{"id":"court_ctb_1971_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1971,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-06-15","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re Chapter 11","summary_zh":"联邦破产受托人关于法庭辩解令的声明 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1971（2023-06-15立案）。第 2 区联邦破产受托人 William K. Harrington 针对法院 ECF #1909 号裁定提交声明，要求律师 Aaron Romney 和 Lee Vartan 就其代理 Hudson Diamond NY, LLC 的权限、股权结构及退任理由提供充分事实说明，并跟进该实体长期未配合执行破产法第 2004 条传票的情况。","summary_en":"U.S. Trustee's Statement Regarding Order to Show Cause — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1971 (filed 2023-06-15). Region 2 U.S. Trustee William K. Harrington submitted a statement in response to ECF #1909, requesting full factual disclosure and explanations from attorneys Aaron Romney and Lee Vartan regarding their representation, ownership clarity, and requested withdrawal as counsel for Hudson Diamond NY, LLC amid long-overdue compliance with Rule 2004 subpoenas.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n**In re Chapter 11**\n\n**a/k/a WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES GUO,**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\n**Debtor. Re: ECF 1909**\n\n## **UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S STATEMENT REGARDING COURT'S ORDER DATED JUNE 15, 2023 [ECF 1909]**\n\nWilliam K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (\"United States Trustee\"), submits this statement in response to the Court's June 15, 2023 Order Continuing Hearing On Motion To Hold Hudson Diamond NY, LLC And Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC In Civil Contempt And Requiring Attorneys Aaron Romney And Lee Vartan To Appear And Show Cause Why The Motion To Withdraw As Counsel Should Be Granted (ECF 1909) (\"Hudson Order\").\n\n#### **Preliminary Statement**\n\nIn the Hudson Order, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\") has ordered the United States Trustee to state his position as to whether Attorney Aaron Romney of Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. (\"Attorney Romney\") and Attorney Lee Vartan of Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (\"Attorney Vartan\", and together with Attorney Romney, \"Counsel\") should be permitted to withdraw as counsel to Hudson Diamond NY, LLC (\"Hudson NY\") in the chapter 11 case of debtor Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo a/k/a Miles Guo a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Debtor\" and/or \"Kwok\"), Case No. 22-50073. [1](#page-0-0) ECF 1909.\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor is also known by multiple other aliases.\n\nThe Hudson Order was issued on the heels of a series of events over a short period of time that invite questions and cause concerns, and the United States Trustee shares the concerns of the Court.\n\nAt this juncture, the optics of the bare-bones request to withdraw as counsel to Hudson NY filed by Attorney Romney combined with the failure of Hudson NY and Hudson Holdings, LLC (\"Hudson Holdings\" and together with Hudson NY, the \"Hudson Entities\") to respond to Rule 2004 subpoenas issued to them in December 2022 are troubling. Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter, is a long-time client of both Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan and she is at the center of the Court's inquiry. According to Attorney Romney, Mei Guo is the sole member of Hudson Holdings and he recently learned he was mistaken in his belief that Mei Guo is the sole member of Hudson NY, thus he seeks to withdraw as counsel to Hudson NY as he claims not to have authority to represent it. Attorney Romney has not disclosed who, if not Mei Guo, is the member(s) of Hudson NY.\n\nAgainst this backdrop, it appears that there are a number of possible explanations for why Attorney Romney seeks to withdraw from representing Hudson NY, ranging from unintentional innocent mistake to inadequate due diligence in taking on client representation to purposeful strategic conduct, each of which impacts the administration of this estate because it is connected to the lack of cooperation of the Hudson Entities in failing to respond to subpoenas for an unreasonable period of time. Attorney Vartan's role in the events leading to the Hudson Order are similarly worthy of further inquiry and explanation. As of now, it is unclear whether the facts and circumstances warrant imposition of consequences for Counsel and the Hudson Entities, and the United States Trustee believes further information should be provided by Counsel as discussed *infra*.\n\n#### **Known Background Information**\n\n1. According to the docket in the Debtor's case, Attorney Romney has represented Mei Guo in her individual capacity for over a year since May 10, 2022. *See* ECF 340. Attorney Romney has actively represented Mei Guo, both in pleadings and in presentations to the Court. *See* Docket of Debtor's case. Attorney Romney also represents Mei Guo in two adversary proceedings pending in connection with the Debtor's case. *See* Adv. Proc. 22-5003 and Adv. Proc. 23-5008 (collectively \"Adversaries\").\n\n2. According to the docket in the Debtor's case, Attorney Vartan has formally represented Mei Guo in her individual capacity in the Debtor's case since January 13, 2023. *See* ECF 1318. Attorney Vartan has actively represented Mei Guo, both in pleadings and in presentations to the Court. *See* Docket of Debtor's case. Attorney Vartan also represents Mei Guo in the Adversaries.\n\n3. Attorney Vartan also represents Mei Guo in the action filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission in March 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York known as *Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kwok, et al*, Case No. 23-cv-2200.\n\n4. Pre-petition, Attorney Vartan represented Mei Guo in her individual capacity in connection with the lawsuit in New York known as *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Kwok Ho a/k/a Gwo Wen Gui a/k/a Guo Wengui a/k/a Guo Wen-Gui a/k/a Wan Gue Haoyun a/k/a Miles Kwok a/k/a Haoyun Guo, et al*, Case No. 652077/2017 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.