{"id":"court_sdny_1453_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":1453,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2023-02-10","title":"SDNY ECF 1453","summary_zh":"第11章破产法庭轻蔑动议 —— 美国康州破产法庭，Ho Wan Kwok等人破产案22-50073，ECF #1453（2023年2月10日立案）。第11章破产受托人Luc Despins请求法庭对Ho Wan Kwok、其女Mei Guo及HK国际基金投资(USA)有限公司进行民事轻蔑审理，指控其违反2023年1月20日法庭令，未能遵守Rule 2004传票及生成文件搜索说明；债务人援引第五修正案权利拒绝配合。","summary_en":"Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Court Contempt Motion — United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut, In re: Ho Wan Kwok et al., Case No. 22-50073, ECF #1453 (filed February 10, 2023). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins seeks order requiring Ho Wan Kwok, Mei Guo (Debtor's Daughter), and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC to show cause why they should not be held in civil contempt for failing to comply with Court's January 20, 2023 Order Granting Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas and document search certification; Debtor invokes Fifth Amendment protection.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                             | :      |                         |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.                                                    | :      | (Jointly Administered)  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :<br>x |                         |\n|                                                             |        |                         |\n\n# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEBTOR, MEI GUO, AND HK (USA) SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS AND SANCTIONED FOR SUCH CONTEMPT**\n\nLuc Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this motion (the \"Motion\") requesting entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"), pursuant to section 105 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and Rules 9014 and 9020 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), requiring the Debtor, Mei Guo (the \"Debtor's Daughter\"), and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK (USA)\" and, together with the Debtor and the Debtor's Daughter, the \"Respondents\") to appear *at a date and time to be determined by the Court*, at the United States Bankruptcy Court, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604, and show cause why the Court should not hold them in civil\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\ncontempt for failing to adequately respond to or comply with the Court's *Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas* (ECF No. 1353) (entered Jan. 20, 2023, the \"January 20 Order\"). In support of this Motion, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Respondents have, for the last approximately six months, attempted to frustrate the Trustee's investigation into potential assets of the estate at nearly every turn. The January 20 Order sought to finally put an end to this obstruction by (i) compelling the Respondents to comply with the Trustee's Rule 2004 Orders<sup>2</sup> and related subpoenas by producing certain previouslywithheld documents by January 31, 2023, and (ii) instructing the Debtor to file with the Court a sworn declaration detailing the process by which he searched for potentially responsive documents by February 7, 2023. Rather than comply with these directives and finally provide the Trustee the discovery to which he is entitled, the Respondents have again opted to obfuscate and delay.\n\n2. For his part, the Debtor has—for the first time in response to the Trustee's Rule 2004 subpoena<sup>3</sup>—sought to invoke his rights under the Fifth Amendment as a means to produce *no* documents to the Trustee and provide *no* description of his document search process. The Debtor bears the burden of demonstrating that the Fifth Amendment relieves him of his discovery obligations, and he has not come close to carrying that burden here. Indeed, the Debtor has provided no explanation at all as to why the production of documents or the submission of the\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms not defined in this Preliminary Statement have the meanings given to them *infra*.\n\n<sup>3</sup> As the Court is well aware, the Debtor has invoked the Fifth Amendment numerous times in this case—including more than 200 times during one hearing in December 2022—to avoid providing testimony on substantive issues. He has not, however, previously taken the position that the Fifth Amendment prevents him from producing documents or even describing the process by which he searched for documents. To the contrary, prior to the issuance of the January 20 Order, the Debtor produced some (albeit very limited) documents to the Trustee and sought to explain certain aspects of his collection process to the Court in response to the Trustee's motion to compel—all without invoking the Fifth Amendment.\n\ndeclaration required by the January 20 Order would cause him to provide incriminating testimony.\n\nThe only information the Debtor has provided is the following:\n\n- On February 1, 2023, the day after the deadline for the Debtor to produce documents, the Debtor's bankruptcy counsel sent an email to the Trustee's counsel stating that, in response to the January 20 Order, the Debtor \"is asserting his rights under the 5th Amendment, including any rights under the Act of Production Doctrine.\"<sup>4</sup>\n- On February 7, 2023, the Debtor filed a declaration (ECF No. 1444) (the \"February 7 Declaration\") with the Court stating that he is \"invok[ing] [his] rights under the 5 th Amendment to the United States Constitution, including under the act of production doctrine, with respect to the Subpoena dated August 17, 2022, in its entirety, including all requests for documents and information set forth therein.