{"id":"court_ctb_161_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":161,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"PETITION","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 90**\n\n# **UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S STATEMENT OF OBJECTION CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE DEBTOR FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN AND EMPLOY VERDOLINO & LOWEY, P.C. AS FINANCIAL ADVISOR**\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 Authorization to Retain and Employ Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. as Financial Advisor (\"Application\"). ECF 90. 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 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. (\"V&L\") as his financial advisor. 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 Rule 2014(a) and because it seeks inappropriate relief. As described herein, the United States Trustee objects to the Application because it (a) fails to adequately disclose connections and nature of conflict searched performed, and (b) inappropriately seeks authority to employ V&L to act as a quasi-trustee and\n\napprove the Debtor's request to abrogate his fiduciary responsibilities and cede control over Debtor's accounts and finances to V&L.\n\n#### **FACTS**\n\n1. Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo a/k/a Miles Guo a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Debtor\" and/or \"Kwok\") 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 V&L as his financial advisor. ECF 90. The Application is supported by the Affidavit of Craig Jalbert (\"Affidavit\"). *Id.*\n\n5. The Application seeks not only the employment of V&L to provide various financial, tax, and accounting services, but also the extraordinary relief of authorizing V&L to open a debtor in possession account on the Debtor's behalf (\"V&L DIP Account for the Debtor\"), to be the sole signatory to such account, and to make disbursements from such account for the Debtor. *See* Application at ¶ 10(c); proposed order at ¶ 7. The Debtor has also filed a motion to approve debtor in possession financing which references how V&L will hold and disburse monies lent to the Debtor in an account controlled by V&L and will be the sole signatory for the account. ECF 117 at ¶ 2.\n\n2\n\n6. The Affidavit discusses the efforts of V&L to search and disclose the connections and representations to certain parties in this case required pursuant to Section 327(a) and Rule 2014(a). In pertinent part, the Affidavit states that V&L searched an \"interested party listing\" provided to V&L by Brown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\"), proposed chapter 11 counsel to the Debtor (\"List\"). *See* Affidavit at ¶ 3. A copy of the List was not filed with the Application, and, accordingly, the scope of V&L's search is not disclosed.\n\n7. The proposed order to the Application contains language making the retention order effective even if the case is converted to chapter 7 or a chapter 11 trustee is appointed.\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). Pursuant to Section 327(a), there are two basic requirements for retention of a professional to provide services to the debtor's estate: (1) the professional must not \"hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate,\" and (2) the professional 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). Accountants must satisfy the requirements of Section 327(a). *In re Andover Togs, Inc.