{"id":"court_ctb_3848_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3848,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","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) ) ) ) ) ) ) )\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*.,1\n\nDebtors.\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n# **JOINT DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS**\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## **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n| I. | Law of the Case Has No Application to the Joint Defendants. 3 |\n|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| II. | The Trustee Has Failed to Allege a Cognizable Claim for Reverse Veil Piercing. 4 |\n| | III. Delaware Law Determines the Existence and Extent of the Debtor's Property Interests in the |\n| | Non-Debtor Transferors. 5 |\n| | IV. Delaware Law Applies the Vicarious Liability Theory. 7 |\n| V. | The Court May Not Apply the Equitable Doctrine of Alter Ego Retroactively. 8 |\n\n### **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES**\n\n## **Cases:**\n\n| Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC, 68 F.4th 607 (D.C. Cir. 2023) 4 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Covey v. Casey's General Stores, Inc. (In re Duckworth), No. 11-8104, 2012 WL 4434681
(Bankr. C.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2012) 8, 9, 10 |\n| Covey v. Peoria Speakeasy, Inc. (In re Duckworth), No. 10-83603, 2013 WL 1397456 (Bankr.
C.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2013) 8, 9, 10 |\n| Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L. P., 144 S. Ct. 2071 (2024) 9, 10 |\n| Havee v. Belk, 775 F.2d 1209 (4th Cir. 1985) 5 |\n| In re 10th Ave. Distributors, Inc., 97 B.R. 163 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 6 |\n| In re Adler, 494 B.R. 43 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2013) 6, 9 |\n| In re American Int'l Refinery, 402 B.R. 728 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2008) 8, 9, 10 |\n| In re Auto-Train Corp., Inc., 810 F.2d 270 (D.C. Cir. 1987) 10 |\n| In re Bridge, 18 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 1994) 5 |\n| In re Brower, 2023 WL 2927175 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023) 7 |\n| In re Colon, 563 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009) 5 |\n| In re Daniels, 641 B.R. 165 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2022) 9 |\n| In re Fisher, 296 F. App'x 494 (6th Cir. 2008) 9 |\n| In re Harman, 512 B.R. 321 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2014) 9 |\n| In re Howland, 674 F. App'x 482 (6th Cir. 2017) 7 |\n| In re Lawler, 53 B.R. 166 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1985) 10 |\n| In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC, 716 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. 2013) 5 |\n| In re Moise, 575 B.R. 191 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017) 3 |\n| In re Motors Liquidation Co., 590 B.R. 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 3 |\n| In re N.S. Garrott & Sons, 772 F.2d 462 (8th Cir. 1985) 5 |\n| In re Nejberger, 934 F.2d 1300 (3d Cir. 1991) 5, 6 |\n| In re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2005) 10 |\n| In re Palmieri, 651 B.R. 349 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2023) 7, 9 |\n| In re RS Air, LLC, 651 B.R. 538 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2023) 7 |\n\n| In re Schuster, 132 B.R. 604 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1991) 9 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In re Stillwater Asset Backed Offshore Fund Ltd., 559 BR 563 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016) 7 |\n| In re The Ground Round, Inc., 482 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2007) 5 |\n| In re Yerushalmi, 487 B.R. 98 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012) 6 |\n| Krakowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 610 B.R. 714 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 3 |\n| Manichaean Cap., LLC v. Exela Techs., Inc., 251 A.3d 694 (Del. Ch. 2021) 4, 7, 8 |\n| Nicole Gas Prod., Ltd., 916 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2019) 5 |\n| Norwest Rank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197 (1988) 1 |\n| Otto Candies, LLC v. KPMG, LLP, 2020 WL 4917596 (Del. Ch. Aug. 21, 2020) 7 |\n| Pavers & Rd. Builders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Core Contracting of N.Y., LLC, 536 B.R.
48 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) 9 |\n| Spring Real Estate, LLC v. Echo/RT Holdings, LLC, No. 7994–VCN, 2016 WL 769586 (Del. Ch.
Feb. 18, 2016) 7, 8 |\n| U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. MMCO, L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-4605, 183 N.E.3d 499 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
9 |\n\n## **Statutes:**\n\n| 11 U.S.C. § 502(h) 5, 7 | |\n|---------------------------|--|\n| 11 U.S.C. § 544 5 | |\n| 11 U.S.C. § 548(c) 9 | |\n| 11 U.S.C. § 549 7, 9, 10 | |\n| 11 U.S.C. § 550 9 | |\n\n The Joint Defendants2 hereby submit this reply to the *Chapter 11 Trustee's Objection to Joint Defendants' Omnibus Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss or for Judgment on the Pleadings* (ECF 3803) (the \"Objection\" or \"Obj.\"), and in further support of the Motion.\n\nThis Court must, for the first time, consider whether an alter ego determination confers standing on the Trustee to pursue initial avoidance claims against third parties who the Trustee alleges received transfers from such purported alter egos.3 The alter ego determinations by this Court *do not transform alter egos into debtors* such that the Trustee can exercise avoidance action powers over them. Any holding to the contrary violates Delaware law, prejudices the Joint Defendants, and gives the Trustee litigation powers beyond what Congress envisioned in the Bankruptcy Code.\n\nThe Trustee repeatedly relies on *dicta* while trampling the Supreme Court's holding in *Butner* that Delaware law must determine the existence and extent of property interests. Moreover, the Trustee ignores the weight of the decisional authority holding that any alter ego determination cannot be applied retroactively when, as here, it will plainly prejudice third-party creditors that the Trustee has not alleged to be anything other than innocent and unknowing. Nor can the Trustee use alter ego as an end-run around the exacting standards required to substantively consolidate non-debtors *nunc pro tunc* for the purpose of creating avoidance claims. The Bankruptcy Court's equitable powers \"must and can only be exercised within the confines of the Bankruptcy Code\" and cannot be used to eliminate creditor's statutory rights. *Norwest Rank Worthington v. Ahlers*, 485 U.S. 197, 206 (1988).\n\n2 Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the *Joint Defendants' Omnibus Memorandum* (Dkt. No. 3713) (the \"Memorandum\"). 3\n\nIn his Objection, the Trustee attempts to convince this Court that it *must have* decided the issue when the Trustee obtained judgments stating that the Non-Debtor Transferors' assets are property of the Kwok estate. But the Trustee never disclosed his intention to assert avoidance action powers to this Court. In fact, he affirmatively alleged, in at least one of the Alter Ego Adversaries, that the alter egos had no unrelated third-party creditors. Nor did the Court ever consider whether the Trustee could exercise avoidance action powers over the alter egos.\n\nEven assuming, *arguendo*, that the Trustee's standing to bring avoidance action claims relating to transfers made by the Non-Debtor Transferors was decided previously, it would be fundamentally unfair to use the *discretionary* law of the case doctrine to bind the Joint Defendants when they had no meaningful notice or opportunity to be heard. Law of the case cannot apply under these circumstances, and is being wielded by the Trustee as a litigation \"gotcha\" tactic rather than a doctrine of judicial fairness and economy. Simply put, the law of the case doctrine does not apply because the Joint Defendants were not parties to the Alter Ego Adversaries. The Trustee *wholesale ignores the Joint Defendants' supportive case law* and instead relies on demonstrably dissimilar decisions. The Trustee argues that, despite the fact that he sought to stay the Joint Defendant Adversaries and herd all defendants into mediation, the over 270 defendants were required, within days of being sued, to search all pending related proceedings, file motions to intervene and contest the alter ego determinations, when in some circumstances default had already been entered.\n\nThe Trustee's litigation strategy misuses an equitable doctrine to deprive innocent third parties of their defenses, including their good faith and value defenses as subsequent transferees. Incredibly, the Trustee plays victim, complaining that if the Court were to grant the Motion he would \"be without recourse to address\" Kwok's fraud. The Trustee is not the Department of Justice and is not \"a law unto himself.\" The Trustee ignores the fact that he has recourse against the alleged alter egos themselves and their existing assets.4 He also ignores that he can sue third parties as *subsequent* transferees of transfers made by Kwok, because this would require him to concede\n\n4 The Trustee also ignores the funds he has already recovered to date, and the fact that the U.S. Attorney's Office announced on March 15, 2023, that the U.S. Government seized over \\$630 million of alleged fraud proceeds that it presumably will pay to creditors of this case. *See* http\n\nthat the Joint Defendants possess good faith defenses to the Trustee's claims—a bitter but necessary pill for the Trustee to swallow.\n\n#### **I. Law of the Case Has No Application to the Joint Defendants.**\n\nRather than address the Joint Defendants' authority limiting the doctrine to subsequent litigation between the same parties, the Trustee relies on wholly inapplicable cases. While courts have considered adversary proceedings as part of the main case for purposes of imposing this doctrine, in each cited case the affected party was also a party to the main case and had direct notice prior to entry of the order establishing the law of the case. *See In re Motors Liquidation Co*., 590 B.R. 39, 63 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (tort plaintiffs were parties to main bankruptcy case from inception).5 In *Krakowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc*., 610 B.R. 714, 724–25 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), the court held that the law of the case doctrine barred the *same parties* from pursuing a subsequent adversary proceeding based on nearly identical claims they alleged in a previous adversary proceeding. Likewise, in *In re Moise*, 575 B.R. 191, 205 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017), the doctrine barred the debtor from pursuing a second adversary proceeding on the same issues he raised in an earlier, failed adversary.\n\nThe Trustee's suggestion that the Joint Defendants had the opportunity to intervene in the HCHK and Greenwich Land adversaries if they wished to protect their interests is meritless. The Trustee casually fails to mention that, mere weeks after commencing the Joint Defendant Adversaries, he filed his first Motion to Approve Mediation Procedures on March 15, 2024 (ECF 3003) (the \"Mediation Motion\"), which sought to stay these adversaries. His suggestion that the Joint Defendants should have immediately ignored the Mediation Motion and filed 38 motions to\n\n5 One party against whom the doctrine was invoked was not a party to the case at the time of the relevant decision but did have direct notice of the motion leading to that decision. *Id.*\n\nintervene in each of the Alter Ego Adversaries attempts to use mediation as a sword against the Joint Defendants, is unsupported by any authority and smacks of mediation in bad faith.