\"\n- On February 7, 2023, in response to a request by the Trustee for a further explanation of the basis for the Debtor's invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights, the Debtor's bankruptcy counsel stated, \"[w]e have nothing further to add at this time concerning the Debtor's invocation of his 5th amendment right. We will continue to discuss the issue with his criminal counsel.\" 5\n- 3. The Debtor is not entitled to blanket Fifth Amendment protection from the\n\nrequirements of the January 20 Order on this paltry record, especially since it is far from apparent as to how the Fifth Amendment could apply in this situation. With respect to the order's document production requirement, the Debtor must explain, at a minimum, how his production of documents would be \"testimonial,\" in addition to incriminating. As for the declaration requirement, the Debtor needs to explain to the Court how merely describing the process by which he searched for documents (separate and apart from the actual production of those documents) is somehow likely to incriminate him—a proposition that is nonsensical on its face. He has done none of this.\n\n<sup>4</sup> An e-mail chain including the Feb. 1, 2023 email from Debtor's bankruptcy counsel to the Trustee's counsel is attached as **Exhibit A** to the Declaration of Nicholas A. Bassett in support of the Motion (the \"Bassett Declaration\"), filed concurrently herewith.\n\n<sup>5</sup> *See* Bassett Decl., Ex. A. Counsel did not identify who is serving as the Debtor's \"criminal counsel.\"\n\n4. The Debtor's Daughter's and HK USA's failure to comply with the January 20 Order is even more straightforward but equally brazen: they have simply ignored the Courtordered deadline and produced no documents to the Trustee. The Trustee has met and conferred with their counsel on several occasions to no avail. Most recently, on February 10, 2023, counsel to the Debtor's Daughter and HK USA stated that they believed it might take them another month to comply with their document production obligations. Any such delay is entirely unacceptable in light of the Court-ordered deadline and is a blatant disregard for this Court's authority.\n\n5. The Trustee had hoped to avoid involving the Court in this matter, especially in light of the Court's directive in its mediation order that the parties should, where possible, meet and confer to avoid legal process during the pendency of the mediation.<sup>6</sup> Unfortunately, the Trustee's efforts to resolve these issues consensually in conversations with counsel for the Respondents were unsuccessful, leaving the Trustee with no other option but to seek relief from the Court to address the Respondents' failure to comply with the January 20 Order.\n\n6. By this motion, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Respondents be required to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of Court for violating the January 20 Order. If they fail to do so, the Court should issue appropriate sanctions, including, without limitation, finding certain facts (including ownership of assets) established against them and issuing an appropriate award of costs and expenses to the Trustee, including his attorneys' fees.\n\n<sup>6</sup> The Respondents are acting as if the Court's mediation order has relieved them of having to comply with other Court orders during the pendency of the mediation and otherwise cooperate with the Trustee in the bankruptcy case. The Court's order provided no such thing.\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n### **A. Trustee's Rule 2004 Investigation.**\n\n7. Following his appointment in July 2022, the Trustee immediately commenced a comprehensive investigation into the Debtor's assets and affairs. This investigation is critical to the administration of the Debtor's estate given his assertions that, despite being a self-proclaimed billionaire, he has virtually no assets to his name for distribution to creditors.\n\n8. On August 16, 2022, in furtherance of the Trustee's investigation, the Court entered orders (the \"Rule 2004 Orders\")<sup>7</sup> authorizing the issuance of subpoenas for the examination of the Respondents, among other parties, pursuant to Rule 2004. In accordance with the Rule 2004 Orders, on or about August 19, 2022, the Trustee served Rule 2004 Subpoenas on the Respondents.\n\n9. For the next several months, the Trustee worked tirelessly to obtain the Respondents' full compliance with the Rule 2004 Orders and related subpoenas.<sup>8</sup> As described in the record underlying the January 20 Order, however, these efforts were unsuccessful. The Debtor and others within his orbit, including the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA), frustrated the examination process at every turn, ultimately producing a grand total of only *forty-six* (Debtor), *nineteen* (the Debtor's Daughter), and *four hundred seventy-two* (HK (USA)) documents, respectively. With limited exceptions, the Respondents refused to, among other things, (i) produce documents related to assets they contend belong to the Debtor's family members or other persons and entities, (ii) collect and produce documents in the possession of their counsel and advisors, or (iii) sufficiently describe the efforts by which they searched for responsive documents.\n\n<sup>7</sup> *See* (ECF Nos. 757 and 758).\n\n<sup>8</sup> The Daughter is the purported sole owner of HK (USA), who but for the Daughter has no officers, employees, directors, members, managers, or managing members through whom it may act.