{"id":"court_ctb_641_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":641,"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\n\n: Chapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK, : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor. : \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n# **DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULES 9014(C) AND 9016, QUASHING SUBPOENAS AND CONFIMRING THAT DEBTOR IS NOT ENTITILED TO DISCOVERY IN CONNECTION WITH DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER APPOINTING LUC A. DESPINS AS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE OR THE TRUSTEE'S APPLICATION TO EMPLOY PAUL HASTINGS LLP AS COUNSEL**\n\nThe debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., hereby Objects (the \"Objection\") to the July 25, 2022 Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 9014(c) and 9016, Quashing Subpoenas and Confirming that Debtor is not Entitled to Discovery in Connection with Debtor's Motion for Relief from Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee or the Trustee's Application to Employ Paul Hastings LLP as Counsel (the \"Motion to Quash\"). In support of his Objection, the Debtor represents as follows:\n\n### **INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. This Court has not entered an order prohibiting the Debtor from conducting discovery in support of his July 15, 2022, Motion for Relief from Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Rule 9024 Motion\"), (Doc. No. 561). Indeed, during the July 21, 2022, Status Conference before this Court the Debtor's counsel specifically asked the Court to enter an order prohibiting discovery if the Court was not going to permit the Debtor to take discovery in support of his Rule 9024 Motion:\n\n4 I don't want to serve discovery and put people in 5 a position of having to file motions with the Court and have 6 the Court potentially have a hearing or not have a hearing 7 and rule on the motion to give me then whatever rights I 8 have with respect to the Court's ruling. 9 Which is why I -- for me, it would be much 10 preferable -- it may be preferable for other parties -- if 11 the Court's going to rule that is to rule that today and get 12 it out of the way. 13 THE COURT: Well, I'll consider that. 14 MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n(*See* Transcript of July 21, 2022 Status Conference (the \"July 21 Tran.\"), at 105:4-14).\n\n2. The Court issued a Scheduling Order/Pretrial Order on July 22, 2022, (Doc. No. 596) (the \"Scheduling Order\") setting a number of matters down for hearing on August 1, 2022, including the Rule 9024 Motion, and establishing deadlines by which parties were to submit briefing. Significantly, the Scheduling Order, which entered the day after the Status Conference, is silent on the issue of discovery. Thus, far from prohibiting discovery, the Court left the Debtor to do \"whatever [his counsel] think[s] is appropriate\" as it related to discovery, *see* July 21, Tran. at 103:4-7, and the Debtor's counsel thus served discovery on Paul Hastings, LLP (\"Paul Hastings\"), the law firm of which the Trustee is a member.\n\n3. The primary and only properly briefed basis for the relief sought in the Motion to Quash is this Court's purported prohibition on conducting discovery. Because no such prohibition exists, the Motion to Quash should be denied.\n\n## **I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND**\n\n# **A. The Appointment of the Chapter 11 Trustee, Filing of the Rule 9024 Motion and Issuance of the Subpoenas Sought to be Quashed**\n\n4. 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.\n\n5. On June 15, 2022, this Court issued a Memorandum of Decision, *inter alia*, granting\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.'s (\"PAX\") 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.)