{"id":"court_ctb_3947_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3947,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHo Wan Kwok, et al.,\n\nChapter 11\n\nDebtors.[1](#page-0-0) Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Jointly Administered)\n\nJanuary 8, 2025\n\n#### **STATUS REPORT, RESERVATION OF RIGHTS, AND JOINDER, OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS[2](#page-0-1) IN PENDING ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS**\n\nThe defendants set forth on Exhibit A (the \"Defendants\") hereby submit the following status report concerning the status conference scheduled for January 8, 2025, to address the process for oral argument on their pending motions to dismiss to be argued on January 15, 2025. Further, Defendants have reviewed the Status Report (ECF No. 3943, the \"Trustee's Status Report\") filed by Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\"). The undersigned counsel for Defendants has conferred with counsel for the Trustee and counsel for various other parties hereto, including counsel for the so-called \"Joint Defendants\" and submits as follows:\n\n#### **STATUS REPORT**\n\n1. Defendants largely agree with the Trustee's procedural suggestions in that\n\nargument should be limited to key legal issues raised globally by all parties, including\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtors in the main Chapter 11 case are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok. The Trustee has not been appointed to act as a chapter 11 trustee on behalf of any other entity.\n\n<span id=\"page-0-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> A list of defendants on behalf of whom this Status Report is filed are set forth on Exhibit A hereto.\n\nDefendants and Joint Defendants. However, Defendants disagree with the characterization of the\n\nlegal issues by the Trustee.\n\n- 2. Defendants view the issues affecting all defendants as follows:\n\t- a. Whether the property of non-debtor entities is \"property of the estate\" such that those non-debtor entities' transfers can be avoided under Sections 544, 548, or 549.\n\t- b. Whether \"alter ego\" theory can be used to re-assign the ownership of property of non-debtor entities and people to the estate (in effect a substantive consolidation without meeting the standards for substantive consolidation), or whether alter ego theory only is a theory of vicarious liability.\n\t- c. Even if \"alter ego\" theory can be used to re-assign the ownership of property of non-debtor entities and people, can that re-assignment be accomplished retroactively to the petition date of this bankruptcy case (or appointment of the Trustee)? And if it is accomplished retroactively, does that also require retroactive (i) approval of the transfers to ordinary course and fair value transferees, (ii) notice to creditors of the alleged alter egos, (iii) filing of bankruptcy petitions for the alleged alter egos, and (iv) complying with all other applicable requirements for retroactive relief under federal and applicable law?\n\t- d. Are prior default, collateral estoppel, or other rulings of the bankruptcy court \"law of the case\" or subject to collateral estoppel effect even though the current movants are not the same parties who litigated (or defaulted on) the prior rulings, and the court's prior \"alter ego\" findings were factual, not \"law,\" and so not \"law of the case\"?\n\t- e. Does the Trustee have standing to assert a claim on behalf of the debtor that the debtor owns property that is titled in the name of other entities and people?\n\t- f. Does the Trustee have standing to assert a claim on behalf of (unidentified) creditors that the debtor owns property titled in the name of other entities and people based on an alter ego theory? Relatedly, does the Trustee have standing to assert a claim that other entities or people are vicariously liable, on an alter-ego theory, for the debts owed to (unidentified) creditors?\n\n(Hereafter, collectively referred to as the \"Global Issues\"). Regardless of the parties' differing statements of the issues for argument, they appear in agreement with how argument on these issues should proceed, except as set forth below.