{"id":"court_sdny_137_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":137,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-09-01","title":"1 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbasset@paulhastings.com September 2, 2023","summary_zh":"命令 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo，别名包括 Miles Kwok）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #137（2023年9月1日）。破产法院批准 Chapter 11 受托人的紧急动议，禁止被告人在刑事法院继续推进停止破产案的动议，并要求被告人立即撤回该动议。","summary_en":"Order — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, Miles Kwok, and numerous other aliases), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #137 (Sept. 1, 2023). The bankruptcy court granted the Chapter 11 Trustee's emergency motion to enjoin the defendant from prosecuting the motion to stay bankruptcy cases in the criminal court and ordered the defendant to immediately withdraw such motion.","body_en":"1 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbasset@paulhastings.com\n\nSeptember 2, 2023\n\n**VIA ECF**\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York\n\n#### **Re:** *United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al.***, No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nWe represent Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the voluntary chapter 11 case (the \"Bankruptcy Case\") of defendant Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\"). We write in reference to the Debtor's Motion for an Order and Writ Staying Bankruptcy Cases or in the Alternative for Other Relief [ECF No. 129] (the \"Stay Motion\") and co-defendant Yvette Wang's joinder in such motion.\n\nThe Trustee respectfully believes the Bankruptcy Court is the only court that has jurisdiction to consider a stay of the Bankruptcy Case under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and that the Debtor's filing of the Stay Motion in this Court violates the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362. Accordingly, on September 1, 2023, the Trustee filed the attached emergency motion in the Bankruptcy Court, asking the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the automatic stay and enjoin the Debtor from further prosecution of the Stay Motion. The Trustee has asked for the Stay Motion to be heard on September 6, 2023, or as soon as the Bankruptcy Court is available.\n\nTo be clear, the Trustee's motion does not ask the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin the alternative relief sought in the Stay Motion to the extent such relief has properly been presented to this Court. In particular, the Trustee has no objection to the Debtor's request for an order modifying the protective order in this case to permit the sharing of information with the Trustee.\n\nIn the event the Bankruptcy Court does not grant the Trustee's motion, or has not ruled on such motion prior to the deadline of September 21, 2023 this Court has set for the Government to file any response to the Stay Motion, the Trustee respectfully requests the opportunity to file a response to the Stay Motion by September 21 and to be heard at any hearing on such motion.\n\nRespectfully Submitted,\n\n*/s/ Nicholas A. Bassett*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett of PAUL HASTINGS LLP\n\nEncl.\n\ncc: All Counsel of Record (by ECF)\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, <i>et al.</i> , <span>1</span>                        | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                                    | : |                         |\n| Debtors.                                                           | : | (Jointly Administered)  |\n|                                                                    | : |                         |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------------X |   |                         |\n\n# **EMERGENCY MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, UNDER 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) AND 362, TO ENJOIN DEBTOR'S PROSECUTION OF MOTION IN CRIMINAL CASE FOR ORDER STAYING CHAPTER 11 CASES AND ASSOCIATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this emergency motion (the \"Motion\") seeking entry of an order under 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 362, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"), enjoining the prosecution of the Debtor's *Motion for an Order and Writ Staying Bankruptcy Cases or in the Alternative for Other Relief* [Criminal Case ECF No. 129] (the \"Stay Motion”)<sup>2</sup> filed in the criminal case pending against him in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT] (the \"Criminal Court\" and the case,\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), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation 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> The Stay Motion can be found at Ex. A and Ex. B to the Trustee's *Notice Of Debtor's Motion In Criminal Case For An Order Staying These Chapter 11 Cases And Associated Adversary Proceedings* [Docket No. 2158].\n\nthe \"Criminal Case\") seeking to stay the above-captioned chapter 11 cases and all related adversary proceedings. In support of his Motion, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. Through the Stay Motion, the Debtor asks the Criminal Court to, among other things, stay this chapter 11 case in its entirety until the conclusion of the Criminal Case. In addition to being meritless, the Stay Motion is a flagrant violation of the automatic stay and a direct encroachment upon this Court's jurisdiction over this case and the chapter 11 estate. By this Motion, the Trustee requests an order immediately enjoining the Debtor's prosecution of the Stay Motion. If the Debtor wishes to seek to a stay of this chapter 11 case, he can file a motion in this Court, the only Court that has jurisdiction to consider it, and the Trustee will respond accordingly. The Debtor cannot, however, unilaterally ask another court to usurp this Court's jurisdiction.\n\n2. The Criminal Court has instructed that the Government file any response to the Stay Motion by September 21, 2023. The Criminal Court has not expressly permitted any other parties, such as the Trustee, to respond, although the Trustee will request the opportunity to do so if necessary. In light of the timing of the Stay Motion, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court grant the relief requested herein as soon as possible on an emergency basis so the estate does not have to spend any resources litigating in the Criminal Court.\n\n3. Although the Trustee does not address herein the merits of the Stay Motion, he reserves all rights to do so if and when necessary. For the avoidance of doubt, no basis exists to stay any aspect of this chapter 11 case. The Debtor voluntarily commenced the case in this Court in February 2022 for his own benefit; staying the case at this juncture, after more than eighteen months of extensive docket activity and in the midst of the Trustee's ongoing Rule 2004 investigation and asset-recovery litigation, would be extraordinarily prejudicial to the Debtor's\n\n2\n\ncreditors, especially given the abundant evidence that the Debtor (despite his incarceration) and his associates are presently continuing their efforts to move and conceal assets. The Debtor's purported Fifth Amendment concerns are without merit and, in any event, could be addressed, if necessary, through other measures short of staying this entire case.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n4. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and\n\n1334. Venue to hear this Application is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n5. This matter is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).\n\n6. The bases for the relief requested herein are sections 105(a) and 362 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n7. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed with the Court a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of Bankruptcy Code.\n\n8. 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\n9. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Docket 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. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [Docket No. 523].\n\n10. Since his appointment, the Trustee has been conducting an in-depth investigation into the Debtor's assets and affairs, including by seeking discovery from the Debtor and his\n\nassociates. The Debtor refused to comply with his discovery obligations and, on January 20, 2023, following multiple hearings, the Court issued an order compelling the Debtor to produce documents [Docket No. 1353] (the \"Order Compelling Production\").\n\n11. On March 15, 2023, a twelve-count indictment (the \"Indictment\") was unsealed in the Criminal Court in which the United States Government (the \"Government\") has charged the Debtor and certain of his associates with various federal crimes.\n\n12. After the announcement of the criminal charges, on April 10, 2023, the Debtor, through his prior criminal counsel, Brown Rudnick LLP, filed a motion to stay the Order Compelling Production; he did not, however, seek to stay this chapter 11 case. In fact, he expressly declined to do so. *See Debtor's Motion for a Limited Stay of Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoena*, ¶25 [Docket No. 1649].\n\n13. On or about July 11, 2023, the Debtor retained his current counsel in the Criminal Case, and Brown Rudnick LLP withdrew as counsel.\n\n14. On July 26, 2023, the Court entered a further order holding the Debtor in contempt of Court [Docket No. 2035] (the \"Contempt Order\") for failing to comply with the Order Compelling Production. The Contempt Order allows the Debtor to purge his contempt by, among other things, requesting the Criminal Court's permission to provide certain documents to the Trustee. The Debtor has appealed the Contempt Order.\n\n15. On August 30, 2023, without prior notice to the Trustee, and with no notice to any other party in this chapter 11 case, 1 the Debtor filed the Stay Motion, requesting that the Criminal Court stay the chapter 11 case and all related adversary proceedings, or, in the alternative, (i)\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtor's criminal counsel emailed a copy of the Stay Motion to counsel for the Trustee after the Stay Motion was filed. To the Trustee's knowledge, the Debtor has not provided any notice of the Stay Motion to other key parties in interest, such as the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and PAX.\n\nmodify the protective order in the Criminal Case to allow production of the discovery in the Criminal Case to the Trustee; (ii) direct that the Debtor's criminal counsel defense team continue to be permitted access to the property located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 (the \"Mahwah Mansion\") through the pendency of the Criminal Case; (iii) preclude the government from facilitating the sale of the Mahwah Mansion in this Case through the pendency of the Criminal Case; and (iv) order that the government not solicit or receive from the Trustee any information or records that are subject to any privileges belonging to the Debtor and identify any such materials already provided by the Trustee.<sup>1</sup>\n\n16. On August 31, 2023, the Criminal Court entered an order instructing the Government to file any response to the Stay Motion by September 21, 2023 [Criminal Case Docket No. 132]. The Criminal Court order does not expressly permit any other parties to respond.\n\n### **BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n17. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334, this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of this chapter 11 case and over property of the estate. *See Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of Am. N.A. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings)*, 535 B.R. 608, 627 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015) (\"The court in which a bankruptcy proceeding is pending has exclusive jurisdiction of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate.\"); *see also Sinatra v. Gucci (In re Gucci)*, 309 B.R. 679, 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (\"Section 1334(e) of the Judicial Code confers on the district court in which a bankruptcy proceeding is pending 'exclusive jurisdiction of all of the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate.'\").\n\n<sup>1</sup> For the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee is not asking this Court to stay aspects of the requested alternative relief that do not seek to interfere with this chapter 11 case. Specifically, the Trustee does not object to the request for modification of the protective order in the Criminal Case.\n\n18. Under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, it is a violation of the automatic stay to interfere with or seek to exercise control over property of the estate without this Court's permission. *See In re Madoff*, 848 F. Supp. 2d 469, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), *aff'd sub nom. In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC*, 740 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2014) (\"The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code operates to enjoin, among other things, 'any act to obtain possession of ... or to exercise control over property of the estate.'\" (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)). The automatic stay applies to judicial actions taken in other courts that may interfere with estate property and/or the administration of a chapter 11 case. *See, e.g., Bayview Loan Servicing LLC v. Fogarty (In re Fogarty)*, 39 F.4th 62, 71 (2d Cir. 2022) (\"The Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provisions, set forth in Section 362, protect bankruptcy estates by restraining any formal or informal action or legal proceeding that might dissipate estate assets or interfere with the trustee's orderly administration of the estate.\"). A bankruptcy court has broad authority to enjoin any judicial action that violates the stay and to impose sanctions upon any party who has violated the stay willfully. *Id*. at 77 (\"Because Bayview willfully violated the automatic stay [in state court proceeding], Fogarty is entitled to sanctions under Section 362(k) [of the Bankruptcy Code].\").\n\n19. Relatedly, the Supreme Court held in *Barton v. Barbour,* 104 U.S. 126 (1881), that \"a party must first obtain leave of the bankruptcy court before it initiates an action in another forum against a bankruptcy trustee or other officer appointed by the bankruptcy court for acts done in the officer's official capacity.\" The so-called \"*Barton* doctrine\" remains good law. *See In re Crown Vantage, Inc.,* 421 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2005) (\"We join our sister circuits in holding that a party must first obtain leave of the bankruptcy court before it initiates an action in another forum against a bankruptcy trustee . . . for acts done in the officer's official capacity.\") (citing, *inter alia*, *In re Lehal Realty Assocs.*, 101 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1996)). The principle underlying *Barton* is that issues going to the administration of a bankruptcy case must be brought to the attention of the bankruptcy court (not to any other court) in the first instance.