{"id":"court_ctb_618_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":618,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK<sup>1</sup>\n\nChapter 11 Case No.\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\nRe: ECF Nos. 539, 561\n\n### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S POSITION STATEMENT IN JOINT RESPONSE TO (I) DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER APPOINTING LUC A. DESPINS AS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, AND (II) APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 327, 328, AND 330 AND BANKRUPTCY RULES 2014 AND 2016, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING RETENTION AND EMPLOYMENT OF PAUL HASTINGS LLP AS COUNSEL TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), by and through its undersigned\n\ncounsel hereby responds to both (i) the Debtor's *Motion for Relief from Order Appointing Luc A.*\n\n*Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee* [ECF No. 561] (the \"Rule 60(b) Motion\"); and (ii) the\n\n*Application of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections*\n\n*327, 328, and 330 and Bankruptcy Rules 2014 and 2016, Authorizing and Approving Retention*\n\n*and Employment of Paul Hastings LLP as Counsel to Chapter 11 Trustee* [ECF No. 539] (the\n\n\"Paul Hastings Retention Application\"):\n\n# **I. INTRODUCTION**<sup>2</sup>\n\n1. When the Court ordered the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee, it expressed\n\noptimism that a trustee would level the playing field for the Debtor's many creditors, maximize\n\n<sup>1</sup> The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n<sup>2</sup> Unless otherwise stated all citations and quotations are omitted, and all emphasis is added. All exhibits cited herein are attached to the July 27, 2022 *Declaration of Peter Friedman in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Position Statement in Joint Response to (i) the Debtor's Motion for Relief from Order*\n\nthe assets of the estate, and lead to an expeditious and equitable distribution of the estate's assets. This Court made clear that its decision to appoint a trustee was based primarily on its assessment that doing so was in the best interests of creditors and the estate.<sup>3</sup> A strong and truly independent neutral could serve both to maximize assets and drive resolutions that might be acceptable to the stakeholders, such as a plan of reorganization. Any trustee and counsel appointment must be considered through the lens of these related goals. If issues surrounding current or proposed fiduciaries and professionals have the effect of distracting from or interfering with the overriding purpose of appointing a trustee, their engagements must be structured to redress those concerns. Failing that, the fiduciaries and professionals should not be approved and/or continue to serve in those roles.\n\n2. The United States Trustee (\"UST\") initially nominated Joe D. Whitley of Womble Bond Dickson LLP's (\"Womble\") as chapter 11 trustee. But this nomination was short-lived: The UST withdrew Mr. Whitley's nomination the morning of the hearing on his appointment on July 5, 2022, due to an apparent conflict (presumably representation of an interested party on unrelated matters).\n\n3. On July 8, 2022, the Court confirmed the appointment of Luc A. Despins of Paul Hastings LLP (\"Paul Hastings\"), noting that while no party had yet \"put forth any reason . . . as to why [Mr. Despins' appointment] should not occur,\" if the parties were to \"find some reason, then [the parties] have remedies under the bankruptcy code to address those reasons.\"<sup>4</sup> Mr. Despins subsequently moved to retain Paul Hastings as his counsel.<sup>5</sup> The proposed rates for Paul\n\n*Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee, and (ii) the Application of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 327, 328, and 330 and Bankruptcy Rules 2014 and 2016, Authorizing and Approving Retention and Employment of Paul Hastings LLP as Counsel to Chapter 11 Trustee* (\"Friedman Decl.\"). <sup>3</sup> *Memorandum of Decision and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice and Granting Joinder to*\n\n*Motion For Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee* at 13–16, ECF No. 465 (\"Trustee Order\").\n\n<sup>4</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, July 8, 2022 Hr'g Tr. at 13:1–4.\n\n<sup>5</sup> Paul Hastings Retention Application, ECF No. 539.\n\nHastings range from \\$1,310-\\$1,935 for partners, \\$1,335-\\$1,860 for Counsel, and \\$755-\\$1,230 for Associates.<sup>6</sup> As PAX explained at the Court's July 21, 2022 status conference, PAX had nothing to do with Mr. Despins' appointment; to the contrary, PAX actively endorsed other candidates for the position of trustee and, before Mr. Despins' selection, expressly communicated its strong preference for different trustee candidates to the UST.\n\n4. When Mr. Despins first disclosed his firm's representation of an affiliate of PAX, the largest creditor in this bankruptcy, at the July 8, 2022 trustee appointment hearing, it prompted a frenzy of false and inflammatory social media posts by the Debtor and, eventually, his Rule 60(b) Motion. Together, the social media posts (which, over the years, PAX has come to recognize as par for the course when the Debtor is gearing up for an extended litigation battle), the Debtor's arguments outlined in the Rule 60(b) Motion, and the statements made by Debtor's purported counsel from Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., at the July 21, 2022 status conference, send a clear and unmistakable message: The Debtor intends to fight tooth and nail, for as long as the legal process will allow, to disqualify Mr. Despins and Paul Hastings. All of this presages a protracted, expensive, and dilatory legal battle that threatens to (i) detract from all creditors' ability to recover from the estate, (ii) impose unnecessary transactional costs on the estate, (iii) unduly burden PAX, and (iv) perhaps incent the trustee to disfavor PAX to avoid further controversy. This distraction poses the real risk of creating a cloud of uncertainty regarding the finality of actions taken by the trustee and counsel and interfering with efforts to reach a negotiated resolution of the case.\n\n5. The Trustee's and Paul Hastings' proposed fee structure is also a significant concern under the somewhat unique circumstances of this case. While counsel no doubt is\n\n 6 *Id.* at ¶ 18.\n\nsophisticated and experienced, their rates are particularly expensive given the unusual facts of this case, where the Debtor asserts he has only \\$3,850 to his name. The only presently available assets are the Lady May yacht and the Sherry Netherland apartment—both of which PAX has spent years pursuing and bringing within reach, at great expense, which it has solely borne. Significant additional litigation time will need to be expended to recover any other assets, with the Debtor (and his extended family and related entities) no doubt battling all the way. A high rate structure runs the real risk of largely consuming any new value created. Worse still, it may absorb much of the value from the Lady May and the Sherry Netherland apartment. And, of course, the proposed rates are all the more problematic if extensive time has to be spent addressing Paul Hastings' and Mr. Despins' alleged conflict issues.