terms would harm the Estate and/or would implicate commercially sensitive or otherwise confidential information disclosure of which would prejudice the Consent Mediation Parties. As to any motion filed under seal, the Trustee shall file on the public docket a copy of the motion that redacts any commercially sensitive or otherwise confidential information.\n\n7. As the Court is aware, the United States Trustee has previously signaled that the\n\nsealing of settlements in this case is a live issue and one that could be brought to the Court if, and\n\nwhen, a sealed settlement was pursued by the Chapter 11 Trustee. [3](#page-2-0) The obligation of the Chapter\n\n11 Trustee to meet the requirements of Section 107 and Rule 9018 remains in force and effect,\n\nand has not been met by the contents of the W&W Settlement Motion.\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> The United States Trustee made this point at the hearing held on April 23, 2024 during which the Court considered the motion (ECF 3003) that lead to the entry of the Mediation Procedures Order, and then again at the hearing held on August 27, 2024 during which the Court considered the motion (ECF 3396) that lead to the entry of the Supplemental Mediation Procedures Order.\n\n#### **II. ARGUMENT**\n\n#### **A. The Bankruptcy Code presumes a public right of access to all filed documents.**\n\nThere is a longstanding presumption and strong public policy favoring public access to court records. *See, e.g.*, *Nixon v. Warner Commc'n, Inc*., 435 U.S. 589, 597–98, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); *Mirlis v. Greer*, 952 F.3d 51, 60-61 (2d Cir. 2020); *In re Neal*, 461 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir.2006); *In re Borders Group, Inc*., 462 B.R. 42, 46 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011). Section 107 of the Bankruptcy Code codifies this presumption of public access to all documents filed in a bankruptcy case or with a bankruptcy court. Section 107(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that all papers \"filed in a case under this title . . . are public records and open to examination\" by the public. 11 U.S.C. § 107(a). Section 107 applies to any document filed in any bankruptcy case. *Gitto v. Worcester Tel. & Gazette Corp. (In re Gitto Global Corp.)*, 422 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2005).\n\nThe presumption of transparency in bankruptcy proceedings provided in Section 107 of the Bankruptcy Code reflects the critical need for public confidence and government accountability: \"[t]his policy of open inspection, codified generally in Section 107(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, evidences Congress's strong desire to preserve the public's right of access to judicial records in bankruptcy proceedings.\" *Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Orion Pictures Corp. (In re Orion Pictures Corp.)*, 21 F.3d 24, 26 (2d Cir. 1994). \"A court's ability to limit the public's right to access remains an extraordinary measure that is warranted only under rare circumstances as 'public monitoring is an essential feature of democratic control.'\" *In re Anthracite Capital, Inc*., 492 B.R. 162, 171 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting *Geltzer v. Anderson Worldwide, S.C*., 2007 WL 273526, at \\*2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2007)). The presumption of open access, as codified in Section 107(a), \"'is based on the need for federal courts . . . to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the\n\nadministration of justice . . . .'\" *Geltzer v. Anderson Worldwide, S.C*., 2007 WL 273526, at \\*2 (quoting *United States v. Amodeo*, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).\n\n# **B. The Chapter 11 Trustee bears the burden of proving that the information to be sealed is a trade secret or other protected confidential information or is of a scandalous or defamatory nature.