{"id":"court_sdny_198_4","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":198,"sub_number":4,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-07-15","title":"EXHIBIT C UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION","summary_zh":"破产法庭动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 在美国康州破产法庭（案号 22-50073）对 Chapter 11 受托人 Luc A. Despins 的任命提出质疑（ECF #198，2022年7月15日提交）。该动议主张受托人缺乏法律要求的独立性，因其律师事务所 Paul Hastings 与主要债权人 PAX 及中国相关实体存在未披露的业务关系，产生潜在利益冲突。","summary_en":"Motion for Relief from Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee — Ho Wan Kwok challenges the appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (Case No. 22-50073, ECF #198, filed July 15, 2022). The motion alleges the trustee lacks required disinterestedness because his law firm, Paul Hastings, maintains undisclosed business relationships with major creditor PAX and China-related entities, creating conflicts of interest.","body_en":"# EXHIBIT C\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| In re:                                                          | Chapter 11              |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                    | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                                                         |                         |\n|                                                                 |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                    |                         |\n| Movant,                                                         |                         |\n| v.                                                              |                         |\n| WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON,<br>UNITED STATES TRUSTEE<br>FOR REGION 2 |                         |\n| and                                                             |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE                           |                         |\n| Respondents.                                                    |                         |\n\n# **THE DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER APPOINTING LUC A. DESPINS AS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\nThe debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b), incorporated herein by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024, hereby moves for relief from the Order Granting Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 523) (the \"Despins Appointment Order\") based upon evidence discovered after his appointment that the Chapter 11 trustee, Luc A. Despins (the \"Trustee\") is not disinterested and for other reasons that justify vacating the approval of his appointment. In support of his motion, the Debtor represents as follows:\n\n# **I. INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. As set forth more fully below and as the Debtor reasonably anticipates establishing further through discovery, the Trustee is not disinterested. The Trustee failed to disclose as part of his original declaration filed with the application a day before the hearing and then only disclosed verbally to the Debtor's prior counsel approximately an hour before the hearing that his law firm, Paul Hastings LLP (\"Paul Hastings\"), had represented multiple parties related to the Debtor's largest creditor and zealous adversary, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund (\"PAX\"). No appropriate vetting of this relationship and its' purported termination in May of 2022, could have been conducted by anyone.\n\n2. More significantly, the Trustee failed to disclose at any time his firm's significant relationship to the People's Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\") and their state owned and controlled entities. The Trustee is a partner in Paul Hastings—with all the attendant fiduciary duties—and the co-chair of its Financial Restructuring group. As a matter of law, Paul Hastings' legal relationships are the Trustee's legal relationships. As set forth below, the People's Republic of China and CCP are directly and fiercely adverse to the Debtor. The Trustee failed to make full and timely disclosure of his and his firm's connections to persons related to this case, and based upon information obtained after his appointment, he is not disinterested. The Trustee's participation in this case will not be perceived as impartial, will be subject to the significant risk of undue influence by the Debtor's most hotly-contested adversaries, and will make an already unfortunate situation far worse. The Debtor respectfully submits that the order appointing the Trustee should be vacated.\n\n# **I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND**\n\n# **A. The Appointment of the Chapter 11 Trustee**\n\n3. 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\n4. On June 15, 2022, this Court issued a Memorandum of Decision, *inter alia*, granting the Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Partial Joinder to the USTs Motion for the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 183) to the extent that it sought the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. (Doc. No. 465.)\n\n5. On June 30, 2022, William K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (the \"UST\"), filed a notice appointing Joe D. Whitley (\"Whitley\") as Chapter 11 trustee in this case (Doc. No. 498), and on the same day, an Application for Order Approving Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 499) (the \"Whitley Application\"), seeking the Court's approval of the appointment of Whitley as the Chapter 11 trustee. The Whitley Application was withdrawn by the UST on July 5, 2022, the day the matter was scheduled to be heard. (Doc. No. 507.)\n\n6. Then, 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.