{"id":"court_ctb_162_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":162,"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)**\n\n**a/k/a WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES GUO,**\n\n**Debtor. Re: ECF 119**\n\n# **UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING (I) EMPLOYMENT AND PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONALS UTILIZED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE, (II) PAYMENT OF PREPETITION CLAIMS AND (III) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nWilliam K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (\"United States Trustee\"), through counsel, hereby objects to Debtor's Motion For Entry Of An Order Authorizing (I) Employment And Payment Of Professionals Utilized In The Ordinary Course, (II) Payment Of Prepetition Claims, And (III) Granting Related Relief (ECF 119) (\"OCP Motion\") filed by chapter 11 debtor Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo a/k/a Miles Guo (\"Debtor\" and/or \"Kwok\"). In support of his objection to the Motion, the United States Trustee states follows:\n\n# **Preliminary Statement**\n\nWhile ordinary course professional motions have on occasion been utilized in the past to aid efficiency and judicial economy by allowing the retention of a group of professionals employed pre-petition by a debtor to provide ordinary course legal services, the Debtor, in this instance, seeks approval of the OCP Motion to circumvent the Bankruptcy Code in several ways including: (a) to evade transparency by employing certain professionals that have a pre-petition relationship with the Debtor without adequately explaining the need for such services or what\n\nbenefit such services will provide the Debtor's estate; (b) to employ certain professional that hold pre-petition claims against the estate and to satisfy such claims under the auspices that such payments constitute a reasonable term of employment; (c) to relieve those professionals from their obligations of transparency and disclosure under Sections 327, 330 and 331; and (d) to insulate the professionals from objections to their pre-petition and post-petition compensation by the Court, creditors and the United States Trustee.\n\nThe OCP Motion is lacking in both the factual and legal support. The Debtor has not demonstrated why he should be permitted to avoid the responsibilities and obligations of both the employment and the compensation process set forth in Sections 327 and 330, nor why he should be permitted to pay pre-petition debt to professionals. The Debtor has further failed to demonstrate why the relief sought is an appropriate exercise of his fiduciary obligations to his estate and his creditors. Thus, the OCP Motion should be denied.\n\n### **Background 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 (\"Petition Date\"). ECF 1.\n\n2. The Debtor's Petition was filed by the firm of Brown Rudnick LLP (\"BR Counsel\"). ECF 1. The Debtor has filed an application to employ BR Counsel as his chapter 11 counsel and that application is scheduled to be heard on April 13, 2022. ECF 86 and ECF 123.\n\n3. The Debtor is currently managing his financial affairs and his business interests pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n4. On March 19, 2022, the United States Trustee filed a motion seeking an order directing the appointment of an examiner or, in the alternative, an order directing the\n\nappointment of a chapter 11 trustee (\"UST Examiner/Trustee Motion\"). ECF 102. The UST Examiner/Trustee Motion is scheduled for a hearing on April 13, 2022.\n\n5. 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\n6. The meeting of creditors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §341(a) (\"341 Meeting\") commenced on March 21, 2022 and will reconvene on April 6, 2022. ECF 6; ECF 112.