{"id":"court_ctb_1325_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1325,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"<span id=\"page-0-1\"></span>**UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# <span id=\"page-0-1\"></span>**UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| In re:                             | Chapter 11 Case No. |\n|------------------------------------|---------------------|\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK et al.,           | 22-50073 (JAM)      |\n| Debtors.                           | Re: ECF No. 1274    |\n|                                    |                     |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                       |                     |\n| Movant,                            |                     |\n| v.                                 |                     |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |                     |\n| Respondent.                        |                     |\n\n# **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S OBJECTION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ORDER REMOVING TRUSTEE**\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), by and through its undersigned\n\ncounsel, opposes the Debtor's *Motion for Order Removing Trustee* [ECF No. 1274] (the\n\n\"Motion\" or \"Mot.\"):\n\n# **INTRODUCTION**[2](#page-0-2)\n\n<span id=\"page-0-3\"></span>This Motion is Kwok's latest attempt to divert this chapter 11 proceeding from its\n\nfundamental purpose: maximizing recoveries for his creditors, of which PAX is by far the\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><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) (\"Kwok\" or the \"Individual Debtor\"), Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"), and Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) (\"Genever US\"). The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever BVI, and Genever US 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<span id=\"page-0-2\"></span><sup>2</sup> Unless otherwise stated all citations and quotations are omitted, and all emphasis is added. All defined terms have the same meaning as in the Motion.\n\nlargest. Legally, Kwok has not met the extremely high standard under the Bankruptcy Code for removing a trustee. And practically, a new trustee would not solve Kwok's real gripe—that the investigation of his assets and vast web of companies and associates must continue because he has not yet achieved a fully documented, fully consensual resolution of these cases. To the contrary, installing a new trustee would inevitably further delay the resolution of these cases and impose higher costs. PAX has been pursuing repayment from Kwok for over a decade, and cannot support any further delay. Rather than continuing to attack the Trustee and undermine the integrity of this proceeding, both through this motion and his ongoing unlawful harassment campaign—which this Court has now enjoined—Kwok should focus his efforts on resolving this case by working with the Trustee and creditors to benefit the estate.\n\nAccordingly, PAX respectfully requests that the Court deny the Debtor's *Motion for Order Removing Trustee*.\n\n#### <span id=\"page-1-5\"></span>**BACKGROUND**\n\n<span id=\"page-1-1\"></span>1. On July 7, 2022, the Court approved Luc Despins's appointment as the chapter 11 Trustee.[3](#page-1-0) Eight days later, Kwok moved to vacate that order, arguing that Mr. Despins was not disinterested[.](#page-1-2)<sup>4</sup>\n\n<span id=\"page-1-7\"></span><span id=\"page-1-3\"></span>2. On August 1, 2022, the Court denied Kwok's motion[.](#page-1-4)<sup>5</sup>\n\n3. During the Summer and early Fall of 2022, PAX's counsel and Kwok's counsel engaged in settlement negotiations.<sup>6</sup> Settlement discussions started with the Creditors'\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span>[<sup>3</sup>](#page-1-1) *Order Granting Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee* [ECF No. 523].