{"id":"court_ctb_561_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":561,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","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\n| In re:                                                          | Chapter 11              |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                    | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                                                         |                         |\n|                                                                 |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                    |                         |\n| Movant,                                                         |                         |\n| v.                                                              |                         |\n| WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON,<br>UNTIED STATES TRUSTEE<br>FOR REGION 2 |                         |\n| and                                                             |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE                           |                         |\n| Respondents.                                                    |                         |\n\n## **THE DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER APPOINTING LUC A. DESPINS AS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\nThe debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b), incorporated herein by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024, hereby moves for relief from the Order Granting Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 523) (the \"Despins Appointment Order\") based upon evidence discovered after his appointment that the Chapter 11 trustee, Luc A. Despins (the \"Trustee\") is not disinterested and for other reasons that justify vacating the approval of his appointment. In support of his motion, the Debtor represents as follows:\n\n#### **I. INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. As set forth more fully below and as the Debtor reasonably anticipates establishing further through discovery, the Trustee is not disinterested. The Trustee failed to disclose as part of his original declaration filed with the application a day before the hearing and then only disclosed verbally to the Debtor's prior counsel approximately an hour before the hearing that his law firm, Paul Hastings LLP (\"Paul Hastings\"), had represented multiple parties related to the Debtor's largest creditor and zealous adversary, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund (\"PAX\"). No appropriate vetting of this relationship and its' purported termination in May of 2022, could have been conducted by anyone.\n\n2. More significantly, the Trustee failed to disclose at any time his firm's significant relationship to the People's Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\") and their state owned and controlled entities. The Trustee is a partner in Paul Hastings—with all the attendant fiduciary duties—and the co-chair of its Financial Restructuring group. As a matter of law, Paul Hastings' legal relationships are the Trustee's legal relationships. As set forth below, the People's Republic of China and CCP are directly and fiercely adverse to the Debtor. The Trustee failed to make full and timely disclosure of his and his firm's connections to persons related to this case, and based upon information obtained after his appointment, he is not disinterested. The Trustee's participation in this case will not be perceived as impartial, will be subject to the significant risk of undue influence by the Debtor's most hotly-contested adversaries, and will make an already unfortunate situation far worse. The Debtor respectfully submits that the order appointing the Trustee should be vacated.\n\n### **I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND**\n\n### **A. The Appointment of the Chapter 11 Trustee**\n\n3. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed his voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, thereby commencing the above captioned bankruptcy case (the \"Bankruptcy Case\").\n\n4. 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\n5. On June 30, 2022, William K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (the \"UST\"), filed a notice 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\n6. 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 for Order Approving Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 515) (the \"Appointment Application\"), seeking the Court's approval of the appointment of the Trustee.\n\n7. In the Appointment Application, the UST represented that to the best of his knowledge the Trustee's \"connections with the Debtor, creditors, any other parties-in-interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States Trustee, and persons employed in the Office of the United States Trustee are set forth on the Declaration of Luc A. Despins which is\n\n3\n\nannexed hereto.\"\n\n8. In the Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins (the \"Despins\n\nDeclaration\"), the Trustee stated that he is a partner at Paul Hastings LLP (\"Paul Hastings\").\n\n(Despins Declaration, ¶ 1.)\n\n9. The Trustee also stated that he believed:\n\na. Neither I, nor Paul Hastings, nor any partner in, counsel to, or associate of Paul Hastings represents any entity in or in connection with the Debtor's chapter I I case; b. Paul Hastings and I do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the Debtor's estate; and c. neither Paul Hastings nor any of its attorneys, including me, (i) is a creditor, equity security holder or insider of any of the Debtor or his affiliates, (ii) has been, within two years before the date of the filing of the petition, a director, officer, or employee of any of the Debtor or his affiliates, or (iii) has any interest materially adverse to the interests of the estates of any class of creditors or equity security holders by reason of any direct or indirect relationship to, connection with, or interest in, the Debtor, or for any other reason.\n\n(Despins Declaration, ¶ 5.)\n\n10. On July 8, 2022, the day after the UST filed the Appointment Notice and the\n\nAppointment Application, this Court conducted the hearing on the Appointment Application (the\n\n\"July 8 Hearing\").