**\n\nSection 107(b) of the Bankruptcy Code restricts public access to documents filed in a case or with the bankruptcy court to two narrow categories of information: (1) trade secrets and other confidential research, development, or commercial information; and (2) scandalous or defamatory matters. 11 U.S.C. § 107(b). The procedure to invoke the Court's power under Section 107 is provided in Bankruptcy Rule 9018. In pertinent part, Bankruptcy Rule 9018 provides:\n\n> On motion or on its own initiative, with or without notice, the court may make any order which justice requires (1) to protect the estate or any entity in respect of a trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information, (2) to protect any entity against scandalous or defamatory matter contained in any paper filed in a case under the Code, or (3) to protect governmental matters that are made confidential by statute or regulation . . .\n\nFed. R. Bankr. P. 9018. The language of Section 107(b) intrinsically conditions the extraordinary relief being sought by the requesting party on the basis that such party provides the court with specific factual and legal authority demonstrating that the particular document at issue is properly classified as \"confidential\" or \"scandalous.\" *In re Anthracite Capital, Inc*., 492 B.R. at 171; *In re Continental Airlines, Inc.* 150 B.R. 334, 240-341 (D. Del. 1993).\n\nConvincing a court to seal documents is a heavy burden. *In re Orion Pictures Corp.*, 21\n\nF.3d at 27. In most cases, a judge must carefully and skeptically review sealing requests to insure that there really is an extraordinary circumstance or compelling need. *Id*.; *See also City of Hartford v. Chase*, 942 F.2d 130, 135-136 (2d Cir. 1991). Indeed, a broad allegation of harm, without specific examples or articulated reasoning, is insufficient. *Miller v. Indiana Hosp.,* 16\n\nF.3d 5419, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (*citations omitted*) (decided under the common law, not section 107). Rather, the movant must show \"sufficient threat of irreparable harm\" before information will be sealed, and specificity is essential. *Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen,* 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984) (*citing Stamicarbon, N.V. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.*, 506 F.2d 532, 539-42 (2d Cir.1974)). Harm that is only speculative cannot support a sealing order. *In re Itel Corp.*, 17 B.R. 942 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1982).\n\nWith respect to obtaining an order sealing documents, D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 5(e), made applicable by D. Conn. LBR 1001-1(b), provides that \"[a]ny such order sealing a judicial document shall include particularized findings demonstrating that sealing is supported by clear and compelling reasons and is narrowly tailored to serve those reasons.\" D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 5(e) also notes that \"[a] statute mandating or permitting the non-disclosure of a class of documents (e.g., personnel files, health care records, or records of administrative proceedings) provides sufficient authority to support an order sealing such documents.\"\n\nLastly, several courts that have considered trustee requests to seal entire settlements in bankruptcy cases have rejected them. *See, e.g., In Oldco M. Corp.*, 466 B.R. 234, 236 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012); *In re Quality Sales, LLC,* Case No. 12-20008 at ECF 368 (Bankr. Conn. March 31, 2016, Nevins, J.). This is because \"where a party acts in a fiduciary capacity for another, such as a trustee in a bankruptcy case, '[t]he public interest in openness of court proceedings is at its zenith.'\" *In Oldco M. Corp.*, 466 B.R. at 236 (quoting *In re Food Mgmt. Grp., LLC,* 359 B.R. 543, 553 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)).