{"id":"court_ctb_159_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":159,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re Chapter 11","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n**In re Chapter 11**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) a/k/a WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES GUO,**\n\n **Debtor. Re: ECF 86**\n\n# **UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S STATEMENT OF OBJECTION CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE DEBTOR FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION OF BROWN RUDNICK LLP AS COUNSEL FOR THE DEBTOR**\n\nWilliam K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (\"United States Trustee\"), in furtherance of his duties and responsibilities set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3)(I), respectfully files this statement of objection concerning the Application Of The Debtor For Entry Of An Order Authorizing The Employment And Retention Of Brown Rudnick LLP As Counsel For The Debtor (\"Application\") as chapter 11 counsel Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo a/k/a Miles Guo (\"Debtor\" and/or \"Kwok\"). ECF 86. In support of his statement of objection, the United States Trustee, through his undersigned counsel, respectfully represents and states the following:\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nThe Debtor seeks to employ Brown Rudnick LLP (\"BR\") as his chapter 11 bankruptcy counsel. The Application, however, invites several concerns that warrant denial of the Application in its current form because it fails to meet the requirements of Section 327(a) and\n\nRule 2014(a) and provides for inappropriate relief. As described herein, the United States Trustee objects to the Application because BR fails, in a case wherein transparency has been at issue, to adequately disclose BR's connections to the Debtor and his creditors. Further, BR inappropriately seeks approval by this Bankruptcy Court of an illegal and improper prospective global conflicts waiver, seeks to have protections for its compensation, and also inappropriately seeks to circumvent the jurisdiction of this Bankruptcy Court over the Application and to cede jurisdiction regarding any disputes to state courts in New York.\n\nThe United States Trustee asks the Court to deny the Application without prejudice or, in the alternative, defer determination until such time as BR has supplemented and/or revised the Application to address the issues raised herein.\n\n#### **FACTS**\n\n1. The Debtor, also known as Wengui Guo, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases, filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition (\"Petition\") on February 15, 2022. ECF 1.\n\n2. The Debtor is currently managing his financial affairs and his business interests pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n3. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (\"Committee\") in this case. ECF 108. To date, the Committee has not filed an application to employ counsel.\n\n4. On March 16, 2022, the Debtor filed the Application seeking to employ BR as his chapter 11 bankruptcy counsel. ECF 86. The Application is supported by the Affidavit of William Baldiga. *Id.*\n\n2\n\n#### *Compensation for services*\n\n5. The Affidavit of William Baldiga discloses that the Debtor signed an engagement agreement with BR dated February 14, 2022 (\"Engagement Agreement\") and refers to the Engagement Agreement being attached thereto as Exhibit A. ECF 86. The Engagement Agreement, however, was not attached to the Affidavit of William Baldiga or filed with the Application.\n\n6. On March 30, 2022, upon being notified by the undersigned that the Engagement Agreement had not been filed with the Application, BR filed a full version of the Affidavit of William Baldiga which included the Engagement Agreement (\"Affidavit\"). ECF 142.\n\n7. Paragraph 17 of the Application discloses that a \\$1 million dollar retainer was paid to BR by the Debtor on February 14-15, 2022 in tranches of \\$500,000.00 and funded by a loan to the Debtor by an entity known as Lamp Capital, LLC (\"Lamp Capital\"), which the Debtor claims is owned by his son. *See* Application at ¶ 17. BR discloses that it used and applied \\$51,835.00 of the \\$1 million dollars during the approximately 24-hour period between being engaged on February 14, 2022 and the February 15, 2022 petition filing. *See* Application at ¶ 17; Affidavit at ¶¶ 7, 8. BR is currently holding \\$948,164.80 as a retainer (\"Retainer\"). *See* Application at ¶ 17; Affidavit at ¶¶ 7, 8.\n\n8. According to the Application and the Affidavit, BR's compensation structure includes hourly rates ranging from \\$1,685.00 per hour to \\$435.00 per hour. *See* Application at ¶ 13. Further, the Application states that BR will draw down on the Retainer to pay approved fees and expenses until the Retainer has a balance of \\$250,000.00, at which point it will transform into an evergreen or security retainer which will be held by the BR as security for any unpaid\n\n3\n\nfees. *See* Application at ¶ 18.