{"id":"court_ctb_724_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":724,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                             | :      |                         |\n| Debtor.1                                                    | :<br>: |                         |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n\n# **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR ENTRY OF ORDERS UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 2004 AND LOCAL RULE 2004-1 AUTHORIZING EXAMINATIONS OF DEBTOR, DEBTOR's LEGAL AND FINANCIAL ADVISORS, AND VARIOUS ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS AFFILIATED WITH DEBTOR, AND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby files this reply (the \"Reply\") in support of the Trustee's July 28, 2022 (a) Motion for Entry of an Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Examination of Ho Won Kwok and Production of Documents [Docket No. 636] (the \"Debtor 2004 Motion\"); (b) Omnibus Motion for Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor [Docket No. 637] (the \"Advisors 2004 Motion\"); and (c) Omnibus Motion for Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Entities and Individuals Affiliated with the Debtor [Docket No. 638] (the \"Affiliated Persons 2004 Motion\" and, together with the Debtor 2004 Motion and the Advisors 2004 Motion, collectively, the \"2004\n\n<sup>1</sup> Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases. The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\nMotions\"); and in response to the August 5, 2022: (x) Response and Reservation of Rights of Brown Rudnick LLP to Chapter 11 Trustee's Discovery Motion [Docket No. 698] (the \"BR Response\"); (y) Response and Reservation of Rights of Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. to Chapter 11 Trustee's Discovery Motion [Docket No. 698] (the \"V&L Response\"); and (z) Debtor's Limited Objection to Rule 2004 Motions [Docket No. 703] (the \"Debtor's Limited Objection\" and together with the BR Response and the V&L Response, the \"2004 Responses\"). With respect to the foregoing, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Trustee filed the 2004 Motions on July 28, 2022, as part of, among other things, the Trustee's exercise of his duties to identify and assert appropriate interests in the property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate (the \"Estate\"). The Debtor 2004 Motion requests authority under Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") to serve subpoenas (collectively, the \"2004 Subpoenas\") for production of documents and testimony from the Debtor concerning his property and financial affairs. The Advisors 2004 Motion and the Affiliated Persons 2004 Motion seek similar relief with respect to 14 professional firms employed by the Debtor (both pre- and postpetition) and 19 entities and individuals affiliated with the Debtor.\n\n2. As the Court has recognized repeatedly, it is critically important for the Trustee to conduct a comprehensive investigation of the Debtor's assets and financial affairs and to do so expeditiously. The Court originally ordered the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee nearly two months ago, on June 15, 2022, and this case has been pending since February 2022. It is long past time for the Trustee to begin uncovering the Debtor's assets and returning those assets to the Estate for ultimate distribution to the Debtor's creditors. The first step in this process is the relief sought in the 2004 Motions.