\n\n5. On December 7, 2022, counsel for Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins (\"Trustee Counsel\") issued Rule 2004 subpoenas to Hudson NY (\"Hudson NY Subpoena\") and to Hudson Holdings (\"HH Subpoena\"). *See* Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion to Compel/Motion for Contempt at ECF 1805 (\"ECF 1805\") at page 19; ECF 1805-7 at page 2; ECF 1805-8 at page 2.\n\n6. According to ECF 1805, Mei Guo, the daughter of the Debtor, is connected to both Hudson NY and to Hudson Holdings. *See* ECF 1805 at ¶ 20. Mei Guo is alleged to be the owner of Hudson NY. *Id.* Hudson NY is alleged to be a subsidiary of Hudson Holdings. *Id.* Both Hudson NY and Hudson Holdings use the same mailing address as originally listed by the Debtor on his chapter 11 petition. *Id.*; *see also* ECF 1.\n\n7. Neither Hudson NY or Hudson Holdings responded to the subpoenas served on them. *See* ECF 1805. As a result, Trustee Counsel filed ECF 1805 on May 18, 2023 seeking to hold Hudson NY and Hudson Holdings in contempt.\n\n8. On June 1, 2023, Attorney Vartan, in the capacity as counsel to Hudson NY and to Hudson Holdings, reached out to Trustee Counsel by phone regarding the Hudson NY Subpoena and the HH Subpoena. *See* ECF 1863 at pages 2 and 25. According to Trustee Counsel, this was the first response by Hudson NY and Hudson Holdings to the Hudson NY Subpoena and the HH Subpoena (collectively, the \"Hudson Subpoenas\"). *See* ECF 1863 at pages 2-3.\n\n9. Also on June 1, 2023, Attorney Vartan, Attorney Romney, and Trustee Counsel exchanged emails about the Hudson Subpoenas. *See* ECF 1863 at pages 2 and 23-26. The emails reference Mei Guo as being aware of the Hudson Subpoenas and mention the intention to comply with the Hudson Subpoenas. *Id.*\n\n10. That same day, June 1, 2023, Attorney Romney filed an appearance in this case as counsel to Hudson NY and to Hudson Holdings. *See* ECF 1848.\n\n11. That same day, June 1, 2023, Attorney Romney, as counsel to both Hudson NY and to Hudson Holdings, filed a motion continue the hearing on ECF 1805 with the purported consent of Trustee Counsel and represented in that motion that both Hudson NY and Hudson Holdings would comply with their respective subpoenas (\"Hudson Entities Continuance Motion\"). *See* ECF 1850; *see also* Certificate of Service for ECF 1850 at ECF 1874.\n\n12. The next day, June 2, 2023, Attorney Vartan, Attorney Romney, and Trustee Counsel exchanged further emails about the Hudson Subpoenas and the Hudson Entities Continuance Motion. *See* ECF 1863 at pages 23-26.\n\n13. On June 2, 2023, Trustee Counsel filed an objection to the Hudson Entities Continuance Motion. *See* ECF 1863.\n\n14. Subsequent to a hearing on June 6, 2023 at which Attorney Romney appeared on behalf of Hudson NY and Hudson Holdings and a discussion occurred between Attorney Romney and Trustee Counsel during a break from the hearing, the Court entered a consent order on June 8, 2023 on the Hudson Entities Continuance Motion which contained a requirement for Hudson NY and Hudson Holdings to respond to their respective subpoenas by June 15, 2023 (\"Hudson Consent Order\"). *See* ECF 1896.\n\n15. A week after reaching the agreement in the Hudson Consent Order and two days prior to the deadline for compliance with subpoenas, on June 13, 2023, Attorney Romney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel to Hudson NY *only* (\"Romney Withdrawal Motion\"). *See* ECF 1903.