\n\n9. The Engagement Agreement states that BR has the right to charge 9% interest on fees unpaid after 30 days. *See* ECF 142 at Engagement Agreement at ECF page 13 of 35.\n\n10. The Engagement Agreement also includes a schedule of disbursement charges for certain services that conflicts in certain respects with Appendix D to the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (\"Local Bankruptcy Rules\") and 11 U.S.C. § 330. See ECF 142 at Engagement Agreement at ECF page 24 of 35. For example, BR charges more for copies than the limit stated in Appendix D and BR says that it may \"benefit from a different, bulk pricing formula\" with \"Lexis/Westlaw or other document retrieval\" despite the limitation in the Local Bankruptcy Rules and in Section 330 to seek reimbursement of only actual expenses. *Id.*\n\n11. Additionally, the Engagement Agreement excludes any appellate work. *See* ECF 142 at Engagement Agreement at ECF page 20 of 35.\n\n12. Lastly, the Engagement Agreement provides that the relationship with the Debtor, and any disputes therewith, is governed by New York law and by New York courts. *See* ECF 142 at Engagement Agreement at ECF page 20 of 35.\n\n### *Disclosures required by Section 327(a) and Rule 2014(a)*\n\n13. The Affidavit discusses the efforts of BR to search and disclose the connections and representations to certain parties in this case required pursuant to Section 327(a) and Rule 2014(a).\n\n14. BR's disclosures, however, are incomplete.\n\n15. Paragraph 23 of the Affidavit states that there are \"additional connections which are still in the process of being reviewed\" but does not state what these additional connections are, nor has BR supplemented its disclosures since filing the Application. *See* Affidavit at ¶ 23.\n\n16. Further, paragraph 25 of the Affidavit contains language that could be interpreted and understood to mean that BR has *not* disclosed all of its connections to the persons/parties listed in Rule 2014(a). Paragraph 25 says: \"Except as set forth herein or on **Schedule 2**, all of Brown Rudnick's connections are unrelated to Mr. Kwok or this Chapter 11 Case.\" (emphasis in original). It is unclear whether BR has disclosed any and all connections to the persons/parties listed in Rule 2014(a).\n\n17. Additionally, BR discloses that it has a client relationship with the Debtor's proposed financial advisor, Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. (\"V&L\"), and with Craig Jalbert (\"Jalbert\"), a principal of V&L. *See* Schedule 2 to Affidavit. The disclosure is that both V&L and Jalbert are former clients of BR, and that Jalbert is a current client in his capacity as a trustee for a creditor trust. [1](#page-4-0) Neither the Application nor the Affidavit discuss a conflict waiver being executed by V&L and Jalbert so as to enable BR to be adverse to them should circumstances in this case so warrant.\n\n18. Further, BR discloses that it has a former client relationship with a Zheng Wu a/k/a Bruno Wu (\"Creditor Wu\"), who is a creditor on the List of Twenty Largest Unsecured Creditors (ECF 20). *See* Schedule 2 to Affidavit. BR does not explain the nature of this representation, nor does BR indicate that it has obtained a conflict waiver so as to enable BR to\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor's application to employ V&L discloses that BR is currently counsel to Jalbert in his capacity as the post-confirmation fiduciary in a chapter 11 case, and BR was formerly counsel to Jalbert in his capacity as the post-confirmation fiduciary in two other chapter 11 cases. ECF 90 at Affidavit of Craig Jalbert at ¶4(a).\n\nbe adverse to Creditor Wu should circumstances in this case so warrant.\n\n19. Lastly, Schedule 2 to the Affidavit contains a column titled \"Adverse to or Aligned with Current or Former Clients in Unrelated Matters\" and has checked that column with respect to Forbes Hare, a pre-petition professional of the Debtor, and with respect to UBS AG, a defendant in one of the Debtor's primary litigation claims. *See* Declaration of Debtor, ECF 107 at ¶ 32. It is unclear what this column of Schedule 2 is intended to disclose and what a reader should understand about the relationships with Forbes Hare and UBS AG. [2](#page-5-0)\n\n20. The Engagement Agreement purports to serve as a universally applicable waiver of current *and* future conflicts of interest. *See* ECF 142 at Engagement Agreement at ECF pages 21-23 of 35.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n#### **I. Requirements of Section 327(a) and Rule 2014(a)**\n\nThe legal standards governing retention of a professional by the Debtor are generally contained in 11 U.S.C. § 327(a).[3](#page-5-1) Pursuant to Section 327(a), there are two basic requirements for retention of counsel to represent a debtor's estate: (1) the attorney must not \"hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate,\" and (2) the attorney must be a \"disinterested person.