{"id":"court_ctb_1080_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1080,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2022-11-10","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 1080 Filed 11/10/22 Entered 11/10/22 09:29:27 Page 1 of 11\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* October 27, 2022 \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO QUASH BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, 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 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For Williams & Connolly, JAMES J. HEALY, ESQ. Interested Party: Cowdery & Murphy, LLC 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 ERICA S. SIMPSON, ESQ. Williams & Connolly, LLP 680 Maine Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20024 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**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1080 Filed 11/10/22 Entered 11/10/22 09:29:27 Page 2 of 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 27, 2022 2 (Proceedings commenced at 2:04 p.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 afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, Connecticut counsel for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. HEALY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Healy, from Cowdery and Murphy, appearing on behalf of Williams and Connelly. I note that Erica Simpson, of Williams and Connelly, who was with us in the hearing room this week, is also with us today. THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. I see you both, Attorney Healy and Simpson. Good afternoon. MR. HEALY: Good afternoon. THE COURT: Attorney Smith? MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca and Smith, of Robinson and Cole, on behalf of PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. On the calendar today is the continued\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 27, 2022 3 hearing on the motion to quash filed on behalf of Williams and Connelly. And I was alerted to the fact that something was filed on the docket a few minutes ago, a proposed order with regard to the motion. I haven't really had an opportunity to look at it. So I'm not sure if this is an order on consent or where things stand as of this afternoon. So I don't know, Attorney Linsey or Mr. Despins. Do you want to provide the court with an update as to where things stand? MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. And I apologize. I realized it apparently looks like I'm in the witness protection right now. On the other hand, I don't think I got here for my looks, so hopefully Your Honor will just bear with me. Anyway we did, I think it's fair to say, reach a resolution, a form of order that everyone is comfortable with resolving Williams and Connolly's motion to quash and the Chapter 11 Trustee's cross motion to compel. And if Your Honor would like I can sort of briefly take you through that order. THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. LINSEY: Sure. Case 22-50073 Doc 1080 Filed 11/10/22 Entered 11/10/22 09:29:27 Page 3 of 11\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1080 Filed 11/10/22 Entered 11/10/22 09:29:27 Page 4 of 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 27, 2022 4 So the first thing I'll say is that this order is meant to sort of harmonize what our -- Williams and Connolly's obligations with respect to the subpoena with the concern that Williams and Connolly has, and they can correct me if they think I'm misstating anything, in permitting the individual debtor time to review an assert any privilege that it has under the consent privilege order. So this creates a -- what we're calling a (indiscernible) new procedure where documents