{"id":"court_ctb_2997_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2997,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","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 2931**\n\n# **UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S LIMITED OBJECTION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S APPLICATION TO EMPLOY PRAGER DREIFUSS AG AS SWISS COUNSEL**\n\nWilliam K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (\"United States Trustee\"),\n\nhereby objects on a limited basis to the application of Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins\n\n(\"Trustee\") to employ Prager Dreifuss AG (\"Prager Dreifuss\") as Swiss counsel to represent the\n\nTrustee and the three chapter 11 debtors (\"Estates\") effective as of January 16, 2024 (ECF 2931)\n\n(\"Application\"). The United States Trustee opposes two terms of the proposed retention of\n\nPrager Dreifuss: (1) the limitation on liability and (2) the expense reimbursement process.[2](#page-0-1)\n\n#### *(a) Limitation on liability*\n\nOn February 16, 2024, the Trustee filed the Application seeking to employ Prager\n\nDreifuss as Swiss counsel with services to be billed on an hourly basis and subject to the terms of\n\nthe engagement agreement attached as Exhibit B to the Application (\"Engagement Agreement\").\n\n*See* ECF 2931. The Application seeks to limit the liability of Prager Dreifuss as set forth in\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> The United States Trustee has also requested that the Trustee revise the proposed order to address two other items: (a) add language that the amount of fees shall be paid in CHF, with such amount converted from USD into CHF at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of payment, and (b) clarifying that fees and expenses sought by Prager Dreifuss are governed solely by Section 330/331, Bankruptcy Rule 2016, D. Conn. Bankr. L. R. 2016-1, and the United States Trustee Fee Guidelines and the Bankruptcy Court has exclusive jurisdiction over fees and expenses sought by Prager Dreifuss, but any claim asserting liability of Prager Dreifuss to the estates will be arbitrated in Switzerland using Swiss law as set forth in Section 11 of engagement agreement attached as Exhibit B to the Application. Based on discussions, the United States Trustee believes the Trustee does not oppose those revisions.\n\nSection 9 of the Engagement Agreement. *See* ECF 2931 at page 20 of 39. Section 9 of the Engagement Agreement limits the liability of Prager Dreifuss to *only* \"gross negligence and wilful intent.\" *Id.* Prager Dreifuss will not be held accountable for any and all conduct that damages the Estates. This limitation is improper.\n\nIf authorized by the Court to serve as counsel to the Trustee and the Estates, Prager Dreifuss will become a fiduciary to the Estates. *See, e.g., [In re Taxman Clothing Co.,](http)#co_pp_sp_506_314)* 49 F.3d [310, 314 \\(7th Cir.1995\\)](http)#co_pp_sp_506_314) (\"A lawyer hired by a trustee in bankruptcy to do legal work for the estate, like the trustee himself, is a fiduciary of the estate\"). Limiting liability in advance does not comport with being a fiduciary. The 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. 1991). The burden has not been met by the Trustee.\n\n### *(b) Expense reimbursement process*\n\nParagraph 16 of the Application, paragraph 6 of the proposed order to the Application, and paragraph 5 of the accompanying Declaration of Daniel Hayek all state that Prager Dreifuss will charge the Estates for disbursements based on a fixed percentage of 3% of the hourly amount billed by Prager Dreifuss. *See* ECF 2931. This is a departure from the norm of seeking reimbursement of actual documented expenses and the United States Trustee opposes this percentage methodology. Professionals who provide services to estates in bankruptcy are entitled to seek reimbursement only for \"actual, necessary expenses\" pursuant to, and as required by, Sections 330/331, Bankruptcy Rule 2016, D. Conn. Bankr. L. R. 2016-1, and the United States\n\nTrustee Fee Guidelines at Section 5(b).