*, 2001 WL 262605 (S.D.N.Y. March 15, 2001) (reversing bankruptcy court's approval of employment of accountant who was a creditor; finding Section 327(e) not applicable to accountants and that accountants are governed by Section 327(a)).\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\n\nor 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.\n\n2014(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 violation 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.\n\n1994) (citing *Futuronics Corp. v. Arutt, Nachamie & Benjamin (Matter of Futuronics Corp.)*,\n\n655 F.2d 463, 469 (2d Cir. 1981) (\"As a general rule, the consequences of failure to make a full\n\ndisclosure under Section 327(a) and Rule 2014(a) is the denial of all compensation for post-\n\npetition services.\")). \"Even a negligent or inadvertent failure to disclose fully relevant\n\ninformation may result in a denial of all requested fees … disclosures must be direct and\n\ncomprehensive; that is, the [professional] …must make a full, candid and complete disclosure.\"\n\n*In re Chin Kim*, 2012 WL 3907490 at \\*4 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012) (*internal citations omitted*).\n\n#### **II. Deficiencies in the Application**\n\n#### *a. Inadequate Disclosure*\n\nThe Application does not fully and clearly disclose the scope of V&L's search for connections to the parties required by Rule 2014(a). As support for its conclusion that V&L is disinterested and does not represent or hold an adverse interest, the Affidavit states that V&L searched List provided to V&L by Brown Rudnick, proposed chapter 11 counsel to the Debtor. *See* Affidavit at ¶ 3. A copy of the List was not filed with the Application, and, accordingly, the scope of V&L's search is not disclosed. V&L should provide a complete and comprehensive of the parties it searched as part of its efforts to meet its disclosure requirements under Rule 2014(a) and demonstrate that it satisfies Section 327(a). Until such time, the Application is not complete and should not be approved by the Court.\n\n#### *b. Inappropriate relief requested*\n\nThe Application seeks the extraordinary relief (and unprecedented relief in this District) of authorizing V&L to open a debtor in possession account on the Debtor's behalf (\"V&L DIP Account for the Debtor\"), to be the sole signatory to the V&L DIP Account for the Debtor, and to make disbursements from the V&L DIP Account for the Debtor. *See* Application at ¶ 10(c); proposed order at ¶ 7. Despite being willing to hold and disburse money on behalf of the Debtor, V&L cannot simply step in and perform the Debtor's fiduciary obligations.\n\nSection 1106 and 1107, combined with Bankruptcy Rule 4002 and other certain rules, set forth the duties of a debtor in possession. With respect to the obligation to open and maintain a debtor in possession account, a debtor also must comply with United States Trustee Operating Guidelines and Reporting Requirements for Debtor in Possession and Trustees and comply with Section 345. A debtor is the legal representative for the estate (*see* Section 323), is the sole\n\nfiduciary for the estate and its creditors, and is responsible for all property of the estate. *See, e.g., In re Smart World Technologies, LLC*, 424 F.3d 166, 174-175 (2d Cir. 2005). A debtor cannot simply abrogate its fiduciary responsibilities and delegate that authority and responsibility to another.