{"id":"court_ctb_538_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":538,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"DECLARATION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |              | A - and and and one and one","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n|              | A - and and and one and one and one and the may one was and the may one world to the may one world to be and the world to the world to the world to the world to the world to |                   |\n|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|\n| In re:       |                                                                                                                                                                               | Chapter 11        |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | •<br>                                                                                                                                                                         | Case No. 22-50073 |\n| Debtor.      |                                                                                                                                                                               |                   |\n|              | ----                                                                                                                                                                          |                   |\n\n## FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DISINTERESTEDNESS OF LUC A. DESPINS\n\nI, Luc A. Despins, declare the following is true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief:\n\n1. I submit this declaration (the \"First Supplemental Declaration\") to supplement the declaration submitted to the Court on July 7, 2022 [Docket No. 515-1] (the \"Initial Declaration\") as part of the U.S. Trustee's request to appoint me as chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") pending before this Court (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") and in further support of my application (to be filed contemporaneously herewith) to approve the employment of Paul Hastings as counsel to the Trustee. I hereby supplement the Intial Declaration as follows:\n\n2. connection with the review procedures described in paragraph 4 of the Initial Declaration, certain Paul Hastings attorneys resident in Paul Hastings' Hong Kong office formerly represented certain entities (collectively, the \"PAG Entities\") which share a common ultimate parent (PAG\n\n<sup>1</sup> Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Initial Declaration.\n\nHoldings Limited) with Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP (\"PAX\")2 in Unrelated Matters (as defined in the Initial Declaration to mean matters unrelated to the Debtor, his family members, or entities controlled by the Debtor or his family members), the most recent of which concluded in May of 2022 (the \"PAG Unrelated Matters\").3\n\n3. Paul Hastings is a large multinational law firm with thousands of current and former clients. To put matters in perspective, Paul Hastings' fees collected in the PAG Unrelated Matters accounted for approximately 0.004% of Paul Hastings' fees collected for the firm's fiscal year ending January 31, 2022, approximately 0.02% of Paul Hastings' fees collected during the firm's three prior fiscal years ending January 31, 2022, and approximately 0.03% of Paul Hastings' fees collected during the firm's five prior fiscal years ending January 31, 2022.\n\n4. Paul Hastings has not represented PAX and does not currently represent PAX or any entity related to PAX. I have never represented PAX or any entity related to PAX, and, in my capacity as Trustee, I am able to be adverse to PAX and so is Paul Hastings as PAX is not and was not a client of the firm and, in any event, even assuming, without conceding the point, that the PAG Entities and PAX would be treated as as one for conflict purposes, the PAG Entities are former clients in connection with Unrelated Matters. See Conn. R. Prof. Cond. 1.9 (Lawyer may be adverse to former client as long as new representation is not related to prior matter handled for former client.)\n\n## 5. In addition, I supplement the Initial Declaration as follows:\n\n<sup>2</sup> Put another way, PAX's indirect parent company, PAG Holdings Limited, is also the indirect parent company of the PAG Entities. To be clear, however, the PAG Entities are neither parent companies nor subsidiaries with respect to PAX.\n\n<sup>3</sup> The names of the PAG Entities are PAG Real Estate Asia; PAG Assets (Real Estate) Limited: PAG Real Estate Investment Ltd .; BT Cayman Ltd .; Super Alliance Real Estate L.P .; and Sunstone KB (HKSAR) Ltd.