{"id":"court_ctb_1988_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1988,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK,\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n## DECLARATION OF AARON A. ROMNEY REGARDING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR HUDSON DIAMOND NY, LLC\n\nI, AARON A. ROMNEY, hereby declare:\n\n1. I am a partner and shareholder of the law firm of Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., counsel in the above-captioned bankruptcy case (the \"Bankruptcy Case\") for Mei Guo ( \"Ms. Guo\") and certain entities that Ms. Guo controls.\n\n2. I submit this Declaration in response to the request made by the office of the United States Trustee for Region 2.\n\n3. herein under penalty of perjury.\n\n4. for Contempt (the \"Motion for Contempt\"). Doc. No. 1805. Paragraph twenty of the Motion for Contempt states: \"Hudson Diamond Holding is a Delaware limited liability company purportedly owned by Mei Guo. Hudson Diamond NY is a subsidiary of Hudson Diamond Holding. Both entities list 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York as a corporate mailing address. Both Yvette Wang and Max Krasner, acting as employees and/or agents of the Debtor, served as officers and/or authorized signatories of both Hudson Diamond NY and Hudson Diamond Holding.\"\n\n5. I first read the Motion for Contempt on May 23, 2023. In addition to the statements in the Motion for Contempt associating Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC (\"Holding\") and Hudson Diamond NY, LLC (\"New York\") with Ms. Guo, I had received and read an operating agreement for Holding that identified Ms. Guo as its sole member. I also received and reviewed articles of organization for New York that did not identify any members of New York but did identify Hodgson Russ LLP (\"Hodgson Russ\") as the party that filed New York's articles of organization with the New York Department of State.\n\n6. On May 30, 2023, Attorney Lee Vartan and I conducted a telephone conference with Ms. Guo to discuss the Motion for Contempt and the subpoenas directed to Holding and New York that were attached thereto (the \"Subpoenas\"). As a result of that call, Ms. Guo directed me and Attorney Vartan to attempt to negotiate a brief extension of time for Holding and New York to respond to the Subpoenas.\n\n7. the two of them agreed to a brief adjournment of the hearing on the Motion for Contempt with respect to Holding and New York in exchange for Holding's and New York's agreement to comply with the Subpoenas on or before June 15, 2023. Based on what I understood to be the terms of that agreement, I filed appearances on behalf of Holding and New York and a Motion to Adjourn the hearing on the Motion for Contempt with respect to Holding and New York.\n\n8. to Holding's and New York's responses to the Subpoenas. Ms. Guo identified Yvette Wang and Max Krasner as the individuals who would have handled any business or affairs on Holding's and New York's behalf. Ms. Wang is currently incarcerated. Further, Ms. Guo indicated to me\n\nthat she attempted to contact Mr. Krasner in connection with the Subpoenas but he did not answer or return her calls.