{"id":"court_ctb_763_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":763,"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| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                     | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                                                          | :<br>:      |                         |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |\n\n# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER STAYING THROUGH OCTOBER 21, 2022 PENDING ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT AGAINST THE DEBTOR PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. SECTIONS 523 AND/OR 727**\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 motion (the \"Motion\") for entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A**, staying proceedings in each of the several adversary proceedings filed in connection with the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") seeking a determination of nondischargeability of a debt pursuant to Section 523 of Title 11 of the United States Code (such title, hereinafter, the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and/or denial of Debtor's discharge pursuant to Section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code, for a period of sixty (60) days, from August 22, 2022 through and including October 21, 2022. The adversary proceedings sought to be affected hereby (hereinafter the \"Adversary Proceedings\") are as follows<sup>1</sup> :\n\n- *Cheng v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5010\n- *Ma v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5011\n- *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5012<sup>2</sup>\n- *Wu v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5013\n- *Meng v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5014\n\n<sup>1</sup> For the avoidance of doubt, this Motion and the Proposed Order filed herewith shall not affect proceedings in *HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, v. Kwok, et al*. (Adv. Pro. 22-5003).\n\n<sup>2</sup> Hereinafter, the Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund is referred to as \"PAX.\" Each of the Adversary Proceedings is individually referred to herein by its first named plaintiff.\n\n- *Nunberg v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5017\n- *Zhang v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5018\n\nIn support of this Motion, the Trustee respectfully states as following:\n\n### **JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND BASIS**\n\n1. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Court\") has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended). This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n\n2. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n3. The basis for this Motion is the Court's inherent power to control the disposition of its docket, as set forth in further detail and with relevant authority below.\n\n## **BACKGROUND**\n\n4. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed with the Court a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n5. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed an official committee of unsecured creditors (the \"Committee\") in this Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed in the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n6. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [ECF No. 465] directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to the Trustee Order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee.<sup>3</sup>\n\n7. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [ECF No. 523].\n\n<sup>3</sup> The references to docket numbers set forth in this Motion refer to the Chapter 11 Case docket unless otherwise indicated.