{"id":"court_ctb_634_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":634,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-07-28","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| --------------------------------------------------------------- | x                           |       |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------|\n| In re:                                                          | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11        |       |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                    | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 | (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                                                         | :<br>:                      |       |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------- | :<br>x                      |       |\n\n# **OMNIBUS REPLY OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE IN SUPPORT OF 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\nTo the Honorable United States Bankruptcy Judge Julie A. Manning:\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as trustee in the above-captioned case filed under chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Trustee\"), respectfully submits this omnibus reply (the \"Reply\") (a) in support of 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* [Docket No. 539] (the \"Application\")<sup>1</sup> and (b) in response to the objection to the Application filed by the Debtor [Docket No. 622] (the \"Debtor's Objection\") and the position statement with respect to the Application filed by Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. [Docket No. 618] (the \"PAX Statement\"). In support of the Reply, the Trustee states as follows:\n\n<sup>1</sup> Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Application.\n\n1. The Trustee does not believe that preparing a lengthy reply to the Debtor's Objection and the PAX Statement is a wise use of his time, as the Trustee's principal focus is the investigation of the Debtor's assets and financial affairs. The Trustee therefore reserves the bulk of his comments in response to the Debtor's Objection and the PAX Statement for the upcoming hearing on the Application scheduled for August 1, 2022 (the \"Hearing\"). The Trustee takes the opportunity afforded by this Reply to make the following brief comments.\n\n#### **I. Debtor Issues**\n\n2. First, as the Court alluded during the status conference held on July 21, 2022, debtors out of possession have no standing to be heard in connection with matters involving the Trustee's administration of the estate absent the expectation of a surplus. *See* Tr., July 21, 2022, at 42:21-24 (\"[E]verybody knows . . . there's no money in this estate, so how do you have standing to argue anything[?]\").<sup>2</sup> The Trustee's retention of counsel is just such a matter of estate administration, and, consequently, the Debtor has no standing to object to the Application. *See, e.g., Furlough v. Cage (In re Technicool Sys., Inc*.), 896 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2018) (owner of chapter 7 debtor corporation had no standing to object to trustee's application to employ special counsel because \"[t]he order must burden his pocket before he burdens a docket\").\n\n3. Even putting aside the standing issue, the Debtor's Objection is completely without merit. The Debtor's Objection constitutes yet another effort by the Debtor to use issues that have no connection whatsoever to this chapter 11 case as a means to delay and distract the Trustee from his critical investigation of the Debtor's assets and financial affairs. The latest example relates to Paul Hastings' representation of Stephen A. Wynn in the civil litigation\n\n<sup>2</sup> The relevant excerpt of the July 21, 2022 hearing transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\ncommenced by the United States Department of Justice against Mr. Wynn in May 2022 (the \"DOJ Litigation\"), with respect to which Paul Hastings was retained on June 25, 2022. As further described in the *Second Supplemental Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins*, that litigation solely involves the issue of whether Mr. Wynn is