that Williams and Connolly believes may be responsive to the subpoena are provided to the individual debtor, by the individual debtor's bankruptcy counsel, Zeisler and Zeisler. That triggers a ten-day period. Ten days, obviously, is the period that's just under the consent privilege order. During that ten-day period, the individual debtor may log anything that the individual debtor believes in good faith is subject to a privilege that the individual debtor retains. And that's more specifically discussed, as Your Honor knows, in that consent order. Also during that time, Williams and Connelly will be conducting a review to ensure that the document that is being reviewed is responsive and removing non-responsive documents from the document set. Upon the conclusion of the ten-day review period, if the individual debtor has logged documents to assert a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1080 Filed 11/10/22 Entered 11/10/22 09:29:27 Page 5 of 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 27, 2022 5 privilege under the privilege -- consent privilege order, then Williams and Connelly will withhold those documents pending further order of the court. And, again, that process plays out under the consent privilege order. If they're non-responsive documents, Williams and Connelly will withhold those as well. All the documents that Williams and Connelly is transmitting to the individual debtor are going to be Bate stamped. So the trustee will be made aware of any documents that Williams and Connelly is then retaining after those are transmitted to the individual debtor. But those that Williams and Connelly has not withheld on responsiveness grounds, and those as to which the individual debtor has not logged and asserted a privilege under the consent privilege order will be immediately turned over to the Chapter 11 trustee. And then there are the provisions that -- similar to those that we had in the other orders governing production by the individual debtor's former counsel stating that nothing in the order prejudices the parties' rights under the consent privilege order and that the individual debtor and all parties will retain their rights under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and citing that specific subpart of 26 that deals with inadvertent disclosure. So unless Williams and Connelly has anything to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1080 Filed 11/10/22 Entered 11/10/22 09:29:27 Page 6 of 11\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 27, 2022<br>6                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | add, I think that that's a fair summary of the order. I       |\n| 2  | appreciate counsel from Williams and Connelly working on      |\n| 3  | this with counsel for the trustee on an expedited basis and   |\n| 4  | to the extent Your Honor is comfortable with it, it's an      |\n| 5  | order that both Williams and Connelly and the trustee are     |\n| 6  | comfortable with.                                             |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you very much.                   |\n| 8  | MR. HEALY:<br>And, Your Honor --                              |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Attorney Healy, go right ahead.                 |\n| 10 | MR. HEALY:<br>My apologies, Your Honor. I did not             |\n| 11 | mean to interrupt.                                            |\n| 12 | I just wanted to make sure the record is clear                |\n| 13 | that Williams and Connelly consents to this order as          |\n| 14 | resolving the motion to quash. I just wanted to make sure     |\n| 15 | the record was clear about that. Thank you.                   |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I would like you both to                  |\n| 17 | resubmit the order and call it a consent order, because       |\n| 18 | that's what it is, right?<br>It's a consent order.<br>It's an |\n| 19 | order on consent.                                             |\n| 20 | So it will be a proposed consent order.<br>And for            |\n| 21 | some reason, Mr. Linsey, I don't know why -- it's probably    |\n| 22 | just a glitch, but I think just submit it in Word format      |\n| 23 | because the margins didn't print out right or something       |\n| 24 | during it being a pdf.<br>And you can submit it to the        |\n| 25 | courtroom deputy email box.<br>You don't need to docket it on |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 27, 2022 7 the docket again. Okay? But what I propose -- MR. LINSEY: I apologize, Your Honor. We'll do that. THE COURT: What I propose is at the end of the first paragraph -- again, the title will be the proposed consent order, and then at the end of the first paragraph, before the first ordered paragraph, it would say, \"And in a supplemental remote hearing held on Thursday, October 27, 2022 and on consent of the parties, this court hereby orders.\" Okay? Something just as simple as that so that it's clear that it was on the consent of the parties. I've looked at it briefly, now that Attorney Linsey spoke of it, and I see that it is a resolution of how the process will take place, as far as the turnover of documents to Zeisler and Zeisler and the trustee at different points and the preparation of an individual debtor's log, if that's what the debtor decides to do. I do appreciate the parties working together to accomplish this. It's necessary under the circumstances of the case to make sure that it's clear how each production will occur. And so with regard to Williams and Connelly, there is now going to be a consent order with regard to the process of the compliance with the subpoena. I'm looking at it again. As I said, I didn't study Case 22-50073 Doc 1080 Filed 11/10/22 Entered 11/10/22 09:29:27 Page 7 of 11\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1080 Filed 11/10/22 Entered 11/10/22 09:29:27 Page 8 of 11\n\n| Ho Wan Kwok - October 27, 2022<br>8                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| every line but I think it's fair to say that it's somewhat  |\n| similar to other consent orders that have been entered with |\n| regard to subpoenas served on the debtor's former counsel.  |\n| Do you think that's an accurate statement, Mr.              |\n| Despins and Attorney Linsey?                                |\n| MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                            |\n| THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>And then I agree that -- and         |\n| Attorney Healy, if you want to even put in the first        |\n| paragraph that this is a resolution of the motion to quash, |\n| if you want to specifically say that, I'm fine with that    |\n| too.<br>You and Attorney Linsey can work that out.          |\n| But I specifically want to make it clear that it            |\n| is a consent order --                                       |\n| MR. HEALY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| THE COURT:<br>But I want to make it clear that it is        |\n| a consent order and that the parties consent to the ordered |\n| paragraphs contained in the order. Okay?                    |\n| MR. LINSEY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                       |\n| MR. HEALY:<br>Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.                   |\n| THE COURT:<br>Again, I do appreciate the parties            |\n| working through the issues.