{"id":"court_ctb_900_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":900,"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>:<br>Chapter 11                   |  |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                     | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)<br>: |  |  |  |\n| Debtor.1                                                         | :<br>:                                 |  |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x                                      |  |  |  |\n\n# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 9006(c)(1), TO EXPEDITE HEARING ON MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS AND ENFORCING CONSENT ORDER REGARDING CONTROL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION RELATED TO RULE 2004 SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION**\n\nChapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins (the \"Trustee\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 9006(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), hereby moves (the \"Motion to Expedite\") this Court for an order scheduling an expedited hearing to consider and determine the *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Authorizing Compliance With Rule 2004 Subpoenas and Enforcing Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents And Information* [Docket No. 898] (the \"Enforcement Motion\"). In support of this Motion to Expedite, Movants respectfully state as follows:\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\n#### **JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STATUTORY 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). The Enforcement Motion, including this Motion to Expedite with respect thereto, 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 the relief sought by this Motion to Expedite is Bankruptcy Rule 9006(c)(1).\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 (\"Committee\") in the Debtor's chapter 11 case (the \"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] (the \"Trustee Order\") 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.\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] (the \"Appointment Order\").\n\n2\n\n8. On July 28, 2022 the Trustee filed motions for Rule 2004 discovery as to the Debtor, certain of the Debtor's professionals, and certain persons and entities related to the Debtor (the \"Initial 2004 Motions\").<sup>2</sup>\n\n9. On August 16, 2022, the Court entered orders granting the Initial 2004 Motions (the \"Initial 2004 Orders\").<sup>3</sup>\n\n10. On August 17, 2022 the Trustee served Brown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\") and Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. (\"Verdolino\") with subpoenas (the \"Rule 2004 Subpoenas\") pursuant to the Court's order granting the Trustee's motion to conduct a Rule 2004 investigation of certain of the Debtor's current and former advisors, including Brown Rudnick and Verdolino. Pursuant to the Rule 2004 Subpoenas and the Court's *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Rule 2004 Discovery with Respect to Various Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor* [ECF No. 756], Brown Rudnick and Verdolino were directed to produce all responsive documents to the Trustee by September 16, 2022 (the \"Production Deadline\").\n\n11. On September 14, 2022, the Court entered the consensually negotiated and agreed upon *Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information* [ECF No. 856] (the \"Privilege Order\"), the purpose of which was to expedite the investigation process by clearly setting out which privileged documents were under the control of the Trustee and which may remain controlled by the Debtor.\n\n12. Based on discussions with Brown Rudnick, the Trustee understands that following entry of the Court's order authorizing Rule 2004 examinations of, among others, Brown Rudnick and Verdolino, (*see* [ECF No. 756]) (entered Aug. 16, 2022) and continuing until September 28,\n\n<sup>2</sup> *See* [ECF No. 636] (Debtor); [ECF No. 637] (Advisors); [ECF No. 638] (Related Entities and Individuals).