{"id":"court_ctb_328_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":328,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2022-05-04","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<sup>1</sup>\n\nChapter 11 Case No.\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\nMay 4, 2022\n\n# **NOTICE OF CONTESTED MATTER**\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE** that, upon filing the annexed *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion to Unseal Court Exhibit 1* (the \"Motion\"), Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") will move the Honorable Julie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge at the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division, to grant the Motion and allow the relief requested, namely unsealing Court Exhibit 1.\n\n**PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE** that the Motion is a contested matter subject to the Bankruptcy Court's Local Rule 9014-1.\n\n**PLESAE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE** that parties in interest have fourteen (14) days to respond to the Motion. The response deadline shall be set as of **May 18, 2022** (fourteen days from the date this Notice and the Motion are filed with the Court) (the \"Response Date\").\n\n**PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE** that objections, if any, to the relief requested in the Motion must be in writing, conform with the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules, and the Local Rules, state with particularity the grounds therefor, and be filed with the Court and served upon the Debtor, with a courtesy copy to the Chambers of the Honorable Julie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, by no later than the Response Date (a) (i) through the Bankruptcy Court's electronic filing system, which may be accessed through the internet at the Bankruptcy Court's website at [www.ctb.uscourts.gov;](htt) and (ii) in portable document format (\"PDF\") using Adobe Exchange Software for conversion; or (b) if by a party that is unable to file electronically, such party shall submit the objection in PDF format on portable media in an envelope with the case name, case number, type and title of document, document number to which the objection refers, and the file name, on the outside of the envelope.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n**PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE**, that if no objections to the Motion are timely filed and served on or before the Response Date, Court Exhibit 1 may be unsealed by the Court without further hearing or any further notice to any party.\n\nDated: May 4, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By: /s/ Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP**  280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP**  Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK<sup>1</sup>\n\nChapter 11 Case No.\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\nMay 4, 2022\n\n## **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT EXHIBIT 1**\n\nIn accordance with sections 105(a) and 107(a) of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") respectfully moves for the entry of an order unsealing Court Exhibit 1, which was sealed until further Order of the Court<sup>2</sup> during the April 27, 2022 evidentiary hearing on the *Debtor's Application for Authorization to Retain and Employ Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.