{"id":"court_ctb_620_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":620,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION :","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\nIn re : Chapter 11\n\nHO WON KWOK, : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor. : \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n# **THE DEBTOR'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. MUST COMPLY WITH 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) AND WHETHER ITS REPRESENTATION OF THE DEBTOR CREATES A CONFLICT OF INTEREST**\n\nThe debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to this Court's Scheduling Order entered on July 22, 2022 (the \"Scheduling Order\"), hereby submits this memorandum regarding (i) whether Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. (\"Z&Z\") must comply with the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 2014 in connection with its representation of the Debtor who is no longer a debtor-in-possession, and (ii) whether an actual conflict of interest exists in connection with Z&Z's representation of the Debtor, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), and Mei Guo (\"Ms. Guo,\" together with the Debtor and HK USA, the \"Clients\"), in the above-captioned Chapter 11 proceeding (the \"Bankruptcy Case\") and *HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited v. Kwok, et al.*, 5:22- AP-5003 (JAM) (the \"Adversary Proceeding\").\n\n### **INTRODUCTION**\n\nAs set forth more fully below, Z&Z is not required to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 2014 because those provisions are not applicable to the employment of professionals by debtors who are debtors out-of-possession by virtue of the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. Section 327(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 2014 govern only those professionals who serve the estate and are eligible to be paid from property of the estate. Professionals employed by debtors out-of-possession debtors do not serve the estate and cannot be compensated from the estate. Here, the Debtor ceased to be a debtor-in-possession on July 8, 2022, when this Court issued the Order Granting Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 523) (the \"Appointment Order\"). To be clear—while Bankruptcy Code section 1109(b) expressly provides that the Debtor \"may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in the case,\" Z&Z does not and cannot represent the bankruptcy estate, it represents only the Debtor in his individual debtor out of possession capacity.\n\nIn addition, Z&Z's representation of the Clients does not create a conflict of interest. Upon the appointment Luc Despins (the \"Trustee\") as Chapter 11 trustee pursuant to the Appointment Order, the Trustee was automatically substituted for the Debtor in the Adversary Proceeding. Z&Z never represented the Debtor before the Court appointed the Trustee, and the Debtor is no longer a party in the Adversary Proceeding due to the Trustee's appointment. Furthermore, the Debtor agrees that HK USA is the owner of the yacht, the \"Lady May,\" and that the Lady May does not constitute property of the Estate. Consequently, there is no conflict of interest under Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7(b)(3) in Z&Z representing the Debtor in the Bankruptcy Case and HK USA and Ms. Guo in the Adversary Proceeding. Z&Z's representation of the Clients \"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 … .\"\n\n### **I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND**\n\n### **A. The Appointment of the Chapter 11 Trustee**\n\nOn February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed his voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On March 16, 2022, the Debtor filed his application to employ Brown Rudnick under section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. (Doc. No. 86.) On April 29, 2022, the Court authorized the Debtor's employment and retention of Brown Rudnick. (Doc. No. 293).