{"id":"court_ctb_615_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":615,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re Chapter 11","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**a/k/a WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES GUO,**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\n **Debtor. Re: ECF 561**\n\n# **UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S RESPONSE TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER APPOINTING LUC A. DESPINS AS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\nWilliam K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (\"United States Trustee\"), in furtherance of his duties and responsibilities set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 586(a) and 11 U.S.C. §1104(d), files this response concerning the Debtor's Motion for Relief from Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee filed on July 15, 2022 (ECF 561) (\"Motion to Vacate\"). In support of this response, the United States Trustee, through his undersigned counsel, respectfully represents and states the following:\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nThe Debtor seeks to undo the appointment of Luc A. Despins as chapter 11 trustee (\"Trustee Despins\") by vacating this Court's order approving the appointment of Trustee Despins (ECF 523) through the Motion to Vacate and leave the chapter 11 estate without a chapter 11 trustee. The Motion to Vacate has no legitimate factual or legal basis. Distilled to its true essence, the Motion to Vacate is a compilation of unfounded accusations and subterfuge designed to cause confusion and delay Trustee Despins' obligations to review the Debtor's\n\nfinancial affairs. The Debtor's objective is to prevent not only Trustee Despins, but any trustee, from investigating the Debtor's financial affairs and from pursuing the Debtor, his family and friends, and entities that the Debtor owns and/or controls to recover assets and monies that are potentially property of the Debtor's estate.\n\n### **FACTS**\n\n1. Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo a/k/a Miles Guo a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Debtor\" and/or \"Kwok\")[1](#page-1-0) filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition (\"Petition\") on February 15, 2022. ECF 1.\n\n2. The Debtor retained the firm of Brown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\") to be his chapter 11 counsel and paid Brown Rudnick a \\$1 million retainer. *See* ECF 54; ECF 86; ECF 77 at page 17; ECF 78 at page 20; and ECF 293.\n\n3. The Debtor filed his chapter 11 case just days after the February 2022 Contempt Decision in the PAX Lawsuit[2](#page-1-1) in New York State Court and on the eve of the deadline to pay creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\") a contempt award of \\$134,000,000 imposed by the February 2022 Contempt Decision due to the Debtor's failure to return the yacht known as the Lady May to the jurisdiction of New York.\n\n4. On March 1, 2022, PAX filed a motion for relief from stay seeking authority to return to the PAX Lawsuit in order to pursue efforts toward the return of the Lady May. ECF 57.\n\n5. On March 19, 2022, the United States Trustee filed a motion seeking an order directing the appointment of an examiner or, in the alternative, a chapter 11 trustee (\"UST Examiner/Trustee Motion\"). ECF 102.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtor is also known by multiple other aliases.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-1\"></span><span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the UST Examiner/Trustee Motion. ECF 102.\n\n6. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (\"Committee\") in this case. ECF 108. The Committee is represented by Pullman & Comley LLC. ECF 298.\n\n7. On March 22, 2022, the Debtor filed a motion for financing seeking to borrow \\$8 million dollars from Golden Spring New York Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\"), an entity purportedly owned by the Debtor's son Qiang Guo (\"DIP Financing Motion\"). ECF 117. The Debtor claims to have no ownership interest in or control over Golden Spring, but Golden Spring has in the past - allegedly without being reimbursed - gifted funds to the Debtor to pay for all of his living expenses, and has also loaned funds and/or paid for litigation expenses of the Debtor. *See* ECF 77 at Schedule D.\n\n8. On April 6, 2022, PAX, the Debtor's largest unsecured creditor, filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a partial joinder to the UST Examiner/Trustee Motion with regard to the relief of the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee (\"PAX Motion to Dismiss\"). ECF 183.\n\n9. On April 6, 2022, the Debtor filed an opposition to the UST Examiner/Trustee Motion that objected to the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee. ECF 180. The Committee and PAX also raised limited opposition to the UST Examiner/Trustee Motion. ECF 181 and 182.\n\n10. On May 11, 2022, the Debtor consented to the dismissal of his case and withdrew the DIP Financing Motion. ECF 344 and 345.\n\n11. On May 25, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the PAX Motion to Dismiss and the UST Examiner/Trustee Motion. In connection therewith, the Court considered briefs filed by the Debtor, PAX, the Committee, the United States Trustee, and certain creditors about the appropriateness of the available forms of relief under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b), namely dismissal,\n\n3\n\nappointment of a chapter 11 trustee or conversion to chapter 7. ECF 408, 412, 416, 418, 419, and 421.\n\n12. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered an order directing the United States Trustee to appoint one (1) disinterested trustee in the Debtor's bankruptcy case (\"Trustee Order\"). ECF 465.\n\n13. In accordance with his statutory obligations pursuant to 11 US.C. § 1104, and the United States Trustee's standard appointment procedures in chapter 11 cases,[3](#page-3-0) on or about June 15, 2022, the United States Trustee consulted with various parties in interest including, the Debtor, the Committee, PAX, and various other counsel representing unsecured creditors.\n\n14. The United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins of Paul Hastings LLP (\"PH\") as the chapter 11 trustee.[4](#page-3-1)\n\n15. On July 7, 2022, the United States Trustee filed his Notice of Appointment of Luc A. Despins as the chapter 11 trustee (ECF 514) and an Application for Approval of the Appointment of Luc A. Despins pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1104(d) (ECF 515) (\"Application\"). The Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins was filed as part of the Application (\"Original Declaration\"). The Court scheduled the Application for a hearing on July 8, 2022 (the \"July 8 Hearing\"). ECF 517.\n\n16. On the morning of July 8, 2022, Attorney Despins alerted the United States Trustee that he needed to make certain additional disclosures regarding certain previously\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> Clifford J. White III and Walter W. Theus, Jr., *Taking the Mystery Out of the Ch. 11 Trustee Appointment Process*, ABI Journal, May 26, 2014.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-1\"></span><sup>4</sup> The United States Trustee initially selected Joe D. Whitely of Womble Bond Dickinson as the chapter 11 trustee and filed a notice of appointment of Attorney Whitely with the Court on June 30, 2022, along with an application to approve the appointment of Attorney Whitely. ECF 498 and 499. Upon receiving a supplemental disclosure of a conflict in the morning of July 5, 2022, the United States Trustee promptly withdrew the appointment of Attorney Whitely. ECF 507.