\" 11 U.S.C. § 327(a); *Vouzianas v. Ready & Pontisakos (In re Vouzianas)*, 259 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 2001). Section 327(c) applies when, as here, the proposed counsel represents a creditor of the debtor:\n\n> In the case under chapter 7, 12, or 11 of this title, a person is not disqualified for employment under this section solely because of such person's employment by or representation of a creditor, unless there is objection by another creditor or the\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> Litigation against UBS AG is alleged to be one of the Debtor's primary assets and recovery from UBS AG will be used to fund a plan. *See* Declaration of Debtor, ECF 107 at ¶¶ 40 and 54. 3\n\n<span id=\"page-5-1\"></span>An exception exists for the retention of \"Special Counsel\" for a specific purpose which is governed by the \"looser\" standards of 11 U.S.C. § 327(e) which are not applicable here.\n\nUnited States trustee, in which case the court shall disapprove such employment if there is an actual conflict of interest.\n\n11 U.S.C. § 327(c).\n\n Section 327(c) \"does not obviate the essential requirement that a professional not have an interest adverse to the estate.\" *In re Project Orange Assocs., LLC*, 431 B.R. 363, 371 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing *In re Arochem Corp*., 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2d Cir. 1999)). Where there is an objection to the retention of proposed counsel for the debtor and an actual conflict of interest exists, the Court must disqualify the counsel. *In re Project Orange Assocs.*, *LLC*, 431 B.R. at 371.\n\nThe Second Circuit defines \"adverse interest\" as follows:\n\n(1) to possess or assert any economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate or that would create either an actual or potential dispute in which the estate is a rival claimant; or (2) to possess a predisposition under circumstances that render such a bias against the estate.\n\n*In re Arochem Corp*., 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2d Cir. 1999). The \"determination of an adverse interest is objective and concerned with the appearance of impropriety.\" *In re Angelika Films 57th Inc*., 227 B.R. 29, 38 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998). \"The disqualifying adverse interest addressed in § 327. . . is either an actual or a reasonably probable conflict of interest.\" *In re AroChem*, 181 B.R. 693, 700 (Bankr. D.Conn. 1995) (Shiff, J.), *aff'd, In re AroChem Corp.*, 176 F.3d 610 (2nd Cir. 1999). \"Whether an adverse interest exists is best determined on a case-bycase basis.\" *In re Arochem Corp.*, 176 F.3d at 623 (*citations omitted*). The standards in section 327(a) are \"phrased in the present tense, permitting representation by professionals 'that do not *hold* or *represent* an interest adverse to the estate.'\" *Id*. (emphasis in original).\n\nThe Bankruptcy Code defines a \"disinterested person\" as one who is \"not a creditor, equity security holder, or an insider\", and who \"does not have an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate or any class of creditors … by reason of any indirect or direct relationship to, connection with, or interest in, the debtor …\" 11 U.S.C. § 101(14)(A) and (E). \"The 'materially adverse' standard incorporated in the disinterestedness test and the 'interest adverse to the estate' language in section 327(a) overlap. To this extent, the two prongs of section 327(a) are duplicative and form a single test to judge conflicts of interest.\" *In re Granite Partners, L.P.,* 219 B.R. 22, 33 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998); *see also JMK Construction Group, Ltd.,* 441 B.R. 222, 229 (Bankr. S.D.NY. 2010).\n\nBankruptcy Rule 2014(a) requires affirmative disclosure in a retention application of, \"to the best of the applicant's knowledge, all of the person's connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants.\" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a). \"It is abundantly clear that Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a) requires a significant level of disclosure of the proposed professional's 'connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants' … .\" *In re Matco Electronics Group, Inc.,* 383 B.R. 848, 852-853 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2008). Furthermore,\n\n> It is equally clear that the level of disclosure outlined in the Rule is mandatory, whether or not that disclosure would unearth a conflict of interest. It is also apparent that the obligation to disclose is not a subjective one, whereby the professional discloses only those \"connections\" that he/she/it concludes are relevant …\n\nAs indicated, the existence of a conflict of interest is not the quid pro quo for whether or not the disclosure must be made. Sanctions are imposed for the failure to disclose, regardless of the consequences of the non-disclosure … '[I]n the Second Circuit a\n\nviolation of the disclosure rule alone is sufficient to deny compensation regardless of whether the undisclosed connection was materially adverse to the estate.'