{"id":"court_ctb_531_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":531,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) 55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400*\n\n *T: (973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com*\n\nJuly 11, 2022\n\n(Via ECF) Honorable Julie A. Manning\n\n## Re: **Ho Wan Kwok, Debtor Case No.: 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\nYour Honor,\n\nThis firm represents the Debtor, Ho Wan Kwok, in the above-referenced matter. My notice of appearance has been filed on the docket (See Docket Entry No.: \\_\\_). Let me begin by apologizing if this submission is procedurally incorrect. I fully admit that I am not a bankruptcy attorney; however, I am an attorney for the Debtor and I have an obligation to protect his rights as he transitions to new Chapter 11 counsel. As such, please be aware that the Debtor objects to the appointment of and intends to seek removal of Mr. Despins as Trustee.\n\nIn addition to Debtor's objection to the UST's appointment of Mr. Despins, I submit this letter on behalf of the Debtor seeking clarification on a significant issue which has recently come to light regarding the United States Trustee's (\"UST\") questionable handling of the appointment of a Trustee in this case.\n\nYour Honor ordered on June 15, 2022 that a Trustee be appointed in this case. (See Docket Entry No.: 465.) On June 30, 2022, the UST appointed Joe D. Whitley as the Trustee for the Estate of the Debtor. (See Docket Entry No.: 498.) At that time, Mr. Whitley became the Trustee pursuant to Your Honor's Order of June 15, 2022. Thereafter, the UST inexplicably withdrew Mr. Whitley's appointment. (See Docket Entry No.: 507.) As Your Honor correctly noted at the hearing held on July 5, 2022, if the Trustee is to be removed, a motion must be made pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 324, seeking his removal. (See Docket Entry No.: 509.) No such motion has been made. Instead, the UST, citing some late-coming disclosure, unilaterally removed Mr. Whitley as Trustee without making the appropriate motion, thereby depriving the Debtor, and the other parties, of the opportunity to fully understand and inquire as to the purported conflict. This despite Your Honor stating that the mystery conflict should be disclosed to the parties and to the Court on the record. The UST's attempt to \"unappoint\" Mr. Whitley was clearly intended to avoid embarrassment for its flawed vetting process. Which only got worse with the appointment of Mr. Despins who is inextricably linked to his firm, Paul Hastings, of which he is a member. Paul Hastings has a number of offices in China and Hong Kong and it is reasonable to infer that\n\n7  *Morristown, NJ 07960*\n\n*55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400*\n\n *T: (973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com*\n\nthe firm derives significant revenue from those offices due to its work for, among other clients, the Chinese Government.\n\nAt a hearing on July 6, 2022, the UST disclosed that the purported conflict which was egregious enough to ignore the removal process prescribed in the Bankruptcy code involved work, apparently by a new member of Mr. Whitley's firm, not Mr. Whitley himself, for an entity called Bravo Luck, which is owned by Debtor's son, in a different bankruptcy proceeding in New York. The UST never reached out to the Debtor regarding this conflict and, quite frankly, only explained the purported \"conflict\" with limited details after disclosure was demanded by Your Honor.