\n\n11. At the July 8 Hearing, the Trustee disclosed for the first time orally Paul Hastings'\n\nrelationship with Pacific Alliance Group (\"PAG\"),<sup>1</sup> the parent company of creditor Pacific\n\nAlliance Asia Opportunity Fund (\"PAX\"). Specifically, the Trustee stated:\n\n15 But I wanted to make sure today that I mentioned\n\n16 to the Court that we discovered last night that we have in\n\n17 the past represented entities that have -- that are -- have\n\n18 the acronym PAG in them, P-A-G. Unbeknownst to our conflict\n\n19 system, PAG means Pacific Asia Group [sic].\n\n20 And those entities -- and, again, as I said, these\n\n21 are representations that were completed, but these entities\n\n<sup>1</sup> PAG was also subsequently identified as PAG Holdings Limited.\n\n22 are unrelated to the Kwok matter in any way. 23 However, PAX is probably managed by a similar or a 24 PAG entity of some kind. We're trying to figure out exactly 25 which one.\n\n(Transcript of July 8 Hearing, 6:15-25, excerpt attached hereto as **Exhibit A**.)\n\n12. The Court then entered the Despins Appointment Order, approving the appointment of the Trustee, on the same day. (Doc. No. 523.)\n\n13. On July 12, 2022, the Trustee filed his First Supplemental Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins (Doc. No. 538) (the \"Supplemental Despins Declaration\"), in which the Trustee represented that Paul Hastings represented \"certain entities\" that share a common parent with PAX. (Supplemental Despins Declaration, ¶ 2.) He did not disclose any details regarding those representations, other than to state that they were in unrelated matters. (*Id.*)\n\n14. The Trustee did not—and to date still has not—disclosed his or Paul Hastings' connections to the People's Republic of China, the CCP or entities they own or control.\n\n# **B. The Interest of the Chinese Government in This Case and the Trustee's Failure to Disclose Chinese Interests**\n\n15. Paul Hastings has two offices in China – Beijing and Shanghai – and one in Hong Kong (a \"Special Administrative Region\" of China) and does significant business there, including representing at least ten (10) entities owned by the Chinese government. *E.g.*, Paul Hastings Represents Chinese Local Government Enterprises in Seven Bond Issuances, PaulHastings.com, [http](http)[enterprises-in-seven-bond.](http) In fact, Paul Hastings has stated that it \"was one of the first major international law firms to establish an Asia practice, and today we continue to be a leader in the region.\" Beijing, PaulHastings.com, [http](http) *see also id.*  (\"Our lawyers in Beijing represent Fortune Global 500 companies and financial institutions in\n\ncross-border transactions in the Greater China region. We also advise Chinese companies and financial institutions on their strategic outbound investments into the U.S., Europe, Latin America, and other global markets.\"). Neither the Trustee nor the UST have explained, or even mentioned, the extent of Paul Hastings' connections to businesses in China.\n\n16. Because the Chinese government and the CCP have exclusive and unchecked control over which businesses operate in China, including Paul Hastings and its clients, the Chinese government and the CCP have significant influence over Paul Hastings and its Chinese clients.\n\n17. As the United States Department of Justice (the \"DOJ\"), of which the UST's office is a part, is well aware, the Chinese government and the CCP have tried in the past to unduly influence proceedings involving the Debtor and have committed criminal acts toward the Debtor within the United States.\n\n18. In 2017, the Debtor filed an application with the United States government for political asylum from the Chinese government. The Debtor's application for political asylum remains pending. Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions (Doc. No. 107) (the \"Kwok Declaration\"), ¶ 14; Billionaire Who Accused Top Chinese Officials of Corruption Asks U.S. for Asylum, *New York Times*, [http](http) 2 The Debtor's family, in multiple separate instances, was detained and tortured by the CCP. *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok Ho Wan*, No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Aff. of Mei Guo, Doc. No. 1162, ¶¶ 4-6.\n\n19. In 2017, at the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Debtor is also known as Guo Wengui.\n\nChina, Interpol issued a \"red notice\" for the Debtor—providing an international alert that he was wanted for arrest in China. China has been accused of abusing Interpol's Red Notice System. \"China has selectively used this service to repatriate Chinese nationals wanted by the authorities for engaging in political/religious activism or expressing views contrary to that professed by the Chinese Communist Party.\" View: How China Misuses Interpol to Settle Domestic Scores and Stifle Dissidence, The Economic Times, [http](http)  [defence/view-how-china-misuses-interpol-to-settle-domestic-scores-and-stifle-dissidence/](http)  [articleshow/86160172.cms?utm\\\\_source=contentofinterest&utm\\\\_medium=text&utm\\\\_campaign=](http) [cppst.](http)\n\n20. Also in 2017, United States federal agents engaged in two altercations with Chinese operatives within a seventy-two (72) hour period—one at Penn Station and one at JFK airport because federal agents had determined that the Chinese government was conducting a covert and unauthorized operation in New York to coerce the Debtor to return to China. China's Pursuit of Fugitive Businessman Guo Wengui Kicks Off Manhattan Caper Worthy of Spy Thriller, *The Wall Street Journal,* [http](http)[businessman-kicks-off-manhattan-caper-worthy-of-spy-thriller-1508717977.](http)\n\n21. In addition, in 2018, George Higginbotham, a former DOJ Headquarters Official, pleaded guilty to facilitating the transfer of millions of dollars from foreign bank accounts to the United States to fund a lobbying campaign to persuade high-ranking United States officials to unlawfully remove the Debtor from the United States to China. *See* Former Justice Department Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Deceive U.S. Banks about Millions of Dollars in Foreign Lobbying Funds, [http](http)[guilty-conspiracy-deceive-us-banks-about-millions;](http) Kwok Declaration, ¶ 16. Former Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Elliot Broidy, and lobbyist Nicki Lum Davis also pleaded guilty for their roles in that scheme. Kwok Declaration, ¶ 16 (citing DOJ press releases).