\n\nundisclosed connections. The disclosures, which were just discovered, included PH's prior representation of certain affiliates of PAX in unrelated matters. The United States Trustee advised Attorney Despins to disclose these connections at the July 8 Hearing.\n\n17. At the July 8 Hearing, Attorney Despins announced on the record that he would be filing a supplemental disclosure and fully explained the nature of the additional disclosures (the \"Supplemental Disclosures\"). Counsel for the Debtor (Brown Rudnick), the Committee, PAX, and certain other creditors were all present at the hearing and no party raised an objection to the appointment of Attorney Despins on the grounds that Attorney Despins was not competent to serve or was not disinterested. Some concerns about the representation of Trustee Despins by PH were noted, but no challenge was raised to Attorney Despins serving as chapter 11 trustee. Thereafter, the Court granted the Application and approved Attorney Despins as chapter 11 trustee (\"Order Approving Trustee\"). ECF 523.\n\n18. On July 11, 2022, Attorney Aaron Mitchell filed an appearance as counsel to the Debtor and filed a letter objection to the appointment of Trustee Despins (\"Mitchell Letter Objection\"). ECF 530 and 531.\n\n19. On July 12, 2022, Trustee Despins formally filed the Supplemental Disclosure explaining he had no personal prior representation of any entity affiliated with PAX and that PH had previously represented certain entities that share the same parent entity as PAX (\"July 12 Supplemental Disclosure\"). ECF 538. The July 12 Supplemental Disclosure is consistent with the Supplemental Disclosure at the July 8 Hearing.\n\n5\n\n20. Also on July 12, 2022, Trustee Despins filed an application to employ PH as his chapter 11 trustee counsel (\"PH Retention Application\") and a motion seeking an expedited hearing on the PH Retention Application. ECF 539 and 541.\n\n21. On July 13, 2022, Brown Rudnick, retained chapter 11 counsel for the Debtor, filed a motion to withdraw as Debtor's counsel (\"Motion to Withdraw\"). ECF 543.\n\n22. On July 14, 2022, four (4) attorneys from the law firm of Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. (\"Z&Z\") filed appearances as counsel to the Debtor, namely Eric Henzy, Stephen Kindseth, Aaron Romney, and John Cesaroni. ECF 550, 551, 552, and 553. On July 20, 2022, James Moriarty of Z&Z has also appeared as counsel for the Debtor. ECF 574. To date, Z&Z has not filed any disclosure of compensation related to its representation of the Debtor as required by Section 329 and Rule 2016.\n\n23. On July 14, 2022, the Debtor, through Z&Z, also filed an objection to having the PH Retention Application heard on an expedited basis. ECF 554.\n\n24. Attorneys at Z&Z have been involved in this case since April 2022 when Stephen Kindseth and Aaron Romney filed appearances as counsel for (a) Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC (\"HKI\") (the purported owner of the Lady May) and (b) Mei Guo (the Debtor's daughter who is the purported owner of HKI). ECF 201, 202, 339, and 340. John Cesaroni of Z&Z has also appeared as counsel for Ms. Guo. ECF 341.\n\n25. Further, on April 11, 2022, Attorney Romney of Z&Z commenced an adversary proceeding on behalf of HKI against the Debtor and PAX seeking a declaratory judgment that the yacht Lady May is not property of the estate under Section 541. *See Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC v. Kwok and Pacific Alliance Asia*\n\n*Opportunity Fund, L.P.*, Adv. Proc. No. 22-5003.\n\n26. On Friday, July 15, 2022, the Court scheduled a status conference for July 21, 2022 to discuss the \"Chapter 11 trustee's proposed management and administration of the Debtor's case,\" as well as Brown Rudnick's Motion to Withdraw and the PH Retention Application. ECF 558.\n\n27. In the evening of July 15, 2022, the Debtor, through Z&Z, filed the Motion to Vacate seeking relief under Rule 60b/Rule 9024 to vacate the appointment of Attorney Despins as chapter 11 trustee. ECF 561. The Motion to Vacate argues that the July 12 Supplemental Disclosure provides new evidence and alleges that PH has a significant relationship with the Peoples Republic of China (\"China\"), Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\"), and \"their state owned and controlled entities.\" Motion to Vacate at ¶ 2. Further, the Debtor argues that this is evidence that Trustee Despins is not disinterested and cannot be the chapter 11 trustee. Motion to Vacate at ¶ 37.\n\n28. The Motion to Vacate is primarily focused on issues related to China and the CCP. Motion to Vacate at ¶ 19-28. While the Debtor's relationship with China and the CCP has been raised in comments/arguments by Brown Rudnick at various hearings, in pleadings filed on behalf of the Debtor, and in a significant number of other litigation matters in which the Debtor is involved, it is notable that neither the Debtor's Schedules, nor his Statement of Financial Affairs, nor the creditor matrix list China or the CCP as creditors or parties in interest in this case. *See* ECF 77, 78, and creditor matrix.\n\n29. On July 21, 2022, the Court held a status conference. At this hearing, Trustee Despins made a presentation about the steps taken thus far since his appointment and a preview\n\n7\n\nof future events. Afterward, the Court raised preliminary concerns with Brown Rudnick's Motion to Withdraw, Z&Z appearing as counsel to the Debtor, and the Motion to Vacate. The Court's initial reaction to the Motion to Vacate was not favorable, and the Court noted that discovery by the Debtor to find support for his Motion to Vacate would not be appropriate.\n\n30. On July 22, 2022, Z&Z attorneys issued requests/subpoenas for information and documents about Trustee Despins, PH, PAX, and entities connected to PAX. Z&Z's discovery requests are as follows:\n\n- a. Z&Z sent a letter to Trustee Despins seeking further information about the connections of PH and Trustee Despins to UBS and affiliates of UBS;\n- b. Z&Z served a subpoena for documents on PH seeking information and documents (i) about the trustee selection process and specifically following up on the Mitchell Letter Objection; (ii) about the identity of PH's clients in China that are \"State Owned Entities\" or are \"CCP Officials,\" and compensation from same; (iii) about the connections of PH to UBS and affiliates of UBS; (iv) about the PAG entities represented by PH and the compensation received by PH from same; (v) about PH's licenses, certificates or other authorizations permitting PH to operate its offices in Beijing, Hong Kong, and Shanghai; (vi) about PH's revenue from all of its offices in China and Hong Kong; and (vii) about communications between Trustee Despins and/or PH and anyone else about \"(a) the Debtor's adverse interests to the Chinese Government or the Chinese Communist Party, or (b) whether those adverse interests impact, one way or another, the issue of whether Despins or Paul Hastings is Disinterested;\" and\n\nc. Z&Z issued interrogatories to PAX seeking identification of all matters where PH provided services to \"any PAG Entity\" since 2017, and the amount of fees paid to PH for those matters.\n\n31. Z&Z's discovery requests are broad and invasive. The clear purpose is to delay and/or prevent Trustee Despins from performing his duties and to find support for the theories advanced in the Motion to Vacate.