\n\n7. In the Appointment Application, the UST represented that to the best of his knowledge the Trustee's \"connections with the Debtor, creditors, any other parties-in-interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States Trustee, and persons employed in the Office of the United States Trustee are set forth on the Declaration of Luc A. Despins which is annexed hereto.\"\n\n8. In the Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins (the \"Despins\n\nDeclaration\"), the Trustee stated that he is a partner at Paul Hastings LLP (\"Paul Hastings\").\n\n(Despins Declaration, ¶ 1.)\n\n9. The Trustee also stated that he believed:\n\na. Neither I, nor Paul Hastings, nor any partner in, counsel to, or associate of Paul Hastings represents any entity in or in connection with the Debtor's chapter I I case; b. Paul Hastings and I do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the Debtor's estate; and c. neither Paul Hastings nor any of its attorneys, including me, (i) is a creditor, equity security holder or insider of any of the Debtor or his affiliates, (ii) has been, within two years before the date of the filing of the petition, a director, officer, or employee of any of the Debtor or his affiliates, or (iii) has any interest materially adverse to the interests of the estates of any class of creditors or equity security holders by reason of any direct or indirect relationship to, connection with, or interest in, the Debtor, or for any other reason.\n\n(Despins Declaration, ¶ 5.)\n\n10. On July 8, 2022, the day after the UST filed the Appointment Notice and the\n\nAppointment Application, this Court conducted the hearing on the Appointment Application (the\n\n\"July 8 Hearing\").\n\n11. At the July 8 Hearing, the Trustee disclosed for the first time orally Paul Hastings'\n\nrelationship with Pacific Alliance Group (“PAG”),<sup>1</sup> the parent company of creditor Pacific\n\nAlliance Asia Opportunity Fund (\"PAX\"). Specifically, the Trustee stated:\n\n15 But I wanted to make sure today that I mentioned\n\n16 to the Court that we discovered last night that we have in\n\n17 the past represented entities that have -- that are -- have\n\n18 the acronym PAG in them, P-A-G. Unbeknownst to our conflict\n\n19 system, PAG means Pacific Asia Group [sic].\n\n20 And those entities -- and, again, as I said, these\n\n21 are representations that were completed, but these entities\n\n<sup>1</sup> PAG was also subsequently identified as PAG Holdings Limited.\n\n22 are unrelated to the Kwok matter in any way. 23 However, PAX is probably managed by a similar or a 24 PAG entity of some kind. We're trying to figure out exactly 25 which one.\n\n(Transcript of July 8 Hearing, 6:15-25, excerpt attached hereto as **Exhibit A**.)\n\n12. The Court then entered the Despins Appointment Order, approving the appointment of the Trustee, on the same day. (Doc. No. 523.)\n\n13. On July 12, 2022, the Trustee filed his First Supplemental Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins (Doc. No. 538) (the \"Supplemental Despins Declaration\"), in which the Trustee represented that Paul Hastings represented \"certain entities\" that share a common parent with PAX. (Supplemental Despins Declaration, ¶ 2.) He did not disclose any details regarding those representations, other than to state that they were in unrelated matters. (*Id.*)\n\n14. The Trustee did not—and to date still has not—disclosed his or Paul Hastings' connections to the People's Republic of China, the CCP or entities they own or control.\n\n# **B. The Interest of the Chinese Government in This Case and the Trustee's Failure to Disclose Chinese Interests**\n\n15. Paul Hastings has two offices in China – Beijing and Shanghai – and one in Hong Kong (a \"Special Administrative Region\" of China) and does significant business there, including representing at least ten (10) entities owned by the Chinese government. *E.g.*, Paul Hastings Represents Chinese Local Government Enterprises in Seven Bond Issuances, PaulHastings.com, [http](http)[enterprises-in-seven-bond.](http) In fact, Paul Hastings has stated that it \"was one of the first major international law firms to establish an Asia practice, and today we continue 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\n\ncross-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 the UST have explained, or even mentioned, the extent of Paul Hastings' connections to businesses in China.\n\n16. Because the Chinese government and the CCP have exclusive and unchecked control over which businesses operate in China, including Paul Hastings and its clients, the Chinese government and the CCP have significant influence over Paul Hastings and its Chinese clients.\n\n17. As the United States Department of Justice (the \"DOJ\"), of which the UST's office is a part, is well aware, the Chinese government and the CCP have tried in the past to unduly influence proceedings involving the Debtor and have committed criminal acts toward the Debtor within the United States.\n\n18. In 2017, the Debtor filed an application with the United States government for political asylum from the Chinese government. The Debtor's application for political asylum remains pending. Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions (Doc. No. 107) (the \"Kwok Declaration\"), ¶ 14; Billionaire Who Accused Top Chinese Officials of Corruption Asks U.S. for Asylum, *New York Times*, [http](http) 2 The Debtor's family, in multiple separate instances, was detained and tortured 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.\n\n19. In 2017, at the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Debtor is also known as Guo Wengui.