{"id":"court_ctb_2227_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2227,"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**:**\n\n**:**\n\n**In re: : Chapter 11 HO WAN KWOK,** *et al.,* **: Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\n**\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_**\n\n**: (Jointly Administered)**\n\n**\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_: Re: ECF No. 2220**\n\n## **CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE**\n\n**Debtors. :**\n\nI hereby certify that on the 21st day of September, 2023, I served Attorney Lee Vartan with the attached order by email at [levartan@csglaw.com.](mailto:levartan@csglaw.com)\n\nI further certify that on the 22nd day of September, 2023, the attached order was served\n\nby operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\nDated this 22 nd day of September, 2023, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n*/s/ Aaron A. Romney* Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 (203) 368-4234 (203) 368-5473 (fax) Email: aromney@zeislaw.com\n\n## **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 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\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n_____________________________________________\n\n:（合并审理）\n\n_____________________________________________: 涉及：ECF No. 2220\nCERTIFICATION OF SERVICE（送达证明）\n\n债务人。:\n\n本人特此证明，于 2023 年 9 月 21 日，本人通过电子邮件 [levartan@csglaw.com] 向 Lee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦）律师送达了随附裁定。\n\n本人进一步证明，于 2023 年 9 月 22 日，随附裁定已通过本法院电子归档系统的运行完成送达。各方当事人可通过本法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本归档文件。\n\n日期：2023 年 9 月 22 日，于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Romney\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n(203) 368-4234\n(203) 368-5473（传真）\n电子邮箱：aromney@zeislaw.com\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院）\n\n)\n\n)\n\n)\n\n债务人。1\n\n关于：) 第 11 章\n) 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，)（合并审理）\n\n) 涉及：ECF No. 1903\nORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY（驳回撤销代理律师身份动议的裁定）\n\n提交本法院审理的是由 Aaron A. Romney（亚伦·A·罗姆尼）律师提交的《撤销代理律师身份动议》（Motion to Withdraw as Attorney，以下简称“《撤销代理动议》”）（ECF No. 1903）。Romney 律师请求撤销其作为 Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司，以下简称“HD NY”）法律顾问的身份。基于下述理由，《撤销代理动议》予以驳回（DENIED），但若事实与情况发生变化，不影响其随后再次提交动议。\n\n2023 年 5 月 18 日，Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）先生以 Ho Wan Kwok 先生破产财产的第 11 章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，提交了《关于请求作出裁定判定 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 与 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 因未对联邦破产诉讼程序规则第 2004 条传票作出回应而构成民事藐视法庭的动议》（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，以下简称“《藐视法庭动议》”）。