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n# **I. Section 1104(d), Rule 2007.1, and \"disinterested person\" as defined in Section 101(14)**\n\nSection 1104(d) provides that the United States Trustee, \"after consultation with parties in interest, shall appoint, subject to the court's approval, one disinterested person other than the United States trustee to serve as trustee.\" 11 U.S.C. § 1104(d). The implementation of Section 1104(d) is found in Rule 2007.1(c) which requires an application by the United States Trustee for approval of the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee, with such application including a verified statement of the chapter 11 trustee which discloses all \"connections with the debtor, creditors, any other parties in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or persons employed in the office of the United States trustee.\" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2007.1(c).[5](#page-8-0)\n\nSection 321(a)(1) requires that a trustee be competent to perform the duties of a trustee and governs as the standard for approving the appointed chapter 11 trustee. Section 321(a)(1) states in pertinent part: \"A person may serve as trustee in a case under this title only if such\n\n<span id=\"page-8-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> Rule 2014(a), considered by at least one court to be applicable to chapter 11 trustees as well as other estate representatives, requires affirmative disclosure of, \"to the best of the applicant's knowledge, all of the person's connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants.\" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a); *In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.*, 226 B.R. 331, 334 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1998) (discussing ongoing obligation to disclose and to remain disinterested).\n\nperson is (1) an individual that is competent to perform the duties of trustee.\" In sum, the chapter 11 trustee approval process depends on the appointment of a competent disinterested person who makes a full and complete disclosure of all connections as required by Rule 2007.1(c).\n\nThe Bankruptcy Code defines a \"disinterested person\" as one who is \"not a creditor, equity security holder, or an insider\", and who \"does not have an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate or any class of creditors … by reason of any indirect or direct relationship to, connection with, or interest in, the debtor …\" 11 U.S.C. § 101(14)(A) and (E). \"In construing the disinterestedness standard, bankruptcy courts have held trustees and their retained professionals to a rigorous standard\" and require that trustees not only be actually disinterested, but also avoid the appearance of impropriety.\" *In re MF Global, Inc.*, 464 B.R. 594, 600-601 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011) (discussing Section 327 and Rule 2014) citing cases).\n\nHere, the United States Trustee has appointed a qualified and disinterested person to serve as the chapter 11 trustee.\n\n#### **II. Rule 60(b) Is Unavailing**\n\nThe Motion to Vacate alleges there is new evidence in the formal July 12 Supplemental Disclosure that warrants relief from the order approving the appointment of Trustee Despins under Rule 60(b)(2). Motion to Vacate at page 1, ¶ 39. That argument is factually inaccurate. During the July 8 Hearing, Trustee Despins disclosed on the record the information in the July 12 Supplemental Disclosure.\n\nThe Motion to Vacate also argues that Trustee Despins has failed to disclose PH's presence and exact clients in China. The Motion to Vacate argues that because of these clients, PH is connected to China and the CCP thereby making Trustee Despins adverse and not\n\ndisinterested. Motion to Vacate at ¶ 37. The leap to that conclusion is not supported by law or facts.\n\nThe Motion to Vacate is also internally inconsistent. It claims both that there is new evidence that demonstrates that Trustee Despins not disinterested, such that Rule 60(b) applies, and also that discovery needs to be done to vet Trustee Despins to show that he is not disinterested. Motion to Vacate at ¶ 1 and 2. The challenge to Trustee Despins must be seen for what it is – a challenge to the very concept of a chapter 11 trustee and an effort to maintain control of this chapter 11 case. Both of the Debtor's arguments fail to meet the standards to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(2) or Rule 60(b)(6).\n\nWith respect to Rule 60(b)(2), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals uses the following factors in deciding whether to grant relief:\n\n(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\n\n(4) the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching.\n\n*United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters,* 247 F.3d 370, 392 (2d Cir. 2001). No new evidence\n\nexists as the July 12 Supplemental Disclosure provided no new facts that contradicted the\n\nSupplemental Disclosure at the July 8 Hearing.\n\nWith respect to Rule 60(b)(6), the catchall, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has\n\nstated:\n\nRule 60(b)(6) authorizes a district court to grant relief to a moving party for \"any other reason that justifies relief.\" It is a \"grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a particular case.\" *Matarese v. LeFevre,* [801 F.2d 98, 106 \\(2d](http)#co_pp_sp_350_106) [Cir.1986\\)](http)#co_pp_sp_350_106) (internal quotation marks omitted). But that reservoir is not bottomless. Recognizing Rule 60(b)(6)'s potentially sweeping reach, courts require the party\n\nseeking to avail itself of the Rule to demonstrate that \"extraordinary circumstances\" warrant relief. *See Liljeberg v. Health Servs. [Acquisition](http)) Corp.,* [486 U.S. 847, 864, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 \\(1988\\);](http)) *[Nemaizer](http)#co_pp_sp_350_63) v. Baker,* [793 F.2d 58, 63 \\(2d Cir.1986\\).](http)#co_pp_sp_350_63)\n\n*Stevens v. Miller*, 676 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2012). The Debtor must demonstrate that the Order Approving Trustee works an \"extreme and undue hardship.\" *Matarese v. LeFevre*, 801 F.2d 98, 106 (2d Cir. 1986) (*internal quotations omitted*). Further, there must be \"highly convincing evidence\" and a \"showing that undue hardship will not result to other parties by granting the relief.\" *In re Chip's Southington, LLC*, 2021 WL 3028028, at \\*4 (Bankr. D. Conn. July 16, 2021, Tancredi, J.) (*citing Boehner v. Heise*, 2009 WL 136975, at \\*5 (E.D.N.Y. May 14, 2009) (*internal quotations omitted*)). Here, the Debtor's challenge to Trustee Despins is essentially premised on his position that the reach and influence of the Chinese government extends to any law firm that represents people or entities in China, such as PH, and that Trustee Despins will therefore not act appropriately. Such an argument should be interpreted for what it is – the Debtor does not wish to have Trustee Despins serve as trustee because his firm PH has done business in China and has represented companies in China – and the Court should reject it.\n\nThe Motion to Vacate is another attempt by the Debtor to control this case and dictate to the Court, the United States Trustee, and to his creditors how the case should go. Such an effort should not be countenanced and there is no basis to disturb Trustee Despins' appointment.