{"id":"court_ctb_1313_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1313,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re :","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re :\n\nHo Wan Kwok, :\n\nDebtor.<sup>1</sup>\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n: Chapter 11 : Case No. 22-50073 :\n\n:\n\n## **OBJECTION OF OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS TO MOTION FOR ORDER REMOVING TRUSTEE**\n\nThe Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"Committee\" or \"UCC\"), by and thorough its undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Objection to the Motion for Order Removing Trustee (the \"Removal Motion\") filed by Debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (\"Debtor\"), and respectfully represents in support of its Objection the following:\n\n1. Section 324(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that \"[t]he court, after notice and a hearing, may remove a trustee, other than the United States trustee, or an examiner, for cause.\" In this Circuit, removal of a trustee for cause requires the movant to establish that the trustee \"engaged in fraud or caused … actual injury to the estate.\" *Maiman v. Spizz* (*In re Ampal-American Israel Corp.*), 691 Fed. Appx. 12, 16 (2d Cir. May 24, 2017) (summary order). *See also In re Lundborg*, 110 B.R. 106, 108 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990) (\"a party seeking the removal of a trustee must prove that there has been some actual injury or fraud\"); *In re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc.*, Case No. 07-10416 (KJC), 2013 WL 12324114, at \\*5 (Bankr. D. Del. July 9, 2013) (requiring proof of fraud or actual injury)<sup>2</sup>\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Debtor contends that removal can be based merely on \"the appearance of impropriety\" (Removal Motion ¶32), but cites no decision in this Circuit which so holds. Although the Debtor cites *In re Vebeliunas*, 231 B.R. 181, 187-95 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999), for that proposition, the decision in *Vebilunas*  dealt not with removal of a trustee under 11 U.S.C. § 324(a), but with the disinterestedness of counsel to a trustee under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a). Even if the § 327(a) standard can be borrowed for removal motions\n\n2. A \"party seeking to remove a trustee must make a strong showing because the effect of removal is deleterious to the continuity of the administration of the estate.\" *In re Empire State Conglomerates Inc.*, 546 B.R. 306, 317 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted). *See also Surabian v. Picard*, No. 13 Civ. 935(JGK), 2014 WL 917091, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2014) (removal of trustee requires a \"strong factual showing\"). Indeed, some courts have held that the grounds for removal of a trustee must be proven by \"clear and convincing evidence.\" *In re Nilhan Developers, LLC*, Case No. 15-58443-WLH, 2021 WL 153935, at \\*17 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 19, 2021).\n\n3. Courts are in agreement that removal of a trustee is \"an extreme remedy.\" *See e.g. In re Reagan*, 403 B.R. 614, 623 (8th Cir. BAP 2009); *In re CNC Payroll*, *Inc.*, 491 B.R. 454, 460 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2013); *In re United Tax Group, LLC*, 622 B.R. 148, 157 (Bankr. D. Del. 2020); *In re Cee Jay Discount Stores, Inc*., 171 B.R. 173, 175 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1994) (noting that removal is an \"extreme\" remedy that requires \"actual injury or fraud\"). As such, much like the burden of proving cause for the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee, the burden of proving grounds for removal of a trustee should be by clear and convincing evidence. *Cf. In re Bayou Group, LLC*, 564 F.3d 541, 546 (2d Cir. 2009) (requiring that cause for the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee be proven by clear and convincing evidence in recognition that the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee is an \"extraordinary remedy\").