\n\n6. On July 7, 2022, the UST filed a notice (the \"Appointment Notice\") appointing Luc A. Despins (the \"Trustee\") as the Chapter 11 trustee (Doc. No. 514), and an Application for Order Approving Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 515) (the \"Appointment Application\").\n\n7. 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\") at which the Court entered an Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Appointment Order\"). During the July 8 Hearing, the Trustee disclosed for the first time Paul Hastings' relationship with Pacific Alliance Group (\"PAG\"),[1](#page-2-0) the parent company of PAX. (*See* Transcript of July 8 Hearing \"July 8 Hearing Tran.\" at 6:15-25).\n\n8. During the July 8 Hearing, the Debtor's then counsel stated that he could not, at that point, definitively say whether the Debtor would oppose the appointment of Mr. Despins:\n\n> 6 MR. BALDIGA: I don't know yet. I think -- I'm 7 not sure we're going to have -- going to have any concerns. 8 But to the extent we do, I think it's premature to assess 9 what those would be exactly until we see the disclosure and 10 have an opportunity to talk to the client about that.\n\n(July 8 Hearing Tran., at 12:6-10).\n\n9. In response to Attorney Baldiga's concerns about the Trustee's disclosures, which the Trustee made for the first time on the record during the July 8 Hearing, the Court stated:\n\n> THE COURT: I understand. I do understand what 22 you're saying. 23 But I'm talking about right now, today, the only 24 thing before the Court is the appointment of Mr. Despins as\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> PAG was also subsequently identified as \"PAG Holdings Limited.\"\n\n25 the Chapter 11 trustee.\n\n- 1 And no one has put forth any reason at this point\n- 2 as to why that should not occur. And if it occurs and then\n- 3 you find some reason, then you have remedies under the\n- 4 bankruptcy code to address those reasons. . . .\n\n(July 8 Hearing Tran., at 12:21-13:4). Based on the timing of the filing of the Appointment Notice, Appointment Application, and July 8 Hearing, there was no opportunity for the Debtor to conduct any meaningful analysis of the Appointment Application, let alone file an objection to commence a contested matter and thereafter conduct discovery. Requiring a debtor to articulate an objection to a Chapter 11 trustee's disinterestedness (or lack thereof) within twenty-four hours of receiving an admittedly incomplete and deficient disclosure, and within hours, at most, of receiving an incomplete verbal supplement to that deficient disclosure, is simply not fair.\n\n10. On July 12, 2022, the Trustee filed the First Supplemental Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins (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 stating in conclusory fashion that they were in connection 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, even though Paul Hastings representation of the PAG Entities was ongoing at least as of May 2022. (Supplemental Despins Declaration, at ¶ 2).\n\n11. On July 12, 2022, the Trustee also filed 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 (Doc. No. 539) (the \"Application to Employ\"). Annexed to the Application to Employ is 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 itself merely \"refers to the Despins Declaration\" . . . \"for a description of Paul Hastings' connections to potential parties in interest in the Chapter 11 case.\" (Bassett Declaration ¶ 19).\n\n12. On July 15, 2022, one week after the appointment of the Trustee, the Debtor filed the Rule 9024 Motion. The Rule 9024 Motion seeks relief from the Appointment Order. (*See* July 8 Hearing Tran., at 12:21-13:4).