{"id":"court_ctb_622_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":622,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re : Chapter 11","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re : Chapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK, : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n : Debtor. : \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ :\n\n:\n\n# **DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO 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\nThe debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 327(a), hereby objects (the \"Objection\") to the July 12, 2022 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 (Doc. No. 539) (the \"Application\"). In support of his Objection, the Debtor represents as follows:\n\n# **I. INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. It is fundamental to the integrity of the bankruptcy process that attorneys for a trustee are \"disinterested\" and \"do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate.\" All parties, including a debtor, have a right to ensure that the professionals a trustee seeks to retain do not have any bias or prejudice towards them.\n\n2. Paul Hastings, LLP (\"Paul Hastings\"), is not disinterested within the meaning of the Code. The firm has multiple representations and connections that clearly establish both the substance and the appearance of conflicts, bias and prejudice. In addition, the Application fails to adequately disclose Paul Hastings' potential conflicts and many connections to the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate and other parties in interest.\n\n3. As described in more detail below, the People's Republic of China (\"PRC\") and the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\") are fiercely adverse to the Debtor. The Debtor is seeking asylum in this country because he and his family have been persecuted by the Chinese government. Paul Hastings has represented dozens of Chinese state-owned and controlled entities (\"Stateowned Entities\") and other businesses doing business in China. Because the Chinese government exercises complete control over State-owned Entities and substantial control over other businesses represented by Paul Hastings that operate in China, the Chinese government has the ability to exercise undue influence over Paul Hastings. Indeed, the Chinese Government dictates whether Paul Hastings may conduct business out of its offices in China.\n\n4. While the Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\") and other parties in interest may describe the Debtor's concerns as \"insane,\" the Chinese government has not persecuted and is not actively persecuting, the Trustee or any of those parties in interest. By contrast, the Chinese government is persecuting the Debtor, his family, and their business interests.\n\n5. As set forth in greater detail below, the United States Department of Justice (\"DOJ\") has criminally prosecuted several people, including members of the DOJ, for targeting the Debtor at the behest of the Chinese Government. Moreover, on May 17, 2022, several months after the Debtor filed his Bankruptcy Petition and only two months ago, the Attorney General of the United States filed a complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Stephen A. Wynn (\"Wynn\"), a well-known Casino magnate and billionaire, for illegally acting as an undisclosed agent of the PRC tasked with orchestrating the Debtor's deportation to China. Among other things, the DOJ alleges that Wynn acted at the request of Sun Lijan—the former Vice Minister for Public\n\nSecurity—and the PRC itself—by conveying \"to then-President Trump [at dinner on June 27, 2017] the PRC's desire to have [the Debtor] removed from the United States.\" (*Attorney General of the United States of America v. Wynn*, No. 1:22-cv-1372 (D.D.C.), Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ¶ 22).\n\n6. Perhaps most outrageously, *Paul Hastings is presently defending Wynn against the DOJ in that action.* And yet, Paul Hastings and the Trustee have failed to disclose Paul Hastings' representation of Wynn, its representation of State-owned Entities, or its own business ties to China.\n\n7. In addition, Paul Hastings, and specifically its Financial Restructuring Group (of which the Trustee is Co-Chair), has represented, and will most assuredly continue to represent, UBS entities in various matters. Indeed, Paul Hastings' Restructuring Group's website, which, incidentally, bears the Trustee's picture, identifies \"UBS\" as a representative client (\"We have represented clients such as Morgan Stanley, RBC, UBS and Wells Fargo as agents and first lien lenders on exit and debtor-in-possession lending transactions.\") [\\(http)](http).\n\n8. Prior to commencement of this case, the Debtor filed a \\$500 million claim against one of the UBS entities that Paul Hastings has represented, UBS AG, in the United Kingdom and a related action against UBS AG in Switzerland. The Trustee was automatically substituted as plaintiff in the UK and Switzerland under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2012(a). As counsel for the Trustee, Paul Hastings would be adverse to UBS AG. Paul Hastings has not adequately disclosed the nature and quantity of the work that it has performed and may still be performing for UBS AG and its affiliates.\n\n9. Paul Hastings has also represented multiple entities related to the Debtor's largest creditor and zealous adversary, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund (\"PAX\"), a fact that the Trustee first disclosed to the Court verbally at the hearing on the application to appoint him as Trustee. The most recent of these representations terminated no later than May of 2022. (First Supplemental Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins (Doc. No. 538) (the \"Supplemental Despins Declaration\"), ¶ 2)\n\n10. In sum, Paul Hastings (i) has until at least very recently represented affiliates of the largest creditor in this case; (ii) represented UBS AG, which is currently the defendant in two pending actions commenced by the Debtor that may be a significant asset in this bankruptcy case; (iii) has significant ties to a foreign government that has persecuted and is actively persecuting the Debtor; and (iv) currently represents a billionaire who the DOJ alleges served as an unregistered agent of China in connection with China's efforts to get the Debtor extradited. Paul Hastings has not disclosed much of the foregoing, and it has not adequately disclosed any of the foregoing. For these reasons, the Debtor submits that the Application must be denied.\n\n### **I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND**\n\n#### **A. The Appointment of the Chapter 11 Trustee and Filing of the Application**\n\n11. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed his voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, thereby commencing the above-captioned bankruptcy case (the \"Bankruptcy Case\").