\n\n<span id=\"page-1-2\"></span>[<sup>4</sup>](#page-1-3) *The Debtor's Motion for Relief from Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee* [ECF No. 561].\n\n<span id=\"page-1-4\"></span>[<sup>5</sup>](#page-1-5) *Aug. 1, 2022 Hearing Transcript* [ECF No. 714] at 62:10–25.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-6\"></span>[<sup>6</sup>](#page-1-7) *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 133] (the \"1/13/23 PI Decision\") ¶ 30.\n\n<span id=\"page-2-1\"></span>Committee in September 2022 and continued through October 2022[.](#page-2-0)<sup>7</sup> By September 26, 2022, Kwok and PAX agreed on a workable structure for a potential settlement, which the parties outlined in writing. But contrary to Kwok's assertion, any potential settlement between Kwok and PAX was not \"very, very close\" to being final. Mot. ¶ 17. Rather, there were still material details that needed to be worked out and agreed upon, including Kwok's responsibility to get the Trustee on board.[8](#page-2-2)\n\n<span id=\"page-2-3\"></span>4. On October 21, 2022, Kwok instructed his \"fellow fighters,\" \"friends of the New Federal State of China,\" and his personal supporters to stop spreading the personal information of PAG's executives and their families and counsel as a necessary condition for a reconciliation with PAX[.](#page-2-4)<sup>9</sup>\n\n<span id=\"page-2-7\"></span><span id=\"page-2-5\"></span>5. While PAX and Kwok were negotiating a settlement structure, the Trustee sought discovery to identify potential estate assets and governance rights to control estate assets. In October 2022, the Trustee engaged in related motion practice to compel discovery[10](#page-2-6) and moved to hold Kwok in contempt for violating the Court's August 10, 2022 Corporate Governance Order (the \"Contempt Motion\").[11](#page-2-8) Notwithstanding the ongoing settlement discussions continuing into mid-November, the Trustee made clear to counsel for both Kwok and PAX that\n\n<span id=\"page-2-9\"></span><span id=\"page-2-0\"></span>[<sup>7</sup>](#page-2-1) *Id.*\n\n<span id=\"page-2-2\"></span><sup>8</sup> PAX takes no position as to whether, in this context, Federal Rule of Evidence 408 bars the disclosure of the settlement terms discussed between it and Kwok. Nevertheless, Kwok's choice *not* to disclose those specific terms in the Motion demonstrates their irrelevance to the question at hand—*i.e.*, whether there is cause to remove the Trustee. At the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court expressed its view that \"talking about who's keep[ing] what and getting this and getting that\" in a settlement is \"not relevant, and it's not admissible.\" Dec. 12, 2022 Hr'g Tr., Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 111] (\"12/12/22 Tr.\") at 864:14–16. The same is true here; there is no need to disclose any of the terms that PAX and Kwok discussed.\n\n<span id=\"page-2-4\"></span><sup>9</sup> 1/13/23 PI Decision ¶ 31.\n\n<span id=\"page-2-8\"></span><span id=\"page-2-6\"></span>[<sup>10</sup>](#page-2-7) *See, e.g.*, *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Compelling Individual Debtor, Mei Guo, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, Hing Chi Ngok, Greenwich Land LLC, Lamp Capital LLC, and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoenas* [ECF No. 1046]. [11](#page-2-9) *See Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Holding Debtor in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Corporate Governance Rights Order* [ECF No. 913].\n\nhe intended to continue pursuing discovery, as well as the Contempt Motion, against Kwok. The Trustee similarly indicated to counsel for Kwok and PAX that, given there was no bar date and there were as yet potentially sizable unasserted claims, he was not in a position to support the proposed settlement construct.\n\n6. On November 15, 2022, the NFSC Gettr account posted a call to protest from Kwok-related Himalaya Global Alliance, directing supporters to begin demonstrations outside the offices of Paul Hastings LLP and O'Melveny & Myers LLP, as well as addresses associated with the Trustee and his family and PAG's Chairman and members of his family.