{"id":"court_ctb_642_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":642,"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 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**\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《破产规则》第 9014(c) 条和第 9016 条提起的撤销传票并确认债务人无权就其撤销指定 LUC A. DESPINS 为第 11 章受托人的命令的动议或受托人聘请 PAUL HASTINGS LLP 为律师的申请进行证据开示的下达命令动议之异议\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”），由其下述签字律师事务所 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 代表，特此对第 11 章受托人于 2022 年 7 月 25 日提起的《依据破产规则第 9014(c) 条和第 9016 条下达命令以撤销传票并确认债务人无权就债务人撤销指定 Luc A. Despins 为第 11 章受托人的命令的动议或受托人聘请 Paul Hastings LLP 为律师的申请进行证据开示的动议》（下称“撤销动议”）提出异议（下称“异议”）。为支持其异议，债务人陈述如下：\n\n引言\n\n1. 本法院并未下达命令禁止债务人进行证据开示以支持其 2022 年 7 月 15 日提起的《撤销指定 Luc A. Despins 为第 11 章受托人的命令的动议》（下称“第 9024 条动议”）（文件编号：561）。事实上，在 2022 年 7 月 21 日向本法院进行的案情进展会议期间，债务人的律师明确请求法院下达命令禁止证据开示，如果法院不打算允许债务人进行证据开示以支持其第 9024 条动议的话：\n\n4 我不想送达证据开示请求并使有关人员陷入\n5 不得不向法院提出动议，而法院\n6 可能会举行听证会或不举行听证会，\n7 并对动议作出裁定，以赋予我针对\n8 法院裁定所享有的任何权利的境地。\n9 这就是为什么我——对我来说，如果\n10 法院要做出裁定，那就是在今天做出裁定并解决\n11 这一问题，这样会好得多——对于其他各方来说也可能更好。\n12\n13 法院：好吧，我会考虑的。\n14 HENZY 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n（见 2022 年 7 月 21 日进展会议庭审记录（下称“7 月 21 日庭审记录”），第 105:4-14 行）。\n\n2. 法院于 2022 年 7 月 22 日发布了一份《日程安排命令/审前命令》（文件编号：596）（下称“日程安排命令”），将若干事项定于 2022 年 8 月 1 日举行听证会，包括第 9024 条动议，并设定了各方提交书面陈词的截止日期。值得注意的是，在进展会议次日下达的《日程安排命令》对证据开示问题保持沉默。因此，法院远非禁止证据开示，而是让债务人去做“无论[其律师]认为什么是适当的”与证据开示相关的事项，见 7 月 21 日庭审记录，第 103:4-7 行，因此债务人的律师向 Paul Hastings, LLP（普衡律师事务所）（下称“Paul Hastings”）送达了证据开示请求，受托人正是该律所的成员。\n\n3. 撤销动议中寻求救济的主要且唯一经适当陈词的依据，是本法院据称对进行证据开示的禁止。由于根本不存在此类禁止，撤销动议应予以驳回。\n\nI. 事实和程序背景\nA. 第 11 章受托人的指定、第 9024 条动议的提交以及所寻求撤销传票的签发\n\n4. 2022 年 2 月 15 日，债务人依据《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的破产案件。\n\n5. 2022 年 6 月 15 日，本法院发布了一份《判决备忘录》，除其他事项外，准许了 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）（下称“PAX”）的《驳回动议，或在备位上，部分加入 UST 关于指定第 11 章受托人的动议》（文件编号：183）中寻求指定第 11 章受托人的部分。（文件编号：465。）\n\n6. 2022 年 7 月 7 日，UST 提交了一份通知（下称“指定通知”），指定 Luc A. Despins（下称“受托人”）为第 11 章受托人（文件编号：514），并提交了《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 UST 提交《指定通知》和《指定申请书》仅一天后，本法院就《指定申请书》举行了听证会（下称“7 月 8 日听证会”），法院在听证会上下达了《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。（见 7 月 8 日听证会庭审记录“7 月 8 日听证会庭审记录”，第 6:15-25 行）。\n\n8. 在 7 月 8 日听证会期间，债务人当时的主办律师表示，在那个时间点，他无法明确表示债务人是否会反对指定 Despins 先生：\n\n6 BALDIGA 律师：我还不知道。