\n\n16. The Romney Withdrawal Motion was not accompanied by the required actual notice to the client Hudson NY pursuant to D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(e) and D. Conn. Bankr. L. R. 9083-4.\n\n17. The Romney Withdrawal Motion provides a limited explanation for the withdrawal, stating simply that Attorney Romney \"does not represent any member\" of Hudson NY and does not have authority from an authorized representative of Hudson NY. *See* ECF 1903 at ¶¶ 4-5. Based on that, Attorney Romney seeks to withdraw as counsel to Hudson NY and describes his appearance on behalf of Hudson NY as \"honest mistake of fact.\" *See* ECF 1903 at ¶ 4.\n\n18. The Romney Withdrawal Motion states that Mei Guo is not the *sole* member of Hudson NY. *See* ECF 1903 at ¶ 3. The Romney Withdrawal Motion does not identify or disclose the member(s) of Hudson NY, nor does it state that Mei Guo is not a member of Hudson NY. *See* ECF 1903.\n\n19. The Romney Withdrawal Motion states that Mei Guo is the sole member of Hudson Holdings. *See* ECF 1903 at ¶ 2.\n\n20. The Romney Withdrawal Motion is not supported or accompanied by any document that reflects the position of Mei Guo, or any document that reflects who has authority to act as a representative of Hudson NY.\n\n21. To date, no other counsel has filed an appearance on behalf of Hudson NY.\n\n22. To date, notwithstanding the emails attached to ECF 1863 and having held himself out as counsel to Hudson NY and Hudson Holdings, Attorney Vartan has not filed an appearance in the Debtor's case on behalf of Hudson NY or on behalf of Hudson Holdings.\n\n23. The Court issued the Hudson Order in response to the Romney Withdrawal\n\nMotion.\n\n#### **Information Which Should Be Provided By Counsel**\n\nIn connection with the Hudson Order, the United States Trustee believes that Counsel should provide the Court, Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins (\"Trustee Despins\"), Trustee Counsel, and the United States Trustee with additional information to assist in evaluating and determining whether it is appropriate to permit Attorney Romney to withdraw from his representation of Hudson NY and to address the role of Attorney Vartan as counsel to Hudson NY and Hudson Holdings. In particular, the United States Trustee believes that Counsel should each file with the Court individual affidavits which explains, addresses, and provides the following information:\n\n#### **A.** *As to Hudson NY:*\n\n- i. The date(s) when Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan were first contacted by a representative(s) of Hudson NY, or a person(s) acting, or purporting to act, on behalf of Hudson NY (collectively \"Hudson NY Representative\") with respect to the Hudson NY Subpoena, and the identities and contact information for each Hudson NY Representative;\n- ii. The name(s) of the Hudson NY Representative(s) who engaged Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan, formally or informally, to represent Hudson NY and the date(s) of the engagement and their contact information;\n- iii. Identifies the member(s) of Hudson NY as of