required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 and does not, in any way, concern the propriety of any action Mr. Wynn may or may not have taken with respect to the Debtor. *See* Complaint, *Att'y Gen. of U.S. v. Wynn*, No. 22-1372 (D.D.C. May 17, 2022). The only parties to the DOJ Litigation are the DOJ and Mr. Wynn, and Paul Hastings had no involvement in the activities of Mr. Wynn prior to the commencement of the DOJ Litigation. The Debtor is not a party or even a witness in connection with the DOJ Litigation, and the interests of the Debtor will not in any way be affected by the outcome of the DOJ Litigation, and, in any event, the DOJ Litigation simply does not relate in any way to this chapter 11 case. Mr. Wynn is not a creditor or party in interest in connection with the Debtor's chapter 11 case. The Debtor's estate will not be increased or decreased and the allowed claims against the Debtor will not fluctuate based on the outcome of the DOJ Litigation. Further, out of an abundance of caution, Paul Hastings has established an ethical wall between the attorneys representing Mr. Wynn (based in Washington, D.C.) and the attorneys representing the Trustee.\n\n#### **II. PAX Issues**\n\n4. Finally, the concerns set forth in the PAX Statement regarding the Trustee's ability to administer the estate in an economical manner (as he is required to do in the exercise of his fiduciary duties) provide no basis to challenge the terms of retention set forth in the Application.<sup>3</sup> Notably, at the core of the PAX Statement is a deeply unfair proposal that would\n\n<sup>3</sup> Tellingly, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") is the only creditor to have challenged the terms of the Trustee's proposed retention of Paul Hastings. The official committee of unsecured creditors,\n\nessentially have Paul Hastings bear not only the risk of not collecting assets, but also the risk of asset values being less than anticipated. However, this proposal contains nothing like the kind of \"upside\" that contingency counsel representing bankruptcy trustees typically receive, namely contingency fee arrangements under which counsel would be paid a percentage of amounts recovered, often in the 30% to 40% range. *See e.g.*, *In re Pearlman*, No. 6:07–bk–00761–KSJ, 2014 WL 1100223, at \\*3 (Bankr. M.D. Fl. Mar. 20, 2014) (approving 35% contingency fee arrangement for counsel to chapter 11 trustee); *In re Merry-Go-Round Enter's, Inc*., 244 B.R. 327, 341 (Bankr. D. Md. 2000) (finding 40% contingency fee for chapter 7 trustee's special litigation counsel, in the amount of approximately \\$70 million, to be reasonable); *In re Miller*, 620 B.R. 637, 644 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2020) (finding a 40% contingency fee reasonable for chapter 7 trustee special counsel); Order Authorizing Appointment of Attorney, *In re Flanagan*, No. 99-30565 (ASD) (Bankr. D. Conn. Apr. 4, 2003), [Docket No. 595] (approving contingency fee for chapter 7 trustee's counsel of 1/3 of amounts recovered and upon any appeal a contingency fee of 40%). Here, Paul Hastings is not seeking any upside incentive, just the payment of its regularly hourly rates. No one can deny that this is a purely contingent engagement at this stage as the likelihood of the collection of assets, the timing of such collection, and the ultimate value of assets collected are all speculative. The bottom line is that Paul Hastings will not get paid unless the Trustee collects assets, and no further adjustment to its proposed retention is appropriate given that contingency.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank.*]\n\nwhich (unlike PAX) owes fiduciary duties to all unsecured creditors and would logically have the most reason for concern regarding the cost of the Trustee's counsel, has filed a response stating that it has no objection to the Application, *see* Docket No. 625, which response was joined by creditors Rui Ma, Zheng Wu, and Weican Meng. *See* Docket No. 630.