{"id":"court_ctb_1063_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1063,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-11-02","title":"EXHIBIT B UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\*","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **EXHIBIT B**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 2 of\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* August 30, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF ORDER SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE; MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING REPAIR RESERVE FOR LADY MAY; MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING; MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL ESTABLISHING REPAIR RESERVE FOR THE LADY MAY; MOTION TO STAY SECS.523/727 ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS; MOTION FOR ORDER PROVIDING THAT CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES PASSED TO TRUSTEE UPON APPOINT AND FOR RELATED RELIEF BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, STEPHEN M. KINDSETH. ESQ. HK International and AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Mei Guo: ERIC HENZY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992** 11\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 3 of 11\n\n> APPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Counsel for the NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Chapter 11 Trustee: Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For Verdolino & Lowey: WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Brown Rudnick Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\n2\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1063-2<br>Filed 11/02/22<br>Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32<br>Page 4 of<br>11 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>104                                                          |\n| 1  | are limiting that.                                                                            |\n| 2  | If you look at the request for release section of                                             |\n| 3  | our motion, which we cited again in our reply, we're looking                                  |\n| 4  | specifically for assets of the estate, his financial                                          |\n| 5  | condition and matters relating to administration.                                             |\n| 6  | The debtor identifies his concerns about                                                      |\n| 7  | potentially privileged documents related to criminal issues                                   |\n| 8  | such as allegations of rape and false imprisonment and other                                  |\n| 9  | things that have been made against him as well as his asylum                                  |\n| 10 | application.<br>We are not, in our investigation at this time,                                |\n| 11 | seeking any documents related to those issues.                                                |\n| 12 | Again, we're focused on assets and an                                                         |\n| 13 | investigation that hopefully be used to augment this estate.                                  |\n| 14 | Second, Your Honor, we're not asking for a waiver                                             |\n| 15 | or any control over privileges that belong to other parties.                                  |\n| 16 | And, in fact, I don't know how one could even read our                                        |\n| 17 | motion to be requesting that relief.                                                          |\n| 18 | We are, to be clear, seeking a determination that                                             |\n| 19 | the trustee has succeeded to any privileges that the debtor                                   |\n| 20 | holds with other parties in terms of a common interest or a                                   |\n| 21 | joint defense privilege.<br>And we cite case law for that in                                  |\n| 22 | our motion.<br>And I don't think that's contested, frankly.                                   |\n| 23 | But what we're not seeking, what the debtor seems                                             |\n| 24 | to suggest we are seeking, but we're not, is an order from                                    |\n| 25 | the Court that the trustee now controls any privilege that                                    |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 5 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 107 that very specifically seek documents related to assets of the estate, other transactional matters involving the debtor prior to the bankruptcy, and other things that simply do not implicate the types of concerns regarding criminal liability, et cetera, that this debtor is worried about. So there's nothing in the approach that the *Foster* case was concerned about that we're trying to ask the Court to do here. And frankly, if you look at other cases, there are plenty of other cases that have issued the type of order that we're asking this court to issue, including one of the cases we cite is the *In re Tarkington* case from the Eastern District of North Carolina in 2010. There, there was an investigation into potential estate assets. The trustee wanted to depose an attorney who represented the debtor prior to the bankruptcy, and what the Court ended up doing was, all right, I'm going to let the deposition go forward, here is what I consider to be within the scope of the privilege. All of the privilege related to assets of the estate, et cetera, has passed to the trustee. Anything that could go under criminal liability or those things could still be covered by a privilege. So you can go take the deposition, and counsel to the debtor can interpose objections consistent with that,\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 110 These are cases where the issue was the trustee was trying to investigate assets of the estate that would potentially relate in, you know, augmenting the estate, of the value of those assets. And what the courts held in those cases is that this is a situation where the debtor would benefit from that. These are -- when the debtor's estate is augmented by additional -- the location of causes of action or the identification of other assets he benefits. He's not harmed by that. So, you know, the debtor contends, well, as I said before, there's a concern that, you know, it's possible documents that the trustee is seeking to have access to could involve potential criminal liability, whether it's the rape allegations that he mentioned, false imprisonment, or completely unrelated issues like his asylum application, but, again, as I said before, we're not seeking to get those documents through our discovery requests. The debtor has identified one request in our subpoena directed to the debtor's former law firms and professionals, Request 17, that asks for information about legal disputes which could be read to include criminal actions against him, to the extent there are any, or his asylum application, we're willing to make clear on the Case 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 6 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 7 of\n\n|    | 11                                                           |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>111                         |\n| 1  | record that we're not seeking to get that type of            |\n| 2  | information and we'll limit that request accordingly.        |\n| 3  | I mean, the only plausible scenario where the                |\n| 4  | debtor could say that he has a document that is responsive   |\n| 5  | to our subpoena, but also could result in harm to him, is    |\n| 6  | that there's some document that relates to his assets,       |\n| 7  | relates to the topics that we're seeking to explore, and     |\n| 8  | also somehow implicates his criminal liability.              |\n| 9  | But the debtor has not even offered one hint of              |\n| 10 | what that could be.<br>He's come forward with nothing to     |\n| 11 | suggest other than, as he said in his opposition,            |\n| 12 | allegations of false imprisonment and the like.              |\n| 13 | There is no reason to believe that he's given of             |\n| 14 | that we have that I could even imagine as to why the         |\n| 15 | documents we're seeking related to, for example, his         |\n| 16 | interest in the New York condominium, the Lady May, to all   |\n| 17 | the other private jets and things like that that he's talked |\n| 18 | about, there's no conceivable scenario where those documents |\n| 19 | would relate to these types of issues.                       |\n| 20 | So this idea that the balancing test would weigh             |\n| 21 | in favor of not passing control over of these privileges to  |\n| 22 | the estate is just -- I think there's no weight to that.     |\n| 23 | The debtor also raises, Your Honor, the non                  |\n| 24 | dischargeability actions that have been filed against him.   |\n| 25 | And he says that while there's a concern there I could be    |\n|    |                                                              |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1063-2<br>Filed 11/02/22<br>Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32<br>Page 8 of<br>11 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>113                                                          |\n| 1  | all.