{"id":"court_ctb_554_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":554,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"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,\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n## **THE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO MOTION, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 9006(c)(1), TO EXPEDITE HEARING ON APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING RETENTION AND EMPLOYMENT OF PAUL HASTINGS LLP AS COUNSEL TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\nHo Wan Kwok, the debtor (the \"Debtor\") in the above-captioned bankruptcy case (the \"Bankruptcy Case\"), by and through its undersigned attorneys, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., hereby objects to the Motion, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(c)(1), to Expedite Hearing on Application of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Authorizing and Approving Retention and Employment of Paul Hastings LLP as Counsel to Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 541) (the \"Motion to Expedite\"), filed by Luc A. Despins, the Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\"), on July 12, 2022. In support of his objection, the Debtor respectfully represents as follows:\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed his voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, thereby commencing the Bankruptcy Case.\n\n2. On June 15, 2022, this Court issued a Memorandum of Decision, *inter alia*, granting the Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Partial Joinder to the USTs Motion for the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 183) to the extent that it sought the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. (Doc. No. 465.)\n\n3. On June 30, 2022, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (the \"UST\"), filed a\n\nnotice appointing Joe D. Whitley (\"Whitley\") as Chapter 11 trustee in this case (Doc. No. 498), and on the same day, an Application for Order Approving Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 499) (the \"Whitley Application\"), seeking the Court's approval of the appointment of Whitley as the Chapter 11 trustee. The Whitley Application was withdrawn by the UST on July 5, 2022, the day the matter was scheduled to be heard. (Doc. No. 507.)\n\n4. Then, on July 7, 2022, the UST filed a notice (the \"Appointment Notice\") appointing the Trustee as Chapter 11 trustee (Doc. No. 514), and an Application (the \"Appointment Application\") for Order Approving Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 515), seeking the Court's approval of the appointment of the Trustee.\n\n5. On July 8, 2022, the day after the UST filed the Appointment Notice and the Appointment Application, this Court conducted the hearing on the Appointment Application and then entered an order approving the appointment of the Trustee. (Doc. No. 523.)\n\n6. On July 12, 2022, the Trustee filed an Application to Employ Paul Hastings LLP as Counsel to Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 539) (the \"Application to Employ\"), seeking to employ Paul Hastings LLP (\"Paul Hastings\") as his counsel. On the same day, the Trustee filed the Motion to Expedite, seeking an order expediting the hearing on the Application to Employ and setting a hearing for July 19, 2022.\n\n7. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(c)(1) provides that \"when an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court, the court *for cause shown* may in its discretion with or without motion or notice order the period reduced.