\n\nThe next day, on July 7, 2022, the UST apparently appointed a second Trustee, Mr. Luc Despins of Paul Hastings. (See Docket No.: 515.) An expedited hearing was requested and conducted on July 8, 2022. At that hearing, Mr. Despins, much like Mr. Whitley, made a late disclosure, after swearing under penalty of perjury that after a thorough search of their conflicts system that he believes that \"neither Paul Hastings, nor any of its attorneys, including me, has any connections (as that term is used in Bankruptcy Rule 2014) with any of the entities listed in Schedule 1, except:\" [following which Mr. Despins provides a list of disclosures from which Paul Hastings representation of Pacific Alliance Group (the Parent company of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund (referred to in this case as \"PAX\") was inexplicably omitted.] It is my understanding that this disclosure was only made after Paul Hastings relationship with Pacific Alliance Group was brought to light on websites that seek to expose corruption within the Chinese Communist Party. Further, the explanation by Mr. Despins on the Record, that Paul Hastings didn't conduct a conflict search for \"Pacific Alliance\", only \"Pacific Asia Opportunity Fund\" cannot be given credence, especially since PAX's name is \"Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund\", not \"Pacific Asia Opportunity Fund\". Even giving the benefit of the doubt regarding this purported mistake, Paul Hastings/ Mr. Despins' conflict search system cannot be trusted nor can any promise of \"disinterestedness\" based upon their deficient conflict search procedures.\n\nWe have before us the exact same fact pattern on two successive occasions: the proposed Trustee identifies to the UST an eleventh-hour conflict with an interested party prior to approval by the Court, but with very different results. The first time, the UST perceives the purported conflict as being associated with the Debtor and immediately withdraws Mr. Whitley, ignoring the Bankruptcy Code in the process as well as the fact Mr. Whitley and his firm were not directly involved in the conflict. The second late-rising conflict relates to a PAX-centric relationship and the UST moves forward with the appointment. This is wholly inequitable and shows that the UST cannot be impartial in the appointment of a Trustee. Not to mention that the UST willfully ignored the undue influence that the Chinese government maintains over Paul Hastings by controlling its ability to do business in China and Hong Kong.\n\n## 7  *Morristown, NJ 07960*\n\n*55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400*\n\n *T: (973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com*\n\nAgain, the UST did not remove Mr. Whitley pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 324, nor did the UST seek to appoint Mr. Despins as a successor Trustee. It is unclear at this time who the Trustee is, if they are the original Trustee or a Successor Trustee. While the United States Trustee's procedures for appointing and removing Trustees in this case are objectionable in their own right, the most recent appointment of Mr. Despins of Paul Hastings is unconscionable.\n\nTo be clear, it is apparent that Mr. Despins cannot act as a \"Disinterested\" person and Debtor objects to his appointment and intends to seek his removal.<sup>1</sup> Mr. Despins has made it clear through his affidavit and statements that he and Paul Hastings are interested persons. Another concern is that other members of the Paul Hastings team have begun to send emails, make appearances in the case, and presumably draft papers for Mr. Depsins despite the firm having a clear ethical conflict on account of its work for the PAX's parent company. Further, Paul Hastings has a significant presence in China and Hong Kong and, presumably, derives a significant amount of income from their work there. Work which includes representing PAX's parent company and at least ten other entities owned by the Chinese government, and by extension the Chinese Communist Party. It cannot be disputed that the Chinese Communist Party is adverse to the Debtor, Mr. Kwok.