{"id":"court_ctb_1326_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1326,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-01-13","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"受托人异议书 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1326（2023-01-13立案）。第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 对债务人要求撤换受托人的动议提出异议，主张债务人因破产财产无盈余而缺乏起诉资格，且未能证明受托人存在欺诈、不当行为或达到撤换法定事由。","summary_en":"Objection to Motion to Remove Trustee — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1326 (filed 2023-01-13). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins objects to the debtor's motion seeking his removal, arguing that the debtor lacks standing due to the absence of an estate surplus and fails to demonstrate cause, fraud, or misconduct.","body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.1 | :
:
: | Jointly Administered |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n\n## **OBJECTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO MOTION FOR ORDER REMOVING TRUSTEE**\n\nTo the Honorable United States Bankruptcy Judge Julie A. Manning:\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), submits this objection (the \"Objection\") to the Debtor's *Motion for Order Removing Trustee* [Docket No. 1274] (the \"Motion\"). In support of his Objection, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Court has demonstrated, in its *Memorandum of Decision Granting In Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* [ECF No. 128, Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032] (the \"Preliminary Injunction Decision\"), that it is very familiar with the factual and procedural background relevant to the Motion. Therefore, the Trustee will refrain from a full examination of that background, and instead focus on the narrow legal standard applicable to a motion to remove a trustee.\n\n1 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\n2. As an initial matter, the Debtor lacks standing to seek the Trustee's removal because he has failed to show that the estate will generate a surplus. Absent such a surplus, the Debtor has no economic interest in the estate and only his creditors have standing to dispute the Trustee's performance of his duties in connection with the administration of the estate (and they have not—to the contrary, the Creditors' Committee and PAX, the Debtor's largest creditor, oppose the Motion).\n\n3. Separately, the Debtor fails, for numerous reasons, to meet the demanding standard required to establish cause for the extraordinary remedy of removal of the Trustee. Among other things, the Debtor fails to show (or even allege) fraud, fails to show actual harm to the estate from the Trustee's business judgment decision to reject the Debtor's settlement proposal, fails to justify interference in that judgment, and fails to show that the Trustee committed any form of misconduct that might justify removal. In fact, as highlighted by this Court's findings in the Preliminary Injunction Decision, the Trustee's efforts have benefited the estate and increased the likelihood of recoveries to creditors, while the Debtor's proposal, the removal and replacement of the Trustee, would result in significant delay and destruction of value. **The Trustee's investigation has made significant progress, as evidenced by, among other things, the important document attached as Exhibit A hereto.** This is exactly the type of progress that the Debtor is attempting to stop or stymie.\n\n4. Finally, it is important to note what the Motion reveals regarding the Debtor's strategy. The Debtor seeks, essentially, to take the estate and creditors, and this Court, hostage. The Motion brazenly states that \"the Debtor and, more importantly, the Debtor's immediate and extended family members (because they would fund payments to creditors under any consensual plan) will not deal with the Trustee. At this point, the options are removal of the Trustee or years\n\n2\n\nof expensive and uncertain litigation.\" 2 This statement is a ransom note to the Court: \"give me a new trustee or I will never settle, and the estate will suffer.\" The Court should reject these threats and tactics, which directly attack the fair administration of the estate, and deny the Motion.\n\n#### **OBJECTION**\n\n### **A. Debtor Lacks Standing**\n\n5. A debtor out-of-possession \"is a 'party in interest' and has standing to object to a sale of the assets, or otherwise participate in litigation surrounding the assets of the estate, only if there could be a surplus after all creditors' claims are paid.\" *See In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc.*, 218 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir. 2000); *see also In re Licata*, 659 Fed. Appx. 704, 706 (2d Cir. 2016) (debtor \"has the burden of showing that there is at least a reasonable possibility of a surplus\").\n\n6. Based on this rule, a debtor has no standing to seek the removal of a trustee based on allegations related to the trustee's administration of the estate. For example, in *In re Cole,* No. 10-50091 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.), this Court determined that the debtor lacked standing to seek removal of the trustee given that the debtor had failed to show that a surplus would remain after creditors' claim were satisfied*.* 3 This Court's ruling was affirmed on appeal. *Cole v. Rescia*, No: 3:21-cv-01130-MPS, 2022 WL 4536830 (D. Conn. Sept. 28, 2022).\n\n2 Motion ¶ 40.\n\n3 *See* Aug. 6, 2019 Hearing Transcript at 39:7-9, 67:1-4, *In re Cole*, No. 10-50091 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.) (\"[debtor does not] have standing to make these arguments. The debtor has no rights anymore as a chapter 7 debtor unless and until there's clearly a surplus.\") [ECF No. 1267], attached hereto as **Exhibit B**; Aug. 10, 2019 Hearing Transcript at 11:6-9, *In re Cole*, No. 10-50091 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.) (\"a debtor doesn't have standing to raise issues unless there is going to be some surplus from the estate.\") [ECF No. 1270], attached hereto as **Exhibit C.**\n\n7. Here, the Debtor seeks removal of the Trustee based on the Trustee's decision to (i) continue investigating the Debtor's assets and (ii) decline to settle estate causes of action on terms proposed by the Debtor.4 Estate causes of action are assets of the estate to be administered by the Trustee. *See, e.g.*, *In re Petroleum Piping Contractors, Inc.,* 211 B.R. 290, 311 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1997) (\"The trustee succeeds to and has exclusive control over all assets of the estate, including causes of action.\"). The Trustee's decision to settle or pursue estate causes of action is clearly an aspect of the Trustee's administration of the Debtor's estate on account of which the Debtor has no standing to seek the Trustee's removal absent the showing of a surplus.\n\n8. Absent any showing of a surplus, the Motion must be denied based on the Debtor's lack of standing.5 The Trustee invites the Debtor to disclose estate property currently held under the names of family members and shell companies, which may, depending on the value of such property, make the estate solvent and provide the Debtor with standing in matters related to estate administration. But the Trustee points out that, at this stage, there are more than \\$370 million in claims against the estate and the bar date has not even passed yet.\n\n#### **B. Debtor Fails to Establish Cause to Remove Trustee**\n\n9. Removal of a trustee for cause is \"an extreme remedy,\" *In re Log & Conventional Homes, Inc*., Nos. SC–11–1000–KIMKH, 09–12365–JM, 2011 WL 7145883, \\*4 (9th Cir. BAP Dec. 22, 2011); *see also In re Gunartt*, 355 Fed. App'x 66, 68 (7th Cir. 2009), requiring \"a\n\n4 The Debtor's allegations of misconduct, whether based on statements allegedly made in settlement discussions, alleged \"entrapment,\" or the Trustee's alleged bias, all amount to criticisms of the Trustee's decision to pursue his investigation of the Debtor and seek the return of assets to the estate, and thus amount to attacks on the Trustee based on his decisions in connection with the administration of the estate.\n\n5 Moreover, in the absence of any surplus the Trustee owes no fiduciary duties to the Debtor. *See In re Christensen*, No. 15-29773*,* 2020 WL 2027232, at \\*4 (Bankr. D. Utah Mar. 27, 2020) (stating a trustee \"owes fiduciary duties only to the bankruptcy estate and its beneficiaries, and, as a result, only beneficiaries can bring claims for breach of those duties against the trustee\"); *Pergament v. Varela (In re Varela)*, 530 B.R. 573, 583 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2015) (\"Trustee owes no fiduciary duty to the Debtor. There is a discrete set of parties whose interests must be safeguarded by the trustee: creditors; shareholders; and the debtor may become a member of this group should the estate become solvent*.*\").\n\nstrong factual showing\" *Surabian v. Picard*, No. 13 Civ. 935(JGK), 2014 WL 917091, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2014) (quotations and citation omitted), because \"removal is deleterious to the continuity of administration of the estate.\" *In re Empire State Conglomerates, Inc*., 546 B.R. 306, 317 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quotations omitted). Removal of a trustee for cause generally requires a showing of fraud or actual injury to the bankruptcy estate. *Dieffenbach v. Haworth (In re Haworth)*, 356 Fed. App'x 529, 530 (2d Cir. 2009). \"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).\n\n10. Here, the Debtor has failed to carry his burden to demonstrate any cause at all for the removal of the Trustee, much less any strong factual showing demonstrating such cause.\n\n#### **a. Debtor Has Failed to Show Fraud**\n\n11. Because the Debtor does not allege that the Trustee has committed fraud of any kind, fraud provides no basis for removal.\n\n#### **b. Debtor Has Failed to Show Actual Harm to the Estate**\n\n12. At the core of the Motion is the Debtor's argument that the Trustee somehow caused actual harm to the estate by declining to agree to the Debtor's proposal for a supposed \"global\" settlement or resolution that the Debtor was in the process of negotiating with PAX and certain other creditors. This argument fails for multiple reasons.