{"id":"court_ctb_2220_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2220,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT )","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n)\n\n)\n\n)\n\nDebtors.<sup>1</sup>\n\nIn re: ) Chapter 11 ) Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, *et al.*, ) (Jointly Administered)\n\n) Re: ECF No. 1903\n\n## **ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY**\n\nBefore the Court is the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (the \"Motion to Withdraw\"), (ECF No. 1903), filed by Attorney Aaron A. Romney. Attorney Romney seeks to withdraw as counsel for Hudson Diamond NY LLC (\"HD NY\"). For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Withdraw is **DENIED** without prejudice to filing a subsequent motion should the facts and circumstances change.\n\nOn May 18, 2023, Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Trustee\"), filed the Motion for Entry of Order Holding Hudson Diamond NY LLC and Hudson Diamond Holding LLC in Civil Contempt for Failing to Respond to Rule 2004 Subpoenas (the \"Contempt Motion\"). (ECF No. 1805.) On June 1, 2018, Attorney Romney filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of HD NY and Hudson Diamond Holding LLC (\"HD Holding,\" and, together with HD NY, collectively, the \"HD Entities\"). (ECF No. 1848.) On June 6, 2023, a hearing was held on the Contempt Motion.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nDuring the hearing, the Trustee and counsel for the HD Entities represented on the record that they had reached an agreement to adjourn the hearing on the Contempt Motion. Following the hearing, on June 8, 2023, the Court entered the Consent Order Regarding Contempt Motion (the \"Consent Order\"). (ECF No. 1896.) Pursuant to the Consent Order, the HD Entities were to comply with the Trustee's subpoenas on or before June 15, 2023, and the hearing on the Contempt Motion as it relates to the HD Entities was adjourned.\n\nOn June 13, 2023, Attorney Romney filed the Motion to Withdraw, seeking to withdraw his appearance for HD NY – but not HD Holding. (ECF No. 1903.) The Motion to Withdraw states that Attorney Romney incorrectly believed that HD Holding, whose sole member is Ms. Mei Guo – Mr. Kwok's daughter – was the sole member of HD NY and that this error was discovered in his attempt to comply with the Trustee's subpoena. (*Id.*) Because the Motion to Withdraw implicated the Consent Order and the Contempt Motion, the Court then entered the Order Continuing Hearing on Motion to Hold the HD Entities 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 (the \"Show Cause Order\"). (ECF No. 1909.) The Show Cause Order scheduled briefing, continued the hearing on the Contempt Motion, and scheduled a hearing on the Motion to Withdraw. (*Id.*)\n\nOn July 3, 2023, the Office of the United States Trustee (the \"U.S. Trustee\") filed a statement (the \"UST Statement\") regarding the Motion to Withdraw expressing concerns and posing questions to Attorney Romney. (ECF No. 1971.) On July 5, 2023, the Trustee filed a reservations of rights regarding the contents of Attorney Romney's to-be-filed declaration. (ECF No. 1979.) On July 7, 2023, Attorney Romney filed the Declaration of Aaron A. Romney (the \"Romney Declaration\") in support of the Motion to Withdraw. (ECF No. 1988.)\n\n2\n\nOn July 11, 2023, a hearing was held on the Motion to Withdraw. Attorney Romney took the witness stand and was subject to cross examination by the U.S. Trustee. The Motion to Withdraw is ripe for decision.