\n\n### **Relief requested in OCP Motion**\n\n7. The OCP Motion seeks approval of an employment process for an undetermined universe of professionals. ECF 119. The OCP Motion also seeks approval to pay these same professionals certain sums of money, which can include payment for pre-petition debt. ECF 119.\n\n# *OCP Employment Process*\n\n8. The OCP Motion seeks authority to pursue a process for the Debtor to employ professionals that had a pre-petition relationship with the Debtor. ECF 119. The employment process starts with a form to be filled out by a proposed professional that verifies that the professional does not hold or represent any adverse interest with respect to the matter in which they propose to represent the Debtor and discloses the amount of the pre-petition debt owed to the professional (\"Verified Statement\"). The Verified Statement does not include the need to provide the requisite and fulsome disclosure of connections required pursuant to Section 327. The process then requires the filing and service of that Verified Statement, and a fourteen (14) day objection period for parties to oppose the employment and payment of the professional as to pre-petition amounts owed. *Id.* at ¶ 12(a), proposed order to OCP Motion, and Exhibit 2.\n\n9. The OCP Motion is accompanied by an Exhibit A which is a list of the ordinary course professionals (\"OC Professional\" and/or \"OC Professionals\") that the Debtor initially proposes to employ (\"OCP List\"). ECF 119 at Exhibit A. The OCP List contains eighteen (18) OC Professionals, of which fifteen (15) are law firms or lawyers, one (1) is an accounting firm (\"Janover\"), and two (2) are translators (John Lau and Una Wilkinson). The OCP Motion. if approved, would allow the Debtor to add professionals to this process in the future. ECF 119 at ¶ 12(b).\n\n10. The OCP List includes an accountant, Janover, that rendered pre-petition services to the Debtor that included, at a minimum, preparation of tax returns. The Debtor has also filed an application to employ Verdolino & Lowey, PC (\"V&L\") as his financial advisor in this case (ECF 90). The scope of V&L's proposed work is broad and includes tax returns. ECF 90 at ¶ 10. The OCP Motion does not explain why Janover would be needed in this case in addition to V&L.\n\n11. The OCP Motion provides no details or information as to the nature or scope of the pre-petition services provided by the various lawyers and law firms, nor does it link the lawyers to certain lawsuits listed in the Debtor's Statement of Financial Affairs. Accordingly, there is no information that would enable the Court, creditors or the United States Trustee to understand what matter(s) each of the lawyers on the OCP List will be working on and why their services might be necessary.\n\n### *OCP Payment*\n\n12. The OCP Motion seeks approval to pay OC Professionals on a monthly basis without prior Court approval and to relieve those OC Professionals from the obligation to file fee applications. ECF 119 at ¶ 12.\n\n4\n\n13. In pertinent part, the OCP Motion seeks to approve a process that would permit the Debtor to pay OC Professionals 100 % of their fees up to \\$125,000 per month if the professionals are pursuing \"claims\" of the Debtor (\"claims\" is undefined). ECF 119 at ¶ 12(h). If the professional is not pursuing \"claims,\" then the professional is limited to \\$90,000 per month. *Id.* The OCP Motion does not provide for a mechanism or process for review of the invoices of the OC Professionals by anyone other than the Debtor. *Id.* Only in the limited circumstance where the OC Professional exceeds the cap do other parties in the case have an opportunity to object, and in the event an objection is not resolved, only then does the OC Professional need to file a fee application. ECF 119 at ¶ 12(i).