\n\nOn April 11, 2022, Z&Z filed an appearance on behalf of HK USA, and HK USA, represented by Z&Z, commenced the Adversary Proceeding. The Adversary Proceeding was brought against \"the debtor in possession, Ho Won Kwok, (the 'Debtor' or 'Kwok'), and Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. ('PAX'), seeking a declaratory judgment that a certain vessel known as the Lady May (the 'Lady May') is not property of the Debtor's Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Estate (the 'Estate') within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 541.\" Adv. Pro. 22-05003, Doc. No. 1, at 1. On May 10, 2022, Z&Z filed an appearance in the Bankruptcy Case on behalf on behalf of Ms. Guo.\n\nOn June 15, 2022, this Court issued a Memorandum of Decision, *inter alia*, granting the Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Partial Joinder to the USTs Motion for the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 183), to the extent that it sought the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. (Doc. No. 465.). On July 7, 2022, the UST filed a notice of its appointment of Luc Despins (the \"Trustee\") as Chapter 11 trustee (Doc. No. 514), and an Application for Order Approving Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 515), seeking the Court's approval of the appointment of the Trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the appointment of the Trustee. (Doc. No. 523, the \"Appointment Order\").\n\nOn July 12, 2022, the Debtor retained Z&Z as his counsel in the Bankruptcy Case. Immediately prior to Z&Z's retention, Z&Z informed the Clients that their interest did not appear to conflict such that Z&Z could ethically represent all three of them. Z&Z further informed the Clients of¸ *inter alia*, the consequences of later conflicts of interest arising and the how Z&Z's representation of the Clients could impact attorney-client privilege. Z&Z recommended that the Clients consult with separate counsel in deciding whether to consent to joint representation by Z&Z. The Clients consented in writing to their joint representation by Z&Z. On July 14, 2022, Z&Z filed appearances on behalf of the Debtor in the Bankruptcy Case.\n\nOn July 13, 2022, Brown Rudnick filed a motion to withdraw its appearance for the Debtor. (Doc. No. 543.)\n\nThe Court held a status conference on July 21, 2022 (the \"July 21 Status Conference\"), and raised the issues of, *inter alia*, whether Z&Z is obligated to comply with Bankruptcy Code § 327(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 2014 and whether Z&Z's representation of the Clients creates a nonwaivable conflict of interest. See Transcript of July 21 Hearing, at 37-42. In the Scheduling Order, the Court ordered that Z&Z \"shall filed briefs addressing whether Z&Z must comply with the provisions of 11 U.S.C. 327(a) 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\" in advance of the hearing scheduled for August 1, 2022. (*See* Scheduling Order.)\n\n## **II. LAW AND ARGUMENT**\n\n# **A. Z&Z Is Not Required to Comply With 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 2014**\n\nSection 327 of the Bankruptcy Code governs the employment of professional persons and\n\nstates, in pertinent part:\n\n(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, the trustee, with the court's approval, may employ one or more attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons, 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\nBankruptcy Rule 2014 expressly applies only to applications made under Bankruptcy Code sections 327, 1103 and 1114. Consistent with the plain language of section 327, the United States Supreme Court has held that \"Section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code allows *bankruptcy trustees* to hire attorneys, accountants, and other professionals to assist them in carrying out their duties. … § 327(a) professionals are hired to serve the *administrator of the estate* for the benefit of the estate.\" *Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC,* 576 U.S. 121, 124, 127 (2015) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has further held that the appointment of a trustee, \"terminate[s the debtor's] status as debtor-in-possession and so terminated [the attorney approved under 327(a)]'s service under § 327 as an attorney for the debtor-in-possession.\" *Lamie v. United States Tr.*, 540 U.S. 526, 532 (2004).