\n\n13. On July 20, 2022, the Trustee filed his Objection of Chapter 11 Trustee to Debtor's Motion for Relief From Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Rule 9024 Motion Objection\"). The filing of the Rule 9024 Motion Objection created a contested matter concerning the Rule 9024 Motion (the \"Rule 9024 Motion Contested Matter\").\n\n14. In connection with the Rule 9024 Motion Contested Matter, on July 22, 2022, after the Scheduling Order issued, the Debtor served a document subpoena (the \"Document Subpoena\") and a deposition subpoena (the Deposition Subpoena\" and collectively the \"Subpoenas\") on Paul Hastings, the law firm of which the Trustee is a partner and the entity that would have custody, possession and control of the documents and information the Debtor seeks to prosecute the Rule 9024 Motion.\n\n5\n\n15. The Subpoenas sought documents and testimony related to three discrete matters bearing on the Trustee's disinterestedness: (a) Paul Hastings' representation of and relationship with the PAG Entities, (b) Paul Hastings' representation of and relationship with UBS, AG and other UBS entities, and (c) Paul Hastings' (i) relationship with the government of the People's Republic of China and/or the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\"), (ii) representation of Chinese state-owned entities (\"State-owned Entities\"), and (iii) offices in China, including the regulation of those offices by the Chinese government. *See* Document Subpoena, at Schedule A, Requests 1, 4-5 (seeking information related to the PAG Entities); 6-7 (seeking information related to UBS), and 2-3, 8-10 (seeking information related to the China). The Deposition Subpoena seeks testimony concerning the Despins Declaration and Supplemental Despins Declaration (deposition topics 1-4), Paul Hastings' relationship with and representation of the PAG Entities (deposition topics 5-6), and UBS (deposition topics 7-8), and Paul Hastings' offices in China and its representation of State-owned Entities (deposition topics 9-13).[2](#page-5-0)\n\n16. The Document Subpoena required Paul Hastings to produce responsive documents by July 26, 2022, and the Deposition Subpoena required Paul Hastings to produce a corporate representative for a deposition on July 28, 2022. The Debtor was required to set short return dates for the Subpoenas because the information sought by the Subpoenas was to be utilized during the August 1, 2022, hearing the on the Rule 9024 Motion.\n\n### **B. The Debtor's Pending Claims Against UBS AG**\n\n17. In addition to the relationships with the PAG Entities discussed *supra*, Paul Hastings also represents UBS AG and various other UBS entities. (*See* Declaration of Luc A.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> A copy of the Document Subpoena is attached to the Motion to Quash as Exhibit B; a copy of the Deposition Subpoena is attached to the Motion to Quash as Exhibit C.\n\nDespins, Doc. No. 515-1 (the \"Despins Declaration ¶ 7(c)\").\n\n18. 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-2020-000345 (the \"UBS Action\").[3](#page-6-0) The Plaintiffs in the UBS Action seek \\$500 million in damages from UBS. (UBS Action, Particulars of Claim, at ¶ 33(1), attached as Exhibit 1 to the Debtor's Objection to Application to Employ, Doc. No. 622-1). The sole defendant in the UBS Action is UBS AG. (*Id*., at p. 1 (Caption); ¶ 5).\n\n19. Paul Hastings has represented UBS AG and Paul Hastings continues to represent UBS affiliates. (*See* Despins Declaration ¶ 7(c)). Thus, the Debtor seeks to take discovery related to the relationship between Paul Hastings and UBS as that relationship impacts the Trustee's disinterestedness.