\n\n### **C. The Chapter 11 Trustee has not met his burden for sealing under Section 107(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 9018.**\n\nIn its current form, the W&W Settlement Motion does not fall within the parameters of Section 107(b)(1) and Bankruptcy Rule 9018. Settlement terms are generally not protected\n\n\"commercial information.\" *See In re Thomas*, 58 B.R. 385, 392-393 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2018) (collecting cases). Information, merely because it relates to business affairs, does not automatically cause it to be considered \"commercial.\" *In re Anthracite Capital, Inc. 492* B.R. at 178 (quoting *In re Northwest Airlines Corp,* 363 B.R. 704, 706 n.4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)). \"Confidential . . . commercial information\" is information that would cause \"an unfair advantage to *competitors* by providing them information as to the commercial operations of the debtor.\" *In re Orion Pictures Corp.,* 21 F.3d at 27 (emphasis added) (quoting *Ad Hoc Protective Comm. for 10 ½ Debenture Holders v. Itel Corp. (In re Itel Corp.)* 17 B.R. 942, 944 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1982)). The information must be \"reasonably expected to cause the entity commercial injury,\" which means that \"competitors will gain an unfair advantage.\" *In re Alterra Healthcare Corp.*, 353 B.R. 66, 75–76 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006) (citations omitted) (court found sealing of settlement information to prevent unfair advantage to other creditors of debtor not appropriate)*.* The unfair advantage must be in favor of a market *competitor*, not simply a creditor or claimant. *Id.* at 76. Knowledge of settlement terms as leverage or damaging to future settlements with other parties are not commercial information that warrants sealing under Section 107(b). *See, e.g., In re Anthracite Capital, Inc*., 492 B.R. at 173; *Geltzer*, 2007 WL 273526 at \\*4; *In re Thomas*, 58 B.R. at 392-393.\n\n#### **III. CONCLUSION**\n\nWHEREFORE, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the Court order that the W&W Settlement Motion be unsealed and filed in an unredacted form on the case docket. The United States Trustee also asks that the Court clarify with the Chapter 11 Trustee that future settlements should not automatically be filed under seal, and that should the Chapter 11 Trustee\n\n7\n\ncontend sealing of a particular settlement agreement be appropriate, that he file a motion seeking a sealing order pursuant to Section 107(b) and Rule 9018.\n\nDated: October 7, 2024 Respectfully submitted,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2\n\n> By: /s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn Trial Attorney Office of the United States Trustee Giaimo Federal Building, Room 302 150 Court Street, New Haven, CT 06510 Holley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov Federal Bar No.: ct17216 (Connecticut) (203) 773-2210\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThis certifies that a copy of the foregoing objection was served via the Electronic Case Filing System maintained by this Court.\n\n> By: /s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn","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部）\n\nIn re（关于）：第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n\n[1] 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。关于：ECF 3559\n\nUNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO SEALING BY CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT（美国破产受托人对第 11 章受托人将批准和解与调解动议予以封存的异议）\n\n______________________________________________________________________\n\nWilliam K. Harrington（威廉·K·哈灵顿），即第 2 选区的 United States Trustee（美国破产受托人，下称「美国破产受托人」），通过其法律顾问，对第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯，下称「第 11 章受托人」）就解决破产财产[2]针对 Wildes & Weinberg, P.C.（下称「W&W」）的主张而与 W&W 达成和解的动议（ECF 3559）（下称「W&W 和解动议」）恭敬地提出本异议。