{"id":"court_ctb_3778_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3778,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"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### **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S OPPOSITION TO G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC'S MOTION TO QUASH**\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\"), hereby submits this opposition (the \"Opposition\") to *G Club Operations LLC's Motion to Quash and Objections to the Trustee's Rule 2004 Examination Subpoena* [ECF No. 3752] (the \"Motion to Quash\"). Further to his Opposition, the Trustee respectfully states the following:\n\n1. The Trustee has broad authority under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 to investigate matters relevant to the administration of this Chapter 11 Case and assets of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate (the \"Estate\"). On December 2, 2022, this Court entered an order [ECF No. 1184] (the \"Rule 2004 Order\") granting the Trustee's motion to conduct a Rule 2004 examination of G Club Operations LLC (\"G Club\"), which, as the Court knows, is one of the entities central to the Debtor's fraudulent schemes, including his shell game to hide assets from creditors. Pursuant to the Rule 2004 Order,\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\nthe Trustee has issued a subpoena to G Club (the \"Subpoena\")[2](#page-1-0) to produce a corporate representative for examination to explore issues squarely implicating administration of the Estate and the location of potential Estate assets—issues which are different from those the Trustee will explore in his pending adversary proceeding to establish that G Club and other entities are the Debtor's alter egos (Adv. Proc. No. 24-5249, the \"Omnibus Alter Ego Adversary Proceeding\").\n\n2. As is clear from the designation of deposition topics appended to the Subpoena pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Civil Rules\"), the examination of G Club will explore: its current business purpose (if any), who is making decisions on its behalf, and how and by whom its litigation efforts in this case are being funded. Each of these topics is well within the scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and important to the Trustee's administration of the Chapter 11 Case and investigation of Estate assets.\n\n3. It is particularly important that the Trustee investigate these issues considering recent developments in this Chapter 11 Case. As the Court is aware, the Debtor's conviction in his criminal case was an inflection point for many of the shell companies and other litigants before this Court, as such parties have either ceased litigating, stopped complying with Court orders, or otherwise modified their tactics, thus raising questions about who is now controlling their affairs and funding their ongoing litigation efforts. As just a few examples:\n\n2 The Subpoena is attached to the Motion to Quash as Exhibit A.\n\n- Taurus Fund LLC (\"Taurus Fund\"), which is a defendant in the Trustee's pending adversary proceeding to recover the Debtor's New Jersey mansion, stopped funding the mansion's expenses, in violation of the Court's preliminary injunction[.](#page-2-0) 3\n- The Trustee discovered that the Debtor's personal counsel, Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC, has apparently been assisting Taurus Fund in litigation behind the scenes, without notice to the Trustee or the Court.[4](#page-2-1)\n- Counsel to the entities known as the \"HCHK Entities\" recently withdrew his appearance on their behalf in their pending appeal of the Court's default judgment decision pertaining to such entities, with counsel explaining that his clients had \"evaporated\" and stopped communicating with him.\n- The \"Proposed Intervenors\" in the HCHK adversary proceeding elected to discontinue their appeal of the Court's decision denying intervention.\n\n4. The trend established by these and other recent events has not gone unnoticed. At the recent hearing on the HCHK Entities' counsel's motion to withdraw his appearance, U.S. District Judge Kari Dooley observed that this \"pattern and practice\" of entities either not having authority to act or not being transparent about their authority is a \"mess by design.