{"id":"court_ctb_616_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":616,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-07-27","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION a/k/a WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES GUO,","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 616 Filed 07/27/22 Entered 07/27/22 09:34:32 Page 1 of 24\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n**a/k/a WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES GUO,**\n\n**In re Chapter 11**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)**\n\n**Debtor. Re: ECF 596**\n\n# **UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF 11 U.S.C. § 327 TO DEBTOR'S EMPLOYMENT OF ATTORNEYS AT ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. AND THE OBLIGATIONS OF ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. TO COMPLY WITH 11 U.S.C. § 329, FED. R. BANKR. P. 2016 AND OTHER RULES**\n\nWilliam K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (\"United States Trustee\"), submits this memorandum of law in response to the Court's order of July 22, 2022 (ECF 596) (\"July 22 Order\") entered in connection with a hearing held on July 21, 2022.\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nThe United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\") has requested the United States Trustee's position as to whether the law firm of Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. (\"Z&Z\") \"must comply with the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 327(a)\" given the recent appearance of several attorneys at Z&Z as counsel to the chapter 11 debtor Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Wengui Guo a/k/a Miles Guo a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Debtor\" and/or \"Kwok\")[1](#page-0-0) and \"whether a conflict of interest exists in connection with Z&Z's representation of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, Mei Guo, and the Debtor in the Debtor's Chapter 11 case and adversary proceedings.\" ECF 596.\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor is also known by multiple other aliases.\n\nWithout the benefit of a retention application – whether or not one is required – it is difficult to render an opinion as to whether Z&Z is required to file a retention application pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 327(a); at present, the United States Trustee can only speculate about the scope of its services and the source of payment for its services. Based solely on the pleadings it has filed to date, Z&Z, on behalf of the Debtor, appears to be attempting to represent the interest of the estate with respect to the administration of the case or arguably to frustrate the administration of the estate being carried out by the appointed chapter 11 trustee, Luc A. Despins (\"Trustee Despins\").\n\n\"For the purposes of [section](http)) 327(a), 'professional person' is limited to persons in those occupations which play a central role in the administration of the debtor proceeding.\" *Matter of Seatrains Lines, Inc*, 13 B.R. 980, 981 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1981). Court approval is required for the retention of attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers and persons in other professions who are intimately involved in the administration of the debtor's estate. *Id.*\n\nAccordingly, because Z&Z purports to represent the interest of the estate on behalf of the Debtor, it would appear that its retention is required under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a). Once Trustee Despins' appointment was approved, the Debtor-in-Possession ceded control of the Debtor's estate to Trustee Despins and the Debtor no longer has authority to represent the interest of the estate or to use estate funds to pay professionals to represent the estate with respect to the administration of the proceedings. Thus, the Debtor no longer has standing or authority to raise issues on behalf of the estate.\n\nOn the other hand, if Z&Z is simply representing the Debtor's personal interest, an argument can be raised that such retention is in the ordinary course of a debtor's personal business and does not require approval by the Bankruptcy Court. The retention of counsel to represent the Debtor's personal interest, which cannot involve the use of estate resources to compensate counsel, typically would involve the retention of counsel to represent the debtor with respect to a criminal matter or his discharge or other interest personal to the debtor and not the estate. However, as discussed herein, the Debtor, through Z&Z, is currently advancing a challenge to the validity of the appointment of Trustee Despins and attempting to relitigate the issue of control over the Debtor's estate, an issue central to the administration of the estate. The Debtor, through Z&Z, has filed a motion seeking relief under Rule 60b/9024 from the order approving the appointment of Trustee Despins (\"Motion to Vacate\"). ECF 561. By taking this position, the Debtor and his counsel Z&Z are purporting to act as if the Debtor is still in possession, trying to prevent Trustee Despins from serving and fulfilling his obligations to the estate, and seeking to delay the investigation into the Debtor's affairs. The Debtor does not have standing or authority to represent the estate's interest in advocating these positions because the Debtor is no longer in possession of the estate. However, if Z&Z is granted authority to advance these issues, they are central to the administration of the Debtor's estate and thus, Z&Z subjects itself to the obligations of 11 U.S.C. § 327(a). While 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) is not applicable to Z&Z to the extent that Z&Z represents the Debtor in his individual capacity as a debtor out of possession, Z&Z is not being engaged to protect the Debtor's personal interest but to advance the interest of the estate generally.\n\nIf Z&Z is subject to the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 327(a), Z&Z cannot meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) because of its concurrent representation of statutory insiders 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). Both HKI and Ms. Guo are plainly and uncontrovertibly adverse to the chapter 11 estate as they\n\nare targets of claims that they are holding and/or controlling potential property of the chapter 11 estate. Z&Z's simultaneous representation of the Debtor, HKI and Ms. Guo implicates Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that the clients are adverse to each other despite appearing to be in harmony now.\n\n### **FACTS**\n\n1. The Debtor 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. ECF 293.\n\n3. On June 15, 2022, the Court granted the United States Trustee's motion for an order directing the appointment of an examiner or, in the alternative, a chapter 11 trustee (\"UST Examiner/Trustee Motion\" at ECF 102) and 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\n4. The United States Trustee appointed Luc A. Despins of Paul Hastings LLP (\"PH\") to serve as the chapter 11 trustee.\n\n5. 