（ECF No. 1805。）2018 年 6 月 1 日，Romney 律师代表 HD NY 及 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司，以下简称“HD Holding”，与 HD NY 合称为“HD 实体”）提交了《代理出庭通知》（Notice of Appearance）。（ECF No. 1848。）2023 年 6 月 6 日，就《藐视法庭动议》举行了听证会。\n\n1 本批第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 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（仅用于接收通知和联络之目的）。\n\n听证会期间，受托人与 HD 实体的律师在记录中陈述称，双方已就延期举行关于《藐视法庭动议》的听证会达成协议。听证会后，于 2023 年 6 月 8 日，本法院作出了《关于藐视法庭动议的同意裁定》（Consent Order Regarding Contempt Motion，以下简称“《同意裁定》”）。（ECF No. 1896。）依据《同意裁定》，HD 实体须在 2023 年 6 月 15 日或之前遵从受托人的传票，且关于《藐视法庭动议》中涉及 HD 实体的听证会予以延期。\n\n2023 年 6 月 13 日，Romney 律师提交了《撤销代理动议》，请求撤销其作为 HD NY 的代理出庭——但不撤销对 HD Holding 的代理出庭。（ECF No. 1903。）《撤销代理动议》称，Romney 律师此前错误地认为唯一成员为 Mei Guo（郭美）女士（Kwok 先生的女儿）的 HD Holding 是 HD NY 的唯一成员，且该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《撤销代理动议》牵涉《同意裁定》和《藐视法庭动议》，本法院随后作出了《关于继续举行判定 HD 实体构成民事藐视法庭动议听证会并要求 Aaron Romney 律师和 Lee Vartan 律师出庭就为何应准许撤销代理律师身份动议进行说明理由的裁定》（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，以下简称“《说明理由裁定》”）。（ECF No. 1909。）《说明理由裁定》安排了书面陈词日程，继续举行关于《藐视法庭动议》的听证会，并安排了关于《撤销代理动议》的听证会。（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，以下简称“美国受托人”）就《撤销代理动议》提交了一份声明（以下简称“《美国受托人声明》”），表达了关切并向 Romney 律师提出了质询。（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》（Declaration of Aaron A. Romney，以下简称“《Romney 声明》”），以支持《撤销代理动议》。（ECF No. 1988。）\n\n2023 年 7 月 11 日，就《撤销代理动议》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。《撤销代理动议》已具备裁决条件。\n\n“在不予准许律师撤销代理动议的裁定中，地方法院享有相当大的自由裁量权。初审法官最接近各方当事人及事实，我们极不愿干预地方初审法官对其极为繁重日程的管理。”Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 320 (2d Cir. 1999)（内部引文省略）（推翻驳回撤销代理动议的裁定，原因为原告对巡回法官提问的回答证实其坚持采用不太可能成功的诉讼策略，且该策略似乎主要旨在对被告造成法庭外的声誉损害，以及原告威胁若不执行其期望的策略将起诉律师）。“出于司法效益的考量，极其倾向于赋予地方初审法官在此类情形下广泛的裁量权，但在某些情况下，在民事案件中代表原告的律师可能不得不撤销代理，即使这会对初审法院的审理日程安排造成重大干扰。”Whiting, 187 F.3d at 321。“尽管《示范守则》（Model Code）‘起草的目的仅在于用于惩戒程序，其本身不能作为准许撤销代理律师身份动议的基础’，但我们依然认为‘《示范守则》为法院提供了何种情况构成准许撤销代理律师身份的“正当理由”（good cause）的指导。’”同上。\n\n在本案中，Romney 和 Vartan 律师主张存在准许《撤销代理动议》的“正当理由”，因为 Romney 律师对根据《康涅狄格州诉讼实务守则》（Connecticut Practice Book）中的《职业操守准则》（Rules of Professional Conduct）其是否能够继续代表 HD NY 存有疑虑。具体而言，他们辩称，尽管他们此前认为郭女士有权聘请他们代表 HD NY，且受托人的证据也表明她确有此权，但他们对郭女士实际上并无聘请他们代表 HD NY 的权限表示出充分的担忧。\n\n美国受托人及受托人辩称不应准许《撤销代理动议》。为了支持其主张，他们指出了本案案卷记录中的文件，这些文件表明 HD Holding 是 HD NY 的唯一成员，因此，郭女士作为 HD Holding 的唯一成员对 HD NY 享有控制权。\n\n本法院同意美国受托人和受托人的意见。案卷记录支持郭女士有权聘请 Romney 和 Vartan 律师代表 HD NY 的结论。在其辩论中，受托人指出了附在《藐视法庭动议》后 Avram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）的声明（以下简称“《Luft 声明》”）中的若干证据附件（各称“证据附件”，合称“证据附件集”），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，《Luft 声明》所附证据附件 H、I、T 和 U 的公司文件证实：(i) 郭女士是 HD Holding 的唯一成员（证据附件 I）；(ii) 她代表 HD Holding 签署了各类公司文件（证据附件 T、U）；(iii) HD Holding 是 HD NY 的唯一成员（证据附件 H）；以及 (iv) 郭女士作为 HD Holding 的成员代表 HD NY 签署了文件（证据附件 T）。