<sup>1</sup>\n\nThe Court in *Lamie* held that Bankruptcy Code section 330 \"does not authorize compensation awards to debtors' attorneys from estate funds, unless they are employed as authorized by §327. If the attorney is to be paid from estate funds under § 330(a)(1) in a chapter 7 case, he must be employed *by the trustee* and approved by the court.\" *Id*. at 538 (emphasis added). \"Because the [petitioner in *Lamie*] was never subsequently employed by the trustee and approved by the court pursuant to section 327, the Court held section 330(a) did not authorize compensation\n\n<sup>1</sup> While *Lamie* involved the appointment of a Chapter 7 trustee, \"[i]t makes no difference\" to the question of compensation of professionals under section 330(a) (and relatedly, their employment under section 327(a)) whether the trustee is appointed in a Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 proceeding. *Harrington v. Nickless (In re Int'l Gospel Party Boosting Jesus Groups, Inc.)*, 487 B.R. 12, 15 (D. Mass 2013) (noting that Lamie cited with approval *Andrews & Kurth L.L.P. v. Family Snacks, Inc. (In re Pro-Snax Distributors)*, 157 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 1998), which held that section 330(a), as amended, \"excludes attorneys from its catalog of professional officers of a bankruptcy estate who may be compensated for their work after the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee.\"); *see also Morrison v. United States Trs.*, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63339, [\\*14] (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010) (\"The statutory language construed in *Lamie* is not limited to Chapter 7, and there is no basis in law to presume that a different result would follow where a Chapter 11 trustee has been appointed.\"); *In re Bay Voltex Corp.*, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 3702, [\\*3] (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2006) (agreeing that services provided to a Chapter 7 debtor and a Chapter 11 debtor out of possession are \"tantamount to a distinction without a difference.\").\n\nto the attorney from estate funds*.\" Harrington*, 487 B.R. at 15. *See also* 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 327.05[3], at 327-60 (Lawrence P. King *et al*., 16th ed. Rev. 2013) (\"The Supreme Court … in *Lamie v. United States Trustee* [held] …that the plain language of the statute controlled and that the debtor's counsel could not be compensated pursuant to section 330 *since it could not be retained pursuant to section 327*.\" (emphasis added)).\n\nConsistent with the foregoing, cases are uniform in holding that a debtor out of possession is not required to obtain court approval to employ an attorney. *See, e.g.*, *In re Land*, 116 B.R. 798, 803 (D. Colo. 1990) (\"The Bankruptcy Code also requires certain disclosures [under § 329 of the Code] by attorneys who have not been employed by the trustee pursuant to § 327 of Code and who do not seek compensation from funds of the estate, but who have been employed by a debtor outof-possession to represent his interests in connection with the case.\"); *In re Prime Foods of St. Croix*, 80 B.R. 758, (D. V.I. 1987) (\"Upon the appointment of Mider as trustee, the debtor was no longer 'in possession.' The debtor's choice of counsel is not subject to court approval.\"); *In re TAJ Graphics Enters., LLC*, 549 B.R. 825, 828 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2016) (\"An out-of-possession Chapter 11 debtor is not authorized to employ a professional person, such as an attorney, under § 327. That authority is reserved to the estate trustee.\"); *In re Mullendore*, 517 B.R. 232, 238 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2014) (\"Under the Code, as under prior law, court approval is not necessary for the appointment of … an attorney for the debtor *out of* possession in a chapter 11 case.\" (quoting 3 COLLER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 327.05[3] (Lawrence P. King *et al*., 16th ed. Rev. 2013) (emphasis in original)); *In re Caprock Wine Co., L.L.C.*, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 598, [\\*3] (Bankr. N.D. Tex. March 3, 2010) (\"The Bankruptcy Code does not contemplate either the employment or compensation of counsel for the debtor (as opposed to the debtor in possession). Stated otherwise, a chapter 11 debtor that is no longer in possession is not required to obtain court approval for employment of an attorney.