\n\nChina, Interpol issued a \"red notice\" for the Debtor—providing 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\n20. Also in 2017, United States federal agents engaged in two altercations with Chinese operatives within a seventy-two (72) hour period—one at Penn Station and one at JFK airport because federal agents had determined that the Chinese government 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\n21. In addition, 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 United States 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)[guilty-conspiracy-deceive-us-banks-about-millions;](http) Kwok Declaration, ¶ 16. Former Chairman\n\nof the Republican National Committee, Elliot Broidy, and lobbyist Nicki Lum Davis also pleaded guilty for their roles in that scheme. Kwok Declaration, ¶ 16 (citing DOJ press releases).\n\n22. Last month, the DOJ indicted Low Taek Jho and Prakazrel \"Pras\" Michel of conspiring \"to engage in undisclosed lobbying campaigns at the direction of Low and the Vice Minister of Public Security for the People's Republic of China, 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)[charged-back-channel-lobbying-campaign-drop.](http) That \"dissident\" is the Debtor.\n\n23. Further, in May 2022, the DOJ filed a civil enforcement action against Stephen A. Wynn (the hotelier) (\"Wynn\") to compel him \"to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) as the agent of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and a senior official of the PRC's Ministry of Public Security (MPS).\" Justice Department Sues to Compel a U.S. Businessperson to Register Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, [http](http)[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[http](http)\n\n[foreign-lobbyist-11622054103;](http) Kwok Declaration, ¶ 16.\n\n24. The DOJ has recognized that Wynn's \"conduct was motivated by his desire to protect his business interests in the PRC.\" *Attorney General of the United States of America v. Wynn*, No. 1:22-cv-1372 (D.D.C.), Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ¶ 28. The DOJ also alleged specific pressure put upon Wynn by China:\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\n25. 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\n26. 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\n27. In 2017, at the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China, Interpol issued a \"red notice\" for the Debtor—providing 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\n\nChinese Communist Party.\" View: How China Misuses Interpol to Settle Domestic Scores and Stifle Dissidence, *The Economic Times*, [http](http)  [view-how-china-misuses-interpol-to-settle-domestic-scores-and-stifle-dissidence/articleshow/](http)  [86160172.cms?utm\\\\_source=contentofinterest &utm\\\\_medium=text&utm\\\\_campaign=cppst.](http)\n\n28. It has been well documented that the Chinese government exercises unchecked control and influence over businesses in China. *E.g.*, How the State Runs Business in China, *The Guardian*, [http](http)[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.\"). This 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\n\ngoes 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.\"). This influence necessarily extends to Paul Hastings and its clients in China.\n\n# **II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n29. This Court has jurisdiction to consider this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157\n\nand 1334. Consideration of this Motion is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n\nVenue is proper in this Court for this case and this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and\n\n1409, respectively.\n\n# **III. LEGAL BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n# **A. Standard for Relief from Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)**\n\n30. The Debtor respectfully requests that the Court grant it relief from the Despins\n\nAppointment Order and vacate the same.\n\n31. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)<sup>3</sup> provides in relevant part\n\nOn motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) . . . (6) any other reason that justifies relief.\n\nWith certain exceptions not relevant here, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 provides that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60\n\napplies in cases under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n<sup>3</sup> \"'[M]otions pursuant to Rule 59(e), Rule 60(b), and Local Rule 7(c) for reconsideration are treated under the same standard.'\" *Ashby v. Quiros*, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91970, at \\*2 (D. Conn. May 14, 2021) (quoting *Levy v. World Wrestling Ent., Inc.*, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66200 (D. Conn. July 31, 2009)).\n\n32. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), \"[t]he movant must demonstrate that (1) the newly discovered evidence was of facts that existed at the time of trial or other dispositive proceeding, (2) the movant must have been justifiably ignorant of them despite due diligence, (3) the evidence must be admissible and of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome, and (4) the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching.\" *United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters*, 247 F.3d 370, 392 (2d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).\n\n33. \"Rule 60(b) is a procedural device used to challenge final judgments or final orders. . . . Courts have held that a final judgment is needed to support a Rule 60(b) motion.\" *Byrne v. Liquid Asphalt Sys.