\n\n14. No interim fee applications or final fee applications are required for OC Professionals who stay within their fee cap. ECF 119 at ¶ 12. If an OC Professional stays within their cap, the only time anyone outside the Debtor camp will know how much the OC Professional has charged and how much the Debtor has paid is when the Debtor files a summary statement every three months (unless the Debtor's monthly operating report discloses both categories). ECF 119 at ¶ 12(j). At no time will detailed time records of the OC Professionals be filed on the case docket.\n\n15. Additionally, the OCP Motion seeks permission for the Debtor to pay *pre-petition* debt owed to OC Professionals, up to a limit of \\$275,000 per professional. ECF 119 at ¶ 13. The OCP Motion does not disclose the pre-petition amount owed to each of the professionals on the OCP List. ECF 119.\n\n16. The OCP Motion does not commit the Debtor to pay a certain amount of the prepetition debt and lets the Debtor choose. ECF 119 at ¶ 13.\n\n5\n\n17. The OCP Motion also permits an OC Professional to apply any retainer or advance payment held by the OC Professional as of the Petition Date to the OC Professional's pre-petition debt. ECF 119 at ¶ 13. The Debtor's Schedules do not disclose any retainer or advance payment held by an OC Professional. ECF 78.\n\n18. A comparison of the OCP List with Schedule F reveals the following pertinent information about the pre-petition debt owed to the OC Professionals:\n\n- a. Fifteen (15) of the eighteen (18) OC Professionals on the OCP List are listed on Schedule F and each of these are listed as unliquidated, contingent and disputed creditors;\n- b. Six (6) OC Professionals on the OCP List are listed on Schedule F as being owed an *\"unknown\"* amount. These professionals are: Ari Casper/The Casper Firm, LLC; Damon Parker/Harcus Parker Ltd.; John Lau; Mindy Kamen/Janover; Robert Nader/Forbes Hare, and Una Wilkinson;\n- c. Four (4) OC Professionals on the OCP List are *not* listed on Schedule F, namely Matthew Hoyle, Sa'ad Hossain QC, Sandrine Giroud, and Sebastian Isaac; and\n- d. Janover, the Debtor's pre-petition accountant, is on the OCP List listed with an unknown amount of debt that is listed as unliquidated, contingent and disputed.\n\n19. The OCP Motion states that the funding for the pre-petition debt owed to the OC Professionals, and their monthly fees, will come from debtor-in-possession funding pursuant to a motion filed by the Debtor (\"DIP Financing Motion\"). ECF 119 at ¶ 9; ECF 117. Without that\n\nfunding, the Debtor posits he does not have the ability to pay his OC Professionals. ECF 119 at ¶ 9. The OCP Motion says that certain (unidentified) OC Professionals will not continue to provide services unless some of their pre-petition debts are paid. ECF 119 at ¶ 13. The OCP Motion also says that certain (unidentified OC Professionals) might be unwilling to provide services to the Debtor if they are required to file formal fee applications. ECF 119 at ¶ 14.\n\n### **Failure to demonstrate sufficient basis for relief requested**\n\nThe OCP Motion suffers from several flaws warranting denial of the relief requested. Certain of the flaws are potentially correctable, others are not. Ultimately, the Debtor has proposed a process that contains inappropriate provisions, lacks adequate information, and purposefully circumvents and prevents Court supervision of estate professionals, assets, and active litigation.\n\n# *a. General requirements for retention and payment of professionals to represent a debtor.