\n\n\"District courts are due considerable deference in decisions not to grant a motion for an attorney's withdrawal. The trial judge is closest to the parties and the facts, and we are very reluctant to interfere with district judges' management of their very busy dockets.\" *Whiting v. Lacara*, 187 F.3d 317, 320 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted) (overturning denial of motion to withdraw because answers of plaintiff to circuit judges' questions established that he insisted on a litigation strategy that was unlikely to succeed and seemed mostly designed to cause extra-judicial reputational damage to the defendants and because plaintiff threatened to sue counsel if desired strategy was not carried out). \"Considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in favor of our giving district judges wide latitude in these situations, but there are some instances in which an attorney representing a plaintiff in a civil case might have to withdraw even at the cost of significant interference with the trial court's management of its calendar.\" *Whiting*, 187 F.3d at 321. \"Although the Model Code 'was drafted solely for its use in disciplinary proceedings and cannot by itself serve as a basis for granting a[m]otion to withdraw as counsel,' we continue to believe that 'the Model Code provides guidance for the court as to what constitutes 'good cause' to grant leave to withdraw as counsel.'\" *Id.*\n\nHere, Attorneys Romney and Vartan argue that 'good cause' exists to grant the Motion to Withdraw because Attorney Romney has doubts as to whether he can continue to represent HD NY under the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Connecticut Practice Book. Specifically, they argue that, while they previously believed Ms. Guo had authority to retain them to represent\n\n3\n\nHD NY, and the Trustee's evidence indicates she does, they are sufficiently concerned that Ms. Guo did not actually have authority to retain them to represent HD NY.\n\nThe U.S. Trustee and the Trustee argue that the Motion to Withdraw should not be granted. In support of their arguments, they point to documents in the record of this case which state that HD Holding is the sole member of HD NY and, hence, Ms. Guo has authority over HD NY as HD Holding's sole member.\n\nThe Court agrees with the U.S. Trustee and the Trustee. The record supports the conclusion that Ms. Guo had authority to retain Attorneys Romney and Vartan to represent HD NY. In his argument, the Trustee identified certain exhibits (each an \"Exhibit,\" and, collectively, the \"Exhibits\") to the Declaration of Avram E. Luft (the \"Luft Declaration\") attached to the Contempt Motion to support his contention that HD Holding is the sole member of HD NY and conducted business through HD NY. (*See* ECF No. 1805.) Specifically, the Trustee noted that corporate documents attached as Exhibits H, I, T, and U to the Luft Declaration establish that: (i) Ms. Guo is the sole member of HD Holding (Ex. I); (ii) she signed various corporate documents on its behalf (Exs. T, U); (iii) HD Holding is the sole member of HD NY (Ex. H); and (iv) Ms. Guo signed documents on HD NY's behalf as the member of HD Holding (Ex. T).\n\nAttorney Romney contends in his declaration that Hodgson Russ LLP (\"Hodgson Russ\") indicated that Ms. Guo's brother – Mr. Qiang Guo, also known as Mr. Mileson Guo – controlled HD NY through *Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc*. – as opposed to *Hudson Diamond Holding LLC*. However: (a) no document in the record, corporate or otherwise, supports this contention; (b) no person from Hodgson Russ appeared and/or testified in support of this contention; and (c), as the U.S. Trustee points out, Exhibit T to the Luft Declaration is a more recent document than the contradictory document Hodgson Russ supposedly had and supports the conclusion that Ms. Guo controls HD NY through HD Holding (Romney Decl. Ex. A, at 2 (Attorney Kevin Kearney at Hodgson Russ writing about how it was unclear to him when Ms. Guo came into control of HD NY after Mr. Guo had been in control but not contesting that *she had come into control of HD NY*)).