\n\n6. Without endorsing the Debtor's conspiracy theories, PAX believes the Court should take into account and, to the extent necessary, redress and mitigate (i) the risks to the estate presented by the disputes over Mr. Despins' appointment and Paul Hasting's appointment, and (ii) Paul Hastings' proposed fee structure. First, the sideshow created by the disclosure of Paul Hastings' previous representations of PAX's affiliate has given the Debtor a platform from which to launch a slew of new accusations and motion practice. As the Debtor's own statements, the Rule 60(b) Motion, and the discovery recently served on PAX make clear, Mr. Despins' appointment will very likely become the focal point of this bankruptcy for the foreseeable future and, most importantly, will unnecessarily cost the creditors additional time and money. Second, as a matter of cost to the estate, the fees proposed by Mr. Despins and Paul Hastings are just too high—especially given the particular facts of this case and that Mr. Whitley and his firm were initially determined by the UST to be wholly qualified to perform the duties of chapter 11 trustee\n\nand at a fraction of the price. Third, care must be taken to make sure that the trustee does not disfavor PAX going forward, and the Court is the best shield to protect from this risk.\n\n7. PAX and the other creditors should not be subject to the practical and pecuniary consequences of litigation over Mr. Despins' appointment and Paul Hastings' retention. PAX is encouraged by the Court's comments at the July 21 status conference regarding strict limitations on discovery concerning the Debtors' motion and other litigation tactics that threaten to mushroom and impose significant costs. The estate should not bear the cost of resolving disputes over Paul Hastings' prior representations (including any appeals), which may be significant. PAX also believes that the Paul Hastings rate structure must be addressed in a way that creates incentives to: (i) encourage a prompt resolution of the case, (ii) avoid consuming the value of the assets PAX has already developed at its own very considerable expense, and (iii) encourage identification and recovery of new assets. If these protections cannot be promptly and effectively established, the estate should move in a different direction with a new trustee.\n\n#### **II. BACKGROUND**\n\n8. On June 15, 2022, this Court ordered the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee.<sup>7</sup> In the wake of that order, PAX interfaced with the UST and made recommendations and suggestions about whom to appoint (which did *not* include Mr. Despins), all the while urging the UST to be conscious of costs. On June 30, 2022, the UST submitted Joe D. Whitley as its proposed chapter 11 trustee, and an expedited hearing was set for July 5, 2022.<sup>8</sup> Shortly before\n\n<sup>7</sup> *See* Trustee Order at 18.\n\n<sup>8</sup> *See Notice of Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee*, ECF No. 498*; Order Granting Motion for Expedited Hearing*, ECF No. 501.\n\nthe July 5 hearing, the UST withdrew its proposal to appoint Mr. Whitley because of an apparent conflict.<sup>9</sup>\n\n9. Two days later, on July 7, 2022, the UST submitted a new proposed chapter 11 trustee, Mr. Despins, and the Court held an expedited hearing on his appointment the next day. At that hearing, Mr. Despins stated that he had just learned that morning that Paul Hastings had performed work for companies that share a common parent with PAX, i.e., PAG Holdings Ltd. (\"PAG\"), and that his firm was still investigating whether PAX was managed by PAG or another similar entity.<sup>10</sup> The Court entered an order granting the appointment of Mr. Despins as chapter 11 trustee the very same day.<sup>11</sup>\n\n10. Shortly after the Court granted Mr. Despins' appointment, the Debtor followed his customary playbook and took to social media. Over the next several days, Mr. Kwok launched a bevy of attacks and threats against Mr. Despins, Paul Hastings, PAX, PAG, PAX's current and former attorneys, the United States Department of Justice, the UST, and others.<sup>12</sup> Below are just a few examples of Mr. Kwok's GETTR posts since July 8, 2022:\n\n- \"All those in collusion with PAG, i.e., the attorneys, the officials in the DOJ and the Hong Kong government, all PAG's senior executives, attorneys, and in-house counsels, such as [former O'Melveny & Myers LLP partner] Edward Moss, they will all end up in jail.\"<sup>13</sup>\n- \"They treat the U.S. judge as a fool. They are fooling the U.S. law and all Americans. . . . Luc A. Despins . . . How could you be trustworthy, right?\"<sup>14</sup>\n\n<sup>9</sup> *Withdrawal of US Trustee's Notice of Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee and Application for Order Approving Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee*, ECF No. 507.\n\n<sup>10</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 at 6:15–25.\n\n<sup>11</sup> *Order Granting Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee*, ECF No. 523.\n\n<sup>12</sup> As a disclaimer, PAX categorically denies each of the following statements and accusations made by the Debtor.\n\n<sup>13</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 9, 2022, 2:00 AM)[, http](http) (see embedded video at 0:07) (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\n<sup>14</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 9, 2022, 6:14 PM),<http>(see embedded video at 2:00) (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\n- \"It was not until 10:00 AM yesterday that Luc. A. Despins claimed he just learnt PAG is the parent company of PAX. That was a bald-faced lie.\"<sup>15</sup>\n- \"Ms. Holley L. Claiborn of the DOJ replaced the trustee with Luc A. Despins, who is a scumbag in the legal community, and this was done in a criminal-like manner. The evil forces behind the change of the trustee will certainly uncover the culprits behind the cases of George Higginbotham, Elliott Broidy, and Steve Wynn!\"<sup>16</sup>\n- \"In terms of [Mr. Despins'] personal life and professional ethics, Luc is absolutely a criminal in the American legal community. The day before yesterday, Luc dared to lie in front of the judge at the last minute.\"<sup>17</sup>\n- \"There is one lady named Holley L. Claiborn representing the U.S. Trustee office of the DOJ in Connecticut. Since the first day she met with me, she has been very arrogant and rude. She has tremendous resistance and hostility towards us. When I first saw her, we were waiting in the hallway of the court, she kept talking to the lawyer hired by PAX, the lawyer(s) working at O'Melveny & Myers LLP (OMM). During the whole time she was in court, she just sat with that OMM lawyer all the time. Right in front of us (in courtroom) they exchanged email addresses and talked about which school their kids go [to]. . . . What Holley Claiborn did in the Connecticut court is absolutely in breach of ethical rules. Even worse, she may be involved in a crime. And what she did was extremely ridiculous. She changed the trustee in a criminal-like manner. This cannot be done without being backed by an evil force.\"<sup>18</sup>\n- \"Luc A. Despins is also a garbage lawyer. And Paul Hastings . . . almost 50% of its revenue is from Communist China . . . This kind of arrogance and ignorance is apparently a kind of corruption in the judicial system. . . . There must be senior DOJ officials involved.\"<sup>19</sup>\n- \"Luc (A. Despins) Esq. is such a crap. He is very low and cheap.\"<sup>20</sup>\n- \"7/13/2022 Miles Guo: Luc A. Despins and Paul Hastings LLP dared to tell blatant lies to the judge and commit fraud in the court. It is probably not the first time they have done this; we shall do our best to dig out all bankruptcy cases in which Luc A. Despins acted as trustee, and all IPO deals and transactions that\n\n<sup>15</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 9, 2022, 6:28 PM),<http>(see embedded video at 1:27) (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\n<sup>16</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 10, 2022, 7:06 PM),<http>(last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\n<sup>17</sup> *Id.