{"id":"court_ctb_3758_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3758,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-10-29","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"破产法第2004条调查动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #3758（2024-10-29立案）。第11章破产受托人 Luc A. Despins 申请依据破产规则第 2004 条对律所 Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC 展开调查并调取文件。受托人指控该律所虽未正式出庭，但文件元数据表明其涉嫌在幕后协助与债务人关联的实体对抗受托人，并涉及涉款 850 万美元及 3700 万美元的 HIFG 相关事宜。","summary_en":"Rule 2004 Examination Motion — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui / 郭文贵), CTB No. 22-50073, ECF No. 3758 (filed Oct. 29, 2024). The Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins moves under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 to examine law firm Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC and obtain documents concerning postpetition payments and communications. The Trustee asserts that file metadata reveals Schulman attorneys assisted Debtor-affiliated defendants and entities like HIFG behind the scenes in opposing the Trustee and managing reserve and loan funds of $8.5 million and $37 million.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
x | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
:
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n\n# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 2004 AND LOCAL RULE 2004-1 AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF SCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA, LLC**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004(a) (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") and Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1 (the \"Local Rules\"), hereby applies (the \"Application\" or \"Motion\") to conduct the examination of Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC (\"Schulman\" or the \"Examinee\"). **Please take notice that the deadline to object to this Application is November 5, 2024, and in the absence of a timely filed objection, the proposed order filed herewith as Exhibit A (the \"Proposed Order\") may enter without further notice and hearing**. In support, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n1 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## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Trustee's investigation in this case has focused in significant part on identifying potential estate assets hidden behind the Debtor's various alter ego shell companies, as well as understanding the motivations, decision-making, and funding of such entities. The Trustee has discovered with respect to many of these entities that things were not as they seemed on the surface. For example, the Court will recall the evidence the Trustee uncovered that members of a so-called \"Creditors Committee\" and other individuals were secretly directing the actions of the \"HCHK\" entities, including their litigation in this Court. The Trustee has also learned that law firms representing the Debtor's relatives and associates have routinely received payment from the Debtor's alter egos—*i.e*., from assets the Trustee believes are property of the estate.\n\n2. The Trustee's proposed investigation of Schulman is important for these same reasons noted above. The Trustee has long known (based on the Debtor's schedules and other information) that Schulman served as prepetition counsel to the Debtor and certain of his shell companies in various civil litigation matters. With limited exceptions, the Trustee believed that Schulman no longer performed work for the Debtor or his associated entities on a postpetition basis, and certainly not presently. The Trustee recently learned, however, that Schulman *appears to be assisting other litigants in this Court in opposing the Trustee behind the scenes*, without having entered a notice of appearance and without notice to the Trustee.\n\n3. Specifically, the Trustee located metadata in PDF filings submitted to the Court in support of motions to dismiss filed by Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle LLP (the \"Lazare Firm\") in (a) the Mahwah Adversary Proceeding (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017) (on behalf of Taurus Fund LLC, Scott Barnett, as Trustee of Taurus Fund LLC and Taurus Management LLC, as Trustee of Taurus Fund LLC) and (b) the Omnibus Alter Ego Adversary Proceeding (Adv. Proc. No. 24-\n\n05249) (on behalf of sixteen other entities and individuals connected to the Debtor and his crimes, including William Je and various \"G Series\" entities). This metadata indicates that *Schulman attorneys*—not attorneys from the Lazare Firm—are the \"authors\" of such PDFs. While this does not necessarily mean that Schulman attorneys drafted the substance of these filings, it does show that they were involved in their preparation in some manner.\n\n4. In addition, the Trustee has learned that Schulman is apparently assisting another alleged alter ego, Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. (\"HIFG\"), in actions by HIFG and its affiliates to undermine the Trustee's asset recovery efforts. The Court will recall that HIFG is the entity nominally owned by the Debtor's criminal co-conspirator, William Je (or \"Uncle William\"), that purportedly \"loaned\" HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\") \\$37 million to secure the return of the *Lady May* yacht. An affiliate of HIFG and another alleged alter ego, Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd. (\"Hamilton Capital\") recently commenced an administration proceeding in the United Kingdom, which the Trustee believes is designed to keep Hamilton Capital's assets from the chapter 11 estate. Based on filings in that proceeding, the Trustee has learned that Schulman is apparently advising HIFG with respect to \\$8.5 million it holds in a reserve account, and is also helping HIFG prepare \"applications\" to file in the \"court in the US\" (presumably this Court) to seek to recover the \\$37 million.\n\n5. Repeatedly in this Chapter 11 Case and its related adversary proceedings, the Trustee has been required to contend with counsel and parties that were surreptitiously taking direction from or acting on behalf of other counsel and parties. As U.S. District Judge Kari Dooley recently noted, this has become \"a pattern and practice arising out of\" the Debtor's Chapter 11 Case, which amounts to \"*a mess by design*.[\"](#page-2-0)2 Judge Dooley addressed this at a hearing on a motion\n\n2 *See* Transcript of October 2, 2024 hearing in U.S. District Court, attached hereto as **Exhibit B**, at p. 5 (emphasis added). The HCHK Entities are HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., and Lexington\n\nto withdraw filed by former counsel to the HCHK Entities, who claimed his clients had \"evaporated\" while also admitting to the involvement of a non-appearing \"common coordinating counsel\" (*i.e.*, Yongbing Zhang, another of the Debtor's personal attorneys) and to coordinating litigation efforts with counsel for proposed intervenors for the HCHK Entities.[3](#page-3-0) Judge Dooley remarked that it was \"*appalling*\" that entities appearing before the court had received no guidance from their purported controlling persons, which resulted in everyone \"wasting time and money.\"[4](#page-3-1)\n\n6. Based on the foregoing, it is critical for the Trustee to understand the precise role Schulman is continuing to play in this Chapter 11 Case, including whose interests the firm purports to represent, what connection, if any, the firm has to the G Series entities and the defendants in the Mahwah Adversary Proceeding, and how the firm is being compensated for its services. Schulman's undisclosed work adverse to the Trustee in this case is particularly troubling given that Schulman is the Debtor's long-time personal counsel, thus raising the prospect that it may still be advancing his interests.\n\n7. By this Motion, the Trustee seeks an order requiring Schulman to comply with a limited Rule 2004 examination by providing information concerning (i) all payments received by Schulman since the petition date in connection with any work performed on behalf of the Debtor, any party in interest, and/or any adversary proceeding defendant in the above-captioned jointly administered chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Cases\"), including the source of such payments; (ii) communications with the Lazare Firm, and (iii) communications with the Debtor, his representatives, or other shell companies or their counsel. This relief is well-within the scope of Rule 2004, and the Motion should be granted.\n\nProperty and Staffing, Inc., which the Bankruptcy Court found to be the Debtor's *alter egos*. *See Amended Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, ECF No. 297].\n\n3 *See* Ex. B, at pp. 2-5.\n\n4 *See* Ex. B, at pp. 6-7.\n\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n8. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue to hear this Application is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n9. This Application is a core proceeding pursuant to, *inter alia*, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (A), (E), and (F).\n\n## **THE EXAMINEE**\n\n10. The Trustee has reason to believe that Schulman has, and continues to have, access to, and knowledge concerning, information relating to the Debtor's assets, financial affairs, and potential financial interests in various corporate entities related to the Debtor, his family, or his associates, including through Schulman's ongoing (undisclosed) assistance and knowing representation of interests adverse to the Trustee in this case.\n\n11. Schulman's work on behalf of the Debtor is well documented. The Debtor included Schulman in his Statement of Financial Affairs, listing it as a creditor who received payments within 90 days of the Petition Date. (ECF No. 77 at 21). The Debtor listed Schulman on his Schedule F, as a nonpriority unsecured creditor that had provided professional services to the Debtor, and Schedule G, with respect to his engagement letter with Schulman (among other professional services firms on the Debtor's Schedule G whom the Trustee has sought, and this Court has granted, Rule 2004 examinations of). (ECF No. 78 at 20, 22). Before the Petition Date, Schulman had for years represented the Debtor, among others (including fugitive from justice William Je), in litigation across the country—including securities class actions, defamation suits, and other civil actions, both as plaintiff's and defense counsel to the Debtor.\n\n12. The lack of transparency surrounding Schulman's role in the Chapter 11 Cases is concerning. Although Schulman has not entered an appearance in the Chapter 11 Cases on behalf\n\nof any alleged *alter egos* of the Debtor, including in the Mahwah Adversary Proceeding (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5017) or the Omnibus Alter Ego Adversary Proceeding (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5249), it appears to have involved itself, in some manner, in the submission of documents in multiple adversary proceedings.\n\n13. For example, the metadata of the *Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment,* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5017, ECF No. 137) (filed October 16, 2024) (the \"Mahwah Memorandum\"), submitted in the Mahwah Adversary Proceeding on behalf of Taurus Fund LLC, Scott Barnett, as Trustee of Taurus Fund LLC and Taurus Management LLC, as Trustee of Taurus Fund LLC, reflects that the memorandum's \"Author\" is \"Jake Schaller.\" No attorney with that name is listed on the website of the Lazare Firm, the firm that submitted the Mahwah Memorandum. There is, however, a Jake Schaller at Schulman.[5](#page-5-0)\n\n14. In addition, the metadata of the motions to dismiss and supporting memoranda filed by the Lazare Firm in the Omnibus Alter Ego Adversary Proceeding, (ECF Nos. 84-1, 85-1, 86-1, and 87-1) (the \"Alter Ego Motions to Dismiss\"), on behalf of sixteen other entities and individuals connected to the Debtor, including William Je and various \"G Series\" entities, reflects that the \"Author\" for each such PDF filing is \"Anna Kornilova.\" Again, no attorney with that name is identified on the Lazare Firm website, nor has a Ms. Kornilova appeared on behalf of those filing defendants. Ms. Kornilova instead appears to be a litigation attorney at Schulman.[6](#page-5-1)\n\n15. Schulman's apparently active yet undisclosed involvement in this Chapter 11 Cases has also been unveiled in filings relating to Hamilton Capital's pending United Kingdom administration proceeding (the \"Hamilton UK Proceeding\"). Hamilton Capital—nominally owned by the Debtor's criminal co-conspirator, William Je—is an alleged *alter ego* of the Debtor\n\n5 *See* http (last visited Oct. 25, 2024).\n\n6 *See* http (last visited Oct. 25, 2024).\n\nin the Omnibus Alter Ego Proceeding, and the Trustee believes that the Hamilton UK Proceeding is merely another orchestrated attempt to keep assets from the chapter 11 estate, similar to the HCHK assignment for the benefit of creditors proceeding. According to filings in the Hamilton UK Proceeding, Schulman is apparently representing HIFG—another alleged *alter ego*—in U.S. legal matters, including in connection with this Chapter 11 Cases. As the Court may recall, HIFG is the entity nominally owned by William Je (or \"Uncle William\"), that purportedly \"loaned\" HK USA \\$37 million to secure the return of the Debtor's *Lady May* yacht.