{"id":"court_ctb_2360_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2360,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"DECLARATION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION a/k/a WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES GUO,[1](#page-0-","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n**a/k/a WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES GUO,[1](#page-0-0) Jointly Administered**\n\n**In re Chapter 11**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\n **Debtor. Re: ECF 2282**\n\n## **UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S APPLICATION TO EMPLOY EISNER ADVISORY GROUP LLC**\n\nWilliam K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (\"United States Trustee\"), hereby objects to the application of Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins (\"Trustee\") to employ Eisner Advisory Group LLC (\"EA Group\") as tax advisor for the three chapter 11 debtors effective as of October 23, 2023 (ECF 2282) (\"Application\"). The United States Trustee opposes the retention of EA Group because of its connections to the Former REM Clients. [2](#page-0-1) The United States Trustee also opposes approval of certain provisions contained in Section 7(a) and 7(b) of Eisner Advisory Group LLC Standard Terms and Conditions of Engagement filed as part of the Application (\"Limitations Provisions\"). In support of his objection, the United States Trustee states as follows:\n\n#### **CONTENTS OF APPLICATION**\n\nOn October 24, 2023, the Trustee filed the Application seeking to employ EA Group as tax advisors to all three of these chapter 11 estates (\"Estates\"). ECF 2282. Paragraph 26 of the Application discloses that EA Group has connections to the chapter 11 estates of Ho Wan Kwok\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The jointly administered debtors are Ho Wan Kwok (22-50073), Genever Holdings, LLC (22-50592), and Genever Holdings Corporation (22-50542).\n\n<span id=\"page-0-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> Term defined in paragraph 26 of the Application and in paragraph 7 of the Declaration of Anthony R. Calascibetta, a partner at EA Group.\n\n(\"Individual Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Debtor Genever BVI\"). The connections stem from EA Group's acquisition of certain assets of the financial services firm of Raiche Ende Malter Co., LLP (\"REM\") in July 2022, the absorption into EA Group of certain former REM personnel, as well as the Former REM Clients. *See* Application at ¶ 26. According to REM's website, REM is now part of EA Group (\"Raich Ende Malter & Company has Joined Eisner Advisory Group LLC\"). *See* [http](http)\n\nThe Former REM Clients are a group of seven clients of REM and includes both individuals and companies. Five are central figures of this chapter 11 case: (a) two are debtors the Individual Debtor and Debtor Genever BVI, (b) Qiang Guo, the son of the Individual Debtor, (c) Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\"), the Individual Debtor's \"family office\" and alleged primary source of financial support for the Individual Debtor both pre-petition and post-petition, and (d) Rui Ma, a member of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (\"Committee\") (ECF 108). *See* Application at ¶ 26. Other individuals who are Former REM Clients are Chunguang Han,[3](#page-1-0) Yong Yu,[4](#page-1-1) and Zhiewi Zhang, but the Application does not provide any information about the connections of these individuals to these chapter 11 cases. *Id.