{"id":"court_sdny_1095_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":1095,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 1095","summary_zh":"破产管理人密封动议 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）破产案，康州破产法院第11章案号22-50073 ECF #1095。破产管理人Luc A. Despins请求法院认定债务人因故意违反企业治理权命令（涉及Ace Decade及其子公司所有权）而构成蔑视法庭罪；债务人辩称不拥有该实体，管理人主张此项主张无法律或事实依据。","summary_en":"Sealed Motion by Bankruptcy Trustee — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui, Miles Guo), Bankruptcy Case, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut, Chapter 11 case no. 22-50073, ECF No. 1095. Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins seeks an order holding debtor Ho Wan Kwok in civil contempt for willful failure to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order concerning ownership of Ace Decade and its subsidiary; Trustee contends debtor's disavowal of ownership lacks factual or legal basis.","body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                             | :      |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                        | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.1                                                   | :      | Jointly Administered    |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :<br>x |                         |\n|                                                             |        |                         |\n\n## **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S SEALED MOTION (A) TO SEAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER HOLDING DEBTOR IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS ORDER AND RELATED DOCUMENTS; AND (B) TO ENLARGE PAGE LIMIT FOR REPLY**\n\nLuc A. Despins, as the Chapter 11 Trustee appointed in the Debtor's chapter 11 case (the \"Trustee\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to District of Connecticut Local Rule of Civil Procedure (the \"Local Civil Rules\") 5(e) and District of Connecticut Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Local Bankruptcy Rules\") 7007-2 and 9077-1, hereby respectfully moves (the \"Motion\") for entry of the proposed order filed herewith as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"): (A) preserving essential privileges and confidentiality by permitting the sealed filing of the Trustee's *Reply Memorandum* (the \"Reply\") in support of his *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Holding Debtor in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Corporate Governance Rights Order* [Docket No. 913] (the \"Contempt Motion\")<sup>2</sup> and in response to the objection thereto [Docket No. 1026] (the \"Objection\") filed by the Debtor, and further permitting\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (the \"Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and Genever BVI is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein adopt the definitions set forth in the Contempt Motion.\n\nthe sealed filing of certain exhibits that the Trustee will offer at the hearing on the Contempt Motion (the \"Hearing\"); and (B) enlarging the page limit for the Trustee's Reply to twenty-five (25) pages. In support of this Motion, the Trustee states as follows:\n\n#### **RELEVANT FACTS**\n\n1. The Trustee filed the Contempt Motion on October 7, 2022, thereby requesting that the Court hold the Debtor in civil contempt for the Debtor's willful failure and refusal to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order as it pertains to Ace Decade and its wholly owned subsidiary, Dawn State. The Debtor has asserted in response to the Contempt Motion, among other things, that he does not own Ace Decade, that other persons do, and that the Debtor is powerless to comply with the Trustee's request.\n\n2. The Debtor's arguments are without merit and have no basis in fact or law. In demonstrating this to the Court, the Trustee will rely upon information and documents obtained in discovery that either (i) are subject to attorney-client privilege and thus are subject to the Court's *Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information* [Docket No. 856] (the \"Privileges Order\") or (ii) have been designated as confidential or highly confidential pursuant to the Court's *Protective Order* [Docket No. 923] (the \"Protective Order\") by the Debtor or by a third-party that produced such material.\n\n3. These materials include privileged email correspondence by and between the Debtor's former counsel (*i.e.*, the Trustee's Hearing Exhibits 21-23), as well as other correspondence between the Debtor's former counsel and the Debtor (Trustee's Hearing Exhibit 20), which the Trustee will offer as exhibits at the Hearing and which are discussed in the Trustee's Reply. Because the Trustee now owns and controls the Debtor's former attorney-client privilege, among other privileges and rights the Trustee may exercise, it is critical that no inadvertent disclosures of privileged materials occur, especially when such disclosures could have a materially negative impact on the Debtor's estate. Permitting only the Trustee and the Debtor, who have already reviewed the privileged documents, along with the Court, to review such privileged materials will ensure that no such harm from disclosure and waiver will arise.\n\n4. Moreover, at present the Debtor's counsel has designated the entirety of the Debtor's deposition testimony (as well as the testimony of a third-party witness listed by the Debtor and also deposed Friday), as \"highly confidential.\" In other examples, law firms responding to the Trustee's Rule 2004 subpoenas have produced documents under only Confidential and Highly Confidential designations. While the Trustee does not in many cases agree that this information is actually confidential, notably with regard to the Debtor and his interpreters deposition transcripts which were designated as highly confidential prior to a single question being asked, the Trustee is required to seek to file it under seal consistent with the plain language of the Protective Order until such time as the confidentiality designations have been removed, or the Court orders otherwise.\n\n### **THE COURT SHOULD SEAL PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS BOTH AS EXHIBITS AND AS INCLUDED IN THE REPLY**\n\n5. It is essential that the Trustee be able to use privileged and confidential documents and information to demonstrate the Debtor's beneficial ownership and control over Ace Decade and thus, in turn, the Debtor's ongoing contempt of the Court's Corporate Governance Rights Order. It is likewise essential that the Trustee not waive any privileges that he controls and nor inadvertently disclose any confidential or highly confidential materials in his possession as a result of this ongoing investigation.\n\n6. Unnecessary disclosure of privileged and confidential information may tangibly prejudice the value of the Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\"). The Debtor and his companies, Ace Decade and Dawn State, have asserted claims against UBS in the United Kingdom to recover what they allege are \\$500 million in losses (the \"UK Litigation\").\n\n7. These claims are property of the Debtor's estate and disclosure of privileged or confidential documents or information could prejudice their value. For example, UBS could conceivably seek to use privileged or confidential information to its advantage in seeking to defend the Estate's claims in the UK Litigation.<sup>3</sup> The Court should preserve the value of the Estate by preserving privilege and maintaining confidentiality to the maximum extent possible.\n\n8. The sealing procedure for the privileged documents will ensure that the only entities that can review them – the Debtor and the Trustee – are ones for whom disclosure will not waive privilege. Furthermore, disclosure of the documents to the Court under this procedure, should be treated in the same way the Court would review privileged documents in camera.\n\n9. Moreover, it is imperative that the Trustee be able to file the Reply and his Hearing exhibits immediately, while at the same time comply with the Privileges Order and the Protective Order. The Trustee should not be hamstrung in holding the Debtor accountable for his contempt while the Debtor and certain third parties refine any confidentiality designations. The Trustee reserves all rights to object to confidentiality designations placed on discovery materials and to request the removal of such designations. To the extent that in the future any confidentiality designations are withdrawn, or if the Court should determine that any documents or information were improperly designated, these may be unsealed by agreement or by future order.\n\n<sup>3</sup> UBS is aware of the proceedings in this chapter 11 case; both from court filings in the United Kingdom and because the Trustee has subpoenaed UBS under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004.\n\n10. Accordingly, the Trustee proposes to file both confidential documents and information (collectively, the \"Confidential Material\") and privileged documents and information (collectively, the \"Privileged Material\" and, together with Confidential Material, collectively, the \"Protected Material\") under seal.