美国破产受托人对 W&W 和解动议的封存及涂黑删节提出异议，理由是第 11 章受托人未能满足《破产法典》第 107(b) 条和《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 9018 条的要求，亦未能满足《破产法典》第 107(a) 条规定的公众查阅推定。为支持本异议，美国破产受托人陈述如下：\n\nI. 事实\n\n1. 2024 年 9 月 19 日，第 11 章受托人提交了 W&W 和解动议，请求批准其与 W&W 达成的和解与调解协议。ECF 3559。W&W 和解动议亦已在待决的对席诉讼（案名为\n\n1 第 11 章主案中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称为 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 及 Miles Kwok）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）以及 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。\n\n2 见脚注 1。\n\nDespins v. Wildes & Weinberg, P.C.，对席诉讼案号 24-5187，下称「对席诉讼」）中提交，见 ECF 14。\n\n2. 第 11 章受托人以涂黑删节的形式提交了 W&W 和解动议，封存了核心和解条款。ECF 3559。W&W 和解动议在第 10 段、第 13(a) 段、第 13(c) 段、第 13(d) 段进行了涂黑删节/封存，并将附件 B 中与 W&W 的完整和解协议全部予以封存。同上。在对席诉讼中提交的文件亦同样予以封存/涂黑删节。\n\n3. 第 11 章受托人向美国破产受托人提供了未经删节的 W&W 和解动议完整副本。\n\n4. W&W 和解动议第 21 段指出，封存/涂黑删节是适当的，因为「受托人认为 (a) 公开披露和解条款将损害破产财产，且 (b) 和解条款构成具有商业敏感性及其他保密性质的信息。」见 W&W 和解动议第 21 段（ECF 3559）。第 21 段进一步指出，「披露将损害受托人解决针对其他被告及潜在被告的类似主张的能力；且由于各方谈判达成的《和解协议》规定对这些条款予以保密，因此该等条款在其他方面亦属保密性质。」同上。\n\n5. W&W 和解动议还将法院于 2024 年 5 月 2 日录入的 ECF 3163 号命令（下称「调解程序命令」）作为以封存/涂黑删节形式提交 W&W 和解动议的依据。见 W&W 和解动议第 21 段（ECF 3559）。调解程序命令第 10 页第 2(w) 段就和解协议的封存作出了如下规定：\n\nw. 若调解员报告表明调解程序达成了和解，且该和解需要法院批准，则受托人应在调解员报告发布后三十（30）日内提交请求该等批准的动议。若受托人认为公开披露和解条款将损害破产财产，和/或将涉及具有商业敏感性或具有其他保密性质的信息（该等信息的公开披露将损害和解各方的利益），则受托人可申请在封存状态下提交请求该等批准的动议（查阅权限仅限于受托人、相关撤销诉讼被告、无担保债权人官方委员会\n\n以及美国破产受托人）。在动议被封存提交的情况下，受托人应在公开案卷中提交该动议的副本，其中涂黑删节任何具有商业敏感性或其他保密性质的信息。\n\n6. 尽管 W&W 和解动议中未明确提及，但法院于 2024 年 8 月 28 日录入的 ECF 3465 号补充命令（下称「补充调解程序命令」）亦具有相关性。补充调解程序命令第 2-3 页第 2(v) 段就和解协议的封存作出了如下规定：\n\nv. 在发布《诉前/出庭前和解报告》后的三十（30）日内，受托人应提交动议，请求法院批准该《诉前/出庭前和解》并附上《诉前/出庭前和解报告》。若受托人认为公开披露和解条款将损害破产财产，和/或将涉及具有商业敏感性或具有其他保密性质的信息（该等信息的披露将损害同意调解各方的利益），则在向无担保债权人官方委员会的法律顾问及美国破产受托人发出通知后，该动议及《诉前/出庭前和解报告》可在封存状态下提交。对于任何以封存形式提交的动议，受托人应在公开案卷中提交该动议的副本，其中涂黑删节任何具有商业敏感性或其他保密性质的信息。\n\n7. 正如法院所知，美国破产受托人此前已表明，本案中和解协议的封存是一个悬而未决的问题，如果且当第 11 章受托人寻求封存和解协议时，该问题便可提请法院审理。[3] 第 11 章受托人满足第 107 条和第 9018 条要求的义务仍然完全有效，而 W&W 和解动议的内容并未满足该等义务。\n\n3 美国破产受托人在 2024 年 4 月 23 日举行的听证会上提出了这一观点，法院在本次听证会上审议了导致录入《调解程序命令》的动议（ECF 3003）；随后在 2024 年 8 月 27 日举行的听证会上再次提出该观点，法院在该次听证会上审议了导致录入《补充调解程序命令》的动议（ECF 3396）。\n\nII. 论证\n\nA. 《破产法典》推定公众对所有已提交的文件享有查阅权。\n\n支持公众查阅法院记录存在着长期确立的推定和强有力的公共政策。参见，例如，Nixon v. Warner Commc'n, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597–98, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978)；Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 51, 60-61 (2d Cir. 2020)；In re Neal, 461 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir.2006)；In re Borders Group, Inc., 462 B.R. 42, 46 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011)。《破产法典》第 107 条将这种公众查阅在破产案件中或向破产法院提交的所有文件的推定予以成文化。《破产法典》第 107(a) 条规定，所有「在本编项下的案件中提交的文件……均为公共记录并公开供」公众「查阅」。11 U.S.C. § 107(a)。第 107 条适用于在任何破产案件中提交的任何文件。Gitto v. Worcester Tel. & Gazette Corp. (In re Gitto Global Corp.), 422 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2005)。\n\n《破产法典》第 107 条所规定的破产程序透明度推定，反映了公众信任和政府问责的关键需要：「这一主要成文于《破产法典》第 107(a) 条中的公开查阅政策，证明了国会维护公众查阅破产程序中司法记录权利的强烈愿望。」Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Orion Pictures Corp. (In re Orion Pictures Corp.), 21 F.3d 24, 26 (2d Cir. 1994)。「法院限制公众查阅权的能力仍属于一项非常措施，仅在罕见情形下方可采取，因为『公众监督是民主控制的基本特征。』」In re Anthracite Capital, Inc., 492 B.R. 162, 171 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013)（援引 Geltzer v. Anderson Worldwide, S.C., 2007 WL 273526, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2007)）。正如第 107(a) 条所成文化的那样，公开查阅的推定「『根植于联邦法院需要……具有一定程度的问责制，并使公众对司法行政抱有信心……』」Geltzer v. Anderson Worldwide, S.C., 2007 WL 273526, at *2（援引 United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)）。\n\nB. 第 11 章受托人承担证明拟封存信息属于商业秘密或其他受保护的保密信息，或具有丑闻性或诽谤性性质的举证责任。\n\n《破产法典》第 107(b) 条将公众查阅案件中或向破产法院提交之文件的权利限制在两类狭窄的信息范围内：(1) 商业秘密及其他保密的研发或商业信息；以及 (2) 丑闻性或诽谤性事项。11 U.S.C. § 107(b)。援引法院在第 107 条项下权力的程序载于《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 9018 条。