<br>As I said on Tuesday, the    |\n| trustee does need to be able to continue with a meaningful  |\n| investigation in this case and this should at least help    |\n| those efforts, which is what discovery is supposed to do.   |\n| So I do appreciate the parties coming together and          |\n|                                                             |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 27, 2022 9 resolving these issues. Is there anything else we need to address this afternoon in this matter? MR. HEALY: Not from out perspective, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Hearing nothing -- MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Despins. MR. DESPINS: -- not with respect to this matter, but with respect to the case, just a couple of housekeeping matters. The first is that you will recall that we had filed a motion for contempt regarding these (indiscernible) and we had filed a motion to expedite the hearing on that. And you had entered an order saying I will not decide that in expedition until I see the response. The response was filed I guess two days ago. And basically it's a response that doesn't contain a sworn -- attach a sworn declaration from anyone so that he doesn't own it. He doesn't say who owns it. Obviously, he knows who owns it in theory. He doesn't say that. It doesn't say that. So we would request that Your Honor enters an order scheduling the hearing on this matter -- on the contempt matter with respect to Ace Decade.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1080 Filed 11/10/22 Entered 11/10/22 09:29:27 Page 9 of 11\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1080 Filed 11/10/22 Entered 11/10/22 09:29:27 Page 10 of 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 27, 2022 10 THE COURT: And do you have a suggestion about a hearing date, understanding that the debtor's not participating in this conference today and -- in any event, what's your suggestion, if you have one? MR. DESPINS: Well, it would the week of the 14th of November. THE COURT: Okay. I understand. I have -- I know that the response has been filed. I would say that I've read it but I haven't studied it and I did say that I would rule on the motion to expedite once the response was filed, and it was filed -- it was timely filed. So I will rule in short order on the motion to expedite the hearing. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Are there any other matters, Trustee Despins? You said you thought -- I thought you said -- MR. DESPINS: Yes, there was but, frankly, I did not realize that debtor's counsel wasn't on the line so there's a forthcoming motion to compel production, but I don't think it's right to go through that, given that they're not on the call. So we'll have to be deal with that separately. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1080 Filed 11/10/22 Entered 11/10/22 09:29:27 Page 11 of 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 27, 2022 11 Anything further from anyone else this afternoon? MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, all and thank you, again, for your efforts in resolving the motion to quash. Attorney Linsey, as I said, I know Attorney Healy may want to add one or two words as well, but you can submit -- you don't need to file the revisions on the docket. You could just submit it to the courtroom deputy, Bridgeport Courtroom Deputy email box. And as soon as that's done, it will be brought to my attention and we'll get that order entered. Okay? MR. LINSEY: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, all. MR. HEALY: Thank you. This is the last matter on the calendar today, so court is adjourned. (Proceeding concluded at 2:17 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court 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. 