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\n4\n\n6. At the July 8 Hearing, Attorney Despins announced on the record that he would be filing a supplemental disclosure and explained the nature of the additional disclosures. Brown Rudnick on behalf of the Debtor, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (\"Committee\"), creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\"), and certain other creditors were all present at the hearing and no party objected to the appointment of Attorney Despins on the grounds that Attorney Despins was not competent to serve or was not disinterested. Some concerns about PH were noted, but no challenge was raised to Attorney Despins serving as chapter 11 trustee. Thereafter, the Court granted the Application and approved the appointment of Attorney Despins as chapter 11 trustee (\"Order Approving Trustee\"). ECF 523.\n\n7. On July 11, 2022, Attorney Aaron Mitchell filed an appearance as counsel to the Debtor and filed a letter objection to the appointment of Attorney Despins (\"Mitchell Letter Objection\") which included, among other items, demands for information about the United States Trustee's chapter 11 trustee selection process. ECF 530 and 531.\n\n8. On July 12, 2022, Trustee Despins filed a 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 disclosure at the July 8 Hearing.\n\n9. 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\n5\n\n10. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 323 and 11 U.S.C. § 1101(1), the Debtor became a debtor \"out of possession\" by virtue of the Order Approving Trustee entered on June 8, 2022, approving the appointment of Trustee Despins. ECF 523.\n\n11. On July 15, 2022, the Debtor, through Z&Z, filed the Motion to Vacate under Rule 60b/Rule 9024 seeking 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\"), the 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\n12. 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.\n\n13. Attorneys at Z&Z have been involved in this case since April 2022 when Stephen Kindseth and Aaron Romney filed appearances as counsel for HKI (the purported owner of the yacht Lady May) and for 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\n14. Also, 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 (\"HKI Adversary\").\n\n15. 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(b). At the hearing on July 21, 2022, Attorney Eric Henzy of Z&Z acknowledged the obligation to comply with Section 329 and Rule 2016(b) in response to comments of counsel for the United States Trustee and the Court. Attorney Henzy advised the Court that Z&Z would do so within the fourteen (14) days set forth in Rule 2016(b) as required (which date would be July 28, 2022).\n\n16. 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 attorneys made these discovery requests despite being advised by the Court at the July 21, 2022, hearing that discovery related to the Motion to Vacate was not appropriate at this juncture. 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\n\ncommunications 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\n17. 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### **LEGAL STANDARDS**\n\n### **A. General discussion of 11 U.S.C. § 327(a).**\n\nCounsel for a trustee or a debtor in possession plays an intimate and central role in the administration of the chapter 11 proceeding. *Matter of Seatrain Lines, Inc.*, 13 B.R. at 981. Because of this, and because of the accompanying fiduciary duty owed to the debtor and the estate, counsel for a debtor in possession must satisfy 11 U.S.C. § 327(a). Section 327(a) requires a professional to meet the following in order to be retained by a debtor in possession or a trustee to represent a bankruptcy estate:\n\nExcept as otherwise provided in this section, the *trustee*, with the court's approval, may employ one or more attorneys …. that do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the *estate*, and that are disinterested persons, to represent or assist the *trustee* in carrying out the trustee's duties under this title.\n\n11 U.S.C. § 327(a) (*emphasis added*). Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9001 provides the definition of certain terms used throughout the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and subsection (11) of Rule 9001 states that the term \"trustee\" \"includes a debtor in possession in a\n\nchapter 11 case.\" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9001(11). \"While § 327 makes reference only to the trustee's employment of a professional, this section is made applicable to debtors-in-possession by virtue of § 1107 of the Code. Section 1107(a) provides in relevant part that \"a debtor-in-possession shall have all the rights, other than the right of compensation under section 330 of this title, and powers, and shall perform all the functions and duties ... of a trustee serving in a case under this chapter. 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a).\" *In re Land*, 116 B.R. 798, fn. 3 (D. Colo. 1990), *aff'd and remanded*, 943 F.2d 1265 (10th Cir. 1991).\n\nPursuant to Section 327(a), there are two basic requirements for retention of counsel to represent a debtor's estate: (1) the attorney must not \"hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate,\" and (2) the attorney must be a \"disinterested person.\" 11 U.S.C. § 327(a); *Vouzianas v. Ready & Pontisakos (In re Vouzianas)*, 259 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 2001). The Second Circuit defines \"adverse interest\" as follows:\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*In re Arochem Corp*., 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2d Cir. 1999). The \"determination of an adverse interest is objective and concerned with the appearance of impropriety.\" *In re Angelika Films 57th Inc*., 227 B.R. 29, 38 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998). \"The disqualifying adverse interest addressed in § 327. . . is either an actual or a reasonably probable conflict of interest.\" *In re AroChem*, 181 B.R. 693, 700 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1995) (Shiff, J.), *aff'd, In re AroChem Corp.*, 176 F.3d 610 (2nd Cir. 1999). \"Whether an adverse interest exists is best determined on a case-bycase basis.\" *In re Arochem Corp.*, 176 F.3d at 623 (*citations omitted*). The standards in section 327(a) are \"phrased in the present tense, permitting representation by professionals 'that do not\n\n*hold* or *represent* an interest adverse to the estate.'\" *Id*. (emphasis in original).[2](#page-9-0)\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). \"The 'materially adverse' standard incorporated in the disinterestedness test and the 'interest adverse to the estate' language in section 327(a) overlap. To this extent, the two prongs of section 327(a) are duplicative and form a single test to judge conflicts of interest.\" *In re Granite Partners, L.P.,* 219 B.R. 22, 33 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998); *see also JMK Construction Group, Ltd.,* 441 B.R. 222, 229 (Bankr. S.D.NY. 2010). \"The mandatory provisions of section 327(a) do not allow for waiver.\" *In re Granite Partners, L.P.*, 219 B.R. 22, 34 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) (*citations omitted*).\n\n### **B. 11 U.S.C. § 327 applies to debtors in possession and to trustees who are the legal representatives of the bankruptcy estate.**\n\nUnder 11 U.S.C. § 323(a), a chapter 11 trustee is the sole legal representative of the chapter 11 estate and displaces the chapter 11 debtor. *In re Taub*, 439 B.R. 261, 272 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2010). In such a setting, Section 327(a) authorizes only the trustee to employ counsel: \"An out-of-possession Chapter 11 debtor is not authorized to employ a professional person, such\n\n<span id=\"page-9-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> \"Counsel for a chapter 11 debtor owes a fiduciary duty of loyalty and care to his client which is the debtor-inpossession.