\" (citations omitted)); *In re Apollo Group*, 224 B.R. 48, 49 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1998) (\"[B]ecause the Court has appointed a trustee, Apollo is no longer required to obtain court approval pursuant to § 327 to employ an attorney.\"). The undersigned could find no case to the contrary.\n\nZ&Z represents a debtor out-of-possession. Not only is Z&Z not required to be employed under section 327(a), Z&Z may not be employed pursuant to section 327(a) by the Debtor now that he is out of possession. *See Lamie*, 540 U.S. at 532; *Baker Botts L.L.P.*, 576 U.S. at 124, 127. The Debtor still has a right to retain counsel and such counsel may be compensated other than by the estate. *See Lamie*, 540 U.S. at 540 (\"[T]he Act still allows debtors' attorneys to be compensated in different ways.\"); *In re Int'l Gospel Party Boosting Jesus Groups, Inc.*, 487 B.R. at 18 (\"[I]t is common for the [d]ebtor to retain counsel after the appointment of an estate trustee, even if counsel may not be compensated from the bankruptcy estate.\"). To reiterate--while Bankruptcy Code section 1109(b) expressly provides that the Debtor \"may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in the case,\" Z&Z does not and cannot represent the bankruptcy estate, it represents only the Debtor in his individual debtor out of possession capacity. Z&Z fully recognizes that it is required to comply with Bankruptcy Code section 329 and Bankruptcy Rule 2016(b).\n\n#### **B. Z&Z Representation of the Clients Does Not Present a Conflict of Interest**\n\nConsistent with the foregoing, other than the disclosure and other requirements of Bankruptcy Code section 329 and Bankruptcy Rule 2016(b), the Debtor's retention of Z&Z in the Bankruptcy Case is governed only by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 83.2 of the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, made applicable by Local Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1001-1(b), provides in relevant part that \"this Court recognizes the authority of the 'Rules of Professional Conduct,' as approved by the Judges of the\n\nConnecticut Superior Court as expressing the standards of professional conduct expected of\n\nlawyers practicing in the District of Connecticut.\"\n\nRule 1.7 of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct governs conflict of interests\n\nbetween current clients and states:\n\n- (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:\n\t- (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or\n\t- (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.\n- (b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under subsection (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:\n\t- (1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;\n\t- (2) the representation is not prohibited by law;\n\t- (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\n\t- (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.\n\nThe Court's principal focus in raising the conflict issue appears to be Rule 1.7(b)(3).\n\nTranscript of July 21 Hearing, at 47, lines 18-22 (\"How are you going to represent both HK International and Mr. Kwok in that adversary proceeding that HK International filed against Mr. Kwok and the bankruptcy estate as to the title to the Lady May? Isn't that an absolute and obvious conflict of interest?\"). The simple answer is that the Debtor is no longer a party to the Adversary Proceeding, the Trustee is now the party to the Adversary Proceeding in place of the Debtor, as the Trustee appears to recognize. Transcript of July 21 Hearing, at 17, lines 19-25.\n\nBankruptcy Code section 323(b) provides: \"The trustee in a case under this title has capacity to sue and be sued.\" Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2012(a) provides in relevant part: \"If a trustee is appointed in a chapter 11 case…, the trustee is substituted automatically for the debtor in possession as a party in any pending action, proceeding, or matter.\" In accordance with the plain language of these provisions, Courts have consistently held that upon appointment of a trustee, the trustee is automatically substituted for the debtor in any pending action or proceeding and the debtor has no standing to take any action in any such proceeding. *See, e.g.