\n\n9. During our conversations in connection with the Subpoenas, Ms. Guo advised me that she believed that either Holding or New York previously had a bank account at Capital One, but the account was closed. Attorney Vartan and I requested that Ms. Guo go to Capital One to request all statements concerning that account. Ms. Guo advised Attorney Vartan and me that she made numerous trips to a Capital One branch to request statements for any/all accounts in the name of Holding or New York. Ms. Guo further advised me and Attorney Vartan that Capital One confirmed to her that New York previously had an account at Capital One, but the account was closed and Capital One could not provide account statements to Ms. Guo because her name was not on the account.\n\n10. On June 8, 2023, Attorney Vartan contacted Mark Harmon, an attorney at Hodgson Russ who appears to have done work for New York. Via email, Attorney Harmon declined to speak with Attorney Vartan and instead referred us to Hodgson Russ's general counsel, Kevin Kearney. Attorney Kearney indicated to Attorney Vartan and me that he was out of the office until the following Monday, June 12, 2023, but he would be happy to speak to us when he returned.\n\n11. Attorney Vartan and I called Attorney Kearney in the early afternoon on June 12, 2023. During that call, Attorney Kearney advised us that he did not believe Hodgson Russ performed any work for Holding or had any information concerning Holding. Attorney Kearney further stated that Hodgson Russ's records indicated that the Debtor's son, Mileson Guo, not Ms. Guo or Holding, was the sole member of New York.\n\n12. Given that my direction to appear and act on behalf of New York was from Ms. Guo, not Mileson Guo, and because I have no relationship with and have never spoken to Mileson Guo, immediately after Attorney Kearney informed me of his belief that Mileson Guo was the sole member of New York I first sought the advice of Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C's general counsel and then I contacted the Trustee's counsel. Avi Luft, to inform him of my belief that I mistakenly believed Ms. Guo controlled New York when I appeared and entered into a consensual order adjourning the hearing on the Motion for Contempt on New York's behalf. I further stated my intention to move to withdraw my appearance on New York's behalf, based on my belief that I had mistakenly appeared on New York's behalf at the direction of an individual who lacked the authority to direct me to do so.\n\n13. On Sunday June 25, 2023, the Chapter 11 Trustee's counsel, Avi Luft, sent an email to Attorney Vartan and me inquiring whether we were aware of a document, which had been attached as Exhibit T (\"Exhibit T\") to his declaration in support of the Motion for Contempt (Doc. No. 1805-46). Exhibit T is a document that appears to be signed by Ms. Guo as Holding's sole member, which, according to the document, is New York's sole member. Ms. Guo has informed me that the signature on Exhibit T appears to be hers and she believes the document is authentic, but she is not 100% sure because it is a very simple document and executing it is not something that would stand in her memory years later. In addition, Ms. Guo's execution of Exhibit T is consistent with her original understanding and representations to me that she controls New York.\n\n14. On Wednesday, June 28, 2023, Attorney Vartan emailed Exhibit T to Attorney Kearney and asked him if he would be willing to discuss it with me and Attorney Vartan.\n\nIn response, also on June 28, 2023, Attorney Kearney stated: \"Lee, all I can tell you is that it was\n\nproduced, and it looks like a document that we prepared. I have reached out to the lawyer who\n\nmost likely would know something about the document but have not heard back. If I do I will\n\ngive you a call.