\n\nRomney 律师在其声明中辩称，Hodgson Russ LLP（霍奇森·拉斯有限责任合伙）指出郭女士的兄弟——Qiang Guo（郭强）先生，亦称 Mileson Guo 先生——是通过 Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc.（哈德逊钻石控股股份有限公司）而非 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）来控制 HD NY 的。然而：(a) 案卷记录中的任何文件（无论公司文件与否）均不支持此主张；(b) 没有任何来自 Hodgson Russ 的人员出庭和/或作证支持此主张；且 (c) 正如美国受托人所指出的，《Luft 声明》所附的证据附件 T 是一份比 Hodgson Russ 据称持有的相反文件更新的文件，该文件支持郭女士通过 HD Holding 控制 HD NY 的结论（《Romney 声明》证据附件 A，第 2 页（Hodgson Russ 的 Kevin Kearney 律师在信件中写道，在郭先生掌握控制权之后郭女士何时开始掌握 HD NY 的控制权对他而言尚不明确，但他并不否认郭女士已经掌握了 HD NY 的控制权））。\n\nRomney 律师承认，这些证据附件似乎确认了郭女士有权聘请他和 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》及《Romney 声明》均支持驳回《撤销代理动议》，且不支持存在准许《撤销代理动议》的正当理由的结论。对照 Whiting, 187 F.3d at 322–23（认定存在撤销代理的理由，其中原告明确向巡回法官表示，其将以提起执业过失诉讼相威胁，指示律师按照律师所反对的可疑策略继续进行诉讼）。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没有作出任何解释。（ECF No. 2119，第 31:12–32:16 行。）参见 Vachula v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp., 199 F.R.D. 454, 458–59 (D. Conn. 2000)（对比了诸如本案这般没有明显的律师与委托人关系严重破裂或其他撤销代理理由的情形与 Whiting 案中的情形）。\n\n此外，正如 Romney 和 Vartan 律师所承认的，文书已向 HD NY 进行了合法送达。具体而言：\n\n(i) 2022 年 12 月 7 日，依据第 2004 条传票，在 Hudson Diamond NY LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network Inc., 600 Mamaroneck Ave, #400, Harrison, NY 10528 地址，通过向获授权在该地址代 HD NY 接受送达的代理人进行直接当面送达，完成了向 HD NY 的送达。（ECF No. 1805 Avi Luft 声明证据附件 C-6。）\n\n(ii) 2023 年 5 月 24 日，《藐视法庭动议》及关于该动议的《听证会通知》通过 UPS 次日达快递送达至 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。（ECF No. 1826。）\n\n(iii) 2023 年 6 月 20 日，关于安排《撤销代理动议》听证会的裁定通过联邦快递（FedEx）隔夜件送达至 Hudson Diamond NY LLC, c/o Corporate Creations Network, Inc., 600 Mamaroneck Avenue, #400, Harrison, NY 10528。（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。在继续举行的关于《藐视法庭动议》的听证会或关于《撤销代理动议》的听证会上，没有任何人出庭主张由其本人——而非 Romney 和 Vartan 律师——代表 HD NY。受郭先生控制的实体 Bravo Luck Limited（豪吉有限公司）已在本案中提交了出庭通知。（参见，例如，ECF Nos. 1287, 1304, 1306。）正如受托人所指出的，郭女士大概可以与其兄弟沟通，以澄清他们二人中究竟由谁控制 HD NY。这种沉默意味深长。\n\n最后，法院同意 U.S. Trustee（美国破产受托人）的意见，即准许撤任动议将对这些合并审理的第 11 章破产案件及相关对抗性程序造成不利影响。这些案件中的众多当事人似乎一直在积极规避送达。其他当事人则干脆对合法送达置之不理。在争议事项中拥有可以被送达、能够作出回应并可被追究责任的当事方代理律师，有利于这些程序的进行。在此案中，HD NY 并没有拟议的替代律师。HD NY 因未能遵守同意令所强制执行的第 2004 条传票已被认定构成民事藐视法庭。(ECF No. 2009.) 允许 Romney 律师（Attorney Romney）撤任将损害司法效益以及这些程序的完整性。\n\n根据法院目前所掌握的具体事实和情况，案卷记录不支持 Romney 律师关于 Guo 女士（Ms. Guo）可能缺乏聘请他的权限的主张，但确实支持以下结论：Romney 律师的撤任将损害这些合并审理的第 11 章破产案件及相关对抗性程序。对比 Whiting, 187 F.3d at 322–23（基于案卷记录确立了存在理由而推翻驳回撤任动议的裁定以","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"},{"doc_number":2220,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2126,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:05:38"}