*\n\nAccording to the Application and the supporting declaration of Anthony R. Calascibetta (\"Declaration\"), REM provided services to the Former REM Clients in connection with \"certain tax returns and tax extensions for 2015 and 2016.\" *See* Application at ¶ 26; Declaration at ¶ 7. It is undisclosed when REM's client relationships with the Former REM Clients started or concluded. When EA Group joined with REM, it also absorbed some employees of REM who\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> This individual is referenced in Adv. Proc. 23-5008 and is alleged to be an employee of the Individual Debtor and the owner of Anton Development, Ltd.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-1\"></span><sup>4</sup> ECF 1083 contains an affidavit of Yong Yu that was filed under seal. Yong Yu is also alleged to be an employee of the Individual Debtor in Adv. Proc. 23-5008.\n\nworked on matters involving the Former REM Clients. *See* Application at ¶ 26; Declaration at ¶ 7. The identities of these EA Group personnel who are former REM employees are not disclosed in the Application, nor is the nature of the services provided to the Former REM Clients disclosed beyond stating it was \"certain tax returns and tax extensions for 2015 and 2016.\" *See* Application at ¶ 26; Declaration at ¶ 7. The Application states that none of the EA Group personnel who are former REM employees will work on matters for the Estates and they will not have access to information related to Estates. *See* Application at ¶ 27; Declaration at ¶ 10.\n\nThe Trustee, through his counsel, served REM with a Rule 2004 subpoena in December 2022 (\"Trustee Subpoena\"). *See* Application at ¶ 26; Declaration at ¶ 9. While the Application does not address it, the Trustee presumably received information and documentation about REM and certain of its clients in connection with the Trustee Subpoena. Now, by seeking to employ EA Group the Trustee is seeking to hire, albeit indirectly, a target of his investigation and the Trustee has specifically reserved rights against REM. *See* fn. 4 on page 9 of the Application. More importantly, EA Group, by joining with REM and former REM personnel who now work at EA Group, inherited a connection to these cases that makes EA Group adverse to the Estates and thus unable to meet the requirements of Section 327. Additionally, there is a concern that the Trustee may potentially need to be adverse to REM and/or to former REM personnel that are now at EA Group which renders the employment of EA Group inappropriate.\n\nSome of the proposed terms of the retention of EA Group are also improper. The terms of the EA Group retention include Limitations Provisions, contained in Section 7(a) and 7(b) of Eisner Advisory Group LLC Standard Terms and Conditions of Engagement filed as part of the\n\nApplication, which restrict and limit the liability of EA Group. The limitations are as follows:\n\n- (a) Section 7(a) limits the liability of EA Group to the chapter 11 estates to the amount of fees paid for the \"service or work product giving rise to liability.