\" Judge Dooley further remarked that it was \"*appalling*\" that HCHK Entities appearing before the court had received no guidance from their purported controlling persons, which resulted in everyone \"wasting time and money.\" *See* Transcript of October 2, 2024 hearing in U.S. District Court, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, at p. 5 (emphasis added).\n\n5. The Trustee recognizes that appropriate investigation of certain entities participating in this Chapter 11 Case is called for to protect the integrity of proceedings. Both to that end and for the purpose of locating Estate assets, the Trustee's limited deposition of G Club is fully justified. The Trustee (and, indeed, the Court) is entitled to know, for example, (a) whether\n\n3 *See generally Amended Emergency Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee, Pursuant To Bankruptcy Code Section 363(b), for Entry of Order Authorizing Trustee to Continue to Fund Expenses of Mahwah Mansion and Related Relief* [ECF No. 3381].\n\n4 *See generally Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Examination of Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC* [ECF No. 3758] (the \"Schulman Rule 2004 Motion\").\n\nthe person(s) directing G Club have changed since the Debtor's arrest and subsequent conviction; (b) whether G Club has any continuing operations aside from litigation; and (c) how G Club's ongoing litigation efforts are being funded. Based on the Trustee's experience, this information is highly likely to lead to the discovery of potential Estate assets. And the answers to these questions will also permit the Trustee and the Court to consider for whose interests G Club speaks when it seeks to participate in proceedings in this Chapter 11 Case.\n\n6. In the Motion to Quash, G Club contends that the Subpoena is invalid because the Trustee must seek discovery from G Club in pending adversary proceedings, that the Subpoena is overbroad, and that the Trustee has not technically complied with the requirements of Civil Rule 45 and Rule 2004. Each of these arguments should be rejected.\n\n#### **I. Pending Proceeding Rule Does Not Foreclose Deposition**\n\n7. G Club argues that the so-called \"pending proceeding rule\" prevents the Trustee from deposing G Club under Rule 2004 because the Trustee has commenced adversary proceedings against G Club, including the Omnibus Alter Ego Adversary Proceeding seeking a declaratory judgment that G Club and other entities are the Debtor's alter egos. The pending proceeding rule is not contained in Bankruptcy Rule 2004; rather, it is a court-made doctrine to prevent parties from \"circumvent[ing] the safeguards and protections of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\" that govern adversary proceeding discovery. *See In re Wash. Mut., Inc.*, 408 B.R. 45, 51 (Bankr. Del. 2009); *see also In re Int'l Fibercom*, 283 B.R. 290, 292 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2002) (holding \"when the Rule 2004 examination relates not to the pending adversary litigation, but to another matter, the 'pending proceeding' rule does not apply\"). The pending proceeding rule is inapplicable to the Trustee's Subpoena because the topics on which the Trustee seeks to depose G Club are different from those at issue in the adversary proceedings.\n\n8. In the Omnibus Alter Ego Adversary Proceeding, the Trustee will primarily explore\n\nthe historical relationship between the Debtor and G Club, including the Debtor's control over G Club's operations and finances, and the persons who nominally managed the entity, such as the Debtor's criminal co-conspirator Yvette Wang. At present, however, and particularly in light of the Debtor's criminal conviction, these individuals are now gone, and, to the Trustee's best understanding, G Club is no longer \"operating\" its fraudulent \"membership\" scheme.[5](#page-4-0) Thus, the discovery the Trustee seeks into G Club's *current* operational and governance structure and its *current* funding sources is plainly different from the key facts at issue in the adversary proceeding.