{"id":"court_ctb_678_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":678,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re : Chapter 11","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re : Chapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK, : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n : Debtor. : \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ :\n\n:\n\n# **DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO REVISED PROPOSED ORDER, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 363, 521, 541, 1108, AND 105, (A) CONFIRMING THAT CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE HOLDS ALL OF DEBTOR'S ECONOMIC AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS IN DEBTOR-CONTROLLED ENTITIES, (B) AUTHORIZING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO ACT IN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY ON BEHALF OF ESTATE, AND (C) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF**\n\nThe debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., for his objection to the revised proposed Order, Pursuant To Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521 541, 1108, And 105, (A) Confirming That Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All Of Debtor's Economic Rights In Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee To Act In Any Foreign Country On Behalf Of The Estate, And (C) Granting Related Relief (Doc. No. 645, the \"Revised Proposed Order\"), states as follows:\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed his voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, thereby commencing the above-captioned bankruptcy case.\n\n2. On June 15, 2022, this Court issued a Memorandum of Decision, *inter alia*, granting PAX's Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Partial Joinder to the UST's Motion for the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 183), to the extent that it sought the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee (Doc. No. 465.)\n\n3. On July 7, 2022, the UST filed a notice appointing Luc A. Despins (the \"Trustee\")\n\nas Chapter 11 trustee (Doc. No. 514), and an Application for Order Approving Appointment of\n\nChapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 515) seeking the Court's approval of the appointment of the Trustee.\n\nOn July 8, 2022, the Court entered its Order Granting Appointment Of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc.\n\nNo. 523), granting the appointment of the Trustee as Chapter 11 trustee in this case.\n\n# Background On The Sherry-Netherland Residence\n\n4. On March 9, 2022, the Debtor filed his Debtor's Global Notes and Statements of\n\nLimitations, Methodology, and Disclaimers Regarding the Debtor's Schedules of Assets and\n\nLiabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs (Doc. No. 77, annexed hereto as Exhibit 1, the\n\n\"Global Notes\"). Paragraph 1b(ii) of the \"Specific Notes,\" at pages 4-5 provides:\n\nThe Debtor also has access to an apartment located at the Sherry-Netherlands Hotel, 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (the \"Apartment\"). The cooperative shares in the Apartment are held by Genever Holdings LLC (the \"US SPV\"). The membership interests in the US SPV are held by Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"BVI Company\"). *The Debtor holds all of the equity of the BVI Company; however, pursuant to a Declaration of Trust and Agreement, dated as of February 17, 2015 (the \"Trust Date\"), the Debtor holds such equity in trust for Bravo Luck Limited (the \"Apartment Owner\")***.** The Debtor's son owns the equity of the Apartment Owner. On or about the Trust Date, the Apartment Owner funded the US SPV with the purchase price for the Apartment. These funds came from entities owned or controlled by the Debtor's son and not from the Debtor.\n\nThe US SPV commenced its own chapter 11 case before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on October 12, 2020 (Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)). The US SPV's disclosure statement with respect to its reorganization plan states that the US SPV \"sought Chapter 11 relief . . . in the face of multiple court disputes relating primarily to the beneficial ownership of the Residence as between Bravo Luck Limited . . . and [Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP (\"PAX\")].\" [Docket No. 165]. In litigation seeking to determine the ownership of the Apartment, the Apartment Owner contends that it is the beneficial owner of the Apartment. The ultimate ownership of the Apartment will be resolved outside of the US SPV's chapter 11 case. Before the BVI courts, PAX has sought the turnover of the US SPV's membership interests based upon its judgment (which remains under appeal) against the Debtor.\n\nThe Apartment is currently marketed for sale by Sotheby's International Realty under the authority of Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq., the US SPV's sales officer. For these reasons, the Debtor does not report the value of the Apartment as an asset.\n\n(Emphasis added).\n\n5. On March 20, 2022, the Debtor filed his Declaration Of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok In\n\nSupport Of The Chapter 11 Case And Certain Motions (Doc. No. 107, annexed hereto as Exhibit\n\n2, the \"Declaration\"). Paragraph 33b of the Declaration provides as follows:\n\n**Sherry-Netherland Apartment.** Cooperative shares in the Sherry-Netherland apartment are held by Genever Holdings LLC ( \"Genever US\"). The membership interests in Genever US are, in turn, held by Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). *I hold all of the equity of Genever BVI. However, pursuant to a Declaration of Trust and Agreement, dated February 17, 2015 (the \"Trust Date\"), I hold such equity in trust for Bravo Luck Limited (the \"Apartment Owner\"). My son owns the equity of the Apartment Owner.* On or about the Trust Date, the Apartment Owner funded Genever US with the purchase price for the Apartment. These funds came from entities owned or controlled by my son and not from me. It also bears noting that any interest I have in Genever BVI has been ordered, by Justice Ostrager, to be turned over to PAX, provided that such a turnover does not interfere with pending litigation in the British Virgin Islands or the Genever US bankruptcy.\n\n(Emphasis added). Thus, the Debtor has stated twice in this case that he owns the equity in Geneva\n\nBVI as trustee of a trust for the benefit of Bravo Luck, *i.e.*, he has stated that he is not the equitable\n\nowner of Genever BVI.\n\n6. With respect to the Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever LLC\") Chapter 11 referred to in the Global Notes, on October 12, 2020, Genever LLC filed its voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 20-12411, the \"Genever Chapter 11\") with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"New York Bankruptcy Court\"). In a disclosure statement (which has not been approved by the Bankruptcy Court in the Genever Chapter 11) filed in its bankruptcy case on January 7, 2022, Genever stated that it is a New York limited liability company and the owner of the Apartment. The beneficial ownership of the Apartment, Genever LLC and/or Genever BVI, has been the subject of litigation between Genever LLC, Bravo Luck Limited and PAX pending in the Supreme Court, New York County (Index No. 652077/2017) (the \"New York Court\") and in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the British Virgin Islands (Index. No. BVIHCOM2020/0137) (the \"BVI Court\"). According to Genever LLC's disclosure statement, such litigation has been generally referred to as the \"Ownership Dispute\" throughout the Chapter 11 case. Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 20-12411, Doc. No. 165, at 1-2.