{"id":"court_ctb_1029_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1029,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-10-25","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 1 of 24\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* October 17, 2022 \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION IN AID OF COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER REGARDING RULE 2004 SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. HK International and Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the Creditor, Pacific PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Chapter 11 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Trustee: Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402**\n\n **Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd)\n\nChapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\n> Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\nFor Brown Rudnick, WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Creditor: Brown Rudnick\n\nFor Baker Hostetler, LAWRENCE GROSSMAN, ESQ. Interested Party: Green & Sklarz, LLC One Audubon Street New Haven, CT 06511\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 3 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 10:03 a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good morning. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. LINSEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. GOLDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, representing the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. BIRNEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick Birney, Robinson & Cole, on behalf of PAX. Your Honor, there's a preliminary matter I would like to take up after appearances if I can? THE COURT: Certainly. Good morning. Mr. Baldiga? MR. BALDIGA: Good morning, Your Honor. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick, for Brown Rudnick. THE COURT: Good morning.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 4 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 4 MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy, Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. HENZY: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honor. MR. GROSSMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Larry Grossman for Baker Hostetler. And as with Attorney Birney there is a preliminary matter I would like to address. THE COURT: Good morning. So, Attorney Birney, I think, and Attorney Grossman, you're talking about motions to appear remotely, but I'm not going to allow that today. We talked about that last week. I'm not going to have hearings remotely unless I think there's a need to. So if your clients want to listen on the phone they can do that on the public access line or they can listen to the hearing once this hearing is concluded. We also didn't get a chance to really review the motions. I know they were filed. But that's what I discussed last week at our hearing and you were -- and everybody was -- I think all the parties that are here today and that were on the phone heard me say that, so we're not going to do that today. Okay? Thank you, both. MR. BIRNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Baldiga, this is your\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 5 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 5 motion. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. First, thank you for hearing us on such short notice. I believe that we're here on a fully consensual basis. THE COURT: That would -- that's nice to hear. I'd like to hear about that then. MR. BALDIGA: Well, there haven't been too many times, Your Honor, where people have been able to say that in this case, but through good discussions with all parties, not just over the weekend, but in the days before that. And we are prepared to produce all of our files immediately to the trustee upon entry of this order. There are three things addressed, Your Honor, in this order. There is one minor nit that I will take up. THE COURT: When you talk about this order, just would you like me to refer to the order that's already entered or the order that you submitted with your motion? MR. BALDIGA: The proposed order. THE COURT: Okay. That proposed order, just so you know, even if everyone agrees to those terms, there's still terms in the order that I entered that are not in your proposed order that will need to be in that order. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. Well, obviously then -- THE COURT: Such as --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 6 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 6 MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. THE COURT: -- and I'll just -- I'll just -- it's not -- it may not have anything to do with you -- MR. BALDIGA: Sure. THE COURT: -- quite frankly, but the order that was entered on the 13th had provisions with regard to the debtor filing the privilege log on the docket, also had a provision -- I guess I didn't understand your argument about the clawback issue because the rule is cited in the order -- three or four -- in three or four places. So if you want -- I don't know. I don't think it needs to be explicit, but I guess you're saying you want it explicit. Is that what you're telling me? MR. BALDIGA: It's less our issue, Your Honor, than the debtor's. And if -- we thought it was appropriate that it be explicit because the rule applies to, as we understand it, an inadvertent production. And whether this production that we make today is inadvertent or not, I don't know and wouldn't want to argue that point, but we -- it's not our clawback right so I'm not inclined to argue. THE COURT: I agree. And I think the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for what they provide for. I'm not sure that it needs to be explicit.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 7 But go right ahead and let me hear you and then we can see where we stand. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. So there were three things to be addressed. One is the order entered on Thursday, docket 962, applies to on its face post-petition documents. It's perhaps my fault that I haven't addressed with this court prior to that what has been discussed among the parties, which is that our work began a day or two prior to the commencement of the case. Almost all of the documents accordingly have been created or delivered to us post-petition. And I guess it depends on -- there's always that interesting thing about the day of filing itself, whether that's pre or post or some of both. And so we have just stricken, again by agreement, the word post-petition because we are delivering all of our files. And that will extend to at least some things, very, very few, that are technically pre-petition because they were created or delivered to us the day before or the day of, but prior to the time of filing. It's more of a technical thing, but we have not had the ability to try to distinguish between pre and post- petition and I think no one believes that that would be a good use of anyone's time. Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 7 of 24\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 8 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 8 THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: Second, the clawback issue that we've already addressed, I don't have more to say about that. Third, that this proposed order has something that the docket 962 order does not have, which is just a -- I think a fairly simple acknowledgment again which is not a concern of the debtor or the trustee, that -- clarifying that what this court is ordering us to do is not to violate our legal or ethical obligations. And we think that has been implicit all along. But since if that issue does come up in future years, may not be in this court, what was implicit perhaps we think in this courtroom would be a better explicit. And, again, no one has any problem with that. And obviously gives us the comfort to produce immediately. So with that, Your Honor, there is one nit that Mr. Henzy and I have discussed and obviously we will -- we didn't intend for this to -- well, we intended that this would supplant the prior order, but not replace it in its entirety, but we're happy to have that be an amended and restated order and to work with the parties and the Court to have it do that and to bring in the other provisions of 962 that are not explicitly here. But let me just get to the one nit. In the first\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 9 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 9 decretal paragraph -- I'm not sure if you're at our order. THE COURT: Yeah. I'm holding it right now. MR. BALDIGA: The first decretal paragraph says the motion is granted as set forth below. Objections to the motion. And then I would strike the next five words. So strike the words and the prior enforcement motion. And that's it. And then we're prepared to have this order be entered, again, with whatever changes the Court believes appropriate. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: Mr. Despins? MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. There's just one thing I need to check with Mr. Baldiga, but generally we agree that this is consensual and it's the order my partner had seen the deletion of these last few words. MR. BALDIGA: No. That was just this morning. MR. DESPINS: So I apologize for doing this. I -- THE COURT: That's all right. Well, we may have to take a little recess in a few minutes once we -- MR. DESPINS: It would be a very, very short recess. THE COURT: -- once we hear from everyone. Okay?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 10 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 10 MR. DESPINS: Okay. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, I don't want to -- just on it being consensual all around, I don't want to disappoint everyone. I could probably come up with something, but I won't. Mr. Baldiga's correct. With that one change to the order, we'll have no objection. In terms of whether this is a -- there's going to be a new order or -- I had, I think with Attorney Baldiga, contemplated that this order was going to be in addition to the court's order, but, you know, I have no objection to there being a, you know, combined order that melds everything. THE COURT: Your client has no problem with the Court ordering that the production of the documents does not and shall not violate the respective legal and ethical obligations to the debtor? MR. HENZY: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Then what I'd like you all to do -- Thank you. I'm sorry. Is there anything else you wanted to say, Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: There's nothing else, Your Honor, no. THE COURT: Attorney Grossman?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 11 of 24\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022<br>11                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. GROSSMAN:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 2  | My client, Baker Hostetler, is a law firm like                 |\n| 3  | Brown Rudnick and was also served with a subpoena.<br>And like |\n| 4  | Brown Rudnick, Baker Hostetler is concerned about the          |\n| 5  | obligations it may have to the debtor, its client or former    |\n| 6  | client.                                                        |\n| 7  | And we filed a joinder in the Brown Rudnick motion             |\n| 8  | filed Friday.<br>We filed that yesterday simply asking that    |\n| 9  | any order entered by the Court similarly apply to Baker --     |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Hold on a second, Attorney Grossman.             |\n| 11 | I'm sorry.<br>We can't hear you if that's happening.<br>They   |\n| 12 | were supposed to stop that, but I guess they didn't.<br>Just   |\n| 13 | give it, if you don't mind, a second.                          |\n| 14 | (Pause)                                                        |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Go ahead.<br>Let's see how         |\n| 16 | we do.<br>No, that's not good.                                 |\n| 17 | (Pause)                                                        |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I know what your point is.<br>Let          |\n| 19 | me just say that I don't know when your client was served      |\n| 20 | with a subpoena.<br>When was your client served with a         |\n| 21 | subpoena?                                                      |\n| 22 | MR. GROSSMAN:<br>It was served with a subpoena I               |\n| 23 | believe in September.<br>We --                                 |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Well, we need to know that                       |\n| 25 | specifically because your client has to exercise its rights    |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 12 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 12 and remedies under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure like Brown Rudnick did. You have not done that that I can tell at this point, there's nothing before the Court. I don't know when the subpoena was served. And this order only applies to Verdolino & Lowey and Brown Rudnick. So why don't we take a recess so Mr. Despins can talk to his partner about the proposed changes to the order and then you and he can talk about -- and the debtor about what, if anything, you can come up with. But this is specifically limited to Verdolino & Lowey and Brown Rudnick so there isn't going to be a joinder of this. You may need to file your own documents. This is something that's been going on for quite some time. Mr. Baldiga's been here at every hearing I think since the middle, if not the beginning of September, addressing these issues on the subpoenas that were served. So I have no idea. It's not before me in the record anywhere that I'm aware of. And, Mr. Linsey, maybe you can help on that. I don't know when Baker Hostetler was served with a subpoena. But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply so we need to make sure that these things are handled appropriately under those rules. Okay? MR. GROSSMAN: Your Honor, would it make any difference if I were to inform the Court that my co-counsel,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 13 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 13 partner at Baker Hostetler, spoke with the trustee's counsel? THE COURT: It might. That's why you need to talk to them and see what you can come up with. Okay? MR. GROSSMAN: Understood. Thank you. THE COURT: So we're going to take a short recess. I'll probably be back out at 10:30. Hopefully the construction will stop by then. (Recess from 10:16 a.m. until 10:37 a.m.) THE COURT: Please be seated. All right. We're back on the record after a recess. And, Mr. Baldiga, I know you were going to speak with Mr. Despins about -- or vice versa about an issue that you weren't sure that you had closed the loop on prior to this morning, so go right ahead. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. William Baldiga. That language that -- the deletion of those five words is fine with the trustee as well. THE COURT: And with the debtor as well? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. MR. HENZY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, basically -- Luc\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 14 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 14 Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. We believe that the prior order overruled the objections, but the point is this order does not need to say that specifically so we're okay with the deletion. THE COURT: Well, I think what this order is going to say is that it's going to be a consent order superceding the prior order so that we don't have confusion about two different orders. And I want -- I would like the parties, when they present this order -- the order that entered, 962, the first two paragraphs before the ordered paragraph should start the order. Okay? What I'm going to do, Mr. Baldiga, is we'll enter some kind of order granting your urgent motion in aid of compliance with the order and then it will say, you know, order -- motion granted, revise consent order, superceding ECF 962 will enter. Okay? MR. HENZY: At the risk of causing trouble, the debtor did object to -- THE COURT: And we're going to make them -- we're going to ask Mr. Baldiga to make sure he puts that in this new consent order that you did object. MR. HENZY: Because if this is going to supercede the existing court order -- THE COURT: All right. How about revised, revise or amend?. How would you like it to be characterized?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 15 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 15 MR. HENZY: Well, it's just -- it wouldn't be a consent order, that's all. The debtor's not objecting to the entry of Mr. Baldiga's order or the additional relief I'll call it that Mr. Baldiga is asking for, but the debtor did object to the entry of the order that the Court had entered. THE COURT: Okay. When I asked you this morning though I think you said you consented to the language that Mr. Baldiga asked for. MR. HENZY: So I do. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: But if there's now going to be a revised order that supercedes the Court's order -- and just so -- which was document number 962 and that would then become I guess I'll call it the operative order the debtor didn't consent to the entry of 962. THE COURT: I agree. And if you look at what I said about adding the first two paragraphs from the prior order -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: -- the second paragraph talks about the debtor's objection. MR. HENZY: I understood, Your Honor. But if this order is going to be called a consent order, I think that implies that the debtor consented to the entry of the order,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 16 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 16 and that's -- if this is superceding 962, the debtor did not consent to the entry of that order. So I'm -- THE COURT: But it doesn't make sense to have two orders. MR. HENZY: I agree with you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So what's your solution? MR. HENZY: If you want to have a revised order, a revised order I think is fine, but it just -- it would not be a consent order. THE COURT: Well, then the language that you are consenting to, that paragraph, I want it to say that all the parties consented. THE COURT: And that's fine. THE COURT: Okay. Because that's got to be in here. I'm not making any rulings. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: You're consenting to that. MR. HENZY: To that language, yes. THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: And we can -- THE COURT: To the language about -- that Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey -- MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: -- whatever it says. I'm sorry. MR. HENZY: That language is consented to, Your\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 17 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 17 Honor, yes. THE COURT: Okay. Then that's what I want you to say. MR. HENZY: Understood. THE COURT: And then make it a revised order. But I'm not entering a revised order unless and until that language, which is already -- everyone stated on the record is consented to. Okay? MR. HENZY: Understood. MR. BALDIGA: Everything you just described, Your Honor, I think we can work -- and I'll make sure that we circulate something, but we'll produce today on that basis. THE COURT: Okay. So in addition to the first two paragraphs in 962, I also would like the third ordered paragraph that requires the debtor to file the existing privilege log on the docket in that order. The one that you submitted, Attorney Baldiga, doesn't have any of that in there. Okay? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: And then let me just make sure. I don't think your order -- let me triple check for a second. Maybe it does have it and I'm just not seeing it. I don't see a provision in your proposed order, Attorney Baldiga, regarding the debtor's -- which I think the trustee asked for in his original order, two things.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 18 of 24\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022<br>18                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Your order does not have the -- an ordered                     |\n| 2  | paragraph that Trustee Despins asked for and is in 962,        |\n| 3  | which is the third from the bottom ordered paragraph, where    |\n| 4  | it says pursuant to paragraph 7 either the trustee or the      |\n| 5  | debtor may avail itself of the right to request adjudication   |\n| 6  | of any dispute.                                                |\n| 7  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.<br>All for the same reason.<br>We         |\n| 8  | were not intending that this replace that.<br>But now that we  |\n| 9  | know that it does --                                           |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                             |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>-- we will bring all of that in.               |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>That's got to be in.               |\n| 13 | And then also the written notice provision of the              |\n| 14 | debtor if he -- this was Mr. Despins' language as well, the    |\n| 15 | fourth from the bottom ordered paragraph, I think it changed   |\n| 16 | a little bit, but, any document which the debtor provides      |\n| 17 | written notice to the Chapter 11 Trustee under Federal --      |\n| 18 | this is a prospectively, not that exists, right, under         |\n| 19 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) that the debtor   |\n| 20 | claims is subject to privilege or protection shall be logged   |\n| 21 | in a privilege log provided to the trustee and filed on the    |\n| 22 | docket of this case within two days of the debtor's written    |\n| 23 | notice.<br>That was Mr. Despins' language.<br>So that's got to |\n| 24 | be in there too.                                               |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>We will.                                       |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 19 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 19 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So what else do we need to accomplish today? Attorney Grossman? MR. GROSSMAN: Your Honor, Larry Grossman again on behalf of Baker Hostetler. During the break, I conferred with the debtor and there is no agreement at this time regarding Baker Hostetler. We are not going to press the joinder motion. We will be filing a motion this week and a motion to expedite a hearing to facilitate our agreement with the trustee. And we hopefully will have the consent of all parties. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Despins, there's another motion for extension of time that was filed by another party that was served with a subpoena, it was filed last week, saying that they need time to comply with the subpoena. Give me a second and I'll tell you who -- I'm sorry, I don't have it right in front of me. On the 13th, there was a motion to extend time to respond to subpoena filed by, and I'm not going to pronounce the name properly, and I apologize, Hing Chi Ngok interested party, represented by Evan Goldstein. Mr. Linsey, do you know what -- are you familiar with that motion?