\"\n\n15. On July 5, 2023, I sent an email to Attorney Kearney stating as follows:\n\nKevin: I hope you had a nice holiday. Have you spoken with the attorney who you believe is the person most likely to know something about the attached document? It is important that we ascertain as much information about this as possible.\n\nWhen Lee and I spoke with you on or about June 12, you told us that the only operating agreement in your files for Hudson Diamond NY indicated that Mr. Kwok's son was the sole member of Hudson Diamond NY. Last week you indicated that you believe your firm prepared the attached, which indicates that Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC was the sole member of Hudson Diamond NY, and that Mei Guo is the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. It is important that I confirm whether your office, in fact, prepared the attached, and, if so, why it did so, in light of the fact that you believed that Mr. Kwok's son was the sole member of Hudson Diamond NY.\n\nI would also like copies of all documents that your firm has concerning Hudson Diamond Holdings and Hudson Diamond NY, including, but not necessarily limited to, all documents that your firm produced to the Chapter 11 Trustee concerning these entities.\n\n16. On July 6, 2023, Attorney Kearney responded to my July 5, 2023, email as\n\nfollows:\n\nAaron, it is unclear to me how much information I can provide to you, given the constraints of RPC 1.6. I am comfortable telling you that the document you attached was prepared at the request of Max Krasner.\n\nI confess I do not have any notes of our earlier conversations, but I question whether I ever told you that Mr. Kwok's son was the sole member of Hudson Diamond NY LLC. He did sign the operating agreement as an officer of Hudson Diamond Holdings Inc., and as the President of Hudson Diamond NY LLC. The documents indicate that Holdings was the member, not Qiang Guo. But I do not know if he was the sole member of Holdings, an entity we did not represent, and I have no information as to how or when Mei Guo became the sole member of that Entity, as reflected in the document you sent me.. As I advised earlier, our engagement letter concerning the formation of Hudson Diamond NY LLC was addressed to Yvette Wang.\n\nI will continue to research and consider if either of your clients can appropriately authorize us to provide confidential information to you on matters relating to Hudson Diamond NY LLC.\n\n17. Less than thirty minutes later, I responded to Attorney Kearney as follows:\n\nKevin: You very clearly told Lee and I that Qiang Guo was the sole member of Hudson Diamond NY. I don't know what Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc. is, but I do know that Mei Guo is the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, see attached, and had I been told that Hudson Diamond Inc. was I would have taken measures to ascertain who owns/controls Hudson Diamond, Inc. Instead, after our call, I filed a motion to withdraw my appearance on behalf of New York based on your statement that Qiang Guo, not Mei Guo or Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, was the sole member of New York.\n\nBefore we spoke, I believed that Mei Guo, either directly or through Holdings, was the sole member of New York. As of when we spoke, you did not know who Qiang Guo was. I informed you that was the Debtor's son, who I did not represent, and that since you were telling me that Qiang Guo was the sole member of New York, we had nothing further to discuss because Mei Guo and I are not entitled to files that belong to Qiang Guo. I asked you to confirm whether Hodgson Russ had a file for Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, and the following day you confirmed that Hodgson Russ did not have a file for Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC (or Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.).