\n\n7. On September 24, 2021, Genever LLC filed in the Genever Chapter 11 its Debtor's Omnibus Second Renewed Motion (i) To Approve Second Amended And Restated Settlement Agreement With Bravo Luck And Pax; And (ii) To Hire Melanie Cyganowksi As An Employee Only To Act As The Sale Officer For The Debtor's Bankruptcy Estate (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 20-12411, Doc. No. 131, annexed hereto as Exhibit 3, the \"Settlement Motion\"). Annexed as Exhibit A to the Settlement Motion is the Second Amended And Restated Settlement Agreement (the \"Settlement Agreement\") by and among Genever LLC, PAX and Bravo Luck. Paragraphs 2 through 6 of the Settlement Agreement provide for a sale of the Apartment in a process overseen by Melanie Cyganowksi. Paragraph 7 of the Settlement Agreement provides:\n\n> a. Stay relief is granted to allow PAX to prosecute, and the Debtor to defend, the state court action currently pending in the New York Supreme Court under Docket No. 652077/2017 (the \"State Court Action\"), with the stay to otherwise remain in place for all other purposes, including relating to enforcement or collection of any judgment entered against the Debtor in the State Court Action, pending further order of the Bankruptcy Court upon further notice to all Parties. Nothing herein shall be construed as an acknowledgment of the appropriate forum outside the bankruptcy court to address any such issues, with all Parties' rights expressly reserved.\n\n> b. Nothing herein shall prejudice the rights of any party, including Bravo Luck and PAX to proceed with the BVI Litigation, provided that PAX, Bravo Luck, Kwok, Guo or any of his or its affiliates reserve the right to assert claims in the Bankruptcy Court relating to its status as a creditor of the Debtor, and PAX reserves all rights to oppose such claims on any grounds. In addition, notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the rights of any Party, including Bravo Luck and PAX, from proceeding with any and all claims, if any, against anyone, including Bravo Luck, Kwok, Guo, or any of his or its affiliates, and PAX or any of its\n\naffiliates, in BVI, State Court, or otherwise, and Bravo Luck and PAX reserve all rights to oppose such claims in the applicable forum.\n\nParagraph 1d of the Settlement Agreement defines \"BVI Litigation\" as \"those certain actions filed by PAX in the BVI in 2020 under case No. BVIHCM 2020/0137 against: (i) Genever BVI, (ii) Bravo Luck, (iii) Kwok, and (iv) Guo, seeking, among other things, to enforce (a) the Judgment arising in the State Court Action; and (b) the Defense and Counterclaim filed on January, 14, 2021, by Bravo Luck and Guo against PAX.\" The disclosure statement filed by Genever LLC in the Genever Chapter 11 states:\n\nIt is contemplated that the Ownership Dispute will be determined outside of the Bankruptcy Court, unless Bravo Luck's alternate contention that it retains an unsecured monetary claim against the Debtor is not determined in the BVI Action on the merits. In such event, the validity of Bravo Luck's monetary claim may be adjudicated in the Bankruptcy Court, or such other court of competent jurisdiction to hear the matter.\n\nBankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 20-12411, Doc. No. 165, at 3.\n\n8. On October 8, 2021, the New York Bankruptcy Court in the Genever Chapter 11 case entered an order (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 20-12411, Doc. No. 141, annexed hereto as Exhibit 4) granting the Settlement Motion approving the Settlement Agreement.\n\n9. On July 26, 2022, the Trustee filed a letter with the New York Bankruptcy Court stating, among other things, \"[a]s made clear in Corporate Governance Rights Motion [filed in the Debtor's case], the motion is not an attempt to request any relief with respect to the chapter 11 case of Genever (US), including any modification to the *Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement*.\" Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 20-12411, Doc. No. 194 (annexed hereto as Exhibit 5). Notwithstanding that the Settlement Agreement approved by the New York Bankruptcy Court contemplates that the Ownership Dispute will be resolved in the State Court Action or the BVI Litigation, and possibly with respect to a Bravo Luck monetary claim by the New York Bankruptcy Court or another court of competent jurisdiction, and despite the Trustee's statement to the New York Bankruptcy Court that the Motion (as defined below—the Trustee sent the Motion to the New York Bankruptcy Court, he has not sent the Revised Proposed Order to the New York Bankruptcy Court) is not an attempt to request any relief with respect to the Settlement Agreement, via the Proposed Revised Order the Trustee seeks to resolve the ownership of Genever BVI.\n\n#### Background On The UK Action Against UBS\n\n10. As the Court has been informed, prior to the Petition Date (in September, 2020), the Debtor and two other plaintiffs commenced an action in the United Kingdom against UBS AG asserting damages of some \\$500 million. The firm of Harcus Parker in London continues to represent the two other plaintiffs in that action and represented the Debtor until the appointment of the Trustee. The Debtor understands that as a matter of U.S. Bankruptcy law the Trustee was automatically substituted as plaintiff in the UK action, so that the Debtor believes that Harcus Parker is his former counsel, but the Debtor does not know the requirements of UK law other than as described below by Harcus Parker.\n\n11. After the Trustee's appointment, Jenny Morrissey, a partner at Harcus Parker reached out to the undersigned and Stephen Kindseth to get a status report on the Debtor's US bankruptcy case and, in particular, the appointment of the Trustee. The undersigned did not speak to Attorney Morrissey, but, rather, in an effort to cooperate with the Trustee and after communicating to the Trustee in advance, the undersigned sent the following e-mail to Attorney Morrisey on July 22, 2022:\n\nI know that you have been trying to contact Steve and me regarding the status of Mr. Kwok's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case pending in the US. This is to inform/confirm to you that Luc Despins, copied here, has been appointed as the Chapter 11 trustee in Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy case. Any interest of Mr. Kwok in the litigation vs UBS pending in London (the \"UBS Litigation\") is property of Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy estate. Upon Mr. Despins appointment as Chapter 11 trustee, he exercises control over all property of the bankruptcy estate, including the UBS Litigation, so that he now has authority and standing to prosecute the UBS Litigation. Mr. Kwok has no authority or standing at this time to prosecute the UBS Litigation. Accordingly, please communicate directly with Mr. Despins regarding the status of the UBS Litigation. Thank you.\n\nThe undersigned had no further contact with Attorney Morrissey until August 2, and the undersigned did not hear anything from the Trustee regarding Attorney Morrissey or the UK action until the Trustee filed the Revised Proposed Order (as defined below) on the evening of July 31, 2022.\n\n12. On August 2, following the hearing in the Court on August 1, the undersigned had a phone conversation with Attorney Morrissey. During that conversation, Attorney Morrissey stated to the undersigned the following:\n\n- A U.S. trustee in bankruptcy is not automatically recognized in UK Courts under UK law.\n- The Trustee currently has no authority under UK law in the courts in the UK action.\n- The Trustee is not correct to the extent that he takes the position that his appointment as trustee in the Debtor's case has extraterritorial effect under UK law.\n- The Trustee will not be recognized under UK law until he is recognized under crossborder rules.\n- Based on the foregoing, Harcus Parker does not have to turn over any files to the Trustee.\n- A letter from the Debtor consenting to the release of his materials may be sufficient for the turn-over of certain documents, but the Debtor needs to know and understand what he is consenting to and his consent must be freely given.\n- Any such consent will only be sufficient to cover what the Debtor owns.\n- Harcus Parker represents two other clients. The privilege is jointly held and cannot be waived by the Debtor on behalf of those other clients. Harcus Parker will have to notify its other clients, and they will have to consent to any release of information.