\n\n11. Local Civil Rule 5(e), applicable to this contested matter pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9077-1, provides for the Court to permit the filing of documents and information under seal. The requisite factual bases are clearly and compellingly set forth in this Motion and are further included in the proposed order filed herewith; these are more than sufficient to justify the Court's sealing of the Protected Material. *See* Local Civil Rule 5(e)(3). The relief requested by this Motion is narrowly tailored to serve these important interests. *See id.*\n\n12. The Local Civil Rule permits the filing of a sealed motion to seal. *See* Local Civil Rule 5(e)(4). The Trustee has filed this Motion under seal because, in explaining the need for sealed filings, this Motion itself discloses Protected Material. The Trustee also wishes to ensure that the Court is able to review the Trustee's Reply without delay. The Trustee will file a redacted version of this Motion later today.\n\n13. The Trustee thus appends to this Motion as **Exhibit B** an unredacted copy of his Reply with all Confidential Material highlighted in yellow and all Privileged Material highlighted in blue. The Trustee will simultaneously file on the public docket a copy of his Reply with all Protected Material redacted.\n\n14. The Trustee further proposes to designate certain exhibits to be Confidential Material, including, without limitation: Exhibits 21, 27, and such other exhibits that the Trustee designates upon consultation with counsel for the Confidential Parties (as hereinafter defined); and to designate certain exhibits to be Privileged Material, including, without limitation: Exhibits 20,\n\n5\n\n22, 23, and such other exhibits that the Trustee designates upon consultation with counsel for the Debtor. The Trustee requests that the Court permit the Trustee to file all exhibits that are Protected Material under seal on this basis.\n\n15. The Trustee requests that disclosure of Confidential Material, in addition to the Court, be limited to the Trustee, the Debtor, PAX, the Committee, and the United States Trustee (the \"Confidential Parties\"), which are all bound by the Protective Order. Upon the Court's order granting this Motion, the Trustee will circulate a copy of the Reply with all Confidential Material unredacted<sup>4</sup> as well as all exhibits that are Confidential Material to the Confidential Parties.\n\n16. The Trustee requests that disclosure of Privileged Material, in addition to the Court, be limited to the Trustee and the Debtor (the \"Privileged Parties\").\n\n17. Further disclosure of Privileged Material could threaten not only privilege with respect to that material itself but potentially attorney-client privilege more generally with respect to documents relevant to the UK Litigation. The value of the Estate's claims in the UK Litigation is highly important to the Estate and the Trustee's obligation to maximize the value of its assets to ensure the best possible recovery for its creditors.\n\n18. Considering that the Debtor is party to the Privileges Order and the Confidentiality Order, the Trustee has served the Debtor with a copy of this sealed Motion<sup>5</sup> , as well as an unredacted copy of the Trustee's Reply and the Trustee will serve copies of all exhibits that are Privileged Material on the Debtor at or before such time that the Trustee files them under seal.\n\n<sup>4</sup> Information that is Privileged Material will remain redacted in the copy of the Reply circulated to the Confidential Parties and the Trustee will not circulate exhibits that are Privileged Material to parties other than the Debtor.\n\n<sup>5</sup> To preserve applicable privileges with respect to Privileged Material, this Motion will not be served on parties other than the Debtor.\n\n19. The Trustee has drafted the Proposed Order granting this Motion to include particularized findings but to exclude outright disclosure of Protected Material in order to permit it to be filed on the public docket.\n\n#### **THE COURT SHOULD ENLARGE THE PAGE LIMIT FOR THE TRUSTEE'S REPLY**\n\n20. For the Trustee to adequately address the foregoing subject matter in his Reply – including to \"fact-check\" the Debtor's constantly changing positions and representations – the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court extend the page limitation from ten (10) pages to twenty-five (25) pages. *See* Local Bankruptcy Rule 7007-2 (permitting enlargement of page limitations with approval of the Court).\n\n21. Indeed, considering the extent to which the Debtor's purported defense to the Contempt Motion materially changed at his deposition, the Trustee's Reply must address effectively two Oppositions – the one the Debtor's counsel filed, and the one the Debtor articulated for the first time on Friday.\n\n### *[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]*\n\nWHEREFORE, the Court should grant this Motion, permit the filing of Protected Material\n\nunder seal as provided in the Proposed Order, enlarge the page limit for the Trustee's Reply, and\n\ngrant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: November 14, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS, New 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### **EXHIBIT A**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x                                   |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11                |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                        | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)   |\n| Debtors.6                                                   | :<br>:<br>Jointly Administered<br>: |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x                                   |\n\n## **[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S SEALED MOTION (A) TO SEAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER HOLDING DEBTOR IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS ORDER AND RELATED DOCUMENTS; AND (B) TO ENLARGE PAGE LIMIT FOR REPLY**\n\nUPON CONSIDERATION OF the motion (the \"Motion\") of Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins (the \"Trustee\") requesting permission to file under seal his *Reply in Support of Motion for Entry of Order Holding Debtor in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Corporate Governance Rights Order* (the \"Reply\") and certain other documents; and good cause having been shown, and the Court having found that the disclosure of documents or information that are subject to attorney-client privilege (collectively, \"Privileged Material\") or documents or information that are otherwise confidential (collectively, the \"Confidential Material\" and, together with the Privileged Material, the \"Protected Material\") could prejudice the Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\"), including with respect to the value of assets of the Debtor's estate in the nature of pending litigation\n\n<sup>6</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (the \"Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and Genever BVI is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nclaims, the Court having found that permitting the filing of Protected Material under seal is consistent with relevant parties' agreements and expectations under the Privileges Order and the Protective Order<sup>7</sup> , to ensure the parties' compliance with such orders, the relief provided in this Order being narrowly tailored to serve the foregoing purposes, and good cause having thereby and otherwise been shown, it is by the Court, hereby\n\nORDERED, that the Motion is granted as set forth herein; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the Court approves the filing of the Motion and the appended unredacted Reply under seal and the Motion shall remain under seal as well as the unredacted Reply; and it is further;\n\nORDERED, that the Trustee shall file a copy of the Reply on the public docket in this chapter 11 case that has been redacted with respect to any information that the Trustee has designated as Protected Material, provided, however, that the Trustee shall serve the Debtor, PAX, the Committee, and the United States Trustee (together, collectively, the \"Confidential Parties\") with a copy of the Reply with Privileged Material redacted but Confidential Material (that is not otherwise Privileged Material) unredacted, and the Trustee shall serve a fully unredacted copy of the Reply on the Debtor; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the Trustee may file any Hearing exhibits that are Confidential Material under seal, provided, however, the Trustee shall serve all such exhibits (that are not otherwise Privileged Material) on the Confidential Parties upon such sealed filing; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the Trustee may file any Hearing exhibits that are Privileged Material under seal, provided however, the Trustee shall serve all such exhibits on the Debtor upon such sealed filing; and it is further\n\n<sup>7</sup> Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Order shall adopted the definitions set forth in the Motion.\n\nORDERED, that the page limitation applicable to the Trustee's Reply shall be twenty-five (25) pages.