* (see embedded video at 0:11).\n\n<sup>18</sup> *Id.* (see embedded video at 0:59).\n\n<sup>19</sup> *Id.* (see embedded video at 1:58).\n\n<sup>20</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 12, 2022, 3:48 PM),<http>(see embedded video at 0:02) (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\nPaul Hastings has represented on behalf of the CCP's companies, and you will be shocked by what you find!\"<sup>21</sup>\n\n- \"[L]et's talk about this Luc A. Despins, the so-called trustee of (our) case. He is the most aggressive, the bloodiest attorney in the American legal community. Whoever has him . . . as trustee will suffer miserably. We will reach out to all entities and individuals who had [Mr. Despins] as their trustee before. We will unite all the parties that once had [Mr. Despins] or Paul Hastings LLP as their trustee. In other words, we won't believe they committed fraud and corruption and manipulated the rule of law in this case only. In all the cases they have worked on they must have committed fraud or corruption in a similar fashion, i.e., all the documents they have submitted thus far, arrogance towards the judge, all the blatant lies told by Paul Hastings LLP, their attempt to delete information from the firm's webpage, it's definitely not the first time they've done things like this.\"<sup>22</sup>\n- \"By far, O'Melveny's best buddy is Paul Hastings.\"<sup>23</sup>\n- \"How many employees in Paul Hastings LLP were recruited from the U.S. DOJ? Also, how many of them are related to the CCP? How many clients of Paul Hastings LLP are related to the CCP? How much of its revenue came from the CCP? And O'Melveny, which is representing PAG…Because O'Melveny represented the (PAX) case against me it was awarded the so-called top judicial award in (CCP) China. Peter Friedman and Edward Moss of O'Melveny, and that Bradley Bondi of Cahill all joined the legal warfare against me. They are all the top lawyers in the U.S. All have been colluding with the CCP.\"<sup>24</sup>\n- Paul Hastings LLP is absolutely evil. It has numerous conflicts of interest. We have already identified many more conflicts of interest. Luc A. Despins is indeed crooked. Also, we are going to dig out all the cases in which Luc has served as the trustee. We are going after him, and I don't think this is the first time he has ever lied. We must find out how many people he has harmed in order to protect the legal integrity of the US trustees as well as the integrity of the US laws. Then, we will look into how he has colluded with the CCP.\"<sup>25</sup>\n- 7/19/2022: \"In response to the non-complaint [sic] assignment of trustee by the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Miles Guo will initiate a series of motions and\n\n<sup>21</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 13, 2022, 5:27 PM), [http](http)\n\n<sup>22</sup> *Id.* (see embedded video at 0:12) (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\n<sup>23</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 13, 2022, 8:23 PM),<http>(see embedded video at 0:31) (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\n<sup>24</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 20, 2022, 12:13 AM)[, http](http) (see embedded video at 0:01) (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\n<sup>25</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 19, 2022, 11:50 PM),<http>(see embedded video at 0:24) (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\nappeals to expose the CCP's infiltration of the U.S. judiciary and the black hands of the U.S. judiciary.\"<sup>26</sup>\n\n11. On July 12, 2022, amidst this firestorm, Mr. Despins filed his First Supplemental\n\nDeclaration of Disinterestedness, in which he disclosed that \"Paul Hastings attorneys resident in\n\nPaul Hastings' Hong Kong office formerly represented certain entities (collectively, the 'PAG\n\nentities') which share a common ultimate parent ([PAG]) with [PAX] in Unrelated Matters . . .\n\nthe most recent of which concluded in May 2022.\"<sup>27</sup> Also on July 12, Mr. Despins filed the Paul\n\nHastings Retention Application.<sup>28</sup>\n\n## **III. ARGUMENT**\n\n### **1. Steps must be taken to avoid having Mr. Despins' appointment turn into a drawn-out and expensive sideshow.**\n\n12. When it granted the UST's motion to appoint a chapter 11 trustee, the Court did\n\nso with the belief that appointing a trustee would:\n\n- \"optimize recovery for the creditors and the estate\";<sup>29</sup>\n- \"assist with the development of a Chapter 11 plan with a reasonable likelihood of confirmation\";<sup>30</sup> and\n- be the \"most efficient and effective method to address competing creditor claims asserted against the Debtor.\"<sup>31</sup>\n\n <sup>26</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 18, 2022, 7:27 AM)[, http](http) (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\n<sup>27</sup> *First Supplemental Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins* at ¶ 2, ECF No. 538.\n\n<sup>28</sup> Paul Hastings Retention Application, ECF No. 539.\n\n<sup>29</sup> Trustee Order at 13; *see also id.* at 16 (\"The appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee will enable that trustee . . . to optimize recovery of assets for the creditors and the estate.\"); *id.* at 17–18 (\"[T]he appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee in this case will address concerns about any future misconduct by the Debtor while bringing independent judgment and good management to direct the affairs of the estate and optimize recovery for all creditors.\"). <sup>30</sup> *Id.* at 14.\n\n<sup>31</sup> *Id.*\n\nIf Mr. Despins' appointment and the Paul Hastings retention are mired in extensive and protracted litigation, none of the Court's goals can be met, and creditors will suffer further injury.\n\n13. For one, Mr. Despins' appointment threatens to diminish the estate's assets and to create further obstacles on the road to confirmation of a chapter 11 plan unless the Court imposes limitations on the pending disputes and the estate is relieved of their related cost. Contrary to the Debtor's baseless insinuations, PAX did not affirmatively influence the UST's decision to appoint Mr. Despins. To the contrary, PAX actually recommended *other* candidates, and discouraged the appointment of Mr. Despins due to cost concerns.<sup>32</sup> Since Mr. Despins' appointment, issues regarding Paul Hastings' other representations (including PAX) have become a distraction. The Debtor's social media firestorm (*see supra* at 6–9), the Rule 60(b) Motion, and his history of profligate spending on legal pursuits (despite purportedly having only \\$3,850 to his name) threaten to impede progress in the case and impose significant unwarranted costs and delay. In the Debtor's own words from July 13, 2022: \"[T]his trustee change, it is a long-lasting war for us. It won't stop until the culprit inside DOJ is exposed.\"<sup>33</sup> That day, the Debtor also exhorted his followers to \"dig out all those (bankruptcy) cases in which [Mr. Despins] acted as trustee and all the IPO deals that Paul Hastings LLP represented on behalf of the CCP's companies. Dig as much as you can. Any piece of information you find will be of tremendous value.\"<sup>34</sup> And most recently, the Debtor vowed that, *\"[i]n response to the noncomplaint [sic] assignment of trustee by the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Miles Guo will*\n\n<sup>32</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, July 21, 2022 Status Conference Tr. at 66:15–25.