\n- Harcus Parker would need confirmation from the Trustee that Paul Hastings would have proper \"barriers\" in place because of Paul Hastings' representation of UBS.\n- Harcus Parker has professional obligations and it is not improperly refusing to hand over files, rather it is concerned with complying with its professional obligations and ensuring that privilege is protected.\n- Attorney Morrissey did not tell the Trustee that Harcus Parker is taking this position because it is concerned about being sued by the Debtor.\n\nAttorney Morrissey told the Trustee the foregoing in a phone conversation on July 25 and in emails.\n\nAs noted above, the undersigned had no contact with Harcus Parker between the undersigned's July 22 e-mail to Harcus Parker quoted above and the August 2 conversation related herein. The Trustee never spoke to the undersigned about the Trustee's communications with Harcus Parker and never made any request of the Debtor regarding Harcus Parker before filing the Revised Proposed Order. The idea for the July 22 e-mail came from the undersigned, not the Trustee. The Trustee did not inform the Court of his communications with Harcus Parker at the August 1 hearing, notwithstanding the fact that those communications, as discussed above, took place before that hearing.\n\n13. Following the undersigned contacting Harcus Parker on August 2, there is now some discussion among the undersigned, the Trustee and Harcus Parker as to what communication from Harcus Parker's perspective *might* be sufficient for Harcus Parker to release *some*\n\n8\n\ninformation to the Trustee. As of the filing of this objection, satisfactory language has not been worked out between the Trustee and Harcus Parker.\n\n14. On July 23, 2022, the Trustee filed his Motion Of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry Of Order, Pursuant To Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 541, 1108, And 105, (A) Confirming That Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All Of Debtor's Economic Rights In Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee To Act In Any Foreign Country On Behalf Of The Estate, And (C) Granting Related Relief (Doc. No. 598, the \"Motion\"), pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 363, 541, 1108 and 1505. In the Motion, the Trustee seeks an order from the Court providing, among other things, that:\n\n- The Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights, for the benefit of the Estate, with respect to all Debtor-Controlled Entities, including, without limitation, Genever (BVI). For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing rights include the Trustee's authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager, or similar person of the Debtor-Controlled Entities. As part of the foregoing, to the extent necessary, the Trustee is authorized to act, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee in this Chapter 11 Case, as any such officer, director, manager, or similar person who has been removed.\n- To the extent the Trustee's exercise of economic and governance rights with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities is deemed to be outside the ordinary course of business, such exercise is hereby approved, as there is sound business justification for the exercise of such rights, including because the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to such entities for the benefit of the Estate.\n- Trustee is authorized to act, as the Debtor's foreign representative, in any foreign country on behalf of the Estate in any way permitted by applicable foreign law for the purpose of (a) investigating, collecting, and recovering assets of the Debtor located in foreign countries, including relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, (b) exercising control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including seeking relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, and (c) requesting and obtaining corporate documents from appropriate foreign corporate registries (or similar entities) holding such documents with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities. Without limiting the foregoing, the Trustee is authorized, pursuant to section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Court, to request and obtain the corporate documents related to Genever (BVI) from the appropriate British Virgin Island (\"BVI\") entity holding such corporate documents.\n- The Court requests the assistance of the foreign courts, including the assistance of the BVI courts regarding any request of the Trustee for relief (including on an emergency basis) with respect to the Trustee's exercise of corporate control over Genever (BVI).\n- Nothing in the Order shall be deemed to authorize any particular action with respect to Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever (US)\") in its chapter 11 case pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"Genever Court\"). The Trustee shall appear before, and seek guidance from, the Genever Court to the extent the Trustee's exercise of corporate governance rights with respect to Genever (US) would impact its chapter 11 case.\n\nMotion, Proposed Order (the \"Original Proposed Order\"), at ¶¶ 2-4, 6-7. At paragraph 17 of the Motion, the Trustee states: \"To be clear, through this Motion, the Trustee is merely seeking confirmation from this Court that he now holds the same economic and corporate governance rights in the Debtor-Controlled Entities as the Debtor had prior to entry of the Appointment Order. The Trustee is not seeking permission to exercise such governance rights, as doing so is well within the ordinary course of the Debtor's business.\" In the Motion, the Trustee did not seek relief pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 521 and did not seek any relief with respect to Harcus Parker, and did not seek to require any affirmative action by the Debtor. In the Motion, the Trustee stated that he was \"merely seeking confirmation\" of his rights.\n\n15. On July 29, 2022, the Debtor filed its Response to the Motion (Doc. No. 643, the \"Response\"), raising objections to the relief sought in the Motion and the Original Proposed Order. The Debtor maintains his objections made in the Response and reserves all rights with respect thereto.\n\n#### The Revised Proposed Order\n\n16. On July 31, 2022, at 10:09 p.m., the night before the expedited hearing on the Motion, the Trustee filed his Chapter 11 Trustee's Notice Of Filing Revised Proposed Order Pursuant To Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 541, 1108, and 1505, (A) Confirming That\n\n10\n\nChapter 11 Trustee Holds All Of Debtor's Economic And Corporate Governance Rights In Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee To Act In Any Foreign Country On Behalf Of Estate, And (C) Granting Related Relief (Doc. No. 645, the \"Notice\"). The Notice states that the \"proposed order has been revised to address the concerns raised in the Debtor's objection to the Corporate Governance Rights Motion as well as to resolve certain informal comments received by the Trustee.\" *The Revised Proposed Order does not address any concerns raised by the Debtor in the Response.