\n\n20. Here, there is no question that the Stay Motion constitutes a violation of the automatic stay that this Court can and should immediately enjoin. Indeed, the Stay Motion is the ultimate violation of the automatic stay because it seeks not merely to interfere with or exercise control over certain estate property or certain matters within the case but rather to stop the entire case and all adversary proceedings in their entirety. A stay of this case and all adversary proceedings would necessarily interfere with *all* of the estate's property, including the causes of action the Trustee is presently pursuing, as well as cash and valuable hard assets, such as the assets that are the subject of pending adversary proceedings. The Stay Motion must be enjoined. *See In re Johns-Manville Corp.*, 91 B.R. 225, 227 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (enjoining state court case which \"will cause irreparable damage to the Debtors and their respective estates, and if continued will totally undermine the reorganization proceedings”).<sup>1</sup>\n\n21. The fact that the Debtor is the party seeking the relief makes the stay violation all the more egregious. While other examples of bankruptcy courts enjoining litigation in other courts that interfere with a chapter 11 case may often involve actions by creditors who were unaware of the pending bankruptcy, here the Debtor voluntarily commenced the chapter 11 case in this Court, for his benefit, and he has since participated extensively in all aspects of the case. The Debtor and his counsel know full well that, if the Debtor wants to obtain relief impacting this chapter 11 case, including especially a stay of any aspect of it, he needs to seek such relief in this Court. Indeed, in his response to the Order Compelling Production, the Debtor expressly mentioned the possibility\n\n<sup>1</sup> Section 362(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that criminal prosecutions against the debtor are excepted from the automatic stay. Here, the Trustee is not seeking to stay the Criminal Case itself, but rather to prevent the Debtor from asking the Criminal Court to stay this chapter 11 case. Such relief must properly be sought in this Court.\n\nof asking the Court to stay the entire chapter 11 case but he declined to seek such relief at that time. Within this context, the Debtor's decision to file the Stay Motion in the Criminal Court, with no prior notice to this Court, the Trustee, or any other party in interest, is especially brazen and can only be viewed as a collateral attack on the Court's prior orders, including the Contempt Order, which is currently on appeal to the district court.\n\n22. To prevent an ongoing violation of the automatic stay, and to protect this Court's jurisdiction, the Trustee respectfully requests the entry of an order immediately enjoining the Debtor's prosecution of the Stay Motion in the Criminal Court. The Trustee reserves all rights to seek sanctions as a result of the Debtor's willful stay violation.\n\n*[The rest of this page is intentionally blank.]*\n\nWHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and enter\n\nthe Proposed Order, enjoining the Debtor's Stay Motion, and for such other and further relief as\n\nthe Court may deem just and proper.\n\nDated: September 1, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nLUC A. DESPINS,\nCHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (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**\n\n**Proposed Order**\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., <sup>1</sup>                                  | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                                    | : |                         |\n| Debtors.                                                           | : | (Jointly Administered)  |\n|                                                                    | : |                         |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------------X |   |                         |\n\n# **[PROPOSED] ORDER ENJOINING DEBTOR'S PROSECUTION OF MOTION IN CRIMINAL CASE FOR ORDER STAYING CHAPTER 11 CASES AND ASSOCIATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS**\n\nThe Court having considered the motion (the “Motion”)<sup>2</sup> for entry of an Order enjoining of Ho Wan Kwok's (the \"Debtor\") *Notice of Motion for an Order and Writ Staying Bankruptcy Cases or in the Alternative for Other Relief* [Criminal Case ECF No. 129] (the \"Stay Motion\") filed in the criminal case pending against him in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT] (the \"Criminal Court\" and the case the \"Criminal Case\") seeking to stay the above-captioned chapter 11 cases and all related adversary proceedings; and this Court having found that venue of this proceeding and the Motion in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408(2) and 1409; and this Court having found that the relief requested in the Motion is in the best interests of the estate, its creditors, and other parties in\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), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation 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 used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Motion.\n\ninterest; and due and sufficient notice of the Motion having been given under the particular circumstances; and it appearing that no other or further notice need be given; and upon all of the proceedings had before this Court; and any objections to the relief requested herein having been withdrawn or overruled on the merits; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. The Motion is granted as set forth herein\n\n2. The Debtor's Stay Motion before the Criminal Court is hereby stayed and enjoined until further order of this Court. The Debtor must immediately withdraw the Stay Motion.\n\n3. The Trustee is authorized to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted in this order in accordance with the Motion.\n\n4. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this order.\n\n2","body_zh":"1 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbasset@paulhastings.com\n\n2023年9月2日\n\n通过 ECF 送达\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）美国联邦地区法官，Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\n关于：United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al.（美国 诉 郭文贵 等案），案号 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n我们代表 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯宾斯），其身份为在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区美国破产法院）（以下简称“破产法院”）审理中的被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）自愿破产第11章案件（以下简称“破产案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）。我们谨就债务人的《关于请求作出中止破产案件的命令及令状或备选其他救济的动议》[ECF No. 129]（以下简称“中止动议”）以及共同被告 Yvette Wang（王雁平）对该动议的附议致信。\n\n受托人恭敬地认为，根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334，破产法院是唯一有管辖权考虑中止破产案件的法院，且债务人向贵院提交中止动议的行为违反了 11 U.S.C. § 362 施加的自动中止规定。因此，2023年9月1日，受托人向破产法院提交了附后的紧急动议，请求破产法院执行自动中止，并禁止债务人继续推进中止动议。受托人已请求将中止动议安排在2023年9月6日或破产法院可行的最早时间举行听证。\n\n为明确起见，受托人的动议并未请求破产法院禁止中止动议中所寻求的备选救济，只要该等救济已妥当地向贵院提出。特别是，受托人对债务人请求作出修改本案保护令以允许向受托人共享信息的命令不持异议。\n\n如果破产法院未批准受托人的动议，或者在贵院为政府提交对中止动议的任何答复所设定的2023年9月21日截止日期之前尚未对该动议作出裁定，受托人恭敬地请求获得在9月21日之前对中止动议提交答复并在该动议的任何听证会上陈述意见的机会。\n\n谨呈，\n\n/签名/ Nicholas A. Bassett\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）的 Nicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）\n\n附件\n\n抄送：所有记录在案的律师（通过 ECF）\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案件涉及： : 第11章\n:\nHO WAN KWOK, et al. , 1 : 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n:\n债务人。 : （合并审理）\n:\n-----------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n第11章受托人依据 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) 及 362 提出的紧急动议，请求禁止债务人在刑事案件中推进请求作出中止第11章案件及相关民事争议诉讼程序的命令的动议\n\nLuc A. Despins，以其在上述标题所列的 Ho Wan Kwok（债务人）第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（受托人）身份，通过其下述署名律师，特此提交本紧急动议（以下简称“本动议”），依据 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) 及 362，寻求录入一份形式基本如本动议附件 A 所附的命令（以下简称“拟议命令”），以禁止推进债务人在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国联邦地区法院）[案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT]（以下简称“刑事法院”，该案简称\n\n1 本等第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（又名郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及其他多个人名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于通知与通信目的）。