\n\nIn any case, by the time the Joint Defendants were served with these complaints it was already effectively too late for them to intervene in the Alter Ego Adversaries. For example, when the Mediation Motion was filed, default had already been entered against HCHK Property (AP 23- 5013, ECF 139), which HCHK sought and failed to set aside, and the Trustee filed his motion for default judgment on March 8, 2024 (AP 23-5013, ECF 268).6 In addition, the Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment against Greenwich Land was already under advisement by January 9, 2024 (AP 23-5005, ECF 125), and default judgment had already been entered against Lamp Capital (AP 23-5023, ECF 66). *Cf. Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC*, 68 F.4th 607, 611 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (holding that failure to establish right to intervene would not preclude party from raising issues in future action).7\n\n### **II. The Trustee Has Failed to Allege a Cognizable Claim for Reverse Veil Piercing.**\n\nThe Trustee asserts that while harm to innocent and unknowing third-party creditors is one among several factors that courts are to consider before applying reverse veil-piercing under Delaware law, it is not \"a dispositive factor that overrides all other considerations.\" Obj. ¶ 19. Yet, the ruling in the seminal Delaware case expressly states the contrary: \"Only in cases alleging egregious facts, *coupled with the lack of real and substantial prejudice to third parties*, should the court *even consider* utilizing the reverse veil-piercing doctrine.\" *Manichaean Cap., LLC v. Exela Techs., Inc.*, 251 A.3d 694, 714–715 (Del. Ch. 2021) (emphasis added). In short, \"the lack\n\n6 In fact, the Trustee opposed an attempt earlier in the HCHK Property adversary by parties alleging to be creditors of HCHK to intervene and the Court sustained that objection. (AP 23-5013, ECF 60, 119, 239.)\n\n7 The Trustee must be suggesting that the Joint Defendants had a *right* to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), because permissive intervention is a matter of the court's discretion. Intervention as a matter of right in the Alter Ego Adversaries implies that proceeding without the Joint Defendants would \"impede [their] ability to protect [their] interest.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). If true, the Trustee should have named the Joint Defendants as parties in those adversaries or at least provided them with notice of same. As set forth previously and above, the Trustee did neither.\n\nof real and substantial prejudice to third parties\" is an element that must be satisfied before reverse veil-piercing can be \"even consider[ed]\" (let alone applied) to a Joint Defendant. Consequently, the Trustee is required to plead in each of the Joint Defendant Adversaries facts sufficient to plausibly allege why the Joint Defendant was *not* innocent and unknowing concerning the Debtor's connection with the applicable Non-Debtor Transferor and why the Joint Defendant would *not* be prejudiced by reverse veil piercing—something he has not done or even attempted to do.\n\n The Trustee further asserts that purported harm to the Joint Defendants is an undetermined issue of fact that is not yet ripe for the Court's consideration. Obj. ¶ 16. Yet, there can be no credible dispute that the Trustee's attempt to claw back millions of dollars in payments received by the Joint Defendants will be prejudicial to these defendants. Nor does the prospect of obtaining a 11 U.S.C. § 502(h) claim negate such prejudice because any recovery is uncertain, likely to be less than 100% with interest, and will be months if not years from now (if at all).\n\n# **III. Delaware Law Determines the Existence and Extent of the Debtor's Property Interests in the Non-Debtor Transferors.**\n\nIt is well-settled that state law determines the existence and extent of a debtor's legal and equitable interests in property. The Trustee's own cases state this tenet clearly. *In re Nejberger*, 934 F.2d 1300, 1302 (3d Cir. 1991) (\"Although section 541 defines property of the estate, we must look to state law to determine if a property right exists and to stake out its dimensions.\"); *accord In re The Ground Round, Inc.*, 482 F.3d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 2007); *Nicole Gas Prod., Ltd.*, 916 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2019); *In re N.S. Garrott & Sons*, 772 F.2d 462, 466 (8th Cir. 1985). In addition, although 11 U.S.C. § 544 may provide a trustee with \"strong-arm\" powers, his exercise of such power and its extent are governed entirely by the applicable state law. *Havee v. Belk*, 775 F.2d 1209, 1218–19 (4th Cir. 1985); *accord In re Colon*, 563 F.3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir. 2009); *In re Bridge*, 18 F.3d 195, 200 (3d Cir. 1994).\n\nContrary to the implication of the Trustee's argument, filing for bankruptcy does not create new property rights through bankruptcy common law. *See, e.g.*, *In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC*, 716 F.3d 736, 751 (3d Cir. 2013); *In re N.S. Garrott & Sons*, 772 F.2d at 467. The Trustee cites numerous cases analyzing state liquor and brothel licenses for this proposition, which determine a license should be considered property even where the state refers to it as a \"privilege.\" *See, e.g.*, *In re Nejberger*, 934 F.2d at 1302. Here, the Court needs to determine whether the Debtor has any interest in certain property at all, not whether an existing interest should be termed \"property.\" And even in the license cases, courts looked to underlying state law to determine the extent of the debtor's interest. *Id.* at 1303 (looking to Pennsylvania statute before holding that debtor had interest in renewing expired liquor license).\n\nNone of the Trustee's cases stand for the principle that federal law governs the effect or \"characteristics\" of an alter ego finding against an entity. The Trustee's laundry list of cases does not support the proposition that federal bankruptcy law causes the property of an alter ego to become property of the Debtor—these cases apply state law for the impact of an alter ego determination. For example, in *In re 10th Ave. Distributors, Inc.*, 97 B.R. 163, 164 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), the court explicitly recognized that state law governs veil-piercing.8 The Trustee asserts that the *Yerushalmi* and *Star Mountain* courts rejected the application of state law to determine the consequences of an alter ego ruling—but they did not. Neither court ruled on the consequences of alter ego. In *Yerushalmi*, 487 B.R. at 109–10, the court cited New York law as to whether estate planning trusts are susceptible to attack if used for fraudulent purposes, as well as the elements\n\n8 The *10th Ave.* court's approach was not unique. *See, e.g., McElroy v. FirstEnergy Corp.*, 824 F. App'x 97, 99 (3d Cir. 2020) (state law governs whether corporate veil may be pierced); *In re Yerushalmi*, 487 B.R. 98, 109–10 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012) (applying New York law); *In re Star Mountain Res., Inc.*, No. 2:18-BK-01594-DPC, 2022 WL 2294175, at \\*8 (Bankr. D. Ariz. June 22, 2022), *reconsideration denied sub nom. Star Mt. Plan Tr. v. Titan Mining (US) Corp.*, No. CV-22-01389-PHX-GMS, 2023 WL 2355916 (D. Ariz. Feb. 3, 2023) (applying Nevada law); *In re Blatstein*, 192 F.3d 88, 100 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying Pennsylvania law); *In re Pearlman*, 462 B.R. 849, 855 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012) (applying Florida law); *In re Harry C. Partridge Jr. & Sons, Inc.*, 112 B.R. 593, 596 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990) (applying New York law); *In re Adler*, 494 B.R. 43, 58 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2013) (applying New York law).\n\nunder New York law to pierce the veil. In *Star Mountain*, 2022 WL 2294175, at \\*8, the court, although denying cross-motions for summary judgment, specifically recognized that Nevada's alter ego law \"will produce a result similar to substantive consolidation.\"\n\nUltimately, contrary to the Trustee's assertions, bankruptcy courts \"look to state law for the definition and legal consequences of the alter ego doctrine.\" *In re Brower*, 2023 WL 2927175, at \\*9 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023) (rejecting § 549 claim), *aff'd*, 2024 WL 2826283 (9th Cir. June 4, 2024); *accord In re Howland,* 674 F. App'x 482, 486 (6th Cir. 2017). That is the case here.\n\n#### **IV. Delaware Law Applies the Vicarious Liability Theory.**\n\nThe Trustee erroneously relies on *dicta* to try to rebut the cases holding that an alter ego finding under Delaware law imposes vicarious liability only. Delaware law applies the vicarious liability of the alter ego doctrine—not the identity theory—which dooms the Trustee's claims. *Otto Candies, LLC v. KPMG, LLP*, 2020 WL 4917596, at \\*9 (Del. Ch. Aug. 21, 2020) (stating that veil-piercing or alter ego doctrine is path to vicarious liability). Under Delaware law, an alter ego may be responsible for the debts of another, but that does *not* result in a consolidation of assets. *See, e.g.*, *In re RS Air, LLC*, 651 B.R. 538, 545 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2023); *see also In re Stillwater Asset Backed Offshore Fund Ltd.*, 559 BR 563, 586–87 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016) (holding that court \"knows of no support for the idea that alter ego theories can be used\" to selectively pool assets of Delaware entity with debtor entity to create an avoidance action).\n\nThe Trustee's attempt to rely on *Palmieri*, *Spring Real Estate*, and *Manichaean* to reach a different result fails. *Palmieri* cites no legal precedent at all, and certainly no Delaware law, for its statement, in *dicta*, that an alter ego finding would result in that entity's property becoming property of the estate. 651 B.R. 349, 358 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2023). Similarly, the *Spring Real Estate* court's statement, in *dicta*, also fails to cite Delaware law. As noted in the Memorandum, *Spring Real Estate* relies on *In re American Int'l Refinery*, 402 B.R. 728, 742–46 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2008),\n\nbut *American Int'l* applies Nevada law. *Spring Real Estate, LLC v. Echo/RT Holdings, LLC*, No. 7994–VCN, 2016 WL 769586, \\*3 (Del. Ch. Feb. 18, 2016).\n\nThe Trustee attempts to make hay regarding *dicta* in *Manichaean*, 251 A.3d at 710 n.85, that a subsidiary's assets can be that of the parent upon reverse veil-piercing; however, the sole source of this *dicta* is *Spring Real Estate*, the problems with which are noted above. To be clear, the *Manichaean* court considered whether the plaintiffs could use reverse veil-piercing to enforce their judgment against the judgment debtor's wholly owned subsidiaries—a classic case-by-case application of alter ego theory; it did not conclude that the entities were one and the same for all purposes. *Id.* at 718–19.\n\n### **V. The Court May Not Apply the Equitable Doctrine of Alter Ego Retroactively.**\n\nThe Trustee incorrectly asserts that the Joint Defendants have not cited a case holding that an alter ego's existing assets belonged to the estate, yet the trustee could not avoid prior transfers to creditors. Obj. ¶ 52. *In re Duckworth* addressed this exact scenario. No. 11-8104, 2012 WL 4434681 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2012). The Trustee wrongly asserts that *Duckworth* did not apply the alter ego doctrine because Power Trading was properly created under state law and validly existed as an entity. Obj. ¶ 53. To the contrary, the *Duckworth* court acknowledged that the corporate veil of Power Trading had been pierced in a prior proceeding by which its assets were brought into the estate. *See Duckworth*, 2012 WL 4434681, \\*7 & n.12.9 However, *Duckworth* rejected using the alter ego doctrine to circumvent the statutory defenses Congress afforded to creditors that received transfers from Power Trading in good faith and for value. *Id*. If there was any question as to the court's reasoning, it was laid to rest seven months later when the court rejected the same theory in a related avoidance action, *Covey v. Peoria Speakeasy, Inc. (In re*\n\n9 *See* Stipulated Judgment, Dkt. No. 8, *Covey v. Duckworth (In re Duckworth)*, Adv. Proc. No. 11-08058 (Bankr. C.D. Ill., September 19, 2011), a copy of which is annexed hereto as **Exhibit A**.