\n\n10. On October 28, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 1046) (the \"Motion to Compel\") the Respondents' compliance with the Rule 2004 Orders and subpoenas. On November 14, 2022, the Respondents filed a joint objection to the Motion to Compel. A hearing on the Motion to Compel occurred on November 30, 2022. The Debtor did not at any time in response to the Motion to Compel raise the Fifth Amendment as a means to avoid his discovery obligations. Following the hearing, the Court issued the January 20 Order.\n\n### **B. January 20 Order**\n\n11. The January 20 Order required the Debtor to (i) by 5:00 p.m. on January 31, 2023 (the \"Document Production Deadline\"), search for and produce to the Trustee documents responsive to: \"the Trustee's requests dated June 1, 2014, or later; . . . the Trustee's requests as to both assets he acknowledges he owns and assets allegedly belonging to persons or entities other than the Debtor, including without limitation his family members and associated entities; and . . . the Trustee's requests that are within [the Debtor's] custody, possession, or control, including without limitation documents in the files of his current or former counsel and other agents and advisors,\" and (ii) by 5:00 p.m. on February 7, 2023 (the \"Declaration Deadline\"), file with the Court \"a sworn declaration describing in detail the document collection, search, and review actions taken by him and his counsel in response to the subpoena, including without limitation a detailed description of the processes that he and his counsel performed to . . . identify [and search] all of the Debtor's\" electronic devices, online document repositories and various online or electronic accounts, financial accounts and \"all other potential sources of responsive hard copy and electronic documents that may exist[.]\"January 20 Order (ECF No. 1353).\n\n12. Similarly, the January 20 Order required the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) to, by the Document Production Deadline, search for and produce to the Trustee<sup>9</sup> documents responsive to the Trustee's requests, including documents as to assets the Debtor acknowledges he owns and assets that allegedly belong to persons or entities other than the Debtor, \"including Mei Guo herself, and associated entities, including HK (USA) itself;\" and documents within the Daughter's and HK (USA)'s custody, possession, and control. *Id.*\n\n## **C. Debtor's Noncompliance with January 20 Order**\n\n13. The day after the Document Production Deadline, the Debtor's counsel at Zeizler & Zeisler (\"Bankruptcy Counsel\") emailed counsel to the Trustee stating, for the first time, that the Debtor was asserting his rights under the Fifth Amendment, including the act of production doctrine, in response to the January 20 Order's document production requirement. On the Declaration Deadline, the Debtor submitted the February 7 Declaration stating that he was asserting his rights under the Fifth Amendment, including the act of production doctrine, in response to the Rule 2004 Order and subpoena directed to him and the January 20 Order.\n\n14. Immediately after receiving the February 7 Declaration, counsel to the Trustee emailed the Debtor's Bankruptcy Counsel requesting a further explanation as to how the Fifth Amendment prevented the Debtor from producing documents or preparing the declaration required by the January 20 Order. Bankruptcy Counsel responded that it had \"nothing further to add at this time concerning the Debtor's invocation of his 5th amendment right\" but that counsel would continue to discuss the issue with the Debtor's criminal counsel. 10\n\n<sup>9</sup> The January 20 Order excludes documents that concern the Lady May from the ambit of materials the Court ordered the Daughter and HK (USA) to search for and produce.\n\n<sup>10</sup> *See* Bassett Decl., Ex. A.\n\n### **D. Debtor's Daughter's and HK (USA)'s Noncompliance with January 20 Order**\n\n15. More than 10 days have passed since the Document Production Deadline, and yet the Daughter and HK (USA) have neither produced any documents to the Trustee nor confirmed whether any additional responsive documents have been identified for production. The Trustee has had discussions with the Daughter's and HK (USA)'s counsel concerning this issue, but these discussions have not been productive.\n\n16. Originally, one of the law firms representing the Daughter and HK (USA) (the Zeisler firm) requested an extension of time to complete the production until February 3, 2023 while the parties discussed other scheduling issues in light of the Court's order instructing the parties to engage in mediation. In response, the Trustee agreed that he would not seek to compel compliance with the January 20 Order if production did not occur until February 3, 2023.\n\n17. On February 3, the Zeisler firm, on behalf of the Daughter and HK (USA), asked for a further extension of the Document Production Deadline through February 17, 2023, with productions from the Daughter and HK (USA) to begin on February 10, 2023. While the Trustee did not agree to such extension, the Trustee indicated that he did not wish to unnecessarily involve the Court in a further dispute at this time and, therefore, would not, as a practical matter, seek relief from the Court concerning the missed deadline earlier than February 7, 2023.\n\n18. On February 7, at the direction of the Zeisler firm, the Trustee's counsel conferred with the Daughter's and HK (USA)'s other counsel (Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (\"CSG Law\")) via telephone regarding compliance with the January 20 Order. During that conversation, counsel at CSG Law stated that he would be discussing a response to the January 20 Order's document production requirement with his client the next day and hoped to complete his document production by the end of the week or, perhaps, the beginning of the following week. The Trustee's counsel again responded that, although the production was long overdue, the Trustee did not want\n\nto expend resources on motion practice if the document production was forthcoming. CSG Law promised to provide an update on February 8, 2023.