* (\"V&L\") *as Financial Advisor* (the \"Financial Advisor Application\") [ECF 90]. As further argued, *infra*, because (i) no party has articulated a legitimate reason for the continued sealing of the information contained in Court Exhibit 1; (ii) the information contained in Court Exhibit 1 is relevant; and (iii) the information in Court Exhibit 1 is publicly available, PAX respectfully asks this Court, under the principles set forth in section 107 of the Bankruptcy Code, to unseal Court Exhibit 1. In further support of the Motion, PAX respectfully states as follows:\n\n<sup>1</sup> The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n<sup>2</sup> All exhibit citations are to the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Peter Friedman in Support of PAX's Motion to Unseal Court Exhibit 1 (\"Friedman Decl.\"). *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, April 27, 2022 Hr'g Tr. at 59:3–60:2.\n\n### **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n1. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), Miles Kwok filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n2. On March 16, 2022, the Debtor filed the Financial Advisor Application.\n\n3. On March 19, 2022, the Office of the United States Trustee (\"UST\") filed its *Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of an Examiner, or in the Alternative, Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee* (the \"Examiner Motion\") [ECF 102].\n\n4. On March 21, 2022, the UST appointed the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, which moved to retain Pullman & Comley, LLC as its counsel on April 5, 2022 [ECF 108].\n\n5. On April 6, 2022, PAX filed its *Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case or, in the Alternative, Partial Joinder to United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee* (the \"Motion to Dismiss\") [ECF 183].\n\n6. Although the Debtor remains a debtor in possession with the rights, powers and duties vested by section 1107 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Examiner Motion and Motion to Dismiss remain pending.\n\n7. On April 6, 2022, PAX, the UST, and the Committee objected to the Financial Advisor Application.\n\n8. In response to written discovery requests served in the context of the Financial Advisor Application and other pending applications and motions, the Debtor produced, among other documents, an email chain between Attorney Aaron Mitchell, the Debtor's unretained legal counsel; Attorney Melissa Francis, Golden Spring New York, Ltd.'s General Counsel; Matthew Flynn, CPA, on behalf of the Financial Advisor; and an unidentified individual (the\n\n\"Individual\"), whose name and email address were redacted (the \"Email Correspondence\"). The Email Correspondence discusses the Debtor's expenses for a two-week period in February 2022.\n\n9. On April 8, 2022, PAX took the deposition of V&L pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable to the Financial Advisor Application by Bankruptcy Rule 9014. During the deposition, PAX's counsel asked V&L's corporate designee, Craig Jalbert, C.P.A., with whom he communicated about the Debtor's engagement of V&L. Mr. Jalbert testified that, in addition to Aaron Mitchell, Melissa Francis, and Brown Rudnick LLP, he communicated with \"someone\"—at which point Brown Rudnick lawyer Kenneth Aulet, Mr. Jalbert's attorney, objected and instructed Mr. Jalbert not to reveal the Individual's name.<sup>3</sup> When asked by PAX's counsel for the basis of the objection and instruction, Mr. Aulet explained that Golden Spring had asked him to so instruct Mr. Jalbert.<sup>4</sup>\n\n10. Golden Spring's counsel then explained that it objected to the disclosure of the Individual's name on two grounds: relevance and the \"privacy rights of [its] employees.\"<sup>5</sup> PAX's counsel later showed Mr. Jalbert the email correspondence at issue here, and Mr. Jalbert's counsel again instructed his client not to reveal the identity of the Individual.<sup>6</sup>\n\n11. At the April 27, 2022 evidentiary hearing on the Financial Advisor Application, PAX's counsel once again asked Mr. Jalbert to identify the Individual, i.e., the person at Golden Spring with whom Mr. Jalbert communicated about the Debtor's assets and expenses.