\n\n18. A copy of the email chain between me, Attorney Vartan and Attorney Kearney is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n19. To date, Hodgson Russ/Attorney Kearney have not provided any explanation to me for why i) Hodgson Russ prepared an operating agreement for New York that Attorney Kearney originally claimed was signed by Mileson Guo as New York's sole member, ii) Attorney Kearney now claims that same agreement was signed by Mileson Guo as the president of a BVI entity known as Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc. (as the sole member of New York), rather than in his individual capacity, or iii) Hodgson Russ prepared a subsequent resolution on behalf of New York that appears to be signed by Ms. Guo as the sole member of Holding (as the sole member of New York).\n\n20. I represent Ms. Guo. Ms. Guo has authorized me to represent any/all entities that she controls. Ms. Guo, Attorney Vartan and I have done everything within our control to locate and produce information concerning Holding and New York and to ascertain whether Ms. Guo controls New York. We have produced the few documents we were able to locate concerning those entities. Max Krasner will not communicate with Ms. Guo and Capital One and Hodgson Russ will not provide us with information concerning Holding or New York other than the information I have stated herein.\n\n21. I do not have any reason to believe that New York or Holding have any assets or the ability to produce additional information.\n\n22. I moved to withdraw my appearance on behalf of New York (but not Holding) because the general counsel of a reputable law firm told me that Ms. Guo was not the direct or indirect member of New York. If that is correct, I do not have authority from New York to represent it. If Hodgson Russ is incorrect and Ms. Guo does control New York through Holding, then I am authorized to represent New York and I would withdraw my motion to withdraw my appearance on behalf of New York.\n\n23. Unfortunately, despite an extraordinarily diligent investigation, I am unable to ascertain which of these two scenarios are correct. That being the case, I do not believe I can continue to represent New York.\n\n24. The United States Trustee's office has also inquired why Attorney Vartan has not filed an appearance on behalf of Holding or New York. The answer, putting aside the issues described herein concerning New York that arose after my appearance, is because Attorney Vartan is not admitted in the District of Connecticut and it was our understanding that to file an appearance on behalf of Holding and New York would require an additional pro hac vice\n\nmotion, which did not strike us as prudent or efficient given that Holding and New York are third-parties that have a very limited roll in this bankruptcy case.\n\n25. J Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare, certify, verify and state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted on this 7th day of July, 2023\n\nAaron A. Romney (ct28114) ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 (203) 368-4234 aromney@zeislaw.com\n\n## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on this 7th day of July, 2023, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> /s/ Aaron A. Romney Aaron A. Romney","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：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n\n第11章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\nAARON A. ROMNEY 关于申请撤回作为 HUDSON DIAMOND NY, LLC 代理律师动议的声明\n\n我，AARON A. ROMNEY（亚伦·A·罗姆尼），特此声明：\n\n1. 