\n\n19. The Trustee's counsel did not receive an update on February 8. On February 9, the Trustee's counsel wrote to CSG Law<sup>11</sup> asking for an update on the production and reminding counsel of his clients' search and production obligations under the January 20 Order, noting that the Trustee intended to move the Court for relief by the end of the week if a satisfactory response was not provided. On February 10, 2023, the Trustee again conferred with both CSG Law and the Zeisler firm. During this call, counsel at CSG Law outlined a process for collecting and producing documents, noting that he expected such process may take another month to complete.\n\n### **JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STATUTORY BASES**\n\n20. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended). This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n\n21. Venue is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n22. The bases for the relief requested herein are section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules 9014 and 9020.\n\n## **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n## **A. Debtor Has Failed to Comply With January 20 Order**\n\n23. The party invoking the protection of the Fifth Amendment bears the burden of demonstrating how and why it applies in a given situation. *See, e.g., In re Schick*, 215 B.R. 4, 9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y 1997). To satisfy this burden, the party \"must provide enough information to\n\n<sup>11</sup> An e-mail chain including the Feb. 9, 2023 email from Trustee's counsel to CSG Law is attached as **Exhibit B** to the Bassett Declaration.\n\nenable the Court to conduct a factual inquiry to determine the incriminating potential of the documents sought and the act of production against the privilege asserted.\" *Id*. at 9 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). \"[I]n order to effectively invoke the protections of the Fifth Amendment, a party must make a particularized objection to each discovery request.\" *In re Astor*, 62 A.D.3d 867, 869 (2009) (citation and internal quotations omitted).\n\n24. Here, the Debtor has not come close to carrying his burden of demonstrating why he is entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment with respect to either his document production obligation or the requirement of the January 20 Order that he submit a declaration describing his document search and collection process.\n\n## **i. Debtor Has Not Established Why Fifth Amendment Allows Him to Avoid Producing Documents Requested by Trustee.**\n\n25. The Fifth Amendment privilege \"does not . . . reach the content of voluntarily created documents because there is no compulsion to create them.\" *Schick* 215 B.R. at 8. \"This is particularly true where the contents of the documents relates to debtors, their property and their business transactions.\" *Id*.; *see also Butcher v. Bailey*, 753 F.2d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1985) (\"Information relating to property of the estate is not so intimately personal as to evoke serious concern over privacy interests, particularly in bankruptcy where the trustee has a strong interest in knowing the nature and scope of the estate's holdings.\").\n\n26. The only possible basis on which the Debtor could withhold documents under the Fifth Amendment is pursuant to the so-called \"act of production\" doctrine. Under this doctrine, a party's production of documents in response to a subpoena or other process can potentially raise Fifth Amendment concerns if the act of producing the documents is itself \"testimonial\" in character and would incriminate the producing party. *Schick* 215 B.R. at 9. The doctrine has been relatively rarely applied and is only available upon a showing by the producing party that its requirements\n\n10\n\nare satisfied. *See id*. (a \"party does not discharge the burden simply by asserting that he will incriminate himself by producing the documents\" but, rather, must provide enough information to enable the Court to determine whether the doctrine has been properly invoked.); *Hoffman v. United States*, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951) (\"The witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself—his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified.\").<sup>12</sup>\n\n27. The Debtor has not even attempted to demonstrate how the act of production doctrine permits him to avoid producing particular documents or categories of documents, let alone *every document* the Trustee has requested. This blanket assertion of the doctrine as to all documents in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control is both unprecedented and indefensible. *See Bailey*, 753 F.2d at 470 (\"[T]he debtor must, at least, classify documents and indicate something about why the act of production of each class of documents might be incriminating.\").\n\n28. Accordingly, the Debtor has failed to comply with the clear requirement of the January 20 Order that he produce documents by January 31, 2023.\n\n## **ii. Debtor Has Not Established Why Fifth Amendment Prevents Him From Providing Required Declaration.**\n\n29. The Debtor's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to the requirement of the January 20 Order that he provide a declaration detailing his search and collection process is even more perplexing. As noted above, the Debtor bears the burden of establishing why the particular testimony he is being asked to provide would be incriminating. He cannot meet this burden.