\" *In re Angelika Films 57th Inc.,* 227 B.R. 29, 39 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) (*citing In re Rancourt*, 207 B.R. 338, 360 (Bankr. D. NH 1997)) (debtor's counsel, who also represented debtor's principal, denied all compensation due to conflict). Disqualification of counsel is appropriate when \"'it is plausible that the representation of another interest may cause the debtor's attorneys to act any differently than they would without that other representation'\" *In re Granite Partners, L.P.,* 219 B.R. at 33 (quoting *In re Leslie Fay Cos.,* 175 B.R. 525, 533 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994)). \"'By regulating the trustee's ability to hire professionals, section 327 serve[s] the important policy of ensuring that all professionals appointed [to represent the debtor] tender undivided loyalty and provide untainted advice and assistance in furtherance of their fiduciary responsibilities.'\" *In re Homesteads Community at Newtown, LLC*, 390 B.R. 32, 47 (Bankr. D.Conn. 2008) (*quoting In re AroChem Corp*., 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2nd Cir. 1999)).\n\nas an attorney, under § 327. That authority is reserved to the estate trustee. *See* 11 U.S.C. §§ 327;\n\n1101(1); 1107(a).\" *In re TAJ Graphics Enterprises, LLC*, 549 B.R. 825, 828 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.\n\n2016). Support for this is found in the Supreme Court's opinion in *Lamie v. United States Trustee,* where the Supreme Court determined that after a debtor's status as debtor-in-possession is terminated, the debtor's attorney's status under § 327 as attorney for debtor-in-possession is also terminated. *Lamie v. United States Trustee*, 540 U.S. 526, 532 (2004) (given the conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 and the appointment of a Chapter 7 trustee, such event \"terminated [the debtor's] status as debtor-in-possession and so terminated the [attorney's] service under § 327 as an attorney for the debtor-in-possession\"); *see also Harrington v. Nickless* (*In re Int'l Gospel Party Boosting Jesus Grps., Inc.*), 487 B.R. 12, 15 (D. Mass. 2013) (applying *Lamie* to Chapter 11 case). Bankruptcy Courts have regularly followed *Lamie* in concluding that Section 327(a) is not applicable to a debtor out of possession. *See, e.g.*, *In re Bresnick*, 406 B.R. 582, 585 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009), *aff'd Morrison v. United States Trustee*, 2010 WL 2653394 (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010); *In re TAJ Graphics Enterprises, LLC*, 549 B.R. at 828; *In re Meill*, 2009 WL 2253256, \\*2 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa July 27, 2009).\n\nSince a debtor out of possession is not required to comply with Section 327(a) to employ counsel, it follows that compensation for counsel for a debtor out of possession is also not governed by 11 U.S.C. § 330 and Fed. R. Bank. P. 2016 and thus may not be paid from the estate. *Lamie v. United States Trustee*, 540 U.S. 526 (2004) (requiring retention by the estate under Section 327 as a precondition to being compensated by the estate); *see, e.g., Morrison v. United States Trustee*, 2010 WL 2653394 (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010) (applying *Lamie*, debtor counsel not entitled to fees from the estate for representing the debtor out of possession after appointment of chapter 11 trustee); *In re NRG Resources, Inc.*, 64 B.R. 643 (W.D. La. 1986)\n\n(debtor counsel not entitled to fees from the estate for representing the debtor out of possession).\n\n### **B. Z&Z cannot meet Section 327(a) if it is applicable.**\n\nThe Debtor, through Z&Z, is actively opposing and challenging the appointment of Trustee Despins. If successful, the chapter 11 estate will be left without a trustee for a period of time, which delays both the appropriate investigation into the Debtor's affairs and the inevitable actions to try to recover potential estate assets now in the control of the Debtor's family.[3](#page-11-0)\n\nZ&Z's Motion to Vacate seeks relief under Rule 60b/9024 from the order approving the appointment of Trustee Despins on the grounds that Trustee Despins is not disinterested and cannot serve as the chapter 11 trustee. This effort is couched as appropriate and necessary to protect the estate and its creditors from a chapter 11 trustee that the Debtor contends is influenced and/or controlled by anti-Debtor entities and/or persons. Accordingly, Z&Z, on behalf of the Debtor, is conceptually advocating a position on behalf of the chapter 11 estate for the purported benefit of the chapter 11 estate. By acting as if it represents the chapter 11 estate, Z&Z may subject itself to the obligations of Section 327(a). While Section 327(a) does not apply to Z&Z to the extent that Z&Z represents the Debtor in his individual capacity as a debtor out of possession, the conduct of the Debtor and Z&Z could be interpreted to implicate Section 327(a).\n\nIf Z&Z is required to meet the standards of Section 327(a) because of its efforts to oppose the appointment of Trustee Despins, Z&Z will fail. Z&Z cannot meet the disinterested and lack of adverse representation requirements of Section 327(a). Z&Z cannot satisfy Section 327(a)\n\n<span id=\"page-11-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> The February 2022 Contempt Decision in the PAX Lawsuit begins with the statement that almost all of the 1,180 docket entries in the PAX Lawsuit involve the Debtor's \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members.\" *See* Exhibit C to the UST Examiner/Trustee Motion (ECF 102) at page 1. The NY Court went on to state that the Debtor had engaged in a \"scheme\" to \"assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle.\" *Id.* Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the UST Examiner/Trustee Motion. ECF 102.\n\nbecause of its current representation of insiders HKI (the purported owner of the Lady May) and Mei Guo (the Debtor's daughter who is the purported owner of HKI). *See* 11 U.S.C. § 101(31)(A); *see* February 9, 2022 decision in PAX Lawsuit. As alleged by PAX, the Committee, and other creditors, in their briefs and evidence submitted to the Court in connection with the motions that culminated in the Trustee Order, both HKI and Ms. Guo are plainly and uncontrovertibly adverse to the chapter 11 estate as they are expected to be targets of claims by Trustee Despins that they are holding and/or controlling potential property of the chapter 11 estate, including but not limited to the yacht known as the Lady May. ECF 408, 412, 418, and 421.\n\n### **C. Z&Z's Obligations under Section 329 and Rule 2016(b).**\n\nPursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 329 and Rules 2106(b) and 2017 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Court may review and determine the reasonable value of the services rendered by an attorney representing a debtor under Title 11. Section 329 of the Bankruptcy Code provides the following:\n\n> (a) Any attorney representing a debtor in a case under this title, or in connection with such a case, whether or not such attorney applies for compensation under this title, shall file with the court a statement of the compensation paid or agreed to be paid, if such payment or agreement was made after one year before the date of the filing of the petition, for services rendered or to be rendered in contemplation of or in connection with the case by such attorney, and the source of such compensation.