[7](#page-6-0) Based on filings in the Hamilton UK Proceeding, Schulman is apparently advising HIFG with respect to \\$8.5 million it holds in a reserve account and also helping HIFG prepare \"applications\" to file in the \"court in the US\" (presumably this Court) to seek to recover the \\$37 million, allegedly to pay off amounts owed by the Himalaya Exchange Companies to Hamilton Capital.[8](#page-6-1)\n\n16. Based on the foregoing, the Trustee has a reasonable basis to believe that Schulman is currently providing services on behalf of entities seeking to undermine the Trustee's work in the Chapter 11 Cases and that it may be receiving compensation for such work from *alter egos* of the Debtor. At a minimum, the foregoing raises serious questions regarding Schulman's past and present engagements with the Debtor and/or other entities and individuals that participated and assisted in administering the Debtor's financial affairs, and Schulman should be required to comply with a limited Rule 2004 examination concerning (i) all payments received by Schulman since the petition date in connection with any work performed on behalf of the Debtor, any actual\n\n7 The Court has found that HK USA is and was at all relevant times the alter ego of the Debtor and all property of HK USA at all relevant times, including among other things the *Lady May* yacht and the \\$37 million loan proceeds, is property of the chapter 11 estate. *See Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Second Counterclaim* [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, ECF No. 221], at 36.\n\n8 The Himalaya Exchange entities, according to filings in the Hamilton UK Proceeding, include HIFG, Himalaya International Clearing Ltd., Himalaya International Reserves Ltd., and Himalaya International Payments Ltd., all of which are alleged *alter egos* of the Debtor in the Omnibus Alter Ego Adversary Proceeding.\n\nor alleged alter ego, [9](#page-7-0) and/or any other party in interest, including any adversary proceeding defendant in the Chapter 11 Cases, including the source of such payments; (ii) communications with the Lazare Firm, and (iii) communications with the Debtor, his representatives, or other shell companies (including any actual or alleged alter ego) or their counsel.\n\n## **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n17. The Trustee seeks entry of an order, in substantially the form of the Proposed Order, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004(a) and Local Rule 2004-1, authorizing the Trustee to conduct the examination of Schulman.\n\n## **BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n18. Pursuant to Rule 2004(a), on application of a party in interest, the Court may order the examination of any person or entity. The scope of an examination authorized under Rule 2004 is exceedingly broad and may relate to the \"acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the debtor's estate.\" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b).\n\n19. \"The purpose of a Rule 2004 examination is to assist a party in interest in determining the nature and extent of the bankruptcy estate, revealing assets, examining transactions and assessing whether wrongdoing has occurred.\" *In re Transmar Commodity Group*\n\n9 The Debtor's actual and alleged *alter egos* and/or entities beneficially owned by the Debtor include HK USA, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., Lamp Capital LLC, Greenwich Land LLC, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, the HCHK Entities, Whitecroft Shore Limited, K Legacy Ltd., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Ltd., Taurus Fund LLC, ACA Capital Group Limited, G Club International Limited, G Club Operations LLC, G Fashion (CA), G Fashion Hold Co A Limited, G Fashion Hold Co B Limited, G Fashion International Limited, GFashion Media Group Inc., G Music LLC, GF IP, LLC, GF Italy, LLC, GFNY, Inc., Hamilton Capital Holding Limited, Hamilton Investment Management Limited, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd., Himalaya International Clearing Limited, Himalaya International Financial Group Limited, Himalaya International Payments Limited, Himalaya International Reserves Limited, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Society IV, Inc., G Music LLC, Alfa Global Ventures Limited, Alfonso Global Limited, Anton Development Limited, Bravo Luck Limited, China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Ltd., Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, Freedom Media Ventures Limited, Leading Shine Limited, Saraca Media Group Inc., Wise Creation International Limited, New Dynamic Development Limited, and Bouillor Holdings Limited.\n\n*Ltd.*, 2018 WL 4006324, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted). This includes revealing the nature and extent of the estate and in discovering assets of the debtor that may have been intentionally or unintentionally concealed. *See In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996). *See also In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC*, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016) (\"Legitimate goals of Rule 2004 examinations include discovering assets, examining transactions, and determining whether wrongdoing has occurred.\" (internal quotation and citation omitted)).\n\n20. In the declaration he submitted on March 20, 2022 in support of the filing of this case, the Debtor represented that among the purposes for filing his chapter 11 case were \"to … (b) afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate [his] assets, liabilities, and financial affairs, given what [he] perceive[d] to be misunderstandings in that regard; [and] (c) establish what assets are estate property and, in turn, available for distribution to holders of allowed claims . . . .\" (Debtor's Declaration, ¶3). The investigation the Trustee seeks to perform is directly relevant to these stated purposes in that it will help the Trustee identify the Debtor's assets and liabilities in order to make distributions to creditors.\n\n21. The areas for inquiry herein are part of the Trustee's ongoing investigative efforts. As the investigation evolves, new avenues of inquiry become apparent and the need for additional discovery of persons, entities and areas of inquiry arises. Based on all the facts and evidence discussed above and as contained in the 2004 Motions, the Trustee seeks the investigative tools afforded by Rule 2004 to further establish the true ownership of assets and to explore other potential assets about which the Trustee does not yet have knowledge.\n\n22. The Trustee requests that, in furtherance of his examinations, the Court direct Schulman to provide documentation to the Trustee's counsel, as requested in the form annexed\n\nhereto as **Exhibit C**[10](#page-9-0) and made a part hereof (the \"Proposed Subpoena\"), within fourteen (14) days of the service of a subpoena, substantially similar in form and substance to the Proposed Subpoena, or such other time as agreed upon by the Trustee. These requests seek documents and communications consisting of, among other things: (i) all payments received by Schulman since the petition date in connection with any work performed on behalf of the Debtor, any actual or alleged alter ego, and/or any other party in interest, including any adversary proceeding defendant in the Chapter 11 Cases, including the source of such payments; (ii) communications with the Lazare Firm, and (iii) communications with the Debtor, his representatives, or other shell companies (including any actual or alleged alter ego) or their counsel.\n\n23. The type of discovery that the Trustee will obtain from Schulman is well within the scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2004. Bankruptcy courts routinely provide for Rule 2004 discovery against professional firms when the discovery may identify and aid the recovery of assets for the benefit of the estate and creditors. *See, e.g., In re Bame,* 251 B.R. 367 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2000); *In re Horvath*, No. 13-34137, 2015 WL 2195060 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio May 7, 2015) (approving discovery related to claims on schedule of assets permissible from individual debtor where obtaining such discovery might increase the value of the debtor's estate).\n\n24. The Trustee submits that the facts set forth above constitute sufficient cause for the Court to order the production of documents pursuant to Rule 2004 from Schulman. The Trustee has the right to know who is directing the litigants appearing before this Court, especially where those litigants are alleged *alter egos* of the Debtor. In addition, information in the possession of Schulman could lead to the discovery of estate assets by revealing the sources of its compensation.\n\n10 Included in Exhibit C is a Proposed Subpoena that would be served on Schulman if this Motion is granted.\n\nAccordingly, this Application is critical for the Trustee to fulfill the duties contemplated in the Trustee Order effectively, including specifically his mandate to \"locate the Debtor's assets for the benefit of creditors and the estate\" and \"investigate the Debtor's assets, liabilities, and financial affairs.\" (*See* Trustee Order at 15-16, 18).\n\n25. No party in interest, including the Debtor, shall suffer undue prejudice upon the granting of the relief sought in this Application.\n\n## **NO PRIOR REQUEST**\n\n26. No prior application for the relief requested herein has been made. The Trustee filed the prior 2004 Motions; however, those prior motions did not request to take discovery from Schulman.\n\n## **OBJECTION DEADLINE**\n\n27. The deadline to object to this Application is **November 5, 2024**, and in the absence of a timely filed objection, the Proposed Order may enter without further notice and hearing.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*.]\n\nWHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court grant this Application and enter the Proposed Order, pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(a), directing the examination of Schulman, and directing the production of certain documents and communications as set forth in the Requests for Production of Documents attached to the Proposed Subpoena, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.\n\nDated: October 29, 2024 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--|\n| In re: | :
:
Chapter 11 | |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
:
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)
: | |\n| Debtors. | :
(Jointly Administered)
: | |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n\n## **NOTICE OF OBJECTION DEADLINE**\n\nLuc Despins, as the appointed Chapter 11 Trustee to the Debtor's Estate (the \"Applicant\"), has filed an Application for Rule 2004 Examination of Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC (the \"Rule 2004 Examination\") with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut. Notice is hereby given that any objection or response to the Rule 2004 Examination must be filed with the Court no later than November 5, 2024, in accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(a) and 9014 and Local Bankr. R. 2004-1(c). In the absence of a timely filed objection, the proposed order regarding the Rule 2004 Examination may enter without further notice and hearing, see 11 U.S.C. § 102(1).\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*.]\n\n1 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\nDated: October 29, 2024 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3758 Filed 10/29/24 Entered 10/29/24 15:05:27 Page 15 of 44\n\n# **Exhibit A**\n\n**Proposed Order**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
x | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
:
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n\n# **[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 2004 AND LOCAL RULE 2004-1 AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF SCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA, LLC**\n\nUpon consideration of the Application seeking an order authorizing a Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004 examination of Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC (the \"Application\", ECF No. \\_\\_\\_\\_), filed by Luc Despins, as the appointed Chapter 11 Trustee to the Debtor's estate (the \"Applicant\"), after notice and a hearing, see 11 U.S.C. § 102(1), it appearing that cause exists to grant the requested relief as conditioned hereafter; it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED**: The Rule 2004 Motion is granted as set forth below.\n\n**ORDERED**: Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. and/or Paul Hastings LLP, as counsel for the Trustee, is hereby authorized to sign a Subpoena in a form substantially similar to the Subpoena attached to the Rule 2004 Motion as Exhibit C and to serve the Subpoena, along with a copy of this Order, in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 2004 requiring examination and the production of documents and communications by Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC.\n\n**ORDERED**: Subject to any rights under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and applicable Local Rules, and unless otherwise ordered by the Court, Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC is hereby directed to produce all documents within 14 days of the service of the Subpoena, or such other time as agreed upon by the Trustee. To the extent Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC does not produce any documents requested in the Subpoena on the basis of some privilege, it is hereby directed to produce to the Trustee a privilege log that comports\n\n1 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\nwith Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2), made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e), within 14 days of service of the Subpoena, or such other time as agreed upon by the Trustee.\n\n**ORDERED**: Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC is hereby directed to ensure that all documents and other information, including without limitation in any electronic format, requested in the Subpoena or otherwise relevant to the Debtor, his business, assets, liabilities, financial condition, or this Chapter 11 case, are properly maintained, are available for production, inspection and copying, and are not destroyed.\n\n**ORDERED**: Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. and/or Paul Hastings LLP, as counsel for the Trustee, is hereby authorized, without further order of this Court, to take the testimony of one or more representatives of Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC by examination under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 either at the offices of Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, 195 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, CT 06510, at the offices of Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, or at such other place that is mutually acceptable to the parties, on a date acceptable to the Trustee, which, at the election of the Trustee, shall be not less than 14 calendar days after the production of documents by Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC in compliance with the Subpoena and this Order pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004, and such examination shall continue from day to day until completed.\n\nDated: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2024\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n# **Exhibit B**\n\n**Transcript of October 2, 2024 Hearing**\n\n| 1 | (Call to Order, 9:14 a.m.) |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE COURT: All right. Good morning, everybody. I |\n| ന | apologize for the late start. |\n| ਪੁੱ | We are here in the matter of HCHK Technologies, |\n| | Inc., et al. v. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee for the |\n| റ | Estate of Ho Wan Kwok. |\n| 7 | Counsel, please identify yourselves for the record. |\n| 8 | MR. SHABAN: Good morning, Your Honor. John Shaban, |\n| ഗ | for the HCHK entities. |\n| 10 | THE COURT: All right. Good morning. |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Luc |\n| 12 | Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 13 | THE COURT: Good morning. |\n| । ਪੈ | MR. LINSEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick |\n| | 15 Linsey, of Neubert Pepe and Monteith, for the Trustee. |\n| 16 | THE COURT: All right. I scheduled this -- |\n| 17 | candidly, Attorney Shaban, I wasn't quite sure what to make |\n| 18 | of this motion. I've never encountered a situation where a |\n| 19 | lawyer was essentially \"ghosted\" by his client. |\n| 20 | Let me ask you -- I will note for the record that |\n| 21 | nobody is here from any of these entities. What |\n| 22 | communications, if any, have you attempted or had since this |\n| 23 | hearing was scheduled? |\n| 2 4 | MR. SHABAN: Well, since this hearing was scheduled, |\n| 25 | I actually provided -- multiple times -- notice of same, and |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | then I also copied the required notice in the Court's Order |\n|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | about -- you know, that three- or four-point. But I have a |\n| က | copy of it if the Court would like to see it. |\n| 4 | And the previous communications, even before the |\n| റ | hearing was scheduled, you know, go back to July, saying, |\n| ﯼ | Hey, you know, what are we doing fellas? And, basically, the |\n| 7 - | client has evaporated. The clients have evaporated, so the |\n| 8 | only -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT: Who was your point of contact? I assume |\n| 1 0 | you had a single point of contact for all of the entities? |\n| 11 | MR. SHABAN: Typically, yes. It was a gentleman |\n| 12 | named Frank. Frank Wenfeng. He got reappointed as the |\n| 13 | head corporate management at the beginning of my |\n| ਾ ਕੇ | representation right about that -- almost exactly at the same |\n| 15 | time, and was the -- basically, managing the entities. |\n| 1 6 | The entities existed on paper. Their operations |\n| 17 | had, essentially, been shut down for complicated reasons, |\n| 18 | but, you know, we needed -- you know, they reconstructed the |\n| ച്ച് മ | management through him. He -- I found out in August, that he |\n| 20 | had resigned. Or September I found out that he had resigned. |\n| 21 | They had -- those entities and other entities had a |\n| ସ୍ଥ | common coordinating counsel here in the United States, who |\n| 23 | eventually informed me -- he's like, Listen, game is over, |\n| ರ್ ನಾರ್ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಿದ | you know, there's nobody left, so |\n| 25 | THE COURT: Is that Mr. Pastore? |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | MR. SHABAN: No, that's actually Mr. Yongbing |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | (phonetic) . |\n| 3 | THE COURT: He's an attorney out of Chicago. |\n| 4 | THE COURT: And have you had any communications with |\n| 5 | Attorney Pastore, who I believe represented related -- |\n| 6 | perhaps these or related entities in another bankruptcy |\n| 7 | appeal that was recently the subject of a joint stipulation? |\n| 8 | MR. SHABAN: Right, right. I have had conversations |\n| တ | with his office -- Mr. Pastore and his office. Not for some |\n| 10 | time now, now that my work is essentially, you know, |\n| 11 | evaporated, like I said. We were working in a, sort of, more |\n| 12 | or less, a joint defense arrangement, because a lot of these |\n| 13 | entities had common interests that were being -- you know, |\n| 14 | had a common theme to their positions. But that has |\n| 15 | essentially stopped several months ago. |\n| 16 | THE COURT: So, when this point of contact, central |\n| 17 | attorney out of Chicago, said, It's over, we're rolling up |\n| 18 | the tents, why didn't that include a directive that the |\n| 1 9 | appeal be withdrawn? |\n| 20 | MR. SHABAN: Well, I didn't get that directive. So, |\n| 21 | I contacted him again and I contacted Frank, said, Am I |\n| 22 | withdrawing the appeal, am I withdraw my appearance, what's |\n| 23 | the best way to go here? Because withdrawing the -- it kind |\n| 2 4 | of left me, sort of, in a quandary, too. It's like, well, if |\n| | 25 I withdraw the appeal, I'm still representing entities that |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | Mr. Linsey may address that part. But for the record, Luc | | |\n|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| വ | Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. The experience that Mr. Shaban | | |\n| က | is having is consistent with the rest of the case, in the | | |\n| | 4 sense that -- you know, the -- for example, the Mahwah | | |\n| | 5 mansion, which you may or may not know about, they've | | |\n| ം | basically abandoned it and we have to pick it up. | | |\n| 7 | And it all happened after the criminal conviction of | | |\n| ထ | Mr. Kwok, so I think that everybody understands that that's | | |\n| ഗ | the end of the -- we think it's the end of it, but I -- so | | |\n| 10 | that's the experience we're having on other fronts, as well, | | |\n| 11 | where they're just pulling out. Without really doing it in a | | |\n| 12 | responsible way, they're just, for example, the Mahwah | | |\n| 13 | mansion, the Court had ordered that they pay security and all | | |\n| 14 | that, they just -- | | |\n| 15 | THE COURT: Disappeared. | | |\n| 1 6 | MR. DESPINS: -- walked away. Yeah. | | |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Well, I think Attorney Shaban -- well, | | |\n| 18 | let me ask: Did Attorney Linsey wish to be heard? | | |\n| 1 d | MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. | | |\n| 20 | THE COURT: All right. I think the record before me | | |\n| 21 | would support a Rule 41 dismissal, frankly, but that is not | | |\n| 22 | the reason we're here. | | |\n| 23 | And, Attorney Shaban, I will agree that you are in a | | |\n| 24 | untenable situation. | | |\n| 2 5 | I find it -- and you can share this with him -- kind | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| 1 | of appalling, that some lawyer in Chicago can't respect the | | |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 2 | process and provide some guidance, either to you or to the | | |\n| က | court, because now everybody's just wasting time and money. | | |\n| বা | I'm going to grant the motion to withdraw. I'm | | |\n| 5 | going to issue an order on the docket -- that I will ask you | | |\n| 6 | to forward to whoever you think might be the appropriate | | |\n| 7 | recipient, even if such person may not exist -- that says if | | |\n| റ്റ | we don't have successor counsel in two weeks, the case will | | |\n| ത | be dismissed for failure to prosecute. | | |\n| 1 0 | MR. SHABAN:
Very well. | | |\n| 11 | THE COURT: Okay. Anything further we can do this | | |\n| 12 | morning on this matter? | | |\n| 13 | MR. SHABAN: I don't believe so, Your Honor. | | |\n| 1 4 | MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. | | |\n| 15 | THE COURT: Okay. All right. We'll get that | | |\n| 16 | docketed today. Thank you. | | |\n| 17 | MR. SHABAN: Thank you, Your Honor. | | |\n| 18 | (Proceedings conclude, 9:22 a.m.) | | |\n| 1 ਰੇ | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 2 4 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n# **Exhibit C**\n\n**Form of Subpoena**\n\nB2540 (Form 2540 – Subpoena for Rule 2004 Examination) (12/15) Case 22-50073 Doc 3758 Filed 10/29/24 Entered 10/29/24 15:05:27 Page 28 of 44\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\n\n**District of Connecticut**\n\nIn re HO WAN KWOK, *et al*.[,](#page-27-0)\n\n1 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor Chapter 11\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n# **SUBPOENA FOR RULE 2004 EXAMINATION**\n\nTo: Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC\n\n(*Name of person to whom the subpoena is directed*)\n\n*Testimony:* **YOU ARE COMMANDED** to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at an examination under Rule 2004, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. A copy of the court order authorizing the examination is attached.\n\n| PLACE | DATE AND TIME |\n|-------|---------------|\n| N/A | N/A |\n| | |\n\nThe examination will be recorded by this method: Court Reporter\n\n*Production:* You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the examination the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:\n\n### **See Requests for Production of Documents, attached hereto. Production due within fourteen (14) days of service.**\n\nThe following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and 45(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.\n\nDate:\n\nCLERK OF COURT\n\nOR\n\n*Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney's signature*\n\nThe name, address, email address, and telephone number of the attorney representing Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:\n\n**Patrick R. Linsey, Esq.; Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.; 195 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, Connecticut 06510; plinsey@npmlaw.com; (203) 781-2847**\n\n### **Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena**\n\nIf this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or the inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of this subpoena must be served on each party before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).\n\n1 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| PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) | | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| on (date) | I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any): | | | | |\n| | I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: | | | | |\n| | on (date)
; or | | | | |\n| | I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness the fees for | | | | |\n| | one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of \\$ | | | | |\n| | My fees are \\$
for travel and \\$