\n\n22. Last month, the DOJ indicted Low Taek Jho and Prakazrel \"Pras\" Michel of conspiring \"to engage in undisclosed lobbying campaigns at the direction of Low and the Vice Minister of Public Security for the People's Republic of China, respectively . . . to have a Chinese dissident sent back to China.\" U.S. Entertainer/Businessman and Malaysian National Charged with Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove Chinese Dissident from U.S., [http](http)[charged-back-channel-lobbying-campaign-drop.](http) That \"dissident\" is the Debtor.\n\n23. Further, in May 2022, the DOJ filed a civil enforcement action against Stephen A. Wynn (the hotelier) (\"Wynn\") to compel him \"to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) as the agent of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and a senior official of the PRC's Ministry of Public Security (MPS).\" Justice Department Sues to Compel a U.S. Businessperson to Register Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, [http](http)[under-foreign-agents-registration.](http) According to the DOJ's own complaint:\n\n[F]rom at least June 2017 through at least August 2017, Wynn contacted the then-President and members of his administration to convey the PRC's request to cancel the visa or otherwise remove from the United States a Chinese businessperson who left China in 2014, was later charged with corruption by the PRC and sought political asylum in the United States. Wynn engaged in these efforts at the request of Sun Lijun, then-Vice Minister of the MPS. Wynn conveyed the request directly to the then-President over dinner and by phone, and he had multiple discussions with the then-President and senior officials at the White House and National Security Council about organizing a meeting with Sun and other PRC government officials.\n\n*Id.* Again, the Chinese business person is the Debtor. Steve Wynn May Face Justice Department Action for Role in China's Push to Expel Businessman, *The Wall Street Journal*, [http](http)\n\n[foreign-lobbyist-11622054103;](http) Kwok Declaration, ¶ 16.\n\n24. The DOJ has recognized that Wynn's \"conduct was motivated by his desire to protect his business interests in the PRC.\" *Attorney General of the United States of America v. Wynn*, No. 1:22-cv-1372 (D.D.C.), Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ¶ 28. The DOJ also alleged specific pressure put upon Wynn by China:\n\nAccording to public reporting, in 2016, shortly before the conduct described above occurred, the Macau government restricted the number of gaming tables and machines that the Defendant's casino could operate. Also according to public reporting, Defendant was scheduled to renegotiate his licenses to operate casinos in Macau in 2019, subsequent to the conduct described above.\n\n*Id.*, ¶ 29 (footnotes omitted).\n\n25. In addition, the Chinese government has seized or frozen billions of dollars of assets on account of claims against the Debtor. Chinese Tycoon's Daughter Challenges Hong Kong Over Asset Freeze, *Bloomberg*[, http](http)[s-daughter-challenges-hong-kong-over-asset-freeze#xj4y7vzkg.](http)\n\n26. This includes the land and development in Beijing known as the Pangu Plaza, which was given as security for a loan made by PAX to an entity called Spirit Carter. Kwok Declaration, ¶ 21. Seized Beijing skyscraper sells online for a 'bargain' \\$734M, CNN, [http](http)\n\n27. In 2017, at the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China, Interpol issued a \"red notice\" for the Debtor—providing an international alert that he was wanted for arrest in China. China has been accused of abusing Interpol's Red Notice System. \"China has selectively used this service to repatriate Chinese nationals wanted by the authorities for engaging in political/religious activism or expressing views contrary to that professed by the\n\nChinese Communist Party.\" View: How China Misuses Interpol to Settle Domestic Scores and Stifle Dissidence, *The Economic Times*, [http](http)  [view-how-china-misuses-interpol-to-settle-domestic-scores-and-stifle-dissidence/articleshow/](http)  [86160172.cms?utm\\\\_source=contentofinterest &utm\\\\_medium=text&utm\\\\_campaign=cppst.](http)\n\n28. It has been well documented that the Chinese government exercises unchecked control and influence over businesses in China. *E.g.*, How the State Runs Business in China, *The Guardian*, [http](http)[communist-party-state-private-enterprise-huawei.](http) (\"From the Mao era onwards, Chinese state firms have always had a predominant role in the economy, and the Communist party has always maintained direct control over state firms. For more than a decade, the party has also tried to ensure it played a role inside private businesses. But in his first term in office, [Chinese president] Xi [Jinping] has overseen a sea change in how the party approaches the economy, dramatically strengthening the party's role in both government and private businesses.\"). This includes foreign multinational companies with a Chinese presence. *Id.*; Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Remarks at Hudson Institute, Video Event: China's Attempt to Influence U.S. Institutions (July 7, 2020) (transcript available at: [http](http)[posed-by-the-chinese-government-and-the-chinese-communist-party-to-the-economic-and](http)[national-security-of-the-united-states\\)](http) (\"So what does China do? Well, China has leverage over the American official's constituents—American companies, academics, and members of the media all have legitimate and understandable reasons to want access to Chinese partners and markets. And because of the authoritarian nature of the Chinese Communist Party, China has immense power over those same partners and markets. So, China will sometimes start by trying to influence the American official overtly and directly. China might openly warn that if the American official\n\ngoes ahead and takes that trip to Taiwan, China will take it out on a company from that official's home state by withholding the company's license to manufacture in China. That could be economically ruinous for the company, would directly pressure the American official to alter his travel plans, and the official would know that China was trying to influence him.