\n\n3. Critically, none of the 2004 Responses takes issue with the relief the Trustee seeks. The Debtor's Limited Objection serves primarily as a reservation of rights concerning purportedly applicable privileges attaching to documents in the Debtor's possession. The only actual \"objection\" the Debtor raises is with respect to the Trustee's request to order the Debtor (and other responding parties) to respond to the Trustee's subpoenas within 30 days. This relief is entirely appropriate, especially in the context of this case, in which expediency is paramount and additional delay should not be tolerated. The requested deadline for responses to the subpoenas will not prohibit any party who receives a subpoena from attempting to raise objections thereto, consistent with applicable rules and any order of the Court.\n\n4. Similarly, the BR Response and the V&L Response (the \"Professionals' Responses\") do not oppose the relief the Trustee seeks but instead reserve rights with respect to potential non-disclosure obligations. Both of the Professionals' Responses recognize that \"the Trustee has generally succeeded to the privileges of the Debtor, including the attorney-client privilege.\" The Trustee agrees this is an accurate statement of the law. The Professionals' Responses nevertheless assert that their document productions may be subject to certain legal or ethical limitations. Neither of the Professionals' Responses articulates the basis for any such limitations, and the Trustee reserves his rights to address them at the appropriate time. What matters for present purposes is that neither firm opposes entry of orders granting the 2004 Motions.\n\n### **REPLY**\n\n5. For the reasons set forth in the 2004 Motions, the relief the Trustee seeks is fully consistent with Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and with his mandate in this case. Out of more than 30 parties targeted by the 2004 Motions, only three filed limited responses. Because none of the 2004\n\n3\n\nResponses meaningfully objects to the relief the Trustee seeks, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court grant the 2004 Motions and enter the proposed orders without delay.\n\n## **I. The Debtor's Limited Objection Should be Overruled**\n\n6. On August 5, 2022, the Debtor filed the Debtor's Limited Objection. The Debtor's Limited Objection is set forth in two parts. The first part, like the Professionals' Responses, reserves the Debtor's purported rights to assert privilege, which the Debtor's Limited Objection ultimately describes as \"a question for another day.\"<sup>2</sup> *See* Debtor's Limited Objection at ¶¶ 3-6. The second part objects to the 2004 Motions to the extent they seek to \"compel\" the production of particular documents, to schedule depositions at a particular time or place, and/or to require provision of a privilege log by a particular date, all before the service of a subpoena. The Debtor's Limited Objection should be overruled.\n\n7. As threshold matter, the Debtor's Limited Objection does not follow Rule 2004- 1(c)(4) of the District of Connecticut Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Local Bankruptcy Rules\") (expressly incorporating Rule 37 of the District of Connecticut Local Civil Rules (the \"Local Civil Rules\")), inasmuch as it does not include an affidavit \"certifying that [the Debtor] has conferred with counsel for the opposing party in an effort in good faith to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the motion without the intervention of the Court, and has been unable to reach such an agreement.