*\n\nThe legal standards governing a debtor's retention of professionals, including attorneys and accountants, are contained in 11 U.S.C. § 327. Pursuant to Section 327(a), there are two basic requirements for retention of a professional to perform services for a 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). Sub-section (e) of Section 327 is a limited exception to the foregoing requirements. Section 327(e) authorizes a debtor to employ an attorney to represent the debtor's estate for a special purpose if the attorney has previously represented the debtor and the attorney does not hold or represent an adverse interest with respect to the matter for which employment is requested. Section 327(e) does not require that an attorney be disinterested, and thus attorneys being hired under Section 327(e) may retain\n\ntheir claim for pre-petition debt for services as an unsecured claim. \"'By regulating the … 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)).\n\nOnce retained, a professional may seek approval of compensation and reimbursement of expenses under Sections 330 and 331 (and the Local Rules of this Court) through the filing of fee applications. Such applications are subject to objection and comment from creditors, the United States Trustee and the Court, and a public hearing to consider whether the fees and expenses are actual, necessary and of benefit to the estate.\n\n# *b. OCP Motion goes beyond Section 327(e)*\n\nMotions to employ and compensate \"ordinary course professionals,\" such as the Debtor's OCP Motion, are an attorney-created mechanism which ask the Court to authorize a debtor to short-cut the obligations of Sections 327 and 330 based on a premise that the procedures of Sections 327 and 330 are too cumbersome for certain types of professionals, which are usually attorneys. The OCP Motion proposed by the Debtor here, however, is particularly flawed and subverts the essential requirements of Sections 327 and 330 in ways that should not be countenanced.\n\nThe OCP Motion is primarily premised on Section 327(e) as the basis for the relief requested. By its specific language, Section 327(e) only applies to attorneys, not to other kinds of professionals. The OCP Motion admits that limitation. ECF 119 at ¶ 17. Despite, that the OCP Motion goes beyond Sections 327(e) and 330 in two significant ways: it seeks to employ\n\nprofessionals who do not fit within Section 327(e) and it improperly seeks to pay OC Professionals now for their pre-petition claims.\n\nFirst, the OCP Motion includes an accountant and two translators as proposed OC Professionals. Section 327(e), however, offers no legal basis on which the Debtor may employ an accountant (Janover) or a translator (Wilkinson and Lau) owed pre-petition debt. Section 327(e) does not provide authority to retain accountants holding pre-petition claims, and who are thus not disinterested. Accountants must satisfy Section 327(a) and cannot do so if they retain a claim for a pre-petition debt for services. [1](#page-8-0) Further, Section 327(e) does not apply to nonattorneys such as translators. Accordingly, there is no basis to use Section 327(e) to employ Janover or the translators (Wilkinson and Lau).[2](#page-8-1)\n\nSecond, the OCP Motion improperly seeks to pay OC Professionals **now** for their prepetition debt, and worse, allows the Debtor to choose who to pay and how much. The OCP Motion also permits an OC Professional to apply any retainer or advance payment held by the OC Professional as of the Petition Date to apply that money to the OC Professional's *prepetition debt.* The OCP Motion is devoid of any legal authority for paying a *professional* for prepetition debt at the time of their employment and prior to a confirmed plan. The United States\n\n<span id=\"page-8-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> Assuming Janover is a creditor of the Debtor, Janover is not \"disinterested\" within the language of Section 101(14) and therefore cannot 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 and finding Section 327(e) not applicable to accountants); *see also In re Wake*, 222 B.R. 35, 39 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 1998) (accountant who possessed pre-petition claim is not \"disinterested\" and could not be employed under Section 327(a)); *In re South Shore Golf Club Holding Co., Inc.