[12](#page-3-0)\n\n<span id=\"page-3-1\"></span>7. The same day, Kwok posted on his @Miles Gettr account that \"Our reconciliation with PAG[] has become impossible for sure. In this case, no matter what the circumstances are, the opposite side is trying to do everything it can to make you in contempt of court.\"\n\n8. On November 17, 2022, the Trustee and his counsel met with Kwok, his counsel, and his translator (the \"November 17 Meeting\"). Mot. ¶ 19. At that meeting, the Trustee confirmed that he did not support the proposed settlement construct between Kwok, PAX, and the Creditors' Committee, and instead proposed a settlement in the form of a \\$250 million payment to the estate.[13](#page-3-2) To date, the claims against the estate exceed \\$400 million; and PAX's claims alone are more than \\$250 million.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-5\"></span><span id=\"page-3-3\"></span>9. On or about November 20, 2022, Kwok's followers—at his instigation and direction[14](#page-3-4)—started their improper on-site harassment campaign at the Trustee's office and\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span>[<sup>12</sup>](#page-3-1) 1/13/23 PI Decision ¶ 34.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-2\"></span>[<sup>13</sup>](#page-3-3) *Id.* at ¶ 37.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-4\"></span>[<sup>14</sup>](#page-3-5) *Id.* at ¶¶ 41, 45, 49–50, 53–54, 57–58, 63, 65, 72–77.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-3\"></span><span id=\"page-4-1\"></span>home, his family's homes, PAG-related homes, and PAX's counsel's offices and homes.[15](#page-4-0) That improper conduct has continued unabated for nearly two months.[16](#page-4-2)\n\n10. In an attempt to stop the harassment and prevent irreparable harm to the integrity of these chapter 11 cases, on November 22, 2022, PAX initiated an adversary proceeding against Kwok and sought a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.[17](#page-4-4)\n\n<span id=\"page-4-9\"></span><span id=\"page-4-7\"></span><span id=\"page-4-5\"></span>11. The Trustee moved to intervene in the adversary proceeding on November 22, 2022,[18](#page-4-6) and the Court granted that motion the next day.[19](#page-4-8)\n\n12. On November 23, 2022, following a hearing and argument, the Court issued a temporary restraining order, which, among other things, enjoined Kwok and all persons in active concert or participation with him from (i) further engaging in any harassment of the Trustee, the Trustee's family, PAX officers and employees, counsel to the Trustee and PAX, and any of their respective relatives; and (ii) interfering in any way with the integrity of this and/or the Genever bankruptcy, including by threatening (or encouraging the threatening of) the above-listed individuals.[20](#page-4-10)\n\n<span id=\"page-4-11\"></span>13. The Court held a four-day evidentiary hearing on December 5, 6, 7, and 12, 2022, on PAX's motion for a preliminary injunction. During the hearing, several witnesses testified regarding the November 17 Meeting.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span>[<sup>15</sup>](#page-4-1) *Id.* at ¶¶ 41–71.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-2\"></span>[<sup>16</sup>](#page-4-3) *Id.*\n\n<span id=\"page-4-6\"></span><span id=\"page-4-4\"></span>[<sup>17</sup>](#page-4-5) *See Pacific Alliance v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF Nos. 1–6].\n\n[<sup>18</sup>](#page-4-7) *See Trustee's Motion (a) to Intervene in Adversary Proceeding and (b) for Joinder to PAX's Motion for Order (i) Preliminarily Enjoining Debtor From Publishing Personal Information about Certain Parties and Their Relatives Online, (ii) Directing Debtor to Remove Any Such Existing Posts, (iii) Granting Temporary Restraining Order in Event That Court Orders Hearing on this Motion; and (iv) Referring Debtor's Conduct To US Attorney's Office for District of Connecticut*, Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 9].