\n\nThe Debtor claims he cannot open and maintain a debtor in possession account as a result of his status as a Chinese dissident subject to a Red Notice issued by Interpol at the request of China. *See* Debtor's Declaration at ECF 107 at ¶¶ 15 and 17. The Debtor's inability (or unwillingness) to open a debtor in possession account means he is not complying with his obligations as a debtor in possession. A debtor cannot selectively fulfill his duties and must be able to take all required steps, and absent that, should not be permitted to remain as a debtor in possession. The Application asks this Court for permission for V&L to serve as the functional equivalent of the Debtor's corporate restructuring officer – but the Debtor is an individual and not a corporate entity. The Debtor cannot delegate his fiduciary duties to V&L no matter how well intentioned the Debtor may claim to be.\n\nAdditionally, the United States Trustee has two other concerns about the Application. First, the proposed order to the Application contains language making the retention order effective even if the case is converted to chapter 7 or a chapter 11 trustee is appointed. Such language is not appropriate and should be removed. Second, the scope of work in the Application is particularly broad. For example, it includes \"[g]eneral consulting and assistance with any other matters and tasks that may arise, and as may be directed by you or the Debtor.\" Application at ¶ 10(j). This language is vague and should be clarified and/or limited.\n\n7\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nWHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the Court deny the Application without prejudice, subject to amendment to address the disclosure issue raise herein and scope of work, as well as the removal of the language (a) authorizing V&L to open, maintain and use the proposed V&L DIP Account for the Debtor, and (b) making the retention order effective even if the case is converted to chapter 7 or a chapter 11 trustee is appointed.\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\nTrial 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（郭浩云，又名郭文贵、MILES GUO） 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 涉及：ECF 90\n联邦破产受托人关于债务人申请授权聘用 VERDOLINO & LOWEY, P.C. 担任财务顾问的异议陈述\n\nWilliam K. Harrington（威廉·K·哈灵顿），第 2 区 United States Trustee（联邦破产受托人，以下简称“联邦受托人”），依据 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3)(I) 所规定的职责与义务，谨就债务人申请授权聘用 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（以下简称“V&L”）担任财务顾问的《聘用申请》（“《申请》”，ECF 90）提交本异议陈述。为支持其异议陈述，联邦受托人通过其下文署名律师谨陈述并说明如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n债务人申请聘用 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. 担任其财务顾问。然而，该《申请》引发了若干令人担忧的问题，鉴于其未能满足《美国破产法》第 327(a) 条和《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 2014(a) 条的要求，并且寻求了不当的救济，故依其目前的格式应予驳回。如本文件所述，联邦受托人对该《申请》提出异议，系因其：(a) 未能充分披露关联关系及所进行的利益冲突检索性质；以及 (b) 不当地寻求授权聘用 V&L 担任准受托人，并请求批准债务人放弃其受托人信义义务，将债务人账户和财务的控制权让渡给 V&L。\n\n事实\n\n1. Ho Wan Kwok（郭浩云，又名郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok，以下简称“债务人”或“郭”）于 2022 年 2 月 15 日根据第 11 章自愿提交了破产申请（“《破产申请》”）。ECF 1。\n\n2. 债务人目前依据《破产法》第 1107 条和第 1108 条管理其财务事务及商业利益。\n\n3. 2022 年 3 月 21 日，联邦受托人在本案中指定了 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会，以下简称“委员会”）。ECF 108。截至目前，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》，请求聘用 V&L 担任其财务顾问。ECF 90。该《申请》附有 Craig Jalbert（克雷格·贾尔伯特）的宣誓书（“《宣誓书》”）作为支持。同上。\n\n5. 该《申请》不仅寻求聘用 V&L 提供各项财务、税务和会计服务，还寻求了非同寻常的救济，即授权 V&L 代表债务人开设占有中债务人账户（“债务人 V&L DIP 账户”），成为该账户的唯一签字人，并从该账户代表债务人进行款项拨付。参见《申请》第 10(c) 段；拟定裁定书第 7 段。债务人还提交了一项批准占有中债务人融资的动议，其中提及 V&L 将如何在由 V&L 控制的账户中持有并拨付借给债务人的资金，并作为该账户的唯一签字人。ECF 117 第 2 段。\n\n6. 