{"id":"court_sdny_1401_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":1401,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 1401","summary_zh":"异议状 —— 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 #1401（2023年1月27日）。HK国际基金投资（美国）有限公司及梅国对破产管理人密封证物的动议提出异议，主张在先行救济听证会中密封证物将违反当事人程序正当权，妨碍其对涉及暂扣资产的指控进行交叉询问和抗辩的权利。","summary_en":"Objection — 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. 1401 (January 27, 2023). HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC and Mei Guo object to the Trustee's motion to seal evidence, arguing that sealing evidence in the prejudgment remedy hearing would violate due process rights and impair their ability to cross-examine and rebut claims concerning escrowed assets.","body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| In re:                                | Chapter 11              |\n|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                  | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.                              |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          |                         |\n| Movant,                               |                         |\n| v.                                    |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |                         |\n\nRespondent.\n\n## **HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC AND MEI GUO'S LIMITED OBJECTION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER SEALING EXHIBIT A TO OBJECTION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ORDER REMOVING TRUSTEE AND RELATED RELIEF**\n\n1. The Trustee's Motion is styled as a motion seeking the sealing of an exhibit (the \"Confidential Exhibit\") that is relevant to the Trustee's opposition to the Debtor's motion seeking the Trustee's removal. Notwithstanding the caption, the Trustee makes clear that he intends to use the Confidential Exhibit in the HK Adversary Proceeding, including in the prejudgment remedy evidentiary hearing (\"PJR Hearing\") that was scheduled to commence on February 8, 2023. (*See*  Motion ¶ 11). Accordingly, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HKI\") and Mei Guo file this separate opposition to the Motion.<sup>1</sup>\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Motion wrongly states that CSG Law is counsel to the Debtor. We are not. CSG Law is counsel to HKI and Ms. Guo individually.\n\n2. The Motion should be denied for several reasons.\n\n3. First, the PJR Hearing will determine whether the \\$37 million in Escrow Funds will remain with the Trustee until the conclusion of the HK Adversary Proceeding or be returned to HKI to payback the loan it took—and Ms. Guo personally guaranteed—from Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd (\"Himalaya\"). The stakes could not be any higher for HKI and Ms. Guo. For every day the Himalaya loan remains unpaid, HKI and Ms. Guo incur approximately \\$37,000 in interest, or over \\$1 million every month.\n\n4. It is the Trustee's burden to demonstrate that the Escrow Funds are attachable. The whole point of the PJR Hearing is to determine whether the Trustee can meet his burden with live witness testimony where HKI and Ms. Guo will have an opportunity to cross examine the Trustee's witnesses and challenge his proofs.\n\n5. The Motion contemplates something far different for the PJR Hearing. Rather than calling live witnesses, the Trustee intends to conduct a hearing by declaration. And not only a hearing by declaration, but a hearing by declaration where HKI and Ms. Guo cannot even know the name of the declarant or the substance of the declarant's statements. The Trustee cites no caselaw for this remarkable proposition.\n\n6. He cannot because a hearing by declaration is an obvious violation of HKI and Ms. Guo's due process rights. *See, e.g.