\n\n<span id=\"page-4-10\"></span><span id=\"page-4-8\"></span>[<sup>19</sup>](#page-4-9) *See Order Granting the Motion to Intervene,* Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 25]. [20](#page-4-11) *Order Granting Application for Temporary Restraining Order,* Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 26].\n\n14. On January 11, 2023, the Court issued its decision and order on PAX's preliminary injunction motion, enjoining Kwok's and his followers' unlawful and harassing behavior.[21](#page-5-0)\n\n### **ARGUMENT**\n\n### <span id=\"page-5-1\"></span>**A. Kwok cannot establish \"cause\" to remove Trustee.**\n\n15. Bankruptcy Code section 324(a) provides that a trustee can be removed for \"cause.\" 11 U.S.C. § 324(a). It is well-established that \"cause\" is a high standard and \"requires a strong showing.\" *In re Regan*, No. 18-31694, 2021 WL 4844325, at \\*5 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2021) (denying motion to remove trustee where debtor failed to meet \"high bar\" for showing cause); *see also In re Ampal-Am. Israel Corp.*, 554 B.R. 604, 625 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (discussing \"high standards imposed for removal of a properly elected trustee\"), *aff'd*, 691 F. App'x 12 (2d Cir. 2017). As Kwok's motion acknowledges, \"remov[ing] a trustee for cause generally requires a showing of fraud or actual injury to the bankruptcy estate.\" *See* Mot. ¶ 27 (citing cases). \"A trustee should not be removed for mistakes in judgment where that judgment was discretionary and reasonable under the circumstances, and courts should consider the best interests of the estate . . . .\" *In re Lundborg*, 110 B.R. 106, 108 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990). Indeed, \"even if the trustee acted improperly, absent fraud or actual injury . . . there [is] no cause for removal.\" *In re Regan*, 2021 WL 4844325, at \\*2. In citing these cases, PAX does not mean to suggest that any such Trustee misconduct was present here.\n\n16. Kwok has not—and cannot—come close to meeting his burden to establish cause. Indeed, Kwok offers only two supposed grounds for removing the Trustee: (i) \"misconduct\"\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span>[<sup>21</sup>](#page-5-1) *See generally* 1/13/23 PI Decision; *Corrected Order Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 134].\n\nduring the November 17 Meeting, and (ii) obstruction of a global resolution of this case. *See* Mot. ¶¶ 33–43. Each is unavailing.\n\n#### *i. The Trustee's alleged \"misconduct\" is not grounds for removal.*\n\n17. Kwok asserts that the Trustee engaged in misconduct during the November 17 Meeting as part of a strategy \"to entrap the Debtor in a contempt, perjury, or some other some other crime.\" *Id.* at ¶ 7. PAX defers to the Trustee for a discussion of what actually occurred during the November 17 Meeting. But Kwok's displeasure with the Trustee's supposed litigation strategy does not meet the legal standard for a trustee's removal. And it is ironic that Kwok purports to be worried about being entrapped into committing contempt*, see id.* at ¶¶ 7– 11, given that he admits that it was the \\$134 million contempt judgment in New York state court that \"forc[ed him] into bankruptcy.\"[22](#page-6-0) But even if it were true that the Trustee was hoping to \"entrap\" Kwok, the simplest way for Kwok to defeat that strategy is to avoid committing \"contempt, perjury, or some other crime.\" *Id.* at ¶ 36.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-1\"></span>18. Kwok points to the Contempt Motion as a \"primary example of the Trustee's strategy\" to entrap Kwok. *Id.* at ¶ 37. If the Contempt Motion is unfounded, or the relief sought too broad, then the Court will rule accordingly. But Kwok offers no cogent theory for why simply making such a motion necessitates—or even supports—removing the Trustee from his position.\n\n## *ii. The Trustee has not obstructed a settlement.*\n\n19. Kwok's assertion that the Trustee's removal would be in the estate's best interest because the Trustee has obstructed a global settlement is premised on Kwok's mischaracterization of his negotiations with PAX as \"very near final.