\n\nAttorney Romney admits that the Exhibits seem to confirm that Ms. Guo had authority to retain him and Attorney Vartan because HD Holding is the sole member of HD NY. (ECF No. 2119, at 14:14–24.) The Exhibits, the Luft Declaration, and the Romney Declaration all support denying the Motion to Withdraw and do not support a conclusion that good cause exists to grant the Motion to Withdraw. *Cf. Whiting*, 187 F.3d at 322–23 (finding cause existed to withdraw where plaintiff affirmatively told circuit judges that he would instruct counsel to proceed with litigation according to dubious strategy counsel opposed under threat of malpractice litigation). In fact, Attorney Romney stated during the hearing that Hodgson Russ had no explanation for the contradictory documents. (ECF No. 2119, at 31:12–32:16.) *See Vachula v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp.*, 199 F.R.D. 454, 458–59 (D. Conn. 2000) (contrasting circumstances where, as here, there is no evident severe breakdown in the attorney client relationship or other cause for withdrawal with those in *Whiting*).\n\nFurthermore, as Attorneys Romney and Vartan concede, HD NY was properly served. To illustrate:\n\n(i) On December 7, 2022, HD NY was served with the Rule 2004 subpoena at Hudson Diamond NY LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 600 Mamaroneck Ave, #400, Harrison, NY 10528 via personal service on an agent authorized to accept service on HD NY's behalf at that address. (ECF No. 1805 Decl. of Avi Luft Ex. C-6.)\n\n(ii) On May 24, 2023, HD NY was served with the Contempt Motion and the Notice of Hearing regarding the Contempt Motion via UPS overnight delivery at Hudson Diamond NY LLC, 140 Pearl Street, Suite 100, Buffalo, NY 14202-4014, and at Hudson Diamond NY LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 600 Mamaroneck Ave, #400, Harrison, NY 10528. (ECF No. 1826.)\n\n(iii) On June 20, 2023, HD NY was served with the orders scheduling a hearing on the Motion to Withdraw via FedEx overnight mail at Hudson Diamond NY LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network, Inc., 600 Mamaroneck Avenue, #400, Harrison, NY 10528. (ECF No. 1915.)\n\nNo one other than Attorney Romney has filed an appearance for HD NY. No one appeared at the continued hearing on the Contempt Motion or the hearing on the Motion to Withdraw contending that they – not Attorneys Romney and Vartan – represented HD NY. Bravo Luck Limited, an entity controlled by Mr. Guo, has filed an appearance in the case. (*See, e.g.*, ECF Nos. 1287, 1304, 1306.) As the Trustee observed, Ms. Guo can presumably talk to her brother to clear up who between them controls HD NY. The silence is telling.\n\nFinally, the Court agrees with the U.S. Trustee that granting the Motion to Withdraw would be prejudicial to these jointly administered Chapter 11 cases and related adversary proceedings. Numerous parties in these cases have seemingly been actively avoiding service. Others have simply ignored proper service. It benefits these proceedings to have counsel for parties in contested matters who can be served, can respond, and can be held responsible. Here, there is no proposed substitute counsel for HD NY. HD NY has been held in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with the Rule 2004 subpoena as compelled by the Consent Order. (ECF No. 2009.) Allowing Attorney Romney to withdraw would be harmful to judicial economy and the integrity of these proceedings.