*, *Hicks v. Citigroup, Inc.*, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193044, [\\*5] (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2012) (\"[W]here a plaintiff in an ongoing lawsuit filed for bankruptcy and her interests are transferred by law to the estate, dismissal of that plaintiff is appropriate because that individual no longer has standing to bring the claims in light of the automatic transfer of interest to the Trustee.\"); *In re Innovative Commun. Co., L.L.C.*, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73674, [\\*9-10] (D. V.I. Aug. 19, 2009) (\"In this case, after Springel was appointed as Chapter 11 trustee for the Corporate Debtors, the authority to pursue appeals belonged exclusively to Springel. Thus, when Springel was appointed as trustee, the Debtors lost standing to pursue the instant appeal.\"); *Alstrin v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.*, 179 F.Supp. 2d 376, 403-04 (D. Del. 2002) (agreeing with trustee's argument that insured v. insured insurance policy exclusion did not apply because debtor and trustee were separate entities and once trustee was appointed debtor-in-possession ceased to exist and trustee was automatically substituted); *Lawrence v. Jahn (In re Lawrence)*, 219 B.R. 786, 801 (E.D. Tenn. 1998) (\"It is the Trustee who has the *exclusive* standing and capacity to sue *and be sued on behalf of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 323(b)*.\n\nThe Trustee is appointed by the Bankruptcy Court to take charge of the debtor's estate, collect assets, bring suit on the debtor's claims against other persons, *defend actions against the estate,* and otherwise administer the estate.\" (internal citations omitted, emphasis added)); *In re B&P Baird Holdings, Inc.*, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 4550, [\\*11] (Bankr. W.D. Mich. Nov. 22, 2011) (\"[I]f anyone will be permitted to seek post-judgment relief in the Western District of New York, it will be the Trustee as the representative of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 323(a) and the person automatically substituted in lieu of the Debtor in that litigation under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2012(a).\"); *In re Champ Car World Series, LLC*, 411 B.R. 619, 623 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2008) (\"[T]he Trustee succeeds to all claims by and against the Debtor.\"). *See also* 9 COLLER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 2012.01[1], at 2012-2 – 2012-3 (Lawrence P. King *et al*., 16th ed. Rev. 2020) (\"[A] trustee succeeding a debtor in possession shall substitute automatically for the debtor in possession just as the trustee would for the predecessor trustee. This is consistent with the concept that a debtor in possession is, in effect, a trustee. Notably, a trustee and a debtor in possession cannot co-exist in a chapter 11 case. Thus, once a trustee is appointed, the debtor in possession ceases to exist.\").\n\nThe Debtor is no longer the defendant in the Adversary Proceeding and Z&Z is not acting as an advocate against the Debtor in the Adversary Proceeding. In fact, the Debtor's and HK USA's (and relatedly, Mei Guo's) interests are aligned with regard to the subject matter of the Adversary Proceeding, in that the Debtor does not believe that he owns the Lady May and he does not believe that the Lady May is part of the Estate. As a result, the representation of HK USA in the Adversary Proceeding is not directly adverse to the Debtor now that he is out of possession and no longer the defendant in the Adversary Proceeding.\n\nIn terms of the other provisions of Rule 1.7, under (a)(1) as noted upon the appointment of the Trustee the Debtor is no longer the defendant in the Adversary Proceeding and HK USA and the Debtor are not directly adverse. Under 1.7(a)(2), there is not 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.\" Z&Z, as well as the Clients, find it very unlikely that a conflict will eventuate as a result of the Adversary Proceeding. The Debtor is no longer a party to that proceeding and has no control over it or even interest in it. As noted, to the extent relevant, the Debtor agrees with HK USA that he does not own the Lady May.