\" (Emphasis added.) \"In considering such motions, courts should balance possible prejudice to other parties against the reasons advanced for reducing the time.\" 10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 9006.09[2] (Richard Levin & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed.). \"The flexibility\n\n2\n\nwritten into Bankruptcy Rule 9006 to reduce the time for notice should be sparingly invoked and may be invoked only for cause shown.\" *In re Sandra Cotton, Inc.*, 65 B.R. 153, 156 (W.D.N.Y. 1986).\n\n8. The Trustee has not established cause to justify the expedited consideration of the Application to Employ by this Court and all other parties-in-interest including the Debtor.\n\n9. The Trustee's purported cause is essentially that Paul Hastings needs to begin working immediately to assist the Trustee with his duties. However, this does not provide cause to grant the Trustee an expedited hearing. As this Court is well aware, Local Bankr. R. 2014- 1(b)(1) provides that \"[i]f an application to employ a professional is filed within thirty (30) days after the commencement of services provided by that professional, the application shall be deemed contemporaneously filed unless the Court orders otherwise.\" Thus, the timing of the hearing on the Application to Employ does not preclude the commencement of services by Paul Hastings. The relevant time is the date on which the Trustee filed the Application to Employ, which was four (4) days after the Court appointed the Trustee and has already occurred.\n\n10. Moreover, there would be significant prejudice to the Debtor and all other partiesin-interest if the Motion to Expedite were granted because they would not fully be able to explore, analyze and present to this Court if appropriate issues related to Paul Hastings' disinterestedness, including its relationship with the Pacific Alliance Group, the parent company of creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, and the Chinese Government and entities that it controls as explained in the July 11, 2022, letter to the Court from Aaron A. Mitchell (Doc. No. 531) (the \"Mitchell Letter\"). Additionally, as presented to this Court in multiple other filings, this case and the prior extensive related litigation and other proceedings illustrate clearly that the issues raised with respect to Paul Hastings' retention should be explored.\n\n11. The Trustee responded to the Mitchell Letter with the patently pretextual assertion that an expedited hearing is needed to clear \"any 'Debtor-manufactured' cloud\" regarding Paul Hastings' retention. The Trustee's reasoning assumes that the existence of a controversy justifies granting expedited relief. To the contrary, the actual controversy warrants a full and fair process. It is clear from the Trustee's own words that the Trustee is attempting to force a hearing as soon as possible in order to a deprive the Debtor and other parties-in-interest of the time needed to investigate whether Paul Hastings is truly disinterested and otherwise appropriate to serve as the Trustee's counsel. Furthermore, as set forth above, Paul Hastings and the Trustee will not be prejudiced if the Application to Employ is heard in the ordinary course (and not on an expedited basis) because of the retroactivity provision in Local Bankr. R. 2014-1(b)(1).\n\n12. As is common, Paul Hastings has already begun its engagement despite the fact that the Trustee's Application to Employ remains pending, which is expressly permitted under Local Bankr. R. 2014-1(b)(1). Indeed, Paul Hastings has already served numerous parties with litigation hold notices and other notices regarding the Trustee's view of the automatic stay's application in this case.