\n\nOn the specific facts and circumstances presently before the Court, the record does not support Attorney Romney's argument that Ms. Guo possibly lacked authority to retain him, but does support the conclusion that Attorney Romney's withdrawal would prejudice these jointly administered Chapter 11 cases and related adversary proceedings. *Compare Whiting*, 187 F.3d at 322–23 (overturning denial of motion to withdraw based on record establishing cause existed to","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n)\n\n)\n\n)\n\n债务人。1\n\n关于：) 第 11 章 ) 案号 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，)（合并审理）\n\n) 涉及：ECF No. 1903\n驳回辞任代理律师动议的裁定\n\n提请本法院审理的是由 Aaron A. Romney 律师提交的《辞任代理律师动议》（“辞任动议”），(ECF No. 1903)。Romney 律师申请辞去作为 Hudson Diamond NY LLC（“HD NY”）代理律师的职务。基于下文所述理由，在事实与情况发生变化不影响其随后重新提出动议的前提下，该辞任动议予以驳回（DENIED without prejudice）。\n\n2023年5月18日，Luc A. Despins 先生以 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生破产财产的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）身份，提交了《关于请求作出裁定判定 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 因未依从破产法第 2004 条传票而构成民事蔑视法庭的动议》（“蔑视动议”）。(ECF No. 1805。) 2018年6月1日，Romney 律师代表 HD NY 及 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（“HD Holding”，并与 HD NY 统称为“HD 实体”）提交了《出庭通知书》。(ECF No. 1848。) 2023年6月6日，法院就该蔑视动议举行了听证会。\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及诸多其他化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Ho Wan Kwok 财产受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于通知与联络目的）。\n\n在听证会期间，受托人与 HD 实体的代理律师记录在案地表示，双方已达成协议推迟关于蔑视动议的听证会。听证会结束后，法院于2023年6月8日作出了《关于蔑视动议的同意裁定》（“同意裁定”）。(ECF No. 1896。) 根据该同意裁定，HD 实体应于2023年6月15日或之前遵从受托人的传票，且关于蔑视动议中涉及 HD 实体的听证会被延期。\n\n2023年6月13日，Romney 律师提交了《辞任动议》，申请辞去对 HD NY 的代理——但不包括 HD Holding。(ECF No. 1903。) 该辞任动议称，Romney 律师此前错误地认为，唯一成员为 Mei Guo 女士（郭先生的女儿）的 HD Holding 是 HD NY 的唯一成员，而这一错误是在其试图遵从受托人传票的过程中发现的。(同上。) 由于辞任动议牵涉到同意裁定和蔑视动议，法院随后作出了《关于延期举行判定 HD 实体构成民事蔑视法庭动议听证会并要求 Aaron Romney 律师与 Lee Vartan 律师出庭就为何应准许辞去代理律师动议进行申辩的裁定》（“申辩裁定”）。(ECF No. 1909。) 该申辩裁定安排了书面意见提交日程，延期了关于蔑视动议的听证会，并确定了关于辞任动议的听证日程。(同上。)\n\n2023年7月3日，Office of the United States Trustee（美国联邦受托人办公室，“美国受托人”）就辞任动议提交了一份声明（“美国受托人声明”），表达了关切并向 Romney 律师提出了问题。(ECF No. 1971。) 2023年7月5日，受托人就 Romney 律师即将提交的声明的内容提交了权利保留声明。(ECF No. 1979。) 2023年7月7日，Romney 律师提交了《Aaron A. Romney 声明》（“Romney 声明”），以支持辞任动议。(ECF No. 1988。)\n2023年7月11日，法院就辞任动议举行了听证会。Romney 律师出庭作证并接受了美国受托人的交叉询问。该辞任动议已具备裁决条件。\n\n“在不予批准律师辞任动议的决定上，应给予地方法院相当大的自由裁量权。一审法官与当事人及事实接触最为密切，我们极不情愿干预地方法官对其极为繁重日程的管理。”Whiting 诉 Lacara 案，187 F.3d 317, 320 (2d Cir. 1999)（引文省略）（推翻驳回辞任动议的决定，因原告对巡回法官提问的回答表明，其坚持采取不太可能成功的诉讼策略，且该策略似乎主要是为了对被告造成法庭外的声誉损害，并且原告威胁称如果期望的策略未予执行将起诉代理律师）。“出于司法效益的考量，大力支持我们在这些情况下给予地方法官广泛的裁量权，但在某些情况下，代表民事案件原告的律师即使以对一审法院的日程管理造成重大干扰为代价，也可能不得不退出代理。”Whiting 案，187 F.3d 第 321 页。“尽管《示范准则》（Model Code）‘起草仅用于纪律处分程序，不能其本身单独作为准予辞去代理律师动议的依据’，但我们依然认为，‘《示范准则》在构成准予辞去代理律师的“正当理由”方面为法院提供了指引。’”同上。\n\n在本案中，Romney 律师和 Vartan 律师辩称，存在准予辞任动议的“正当理由”，因为 Romney 律师对于根据 Connecticut Practice Book（《康涅狄格州执业手册》）中的《职业操守准则》自身能否继续代理 HD NY 存有疑问。具体而言，他们主张，尽管他们此前认为 Guo 女士有权聘请他们代表\nHD NY，且受托人的证据也表明她确有此权限，但他们充分担忧郭女士实际上并未拥有聘请他们代表 HD NY 的权限。\n\n美国受托人和受托人辩称，辞任动议不应予以准许。为支持其主张，他们指出了本案案卷记录中的文件，这些文件载明 HD Holding 是 HD NY 的唯一成员，因此 Guo 女士作为 HD Holding 的唯一成员对 HD NY 拥有控制权。\n\n法院认同美国受托人和受托人的意见。案卷记录支持 Guo 女士有权聘请 Romney 律师和 Vartan 律师代表 HD NY 这一结论。受托人在其辩论中指出了蔑视动议所附 Avram E. Luft 声明（“Luft 声明”）的若干证据附件（各称“证据附件”，统称“证据附件群”），以支持其关于 HD Holding 是 HD NY 的唯一成员并通过 HD NY 开展业务的主张。