\" ECF 2282 at page 29. The limitation of liability does not apply to damages judicially determined to be the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct. *Id.*\n- (b) Section 7(b) protects EA Group by excluding the following types of damages as recoverable: consequential, incidental, indirect punitive or special. *Id.*\n\n### **ARGUMENT**\n\n#### **I. Requirements of Section 327(a) and Rule 2014(a)**\n\nThe legal standards governing retention of a professional are generally contained in 11 U.S.C. § 327(a). Pursuant to Section 327(a), there are two basic requirements for retention of a professional to provide services to the debtor's estate: (1) the professional must not \"hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate,\" and (2) the professional must be a \"disinterested person.\" 11 U.S.C. § 327(a); *Vouzianas v. Ready & Pontisakos (In re Vouzianas)*, 259 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 2001). Accountants must satisfy the requirements of Section 327(a). *In re Andover Togs, Inc.*, 2001 WL 262605 (S.D.N.Y. March 15, 2001) (reversing bankruptcy court's approval of employment of accountant who was a creditor; finding Section 327(e) not applicable to accountants and that accountants are governed by Section 327(a)); *In re Tribeca Market, LLC*, 516 B.R. 254, 277-280 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (accountant required to meet both Section 327 and disclosure obligations of Rule 2014).\n\nThe Second Circuit defines \"adverse interest\" as follows:\n\n(1) to possess or assert any economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate or that would create either an actual or potential dispute in which the estate is a rival claimant; or (2) to\n\npossess a predisposition under circumstances that render such a bias against the estate.\n\n*In re Arochem Corp*., 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2d Cir. 1999). The \"determination of an adverse interest is objective and concerned with the appearance of impropriety.\" *In re Angelika Films 57th Inc*., 227 B.R. 29, 38 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998). \"The disqualifying adverse interest addressed in § 327. . . is either an actual or a reasonably probable conflict of interest.\" *In re AroChem*, 181 B.R. 693, 700 (Bankr. D.Conn. 1995) (Shiff, J.), *aff'd, In re AroChem Corp.*, 176 F.3d 610 (2nd Cir. 1999). \"Whether an adverse interest exists is best determined on a case-bycase basis.\" *In re Arochem Corp.*, 176 F.3d at 623 (*citations omitted*). The standards in section 327(a) are \"phrased in the present tense, permitting representation by professionals 'that do not *hold* or *represent* an interest adverse to the estate.'\" *Id*. (emphasis in original).\n\n The Bankruptcy Code defines a \"disinterested person\" as one who is \"not a creditor, equity security holder, or an insider\", and who \"does not have an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate or any class of creditors … by reason of any indirect or direct relationship to, connection with, or interest in, the debtor …\" 11 U.S.C. § 101(14)(A) and (E). \"The 'materially adverse' standard incorporated in the disinterestedness test and the 'interest adverse to the estate' language in section 327(a) overlap. To this extent, the two prongs of section 327(a) are duplicative and form a single test to judge conflicts of interest.