<sup>7</sup> Counsel for the Debtor and Golden Spring objected to the relevance of the Individual's identity and raised a vague security concern.<sup>8</sup>\n\n<sup>3</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, C. Jalbert Dep. Tr. at 26-27 .\n\n<sup>4</sup> *See id.*\n\n<sup>5</sup> *See id.* at 28-29.\n\n<sup>6</sup> *See id.* at 129-30.\n\n<sup>7</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 at 45:18–46:1.\n\n<sup>8</sup> *Id.* at 46:3–11; 48:6–15; 51:17–21.\n\n12. After hearing argument on the need to seal the identity of the Individual, and overruling the relevance objections, the Court directed Mr. Jalbert to disclose in writing the identity of the Individual, which was subsequently marked as Court Exhibit 1 and sealed until further order of the Court.<sup>9</sup>\n\n13. PAX now moves the Court to unseal Court Exhibit 1.\n\n### **JURISDICTION**\n\n14. This Court has jurisdiction over this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). The statutory bases for the relief requested herein are Bankruptcy Code sections 105(a) and 107(a).<sup>10</sup>\n\n### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n15. Pursuant to sections 105(a) and 107(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, PAX respectfully requests that the Court unseal Court Exhibit 1.\n\n#### **BASIS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF**\n\n16. The right of public access to judicial records \"is of special importance in the bankruptcy arena, as unrestricted access to judicial records fosters confidence among creditors regarding the fairness of the bankruptcy system.\" *In re Crawford*, 194 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 1999). Section 107(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that \"the dockets of a bankruptcy court are public records and open to examination by an entity at reasonable times without charge.\"\n\n17. Where a document has \"been sealed . . . without specific findings from the Court, the Court should review the record to determine whether the parties initially rebutted the\n\n<sup>9</sup> *Id.* at 59:3–60:2.\n\n<sup>10</sup> For the reasons articulated herein, PAX also believes reconsideration of the Order sealing the Sealed Exhibit pursuant to Local District Court Rule 7 and Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-1 is appropriate; however, PAX does not seek such relief on a primary basis because the Court's Order sealing the Sealed Order contemplates further proceedings related to the Order. *Id.* at 59:3–60:2.\n\npresumption of public access, and, if they have not, give the non-movant the opportunity to rebut the presumption.\" *In re N. Bay Gen. Hosp., Inc.*, 404 B.R. 429, 439 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2009); *see also In re FiberMark, Inc.*, 330 B.R. 480, 496 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2005) (determining that after a bankruptcy court temporarily sealed documents without making a finding that there was a compelling reason to do so, \"the posture of [the] case is now the same as the posture of a request to seal an unsealed document\").\n\n18. In turn, sections 107(b) and (c) of the Bankruptcy Code provide the limited exceptions sufficient to rebut the presumption of public access: to protect (1) trade secrets and other confidential information; (2) persons with respect to scandalous or defamatory matter contained in papers filed with the court; and (3) certain confidential information and means of identification specified in 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d), where such information would create undue risk of identity theft or other unlawful injury to the individual or the individual's property. Because the Court did not make specific findings when sealing Court Exhibit 1,<sup>11</sup> the exhibit should be unsealed, as no party has offered sufficient evidence to establish that an exception applies here. *In re N. Bay Gen. Hosp., Inc.