\n\n8. The several Adversary Proceedings were commenced at various times during the period June 20, 2022 through July 20, 2022. Each of the Adversary Proceedings seeks, *inter alia*, a determination of non-dischargeability of an alleged debt or debts pursuant Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code; *Zhang v. Kwok* also seeks denial of a discharge pursuant to Section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n9. The Trustee moved to stay each of the Adversary Proceedings, in the cases of *Cheng*, *Ma*, and *PAX*, through August 22, 2022, in the case of *Wu* and *Meng* through August 31, 2022, and in the cases of *Nunberg* and *Zhang*, through September 21, 2022. The motions were granted in each such case with the exception of *Zhang*, which motion remains *sub judice.*<sup>4</sup>\n\n#### **REQUESTED RELIEF**\n\n10. By this Motion, the Trustee seeks entry of the Proposed Order further staying the several Adversary Proceedings through a uniform date of October 21, 2022.\n\n11. This Court may stay an adversary proceeding upon a variety of grounds. \"As the Supreme Court has observed, the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.\" U.S. Bank N.A. v. Perlmutter (In re South Side House, LLC), 470 B.R. 659, 684 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936); see also Musselman v. Home Ins. Co. of Ind. (In re Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey), 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10235, 1990 WL 123840, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 1990) (finding that the bankruptcy court has the authority to enter a stay of an adversary proceeding).\n\n<sup>4</sup> See [*Cheng* Adversary Proceeding, ECF Nos. 12, 17]; [*Ma* Adversary Proceeding, ECF Nos. 10, 16]; [*PAX* Adversary Proceeding, ECF Nos. 10, 15]; [*Wu* Adversary Proceeding, ECF Nos. 13, 19]; [*Meng* Adversary Proceeding, ECF Nos. 14, 20]; [*Nunberg* Adversary Proceeding, ECF Nos. 8, 9]; and [*Zhang* Adversary Proceeding, ECF No. 9].\n\nDetermination of whether grounds exist to stay a proceeding are subject to this Court's sound discretion. In re South Side House, LLC, 470 B.R. at 684.\n\n12. Good cause exists for the Court to stay these Adversary Proceedings. The Trustee's appointment remains relatively recent, and the Trustee is in the process of investigating the Debtor's estate, including the identification of its assets. To be sure, the Trustee's investigation will eventually include assessing the validity and magnitude of claims asserted in these Adversary Proceedings (and whether and to what extent the matters raised therein may affect the estate, its creditors, and the ultimate disposition of the estate's assets), and the role of the Trustee in each of these Adversary Proceedings. Critically, the Trustee requires additional time to analyze the issues raised in the respective Adversary Proceedings in order to take a position with respect to the complaints filed therein and determine the impact of a potential dischargeability judgment on the Trustee's other efforts in this Chapter 11 Case, such as the proposal of chapter 11 plan, which process could be affected by the entry of a judgment in these Adversary Proceedings. It would be particularly inefficient to require the Trustee to expedite those determinations or for the Court, the Trustee, and other parties-in-interest to expend time and resources with respect to the Adversary Proceedings, when the prospect of a confirmable plan of reorganization that would provide for an eventual discharge of the Debtor in this Chapter 11 Case is subject to considerable doubt.\n\n13. The Trustee believes that requesting the relief sought herein by this Motion filed in the Chapter 11 Case, rather than by filing similar motions in each of the seven Adversary Proceedings, is appropriate, because the relief sought herein implicates the Trustee's orderly management and administration of the chapter 11 estate. As more specifically discussed below, the Trustee has consulted and provided notice of this Motion to all parties to the Adversary\n\n4\n\nProceedings. The Trustee also requests that the Court direct the clerk to enter the Proposed Order granting this Motion in each of the Adversary Proceedings as well as in the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n14. Trustee's counsel, Patrick Linsey, has spoken with John Cesaroni, counsel for the Debtor, regarding this Motion, and Mr. Cesaroni indicated that the Debtor does not object to the relief requested herein. Email requests directed