\" *In re Granite Partners, L.P.,* 219 B.R. 22, 33 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998); *see also JMK Construction Group, Ltd.,* 441 B.R. 222, 229 (Bankr. S.D.NY. 2010).\n\nBankruptcy Rule 2014(a) requires affirmative disclosure in a retention application of, \"to the best of the applicant's knowledge, all of the person's connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants.\" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a). \"It is abundantly clear that Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a) requires a significant level of\n\ndisclosure of the proposed professional's 'connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party\n\nin interest, their respective attorneys and accountants' … .\" *In re Matco Electronics Group, Inc.,*\n\n383 B.R. 848, 852-853 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2008). These obligations apply to accountants. *In re*\n\n*Tribeca Market, LLC*, 516 B.R. at 277-280. Furthermore,\n\nIt is equally clear that the level of disclosure outlined in the Rule is mandatory, whether or not that disclosure would unearth a conflict of interest. It is also apparent that the obligation to disclose is not a subjective one, whereby the professional discloses only those \"connections\" that he/she/it concludes are relevant …\n\nAs indicated, the existence of a conflict of interest is not the quid pro quo for whether or not the disclosure must be made. Sanctions are imposed for the failure to disclose, regardless of the consequences of the non-disclosure … '[I]n the Second Circuit a violation of the disclosure rule alone is sufficient to deny compensation regardless of whether the undisclosed connection was materially adverse to the estate.'\n\n*Id.* (*internal citations omitted*); *see also In re Peterson*, 163 B.R. 665, 670 (Bankr. D. Conn.\n\n1994) (citing *Futuronics Corp. v. Arutt, Nachamie & Benjamin (Matter of Futuronics Corp.)*,\n\n655 F.2d 463, 469 (2d Cir. 1981) (\"As a general rule, the consequences of failure to make a full\n\ndisclosure under Section 327(a) and Rule 2014(a) is the denial of all compensation for post-\n\npetition services.\")). \"Even a negligent or inadvertent failure to disclose fully relevant\n\ninformation may result in a denial of all requested fees … disclosures must be direct and\n\ncomprehensive; that is, the [professional] …must make a full, candid and complete disclosure.\"\n\n*In re Chin Kim*, 2012 WL 3907490 at \\*4 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2012) (*internal citations omitted*).\n\n### **II. Issues with Application**\n\nAs discussed below, the Application presents an issue that warrants denial of the\n\nApplication, namely EA Group's connections to REM and the Former REM Clients. Should the\n\nCourt not deny the Application, the Limitations Provisions should be removed from the terms of employment of EA Group.