\n\n> (b) If such compensation exceeds the reasonable value of any such services, the court may cancel any such agreement, or order the return of any such payment, to the extent excessive, to—\n\n(1) the estate, if the property transferred—\n\n(A) would have been property of the estate; or\n\n(B) was to be paid by or on behalf of the debtor under a plan under\n\nchapter 11, 12, or 13 of this title; or\n\n(2) the entity that made such payment.\n\n11 U.S.C. §329. Rule 2016(b) requires that \"[e]very attorney for a debtor, whether or not the attorney applies for compensation, shall file … the statement required by § 329.\" Fed. R. Bankr. 2016(b). Thus, pursuant to Section 329 and Rule 2016(b), attorneys who represent debtors must disclose their compensation and the Court has authority to determine the reasonableness of compensation paid to a debtor's attorney for representing the debtor in connection with a bankruptcy case. In addition, Rule 2017 authorizes the court to analyze and determine whether any payment made to a debtor's attorney is excessive, whether such agreement is made before or after the order for relief, so long as the services are \"in any way related to the case.\" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2017. The burden of proof on the reasonableness of the legal fees charged rests with the debtor's attorney. *See Hensley v. Eckerhart*, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983).\n\nHaving filed appearances as counsel for the Debtor, Z&Z must disclose the compensation it receives in connection with representing the Debtor, as well as the source(s) of that compensation. As acknowledged at the July 21, 2022 by Attorney Eric Henzy, Z&Z will disclose its compensation received in connection with representing the Debtor. The first such disclosure is due by July 28, 2022 per Rule 2016(b).\n\n### **D. Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.**\n\nZ&Z has filed appearances as counsel to multiple parties in this chapter 11 case: the Debtor, HKI, and Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter. This means that Z&Z must meet its obligations under Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct which addresses conflicts of interest with current clients. Rule 1.7 provides as follows:\n\nRule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. (b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under subsection (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or the same proceeding before any tribunal; and (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.\n\nConn. Rules of Prof'l Conduct at Rule 1.7. In Connecticut, \"[o]ur Supreme Court has explained that a conflict of interest is 'that which impedes [counsel's] paramount duty of loyalty to his client [such that] an attorney may be considered to be laboring under an impaired duty of loyalty, and thereby be subject to conflicting interests, because of interests or factors personal to him that are inconsistent, diverse or otherwise discordant with [the interests] of his client ...'\" *State v. Thompson,* 118 Conn. App. 140, 148, 983 A.2d 20 (2009) (*internal quotation marks omitted*), *cert. denied*, 294 Conn. 932, 986 A.2d 1057 (2010) (citing *State v. Crespo,* 246 Conn. 665, 718 A.2d 925 (1998), *cert. denied*, 525 U.S. 1125, 119 S.Ct. 911 (1999)).\n\n\"It is beyond dispute that courts [have] the authority to regulate the conduct of attorneys and [have] a duty to enforce the standards of conduct regarding attorneys.\" *Miller v. Appellate Court,* 320 Conn. 759, 771, 136 A.3d 1198 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). Disqualification under Rule 1.7(a)(1) requires evidence that the interests between clients are \"directly adverse to each other.\" *Papageorge v. Kryzanski*, 2021 WL 2593867, \\*3 (Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, June 4, 2021, Jacobs, J.) (*internal quotation and citation omitted*). To find disqualification under Rule 1.7(a)(2), there must be evidence that the attorney's representation of one client is materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third party, or the personal interest of the lawyer. *See Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Zelotes,* 152 Conn. App. 380, 98 A.3d 852, *cert. denied*, *Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Zelotes,* 314 Conn. 944, 102 A.3d 1116 (2014).\n\nConsideration of the intersection of Section 327(a) and the obligations of attorneys under the rules of professional conduct is also important. As noted by one court: \"[c]onflicts rules do not apply only when application of the rules will not inconvenience the party seeking to retain conflicted counsel.\" *In re Project Orange Associates, LLC*, 431 B.R. 363, 379 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). Moreover, what may be ethically permissible under rules of professional conduct does not necessarily \"pass muster under section 327\" and the provisions of Section 327(a) \"do not allow for waiver\" of a conflict. *In re Granite Partners, L.P.*, 219 B.R. at 34 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Simply put, Section 327(a) controls. *Id.*\n\nA conflict of interest between the Debtor, on one hand, and HKI and Ms. Guo, on the other, certainly existed as of the beginning of this chapter 11 case based on the HKI Adversary. It may be that with the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee, the Debtor, HKI and Ms. Guo are all united now in their goal of preventing the chapter 11 estate from recovering the yacht Lady May and possibly other assets. The United States Trustee is not privy to what Z&Z, the Debtor, HKI and Ms. Guo have discussed regarding Z&Z's obligations under Rule 1.7, and whether there is an understanding or a consensus among them. Further, the United States Trustee is not privy to the scope and breadth of any conflict waivers that the Debtor, HKI and Ms. Guo may have signed and consented to.\n\nWith respect to the Debtor's role in adversary proceedings that do not involve the estate taking an affirmative position, such as the numerous adversaries brought against the Debtor under Section 523 for non-dischargeability of debt, it is up to the Debtor to decide and to fund\n\nwith non-estate funds, his representation by Z&Z. [4](#page-16-0) Section 523 actions do not involve a chapter 11 trustee because \"a trustee does not have standing to file a complaint to determine dischargeability in the case in which the trustee serves.\" *Cundiff v. Cundiff (In re Cundiff)*, 227 B.R. 476, 478 (6th Cir. BAP 1998) *(citing Houghton v. Hovatter (In re Martin)*, 64 B.R. 638, 639 (Bankr. D.Del.1986)).