the following dates: December 1, 2022, June 1, 2023, and June 13, 2023, and explains the source of such information;\n\n- iv. Explains the ownership structure of Hudson NY as of the following dates: December 1, 2022, June 1, 2023, and June 13, 2023, and explains the source of such information; and\n- v. Explains why Attorney Vartan did not file a formal appearance on behalf of Hudson NY in the Debtor's case; and\n- vi. Explains what efforts were undertaken by Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan to facilitate the response of Hudson NY to the Hudson NY Subpoena prior to June 1, 2023 and subsequent to June 1, 2023. Such explanations should identify the Hudson NY Representative(s) with whom Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan communicated and provide a timeline of the efforts.\n\n### **B)** *As to Hudson Holdings:*\n\n- i. The date(s) when Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan were first contacted by a representative(s) of Hudson Holdings, or a person(s) acting, or purporting to act, on behalf of Hudson Holdings (collectively \"Hudson Holdings Representative\") with respect to the HH Subpoena, and identities and contact information for each Hudson Holdings Representative(s);\n- ii. The names of the Hudson Holdings Representative(s) who engaged Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan, formally or informally, to represent Hudson Holdings and the date(s) of the engagement and their contact information;\n- iii. Identifies the member(s) of Hudson Holdings as of the following dates: December 1, 2022, June 1, 2023, and June 13, 2023, and explains the source of such information;\n- iv. Explains the ownership structure of Hudson Holdings as of the following dates: December 1, 2022, June 1, 2023, and June 13, 2023, and explains the source of such information;\n- v. Explains why Attorney Vartan did not file a formal appearance on behalf of Hudson Holdings in the Debtor's case; and\n- vi. Explains what efforts were undertaken by Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan to facilitate the response of Hudson Holdings to the HH Subpoena prior to June 1, 2023 and subsequent to June 1, 2023. Such explanations should identify the Hudson Holdings Representative(s) with whom Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan communicated and provide a timeline of the efforts.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nThe Hudson Subpoenas have been outstanding since December 2022 according to ECF 1805 and cooperation and performance under the Hudson Subpoenas is now long overdue. Given this backdrop, the information requested by the United States Trustee is pertinent to the Court's determination of the withdrawal of Counsel and to the Court's determination of whether to hold Hudson NY and Hudson Holdings in contempt for failure to respond to the Hudson Subpoenas issued by Trustee Counsel.