{"id":"court_ctb_174_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":174,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ In re : Chapter 11 : Ho Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073 : Debtor.<sup>1</sup> : : \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n# **OBJECTION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS TO MOTION OF DEBTOR 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\nThe Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"Committee\") of Debtor and Debtor in Possession, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), herby submits this Limited Objection to the Motion of Debtor 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 (the \"OCP Motion\").\n\nIn support of this Objection, the Committee respectfully represents as follows:\n\n#### **RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY**\n\n1. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"). Since that time, the Debtor has remained a debtor-in-possession pursuant to §§1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\n2. No trustee or examiner has yet been appointed in the Debtor's bankruptcy case, although on March 19, 2022, the United States Trustee (\"UST\") filed a Motion for Order Directing Appointment of an Examiner, or in the alternative, Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Examiner/Trustee Motion\"). The Examiner/Trustee Motion is scheduled for hearing on April 13, 2022, and according to the UST's Amended Proposed Order at n. 1 (ECF No. 116), the Debtor has agreed to the Court's directing the UST to appoint an examiner in this case.\n\n3. On March 21, 2022, the Committee was officially appointed by the United States Trustee and on March 28, 2022, selected Pullman & Comley, LLC (\"P&C\") as its counsel.<sup>2</sup>\n\n4. On March 1, 2022, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") filed its Motion of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code (the \"PAX Motion\"). On March 15, 2022, the Debtor filed its Objection to the PAX Motion, to which PAX filed a Reply on March 18, 2022 (ECF No. 98) (the \"PAX Reply\"). On March 28, 2022, the filed a Supplemental Objection to the PAX Motion (the \"Debtor Supp. Obj.\").\n\n5. By the PAX Motion, PAX seeks to return to the PAX Litigation for purposes of compelling the Debtor to return to U.S. jurisdiction a yacht known as the Lady May, which the Debtor and/or the registered owners of the Lady May had been ordered not to remove, but did remove, from the New York court's jurisdiction well over one year ago (PAX Motion, Ex. A, February 2, 2022 Decision and Order of Judge Barry R. Ostrager, the \"February 2, 2022 Decision,\" at 2).\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Committee filed an application for authority to employ P&C on April 5, 2022.\n\n6. On March 20, 2022, the Debtor filed the Debtor's Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing, and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief (the \"DIP Motion\"). The DIP Motion seeks court approval for a postpetition loan (the \"DIP Loan\") that would be used, in part, to pay the \"ordinary course professionals\" (\"OCPs\") the Debtor seeks to retain by the OCP Motion.