for services, for a total of \\$ | | | | |\n| | I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true and correct. | | | | |\n| Date: | | | | | |\n| | Server's signature | | | | |\n| | Printed name and title | | | | |\n\n*Server's address*\n\nAdditional information concerning attempted service, etc.:\n\n### **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) (made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Rule 9016, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure)**\n\n### **(c) Place of compliance.**\n\n*(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition.* A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:\n\n(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or\n\n(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person\n\n(i) is a party or a party's officer; or\n\n(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.\n\n*(2) For Other Discovery.* A subpoena may command:\n\n(A) production of documents, or electronically stored information, or things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and\n\n(B) inspection of premises, at the premises to be inspected.\n\n#### **(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.**\n\n*(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions.* A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney who fails to comply.\n\n#### *(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.*\n\n*(A) Appearance Not Required.* A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.\n\n*(B) Objections.* A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:\n\n(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.\n\n(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.\n\n### *(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.*\n\n*(A) When Required.* On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:\n\n(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;\n\n(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c);\n\n(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or\n\n(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.\n\n*(B) When Permitted.* To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:\n\n(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or\n\n(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.\n\n(C) *Specifying Conditions as an Alternative.* In the circumstances described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:\n\n(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and\n\n(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.\n\n### **(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.**\n\n*(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.* These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:\n\n*(A) Documents.* A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.\n\n*(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.* If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.\n\n*(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form.* The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.\n\n*(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information.* The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.\n\n### *(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.*\n\n*(A) Information Withheld.* A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must: (i) expressly make the claim; and\n\n(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.\n\n*(B) Information Produced.* If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.\n\n**(g) Contempt.** The court for the district where compliance is required – and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court – may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.\n\nFor access to subpoena materials, see Fed.R.Civ.P.45(a) Committee Note (2013)\n\n…\n\n# **Request for Production of Documents**\n\n# **I. INSTRUCTIONS**\n\n1. Unless otherwise indicated, the requests for documents set forth below, (the \"Requests,\" and each, a \"Request\"), must be responded to separately and specifically. Each Request shall be answered fully unless it is in good faith objected to, in which event the reason for Your objection shall be stated in detail, as set forth below. If an objection pertains only to a portion of a Request, or a word, phrase or clause contained within it, You are required to state Your objection to that portion only and to respond to the remainder of the Requests.\n\n2. Electronically stored information must be produced in accordance with the\n\nfollowing instructions:\n\n- a. Images. Black and white images must be 300 DPI Group IV single-page TIFF files. Color images must be produced in JPEG format. File names cannot contain embedded spaces or special characters (including the comma). Folder names cannot contain embedded spaces or special characters (including the comma). All TIFF image files must have a unique file name, i.e. Bates number. Images must be endorsed with sequential Bates numbers in the lower right corner of each image. The number of TIFF files per folder should not exceed 1000 files. Excel spreadsheets should have a placeholder image named by the Bates number of the file.\n- b. Image Load File\n\t- a. Concordance® Data File. The data file (.DAT) contains all of the fielded information that will be loaded into the Concordance® database. The first line of the .DAT file must be a header row identifying the field names. The .DAT file must use the following Concordance® default delimiters: Comma ASCII character (020) Quote þ ASCII character (254). Date fields should be provided in the format: mm/dd/yyyy. Date and time fields must be two separate fields. If documents includes imaged emails and attachments, the attachment fields must be included to preserve the parent/child relationship between an email and its attachments. An OCRPATH field must be included to provide the file path and name of the extracted text file on the produced storage media. The text file must be named after the FIRSTBATES. Do not include the text in the .DAT file. For Documents with native files, a LINK field must be included to provide the file path and\n\nname of the native file. The native file must be named after the FIRSTBATES.\n\n- b. Concordance Image® OR Opticon Cross-Reference File. The image crossreference file (.LOG or .OPT) links the images to the database records. It should be a comma-delimited file consisting of seven fields per line with a line in the cross-reference file for every image in the database with the following format: ImageID,VolumeLabel,ImageFilePath,DocumentBreak,FolderBreak,Box Break,PageCoun.\n- c. Document Text. Text must be produced as separate text files, not as fields within the .DAT file. The full path to the text file (OCRPATH) should be included in the .DAT file. It is recommended document level ANSI text files, named per the FIRSTBATES/Image Key. Extracted text files must be in a separate folder, and the number of text files per folder should not exceed 1,000 files. There should be no special characters (including commas in the folder names). Text files must be provided on a document level.\n- d. Native Production for Certain File Types. File types that reasonably require viewing in their native format for a full understanding of their content and meaning must be produced in native format. These include, but are not limited to, spreadsheets, spreadsheet-like files (Microsoft Excel, comma separated values, tab separated values, etc.), Microsoft PowerPoint or other special presentation files, database files, and audio/visual files. Provide an image of a Bates numbered slip sheet indicating the presence of a native file, and include the path to the native as a field in the .dat file. Name the produced native file with the Bates number corresponding to the slip sheet for the file. Group native files within incrementally named \"NATIVE\" directories, separate from images directories.\n- e. De-duplication. Produce a single copy of each electronic document for which exact duplicates exist. For email messages, consolidate duplicates based on MD5 hash generated from the BCC, Body, CC, From, IntMsgID, To, and Attach properties. For email attachments and standalone electronic files, consolidate duplicates based on MD5 hash of the entire file.\n- f. Metadata. Produce extracted metadata for each document in the form of a Concordance compliant load file (.dat). The first line of the .DAT file must be a header row identifying the field names. The .DAT file must use the following Concordance default delimiters: Comma , ASCII character (020) Quote þ ASCII character (254)\n\nDate fields should be provided in the format: mm/dd/yyyy. Date and time fields must be two separate fields. Required metadata listed below:\n\n| Field Name | Sample Data | Description |\n|--------------|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| FIRSTBATES | EDC0000001 | First Bates number of native file document/email |\n| LASTBATES | EDC0000001 | Last Bates number of native file document/email |\n| | | **The LASTBATES field should be populated |\n| | | for single page |\n| ATTACHRANGE | EDC0000001
- | Bates number of the first page of the parent |\n| | EDC0000015 | document to the Bates number of the last page of |\n| | | the last attachment \"child\" document |\n| BEGATTACH | EDC0000001 | First Bates number of attachment range |\n| ENDATTACH | EDC0000015 | Last Bates number of attachment range |\n| CUSTODIAN | Smith, John | Email: Mailbox where the email resided |\n| | | Native: Name of the individual or department |\n| | | from whose files the document originated |\n| FROM | John Smith | Email: Sender |\n| | | Native: Author(s) of document |\n| | | **semi-colon should be used to separate |\n| | | multiple entries |\n| TO | Coffman, Janice; LeeW | Recipient(s) |\n| | [mailto:LeeW@MSN.com] | **semi-colon should be used to separate multiple |\n| | | entries |\n| CC | Frank Thompson [mailto: | Carbon copy recipient(s) |\n| | frank_Thompson@cdt.com] | **semi-colon should be used to separate |\n| | | multiple entries |\n| BCC | John Cain | Blind carbon copy recipient(s) |\n| | | **semi-colon should be used to separate |\n| | | multiple entries |\n| SUBJECT | Board Meeting Minutes | Email: Subject line of the email Native: Title |\n| | | of document (if available) |\n| FILE_NAME | BoardMeetingMinutes.docx | Native: Name of the original native file, |\n| | | including extension |\n| DATE_SENT | 10/12/2010 | Email: Date the email was sent |\n| | | Native: (empty) |\n| TIME_SENT/ | 07:05 PM GMT | Email: Time the email was sent/ Time zone in |\n| TIME_ZONE | | which the emails were standardized |\n| TIME_ZONE | GMT | The
time
zone
in
which
the
emails
were |\n| | | standardized during conversion. |\n| LINK | >EDC0000001.msg | Hyperlink to the email or native file document |\n| | | **The linked file must be named per the |\n| | | FIRSTBATES number |\n| FILE_EXTEN | MSG | The file type extension |\n| | | representing |\n| | | the Email or |\n| AUTHOR | John Smith | Email: (empty) |\n| | | Native: Author of the document |\n| DATE_CREATED | 10/10/2010 | Email: (empty) |\n| | | Native: Date the document was created |\n\n| TIME_CREATED | 10:25 AM | Email: (empty) |\n|--------------|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Native: Time the document was created |\n| | | **This data must be a separate field and cannot |\n| | | be combined with the DATE_CREATED field |\n| DATE_MOD | 10/12/2010 | Email: (empty) |\n| | | Native: Date the document was last modified |\n| TIME_MOD | 07:00 PM | Email: (empty) |\n| | | Native: Time the document was last modified |\n| | | **This data must be a separate field and cannot |\n| | | be combined with the DATE_MOD field |\n| DATE_ACCESSD | 10/12/2010 | Email: (empty) |\n| | | Native: Date the document was last accessed |\n| TIME_ACCESSD | 07:00 PM | Email: (empty) |\n| | | Native: Time the document was last accessed |\n| | | **This data must be a separate field and cannot |\n| | | be combined with the DATE_ACCESSD field |\n| FILE_SIZE | 5,952 | Size of native file document/email in KB |\n| PGCOUNT | 1 | Number of pages in native file document/email |\n| PATH | | Email: (empty) |\n| | Agenda.doc | Native: Path where native file document was |\n| | | stored including original file name. |\n| INTFILEPATH | Personal Folders\\Deleted | Email: original location of email including |\n| | Items\\Board Meeting | original file name. |\n| | Minutes.msg | Native: (empty) |\n| INTMSGID | <000805c2c71b\\$75977050\\$ | Email: Unique Message ID Native: (empty) |\n| | cb8306d1@MSN> | |\n| MD5HASH | d131dd02c5e6eec4693d9a0 | MD5 Hash value of the document. |\n| | 698aff95c | |\n| | 2fcab58712467eab4004583e | |\n| | b8fb7f89 | |\n| OCRPATH | TEXT/001/EDC0000001.txt | Path to extracted text of the native file |\n\n3. Each Request operates and should be construed independently and, unless otherwise indicated, no Request limits the scope of any other Request.\n\n4. All Documents are to be produced as kept in the usual course of business or are to be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in these Requests.\n\n5. Each Request contained herein extends to all Documents: (a) in Your possession, custody, or control; or (b) in the possession, custody, or control of anyone acting on Your behalf, including Your counsel or other representatives and advisors. Each Document shall be produced in its entirety.