{"id":"court_ctb_835_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":835,"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: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor. | :
:
: | |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x | |\n\n## **SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF TRUSTEE REGARDING MOTION FOR ORDER (A) PROVIDING THAT CONTROL OF ANY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION, AND OTHER PRIVILEGES RELATED TO RULE 2004 SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS PASSED TO TRUSTEE UPON APPOINTMENT, (B) DIRECTING THAT DEBTOR AND OTHER EXAMINEES NOT WITHHOLD DOCUMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PRIVILEGES, AND (C) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF**\n\nPursuant to the Court's instructions during the hearing on September 6, 2022 (the \"Hearing\"), Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby files this supplemental submission in support of his motion [ECF No. 777] (the \"Motion\") for an order (a) confirming that the Trustee owns and controls the attorney-client privilege, work product protection and other privileges on issues related to the Debtor's assets and financial affairs and the administration of his estate, (b) directing that the Discovery Recipients not withhold documents from the Trustee on account of any such privileges in responding to the Rule 2004 Subpoenas,1 or attempt to assert any such privileges that are properly owned by the Trustee and (c) granting related relief.\n\n1 Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings given to them in the Motion.\n\nOn September 6, 2022, the Trustee submitted a revised proposed order [ECF 823] (the\n\n\"Trustee Proposed Order\") on the Motion, and the Debtor submitted a competing revised\n\nproposed order [ECF 824] (the \"Debtor Proposed Order\"). As explained during the Hearing, the\n\nTrustee objects to entry of the Debtor Proposed Order and requests the Court enter the Trustee\n\nProposed Order. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an annotated copy of a blackline comparing the\n\nDebtor Proposed Order to the Trustee Proposed Order. Specifically, *the blackline shows the*\n\n*additions and deletions the Trustee proposes to make to the Debtor's proposed order*. The\n\nannotations in Exhibit A explain why such changes are necessary.\n\n| Dated: | September 7, 2022 | LUC A. DESPINS, |\n|--------|------------------------|--------------------|\n| | 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* pending) 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* pending) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice* pending) 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## **Exhibit A**\n\n| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | |\n|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | |\n| In re: | Chapter 11 | |\n| HO WAN KWOK. | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n| Debtor. | | |\n| | | |\n| | REALS OF ROPOSED ORDER REGARDING CONTROL OF ATTORNEY OF LEAT
PRIVILEGE, WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION, AND OTHER PRIVILLEGES
RELATED TO RULE 2004 SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS AND