\n\n9. The purpose of this deposition pursuant to the Rule 2004 Order and the Subpoena also fundamentally differs from adversary proceeding discovery, because the Trustee does not seek evidence to use against G Club in a lawsuit—rather, the Trustee seeks information about *other* entities, individuals, and funding sources that could lead to the discovery of additional Estate assets and shed light of interference in the administration of the Chapter 11 Case by *other* entities and individuals. For example, if the Trustee learns that a particular individual is giving instructions to G Club, the Trustee will investigate that individual to determine whether that person is affiliated with other entities that may be shell companies. The same goes for any funding sources the Trustee may learn about in a deposition, as the Trustee believes any such funding sources are very likely to be assets of the Estate, which the Trustee could take action to recover.\n\n10. For these same reasons, it would be prejudicial to force the Trustee to wait to explore his discovery in the pending adversary proceedings, which have not yet progressed into the discovery stage. *See In re Jasper Pellets, LLC*, 647 B.R. 151, 156 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2022) (noting \"aggressive application of the 'pending proceeding rule' may prevent legitimate Rule 2004\n\n5 To this point, G Club itself noted—in seeking to delay document production due to the Trustee under the same Rule 2004 Order and a prior document subpoena—that, following the Debtor's indictment, G Club's \"Chief Executive Officer, the General Counsel, and the Associate General Counsel of G Club resigned …\"\n\nexaminations on matters wholly unrelated to the pending proceeding, thereby interfering with the trustee's … fiduciary duty to maximize estate assets\" (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). To the extent a deposition of G Club could lead to the discovery of Estate assets, time is of the essence in obtaining that information so the Trustee can take appropriate action to preserve such assets before it becomes too late to do so.\n\n#### **II. Scope of Subpoena is Otherwise Proper**\n\n11. G Club also argues that the subject matter for which the Subpoena requires it to produce a corporate representative is overbroad. Bankruptcy Rule 2004, however, authorizes very broad discovery, akin to a fishing expedition. *See Despins v. Lamp Cap. LLC (In re Ho Wan Kwok)*, 2024 Bankr. LEXIS 2095, \\*11 (Bankr. D. Conn. March 6, 2024) (\"Rule 2004 discovery is exceptionally broad to serve this purpose; it is broader than discovery permitted in adversary proceedings.\"); *In re Rafsky*, 300 B.R. 152, 153 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2003) (\"Examinations under Rule 2004 are allowed for the 'purpose of discovering assets and unearthing frauds' and have been compared to a 'fishing expedition.'\"). Considered in the context of the broad scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery, the scope of the topics appended to the Subpoena is remarkably narrow. The Trustee will depose G Club's representative on five narrow topics related to G Club's governance, operations, and funding sources, all of which are highly relevant to the Trustee's investigation for the reasons discussed above and therefore plainly fall well within the scope of the rule.\n\n12. In any event, in an effort to address certain of G Club's objections and to reduce the risk of any overlap with discovery the Trustee may seek in his pending adversary proceedings, the Trustee has agreed to narrow his topics even further. Specifically, the Trustee has agreed to limit the topics to information related to G Club and its direct or indirect parent companies (specifically, G Club International Limited, Jovial Century International Limited, and Stichting Duurzame). This would thus address G Club's objection to the Trustee seeking testimony\n\nregarding all other G Club affiliates (though, of course, the Trustee reserves the right to inquire about affiliated entities, such as other \"G Series\" entities, to the extent such entities have a role in G Club's corporate governance, decision-making, or funding). The Trustee has also agreed to limit the time period for his topics from the petition date to the present, which should alleviate G Club's over-breadth objection and prevent overlap with the historical relationship between the Debtor and G Club at issue in the Omnibus Alter Ego Adversary Proceeding.