\" *Id.* at 2. As explained\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span>[<sup>22</sup>](#page-6-1) *Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions* [ECF No. 107] ¶ 24.\n\nabove, although PAX and Kwok had agreed on a structure for a potential settlement—*i.e.*, a framework for a how a settlement could be achieved—there were important and complex details that needed to be negotiated and agreed upon, and Kwok separately had to persuade the Trustee to support it. *See supra* ¶ 3. To be sure, while PAX was—and under the right circumstances remains—hopeful that a global settlement can be reached, there was no \"agreement in principle on all material terms\" (Mot. ¶ 14) and a settlement could not fairly be described at that juncture as \"very near final.\" *Id.* at 2. Thus, the Trustee's alleged \"obstruction\" of that inchoate settlement cannot constitute grounds for removal.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-1\"></span>20. The fact is that if anyone has obstructed a settlement, it is Kwok. Two days before the November 17 Meeting, Kwok-related entities issued a call to protest at the Trustee's offices, PAX's counsel's offices, and the Trustee's and his family's residences, and the residences of PAG's Chairman and his relatives.[23](#page-7-0) The same day, Kwok took to social media to complain that \"reconciliation with PAG[] ha[d] become impossible\" and that his adversaries were doing \"everything\" they could \"to make [him] in contempt of court.\" Indeed, Debtor's counsel testified that, as a backdrop to the November 17 Meeting, \"things were fairly heated,\" blaming the increased temperature on, among other things, \"[a] social media campaign that was going on, that was causing great agita among a number of participants in this whole process.\"[24](#page-7-2) But Kwok was the only party who participated in and directed any activity on social media related to this bankruptcy.[25](#page-7-4) In other words, the agita-inducing, settlement-impacting social media campaign was Kwok's and Kwok's alone.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-5\"></span><span id=\"page-7-3\"></span><span id=\"page-7-0\"></span>[<sup>23</sup>](#page-7-1) 1/13/23 PI Decision ¶ 34.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-2\"></span>[<sup>24</sup>](#page-7-3) 12/12/22 Tr. at 846:2–3, 874:8–10. *See also* 1/13/23 PI Decision ¶ 35.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-4\"></span>[<sup>25</sup>](#page-7-5) 12/12/22 Tr. at 875:7–876:8.\n\n## **B. Removal of Trustee Despins is not in the best interests of the estate.**\n\n21. As noted above, when deciding a motion under section 324, courts must consider the \"best interests of the estate.\" *In re Lundborg*, 110 B.R. 106, 108 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990). PAX, the creditor with the largest claim by far and the creditor that has been waiting many years for Kwok to repay his debts, believes that the estate's interests would be *disserved* by removing the Trustee and undertaking the time- and money-consuming process of appointing a new one. Rather than steer this bankruptcy farther off course, the best path forward is for the Trustee and his counsel to continue to identify expeditiously assets for the estate and, as soon as possible, propose a confirmable plan.\n\n22. Moreover, removing the Trustee and appointing a new one would not be in the best interests of the estate because, having effectively been rewarded for his misbehavior, Kwok will only resort to his usual tactics if and when a new trustee inevitably does not act in what Kwok subjectively perceives to be his favor. Kwok's suggestion that there is a problem with this Trustee, and that he would welcome any other trustee (*see* Mot. at 3), is highly suspect and belied by his past conduct. Kwok has long disparaged and accused those with whom he disagrees, including his creditors[26](#page-8-0) and even his former legal counsel, of being Chinese Communist Party agents. As the Court acknowledged, if Mr. Despins were no longer the Trustee any new trustee would \"have to start over again\" and would also \"likely face opposition from [Kwok] immediately upon appointment, as [Mr. Despins] has faced since his appointment.