\n\n13. By way of comparison, this Court and other parties-in-interest carefully evaluated over an appropriate period of time the retention of other professionals in this case. For example, the Debtor moved to retain Brown Rudnick, LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\") as his counsel on March 16, 2022. (Doc. No. 85). The Court considered the concerns raised by several parties-in-interest concerning the Debtor's proposed retention of Brown Rudnick as its counsel and continued the hearing on that application twice. (Doc. Nos. 123, 212). Only after the Debtor addressed the parties' and the Court's concerns regarding Brown Rudnick's retention—with the benefit of the Court's guidance during the course of multiple hearings on the matter—did the court grant a revised proposed order granting Brown Rudnick's retention on April 27, 2022, six weeks after the Debtor filed his application to retain Brown Rudnick.\n\n14. The Debtor respectfully submits that the procedure through which the Court evaluates the Trustee's Application to Employ Paul Hastings—a firm in which the Trustee owns an equity interest—should be no less rigorous than the procedure through which the Court evaluated the Debtor's application to retain Brown Rudnick and all other professional applications that were filed in this case. The Trustee and Paul Hastings should not be permitted to push-through the Application to Employ with as little scrutiny as possible.\n\n15. For these reasons, the Debtor respectfully requests that this Court deny the Trustee's Motion to Expedite and schedule a hearing on the Application to Employ in the ordinary course, so that all parties-in-interest and this Court may have a full and fair opportunity to evaluate the merits of the Application to Employ, including through the exploration and analysis of multiple issues raised with respect to Paul Hastings' claimed disinterestedness. (See Doc. No. 531).\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Debtor requests that the Court deny the Motion to Expedite and grant him such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 14 th day of July, 2022.\n\n## **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Stephen M. Kindseth* Eric Henzy (ct12849) Stephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [ehenzy@zeislaw.com](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) [skindseth@zeislaw.com](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 14 th day of July, 2022, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice ofElectronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ Stephen M. Kindseth* Stephen M. Kindseth (ct14640)","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），\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n债务人依据《破产程序规则》第 9006(c)(1) 条对第 11 章受托人申请作出授权并批准聘请及雇佣 PAUL HASTINGS LLP 作为第 11 章受托人法律顾问的命令加快听证动议的异议\n\n上述标题破产案件（下称“破产案件”）中的债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，下称“债务人”）通过其署名律师事务所 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.，特此对第 11 章受托人（下称“受托人”）Luc A. Despins 于 2022年7月12日 提交的《依据〈破产程序规则〉第 9006(c)(1) 条对第 11 章受托人申请作出授权并批准聘请及雇佣 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）作为第 11 章受托人法律顾问的命令加快听证的动议》（Doc. No. 541）（下称“加快动议”）提出异议。为支持其异议，债务人恭谨陈述如下：\n\n1. 2022年2月15日，债务人根据《破产法典》第 11 章提交了自愿救济申请书，从而启动了本破产案件。\n\n2. 2022年6月15日，本法院发布了一份判决备忘录，除其他事项外，在寻求指定第 11 章受托人的范围内，准许了《驳回动议，或在备位上，部分加入美国受托人关于指定第 11 章受托人的动议》（Doc. No. 183）。(Doc. No. 465.)\n\n3. 2022年6月30日，第 2 区美国受托人（下称“UST”）提交了一份指定 Joe D. Whitley（下称“Whitley”）作为本案第 11 章受托人的通知（Doc. No. 498），并在同一天提交了一份《关于批准指定第 11 章受托人的命令申请书》（Doc. No. 499）（下称“Whitley 申请书”），寻求法院批准指定 Whitley 为第 11 章受托人。2022年7月5日，即该事项原定举行听证会的当天，UST 撤回了 Whitley 申请书。(Doc. No. 507.)\n\n4. 