\n\n<sup>33</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 13, 2022, 8:23 PM),<http> (see embedded video at 0:04) (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\n<sup>34</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 13, 2022, 5:27 PM),<http>(see embedded video at 0:55) (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\n*initiate a series of motions and appeals.\"*<sup>35</sup> Assuming Mr. Despins intends to recoup the costs of litigating the Debtor's \"long-lasting war\" from the estate's assets, his continued appointment will hardly \"optimize recovery for the creditors and the estate.\"<sup>36</sup> <sup>37</sup>\n\n14. Moreover, PAX is concerned that the present disputes may make achieving a settlement or confirming any consensual plan more difficult, given the Debtor's presumptive unwillingness to cooperate with a person he has described as \"garbage,\" \"crap,\" \"very low and cheap,\" \"a criminal,\" \"a scumbag,\" a \"bald-faced li[ar],\" and \"the most aggressive, [and] bloodiest attorney in the American legal community.\"<sup>38</sup> Though PAX doubts the Debtor's willingness to act in good faith in respect of any appointed chapter 11 trustee, the Debtor's public support of the appointment of Mr. Whitley<sup>39</sup> suggests that progress may not be impossible in this case. PAX is also concerned that Kwok will do all he can to cast doubt on the motives and finality of any actions taken by the trustee and counsel, which may in turn interfere with efforts to reach a negotiated resolution of the case. And, importantly, while PAX has faith that Mr. Despins and his colleagues are quite capable and intend to act with the utmost integrity, it is concerned that the above-described events may (consciously or subconsciously) incentivize the chapter 11 trustee to over-correct. That is, PAX fears that in an attempt to appear to be fair to the\n\n<sup>35</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 18, 2022, 7:27 AM)[, http](http) (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\n<sup>36</sup> Trustee Order at 13.\n\n<sup>37</sup> For example, the Debtor may add to the mix a protracted challenge to \"the connections of [Paul Hastings] and Trustee Despins to UBS and affiliates of UBS.\" *See United States Trustee's Response to Debtor's Motion for Relief From Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee*, ECF No. 615, at ¶ 30(a). PAX and other creditors should not have to bear the delay and costs of Paul Hastings responding to this issue, especially not at the high fees proposed (*see infra* at Part III.2).\n\n<sup>38</sup> *Supra* notes 15, 16, 17, 20, 22.\n\n<sup>39</sup> Miles Guo (@Miles), GETTR (July 9, 2022, 1:05 AM),<http>(lamenting the \"change [of] trustee assigned to [his] personal bankruptcy case from a highly respected Republican, Mr. Joe D. Whitley, to Luc A. Despins\"; *see also id.* (embedded video at 0:54) (describing Mr. Whitley as having \"a record of being respected in the legal field,\" as \"very well respected,\" and as \"a person with high respect and virtue\"; and stating that he (the Debtor) is \"very happy for this appointment of [Mr. Whitley as] trustee\" and would be \"willing to cooperate with [Mr. Whitley]\") (last accessed July 27, 2022).\n\nDebtor and other creditors, Paul Hastings may actually *dis*favor PAX to avoid generating further controversy.\n\n15. In sum, if Mr. Despins remains the chapter 11 trustee, and if Paul Hastings is retained as counsel, steps must be taken to ameliorate the risks posed by recent developments. Otherwise, very significant hours and dollars will be wasted by a process that will undercut directly the Court's goals of \"optimiz[ing] recovery,\" \"assist[ing] with the development of a Chapter 11 plan with a reasonable likelihood of confirmation,\" and using the \"most efficient and effective method to address competing creditor claims asserted against the Debtor.\"<sup>40</sup> At a minimum, PAX, the estate and the other creditors must not be drawn into extensive discovery on these issues. Additionally, the estate should not be made to bear the costs of the additional fees being incurred to address the disputes over Paul Hastings' other representations. Finally, caution must be taken to avoid having an \"over-correction\" concerning positions taken in the case that have the effect of unfairly disadvantaging PAX. On this final point, PAX believes that the Court will be the best safeguard to assure fairness to PAX going forward. Unless such safeguards are imposed, PAX does not believe that Mr. Despins should remain in the role of Trustee. Irrespective of the protections put in place at this juncture, PAX reserves the right to seek removal in the future if warranted, as well as to renew its motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case.\n\n#### **2. Paul Hastings' proposed rates are not in the best interests of the estate.**\n\n16. In the Paul Hastings Retention Application, Mr. Despins listed the following rate structure (the \"Proposed Rates\"):<sup>41</sup>\n\n<sup>40</sup> Trustee Order at 13–14, 16–18.\n\n<sup>41</sup> Paul Hastings Retention Application at ¶ 18.\n\n| Timekeeper Category | U.S. Hourly Rate Range |\n|---------------------|------------------------|\n| Partners            | \\$1.310-\\$1.935        |\n| Of Counsel          | \\$1,335 - \\$1,860      |\n| Associates          | \\$755 - \\$1.230        |\n| Paralegals          | \\$250 - \\$565          |\n\nThese Proposed Rates are problematically expensive for several reasons.\n\n17. *First*, allowing the trustee and counsel to proceed under the Proposed Rates without modification threatens to consume value brought into the estate through the assets that PAX has already developed. As laid out by Mr. Despins in his July 21, 2022 presentation to the Court, the lowest hanging fruit (in terms of assets to be brought into the estate) are, without question, the Lady May and the Sherry Netherland Apartment. PAX gave the trustee an enormous head start on these assets as a result of its attempts to collect in the New York litigation. PAX is concerned about duplication of effort and incurring more fees at the highest rate structure for assets that have already been brought closer to recovery by PAX, at its own significant, already-incurred expense.\n\n18. *Second*, PAX knows from attempting to satisfy the judgment entered in February *2020* that locating the Debtor's assets and untangling the web of his shell companies and insider lackeys is an arduous, time- and money-consuming process. Combine this with the Debtor fighting the trustee at every turn, and whatever new value the trustee is able to create through the pursuit of new assets may be consumed by Paul Hastings' rates. What's more, work done by the trustee and counsel to search for and bring in new assets—which is by no means guaranteed to be successful—may have the undesirable effect of eating into much of the value from the Lady May and the Sherry Netherland.\n\n19. *Third*, if the Proposed Rates cover time spent by Paul Hastings and Mr. Despins responding to the alleged conflict issues, the estate stands to suffer further unnecessary losses.\n\nThe Debtor's statements (*see supra* at 6–9), the wide-ranging, conspiratorial arguments set forth in the Rule 60(b) Motion, and the discovery recently served on PAX<sup>42</sup> demonstrate that these issues are not going away any time soon. Mr. Despins' appointment and (if it is approved) Paul Hastings' retention as trustee counsel will thus become a major time and money drain on the estate, which will redound, ultimately, to the detriment of the creditors.