\"[27](#page-8-2)\n\n<span id=\"page-8-3\"></span><span id=\"page-8-1\"></span><span id=\"page-8-0\"></span>[<sup>26</sup>](#page-8-1) *Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Peter Friedman in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for an Order (I) Preliminarily Enjoining the Debtor from Publishing Personal Information about Certain Parties and their Relatives Online, (II) Directing the Debtor to Remove Any Such Existing Posts, (III) Granting a Temporary Restraining Order in the Event that the Court Orders a Hearing on this Motion, and (IV) Referring the Debtor's Conduct to the US Attorney for the District of Connecticut*, Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 6-1] (transcript of December 12, 2020 YouTube video, in which Kwok accuses PAX of conspiring with the CCP).\n\n<span id=\"page-8-2\"></span>[<sup>27</sup>](#page-8-3) 1/13/23 PI Decision at 42.\n\n# **CONCLUSION**\n\n23. For the foregoing reasons, PAX respectfully asks that the Court deny Debtor's\n\nMotion for Order Removing Trustee.\n\nDated: January 13, 2023 Hartford, Connecticut\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) ROBINSON & COLE LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n*Attorneys for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on January 13, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically through the Court's CM/ECF System. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties receiving notice by operation of the court's electronic filing system. Parties in interest may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n /s/ *Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick M. Birney","body_zh":"UNITED 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关于：第 11 章案件编号：\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。关联：ECF No. 1274\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n动议人，\nv.\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯宾斯），第 11 章受托人，\n被申请人。\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 对债务人请求罢免受托人之命令的动议的异议\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，简称“PAX”）由其下述署名律师代表，反对债务人请求罢免受托人之命令的动议 [ECF No. 1274]（简称“本动议”或“Mot.”）：\n\n引言[2]\n\n本动议是郭文贵为转移本案第 11 章程序根本目的所作的最新企图；该根本目的在于为其债权人最大限度地挽回损失，而 PAX 迄今为止是其中最大的债权人。\n\n1 本第 11 章破产案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称为郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）（简称“郭文贵”或“个人债务人”）、Genever Holdings Corporation（源丰控股有限公司，简称“Genever BVI”）以及 Genever Holdings LLC（源丰控股有限责任公司，纳税人识别号后四位：8202）（简称“Genever US”）。受托人、Genever BVI 和 Genever US 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（仅用于送达通知和通信目的）。\n\n2 除非另有说明，所有引文和引述均已省略，所有强调均为后加。所有已定义术语的含义与本动议中的含义相同。\n\n从法律上讲，郭文贵未达到《破产法典》中罢免受托人的极高标准。从事实上看，更换新的受托人并不能解决郭文贵真正的抱怨——即对其资产以及庞大的公司和关联人网络的调查必须继续进行，因为他尚未就这些案件达成完全书面记录、完全协商一致的解决方案。相反，任命新的受托人将不可避免地进一步拖延这些案件的解决并增加更高的费用。PAX 向郭文贵追讨欠款已超过十年，绝不能支持任何进一步的拖延。郭文贵不应继续通过本动议及其持续的非法骚扰行动——本法院现已下令禁止该行动——攻击受托人并损害本程序的公正性，而应集中精力通过与受托人和债权人合作来解决本案，以使破产财团获益。\n\n因此，PAX 谨请法院驳回债务人请求罢免受托人之命令的动议。\n\n背景\n\n1. 2022年7月7日，法院批准任命 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯宾斯）为第 11 章受托人。[3] 八天后，郭文贵提出动议请求撤销该命令，理由是德斯宾斯先生并非无利害关系人[.]4\n\n2. 2022年8月1日，法院驳回了郭文贵的动议[.]5\n\n3. 在 2022 年夏季和初秋期间，PAX 的律师与郭文贵的律师进行了和解谈判。6 与债权人委员会的和解讨论始于\n\n[3] 批准任命第 11 章受托人的命令 [ECF No. 523]。\n\n[4] 债务人请求免于执行任命 Luc A. Despins 为第 11 章受托人之命令的动议 [ECF No. 561]。\n\n[5] 2022年8月1日听证会笔录 [ECF No. 714]，第 62:10–25 页。\n\n[6] 经更正的部分批准初步禁令动议的裁决备忘录，Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 133]（简称“1/13/23 PI Decision”）¶ 30。\n\n2022年9月，并持续到 2022年10月[.]7 截至 2022年9月26日，郭文贵与 PAX 就一项潜在和解的可行框架达成了一致，双方以书面形式勾勒了该框架。但与郭文贵的断言相反，郭文贵与 PAX 之间的任何潜在和解都远非“非常、非常接近”最终达成。Mot. ¶ 17。相反，仍有实质性细节需要解决并达成共识，包括郭文贵有责任促成受托人的加入。[8]\n\n4. 2022年10月21日，郭文贵指示其“战友”、“新中国联邦之友”及其个人支持者停止散布 PAG（太盟）高管及其家属和律师的个人信息，以此作为与 PAX 和解的必要条件[.]9\n\n5. 在 PAX 与郭文贵就和解框架进行谈判期间，受托人寻求证据开示，以确定潜在的破产财团资产以及控制破产财团资产的管理权。