\n\n7. The PAX Motion, the Examiner/Trustee Motion, the DIP Motion, the OCP Motion and the retention applications for certain other professionals of the Debtor are scheduled for hearing on April 13, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n8. This Court has jurisdiction over the OCP Motion and the contested matter initiated thereby pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein are 11 U.S.C. §§ 327(a), (e), 105(a), Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014, and D. Conn. LBR 2014-2 and 9014-1.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. THE OCP MOTION FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE OCPs DO NOT HOLD AN INTEREST ADVERSE TO THE ESTATE AND ARE DISINTERESTED**\n\n9. As part of the OCP Motion, the Debtor seeks authority to pay certain unidentified prepetition claims of the OCPs that he seeks to retain on the theory that \"certain of Ordinary Course Professionals may not be in a position to [continuing rendering services] without receiving payment on at least a portion of their respective prepetition claims for services rendered in connection with the Pending Litigation\" (OCP Motion ¶13). Yet, the Debtor\n\nmaintains that these OCPs nonetheless do not hold an interest adverse to the estate and are disinterested (OCP Motion ¶¶18, 19).\n\n10. A professional that has a prepetition claim against the Debtor is, by definition, not \"disinterested.\" 11 U.S.C. § 101(14)(A) (a creditor is not \"disinterested\"). And to the extent such a professional is demanding payment of its prepetition claim as a condition to continuing to represent the Debtor postpetition, the professional would hold an interest adverse to the estate and not be qualified under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) or (e).<sup>3</sup> Thus, the unidentified OCPs which the Debtor claims \"may not be in a position\" to continue on as OCPs are not disinterested and hold interests that are adverse to the estate.\n\n## **II. THE DEBTOR HAS, IN ANY EVENT, FAILED TO SATISFY THE NECESSITY OF PAYMENT DOCTRINE FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY PREPETITION CLAIMS**\n\n11. Under the doctrine of necessity, the Debtor must show that the proposed payment of prepetition claims \"is critical to the debtor's reorganization.\" *In re C.A.F. Bindery, Inc.*, 199 B.R. 828, 835 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986). A showing of \"mere convenience, without necessity, is insufficient,\" and \"the proponent's burden is a heavy one.\" *Id.* at 836.\n\n12. More particularly, the \"necessity\" of the payment will not be established where the debtor has failed to produce evidence that without payment of its prepetition claim, the proposed payee will refuse to render services. *See In re Pioneer Health Services, Inc.*, 570 B.R. 228, 235 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2017) (debtor failed to show that unless the affected physicians were\n\n<sup>3</sup> The Debtor mistakenly suggests that an attorney may not be a \"professional person\" that would need court approval to be retained if the attorney does not play an intimate role in the reorganization (OCP Motion ¶20). The cases cited by the Debtor, however, deal with the issue of whether a non-lawyer \"professional,\" under the common meaning of that word, such as a lobbyist or a hedge fund manager, is technically a \"professional person\" under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) that would need to be retained with court approval. That question is simply not applicable to an attorney, who will either unquestionably be a professional person under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) or an attorney retained under 11 U.S.C. § 327(e).