《宣誓书》讨论了 V&L 为根据第 327(a) 条和第 2014(a) 条的规定检索并披露与本案某些当事方的关联关系和代理情况所做的努力。在相关部分，《宣誓书》指出 V&L 检索了由债务人拟聘请的第 11 章律师事务所 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所，以下简称“Brown Rudnick”）提供给 V&L 的“利害关系方清单”（“《清单》”）。参见《宣誓书》第 3 段。该《清单》的副本并未随《申请》一同提交，因此，V&L 检索的范围未予披露。\n\n7. 附于《申请》后的拟定裁定书包含相关条款，规定即使案件转为第 7 章或指定了第 11 章受托人，该聘用裁定依然有效。\n\n论点\n\nI. 第 327(a) 条和第 2014(a) 条的要求\n\n管辖债务人聘用专业人员的法定标准主要载于 11 U.S.C. § 327(a)。依据第 327(a) 条，聘用专业人员为债务人破产财团提供服务有两项基本要求：(1) 该专业人员不得“持有或代表与破产财团相冲突的利益”，以及 (2) 该专业人员必须是“无利害关系人”。11 U.S.C. § 327(a)；Vouzianas 诉 Ready & Pontisakos 案（In re Vouzianas），259 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 2001)。会计师必须符合第 327(a) 条的要求。In re Andover Togs, Inc. 案，2001 WL 262605 (S.D.N.Y. 2001 年 3 月 15 日)（撤销破产法院对聘用身兼债权人的会计师的批准；裁定第 327(e) 条不适用于会计师，会计师应受第 327(a) 条管辖）。\n\n第二巡回法院对“相冲突的利益”定义如下：\n\n(1) 拥有或主张任何可能导致破产财团价值减少的经济利益，或造成破产财团作为竞争索赔方的实际或潜在争议；或 (2) 在特定情形下具有对破产财团产生偏见的倾向。\n\nIn re Arochem Corp. 案，176 F.3d 610, 621 (2d Cir. 1999)。对“相冲突利益的认定是客观的，并关乎不当行为的外观表象。”In re Angelika Films 57th Inc. 案，227 B.R. 29, 38 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)。“第 327 条所涉及的导致丧失资格的相冲突利益……是指实际存在的或合理可能的利益冲突。”In re AroChem 案，181 B.R. 693, 700 (Bankr. D.Conn. 1995) (Shiff 法官)，经上诉维持原判，In re AroChem Corp. 案，176 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 1999)。“是否存在相冲突的利益，最好根据具体案情逐案确定。”In re Arochem Corp. 案，176 F.3d at 623（引用略）。第 327(a) 条的标准“采用现在时表述，仅允许由‘未持有或代表与破产财团相冲突之利益’的专业人员进行代理。”同上（原文强调）。\n\n《破产法》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“不因与债务人存在任何间接或直接关系、关联或利益……而拥有与破产财团或任何类别债权人之利益产生实质相冲突之利益”的人。11 U.S.C. § 101(14)(A) 及 (E)。“无利害关系测试中纳入的‘实质相冲突’标准与第 327(a) 条中‘与破产财团相冲突的利益’这一表述存在重合。就此而言，第 327(a) 条的这两个要件是重合的，并构成了判断利益冲突的统一步骤。”In re Granite Partners, L.P. 案，219 B.R. 22, 33 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)；亦见 JMK Construction Group, Ltd. 案，441 B.R. 222, 229 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)。\n\n《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 2014(a) 条要求在聘用申请中主动披露“据申请人所知，该人员与债务人、债权人、任何其他利害关系方及其各自的律师和会计师之间的所有关联关系”。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a)。“十分明确的是，Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a) 要求对拟聘专业人员与‘债务人、债权人、任何其他利害关系方及其各自律师和会计师之间的关联关系’进行高标准的披露……。”In re Matco Electronics Group, Inc. 案，383 B.R. 848, 852-853 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2008)。此外，\n\n> 同样明确的是，该规则中所述的披露程度是强制性的，无论该披露是否会揭露利益冲突。同样显而易见的是，披露义务并非主观义务，专业人员不能仅披露其个人认定为相关的‘关联关系’……\n\n正如文中所指出的，利益冲突的存在并非是否必须进行披露的前提条件。无论未披露的后果如何，未能履行披露义务均将受到制裁……‘在第二巡回区，单是违反披露规则本身就足以成为拒绝支付报酬的充分理由，无论未披露的关联关系是否对破产财团存在实质不利。’\n\n同上（内部引用略）；亦见 In re Peterson 案，163 B.R. 665, 670 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1994)（引用 Futuronics Corp. 诉 Arutt, Nachamie & Benjamin 案 (Matter of Futuronics Corp.)，655 F.2d 463, 469 (2d Cir. 1981)（“作为一般原则，未根据第 327(a) 条和第 2014(a) 条进行全面披露的后果是拒绝就破产申请后提供的服务支付一切报酬。”））。“即便是因过失或疏忽而未能充分披露相关信息，也可能导致所有请求的费用被拒绝……披露必须直接且全面；换言之，该[专业人员]……必须作出充分、坦诚和完整的披露。”In re Chin Kim 案，2012 WL 3907490 at *4 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012)（内部引用略）。\n\nII. 《申请》中存在的缺陷\n\na. 披露不充分\n\n该《申请》并未充分且明确地披露 V&L 就规则第 2014(a) 条所要求的当事方进行关联关系检索的范围。作为支持其关于 V&L 系无利害关系且不代表或持有相冲突利益之结论的依据，《宣誓书》指出 V&L 检索了由债务人拟聘请的第 11 章律师事务所 Brown Rudnick 提供给 V&L 的《清单》。参见《宣誓书》第 3 段。该《清单》的副本并未随《申请》一同提交，因此，V&L 检索的范围未予披露。V&L 应提供其为满足规则第 2014(a) 条规定的披露要求并证明其符合第 327(a) 条规定而检索的当事方的完整且详尽的内容。在此之前，该《申请》并不完整，法院不应予以批准。\n\nb. 寻求的救济不当\n\n该《申请》寻求了非同寻常的救济（且在本司法管辖区尚无先例），即授权 V&L 代表债务人开设占有中债务人账户（“债务人 V&L DIP 账户”），成为该债务人 V&L DIP 账户的唯一签字人，并从该债务人 V&L DIP 账户进行款项拨付。参见《申请》第 10(c) 段；拟定裁定书第 7 段。尽管 V&L 愿意代表债务人持有和拨付款项，但 V&L 不能直接介入并履行债务人的信义义务。