\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, and for the additional reasons the Trustee will\n\ndiscuss at the Hearing, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court overrule the Objections and enter the Proposed Order granting the relief requested in the Application and such other relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: July 28, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(*admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(*admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Proposed counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x                                 |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11              |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                                                     | :<br>:                            |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :<br>x                            |\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on July 28, 2022, the foregoing Reply, and all exhibits and attachments thereto, was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.<sup>4</sup> Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDated: July 28, 2022 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n> By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n<sup>4</sup> To the extent that the foregoing was filed outside regular business hours, service by mail on recipients unable or not qualified to accept electronic notice was made on the next business day.\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(*admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(*admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Proposed Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **Exhibit A**\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* July 21, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: DYLAN P. KLETTER, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 ERIC HENZY, ESQ. AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For HK International Funds STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ. Investments (USA) Limited, Zeisler & Zeisler LLC: 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund, L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES Cont'd: For the Creditor, Pacific PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Asia Alliance Opportunity Robinson & Cole LLP Fund, L.P.: 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street, 8th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Rui Ma, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Zheng Wu and Weican Meng: McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter 30 Jeliff Lane Southport, CT 06890 CAROLLYNN H.G. CALLARI, ESQ. Law firm of Callari Partners One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Fl. New York, NY 10020 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: DOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ. PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 634 Filed 07/28/22 Entered 07/28/22 21:45:26 Page 11 of 11\n\n|    | 42<br>Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022                            |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. HENZY:<br>Oh, it doesn't, Your Honor.                    |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Right.                                         |\n| 3  | MR. HENZY:<br>No.<br>I'm not -- I'm sorry.                   |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>So how is 329 applicable?                      |\n| 5  | MR. HENZY:<br>Oh, I -- under 329, I believe what             |\n| 6  | Attorney Claiborn was referring to, I still have to file the |\n| 7  | statement required by 329 and Rule 2016(b).                  |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>So if you're a debtor -- let's carry           |\n| 9  | your thought process out.<br>If you're no longer a debtor-in |\n| 10 | possession and you don't have to be subject to any of the    |\n| 11 | Court, any of the oversight of the Court that's in the       |\n| 12 | bankruptcy code or the rules, then why do you have standing  |\n| 13 | to say anything?                                             |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:<br>Because I represent the debtor out of          |\n| 15 | possession.<br>The debtor out of possession --               |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>You represent the debtor out of       |\n| 17 | possession.