\n\n12. On June 15, 2022, this Court issued a Memorandum of Decision, *inter alia*, granting PAX's Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Partial Joinder to the UST's Motion for the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 183) to the extent that it sought the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. (Doc. No. 465.)\n\n13. On July 7, 2022, the UST filed a notice (the \"Appointment Notice\") appointing the Trustee as Chapter 11 trustee (Doc. No. 514), and an Application for Order Approving Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 515) (the \"Appointment Application\"), seeking the Court's approval of the appointment of the Trustee. Annexed to the Appointment Application was a Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins (the \"Despins Declaration\"). The Despins Declaration states that \"[w]hile Paul Hastings previously represented UBS AG (London Branch) ('UBS AG') (an entity currently involved in litigation with the Debtor in the United Kingdom) in an unrelated matter that ended in November of 2021, Paul Hastings does not currently represent UBS AG.\" Despins Declaration ¶ 7(c). The Despins Declaration also discloses that Paul Hastings currently represents certain UBS entities, and in conclusory form states \"I, in my capacity as Trustee, am able to be adverse to UBS AG and to be named plaintiff, as chapter 11 Trustee, in any lawsuit against UBS AG.\" *Id*.\n\n14. On July 8, 2022, only one day after the UST filed the Appointment Notice and the Appointment Application, this Court conducted a hearing on the Appointment Application (the \"July 8 Hearing\"). During the July 8 Hearing, the Trustee disclosed for the first time Paul Hastings' relationship with Pacific Alliance Group (\"PAG\"),[1](#page-4-0) the parent company of PAX. (*See* Transcript of July 8 Hearing, at 6:15-25).\n\n15. On July 12, 2022, the Trustee filed the Supplemental Despins Declaration, in which the Trustee stated that Paul Hastings represented \"certain entities,\" which it defined as the \"PAG Entities,\" that share a common parent with PAX. (Supplemental Despins Declaration, ¶ 2.) The Supplemental Despins Declaration does not disclose any details regarding Paul Hastings' representations of the PAG Entities, instead merely stating in conclusory fashion that they were in\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> PAG was also subsequently identified as \"PAG Holdings Limited.\"\n\nconnection with \"unrelated matters.\" (*Id.*) The Application does not provide any additional information concerning Paul Hastings' representation of the PAG Entities, or the relationship between them and PAX. In the Supplemental Despins' Declaration, the Trustee discloses that \"certain Paul Hastings attorneys resident in Paul Hastings' Hong Kong office formerly represented certain PAG Entities which share a common ultimate parent (PAG Holdings Limited) with [PAX].\" (Supplemental Despins' Declaration, at ¶2). According to the Supplemental Despins Declaration, Paul Hastings' representation of the PAG Entities was terminated in May 2022—just two months prior to the Trustee's declaration and instant motion. (Id.).\n\n16. On July 12, 2022, the Trustee filed the Application. Annexed thereto was the Declaration Of Nicholas A. Bassett In Support Of Chapter 11 Trustee's Application For Entry Of An Order, Pursuant To Bankruptcy Rules 2014 and 2016, Authorizing And Approving Retention And Employment Of Paul Hastings LLP As Counsel To Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Bassett Declaration\"). Notwithstanding the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2014(a) that a retention application be accompanied by \"a verified statement of the person to be employed setting forth the person's connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee,\" the Bassett Declaration just refers to the Despins Declaration, noting that \"for a description of Paul Hastings' connections to potential parties in interest in the Chapter 11 case, I refer to the Despins Declaration.\" Bassett Declaration ¶ 19.\n\n#### **B. The Debtor's Pending Claims Against UBS AG**\n\n17. The Debtor is a plaintiff in an action pending in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court captioned *Kwok Ho Wan, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, and Dawn State Limited v. UBS AG (London Branch)*, Case No: CL-\n\n2020-000345 (the \"UBS Action\").[2](#page-6-0) The plaintiffs in the UBS Action seek \\$500 million in damages from UBS. (Exhibit 1, at ¶ 33(1). To be clear, the defendants in the UBS Action is UBS AG, not merely the bank's London branch.\n\n18. UBS moved to dismiss the UBS Action against two of the three plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction, claiming that the UBS Action should be heard against two of the plaintiffs in Switzerland, UBS AG's place of domicile (UBS has previously taken the position that the plaintiffs should have sued it in Hong Kong). Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the Debtor and another plaintiff commenced a separate action against UBS AG in Switzerland (the \"UBS Switzerland Action\") to ensure that they could seek relief in the event UBS' motion to dismiss the UBS Action was granted. UBS' motion to dismiss the UBS Action was denied by the trial court on February 9, 2022, and that ruling is currently on appeal. The UBS Switzerland Action is presently stayed pending a decision on that appeal. *See* Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions, sworn to March 11, 2022 (the \"Kwok Declaration\"), at ¶32(a)). Thus, regardless of the outcome of UBS' motion to dismiss against two of the three plaintiffs, litigation seeking \\$500 million in damages from UBS will be pending by the bankruptcy estate against UBS AG in either the United Kingdom or Switzerland. Paul Hastings has represented UBS AG and Paul Hastings continues to represent its affiliates. Despins Declaration ¶ 7(c)\n\n# **C. The Interest of the Chinese Government in This Case and Paul Hastings' Failure to Disclose Chinese Interests**\n\n19. Paul Hastings has two offices in mainland China—in Beijing and Shanghai—and\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> The reference to UBS AG (London Branch) is to UBS AG's branch office in London which \"by agreement of the parties [was] designated as the counterparty for all of the contracts relevant to the claim in [the UBS Action].\" (UBS Action, Particulars of Claim, at ¶5, attached hereto as Exhibit 1).\n\none office in Hong Kong, a \"Special Administrative Region\" of China. The firm does significant business in mainland China and Hong Kong. Based on its own public announcements, Paul Hastings has represented dozens (at least) of State-owned Entities and other entities in China in dozens (at least) of transactions in China. *E.g.*, Paul Hastings Represents Chinese Local Government Enterprises in Seven Bond Issuances, PaulHastings.com, [http](http)\n\n[enterprises-in-seven-bond](http) Issuances. In fact, Paul Hastings has boasted that it \"was one of the first major international law firms to establish an Asia practice, and today [it] continue[s] to be a leader in the region.