*, *United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property,* 510 U.S. 43, 55 (1993) (\"Fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights. ... No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.\"); *Mathews v. Eldridge,* 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (\"The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.\"); *Goldberg v.*  *Kelly,* 397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970) (\"In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.\"); *Rafter v. Bank of Am.*, No. 04 Civ. 3341(JSR)(KNF), 2011 WL 2897331, at \\*6 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2011) (refusing to consider an affidavit submitted after an evidentiary hearing).\n\n7. Second, not only is the Motion without any basis in law, it is also without any basis in fact. HKI and Ms. Guo have not \"protest[ed], dox[ed] [or] harass[ed]\" anyone—ever. (Motion ¶ 13). There is no evidence before the Court that disclosing the Confidential Exhibit to HKI and Ms. Guo would risk the declarant's safety. (*See, e.g.*, Motion ¶ 6 (\"The Trustee shares the declarant's concerns in light of, among other things, *the Debtor's conduct* in this case toward the Trustee and his professionals and the Court's recent finding that *the Debtor's pattern of harassing and intimidating conduct* …)) (emphasis added). And whatever the imagined safety risk may be, it is far outweighed by HKI and Ms. Guo's right to know who is testifying against them and what that person has said. HKI and Ms. Guo cannot prepare a defense otherwise.\n\n8. Third, even if it were somehow appropriate for the Court to accept into evidence a secret declaration not subject to cross examination or any meaningful rebuttal as the basis for attaching \\$37 million, it is not appropriate for the Trustee to declare which attorneys get to see that Confidential Exhibit and which do not. That is not the Protective Order the Trustee negotiated. The AEO provision is just that, attorneys' eyes only. Not CSG Law's eyes only. Or Zeisler & Zeisler's eyes only.\n\n9. There is no basis for the Trustee to declare that Aaron Mitchell, who has been Ms. Guo's attorney for years, cannot see the Confidential Exhibit. The only basis is litigation advantage for the Trustee. He admits as much. (*See* Motion ¶ 9).\n\n3\n\n10. CSG Law was just recently retained. We do not have the long history that Mr. Mitchell has with HKI or Ms. Guo. If the Confidential Exhibit is kept from HKI and Ms. Guo, and also Mr. Mitchell, there would be no way for CSG Law to even attempt to rebut what is said by a declarant who we will likely have no familiarity with. We cannot ask our client about the declarant, and if the Trustee has his way, we cannot even ask our client's longtime counsel about the declarant.\n\n11. The Trustee's Motion should be seen for what it is: an attempt by the Trustee to gain every conceivable litigation advantage in the PJR Hearing while kneecapping HKI and Ms. Guo's ability to meaningfully participate in the hearing and secure the release of \\$37 million in assets wrongly held.\n\nDated at Roseland, New Jersey this 27th day of January, 2023.\n\n## **HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC AND MEI GUO**\n\n*/s/ Lee Vartan*  Lee Vartan Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 105 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 530-2107 Email: [lvartan@csglaw.com](mailto:lvartan@csglaw.com) *Attorneys for HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC and Mei Guo*\n\nStephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Email: [skindseth@zeislaw.com](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) *Local Counsel for HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC and Mei Guo*\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 27th day of January, 2023, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ Lee Vartan* Lee Vartan","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格区破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut）布里奇波特分院（Bridgeport Division）\n\n关于：\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n债务人。