to counsel for the plaintiffs or, if *pro se*, email requests directed to the plaintiffs, in each of the Adversary Proceedings to determine their positions regarding the requested relief were sent on the evening of August 16, 2022; thus far Mr. Nunberg (*pro se* plaintiff in the *Nunberg* Adversary Proceeding) and counsel for the plaintiffs from the *Cheng*, *Ma*, *PAX*, *Wu*, and *Meng* Adversary Proceedings have responded, indicating that they, likewise, do not object to the requested relief. Counsel for the plaintiffs from the *Zhang* Adversary Proceeding has not responded to the Trustee's inquiry as of the filing of this Motion.\n\n15. This is the Trustee's second request for the relief sought by this Motion.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank.*]\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Court should enter the Proposed Order extending stays in each of the above-described Adversary Proceedings through and including October 21 2022, and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: August 17, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nJames C. Graham (ct06064) 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\n:\n\n:\n\nX\n\nIn re: : CHAPTER 1 HO WON KWOK : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) Debtor. :\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on August 17, 2022, the foregoing Motion was electronically filed. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties to this bankruptcy case by operation of the Court's case management/electronic filing (CM/ECF) system or by mail 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.\n\nNotice of this filing will also be sent by e-mail to each party to the affected Adversary Proceedings by e-mail, or by regular U.S. Mail to anyone unable to accept filing by e-mail, as follows:\n\nAdv. Pro. 22-5010: Jay Marshall Wolman at [jmw@randazza.com;](mailto:jmw@randazza.com) Eric Henzy at [ehenzy@zeislaw.com;](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) James Moriarty at [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com;](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) Aaron Romney at [aromney@zeislaw.com;](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) John Cesaroni at [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\nAdv. Pro. 22-5011: Kristin B. Mayhew at [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com;](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) Eric Henzy at [ehenzy@zeislaw.com;](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) James Moriarty at [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com;](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) Aaron Romney at [aromney@zeislaw.com;](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) John Cesaroni at [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\nAdv. Pro. 22-5012: Patrick M. Birney at [pbirney@rc.com;](mailto:pbirney@rc.com) Peter Friedman at [pfriedman@omm.com;](mailto:pfriedman@omm.com) Stuart Sarnoff at [ssarnoff@omm.com;](mailto:ssarnoff@omm.com) Annecca H. Smith at [asmith@rc.com;](mailto:asmith@rc.com) Eric Henzy at [ehenzy@zeislaw.com;](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) James Moriarty at [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com;](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) Aaron Romney at [aromney@zeislaw.com;](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) John Cesaroni at [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\nAdv. Pro. 22-5013: Kristin B. Mayhew at [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com;](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) Eric Henzy at [ehenzy@zeislaw.com;](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) James Moriarty at [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com;](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) Aaron Romney at\n\n[aromney@zeislaw.com;](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) John Cesaroni at [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\nAdv. Pro. 22-5014: Kristin B. Mayhew at [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com;](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) Eric