*, 404 B.R. at 440.\n\n19. That is because no exception does apply here. Golden Spring and the Debtor have instead asserted a vague security threat: at Mr. Jalbert's deposition, counsel for Golden Spring opposed disclosure of the name on the grounds that \"the privacy rights of [Golden Spring] employees are paramount to any information that might be gathered from knowing the name of [] rank and file employees of Golden Spring.\"<sup>12</sup>\n\n<sup>11</sup> *Id.* at 58:7–13.\n\n<sup>12</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 2 at 29:1–7.\n\n20. Not only is this assertion insufficient to establish an exception, but the public\n\nrecord in this case, as well as cursory internet searches, demonstrate that counsel's objection is\n\nfrivolous. For example:\n\n- Melissa Francis, Golden Spring's general counsel, is publicly identified as an ordinary course professional for the Debtor.<sup>13</sup>\n- Melissa Francis was similarly identified as working for Golden Spring, in open court, at the April 27, 2022 evidentiary hearing in this case.<sup>14</sup>\n- Max Krasner, an apparent Golden Spring employee, has been named on the public docket since day one of this bankruptcy as the person to whom service of Golden Spring documents should be addressed.<sup>15</sup>\n- Mr. Krasner was identified as Golden Spring's contact person on the Debtor's original Official Form 104,<sup>16</sup> and again on two subsequent amended versions of that filing.<sup>17</sup>\n- Mr. Krasner's name appears on 11 affidavits of service filed publicly in these proceedings.<sup>18</sup>\n- The Debtor identified Mr. Krasner as being \"in charge of finance\" at Golden Spring during the Debtor's first 341 Meeting of Creditors.<sup>19</sup>\n- Yvette Wang, Golden Spring's Treasurer, Secretary and President, was named, and appeared as, Golden Spring's 30(b)(6) representative.\n- The Debtor identified Ms. Wang as working for Golden Spring during the 341 Meeting of Creditors.<sup>20</sup>\n- Lastly, basic internet searches reveal employees' affiliations with Golden Spring;<sup>21</sup> and other Golden Spring employees, such as its general counsel, have\n\n<sup>13</sup> *See* ECF 119.\n\n<sup>14</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 at 63:8–13.\n\n<sup>15</sup> *See* ECF 5.\n\n<sup>16</sup> *See* ECF 4.\n\n<sup>17</sup> *See* ECF 10; ECF 20.\n\n<sup>18</sup> *See* ECF 109; ECF 113; ECF 127; ECF 134; ECF 145; ECF 150; ECF 151; ECF 207; ECF 241; ECF 264; ECF 283.\n\n<sup>19</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, March 21, 2022 341 Meeting of Creditors Tr. at 52:14–23.\n\n<sup>20</sup> *Id.* at 50:15-22.\n\n<sup>21</sup> *See* Max Krasner, ZOOMINFO,<http>(last visited May 4, 2022).\n\nadvertised openly their affiliation with Golden Spring on public professional networking websites.<sup>22</sup>\n\n21. Moreover, counsel for Golden Spring had actual knowledge that Golden Spring employees' names appeared on the docket because Mr. Rosen's and Mr. Miltenberger's names both appear directly below Mr. Krasner's on the aforementioned affidavits of service.<sup>23</sup>\n\n22. The foregoing examples demonstrate the disingenuousness of privacy-based objections advanced by the Debtor and Golden Spring. Rather than act with transparency and in good faith, the Debtor and Golden Spring have (yet again) pointlessly given PAX the run-around and, ultimately, wasted the Court's time.<sup>24</sup> Should the Debtor and Golden Spring continue to object, the Individual should proffer a sworn affidavit detailing why an exception applies here. *In re N. Bay Gen. Hosp., Inc.*, 404 B.R. at 440.\n\n23. Because no party has offered sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of public access, the Court should unseal Court Exhibit 1.