{"id":"court_ctb_836_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":836,"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:\n\n:\n\n:\n\nIn re : Chapter 11\n\nDebtor. : \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nHO WON KWOK, : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n## **DEBTOR'S SUMMARY OF DISPUTED ISSUES REGARDING PROPOSED ORDERS REGARDING CONTROL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION**\n\nThe debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., hereby submits the following summary of disputed issues regarding the parties' proposed orders regarding control of the Debtor's attorney-client and work-product privileges:\n\n1) Paragraphs two and three of the Debtor's and Trustee's proposed orders both identify the general scope of the attorney-client and work product privilege that they propose, respectively, transferred to the Trustee upon his appointment. The Trustee has proposed what amounts to a blanket waiver of privilege with respect to certain broad categories of documents, *i.e.,* all documents or information concerning potential assets owned by the Debtor or various third parties, the Debtor's financial condition and/or administration of the Debtor's estate. These topics, absent limitations, are far broader than necessary to facilitate the Trustee's administration of the Debtor's estate.\n\nThe Debtorsubmits that transferring all of the Debtor's privileges to the Trustee concerning these broad categories, absent any consideration, whatsoever, of the potential harm to the Debtor from so doing, fails to consider or acknowledge the \"balancing test\" required by virtually all of the authority that permits a bankruptcy trustee of an individual debtor's estate to control any (as opposed to none) of the debtor's attorney-client or work product privileges.\n\nThe Debtor has proposed i) a narrower scope of the privilege to be transferred to the Trustee, and ii) less onerous limitations on the Debtor's and unspecified third party \"examinees[']\" right to withhold documents based on privilege. The Debtor submits that the test he proposes balances his interests with the Trustee's interests by allowing the Trustee access to sufficient information to identify the estate's assets and liabilities, and matters that are necessary to the administration of the Debtor's estate, while preserving the Debtor's right to keep confidential his communications with counsel that go beyond what is necessary for the Trustee to achieve these purposes.\n\nThe Debtor also objects to the overbroad language in paragraph two of the Trustee's proposed order which seeks to transfer to the Trustee \"any related privilege or protection,\" under \"any applicable law\" and \"any common interest or joint defense privilege alleged to be held with other parties.\" The Debtor does not believe that the Court should enter an order transferring unspecified privileges to the Trustee in a manner that purports to impact the rights of unspecified third parties, or that purports to impact foreign proceedings and the rights of parties, including professionals, who are subject to the laws of foreign jurisdictions.\n\n2) The Debtor hereby withdraws its objection to the Trustee's proposed order to the extent the Debtor's proposed order sought to limit the application of the Court's order to \"Documents.\" The Debtor consents to language in an order granting the Trustee's Motion, in part, referring to \"documents, information and communications.\"\n\n3) The Trustee purports to agree in paragraph four of his proposed order that the Debtor retains his attorney-client privileged communications concerning his asylum application,\n\n2\n\nbut paragraph four purports to transfer to the Trustee the Debtor's privilege \"related to the litigation styled as *Guo Wengui v. Clark Hill PLC,* Case No. 19-cv-03195 (D.D.C.). These positions are irreconcilable.