{"id":"court_ctb_1082_9","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1082,"sub_number":9,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2022-11-11","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT **UPDATED** DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT **10/17/22 | In Re<br>* |  | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 1 of\n\n#### 105\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT **UPDATED** DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT **10/17/22**\n\n| In Re<br>* |  | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n|------------|--|-------------------------|--|\n|------------|--|-------------------------|--|\n\nHO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut\n\n\\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\*\n\nDebtor. \\*\n\nTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE\n\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n\\*\n\n\\*\n\n\\* August 4, 2022\n\nAPPEARANCES:\n\nFor the Debtor: ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.\n\nFor the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP\n\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\nTimes Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\nPATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103\n\nFor the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\nProceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service.\n\n> **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors, Rui Ma, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Weican Meng and Zheng Wu: McElroy Deutsch 225 Liberty Street 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. 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 G. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, 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 Creditor Logan Cheng: JAY M. WOLMAN, ESQ. Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103\n\n2\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 1:05 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Thank you. 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. And I'm here with my counsel from Paul Hastings, Alex Bongartz, and Mr. Linsey, local counsel to the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And then if we could have counsel for the committee, please. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, representing the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for the creditor PAX. MR. BIRNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Birney, Robinson & Cole, on behalf of PAX. With me this afternoon is Stuart Sarnoff from O'Melveny & Myers. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Who am I missing? Counsel -- MR. BIRNEY: Your Honor, Mr. Friedman has just\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 3 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 4 joined as well. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Counsel for the creditors Rui Ma and related creditors. MS. MAYHEW: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, on behalf of Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and Weican Meng. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Counsel for the debtor. MR. HENZY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Counsel for the U.S. Trustee, please. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: And I think Mr. Wolman. And that's the only person I'm missing at this point, is that right? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I believe so, Your Honor. MR. WOLMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jay Wolman, of Randazza Legal Group, for creditor Logan Chang. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Okay. I think everyone's appearances have been noted for the record. As I stated before, that there are two matters on the calendar. Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 4 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 5 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 5 I did not see any objection or response to the Chapter 11 trustee's motion for extension of time with regard to the removal of civil actions. The motion looks fine to me, as does the proposed order. Does anyone wish to be heard on the trustee's motion to extend the deadline for removal of civil actions? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. Hearing no response -- MR. LINSEY: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINSEY: Yeah. I won't say much if the motion looks fine to you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Attorney Linsey -- MR. LINSEY: This is Patrick Linsey for the trustee. Just note -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Excuse me. Attorney Linsey, if you could just state your name. MR. LINSEY: This is Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. LINSEY: I won't -- I won't say much considering Your Honor said the motion looks acceptable. I will just note there was a prior motion that had been filed by the debtor that I do not believe there were\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 6 any objections to that's not been acted upon. And presuming the Court enters the order that we filed with our motion will then be causing the debtor's motion to be withdrawn. THE COURT: Yes. That was noted in your motion. So thank you. And when this order enters, that -- the proposed order that was submitted with the motion, as appears at pages 10 and 11 of ECF 672,and when that order enters, then the prior motion of the debtor will be withdrawn is on the record now withdrawn by the trustee. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So that motion is granted and the proposed order can enter. So that takes care of the first matter on today's calendar. The second matter obviously is the -- was continued from Monday, the 1st, to today, and it is the trustee's motion for an order confirming that the trustee holds all the debtor's economic and corporate governance rights. And this was continued to today to give the debtor an opportunity to file a response, which the debtor did this morning. And I also -- the debtor objected and then the Chapter 11 Trustee filed a reply to the objection. So I understand in the papers, or at least I've Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 6 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 7 seen some mention in the papers, and I'll turn to you, Mr. Despins, first, that there's been some discussions. And I see that there's been a redline version of an order that appears to show there's been some I guess I would call progress with counsel in London about the issues that we discussed on Monday, but I'd like to hear from you on where things stand, please. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. So there are two aspects to the motions. Well, there are many aspects, but there are two that are contested I think. The focus is on UBS, which is you just raised. And then the other one is what's happening with the BVI shares, et cetera. So since you started with UBS, let me launch into that. There were a lot of back and forth between me and counsel for -- or counsel for the debtor in that UBS action. And basically, you know, they raised several issues. And at the end of the day, I said, look, why don't you just draft a letter that you would be comfortable receiving from Mr. Kwok that would allow you to, you know, give me an update on the merits of the claims, any settlement proposals, basically what a client would receive. And eventually she did that. And the -- and we said that in the reply. There are parts of this that I have swallow hard Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 7 of\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 8 of\n\n|    | 105                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>8                             |\n| 1  | to accept in the sense that, you know, you know, to say       |\n| 2  | that, you know, that the Court's jurisdiction is a U.S.       |\n| 3  | issue only.<br>I mean, as you know in the U.S. we view you,   |\n| 4  | Your Honor, as having worldwide jurisdiction over all assets  |\n| 5  | of the debtor.                                                |\n| 6  | But putting that aside I figure let's not have a,             |\n| 7  | you know, US/UK debate over jurisdiction.                     |\n| 8  | And so we took her letter with some minor changes             |\n| 9  | and basically that's the letter that we're now asking the     |\n| 10 | Court to direct the debtor to send to her that basically      |\n| 11 | says give him full access.                                    |\n| 12 | But the debtor, per her -- U.K. counsel's request             |\n| 13 | is saying that his consent, and this is in the letter, does   |\n| 14 | not extend to me waiving a privilege.                         |\n| 15 | And that's not an issue meaning, I didn't intend              |\n| 16 | to do that anyways.<br>But I thought it's always my privilege |\n| 17 | to waive.<br>But my point is let's not get into those issues. |\n| 18 | The important thing is to get access to the files             |\n| 19 | and understand the case, to get a full briefing.<br>And based |\n| 20 | on the letter I think, although they were very careful about  |\n| 21 | saying we cannot guarantee that this letter will bind us,     |\n| 22 | and we said fine, but I think that based on that letter we    |\n| 23 | should have full access to the files.<br>And that's the goal. |\n| 24 | And, therefore, you know, we're going to look the             |\n| 25 | other way on the issues of limiting the Court's jurisdiction  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1082-9<br>Filed 11/11/22<br>Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26<br>Page 9 of<br>105 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>9                                                              |\n| 1  | and all that.<br>So that's where we are on that.                                               |\n| 2  | So from my point of view, vis-a-vis U.K. counsel,                                              |\n| 3  | I think we're done.<br>But I don't know where the debtor is at                                 |\n| 4  | on that issue.                                                                                 |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Attorney Henzy?                                                                  |\n| 6  | MR. HENZY:<br>We're not done on that issue.<br>A                                               |\n| 7  | couple of points, Your Honor.                                                                  |\n| 8  | First, Mr. Despins referred to U.K. counsel, which                                             |\n| 9  | the person that he and I both have been communicating with                                     |\n| 10 | is Jenny Morrissey of the Harcus Parker firm.                                                  |\n| 11 | As debtor's counsel, I just want to be clear.<br>I'm                                           |\n| 12 | not sure that that is correct.<br>I'll be honest with you,                                     |\n| 13 | Your Honor.<br>The convergence of U.S. and U.K. law is a                                       |\n| 14 | little bit unclear to me.                                                                      |\n| 15 | I know that under the bankruptcy code that upon                                                |\n| 16 | his appointment Mr. Despins was automatically substituted as                                   |\n| 17 | the plaintiff in that U.K. action.                                                             |\n| 18 | What I've heard from Attorney Morrissey is that                                                |\n| 19 | what the bankruptcy code says, that's not her view anyway.                                     |\n| 20 | And I'm not -- I don't -- I know zero about U.K. law, so                                       |\n| 21 | she's right, she's wrong, but that -- that is her view.                                        |\n| 22 | I believe it's also her view that Mr. Despins is                                               |\n| 23 | not yet a party in that action.<br>There are some steps that                                   |\n| 24 | have to be taken under U.K. law.<br>Again, I don't opine as to                                 |\n| 25 | that.<br>I'm reporting to you what Attorney Morrissey                                          |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 10 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 10 indicated to me. So I don't think she's the debtor's lawyer. I don't think she's Mr. Despins' lawyer. I frankly am not sure where that leaves the status of whoever is the plaintiff in that action in the U.K. I'm not sure where the letter stands. The last iteration of the letter that I saw was from Paul Hastings to Harcus Parker. I think Mr. Despins said this on the last day Harcus Parker is being very, very careful here, so I don't know if the last iteration that Paul Hastings sent to Harcus Parker would be acceptable to Harcus Parker or not. Even assuming that it is, I believe that it is simply beyond question that the Court, with all due respect to the Court, may not compel Mr. Kwok to waive his attorney- client privilege. Now, I -- THE COURT: The letter doesn't say that he is waiving his privilege. In fact, it says that any waiver of the privilege is limited to the provision of this information to the trustee. That's what it says. MR. HENZY: That the waiver is -- that the waiver is privileged, Your Honor. So there's -- I want to make a distinction here. There are two -- and, Your Honor, we're dealing with cross- border issues here. So the privilege here I think anyway is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 11 of\n\n|    | 105                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>11                             |\n| 1  | not under U.S. law.<br>It's under U.K. law.                    |\n| 2  | And as I understand my communications from                     |\n| 3  | Attorney Morrissey, there may be items that -- I think this    |\n| 4  | is true under U.S. law too, a trustee is appointed and         |\n| 5  | there's different standards between a corporate debtor and     |\n| 6  | an actual person.<br>An actual person may maintain certain     |\n| 7  | privilege even after the appointment of a trustee.<br>And as I |\n| 8  | understand it, it is similar in the U.K.                       |\n| 9  | So there may be items that are in the possession               |\n| 10 | of Harcus Parker that Mr. Kwok personally still has a          |\n| 11 | privilege with respect to, as opposed to items that under      |\n| 12 | U.K. law he doesn't.                                           |\n| 13 | And I -- again, I don't know U.K. law.<br>I don't              |\n| 14 | think Mr. Despins knows U.K. law.<br>What's what I do not      |\n| 15 | know.                                                          |\n| 16 | There's a right way to do this, Your Honor, I                  |\n| 17 | think.<br>Mr. Despins needs to take steps to have himself      |\n| 18 | recognized as a party in the U.K. action and that privilege    |\n| 19 | issue then I think needs to be worked through.                 |\n| 20 | I don't know how the debtor -- I don't know how                |\n| 21 | Mr. Kwok can say I'm going to grant a waiver of any            |\n| 22 | privilege rights I have.<br>Again, it's any privilege rights   |\n| 23 | that he has.                                                   |\n| 24 | Your Honor, I don't know.<br>Attorney Morrissey may            |\n| 25 | make a judgment that he doesn't have any privilege rights.     |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 12 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 12 She may make a judgment that he has a lot of privilege rights with respect to what's in her possession. I don't know how he can fairly be asked to waive any privilege that he still has when he doesn't know what he's waiving it with respect to. So I don't know what documents Attorney Morrissey would say would come under an umbrella of things that Mr. Kwok under U.K. law still has a privilege in. Again, I think there is a way to work through this. It may be that Attorney Morrissey would identify some discrete number of documents that she would say these are documents that Mr. Kwok has privilege in and possibly subject to me reviewing and they're completely innocuous -- and that's great -- but there has to be a process gone through. Mr. Kwok cannot make a knowing and voluntary waiver when he doesn't know what he's waiving. He can't do that. And he's not going to do that. And, again, with all due respect, I don't believe you can compel him to do that. I do not believe that you can compel him by signing this letter to waive his -- whatever his attorney/client privilege is under U.K. law. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: You know, there's an attempt to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 13 muddy the waters here. If the letter doesn't work for counsel in the U.K., I'll deal with that. So let's put that aside for now. I think it will work because she marked up our letter and she sent us this letter. We made some very minor nonsubstantive kind of changes, so that's number one. And that letter basically, that she marked up, says that if she gets that letter she will share the privilege as to -- or she will give me privileged information. As to what? As to the merits of the litigation. That's an asset of the debtor. Mr. Henzy made a big deal about his 475 million or whatever sum. That's an asset of the debtor. The only way -- this is like a car. In order to access the car, I need the key. The key is the letter. Because otherwise they won't talk to me because, you know, either U.K. rules or their concern about being sued. They've never actually articulated that, but that's the subtext here. It's pretty clear. So the letter I think works. There's not an unknown or unlimited waiver of the privilege. It's regarding the merits of that litigation. That's what she's going to share with me. Because Mr. Henzy has -- you must remember -- had very nicely sent an email to Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 13 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 14 them a long time ago that said I own the claims basically dealing with Mr. Despins. Mr. Kwok is completely out of this -- out of that claim. He did say that. So what would be the point of me being, you know, having the claim if I cannot be briefed by the lawyers about the merits of the claim? Again, it's the key that gets me the car. And I absolutely need that. And case law is clear, Your Honor, that the trustee can have access to privileged information of the debtor with respect to assets of the debtor. Here there's not even a dispute. This is not like the yacht or the Sherry-Netherland apartment where he says, oh, I don't own it. He says -- he filed a claim. He said I own this. It's clear that the trustee owns the claim now. And clearly I have the right to have access to that. There's not an unknown or unlimited waiver. And so, therefore, we believe the Court can compel. This is 521(a)(3),(a)(4). The Court can absolutely do that because this is equal to the debtor saying, yeah, here's the car, but I'm not giving you the key. Without the briefing on the merits of the claim or knowing whether there has been any settlement, I cannot drive the car. I cannot sell the car. You know, that's the analogy. And we need access to that. Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 14 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 15 of\n\n|    | 105                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>15                             |\n| 1  | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, if I may?                            |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                             |\n| 3  | MR. HENZY:<br>One point I want to be clear on, that            |\n| 4  | Attorney Morrissey's clear with me on, is that there's two     |\n| 5  | other plaintiffs here and the privilege is joint.              |\n| 6  | And Attorney Morrissey's been clear that Mr. Kwok              |\n| 7  | cannot raise the privilege with respect to information that    |\n| 8  | is the joint information of -- along with those other          |\n| 9  | parties.<br>So she's been very, very clear that the only thing |\n| 10 | that in theory Mr. Kwok could raise with respect to -- with    |\n| 11 | the property that as I understand it he is the sole owner      |\n| 12 | of.                                                            |\n| 13 | So, again, what the -- the universe of information             |\n| 14 | here is that Harcus Parker would ever say that they're going   |\n| 15 | to release is that, you know, I don't know.                    |\n| 16 | But I want to give you two cites that were not in              |\n| 17 | my objection.<br>I did have a relatively short time to get the |\n| 18 | objection done, Your Honor.<br>I did cite one case where the   |\n| 19 | Second Circuit says that you cannot compel a person to waive   |\n| 20 | their attorney/client privilege.                               |\n| 21 | And, again, I want to be clear here, Your Honor,               |\n| 22 | to the extent that Mr. Kwok no longer owns the privilege,      |\n| 23 | under -- I think it's under U.K. law -- not under U.S. law     |\n| 24 | -- whether -- what the attorney-client privilege is in the     |\n| 25 | U.K. and what -- to what extent the privilege belongs to him   |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 16 of\n\n|    | 105                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>16                           |\n| 1  | versus belongs Mr. Despins, that's what's -- that's a matter |\n| 2  | of U.K. law.<br>It's not U.S. law.                           |\n| 3  | But two other Second Circuit Court of Appeals                |\n| 4  | cases.<br>One is Highland Capital Management vs. United      |\n| 5  | States.<br>It's at 626 F. App'x -- I never know how to       |\n| 6  | pronounce that thing, 324.<br>It's a 2015 decision.          |\n| 7  | If I could quote, Your Honor.<br>\"Compelled                  |\n| 8  | disclosure of privileged attorney/client communications      |\n| 9  | absent waiver or acceptable exception is contrary to well    |\n| 10 | established precedent.<br>When parties disagree whether a    |\n| 11 | privilege applies, courts often review the contested         |\n| 12 | material in camera.<br>In contrast, requiring a litigant to  |\n| 13 | turn over documents subject to claims of attorney/client     |\n| 14 | privilege to opposing counsel without a judicial ruling on   |\n| 15 | the merits of the claim will undermine the attorney/client   |\n| 16 | privilege and it's, therefore, impermissible.\"               |\n| 17 | So, again, what privilege Mr. Kwok has here and              |\n| 18 | what privilege he doesn't have may well be subject to        |\n| 19 | dispute.<br>Plus you can't order him to waive privilege      |\n| 20 | without working through that dispute.                        |\n| 21 | And I'll say again, Your Honor, there's a right              |\n| 22 | way to do this.