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor these reasons and the reasons explained on the record at the April 27, 2022 hearing, the Court should unseal Court Exhibit 1 and grant such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.\n\n[*Signature on Following Page*]\n\n<sup>22</sup> *See* Melissa Francis, LINKEDIN,<http>(last visited May 4, 2022); *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Melissa Francis LinkedIn Profile.\n\n<sup>23</sup> *See* supra, note 18.\n\n<sup>24</sup> These facts also belie (1) Debtor's contention that he is now being \"transparent\" and (2) Debtor's counsel's representations that there have been \"no discovery disputes\" and that all parties have exhibited nothing but \"great compliance\" and \"good cooperation\" in the course of fact discovery. Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 at 150:12–22; Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, April 13, 2022 Hr'g Tr. at 16.\n\nDated: May 4, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By: /s/ Patrick M. Birney*\n\nPatrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP**  280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) Laura Aronsson (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP**  Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com laronsson@omm.com\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on May 4, 2022, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically through the Court's CM/ECF System. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties receiving notice by operation of the court's electronic filing system. Parties in interest may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n /s/ *Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick M. Birney","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）1\n\n第 11 章破产案号：\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n2022年5月4日\n争议事项通知\n\n请注意，在提交附随的 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）要求启封法院物证 1 的动议（下称“本动议”）后，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（下称“PAX”）将请求美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院的美国破产法官 Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下准予本动议并给予所请求的救济，即启封法院物证 1。\n\n请进一步注意，本动议属于受破产法院《地方规则》第 9014-1 条约束的争议事项。\n\n请进一步注意，利害关系方有十四（14）天的时间对本动议作出答复。答复截止日期应定为 2022年5月18日（即本通知及本动议向法院提交之日起十四天）（下称“答复日”）。\n\n请进一步注意，对本动议所请求之救济的异议（如有）必须以书面形式提出，符合《破产法典》、《破产规则》及《地方规则》，具体阐明其理由，并在不迟于答复日向法院提交并送达债务人，同时向美国康涅狄格区破产法院 Julie A. Manning 阁下法官室送达一份转呈副本：(a) (i) 通过破产法院的电子归档系统（可通过互联网在破产法院网站 [www.ctb.uscourts.gov] 访问）；且 (ii) 使用 Adobe Exchange 软件转换为便携式文档格式（“PDF”）；或 (b) 若由无法进行电子归档的当事人提出，该当事人应将 PDF 格式的异议储存于便携式介质中装入信封提交，信封外部需注明案件名称、案号、文件类型和标题、异议所指涉的文件编号以及文件名。\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号的后四位数字为 9595。\n\n请进一步注意，如果在答复日或之前未及时提交并送达对本动议的异议，法院可在不再举行听证或不再向任何一方发出任何进一步通知的情况下启封法院物证 1。\n\n日期：2022年5月4日 康涅狄格州哈特福德\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney  Patrick M. Birney（康涅狄格州执业编号：19875） Annecca H. Smith（康涅狄格州执业编号：31148） ROBINSON & COLE LLP（罗宾逊与科尔有限责任合伙律师事务所）  280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 电话：(860) 275-8275 传真：(860) 275-8299 电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n以及\n\nPeter Friedman（特许临时出庭代理） Stuart M. Sarnoff（特许临时出庭代理） O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）  Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 电话：(212) 326-2000 传真：(212) 326-2061 电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）1\n\n第 11 章破产案号：\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n2022年5月4日\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 要求启封法院物证 1 的动议\n\n根据《美国法典》第 11 编（下称“《破产法典》”）第 105(a) 条和第 107(a) 条，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，下称“PAX”）谨提请法院作出裁定，启封法院物证 1；该物证在 2022年4月27日就债务人申请授权聘用 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（下称“V&L”）担任财务顾问的申请（下称“财务顾问聘用申请”）[ECF 90] 举行的证据听证会期间，被封存至法院另行作出命令为止2。如下文进一步论述，鉴于 (i) 没有任何一方阐明对法院物证 1 中所含信息继续予以封存的正当理由；(ii) 法院物证 1 中所含信息具有相关性；以及 (iii) 法院物证 1 中的信息属于公开可获取的信息，PAX 谨请求本法院根据《破产法典》第 107 条规定的原则启封法院物证 1。