\n\nIt also bears noting that Mr. Despins and his colleagues at Paul Hastings have begun to attempt to modify existing Court Orders, thus prioritizing the generation of fees for their benefit over their obligation to provide complete disclosure of their conflicts, despite promising to do so several days ago. It appears that Mr. Despins and Paul Hastings are prioritizing billable hours over the continuing obligation to disclose information regarding their conflicts.\n\nFurther, the UST, a department within the United States Department of Justice (\"DOJ\"), willfully ignored the CCP's penchant for undue influence despite having one of its own colleagues at DOJ Headquarters plead guilty to conspiring with foreign agents of China in an attempt to have Mr. Kwok extradited.<sup>2</sup> Just last month the DOJ indicted another individual as part of this China-funded campaign seeking the Debtor's unlawful rendition to China.<sup>3</sup> Further still, the UST has created a situation where Paul Hastings and Mr. Despins are undoubtedly going to face pressure from the Chinese Communist Party via their offices in China and Hong Kong. Not only is the Chinese Communist Party a client of Paul Hastings, but they also control their licenses to keep their law offices open in both China and Hong Kong. Thus, controlling what can reasonably be surmised to amount to hundreds of millions of dollars for Paul Hastings\n\n<sup>1</sup> A letter has been sent to the UST seeking further information related to its appointment process. A copy of the letter has been provided herewith.\n\n<sup>2</sup> http\n\n<sup>3</sup> \"U.S. Entertainer/Businessman and Malaysian National Charged with Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove Chinese Dissident from U.S.\" at http\n\n![](_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400*\n\n *T: (973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com*\n\nand Mr. Despins as a partner in Paul Hastings. These concerns of the Debtor regarding China's use of its economic licenses are not based on fantasy and conjecture. Again, the UST, as part of the DOJ, is aware of the pressure that the Chinese Government can put on a U.S. person and/or company by threatening to pull their licenses in China, thus controlling their purse strings. In fact, the DOJ is currently suing Steve Wynn for acting as an unregistered foreign agent of China due to his attempt to have Mr. Kwok extradited under threat of losing his gambling licenses in Macao.<sup>4</sup> At best, assuming it was incompetence rather than malice, the UST has shown that it is incapable of identifying and appointing a disinterested trustee in this case.\n\nAgain, please accept this letter as Debtor's preliminary objection to the appointment of Mr. Despins of Paul Hastings as Trustee in this case and as notice that the Debtor intends to formally seek the removal of Mr. Despins upon the submission of his supplemental disclosures which are needed to rectify the inadequate disclosures he previously made.\n\nThank you, Your Honor, for your consideration on this matter.\n\nRespectfully, /s *Aaron A. Mitchell* Aaron A. Mitchell\n\n<sup>4</sup> http","body_zh":"55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400\n\n电话：(973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com\n\n2022年7月11日\n\n（通过 ECF）尊敬的 Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官\n事由：债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n法官阁下：\n\n本律师事务所代表上述案件中的债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。我的出庭通知已在案卷中归档（参见案卷记录编号：__）。