*\n\n17. Attached to the Notice is the Trustee's revised Order Pursuant To Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 541, 1108, and 1505, (A) Confirming That Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All Of Debtor's Economic And Corporate Governance Rights In Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee To Act In Any Foreign Country On Behalf Of Estate, And (C) Granting Related Relief (the \"Revised Proposed Order\"). *The Revised Proposed Order expressly adds as a basis for relief Bankruptcy Code section 521, which was not a basis for relief in either the Motion or the Original Proposed Order*. The Revised Proposed Order adds the following paragraph, now proposed paragraph 3 to the Revised Proposed Order:\n\nIn accordance with sections 521(a)(3) and 521(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor is hereby directed to, respectively, (a) cooperate with the Trustee as necessary to enable the Trustee to perform his duties, including, without limitation, the Trustee's investigation into the assets of the debtor, and (b) surrender to the Trustee all property of the estate and any recorded information, including, without limitation, books, documents, records, and papers relating to property of the estate (including, without limitation, his shares in Genever (BVI) and all related corporate governance documents). In furtherance of the Debtor's duties under sections 521(a)(3) and 521(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor is hereby directed to:\n\n(a) execute the share transfer form and the director's resolution with respect to the Debtor's shares in Genever (BVI) in the forms attached hereto as Exhibit A (leaving such documents in undated form) and deliver, within two business days after entry of this Order, such executed documents to the Trustee (who will then submit such documents to the registered agent for Genever (BVI) in the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\")); and\n\n(b) request, no later than two business days after entry of this Order, his counsel, including, without limitation, the law firm of Harcus Parker Limited and any former counsel (collectively, \"UK Counsel\"), in the litigation styled Kwok Ho Wan, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, and Dawn State Limited v. UBS AG (London Branch), Case No. CL-2020-000345, pending in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court (the \"UBS Litigation\"), to (i) immediately deliver to and share with the Trustee all memoranda, advice, and other communications by UK Counsel to the Debtor regarding the UBS Litigation, any other information (whether in written form or not) regarding the merits of the UBS Litigation, and any settlement offers received or made by the Debtor or UK Counsel in connection with such litigation, and (ii) immediately provide the Trustee will full access to UK Counsel's case file in the UBS Litigation as well as all pleadings and other court documents filed in the UBS Litigation (in the case of both (i) and (ii), regardless of whether such documents, communications, or information are subject to any attorney-client privilege, work product, or other privilege and regardless of when such documents, communications, or information were made or created). In furtherance of the foregoing, the Debtor shall deliver, no later than two business days after entry of this Order, a copy of the letter in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B to the law firm of Harcus Parker Limited (with a copy thereof to be delivered to the Trustee). For the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee shall be deemed, for all purposes, to be the owner of the Debtor's claims asserted in the UBS Litigation.\n\nAnnexed as Exhibit A to the Revised Proposed Order is a Share Transfer Instrument that would\n\ntransfer the shares of Genever BVI to the Trustee solely in his capacity as Trustee and Resolutions\n\napproving such transfer. Annexed as Exhibit B to the Revised Proposed Order is a draft letter from\n\nthe Debtor to the Harcus Parker firm in the UK. The first two paragraphs of the draft letter are\n\nessentially verbatim what the undersigned put in his e-mail to Attorney Morrissey on July 22. The\n\nthird and fourth paragraphs of the letter provide as follows:\n\nI hereby expressly authorize you to have full and complete discussions with Mr. Despins regarding the UBS Litigation, the merits thereof, any related settlement discussions, and any other topics related to the prosecution of the UBS Litigation, regardless of any attorney-client privilege, work product, or other privilege, which I hereby fully waive for such purposes.\n\nAmong other things, and as detailed in the order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit 1), I instruct you to (i) immediately deliver to and share with the Trustee all memoranda, advice, and other communications by you to me regarding the UBS Litigation, any other information (whether in written form or not) regarding the merits of the UBS Litigation, and any settlement offers received or made by me or you in connection with such litigation, and (ii) immediately provide the Trustee will full access to your case file in the UBS Litigation as well as all pleadings and other court documents filed in the UBS Litigation.\n\nThe Trustee did not discuss the content of this proposed letter with the undersigned before\n\nfiling the Revised Proposed Order.\n\n# The Relief Provided For In The Revised Proposed Order Must Be Sought by Separate Written Motion\n\n18. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9013 provides in relevant part: \"A request for an order, except when an application is authorized by the rules, shall be by written motion, unless made during a hearing. The motion shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.\" While Rule 9013 (and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b), from which Rule 9013 was derived) allows for oral motions during hearings, courts have held that the type of motions that may be made orally during a hearing is limited. Typically, such motions relate and are incidental to the written motion being heard, such as motions to exclude evidence, for a directed verdict, or for a mistrial. Allowing oral motions during hearings that raise new issues and/or seek new relief would defeat the purposes of requiring written motions, including statement of a claim with particularity and notice. *See, e.g., In re Bistrian*, 184 B.R. 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (\"Both Rule 7(b)(1) and Rule 9013 create an exception for oral motions made during a hearing or trial. If read broadly to allow any oral motion during any hearing, regardless of the nexus between them, the exception would hobble the writing requirement and the policies underlying it. Not surprisingly, then, courts and commentators have preserved the record-making and notice functions of the rules by developing principles that limit the scope of oral motions made during a hearing. … [A] contrary holding could create institutional chaos for the bankruptcy court. Written motions that 'state with particularity the grounds therefor' allow parties to decide whether\n\nto oppose them or not, and to file thorough, researched responses. Written motions also allow the court to engage in its own research and analysis in advance of the hearing. In contrast, unrelated oral motions, by definition, raise new issues that neither the court nor the parties could have foreseen, or for which they could have prepared.\"); *Hammond-Knowlton v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co.*, 26 F.Supp. 292, 293 (D. Conn. 1939) (\"Federal Rules of Civil Procedure No. 7(b)(1) provides that an application for an order shall be by motion made in writing, unless made during a hearing or trial. An oral argument on a motion previously made is not, in my opinion, the 'hearing' at which the necessity for reducing motions to writing may be obviated. Motions made at a hearing are obviously such as are incidental to the hearing itself, such as motions to exclude evidence, or for a directed verdict, or for a mistrial, etc. In other words, they are such motions as are recorded in the minutes of the trial or hearing, and it is for that reason that the motion need not be reduced to writing and notice thereof given.\"); *Richardson v. Checker Acquisition Corp. (In re Checker Motors Corp.)*, 463 B.R. 858, (Bankr. W.D. Mich 2012) (\"The requirement for a written motion in Rule 7(b)(1) and Bankruptcy Rule 9013 serves two functions, a record-making function and a notice function. The record-making function permits the court and the parties to determine what occurred. The notice function permits the opposing party and the court to prepare adequately. … Some illustrations of types of requests which need not be in writing include motions to exclude or strike evidence, motions for judgment as a matter of law, and motions for mistrial. … Motions commonly permitted to be made orally, such as those to exclude or strike evidence, are motions which typically require no advance notice to the opposing party and, therefore, obviate the need for a formal, written motion. In other circumstances, however, such as the motions to amend first made during the argument on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, the far better practice is to require motions to be filed in writing.