\n\n The Debtor's underlying goal in the Motion to Vacate is to delay and artificially impair the ability of Trustee Despins to fulfill his trustee obligations. Facing certain imminent steps by Trustee Despins to assert control over assets, and commence investigations needed to pursue and recover assets from the Debtor's family, friends and entities, the Debtor is resorting to procedural machinations that have no factual or legal support. And so, rather than cooperate with Trustee\n\nDespins to fulfill the same obligations to creditors the Debtor had a month ago when he was a debtor in possession, the Debtor has chosen to dispute Trustee Despins with broad sweeping accusations. The Debtor's Motion to Vacate is simply a deceptive tactic to avoid cooperating with Trustee Despins, interfere with administration of this case, stall efforts to locate and liquidate assets for the benefit of creditors.\n\nTrustee Despins has a continuing obligation to disclose any connections to the Debtor, creditors, any other parties in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States Trustee, or persons employed in the office of the United States Trustee. The bankruptcy system depends on this obligation and should information come to light that needs to be disclosed, Trustee Despins has committed to share it.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nWHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion to Vacate.\n\nDated: July 27, 2022 Respectfully submitted,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2\n\nBy: /s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn Trial Attorney Office of the United States Trustee Giaimo Federal Building, Room 302 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510 Holley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov Federal Bar No.: ct17216 (Connecticut) (203) 773-2210\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned certifies that the foregoing was served on all appearing parties via the Court's electronic case filing system noted below:\n\nLaura Aronsson on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [laronsson@omm.com](mailto:laronsson@omm.com)\n\nKenneth Aulet on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [kaulet@brownrudnick.com](mailto:kaulet@brownrudnick.com)\n\nWilliam Baldiga on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com](mailto:wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com)\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com](mailto:wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com)\n\nDouglass E. Barron on behalf of Trustee Luc A. Despins [douglassbarron@pauhastings.com](mailto:douglassbarron@pauhastings.com)\n\nNicholas A. Bassett on behalf of Trustee Luc A. Despins [nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com](mailto:nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com)\n\nPatrick M. Birney on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [pbirney@rc.com,](mailto:pbirney@rc.com) [ctrivigno@rc.com](mailto:ctrivigno@rc.com)\n\nPatrick M. Birney on behalf of Defendant Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [pbirney@rc.com,](mailto:pbirney@rc.com) [ctrivigno@rc.com](mailto:ctrivigno@rc.com)\n\nPatrick M. Birney on behalf of Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [pbirney@rc.com,](mailto:pbirney@rc.com) [ctrivigno@rc.com](mailto:ctrivigno@rc.com)\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma [ccallari@callaripartners.com](mailto:ccallari@callaripartners.com)\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng [ccallari@callaripartners.com](mailto:ccallari@callaripartners.com)\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu [ccallari@callaripartners.com](mailto:ccallari@callaripartners.com)\n\nJohn L. Cesaroni on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\nJohn L. Cesaroni on behalf of Interested Party Mei Guo\n\n[jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\nHolley L. Claiborn on behalf of U.S. Trustee U. S. Trustee [holley.l.claiborn@usdoj.gov](mailto:holley.l.claiborn@usdoj.gov)\n\nLuc A. Despins [lucdespins@paulhastings.com](mailto:lucdespins@paulhastings.com)\n\nLuc A. Despins on behalf of Trustee Luc A. Despins [lucdespins@paulhastings.com](mailto:lucdespins@paulhastings.com)\n\nDavid S. Forsh on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma [dforsh@callaripartners.com](mailto:dforsh@callaripartners.com)\n\nDavid S. Forsh on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng [dforsh@callaripartners.com](mailto:dforsh@callaripartners.com)\n\nDavid S. Forsh on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu [dforsh@callaripartners.com](mailto:dforsh@callaripartners.com)\n\nPeter Friedman on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [pfriedman@omm.com](mailto:pfriedman@omm.com)\n\nPeter Friedman on behalf of Defendant Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [pfriedman@omm.com](mailto:pfriedman@omm.com)\n\nPeter Friedman on behalf of Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [pfriedman@omm.com](mailto:pfriedman@omm.com)\n\nIrve J. Goldman on behalf of Creditor Committee Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors [igoldman@pullcom.com,](mailto:igoldman@pullcom.com) [rmccoy@pullcom.com](mailto:rmccoy@pullcom.com)\n\nMia N. Gonzalez on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [mgonzalez@omm.com](mailto:mgonzalez@omm.com)\n\nJames C. Graham on behalf of Trustee Luc A Despins [jgraham@npmlaw.com,](mailto:jgraham@npmlaw.com) [sgibbons@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net](mailto:sgibbons@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net)\n\nJames C. Graham on behalf of Trustee Luc A. Despins [jgraham@npmlaw.com,](mailto:jgraham@npmlaw.com) [sgibbons@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net](mailto:sgibbons@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net) David V. Harbach, II on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [dharbach@omm.com](mailto:dharbach@omm.com)\n\nEric A. Henzy on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [ehenzy@zeislaw.com,](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) [cjervey@zeislaw.com](mailto:cjervey@zeislaw.com)\n\nEric A. Henzy on behalf of Defendant Ho Wan Kwok [ehenzy@zeislaw.com,](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) [cjervey@zeislaw.com](mailto:cjervey@zeislaw.com)\n\nEric A. Henzy on behalf of Defendant Ho Wan Kwok [ehenzy@zeislaw.com,](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) [cjervey@zeislaw.com](mailto:cjervey@zeislaw.com)\n\nEric A. Henzy on behalf of Interested Party HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC [ehenzy@zeislaw.com,](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) [cjervey@zeislaw.com](mailto:cjervey@zeislaw.com)\n\nJeffrey L Jonas on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [jjonas@brownrudnick.com](mailto:jjonas@brownrudnick.com)\n\nJonathan Kaplan on behalf of Creditor Committee Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors [jkaplan@pullcom.com,](mailto:jkaplan@pullcom.com) [prulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com](mailto:prulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com)\n\nStephen M. Kindseth on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [skindseth@zeislaw.com,](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [cjervey@zeislaw.com](mailto:cjervey@zeislaw.com)\n\nStephen M. Kindseth on behalf of Interested Party HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC [skindseth@zeislaw.com,](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [cjervey@zeislaw.com](mailto:cjervey@zeislaw.com)\n\nStephen M. Kindseth on behalf of Interested Party Mei Guo [skindseth@zeislaw.com,](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [cjervey@zeislaw.com](mailto:cjervey@zeislaw.com)\n\nDylan Kletter on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [dkletter@brownrudnick.com,](mailto:dkletter@brownrudnick.com) [adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rsta](mailto:adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@brownrudnick.com) [rk@brownrudnick.com](mailto:adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@brownrudnick.com)\n\nPatrick R. Linsey on behalf of Trustee Luc A Despins [plinsey@npmlaw.com,](mailto:plinsey@npmlaw.com) [karguello@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net](mailto:karguello@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net)\n\nPatrick R. Linsey on behalf of Trustee Luc A. Despins [plinsey@npmlaw.com,](mailto:plinsey@npmlaw.com) [karguello@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net](mailto:karguello@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net) Avram Emmanuel Luft on behalf of Trustee Luc A. Despins [aviluft@pauhastings.com](mailto:aviluft@pauhastings.