24 November 8, 2022 25 Christine Fiore, CERT","body_zh":"案件号 22-50073 文件 1080 提交于 11/10/22 录入于 11/10/22 09:29:27 第 1 页，共 11 页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分部）\n\n关于 * 案件号 22-50073 (JAM)\n*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， *\n*\n债务人。 * 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n* 2022年10月27日\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n撤销动议听证笔录\n主审法官：\nTHE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁阁下）\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE（美国破产法官）\n\n出庭人员：\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）：\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安内卡·史密斯律师）\nRobinson & Cole\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\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\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\n代表 Williams & Connolly（威廉姆斯与康诺利律师事务所），利害关系方：\nJAMES J. HEALY, ESQ.（詹姆斯·J·希利律师）\nCowdery & Murphy, LLC\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\nERICA S. SIMPSON, ESQ.（埃里卡·S·辛普森律师）\nWilliams & Connolly, LLP\n680 Maine Avenue, SW\nWashington, DC 20024\n\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录，听证笔录由速记转录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1080 提交于 11/10/22 录入于 11/10/22 09:29:27 第 2 页，共 11 页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年10月27日 2\n（诉讼程序于下午 2:04 开始）\n法庭副书记官：案件号 22-50073，郭文贵。\n法庭：早上好。请各位在记录中登记出庭，首先请第 11 章受托人开始。\n德斯平斯先生：下午好，法官阁下。卢克·德斯平斯，第 11 章受托人。\n法庭：下午好。\n林西先生：早上好，法官阁下。帕特里克·林西，受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n法庭：下午好。\n希利先生：下午好，法官阁下。詹姆斯·希利，来自 Cowdery and Murphy，代表威廉姆斯与康诺利出庭。我提请注意，威廉姆斯与康诺利的埃里卡·辛普森本周早些时候与我们一同在听证室，今天也与我们在一起。\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我看到你们两位了，希利律师和辛普森律师。下午好。\n希利先生：下午好。\n法庭：史密斯律师？\n史密斯女士：下午好，法官阁下。安内卡·史密斯，来自 Robinson and Cole，代表 PAX（太平洋联盟）。\n法庭：下午好。好的。今天日程上的是继续进行的\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年10月27日 3\n关于代表威廉姆斯与康诺利提交的撤销传票动议的听证。我注意到几分钟前诉讼卷宗上提交了一份文件，一份关于该动议的拟议命令。我确实还没来得及细看。所以我不太确定这是一份合意命令，还是截至今天下午情况进展如何。所以我不知道，林西律师还是德斯平斯先生，你们是否愿意向法庭通报一下最新进展？\n林西先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。帕特里克·林西，第 11 章受托人的代理律师。我先道个歉。我意识到我现在看起来显然像是在证人保护计划里。另一方面，我想我能站在这里也不是靠长相，所以希望法官阁下能多多包涵。不管怎样，我认为可以说我们确实达成了一项解决方案，一份各方都满意的拟定命令，解决了威廉姆斯与康诺利的撤销动议以及第 11 章受托人的强制作证/提供文件反动议。如果法官阁下愿意，我可以简要向您梳理一下该命令。\n法庭：好的，请讲。\n林西先生：好的。案件号 22-50073 文件 1080 提交于 11/10/22 录入于 11/10/22 09:29:27 第 3 页，共 11 页\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1080 提交于 11/10/22 录入于 11/10/22 09:29:27 第 4 页，共 11 页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年10月27日 4\n首先我想说的是，这份命令旨在将威廉姆斯与康诺利就传票所承担的义务，与威廉姆斯与康诺利的顾虑协调一致——如果他们认为我表述有误可以纠正我——即允许个人债务人有时间根据合意特权命令审查并主张其享有的任何特权。因此，这建立了一套——我们称之为（听不清）新程序，威廉姆斯与康诺利认为可能符合传票要求的响应性文件将通过个人债务人的破产律师 Zeisler and Zeisler 提供给个人债务人。这会触发一个十天的期限。显而易见，十天就是合意特权命令下的期限。在这十天的期限内，个人债务人可以对其善意认为属于个人债务人保留特权范围内的任何文件进行登记。正如法官阁下所知，合意命令中对此有更具体的论述。此外在这段时间内，威廉姆斯与康诺利将进行审查，以确保正在审查的文件具有响应性，并从文件集中剔除无响应的文件。十天的审查期结束后，如果个人债务人已经登记文件以主张\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1080 提交于 11/10/22 录入于 11/10/22 09:29:27 第 5 页，共 11 页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年10月27日 5\n合意特权命令下的特权，那么威廉姆斯与康诺利将扣留这些文件，直至法庭作出进一步裁定。同样，该程序也是在合意特权命令下进行的。如果属于无响应文件，威廉姆斯与康诺利也将扣留。威廉姆斯与康诺利向个人债务人传输的所有文件都将加盖贝茨编号（Bate stamp）。因此，受托人将会知晓在将这些文件传输给个人债务人之后由威廉姆斯与康诺利所保留的任何文件。但是，对于威廉姆斯与康诺利未以缺乏响应性为由扣留的文件，以及个人债务人未在合意特权命令下登记并主张特权的文件，将立即移交给第 11 章受托人。然后还有一些条款——类似于我们在规范个人债务人前律师提供文件的其他命令中所包含的条款，规定本命令中的任何内容均不损害各方在合意特权命令下的权利，且个人债务人和所有各方均将保留 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26（《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 26 条）下的权利，并引用了第 26 条中涉及非故意披露的特定款项。因此，除非威廉姆斯与康诺利还有其他补充，\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1080 提交于 11/10/22 录入于 11/10/22 09:29:27 第 6 页，共 11 页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年10月27日\n我认为这就是对该命令的公允总结。