Miles Guo Files Objection to Motions for Chapter 11 Case to Bankruptcy Court

During recent live broadcasts, Miles Guo has revealed to the public some details regarding his Chapter 11 case related to this lawsuit against Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. ( aka “PAX”).

 According to the Court file, on July 29, Miles’ legal counsel team filed an objection to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut; the objection is to the motion filed by Luc A. Despins which is for entry of the order, quashing subpoenas, and confirming that Miles is not entitled to discovery in connection with his motion for relief from order appointing Despins as Chapter 11 trustee, as well as the Despins’ application to employ Paul Hastings LLP as counsel.

 The objection is filed based on the following factual and procedural backgrounds, including the procedure of the appointment of the Chapter 11 Trustee, filing of the “Rule 9024 Motion” and issuance of the subpoenas sought to be quashed, and Miles’ claims against UBS AG, including the interest of the Chinese Government in this case and Paul Hastings failure of disclosing its Chinese interests.

 On July 22, after the Scheduling Order was issued, Miles Guo served both a document subpoena and a deposition subpoena on the law firm Paul Hastings, which Despins is a partner; the law firm is also the entity that would have custody, possession, and control of the documents and information that Miles seeks to prosecute the “Rule 9024 Motion”.

 The subpoenas sought documents and testimony from Paul Hastings that are related to three discrete matters bearing on Despins’ disinterestedness, including Paul Hastings’ representation of and relationship with the PAG Entities, Paul Hastings’ representation of and relationship with UBS, AG, and other UBS entities, and Paul Hastings’ relationship with the government of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party, its representation of Chinese state-owned entities, and offices in China, including the regulation of those offices by the Chinese government. 

 Nevertheless, after being served with the subpoenas from Miles, Despins has completely ignored the mentioning of the discovery between the Court and Miles’ counsel, also the fact that the Court didn’t enter any order precluding Miles from taking discovery.

 Miles’ counsel requests the Court to deny the Motion to Quash and enter an order to compel Paul Hastings to comply with the Document Subpoenas by producing responsive documents within five days of the date of the Court’s Order, and also order Paul Hastings to choose a corporate representative who is knowledgeable about the topics identified in the Deposition Subpoena and is able to testify on behalf of Paul Hastings for a deposition within seven days of the date of the Court’s order and to grant further just and proper relief.