\" *See* Local Civil Rule 37(a). In fact, as discussed herein in more detail, counsel for the Debtor and counsel for the Trustee did participate in a telephone conference on August 2, 2022, which should have fully resolved the Debtor's purported concern discussed in the\n\n<sup>2</sup> To the extent the Debtor is suggesting that the issue of the scope of any applicable privileges should not be decided until several weeks—if not longer—from now, after the Debtor has received and responded to the Trustee's subpoenas, the Trustee respectfully disagrees. As noted at the hearing before the Court on August 4, 2022, the Trustee believes his ownership of the Debtor's privileges is a critical issue that the Court should resolve as soon as possible. The Trustee intends to bring that issue to the Court for resolution in the near future, including without limitation by motions to compel pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9016 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, and the Trustee reserves the right to request that any such motion be heard on shortened notice.\n\nDebtor's Limited Objection. Because the Debtor did not file the required affidavit and disclose this telephone conference, the Debtor's Limited Objection should be immediately overruled. *See* Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1(c)(4) (\"The failure to comply with the requirements of D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37 shall be grounds for overruling any objection filed to a motion.\").\n\n8. The Debtor's Limited Objection also fails on the merits. The procedures set forth in the proposed orders granting the 2004 Motions are designed to properly order and organize timely responses among 34 examinees (*i.e.*, the Debtor, 14 professional firms that are examinees under the Advisors 2004 Motion, and 19 entities and individuals that are examinees under the Affiliated Persons 2004 Motion). Specifically, the proposed orders provide, among other things, for document production and (if applicable) production of a privilege log conforming to the requirements of District of Connecticut Local Civil Rule (the \"Local Civil Rules\") 26(e)<sup>3</sup> to occur within 30 days of service of the respective 2004 Subpoenas and for oral examinations to occur within 14 days following production of documents at the offices of the Trustee's counsel in New York City or at such other location as the Trustee and the examinee may agree. As with any 2004 Subpoenas, compliance is subject to the rights of the examinees or parties-in-interest that have standing to seek to oppose or limit production and/or testimony if grounds to do so exist. *See* Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1(c)(3).\n\n9. These provisions of the proposed orders are not intended to and do not infringe on the rights of the rights of any examinees or parties-in-interest as those rights are preserved under Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1(c)(3). The timeframes for production and examination set forth in the proposed orders would, alternatively, be set forth in forms of subpoena attached to the 2004 Motions after the Court has ordered the requested examinations. *See* Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-\n\n<sup>3</sup> Local Civil Rule 26(e) applies to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004- 1(a).\n\n1(c). Considering the numerous (34) examinees at issue between the Trustee's three 2004 Motions, and that the Trustee may stagger service of the 2004 Subpoenas to conduct discovery in an orderly and efficient fashion, the Trustee properly determined it more appropriate to provide for generally applicable timeframes set forth in the 2004 Motions and proposed orders, rather than in 34 separate forms of subpoenas (each bearing dates subject to change depending on the timing of the Court's granting of the 2004 Motions and the Trustee's service of the subpoenas).