\n\nAbsent the requested information, the United States Trustee lacks adequate information to properly assess the roles and conduct of Counsel and what consequences, if any, may be appropriate for their actions. At present Attorney Romney's self-described \"honest mistake of fact\" in assuming and performing the role of counsel to Hudson NY is without sufficient context and factual background. Additionally, the role of Attorney Vartan in representing Hudson NY\n\nand Hudson Holdings (without a formal appearance in the Debtor's case) should also be explored and considered. Within these two areas of inquiry, the role of Mei Guo and possibly others acting, or purporting to act, on behalf of Hudson NY and Hudson Holdings can also be better understood and evaluated.\n\nFulsome cooperation and disclosure by Counsel, Mei Guo, and authorized representatives of Hudson NY and Hudson Holdings is essential to maintaining the integrity of the proceedings, ensuring that Counsel meet their duty of candor to the Court, and to determining what relief is appropriate for the Court to consider and order.\n\nDated: July 3, 2023 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 Trial Attorney 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) (203) 773-2210\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1971 Filed 07/03/23 Entered 07/03/23 16:49:58 Page 11 of 11\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned certifies that the foregoing was served on all appearing parties via the Court's CM/ECF filing system.\n\n> By: /s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于第 11 章案件\n\n又名 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵），又名 MILES GUO（迈尔斯·郭），\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭浩云/郭文贵），案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。有关文件：ECF 1909\n\nUNITED STATES TRUSTEE（美国联邦破产受托人）关于法院 2023年6月15日裁定 [ECF 1909] 的陈述\n\n第2辖区美国联邦破产受托人 William K. Harrington（威廉·K·哈灵顿）（以下简称“美国联邦破产受托人”）提交本陈述，以回应法院于 2023年6月15日作出的《关于对要求裁定 Hudson Diamond NY, LLC 及 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 构成民事藐视法庭的动议延期举行听证并要求 Aaron Romney 律师与 Lee Vartan 律师出庭就为何应准许撤回代理律师动议进行抗辩的裁定》（ECF 1909）（以下简称“《哈德逊裁定》”）。\n\n初步陈述\n\n在《哈德逊裁定》中，United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院）（以下简称“破产法院”）命令美国联邦破产受托人就以下事项陈述立场：在债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭浩云/郭文贵），又名 Wengui Guo（郭文贵），又名 Miles Guo（迈尔斯·郭），又名 Miles Kwok（迈尔斯·郭）（以下简称“债务人”和/或“郭”）的第 11 章破产案件（案件编号：22-50073）中，是否应准许 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 律师事务所的 Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼）律师（以下简称“罗姆尼律师”）及 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 律师事务所的 Lee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦）律师（以下简称“瓦尔坦律师”，与罗姆尼律师合称“代理律师”）撤回作为 Hudson Diamond NY, LLC（以下简称“哈德逊纽约”）代理律师的代理资格。[1] ECF 1909。\n\n1 债务人还使用其他多个化名为人所知。\n\n《哈德逊裁定》是在短时间内发生的一系列引发质疑并令人关切的事件之后作出的，美国联邦破产受托人与法院持有同样的关切。\n\n在当前节点，罗姆尼律师提交的仅具基本框架的撤回哈德逊纽约代理律师资格的申请，加上哈德逊纽约与 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（以下简称“哈德逊控股”，与哈德逊纽约合称“哈德逊实体”）未能对 2022年12月 向其发出的破产法第 2004 条传票作出回应，两者结合在一起所呈现的情况令人不安。债务人之女 Mei Guo（郭美）长期以来一直是罗姆尼律师和瓦尔坦律师的客户，并且她处于法院此次调查的核心。根据罗姆尼律师的说法，郭美是哈德逊控股的唯一成员，且他最近获悉，他此前认为郭美是哈德逊纽约唯一成员的看法是有误的，因此由于他声称无权代表哈德逊纽约，故申请撤回作为哈德逊纽约的代理律师。罗姆尼律师并未披露，如果不是郭美，哈德逊纽约的成员究竟是谁。\n\n在此背景下，罗姆尼律师为何申请撤回代表哈德逊纽约，似乎存在多种可能的解释，从无意的无辜错误、到在接受客户委托时尽职调查不足、再到蓄意的策略行为均有可能；而由于这与哈德逊实体在不合理的时间段内未回应传票的不配合行为相关联，其中每一种解释都会对本破产财产的管理产生影响。瓦尔坦律师在导致《哈德逊裁定》出台的事件中所扮演的角色，同样值得进一步调查和解释。截至目前，尚不清楚事实和具体情况是否足以对代理律师及哈德逊实体施加惩处后果，美国联邦破产受托人认为，当下文所述，代理律师应提供进一步的信息。