在相关部分，《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 9018 条规定：\n\n根据动议或依职权，在发出或不发出通知的情况下，法院可作出司法公正所要求的任何命令，以：(1) 就商业秘密或其他保密的研发或商业信息对破产财产或任何实体予以保护；(2) 保护任何实体免受在本法典项下案件中提交的任何文书所包含的丑闻性或诽谤性事项的侵害；或 (3) 对依成文法或法规予以保密的政府事项进行保护……\n\nFed. R. Bankr. P. 9018。第 107(b) 条的措辞在本质上将请求方所寻求的非常救济限定在以下条件上：该方必须向法院提供具体的案件事实和法律依据，证明系争的具体文件被妥当归类为「保密」或「丑闻性」。In re Anthracite Capital, Inc., 492 B.R. at 171；In re Continental Airlines, Inc. 150 B.R. 334, 240-341 (D. Del. 1993)。\n\n说服法院封存文件是一项沉重的负担。In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21\n\nF.3d at 27。在大多数情况下，法官必须审慎且带着怀疑态度审查封存请求，以确保确实存在非常情况或迫切需要。同上；亦见 City of Hartford v. Chase, 942 F.2d 130, 135-136 (2d Cir. 1991)。事实上，缺乏具体事例或明确阐述之理由的概括性损害指称是不足够的。Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16\n\nF.3d 5419, 551 (3d Cir. 1994)（引文省略）（依据普通法而非第 107 条裁决）。相反，动议人必须在信息被封存之前证明存在「不可挽回之损害的充分威胁」，且具体性至关重要。Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984)（援引 Stamicarbon, N.V. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 506 F.2d 532, 539-42 (2d Cir.1974)）。仅具推测性的损害不能支持封存命令。In re Itel Corp., 17 B.R. 942 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1982)。\n\n关于取得封存文件的命令，由《康涅狄格区破产民事本地规则》（D. Conn. LBR）第 1001-1(b) 条规定适用的《康涅狄格区民事诉讼本地规则》（D. Conn. L. Civ. R.）第 5(e) 条规定：「任何封存司法文件的此类命令均应包含具体的事实认定，证明封存具有明确且令人信服的理由支持，且为服务于该等理由进行了狭义裁剪。」《康涅狄格区民事诉讼本地规则》第 5(e) 条亦指出：「强制或允许不予披露某一类文件（例如人事档案、医疗记录或行政程序记录）的成文法，即提供了支持封存该等文件之命令的充分法定依据。」\n\n最后，若干审理过破产案件中受托人关于将全部和解协议封存之请求的法院均驳回了该等请求。参见，例如，In Oldco M. Corp., 466 B.R. 234, 236 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012)；In re Quality Sales, LLC, Case No. 12-20008 at ECF 368 (Bankr. Conn. March 31, 2016, Nevins, J.)。这是因为“当一方为另一方的利益以受托人身份行事时（例如破产案件中的受托人），‘公众对法院诉讼程序公开性的利益处于顶峰’。”In Oldco M. Corp., 466 B.R. at 236（援引 In re Food Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 359 B.R. 543, 553 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)）。\n\nC. 第11章受托人未达到《破产法典》第107(b)条和《破产规则》第9018条规定的封存证明责任。\n\n就其目前的形式而言，W&W和解动议不属于第107(b)(1)条和《破产规则》第9018条的范畴。和解条款通常不受“商业信息”的保护。参见 In re Thomas, 58 B.R. 385, 392-393 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2018)（汇总判例）。信息仅仅因为涉及商业事务，并不会自动被视为“商业性”。In re Anthracite Capital, Inc. 492 B.R. at 178（援引 In re Northwest Airlines Corp, 363 B.R. 704, 706 n.4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)）。“保密的……商业信息”是指“通过向竞争对手提供关于债务人商业运作的信息，从而使竞争对手获得不当优势”的信息。In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 27（强调为原文所加）（援引 Ad Hoc Protective Comm. for 10 ½ Debenture Holders v. Itel Corp. (In re Itel Corp.) 17 B.R. 942, 944 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1982)）。该信息必须是“被合理预期会对实体造成商业损害”，这意味着“竞争对手将获得不当优势”。In re Alterra Healthcare Corp., 353 B.R. 66, 75–76 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006)（引文省略）（法院认定为防止债务人的其他债权人获得不当优势而封存和解信息是不适当的）。不当优势必须是有利于市场竞争对手，而不仅是债权人或索赔人。同上，第76页。知晓和解条款作为筹码或损害未来与其他方的和解，并不属于第107(b)条下应当予以封存的商业信息。参见，例如，In re Anthracite Capital, Inc., 492 B.R. at 173；Geltzer, 2007 WL 273526 at *4；In re Thomas, 58 B.R. at 392-393。\n\nIII. 结论\n\n据此，United States Trustee（美国联邦受托人）谨请求法院裁定解除对W&W和解动议的封存，并以未经涂改的形式归档于本案卷宗。美国联邦受托人亦请求法院向第11章受托人明确：未来的和解不应自动进行封存归档；若第11章受托人主张对特定和解协议进行封存是适当的，其应根据第107(b)条和《规则》第9018条提出寻求封存令的动议。\n\n日期：2024年10月7日\n谨此提交，\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\nWILLIAM K. HARRINGTON\n第二司法区美国联邦受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn\n诉讼出庭律师\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国联邦受托人办公室）\nGiaimo Federal Building, Room 302\n150 Court Street, New Haven, CT 06510\nHolley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov\n联邦律师执业号：ct17216（康涅狄格州）\n(203) 773-2210\n\n送达证明\n\n兹证明本异议书的副本已通过本法院维护的电子案卷归档系统进行了送达。\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":14,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":368,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3003,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3163,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3396,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3559,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2450,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:16:19"}