\n\n第 1106 条和第 1107 条结合破产规则第 4002 条及其他相关规则，规定了占有中债务人的职责。关于开设和维持占有中债务人账户的义务，债务人还必须遵守《联邦破产受托人关于占有中债务人和受托人的操作指引与报告要求》，并遵守第 345 条的规定。债务人是破产财团的法定代表人（参见第 323 条），是破产财团及其债权人的唯一受托人，并对破产财团的所有财产负责。参见例如 In re Smart World Technologies, LLC 案，424 F.3d 166, 174-175 (2d Cir. 2005)。债务人不能简单地放弃其受托人信义责任，并将该权限和职责转授予他人。\n\n债务人声称，由于其作为面临国际刑警组织应中国请求发布的红色通缉令的中国异见人士身份，其无法开设和维持占有中债务人账户。参见债务人声明，ECF 107 第 15 和 17 段。债务人无法（或不愿）开设占有中债务人账户，意味着其未履行作为占有中债务人的义务。债务人不能选择性地履行其职责，必须能够采取一切必要措施，否则不应被允许继续作为占有中债务人。该《申请》请求本法院允许 V&L 充当相当于债务人公司重组官的职能——但债务人是自然人而非法人实体。无论债务人声称其意图多么良善，债务人都不能将其信义义务转授予 V&L。\n\n此外，United States Trustee（联邦破产受托人）对该申请还有另外两点关切。第一，该申请随附的拟议裁定书包含使聘用裁定在案件转为 chapter 7（第7章破产清算）或任命 chapter 11 trustee（第11章受托人）的情况下仍然有效的表述。此类表述并不恰当，应当予以删除。第二，该申请中的工作范围特别宽泛。例如，其中包括「提供一般性咨询，并协助处理可能出现的以及由您或债务人指示的任何其他事项和任务。」《申请》第 10(j) 段。该表述含义模糊，应当予以澄清和/或限制。\n\n结论\n\n综上所述，联邦破产受托人谨请求法院在不影响再次申请的前提下驳回该申请，前提是作出修改以解决本文中提出的披露问题和工作范围问题，并删除以下表述：(a) 授权 V&L（V&L）为债务人开立、维持和使用拟议的 V&L DIP 账户；以及 (b) 使聘用裁定在案件转为第7章或任命第11章受托人的情况下仍然有效。\n\n日期：April 6, 2022\n谨此提交，\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut（康涅狄格州纽黑文）\nWILLIAM K. HARRINGTON（威廉·K·哈灵顿）\nUNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2（第2区联邦破产受托人）\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍利·L·克莱伯恩）\n\n/s/ Steven E. Mackey\nSteven E. Mackey（史蒂文·E·麦基）\n\n出庭律师\nOffice of the United States Trustee（联邦破产受托人办公室）\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 (Connecticut)\nSteven.E.Mackey@usdoj.gov\n联邦律师执业编号：ct09932 (Connecticut)\n(203) 773-2210\n\n送达证书\n\n下述签署人证明，上述异议书已通过下文注明的法院电子案件卷宗系统送达至所有出庭当事方：\n\nWilliam Baldiga 代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com]\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga 代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com]\n\nPatrick M. Birney 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）[pbirney@rc.com,] [ctrivigno@rc.com]\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari 代表前20大债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari 代表前20大债权人 Weican Meng（孟维参）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari 代表债权人 Zheng Wu（吴征）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh 代表前20大债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）[dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh 代表前20大债权人 Weican Meng（孟维参）[dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh 代表债权人 Zheng Wu（吴征）[dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nPeter Friedman 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）[pfriedman@omm.com]\n\nIrve J. Goldman 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 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）[dharbach@omm.com]\n\nJonathan Kaplan 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 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 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 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 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 代表利害关系方 Golden Spring (New York) LTD（源泉（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（源泉（纽约）有限公司）[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.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）[asmith@rc.com]\n\nJay Marshall Wolman 代表债权人 Logan Cheng（成水炎）[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（霍利·L·克莱伯恩）","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":90,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":108,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":117,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2542,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:25:58"}