\n\n## **C. The Interest of the Chinese Government in This Case and Paul Hastings' Failure to Disclose Chinese Interests**\n\n20. Rather than restate the substance of the portion of the Debtor's Objection to the Application to Employ that addresses the Interest of the Chinese Government in this Case and Paul Hastings' Failure to Disclose Chinese Interests, the Debtor incorporates paragraphs 19-36 of the Debtor's Objection to the Application to Employ as if fully stated herein. Doc. No. 622.\n\n### **II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n21. This Court has jurisdiction to consider this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Consideration of this Objection is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(A).\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>3</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).\n\nVenue is proper in this Court for this case and this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409, respectively.\n\n### **III. LEGAL BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n# **A. The Court Did Not Enter an Order Prohibiting Discovery**\n\n22. There is no dispute that the Debtor's opposed Rule 9024 Motion constitutes a contested matter, *see* Motion to Quash at ¶19 and authorities cited therein, and that Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(c) and 9016, and the discovery they provide for, are applicable to this contested matter. Indeed, the Trustee's only actually developed basis for quashing the Subpoenas is the wholly incorrect contention that this Court directed that the Debtor could not take any discovery in support of the Rule 9024 Motion. (Motion to Quash at ¶ 26 (\"To the extent that the Court does not quash the Subpoenas . . . the Trustee reserves all rights and bases to challenge any discovery sought for any and all additional reasons not specifically stated herein, including, without limitation, the irrelevance, ambiguity, and over-breadth of particular requests or the extent to which particular requests or areas of inquiry seek to invade the attorney-client privilege or other applicable privileges and protections.\")\n\n23. The Trustee completely ignores the extended colloquy between the Court and the Debtor's counsel regarding discovery wherein the Court, after initially stating that no discovery would be permitted, expressly declined to enter an order precluding the Debtor from taking discovery, instead instructing the Debtor's counsel: \"[y]ou can do whatever you think is appropriate\". (July 21. Tran. at 103:4-7).\n\n24. The Trustee also ignores that the Court did not enter any order precluding the Debtor from taking discovery despite the fact that the Debtor's counsel asked the Court multiple times to enter such an order if the Court had already decided not to permit discovery so that the\n\n8\n\nservice of discovery would not result in the very motion practice in which the Trustee and Debtor are now engaged. (*See* July 21 Tran, at 102:23-103:7; 105:4-14).\n\n25. Moreover, and significantly, when the Court did enter an order the day after the Status Conference, the order said nothing about discovery. *See generally* Scheduling Order. Thus, the Court did not enter an order precluding discovery on the Rule 9024 Motion. *see* Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(c).\n\n26. Further, because the Trustee's Motion to Quash relies entirely on the false premise that the Court did enter an order precluding the Debtor from taking further discovery, the Court should deny the Motion to Quash and direct Paul Hastings to comply with the Document Subpoena by producing responsive documents within Five (5) days of the entry of an order denying the Motion to Quash. In addition, the Court should compel Paul Hastings to produce a corporate representative who is knowledgeable about the topics identified in the Deposition Subpoena and competent to testify on behalf of Paul Hastings for a deposition within seven (7) days of the date on which the Court enters an order denying the Motion to Quash.