\n\n<sup>12</sup> The act of production doctrine is subject to various judicially-created exceptions for certain types of documents and certain situations. These exceptions are not discussed herein and cannot be addressed unless and until the Debtor provides more information concerning the basis for his reliance on the doctrine.\n\n30. Notably, the January 20 Order does not instruct the Debtor to submit a declaration concerning any substantive facts that might be incriminating or to disclose the contents of any documents in his possession. Rather, it simply requires the Debtor to describe the process (if any) he and his counsel have undertaken to identify potentially responsive documents. It is hard to understand how the provision of such testimony could possibly be incriminating, and the Debtor's February 7 Declaration contains no explanation of his position on this issue.\n\n31. Far from violating the Debtor's Fifth Amendment rights, testimony by the Debtor regarding his document search and collection process is actually a *prerequisite* to his invocation of the Fifth Amendment over documents in his possession, custody, or control. This is so because, if the Debtor has not first conducted a thorough search and collection process to identify any responsive documents that may exist, he cannot possibly say whether or not the production of such documents would somehow incriminate him.\n\n32. Accordingly, the Debtor has failed to comply with the clear requirement of the January 20 Order that he provide a declaration describing his search for responsive documents.\n\n# **B. Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) Have Failed to Comply With January 20 Order**\n\n33. The January 20 Order clearly and unequivocally required the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) to produce all remaining responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control by the Document Production Deadline. They failed to do so. The Trustee tried to be reasonable in not filing a motion with the Court immediately following the expiration of the deadline; however, ten days have now passed, and the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) have still not produced a single document. Most recently, their counsel informed the Trustee that counsel expects it will take approximately an additional month for them to complete their production obligations. This failure to abide by the Court-ordered deadline—which the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) have not sought to extend—is inexcusable. The Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) should be ordered to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of Court.\n\n## **C. If Respondents Do Not Show Cause for Their Refusal to Satisfy Requirements of January 20 Order, They Should be Held in Contempt of Court and Sanctioned.**\n\n34. This Court has already held the Debtor in contempt of court for violating other orders in this case. If he fails to show cause for his failure to comply with the January 20 Order, the Court should again find him in contempt and issue appropriate sanctions. The Court should do the same with respect to the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA).\n\n35. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as incorporated by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure), courts have the power to impose a range of sanctions as a result of a party's \"fail[ure] to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). \"Where, as here, the nature of the alleged breach of a discovery obligation is the non-production of evidence, [the court] has broad discretion in fashioning an appropriate sanction.\" *Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp.*, 306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002).\n\n36. One potential sanction a court may issue is an order \"directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims\" and/or \"prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated … defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii); *see Short v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc.*, 286 F.R.D. 248, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (finding disputed facts established in order to \"restor[e] the prejudiced party to the same position [it] would have been in absent the wrongful conduct\").\n\n37. Here, the Trustee is seeking from the Respondents documents related to the Debtor's potential legal and equitable ownership of assets, including without limitation evidence of his interests in shell companies and other entities and in various real and personal property. To\n\nthe extent the Respondents continue to wrongfully withhold such documents from production, the Court can and should sanction them by finding that such interests and ownership are established for purposes of this case. *See Daval Steel Prod., a Div. of Francosteel Corp. v. M/V Fakredine*, 951 F.2d 1357, 1366 (2d Cir. 1991) (affirming sanctions order finding that plaintiff had established facts necessary to assert claim for \"alter ego\" liability against defendant who failed to comply with discovery orders requiring production of evidence related to that claim). 13\n\n38. Another potential sanction that a court may issue (which this Court has already issued in the past based on the Debtor's contempt of Court<sup>14</sup>) is an award of costs and attorneys' fees. To the extent the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) are found in contempt of Court, the Court should compel them to pay the Trustee's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in filing this motion and otherwise seeking to enforce the January 20 Order.