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of Plaintiff Boxun Inc. [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of Plaintiff Rui Ma [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of Plaintiff Weican (Watson) Meng [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of Plaintiff Yang Lan [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nKristin B. Mayhew on behalf of Plaintiff Zheng Wu [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,](mailto:kmayhew@mdmc-law.com) [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com](mailto:kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com)\n\nTimothy D. Miltenberger on behalf of Interested Party Golden Spring (New York) LTD [Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com,](mailto:Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com) [msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com](mailto:msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com)\n\nAaron A Mitchell on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [aaron@lmesq.com](mailto:aaron@lmesq.com)\n\nJames M. Moriarty on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com,](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) [kjoseph@zeislaw.com](mailto:kjoseph@zeislaw.com)\n\nJames M. Moriarty on behalf of Defendant Ho Wan Kwok [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com,](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) [kjoseph@zeislaw.com](mailto:kjoseph@zeislaw.com)\n\nJames M. Moriarty on behalf of Defendant Ho Wan Kwok [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com,](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) [kjoseph@zeislaw.com](mailto:kjoseph@zeislaw.com)\n\nSara Pahlavan on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [spahlavan@omm.com](mailto:spahlavan@omm.com)\n\nLucas Bennett Rocklin on behalf of Trustee Luc A. Despins [lrocklin@npmlaw.com,](mailto:lrocklin@npmlaw.com) [NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net](mailto:NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net)\n\nAaron Romney on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [aromney@zeislaw.com,](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [swenthen@zeislaw.com](mailto:swenthen@zeislaw.com)\n\nAaron Romney on behalf of Defendant Ho Wan Kwok [aromney@zeislaw.com,](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [swenthen@zeislaw.com](mailto:swenthen@zeislaw.com)\n\nAaron Romney on behalf of Defendant Ho Wan Kwok [aromney@zeislaw.com,](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [swenthen@zeislaw.com](mailto:swenthen@zeislaw.com)\n\nAaron Romney on behalf of Interested Party HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC [aromney@zeislaw.com,](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [swenthen@zeislaw.com](mailto:swenthen@zeislaw.com)\n\nAaron Romney on behalf of Interested Party Mei Guo [aromney@zeislaw.com,](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [swenthen@zeislaw.com](mailto:swenthen@zeislaw.com)\n\nAaron Romney on behalf of Plaintiff HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC [aromney@zeislaw.com,](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [swenthen@zeislaw.com](mailto:swenthen@zeislaw.com)\n\nScott D. Rosen on behalf of Interested Party Golden Spring (New York) LTD [srosen@cb-shea.com,](mailto:srosen@cb-shea.com) [msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com](mailto:msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com)\n\nThomas J. Sansone on behalf of Attorney Michael S. Weinstein [tsansone@carmodylaw.com](mailto:tsansone@carmodylaw.com)\n\nThomas J. Sansone on behalf of Creditor Chong Shen Raphanella [tsansone@carmodylaw.com](mailto:tsansone@carmodylaw.com)\n\nThomas J. Sansone on behalf of Creditor Rong Zhang [tsansone@carmodylaw.com](mailto:tsansone@carmodylaw.com)\n\nThomas J. Sansone on behalf of Creditor Xiaodan Wang [tsansone@carmodylaw.com](mailto:tsansone@carmodylaw.com)\n\nThomas J. Sansone on behalf of Plaintiff Chong Shen Raphanella [tsansone@carmodylaw.com](mailto:tsansone@carmodylaw.com)\n\nThomas J. Sansone on behalf of Plaintiff Rong Zhang [tsansone@carmodylaw.com](mailto:tsansone@carmodylaw.com)\n\nThomas J. Sansone on behalf of Plaintiff Xiaodan Wang\n\n[tsansone@carmodylaw.com](mailto:tsansone@carmodylaw.com)\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [ssarnoff@omm.com,](mailto:ssarnoff@omm.com) [stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com](mailto:stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com)\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff on behalf of Defendant Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [ssarnoff@omm.com,](mailto:ssarnoff@omm.com) [stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com](mailto:stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com)\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff on behalf of Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [ssarnoff@omm.com,](mailto:ssarnoff@omm.com) [stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com](mailto:stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com)\n\nBennett Silverberg on behalf of Debtor Ho Wan Kwok [bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com](mailto:bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com)\n\nDouglas S. Skalka on behalf of Trustee Luc A. Despins [dskalka@npmlaw.com,](mailto:dskalka@npmlaw.com) [smowery@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net](mailto:smowery@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net)\n\nAnnecca H. Smith on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [asmith@rc.com](mailto:asmith@rc.com)\n\nAnnecca H. Smith on behalf of Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [asmith@rc.com](mailto:asmith@rc.com)\n\nMichael S. Weinstein on behalf of Creditor Chong Shen Raphanella [mweinstein@golenbock.com](mailto:mweinstein@golenbock.com)\n\nMichael S. Weinstein on behalf of Creditor Rong Zhang [mweinstein@golenbock.com](mailto:mweinstein@golenbock.com)\n\nMichael S. Weinstein on behalf of Creditor Xiaodan Wang [mweinstein@golenbock.com](mailto:mweinstein@golenbock.com)\n\nJay Marshall Wolman on behalf of Creditor Logan Cheng [jmw@randazza.com,](mailto:jmw@randazza.com) [ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com](mailto:ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com)\n\nJay Marshall Wolman on behalf of Plaintiff Logan Cheng [jmw@randazza.com,](mailto:jmw@randazza.com) [ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com](mailto:ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com)\n\nPeter J. Zarella on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Rui Ma [pzarella@mdmc-law.com](mailto:pzarella@mdmc-law.com)\n\nPeter J. Zarella on behalf of 20 Largest Creditor Weican Meng [pzarella@mdmc-law.com](mailto:pzarella@mdmc-law.com)\n\nPeter J. Zarella on behalf of Creditor Zheng Wu [pzarella@mdmc-law.com](mailto:pzarella@mdmc-law.com)\n\n By: /s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn","body_zh":"美利坚合众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\n又名 WENGUI GUO，又名 MILES GUO，\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 关于 ECF 561\n\n美国受托人就债务人请求免除任命 LUC A. DESPINS 为第11章受托人之命令的动议所作答复\n\nWilliam K. Harrington（威廉·K·哈林顿），第2区域美国受托人（“美国受托人”），为履行其在 28 U.S.C. § 586(a) 和 11 U.S.C. §1104(d) 中规定的职责与责任，就债务人于 July 15, 2022 提交的、请求免除任命 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）为第11章受托人之命令的动议（ECF 561）（“撤销动议”）提交本答复。