\" Beijing, PaulHastings.com, [http](http) *see also id.* (\"Our lawyers in Beijing represent Fortune Global 500 companies and financial institutions in cross-border transactions in the Greater China region. We also advise Chinese companies and financial institutions on their strategic outbound investments into the U.S., Europe, Latin America, and other global markets.\"). Neither the Trustee nor Paul Hastings has explained, let alone mentioned, the extent of Paul Hastings' connections to State-owned Entities and other businesses in China.\n\n20. Because the Chinese government and the CCP as a matter of Chinese law have exclusive and unchecked control over which businesses operate in China, including Paul Hastings and its Chinese clients, the PRC and CCP have significant influence over Paul Hastings and its Chinese clients.\n\n21. The PRC and CCP have tried in the past to unduly influence proceedings involving the Debtor and have committed, through its ministers and agents (*e.g.*, Wynn, Higginbotham, Broidy, Lum Davis, and others noted below), criminal acts toward the Debtor within the United States.\n\n8\n\n22. In retaliation for the Debtor's whistleblowing, the Debtor and his family members have been persecuted by the CCP. *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok Ho Wan*, No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Aff. of Mei Guo, Doc. No. 1162, ¶¶ 4-6. In 2017, the Debtor filed an application seeking asylum in the United States. The Debtor's asylum application remains pending. *See* Kwok Declaration, at ¶ 14.\n\n23. In 2017, as retribution for the Debtor's public exposure of high-level CCP corruption and at the request of the PRC's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Interpol issued a \"Red Notice\" for the Debtor based on fabricated charges, which provided an international alert that he was wanted for arrest in China. China has been accused of abusing Interpol's Red Notice System. \"China has selectively used this service to repatriate Chinese nationals wanted by the authorities for engaging in political/religious activism or expressing views contrary to that professed by the Chinese Communist Party.\" View: How China Misuses Interpol to Settle Domestic Scores and Stifle Dissidence, The Economic Times, [http](http)  [defence/view-how-china-misuses-interpol-to-settle-domestic-scores-and-stifle-dissidence/](http)  [articleshow/86160172.cms?utm\\\\_source=contentofinterest&utm\\\\_medium=text&utm\\\\_campaign=](http) [cppst.](http)\n\n24. Also in 2017, U.S. federal agents engaged in two altercations with Chinese operatives within a seventy-two (72) hour period—one at Penn Station and another at JFK airport—because federal agents had determined that the Chinese government (through several government officials from China's Ministry of State Security) was conducting a covert and unauthorized operation in New York to coerce the Debtor to return to China. China's Pursuit of Fugitive Businessman Guo Wengui Kicks Off Manhattan Caper Worthy of Spy Thriller, *The Wall Street Journal,* [http](http) [businessman-kicks-off-manhattan-caper-worthy-of-spy-thriller-1508717977.](http)\n\n25. Additionally, in 2018, George Higginbotham, a former DOJ Headquarters Official, pleaded guilty to facilitating the transfer of millions of dollars from foreign bank accounts to the United States to fund a lobbying campaign to persuade high-ranking U.S. officials to unlawfully remove the Debtor from the United States to China. *See* Former Justice Department Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Deceive U.S. Banks about Millions of Dollars in Foreign Lobbying Funds, [http](http)[conspiracy-deceive-us-banks-about-millions;](http) Kwok Declaration, ¶ 16.\n\n26. Further, the former Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Elliot Broidy, and lobbyist Nicki Lum Davis were similarly indicted and also pleaded guilty for their roles in that scheme targeting the Debtor. Kwok Declaration, ¶ 16 (citing DOJ press releases).\n\n27. In June 2021, the DOJ also indicted Low Taek Jho and Prakazrel \"Pras\" Michel for conspiring \"to engage in undisclosed lobbying campaigns at the direction of Low and the Vice Minister of Public Security for the PRC, respectively . . . to have a Chinese dissident sent back to China.\" U.S. Entertainer/Businessman and Malaysian National Charged with Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove Chinese Dissident from U.S., [http](http)[back-channel-lobbying-campaign-drop.](http) That \"dissident\" is the Debtor.\n\n28. Just two months ago, in May 2022, the DOJ filed a civil enforcement action in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the \"Wynn District Court Action\") against Wynn (the casino mogul and hotelier) to compel him \"to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act ('FARA') as the agent of the PRC, and for a declaratory judgment stating that Wynn is obligated to register as a foreign agent because of his conduct undertaken on behalf of the PRC and a senior official of the PRC's Ministry of Public Security (MPS).\" Justice Department Sues to Compel a\n\nU.S. Businessperson to Register Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act,\n\n[http](http)\n\n[under-foreign-agents-registration.](http) According to the DOJ's own complaint:\n\n[F]rom at least June 2017 through at least August 2017, Wynn contacted the then-President and members of his administration to convey the PRC's request to cancel the visa or otherwise remove from the United States a Chinese businessperson who left China in 2014, was later charged with corruption by the PRC and sought political asylum in the United States. Wynn engaged in these efforts at the request of Sun Lijun, then-Vice Minister of the MPS. Wynn conveyed the request directly to the then-President over dinner and by phone, and he had multiple discussions with the then-President and senior officials at the White House and National Security Council about organizing a meeting with Sun and other PRC government officials.\n\n*Id.* Again, the Chinese business person is the Debtor. Steve Wynn May Face Justice Department\n\nAction for Role in China's Push to Expel Businessman, *The Wall Street Journal*,\n\n[http](http)\n\n[foreign-lobbyist-11622054103;](http) Kwok Declaration, ¶ 16.\n\n29. The DOJ has recognized that Wynn's \"conduct was motivated by his desire to\n\nprotect his business interests in the PRC.\" *Attorney General of the United States of America v.*\n\n*Wynn*, No. 1:22-cv-1372 (D.D.C.), Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ¶ 28. The\n\nDOJ also alleged specific pressure that China exerted on Wynn:\n\nAccording to public reporting, in 2016, shortly before the conduct described above occurred, the Macau government restricted the number of gaming tables and machines that the Defendant's casino could operate. Also according to public reporting, Defendant was scheduled to renegotiate his licenses to operate casinos in Macau in 2019, subsequent to the conduct described above.