INFORMATION | |\n| | Upon the motion (the \"Motion\") of Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 | |\n| | trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor'), for the | |\n| | entry of an order (this \"Order\"), pursuant to sections 323, 521, 541, and 1108 of title 11 of the | |\n| | United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy | |\n| | Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), and the Court's orders granting the Trustee's motions for | |\n| | examination pursuant to Rule 2004, (a) confirming that the Trustee owns and controls the | |\n| | attorney-client privilege, work protection and other privileges on issues related to the | |\n| | Debtor's assets and financial affairs and the administration of his estate, (b) directing that the | |\n| | Discovery Recipients not withhold Documents from the Trustee on account of any | |\n| | such privileges in responding to the Rule 2004 Subpoenas, 2 or attempt to assert any such | |\n| | privileges that are properly owned by the Trustee and (c) granting related relief, all as more fully | |\n| | set forth in the Motion; and this Court having jurisdiction to consider the Motion and the relief | |\n| | requested therein in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the Standing Order of | |\n| | 4 Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings given to them in the Motion. | |\n| | | |\n\nThe order should apply to both documents *and* information (including deposition testimony) obtained in discovery. [Note: This change to the title does not appear in the order the Trustee submitted at ECF 823. The change has been made for purposes of this illustration for clarity, and it should be included in the final order entered by the Court.]\n\nGlobal change: the word \"document\" should not be capitalized because it is not defined in the Motion. This order will broadly apply to all documents (as that term is interpreted and defined by applicable discovery rules) and all other information of any kind produced in discovery.\n\nControl of *all* types of privileges described in this paragraph has passed to Trustee, including common interest/joint defense.\n\nSame comment: privileges of all types arising under applicable law pass to the Trustee.\n\nDebtor cannot be allowed to decide what Documents or information are \"necessary\" to identify potential estate assets. This order addresses only control of privileges and not permissible scope of Trustee's investigation under Rule 2004. Trustee has broad discretion in how to conduct his investigation.\n\nTrustee must be permitted to investigate and control privileges with respect to both *actual and potential* causes of action, and against *any* parties (not merely \"third parties\").\n\nTrustee is entitled to investigate whether assets purportedly in the hands of others could be brought into the estate. With respect to any privileges asserted as to this subject matter, either (i) the privileges are invalid/do not exist because Debtor cannot logically hold privileges related to *other parties'* purported assets, or (ii) control of such privileges passes to Trustee.\n\nDebtor cannot be allowed to decide what Documents or information are \"necessary\" to investigate his liabilities and financial condition.\n\n\n\nThe word \"solely\" is too limiting. The fact that documents or information may relate to *both* the administration of the estate and other topics does not restrict passage of privilege.\n\nDebtor has not contested that Trustee has control of all privileges related to post-petition administration of estate, which includes preparation of Debtor's declaration.\n\nThe words \"Rule 2004\" before \"examinee\" are too limiting; Trustee has control of privileges in all aspects of this case.\n\nOrder applies to documents *and* information.\n\nThe word \"solely\" incorrectly suggests that Debtor may partially assert one or more Trustee Privileges.\n\nDebtor, not his counsel, holds and is entitled to assert privileges. Therefore, \"or his counsel\" should be stricken.\n\nDebtor has not identified any criminal allegations related to Investigation Topics covered by Trustee Privileges (e.g., assets, financial condition or estate administration) and is therefore only entitled to withhold documents \"unrelated\" to such topics.