\n\n<sup>3</sup> *See* [ECF Nos. 756, 757, 758].\n\n2022, Brown Rudnick, on behalf of itself and Verdolino, engaged in numerous discussions with Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., current counsel to the Debtor in the chapter 11 case (the \"Debtor's Counsel\"), regarding its ability to produce responsive post-petition privileged documents to the Trustee. Despite their best efforts to diligently comply with the Rule 2004 Subpoenas, and the Privilege Order's clear direction that all post-petition privileged documents in the custody and possession of Brown Rudnick and Verdolino are presumed to be under the control of the Trustee, Brown Rudnick and Verdolino have been unable to produce to the Trustee a single responsive, post-petition, privileged document to date. The Debtor has prevented Brown Rudnick and Verdolino from making any production by taking unreasonable and improper positions in violation of the Privilege Order.\n\n# **ENFORCEMENT MOTION**<sup>4</sup>\n\n13. By the Enforcement Motion, the Trustee asks the Court to enforce the Privilege Order and authorize Brown Rudnick and Verdolino to immediately produce all responsive documents in their possession to the Trustee. The Privilege Order provides that the Trustee presumptively has exclusive control over all post-petition documents and files in the possession or control of Brown Rudnick and Verdolino in connection with their representation of the Debtor in this case. (*See* Privilege Order, ¶ 6). Pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Privilege Order,\n\n> to the extent the Debtor believes in good faith that particular documents or information . . . could result in personal harm to the Debtor if disclosed to the Trustee, then (i) the Debtor's counsel [i.e., Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.] shall, within 10 days of the applicable production deadline . . . log all such documents . . . and/or identify all such non-documentary information in a manner necessary to support the claim of privilege including with sufficient information to prima facie identify the basis for asserting the potential for personal harm[, however,] . . . that the disclosure of documents or information in question could result in the Trustee identifying\n\n<sup>4</sup> The following summary of the relief sought in the Enforcement Motion is qualified in its entirety by the Enforcement Motion.\n\npotential assets of the estate, or could constitute evidence relating to the ownership or control of assets by the Debtor, shall not constitute \"personal harm to the Debtor\" sufficient to withhold documents or information pursuant to [paragraph 7], regardless of any position or opinion of the Debtor regarding the ownership or control of such assets.\n\n14. The Privilege Order therefore establishes a presumption that certain Rule 2004 subpoenaed documents in the possession of Brown Rudnick and Verdolino are under the Trustee's control, and to the extent the Debtor seeks to withhold a document from the Trustee as privileged, any such privilege: (i) may only be asserted based on purported personal harm to the Debtor that is unrelated to (a) the identification of potential Estate assets or (b) evidence concerning the Debtor's potential ownership or control of various assets (\"Personal Harm Documents\"), and (ii) must be asserted by the Debtor within 10 days of the applicable Production Deadline by causing the documents to be placed on a privilege log (the \"Privilege Log Deadline\"). (*Id.*, ¶¶ 6, 7).