\n\n13. First, the premise of the Motion—that the Debtor had a settlement with PAX \"in the bag\" immediately prior to the Debtor's meeting with the Trustee on November 17, 2022—is mistaken, as demonstrated by the actual chronology of events in the days leading up to the November 17 meeting:\n\n5\n\n- a. On **November 15, 2022**, the Debtor posted a video at the @Miles Gettr handle with a message stating: \"Our reconciliation with PAG, has become impossible for sure.\"6\n- b. Also on **November 15, 2022**, \"the NFSC7 Gettr Page, @NFSCSpeaks, posted personal home addresses of . . . the chairman of PAG, family members of the chairman of PAG, . . . and PAX's counsel. The @NFSCSpeaks post called for a 90-day protest at these locations. The post also contained photographs of some of the individuals living at the home addresses listed in the post.\" 8\n- c. On **November 16, 2022**, the Trustee alerted the Court with respect to the Debtor's social media and protest campaign against the Trustee and PAX. PAX's counsel stated, among other things, that PAX was \"currently in the process of trying to secure protection and security for its senior people and, frankly, for our firm itself.\"9\n- d. Also on **November 16, 2022**, NFSC released a video, described in greater detail in the *Statement of Chapter 11 Trustee with Respect to Debtor's Social Media Intimidation Campaign* [Docket No. 1133], which, among other outrageous and false statements, accused Shan Weijian, the chief executive of PAX's parent company, of \"using money from both American and Chinese people . . . to enslave the Chinese people\" and being a \"spy and a thief stealing pension funds\" for the Communist Party.10\n- 14. Thus, the November 16, 2022 \"peace at last\" letter from Debtor's counsel rings\n\nhollow when one looks at the case status landscape on that date. In other words, before\n\nNovember 17, 2022, the Debtor himself stated there was no possibility of a settlement with PAX\n\n6 Screenshot of these images are attached hereto as **Exhibit D.**\n\n7 The Court has found that NFSC (New Federal State of China) is one of a series of entities that \"serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor,\" Preliminary Injunction Decision ¶ 7, and that are the Debtor's officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and/or other persons who are in active concert or participation with the Debtor, his officers, his agents, his servants, his employees, and his attorneys.\" *Id.* at 60.\n\n8 *Id.* ¶ 34.\n\n9 Nov. 16, 2022 Hr'g Tr, at 17:11-13, attached hereto as **Exhibit E.**\n\n10 *See Statement of Chapter 11 Trustee with Respect to Debtor's Social Media Intimidation Campaign* [ECF No. 1133], ¶ 6(a). The presenters of this video were Beile Li and Pamela Tsai, individuals identified by the Court as \"friends, employees, servants, associates, followers, and/or colleagues of the Debtor.\" Preliminary Injunction Decision ¶ 14.\n\nand had, through his own actions, destroyed any possibility of a settlement with PAX by directing his followers to protest and harass PAX and its counsel. As the Court pointed out in the Preliminary Injunction Decision, even the Debtor recognized that the actions undertaken by him and his followers in connection with the social media campaign against PAX and the Trustee \"were harmful to a settlement with PAX.\"11\n\n15. Second, the Motion presupposes that the \"global resolution\" proposed by the Debtor was, in fact, an advantageous settlement for the estate and that the estate was harmed when the Trustee, in the exercise of his business judgment, declined to accept the Debtor's proposal. That is simply untrue. The Debtor's proposal was not advantageous to the estate and the Trustee acted appropriately in rejecting it.\n\n16. The Trustee will not discuss herein the details of the Debtor's settlement proposal because they are protected by Rule 408 of the Federal Rule of Evidence (\"Rule 408\"), but will address the Debtor's contention regarding the settlement proposal in broad strokes given that the Debtor has raised the issue.12 Suffice it to say, the Debtor's proposal was completely nonactionable as a matter of bankruptcy law. Not only was the proposal premature given that the claims bar date had not occurred (making it impossible to even estimate the claims pool entitled to recoveries), 13 but the proposal contained elements that would have resulted in any chapter 11 plan based on the settlement proposal being non-confirmable. Had the Trustee accepted the Debtor's proposal, he would have been required to unilaterally \"stand down\" by stopping his\n\n11 Preliminary Injunction Decision at 42.\n\n12 The Debtor's Motion ignores Rule 408, disclosing a variety of pieces of information about the settlement proposal as part of an argument that the Trustee somehow erred in not accepting it. This is exactly the type of strategic use of settlement proposals in litigation that Rule 408 is designed to prevent.\n\n13 While PAX and the creditors' committee may have been amenable to certain terms of the Debtor's proposal, those parties do not have the benefit of the Trustee's knowledge, based on his ongoing investigation, regarding the potential magnitude of the claims to be filed against the Debtor.\n\ninvestigation (thus allowing the individuals and entities controlled by the Debtor to, among other things, transfer property without hindrance or scrutiny). 14 Moreover, accepting the Debtor's proposal would have wasted a tremendous amount of time and resources on a plan process doomed to failure while giving the Debtor complete optionality. The proposal was a road to nowhere, and the Trustee acted correctly in declining to accept it.\n\n#### **c. Trustee's Use of Discretionary Business Judgment Not Grounds for Removal**\n\n17. As noted above, \"[a] trustee should not be removed for mistakes in judgment where that judgment was discretionary and reasonable under the circumstances.\" *In re Lundborg*, 110 B.R. at 108.\n\n18. Decisions regarding whether to settle or pursue estate causes of action are decisions a trustee makes in his business judgment as aspects of estate administration and, therefore, a mistaken decision cannot in and of itself constitute grounds for removal. *See In re Consolidated Indus. Corp.*, 330 B.R. 712, 715 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2005) (\"[I]f a decision not to pursue an action... falls within the scope of the trustee's business judgment, the court should not consider removing the trustee, because the same decision cannot simultaneously be both a proper exercise of the trustee's discretion and cause for removal.\"); *Holzer v. Barnard*, No 15-CV-6277 (JFB), 2016 WL 4046767, at \\*15 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2016) (finding trustee decision not to bring action was not basis for removal because \"the decision whether to pursue claims against a potential adversary qualifies as a discretionary decision that falls within the Trustee's purview and was reasonable under the circumstances\"); *In re Livore*, No. 08-32423/JHW, 2010 WL\n\n14 The Preliminary Injunction Decision has recognized that the Trustee acted appropriately in rejecting the Debtor's repeated demands that the Trustee \"stand down.\" *See* Preliminary Injunction Decision at 39 (\"The Chapter 11 Trustee has fiduciary duties to creditors other than PAX, including those creditors who have not yet filed proofs of claim. Although the Debtor's bankruptcy counsel testified that he repeatedly asked the Chapter 11 Trustee to 'stand down,' the Court appointed the Chapter 11 Trustee precisely to fulfill those fiduciary duties.\").\n\n1849322, at \\*5 (Bankr. D.N.J. May 6, 2010) (rejecting debtor's claim for removal based on mismanagement of the estate where \"the debtor failed to show . . . that the trustee's determination not to challenge the Bank's claim was so unreasonable that it is not protected by the business judgment rule and that the lack of action by the trustee in this regard warrants removal\").\n\n19. Thus, even if the Trustee's decision to decline the Debtor's settlement proposal was a mistake (it was not), that decision would not be grounds for removal. Further, even if the Debtor could show that the Trustee's decision was a mistake (he cannot), the Debtor has failed to demonstrate in any way that the Trustee's decision was unreasonable and outside the Trustee's business judgment.\n\n#### **d. Trustee Has Not Committed Misconduct**\n\n20. The Motion contains a litany of baseless accusations of alleged \"misconduct\" by the Trustee. Broadly speaking, these accusations relate to (i) statements allegedly made by the Trustee at the November 17, 2022 meeting with the Debtor, which statements allegedly violated one of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct (\"CRPC\"); (ii) the Trustee supposedly seeking to \"entrap\" the Debtor into committing perjury or falling in contempt of court; and (iii) alleged improper \"bias\" shown by the Trustee against the Debtor. The Debtor fails to show any sort of misconduct on the part of the Trustee.\n\n#### **i. No Misconduct at November 17, 2022 Meeting**\n\n21. There is no need to belabor the Debtor's accusations that the Trustee made inappropriate statements at the November 17, 2022 meeting. Those accusations have already been heard and addressed in connection with the preliminary injunction trial in December of\n\n9\n\n2022 and were rejected by the Court in the Preliminary Injunction Decision, which, as discussed above, endorsed the Trustee's role and actions in connection with the Debtor's chapter 11 case.15\n\n#### **ii. No Misconduct Through \"Entrapment\"**\n\n22. The Debtor accuses the Trustee of engaging in a \"strategy to entrap the Debtor in a contempt, perjury or other crime.\"16 This accusation is nonsensical and amounts to a brazen refusal by the Debtor to take responsibility for his own actions. It is completely within the Debtor's control whether the Debtor decides to *violate* court orders and fall into contempt or *obey* court orders and avoid falling into contempt.17 It is also completely within the Debtor's control whether the Debtor decides to lie under oath and commit perjury or tell the truth and avoid perjury. The Debtor's poor decision-making at such junctures is not the Trustee's fault, and in no way amounts to \"entrapment.\" It is worth noting that the Debtor has already been held in contempt for disobeying court orders in prior proceedings in which the Trustee had no involvement. Moreover, the Debtor has in numerous proceedings (including before this Court) invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The combination of these two sets of facts should encourage the Court to take the Debtor's arguments of alleged shock and fear with a grain of salt.