\"). This influence necessarily extends to Paul Hastings and its clients in China.\n\n## **II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n29. This Court has jurisdiction to consider this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157\n\nand 1334. Consideration of this Motion is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n\nVenue is proper in this Court for this case and this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and\n\n1409, respectively.\n\n## **III. LEGAL BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n### **A. Standard for Relief from Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)**\n\n30. The Debtor respectfully requests that the Court grant it relief from the Despins\n\nAppointment Order and vacate the same.\n\n31. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)<sup>3</sup> provides in relevant part\n\nOn motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) . . . (6) any other reason that justifies relief.\n\nWith certain exceptions not relevant here, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 provides that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60\n\napplies in cases under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n<sup>3</sup> \"'[M]otions pursuant to Rule 59(e), Rule 60(b), and Local Rule 7(c) for reconsideration are treated under the same standard.'\" *Ashby v. Quiros*, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91970, at \\*2 (D. Conn. May 14, 2021) (quoting *Levy v. World Wrestling Ent., Inc.*, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66200 (D. Conn. July 31, 2009)).\n\n32. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), \"[t]he movant must demonstrate that (1) the newly discovered evidence was of facts that existed at the time of trial or other dispositive proceeding, (2) the movant must have been justifiably ignorant of them despite due diligence, (3) the evidence must be admissible and of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome, and (4) the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching.\" *United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters*, 247 F.3d 370, 392 (2d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).\n\n33. \"Rule 60(b) is a procedural device used to challenge final judgments or final orders. . . . Courts have held that a final judgment is needed to support a Rule 60(b) motion.\" *Byrne v. Liquid Asphalt Sys.*, 250 F. Supp. 2d 84, 87 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (citations omitted). \"[A]n order is final if nothing in the order . . . indicates any anticipation that the decision will be reconsidered. A bankruptcy court's order is final if it completely resolve[s] all of the issues pertaining to a discrete claim, including issues as to the proper relief.\" *In re Adelphia Communs. Corp.*, 333 B.R. 649, 656 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Preconfirmation orders appointing a trustee are considered final. *Silverman v. Tracar, S.A. (In re Am. Preferred Prescription, Inc.)*, 255 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir. 2001) (dicta); *Adelphia Communs. Corp.*, 333 B.R. at 657 n.41 (collecting cases); *see also Altman v. Rafael Galleries, Inc. (In re Altman),* 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16235, at \\*6-9 (D. Conn. July 27, 2000).\n\n#### **B. The Trustee Must Be a \"Disinterested Person\"**\n\n34. Here, the Trustee has not disclosed his or his firm's connection with the Chinese government, the CCP, or state-controlled businesses. However, it is clear that the Chinese government, the CCP, and any of the entities they control (directly or indirectly) are parties in interest here because they have demonstrated an interest in persecuting the Debtor, decimating his finances and ability to reorganize, and extorting him to return to China, in many instances in violation of the laws of the United States. Thus, the Trustee must disclose his and Paul Hastings connections with the Chinese government.\n\n35. \"The trustee must be a 'disinterested person,' as defined in section 101(14).\" 7 Collier on Bankruptcy P 1104.02 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1104(b), (d)). Relevant here, \"[t]he term 'disinterested person' means a person that—. . . (C) does not have an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate or of any class of creditors or equity security holders, by reason of any direct or indirect relationship to, connection with, or interest in, the debtor, or for any other reason.\" 11 U.S.C. § 101(14). Moreover, a statement disclosing potential adverse interests must be in writing and filed with the application to approve a Chapter 11 trustee. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2007.1(c) (\"The application shall be accompanied by a verified statement of the person appointed setting forth the person's connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee.\").\n\n36. The Bankruptcy Code does not define what it means to have \"an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate\". *See* 11 U.S.C. § 101(14); *Bank Brussels Lambert v. Coan (In re AroChem Corp.)*, 176 F.3d 610, 623 (2d Cir. 1999). However, Courts, including the Second Circuit, have defined \"the phrase 'hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate[]'\" as\n\n(1) to possess or assert any economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate or that would create either an actual or potential dispute in which the estate is a rival claimant; or (2) to possess a predisposition under circumstances that render such a bias against the estate.\n\n*Id.* (citations omitted). In order to determine whether a Chapter 11 trustee is disinterested, the Court needs to examine the connections between a trustee's firm and the estate. *In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.*, 226 B.R. 331, 334 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1998) (\"Rule 2014(a) of the Federal Rules of\n\n13\n\nBankruptcy Procedure . . . requires the Trustee to disclose any connections [his employer] Deloitte might have with the Debtors, creditors and any other party in interest.\").