\n\n20. In the event the Proposed Rates are not adjusted, to prevent PAX and the other creditors from suffering the consequences of a protracted legal battle for which they bear no responsibility, PAX proposes that the Court not permit the Debtors' Rule 60(b) Motion, any forthcoming objection to the retention of Paul Hastings, and/or any other motion(s) filed by Debtor seeking to remove Mr. Despins or Paul Hastings (including without limitation, under Section 327) to be charged to and compensable by the estate.\n\n21. *Fourth*, the Proposed Rates are *more than double* what Mr. Whitley and his firm, Womble, presumably would have charged to do the same work. In a recent District of Delaware bankruptcy, for example, Womble was approved as counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors with the following rates:<sup>43</sup>\n\n| \\$325 - \\$950 |\n|---------------|\n| 8330 - 8925   |\n| \\$280 - \\$685 |\n| \\$125 - \\$765 |\n| \\$100 - \\$675 |\n| 850 - 8495    |\n|               |\n\n<sup>42</sup> On July 22, 2022, the Debtor served interrogatories on PAX, demanding, among other things, that PAX (i) \"[i]dentify each matter for which Paul Hastings has provided services to any PAG Entity since January 1, 2017\"; and (ii) \"[s]tate, by individual matter, the total fees paid to Paul Hastings for services it rendered in each matter identified.\" Friedman Decl., Ex. 3.\n\n<sup>43</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Application of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for an Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103 Authorizing and Approving the Employment and Retention of Womble\n\nThese rates are in line with those approved in at least six other bankruptcies since 2018 in which Womble served as committee counsel and/or liquidating trustee.<sup>44</sup>\n\n22. But for an unforeseen conflict, the UST viewed Mr. Whitley as an appropriate\n\nchoice to serve as trustee. Mr. Whitley presumably would have sought to retain his firm as\n\ncounsel. Given the rates Womble likely would have charged if Mr. Whitley had not been\n\nwithdrawn (again, *half the rates of Paul Hastings*), approving the Proposed Rates is not in best\n\ninterests of the estate.<sup>45</sup> This is especially true given the atypical nature of this case, which\n\nbegan with no assets in the estate; features a Debtor notorious for secreting his assets \"in a maze\n\nBond Dickinson (US) LLP as Counsel Effective as of April 22, 2021 at ¶ 11, *In re TECT Aerospace Group Holdings*, Inc., Case No. 21-10670-KBO (Bankr. D. Del. May 4, 2021), ECF No. 120.\n\n<sup>44</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Application of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for an Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103 Authorizing and Approving the Employment and Retention of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP as Counsel Nunc Pro Tunc to July 20, 2018 at ¶ 11*, In re Tintri, Inc.*, Case No. 18- 11625-LSS (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 7, 2018), ECF No. 132; Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, Application of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for an Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103 Authorizing and Approving the Employment and Retention of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP as Counsel Nunc Pro Tunc to June 4, 2019 at ¶ 11, *In re JRV Group USA L.P.*, Case No. 19-11095-KBO (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2019), ECF No. 84; Friedman Decl., Ex. 7, Application of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for an Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103 Authorizing and Approving the Employment and Retention of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP as Counsel Nunc Pro Tunc to September 18, 2019 at ¶ 12, *In re Fred's Inc.*, Case No. 19-11984-CTG (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 18, 2019), ECF No. 352; Friedman Decl., Ex. 8, Application of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for an Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103 Authorizing and Approving the Employment and Retention of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP as Counsel Nunc Pro Tunc to February 5, 2020 at ¶ 12, *In re BL Restaurants Holding, LLC*, Case No. 20-10156-CTG (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 4, 2020), ECF No. 241; Friedman Decl., Ex. 9, Application of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for an Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103 Authorizing and Approving the Employment and Retention of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP as Counsel Nunc Pro Tunc to February 4, 2020 at ¶ 12, *In re Lucky's Market Parent Company, LLC*, Case No. 20-10166-JTD (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 21, 2020), ECF No. 237; Friedman Decl., Ex. 10, Application of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for an Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103 Authorizing and Approving the Employment and Retention of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP as Counsel Effective as of October 29, 2021 at ¶ 11, *In re Red River Waste Solutions, LP*, Case No. 21-42423 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2021), ECF No. 157.\n\n<sup>45</sup> Indeed, the UST's objection to proposed fees in a recent District of Connecticut bankruptcy demonstrates how comparatively substantial Paul Hastings' are. In *In re Carla's Pasta*, the UST objected to fees proposed by Locke Lord LLP, which fees ranged from \\$570-620 for associates and \\$690-\\$765 for partners. *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 11, United States Trustee's Statement Concerning Suri Realty, LLC's and Carla's Pasta, Inc.'s Applications to Retain Locke Lord LLP as Their Bankruptcy Counsel, *In re Carla's Pasta, Inc. and Suri Realty, LLC*, Case No. 21- 20111 (Bankr. D. Conn. March 10, 2021), ECF No. 252. The UST noted that the fees \"far exceed those charged for a similarly experienced firm,\" and that the fee range for associates in particular \"exceeds that normally charged in the District of Connecticut by law firm partners with decades of experience in complex Chapter 11 bankruptcy practice.\" *Id.* at ¶¶ 26–27. While PAX does not assert that this Objection is prescriptive (each bankruptcy is different), it does believe that it is instructive regarding an appropriate fee range in this District.\n\nof corporate entities and with family members\";<sup>46</sup> and involves a creditor (PAX) that at its own significant expense has already done a great deal of legwork to identify material, low-hanging, target assets.\n\n23. If Paul Hastings is to be retained under the circumstances, and the Court does not see fit to simply apply Womble's rates, any rate structure should incentivize the trustee and counsel to (i) bring about a prompt resolution of the case, (ii) avoid consuming the value of the assets PAX has already developed at its own expense, and (iii) encourage identification and recovery of new assets. To that end, if the Proposed Rates are to stand, PAX proposes the adoption of the following compensation structure (with the rate to be the highest rate provided in the grid below):\n\n| # | Event                                          | Result47                                |\n|---|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Global Settlement with Debtor and his          | Paul Hastings earns 100% of the         |\n|   | affiliates that is approved by PAX and UCC     | Proposed Rates.                         |\n|   | within first six months (as such period may be |                                         |\n|   | extended with approval by PAX and UCC).        |                                         |\n| 2 | Trustee recovers assets exceeding \\$200        | Paul Hastings earns 120% of the         |\n|   | million.                                       | Proposed Rates, plus ability to seek an |\n|   |                                                | additional<br>bonus.                    |\n| 3 | Trustee recovers assets worth at least \\$150   | Paul Hastings earns 100% of the         |\n|   | million.                                       | Proposed Rates.                         |\n| 4 | Trustee recovers assets worth at least \\$100   | Paul Hastings earns 80% of the          |\n|   | million.                                       | Proposed Rates.                         |\n| 5 | Trustee recovers assets worth at least \\$75    | Paul Hastings rates capped at Womble    |\n|   | million.                                       | rates.                                  |\n| 6 | (1) Trustee fails to recover both the Lady May | Paul Hastings earns 50% of the          |\n|   | and the Sherry Residence; and (2) other assets | Proposed Rates.                         |\n|   | recovered by the estate are worth less than    |                                         |\n|   | \\$50 million.                                  |                                         |\n\n<sup>46</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 12, Decision and Order on Motion at 1, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181.\n\n<sup>47</sup> While this proposal is designed to address the concerns PAX has identified above, PAX recognizes that other fee proposals may be appropriate as well, and is open to working with the Court, the Trustee and the other creditors to arrive at an alternative arrangement in the event the above is not deemed acceptable.\n\n### **IV. CONCLUSION**\n\n24. In light of the foregoing, PAX respectfully asks that the Court, in ruling on the Rule 60(b) Motion and the Paul Hastings Retention Application, take into account and, to the extent necessary, redress and mitigate (i) the risks to the estate presented by the disputes over Mr. Despins' appointment and Paul Hasting's appointment and (ii) Paul Hastings' proposed fee structure.<sup>48</sup>\n\nDated: Hartford, Connecticut July 27, 2022\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By: /s/ Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP**  280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP**  Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2293 E-mail: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n<sup>48</sup> PAX reserves the right to address other arguments Debtor may raise in his pleading.\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on July 27, 2022, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically through the Court's CM/ECF System. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties receiving notice by operation of the court's electronic filing system. Parties in interest may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n /s/ *Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick M. Birney","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）1\n\n第11章案件案号\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n事由：ECF Nos. 539, 561\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）就联合答复：(I) 债务人关于请求免除任命 LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）为第11章受托人的命令之动议，以及 (II) 第11章受托人根据《破产法典》第327、328及330条和《破产程序规则》第2014及2016条提出的申请，请求作出命令授权及批准聘任 PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）担任第11章受托人律师之立场声明\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）通过其下列签署的代理律师，现就以下两项作出答复：(i) 债务人关于请求免除任命 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）为第11章受托人的命令之动议 [ECF No. 561]（“Rule 60(b) Motion”）；及 (ii) 第11章受托人根据《破产法典》第327、328及330条和《破产程序规则》第2014及2016条提出的申请，请求作出命令授权及批准聘任 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）担任第11章受托人律师 [ECF No. 539]（“Paul Hastings Retention Application”）：\n\n一、引言2\n\n1. 当本院命令任命一名第11章受托人时，本院表示乐观地认为，受托人将为债务人的众多债权人创造公平竞争环境，最大化破产财产的资产，并促成迅速且公平地分配破产财产资产。本院明确表示，其任命受托人的决定主要基于其评估，即此举最符合债权人和破产财产的利益。3 一名强有力且真正独立的中立人士，既可最大化资产，也可推动可能为利益相关方所接受的解决方案，例如重整计划。任何受托人和律师的任命均须透过这些相互关联目标的视角加以考量。若围绕现任或拟任受托责任人及专业人士的问题，造成分散注意力或妨碍任命受托人这一首要目的的效果，则其聘任必须以能够纠正该等关切的方式安排。否则，不应批准该等受托责任人及专业人士担任和／或继续担任该等职务。\n\n2. 除非另有说明，所有引文和引语均已省略，所有强调均为新增。本文所援引的全部证物均附于 2022年7月27日 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）为支持 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）就联合答复：(i) 债务人关于请求免除任命 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）为第11章受托人的命令之动议，以及 (ii) 第11章受托人根据《破产法典》第327、328及330条和《破产程序规则》第2014及2016条提出的申请，请求作出命令授权及批准聘任 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）担任第11章受托人律师之立场声明所作声明（“Friedman Decl.”）。\n\n2. 美国受托人（“UST”）最初提名 Womble Bond Dickson LLP（“Womble”）的 Joe D. Whitley（乔·D·惠特利）担任第11章受托人。但该提名很快被撤回：UST 于 2022年7月5日就其任命举行听证会的当日上午，因明显存在利益冲突（推测为在无关事项中代理某一利害关系方）而撤回了对 Whitley 先生的提名。\n\n3. 2022年7月8日，本院确认任命 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）的 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），并指出，尽管尚无任何当事方“提出任何理由……说明为何[Despins 先生的任命]不应发生”，但若当事方“发现某些理由，则[当事方]可依破产法典获得救济以处理该等理由。”4 此后，Despins 先生提出动议，申请聘任 Paul Hastings 担任其律师。5 Paul Hastings 拟议的费率为：合伙人 \\$1,310-\\$1,935，顾问律师 \\$1,335-\\$1,860，律师助理 \\$755-\\$1,230。6 如 PAX 在本院 2022年7月21日的状态会议上所说明，PAX 与 Despins 先生的任命毫无关系；相反，PAX 曾积极支持该受托人职位的其他候选人，并且在选定 Despins 先生之前，已向 UST 明确传达其对不同受托人候选人的强烈偏好。\n\n3. 驳回不损害重新提出权的撤诉动议并准许加入第11章受托人任命动议的决定备忘录及命令，第13–16页，ECF No. 465（“Trustee Order”）。\n\n4. Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, July 8, 2022 Hr'g Tr. at 13:1–4.\n\n5. Paul Hastings Retention Application, ECF No. 539.\n\n6. Id. at ¶ 18.\n\n4. Despins 先生于 2022年7月8日受托人任命听证会上首次披露其律所代理 PAX 的关联方——本次破产程序中最大的债权人——时，引发债务人在社交媒体上发布大量虚假且煽动性的帖文，并最终促成其提出 Rule 60(b) Motion。综合这些社交媒体帖文（多年来，PAX 已认识到，当债务人正准备进行一场长期诉讼战时，此类帖文不过是司空见惯之事）、债务人在 Rule 60(b) Motion 中提出的论点，以及债务人自称来自 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒专业公司）的律师在 2022年7月21日状态会议上所作的陈述，传达出一个清晰无误的信息：债务人意图在法律程序允许的期限内不遗余力地争取取消 Despins 先生和 Paul Hastings 的资格。所有这些均预示着一场旷日持久、代价高昂且拖延性的法律斗争，其威胁将：(i) 削弱所有债权人从破产财产中获得清偿的能力，(ii) 对破产财产施加不必要的交易成本，(iii) 对 PAX 造成不当负担，以及 (iv) 或许促使受托人为避免进一步争议而对 PAX 予以不利对待。此种干扰带来真实风险，即可能对受托人和律师所采取行动的终局性造成不确定性阴影，并妨碍通过谈判解决本案的努力。\n\n5. 在本案颇为独特的情形下，受托人和 Paul Hastings 拟议的收费结构亦构成重大关切。尽管该律师事务所无疑成熟且经验丰富，但鉴于本案的异常事实——债务人主张其名下仅有 \\$3,850——其费率尤其昂贵。目前唯一可获得的资产是 Lady May 游艇和 Sherry Netherland 公寓——PAX 多年来付出巨大费用追索并使其得以纳入可供执行范围，且该等费用完全由 PAX 独自承担。为追回其他任何资产，将需投入大量额外诉讼时间，而债务人（及其大家庭成员和关联实体）无疑将一路抗争。高费率结构存在实质风险，即将大幅耗尽任何新创造的价值。更糟的是，它可能吸收 Lady May 和 Sherry Netherland 公寓价值的大部分。当然，若必须花费大量时间处理 Paul Hastings 和 Despins 先生被指称的利益冲突问题，则拟议费率的问题将更加突出。\n\n6. 在不认同债务人阴谋论的前提下，PAX 认为本院应考虑，并在必要范围内纠正和缓解：(i) 围绕 Despins 先生任命及 Paul Hastings 任命的争议给破产财产带来的风险；以及 (ii) Paul Hastings 拟议的收费结构。首先，Paul Hastings 先前代理 PAX 关联方的披露所造成的旁枝争议，为债务人提供了平台，使其得以提出大量新的指控并采取动议程序。正如债务人自身陈述、Rule 60(b) Motion 以及近期向 PAX 送达的证据开示请求所明确表明的，Despins 先生的任命极有可能在可预见的未来成为本次破产程序的焦点，并且最重要的是，将不必要地耗费债权人的额外时间和金钱。其次，就破产财产成本而言，Despins 先生和 Paul Hastings 拟议的费用实在过高——尤其鉴于本案的具体事实，以及 UST 最初已认定 Whitley 先生及其律所完全具备履行第11章受托人职责的资格，且价格仅为其一小部分。第三，必须谨慎确保受托人在今后不会对 PAX 予以不利对待，而本院是防范此项风险的最佳屏障。\n\n7. PAX 及其他债权人不应承受围绕 Despins 先生任命及 Paul Hastings 聘任所涉诉讼在实际和金钱方面的后果。PAX 对本院在 7月21日状态会议上关于严格限制与债务人动议有关的证据开示及其他威胁扩张并施加重大成本的诉讼策略之评论感到鼓舞。破产财产不应承担解决有关 Paul Hastings 先前代理事项争议（包括任何上诉）的费用，该等费用可能十分重大。PAX 还认为，必须以能够创造以下激励的方式处理 Paul Hastings 的费率结构：(i) 鼓励迅速解决本案，(ii) 避免耗尽 PAX 已经自费、并以相当巨大成本开发的资产价值，以及 (iii) 鼓励识别和追回新资产。若无法迅速且有效地建立这些保护措施，破产财产应由一名新受托人转向不同方向。\n\n二、背景\n\n8. 2022年6月15日，本院命令任命一名第11章受托人。7 在该命令作出后，PAX 与 UST 进行了沟通，并就应任命何人提出建议和意见（其中不包括 Despins 先生），同时敦促 UST 注意成本。2022年6月30日，UST 提交 Joe D. Whitley（乔·D·惠特利）作为其拟任第11章受托人，并安排于 2022年7月5日举行加速听证会。8 在 7月5日听证会前不久，UST 因明显的利益冲突撤回其任命 Whitley 先生的提议。9\n\n7. See Trustee Order at 18.\n\n8. See Notice of Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee, ECF No. 498；Order Granting Motion for Expedited Hearing, ECF No. 501.