\n\npaid their prepetition wages, they would leave the hospital). In any event, \"[i]n cases where the retention of a professional person holding a claim is approved, courts have consistently declined to authorize payment of prepetition claims.\" *In re Financial News Network, Inc.*, 134 B.R. 732, 735 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991).\n\n13. Here, the Debtor has failed to provide any basis to justify payment of the prepetition claims of the OCPs. Indeed, the Debtor has simply proffered the unsupported allegation that certain of the OCPs \"may not\" continue rendering services without payment of their prepetition claims and that \"[d]efense counsel is likely to insist on payment of at least a portion of their prepetition invoices as a condition to perform … services\" (OCP Motion at 4 n. 2). These mere conclusory allegations are insufficient to satisfy the Debtor's burden of proof on the issue of necessity.\n\n14. In addition, the Debtor has failed to establish that any of the OCPs that may be demanding payment of their prepetition claims are not replaceable. In any event, payment of the prepetition claims of professional persons in connection with or as a term of their retention is not proper.\n\n# **III. THERE IS NO REASONED BASIS FOR RETAINING OCPs TO DEFEND LAWSUITS AGAINST THE DEBTOR WHEN THOSE LAWSUITS ARE AUTOMATICALLY STAYED**\n\n15. Although actions in which the Debtor is a defendant or co-defendant are automatically stayed, the Debtor says he \"is instructing certain counsel and other professionals to continue preparing his defense\" (OCP Motion at 4 n. 2).\n\n16. Inasmuch as none of the plaintiffs in those actions have yet to seek relief from the automatic stay to proceed with prepetition litigation, and their claims may instead be subject to claims litigation in this Court after proofs of claim are filed, it makes no sense to retain defense\n\n5\n\ncounsel in the ordinary course, or otherwise, at this time. The Committee therefore objects to their retention.\n\n**IV.**\n\n# **THE DEBTOR HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE APPROPRIATENESS OR GOOD CAUSE FOR RETAINING OTHER OCPs TO PURSUE CLAIMS**\n\n17. D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 2014-2 provides, in pertinent part, that \"[**w]here appropriate**, the Debtor in a Chapter 11 case in which a trustee is not appointed, … upon motion and notice, may for **good cause** seek to hire and compensate certain professionals and advisors in the ordinary course of business ….\" (emphasis added).\n\n18. The OCP Motion does not provide the Court, the Debtor's creditors or other parties in interest with any information as to the particulars, status and merits of the causes of action the Debtor wishes to retain the OCPs to pursue, nor does he even identity in his OCP List which professional is doing what or on what terms he is proposing to compensate them. Without this information and an adequate opportunity for the Committee to assess the providence of moving forward on all of these claims, it is not \"appropriate\" to permit the Debtor to hire these professionals in the ordinary course and good cause has otherwise not been established for their retention.