[5](#page-16-1)\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nThis chapter 11 case is far from ordinary. Faced with a \\$134 million contempt fine, the Debtor filed chapter 11 and claimed to have virtually no assets and no regular income, yet lives in lavish settings in both Connecticut and New York City allegedly funded by benevolent family members, the \"family office\" of Golden Spring New York Ltd., and/or entities controlled by family members or the Debtor himself. Unsatisfied with the course of the chapter 11 case, the Debtor argued for dismissal, lost and now wishes to use his family's bankruptcy lawyers to represent him in lieu of Brown Rudnick (to which the Debtor paid a \\$1 million retainer prepetition). Despite his alleged minimal assets and lack of income, the Debtor is now vigorously picking a fight over Trustee Despins serving as the chapter 11 trustee and burdening not only Trustee Despins and PH, but also PAX, with invasive discovery. The obvious inference to be drawn is that the Debtor opposes the very concept of a chapter 11 trustee, despite proclaiming the opposite to the Court. Using Z&Z to wage this battle and to argue that the estate will be harmed by allowing Trustee Despins to continue as chapter 11 trustee, and all the while Z&Z continues to represent HKI and Ms. Guo, the Debtor's daughter, rings hollow. And,\n\n<span id=\"page-16-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> This begs the question of whether the Debtor is using, or will use, monies that are alleged to be property of the estate. This issue is ripe for investigation by Trustee Despins.\n\n<span id=\"page-16-1\"></span><sup>5</sup> A chapter 11 trustee, not the debtor, is the appropriate party to bring adversary proceedings, or otherwise assert and pursue claims on an estate's behalf*. Rooney v. Thorson (In re Dawnwood Properties/78)*, 209 F.3d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 2000). A debtor may, however, take steps to protect claimed exemptions. *In re Taub*, 439 B.R. at 272. The United States Trustee notes that the Debtor has not claimed any exemptions on Schedule C. ECF 79 at page 8 of 73.\n\nunfortunately, such battles will heighten the creditors' concerns about the future path of this case\n\nand the Debtor's self-created disputes to come.\n\nDated: July 27, 2022 Respectfully submitted,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2\n\n> By: /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 [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)\n\nDavid 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\n\n[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)\n\nAvram 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) Kristin 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 [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":"案号 22-50073 文书 616 提交日期 07/27/22 登记日期 07/27/22 09:34:32 第 1 页，共 24 页\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分庭\n\n又名 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵）又名 MILES GUO（郭文贵），\n\n关于                                             第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）                         案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。                                         参见 ECF 596\n美国受托人关于 11 U.S.C. § 327 是否适用于债务人聘用 ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. 律师事务所律师，以及 ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. 律师事务所遵守 11 U.S.C. § 329、FED. R. BANKR. P. 2016 及其他规则之义务的法律备忘录\n\n第 2 区美国受托人 William K. Harrington（以下简称“美国受托人”）就法院于 2022 年 7 月 21 日举行听证会后作出的 2022 年 7 月 22 日命令（ECF 596）（以下简称“7 月 22 日命令”）提交本法律备忘录。\n\n初步陈述\n\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院（以下简称“破产法院”）要求美国受托人就以下问题表明立场：鉴于 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（以下简称“Z&Z”）的数名律师近期以第 11 章债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），又名 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）、又名 Miles Guo（郭文贵）、又名 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”和/或“Kwok”）的代理律师身份出庭，Z&Z 是否“必须遵守 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 的规定”[1]，以及“Z&Z 代理 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（以下简称“HKI”）、Mei Guo（郭美）及债务人参与债务人第 11 章案件和对抗程序，是否存在利益冲突”。ECF 596。\n\n1 债务人还以多个其他别名为人所知。\n\n在未获益于聘用申请的情况下——无论是否需要该申请——难以就 Z&Z 是否必须根据 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 提交聘用申请发表意见；目前，美国受托人只能推测其服务范围及其服务报酬的支付来源。仅根据其迄今提交的诉状，Z&Z 代表债务人，似乎正试图就案件管理代表财产利益，或者可以说正试图妨碍由获任命的第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯，以下简称“Despins 受托人”）进行的破产财产管理。\n\n“就[第] 327(a) 条而言，‘专业人员’仅限于在债务人程序管理中发挥核心作用的职业人员。”Matter of Seatrains Lines, Inc., 13 B.R. 980, 981 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1981)。聘用律师、会计师、评估师、拍卖师以及其他与债务人破产财产管理密切相关职业的人员，须经法院批准。同上。\n\n因此，由于 Z&Z 声称代表债务人所代表的破产财产利益，其聘用似乎须依 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 获得批准。一旦 Despins 受托人的任命获得批准，占有中债务人即将债务人破产财产的控制权让与 Despins 受托人，债务人不再有权代表破产财产利益，亦无权使用破产财产资金支付专业人员费用，以就程序管理代表破产财产。因此，债务人不再具有代表破产财产提出问题的资格或权限。\n\n另一方面，若 Z&Z 仅代理债务人的个人利益，则可主张此类聘用属于债务人个人业务的通常过程，无需破产法院批准。聘请律师代理债务人的个人利益，不得涉及使用破产财产资源向律师支付报酬，通常包括聘请律师就刑事事项、其免责事宜，或其他仅属于债务人本人而非破产财产的利益代理债务人。然而，如下文所述，债务人目前正通过 Z&Z 对 Despins 受托人任命的有效性提出异议，并试图就债务人破产财产控制权问题重新进行诉讼，该问题是破产财产管理的核心问题。债务人通过 Z&Z 提交了一项动议，请求根据 Rule 60b/9024 免除批准 Despins 受托人任命之命令的效力（以下简称“撤销动议”）。ECF 561。采取该立场时，债务人及其律师 Z&Z 声称仿佛债务人仍处于占有中，试图阻止 Despins 受托人履职并履行其对破产财产的义务，并寻求延缓对债务人事务的调查。由于债务人已不再占有破产财产，债务人不具有代表破产财产利益主张这些立场的资格或权限。然而，若授权 Z&Z 推进这些问题，则这些问题是债务人破产财产管理的核心，因而 Z&Z 须遵守 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 规定的义务。虽然在 Z&Z 以非占有中债务人的个人身份代理债务人的范围内，11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 不适用于 Z&Z，但 Z&Z 受聘并非为保护债务人的个人利益，而是为总体推进破产财产的利益。\n\n若 Z&Z 受 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 要求的约束，则因其同时代理法定内部人 Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC（以下简称“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），Z&Z 无法满足 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 的要求。HKI 和 Guo 女士显然且无可争议地与第 11 章破产财产利益相冲突，因为二者均为以下权利主张的对象：其持有和/或控制第 11 章破产财产的潜在财产。Z&Z 同时代理债务人、HKI 和 Guo 女士，触及职业行为规则 Rule 1.7，因为尽管当下看似协调一致，客户之间仍存在利益对立。\n\n事实\n\n1. 债务人于 February 15, 2022 自愿提交第 11 章破产申请（以下简称“申请”）。ECF 1。\n\n2. 债务人聘请 Brown Rudnick LLP（以下简称“Brown Rudnick”）律师事务所担任其第 11 章代理律师。ECF 293。\n\n3. 于 June 15, 2022，法院批准美国受托人提出的动议，请求作出命令指示任命审查员，或作为替代任命一名第 11 章受托人（以下简称“美国受托人审查员/受托人动议”，ECF 102），并作出命令，指示美国受托人在债务人破产案件中任命一 (1) 名无利害关系受托人（以下简称“受托人命令”）。ECF 465。\n\n4. 美国受托人任命 Paul Hastings LLP（以下简称“PH”）的 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）担任第 11 章受托人。\n\n5. 于 July 7, 2022，美国受托人提交了关于任命 Luc A. Despins 为第 11 章受托人的任命通知（ECF 514），以及根据 11 U.S.C. §1104(d) 批准任命 Luc A. Despins 的申请（ECF 515）（以下简称“申请”）。Luc A. Despins 的无利害关系声明作为申请的一部分提交（以下简称“原声明”）。法院将该申请排期于 July 8, 2022 举行听证会（以下简称“7 月 8 日听证会”）。ECF 517。\n\n6. 在 7 月 8 日听证会上，Despins 律师在庭审记录中宣布他将提交补充披露，并说明了额外披露的性质。Brown Rudnick 代表债务人、无担保债权人官方委员会（以下简称“委员会”）、债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（以下简称“PAX”）及若干其他债权人均出席了听证会，且没有任何一方以 Despins 律师不具备服务能力或不具备无利害关系资格为由反对任命其。有人对 PH 提出了一些关切，但无人对 Despins 律师担任第 11 章受托人提出异议。此后，法院批准该申请，并批准任命 Despins 律师为第 11 章受托人（以下简称“批准受托人命令”）。ECF 523。\n\n7. 于 July 11, 2022，Aaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）律师提交了作为债务人代理律师的出庭通知，并提交了一封反对任命 Despins 律师的信函（以下简称“Mitchell 信函异议”）；其中包括但不限于要求提供有关美国受托人第 11 章受托人遴选程序的信息。ECF 530 和 531。\n\n8. 于 July 12, 2022，Despins 受托人提交补充披露，说明其本人此前未代理任何与 PAX 有关联的实体，且 PH 此前曾代理若干与 PAX 具有相同母公司的实体（以下简称“7 月 12 日补充披露”）。ECF 538。7 月 12 日补充披露与 7 月 8 日听证会上的披露一致。\n\n9. 同于 July 12, 2022，Despins 受托人提交了聘用 PH 担任其第 11 章受托人代理律师的申请（以下简称“PH 聘用申请”），以及一项请求就 PH 聘用申请举行加急听证会的动议。ECF 539 和 541。\n\n10. 根据 11 U.S.C. § 323 和 11 U.S.C. § 1101(1)，由于于 June 8, 2022 作出的批准 Despins 受托人任命的批准受托人命令，债务人成为“非占有中”债务人。ECF 523。\n\n11. 于 July 15, 2022，债务人通过 Z&Z 根据 Rule 60b/Rule 9024 提交撤销动议，请求撤销对 Despins 律师担任第 11 章受托人的任命。ECF 561。撤销动议主张，7 月 12 日补充披露提供了新证据，并声称 PH 与中华人民共和国（以下简称“中国”）、中国共产党（以下简称“中共”）及“其国有和受控制实体”有重大关系。撤销动议第 ¶ 2 段。此外，债务人主张，这证明 Despins 受托人并非无利害关系人，不能担任第 11 章受托人。撤销动议第 ¶ 37 段。\n\n12. 