\n\n2 中止动议见受托人的《关于债务人在刑事案件中提出请求作出中止本等第11章案件及相关民事争议诉讼程序的命令的动议的通知》[案卷号 2158] 之附件 A 及附件 B。\n\n“刑事案件”）待决的针对其本人的刑事案件中提交的《关于请求作出中止破产案件的命令及令状或备选其他救济的动议》[刑事案件 ECF No. 129]（以下简称“中止动议”）2，该动议寻求中止上述标题所列的第11章案件及所有相关的民事争议诉讼程序。为支持其动议，受托人恭敬地陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 通过中止动议，债务人请求刑事法院等，在刑事案件终结之前完全中止本第11章案件。中止动议除了毫无依据外，更是对自动中止的公然违反，并且是对本法院对本案及第11章破产财产管辖权的直接侵犯。受托人通过本动议请求作出一项立即禁止债务人继续推进中止动议的命令。如果债务人希望寻求中止本第11章案件，他可以向本法院提交动议，本法院是唯一有管辖权对此进行审理的法院，受托人将作出相应答复。然而，债务人不能单方面请求另一个法院篡夺本法院的管辖权。\n\n2. 刑事法院已指示政府在2023年9月21日之前对中止动议提交任何答复。刑事法院并未明确允许任何其他方（例如受托人）作出答复，但如有必要，受托人将请求获得这样做的机会。鉴于中止动议的时间节点，受托人恭敬地请求法院以紧急方式尽早批准在此请求的救济，以使破产财产不必花费任何资源在刑事法院进行诉讼。\n\n3. 尽管受托人在本动议中未就中止动议的实体问题进行阐述，但他保留在必要时随时这样做的所有权利。为免生疑问，中止本第11章案件的任何方面均不存在任何依据。债务人于2022年2月为了自身利益自愿在本法院提起本案；在经过超过十八个月的大量诉讼记录活动，并在受托人正在进行的第2004条规则调查和资产追回诉讼期间中止本案，将对债务人的债权人造成极其重大的不利损害，特别是鉴于有充分证据表明债务人（尽管其已被监禁）及其关联人员目前仍在继续转移和隐匿资产。债务人所谓基于第五修正案的顾虑毫无依据，且在任何情况下，如果必要，都可以通过中止整个案件之外的其他措施予以解决。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n4. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334，本法院具有审理本申请的管辖权。依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 及 1409，审理本申请的审判地是适当的。\n\n5. 依 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) 之含义，本事项属于核心诉讼程序。\n\n6. 在此请求救济的依据为 United States Code（美国法典）第11编（以下简称“《破产法》”）第 105(a) 条及第 362 条。\n\n背景情况\n\n7. 2022年2月15日（以下简称“申请日”），债务人向本法院提交了依据《破产法》第11章寻求救济的自愿破产申请书。\n\n8. 2022年3月21日，United States Trustee（美国破产受托人）在债务人的第11章案件（以下简称“第11章案件”）中任命了 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）（以下简称“委员会”）。第11章案件中尚未任命审查人。\n\n9. 2022年6月15日，本法院录入了一份决定与命令备忘录 [案卷号 465]（以下简称“受托人命令”），指示美国破产受托人在第11章案件中任命一名第11章受托人。根据受托人命令，美国破产受托人选定了 Luc A. Despins 担任受托人。2022年7月8日，本法院录入了一项批准任命 Luc A. Despins 为第11章案件受托人的命令 [案卷号 523]。\n\n10. 自获得任命以来，受托人一直在对债务人的资产和事务进行深入调查，包括向债务人及其关联人员寻求证据开示。债务人拒绝履行其证据开示义务，并且在经过多次听证会后，本法院于2023年1月20日发布了一项强制作出文件的命令 [案卷号 1353]（以下简称“强制提供命令”）。\n\n11. 2023年3月15日，一份包含十二项罪名项的起诉书（以下简称“起诉书”）在刑事法院解封，在起诉书中，United States Government（美国政府）（以下简称“政府”）指控债务人及其某些关联人员犯有多项联邦罪行。\n\n12. 在刑事指控公布后，债务人于2023年4月10日通过其先前的刑事律师 Brown Rudnick LLP 提交了一项中止强制提供命令的动议；然而，他并未寻求中止本第11章案件。事实上，他明确拒绝这样做。参见《债务人关于部分批准强制遵守第2004条规则传票之动议的命令的有限中止动议》，第25段 [案卷号 1649]。\n\n13. 大约在2023年7月11日，债务人在刑事案件中聘请了其现任律师，而 Brown Rudnick LLP 撤销了代理。\n\n14. 2023年7月26日，本法院录入了一项因债务人未能遵守强制提供命令而认定其藐视法庭的进一步命令 [案卷号 2035]（以下简称“藐视命令”）。藐视命令允许债务人通过请求刑事法院允许向受托人提供某些文件等方式来消除其藐视状态。债务人已对藐视命令提起上诉。\n\n15. 2023年8月30日，在未事先通知受托人，且未通知本第11章案件中的任何其他方的情况下，1 债务人提交了中止动议，请求刑事法院中止第11章案件及所有相关的民事争议诉讼程序，或者备选：(i)\n\n1 债务人的刑事律师在中止动议提交后，通过电子邮件向受托人的律师发送了一份中止动议副本。据受托人所知，债务人未向其他关键利害关系方（如无担保债权人官方委员会和 PAX）提供关于中止动议的任何通知。\n\n修改刑事案件中的保护令，以允许向受托人提供刑事案件中的开示证据；(ii) 指示债务人的刑事律师辩护团队在刑事案件审理期间继续获准进入位于 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 的物业（以下简称“马瓦庄园”）；(iii) 在刑事案件审理期间，禁止政府在本案中协助出售马瓦庄园；以及 (iv) 命令政府不得向受托人索取或接收属于债务人的任何受特权保护的任何信息或记录，并识别受托人已经提供的任何此类材料。1\n\n16. 2023年8月31日，刑事法院作出一项命令，指示政府在2023年9月21日之前提交对《中止动议》的任何答复[刑事案件卷宗号 132]。刑事法院的命令并未明确允许任何其他当事人作出答复。\n\n请求救济的依据\n\n17. 根据 28 U.S.C. 1334，本法院对本第11章案件的管理以及破产财产拥有专属管辖权。参见 Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of Am. N.A. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings), 535 B.R. 608, 627 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015)（“破产程序悬而未决的法院，对债务人截至该案件启动时无论位于何处的所有财产以及破产财产，享有专属管辖权”）；亦见 Sinatra v. Gucci (In re Gucci), 309 B.R. 679, 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)（“《司法法典》第1334(e)条赋予破产程序悬而未决的地区法院‘对债务人截至该案件启动时无论位于何处的所有财产以及破产财产的专属管辖权’。”）。\n\n脚注1：为免生疑问，受托人并未请求本法院中止所请求的替代性救济中不试图干预本第11章案件的部分。具体而言，受托人不反对在刑事案件中修改保护令的请求。\n\n18. 根据《破产法典》第362条，未经本法院许可干预或企图行使对破产财产的控制权，构成对自动中止的违反。参见 In re Madoff, 848 F. Supp. 2d 469, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd sub nom. In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 740 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2014)（“《破产法典》的自动中止条款起到禁止（除其他事项外）‘任何获取占有……或行使对破产财产控制权的行为’的作用。”