\n\nDebtor is not entitled to determine what is \"necessary\" for Trustee to assess claims of Debtor against Clark Hill law firm in *Clark Hill* litigation, which is an asset of estate.\n\nCarve-out for materials related to dischargeability is unnecessary in light of ¶ 5 of the Trustee's Proposed Order. Trustee must be allowed to investigate claims against estate.\n\nRule 2004 Subpoenas should be incorporated by reference.\n\nThis paragraph addresses Debtor's concerns regarding discovery related to non-dischargeability actions by providing that Trustee will keep materials obtained in discovery confidential and not share them with plaintiffs to such actions. Moreover, Debtor has taken the position (and Trustee does not disagree) that Trustee has no ability to participate in the pending non-dischargeability actions because § 1106(a)(1) of Bankruptcy Code does not incorporate § 704(a)(6).\n\nThe law is clear that Trustee has control over post-petition privileges between Debtor and his advisors, Brown Rudnick and Verdolino, who represented Mr. Kwok as a debtor-inpossession with fiduciary duties to the estate. As estate retained professionals, neither Brown Rudnick nor Verdolino could have represented Mr. Kwok personally on any matters.\n\nThe words \"Rule 2004\" are too limiting because no examinee should be entitled to interfere with this order.\n\n[Note: It is important that order be immediately effective and enforceable. This paragraph has not been deleted but rather has been moved to the next page in the Debtor Proposed Order. Debtor does not take issue with this provision.]\n\nTrustee does not believe it is necessary to specifically address the UBS litigation in this order; however, if Court disagrees, Trustee has no issue including a provision stating that privileges at issue in the UBS litigation are subject to the Court's separate order concerning corporate governance rights, which has been appealed by Debtor.\n\n\n\nThe language \"in any other litigations outside of the United States that are governed by foreign law\" should be stricken. Other than the UBS litigation, this order applies to all privileges, both foreign and domestic. Trustee's control of privileges is not limited to domestic privileges.\n\nOrder applies to both documents *and* information.\n\nThis line should be included to ensure order is enforceable by Trustee. Trustee has no issue with language stating that nothing in this order will result in a waiver of a privilege by Debtor; however, once Trustee controls privileges, Trustee (and only Trustee) is entitled to waive such privileges.\n\nDebtor's proposed addition of paragraph 11 concerning other parties' rights under common interest or joint defense privileges is unnecessary. However, Trustee agrees that this order does not impact the privilege rights of parties other than the Debtor. Trustee reserves all rights with respect to any such privileges that may be asserted.","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\n------------------------------------------------------ x\n\n关于：\n第 11 章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\n------------------------------------------------------ x\n\n受托人关于请求作出如下裁定的动议的补充意见书：(A) 规定与依《第 2004 条规则》发出传票所调取文件相关的任何律师-委托人保密特权、工作成果保护及其他特权的控制权在受托人获任命后即转移给受托人，(B) 责令债务人及其他受检人员不得基于此类特权扣留文件，以及 (C) 给予相关救济\n\n根据法院在 2022年9月6日 听证会（下称“听证会”）期间作出的指示，Luc A. Despins（下称“受托人”，以其在 Ho Wan Kwok（债务人）第 11 章案件中获任命的第 11 章受托人的身份）特此提交本补充意见书，以支持其关于请求作出如下裁定的动议 [ECF No. 777]（下称“动议”）：(a) 确认受托人对与债务人财产及财务事务以及其破产财产管理相关问题上的律师-委托人保密特权、工作成果保护及其他特权拥有所有权与控制权，(b) 责令取证接收方在回应《第 2004 条规则》传票1 时，不得基于任何此类特权向受托人扣留文件，亦不得企图主张正当归受托人所有的任何此类特权，以及 (c) 给予相关救济。\n\n1 本文中未作定义的首字母大写术语，具有动议中赋予它们的涵义。