\n\n#### **III. Deposition Will Not Violate Civil Rule 45 or Local Rule 2004-1**\n\n13. G Club's additional procedural arguments are readily addressed. While G Club complains that the Trustee improperly seeks to depose a resident of Puerto Rico in New York, the Trustee has already offered to travel to Puerto Rico for the deposition or potentially take the deposition remotely. Thus, this is a non-issue[.](#page-6-0)6 The Trustee can issue a new subpoena, if necessary, once the parties have determined where (or how) the deposition will occur.\n\n14. Finally, the Trustee has not failed to comply with Local Rule 2004-1. As noted above, the Court already issued the Rule 2004 Order, which expressly provides that the Trustee's counsel is authorized:\n\n*without further order of this Court*, to take the testimony of one or more representatives of … [G Club] by examination under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 either at the offices of [Trustee's counsel], 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 the proposed examinee in compliance with the subpoena and this\n\n6 On October 9, 2024, at or around the same time that the Trustee caused the Subpoena to be served on G Club, the Trustee's counsel also sent a courtesy copy of the Subpoena to G Club's counsel by email, in which the Trustee's counsel stated, among other things, that while \"the place of the deposition has been set at Paul Hastings' office in New York City (and the Trustee's counsel is prepared to conduct the deposition there), the Trustee is also prepared to take the deposition at an alternative location, whether by agreement or, depending on where G Club is located/conducting business, one the Trustee may select in light of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c).\" This plainly complied both with the procedure for selecting the location of depositions ordered by the Court, *see* ¶ 14 *infra*, and with Civil Rule 45(c). G Club's argument that the Trustee \"elected to issue a facially defective Subpoena\" (Memo. of Law in Support of Mot. to Quash at p. 5) is inaccurate.\n\nOrder pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004, and such examination shall continue from day to day until completed.\n\nRule 2004 Order (emphasis added).\n\n15. The Trustee has obtained document production from G Club pursuant to the Rule 2004 Order and a document subpoena—albeit only after months of litigation and obstruction by G Club. *See, e.g., Order Granting Motion to Compel G-Club to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena* p. 3 (describing G Club's document production as \"several months overdue\" and its request for 60 days of additional delay as \"not reasonable\"). The Trustee remains entitled to depose G Club's corporate representative under the Rule 2004 Order. The Motion to Quash should be denied.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\nWHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Trustee asks the Court to overrule the Motion\n\nto Quash and to grant such other and further relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: November 1, 2024 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n### LUC A. DESPINS, 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*and*\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 alexbongartz@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK et al., | :
:
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.1 | :
: | Jointly Administered |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on the date hereof the foregoing was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case able to receive electronic notice by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system, or (within one business day) by U.S. Mail to any parties unable to receive electronic notice. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\n| Dated: November 1, 2024 | Luc A. Despins, as Chapter 11 Trustee |\n|-------------------------|---------------------------------------|\n| New Haven, Connecticut | |\n| | By:
/s/
Patrick R. Linsey |\n| | Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) |\n| | Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) |\n| | NEUBERT,
PEPE &
MONTEITH, P.C. |\n| | 195 Church Street, 13th Floor |\n| | New Haven, Connecticut 06510 |\n| | (203) 781-2847 |\n| | dskalka@npmlaw.com |\n| | plinsey@npmlaw.com |\n| | Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee |\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 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# **EXHIBIT 1**\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| 4 | We are here in the matter of HCHK Technologies, |\n| | Inc., et al. v. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee for the |\n| o | 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| | 9 for the HCHK entities. |\n| 1 0 | 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| । | MR. LINSEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick |\n| | 15 Linsey, of Neubert Pepe and Monteith, for the Trustee. |\n| 1 6 | 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| 24 | 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| വ | about -- you know, that three- or four-point. But I have a |\n| ന | copy of it if the Court would like to see it. |\n| ਧਾ | And the previous communications, even before the |\n| 5 | hearing was scheduled, you know, go back to July, saying, |\n| ം | 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| 10 | 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| 1 ব | 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| 19 | 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| 22 | common coordinating counsel here in the United States, who |\n| 23 | eventually informed me -- he's like, Listen, game is over, |\n| 24 | you know, there's nobody left, so |\n| 2 5 | 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| ഗ | 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| 1 6 | 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| kist, so -- and if I'm withdrawing an appeal on behal |\n|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| ties that I don't really have directions from, becaus |\n| s no -- there appears to be no more client. |\n| So, it kind of left me in a Catch-22. So I though |\n| t way to go is -- I said, let me just withdraw as -- |\n| a judgment against these entities, as the Court |\n| nows, so that ll progress in its own fashion. |\n| I was kind of caught between, like, you know, if I |\n| v the appeal, I'm still representing entities. But |\n| not quite accurate to the Court and to counsel |\n| , as best I can tell, I don't have a client any |\n| So, I thought withdrawing my appearance on behalf |\n| ntities, in this appeal, because that's really just |\n| left, made the most sense. |\n| THE COURT: And it might make the most sense. But |\n| bears, also, to be a continuation of a pattern and |\n| e arising out of the Ho Wan Kwok bankruptcy that I, |\n| , have inherited. |\n| MR. SHABAN: Yeah, it's a mess, to say the least. |\n| THE COURT: It's a mess by design, Counsel. |\n| Mr. Linsey, Mr. Despins, I don't know if you have a |\n| n this race, but any light you can shed on this |\n| on? Because you did settle with the other HCHK five |\n| s; did you not? |\n\n| 구 | 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| o | 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 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| 1 5 | 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| । ਰੇ | 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| 25 | 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 quidance, either to you or to the |\n| | 3 court, because now everybody's just wasting time and money. |\n| ণ | 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| o | to forward to whoever you think might be the appropriate |\n| 7 | recipient, even if such person may not exist -- that