\n\n## **EXHIBIT B**\n\n# **UNREDACTED REPLY HIGHLIGHTED TO REFLECT CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL AND PRIVILEGED MATERIAL**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x |                         |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|---|-------------------------|\n|                                                        | : |                         |\n| In re:                                                 | : | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                        | : |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                   | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                        | : |                         |\n| Debtors.1                                              | : | Jointly Administered    |\n|                                                        | : |                         |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x |                         |\n\n# **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER HOLDING DEBTOR IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS ORDER**\n\nLuc Despins, as the Chapter 11 Trustee appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan\n\nKwok (the \"Trustee\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this reply\n\n(the \"Reply\") in support of his *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Holding Debtor*\n\n*in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Corporate Governance Rights Order* [Docket No.\n\n913] (the \"Contempt Motion\")<sup>2</sup> and in response to the objection thereto [Docket No. 1026] (the\n\n\"Objection\") filed by Mr. Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\").\n\n <sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (the \"Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and Genever BVI is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein adopt the definitions set forth in the Contempt Motion.\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Debtor's continued non-compliance with the clear and unambiguous directives of this Court's Corporate Governance Rights Order and the requirements of sections 521(a)(3) and (4) of the Bankruptcy Code<sup>3</sup> —along with shifting excuses, obfuscations, and outright misrepresentations to explain such non-compliance—evoke Justice Ostager's admonition in the PAX litigation that \"if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law.\"<sup>4</sup> Justice Ostrager made this statement after observing the Debtor's behavior for five years during the PAX litigation, during which he demonstrated \"utter contempt for [the New York state court] and the judicial process.\"<sup>5</sup>\n\n2. The Debtor is now employing many of the same strategies and tactics in response to the Contempt Motion that led Justice Ostrager to make his findings. One of the Debtor's favorite strategies in the PAX litigation and elsewhere has been to disavow, without any sense of shame or embarrassment, any knowledge of or responsibility for his own words and statements, including those made in court filings and/or under oath, if doing so advances his personal interests. For example, during his deposition in the PAX litigation, the Debtor claimed the signature on his personal guarantee to PAX was forged, even though he had produced that very document and relied on its authenticity when seeking to dismiss the PAX litigation in June\n\n <sup>3</sup> To be clear, nothing in the Corporate Governance Rights Order \"preempted\" the Debtor's requirements to comply with sections 521(a)(3) and (4) of the Bankruptcy Code. *See* Corporate Governance Rights Order ¶ 3 (\"In accordance with sections 521(a)(3) and 521(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor is hereby directed to . . . \").\n\n<sup>4</sup> Decision and Order on Motion, dated February 9, 2022 at 10, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181\n\n<sup>5</sup> *Id.* at 4.\n\n2017.<sup>6</sup> In fact, the Debtor's own counsel previously admitted the guarantee was \"signed by Mr. Kwok.\"<sup>7</sup> The Debtor's incredible about-face caused Justice Ostrager to order him judicially estopped from asserting forgery as a defense to PAX's breach of contract claims. 8 Another of the Debtor's favorite strategies is to baselessly claim that someone else (including a close family member or a trusted confidant) owns an asset of which the Debtor is the true beneficial owner. These same strategies are on full display here. The Debtor is both shamelessly abandoning his prior testimony and concocting an unbelievable story about who supposedly owns and controls Ace Decade in order to serve his own personal interests and shield his assets from creditors. In the past, the Debtor attested in court filings and/or under oath—including at the Section 341 Meeting and in the U.K. Complaint—that he owns Ace Decade. Now, however, the Debtor contends that his testimony at the Section 341 Meeting was somehow mistranslated, even though neither he nor his personal interpreter at the meeting objected to the supposedly incorrect translation at the time or in the six months since then.\n\n3. Specifically, the Debtor contends that he did not testify at the Section 341 Meeting that he is \"a legally representing owner\" of Ace Decade, as reflected in the meeting's official transcript, but rather that he is \"legally representing the owner\"—*i.e.*, that the owner is someone else and that the Debtor serves as a mere representative of that person.\n\n<sup>6</sup> *See* Hearing Ex. 45, Memo in Support of Kwok Motion to Dismiss at 3, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 8; Hearing Ex. 44, Affirmation of Fiona Yu in Support of Kwok Motion to Dismiss at 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 11 (attaching a true and correct copy of the personal guarantee between Kwok and PAX).\n\n<sup>7</sup> Hearing Ex. 47, Email chain between PAX LP and Stevenson Wong, dated March 16, 2011, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 354.\n\n<sup>8</sup> *See* Hearing Ex. 48, Judicial Estoppel Decision, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 404 (\"[T]he Court holds that defendant Kwok is judicially estopped from challenging . . . the authenticity of documents defendant Kwok previously sponsored in proceedings before this Court, notwithstanding that defendant Kwok sought to disavow his signature on those documents during his deposition.\").\n\n9 This alone destroys the Debtor's story, exposing it as a mere fabrication designed to prevent the Trustee from obtaining control of Ace Decade. Making matters worse, the only witness the Debtor has identified to support the alleged translation error-his personal interpreter-testified at her deposition last Friday\n\n4. J The Debtor is also now flatly contradicting his own sworn testimony in other contexts concerning his interests in Ace Decade. The Debtor previously testified that he used Ace Decade to make the UBS investment and that he funded the investment with his own personal funds. At last Friday's deposition, however,\n\n<sup>9</sup>\n\n<sup>10</sup> Nov. 11, 2022 Dep. Tr. of Una Wilkinson (the \"Wilkinson Deposition\") at 20:4-12\n\n<sup>11</sup> Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition at 30:7-8\n\n<sup>12</sup> Id. at 69:9-11\n\n. In 2018, the Debtor testified in a deposition in another litigation—again, without any evidence—that his apartment at the Sherry Netherland in Manhattan was really owned by Mr. Wei.13 But, as the Court is aware, the Debtor now claims in these chapter 11 cases that the Sherry Netherland is and has always been held in trust for the benefit of Bravo Luck Limited, which in turn, again according to the Debtors, is owned by the Debtor's son.14\n\nAll these schemes and ridiculous assertions that need to be investigated and answered by the Trustee (in addition to the Debtor's various attempts to frustrate the Trustee's work) are costing the estate millions of dollars in professional fees. This must stop now.\n\n6.\n\n. In 2016 and again in 2020, the Debtor\n\nstated that Yong Yu was the nominee shareholder of Ace Decade and that he was her\n\n\"employer.\"15 Later, in a deposition held in 2021, the Debtor denied multiple times that he knew\n\nYong Yu.16\n\n 13 *See* Hearing Ex. 39, Oct. 3, 2018 Kwok Dep. Tr. at 125:13-19 (\"Q. And my question is: Is it your position that our client cannot attach the apartment because you don't own it, but rather Zhang Wei does? . . . A. Yes.\").\n\n<sup>14</sup> *See* First Day Declaration, Docket No. 107, ¶ 33 (\"I hold all of the equity of Genever BVI. However, pursuant to a Declaration of Trust and Agreement, dated February 17, 2015 (the 'Trust Date'), I hold such equity in trust for Bravo Luck Limited.\").\n\n<sup>15</sup> Hearing Ex. 15, Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan, dated February 5, 2016, *Ace Decade vs. UBS AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc No. 27, ¶ 1 (\"I am the employer of Yong Yu, the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade.\"). *See also* U.K. Complaint ¶ 24 (identifying Yong Yu as Debtor's employee).\n\n<sup>16</sup> Hearing Ex. 46, July 21, 2021, Dep. of Guo Wengui**,** *Meng v. Guo*, Index No. 159636/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 69, at 159:21-160:5 (\"Q. Okay. Do you know a person named Yong Yu? A. Yong Yu? I'm sorry . . . . Q. It's a person. Do you know a person named Yong Yu? A. I don't know Yong Yu.\").\n\nIn 2018,\n\nthe Debtor stated she was his \"assistant\"18 (which is consistent with numerous documents in the public record and/or produced to the Trustee), 19\n\n7. The Debtor's contradictions also extend to the schedules and declarations he submitted in this chapter 11 case. The Debtor listed the UBS litigation in his schedules as an asset of his estate and stated in his March 20, 2022 declaration (the \"First Day Declaration\"), which he also submitted in support of his request for DIP financing to help fund the UBS litigation, that the proceeds of that litigation could go to creditors and would be used to formulate\n\na plan.21\n\n20 Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition at 77:16-79:13\n\n21 See First Day Declaration ¶ 32, 47 (Debtor states that he \"anticipated that the proceeds of recoveries or settlements in litigations in which I am a plaintiff will be used to fund a Chapter 11 plan.