\n\n*Id.* (*internal citations omitted*); *see also In re Peterson*, 163 B.R. 665, 670 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1994) (citing *Futuronics Corp. v. Arutt, Nachamie & Benjamin (Matter of Futuronics Corp.)*, 655 F.2d 463, 469 (2d Cir. 1981) (\"As a general rule, the consequences of failure to make a full disclosure under Section 327(a) and Rule 2014(a) is the denial of all compensation for postpetition services.\")). \"Even a negligent or inadvertent failure to disclose fully relevant information may result in a denial of all requested fees … disclosures must be direct and comprehensive; that is, the attorney must make a full, candid and complete disclosure.\" *In re Chin Kim*, 2012 WL 3907490 at \\*4 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012) (*internal citations omitted*).\n\n\"Counsel for a chapter 11 debtor owes a fiduciary duty of loyalty and care to his client which is the debtor-in-possession.\" *In re Angelika Films 57th Inc.,* 227 B.R. 29, 39 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) (*citing In re Rancourt*, 207 B.R. 338, 360 (Bankr. D. NH 1997)) (debtor's counsel, who also represented debtor's principal, denied all compensation due to conflict). Disqualification of counsel is appropriate when \"'it is plausible that the representation of another interest may cause the debtor's attorneys to act any differently than they would without that other representation'\" *In re Granite Partners, L.P.,* 219 B.R. at 33 (quoting *In re Leslie Fay Cos.,* 175 B.R. 525, 533 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994)).\n\n\"'By regulating the trustee's ability to hire professionals, section 327 serve[s] the important policy of ensuring that all professionals appointed [to represent the debtor] tender undivided loyalty and provide untainted advice and assistance in furtherance of their fiduciary responsibilities.'\" *In re Homesteads Community at Newtown, LLC*, 390 B.R. 32, 47 (Bankr. D.Conn. 2008) (*quoting In re AroChem Corp*., 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2nd Cir. 1999)). \"The\n\nmandatory provisions of section 327(a) do not allow for waiver.\" *In re Granite Partners, L.P.*, 219 B.R. 22, 34 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) (*citations omitted*).\n\n#### **II. Deficiencies in the Application**\n\n#### *a. Inadequate Disclosure*\n\n A bankruptcy professional seeking to be employed has a duty to both identify a potential conflict or adverse interest AND provide the detail which creates that potential or actual conflict and provide specific information which demonstrates that that potential conflict or adverse interest does not disqualify it from employment by the bankruptcy estate. BR has failed to meet its obligations for a full and comprehensive disclosure and has not properly addressed conflict issues.\n\nParagraph 23 of the Affidavit states that there are \"additional connections which are still in the process of being reviewed\" but does not state what these additional connections are, nor has BR supplemented its disclosures since filing the Application. *See* Affidavit at ¶ 23. Paragraph 25 of the Affidavit contains language that could be interpreted and understood to mean that BR has *not* disclosed all of its connections to the persons/parties listed in Rule 2014(a). Paragraph 25 says: \"Except as set forth herein or on **Schedule 2**, all of Brown Rudnick's connections are unrelated to Mr. Kwok or this Chapter 11 Case.\" (emphasis in original). It is unclear whether BR has disclosed any and all connections to the persons/parties listed in Rule 2014(a).\n\n Additionally, Schedule 2 to the Affidavit leaves unanswered the questions of the nature of BR's relationship with UBS AG and Forbes Hare and whether BR can be adverse to UBS AG and Forbes Hare. Further, Schedule 2 to the Affidavit notes client relationships with V&L and Jalbert without providing proof of conflict waivers and seems to purportedly waive any issues by reference to the terms of the Engagement Agreement. The same is true with respect to Creditor Wu.\n\nConflict waivers should be an independent document which fully discloses the conflict, a debtor's rights to waive or not waive such conflict, and the consequences of doing either. Here, the Engagement Agreement contains three pages of nuanced and specific language in small print about conflicts and waivers that purports to relieve BR of current and future conflict issues, and that is not specific to the Debtor or his bankruptcy case. Such language is inadequate to meet the rigorous requirements of Section 327(a) and should not be permitted to govern the employment analysis.\n\n#### *b. Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses*\n\nBR is holding a Retainer of \\$948,164.80. This amount is significant, especially in view of the fact that the Debtor's limited assets identified to date amount to less than \\$10,000, with the majority, including certain causes of action, being valued at \"unknown.\" ECF 78. Further, the Application states that BR intends to keep a balance of \\$250,000.00 as a retainer in this case. *See* Application at ¶ 18. Given the lack of liquid assets in this case, the United States Trustee opposes a retainer that has a floor (and which may be interpreted as an evergreen retainer) because it provides a protection exclusive to BR.\n\nThe United States Trustee also opposes as inappropriate BR's position that it may charge 9% interest on unpaid fees and that it may seek reimbursement of expenses at a level and in a manner that conflicts with the Local Bankruptcy Rules by, as just one example, charging more for copies than the limit stated in Appendix D of the Local Bankruptcy Rules. BR should be held to the requirements of the Local Bankruptcy Rules and Section 330/331 and BR should not be permitted to charge interest. Further, the reference to Section 328(a) in the proposed order should be removed so as to avoid any limitations on the fee review and approval process. Lastly, all disputes relating to the services of BR should be determined pursuant to Connecticut law and in this Court, not New York.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nWHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, the United States Trustee respectfully\n\nrequests that the Court deny the Application without prejudice, or, in the alternative, defer\n\ndetermination until such time as BR has supplemented and/or revised the Application to address\n\nthe issues raised herein.\n\nDated: April 6, 2022 Respectfully submitted,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2\n\n> By: /s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn\n\n> > /s/ Steven E. Mackey Steven E. Mackey\n\n Trial Attorneys Office of the United States Trustee Giaimo Federal Building, Room 302 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510 Holley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov Federal Bar No.: ct17216 (Connecticut) [Steven.E.Mackey@usdoj.gov](mailto:Steven.E.Mackey@usdoj.gov) Federal Bar No: ct09932(Connecticut) (203) 773-2210\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned certifies that the foregoing objection was served on all appearing parties via the Court's electronic case filing system noted below:\n\nWilliam Baldiga on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com](mailto:wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com)\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com](mailto:wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com)\n\nPatrick M. Birney on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [pbirney@rc.com,](mailto:pbirney@rc.com) [ctrivigno@rc.com](mailto:ctrivigno@rc.com)\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma [ccallari@callaripartners.com](mailto:ccallari@callaripartners.com)\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng [ccallari@callaripartners.com](mailto:ccallari@callaripartners.com)\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu [ccallari@callaripartners.com](mailto:ccallari@callaripartners.com)\n\nDavid S. Forsh on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma [dforsh@callaripartners.com](mailto:dforsh@callaripartners.com)\n\nDavid S. Forsh on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng [dforsh@callaripartners.com](mailto:dforsh@callaripartners.com)\n\nDavid S. Forsh on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu [dforsh@callaripartners.com](mailto:dforsh@callaripartners.com)\n\nPeter Friedman on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [pfriedman@omm.com](mailto:pfriedman@omm.com)\n\nIrve J. Goldman on behalf of Creditor Committee Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors [igoldman@pullcom.com,](mailto:igoldman@pullcom.com) [rmccoy@pullcom.com](mailto:rmccoy@pullcom.com)\n\nDavid V. Harbach, II on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [dharbach@omm.com](mailto:dharbach@omm.com)\n\nJonathan Kaplan on behalf of Creditor Committee Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors [jkaplan@pullcom.com,](mailto:jkaplan@pullcom.com) [prulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com](mailto:prulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com)\n\nDylan Kletter on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [dkletter@brownrudnick.com,](mailto:dkletter@brownrudnick.com) [adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@brow](mailto:adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@brownrudnick.com) [nrudnick.com](mailto:adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@brownrudnick.