为进一步支持本动议，PAX 谨陈述如下：\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号的后四位数字为 9595。\n\n2 所有物证引用均指附于《Peter Friedman 支持 PAX 要求启封法院物证 1 动议的声明》（下称“Friedman 声明”）之后的物证。参见 Friedman 声明，物证 1，2022年4月27日听证记录第 59:3–60:2 行。\n\n事实背景\n\n1. 2022年2月15日（下称“申请日”），Miles Kwok（郭文贵）根据《破产法典》第 11 章提交了自愿救济申请。\n\n2. 2022年3月16日，债务人提交了财务顾问聘用申请。\n\n3. 2022年3月19日，Office of the United States Trustee（美国破产受托人办公室，下称“UST”）提交了其《要求下达命令指定审查官，或在备选情况下，要求下达命令指定第 11 章受托人的动议》（下称“审查官动议”）[ECF 102]。\n\n4. 2022年3月21日，UST 指定了无担保债权人官方委员会（Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors），该委员会于 2022年4月5日提出动议聘请 Pullman & Comley, LLC 作为其法律顾问 [ECF 108]。\n\n5. 2022年4月6日，PAX 提交了其《驳回第 11 章破产案的动议，或在备选情况下，对美国破产受托人要求下达命令指定第 11 章受托人动议的部分附议》（下称“驳回动议”）[ECF 183]。\n\n6. 尽管债务人仍为依据《破产法典》第 1107 条享有权利、权力和职责的自行占有债务人，但审查官动议和驳回动议仍在审理中。\n\n7. 2022年4月6日，PAX、UST 以及委员会对财务顾问聘用申请提出了异议。\n\n8. 针对在财务顾问聘用申请及其他未决申请和动议背景下送达的书面证据开示请求，债务人出示了相关文件，其中包括一份电子邮件往来记录，往来各方包括：债务人未予正式聘用的法律顾问 Aaron Mitchell 律师；Golden Spring New York, Ltd.（金泉纽约有限公司）的总法律顾问 Melissa Francis 律师；代表财务顾问的注册会计师 Matthew Flynn；以及一名姓名和电子邮件地址被涂黑遮蔽的未具名个人（下称“该个人”）（该往来记录下称“电子邮件通信”）。该电子邮件通信讨论了债务人在 2022年2月期间两周内的开支。\n\n9. 2022年4月8日，PAX 根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 30(b)(6) 条（经《破产规则》第 9014 条适用于财务顾问聘用申请）对 V&L 进行了宣誓录供取证。在录供期间，PAX 的律师询问 V&L 的法人指定代表、注册会计师 Craig Jalbert，他就债务人聘用 V&L 一事曾与谁进行过沟通。Jalbert 先生作证称，除了 Aaron Mitchell、Melissa Francis 以及 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克有限责任合伙律师事务所）之外，他还与“某人”沟通过——此时 Jalbert 先生的律师、来自 Brown Rudnick 的 Kenneth Aulet 律师提出异议，并指示 Jalbert 先生不要透露该个人的姓名。3 当 PAX 的律师询问提出异议和指示的依据时，Aulet 先生解释称是 Golden Spring 要求他如此指示 Jalbert 先生的。4\n\n10. Golden Spring 的法律顾问随后解释称，其基于两项理由反对披露该个人的姓名：相关性以及“其雇员的隐私权”。5 PAX 的律师随后向 Jalbert 先生出示了此处所涉的电子邮件通信，而 Jalbert 先生的律师再次指示其客户不得透露该个人的身份。6\n\n11. 在 2022年4月27日就财务顾问聘用申请举行的证据听证会上，PAX 的律师再次要求 Jalbert 先生指认该个人，即 Golden Spring 内部曾与 Jalbert 先生就债务人的资产和开支进行沟通的人员。7 债务人和 Golden Spring 的法律顾问对该个人身份的相关性提出异议，并提出了一项含糊的安全关切。8\n\n3 Friedman 声明，物证 2，C. Jalbert 录供记录第 26-27 页。\n\n4 参见同上。\n\n5 参见同上，第 28-29 页。\n\n6 参见同上，第 129-30 页。\n\n7 Friedman 声明，物证 1，第 45:18–46:1 行。\n\n8 同上，第 46:3–11 行；48:6–15 行；51:17–21 行。\n\n12. 在听取了关于封存该个人身份之必要性的辩论，并驳回了相关性异议后，法院指示 Jalbert 先生以书面形式披露该个人的身份，该披露内容随后被标记为法院物证 1 并封存至法院另行下达命令为止。9\n\n13. PAX 现提请法院启封法院物证 1。\n\n管辖权\n\n14. 根据《美国法典》第 28 编第 157 条和第 1334 条，本法院对本动议拥有管辖权。根据《美国法典》第 28 编第 157(b) 条，本案属于核心程序。本动议所请求救济的法定依据为《破产法典》第 105(a) 条和第 107(a) 条。10\n\n请求的救济\n\n15. 根据《破产法典》第 105(a) 条和第 107(a) 条，PAX 谨请求法院启封法院物证 1。\n\n所请求救济的依据\n\n16. 公众查阅司法记录的权利“在破产领域尤为重要，因为不受限制地查阅司法记录能够增进债权人对破产制度公正性的信心”。In re Crawford, 194 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 1999)。《破产法典》第 107(a) 条规定，“破产法院的案件卷宗属于公共记录，实体可在合理时间内免费查阅”。\n\n17. 当一份文件“在法院未作出具体调查认定的情况下被封存……法院应当审查记录以确定各方最初是否推翻了\n\n9 同上，第 59:3–60:2 行。\n\n10 基于本文阐明的理由，PAX 亦认为根据《地方地区法院规则》第 7 条和《地方破产规则》第 1001-1 条对封存涉案被封存物证的裁定进行重新审议是适当的；然而，PAX 并未将此作为主要救济途径提出，因为法院封存该涉案命令的裁定预见到了与该裁定相关的后续程序。同上，第 59:3–60:2 行。\n\n公众查阅的推定，如果各方未能推翻，则应给予非动议方推翻该推定的机会”。In re N. Bay Gen. Hosp., Inc., 404 B.R. 429, 439 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2009)；另见 In re FiberMark, Inc., 330 B.R. 480, 496 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2005)（认定在破产法院未认定存在令人信服的理由即临时封存文件后，“[该]案目前的态势与申请封存一份未封存文件的态势相同”）。\n\n18. 相应地，《破产法典》第 107(b) 条和 (c) 条规定了足以推翻公众查阅推定的有限例外情形：保护 (1) 商业秘密和其他机密信息；(2) 就向法院提交的文件中所含的令人反感或诽谤性内容保护相关人员；以及 (3)《美国法典》第 18 编第 1028(d) 条规定的某些机密信息和身份证明手段，前提是此类信息会给个人或个人的财产带来身份盗窃或其他非法损害的不当风险。由于法院在封存法院物证 1 时未作出具体调查认定，11 该物证应当予以启封，因为没有任何一方提供了充分的证据证明此处存在适用例外的法定情形。In re N. Bay Gen. Hosp., Inc., 404 B.R. at 440。\n\n19. 这是因为此处确实不存在任何可适用的例外情形。相反，Golden Spring 和债务人提出了一项含糊的安全威胁主张：在 Jalbert 先生的录供过程中，Golden Spring 的法律顾问反对披露该姓名，理由是“[Golden Spring] 雇员的隐私权高于通过获知 Golden Spring 普通员工姓名可能获取的任何信息”。12\n\n11 同上，第 58:7–13 行。\n\n12 Friedman 声明，物证 2，第 29:1–7 行。\n\n20. 这一主张不仅不足以确立例外情形，而且本案的公共\n\n记录以及粗略的互联网检索均表明，该法律顾问的异议是\n\n毫无根据的。例如：\n\n- Melissa Francis（梅丽莎·弗朗西斯），Golden Spring（金泉公司）的总法律顾问，被公开列为债务人的日常业务专业人员。13\n- 在本案 2022年4月27日的证据听证会上，梅丽莎·弗朗西斯同样在公开法庭上被指明为金泉公司工作。