*, 250 F. Supp. 2d 84, 87 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (citations omitted). \"[A]n order is final if nothing in the order . . . indicates any anticipation that the decision will be reconsidered. A bankruptcy court's order is final if it completely resolve[s] all of the issues pertaining to a discrete claim, including issues as to the proper relief.\" *In re Adelphia Communs. Corp.*, 333 B.R. 649, 656 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Preconfirmation orders appointing a trustee are considered final. *Silverman v. Tracar, S.A. (In re Am. Preferred Prescription, Inc.)*, 255 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir. 2001) (dicta); *Adelphia Communs. Corp.*, 333 B.R. at 657 n.41 (collecting cases); *see also Altman v. Rafael Galleries, Inc. (In re Altman),* 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16235, at \\*6-9 (D. Conn. July 27, 2000).\n\n# **B. The Trustee Must Be a \"Disinterested Person\"**\n\n34. Here, the Trustee has not disclosed his or his firm's connection with the Chinese government, the CCP, or state-controlled businesses. However, it is clear that the Chinese government, the CCP, and any of the entities they control (directly or indirectly) are parties in interest here because they have demonstrated an interest in persecuting the Debtor, decimating his finances and ability to reorganize, and extorting him to return to China, in many instances in\n\nviolation of the laws of the United States. Thus, the Trustee must disclose his and Paul Hastings connections with the Chinese government.\n\n35. \"The trustee must be a 'disinterested person,' as defined in section 101(14).\" 7 Collier on Bankruptcy P 1104.02 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1104(b), (d)). Relevant here, \"[t]he 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 or equity security holders, by reason of any direct or indirect relationship to, connection with, or interest in, the debtor, or for any other reason.\" 11 U.S.C. § 101(14). Moreover, a statement disclosing potential adverse interests must be in writing and filed with the application to approve a Chapter 11 trustee. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2007.1(c) (\"The application shall be accompanied by a verified statement of the person appointed 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.\").\n\n36. The Bankruptcy Code does not define what it means to have \"an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate\". *See* 11 U.S.C. § 101(14); *Bank Brussels Lambert v. Coan (In re AroChem Corp.)*, 176 F.3d 610, 623 (2d Cir. 1999). However, Courts, including the Second Circuit, have defined \"the phrase 'hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate[]'\" as\n\n(1) to possess or assert any economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate or that would create either an actual or potential dispute in which the estate is a rival claimant; or (2) to possess a predisposition under circumstances that render such a bias against the estate.\n\n*Id.* (citations omitted). In order to determine whether a Chapter 11 trustee is disinterested, the Court needs to examine the connections between a trustee's firm and the estate. *In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.*, 226 B.R. 331, 334 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1998) (\"Rule 2014(a) of the Federal Rules of\n\n13\n\nBankruptcy Procedure . . . requires the Trustee to disclose any connections [his employer] Deloitte might have with the Debtors, creditors and any other party in interest.\").\n\n37. Here, the Trustee has failed to disclose the connections between Paul Hastings and the Chinese government and CCP. However, it is clear even from the facts known now by the Debtor as of the filing hereof that the Trustee is not a disinterested person, and therefore, should not be permitted to serve as the Chapter 11 trustee in this case. The Trustee, and the UST, which should both be aware of the obvious adverse position of the Chinese government and CCP, improperly have decided to pick and choose what information about conflicts they want to disclose. However, as the Court in *In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.*, 226 B.R. 331, 335 (Bankr.\n\nN.D.N.Y. 1998), has stated:\n\nThe Trustee appears to believe that the Court and the parties should simply rely on him as a fiduciary to make an independent determination that he remains disinterested. Yet, this is not an appropriate determination for the Trustee to make. Such an exercise in *ipse dixit* is not permissible. That the Trustee internalized this decision, rather than presenting the relevant information to the court and other parties for an objective determination of disinterestedness suggests that the Trustee is selective about the information he provides to the court and fails to acknowledge the high fiduciary standard to which he must abide to the point of punctilio.\n\n(Citations and quotation marks omitted.) *See also In re Granite Partners, L.P.*, 219 B.R. 22, 35\n\n(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) (\"The professional must disclose all facts that bear on its disinterestedness . . . and cannot usurp the court's function by choosing, *ipse dixit*, which connections impact disinterestedness and which do not.\"). \"Further, mere 'boilerplate' disclosure may cover an inadvertent failure to disclose an insignificant connection, but does not suffice for known connections with parties presenting a significant risk of adversity.\" *Id.*\n\n38. In addition, the Trustee only disclosed his firm's connections with PAG at the July 8 Hearing, and even then, did not seem to have any idea about the scope of the involvement. (Transcript of July 8 Hearing, 6:15-25.) In fact, even in his after-the-fact disclosure of Paul Hastings' relationships with PAG entities, the Trustee was similarly vague. (Supplemental Despins Declaration, ¶ 2.)