\n\n#### **B. Compliance with the Subpoenas Does Not Present an Undue Burden**\n\n27. The Trustee half-heartedly argues that compliance with the Subpoenas would create an undue burden on Paul Hastings. First, the Subpoenas were served on Paul Hastings and to the extent there is any burden in complying with the Subpoenas that burden is on Paul Hasting, not the Trustee. Thus, only Paul Hastings has standing to move to quash the Subpoenas on the grounds of undue burden and it has not done so. *See Media v. Doe No. 4*, 12 civ. 2950 (JPO), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170554, \\*5 (SDNY, Nov. 30, 2012) (denying defendant's motion to quash third-party subpoena on undue burden grounds because \"the burden of literal compliance with this subpoena falls to third-party, Verizon\"); *Piercy v. Wilhelmi*, No. 16-MC 43-NJR, 2016 U.S. Dist LEXIS 79102, \\*4, n.2 (S.D. Ill., June 17, 2016) (\"Defendants, however, do not have standing to challenge the subpoenas on these [undue burden and relevance] grounds; only the non-party to whom the subpoena was directed can raise these challenges\") (citing cases); *GEOMC Co. v. Calmare Therapeutics, Inc.*, No. 3:14-cv-1222 (VAB), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202603, \\*15-16 (D. Conn., Oct. 30, 2020) (\"This Court need not depart from the Second Circuit's guidance, echoed in courts across this Circuit, that '[i]n the absence of a claim of privilege a party usually does not have standing to object to a subpoena directed to a non-party witness.'\") (bracket in original).\n\n28. Second, the Trustee's argument regarding undue burden focuses nearly exclusively on compliance with the Debtor's requests that seek information about China, not even mentioning the PAG Entities or UBS. (*See* Motion to Quash, at ¶¶22-24). Thus, the Trustee has waived any argument that the Debtor's requests concerning the PAG Entities and UBS impose an undue burden on anyone.\n\n29. Third, even if the Trustee had standing to assert that the Document Subpoena imposes an undue burden on Paul Hastings, he fails to establish that the Document Subpoena on Paul Hastings was unduly burdensome. *Sberbank of Russia v. Traisman*, 3:14cv216 (WWE), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113351, \\*2-\\*3 (D. Conn., Aug. 23, 2016) (\"The party seeking to quash a subpoena bears the burden to show that compliance with the subpoena will prove burdensome.\"). Indeed, the Trustee does not identify or articulate any burden that Paul Hastings would endure from complying with the requests that seek information concerning Paul Hastings' offices in China and its representation of, and relationships with State-owned Entities and the CCP, let alone an undue burden. Instead, in a classic example of whataboutism, the Trustee argues that Brown Rudnick also has relationships with China, which the Debtor did not raise when he retained Brown Rudnick. (Motion to Quash, at ¶ 23).\n\n30. The fact that Brown Rudnick may represent Chinese persons and entities has absolutely no relevance to whether Paul Hastings' significant relationships with China and Stateowned Entities make the Trustee not disinterested. Likewise, the fact that certain Brown Rudnick attorneys authored a guide for Chinese companies investing in the United States on the very discrete subject of deal review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, *see* Motion to Quash, at 9, is not comparable to Paul Hastings operating three offices in China, representing numerous State-owned Entities, generating millions of dollars a year in revenue from those same entities, and at all times continuously operating those offices, subject to the unilateral approval of the Chinese government.