\n\n15 Preliminary Injunction Decision at 53-54.\n\n16 Motion at 6.\n\n17 If the Debtor is suggesting that the Trustee should not pursue contempt even if the Debtor violates court orders, that proposal is obviously unreasonable. The Trustee does not seek contempt rulings for sport, but because faced with a Debtor who claims to have no money, monetary sanctions are illusory.\n\n#### **iii. No Misconduct Through \"Bias\"**\n\n23. In the Motion, the Debtor casts himself as an innocent victim of alleged improper \"bias\" on the part of the Trustee.18 Even under the most cursory inspection, this argument holds no water.\n\n24. To begin with, most of the statements made by the Trustee that the Debtor casts as somehow evidencing improper bias consist of the Trustee doing nothing more than accurately describing the record in this case and in the prior litigation—including orders and findings of other courts—involving the Debtor. The Trustee has made statements related to the Debtor's efforts to keep assets from creditors19 and the Debtor's violation of court orders,20 because Justice Ostrager has already found that the Debtor uses shell companies to protect assets from creditors and that the Debtor violated court orders—that is why Justice Ostrager held the Debtor in contempt. Moreover, statements made by the Trustee regarding the likelihood of additional rulings holding the Debtor in contempt21 do nothing more than reflect this well-known history, and the Trustee's predictions proved accurate, as the Trustee's contempt motion remains pending before the Court. Similarly, the Trustee's comments on the Debtor's obstruction of the Trustee's investigation simply echo statements this Court has already made.22\n\n18 It is highly ironic that the Debtor accuses the Trustee of bias, when the Debtor began accusing the Trustee of collusion with the Chinese Communist Party immediately upon the Trustee's appointment, calling the Trustee, among other things, a \"scumbag,\" \"criminal,\" \"garbage lawyer,\" and \"bloodiest attorney in the American legal community.\" *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Position Statement in Joint Response to (I) Debtor's Motion for Relief from Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee, and (II) Application of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 327, 328 and 330 and Bankruptcy Rules 2014 and 2016, Authorizing and Approving Retention and Employment of Paul Hastings LLP as Counsel to Chapter 11 Trustee*, ¶ 10 [ECF No. 618].\n\n19 Motion ¶ 6.a.\n\n20 *Id.* ¶ 6.b.\n\n21 *Id.* ¶ 6.c.\n\n22 *Id.* ¶ 6.d. *See* Preliminary Injunction Decision at 37; *Chapter 11 Trustee's Answer and Counterclaims* Exhibit 89, Aug. 30, 2022 Tr.at 94:19-95:2 (\"[A]ll the arguments that you have made has been to stop the trustee from trying to do what the trustee is going to do. If you don't like what the trustee does, then you can sue him. You\n\n25. The Debtor also seems to believe that the Trustee's arguments about entities linked to the Debtor somehow reflect improper bias. The Trustee's statements regarding Himalaya Financial Group Ltd.23 reflect arguments made by the Trustee in pleadings filed with the Court and are, contrary to the Debtors' accusation in the Motion, supported by voluminous evidence cited in the counterclaims filed by the Trustee in the adversary proceeding with respect to the *Lady May*, 24 as well as additional evidence that will be presented in connection with the upcoming trial on the Trustee's application for a pre-judgment remedy. Making arguments supported by evidence regarding entities linked to the Debtor is not improper bias; it is the Trustee's job. *See In re Stokes*, No. 21-90013-JDP, 2021 WL 1567500, at \\*3 (Bankr. D. Mont. Apr. 21, 2021) (denying removal of trustee based on alleged personal bias and prejudice where the debtor failed to demonstrate the trustee's acts amounted to anything other than his exercise of appropriate judgment).25\n\ncan do that. There's a remedy. You have a remedy. You can sue him. But you are now obstructing the administration of this estate that all the other creditors have been waiting to have administered.\"). Moreover, in the Court's Preliminary Injunction Decision, it found, among other things, that the Debtor is the \"leader of . . .Himalaya,\" Preliminary Injunction Decision ¶ 7, and that the \"Himalaya entities\", which include Himalaya Exchange, are \"under the leadership of the Debtor\" and are among the entities found by the Court to be the Debtors \"Debtor's officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and/or other persons who are in active concert or participation with the Debtor, his officers, his agents, his servants, his employees, and his attorneys.\" *Id.* at 60.\n\n23 Motion ¶ 6.e.\n\n24 *See Chapter 11 Trustee's Answer and Counterclaims* [ECF No. 36, Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003].\n\n25 The Debtor cites a number of cases that supposedly stand for the proposition that \"discord\" or \"enmity\" between a Debtor and his trustee are grounds for removal, but those cases are easily distinguishable from and have no bearing on this case, as they involve remarkable conflicts or apparent conflicts of interest, nothing like the scenario here. *See In re Freeport Italian Bakery, Inc.*, 340 F.2d 50, 54 (2d Cir. 1965) (removing trustee who was close relative of principals of debtor and of major creditors and participated in defrauding other creditors); *In re Mason*, 12 B.R. 318, 318-19 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1981) (removing trustee whose husband had prosecuted debtor in criminal case which led to debtor being confined in state penitentiary). As the Court is aware, the Debtor does not raise conflicts issues in the Motion, but raised them previously in opposition to the appointment of the Trustee and the retention of Paul Hastings, at which point such contentions were rejected by the Court.\n\n### **e. Removal of Trustee Is Not In Best Interests of Estate**\n\n26. As also noted above, in considering removal of a trustee courts \"should consider the best interests of the estate.\" *In re Lundborg*, 110 B.R. at 108. Here, the record makes clear that the Trustee's efforts have benefitted the estate significantly and, by contrast, the removal of the Trustee would cause enormous harm to the estate.\n\n27. If not already evident, this point is driven home by the Court's numerous findings in the Preliminary Injunction Decision endorsing the Trustee's role and actions taken by the Trustee and highlighting the benefits derived from the Trustee's efforts. Among other things, the Court stated that:\n\n- a. \"The Chapter 11 Trustee was appointed to investigate\" claims that \"the Debtor has many undisclosed assets that are hidden in a maze of corporate entities held by family members and associates.\"26\n- b. \"The Chapter 11 Trustee's investigation,\" despite the Debtor's option is likely to liquidate *disclosed* assets\" and \"likely to bring at least some of the currently *contested* assets . . . into the Estate for the benefit of creditors.\"27\n- c. \"[T]he Court believes the Chapter 11 Trustee's investigation will liquidate and recover enough assets to fund a confirmable Chapter 11 plan. The Court would consider such a plan, if confirmed, a successful result for the Debtor's Chapter 11 case.\" 28\n- d. \"[T]he Chapter 11 Trustee . . . is not at all opposed to reaching a settlement in this case.\"29\n- e. \"The Chapter 11 Trustee has fiduciary duties to creditors other than PAX, including those creditors who have not yet filed proofs of claim. Although the Debtor's bankruptcy counsel testified that he repeatedly asked the\n\n29 *Id.* at 39.\n\n26 Preliminary Injunction Decision at 37.\n\n27 *Id.* (italics in original).\n\n28 *Id.* at 38.\n\nChapter 11 Trustee to 'stand down,' the Court appointed the Chapter 11 Trustee precisely to fulfill those fiduciary duties.\"30 *Id.*\n\nf. \"[T]he Court granted a Motion to Appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee to investigate the affairs of the Debtor for the benefits of creditors.\"31\n\n28. In contrast to the benefits accruing to the estate from the Trustee's efforts, removal of the Trustee would destroy the progress made by the Trustee to date and return the case to square one. As the Court observed in the Preliminary Injunction Decision: \"Any replacement trustee would have to start over again and would likely face opposition from the Debtor immediately upon appointment, as the Chapter 11 Trustee has faced since his appointment.\"32 Further, the unnecessary delay associated with the removal of the Trustee, which would make the delay caused by the Debtor's social media harassment pale in comparison, \"is likely to lead to the dissipation of assets and reduced recoveries to creditors.\"33 The notion peddled by the Debtor that, upon the replacement of the Trustee, \"the lion will lay with the lamb,\" and the Debtor will cooperate with a new trustee and work quickly towards an equitable settlement is pure fantasy belied by the Debtor's own past conduct, and cannot form the basis for the Trustee's removal. The Trustee should be allowed to continue his investigation in course, consistent with his fiduciary duties to all creditors, and the Motion should be denied.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.*]\n\n30 Preliminary Injunction Decision at 39.\n\n31 *Id.* at 41.\n\n32 *Id.* at 41-42.\n\n33 *Id.* at 41.\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court\n\ndeny the Motion and grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n| Dated:
January 13, 2023 | | LUC A. DESPINS, | |\n|----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------|--|\n| | New Haven, Connecticut | CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE | |\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(pro hac vice* pending) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.1 | :
:
: | Jointly Administered |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on January 13, 2023, the foregoing Objection, including all attachments thereto (except Exhibit A, which exhibit was filed under seal), 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| Dated:
January 13, 2023 | | LUC A. DESPINS, |\n|----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------|\n| | New Haven, Connecticut | CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |\n\nBy: /s/ *Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 821-2000 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n1 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\n2 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\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(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 *(pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n## **EXHIBIT A**\n\nThis exhibit has been filed under seal.\n\n## **EXHIBIT B**\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No.10-50091(JAM) \\* HAROLD E. COLE, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* August 6, 2019 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING CHIEF UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: Chapter 7 Trustee: KARA S. RESCIA, ESQ PAIGE M. VAILLANCOURT, ESQ. Rescia & Katz, LLP 5104 Bigelow Commons Enfield, CT 06082 For the Debtor: MAXIMINO MEDINA, JR., ESQ. Zeldes, Needle & Cooper 1000 Lafayette Blvd Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1326 Filed 01/13/23 Entered 01/13/23 22:51:01 Page 21 of 31 Case 10-50091 Doc 1267 Filed 10/07/21 Entered 10/07/21 08:05:25 Page 39 of 95\n\nHarold E. Cole - August 6, 2019 39 1 THE COURT: I already saw your motion. Is that 2 what you mean? 3 MS. HEMINWAY: Correct. 4 THE COURT: Yeah. 5 MS. HEMINWAY: But I'm not allowed to provide any 6 -- 7 THE COURT: Well, you don't have standing to move 8 for the withdraw -- to -- a debtor doesn't have the right to 9 say that the trustee can be removed. 10 MS. HEMINWAY: I understand. I have been told 11 throughout this process that if the debtor has an excess 12 estate then he can in fact have limited input to how things 13 are managed because -- 14 THE COURT: There's case law on both sides of that 15 equation and there's no controlling case law in Connecticut. 16 And in fact the case law on that issue says that the debtor 17 has to prove that there will be a surplus. And at this 18 point, given what the trustees told me, there may not even 19 be a surplus for your dad. 20 The fact that we've gone through these processes 21 in different steps, and there was an auction some time ago 22 where the belief was that there would be more money that 23 would be obtained in the auction, and there wasn't, there 24 may not be. 25 And so I'm not going to hold anything up because\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1326 Filed 01/13/23 Entered 01/13/23 22:51:01 Page 22 of 31 Case 10-50091 Doc 1267 Filed 10/07/21 Entered 10/07/21 08:05:25 Page 66 of 95\n\nHarold E. Cole - August 6, 2019 66 1 So it would have been in the best interest of the 2 bankruptcy estate to have an auctioneer sell it that said it 3 was only 200,000? 4 THE COURT: I don't understand your point. 5 MS. HEMINWAY: We had an auctioneer that would 6 liquidate it who ran Early American antique auctions on a 7 very regular basis. He ran ten per year in each of the 8 years prior to -- 9 THE COURT: Then what's -- you have information 10 about his rate of recovery and all the assets that he 11 auctioned off? 12 That he had an 80 percent or 90 percent or 100 13 percent, you know, recovery of funds based upon his estimate 14 of what he would get? 15 MS. HEMINWAY: We can certainly -- we could have 16 certainly provided a record. 17 THE COURT: Well, it's -- it's -- 18 MS. HEMINWAY: We could have -- it's very easy to 19 provide a record of an auction hall's pre-auction estimates 20 and the realized bids. We could have certainly provided 21 that to the trustee. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MS. HEMINWAY: And it's very easy to determine 24 that. 25 THE COURT: But as I started today, the hearing\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1326 Filed 01/13/23 Entered 01/13/23 22:51:01 Page 23 of 31 Case 10-50091 Doc 1267 Filed 10/07/21 Entered 10/07/21 08:05:25 Page 67 of 95\n\nHarold E. Cole - August 6, 2019 67 1 today, I said to you at the very beginning, you don't have 2 standing to make these arguments. The debtor has no rights 3 anymore as a Chapter 7 debtor unless and until there's 4 clearly a surplus. And even then the case law says not so 5 fast. 6 The Chapter 7 Trustee has the rights and 7 responsibilities and duties under the bankruptcy code. 8 She's trying to carry out those duties. That's what's going 9 to happen. 10 MS. HEMINWAY: And those duties are better served 11 by selling it for a lesser amount? 12 THE COURT: She's not selling it for a lesser 13 amount. She's going to sell it for as much an amount as it 14 can produce. 15 MS. HEMINWAY: Your Honor, I provided 16 documentation to the trustee. Her auctioneers are not 17 experts in Early American antiques. 18 Even in the motion that's before the Court today 19 -- 20 THE COURT: What motion that's before the Court? 21 MS. HEMINWAY: What Your Honor approved recently 22 on the motion to sell antiques, they recommend -- they 23 represent certain information about online sales and leaving 24 inventory in place because it brings more money. 25 If you look at the online sales they have sold,\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# **EXHIBIT C**\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 10-50091(JAM) \\* HAROLD E. COLE, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* \\* HAMILTON GROUP, LLC, \\* Adv. Proc. No. 21-5007 \\* Plaintiff, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* August 10, 2021 vs. \\* \\* HAROLD E. COLE, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF THIRD AMENDED MOTION TO REMOVE TRUSTEE; MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AMENDED CIVIL ACTION BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING CHIEF UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: Chapter 7 Trustee: KARA S. RESCIA, ESQ PAIGE M. VAILLANCOURT, ESQ. Rescia & Katz, LLP 5104 Bigelow Commons Enfield, CT 06082 For the Debtor: NEAL P. ROGAN, ESQ. Law Offices of Neal Rogan, LLC 315 Post Road West Westport, CT 06880 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\n1 really had the opportunity, and I know the Court mentioned 2 that there have been hearings on this, but this is the first 3 time we've had an opportunity to present a full evidentiary 4 hearing on this motion to remove the trustee.\n\n5 THE COURT: Well, Attorney Rogan, as we've 6 discussed in prior hearings, the case law is very clear that 7 in a Chapter 7 case, a debtor doesn't have standing to raise 8 issues unless there is going to be some surplus from the 9 estate, and we've had this discussion on several occasions, 10 including back to when Mr. Berillo represented Mr. Cole, 11 before Ms. Hemingway was involved. And they were completely 12 in agreement with the process and the sale of all of these 13 assets, until Ms. Hemingway came involved and said that she 14 thought that the appraisers and the auctioneers were not 15 right and that someone else should be conducting the 16 auction.\n\n17 Those motions were all denied, and there were 18 orders entered requiring the cooperation of the debtor with 19 regard to the sale and auction of the assets of the debtor's 20 estate.\n\n21 Now we can go back, and I'm happy to do so, and go 22 through all the representations made on the record by 23 Attorney Berillo and others in his firm, about the -- when 24 this case was converted and what happened in Chapter 11 by 25 the way, Attorney Rogan, which is -- you had no -- nothing\n\n## **EXHIBIT D**\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 1326 | Filed 01/13/23 | Entered 01/13/23 22:51:01 | Page 28 of 31 |\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|---------------|\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n\n\n| 1.9K Likes
1.2K Reposts | | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| = | na | | ನ | 、 |\n| 境随心转 @qingnan · 51m
Replying to @Miles | | | | |\n| 愿万佛万神给七哥保护
ලි
ל
।
0
0 | O | 不受这些罪恶的伤害和困扰 早点结束这个黑暗集团的邪恶计划! | | 、 |\n| luizkonz7 @luizkonz7 · 7h
Replying to @Miles | | | | |\n| | | | It's hard when not understanding commercial, friends to profit without caring about anyone's financial heath. Lament | |\n| לח
್ರಿ
0
।)
0 | 0 | | | (→ |\n| 宝石baoshi 0 @baosi · 17h
Replying to @Miles | | | | |\n| 0 לח
ു
司 0 | 0 | | | (→ |\n| Have your own opinion to voice out?
GETTR opens your way to new experiences. | | | | |\n| | Log In | | Sign Up | |\n\n# **EXHIBIT E**\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, \\* Case No. 22-50592 (JAM) \\* Debtor. \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* November 16, 2022 \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR JOINT ADMINISTRATION WITH 22-50073; MOTION FOR ORDER (I) SETTING BAR DATES FOR FILING PROOFS OF CLAIM; (ii) APPROVING FORM OF NOTICE OF BAR DATES and (iii) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF; MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER HOLDING DEBTOR IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS; APPLICATION TO EMPLOY NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH and MOTION FOR JOINT ADMINISTRATION WITH 22-50592 BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1326 Filed 01/13/23 Entered 01/13/23 22:51:01 Page 31 of 31\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp. - November 16, 2022
17 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Claiborn, and Attorney Barron will remain, and then we will |\n| 2 | start part of that hearing under seal to address the issues |\n| 3 | that were just discussed and we will go from there. |\n| 4 | MR. SARNOFF:
Your Honor, this is Stuart Sarnoff, |\n| 5 | and I will abide obviously whatever your order is on this, |\n| 6 | and perhaps you just made it, so -- but I'd just like point |\n| 7 | out that Pacific Alliance, its chairman, it's chairman's |\n| 8 | family, O'Melveny also has been named in this. |\n| 9 | And so I do think and would ask for the Court to |\n| 10 | at least consider including us in this as well, because I |\n| 11 | have to report back to my client, who is currently in the |\n| 12 | process of trying to secure protection and security for its |\n| 13 | senior people and, frankly, for our firm itself. |\n| 14 | So if you want to exclude us, I understand.
I |\n| 15 | would just like to say that I think we're somewhat of an |\n| 16 | interested party in this O'Melveny and Pacific Alliance. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I understand.