<br>So there's just no legitimate concern at all that                                     |\n| 2  | somehow we're going to get information related to these                                       |\n| 3  | actions.                                                                                      |\n| 4  | And by the way, we're not going to share the                                                  |\n| 5  | documents we get with the plaintiffs to those actions, so                                     |\n| 6  | this idea of a concern on the 523 actions, again, I think is                                  |\n| 7  | just -- it's really nonexistent.                                                              |\n| 8  | A couple -- a couple more points, Your Honor,                                                 |\n| 9  | before I wrap up.<br>At least on my opening remarks.                                          |\n| 10 | The debtor in his objection, although he initially                                            |\n| 11 | says the Court shouldn't issue any ruling here, he says,                                      |\n| 12 | well, if the Court does, it could issue certain guidance.                                     |\n| 13 | And the way I think the debtor frames that                                                    |\n| 14 | guidance is to say that the Court could direct the                                            |\n| 15 | recipients -- and this is in paragraph 33 of the objection -                                  |\n| 16 | - the Court could direct the recipients of the subpoenas to                                   |\n| 17 | withhold documents on the basis of privilege, quote, \"Only                                    |\n| 18 | documents that they believe potentially implicate harm to                                     |\n| 19 | the debtor such as criminal allegations, facts relating to                                    |\n| 20 | non-dischargeability, or facts that have nothing to do with                                   |\n| 21 | the debtor's estate, such as his pending asylum application.                                  |\n| 22 | Now, some of that actually sounds consistent with                                             |\n| 23 | the remarks I've given today, but I think it also highlights                                  |\n| 24 | sort of what we're also worried about and the mischief that                                   |\n| 25 | could result if an order specific to that language is                                         |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1063-2<br>Filed 11/02/22<br>Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32<br>Page 9 of<br>11 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>137                                                          |\n| 1  | questions.<br>Thank you.                                                                      |\n| 2  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                         |\n| 3  | MR. BASSETT:<br>Your Honor, just briefly in                                                   |\n| 4  | response.<br>I think I might stay here this time if that's                                    |\n| 5  | okay.                                                                                         |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>That's fine.                                                                    |\n| 7  | MR. BASSETT:<br>So Mr. Romney, in addressing our                                              |\n| 8  | proposed changes to the language, I think his position was                                    |\n| 9  | that, well, we're still not providing for the application of                                  |\n| 10 | a balancing test because if what we're saying is that                                         |\n| 11 | privileges related to the debtor's assets, financial                                          |\n| 12 | condition, or the administration of his estate, pass to the                                   |\n| 13 | trustee, it doesn't account for the possibility that there's                                  |\n| 14 | some other personal, individual interest, criminality or                                      |\n| 15 | otherwise that the debtor might have.                                                         |\n| 16 | And I think the fallacy in that logic is that                                                 |\n| 17 | there is no basis that's been provided as to why documents                                    |\n| 18 | would relate to assets, financial condition, or the                                           |\n| 19 | administration of the estate, would have anything to do with                                  |\n| 20 | the debtor's asylum application, with criminal allegations                                    |\n| 21 | that are made against -- that have been made against him for                                  |\n| 22 | rape or false imprisonment.                                                                   |\n| 23 | I mean, if the debtor's concern is that there                                                 |\n| 24 | could be hypothetically a document where the debtor was                                       |\n| 25 | having a conversation with his counsel about both false                                       |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 10 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 139 unrelated criminal liability or, you know, the particular things, again, that he's mentioned, his asylum application, things like that, in his objection, I think we could work out language to put in the proposed order to again make clear that we're not seeking that. I think there are other tweaks we would need, including to reserve our right to the extent of any withheld documents that we think might be relevant to the trustee's investigation on a crime-fraud exception to the attorney- client privilege, for example, but I do think there is a way to work out some language that could address some of the debtor's concerns. But, again, it cannot be a situation where the debtor gets to decide when he's harmed by the disclosure of a document because that is an open invitation for him to just withhold documents that he doesn't want us to see. Thank you, Your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you.\n\n MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Yes.\n\n MR. ROMNEY: Very, very briefly. I've already said creating a privilege log is not deciding.\n\n But I do want to make one perhaps significant clarification, which is, these order -- the proposed order\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 150 MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is there anything else that we can address today in the case? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. This was the last matter on today's calendar, so we will see you next Tuesday at 1:00 p.m., and court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 4:29 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above- entitled matter. 16 September 10, 2022 17 Christine Fiore, CERT Transcriber Case 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 11 of","body_zh":"附件 B\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 2 of\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n关于\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n债务人。\n案号：Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n2022年8月30日\n排定状况通报会裁定的笔录；为 Lady May（五月夫人号）设立维修准备金的动议；加快听证的动议；待决上诉期间中止设立 Lady May 维修准备金的动议；中止第 523/727 条对抗性诉讼程序的动议；关于规定特权控制权在受托人获任命时转移至受托人及相关救济的命令动议\n主审法官：\nTHE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁阁下）\n美国破产法院法官\n出庭人员：\n代表债务人、HK International（香港国际）及 Mei Guo（美国）：\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞斯律师）\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·罗姆尼律师）\nERIC HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·亨齐律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）：\nLAURA ARONSSON, ESQ.（劳拉·阿伦森律师）\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\nPATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·伯尼律师）\nRobinson & Cole\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录，笔录由转录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992 11\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 3 of 11\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·高德曼律师）\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n代表美国联邦受托人：\nHOLLEY CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·克莱本律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国联邦受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n第 11 章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·A·德斯平斯律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n第 11 章受托人的法律顾问：\nNICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·巴塞特律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林西律师）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n代表 Verdolino & Lowey：\nWILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.（威廉·巴尔迪加律师）\nBrown Rudnick\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1063-2\nFiled 11/02/22\nEntered 11/02/22 20:38:32\nPage 4 of\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日\n\n1 正在对此予以限制。\n2 如果您查看我们动议中的请求救济部分，\n3 我们在答复意见中也再次引用了该部分，我们具体寻求调查\n4 破产财产的资产、他的财务\n5 状况以及与破产财产管理有关的事项。\n6 债务人指出了他的担忧，即\n7 可能涉及与刑事问题相关的特权文件，\n8 例如针对他提出的强奸和非法拘禁等指控\n9 以及其他事项，还有他的庇护\n10 申请。