<br>In your Chapter 7 cases that you're talking   |\n| 18 | about, the Chapter 7 debtor has no standing unless and until |\n| 19 | it's proven that there be some surplus for the Chapter 7     |\n| 20 | debtor.                                                      |\n| 21 | And at this point, we all know -- everybody knows            |\n| 22 | -- Mr. Despins knows, he took on this assignment knowing     |\n| 23 | that there's no money in this estate, so how do you have     |\n| 24 | standing to argue anything.<br>If you take your argument to  |\n| 25 | its fullest extent, you're not subject to disinterestedness, |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于：\n第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\nx\n第 11 章受托人支持其依据《破产法典》第 327、328 及 330 条以及《破产规则》第 2014 及 2016 条请求作出授权并批准聘用和雇用 PAUL HASTINGS LLP 作为第 11 章受托人法律顾问之裁定的申请之综合答复\n\n致尊敬的美国破产法官 Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）：\n\nLuc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）以依据《美国法典》第 11 篇第 11 章提起的上述案件之受托人身份（下称「受托人」），谨此提交本综合答复（下称「本答复」），旨在：(a) 支持《第 11 章受托人依据〈破产法典〉第 327、328 及 330 条以及〈破产规则〉第 2014 及 2016 条请求作出授权并批准聘用和雇用 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）作为第 11 章受托人法律顾问之裁定的申请》[诉讼记录第 539 号]（下称「该申请」）1；以及 (b) 回应债务人针对该申请提出的异议 [诉讼记录第 622 号]（下称「债务人的异议」）以及 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）针对该申请提交的立场声明 [诉讼记录第 618 号]（下称「PAX 声明」）。为支持本答复，受托人陈述如下：\n\n1 本文中使用但未作定义的首字母大写术语具有该申请中所规定的含义。\n\n1. 受托人认为，就债务人的异议和 PAX 声明撰写冗长的答复并非明智利用其时间的方式，因为受托人的主要重点是对债务人的资产和财务事务进行调查。因此，受托人将其针对债务人的异议和 PAX 声明的大部分回应意见保留至定于 2022 年 8 月 1 日就该申请举行的即将到来的听证会（下称「听证会」）。受托人借本答复提供的机会提出以下简要意见。\nI. 债务人相关问题\n\n2. 首先，正如法院在 2022 年 7 月 21 日举行的现状通报会上所提示的，在不预期存在盈余财产的情况下，丧失管领权的债务人对于涉及受托人管理破产财产之事务无出庭陈述的诉讼资格。参见 2022 年 7 月 21 日庭审记录第 42:21-24 页（「大家都知道……这笔破产财产里没有钱，所以你怎么有诉讼资格去争论任何事情呢？」）。2 受托人聘用律师正是属于此类破产财产管理事务，因此，债务人无权对该申请提出异议。参见，例如，Furlough v. Cage (In re Technicool Sys., Inc.), 896 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2018)（第 7 章债务人公司的所有人无权对受托人雇用特别法律顾问的申请提出异议，因为「在裁定成为其案卷负担之前，该裁定必须首先成为其钱包的负担」）。\n\n3. 即使抛开诉讼资格问题不谈，债务人的异议也完全毫无根据。债务人的异议构成了债务人的又一次企图，即利用与本第 11 章案件毫无关联的问题作为手段，拖延受托人并转移其对债务人资产和财务事务关键调查的注意力。最新的例子涉及普衡在民事诉讼中代表 Stephen A. Wynn（史蒂芬·A·永利）\n\n2 2022 年 7 月 21 日听证会笔录的相关摘录作为附件 A 附于本文件之后。\n\n该民事诉讼由 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）于 2022 年 5 月针对永利先生提起（下称「司法部诉讼」），普衡于 2022 年 6 月 25 日就此诉讼被聘用。正如在《Luc A. Despins 关于无利害关系的第二份补充声明》中进一步说明的那样，该诉讼仅涉及永利先生是否需要根据《1938 年外国代理人登记法》登记为外国代理人的问题，绝不涉及永利先生可能或可能未针对债务人采取的任何行为的适当性。参见起诉书，Att'y Gen. of U.S. v. Wynn, No. 22-1372 (D.D.C. May 17, 2022)。司法部诉讼的唯一当事人是司法部和永利先生，普衡在司法部诉讼开始前未参与永利先生的任何活动。债务人不是司法部诉讼的当事人，甚至不是相关证人，债务人的利益绝不会受到司法部诉讼结果的影响，而且在任何情况下，司法部诉讼根本与本第 11 章案件没有任何关联。永利先生并非与债务人第 11 章案件相关的债权人或利害关系方。根据司法部诉讼的结果，债务人的破产财产不会增加或减少，针对债务人获准许的债权也不会产生波动。此外，出于充分谨慎的考虑，普衡已在代表永利先生的律师（常驻华盛顿特区）与代表受托人的律师之间建立了利益冲突隔离墙。\nII. PAX 相关问题\n\n4. 最后，PAX 声明中提出的关于受托人以合乎经济原则的方式管理破产财产的能力的担忧（正如其在履行信义义务时被要求做到的那样），并没有为质疑该申请中载明的聘用条款提供任何依据。3 值得注意的是，PAX 声明的核心是一个极不公平的提议，该提议\n\n3 显而易见的是，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（下称「PAX」）是唯一对受托人拟聘用普衡的条款提出质疑的债权人。无担保债权人官方委员会\n\n实际上不仅要求普衡承担无法收回资产的风险，而且还要承担资产价值低于预期的风险。然而，这项提议完全不包含代表破产受托人的风险代理律师通常收到的那种「额外收益」，即律师按追回金额的一定百分比获得报酬的风险代理费安排，该比例通常在 30% 到 40% 之间。参见，例如，In re Pearlman, No. 6:07–bk–00761–KSJ, 2014 WL 1100223, at *3 (Bankr. M.D. Fl. Mar. 20, 2014)（批准第 11 章受托人法律顾问的 35% 风险代理费安排）；In re Merry-Go-Round Enter's, Inc., 244 B.R. 327, 341 (Bankr. D. Md. 2000)（认定第 7 章受托人的特别诉讼律师按约 7000 万美元金额收取 40% 的风险代理费是合理的）；In re Miller, 620 B.R. 637, 644 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2020)（认定第 7 章受托人特别律师收取 40% 的风险代理费是合理的）；授权指定律师的裁定，In re Flanagan, No. 99-30565 (ASD) (Bankr. D. Conn. Apr. 4, 2003), [诉讼记录第 595 号]（批准第 7 章受托人律师按追回金额的三分之一收取风险代理费，并在发生任何上诉时收取 40% 的风险代理费）。在本案中，普衡并不寻求任何额外收益激励，而仅要求按其正常的标准小时费率获得支付。无人能够否认，在此阶段这纯粹是一项风险代理聘约，因为资产收回的可能性、此类收回的时间安排以及所收回资产的最终价值均具有投机不确定性。底线在于，除非受托人收回资产，否则普衡将无法获得报酬，鉴于这种偶发风险，对其拟议聘用条款作进一步调整是不恰当的。\n\n[本页余下部分特意留白。]\n\n与 PAX 不同，该委员会对所有无担保债权人负有信义义务，按理最有理由对受托人聘请律师的费用表示关切，但其已提交答复声明对该申请没有异议，参见诉讼记录第 625 号，债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）、Zheng Wu（吴征）和 Weican Meng（孟维参）附议了该答复。参见诉讼记录第 630 号。\n\n据此，基于前述理由，以及受托人将在听证会上进一步阐述的其他理由，受托人谨请法院驳回各异议，并签署拟定裁定，授予该申请中所请求的救济以及公正和恰当的其他救济。