Henzy at [ehenzy@zeislaw.com;](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) James Moriarty at [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com;](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) Aaron Romney at [aromney@zeislaw.com;](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) John Cesaroni at [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\nAdv Pro 22-5017: Samuel Dan Nunberg at [snunberg@winstonashe.com;](mailto:snunberg@winstonashe.com) Eric Henzy at [ehenzy@zeislaw.com;](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) James Moriarty at [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com;](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) Aaron Romney at [aromney@zeislaw.com;](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) John Cesaroni at [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\nAdv. Pro. 22-5018: Thomas J. Sansone, at [tsansone@carmodylaw.com;](mailto:tsansone@carmodylaw.com) Eric Henzy at [ehenzy@zeislaw.com;](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) James Moriarty at [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com;](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) Aaron Romney at [aromney@zeislaw.com;](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) John Cesaroni at [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\nDated: August 17, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* James C. Graham (ct06064) 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\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |        |                         |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |  |\n|                                                                  | :      |                         |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                     | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| Debtor.                                                          | :      |                         |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | :<br>x |                         |  |\n\n# **PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY OF ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS SEEKING DETERMINATION OF NON-DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBTS AND/OR DENIAL OF DISCHARGE**\n\nUPON CONSIDERATION OF the motion of Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins (the \"Trustee\") requesting an additional stay of the adversary proceedings *Cheng v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5010; *Ma v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5011; *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5012; *Wu v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5013; *Meng v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5014; *Nunberg v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5017 and *Zhang v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. 22-5018 (the \"Adversary Proceedings\") through October 22, 2022, and good cause having been shown, it is by the Court,\n\nORDERED, that the motion is GRANTED and the above-described Adversary Proceedings are hereby stayed, and all related deadlines associated therewith are extended, through October 21, 2022; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that this Order shall be entered in in the above-captioned Chapter 11 Case as well as in each of the Adversary Proceedings.","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院）\n\nx\n\n关于：　:\n:　第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　:\n:\n:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n第 11 章受托人关于作出将依据《美国法典》第 11 编第 523 条和/或第 727 条针对债务人提起的未决对抗性诉讼中止至 2022 年 10 月 21 日之裁定的动议\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其在上述标题所示 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称「债务人」）第 11 章破产案件（下称「第 11 章案件」）中被指定的第 11 章受托人（下称「受托人」）身份，特此提交本动议（下称「本动议」），请求法院作出基本如本动议所附附件 A 形式的裁定，将就上述标题所示第 11 章破产案件（下称「第 11 章案件」）提起并依据《美国法典》第 11 编（该编下称《破产法典》）第 523 条请求认定某项债务不可免除和/或依据《破产法典》第 727 条请求拒绝给予债务人免责的数起对抗性诉讼中的各项程序中止六十（60）天，即自 2022 年 8 月 22 日起至 2022 年 10 月 21 日（含当日）止。