\n\n*Id.*, ¶ 29 (footnotes omitted).\n\n30. These are not \"crazy\", \"insane\" allegations that are \"a complete distraction and without merit\"—despite the Trustee's and other parties in interests' characterization of similar allegations as such to the Court on July 21, 2022. (*See* Transcript of July 21, 2022 Hearing, at p. 67 (13-17) (describing Debtor's position as \"Crazy\"); p. 70 (14-16) (describing Debtor's Rule 9024 Motion as \"a complete distraction and without merit\"); p. 88(18)-89(7) (describing Debtor's position as \"insane\"). To the contrary, *these are the words of the DOJ in a complaint alleging that the Chinese government induced a billionaire who resides in the United States to act as an unauthorized agent of a foreign state—in order to facilitate the Debtor's deportation—by leveraging a combination of the Chinese government's control over the billionaire's over-seas businesses and the billionaire's influence over the then sitting President of the United States*.\n\n31. As stated above, Paul Hastings attorneys, specifically Robert Luskin and Leo Tsao, currently represent Wynn in the Wynn District Court Action. *See* Case No. 1:22-cv-01372-JEB, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Doc. Nos. 10 and 12. Thus, Paul Hastings represents a person who the Department of Justice considers an agent of the Chinese government and is presently defending allegations that its client has actively and illicitly worked on China's behalf (at the behest of President Xi himself) to have the Debtor removed from the United States.\n\n32. In addition, the Chinese government has seized or frozen billions of dollars of assets on account of claims against the Debtor. Chinese Tycoon's Daughter Challenges Hong Kong Over Asset Freeze, *Bloomberg*[, http](http)[s-daughter-challenges-hong-kong-over-asset-freeze#xj4y7vzkg.](http)\n\n33. This includes the land and development in Beijing known as the Pangu Plaza, which was given as security for a loan made by PAX to an entity called Spirit Carter. Kwok Declaration, ¶ 21. Seized Beijing skyscraper sells online for a 'bargain' \\$734M, CNN, [http](http)\n\n34. It has been well documented that the Chinese government exercises unchecked\n\n12\n\ncontrol and influence over businesses operating in China. *E.g.*, How the State Runs Business in China, *The Guardian*, [http](http)[jinping-communist-party-state-private-enterprise-huawei.](http) (\"From the Mao era onwards, Chinese state firms have always had a predominant role in the economy, and the Communist party has always maintained direct control over state firms. For more than a decade, the party has also tried to ensure it played a role inside private businesses. But in his first term in office, [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping] has overseen a sea change in how the party approaches the economy, dramatically strengthening the party's role in both government and private businesses.\").\n\n35. This, according to FBI Director Christopher Wray, includes foreign multinational companies with a Chinese presence. *Id.*; Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Remarks at Hudson Institute, Video Event: China's Attempt to Influence U.S. Institutions (July 7, 2020) (transcript available at: [http](http)[posed-by-the-chinese-government-and-the-chinese-communist-party-to-the-economic-and](http)[national-security-of-the-united-states\\)](http) (\"So what does China do? Well, China has leverage over the American official's constituents—American companies, academics, and members of the media all have legitimate and understandable reasons to want access to Chinese partners and markets. And because of the authoritarian nature of the Chinese Communist Party, China has immense power over those same partners and markets. So, China will sometimes start by trying to influence the American official overtly and directly. China might openly warn that if the American official goes ahead and takes that trip to Taiwan, China will take it out on a company from that official's home state by withholding the company's license to manufacture in China. That could be economically ruinous for the company, would directly pressure the American official to alter his travel plans, and the official would know that China was trying to influence him.\").\n\n36. China has gone so far as to enact laws expressly requiring businesses in China to affirmatively cooperate with the Chinese government. Such laws include Chapter I, Article 7 of the National Intelligence Law of the People's Republic of China (the \"NIL\"), which requires all organizations in China to cooperate with state intelligence efforts; Chapter II, Article 14 of the NIL, which provides that Chinese national intelligence agencies may request organizations in China to provide support, assistance and cooperation to such agencies; and Chapter I, Article 11 of the National Security Law of the People's Republic of China, which provides that all enterprises have the responsibility and obligation to preserve Chinese national security. This influence necessarily extends to Paul Hastings, which has offices in China, and to clients in China who are State-owned Entities or operate in China.\n\n### **II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n37. This Court has jurisdiction to consider this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Consideration of this Motion is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Venue is proper in this Court for this case and this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409, respectively.\n\n38. Bankruptcy Code section 1109(b) provides in relevant part that \"the debtor … may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in a case under this chapter.\"\n\n### **III. LEGAL BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n### **A. The 11 USC Section 327(a) Standard**\n\n39. 11 USC § 327(a) sets forth the standard that Paul Hastings must satisfy in order to obtain this Court's approval of its proposed employment by the Trustee:\n\nExcept 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,\n\nand that are disinterested persons, to represent or assist the trustee in carrying out the trustee's duties under this title.\n\n40. \"[Section 327(a)] imposes two express requirements. First, the professional must be a 'disinterested person'. Section 101(14)(E) of the Bankruptcy Code, the so called 'catchall' provision, states in pertinent part that a \"disinterested person' is one who does 'does not have an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate . . . for any . . . reason.' Second, the professional must not 'hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate.' . . . The two requirements apply at the time of retention and throughout the case.\" *In re Granite Partners, L.P.*, 219 B.R. 22, 32 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998).