\"); 5 Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and\n\nProcedure § 1193, at 64 (3rd ed. 2004) (\"The provision in Rule 7(b) for oral motions does not mean that on a hearing of a written motion a party may interpose a different motion for unrelated relief orally and without notice, and thereby circumvent the writing and particularity requirements of Rule 7(b)(1).\" *See also Piccolo v. CFTC*, 388 F.3d 387, 391 (2nd Cir. 2004) (\"Fundamental fairness requires a fair trial in a fair tribunal, with fair notice of the matters at issue and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.\" (internal citation omitted)).\n\n19. The relief sought in the Revised Proposed Order is entirely new and not sufficiently related or connected to the relief sought in the Motion. The relief sought with respect to Harcus Parker is not a subject of the Motion in any way shape or form. There is nothing in the Motion regarding the Debtor being ordered to execute a share transfer document or resolutions. The Trustee did not seek in the Motion to require the Debtor to take any affirmative act. Bankruptcy Code section 521 is not even mentioned as a basis for relief in the Motion.\n\n20. Here, the Trustee did not make a motion with respect to the relief sought in Revised Proposed Order. He did nothing more than file the Revised Proposed Order in connection with the Motion. By seeking relief in this way, the Trustee, among other things, has failed to state with particularity the grounds for relief, and has failed to give the Debtor and other parties sufficient notice. If the Trustee wants to seek the new relief proposed in the Revised Proposed Order, he must be required to file a new motion.\n\n### The Relief Sought In The Revised Proposed Order With Respect To The Shares Of Genever Holdings Corporation Can Only Be Obtained Via An Adversary Proceeding\n\n21. Bankruptcy Code section 541(d) provides: \"Property in which the debtor holds, as of the commencement of the case, only legal title and not an equitable interest, … becomes property of the estate under subsection (a)(1) or (2) of this section only to the extent of the debtor's legal title to such property, but not to the extent of any equitable interest in such property that the\n\n15\n\ndebtor does not hold.\" Thus, \"when the debtor holds or is in possession of property subject to an express, constructive, resulting or statutory trust whose validity is recognized under the terms of the Code, the estate will generally hold such property subject to the outstanding interest of the beneficiaries.\" 5 *Collier on Bankruptcy* ¶ 541.28[6], at 541-126 (16th ed. 2015). Further, Bankruptcy Code section 541(b)(1) provides: \"Property of the estate does not include—(1) any power that the debtor may exercise solely for the benefit of an entity other than the debtor … .\" Section 541(b)(1) \"has been held to exclude from the estate property with respect to which the debtor was executrix of a decedent's estate, as well as a debtor's legal interest in a testamentary trust as trustee for a life tenant and as a custodian of his minor children's remainder interest.\" 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 541.17, at 541-87 (16th ed. 2020).\n\n22. As described above, the Debtor has stated twice in this case that he is not the equitable owner of the equity in Genever BVI, he is a trustee for the benefit of Bravo Luck. Thus, the Debtor's position is that he holds the Genever BVI shares subject to the outstanding interest of Bravo Luck, and the power he may exercise as trustee of the trust for the benefit of Bravo Luck is not property of the bankruptcy estate. It is clear that the Trustee disagrees, in that by the Revised Proposed Order the Trustee seeks an order requiring the Debtor to transfer the shares in Genever BVI to the Trustee \"solely in his capacity\" as Trustee. As is made clear from the above, there is has been a long-running dispute between Genever LLC, PAX and Bravo Luck over the ownership of Genever BVI, Genever LLC and/or the Apartment. Whether there is and what is property of the bankruptcy estate is in dispute.\n\n23. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001(a) provides, in relevant part: \"[t]he following are adversary proceedings: … (2) a proceeding to determine the validity, priority or extent of a lien or other interest in property ….\" Cases have consistently held that where there is a\n\n16\n\ndispute regarding whether property is property of the bankruptcy estate, that dispute may only be resolved via an adversary proceeding. *Jahr v. Frank*, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 3627, [\\*13-14] (9th Cir. BAP Aug. 1, 2012) (\"[I]t is error for a bankruptcy court to employ contested matter procedure when adversary proceeding procedure is required. … [I]t is settled law in this circuit that it is error for a bankruptcy court to determine property interests outside of an adversary proceeding.\"); *In re Hearthside Baking Co., Inc.*, 397 B.R. 899, 902 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2008); *In re Whitehall Jewelers Holdings, Inc.*, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 2120, [\\*15-16] (Bankr. D. Del. July 28, 2008) (\"[T]he Court cannot determine whether the Consigned Goods are property of the estate through a contested matter, such as a sale motion under Section 363. Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001(2) requires that an adversary proceeding be commenced to 'determine the validity, priority, or extent of [an] interest in property.\"). *See also In re Hampton Ventures*, LLC, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 548, [\\*1-2] (Bankr. D. Conn. Feb. 22, 2019) (\"[T]he Court determines that whether the Property is 'property of the estate' must be determined in the pending adversary proceeding before the Trustee may sell it.\").\n\n### The Relief Sought In The Revised Proposed Order With Respect To The Harcus Parker Letter Is Unreasonable And May Improperly Order The Debtor To Waive Attorney Client Privilege\n\n24. Bankruptcy Code section 521(a) provides, in relevant part: \"The debtor shall … (3) if a trustee is serving in the case … cooperate with the trustee as necessary to enable the trustee to perform the trustee's duties under this title ….\" There are limits to what a debtor can be required to do under this provision—among other things, a trustee's request for cooperation must be reasonable and consistent with applicable law. *E.g., Sullivan v. Miller*, 637 B.R. 723, (E.D. Mich. 2022) (521(a)(3) \"requires a debtor to comply with *reasonable* requests to assist the trustee in the performance of the trustee's duties.\" (emphasis added)); *In re Broughton*, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171118, [\\*7] (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2018) (\"A debtor must comply with any *reasonable* request that will assist the trustee in performing the trustee's duties.\" (emphasis added, internal quotation marks omitted)); *In re Moran*, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 3463, [\\*9] (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2013) (\"The debtor is required to cooperate with any *reasonable* request that will assist the trustee in performing the trustee's duties.\" (emphasis added)); 5 *Collier on Bankruptcy* ¶ 521.15[5], at 521- 59 (16th ed. 2017) (\"'Cooperate' is a broad term, indeed, and must be construed that whenever the trustee calls upon the debtor for assistance in the performance of his duties, the debtor is required to respond, at least if the request is not unreasonable. [T]he debtor is not required to comply with every request made by the trustee.\").