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank.*]\n\n<sup>13</sup> A further hearing can be held on the specific sanctions the Court should issue—including the specific factual findings the Court should make against the Respondents—in the event they are found in contempt of Court for violating the January 20 Order. As to the Debtor, any such sanctions are separate from (and in addition to) the Court's ability to draw adverse inferences as a result of the Debtor's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, assuming it is appropriate for him to do so.\n\n<sup>14</sup> *See Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order* (ECF No. 1372) (finding \"the Debtor in civil contempt\" and \"sanction[ing] him reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the event he fails to purge himself of contempt\").\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee request that the Court enter an order\n\ngranting the relief requested in this Motion and such other relief as is just and proper.\n\n# Dated: February 10, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, New Haven, Connecticut GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, AND GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION\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*) G. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1453 Filed 02/10/23 Entered 02/10/23 19:15:57 Page 16 of 19\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Proposed Order**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |  |\n\n## **ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY COURT SHOULD NOT HOLD DEBTOR, MEI GUO, AND HK (USA) IN CONTEMPT OF COURT**\n\nThe Court has found that Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), Mei Guo (the \"Daughter\"), and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK (USA)\" and together with the Debtor and the Daughter, the \"Respondents\") have not complied with the *Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas* (ECF No. 1353) (entered Jan. 20, 2023, the \"January 20 Order\"). Accordingly, it is hereby **ORDERED**:\n\nThe Respondents are to appear at \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2023, at the at the United States Bankruptcy Court, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604, and show cause why the Court should not hold them in civil contempt of court for failing to adequately respond to or comply with the January 20 Order; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED**: The Trustee shall file a certificate of service demonstrating service of this Order on the Respondents on or before 12:00 p.m. (noon) on \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2023.\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# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:      | (Jointly Administered)  |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |  |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on February 10, 2023, the foregoing Motion, and all declarations, exhibits and attachments thereto, was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. 2 Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\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> To the extent that the foregoing was filed outside regular business hours, service by mail on recipients unable or not qualified to accept electronic notice was made on the next business day.\n\nDated: February 10, 2023 New Haven, Connecticut\n\nBy: */s/Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"美利坚合众国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院（United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division）\n\n案件涉及：\n第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n债务人。\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n（合并审理）\n\n第11章受托人关于申请发出说明理由令要求债务人、MEI GUO及HK (USA)就未遵守强制作出第2004条传票配合之命令说明为何不应被认定为藐视法庭并为此受到制裁的动议\n\nLuc Despins以在Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“债务人”）第11章破产案中获任命的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）之身份，通过其下述署名律师，谨此提交本动议（以下简称“本动议”），根据《美国法典》（United States Code）第11编（以下简称“《破产法典》”）第105条以及《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》（Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure，以下简称“《破产规则》”）第9014条和第9020条，请求法院作出实质上如随附证物A形式的裁定（以下简称“拟议命令”），责令债务人、Mei Guo（郭美，以下简称“债务人女儿”）以及HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（以下简称“HK (USA)”，并与债务人及债务人女儿合称为“被申请人”）在法院指定之日期与时间，前往美利坚合众国破产法院（地址：915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604）出庭，说明法院为何不应因其未能对法院于2023年1月20日作出的《关于部分准予强制作出第2004条传票配合动议的命令》（ECF No. 1353，以下简称“1月20日命令”）予以充分回应或遵守，而认定其构成民事藐视法庭。\n\n1 这些第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok以及其他众多化名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC以及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（仅用于接收通知和联络）。\n\n为支持本动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 在过去大约六个月里，被申请人几乎在每一个环节都企图阻挠受托人对破产财产潜在资产的调查。1月20日命令旨在通过以下方式彻底制止这种阻碍行为：(i) 强制被申请人遵守受托人的第2004条命令2及相关传票，在2023年1月31日之前提供某些此前被扣留的文件；以及 (ii) 指示债务人在2023年2月7日之前向法院提交一份宣誓声明，详细说明其检索潜在响应性文件的具体流程。然而，被申请人不仅没有遵守这些指令并最终向受托人提供其有权获得的证据开示，反而再次选择故意混淆和拖延。\n\n2. 就债务人而言，他首次在应对受托人的第2004条传票3时，试图援引《第五修正案》赋予他的权利，以此作为完全不向受托人提供任何文件、也不对其文件检索流程作任何说明的手段。证明《第五修正案》免除了其证据开示义务的举证责任由债务人承担，而他在本案中根本远未达到该举证要求。事实上，债务人完全没有解释为何提供文件或提交1月20日命令所要求的声明会导致其提供自证其罪的证言。\n\n2 本初步陈述中未予定义的已大写术语具有下文赋予它们的含义。\n\n3 诚如法院所知，债务人在本案中曾多次援引《第五修正案》——包括在2022年12月的一次听证会期间援引达200余次——以避免就实质性问题提供证言。然而，他此前从未主张过《第五修正案》阻止他提供文件，甚至阻止他描述其检索文件的流程。相反，在1月20日命令发布之前，债务人曾向受托人提供了部分（尽管极其有限的）文件，并在回应受托人的强制执行动议时试图向法院解释其证据收集流程的某些方面——且在此过程中均未援引《第五修正案》。\n\n债务人仅提供了以下信息：\n\n- 2023年2月1日，即债务人提交文件截止日期的次日，债务人的破产代理律师向受托人的代理律师发送了一封电子邮件，称针对1月20日命令，债务人“正在主张其在《第五修正案》下的权利，包括在‘文书提交行为原则’下的任何权利”。4\n- 2023年2月7日，债务人向法院提交了一份声明（ECF No. 1444，以下简称“2月7日声明”），称其“针对2022年8月17日的传票全文，包括其中列出的所有文件和信息请求，援引[其]在《美利坚合众国宪法第五修正案》下的权利，包括文书提交行为原则下的权利”。