I'm going to exclude |\n| 18 | you for the time being, and then we'll see what occurs at |\n| 19 | this -- after we have this conversation on the record under |\n| 20 | seal, Attorney Sarnoff.
Okay? |\n| 21 | MR. SARNOFF:
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Your |\n| 22 | Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, can I just ask that -- I |\n| 25 | assume that people on the telephone listening only will be |\n| | |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.","body_zh":"美国联邦破产法院康涅狄格区布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， :\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1 :\n:\n: 合并管理\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n第11章受托人就要求作出解任受托人命令之动议提出的异议\n\n致尊敬的美国联邦破产法院法官 Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）：\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，就债务人要求作出解任受托人命令之动议 [Docket No. 1274]（以下简称“动议”）提交本异议（以下简称“异议”）。受托人为支持其异议，谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 本院已在其部分准许初步禁令动议的裁判备忘录 [ECF No. 128, Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032]（以下简称“初步禁令裁判”）中表明，其对与该动议相关的事实及程序背景非常熟悉。因此，受托人将不对该背景作全面审查，而将重点讨论适用于解任受托人动议的狭义法律标准。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings 公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（Paul Hastings 律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 财产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n\n2. 首先，债务人无资格请求解任受托人，因为其未能证明财产将产生盈余。不存在该等盈余时，债务人对财产不具有经济利益，且仅其债权人有资格就受托人在管理财产过程中履行职责的情况提出争议（而他们并未提出争议——相反，债权人委员会和债务人的最大债权人 PAX（PAX）反对该动议）。\n\n3. 另外，债务人因众多理由未能达到为确立解任受托人这一非常救济措施之正当理由所要求的严格标准。其中，债务人未能证明（甚至未主张）欺诈，未能证明受托人基于商业判断决定拒绝债务人的和解提议对财产造成实际损害，未能证明干预该判断具有正当性，亦未能证明受托人实施了任何可能足以支持解任的形式的不当行为。事实上，正如本院在初步禁令裁判中的认定所强调，受托人的努力使财产受益，并提高了债权人获得清偿的可能性；而债务人的提议，即解任并更换受托人，将导致重大延误及价值毁损。受托人的调查已取得重大进展，除其他事项外，随附本异议作为附件 A 的重要文件即为证明。这正是债务人试图阻止或阻挠的那类进展。\n\n4. 最后，须注意该动议揭示了债务人的策略。债务人实质上试图将财产、债权人和本院扣为人质。该动议公然声称，“债务人以及更重要的是，债务人的直系和扩展家庭成员（因为他们将根据任何协商一致的计划向债权人提供付款资金）将不会与受托人打交道。此时，可供选择的是解任受托人，或者进行多年昂贵且结果不确定的诉讼。”2 此声明是给本院的一张勒索字条：“给我一名新受托人，否则我绝不会和解，财产将遭受损害。”本院应驳回这些直接攻击财产公平管理的威胁和策略，并驳回该动议。\n\n异议\n\nA. 债务人不具备资格\n\n5. 失去占有的债务人“仅在清偿所有债权人的债权后可能存在盈余时，才是‘利害关系方’，并有资格对资产出售提出异议，或以其他方式参与围绕财产资产的诉讼。”见 In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc., 218 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir. 2000)；另见 In re Licata, 659 Fed. Appx. 704, 706 (2d Cir. 2016)（债务人“负有证明至少存在产生盈余的合理可能性的责任”）。\n\n6. 根据该规则，债务人无资格基于与受托人管理财产有关的主张请求解任受托人。例如，在 In re Cole, No. 10-50091 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.) 一案中，本院认定，鉴于债务人未能证明在债权人的债权获得清偿后将有盈余留存，债务人无资格请求解任受托人。3 本院的裁定在上诉中获维持。Cole v. Rescia, No: 3:21-cv-01130-MPS, 2022 WL 4536830 (D. Conn. Sept. 28, 2022).\n\n2 Motion ¶ 40.\n\n3 见 Aug. 6, 2019 Hearing Transcript at 39:7-9, 67:1-4, In re Cole, No. 10-50091 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.)（“[债务人]无资格提出这些论点。作为第7章债务人，除非且直至明显存在盈余，否则债务人不再拥有任何权利。”）[ECF No. 1267]，随附本异议作为附件 B；Aug. 10, 2019 Hearing Transcript at 11:6-9, In re Cole, No. 10-50091 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.)（“除非财产将产生某种盈余，否则债务人无资格提出问题。”）[ECF No. 1270]，随附本异议作为附件 C。\n\n7. 在本案中，债务人基于受托人决定：(i) 继续调查债务人的资产，以及 (ii) 拒绝按照债务人提出的条件就财产诉因达成和解，而请求解任受托人。4 财产诉因是应由受托人管理的财产资产。见，例如，In re Petroleum Piping Contractors, Inc., 211 B.R. 290, 311 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1997)（“受托人承继并对财产的所有资产，包括诉因，享有专属控制权。”）。受托人就财产诉因达成和解或继续追诉的决定，显然属于受托人对债务人财产的管理事项；在未证明存在盈余的情况下，债务人无资格据此请求解任受托人。\n\n8. 在未证明存在任何盈余的情况下，该动议必须因债务人不具备资格而被驳回。5 受托人邀请债务人披露目前以家庭成员和空壳公司名义持有的财产财产；视该等财产的价值而定，该等财产可能使财产具有清偿能力，并使债务人在与财产管理有关的事项中具备资格。但受托人指出，在现阶段，针对财产的债权已超过 \\$370 million，且申报债权截止日期尚未届满。\n\nB. 债务人未能确立解任受托人的正当理由\n\n9. 因正当理由解任受托人是“一项极端救济”，In re Log & Conventional Homes, Inc., Nos. SC–11–1000–KIMKH, 09–12365–JM, 2011 WL 7145883, \\*4 (9th Cir. BAP Dec. 22, 2011)；另见 In re Gunartt, 355 Fed. App'x 66, 68 (7th Cir. 2009)，要求“有力的事实证明”，Surabian v. Picard, No. 13 Civ. 935(JGK), 2014 WL 917091, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2014)（引文及引用略），因为“解任有害于财产管理的连续性。”In re Empire State Conglomerates, Inc., 546 B.R. 306, 317 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016)（引文略）。因正当理由解任受托人通常要求证明存在欺诈或对破产财产的实际损害。Dieffenbach v. Haworth (In re Haworth), 356 Fed. App'x 529, 530 (2d Cir. 2009)。“对于在当时情形下属自由裁量且合理的判断错误，不应解任受托人，法院应考虑财产的最佳利益。”In re Lundborg, 110 B.R. 106, 108 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990)。\n\n10. 在本案中，债务人未能承担其证明存在任何解任受托人的正当理由的责任，更遑论作出证明该等正当理由的任何有力事实证明。\n\na. 债务人未能证明欺诈\n\n11. 因债务人未主张受托人实施了任何形式的欺诈，故欺诈不能构成解任的依据。\n\nb. 债务人未能证明对财产的实际损害\n\n12. 该动议的核心是债务人的论点，即受托人以某种方式因拒绝同意债务人就其正与 PAX 和某些其他债权人协商的所谓“全球性”和解或解决方案所提出的提议，而对财产造成实际损害。该论点因多项理由不能成立。\n\n13. 首先，该动议的前提——即在债务人于 November 17, 2022 与受托人会面之前，债务人已与 PAX 达成“十拿九稳”的和解——是错误的，正如 November 17 会面前数日发生事件的实际时间顺序所示：\n\n- a. 于 November 15, 2022，债务人在 @Miles Gettr 账号发布了一段视频，并附有如下信息：“我们与 PAG 的和解，肯定已变得不可能。”\n\n- b. 同于 November 15, 2022，“NFSC7 Gettr 页面 @NFSCSpeaks 发布了……PAG 主席、PAG 主席的家庭成员……以及 PAX 律师的个人住址。@NFSCSpeaks 的帖子呼吁在这些地点进行为期 90 天的抗议。该帖子还包含居住在帖子所列住址的一些人士的照片。”8\n\n- c. 于 November 16, 2022，受托人就债务人针对受托人和 PAX 的社交媒体及抗议活动向本院发出警示。PAX 的律师除其他事项外表示，PAX“目前正在尝试为其高级人员以及坦率地说为我们律所本身获得保护和安保。”9\n\n- d. 同于 November 16, 2022，NFSC 发布了一段视频，该视频在第11章受托人关于债务人社交媒体恐吓活动的声明 [Docket No. 1133] 中有更详细描述；该视频除其他骇人且虚假的陈述外，指控 PAX 母公司的首席执行官 Shan Weijian（单伟建）“使用美国和中国人民的钱……奴役中国人民”，并称其为共产党的“间谍和窃取养老金的盗贼”。10\n\n14. 因此，当审视该日期的案件状态全貌时，债务人律师于 November 16, 2022 发出的“终于和平”信函显得空洞无物。换言之，在\n\n2022年11月17日，债务人本人表示，与 PAX 不存在达成和解的可能性。