\n第 11 章\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n动议人，\nv.\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n第 11 章受托人，\n被申请人。\n\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC 与 MEI GUO（郭美）对第 11 章受托人关于作出封存对债务人撤换受托人及相关救济动议之异议的证物 A 的裁定的动议的有限异议\n\n1. 受托人的动议形式上是一项寻求封存一份证物（以下简称“保密证物”）的动议，该证物与受托人反对债务人寻求撤换受托人的动议相关。尽管抬头如此，受托人已明确表示，其打算在香港附带诉讼（HK Adversary Proceeding）中使用该保密证物，包括在原定于 2023年2月8日 开始的判决前救济证据听证会（以下简称“PJR 听证会”）中使用。（参见动议第 11 段）。因此，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（以下简称“HKI”）与 Mei Guo（郭美）针对该动议单独提交本异议。1\n\n1 动议错误地称 CSG Law（Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 律师事务所）是债务人的法律顾问。我们不是。CSG Law 是 HKI 以及郭女士个人的法律顾问。\n\n2. 该动议基于以下若干理由应予驳回。\n\n3. 首先，PJR 听证会将确定 3700万美元 的托管资金是继续由受托人持有直至香港附带诉讼结束，还是返还给 HKI 以偿还其向 Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司，以下简称“Himalaya”）借入——且由郭女士提供个人担保——的贷款。对于 HKI 和郭女士而言，利害关系再重大不过了。Himalaya 的贷款未偿还的每一天，HKI 和郭女士都会产生约 37,000美元 的利息，即每月超过 100万美元。\n\n4. 证明托管资金具有可扣押性是受托人的举证责任。PJR 听证会的全部目的在于确定受托人能否通过证人现场作证来完成其举证责任，届时 HKI 和郭女士将有机会对受托人的证人进行交叉询问并质疑其证据。\n\n5. 该动议为 PJR 听证会设想的却完全是另一回事。受托人并不打算传唤现场证人，而是打算通过书面声明来进行听证。而且不仅是通过书面声明进行听证，更是在 HKI 和郭女士甚至无法知晓声明人姓名或声明人陈述实质内容的情况下通过书面声明进行听证。受托人没有为其这一惊人主张引用任何判例法。\n\n6. 他无法引用，因为通过书面声明进行听证显然侵犯了 HKI 和郭女士的正当程序权利。参见，例如，United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 55 (1993)（“通过秘密、单方面认定对权利起决定性作用的事实，几乎无法实现公正。……为了查明真相，所设计出的最好手段莫过于向面临严重损失危险的人告知针对其提出的案件并给予其进行抗辩的机会。”）；Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)（“正当程序的基本要求是在有意义的时间以有意义的方式获得陈述意见的机会。”）；Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970)（“在几乎所有重大决定取决于事实问题的场合，正当程序都要求拥有与不利证人当面对质并对其进行交叉询问的机会。”）；Rafter v. Bank of Am., No. 04 Civ. 3341(JSR)(KNF), 2011 WL 2897331, at *6 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2011)（拒绝考虑证据听证会后提交的宣誓书）。\n\n7. 其次，该动议不仅毫无法律依据，而且也毫无事实依据。HKI 和郭女士从未“抗议、人肉搜索[或]骚扰”过任何人。（动议第 13 段）。本法院目前没有任何证据表明向 HKI 和郭女士披露保密证物会危及声明人的安全。（参见，例如，动议第 6 段（“鉴于除其他事项外，债务人在本案中针对受托人及其专业人员的行为，以及法院最近认定的债务人持续骚扰和恐吓的行为模式……受托人认同声明人的担忧”））（强调为后加）。无论这种设想的安全风险为何，HKI 和郭女士获知谁在作不利于她们的证词以及该人说了什么的权利都远重于此。否则 HKI 和郭女士便无法准备辩护。\n\n8. 第三，即使法院以一份不得进行交叉询问或任何有意义反驳的秘密声明作为扣押 3700万美元 的依据并将其采纳为证据在某种程度上是适当的，受托人也无权指定哪些律师可以查看该保密证物而哪些律师不能查看。这并非受托人所协商的保护令内容。仅限律师查阅（AEO）条款的含义正如其字面所示，仅限律师查阅。而非仅限 CSG Law 查阅，或仅限 Zeisler & Zeisler 查阅。\n\n9. 受托人声明多年来一直担任郭女士律师的 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）不能查看保密证物，这一做法毫无依据。其唯一依据是为受托人谋取诉讼优势。他对此予以承认。（参见动议第 9 段）。\n\n10. CSG Law 刚受聘不久。我们没有 Mitchell 先生与 HKI 或郭女士之间那样长期的合作历史。如果保密证物对 HKI 和郭女士隐瞒，同时也对 Mitchell 先生隐瞒，CSG Law 将根本无法尝试反驳一位我们很可能完全不熟悉的声明人所作的陈述。我们无法向我们的委托人询问有关声明人的情况，而且如果任由受托人行事，我们甚至无法向我们委托人的长期法律顾问询问有关声明人的情况。\n\n11. 受托人的动议应当被认清其实质：这是受托人企图在 PJR 听证会中获取一切可以想象的诉讼优势，同时剥夺 HKI 和郭女士切实参与听证会并促使解除对被错误扣押的 3700万美元 资产之扣押的能力。\n\n2023年1月27日 订于新泽西州罗斯兰。\n\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC 与 MEI GUO\n\n/签名/ Lee Vartan\nLee Vartan\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC\n105 Eisenhower Parkway\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n电话：(973) 530-2107\n电子邮箱：lvartan@csglaw.com\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 与 Mei Guo 的代理律师\n\nStephen M. Kindseth (ct14640)\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n电子邮箱：skindseth@zeislaw.com\naromney@zeislaw.com\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 与 Mei Guo 的当地法律顾问\n\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于 2023年1月27日，前述文书的副本已通过电子方式归档。本归档通知将通过法院电子归档系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人，或按照电子归档通知上的指示邮寄给任何无法接受电子归档的人员。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本归档文件。\n\n/签名/ Lee Vartan\nLee Vartan","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1180,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:25:24"}