为支持本答复，美国受托人通过其下列签署的律师，谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n债务人通过撤销本院批准任命 Luc A. Despins 为第11章受托人（“Despins 受托人”）的命令（ECF 523）的撤销动议，试图撤销对 Despins 受托人的任命，使第11章财产在没有第11章受托人的情况下存续。撤销动议没有任何正当的事实或法律依据。归根结底，撤销动议是由毫无根据的指控和旨在造成混乱、拖延 Despins 受托人审查债务人财务事务之职责的掩饰手段组成。债务人的目的是阻止不仅 Despins 受托人，而且任何受托人，调查债务人的财务事务，以及向债务人、其家人和朋友，以及债务人拥有和/或控制的实体追索可能属于债务人破产财产的资产和款项。\n\n事实\n\n1. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），又名 Wengui Guo，又名 Miles Guo，又名 Miles Kwok（“债务人”和/或“Kwok”）[1]，于 February 15, 2022 提交了自愿第11章破产申请（“申请”）。ECF 1。\n\n2. 债务人聘请 Brown Rudnick LLP（“Brown Rudnick”）律师事务所担任其第11章律师，并向 Brown Rudnick 支付了 \\$1 million 的预付费用。见 ECF 54；ECF 86；ECF 77 第 17 页；ECF 78 第 20 页；以及 ECF 293。\n\n3. 债务人在纽约州法院 PAX 诉讼[2]中作出 February 2022 藐视法庭裁决后仅数日，并在支付期限届满前夕提交了其第11章案件；该裁决因债务人未将名为 Lady May 的游艇返还至纽约管辖范围内，而命令债务人向债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（“PAX”）支付 \\$134,000,000 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n4. 于 March 1, 2022，PAX 提交解除自动中止的动议，请求授权其返回 PAX 诉讼，以继续推动返还 Lady May 的工作。ECF 57。\n\n5. 于 March 19, 2022，美国受托人提交动议，请求命令任命审查员，或备选地任命一名第11章受托人（“UST 审查员/受托人动议”）。ECF 102。\n\n1 债务人还以多个其他别名为人所知。\n\n2 本文中使用但未定义的首字母大写术语，应具有 UST 审查员/受托人动议中规定的含义。ECF 102。\n\n6. 于 March 21, 2022，美国受托人在本案中任命了无担保债权人正式委员会（“委员会”）。ECF 108。委员会由 Pullman & Comley LLC（普尔曼与康利有限责任公司）代理。ECF 298。\n\n7. 于 March 22, 2022，债务人提交融资动议，请求向 Golden Spring New York Ltd.（“Golden Spring”）借款 \\$8 million dollars；该实体据称由债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）所有（“DIP 融资动议”）。ECF 117。债务人声称其对 Golden Spring 不享有任何所有权权益或控制权，但 Golden Spring 过去曾——据称未获偿还地——向债务人赠与资金，以支付其全部生活开支，并且还曾向债务人提供借款和/或支付其诉讼费用。见 ECF 77 附表 D。\n\n8. 于 April 6, 2022，PAX，即债务人最大的无担保债权人，提交驳回动议，或备选地，就 UST 审查员/受托人动议中任命第11章受托人的救济部分提交部分加入申请（“PAX 驳回动议”）。ECF 183。\n\n9. 于 April 6, 2022，债务人提交了反对 UST 审查员/受托人动议的意见，反对任命第11章受托人。ECF 180。委员会和 PAX 亦对 UST 审查员/受托人动议提出了有限反对。ECF 181 和 182。\n\n10. 于 May 11, 2022，债务人同意驳回其案件，并撤回 DIP 融资动议。ECF 344 和 345。\n\n11. 于 May 25, 2022，法院就 PAX 驳回动议和 UST 审查员/受托人动议举行听证。就此，法院审议了债务人、PAX、委员会、美国受托人及若干债权人所提交的书面意见，内容涉及 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) 规定的可用救济形式是否适当，即驳回、任命第11章受托人或转换为第7章。ECF 408、412、416、418、419 和 421。\n\n12. 于 June 15, 2022，法院作出命令，指示美国受托人在债务人的破产案件中任命一（1）名无利害关系受托人（“受托人命令”）。ECF 465。\n\n13. 根据其依 11 U.S.C. § 1104 所负的法定义务，以及美国受托人在第11章案件中的标准任命程序，[3]美国受托人大约于 June 15, 2022，与包括债务人、委员会、PAX 以及代表各无担保债权人的其他多名律师在内的各方利害关系人进行了协商。\n\n14. 美国受托人选择 Paul Hastings LLP（“PH”）的 Luc A. Despins 为第11章受托人。[4]\n\n15. 于 July 7, 2022，美国受托人提交了任命 Luc A. Despins 为第11章受托人的通知（ECF 514），以及根据 11 U.S.C. §1104(d) 请求批准任命 Luc A. Despins 的申请（ECF 515）（“申请”）。Luc A. Despins 的无利害关系声明作为申请的一部分提交（“原始声明”）。法院将申请排期于 July 8, 2022 举行听证（“July 8 听证会”）。ECF 517。\n\n16. 于 July 8, 2022 上午，Despins 律师告知美国受托人，其需要就此前未披露的某些关联作出若干补充披露。刚刚发现的披露包括 PH 先前在无关事项中代理 PAX 的某些关联方。美国受托人建议 Despins 律师在 July 8 听证会上披露这些关联。\n\n3 Clifford J. White III 和 Walter W. Theus, Jr., Taking the Mystery Out of the Ch. 11 Trustee Appointment Process, ABI Journal, May 26, 2014。\n\n4 美国受托人最初选择 Womble Bond Dickinson（沃姆布尔·邦德·狄金森律师事务所）的 Joe D. Whitely（乔·D·怀特利）担任第11章受托人，并于 June 30, 2022 向法院提交了任命 Whitely 律师的通知，以及请求批准任命 Whitely 律师的申请。ECF 498 和 499。在 July 5, 2022 上午收到关于利益冲突的补充披露后，美国受托人立即撤回了对 Whitely 律师的任命。ECF 507。\n\n17. 在 July 8 听证会上，Despins 律师当庭宣布其将提交补充披露，并全面说明了额外披露的性质（“补充披露”）。债务人的律师（Brown Rudnick）、委员会、PAX 及若干其他债权人的律师均出席了听证会，且没有任何一方以 Despins 律师不具备任职资格或不具无利害关系性为由反对任命 Despins 律师。有人指出 PH 代理 Despins 受托人存在一些疑虑，但未对 Despins 律师担任第11章受托人提出异议。其后，法院批准了申请，并批准 Despins 律师担任第11章受托人（“批准受托人的命令”）。ECF 523。\n\n18. 于 July 11, 2022，Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）律师作为债务人的律师提交出庭代理通知，并提交了反对任命 Despins 受托人的函件（“Mitchell 函件异议”）。ECF 530 和 531。\n\n19. 于 July 12, 2022，Despins 受托人正式提交补充披露，说明其本人此前未曾代理任何与 PAX 关联的实体，且 PH 先前曾代理与 PAX 具有相同母公司的某些实体（“July 12 补充披露”）。ECF 538。July 12 补充披露与 July 8 听证会上的补充披露一致。\n\n20. 同样于 July 12, 2022，Despins 受托人提交申请，请求聘请 PH 担任其第11章受托人律师（“PH 聘用申请”），并提交动议，请求就 PH 聘用申请举行加速听证。ECF 539 和 541。\n\n21. 于 July 13, 2022，债务人聘请的第11章律师 Brown Rudnick 提交动议，请求退出担任债务人律师（“退出动议”）。ECF 543。\n\n22. 于 July 14, 2022，Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（“Z&Z”）律师事务所的四（4）名律师作为债务人律师提交出庭代理通知，即 Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐）、Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞思）、Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼）和 John Cesaroni（约翰·切萨罗尼）。ECF 550、551、552 和 553。于 July 20, 2022，Z&Z 的 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）亦作为债务人律师出庭。ECF 574。截至目前，Z&Z 尚未按 Section 329 和 Rule 2016 的要求，提交与其代理债务人有关的任何报酬披露。\n\n23. 于 July 14, 2022，债务人亦通过 Z&Z 提交异议，反对以加速方式审理 PH 聘用申请。ECF 554。\n\n24. 自 April 2022 起，Z&Z 的律师即参与本案，当时 Stephen Kindseth 和 Aaron Romney 作为以下人员的律师提交出庭代理通知：(a) Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC（“HKI”）（据称为 Lady May 的所有人）；及 (b) Mei Guo（郭美）（债务人的女儿，据称为 HKI 的所有人）。ECF 201、202、339 和 340。Z&Z 的 John Cesaroni 亦作为 Guo 女士的律师出庭。ECF 341。\n\n25. 此外，于 April 11, 2022，Z&Z 的 Romney 律师代表 HKI 对债务人和 PAX 提起对立程序，请求作出确认判决，确认 Lady May 游艇根据 Section 541 并非破产财产。见 Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC v. Kwok and Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P., Adv. Proc. No. 22-5003。\n\n26. 于 Friday, July 15, 2022，法院将状态会议排期于 July 21, 2022 举行，以讨论“第11章受托人拟议的对债务人案件的管理和行政处理”，以及 Brown Rudnick 的退出动议和 PH 聘用申请。ECF 558。\n\n27. 于 July 15, 2022 晚间，债务人通过 Z&Z 提交撤销动议，请求根据 Rule 60b/Rule 9024 获得救济，以撤销对 Despins 律师担任第11章受托人的任命。ECF 561。撤销动议主张，July 12 补充披露提供了新的证据，并指称 PH 与 Peoples Republic of China（“中国”）、Chinese Communist Party（“CCP”）及“其国有和受控制实体”存在重大关系。撤销动议第 ¶ 2 段。此外，债务人主张，这是证明 Despins 受托人不具无利害关系性且不能担任第11章受托人的证据。撤销动议第 ¶ 37 段。\n\n28. 撤销动议主要聚焦于与中国和 CCP 有关的问题。撤销动议第 ¶ 19-28 段。尽管 Brown Rudnick 曾在多次听证中发表的意见/论点、代表债务人提交的诉状，以及债务人参与的相当数量其他诉讼事项中提出债务人与中国和 CCP 的关系，但值得注意的是，债务人的附表、其财务状况说明书及债权人名册均未将中国或 CCP 列为本案债权人或利害关系人。见 ECF 77、78 和债权人名册。\n\n29. 2022年7月21日，法院举行了一次案件状态会议。在该次听证会上，受托人 Despins（德斯平斯）就其获任以来迄今已采取的措施以及未来事项预览作了陈述。之后，法院对 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）律师事务所的退出代理动议、Z&Z 作为债务人代理律师出庭，以及撤销动议提出了初步关切。法院对撤销动议的初步反应并不有利，并指出，债务人为寻找支持其撤销动议的依据而进行证据开示并不适当。\n\n30. 2022年7月22日，Z&Z 律师就受托人 Despins、PH、PAX 以及与 PAX 有关联的实体的信息和文件发出了请求/传票。Z&Z 的证据开示请求如下：\n\na. Z&Z 向受托人 Despins 发函，寻求有关 PH 和受托人 Despins 与 UBS（瑞银）及 UBS 关联方之间关系的进一步信息；\n\nb. Z&Z 向 PH 送达了文件传票，寻求以下信息和文件：(i) 有关受托人遴选程序，特别是对 Mitchell Letter Objection（米切尔函异议）的后续情况；(ii) 有关 PH 在中国的客户中属于“State Owned Entities”或“CCP Officials”的客户身份，以及从该等客户获得的报酬；(iii) 有关 PH 与 UBS 及 UBS 关联方之间的关系；(iv) 有关由 PH 代理的 PAG 实体以及 PH 从该等实体获得的报酬；(v) 有关允许 PH 在北京、香港和上海运营其办公室的 PH 许可证、证书或其他授权；(vi) 有关 PH 从其在中国和香港的所有办公室获得的收入；以及 (vii) 有关受托人 Despins 和/或 PH 与任何其他人之间就“(a) 债务人与中国政府或中国共产党相对立的利益，或 (b) 该等相对立利益是否以某种方式影响 Despins 或 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）是否无利害关系的问题”进行的通信；以及\n\nc. Z&Z 向 PAX 发出了书面质询，要求确认自 2017 年以来 PH 向“任何 PAG 实体”提供服务的所有事项，以及就该等事项向 PH 支付的费用金额。\n\n31. Z&Z 的证据开示请求范围广泛且具有侵扰性。其明确目的在于拖延和/或阻止受托人 Despins 履行职责，并为撤销动议中提出的理论寻找支持。\n\n论证\n\nI. 第 1104(d) 条、第 2007.1 条规则，以及第 101(14) 条所定义的“无利害关系人”\n\n第 1104(d) 条规定，美国受托人“在与利害关系方协商后，应任命一名除美国受托人以外的无利害关系人担任受托人，但须经法院批准。”