\n\n6 这些图像的截图作为附件 D 随附于此。\n\n7 法院已认定，NFSC（New Federal State of China，新中国联邦）是“一系列为债务人充当商业工具的实体之一，其成员在个人层面忠于债务人”，初步禁令裁定第 7 段，并且是债务人的高级职员、代理人、雇员、律师和/或与债务人、其高级职员、其代理人、其雇员、其员工及其律师积极协同行动或参与的其他人员。”同上，第 60 页。\n\n8 同上，第 34 段。\n\n9 2022年11月16日听证会笔录，第 17:11-13 页，作为附件 E 随附于此。\n\n10 参见第 11 章受托人就债务人的社交媒体恐吓活动所作声明 [ECF No. 1133]，第 6(a) 段。该视频的出镜者为 Beile Li（李贝乐）和 Pamela Tsai（蔡佩梅），法院认定二人为债务人的“朋友、雇员、服务人员、同事、追随者和/或同僚”。初步禁令裁定第 14 段。\n\n并且，其通过自身行为，指示其追随者抗议和骚扰 PAX 及其律师，从而摧毁了与 PAX 达成和解的一切可能性。正如法院在初步禁令裁定中指出的那样，即使债务人也承认，其本人及其追随者就针对 PAX 和受托人的社交媒体活动所采取的行动“有损于与 PAX 达成和解”。11\n\n15. 第二，该动议预设债务人提出的“全球性解决方案”实际上对破产财产有利，并且受托人在行使其商业判断时拒绝接受债务人的提议，致使破产财产受到损害。这完全不真实。债务人的提议对破产财产并无益处，受托人拒绝该提议的行为恰当。\n\n16. 受托人不会在此讨论债务人和解提议的细节，因为该等细节受《联邦证据规则》（Federal Rule of Evidence）第 408 条（“Rule 408”）保护；但鉴于债务人已提出该问题，受托人将概括回应债务人就和解提议提出的主张。12 只需指出，作为破产法问题，债务人的提议完全不可付诸实施。该提议不仅为时过早，因为债权申报截止日期尚未届至（以致甚至无法估算有权获得分配的债权池），13 而且该提议包含的要素将导致任何基于该和解提议的第 11 章计划均无法获得确认。若受托人接受债务人的提议，他将被要求单方面“停止行动”，即停止其\n\n11 初步禁令裁定，第 42 页。\n\n12 债务人的动议无视 Rule 408，在论证受托人未接受该提议不知何故构成错误时，披露了有关和解提议的各种信息。这正是 Rule 408 旨在防止的在诉讼中对和解提议进行策略性利用的情形。\n\n13 尽管 PAX 和债权人委员会可能愿意接受债务人提议中的某些条款，但这些当事人并不具备受托人基于其持续调查而掌握的、关于可能针对债务人提出的债权规模的信息。\n\n调查（从而使受债务人控制的个人和实体得以在不受阻碍或审查的情况下转移财产等）。14 此外，接受债务人的提议，将会在注定失败的计划程序上浪费大量时间和资源，同时给予债务人完全的选择权。该提议是一条通向无处之路，受托人拒绝接受该提议的做法正确。\nc. 受托人行使酌处性商业判断并非免职理由\n\n17. 如上所述，“在该判断具有酌处性且在当时情形下属合理的情况下，不应仅因判断错误而免去受托人职务。”In re Lundborg, 110 B.R. at 108。\n\n18. 关于是否和解或追究破产财产诉因的决定，是受托人作为破产财产管理的一部分，在其商业判断中作出的决定；因此，即使作出错误决定，本身也不能构成免职理由。参见 In re Consolidated Indus. Corp., 330 B.R. 712, 715 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2005)（“[如]不追究诉讼的决定……属于受托人商业判断的范围，法院不应考虑免去受托人职务，因为同一决定不可能同时既是受托人适当行使酌处权，又是免职理由。”）；Holzer v. Barnard, No 15-CV-6277 (JFB), 2016 WL 4046767, at *15 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2016)（认定受托人不提起诉讼的决定并非免职依据，因为“是否针对潜在对手方追究债权的决定，属于受托人权限范围内的酌处性决定，并且在当时情形下属合理”）；In re Livore, No. 08-32423/JHW, 2010 WL\n\n14 初步禁令裁定已确认，受托人拒绝债务人反复要求受托人“停止行动”的做法恰当。参见初步禁令裁定，第 39 页（“第 11 章受托人对 PAX 以外的债权人负有信义义务，包括尚未提交债权申报的债权人。尽管债务人的破产律师作证称，其曾反复要求第 11 章受托人‘停止行动’，但法院任命第 11 章受托人，正是为了履行这些信义义务。”）。\n\n1849322, at *5 (Bankr. D.N.J. May 6, 2010)（驳回债务人基于破产财产管理不善提出的免职主张，理由是“债务人未能证明……受托人决定不对银行的债权提出异议，是如此不合理，以至于不受商业判断规则保护，并且受托人在这方面未采取行动足以要求免职”）。\n\n19. 因此，即使受托人拒绝债务人和解提议的决定是错误（并非如此），该决定也不会构成免职理由。此外，即使债务人能够证明受托人的决定是错误（其不能），债务人也完全未能证明受托人的决定不合理且超出受托人商业判断的范围。\nd. 受托人未实施不当行为\n\n20. 该动议罗列了针对受托人所谓“不当行为”的一系列毫无根据的指控。概括而言，这些指控涉及：(i) 受托人在2022年11月17日与债务人会面时据称作出的陈述，该等陈述据称违反《康涅狄格州职业行为规则》（Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct，“CRPC”）之一；(ii) 受托人据称试图“诱使”债务人作伪证或陷入藐视法庭；以及 (iii) 受托人据称对债务人表现出的不当“偏见”。债务人未能证明受托人存在任何形式的不当行为。\ni. 2022年11月17日会议中不存在不当行为\n\n21. 无需详述债务人关于受托人在2022年11月17日会议上作出不当陈述的指控。该等指控已在2022年12月初步禁令审判中得到审理和处理，并被法院在初步禁令裁定中驳回；如上所述，该裁定认可了受托人在债务人第 11 章案件中的角色及其相关行为。15\nii. 不存在通过“诱使”实施的不当行为\n\n22. 债务人指控受托人采取“诱使债务人陷入藐视法庭、伪证或其他犯罪的策略”。16 该指控毫无意义，并且相当于债务人公然拒绝为其自身行为承担责任。债务人是否决定违反法院命令并陷入藐视法庭，还是遵守法院命令并避免陷入藐视法庭，完全取决于债务人。17 债务人是否决定在宣誓后说谎并构成伪证，还是如实陈述并避免伪证，也完全取决于债务人。债务人在此类关头作出的不良决定并非受托人的过错，且绝不构成“诱使”。值得注意的是，在受托人未参与的先前程序中，债务人已因不遵守法院命令而被裁定藐视法庭。此外，债务人在多项程序中（包括在本法院面前）援引其美国宪法第五修正案规定的不自证其罪权利。这两组事实相结合，应促使法院对债务人所谓震惊和恐惧的论点持审慎态度。\n\n15 初步禁令裁定，第 53-54 页。\n\n16 动议，第 6 页。\n\n17 如果债务人是在暗示即使债务人违反法院命令，受托人也不应寻求藐视法庭裁定，则该提议显然不合理。受托人寻求藐视法庭裁定并非出于消遣，而是因为面对一名声称没有钱的债务人，金钱制裁只是虚设。\niii. 不存在通过“偏见”实施的不当行为\n\n23. 在该动议中，债务人将自己描绘为受托人据称不当“偏见”的无辜受害者。18 即使经过最粗略的审查，该论点也站不住脚。\n\n24. 首先，债务人声称表明某种不当偏见的受托人大部分陈述，不过是受托人准确描述本案及涉及债务人的先前诉讼记录——包括其他法院的命令和认定。受托人曾就债务人试图向债权人隐匿资产19及债务人违反法院命令20作出陈述，因为 Ostrager 法官（Justice Ostrager，奥斯特拉格法官）已认定债务人利用空壳公司保护资产免受债权人追索，并且债务人违反了法院命令——这正是 Ostrager 法官裁定债务人藐视法庭的原因。此外，受托人就债务人可能被进一步裁定藐视法庭所作的陈述21，不过反映了这一众所周知的历史；而受托人的预测已被证明准确，因为受托人提出的藐视法庭动议仍在本法院待决。类似地，受托人关于债务人阻碍受托人调查的评论，只是重申了本法院已经作出的陈述。22\n\n18 具有高度讽刺意味的是，债务人指控受托人存在偏见；而在受托人获任命后，债务人立即开始指控受托人与中国共产党勾结，并称受托人为“人渣”、“罪犯”、“垃圾律师”及“美国法律界最嗜血的律师”等。Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）就下列事项的联合答复立场声明：(I) 债务人关于解除任命 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平）为第 11 章受托人之命令的动议；及 (II) 第 11 章受托人根据《破产法典》第 327、328 和 330 条及《破产规则》第 2014 和 2016 条提出的申请，请求作出命令，授权及批准聘任 Paul Hastings LLP（博钦律师事务所）担任第 11 章受托人的律师，第 10 段 [ECF No. 618]。\n\n19 动议，第 6.a 段。\n\n20 同上，第 6.b 段。\n\n21 同上，第 6.c 段。\n\n22 同上，第 6.d 段。参见初步禁令裁定，第 37 页；第 11 章受托人的答辩及反诉附件 89，2022年8月30日笔录，第 94:19-95:2 页（“[你]提出的所有论点，都是为了阻止受托人设法去做受托人将要做的事。如果你不喜欢受托人所做的事，那么你可以起诉他。你\n\n25. 债务人似乎还认为，受托人就与债务人有关联的实体所提出的论点，某种程度上反映了不当偏见。受托人关于 Himalaya Financial Group Ltd.（喜马拉雅金融集团有限公司）的陈述，反映了受托人在向法院提交的书状中提出的论点；与债务人在本动议中所作指控相反，该等论点得到受托人在有关 Lady May（“Lady May”号）的对抗程序中提交的反诉所援引的大量证据支持，24以及将在即将举行的关于受托人申请审前救济的审判中提交的其他证据支持。就与债务人有关联的实体提出有证据支持的论点，并非不当偏见；这是受托人的职责。参见 In re Stokes, No. 21-90013-JDP, 2021 WL 1567500, at \\*3 (Bankr. D. Mont. Apr. 21, 2021)（在债务人未能证明受托人的行为构成其适当行使判断以外的任何行为时，驳回基于所称个人偏见和偏颇而要求撤换受托人的请求）。25\n\n可以这样做。存在救济途径。你有救济途径。你可以起诉他。但你现在正在妨碍管理该破产财产，而所有其他债权人一直在等待该破产财产得到管理。”）。此外，法院在其初步禁令裁定中认定，除其他事项外，债务人是“……Himalaya 的领导人”，初步禁令裁定第 7 段，并且包括 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）在内的“Himalaya 实体”处于“债务人的领导之下”，且属于法院认定的债务人的“高级职员、代理人、雇员、律师，和／或与债务人、其高级职员、其代理人、其雇员及其律师积极协同行动或参与的其他人员。”同上，第 60 页。\n\n23 动议第 6.e 段。\n\n24 参见 Chapter 11 Trustee's Answer and Counterclaims [ECF No. 36, Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]。\n\n25 债务人援引了若干据称支持“债务人与其受托人之间的‘不和’或‘敌意’构成撤换理由”这一主张的案例，但这些案例与本案易于区分，且与本案无关，因为其涉及显著的利益冲突或表面上的利益冲突，与本案情形毫无相似之处。参见 In re Freeport Italian Bakery, Inc., 340 F.2d 50, 54 (2d Cir. 1965)（撤换与债务人主要负责人及主要债权人为近亲，且参与欺诈其他债权人的受托人）；In re Mason, 12 B.R. 318, 318-19 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1981)（撤换其丈夫曾在导致债务人被关押于州立监狱的刑事案件中起诉债务人的受托人）。