\n\n{00397390.2 } 2\n\n3. One area of apparent disagreement is that while the Trustee characterizes standing (Global Issues (e) and (f) above) as a \"Non-Joint Issue\" (Trustee's Status Report at 3 and Exhibit A at 7[3](#page-2-0) ), the issue of standing is inextricably linked to the Joint Issues as standing will implicate the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Further, standing was briefed by the Joint Defendants.\n\n4. Defendants have asserted additional grounds for dismissal based on other legal insufficiencies of the complaint. Defendants agree that most of these issues should be reserved for argument at a later date, to the extent necessary. To be clear, Defendants do not agree with the Trustee's attempt to define or categorize these \"Non-Joint Issues,\" as set forth in Exhibit A to his status report. Instead, Defendants submit that all issues raised in their motions to dismiss that are not Global Issues should be treated as \"Non-Joint Issues.\"\n\n5. However, Defendants request that the Court hear argument on whether (a) the Trustee may file complaints under seal and/or redact information in a complaint as that is a purely legal issue that has been extensively briefed previously in connection with other matters and (a) whether if retroactive relief is allowed to the Trustee, whether retroactive approval for payments is permitted for Defendants.\n\n6. In summary, at argument on January 15th, Defendants submit that the undersigned be permitted to argue on the Global Issues *in addition* to counsel for the Joint Defendants but only to the extent that (a) the Court has questions directed to Defendants' arguments and (b) counsel for the Joint Defendant has not addressed a concern of Defendants. Further, the undersigned should be permitted to offer additional argument on (i) the standing issue, (ii) redaction issue, and (iii) whether retroactive approval of payments is appropriate if the Court holds the Trustee's retroactive relief is allowed, which the Trustee considers Non-Joint Issues.\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>{00397390.2 }</sup> 3 <sup>3</sup> Referring to the FFP (BVI) Ltd. \"Non-Joint Issues\" bullet point, by way of example.\n\n7. Lastly, Defendants request to use a power point presentation (if appropriate) to aid the Court at oral argument. Said presentation will summarize case law and other arguments.\n\n### **RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND JOINDER**\n\n8. Defendants reserve their right to oral argument on non-Global issues and specifically request supplemental argument thereon at a later date.\n\n9. Defendants reserve their rights, and do not waive, all jurisdictional arguments,\n\nincluding as to personal jurisdiction, service of process, and/or otherwise.\n\n10. Defendants join the argument and briefing of the Joint Defendants' (in addition to Defendants' own briefing) on the Global Issues. The purpose of this joinder is to ensure no issues on appeal are waived and all rights are reserved.\n\n11. Nothing herein shall constitute an agreement that the Trustee's Status Report may constitute substantive argument or a \"sur-reply\" to any reply memorandum filed by Defendants, for consideration by the Court.\n\n# **DEFENDANTS SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT A**\n\nBy: */s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz* Jeffrey M. Sklarz (ct20938) Kellianne Baranowsky (ct26684) Michelle Antao (ct31715) GREEN & SKLARZ LLC One Audubon St, 3rd Floor New Haven, CT 06511 Tel: 203-285-8545 jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com mantao@gs-lawfirm.com\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on the date set forth below, a copy of the foregoing was served via CM/ECF. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDate: January 8, 2024\n\n*/s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz*\n\n## **EXHIBIT A**\n\n| Case Name                                           | AP No.        |\n|-----------------------------------------------------|---------------|\n|                                                     |               |\n| Despins v. FFP (BVI) Limited                        | 5:24-ap-05056 |\n|                                                     |               |\n| Despins v. Weddle Law PPLC                          | 5:24-ap-05188 |\n|                                                     |               |\n| Despins v. V.X. Cerda & Associates P.A.             | 5:24-ap-05134 |\n|                                                     |               |\n| Despins v. The Francis Law Firm                     | 5:24-ap-05168 |\n|                                                     |               |\n| Despins v. Lawall & Mitchell LLC and Aaron Mitchell | 5:24-ap-05199 |\n|                                                     |               |\n| Despins v. Mitchell                                 | 5:24-ap-05110 |\n|                                                     |               |\n| Despins v. Berkeley Rowe Limited                    | 5:24-ap-05186 |\n|                                                     |               |\n| Despins v. ACASS Canada LTD                         | 5:24-ap-05226 |\n|                                                     |               |\n| Despins v. G4S Security Systems (Hong Kong) Ltd.    | 5:24-ap-05204 |","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等，\n\n第11章\n\n债务人。[1] 案号：22-50073 (JAM)（合并审理）\n\n2025年1月8日\n待决对抗性诉讼中若干被告[2]之状态报告、权利保留及共同主张声明\n\n列于附件A的被告（以下简称“被告”）特此就定于2025年1月8日举行的状态会议提交以下状态报告，以处理定于2025年1月15日进行口头辩论的待决驳回动议之辩论程序事宜。此外，被告已审阅Luc A. Despins以第11章受托人身份（以下简称“受托人”）提交的状态报告（ECF第3943号，以下简称“受托人状态报告”）。下述署名的被告律师已与受托人律师以及本案其他各方当事人律师（包括所谓“共同被告”的律师）进行了协商，并提出如下意见：\n\n状态报告\n\n1. 被告在很大程度上同意受托人的程序性建议，即辩论应限于所有当事人（包括被告和共同被告）总体提出的关键法律问题。但是，被告不同意受托人对这些法律问题的定性。\n\n1 在主要第11章破产案中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称Guo Wengui、Miles Guo及Miles Kwok）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交Ho Wan Kwok破产财团受托人Luc A. Despins。受托人未被指定代表任何其他实体担任第11章受托人。\n\n2 本状态报告所代表提交的被告名单列于本文件附件A。\n\n- 2. 被告认为影响所有被告的问题如下：\n\t- a. 非债务人实体的财产是否属于“破产财团财产”，从而使得该等非债务人实体的转让可根据第544条、第548条或第549条予以撤销。\n\t- b. 是否可以使用“另我”（alter ego）理论将非债务人实体及个人的财产所有权重新归属于破产财团（实际上是在不符合实质合并标准的情况下进行实质合并），抑或另我理论仅是一种替代责任理论。\n\t- c. 即使可以使用“另我”理论将非债务人实体及个人的财产所有权重新归属于破产财团，该等重新归属是否可以追溯至本破产案件的申请日（或受托人任命之日）完成？且如果追溯完成，这是否还要求追溯性地(i) 批准向正常业务过程中及支付公允价值的受让人进行的转让，(ii) 通知被指称另我实体的债权人，(iii) 为被指称另我实体提交破产申请，以及(iv) 遵守联邦法及适用法律下关于追溯性救济的所有其他适用要求？\n\t- d. 破产法院先前的缺席裁定、附随反言裁定或其他裁定是否构成“案件法”（law of the case）或具有附随反言效力，即使当前动议提出人并非先前裁定中参与诉讼（或缺席）的同一方当事人，且法院先前关于“另我”的认定属于事实认定而非“法律”，因而并非“案件法”？\n\t- e. 受托人是否有诉讼资格代表债务人主张债务人对登记在其他实体和个人名下的财产享有所有权？\n\t- f. 受托人是否有诉讼资格代表（未指明的）债权人基于另我理论主张债务人对登记在其他实体和个人名下的财产享有所有权？与此相关的是，受托人是否有诉讼资格基于另我理论主张其他实体或个人对欠付（未指明）债权人的债务承担替代责任？\n\n（以下统称为“总体问题”）。尽管各方当事人对辩论问题的陈述存在分歧，但除下文所述外，他们对于如何进行这些问题的辩论似乎达成了一致。\n\n{00397390.2 } 2\n\n3. 一个明显存在分歧的领域在于，虽然受托人将诉讼资格（上述总体问题(e)和(f)）定性为“非共同问题”（受托人状态报告第3页及附件A第7页[3]），但诉讼资格问题与共同问题密不可分，因为诉讼资格将涉及本法院的事物管辖权。此外，共同被告已就诉讼资格问题提交了书面辩论意见。\n\n4. 被告已基于起诉书的其他法律缺陷提出了额外的驳回理由。被告同意，在必要范围内，这些问题中的大多数应留待日后进行辩论。需要明确的是，被告不同意受托人在其状态报告附件A中所试图对这些“非共同问题”进行的定义或归类。相反，被告主张，在其驳回动议中提出的所有非总体问题均应被视为“非共同问题”。\n\n5. 但是，被告请求法院就以下问题听取辩论：(a) 受托人是否可以密封提交起诉书及/或涂黑起诉书中的信息，因为这是一个纯粹的法律问题，此前已就其他事项进行了广泛的书面辩论；以及(a) 如果允许受托人获得追溯性救济，是否允许对被告进行款项支付的追溯性批准。\n\n6. 综上所述，在1月15日的辩论中，被告主张，除共同被告的律师外，应允许下述署名律师就总体问题进行辩论，但仅限于(a) 法院针对被告的主张提出问题，以及(b) 共同被告的律师未涉及被告所关切事项的情况。此外，应允许下述署名律师就以下事项提供额外辩论：(i) 诉讼资格问题，(ii) 涂黑遮盖问题，以及(iii) 如果法院认定允许受托人获得追溯性救济，对款项支付进行追溯性批准是否恰当（受托人将这些视为非共同问题）。\n\n{00397390.2 } 3 [3] 例如，指FFP (BVI) Ltd.的“非共同问题”项。\n\n7. 最后，被告请求在口头辩论中使用幻灯片演示（如适宜），以协助法院审理。该演示将总结判例法及其他辩论主张。\n\n权利保留及共同主张\n\n8. 被告保留就非总体问题进行口头辩论的权利，并明确请求日后就此进行补充辩论。\n\n9. 被告保留所有管辖权抗辩权利，且不放弃任何管辖权抗辩，包括对人管辖权、法律文书送达及/或其他方面的抗辩。\n\n10. 被告就总体问题加入共同被告的辩论主张和书面辩论意见（作为被告自身书面辩论意见的补充）。此项共同主张的目的是确保在上诉中不放弃任何问题并保留所有权利。\n\n11. 本文件中的任何内容均不构成同意受托人状态报告可构成实质性辩论意见或供法院审理的对被告提交的任何答辩备忘录的“再答辩”（sur-reply）。\n\n列于附件A的被告\n\n签署人：/s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz\nJeffrey M. Sklarz (ct20938)\nKellianne Baranowsky (ct26684)\nMichelle Antao (ct31715)\nGREEN & SKLARZ LLC\nOne Audubon St, 3rd Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n电话：203-285-8545\njsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com\nkbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\nmantao@gs-lawfirm.com\n\n送达证书\n\n我特此证明，在下述日期，前述文件的副本已通过CM/ECF系统送达。各方当事人可通过法院的CM/ECF系统查阅本备案文件。\n\n日期：2024年1月8日\n\n/s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz\n\n附件A\n\n案件名称 对抗性诉讼案号\n\nDespins 诉 FFP (BVI) Limited 5:24-ap-05056\n\nDespins 诉 Weddle Law PPLC 5:24-ap-05188\n\nDespins 诉 V.X. Cerda & Associates P.A. 5:24-ap-05134\n\nDespins 诉 The Francis Law Firm 5:24-ap-05168\n\nDespins 诉 Lawall & Mitchell LLC 及 Aaron Mitchell 5:24-ap-05199\n\nDespins 诉 Mitchell 5:24-ap-05110\n\nDespins 诉 Berkeley Rowe Limited 5:24-ap-05186\n\nDespins 诉 ACASS Canada LTD 5:24-ap-05226\n\nDespins 诉 G4S Security Systems (Hong Kong) Ltd. 5:24-ap-05204","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":3943,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1386,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:53:58"}