\n\nThe Debtor retained Clark Hill PLC to file a highly sensitive asylum application for the Debtor and his family. The CCP hacked Clark Hill, targeted and extracted the Debtor's asylum application and published it online. Clark Hill withdrew from representing the Debtor after the CCP threatened to harm the firm if it did not.\n\nThe Debtor proposes that the Court limit the Trustee's access to the Debtor's privileged information concerning his litigation with Clark Hill to that necessary to assess the merits of the Debtor's malpractice action against Clark Hill, which can be obtained from the firm engaged by the Debtor to assert those claims—not Clark Hill. The Debtor respectfully submits that allowing the Trustee access to the Debtor's privileged information held by Clark Hill would provide a back door to all privileged information concerning the Debtor's highly sensitive asylum application.\n\n4) The Debtor objects to the portion of paragraph four and all of paragraph five of the Trustee's proposed order that would require the Debtor to provide the Trustee with information concerning issues that implicate the Debtor's right to a discharge. At least until or unless the Trustee agrees to waive his right to challenge the Debtor's right to a discharge or to propose a plan that does not allow the Debtor a discharge, the Trustee and the Debtor are directly adverse to each other with respect to issues that concern dischargeability. Although the Trustee's proposed language would preclude the Trustee from sharing the Debtor's privileged communications concerning matters that implicate dischargeability with plaintiffs in adversary proceedings brought by third parties, the Trustee's proposed language would not prevent the Trustee from using the Debtor's privileged information against him or sharing the Debtor's privileged information with\n\nother third parties. Further, whether a particular liability is or is not dischargeable does not impact the Debtor's estate, since the sole purpose of denying the Debtor a discharge is to allow creditors to recover claims against the Debtor from sources *other than the Debtor's estate*.\n\n5) The Debtor objects to paragraph six of the Trustee's proposed order because it purports to compel the production of all privileged communications between Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey created after the Petition Date, without regard to subject matter or consideration of potential harm to the Debtor. The blanket disclosure required by paragraph six of the Trustee's proposed order fails to recognize or apply any sort of balancing test, which the majority of cases require. Moreover, the cases found by the Debtor's counsel that did not apply a case specific balancing test either (i) *per se* allowed an individual debtor to retain his attorneyclient and work product privileges or (ii) pertained only to a narrower sub-set of the debtor's privileged information, such as a particular pre-petition action.\n\n6) The Trustee objects to the inclusion of paragraph 8 in the Debtor's proposed order, which proposes removing the action styled *Kwok v. UBS AG* pending in the United Kingdom and other foreign proceedings from the scope of the Court's order. The UBS action is the subject of a related order that is currently on appeal. In addition, the Debtor does not believe the Court should purport to determine privilege issues concerning pending litigation in foreign jurisdictions that are subject to the laws of foreign countries.\n\n7) The Trustee appears to object to the language proposed in paragraph ten of the Debtor's proposed order that makes clear the Court's order should not be construed as a waiver by the Debtor of any privilege or protection. If the Court determines that the Trustee owns a particular privilege that the Debtor previously held, then the Debtor has nothing to waive with respect to those privileges. There is a substantive difference between a \"waiver\" by the Debtor and a judicial\n\n4\n\ndetermination that a particular privilege on a particular issue transferred to the Trustee by operation of law.