我认为——我\n7 不确定我们是否会有——会有任何疑虑。\n8 但在某种程度上如果我们有疑虑，我认为在看到披露信息并\n9 有机会与客户就此进行沟通之前，\n10 就确切评估这些疑虑是什么还为时过早。\n\n（7 月 8 日听证会庭审记录，第 12:6-10 行）。\n\n9. 针对 Baldiga 律师对受托人披露信息的疑虑（受托人在 7 月 8 日听证会期间首次在记录中作出了该项披露），法院表示：\n\n法院：我明白。我确实明白\n22 您在说什么。\n23 但我说的是眼下，在今天，摆在\n24 法院面前的唯一事项就是指定 Despins 先生为\n\n1 PAG 随后也被确定为“PAG Holdings Limited”。\n\n25 第 11 章受托人。\n\n1 而且此时此刻没有人提出任何理由\n2 说明为什么不应该这样做。如果这发生了，然后\n3 你发现了一些理由，那么你有《破产法典》下的\n4 救济途径来解决这些理由。……\n\n（7 月 8 日听证会庭审记录，第 12:21-13:4 行）。基于提交《指定通知》、《指定申请书》和 7 月 8 日听证会的时间安排，债务人根本没有机会对《指定申请书》进行任何有意义的分析，更不用说提出异议以启动争议事项并随后进行证据开示了。要求债务人在收到公认不完整且有缺陷的披露后的二十四小时内，并且至多在收到针对该有缺陷披露的不完整口头补充后的数小时内，明确阐明对第 11 章受托人无利害关系（或缺乏无利害关系）的异议，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 之第一份补充无利害关系声明》（下称“Despins 补充声明”），受托人在其中陈述 Paul Hastings 代表了与 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》并未披露有关 Paul Hastings 代表 PAG 实体的任何细节，而是以断言的方式陈述它们与“无关事项”有关。（同上。）《申请书》没有提供关于 Paul Hastings 代表 PAG 实体或它们与 PAX 之间关系的任何补充信息，即便 Paul Hastings 对 PAG 实体的代理至少截至 2022 年 5 月仍在进行中。（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、328 和 330 条以及破产规则第 2014 和 2016 条下达命令授权并批准聘请和雇佣 Paul Hastings LLP 为第 11 章受托人律师的申请书》（文件编号：539）（下称“雇佣申请书”）。随附于《雇佣申请书》的是《Nicholas A. Bassett 支持第 11 章受托人依据破产规则第 2014 和 2016 条下达命令授权并批准聘请和雇佣 Paul Hastings LLP 为第 11 章受托人律师的申请书之声明》（下称“Bassett 声明”）。尽管《破产规则》第 2014(a) 条要求聘请申请书须随附“一份受聘人员的核实陈述书，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、美国受托人或受雇于美国受托人办公室的任何人的关联关系”，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关系”。（Bassett 声明第 19 段）。\n\n12. 2022 年 7 月 15 日，即受托人被指定一周后，债务人提交了《第 9024 条动议》。《第 9024 条动议》寻求撤销《指定命令》的救济。（见 7 月 8 日听证会庭审记录，第 12:21-13:4 行）。\n\n13. 2022 年 7 月 20 日，受托人提交了其《第 11 章受托人对债务人撤销指定 Luc A. Despins 为第 11 章受托人的命令的动议之异议》（下称“第 9024 条动议异议”）。《第 9024 条动议异议》的提交引发了有关《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”）和一份宣誓证言传票（下称“证言传票”，合称“传票”），受托人是该律师事务所的合伙人，且该实体实际保管、占有和控制着债务人推进《第 9024 条动议》所寻求的文件和信息。\n\n15. 传票寻求与涉及受托人无利害关系的三个独立事项有关的文件和证言：(a) Paul Hastings 对 PAG 实体的代理及与其关系，(b) Paul Hastings 对 UBS, AG（瑞士联合银行集团）及其他 UBS 实体的代理及与其关系，以及 (c) Paul Hastings 的 (i) 与中华人民共和国政府和/或中国共产党（下称“中共”）的关系，(ii) 对中国国有企业（下称“国有企业”）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。见文件传票，附表 A，请求项 1、4-5（寻求与 PAG 实体有关的信息）；6-7（寻求与 UBS 有关的信息），以及 2-3、8-10（寻求与中国有关的信息）。证言传票寻求有关 Despins 声明和 Despins 补充声明（证言主题 1-4）、Paul Hastings 与 PAG 实体的关系及对其代理（证言主题 5-6）、与 UBS 的关系及对其代理（证言主题 7-8），以及 Paul Hastings 在中国的办事处及其对国有企业的代理（证言主题 9-13）的证言。