\n\n9. Withdrawal of US Trustee's Notice of Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee and Application for Order Approving Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee, ECF No. 507.\n\n9. 两日后，即 2022年7月7日，UST 提交了一名新的拟任第11章受托人，即 Despins 先生，本院于次日就其任命举行加速听证会。在该听证会上，Despins 先生表示，他于当日上午刚得知 Paul Hastings 曾为与 PAX 具有共同母公司的公司开展工作，即 PAG Holdings Ltd.（“PAG”），且其律所仍在调查 PAX 是否由 PAG 或其他类似实体管理。10 本院于同日作出命令，批准任命 Despins 先生为第11章受托人。11\n\n10. See Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 at 6:15–25.\n\n11. Order Granting Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee, ECF No. 523.\n\n10. 本院批准 Despins 先生的任命后不久，债务人便依其惯常做法转向社交媒体。在接下来的数日中，Kwok 先生对 Despins 先生、Paul Hastings、PAX、PAG、PAX 现任及前任律师、United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）、UST 及其他人士发起大量攻击和威胁。12 以下仅为 Kwok 先生自 2022年7月8日以来在 GETTR 发布的帖文中的若干示例：\n\n- “所有与 PAG 勾结的人，即律师、司法部和香港政府官员、PAG 的所有高级管理人员、律师及内部法律顾问，例如[前 O'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧麦律师事务所）合伙人] Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯），都将入狱。”13\n\n- “他们把美国法官当傻子。他们在愚弄美国法律和所有美国人。……Luc A. Despins……你怎么可能值得信赖，对吧？”14\n\n12. 作为免责声明，PAX 断然否认债务人作出的以下每一项陈述和指控。\n\n13 Miles Guo（郭文贵）(@Miles), GETTR (July 9, 2022, 2:00 AM)[, http]（见嵌入视频 0:07 处）（最后访问于 July 27, 2022）。\n\n14 Miles Guo（郭文贵）(@Miles), GETTR (July 9, 2022, 6:14 PM)（见嵌入视频 2:00 处）（最后访问于 July 27, 2022）。\n\n- “直到昨天上午10:00，Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）才声称他刚刚得知 PAG（太盟投资集团）是 PAX 的母公司。这是赤裸裸的谎言。”15\n\n- “司法部（Department of Justice，DOJ）的 Holley L. Claiborn 女士以 Luc A. Despins 取代了受托人，他是法律界的人渣，而此事是以类似犯罪的方式完成的。受托人更换背后的邪恶势力必将揭露 George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）、Elliott Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）和 Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·永利）案件背后的罪魁祸首！”16\n\n- “就[Despins 先生]的个人生活和职业道德而言，Luc 绝对是美国法律界的罪犯。前天，Luc 竟敢在最后关头当着法官的面撒谎。”17\n\n- “有一位名叫 Holley L. Claiborn 的女士代表司法部驻康涅狄格州的美国受托人办公室。自她第一天与我会面以来，她一直非常傲慢无礼。她对我们有极大的抵触和敌意。我第一次见到她时，我们正在法院走廊等候，她一直与 PAX 聘请的律师、在 O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所，OMM）工作的律师交谈。在她出庭的整个期间，她始终与那名 OMM 律师坐在一起。就在我们面前（在法庭内），他们交换了电子邮件地址，并谈论他们的孩子上哪所学校。……Holley Claiborn 在康涅狄格州法院所做的事情绝对违反职业道德规则。更糟糕的是，她可能涉嫌犯罪。而她所做的事情极其荒谬。她以类似犯罪的方式更换了受托人。若无邪恶势力在背后支持，此事不可能办成。”18\n\n- “Luc A. Despins 也是一个垃圾律师。而 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）……其近50%的收入来自中国共产党……这种傲慢和无知显然是司法系统中的一种腐败。……一定有司法部高级官员参与其中。”19\n\n- “Luc (A. Despins) Esq. 真是个垃圾。他非常卑劣且低贱。”20\n\n- “7/13/2022 Miles Guo：Luc A. Despins 和 Paul Hastings LLP 胆敢向法官公然撒谎，并在法庭上实施欺诈。他们这可能不是第一次这样做；我们将尽最大努力挖出 Luc A. Despins 曾担任受托人的所有破产案件，以及 Paul Hastings 曾代表中共公司参与的所有首次公开募股交易和交易，你们会对查到的内容感到震惊！”21\n\n15 Miles Guo（郭文贵）(@Miles), GETTR (July 9, 2022, 6:28 PM)（见嵌入视频 1:27 处）（最后访问于 July 27, 2022）。\n\n16 Miles Guo（郭文贵）(@Miles), GETTR (July 10, 2022, 7:06 PM)（最后访问于 July 27, 2022）。\n\n17 同上（见嵌入视频 0:11 处）。\n\n18 同上（见嵌入视频 0:59 处）。\n\n19 同上（见嵌入视频 1:58 处）。\n\n20 Miles Guo（郭文贵）(@Miles), GETTR (July 12, 2022, 3:48 PM)（见嵌入视频 0:02 处）（最后访问于 July 27, 2022）。\n\nPaul Hastings 曾代表中共公司的所有首次公开募股交易和交易，你们会对查到的内容感到震惊！”21\n\n- “让我们谈谈这个 Luc A. Despins，也就是（我们）案件中所谓的受托人。他是美国法律界最具攻击性、最血腥的律师。任何由他……担任受托人的人都会遭受惨重痛苦。我们将联系此前曾由[Despins 先生]担任受托人的所有实体和个人。我们将联合所有曾由[Despins 先生]或 Paul Hastings LLP 担任受托人的当事人。换言之，我们不会相信他们仅在本案中实施了欺诈和腐败并操纵了法治。他们在经办的所有案件中必定都以类似方式实施过欺诈或腐败，即他们迄今提交的所有文件、对法官的傲慢态度、Paul Hastings LLP 所说的一切公然谎言、他们试图从律所网页删除信息，这绝对不是他们第一次做这种事。”22\n\n- “到目前为止，O'Melveny 最好的朋友是 Paul Hastings。”23\n\n- “Paul Hastings LLP 有多少员工是从美国司法部招募来的？此外，其中有多少人与中共有关？Paul Hastings LLP 有多少客户与中共有关系？其收入有多少来自中共？还有代表 PAG 的 O'Melveny……由于 O'Melveny 代理了针对我的（PAX）案件，其在（中共）中国获得了所谓的最高司法奖项。O'Melveny 的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）和 Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯），以及 Cahill（凯希尔律师事务所）的 Bradley Bondi（布拉德利·邦迪），都加入了针对我的法律战。他们都是美国顶级律师。所有人都与中共相互勾结。”24\n\n- Paul Hastings LLP 绝对邪恶。其存在大量利益冲突。我们已经发现了更多的利益冲突。Luc A. Despins 确实不正直。此外，我们将挖出 Luc 曾担任受托人的所有案件。我们要追究他，我不认为这是他第一次撒谎。为保护美国受托人的法律完整性以及美国法律的完整性，我们必须查明他伤害过多少人。然后，我们将调查他如何与中共勾结。”25\n\n- 7/19/2022：“针对美国司法部对受托人的不合规［原文如此］指定，Miles Guo 先生将提起一系列动议和上诉，以揭露中共对美国司法机构的渗透以及美国司法机构的黑手。”26\n\n21 Miles Guo（郭文贵）(@Miles), GETTR (July 13, 2022, 5:27 PM), [http]\n\n22 同上（见嵌入视频 0:12 处）（最后访问于 July 27, 2022）。\n\n23 Miles Guo（郭文贵）(@Miles), GETTR (July 13, 2022, 8:23 PM)（见嵌入视频 0:31 处）（最后访问于 July 27, 2022）。\n\n24 Miles Guo（郭文贵）(@Miles), GETTR (July 20, 2022, 12:13 AM)[, http]（见嵌入视频 0:01 处）（最后访问于 July 27, 2022）。\n\n25 Miles Guo（郭文贵）(@Miles), GETTR (July 19, 2022, 11:50 PM)（见嵌入视频 0:24 处）（最后访问于 July 27, 2022）。\n\n提起一系列动议和上诉，以揭露中共对美国司法机构的渗透以及美国司法机构的黑手。”26\n\n11. 在这场风波之中，July 12, 2022，Despins 先生提交了其《第一份补充无利害关系声明》，其中披露：“驻 Paul Hastings 香港办事处的 Paul Hastings 律师此前曾在无关事项中代理若干实体（统称为‘PAG 实体’），该等实体与[PAX]拥有共同的最终母公司（[PAG]）……其中最近一项于 May 2022 结束。”27 同样在 July 12，Despins 先生提交了 Paul Hastings 聘任申请。28\n\nIII. 论证\n\n1. 必须采取措施，以避免 Despins 先生的任命演变为旷日持久且代价高昂的附带争议。\n\n12. 本院批准美国受托人（UST）任命第11章受托人的动议时，是基于任命受托人将会：\n\n- “最大化债权人和破产财产的回收”；29\n\n- “协助制定具有合理获确认可能性的第11章计划”；30 以及\n\n- 成为“处理针对债务人提出的相互竞争债权人请求的最有效率和最有效的方法”。31\n\n26 Miles Guo（郭文贵）(@Miles), GETTR (July 18, 2022, 7:27 AM)[, http]（最后访问于 July 27, 2022）。\n\n27 Luc A. Despins 的《第一份补充无利害关系声明》第 ¶ 2 段，ECF No. 538。\n\n28 Paul Hastings 聘任申请，ECF No. 539。\n\n29 受托人命令第 13 页；另见同上第 16 页（“任命第11章受托人将使该受托人……最大化债权人和破产财产对资产的回收。”）；同上第 17–18 页（“[在]本案中任命第11章受托人，将在引入独立判断和良好管理以指导破产财产事务并最大化所有债权人的回收的同时，解决对债务人未来任何不当行为的担忧。”）。30 同上第 14 页。\n\n31 同上。\n\n若 Despins 先生的任命及对 Paul Hastings 的聘任陷入广泛而旷日持久的诉讼，本院的任何目标均无法实现，债权人将遭受进一步损害。\n\n13. 首先，除非本院对待决争议施加限制，并使破产财产免于承担其相关成本，否则 Despins 先生的任命将威胁到减少破产财产资产，并在第11章计划获确认的道路上制造进一步障碍。与债务人毫无根据的暗示相反，PAX 并未积极影响 UST 任命 Despins 先生的决定。恰恰相反，PAX 实际上推荐了其他候选人，并出于成本考虑不鼓励任命 Despins 先生。32 自 Despins 先生被任命以来，关于 Paul Hastings 其他代理事项（包括 PAX）的争议已成为干扰因素。债务人的社交媒体风波（见上文第 6–9 页）、Rule 60(b) 动议，以及其在法律行动上挥霍支出的历史（尽管其声称名下仅有 \\$3,850），都威胁到阻碍案件进展，并造成巨额不当成本和延误。用债务人自己 July 13, 2022 的话说：“[这]次受托人更换，对我们而言是一场持久战。在司法部内部的罪魁祸首被揭露之前，它不会停止。”33 当日，债务人还敦促其追随者“挖出所有[Despins 先生]曾担任受托人的（破产）案件，以及 Paul Hastings LLP 曾代表中共公司代理的所有首次公开募股交易。尽可能深挖。你们找到的任何一条信息都将具有极大价值。”34 而最近，债务人誓言：“针对美国司法部对受托人的不合规［原文如此］指定，Miles Guo 先生将提起一系列动议和上诉。”35 假定 Despins 先生意图从破产财产资产中收回诉讼应对债务人“持久战”的成本，则其继续获任显然难以“最大化债权人和破产财产的回收”。36 37\n\n14. 此外，PAX 担心，鉴于债务人推定不愿与其称为“垃圾”、“废物”、“非常卑劣且低贱”、“罪犯”、“人渣”、“赤裸裸的说谎者”以及“美国法律界最具攻击性、[且]最血腥的律师”的人合作，目前的争议可能使达成和解或确认任何协商一致的计划更加困难。38 尽管 PAX 怀疑债务人是否愿意就任何获任的第11章受托人诚信行事，但债务人公开支持任命 Whitley 先生39 表明，本案的进展或许并非不可能。PAX 还担心，Kwok 将竭尽所能对受托人和律师采取的任何行动的动机及终局性提出质疑，这反过来可能干扰为通过协商解决本案所作的努力。并且，重要的是，尽管 PAX 相信 Despins 先生及其同事非常有能力并打算以最高诚信行事，但其担心上述事件可能（有意识或无意识地）激励第11章受托人过度矫正。亦即，PAX 担心，为了显得能够公正地对待\n\n39 Miles Guo（郭文贵）(@Miles), GETTR（盖特）(July 9, 2022, 1:05 AM)（哀叹“被指定处理[其]个人破产案件的受托人由备受尊敬的共和党人Joe D. Whitley（乔·D·惠特利）先生变更为Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）”；另见同上（嵌入视频0:54处）（称惠特利先生“在法律界享有受人尊敬的声誉”，“极受尊敬”，并且是“一位备受尊敬且有德行的人”；并称其（债务人）对于任命[惠特利先生为]受托人“非常高兴”，且“愿意与[惠特利先生]合作”）(last accessed July 27, 2022)。\n\n债务人及其他债权人，Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）实际上可能会不利于PAX（PAX），以避免引发进一步争议。\n\n15. 总而言之，如德斯平斯先生继续担任第11章受托人，且如聘任Paul Hastings担任律师，则必须采取措施减轻近期事态发展所带来的风险。否则，将因一项直接损害法院“优化回收”、“协助制定具有合理确认可能性的第11章计划”以及采用“最有效率和最有效的方法处理债务人面临的相互竞争债权人主张”之目标的程序，而浪费极为可观的工时和资金。40 至少，不得将PAX、破产财产及其他债权人卷入就这些问题进行广泛的证据开示。此外，不应由破产财产承担为处理关于Paul Hastings其他代理事项的争议而产生的额外费用。最后，必须谨慎避免对本案所采取立场作出“过度纠正”，从而不公平地使PAX处于不利地位。关于最后一点，PAX认为，法院将是确保今后对PAX公平对待的最佳保障。除非施加此类保障措施，否则PAX认为德斯平斯先生不应继续担任受托人职务。无论在当前阶段实施何种保护措施，如有必要，PAX保留日后请求撤换的权利，以及重新提出其驳回破产案件动议的权利。\n\n2. Paul Hastings拟议费率不符合破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n16. 在Paul Hastings聘任申请中，德斯平斯先生列出了以下费率结构（“拟议费率”）：41\n\n40 Trustee Order at 13–14, 16–18.\n\n41 Paul Hastings Retention Application at ¶ 18.\n\n计时人员类别　美国每小时费率范围\n\n合伙人　$1,310-$1,935\n顾问律师　$1,335 - $1,860\n律师助理　$755 - $1,230\n法律助理　$250 - $565\n\n上述拟议费率因数项原因而高得不合理。\n\n17. 第一，允许受托人及律师在不作修改的情况下按拟议费率继续进行，可能会吞噬PAX已开发资产为破产财产带来的价值。如德斯平斯先生在其于July 21, 2022向法院所作陈述中所阐明，就应纳入破产财产的资产而言，最易取得的资产毫无疑问是Lady May（“梅女士”号）和Sherry Netherland Apartment（雪莉·尼德兰公寓）。由于PAX在纽约诉讼中尝试执行，PAX就这些资产向受托人提供了极大的先发优势。PAX担忧，对于PAX已自费并以重大已发生支出使其更接近回收的资产，重复投入工作并按最高费率结构产生更多费用。