*, 182 B.R. 94, 95 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 1995) (noting accountant holding pre-petition claim could not satisfy disinterestedness requirement of Section 327(a) and denying application to retain accountant under Section 327(e) as \"special accountant\" because Section 327(e) does not apply to accountants). To become disinterested, an accountant must waive his claim. *In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc.*, 2008 WL 4831768, \\*5 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 31, 2008) (\"To become disinterested, professionals need to waive their rights to any pre-petition claims they might have against the Debtor\").\n\n<span id=\"page-8-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> The United States Trustee also does not believe that translators are subject to Section 327 and is not aware of any caselaw interpreting Section 327 as applicable to translators. The United States Trustee does, however, oppose payment of any pre-petition debt owed to the Debtor's translators.\n\nTrustee is not aware of any caselaw that has determined that an attorney or an accountant may be paid for pre-petition debt at the time of employment using Section 327(e) (or Section 363) as a statutory predicate.\n\nEven if there was a basis to pay the OC Professionals, there is no foundation to determine the appropriate amount of the payment nor an opportunity to vet the appropriateness of the amount to be paid. As noted *infra*, the Debtor has scheduled the majority of the OC Professionals as contingent, unliquidated and disputed on Schedule F. ECF 78. This is in direct conflict with the Debtor's request to pay the OC Professionals now for pre-petition debt. Further, the Debtor has not listed amounts due for each OC Professional and some are listed as \"unknown\" with respect the amount due, which does not provide any support for the payment relief requested.\n\nFinally, the OCP Motion does not disclose the nature and scope of work that the attorneys on the OCP List have performed or will perform. To the extent that the proposed attorneys on the OCP List are counsel to the Debtor in actions where the Debtor is a defendant, those actions are not active because of the automatic stay imposed by the chapter 11 filing and thus there is no immediate need counsel at this juncture, let alone payment for past work. For the actions where the Debtor is the plaintiff, the Debtor has not identified the counsel involved nor whether the counsel represents other parties in the litigation, nor the compensation terms (and whether other parties should be or are paying for that counsel). The Debtor has not met his burden under Section 327 to describe the need for each attorney on the OCP List, what services they will perform, what their compensation structure is, and whether such professionals have other clients in the lawsuits. This preliminary information is essential to the determination of whether the OCP Motion is even appropriate.\n\nIn sum, the OCP Motion lacks more information than it provides and invites questions and concerns. Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the Debtor is an individual and is not employed, nor has a personal source of money to fund this chapter 11 case, the OCP Motion is flawed and inappropriate. The Debtor has not demonstrated why he should be permitted to avoid the responsibilities and obligations of the employment and compensation process set forth in Sections 327 and 330, nor why he should be permitted to pay pre-petition debt to professionals.\n\n# **CONCLUSION**\n\nWHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the Court deny the OCP Motion without prejudice.\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@bro](mailto:adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@brownrudnick.com) [wnrudnick.