\n\n# **C. The Court Should Grant the Debtor Relief from the Despins Appointment Order Based upon Newly Discovered Evidence**\n\n39. The Court should grant the Debtor relief from the Despins Appointment Order based upon evidence disclosed at or after the July 8 Hearing, which was not disclosed in the Appointment Application or the Despins Declaration. Evidence of Paul Hastings' lack of disinterestedness, because of its relationships with PAX and the Chinese government and CCP, who both clearly have interests adverse to the Debtor, is newly discovered and warrants relief from the Despins Appointment Order.\n\n40. With respect to each of elements necessary to establish a basis for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), first, it is clear that Paul Hastings' representation of PAG entities, its significant business in China, and its representation of government-controlled or influenced entities existed at the time of the July 8 Hearing. The Trustee orally disclosed his firm's relationships with PAG entities only briefly before the hearing, verbally and only in vague terms. Also, Paul Hastings' presence in China and ties to the Chinese government and the CCP are clearly preexisting.\n\n41. Second, the Debtor was justifiably ignorant of these relationships and the influence of the Chinese government on Paul Hastings. The July 8 Hearing was held only one day after the Appointment Notice and Appointment Application were filed. There was no opportunity for the Debtor to properly investigate the disinterestedness of the Trustee, including through discovery, in that short period of time. Moreover, the Trustee failed to disclose these connections even though the adverse relationship between the Debtor and the People's Republic of China and CCP has been disclosed throughout this case and has been widely publicized for approximately eight (8) years.\n\n42. Third, the evidence of the Trustee's lack of disinterestedness is clearly relevant and admissible, and it is of such importance that it would have changed the outcome of the July 8 Hearing. In order to be approved as the Chapter 11 trustee, the Trustee must be disinterested. 11 U.S.C. § 1104(b), (d). Indeed, as counsel for the UST accurately stated to the Court on the record on July 5, 2022: \"It is unfortunate and the timing of this does cause a delay for which the U.S. Trustee is also unhappy about but, nevertheless, it's appropriate to select and install a person who is conflict free and has the appearance that he can be impartial to all parties involved in this case.\" (Transcript of July 5, 2022 Hearing, 10:20-25, cited excerpts attached as **Exhibit B**.)\n\n43. These words—made in the context of ensuring that Whitley, the candidate initially selected by the U.S. Trustee to serve as trustee in this case, did not appear partial to the Debtor apply equally to Mr. Despins' and Paul Hastings' interests that are adverse to the Debtor. Simply stated, evidence of the influence of the Chinese government and the CCP on Paul Hastings as well as its relationships with PAG entities demonstrates that the Trustee is not a disinterested person and should not serve as the Chapter 11 trustee.\n\n44. Last, this evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching. Rather, it is new evidence that was not presented to the Court at the time of the July 8 Hearing and is directly relevant to the issue of whether the Appointment Application should have been granted.\n\n# **D. Alternatively, the Court Should Grant the Debtor Relief from the Despins Appointment Order to Accomplish Justice**\n\n45. Alternatively, if the Court determines that newly discovered evidence does not justify relief from the Despins Appointment Order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) permits the Court to grant relief for \"any other reason that justifies relief.\"\n\n46. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)\n\n16\n\ngrants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment \"upon such terms as are just,\" provided that the motion is made within a reasonable time and is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5). The rule does not particularize the factors that justify relief, but we have previously noted that it provides courts with authority \"adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice,\" . . . while also cautioning that it should only be applied in \"extraordinary circumstances[.]\"\n\n*Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp.*, 486 U.S. 847, 863-64 (1988) (footnote and citations omitted). Thus, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) provides an avenue for relief from a judgment where it is not easily classified under another subsection of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). *United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien*, 588 F.3d 158, 176 (2d Cir. 2009); *see also Sternstein v. Italia-Societa Per Azioni De Navigazione-Genoa*, 275 F.2d 502 (2d Cir. 1960) (\"Rule 60(b) was not intended to deprive a trial judge of his discretionary power to direct a new trial whenever he considered such a course necessary to defeat injustice.\").\n\n47. In this case, this Court should, in alternative, grant relief based upon the relief afforded by Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Because the Court relied upon incomplete evidence in entering the Despins Appointment Order as a result of the failure of the Trustee and the UST to make full disclosures to the Court, justice is best served by vacating the Despins Appointment Order. This will allow the Debtor, other parties-in-interest, and this Court to have a full and fair opportunity to vet the Appointment Applications and the Trustee's lack of disinterestedness.