\").\n\n22 Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition at 30:7-8\n\n<sup>17</sup> Hearing Ex. 27, Kwok Deposition at 33:3-8.\n\n<sup>18</sup> Hearing Ex. 39, Oct. 3, 2018 Kwok Dep. Tr. at 55:23-25 (\"Q. Who is your assistant? A. . . . [Yvette] Wang.\").\n\n<sup>19</sup> In the Final Arbitration Award issued by arbitrator Frank Maas in connection with the fee dispute between the Debtor and Boies Schiller, Maas referred to Yvette Wang as \"Kwok's chief of staff.\" See Hearing Ex. 13, Arbitration Award at 3, Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP v. Kwok, Index No. 150001/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 6. See also, e.g., Hearing Ex. 31, Yvette Wang Dep. Tr., dated Oct. 11, 2018, at 46:20-25 (\"Q. I'm asking you whether or not you serve as an administrator for Mr. Kwok's interests? A. Yes. Q. What does that mean? A. Translator, assistant.\") (emphasis added); Hearing Ex. 28, Email from Yvette Wang, dated July 11, 2019 (\"[W]e [at Golden Spring] take care of Miles' and his family's business . . . . \");\n\n8. Finally, in a last-minute effort to purportedly \"comply\" with the order the Trustee requests in the Contempt Motion, the Debtor has submitted to the Court a letter he reportedly delivered to Ms. Wang stating that he is instructing her to transfer the shares of Ace Decade to the Trustee to the extent he may have authority over Ace Decade. As discussed further below, the letter—which accomplishes exactly nothing—is a shameless litigation tactic that the Court should reject out of hand.\n\n9. The Court should not countenance the Debtor's latest tactics to avoid compliance with the Corporate Governance Rights Order. If the Debtor were allowed to keep on playing these games, he would make a mockery of this Court and the judicial system. The Debtor is an individual with unlimited funds to hire attorneys to make every argument imaginable to seek to delay and obstruct judicial proceedings. Given the Debtor's refusal to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order and his prior testimony that he owns Ace Decade, the Court should rule that the Debtor is the owner of Ace Decade and that Ace Decade's shares belong to the chapter 11 estate. The Debtor should be held in contempt unless he turns over his shares in Ace Decade within a period of ten (10) days.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. Debtor Has Failed to Comply with Clear Directives of Corporate Governance Rights Order**\n\n10. As an initial matter, the Debtor's Objection attempts to obfuscate the Court's clear directives in the Corporate Governance Rights Order. However, try as he might, the Debtor cannot change the plain language of the Corporate Governance Rights Order, which provides that \"the Trustee holds *all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights*, for the benefit of the Estate, *with respect to all Debtor-Controlled Entities*, including, without limitation, Genever (BVI).\" To implement the foregoing provision, the Corporate Governance Rights Order directs\n\n7\n\nthe Debtor to \"cooperate with the Trustee to enable the Trustee to perform his duties\" and \"surrender to the Trustee *all property of the estate* and any recorded information, including, without limitation, books, documents, records, and papers relating to property of the estate.\"23 To state the obvious, the Corporate Governance Rights Order is not limited to Genever (BVI), but rather applies to all of the Debtor's property, including Ace Decade, a company that the Debtor has repeatedly admitted, in court filings and/or under oath, he owns.\n\n11. Yet, despite the clear language in the Corporate Governance Rights Order, the Debtor insists that this order does not expressly require him to transfer shares of Ace Decade to the Trustee, and, thus, does not meet the Second Circuit's standard required to find contempt, which requires that \"(1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner.\" *King v. Allied Vision, Ltd.*, 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995). But the Corporate Governance Rights Order could hardly be clearer, and there are few words less ambiguous than \"all\" property—language which undoubtedly includes his ownership of Ace Decade.\n\n12. Nor does the fact that the Corporate Governance Rights Order only specifically addresses the transfer of the Genever (BVI) shares limit the clear language requiring the Debtor to transfer \"to the Trustee all property of the estate.\" The Corporate Governance Rights Order is clear that the surrender of property of the estate includes \"*without limitation*\" the shares of Genever (BVI)24—language which courts in the Second Circuit have repeatedly found not to be construed as limiting. *See, e.g.*, *Star Direct Telecom, Inc. v. Glob. Crossing Bandwidth, Inc.*,\n\n <sup>23</sup> Corporate Governance Rights Order ¶¶ 2, 3 (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>24</sup> Corporate Governance Rights Order ¶ 3 (emphasis added)\n\n272 F.R.D. 350, 356 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (\"this Court [un]aware of any . . . argument that the clause 'including, without limitation' should be read as a limiting clause.\"); *Shugrue v. Continental Airlines,* 977 F. Supp. 280, 285-86 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (plain language of \"including without limitation\" indicates list in agreement is not exclusive).\n\n13. Additionally, there can be no question that the Trustee has met the \"clear and convincing\" standard as it relates to the Debtor's non-compliance. The Debtor has not surrendered anything to the Trustee with regard to Ace Decade, nor given any serious indication that he plans to do so.\n\n14. The Debtor advances the absurd theory that he cannot comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order because even if he were the owner of Ace Decade, the Trustee now holds all corporate governance rights and thus only the Trustee could direct a transfer of the shares of Ace Decade. This argument is nonsense. At this point, the Trustee is (still) not in control of Ace Decade precisely because the Debtor refuses to cooperate in transferring the Ace Decade shares to the Trustee. The Debtor should not be excused from having to comply with an order (as well as section 521(a)(3) and (4) of the Bankruptcy Code) that requires him to cooperate with the Trustee and surrender his property to the estate on the ground that the very same order supposedly prevents the Debtor from complying with that obligation.\n\n15. Nothing about this analysis is changed by the Debtor's production of a signed letter, dated November 10, 2022 (the \"Share Transfer Letter\"), addressed to Yvette Wang, which states that \"in compliance with the Trustee's demands and to the extent that I may have any authority over Ace Decade, I hereby direct you to execute the attached Share Transfer Instrument and Share Transfer Resolution.\"25 This last-minute tactic is offensive—and sending such a\n\n <sup>25</sup> Debtor's Hearing Ex. B, at 1.\n\n![](_page_21_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\nIronically, the Trustee has attempted to locate Ms. Wang in order to serve her with a subpoena to testify in this matter but the Trustee's process servers have been unable to locate Ms. Wang. 30\n\n17. In sum, the Share Transfer Letter is a cynical, last-minute attempt to avoid a contempt ruling by purporting to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order while in\n\n| ટેર | Hearing         | Kwok Deposition at 85:23-86:8 |\n|-----|-----------------|-------------------------------|\n| 27  | Id. at 48:14-16 |                               |\n| 28  | Id at 83.3-7    |                               |\n\nId. at 83:3-7.\n\n29 Id. at 88:17-25.\n\n<sup>30</sup> Hearing Ex. 32, Affidavit of Attempted Service, dated Nov. 11, 2022 (describing attempts to serve Yvette Wang at multiple addresses, including at her attorney's address, on Nov. 9, 2022). In addition. Ms. Wang's counsel has informed the Trustee that he was not authorized to accept service of the Trustee's subpoena. See Hearing Ex. 33, Email chain between Avi Luft of Paul Hastings LLP and Alex Liman of Lipman Law PLLC, dated Nov. 10, 2022 (with Mr. Lipman noting that he \"is not authorized to accept service\" on Yvette Wang's behalf).\n\nfact taking none of the steps that the Corporate Governance Rights Order would require.\n\nClearly, the Corporate Governance Rights Order requires the Debtor to surrender the Debtor-Controlled Entities to the Trustee, and there can be no question that he has not attempted to comply, despite the clear and unambiguous terms of the order, and that his refusal to do so warrants entry of an order holding him in contempt.\n\n#### **II. UBS Litigation and Related Filings Confirm Debtor's Ownership of Ace Decade**\n\n18. As detailed in the Motion, the U.K. Complaint (filed in September 2020) makes abundantly clear that Ace Decade and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Dawn State, are owned and controlled by the Debtor. According to the U.K. Complaint, the Debtor was the true beneficiary of the equity investment in Haitong Securities Company Limited (\"Haitong\"), with Ace Decade and Dawn State merely acting as his investment vehicles so that the Debtor could avoid having to seek approval from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (\"CSRC\"). Among other things, the Debtor, Ace Decade, and Dawn State alleged in the U.K. Complaint that:\n\n- \"Mr Kwok resolved to invest approximately US\\$3 billion in H-Shares in order to obtain a major stake in Haitong. This investment was to be made through the issue of new H-Shares by Haitong, and their allotment to companies controlled by Mr Kwok.