\n\n#### *(i) REM and the Former REM Clients*\n\nEA Group is connected to these chapter 11 cases in a way that makes their employment inappropriate. By acquiring REM and certain personnel of REM in 2022, EA Group inherited the connections of REM to the Former REM Clients. Two of the former REM Clients are two of the debtors - the Individual Debtor and Debtor Genever BVI. Two of the Former REM Clients are targets of claims and litigation by the Trustee - Qiang Guo and Golden Spring. [5](#page-6-0) One of the Former REM Clients is a member of the Committee - Rui Ma. ECF 108. Other Former REM Clients are connected to the Estates, but the Application does not provide any details.\n\nAs a result of the foregoing, EA Group is unable to satisfy the requirements of Section 327(a) because of its connection to REM and the Former REM Clients. The Individual Debtor, in his individual capacity, is directly adverse to the Trustee and the Estates.[6](#page-6-1) Quiang Guo and Golden Spring are directly adverse to the Trustee and the Estates. Some of the employees of REM who worked on matters involving the Former REM Clients now work at EA Group. EA Group's connections to adverse parties, through REM, REM personnel, and their work on behalf of adverse parties, makes EA Group ineligible under Section 327(a).\n\nFurther, when considering the Application, the Court should also take into consideration the fact that REM was a target of investigation by the Trustee and the Trustee is reserving all rights as to REM. *See* Application at fn. 4 on page 9. REM has joined with EA Group and it appears imprudent to hire a professional firm when that firm, as a successor to REM and the\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> *See* adversary proceedings at Case Nos. 22-5027, 23-5018.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-1\"></span><sup>6</sup> *See* adversary proceedings at Case Nos. 22-5032, 22-5034.\n\nemployer of personnel who provided services to the Former REM Clients, may be the subject of further investigation or potentially face claims against it by the Trustee.\n\n### *(ii) Limitations Provisions*\n\nThe Limitations provisions are improper. EA Group, if authorized by the Court to serve as tax advisors to the Trustee and the Estates, will become a fiduciary to the Estates. *In re Jackson*, 643 B.R. 644, 703 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2022) (accountant hired by chapter 11 debtor owes fiduciary duty to the debtor and the estate). Limiting liability in advance does not comport with being a fiduciary.\n\nIf EA Group makes a serious mistake, it could cause significant loss to the Estates and their creditors. *See, e.g., In re Merry-Go-Round Enterprises, Inc.*, 244 B.R. 327, 330-31, 333 (Bankr. D. Md. 2000) (accounting firm, retained in chapter 11 case to provide services to the debtor as a \"turnaround specialist\" settles negligence, malpractice, fraud and fraudulent concealment suit brought by the estate for \\$185 million); *Billing v. Ravin, Greenberg & Zackin, P.A.*, 22 F.3d 1242 (3d Cir. 1994) (professional accused of malpractice for failing to perform a number of duties). Under the Limitation Provisions that the Trustee has bestowed upon EA Group, the Estates - and therefore their creditors - will bear the loss for those mistakes and lose their ability to hold EA Group fully accountable for its mistakes.\n\nThe burden of proof to establish that the terms and conditions of employment are reasonable is on the applicant. *Nischwitz v. Miskovic (In re Airspect Air, Inc.),* 385 F.3d 915, 921 (6th Cir. 2004); *Zolfo, Cooper & Co. v. Sunbeam-Oster Co., Inc.