14\n- Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳），一名显系金泉公司的雇员，自本次破产程序的第一天起就被列在公开诉讼记录上，作为接收金泉公司文件送达的人员。15\n- 克拉斯纳先生在债务人的原始 Official Form 104（官方表格104）中被指明为金泉公司的联络人，16 并在随后该提交文件的两个修正版本中再次被指明。17\n- 克拉斯纳先生的名字出现在本案程序中公开提交的 11 份送达宣誓书中。18\n- 在债务人的首次 341 债权人会议期间，债务人指明克拉斯纳先生在金泉公司“主管财务”。19\n- Yvette Wang（王雁平），金泉公司的财务官、秘书兼总裁，被指定并作为金泉公司的 30(b)(6) 代表出庭。\n- 在 341 债权人会议期间，债务人指明王女士为金泉公司工作。20\n- 最后，基本的互联网搜索即可显示雇员与金泉公司的隶属关系；21 且金泉公司的其他雇员（例如其总法律顾问）已在公开的职业社交网站上公开宣传其与金泉公司的隶属关系。22\n\n13 参见 ECF 119。\n\n14 Friedman（弗里德曼）声明，附件 1，第 63:8–13 页。\n\n15 参见 ECF 5。\n\n16 参见 ECF 4。\n\n17 参见 ECF 10；ECF 20。\n\n18 参见 ECF 109；ECF 113；ECF 127；ECF 134；ECF 145；ECF 150；ECF 151；ECF 207；ECF 241；ECF 264；ECF 283。\n\n19 弗里德曼声明，附件 3，2022年3月21日 341 债权人会议记录，第 52:14–23 页。\n\n20 同上，第 50:15-22 页。\n\n21 参见 Max Krasner，ZOOMINFO，（最后访问于 2022年5月4日）。\n\n21. 此外，金泉公司的代理律师实际知悉金泉公司雇员的姓名出现在诉讼记录上，因为 Rosen 先生和 Miltenberger 先生的姓名均直接出现在上述送达宣誓书中克拉斯纳先生姓名的下方。23\n\n22. 前述示例证明了债务人和金泉公司提出的基于隐私的异议是虚伪的。债务人和金泉公司非但没有透明且善意地行事，反而（再次）毫无意义地对 PAX（太平洋联盟）百般推诿，并最终浪费了法院的时间。24 如果债务人和金泉公司继续提出异议，该个人应当提供一份经宣誓的宣誓书，详细说明为何在此适用例外情况。In re N. Bay Gen. Hosp., Inc., 404 B.R. at 440。\n\n23. 鉴于没有任何一方提供充分的证据来反驳公众查阅的推定，法院应当对法院证据 1 解封。\n结论\n\n基于这些理由以及在 2022年4月27日听证会记录中所阐述的理由，法院应当对法院证据 1 解封，并给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步的救济。\n\n[签名见下页]\n\n22 参见 Melissa Francis，LINKEDIN，（最后访问于 2022年5月4日）；另见弗里德曼声明，附件 4，Melissa Francis LinkedIn 个人资料。\n\n23 参见前注 18。\n\n24 这些事实也戳穿了：(1) 债务人关于其目前保持“透明”的主张，以及 (2) 债务人律师关于在事实证据开示过程中“不存在证据开示争议”且各方均表现出“极好的遵守”和“良好的合作”的陈述。弗里德曼声明，附件 1，第 150:12–22 页；弗里德曼声明，附件 5，2022年4月13日听证会记录，第 16 页。\n\n日期：2022年5月4日 康涅狄格州哈特福德\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\n\nPatrick M. Birney（康涅狄格州执业编号：19875） Annecca H. Smith（康涅狄格州执业编号：31148） ROBINSON & COLE LLP 律师事务所 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 电话：(860) 275-8275 传真：(860) 275-8299 电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n以及\n\nPeter Friedman（获准特许出庭） Stuart M. Sarnoff（获准特许出庭） Laura Aronsson（获准特许出庭） O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（美迈斯律师事务所） Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 电话：(212) 326-2000 传真：(212) 326-2061 电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com laronsson@omm.com\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于 2022年5月4日，前述文件的一份副本已通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统以电子方式提交。本提交文件的通知将通过电子邮件发送给通过法院电子提交系统运行接收通知的所有当事人。利害关系方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本提交文件。\n\n /s/ Patrick M. Birney  Patrick M. Birney","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":4,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":5,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":10,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":20,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":90,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":102,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":108,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":109,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":113,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":119,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":127,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":134,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":145,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":150,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":151,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":183,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":207,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":241,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":264,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":283,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2616,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-04 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-04","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:20:56"}