[3](#page-14-0)\n\n41. An adverse interest for purposes of section 327(a) \"has come to mean either (1) the possession or assertion of any economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate or create an actual or potential dispute with the estate as a rival claimant, or (2) a predisposition of bias against the estate.\" *Id.*, at 33 (citations omitted). Thus, a section 327(a) adverse interest \"includes any interest or relationship, however slight, 'that would even faintly color the independence and impartial attitude required by the Code and Bankruptcy Rules.'\" *Id.* (citations omitted). *See also Bank Brussels Lambert v. Coan (In re AroChem Corp.)*, 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"By regulating the trustee's ability to hire professionals, section 327 'serves the important policy of ensuring that all professionals appointed [to represent the trustee] tender undivided loyalty and provide untainted advice and assistance in furtherance of their fiduciary responsibilities.'\") (brackets in original; citations omitted). Thus, \"[d]isqualification is appropriate 'if it is plausible that the representation of another interest may cause the debtor's attorneys to act\n\n<span id=\"page-14-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> The quoted Bankruptcy Code definition of \"disinterested person\" now appears at 11 USC § 101(14)(C): \"The Term \"disinterested person\" means a person that . . . (C) does not have an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate or of any class of [creditors](http) or [equity security holders,](http) by reason of any direct or indirect relationship to, connection with, or interest in, th[e debtor,](http) or for any other reason.\"\n\nany differently than they would without that other representation.'\" *In re Granite Partners, L.P.*, 219 B.R. 22, at 33.\n\n42. Bankruptcy Rule 2014(a) requires that a retention application disclose known connections between the professional to be employed and parties in interest in the case. \"Disclosure will not be adequate if it is not sufficiently specific. Thus, a blanket statement that counsel … may represent some creditors on unrelated matters will be sufficient only to excuse disclosure of small claimants in a large case.\" 9 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 2014.04, at 2014-5 (16th ed.).\n\n## **B. Paul Hastings Representations of, and Relationships with, UBS, the PAG Entities, and Wynn Render The Firm Not Disinterested**\n\n43. The UBS Action may constitute a significant asset of the Debtor's Estate and will require disinterested counsel to zealously prosecute the claims, whether those claims are heard in London, in UBS AG's home country of Switzerland, or in both jurisdictions.\n\n44. The Application acknowledges that Paul Hastings represented UBS (AG) and describes it as \"an entity currently involved in litigation with the Debtor in the United Kingdom.\" The Application also states that Paul Hastings' represents certain UBS entities, but the Application does not adequately disclose the nature and extent of Paul Hastings' relationship with UBS.\n\n45. However, as noted above, Paul Hastings' own web site makes clear that Paul Hastings, including the Financial Restructuring Group, do work for UBS entities. See [http](http)[of-global-partner;](http) [http](http)[book-running-managers-for-artisan.](http) Paul Hastings' disclosure related to its representation of UBS AG and various related UBS entities is limited to the disclosure made in the Despins Declaration. That disclosure is incredibly thin, and provides no information regarding the scope of Paul\n\nHastings' UBS-related representations, including the subject matter of those representations, the status of those representations, and the fees paid for those representations.\n\n46. Paul Hastings' disclosure regarding its representation of UBS AG and various related UBS entities along with the actual or potential conflicts created by those representations is woefully incomplete. \"The scope of disclosure [required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2014(a)] is much broader than the question of disqualification. . . The applicant and the professional must disclose all connections and not merely those that rise to the level of conflicts.\" *See In re Granite Partners, L.P.*, 219 B.R. at 35 (citations omitted).\n\n47. Because Paul Hastings' representations of UBS AG and other UBS entities makes it, at the very least, plausible that Paul Hastings will \"act [ ] differently than it would without [its multiple UBS representation[s]],\" the Application should be denied.\n\n48. The Application should likewise be denied based on Paul Hastings' representation of the PAG Entities, their relationship to PAX, and the very real possibility that those relationships \"would even faintly color the independence and impartial attitude required by the Code and Bankruptcy Rules.\" *In re Granite Partners, L.P.*, 219 B.R. 22, at 33.\n\n49. No information has been disclosed as to the relationship between PAX and the PAG Entities that Paul Hastings represented, even those that Paul Hastings represented as recently as May of 2022—*e.g.*, no disclosures are made regarding common officers, directors, or employees the scope of such representation, the Paul Hastings attorneys who have worked on matters for the PAG Entities or the nature of and reason for the purported termination of the PAG Entities' relationships with Paul Hastings. To the contrary, one of the only things that the Trustee and Paul Hastings actually has disclosed about their relationship with the PAG Entities is that at least one of them continued to exist *after PAX moved to appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee in this case*. *See*\n\n*PAX Motion to Dismiss Case or, in the Alternative, Partial Joinder to UST's Motion to Appoint Trustee*, Doc. No. 183, dated April 6, 2022).\n\n50. Indeed, it appears that PAX or the PAG Entities may not even have known that they were \"former clients\" of Paul Hastings (rather than clients) until the Trustee filed the Despins Declaration. Statement by Peter Friedman, Transcript of July 21, 2022 Hearing, at 66-67 (\"We're not thrilled with … the fact they put in now our client is a former client of ours that I think is, you know, wasn't something that our client thought was so great to be deemed a former client, but it is what it is.\").\n\n51. PAX has been pursuing recovery of a purported obligation owed to it by the Debtor for years. It obtained a substantial judgment against the Debtor (which is on appeal) and it has every interest in resolving and incentive to resolve the Debtor's case in a manner that favors it and the satisfaction of its claim to the detriment of other creditors. Of course, the Trustee owes, and Paul Hastings as its counsel would owe, duties to all creditors, and cannot and could not favor PAX, an entity that shares a common parent entity with other clients or former clients of Paul Hastings. The mere possibility of such favoritism should preclude Paul Hastings' retention in this politically charged case. *In re Granite Partners, L.P.