\n\n10. None of this should be a surprise to the Debtor. As noted above, while not disclosed in the Debtor's Limited Objection, counsel for the Trustee participated in a telephone conference with counsel for the Debtor to discuss the 2004 Motions on August 2, 2022. During that call, counsel for the Debtor outlined the matters set forth in the Debtor's Limited Objection, and the Trustee's counsel stated that the 2004 Motions are not calculated to compel testimony or deprive proper parties of any rights to seek to oppose or limit discovery to the extent they have the right to do so consistent with Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1(c)(3).\n\n11. Given that the Trustee's counsel's statements during that call should have resolved the purported concerns discussed in the Debtor's Limited Objection, the Trustee can only regard the purpose of the Debtor's Limited Objection to be further obstruction and delay. This would be consistent with the Debtor's track record of seeking to delay, obstruct, or otherwise interfere with the Trustee's exercise of his duties concerning property of the Estate (*e.g.*, as the Debtor recently manifested by objecting to the Trustee's efforts to obtain information from and direct counsel in the United Kingdom prosecuting the Estate's claims against UBS AG). Including the requested response deadlines in the proposed order will help to ensure that no further delay occurs and at the same time preserve the rights of all parties to assert objections to the Trustee's 2004 Subpoenas.\n\n### **II. Neither the BR Response nor the V&L Responses Opposes the Relief Sought**\n\n12. On August 5, 2022, Brown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\") filed its BR Response and Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. (\"V&L\" and, together with Brown Rudnick, collectively, the \"Professionals\") filed its V&L Response. The Professionals' Responses do not object to the relief sought in the 2004 Motions but merely seek to reserve rights with respect to hypothetical \"work product\" issues and \"ethical obligations\" that may be asserted in response to a subpoena.\n\n13. While the Trustee disagrees with the Professionals' characterization of these unasserted claims, the Trustee agrees that – if asserted – they will properly be resolved either in the course of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery or in the context of any other motion that seeks to resolve the issue (including as discussed in n. 2, *supra*), and do not implicate the Court's consideration of the 2004 Motions.\n\nWHEREFORE, because the Debtor's Limited Objection fails both procedurally and on the merits, the Court should overrule the Debtor's Limited Objection, grant the Trustee's 2004 Motions, enter the proposed orders filed therewith, and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n*[The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.]*\n\nDated: August 10, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nx :\n\nX\n\n|             |         | : |                         |\n|-------------|---------|---|-------------------------|\n| In re:      |         | : | CHAPTER 1               |\n|             |         | : |                         |\n| HON WO KWOK |         | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|             |         | : |                         |\n|             | Debtor. | : |                         |\n|             |         |   |                         |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on August 10, 2022, the foregoing Objection was electronically filed. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's case management/electronic filing (CM/ECF) system or by mail on August 11, 2022, to anyone unable to accept electronic filing pursuant to the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system. The Debtor and Brown Rudnick LLP are among the appearing parties that will receive notice via CM/ECF. Notice will further be sent to Verdolino & Lowey, P.C., on August 10, 2022, by email to Craig R. Jalbert, CIRA, at cjalbert@vlpc.com.\n\nDated: August 10, 2022 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n> By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n> > *and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第11章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）， :\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。1 :\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n第11章受托人支持根据《破产程序规则》第2004条及《本地规则》第2004-1条作出准予对债务人、债务人的法律与财务顾问以及与债务人关联的各实体和个人进行询问并责令提交文件的裁定的动议的答辩状\n\nLuc A. Despins 以其在上述冠名之 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）的第11章案件（以下简称“第11章案件”）中被任命的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）之身份，特此提交本答辩状（以下简称“答辩状”），以支持受托人于2022年7月28日提交的：(a)《根据〈破产程序规则〉第2004条及〈本地规则〉第2004-1条作出准予对 Ho Wan Kwok 进行询问并责令提交文件的裁定的动议》[卷宗第 636 号]（以下简称“债务人2004动议”）；(b)《根据〈破产程序规则〉第2004条及〈本地规则〉第2004-1条作出准予就债务人的各法律与财务顾问进行证据开示的裁定的综合动议》[卷宗第 637 号]（以下简称“顾问2004动议”）；以及 (c)《根据〈破产程序规则〉第2004条及〈本地规则〉第2004-1条作出准予就与债务人关联的各实体和个人进行证据开示的裁定的综合动议》[卷宗第 638 号]（以下简称“关联人员2004动议”，并与债务人2004动议及顾问2004动议合称为“2004动议”）；并针对2022年8月5日提交的如下文件作出回应：(x)《Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克有限责任合伙）对第11章受托人证据开示动议的回应及权利保留》[卷宗第 698 号]（以下简称“BR回应”）；(y)《Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（维尔多利诺与洛伊专业合伙公司）对第11章受托人证据开示动议的回应及权利保留》[卷宗第 698 号]（以下简称“V&L回应”）；以及 (z)《债务人对2004规则动议的有限异议》[卷宗第 703 号]（以下简称“债务人有限异议”，并与BR回应及V&L回应合称为“2004回应”）。关于前述事项，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n1 虽然债务人的法定姓名是 Ho Wan Kwok，但他也以郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及众多其他化名而为人所知。债务人纳税人识别号的后四位为 9595。\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 受托人于2022年7月28日提交了2004动议，作为受托人履行其查明并对债务人第11章破产财产（以下简称“破产财产”）中的财产主张适当权益的职责等工作的一部分。债务人2004动议请求依据《联邦破产程序规则》（以下简称“《破产规则》”）第2004条的授权，送达传票（合称为“2004传票”），以要求债务人提交与其财产和财务事务相关的档并提供证词。顾问2004动议和关联人员2004动议就债务人雇用的14家专业机构（包括申请前和申请后）以及与债务人关联的19个实体和个人寻求类似的救济。\n\n2. 正如法院屡次确认的那样，受托人对债务人的资产和财务事务进行全面调查，且迅速进行此项调查，是至关重要的。法院最初在近两个月前的2022年6月15日命令任命一名第11章受托人，而本案自2022年2月起一直处于未决状态。受托人开始揭示债务人的资产，并将这些资产归还破产财产以最终分配给债务人的债权人，这早已刻不容缓。该程序的第一步即为2004动议中所寻求的救济。\n\n3. 至关重要的是，没有一份2004回应针对受托人所寻求的救济提出异议。债务人的有限异议主要作为对债务人所持有的文档中据称适用的特权的主张而作出的权利保留。债务人提出的唯一实质性“异议”，是针对受托人请求命令债务人（及其他回应方）在30天内对受托人的传票作出回应。这种救济是完全适当的，尤其是在本案的背景下，迅速处理至关重要，且不应容忍进一步的拖延。所请求的传票回应期限并不禁止任何收到传票的当事方依据适用规则和法院的任何命令试图对此提出异议。\n\n4. 同样，BR回应和V&L回应（以下简称“专业机构回应”）并不反对受托人所寻求的救济，而是就潜在的保密义务保留权利。两份专业机构回应均承认“受托人已大体承继了债务人的特权，包括律师-委托人特权”。受托人同意这是对法律的准确表述。尽管如此，专业机构回应声称其文档提交可能会受到某些法律或伦理上的限制。两份专业机构回应均未阐明任何此类限制的依据，受托人保留在适当时候对其予以处理的权利。就目前而言，重要的是两家机构均不反对作出批准2004动议的裁定。\n\n答辩\n\n5. 基于2004动议中所阐述的理由，受托人所寻求的救济完全符合《破产规则》第2004条以及他在本案中的职责授权。在2004动议针对的30多个当事方中，只有三方提交了有限的回应。由于2004回应中没有任何一份实质性地反对受托人所寻求的救济，受托人谨请求法院毫不拖延地批准2004动议并签署拟定的裁定。\n\nI. 债务人的有限异议应予驳回\n\n6. 2022年8月5日，债务人提交了债务人有限异议。债务人有限异议分为两部分。第一部分与专业机构回应一样，保留了债务人据称主张特权的权利，而债务人有限异议最终将该权利描述为“以后再议的问题”。2 参见债务人有限异议第3-6段。第二部分对2004动议提出异议，其异议范围在于该等动议试图“强迫”提交特定文档、安排在特定时间或地点进行宣誓取证、以及/或要求在特定日期前提供特权清单，而这一切均发生在送达传票之前。债务人的有限异议应予驳回。\n\n7. 作为先决问题，债务人有限异议未遵守《康涅狄格区破产程序本地规则》（以下简称“《本地破产规则》”）第2004-1(c)(4)条（该条明确并入了《康涅狄格区民事诉讼本地规则》（以下简称“《本地民事规则》”）第37条），因为其未包含一份“证明[债务人]已与对方当事人的律师进行协商，真诚努力在没有法院介入的情况下通过协议解决动议所引起的问题，但未能达成此类协议”的宣誓书。参见《本地民事规则》第37(a)条。事实上，正如本文更详细讨论的那样，债务人律师与受托人律师确于2022年8月2日参加了一次电话会议，该会议本应完全解决债务人有限异议中所讨论的债务人据称的关切。