[4](#page-10-0)\n\n#### **IV. CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court (1) deny the Motion to Quash and enter an order compelling (i) Paul Hastings to comply with the Document Subpoena by producing responsive documents within Five (5) days of the date of the Court's Order and (ii) Paul Hastings to produce a corporate representative who is knowledgeable about the topics identified in the Deposition Subpoena and competent to testify on behalf of Paul Hastings for a deposition within seven (7) days of the date of the Court's order; and (2) grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n<span id=\"page-10-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> Based on its website, Brown Rudnick does not appear to maintain an office in China or more generally in Asia\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 29th day of July, 2022.\n\n# **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Aaron A. Romney*  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](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) [skindseth@zeislaw.com](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 29th 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/ Aaron A. Romney*  Aaron A. Romney (ct28144)","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院）\n\n关于\n\n：第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），：案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。：_________________________________________________:\n\n_________________________________________________\n债务人对第 11 章受托人依据《破产程序规则》第 9014(c) 条及第 9016 条提请作出撤销传票并确认债务人就其请求撤销指定 LUC A. DESPINS 为第 11 章受托人之命令的动议或受托人聘请 PAUL HASTINGS LLP 为法律顾问之申请无权获得证据开示的命令之动议的异议\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”），由其下述签字的代理律师事务所 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 代表，特此对 2022 年 7 月 25 日第 11 章受托人提出的《依据破产程序规则第 9014(c) 条和第 9016 条提请作出撤销传票并确认债务人就其请求撤销指定 Luc A. Despins 为第 11 章受托人之命令的动议或受托人聘请 Paul Hastings LLP 为法律顾问之申请无权获得证据开示的命令之动议》（下称“撤销动议”）提出异议（下称“本异议”）。为支持本异议，债务人陈述如下：\n引言\n\n1. 本法院未曾作出禁止债务人为支持其 2022 年 7 月 15 日提出的《请求撤销指定 Luc A. Despins 为第 11 章受托人之命令的动议》（下称“第 9024 条动议”）（文件编号 561）而进行证据开示的命令。事实上，在 2022 年 7 月 21 日本法院举行的状况咨商会议期间，债务人律师明确请求法院：若法院不打算允许债务人为支持其第 9024 条动议而获取证据开示，则请法院作出禁止证据开示的命令：\n\n4 我不想送达证据开示请求并使各方陷入\n5 不得不向法院提出动议，并使\n6 法院可能举行听证会或不举行听证会，\n7 并对该动议作出裁决以赋予我针对法院裁决的\n8 任何权利的境地。\n9 这就是为什么我——对我来说，如果\n10 法院要做出裁决，今天就做出裁决并\n11 解决这一问题，将好得多——对其他各方而言也可能更好。\n13 法院：嗯，我会考虑这一点的。\n14 亨兹先生：谢谢法官阁下。\n\n（参见 2022 年 7 月 21 日状况咨商会议记录（下称“7 月 21 日笔录”），第 105:4-14 行）。\n\n2. 法院于 2022 年 7 月 22 日发布了《日程安排命令/审前命令》（文件编号 596）（下称“日程安排命令”），定于 2022 年 8 月 1 日对包括第 9024 条动议在内的若干事项举行听证会，并确立了各方提交书面意见的截止日期。值得注意的是，在状况咨商会议次日作出的《日程安排命令》对证据开示问题保持沉默。因此，法院非但没有禁止证据开示，反而让债务人就证据开示一事“做[其律师]认为适当的任何事情”，参见 7 月 21 日笔录第 103:4-7 行，债务人律师因此向受托人作为成员所在的律师事务所 Paul Hastings, LLP（下称“Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）”）送达了证据开示请求。\n\n3. 撤销动议中所寻求救济的主要且唯一进行了充分论述的依据，是本法院所谓的禁止进行证据开示。由于不存在此类禁止，撤销动议应当予以驳回。\n一、 事实与程序背景\nA. 第 11 章受托人的指定、第 9024 条动议的提交以及所请求撤销传票的发出\n\n4. 2022 年 2 月 15 日，债务人根据《破产法典》第 11 章提交了自愿救济申请书，从而启动了上述标题所示的破产案件。\n\n5. 2022 年 6 月 15 日，本法院作出一项《裁决备忘录》，除其他事项外，在涉及寻求指定第 11 章受托人的范围内，批准了 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）（下称“PAX”）提出的《驳回动议，或在备选情况下，部分支持美国受托人指定第 11 章受托人的动议》（文件编号 183）。（文件编号 465。）\n\n6. 2022 年 7 月 7 日，United States Trustee（美国受托人，下称“UST”）提交了一份指定 Luc A. Despins（下称“受托人”）为第 11 章受托人的通知（文件编号 514）（下称“指定通知”），以及一份《批准指定第 11 章受托人的命令申请书》（文件编号 515）（下称“指定申请书”）。\n\n7. 2022 年 7 月 8 日，即在 UST 提交指定通知和指定申请书仅一天之后，本法院就指定申请书举行了听证会（下称“7 月 8 日听证会”），法院在会上作出了《指定 Luc A. Despins 为第 11 章受托人的命令》（下称“指定命令”）。在 7 月 8 日听证会期间，受托人首次披露了 Paul Hastings 与 PAX 的母公司 Pacific Alliance Group（太盟投资集团）（下称“PAG”）[1]之间的关系。（参见 7 月 8 日听证会记录，下称“7 月 8 日听证会笔录”，第 6:15-25 行）。\n\n8. 在 7 月 8 日听证会期间，债务人当时的律师表示，彼时他无法明确表示债务人是否会反对指定 Despins 先生：\n\n> 6 鲍迪加先生：我还不知道。我想——我\n> 7 不确定我们是否会有——会有任何顾虑。\n> 8 但若我们确实有顾虑，我认为在看到披露信息并\n> 9 有机会与客户就此进行沟通之前，\n> 10 准确评估这些顾虑是什么还为时过早。\n\n（7 月 8 日听证会笔录，第 12:6-10 行）。\n\n9. 针对鲍迪加律师对受托人披露信息的担忧（受托人在 7 月 8 日听证会期间首次在记录中作出该披露），法院表示：\n\n> 法院：我理解。