\n\n6. If You are requested to produce a Document that is no longer in Your possession, custody, or control, then Your response must (a) describe in detail the nature of the document and its contents; (b) identify the person(s) who prepared or authored the Document (and, if applicable, the Person(s) to whom the Document was sent); (c) identify the date on which the document was prepared or created; (d) state whether such Document (i) is missing or lost, (ii) has been destroyed, (iii) has been transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily, to others, or (iv) was otherwise disposed of; (e) state the reason for, and the facts and circumstances surrounding, such disposition; (f) identify the Persons who authorized such disposition; (g) identify the date or approximate date of such disposition; (h)state when the Document was most recently in Your possession, custody or control; and (i) identify the Person, if any, presently in possession, custody, or control of such Document.\n\n7. If You are requested to produce a Document that has been destroyed, then Your response must state, in addition to the information required by the preceding Instruction: (a) the reason for the Document's destruction; (b) the identity of the Person who destroyed the Document; and (c) the identity of the Person who directed that the Document be destroyed.\n\n8. If You claim that a requested Document is privileged or attorney work-product, then Your response must: (a) state (i) a description of the Document adequate to support Your contention that the Document is privileged, (ii) the title of the Document, (iii) the date of the Document, (iv) the author of the Document, (v) the addressee of the Document, (vi) the identity of each Person who received or saw the original or any draft, copy, or reproduction of the Document, (vii) whether the Document itself, or any information contained or referred to in the Document is in the possession, custody, or control of any other Persons, and if so, the identity of\n\nsuch Persons, as well as a statement addressing how the information came into their possession, (viii) the claim of privilege under which the Document is withheld, and (ix) all of the circumstances upon which You will rely to support such claim of privilege; and (b) produce a privilege log containing all of the information requested in Part (a) of this Instruction for each Document withheld on the basis of a claim of privilege in accordance with D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e). For any part of a Document Request as to which a claim of privilege or work product is not made, responsive documents should be provided in full.\n\n9. If a portion of an otherwise responsive Document contains information subject to a claim of privilege, only that portion of the Document subject to the claim of privilege shall be deleted or redacted from the Document following the instructions above, and the rest shall be produced.\n\n10. The Requests are continuing in nature. You are hereby instructed to (a) supplement or correct any responses later learned to be incomplete or incorrect immediately upon learning that a prior response was incomplete or incorrect; and (b) produce any additional Documents that are called for under the subpoena.\n\n11. If a Document is in a language other than English, You should provide that Document. If a Document is in a language other than English, and an English translation exists, You should provide both Documents.\n\n12. All references to Entities includes all affiliates thereof.\n\n13. All references to individual names include all alternative names, aliased, or nicknames.\n\n14. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, the period of time covered by the Document Requests is the period from February 5, 2012 to the date responses to the Document Requests are due.\n\n## **II. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION**\n\n15. The use of (a) any singular noun shall be construed to include the plural, and vice versa, and (b) a verb in any tense shall be construed as the use of the verb in all othertenses.\n\n16. The terms (a) \"and\" and \"or\" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of any request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope, and (b) \"each\" and \"any\" shall be deemed to include and encompass the words \"every\" and \"all.\"\n\n# **III. DEFINITIONS**\n\nThe definitions supplied by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(c) and the rules of construction supplied by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(d), as incorporated by D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 2004-1(a), shall apply to the Document Requests. In addition, the following terms used in these Document Requests shall have the following meanings:\n\n1. \"You\" or \"Your\" or \"Yourself\" means and refers, to Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC, together with all of its affiliates, divisions, agencies, instrumentalities, departments, offices, partners, officers, directors, agents, attorneys, representatives, employees, and/or anyone acting on its behalf.\n\n2. \"Chapter 11 Cases\" means *In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al.,* No. 22-50073 (JAM) pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut.\n\n3. \"Debtor\" means Ho Wan Kwok (a/k/a Miles Kwok, Miles Guo, Guo Wengui,\n\nGuo Haoyun, 郭文贵, or any other alias), together with his employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on his behalf.\n\n4. \"Debtor's Son\" means Qiang Guo (a/k/a Mileson Kwok, 郭强, or any other alias), together with his employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on his behalf.\n\n5. \"Debtor's Daughter\" means Mei Guo (a/k/a Mei Gui, 郭美, or any other alias), together with her employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on her behalf.\n\n6. \"Debtor's Purported Wife\" means Hing Chi Ngok (a/k/a Hing Chi Ng, Yue Qingzhi, 岳庆芝, or any other alias), together with her employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on her behalf.\n\n7. \"Debtor's Family\" means, individually and collectively, the Debtor, the Debtor's Son, the Debtor's Daughter, and the Debtor's Purported Wife, and any other familial relation to the Debtor.\n\n8. \"2004 Discovery Targets\" means, individually and collectively, the Debtor, the Debtor's Family, 17 Miles, LLC, 5780 Saguaro LLC, Aaron Mitchell, ACA Capital Group Limited, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, AI Group Holdings Inc., Alfa Global Ventures Limited, Alphonso Global Ventures Limited, Ana C. Izquiedo-Henn, Andrew Childe, Anthony DiBattista, Anton Development Limited, Booming Sail New York LLC, Beile Li, Bingshang Jiao, Bravo Luck Limited, Brent Petro Inc., Celestial Tide Limited, Chris Lee (a/k/a Nan Li, Mei Guo Xiao Li), China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Ltd., Crane Advisory Group, Daniel Thomas Podhaskie, Defeng Cao (a/k/a Wayne Cao, Max Cao), Ding \"Ivan\" Lin, Doaa Dashoush, Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, Genever Holdings Corporation, Genever Holdings LLC, Gettr USA, Inc., Gnews Media Group Inc., G Fashion (CA), G Fashion, G Fashion Hold Co. A. Limited, G\n\nFashion Hold Co. B. Limited, G Fashion Media Group Inc., G Fashion International Limited, G Fashion LLC, Gmusic LLC, Gnews LLC, Geducation, GFNY, Inc., G Club Finance, G Club HoldCo I LLC, G Club International Limited, G Club Investments Limited, G Club Operations LLC, G Club US Operations Inc., G Club US Operations LLC, G Club, G Club One, G Club Two, G Club Three, G Live, LLC, Gbroadcast, LLC, GF Italy, GM 27 LLC, Gladys Chow, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., Gposts LLC, GTV Media Group, Inc., Gypsy Mei Food Service LLC, Gypsy Mei Productions LLC, Gypsy Mei 27 Vestry, Inc., Dawn State Limited, Greenwich Land LLC, Hao (Gavin) Li (a/k/a Huo Lai), Haitham Khaled, Hamilton Capital Holdings Inc., Hamilton Digital Assets Funds SP, Hamilton Investment Management Limited, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton PE Funds SP, Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd., GS Security Solutions Inc., Alex Hadjcharalambous, Han Chunguang, Haoran He, HCHK Property Management, Inc., HCHK Technologies, Inc., HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC, Freedom Media Ventures Ltd., FungWan Trading Inc., Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty. Ltd., Himalaya New World Inc., Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd., Himalaya International Clearing Ltd., Himalaya International Payments Ltd., Himalaya International Reserves Ltd., Himalaya Ventures LLC, Himalaya Investment LLC, Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc., Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Huk Trading Inc., Infinity Treasury Management Inc., Jesse Brown, Jessica Mastrogiovanni, Jiaming Liu, Jie Zhang, Jovial Century International Limited, Joyord Sportswear Limited, K Legacy Ltd., Kamel Debeche, Karin Maistrello, Kin Ming Je, Lamp Capital LLC, Lawall & Mitchell, LLC, Leading Shine NY Ltd., Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc., Lexington Property and Staffing LLC, Linwan \"Irene\" Feng, Limarie Reyes, Lihong \"Sara\" Wei Lafrenz, The Lost Draft LLC, Macaron Limited, Major Lead International Limited, Mary Jiang, MOS Himalaya LLC, Maywind Trading LLC, New York\n\nMOS Himalaya LLC, Next Tycoon Investments Limited, Nicholas Savio, Nodal Partners, LLC, Qidong Xia, Oasis Tech Limited, Omicron Neutraceutical LLC, O.S.C. Orbit Service Company, LLC, Pixshow Film Inc., Qu Guo Jiao, Roscalitar 2, Ridwan Mamode Saib, Ross Heinemeyer, Rule of Law Society IV Inc., Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Fund, Saraca Media Group Inc., Savio Law LLC, Scott Barnett, Seven Mission Group LLC, Shih Hsin Yu, Sirius Networking Inc., Taurus Fund LLC, Taurus Management LLC, US Himalaya Capital Inc., V.X. Cerda & Associates P.A., Victor Cerda, Voice of Guo Media, Inc., Wen Xiao, Wencong Wang, William Je, Kin Ming Je a/k/a Je Kin Ming, Wise Creation International Limited, Xuebing Wang, Yan Chun Liu, Yinying (Aila) Wang (a/k/a Xiao Fei Xiang), Yongbing Zhang, Yongping Yan (Shan Mu) Yue Zhou, Yumei Hao (a/k/a Ru Shui), Yvette Wang (a/k/a Yanping Wang, a/k/a Yan Ping Wang), Zhixuan Li, Zhouer \"Joe\" Wang, NewPeople LLC, Ziba Limited, New Mulberry PTE Ltd, TD Primrose Limited, Shin Hee-Seup a/k/a Hee Seup Shin, River Valley Operations LLC, Fiesta Investment Ltd., Fiesta Property Developments Ltd., Medical Supply System International LLC, New Smoke LLC, Mountains of Spices, LLC, Rainbow Gifts Inc., Santel LLC, Davy & Tony International Limited, Love Miles for Zisun Inc., Himalaya Boston Mayflower LLC, Top California Beach Corporation, Golden Eagle Ventures, LLC, Whole Alpha Trading LLC, and Art Operation LLC,.\n\n9. \"Including\" or any variant thereof means \"including without limitation.\"\n\n10. \"And\" and \"or\" mean \"and/or,\" and shall be construed both conjunctively as well as disjunctively in order to maximize their scope.\n\n11. \"Any\" and \"all\" and \"each\" mean \"each and every.\"\n\n12. \"Each\" and \"every\" mean \"each and every.\"\n\n13. \"Third Party\" means a Person or Entity other than Yourself.\n\n14. \"Transfer\" shall have the meaning given to it by section 101(54) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n15. \"Lazare Firm\" means and refers to Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle LLP, together with all of its affiliates, divisions, agencies, instrumentalities, departments, offices, partners, officers, directors, agents, attorneys, representatives, employees, and/or anyone acting on its behalf.\n\n16. \"Lazare Firm Clients\" means and refers to Taurus Fund LLC, Taurus Management LLC, Scott Barnett, William Je (a/k/a Kin Ming Je, Jianming Yu, or William Yu), ACA Capital Group Limited, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton Capital Holding Limited, Hamilton Investment Management Limited, Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd., Himalaya International Clearing Limited, Himalaya International Financial Group Limited, Himalaya International Payments Limited, Himalaya International Reserves Limited, G Fashion (CA), GF IP, LLC, GF Italy, LLC, GFashion Media Group Inc., GFNY, Inc., Major Lead International Limited, Celestial Tide Limited, G Fashion Hold Co A Limited, G Fashion Hold Co B Limited, and G Fashion International Limited.\n\n17. \"Document\" means any information or thing within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, and includes, without limitation, each and every written, recorded, or graphic matter of any kind, type, nature, or description that is or has been in Your Possession, Custody or Control, including all printed and electronic copies of electronic mail, computer files maintained in electronic form, correspondence, memoranda, tapes, stenographic or handwritten notes, written forms of any kind, charts, blueprints, drawings, sketches, graphs, plans, articles, specifications, diaries, letters, telegrams, photographs, minutes, contracts, agreements, surveys, computer printouts, data compilations of any kind, telexes, facsimiles, emails, text messages, instant messages, voice\n\nmessages, invoices, order forms, checks, drafts, statements, credit memos, reports, position reports, summaries, indices, books, ledgers, notebooks, schedules, transparencies, recordings, catalogs, advertisements, promotional materials, films, video tapes, audio tapes, CDs, computer disks, brochures, pamphlets, punch-cards, time-slips, Tweets, social media posts, or any written or recorded materials of any other kind, and all meta-data thereof, however stored (whether in tangible or electronic form), recorded, produced, or reproduced, and also including but not limited to, drafts or copies of any of the foregoing that contain any notes, comments, or markings of any kind not found on the original documents or that are otherwise not identical to the original documents.