\n\n**WHEREFORE,** the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court grant it relief from the\n\nDespins Appointment Order by vacating the same, and grant him such other and further relief as\n\njustice requires.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 15th day of July, 2022.\n\n# **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Eric Henzy* Eric Henzy (ct12849) Stephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: ehenzy@zeislaw.com skindseth@zeislaw.com aromney@zeislaw.com jcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 15<sup>th</sup> day of July, 2022, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice ofElectronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ Eric Henzy* Eric Henzy (ct12849)","body_zh":"证物 C\nUnited 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事由：第11章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n动议人，\n诉\nWilliam K. Harrington（威廉·K·哈灵顿），\nUnited States Trustee for Region 2（美国第2区破产受托人）\n及\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯宾斯），\n第11章受托人\n被动议人。\n债务人就任命 Luc A. Despins 为第11章受托人的裁定申请救济的动议\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”）依据通过 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 并入适用的 Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b)，由其下述署名律师代表，特此就《准予任命第11章受托人的裁定》（Doc. No. 523）（下称“《德斯宾斯任命裁定》”）申请救济，其依据是在任命后发现的证据表明第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯宾斯）（下称“受托人”）并非无利害关系人，以及支持撤销对其任命核准的其他理由。为支持其动议，债务人陈述如下：\n\nI. 引言\n\n1. 如下文更详尽阐述以及债务人合理预期将通过证据开示进一步证实的内容，受托人并非无利害关系人。受托人在听证会前一天随申请提交的原始声明中未予披露，而仅在听证会前约一小时向债务人前任律师口头披露：其所在的 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所，下称“普衡”）曾代表与债务人最大债权人兼激烈对手 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，下称“PAX”）相关的多方当事人。任何人都未能对该等代理关系及其据称于2022年5月的终止进行适当审查。\n\n2. 更为重要的是，受托人从未披露其律师事务所与 People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国）、Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，下称“中共”）及其国有和控股实体的重大关联。受托人是普衡的合伙人——负有所有相应的信义义务——也是其金融重组业务组的联席主席。在法律层面上，普衡的法律关系即是受托人的法律关系。如下文所述，中华人民共和国和中共与债务人存在直接且激烈的对立利益。受托人未就其自身及其事务所与本案相关人士的关联作出充分、及时的披露，且根据其获任命后获得的信息，其并非无利害关系人。受托人参与本案不会被视为公正客观，并将面临受到债务人最激烈争议对手不当影响的重大风险，且会使本已不利的局面进一步恶化。债务人谨提请法院撤销任命受托人的裁定。\n\nI. 事实与程序背景\n\nA. 第11章受托人的任命\n\n3. 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，从而启动了上述标题所示的破产案件（下称“本破产案件”）。\n\n4. 2022年6月15日，本法院发布《裁决备忘录》，除其他事项外（inter alia），在寻求任命第11章受托人的范围内，准予了《驳回动议，或在备位上，部分加入UST关于任命第11章受托人的动议》（Doc. No. 183）。（Doc. No. 465。）\n\n5. 2022年6月30日，United States Trustee for Region 2（美国第2区破产受托人，下称“UST”）William K. Harrington 提交了一份通知，任命 Joe D. Whitley（乔·D·惠特利，下称“惠特利”）为本案的第11章受托人（Doc. No. 498），并于同日提交了《关于核准任命第11章受托人裁定的申请》（Doc. No. 499）（下称“《惠特利申请》”），请求法院核准任命惠特利为第11章受托人。2022年7月5日，即该事项原定听证之日，UST撤回了《惠特利申请》。（Doc. No. 507。）\n\n6. 随后，于2022年7月7日，UST提交了一份通知（下称“《任命通知》”），任命受托人为第11章受托人（Doc. No. 514），并提交了《关于核准任命第11章受托人裁定的申请》（Doc. No. 515）（下称“《任命申请》”），请求法院核准任命受托人。\n\n7. 在《任命申请》中，UST陈述称，据其所知，受托人“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、美国破产受托人以及受雇于美国破产受托人办公室人员的关联，均载于随附的 Luc A. Despins 的声明中”。\n\n8. 在《Luc A. Despins 无利害关系声明》（下称“《德斯宾斯声明》”）中，受托人声明其为 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡）的合伙人。（《德斯宾斯声明》，¶ 1。）\n\n9. 受托人还声明其认为：a. 我本人、普衡、或普衡的任何合伙人、法律顾问或受雇律师均未在债务人的第11章案件中或与该案相关的事务中代表任何实体；b. 普衡与我本人均未持有或代表与债务人破产财团相冲突的利益；且 c. 普衡及其任何律师（包括我本人）均（i）不是债务人或其关联方的债权人、股权证券持有人或内部人，（ii）在提交申请之日前两年内，未曾担任债务人或其任何关联方的董事、高级职员或雇员，或（iii）不存在由于与债务人的任何直接或间接关系、关联或在债务人中的权益，或由于任何其他原因，而与任何类别债权人或股权证券持有人的破产财团利益存在重大不利的任何利益。（《德斯宾斯声明》，¶ 5。）\n\n10. 2022年7月8日，即UST提交《任命通知》和《任命申请》的次日，本法院就《任命申请》举行了听证会（下称“7月8日听证会”）。\n\n11. 在7月8日听证会上，受托人首次口头披露了普衡与债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（PAX）的母公司 Pacific Alliance Group（太盟投资集团，下称“PAG”）1 的关系。具体而言，受托人陈述如下：第15行：但我今天想确保向法院提及，第16行：我们昨晚发现，我们过去曾代表过名称中含有——含有——第17行：首字母缩写 PAG 的实体，P-A-G。第18行：我们的利益冲突检索系统未能识别，PAG 代表 Pacific Asia Group（太平洋亚洲集团）[原文如此]。第20行：而这些实体——再次说明，正如我所言，这些是已经完成的代理业务，但这些实体第22行：与郭氏案件没有任何关联。第23行：然而，PAX 可能是由类似的实体或某种 PAG 实体所管理。我们正在查明究竟是哪一个。（脚注1：PAG 随后亦被确认为 PAG Holdings Limited。）（7月8日听证会笔录，6:15-25，摘录作为证物 A 随附于此。）\n\n12. 本法院随后于同日签署了《德斯宾斯任命裁定》，核准了对受托人的任命。（Doc. No. 523。）\n\n13. 2022年7月12日，受托人提交了《Luc A. Despins 第一份无利害关系补充声明》（Doc. No. 538）（下称“《德斯宾斯补充声明》”），其中受托人陈述称普衡曾代表与 PAX 拥有共同母公司的“某些实体”。（《德斯宾斯补充声明》，¶ 2。）除声明该等代理属于无关事项外，他未披露有关这些代理关系的任何细节。（同上。）\n\n14. 受托人未曾——且迄今仍未——披露其本人或普衡与中华人民共和国、中共或其拥有或控制的实体的关联。\n\nB. 中国政府在本案中的利益以及受托人未披露中国利益的情况\n\n15. 普衡在中国设有两家分所——北京和上海——并在香港（中国的“特别行政区”）设有一家分所，并在当地开展大量业务，包括代表至少十（10）家中国政府所有的实体。例如，《普衡代表中国地方政府企业完成七笔债券发行》，PaulHastings.com，http enterprises-in-seven-bond.。事实上，普衡曾表示其“是最早建立亚洲业务的大型国际律师事务所之一，如今我们在该地区继续保持领先地位”。北京，PaulHastings.com，http；亦见同上（“我们驻北京的律师代表《财富》全球500强企业和金融机构在大中华区开展跨境交易。我们还就中国企业和金融机构对美国、欧洲、拉丁美洲和其他全球市场的战略性对外投资提供法律咨询。”）。受托人和UST均未对普衡与中国企业的关联程度作出解释，甚至未曾提及。\n\n16. 由于中国政府和中共对在华运营的企业（包括普衡及其客户）拥有排他性且不受制约的控制权，中国政府和中共对普衡及其中国客户具有重大影响力。\n\n17. 正如UST办公室所属的 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部，下称“DOJ”）所深知的那样，中国政府和中共过去曾企图对涉及债务人的诉讼程序施加不当影响，并曾在美国境内针对债务人实施犯罪行为。\n\n18. 2017年，债务人向美国政府提交了针对中国政府的政治庇护申请。债务人的政治庇护申请仍在审理中。《Ho Wan Kwok 先生支持第11章案件及某些动议的声明》（Doc. No. 107）（下称“《郭氏声明》”），¶ 14；《指控中国高官腐败的亿万富豪向美国申请庇护》，《New York Times》（《纽约时报》），http 2。债务人的家人曾多次在不同事件中遭中共拘禁和酷刑折磨。Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund 诉 Kwok Ho Wan，No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，Mei Guo 的宣誓书，Doc. No. 1162，¶¶ 4-6。（脚注2：债务人亦被称为郭文贵。）\n\n19. 2017年，应中华人民共和国外交部的请求，Interpol（国际刑警组织）对债务人发出了“红色通缉令”——发布了其在中国被通缉逮捕的国际警报。中国曾被指控滥用国际刑警组织的红色通缉令系统。“中国有选择性地利用这一渠道遣返因从事政治/宗教活动或发表与中国共产党主张相悖的言论而遭到当局通缉的中国公民。”《观点：中国如何滥用国际刑警组织解决国内恩怨并扼杀异见》，《The Economic Times》（《经济时报》），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\n20. 同样在2017年，美国联邦探员在七十二（72）小时内与中国特工发生了两次冲突——一次在宾夕法尼亚车站，一次在肯尼迪国际机场，原因是联邦探员认定中国政府正在纽约开展秘密且未经授权的行动，以强迫债务人返回中国。《中国追捕逃亡商人郭文贵上演堪比间谍惊悚片的曼哈顿大戏》，《The Wall Street Journal》（《华尔街日报》），http businessman-kicks-off-manhattan-caper-worthy-of-spy-thriller-1508717977.。\n\n21. 此外，2018年，DOJ（美国司法部）总部前官员 George Higginbotham 认罪，承认协助将数百万美元从外国银行账户转移到美国，以资助一项游说活动，说服美国高级官员非法将债务人从美国遣返至中国。