\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Committee respectfully requests that the Court deny the OCP\n\nMotion and grant such other or further relief as it may deem just, equitable and proper.\n\nDated: Bridgeport, Connecticut April 6, 2022\n\n## **OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF HO WAN KWOK**\n\nBy: */s/Irve J. Goldman*  Irve J. Goldman Jonathan A. Kaplan Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street, 8th Floor PO Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006 (203) 330-2213 igoldman@pullcom.com\n\nIts Attorneys (Application Pending)\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ In re : Chapter 11 : Ho Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073 : Debtor.<sup>1</sup> : : April 6, 2022 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n# **CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE**\n\nI Irve J. Goldman, herby certify that on the 6th day of April, 2022, The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors' (the \"Committee\") M*otion Of Debtor 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* was filed via the Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system (\"CM/ECF\"), which sent notice to all parties receiving notification through CM/ECF.\n\n> */s/ Irve J. Goldman*  Irve J. Goldman\n\nThe last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n债务人。1\n第11章\n案号：22-50073\n\n无担保债权人官方委员会对债务人请求作出授权以下事项之命令的动议的异议：(I) 聘用并支付日常业务中所使用之专业人士的费用，(II) 支付申请前债权，以及 (III) 给予相关救济\n\n债务人及占有中债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）的无担保债权人官方委员会（Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors，以下简称“委员会”）谨此对债务人请求作出授权以下事项之命令的动议提出本有限异议：(I) 聘用并支付日常业务中所使用之专业人士的费用，(II) 支付申请前债权，以及 (III) 给予相关救济（以下简称“OCP动议”）。\n\n为支持本异议，委员会谨陈述如下：\n相关程序历史\n\n1. 2022年2月15日（以下简称“申请日”），债务人根据《United States Code（美国法典）》第11篇（以下简称“《破产法典》”）第11章提交了自愿救济申请。自那时起，债务人根据《破产法典》第1107条和第1108条一直保持占有中债务人身份。\n\n1 债务人已知姓名如下：Guo Wengui（郭文贵）；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n2. 债务人的破产案件中尚未指定受托人或审查员，尽管在2022年3月19日，United States Trustee（美国受托人，以下简称“UST”）提交了一份《请求作出指示指定审查员之命令的动议，或在备选情况下，请求作出指示指定第11章受托人之命令的动议》（以下简称“审查员/受托人动议”）。审查员/受托人动议定于2022年4月13日举行听证，且根据UST的《修正后拟议命令》附注1（ECF编号116），债务人已同意法院指示UST在本案中指定一名审查员。\n\n3. 2022年3月21日，委员会由美国受托人正式指定，并于2022年3月28日选定 Pullman & Comley, LLC（以下简称“P&C”）作为其法律顾问。2\n\n4. 2022年3月1日，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“PAX”）提交了其《Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 请求作出确认自动中止不适用，或在备选情况下，根据<破产法典>第362(d)(2)条给予自动中止救济之命令的动议》（以下简称“PAX动议”）。2022年3月15日，债务人对PAX动议提交了异议，PAX于2022年3月18日就此提交了答辩意见（ECF编号98）（以下简称“PAX答辩”）。2022年3月28日，债务人提交了针对PAX动议的补充异议（以下简称“债务人补充异议”）。\n\n5. 通过PAX动议，PAX寻求重返PAX诉讼，以便强迫债务人将一艘名为 Lady May 的游艇带回美国司法管辖区；早在一年前，法院就已命令债务人和/或 Lady May 的登记所有人不得将该游艇移出纽约法院的管辖范围，但其仍予以移出（PAX动议，附件A，Barry R. Ostrager 法官2022年2月2日的《裁决与命令》，即“2022年2月2日裁决”，第2页）。\n\n2 委员会已于2022年4月5日提交了聘用P&C的授权申请。\n\n6. 2022年3月20日，债务人提交了《债务人请求作出(I) 授权债务人获取无担保、次级申请后融资，及 (II) 确定临时与最终听证期日，及 (III) 给予相关救济的临时与最终DIP命令的动议》（以下简称“DIP动议”）。DIP动议寻求法院批准一笔申请后贷款（以下简称“DIP贷款”），该贷款将部分用于支付债务人通过OCP动议寻求留聘的“日常业务专业人士”（Ordinary Course Professionals，以下简称“OCP”）。\n\n7. PAX动议、审查员/受托人动议、DIP动议、OCP动议以及债务人关于留聘某些其他专业人士的申请定于2022年4月13日上午10:00举行听证。\n管辖权与审判地\n\n8. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334，本法院对OCP动议及由此引发的争议事项具有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 及 1409，审判地是适当的。