\n\n*Duckworth)*, No. 10-83603, 2013 WL 1397456 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2013). In that case, the court, explaining its prior decision, acknowledged that Power Trading was properly created and existing under Indiana law, but then considered whether to disregard the separateness under the alter ego doctrine retroactively to create a direct § 549 claim. *Id*. at \\*5. Because \"[e]quitable remedies are not permitted to overrule statutory rights[,]\" the court explained that the alter ego doctrine cannot be used to obviate a subsequent transferee defense under § 550. *Id*. And for that reason, the court rejected the trustee's \"unprecedented reliance on the alter ego doctrine\" in the *Speakeasy* adversary as well. *Id*. at \\*6–8. The court emphasized that \"[n]o federal court has permitted the [alter ego] doctrine to be used for this purpose\" and that \"[i]nnocent transferees like Casey's and Speakeasy deserve to have their statutory rights and defenses protected.\"10 *Id.* at \\*8.\n\nNotably, the cases cited by the Trustee (with the possible exception of *American Int'l*) 11 all involved transfers to the debtor's insiders.12 *See In re Palmieri*, 651 B.R. 349, 352 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2023) (debtor's girlfriend); *In re Harman*, 512 B.R. 321, 326 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2014) (debtor's wife);13 *In re Fisher*, 296 F. App'x 494, 498 (6th Cir. 2008) (debtor's romantic and business\n\n10 *Duckworth* touched on the same concerns addressed in *Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L. P*., 144 S. Ct. 2071, 2082 n.2 & 2084 (2024), which rejected using bankruptcy courts' equitable powers to release creditor direct claims against non-debtors absent an express statutory enactment. Here, these concerns again take center stage because the Trustee is trying to use \"equity\" to strip, absent any Congressional authorization, the Joint Defendants of their statutory defenses under §§ 548(c) and 550(b) to alleged \"post-petition\" transfers. Additionally, doing so retroactively robs the Joint Defendants of the ability to have sought statutory relief under 11 U.S.C. § 363 to confirm that the transactions were authorized.\n\n11 In *American Int'l Refinery,* 402 B.R. 728, 734–35 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2008), the president and COO of the debtor was hired about a year after the challenged transfer to be the president of the acquired company, and the transferee was essentially in a joint venture with the debtor's alter ego.\n\n12 The Trustee's reliance on *In re Adler*, 494 B.R. 43, 52 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2013), is misplaced because it solely addressed alter ego in the context of the debtor's right to a discharge. It did not address the impact on innocent transferees of the debtor's alter egos. Moreover, a key aspect of *Adler*'s holding has been criticized by the district court. *See Pavers & Rd. Builders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Core Contracting of N.Y., LLC*, 536 B.R. 48, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (\"Just because two entities are *alter egos* does not make them both debtors under the Bankruptcy Code. It simply means they are liable for each other's debts. If the non-debtor entity wants that protection, it need only file its own petition\").\n\n13 *Harman*'s holding was later abrogated after the Georgia Court of Appeals determined that Georgia law did not recognize an exception to the general bar against outsider reverse veil-piercing. *See In re Webster*, 629 B.R. 654, 668 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2021).\n\npartner);14 *In re Schuster*, 132 B.R. 604, 606 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1991) (debtor's wife). Because it is an equitable doctrine, the court's use of alter ego will vary significantly when imposed to clawback funds from an insider as opposed to a non-insider. Indeed, *Duckworth* and *Lawler* rejected the application of this equitable doctrine to innocent creditors like the Joint Defendants. *See Duckworth (Casey's)*, 2012 WL 4434681 at \\*6; *Duckworth (Speakeasy)*, 2013 WL 1397456 at \\*5; *In re Lawler*, 53 B.R. 166, 167 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1985). Moreover, *American Int'l Refinery* only applied to a pre-petition fraudulent transfer and preference claims, both of which offer substantial affirmative defenses to protect trade creditors, and not, contrary to Trustee's assertion, a § 549 claim. *American Int'l*, 402 B.R. at 734–35, 740.\n\nWhile the Trustee calls the analogy to substantive consolidation a \"strawman argument\" (Obj. ¶ 56), he confirms that he is effectively seeking the same result as substantive consolidation while merely slapping a different label on it. Substantive consolidation merges a group of entities' assets and liabilities together. *See e.g.*, *In re Owens Corning*, 419 F.3d 195, 206 (3d Cir. 2005). The Trustee's alter ego theory merges the Non-Debtor Transferors' assets and liabilities together. *See* Obj. ¶¶ 16–17 (liabilities arising from avoidance claims will be addressed under Section 502(h)). Yet, the Trustee does not believe he needs to address the serious concerns regarding the impact of *nunc pro tunc* substantive consolidation on creditors and the corresponding need for heightened scrutiny of such relief. *See, e.g., In re Auto-Train Corp., Inc.*, 810 F.2d 270, 276–77 (D.C. Cir. 1987). It would be absurd to allow the Trustee to achieve the same ends under a more lenient procedural and substantive standard merely by calling the relief a different name (all ironically in the name of equity). *See Purdue Pharma*, 144 S. Ct. at 2086 (\"word games cannot obscure the underlying reality\"). Indeed, the argument renders substantive consolidation a nullity.\n\n14 *Fisher*'s description of Ohio's alter ego doctrine as being something separate from veil piercing has been criticized by Ohio state and federal courts. *See In re Daniels*, 641 B.R. 165, 196 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2022); *U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. MMCO, L.L.C.*, 2021-Ohio-4605, ¶ 63, 183 N.E.3d 499, 516 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).\n\nDated: November 22, 2024\n\n## THE JOINT DEFENDANTS\n\n| By: /s/ Jeffrey Hellman
Jeffrey Hellman (ct04102)
LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN,LLC
195 Church Street, 10th Floor
Tel: 203-691-8762
New Haven, CT 06510
Email: jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com
Counsel for Ohtzar Shlomo Solomon
Treasure LLC and Jason Miller | By: /s/ Eric S. Goldstein
Eric S. Goldstein (ct27195)
SHIPMAN &
GOODWIN LLP
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel: (860) 251-5059
Email: egoldstein@goodwin.com
Counsel for Anthem HealthChoice Assurance,
Inc. dba Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield;
Anthem Health Plans, Inc.; Sedgwick Realty
Corp.; and Direct Persuasion LLC |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| By: /s/ Scott M. Charmoy
Scott M. Charmoy (ct15889)
CHARMOY &
CHARMOY,
LLC
1465 Post Road, Suite 100
Westport, CT 06680
Tel: (203) 255-8100
Email: scottcharmoy@charmoy.com
Counsel for Putnam's Landscaping LLC | By: /s/ Eric S. Goldstein
Eric S. Goldstein (ct27195)
Nicole M. Lapenta (ct31639)
SHIPMAN &
GOODWIN LLP
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel: (860) 251-5059
Email: egoldstein@goodwin.com
nlapenta@goodwin.com
-and
By: /s/ Michael A. Siedband
Michael A. Siedband (pro hac vice)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
3620 Hacks Cross Road, Bldg. B
Memphis, TN 38104
Tel: (901) 355-2075
Email: michael.siedband@fedex.com
Counsel for Federal Express Corporation |\n| By: /s/ Rowena A. Moffett
Rowena A. Moffett (ct19811) | By: /s/ Michael T. Conway
Michael T. Conway (ct26750) |\n\n| BRENNER,
SALTZMAN &
WALLMAN LLP | LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS &
MOYLE LLP |\n|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|\n| 271 Whitney Avenue | 747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor |\n| New Haven, CT 06511 | New York, NY 10017 |\n| Tel: (203) 772-2600 | Tel: (917) 242-1597 |\n| Email: rmoffett@bswlaw.com | Email: mconway@lpgmlaw.com |\n| | |\n| Counsel for Morvillo Abramowitz Grand | Counsel for Arri Americas Inc. |\n| Iason & Anello PC | |\n| | |\n| By: /s/ Louis J. Martocchio III | By: /s/ Ross G. Fingold |\n| Louis J. Martocchio III (ct31149) | Ross G. Fingold (ct05452) |\n| MARTOCCHIO &
OLIVEIRA LLC | STOKESBURY &
FINGOLD,
LLC |\n| 191 Main Street | 10 Waterside Drive, Suite 204 |\n| Southington, CT 06489 | Farmington, CT 06032 |\n| Tel: (860) 621-9700 | Tel: (860) 606-1709 |\n| Email: lou@mo-lawfirm.com | Email: rfingold@lawssf.com |\n| | |\n| -and | -and |\n| | |\n| Bret L. Strong (pro hac vice) | Sabrina L. Streusand (pro hac vice) |\n| Zachary W. Doninger (pro hac vice) | STREUSAND,
LANDON,
OZBURN &
LEMMON, |\n| THE STRONG FIRM,
P.C. | LLP |\n| Two Hughes Landing | 1801 S MoPac Expressway, Suite 320 |\n| 1790 Hughes Landing, Suite 200 | Austin, TX 787046 |\n| The Woodlands, TX 77380 | Tel: (512) 236-9901 |\n| Tel: (281) 367-1222 | Email: streusand@slollp.com |\n| Email: bstrong@thestrongfirm.com | |\n| zdoninger@thestrongfirm.com | Counsel for Cloudflare, Inc. |\n| | |\n| Counsel for DJD Creative, LLC | |\n| | |\n| By: /s/ Richard J. Bernard | By: /s/ Benjamin D. Feder |\n| Richard J. Bernard (ct413177) | Benjamin D. Feder (ct443211) |\n| FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
REATH LLP | Eric R. Wilson (ct443553) |\n| 1177 Avenue of the Americas | KELLEY DRYE &
WARREN LLP |\n| New York, NY 10036 | Canterbury Green |\n| Tel: (212) 248-3140 | 201 Broad Street |\n| Email: richard.bernard@faegredrinker.com | Stamford, CT 06901 |\n| | Tel: (203) 324-1400 |\n| -and | Email: ewilson@kelleydrye.com |\n| | bfeder@kelleydrye.com |\n| | |\n\n| Josh Peterson | -and- |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & | Richard J. Reding (pro hac vice) |\n| REATH LLP | ASK |\n| 2200 Wells Fargo Center | LLP |\n| 90 S. 7th Street | 2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400 |\n| Minneapolis, MN 55402 | St. Paul, MN 55121 |\n| Tel: (612) 766-7000 | Tel: (651) 406-9665 |\n| Email: josh.peterson@faegredrinker.com | Email: rreding@askllp.com |\n| -and | -and- |\n| Jaclyn C. Marasco | Edward E. Neiger (pro hac vice) |\n| FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & | ASK |\n| REATH LLP | LLP |\n| 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400 | 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor |\n| Wilmington, DE 19801 | New York, NY 10165 |\n| Tel: (302) 467-4200 | Tel: (212) 267-7342 |\n| Email: jaclyn.marasco@faegredrinker.com | Email: eneiger@askllp.com |\n| Counsel to Cirrus Design Corporation | Counsel to Indium Software, Inc. |\n| By: /s/ John F. Carberry
/s/ Kara A. Zarchin
John F. Carberry (ct02881)
Kara A. Zarchin (ct30783)
CUMMINGS &
LOCKWOOD LLC
Six Landmark Square
Stamford, CT 06901
Tel: (203) 351-4280
Email: jcarberry@cl-law.com
kzarchin@cl-law.com
Counsel for Target Enterprises, LLC
and Jamestown Associates, LLC | By: /s/ David J. Kozlowski
David J. Kozlowski (ct28240)
MORRISON COHEN LLP
909 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 735-8825
Email: dkozlowski@morrisoncohen.com
-and
Jeffrey Rhodes (pro hac vice)
TAYMAN LANE CHAVERRI LLP
2001 L Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 921-4080
Email: jrhodes@tlclawfirm.com
Counsel to Mark Gundersen |\n\n| By: /s/ Eric Seltzer
Eric Seltzer (ct01224)
GILBRIDE,
TUSA,
LAST &
SPELLANE LLC
31 Brookside Drive
Greenwich, CT 06830
Tel: (203) 622-9360
Email: ehs@gtlslaw.com | By: /s/ Robert E. Kaelin
Robert E. Kaelin (ct11631)
MURTHA CULLINA LLP
280 Trumbull Street, 12th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel: (860) 240-6000
Email: rkaelin@murthalaw.com |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Counsel for Miller Motorcars Inc. | -and
By: /s/ Matthew A. Pesce
Matthew A. Pesce (ct31208)
MURTHA CULLINA LLP
107 Elm Street
Four Stamford Plaza, 11th Floor
Stamford, CT 06902
Tel: (203) 653-5400
Email: mpesce@murthalaw.com
Counsel for 3 Columbus Circle, LLC, Phillips
Nizer LLP,
and
ModSquad, Inc. |\n| By: /s/ Robert N. Sensale
Robert N. Sensale (ct10556)
BERSHTEIN,
VOLPE &
MCKEON P.C.