\n\n15. For weeks the Trustee and Brown Rudnick (for itself and on behalf of Verdolino) have sought a timely resolution of the Debtor's purported concerns regarding the handling of Personal Harm Documents, notwithstanding the absence of any stated basis from the Debtor to conclude that any such documents may exist or be in the possession of Brown Rudnick and/or Verdolino. Given the impasse and the prejudicial delay to the Trustee's investigation it is causing, the Trustee proposed to the Debtor (the \"Trustee Proposal\") that Brown Rudnick and Verdolino produce responsive post-petition privileged documents to the Trustee and that, in the unlikely event that any Personal Harm Document existed, the Debtor could exercise his right to claw back the document as having been inadvertently produced pursuant to Federal Rule 26. The Debtor rejected the Trustee Proposal.\n\n16. The Production Deadline and Privilege Log Deadline have passed, and the Debtor now insists that prior to any production to the Trustee, Debtor's Counsel must review each post-\n\n5\n\npetition, privileged document in the possession of Brown Rudnick and Verdolino, despite the Debtor's continued inability to articulate why any Personal Harm Document might exist.\n\n17. The Trustee Proposal, as set forth in the Proposed Order (as defined in the Enforcement Motion and annexed thereto), provides a means for all parties, including the Debtor, to comply with the Privilege Order without waiving any right or suffering any prejudice and will ensure that the Trustee's investigation not be further disrupted by the Debtor's unreasonable positions and obstructionist tactics. Accordingly, the Court can and should order that: (i) Brown Rudnick and Verdolino are authorized to immediately produce all privileged documents to the Trustee pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Privilege Order; (ii) if the Debtor believes any such document is a Personal Harm Document, the production of such Personal Harm Document will be treated as inadvertent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B); and, (iii) such Personal Harm Document may be clawed backed by the Debtor and logged in a privilege log, upon which either the Trustee or Debtor may avail itself of its right to request adjudication of any dispute concerning the claim of privilege as set forth more fully in paragraph 7 of the Privilege Order.\n\n#### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n18. Bankruptcy Rule 9006(c)(1) provides that the Court may reduce the notice period when requested by motion upon cause shown. Cause exists to consider and determine the Enforcement Motion upon an expedited basis.\n\n19. The Trustee submits that the ongoing delay in receiving the Rule 2004 subpoenaed documents from Brown Rudnick and Verdolino, when the Debtor has had notice of this issue for weeks, is prejudicial to the Trustee and the Estate given the attendant delay in the Trustee's investigation the Debtor's conduct is causing. The prejudice to the Trustee based on the delay to his investigation alone establishes cause to hear the Enforcement Motion on shortened notice. The\n\n6\n\nProposed Order also ensures enforcement of the Privilege Order, allows Brown Rudnick and Verdolino to comply with their obligations under the Rule 2004 Subpoenas, and causes no harm to any parties in interest, including the Debtor. In fact, and consistent with the Privilege Order, the Proposed Order provides claw back protections to the Debtor under Federal Rule 26, notwithstanding his failure to identify any good faith basis to conclude the a single Personal Harm Document exists.\n\n20. As detailed in the Enforcement Motion, it is paramount that the Trustee obtain, as soon as possible, documents and communications from Brown Rudnick and Verdolino in order to preserve and recover assets for the benefit of the Estate. These privilege and Personal Harm Document issues have been well known to the Debtor, and the Court should not countenance further delay that prejudices the Trustee's investigation, to the detriment of the Estate. Furthermore, there is no prejudice to parties in interest by expediting consideration of the Enforcement Motion. The Debtor will be afforded the protections of Federal Rule 26 under the Proposed Order, and authorizing the production of the Rule 2004 subpoenaed documents will materially benefit the Trustee's investigation.