参见《前司法部雇员承认密谋在数百万美元外国游说资金问题上欺骗美国银行》（Former Justice Department Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Deceive U.S. Banks about Millions of Dollars in Foreign Lobbying Funds），http://guilty-conspiracy-deceive-us-banks-about-millions；Kwok Declaration（郭氏声明），第 16 段。前 Republican National Committee（共和党全国委员会）主席 Elliot Broidy 和游说客 Nicki Lum Davis 也因其在该计划中的行为而认罪。郭氏声明，第 16 段（援引司法部新闻稿）。\n\n22. 上个月，司法部起诉了 Low Taek Jho（刘特佐）和 Prakazrel \"Pras\" Michel，指控其密谋“分别在刘和中华人民共和国公安部副部长的指使下开展未披露的游说活动……以将一名中国异见人士送回中国”。《美国艺人/商人和马来西亚国民被指控开展秘密游说活动以撤销对一马公司的调查并将中国异见人士从美国移送》（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://charged-back-channel-lobbying-campaign-drop。该“异见人士”即为债务人。\n\n23. 此外，在2022年5月，司法部对 Stephen A. Wynn（酒店业大亨）（以下简称“Wynn”）提起民事执法诉讼，强令其“根据《外国代理人登记法》（FARA）登记为 People's Republic of China（PRC，中华人民共和国）及中华人民共和国 Ministry of Public Security（MPS，公安部）高级官员的代理人”。《司法部起诉强令一名美国商人根据外国代理人登记法进行登记》（Justice Department Sues to Compel a U.S. Businessperson to Register Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act），http://under-foreign-agents-registration。根据司法部自身的起诉书：\n\n自至少2017年6月起至至少2017年8月止，Wynn 联系了时任总统及其政府成员，转达中华人民共和国关于注销一名中国商人的签证或以其他方式将其移送出境的请求，该商人于2014年离开中国，后被中华人民共和国指控贪腐并在美国寻求政治庇护。Wynn 是应时任公安部副部长 Sun Lijun（孙力军）的请求开展这些行动的。Wynn 在晚宴上以及通过电话直接向时任总统转达了该请求，并且他与时任总统以及白宫和国家安全委员会的高级官员进行了多次讨论，商讨组织与孙力军及其他中华人民共和国政府官员的会晤。\n\nhttp://foreign-lobbyist-11622054103；郭氏声明，第 16 段。\n\n24. 司法部已确认 Wynn 的“行为动机源于其保护在中华人民共和国商业利益的愿望”。《美利坚合众国司法部长诉 Wynn》（Attorney General of the United States of America v. Wynn），案号 1:22-cv-1372（D.D.C.，哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院），要求宣告式救济和禁令救济的起诉书，第 28 段。司法部还指控了中国对 Wynn 施加的具体压力：\n\n根据公开报道，在2016年，即上述行为发生前不久，澳门政府限制了被告赌场可以运营的赌桌和机器数量。同样根据公开报道，被告原定于2019年，即上述行为发生之后，就其在澳门运营赌场的牌照重新进行谈判。\n\n同上，第 29 段（脚注略）。\n\n25. 此外，中国政府基于对债务人的索赔指控，已经扣押或冻结了价值数十亿美元的资产。《中国大亨之女就资产冻结起诉香港》（Chinese Tycoon's Daughter Challenges Hong Kong Over Asset Freeze），彭博社（Bloomberg），http://s-daughter-challenges-hong-kong-over-asset-freeze#xj4y7vzkg。\n\n26. 这包括位于北京的被称为盘古大观（Pangu Plaza）的土地和开发项目，该项目被作为 PAX 向一家名为 Spirit Carter 的实体所发放贷款的担保。郭氏声明，第 21 段。《被查封的北京摩天大楼在线以7.34亿美元“低价”售出》（Seized Beijing skyscraper sells online for a 'bargain' $734M），CNN，http。\n\n27. 2017年，应中华人民共和国外交部的请求，Interpol（国际刑警组织）对债务人发布了“红色通缉令”（red notice）——发出其在中国被通缉逮捕的国际警报。中国曾被指责滥用国际刑警组织的红色通缉令系统。“中国选择性地利用这一服务遣返因从事政治/宗教活动或发表与中国共产党所宣称的观点相悖的言论而被当局通缉的中国公民。”《观点：中国如何滥用国际刑警组织来解决国内恩怨和压制异见》（View: How China Misuses Interpol to Settle Domestic Scores and Stifle Dissidence），《经济时报》（The Economic Times），http://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\n28. 众所周知且有充分记录表明，中国政府对在华企业施加了不受制约的控制和影响。例如，《国家如何在中国经营商业》（How the State Runs Business in China），《卫报》（The Guardian），http://communist-party-state-private-enterprise-huawei。（“从毛泽东时代起，中国国有企业就一直在经济中占据主导地位，共产党也一直保持着对国有企业的直接控制。十多年来，党也一直试图确保其在私营企业内部发挥作用。但在其首个任期内，［中国国家主席］习近平主导了党对待经济方式的巨大转变，极大地加强了党在政府和私营企业中的作用。”）。这包括在华开展业务的外国跨国公司。同上；Christopher Wray，Federal Bureau of Investigation（FBI，联邦调查局）局长，在 Hudson Institute（哈德逊研究所）的讲话，视频活动：《中国影响美国机构的企图》（China's Attempt to Influence U.S. Institutions）（2020年7月7日）（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）（“那么中国是怎么做的呢？中国对美国官员的选民拥有筹码——美国公司、学者和媒体界人士都有合理的、可以理解的理由希望接触中国的合作伙伴和市场。而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的权力。因此，中国有时会首先尝试公开且直接地影响这位美国官员。中国可能会公开警告说，如果这位美国官员执意访问台湾，中国将扣留该官员家乡所在州的一家公司在中国的生产许可证，以此向该公司发难。这可能对该公司造成毁灭性的经济打击，将直接迫使该美国官员改变其旅行计划，而该官员也会知道中国正试图影响他。”）。这种影响必然会延伸到 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）及其在中国的客户。\n\nII. 管辖权与审判地\n\n29. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334，本法院具有审议本动议的管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，审议本动议属于核心程序。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本法院分别为本案和本动议的适当审判地。\n\nIII. 寻求救济的法律依据\n\nA. 根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 60(b) 条免受命令约束以获得救济的标准\n\n30. 债务人谨请求法院准予其免受 Despins 任命命令的约束，并撤销该命令。\n\n31. Fed. R. Civ. P.（《联邦民事诉讼规则》）第 60(b) 条3在相关部分规定\n\n经动议并在公正的条件下，法院可因下列原因使当事人或其法定代表人免受最终判决、命令或诉讼程序的约束：(2) 新发现的证据，该证据尽合理勤勉也未能在依据第 59(b) 条提出重新审理动议的时间内被发现……(6) 证明应给予救济的任何其他理由。\n\n除与本案无关的某些例外情况外，Fed. R. Bankr. P.（《联邦破产诉讼规则》）第 9024 条规定，《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 60 条适用于破产法典下的案件。\n\n3 “依据第 59(e) 条、第 60(b) 条和《本地规则》第 7(c) 条提出的重新审议动议均按相同标准处理。”《Ashby 诉 Quiros》（Ashby v. Quiros），2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91970，第 *2 页（D. Conn. 2021年5月14日）（援引《Levy 诉 World Wrestling Ent., Inc.》（Levy v. World Wrestling Ent., Inc.），2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66200（D. Conn. 2009年7月31日））。\n\n32. 根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 60(b)(2) 条，“动议人必须证明：(1) 新发现的证据所涉及的事实存在于审理或其他决定性程序进行之时，(2) 尽管尽了应有的勤勉，动议人仍有合理的理由对这些事实不知情，(3) 该证据必须具有可采性，并且其重要程度达到很可能会改变结果，以及 (4) 该证据不能仅仅是累加性的或弹劾性的。”《美国诉国际卡车司机兄弟会》（United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters），247 F.3d 370, 392 (2d Cir. 2001)（引文省略）。\n\n33. “第 60(b) 条是一项用于质疑最终判决或最终命令的程序性工具。……法院认为，支持第 60(b) 条动议需要有最终判决的存在。”《Byrne 诉 Liquid Asphalt Sys.》（Byrne v. Liquid Asphalt Sys.），250 F. Supp. 2d 84, 87 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)（引文省略）。“如果命令中没有任何内容……表明预期该决定将被重新审议，则该命令即为最终命令。如果破产法院的命令完全解决了与某项独立主张有关的所有问题，包括有关适当救济的问题，则该命令即为最终命令。”《In re Adelphia Communs. Corp.》，333 B.R. 649, 656 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)（引文和引号省略）。在破产重整计划确认前作出的任命受托人的命令被视为最终命令。《Silverman 诉 Tracar, S.A.（In re Am. Preferred Prescription, Inc.）》，255 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir. 2001)（附带意见）；《Adelphia Communs. Corp.》，333 B.R. 第 657 页脚注 41（汇总判例）；亦参见《Altman 诉 Rafael Galleries, Inc.（In re Altman）》，2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16235，第 *6-9 页（D. Conn. 2000年7月27日）。\n\nB. 受托人必须是“无利害关系人”\n\n34. 在本案中，受托人尚未披露其本人或其律所与中国政府、中共或国家控制企业的关联。然而，显而易见的是，中国政府、中共以及由其（直接或间接）控制的任何实体在此均属于利害关系方，因为它们已表现出迫害债务人、严重破坏其财务状况及重组能力、并强迫其返回中国的意图，且在许多情况下违反了美国法律。因此，受托人必须披露其本人及普衡律师事务所与中国政府的关联。\n\n35. “受托人必须是第 101(14) 条所定义的‘无利害关系人’。”