\n\nUnder Rule 1.7(b)(1), Z&Z reasonably believes that it will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to the Clients. Under 1.7(b)(2), Z&Z is not aware of any law which prohibits its representation of the Clients in the Bankruptcy Case. 1.7(b)(3) is addressed above. Under 1.7(b)(4), as described above, each of the Clients has given informed consent, confirmed in writing. Therefore, should this Court find that a conflict of interest exists under Rule 1.7(a), it should also find that the exception found in Rule 1.7(b) is applicable because all four prongs of the rule are satisfied.\n\n#### **III. CONCLUSION**\n\nBased on the foregoing, Z&Z may represent the Clients in the Bankruptcy Case. Z&Z is not required to comply with section 327(a) and no conflict of interest exists as a result of Z&Z's representation of the Clients.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 27th day of July, 2022.\n\n# **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Eric Henzy* Eric Henzy (ct12849) Stephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [ehenzy@zeislaw.com](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) [skindseth@zeislaw.com](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 27th day of July, 2022, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice ofElectronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ Eric Henzy* Eric Henzy (ct12849)","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n关于：第11章\nHO WON KWOK（郭文贵），：案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。：________________________________________:\n\n________________________________________\n关于 ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. 是否必须遵守 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 以及其代理债务人是否构成利益冲突的债务人备忘录\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“债务人”）经由其署名律师，并依据本法院于 2022 年 7 月 22 日作出的日程安排裁定（以下简称“日程安排裁定”），特此提交本备忘录，涉及：(i) Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（以下简称“Z&Z”）在代理已不再作为占有中债务人的本案债务人时，是否必须遵守 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 及《破产程序规则》第 2014 条的规定；以及 (ii) Z&Z 在上述标题所示的第11章程序（以下简称“破产案件”）以及 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited 诉 Kwok 等人案，案号 5:22-AP-5003 (JAM)（以下简称“对抗性程序”）中代理债务人、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（以下简称“HK USA”）以及 Mei Guo（郭美，以下与债务人及 HK USA 合称为“委托人”）是否存在实际的利益冲突。\n\n引言\n\n如下文更详尽阐述，Z&Z 无需遵守 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 及《破产程序规则》第 2014 条，因为这些规定不适用于因第11章破产受托人的任命而成为非占有中债务人的聘用专业人员行为。第 327(a) 条及《破产程序规则》第 2014 条仅规制那些为破产财团服务且有资格自破产财团财产中获得报酬的专业人员。非占有中债务人聘用的专业人员并不为破产财团服务，亦不能从破产财团获得报酬。在本案中，本法院于 2022 年 7 月 8 日作出《批准任命第11章破产受托人的裁定》（文件号 523）（以下简称“任命裁定”），债务人自该日起已不再是占有中债务人。需要明确的是——尽管《破产法典》第 1109(b) 条明确规定债务人“可以就案件中的任何问题提出主张、出庭并获得陈述意见的机会”，但 Z&Z 没有也不可能代表破产财团，其仅代表作为个人的非占有中债务人身份的债务人。\n\n此外，Z&Z 代理各委托人并不构成利益冲突。依据任命裁定任命 Luc Despins（以下简称“受托人”）为第11章破产受托人后，受托人已在对抗性程序中自动取代债务人。在法院任命受托人之前，Z&Z 从未代理过债务人，且由于受托人的任命，债务人已不再是对抗性程序的当事人。此外，债务人认同 HK USA 是游艇“Lady May”号的所有权人，且“Lady May”号不构成破产财团的财产。因此，根据《职业行为规则》第 1.7(b)(3) 条，Z&Z 在破产案件中代理债务人，并在对抗性程序中代理 HK USA 及郭美，不存在利益冲突。Z&Z 代理各委托人“并不涉及一名委托人对该律师在同一诉讼或同一程序中代理的另一名委托人主张权利……”。\n\nI. 事实与程序背景\n\nA. 第11章破产受托人的任命\n\n2022 年 2 月 15 日，债务人根据《破产法典》第11章提出了自愿救济申请。2022 年 3 月 16 日，债务人依据《破产法典》第 327(a) 条提交了聘用 Brown Rudnick 的申请。（文件号 86。）2022 年 4 月 29 日，法院批准了债务人对 Brown Rudnick 的聘用和留任。（文件号 293。）\n\n2022 年 4 月 11 日，Z&Z 代表 HK USA 提交了代理出庭通知，并由 Z&Z 代理 HK USA 发起了对抗性程序。该对抗性程序系针对“占有中债务人 Ho Won Kwok（即‘债务人’或‘郭’）以及 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（以下简称‘PAX’）提起，请求作出确认之诉判决，确认名为 Lady May 的特定船舶（以下简称‘Lady May’号）并非 11 U.S.C. § 541 含义内的债务人第11章破产财团（以下简称‘破产财团’）的财产。”对抗性程序 22-05003，文件号 1，第 1 页。2022 年 5 月 10 日，Z&Z 在破产案件中代表郭美提交了代理出庭通知。\n\n2022 年 6 月 15 日，本法院作出一项《裁决备忘录》，除其他事项外，在寻求任命第11章受托人的范围内批准了《驳回动议，或选择性地，对联邦破产管理人关于任命第11章受托人之动议的部分加入》（文件号 183）。（文件号 465。）2022 年 7 月 7 日，UST（United States Trustee，联邦破产管理人）提交了其任命 Luc Despins（以下简称“受托人”）为第11章受托人的通知（文件号 514），以及一份《请求批准任命第11章受托人的裁定申请书》（文件号 515），请求法院批准受托人的任命。2022 年 7 月 8 日，法院作出了批准任命受托人的裁定。（文件号 523，即“任命裁定”）。\n\n2022 年 7 月 12 日，债务人在破产案件中留任 Z&Z 作为其代理律师。在 Z&Z 正式留任前夕，Z&Z 告知各委托人，其利益似乎并不冲突，因此 Z&Z 可以合乎职业道德地同时代理三方。Z&Z 进一步告知各委托人（除其他事项外）日后若出现利益冲突的后果，以及 Z&Z 代理各委托人可能如何影响律师与委托人之间的保密特权。Z&Z 建议各委托人在决定是否同意由 Z&Z 共同代理时咨询各自独立的法律顾问。各委托人书面同意由 Z&Z 进行共同代理。2022 年 7 月 14 日，Z&Z 在破产案件中代表债务人提交了代理出庭通知。\n\n2022 年 7 月 13 日，Brown Rudnick 提交了撤回其作为债务人代理律师出庭的动议。（文件号 543。）