如果本呈递件在程序上有任何不当之处，请允许我首先致歉。我完全承认我不是破产律师；但是，我是债务人的代理律师，在他向新的第11章破产代理律师过渡期间，我有义务保护其权利。因此，请知悉，债务人反对指定 Mr. Despins（德斯平斯先生）为受托人，并打算申请将其撤换。\n\n除了债务人反对 UST 指定德斯平斯先生之外，我代表债务人提交本函，旨在就最近曝光的一个重大问题请求予以澄清，该问题涉及 United States Trustee（美国受托人，简称“UST”）在本案指定受托人方面令人质疑的处理方式。\n\n法官阁下于2022年6月15日下达裁定，要求在本案中指定一名受托人。（参见案卷记录编号：465。）2022年6月30日，UST 指定 Joe D. Whitley（乔·D·惠特利）为债务人财产托管地（Estate）的受托人。（参见案卷记录编号：498。）届时，根据法官阁下2022年6月15日的裁定，惠特利先生即成为受托人。此后，UST 莫名其妙地撤回了对惠特利先生的指定。（参见案卷记录编号：507。）正如法官阁下在2022年7月5日举行的听证会上正确指出的那样，若要撤换受托人，必须依据 11 U.S.C. § 324 提出动议请求撤换。（参见案卷记录编号：509。）然而并没有提出此类动议。相反，UST 援引某种迟来的利益披露，在未提出相应动议的情况下单方面撤换了作为受托人的惠特利先生，从而剥夺了债务人及其他当事方充分了解并质询所谓利益冲突的机会。尽管法官阁下明确表示该神秘的冲突应当在庭审记录中向各方当事人及法院披露，但 UST 仍采取了上述做法。UST 试图“撤销指定”惠特利先生，显然是为了避免其存在缺陷的审查程序陷入难堪。而在指定了德斯平斯先生之后，情况只会变得更糟，因为德斯平斯先生与其作为合伙人的 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）有着密不可分的联系。普衡在中国和香港设有多个办事处，有理由推断，该所从这些办事处获得了巨额收入，原因在于其为包括中国政府在内的客户提供法律服务。\n\n在2022年7月6日的听证会上，UST 披露了所谓的严重到足以忽略《破产法典》所规定撤换程序的利益冲突，该冲突涉及纽约另一起破产程序中惠特利先生律所的一名新成员（显然并非惠特利先生本人）为一家名为 Bravo Luck（博朗有限公司）的实体所做的工作，而该实体由债务人的儿子所有。UST 从未就此冲突与债务人联系过，坦率地说，仅在法官阁下要求披露后，才以有限的细节解释了所谓“冲突”。\n\n次日，即2022年7月7日，UST 显然指定了第二位受托人——来自普衡的 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）先生。（参见案卷编号：515。）各方申请并在2022年7月8日举行了加急听证会。在该听证会上，德斯平斯先生与惠特利先生极为相似，在以虚假陈述将受伪证罪处罚为由宣誓保证在对其利益冲突系统进行彻底检索后认为“普衡及其任何律师，包括我本人，均与附表1所列的任何实体没有任何关联（按《破产程序规则》第2014条所使用的术语含义），但以下情况除外：”之后，做出了一项迟来的披露，[紧随其后的是德斯平斯先生提供的一份披露清单，其中普衡代理 Pacific Alliance Group（太盟投资集团，即 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金，本案中简称“PAX”）的母公司）的情况被莫名其妙地遗漏了。] 据我了解，该披露是在旨在揭露中国共产党内部腐败的网站曝光了普衡与太盟投资集团的关系之后才做出的。此外，德斯平斯先生在记录中的解释称，普衡并未对“Pacific Alliance”进行利益冲突检索，而仅对“Pacific Asia Opportunity Fund”进行了检索，这种说法无法令人信服，尤其是 PAX 的名称是“Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund”，而不是“Pacific Asia Opportunity Fund”。即使对这一所谓的失误给予最大的宽容，普衡/德斯平斯先生的利益冲突检索系统也是不可信赖的，基于其有缺陷的冲突检索程序所做出的任何“无利害关系”保证同样不可信。\n\n我们面前连续两次出现了完全相同的事实模式：拟任受托人在法院批准前最后一刻向 UST 指出其与利害关系方存在冲突，但结果却大相径庭。第一次，UST 认为所谓的冲突与债务人有关，便立即撤回了惠特利先生，在这一过程中不仅无视了《破产法典》，也无视了惠特利先生及其律所并未直接卷入该冲突的事实。第二次迟来的冲突涉及以 PAX 为中心的关系，而 UST 却继续推行该指定。这是完全不公平的，表明 UST 在指定受托人方面无法做到公正无私。更不用说 UST 故意无视中国政府通过控制普衡在中国和香港的展业能力而对其施加的不当影响。\n\n同样，UST 既未依据 11 U.S.C. § 324 撤换惠特利先生，也未谋求指定德斯平斯先生为继任受托人。目前尚不清楚受托人究竟是谁，他们究竟是原受托人还是继任受托人。尽管 United States Trustee 本案中指定和撤换受托人的程序本身就令人难以接受，但最近对普衡德斯平斯先生的指定更是极其不合情理的。\n\n需要明确的是，显而易见德斯平斯先生无法作为“无利害关系”人行事，债务人反对对其的指定，并打算谋求将其撤换。1 德斯平斯先生通过其宣誓书和声明已明确表明他和普衡是利害关系人。另一个令人担忧的问题是，普衡团队的其他成员已经开始发送电子邮件、在本案中出庭，并推测已在为德斯平斯先生起草文书，尽管该所因代理 PAX 的母公司而存在明显的职业道德冲突。此外，普衡在中国和香港拥有大量业务，据推测，其在当地的业务获得了巨额收入。该等业务包括代表 PAX 的母公司以及至少其他十家由中国政府进而由中国共产党拥有的实体。无可争议的是，中国共产党与债务人郭先生存在利益对立。\n\n同样值得注意的是，德斯平斯先生及其在普衡的同事已经开始试图修改法院现有的裁定，从而将为自身谋取费用的行为置于其提供完整冲突披露的义务之上，尽管他们几天前承诺会做出披露。看起来德斯平斯先生和普衡正在将计费工时置于其继续披露利益冲突信息的义务之上。\n\n此外，作为 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部，简称“DOJ”）下属部门的 UST，故意无视中共施加不当影响的倾向，尽管司法部总部自己的一名同事已就串谋中国外国代理人企图将郭先生引渡一事认罪答辩。2 就在上个月，作为这项由中国资助、企图将债务人非法引渡遣返至中国的行动的一部分，司法部起诉了另一个人。3 更有甚者，UST 制造了一种局面，使普衡和德斯平斯先生无疑将通过其在中国和香港的办事处面临来自中国共产党的压力。中国共产党不仅是普衡的客户，而且还控制着他们在当地保留中国和香港律师事务所营业资格的执照。因此，这实际上控制了普衡及作为普衡合伙人的德斯平斯先生合理推算可达数亿美元的利益。债务人对中国利用其经济许可手段的这些担忧并非出于幻想和猜想。同样，作为司法部一部分的 UST 很清楚中国政府可以通过威胁吊销在华执照来对美国个人和/或公司施加压力，从而掐住他们的钱袋子。事实上，司法部目前正在起诉 Steve Wynn（史蒂芬·永利），指控其在面临失去澳门博彩牌照的威胁下，因企图将郭先生引渡而充当了中国未注册的外国代理人。4 退一步讲，即便假设这是出于无能而非恶意，UST 也已表明其没有能力在本案中识别并指定一名无利害关系的受托人。\n\n重申一遍，请将本函视为债务人对指定普衡德斯平斯先生为本案受托人的初步异议，并视为债务人打算在德斯平斯先生提交补充披露以纠正其此前不充分披露后，正式申请撤换德斯平斯先生的通知。\n\n法官阁下，感谢您对此事的关照。\n\n谨呈，\n/签名/ Aaron A. Mitchell（亚伦·A·米切尔）\nAaron A. Mitchell\n\n1 已向 UST 发送信函，请求获取与其指定程序相关的进一步信息。随函附上该信函的副本。\n\n2 http\n\n3 “美国艺人/商人及马来西亚籍人员因开展旨在放弃1MDB调查并将中国异见人士遣离美国的暗道游说行动而受到指控”，见 http\n\n4 http","key_entities":["Paul Hastings","Despins","Je","Kwok","Chinese Communist Party","Ho Wan Kwok","Luc Despins","CCP"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1676,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:57:04"}