\n- 2023年2月7日，针对受托人要求进一步解释债务人援引其《第五修正案》权利之依据的请求，债务人的破产代理律师表示：“关于债务人援引其《第五修正案》权利一事，我们目前没有进一步补充。我们将继续与其刑事辩护律师讨论该问题。” 5\n\n3. 依据如此贫乏的记录，债务人无权就1月20日命令的要求获得全面的《第五修正案》保护，尤其是因为《第五修正案》究竟如何适用于当前情况根本无从显见。关于该命令的文件提供要求，债务人至少必须解释，其提供文件的行为除了具有自证其罪的性质之外，究竟如何具有“证言性质”。至于提交声明的要求，债务人需要向法院解释，仅仅描述其检索文件的流程（与实际提供这些文件截然分开），怎么就可能使其自证其罪——这一主张在表面上就是荒谬不通的。而上述这些，他一项都没有做到。\n\n4 包含债务人破产代理律师致受托人代理律师的2023年2月1日电子邮件在内的邮件往来记录，作为随本动议同时提交的Nicholas A. Bassett支持本动议的声明（以下简称“Bassett声明”）的证物A随附。\n\n5 见 Bassett Decl., Ex. A。律师并未指明谁担任债务人的“刑事辩护律师”。\n\n4. 债务人女儿和HK USA不遵守1月20日命令的情况更为直接，但也同样肆无忌惮：他们干脆直接无视法院命令规定的截止日期，未向受托人提供任何文件。受托人曾多次与其律师进行碰头协商，但均无果而终。最近一次是在2023年2月10日，债务人女儿和HK USA的律师表示，他们认为可能还需要一个月的时间才能履行其提供文件的义务。鉴于法院命令已设定了截止日期，任何此类拖延都是完全不可接受的，且是对本法院权威的公然蔑视。\n\n5. 受托人原本希望避免让法院卷入此事，特别是考虑到法院在其调解令中曾指示各方在可能的情况下应进行碰头协商，以避免在调解期间启动法律程序。6 不幸的是，受托人与被申请人律师进行对话以通过协商解决这些问题的努力均告失败，受托人别无选择，只能向法院寻求救济，以处理被申请人未遵守1月20日命令的问题。\n\n6. 通过本动议，受托人谨请求责令被申请人说明为何不应因违反1月20日命令而被认定为藐视法庭。若其未能作出合理解释，法院应给予适当制裁，包括但不限于作出不利于其的某些事实认定（包括资产所有权），并判令向受托人支付适当的费用和开支，包括其律师费。\n\n6 被申请人的表现就好像法院的调解令已免除了其在调解期间遵守其他法院命令以及在破产案中以其他方式配合受托人的义务。法院的命令绝无此意。\n\n背景\n\nA. 受托人的第2004条调查\n\n7. 在2022年7月获任命后，受托人立即对债务人的资产和事务展开了全面调查。鉴于债务人声称，尽管他自称是亿万富翁，但他名下实际上没有任何资产可供分配给债权人，这项调查对债务人破产财产的管理至关重要。\n\n8. 2022年8月16日，为推进受托人的调查，法院作出了相关命令（以下简称“第2004条命令”）7，授权根据《第2004条》对包括被申请人在内的当事方发出调查传票。根据第2004条命令，受托人于2022年8月19日或前后向被申请人送达了第2004条传票。\n\n9. 在随后的几个月里，受托人不知疲倦地开展工作，以促使被申请人完全遵守第2004条命令及相关传票。8 然而，正如1月20日命令所依据的案卷记录所述，这些努力均未成功。债务人及其关系网内的其他人（包括债务人女儿和HK (USA)）在每一个环节阻挠调查程序，最终总共仅分别提供了四十六份（债务人）、十九份（债务人女儿）和四百七十二份（HK (USA)）文件。除极少数例外情况外，被申请人拒绝做的事情包括：(i) 提供与其主张属于债务人家属或其他个人及实体的资产相关的文件，(ii) 收集并提供由其律师和顾问占有的文件，或 (iii) 充分描述其检索响应性文件所付出的努力。\n\n7 见 (ECF Nos. 757 and 758)。\n\n8 该女儿据称为HK (USA)的唯一所有者，而除该女儿外，该公司没有其他可代表其行事的管理人员、雇员、董事、成员、经理或管理成员。\n\n10. 2022年10月28日，受托人提交了一份强制执行动议（ECF No. 1046，以下简称“强制执行动议”），要求被申请人遵守第2004条命令及传票。2022年11月14日，被申请人就该强制执行动议提交了联合异议。强制执行动议的听证会于2022年11月30日举行。债务人在回应强制执行动议时，从未在任何时候提出《第五修正案》作为逃避其证据开示义务的手段。听证会结束后，法院发布了1月20日命令。\n\nB. 1月20日命令\n\n11. 1月20日命令（January 20 Order）要求债务人（Debtor）：(i) 于2023年1月31日下午5:00前（即「文件提交截止日期」[Document Production Deadline]），检索并向受托人（Trustee）提交符合以下要求的文件：针对「受托人日期为2014年6月1日或之后的请求；……受托人针对其承认由其拥有的财产以及据称属于债务人以外的个人或实体的财产（包括但不限于其家庭成员及关联实体）的请求；以及……属于[债务人的]羁押、占有或控制范围内的受托人请求，包括但不限于其现任或前任律师以及其他代理人和顾问卷宗中的文件」；以及 (ii) 于2023年2月7日下午5:00前（即「声明截止日期」[Declaration Deadline]），向法院提交「一份经宣誓的声明，详细说明其本人及其律师为响应传票所采取的文件收集、检索和审查行动，包括但不限于其本人及其律师为……识别[并检索]债务人的所有电子设备、在线文件存储库和各种在线或电子账户、财务账户以及可能存在的响应性纸质和电子文件的所有其他潜在来源所执行流程的详细描述」。1月20日命令（ECF No. 1353）。\n\n12. 同样，1月20日命令要求债务人的女儿（Daughter）及HK (USA)在文件提交截止日期前，检索并向受托人9提交符合受托人请求的文件，包括关于债务人承认由其拥有的资产以及据称属于债务人以外的个人或实体（「包括Mei Guo[郭美]本人及关联实体，包括HK (USA)本身」）的资产的文件；以及属于女儿和HK (USA)羁押、占有和控制范围内的文件。同上（Id.）。\n\nC. 债务人未遵守1月20日命令\n\n13. 在文件提交截止日期的次日，债务人在Zeizler & Zeisler律师事务所的律师（「破产律师」[Bankruptcy Counsel]）向受托人的律师发送电子邮件，首次表示债务人就1月20日命令的文件提交要求主张其在第五修正案（Fifth Amendment）项下的权利，包括提交行为原则（act of production doctrine）。在声明截止日期当天，债务人提交了2月7日声明（February 7 Declaration），称其就针对其发出的破产法第2004条命令（Rule 2004 Order）和传票以及1月20日命令，主张其在第五修正案项下的权利，包括提交行为原则。\n\n14. 在收到2月7日声明后，受托人的律师立即向债务人的破产律师发送电子邮件，要求其进一步解释第五修正案如何阻止债务人提交文件或准备1月20日命令所要求的声明。破产律师回复称，「关于债务人援引其第五修正案权利一事，目前没有进一步要补充的内容」，但律师将继续与债务人的刑事律师讨论该问题。10\n\n9 1月20日命令将涉及Lady May（梅月号）的文件排除在法院命令女儿及HK (USA)检索并提交的材料范围之外。\n\n10 参见 Bassett Decl.，Ex. A。\n\nD. 债务人的女儿及HK (USA)未遵守1月20日命令\n\n15. 文件提交截止日期已过去10天以上，然而女儿和HK (USA)既未向受托人提交任何文件，也未确认是否已确定任何待提交的额外响应性文件。受托人已就该问题与女儿和HK (USA)的律师进行了讨论，但这些讨论未取得任何成果。\n\n16. 最初，代表女儿和HK (USA)的其中一家律师事务所（Zeisler律所）请求将完成提交的时间延长至2023年2月3日，以便双方根据法院指示双方进行调解的命令讨论其他日程安排问题。作为回应，受托人同意如果提交在2023年2月3日之前完成，他将不会寻求强制执行1月20日命令。\n\n17. 2月3日，Zeisler律所代表女儿和HK (USA)请求将文件提交截止日期进一步延长至2023年2月17日，女儿和HK (USA)的提交工作于2023年2月10日开始。虽然受托人不同意该延期，但受托人表示他此时不希望因进一步的争议而不必要地将法院卷入其中，因此，在实际操作中，他不会在2023年2月7日之前就错过截止日期一事向法院寻求救济。\n\n18. 2月7日，在Zeisler律所的指示下，受托人的律师通过电话与女儿和HK (USA)的另一家律师事务所（Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC [「CSG Law」律所]）就遵守1月20日命令事宜进行了磋商。在该次通话中，CSG Law的律师表示他将于次日与其客户讨论对1月20日命令文件提交要求的应对方案，并希望在周末或下周初完成其文件提交。受托人的律师再次回应称，尽管提交已严重逾期，但如果即将提交文件，受托人不想\n\n在动议程序上耗费资源。CSG Law承诺在2023年2月8日提供最新进展。\n\n19. 受托人的律师在2月8日未收到最新进展。2月9日，受托人的律师致信CSG Law11询问提交的最新进展，并提醒该律师其客户在1月20日命令下的检索和提交义务，并指出如果未能提供令人满意的答复，受托人打算在周末前向法院提出动议寻求救济。2023年2月10日，受托人再次与CSG Law及Zeisler律所进行磋商。在这次电话会议中，CSG Law的律师概述了收集和提交文件的流程，并指出他预计该流程可能还需要一个月才能完成。\n\n管辖权、审判地及法定依据\n\n20. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334 以及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区联邦地方法院）的《常规移送案件命令》（Standing Order of Reference，经修正），本法院对本案具有管辖权。这是 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 含义范围内的核心程序（core proceeding）。\n\n21. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，审判地正当。\n\n22. 本文所请求救济的依据是《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第105(a)条以及《破产规则》（Bankruptcy Rules）第9014条和第9020条。\n\n救济依据\n\nA. 债务人未能遵守1月20日命令\n\n23. 援引第五修正案保护的一方负有证明该修正案在特定情况下为何及如何适用的举证责任。参见例如 In re Schick, 215 B.R. 4, 9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y 1997)。为了履行这一举证责任，该方「必须提供足够的信息，以\n\n11 包含受托人律师于2023年2月9日发送给CSG Law的电子邮件的邮件往来链作为附件B（Exhibit B）附于Bassett声明（Bassett Declaration）。\n\n使法院能够进行事实调查，以对照所主张的特权确定所索取文件及提交行为的自证其罪潜在可能性」。同上，第9页（引文及内部引号省略）。「为了有效援引第五修正案的保护，当事人必须对每一项证据开示请求提出具体化的异议。」In re Astor, 62 A.D.3d 867, 869 (2009)（引文及内部引号省略）。\n\n24. 在本案中，无论是在其文件提交义务方面，还是在1月20日命令要求其提交描述其文件检索和收集过程的声明方面，债务人都远远没有履行证明其为何有权获得第五修正案保护的举证责任。\n\ni. 债务人未确立第五修正案为何允许其免于提交受托人所请求的文件。\n\n25. 第五修正案特权「并不……触及自愿制作的文件的内容，因为并不存在制作这些文件的强迫行为」。Schick，215 B.R.，第8页。「在文件内容涉及债务人、其财产及其商业交易时，尤其如此」。同上；另见 Butcher v. Bailey, 753 F.2d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1985)（「涉及破产财产的信息并非属于极其私密的个人信息，以至于会引发对隐私利益的严重关切，特别是在破产案件中，受托人对于了解破产财产所持资产的性质和范围具有重大利益。」）。\n\n26. 债务人依据第五修正案拒绝提供文件的唯一可能依据是所谓的「提交行为」原则。根据该原则，如果提交文件的行为本身具有「证言」（testimonial）性质并且会使提交方自证其罪，则当事人为响应传票或其他程序而提交文件的行为可能引发第五修正案的关切。Schick，215 B.R.，第9页。该原则的适用相对较少，且只有在提交方证明满足其要求的情况下才能适用。参见同上（「当事人不能仅凭断言其提交文件会使自己自证其罪就免除举证责任」，而是必须提供足够的信息使法院能够判定该原则是否已被正当援引）；Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)（「证人不能仅仅因为宣称回答问题会使自己自证其罪就免于回答——其口头宣称本身并不构成自证其罪的危险。