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 7.\n- \"Mr Kwok communicated his intention to acquire a substantial stake in Haitong to Mr Hank Lo, a Hong Kong solicitor and partner in the firm Stevenson, Wong & Co.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 8.\n- \"Mr Kwok's intention was to acquire the shares for himself.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 11(3).\n- UBS advised Mr Kwok \"[n]ot purchase the shares through a company beneficially owned or controlled by him, as this would require CSRC approval,\" and \"[i]nstead, set up a structure (which would be arranged by UBS) under which the UBS H-Shares would be acquired by a company controlled by a third-party intermediary, which acquisition would not require CSRC approval.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 18. That third-party intermediary was Haixia Capital Management Company Ltd (\"Haixia\"), an entity that initially owned and controlled Dawn State. U.K. Complaint ¶ 4.\n- \"Ace Decade was acquired on 10 November 2014 by Mr Kwok for the purpose of acting as the said investment vehicle.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 24.\n- \"Ace Decade, Dawn State and UBS enter[ed] into a series of arrangements designed to allow Ace Decade to participate in the acquisition of UBS H-Shares through Dawn State.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 29.\n- Under this arrangement, \"Ace Decade would have only a contractual right to participate in the Project, and no immediate proprietary interest in Dawn State or the UBS H-Shares which it acquired.\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 33(3).<sup>31</sup>\n\nAt no point does the U.K. Complaint even mention Mr. Wei, the relative the Debtor suddenly contends is the company's real owner. The silence in that regard is deafening.\n\n19. While the U.K. Complaint also alleges that \"on the advice of Mr Wong, an\n\nemployee of Mr Kwok, Ms Yu Yong (\"Ms Yu\") became [Ace Decade's] nominee shareholder and director,\" U.K. Complaint ¶ 24, this allegation does not take away from the other statements in the U.K. Complaint that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade. As the Debtor stated in an affidavit filed in a separate litigation by Ace Decade against UBS in New York state court (the \"Kwok/UBS Affidavit\"), Ms. Yu was selected by the Debtor, upon the advice of UBS, in order to satisfy \"know your customer\" requirements of Haixia (*i.e.*, the intermediary for the investment in H-Shares).32 That the Debtor \"appointed\" Ms. Yu to such a position further substantiates that he controls Ace Decade.\n\n<sup>31</sup> On September 18, 2015, Haixia transferred its shares in Dawn State to Ace Decade. U.K. Complaint ¶ 74.\n\n<sup>32</sup> *See* Hearing Ex. 15, Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan, dated February 5, 2016, *Ace Decade vs. UBS AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc No. 27, ¶ 17 (\"Mr. Wong asked to review the resumes of some of my employees to assess whose background would most likely satisfy Haixia's requirements so that such employee could be appointed as the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade. He reviewed these resumes and advised that Ms. Yu's resume and background was best suited to satisfy Haixia's requirements and thus, that I should appoint Ms. Yu as the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade.\").\n\nThe same is true in communications by or regarding Yvette Wang, to whom the Debtor (or his counsel) addressed the Share Transfer Letter. 35\n\n20. All of the foregoing is also consistent with the Debtor's corporate shell game of putting close family members and trusted confidants \"in charge\" of corporate entities to hide the true ownership of his assets from his creditors or regulators. Indeed, as explained in the Kwok/UBS Affidavit, the primary purpose behind using a convoluted intermediary holding structure for the H-Shares (as opposed to the Debtor investing directly) was to avoid detection by Chinese regulatory authorities. 36\n\n21. In his Objection, the Debtor now claims that the statements in the U.K. Complaint merely confirm his ownership of Ace Decade in November 2014. Putting aside that nothing in the U.K. Complaint (which, as noted, was filed in September 2020) suggests that the ownership of Ace Decade has changed, the Objection does not state who, if not the Debtor, is the current owner of Ace Decade, nor does the Objection indicate when Ace Decade's ownership supposedly changed hands.\n\nThis last-\n\n![](_page_24_Figure_5.jpeg)\n\nminute shift in the Debtor's story is simply not credible.\n\n35 See Hearing Ex. 28, Email from Yvette Wang, dated July 11, 2019 (\"[W]e [at Golden Spring] take care of Miles' and his family's business . . . . \");\n\n<sup>36</sup> See Hearing Ex. 15, Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan, dated February 5, 2016, Ace Decade vs. UBS AG, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc No. 27, ¶ 13 (\"[]f I invested through Ace Decade directly, applicable disclosure requirements would require certain filings.\").\n\n22. In any event, the statements in U.K. Complaint are consistent with the statements made in the Section 341 Meeting, and indeed with all statements made by the Debtor until September of this year, when the Trustee requested that the Debtor transfer the shares of Ace Decade to the Trustee. Only then did the Debtor first give any indication that a third party might own Ace Decade—but *all* of his statements to that point were consistent with the fact that he is the owner of Ace Decade.\n\n23. Further, there is voluminous additional documentary evidence demonstrating, beyond any doubt, that the Debtor owns and controls Ace Decade—and none of it even mentions Mr. Wei. For example:\n\n- The Kwok/UBS Affidavit demonstrates that it was the Debtor that funded Ace Decade and that it was the Debtor who made the investment the H-Shares (through Ace Decade):\n\t- o \"Mr. Wong [at UBS] told me that because of the size of the Investment that *I* was planning to make, senior executive from UBS globally would participate in structuring the deal.\" Kwok/UBS Affidavit ¶ 10.\n\t- o \"Based on these representation that senior executives at UBS globally would be involved in structuring and overseeing this Investment and that UBS would act in *my* best interests, *I* entrusted UBS to act as *my* advisor for the Investment.\" *Id.* ¶ 11.\n\t- o \"[UBS] advised *me* on which of my employees to appoint as sole shareholder and Director of Ace Decade, to *utilize Ace Decade* to enter into a side agreement with an intermediary entity that would hold legal title to the Shares, and how best to *transfer the funds necessary for the Investment from one of my UBS accounts to the Ace Decade account*.\" *Id.* ¶ 12.\n\t- o \"UBS advised that because the planned Investment comprised greater than 5% of the outstanding H-shares of Haitong, if *I invested through Ace Decade* directly, applicable disclosure requirements would require certain filings.\" *Id.* ¶ 13.\n- In his First Day Declaration, the Debtor stated that he \"anticipated that the proceeds of recoveries or settlements in litigations in which I am a plaintiff will\n\nbe used to fund a Chapter 11 plan,\"37 and that UBS litigation claims were \"assets that I anticipate relying on to help formulate and potentially confirm a plan of reorganization.\"38 This could only have been true if the proceeds of recoveries to Ace Decade flowed to the Debtor based on his status as owner of Ace Decade.\n\n![](_page_26_Figure_2.jpeg)\n\n· Ace Decade's complaint in the UBS litigation filed in New York state court describes the UBS transaction as arising from plans by the Debtor to invest approximately \\$1 billion \"through Ace Decade.\"45\n\n<sup>39</sup> See Hearing Ex. 41, Dep. Tr. of Ho Wan Kwok, dated November 25, 2019, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 350, at 10:21-24 (Mr. Podhaskie noting his representation of the Debtor in his personal capacity).\n\n![](_page_26_Figure_7.jpeg)\n\n45 See Hearing Ex. 14, Complaint, Ace Decade vs. UBS AG, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc No. 1, ¶20.\n\n<sup>37</sup> First Day Declaration ¶ 47.\n\n<sup>38</sup> First Day Declaration ¶ 54.\n\n- The complaint filed by the Debtor against Boies Schiller, his counsel in the New York UBS litigation, related to a fee dispute, asserts that the Debtor hired Boies Schiller to commence litigation on behalf of Ace Decade based on fraud and misrepresentations made to the Debtor. 46\n- The arbitration award issued in connection with the fee dispute between the Debtor and Boies Schiller states that the Debtor retained Boies Schiller \"on his behalf\" in the lawsuit against UBS and that Boies Schiller billed the Debtor approximately \\$1.5 million.