900 Chapel Street, 11th Floor
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (203) 777-5800
Email: rns@bvmlaw.com
Counsel for 270 W. 39th St. Co., LLC | By: /s/ Lindsay C. Stone
Lindsay C. Stone (ct31140)
Benjamin Gilbert (pro hac vice)
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
HAMPTON
LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza, 39th Floor
New York, NY 10112
Tel: (212) 653-8700
Email: lstone@sheppardmullin.com
bogilbert@sheppardmullin.com
-and
By: /s/
Alan H. Martin
Alan H. Martin (pro hac vice)
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
HAMPTON
LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor |\n\n| | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Tel: (714) 513-5100 |\n| | Email: amartin@sheppardmullin.com |\n| | |\n| | Counsel to Agora Lab, Inc. |\n| By: /s/ Matthew D. Valauri
Matthew D. Valauri (ct30193)
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN &
DICKER LLP | By: /s/ Bonnie C. Mangan
Bonnie C. Mangan (ct03759)
LAW OFFICE OF BONNIE C.
MANGAN,
P.C.
Westview Office Park |\n| 1010 Washington Boulevard | 1050 Sullivan Avenue, A3 |\n| Stamford, CT 06901 | South Windsor, CT 06074 |\n| Tel: (203) 388-2433 | Tel: (860) 644-4204 |\n| Email: matthew.valauri@wilsonelser.com | Email: bonnie.mangan@manganlaw.com |\n| Counsel for Clayman Rosenberg Kirschner
& Linder LLP | -and
Sari B. Placona (pro hac vice)
MCMANIMON,
SCOTLAND &
BAUMANN,
LLC
75 Livingston Avenue, Second Floor
Roseland, NJ 07068
Tel: (973) 721-5030
Email: splacona@msbnj.com
Counsel for McManimon, Scotland &
Baumann, LLC |\n| By: /s/ Tracy Ellis Williams
Tracy Ellis Williams (ct25137)
SHIPMAN &
GOODWIN LLP
300 Atlantic Street, 3rd Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Tel: (203) 324-8136
Email: tewilliams@goodwin.com | By: /s/ Eric S. Goldstein
Eric S. Goldstein (ct27195)
SHIPMAN &
GOODWIN LLP
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel: (860) 251-5059
Email: egoldstein@goodwin.com |\n| -and- | -and |\n| Scott M. Kessler (pro hac vice)
AKERMAN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor
New York, NY 10020 | Justin S. Baumgartner (pro hac vice)
BECKER LLC
354 Eisenhower Parkway
Plaza Two, Suite 1500 |\n\n| Tel: (212) 880-3800 | Livingston, NJ 07039 |\n|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|\n| Email: scott.kessler@akerman.com | Tel: (973) 422-1100 |\n| | Email: jbaumgartner@becker.legal |\n| Counsel for B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. | |\n| | Counsel for On the Spot Home Improvement, |\n| | Inc. |\n| | |\n| | |\n| By: /s/ Nicholas P. Vegliante | By: /s/ Henry P. Baer, Jr. |\n| Nicholas P. Vegliante (ct28449) | Henry P. Baer, Jr. (ct27781) |\n| COHN BIRNBAUM &
SHEA P.C. | Eilis Meagher (ct31160) |\n| CityPlace II, 15th Floor | FINN DIXON &
HERLING,
LLP |\n| 185 Asylum Street | Six Landmark Square |\n| Hartford, CT 06103 | Stamford, CT 06901 |\n| Tel: (860) 493-2200 | Tel. (203) 325-5000 |\n| Email: nvegliante@cbshealaw.com | Email: hbaer@fdh.com |\n| | emeagher@fdh.com |\n| Counsel for GroCyber, LLC | |\n| | Counsel for Nardello & Co., LLC |\n| | |\n| By: /s/ Henry P. Baer, Jr. | By: /s/ Henry P. Baer, Jr. |\n| Henry P. Baer, Jr. (ct27781) | Henry P. Baer, Jr. (ct27781) |\n| FINN DIXON &
HERLING,
LLP | Eilis Meagher (ct31160) |\n| Six Landmark Square | FINN DIXON &
HERLING,
LLP |\n| Stamford, CT 06901 | Six Landmark Square |\n| Tel. (203) 325-5000 | Stamford, CT 06901 |\n| Email: hbaer@fdh.com | Tel. (203) 325-5000 |\n| | Email: hbaer@fdh.com |\n| -and | emeagher@fdh.com |\n| | |\n| Steven G. Mintz (pro hac vice) | -and |\n| Barry M. Kazan (pro hac vice) | |\n| MINTZ &
GOLD LLP | Andrea M. Chase (pro hac vice) |\n| 600 Third Avenue, 25th Floor | SPENCER FANE LLP |\n| New York, NY 10016 | 1000 Walnut, Suite 1400 |\n| Tel. (212) 696-4848 | Kansas City, MO 64106 |\n| Email: mintz@mintzandgold.com | Tel. (816) 292-8279 |\n| kazan@mintzandgold.com | Email: achase@spencerfane.com |\n| | |\n| Counsel for Marcum LLP and Fox News | Counsel for Teris-Phoenix, LLC |\n| Network, LLC | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n| By: /s/ Ilan Markus | By: /s/ John J. Clarke, Jr. |\n|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|\n| Ilan Markus (ct26345) | John J. Clarke, Jr. (ct31251) |\n| BARCLAY DAMON LLP | DLA
PIPER LLP |\n| | |\n| 545 Long Wharf Drive, 9th Floor | 1251 Avenue of the Americas |\n| New Haven, CT 06511 | New York, NY 10020 |\n| Tel: (203) 672-2661 | Tel: (212) 335-4500 |\n| Email: imarkus@barclaydamon.com | Email: john.clarke@us.dlapiper.com |\n| Counsel for Conservative Campaign
Technology LLC | -and |\n| | C. Kevin Kobbe (pro hac vice) |\n| | DLA
PIPER LLP |\n| | 650 South Exeter Street, Suite 1100 |\n| | Baltimore, MD 21202 |\n| | |\n| | Tel: (410) 580-4189 |\n| | Email: kevin.kobbe@us.dlapiper.com |\n| | Counsel for Zeta Global Corp. |\n| By: /s/ James J. Costello, Jr. | By: /s/ Ronald I. Chorches |\n| James J. Costello, Jr. (ct309468) | Ronald I. Chorches (ct08720) |\n| NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN,
P.A. | LAW OFFICES OF RONALD I.
CHORCHES,
LLC |\n| 400 Crossing Boulevard, 8th Floor | 82 Wolcott Hill Road, Suite 203 |\n| Bridgewater, NJ 08807-5933 | Wethersfield, CT 06109 |\n| Tel: (908) 252-4315 | Tel: (860) 563-3955 |\n| Email: jjcostellojr@norris-law.com | Email: ronchorcheslaw@sbcglobal.net |\n| Counsel for Flat Rate Movers, Ltd. | -and |\n| | |\n| | By: /s/ Darryl S. Laddin |\n| | Darryl S. Laddin (pro hac vice) |\n| | Frank N. White (pro hac vice) |\n| | ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP |\n| | 171 17th Street, N.W. Suite 1200 |\n| | Atlanta, GA 30363-1031 |\n| | Tel: (404) 873-8500 |\n| | Email: darryl.laddin@agg.com |\n| | frank.white@agg.com |\n| | Counsel for American Express |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n| By: /s/ Lindsay Sampson Bishop | |\n|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------|\n| Lindsay Sampson Bishop (ct29990) | |\n| K&L
GATES LLP | |\n| 1 Congress Street | [intentionally left blank] |\n| Boston, MA 02114 | |\n| Tel: (617) 261-3100 | |\n| Email: lindsay.bishop@klgates.com | |\n| | |\n| -and | |\n| | |\n| By: /s/ Brian T. Peterson | |\n| Brian T. Peterson (pro hac vice) | |\n| Ruby A. Nagamine (pro hac vice) | |\n| K&L
GATES LLP | |\n| 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 | |\n| Seattle, WA 98104 | |\n| Tel: (206) 623-7580 | |\n| Email: brian.peterson@klgates.com | |\n| ruby.nagamine@klgates.com | |\n| | |\n| Counsel for Amazon Web Services, Inc. and | |\n| Amazon.com, Inc. | |\n| | |\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on November 22, 2024, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and served by first class mail, postage prepaid and/or via email on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by First Class mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n /s/ Eric S. Goldstein Eric S. Goldstein","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格州联邦地区法院 布里奇波特分院\n\n) ) ) ) ) ) ) )\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1\n\n债务人。\n\n第11章\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并管理）\n共同被告支持驳回动议或就诉状作出判决动议的答复\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，以及众多其他化名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。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，转交 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），作为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）遗产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n目录\n\nI. 案件既判原则不适用于共同被告。 3\n\nII. 受托人未能主张一项可认定的反向刺破公司面纱请求。 4\n\nIII. Delaware（特拉华州）法律决定债务人在非债务人转让人中的财产权益是否存在及其范围。 5\n\nIV. Delaware（特拉华州）法律适用替代责任理论。 7\n\nV. 本院不得追溯适用另我这一衡平法原则。 8\n\n判例目录\n\n案件：\n\nCampaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC, 68 F.4th 607 (D.C. Cir. 2023) 4\n\nCovey v. Casey's General Stores, Inc. (In re Duckworth), No. 11-8104, 2012 WL 4434681\n(Bankr. C.