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 7 th day of September, 2022.\n\n## **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Aaron A. Romney, Esq.* Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email[:aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 7th day of September, 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 ofElectronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ Aaron A. Romney* Aaron A. Romney, Esq.","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案件：第11章\n\n债务人。：________________________________________：\n\n________________________________________\n\nHO WON KWOK（郭浩云），：案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人关于律师与委托人保密特权及工作成果保护控制权拟议裁定争议问题的总结\n\n债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）通过其下述署名律师Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.，特此就各方关于债务人律师与委托人保密特权及工作成果特权控制权的拟议裁定提交以下争议问题总结：\n\n1) 债务人与受托人拟议裁定的第二段和第三段均指明了其分别提议在受托人获任命后移交给受托人的律师与委托人特权及工作成果特权的一般范围。受托人提议的内容相当于对某些大类文件进行一揽子特权放弃，即涉及债务人或各第三方拥有的潜在资产、债务人的财务状况和/或债务人破产财产管理的全部文件或信息。在没有任何限制的情况下，这些主题的范围远远超出了为便利受托人管理债务人破产财产所必需的范围。\n\n债务人主张，在完全不考虑因此对债务人可能造成任何损害的情况下，将有关这些大类的所有债务人特权移交给受托人，未能考虑或承认几乎所有允许个人债务人破产财产的破产受托人控制该债务人的任何（而非完全不控制）律师与委托人特权或工作成果特权的先例判例所要求的“平衡测试”。\n\n债务人已提议：i) 移交给受托人的特权范围更窄，以及 ii) 对债务人和未指明的第三方“被询问人”基于特权扣留文件的权利施加更宽松的限制。债务人主张，其提议的测试平衡了其自身利益与受托人的利益，其方式是允许受托人获取足以查明破产财产资产与负债以及管理债务人破产财产所必需事项的信息，同时保留债务人对其与律师之间超出受托人实现这些目的所必需范围的通信予以保密的权利。\n\n债务人还反对受托人拟议裁定第二段中过宽的措辞，该段试图向受托人移交“任何适用法律”下的“任何相关特权或保护”，以及“声称与其他方共同持有的任何共同利益或共同抗辩特权”。债务人认为，法院不应以意图影响未指明第三方权利的方式，或意图影响外国程序以及受外国管辖区法律管辖的当事方（包括专业人士）权利的方式，作出向受托人移交未指明特权的裁定。\n\n2) 债务人特此撤回对受托人拟议裁定的异议，该异议涉及债务人拟议裁定曾试图将法院裁定的适用范围限于“文件”。债务人同意在部分准许受托人动议的裁定中使用提及“文件、信息和通信”的措辞。\n\n3) 受托人在其拟议裁定第四段中声称同意债务人保留其有关庇护申请的律师与委托人保密特权通信，但第四段又声称向受托人移交债务人“与案号为 19-cv-03195 (D.D.C.)、案由为 Guo Wengui v. Clark Hill PLC（郭文贵诉克拉克·希尔有限责任合伙）的诉讼相关的”特权。这些立场是不可调和的。\n\n债务人聘请了Clark Hill PLC（克拉克·希尔有限责任合伙）为其本人及家人提交高度敏感的庇护申请。中共黑客入侵了克拉克·希尔，针对性地提取了债务人的庇护申请并在网上公布。在中共威胁若不退出就将对该所不利后，克拉克·希尔退出了对债务人的代理。\n\n债务人提议，法院应将受托人获取债务人有关其与克拉克·希尔诉讼的特权信息的权限，限制在评估债务人针对克拉克·希尔的执业过错诉讼的是非曲直所必需的范围内，且该信息可从债务人聘请用于提出这些主张的律师事务所处获取——而非从克拉克·希尔处获取。债务人谨提请注意，允许受托人获取克拉克·希尔持有的债务人特权信息，将为获取有关债务人高度敏感庇护申请的所有特权信息提供后门。\n\n4) 债务人反对受托人拟议裁定第四段的部分内容及第五段的全部内容，该等内容将要求债务人向受托人提供有关涉及债务人免责权问题的信息。至少在受托人同意放弃其质疑债务人免责权或提出不给予债务人免责的方案的权利之前或除非其同意这样做，受托人与债务人在涉及可免责性的问题上存在直接的利益对立。尽管受托人拟议的措辞将阻止受托人与第三方提起的主争议程序中的原告分享债务人关于涉及可免责性事项的特权通信，但受托人拟议的措辞并不能阻止受托人利用债务人的特权信息对付债务人，或与\n\n其他第三方分享债务人的特权信息。此外，某项特定债务是否可予免责并不影响债务人的破产财产，因为拒绝给予债务人免责的唯一目的，是允许债权人从债务人破产财产以外的来源向债务人追讨债权。\n\n5) 债务人反对受托人拟议裁定的第六段，因为其意图强令提供Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）与Verdolino & Lowey之间在申请日之后产生的所有特权通信，而不考虑其标的实质，亦不考虑对债务人的潜在损害。受托人拟议裁定第六段所要求的一揽子披露未能承认或适用大多数先例所要求的任何形式的平衡测试。此外，债务人律师查找到的未适用特定案件平衡测试的先例，要么 (i) 本身就允许个人债务人保留其律师与委托人特权及工作成果特权，要么 (ii) 仅涉及债务人特权信息中较窄的子集，例如某一特定的申请前诉讼。\n\n6) 受托人反对在债务人的拟议裁定中纳入第8段，该段提议将案由为 Kwok v. UBS AG（郭诉瑞银集团）且正在英国审理的诉讼及其他外国程序排除在法院裁定的范围之外。该瑞银诉讼是一项目前正在上诉的相关裁定的标的。此外，债务人认为法院不应意图裁决受外国法律管辖的外国管辖区未决诉讼的相关特权问题。\n\n7) 受托人似乎反对债务人拟议裁定第十段中提议的措辞，该措辞明确法院的裁定不应被解释为债务人放弃任何特权或保护。如果法院认定受托人拥有债务人此前持有的某项特定特权，则债务人就该等特权而言已无特权可弃。债务人的“放弃”与通过法律实施而将特定问题上的特定特权转移给受托人的司法\n\n裁定之间存在实质性区别。\n\n日期：2022年9月7日，于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n债务人，HO WAN KWOK（郭浩云）\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Romney, Esq.\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5487\n电子邮件：aromney@zeislaw.com\n\n送达证书\n\n我谨此证明，于2022年9月7日，上述文书的副本已通过电子方式归档。本归档通知将通过法院电子归档系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事方，或通过邮寄方式发送给电子归档通知上指明的无法接受电子归档的任何人。各当事方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次归档内容。\n\n> /s/ Aaron A. Romney\nAaron A. Romney, Esq.","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","Guo"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1334,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:51:32"}