\n\na. One Paul Hastings attorney, James Bliss, who is not currently a member of the team of attorneys assigned to represent the Trustee, worked at the law firm of Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin (\"Schatz & Schatz\"), in Hartford, Connecticut, as a summer associate (in 1994) and first-year associate (in 1995-1996), at a time when, the Honorable Julie A. Manning was also employed at Schatz & Schatz.\n\n6. So To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, based on the review procedures described in the Initial Declaration, Paul Hastings does not have any \"connection\" to the parties in interest identified on Schedule 1 to the Initial Declaration, except as described in the Initial Declaration and this First Supplemental Declaration. Neither the term \"connection,\" as used in Bankruptcy Rule 2014, nor the proper scope of a professional's search for \"connection\" has been defined, and I am therefore uncertain what this Court may consider a \"connection\" requiring disclosure. Out of an abundance of caution, I have disclosed in the Initial Declaration, and am disclosing in this First Supplemental Declarations that are not, to my understanding, disqualifying or problematic under either section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code or applicable standards of professional ethics.\n\n7. For the reasons set forth in the Initial Declaration and this First Supplemental Declaration, I believe that Paul Hastings is a \"disinterested person,\" as defined in section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and as required by section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n8. I declare under penalty of perjury under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted July 12, 2022, at New York, New York.\n\nLuc A. Despins\n\n-3-","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部）\n\nA - and and and one and one and one and the may one was and the may one world to the may one world to be and the world to the world to the world to the world to the world to\n\n关于：第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n案号：22-50073\n债务人。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）关于无利害关系的第一次补充声明\n\n我，Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），据我所知、所悉并确信，声明如下内容属实：\n\n1. 我提交本声明（以下简称「《第一次补充声明》」），以对2022年7月7日向法院提交的声明 [Docket No. 515-1]（以下简称「《初始声明》」）进行补充。《初始声明》系作为美国破产受托人请求指定我为本院审理中的Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称「债务人」）第11章案件（以下简称「第11章案件」）的第11章受托人（以下简称「受托人」）申请的一部分，并进一步支持我（将于本声明提交的同时一并提交）批准聘请Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）担任受托人代理律师的申请。我特此对《初始声明》补充如下：\n\n2. 关于《初始声明》第4段所述的审查程序，常驻Paul Hastings（普衡）香港办事处的某些普衡律师此前曾代表过某些实体（统称「PAG Entities（太盟实体）」），这些实体与Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，以下简称「PAX」）2 拥有共同的最终母公司（PAG\n\n1 本声明中未定义的词首大写术语应具有《初始声明》中赋予它们的含义。\n\nHoldings Limited（太盟集团有限公司）），代理事项属于无关事项（定义见《初始声明》，指与债务人、其家庭成员或由债务人或其家庭成员控制的实体无关的事项），其中最近一项代理已于2022年5月结束（以下简称「太盟无关事项」）。3\n\n3. 普衡是一家拥有数千名现有客户及前客户的大型跨国律师事务所。从整体情况来看，普衡在太盟无关事项中收取的费用约占截至2022年1月31日的该财年普衡收取总费用的0.004%，约占截至2022年1月31日的前三个财年期间普衡收取总费用的0.02%，以及约占截至2022年1月31日的前五个财年期间普衡收取总费用的0.03%。\n\n4. 普衡从未代表过PAX，目前也没有代表PAX或任何与PAX相关的实体。我从未代表过PAX或任何与PAX相关的实体；以受托人身份，我能够与PAX处于利益对立状态，普衡亦是如此，因为PAX现在不是、过去也不是该律所的客户；无论如何，即便假定（但在不承认该观点的前提下）出于利益冲突目的将太盟实体与PAX视为一体，太盟实体也是与无关事项相关的前客户。参见《康涅狄格州职业行为准则》（Conn. R. Prof. Cond.）第1.9条（只要新的代理事项与此前为前客户处理的事项无关，律师即可与前客户处于利益对立状态）。\n\n5. 此外，我对《初始声明》补充如下：\n\n2 换言之，PAX的间接母公司PAG Holdings Limited（太盟集团有限公司）也是太盟实体的间接母公司。但需明确的是，太盟实体对PAX而言既非母公司亦非子公司。\n\n3 太盟实体的名称为：PAG Real Estate Asia、PAG Assets (Real Estate) Limited、PAG Real Estate Investment Ltd.、BT Cayman Ltd.、Super Alliance Real Estate L.P. 以及 Sunstone KB (HKSAR) Ltd.。\n\na. 普衡的一名律师James Bliss（詹姆斯·布利斯）目前并非被指定代表受托人的律师团队成员，他曾于1994年作为暑期实习律师、1995年至1996年作为一年级授薪律师，在位于康涅狄格州哈特福德的Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin（以下简称「Schatz & Schatz」）律师事务所工作，当时Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官阁下也受聘于Schatz & Schatz。\n\n6. 因此，据我所知、所悉并确信，基于《初始声明》中所述的审查程序，除《初始声明》及本《第一次补充声明》中所述情况外，普衡与《初始声明》附表1中确定的利害关系方不存在任何「关联」（connection）。《联邦破产程序规则》（Bankruptcy Rule）第2014条中使用的「关联」一词，以及专业人士检索「关联」的适当范围，均未有明确定义，因此我无法确定本法院可能将何种情况视为需要披露的「关联」。出于审慎考虑，我已在《初始声明》中披露，并正在本《第一次补充声明》中披露据我理解依据《美国破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第327(a)条或适用的职业道德标准均不构成丧失资格或存在问题的相关情况。\n\n7. 基于《初始声明》及本《第一次补充声明》中所陈述的理由，我认为普衡属于《美国破产法典》第101(14)条所定义且符合《美国破产法典》第327(a)条所要求的「无利害关系人」（disinterested person）。\n\n8. 我依据 28 U.S.C. § 1746 声明，在承担伪证罪法律责任的前提下，上述内容真实无误。\n\n于2022年7月12日在纽约州纽约市签署。\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n\n-3-","key_entities":["Paul Hastings","Despins","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":893,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:40:32"}