2022年10月，受托人进行了相关的强迫证据开示动议程序[10]，并提出动议，请求判定郭文贵违反法院 2022年8月10日公司治理命令构成藐视法庭（简称“藐视法庭动议”）。[11] 尽管和解讨论一直持续到 11 月中旬，受托人仍向郭文贵和 PAX 双方的律师明确表示，\n\n[7] 同上。\n\n8 PAX 对于在此情况下《联邦证据规则》第 408 条是否禁止披露其与郭文贵讨论的和解条款不持立场。然而，郭文贵选择不在本动议中披露这些具体条款，证明了这些条款与眼下的问题——即是否存在罢免受托人的充分理由——无关。在初步禁令动议的听证会上，法院表达了其观点，即在和解中“谈论谁保留什么、谁获得这个和获得那个”是“不相关的，也不具有可采性”。2022年12月12日听证会笔录，Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 111]（简称“12/12/22 Tr.”），第 864:14–16 页。此处亦是如此；无需披露 PAX 与郭文贵讨论的任何条款。\n\n9 1/13/23 PI Decision ¶ 31。\n\n[10] 参见例如：第 11 章受托人请求作出命令强迫个人债务人、Mei Guo（郭美）、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC、Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）、Greenwich Land LLC、Lamp Capital LLC 和 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 遵守规则 2004 传票的动议 [ECF No. 1046]。\n\n[11] 参见：第 11 章受托人请求因债务人未遵守公司治理权命令而判定其民事藐视法庭的动议 [ECF No. 913]。\n\n他打算继续推进针对郭文贵的证据开示以及藐视法庭动议。受托人同样向郭文贵和 PAX 的律师表示，鉴于尚未设定债权申报截止日，且目前可能存在数额巨大的尚未主张的债权，他无法支持所提议的和解构想。\n\n6. 2022年11月15日，新中国联邦 Gettr 账号发布了来自与郭文贵相关的 Himalaya Global Alliance（全球喜马拉雅联盟）的抗议号召，指示支持者开始在 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）和 O'Melveny & Myers LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）的办公室外，以及与受托人及其家人、PAG 董事长及其家庭成员相关的地址外进行示威活动。[12]\n\n7. 同日，郭文贵在其 @Miles Gettr 账号上发帖称：“我们与 PAG[] 的和解肯定已经不可能了。在这种情况下，无论情况如何，对方都在想尽一切办法让你藐视法庭。”\n\n8. 2022年11月17日，受托人及其律师与郭文贵、其律师及其翻译进行了会面（简称“11月17日会议”）。Mot. ¶ 19。在这次会议上，受托人确认他不支持郭文贵、PAX 和债权人委员会之间提议的和解构想，而是提出了以向破产财团支付 2.5 亿美元为形式的和解方案。[13] 迄今为止，针对破产财团的债权主张超过 4 亿美元；仅 PAX 的债权主张就超过 2.5 亿美元。\n\n9. 2022年11月20日左右，郭文贵的追随者——在其煽动和指挥下[14]——在受托人的办公室和\n\n[12] 1/13/23 PI Decision ¶ 34。\n\n[13] 同上，¶ 37。\n\n[14] 同上，¶¶ 41, 45, 49–50, 53–54, 57–58, 63, 65, 72–77。\n\n住所、其家人的住所、PAG 相关的住所，以及 PAX 律师的办公室和住所，开始了不正当的现场骚扰行动。[15] 这一不正当行为持续了近两个月未曾停歇。[16]\n\n10. 为了制止骚扰并防止对这些第 11 章案件的公正性造成不可挽回的损害，2022年11月22日，PAX 对郭文贵提起了对抗制诉讼程序，并申请临时限制令及初步禁令。[17]\n\n11. 受托人于 2022年11月22日提出动议请求参加该对抗制诉讼程序[18]，法院于次日批准了该动议。[19]\n\n12. 2022年11月23日，在听证和辩论之后，法院签发了一项临时限制令，除其他事项外，该命令禁止郭文贵以及所有与他积极协同或参与的人员：(i) 进一步对受托人、受托人的家人、PAX 的管理人员和雇员、受托人及 PAX 的律师以及他们各自的任何亲属进行任何骚扰；以及 (ii) 以任何方式干预本破产案和/或 Genever 破产案的公正性，包括通过威胁（或鼓励威胁）上述个人。[20]\n\n13. 法院于 2022年12月5日、6日、7日和12日就 PAX 的初步禁令动议举行了为期四天的证据开示听证会。在听证会期间，数名证人就 11 月 17 日会议作证。\n\n[15] 同上，¶¶ 41–71。\n\n[16] 同上。\n\n[17] 参见 Pacific Alliance v. Kwok，Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF Nos. 1–6]。\n\n[18] 参见：受托人请求 (a) 参加对抗制诉讼程序及 (b) 共同参加 PAX 请求作出命令以 (i) 初步禁止债务人在网上发布关于某些当事人及其亲属的个人信息，(ii) 指示债务人删除任何此类现有帖子，(iii) 在法院下令就本动议举行听证会的情况下批准临时限制令；以及 (iv) 将债务人的行为移交康涅狄格区联邦检察官办公室的动议，Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 9]。\n\n[19] 参见：批准参加诉讼动议的命令，Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 25]。\n\n[20] 批准临时限制令申请的命令，Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 26]。\n\n14. 2023年1月11日，法院就 PAX 的初步禁令动议作出了裁决和命令，禁止郭文贵及其追随者的非法和骚扰行为。[21]\n\n辩论\n\nA. 郭文贵无法确立罢免受托人的“充分理由”。\n\n15. 《破产法典》第 324(a) 条规定，受托人可因“充分理由”而被罢免。11 U.S.C. § 324(a)。众所周知，“充分理由”是一项很高的标准，且“需要强有力的证明”。In re Regan, No. 18-31694, 2021 WL 4844325, at *5 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2021)（在债务人未能达到证明充分理由的“高门槛”时，驳回罢免受托人的动议）；另见 In re Ampal-Am. Israel Corp., 554 B.R. 604, 625 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)（讨论“罢免正当选任的受托人所适用的高标准”），aff'd, 691 F. App'x 12 (2d Cir. 2017)。正如郭文贵的动议所承认的那样，“因充分理由罢免受托人通常需要证明存在欺诈或对破产财团造成了实际损害。”参见 Mot. ¶ 27（援引判例）。“受托人不应因判断上的失误而被罢免，只要该判断属于自由裁量范围且在该情况下是合理的，并且法院应当考虑破产财团的最佳利益……”In re Lundborg, 110 B.R. 106, 108 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990)。事实上，“即使受托人行为不当，在没有欺诈或实际损害的情况下……也没有罢免的充分理由。”In re Regan, 2021 WL 4844325, at *2。在援引这些判例时，PAX 绝非暗示本案中存在任何此类受托人不当行为。\n\n16. 郭文贵没有——也根本不可能——接近达到其证明充分理由的举证责任。事实上，郭文贵仅提出了两个假定的罢免受托人的理由：(i) 在 11 月 17 日会议期间的“不当行为”，\n\n[21] 参见一般判决 1/13/23 PI Decision；经更正的部分批准初步禁令动议的命令，Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 134]。\n\n以及 (ii) 阻碍本案的全面解决。参见 Mot. ¶¶ 33–43。两项理由均不能成立。\n\ni. 受托人被指控的“不当行为”不构成罢免理由。\n\n17. Kwok（郭文贵）声称，受托人在11月17日会议期间存在不当行为，以此作为“诱使债务人构成藐视法庭、伪证或某些其他罪行”策略的一部分。同上，第7段。PAX（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）听由受托人去讨论11月17日会议期间实际发生了什么。但是，郭文贵对受托人所谓诉讼策略的不满，并未达到撤换受托人的法定标准。而且具有讽刺意味的是，郭文贵声称担心自己被诱入藐视法庭的境地，参见同上，第7至11段，然而他自己承认，正是纽约州法院判处的高达1.34亿美元的藐视法庭判决“迫使他破产”[22]。