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 20 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 20 MR. LINSEY: I am familiar with that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Are you going to be -- are you going to be -- MR. LINSEY: Generally. THE COURT: If you're going to oppose it, I need you to oppose it in writing by the end of this week. Okay? MR. LINSEY: We will do. And we do intend to submit a written response to that motion, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I'm going to order you to do that by Friday. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? So I will take care of that later today, insofar as there will be some order entered that the trustee needs to file a response to the motion by whatever Friday is, the 21st I think. MR. LINSEY: Understood. And for your understanding, it's the debtor's wife is the is discovery party at issue. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Is there anything further we need to review today? MR. DESPINS: Just for the record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee, just a housekeeping matter. I mentioned this to Mr. Henzy before the hearing. We're going to file a motion seeking a preliminary\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 21 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 21 injunction in connection with the prejudgment remedy -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- to be heard at the same time. It doesn't change anything except that there's a -- and Your Honor knows this, but I -- the difference between in personam and in rem jurisdiction with the prejudgment remedy you can attach assets in Connecticut or in -- but we also need to be -- to have in personam remedies against, for example, if Your Honor will grant that, against the daughter because she may have assets elsewhere. And so, therefore, it's a purely -- it doesn't change the hearing at all except actually the preliminary injunction standards are probably higher for us than the prejudgment remedy, but we wanted to let you know that we're going to do that. And I don't know if -- I didn't want to box in Mr. Henzy. I mentioned before the hearing if we need to file a motion to shorten the time, but it would be the same schedule, the same hearing, it's the same -- everything is the same except that technically it's a different type of remedy in personam versus in rem. MR. HENZY: For the record, I don't agree that it doesn't change the relief being sought. It does change the relief being sought. THE COURT: I don't think that's what he said, but\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 22 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 22 I understand why you said that. I think he said it doesn't change the schedule. I thought that's what he said. MR. HENZY: Well, I think it -- THE COURT: But it only doesn't change the schedule if he files a motion and it gets scheduled at the same time. MR. HENZY: I think that's right. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. HENZY: But I think -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I understand your point. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: There's no question it's a different standard if a temporary restraining order is sought -- MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: -- in addition to a prejudgment remedy. MR. HENZY: And I think, as Mr. Despins seems to recognize it, it also brings -- potentially brings into play assets that until that motion is filed are not in play. So that that is just additional relief. THE COURT: Well, we'll see what happens when it gets filed -- MR. HENZY: Yes, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 23 of 24\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022<br>23                         |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>-- and then we'll go from there.               |\n| 2  | MR. HENZY:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                               |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay?                                          |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>Thank you.                                     |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                     |\n| 6  | MR. DESPINS:<br>So, therefore, we need to file a             |\n| 7  | motion to expedite on that hearing?                          |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>I'll let you all talk about it --              |\n| 9  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.                                        |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>-- but it seems to me that Attorney            |\n| 11 | Henzy would say yes.                                         |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.                                        |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                       |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Is there anything else we        |\n| 16 | need to address today?                                       |\n| 17 | All right.<br>I do appreciate the parties working            |\n| 18 | through the issues over the weekend.<br>And I understand the |\n| 19 | issue about it not being a consent order.<br>That's fine as  |\n| 20 | long as that provision that Mr. Baldiga, you know, had       |\n| 21 | talked about, and we did talk about at the hearing           |\n| 22 | extensively, I actually went back and listened to it before  |\n| 23 | today, that it's got to be clear that that's on consent.     |\n| 24 | Okay?                                                        |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Understood, Your Honor.                      |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 24 of 24\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022<br>24                       |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So then we'll look for the     |\n| 2  | revised proposed order when it comes in and it will enter  |\n| 3  | shorter thereafter.                                        |\n| 4  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Thank you.                                 |\n| 5  | UNIDENTIFIED:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                    |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>That is the only thing on      |\n| 7  | today's calendar, so court is adjourned.                   |\n| 8  | (Proceedings adjourned at 10:49 a.m.)                      |\n| 9  | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter    |\n| 10 | and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct   |\n| 11 | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of |\n| 12 | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.              |\n| 13 |                                                            |\n| 14 |                                                            |\n| 15 | October 25, 2022                                           |\n| 16 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                      |\n| 17 |                                                            |\n| 18 |                                                            |\n| 19 |                                                            |\n| 20 |                                                            |\n| 21 |                                                            |\n| 22 |                                                            |\n| 23 |                                                            |\n| 24 |                                                            |\n| 25 |                                                            |\n|    |                                                            |","body_zh":"案号 22-50073 文书 1029 于 10/25/22 提交 于 10/25/22 21:25:45 登记 第 1 页，共 24 页\n\n美国破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court）\n康涅狄格州地区（District of Connecticut）\n布里奇波特分庭（Bridgeport Division）\n\n关于\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n债务人。\n\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n2022年10月17日\n\n关于协助遵守有关根据规则 2004 传唤的文件和信息之命令的动议庭审记录\n\n于尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官阁下面前\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·A·亨齐律师）\nHK International（HK国际公司）及 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒专业公司）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）：\nPATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·伯尼律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表第 11 章受托人：\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林西律师）\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙泰斯专业公司）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\n\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n第 11 章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（吕克·A·德斯平律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（保尔·哈斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）债权人：\nWILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.（威廉·鲍尔迪加律师）\nBrown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\n\n代表 Baker Hostetler（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）利害关系方：\nLAWRENCE GROSSMAN, ESQ.（劳伦斯·格罗斯曼律师）\nGreen & Sklarz, LLC（格林与斯克拉兹有限责任公司）\nOne Audubon Street\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1029 于 10/25/22 提交 于 10/25/22 21:25:45 登记 第 3 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月17日 3\n\n（庭审于上午 10:03 开始）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：早上好。请先由第 11 章受托人开始，为记录在案说明出庭情况。\n\nDESPINS 律师：早上好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平），第 11 章受托人。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nLINSEY 律师：早上好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西）代表受托人。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：早上好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所），代表债权人委员会。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nBIRNEY 律师：早上好，法官阁下。Patrick Birney（帕特里克·伯尼），Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所），代表 PAX。法官阁下，如可，我想在出庭陈述后处理一项初步事项？\n\n法官：当然可以。早上好。Baldiga 律师？\n\nBALDIGA 律师：早上好，法官阁下。William Baldiga（威廉·鲍尔迪加），Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所），代表 Brown Rudnick。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1029 于 10/25/22 提交 于 10/25/22 21:25:45 登记 第 4 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月17日 4\n\nHENZY 律师：Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐），Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），代表债务人。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nHENZY 律师：谢谢。早上好，法官阁下。\n\nGROSSMAN 律师：早上好，法官阁下。Larry Grossman（拉里·格罗斯曼）代表 Baker Hostetler（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）。与 Birney 律师一样，我也有一项初步事项想要处理。\n\n法官：早上好。那么，Birney 律师，我想，还有 Grossman 律师，你们谈的是远程出庭的动议，但我今天不会准许。我们上周已经谈过此事。除非我认为有必要，否则我不会远程举行听证会。因此，如果你们的当事人想通过电话旁听，可以通过公共接入线路进行，或者可以在本次听证会结束后收听本次听证会。我们也没有机会真正审查这些动议。我知道它们已经提交。但那是我上周在我们的听证会上所讨论的内容，而且你们——以及所有人——我认为，今天在场及电话出席的所有当事人都听到我这样说，因此我们今天不会这样做。好吗？谢谢二位。\n\nBIRNEY 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。Baldiga 律师，这是你的动议。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1029 于 10/25/22 提交 于 10/25/22 21:25:45 登记 第 5 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月17日 5\n\nBALDIGA 律师：是的。谢谢，法官阁下。首先，感谢您在如此短的通知期内听取我们的事项。我相信我们是在完全协商一致的基础上到庭。\n\n法官：那将会——听到这个很好。那么我想听听有关情况。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：法官阁下，在本案中，人们能够这样说的次数并不多，但通过与所有当事方进行了良好讨论，不仅是在周末，而且是在此前数日。我们准备在本裁定录入后立即向受托人提供我们的全部文件。本裁定中处理了三件事。有一个小问题我将提出。\n\n法官：当你谈及本裁定时，你希望我指的是已经录入的裁定，还是指你随动议提交的裁定？\n\nBALDIGA 律师：拟议裁定。\n\n法官：好的。该拟议裁定，只是让你知道，即使每个人都同意那些条款，我已经录入的裁定中仍有你们拟议裁定中没有的条款，且需要纳入该裁定。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：好的。那么，显然——\n\n法官：例如——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1029 于 10/25/22 提交 于 10/25/22 21:25:45 登记 第 6 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月17日 6\n\nBALDIGA 律师：是。\n\n法官：——我只是——我只是——这并非——这可能与你没有任何关系——\n\nBALDIGA 律师：当然。\n\n法官：——坦率地说，但 13 日录入的裁定包含有关债务人在案卷上提交特权清单的规定，也包含一项规定——我想我没有理解你关于追回问题的论点，因为该规则在裁定中被引用——三处或四处——在三处或四处。因此，如果你想要——我不知道。我认为无需明确表述，但我想你是说你希望明确表述。你是在这样告诉我吗？\n\nBALDIGA 律师：法官阁下，这与其说是我们的问题，不如说是债务人的问题。