\n\n法院于 2022 年 7 月 21 日举行了案件进展听证会（以下简称“7 月 21 日进展听证会”），并除其他事项外提出了以下问题：Z&Z 是否有义务遵守《破产法典》§ 327(a) 和《破产程序规则》第 2014 条，以及 Z&Z 代理各委托人是否会产生不可放弃的利益冲突。参见 7 月 21 日听证会笔录，第 37-42 页。在日程安排裁定中，法院责令 Z&Z 在定于 2022 年 8 月 1 日举行的听证会之前，“应提交书面意见，阐述 Z&Z 是否必须遵守 11 U.S.C. 327(a) 的规定，以及在债务人的第11章案件及对抗性程序中，Z&Z 代理 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC、郭美和债务人是否存在利益冲突”。（参见日程安排裁定。）\n\nII. 法律与论证\n\nA. Z&Z 无需遵守 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) 及《破产程序规则》第 2014 条\n\n《破产法典》第 327 条规制专业人员的聘用，其相关部分规定如下：\n\n(a) 除本条另有规定外，受托人经法院批准，可聘用一名或多名不持有且不代表与破产财团相冲突之利益的、无利害关系的律师、会计师、估价师、拍卖师或其他专业人员，以代表或协助受托人履行其在本编项下的职责。\n\n《破产程序规则》第 2014 条明确仅适用于依据《破产法典》第 327、1103 和 1114 条提出的申请。与第 327 条的明文规定一致，美国联邦最高法院已认定：“《破产法典》第 327(a) 条允许破产受托人聘用律师、会计师及其他专业人员，以协助其履行职责。……聘用第 327(a) 条项下的专业人员是为了破产财团的利益而为破产财团管理人提供服务。”Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. 121, 124, 127 (2015)（强调为后加）。最高法院还进一步认定，受托人的任命“终止了[债务人]作为占有中债务人的地位，从而也终止了[根据第 327(a) 条获批的律师]根据第 327 条作为占有中债务人律师的服务。”Lamie v. United States Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 532 (2004)。1\n\nLamie 案法院认定，《破产法典》第 330 条“未授权从破产财团资金中向债务人的律师批给报酬，除非他们是按第 327 条的授权获得聘用。如果律师在第7章案件中欲根据第 330(a)(1) 条从破产财团资金中获得报酬，其必须受聘于受托人并获得法院批准。”同上，第 538 页（强调为后加）。“由于[Lamie 案中的上诉人]此后从未受聘于受托人且未依照第 327 条获得法院批准，法院裁定第 330(a) 条未授权\n\n1 尽管 Lamie 案涉及第7章受托人的任命，但就第 330(a) 条项下专业人员的报酬问题（以及与之相关的第 327(a) 条项下的聘用问题）而言，受托人是在第11章还是第7章程序中被任命“并无区别”。Harrington v. Nickless (In re Int'l Gospel Party Boosting Jesus Groups, Inc.), 487 B.R. 12, 15 (D. Mass 2013)（指出 Lamie 案赞同性引用了 Andrews & Kurth L.L.P. v. Family Snacks, Inc. (In re Pro-Snax Distributors), 157 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 1998)，该案认定经修正的第 330(a) 条“在第11章受托人任命后，已将律师从可以因其工作获得报酬的破产财团专业官员名录中排除”）；亦见 Morrison v. United States Trs., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63339, [*14] (E.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010)（“Lamie 案中解释的成文法语词并不限于第7章，并且在法律上没有理由推定在任命了第11章受托人的情况下会得出不同结果”）；In re Bay Voltex Corp., 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 3702, [*3] (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2006)（认同向第7章债务人和向第11章非占有中债务人提供服务“实质上属于没有实质区别的区分”）。\n\n从破产财团资金中向该律师支付报酬。”Harrington，487 B.R.，第 15 页。亦见 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 327.05[3]，第 327-60 页（Lawrence P. King 等人编，第 16 版修订版 2013）（“最高法院……在 Lamie 诉 United States Trustee 案中[认定]……成文法的明文语词具有约束力，且由于债务人的律师无法依照第 327 条留任，因此无法依照第 330 条获得报酬。”（强调为后加））。\n\n与前述内容一致，判例一致认为非占有债务人无需获得法院批准即可聘请律师。参见，例如，In re Land, 116 B.R. 798, 803 (D. Colo. 1990)（“《破产法典》还要求未依据《法典》第 327 条由受托人聘用、且不寻求从破产财产资金中获取报酬，但已被非占有债务人聘用以代表其在案件相关利益的律师进行特定披露[依据《法典》第 329 条]。”）；In re Prime Foods of St. Croix, 80 B.R. 758, (D. V.I. 1987)（“指定米德尔[Mider]为受托人后，债务人不再处于‘占有’状态。债务人对律师的选择不受法院批准的约束。”）；In re TAJ Graphics Enters., LLC, 549 B.R. 825, 828 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2016)（“非占有的第 11 章债务人无权依据第 327 条聘用专业人员，例如律师。该权力专属于破产财产受托人。”）；In re Mullendore, 517 B.R. 232, 238 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2014)（“根据《法典》以及先前的法律，在第 11 章案件中为非占有债务人指定……律师无需法院批准。”（引用 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 327.05[3] (Lawrence P. King et al., 16th ed. Rev. 2013)（原文强调））；In re Caprock Wine Co., L.L.C., 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 598, [*3] (Bankr. N.D. Tex. March 3, 2010)（“《破产法典》未设想为债务人（相对于占有中债务人而言）聘用律师或对其进行补偿。换言之，不再处于占有状态的第 11 章债务人无需获得法院批准即可聘用律师。”（引文省略））；In re Apollo Group, 224 B.R. 48, 49 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1998)（“由于法院已指定受托人，阿波罗[Apollo]不再需要依据第 327 条获得法院批准以聘用律师。”）。下签人未能找到任何相反的判例。\n\nZ&Z（Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.）代表一名非占有债务人。Z&Z 不仅无需依据第 327(a) 条获得聘用，而且由于债务人目前处于非占有状态，Z&Z 亦不得由债务人依据第 327(a) 条聘用。参见 Lamie, 540 U.S. at 532；Baker Botts L.L.P., 576 U.S. at 124, 127。债务人仍有权聘请律师，且该律师可通过破产财产以外的方式获得报酬。参见 Lamie, 540 U.S. at 540（“该《法案》仍允许债务人的律师以不同方式获得报酬。”）；In re Int'l Gospel Party Boosting Jesus Groups, Inc., 487 B.R. at 18（“在指定破产财产受托人后，即使律师可能无法从破产财产中获得报酬，债务人聘请律师也是常见的。”）。重申一次——虽然《破产法典》第 1109(b) 条明确规定债务人“可以提出并可以在案件中的任何问题上出庭并发表意见”，但 Z&Z 没有且不能代表破产财产，其仅代表处于个人非占有债务人身份的债务人。Z&Z 完全认识到其必须遵守《破产法典》第 329 条和《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 2016(b) 条。\n\nB. Z&Z 代表客户不存在利益冲突\n\n与前述内容一致，除了《破产法典》第 329 条和《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 2016(b) 条的披露及其他要求外，债务人在本破产案件中对 Z&Z 的聘用仅受《职业行为规则》的管辖。