*, 219 B.R. at 38 (\"But, like Caesar's wife, trustee's counsel must be above suspicion. Bankruptcy is concerned as much with appearances as with reality.\" (citations omitted)).\n\n#### **C. Paul Hastings' Relationships with China Make it Not Disinterested**\n\n52. Lastly, neither the Trustee nor Paul Hastings has disclosed its connections to the PRC, the CCP, or State-owned Entities, despite knowing that the Chinese government has been relentless in trying to extradite and otherwise harm the Debtor for publicly exposing high-level corruption.\n\n18\n\n53. However, it is clear that the PRC, CCP, and entities they own and control (directly or indirectly) are parties in interest here because they have demonstrated an interest in persecuting the Debtor using any means necessary. Therefore, Paul Hastings must disclose its connections with the PRC, CCP and State-owned Entities. *In re Granite Partners, L.P.*, 219 B.R. at 35 (\"The professional must disclose all facts that bear on its disinterestedness, *In re Leslie Fay Cos.*, 75 B.R. at 533, and cannot usurp the court's function by choosing, *ipse dixit*, which connections impact disinterestedness and which do not.\").\n\n54. Even without any of the necessary and required disclosures regarding the PRC, CCP, and State-owned Entities, the facts that are already known establish that Paul Hastings is not disinterested based on the obvious position of the PRC and CCP vis-à-vis the Debtor, Paul Hasting's business dealings with the Chinese government and the CCP, including the ongoing need for the approval of the Chinese government in order for Paul Hastings to operate its three offices in mainland China and Hong Kong, and, most recently, Paul Hastings' decision to represent Wynn—contemporaneously with the administration of the Debtor's estate—against the DOJ's allegations that Wynn acted as an unregistered and unlawful agent of a foreign state to cause the Debtor's deportation.\n\n55. Simply stated, evidence of the influence of the PRC and CCP on Paul Hastings demonstrates that it is not disinterested and therefore should not be permitted to serve as counsel to the Chapter 11 Trustee, particularly given the great lengths China has gone through to persecute the Debtor.\n\n**WHEREFORE,** the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court sustain its Objection to the Application, and grant him such other and further relief as justice requires.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 27th day of July, 2022.\n\n19\n\n# **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Eric Henzy*  Eric Henzy (ct12849) Stephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) James M. Moriarty (ct21876) John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: ehenzy@zeislaw.com skindseth@zeislaw.com aromney@zeislaw.com Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com 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 of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ Eric Henzy* Eric Henzy (ct12849)","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），：Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n：债务人。：\n\n债务人对第 11 章受托人依据《破产法典》第 327、328 和 330 条以及《破产规则》第 2014 和 2016 条提出的申请之异议；该申请请求作出裁定，授权并批准聘请 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）担任第 11 章受托人之律师\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）通过其下方签署的律师 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒专业公司），依据 11 U.S.C. § 327(a)，特此对第 11 章受托人于 July 12, 2022 提交的、请求依据《破产法典》第 327、328 和 330 条以及《破产规则》第 2014 和 2016 条作出裁定，授权并批准聘请 Paul Hastings LLP 担任第 11 章受托人之律师的申请（Doc. No. 539）（以下简称“申请”）提出异议（以下简称“异议”）。为支持其异议，债务人陈述如下：\n\nI. 引言\n\n1. 受托人之律师须为“无利害关系者”且“不得持有或代表与破产财产利益相冲突的利益”，此乃维护破产程序完整性的基本要求。包括债务人在内的所有当事人，均有权确保受托人寻求聘请的专业人士对其不存在任何偏见或成见。\n\n2. Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）（以下简称“Paul Hastings”）并非《法典》所称的无利害关系者。该律所存在多项代理关系和关联，明确表明其在实质上及表面上均存在利益冲突、偏见和成见。此外，该申请未能充分披露 Paul Hastings 潜在的利益冲突，以及其与债务人、债务人的破产财产及其他利害关系方之间的诸多关联。\n\n3. 如下文更详细所述，People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国，以下简称“PRC”）和 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，以下简称“CCP”）与债务人之间存在激烈的利益冲突。债务人正在本国寻求庇护，因为其本人及家人遭受中国政府迫害。Paul Hastings 曾代理数十家中国国有及受控实体（以下简称“国有实体”）以及其他在中国开展业务的企业。由于中国政府对国有实体行使完全控制，并对 Paul Hastings 所代理的、在中国经营的其他企业行使实质性控制，中国政府有能力对 Paul Hastings 施加不当影响。事实上，中国政府决定 Paul Hastings 是否可以通过其在中国的办事处开展业务。\n\n4. 尽管第 11 章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）及其他利害关系方可能将债务人的担忧描述为“疯狂”，但中国政府并未迫害、目前也未积极迫害受托人或其中任何其他利害关系方。相比之下，中国政府正在迫害债务人、其家人及其商业利益。\n\n5. 如下文更详细所述，United States Department of Justice（美国司法部，以下简称“DOJ”）已对数人提起刑事诉讼，其中包括 DOJ 人员；这些人系应中国政府要求而将债务人作为目标。更有甚者，在债务人提交破产申请数月后、且仅在两个月前，即 May 17, 2022，United States Attorney General（美国司法部长）对知名赌场巨头和亿万富翁 Stephen A. Wynn（史蒂芬·A·永利，以下简称“Wynn”）提起了确认及禁令救济诉讼，指控其非法作为未披露的 PRC 代理人，负责策划将债务人驱逐至中国。除其他事项外，DOJ 指称，Wynn 应孙力军——前公安部副部长——及 PRC 本身的请求，通过“向时任 Trump 总统［在 June 27, 2017 的晚宴上］转达 PRC 希望将［债务人］从美国移除的意愿”而采取行动。(Attorney General of the United States of America v. Wynn, No. 1:22-cv-1372 (D.D.C.), Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ¶ 22)。\n\n6. 或许最令人愤慨的是，Paul Hastings 目前正在该案中为 Wynn 抗辩，对抗 DOJ。然而，Paul Hastings 和受托人均未披露 Paul Hastings 对 Wynn 的代理、其对国有实体的代理，或其自身与中国的商业联系。\n\n7. 此外，Paul Hastings，特别是其 Financial Restructuring Group（金融重组组，受托人为该组联席主席），曾在多项事务中代理 UBS 实体，并且毫无疑问将继续代理 UBS 实体。事实上，Paul Hastings 重组组的网站——顺带一提，该网站刊有受托人的照片——将“UBS”列为代表性客户（“我们曾在退出融资和债务人占有融资交易中，作为代理人及第一留置权贷款人，代理 Morgan Stanley、RBC、UBS 和 Wells Fargo 等客户。”）[http]。\n\n8. 在本案开始前，债务人在 United Kingdom（英国）对 Paul Hastings 曾代理的 UBS 实体之一 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）提出 $500 million 的索赔，并在 Switzerland（瑞士）对 UBS AG 提起相关诉讼。根据 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2012(a)，受托人在英国和瑞士的案件中自动替代为原告。作为受托人的律师，Paul Hastings 将与 UBS AG 利益相冲突。Paul Hastings 未充分披露其为 UBS AG 及其关联方已完成并可能仍在进行的工作的性质和数量。\n\n9. Paul Hastings 还曾代理与债务人最大债权人和激烈对手 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，以下简称“PAX”）相关的多个实体；受托人首次在就任命其为受托人的申请举行听证时向本院口头披露了这一事实。上述代理关系中最近的一项最迟于 May of 2022 终止。(First Supplemental Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平的首份无利害关系补充声明）(Doc. No. 538)（以下简称“补充 Despins 声明”），¶ 2)\n\n10. 总而言之，Paul Hastings：(i) 至少直至最近，曾代理本案最大债权人的关联方；(ii) 曾代理 UBS AG，而 UBS AG 目前是债务人提起的两项待决诉讼中的被告，该等诉讼可能构成本破产案件的重要资产；(iii) 与一个曾迫害并正在积极迫害债务人的外国政府有重大联系；以及 (iv) 目前代理一名亿万富翁，DOJ 指称该人在中国试图将债务人引渡时曾担任中国的未登记代理人。Paul Hastings 未披露上述许多事项，且未充分披露其中任何事项。基于上述理由，债务人主张该申请必须被驳回。\n\nI. 事实及程序背景\n\nA. 第 11 章受托人的任命及申请的提交\n\n11. On February 15, 2022，债务人根据《破产法典》第 11 章提交自愿救济申请，由此启动上述标题所示的破产案件（以下简称“破产案件”）。\n\n12. On June 15, 2022，本院作出决定备忘录，除其他事项外，准许 PAX 提出的驳回动议，或作为替代，准许其部分加入 UST 提出的任命第 11 章受托人的动议（Doc. No. 183），但仅以该动议请求任命第 11 章受托人的范围为限。(Doc. No. 465.)\n\n13. On July 7, 2022，UST 提交通知（以下简称“任命通知”），任命受托人为第 11 章受托人（Doc. No. 514），并提交请求裁定批准任命第 11 章受托人的申请（Doc. No. 515）（以下简称“任命申请”），请求本院批准对受托人的任命。任命申请附有 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平）的无利害关系声明（以下简称“Despins 声明”）。Despins 声明称：“［尽管］Paul Hastings 先前曾在一项于 November of 2021 结束的无关事务中代理 UBS AG (London Branch)（伦敦分行）（‘UBS AG’）（目前在英国与债务人涉诉的实体），但 Paul Hastings 目前并未代理 UBS AG。”Despins Declaration ¶ 7(c)。Despins 声明还披露 Paul Hastings 目前代理某些 UBS 实体，并以结论性方式称：“本人以受托人身份，能够与 UBS AG 利益相冲突，并能够以第 11 章受托人身份，在针对 UBS AG 的任何诉讼中被列为原告。”同上。