本异议所寻求救济的法定依据为 11 U.S.C. §§ 327(a)、(e)、105(a)，《联邦破产诉讼规则》第9014条，以及《康涅狄格区破产本地规则》第2014-2条和第9014-1条。\n论证\nI. OCP动议未能证明OCP不持有与破产财产相冲突的利益且属于无利害关系人\n\n9. 作为OCP动议的一部分，债务人寻求获得授权，以支付其寻求留聘的OCP的某些未具名申请前债权，其依据的理论是“若不对日常业务专业人士中某些人士就有关未决诉讼所提供服务的各自申请前债权的至少一部分予以支付，该等人士可能无法[继续提供服务]”（OCP动议第13段）。然而，债务人\n\n依然坚称这些OCP并不持有与破产财产相冲突的利益，且属于无利害关系人（OCP动议第18、19段）。\n\n10. 对债务人享有申请前债权的专业人士，根据定义即非“无利害关系人”。11 U.S.C. § 101(14)(A)（债权人不是“无利害关系人”）。而且，只要该专业人士要求清偿其申请前债权作为在申请后继续代表债务人的条件，该专业人士就持有与破产财产相冲突的利益，从而不符合 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 或 (e) 的资格要求。3 因此，债务人声称“可能无法”继续担任OCP的未具名OCP并非无利害关系人，且持有与破产财产相冲突的利益。\nII. 无论如何，债务人未能就支付任何申请前债权满足“必要支付原则”\n\n11. 根据必要性原则，债务人必须证明拟议的申请前债权支付“对债务人的重整至关重要”。参见 In re C.A.F. Bindery, Inc., 199 B.R. 828, 835 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986)。仅证明“便利而非必要是不够的”，且“提出主张者的举证责任是沉重的”。同上，第836页。\n\n12. 更具体而言，在债务人未能提供证据证明若不清偿其申请前债权，拟收款人将拒绝提供服务的情况下，支付的“必要性”将无法确立。参见 In re Pioneer Health Services, Inc., 570 B.R. 228, 235 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2017)（债务人未能证明除非向受影响的医生\n\n3 债务人错误地认为，如果律师在重整中不扮演核心角色，则该律师可能不属于需要法院批准才能留聘的“专业人员”（OCP动议第20段）。然而，债务人引用的判例涉及的是依通常含义属于非律师的“专业人士”（如说客或对冲基金经理）在形式上是否属于 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 项下需要经法院批准留聘的“专业人员”。该问题根本不适用于律师，因为律师要么毫无疑问是 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 项下的专业人员，要么是根据 11 U.S.C. § 327(e) 留聘的律师。\n\n支付其申请前工资，否则他们将离开医院）。无论如何，“在批准留聘持有债权的专业人员的案件中，法院一贯拒绝授权支付申请前债权。”In re Financial News Network, Inc., 134 B.R. 732, 735 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991)。\n\n13. 在本案中，债务人未能提供任何依据来证明支付OCP申请前债权的正当性。事实上，债务人仅仅提出了毫无根据的主张，即某些OCP在申请前债权未获清偿的情况下“可能不会”继续提供服务，且“辩护律师很可能会坚持要求支付至少一部分申请前账单，以此作为提供……服务的条件”（OCP动议第4页注2）。这些纯属结论性的断言不足以满足债务人在必要性问题上的举证责任。\n\n14. 此外，债务人未能证明任何可能要求清偿其申请前债权的OCP是不可替代的。无论如何，就留聘专业人员而言或将其作为留聘条件而支付其申请前债权是不恰当的。\nIII. 在针对债务人的诉讼已被自动中止的情况下，留聘OCP为这些诉讼进行辩护缺乏合理论据\n\n15. 尽管债务人作为被告或共同被告的诉讼程序均已被自动中止，但债务人表示他“正在指示某些法律顾问和其他专业人士继续准备其辩护工作”（OCP动议第4页注2）。\n\n16. 鉴于这些诉讼中的原告均尚未寻求从自动中止中获得救济以继续进行申请前诉讼，而且在提交债权证明后，他们的债权可能会在本法院的债权诉讼中予以审理，因此目前在日常业务中或以其他方式留聘辩护\n律师毫无意义。因此，委员会反对对其进行留聘。\n\nIV.\n债务人未确立为追索债权而留聘其他OCP的适当性或正当理由\n\n17. 《康涅狄格区破产本地规则》第2014-2条相关部分规定：“在适当情况下，未指定受托人的第11章案件中的债务人……经提出动议并送达通知后，可出于正当理由申请在日常业务过程中聘用某些专业人士和顾问并向其支付报酬……”（强调为后加）。\n\n18. OCP动议未向法院、债务人的债权人或其他利害关系方提供有关债务人希望留聘OCP以行使诉权的诉由的具体细节、现状和实体理由的任何信息，债务人甚至未在其OCP清单中指明哪位专业人士在从事何种工作，亦未指明提议以何种条件向其支付报酬。在缺乏此类信息以及委员会缺乏充分机会评估推进所有这些主张的审慎性的情况下，允许债务人在日常业务中聘用这些专业人士是“不适当”的，并且其留聘亦未确立正当理由。\n\n为此，委员会谨请求法院驳回OCP\n\n动议，并给予法院认为公正、公平和恰当的其他或进一步救济。\n\n日期：康涅狄格州布里奇波特，2022年4月6日\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）无担保债权人官方委员会\n\n签署人：/s/ Irve J. Goldman\nIrve J. Goldman\nJonathan A. Kaplan\nPullman & Comley, LLC\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor\nPO Box 7006\nBridgeport, CT 06601-7006\n(203) 330-2213\nigoldman@pullcom.com\n\n其代理律师（申请待决）\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n债务人。1\n第11章\n案号：22-50073\n2022年4月6日\n\n送达证明\n\n我，Irve J. Goldman，谨此证明于2022年4月6日，无担保债权人官方委员会（以下简称“委员会”）对《债务人请求作出授权以下事项之命令的动议：(I) 聘用并支付日常业务中所使用之专业人士的费用，(II) 支付申请前债权，以及 (III) 给予相关救济》的异议已通过法院的 CM/ECF 电子归档系统（以下简称“CM/ECF”）提交，该系统向所有通过 CM/ECF 接收通知的当事方发送了通知。\n\n/s/ Irve J. Goldman\nIrve J. Goldman\n\n债务人纳税人识别号的最后四位数字为9595。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":98,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":116,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1897,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:01:23"}