<sup>47</sup>\n\n24. Indeed, if the Debtor does not have an economic interest in Ace Decade why did he commence litigation against UBS (including in New York state court and in U.K. courts) seeking to recover approximately \\$500 million in losses suffered as a result of an investment in the H-Shares? These lawsuits clearly demonstrate that the Debtor sees the investment losses sustained by Ace Decade and Dawn State as his own—exactly as one would expect to be the case for the beneficial owner of Ace Decade and Dawn State.\n\n# **III. The Court Should Reject the Debtor's Attempt to Disavow His Testimony at the Section 341 Meeting**\n\n25. Faced with clear and unambiguous directions under the Corporate Governance Rights Order and his multiple statements, in court filings and/or under oath, that he is the owner of Ace Decade, the Debtor now attempts to challenges the accuracy of the official transcript of the April 6, 2022 meeting of creditors (the \"Section 341 Meeting\"), in which he confirmed, under oath, that he is the sole owner of Ace Decade. To reiterate, during the Section 341 Meeting, counsel to the U.S. Trustee questioned the Debtor as follows:\n\n- Q Mr. Kwok, do you own any interest in a company called Ace Decade Holdings Limited?\n- A *Yes.*\n\n <sup>46</sup> *See* Hearing Ex. 11, Complaint, *Wengui v. Schiller, et al.*, Index No. 150001/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 6-7 (\"The UBS matter involved damages in excess of \\$500 million as a result of UBS' fraud and misrepresentations to Guo . . . .\").\n\n<sup>47</sup> *See* Hearing Ex. 13, Arbitration Award at 2, *Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP v. Kwok*, Index No. 150001/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 6.\n\n| Q | What is the nature of your ownership interest in Ace Decade       |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|   | Holdings Limited?                                                 |\n| A | So I have the interest and ask for UBS to pay back \\$500 million. |\n|   | That kind of interest.                                            |\n|   | .                                                                 |\n| Q | Are you [Mr. Kwok] the only legal owner of Ace Decade?            |\n| A | I am a legal representing owner.                                  |\n| Q | Are there any other owners of Ace Decade?                         |\n| A | No.                                                               |\n| Q | When did you become an owner of Ace Decade Holdings               |\n|   | Limited?                                                          |\n| A | 48<br>At the end of 2014.                                         |\n|   |                                                                   |\n\n26. At no time during the entire Section 341 Meeting did the Debtor assert that he is\n\nnot the owner of Ace Decade or that the owner of Ace Decade is Mr. Wei.49 Nor did the Debtor dispute the official translation of this portion of the Section 341 Meeting, which the Debtor did on many other occasions during the meeting.50\n\nNor did\n\nthe Debtor subsequently challenge the accuracy of any of these portions of the official transcript—until, of course, the Trustee requested the transfer of the shares in Ace Decade. It was only then that the Debtor asserted, for the first time, that his prior admissions were purportedly the result of a series of mistranslations.\n\n27. In particular, the Debtor now argues that the proper translation of his exchange with counsel to the U.S. Trustee was that she asked him \"[a]re you the only legal owner of Ace Decade?\" to which the Debtor responded: \"I am legally representing the owner.\"51 Putting aside\n\n<sup>48</sup> Tr. of Section 341 Meeting at 60:16-61:10, dated April 6, 2022 (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>49</sup> The Debtor only asserted that Mr. Wei gave the Debtor the \\$500 million in funds that the Debtor then provided to Ace Decade. *See id.* at 62:11-63:1 (Mr. Wei's name transcribed as \"John Way\").\n\n<sup>50</sup> *See, e.g.*, *id.* at 25:8-10; 40:14-23; 47:24-25; 83:22-25; 116:9-10.\n\n<sup>51</sup> Objection ¶ 18.\n\n| 29.                                                                     |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| credibility.53                                                          |\n|                                                                         |\n|                                                                         |\n|                                                                         |\n|                                                                         |\n|                                                                         |\n| 52 Wilkinson Deposition at 20:4-12                                      |\n|                                                                         |\n| 53 The Trustee is moving to exclude Ms. Wilkinson's proposed testimony. |\n| 54 Id. at 26:6-23 (                                                     |\n\n#### CONCLUSION\n\n30. For several years now, the Debtor has asserted that he owns Ace Decade and its wholly owned subsidiary, Dawn State. It was only after the appointment of the Trustee that the Debtor began to change his story to now claim, unconvincingly, that he does not own Ace Decade and Dawn State. The Court should reject the Debtor's latest attempts of obfuscation and misdirection, and enforce the Court's order (as well as the Debtor's duties under the Bankruptcy Code) to cooperate with the Trustee and surrender all property of the estate. The impact of the Debtor's conduct is not limited to the proceedings before this Court. The Debtor's continued subterfuge is allowing Ace Decade and Dawn State to present themselves as \"independent\" of the Debtor and pursue objections to the Trustee's recognition application pending before the UK courts 57\n\n31. For all of these reasons, and those detailed in the Contempt Motion, the Trustee requests that the Contempt Motion be granted, including that the Debtor be held in contempt until he turns over the Ace Decade shares to the Trustee (regardless of who holds them for him) and that the Court hold that the Debtor is the owner of the Ace Decade shares.\n\n#### [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\nરુદ Id. at 112:20-113:6.\n\nરેર Id. at 131:4-11\n\n<sup>57</sup> See Hearing Ex. 51, Letter from Wedlake Bell, dated November 3, 2022.\n\nDated: November 14, 2022 New Haven, Connecticut LUC A. DESPINS, 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# **EXHIBIT A [REDACTED]**","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）\nx\n案件：\n第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1\n合并审理\nx\n\n第 11 章受托人关于以下事项的密封动议：(A) 申请密封提交关于支持因债务人未能遵守公司治理权利裁定而对其作出民事藐视法庭裁定的动议的回复意见及相关文件；以及 (B) 申请放宽回复意见的页数限制\n\n根据 District of Connecticut Local Rule of Civil Procedure（《康涅狄格区民事诉讼本地规则》）（以下简称“《民事本地规则》”）第 5(e) 条以及 District of Connecticut Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（《康涅狄格区破产诉讼本地规则》）（以下简称“《破产本地规则》”）第 7007-2 条和第 9077-1 条，在债务人第 11 章案件中获任命的第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（以下简称“受托人”）特此通过其下签名律师，恭请法院作出随本动议一并提交的拟议裁定（即附件 A，以下简称“《拟议裁定》”）（本动议以下简称“《动议》”）：(A) 通过准许密封提交受托人的《回复备忘录》（以下简称“《回复意见》”），以保护关键的特权和保密性，该《回复意见》旨在支持其《第 11 章受托人关于因债务人未能遵守公司治理权利裁定而对其作出民事藐视法庭裁定的动议》[ECF 编号：913]（以下简称“《藐视法庭动议》”）2，并回应债务人对此提出的异议 [ECF 编号：1026]（以下简称“《异议》”），且进一步准许\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及其他诸多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）（以下简称“债务人”）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（以下简称“Genever BVI”）。受托人和 Genever BVI 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于接收通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2 本动议中未另行定义的首字母大写术语，均采用《藐视法庭动议》中所列的定义。\n\n密封提交受托人将在《藐视法庭动议》听证会（以下简称“听证会”）上出示的若干证据附件；以及 (B) 将受托人《回复意见》的页数限制放宽至二十五 (25) 页。为支持本动议，受托人陈述如下：\n相关事实\n\n1. 受托人于 2022年10月7日 提交了《藐视法庭动议》，据此请求法院认定债务人构成民事藐视法庭，理由是债务人蓄意不遵守并拒绝执行涉及 Ace Decade 及其全资子公司 Dawn State 的《公司治理权利裁定》。债务人在对《藐视法庭动议》的回应中主张（除其他事项外）：他不拥有 Ace Decade，拥有者另有其人，且债务人无力配合受托人的请求。\n\n2. 债务人的论点毫无依据，缺乏事实与法律基础。在向法院证明这一点的过程中，受托人将依赖通过证据开示获取的信息和文件，这些信息和文件要么 (i) 受律师-附随当事人保密特权保护，从而受法院的《关于与第 2004 条规则传票调取文件和信息相关的律师-附随当事人保密特权及工作成果保护控制权的同意裁定》[ECF 编号：856]（以下简称“《特权裁定》”）管辖，要么 (ii) 已被债务人或提供该等材料的第三方根据法院的《保护裁定》[ECF 编号：923]（以下简称“《保护裁定》”）指定为保密或高度保密级别。\n\n3. 这些材料包括债务人前任律师之间往来的特权电子邮件通信（即受托人的听证会证据附件 21-23），以及债务人前任律师与债务人之间的其他通信（受托人的听证会证据附件 20），受托人将在听证会上将这些材料作为证据附件出示，并在受托人的《回复意见》中予以讨论。由于受托人目前拥有并控制着债务人先前的律师-附随当事人保密特权（以及受托人可行使的其他特权和权利），因此确保不发生对特权材料的疏忽泄露至关重要，特别是当此类泄露可能对债务人破产财产造成实质性不利影响时。仅允许已审阅过特权文件的受托人和债务人以及法院审阅此类特权材料，将确保不会因泄露和弃权而产生此类损害。\n\n4. 此外，目前债务人的律师已将债务人的全部宣誓供述证言（以及债务人列出且同样于周五接受了取证的第三方证人的证言）指定为“高度保密”。在其他示例中，回应受托人第 2004 条规则传票的律师事务所在提供文件时仅附带了“保密”和“高度保密”标识。虽然受托人在很多情况下不同意这些信息实际上属于保密信息——特别是关于债务人及其翻译人员的宣誓供述笔录，在尚未被问及任何一个问题之前就被指定为高度保密——但在保密标识被撤销或法院另有命令之前，受托人须按照《保护裁定》的明确文义申请将其密封提交。\n法院应将作为证据附件以及包含在回复意见中的特权及保密信息和文件予以密封\n\n5. 受托人必须能够使用特权和保密文件及信息，以证明债务人对 Ace Decade 享有实益所有权与控制权，进而证明债务人持续藐视法院的《公司治理权利裁定》，这一点至关重要。同样至关重要的一点是，受托人不得因当前正在进行的调查而放弃其控制的任何特权，也不得疏忽泄露其持有的任何保密或高度保密材料。\n\n6. 对特权和保密信息的不必要泄露可能会对债务人破产财产（以下简称“破产财产”）的价值造成实质性损害。债务人及其名下公司 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 已在英国对 UBS（瑞银集团）提起索赔诉讼，以追讨其声称的 5亿美元 损失（以下简称“英国诉讼”）。\n\n7. 这些索赔属于债务人破产财产的财产，泄露特权或保密文件或信息可能会损害其价值。例如，瑞银集团完全有可能试图利用特权或保密信息来谋取优势，以在英国诉讼中抗辩破产财产的索赔。3 法院应通过最大程度保留特权和维持保密性来维护破产财产的价值。\n\n8. 对特权文件的密封程序将确保唯一可以审阅这些文件的主体——即债务人和受托人——均属于对其披露不会导致放弃特权的主体。此外，在此程序下向法院披露这些文件，应按照法院在不公开庭审（in camera）中审阅特权文件的相同方式处理。\n\n9. 此外，受托人必须能够立即提交《回复意见》及其听证会证据附件，同时遵守《特权裁定》和《保护裁定》。在债务人和某些第三方完善保密标识期间，不应阻碍受托人追究债务人藐视法庭行为的责任。受托人保留对证据开示材料上附加的保密标识提出异议并请求撤销该等标识的一切权利。如果将来撤销了任何保密标识，或者法院认定任何文件或信息被不当指定，则可以通过协议或将来的裁定予以解封。\n\n3 瑞银集团知悉本第 11 章案件的诉讼程序；这既源于英国的法院诉讼文件，也因为受托人已根据《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条规则向瑞银集团发出了传票。\n\n10. 因此，受托人提议将保密文件和信息（统称为“保密材料”）以及特权文件和信息（统称为“特权材料”，与保密材料一并统称为“受保护材料”）予以密封提交。