\n\n日期：2022 年 7 月 28 日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（特许出庭已获准）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft（特许出庭已获准）\nDouglass Barron（特许出庭已获准）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n拟任第 11 章受托人法律顾问\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于：\n第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK，\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\nx\n送达证明书\n\n下述签署人特此证明，于 2022 年 7 月 28 日，前述答复及其所有证据附件和附录均已通过电子方式归档。此项归档的通知已通过法院的电子归档（「CM/ECF」）系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给上述第 11 章案件的所有当事人，或按照电子归档通知上的指示通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子归档的任何人。4 各当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅此份归档文件。\n\n日期：2022 年 7 月 28 日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n4 在前述文件于正常工作时间之外归档的情况下，对无法或不具备资格接受电子通知的接收人的邮寄送达已于下一个工作日完成。\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（特许出庭已获准）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nAvram E. Luft（特许出庭已获准）\nDouglass Barron（特许出庭已获准）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n拟任第 11 章受托人法律顾问\n附件 A\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n关于\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK，\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n2022 年 7 月 21 日\n债务人。\n\n现状通报会笔录\n审理法官：尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING\n美国破产法官\n出庭人员：\n代表债务人：\nDYLAN P. KLETTER, ESQ.\nBrown Rudnick, LLP\n185 Asylum Street\nHartford, CT 06103\nERIC HENZY, ESQ.\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.\nZeisler & Zeisler\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n代表 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC：\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.\nZeisler & Zeisler\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.：\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n诉讼程序由电子声音录音记录，笔录由转录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭律师名单（续）：\n代表债权人 Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋亚洲联盟机会基金有限合伙）：\nPATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·M·伯尼律师）\nRobinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊与科尔有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103（康涅狄格州哈特福德）\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·高德曼律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604（康涅狄格州布里奇波特）\n\n代表债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）、Zheng Wu（吴征）及 Weican Meng（孟维参）：\nKRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯汀·梅休律师）\nMcElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇·马尔瓦尼与卡彭特律师事务所）\n30 Jeliff Lane\nSouthport, CT 06890（康涅狄格州绍斯波特）\nCAROLLYNN H.G. CALLARI, ESQ.（卡罗琳·H·G·卡拉里律师）\nLaw firm of Callari Partners（卡拉里合伙人律师事务所）\nOne Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Fl.\nNew York, NY 10020（纽约州纽约市）\n\n第 11 章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·A·德斯平斯律师）\nPaul Hastings, LLP（普衡有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166（纽约州纽约市）\n\n代表第 11 章受托人：\nDOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ.（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡律师）\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林赛律师）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特·佩佩与蒙泰斯职业法人律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510（康涅狄格州纽黑文）\n\n代表美国联邦破产受托人（U.S. Trustee）：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building（贾伊莫联邦大楼）\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510（康涅狄格州纽黑文）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 634 Filed 07/28/22 Entered 07/28/22 21:45:26 Page 11 of 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2022年7月21日\n\n1 亨齐律师：\n噢，不适用，法官阁下。\n\n2 法庭：\n对。\n\n3 亨齐律师：\n不。我不是——抱歉。\n\n4 法庭：\n那第 329 条怎么会适用？\n\n5 亨齐律师：\n噢，我——根据第 329 条，我认为\n6 克莱伯恩律师指的是，我仍然必须提交\n7 第 329 条和规则 2016(b) 所要求的陈述书。\n\n8 法庭：\n所以如果你是债务人——我们顺着\n9 你的思路往下推。如果你不再是自行管领\n10 债务人，并且无需服从破产法\n11 或破产规则中的法院监管，\n12 那你凭什么有资格\n13 发表任何意见？\n\n14 亨齐律师：\n因为我代表非自行管领债务人。\n15 非自行管领债务人——\n\n16 法庭：\n好的。你代表非自行管领\n17 债务人。在你谈到的那些第 7 章案件中，\n18 第 7 章债务人没有任何诉讼资格，除非且直至\n19 证明该第 7 章债务人存在某种剩余财产。\n20\n21 而在目前这个时候，我们都知道——每个人都知道\n22 ——德斯平斯先生知道，他接下这项委托时就知道\n23 本破产财产中没有钱，那你凭什么有\n24 资格辩论任何事情？如果你把你的论点推向\n25 极致，你甚至不受无利害关系原则的约束，\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷法庭记录与转录服务公司）","key_entities":["Paul Hastings","Je","Despins","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2358,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-07-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-07-28","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:15:13"}