于 July 14, 2022，Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（以下简称“Z&Z”）律师事务所的四 (4) 名律师以债务人代理律师身份提交出庭通知，即 Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐）、Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞斯）、Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼）和 John Cesaroni（约翰·塞萨罗尼）。ECF 550、551、552 和 553。于 July 20, 2022，Z&Z 的 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）也已作为债务人的代理律师出庭。ECF 574。\n\n13. 自 April 2022 起，Z&Z 的律师便参与本案，当时 Stephen Kindseth 和 Aaron Romney 以 HKI（据称为游艇 Lady May 的所有人）及 Mei Guo（郭美）（债务人的女儿，据称为 HKI 的所有人）的代理律师身份提交出庭通知。ECF 201、202、339 和 340。Z&Z 的 John Cesaroni 也已作为 Guo 女士的代理律师出庭。ECF 341。\n\n14. 此外，于 April 11, 2022，Z&Z 的 Romney 律师代表 HKI 对债务人及 PAX 提起对抗程序，请求作出确认判决，确认游艇 Lady May 不属于 Section 541 规定的破产财产。参见 Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC v. Kwok and Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P., Adv. Proc. No. 22-5003（以下简称“HKI 对抗程序”）。\n\n15. 截至目前，Z&Z 尚未按 Section 329 和 Rule 2016(b) 的要求，提交与其代理债务人有关的任何报酬披露。在 July 21, 2022 的听证会上，Z&Z 的 Eric Henzy 律师针对美国受托人律师和法院的意见，确认其有义务遵守 Section 329 和 Rule 2016(b)。Henzy 律师告知法院，Z&Z 将在 Rule 2016(b) 规定的十四 (14) 日内按要求完成该事项（该日期为 July 28, 2022）。\n\n16. 于 July 22, 2022，Z&Z 律师就 Despins 受托人、PH、PAX 及与 PAX 有关联的实体的信息和文件发出了请求/传票。尽管法院在 July 21, 2022 的听证会上告知 Z&Z 律师，现阶段不宜进行与撤销动议有关的证据开示，Z&Z 律师仍提出这些证据开示请求。Z&Z 的证据开示请求如下：\n\n- a. Z&Z 向受托人 Despins（德斯平斯）发出函件，要求进一步提供关于 PH 及受托人 Despins 与 UBS（瑞银集团）及 UBS 关联方之间关系的信息；\n- b. Z&Z 向 PH 送达了文件传票，要求提供以下信息和文件：(i) 关于受托人遴选程序，特别是就 Mitchell Letter Objection（米切尔函件异议）进行后续追问；(ii) 关于 PH 在中国的属于“State Owned Entities（国有实体）”或“CCP Officials（中国共产党官员）”的客户身份，以及从该等客户获得的报酬；(iii) 关于 PH 与 UBS 及 UBS 关联方之间的关系；(iv) 关于由 PH 代理的 PAG entities（太盟投资集团实体）以及 PH 从该等实体获得的报酬；(v) 关于 PH 允许其在北京、香港和上海运营办公室的执照、证书或其他授权；(vi) 关于 PH 从其在中国和香港的所有办公室获得的收入；以及 (vii) 关于\n\n受托人 Despins 和/或 PH 与任何其他人就以下事项进行的通信：“(a) 债务人与中国政府或中国共产党的对立利益，或 (b) 该等对立利益是否以任何方式影响 Despins 或 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）是否为无利害关系人士的问题；”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 为“any PAG Entity（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\n17. 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 履行其职责，并为撤销动议中提出的理论寻找支持。\n\n法律标准\n\nA. 对 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 的一般讨论。\n\n受托人或占有中债务人的律师在第 11 章程序的管理中发挥着密切而核心的作用。Matter of Seatrain Lines, Inc., 13 B.R. at 981。正因如此，且由于对债务人及破产财产负有相应的信义义务，占有中债务人的律师必须符合 11 U.S.C. § 327(a)。第 327(a) 条要求专业人士为受占有中债务人或受托人聘用以代表破产财产，必须满足以下条件：\n\n除本条另有规定外，受托人经法院批准，可以聘用一名或多名律师……，该等律师不得持有或代表与破产财产相对立的利益，且必须是无利害关系人士，以代表或协助受托人履行其根据本法典承担的职责。\n\n11 U.S.C. § 327(a)（强调系后加）。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9001 对《破产法典》和《联邦破产程序规则》中使用的某些术语作出定义，规则 9001 第 (11) 款规定，“受托人”一词“包括第 11 章案件中的占有中债务人。”Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9001(11)。“尽管 § 327 仅提及受托人聘用专业人士，但根据法典 § 1107，该条适用于占有中债务人。第 1107(a) 条的相关部分规定，‘占有中债务人应享有除本法典第 330 条规定的报酬权以外的所有权利和权力，并应履行……本章案件中受托人的所有职能和职责。11 U.S.C. § 1107(a)。’”In re Land, 116 B.R. 798, fn. 3 (D. Colo. 1990), aff'd and remanded, 943 F.2d 1265 (10th Cir. 1991)。\n\n根据第 327(a) 条，聘用律师代表债务人破产财产有两项基本要求：(1) 律师不得“持有或代表与破产财产相对立的利益”，以及 (2) 律师必须是“无利害关系人士。”11 U.S.C. § 327(a); Vouzianas v. Ready & Pontisakos (In re Vouzianas), 259 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 2001)。第二巡回法院将“相对立利益”界定如下：\n\n(1) 持有或主张任何可能降低破产财产价值，或可能产生破产财产作为相对请求人的实际或潜在争议的经济利益；或 (2) 在使该等对破产财产的偏见得以成立的情形下，持有一种倾向性立场。\n\nIn re Arochem Corp., 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2d Cir. 1999)。“对相对立利益的认定是客观的，并关注不当行为的表象。”In re Angelika Films 57th Inc., 227 B.R. 29, 38 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998)。“§ 327 所涉及的导致丧失资格的相对立利益……要么是实际的利益冲突，要么是有合理可能性的利益冲突。”In re AroChem, 181 B.R. 693, 700 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1995) (Shiff, J.), aff'd, In re AroChem Corp., 176 F.3d 610 (2nd Cir. 1999)。“是否存在相对立利益，最好根据个案逐一认定。”In re Arochem Corp., 176 F.3d at 623 (citations omitted)。第 327(a) 条的标准“以现在时表述，允许由‘不持有或代表与破产财产相对立利益’的专业人士进行代理。”Id.（原文强调）。[2]\n\n《破产法典》将“无利害关系人士”定义为“不是债权人、股权证券持有人或内部人士”的人，且该人“不会因与债务人的任何间接或直接关系、联系或利益……而对破产财产或任何类别债权人的利益具有重大不利利益……”11 U.S.C. § 101(14)(A) and (E)。“无利害关系审查中纳入的‘重大不利’标准与第 327(a) 条中的‘与破产财产相对立的利益’表述相互重叠。在此范围内，第 327(a) 条的两个要件具有重复性，并构成评判利益冲突的单一标准。”In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. 22, 33 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also JMK Construction Group, Ltd., 441 B.R. 222, 229 (Bankr. S.D.NY. 2010)。“第 327(a) 条的强制性规定不允许放弃。”In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. 22, 34 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) (citations omitted)。\n\nB. 11 U.S.C. § 327 适用于占有中债务人以及作为破产财产法定代表人的受托人。\n\n根据 11 U.S.C. § 323(a)，第 11 章受托人是第 11 章破产财产的唯一法定代表人，并取代第 11 章债务人。In re Taub, 439 B.R. 261, 272 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2010)。在此情形下，第 327(a) 条仅授权受托人聘用律师：“非占有中第 11 章债务人无权根据 § 327 聘用律师等专业人士。该授权专属于破产财产受托人。见 11 U.S.C. §§ 327;\n\n1101(1); 1107(a)。”In re TAJ Graphics Enterprises, LLC, 549 B.R. 825, 828 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.\n\n2016)。最高法院在 Lamie v. United States Trustee（Lamie 诉美国受托人）一案中的意见支持此结论，该院认定，在债务人作为占有中债务人的地位终止后，债务人律师根据 § 327 作为占有中债务人律师的地位亦告终止。Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 532 (2004)（鉴于案件从第 11 章转换为第 7 章并任命了第 7 章受托人，该事件“终止了[债务人]作为占有中债务人的地位，并因此终止了[律师]根据 § 327 作为占有中债务人律师提供的服务”）；see also Harrington v. Nickless (In re Int'l Gospel Party Boosting Jesus Grps., Inc.), 487 B.R. 12, 15 (D. Mass. 2013)（将 Lamie 适用于第 11 章案件）。破产法院一贯遵循 Lamie，认定第 327(a) 条不适用于非占有中债务人。See, e.g., In re Bresnick, 406 B.R. 582, 585 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009), aff'd Morrison v. United States Trustee, 2010 WL 2653394 (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010); In re TAJ Graphics Enterprises, LLC, 549 B.R. at 828; In re Meill, 2009 WL 2253256, *2 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa July 27, 2009)。\n\n由于非占有中债务人聘用律师无须遵守第 327(a) 条，因此，非占有中债务人的律师报酬亦不受 11 U.S.C. § 330 和 Fed. R. Bank. P. 2016 规管，因而不得从破产财产中支付。Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (2004)（要求根据第 327 条由破产财产聘用，作为从破产财产获得报酬的先决条件）；see, e.g., Morrison v. United States Trustee, 2010 WL 2653394 (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010)（适用 Lamie，债务人律师无权因在任命第 11 章受托人后代理非占有中债务人而从破产财产获得费用）；In re NRG Resources, Inc., 64 B.R. 643 (W.D. La. 1986)\n\n（债务人律师无权因代理非占有中债务人而从破产财产获得费用）。\n\nB. 如果第 327(a) 条适用，Z&Z 无法满足该条要求。\n\n债务人通过 Z&Z 正积极反对并质疑受托人 Despins 的任命。如其成功，第 11 章破产财产将在一段时间内没有受托人，这将延误对债务人事务的适当调查，以及为设法追回目前由债务人家人控制的潜在破产财产资产而必然采取的行动。[3]\n\nZ&Z 的撤销动议依据 Rule 60b/9024，请求撤销批准任命受托人 Despins 的命令，理由是受托人 Despins 并非无利害关系人士，不能担任第 11 章受托人。该努力被表述为适当且必要，旨在保护破产财产及其债权人免受债务人主张受反债务人实体和/或人士影响和/或控制的第 11 章受托人的损害。因此，Z&Z 代表债务人，在概念上是在代表第 11 章破产财产主张立场，以谋求第 11 章破产财产的所谓利益。Z&Z 通过采取仿佛其代表第 11 章破产财产的行动，可能使自身受第 327(a) 条规定的义务约束。尽管在 Z&Z 作为非占有中债务人的个人代理人代表债务人时，第 327(a) 条不适用于 Z&Z，但债务人和 Z&Z 的行为可被解释为涉及第 327(a) 条。\n\n如果 Z&Z 因其反对任命受托人 Despins 的努力而被要求满足第 327(a) 条的标准，Z&Z 将无法满足。Z&Z 无法满足第 327(a) 条关于无利害关系和不存在不利代理的要求。Z&Z 无法满足第 327(a) 条。\n\n3 PAX 诉讼中的 2022 年 2 月藐视法庭裁决，开篇即称，PAX 诉讼中 1,180 项案卷记录中的几乎全部均涉及债务人“通过将其大量个人资产停放在一系列公司、受信任的知己及家庭成员名下，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的努力”。见 UST 审查员/受托人动议（ECF 102）附件 C，第 1 页。纽约法院继而称，债务人实施了一项“计划”，以“声称自己没有资产，尽管其生活奢靡”。同上。本文所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\n鉴于其目前代理内部人 HKI（据称为 Lady May 的所有人）及 Mei Guo（郭梅，债务人的女儿，据称为 HKI 的所有人）。见 11 U.S.C. § 101(31)(A)；PAX 诉讼中 2022 年 2 月 9 日的裁决。如 PAX、委员会及其他债权人在其就最终促成受托人命令的动议向法院提交的书状和证据中所主张，HKI 和 Guo 女士均显然且无可争议地与第 11 章财产相对立，因为预期其将成为 Despins 受托人提出索赔的对象，该等索赔主张其持有和/或控制第 11 章财产的潜在财产，包括但不限于名为 Lady May 的游艇。ECF 408、412、418 和 421。\n\nC. Z&Z 在第 329 条及规则 2016(b)下的义务。\n\n根据 11 U.S.C. § 329 及《联邦破产程序规则》第 2016(b) 条和第 2017 条，法院可以审查并确定根据 Title 11 代理债务人的律师所提供服务的合理价值。《破产法》第 329 条规定如下：\n\n(a) 在依本编审理的案件中或与该等案件相关地代理债务人的任何律师，无论该律师是否依本编申请报酬，如该等付款或协议是在提交申请书之日前一年内作出，则应向法院提交一份声明，说明就该律师为预期该案件或与该案件相关而已经提供或将要提供的服务，已支付或约定支付的报酬，以及该等报酬的来源。