says if |\n| ထ | we don't have successor counsel in two weeks, the case will |\n| ഗ | 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| 1 6 | docketed today. Thank you. |\n| 17 | MR. SHABAN: Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | (Proceedings conclude, 9:22 a.m.) |\n| । ਹ | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 2 4 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： ：\n： 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n等 ： \n： 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n：\n： （合并管理）\n---------------------------------------------------------- x\n第11章受托人就G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC撤销动议提出的异议\n\nLuc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）以其作为在上述所列Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）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，特此就G Club Operations LLC（G Club Operations有限责任公司）针对受托人Rule 2004审查传票提出的撤销动议及异议[ECF No. 3752]（“撤销动议”）提交本异议（“异议”）。为进一步支持其异议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n1. 受托人依据《破产规则》2004对与本第11章案件管理及债务人第11章破产财产（“破产财产”）相关的事项进行调查，享有广泛权限。2022年12月2日，本院作出一项裁定[ECF No. 1184]（“Rule 2004裁定”），批准受托人提出的对G Club Operations LLC（“G Club”）进行Rule 2004审查的动议；如本院所知，G Club是债务人欺诈计划的核心实体之一，包括其向债权人隐匿资产的障眼法。根据Rule 2004裁定，受托人已向G Club发出传票（“传票”）[2]，要求其指定一名公司代表接受审查，以探究直接涉及破产财产管理及潜在破产财产资产所在地的问题——该等问题不同于受托人将在其尚待审理的对立诉讼程序中探究的问题；该对立诉讼程序旨在确定G Club及其他实体为债务人的另我（Adv. Proc. No. 24-5249，“综合另我对立诉讼程序”）。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（亦称Guo Wengui、Miles Guo及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（Paul Hastings律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok破产财产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n2 传票作为附件A附于撤销动议。\n\n2. 如根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第30(b)(6)条（“民事规则”）附于传票的证言录取事项指定所明确表明，对G Club的审查将探究：其目前的经营目的（如有）、谁在代表其作出决定，以及其在本案中的诉讼活动如何及由谁提供资金。上述各项均完全属于《破产规则》2004的范围，并对受托人管理第11章案件及调查破产财产资产至关重要。\n\n3. 鉴于本第11章案件近期的发展情况，受托人对这些事项进行调查尤为重要。如本院所知，债务人在其刑事案件中被定罪，是本院审理的许多空壳公司及其他诉讼当事人的转折点，因为该等当事人或已停止诉讼、停止遵守法院命令，或以其他方式改变其策略，从而引发了有关目前谁在控制其事务并资助其持续诉讼活动的问题。仅举数例如下：\n\n— Taurus Fund LLC（“Taurus Fund”），即受托人在其尚待审理的、旨在追回债务人新泽西州宅邸的对立诉讼程序中的被告，已停止支付该宅邸的费用，违反了本院的初步禁令。[3]\n\n— 受托人发现，债务人的个人律师Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC（Schulman Bhattacharya有限责任公司）显然一直在幕后协助Taurus Fund进行诉讼，且未通知受托人或本院。[4]\n\n— 被称为“HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）”的实体的律师，最近在该等实体就本院有关其缺席判决决定提出的尚待审理上诉中，撤回了其代表该等实体出庭的登记；该律师解释称，其委托人已“蒸发”且不再与其沟通。\n\n— HCHK对立诉讼程序中的“Proposed Intervenors（拟议介入人）”选择停止对本院驳回其介入申请的决定提出上诉。\n\n3 参见一般而言：第11章受托人依据《破产法典》第363(b)条提出的紧急修正动议，请求作出裁定授权受托人继续支付Mahwah Mansion（马瓦宅邸）的费用及其他相关救济[ECF No. 3381]。\n\n4 参见一般而言：第11章受托人请求依据《破产规则》2004及地方法则2004-1作出裁定，授权对Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC进行审查的动议[ECF No. 3758]（“Schulman Rule 2004动议”）。\n\n4. 这些及其他近期事件所形成的趋势并未被忽视。在近期就HCHK实体律师撤回其出庭登记的动议举行的听证会上，美国地区法院法官Kari Dooley（卡丽·杜利）指出，实体要么无权行事、要么未就其权限保持透明的这种“模式和做法”，乃是“有意造成的混乱”。杜利法官进一步指出，出庭的HCHK实体未从其声称的控制人处获得任何指导，导致所有人都“浪费时间和金钱”，此事“令人震惊”。参见随附作为附件1的美国地区法院2024年10月2日听证会记录，第5页（强调为原文所加）。\n\n5. 受托人认识到，为保护程序的完整性，有必要对参与本第11章案件的某些实体进行适当调查。为此目的以及为定位破产财产资产之目的，对G Club进行的有限证言录取完全合理。受托人（实际上，本院亦然）有权知悉，例如，(a) 自债务人被捕及随后被定罪以来，指挥G Club 的人员是否发生变化；(b) 除诉讼外，G Club是否仍有任何持续经营活动；以及(c) G Club持续进行的诉讼活动如何获得资金支持。根据受托人的经验，该等信息极有可能导致发现潜在的破产财产资产。对于这些问题的回答还将使受托人和本院能够考虑，当G Club寻求参与本第11章案件中的程序时，其是在为谁的利益发声。\n\n6. 在撤销动议中，G Club主张传票无效，理由是受托人必须在尚待审理的对立诉讼程序中向G Club寻求证据开示、传票范围过宽，以及受托人在技术上未遵守民事规则45及规则2004的要求。上述每项论点均应予以驳回。\n\nI. 尚待审理程序规则并不排除证言录取\n\n7. G Club主张，所谓“尚待审理程序规则”阻止受托人依据规则2004对G Club进行证言录取，因为受托人已对G Club提起对立诉讼程序，包括寻求宣告性判决以确认G Club及其他实体为债务人另我的综合另我对立诉讼程序。尚待审理程序规则并未载于《破产规则》2004；相反，它是一项由法院创设的原则，旨在防止当事人“规避管辖对立诉讼程序证据开示的《联邦民事诉讼规则》的保障和保护措施”。See In re Wash. Mut., Inc., 408 B.R. 45, 51 (Bankr. Del. 2009); see also In re Int'l Fibercom, 283 B.R. 290, 292 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2002)（认定“当Rule 2004审查所涉并非尚待审理的对立诉讼，而是另一事项时，‘尚待审理程序’规则不适用”）。尚待审理程序规则不适用于受托人的传票，因为受托人寻求对G Club进行证言录取的事项不同于对立诉讼程序中所争议的事项。\n\n8. 在综合另我对立诉讼程序中，受托人将主要探究债务人与G Club之间的历史关系，包括债务人对G Club经营及财务的控制，以及名义上管理该实体的人员，例如债务人的刑事共谋者Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）。然而，目前，特别是鉴于债务人的刑事定罪，这些人员现已不在，并且据受托人所知，G Club已不再“经营”其欺诈性的“会员”计划。[5] 因此，受托人寻求就G Club目前的经营及治理结构以及其目前的资金来源进行证据开示，显然不同于对立诉讼程序中争议的关键事实。