\n\nunder § 324(a), an appearance of impropriety, alone, would not be a basis for removal. *See In re Peck*, 112 B.R. 485, 489 n. 6 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990) (\"in this Circuit the mere appearance of impropriety is not alone a sufficient basis for granting a disqualification motion\" under § 327(a)). *See also* 3 *COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶* 324.02[2] at 324-5 *(*Richard Levin & Henry Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2022) (stating majority rule as requiring proof of \"actual fraud or injury,\" with only \"some courts\" finding that an appearance of impropriety will suffice).\n\n4. In addition, \"courts should consider the best interests of the estate … when determining whether to remove a trustee.\" *In re Lundborg*, 110 B.R. 106, 108 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990). *See also In re United Tax Group, LLC,* 622 B.R. 148, 157 (Bankr. D. Del. 2020) (\"a court must consider the best interest of the estate, not merely that of a single complaining movant\"). More particularly, \"[r]emoval should be exercised only if the administration of the estate in bankruptcy would suffer more from the discord created by the present trustee than would be suffered from a change in administration.\" *Maiman v. Spizz* (*In re Ampal-American Israel Corp.*), 554 B.R. 604, 624 (S.D.N.Y. 2016), *aff'd* 691 Fed. Appx. 12 (2d Cir. May 24, 2017). *Accord* 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 324.02[3] at 324-6 (Richard Levin & Henry Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2022) (also stating that \"[t]he cost to the estate of a substitution in trustees must be taken into account\").\n\n5. The Debtor has not demonstrated that the trustee in this case (the \"Trustee\") has engaged in fraud or has inflicted \"actual injury\" on the estate. While the Committee has no firsthand knowledge of what transpired at the Debtor's November 17, 2022 meeting with the Trustee, the Committee views the actions taken by the Trustee of which it is aware as comporting with what should be expected of a zealous and scrutinizing estate representative, particularly given the Debtor's prefiling and post-filing contemptuous, obstreperous and untrustworthy conduct.\n\n6. The Committee further submits that it would not be in the best interest of the estate for the Trustee to be removed and replaced at this juncture of the case. Since his appointment on July 7, 2022, the Trustee and his professionals have undertaken substantial efforts to investigate the affairs of the Debtor, uncover potential avenues of recovery for creditors and pursue known assets for the benefit of the estate. To introduce a new trustee at this stage of the case would cause the administration of the estate to suffer far more than the effect on the estate of any discord between the Trustee and the Debtor, who, rather than cooperating with the Trustee to garner assets for the estate,\n\n3\n\nappears more concerned with obstructing the process, causing collateral litigation and protecting\n\nassets which are ostensibly owned or held by family members or their affiliates.\n\n## Dated: Bridgeport, Connecticut **OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED**  January 13, 2023 **CREDITORS OF HO WAN KWOK**\n\nBy: */s/Irve J. Goldman*  Irve J. Goldman Jonathan A. Kaplan Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street, 8th Floor, PO Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006 (203) 330-2213 igoldman@pullcom.com Its Attorneys\n\n## **CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE**\n\nI, Irve J. Goldman, herby certify that on the 13th day of January, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Objection to Motion for Order Removing was filed with the Court and served upon all parties that have filed a notice of appearance and request for notice electronically via the Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system.\n\n*/s/Irve J. Goldman*","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格区破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT）布里奇波特分部（BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n关于：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n\n债务人。1\n\n_____________________________________________\n\n_____________________________________________:\n\n第 11 章\n案件编号：22-50073\n\n官方无担保债权人委员会对免除受托人职务命令动议的异议\n\n官方无担保债权人委员会（Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors，简称“委员会”或“UCC”）通过其下文签名的代理律师，特此对债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，“债务人”）提交的《免除受托人职务命令动议》（Motion for Order Removing Trustee，简称“免职动议”）提出本异议，并恭敬地陈述以下理由以支持其异议：\n\n1. 