\n\n2022年9月6日，受托人就动议提交了一份经修改的拟议裁定 [ECF 823]（下称“受托人拟议裁定”），而债务人提交了一份竞争性的经修改拟议裁定 [ECF 824]（下称“债务人拟议裁定”）。正如在听证会期间所解释的，受托人反对签署债务人拟议裁定，并请求法院签署受托人拟议裁定。作为附件 A 附于本意见书之后的是一份带有批注的对比划线稿副本，对债务人拟议裁定与受托人拟议裁定进行了比较。具体而言，该划线稿显示了受托人提议对债务人拟议裁定所作出的增删修改。附件 A 中的批注解释了为何作出此类修改是必要的。\n\n日期：2022年9月7日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\nLuc A. Despins，第 11 章受托人\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\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及\nNicholas A. Bassett（特许出庭代理申请待决）\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及\nAvram E. Luft（特许出庭代理申请待决）\nDouglass Barron（特许出庭代理申请待决）\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n第 11 章受托人之法律顾问\n\n附件 A\n\n美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：第 11 章\nHo Wan Kwok 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\n关于与依据《第 2004 条规则》传票调取的文件及信息相关的律师-委托人保密特权、工作成果保护及其他特权控制权的经修改拟议裁定\n\n鉴于 Luc A. Despins 先生（以其在 Ho Wan Kwok（债务人）第 11 章案件中获任命的第 11 章受托人（下称“受托人”）的身份）提出动议（下称“动议”），根据《美国法典》第 11 编（下称“《破产法典》”）第 323、521、541 及 1108 条、《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》（下称“《破产规则》”）第 2004 条规则以及本法院批准受托人根据《第 2004 条规则》进行调查之动议的各项裁定，请求签署一项裁定（下称“本裁定”）：(a) 确认受托人对与债务人的财产及财务事务以及其破产财产管理相关问题上的律师-委托人保密特权、工作保护及其他特权拥有所有权与控制权，(b) 责令取证接收方在回应《第 2004 条规则》传票2 时，不得基于任何此类特权向受托人扣留文件，亦不得企图主张正当归受托人所有的任何此类特权，以及 (c) 给予相关救济，所有具体内容详见动议；且本法院根据《美国法典》第 28 编第 157 及 1334 条以及现行命令具有审议本动议及其中所请求救济的管辖权……\n\n4 本文中未作定义的首字母大写术语，具有动议中赋予它们的涵义。\n\n本裁定应同时适用于在证据开示中获取的文件和信息（包括庭外采证证词）。[注：对标题的此项修改并未出现在受托人于 ECF 823 提交的裁定中。为了说明清晰起见作出了此项修改，且其应包含在法院最终签署的裁定中。]\n\n全局修改：“document”（文件）一词不应首字母大写，因为其在动议中未作定义。本裁定将广泛适用于所有文件（依适用证据开示规则对该词的解释和定义）以及在证据开示中提供的任何种类的所有其他信息。\n\n本段所描述的所有类型特权（包括共同利益/联合辩护特权）的控制权均已转移给受托人。\n\n同前述意见：根据适用法律产生的所有类型的特权均转移给受托人。\n\n不能允许债务人决定哪些文件或信息对于识别潜在破产财产是“必要的”。本裁定仅涉及特权的控制权，而不涉及受托人依据《第 2004 条规则》所进行调查的获准范围。受托人在如何开展其调查方面拥有广泛的自由裁量权。\n\n必须允许受托人就实际和潜在的诉由针对任何当事方（而不仅是“第三方”）进行调查并控制相关特权。\n\n受托人有权调查据称在他人手中的资产是否可以并入破产财产。对于就该事项主张的任何特权，要么 (i) 该等特权无效/不存在，因为债务人在逻辑上不可能持有与他人据称财产相关的特权，要么 (ii) 该等特权的控制权转移给受托人。\n\n不能允许债务人决定哪些文件或信息对于调查其债务和财务状况是“必要的”。\n\n“solely”（仅仅/唯独）一词限制过甚。文件或信息可能既与破产财产管理相关又与其他主题相关的事实，并不限制特权的转移。\n\n债务人未对受托人控制与申请提出后的破产财产管理（包括债务人声明书的准备）相关的所有特权提出异议。\n\n“examinee”（受检人）之前的“Rule 2004”（《第 2004 条规则》）字样限制过甚；受托人在本案所有方面均享有特权控制权。\n\n裁定适用于文件和信息。\n\n“solely”（仅仅/唯独）一词错误地暗示债务人可以部分主张一项或多项受托人特权。\n\n特权由债务人持有并有权主张，而非其律师。因此，“or his counsel”（或其律师）应予以删除。\n\n债务人未指明与受托人特权所涵盖的调查主题（例如财产、财务状况或破产财产管理）相关的任何刑事指控，因此仅有权扣留与此类主题“无关”的文件。\n\n债务人无权决定哪些内容对于受托人评估债务人在 Clark Hill（克拉克希尔）诉讼中对 Clark Hill 律师事务所的主张（该主张属于破产财产的资产）是“必要的”。\n\n鉴于受托人拟议裁定第 5 段的内容，对与免责资格相关材料的排除条款是不必要的。必须允许受托人调查针对破产财产的索赔。\n\n《第 2004 条规则》传票应通过引用并入。\n\n本段通过规定受托人将对证据开示中获取的材料保密且不与此类诉讼的原告分享，解决了债务人对与不可免责诉讼相关的证据开示的担忧。此外，债务人主张（受托人对此无异议）受托人无法参与未决的不可免责诉讼，因为《破产法典》第 1106(a)(1) 条并未并入第 704(a)(6) 条。\n\n法律明确规定，受托人对债务人与其顾问 Brown Rudnick 以及 Verdolino 之间在提出申请后的特权拥有控制权，后两者代表对破产财产负有信义义务的占有中债务人 Kwok 先生。作为破产财产聘请的专业人员，Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 均不可能在任何事项上代表 Kwok 先生个人。\n\n“Rule 2004”（《第 2004 条规则》）字样限制过甚，因为任何受检人均无权干预本裁定。\n\n[注：本裁定必须立即生效并具有执行力。本段并未被删除，而是被移至债务人拟议裁定的下一页。债务人对此规定无异议。]\n\n受托人认为无须在本裁定中专门处理 UBS（瑞银）诉讼；但是，如果法院不认同，受托人对于加入一项条款并无异议，即规定 UBS 诉讼中涉及的特权受法院关于公司治理权力的单独裁定约束（债务人已就该裁定提起上诉）。\n\n“in any other litigations outside of the United States that are governed by foreign law”（在受外国法管辖的美国境外任何其他诉讼中）这一表述应予删除。除 UBS 诉讼外，本裁定适用于所有特权，无论是境外的还是境内的。受托人对特权的控制权并不局限于境内特权。\n\n裁定同时适用于文件和信息。\n\n应包含此行，以确保本裁定可由受托人执行。受托人对于声明本裁定中的任何内容均不会导致债务人放弃特权的表述没有异议；但是，一旦受托人控制了特权，受托人（且仅受托人）有权放弃此类特权。\n\n债务人提议增加关于其他当事方在共同利益或联合辩护特权下的权利的第 11 段是不必要的。但是，受托人同意本裁定不影响债务人以外当事方的特权权利。受托人对可能被主张的任何此类特权保留一切权利。","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":777,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":823,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":824,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1690,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:10:06"}