[2]\n\n16. 文件传票要求 Paul Hastings 在 2022 年 7 月 26 日之前提供符合要求的响应性文件，证言传票要求 Paul Hastings 在 2022 年 7 月 28 日安排法人代表接受宣誓取证。债务人必须为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 日举行的第 9024 条动议听证会上使用。\n\nB. 债务人针对 UBS AG 待决的索赔\n\n17. 除了上文讨论的与 PAG 实体的关系外，Paul Hastings 还代表 UBS AG 和其他各 UBS 实体。（见 Luc A. 的声明\n\n2 文件传票的副本作为附件 B 附于撤销动议；证言传票的副本作为附件 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（英格兰及威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法庭）待决的一起诉讼的原告，案名为 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）），案号为 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》，《索赔详情》，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（抬头）；第 5 段）。\n\n19. Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）曾代表 UBS AG，且普衡继续代表瑞银的关联实体。（见《Despins 声明》第 7(c) 段）。因此，鉴于普衡与瑞银之间的关系会影响 Trustee（受托人）的无利害关系性，债务人寻求进行与该关系相关的证据开示。\nC. 中国政府在本案中的利益以及普衡未披露中国利益的情况\n\n20. 债务人并未在此重述其对聘用申请异议中涉及中国政府在本案中的利益以及普衡未披露中国利益部分的实质内容，而是将债务人对聘用申请异议第 19-36 段并入本文，视同在此完整陈述。文件编号 622。\nII. 管辖权与审判地\n\n21. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334，本法院具有审议本动议的管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(A)，审议本异议属于核心程序。\n\n3 对 UBS AG (London Branch) 的提及是指 UBS AG 在伦敦的分支机构，该分支机构“经各方协议被指定为与［《瑞银诉讼》］索赔相关的所有合同的相对方”。（《瑞银诉讼》，《索赔详情》，第 5 段）。\n\n根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 及 1409，本法院对于本案及本动议而言分别是适当的审判地。\nIII. 寻求救济的法律依据\nA. 法院并未作出禁止证据开示的裁定\n\n22. 债务人提出异议的第 9024 条动议构成争议事项，这一点并无争议，见《撤销动议》第 19 段及其中引用的先例；并且 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(c) 及 9016，以及其规定的证据开示，均适用于该争议事项。事实上，受托人撤销传票的唯一真正展开阐述的依据，是完全错误的论调，即认为本法院曾指示债务人不得进行任何证据开示来支持第 9024 条动议。（《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其他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、模糊性和过宽范围，或者特定请求或调查领域在何种程度上试图侵犯律师-客户特权或其他适用的特权和保护。”）\n\n23. 受托人完全忽略了法院与债务人律师之间关于证据开示的长篇对话，其中法院在最初表示不允许进行证据开示之后，明确拒绝作出阻止债务人进行证据开示的裁定，而是指示债务人的律师：“你们可以做任何你们认为合适的事”。（7 月 21 日庭审笔录，第 103:4-7 行）。\n\n24. 受托人还忽略了，尽管债务人的律师曾多次请求法院作出此类裁定（如果法院此前已决定不允许证据开示的话），以使证据开示的送达不至于导致受托人和债务人目前陷入的动议程序纠纷，但法院并未作出任何阻止债务人进行证据开示的裁定。（见 7 月 21 日庭审笔录，第 102:23-103:7 行；第 105:4-14 行）。\n\n25. 此外，且至关重要的是，当法院在程序状态会议次日确实作出了一项裁定时，该裁定对证据开示只字未提。参见通篇《日程安排裁定》。因此，法院并未就第 9024 条动议作出阻止证据开示的裁定。参见 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(c)。\n\n26. 进而，由于受托人的《撤销动议》完全建立在法院曾作出阻止债务人进行进一步证据开示的裁定这一错误前提之上，法院应驳回《撤销动议》，并指示普衡在驳回《撤销动议》的裁定作出后五（5）日内通过出示响应性文件来遵守《文件传票》。