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2012) 8, 9, 10\n\nCovey v. Peoria Speakeasy, Inc. (In re Duckworth), No. 10-83603, 2013 WL 1397456 (Bankr.\nC.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2013) 8, 9, 10\n\nHarrington v. Purdue Pharma L. P., 144 S. Ct. 2071 (2024) 9, 10\n\nHavee v. Belk, 775 F.2d 1209 (4th Cir. 1985) 5\n\nIn re 10th Ave. Distributors, Inc., 97 B.R. 163 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 6\n\nIn re Adler, 494 B.R. 43 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2013) 6, 9\n\nIn re American Int'l Refinery, 402 B.R. 728 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2008) 8, 9, 10\n\nIn re Auto-Train Corp., Inc., 810 F.2d 270 (D.C. Cir. 1987) 10\n\nIn re Bridge, 18 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 1994) 5\n\nIn re Brower, 2023 WL 2927175 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023) 7\n\nIn re Colon, 563 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009) 5\n\nIn re Daniels, 641 B.R. 165 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2022) 9\n\nIn re Fisher, 296 F. App'x 494 (6th Cir. 2008) 9\n\nIn re Harman, 512 B.R. 321 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2014) 9\n\nIn re Howland, 674 F. App'x 482 (6th Cir. 2017) 7\n\nIn re Lawler, 53 B.R. 166 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1985) 10\n\nIn re Majestic Star Casino, LLC, 716 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. 2013) 5\n\nIn re Moise, 575 B.R. 191 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017) 3\n\nIn re Motors Liquidation Co., 590 B.R. 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 3\n\nIn re N.S. Garrott & Sons, 772 F.2d 462 (8th Cir. 1985) 5\n\nIn re Nejberger, 934 F.2d 1300 (3d Cir. 1991) 5, 6\n\nIn re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2005) 10\n\nIn re Palmieri, 651 B.R. 349 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2023) 7, 9\n\nIn re RS Air, LLC, 651 B.R. 538 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2023) 7\n\nIn re Schuster, 132 B.R. 604 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1991) 9\n\nIn re Stillwater Asset Backed Offshore Fund Ltd., 559 BR 563 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016) 7\n\nIn re The Ground Round, Inc., 482 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2007) 5\n\nIn re Yerushalmi, 487 B.R. 98 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012) 6\n\nKrakowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 610 B.R. 714 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 3\n\nManichaean Cap., LLC v. Exela Techs., Inc., 251 A.3d 694 (Del. Ch. 2021) 4, 7, 8\n\nNicole Gas Prod., Ltd., 916 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2019) 5\n\nNorwest Rank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197 (1988) 1\n\nOtto Candies, LLC v. KPMG, LLP, 2020 WL 4917596 (Del. Ch. Aug. 21, 2020) 7\n\nPavers & Rd. Builders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Core Contracting of N.Y., LLC, 536 B.R.\n48 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) 9\n\nSpring Real Estate, LLC v. Echo/RT Holdings, LLC, No. 7994–VCN, 2016 WL 769586 (Del. Ch.\nFeb. 18, 2016) 7, 8\n\nU.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. MMCO, L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-4605, 183 N.E.3d 499 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)\n\n法令：\n\n11 U.S.C. § 502(h) 5, 7\n\n11 U.S.C. § 544 5\n\n11 U.S.C. § 548(c) 9\n\n11 U.S.C. § 549 7, 9, 10\n\n11 U.S.C. § 550 9\n\n共同被告2特此提交本答复，以支持其对《第11章受托人对共同被告支持驳回动议或就诉状作出判决动议之综合备忘录的异议》（ECF 3803）（以下简称“异议”或“Obj.”）的回应，并进一步支持该动议。\n\n本院必须首次审议：另我认定是否赋予受托人资格，使其得以针对据受托人指称从该等所谓另我处收受转让的第三方，提起初始撤销请求。3 本院作出的另我认定并不会将另我转变为债务人，从而使受托人可以对其行使撤销诉讼权力。任何相反裁决均违反 Delaware（特拉华州）法律，损害共同被告的权益，并赋予受托人超出国会在《破产法》中所设想范围的诉讼权力。\n\n受托人一再依赖附带意见，同时无视最高法院在 Butner 一案中的裁决，即 Delaware（特拉华州）法律必须决定财产权益是否存在及其范围。此外，受托人无视大量判例权威所确立的原则：在如本案情形下，任何另我认定均不得追溯适用，因为该认定显然会损害第三方债权人，而受托人并未主张该等债权人并非无辜且不知情。受托人也不得利用另我理论规避为创设撤销请求而对非债务人进行溯及既往实质合并所要求的严格标准。破产法院的衡平权力“必须且只能在《破产法》的范围内行使”，不得用于消除债权人的法定权利。Norwest Rank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197, 206 (1988)。\n\n2 本文中未定义的大写术语应具有共同被告综合备忘录（Dkt. No. 3713）（以下简称“备忘录”）中赋予其的含义。3\n\n在其异议中，受托人试图说服本院，本院在受托人取得载明非债务人转让人的资产属于 Kwok（郭文贵）遗产财产的判决书时，必定已经裁定了该问题。但受托人从未向本院披露其拟主张撤销诉讼权力。事实上，在至少一项另我对抗程序中，他明确主张该等另我不存在无关联第三方债权人。本院也从未审议受托人能否对该等另我行使撤销诉讼权力。\n\n即使为论证起见，受托人就非债务人转让人作出的转让提起撤销诉讼请求的资格先前已获裁定，若共同被告在没有得到实质通知或获得陈述机会的情况下，仍以酌定性的案件既判原则约束共同被告，也将构成根本性不公平。案件既判原则在此种情形下不得适用；受托人将其用作诉讼中的“设套”策略，而非司法公正与效率原则。简言之，案件既判原则不适用，因为共同被告并非另我对抗程序的当事人。受托人完全无视共同被告援引的支持性判例，而是依赖明显不同的裁决。受托人主张，尽管其寻求中止共同被告对抗程序并将所有被告纳入调解，但270余名被告仍须在被起诉后的数日内，查找所有尚未审结的相关程序、提出介入动议并对另我认定提出异议，即使在某些情形下缺席已被登记。\n\n受托人的诉讼策略滥用一项衡平法原则，以剥夺无辜第三方的抗辩权，包括其作为后续受让人的善意及价值抗辩。令人难以置信的是，受托人反而自居受害者，抱怨若本院准许该动议，他将“无法获得追索途径以处理”Kwok（郭文贵）的欺诈行为。受托人并非司法部，也并非“其自身的法律”。受托人无视其可向被指称的另我本身及其现有资产追索这一事实。4 他还无视其可以作为 Kwok（郭文贵）作出转让的后续受让人起诉第三方，因为这将要求他承认\n\n4 受托人还无视其迄今已经追回的资金，以及美国检察官办公室于 March 15, 2023 宣布，美国政府扣押了超过 \\$630 million 的被指称欺诈所得，而该等资金推定将支付给本案债权人这一事实。见 http\n\n共同被告对受托人的请求享有善意抗辩——这是受托人必须吞下的一剂苦口但必要的药。\nI. 案件既判原则不适用于共同被告。\n\n受托人并未回应共同被告所援引的、将该原则限于相同当事人之间后续诉讼的权威依据，而是依赖完全不适用的案件。虽然法院曾为适用该原则之目的，将对抗程序视为主案的一部分，但在每一被援引案件中，受影响当事人也是主案当事人，并在确立案件既判原则的命令作出前获得直接通知。见 In re Motors Liquidation Co., 590 B.R. 39, 63 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)（侵权原告自始即为主破产案件的当事人）。5 在 Krakowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 610 B.R. 714, 724–25 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 中，法院裁定，案件既判原则禁止相同当事人基于其在先前对抗程序中主张的几乎相同请求，提起后续对抗程序。同样，在 In re Moise, 575 B.R. 191, 205 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017) 中，该原则禁止债务人就其在先前失败的对抗程序中提出的相同问题提起第二项对抗程序。\n\n受托人声称，若共同被告希望保护其利益，即有机会介入 HCHK 和 Greenwich Land 对抗程序，该主张毫无根据。受托人轻描淡写地未提及，其在提起共同被告对抗程序仅数周后，于 March 15, 2024 提交了首份批准调解程序动议（ECF 3003）（以下简称“调解动议”），请求中止该等对抗程序。他主张共同被告应立即无视调解动议，并在每项另我对抗程序中提出38项介入动议，此举试图将调解作为对抗共同被告的武器，既无任何权威依据支持，也带有恶意调解之嫌。\n\n无论如何，至共同被告收到这些起诉状送达时，其介入另我对抗程序实际上已为时过晚。例如，在提交调解动议时，针对 HCHK Property 的缺席已被登记（AP 23- 5013, ECF 139），HCHK 曾寻求撤销该缺席登记但未能成功，且受托人于 March 8, 2024 提交了缺席判决动议（AP 23-5013, ECF 268）。6 此外，截至 January 9, 2024，受托人针对 Greenwich Land 的简易判决动议已交由法院审议（AP 23-5005, ECF 125），且针对 Lamp Capital 的缺席判决已被作出（AP 23-5023, ECF 66）。参见 Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC, 68 F.4th 607, 611 (D.C. Cir. 2023)（裁定未能确立介入权利并不妨碍当事人在未来诉讼中提出问题）。7\n\nII. 受托人未能主张一项可认定的反向刺破公司面纱请求。\n\n受托人主张，根据特拉华州法律，在适用反向刺破公司面纱时，对无辜且不知情的第三方债权人造成损害，仅是法院在适用该原则前应考虑的若干因素之一，而并非“凌驾于所有其他考量之上的决定性因素”。Obj. ¶ 19。然而，特拉华州这一具有开创性意义的判例中的裁决明确作出了相反表述：“只有在主张存在骇人听闻的事实，并且对第三方不存在实际和实质性不利影响的案件中，法院才应当甚至考虑采用反向刺破公司面纱原则。”Manichaean Cap., LLC（摩尼教资本有限责任公司）v. Exela Techs., Inc.（埃克塞拉技术公司）, 251 A.3d 694, 714–715 (Del. Ch. 2021)（强调部分为原文所加）。简言之，“对第三方不存在实际和实质性不利影响”是在可对共同被告甚至“予以考虑”反向刺破公司面纱之前必须满足的要件（更遑论实际适用）。因此，受托人须在各共同被告对抗诉讼中陈述足以合理主张的事实，说明共同被告为何并非对债务人与相关非债务人转让人之间的关联无辜且不知情，以及共同被告为何不会因反向刺破公司面纱而受到不利影响——而他既未如此作为，甚至未尝试如此作为。\n\n6 实际上，受托人曾反对在早先的 HCHK Property 对抗诉讼中，由自称为 HCHK 债权人的当事人提出的介入尝试，本院维持了该异议。(AP 23-5013, ECF 60, 119, 239.)\n\n7 受托人必定是在主张，共同被告依据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) 享有介入权，因为许可介入属于法院自由裁量的事项。在 Alter Ego 对抗诉讼中，以权利方式介入意味着，在没有共同被告参与的情况下进行诉讼将“妨碍[其]保护[其]利益的能力”。Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)。如若属实，受托人本应在该等对抗诉讼中将共同被告列为当事人，或至少向其提供有关通知。如前文及上文所述，受托人两者均未做到。\n\n受托人进一步主张，对共同被告所谓损害是一个尚未成熟、尚待本院审理的不确定事实问题。Obj. ¶ 16。然而，对于受托人试图追回共同被告已收取的数百万美元付款将对这些被告造成不利影响一事，不可能存在可信争议。获得一项 11 U.S.C. § 502(h) 债权的可能性也不能消除该等不利影响，因为任何受偿均不确定，很可能不足 100% 加利息，且将在数月乃至数年之后才可能发生（即使会发生）。\n\nIII. 特拉华州法律决定债务人对非债务人转让人财产权益的存在及范围。\n\n州法决定债务人对财产所享有的法律及衡平权益的存在及范围，这一点已无争议。受托人自己援引的案件明确阐述了这一原则。In re Nejberger, 934 F.2d 1300, 1302 (3d Cir. 1991)（“尽管第 541 条界定了破产财团财产，但我们必须依据州法确定一项财产权是否存在，并界定其范围。”）；accord In re The Ground Round, Inc.（地面圆桌公司）, 482 F.3d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 2007); Nicole Gas Prod., Ltd.