\n\n5 就此而言，G Club自身在寻求因受托人根据同一Rule 2004裁定及先前文件传票应支付的文件提交而延迟时指出，在债务人被起诉后，G Club的“首席执行官、总法律顾问及副总法律顾问已辞职……”\n\n9. 根据Rule 2004裁定及传票进行此次证言录取的目的，也与对立诉讼程序中的证据开示有根本不同，因为受托人并非寻求取得在诉讼中对G Club使用的证据——相反，受托人寻求有关其他实体、个人及资金来源的信息，该等信息可能导致发现额外的破产财产资产，并揭示其他实体及个人对第11章案件管理的干扰。例如，如受托人获悉某一特定个人正在向G Club发出指示，受托人将调查该个人，以确定该人员是否与其他可能属于空壳公司的实体有关联。对于受托人可能在证言录取中获悉的任何资金来源，亦是如此，因为受托人相信，任何该等资金来源极有可能是破产财产资产，受托人可采取行动予以追回。\n\n10. 出于同样理由，迫使受托人等待在尚待审理的对立诉讼程序中探究其证据开示，将对受托人不利，因为该等程序尚未进入证据开示阶段。See In re Jasper Pellets, LLC, 647 B.R. 151, 156 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2022)（指出，“积极适用‘尚待审理程序规则’可能会妨碍对与尚待审理程序完全无关事项进行合法的Rule 2004审查，从而干扰受托人……最大化破产财产资产的信义义务”（省略内部引文及引号））。如对G Club的证言录取可能导致发现破产财产资产，则及时取得该等信息至关重要，以便受托人能够在采取行动保全该等资产为时已晚之前采取适当行动。\n\nII. 传票范围在其他方面亦属适当\n\n11. G Club（G俱乐部）还主张，传票要求其提供公司代表人就此作证的事项范围过宽。然而，《破产规则》第2004条授权进行范围极广的证据开示，近似于“撒网式调查”。参见 Despins v. Lamp Cap. LLC（In re Ho Wan Kwok），2024 Bankr. LEXIS 2095，*11（Bankr. D. Conn. March 6, 2024）（“第2004条规则下的证据开示为实现该目的而具有极其广泛的范围；其范围宽于对抗程序中允许的证据开示。”）；In re Rafsky，300 B.R. 152，153（Bankr. D. Conn. 2003）（“第2004条规则下的审查可为‘发现资产及揭露欺诈’之目的而进行，并被比作‘撒网式调查’。”）。在《破产规则》第2004条证据开示范围广泛这一背景下考虑，附于传票的议题范围极其狭窄。受托人将就与 G Club 的治理、运营及资金来源有关的五项狭窄议题，对 G Club 的代表人进行取证；基于上述理由，所有这些议题均与受托人的调查高度相关，因此显然完全处于该规则的范围之内。\n\n12. 无论如何，为解决 G Club 的某些异议并降低与受托人在其尚待审理的对抗程序中可能寻求的证据开示发生任何重叠的风险，受托人已同意进一步缩小其议题范围。具体而言，受托人已同意将议题限于与 G Club 及其直接或间接母公司（具体为 G Club International Limited（G Club国际有限公司）、Jovial Century International Limited（乔维尔世纪国际有限公司）及 Stichting Duurzame（杜尔扎默基金会））有关的信息。如此将解决 G Club 关于受托人寻求就所有其他 G Club 关联方作证的异议（当然，受托人保留就关联实体提出询问的权利，例如其他“G Series”实体，但仅限于该等实体在 G Club 的公司治理、决策或资金中发挥作用的范围）。受托人还同意将其议题的时间范围限制为自申请日迄今，这应当缓解 G Club 关于范围过宽的异议，并防止与综合另我对抗程序中争议的债务人与 G Club 之间的历史关系发生重叠。\n\nIII. 取证不会违反《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条或地方法规第2004-1条\n\n13. G Club 提出的其他程序性论点很容易得到处理。尽管 G Club 抱怨受托人不当地试图在纽约对一名波多黎各居民进行取证，但受托人已经提出前往波多黎各进行取证，或可能以远程方式进行取证。因此，这并非问题。6 一旦各方确定将在何处（或以何种方式）进行取证，受托人可在必要时签发新的传票。\n\n14. 最后，受托人并未未能遵守地方法规第2004-1条。如上所述，法院已签发第2004条规则命令，其中明确规定，受托人的律师获授权：\n\n无需本院进一步命令，可依据《破产规则》第2004条，通过审查方式在[受托人律师]的办公室，或在双方均可接受的其他地点，于受托人可接受的日期，对……[G Club]的一名或多名代表人进行取证；由受托人选择，该日期不得早于拟受审查人依照传票及本命令依据《破产规则》第2004条提交文件后14个日历日，且该审查应逐日持续直至完成。\n\n6 于 October 9, 2024，在受托人促使向 G Club 送达传票的大致同时，受托人的律师还通过电子邮件向 G Club 的律师发送了传票礼节性副本；在该邮件中，受托人的律师除其他事项外表示，尽管“取证地点已定在 Paul Hastings（宝盛律师事务所）位于纽约市的办公室（且受托人的律师准备在该处进行取证），但受托人也准备在替代地点进行取证，无论是经协议确定，还是视 G Club 所在地/经营业务所在地而定，受托人可根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) 选择该地点。”这显然同时遵守了法院命令规定的选择取证地点的程序，参见下文第14段，及《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45(c)条。G Club 关于受托人“选择签发一份表面上存在瑕疵的传票”的论点（Memo. of Law in Support of Mot. to Quash at p. 5）并不准确。\n\n第2004条规则命令（着重号为原文所加）。\n\n15. 受托人已依据第2004条规则命令及一份文件传票，从 G Club 获得文件提交——但仅在 G Club 数月的诉讼和阻挠之后。参见，例如，Order Granting Motion to Compel G-Club to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena，第3页（将 G Club 的文件提交描述为“逾期数月”，并将其要求额外延迟60天的请求描述为“不合理”）。受托人仍有权依据第2004条规则命令对 G Club 的公司代表人进行取证。应驳回撤销传票动议。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白。]\n\n因此，基于前述理由，受托人请求法院驳回撤销传票动议，并给予其他公正和适当的救济。\n\n日期：November 1, 2024 New Haven, Connecticut（康涅狄格州纽黑文）\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）（ct00616）\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437）\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz（G. 亚历山大·邦加茨）（admitted pro hac vice）\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（admitted pro hac vice）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（宝盛律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\nalexbongartz@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（admitted pro hac vice）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（宝盛律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格地区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： ：\n： 第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， ：\n：\n： Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1 ：\n： 联合管理\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，于本日已以电子方式提交上述文件。已通过电子邮件向上述标题所列第11章案件中可通过法院电子提交系统（“CM/ECF”）接收电子通知的所有当事人发送本次提交通知；对于无法接收电子通知的任何当事人，则于一个工作日内通过美国邮政寄送通知。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交。