我很感谢威廉姆斯与康诺利的律师在加急基础上与受托人的律师就此进行合作，在法官阁下认可的前提下，这是一份威廉姆斯与康诺利和受托人都感到满意的命令。\n法庭：好的。非常感谢。\n希利先生：另外，法官阁下——\n法庭：希利律师，请讲。\n希利先生：抱歉，法官阁下。我不是故意打断您。我只是想确保记录明确表明，威廉姆斯与康诺利同意将此命令作为撤销动议的解决方式。我只是想确保记录对此予以明确。谢谢。\n法庭：那么，我希望你们双方重新提交该命令，并将其称为合意命令，因为事实就是如此，对吧？这是一份合意命令。这是一份经各方合意达成的命令。\n所以它将是一份拟议合意命令。不知何故，林西先生，我不知道为什么——可能只是个小故障，但我想还是以 Word 格式提交吧，因为在转成 pdf 期间页边距打印得不太对劲。您可以将其提交至法庭副书记官的电子邮箱。您不需要再次在诉讼卷宗上登记它。好吗？但我建议的是——\n林西先生：抱歉，法官阁下。我们会照办的。\n法庭：我的建议是在第一段末尾——同样，标题将是拟议合意命令，然后在第一段末尾、在第一条命令段落之前写明：“经于 2022年10月27日 星期四举行的补充远程听证会并经各方合意，本法庭特此命令。”好吗？就这么简单明了的一句话，以便明确这是基于各方合意作出的。既然林西律师谈到了它，我刚才简要看了一下，我看到这确实是一个关于程序将如何进行的解决方案，涉及在不同节点向 Zeisler and Zeisler 以及受托人移交文件，以及准备个人债务人的特权清单（如果债务人决定这样做的话）。我非常赞赏各方共同合作促成此事。在案件目前的背景下，确保每一次文件提供的具体方式清晰明确是非常必要的。因此，关于威廉姆斯与康诺利，现在将有一份关于履行传票程序的合意命令。我再看一下。正如我所说，我没有逐行研究\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年10月27日 7\n但我想可以公允地说，这与针对向债务人前律师送达传票所下达的其他合意命令大体相似。德斯平斯先生和林西律师，你们认为这是准确的表述吗？\n德斯平斯先生：是的，法官阁下。\n法庭：好的。然后我同意——另外，希利律师，如果您甚至想在第一段中写明这是对撤销动议的解决，如果您想明确说明这一点，我也完全同意。您和林西律师可以商定。但我特别想明确的是，这是一份合意命令——\n希利先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n法庭：但我想要明确的是，这是一份合意命令，且各方均同意该命令中所包含的命令段落。好吗？\n林西先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n希利先生：好的，法官阁下。谢谢。\n法庭：再次对各方通力解决这些问题表示感谢。正如我周二所说，受托人确实需要能够在本案中继续进行有实质意义的调查，而这至少应该有助于这些工作，这也正是证据开示所应起的作用。因此，我非常感谢各方能够聚在一起\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1080 提交于 11/10/22 录入于 11/10/22 09:29:27 第 7 页，共 11 页\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1080 提交于 11/10/22 录入于 11/10/22 09:29:27 第 8 页，共 11 页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年10月27日\n解决这些问题。今天下午就本事项我们还有什么其他需要处理的吗？\n希利先生：从我们的角度没有了，法官阁下。谢谢。\n法庭：谢谢。好的。既然没有其他意见——\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下——\n法庭：哦，德斯平斯先生。\n德斯平斯先生：——不是关于本事项，而是关于整个案件，就几件程序性事务。首先，您会记得我们曾就这些（听不清）提交了一份藐视法庭动议，并且我们曾提交了要求加快该动议听证的动议。您当时下达了一份命令，表示在看到答复之前不会决定是否加快处理。答复我想是在两天前提交的。基本上该答复没有包含一份宣誓——没有附上来自任何人的宣誓声明以证明他不拥有该财产。他没有说明谁拥有它。显然，理论上他知道谁拥有它。他没有说明。答复里没有说明。因此我们请求法官阁下下达命令，排定本事项的听证时间——即关于 Ace Decade 的藐视法庭事项的听证时间。\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1080 提交于 11/10/22 录入于 11/10/22 09:29:27 第 9 页，共 11 页\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1080 提交于 11/10/22 录入于 11/10/22 09:29:27 第 10 页，共 11 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 27, 2022 10 法庭：关于听证日期你有什么建议吗，鉴于债务人今天并未参加本次会议，而且——无论如何，如果你有建议的话，你的建议是什么？ MR. DESPINS（德斯宾斯先生）：嗯，定在 14th of November 那一周。 法庭：好的。我明白。我——我知道答复意见已经提交了。我想说我已经读过了，但我还没有仔细研究，而且我确实说过一旦提交答复意见我就会对加急动议作出裁定，它已经提交了——是及时提交的。所以我很快就会对加急举行听证的动议作出裁定。 德斯宾斯先生：谢谢法官阁下。 法庭：谢谢。还有其他事项吗，Trustee Despins（德斯宾斯受托人）？你说过你认为——我以为你说过—— 德斯宾斯先生：是的，原本有，但坦白说，我之前没有意识到债务人的律师不在线上，所以有一份即将提出的强制提供证据动议，但鉴于他们不在通话中，我认为现在审理该事项并不合适。所以我们将不得不另行处理该事项。谢谢法官阁下。 法庭：好的。谢谢。行。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1080 Filed 11/10/22 Entered 11/10/22 09:29:27 Page 11 of 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 27, 2022 11 今天下午其他人还有什么事项吗？ MR. LINSEY（林赛先生）：没有了，法官阁下。 法庭：好的。谢谢各位，再次感谢各位在解决撤销动议方面所付出的努力。 Attorney Linsey（林赛律师），正如我所说，我知道 Attorney Healy（希利律师）可能也想补充一两句话，但你们可以提交——你们不需要在案卷目录（docket）上提交修改稿。你们只需将其发送给法庭副书记官，即 Bridgeport（布里奇波特）法庭副书记官的电子邮箱。一旦完成，就会呈报给我，我们就会签署录入该命令。好吗？ 林赛先生：好的。谢谢法官阁下。 法庭：好的。谢谢各位。 MR. HEALY（希利先生）：谢谢。这是今天日程上的最后一项事项，现在休庭。（诉讼程序于 2:17 p.m. 结束）本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），Certified Electronic Court Reporter and Transcriber（认证电子法庭记录员及转录员），特此证明上述内容是根据上述案件诉讼程序的官方电子录音转录的正确记录。 24 November 8, 2022 25 Christine Fiore, CERT（认证电子法庭记录员及转录员）","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Luc Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2582,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-11-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-11-10","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:14:10"}