\n\n2 如果债务人暗示任何适用特权的范围问题应该在从现在起的几周后——如果不是更久的话——在债务人收到并回应受托人的传票之后才予以裁定，受托人谨表示不同意。正如在2022年8月4日法院庭审中所指出的，受托人认为他对债务人特权的所有权是法院应尽快解决的关键问题。受托人打算在不久的将来将该问题提交法院裁决，包括但不限于依据《破产规则》第9016条和《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条提出强迫动议，且受托人保留请求在缩短通知期的情况下对此类动议进行审理的权利。\n\n由于债务人未提交所需的宣誓书并披露该次电话会议，债务人的有限异议应立即予以驳回。参见《本地破产规则》第2004-1(c)(4)条（“未能遵守《康涅狄格区民事诉讼本地规则》第37条的要求，应构成驳回对动议提起的任何异议的理由。”）。\n\n8. 债务人的有限异议在实体理由上也无法成立。批准2004动议的拟定裁定中所规定的程序，旨在合理命令并组织34名被询问人（即债务人、顾问2004动议下的14家专业机构被询问人，以及关联人员2004动议下的19个实体和个人被询问人）及时作出回应。具体而言，拟定裁定等规定，文档提交以及（如适用）符合《康涅狄格区民事诉讼本地规则》（以下简称“《本地民事规则》”）第26(e)条3要求的特权清单的提交，须在送达各自2004传票后的30天内进行；口头询问须在提交文档后的14天内，于受托人律师在纽约市的办公室或受托人与被询问人可能同意的其他地点进行。与任何2004传票一样，履行须受制于被询问人或具有诉讼资格的利害关系方在存在理由的情况下寻求反对或限制提交文档及/或提供证词的权利。参见《本地破产规则》第2004-1(c)(3)条。\n\n9. 拟定裁定的这些条款并非意图侵犯，且未侵犯根据《本地破产规则》第2004-1(c)(3)条所保留的任何被询问人或利害关系方的权利。拟定裁定中规定的提交文档和询问的时间框架，或者说，也可以在法院命令进行所请求的询问后，在附于2004动议后的传票格式中予以规定。参见《本地破产规则》第2004-\n\n3 根据《本地破产规则》第2004-1(a)条，《本地民事规则》第26(e)条适用于《破产规则》第2004条下的证据开示。\n\n1(c)条。考虑到受托人的三项2004动议所涉及的众多（34名）被询问人，并且受托人可能会错开2004传票的送达以有序且高效地进行证据开示，受托人适当地认定，在2004动议和拟定裁定中规定普遍适用的时间框架，比在34份单独的传票格式中规定更为合适（每份传票所载日期均可能根据法院批准2004动议以及受托人送达传票的时间而发生变动）。\n\n10. 这些对债务人来说都不应感到意外。如上所述，尽管在债务人的有限异议中未予披露，受托人的律师曾于2022年8月2日与债务人的律师参加了电话会议以讨论2004动议。在该次通话中，债务人的律师概述了债务人有限异议中所阐述的事项，而受托人的律师表示，2004动议并非意在强迫提供证词，或剥夺适当当事方在符合《本地破产规则》第2004-1(c)(3)条的前提下寻求反对或限制证据开示的任何权利（在其有权这样做的范围内）。\n\n11. 鉴于受托人律师在通话期间的陈述本应解决债务人有限异议中所讨论的所谓担忧，受托人只能认为债务人提出有限异议的目的是为了进一步阻挠和拖延。这与债务人一贯寻求拖延、阻挠或以其他方式干预受托人就破产财产履行其职责的行为相一致（例如，债务人最近通过反对受托人向在英国推进破产财产对 UBS AG（瑞银集团）索赔的律师获取信息及向其发出指示所表现出的那样）。在拟议裁定中包含所请求的答复期限将有助于确保不再发生拖延，同时保留各方对受托人的 2004 传票提出异议的权利。\n\nII. BR 答复和 V&L 答复均未反对所请求的救济\n\n12. 2022年8月5日，Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所，“Brown Rudnick”）提交了其 BR 答复，Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（“V&L”，与 Brown Rudnick 合称为“专业人士”）提交了其 V&L 答复。专业人士的答复并未反对 2004 动议中请求的救济，而仅仅旨在就针对传票可能提出的假定“工作成果”问题和“职业道德义务”保留权利。\n\n13. 尽管受托人不同意专业人士对这些未主张的权利主张的定性，但受托人同意——如果提出这些主张——它们将在《破产程序规则》第 2004 条证据开示过程中，或在旨在解决该问题的任何其他动议的背景下（包括前注 2 所讨论的内容）得到妥善解决，并且不影响法院对 2004 动议的审议。\n\n据此，由于债务人的有限异议在程序上和实体上均告不成立，法院应当驳回债务人的有限异议，批准受托人的 2004 动议，签署随附提交的拟议裁定，并给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步的救济。\n\n[本页以下部分特意留白。]\n\n日期：2022年8月10日 LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），康涅狄格州纽黑文 第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (pro hac vice/特许出庭律师) PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所） 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft (pro hac vice/特许出庭律师) Douglass Barron (pro hac vice/特许出庭律师) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人律师\n\nUNITED 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\nx :\n\nX\n\n关于： : 第 11 章\n\nHON WO KWOK（郭浩云/郭文贵） : 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 :\n\n送达证明\n\n下述签署人特此证明，于2022年8月10日，上述异议已进行电子提交。根据电子提交通知，该提交的通知将通过法院的案件管理/电子案卷系统（CM/ECF）通过电子邮件发送给所有当事方，或于2022年8月11日通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子提交的任何人。当事方可以通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本文件。债务人和 Brown Rudnick LLP 属于将通过 CM/ECF 接收通知的出庭当事方。通知还将通过电子邮件于2022年8月10日发送给 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. 的 Craig R. Jalbert（CIRA），邮箱为 cjalbert@vlpc.com。\n\n日期：2022年8月10日 康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (pro hac vice/特许出庭律师) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft (pro hac vice/特许出庭律师) Douglass Barron (pro hac vice/特许出庭律师) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人律师","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Paul Hastings","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Despins","CIPA","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2562,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:20:17"}