\n\n11. 依据《破产本地规则》第 9077-1 条适用于本争议事项的《民事本地规则》第 5(e) 条规定，法院可准许密封提交文件和信息。本《动议》中已清晰且令人信服地阐述了必要的事实依据，随本动议提交的拟议裁定中亦包含了这些依据；这些足以支持法院对受保护材料予以密封。参见《民事本地规则》第 5(e)(3) 条。本《动议》所请求的救济是为此等重要利益量身定制的。参见同上。\n\n12. 《民事本地规则》允许提交关于密封的密封动议。参见《民事本地规则》第 5(e)(4) 条。受托人已密封提交本《动议》，因为在解释密封提交的必要性时，本《动议》本身披露了受保护材料。受托人还希望确保法院能够及时审阅受托人的《回复意见》。受托人将在今天晚些时候提交本《动议》的删节版本。\n\n13. 因此，受托人在本《动议》后附上其《回复意见》的未删节副本作为附件 B，其中所有保密材料均用黄色高亮标出，所有特权材料均用蓝色高亮标出。受托人将同时在公开案卷中提交一份删除了所有受保护材料的《回复意见》副本。\n\n14. 受托人进一步提议将某些证据附件指定为保密材料，包括但不限于：证据附件 21、27，以及受托人经与保密方（定义见下文）律师协商后指定的其他证据附件；并将某些证据附件指定为特权材料，包括但不限于：证据附件 20、22、23，以及受托人经与债务人律师协商后指定的其他证据附件。受托人请求法院在此基础上准许受托人密封提交属于受保护材料的所有证据附件。\n\n15. 受托人请求，除法院外，保密材料的披露范围仅限于受托人、债务人、PAX、委员会以及 United States Trustee（美国联邦破产受托人）（以下简称“保密方”），上述各方均受《保护裁定》的约束。在法院作出批准本《动议》的裁定后，受托人将向各保密方分发一份未删节所有保密材料的《回复意见》副本 4 以及属于保密材料的所有证据附件。\n\n16. 受托人请求，除法院外，特权材料的披露范围仅限于受托人和债务人（以下简称“特权方”）。\n\n17. 进一步披露特权材料不仅可能危及该材料本身的特权，还可能更广泛地危及与英国诉讼相关文件的律师-附随当事人保密特权。破产财产在英国诉讼中的索赔价值对破产财产极为重要，对受托人最大化其资产价值以确保债权人获得最佳受偿的义务也极为重要。\n\n18. 鉴于债务人是《特权裁定》和《保密裁定》的当事方，受托人已向债务人送达了本密封《动议》的副本 5 以及受托人《回复意见》的未删节副本，且受托人将在密封提交属于特权材料的所有证据附件之时或之前，向债务人送达该等证据附件的副本。\n\n4 属于特权材料的信息在分发给保密当事方的答辩状副本中将保持遮蔽，且受托人不会向除债务人以外的当事方分发属于特权材料的证据附件。\n\n5 为保留关于特权材料的适用特权，本动议将不向除债务人以外的当事方送达。\n\n19. 受托人起草的准予本动议的拟议裁定包括了具体的认定，但排除了对受保护材料的直接披露，以便允许其在公开案卷上提交。\n\n法院应当扩大受托人答辩状的页数限制\n\n20. 为使受托人能在其答辩状中充分阐述前述主题事项——包括对债务人不断变化的立场和陈述进行“事实核查”——受托人谨请求法院将页数限制从十（10）页延长至二十五（25）页。参见《地方破产规则》（Local Bankruptcy Rule）第 7007-2 条（允许经法院批准扩大页数限制）。\n\n21. 事实上，考虑到债务人在其作证陈述中对藐视法庭动议所声称的辩解发生实质性变化的程度，受托人的答辩状必须有效应对两份反对书——一份由债务人的律师提交，另一份由债务人在周五首次阐述。\n\n[本页余下部分有意留白]\n\n为此，法院应当准予本动议，允许按照拟议裁定的规定将受保护材料\n\n进行封存提交，扩大受托人答辩状的页数限制，并\n\n准予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步的救济。\n\n日期：2022年11月14日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n证据附件 A\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分部\n\n案件：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等，\n债务人。6\n第 11 章\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n合并审理\n\n[拟议] 准予第 11 章受托人关于 (A) 封存支持对债务人未遵守公司治理权裁定处以民事藐视法庭裁定的动议的答辩状及相关文件；以及 (B) 扩大答辩状页数限制的封存动议的裁定\n\n经审议第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）（“受托人”）请求许可封存提交其《支持对债务人未遵守公司治理权裁定处以民事藐视法庭裁定的动议的答辩状》（“答辩状”）及若干其他文件的动议（“动议”）；且已有正当理由显示，并且法院认定披露受律师-委托人特权保护的文件或信息（统称“特权材料”）或以其他方式属于保密性质的文件或信息（统称“保密材料”，并与特权材料统称为“受保护材料”）可能损害债务人的破产财产（“破产财产”），包括就属于待决诉讼\n\n6 本等第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）（“债务人”）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）。受托人和 Genever BVI 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于接收通知和通信之目的）。\n\n主张性质的债务人破产财产资产价值而言，法院认定允许封存提交受保护材料符合相关当事方在《特权裁定》和《保护性裁定》7下的协议和预期，以确保当事方遵守该等裁定，本裁定所提供的救济经严格限制以符合前述目的，且由此及以其他方式显示已有正当理由，法院特此\n\n裁定，动议按本裁定所载予以准予；并进一步\n\n裁定，法院批准封存提交该动议及随附的未遮蔽答辩状，且该动议及未遮蔽的答辩状应保持封存；并进一步；\n\n裁定，受托人应在本第 11 章案件的公开案卷上提交一份答辩状副本，该副本已对受托人指定为受保护材料的任何信息进行了遮蔽，但是，受托人应向债务人、PAX、委员会和美国受托人（United States Trustee）（统称“保密当事方”）送达一份答辩状副本，其中特权材料已遮蔽但保密材料（非属于特权材料者）未遮蔽，且受托人应向债务人送达一份完全未遮蔽的答辩状副本；并进一步\n\n裁定，受托人可封存提交任何属于保密材料的听证会证据附件，但是，受托人应在该封存提交后立即向保密当事方送达所有该等证据附件（非属于特权材料者）；并进一步\n\n裁定，受托人可封存提交任何属于特权材料的听证会证据附件，但是，受托人应在该封存提交后立即向债务人送达所有该等证据附件；并进一步\n\n7 本裁定中未另行定义的大写术语应采用动议中所载的定义。\n\n裁定，适用于受托人答辩状的页数限制应为二十五（25）页。\n\n证据附件 B\n\n经高亮显示以反映保密材料和特权材料的未遮蔽答辩状\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分部\n\n案件：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等，\n债务人。1\n第 11 章\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n合并审理\n\n第 11 章受托人支持对债务人未遵守公司治理权裁定处以民事藐视法庭裁定的动议的答辩状\n\nLuc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯）作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的第 11 章案件中被指定的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”），由其下述署名律师代表，谨此提交本答辩状（“答辩状”），以支持其《第 11 章受托人关于对债务人未遵守公司治理权裁定处以民事藐视法庭裁定的动议》[案卷号 913]（“藐视法庭动议”）2，并回应 Ho Wan Kwok 先生（“债务人”）就此提交的异议 [案卷号 1026]（“异议”）。\n\n1 本等第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）（“债务人”）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）。受托人和 Genever BVI 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于接收通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2 本文未另行定义的大写术语采用藐视法庭动议中所载的定义。\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 债务人持续不遵守本法院《公司治理权裁定》的明确无误的指令以及《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 521(a)(3) 和 (4) 条的要求3——伴随着为解释该等不遵守行为而不断变化的借口、故意混淆和彻头彻尾的虚假陈述——令人想起 Ostrager 法官在 PAX 诉讼中的告诫：“如果亿万富翁诉讼当事人可以一边试图利用纽约和美国其他地方的法院程序，一边故意且蓄意地违反法院命令，那么法治将荡然无存。”4 Ostrager 法官是在 PAX 诉讼中观察了债务人五年的行为后发表此番言论的，在此期间，债务人表现出“对 [纽约州法院] 和司法程序的极度藐视。”5\n\n2. 债务人目前在回应藐视法庭动议时正在使用导致 Ostrager 法官作出上述认定的许多相同策略和手段。债务人在 PAX 诉讼和其他地方最喜欢的策略之一是，只要符合其个人利益，就会毫无羞耻或尴尬之感地否认对其自身言论和声明的任何知情或责任，包括在法院提交的文件中和/或宣誓后作出的言论和声明。例如，在 PAX 诉讼的作证陈述中，债务人声称其向 PAX 提供的个人担保上的签名是伪造的，尽管他在 2017 年 6 月寻求驳回 PAX 诉讼时曾出示了该文件并依赖于其真实性。6\n\n3 为明确起见，《公司治理权裁定》中的任何内容均未“优先排除”债务人遵守《破产法典》第 521(a)(3) 和 (4) 条的要求。参见《公司治理权裁定》第 3 段（“根据《破产法典》第 521(a)(3) 和 521(a)(4) 条，特此指示债务人……”）。\n\n4 2022 年 2 月 9 日关于动议的裁决与命令第 10 页，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF 文件号 1181\n\n5 同上，第 4 页。\n\n事实上，债务人自己的律师此前曾承认该担保是“由 Kwok 先生签署的”。7 债务人令人难以置信的彻底转变导致 Ostrager 法官裁定禁止他在司法层面上主张伪造作为对 PAX 违约主张的抗辩。8 债务人另一个最喜欢的策略是毫无根据地声称其他人（包括近亲属或受信任的心腹）拥有债务人作为真正实际受益所有人的资产。这些相同的策略在这里得到了充分展现。债务人既厚颜无耻地推翻其先前的证词，又编造了一个关于 Ace Decade 据称由谁拥有和控制的令人难以置信的故事，以服务于其自身的个人利益并向债权人隐匿其资产。在过去，债务人在法院提交的文件中和/或在宣誓后证明——包括在第 341 条会议和英国起诉书中——他拥有 Ace Decade。然而现在，债务人声称他在第 341 条会议上的证词不知怎么被误译了，尽管他和他在此次会议上的个人口译员在当时或随后的六个月内均未对据称不正确的翻译提出异议。\n\n3. 具体而言，债务人主张他在第 341 条会议上并未像该会议正式笔录所反映的那样作证称自己是 Ace Decade 的“具有法律代表资格的所有人”（a legally representing owner），而是作证称自己是“在法律上代表所有人”（legally representing the owner）——即所有人是其他人，而债务人仅作为该人的代表。\n\n6 参见听证会证据附件 45，支持 Kwok 驳回动议的备忘录第 3 页，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF 文件号 8；听证会证据附件 44，Fiona Yu 支持 Kwok 驳回动议的确认书第 2 页，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF 文件号 11（附有 Kwok 与 PAX 之间个人担保的真实准确副本）。\n\n7 听证会证据附件 47，PAX LP 与 Stevenson Wong 之间的电子邮件链，日期为 2011 年 3 月 16 日，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF 文件号 354。\n\n8 参见听证会证据 48，司法禁止反言裁定，PAX 诉 Kwok，案号 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.［纽约州最高法院］），NYSCEF 档号 404（“［本］法院认定，被告 Kwok（郭文贵）在司法上被禁止对……被告郭文贵此前在本院诉讼程序中所提交文件的真实性提出异议，尽管被告郭文贵在其宣誓证词中试图否认其在这些文件上的签名。”）。\n\n9 单凭这一点就彻底击碎了 Debtor（债务人）的说法，揭露其纯属捏造，旨在阻止 Trustee（受托人）取得对 Ace Decade 的控制权。更糟糕的是，债务人唯一指认用于支持所谓翻译错误的证人——他的私人翻译——在上周五的宣誓证词中作证\n\n4. J 债务人目前就其在 Ace Decade 中的权益，与其自身在其他背景下作出的宣誓证词产生断然矛盾。债务人此前曾作证称，他利用 Ace Decade 进行了 UBS（瑞士银行）的投资，并使用其个人资金为该投资提供资金。然而，在上周五的宣誓录供中，\n\n10 2022年11月11日 Una Wilkinson 宣誓录供笔录（以下简称“Wilkinson 宣誓证词”），第 20:4-12 行\n\n11 听证会证据 27，郭文贵宣誓证词第 30:7-8 行\n\n12 同上，第 69:9-11 行\n\n。2018年，债务人在另一场诉讼的宣誓录供中作证称——同样没有任何证据——他在 Manhattan（曼哈顿）Sherry Netherland 的公寓实际上归 Mr. Wei（魏先生）所有。13 但是，正如法院所知，债务人现在在这些 chapter 11（第11章）破产案件中声称，Sherry Netherland 的房产现在且一直以来都是为了 Bravo Luck Limited 的利益以信托方式持有的，而根据债务人的说法，该公司又归债务人的儿子所有。14\n\n受托人需要调查并回应的所有这些计划和荒谬的主张（除债务人企图阻碍受托人工作的各种行为之外），正在耗费破产财团数百万美元的专业人员费用。这种行为必须立即停止。\n\n6.\n\n。2016年以及2020年，债务人\n\n声明 Yong Yu（于泳）是 Ace Decade 的代持股东，且他是她的\n\n“雇主”。15 随后，在2021年进行的一次宣誓录供中，债务人多次否认他认识\n\nYong Yu。16\n\n13 参见听证会证据 39，2018年10月3日郭文贵宣誓录供笔录第 125:13-19 行（“问：我的问题是：你的立场是否是我们的客户不能扣押这套公寓，因为你并不拥有它，而是 Zhang Wei（张巍）拥有？……答：是的。”）。\n\n14 参见首日声明，案卷号 107，第 33 段（“我持有 Genever BVI 的全部股权。然而，根据日期为2015年2月17日（‘信托日期’）的信托声明及协议，我代表 Bravo Luck Limited 以信托方式持有该等股权。”）。\n\n15 听证会证据 15，日期为2016年2月5日之 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云/郭文贵）宣誓书，Ace Decade 诉 UBS AG，案号 653316/2015（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），NYSCEF 档号 27，第 1 段（“我是 Yong Yu 的雇主，她是 Ace Decade 的董事兼唯一股东。”）。亦参见英国起诉书第 24 段（指认 Yong Yu 为债务人的雇员）。\n\n16 听证会证据 46，2021年7月21日 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）宣誓录供，Meng 诉 Guo，案号 159636/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），NYSCEF 档号 69，第 159:21-160:5 行（“问：好的。你认识一个叫 Yong Yu 的人吗？答：Yong Yu？不好意思……问：这是一个具体的人。你认识一个叫 Yong Yu 的人吗？答：我不认识 Yong Yu。”）。\n\n2018年，\n\n债务人称她是他的“助理”18（这与公共记录及/或已提交给受托人的众多文件相符），19\n\n7. 债务人的自相矛盾还延伸到他在本第11章破产案中提交的财产明细表和声明中。债务人在其财产明细表中将 UBS 诉讼列为破产财团的资产，并在其2022年3月20日的声明（以下简称“首日声明”）中陈述——该声明也是为了支持其申请 DIP financing（破产保护期融资）以协助为 UBS 诉讼提供资金而提交的——称该诉讼的收益可分配给债权人，并可用于制定\n\n重整计划。21\n\n20 听证会证据 27，郭文贵宣誓证词第 77:16-79:13 行\n\n21 参见首日声明第 32、47 段（债务人声明他“预期作为原告的诉讼追偿款或和解金收益将用于资助第11章重整计划。”）。\n\n22 听证会证据 27，郭文贵宣誓证词第 30:7-8 行\n\n17 听证会证据 27，郭文贵宣誓证词第 33:3-8 行。\n\n18 听证会证据 39，2018年10月3日郭文贵宣誓录供笔录第 55:23-25 行（“问：谁是你的助理？答：……［Yvette］Wang（王雁平）。”）。\n\n19 在仲裁员 Frank Maas 就债务人与 Boies Schiller 之间的律师费争议作出的最终仲裁裁决中，Maas 称 Yvette Wang 为“郭的办公室主任”。参见听证会证据 13，仲裁裁决书第 3 页，Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP 诉 Kwok，案号 150001/2019（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），NYSCEF 档号 6。亦参见例如听证会证据 31，日期为2018年10月11日之 Yvette Wang 宣誓录供笔录第 46:20-25 行（“问：我是在问你是否担任郭先生权益的管理人？答：是的。问：这是什么意思？答：翻译、助理。”）（强调为后加）；听证会证据 28，日期为2019年7月11日之 Yvette Wang 电子邮件（“我们［在 Golden Spring（金泉）］负责处理 Miles（迈尔斯/郭文贵）及其家族的业务……”）；\n\n8. 最后，为了在最后一刻所谓“遵守”受托人在藐视法庭动议中请求的命令，债务人向法院提交了一份据称已送交 Wang 女士的信件，称其指示她在其可能对 Ace Decade 拥有权力的范围内，将 Ace Decade 的股份转让给受托人。如下文进一步详述，这封毫无实质作用的信件是一种毫无底线的诉讼策略，法院应予直接驳回。\n\n9. 法院不应容许债务人规避履行《公司治理权利命令》的最新伎俩。如果允许债务人继续玩弄这些花招，将使本法院和司法体系沦为笑柄。债务人是一个拥有无限资金雇佣律师提出一切可以想象的论据、以此谋求拖延和阻碍司法程序的个人。鉴于债务人拒绝遵守《公司治理权利命令》及其此前承认拥有 Ace Decade 的证词，法院应裁定债务人为 Ace Decade 的所有权人，且 Ace Decade 的股份属于第11章破产财团。除非债务人在十（10）天内交出其在 Ace Decade 的股份，否则应裁定其构成藐视法庭。\n\n辩论意见\n\nI. 债务人未能遵守《公司治理权利命令》的明确指示\n\n10. 首先，债务人的异议试图混淆法院在《公司治理权利命令》中作出的明确指示。然而，无论债务人如何辩解，都无法改变《公司治理权利命令》的明文规定，该命令规定“受托人为破产财团之利益，就所有债务人控制的实体（包括但不限于 Genever (BVI)），享有债务人的所有经济权利和治理权利”。为落实前述规定，《公司治理权利命令》指示\n债务人“与受托人合作以使受托人能够履行其职责”，并“向受托人交出破产财团的所有财产以及任何记录信息，包括但不限于与破产财团财产相关的账簿、文件、记录和文书”。23 显而易见，《公司治理权利命令》不仅限于 Genever (BVI)，而是适用于债务人的所有财产，包括 Ace Decade——一家债务人曾在法庭文件中及/或宣誓下多次承认其所拥有的公司。\n\n11. 然而，尽管《公司治理权利命令》已有明确用语，债务人仍坚称该命令并未明确要求其将 Ace Decade 的股份转让给受托人，因此不符合 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）认定藐视法庭所要求的标准，即要求“(1) 藐视法庭者未能遵守的命令是明确且无歧义的，(2) 不遵守的证据是清晰且有说服力的，以及 (3) 藐视法庭者未曾以合理方式尽职尝试遵守该命令。”