\n\nWHEREFORE, the Trustee requests that the Court issue an Order, substantially in the form attached hereto, setting a hearing on the Enforcement Motion on October 4, 2022, at 12:00 p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time), ordering notice of such hearing as set forth in the attached Order, and ordering such other and further relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: September 30, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *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 (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@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| HO WAN KWOK,                                                     | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073<br>(JAM) |  |  |\n| Debtor.                                                          | :<br>: |                            |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | :<br>x |                            |  |  |\n\n#### **ORDER SCHEDULING EXPEDITED HEARING**\n\nThe Court having considered the motion (the \"Motion to Expedite\") seeking an expedited hearing on the *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Authorizing Compliance With Rule 2004 Subpoenas and Enforcing Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents And Information* [Docket No. 898] (\"Enforcement Motion\"); 1 and good cause appearing, it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED,** that a hearing on the Enforcement Motion shall be held on **October 4,**\n\n**2022, at 12:00 p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time)** at the United States Bankruptcy Court, District\n\nof Connecticut, Bridgeport Division, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Room 123, Bridgeport, CT\n\n06604 (the \"Hearing\"); and it is further\n\n**ORDERED,** that the deadline to object to the Enforcement Motion shall be **\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ at**\n\n**\\_\\_:\\_\\_ \\_.m.**; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED,** that a copy of this Order, along with the Enforcement Motion and any attachments thereto, shall be served upon all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case\n\n<sup>1</sup> Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Order have the meanings set forth in the Motion to Expedite.\n\nqualified to receive electronic notice via the Court's CM/ECF service, as well as the Debtor, the Committee, and the United States Trustee, on or before October \\_\\_, 2022, and the Trustee shall file a certificate of service in advance of the Hearing.\n\n# **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<br>(JAM) |\n| Debtor.                                                     | :<br>: |                            |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :<br>x |                            |\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on September 30, 2022, the foregoing Motion was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.<sup>1</sup> Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDated: September 30, 2022 New Haven, Connecticut\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n<sup>1</sup> To the extent that the foregoing was filed outside regular business hours, service by mail on recipients unable or not qualified to accept electronic notice was made on the next business day.\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *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 (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n（美国康涅狄格州破产法院 布里奇波特分院）\n\nx\n\n关于：\n第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。1\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n第 11 章受托人依据《破产规则》第 9006(c)(1) 条提请加快审理关于准予依规执行第 2004 条传票并强制执行有关控制与第 2004 条传票所调取文件及信息相关的律师-当事人保密特权及工作成果保护之同意裁定的动议的动议\n\n第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（下称“受托人”），通过其下述署名律师，依据《联邦破产程序规则》（下称“《破产规则》”）第 9006(c)(1) 条，特此向本法院提请动议（下称“加快动议”），请求本法院下达裁定，安排加快开庭审理以审议并裁决《第 11 章受托人关于准予依规执行第 2004 条传票并强制执行有关控制与第 2004 条传票所调取文件及信息相关的律师-当事人保密特权及工作成果保护之同意裁定的动议》[案卷号 898]（下称“强制执行动议”）。