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nTimothy D. Miltenberger on behalf of Interested Party Golden Spring (New York) LTD [Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com,](mailto:Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com) [msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com](mailto:msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com)\n\nScott D. Rosen on behalf of Interested Party Golden Spring (New York) LTD [srosen@cb-shea.com,](mailto:srosen@cb-shea.com) [kseaman@cbshealaw.com](mailto:kseaman@cbshealaw.com)\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [ssarnoff@omm.com](mailto:ssarnoff@omm.com)\n\nBennett Silverberg on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com](mailto:bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com)\n\nAnnecca H. Smith on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [asmith@rc.com](mailto:asmith@rc.com)\n\nJay Marshall Wolman on behalf of Creditor Logan Cheng [jmw@randazza.com,](mailto:jmw@randazza.com) [ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com](mailto:ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com)\n\nPeter J. Zarella on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma [pzarella@mdmc-law.com](mailto:pzarella@mdmc-law.com)\n\nPeter J. Zarella on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng [pzarella@mdmc-law.com](mailto:pzarella@mdmc-law.com)\n\nPeter J. Zarella on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu [pzarella@mdmc-law.com](mailto:pzarella@mdmc-law.com)\n\n By: /s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn","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\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 案号 22-50073 (JAM) 又名 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵） 又名 MILES GUO（郭文贵），\n\n 债务人。 关于：ECF 86\n美国联邦破产受托人关于债务人申请作出批准聘用及留任 BROWN RUDNICK LLP 担任债务人法律顾问的裁定的异议声明\n\n第2区美国联邦破产受托人（下称“美国联邦破产受托人”）William K. Harrington，为履行 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3)(I) 所规定的职责与义务，谨就债务人关于作出批准聘用及留任 Brown Rudnick LLP 担任债务人法律顾问的裁定的申请（下称“《申请》”），针对其担任 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，又名 Wengui Guo、Miles Guo，下称“债务人”及/或“Kwok”）的第11章法律顾问一事，恭敬提交本异议声明。ECF 86。为支持其异议声明，美国联邦破产受托人通过其下述署名律师，恭敬陈述并声明如下：\n\n初步声明\n\n债务人寻求聘用 Brown Rudnick LLP（下称“BR”）担任其第11章破产法律顾问。然而，该《申请》引发了若干关切，鉴于其未能满足第 327(a) 条及\n\n第 2014(a) 条规则的要求，并规定了不当的救济，故应予驳回当前形式的《申请》。如文中所述，美国联邦破产受托人对该《申请》提出异议，原因是在本案透明度一直存疑的情况下，BR 未能充分披露其与债务人及其债权人之间的关联。此外，BR 不当地寻求本破产法院批准一项非法且不妥的预期性全局利益冲突豁免，寻求对其报酬设置保护措施，并且还不当地企图规避本破产法院对该《申请》的管辖权，将有关任何争议的管辖权让渡给纽约州法院。\n\n美国联邦破产受托人请求法院在不损害再次申请权利的前提下驳回该《申请》，或者推迟作出裁定，直至 BR 对《申请》进行补充和/或修订以解决文中所提出的问题为止。\n\n事实\n\n1. 债务人（亦称 Wengui Guo、Miles Guo 及 Miles Kwok，并使用众多其他化名）于 2022年2月15日 提交了自愿第11章破产申请书（下称“《破产申请书》”）。ECF 1。\n\n2. 债务人目前根据《破产法典》第 1107 条和第 1108 条管理其财务事务及其商业利益。\n\n3. 2022年3月21日，美国联邦破产受托人在本案中指定了官方无担保债权人委员会（下称“委员会”）。ECF 108。迄今为止，委员会尚未提交聘用律师的申请。\n\n4. 2022年3月16日，债务人提交了《申请》，寻求聘用 BR 担任其第11章破产法律顾问。ECF 86。该《申请》附有 William Baldiga 的宣誓书作为支持。同上。\n\n服务报酬\n\n5. William Baldiga 的宣誓书披露债务人与 BR 签署了日期为 2022年2月14日 的聘用协议（下称“《聘用协议》”），并指称《聘用协议》作为附件A附于其后。ECF 86。然而，《聘用协议》并未附在 William Baldiga 的宣誓书之后，亦未随《申请》一同提交。\n\n6. 2022年3月30日，在收到下述署名人关于《聘用协议》未随《申请》一同提交的通知后，BR 提交了包含《聘用协议》在内的 William Baldiga 宣誓书完整版本（下称“《宣誓书》”）。ECF 142。\n\n7. 《申请》第 17 段披露，债务人于 2022年2月14日至15日 分两笔各 $500,000.00 向 BR 支付了 $100万美元 的预付定金，资金来自一家名为 Lamp Capital, LLC（下称“Lamp Capital”）的实体向债务人提供的贷款，债务人声称该实体为其子所有。见《申请》第 17 段。BR 披露，在 2022年2月14日 受聘至 2022年2月15日 提交破产申请之间的大约24小时内，其已使用并支取了该 $100万美元 中的 $51,835.00。见《申请》第 17 段；《宣誓书》第 7、8 段。BR 目前持有 $948,164.80 作为定金（下称“定金”）。见《申请》第 17 段；《宣誓书》第 7、8 段。\n\n8. 根据《申请》和《宣誓书》，BR 的报酬结构包含每小时 $1,685.00 至每小时 $435.00 不等的费率。见《申请》第 13 段。此外，《申请》说明 BR 将从定金中支取款项以支付获批的费用和开支，直至定金余额达到 $250,000.00，届时该定金将转变为常备定金或担保定金，由 BR 持有作为任何未付\n费用的担保。见《申请》第 18 段。\n\n9. 《聘用协议》规定，对于逾期30天未付的费用，BR 有权收取 9% 的利息。见 ECF 142 之《聘用协议》第 ECF 13/35 页。\n\n10. 《聘用协议》还包含一份关于某些服务的代垫费用收费表，该表在某些方面与 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）《破产诉讼本地规则》（下称“《本地破产规则》”）附录D以及 11 U.S.C. § 330 存在冲突。见 ECF 142 之《聘用协议》第 ECF 24/35 页。例如，BR 收取的复印费高于附录D所规定的限额，且 BR 表示其在“Lexis/Westlaw 或其他文件检索”方面可能“受益于不同的批量定价方案”，尽管《本地破产规则》和第 330 条限制仅能就实际开支申请报销。同上。\n\n11. 此外，《聘用协议》排除了任何上诉工作。见 ECF 142 之《聘用协议》第 ECF 20/35 页。\n\n12. 最后，《聘用协议》规定与债务人的关系及其任何争议受纽约州法律管辖并由纽约州法院管辖。见 ECF 142 之《聘用协议》第 ECF 20/35 页。\n\n第 327(a) 条和第 2014(a) 条规则要求的披露\n\n13. 《宣誓书》论述了 BR 根据第 327(a) 条和第 2014(a) 条规则的要求，对本案中某些当事方的关联和代理关系进行检索和披露的努力。\n\n14. 然而，BR 的披露是不完整的。\n\n15. 《宣誓书》第 23 段称存在“仍在审查过程中的额外关联”，但并未说明这些额外关联是什么，自提交《申请》以来，BR 也未对其披露进行补充。见《宣誓书》第 23 段。\n\n16. 此外，《宣誓书》第 25 段所包含的措辞可被解释和理解为 BR 并未披露其与第 2014(a) 条规则所列人员/当事方的所有关联。第 25 段称：“除文中所述或附表2所列之外，Brown Rudnick 的所有关联均与 Kwok 先生或本第11章案件无关。”（原文为强调字体）。目前尚不清楚 BR 是否已披露与第 2014(a) 条规则所列人员/当事方的任何及全部关联。\n\n17. 此外，BR 披露其与债务人拟聘用的财务顾问 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（下称“V&L”）以及 V&L 的负责人 Craig Jalbert（下称“Jalbert”）存在客户关系。见《宣誓书》附表2。所披露的内容为 V&L 和 Jalbert 均为 BR 的前客户，且 Jalbert 以债权人信托受托人身份为当前客户。[1] 《申请》和《宣誓书》均未论述 V&L 和 Jalbert 是否签署了利益冲突豁免，以使 BR 能够在若本案情况需要时与他们相对立。\n\n18. 此外，BR 披露其与 Zheng Wu（吴征，又名 Bruno Wu，下称“债权人 Wu”）存在前客户关系，该人名列《二十大无担保债权人名单》（ECF 20）。见《宣誓书》附表2。BR 未说明该代理关系的性质，BR 亦未表明其已取得利益冲突豁免以使 BR 能够\n\n1 债务人聘用 V&L 的申请披露，BR 目前担任 Jalbert 在一起第11章案件中作为确认后受托人身份的法律顾问，且 BR 曾担任 Jalbert 在另外两起第11章案件中作为确认后受托人身份的法律顾问。