King 诉 Allied Vision, Ltd. 案，65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995)。但是，《公司治理权利命令》已经极其明确，几乎没有任何字眼比“所有”财产更无歧义——这一用语毫无疑问包含了他对 Ace Decade 的所有权。\n\n12. 《公司治理权利命令》中仅具体提及转让 Genever (BVI) 股份这一事实，也丝毫不限制要求债务人“向受托人移交破产财团的所有财产”的明确用语。《公司治理权利命令》明确规定，移交破产财团财产包括“但不限于”Genever (BVI) 的股份24——第二巡回法院辖区内的法院已多次认定该用语不得被解释为限制性条款。参见例如 Star Direct Telecom, Inc. 诉 Glob. Crossing Bandwidth, Inc. 案，\n\n23 《公司治理权利命令》第 2、3 段（强调为后加）。\n\n24 《公司治理权利命令》第 3 段（强调为后加）\n\n272 F.R.D. 350, 356 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)（“本院未见有任何……主张认为‘包括但不限于’这一条款应被解读为限制性条款。”）；Shugrue 诉 Continental Airlines 案，977 F. Supp. 280, 285-86 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)（“包括但不限于”的字面含义表明协议中的列举并非排他性的）。\n\n13. 此外，毫无疑问的是，受托人已经达到了关于债务人不履行的“清晰且有说服力”的标准。债务人尚未就 Ace Decade 向受托人移交任何物品，也未给出任何表明其计划这样做的实质性意向。\n\n14. 债务人提出了一个荒谬的理论，称其无法遵守《公司治理权利命令》，因为即使他是 Ace Decade 的所有权人，受托人现在也拥有所有的公司治理权，因此只有受托人才能指示转让 Ace Decade 的股份。这种论点纯属无稽之谈。在现阶段，受托人（依然）未能控制 Ace Decade，恰恰是因为债务人拒绝配合将 Ace Decade 的股份转让给受托人。债务人不能以要求其与受托人配合并向破产财团交出其财产的同一命令（以及《破产法典》第 521(a)(3) 和 (4) 条）据称阻止了债务人履行该义务为由，免除其遵守该命令的责任。\n\n15. 债务人出示的一封日期为2022年11月10日写给 Yvette Wang 的签署信件（以下简称“股份转让信”）丝毫不能改变这一分析，该信件称“为遵从受托人的要求，并在我对 Ace Decade 可能拥有任何权力的范围内，我特此指示你签署随附的股份转让文书和股份转让决议”。25 这种在最后一刻采取的策略令人反感——而且发送这样一封\n\n25 债务人听证会证据 B，第 1 页。\n\n![](_page_21_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n具讽刺意味的是，受托人曾试图找到 Wang 女士以便向其送达在本案中作证的传票，但受托人的送达人员未能找到 Wang 女士。30\n\n17. 总之，该股份转让信是一种居心不良的、在最后一刻试图通过表面上遵守《公司治理权利命令》来避免被裁定藐视法庭的企图，而实际上\n\n26 听证会郭文贵宣誓证词第 85:23-86:8 行\n27 同上，第 48:14-16 行\n28 同上，第 83:3-7 行\n\n同上，第 83:3-7 行。\n\n29 同上，第 88:17-25 行。\n\n30 庭审证物 32，未成功送达宣誓书，日期为 2022年11月11日（描述了于 2022年11月9日 在多个地址尝试向 Yvette Wang（王雁平）送达的情况，包括在其代理律师地址进行的送达尝试）。此外，Wang 女士的代理律师已通知 Trustee（受托人），其未获授权接受受托人传票的送达。参见庭审证物 33，Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）的 Avi Luft 与 Lipman Law PLLC 的 Alex Lipman 之间的电子邮件往来，日期为 2022年11月10日（其中 Lipman 先生指出其“未获授权代表 Yvette Wang 接受送达”）。\n\n事实上并未采取《公司治理权利裁定》（Corporate Governance Rights Order）所要求的任何措施。\n\n显而易见，《公司治理权利裁定》要求 Debtor（债务人）将“债务人控制的实体”（Debtor-Controlled Entities）移交给受托人；毫无疑问，尽管该裁定条款清晰明确，但他并未试图遵守，且他拒绝遵守的行为足以构成对其作出藐视法庭裁定的理由。\n\nII. 瑞银诉讼及相关备案文件证实债务人对 Ace Decade 的所有权\n\n18. 如动议中所详述，2020年9月 提起的《英国起诉状》（U.K. Complaint）已十分明确地表明，Ace Decade Holdings Limited（Ace Decade）及其全资子公司 Dawn State Limited（Dawn State）归债务人所有并由其控制。根据《英国起诉状》，债务人是对 Haitong Securities Company Limited（海通证券股份有限公司，简称“海通”）股权投资的真正受益人，Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 仅作为其投资工具运作，以便债务人规避向 China Securities Regulatory Commission（中国证券监督管理委员会，简称“中国证监会”或“CSRC”）寻求批准的程序。除其他事项外，债务人、Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 在《英国起诉状》中主张：\n\n- “Kwok 先生决定在 H 股中投资约 30亿美元，以获得海通的主要股权。该笔投资拟通过海通发行新 H 股并配售给由 Kwok 先生控制的公司来进行。”《英国起诉状》第 7 段。\n- “Kwok 先生向香港事务律师、Stevenson, Wong & Co.（史蒂芬生黄律师事务所）合伙人 Hank Lo（卢伯韶）先生传达了其收购海通大量股权的意图。”《英国起诉状》第 8 段。\n- “Kwok 先生的意图是为自己收购这些股份。”《英国起诉状》第 11(3) 段。\n- UBS（瑞银集团，简称“瑞银”）建议 Kwok 先生“不要通过其拥有实益所有权或受其控制的公司购买这些股份，因为这需要获得中国证监会的批准”，并且“取而代之的是建立一个由第三方中介控制的公司收购瑞银 H 股的架构（该架构由瑞银安排），该项收购无需获得中国证监会批准。”《英国起诉状》第 18 段。该第三方中介为 Haixia Capital Management Company Ltd（海峡资本管理有限公司，简称“海峡资本”），即最初拥有并控制 Dawn State 的实体。《英国起诉状》第 4 段。\n- “Kwok 先生于 2014年11月10日 收购了 Ace Decade，旨在将其作为上述投资工具。”《英国起诉状》第 24 段。\n- “Ace Decade、Dawn State 与瑞银达成了一系列安排，旨在允许 Ace Decade 通过 Dawn State 参与收购瑞银 H 股。”《英国起诉状》第 29 段。\n- 在该安排下，“Ace Decade 仅拥有参与该项目的合同权利，对 Dawn State 或其收购的瑞银 H 股不享有直接的所有权权益。”《英国起诉状》第 33(3) 段。31\n\n《英国起诉状》在任何地方都根本未提及 Wei（魏）先生，即债务人突然声称是该公司真正所有人的那位亲属。在这一点上的沉默震耳欲聋。\n\n19. 尽管《英国起诉状》还主张“在 Kwok 先生的雇员 Wong 先生的建议下，Yu Yong 女士（于泳，简称“Yu 女士”）成为了 [Ace Decade 的] 名义股东和董事”，《英国起诉状》第 24 段，但这并未减损《英国起诉状》中指明债务人是 Ace Decade 实益拥有人的其他陈述。正如债务人在 Ace Decade 于 New York state court（纽约州法院）对瑞银提起的另一项独立诉讼中所提交的宣誓书（简称“Kwok/瑞银宣誓书”）中所陈述的那样，Yu 女士是由债务人根据瑞银的建议选定的，目的是满足海峡资本（即 H 股投资的中介方）的“了解你的客户”（know your customer）要求。32 债务人将 Yu 女士“任命”到该职位，进一步证实了他控制着 Ace Decade。\n\n31 2015年9月18日，海峡资本将其在 Dawn State 的股份转让给了 Ace Decade。《英国起诉状》第 74 段。\n\n32 参见庭审证物 15，Kwok Ho Wan 宣誓书，日期为 2016年2月5日，Ace Decade vs. UBS AG，案号 Index No. 653316/2015（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF 档号 No. 27，第 17 段（“Wong 先生要求审查我部分雇员的简历，以评估谁的背景最有可能满足海峡资本的要求，从而使该雇员能够被任命为 Ace Decade 的董事及唯一股东。他审查了这些简历，并提出建议称 Yu 女士的简历和背景最适合满足海峡资本的要求，因此我应当任命 Yu 女士为 Ace Decade 的董事及唯一股东。”）。\n\n关于或来自 Yvette Wang 的往来通信中也是如此，债务人（或其律师）曾向其寄发《股权转让函》（Share Transfer Letter）。35\n\n20. 上述所有情况也与债务人所玩的公司“空壳把戏”（shell game）相符，即安排近亲属和信任的亲信“掌管”公司实体，以向其债权人或监管机构隐瞒其资产的真实所有权。事实上，正如“Kwok/瑞银宣誓书”中所解释的，对 H 股采用复杂的中间控股架构（而不是由债务人直接投资）的主要目的，就是为了避免被中国监管机构发现。36\n\n21. 在其异议（Objection）中，债务人现在声称《英国起诉状》中的陈述仅证实了其在 2014年11月 对 Ace Decade 的所有权。且不说《英国起诉状》（如前所述，于 2020年9月 提交）中没有任何内容表明 Ace Decade 的所有权发生过变更，该异议既未说明如果不是债务人，谁才是 Ace Decade 的现所有人，也未说明 Ace Decade 的所有权究竟是在何时发生所谓易手的。\n\n债务人这套说法在最后一刻的转变根本不可信。\n\n35 参见庭审证物 28，来自 Yvette Wang 的电子邮件，日期为 2019年7月11日（“[我们金泉公司] 照料 Miles 及其家人的事务……”）；\n\n36 参见庭审证物 15，Kwok Ho Wan 宣誓书，日期为 2016年2月5日，Ace Decade vs. UBS AG，案号 Index No. 653316/2015（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF 档号 No. 27，第 13 段（“如果我直接通过 Ace Decade 进行投资，适用的披露要求将需要进行某些备案申报。”）。\n\n22. 无论如何，《英国起诉状》中的陈述与在《第 341 条会议》（Section 341 Meeting）中所作的陈述相一致，并且事实上与债务人在今年 9 月之前所作的所有陈述相一致——直到今年 9 月受托人要求债务人将 Ace Decade 的股份转让给受托人。直到那时，债务人才首次示意可能有第三方拥有 Ace Decade——但在那之前他的所有陈述都与他是 Ace Decade 拥有人这一事实相一致。\n\n23. 此外，还有大量额外的书证确凿无疑地证明，债务人拥有并控制着 Ace Decade——而且其中没有任何一份文件哪怕提及了 Wei 先生。例如：\n\n- “Kwok/瑞银宣誓书”证明，正是债务人向 Ace Decade 提供了资金，并且正是债务人进行了对 H 股的投资（通过 Ace Decade）：\n  - “Wong 先生 [瑞银] 告诉我，由于我计划进行的投资规模庞大，瑞银全球的高级管理人员将参与该交易架构的设计。”“Kwok/瑞银宣誓书”第 10 段。\n  - “基于瑞银全球高管将参与设计和监督此项投资，以及瑞银将符合我最大利益行事的这些陈述，我委托瑞银担任我此次投资的顾问。”同上，第 11 段。\n  - “[瑞银] 建议我就任命哪位雇员担任 Ace Decade 的唯一股东兼董事提出意见，建议利用 Ace Decade 与持有股份法定所有权的中介实体订立补充协议，并就如何最妥当地将投资所需资金从我的一个瑞银账户转移至 Ace Decade 账户提出建议。”同上，第 12 段。\n  - “瑞银告知，由于计划进行的投资占海通已发行 H 股的 5% 以上，如果我直接通过 Ace Decade 投资，适用的披露要求将需要进行某些备案申报。”同上，第 13 段。\n\n- 债务人在其《首日声明》（First Day Declaration）中陈述称，他“预计以我为原告的诉讼中的追偿或和解收益将用于资助第 11 章计划”，37 并且瑞银诉讼索赔是“我预计依靠其协助制定并可能确认重组计划的资产”。38 只有在 Ace Decade 的追偿收益基于债务人作为 Ace Decade 拥有人的身份流向债务人的情况下，上述陈述才可能属实。\n\n- Ace Decade 在纽约州法院提起的瑞银诉讼起诉状中，将瑞银交易描述为源于债务人计划“通过 Ace Decade”投资约 10亿美元。45\n\n39 参见庭审证物 41，Ho Wan Kwok 宣誓采证笔录，日期为 2019年11月25日，PAX v. Kwok，案号 Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF 档号 No. 350，第 10:21-24 行（Podhaskie 先生指出其以个人身份代表债务人）。\n\n45 参见庭审证物 14，起诉状，Ace Decade vs. UBS AG，案号 Index No. 653316/2015（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF 档号 No. 1，第 20 段。\n\n37 《首日声明》第 47 段。\n\n38 《首日声明》第 54 段。\n\n- 债务人就律师费争议对其在纽约瑞银诉讼中的代理律师 Boies Schiller Flexner LLP（Boies Schiller）提起的起诉状主张，债务人聘请 Boies Schiller 代表 Ace Decade 提起诉讼是基于对债务人所实施的欺诈和虚假陈述。46\n\n- 就债务人与 Boies Schiller 之间的律师费争议作出的仲裁裁决书载明，债务人在针对瑞银的诉讼中“代表其本人”聘请了 Boies Schiller，且 Boies Schiller 向债务人开具了约 150万美元 的账单。47\n\n24. 事实上，如果债务人在 Ace Decade 中没有经济利益，他为何要对瑞银提起诉讼（包括在纽约州法院和英国法院），以寻求追回因投资 H 股而遭受的约 5亿美元 损失？这些诉讼明确表明，债务人将 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 所遭受的投资损失视为其自身损失——这正符合人们对 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 实益拥有人所预期的行为。\n\nIII. 法院应驳回债务人企图否认其在《第 341 条会议》中证言的主张\n\n25. 面对《公司治理权利裁定》中清晰明确的指令，以及他在法庭备案文件和/或宣誓下多次声明自己是 Ace Decade 所有人的陈述，债务人现在试图质疑 2022年4月6日 债权人会议（即“《第 341 条会议》”）官方笔录的准确性；在这次会议中，他曾在宣誓下确认自己是 Ace Decade 的唯一所有人。重申如下，在《第 341 条会议》期间，U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的代理律师对债务人进行了如下讯问：\n\n- 问：Kwok 先生，您是否拥有名为 Ace Decade Holdings Limited 的公司的任何权益？\n- 答：拥有。\n\n46 参见庭审证物 11，起诉状，Wengui v. Schiller, et al.，案号 Index No. 150001/2019（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF 档号 No. 1，第 6-7 段（“由于瑞银对郭实施欺诈和虚假陈述，瑞银事项涉及超过 5亿美元 的损害赔偿……”）。\n\n47 参见听证会证据 13，仲裁裁决书第 2 页，Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP v. Kwok（博斯·席勒·弗莱克斯纳有限责任合伙诉郭），Index No. 150001/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF Doc. No. 6。\n问：你在 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（源德控股有限公司）中拥有的所有权权益性质为何？\n答：就是我有权益并要求 UBS（瑞银）偿还 5 亿美元。是这种权益。\n.\n问：你［郭先生］是 Ace Decade 的唯一法定所有人吗？\n答：我是法定代表所有人。\n问：Ace Decade 还有其他所有人吗？\n答：没有。\n问：你何时成为 Ace Decade Holdings Limited 的所有人的？\n答：48\n2014 年底。\n\n26. 在整个第 341 条会议期间，债务人从未主张过他不是 Ace Decade 的所有人，也从未主张过 Ace Decade 的所有人是魏先生。49 债务人也未对第 341 条会议该部分的官方翻译提出异议，而在会议期间的许多其他场合债务人都提出了异议。50\n\n债务人随后也未对官方记录文本中任何这些部分的准确性提出质疑——当然，直到受托人要求转让 Ace Decade 的股份为止。直到那时，债务人才首次主张，他先前的承认据称是一系列翻译错误的结果。\n\n27. 特别是，债务人现在辩称，他与美国联邦受托人律师的对话的正确翻译应当是，对方问他「你是 Ace Decade 的唯一法定所有人吗？」，债务人回答：「我是法定的代表所有人。」51 姑且不论\n\n48 2022 年 4 月 6 日第 341 条会议记录文本第 60:16-61:10 页（后加强调）。\n\n49 债务人仅主张魏先生给了债务人 5 亿美元资金，债务人随后将该资金提供给了 Ace Decade。参见同上第 62:11-63:1 页（魏先生的姓名被转录为「John Way」）。\n\n50 参见，例如，同上第 25:8-10 页；第 40:14-23 页；第 47:24-25 页；第 83:22-25 页；第 116:9-10 页。\n\n51 异议书第 18 段。\n29.\n可信度。53\n52 Wilkinson 作证笔录第 20:4-12 页\n53 受托人正提请动议排除 Wilkinson 女士的拟作证词。\n54 同上第 26:6-23 页（\n结论\n\n30. 数年以来，债务人一直主张其拥有 Ace Decade 及其全资子公司 Dawn State（日州）。直到受托人获任命后，债务人才开始改变其说法，现在毫无说服力地声称其并不拥有 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State。法院应当驳回债务人最新的混淆视听和误导企图，并强制执行法院的命令（以及债务人在《破产法典》项下的职责），即配合受托人并交出破产财团的所有财产。债务人行为的影响并不限于本法院审理的程序。债务人持续的诡计正使得 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 得以自称「独立」于债务人，并对目前在英国法院待决的受托人承认申请提出异议 57\n\n31. 基于所有这些理由，以及在《藐视法庭动议》中详细阐述的理由，受托人请求批准《藐视法庭动议》，包括判定债务人构成藐视法庭，直至其将 Ace Decade 的股份移交给受托人（无论由谁代其持有），并请求法院认定债务人即为 Ace Decade 股份的所有人。\n［本页其余部分有意留白］\n\n55 同上第 112:20-113:6 页。\n\n56 同上第 131:4-11 页。\n\n57 参见听证会证据 51，Wedlake Bell 于 2022 年 11 月 3 日出具的信函。\n\n日期：2022 年 11 月 14 日，康涅狄格州纽黑文 LUC A. DESPINS，第 11 章受托人\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及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（经特许出庭）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及\n\nAvram E. Luft（经特许出庭）Douglass Barron（经特许出庭）PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人之代理律师\n证物 A［已涂黑隐蔽］","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":8414,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:09:38"}