*, 50 F.3d 253, 262 (3d Cir. 1995); *In re Metricom, Inc*., 275 B.R. 364, 371 (Bankr. N.D. Ca. 2002). To meet its burden, the applicant must provide specific evidence to establish that \"the terms and conditions are in the best interest of the estate.\" *In re Gillett Holdings, Inc.,* 137 B.R. 452, 455 (Bankr. D. Colo.\n\n1991). The burden has not been met by the Trustee.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\n**WHEREFORE**, for all of the foregoing reasons, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the Court deny the Application. Should the Court determine that it is appropriate to employ EA Group, the Limitation Provisions should be struck from the terms of employment.\n\nDated: November 21, 2023 Respectfully submitted, New Haven, Connecticut\n\nWILLIAM K. HARRINGTON UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2\n\nBy: /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\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 on November 21, 2023.\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又名 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵）又名 MILES GUO，[1] 联合管理\n\n关于 第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 涉及：ECF 2282\n\nUNITED STATES TRUSTEE（美国联邦破产受托人）对第 11 章受托人聘用 EISNER ADVISORY GROUP LLC 申请的异议\n\n第 2 区美国联邦破产受托人 William K. Harrington（以下简称“美国受托人”），特此对第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（以下简称“受托人”）自 2023 年 10 月 23 日起聘用 Eisner Advisory Group LLC（以下简称“EA Group”）担任三名第 11 章债务人税务顾问的申请（ECF 2282）（以下简称“《申请》”）提出异议。美国受托人反对聘用 EA Group，系因其与 Former REM Clients（REM 前客户）[2] 存在关联。美国受托人亦反对批准作为《申请》一部分提交的《Eisner Advisory Group LLC 标准聘用条款与条件》第 7(a) 条和第 7(b) 条中所载的某些条款（以下简称“《限制条款》”）。为支持其异议，美国受托人陈述如下：\n\n《申请》之内容\n\n2023 年 10 月 24 日，受托人提交了《申请》，请求聘用 EA Group 担任所有这三处第 11 章破产财产（以下简称“破产财产”）的税务顾问。ECF 2282。《申请》第 26 段披露，EA Group 与 Ho Wan Kwok\n\n1 联合管理的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（22-50073）、Genever Holdings, LLC（22-50592）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（22-50542）。\n\n2 该术语定义于《申请》第 26 段以及 EA Group 合伙人 Anthony R. Calascibetta 的声明第 7 段中。\n\n（以下简称“个人债务人”）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（以下简称“债务人 Genever BVI”）的第 11 章破产财产存在关联。这些关联源于 EA Group 于 2022 年 7 月收购了金融服务公司 Raiche Ende Malter Co., LLP（以下简称“REM”）的某些资产，EA Group 吸收了某些前 REM 人员，以及吸收了 REM 前客户。参见《申请》第 26 段。根据 REM 的网站，REM 现为 EA Group 的一部分（“Raich Ende Malter & Company has Joined Eisner Advisory Group LLC”）。参见 [http]\n\nREM 前客户是 REM 的七个客户组成的群体，包括个人和公司。其中五名是本第 11 章案件的核心人物：(a) 两人为债务人——个人债务人和债务人 Genever BVI，(b) Qiang Guo（郭强），个人债务人之子，(c) Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（以下简称“Golden Spring”），个人债务人的“家族办公室”且据称是个人债务人在申请前和申请后财务支持的主要来源，以及 (d) Rui Ma（马蕊），Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）（以下简称“委员会”）的成员（ECF 108）。参见《申请》第 26 段。属于 REM 前客户的其他个人包括 Chunguang Han（韩春光）、[3] Yong Yu（余咏）[4] 以及 Zhiewi Zhang（张志伟），但《申请》未提供有关这些个人与这些第 11 章案件之间关联的任何信息。同上。\n\n根据《申请》及所附 Anthony R. Calascibetta 的声明（以下简称“《声明》”），REM 就“2015 年和 2016 年的某些纳税申报表及延期纳税申报”向 REM 前客户提供了服务。参见《申请》第 26 段；《声明》第 7 段。REM 与 REM 前客户的客户关系始于何时或终于何时未予披露。当 EA Group 与 REM 合并时，其亦吸纳了 REM 的部分员工，这些员工\n\n3 该个人在 Adv. Proc. 23-5008 附随诉讼中被提及，据称为个人债务人的雇员及 Anton Development, Ltd. 的所有人。\n\n4 ECF 1083 包含一份密封提交的 Yong Yu 的宣誓证词。在 Adv. Proc. 23-5008 中，Yong Yu 亦据称为个人债务人的雇员。\n\n曾处理涉及 REM 前客户的事务。