\n\n14. On July 8, 2022，即 UST 提交任命通知和任命申请仅一天后，本院就任命申请举行听证（以下简称“July 8 Hearing”）。在 July 8 Hearing 期间，受托人首次披露 Paul Hastings 与 Pacific Alliance Group（太平洋联盟集团，以下简称“PAG”）的关系，[1] PAG 是 PAX 的母公司。(See Transcript of July 8 Hearing, at 6:15-25)。\n\n1 PAG 后来也被确定为“PAG Holdings Limited（PAG 控股有限公司）”。\n\n15. On July 12, 2022，受托人提交补充 Despins 声明，其中受托人称 Paul Hastings 曾代理“某些实体”，并将其定义为与 PAX 具有共同母公司的“PAG Entities（PAG 实体）”。(Supplemental Despins Declaration, ¶ 2.) 补充 Despins 声明未披露有关 Paul Hastings 代理 PAG 实体的任何细节，而仅以结论性方式称，该等代理与“无关事项”有关。(Id.) 该申请未提供有关 Paul Hastings 代理 PAG 实体或该等实体与 PAX 之间关系的任何额外信息。在补充 Despins 声明中，受托人披露，“驻 Paul Hastings 香港办事处的某些 Paul Hastings 律师曾代理某些 PAG 实体，该等实体与［PAX］拥有共同的最终母公司（PAG Holdings Limited）。”(Supplemental Despins' Declaration, at ¶2)。根据补充 Despins 声明，Paul Hastings 对 PAG 实体的代理于 May 2022 终止——即在受托人的声明及本动议提出前仅两个月。(Id.)。\n\n16. On July 12, 2022，受托人提交该申请。该申请附有 Nicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）为支持第 11 章受托人依据《破产规则》第 2014 和 2016 条提出的、请求作出裁定以授权并批准聘请 Paul Hastings LLP 担任第 11 章受托人律师的申请所作的声明（以下简称“Bassett 声明”）。尽管《破产规则》第 2014(a) 条要求聘请申请须附有“拟聘用之人经核实的声明，列明该人与债务人、债权人、任何其他利害关系方、其各自的律师和会计师、United States trustee（美国受托人），或受雇于美国受托人办公室之任何人的关联”，Bassett 声明仅援引 Despins 声明，并指出：“关于 Paul Hastings 与第 11 章案件中潜在利害关系方之间关联的说明，本人援引 Despins 声明。”Bassett Declaration ¶ 19。\n\nB. 债务人针对 UBS AG 的待决索赔\n\n17. 债务人是 England and Wales High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court（英格兰和威尔士高等法院王座法庭商业法院）待决诉讼的原告，该案案名为 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）, Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）, and Dawn State Limited（道恩州有限公司）v. UBS AG (London Branch)，Case No: CL-2020-000345（以下简称“UBS 诉讼”）。[2] UBS 诉讼中的原告向 UBS 请求 $500 million 的损害赔偿。(Exhibit 1, at ¶ 33(1). 为明确起见，UBS 诉讼中的被告是 UBS AG，而非仅为该银行的伦敦分行。\n\n18. UBS（瑞银）以对三名原告中的两名缺乏属人管辖权为由，提出动议要求驳回UBS诉讼，主张应在UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）住所地瑞士对两名原告提起UBS诉讼（UBS此前曾主张原告应在香港起诉其）。因此，为谨慎起见，债务人与另一名原告在瑞士对UBS AG另行提起诉讼（“瑞士UBS诉讼”），以确保在UBS要求驳回UBS诉讼的动议获准时，他们能够寻求救济。审判法院于February 9, 2022驳回了UBS要求驳回UBS诉讼的动议，该裁定目前正在上诉中。瑞士UBS诉讼目前已中止，等待该上诉的裁决。见Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）为支持第11章案件及若干动议所作、宣誓于March 11, 2022的声明（“Kwok声明”），第¶32(a)段。因此，无论UBS针对三名原告中的两名提出的驳回动议结果如何，破产财产均将在United Kingdom（英国）或瑞士对UBS AG提起诉讼，寻求向UBS追偿\\$500 million损害赔偿。Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）曾代理UBS AG，并且Paul Hastings继续代理其关联方。Despins声明¶ 7(c)\n\nC. 中国政府在本案中的利益以及Paul Hastings未披露中国利益\n\n19. Paul Hastings在中国大陆设有两处办事处——分别位于北京和上海——并在香港这一中国“特别行政区”设有一处办事处。该律所在中国大陆和香港开展大量业务。根据其自身公开发布的信息，Paul Hastings已在中国至少数十项交易中代理至少数十家国有实体和其他中国实体。例如，Paul Hastings代理中国地方政府企业进行七项债券发行，PaulHastings.com，[http] [enterprises-in-seven-bond] Issuances。事实上，Paul Hastings曾自称，其“是最早建立亚洲业务的主要国际律师事务所之一，且如今[其]继续在该地区处于领先地位。”北京，PaulHastings.com，[http]；另见同上（“我们北京的律师在大中华区跨境交易中代理《财富》全球500强公司及金融机构。我们还就中国公司和金融机构对美国、欧洲、拉丁美洲及其他全球市场的战略性境外投资向其提供建议。”）。无论是受托人还是Paul Hastings，均未解释，更遑论提及，Paul Hastings与中国国有实体及其他企业的联系程度。\n\n2 对UBS AG (London Branch)（UBS AG伦敦分行）的提及，是指UBS AG在伦敦的分行，该分行“经双方当事人协议[被]指定为[UBS诉讼]中与该项请求相关的所有合同的相对方。”（UBS诉讼，请求详情，第¶5段，作为附件1随附于此。）\n\n20. 由于根据中国法律，中国政府和CCP（中国共产党）对包括Paul Hastings及其中国客户在内的哪些企业可在中国经营拥有排他且不受制约的控制权，PRC（中华人民共和国）和CCP对Paul Hastings及其中国客户具有重大影响力。\n\n21. PRC和CCP过去曾试图对涉及债务人的程序施加不当影响，并且已通过其部长及代理人（例如，Wynn（永利）、Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）、Broidy（布罗迪）、Lum Davis（卢姆·戴维斯）及下文提及的其他人）在美国境内针对债务人实施犯罪行为。\n\n22. 为报复债务人的吹哨举报，债务人及其家属遭受CCP迫害。Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）v. Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，Mei Guo（郭梅）宣誓书，Doc. No. 1162，第¶¶ 4-6段。2017年，债务人提交了在美国寻求庇护的申请。债务人的庇护申请仍在审理中。见Kwok声明，第¶ 14段。\n\n23. 2017年，作为对债务人公开揭露CCP高层腐败的报复，并应PRC外交部的请求，Interpol（国际刑警组织）基于捏造的指控对债务人发布了“红色通报”，即提供其因在中国被通缉逮捕而受到国际警示。中国被指控滥用国际刑警组织的红色通报制度。“中国选择性地利用该项服务，将因从事政治/宗教活动或表达与中国共产党所宣称观点相反的见解而被当局通缉的中国公民遣返回国。”观点：中国如何滥用国际刑警组织以清算国内恩怨并压制异议，The Economic Times，[http] [defence/view-how-china-misuses-interpol-to-settle-domestic-scores-and-stifle-dissidence/] [articleshow/86160172.cms?utm\\\\_source=contentofinterest&utm\\\\_medium=text&utm\\\\_campaign=] [cppst.]\n\n24. 同样在2017年，U.S. federal agents（美国联邦特工）在七十二（72）小时内与中国特工发生两次冲突——一次在Penn Station（宾夕法尼亚车站），另一次在JFK airport（肯尼迪机场）——原因是联邦特工已确定，中国政府（通过中国国家安全部数名政府官员）正在纽约开展秘密且未经授权的行动，以胁迫债务人返回中国。中国追捕逃亡商人郭文贵，引发堪称间谍惊悚片的曼哈顿事件，The Wall Street Journal，[http] [businessman-kicks-off-manhattan-caper-worthy-of-spy-thriller-1508717977.]\n\n25. 此外，2018年，George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）——一名前DOJ Headquarters Official（美国司法部总部官员）——就协助将数百万美元从外国银行账户转入美国以资助游说活动一事认罪；该游说活动旨在说服美国高级官员非法将债务人从美国移送至中国。见前司法部雇员就共谋欺骗美国银行、隐瞒数百万美元外国游说资金一事认罪，[http][conspiracy-deceive-us-banks-about-millions;] Kwok声明，第¶ 16段。\n\n26. Republican National Committee（共和党全国委员会）前主席Elliot Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗迪）及说客Nicki Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）亦因其在该针对债务人的计划中所起的作用而被起诉，并且认罪。Kwok声明，第¶ 16段（援引DOJ新闻稿）。\n\n27. June 2021，DOJ还以Low Taek Jho（刘特佐）和Prakazrel “Pras” Michel（普拉卡兹雷尔“普拉斯”米歇尔）共谋“分别按照Low及PRC公安部副部长的指示……开展未披露的游说活动，以将一名中国异见人士送回中国”为由，对二人提起起诉书。美国艺人/商人与马来西亚国民被控进行秘密渠道游说活动，以终止1MDB调查并将中国异见人士移出美国，[http][back-channel-lobbying-campaign-drop.] 该“异见人士”即债务人。\n\n28. 就在两个月前，即May 2022，DOJ在U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区美国联邦地区法院）对Wynn（该赌场大亨及酒店业者）提起民事执法诉讼（“Wynn地区法院诉讼”），以强制其“根据Foreign Agents Registration Act（《外国代理人登记法》，‘FARA’）登记为PRC的代理人，并作出确认性判决，认定Wynn因其代表PRC及PRC公安部（MPS）一名高级官员所实施的行为而负有登记为外国代理人的义务。”司法部起诉以强制一名美国商人根据《外国代理人登记法》登记，[http] [under-foreign-agents-registration.] 根据DOJ自身的起诉书：\n\n“[f]rom at least June 2017 through at least August 2017，Wynn联系时任总统及其政府成员，以转达PRC的请求，即取消一名中国商人的签证，或以其他方式将其从美国移除；该商人于2014年离开中国，后来被PRC指控腐败，并在美国寻求政治庇护。Wynn应时任MPS副部长Sun Lijun（孙力军）的请求从事这些活动。Wynn在晚宴上及通过电话直接向时任总统转达该请求，并就安排与Sun及其他PRC政府官员举行会晤一事，与时任总统以及White House（白宫）和National Security Council（国家安全委员会）的高级官员进行了多次讨论。”\n\n同上。该中国商人再次是债务人。Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·永利）可能因其在中国推动驱逐商人行动中所扮演的角色而面临司法部诉讼，The Wall Street Journal，[http] [foreign-lobbyist-11622054103;] Kwok声明，第¶ 16段。\n\n29. DOJ已确认，Wynn的“行为是出于其保护在PRC商业利益的愿望。”Attorney General of the United States of America（美利坚合众国总检察长）v. Wynn，No. 1:22-cv-1372 (D.D.C.)，要求确认性及禁令救济的起诉书，第¶ 28段。DOJ还主张了中国对Wynn施加的具体压力：\n\n“根据公开报道，2016年，即上述行为发生前不久，Macau（澳门）政府限制了被告赌场可经营的博彩桌及机器数量。同样根据公开报道，被告原计划于2019年，即上述行为发生之后，重新谈判其在澳门经营赌场的许可证。”\n\n同上，第¶ 29段（省略脚注）。\n\n30. 尽管受托人及其他利害关系方于July 21, 2022向法院将类似指控描述为“疯狂”、“荒谬”以及“完全是干扰且毫无根据”，这些并非此类指控。（见July 21, 2022听证会笔录，第67页（13-17）（将债务人的立场描述为“疯狂”）；第70页（14-16）（将债务人根据Rule 9024提出的动议描述为“完全是干扰且毫无根据”）；第88页（18）至第89页（7）（将债务人的立场描述为“荒谬”）。相反，这些是DOJ在一份起诉书中的表述；该起诉书主张，中国政府通过利用其对该亿万富翁境外企业的控制以及该亿万富翁对时任美国总统的影响力相结合的方式，诱使一名居住于美国的亿万富翁充当外国政府未经授权的代理人——以促成债务人被驱逐出境。\n\n31. 如上所述，Paul Hastings的律师，具体而言Robert Luskin（罗伯特·卢斯金）和Leo Tsao（曹立欧），目前在Wynn地区法院诉讼中代理Wynn。见Case No. 1:22-cv-01372-JEB，United States District Court for the District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区美国联邦地区法院），Doc. Nos. 10 and 12。因此，Paul Hastings代理一名被司法部视为中国政府代理人的人士，并且目前正在为其客户积极且非法代表中国行事（应Xi（习近平）主席本人要求）以将债务人移出美国的指控进行抗辩。\n\n32. 此外，中国政府已因针对债务人的请求而查封或冻结数十亿美元资产。中国富豪之女就资产冻结向香港提出挑战，Bloomberg[, http][s-daughter-challenges-hong-kong-over-asset-freeze#xj4y7vzkg.]\n\n33. 其中包括位于北京、名为Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）的土地及开发项目，该项目被作为PAX向名为Spirit Carter的实体提供贷款的担保。