应由法院判定其保持沉默是否正当。」）。12\n\n27. 债务人甚至没有试图证明提交行为原则如何允许其免于提交特定文件或某些类别的文件，更不用说受托人所请求的每一份文件了。这种针对债务人占有、羁押或控制下的所有文件一概主张该原则的做法，既前所未有又站不住脚。参见 Bailey, 753 F.2d，第470页（「[债务人]至少必须对文件进行分类，并就提交每类文件的行为为何可能构成自证其罪说明具体情况。」）。\n\n28. 因此，债务人未能遵守1月20日命令关于其在2023年1月31日前提交文件的明确要求。\n\nii. 债务人未确立第五修正案为何阻止其提供所要求的声明。\n\n29. 债务人针对1月20日命令关于其提供详细说明其检索和收集过程的声明的要求而主张其第五修正案特权，更令人费解。如上所述，债务人负有证明要求其提供的特定证言为何会构成自证其罪的举证责任。他无法履行这一举证责任。\n\n12 提交行为原则受到针对某些类型文件和某些情况的各种司法设立的例外的限制。本文未对这些例外情况进行讨论，除非且直到债务人就其依赖该原则的依据提供更多信息，否则无法予以处理。\n\n30. 值得注意的是，1月20日命令并未指示债务人提交涉及任何可能自证其罪的实质性事实的声明，也未指示其披露其占有的任何文件的内容。相反，它仅仅要求债务人描述其本人及其律师为识别潜在响应性文件所采取的流程（如有）。很难理解提供此类证言怎么可能构成自证其罪，而债务人的2月7日声明对其在该问题上的立场未包含任何解释。\n\n31. 债务人（Debtor）就其文件检索与收集程序作证，非但没有侵犯其依据《美国宪法第五修正案》（Fifth Amendment）享有的权利，反而是其针对由其占有、保管或控制的文件援引第五修正案权利的先决条件。这是因为，如果债务人未先进行彻底的检索和收集程序以识别可能存在的任何符合要求的文件，他根本不可能说明出示此类文件是否会在某种程度上使自己自证其罪。\n\n32. 因此，债务人未能遵守1月20日裁定（January 20 Order）中要求其提供一份说明其检索符合要求文件情况之声明的明确规定。\n\nB. 债务人之女与HK (USA)未能遵守1月20日裁定\n\n33. 1月20日裁定明确且毫不含糊地要求债务人之女（Debtor's Daughter）及HK (USA)（HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC）在文件出示截止日期前出示其占有、保管或控制的所有剩余符合要求的文件。他们未能做到这一点。受托人（Trustee）试图保持合情合理，在截止日期届满后并未立即向法院提出动议；然而，如今十天已经过去，债务人之女与HK (USA)仍未出示任何一份文件。最近，他们的法律顾问告知受托人，预计他们还需要大约一个月的时间才能完成其出示义务。这种不遵守法院命令截止日期的行为——且债务人之女与HK (USA)并未申请延期——是不可原谅的。应当命令债务人之女与HK (USA)说明为何不应认定其藐视法庭的理由。\n\nC. 若被申请人未就其拒绝满足1月20日裁定要求说明理由，则应被裁定藐视法庭并受到制裁。\n\n34. 本法院此前已因债务人违反本案其他命令而裁定其藐视法庭。若其未能就其未遵守1月20日裁定的行为说明理由，法院应再次认定其藐视法庭并作出适当的制裁。法院对债务人之女及HK (USA)亦应采取同样措施。\n\n35. 根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Federal Rules of Civil Procedure）（经《联邦破产诉讼规则》（Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure）吸收适用），对于当事人“不遵守提供或允许证据开示之命令”的情形，法院有权施加一系列制裁。Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)。“在被指控违反证据开示义务的性质属于未出示证据的情况下（如本案），[法院]在制定适当制裁方面享有广泛的裁量权。”Residential Funding Corp. 诉 DeGeorge Fin. Corp.，306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002)。\n\n36. 法院可作出的一项潜在制裁是发布命令，“指示将该命令所涵盖的事项或其他指定事实，依胜诉方的主张视为在本诉讼中已被确立”，和/或“禁止不服从命令的一方支持或反对指定的……抗辩，或禁止其将指定事项作为证据引入”。Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii)；参见 Short 诉 Manhattan Apartments, Inc.，286 F.R.D. 248, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)（认定争议事实成立，以“使受损害的一方恢复到在没有该不当行为时所处的相同地位”）。\n\n37. 在本案中，受托人正在向被申请人（Respondents）索取与债务人对资产潜在的法定所有权和衡平法所有权相关的文件，包括但不限于其在空壳公司和其他实体中以及在各项不动产和动产中享有权益的证据。在被申请人继续不当扣留此类文件不出示的范围内，法院可以且应当对其予以制裁，认定此类权益和所有权在本案中已被确立。参见 Daval Steel Prod., a Div. of Francosteel Corp. 诉 M/V Fakredine，951 F.2d 1357, 1366 (2d Cir. 1991)（维持制裁命令，该命令认定原告已确立针对未能遵守要求出示与该主张相关证据之证据开示命令的被告主张“另我/法人人格否认”（alter ego）责任所必需的事实）。13\n\n38. 法院可作出的另一项潜在制裁（本法院过去已基于债务人藐视法庭的行为作出过此项制裁14）是判处支付诉讼费用和律师费。在债务人之女与HK (USA)被认定藐视法庭的范围内，法院应强制其向受托人支付因提出本动议及以其他方式寻求执行1月20日裁定而产生的费用和开支，包括律师费。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n13 若被申请人因违反1月20日裁定而被认定藐视法庭，可就法院应作出的具体制裁——包括法院应对被申请人作出的具体事实认定——举行进一步的听证会。至于债务人，任何此类制裁均独立于（且附加于）法院因债务人援引第五修正案而作出不利推论的能力（假设其援引该修正案是适当的）。\n\n14 参见《准许认定债务人违反公司治理命令构成藐视法庭之动议的裁定》（ECF No. 1372）（认定“债务人构成民事藐视法庭”，并“制裁其在未能消除藐视法庭状态的情况下承担合理的律师费和诉讼费用”）。\n\n为此，基于前述理由，受托人请求法院作出一项裁定，准许本动议所请求的救济以及其他公正合理的救济。\n\n日期：2023年2月10日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文（New Haven, Connecticut）\n\nLuc A. Despins，第11章受托人（Chapter 11 Trustee）、Genever Holdings LLC 以及 Genever Holdings Corporation\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及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（特许出庭（pro hac vice））\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft（特许出庭（pro hac vice））\nG. Alexander Bongartz（特许出庭（pro hac vice））\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\nalexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 之法律顾问\n\n案件编号：22-50073 文件编号：1453 提交日期：02/10/23 录入日期：02/10/23 19:15:57 第 16 页，共 19 页\n\n附件 A\n\n拟定裁定\n\n美利坚合众国破产法院\n康涅狄格区（District of Connecticut）\n布里奇波特分院（Bridgeport Division）\n\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n第11章\n（合并审理）\n关于：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等，\n债务人。\n\n关于责令出庭并说明法院为何不应认定债务人、Mei Guo 及 HK (USA) 藐视法庭理由的命令\n\n本法院已认定 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）、Mei Guo（郭美，“女儿”）及 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK (USA)”，与债务人及女儿合称“被申请人”）未遵守《部分准许强制遵守破产规则第2004条传票之动议的裁定》（ECF No. 1353）（于2023年1月20日录入，“1月20日裁定”）。据此，特此裁定：\n\n被申请人应于 2023年________________________ 出庭于美利坚合众国破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604），并说明法院为何不应因其未能充分回应或遵守1月20日裁定而认定其构成民事藐视法庭的理由；并且进一步\n\n裁定：受托人应在 2023年_____________________ 中午12:00（正午）或之前提交送达证明，证明已将本裁定送达给被申请人。\n\n1 本批第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 及 Miles Kwok，以及其他多个化名）（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 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 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联络之目的）。\n\n美利坚合众国破产法院\n康涅狄格区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n第11章\n（合并审理）\n关于：\nHo Wan Kwok 等，\n债务人。\n\n送达证明\n\n下述签署人特此证明，于2023年2月10日，上述动议及其所附的所有声明、附件和附录均已通过电子方式提交。本提交事项的通知已通过法院的电子案件档案（CM/ECF）系统自动发送给上述标题所列第11章案件的所有当事人，或按照《电子提交通知》上的指引，通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子提交的任何人。2 各方当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅该提交文件。\n\n1 本批第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 及 Miles Kwok，以及其他多个化名）（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 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 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联络之目的）。\n\n2 若上述文件是在正常工作时间之外提交的，则在下一个工作日向无法或不具备资格接收电子通知的接收人进行邮寄送达。\n\n日期：2023年2月10日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\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第11章受托人之法律顾问","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5430,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-02-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-02-10","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:44:10"}