我确实理解\n> 22 你所说的话。\n> 23 但我指的是此时此刻，在今天，法院面前\n> 24 唯一的事项是指定 Despins 先生为\n\n1 PAG 随后亦被认定为“PAG Holdings Limited”。\n\n25 第 11 章受托人。\n\n- 1 目前尚无人提出任何理由\n- 2 说明为何不应发生该指定。如果它发生了，而随后\n- 3 你发现了一些理由，那么你有破产法典下的\n- 4 救济途径来解决这些理由。……\n\n（7 月 8 日听证会笔录，第 12:21-13:4 行）。从指定通知、指定申请书的提交时间以及 7 月 8 日听证会的时间安排来看，债务人根本没有机会对指定申请书进行任何有实质意义的分析，更不用说提出异议以启动争议事项并在此后进行证据开示了。要求债务人在收到公认不完整且存在缺陷的披露后二十四小时之内，且至多在收到针对该缺陷披露的不完整口头补充后数小时之内，就第 11 章受托人的利害无关性（或缺乏利害无关性）阐明异议，这根本是不公平的。\n\n10. 2022 年 7 月 12 日，受托人提交了《Luc A. Despins 关于利害无关性的第一份补充声明》（下称“Despins 补充声明”），其中受托人表示 Paul Hastings 代表与 PAX 拥有共同母公司的“某些实体”（其定义为“PAG 实体”）。（《Despins 补充声明》第 2 段。）《Despins 补充声明》未披露关于 Paul Hastings 代表 PAG 实体的任何细节，而是以结论性方式指出这些代表事项涉及“不相关的事务”。（同上。）申请书未提供有关 Paul Hastings 代表 PAG 实体、或它们与 PAX 之间关系的任何补充信息，尽管截至 2022 年 5 月 Paul Hastings 对 PAG 实体的代理仍在持续进行。（《Despins 补充声明》第 2 段）。\n\n11. 2022 年 7 月 12 日，受托人还提交了《第 11 章受托人依据破产法典第 327 条、第 328 条和第 330 条以及破产程序规则第 2014 条和第 2016 条提请作出授权并批准聘请和雇用 Paul Hastings LLP 作为第 11 章受托人法律顾问的命令申请书》（文件编号 539）（下称“聘用申请书”）。聘用申请书附有《Nicholas A. Bassett 支持第 11 章受托人依据破产规则第 2014 条和第 2016 条提请作出授权并批准聘请和雇用 Paul Hastings LLP 作为第 11 章受托人法律顾问之命令申请书的声明》（下称“Bassett 声明”）。尽管《破产程序规则》第 2014(a) 条规定聘用申请书须附有“拟聘用人员经核实的声明，陈述该人员与债务人、债权人、任何其他利害关系方、他们各自的律师和会计师、美国受托人或受雇于美国受托人办公室的任何人员的关联关系”，但《Bassett 声明》本身仅“提及 Despins 声明”……“以说明 Paul Hastings 与第 11 章案件中潜在利害关系方的关联”。（《Bassett 声明》第 19 段）。\n\n12. 2022 年 7 月 15 日，即受托人获指定一周后，债务人提交了第 9024 条动议。第 9024 条动议请求撤销指定命令。（参见 7 月 8 日听证会笔录，第 12:21-13:4 行）。\n\n13. 2022 年 7 月 20 日，受托人提交了其《第 11 章受托人对债务人请求撤销指定 Luc A. Despins 为第 11 章受托人之命令的动议的异议》（下称“第 9024 条动议异议”）。提交第 9024 条动议异议产生了一项关于第 9024 条动议的争议事项（下称“第 9024 条动议争议事项”）。\n\n14. 关于第 9024 条动议争议事项，在《日程安排命令》发布之后的 2022 年 7 月 22 日，债务人向 Paul Hastings 送达了一份文件传票（下称“文件传票”）和一份宣誓证词传票（下称“宣誓证词传票”，并统称为“传票”）；Paul Hastings 是受托人作为合伙人所在的律师事务所，也是保管、占有和控制债务人进行第 9024 条动议所需文件和信息的实体。\n\n15. 这些传票寻求与受托人利害无关性相关的三个具体事项有关的文件和证言：(a) Paul Hastings 对 PAG 实体的代理及与 PAG 实体的关系，(b) Paul Hastings 对 UBS, AG（瑞士联合银行集团）及其他 UBS（瑞银）实体的代理及与其关系，以及 (c) Paul Hastings (i) 与中华人民共和国政府和/或 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，下称“CCP”）的关系，(ii) 对中国国有实体（下称“国有实体”）的代理，以及 (iii) 在中国的办事处，包括中国政府对这些办事处的监管。参见《文件传票》附表 A，请求项 1、4-5（寻求与 PAG 实体相关的信息）；6-7（寻求与瑞银相关的信息），以及 2-3、8-10（寻求与中国相关的信息）。《宣誓证词传票》寻求关于《Despins 声明》和《Despins 补充声明》（证词主题 1-4）、Paul Hastings 与 PAG 实体的关系及对其的代理（证词主题 5-6）、以及瑞银（证词主题 7-8）、以及 Paul Hastings 在中国的办事处及其对国有实体的代理（证词主题 9-13）的证言。[2]\n\n16. 《文件传票》要求 Paul Hastings 在 2022 年 7 月 26 日之前出示应答文件，《宣誓证词传票》要求 Paul Hastings 于 2022 年 7 月 28 日安排一名法人代表接受宣誓取证。债务人必须为这些传票设定较短的回复期，因为传票所寻求的信息将在 2022 年 8 月 1 日就第 9024 条动议举行的听证会中使用。\nB. 债务人对 UBS AG 未决的索赔主张\n\n17. 除了前述讨论的与 PAG 实体的关系外，Paul Hastings 还代表 UBS AG 和其他各类瑞银实体。（参见 Luc A. 声明\n\n2 《文件传票》副本作为附件 B 附于撤销动议；《宣誓证词传票》副本作为附件 C 附于撤销动议。\n\nDespins，文件编号 515-1（以下简称“《Despins 声明》第 7(c) 段”）。\n\n18. 债务人是在 High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court（英格兰和威尔士高等法院王座分庭商事法院）未决的一起诉讼的原告，该案案由为 Kwok Ho Wan, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, and Dawn State Limited v. UBS AG (London Branch)（郭浩云、Ace Decade Holdings Limited 和 Dawn State Limited 诉瑞士联合银行有限公司（伦敦分行）），案号：CL-2020-000345（以下简称“《瑞银诉讼》”）。[3]《瑞银诉讼》中的原告向 UBS（瑞银）索赔 5 亿美元的损害赔偿金。（《瑞银诉讼》，《索赔细节》，第 33(1) 段，作为附件 1 附于《债务人对聘用申请的异议》，文件编号 622-1）。《瑞银诉讼》中的唯一被告是 UBS AG（瑞士联合银行有限公司）。（同上，第 1 页（标题）；第 5 段）。\n\n19. Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）曾代表瑞银有限公司，且普衡继续代表瑞银的关联实体。（参见《Despins 声明》第 7(c) 段）。因此，债务人寻求就普衡与瑞银之间的关系进行证据开示，因为该关系会影响受托人的无利害关系属性。\nC. 中国政府在本案中的利益以及普衡未披露中国利益\n\n20. 为避免重述《债务人对聘用申请的异议》中论述“中国政府在本案中的利益以及普衡未披露中国利益”部分之实质内容，债务人将《债务人对聘用申请的异议》第 19-36 段援引并纳入此处，如同在此处作了完整阐述。文件编号 622。\nII. 管辖权与审理地\n\n21. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334，本法院具有审理本动议的管辖权。依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(A)，审理本异议属于核心诉讼程序。\n\n3 关于 UBS AG (London Branch)（瑞士联合银行有限公司（伦敦分行））的提述是指瑞士联合银行有限公司在伦敦的分支机构，其“根据各方协议被指定为与[《瑞银诉讼》中]索赔相关的所有合同的相对方”。（《瑞银诉讼》，《索赔细节》，第 5 段）。\n\n依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 及 1409，本法院分别为本案及本动议的适当审理地。