Kwok声明，第¶ 21段。被查封的北京摩天大楼以“低价”\\$734M在线出售，CNN，[http]\n\n34. 有充分文件记载，中国政府对在中国经营的企业行使不受制约的控制和影响。参见，How the State Runs Business in China, The Guardian, [http][jinping-communist-party-state-private-enterprise-huawei.]（“自毛泽东时代以来，中国国有企业始终在经济中发挥主导作用，共产党也始终对国有企业保持直接控制。十多年来，共产党还试图确保其在私营企业内部发挥作用。但在其第一个任期内，[中国国家主席] Xi [Jinping]监督了党对经济态度的重大转变，显著加强了党在政府企业和私营企业中的作用。”）。\n\n35. 根据 FBI Director Christopher Wray（联邦调查局局长克里斯托弗·雷）的说法，这包括在中国开展业务的外国跨国公司。同上；Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Remarks at Hudson Institute, Video Event: China's Attempt to Influence U.S. Institutions (July 7, 2020)（文字记录见：[http][posed-by-the-chinese-government-and-the-chinese-communist-party-to-the-economic-and][national-security-of-the-united-states\\)]）（“那么中国怎么做？中国对美国官员的选民具有影响力——美国公司、学者和媒体成员都出于正当且可理解的理由，希望接触中国合作伙伴和市场。由于中国共产党的威权性质，中国对这些合作伙伴和市场拥有巨大权力。因此，中国有时会先试图公开、直接地影响美国官员。中国可能公开警告，如果该美国官员坚持前往台湾，中国将通过扣留该官员所在州一家公司的在华制造许可证而使该公司蒙受损失。这可能会使该公司遭受经济上的毁灭性打击，会直接施压该美国官员改变其旅行计划，而且该官员会知道中国正试图影响他。”）。\n\n36. 中国甚至已颁布法律，明确要求在中国经营的企业积极配合中国政府。此类法律包括《中华人民共和国国家情报法》（“NIL”）第一章第七条，该条要求中国境内所有组织配合国家情报工作；NIL第二章第十四条，该条规定中国国家情报机关可以要求中国境内组织向该等机关提供支持、协助和配合；以及《中华人民共和国国家安全法》第一章第十一条，该条规定所有企业均负有维护中国国家安全的责任和义务。这种影响必然延及在中国设有办事处的 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所），并延及作为国有实体或在中国经营的中国客户。\n二、管辖权和审判地\n\n37. 本院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 对审理本动议具有管辖权。依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，审理本动议属于核心程序。依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本案及本动议的审判地分别适当地位于本院。\n\n38. 《破产法典》第 1109(b) 条相关部分规定：“债务人……可以就本章项下案件中的任何问题提出主张，并可出庭陈述和接受听取。”\n三、救济的法律依据\nA. 11 USC 第 327(a) 条标准\n\n39. 11 USC § 327(a) 规定了 Paul Hastings 为获得本院批准由受托人聘用而必须满足的标准：\n\n除本条另有规定外，经法院批准，受托人可以聘用一名或多名不持有或代表与破产财产相对立利益的律师、会计师、评估师、拍卖师或其他专业人员，\n\n且该等人员为无利害关系人士，以代表或协助受托人履行本法典项下受托人的职责。\n\n40. “［第 327(a) 条］规定了两项明确要求。第一，专业人士必须是‘无利害关系人士’。破产法典第 101(14)(E) 条，即所谓的‘兜底’条款，相关部分规定，‘无利害关系人士’是指‘因任何……理由，不具有与破产财产利益实质性相对立利益’的人。第二，专业人士不得‘持有或代表与破产财产相对立的利益’。……这两项要求在受聘时及在整个案件期间均适用。”In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. 22, 32 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998).[3]\n\n41. 就第 327(a) 条而言，相对立利益“已被理解为：（1）持有或主张任何可能降低破产财产价值，或作为竞争性权利主张人而与破产财产造成现实或潜在争议的经济利益；或（2）对破产财产具有偏见倾向。”同上，第 33 页（引文略）。因此，第 327(a) 条所称的相对立利益“包括任何利益或关系，无论多么轻微，‘即便仅略微影响法典和破产规则所要求的独立性和公正态度’的利益或关系。”同上（引文略）。另见 Bank Brussels Lambert v. Coan (In re AroChem Corp.), 176 F.3d 610, 621 (2d Cir. 1999)（“通过规范受托人聘用专业人士的能力，第 327 条‘服务于确保所有被任命［代表受托人］的专业人士提供不分割的忠诚，并为履行其信义责任提供不受污染的意见和协助这一重要政策。’”）（原文方括号；引文略）。因此，“如果另一利益的代理可能导致债务人的律师作出\n\n3 所引《破产法典》对“无利害关系人士”的定义现载于 11 USC § 101(14)(C)：“‘无利害关系人士’一语系指某人……(C) 因与该［债务人］的任何直接或间接关系、联系或利益，或因任何其他理由，不具有与破产财产或任何［债权人］或［股权证券持有人］类别利益实质性相对立的利益。”\n\n与在不存在该其他代理时不同的行为”，则“取消资格是适当的。”In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. 22, at 33.\n\n42. 《破产规则》第 2014(a) 条要求，聘用申请应披露拟聘专业人士与案件利害关系方之间已知的关联。“如果披露不够具体，则该披露并不充分。因此，笼统声明律师……可能在无关事项中代理某些债权人，仅足以免除在大型案件中对小额权利主张人的披露义务。”9 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 2014.04, at 2014-5 (16th ed.).\nB. Paul Hastings 对 UBS、PAG Entities 及 Wynn 的代理和关系使该所不属于无利害关系人士\n\n43. UBS Action（瑞银诉讼）可能构成 Debtor's Estate（债务人破产财产）的一项重要资产，并将需要无利害关系的律师积极起诉相关请求，无论该等请求在伦敦、在 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）的本国瑞士，还是在两个法域均进行审理。\n\n44. Application（申请）承认 Paul Hastings 曾代理 UBS (AG)，并将其描述为“目前在英国与债务人进行诉讼的一家实体”。申请还称 Paul Hastings 代理某些 UBS 实体，但申请未充分披露 Paul Hastings 与 UBS 关系的性质和范围。\n\n45. 然而，如上所述，Paul Hastings 自身网站明确表明，包括 Financial Restructuring Group（金融重组组）在内的 Paul Hastings 为 UBS 实体提供服务。见 [http][of-global-partner;] [http][book-running-managers-for-artisan.] Paul Hastings 关于其代理 UBS AG 及各相关 UBS 实体的披露，仅限于 Despins Declaration（Despins 声明）中作出的披露。该披露极为简略，未提供关于 Paul Hastings 与 UBS 相关代理的范围的任何信息，包括该等代理的事项内容、状态以及为该等代理支付的费用。\n\n46. Paul Hastings 关于其代理 UBS AG 及各相关 UBS 实体，以及该等代理产生的现实或潜在利益冲突的披露，严重不完整。“［《联邦破产程序规则》第 2014(a) 条］要求的披露范围远较取消资格的问题宽泛。……申请人和专业人士必须披露所有关联，而不仅是达到利益冲突程度的关联。”见 In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. at 35（引文略）。\n\n47. 由于 Paul Hastings 对 UBS AG 及其他 UBS 实体的代理，至少使得 Paul Hastings 将“作出与其在没有［其对 UBS 的多项代理］情况下不同的行为”成为可能，因此应驳回该申请。\n\n48. 同样，应基于 Paul Hastings 对 PAG Entities（太盟集团实体）的代理、其与 PAX（PAX）的关系，以及该等关系“即便仅略微影响法典和破产规则所要求的独立性和公正态度”的现实可能性，驳回该申请。In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. 22, at 33.\n\n49. 对于 PAX 与 Paul Hastings 所代理的 PAG Entities 之间的关系，未披露任何信息，甚至对于 Paul Hastings 最近于 2022 年 5 月仍在代理的实体亦是如此——例如，未披露共同高级管理人员、董事或雇员，未披露该等代理的范围、曾处理 PAG Entities 事项的 Paul Hastings 律师，或 PAG Entities 与 Paul Hastings 关系据称终止的性质和原因。相反，受托人和 Paul Hastings 实际披露的有关其与 PAG Entities 关系的少数事项之一是，PAX 在本案中申请任命 Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）后，其中至少一个实体仍继续存在。见\n\nPAX Motion to Dismiss Case or, in the Alternative, Partial Joinder to UST's Motion to Appoint Trustee, Doc. No. 183, dated April 6, 2022).\n\n50. 事实上，在受托人提交 Despins Declaration 之前，PAX 或 PAG Entities 似乎甚至可能不知道其为 Paul Hastings 的“前客户”（而非客户）。Statement by Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼的陈述）, Transcript of July 21, 2022 Hearing, at 66-67（“我们对……他们现在称我们的客户是其前客户这一事实并不满意；我认为，嗯，我们的客户并不认为被认定为前客户是什么好事，但事实就是如此。”）。\n\n51. PAX 多年来一直在寻求追偿债务人据称对其负有的一项债务。其已取得针对债务人的一项大额判决书（目前正在上诉），并且其完全有利益和动机以有利于其自身并使其债权获得清偿、而损害其他债权人的方式解决债务人的案件。当然，受托人对所有债权人负有义务，而 Paul Hastings 作为其律师亦将负有该等义务，且不得、也不能偏袒 PAX；PAX 与 Paul Hastings 的其他客户或前客户共享同一母实体。在这起政治色彩浓厚的案件中，仅该等偏袒的可能性就应排除聘用 Paul Hastings。In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. at 38（“但是，如同凯撒之妻，受托人的律师必须不容怀疑。破产程序所关注的，既包括表象，也包括现实。”（引文略））。\nC. Paul Hastings 与中国的关系使其不属于无利害关系人士\n\n52. 最后，尽管受托人和 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）明知中国政府一直不遗余力地试图引渡债务人，并因债务人公开揭露高层腐败而以其他方式伤害债务人，但二者均未披露其与 PRC（中华人民共和国）、CCP（中国共产党）或国有实体之间的关联。\n\n53. 然而，显而易见，PRC、CCP 及其直接或间接拥有和控制的实体属于本案利害关系当事人，因为其已表明有意采取一切必要手段迫害债务人。因此，Paul Hastings 必须披露其与 PRC、CCP 及国有实体之间的关联。In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. at 35（“专业人士必须披露所有涉及其无利害关系身份的事实，In re Leslie Fay Cos., 75 B.R. at 533，且不得以其自身断言的方式，通过选择哪些关联影响无利害关系身份、哪些不影响，来僭越法院的职能。”）。\n\n54. 即使未作出任何有关 PRC、CCP 及国有实体的必要且应作披露，现已知悉的事实也足以证明，鉴于 PRC 和 CCP 相对于债务人的明显立场、Paul Hastings 与中国政府和 CCP 的商业往来（包括 Paul Hastings 为在中国大陆和香港经营其三间办事处而持续需要获得中国政府批准），以及最近 Paul Hastings 在管理债务人破产财产的同时，决定代理 Wynn（永利）应对 DOJ（美国司法部）关于 Wynn 作为未经登记且非法的外国国家代理人行事，以促成驱逐债务人的指控，Paul Hastings 并非无利害关系。\n\n55. 简言之，PRC 和 CCP 对 Paul Hastings 施加影响的证据表明其并非无利害关系，因而不应获准担任 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）的律师，尤其鉴于中国为迫害债务人已不惜采取种种手段。\n\n因此，债务人谨请求法院支持其对该申请提出的异议，并给予其公正所需的其他及进一步救济。\n\n于 2022年7月27日 在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Bridgeport（布里奇波特）签署。\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）\nJames M. Moriarty（ct21876）\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\nskindseth@zeislaw.com\naromney@zeislaw.com\nJmoriarty@zeislaw.com\njcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2022年7月27日，上述文件副本已通过电子方式提交。本次提交通知将由法院电子提交系统自动通过电子邮件发送给所有当事人，或按电子提交通知所示，通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子提交的任何人员。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF System 查阅本次提交。\n\n/s/ Eric Henzy\nEric Henzy（ct12849）","key_entities":["Paul Hastings","Despins","CCP","Kwok","Guo","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5844,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:17:57"}