\n\n25. The relief sought with respect to Harcus Parker is unreasonable. The Trustee seeks a Court order ordering the Debtor to send a letter in English, a language that he cannot read, to Harcus Parker instructing Harcus Parker to take actions that Harcus Parker believes would violate its professional obligations, including its obligations to other clients. The Trustee seeks this Court order notwithstanding that he has been informed by Harcus Parker that they believe that what the Revised Proposed Order calls for would be a violation of Harcus Parker's professional obligations and that he must take certain steps in order to be recognized as a proper party in the UK action.\n\n26. The relief sought with respect to Harcus Parker would violate applicable law with respect to privilege. The Trustee asks the Court to order the Debtor to waive by the letter to Harcus Parker any attorney-client privilege that the Debtor may still hold under UK law. The Trustee has provided no authority that the Court has the power to do this, under either U.S. or UK law—one of the problems created by the Trustee's failure to seek relief by a motion, where he would be obligated to state with particularity the grounds for the relief sought--and it does not, at least under U.S. law. *E.g., In re Dow Corning Corp.*, 261 F.3d 280, 284 (2nd Cir. 2001) (\"[C]ompelled disclosure of privileged attorney-client communications, absent waiver or an applicable exception, is contrary to well established precedent.\"). Further, it is not clear that such a compelled waiver would be effective under UK law, as it would not be under U.S. law. Attorney Morrissey's statement that any waiver must be freely given suggests that it would not be. The Trustee owns whatever privilege he owns under UK law, but that is for the Trustee to work out with his own UK counsel, whether Harcus Parker or another law firm (the Trustee has already stated that Paul Hastings will not represent him in the UK action). What the Trustee may not do via an order of this Court is force the Debtor to waive any privilege that he may still possess under UK law.\n\n27. Rather than take the requisite steps that UK counsel advised were necessary under UK law to be recognized as a plaintiff in the UK action, burdensome though they may be, the Trustee decided to try to take an impermissible short-cut to obtain information in that action by coming to this Court.\n\n28. To be clear—the Debtor has no desire or intention at this point to be involved in any way in managing or controlling the UK action against UBS. This is evidenced by the fact that the undersigned initiated the July 22 e-mail to Harcus Parker quoted above. By that e-mail, the Debtor was seeking to get out of the way and let the Trustee do his job in connection with the UK action. But the Debtor cannot reasonably be expected to purport to instruct UK counsel to take action that UK counsel believes that it is ethically prohibited from taking. And the Trustee should not be empowered by an order of this Court to circumvent foreign law regarding privilege.\n\n**WHEREFORE,** the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court not enter the Revised Proposed Order and grant him such other and further relief as justice requires.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 4th day of August, 2022.\n\n### **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Eric Henzy*\n\nEric Henzy (ct12849) Stephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) James M. Moriarty (ct21876) John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [ehenzy@zeislaw.com](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) [skindseth@zeislaw.com](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 4th day of August, 2022, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by 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 Henzy* Eric Henzy (ct12849)","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院桥港分部\n\n关于：第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）：案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n：债务人。：____________________________________________________________：\n\n____________________________________________________________：\n\n：\n债务人对经修订拟议命令的异议；该命令依据《破产法典》第363、521、541、1108及105条作出，(A) 确认第11章受托人持有债务人在其控制实体中的全部经济权利及公司治理权利，(B) 授权第11章受托人代表破产财产在任何外国采取行动，以及 (C) 给予相关救济\n\n债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”），通过其下列签署的律师Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.，就其对经修订拟议命令的异议，即依据《破产法典》第363、521、541、1108及105条作出的命令，(A) 确认第11章受托人持有债务人在其控制实体中的全部经济权利，(B) 授权第11章受托人代表破产财产在任何外国采取行动，以及 (C) 给予相关救济（文件编号645，下称“经修订拟议命令”），陈述如下：\n\n1. 2022年2月15日，债务人根据《破产法典》第11章提交了自愿救济申请，从而启动上述标题所示破产案件。\n\n2. 2022年6月15日，本院发布了一份裁决备忘录，其中除其他事项外，在PAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）提出的驳回动议，或备选地部分加入UST提出的任命第11章受托人动议（文件编号183）的范围内，准许该动议所请求的任命第11章受托人（文件编号465）。\n\n3. 2022年7月7日，UST提交了指定Luc A. Despins（吕克·A.·德斯潘）（下称“受托人”）担任第11章受托人的通知（文件编号514），以及请求本院批准指定受托人的关于批准指定第11章受托人的命令申请（文件编号515）。2022年7月8日，本院作出准许指定第11章受托人的命令（文件编号523），准许指定受托人担任本案第11章受托人。\n\n关于Sherry-Netherland Residence（雪莉-荷兰公寓）的背景\n\n4. 2022年3月9日，债务人提交了《债务人关于债务人资产和负债明细表及财务状况陈述的全球说明、限制、方法论及免责声明》（文件编号77，作为证据1附于本文件，下称“全球说明”）。“具体说明”第1b(ii)段载于第4至5页，规定如下：\n\n债务人还可使用位于Sherry-Netherlands Hotel（雪莉-荷兰酒店）、781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022的一套公寓（下称“该公寓”）。该公寓的合作公寓股份由Genever Holdings LLC（下称“美国SPV”）持有。美国SPV的成员权益由Genever Holdings Corporation（下称“BVI公司”）持有。债务人持有BVI公司的全部股权；但根据日期为2015年2月17日的《信托声明及协议》（下称“信托日期”），债务人为Bravo Luck Limited（下称“公寓所有人”）以信托方式持有该等股权。债务人的儿子拥有公寓所有人的股权。在信托日期当日或前后，公寓所有人以该公寓的购买价款为美国SPV提供资金。该等资金来自债务人儿子拥有或控制的实体，而非债务人。\n\n美国SPV于2020年10月12日在United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦破产法院）启动其自身的第11章案件（案号20-12411 (JLG)）。美国SPV关于其重组计划的披露声明载明，美国SPV“在与Bravo Luck Limited……及[Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP（“PAX”）]之间主要涉及该住宅受益所有权的多起法院争议面前，寻求第11章救济……”。[案卷编号165]。在寻求确定该公寓所有权的诉讼中，公寓所有人主张其为该公寓的受益所有人。该公寓的最终所有权将在美国SPV的第11章案件之外予以解决。在BVI法院，PAX已基于其针对债务人的判决书（该判决书仍在上诉中），寻求移交美国SPV的成员权益。\n\n该公寓目前由Sotheby's International Realty（苏富比国际房地产）在美国SPV销售官Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq.（梅拉妮·L.·西加诺夫斯基律师）的授权下挂牌出售。基于上述原因，债务人未将该公寓的价值申报为资产。\n\n（强调系后加。）\n\n5. 2022年3月20日，债务人提交了《Ho Wan Kwok先生支持第11章案件及若干动议的声明》（文件编号107，作为证据2附于本文件，下称“声明”）。该声明第33b段规定如下：\n\nSherry-Netherland公寓。Sherry-Netherland公寓的合作公寓股份由Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever US”）持有。Genever US的成员权益继而由Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）持有。我持有Genever BVI的全部股权。然而，根据日期为2015年2月17日的《信托声明及协议》（下称“信托日期”），我为Bravo Luck Limited（下称“公寓所有人”）以信托方式持有该等股权。我的儿子拥有公寓所有人的股权。在信托日期当日或前后，公寓所有人以该公寓的购买价款为Genever US提供资金。该等资金来自我儿子拥有或控制的实体，而非来自我。还应注意的是，Ostrager法官已命令将我在Genever BVI中拥有的任何权益移交给PAX，但该等移交不得干扰英属维尔京群岛正在进行的诉讼或Genever US破产案。\n\n（强调系后加。）因此，债务人在本案中两次陈述，其作为为Bravo Luck利益设立的信托的受托人拥有Geneva BVI的股权；即，其已陈述其并非Genever BVI的衡平所有人。\n\n6. 关于全球说明中提及的Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever LLC”）第11章案件，2020年10月12日，Genever LLC向United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦破产法院）（下称“纽约破产法院”）根据《破产法典》第11章提交了自愿申请（纽约南区破产法院案号20-12411，下称“Genever第11章案件”）。在其于2022年1月7日于其破产案件中提交的一份披露声明中（该披露声明尚未获Genever第11章案件中的破产法院批准），Genever陈述其为一家纽约有限责任公司及该公寓的所有人。该公寓、Genever LLC及/或Genever BVI的受益所有权，一直是Genever LLC、Bravo Luck Limited和PAX之间在Supreme Court, New York County（纽约县最高法院）（索引号652077/2017）（下称“纽约法院”）及Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛东加勒比最高法院）（索引号BVIHCOM2020/0137）（下称“BVI法院”）进行的诉讼的标的。根据Genever LLC的披露声明，该等诉讼在整个第11章案件中通常被称为“所有权争议”。纽约南区破产法院案号20-12411，文件编号165，第1-2页。\n\n7. 2021年9月24日，Genever LLC在Genever第11章案件中提交了《债务人综合第二次续展动议：(i) 批准与Bravo Luck和PAX达成的第二次修订及重述和解协议；以及 (ii) 仅聘用Melanie Cyganowksi作为雇员，担任债务人破产财产的销售官》（纽约南区破产法院案号20-12411，文件编号131，作为证据3附于本文件，下称“和解动议”）。作为和解动议证据A附具的是Genever LLC、PAX和Bravo Luck之间达成的《第二次修订及重述和解协议》（下称“和解协议”）。和解协议第2至6段规定，在Melanie Cyganowksi监督的程序中出售该公寓。和解协议第7段规定：\n\na. 准许解除自动中止，以允许PAX继续进行、并允许债务人抗辩目前在纽约最高法院以案卷编号652077/2017待决的州法院诉讼（下称“州法院诉讼”）；除其他目的外，包括与执行或收取州法院诉讼中对债务人作出的任何判决书有关的事项，该自动中止在向全体当事人进一步通知后，仍应维持，直至破产法院另行命令。本协议任何内容均不得解释为承认破产法院以外审理任何该等问题的适当法院，且全体当事人的所有权利均予明确保留。\n\nb. 本协议任何内容均不得损害任何当事人的权利，包括Bravo Luck和PAX继续进行BVI诉讼的权利，但PAX、Bravo Luck、Kwok、Guo或其任何关联方保留在破产法院提出与其作为债务人债权人身份有关的请求的权利，且PAX保留以任何理由反对该等请求的一切权利。此外，尽管本协议有任何相反规定，本协议任何内容均不得损害任何当事人（包括Bravo Luck和PAX）针对任何人（包括Bravo Luck、Kwok、Guo或其任何关联方，以及PAX或其任何关联方）在BVI、州法院或其他法院继续进行任何及全部请求（如有）的权利，且Bravo Luck和PAX保留在适用法院反对该等请求的一切权利。