(参见 ECF No. 1805。) 具体而言，受托人指出，作为 Luft 声明附件 H、I、T 和 U 的公司文件证实了：(i) Guo 女士是 HD Holding 的唯一成员（附件 I）；(ii) 她代表该公司签署了多份公司文件（附件 T、U）；(iii) HD Holding 是 HD NY 的唯一成员（附件 H）；以及 (iv) Guo 女士作为 HD Holding 的成员代表 HD NY 签署了文件（附件 T）。\n\nRomney 律师在其声明中主张，Hodgson Russ LLP（“Hodgson Russ”）曾表示 Guo 女士的兄弟——Qiang Guo（郭强）先生，亦称 Mileson Guo 先生——通过 Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc.（而非 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC）控制 HD NY。然而：(a) 案卷中没有任何文件（无论是公司文件还是其他文件）支持这一主张；(b) 没有任何来自 Hodgson Russ 的人员出庭及/或作证支持这一主张；且 (c) 正如美国受托人所指出的，Luft 声明的附件 T 是一份比 Hodgson Russ 所谓持有的矛盾文件更新近的文件，并支持 Guo 女士通过 HD Holding 控制 HD NY 这一结论（Romney 声明附件 A 第 2 页（Hodgson Russ 的 Kevin Kearney 律师写道，他尚不清楚在郭先生曾经掌控之后 Guo 女士于何时接管了 HD NY，但并未否认她已实际接管了 HD NY））。\n\nRomney 律师承认，证据附件似乎证实了 Guo 女士有权聘请他及 Vartan 律师，因为 HD Holding 是 HD NY 的唯一成员。(ECF No. 2119，第 14:14–24 行。) 这些证据附件、Luft 声明以及 Romney 声明均支持驳回辞任动议，而不支持得出存在准予辞任动议的正当理由这一结论。比较 Whiting 案，187 F.3d 第 322–23 页（在原告明确告知巡回法官其将在以渎职诉讼相威胁的情况下指示律师按照律师所反对的可疑策略推进诉讼的情形下，裁定存在退出的理由）。事实上，Romney 律师在听证会上表示，Hodgson Russ 对这些相互矛盾的文件无法给出合理解释。(ECF No. 2119，第 31:12–32:16 行。) 参见 Vachula 诉 Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. 案，199 F.R.D. 454, 458–59 (D. Conn. 2000)（对比了本案这种律师与当事人关系未出现明显严重破裂或其他辞任事由的情形与 Whiting 案中的情形）。\n\n此外，正如 Romney 律师和 Vartan 律师所承认的，HD NY 已被合法有效送达。具体说明如下：\n\n(i) 2022年12月7日，破产法第 2004 条传票在 Hudson Diamond NY LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 600 Mamaroneck Ave, #400, Harrison, NY 10528 通过向该地址获授权代表 HD NY 接受送达的代理人当面送达的方式，向 HD NY 进行了送达。(ECF No. 1805 Avi Luft 声明附件 C-6。)\n\n(ii) 2023年5月24日，蔑视动议及关于蔑视动议的听证通知书通过 UPS 隔夜快递向 Hudson Diamond NY LLC, 140 Pearl Street, Suite 100, Buffalo, NY 14202-4014 以及 Hudson Diamond NY LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 600 Mamaroneck Ave, #400, Harrison, NY 10528 处的 HD NY 进行了送达。(ECF No. 1826。)\n\n(iii) 2023年6月20日，确定辞任动议听证日程的裁定通过 FedEx 隔夜邮件向 Hudson Diamond NY LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network, Inc., 600 Mamaroneck Avenue, #400, Harrison, NY 10528 处的 HD NY 进行了送达。(ECF No. 1915。)\n\n除 Romney 律师外，没有任何人代表 HD NY 提交过出庭通知。在蔑视动议的延期听证会或辞任动议的听证会上，没有任何人出庭主张由其自身——而非 Romney 律师和 Vartan 律师——代表 HD NY。由郭先生控制的实体 Bravo Luck Limited 已在本案中提交了出庭通知。(参见例如 ECF Nos. 1287, 1304, 1306。) 正如受托人所指出，Guo 女士推测完全可以与其兄弟沟通，以厘清他们之间究竟由谁控制 HD NY。这种沉默意味深长。\n\n最后，本法院赞同美国受托人的观点，即准予辞任动议将对这些合并审理的第 11 章案件及相关对抗性诉讼程序造成不利影响。这些案件中的众多当事人似乎一直在主动规避送达。其他当事人则完全无视正当送达。在存在争议的程序事项中拥有可被送达、能够回应并可被追究责任的当事人代理律师，有利于此类诉讼程序的推进。在本案中，HD NY 并无拟议的替代代理律师。HD NY 因未按同意裁定的强制要求遵从破产法第 2004 条传票，已被裁定构成民事蔑视法庭。(ECF No. 2009。) 准许 Romney 律师辞任将损害司法效益以及这些程序的严肃完整性。\n\n基于目前提请本法院审理的具体事实与情况，案卷记录不支持 Romney 律师关于 Guo 女士可能缺乏权限聘请他的主张，但确实支持 Romney 律师辞任将对这些合并审理的第 11 章案件及相关对抗性诉讼程序造成不利影响这一结论。比较 Whiting 案，187 F.3d 第 322–23 页（基于确立存在事由的案卷记录推翻驳回辞任动议的决定","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Miles Guo","Je","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1805,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1826,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1848,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1896,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1903,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1909,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1915,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1971,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1979,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1988,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2009,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2119,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1986,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:01:08"}