11 U.S.C. § 1104(d)。第 1104(d) 条的实施见于第 2007.1(c) 条规则，该规则要求美国受托人申请批准任命第 11 章受托人，该申请应包括第 11 章受托人的经核实声明，披露其与“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，或受雇于美国受托人办公室的人员”之间的所有“联系”。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2007.1(c).[5]\n\n第 321(a)(1) 条要求受托人应具备履行受托人职责的能力，并作为批准获任第 11 章受托人的标准。第 321(a)(1) 条相关部分规定：“任何人仅在该人是 (1) 具备履行受托人职责能力的个人时，方可在本法典项下案件中担任受托人。”总而言之，第 11 章受托人的批准程序取决于任命一名具备能力、无利害关系并依第 2007.1(c) 条规则要求对所有联系作出充分完整披露的人。\n\n5 第 2014(a) 条规则，至少有一家法院认为其适用于第 11 章受托人以及其他破产财产代表，要求就“据申请人所知，该人与债务人、债权人、任何其他利害关系方、其各自的律师和会计师之间的所有联系”作出主动披露。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a); In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 226 B.R. 331, 334 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1998)（讨论持续披露及保持无利害关系的义务）。\n\n《破产法典》将“无利害关系人”定义为“不是债权人、股权证券持有人或内部人”，且“不会因与债务人之间的任何间接或直接关系、联系或利益……而拥有与破产财产或任何类别债权人利益实质性相冲突的利益”的人。11 U.S.C. § 101(14)(A) and (E)。“在解释无利害关系标准时，破产法院一直要求受托人及其聘请的专业人士遵守严格标准”，并要求受托人不仅实际上无利害关系，而且避免不当行为的表象。”In re MF Global, Inc., 464 B.R. 594, 600-601 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011)（讨论第 327 条和第 2014 条规则）引用的案件）。\n\n在本案中，美国受托人已任命一名合格且无利害关系的人担任第 11 章受托人。\n\nII. 第 60(b) 条规则不能提供救济\n\n撤销动议主张，2022年7月12日正式补充披露中存在新证据，足以根据第 60(b)(2) 条规则就批准任命受托人 Despins 的命令获得救济。撤销动议第 1 页，第 39 段。该论点在事实方面并不准确。在 7 月 8 日听证会上，受托人 Despins 已在记录中披露了 7 月 12 日补充披露中的信息。\n\n撤销动议还主张，受托人 Despins 未披露 PH 在中国的存在及其在中国的确切客户。撤销动议主张，由于这些客户，PH 与中国及中国共产党有关联，因此受托人 Despins 与相关利益相冲突且并非无利害关系。撤销动议第 37 段。跳跃至该结论并无法律或事实支持。\n\n撤销动议在内部亦自相矛盾。它一方面主张存在证明受托人 Despins 并非无利害关系的新证据，因此第 60(b) 条规则适用；另一方面又主张需要进行证据开示以审查受托人 Despins，从而证明其并非无利害关系。撤销动议第 1 段和第 2 段。对受托人 Despins 的质疑必须被看清其本质——即对第 11 章受托人这一概念本身的质疑，以及维持对本第 11 章案件控制权的努力。债务人的两项论点均未满足根据第 60(b)(2) 条规则或第 60(b)(6) 条规则给予救济的标准。\n\n关于第 60(b)(2) 条规则，第二巡回上诉法院在决定是否给予救济时采用以下因素：\n\n(1) 新发现的证据是在审判或其他决定性程序时已存在的事实，(2) 尽管已尽合理努力，动议方仍有正当理由对此不知情，(3) 该证据必须可采，且其重要性达到很可能会改变结果的程度，以及\n\n(4) 该证据不得仅是累积性证据或用于弹劾的证据。\n\nUnited States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d 370, 392 (2d Cir. 2001)。不存在新证据，因为 7 月 12 日补充披露没有提供与 7 月 8 日听证会上的补充披露相矛盾的新事实。\n\n关于作为兜底条款的第 60(b)(6) 条规则，第二巡回上诉法院曾指出：\n\n第 60(b)(6) 条规则授权地区法院基于“任何其他证明救济正当的理由”给予动议方救济。它是“在特定案件中伸张正义的公平权力的巨大蓄水池。”Matarese v. LeFevre, 801 F.2d 98, 106 (2d Cir. 1986)（省略内部引文标记）。但该蓄水池并非无底。鉴于第 60(b)(6) 条规则可能具有广泛适用范围，法院要求寻求援引该规则的一方证明存在足以给予救济的“非同寻常情形”。See Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988); Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 63 (2d Cir.1986).\n\nStevens v. Miller, 676 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2012)。债务人必须证明批准受托人的命令造成“极端且不当的困难。”Matarese v. LeFevre, 801 F.2d 98, 106 (2d Cir. 1986)（省略内部引文）。此外，必须有“高度令人信服的证据”，并且“表明给予救济不会给其他当事人造成不当困难。”In re Chip's Southington, LLC, 2021 WL 3028028, at \\*4 (Bankr. D. Conn. July 16, 2021, Tancredi, J.)（引用 Boehner v. Heise, 2009 WL 136975, at \\*5 (E.D.N.Y. May 14, 2009)（省略内部引文））。在本案中，债务人对受托人 Despins 的质疑实质上以其立场为前提，即中国政府的影响力和影响范围延伸至任何代理中国个人或实体（如 PH）的律师事务所，因此受托人 Despins 将不会适当行事。该论点应按其本质理解——债务人不希望受托人 Despins 担任受托人，因为其所在的 PH 律师事务所在中国开展过业务并代理过中国公司——法院应予驳回。\n\n撤销动议是债务人又一次试图控制本案，并向法院、美国受托人及其债权人规定本案应如何进行的尝试。此种努力不应被容许，也不存在扰乱受托人 Despins 任命的依据。\n\n债务人提出撤销动议的根本目标，是拖延并人为削弱受托人 Despins 履行其受托人义务的能力。面对受托人 Despins 即将采取的某些措施，以对资产主张控制权，并启动为追索和追回债务人家人、朋友及实体所持资产所必需的调查，债务人正诉诸于毫无事实或法律支持的程序性操弄。因此，债务人没有与受托人 Despins 合作，以履行其一个月前作为自行管理债务人时对债权人负有的同样义务，而是选择以广泛笼统的指控质疑受托人 Despins。债务人的撤销动议仅仅是一种欺骗性策略，旨在避免与受托人 Despins 合作、干扰本案管理，并拖延为债权人利益寻找和变现资产的努力。\n\n受托人 Despins 持续负有披露其与债务人、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，或受雇于美国受托人办公室的人员之间任何联系的义务。破产制度依赖于该义务；如出现需要披露的信息，受托人 Despins 已承诺将予以披露。\n\n结论\n\n鉴于上述全部理由，美国受托人谨请求法院驳回撤销动议。\n\n日期：July 27, 2022 谨此提交，\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON 美国受托人，第 2 区\n\n提交人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn（霍利·L·克莱伯恩） 审判律师 美国受托人办公室 Giaimo Federal Building, Room 302 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510 Holley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov Federal Bar No.: ct17216 (Connecticut) (203) 773-2210\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人证明，前述文件已通过下列法院电子案件提交系统向所有已出庭当事人送达：\n\nLaura Aronsson（劳拉·阿伦松）代表 20 名最大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [laronsson@omm.com]\n\nKenneth Aulet（肯尼斯·奥莱特）代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵） [kaulet@brownrudnick.com]\n\nWilliam Baldiga（威廉·巴尔迪加）代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok [wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com]\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga（威廉·R·巴尔迪加）代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok [wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com]\n\nDouglass E. Barron（道格拉斯·E·巴伦）代表受托人 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯） [douglassbarron@pauhastings.com]\n\n尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特（Nicholas A. Bassett）代表受托人 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）[nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com]\n\n帕特里克·M·伯尼（Patrick M. Birney）代表20名最大债权人之一 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）[pbirney@rc.com,] [ctrivigno@rc.com]\n\n帕特里克·M·伯尼代表被告太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [pbirney@rc.com,] [ctrivigno@rc.com]\n\n帕特里克·M·伯尼代表原告太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [pbirney@rc.com,] [ctrivigno@rc.com]\n\n卡罗琳·H.G.·卡拉里（Carollynn H.G. Callari）代表20名最大债权人之一 Rui Ma（马蕊）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\n卡罗琳·H.G.·卡拉里代表20名最大债权人之一 Weican Meng（孟维灿）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\n卡罗琳·H.G.·卡拉里代表债权人 Zheng Wu（吴征）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\n约翰·L·切萨罗尼（John L. Cesaroni）代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\n约翰·L·切萨罗尼代表利害关系方 Mei Guo（郭梅）[jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\n霍莉·L·克莱伯恩（Holley L. Claiborn）代表美国受托人 U. S. Trustee（美国受托人）[holley.l.claiborn@usdoj.gov]\n\nLuc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）[lucdespins@paulhastings.com]\n\nLuc A. Despins代表受托人吕克·A·德斯平斯 [lucdespins@paulhastings.com]\n\n戴维·S·福什（David S. Forsh）代表20名最大债权人之一马蕊 [dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\n戴维·S·福什代表20名最大债权人之一孟维灿 [dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\n戴维·S·福什代表债权人吴征 [dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\n彼得·弗里德曼（Peter Friedman）代表20名最大债权人之一太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [pfriedman@omm.com]\n\n彼得·弗里德曼代表被告太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [pfriedman@omm.com]\n\n彼得·弗里德曼代表原告太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [pfriedman@omm.com]\n\n欧文·J·戈德曼（Irve J. Goldman）代表债权人委员会 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人正式委员会）[igoldman@pullcom.com,] [rmccoy@pullcom.com]\n\n米娅·N·冈萨雷斯（Mia N. Gonzalez）代表20名最大债权人之一太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [mgonzalez@omm.com]\n\n詹姆斯·C·格雷厄姆（James C. Graham）代表受托人 Luc A Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）[jgraham@npmlaw.com,] [sgibbons@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net]\n\n詹姆斯·C·格雷厄姆代表受托人吕克·A·德斯平斯 [jgraham@npmlaw.com,] [sgibbons@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net] 戴维·V·哈巴赫二世（David V. Harbach, II）代表20名最大债权人之一太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [dharbach@omm.com]\n\n埃里克·A·亨齐（Eric A. Henzy）代表债务人郭文贵 [ehenzy@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\n埃里克·A·亨齐代表被告郭文贵 [ehenzy@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\n埃里克·A·亨齐代表被告郭文贵 [ehenzy@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\n埃里克·A·亨齐代表利害关系方 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）[ehenzy@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\n杰弗里·L·乔纳斯（Jeffrey L Jonas）代表债务人郭文贵 [jjonas@brownrudnick.com]\n\n乔纳森·卡普兰（Jonathan Kaplan）代表债权人委员会无担保债权人正式委员会 [jkaplan@pullcom.com,] [prulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com]\n\n斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思（Stephen M. Kindseth）代表债务人郭文贵 [skindseth@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\n斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思代表利害关系方香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司 [skindseth@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\n斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思代表利害关系方郭梅 [skindseth@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\n迪伦·克莱特（Dylan Kletter）代表债务人郭文贵 [dkletter@brownrudnick.com,] [adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rstark@brownrudnick.com]\n\n帕特里克·R·林赛（Patrick R. Linsey）代表受托人 Luc A Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）[plinsey@npmlaw.com,] [karguello@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net]\n\n帕特里克·R·林赛代表受托人吕克·A·德斯平斯 [plinsey@npmlaw.com,] [karguello@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net] 阿夫拉姆·伊曼纽尔·卢夫特（Avram Emmanuel Luft）代表受托人吕克·A·德斯平斯 [aviluft@pauhastings.com]\n\n克里斯汀·B·梅休（Kristin B. Mayhew）代表20名最大债权人之一马蕊 [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\n克里斯汀·B·梅休代表20名最大债权人之一孟维灿 [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\n克里斯汀·B·梅休代表债权人吴征 [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\n克里斯汀·B·梅休代表原告 Boxun Inc.（博讯公司）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\n克里斯汀·B·梅休代表原告马蕊 [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\n克里斯汀·B·梅休代表原告 Weican (Watson) Meng（孟维灿（沃森））[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\n克里斯汀·B·梅休代表原告 Yang Lan（杨澜）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\n克里斯汀·B·梅休代表原告吴征 [kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\n蒂莫西·D·米尔滕伯格（Timothy D. Miltenberger）代表利害关系方 Golden Spring (New York) LTD（黄金泉（纽约）有限公司）[Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com,] [msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com]\n\n亚伦·A·米切尔（Aaron A Mitchell）代表债务人郭文贵 [aaron@lmesq.com]\n\n詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂（James M. Moriarty）代表债务人郭文贵 [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com,] [kjoseph@zeislaw.com]\n\n詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂代表被告郭文贵 [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com,] [kjoseph@zeislaw.com]\n\n詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂代表被告郭文贵 [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com,] [kjoseph@zeislaw.com]\n\n萨拉·帕拉万（Sara Pahlavan）代表20名最大债权人之一太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [spahlavan@omm.com]\n\n卢卡斯·贝内特·罗克林（Lucas Bennett Rocklin）代表受托人吕克·A·德斯平斯 [lrocklin@npmlaw.com,] [NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net]\n\n亚伦·罗姆尼（Aaron Romney）代表债务人郭文贵 [aromney@zeislaw.com,] [swenthen@zeislaw.com]\n\n亚伦·罗姆尼代表被告郭文贵 [aromney@zeislaw.com,] [swenthen@zeislaw.com]\n\n亚伦·罗姆尼代表被告郭文贵 [aromney@zeislaw.com,] [swenthen@zeislaw.com]\n\n亚伦·罗姆尼代表利害关系方香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司 [aromney@zeislaw.com,] [swenthen@zeislaw.com]\n\n亚伦·罗姆尼代表利害关系方郭梅 [aromney@zeislaw.com,] [swenthen@zeislaw.com]\n\n亚伦·罗姆尼代表原告香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司 [aromney@zeislaw.com,] [swenthen@zeislaw.com]\n\n斯科特·D·罗森（Scott D. Rosen）代表利害关系方黄金泉（纽约）有限公司 [srosen@cb-shea.com,] [msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com]\n\n托马斯·J·桑索内（Thomas J. Sansone）代表律师 Michael S. Weinstein（迈克尔·S·温斯坦）[tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\n托马斯·J·桑索内代表债权人 Chong Shen Raphanella（拉法内拉·沈冲）[tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\n托马斯·J·桑索内代表债权人 Rong Zhang（张蓉）[tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\n托马斯·J·桑索内代表债权人 Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）[tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\n托马斯·J·桑索内代表原告拉法内拉·沈冲 [tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\n托马斯·J·桑索内代表原告张蓉 [tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\n托马斯·J·桑索内代表原告王晓丹 [tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\n斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫（Stuart M. Sarnoff）代表20名最大债权人之一太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [ssarnoff@omm.com,] [stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com]\n\n斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫代表被告太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [ssarnoff@omm.com,] [stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com]\n\n斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫代表原告太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [ssarnoff@omm.com,] [stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com]\n\n贝内特·西尔弗伯格（Bennett Silverberg）代表债务人郭文贵 [bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com]\n\n道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡（Douglas S. Skalka）代表受托人吕克·A·德斯平斯 [dskalka@npmlaw.com,] [smowery@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net]\n\n安妮卡·H·史密斯（Annecca H. Smith）代表20名最大债权人之一太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [asmith@rc.com]\n\n安妮卡·H·史密斯代表原告太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业 [asmith@rc.com]\n\n迈克尔·S·温斯坦代表债权人拉法内拉·沈冲 [mweinstein@golenbock.com]\n\n迈克尔·S·温斯坦代表债权人张蓉 [mweinstein@golenbock.com]\n\n迈克尔·S·温斯坦代表债权人王晓丹 [mweinstein@golenbock.com]\n\n杰伊·马歇尔·沃尔曼（Jay Marshall Wolman）代表债权人 Logan Cheng（洛根·程）[jmw@randazza.com,] [ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com]\n\n杰伊·马歇尔·沃尔曼代表原告洛根·程 [jmw@randazza.com,] [ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com]\n\n彼得·J·扎雷拉（Peter J. Zarella）代表20名最大债权人之一马蕊 [pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\n彼得·J·扎雷拉代表20名最大债权人之一孟维灿 [pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\n彼得·J·扎雷拉代表债权人吴征 [pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn 霍莉·L·克莱伯恩","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","CCP","Miles Guo","Chinese Communist Party","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":54,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":86,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":102,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":108,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":117,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":180,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":181,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":183,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":201,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":293,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":298,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":341,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":344,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":408,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":498,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":507,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":514,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":515,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":517,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":523,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":530,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":538,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":539,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":543,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":550,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":554,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":558,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":561,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":574,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4885,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:12:15"}