此外，法院应强制普衡在法院作出驳回《撤销动议》的裁定之日起七（7）日内，指派一名知悉《指定作证传票》中所确定主题且有资格代表普衡作证的法人代表接受宣誓口供调取。\nB. 遵守传票不会构成不当负担\n\n27. 受托人敷衍地辩称，遵守传票会给普衡造成不当负担。首先，传票是送达给普衡的，在遵守传票存在任何负担的范围内，该负担属于普衡，而非受托人。因此，只有普衡具有以不当负担为由申请撤销传票的诉讼资格，而普衡并未这样做。参见 Media v. Doe No. 4, 12 civ. 2950 (JPO), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170554, *5 (SDNY, Nov. 30, 2012)（以不当负担为由驳回被告撤销第三方传票的动议，因为“按字面要求遵守该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., June 17, 2016)（“然而，被告无权基于这些［不当负担和相关性］理由对传票提出异议；只有收到传票的非当事人才能提出这些异议”）（援引相关案例）；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)（“本法院无需偏离第二巡回法院的指引，该指引在本巡回区各法院均有共鸣，即‘在没有主张特权的情况下，当事人通常无权对针对非当事人证人的传票提出异议。’”）（括号见原文）。\n\n28. 其次，受托人关于不当负担的论点几乎完全集中于遵守债务人索取有关中国信息的请求，甚至根本未提及 PAG 实体或瑞银。（见《撤销动议》第 22-24 段）。因此，受托人已经放弃了主张债务人有关 PAG 实体和瑞银的请求给任何人施加了不当负担的任何论点。\n\n29. 第三，即使受托人有权主张《文件传票》对普衡施加了不当负担，他也未能证明针对普衡的《文件传票》具有不当负担性。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负有证明遵守传票将造成负担的举证责任。”）。事实上，受托人并未指出或具体说明普衡因遵守索取有关普衡在中国办事处及其对国有实体和中共的代理与关系的请求而会承受任何负担，更不用说不当负担了。相反，在典型的诉诸反诘手法中，受托人辩称 Brown Rudnick（布朗拉德尼克律师事务所）也与中国存在关系，而债务人在聘请布朗拉德尼克时并未提出这一点。（《撤销动议》第 23 段）。\n\n30. 布朗拉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实体的重大利益关系是否导致受托人丧失无利害关系性完全无关。同样，布朗拉德尼克的某些律师曾针对美国外资投资委员会对交易审查这一非常具体的课题为在美国投资的中国公司撰写了一份指南（见《撤销动议》第 9 页），这一事实根本无法与普衡在中国设立三家办事处、代表众多国有实体、每年从这些实体产生数百万美元的收入，并且在任何时候均受制于中国政府单方面批准而持续运营这些办事处相提并论。[4]\nIV. 结论\n\n基于上述理由，债务人谨请法院：(1) 驳回《撤销动议》，并作出裁定强制 (i) 普衡在法院裁定之日起五（5）日内通过出示响应性文件来遵守《文件传票》，以及 (ii) 普衡在法院作出裁定之日起七（7）日内指派一名知悉《指定作证传票》中所确定主题且有资格代表普衡作证的法人代表接受宣誓口供调取；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，布朗拉德尼克似乎在中国乃至更广泛的亚洲地区均未设有办事处。\n\n日期：2022 年 7 月 29 日，于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n债务人：HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\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 电话：(203) 368-4234 传真：(203) 368-5487 电子邮件：[ehenzy@zeislaw.com] [skindseth@zeislaw.com] [aromney@zeislaw.com] [Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com] [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2022 年 7 月 29 日，前述文件的副本已通过电子方式归档。此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，或根据电子归档通知的指示，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 系统查阅此归档文件。\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Romney  Aaron 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 13:44:27"}