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\nBy: /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部）\nIn re（关于）： 第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n又名 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵） 又名 MILES GUO（郭文贵），\n\n债务人。 关于：ECF 119\nUNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING (I) EMPLOYMENT AND PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONALS UTILIZED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE, (II) PAYMENT OF PREPETITION CLAIMS AND (III) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF（美国受托人对债务人关于作出授权（I）聘用及支付日常业务中所使用专业人士、（II）清偿申请前债权以及（III）给予相关救济之命令的动议的异议）\n\n_________________________________________________________________________________\n\nWilliam K. Harrington（威廉·K·哈灵顿），Region 2（第 2 区）United States Trustee（美国受托人）（以下简称“美国受托人”），通过其法律顾问，特此对第 11 章债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）又名 Wengui Guo 又名 Miles Guo（以下简称“债务人”及/或“Kwok”）提交的《债务人关于作出授权（I）聘用及支付日常业务中所使用专业人士、（II）清偿申请前债权以及（III）给予相关救济之命令的动议》（ECF 119）（以下简称“OCP 动议”）提出异议。为支持其对该动议的异议，美国受托人陈述如下：\nPreliminary Statement（初步陈述）\n\n虽然日常业务专业人士动议过去偶尔被用于提高效率和节约司法资源，允许留聘债务人在申请前聘用的一组专业人士以提供日常法律服务，但在此案中，债务人寻求批准 OCP 动议以通过多种方式规避《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code），包括：(a) 通过聘用与债务人存在申请前关系的某些专业人士来逃避透明度，而未充分说明对此类服务的必要性或此类服务将为债务人破产财产带来何种利益；(b) 聘用对破产财产持有申请前债权的某些专业人士，并在该等款项构成合理聘用条款的幌子下清偿该等债权；(c) 免除该等专业人士根据第 327、330 和 331 条所承担的透明度和披露义务；以及 (d) 使该等专业人士免受法院、债权人和美国受托人对其申请前和申请后报酬提出的异议。\n\nOCP 动议在事实和法律支持方面均显匮乏。债务人既未证明为何应允许其规避第 327 和 330 条所规定的聘用及报酬程序的责任与义务，也未证明为何应允许其向专业人士支付申请前债务。债务人进一步未能证明为何所寻求的救济是对其对破产财产及其债权人负有的受托义务的正当履行。因此，OCP 动议应予驳回。\nBackground Facts（背景事实）\n\n1. 债务人，亦称 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）、Miles Guo（郭文贵）和 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）以及其他诸多化名，于 2022 年 2 月 15 日（以下简称“申请日”）自愿提交了第 11 章破产申请书（以下简称“申请书”）。ECF 1。\n\n2. 债务人的申请书由 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）（以下简称“BR 法律顾问”）提交。ECF 1。债务人已提交聘用 BR 法律顾问担任其第 11 章法律顾问的申请，该申请定于 2022 年 4 月 13 日举行听证会。ECF 86 和 ECF 123。\n\n3. 债务人目前根据《破产法典》第 1107 和 1108 条管理其财务事务及商业利益。\n\n4. 2022 年 3 月 19 日，美国受托人提交了一项动议，寻求作出指示指定审查员的命令，或作为替代方案，作出指示指定第 11 章受托人的命令（以下简称“UST 审查员/受托人动议”）。ECF 102。UST 审查员/受托人动议定于 2022 年 4 月 13 日举行听证会。\n\n5. 2022 年 3 月 21 日，美国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法律顾问的申请。\n\n6. 根据 11 U.S.C. §341(a) 召开的债权人会议（以下简称“341 会议”）于 2022 年 3 月 21 日开始，并将于 2022 年 4 月 6 日继续进行。ECF 6；ECF 112。\nRelief requested in OCP Motion（OCP 动议中请求的救济）\n\n7. OCP 动议寻求批准针对数量待定的专业人士群体的聘用程序。ECF 119。OCP 动议还寻求批准向这些相同的专业人士支付特定金额的款项，其中可包括用于清偿申请前债务的款项。ECF 119。\nOCP Employment Process（OCP 聘用程序）\n\n8. OCP 动议寻求获得授权以推行一项程序，供债务人聘用与债务人存在申请前关系的专业人士。ECF 119。聘用程序始于拟聘专业人士填写的一份表格，用以核实该专业人士在拟代表债务人的事项上不持有或不代表任何相反利益，并披露欠该专业人士的申请前债务金额（以下简称“经核实的声明”）。该《经核实的声明》不包括提供根据第 327 条所要求的必要且详尽的关联关系披露。随后该程序要求提交并送达该《经核实的声明》，并给予各方十四（14）天的异议期，以反对聘用该专业人士以及就所欠申请前金额向其付款。同上，第 12(a) 段、OCP 动议拟议命令及附件 2。\n\n9. OCP 动议附有附件 A，系债务人初步提议聘用的日常业务专业人士（以下简称“OC 专业人士”）名单（以下简称“OCP 名单”）。ECF 119 附件 A。OCP 名单包含十八（18）名 OC 专业人士，其中十五（15）名为律师事务所或律师，一（1）名为会计师事务所（Janover），两（2）名为翻译人员（John Lau 和 Una Wilkinson）。OCP 动议若获批准，将允许债务人未来在该程序中增加专业人士。ECF 119 第 12(b) 段。\n\n10. OCP 名单中包括一名会计师 Janover，该会计师在申请日前向债务人提供了服务，其中至少包括准备纳税申报表。债务人亦已提交申请，聘用 Verdolino & Lowey, PC（以下简称“V&L”）担任其在本案中的财务顾问（ECF 90）。V&L 拟开展的工作范围很广，包括纳税申报表。ECF 90 第 10 段。OCP 动议未解释为何本案在 V&L 之外还需要 Janover。\n\n11. OCP 动议未提供有关各律师及律师事务所所提供的申请前服务的性质或范围的任何细节或信息，亦未将各律师与债务人《财务状况说明书》（Statement of Financial Affairs）中列出的某些诉讼联系起来。因此，不存在能够使法院、债权人或美国受托人了解 OCP 名单上的每位律师将从事何种事项以及为何其服务可能具有必要性的信息。\nOCP Payment（OCP 报酬支付）\n\n12. OCP 动议寻求批准按月向 OC 专业人士付款而无需事先获得法院批准，并免除该等 OC 专业人士提交费用申请的义务。ECF 119 第 12 段。\n\n13. 在相关部分，OCP 动议寻求批准一项程序，允许债务人在专业人士追讨债务人的“债权”（“claims”，未定义）的情况下，向 OC 专业人士支付其费用的 100%，每月最高达 $125,000。ECF 119 第 12(h) 段。若专业人士并非追讨“债权”，则该专业人士每月上限为 $90,000。同上。OCP 动议未规定由除债务人之外的任何人审查 OC 专业人士发票的机制或程序。同上。只有在 OC 专业人士超出上限的有限情况下，本案中的其他各方才有机会提出异议；并且仅在异议未能解决的情况下，OC 专业人士才需要提交费用申请。ECF 119 第 12(i) 段。\n\n14. 对于保持在其费用上限之内的 OC 专业人士，不需要提交中期费用申请或最终费用申请。