随后，在 2022年7月7日，UST 提交了一份指定本受托人为第 11 章受托人的通知（Doc. No. 514）（下称“指定通知”），以及一份《关于批准指定第 11 章受托人的命令申请书》（Doc. No. 515）（下称“指定申请书”），寻求法院批准对该受托人的指定。\n\n5. 2022年7月8日，即 UST 提交《指定通知》和《指定申请书》的次日，本法院就《指定申请书》举行了听证会，随后作出裁定批准了对该受托人的指定。(Doc. No. 523.)\n\n6. 2022年7月12日，受托人提交了《关于雇佣 Paul Hastings LLP 作为第 11 章受托人法律顾问的申请书》（Doc. No. 539）（下称“雇佣申请书”），寻求聘请 Paul Hastings LLP（下称“Paul Hastings”）担任其法律顾问。同一天，受托人提交了《加快动议》，寻求作出加快《雇佣申请书》听证并定于 2022年7月19日 举行听证的裁定。\n\n7. 《联邦破产程序规则》第 9006(c)(1) 条规定：“当某项行为依据本规则、或依据其发出的通知、或依据法院命令，被要求或允许在规定时间内完成时，法院在经陈述理由后，可依其自由裁量权，在有或无动议或通知的情况下裁定缩短该期间。”（强调为后加。）“在审理此类动议时，法院应当权衡对其他当事人可能造成的损害与提出缩短时间理由之间的关系。”《科利尔论破产》（10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 9006.09[2]，Richard Levin 及 Henry J. Sommer 编，第16版）。“写入《破产程序规则》第 9006 条中用于缩短通知时间的灵活性应当审慎援引，且只有在陈述正当理由的情况下方可援引。”In re Sandra Cotton, Inc., 65 B.R. 153, 156 (W.D.N.Y. 1986).\n\n8. 受托人并未确立正当理由，以证明本法院及包括债务人在内的所有其他利害关系方应加快审理《雇佣申请书》。\n\n9. 受托人声称的理由实质上是 Paul Hastings 需要立即开展工作以协助受托人履行职责。然而，这并不能构成准许受托人加快听证的正当理由。正如本法院深知的那样，《地方破产规则》第 2014-1(b)(1) 条规定：“如果雇佣专业人士的申请是在该专业人士开始提供服务后三十（30）天内提交的，除非法院另有命令，否则该申请应视为同时提交。”因此，《雇佣申请书》的听证时间并不妨碍 Paul Hastings 开始提供服务。相关的时间节点是受托人提交《雇佣申请书》的日期，即法院指定受托人四（4）天后，而这已经发生。\n\n10. 此外，如果准许《加快动议》，将对债务人及所有其他利害关系方造成重大损害，因为他们将无法充分调查、分析并在适当时向本法院呈报与 Paul Hastings 的无利害关系性相关的问题，包括其与 Pacific Alliance Group（太盟投资集团，即债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund 的母公司）以及中国政府及其控制实体的关系，正如 Aaron A. Mitchell 在 2022年7月11日 给法院的信函（Doc. No. 531）（下称“Mitchell 信函”）中所解释的那样。此外，正如在向本法院提交的多份其他文件中所陈述的，本案以及此前广泛的相关诉讼和其他程序清楚表明，就聘请 Paul Hastings 所提出的问题应当予以调查。\n\n11. 受托人对 Mitchell 信函的回应是明显托辞的主张，称需要加快听证以清除关于聘请 Paul Hastings 的“任何‘债务人制造的’阴霾”。受托人的推理假定了争议的存在就构成准许加快救济的正当理由。相反，实际存在的争议要求进行充分且公正的程序。从受托人自己的话中可以清楚看出，受托人正试图强推尽快举行听证，以剥夺债务人和其他利害关系方调查 Paul Hastings 是否真正无利害关系以及是否适合担任受托人法律顾问所需的时间。此外，如上所述，由于《地方破产规则》第 2014-1(b)(1) 条中的追溯力条款，如果按常规程序（而非加快程序）审理《雇佣申请书》，Paul Hastings 和受托人并不会受到损害。\n\n12. 按照惯例，尽管受托人的《雇佣申请书》仍在审理中，Paul Hastings 已经开始开展聘约工作，这在《地方破产规则》第 2014-1(b)(1) 条下是明确允许的。事实上，Paul Hastings 已经向众多当事人送达了诉讼保全通知以及关于受托人对本案自动中止适用情况看法的其他通知。\n\n13. 对比而言，本法院和其他利害关系方在适当的时间段内仔细评估了本案中其他专业人士的聘请。例如，债务人于 2022年3月16日 提议聘请 Brown Rudnick, LLP（下称“Brown Rudnick”）作为其法律顾问。(Doc. No. 85)。法院审议了若干利害关系方对债务人提议聘请 Brown Rudnick 作为其法律顾问所提出的关切，并将该申请的听证会延期了两次。(Doc. Nos. 123, 212)。直到债务人解决了各方和法院关于聘请 Brown Rudnick 的关切——并在该事项的多次听证过程中受益于法院的指导之后——法院才于 2022年4月27日，即债务人提交聘请 Brown Rudnick 申请的六周之后，批准了一份修改后的拟议命令以准许聘请 Brown Rudnick。\n\n14. 债务人恭谨提请注意，法院评估受托人雇佣 Paul Hastings（受托人持有该律所的股权权益）的《申请书》所适用的程序，其严格程度不应低于法院评估债务人聘请 Brown Rudnick 的申请以及本案中提交的所有其他专业人士申请的程序。不应允许受托人和 Paul Hastings 在尽可能少受审查的情况下强行通过《雇佣申请书》。\n\n15. 基于这些理由，债务人恭谨请求本法院驳回受托人的《加快动议》，并按常规程序安排《雇佣申请书》的听证会，以便所有利害关系方和本法院能够拥有充分且公正的机会来评估《雇佣申请书》的实体理由，包括通过对针对 Paul Hastings 声称的无利害关系所提出的多项问题进行调查和分析。(参见 Doc. No. 531)。\n\n综上所述，债务人请求法院驳回《加快动议》，并给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2022年7月14日，于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n债务人：HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ Stephen M. Kindseth\nEric Henzy (ct12849)\nStephen M. Kindseth (ct14640)\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\nJohn L. Cesaroni (ct29309)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5487\n电子邮件：ehenzy@zeislaw.com\nskindseth@zeislaw.com\naromney@zeislaw.com\njcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n\n送达证书\n\n本人特此证明，于 2022年7月14日，上述文书的副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交的通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人，或者如电子提交通知所示，通过邮寄方式发送给任何无法接受电子提交的人员。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n/s/ Stephen M. Kindseth\nStephen M. Kindseth (ct14640)","key_entities":["Paul Hastings","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Despins"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1568,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:55:38"}