\n\n日期：November 1, 2024 Luc A. Despins，作为第11章受托人\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut（康涅狄格州纽黑文）\n签署人：\n/s/\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）（ct00616）\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437）\nNEUBERT,\nPEPE &\nMONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n第11章受托人律师\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，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（吉内弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（吉内弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP，200 Park Avenue，New York，NY 10166，收件人为 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附件1\n\n（October 2, 2024 听证会记录）\n\n1 （开庭，上午9:14）\n\n2 法庭：好的。大家早上好。我为延迟开庭致歉。\n\n4 我们现审理 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK技术公司）等诉 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯）、作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产第11章受托人一案。\n\n7 律师，请为记录说明各自身份。\n\n8 SHABAN先生：早上好，法官大人。我是 John Shaban（约翰·沙班），代表 HCHK 各实体。\n\n10 法庭：好的。早上好。\n\n11 DESPINS先生：早上好，法官大人。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n13 法庭：早上好。\n\n14 LINSEY先生：早上好，法官大人。我是 Neubert Pepe and Monteith 的 Patrick Linsey，代表受托人。\n\n16 法庭：好的。我安排此次听证——坦率地说，Shaban律师，我不太确定该如何看待这项动议。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，这些实体中没有任何实体派人到场。自本次听证安排以来，您曾尝试或进行过哪些沟通（如有）？\n\n24 SHABAN先生：嗯，自本次听证安排以来，我实际上已多次发出有关通知，并且还抄送了法院命令中要求的通知，即，您知道的，那三点或四点内容。但如果法院想看，我有一份副本。\n\n1 此外，在安排本次听证之前的先前沟通可追溯至 July；当时我说，嘿，各位，我们怎么办？而且，基本上，客户已经消失了。客户们都消失了，所以唯一——\n\n9 法庭：谁是您的联络人？我假定您就所有实体有一个单一联络人？\n\n11 SHABAN先生：通常是的。是一位名叫 Frank 的先生。Frank Wenfeng（弗兰克·文峰）。他在我开始代理时，大约就在同一时间——几乎完全同一时间——被重新任命为公司管理负责人，并且基本上负责管理这些实体。\n\n16 这些实体在纸面上存在。由于复杂原因，它们的运营实际上已被停止，但，您知道，我们需要——他们通过他重建了管理层。我在 August 得知他已辞职。或者说，我在 September 得知他已辞职。\n\n21 那些实体及其他实体在美国有一名共同协调律师，后来他告诉我——他说，听着，结束了，您知道，已经没人了，所以——\n\n25 法庭：是 Pastore先生吗？\n\n1 SHABAN先生：不，实际上是 Yongbing先生（按发音记录）。\n\n3 法庭：他是一名来自芝加哥的律师。\n\n4 法庭：您是否曾与 Pastore律师沟通过？我相信他曾在最近成为一项联合协议标的的另一宗破产上诉中，代表相关——或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——交谈。现在已有一段时间未曾联系，因为如我所说，我的工作实际上已经，您知道，消失了。我们曾在某种大致上的联合抗辩安排下工作，因为其中许多实体具有共同利益，并且其立场有着共同主题。但这在数月前实际上已经停止。\n\n16 法庭：那么，当这名来自芝加哥的联络人、核心律师说“结束了，我们正在收摊”时，为什么其中不包括撤回上诉的指示？\n\n20 SHABAN先生：嗯，我没有收到该指示。因此，我再次联系他，也联系 Frank，说，我是撤回上诉、撤回我的出庭代理，还是怎样做才是最佳方式？因为撤回——这也让我有些左右为难。就是说，如果我撤回上诉，我仍在代表这些实体，而这些实体仍然存在，所以——如果我代表其撤回上诉，\n\n我并未真正从这些实体获得指示，因为没有——看来已不存在客户了。\n\n所以，这让我陷入了两难境地。所以我认为，处理方式是——我说，让我就作为这些实体的代理律师撤回出庭记录，因为，如法院所知，已对这些实体作出判决，这样一来该案将自行按其方式推进。\n\n我有点陷入两难，比如说，如果我继续上诉，我仍在代理这些实体。但据我所能判断，这对法院和律师而言并不完全准确，因为我已不再有客户。\n\n因此，我认为，就这些实体在本次上诉中的代理撤回出庭记录，因为那确实是仅剩的事项，是最合理的做法。\n\n法庭：这或许确实是最合理的做法。但这似乎也是我所继承的、源自 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产案的一种模式和做法的延续。\n\nSHABAN 律师：是的，至少可以说，这是一团糟。\n\n法庭：律师，这是一场有意为之的混乱。\n\nLinsey 先生、Despins 先生，我不知道你们在这场竞赛中是否有既得利益，但你们能否对这种情况提供任何说明？因为你们确实已与其他五个 HCHK 实体达成和解，不是吗？\n\nLinsey 先生可以就该部分作出回应。但为记录在案，我是 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）。Shaban 律师所经历的情况与本案其余部分一致，即——例如，您可能知道也可能不知道，Mahwah mansion（马瓦豪宅）一事，他们基本上已将其弃置，而我们必须接手。\n\n这一切都发生在 Kwok 先生被刑事定罪之后，因此我认为每个人都明白这是——我们认为这是终点，但我——因此，我们在其他方面也有同样的经历，他们就是退出。未以负责任的方式处理，而只是，例如 Mahwah mansion，法院曾命令他们支付安保费用及其他费用，他们只是——\n\n法庭：消失了。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——走掉了。是的。\n\n法庭：那么，我认为 Shaban 律师——那么，让我问一下：Linsey 律师是否希望发言？\n\nLINSEY 律师：不，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。坦率地说，我面前的记录足以支持依据 Rule 41 作出驳回，但这不是我们今天到此的原因。\n\n而且，Shaban 律师，我同意你处于一种无法维持的境地。\n\n我认为——你可以将此转告给他——芝加哥的某位律师竟不能尊重程序，并向你或法院提供一些指引，这颇令人震惊，因为现在每个人都在浪费时间和金钱。\n\n我将准许撤回代理的动议。我将在案卷上发布一项命令——我会请你将其转交给你认为可能适当的任何收件人，即使该人可能并不存在——命令称，如果我们在两周内没有继任律师，本案将因未推进诉讼而被驳回。\n\nSHABAN 律师：很好。\n\n法庭：好的。今天上午我们还能就此事做些什么吗？\n\nSHABAN 律师：我认为不能，法官阁下。\n\nLINSEY 律师：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 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n（程序于上午 9:22 结束。）","key_entities":["Kwok","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","HCHK","Paul Hastings","Guo","Miles Guo","RICO","CIPA","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1184,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3381,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3752,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3758,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4856,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:45:49"}