ECF 119 第 12 段。若一名 OC 专业人士保持在其上限之内，债务人阵营之外的任何人唯一能够知悉该 OC 专业人士收取了多少费用以及债务人支付了多少费用的时间，即是债务人每三个月提交一份汇总报表之时（除非债务人的月度运营报告同时披露这两类信息）。ECF 119 第 12(j) 段。OC 专业人士的详细时间记录在任何时候都不会提交至案件卷宗。\n\n15. 此外，OCP 动议寻求准许债务人清偿所欠 OC 专业人士的申请前债务，每位专业人士上限为 $275,000。ECF 119 第 13 段。OCP 动议未披露欠 OCP 名单上每位专业人士的申请前金额。ECF 119。\n\n16. OCP 动议并未要求债务人必须支付一定数额的申请前债务，而是由债务人自行选择。ECF 119 第 13 段。\n\n17. OCP 动议亦允许 OC 专业人士将截至申请日由 OC 专业人士持有的任何预付款（retainer）或预付款项（advance payment）抵扣 OC 专业人士的申请前债务。ECF 119 第 13 段。债务人的附表未披露由 OC 专业人士持有的任何预付款或预付款项。ECF 78。\n\n18. 将 OCP 名单与附表 F（Schedule F）进行对比，揭示了以下关于欠 OC 专业人士的申请前债务的相关信息：\n\n- a. OCP 名单上的十八（18）名 OC 专业人士中有十五（15）名列于附表 F 上，且其中每一名均被列为未确定金额（unliquidated）、附条件（contingent）和有争议（disputed）的债权人；\n- b. OCP 名单上的六（6）名 OC 专业人士在附表 F 上被列为所欠金额“未知”（unknown）。这些专业人士是：Ari Casper/The Casper Firm, LLC；Damon Parker/Harcus Parker Ltd.；John Lau；Mindy Kamen/Janover；Robert Nader/Forbes Hare，以及 Una Wilkinson；\n- c. OCP 名单上的四（4）名 OC 专业人士未列于附表 F 上，即 Matthew Hoyle、Sa'ad Hossain QC、Sandrine Giroud 和 Sebastian Isaac；以及\n- d. Janover，债务人的申请前会计师，位于 OCP 名单上，所列债务金额未知，并被列为未确定金额、附条件和有争议。\n\n19. OCP 动议指出，用于支付欠 OC 专业人士的申请前债务及其月度费用的资金，将来自于债务人根据其提交的动议（以下简称“DIP 融资动议”）获得的占有中债务人融资（debtor-in-possession funding）。ECF 119 第 9 段；ECF 117。债务人断言，若没有该笔资金，其将无力向其 OC 专业人士付款。ECF 119 第 9 段。OCP 动议称，某些（未指明的）OC 专业人士将不会继续提供服务，除非其部分申请前债务得到清偿。ECF 119 第 13 段。OCP 动议还称，如果被要求提交正式费用申请，某些（未指明的 OC 专业人士）可能不愿意向债务人提供服务。ECF 119 第 14 段。\nFailure to demonstrate sufficient basis for relief requested（未能证明所请求救济具有充分依据）\n\nOCP 动议存在多项缺陷，应据此驳回所请求的救济。某些缺陷具有潜在的可纠正性，其他缺陷则不然。归根结底，债务人提议的程序包含不当条款，缺乏充分信息，并且蓄意规避和阻碍法院对破产财产专业人士、资产和未决诉讼的监督。\na. General requirements for retention and payment of professionals to represent a debtor.（a. 留聘及支付代表债务人之专业人士的一般要求。）\n\n管辖债务人聘用包括律师和会计师在内的专业人士的法律标准载于 11 U.S.C. § 327。根据第 327(a) 条，为债务人破产财产提供服务而聘用专业人士有两项基本要求：(1) 该专业人士不得“持有或代表与破产财产相冲突的利益”，以及 (2) 该专业人士必须是“无利害关系人”。11 U.S.C. § 327(a)。第 327 条第 (e) 款是上述要求的有限例外。第 327(e) 条授权债务人出于特定目的聘请律师代表债务人破产财产，前提是该律师此前曾代表过该债务人，且该律师就所申请聘用的事项而言不持有或代表任何相冲突的利益。第 327(e) 条并不要求律师必须为无利害关系人，因此根据第 327(e) 条受聘的律师可以保留\n\n其因提供服务而产生的申请前债务债权作为无担保债权。“‘通过对……聘用专业人士的能力进行监管，第 327 条服务于一项重要政策，即确保所有被指定[代表债务人]的专业人士都能奉献绝对的忠诚，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)（康涅狄格区破产法院，2008年）（引用 In re AroChem Corp., 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2nd Cir. 1999)（联邦第二巡回上诉法院，1999年））。\n\n专业人士一经聘用，即可通过提交报酬申请，根据第 330 条和第 331 条（以及本法院的《地方规则》）寻求对报酬和费用报销的批准。此类申请须接受债权人、United States Trustee（美国受托人）和法院的异议与意见，并须举行公开听证会以审议这些费用和开支是否属于实际、必要且有利于破产财产。\n\nb. OCP 动议超出了第 327(e) 条的范围\n\n聘用“通常业务专业人士”并向其支付报酬的动议（例如债务人的 OCP 动议）是一种由律师创立的机制，其基于第 327 条和第 330 条的程序对某些类型的专业人士（通常是律师）过于繁琐这一前提，请求法院授权债务人绕过第 327 条和第 330 条的法定义务。然而，本案中债务人提出的 OCP 动议存在尤为严重的缺陷，并以不应被容许的方式颠覆了第 327 条和第 330 条的实质性要求。\n\nOCP 动议主要以第 327(e) 条作为所请求救济的依据。根据其具体的法条文义，第 327(e) 条仅适用于律师，而不适用于其他种类的专业人士。OCP 动议承认了这一限制。ECF 119 第 17 段。尽管如此，该 OCP 动议仍在两个重大方面超出了第 327(e) 条和第 330 条的范围：它试图聘用\n\n不符合第 327(e) 条规定的专业人士，且不当地试图现在就向通常业务专业人士支付其申请前债权。\n\n首先，OCP 动议将一名会计师和两名翻译员列为拟聘用的通常业务专业人士。然而，第 327(e) 条并未向债务人提供聘用被拖欠申请前债务的会计师（Janover）或翻译员（Wilkinson 和 Lau）的任何法律依据。第 327(e) 条未提供聘用持有申请前债权因而并非无利害关系的会计师的授权。会计师必须符合第 327(a) 条的规定，如果他们保留因提供服务而产生的申请前债务债权，则无法满足该项规定。[1] 此外，第 327(e) 条不适用于非律师人士（如翻译员）。因此，没有任何依据可以依据第 327(e) 条来聘用 Janover 或翻译员（Wilkinson 和 Lau）。[2]\n\n其次，OCP 动议不当地试图现在就向通常业务专业人士支付其申请前债务，更糟糕的是，还允许债务人自行选择向谁支付以及支付多少金额。该 OCP 动议还允许通常业务专业人士使用其截至申请日所持有的任何预付聘用费或预付款来冲抵该通常业务专业人士的申请前债务。OCP 动议在专业人士受聘之时且在确认计划之前向其支付申请前债务方面，毫无任何法律依据。United States\n\n1 假定 Janover 是债务人的债权人，则 Janover 不属于第 101(14) 条用语范围内的“无利害关系人”，因此无法满足第 327(a) 条的要求。In re Andover Togs, Inc., 2001 WL 262605 (S.D.N.Y. March 15, 2001)（纽约南区联邦地区法院，2001年3月15日）（推翻了破产法院对聘用作为债权人的会计师的批准，并认定第 327(e) 条不适用于会计师）；另见 In re Wake, 222 B.R. 35, 39 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 1998)（纽约西区破产法院，1998年）（拥有申请前债权的会计师不属于“无利害关系人”，不能根据第 327(a) 条受聘）；In re South Shore Golf Club Holding Co., Inc., 182 B.R. 94, 95 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 1995)（纽约西区破产法院，1995年）（指出持有申请前债权的会计师无法满足第 327(a) 条的无利害关系要求，并驳回了根据第 327(e) 条聘用会计师作为“特别会计师”的申请，因为第 327(e) 条不适用于会计师）。