我是 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 律师事务所的合伙人兼股东，该事务所在上述标题项下的破产案件（下称“破产案件”）中担任 Mei Guo（郭美，下称“郭女士”）以及郭女士所控制的某些实体的代理律师。\n\n2. 我提交本声明，以回应 United States Trustee for Region 2（美国第2区破产受托人）办公室提出的要求。\n\n3. 特此在承担伪证罪处罚的条件下声明。\n\n4. 藐视法庭动议（下称“藐视法庭动议”）。文件编号 1805。藐视法庭动议第二十段载明：“Hudson Diamond Holding 是一家据称由郭美拥有的特拉华州有限责任公司。Hudson Diamond NY 是 Hudson Diamond Holding 的子公司。两家实体均将纽约州纽约市东64街162号列为公司邮寄地址。Yvette Wang（王雁平）和 Max Krasner（麦克斯·克拉斯纳）作为债务人的雇员和/或代理人，均曾担任 Hudson Diamond NY 和 Hudson Diamond Holding 两家实体的管理人员和/或授权签字人。”\n\n5. 我于2023年5月23日首次阅读了藐视法庭动议。除了藐视法庭动议中将 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（下称“Holding”）和 Hudson Diamond NY, LLC（下称“New York”）与郭女士联系起来的陈述外，我还收到并阅读了一份将郭女士列为其唯一成员的 Holding 运营协议。我还收到并审阅了 New York 的组织章程，该章程未指明 New York 的任何成员，但确实指明 Hodgson Russ LLP（下称“Hodgson Russ”）是向纽约州务卿办公室提交 New York 组织章程的一方。\n\n6. 2023年5月30日，Lee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦）律师与我就藐视法庭动议及随附的针对 Holding 和 New York 的传票（下称“传票”）与郭女士进行了电话会议。该次通话的结果是，郭女士指示我与瓦尔坦律师尝试协商 Holding 和 New York 回应传票的简短延期。\n\n7. 他们两人同意就 Holding 和 New York 涉及藐视法庭动议的听证会作短暂延期，条件是 Holding 和 New York 同意在2023年6月15日或之前遵守传票要求。根据我对该协议条款的理解，我代表 Holding 和 New York 提交了出庭通知，并就 Holding 和 New York 涉及藐视法庭动议的听证会提交了延期动议。\n\n8. 针对 Holding 和 New York 对传票的回应。郭女士指认王雁平和麦克斯·克拉斯纳为代表 Holding 和 New York 处理任何业务或事务的人员。王女士目前在押。此外，郭女士向我表示\n\n她曾尝试就传票事宜联系克拉斯纳先生，但他未接听也未回复她的电话。\n\n9. 在我们关于传票的交谈中，郭女士告知我，她认为 Holding 或 New York 之前在 Capital One（第一资本银行）开立过银行账户，但该账户已被关闭。瓦尔坦律师和我要求郭女士前往第一资本银行调取有关该账户的所有对账单。郭女士告知瓦尔坦律师和我，她多次前往第一资本银行的一家分行，要求调取以 Holding 或 New York 名义开立的任何/所有账户的对账单。郭女士进一步告知我和瓦尔坦律师，第一资本银行向她确认 New York 之前曾在第一资本银行开立过账户，但该账户已被关闭，且由于账户上没有郭女士的名字，第一资本银行无法向郭女士提供账户对账单。\n\n10. 2023年6月8日，瓦尔坦律师联系了 Hodgson Russ 的 Mark Harmon（马克·哈蒙）律师，后者似乎曾为 New York 提供过法律服务。哈蒙律师通过电子邮件拒绝与瓦尔坦律师交谈，而是让我们联系 Hodgson Russ 的总法律顾问 Kevin Kearney（凯文·科尼）。科尼律师向瓦尔坦律师和我表示，他在下周一（2023年6月12日）之前不在办公室，但他回办公室后很乐意与我们交谈。\n\n11. 2023年6月12日下午早些时候，瓦尔坦律师和我致电科尼律师。在该次通话中，科尼律师告知我们，他不认为 Hodgson Russ 曾为 Holding 提供过任何法律服务或掌握关于 Holding 的任何信息。科尼律师进一步表示，Hodgson Russ 的记录显示，债务人的儿子 Mileson Guo（郭强），而非郭女士或 Holding，才是 New York 的唯一成员。\n\n12. 鉴于我代表 New York 出庭并采取行动的指示来自于郭女士而非郭强，且由于我与郭强没有任何关系也从未与其交谈过，在科尼律师告知我其认为郭强是 New York 的唯一成员后，我立即首先向 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 的总法律顾问寻求法律意见，随后我联系了受托人的代理律师 Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），告知他我认为自己在代表 New York 出庭并达成同意延期审理藐视法庭动议的合意命令时，错误地认为郭女士控制着 New York。我进一步声明我打算申请撤回代表 New York 出庭的通知，理由是我认为自己在缺乏指示权限的人员的指示下错误地代表 New York 出庭。\n\n13. 2023年6月25日（星期日），第11章受托人的代理律师阿维·卢夫特向瓦尔坦律师和我发送了一封电子邮件，询问我们是否知晓一份文件，该文件作为证据 T（下称“证据 T”）附于其支持藐视法庭动议的声明之后（文件编号 1805-46）。证据 T 是一份看似由郭女士作为 Holding 唯一成员签署的文件，而根据该文件，Holding 是 New York 的唯一成员。郭女士已告知我，证据 T 上的签名看似是她的，且她认为该文件是真实的，但她无法百分之百确定，因为这是一份非常简单的文件，多年后签署该文件并非会在她记忆中留下深刻印象的事情。此外，郭女士签署证据 T 的事实与其最初对 New York 由其控制的理解和向我作出的陈述是一致的。\n\n14. 2023年6月28日（星期三），瓦尔坦律师将证据 T 通过电子邮件发送给科尼律师，并询问他是否愿意与我和瓦尔坦律师讨论该文件。\n\n作为回应，同样在2023年6月28日，科尼律师表示：“李，我只能告诉你该文件已被提供，而且它看起来像是我们准备的文件。我已经联系了最有可能了解该文件情况的律师，但尚未收到回复。如果收到回复，我会给你打电话。”\n\n15. 2023年7月5日，我向科尼律师发送了一封电子邮件，内容如下：\n\n凯文：希望你假期过得愉快。你是否已经与你认为最有可能了解附件文件情况的律师交谈过？我们尽可能多地查明有关此事的尽可能多的信息至关重要。\n\n当李和我在6月12日左右与你交谈时，你告诉我们，你在案卷中关于 Hudson Diamond NY 的唯一一份运营协议显示，郭先生的儿子是 Hudson Diamond NY 的唯一成员。上周你表示，你认为你的律所准备了附件文件，该文件表明 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 是 Hudson Diamond NY 的唯一成员，且郭美是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一成员。鉴于你曾认为郭先生的儿子是 Hudson Diamond NY 的唯一成员，我必须确认你的办公室是否确实准备了附件文件，如果是，为何会这样做。