并且，如果——我们认为明确表述是适当的，因为据我们理解，该规则适用于非故意提供。至于我们今天作出的这项提供是否为非故意提供，我不知道，也不想就该点进行辩论，但我们——这不是我们的追回权，因此我不倾向于争辩。\n\n法官：我同意。我认为《联邦民事诉讼规则》规定了其所规定的内容。我不确定是否需要明确表述。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月17日 7\n\n但请继续，让我听听你的意见，然后我们可以看看目前的情况。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：好的。因此有三件事需要处理。第一，周四录入的裁定，案卷编号 962，从表面上看适用于申请后文件。或许是我的过错，我此前没有向本法院说明当事方之间已经讨论的情况，即我们的工作在案件开始前一两天就已启动。因此，相应地，几乎所有文件都是在申请后创建或交付给我们的。我想这取决于——关于提交申请当日本身总是有一个有趣的问题，即它是申请前、申请后，还是两者兼有。因此，我们再次经协议删除了“申请后”一词，因为我们将交付我们的全部文件。这将至少延及一些文件，数量极少，其在技术上属于申请前文件，因为它们是在提交申请前一天或当天、但在提交申请之前创建或交付给我们的。这更多是一个技术问题，但我们没有能力尝试区分申请前和申请后文件，而且我认为没有人相信这会是对任何人时间的良好利用。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1029 于 10/25/22 提交 于 10/25/22 21:25:45 登记 第 7 页，共 24 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1029 于 10/25/22 提交 于 10/25/22 21:25:45 登记 第 8 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月17日 8\n\n法官：好的。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：第二，关于我们已经处理过的追回问题，我没有更多要说的。第三，该拟议裁定包含案卷编号 962 的裁定所没有的内容，即只是——我认为再次作出一个相当简单的确认，这不是债务人或受托人所关切的问题，即——澄清本法院命令我们所做的事情，不会违反我们的法律或职业道德义务。我们认为，这一点一直是默示的。但由于如果该问题在未来数年出现，可能不在本法院，对于本法庭中我们认为或许属于默示的事项，我们认为最好明确表述。而且，再次说明，没有人对此有任何问题。显然，这使我们能够安心立即提供文件。因此，法官阁下，关于此事，Henzy 律师和我讨论过一个小问题，而且显然我们将会——我们并非意图让本裁定——嗯，我们意图让其取代先前裁定，但并非完全替代该裁定，不过我们乐意使其成为经修订并重述的裁定，并与各方及法院合作使其如此，并纳入编号 962 的其他未在此明确列出的规定。但让我先谈这个小问题。在第一项裁定性段落中——我不确定您是否正在看我们的裁定。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1029 于 10/25/22 提交 于 10/25/22 21:25:45 登记 第 9 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月17日 9\n\n法官：是的。我现在正拿着它。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：第一项裁定性段落写道，动议按下述内容获准。对该动议的异议。然后我会删除接下来的五个词。因此，删除“以及先前的执行动议”这些词。就是这样。然后我们准备使本裁定得以录入，再次说明，并附上法院认为适当的任何修改。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：谢谢。\n\n法官：Despins 律师？\n\nDESPINS 律师：早上好，法官阁下。我只需要与 Baldiga 律师核实一件事，但总体而言，我们同意这是协商一致的，而且这是我的合伙人看到删除最后这些词的裁定。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：不。那是今天早上才有的。\n\nDESPINS 律师：因此，我对此表示抱歉。我——\n\n法官：没关系。嗯，一旦我们——\n\nDESPINS 律师：会是非常、非常短暂的休庭。\n\n法官：——一旦我们听取每个人的意见，可能需要休庭一会儿。好吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1029 于 10/25/22 提交 于 10/25/22 21:25:45 登记 第 10 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月17日 10\n\nDESPINS 律师：好的。谢谢。\n\n法官：好的。Henzy 律师？\n\nHENZY 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。法官阁下，关于这完全是协商一致的，我不想——我不想让大家失望。我大概可以想出些事情，但我不会。Baldiga 律师是对的。对裁定作出那一项修改后，我们将不提出异议。至于这是否是——将会有一项新裁定还是——我想，我与 Baldiga 律师曾设想本裁定将是对法院裁定的补充，但是，您知道，我不反对作出一项合并裁定，将所有内容融合在一起。\n\n法官：你的当事人不反对法院命令文件的提供不会、且不得违反其对债务人所负的各项法律和职业道德义务？\n\nHENZY 律师：正确。\n\n法官：好的。那很好。那么我希望你们所有人做的是——谢谢。抱歉，Henzy 律师，你还有其他想说的吗？\n\nHENZY 律师：没有其他内容，法官阁下，没有。\n\n法官：Grossman 律师？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1029 于 10/25/22 提交 于 10/25/22 21:25:45 登记 第 11 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2022\n\n1　格罗斯曼律师：\n感谢您，法官阁下。\n\n2　我的当事人 Baker Hostetler（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）与 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）一样，是一家律师事务所，也收到了传票。\n\n3　与 Brown Rudnick 一样，Baker Hostetler 也担心其可能对债务人、其客户或前客户负有的义务。\n\n7　我们加入了 Brown Rudnick 于星期五提交的动议。\n\n8　我们昨天提交该文件，只是请求法院作出的任何命令同样适用于 Baker——\n\n10　法院：\n等一下，格罗斯曼律师。\n\n11　抱歉。如果那种情况正在发生，我们就听不见你。他们本应停止那件事，但我想他们没有。\n\n13　请稍等片刻，如果你不介意的话。\n\n14　（暂停）\n\n15　法院：\n好的。请继续。看看情况如何。\n\n16　不，这不行。\n\n17　（暂停）\n\n18　法院：\n嗯，我知道你的观点。让我先说，我不知道你的当事人何时收到传票。\n\n20　你的当事人何时收到传票？\n\n22　格罗斯曼律师：\n我相信是在 September 收到传票的。我们——\n\n24　法院：\n嗯，我们需要具体知道这一点，因为你的当事人必须像 Brown Rudnick 那样，根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》行使其权利和救济。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1029 提交于 10/25/22 登记于 10/25/22 21:25:45 第 12 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2022 12　就我目前所能看出的，你们尚未这样做；法院目前没有收到任何相关材料。我不知道传票何时送达。而且，本命令仅适用于 Verdolino & Lowey（维尔多利诺及洛伊律师事务所）和 Brown Rudnick。因此，我们不妨休庭，以便德斯平斯先生与其合伙人讨论对命令拟议作出的修改，然后你和他以及债务人可以讨论你们能够提出什么方案（如有）。但是，这明确限于 Verdolino & Lowey 和 Brown Rudnick，因此不会加入该动议。你们可能需要提交自己的文件。这件事已经持续相当长时间了。自 September 中旬、甚至月初以来，我认为巴尔迪加先生在每次听证会上都出席，并处理就已送达传票提出的这些问题。因此，我毫无头绪。据我所知，案卷中没有任何材料提交到我面前。而且，林赛先生，也许你能对此提供帮助。我不知道 Baker Hostetler 何时收到传票。但《联邦民事诉讼规则》适用，因此我们需要确保这些事项按照该等规则得到妥善处理。好吗？\n\n格罗斯曼律师：\n法官阁下，如果我告知法院，我的共同代理律师，即 Baker Hostetler 的合伙人，曾与受托人的律师交谈过，这会有所不同吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1029 提交于 10/25/22 登记于 10/25/22 21:25:45 第 13 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2022 13　法院：\n可能会。这就是为什么你需要与他们交谈，看看你能提出什么方案。好吗？\n\n格罗斯曼律师：\n明白。谢谢。\n\n法院：\n那么我们将短暂休庭。我大概会在 10:30 回来。希望届时施工会停止。\n\n（于 10:16 a.m. 休庭，至 10:37 a.m.）\n\n法院：\n请坐。好的。休庭后，我们恢复庭审记录。巴尔迪加先生，我知道你原本要与德斯平斯先生交谈——或者反过来——关于一个你不确定在今天上午之前是否已经处理妥当的问题，所以请继续。\n\n巴尔迪加律师：\n是。谢谢您，法官阁下。威廉·巴尔迪加。删除那五个词的措辞，受托人也同意。\n\n法院：\n债务人也同意吗？\n\n巴尔迪加律师：\n是。\n\n亨齐律师：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯律师：\n而且，法官阁下，基本上——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1029 提交于 10/25/22 登记于 10/25/22 21:25:45 第 14 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2022 14　卢克·德斯平斯，Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）。我们认为先前命令已经驳回了异议，但关键在于本命令无须明确这样说，因此我们同意删除。\n\n法院：\n嗯，我认为本命令将说明，这将是一项取代先前命令的同意命令，以免对两项不同命令产生混淆。而且，我希望各方在提交本命令时——已作出的命令，即 962，命令部分之前的前两段应当作为该命令的开头。好吗？我将做的是，巴尔迪加先生，我们将作出某种命令，准许你为协助遵守该命令而提出的紧急动议，然后命令将会说，你知道，命令——动议获准，修订后的同意命令，取代 ECF 962，将予以作出。好吗？\n\n亨齐律师：\n冒着引起麻烦的风险，债务人确实反对——\n\n法院：\n而且我们将让他们——我们将要求巴尔迪加先生确保他在这项新的同意命令中写明你们确实提出了反对。\n\n亨齐律师：\n因为如果这将取代现有的法院命令——\n\n法院：\n好的。那么，修订、修订或者修改呢？你希望如何表述其性质？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1029 提交于 10/25/22 登记于 10/25/22 21:25:45 第 15 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2022 15　亨齐律师：\n嗯，只是——它不会是一项同意命令，仅此而已。债务人并不反对作出巴尔迪加先生的命令，或者我姑且称之为巴尔迪加先生所请求的额外救济，但债务人确实反对作出法院已经作出的命令。\n\n法院：\n好的。不过，当我今天上午问你这个问题时，我想你说过你同意巴尔迪加先生所要求的措辞。\n\n亨齐律师：\n我是同意。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\n亨齐律师：\n但如果现在将有一项修订后的命令取代法院的命令——而且仅仅是——该命令是文件编号 962，那么它将成为，我想我会称之为，具有效力的命令；债务人并未同意作出 962。\n\n法院：\n我同意。如果你看我所说的，即加入先前命令的前两段——\n\n亨齐律师：\n是。\n\n法院：\n——第二段谈到了债务人的反对。\n\n亨齐律师：\n我明白，法官阁下。但如果这项命令将被称为同意命令，我认为这意味着债务人同意作出该命令，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1029 提交于 10/25/22 登记于 10/25/22 21:25:45 第 16 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2022 16　而且——如果这取代 962，债务人并未同意作出该命令。