参见《申请》第 26 段；《声明》第 7 段。《申请》中未披露这些身为前 REM 雇员的 EA Group 人员的身份，除了说明是“2015 年和 2016 年的某些纳税申报表及延期纳税申报”外，亦未披露向 REM 前客户所提供服务的性质。参见《申请》第 26 段；《声明》第 7 段。《申请》称，身为前 REM 雇员的 EA Group 人员均不会处理涉及破产财产的事务，且他们无权获取与破产财产相关的信息。参见《申请》第 27 段；《声明》第 10 段。\n\n受托人通过其律师于 2022 年 12 月向 REM 送达了根据《破产程序规则》第 2004 条发出的传票（以下简称“《受托人传票》”）。参见《申请》第 26 段；《声明》第 9 段。虽然《申请》对此未予说明，但受托人推测已收到与《受托人传票》相关的关于 REM 及其某些客户的信息和文件。如今，受托人通过寻求聘用 EA Group，实际上是在寻求雇用（尽管是间接地）其调查的对象，且受托人已明确保留对 REM 的权利。参见《申请》第 9 页脚注 4。更为重要的是，EA Group 通过吸纳 REM 以及现就职于 EA Group 的前 REM 人员，继承了与这些案件的关联，该关联使得 EA Group 与破产财产存在利益对立，从而无法满足第 327 条的要求。此外，令人担忧的是，受托人可能潜在地需要与 REM 和/或现就职于 EA Group 的前 REM 人员处于对立立场，这使得对 EA Group 的聘用变得不当。\n\n提议的聘用 EA Group 的某些条款亦是不当的。EA Group 的聘用条款包括《限制条款》，该条款包含在作为《申请》一部分提交的《Eisner Advisory Group LLC 标准聘用条款与条件》第 7(a) 条和第 7(b) 条中，其限制并缩小了 EA Group 的责任。具体限制如下：\n\n- (a) 第 7(a) 条将 EA Group 对第 11 章破产财产承担的责任限制为就“引起责任的服务或工作成果”所支付的费用金额。ECF 2282 第 29 页。该责任限制不适用于经司法判定系因重大过失或故意不当行为所造成的损害赔偿。同上。\n- (b) 第 7(b) 条通过排除以下类型的损害赔偿作为可获赔偿的范围来保护 EA Group：间接的、附带的、间接惩罚性的或特殊的损害赔偿。同上。\n\n论证\n\nI. 第 327(a) 条及规则 2014(a) 的要求\n\n规范聘用专业人员的法律标准通常载于 11 U.S.C. § 327(a)。根据第 327(a) 条，聘用专业人员为债务人破产财产提供服务有两项基本要求：(1) 专业人员不得“持有或代表与破产财产对立的利益”，以及 (2) 专业人员必须是“无利害关系人”。11 U.S.C. § 327(a)；Vouzianas v. Ready & Pontisakos (In re Vouzianas), 259 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 2001)。会计师必须符合第 327(a) 条的要求。In re Andover Togs, Inc., 2001 WL 262605 (S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区）March 15, 2001)（推翻破产法院对聘用作为债权人的会计师的批准；认定第 327(e) 条不适用于会计师，且会计师受第 327(a) 条管辖）；In re Tribeca Market, LLC, 516 B.R. 254, 277-280 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)（会计师须同时满足第 327 条及规则 2014 的披露义务）。\n\n第二巡回法院对“对立利益”的定义如下：\n\n(1) 拥有或主张任何倾向于减损破产财产价值的经济利益，或该经济利益会造成破产财产作为竞争性索赔人参与其中的实际或潜在争议；或 (2)\n\n在特定情形下具有对破产财产产生此类偏见倾向的倾向性。\n\nIn re Arochem Corp., 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2d Cir. 1999)。“对对立利益的判定是客观的，并关涉是否存在不当表象。”In re Angelika Films 57th Inc., 227 B.R. 29, 38 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)。“§ 327 所指的丧失资格的对立利益……系指实际存在的或具有合理可能性的利益冲突。”In re AroChem, 181 B.R. 693, 700 (Bankr. D.Conn. 1995) (Shiff, J.), aff'd, In re AroChem Corp., 176 F.3d 610 (2nd Cir. 1999)。“是否存在对立利益最好依个案情况判定。”In re Arochem Corp., 176 F.3d at 623（援引判例）。第 327(a) 条中的标准“使用现在时表述，允许由‘不持有或代表与破产财产对立的利益’的专业人员进行代理。”同上（原文强调）。\n\n《破产法典》将“无利害关系人”定义为“非债权人、股权证券持有人或内部人”，且“因与债务人的任何间接或直接关系、关联或在债务人处的利益……不具有与破产财产或任何类别债权人的利益产生实质性对立的利益”之人。11 U.S.C. § 101(14)(A) 及 (E)。“无利害关系测试中包含的‘实质性对立’标准与第 327(a) 条中‘与破产财产对立的利益’的表述相重叠。就此而言，第 327(a) 条的两项要件是重复的，构成了评判利益冲突的唯一定测试标准。”In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. 22, 33 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)；亦见 JMK Construction Group, Ltd., 441 B.R. 222, 229 (Bankr. S.D.NY. 2010)。\n\n《破产程序规则》第 2014(a) 条要求在聘用申请中主动披露“据申请人所知，该人与债务人、债权人、任何其他利害关系方及其各自的律师和会计师的所有关联”。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a)。“显而易见，Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a) 要求就拟聘专业人员‘与债务人、债权人、任何其他利害关系方及其各自的律师和会计师的关联’进行高度充分的\n\n披露……”。In re Matco Electronics Group, Inc.,\n\n383 B.R. 848, 852-853 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y.（纽约北区破产法院）2008)。这些义务适用于会计师。In re\n\nTribeca Market, LLC, 516 B.R. at 277-280。此外，\n\n同样显而易见的是，该规则中概述的披露程度是强制性的，无论该披露是否会揭示利益冲突。同样显而易见的是，披露义务并非主观性的，即专业人员并非仅披露其认为相关的那些“关联”……\n\n如前所述，利益冲突的存在并非是否必须进行披露的对价条件。不论未予披露的后果如何，未能披露都将受到制裁……“在第二巡回区，仅凭违反披露规则本身就足以拒绝给予报酬，不论未披露的关联是否对破产财产产生实质性对立。”