\n\n18. \"Person(s)\" means an individual, corporation, proprietorship, partnership, association, or any other Entity. \"Person\" also includes any agent, representatives, or expert, including but not limiting to, attorneys or financial advisors.\n\n19. \"Petition Date\" means February 15, 2022.\n\n20. \"Entity\" means any natural Person, corporation, partnership, subsidiary, sole proprietorship, firm, board, joint venture, association, agency, authority, commission or other business entity or juristic Person, as well as any affiliate, agent, parent including but not limited to counsel, financial advisors, or any other representative.\n\n21. \"Regarding\" means concerning, describing, comprising, referring to, related to, supporting, favoring, opposing, bolstering, detracting from, located in, considered in connection with, bearing on, evidencing, indicating, reporting on, recording, alluding to, responding to, connected with, commenting on, in respect of, about, in relation to, discussing, showing, describing, reflecting, analyzing constituting, and being.\n\n22. \"Relating to,\" \"relate(s) to\" or \"related to,\" when referring to any given subject matter, means, without limitation, any document that constitutes, comprises, involves, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, states, refers directly or indirectly to, or is in any way relevant to the particular subject matter identified.\n\n23. \"Communication(s)\" means, in the broadest possible sense, and without limitation, any transmittal of information or knowledge (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries, or otherwise). Communication(s) further refers to all conversations, agreements, inquiries, or replies, whether in person, by telephone, in writing, or by means of electronic transmittal devices, and includes, but is not limited to, all correspondence, emails, recordings, transmittal slips, memoranda, telephone communications, voice messages, telegrams, telefaxes, telecopies, telexes, instant messages, chats, text messages, postings to a message board or group chat, social media posts, tweets, videos uploaded to any video platform, telephonic notes, or notes transmitted internally or with third parties.\n\n24. \"Asset(s)\" means any item of economic value that is subject to Possession, Custody, or Control. Asset includes all real and personal property, including but limited to, real estate, land, houses, apartments, condominiums, automobiles, yachts, boats, planes, jets, helicopters, cash, bank accounts, cryptocurrencies, securities, accounts receivables, inventory, and other tangible and intangible property.\n\n## **IV. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED**\n\n1. Documents sufficient to show all payments received by You since the Petition Date in connection with any work performed by You on behalf of the Debtor, any party in interest in the Chapter 11 Cases, any 2004 Discovery Target, and/or any adversary proceeding defendant in the Chapter 11 Cases, including the source of such payments.\n\n2. All Communications with the Lazare Firm or any other representatives of the Lazare Firm Clients since the Petition Date.\n\n3. All Communications since the Petition Date with the Debtor or his representatives, any party in interest in the Chapter 11 Cases or its representatives, any 2004 Discovery Target or its representatives, and/or any adversary proceeding defendant in the Chapter 11 Cases or its representatives.","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格州地区 布里奇波特分庭\n\nx\n\n关于： ：\n： 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等 ：\n：\n： 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n： （合并管理）\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n第11章受托人根据《破产规则》第2004条及地方规则第2004-1条请求作出裁定，授权对 SCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA, LLC（舒尔曼·巴塔查里亚有限责任公司）进行审查的动议\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其作为上述标题第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，就 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）一案，通过其下署律师，根据《联邦破产程序规则》第2004(a)条（“破产规则”）及《地方破产规则》第2004-1条（“地方规则”），特此申请（“申请”或“动议”）对 Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC（舒尔曼·巴塔查里亚有限责任公司）（“Schulman”或“受审查人”）进行审查。请注意，对本申请提出异议的截止日期为 November 5, 2024；如未及时提出异议，则随附作为附件A提交的拟议裁定（“拟议裁定”）可在无需进一步通知和听证的情况下作出。为支持本动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）、Miles Guo（郭文贵）及 Miles Kwok（郭文贵），以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（博钦律师事务所）, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅供通知及通信之用）。\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 受托人在本案中的调查，在很大程度上集中于识别隐藏在债务人各个另我空壳公司背后的潜在遗产资产，以及了解该等实体的动机、决策及资金来源。受托人就许多该等实体发现，事情并不像表面看起来那样。例如，法院将记得，受托人发现的证据显示，所谓“债权人委员会”的成员及其他个人一直在秘密指挥“HCHK”实体的行动，包括其在本法院进行的诉讼。受托人还获悉，代表债务人亲属及关联人士的律师事务所，惯常从债务人的另我实体获得付款——即受托人认为属于遗产财产的资产。\n\n2. 受托人拟对 Schulman 开展的调查，基于上述相同理由而具有重要意义。受托人长期以来一直知悉（根据债务人的财产清单及其他资料），Schulman 曾在申请破产前，就各类民事诉讼事项担任债务人及其某些空壳公司的律师。除有限例外情况外，受托人相信，Schulman 在申请破产后已不再为债务人或其关联实体提供工作，当然目前也未提供工作。然而，受托人最近获悉，Schulman 似乎正在幕后协助本法院的其他诉讼当事人反对受托人，既未提交出庭通知，也未向受托人发出通知。\n\n3. 具体而言，受托人在由 Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle LLP（拉扎尔律师事务所）（“Lazare Firm”）提交本法院、以支持其所提驳回动议的 PDF 文件中发现元数据，该等动议涉及：(a) Mahwah 对抗程序（Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017）（代表 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）、Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）（作为 Taurus Fund LLC 的受托人）及 Taurus Management LLC（金牛管理有限责任公司）（作为 Taurus Fund LLC 的受托人））；以及 (b) 综合另我对抗程序（Adv. Proc. No. 24-\n\n05249）（代表与债务人及其犯罪行为有关联的另外十六个实体和个人，包括 William Je（叶威廉）及多个“G Series”实体）。该等元数据显示，Schulman 的律师——而非 Lazare Firm 的律师——是该等 PDF 文件的“作者”。虽然这并不必然意味着 Schulman 的律师起草了该等提交文件的实质内容，但确实表明其以某种方式参与了准备工作。\n\n4. 此外，受托人获悉，Schulman 显然正在协助另一被指称的另我实体 Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）（“HIFG”），参与 HIFG 及其关联方为破坏受托人资产追回工作而采取的行动。法院将记得，HIFG 是名义上由债务人的犯罪共谋者 William Je（或“Uncle William”）拥有的实体，据称曾向 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）（“HK USA”）“出借” \\$37 million，以确保 Lady May 游艇的返还。HIFG 的关联方及另一被指称的另我实体 Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.（汉密尔顿资本控股有限公司）（“Hamilton Capital”）最近在英国启动了一项管理程序，受托人认为该程序旨在使 Hamilton Capital 的资产免于归入第11章遗产。根据该程序中的提交文件，受托人获悉，Schulman 显然正在就 HIFG 持有于准备金账户中的 \\$8.5 million 向其提供意见，并且还在协助 HIFG 准备向“美国法院”（推定为本法院）提交的“申请”，以寻求追回该 \\$37 million。\n\n5. 在本第11章案件及其相关对抗程序中，受托人一再被迫应对那些暗中接受其他律师及当事人指示，或代表其他律师及当事人行事的律师及当事人。正如美国地区法官 Kari Dooley（卡丽·杜利）最近指出的，这已成为“源自”债务人第11章案件的一种“模式和惯例”，构成“一个精心设计的混乱。[\"]”2 Dooley 法官在就一项动议举行的听证会上谈及此事，该动议由 HCHK 实体的前任律师提出，请求\n\n2 见随附作为附件B的美国地区法院 October 2, 2024 听证会笔录，第 5 页（着重号为后加）。HCHK 实体为 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK 科技公司）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK 物业管理公司）及 Lexington\n\n退出代理；该律师称其客户已“消失”，同时又承认一名未出庭的“共同协调律师”（即 Yongbing Zhang（张永兵），债务人的另一名个人律师）参与其中，并承认其与拟介入 HCHK 实体的介入人律师协调诉讼工作。[3] Dooley 法官评论称，出庭的实体未从其声称的控制人处获得任何指引，令人“震惊”，并导致所有人“浪费时间和金钱”。[4]\n\n6. 基于前述情况，受托人必须了解 Schulman 在本第11章案件中持续发挥的确切作用，包括该律师事务所声称代表何人的利益、该事务所与 G Series 实体及 Mahwah 对抗程序被告之间是否存在联系，以及该事务所如何就其服务获得报酬。鉴于 Schulman 是债务人长期的个人律师，其在本案中未披露的、与受托人利益相对的工作尤其令人担忧，因为这引发了其可能仍在推进债务人利益的可能性。\n\n7. 受托人通过本动议请求作出裁定，要求 Schulman 配合一项范围有限的第2004条审查，提供有关以下事项的信息：(i) 自申请日以来，Schulman 因代表债务人、任何利益相关方和/或上述标题合并管理第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中的任何对抗程序被告所进行的任何工作而收到的所有付款，包括该等付款的来源；(ii) 与 Lazare Firm 的通信；以及 (iii) 与债务人、其代表或其他空壳公司或其律师的通信。该救济完全处于第2004条的范围内，应准许本动议。\n\nProperty and Staffing, Inc.（列克星敦物业与人事公司），破产法院已认定其为债务人的另我实体。见修正后的缺席判决书及永久禁令 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, ECF No. 297]。\n\n3 见附件B，第 2-5 页。\n\n4 见附件B，第 6-7 页。\n\n管辖权及审判地\n\n8. 法院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 对审理本申请享有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本法院作为审理本申请的审判地适格。\n\n9. 本申请构成核心程序，依据包括 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (A), (E), and (F) 在内的规定。\n\n受审查人\n\n10. 受托人有理由相信，Schulman 已经且持续能够接触并知悉与债务人的资产、财务事务及债务人在与债务人、其家人或其关联人士有关的各公司实体中可能享有的财务利益相关的信息，包括通过 Schulman 在本案中持续（未披露）协助并明知代表与受托人利益相对的利益。\n\n11. Schulman 代表债务人所做的工作有充分记录。债务人在其财务事务说明中列入了 Schulman，将其列为在申请日前90日内收到付款的债权人。(ECF No. 77 at 21)。债务人在其附表F中将 Schulman 列为曾向债务人提供专业服务的非优先无担保债权人，并在附表G中就其与 Schulman 的委聘函列明 Schulman（以及债务人附表G上其他专业服务公司；受托人已请求对其进行第2004条审查且本法院已准许该等请求）。(ECF No. 78 at 20, 22)。在申请日前，Schulman 多年来一直在全国各地的诉讼中代表债务人及其他人士（包括在逃的 William Je），包括证券集体诉讼、诽谤诉讼及其他民事诉讼，既担任债务人的原告律师，也担任其辩护律师。\n\n12. 围绕 Schulman 在第11章案件中所扮演角色缺乏透明度，令人关注。尽管 Schulman 未代表债务人的任何被指称另我实体在第11章案件中提交出庭通知，包括在 Mahwah 对抗程序（Adv. Proc. No. 23-5017）或综合另我对抗程序（Adv. Proc. No. 24-5249）中，但其似乎以某种方式参与了多个对抗程序中所提交文件的制作。\n\n13. 例如，在 Mahwah 对抗程序中代表 Taurus Fund LLC、Scott Barnett（作为 Taurus Fund LLC 的受托人）及 Taurus Management LLC（作为 Taurus Fund LLC 的受托人）提交的《反对简易判决动议法律备忘录》（Adv. Proc. No. 23-5017, ECF No. 137）（于 October 16, 2024 提交）（“Mahwah 备忘录”）的元数据显示，该备忘录的“作者”为“Jake Schaller（杰克·沙勒）”。提交 Mahwah 备忘录的 Lazare Firm 网站上未列有同名律师。不过，Schulman 有一名 Jake Schaller。[5]\n\n14. 此外，Lazare Firm 在综合另我对抗程序中代表与债务人有关联的另外十六个实体及个人（包括 William Je 及多个“G Series”实体）提交的驳回动议及支持备忘录（ECF Nos. 84-1, 85-1, 86-1, and 87-1）（“另我驳回动议”）的元数据显示，每份该等 PDF 提交文件的“作者”均为“Anna Kornilova（安娜·科尔尼洛娃）”。同样，Lazare Firm 网站上未显示有该姓名的律师，Kornilova 女士亦未代表提出文件的被告出庭。相反，Kornilova 女士似乎是 Schulman 的诉讼律师。[6]\n\n15. 与 Hamilton Capital 在英国待决管理程序（“Hamilton 英国程序”）有关的提交文件，也揭示了 Schulman 显然积极但未披露地参与本第11章案件。Hamilton Capital——名义上由债务人的犯罪共谋者 William Je 拥有——是债务人的一个被指称另我实体\n\n5 参见 http（最后访问于 Oct. 25, 2024）。\n\n6 参见 http（最后访问于 Oct. 25, 2024）。\n\n在综合另我程序中，受托人认为，Hamilton UK Proceeding（Hamilton 英国程序）仅是又一次精心策划的企图，旨在使资产免于归入第11章破产财产，类似于为债权人利益而进行的 HCHK 转让程序。根据 Hamilton UK Proceeding 中的提交文件，Schulman（舒尔曼）显然正在美国法律事务中代表 HIFG（HIFG）——另一被指称的另我实体——包括就本第11章案件提供代理服务。法院可能记得，HIFG 是名义上由 William Je（威廉·杰）（或“Uncle William（威廉叔叔）”）所有的实体，据称其向 HK USA（HK USA）“出借”了 $37 million，以确保返还债务人的 Lady May yacht（Lady May 游艇）。[7] 根据 Hamilton UK Proceeding 中的提交文件，Schulman 显然正在就 HIFG 在一个准备金账户中持有的 $8.5 million 向其提供建议，并协助 HIFG 准备向“court in the US（美国法院）”（推定为本法院）提交的“applications（申请）”，以寻求追回该 $37 million，据称用于偿还 Himalaya Exchange Companies（喜马拉雅交易所公司）欠 Hamilton Capital（汉密尔顿资本）的款项。[8]\n\n16. 基于上述情况，受托人有合理依据相信，Schulman 目前正在代表试图破坏受托人在第11章案件中工作的一些实体提供服务，且其可能正从债务人的另我实体处就该等工作获得报酬。至少，上述情况对 Schulman 过去及当前与债务人和／或其他参与管理并协助管理债务人财务事务的实体和个人之间的受聘关系提出了严重疑问；应要求 Schulman 配合就以下事项进行有限的 Rule 2004 审查：(i) 自申请日以来，Schulman 就代表债务人、任何实际\n\n7 法院已认定，HK USA 在所有相关期间均为债务人的另我实体，且 HK USA 在所有相关期间的全部财产，包括但不限于 Lady May 游艇及 $37 million 贷款所得款项，均为第11章破产财产。参见 Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Second Counterclaim [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, ECF No. 221], at 36。\n\n8 根据 Hamilton UK Proceeding 中的提交文件，Himalaya Exchange entities（喜马拉雅交易所实体）包括 HIFG、Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）、Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）及 Himalaya International Payments Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际支付有限公司），它们均在综合另我对抗程序中被指称为债务人的另我实体。\n\n或被指称的另我实体，[9] 和／或任何其他利害关系方，包括第11章案件中的任何对抗程序被告所完成的任何工作而收到的所有款项，包括该等款项的来源；(ii) 与 Lazare Firm（拉扎尔律师事务所）的通信；以及 (iii) 与债务人、其代表或其他空壳公司（包括任何实际或被指称的另我实体）或其律师的通信。\n\n所请求的救济\n\n17. 受托人依据 Bankruptcy Rule 2004(a) 和 Local Rule 2004-1，请求作出一项实质上采用 Proposed Order（拟议命令）形式的命令，授权受托人对 Schulman 进行审查。\n\n所请求救济的依据\n\n18. 根据 Rule 2004(a)，经利害关系方申请，法院可命令审查任何个人或实体。根据 Rule 2004 获准进行的审查范围极为广泛，可涉及“债务人的行为、操守或财产，或债务人的负债及财务状况，或任何可能影响债务人破产财产管理的事项”。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)。\n\n19. “Rule 2004 审查的目的，是协助利害关系方确定破产财产的性质和范围、揭示资产、审查交易，并评估是否发生不当行为。”In re Transmar Commodity Group Ltd., 2018 WL 4006324, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted)。这包括揭示破产财产的性质和范围，并发现可能被故意或非故意隐匿的债务人资产。参见 In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)。另参见 In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016)（“Rule 2004 审查的正当目标包括发现资产、审查交易，以及确定是否发生不当行为。”（internal quotation and citation omitted））。\n\n20. 债务人在其于 March 20, 2022 为支持提交本案而提交的声明中表示，提交其第11章案件的目的包括“……(b) 鉴于[其]认为在该等方面存在误解，为利益相关者提供一个高效机会，以调查[其]资产、负债和财务事务；[以及] (c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财产，从而可向获准债权持有人进行分配……。”（Debtor's Declaration, ¶3）。受托人寻求进行的调查与这些陈述的目的直接相关，因为该调查将协助受托人确定债务人的资产和负债，以便向债权人进行分配。\n\n21. 本文所述的调查领域是受托人持续调查工作的一部分。随着调查的发展，新的调查路径变得明显，并产生了对额外发现有关个人、实体及调查领域的需要。基于上文讨论的全部事实和证据，以及 2004 Motions（2004 动议）中所载事实和证据，受托人寻求 Rule 2004 所提供的调查工具，以进一步确定资产的真实所有权，并探究受托人尚未知悉的其他潜在资产。\n\n22. 受托人请求，为推进其审查，法院命令 Schulman 在送达一份实质上在形式和内容上类似于 Proposed Subpoena（拟议传票）的传票后十四（14）日内，或在受托人同意的其他期限内，向受托人的律师提供按照随附\n\n于此并构成本申请一部分的 Exhibit C[10] 中所列格式提出的文件（“Proposed Subpoena（拟议传票）”）。这些请求寻求的文件和通信包括但不限于：(i) 自申请日以来，Schulman 就代表债务人、任何实际或被指称的另我实体和／或任何其他利害关系方，包括第11章案件中的任何对抗程序被告所完成的任何工作而收到的所有款项，包括该等款项的来源；(ii) 与 Lazare Firm 的通信；以及 (iii) 与债务人、其代表或其他空壳公司（包括任何实际或被指称的另我实体）或其律师的通信。\n\n23. 受托人将从 Schulman 获得的发现范围完全属于 Bankruptcy Rule 2004 的范围之内。当该等发现可能识别资产并有助于为破产财产和债权人的利益追回资产时，破产法院通常准许针对专业事务所进行 Rule 2004 发现。