\n\n37. Here, the Trustee has failed to disclose the connections between Paul Hastings and the Chinese government and CCP. However, it is clear even from the facts known now by the Debtor as of the filing hereof that the Trustee is not a disinterested person, and therefore, should not be permitted to serve as the Chapter 11 trustee in this case. The Trustee, and the UST, which should both be aware of the obvious adverse position of the Chinese government and CCP, improperly have decided to pick and choose what information about conflicts they want to disclose. However, as the Court in *In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.*, 226 B.R. 331, 335 (Bankr.\n\nN.D.N.Y. 1998), has stated:\n\nThe Trustee appears to believe that the Court and the parties should simply rely on him as a fiduciary to make an independent determination that he remains disinterested. Yet, this is not an appropriate determination for the Trustee to make. Such an exercise in *ipse dixit* is not permissible. That the Trustee internalized this decision, rather than presenting the relevant information to the court and other parties for an objective determination of disinterestedness suggests that the Trustee is selective about the information he provides to the court and fails to acknowledge the high fiduciary standard to which he must abide to the point of punctilio.\n\n(Citations and quotation marks omitted.) *See also In re Granite Partners, L.P.*, 219 B.R. 22, 35\n\n(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) (\"The professional must disclose all facts that bear on its disinterestedness . . . and cannot usurp the court's function by choosing, *ipse dixit*, which connections impact disinterestedness and which do not.\"). \"Further, mere 'boilerplate' disclosure may cover an inadvertent failure to disclose an insignificant connection, but does not suffice for known connections with parties presenting a significant risk of adversity.\" *Id.*\n\n38. In addition, the Trustee only disclosed his firm's connections with PAG at the July 8 Hearing, and even then, did not seem to have any idea about the scope of the involvement. (Transcript of July 8 Hearing, 6:15-25.) In fact, even in his after-the-fact disclosure of Paul Hastings' relationships with PAG entities, the Trustee was similarly vague. (Supplemental Despins Declaration, ¶ 2.)\n\n## **C. The Court Should Grant the Debtor Relief from the Despins Appointment Order Based upon Newly Discovered Evidence**\n\n39. The Court should grant the Debtor relief from the Despins Appointment Order based upon evidence disclosed at or after the July 8 Hearing, which was not disclosed in the Appointment Application or the Despins Declaration. Evidence of Paul Hastings' lack of disinterestedness, because of its relationships with PAX and the Chinese government and CCP, who both clearly have interests adverse to the Debtor, is newly discovered and warrants relief from the Despins Appointment Order.\n\n40. With respect to each of elements necessary to establish a basis for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), first, it is clear that Paul Hastings' representation of PAG entities, its significant business in China, and its representation of government-controlled or influenced entities existed at the time of the July 8 Hearing. The Trustee orally disclosed his firm's relationships with PAG entities only briefly before the hearing, verbally and only in vague terms. Also, Paul Hastings' presence in China and ties to the Chinese government and the CCP are clearly preexisting.\n\n41. Second, the Debtor was justifiably ignorant of these relationships and the influence of the Chinese government on Paul Hastings. The July 8 Hearing was held only one day after the Appointment Notice and Appointment Application were filed. There was no opportunity for the Debtor to properly investigate the disinterestedness of the Trustee, including through discovery, in that short period of time. Moreover, the Trustee failed to disclose these connections even though the adverse relationship between the Debtor and the People's Republic of China and CCP has been disclosed throughout this case and has been widely publicized for approximately eight (8) years.\n\n42. Third, the evidence of the Trustee's lack of disinterestedness is clearly relevant and admissible, and it is of such importance that it would have changed the outcome of the July 8 Hearing. In order to be approved as the Chapter 11 trustee, the Trustee must be disinterested. 11 U.S.C. § 1104(b), (d). Indeed, as counsel for the UST accurately stated to the Court on the record on July 5, 2022: \"It is unfortunate and the timing of this does cause a delay for which the U.S. Trustee is also unhappy about but, nevertheless, it's appropriate to select and install a person who is conflict free and has the appearance that he can be impartial to all parties involved in this case.\" (Transcript of July 5, 2022 Hearing, 10:20-25, cited excerpts attached as **Exhibit B**.)\n\n43. These words—made in the context of ensuring that Whitley, the candidate initially selected by the U.S. Trustee to serve as trustee in this case, did not appear partial to the Debtor apply equally to Mr. Despins' and Paul Hastings' interests that are adverse to the Debtor. Simply stated, evidence of the influence of the Chinese government and the CCP on Paul Hastings as well as its relationships with PAG entities demonstrates that the Trustee is not a disinterested person and should not serve as the Chapter 11 trustee.\n\n44. Last, this evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching. Rather, it is new evidence that was not presented to the Court at the time of the July 8 Hearing and is directly relevant to the issue of whether the Appointment Application should have been granted.\n\n# **D. Alternatively, the Court Should Grant the Debtor Relief from the Despins Appointment Order to Accomplish Justice**\n\n45. Alternatively, if the Court determines that newly discovered evidence does not justify relief from the Despins Appointment Order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) permits the Court to grant relief for \"any other reason that justifies relief.\"\n\n46. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)\n\n16\n\ngrants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment \"upon such terms as are just,\" provided that the motion is made within a reasonable time and is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5). The rule does not particularize the factors that justify relief, but we have previously noted that it provides courts with authority \"adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice,\" . . . while also cautioning that it should only be applied in \"extraordinary circumstances[.]\"\n\n*Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp.*, 486 U.S. 847, 863-64 (1988) (footnote and citations omitted). Thus, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) provides an avenue for relief from a judgment where it is not easily classified under another subsection of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). *United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien*, 588 F.3d 158, 176 (2d Cir. 2009); *see also Sternstein v. Italia-Societa Per Azioni De Navigazione-Genoa*, 275 F.2d 502 (2d Cir. 1960) (\"Rule 60(b) was not intended to deprive a trial judge of his discretionary power to direct a new trial whenever he considered such a course necessary to defeat injustice.\").\n\n47. In this case, this Court should, in alternative, grant relief based upon the relief afforded by Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Because the Court relied upon incomplete evidence in entering the Despins Appointment Order as a result of the failure of the Trustee and the UST to make full disclosures to the Court, justice is best served by vacating the Despins Appointment Order. This will allow the Debtor, other parties-in-interest, and this Court to have a full and fair opportunity to vet the Appointment Applications and the Trustee's lack of disinterestedness.\n\n**WHEREFORE,** the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court grant it relief from the\n\nDespins Appointment Order by vacating the same, and grant him such other and further relief as\n\njustice requires.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 15th day of July, 2022.\n\n# **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Eric Henzy* 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 skindseth@zeislaw.com aromney@zeislaw.com jcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 15 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/ Eric Henzy* Eric Henzy (ct12849)","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n动议人，\n诉\nWILLIAM K. HARRINGTON（威廉·K·哈林顿），\n第2区美国受托人\n以及\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯潘），\n第11章受托人\n被申请人。\n债务人请求免除任命LUC A. DESPINS为第11章受托人的命令之动议\n\n债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”），通过其下列签署的律师，依据经《联邦破产程序规则》9024纳入本案的《联邦民事诉讼规则》60(b)，特此请求免除准予任命第11章受托人的命令（文件编号523）（以下简称“Despins任命命令”）的效力，理由是，在其任命后发现的证据表明，第11章受托人Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯潘）（以下简称“受托人”）不具无利害关系人资格，以及存在其他足以证明撤销对其任命之批准的理由。为支持其动议，债务人陈述如下：\n\n一、引言\n\n1. 如下文更充分阐述，且债务人合理预期将通过证据开示进一步证明，受托人不具无利害关系人资格。受托人在听证会前一天随申请提交的原始声明中未披露，并且仅在听证会前约一小时才向债务人先前的律师口头披露，其律师事务所Paul Hastings LLP（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所，以下简称“Paul Hastings”）曾代理与债务人最大债权人及强力对手Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金，以下简称“PAX”）有关联的多个当事人。任何人均不可能对该关系及其据称于2022年5月终止一事进行适当审查。\n\n2. 更为重要的是，受托人从未披露其律师事务所与中华人民共和国、中国共产党（以下简称“中共”）及其国有和受其控制实体之间的重要关系。受托人是Paul Hastings的合伙人——负有由此产生的一切受信义务——并且是其金融重组业务组的联席主席。作为法律问题，Paul Hastings的法律关系即为受托人的法律关系。如以下所述，中华人民共和国和中共与债务人直接且激烈对立。受托人未能全面、及时披露其本人及其律师事务所与本案相关人员之间的联系，并且根据其任命后获得的信息，其不具无利害关系人资格。受托人参与本案将不会被视为公正，将面临债务人争议最为激烈的对手施加不当影响的重大风险，并将使本已不幸的局面恶化得多。债务人谨此主张，应撤销任命受托人的命令。\n\n一、事实及程序背景\nA. 第11章受托人的任命\n\n3. 2022年2月15日，债务人根据《破产法》第11章提交自愿救济申请，从而启动上述标题所示破产案件（以下简称“破产案件”）。\n\n4. 2022年6月15日，本院作出决定备忘录，其中准予驳回动议，或作为替代请求，部分加入UST就任命第11章受托人提出的动议（文件编号183），但仅限于该动议请求任命第11章受托人的部分。（文件编号465。）\n\n5. 2022年6月30日，第2区美国受托人William K. Harrington（威廉·K·哈林顿）（以下简称“UST”）提交通知，任命Joe D. Whitley（乔·D·惠特利）（以下简称“Whitley”）为本案第11章受托人（文件编号498），并于同日提交请求批准任命第11章受托人的命令申请（文件编号499）（以下简称“Whitley申请”），请求本院批准任命Whitley为第11章受托人。UST于2022年7月5日，即该事项原定举行听证会之日，撤回Whitley申请。（文件编号507。）\n\n6. 随后，于2022年7月7日，UST提交通知（以下简称“任命通知”），任命受托人为第11章受托人（文件编号514），并提交请求批准任命第11章受托人的命令申请（文件编号515）（以下简称“任命申请”），请求本院批准任命受托人。\n\n7. 在任命申请中，UST陈述，据其所知，受托人与“债务人、债权人、任何其他利害关系方、其各自的律师和会计师、美国受托人以及受雇于美国受托人办公室的人员之间的关联，均载于随附于本申请的Luc A. Despins声明中”。\n\n8. 在Luc A. Despins无利害关系声明（以下简称“Despins声明”）中，受托人称其为Paul Hastings LLP（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所，以下简称“Paul Hastings”）的合伙人。\n\n（Despins声明，第1段。）\n\n9. 受托人还称其相信：\n\na. 我本人、Paul Hastings，或Paul Hastings的任何合伙人、顾问或律师助理，均未代理任何在债务人第11章案件中或与该案件有关的实体；b. Paul Hastings和我本人均未持有或代理与债务人财产相冲突的利益；且c. Paul Hastings及其任何律师（包括我本人）均不：(i) 为债务人或其任何关联方的债权人、股权证券持有人或内部人；(ii) 在申请提交日前两年内，曾担任债务人或其任何关联方的董事、高级职员或雇员；或(iii) 因与债务人之间的任何直接或间接关系、联系或利益，或因任何其他原因，而拥有与任何类别债权人或股权证券持有人财产利益实质上相冲突的任何利益。\n\n（Despins声明，第5段。）\n\n10. 2022年7月8日，即UST提交任命通知和任命申请的次日，本院就任命申请举行听证会（以下简称“7月8日听证会”）。\n\n11. 在7月8日听证会上，受托人首次口头披露Paul Hastings与Pacific Alliance Group（太盟集团，以下简称“PAG”）之间的关系，1 PAG为债权人Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金，以下简称“PAX”）的母公司。具体而言，受托人陈述：\n\n15 但是，我今天想确保向本院提及，\n\n16 我们昨晚发现，我们过去曾代理名称中——曾经——含有\n\n17 PAG这一缩写的实体，\n\n18 即P-A-G。我们的利益冲突系统此前并不知道，\n\n19 PAG指的是Pacific Asia Group [原文如此]。\n\n20 而那些实体——再次强调，如我所述，\n\n21 这些代理事项均已完成，但这些实体\n\n1 PAG后来亦被确认是PAG Holdings Limited（PAG控股有限公司）。\n\n22 与Kwok事项毫无任何关联。23 然而，PAX可能由类似的或某种PAG实体管理。24 我们正试图确切查明是哪一个。25\n\n（2022年7月8日听证会记录，第6页第15至25行，摘录作为附件A附后。）\n\n12. 本院随后于同日作出Despins任命命令，批准任命受托人。（文件编号523。）\n\n13. 2022年7月12日，受托人提交Luc A. Despins第一份补充无利害关系声明（文件编号538）（以下简称“补充Despins声明”），其中受托人陈述，Paul Hastings曾代理与PAX拥有共同母公司的“某些实体”。（补充Despins声明，第2段。）除称该等代理事项无关外，其未披露有关该等代理事项的任何详情。（同上。）\n\n14. 受托人并未披露——且至今仍未披露——其本人或Paul Hastings与中华人民共和国、中共或其拥有或控制的实体之间的联系。\nB. 中国政府在本案中的利益及受托人未披露中国利益\n\n15. Paul Hastings在中国设有两处办事处——北京和上海——并在香港（中国的“特别行政区”）设有一处办事处，且在当地开展大量业务，包括代理至少十（10）个由中国政府拥有的实体。例如，Paul Hastings代理中国地方政府企业进行七次债券发行，PaulHastings.com，[http][enterprises-in-seven-bond.] 事实上，Paul Hastings曾表示，其“是最早建立亚洲业务的主要国际律师事务所之一，如今我们仍然是该地区的领先者。”北京，PaulHastings.com，[http] 另见同上。（“我们的北京律师为大中华区跨境交易中的《财富》世界500强企业和金融机构提供代理服务。我们还就中国企业和金融机构对美国、欧洲、拉丁美洲及其他全球市场的战略性境外投资提供咨询。”）受托人和UST均未解释，甚至未提及Paul Hastings与中国企业之间联系的程度。\n\n16. 由于中国政府和中共对包括Paul Hastings及其客户在内的哪些企业可在中国运营享有排他且不受制约的控制权，中国政府和中共对Paul Hastings及其中国客户具有重大影响力。\n\n17. 如UST办公室所属的美国司法部（以下简称“DOJ”）所充分知悉，中国政府和中共过去曾试图对涉及债务人的程序施加不当影响，并在美国境内对债务人实施犯罪行为。\n\n18. 2017年，债务人向美国政府提交申请，请求获得免于中国政府迫害的政治庇护。债务人的政治庇护申请仍在审理中。Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生支持第11章案件及若干动议的声明（文件编号107）（以下简称“Kwok声明”），第14段；指控中国高级官员腐败的亿万富翁向美国申请庇护，《纽约时报》，[http] 2 债务人的家人在多起不同事件中被中共拘押和折磨。Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金）诉Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，Mei Guo（郭梅）宣誓书，文件编号1162，第4-6段。\n\n19. 2017年，应中华人民共和国外交部请求，国际刑警组织就债务人发布“红色通报”——即提供其因在中国被通缉逮捕而发出的国际警报。中国被指控滥用国际刑警组织红色通报制度。“中国有选择地利用该服务，遣返被当局通缉的中国公民，理由是其从事政治／宗教活动，或表达了与中国共产党所宣称立场相反的观点。”观点：中国如何滥用国际刑警组织以清算国内恩怨并压制异见，《经济时报》，[http] [defence/view-how-china-misuses-interpol-to-settle-domestic-scores-and-stifle-dissidence/] [articleshow/86160172.cms?utm\\\\_source=contentofinterest&utm\\\\_medium=text&utm\\\\_campaign=] [cppst.]\n\n20. 同样在2017年，美国联邦特工在七十二（72）小时内与中国特工发生两次冲突——一次在宾夕法尼亚车站，一次在JFK机场——原因是联邦特工认定中国政府正在纽约开展秘密且未经授权的行动，以胁迫债务人返回中国。中国追捕逃亡商人Guo Wengui（郭文贵）引发堪比间谍惊悚片的曼哈顿事件，《华尔街日报》，[http][businessman-kicks-off-manhattan-caper-worthy-of-spy-thriller-1508717977.]\n\n21. 此外，2018年，前 DOJ 总部官员 George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）承认犯有协助将数百万美元从外国银行账户转移至美国，以资助一项游说活动，旨在说服美国高级官员非法将债务人从美国遣送至中国的罪行。参见《前司法部雇员承认犯有就数百万美元外国游说资金欺骗美国银行的共谋罪》，[http][guilty-conspiracy-deceive-us-banks-about-millions;] Kwok Declaration（郭文贵声明）, ¶ 16。前共和党全国委员会主席 Elliot Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）和游说人士 Nicki Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）也就其在该计划中的作用认罪。Kwok Declaration（郭文贵声明）, ¶ 16（引用 DOJ 新闻稿）。\n\n22. 上个月，DOJ 起诉 Low Taek Jho（刘特佐）和 Prakazrel \"Pras\" Michel（普拉卡兹雷尔“普拉斯”·米歇尔），指控其分别“在 Low 和中华人民共和国公安部副部长的指示下……参与未披露的游说活动，以将一名中国异见人士遣送回中国。”《美国艺人/商人及马来西亚国民被控开展秘密渠道游说活动，以终止 1MDB 调查并将中国异见人士从美国遣离》，[http][charged-back-channel-lobbying-campaign-drop.] 该“异见人士”即债务人。\n\n23. 此外，2022年5月，DOJ 对酒店业者 Stephen A. Wynn（斯蒂芬·A·韦恩）（“Wynn”）提起民事执法诉讼，以迫使其“作为中华人民共和国（PRC）及 PRC 公安部（MPS）一名高级官员的代理人，依《外国代理人登记法》（FARA）进行登记。”《司法部起诉以迫使一名美国商人依〈外国代理人登记法〉登记》，[http][under-foreign-agents-registration.] 根据 DOJ 自身的起诉状：\n\n“自至少2017年6月至至少2017年8月，Wynn 联系时任总统及其政府成员，以转达 PRC 的请求，即取消一名中国商人的签证，或者以其他方式将其从美国遣离；该中国商人于2014年离开中国，之后被 PRC 指控腐败，并在美国寻求政治庇护。Wynn 应当时 MPS 副部长 Sun Lijun（孙力军）的请求从事上述工作。Wynn 在晚宴上及通过电话直接向时任总统转达该请求，并曾多次与时任总统以及白宫和国家安全委员会的高级官员讨论安排与 Sun 及其他 PRC 政府官员会面的事宜。”\n\n同上。该中国商人同样是债务人。《史蒂夫·韦恩可能因其在中国推动遣逐商人一事中所起作用而面临司法部行动》，The Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），[http]\n\n[foreign-lobbyist-11622054103;] Kwok Declaration（郭文贵声明）, ¶ 16。\n\n24. DOJ 已确认，Wynn 的“行为系出于其保护在 PRC 商业利益的愿望。”Attorney General of the United States of America v. Wynn（美利坚合众国司法部长诉韦恩案）, No. 1:22-cv-1372 (D.D.C.), Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief（确认及禁令救济起诉状）, ¶ 28。DOJ 还指称中国对 Wynn 施加了具体压力：\n\n“根据公开报道，2016年，即上述行为发生前不久，澳门政府限制了被告赌场可运营的博彩桌和机器数量。根据公开报道，被告原定于2019年重新谈判其在澳门经营赌场的许可，该时间在上述行为发生之后。”\n\n同上，¶ 29（省略脚注）。\n\n25. 此外，中国政府已基于针对债务人的主张扣押或冻结数十亿美元资产。《中国大亨之女就资产冻结向香港提出挑战》，Bloomberg（彭博社）[, http][s-daughter-challenges-hong-kong-over-asset-freeze#xj4y7vzkg.]\n\n26. 这包括北京被称为 Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）的土地和开发项目；该项目被用作 PAX 向名为 Spirit Carter 的实体提供贷款的担保。Kwok Declaration（郭文贵声明）, ¶ 21。《被扣押的北京摩天大楼以“低价” \\$734M 在线出售》，CNN（美国有线电视新闻网），[http]\n\n27. 2017年，应中华人民共和国外交部请求，国际刑警组织（Interpol）对债务人发布“红色通报”——即国际警报，表示其因在中国被通缉逮捕。中国被指控滥用国际刑警组织的红色通报制度。“中国选择性地利用该服务，将因从事政治/宗教活动或表达与中国共产党所宣扬观点相悖的观点而被当局通缉的中国国民遣返回国。”《观点：中国如何滥用国际刑警组织以解决国内恩怨并压制异议》，The Economic Times（《经济时报》），[http]  [view-how-china-misuses-interpol-to-settle-domestic-scores-and-stifle-dissidence/articleshow/]  [86160172.cms?utm\\_source=contentofinterest &utm\\_medium=text&utm\\_campaign=cppst.]\n\n28. 中国政府对中国境内企业行使不受制约的控制和影响，已有充分记录。例如，《国家如何在中国经营企业》，The Guardian（《卫报》），[http][communist-party-state-private-enterprise-huawei.]（“自毛泽东时代以来，中国国有企业一直在经济中占据主导地位，共产党始终对国有企业保持直接控制。十余年来，党也一直试图确保其在私营企业内部发挥作用。但在其首个任期内，[中国国家主席] Xi [Jinping]（习近平）已监督党对待经济方式的重大转变，显著加强了党在政府和私营企业中的作用。”）。这包括在中国开展业务的外国跨国公司。同上；Christopher Wray（克里斯托弗·雷），Federal Bureau of Investigation（联邦调查局）局长，Hudson Institute（哈德逊研究所）演讲，《视频活动：中国影响美国机构的企图》（2020年7月7日）（文字记录见：[http][posed-by-the-chinese-government-and-the-chinese-communist-party-to-the-economic-and][national-security-of-the-united-states\\)]（“那么中国会怎么做？中国对这名美国官员的选民拥有影响力——美国公司、学者和媒体人士都有正当且可理解的理由希望进入中国合作伙伴和市场。由于中国共产党的威权性质，中国对这些合作伙伴和市场拥有巨大的权力。因此，中国有时会首先尝试公开、直接地影响这名美国官员。中国可能会公开警告，如果该美国官员继续前往台湾，中国将通过扣留该官员所在州一家公司的在华生产许可证，向该公司施压。这可能给该公司造成经济上的毁灭性后果，会直接迫使该美国官员改变旅行计划，而且该官员会知道中国正试图影响他。”）。该影响力必然延及 Paul Hastings（保罗·哈斯廷斯）及其在中国的客户。\n\nII. 管辖权与审判地\n\n29. 本院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157\n\nand 1334 对审理本动议具有管辖权。依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，审理本动议属于核心程序。\n\n依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和\n\n1409，本案及本动议的审判地分别适当设于本院。\n\nIII. 救济的法律依据\n\nA. 根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 解除裁定的标准\n\n30. 债务人谨请求本院准许其免受 Despins Appointment Order（德斯潘任命裁定）的约束，并撤销该裁定。\n\n31. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)3 的相关规定如下：\n\n“经当事人动议并在公正条件下，法院可基于以下理由，免除一方当事人或其法定代理人受终局判决书、裁定或程序的约束：(2) 经合理勤勉仍无法及时发现、以便依 Rule 59(b) 申请重新审判的新发现证据……(6) 任何其他足以证明给予救济正当的理由。”\n\n除与本案无关的某些例外情形外，Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 规定，Fed. R. Civ. P. 60\n\n适用于 Bankruptcy Code（《破产法》）项下案件。\n\n3 “‘依据 Rule 59(e)、Rule 60(b) 及 Local Rule 7(c) 提出的复议动议，适用同一标准审理。’”Ashby v. Quiros（阿什比诉基罗斯案）, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 14, 2021)（引自 Levy v. World Wrestling Ent., Inc.（利维诉世界摔角娱乐公司案）, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66200 (D. Conn. July 31, 2009)）。\n\n32. 根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2)，“动议提出人必须证明：(1) 新发现的证据所涉事实在审判或其他具有决定性意义的程序进行时已经存在；(2) 尽管已尽到应有勤勉，动议提出人对该等事实不知情仍属正当；(3) 该证据必须可采，且具有足以很可能改变结果的重要性；以及 (4) 该证据不得仅为累积性证据或弹劾性证据。”United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters（美国诉国际卡车司机兄弟会案）, 247 F.3d 370, 392 (2d Cir. 2001)（省略引注）。\n\n33. “Rule 60(b) 是用于质疑终局判决书或终局裁定的程序性机制……法院认为，支持 Rule 60(b) 动议须有终局判决书。”Byrne v. Liquid Asphalt Sys.（伯恩诉液体沥青系统公司案）, 250 F. Supp. 2d 84, 87 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)（省略引注）。“如果一项裁定中……没有任何内容表明预期将重新审议该决定，则该裁定为终局裁定。如果破产法院的裁定完全解决了与一项独立请求有关的所有问题，包括有关适当救济的问题，则该裁定为终局裁定。”In re Adelphia Communs. Corp.（阿德尔菲亚通信公司案）, 333 B.R. 649, 656 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)（省略引注及引号）。确认计划前任命受托人的裁定被视为终局裁定。Silverman v. Tracar, S.A. (In re Am. Preferred Prescription, Inc.)（西尔弗曼诉特拉卡尔公司〔美国优选处方案〕）, 255 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir. 2001)（附带意见）；Adelphia Communs. Corp.（阿德尔菲亚通信公司案）, 333 B.R. at 657 n.41（汇集案例）；另见 Altman v. Rafael Galleries, Inc. (In re Altman)（奥尔特曼诉拉斐尔画廊公司〔奥尔特曼案〕）, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16235, at *6-9 (D. Conn. July 27, 2000)。