\n\n已知背景信息\n\n1. 根据债务人案件的诉讼记录索引，自 2022年5月10日 以来的一年多时间里，罗姆尼律师一直代表郭美的个人身份。见 ECF 340。罗姆尼律师无论是在诉状中还是在向法院陈述时，均积极代表郭美。见债务人案件的诉讼记录索引。罗姆尼律师还在与债务人案件相关的两起待决对抗性诉讼程序中代表郭美。见 Adv. Proc. 22-5003 和 Adv. Proc. 23-5008（合称“对抗性诉讼”）。\n\n2. 根据债务人案件的诉讼记录索引，自 2023年1月13日 以来，瓦尔坦律师在债务人案件中正式代表郭美的个人身份。见 ECF 1318。瓦尔坦律师无论是在诉状中还是在向法院陈述时，均积极代表郭美。见债务人案件的诉讼记录索引。瓦尔坦律师亦在上述对抗性诉讼中代表郭美。\n\n3. 瓦尔坦律师还在 Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）于 2023年3月 在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）提起的诉讼中代表郭美，该案被称为 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kwok, et al，案件编号：23-cv-2200。\n\n4. 破产申请提出前，瓦尔坦律师在纽约州诉讼中代表郭美的个人身份，该案在 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）审理，案名为 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Kwok Ho a/k/a Gwo Wen Gui a/k/a Guo Wengui a/k/a Guo Wen-Gui a/k/a Wan Gue Haoyun a/k/a Miles Kwok a/k/a Haoyun Guo, et al，案件编号：652077/2017。\n\n5. 2022年12月7日，第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯宾斯）的代理律师（以下简称“受托人律师”）向哈德逊纽约发出了破产法第 2004 条传票（以下简称“哈德逊纽约传票”），并向哈德逊控股发出了传票（以下简称“哈德逊控股传票”）。见第 11 章受托人提交的《强制执行动议/藐视法庭动议》（ECF 1805）（以下简称“ECF 1805”）第 19 页；ECF 1805-7 第 2 页；ECF 1805-8 第 2 页。\n\n6. 根据 ECF 1805，债务人的女儿郭美与哈德逊纽约以及哈德逊控股均有关联。见 ECF 1805 第 20 段。据称郭美是哈德逊纽约的所有人。同上。据称哈德逊纽约是哈德逊控股的子公司。同上。哈德逊纽约与哈德逊控股均使用债务人最初在其第 11 章破产申请书上列明的相同邮寄地址。同上；另见 ECF 1。\n\n7. 哈德逊纽约与哈德逊控股均未对其送达的传票作出回应。见 ECF 1805。因此，受托人律师于 2023年5月18日 提交了 ECF 1805，请求裁定哈德逊纽约及哈德逊控股构成藐视法庭。\n\n8. 2023年6月1日，瓦尔坦律师以哈德逊纽约及哈德逊控股代理律师的身份，就哈德逊纽约传票和哈德逊控股传票通过电话联系了受托人律师。见 ECF 1863 第 2 页及第 25 页。根据受托人律师的说法，这是哈德逊纽约和哈德逊控股首次对哈德逊纽约传票及哈德逊控股传票（合称“哈德逊传票”）作出回应。见 ECF 1863 第 2-3 页。\n\n9. 同样在 2023年6月1日，瓦尔坦律师、罗姆尼律师与受托人律师就哈德逊传票互通了电子邮件。见 ECF 1863 第 2 页及第 23-26 页。邮件提到郭美知悉哈德逊传票，并提及遵守哈德逊传票的意图。同上。\n\n10. 就在同一天，即 2023年6月1日，罗姆尼律师在本案中提交了作为哈德逊纽约及哈德逊控股代理律师的出庭通知。见 ECF 1848。\n\n11. 就在同一天，即 2023年6月1日，罗姆尼律师作为哈德逊纽约及哈德逊控股双方的代理律师，在据称经受托人律师同意的情况下，提交了延期审理 ECF 1805 听证的动议，并在该动议中声明哈德逊纽约与哈德逊控股均将遵守各自对应的传票（以下简称“《哈德逊实体延期动议》”）。见 ECF 1850；另见 ECF 1850 的送达证明 ECF 1874。\n\n12. 次日，即 2023年6月2日，瓦尔坦律师、罗姆尼律师与受托人律师就哈德逊传票及《哈德逊实体延期动议》进一步互通了电子邮件。见 ECF 1863 第 23-26 页。\n\n13. 2023年6月2日，受托人律师对《哈德逊实体延期动议》提出了异议。见 ECF 1863。\n\n14. 在 2023年6月6日 罗姆尼律师代表哈德逊纽约及哈德逊控股出庭的听证会之后，且罗姆尼律师与受托人律师在听证休会期间进行了讨论之后，法院于 2023年6月8日 就《哈德逊实体延期动议》签署了一项合意裁定，其中包含要求哈德逊纽约和哈德逊控股在 2023年6月15日 之前对各自传票作出回应的要求（以下简称“《哈德逊合意裁定》”）。见 ECF 1896。\n\n15. 在达成《哈德逊合意裁定》中的协议一周之后，且距离遵守传票的截止期限前两天，即 2023年6月13日，罗姆尼律师提交了仅撤回作为哈德逊纽约代理律师的动议（以下简称“《罗姆尼撤回动议》”）。见 ECF 1903。\n\n16. 《罗姆尼撤回动议》未依照 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(e) 及 D. Conn. Bankr. L. R. 9083-4 的规定附随向客户哈德逊纽约发出所要求的实际通知。\n\n17. 《罗姆尼撤回动议》对撤回代理提供了解释有限的说明，仅声明罗姆尼律师“不代表”哈德逊纽约的“任何成员”，且未获得哈德逊纽约授权代表的授权。见 ECF 1903 第 4-5 段。基于此，罗姆尼律师申请撤回作为哈德逊纽约的代理律师，并将其代表哈德逊纽约出庭的行为描述为“对事实的善意误解”。见 ECF 1903 第 4 段。\n\n18. 《罗姆尼撤回动议》声明郭美不是哈德逊纽约的唯一成员。见 ECF 1903 第 3 段。《罗姆尼撤回动议》并未确认或披露哈德逊纽约的成员，也未声明郭美不是哈德逊纽约的成员。见 ECF 1903。\n\n19. 《罗姆尼撤回动议》声明郭美是哈德逊控股的唯一成员。见 ECF 1903 第 2 段。\n\n20. 《罗姆尼撤回动议》没有任何反映郭美立场的文件作为支持或随附，也没有任何反映谁有权作为哈德逊纽约代表行事的文件作为支持或随附。\n\n21. 迄今为止，尚无其他律师代表哈德逊纽约提交出庭通知。\n\n22. 迄今为止，尽管有随附于 ECF 1863 的电子邮件，且瓦尔坦律师曾自称是哈德逊纽约和哈德逊控股的代理律师，但他并未在债务人案件中代表哈德逊纽约或代表哈德逊控股提交出庭通知。\n\n23. 法院针对《罗姆尼撤回动议》作出了《哈德逊裁定》。\n\n代理律师应提供的信息\n\n关于《哈德逊裁定》，美国联邦破产受托人认为，代理律师应当向法院、第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯宾斯）（以下简称“德斯宾斯受托人”）、受托人律师及美国联邦破产受托人提供补充信息，以协助评估并判定准许罗姆尼律师撤回其对哈德逊纽约的代理是否适当，并处理瓦尔坦律师作为哈德逊纽约和哈德逊控股代理律师的角色问题。