参见，例如，In re Bame, 251 B.R. 367 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2000); In re Horvath, No. 13-34137, 2015 WL 2195060 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio May 7, 2015)（批准向个人债务人取得与资产清单上债权有关的发现，因为取得该等发现可能增加债务人破产财产的价值）。\n\n24. 受托人主张，上述事实构成充分理由，使法院命令 Schulman 根据 Rule 2004 提供文件。受托人有权知悉是谁在指挥出庭于本法院的诉讼当事人，特别是在该等诉讼当事人被指称为债务人另我实体的情况下。此外，Schulman 所持有的信息可能通过揭示其报酬来源而导致发现破产财产资产。\n\n10 Exhibit C 包含一份拟议传票，如本动议获准，该传票将向 Schulman 送达。\n\n因此，本申请对于受托人有效履行 Trustee Order（受托人命令）所设想的职责至关重要，包括尤其履行其“为债权人和破产财产的利益查找债务人资产”以及“调查债务人的资产、负债和财务事务”的职责。（参见 Trustee Order at 15-16, 18）。\n\n25. 批准本申请所寻求的救济，不会使包括债务人在内的任何利害关系方遭受不当损害。\n\n此前未提出请求\n\n26. 此前未就本申请所请求的救济提出申请。受托人曾提交先前的 2004 Motions；然而，该等先前动议并未请求向 Schulman 取得发现。\n\n异议截止期限\n\n27. 对本申请提出异议的截止日期为 November 5, 2024；如未及时提交异议，Proposed Order 可在无需进一步通知和听证的情况下作出。\n\n[本页剩余部分特意留白。]\n\n因此，受托人谨请求法院依据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(a) 批准本申请并作出 Proposed Order，命令对 Schulman 进行审查，并命令按照附于 Proposed Subpoena 的 Requests for Production of Documents（文件提交请求）所载内容提供某些文件和通信，以及给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：October 29, 2024 LUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯潘），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut（康涅狄格州纽黑文） 第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛） Douglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）（ct00616） Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人律师\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州联邦地区法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： ：\n：\n第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等， ：\n：\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 ：\n（合并管理）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n异议截止期限通知\n\nLuc Despins（卢克·德斯潘斯）作为债务人财产获任的第11章受托人（以下简称“申请人”），已向 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）提交关于对 Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC（舒尔曼·巴塔查里亚律师事务所）进行《规则》第2004条审查的申请（以下简称“第2004条审查”）。现通知，任何对第2004条审查提出的异议或答复，均须依照 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(a) 和 9014 以及 Local Bankr. R. 2004-1(c)，不迟于 November 5, 2024 向本院提交。如未及时提交异议，关于第2004条审查的拟议命令可在不另行通知及不举行听证的情况下作出，见 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白。]\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：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 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 财产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n日期：October 29, 2024 LUC A. DESPINS，\nNew Haven, Connecticut 第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3758 提交日期 10/29/24 录入日期 10/29/24 15:05:27 第 15 页，共 44 页\n附件 A\n\n拟议命令\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nx\n\n关于： :\n: 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等， :\n:\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\n: （合并管理）\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n[拟议]命令：准许第11章受托人提出的动议，根据《破产程序规则》第2004条及地方法则第2004-1条作出命令，授权对 SCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA, LLC 进行审查\n\n经审议 Luc Despins 作为债务人财产获任的第11章受托人（以下简称“申请人”）提交的申请（以下简称“申请”，ECF No. ____），该申请请求作出命令，授权依照 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure（《联邦破产程序规则》）第2004条对 Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC 进行审查；在通知及听证后，见 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)，本院认为有理由按下文所附条件准许所请求的救济；特此\n\n命令：准许第2004条动议，具体如下。\n\n命令：作为受托人代理律师的 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙泰斯律师事务所）和/或 Paul Hastings LLP，特此获授权签署与作为第 C 号附件附于第2004条动议的传票实质上类似形式的传票，并依照《破产程序规则》第2004条送达该传票及本命令副本，要求 Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC 接受审查并提交文件和通信记录。\n\n命令：在不影响《联邦破产程序规则》、《联邦民事诉讼规则》及适用地方法则项下任何权利的前提下，且除非法院另有命令，特此命令 Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC 于送达传票后 14 日内，或于受托人同意的其他期限内，提交全部文件。如 Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC 以任何特权为由未提交传票所要求的任何文件，特此命令其于送达传票后 14 日内，或于受托人同意的其他期限内，向受托人提交一份符合\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：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，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 财产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2)（经 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016 适用）及 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e) 的特权清单。\n\n命令：特此命令 Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC 确保妥善保存传票所要求的或与债务人、其业务、资产、负债、财务状况或本第11章案件相关的全部文件及其他信息，包括但不限于任何电子格式的信息，确保其可供提交、查验及复制，且不得予以销毁。\n\n命令：作为受托人代理律师的 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 和/或 Paul Hastings LLP，特此获授权，无需本院另行命令，即可依照《破产程序规则》第2004条，在 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, 195 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, CT 06510 的办公室、Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 的办公室，或双方可相互接受的其他地点，于受托人可接受的日期，对 Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC 的一名或多名代表进行审查并取得其证言；该日期应由受托人选择，且不得早于 Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC 依照《破产程序规则》第2004条及本命令遵从传票提交文件后 14 个日历日，且该审查应逐日持续至完成为止。\n\n日期：______________, 2024\n\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁），美国破产法官\n\n____________________________________________________________\n附件 B\n\nOctober 2, 2024 听证会记录\n\n1 （上午 9:14，宣布开庭。）\n\n2 法庭：好的。各位早上好。对于迟延开庭，我\n\n表示歉意。\n\n 我们现就 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK 科技公司）等诉 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯潘斯）一案开庭，后者为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）财产的第11章受托人。\n\n7 律师，请为记录说明你们的身份。\n\n8 SHABAN 先生：法官阁下，早上好。我是 John Shaban（约翰·沙班），代表 HCHK 实体。\n\n10 法庭：好的。早上好。\n\n11 DESPINS 先生：法官阁下，早上好。我是 Luc\n\n12 Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n13 法庭：早上好。\n\n LINSEY 先生：法官阁下，早上好。我是 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），来自 Neubert Pepe and Monteith，代表受托人。\n\n16 法庭：好的。我安排本次听证——\n\n17 坦率地说，Shaban 律师，我不太确定该如何看待\n\n18 本动议。我从未遇到过律师实际上被其客户“断联”的情形。\n\n20 我想问您——我将在记录中注明，\n\n21 这些实体中没有任何一家的人员到场。自本次\n\n22 听证安排以来，您曾尝试进行或实际进行过哪些\n\n23 通信（如有）？\n\n24 SHABAN 先生：嗯，自安排本次听证以来，\n\n25 我实际上已多次发出相关通知，而且\n\n1 我还抄送了法院命令中所要求的\n\n2 关于——您知道的——那三点或四点的通知。但如果法庭希望查看，我有\n\n该通知的副本。\n\n4 而在安排听证之前的先前通信，\n\n5 您知道，可追溯至 July，当时说，\n\n6 “嘿，各位，我们该怎么办？”而且，基本上，\n\n7 客户已消失。客户们已消失，因此\n\n8 唯一——\n\n9 法庭：谁是您的联络人？我推定\n\n10 您有一名负责所有实体的单一联络人？\n\n11 SHABAN 先生：通常是的。是一位\n\n12 名叫 Frank 的先生。Frank Wenfeng（弗兰克·文峰）。他在我\n\n13 开始代理前后——几乎正好在同一\n\n14 时间——被重新任命为公司管理层负责人，并且基本上\n\n15 负责管理这些实体。\n\n16 这些实体在纸面上存在。由于复杂原因，\n\n17 其运营实质上已经停止，\n\n18 但是，您知道，我们需要——他们通过他重建了\n\n19 管理层。我在 August 得知，他\n\n20 已辞职。或者我在 September 得知他已辞职。\n\n21 这些实体及其他实体\n\n22 在 United States（美国）有一名共同协调律师，\n\n23 其最终告知我——他说：“听着，事情结束了，\n\n24 您知道，已经没有人留下了，所以——”\n\n25 法庭：是 Pastore 先生吗？\n\n1 SHABAN 先生：不，实际上是 Yongbing 先生\n\n2 （音译）。\n\n3 法庭：他是一名来自 Chicago（芝加哥）的律师。\n\n4 法庭：您是否曾与 Pastore 律师进行任何通信？我相信他曾在另一宗近期成为联合协议标的的破产上诉中，代理相关——\n\n5 也许是这些实体或相关实体。\n\n8 SHABAN 先生：对，对。我曾与他的办公室——Pastore 先生及其办公室——进行过交谈。现在已经有一段时间没有了，因为如我所言，我的工作实质上已经\n\n10 消失了。我们当时是在一种大致上\n\n11 联合抗辩的安排下工作，因为许多这些\n\n12 实体具有共同利益，并且——您知道，\n\n13 其立场具有共同主题。但是，这种安排\n\n14 实质上在数月前已经停止。\n\n16 法庭：那么，当这位联络人，即来自 Chicago 的中央\n\n17 律师说“结束了，我们要收摊了”时，\n\n18 为何其中未包含要求撤回该\n\n19 上诉的指示？\n\n20 SHABAN 先生：嗯，我没有收到该指示。因此，\n\n21 我再次联系了他，也联系了 Frank，问道：“我是否\n\n22 应撤回上诉，我是否应撤回出庭代理，我该如何\n\n23 最好地处理此事？”因为撤回——这也使我\n\n24 有些进退两难。就是说，嗯，如果\n\n我撤回上诉，我仍然代理着这些实体，而\n\n1 Linsey 先生可能会说明该部分。但为记录起见，我是 Luc\n\nDespins，第11章受托人。Shaban 先生正在经历的情形\n\n与本案其余部分一致，意思是——您知道——例如，Mahwah\n\n宅邸，您可能知道，也可能不知道，他们\n\n基本上已将其遗弃，而我们必须接手。\n\n7 这一切都发生在 Kwok 先生被刑事定罪之后，\n\n8 因此，我认为每个人都明白那是——我们认为那是\n\n9 其终结，但我——因此，这也是我们在其他方面所经历的情形，\n\n10 他们就这样撤出。并未以\n\n11 负责任的方式完成撤出；例如，Mahwah\n\n12 宅邸，法院曾命令他们支付安保费用及所有\n\n13 相关费用，他们却只是——\n\n15 法庭：消失了。\n\n16 DESPINS 先生：——离开了。是的。\n\n17 法庭：嗯，我认为 Shaban 律师——嗯，\n\n18 我想问：Linsey 律师是否希望发言？\n\n19 LINSEY 先生：不，法官阁下。\n\n20 法庭：好的。我面前的记录\n\n21 坦率地说，足以支持依据 Rule 41 作出驳回，但那并非我们来到这里的原因。\n\n23 而且，Shaban 律师，我同意您处于\n\n24 无法维持的处境。\n\n25 我认为——您可以将此转告给他——有些\n\n1 令人震惊，一名 Chicago 的律师竟不能尊重该\n\n办理程序并提供一些指引，无论是向您还是向法庭提供，因为现在每个人都只是在浪费时间和金钱。\n\n我将准许撤回的动议。我将在案卷中发布一项命令——我将请您将其转交给您认为可能适当的任何接收人，即使该人可能并不存在——其中写明，如果我们在两周内没有继任律师，该案将因未予推进而被驳回。\n\nSHABAN先生：\n很好。\n\n法庭：好的。今天上午我们还能就此事办理其他事项吗？\n\nSHABAN先生：\n我认为不能，法官阁下。\n\nLINSEY先生：\n不能，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。好吧。我们今天会将其录入案卷。谢谢。\n\nSHABAN先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n（程序于上午9:22结束。）\n\n证物C\n\n传票格式\n\nB2540（表格2540——《破产程序联邦规则》第2004条审查传票）（12/15）Case 22-50073 Doc 3758 Filed 10/29/24 Entered 10/29/24 15:05:27 Page 28 of 44\n\n康涅狄格州联邦地区美国破产法院\n\n康涅狄格州联邦地区\n\n关于 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人[，]\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人 第11章\n\n（合并管理）\n《破产程序联邦规则》第2004条审查传票\n\n致：Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC（舒尔曼·巴塔查里亚有限责任公司）\n\n（传票所指向之人的姓名）\n\n证言：兹命令您于下列规定的时间、日期和地点出席，以便根据《破产程序联邦规则》第2004条接受审查并作证。随附准许该审查的法院命令副本。\n\n地点 日期和时间\n\nN/A N/A\n\n审查将通过以下方式记录：法庭记录员\n\n提交：您或您的代表还必须携带下列文件、电子存储信息或物品出席审查，并须准许对该等材料进行查阅、复制、测试或取样：\n\n见随附于本传票的文件提交请求。应于送达后十四（14）日内提交。\n\n《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条的下列规定，通过《破产程序联邦规则》第9016条适用于破产案件，现随附于后——有关履行地点的第45(c)条；有关对作为传票对象之人的保护的第45(d)条；以及有关您对本传票作出回应的义务及未作回应的潜在后果的第45(e)条和第45(g)条。\n\n日期：\n\n法院书记员\n\n或\n\n书记员或副书记员签名 律师签名\n\n签发或请求本传票、代理第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）的律师姓名、地址、电子邮件地址和电话号码如下：\n\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esq.（帕特里克·R·林赛律师）；Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思专业公司）；195 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, Connecticut 06510；plinsey@npmlaw.com；(203) 781-2847\n\n致签发或请求本传票之人的通知\n\n如本传票命令在审判前提交文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，或查验场所，则在向传票所指向之人送达前，必须向各方当事人送达通知及本传票副本。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4)。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 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，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n送达证明\n\n（除非 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 要求，否则本节不应向法院提交。）\n\n于（日期） 我收到为（个人姓名及职务，如有）发出的本传票：\n\n我按如下方式将副本交付给具名之人，从而送达本传票：\n\n于（日期）\n\n；或\n\n我未执行本传票即予退回，原因为：\n\n除非本传票代表美国或其官员或代理人签发，我还已向证人支付一天出席的费用及法律允许的里程费，金额为 \\$\n\n我的费用为 \\$\n\n用于差旅，以及 \\$\n\n用于服务，合计为 \\$\n\n本人在伪证处罚的约束下声明，该等信息真实且正确。\n\n日期：\n\n送达人员签名\n\n正楷姓名及职务\n\n送达人员地址\n\n关于尝试送达等事项的补充信息：\n\n《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45(c)、(d)、(e)和(g)条（Effective 12/1/13）（通过《破产程序联邦规则》第9016条适用于破产案件）\n\n(c) 履行地点。\n\n(1) 审判、听证或证言录取。传票仅可按下列方式命令某人出席审判、听证或证言录取：\n\n(A) 在该人居住、受雇或者通常亲自从事营业之地点100英里以内；或\n\n(B) 在该人居住、受雇或者通常亲自从事营业所在的州内，如果该人：\n\n(i) 是当事人或当事人的高级人员；或\n\n(ii) 被命令出席审判且不会产生重大费用。\n\n(2) 其他证据开示。传票可命令：\n\n(A) 在该人居住、受雇或者通常亲自从事营业之地点100英里以内的地点提交文件、电子存储信息或物品；以及\n\n(B) 在待查验场所对该场所进行查验。\n\n(d) 对作为传票对象之人的保护；执行。\n\n(1) 避免不当负担或费用；制裁。负责签发和送达传票的当事人或律师必须采取合理措施，以避免对作为传票对象之人施加不当负担或费用。要求履行的地区法院必须执行该义务，并对未遵守该义务的当事人或律师施加适当制裁，该制裁可包括损失的收入和合理的律师费。\n\n(2) 命令提交材料或准许查验。\n\n(A) 无须出席。被命令提交文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，或者准许查验场所之人，无须亲自到提交或查验地点出席，除非其还被命令出席证言录取、听证或审判。\n\n(B) 异议。被命令提交文件或有形物品，或者准许查验之人，可向传票中指定的当事人或律师送达书面异议，反对查验、复制、测试或取样任何或全部材料，或反对查验场所——或者反对以所要求的一种或多种形式提交电子存储信息。异议必须在指定履行时间届满前或传票送达后14日内（以较早者为准）送达。提出异议时，适用下列规则：\n\n(i) 经向被命令之人通知，送达方可随时向要求履行的地区法院提出动议，请求作出强制提交或查验的命令。\n\n(ii) 仅可依命令指示要求实施该等行为，且该命令必须保护并非当事人或当事人高级人员之人，使其免受因履行而产生的重大费用。\n\n(3) 撤销或修改传票。\n\n(A) 必须撤销或修改的情形。经及时动议，要求履行的地区法院必须撤销或修改符合下列情形的传票：\n\n(i) 未留出合理的履行时间；\n\n(ii) 要求某人在第45(c)条规定的地理范围之外履行；\n\n(iii) 要求披露享有特权或受其他保护的事项，而不存在适用的例外或放弃；或\n\n(iv) 对某人施加不当负担。\n\n(B) 可撤销或修改的情形。为保护作为传票对象或受传票影响之人，要求履行的地区法院可依动议撤销或修改要求下列事项的传票：\n\n(i) 披露商业秘密或其他机密研究、开发或商业信息；或\n\n(ii) 披露未经聘用的专家的意见或信息，该等意见或信息并未描述争议中的具体事件，且源于当事人未要求的该专家研究。\n\n(C) 以规定条件作为替代方案。在第45(d)(3)(B)条所述情形下，如送达方：\n\n(i) 证明对该证言或材料具有重大需求，且若不遭受不当困难便无法以其他方式满足该需求；并且\n\n(ii) 确保被传唤之人将获得合理补偿，\n\n法院可不撤销或修改传票，而是命令在规定条件下出席或提交。\n\n(e) 回应传票的义务。\n\n(1) 提交文件或电子存储信息。下列程序适用于提交文件或电子存储信息：\n\n(A) 文件。回应要求提交文件之传票的人必须按该等文件在正常业务过程中保存的方式提交，或者必须将其整理并标记，以对应请求中的类别。\n\n(B) 未指定电子存储信息的提交形式。如传票未指定电子存储信息的提交形式，回应之人必须以其通常保存的一种或多种形式，或以合理可用的一种或多种形式提交。\n\n(C) 电子存储信息仅以一种形式提交。回应之人无须以一种以上形式提交相同的电子存储信息。\n\n(D) 无法取得的电子存储信息。回应之人无须就其确定因不当负担或费用而无法合理取得的来源中的电子存储信息提供证据开示。对于强制证据开示的动议或保护令动议，回应之人必须证明该信息因不当负担或费用而无法合理取得。如作出该证明，法院在考虑第26(b)(2)(C)条的限制后，如请求方证明有正当理由，仍可命令从该等来源进行证据开示。法院可为证据开示规定条件。\n\n(2) 主张特权或保护。\n\n(A) 被扣留的信息。以信息享有特权或受审判准备材料保护为由扣留被传唤信息之人必须：\n\n(i) 明确提出该主张；并且\n\n(ii) 以一种在不披露本身享有特权或受保护的信息的情况下，足以使当事人评估该主张的方式，说明被扣留文件、通信或有形物品的性质。\n\n(B) 已提交的信息。如为回应传票而提交的信息受到特权主张或审判准备材料保护主张的约束，提出该主张之人可通知收到该信息的任何当事人该主张及其依据。收到通知后，当事人必须立即返还、隔离或销毁所指定的信息及其持有的任何副本；在该主张得到解决前不得使用或披露该信息；如该当事人在收到通知前已披露该信息，必须采取合理措施追回该信息；并可立即将该信息密封提交给要求履行的地区法院，以裁定该主张。提交该信息之人必须保存该信息，直至该主张得到解决。\n\n(g) 藐视法庭。要求履行的地区法院——且在动议被移送后，签发传票的法院亦然——可认定已被送达但无充分理由不遵守传票或与其有关命令之人构成藐视法庭。\n\n有关取得传票材料，请参见 Fed.R.Civ.P.45(a) Committee Note (2013)\n\n……\n\n文件提交请求\n\n一、指示\n\n1. 除非另有说明，下列提出的文件请求（以下简称“请求”，单称为“一项请求”）必须分别且具体地予以答复。每项请求均应得到完整答复，除非基于善意提出异议；在此情况下，应如下文所述，详细说明贵方提出异议的理由。若异议仅涉及某项请求的一部分，或其中包含的某个词语、短语或条款，贵方须仅就该部分陈述异议，并对其余请求作出答复。\n\n2. 电子存储信息必须按照下列指示提供：\n\na. 图像。黑白图像必须为 300 DPI Group IV 单页 TIFF 文件。彩色图像必须以 JPEG 格式提供。文件名不得包含嵌入空格或特殊字符（包括逗号）。文件夹名称不得包含嵌入空格或特殊字符（包括逗号）。所有 TIFF 图像文件必须具有唯一的文件名，即 Bates 编号。每张图像右下角必须标注连续的 Bates 编号。每个文件夹中的 TIFF 文件数量不应超过 1000 个文件。Excel 电子表格应具有以该文件 Bates 编号命名的占位图像。\n\nb. 图像加载文件\n\na. Concordance® 数据文件。数据文件（.DAT）包含将加载至 Concordance® 数据库的所有字段化信息。.DAT 文件的第一行必须为标明字段名称的标题行。.DAT 文件必须使用以下 Concordance® 默认分隔符：逗号 ASCII 字符（020）；引号 þ ASCII 字符（254）。日期字段应按以下格式提供：mm/dd/yyyy。日期和时间字段必须为两个独立字段。如文件包括已成像的电子邮件及附件，则必须包括附件字段，以保留电子邮件与其附件之间的父/子关系。必须包括 OCRPATH 字段，以提供已提取文本文件在所提供存储介质上的文件路径和名称。文本文件必须以 FIRSTBATES 命名。不得将文本纳入 .DAT 文件。对于具有原生文件的文档，必须包括 LINK 字段，以提供原生文件的文件路径和名称。原生文件必须以 FIRSTBATES 命名。\n\nb. Concordance Image® 或 Opticon 交叉引用文件。图像交叉引用文件（.LOG 或 .OPT）将图像链接至数据库记录。其应为逗号分隔文件，每行由七个字段组成，且数据库中的每张图像均应在交叉引用文件中对应一行，格式如下：ImageID,VolumeLabel,ImageFilePath,DocumentBreak,FolderBreak,Box Break,PageCoun。\n\nc. 文件文本。文本必须作为单独的文本文件提供，而非作为 .DAT 文件中的字段。至文本文件的完整路径（OCRPATH）应纳入 .DAT 文件。