ECF 90 之 Craig Jalbert 宣誓书第 4(a) 段。\n\n在若本案情况需要时与债权人 Wu 相对立。\n\n19. 最后，《宣誓书》附表2包含一栏题为“在无关事项中与现有或前客户相对立或保持一致”，并在债务人的申请前专业人士 Forbes Hare 以及债务人主要诉讼主张之一的被告 UBS AG（瑞士信贷第一波士顿/瑞银集团）名下勾选了该栏。见《债务人声明》，ECF 107 第 32 段。目前尚不清楚附表2的这一栏旨在披露什么，以及读者应当如何理解与 Forbes Hare 和 UBS AG 之间的关系。[2]\n\n20. 《聘用协议》旨在作为一项普遍适用的现有及未来利益冲突豁免。见 ECF 142 之《聘用协议》第 ECF 21-23/35 页。\n\n抗辩理由\n\nI. 第 327(a) 条及第 2014(a) 条规则的要求\n\n管辖债务人留任专业人士的法律标准通常包含于 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 中。[3] 根据第 327(a) 条，留任律师代表债务人财产存在两项基本要求：(1) 律师不得“持有或代表与该财产相对立的利益”，且 (2) 律师必须是“无利害关系人”。11 U.S.C. § 327(a)；Vouzianas v. Ready & Pontisakos (In re Vouzianas), 259 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 2001)。当拟聘律师如本案这般代表债务人的债权人时，第 327(c) 条适用：\n\n在本编第7章、第12章或第11章案件中，某人不得仅因受雇于债权人或代表债权人而被取消根据本条受聘的资格，除非其他债权人或\n\n2 针对 UBS AG 的诉讼据称是债务人的主要资产之一，从 UBS AG 获得的追偿将用于资助一项重组方案。见《债务人声明》，ECF 107 第 40 和 54 段。3\n\n出于特定目的留任“特别顾问”存在例外情况，该情况受 11 U.S.C. § 327(e) 中“较为宽松”的标准管辖，该标准在本案中不适用。\n\n美国受托人提出异议，在此情况下，如果存在实际利益冲突，法院应不予批准该聘用。\n\n11 U.S.C. § 327(c)。\n\n 第 327(c) 条“并未消除专业人士不得拥有与破产财产相对立的利益这一基本要求”。In re Project Orange Assocs., LLC, 431 B.R. 363, 371 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010) (引用 In re Arochem Corp., 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2d Cir. 1999))。在对债务人拟聘律师的留任提出异议且存在实际利益冲突的情况下，法院必须取消该律师的资格。In re Project Orange Assocs., LLC, 431 B.R. at 371。\n\n第二巡回法院对“对立利益”的定义如下：\n\n(1) 拥有或主张任何往往会减损破产财产价值的经济利益，或会造成破产财产作为竞争性索赔人参与其中的实际或潜在争议的经济利益；或 (2) 在特定情况下具有对破产财产产生此类偏见的倾向。\n\nIn re Arochem Corp., 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2d Cir. 1999)（第二巡回上诉法院，1999年）。“对不利利益的认定是客观的，并涉及不当行为之外观。”In re Angelika Films 57th Inc., 227 B.R. 29, 38 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)（纽约南区破产法院，1998年）。“第327条所指的取消任职资格之不利利益……属于实际的或合理可能发生的利益冲突。”In re AroChem, 181 B.R. 693, 700 (Bankr. D.Conn. 1995) (Shiff, J.)（康涅狄格区破产法院，1995年，希夫法官），aff'd，In re AroChem Corp., 176 F.3d 610 (2nd Cir. 1999)（由第二巡回法院维持原判）。“是否存在不利利益，最好依个案具体情况逐一裁定。”In re Arochem Corp., 176 F.3d at 623（引文省略）。第327(a)条的标准“采用现在时表述，仅允许‘未持有或代表对破产财团不利利益’的专业人士进行代理。”同上（强调为原文所加）。\n\n《美国破产法典》将“无利害关系人”定义为“非债权人、股权证券持有人或内部人”，且“因与债务人存在任何间接或直接关系、关联或在债务人处的利益，……不具有对破产财团或任何类别债权人的利益产生重大不利之利益”的人。11 U.S.C. § 101(14)(A) and (E)。“无利害关系测试中所包含的‘重大不利’标准与第327(a)条中‘对破产财团不利的利益’之表述相重合。在此范围内，第327(a)条的这两项要求是重合的，并构成了判定利益冲突的唯一定测试标准。”In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. 22, 33 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)；另见 JMK Construction Group, Ltd., 441 B.R. 222, 229 (Bankr. S.D.NY. 2010)。\n\n《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第2014(a)条规定，聘用申请中必须主动披露“据申请人所知，该人士与债务人、债权人、任何其他利害关系方及其各自的律师和会计师的所有关联”。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a)。“极其明确的是，Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a)要求对拟聘专业人士与‘债务人、债权人、任何其他利害关系方及其各自的律师和会计师的关联’进行实质性程度的披露……。”In re Matco Electronics Group, Inc., 383 B.R. 848, 852-853 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2008)（纽约北区破产法院，2008年）。此外，\n\n同样显而易见的是，该规则所列明的披露程度是强制性的，无论该披露是否会揭露出利益冲突。同样显而易见的是，披露义务并非主观义务，即专业人士不能仅披露其自行认定为相关的“关联”……\n\n如前所述，是否存在利益冲突并非决定是否必须进行披露的前提对价。未能履行披露义务将受到制裁，而无论未披露的后果为何……“在第二巡回法院管辖区内，仅违反披露规则本身就足以被剥夺获得报酬的权利，而无论未披露的关联是否对破产财团构成重大不利。”\n\n同上（内部引文省略）；另见 In re Peterson, 163 B.R. 665, 670 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1994)（援引 Futuronics Corp. v. Arutt, Nachamie & Benjamin (Matter of Futuronics Corp.), 655 F.2d 463, 469 (2d Cir. 1981)（“一般规则是，未能根据第327(a)条和规则第2014(a)条作出充分披露的后果是，剥夺其在申请破产后提供服务的所有报酬。”））。“即使是因过失或疏忽而未能充分披露相关信息，也可能导致所有申请的费用被全额拒绝……披露必须直接且全面；也就是说，律师必须作出充分、坦诚和完整的披露。”In re Chin Kim, 2012 WL 3907490 at *4 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012)（纽约东区破产法院，2012年）（内部引文省略）。\n\n“第11章债务人的律师对其客户，即占有债务人，负有忠实和勤勉的信托义务。”In re Angelika Films 57th Inc., 227 B.R. 29, 39 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)（援引 In re Rancourt, 207 B.R. 338, 360 (Bankr. D. NH 1997)（新罕布什尔区破产法院，1997年））（债务人律师因同时代表债务人的负责人，因利益冲突被剥夺所有报酬）。当“‘代表另一利益方看似可能导致债务人的律师采取与未进行该等代理时不同的行动’”时，取消该律师的任职资格是适当的。In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. at 33（引自 In re Leslie Fay Cos., 175 B.R. 525, 533 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994)）。\n\n“‘通过规范受托人聘用专业人士的权力，第327条贯彻了一项重要政策，即确保所有被指定［代表债务人］的专业人士均保持绝对忠诚，并提供不受污染的建议与协助，以履行其信托职责。’”In re Homesteads Community at Newtown, LLC, 390 B.R. 32, 47 (Bankr. D.Conn. 2008)（引自 In re AroChem Corp., 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2nd Cir. 1999)）。“第327(a)条的强制性规定不允许豁免。”In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. 22, 34 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)（引文省略）。\n\nII. 申请书中的缺陷\na. 披露不充分\n\n寻求受聘的破产专业人士有义务：既要指出潜在的冲突或不利利益，又要提供产生该潜在或实际冲突的详细信息，并提供证明该潜在冲突或不利利益并不剥夺其受破产财团聘用资格的具体信息。Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所，简称 BR）未能履行其作出充分和全面披露的义务，亦未正当地解决冲突问题。\n\n宣誓书第23段称存在“仍在审查过程中的其他关联”，但并未说明这些其他关联为何，自提交申请书以来 BR 亦未补充其披露。见宣誓书第23段。宣誓书第25段包含的措辞可被解释和理解为 BR 尚未披露其与规则第2014(a)条所列人员/当事方的所有关联。第25段称：“除本文件或附表2所列者外，Brown Rudnick 的所有关联均与 Kwok 先生（郭先生）或本第11章案件无关。”（强调为原文所加）。目前尚不清楚 BR 是否已披露与规则第2014(a)条所列人员/当事方的任何及全部关联。