\n\n和解协议第1d段将“BVI诉讼”界定为“PAX于2020年在BVI以案号BVIHCM 2020/0137提起的针对以下各方的若干诉讼：(i) Genever BVI，(ii) Bravo Luck，(iii) Kwok，以及 (iv) Guo；该等诉讼除其他事项外，寻求执行：(a) 州法院诉讼产生的判决书；及 (b) Bravo Luck和Guo于2021年1月14日针对PAX提交的答辩及反诉。”Genever LLC在Genever第11章案件中提交的披露声明载明：\n\n预计所有权争议将在破产法院以外予以裁决，除非Bravo Luck关于其保留对债务人享有无担保金钱请求权的备选主张未在BVI诉讼中依实体理由得到裁决。在该等情况下，Bravo Luck金钱请求权的有效性可由破产法院或有管辖权审理该事项的其他法院裁决。\n\n纽约南区破产法院案号20-12411，文件编号165，第3页。\n\n8. 2021年10月8日，纽约破产法院在Genever第11章案件中作出命令（纽约南区破产法院案号20-12411，文件编号141，作为证据4附于本文件），准许和解动议并批准和解协议。\n\n9. 2022年7月26日，受托人向纽约破产法院提交了一封信，其中除其他事项外载明：“如公司治理权利动议[在债务人案件中提交]明确表明，该动议并非试图就Genever（US）的第11章案件请求任何救济，包括对第二次修订及重述和解协议作出任何修改。”纽约南区破产法院案号20-12411，文件编号194（作为证据5附于本文件）。尽管纽约破产法院批准的和解协议预计所有权争议将在州法院诉讼或BVI诉讼中解决，并且关于Bravo Luck金钱请求权可能由纽约破产法院或另一有管辖权法院解决，且尽管受托人向纽约破产法院陈述该动议（定义如下——受托人已将该动议发送给纽约破产法院，但未将经修订拟议命令发送给纽约破产法院）并非试图就和解协议请求任何救济，受托人仍通过经修订拟议命令寻求解决Genever BVI的所有权问题。\n\n关于针对UBS的英国诉讼的背景\n\n10. 如法院已获悉，在申请日之前（2020年9月），债务人及另外两名原告在英国对 UBS AG（瑞银集团）提起诉讼，主张约 \\$500 million 的损害赔偿。伦敦的 Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克律师事务所）目前继续在该诉讼中代理另外两名原告，并在受托人获任之前代理债务人。债务人理解，根据美国破产法，受托人已自动替代为英国诉讼中的原告，因此债务人认为 Harcus Parker 是其前任律师，但除 Harcus Parker 如下所述外，债务人并不了解英国法律的要求。\n\n11. 在受托人获任后，Harcus Parker 的合伙人 Jenny Morrissey（珍妮·莫里西）联系本签署人和 Stephen Kindseth（史蒂芬·金德塞斯），以了解债务人美国破产案件的进展情况，尤其是受托人的任命情况。本签署人未与 Morrissey 律师交谈，而是为配合受托人，并在事先与受托人沟通后，于 2022年7月22日向 Morrisey 律师发送了以下电子邮件：\n\n我知道您一直试图联系史蒂夫和我，以了解郭先生在美国待决的 Chapter 11 破产案件的进展情况。现通知/确认您，抄送于此的 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘）已被任命为郭先生破产案件的 Chapter 11 受托人。郭先生在伦敦待决的对 UBS 的诉讼（“UBS 诉讼”）中享有的任何权益，均为郭先生破产财产的财产。德斯潘先生获任为 Chapter 11 受托人后，他对破产财产的全部财产行使控制权，包括 UBS 诉讼，因此其现有权力及主体资格对 UBS 诉讼进行起诉。郭先生目前无权力或主体资格对 UBS 诉讼进行起诉。因此，请就 UBS 诉讼的进展情况直接与德斯潘先生沟通。谢谢。\n\n本签署人在 8月2日之前未再与 Morrissey 律师联系，且直至受托人在 2022年7月31日晚间提交经修订的拟议命令（定义见下文）时，本签署人均未从受托人处获悉任何有关 Morrissey 律师或英国诉讼的信息。\n\n12. 8月2日，在法院于 8月1日举行听证会后，本签署人与 Morrissey 律师进行了电话交谈。在该次交谈中，Morrissey 律师向本签署人陈述如下：\n\n• 根据英国法律，美国破产受托人不会自动获得英国法院的承认。\n\n• 根据英国法律，受托人目前在英国诉讼所属的英国法院中没有任何权限。\n\n• 若受托人主张其获任为债务人案件受托人在英国法律下具有域外效力，则该主张并不正确。\n\n• 除非受托人依照跨境规则获得承认，否则其不会获得英国法律的承认。\n\n• 基于上述情况，Harcus Parker 无须向受托人移交任何文件。\n\n• 债务人同意披露其材料的信函，可能足以移交某些文件，但债务人须知悉并理解其所同意的内容，且其同意必须是自由作出的。\n\n• 任何该等同意仅足以涵盖债务人所拥有的内容。\n\n• Harcus Parker 代理另外两名客户。该特权由各方共同享有，债务人不得代表该等其他客户放弃该特权。Harcus Parker 将须通知其其他客户，且该等客户将须同意披露任何信息。\n\n• Harcus Parker 将需要受托人确认，鉴于 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）代理 UBS，Paul Hastings 将已设置适当的“隔离措施”。\n\n• Harcus Parker 负有职业义务，其并非不当拒绝移交文件，而是担忧遵守其职业义务并确保特权受到保护。\n\n• Morrissey 律师未向受托人表示 Harcus Parker 因担忧被债务人起诉而采取该立场。\n\nMorrissey 律师于 7月25日的电话交谈及电子邮件中向受托人告知了上述事项。\n\n如上所述，在本签署人向 Harcus Parker 发送上述引用的 7月22日电子邮件与本文所述 8月2日交谈之间，本签署人未与 Harcus Parker 进行任何联系。受托人在提交经修订的拟议命令之前，从未就受托人与 Harcus Parker 的沟通与本签署人交谈，亦从未就 Harcus Parker 向债务人提出任何请求。发送 7月22日电子邮件的想法来自本签署人，而非受托人。尽管如上所述，该等沟通发生在该听证会之前，受托人并未在 8月1日听证会上向法院告知其与 Harcus Parker 的沟通。\n\n13. 在本签署人于 8月2日联系 Harcus Parker 后，本签署人、受托人及 Harcus Parker 现正讨论，从 Harcus Parker 的角度而言，何种沟通内容可能足以使 Harcus Parker 向受托人披露某些信息。截至提交本异议时，受托人与 Harcus Parker 尚未就令人满意的措辞达成一致。\n\n14. 2022年7月23日，受托人根据 Bankruptcy Code 第 363、541、1108 和 105 条提交了其 Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion Of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry Of Order, Pursuant To Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 541, 1108, And 105, (A) Confirming That Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All Of Debtor's Economic Rights In Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee To Act In Any Foreign Country On Behalf Of The Estate, And (C) Granting Related Relief（Doc. No. 598，即“动议”）。在该动议中，受托人请求法院作出命令，其中包括规定：\n\n• 受托人为破产财产的利益，就所有由债务人控制的实体持有债务人的全部经济权利及治理权利，包括但不限于 Genever (BVI)（Genever（英属维尔京群岛））。为免生疑义，上述权利包括受托人替换由债务人控制的实体任何现有高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员的权限。作为上述事项的一部分，在必要范围内，受托人获授权以其在本 Chapter 11 案件中作为 Chapter 11 受托人的身份，担任任何已被撤换的该等高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员。\n\n• 如受托人就由债务人控制的实体行使经济权利及治理权利被视为超出正常业务过程，则现批准该等行使，因为行使该等权利具有合理的商业依据，包括由于受托人为破产财产的利益就该等实体持有债务人的全部经济权利及治理权利。\n\n• 受托人获授权作为债务人的外国代表，在任何外国依据适用外国法律允许的任何方式代表破产财产行事，以便：(a) 调查、收集及追回位于外国的债务人资产，包括在必要或适当时为推进该等目的而在外国法院寻求救济；(b) 对由债务人控制的实体行使控制权，包括在必要或适当时为推进该等目的而在外国法院寻求救济；以及 (c) 向持有与由债务人控制的实体有关的该等文件的适当外国公司登记机构（或类似实体）请求并获取公司文件。在不限制上述规定的前提下，受托人获授权依据 Bankruptcy Court 第 1505 条，向持有该等公司文件的适当 British Virgin Island（“BVI”）实体请求并获取与 Genever (BVI) 有关的公司文件。\n\n• 法院请求外国法院提供协助，包括就受托人请求救济（包括紧急救济）以行使对 Genever (BVI) 的公司控制权之事，请求 BVI 法院提供协助。\n\n• 本命令的任何内容均不得被视为授权就 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever (US)”）采取任何特定行动；该公司 Chapter 11 案件正待决于 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国破产法院）（“Genever 法院”）。在受托人就 Genever (US) 行使公司治理权利将影响其 Chapter 11 案件的范围内，受托人应出席 Genever 法院并向其寻求指导。\n\n动议，拟议命令（“原拟议命令”），第 ¶¶ 2-4, 6-7 段。动议第 17 段中，受托人称：“为明确起见，受托人通过本动议仅请求本法院确认，其现就由债务人控制的实体持有与债务人在任命命令作出前所持有的相同经济权利及公司治理权利。受托人并非请求许可行使该等治理权利，因为该等行使完全属于债务人正常业务过程。”在动议中，受托人未根据 Bankruptcy Code 第 521 条请求救济，未就 Harcus Parker 请求任何救济，亦未请求要求债务人采取任何积极行动。在动议中，受托人表示其“仅请求确认”其权利。\n\n15. 2022年7月29日，债务人提交了对该动议的答复（Doc. No. 643，即“答复”），对该动议及原拟议命令所请求的救济提出异议。债务人维持其在答复中提出的异议，并保留与此相关的一切权利。\n\n经修订的拟议命令\n\n16. 2022年7月31日，即就该动议举行加急听证会的前一晚 10:09 p.m.，受托人提交了其 Chapter 11 Trustee's Notice Of Filing Revised Proposed Order Pursuant To Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 541, 1108, and 1505, (A) Confirming That Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All Of Debtor's Economic And Corporate Governance Rights In Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee To Act In Any Foreign Country On Behalf Of Estate, And (C) Granting Related Relief（Doc. No. 645，即“通知”）。该通知称，“拟议命令已修订，以回应债务人对公司治理权利动议提出的关切，并解决受托人收到的某些非正式意见。”经修订的拟议命令未回应债务人在答复中提出的任何关切。\n\n17. 随通知附具的是受托人根据 Bankruptcy Code 第 363、521、541、1108 和 1505 条作出的经修订命令，即 Order Pursuant To Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 541, 1108, and 1505, (A) Confirming That Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All Of Debtor's Economic And Corporate Governance Rights In Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee To Act In Any Foreign Country On Behalf Of Estate, And (C) Granting Related Relief（“经修订的拟议命令”）。经修订的拟议命令明确新增 Bankruptcy Code 第 521 条作为救济依据，而该条既非动议亦非原拟议命令中的救济依据。经修订的拟议命令新增以下一段，即现拟议作为经修订的拟议命令第 3 段：\n\n根据《破产法典》第 521(a)(3) 条和第 521(a)(4) 条，现责令债务人分别：(a) 在必要范围内与受托人合作，使受托人能够履行其职责，包括但不限于受托人对债务人资产所作的调查；及 (b) 向受托人交付破产财产的全部财产以及任何已记录的信息，包括但不限于与破产财产有关的账簿、文件、记录和文书（包括但不限于其在 Genever (BVI) 的股份以及所有相关公司治理文件）。为履行债务人依据《破产法典》第 521(a)(3) 条和第 521(a)(4) 条所承担的义务，现责令债务人：\n\n(a) 按照随附作为附件 A 的格式，就债务人在 Genever (BVI) 的股份签署股份转让表格及董事决议（该等文件不填写日期），并于本裁定作出后两个营业日内向受托人交付该等已签署文件（受托人随后将向位于 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）（“BVI”）的 Genever (BVI) 注册代理人提交该等文件）；以及\n\n(b) 至迟于本裁定作出后两个营业日内，要求其律师，包括但不限于 Harcus Parker Limited（Harcus Parker Limited 律师事务所）以及任何前任律师（统称“英国律师”），在 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）、Ace Decade Holdings Limited（Ace Decade Holdings Limited）及 Dawn State Limited（Dawn State Limited）诉 UBS AG (London Branch)（UBS AG（伦敦分行））案，Case No. CL-2020-000345，现由 High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court（英格兰和威尔士高等法院商业及财产法院王座法院商业法庭）审理（“UBS 诉讼”）中，(i) 立即向受托人交付并与其共享英国律师就 UBS 诉讼向债务人提供的所有备忘录、意见及其他通信，关于 UBS 诉讼实体理由的任何其他信息（无论是否以书面形式），以及债务人或英国律师就该等诉讼收到或提出的任何和解要约；及 (ii) 立即向受托人提供对英国律师在 UBS 诉讼中的案件卷宗以及在 UBS 诉讼中提交的所有诉状和其他法院文件的完全访问权限（就 (i) 和 (ii) 而言，均不论该等文件、通信或信息是否受任何律师—当事人特权、工作成果或其他特权保护，亦不论该等文件、通信或信息于何时作出或形成）。为推进前述事项，债务人应至迟于本裁定作出后两个营业日内，向 Harcus Parker Limited 律师事务所交付一份采用随附作为附件 B 的格式的信函副本（并向受托人交付该副本）。为免生疑问，就一切目的而言，受托人应被视为债务人在 UBS 诉讼中提出之请求权的所有人。\n\n随附于经修订拟议裁定作为附件 A 的，是一份股份转让文书，据此将仅以受托人身份向受托人转让 Genever BVI 的股份，以及批准该等转让的决议。\n\n随附于经修订拟议裁定作为附件 B 的，是债务人致英国 Harcus Parker 律师事务所的一封信函草稿。该信函草稿的前两段，实质上逐字照录了签署人于 7 月 22 日在其发送给 Morrissey 律师（Attorney Morrissey）的电子邮件中所写的内容。\n\n该信函的第三和第四段规定如下：\n\n本人特此明确授权贵方就 UBS 诉讼、其实体理由、任何相关和解讨论，以及与推进 UBS 诉讼有关的任何其他事项，与 Despins 先生（Mr. Despins）进行完整且充分的讨论，而不论是否存在任何律师—当事人特权、工作成果或其他特权；本人特此为该等目的完全放弃该等特权。\n\n除其他事项外，并如美国破产法院裁定（其副本随附作为附件 1）所详述，本人指示贵方：(i) 立即向受托人交付并与其共享贵方就 UBS 诉讼向本人提供的所有备忘录、意见及其他通信，关于 UBS 诉讼实体理由的任何其他信息（无论是否以书面形式），以及本人或贵方就该等诉讼收到或提出的任何和解要约；及 (ii) 立即向受托人提供对贵方在 UBS 诉讼中的案件卷宗以及在 UBS 诉讼中提交的所有诉状和其他法院文件的完全访问权限。\n\n受托人在提交经修订拟议裁定之前，未与签署人讨论该拟议信函的内容。\n\n经修订拟议裁定所规定的救济必须通过单独的书面动议提出\n\n18. 《联邦破产程序规则》第 9013 条相关部分规定：“除非规则授权以申请方式提出，请求作出裁定应以书面动议提出，但在听证期间提出的除外。该动议应具体说明其依据，并列明所请求的救济或裁定。”