所以我——\n\n法院：\n但保留两项命令并不合理。\n\n亨齐律师：\n我同意您的看法，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么你的解决办法是什么？\n\n亨齐律师：\n如果您希望有一项修订后的命令，我认为修订后的命令没有问题，但它只是——不会是一项同意命令。\n\n法院：\n那么，对于你同意的措辞，即那一段，我希望其中写明所有各方均表示同意。\n\n法院：\n这没有问题。\n\n法院：\n好的。因为那必须写在这里。我并未作出任何裁决。\n\n亨齐律师：\n是。\n\n法院：\n你同意那一点。\n\n亨齐律师：\n对该措辞，是的。\n\n法院：\n是。\n\n亨齐律师：\n而且我们可以——\n\n法院：\n对于有关——Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino & Lowey——的措辞。\n\n亨齐律师：\n是。\n\n法院：\n——不论其具体怎么说。抱歉。\n\n亨齐律师：\n法官阁下，该措辞已获同意，是的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1029 提交于 10/25/22 登记于 10/25/22 21:25:45 第 17 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2022 17　法院：\n好的。那么这就是我希望你写明的内容。\n\n亨齐律师：\n明白。\n\n法院：\n然后将其作为修订后的命令。但除非且直至该措辞——该措辞已经由所有人在庭审记录中表明同意——被纳入，否则我不会作出修订后的命令。好吗？\n\n亨齐律师：\n明白。\n\n巴尔迪加律师：\n法官阁下，您刚才所述的一切，我认为我们可以处理——我将确保我们传阅某些文件，但我们将以此为基础于今日提交。\n\n法院：\n好的。因此，除 962 中的前两段外，我还希望在该命令中加入第三个命令段落，该段落要求债务人在案卷中提交现有的特权清单。你提交的那一份命令，巴尔迪加律师，并未包含其中任何内容。好吗？\n\n巴尔迪加律师：\n是。\n\n法院：\n然后让我确认一下。我认为你的命令——让我再三核对一下。也许其中确实有，只是我没有看到。我在你拟议的命令中没有看到有关债务人的条款，巴尔迪加律师——我认为受托人在其原始命令中请求了两项内容。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1029 提交于 10/25/22 登记于 10/25/22 21:25:45 第 18 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2022\n\n1　你的命令没有——受托人德斯平斯在 962 中请求的命令段落，即自下而上数第三个命令段落，\n\n3　其中写道，根据第 7 段，受托人或债务人均可行使请求裁决任何争议的权利。\n\n7　巴尔迪加律师：\n是。原因完全相同。我们原本并不打算让这取代该项内容。但既然我们现在知道它确实会——\n\n10　法院：\n是。\n\n11　巴尔迪加律师：\n——我们将把所有这些内容纳入。\n\n12　法院：\n好的。那必须纳入。\n\n13　此外，还有债务人的书面通知条款，如果他——这也是德斯平斯先生的措辞，自下而上数第四个命令段落，我认为略有修改，但任何债务人根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》26(b)(5)(B) 向 Chapter 11 Trustee 发出书面通知、并主张享有特权或受保护的文件——这是针对将来的，不是现有的，对吗——均应记载于向受托人提供并在本案案卷中提交的特权清单中，提交期限为债务人发出书面通知后两日内。那是德斯平斯先生的措辞。因此，那也必须纳入。\n\n25　巴尔迪加律师：\n我们会的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1029 提交于 10/25/22 登记于 10/25/22 21:25:45 第 19 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2022 19　法院：\n好的。好的。那么我们今天还需要完成什么？格罗斯曼律师？\n\n格罗斯曼律师：\n法官阁下，我是再次代表 Baker Hostetler 出庭的拉里·格罗斯曼。在休庭期间，我与债务人进行了协商，目前就 Baker Hostetler 尚未达成协议。我们不会坚持加入动议。我们将在本周提交一项动议以及一项加快举行听证会的动议，以促成我们与受托人达成协议。我们希望将获得所有各方的同意。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。德斯平斯先生，还有另一项延长时间的动议，由另一名收到传票的当事人提交；该动议于上周提交，称他们需要时间遵从传票。请稍等，我会告诉你是谁——抱歉，我手边没有该文件。在 13th，有一项由 Hing Chi Ngok（兴志岳）利害关系方提交的延长答复传票期限的动议，我不会正确读出该姓名，对此我表示歉意；该利害关系方由 Evan Goldstein（埃文·戈尔茨坦）代理。林赛先生，你知道——你熟悉该动议吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1029 提交于 10/25/22 登记于 10/25/22 21:25:45 第 20 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月17日 20\n\nLINSEY先生（林齐先生）：我了解该事项，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。您是否将要——您是否将要——\n\nLINSEY先生：总体而言，是的。\n\n法庭：如果您要提出反对，我需要您在本周末前以书面形式提出反对。好吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：我们会这样做。而且，我们确实打算就该动议提交书面答复，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么，我将命令您在周五之前完成。\n\nLINSEY先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好吗？因此，我今天晚些时候会处理此事，即将会录入某项命令，要求受托人须在周五前，即我认为的21日之前，对该动议提交答复。\n\nLINSEY先生：明白。并且，为使您了解，涉案的证据开示当事人是债务人的妻子。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。谢谢。好。今天我们还有其他需要审查的事项吗？\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：仅为记录在案，Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，只是一项事务性事项。我在听证会前向Henzy先生提到过。我们将提交一项动议，寻求与判决前救济有关的初步禁令。\n\n案件22-50073，文件1029，2022年10月25日提交，2022年10月25日21:25:45录入，第21页，共24页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月17日 21\n\nDESPINS先生：——并请求同时审理。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：这不会改变任何事项，只是存在一个——法官阁下知道这一点，但我——对人管辖权与对物管辖权之间的区别在于，就判决前救济而言，您可以扣押位于Connecticut（康涅狄格州）或——的资产；但我们还需要对例如女儿取得对人救济，如果法官阁下准予，因为她可能在其他地方拥有资产。因此，这纯粹是——它完全不改变听证会，实际上只是初步禁令的标准对我们而言可能比判决前救济更高，但我们想让您知道我们将这样做。我不知道是否——我不想限制Henzy先生。我在听证会前提到，如果我们需要提交一项缩短期限的动议，但日程相同，听证会相同，一切都相同——只是从技术上说，这是一种不同类型的救济，即对人而非对物。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：为记录在案，我不同意这不会改变所寻求的救济。它确实改变了所寻求的救济。\n\n法庭：我认为他不是这么说的，但是——\n\n案件22-50073，文件1029，2022年10月25日提交，2022年10月25日21:25:45录入，第22页，共24页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月17日 22\n\n我理解您为何这么说。我认为他说的是这不会改变日程安排。我认为他是这么说的。\n\nHENZY先生：嗯，我认为这——\n\n法庭：但只有在他提交动议并且该动议被安排在同一时间审理的情况下，日程安排才不会改变。\n\nHENZY先生：我认为这是对的。\n\n法庭：是的。\n\nHENZY先生：但我认为——\n\n法庭：我理解。\n\nHENZY先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我理解您的观点。\n\nHENZY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：毫无疑问，如果除判决前救济外还寻求临时限制令，适用的是不同的标准——\n\nHENZY先生：是。\n\n法庭：——除判决前救济外。\n\nHENZY先生：而且我认为，正如Despins先生似乎认识到的那样，这也可能使得在该动议提交前尚未涉及的资产被纳入考量。因此，那只是额外救济。\n\n法庭：那么，待其提交后，我们再看会发生什么——\n\nHENZY先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n案件22-50073，文件1029，2022年10月25日提交，2022年10月25日21:25:45录入，第23页，共24页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月17日\n\n1　法庭：\n——然后我们再据此处理。\n\n2　HENZY先生：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n3　法庭：\n好吗？\n\n4　HENZY先生：\n谢谢。\n\n5　法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n6　DESPINS先生：\n因此，我们需要就该听证会提交一项加速审理动议吗？\n\n8　法庭：\n我会让各位讨论此事——\n\n9　DESPINS先生：\n好的。\n\n10　法庭：\n——但在我看来，Henzy律师会表示同意。\n\n12　DESPINS先生：\n好的。\n\n13　HENZY先生：\n是。\n\n14　DESPINS先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n15　法庭：\n好。今天我们还有其他需要处理的事项吗？\n\n17　好。我确实感谢各方在周末期间处理这些问题。我也理解关于其并非同意裁定的问题。只要Baldiga先生（巴尔迪加先生）曾谈到、且我们在听证会上也曾广泛讨论过的那项条款——我实际上在今天之前又回去听了一遍——明确说明该事项系经同意即可。好吗？\n\n25　BALDIGA先生：\n明白，法官阁下。\n\n案件22-50073，文件1029，2022年10月25日提交，2022年10月25日21:25:45录入，第24页，共24页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月17日\n\n1　法庭：\n好。那么，在收到修订后的拟议裁定后，我们将予以审阅，并将在此后不久录入该裁定。\n\n4　BALDIGA先生：\n谢谢。\n\n5　身份不明者：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n6　法庭：\n好。今日日程中仅有此项事项，现休庭。\n\n8　（庭审于上午10:49休庭。）\n\n9　本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭记录员兼文字记录员，特此证明，上述内容系对上述案件庭审官方电子录音的正确文字记录。\n\n15　October 25, 2022\n\n16　Christine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Luc Despins","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":962,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":5369,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-10-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-10-25","updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:42:58"}