（妮可天然气生产有限公司）, 916 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2019); In re N.S. Garrott & Sons（N.S. Garrott父子公司）, 772 F.2d 462, 466 (8th Cir. 1985)。此外，尽管 11 U.S.C. § 544 可能赋予受托人“强力臂”权力，但其行使该权力及该权力的范围完全受适用州法管辖。Havee v. Belk, 775 F.2d 1209, 1218–19 (4th Cir. 1985); accord In re Colon, 563 F.3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir. 2009); In re Bridge, 18 F.3d 195, 200 (3d Cir. 1994)。\n\n与受托人论点所暗示的相反，申请破产并不会通过破产普通法创设新的财产权。See, e.g., In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC（雄伟之星赌场有限责任公司）, 716 F.3d 736, 751 (3d Cir. 2013); In re N.S. Garrott & Sons, 772 F.2d at 467。受托人为该主张援引了大量分析州酒类及妓院许可证的案件；这些案件认定，即便州法将许可证称为“特许”，其仍应被视为财产。See, e.g., In re Nejberger, 934 F.2d at 1302。本案中，本院需要确定的是债务人是否对某些财产享有任何权益，而不是现有权益是否应被称为“财产”。即便在许可证案件中，法院也会依据基础州法确定债务人权益的范围。Id. at 1303（在认定债务人对续期已届满酒类许可证享有权益之前，审查宾夕法尼亚州法规）。\n\n受托人援引的案件均不支持联邦法管辖对某实体作出的自我另我认定之效力或“特征”这一原则。受托人罗列的一系列案件并不支持如下命题：联邦破产法使自我另我的财产成为债务人的财产——这些案件适用州法来确定自我另我认定的影响。例如，在 In re 10th Ave. Distributors, Inc.（第十大道经销商公司）, 97 B.R. 163, 164 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 中，法院明确确认州法管辖刺破公司面纱。8 受托人主张，Yerushalmi 和 Star Mountain 法院拒绝适用州法来确定自我另我裁决的后果——但事实并非如此。两家法院均未就自我另我的后果作出裁决。在 Yerushalmi, 487 B.R. at 109–10 中，法院援引纽约州法律，说明遗产规划信托若被用于欺诈目的是否可能受到攻击，以及根据纽约州法律刺破公司面纱的要件。\n\n8 10th Ave. 法院的做法并非独特。See, e.g., McElroy v. FirstEnergy Corp.（第一能源公司）, 824 F. App'x 97, 99 (3d Cir. 2020)（州法管辖是否可刺破公司面纱）；In re Yerushalmi, 487 B.R. 98, 109–10 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012)（适用纽约州法律）；In re Star Mountain Res., Inc.（星山资源公司）, No. 2:18-BK-01594-DPC, 2022 WL 2294175, at *8 (Bankr. D. Ariz. June 22, 2022), reconsideration denied sub nom. Star Mt. Plan Tr. v. Titan Mining (US) Corp.（泰坦矿业〈美国〉公司）, No. CV-22-01389-PHX-GMS, 2023 WL 2355916 (D. Ariz. Feb. 3, 2023)（适用内华达州法律）；In re Blatstein, 192 F.3d 88, 100 (3d Cir. 1999)（适用宾夕法尼亚州法律）；In re Pearlman, 462 B.R. 849, 855 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012)（适用佛罗里达州法律）；In re Harry C. Partridge Jr. & Sons, Inc.（Harry C. Partridge Jr.父子公司）, 112 B.R. 593, 596 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990)（适用纽约州法律）；In re Adler, 494 B.R. 43, 58 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2013)（适用纽约州法律）。\n\n在 Star Mountain, 2022 WL 2294175, at *8 中，法院尽管驳回了双方提出的简易判决交叉动议，但明确确认内华达州的自我另我法“将产生类似于实质合并的结果”。\n\n归根结底，与受托人的主张相反，破产法院“依据州法确定自我另我原则的定义及法律后果”。In re Brower, 2023 WL 2927175, at *9 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023)（驳回 § 549 请求）, aff'd, 2024 WL 2826283 (9th Cir. June 4, 2024); accord In re Howland, 674 F. App'x 482, 486 (6th Cir. 2017)。本案亦是如此。\n\nIV. 特拉华州法律适用替代责任理论。\n\n受托人错误地依赖附带意见，试图反驳认为根据特拉华州法律作出的自我另我认定仅施加替代责任的案件。特拉华州法律适用的是自我另我原则的替代责任，而非同一性理论——这注定受托人的请求不能成立。Otto Candies, LLC（奥托糖果有限责任公司）v. KPMG, LLP（毕马威有限责任合伙）, 2020 WL 4917596, at *9 (Del. Ch. Aug. 21, 2020)（说明刺破公司面纱或自我另我原则是通向替代责任的路径）。根据特拉华州法律，自我另我可能须对另一方的债务负责，但这并不导致资产合并。See, e.g., In re RS Air, LLC, 651 B.R. 538, 545 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2023); see also In re Stillwater Asset Backed Offshore Fund Ltd.（静水资产支持离岸基金有限公司）, 559 BR 563, 586–87 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016)（认定法院“并不知道有任何依据支持如下观点：自我另我理论可以被用来”选择性地汇集特拉华州实体与债务人实体的资产，以创设一项撤销请求）。\n\n受托人试图依赖 Palmieri、Spring Real Estate 和 Manichaean 得出不同结果，但该尝试不能成立。Palmieri 在其附带意见中所称，自我另我认定将导致该实体的财产成为破产财团财产，该表述根本未援引任何法律先例，更遑论特拉华州法律。651 B.R. 349, 358 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2023)。同样，Spring Real Estate 法院在附带意见中的表述也未援引特拉华州法律。如备忘录所述，Spring Real Estate 依赖 In re American Int'l Refinery（美国国际炼油厂）, 402 B.R. 728, 742–46 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2008)，但 American Int'l 适用的是内华达州法律。Spring Real Estate, LLC（春季房地产有限责任公司）v. Echo/RT Holdings, LLC（Echo/RT控股有限责任公司）, No. 7994–VCN, 2016 WL 769586, *3 (Del. Ch. Feb. 18, 2016)。\n\n受托人试图借 Manichaean, 251 A.3d at 710 n.85 中的附带意见大做文章；该意见称，在反向刺破公司面纱后，子公司的资产可成为母公司的资产。然而，这一附带意见的唯一来源是 Spring Real Estate，而其问题已如上所述。为明确起见，Manichaean 法院审理的是原告能否使用反向刺破公司面纱来执行其针对判决债务人全资子公司的判决——这是逐案适用自我另我理论的典型情形；该法院并未认定这些实体在所有目的上均为同一实体。Id. at 718–19。\n\nV. 本院不得追溯适用自我另我这一衡平法原则。\n\n受托人错误主张，共同被告未援引任何案件认定自我另我的既有资产属于破产财团，而受托人却不能撤销此前向债权人作出的转让。Obj. ¶ 52。In re Duckworth 正是处理了这一情形。No. 11-8104, 2012 WL 4434681 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2012)。受托人错误主张，Duckworth 未适用自我另我原则，因为 Power Trading（动力贸易公司）是依据州法适当设立并作为实体有效存续的。Obj. ¶ 53。恰恰相反，Duckworth 法院确认，在先前程序中，Power Trading 的公司面纱已被刺破，其资产因此被纳入破产财团。See Duckworth, 2012 WL 4434681, *7 & n.12.9 然而，Duckworth 拒绝利用自我另我原则规避国会赋予以善意并为对价从 Power Trading 接受转让的债权人的法定抗辩。Id。如果对该法院的推理曾有任何疑问，则七个月后该法院在相关撤销诉讼 Covey v. Peoria Speakeasy, Inc.（皮奥里亚地下酒馆公司）(In re Duckworth), No. 10-83603, 2013 WL 1397456 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2013) 中驳回相同理论时，已消除了该疑问。在该案中，法院解释其先前裁决时确认，Power Trading 是根据印第安纳州法律适当设立并存续的，但随后审议是否应追溯性地根据自我另我原则无视其独立性，以创设一项直接的 § 549 请求。Id. at *5。由于“[e]quitable remedies are not permitted to overrule statutory rights[,]”，法院解释称，自我另我原则不得用于排除 § 550 项下后手受让人抗辩。Id。因此，法院也驳回了受托人在 Speakeasy 对抗诉讼中“前所未有地依赖自我另我原则”的主张。Id. at *6–8。法院强调，“[n]o federal court has permitted the [alter ego] doctrine to be used for this purpose”，且“[i]nnocent transferees like Casey's（凯西公司） and Speakeasy deserve to have their statutory rights and defenses protected.”10 Id. at *8。\n\n9 See Stipulated Judgment, Dkt. No. 8, Covey v. Duckworth (In re Duckworth), Adv. Proc. No. 11-08058 (Bankr. C.D. Ill., September 19, 2011), a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n特别值得注意的是，受托人援引的案件（American Int'l 除外）11均涉及向债务人的内部人士进行的转让。12 参见 In re Palmieri, 651 B.R. 349, 352 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2023)（债务人的女友）；In re Harman, 512 B.R. 321, 326 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2014)（债务人的妻子）；13 In re Fisher, 296 F. App'x 494, 498 (6th Cir. 2008)（债务人的恋爱及业务\n\n10 Duckworth 涉及 Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L. P., 144 S. Ct. 2071, 2082 n.2 & 2084 (2024) 所处理的相同关切事项；该案否决了在缺乏明示法定授权的情况下，利用破产法院的衡平权力免除债权人针对非债务人的直接请求权。在此，这些关切再次成为核心问题，因为受托人正试图利用“衡平”，在未获任何国会授权的情况下，剥夺共同被告就被指称的“破产申请后”转让依据 §§ 548(c) 和 550(b) 享有的法定抗辩。此外，如此追溯适用还剥夺了共同被告依据 11 U.S.C. § 363 寻求法定救济、以确认该等交易已获授权的能力。\n\n11 在 American Int'l Refinery, 402 B.R. 728, 734–35 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2008) 一案中，债务人的总裁兼首席运营官在受到质疑的转让约一年后受聘担任被收购公司的总裁，而受让人与债务人的另一个自我实质上处于合营关系。\n\n12 受托人援引 In re Adler, 494 B.R. 43, 52 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2013)，并不恰当，因为该案仅在债务人获得免责的权利这一语境下处理了另一个自我问题。该案并未处理对债务人另一个我的无过错受让人的影响。此外，Adler 裁判的一项关键内容已受到地区法院批评。参见 Pavers & Rd. Builders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Core Contracting of N.Y., LLC, 536 B.R. 48, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)（“仅因两个实体互为另一个自我，并不使二者均成为《破产法》下的债务人。这仅意味着它们应对彼此的债务负责。如果非债务人实体希望获得该等保护，其只需自行提交申请。”）。\n\n13 在佐治亚州上诉法院认定佐治亚州法律不承认对禁止外部人反向刺破公司面纱的一般规则设有例外后，Harman 的裁判后来被废止。参见 In re Webster, 629 B.R. 654, 668 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2021)。\n\n伴侣）；14 In re Schuster, 132 B.R. 604, 606 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1991)（债务人的妻子）。由于另一个我属于衡平法上的理论，法院在将其用于向内部人士追回资金时，与将其用于向非内部人士追回资金时，其适用将存在显著差异。事实上，Duckworth 和 Lawler 拒绝将该衡平法理论适用于共同被告等无过错债权人。参见 Duckworth (Casey's), 2012 WL 4434681 at *6；Duckworth (Speakeasy), 2013 WL 1397456 at *5；In re Lawler, 53 B.R. 166, 167 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1985)。此外，American Int'l Refinery 仅适用于破产申请前的欺诈性转让及优先受偿请求权，这两类请求权均提供实质性的积极抗辩以保护贸易债权人，而非如受托人所称的 § 549 请求权。American Int'l, 402 B.R. at 734–35, 740。\n\n尽管受托人将与实质合并的类比称为“稻草人论证”（异议 ¶ 56），但他确认其实际上是在寻求与实质合并相同的结果，只是给该结果贴上了不同的标签。实质合并将一组实体的资产和负债合并在一起。参见，例如，In re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195, 206 (3d Cir. 2005)。受托人的另一个我理论将非债务人转让人的资产和负债合并在一起。参见异议 ¶¶ 16–17（因撤销请求权产生的负债将根据第 502(h) 条处理）。然而，受托人认为自己无需处理追溯性实质合并对债权人影响所引发的严重关切，以及因此对该等救济进行强化审查的相应必要性。参见，例如，In re Auto-Train Corp., Inc., 810 F.2d 270, 276–77 (D.C. Cir. 1987)。