为支持本加快动议，动议人谨陈述如下：\n\n1 尽管债务人的法定姓名为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），但其亦被称为 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名。债务人纳税人识别号的后四位为 9595。\n管辖权、审理地及法定依据\n\n1. 美国康涅狄格州破产法院（下称“本法院”）依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334 以及美国康涅狄格州联邦地区法院（经修正的）案件移送常规命令对本案具有管辖权。强制执行动议，包括与其相关的本加快动议，属于 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 含义范围内的核心程序。\n\n2. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本司法管辖区为恰当的审理地。\n\n3. 本加快动议所寻求救济的依据为《破产规则》第 9006(c)(1) 条。\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，美国破产受托人（United States Trustee）在债务人的第 11 章破产案件（下称“第 11 章案件”）中指定了无担保债权人官方委员会（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，本法院作出一项判决备忘录及裁定 [ECF No. 465]（下称“受托人裁定”），指示美国破产受托人在本第 11 章案件中指定一名第 11 章受托人。依据受托人裁定，美国破产受托人选定 Luc A. Despins 担任受托人。\n\n7. 2022 年 7 月 8 日，本法院作出一项裁定，准予指定 Luc A. Despins 担任本第 11 章案件的受托人 [ECF No. 523]（下称“指定裁定”）。\n\n8. 2022 年 7 月 28 日，受托人就债务人、债务人的特定专业人士以及与债务人相关的特定个人及实体提交了进行第 2004 条证据开示的动议（下称“初始 2004 动议”）。2\n\n9. 2022 年 8 月 16 日，本法院作出准予初始 2004 动议的裁定（下称“初始 2004 裁定”）。3\n\n10. 2022 年 8 月 17 日，受托人依据本法院准予受托人对包括 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗鲁德尼克有限责任合伙，下称“Brown Rudnick”）和 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（下称“Verdolino”）在内的债务人特定现任及前任顾问进行第 2004 条调查的动议的裁定，向 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 送达了传票（下称“第 2004 条传票”）。依据第 2004 条传票及本法院作出的《关于准予第 11 章受托人就债务人的各法律及财务顾问进行第 2004 条证据开示之申请的裁定》[ECF No. 756]，Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 被责令于 2022 年 9 月 16 日前（下称“提交截止日期”）向受托人提供所有符合要求的调取文件。\n\n11. 2022 年 9 月 14 日，本法院作出了经协商一致且达成合意的《关于控制与第 2004 条传票所调取文件及信息相关的律师-当事人保密特权及工作成果保护之同意裁定》[ECF No. 856]（下称“特权裁定”），其目的在于通过明确规定哪些特权文件由受托人控制、哪些特权文件可仍由债务人控制，从而加快调查进程。\n\n12. 根据与 Brown Rudnick 的沟通，受托人获悉，在本法院作出准予对 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 等主体进行第 2004 条审查的裁定（参见 [ECF No. 756]）（于 2022 年 8 月 16 日作出）之后并一直持续至 2022 年 9 月 28 日，\n\n2 参见 [ECF No. 636]（债务人）；[ECF No. 637]（顾问）；[ECF No. 638]（相关实体及个人）。\n\n3 参见 [ECF Nos. 756, 757, 758]。\n\nBrown Rudnick 代表其自身及 Verdolino，就其能否向受托人提供符合要求的申请后特权文件一事，与债务人在本第 11 章案件中的现任律师事务所 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（下称“债务人律师”）进行了多次沟通。尽管 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 竭尽全力勤勉配合第 2004 条传票，且特权裁定明确指示推定由 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 保管和占有的所有申请后特权文件均处于受托人的控制之下，但迄今为止，Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 仍未能向受托人提供哪怕一份符合要求的申请后特权文件。债务人通过采取不合理且不当的立场违反特权裁定，阻碍了 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 进行任何文件提供。\n强制执行动议4\n\n13. 通过强制执行动议，受托人请求本法院强制执行特权裁定，并准许 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 立即将其占有的所有符合要求的文件提供给受托人。特权裁定规定，推定受托人对 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 因在本案中代理债务人而占有或控制的所有申请后文件及档案享有排他性控制权。（参见特权裁定第 6 款）。依据特权裁定第 7 款，\n\n只要债务人善意地认为特定文件或信息……若披露给受托人可能导致对债务人的个人伤害，则 (i) 债务人的律师[即 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.]应当在适用的提交截止日期后的 10 日内……将所有此类文件登记入清单……并/或以支持特权主张所必需的方式指明所有此类非文件类信息，包括提供足以初步指明主张潜在个人伤害之依据的充分信息[；然而，]……有关涉案文件或信息的披露可能导致受托人发现\n\n4 以下对强制执行动议中所寻求救济的概述，完全受限于强制执行动议本身。\n\n破产财产的潜在资产，或可能构成与债务人对资产的所有权或控制权相关的证据这一事实，无论债务人对该等资产的所有权或控制权持何种立场或意见，均不构成据以依照[第 7 款]扣留文件或信息的针对“债务人的个人伤害”。\n\n14. 因此，特权裁定确立了一项推定，即 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 所占有的特定依第 2004 条传票调取的文件均由受托人控制，并且在债务人试图作为特权文件向受托人隐匿扣留某份文件的范围内，任何此类特权：(i) 仅可基于与以下事项无关的对债务人所谓个人伤害而主张：(a) 发现破产财产的潜在资产，或 (b) 有关债务人对各项资产潜在所有权或控制权的证据（下称“个人伤害文件”），且 (ii) 必须由债务人在适用的提交截止日期后的 10 日内通过将该等文件列入特权文件清单的方式提出主张（下称“特权清单截止日期”）。（同上，第 6、7 款）。\n\n15. 数周以来，尽管债务人未提出任何可据以认定存在任何此类文件或该等文件由 Brown Rudnick 及/或 Verdolino 占有的既定依据，受托人与 Brown Rudnick（代表其自身并代表 Verdolino）仍一直寻求及时解决债务人关于处理个人伤害文件的所谓担忧。鉴于僵局及其对受托人调查造成的延误损害，受托人向债务人提议（下称“受托人提议”），由 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 向受托人提供符合要求的申请后特权文件，并且在极不可能存在任何个人伤害文件的情况下，债务人可以依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 26 条行使其追回权，将该文件视为疏忽提供而予以追回。债务人拒绝了受托人提议。\n\n16. 提交截止日期和特权清单截止日期均已届满，尽管债务人仍旧无法阐明为何可能存在任何个人伤害文件，债务人现仍坚持在向受托人提供任何文件之前，债务人律师必须审查 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 占有的每一份申请后特权文件。