本动议意图影响的对抗性诉讼（下称「对抗性诉讼」）如下1 ：\n\n- Cheng v. Kwok，对抗性诉讼案号 22-5010\n- Ma v. Kwok，对抗性诉讼案号 22-5011\n- Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金）v. Kwok，对抗性诉讼案号 22-50122\n- Wu v. Kwok，对抗性诉讼案号 22-5013\n- Meng v. Kwok，对抗性诉讼案号 22-5014\n\n1 为免疑义，本动议及随同提交的拟议裁定不应影响 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）v. Kwok, et al.（对抗性诉讼案号 22-5003）的诉讼程序。\n\n2 下文将 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund 称为「PAX」。本文中各对抗性诉讼均以其列名第一的原告单独指代。\n\n- Nunberg v. Kwok，对抗性诉讼案号 22-5017\n- Zhang v. Kwok，对抗性诉讼案号 22-5018\n\n为支持本动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n管辖权、审理地及依据\n\n1. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334 以及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区美国地方法院）的常规移送令（经修正），United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区美国破产法院，下称「本法院」）对本事项拥有管辖权。依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，本案属于核心程序。\n\n2. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本审区的审理地是适当的。\n\n3. 本动议的依据为本法院控制其案件排期处理的固有权力，具体详见下文及相关判例法源。\n背景\n\n4. 2022 年 2 月 15 日（下称「申请日」），债务人向本法院提交了依据《破产法典》第 11 章寻求救济的自愿破产申请。\n\n5. 2022 年 3 月 21 日，United States Trustee（美国破产受托人管理局）在本第 11 章案件中指定了官方无担保债权人委员会（下称「委员会」）。本第 11 章案件中未指定审查员。\n\n6. 2022 年 6 月 15 日，本法院作出一项裁判备忘录及裁定 [ECF No. 465]，责令美国破产受托人管理局在本第 11 章案件中指定一名第 11 章受托人。依据该受托人裁定，美国破产受托人管理局选定 Luc A. Despins 为受托人。3\n\n7. 2022 年 7 月 8 日，本法院作出裁定，批准指定 Luc A. Despins 为本第 11 章案件的受托人 [ECF No. 523]。\n\n3 除非另有说明，本动议中提及的卷宗编号均指本第 11 章案件卷宗。\n\n8. 上述数起对抗性诉讼分别于 2022 年 6 月 20 日至 2022 年 7 月 20 日期间提起。各对抗性诉讼均尤其请求依据《破产法典》第 523 条判定某项或多项指称债务不可免除；Zhang v. Kwok 案还请求依据《破产法典》第 727 条拒绝给予免责。\n\n9. 受托人曾提出动议，请求将各项对抗性诉讼中止：在 Cheng、Ma 和 PAX 案中中止至 2022 年 8 月 22 日；在 Wu 和 Meng 案中中止至 2022 年 8 月 31 日；在 Nunberg 和 Zhang 案中中止至 2022 年 9 月 21 日。除 Zhang 案外，上述各案的动议均获批准，而 Zhang 案的动议仍在审理待决中（sub judice）。4\n请求的救济\n\n10. 受托人通过本动议，请求作出拟议裁定，将上述数起对抗性诉讼进一步统一中止至 2022 年 10 月 21 日。\n\n11. 本法院可基于多种理由中止对抗性诉讼。「正如最高法院所指出，中止诉讼程序的权力从属于每个法院固有的权力，即为了自身、律师和诉讼当事人的时间和精力考量，经济高效地控制其案卷中案件的处理。」U.S. Bank N.A. v. Perlmutter (In re South Side House, LLC), 470 B.R. 659, 684 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y 2012)（引述内部引号省略），援引 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936)；亦见 Musselman v. Home Ins. Co. of Ind. (In re Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey), 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10235, 1990 WL 123840, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 1990)（认定破产法院有权作出对抗性诉讼中止裁定）。\n\n4 参见 [Cheng 对抗性诉讼, ECF Nos. 12, 17]；[Ma 对抗性诉讼, ECF Nos. 10, 16]；[PAX 对抗性诉讼, ECF Nos. 10, 15]；[Wu 对抗性诉讼, ECF Nos. 13, 19]；[Meng 对抗性诉讼, ECF Nos. 14, 20]；[Nunberg 对抗性诉讼, ECF Nos. 8, 9]；以及 [Zhang 对抗性诉讼, ECF No. 9]。\n\n是否存在中止程序的理由，由本法院合理酌情决定。In re South Side House, LLC, 470 B.R. at 684。\n\n12. 本法院中止该等对抗性诉讼具备正当理由。受托人被指定的时间相对较短，目前正在对债务人的破产财产进行调查，包括查明其资产。可以肯定的是，受托人的调查最终将包括评估这些对抗性诉讼中主张的债权的有效性和规模（以及其中提出的事项是否以及在何种程度上可能影响破产财产、其债权人及破产财产资产的最终处置），以及受托人在各对抗性诉讼中的角色。至关重要的是，受托人需要更多时间分析各对抗性诉讼中提出的问题，以便就其中提交的诉状表明立场，并确定潜在的债务免除判定对受托人在本第 11 章案件中其他工作的影响（例如提出第 11 章重整计划，该进程可能会受到这些对抗性诉讼作出判决的影响）。鉴于在本第 11 章案件中提出一项能为债务人最终提供债务免除的可确认重整计划的前景存有相当大的疑虑，若要求受托人匆忙作出这些决定，或者让法院、受托人及其他利益相关方就对抗性诉讼耗费时间和资源，将尤为低效。\n\n13. 受托人认为，通过在本第 11 章案件中提交本动议来请求本动议所寻求的救济，而非在七起对抗性诉讼中分别提交类似动议，是适当的做法，因为此处寻求的救济关涉受托人对第 11 章破产财产的有序管理和行政管理。如下文更具体讨论所述，受托人已向对抗性诉讼的所有当事人进行了咨询并送达了本动议的通知。受托人还请求法院指示书记官在各项对抗性诉讼以及本第 11 章案件中均登记载入准予本动议的拟议裁定。\n\n14. 受托人的代理律师 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛）已就本动议与债务人的代理律师 John Cesaroni（约翰·塞萨罗尼）进行了沟通，Cesaroni 律师表示债务人对本文所请求的救济没有异议。受托人已于 2022 年 8 月 16 日晚向各对抗性诉讼中原告的代理律师（若亲自诉讼则向原告本人）发送了电子邮件问询，以确定他们对所请求救济的立场；截至目前，Nunberg 先生（Nunberg 对抗性诉讼中的亲自诉讼原告）以及 Cheng、Ma、PAX、Wu 和 Meng 各对抗性诉讼原告的代理律师已作出回复，表示他们同样对所请求的救济没有异议。截至本动议提交之日，Zhang 对抗性诉讼原告的代理律师尚未回复受托人的问询。\n\n15. 这是受托人第二次就本动议所寻求的救济提出请求。\n\n[本页余下部分特意留白。]\n\n为此，基于上述理由，法院应作出拟议裁定，将上述各对抗性诉讼中的中止期限延长至 2022 年 10 月 21 日（含当日），并给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2022 年 8 月 17 日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\nLUC A. DESPINS，第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nJames C. Graham (ct06064)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（特许出庭律师）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft（特许出庭律师）\nDouglass Barron（特许出庭律师）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人代理律师\nUNITED 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院）\n\nx :\n\nX\n\n关于： : 第 11 章\nHO WON KWOK（郭文贵） : 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\n送达证明\n\n下述签署人特此证明，2022 年 8 月 17 日，上述动议已通过电子方式提交。