要成为无利害关系人，会计师必须放弃其债权。In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc., 2008 WL 4831768, *5 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 31, 2008)（特拉华区破产法院，2008年10月31日）（“为了成为无利害关系人，专业人士需要放弃他们可能对债务人拥有的任何申请前债权的权利”）。\n\n2 美国受托人同样认为翻译员不受第 327 条管辖，且不知道有任何判例法将第 327 条解释为适用于翻译员。不过，美国受托人确实反对向债务人的翻译员支付任何所欠的申请前债务。\n\nTrustee（美国受托人）不知道有任何判例法裁定可以在聘用之时使用第 327(e) 条（或第 363 条）作为法定依据来向律师或会计师支付申请前债务。\n\n即使存在向通常业务专业人士付款的依据，也没有确定适当付款金额的基础，也没有机会审查拟付金额的适当性。如下文所述，债务人在表 F（Schedule F）中将大多数通常业务专业人士列为附条件的、未清算的及有争议的。ECF 78。这与债务人关于现在向通常业务专业人士支付申请前债务的请求产生直接冲突。此外，债务人未列出应付给每位通常业务专业人士的金额，且部分人员在应付金额方面被列为“未知”，这并未对所请求的付款救济提供任何支持。\n\n最后，OCP 动议未披露 OCP 名单上的律师已经履行或将要履行的工作的性质和范围。在 OCP 名单上的拟聘律师作为债务人在以债务人为被告的诉讼中的代理律师的范围内，由于第 11 章破产申请所施加的自动中止，这些诉讼目前并不处于活跃状态，因此在现阶段并没有立即需要律师的必要，更不用说为过去的工作付款了。对于债务人作为原告的诉讼，债务人既未指明所涉及的律师，也未指明该律师是否在诉讼中代表其他当事人，亦未指明报酬条款（以及其他当事人是否应该或正在为该律师支付报酬）。债务人未履行其在第 327 条下的举证责任，即说明对 OCP 名单上每位律师的需求、他们将提供什么服务、他们的报酬结构是什么，以及此类专业人士在诉讼中是否拥有其他客户。这些初步信息对于确定 OCP 动议是否适当至关重要。\n\n总之，OCP 动议缺少的信息多于其提供的信息，并引发了疑问和担忧。在本案的情况下，包括债务人是个人且未受雇佣，也没有个人资金来源为本第 11 章案件提供资金的事实，OCP 动议存在缺陷且不恰当。债务人既未证明为何应允许其规避第 327 条和第 330 条所规定的聘用及报酬程序的责任与义务，也未证明为何应允许其向专业人士支付申请前债务。\n\n结论\n\n据此，基于上述所有理由，美国受托人谨请求法院在不损害起诉权的情况下驳回 OCP 动议。\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） 第二辖区美国受托人\n\n> 签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn（霍利·L·克莱伯恩）\n\n> > /s/ Steven E. Mackey Steven E. Mackey（史蒂文·E·麦基）\n\n出庭律师 美国受托人办公室 Giaimo Federal Building, Room 302 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510 Holley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov 联邦律师执照号：ct17216（康涅狄格州） [Steven.E.Mackey@usdoj.gov] 联邦律师执照号：ct09932（康涅狄格州） (203) 773-2210\n\n送达证书\n\n下述签署人证明，上述异议已通过法院下述电子案件呈报系统送达所有出庭当事人：\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 [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（马瑞） [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 [dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh 代表前20大债权人 Weican Meng [dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh 代表债权人 Zheng Wu [dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nPeter Friedman 代表前20大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [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. [dharbach@omm.com]\n\nJonathan Kaplan 代表债权人委员会 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors [jkaplan@pullcom.com,] [prulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com]\n\nDylan Kletter 代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok [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 [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 [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew 代表债权人 Zheng Wu [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（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. [ssarnoff@omm.com]\n\nBennett Silverberg 代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok [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（郑乐根） [jmw@randazza.com,] [ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com]\n\nPeter J. Zarella 代表前20大债权人 Rui Ma [pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\nPeter J. Zarella 代表前20大债权人 Weican Meng [pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\nPeter J. Zarella 代表债权人 Zheng Wu [pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":6,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":86,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":90,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":102,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":108,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":112,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":117,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":119,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":123,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3648,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:52:39"}