若仅仅通过给该救济换一个名称，就允许受托人依据更宽松的程序和实体标准实现相同目的，将是荒谬的（讽刺的是，这一切均以衡平之名进行）。参见 Purdue Pharma, 144 S. Ct. at 2086（“文字游戏不能掩盖潜在现实”）。事实上，该论点使实质合并形同虚设。\n\n14 Fisher 将俄亥俄州的另一个我理论描述为不同于刺破公司面纱的理论，这一描述已受到俄亥俄州州法院和联邦法院的批评。参见 In re Daniels, 641 B.R. 165, 196 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2022)；U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. MMCO, L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-4605, ¶ 63, 183 N.E.3d 499, 516 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)。\n\n日期：November 22, 2024\n\n共同被告\n\n签署人：/s/ Jeffrey Hellman\nJeffrey Hellman（杰弗里·赫尔曼）(ct04102)\nLAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC（杰弗里·赫尔曼律师事务所，有限责任公司）\n195 Church Street, 10th Floor\n电话：203-691-8762\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n电子邮件：jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com\nOhtzar Shlomo Solomon Treasure LLC（奥扎尔·什洛莫·所罗门宝藏有限责任公司）及 Jason Miller（贾森·米勒）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Eric S. Goldstein\nEric S. Goldstein（埃里克·S·戈德斯坦）(ct27195)\nSHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP（希普曼和古德温有限责任合伙律师事务所）\nOne Constitution Plaza\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 251-5059\n电子邮件：egoldstein@goodwin.com\nAnthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc.（安塞姆健康选择保险公司，dba Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield〔帝国蓝十字蓝盾〕）；Anthem Health Plans, Inc.（安塞姆健康计划公司）；Sedgwick Realty Corp.（塞奇威克房地产公司）；及 Direct Persuasion LLC（直接说服有限责任公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Scott M. Charmoy\nScott M. Charmoy（斯科特·M·查莫伊）(ct15889)\nCHARMOY & CHARMOY, LLC（查莫伊和查莫伊有限责任公司）\n1465 Post Road, Suite 100\nWestport, CT 06680\n电话：(203) 255-8100\n电子邮件：scottcharmoy@charmoy.com\nPutnam's Landscaping LLC（普特南园林绿化有限责任公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Eric S. Goldstein\nEric S. Goldstein（埃里克·S·戈德斯坦）(ct27195)\nNicole M. Lapenta（妮科尔·M·拉彭塔）(ct31639)\nSHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP（希普曼和古德温有限责任合伙律师事务所）\nOne Constitution Plaza\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 251-5059\n电子邮件：egoldstein@goodwin.com\nnlapenta@goodwin.com\n\n以及\n\n签署人：/s/ Michael A. Siedband\nMichael A. Siedband（迈克尔·A·赛德班德）(pro hac vice)\nFEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION（联邦快递公司）\n3620 Hacks Cross Road, Bldg. B\nMemphis, TN 38104\n电话：(901) 355-2075\n电子邮件：michael.siedband@fedex.com\nFederal Express Corporation（联邦快递公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Rowena A. Moffett\nRowena A. Moffett（罗威娜·A·莫菲特）(ct19811)\nBRENNER, SALTZMAN & WALLMAN LLP（布伦纳、萨尔茨曼和沃尔曼有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n271 Whitney Avenue\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n电话：(203) 772-2600\n电子邮件：rmoffett@bswlaw.com\nMorvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC（莫维略·阿布拉莫维茨·格兰德·伊森和阿内洛专业公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Michael T. Conway\nMichael T. Conway（迈克尔·T·康威）(ct26750)\nLAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE LLP（拉扎尔·波特·贾科瓦斯和莫伊尔有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor\nNew York, NY 10017\n电话：(917) 242-1597\n电子邮件：mconway@lpgmlaw.com\nArri Americas Inc.（阿莱美洲公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Louis J. Martocchio III\nLouis J. Martocchio III（路易斯·J·马托基奥三世）(ct31149)\nMARTOCCHIO & OLIVEIRA LLC（马托基奥和奥利维拉有限责任公司）\n191 Main Street\nSouthington, CT 06489\n电话：(860) 621-9700\n电子邮件：lou@mo-lawfirm.com\n\n以及\n\nBret L. Strong（布雷特·L·斯特朗）(pro hac vice)\nZachary W. Doninger（扎卡里·W·多宁格）(pro hac vice)\nTHE STRONG FIRM, P.C.（斯特朗律师事务所，专业公司）\nTwo Hughes Landing\n1790 Hughes Landing, Suite 200\nThe Woodlands, TX 77380\n电话：(281) 367-1222\n电子邮件：bstrong@thestrongfirm.com\nzdoninger@thestrongfirm.com\nDJD Creative, LLC（DJD创意有限责任公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Ross G. Fingold\nRoss G. Fingold（罗斯·G·芬戈尔德）(ct05452)\nSTOKESBURY & FINGOLD, LLC（斯托克斯伯里和芬戈尔德有限责任公司）\n10 Waterside Drive, Suite 204\nFarmington, CT 06032\n电话：(860) 606-1709\n电子邮件：rfingold@lawssf.com\n\n以及\n\nSabrina L. Streusand（萨布丽娜·L·施特罗伊桑德）(pro hac vice)\nSTREUSAND, LANDON, OZBURN & LEMMON, LLP（施特罗伊桑德、兰登、奥兹本和莱蒙有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n1801 S MoPac Expressway, Suite 320\nAustin, TX 78704\n电话：(512) 236-9901\n电子邮件：streusand@slollp.com\nCloudflare, Inc.（云耀公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Richard J. Bernard\nRichard J. Bernard（理查德·J·伯纳德）(ct413177)\nFAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP（费格雷·德林克·比德尔和里思有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n1177 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 248-3140\n电子邮件：richard.bernard@faegredrinker.com\n\n以及\n\nJosh Peterson（乔希·彼得森）\nFAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP（费格雷·德林克·比德尔和里思有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n2200 Wells Fargo Center\n90 S. 7th Street\nMinneapolis, MN 55402\n电话：(612) 766-7000\n电子邮件：josh.peterson@faegredrinker.com\n\n以及\n\nJaclyn C. Marasco（杰奎琳·C·马拉斯科）\nFAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP（费格雷·德林克·比德尔和里思有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400\nWilmington, DE 19801\n电话：(302) 467-4200\n电子邮件：jaclyn.marasco@faegredrinker.com\nCirrus Design Corporation（西锐设计公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Benjamin D. Feder\nBenjamin D. Feder（本杰明·D·费德）(ct443211)\nEric R. Wilson（埃里克·R·威尔逊）(ct443553)\nKELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP（凯利·德赖和沃伦有限责任合伙律师事务所）\nCanterbury Green\n201 Broad Street\nStamford, CT 06901\n电话：(203) 324-1400\n电子邮件：ewilson@kelleydrye.com\nbfeder@kelleydrye.com\n\n以及\n\nRichard J. Reding（理查德·J·雷丁）(pro hac vice)\nASK LLP（ASK有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400\nSt. Paul, MN 55121\n电话：(651) 406-9665\n电子邮件：rreding@askllp.com\n\n以及\n\nEdward E. Neiger（爱德华·E·奈格）(pro hac vice)\nASK LLP（ASK有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor\nNew York, NY 10165\n电话：(212) 267-7342\n电子邮件：eneiger@askllp.com\nIndium Software, Inc.（铟软件公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ John F. Carberry\n/s/ Kara A. Zarchin\nJohn F. Carberry（约翰·F·卡伯里）(ct02881)\nKara A. Zarchin（卡拉·A·扎钦）(ct30783)\nCUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD LLC（卡明斯和洛克伍德有限责任公司）\nSix Landmark Square\nStamford, CT 06901\n电话：(203) 351-4280\n电子邮件：jcarberry@cl-law.com\nkzarchin@cl-law.com\nTarget Enterprises, LLC（塔吉特企业有限责任公司）及 Jamestown Associates, LLC（詹姆斯敦关联公司有限责任公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ David J. Kozlowski\nDavid J. Kozlowski（戴维·J·科兹洛夫斯基）(ct28240)\nMORRISON COHEN LLP（莫里森·科恩有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n909 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n电话：(212) 735-8825\n电子邮件：dkozlowski@morrisoncohen.com\n\n以及\n\nJeffrey Rhodes（杰弗里·罗兹）(pro hac vice)\nTAYMAN LANE CHAVERRI LLP（泰曼·莱恩·查韦里有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n2001 L Street NW, Suite 500\nWashington, DC 20036\n电话：(202) 921-4080\n电子邮件：jrhodes@tlclawfirm.com\nMark Gundersen（马克·冈德森）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Eric Seltzer\nEric Seltzer（埃里克·塞尔策）(ct01224)\nGILBRIDE, TUSA, LAST & SPELLANE LLC（吉尔布赖德、图萨、拉斯特和斯佩兰有限责任公司）\n31 Brookside Drive\nGreenwich, CT 06830\n电话：(203) 622-9360\n电子邮件：ehs@gtlslaw.com\nMiller Motorcars Inc.（米勒汽车公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Robert E. Kaelin\nRobert E. Kaelin（罗伯特·E·凯林）(ct11631)\nMURTHA CULLINA LLP（默萨·库利纳有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street, 12th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 240-6000\n电子邮件：rkaelin@murthalaw.com\n\n以及\n\n签署人：/s/ Matthew A. Pesce\nMatthew A. Pesce（马修·A·佩谢）(ct31208)\nMURTHA CULLINA LLP（默萨·库利纳有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n107 Elm Street\nFour Stamford Plaza, 11th Floor\nStamford, CT 06902\n电话：(203) 653-5400\n电子邮件：mpesce@murthalaw.com\n3 Columbus Circle, LLC（哥伦布圆环3号有限责任公司）、Phillips Nizer LLP（菲利普斯·尼泽有限责任合伙律师事务所）及 ModSquad, Inc.