即便受托人确实希望“诱使”郭文贵，郭文贵挫败该策略的最简单方法也是避免做出“藐视法庭、伪证或某些其他罪行”。同上，第36段。\n\n18. 郭文贵将《藐视法庭动议》作为受托人诱使郭文贵这一“策略的主要范例”。同上，第37段。如果该《藐视法庭动议》毫无根据，或者所请求的救济范围过宽，那么法院自然会做出相应裁定。但是，郭文贵并未提出任何令人信服的法理依据，说明为什么仅仅提出这样一项动议就有必要——甚至支持——将其从受托人职位上撤换。\n\nii. 受托人并未阻碍和解。\n\n19. 郭文贵声称撤换受托人符合破产财产的最佳利益，理由是受托人阻碍了一项全面和解；这一主张的前提是郭文贵将其与PAX之间的谈判错误地描述为“极度接近最终达成”。同上，第2页。如上所述，\n\n[22] 《Ho Wan Kwok先生支持第11章案件及若干动议的声明》[ECF No. 107] 第24段。\n\n尽管PAX与郭文贵就潜在和解的架构达成了共识——即实现和解的框架——但仍有重要且复杂的细节需要谈判并达成一致，且郭文贵还必须单独说服受托人予以支持。参见前述第3段。诚然，虽然PAX曾经——且在适当情况下仍然——对能够达成全面和解抱有希望，但当时并不存在“对所有实质性条款的原则性协议”（动议第14段），且在那个关头也无法将和解客观地描述为“极度接近最终达成”。同上，第2页。因此，受托人所谓对该未完成和解的“阻碍”不能构成撤换受托人的理由。\n\n20. 事实是，如果真有人阻碍了和解，那正是郭文贵。在11月17日会议的两天前，与郭文贵相关的实体发出了在受托人办公室、PAX律师办公室、受托人及其家人住所，以及PAG（太盟投资集团）主席及其亲属住所举行抗议的号召[23]。同一天，郭文贵在社交媒体上抱怨“与PAG的调解已变得不可能”，并称他的对手正在竭尽所能“让他藐视法庭”。事实上，债务人律师作证称，作为11月17日会议的背景，“事态相当激烈”，并将紧张局势升温归咎于（其中包括）“当时正在进行的一场社交媒体活动，该活动在整个过程中的许多参与者之间引起了极大的焦虑”[24]。但郭文贵是唯一参与并指挥与本破产案相关的社交媒体活动的当事方[25]。换言之，这场引起焦虑、影响和解的社交媒体活动完全是郭文贵一人的所作所为。\n\n[23] 2023年1月13日《初步禁令裁定》第34段。\n\n[24] 2022年12月12日庭审笔录，第846页第2–3行，第874页第8–10行。亦见2023年1月13日《初步禁令裁定》第35段。\n\n[25] 2022年12月12日庭审笔录，第875页第7行–第876页第8行。\n\nB. 撤换受托人Despins不符合破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n21. 如上所述，在根据第324条对动议进行裁决时，法院必须考虑“破产财产的最佳利益”。In re Lundborg, 110 B.R. 106, 108 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990)。PAX作为迄今为止债权额最大的债权人，也是等待郭文贵偿还债务多年的债权人，认为撤换受托人并启动耗费时间和金钱的指定新受托人程序，将损害破产财产的利益。与其让本破产案进一步偏离正轨，最佳的前进路径是让受托人及其律师继续迅速查明属于破产财产的资产，并尽快提出一项可获确认的重整方案。\n\n22. 此外，撤换受托人并指定新受托人并不符合破产财产的最佳利益，因为在郭文贵的不当行为实际得到鼓励后，一旦新受托人不可避免地没有按照郭文贵主观认为有利于他的方式行事，郭文贵只会重施其惯用伎俩。郭文贵暗示本任受托人存在问题，并声称他欢迎任何其他受托人（见动议第3页），这是高度可疑且与其过去的行径相矛盾的。郭文贵长期以来一直贬损并指控与其意见相左的人为中共特务，包括他的债权人[26]甚至是他的前法律顾问。正如法院所承认的，如果Despins先生不再担任受托人，任何新受托人都将“不得不从头开始”，并且“很可能自被任命起就立即面临来自郭文贵的反对，正如Despins先生自被任命以来所面临的情况一样”[27]。\n\n[26] 《Peter Friedman支持Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.请求作出以下命令之动议的声明之证据1：(I) 初步禁止债务人在网络上发布有关特定当事方及其亲属的个人信息，(II) 命令债务人删除任何此类现有发帖，(III) 在法院命令就本动议举行听证会的情况下批准临时限制令，以及 (IV) 将债务人的行为移送至康涅狄格区联邦检察官》，Adv. Pro. No. 22-05032 [Adv. Pro. ECF No. 6-1]（2020年12月12日YouTube视频文字记录，郭文贵在其中指控PAX与中共串通勾结）。\n\n[27] 2023年1月13日《初步禁令裁定》第42页。\n\n结论\n\n23. 基于上述理由，PAX谨请法院驳回债务人的《请求作出撤换受托人裁定的动议》。\n\n日期：2023年1月13日\n康涅狄格州哈特福德\n\n谨呈，\n\n签字人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\nPatrick M. Birney（康涅狄格州律师号：19875）\nAnnecca H. Smith（康涅狄格州律师号：31148）\nROBINSON & COLE LLP\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 275-8275\n传真：(860) 275-8299\n电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com\nasmith@rc.com\n\n以及\n\nPeter Friedman（获准特许出庭）\nStuart M. Sarnoff（获准特许出庭）\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2000\n传真：(212) 326-2061\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\nssarnoff@omm.com\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）代理律师\n\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于2023年1月13日，上述文书的一份副本已通过法院的CM/ECF系统以电子方式提交。本提交事项的通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运作，以电子邮件形式发送给所有接收通知的当事方。利害关系方可通过法院的CM/ECF系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n/s/ Patrick M. Birney\nPatrick M. Birney","key_entities":["Kwok","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","CIPA","Je","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","Luc Despins","Himalaya","CCP","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":6,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":9,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":25,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":26,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":111,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":133,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":134,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":523,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":561,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":714,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":913,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1046,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1274,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3150,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:40:48"}