\n\n(b) 如该等报酬超过任何该等服务的合理价值，法院可取消任何该等协议，或命令返还任何该等付款中超额的部分，返还给——\n\n(1) 财产，如已转让的财产——\n\n(A) 本应属于财产；或\n\n(B) 应根据本编第 11、12 或 13 章下的计划由债务人或代表债务人支付；或\n\n(2) 作出该等付款的实体。\n\n11 U.S.C. §329。规则 2016(b) 要求，“[每]一名债务人律师，无论该律师是否申请报酬，均应提交……§ 329 所要求的声明。”Fed. R. Bankr. 2016(b)。因此，根据第 329 条和规则 2016(b)，代理债务人的律师必须披露其报酬，而法院有权确定就律师在破产案件中代理债务人而向其支付的报酬是否合理。此外，规则 2017 授权法院分析并确定向债务人律师作出的任何付款是否过高，无论该等协议是在救济命令之前还是之后作出，只要服务“以任何方式与该案件相关”。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2017。关于所收取律师费合理性的举证责任由债务人的律师承担。见 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983)。\n\nZ&Z 已作为债务人的律师提交出庭代理文件，因此必须披露其因代理债务人所收取的报酬以及该等报酬的来源。正如 Eric Henzy 律师（埃里克·亨齐）于 2022 年 7 月 21 日所确认，Z&Z 将披露其因代理债务人所收取的报酬。根据规则 2016(b)，首份该等披露应于 2022 年 7 月 28 日到期。\n\nD. 《职业行为规则》第 1.7 条。\n\nZ&Z 已作为本第 11 章案件中多方当事人的律师提交出庭代理文件：债务人、HKI，以及债务人的女儿 Mei Guo（郭梅）。这意味着 Z&Z 必须履行《职业行为规则》第 1.7 条项下的义务，该条涉及与现有客户之间的利益冲突。规则 1.7 规定如下：\n\n规则 1.7。利益冲突：现有客户。(a) 除第 (b) 款另有规定外，如代理涉及同时存在的利益冲突，律师不得代理客户。存在同时利益冲突的情形包括：(1) 对一名客户的代理将与另一名客户直接相对立；或 (2) 律师对另一名客户、前客户或第三人的责任，或律师的个人利益，存在重大风险将实质性限制其对一名或多名客户的代理。(b) 尽管根据第 (a) 款存在同时利益冲突，律师仍可代理客户，条件是：(1) 律师合理相信其能够向每一受影响客户提供胜任且勤勉的代理；(2) 该代理未被法律禁止；(3) 该代理不涉及一名客户在同一诉讼或同一审裁机构的同一程序中对由该律师代理的另一名客户提出请求；以及 (4) 每一受影响客户均作出经书面确认的知情同意。\n\nConn. Rules of Prof'l Conduct at Rule 1.7。在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州），“[我们的]最高法院已经解释，利益冲突是‘妨碍[律师]对其客户至高无上的忠实义务的事由[，以致于]律师可能因其个人利益或因素与其客户的[利益]不一致、多样或以其他方式不协调，而被认为是在忠实义务受损的状态下工作，并因此受到相互冲突利益的影响……’”State v. Thompson, 118 Conn. App. 140, 148, 983 A.2d 20 (2009)（省略内部引号），cert. denied, 294 Conn. 932, 986 A.2d 1057 (2010)（引述 State v. Crespo, 246 Conn. 665, 718 A.2d 925 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1125, 119 S.Ct. 911 (1999)）。\n\n“法院有权规范律师行为，并有义务执行有关律师行为的行为标准，这一点毋庸置疑。”Miller v. Appellate Court, 320 Conn. 759, 771, 136 A.3d 1198 (2016)（省略内部引号）。根据规则 1.7(a)(1) 取消代理资格，须有证据表明客户之间的利益“彼此直接相对立”。Papageorge v. Kryzanski, 2021 WL 2593867, \\*3 (Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, June 4, 2021, Jacobs, J.)（省略内部引文及引证）。要根据规则 1.7(a)(2) 认定取消代理资格，必须有证据表明，律师对一名客户的代理受到该律师对另一名客户、前客户、第三方的责任或律师个人利益的实质性限制。见 Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Zelotes, 152 Conn. App. 380, 98 A.3d 852, cert. denied, Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Zelotes, 314 Conn. 944, 102 A.3d 1116 (2014)。\n\n考虑第 327(a) 条与律师在职业行为规则下义务的交汇也很重要。如一法院所述：“[利]益冲突规则并非仅在适用该等规则不会给寻求聘用存在利益冲突律师的一方造成不便时才适用。”In re Project Orange Associates, LLC, 431 B.R. 363, 379 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)。此外，根据职业行为规则在伦理上可能被允许的事项，未必“符合第 327 条的要求”，且第 327(a) 条的规定“不允许放弃”利益冲突。In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. at 34（省略内部引文及引证）。简言之，第 327(a) 条具有控制力。同上。\n\n基于 HKI 对抗程序，在本第 11 章案件开始时，债务人与 HKI 及 Guo 女士之间显然存在利益冲突。随着第 11 章受托人的任命，债务人、HKI 和 Guo 女士现在可能都统一于防止第 11 章财产收回 Lady May 游艇及可能其他资产这一目标。美国受托人并不知悉 Z&Z、债务人、HKI 及 Guo 女士就 Z&Z 在规则 1.7 下义务所作的讨论，亦不知悉其之间是否存在理解或共识。此外，美国受托人并不知悉债务人、HKI 及 Guo 女士可能已签署并同意的任何利益冲突豁免的范围和广度。\n\n关于债务人在不涉及财产采取积极立场的对抗程序中的角色，例如根据第 523 条针对债务人提起的众多债务不可解除对抗程序，债务人应自行决定并以非财产资金支付 Z&Z 对其的代理费用。[4] 第 523 条诉讼不涉及第 11 章受托人，因为“受托人无资格在其担任受托人的案件中提起确定债务可解除性的申诉”。Cundiff v. Cundiff (In re Cundiff), 227 B.R. 476, 478 (6th Cir. BAP 1998)（引述 Houghton v. Hovatter (In re Martin), 64 B.R. 638, 639 (Bankr. D.Del.1986)）。[5]\n\n结论\n\n本第 11 章案件绝非寻常。面对 \\$134 million 的藐视法庭罚款，债务人申请第 11 章破产并声称自己几乎没有资产且没有固定收入，但却在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）和 New York City（纽约市）均过着奢靡生活，据称资金来自仁慈的家庭成员、Golden Spring New York Ltd.（金泉纽约有限公司）的“家族办公室”和/或由家庭成员或债务人本人控制的实体。债务人对第 11 章案件的进程不满，曾主张驳回案件，未获支持，现在希望使用其家族的破产律师代理其本人，以代替 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）（债务人在申请破产前向其支付了 \\$1 million 预付聘金）。尽管债务人声称资产极少且没有收入，其现在却积极就 Despins 受托人担任第 11 章受托人一事挑起争端，并以侵入性的证据开示增加 Despins 受托人和 PH 的负担，也增加 PAX 的负担。可以得出的明显推论是，债务人反对第 11 章受托人这一概念本身，尽管其向法院作出相反声明。债务人使用 Z&Z 发动这场争斗，并主张若允许 Despins 受托人继续担任第 11 章受托人将损害财产利益，而与此同时 Z&Z 继续代理 HKI 和债务人的女儿 Guo 女士，此种主张难以令人信服。而且，\n\n4 这引出了一个问题，即债务人是否正在使用或将使用被主张属于财产的款项。此问题已适合由 Despins 受托人调查。\n\n5 第 11 章受托人而非债务人，是提起对抗程序，或以其他方式代表财产主张和追究请求权的适格当事人。Rooney v. Thorson (In re Dawnwood Properties/78), 209 F.3d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 2000)。然而，债务人可以采取措施保护所主张的豁免权。In re Taub, 439 B.R. at 272。美国受托人指出，债务人并未在附表 C 中主张任何豁免权。ECF 79 at page 8 of 73。\n\n不幸的是，该等争斗将加剧债权人对本案未来走向\n\n以及债务人自行制造的未来争议的担忧。\n\n日期：2022 年 7 月 27 日  谨呈，\n\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州）New Haven（纽黑文）  WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON（威廉·K·哈林顿）\n美国受托人，第 2 区\n\n代表人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩）\n诉讼律师\n美国受托人办公室\nGiaimo Federal Building, Room 302\n150 Court Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\nHolley.L.Claiborn@usdoj.gov\nFederal Bar No.: ct17216 (Connecticut)\n(203) 773-2210\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人证明，前述文件已通过下述法院电子案件登记系统送达所有出庭当事人：\n\nLaura Aronsson（劳拉·阿伦松）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）[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（郭文贵）[wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com]\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga（威廉·R·巴尔迪加）代表债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[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\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴西特）代表受托人Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）[nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com]\n\nPatrick M. Birney（帕特里克·M·伯尼）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\nPatrick M. Birney代表被告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\nPatrick M. Birney代表原告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\nCarollynn H.G. Callari（卡罗琳·H.G.·卡拉里）代表20名最大债权人之一Rui Ma（马蕊）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari代表20名最大债权人之一Weican Meng（孟伟灿）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari代表债权人Zheng Wu（吴征）[ccallari@callaripartners.com]\n\nJohn L. Cesaroni（约翰·L·塞萨罗尼）代表债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\nJohn L. Cesaroni代表利害关系方Mei Guo（郭梅）[jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩）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Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）[lucdespins@paulhastings.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh（大卫·S·福什）代表20名最大债权人之一Rui Ma（马蕊）[dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh代表20名最大债权人之一Weican Meng（孟伟灿）[dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nDavid S. Forsh代表债权人Zheng Wu（吴征）[dforsh@callaripartners.com]\n\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）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）[pfriedman@omm.com]\n\nPeter Friedman代表被告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）[pfriedman@omm.com]\n\nPeter Friedman代表原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）[pfriedman@omm.com]\n\nIrve J. Goldman（欧文·J·戈德曼）代表债权人委员会Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）[igoldman@pullcom.com,] [rmccoy@pullcom.com]\n\nMia N. Gonzalez（米娅·N·冈萨雷斯）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）[mgonzalez@omm.com]\n\nJames C. Graham（詹姆斯·C·格雷厄姆）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\nJames 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\nDavid V. Harbach, II（大卫·V·哈巴赫二世）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）[dharbach@omm.com]\n\nEric A. Henzy（埃里克·A·亨齐）代表债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[ehenzy@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\nEric A. Henzy代表被告Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[ehenzy@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\nEric