如法院所知，债务人并未在本动议中提出利益冲突问题，而是此前在反对任命受托人及聘任 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）时提出该等问题；当时，该等主张已被法院驳回。\n\ne. 撤换受托人不符合破产财产的最佳利益\n\n26. 如上所述，在考虑撤换受托人时，法院“应考虑破产财产的最佳利益。”In re Lundborg, 110 B.R. at 108。本案记录清楚表明，受托人的努力已使破产财产显著受益；相反，撤换受托人将对破产财产造成巨大损害。\n\n27. 即使此前尚不明显，法院在初步禁令裁定中作出的众多认定已充分说明这一点；该等认定认可受托人的作用及其采取的行动，并突出受托人努力所带来的益处。除其他事项外，法院指出：\n\na. “Chapter 11 受托人被任命以调查”有关“债务人拥有大量未披露资产，该等资产隐藏于由家庭成员和关联人持有的错综复杂的公司实体网络中”的主张。26\n\nb. “Chapter 11 受托人的调查”尽管债务人反对，但可能会清算已披露资产，并且“可能将至少部分目前存在争议的资产……纳入破产财产，以使债权人受益。”27\n\nc. “[本]法院认为，Chapter 11 受托人的调查将清算并追回足够资产，以为可获确认的 Chapter 11 计划提供资金。如该计划获确认，法院将视其为债务人 Chapter 11 案件的成功结果。”28\n\nd. “[本] Chapter 11 受托人……完全不反对在本案中达成和解。”29\n\ne. “Chapter 11 受托人对 PAX 以外的债权人负有信义义务，其中包括尚未提交债权证明的债权人。尽管债务人的破产律师作证称，他曾反复要求\n\n29 同上，第 39 页。\n\n26 初步禁令裁定，第 37 页。\n\n27 同上（原文斜体）。\n\n同上，第 38 页。\n\nChapter 11 受托人‘停止行动’，但法院任命 Chapter 11 受托人，正是为了履行该等信义义务。”30 同上。\n\nf. “[本]法院批准了一项任命 Chapter 11 受托人的动议，以为债权人的利益调查债务人的事务。”31\n\n28. 与受托人努力为破产财产带来的益处相反，撤换受托人将摧毁受托人迄今已取得的进展，并使案件回到起点。如法院在初步禁令裁定中所观察到：“任何继任受托人都必须从头开始，并且很可能在获任命后立即遭到债务人的反对，正如 Chapter 11 受托人自获任命以来所遭遇的那样。”32 此外，与撤换受托人有关的不必要延误，将使债务人社交媒体骚扰所造成的延误相形见绌，并且“可能导致资产耗散以及债权人的追偿减少。”33 债务人兜售的如下设想，即在更换受托人后，“狮子将与羔羊同卧”，债务人将与新受托人合作，并迅速努力达成公平和解，纯属与债务人自身过去行为相矛盾的幻想，不能构成撤换受托人的依据。应允许受托人依其正常进程继续调查，符合其对所有债权人所负的信义义务，并应驳回本动议。\n\n[本页余留部分故意留白。]\n\n30 初步禁令裁定，第 39 页。\n\n31 同上，第 41 页。\n\n32 同上，第 41-42 页。\n\n33 同上，第 41 页。\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求法院\n\n驳回本动议，并给予法院认为公正和适当的其他救济。\n\n日期：\nJanuary 13, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 受托人\n\n代理人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Douglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）（ct00616） Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂思专业公司） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（pro hac vice 待批准） PAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所） 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（pro hac vice 待批准） Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（pro hac vice 待批准） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\nChapter 11 受托人代理律师\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: Chapter 11\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， :\n: Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1 :\n:\n: 合并管理\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，2023 年 1 月 13 日，上述异议及其所有附件（附件 A 除外，该附件已密封提交）已通过电子方式提交。根据法院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统的运作，或通过邮件向《电子提交通知》中所示无法接受电子提交的任何人员发送了该提交的通知。2 各方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅该提交文件。\n\n日期：\nJanuary 13, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS，\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 受托人\n\n代理人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Douglas S. Skalka（ct00616） Patrick R. Linsey（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 821-2000 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n1 本 Chapter 11 案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2 如上述文件在正常营业时间之外提交，则对无法或无资格接受电子通知的收件人的邮寄送达，于下一个营业日完成。\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（pro hac vice） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（pro hac vice） Douglass Barron（pro hac vice） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\nChapter 11 受托人代理律师\n\n附件 A\n\n本附件已密封提交。\n\n附件 B\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION 关于 \\* Case No.10-50091(JAM) \\* HAROLD E. COLE（哈罗德·E·科尔）， \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* August 6, 2019 债务人。 \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* 律师申请退出代理动议及责令说明理由命令的庭审记录 于尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）首席美国联邦破产法官面前 出庭人员： Chapter 7 受托人： KARA S. RESCIA, ESQ（卡拉·S·雷西亚律师） PAIGE M. VAILLANCOURT, ESQ（佩奇·M·韦扬库尔律师）。 Rescia & Katz, LLP（雷西亚与卡茨律师事务所） 5104 Bigelow Commons Enfield, CT 06082 债务人代理人： MAXIMINO MEDINA, JR., ESQ.（马克西米诺·梅迪纳二世律师） Zeldes, Needle & Cooper（泽尔德斯、尼德尔和库珀律师事务所） 1000 Lafayette Blvd Bridgeport, CT 06601 美国受托人代理人： HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍利·L·克莱伯恩律师） Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室） The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 程序通过电子录音记录，庭审记录由记录转写服务机构制作。 Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转写服务公司） 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1326 Filed 01/13/23 Entered 01/13/23 22:51:01 Page 21 of 31 Case 10-50091 Doc 1267 Filed 10/07/21 Entered 10/07/21 08:05:25 Page 39 of 95\n\nHarold E. Cole - August 6, 2019 39 1 法院：我已经看过你的动议。你是指这个吗？2 3 HEMINWAY 女士：是的。4 法院：好。5 HEMINWAY 女士：但我不被允许提供任何——6 ——7 法院：嗯，你没有资格提出撤回——撤换——债务人无权要求撤换受托人。8 9 HEMINWAY 女士：我明白。在整个过程中，我被告知，如果债务人有剩余财产，10 11 那么他事实上可以就事务管理方式提出有限意见，因为——12 13 法院：关于这一问题的案例法有两种观点，康涅狄格州没有具有约束力的案例法。14 15 事实上，关于该问题的案例法认为，债务人必须证明将有剩余。就目前而言，16 17 根据受托人告诉我的情况，你父亲甚至可能不会有任何剩余。18 19 我们已分不同步骤经历这些程序，而且此前曾有一次拍卖，20 21 当时认为拍卖将获得更多款项，但并没有，22 23 因此可能不会有剩余。24 25 因此，我不会因任何事情而拖延。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1326 提交日期 01/13/23 录入日期 01/13/23 22:51:01 第 22 页，共 31 页 案号 10-50091 文书 1267 提交日期 10/07/21 录入日期 10/07/21 08:05:25 第 66 页，共 95 页\n\nHarold E. Cole（哈罗德·E·科尔）— 2019年8月6日 66 1 那么，由一名拍卖师以仅为 200,000 的价格出售它，本应符合 2 破产财产的最佳利益吗？3\n\n4 法院：我不明白你的观点。5\n\n海明威女士：我们有一名拍卖师，6 他会对其进行清算，并且他定期举办早期美国古董拍卖会。7 在此前的每一年中，他每年举办十场。8\n\n法院：那么，怎么——你掌握 9 有关他的回收率以及他所 10 拍卖全部资产的信息吗？11 他是否根据其对可获得金额的估计，12 实现了 80%、90% 或 100% 的——你知道——13 资金回收？