[3](#page-2-0) Prager Dreifuss should be held to these standards and should be required to document and itemize its expenses in order to be reimbursed for same by the Estates.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nUltimately, the Trustee's choice of counsel, and the terms of employment for that counsel, require the Court's approval. As the Second Circuit has noted in affirming a bankruptcy court's rejection of a trustee's selected counsel based on the best interests of the estate, \"[w]e must remember that [Section 327](http)) at its most basic level is a judicial check on the trustee's power, and that is precisely the role that the bankruptcy court here fulfilled.\" *In re Vouzianas*, 259 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir. 2001). For all of the foregoing reasons, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the Court require modifications to the terms of employment of Prager Dreifuss to address the issues raised in this objection.\n\nDated: March 12, 2024 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<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> *See* United States Trustee Fee Guidelines at http\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 March 12, 2024.\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又名 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵）又名 MILES GUO[1]，合并审理\n关于 第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 涉及：ECF 2931\n美国破产信托人对第 11 章破产信托人聘请 PRAGER DREIFUSS AG 作为瑞士法律顾问之申请的有限异议\n\nWilliam K. Harrington（威廉·K·哈灵顿），第 2 区美国破产信托人（“美国破产信托人”），特此对第 11 章破产信托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）（“信托人”）关于自 2024 年 1 月 16 日起聘请 Prager Dreifuss AG（“Prager Dreifuss”）作为瑞士法律顾问代表信托人及三名第 11 章债务人（“破产财产”）之申请（ECF 2931）（“申请”）提出有限异议。美国破产信托人反对拟议聘用 Prager Dreifuss 的两项条款：(1) 责任限制，以及 (2) 费用报销程序。[2]\n\n(a) 责任限制\n\n2024 年 2 月 16 日，信托人提交了申请，请求聘请 Prager Dreifuss 作为瑞士法律顾问，按小时计费，并受申请附件 B 所示聘用协议（“聘用协议”）条款的约束。参见 ECF 2931。该申请试图按照聘用协议第 9 节所载限制 Prager Dreifuss 的责任。参见 ECF 2931 第 20 页（共 39 页）。\n\n1 合并审理的债务人包括 Ho Wan Kwok（22-50073）、Genever Holdings, LLC（22-50592）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（22-50542）。\n\n2 美国破产信托人还已要求信托人修改拟议命令以处理另外两个事项：(a) 增加相关表述，规定费用金额应以瑞士法郎（CHF）支付，该金额按支付当日通行的汇率由美元（USD）折算为瑞士法郎；以及 (b) 澄清 Prager Dreifuss 所申请的费用与支出仅受第 330/331 条、Bankruptcy Rule（《破产程序规则》）2016、D. Conn. Bankr. L. R.（《康涅狄格区破产法院本地规则》）2016-1 以及《美国破产信托人费用指引》管辖，破产法院对 Prager Dreifuss 所申请的费用与支出享有专属管辖权，但任何主张 Prager Dreifuss 对破产财产承担责任的索赔将依据申请附件 B 所示聘用协议第 11 节在瑞士适用瑞士法律进行仲裁。根据沟通情况，美国破产信托人认为信托人不反对上述修改。\n\n聘用协议第 9 节将 Prager Dreifuss 的责任仅限于“重大过失和故意”。出处同上。Prager Dreifuss 将无需对损害破产财产的任何及全部行为承担责任。该项限制是不当的。\n\n如果获得本法院授权担任信托人及破产财产的法律顾问，Prager Dreifuss 将成为破产财产的受托人。参见，例如，In re Taxman Clothing Co., 49 F.3d 310, 314 (7th Cir.1995)（“受破产信托人聘用为破产财产提供法律工作的律师，与信托人本人一样，均属于破产财产的受托人”）。预先限制责任与受托人身份不相符。证明聘用条款和条件属合理的举证责任由申请人承担。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以证明“相关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. 1991)。信托人未能履行该举证责任。\n\n(b) 费用报销程序\n\n申请第 16 段、申请所附拟议命令第 6 段以及随附的 Daniel Hayek（丹尼尔·哈耶克）声明第 5 段均载明，Prager Dreifuss 将按其按小时计费金额的 3% 的固定比例向破产财产收取垫付费用。参见 ECF 2931。这背离了申请报销实际有据可查支出的常规，美国破产信托人反对采用此种百分比计算方法。根据并依据第 330/331 条、Bankruptcy Rule 2016、D. Conn. Bankr. L. R. 2016-1 以及《美国破产信托人费用指引》第 5(b) 节的要求，为破产案件中的破产财产提供服务的专业人士仅有权就“实际、必要的费用”申请报销。[3] Prager Dreifuss 应当遵守这些标准，并应当被要求提供支出凭据并逐项列明，以便破产财产对其予以报销。\n\n结论\n\n归根结底，信托人对法律顾问的选择以及该顾问的聘用条款均需获得法院批准。正如联邦第二巡回上诉法院在维持破产法院基于破产财产最佳利益而拒绝信托人所选法律顾问的决定时所指出的那样，“我们必须牢记，[第 327 条]在最基本的层面上是对信托人权力的司法制衡，而这恰恰是破产法院在本案中所履行的职责。”In re Vouzianas, 259 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir. 2001)。基于上述全部理由，美国破产信托人谨请求法院要求对 Prager Dreifuss 的聘用条款作出修改，以解决本异议中提出的问题。\n\n日期：2024 年 3 月 12 日 谨此提交，康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\nWILLIAM K. HARRINGTON\n第 2 区美国破产信托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍利·L·克莱本）\n出庭律师\n美国破产信托人办公室\nGiaimo Federal Building, Room 302\n150 Court Street, New Haven, CT 06510\nHolley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov\n联邦律师执照号：ct17216（康涅狄格州）\n(203) 773-2210\n\n3 参见《美国破产信托人费用指引》，网址：http\n\n送达证书\n\n下述签署人证明，上述文件已于 2024 年 3 月 12 日通过法院的 CM/ECF 电子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":2931,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":980,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:40:24"}