（引自 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)））。自动中止适用于在其他法院采取的可能干预破产财产和/或第11章案件管理的司法诉讼行为。参见，例如 Bayview Loan Servicing LLC v. Fogarty (In re Fogarty), 39 F.4th 62, 71 (2d Cir. 2022)（“载于第362条的《破产法典》自动中止条款，通过制止任何可能耗散破产财产或干预受托人对财产进行有序管理的正规或非正规行动或法律程序，来保护破产财产。”）。破产法院拥有广泛的权力禁止任何违反中止的司法行动，并对任何故意违反中止的当事人实施制裁。同上，第77页（“因为 Bayview 故意违反了自动中止[在州法院程序中]，Fogarty 有权根据[《破产法典》]第362(k)条获得制裁。”）。\n\n19. 与此相关，最高法院在 Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881) 中裁定，“当事人在另一个法庭针对破产受托人或破产法院指定的其他官员因以该官员官方身份所作的行为提起诉讼之前，必须首先获得破产法院的许可。”所谓的“Barton 原则”至今仍是有效法律。参见 In re Crown Vantage, Inc., 421 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2005)（“我们赞同兄弟巡回法院的观点，裁定当事人在另一个法庭针对破产受托人……因以该官员官方身份所作的行为提起诉讼之前，必须首先获得破产法院的许可。”）（引用，除其他案件外，In re Lehal Realty Assocs., 101 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1996)）。Barton 原则的基础在于，涉及破产案件管理的问题必须首先提请破产法院（而非任何其他法院）注意。\n\n20. 在本案中，毫无疑问，《中止动议》构成了本法院能够且应当立即予以禁止的对自动中止的违反。事实上，《中止动议》是对自动中止的根本性违反，因为它不仅试图干预或行使对某些破产财产或案件内某些事项的控制权，而且试图彻底制止整个案件及所有对抗性程序。中止本案件及所有对抗性程序必然会干预破产财产的全部财产，包括受托人目前正在追索的诉讼由头，以及现金和宝贵的硬资产，例如属于待决对抗性程序标的的资产。《中止动议》必须被禁止。参见 In re Johns-Manville Corp., 91 B.R. 225, 227 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)（禁止州法院案件，该案件“将对债务人及其各自的破产财产造成不可挽回的损害，且若继续进行将彻底破坏重整程序”）。脚注1\n\n21. 债务人作为寻求该救济的当事人这一事实，使这种违反中止的行为更加恶劣。虽然破产法院禁止其他法院干预第11章案件的诉讼的其他先例可能通常涉及不知道破产待决的债权人的行为，但在此处，债务人是自愿为了自身利益在本法院启动了第11章案件，且此后广泛参与了该案件的各个方面。债务人及其法律顾问完全清楚，如果债务人希望获得影响本第11章案件的救济，尤其是其中任何方面的中止，他必须向本法院寻求此类救济。事实上，在其对《强制提交命令》的答复中，债务人明确提到了请求法院中止整个第11章案件的可能性\n\n脚注1：《破产法典》第362(b)(1)条规定，针对债务人的刑事起诉属于自动中止的除外情形。在此处，受托人并非寻求中止刑事案件本身，而是为了防止债务人请求刑事法院中止本第11章案件。此类救济必须适当地向本法院寻求。\n\n但他当时拒绝寻求此类救济。在此背景下，债务人在未事先通知本法院、受托人或任何其他利害关系方的情况下，向刑事法院提交《中止动议》的决定尤为肆无忌惮，只能被视为对本法院先前命令的附带攻击，包括目前正在向地区法院上诉的《蔑视法庭命令》。\n\n22. 为防止对自动中止的持续违反并保护本法院的管辖权，受托人谨请求作出一项命令，立即禁止债务人在刑事法院继续推进《中止动议》。受托人保留因债务人故意违反中止行为而寻求制裁的所有权利。\n\n[本页其余部分故意留白。]\n\n为此，受托人谨请求法院批准本动议并作出《拟议命令》，禁止债务人的《中止动议》，并给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2023年9月1日 LUC A. DESPINS，康涅狄格州纽黑文 第11章受托人\n\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（特许出庭律师，admitted pro hac vice） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft（特许出庭律师，admitted pro hac vice） Douglass Barron（特许出庭律师，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章受托人之法律顾问\n\n证据项 A\n\n拟议命令\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分院\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------X\n关涉： : 第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， 脚注1 : 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 : （合并管理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n[拟议] 禁止债务人在刑事案件中推进旨在获得中止第11章案件及相关对抗性程序命令之动议的命令\n\n经本法院审议关于请求作出命令禁止 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）[案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT]（“刑事法院”及该案件“刑事案件”）对其待决的刑事案件中提交的、旨在中止上述标题项下第11章案件及所有相关对抗性程序的《关于请求作出中止破产案件的命令及令状或寻求其他替代救济的动议通知》[刑事案件 ECF 编号 129]（“《中止动议》”）的动议（“本动议”）脚注2；且本法院认定，根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408(2) 和 1409，本程序及本动议在本管辖区的审判地适格；且本法院认定，本动议所请求的救济符合破产财产、其债权人及其他利害关系的\n\n脚注1：在这些第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Luc A. Despins（作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人，仅用于通知和沟通目的）。\n\n脚注2：本文中使用但未作另行定义的首字母大写术语具有本动议中所述的含义。\n\n最大利益；且在特定情形下已就本动议给予了适当且充分的通知；且看似无需再给予其他或进一步的通知；且基于在本法院进行的所有程序；且针对本文所请求救济的任何异议均已被撤回或在实体上被驳回；经审慎研议并具备充分理由，特此裁定：\n\n1. 本动议按本文所述予以批准。\n\n2. 债务人在刑事法院提起的《中止动议》特此被中止和禁止，直至本法院另行下达命令。债务人必须立即撤回《中止动议》。\n\n3. 受托人获授权根据本动议采取一切必要行动，以使本命令中准予的救济生效。\n\n4. 本法院对因执行、解释和实施本命令而产生的或与之相关的所有事项保留专属管辖权。","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","Guo","Miles Guo","Torres","Analisa Torres","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":129,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":2160,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":3630,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-09-01 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-09-01","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:34:46"}