\nIII. 获得救济的法律依据\nA. 法院未曾下达禁止证据开示的命令\n\n22. 毫无争议的是，债务人提出并遭到反对的《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 9024 条动议构成一项争议事项，参见《撤销动议》第 19 段及其所引用的裁判依据，并且 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(c) 和 9016 及其规定的证据开示适用于该争议事项。事实上，受托人要求撤销传票的唯一真正展开阐述的依据，是完全错误的说法，即声称本法院曾指示债务人不得进行任何支持第 9024 条动议的证据开示。（《撤销动议》第 26 段（“在法院不撤销传票的范围内……受托人保留出于本文未明确说明的任何及所有额外理由对所寻求的任何证据开示提出异议的所有权利和依据，包括但不限于特定请求的不相关性、含糊性和范围过宽，或特定请求或调查领域在多大程度上试图侵犯律师-委托人特权或其他适用的特权和保护。”）\n\n23. 受托人完全无视了法院与债务人律师之间就证据开示进行的长时间对话，其中法院在最初表示不允许进行证据开示后，明确拒绝下达阻止债务人进行证据开示的命令，而是指示债务人的律师：“你可以做任何你认为适当的事”。（7 月 21 日庭审记录 103:4-7）。\n\n24. 受托人还无视了法院并未下达任何阻止债务人进行证据开示的命令这一事实，尽管债务人的律师曾多次请求法院，如果法院已经决定不允许证据开示，请下达这样一项命令，以便送达证据开示请求不会导致受托人和债务人目前陷入的动议之争。（参见 7 月 21 日庭审记录，102:23-103:7；105:4-14）。\n\n25. 此外，同样重要的是，当法院在情况通报会次日确实下达命令时，该命令对证据开示只字未提。参见《日程安排命令》全文。因此，法院并未就第 9024 条动议下达阻止证据开示的命令。参见 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(c)。\n\n26. 再者，由于受托人的《撤销动议》完全建立在法院已下达命令阻止债务人进行进一步证据开示这一虚假前提之上，法院应驳回《撤销动议》，并指示普衡在驳回《撤销动议》的命令下达后五 (5) 天内，通过出示应答文件来遵守《文件传票》。此外，法院应强制普衡在法院下达驳回《撤销动议》的命令之日起七 (7) 天内，指定一位通晓《指定证言传票》中所列主题且有资格代表普衡作证的法人代表接受宣誓证言取证。\nB. 遵守传票不会构成过重负担\n\n27. 受托人缺乏诚意地主张遵守传票将给普衡带来过重负担。首先，传票是向普衡送达的，即使遵守传票存在任何负担，该负担也是由普衡承担，而非受托人。因此，只有普衡具备以过重负担为由提出撤销传票动议的诉讼资格，而其并未这样做。参见 Media v. Doe No. 4, 12 civ. 2950 (JPO), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170554, *5 (SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）, Nov. 30, 2012)（以过重负担为由驳回被告撤销第三方传票的动议，因为“字面遵守此传票的负担落在了第三方 Verizon 身上”）；Piercy v. Wilhelmi, No. 16-MC 43-NJR, 2016 U.S. Dist LEXIS 79102, *4, n.2 (S.D. Ill.（伊利诺伊南区联邦地区法院）, June 17, 2016)（“然而，被告无权基于这些[过重负担和相关性]理由对传票提出异议；只有作为传票对象的非当事方才能提出这些异议”）（援引判例）；GEOMC Co. v. Calmare Therapeutics, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-1222 (VAB), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202603, *15-16 (D. Conn.（康涅狄格区联邦地区法院）, Oct. 30, 2020)（“本法院无需背离第二巡回法院的指导意见，该指导意见在整个巡回法院的辖区法院中得到呼应，即‘在没有提出特权主张的情况下，当事人通常无权对针对非当事方证人的传票提出异议。’”）（括号见原文）。\n\n28. 其次，受托人关于过重负担的主张几乎完全集中在遵守债务人索取有关中国信息的请求上，甚至完全没有提及 PAG Entities（太盟实体）或瑞银。（参见《撤销动议》第 22-24 段）。因此，受托人已经放弃了债务人有关太盟实体和瑞银的请求给任何人造成过重负担的任何抗辩主张。\n\n29. 第三，即使受托人具备主张《文件传票》给普衡带来过重负担的诉讼资格，他也未能证明针对普衡的《文件传票》构成过重负担。Sberbank of Russia v. Traisman, 3:14cv216 (WWE), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113351, *2-*3 (D. Conn., Aug. 23, 2016)（“寻求撤销传票的一方承担举证责任，证明遵守传票将证明构成负担。”）。事实上，受托人并未指出或阐明普衡因遵守索取有关普衡在中国的分支机构及其对国有企业和 CCP（中国共产党）的代理及关系的请求而将承受的任何负担，更不用说过重负担了。相反，作为典型的诉诸虚伪（whataboutism）案例，受托人主张 Brown Rudnick（布朗鲁德尼克律师事务所）也与中国存在关系，而债务人在聘请布朗鲁德尼克时并未提出这一问题。（《撤销动议》第 23 段）。\n\n30. 布朗鲁德尼克可能代表中国个人和实体这一事实，与普衡与中国及国有企业的重大关系是否导致受托人不具备无利害关系属性完全无关。同样，布朗鲁德尼克的某些律师就 Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States（美国外资投资委员会）审查交易这一极其特定的主题为在美国投资的中国公司撰写指南的事实（参见《撤销动议》第 9 页），无法与普衡在中国设立三个办事处、代表众多国有企业、每年从这些实体产生数百万美元的收入，并且在任何时候都持续运营这些办事处（受制于中国政府的单方批准）相提并论。[4]\nIV. 结论\n\n基于前述理由，债务人谨请求法院：(1) 驳回《撤销动议》并下达命令强制 (i) 普衡在法院命令之日起五 (5) 天内通过出示应答文件来遵守《文件传票》，以及 (ii) 普衡在法院命令之日起七 (7) 天内指定一位通晓《指定证言传票》中所列主题且有资格代表普衡作证的法人代表接受宣誓证言取证；以及 (2) 给予法院认为公正和适当的其他救济。\n\n4 根据其网站，布朗鲁德尼克似乎并未在中国或更广泛的亚洲地区设立办事处。\n\n2022 年 7 月 29 日签署于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n债务人：HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/签名/ Aaron A. Romney\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]\n[skindseth@zeislaw.com]\n[aromney@zeislaw.com]\n[Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com]\n[jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2022 年 7 月 29 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《电子归档通知》所示，以邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子归档的任何人。当事方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本归档文件。\n\n/签名/ Aaron A. Romney\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)","key_entities":["Paul Hastings","Despins","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3591,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:44:28"}