\n\n17. 如拟定裁定（定义见强制执行动议并附于其后）中所述，受托人提议为包括债务人在内的各方提供了一种在不放弃任何权利或遭受任何损害的情况下遵守特权裁定的途径，并将确保受托人的调查不再进一步受到债务人不合理立场和阻挠策略的干扰。因此，本法院可以且应当下达裁定：(i) 准许 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 依据特权裁定第 6 款立即向受托人提供所有特权文件；(ii) 若债务人认为任何此类文件属于个人伤害文件，则该等个人伤害文件的提供将被视为符合《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 26(b)(5)(B) 条的疏忽提供；以及，(iii) 债务人可追回该等个人伤害文件并将其登记于特权文件清单中，随后受托人或债务人均可依特权裁定第 7 款更详尽之规定，行使其请求对特权主张争议进行司法裁决的权利。\n所请求之救济\n\n18. 《破产规则》第 9006(c)(1) 条规定，当经动议提出请求且说明正当理由时，本法院可缩短通知期限。本案存在以加快程序审议并裁决强制执行动议的正当理由。\n\n19. 受托人认为，在债务人数周前就已知悉此问题的情况下，自 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 处接收第 2004 条传票调取文件的持续延误，鉴于债务人的行为给受托人调查带来的附带延误，已对受托人和破产财产造成实质损害。仅凭对受托人调查造成延误而对受托人产生的损害，即已构成了以缩短通知期开庭审理强制执行动议的正当理由。拟定裁定还确保了特权裁定的强制执行，允许 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 履行其在第 2004 条传票项下的义务，且不会对包括债务人在内的任何利害关系方造成损害。事实上，且与特权裁定保持一致，拟定裁定依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 26 条为债务人提供了追回保护，尽管其未能指明认定存在哪怕一份个人伤害文件的任何善意依据。\n\n20. 正如《执行动议》（Enforcement Motion）中所详述的，受托人（Trustee）必须尽快从 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino 处获取文件和通信记录，以便为了破产财产（Estate）的利益保全和追回资产，这一点至关重要。债务人（Debtor）对这些特权以及《人身伤害文件》（Personal Harm Document）问题早已心知肚明，法院不应容许进一步的拖延损害受托人的调查，进而损害破产财产的利益。此外，加快审理《执行动议》并不会对利害关系方造成损害。依据《拟议命令》（Proposed Order），债务人将获得《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 26 条（Federal Rule 26）项下的保护，而授权提交《破产规则》第 2004 条传票（Rule 2004 subpoena）所调取的文件将对受托人的调查产生实质性助益。\n\n为此，受托人请求法院签发一项大体上与本动议所附格式相同的命令（Order），将《执行动议》的听证会定于 2022年10月4日 中午 12:00（适用东部时间）举行，并按所附命令的规定发出该听证会通知，以及裁定给予其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：2022年9月30日 LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 第 11 章受托人（CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted pro hac vice) 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 (admitted pro hac vice) Douglass Barron (admitted pro hac vice) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@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:　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n\nx\n关于安排加急听证会的命令\n\n本院经审议请求就《第 11 章受托人关于作出准予遵守第 2004 条传票并强制执行关于第 2004 条传票调取文件与信息的律师-委托人保密特权及工作成果保护控制权的同意命令的动议》[案件卷宗号 898]（《执行动议》）举行加急听证会的动议（《加急动议》（Motion to Expedite））；1 且基于正当理由，特此\n\n下达命令，关于《执行动议》的听证会应于 2022年10月4日 中午 12:00（适用东部时间）在美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院（地址：915 Lafayette Boulevard, Room 123, Bridgeport, CT 06604）举行（“听证会”）；并且进一步\n\n下达命令，对《执行动议》提出异议的截止时间应为 ______ 下午/上午 __:__；并且进一步\n\n下达命令，本命令的副本连同《执行动议》及其任何附件，应于 2022年10月 __日 或之前，送达给上述标题项下第 11 章案件中有资格通过法院 CM/ECF 服务接收电子通知的所有当事人，以及债务人、债权人委员会（Committee）和美国受托人（United States Trustee），且受托人应在听证会前提交送达证明。\n\n1 本命令中使用但未另作定义的首字母大写术语，具有《加急动议》中所规定的含义。\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\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\nx\n送达证明\n\n下述签署人特此证明，于 2022年9月30日，上述动议已通过电子方式提交。该提交的通知已通过法院电子归档（“CM/ECF”）系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给上述标题项下第 11 章案件的所有当事人，或按照《电子归档通知》所示通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子归档的任何人。1 各方当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅此归档文件。\n\n日期：2022年9月30日 康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n1 若上述文件是在正常工作时间之外提交的，则对无法或不具备资格接收电子通知的接收人的邮寄送达已在下一个工作日进行。\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted pro hac vice) 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 (admitted pro hac vice) Douglass Barron (admitted pro hac vice) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人代理律师","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings","Guo","Je","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":523,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":636,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":637,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":638,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":756,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":856,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2697,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:29:03"}