\n\nB. 受托人必须是“不具有利害关系之人”\n\n34. 本案中，受托人未披露其本人或其律师事务所与中国政府、中国共产党（CCP）或国有控制企业之间的关联。然而，中国政府、CCP 及其直接或间接控制的任何实体显然均为本案利害关系方，因为其已显示出意图迫害债务人、摧毁其财力和重整能力，并胁迫其返回中国，其中多种行为违反美国法律。因此，受托人必须披露其本人及 Paul Hastings（保罗·哈斯廷斯）与中国政府之间的关联。\n\n35. “受托人必须是 section 101(14) 所定义的‘不具有利害关系之人’。”7 Collier on Bankruptcy P 1104.02（引自 11 U.S.C. § 1104(b), (d)）。与本案相关的是，“术语‘不具有利害关系之人’是指以下人士——……(C) 因与债务人存在任何直接或间接关系、联系或利益，或因任何其他原因，而对破产财团利益、任何类别债权人利益或股权证券持有人利益不具有实质性不利利益的人。”11 U.S.C. § 101(14)。此外，披露潜在不利利益的声明必须以书面形式作出，并与批准 Chapter 11 受托人的申请一同提交。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2007.1(c)（“申请应附有被任命人员经核实的声明，载明该人员与债务人、债权人、任何其他利害关系方、其各自律师和会计师、United States trustee（美国受托人），或受雇于 United States trustee 办公室的任何人员之间的关联。”）。\n\n36. Bankruptcy Code（《破产法》）未界定具有“对破产财团利益实质性不利的利益”所指为何。参见 11 U.S.C. § 101(14); Bank Brussels Lambert v. Coan (In re AroChem Corp.)（布鲁塞尔兰伯特银行诉科恩案〔阿罗化学公司案〕）, 176 F.3d 610, 623 (2d Cir. 1999)。然而，包括 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）在内的法院已将“‘持有或代表对破产财团不利利益’这一表述”界定为\n\n（1）持有或主张任何可能降低破产财产价值的经济利益，或可能引发实际或潜在争议、且破产财产为竞争性权利主张人的经济利益；或（2）在构成对破产财产存在此类偏见的情况下具有预断倾向。\n\n同上（引文略）。为确定 Chapter 11 受托人是否无利害关系，法院需要审查受托人所在律师事务所与破产财产之间的关联。In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 226 B.R. 331, 334 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1998)（“《联邦破产程序规则》第 2014(a) 条……要求受托人披露其雇主 Deloitte（德勤）可能与债务人、债权人及任何其他利害关系方存在的任何关联。”）。\n\n37. 在此，受托人未披露 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）与中国政府及 CCP（中国共产党）之间的关联。然而，即使根据债务人截至提交本文件之日现已知悉的事实，亦显然受托人并非无利害关系人，因此，不应准许其在本案中担任 Chapter 11 受托人。受托人及 UST（美国受托人）均应知悉中国政府及中国共产党明显的对立立场，却不当地决定选择性披露其希望披露的有关利益冲突的信息。然而，正如 In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 226 B.R. 331, 335 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1998) 一案法院所述：\n\n受托人似乎认为，法院及各方当事人应仅依赖其作为受托人的身份，由其独立认定自己仍属无利害关系人。然而，这并非适宜由受托人作出的认定。此种自行断言的做法不被允许。受托人将该项决定内化处理，而未向法院及其他当事人提交相关信息以便客观认定其是否无利害关系，这表明受托人对其向法院提供的信息有所选择，并且未认识到其必须遵守的极高受托标准，直至最严苛的程度。\n\n（引文及引号略。）另见 In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. 22, 35 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)（“专业人士必须披露所有与其是否无利害关系有关的事实……且不得通过自行断言哪些关联影响无利害关系、哪些不影响无利害关系，而僭越法院的职能。”）。“此外，单纯的‘套话式’披露或许能够涵盖对无关紧要关联的无意未披露，但对于已知的、涉及存在重大对立风险当事人的关联而言，并不足够。”同上。\n\n38. 此外，受托人仅在 July 8 Hearing（7 月 8 日听证会）上披露了其所在律师事务所与 PAG（太盟投资集团）的关联，即便如此，其似乎也不了解该等参与的范围。（July 8 Hearing 记录，6:15-25。）事实上，即使在其事后披露 Paul Hastings 与 PAG 实体之间关系时，受托人同样含糊不清。（Supplemental Despins Declaration，¶ 2。）\n\nC. 法院应基于新发现的证据，准许债务人就 Despins Appointment Order 获得救济\n\n39. 法院应基于在 July 8 Hearing 当日或之后披露、且未在 Appointment Application 或 Despins Declaration 中披露的证据，准许债务人就 Despins Appointment Order 获得救济。Paul Hastings 因其与 PAX、中国政府及中国共产党的关系而不具无利害关系资格的证据，属于新发现的证据；后二者显然均与债务人存在对立利益，该等证据足以支持就 Despins Appointment Order 获得救济。\n\n40. 就依据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) 确立救济依据所需的各项要件而言，首先，显然 Paul Hastings 对 PAG 实体的代理、其在中国的大量业务，以及其对受政府控制或影响实体的代理，在 July 8 Hearing 时均已存在。受托人仅在听证会前不久以口头方式、且仅以含糊措辞简要披露了其所在律师事务所与 PAG 实体之间的关系。此外，Paul Hastings 在中国的业务存在及其与中国政府和中国共产党的联系，显然亦早已存在。\n\n41. 其次，债务人有正当理由并不知悉该等关系及中国政府对 Paul Hastings 的影响。July 8 Hearing 在 Appointment Notice 和 Appointment Application 提交后仅一天举行。在如此短暂的期间内，债务人没有机会适当调查受托人是否无利害关系，包括通过证据开示进行调查。此外，尽管债务人与中华人民共和国及中国共产党之间的对立关系已在本案全过程中予以披露，并已广为公开约八（8）年，受托人仍未披露该等关联。\n\n42. 第三，受托人不具无利害关系资格的证据显然相关且可采，其重要性足以改变 July 8 Hearing 的结果。为获准担任 Chapter 11 受托人，受托人必须为无利害关系人。11 U.S.C. § 1104(b), (d)。事实上，正如 UST 的律师于 July 5, 2022 向法院正式准确陈述：“此事令人遗憾，其时机确实造成延误，美国受托人对此亦感不满；但是，选择并任命一名不存在利益冲突、且表面上能够对本案所有相关当事人保持公正的人士，仍属适当。”（July 5, 2022 Hearing 记录，10:20-25，所引摘录附为 Exhibit B。）\n\n43. 该等言辞是在确保 Whitley（惠特利）——美国受托人最初选定在本案中担任受托人的候选人——不会显得偏向债务人的背景下作出；其同样适用于 Despins 先生及 Paul Hastings 与债务人相对立的利益。简言之，中国政府及中国共产党对 Paul Hastings 的影响以及其与 PAG 实体之间关系的证据，表明受托人并非无利害关系人，且不应担任 Chapter 11 受托人。\n\n44. 最后，该等证据并非仅属累积性证据或用于弹劾的证据。相反，该等证据是在 July 8 Hearing 时未向法院提交的新证据，并与 Appointment Application 是否应获准这一问题直接相关。\n\nD. 作为备选，法院应为实现正义而准许债务人就 Despins Appointment Order 获得救济\n\n45. 作为备选，如法院认定新发现的证据不足以支持就 Despins Appointment Order 获得救济，Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) 允许法院基于“证明救济正当的任何其他理由”准许救济。\n\n46. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)\n\n赋予联邦法院广泛的权限，可在“公正的条件下”免除一方当事人受终局判决的约束，前提是该动议在合理期间内提出，且并非基于 (b)(1) 至 (b)(5) 项所列举的任何救济理由。该规则未具体列明支持救济的因素，但我们此前已指出，该规则赋予法院“足以使其在为实现正义而适宜采取此类行动时撤销判决”的权限，……同时亦告诫其只能在“特殊情形下”适用。\n\nLiljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863-64 (1988)（脚注及引文略）。因此，在无法轻易归入 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 另一款项的情形下，Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) 提供了就判决获得救济的途径。United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien, 588 F.3d 158, 176 (2d Cir. 2009)；另见 Sternstein v. Italia-Societa Per Azioni De Navigazione-Genoa, 275 F.2d 502 (2d Cir. 1960)（“Rule 60(b) 的目的并非剥夺审判法官在其认为为防止不公正而有必要时命令重新审判的自由裁量权。”）。\n\n47. 在本案中，法院亦应依据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) 所提供的救济作为备选而准许救济。由于受托人和 UST 未向法院作出充分披露，法院在作出 Despins Appointment Order 时依赖了不完整的证据，因此，撤销 Despins Appointment Order 最符合正义。这将使债务人、其他利害关系方及本院有充分且公平的机会审查 Appointment Applications 以及受托人不具无利害关系资格的问题。\n\n据此，债务人恭请法院通过撤销 Despins Appointment Order，准许其就该命令获得救济，并授予其正义所要求的其他及进一步救济。\n\n于 this 15th day of July, 2022，地点为 Bridgeport, Connecticut（康涅狄格州布里奇波特）。\n\n债务人，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐）\n\nEric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐） (ct12849)\n\nStephen M. Kindseth（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思） (ct14640)\n\nAaron A. Romney（亚伦·A·罗姆尼） (ct28144)\n\nJohn L. Cesaroni（约翰·L·切萨罗尼） (ct29309)\n\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\n\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\n电话： (203) 368-4234\n\n传真： (203) 368-5487\n\n电子邮件： ehenzy@zeislaw.com\n\nskindseth@zeislaw.com\n\naromney@zeislaw.com\n\njcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 this 15 th day of July, 2022，前述文件副本已以电子方式提交。该提交的通知将通过法院电子提交系统以电子邮件发送给所有当事人，或按照 Notice ofElectronic Filing 中所示，以邮寄方式发送给任何无法接受电子提交的人士。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF System 查阅该提交文件。\n\n/s/ Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐）\n\nEric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐） (ct12849)","key_entities":["Paul Hastings","Despins","CCP","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Chinese Communist Party","Guo","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5231,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:55:35"}