《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 324(a) 条规定：“法院在发出通知并举行听证后，可因正当理由免除受托人（美国受托人除外）或审查员的职务。”在本巡回区内，因正当理由免除受托人职务要求动议方证明该受托人“从事了欺诈行为或……对破产财产造成了实际损害”。见 Maiman v. Spizz (In re Ampal-American Israel Corp.), 691 Fed. Appx. 12, 16 (2d Cir. May 24, 2017)（简要裁定）。另见 In re Lundborg, 110 B.R. 106, 108 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990)（“寻求免除受托人职务的一方必须证明存在某种实际损害或欺诈”）；In re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., Case No. 07-10416 (KJC), 2013 WL 12324114, at *5 (Bankr. D. Del. July 9, 2013)（要求提供欺诈或实际损害的证据）2。\n\n1 债务人已知姓名如下：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n2 债务人主张免职可仅基于“不当行为的表象”（免职动议第 32 段），但未引用本巡回区内任何支持该主张的判决。尽管债务人引用了 In re Vebeliunas, 231 B.R. 181, 187-95 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999) 来支持该论点，但 Vebeliunas 案的判决涉及的并非依据 11 U.S.C. § 324(a) 免除受托人职务，而是依据 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 审查受托人律师的无利害关系。即使 § 327(a) 的标准可以借用于 § 324(a) 项下的免职动议，单纯的不当行为表象也不能单独构成免职的依据。见 In re Peck, 112 B.R. 485, 489 n. 6 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990)（“在本巡回区内，仅凭不当行为的表象不足以构成准许 § 327(a) 项下取消资格动议的充分依据”）。另见 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 324.02[2] at 324-5 (Richard Levin & Henry Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2022)（指出多数派裁判规则要求证明存在“实际欺诈或损害”，仅有“部分法院”认为存在不当行为表象即已足矣）。\n\n2. “寻求免除受托人职务的一方必须作出强有力的举证，因为免职的影响会对破产财产管理的连续性造成破坏。”In re Empire State Conglomerates Inc., 546 B.R. 306, 317 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016)（内部引语及引用省略）。另见 Surabian v. Picard, No. 13 Civ. 935(JGK), 2014 WL 917091, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2014)（免除受托人职务需要“强有力的事实举证”）。事实上，部分法院认为免除受托人职务的理由必须以“清晰且有说服力的证据”予以证明。In re Nilhan Developers, LLC, Case No. 15-58443-WLH, 2021 WL 153935, at *17 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 19, 2021)。\n\n3. 各法院一致认为免除受托人职务是一项“极端的救济措施”。参见如 In re Reagan, 403 B.R. 614, 623 (8th Cir. BAP 2009)；In re CNC Payroll, Inc., 491 B.R. 454, 460 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2013)；In re United Tax Group, LLC, 622 B.R. 148, 157 (Bankr. D. Del. 2020)；In re Cee Jay Discount Stores, Inc., 171 B.R. 173, 175 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1994)（指出免职是一项要求证明“实际损害或欺诈”的“极端”救济措施）。因此，正如证明任命第 11 章受托人所需正当理由的举证责任一样，证明免除受托人职务理由的举证责任亦应达到清晰且有说服力的程度。比较 In re Bayou Group, LLC, 564 F.3d 541, 546 (2d Cir. 2009)（鉴于任命第 11 章受托人是一项“非同寻常的救济措施”，要求以清晰且有说服力的证据证明任命第 11 章受托人的正当理由）。\n\n4. 此外，“法院在决定是否免除受托人职务时……应考虑破产财产的最大利益”。In re Lundborg, 110 B.R. 106, 108 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990)。另见 In re United Tax Group, LLC, 622 B.R. 148, 157 (Bankr. D. Del. 2020)（“法院必须考虑破产财产的最大利益，而不仅仅是单个提出申诉的动议方的利益”）。更具体而言，“唯有在破产财产管理因现任受托人所造成的摩擦而遭受的损害，大于因更换管理人所遭受的损害时，方可实施免职”。Maiman v. Spizz (In re Ampal-American Israel Corp.), 554 B.R. 604, 624 (S.D.N.Y. 2016), aff'd 691 Fed. Appx. 12 (2d Cir. May 24, 2017)。一致意见见 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 324.02[3] at 324-6 (Richard Levin & Henry Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2022)（同样指出“必须考虑更换受托人给破产财产带来的成本”）。\n\n5. 债务人并未证明本案中的受托人（“受托人”）从事了欺诈行为或对破产财产造成了“实际损害”。虽然委员会对债务人于 2022 年 11 月 17 日与受托人会面时发生的情况没有直接的第一手了解，但委员会认为其所知悉的受托人采取的行动，完全符合人们对一位尽职且严格审查的破产财产代表人的预期，特别是在债务人在申请破产前后均表现出蔑视、抗拒且不值得信任的行为的情况下。\n\n6. 委员会进一步认为，在本案的当前阶段免除并更换受托人并不符合破产财产的最大利益。自 2022 年 7 月 7 日被任命以来，受托人及其聘请的专业人员付出了巨大努力，以调查债务人的事务、为债权人发掘潜在的受偿途径，并为破产财产的利益追索已知资产。在案件的这一阶段引入新的受托人，对破产财产管理造成的损害，将远超过受托人与债务人之间的任何摩擦对破产财产造成的影响；而该债务人非但没有配合受托人为主体财产归集资产，反而似乎更热衷于阻碍这一进程、引发附带诉讼，并保护表面上由其家庭成员或其关联方拥有或持有的资产。\n\n日期：康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n2023 年 1 月 13 日\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）官方无担保债权人委员会\n\n签署人：/s/ Irve J. Goldman\nIrve J. Goldman\nJonathan A. Kaplan\nPullman & Comley, LLC\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor, PO Box 7006\nBridgeport, CT 06601-7006\n(203) 330-2213\nigoldman@pullcom.com\n其代理律师\n\n送达证明\n\n我，Irve J. Goldman，特此证明：于 2023 年 1 月 13 日，上述《对免除受托人职务命令动议的异议》的真实正确副本已提交至法院，并通过法院的 CM/ECF 电子归档系统向所有已提交出庭通知并以电子方式请求接收通知的当事人送达。\n\n/s/ Irve J. Goldman","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Guo","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1203,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:46:00"}