\n在我们目前的调查中，我们\n11 并未寻求与这些问题相关的任何文件。\n12 再次重申，我们的重点是资产以及有望\n13 用于增加这处破产财产的调查。\n14 其次，法官阁下，我们并未请求放弃\n15 或对属于其他当事方的特权进行任何控制。\n16 事实上，我不知道怎么会有人将我们的动议\n17 解读为是在请求此类救济。\n18 明确地说，我们所寻求的是一项裁定，即\n19 受托人已承继债务人\n20 基于共同利益或共同抗辩特权而与其他当事方共同享有的任何特权。\n21 我们在动议中为此引用了判例法。\n22 坦率地说，我认为这一点是不存在争议的。\n23 但我们所不寻求的，也是债务人似乎\n24 示意我们正在寻求但我们并未寻求的，是法院作出的一项命令，\n25 判定受托人现在控制着任何\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 5 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日 107 其非常明确地要求索取与破产财产资产、破产前涉及债务人的其他交易事项以及根本不涉及本债务人所担心的刑事责任等关切事项的文件。因此，我们在 Foster（福斯特）案所担忧的做法中，并没有任何试图要求法院在此采取的行动。坦率地说，如果您看其他案件，有大量其他案件都签发了我们请求本法院签发的那类命令，包括我们引用的案件之一，即 2010 年 Eastern District of North Carolina（北卡罗来纳东区）的 In re Tarkington 案。在该案中，存在一项针对潜在破产财产资产的调查。受托人希望对一名在破产前代表债务人的律师进行证据开示采证，法院最终的处理方式是：好吧，我将准许采证程序继续进行，以下是我认为属于特权范围内的内容。与破产财产资产相关的所有特权等，均已转移给受托人。任何可能归入刑事责任或此类事项的内容仍可受特权保护。因此你可以去进行采证，债务人的律师可以提出符合该原则的异议，\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日 110 这些都是受托人试图调查破产财产资产的案件，这些资产可能与增加破产财产、提升这些资产的价值有关。法院在这些案件中的裁定是，这属于债务人将从中受益的情形。在这些——当债务人的破产财产因追加——诉由的发现或其他资产的确定而增加时，他是受益的。他并没有因此受到损害。所以，债务人主张，正如我之前所说，存在一种担忧，即受托人寻求获取的文件可能会涉及潜在的刑事责任，无论这指他提到的强奸指控、非法拘禁，还是像他的庇护申请这样完全无关的问题，但是，正如我之前所说，我们并没有通过我们的证据开示请求来寻求获取这些文件。债务人在我们向债务人前律师事务所及专业人员发出的传票中指出了一个请求项，即第 17 项请求，该项要求提供有关法律纠纷的信息，这可能会被解读为包括针对他的刑事诉讼（若有的话）或他的庇护申请，我们愿意在 Case 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 6 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 7 of\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日\n\n1 记录中明确，我们并未寻求获取该类\n2 信息，并且我们将据此限制该请求项。\n3 我的意思是，债务人能够主张自己持有一份既符合\n4 我们传票要求、但又可能对他造成损害的文件的唯一合理情境，\n5 就是存在某份既与他的资产有关、\n6 与我们寻求探索的主题有关，\n7 同时又以某种方式牵涉到他的刑事责任的文件。\n8 但是债务人甚至连这可能是什么的一丝线索都没有提供。\n9 他除了像在反对意见中所说的那样提及非法拘禁指控\n10 及类似事项之外，\n11 没有提出任何依据。\n12 没有任何理由相信，他给出的理由中，\n13 或者我们掌握的、甚至我所能想象的理由中，能说明为什么\n14 我们寻求的与诸如他在纽约公寓的权益、Lady May、\n15 以及他所谈到的所有其他私人飞机和类似物品相关的文件，\n16 没有任何可以想见的情境会使这些文件\n17 与这些类型的问题发生关联。\n18 因此，这种认为权衡测试会倾向于不将这些特权的控制权\n19 移交给破产财产的观点，简直是——我认为毫无依据。\n20 债务人还提出了，法官阁下，针对他提起的不可免责\n21 之诉。\n22 他说，虽然存在这种担忧，即我可能会\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1063-2\nFiled 11/02/22\nEntered 11/02/22 20:38:32\nPage 8 of\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日\n\n1 受到影响。因此，根本就不存在任何合理的担忧，认为\n2 我们会以某种方式获取与这些诉讼相关的信息。\n3 顺便说一句，我们不会将获取的文件\n4 分享给这些诉讼的原告，因此\n5 对第 523 条诉讼存在担忧的这种想法，再次重申，我认为\n6 简直就是——完全不存在的。\n7 还有几点——还有几个要点，法官阁下，\n8 在我结束发言之前。至少是结束我的开场陈述。\n9 债务人在其反对意见中，尽管他最初\n10 表示法院在此不应作出任何裁定，但他表示，\n11 如果法院要裁定，可以发布某些指引。\n12 我认为债务人构想该指引的方式是\n13 称法院可以指示传票的接收方——这在反对意见的第 33 段中——\n14 法院可以指示传票的接收方\n15 基于特权扣留文件，引述如下：“仅限\n16 他们认为可能对债务人造成损害的文件，\n17 例如刑事指控、与不可免责性相关的事实，\n18 或与债务人破产财产无关的事实，\n19 例如他未决的庇护申请。”\n20 虽说其中的某些内容实际上听起来与我今天的陈述一致，\n21 但我认为这也凸显了我们同样担忧的问题，以及如果针对该措辞\n22 出台特定命令可能导致的流弊\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1063-2\nFiled 11/02/22\nEntered 11/02/22 20:38:32\nPage 9 of\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日\n\n1 问题。谢谢。\n2 ROMNEY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n3 BASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我只简短地\n4 作出回应。如果可以的话，我想这次我就站在这里。\n5 法庭：可以。\n6 BASSETT 先生：关于 Romney 先生在谈到我们对措辞的\n7 修改建议时，我认为他的立场是，\n8 我们仍然没有规定适用\n9 权衡测试，因为如果我们主张的是\n10 与债务人的资产、财务状况或其破产财产管理相关的特权\n11 转移给受托人，\n12 这并没有考虑到债务人可能拥有的某些其他个人、单独利益、\n13 刑事责任或其他权益的可能性。\n14 我认为该逻辑的谬误在于，\n15 没有任何依据表明为什么与资产、财务状况或\n16 破产财产管理相关的文件，\n17 会与债务人的庇护申请、\n18 与针对他提出的——针对他提出的\n19 强奸或非法拘禁的刑事指控产生任何关系。\n20 我的意思是，如果债务人的担忧是，\n21 假设可能存在一份债务人与其法律顾问就非法拘禁等事项进行交谈的\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 10 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日 139 无关刑事责任，或者他在反对意见中再次提到的特定事项、他的庇护申请等类似事项的文件，我认为我们可以在拟议命令中拟定措辞，再次明确我们并未寻求获取这些内容。我认为我们还需要进行其他调整，包括保留我们的权利，在扣留的文件中如果存在我们认为可能与受托人基于律师-委托人特权的犯罪-欺诈例外调查相关的文件时予以主张，但我确实认为有一种方法可以拟定出能够解决债务人部分担忧的措辞。但是，再次强调，绝不能出现由债务人自行决定何时因披露文件而受到损害的情况，因为这等同于公开允许他直接扣留他不想让我们看到的文件。谢谢法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nROMNEY 先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n法庭：可以。\n\nROMNEY 先生：非常、非常简短地说一句。我已经说过，制作特权清单并不是做决定。\n\n但我确实想做一个可能很重要的澄清，那就是，这些命令——拟议裁定\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 150 BASSETT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。 法庭：今天在本案中我们还有其他事项需要处理吗？ （无回应） 法庭：好的。这是今天日程上的最后一项事项，因此我们下周二下午 1:00 p.m. 再见，休庭。 （诉讼程序于下午 4:29 p.m. 结束） 我，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），法院认可的转录员兼认证电子记录员与转录员，特此证明上述内容是上述标军事宜诉讼程序官方电子录音的正确记录转录本。 16 September 10, 2022 17 Christine Fiore, CERT Transcriber Case 22-50073 Doc 1063-2 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 20:38:32 Page 11 of","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Paul Hastings","Guo","Despins"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2542,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-11-02 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-11-02","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:25:27"}