尽管第 9013 条（以及第 9013 条所依据的《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 7(b) 条）允许在听证期间提出口头动议，法院已认定，可在听证期间口头提出的动议类型是有限的。通常，该等动议与正在审理的书面动议有关并附随于该书面动议，例如排除证据动议、指令性裁决动议或宣布审判无效动议。允许在听证期间提出涉及新问题和/或寻求新救济的口头动议，将会破坏要求书面动议的目的，包括具体陈述请求权及通知。参见，例如，In re Bistrian, 184 B.R. 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 1995)（“第 7(b)(1) 条和第 9013 条均为在听证或审判期间提出的口头动议设立例外。如果将其宽泛解读为允许在任何听证期间提出任何口头动议，而不论二者之间的关联，该例外将削弱书面要求及其所依据的政策。因此，法院和评论者并不令人意外地通过制定原则以限制在听证期间提出的口头动议范围，来维护规则的记录形成和通知功能。……[相反的]裁定可能会给破产法院造成制度性混乱。具体‘说明其依据’的书面动议，使当事人能够决定是否提出异议，并提交全面且经过研究的答复。书面动议还使法院能够在听证前进行其自身的研究和分析。相比之下，无关的口头动议，按其定义，会提出法院和当事人均无法预见或准备的新问题。”）；Hammond-Knowlton v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co., 26 F.Supp. 292, 293 (D. Conn. 1939)（“《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 7(b)(1) 条规定，除非在听证或审判期间提出，申请作出裁定应以书面动议提出。在我看来，就先前已提出的动议进行口头辩论，并非可免除将动议形成书面的必要性的‘听证’。在听证期间提出的动议，显然是附随于听证本身的动议，例如排除证据动议、指令性裁决动议或宣布审判无效动议等。换言之，该等动议记载于审判或听证记录中，因此动议无需形成书面，亦无需就此发出通知。”）；Richardson v. Checker Acquisition Corp. (In re Checker Motors Corp.), 463 B.R. 858, (Bankr. W.D. Mich 2012)（“第 7(b)(1) 条和《破产程序规则》第 9013 条关于书面动议的要求具有两项功能，即记录形成功能和通知功能。记录形成功能使法院和当事人能够确定发生了何事。通知功能使相对方和法院能够充分准备。……无需以书面形式提出的请求类型的若干示例，包括排除或删除证据动议、依法作出判决动议及宣布审判无效动议。……通常被允许口头提出的动议，例如排除或删除证据的动议，通常无需事先通知相对方，因此无需正式书面动议。然而，在其他情形下，例如首次在就被告驳回动议进行辩论时提出的修改动议，远为适当的做法是要求以书面形式提交动议。”）；5 Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1193, at 64 (3rd ed. 2004)（“第 7(b) 条关于口头动议的规定，并不意味着在审理书面动议时，当事人可以口头且未经通知地提出一项寻求无关救济的不同动议，从而规避第 7(b)(1) 条的书面和具体性要求。”另参见 Piccolo v. CFTC, 388 F.3d 387, 391 (2nd Cir. 2004)（“基本公平要求在公平法庭进行公平审判，就争议事项获得公平通知，并有机会交叉询问证人。”（内部引文略））。\n\n19. 经修订拟议裁定所寻求的救济完全是新的，且与动议所寻求的救济并无充分关联或联系。关于 Harcus Parker 的所请求救济，在任何意义上均非该动议的主题。该动议中没有任何内容涉及命令债务人签署股份转让文件或决议。受托人并未在动议中请求要求债务人采取任何积极行为。《破产法典》第 521 条甚至未在动议中被提及作为救济依据。\n\n20. 在此，受托人并未就经修订拟议裁定所寻求的救济提出动议。他所做的仅是结合该动议提交经修订拟议裁定。受托人以此方式寻求救济，除其他事项外，未能具体说明救济的依据，且未能向债务人及其他当事人提供充分通知。若受托人希望寻求经修订拟议裁定中提出的新救济，则必须要求其提交一项新动议。\n\n经修订拟议裁定中就 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings Corporation）股份所寻求的救济只能通过对抗程序获得\n\n21. 《破产法典》第 541(d) 条规定：“债务人在案件开始时仅持有法定所有权而不持有衡平权益的财产，……仅在债务人对该财产所持有的法定所有权范围内，依据本条第 (a)(1) 或 (2) 款成为破产财产，但不包括债务人并不持有的该财产任何衡平权益范围。”因此，“当债务人持有或占有受《法典》条款承认其有效性的明示信托、推定信托、归复信托或法定信托约束的财产时，破产财产通常将受益受人尚存权益的约束而持有该等财产。”5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 541.28[6], at 541-126 (16th ed. 2015)。此外，《破产法典》第 541(b)(1) 条规定：“破产财产不包括——(1) 债务人仅可为债务人以外实体之利益而行使的任何权力……。”第 541(b)(1) 条“被认定排除以下财产，不使其成为破产财产：债务人作为遗产执行人所涉财产，以及债务人作为终身受益人受托人所享有的遗嘱信托中的法定权益，及其作为未成年子女剩余权益保管人所享有的权益。”5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 541.17, at 541-87 (16th ed. 2020).\n\n22. 如上所述，债务人在本案中曾两次表示，其并非 Genever BVI 的股权的衡平法上的所有人，而是为 Bravo Luck 的利益而设的受托人。因此，债务人的立场是，其持有 Genever BVI 股份，但须受制于 Bravo Luck 尚未清偿的权益，且其作为为 Bravo Luck 利益设立的信托之受托人可行使的权力并非破产财产。显然，受托人对此持不同意见，因为受托人在修订后的拟议命令中请求作出命令，要求债务人“仅以其作为”受托人的身份将 Genever BVI 的股份转让给受托人。如上所述，Genever LLC、PAX 和 Bravo Luck 就 Genever BVI、Genever LLC 和/或该公寓的所有权之间长期存在争议。是否属于破产财产以及哪些财产属于破产财产，尚存争议。\n\n23. 《联邦破产程序规则》第 7001(a) 条的相关规定如下：“[t]he following are adversary proceedings: … (2) a proceeding to determine the validity, priority or extent of a lien or other interest in property ….” 判例一贯认为，如对某项财产是否属于破产财产存在争议，该争议只能通过对抗程序解决。Jahr v. Frank, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 3627, [\\*13-14] (9th Cir. BAP Aug. 1, 2012)（“[I]t is error for a bankruptcy court to employ contested matter procedure when adversary proceeding procedure is required. … [I]t is settled law in this circuit that it is error for a bankruptcy court to determine property interests outside of an adversary proceeding.”）；In re Hearthside Baking Co., Inc., 397 B.R. 899, 902 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2008)；In re Whitehall Jewelers Holdings, Inc., 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 2120, [\\*15-16] (Bankr. D. Del. July 28, 2008)（“[T]he Court cannot determine whether the Consigned Goods are property of the estate through a contested matter, such as a sale motion under Section 363. Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001(2) requires that an adversary proceeding be commenced to 'determine the validity, priority, or extent of [an] interest in property.'”）。另见 In re Hampton Ventures, LLC, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 548, [\\*1-2] (Bankr. D. Conn. Feb. 22, 2019)（“[T]he Court determines that whether the Property is 'property of the estate' must be determined in the pending adversary proceeding before the Trustee may sell it.”）。\n\n修订后的拟议命令中有关 Harcus Parker（Harcus Parker 律师事务所）函件所请求的救济不合理，并且可能不当命令债务人放弃律师—委托人保密特权\n\n24. 《破产法典》第 521(a) 条的相关规定如下：“The debtor shall … (3) if a trustee is serving in the case … cooperate with the trustee as necessary to enable the trustee to perform the trustee's duties under this title ….” 根据该规定，可以要求债务人履行的事项存在限度——除其他事项外，受托人提出的合作请求必须合理且符合适用法律。例如，Sullivan v. Miller, 637 B.R. 723, (E.D. Mich. 2022)（521(a)(3)“requires a debtor to comply with reasonable requests to assist the trustee in the performance of the trustee's duties.”（着重号为原文所加））；In re Broughton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171118, [\\*7] (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2018)（“A debtor must comply with any reasonable request that will assist the trustee in performing the trustee's duties.”（着重号为原文所加，省略内部引号））；In re Moran, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 3463, [\\*9] (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2013)（“The debtor is required to cooperate with any reasonable request that will assist the trustee in performing the trustee's duties.”（着重号为原文所加））；5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 521.15[5], at 521- 59 (16th ed. 2017)（“‘Cooperate’ is a broad term, indeed, and must be construed that whenever the trustee calls upon the debtor for assistance in the performance of his duties, the debtor is required to respond, at least if the request is not unreasonable. [T]he debtor is not required to comply with every request made by the trustee.”）。\n\n25. 就 Harcus Parker 所请求的救济不合理。受托人请求法院作出命令，命令债务人向 Harcus Parker 发送一封英文信函——债务人无法阅读该语言——指示 Harcus Parker 采取 Harcus Parker 认为将违反其职业义务（包括其对其他客户所负义务）的行动。尽管 Harcus Parker 已告知受托人，其认为修订后的拟议命令所要求的事项将违反 Harcus Parker 的职业义务，且受托人必须采取某些步骤才能被认可为英国诉讼中的适格当事人，受托人仍请求本法院作出该命令。\n\n26. 就 Harcus Parker 所请求的救济将违反有关保密特权的适用法律。受托人请求法院命令债务人通过致 Harcus Parker 的信函放弃债务人根据英国法律可能仍享有的任何律师—委托人保密特权。受托人未提供任何依据表明本法院根据美国或英国法律有权这样做——这正是受托人未通过动议寻求救济所造成的问题之一，因为通过动议时他有义务具体说明所请求救济的依据——而且本法院并无该项权力，至少根据美国法律如此。例如，In re Dow Corning Corp., 261 F.3d 280, 284 (2nd Cir. 2001)（“[C]ompelled disclosure of privileged attorney-client communications, absent waiver or an applicable exception, is contrary to well established precedent.”）。此外，尚不明确此类被迫放弃根据英国法律是否有效，正如其根据美国法律不会有效一样。Morrissey 律师的陈述称，任何放弃均须自由作出，这表明其不会有效。受托人拥有其根据英国法律所拥有的任何保密特权，但该事项应由受托人与其自身的英国律师——无论是 Harcus Parker 还是另一家律师事务所——解决（受托人已表示 Paul Hastings 不会在英国诉讼中代理他）。受托人不得通过本法院的命令强迫债务人放弃其根据英国法律可能仍享有的任何保密特权。\n\n27. 受托人没有采取英国律师建议的、根据英国法律为被认可为英国诉讼原告所必需的步骤，尽管这些步骤可能负担沉重，而是决定通过向本法院提出申请，试图采取一种不被允许的捷径，以获取该诉讼中的信息。\n\n28. 为明确起见——债务人目前无意亦不打算以任何方式参与管理或控制针对 UBS 的英国诉讼。上述引用的 7 月 22 日由下列签署人发给 Harcus Parker 的电子邮件证明了这一点。债务人通过该电子邮件试图退出并让受托人履行其与英国诉讼有关的职责。但是，不能合理期待债务人声称指示英国律师采取英国律师认为其在道德上被禁止采取的行动。而且，受托人不应因本法院的命令而被授权规避有关保密特权的外国法律。\n\n因此，债务人谨请求法院不签发修订后的拟议命令，并给予其司法公正所要求的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2022 年 8 月 4 日，康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n\n债务人，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ Eric Henzy\n\nEric Henzy（ct12849） Stephen M. Kindseth（ct14640） Aaron A. Romney（ct28144） James M. Moriarty（ct21876） John L. Cesaroni（ct29309） 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 电话：(203) 368-4234 传真：(203) 368-5487 电子邮箱：[ehenzy@zeislaw.com] [skindseth@zeislaw.com] [aromney@zeislaw.com] [Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com] [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2022 年 8 月 4 日，上述文件副本已以电子方式提交。本次提交的通知将由法院电子提交系统通过电子邮件发送给所有当事人，或通过邮寄方式发送给电子提交通知中所示无法接受电子提交的任何人士。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交文件。\n\n/s/ Eric Henzy Eric Henzy（ct12849）","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Despins","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":7103,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:50:44"}