（莫德小队公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Robert N. Sensale\nRobert N. Sensale（罗伯特·N·森萨莱）(ct10556)\nBERSHTEIN, VOLPE & MCKEON P.C.（伯什泰因、沃尔普和麦基恩专业公司）\n900 Chapel Street, 11th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n电话：(203) 777-5800\n电子邮件：rns@bvmlaw.com\n270 W. 39th St. Co., LLC（西39街270号公司有限责任公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Lindsay C. Stone\nLindsay C. Stone（林赛·C·斯通）(ct31140)\nBenjamin Gilbert（本杰明·吉尔伯特）(pro hac vice)\nSHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP（谢泼德·马林·里克特和汉普顿有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n30 Rockefeller Plaza, 39th Floor\nNew York, NY 10112\n电话：(212) 653-8700\n电子邮件：lstone@sheppardmullin.com\nbogilbert@sheppardmullin.com\n\n以及\n\n签署人：/s/ Alan H. Martin\nAlan H. Martin（艾伦·H·马丁）(pro hac vice)\nSHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP（谢泼德·马林·里克特和汉普顿有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor\nCosta Mesa, CA 92626\n电话：(714) 513-5100\n电子邮件：amartin@sheppardmullin.com\nAgora Lab, Inc.（阿戈拉实验室公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Matthew D. Valauri\nMatthew D. Valauri（马修·D·瓦劳里）(ct30193)\nWILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP（威尔逊·埃尔瑟·莫斯科维茨·埃德尔曼和迪克有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n1010 Washington Boulevard\nStamford, CT 06901\n电话：(203) 388-2433\n电子邮件：matthew.valauri@wilsonelser.com\nClayman Rosenberg Kirschner & Linder LLP（克莱曼·罗森伯格·基什纳和林德有限责任合伙律师事务所）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Bonnie C. Mangan\nBonnie C. Mangan（邦妮·C·曼根）(ct03759)\nLAW OFFICE OF BONNIE C. MANGAN, P.C.（邦妮·C·曼根律师事务所，专业公司）\nWestview Office Park\n1050 Sullivan Avenue, A3\nSouth Windsor, CT 06074\n电话：(860) 644-4204\n电子邮件：bonnie.mangan@manganlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nSari B. Placona（萨里·B·普拉科纳）(pro hac vice)\nMCMANIMON, SCOTLAND & BAUMANN, LLC（麦克马尼蒙、苏格兰和鲍曼有限责任公司）\n75 Livingston Avenue, Second Floor\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n电话：(973) 721-5030\n电子邮件：splacona@msbnj.com\nMcManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC（麦克马尼蒙、苏格兰和鲍曼有限责任公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Tracy Ellis Williams\nTracy Ellis Williams（特蕾西·埃利斯·威廉斯）(ct25137)\nSHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP（希普曼和古德温有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n300 Atlantic Street, 3rd Floor\nStamford, CT 06901\n电话：(203) 324-8136\n电子邮件：tewilliams@goodwin.com\n\n以及\n\nScott M. Kessler（斯科特·M·凯斯勒）(pro hac vice)\nAKERMAN LLP（阿克曼有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n1251 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10020\n电话：(212) 880-3800\n电子邮件：scott.kessler@akerman.com\nB&H Foto & Electronics Corp.（B&H照片和电子产品公司）的代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Eric S. Goldstein\nEric S. Goldstein（埃里克·S·戈德斯坦）(ct27195)\nSHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP（希普曼和古德温有限责任合伙律师事务所）\nOne Constitution Plaza\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 251-5059\n电子邮件：egoldstein@goodwin.com\n\n以及\n\nJustin S. Baumgartner（贾斯汀·S·鲍姆加特纳）(pro hac vice)\nBECKER LLC（贝克有限责任公司）\n354 Eisenhower Parkway\nPlaza Two, Suite 1500\nLivingston, NJ 07039\n电话：(973) 422-1100\n电子邮件：jbaumgartner@becker.legal\nOn the Spot Home Improvement, Inc.（现场家居改善公司）的代理律师\n\n签署：/s/ Nicholas P. Vegliante（尼古拉斯·P·韦格利安特） 签署：/s/ Henry P. Baer, Jr.（亨利·P·贝尔二世）\nNicholas P. Vegliante (ct28449) Henry P. Baer, Jr. (ct27781)\nCOHN BIRNBAUM & SHEA P.C.（科恩·伯恩鲍姆与谢伊专业公司） Eilis Meagher（艾莉斯·米格尔）(ct31160)\nCityPlace II，15层 FINN DIXON & HERLING, LLP（芬恩·迪克森与赫林律师事务所）\n185 Asylum Street Six Landmark Square\nHartford, CT 06103 Stamford, CT 06901\n电话：(860) 493-2200 电话：(203) 325-5000\n电子邮箱：nvegliante@cbshealaw.com 电子邮箱：hbaer@fdh.com\n emeagher@fdh.com\nGroCyber, LLC（格罗赛伯有限责任公司）之代理律师\nNardello & Co., LLC（纳尔德洛公司有限责任公司）之代理律师\n\n签署：/s/ Henry P. Baer, Jr. 签署：/s/ Henry P. Baer, Jr.\nHenry P. Baer, Jr. (ct27781) Henry P. Baer, Jr. (ct27781)\nFINN DIXON & HERLING, LLP Eilis Meagher (ct31160)\nSix Landmark Square FINN DIXON & HERLING, LLP\nStamford, CT 06901 Six Landmark Square\n电话：(203) 325-5000 Stamford, CT 06901\n电子邮箱：hbaer@fdh.com 电话：(203) 325-5000\n电子邮箱：hbaer@fdh.com\n以及 emeagher@fdh.com\n\nSteven G. Mintz（史蒂文·G·明茨）（临时获准出庭） 以及\nBarry M. Kazan（巴里·M·卡赞）（临时获准出庭）\nMINTZ & GOLD LLP（明茨与戈尔德律师事务所） Andrea M. Chase（安德烈娅·M·蔡斯）（临时获准出庭）\n600 Third Avenue，25层 SPENCER FANE LLP（斯宾塞·费恩律师事务所）\nNew York, NY 10016 1000 Walnut，Suite 1400\n电话：(212) 696-4848 Kansas City, MO 64106\n电子邮箱：mintz@mintzandgold.com 电话：(816) 292-8279\nkazan@mintzandgold.com 电子邮箱：achase@spencerfane.com\n\nMarcum LLP（马库姆律师事务所）及 Fox News Network, LLC（福克斯新闻网络有限责任公司）之代理律师 Teris-Phoenix, LLC（特里斯-菲尼克斯有限责任公司）之代理律师\n\n签署：/s/ Ilan Markus（伊兰·马库斯） 签署：/s/ John J. Clarke, Jr.（约翰·J·克拉克二世）\n\nIlan Markus (ct26345) John J. Clarke, Jr. (ct31251)\nBARCLAY DAMON LLP（巴克莱·达蒙律师事务所） DLA PIPER LLP（德杰律师事务所）\n\n545 Long Wharf Drive，9层 1251 Avenue of the Americas\nNew Haven, CT 06511 New York, NY 10020\n电话：(203) 672-2661 电话：(212) 335-4500\n电子邮箱：imarkus@barclaydamon.com 电子邮箱：john.clarke@us.dlapiper.com\nConservative Campaign Technology LLC（保守派竞选技术有限责任公司）之代理律师 以及\nC. Kevin Kobbe（C·凯文·科比）（临时获准出庭）\nDLA PIPER LLP\n650 South Exeter Street，Suite 1100\nBaltimore, MD 21202\n\n电话：(410) 580-4189\n电子邮箱：kevin.kobbe@us.dlapiper.com\nZeta Global Corp.（泽塔全球公司）之代理律师\n签署：/s/ James J. Costello, Jr.（詹姆斯·J·科斯特洛二世） 签署：/s/ Ronald I. Chorches（罗纳德·I·乔切斯）\nJames J. Costello, Jr. (ct309468) Ronald I. Chorches (ct08720)\nNORRIS MCLAUGHLIN, P.A.（诺里斯·麦克劳克林专业协会） LAW OFFICES OF RONALD I. CHORCHES, LLC（罗纳德·I·乔切斯律师事务所有限责任公司）\n400 Crossing Boulevard，8层 82 Wolcott Hill Road，Suite 203\nBridgewater, NJ 08807-5933 Wethersfield, CT 06109\n电话：(908) 252-4315 电话：(860) 563-3955\n电子邮箱：jjcostellojr@norris-law.com 电子邮箱：ronchorcheslaw@sbcglobal.net\nFlat Rate Movers, Ltd.（统一费率搬家公司）之代理律师 以及\n\n签署：/s/ Darryl S. Laddin（达里尔·S·拉丁）\nDarryl S. Laddin（临时获准出庭）\nFrank N. White（弗兰克·N·怀特）（临时获准出庭）\nARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP（阿诺尔·戈尔登·格雷戈里律师事务所）\n171 17th Street, N.W. Suite 1200\nAtlanta, GA 30363-1031\n电话：(404) 873-8500\n电子邮箱：darryl.laddin@agg.com\nfrank.white@agg.com\nAmerican Express（美国运通）之代理律师\n\n签署：/s/ Lindsay Sampson Bishop（林赛·桑普森·毕晓普）\n\nLindsay Sampson Bishop (ct29990)\nK&L GATES LLP（凯门律师事务所）\n1 Congress Street [故意留白]\nBoston, MA 02114\n电话：(617) 261-3100\n电子邮箱：lindsay.bishop@klgates.com\n\n以及\n\n签署：/s/ Brian T. Peterson（布莱恩·T·彼得森）\nBrian T. Peterson（临时获准出庭）\nRuby A. Nagamine（露比·A·长峰）（临时获准出庭）\nK&L GATES LLP\n925 Fourth Avenue，Suite 2900\nSeattle, WA 98104\n电话：(206) 623-7580\n电子邮箱：brian.peterson@klgates.com\nruby.nagamine@klgates.com\n\nAmazon Web Services, Inc.（亚马逊云计算服务公司）及 Amazon.com, Inc.（亚马逊公司）之代理律师\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 November 22, 2024，前述文件的一份副本已以电子方式提交，并通过已预付邮资的一级邮件和/或电子邮件向任何无法接受电子提交的人送达。本次提交的通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运行以电子邮件发送给所有当事人，或按照《电子提交通知》中所示，通过一级邮件发送给任何无法接受电子提交的人。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交。\n\n/s/ Eric S. Goldstein（埃里克·S·戈尔德斯坦） Eric S. Goldstein","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","HCHK","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Miles Guo","Despins","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":8,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":60,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":66,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":125,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":139,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":268,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3003,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3713,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3803,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":6760,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:19:39"}