由《地方破产程序规则》第 1001-1(b) 条适用的 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区联邦地区法院）《地方民事规则》第 83.2 条相关部分规定，“本法院承认由 Connecticut Superior Court（康涅狄格州高等法院）法官批准的《职业行为规则》的效力，其表达了在康涅狄格区执业的律师应遵循的职业行为标准。”\n\n《康涅狄格州职业行为规则》第 1.7 条管辖现有客户之间的利益冲突，并规定：\n\n- (a) 除 (b) 款另有规定外，若代理涉及同时存在的利益冲突，律师不得代理客户。在下列情况下存在同时利益冲突：\n\t- (1) 代理一方客户将直接与另一方客户不利；或\n\t- (2) 存在重大风险表明，代理一名或多名客户将受到律师对另一名客户、前客户或第三人的责任或受到律师个人利益的实质性限制。\n- (b) 尽管存在 (a) 款规定的同时利益冲突，在下列情况下律师可以代理客户：\n\t- (1) 律师合理确信律师将能够向每位受影响的客户提供胜任且勤勉的代理；\n\t- (2) 该代理不为法律所禁止；\n\t- (3) 该代理不涉及在同一诉讼或同一裁判机构前进行的同一程序中，由一名客户对由该律师代理的另一名客户提出主张；以及\n\t- (4) 每位受影响的客户均在知情后同意，并以书面形式确认。\n\n法院提出冲突问题的主要焦点似乎是第 1.7(b)(3) 条。\n\n7 月 21 日听证会笔录，第 47 页，第 18-22 行（“在 HK International 就 Lady May 号产权对郭先生及破产财产提起的对抗性诉讼中，你将如何同时代表 HK International 和郭先生？这不是绝对且显而易见的利益冲突吗？”）。简单的答案是，债务人不再是对抗性诉讼的当事人，受托人目前替代债务人成为对抗性诉讼的当事人，正如受托人似乎承认的那样。7 月 21 日听证会笔录，第 17 页，第 19-25 行。\n\n《破产法典》第 323(b) 条规定：“本编项下案件中的受托人具有起诉和应诉的诉讼行为能力。”《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 2012(a) 条相关部分规定：“如果在第 11 章案件中指定了受托人……，则在任何未决的诉讼、程序或事项中，受托人自动替代占有中债务人成为当事人。”根据这些条款的明文含义，法院一致认定，在指定受托人后，受托人会在任何未决诉讼或程序中自动替代债务人，而债务人无当事人资格在任何此类程序中采取任何行动。参见，例如，Hicks v. Citigroup, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193044, [*5] (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2012)（“如果正在进行的诉讼中的原告申请破产，且其权益依法律转移给破产财产，则驳回该原告是适当的，因为鉴于权益已自动转移给受托人，该个人不再具有提出主张的当事人资格。”）；In re Innovative Commun. Co., L.L.C., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73674, [*9-10] (D. V.I. Aug. 19, 2009)（“在本案中，在斯普林格尔[Springel]被指定为公司债务人的第 11 章受托人之后，进行上诉的权力专属于斯普林格尔。因此，当斯普林格尔被指定为受托人时，债务人失去了进行本上诉的当事人资格。”）；Alstrin v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 179 F.Supp. 2d 376, 403-04 (D. Del. 2002)（同意受托人的主张，即被保险人诉被保险人保险单除外条款不适用，因为债务人和受托人是独立的实体，一旦指定受托人，占有中债务人便不复存在，受托人自动被替换替代）；Lawrence v. Jahn (In re Lawrence), 219 B.R. 786, 801 (E.D. Tenn. 1998)（“根据 11 U.S.C. § 323(b)，代表破产财产起诉和应诉的排他性当事人资格和诉讼行为能力归受托人所有。\n\n受托人由破产法院指定，负责管理债务人的破产财产、收集资产、就债务人对其他人的主张提起诉讼、对针对破产财产的诉讼进行抗辩，以及以其他方式管理破产财产。”（内部引文省略，后加强调））；In re B&P Baird Holdings, Inc., 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 4550, [*11] (Bankr. W.D. Mich. Nov. 22, 2011)（“如果允许任何人在纽约西区寻求判后救济，那将是作为 11 U.S.C. § 323(a) 项下破产财产代表的受托人，以及根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2012(a) 在该诉讼中自动替代债务人的人。”）；In re Champ Car World Series, LLC, 411 B.R. 619, 623 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2008)（“受托人承继债务人的所有诉权以及针对债务人的所有主张。”）。另见 9 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 2012.01[1], at 2012-2 – 2012-3 (Lawrence P. King et al., 16th ed. Rev. 2020)（“接替占有中债务人的受托人应自动替代占有中债务人，正如受托人替代前任受托人一样。这与占有中债务人实际上就是受托人的概念是一致的。值得注意的是，受托人和占有中债务人不能在第 11 章案件中共存。因此，一旦指定受托人，占有中债务人即不复存在。”）。\n\n债务人不再是对抗性诉讼中的被告，Z&Z 在对抗性诉讼中亦未充当不利于债务人的辩护人。事实上，就对抗性诉讼的标的物而言，债务人与 HK USA（以及相关的美郭[Mei Guo]）的利益是一致的，即债务人认为其并不拥有 Lady May 号，且其不认为 Lady May 号属于破产财产的一部分。因此，在债务人目前处于非占有状态且不再是对抗性诉讼中被告的情况下，在对抗性诉讼中代理 HK USA 并未与债务人直接不利。\n\n就第 1.7 条的其他规定而言，在 (a)(1) 款下，如前所述，在指定受托人后，债务人不再是对抗性诉讼中的被告，HK USA 与债务人不存在直接不利。在 1.7(a)(2) 条下，不存在重大风险表明“代理一名或多名客户将受到律师对另一名客户、前客户或第三人的责任或受到律师个人利益的实质性限制”。Z&Z 以及客户均认为，因对抗性诉讼而产生冲突的可能性极小。债务人不再是该程序的当事人，对该程序没有任何控制权，甚至没有任何利益。如前所述，在相关范围内，债务人同意 HK USA 的观点，即其并不拥有 Lady May 号。\n\n根据第 1.7(b)(1) 条，Z&Z 合理确信其将能够向客户提供胜任且勤勉的代理。根据 1.7(b)(2) 条，Z&Z 未知悉有任何法律禁止其在破产案件中代理客户。1.7(b)(3) 条已在上述内容中讨论。根据 1.7(b)(4) 条，如上所述，每位客户均在知情后给予同意，并以书面形式确认。因此，如果本法院认定根据第 1.7(a) 条存在利益冲突，其亦应认定第 1.7(b) 条中的例外情况适用，因为该规则的所有四项要素均已满足。\n\nIII. 结论\n\n基于前述内容，Z&Z 可以在破产案件中代理客户。Z&Z 无需遵守第 327(a) 条，且 Z&Z 代理客户不存在利益冲突。\n\n日期：2022 年 7 月 27 日，于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n\n债务人，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ Eric Henzy\nEric Henzy (ct12849)\nStephen M. Kindseth (ct14640)\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\nJohn L. Cesaroni (ct29309)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5487\n电子邮件：[ehenzy@zeislaw.com] [skindseth@zeislaw.com] [aromney@zeislaw.com] [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\n送达证书\n\n我特此证明，于2022年7月27日，前述文书的副本已通过电子方式归档。本归档通知将通过法院电子归档系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事方，或按照Notice of Electronic Filing（电子归档通知）所示以邮寄方式发送给任何无法接收电子归档的人员。当事各方可通过法院的CM/ECF System（CM/ECF系统）查阅本次归档文书。\n\n/s/ Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨兹） Eric Henzy (ct12849)","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Luc Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3759,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:46:30"}