\n\n18. 第二，PAX从其尝试执行February 2020作出的判决书中得知，查找债务人的资产并理清其空壳公司和内部亲信构成的网络，是一个艰苦、耗时且耗资的过程。再加上债务人在每一步都与受托人对抗，受托人通过追索新资产能够创造的任何新价值，都可能被Paul Hastings的费率所吞噬。更有甚者，受托人及律师为寻找和收回新资产所进行的工作——其成功绝无保证——可能产生不利效果，即蚕食Lady May和Sherry Netherland的大部分价值。\n\n19. 第三，如拟议费率涵盖Paul Hastings和德斯平斯先生为回应所称利益冲突问题所花费的时间，破产财产将面临进一步不必要的损失。\n\n债务人的陈述（见上文第6–9页）、Rule 60(b) Motion（规则第60(b)条动议）中提出的广泛阴谋论论点，以及最近向PAX送达的证据开示请求42，表明这些问题短期内不会消失。因此，德斯平斯先生的任命以及（如获批准）聘任Paul Hastings担任受托人律师，将成为破产财产时间和资金的重大消耗，并最终损害债权人的利益。\n\n20. 如不调整拟议费率，为防止PAX及其他债权人承担其不应负责的旷日持久法律战的后果，PAX提议法院不允许债务人的Rule 60(b) Motion、任何即将提出的对聘任Paul Hastings的异议，及/或债务人为寻求撤换德斯平斯先生或Paul Hastings而提出的任何其他动议（包括但不限于根据Section 327提出的动议），由破产财产承担并予以补偿。\n\n21. 第四，拟议费率超过惠特利先生及其律所Womble（沃姆布尔律师事务所）推定就相同工作所收取费用的两倍。例如，在近期District of Delaware（特拉华地区）的一起破产案中，Womble获准担任Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）的律师，费率如下：43\n\n$325 - $950\n$830 - $925\n$280 - $685\n$125 - $765\n$100 - $675\n$50 - $495\n\n42 On July 22, 2022，债务人向PAX送达书面质询，其中要求PAX，除其他事项外，(i)“确定自January 1, 2017以来Paul Hastings向任何PAG Entity（PAG实体）提供服务的每一事项”；以及(ii)“就每一单独事项，说明就每一已确定事项中其提供的服务向Paul Hastings支付的费用总额。”Friedman Decl., Ex. 3.\n\n43 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, 无担保债权人官方委员会依据Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103申请命令，以授权并批准聘任及留任Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP（沃姆布尔·邦德·迪金森（美国）有限责任合伙律师事务所）担任律师\n\n这些费率与自2018年以来至少另外六起破产案中获批准的费率一致，在该等案件中，Womble担任委员会律师及/或清算受托人。44\n\n22. 若非发生不可预见的利益冲突，UST（美国受托人）认为惠特利先生是担任受托人的适当人选。惠特利先生推定会寻求聘任其律所担任律师。鉴于如惠特利先生未退出，Womble很可能收取的费率（再次强调，为Paul Hastings费率的一半），批准拟议费率不符合破产财产的最佳利益。45 考虑到本案的非典型性质，这一点尤为如此：本案开始时破产财产中没有资产；债务人因将其资产隐藏于“迷宫般的\n\nWomble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP担任律师，自April 22, 2021起生效，于¶ 11，In re TECT Aerospace Group Holdings, Inc.（TECT航空航天集团控股公司）, Case No. 21-10670-KBO (Bankr. D. Del. May 4, 2021), ECF No. 120.\n\n44 见Friedman Decl., Ex. 5，无担保债权人官方委员会依据Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103申请命令，以授权并批准追溯自July 20, 2018起聘任及留任Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP担任律师，于¶ 11，In re Tintri, Inc.（Tintri公司）, Case No. 18- 11625-LSS (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 7, 2018), ECF No. 132；Friedman Decl., Ex. 6，无担保债权人官方委员会依据Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103申请命令，以授权并批准追溯自June 4, 2019起聘任及留任Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP担任律师，于¶ 11，In re JRV Group USA L.P.（JRV集团美国有限合伙企业）, Case No. 19-11095-KBO (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2019), ECF No. 84；Friedman Decl., Ex. 7，无担保债权人官方委员会依据Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103申请命令，以授权并批准追溯自September 18, 2019起聘任及留任Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP担任律师，于¶ 12，In re Fred's Inc.（弗雷德公司）, Case No. 19-11984-CTG (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 18, 2019), ECF No. 352；Friedman Decl., Ex. 8，无担保债权人官方委员会依据Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103申请命令，以授权并批准追溯自February 5, 2020起聘任及留任Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP担任律师，于¶ 12，In re BL Restaurants Holding, LLC（BL餐饮控股有限责任公司）, Case No. 20-10156-CTG (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 4, 2020), ECF No. 241；Friedman Decl., Ex. 9，无担保债权人官方委员会依据Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103申请命令，以授权并批准追溯自February 4, 2020起聘任及留任Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP担任律师，于¶ 12，In re Lucky's Market Parent Company, LLC（拉奇市场母公司有限责任公司）, Case No. 20-10166-JTD (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 21, 2020), ECF No. 237；Friedman Decl., Ex. 10，无担保债权人官方委员会依据Bankruptcy Code Sections 328(a) and 1103申请命令，以授权并批准自October 29, 2021起聘任及留任Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP担任律师，于¶ 11，In re Red River Waste Solutions, LP（红河废物解决方案有限合伙企业）, Case No. 21-42423 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2021), ECF No. 157.\n\n45 事实上，UST在近期District of Connecticut（康涅狄格地区）的一起破产案中对拟议费用提出的异议，表明Paul Hastings的费率相对而言何等高昂。在In re Carla's Pasta, Inc.（卡拉意面公司）and Suri Realty, LLC（苏里房地产有限责任公司）一案中，UST反对Locke Lord LLP（洛克·洛德有限责任合伙律师事务所）所提议的费用，其律师助理费率为$570-$620，合伙人费率为$690-$765。见Friedman Decl., Ex. 11, United States Trustee's Statement Concerning Suri Realty, LLC's and Carla's Pasta, Inc.'s Applications to Retain Locke Lord LLP as Their Bankruptcy Counsel, In re Carla's Pasta, Inc. and Suri Realty, LLC, Case No. 21- 20111 (Bankr. D. Conn. March 10, 2021), ECF No. 252. UST指出，该等费用“远远超过经验相当的律所所收取的费用”，尤其是律师助理的费率范围“超过了康涅狄格地区通常由具有数十年复杂第11章破产实务经验的律所合伙人所收取的费用”。Id. at ¶¶ 26–27. 虽然PAX并不主张该异议具有规定性效力（每起破产案均不相同），但其确实认为，该异议对于本地区适当的费用范围具有参考价值。\n\n公司实体及家庭成员”之中的事实而臭名昭著；46 并且涉及一名债权人（PAX），该债权人已自费进行了大量前期工作，以识别具有实质价值、最易取得的目标资产。\n\n23. 如在此等情况下聘任Paul Hastings，而法院认为不宜直接适用Womble的费率，任何费率结构均应激励受托人及律师：(i)促成本案迅速解决，(ii)避免吞噬PAX已自费开发资产的价值，以及(iii)鼓励识别并回收新资产。为此，如拟议费率将予维持，PAX提议采用以下报酬结构（费率应为下表所列的最高费率）：\n\n编号　事件　结果47\n\n1　经 PAX（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）和 UCC 批准，在最初六个月内（该期间可经 PAX 和 UCC 批准延长）与债务人及其关联方达成全球和解。　Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）获得拟定费率的100%。\n\n2　受托人追回超过 \\$200 million 的资产。　Paul Hastings 获得拟定费率的120%，并可寻求额外奖励。\n\n3　受托人追回价值至少 \\$150 million 的资产。　Paul Hastings 获得拟定费率的100%。\n\n4　受托人追回价值至少 \\$100 million 的资产。　Paul Hastings 获得拟定费率的80%。\n\n5　受托人追回价值至少 \\$75 million 的资产。　Paul Hastings 的费率上限为 Womble 的费率。\n\n6　(1) 受托人未能同时追回 Lady May 和 Sherry Residence；且 (2) 破产财产追回的其他资产价值低于 \\$50 million。　Paul Hastings 获得拟定费率的50%。\n\n46 见 Friedman 声明，附件 12，第 1 页动议裁定及命令，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Kwok（郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022），NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181。\n\n47 尽管该提议旨在解决 PAX 上述已识别的关切，PAX 承认其他费用提议亦可能适当，并愿意与法院、受托人及其他债权人合作，在上述提议被认定不可接受的情况下达成替代安排。\n\nIV. 结论\n\n24. 鉴于上述情况，PAX 恭请法院在裁定 Rule 60(b) 动议及 Paul Hastings 任用申请时，考虑并在必要范围内纠正和减轻：(i) 因关于 Despins 先生任命及 Paul Hastings 任命的争议而对破产财产造成的风险；以及 (ii) Paul Hastings 拟议的费用结构。48\n\n日期：Hartford, Connecticut，July 27, 2022\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n代理人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney　Patrick M. Birney（CT No. 19875）Annecca H. Smith（CT No. 31148）ROBINSON & COLE LLP　280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 电话：(860) 275-8275 传真：(860) 275-8299 电子邮箱：pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）Stuart M. Sarnoff（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP　Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 电话：(212) 326-2293 电子邮箱：pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n48 PAX 保留对债务人在其书状中可能提出的其他论点作出回应的权利。\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 July 27, 2022，上述文件副本已通过法院 CM/ECF System 以电子方式提交。本次提交的通知将通过电子邮件发送给依据法院电子提交系统自动接收通知的所有当事人。利害关系方可通过法院 CM/ECF System 查阅本次提交文件。\n\n/s/ Patrick M. Birney　Patrick M. Birney","key_entities":["Paul Hastings","Despins","GETTR","Guo","Miles Guo","CCP","Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":84,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":120,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":132,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":157,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":237,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":241,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":252,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":352,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":498,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":501,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":507,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":523,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":538,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":539,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":561,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":615,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":6415,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:30:44"}