A. Henzy代表被告Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[ehenzy@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\nEric A. Henzy代表利害关系方HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）[ehenzy@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\nJeffrey L Jonas（杰弗里·L·乔纳斯）代表债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[jjonas@brownrudnick.com]\n\nJonathan Kaplan（乔纳森·卡普兰）代表债权人委员会Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）[jkaplan@pullcom.com,] [prulewicz@pullcom.com;rmccoy@pullcom.com]\n\nStephen M. Kindseth（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思）代表债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[skindseth@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\nStephen M. Kindseth代表利害关系方HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）[skindseth@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\nStephen M. Kindseth代表利害关系方Mei Guo（郭梅）[skindseth@zeislaw.com,] [cjervey@zeislaw.com]\n\nDylan Kletter（迪伦·克莱特）代表债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[dkletter@brownrudnick.com,] [adeering@brownrudnick.com;upinelo@brownrudnick.com;bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com;rsta] [rk@brownrudnick.com]\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）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\nPatrick 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\nAvram Emmanuel Luft（阿夫拉姆·伊曼纽尔·卢夫特）代表受托人Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）[aviluft@pauhastings.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew（克里斯廷·B·梅休）代表20名最大债权人之一Rui Ma（马蕊）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew代表20名最大债权人之一Weican Meng（孟伟灿）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew代表债权人Zheng Wu（吴征）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew代表原告Boxun Inc.（博讯公司）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew代表原告Rui Ma（马蕊）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew代表原告Weican (Watson) Meng（孟伟灿（沃森））[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew代表原告Yang Lan（杨澜）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nKristin B. Mayhew代表原告Zheng Wu（吴征）[kmayhew@mdmc-law.com,] [kwarshauer@mdmc-law.com;bdangelo@mdmc-law.com]\n\nTimothy D. Miltenberger（蒂莫西·D·米尔滕伯格）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\nAaron A Mitchell（亚伦·A·米切尔）代表债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[aaron@lmesq.com]\n\nJames M. Moriarty（詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂）代表债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[jmoriarty@zeislaw.com,] [kjoseph@zeislaw.com]\n\nJames M. Moriarty代表被告Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[jmoriarty@zeislaw.com,] [kjoseph@zeislaw.com]\n\nJames M. Moriarty代表被告Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[jmoriarty@zeislaw.com,] [kjoseph@zeislaw.com]\n\nSara Pahlavan（萨拉·帕拉万）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）[spahlavan@omm.com]\n\nLucas Bennett Rocklin（卢卡斯·贝内特·罗克林）代表受托人Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）[lrocklin@npmlaw.com,] [NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net]\n\nAaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼）代表债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[aromney@zeislaw.com,] [swenthen@zeislaw.com]\n\nAaron Romney代表被告Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[aromney@zeislaw.com,] [swenthen@zeislaw.com]\n\nAaron Romney代表被告Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[aromney@zeislaw.com,] [swenthen@zeislaw.com]\n\nAaron Romney代表利害关系方HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）[aromney@zeislaw.com,] [swenthen@zeislaw.com]\n\nAaron Romney代表利害关系方Mei Guo（郭梅）[aromney@zeislaw.com,] [swenthen@zeislaw.com]\n\nAaron Romney代表原告HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）[aromney@zeislaw.com,] [swenthen@zeislaw.com]\n\nScott D. Rosen（斯科特·D·罗森）代表利害关系方Golden Spring (New York) LTD（黄金泉（纽约）有限公司）[srosen@cb-shea.com,] [msullivan@cbshealaw.com;dtempera@cbshealaw.com]\n\nThomas J. Sansone（托马斯·J·桑索内）代表律师Michael S. Weinstein（迈克尔·S·温斯坦）[tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\nThomas J. Sansone代表债权人Chong Shen Raphanella（沈冲·拉法内拉）[tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\nThomas J. Sansone代表债权人Rong Zhang（张蓉）[tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\nThomas J. Sansone代表债权人Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）[tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\nThomas J. Sansone代表原告Chong Shen Raphanella（沈冲·拉法内拉）[tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\nThomas J. Sansone代表原告Rong Zhang（张蓉）[tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\nThomas J. Sansone代表原告Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）[tsansone@carmodylaw.com]\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫）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）[ssarnoff@omm.com,] [stuart-sarnoff-1059@ecf.pacerpro.com]\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff代表被告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（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\nStuart M. Sarnoff代表原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（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\nBennett Silverberg（贝内特·西尔弗伯格）代表债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com]\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）代表受托人Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）[dskalka@npmlaw.com,] [smowery@npmlaw.com;NeubertPepeMonteithPC@jubileebk.net]\n\nAnnecca H. Smith（安妮卡·H·史密斯）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）[asmith@rc.com]\n\nAnnecca H. Smith代表原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）[asmith@rc.com]\n\nMichael S. Weinstein（迈克尔·S·温斯坦）代表债权人Chong Shen Raphanella（沈冲·拉法内拉）[mweinstein@golenbock.com]\n\nMichael S. Weinstein代表债权人Rong Zhang（张蓉）[mweinstein@golenbock.com]\n\nMichael S. Weinstein代表债权人Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）[mweinstein@golenbock.com]\n\nJay Marshall Wolman（杰伊·马歇尔·沃尔曼）代表债权人Logan Cheng（程龙）[jmw@randazza.com,] [ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com]\n\nJay Marshall Wolman代表原告Logan Cheng（程龙）[jmw@randazza.com,] [ecf-6898@ecf.pacerpro.com]\n\nPeter J. Zarella（彼得·J·扎雷拉）代表20名最大债权人之一Rui Ma（马蕊）[pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\nPeter J. Zarella代表20名最大债权人之一Weican Meng（孟伟灿）[pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\nPeter J. Zarella代表债权人Zheng Wu（吴征）[pzarella@mdmc-law.com]\n\n签署人：/s/ Holley L. Claiborn Holley L. Claiborn","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Miles Guo","CCP","Chinese Communist Party","Paul Hastings","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":79,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":102,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":201,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":293,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":341,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":408,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":465,"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":550,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":561,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":574,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":596,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":6899,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-07-27 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-07-27","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:18:12"}