\n\n同上（引文省略）；亦见 In re Peterson, 163 B.R. 665, 670 (Bankr. D. Conn.\n\n1994) (援引 Futuronics Corp. v. Arutt, Nachamie & Benjamin (Matter of Futuronics Corp.),\n\n655 F.2d 463, 469 (2d Cir. 1981)（“作为一般规则，未能根据第 327(a) 条和规则 2014(a) 进行全面\n\n披露的后果是拒绝给予申请后服务的所有报酬。”））。“即使是因过失或疏忽而未能充分披露\n\n相关信息，亦可能导致所申请的全部费用被拒绝支付……披露必须是直接且\n\n全面的；也就是说，[专业人员]……必须作出充分、坦诚和完整的披露。”\n\nIn re Chin Kim, 2012 WL 3907490 at *4 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.（纽约东区破产法院）2012)（引文省略）。\n\nII. 《申请》中存在的问题\n\n如下文所述，《申请》提出了一个应予驳回《申请》的问题，即 EA Group 与 REM 及 REM 前客户的关联。若\n\n法院未予驳回《申请》，则应从聘用 EA Group 的条款中删除《限制条款》。\n\n(i) REM 及 REM 前客户\n\nEA Group（EA集团）与这些第11章破产案存在关联，这种关联使得对其的聘用变得不当。通过在2022年收购REM以及REM的某些人员，EA Group继承了REM与前REM客户之间的关联。前REM客户中有两名是本案债务人——个人债务人与债务人Genever BVI。前REM客户中有两名是受托人提起索赔和诉讼的目标——Qiang Guo（郭强）和Golden Spring（金泉）。[5] 前REM客户中有一名是委员会成员——Rui Ma（马蕊）。ECF 108。其他前REM客户与破产财产存在关联，但该申请并未提供任何细节。\n\n由于上述情况，EA Group因其与REM及前REM客户的关联而无法满足第327(a)条的要求。个人债务人以其个人身份与受托人及破产财产直接对立。[6] Qiang Guo和Golden Spring与受托人及破产财产直接对立。REM曾处理涉及前REM客户事务的部分员工现在就职于EA Group。EA Group通过REM、REM人员以及他们代表对立当事人所做的工作而与对立当事人产生的关联，使得EA Group根据第327(a)条不具备受聘资格。\n\n此外，在审议该申请时，法院还应考虑以下事实：REM曾是受托人调查的目标，且受托人保留针对REM的所有权利。参见申请书第9页脚注4。REM已加入EA Group，而当一家专业机构作为REM的继承者以及向\n\n5 参见案号为 22-5027、23-5018 的对抗性诉讼。\n\n6 参见案号为 22-5032、22-5034 的对抗性诉讼。\n\n前REM客户提供过服务的人员的雇主，可能成为进一步调查的对象或可能面临受托人对其提起的索赔时，聘用该专业机构显得并不谨慎。\n(ii) 责任限制条款\n\n责任限制条款是不正当的。如果EA Group获得法院授权担任受托人和破产财产的税务顾问，其将成为破产财产的受信人。In re Jackson, 643 B.R. 644, 703 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2022)（由第11章债务人聘用的会计师对债务人和破产财产负有受信义务）。预先限制责任与作为受信人的身份不符。\n\n如果EA Group犯下严重错误，可能会给破产财产及其债权人造成重大损失。参见，例如，In re Merry-Go-Round Enterprises, Inc., 244 B.R. 327, 330-31, 333 (Bankr. D. Md. 2000)（在第11章案件中被聘用作为“重整专家”向债务人提供服务的会计师事务所，就破产财产提起的疏忽、职业渎职、欺诈和欺诈性隐瞒诉讼以1.85亿美元达成和解）；Billing v. Ravin, Greenberg & Zackin, P.A., 22 F.3d 1242 (3d Cir. 1994)（专业人员因未履行多项职责而被指控职业渎职）。根据受托人给予EA Group的责任限制条款，破产财产——并因此其债权人——将承担这些错误造成的损失，并失去让EA Group对其错误承担全部责任的能力。\n\n证明聘用条款和条件具有合理性的举证责任在申请人一方。Nischwitz v. Miskovic (In re Airspect Air, Inc.), 385 F.3d 915, 921 (6th Cir. 2004); Zolfo, Cooper & Co. v. Sunbeam-Oster Co., Inc., 50 F.3d 253, 262 (3d Cir. 1995); In re Metricom, Inc., 275 B.R. 364, 371 (Bankr. N.D. Ca. 2002)。为履行其举证责任，申请人必须提供具体证据证明“这些条款和条件符合破产财产的最佳利益”。In re Gillett Holdings, Inc., 137 B.R. 452, 455 (Bankr. D. Colo.\n\n1991)。受托人尚未履行该举证责任。\n结论\n\n综上所述，基于所有前述理由，联邦受托人谨请求法院驳回该申请。如果法院认定聘用EA Group是适当的，则应从聘用条款中删除责任限制条款。\n\n日期：2023年11月21日\n谨此提交，\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\nWILLIAM K. HARRINGTON（威廉·K·哈灵顿）\n第2区联邦受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩）\n出庭律师\n联邦受托人办公室\nGiaimo Federal Building, Room 302\n150 Court Street, New Haven, CT 06510\nHolley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov\n联邦律师协会编号：ct17216（康涅狄格州）\n(203) 773-2210\n送达证书\n\n下述签署人证明，前述文件已于2023年11月21日通过法院的CM/ECF归档系统送达所有出庭当事人。\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn","key_entities":["Je","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Miles Guo","Despins","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":108,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1083,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2282,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2701,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:20:23"}