《科利尔论破产》（Collier on Bankruptcy）第 7 卷第 1104.02 段（援引 11 U.S.C. § 1104(b), (d)）。与本案相关的是，“‘无利害关系人’一词是指满足以下条件的人员：……(C) 由于与债务人存在任何直接或间接的关系、关联或利益，或出于任何其他原因，其利益不会对破产财产或任何类别的债权人或权益证券持有人的利益产生重大不利影响。”11 U.S.C. § 101(14)。此外，披露潜在不利利益的声明必须以书面形式作出，并在申请批准第 11 章受托人时一同提交。《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2007.1(c) 条（“申请书应附有被任命人的经核实声明，列明该人与债务人、债权人、任何其他利害关系方、他们各自的律师和会计师、美国联邦受托人或美国联邦受托人办公室雇用的任何人员的关联。”）。\n\n36. 《破产法典》并未对何谓“对破产财产利益产生重大不利影响的利益”作出定义。参见 11 U.S.C. § 101(14)；《Bank Brussels Lambert 诉 Coan（In re AroChem Corp.）》，176 F.3d 610, 623 (2d Cir. 1999)。然而，包括第二巡回法院在内的各法院已将“持有或代表对破产财产不利的利益”这一短语定义为\n\n(1) 拥有或主张任何可能倾向于减损破产财产价值、或可能引发破产财产作为竞争性索赔人参与其中的实际或潜在争议的经济利益；或 (2) 在导致对破产财产产生此类偏见的情形下持有某种倾向。\n\n同上（引文省略）。为了确定 Chapter 11（第 11 章）受托人是否属于无利害关系人，法院需要审查受托人所在事务所与破产财产之间的关联。In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 226 B.R. 331, 334 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1998)（“《联邦破产程序规则》第 2014(a) 条……要求受托人披露[其雇主] Deloitte（德勤）可能与债务人、债权人及任何其他利害关系方存在的任何关联。”）。\n\n37. 在本案中，受托人未能披露 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）与中国政府和 CCP（中国共产党）之间的关联。然而，即便仅从债务人截至本文件提交之日已知的案件事实来看，受托人显然并非无利害关系人，因此不应获准担任本案的 Chapter 11 受托人。受托人以及本应意识到中国政府和 CCP 明显对立立场的 UST（美国受托人项目/美国联邦破产受托人），不当地决定对其意图披露的利益冲突信息进行挑选。然而，正如法院在 In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 226 B.R. 331, 335 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1998) 中所述：\n\n受托人似乎认为法院和各方当事人应当完全依赖其作为受托人的身份，自行作出其仍属无利害关系人的独立判定。然而，这并非受托人有权作出的适当判定。这种仅凭个人武断断言（ipse dixit）的做法是不被允许的。受托人将该决定内化，而非向法院及其他当事人提交相关信息以便对无利害关系进行客观判定，这一事实表明受托人在向法院提供信息时存在选择性，且未能认识到其必须一丝不苟地恪守的高度受托标准。\n\n（引文及引号省略。）亦见 In re Granite Partners, L.P., 219 B.R. 22, 35 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区破产法院） 1998)（“专业人士必须披露与其无利害关系相关的所有事实……且不得通过凭其个人武断断言挑选哪些关联会影响无利害关系、哪些不会，来篡夺法院的职能。”）。“此外，仅仅是‘套话式’的披露可能可以涵盖非故意未能披露微不足道的关联的情形，但对于与存在重大对立风险的当事人之间的已知关联而言，则是远远不够的。”同上。\n\n38. 此外，受托人仅在 7月8日听证会上披露了其事务所与 PAG（太盟投资集团）的关联，即便在那时，其似乎也对相关介入的范围毫无所知。（7月8日听证会笔录，6:15-25。）事实上，即便在其事后对 Paul Hastings 与 PAG 实体之间关系的披露中，受托人的表述也同样含糊不清。（Despins 补充声明，第 2 段。）\n\nC. 法院应基于新发现的证据，向债务人授予免于执行 Despins 任命裁定的救济\n\n39. 法院应基于在 7月8日听证会时或之后披露的、且未在任命申请或 Despins 声明中披露的证据，向债务人授予免于执行 Despins 任命裁定的救济。关于 Paul Hastings 因其与 PAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）以及中国政府和 CCP（两者显然均与债务人存在利益对立）的关系而欠缺无利害关系特性的证据，属于新发现的证据，理应获得免于执行 Despins 任命裁定的救济。\n\n40. 关于确立依据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2)（《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 60(b)(2) 条）获得救济的基础所必需的各项要件，首先，显而易见的是，Paul Hastings 对 PAG 实体的代理、其在中国的巨额业务及其对受政府控制或影响实体的代理，在 7月8日听证会时均已存在。受托人仅在听证会前不久才口头披露了其事务所与 PAG 实体的关系，仅凭言辞且措辞含糊。此外，Paul Hastings 在中国的业务布局以及与中国政府和 CCP 的联系显然是此前就已存在的。\n\n41. 其次，债务人对这些关系以及中国政府对 Paul Hastings 的影响不知情是完全有合理正当理由的。7月8日听证会是在任命通知和任命申请提交仅一天后举行的。在如此短的时间内，债务人根本没有机会妥善调查受托人的无利害关系状况（包括通过证据开示程序）。此外，尽管债务人与中华人民共和国及 CCP 之间的对立关系在本案全程均有披露且已被广泛公开报道大约八（8）年之久，受托人却仍未能披露这些关联。\n\n42. 第三，有关受托人欠缺无利害关系特性的证据显然具有关联性且具有可采性，并且其重要程度足以改变 7月8日听证会的结果。为获得批准担任 Chapter 11 受托人，受托人必须是无利害关系人。11 U.S.C. § 1104(b), (d)。正如 UST 的代理律师于 2022年7月5日在庭审记录中向法院准确陈述的那样：“这很遗憾，而且这一时间安排确实造成了拖延，对此 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）同样感到不快，但尽管如此，选任并安置一名无利益冲突且在外观上对本案所有涉案当事人均能保持公正的人选是适当的。”（2022年7月5日听证会笔录，10:20-25，引用的摘录见附件 B。）\n\n43. 这些话语——是在确保最初由 U.S. Trustee 选定担任本案受托人的候选人 Whitley 不会在外观上偏向债务人的背景下作出的——同样适用于 Despins 先生和 Paul Hastings 与债务人对立的利益。简而言之，关于中国政府和 CCP 对 Paul Hastings 的影响以及该所与 PAG 实体之间关系的证据证明，受托人并非无利害关系人，不应担任 Chapter 11 受托人。\n\n44. 最后，该证据并非仅仅是累加性的或仅用于弹劾可信度。相反，它是未在 7月8日听证会时提交给法院的新证据，并且直接关系到任命申请是否应当获得准许的问题。\n\nD. 备位主张，法院应为了实现司法公正而向债务人授予免于执行 Despins 任命裁定的救济\n\n45. 备位主张，若法院认定新发现的证据不足以构成免于执行 Despins 任命裁定的救济理由，Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) 允许法院基于“证明救济合理的任何其他理由”授予救济。\n\n46. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) 赋予联邦法院广泛的权力，以“依照公正的条款”免除一方当事人的终局判决，前提是该动议是在合理时间内提出，且并非基于第 (b)(1) 至 (b)(5) 款中所列举的救济理由之一。该规则未具体列举证明救济合理的因素，但我们此前曾指出，该规则赋予法院“足以使其能够在适宜采取此类行动以实现司法公正的任何时候撤销判决”的权力……同时亦告诫称其应仅适用于“非同寻常的情形”。\n\nLiljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863-64 (1988)（脚注及引文省略）。因此，在无法轻易归入 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 其他各款的情形下，Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) 提供了一条获得判决救济的途径。United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien, 588 F.3d 158, 176 (2d Cir. 2009)；亦见 Sternstein v. Italia-Societa Per Azioni De Navigazione-Genoa, 275 F.2d 502 (2d Cir. 1960)（“第 60(b) 条无意剥夺一审法官在其认为为消除不公而确有必要时下令重审的裁量权。”）。\n\n47. 在本案中，作为备位主张，本法院应根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) 所赋予的救济授予救济。由于受托人和 UST 未能向法院作出充分披露，导致法院在依据不完整证据的情况下作出了 Despins 任命裁定，因此，撤销 Despins 任命裁定最符合司法公正。这将使债务人、其他利害关系方以及本法院获得充分且公正的机会来审查任命申请以及受托人欠缺无利害关系特性的问题。\n\n据此，债务人谨请求法院通过撤销 Despins 任命裁定向其授予免于执行该裁定的救济，并向其授予司法公正所需的其他及进一步的救济。\n\n于 2022年7月15日 签署于康涅狄格州布里奇波特（Bridgeport, Connecticut）。\n\n债务人：HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ Eric Henzy\nEric Henzy (ct12849)\nStephen M. Kindseth (ct14640)\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\nJohn L. Cesaroni (ct29309)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5487\n电子邮件：ehenzy@zeislaw.com\nskindseth@zeislaw.com\naromney@zeislaw.com\njcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2022年7月15日，上述文书的副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交事项的通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人，或按照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。各方当事人均可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n/s/ Eric Henzy\nEric Henzy (ct12849)","key_entities":["Paul Hastings","Despins","CCP","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Chinese Communist Party","Je","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":561,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":5204,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-07-15 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-07-15","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:43:59"}