14\n\n海明威女士：我们当然——我们本来当然可以提供 15 一份记录。16\n\n法院：嗯，这——这——17\n\n海明威女士：我们本来可以——提供拍卖行 18 拍卖前估价和实际成交出价的记录非常容易。19 我们本来当然可以向受托人提供 20 该等记录。21\n\n法院：好的。22\n\n海明威女士：而且确定这一点非常容易。23\n\n法院：但是，正如我今天开始举行 24 听证会时所说的，25\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥尔记录与转录服务公司）\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1326 提交日期 01/13/23 录入日期 01/13/23 22:51:01 第 23 页，共 31 页 案号 10-50091 文书 1267 提交日期 10/07/21 录入日期 10/07/21 08:05:25 第 67 页，共 95 页\n\nHarold E. Cole（哈罗德·E·科尔）— 2019年8月6日 67 1 今天，我一开始就对你说过，你没有 2 提出这些论点的诉讼地位。作为第 7 章债务人，除非且直至显然存在剩余财产，3 债务人不再享有任何权利。4 即使如此，判例法仍说，不要操之过急。5 依据破产法典，第 7 章受托人享有权利，6 并承担责任和职责。7 她正试图履行那些职责。这就是 8 将要发生的事情。9\n\n海明威女士：以较低金额出售，10 会更好地履行那些职责吗？11\n\n法院：她并非以较低金额出售。12 她将以能够获得的尽可能高的 13 金额出售。14\n\n海明威女士：法官阁下，我已向受托人提供 15 文件。她的拍卖师并非早期美国古董专家。16 即使在今日提交法院审理的动议中 17 ——18\n\n法院：什么提交法院审理的动议？19\n\n海明威女士：即法官阁下最近批准的 20 出售古董的动议中，他们建议——21 他们陈述了有关在线销售以及将库存保留在原处，22 因为那样能带来更多收入的某些信息。23 如果您查看他们已经售出的在线销售物品，24\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥尔记录与转录服务公司）\n\n证物 C\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格地区 布里奇波特分庭\n关于 \\* 案号 10-50091(JAM) \\*\nHAROLD E. COLE（哈罗德·E·科尔），\\* \\*\n债务人。\\* \\*\nHAMILTON GROUP, LLC（汉密尔顿集团有限责任公司），\\* 对抗程序案号 21-5007 \\*\n原告，\\* 康涅狄格州布里奇波特 \\*\n2021年8月10日\n诉 \\* \\*\nHAROLD E. COLE（哈罗德·E·科尔）等，\\* \\*\n被告。\\* \\*\n\\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\*\n关于第三次修正后的撤换受托人动议；经法院许可提交修正民事诉讼的动议之庭审记录\n审理法官：尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）首席美国破产法官\n出庭人员：\n第 7 章受托人：\nKARA S. RESCIA, ESQ.（卡拉·S·雷西亚，律师）\nPAIGE M. VAILLANCOURT, ESQ.（佩奇·M·韦扬库尔，律师）\nRescia & Katz, LLP（雷西亚和卡茨律师事务所）\n5104 Bigelow Commons\nEnfield, CT 06082\n代表债务人：\nNEAL P. ROGAN, ESQ.（尼尔·P·罗根，律师）\nLaw Offices of Neal Rogan, LLC（尼尔·罗根律师事务所有限责任公司）\n315 Post Road West\nWestport, CT 06880\n程序以电子录音记录，庭审记录由转录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥尔记录与转录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n1 真正有机会，而且我知道法院提到过 2 已就此举行过听证会，但这是我们首次 3 有机会就这项撤换受托人动议举行完整的证据 4 听证会。\n\n5 法院：嗯，罗根律师，正如我们在先前听证会中讨论的，6 判例法非常明确，在第 7 章案件中，除非破产财产将有某种剩余，7 否则债务人无诉讼地位提出 8 问题；我们已多次进行过这一讨论，9 包括在贝里洛先生代理科尔先生期间，10 即海明威女士介入之前。11 他们当时完全同意该程序及出售所有这些 12 资产，直至海明威女士介入，并称她认为评估师和拍卖师 13 不正确，14 应由其他人主持 15 拍卖。\n\n17 这些动议均被驳回，并已作出命令，要求债务人 18 就出售和拍卖债务人破产财产的资产 19 予以合作。20\n\n21 现在我们可以回顾，我也乐意这样做，并审阅 22 贝里洛律师及其律所其他律师在记录中作出的所有陈述，23 关于——本案转换时及第 11 章程序中发生的情况，24 顺便说一句，罗根律师，这——你没有——毫无——25\n\n证物 D\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1326 提交日期 01/13/23 录入日期 01/13/23 22:51:01 第 28 页，共 31 页\n\n1.9K 个赞\n1.2K 次转发\n\n= na ನ 、\n境随心转 @qingnan · 51 分钟\n回复 @Miles\n愿万佛万神给七哥保护\nලි\nל\n。\n\n0 O 不受这些罪恶的伤害和困扰 早点结束这个黑暗集团的邪恶计划! 、\nluizkonz7 @luizkonz7 · 7 小时\n回复 @Miles\n当不理解商业时，朋友为了获利而不顾任何人的财务健康，这很难。令人遗憾\nלח\n್ರಿ\n\n。)\n0 0 (→\n宝石baoshi 0 @baosi · 17 小时\n回复 @Miles\n0 לח\nു\n司 0 0 (→\n发表你自己的意见？\nGETTR（盖特尔）为你开启通往新体验的道路。\n登录 注册\n\n证物 E\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格地区 布里奇波特分庭\n关于 \\* 案号 22-50073 (JAM) \\*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）和 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司），\\*\n债务人。\\*\nGENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司），\\* 案号 22-50592 (JAM) \\*\n债务人。\\* 康涅狄格州布里奇波特 \\*\n2022年11月16日 \\*\n\\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\*\n关于与 22-50073 联合管理的动议；关于作出命令以 (I) 设定提交债权证明的截止日期；(ii) 批准截止日期通知的格式；以及 (iii) 准予相关救济的动议；第 11 章受托人关于作出命令认定债务人因未遵守公司治理权利而构成民事藐视法庭的动议；聘用 NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH（纽伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂斯律师事务所）的申请，以及关于与 22-50592 联合管理的动议之庭审记录\n审理法官：尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官\n出庭人员：\n代表债务人：\nERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·A·亨齐，律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒和蔡斯勒专业公司）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯，律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊和科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫，律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n程序以电子录音记录，庭审记录由转录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥尔记录与转录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1326 提交日期 01/13/23 录入日期 01/13/23 22:51:01 第 31 页，共 31 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp.（吉尼弗控股公司）— 2022年11月16日\n1 克莱伯恩和巴伦律师将继续留在场内，然后我们将 2 在密封状态下开始该听证会的一部分，以处理刚才讨论的 3 问题，之后再继续进行。4\n\n萨诺夫先生：法官阁下，我是斯图尔特·萨诺夫，5 我显然会遵守您就此作出的任何命令，6 而且您或许刚刚已经作出了命令，所以——但我只想指出，7 太平洋联盟、其董事长、其董事长的家属以及奥美律师事务所也已被列入其中。8 因此，我确实认为，并请求法院 9 至少考虑也将我们包括在此事中，因为我 10 必须向我的客户报告；该客户目前正 11 设法为其高级人员以及，坦率地说，为我们律所本身 12 获得保护和安全保障。13 所以，如果您希望将我们排除在外，我理解。14 我只想说，我认为我们奥美律师事务所和太平洋联盟在此事中 15 在某种程度上属于利害关系方。16\n\n法院：我明白。我暂时将 17 你们排除在外，然后，萨诺夫律师，18 在我们就此事在密封状态下进行记录谈话后，19 看看会发生什么。20 好吗？\n\n萨诺夫先生：好的。谢谢。谢谢您，21 法官阁下。22\n\n法院：谢谢。23\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我能否请求——我 24 假定仅通过电话收听的人将会 25\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥尔记录与转录服务公司）","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings","Despins","CIPA","Guo","Himalaya","GETTR","Miles Guo","Himalaya Exchange","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":36,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":128,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":618,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1133,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1267,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1270,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":7541,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:20:03"}