特别是，美国联邦破产受托人认为，代理律师应各自向法院提交个人宣誓书，就以下信息进行解释、说明并提供：\n\nA. 关于哈德逊纽约：\n\n- i. 罗姆尼律师和瓦尔坦律师首次就哈德逊纽约传票接到哈德逊纽约代表、或代表/声称代表哈德逊纽约行事的人员（合称“哈德逊纽约代表”）联系的日期，以及每位哈德逊纽约代表的身份与联系方式；\n- ii. 正式或非正式聘请罗姆尼律师和瓦尔坦律师代表哈德逊纽约的哈德逊纽约代表的姓名、聘请日期及其联系方式；\n- iii. 确认截至以下各日期哈德逊纽约的成员：2022年12月1日、2023年6月1日 及 2023年6月13日，并解释该等信息的来源；\n\n- iv. 解释截至以下各日期哈德逊纽约的所有权结构：2022年12月1日、2023年6月1日 及 2023年6月13日，并解释该等信息的来源；以及\n- v. 解释瓦尔坦律师为何未在债务人案件中代表哈德逊纽约提交正式出庭通知；以及\n- vi. 解释罗姆尼律师和瓦尔坦律师在 2023年6月1日 之前及 2023年6月1日 之后为协助哈德逊纽约回应哈德逊纽约传票而采取了哪些努力。该等解释应指明罗姆尼律师和瓦尔坦律师与其进行过沟通的哈德逊纽约代表，并提供各项努力的时间线。\n\nB) 关于哈德逊控股：\n\n- i. Romney 律师（Attorney Romney）与 Vartan 律师（Attorney Vartan）首次接获 Hudson Holdings（哈德逊控股）代表，或代表/意图代表 Hudson Holdings 行事之人（统称「Hudson Holdings 代表」）就 HH 传票进行联系的日期，以及每位 Hudson Holdings 代表的身份与联系方式；\n\n- ii. 正式或非正式聘请 Romney 律师与 Vartan 律师代表 Hudson Holdings 的 Hudson Holdings 代表的姓名、聘请日期及其联系方式；\n\n- iii. 指明截至以下日期 Hudson Holdings 的成员，并说明此类信息的来源：2022年12月1日、2023年6月1日以及2023年6月13日；\n\n- iv. 说明截至以下日期 Hudson Holdings 的所有权结构，并说明此类信息的来源：2022年12月1日、2023年6月1日以及2023年6月13日；\n\n- v. 说明为何 Vartan 律师未在债务人案中代表 Hudson Holdings 提交正式出庭通知；以及\n\n- vi. 说明 Romney 律师与 Vartan 律师在2023年6月1日之前及2023年6月1日之后，为促成 Hudson Holdings 对 HH 传票作出回应而采取的努力。此类说明应指明与 Romney 律师和 Vartan 律师沟通的 Hudson Holdings 代表，并提供采取各项努力的时间线。\n\n结论\n\n根据 ECF 1805，哈德逊传票自2022年12月起一直未决，且根据哈德逊传票配合并履行义务现已严重逾期。在此背景下，United States Trustee（美国受托人）所要求的信息，对于法院裁定律师撤出代理，以及法院裁定是否因未对受托人律师签发的哈德逊传票作出回应而判定 Hudson NY（哈德逊纽约）与 Hudson Holdings 构成藐视法庭，均具有相关性。\n\n若缺少所要求的信息，美国受托人将缺乏足够的信息来恰当评估律师的角色与行为，以及对其行为采取何种后果（如有）可能是适当的。目前，Romney 律师自述在承担并履行 Hudson NY 律师角色时所犯下的「事实上的善意错误」，缺乏充分的语境与事实背景。此外，Vartan 律师代表 Hudson NY 及 Hudson Holdings 的角色（未在债务人案中正式出庭）也应当予以探究和考虑。在这两个调查领域内，Mei Guo（郭美）以及可能代表或意图代表 Hudson NY 与 Hudson Holdings 行事的其他人员的角色，也可以得到更好的理解与评估。\n\n律师、Mei Guo 以及 Hudson NY 与 Hudson Holdings 的授权代表提供充分的配合与披露，对于维护诉讼程序的完整性、确保律师履行对法院的坦诚义务，以及确定法院适宜考虑和命令何种救济而言，至关重要。\n\n日期：2023年7月3日 谨此提交，\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON（威廉·K·哈灵顿） 第二区美国受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn 诉讼律师 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） (203) 773-2210\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1971 Filed 07/03/23 Entered 07/03/23 16:49:58 Page 11 of 11\n\n送达证明\n\n下述签名人证明，上述文件已通过法院的 CM/ECF 归档系统送达给所有出庭当事人。\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Despins","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Luc Despins","Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":340,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1318,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1805,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1848,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1850,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1863,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1874,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1896,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1903,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1909,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2598,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-06-15 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-06-15","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:16:50"}