\n\n我还希望获得你的律所掌握的关于 Hudson Diamond Holdings 和 Hudson Diamond NY 的所有文件副本，包括但不限于你的律所就这些实体向第11章受托人提供的所有文件。\n\n16. 2023年7月6日，科尼律师对我2023年7月5日的电子邮件回复如下：\n\n亚伦，鉴于 RPC 1.6（职业行为准则第1.6条）的限制，我尚不清楚能向你提供多少信息。我可以放心地告诉你，你所附的文件是应麦克斯·克拉斯纳的要求准备的。\n\n我承认我没有我们早先谈话的任何笔记，但我怀疑我是否曾告诉过你郭先生的儿子是 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 的唯一成员。他确实作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings Inc. 的管理人员以及 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 的总裁签署了运营协议。文件表明 Holdings 是成员，而不是郭强。但我不知道他是否是 Holdings 的唯一成员，Holdings 并非我们代理的实体，而且正如你发给我的文件中所反映的，我没有任何关于郭美如何或何时成为该实体唯一成员的信息。正如我早些时候告知的那样，我们关于设立 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 的聘用函是寄给王雁平的。\n\n我将继续研究并考虑你的任何一位客户是否可以适当地授权我们向你提供涉及 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 事项的保密信息。\n\n17. 不到三十分钟后，我向科尼律师回复如下：\n\n凯文：你非常明确地告诉了李和我，郭强是 Hudson Diamond NY 的唯一成员。我不知道 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc. 是什么，但我确实知道郭美是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一成员，见附件，如果我被告知 Hudson Diamond Inc. 是其成员，我本会采取措施查明谁拥有/控制 Hudson Diamond, Inc.。相反，在我们通话后，基于你的关于郭强而非郭美或 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 是 New York 唯一成员的陈述，我提交了撤回代表 New York 出庭的动议。\n\n在我们交谈之前，我认为郭美无论是直接还是通过 Holdings 都是 New York 的唯一成员。截至我们交谈之时，你并不知道郭强是谁。我告知你那是债务人的儿子，我并不代表他，而且由于你告诉我郭强是 New York 的唯一成员，我们便没有什么可进一步讨论的了，因为郭美和我无权获取属于郭强的案卷。我曾要求你确认 Hodgson Russ 是否有 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的案卷，次日你确认 Hodgson Russ 没有 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（或 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.）的案卷。\n\n18. 我、瓦尔坦律师与科尼律师之间的电子邮件往来记录副本作为证据 A 附于本声明之后。\n\n19. 迄今为止，Hodgson Russ/科尼律师尚未向我提供任何解释，说明为何：i) Hodgson Russ 为 New York 准备了一份运营协议，而科尼律师最初声称该协议由郭强作为 New York 的唯一成员签署；ii) 科尼律师现在声称该协议是由郭强作为一家名为 Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc. 的英属维尔京群岛实体（作为 New York 的唯一成员）的总裁签署的，而非以其个人身份签署；或 iii) Hodgson Russ 代表 New York 准备了一份后续决议，该决议看似由郭女士作为 Holding（作为 New York 的唯一成员）的唯一成员签署。\n\n20. 我代表郭女士。郭女士已授权我代表其控制的任何/所有实体。郭女士、瓦尔坦律师和我已竭尽所能查找并提供关于 Holding 和 New York 的信息，并查明郭女士是否控制 New York。我们已经提供了我们能够找到的关于这些实体的仅有几份文件。麦克斯·克拉斯纳不愿与郭女士沟通，而第一资本银行和 Hodgson Russ 除了我在此陈述的信息外，不会向我们提供关于 Holding 或 New York 的信息。\n\n21. 我没有任何理由相信 New York（纽约公司）或 Holding（控股公司）拥有任何资产或能够提供额外信息。\n\n22. 我提出动议撤回代表 New York（但不包括 Holding）出庭，是因为一家声誉良好的律师事务所的总法律顾问告诉我，Ms. Guo（郭女士）并非 New York 的直接或间接成员。如果此说法属实，我则未获得代表 New York 的授权。如果 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）所述不实，且郭女士确实通过 Holding 控制 New York，那么我即获得代表 New York 的授权，并且我会撤回我代表 New York 撤回出庭的动议。\n\n23. 遗憾的是，尽管进行了极其审慎的调查，我仍无法确定这两种情况中哪一种是正确的。鉴于此种情况，我认为我无法继续代表 New York。\n\n24. United States Trustee（美国联邦破产信托人）办公室还询问了为何 Attorney Vartan（瓦尔坦律师）没有代表 Holding 或 New York 提交出庭通知。答案是——撇开在此处所述、在我出庭后出现的有关 New York 的问题不谈——因为瓦尔坦律师并未获得 District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区联邦地区法院）的执业许可，且我们的理解是代表 Holding 和 New York 提交出庭通知需要提交一份额外的 pro hac vice（特别出庭代理）动议，鉴于 Holding 和 New York 是在该破产案件中作用非常有限的第三方，这在我们看来既不够审慎也不够高效。\n\n25. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 1746，本人声明、证明、核实并述明，在知悉受美利坚合众国法律关于伪证罪之处罚的前提下，前述内容均属真实且正确无误。\n\n签署日期：2023年7月7日\n\nAaron A. Romney (ct28114)\nZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n(203) 368-4234\naromney@zeislaw.com\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE（送达证书）\n\n本人特此证明，于 2023年7月7日，前述文件的一份副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交通知将根据电子提交通知上的指示，通过法院电子提交系统的运行向所有当事人发送电子邮件，或向任何无法接收电子提交的人员邮寄。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Romney\nAaron A. Romney","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2495,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:10:46"}