\n\n此外，宣誓书附表2对 BR 与 UBS AG（瑞银集团）及 Forbes Hare（福布斯黑尔律师事务所）之间关系的性质，以及 BR 是否可与瑞银集团及福布斯黑尔处于利益对立状态的问题悬而未决。再者，宣誓书附表2指出了与 V&L 及 Jalbert 的客户关系，却未提供冲突豁免的证据，并似乎主张通过援引《聘用协议》的条款来豁免任何问题。对于债权人 Wu（吴）亦是如此。\n\n冲突豁免书应为一份独立文件，充分披露冲突情况、债务人豁免或不豁免该冲突的权利，以及采取任一做法的后果。在本案中，《聘用协议》包含三页以小字印刷的、关于冲突与豁免的微妙且具体的措辞，旨在免除 BR 当前和未来的冲突问题，且该等措辞并非针对本债务人或其破产案件。此类措辞不足以满足第327(a)条的严格要求，不应允许其主导受聘资格分析。\n\nb. 报酬及费用报销\n\nBR 目前持有 948,164.80 美元的预付款。该数额十分巨大，尤其是鉴于迄今已查明的债务人有限资产不足 10,000 美元，其中大部分（包括某些诉由）的价值被评估为“未知”。ECF 78。此外，申请书指出 BR 打算在本案中保留 250,000.00 美元的余额作为预付款。见申请书第18段。鉴于本案缺乏流动资产，United States Trustee（美国受托人）反对设立具有保底金额的预付款（且该预付款可被解释为常青预付款），因为这为 BR 提供了专属保护。\n\n美国受托人亦反对 BR 提出的可对未支付费用收取 9% 利息，以及其可按与《地方破产规则》相冲突的水平和方式寻求费用报销的主张，并认为该主张是不恰当的，仅举一例，其收取的复印费高出了《地方破产规则》附录 D 中规定的限额。BR 应受《地方破产规则》以及第330/331条要求的约束，且不应允许 BR 收取利息。此外，拟议裁定书中对第328(a)条的引用应当删除，以避免对费用审查和批准程序产生任何限制。最后，与 BR 的服务相关的所有争议均应依据康涅狄格州法律并由本法院（而非纽约州）作出裁判。\n\n结论\n\n综上所述，由于所有前述原因，美国受托人谨请求法院在不持偏见的前提下驳回该申请，或者，作为备选方案，暂缓作出裁定，直至 BR 对申请书作出补充和/或修订以解决本文所提出的问题。\n\n日期：2022年4月6日 谨此提交，\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON（威廉·K·哈灵顿）\n第二管区美国受托人\n\n签署：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍利·L·克莱本）\n\n/s/ Steven E. Mackey\nSteven E. Mackey（史蒂文·E·麦基）\n\n出庭律师\n美国受托人办公室\nGiaimo Federal Building, Room 302\n150 Court Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\nHolley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov\n联邦律师执业编号：ct17216（康涅狄格州）\nSteven.E.Mackey@usdoj.gov\n联邦律师执业编号：ct09932（康涅狄格州）\n(203) 773-2210\n\n送达证书\n\n下述签字人特此证明，前述异议书已通过下述法院电子案件立案系统送达给所有出庭当事方：\n\nWilliam Baldiga（威廉·鲍迪加），代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com]\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga（威廉·R·鲍迪加），代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com]\n\nPatrick M. Birney（帕特里克·M·伯尼），代表前20大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）[pbirney@rc.com,] [ctrivigno@rc.com]\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari（卡罗琳·H·G·卡拉里），代表前20大债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari（卡罗琳·H·G·卡拉里），代表前20大债权人 Weican Meng（孟维参）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari（卡罗琳·H·G·卡拉里），代表债权人 Zheng Wu（吴征）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh（大卫·S·福什），代表前20大债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）[dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh（大卫·S·福什），代表前20大债权人 Weican Meng（孟维参）[dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh（大卫·S·福什），代表债权人 Zheng Wu（吴征）[dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），代表前20大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）[pfriedman@omm.com]\n\nIrve J. Goldman（欧文·J·高曼），代表债权人委员会 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）[igoldman@pullcom.com,] [rmccoy@pullcom.com]\n\nDavid V. Harbach, II（大卫·V·哈巴赫二世），代表前20大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）[dharbach@omm.com]\n\nJonathan Kaplan（乔纳森·卡普兰），代表债权人委员会 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）[jkaplan@pullcom.com,] [prulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com]\n\nDylan Kletter（迪伦·克莱特），代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[dkletter@brownrudnick.com,] [adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@brownrudnick.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew（克里斯汀·B·梅休），代表前20大债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew（克里斯汀·B·梅休），代表前20大债权人 Weican Meng（孟维参）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew（克里斯汀·B·梅休），代表债权人 Zheng Wu（吴征）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nTimothy D. Miltenberger（蒂莫西·D·米尔滕伯格），代表利害关系方 Golden Spring (New York) LTD（金泉（纽约）有限公司）[Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com,] [msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com]\n\nScott D. Rosen 代表利害关系方 Golden Spring (New York) LTD [srosen@cb-shea.com,] [kseaman@cbshealaw.com]\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff 代表前20大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司） [ssarnoff@omm.com]\n\nBennett Silverberg 代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵） [bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com]\n\nAnnecca H. Smith 代表前20大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [asmith@rc.com]\n\nJay Marshall Wolman 代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程龙） [jmw@randazza.com,] [ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com]\n\nPeter J. Zarella 代表前20大债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊） [pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\nPeter J. Zarella 代表前20大债权人 Weican Meng（孟维参） [pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\nPeter J. Zarella 代表债权人 Zheng Wu（吴征） [pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Miles Guo","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":20,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":86,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":90,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":108,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":142,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3792,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:55:35"}