建议提供以 FIRSTBATES/Image Key 命名的文档级 ANSI 文本文件。提取的文本文件必须置于单独的文件夹中，每个文件夹中的文本文件数量不应超过 1,000 个文件。文件夹名称中不得含有特殊字符（包括逗号）。必须在文档级别提供文本文件。\n\nd. 特定文件类型的原生格式提供。为全面理解其内容和含义而合理需要以原生格式查看的文件类型，必须以原生格式提供。这些文件包括但不限于电子表格、类电子表格文件（Microsoft Excel、逗号分隔值、制表符分隔值等）、Microsoft PowerPoint 或其他特殊演示文件、数据库文件以及音频/视频文件。应提供一张带有 Bates 编号的分隔页图像，注明原生文件的存在，并将原生文件的路径作为字段纳入 .dat 文件。所提供的原生文件须以与该文件分隔页相对应的 Bates 编号命名。原生文件应归入按递增方式命名的“NATIVE”目录中，并与图像目录分开。\n\ne. 去重。对于存在完全重复件的每份电子文件，仅提供一份。对于电子邮件，应依据从 BCC、Body、CC、From、IntMsgID、To 和 Attach 属性生成的 MD5 哈希值合并重复件。对于电子邮件附件和独立电子文件，应依据整个文件的 MD5 哈希值合并重复件。\n\nf. 元数据。以符合 Concordance 要求的加载文件（.dat）形式提供每份文件的提取元数据。.DAT 文件的第一行必须为标明字段名称的标题行。.DAT 文件必须使用以下 Concordance 默认分隔符：逗号 , ASCII 字符（020）；引号 þ ASCII 字符（254）。\n\n日期字段应按以下格式提供：mm/dd/yyyy。日期和时间字段必须为两个独立字段。所需元数据如下：\n\n字段名称 示例数据 说明\n\nFIRSTBATES EDC0000001 原生文件文件/电子邮件的第一个 Bates 编号\nLASTBATES EDC0000001 原生文件文件/电子邮件的最后一个 Bates 编号\nLASTBATES 字段应针对单页文件填写\nATTACHRANGE EDC0000001 - EDC0000015 父文件第一页的 Bates 编号至最后一个附件“子”文件最后一页的 Bates 编号\nBEGATTACH EDC0000001 附件范围的第一个 Bates 编号\nENDATTACH EDC0000015 附件范围的最后一个 Bates 编号\nCUSTODIAN Smith, John 电子邮件：该电子邮件所在的邮箱\n原生文件：文件来源的个人或部门名称\nFROM John Smith 电子邮件：发件人\n原生文件：文件作者\n应使用分号分隔多个条目\nTO Coffman, Janice; LeeW [mailto:LeeW@MSN.com] 收件人\n应使用分号分隔多个条目\nCC Frank Thompson [mailto:frank_Thompson@cdt.com] 抄送收件人\n应使用分号分隔多个条目\nBCC John Cain 密送收件人\n应使用分号分隔多个条目\nSUBJECT Board Meeting Minutes 电子邮件：电子邮件主题行\n原生文件：文件标题（如有）\nFILE_NAME BoardMeetingMinutes.docx 原生文件：原始原生文件的名称，包括扩展名\nDATE_SENT 10/12/2010 电子邮件：电子邮件发送日期\n原生文件：（空）\nTIME_SENT/TIME_ZONE 07:05 PM GMT 电子邮件：电子邮件发送时间/电子邮件被标准化所采用的时区\nTIME_ZONE GMT 在转换过程中电子邮件被标准化所采用的时区。\nLINK >EDC0000001.msg 至电子邮件或原生文件文件的超链接\n链接文件必须以 FIRSTBATES 编号命名\nFILE_EXTEN MSG 表示电子邮件或原生文件的文件类型扩展名\nAUTHOR John Smith 电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件作者\nDATE_CREATED 10/10/2010 电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件创建日期\nTIME_CREATED 10:25 AM 电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件创建时间\n该数据必须为单独字段，且不得与 DATE_CREATED 字段合并\nDATE_MOD 10/12/2010 电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件最后修改日期\nTIME_MOD 07:00 PM 电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件最后修改时间\n该数据必须为单独字段，且不得与 DATE_MOD 字段合并\nDATE_ACCESSD 10/12/2010 电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件最后访问日期\nTIME_ACCESSD 07:00 PM 电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件最后访问时间\n该数据必须为单独字段，且不得与 DATE_ACCESSD 字段合并\nFILE_SIZE 5,952 原生文件文件/电子邮件的大小，以 KB 计\nPGCOUNT 1 原生文件文件/电子邮件的页数\nPATH Email: (empty) Agenda.doc 电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：存储原生文件文件的路径，包括原始文件名。\nINTFILEPATH Personal Folders\\Deleted Items\\Board Meeting Minutes.msg 电子邮件：电子邮件的原始位置，包括原始文件名。\n原生文件：（空）\nINTMSGID <000805c2c71b\\$75977050\\$cb8306d1@MSN> 电子邮件：唯一消息 ID\n原生文件：（空）\nMD5HASH d131dd02c5e6eec4693d9a0698aff95c2fcab58712467eab4004583eb8fb7f89 文件的 MD5 哈希值。\nOCRPATH TEXT/001/EDC0000001.txt 原生文件提取文本的路径\n\n3. 每项请求均独立适用并应独立解释；除非另有说明，任何一项请求均不限制任何其他请求的范围。\n\n4. 所有文件应按照其在通常业务过程中保存的方式提供，或者应进行整理和标注以对应这些请求中的类别。\n\n5. 本文所载的每项请求均延及所有文件：(a) 由贵方占有、保管或控制的文件；或 (b) 由代表贵方行事的任何人占有、保管或控制的文件，包括贵方的律师或其他代表及顾问。每份文件均应完整提供。\n\n6. 如要求贵方提供一份已不再由贵方占有、保管或控制的文件，则贵方的答复必须：(a) 详细描述该文件的性质及其内容；(b) 确定编制或撰写该文件的人员（以及，如适用，该文件被发送给的人员）；(c) 确定该文件编制或创建的日期；(d) 说明该文件是否 (i) 遗失或丢失，(ii) 已被销毁，(iii) 已自愿或非自愿地转移给他人，或 (iv) 已以其他方式处置；(e) 说明该等处置的理由，以及围绕该等处置的事实和情况；(f) 确定授权该等处置的人员；(g) 确定该等处置的日期或大致日期；(h) 说明该文件最近一次由贵方占有、保管或控制的时间；以及 (i) 确定目前占有、保管或控制该文件的人员（如有）。\n\n7. 如要求贵方提供一份已被销毁的文件，则除前述指示要求的信息外，贵方的答复还必须说明：(a) 销毁该文件的理由；(b) 销毁该文件的人员身份；以及 (c) 指示销毁该文件的人员身份。\n\n8. 如贵方主张所请求的文件享有特权或属于律师工作成果，则贵方的答复必须：(a) 陈述 (i) 足以支持贵方关于该文件享有特权之主张的文件描述，(ii) 文件标题，(iii) 文件日期，(iv) 文件作者，(v) 文件收件人，(vi) 收到或阅览该文件原件、任何草稿、副本或复制件的每一人员的身份，(vii) 该文件本身，或该文件所载或提及的任何信息，是否由任何其他人员占有、保管或控制；如是，该等人员的身份，以及说明该信息如何进入其占有范围的陈述，(viii) 据以扣留该文件的特权主张，以及 (ix) 贵方将据以支持该等特权主张的所有情况；以及 (b) 根据 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e)，针对以特权主张为由扣留的每份文件，制作一份特权清单，其中载明本指示第 (a) 部分要求的全部信息。对于未主张特权或工作成果保护的任何文件请求部分，应完整提供回应性文件。\n\n9. 如一份原本具有回应性的文件的一部分包含受特权主张约束的信息，则仅应根据上述指示从该文件中删除或遮盖受该特权主张约束的部分，其余部分应予提供。\n\n10. 请求具有持续性。特此指示贵方：(a) 一旦知悉先前答复不完整或不正确，应立即补充或更正其后发现为不完整或不正确的任何答复；以及 (b) 提供传票所要求的任何额外文件。\n\n11. 如文书为英文以外的语言，贵方应提供该文书。如文书为英文以外的语言，且存在英文译本，贵方应同时提供两份文书。\n\n12. 对实体的所有提述均包括其全部关联方。\n\n13. 对个人姓名的所有提述均包括所有替代姓名、别名或昵称。\n\n14. 除非另有明确说明，文书请求所涵盖的期间为自 February 5, 2012 起至文书请求答复届期之日止。\n\nII. 解释规则\n\n15. (a) 对任何单数名词的使用应解释为包括复数，反之亦然；及 (b) 对任何时态动词的使用应解释为包括该动词的所有其他时态。\n\n16. (a) 术语“和”及“或”应根据需要作连词性或选择性解释，以使任何请求涵盖原本可能被解释为不在其范围内的所有答复；及 (b) “每一”及“任何”应视为包括并涵盖“每一个”及“所有”二词。\n\nIII. 定义\n\n经 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(c) 提供并由 D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 2004-1(a) 纳入的定义，以及经 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(d) 提供的解释规则，适用于文书请求。此外，本文件书请求中使用的下列术语具有如下含义：\n\n1. “贵方”或“贵方的”或“贵方本人”系指 Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC，以及其全部关联方、部门、机构、工具机构、处室、办事处、合伙人、高级职员、董事、代理人、律师、代表、雇员和/或任何代表其行事之人。\n\n2. “Chapter 11 Cases”系指正在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）审理的 In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al., No. 22-50073 (JAM)。\n\n3. “债务人”系指 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名 Miles Kwok、Miles Guo、Guo Wengui、Guo Haoyun、郭文贵或任何其他别名），以及其雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事之人。\n\n4. “债务人之子”系指 Qiang Guo（郭强）（又名 Mileson Kwok、郭强或任何其他别名），以及其雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事之人。\n\n5. “债务人之女”系指 Mei Guo（郭美）（又名 Mei Gui、郭美或任何其他别名），以及其雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事之人。\n\n6. “债务人之自称妻子”系指 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）（又名 Hing Chi Ng、Yue Qingzhi、岳庆芝或任何其他别名），以及其雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事之人。\n\n7. “债务人家属”系指单独及合称债务人、债务人之子、债务人之女及债务人之自称妻子，以及与债务人存在任何其他家庭关系之人。\n\n8. “2004 Discovery Targets”系指单独及合称债务人、债务人家属、17 Miles, LLC、5780 Saguaro LLC、Aaron Mitchell、ACA Capital Group Limited、Ace Decade Holdings Limited、AI Group Holdings Inc.、Alfa Global Ventures Limited、Alphonso Global Ventures Limited、Ana C. Izquiedo-Henn、Andrew Childe、Anthony DiBattista、Anton Development Limited、Booming Sail New York LLC、Beile Li、Bingshang Jiao、Bravo Luck Limited、Brent Petro Inc.、Celestial Tide Limited、Chris Lee（又名 Nan Li、Mei Guo Xiao Li）、China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Ltd.、Crane Advisory Group、Daniel Thomas Podhaskie、Defeng Cao（又名 Wayne Cao、Max Cao）、Ding “Ivan” Lin、Doaa Dashoush、Eastern Profit Corporation Limited、Genever Holdings Corporation、Genever Holdings LLC、Gettr USA, Inc.、Gnews Media Group Inc.、G Fashion (CA)、G Fashion、G Fashion Hold Co. A. Limited、G Fashion Hold Co. B. Limited、G Fashion Media Group Inc.、G Fashion International Limited、G Fashion LLC、Gmusic LLC、Gnews LLC、Geducation、GFNY, Inc.、G Club Finance、G Club HoldCo I LLC、G Club International Limited、G Club Investments Limited、G Club Operations LLC、G Club US Operations Inc.、G Club US Operations LLC、G Club、G Club One、G Club Two、G Club Three、G Live, LLC、Gbroadcast, LLC、GF Italy、GM 27 LLC、Gladys Chow、Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.、Gposts LLC、GTV Media Group, Inc.、Gypsy Mei Food Service LLC、Gypsy Mei Productions LLC、Gypsy Mei 27 Vestry, Inc.、Dawn State Limited、Greenwich Land LLC、Hao (Gavin) Li（又名 Huo Lai）、Haitham Khaled、Hamilton Capital Holdings Inc.、Hamilton Digital Assets Funds SP、Hamilton Investment Management Limited、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hamilton PE Funds SP、Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.、GS Security Solutions Inc.、Alex Hadjcharalambous、Han Chunguang、Haoran He、HCHK Property Management, Inc.、HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC、Freedom Media Ventures Ltd.、FungWan Trading Inc.、Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty. Ltd.、Himalaya New World Inc.、Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.、Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.、Himalaya International Payments Ltd.、Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.、Himalaya Ventures LLC、Himalaya Investment LLC、Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc.、Hudson Diamond Holding LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Huk Trading Inc.、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.、Jesse Brown、Jessica Mastrogiovanni、Jiaming Liu、Jie Zhang、Jovial Century International Limited、Joyord Sportswear Limited、K Legacy Ltd.、Kamel Debeche、Karin Maistrello、Kin Ming Je、Lamp Capital LLC、Lawall & Mitchell, LLC、Leading Shine NY Ltd.、Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.、Lexington Property and Staffing LLC、Linwan “Irene” Feng、Limarie Reyes、Lihong “Sara” Wei Lafrenz、The Lost Draft LLC、Macaron Limited、Major Lead International Limited、Mary Jiang、MOS Himalaya LLC、Maywind Trading LLC、New York MOS Himalaya LLC、Next Tycoon Investments Limited、Nicholas Savio、Nodal Partners, LLC、Qidong Xia、Oasis Tech Limited、Omicron Neutraceutical LLC、O.S.C. Orbit Service Company, LLC、Pixshow Film Inc.、Qu Guo Jiao、Roscalitar 2、Ridwan Mamode Saib、Ross Heinemeyer、Rule of Law Society IV Inc.、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.、Rule of Law Fund、Saraca Media Group Inc.、Savio Law LLC、Scott Barnett、Seven Mission Group LLC、Shih Hsin Yu、Sirius Networking Inc.、Taurus Fund LLC、Taurus Management LLC、US Himalaya Capital Inc.、V.X. Cerda & Associates P.A.、Victor Cerda、Voice of Guo Media, Inc.、Wen Xiao、Wencong Wang、William Je、Kin Ming Je（又名 Je Kin Ming）、Wise Creation International Limited、Xuebing Wang、Yan Chun Liu、Yinying (Aila) Wang（又名 Xiao Fei Xiang）、Yongbing Zhang、Yongping Yan (Shan Mu) Yue Zhou、Yumei Hao（又名 Ru Shui）、Yvette Wang（又名 Yanping Wang、又名 Yan Ping Wang）、Zhixuan Li、Zhouer “Joe” Wang、NewPeople LLC、Ziba Limited、New Mulberry PTE Ltd、TD Primrose Limited、Shin Hee-Seup（又名 Hee Seup Shin）、River Valley Operations LLC、Fiesta Investment Ltd.、Fiesta Property Developments Ltd.、Medical Supply System International LLC、New Smoke LLC、Mountains of Spices, LLC、Rainbow Gifts Inc.、Santel LLC、Davy & Tony International Limited、Love Miles for Zisun Inc.、Himalaya Boston Mayflower LLC、Top California Beach Corporation、Golden Eagle Ventures, LLC、Whole Alpha Trading LLC及 Art Operation LLC。\n\n9. “包括”或其任何变体，系指“包括但不限于”。\n\n10. “和”及“或”系指“和/或”，并应同时作连词性及选择性解释，以最大限度扩大其范围。\n\n11. “任何”、“所有”及“每一”均系指“每一个”。\n\n12. “每一”及“每个”均系指“每一个”。\n\n13. “第三方”系指贵方以外的个人或实体。\n\n14. “转让”应具有《破产法》section 101(54) 赋予该术语的含义。\n\n15. “Lazare Firm”系指 Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle LLP，以及其全部关联方、部门、机构、工具机构、处室、办事处、合伙人、高级职员、董事、代理人、律师、代表、雇员和/或任何代表其行事之人。\n\n16. “Lazare Firm Clients”系指 Taurus Fund LLC、Taurus Management LLC、Scott Barnett、William Je（又名 Kin Ming Je、Jianming Yu 或 William Yu）、ACA Capital Group Limited、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hamilton Capital Holding Limited、Hamilton Investment Management Limited、Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.、Himalaya International Clearing Limited、Himalaya International Financial Group Limited、Himalaya International Payments Limited、Himalaya International Reserves Limited、G Fashion (CA)、GF IP, LLC、GF Italy, LLC、GFashion Media Group Inc.、GFNY, Inc.、Major Lead International Limited、Celestial Tide Limited、G Fashion Hold Co A Limited、G Fashion Hold Co B Limited及 G Fashion International Limited。\n\n17. “文书”系指属于 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 范围内的任何信息或物品，并包括但不限于贵方占有、保管或控制之下或曾经处于贵方占有、保管或控制之下的各种类别、类型、性质或描述的每一份书面、记录或图形材料，包括电子邮件的所有印刷及电子副本、以电子形式保存的计算机文件、通信函件、备忘录、磁带、速记或手写笔记、任何种类的书面表格、图表、蓝图、绘图、草图、曲线图、计划、文章、规格说明、日记、信件、电报、照片、会议记录、合同、协议、调查、计算机打印件、任何种类的数据汇编、电传、传真、电子邮件、短信、即时消息、语音消息、发票、订购单、支票、汇票、对账单、贷项通知单、报告、持仓报告、摘要、索引、书籍、分类账、笔记本、附表、透明胶片、录音记录、目录、广告、宣传材料、电影、录像带、录音带、CD、计算机磁盘、宣传册、小册子、穿孔卡、工时单、Tweets、社交媒体帖子或任何其他种类的书面或记录材料，以及其全部元数据；无论其以何种方式存储、记录、制作或复制，亦无论其为有形或电子形式；还包括但不限于上述任何文书的草稿或副本，如其含有原始文书未载的任何种类笔记、评论或标记，或在其他方面与原始文书不相同。\n\n18. “个人”系指个人、公司、独资企业、合伙企业、协会或任何其他实体。“个人”还包括任何代理人、代表或专家，包括但不限于律师或财务顾问。\n\n19. “申请日”系指 February 15, 2022。\n\n20. “实体”系指任何自然人、公司、合伙企业、子公司、独资企业、商号、委员会、合资企业、协会、机构、主管机关、专门委员会或其他商业实体或法人，以及任何关联方、代理人、母公司，包括但不限于律师、财务顾问或任何其他代表。\n\n21. “关于”系指有关、描述、构成、提及、与之相关、支持、赞成、反对、强化、削弱、位于其中、结合考虑、影响、证明、表明、报告、记录、暗示、回应、与之联系、评论、就其而言、关于、与之有关、讨论、展示、描述、反映、分析、构成及属于。\n\n22. 在提及任何既定主题事项时，“与……有关”、“与……相关”或“与……有关系”系指但不限于构成、包含、涉及、含有、体现、反映、识别、陈述、直接或间接提及该特定已识别主题事项，或以任何方式与其相关的任何文书。\n\n23. “通信”系指在最广泛可能意义上且不限于此的任何信息或知识传递（以事实、观点、询问或其他形式）。通信进一步系指所有当面、通过电话、书面或借助电子传输设备进行的谈话、协议、询问或答复，包括但不限于所有信函、电子邮件、录音、传送单、备忘录、电话通信、语音留言、电报、传真、电传副本、电传、即时消息、聊天、短信、留言板或群聊中的帖子、社交媒体帖子、推文、上传至任何视频平台的视频、电话记录，或在内部或与第三方之间传送的记录。\n\n24. “资产”系指受占有、保管或控制的任何具有经济价值的项目。资产包括所有不动产和动产，包括但不限于房地产、土地、房屋、公寓、共管公寓、汽车、游艇、船舶、飞机、喷气式飞机、直升机、现金、银行账户、加密货币、证券、应收账款、存货及其他有形和无形财产。\n\nIV. 应提交的文件\n\n1. 足以显示自申请日以来，贵方就代表债务人、Chapter 11 案件中的任何利害关系方、任何 2004 取证对象和/或 Chapter 11 案件中任何对抗程序被告所完成的任何工作而收取的所有款项的文件，包括该等款项的来源。\n\n2. 自申请日以来与 Lazare Firm 或 Lazare Firm 客户的任何其他代表之间的所有通信。\n\n3. 自申请日以来与债务人或其代表、Chapter 11 案件中的任何利害关系方或其代表、任何 2004 取证对象或其代表，和/或 Chapter 11 案件中任何对抗程序被告或其代表之间的所有通信。","key_entities":["Je","Himalaya","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","HCHK","William Je","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","Luc Despins","Kin Ming Je","Saraca","Himalaya Exchange","Yanping Wang","GTV","GETTR","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":137,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":221,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":297,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":12336,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-10-29 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-10-29","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:35:28"}