本提交的通知将通过法院的案件管理/电子立案（CM/ECF）系统运行以电子邮件方式发送给本破产案件的所有当事人，或者依据电子立案通知通过邮寄方式发送给任何无法接受电子立案的人员。各方当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n本次提交的通知还将通过电子邮件发送给受影响的对抗性诉讼的各方当事人，或者通过常规美国邮政邮件发送给任何无法接受电子邮件送达的人员，具体如下：\n\nAdv. Pro. 22-5010: Jay Marshall Wolman [jmw@randazza.com;] Eric Henzy [ehenzy@zeislaw.com;] James Moriarty [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com;] Aaron Romney [aromney@zeislaw.com;] John Cesaroni [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\nAdv. Pro. 22-5011: Kristin B. Mayhew [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com;] Eric Henzy [ehenzy@zeislaw.com;] James Moriarty [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com;] Aaron Romney [aromney@zeislaw.com;] John Cesaroni [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\nAdv. Pro. 22-5012: Patrick M. Birney [pbirney@rc.com;] Peter Friedman [pfriedman@omm.com;] Stuart Sarnoff [ssarnoff@omm.com;] Annecca H. Smith [asmith@rc.com;] Eric Henzy [ehenzy@zeislaw.com;] James Moriarty [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com;] Aaron Romney [aromney@zeislaw.com;] John Cesaroni [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\nAdv. Pro. 22-5013: Kristin B. Mayhew [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com;] Eric Henzy [ehenzy@zeislaw.com;] James Moriarty [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com;] Aaron Romney [aromney@zeislaw.com;] John Cesaroni [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\nAdv. Pro. 22-5014: Kristin B. Mayhew [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com;] Eric Henzy [ehenzy@zeislaw.com;] James Moriarty [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com;] Aaron Romney [aromney@zeislaw.com;] John Cesaroni [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\nAdv Pro 22-5017：Samuel Dan Nunberg（塞缪尔·丹·农伯格），邮箱 snunberg@winstonashe.com；Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐），邮箱 ehenzy@zeislaw.com；James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂），邮箱 jmoriarty@zeislaw.com；Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼），邮箱 aromney@zeislaw.com；John Cesaroni（约翰·切萨罗尼），邮箱 jcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n\nAdv. Pro. 22-5018：Thomas J. Sansone（托马斯·J·桑索内），邮箱 tsansone@carmodylaw.com；Eric Henzy，邮箱 ehenzy@zeislaw.com；James Moriarty，邮箱 jmoriarty@zeislaw.com；Aaron Romney，邮箱 aromney@zeislaw.com；John Cesaroni，邮箱 jcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n\n日期：2022年8月17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 James C. Graham（詹姆斯·C·格雷厄姆）(ct06064) Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林西）(ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）(pro hac vice（特许临时出庭）) 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以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）(pro hac vice) Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）(pro hac vice) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人之代理律师\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\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　:\n:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n\nx\n准予中止旨在确定债务不可免除和/或拒绝免责之对抗性诉讼动议的拟定裁定\n\n经审议第11章受托人Luc A. Despins（下称“受托人”）提出的动议，该动议请求将以下对抗性诉讼（下称“对抗性诉讼”）进一步中止至2022年10月22日：Cheng v. Kwok（程诉郭案），Adv. Pro. 22-5010；Ma v. Kwok（马诉郭案），Adv. Pro. 22-5011；Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金诉郭案），Adv. Pro. 22-5012；Wu v. Kwok（吴诉郭案），Adv. Pro. 22-5013；Meng v. Kwok（孟诉郭案），Adv. Pro. 22-5014；Nunberg v. Kwok（农伯格诉郭案），Adv. Pro. 22-5017 以及 Zhang v. Kwok（张诉郭案），Adv. Pro. 22-5018，且鉴于已显示充分正当理由，本法院特此，\n\n裁定，动议予以准予（GRANTED），上述对抗性诉讼特此中止至2022年10月21日，与其相关的所有相关期限亦延长至该日；并进一步\n\n裁定，本裁定应登载于上述标题所示之第11章案件以及各对抗性诉讼案件之中。","key_entities":["Kwok","Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","Ho Wan Kwok","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":9,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":523,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2249,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:19:17"}