<br>If Mr. Despins, rather than trying to     |\n| 23 | bulldoze through an order here, would work with U.K. counsel |\n| 24 | and me to try to identify what potentially is the universe   |\n| 25 | of documents that even are at issue here she may go through  |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 17 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 17 her documents, Your Honor, and say I can't give you anything because these other people have privilege and I'm not going to -- I'm not going to give you anything. She may say there's five pieces of paper that Mr. Kwok is the sole owner of that I could ever release to you. And the five pieces of paper are pictures of his kids. And no one -- and no one's going to care about that -- to tell us any number of things. But there's a -- there's a process that has to be worked through. The Second Circuit says that you cannot order this kind of blanket waiver without making findings with respect to specific documents. THE COURT: Where does it say that in the *Highland* case? I'm looking at it. And the *Highland* case is not a bankruptcy case. It's a third-party subpoena with regard to an IRS issue. So where does it say that? Where does it say that a court cannot compel a debtor out of possession to waive a privilege with regard to an asset that the debtor has stated under penalty of perjury is an asset of his estate? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, this is -- you're right. This is not a debtor case. But I don't think -- I don't -- I'm not aware of any case. And I will say this, Your Honor. I'm not aware of any case that says that.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 18 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 18 Because what the Second Circuit says is that after an applicable exception. And I think the typical exception that comes up in cases is where a party -- in criminal cases where a party says it had ineffective assistance of counsel. And the rule is that you can't say you haven't had effective assistance counsel unless you're going to be willing to waive relevant communications with counsel. I'm not aware of any case that says that a -- that there's an applicable exception for a debtor. But I'm going to push back to one of the other points I've made here. I don't think it's up to the debtor that's here to prove the negative. Not by motion. But by submitting a proposed order Mr. Despins is seeking relief from it. He is seeking to have you compel the debtor -- THE COURT: Not yet. MR. HENZY: -- to waive his privilege. THE COURT: Not yet. If the debtor doesn't sign the document, then -- I asked that question of Mr. Despins the other day, and then he will file a motion. The problem is your case law says compel disclosure of privileged attorney/client communications absent waiver or applicable exceptions contrary to well- established precedent. Well, this is -- this is -- Mr. Kwok has stated under penalty of perjury in his schedules -- and you've\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 19 of\n\n|    | 105                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>19                             |\n| 1  | reached out to the lawyer in the U.K. saying that Mr.          |\n| 2  | Despins is the party, and you've acknowledged that Mr.         |\n| 3  | Despins steps into the shoes of Mr. Kwok in the action in      |\n| 4  | the U.K.<br>And so you can't then argue that Mr. Kwok -- the   |\n| 5  | lawyers who represented Mr. Kwok can't turn over that          |\n| 6  | information to Mr. Despins for his review.<br>I mean, you can  |\n| 7  | make that argument, but it's not persuasive.                   |\n| 8  | You're having --                                               |\n| 9  | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>There's nothing --                      |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Excuse me.<br>Let me -- let me just              |\n| 11 | finish.                                                        |\n| 12 | You are coming to this court.<br>Your client                   |\n| 13 | voluntarily came to this court and put his assets in           |\n| 14 | question for creditors of this estate and has stated that      |\n| 15 | this cause of action is his cause of action and an asset of    |\n| 16 | the estate.                                                    |\n| 17 | The minute the Chapter 11 trustee was appointed,               |\n| 18 | the Chapter 11 trustee steps into the shoes of Mr. Kwok.<br>So |\n| 19 | the Chapter 11 trustee has the privilege of Mr. Kwok in that   |\n| 20 | lawsuit.                                                       |\n| 21 | And so your arguments are not persuasive.<br>So                |\n| 22 | let's move onto the next issue about whether -- because that   |\n| 23 | order --                                                       |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, can I -- can I -- may I --           |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Excuse me.<br>I'm not finished.                  |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 20 of\n\n|    | 105                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>20                            |\n| 1  | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>That letter -- Mr. Despins has just             |\n| 3  | stated he's a -- he is subject to Rule 11 sanctions if he's   |\n| 4  | incorrect, Mr. Henzy.<br>That he got this letter from the     |\n| 5  | lawyers in -- from the barristers or solicitors in London.    |\n| 6  | They're willing to sign it.<br>They marked it up.<br>That's   |\n| 7  | what's going to happen.<br>That's what's going to happen.     |\n| 8  | So let's go to the next issue which has to do with            |\n| 9  | the Genever issue and the fact that you've argued that Mr.    |\n| 10 | Kwok, you know, doesn't have any control over Genever.        |\n| 11 | But when you look at the trustee's reply to your              |\n| 12 | objection this morning, there are exhibits attached to it     |\n| 13 | where Mr. Kwok admits -- it's an admission of a party, that   |\n| 14 | he owns the shares of the cooperative that owns the           |\n| 15 | apartment.                                                    |\n| 16 | So what's your response to that?                              |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, just if I could go back             |\n| 18 | for a second.<br>For the record, you're not going to hear any |\n| 19 | further arguments from me on the privilege issue.             |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>That is correct.                                |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:<br>I just want to make --                          |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>I've decided the issue.                         |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:<br>I want to make a record.                        |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>I've decided the issue.<br>That is              |\n| 25 | correct.<br>Your arguments about the privilege are not        |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 21 persuasive. Mr. Despins stepped into the shoes of the debtor when he became the Chapter 11 trustee. There's well settled case law on that, Attorney Henzy. The cases that you've cited are not applicable. They're not involving a Chapter 11 trustee who steps into the shoes of a debtor who has been taken out of possession. And so, therefore, your case law does not support your argument. And I will -- and we can move on to the next issue now about the Genever Holdings matter and the Sherry- Netherlands apartment. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. On the Genever BVI issue, my first -- because I got this not that long ago, but the documents that are attached to the reply are not in evidence, Your Honor. I think we can all agree on that. And I -- I'm not -- I do not -- THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure that's true. First of all, some of them are from the bankruptcy court in New York. And this court can take judicial notice of those documents and their reliability based upon the fact that they were filed in a -- in the Chapter 11 case of Genever Holdings in New York. So when you say they're not in evidence, well, Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 21 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 22 of\n\n|    | 105                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>22                            |\n| 1  | then I can make them in evidence.<br>I can say that they are  |\n| 2  | now evidence in connection with the trustee's motion because  |\n| 3  | they were all filed, many of them -- and we can go through    |\n| 4  | each one -- in the -- in the bankruptcy case of Genever       |\n| 5  | Holdings.<br>And the Court can take judicial notice under the |\n| 6  | federal rules of evidence of that because the reliability of  |\n| 7  | that is obvious.                                              |\n| 8  | So to say that they're not in evidence, well,                 |\n| 9  | okay, I'm going to now rule that they are in evidence. That   |\n| 10 | the exhibits attached to the trustee's reply that was filed   |\n| 11 | today in response to your objection, Exhibits A through G,    |\n| 12 | are in evidence and they will be marked as exhibits.<br>So    |\n| 13 | that if you want to appeal you can -- these exhibits will be  |\n| 14 | in evidence.                                                  |\n| 15 | (Exhibits A through G attached to Trustee's motion            |\n| 16 | for an order received into evidence as Trustee Exhibits A     |\n| 17 | through G.)                                                   |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                          |\n| 19 | Just for the record, so I make my record, I do                |\n| 20 | object to their admission.                                    |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Understood.                                     |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:<br>And in addition to -- I'm in a                  |\n| 23 | difficult position to give you specific objections as I'm     |\n| 24 | required to do under the rules of evidence as I've -- as      |\n| 25 | that I've had almost no time to go through these documents    |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 23 individually. So that is an issue for me. And that kind puts, you know, pushes me to a different issue which -- THE COURT: Well, let's go through them right now. We'll pull up Exhibit A. MR. HENZY: That's unfair, Your Honor. Because if I -- THE COURT: No, it's not unfair, counsel. MR. HENZY: It is. THE COURT: Because these are all exhibits that your client signed or you should have as his counsel. You don't get to come in and stall things. And I'm not saying -- you don't get to come in and say the trustee, who's been appointed since July 8th, can't do his job because I'm new counsel and I haven't had a chance to look at all this. You don't get that opportunity. MR. HENZY: No. THE COURT: It doesn't happen that way. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor. MR. HENZY: The point -- the point I was going to make, Your Honor, is that you're admitting exhibits in connection with relief sought by the trustee that is not in the motion that he filed and on a hearing that as far as I know was not scheduled as a trial, but an evidentiary hearing. I have no ability to try to rebut what is in these documents. That this is just -- it is fundamentally unfair. Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 23 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 24 of\n\n|    | 105                                                             |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>24                              |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                             |\n| 2  | MR. HENZY:<br>I have no notice --                               |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>How would you rebut the -- your                   |\n| 4  | client's answers to interrogatories that were filed in the      |\n| 5  | New York State Court, which is Exhibit A and which he           |\n| 6  | signed?<br>How would you rebut that?<br>What could you possibly |\n| 7  | put forth that could rebut that -- those interrogatory          |\n| 8  | answers that your client signed in an action in New York        |\n| 9  | that has been pending for years?                                |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:<br>I'm going to try to answer that                   |\n| 11 | specifically, Your Honor, but I think -- and actually I'm       |\n| 12 | going to try to answer your question.<br>Okay.                  |\n| 13 | The first -- I don't know.<br>I'm not -- I don't --             |\n| 14 | I do not practice trial law in New York State so I don't        |\n| 15 | know if interrogatories are filed.<br>They're not filed, for    |\n| 16 | example, in federal court or state court in Connecticut.<br>So  |\n| 17 | maybe they are and maybe they aren't.<br>I don't know that.     |\n| 18 | So that if they're not, I don't think you could take            |\n| 19 | judicial notice.<br>That's one issue.                           |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Well, there's a file stamp on the top             |\n| 21 | of it from New York filed New York County Clerk 4/28/2021,      |\n| 22 | 10:54 p.m.<br>That states that on the top of the document.      |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:<br>Sorry.<br>I don't -- again, Your Honor,           |\n| 24 | I'm not -- I don't practice trial law in New York so I don't    |\n| 25 | know what the procedure is.                                     |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 25 I will point out, Your Honor, if you go to page 3, the definition of interest. THE COURT: Page 3 of Exhibit A? Is that what you're saying? MR. HENZY: Of what I -- what I'm understanding is now you've admitted this as Exhibit A. THE COURT: That is correct. MR. HENZY: Okay. And just to be clear, I do object to that, Your Honor. I understand you're overruling my objection, but the -- on page 3, definition 2 -- I might -- I might be getting this wrong, Your Honor -- again, I have not -- I understand Your Honor. I'm not telling you that I don't have a responsibility to have gone through things, but there is a lot that was put on in connection with this this morning. But the definition of interest is very, very broadly defined there. The term interest means any direct, indirect interest, whether partial, whole or potential, et cetera. So it's a very, very broad definition of interest. Again, if I go to response interrogatory number one, where, among other things, there's a little box that says admission of ownership -- and I don't, Your Honor, where that came from. I don't -- I don't know if that was part of what was filed with the New York State Court. I'm going to doubt it, as opposed to this is somehow Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 25 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 26 constructive for your purposes or someone else's purposes. I don't know. I just wasn't -- I did -- I don't know the answer to that. That -- I think that should not be before Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 26 of\n\nYour Honor.\n\n But his answer is I am the legal owner of the issued shares of Genever Holdings Corporation. And if you go back to definition of interest -- again, it's a very, very broad definition, it makes the distinction between legal and equitable.\n\n And if I jump to response interrogatory number 5, on page 9, again, I am the legal owner of the issued shares of Genever Holdings Corporation. That statement is consistent with the statements that Mr. Kwok made in the declaration he filed in this case and also consistent with the global notes to the statement of financial affairs that he filed in this case. That is, that he is the legal owner of the issued shares of Genever Holdings Corporation, which will be referred to as Genever BVI.\n\n And what he's said there -- in the declaration filed in this case and in the global notes filed in this case -- is that he holds those shares, he holds legal title to those shares as trustee under a trust. And the beneficiary of that trust is Bravo Luck.\n\n So I -- we can debate -- and I know Mr. Sarnoff really wants to debate -- about what this says. But my\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 27 point is I'm -- I am not able to put on evidence, Your Honor, to explain this and to explain what's in the declaration and to explain what's in the global notes. And that's not -- that's fundamentally unfair. This was not scheduled to have an evidentiary trial. I have -- this is not even -- what the relief sought here -- as I pointed out in my objection, Your Honor, it is not even relief that's sought in the motion that was actually filed. This is -- this is new relief. And we're now having, as I understand it, a trial on almost no notice on new relief where I have absolutely no ability to meet the claim that is now being made. And that is -- again, I think that's fundamentally unfair and I absolutely object to it. MR. SARNOFF: Judge Manning, this is Stuart Sarnoff. May I be very, very briefly heard, because I might be able to help the Court on an issue relating to this? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. SARNOFF: So I -- Judge Manning, I've been the lead counsel for PAX in the state court litigation. I filed the complaint on its behalf. All I want to do, Your Honor, is to point out that PAX filed and won a turnover motion with respect to Genever BVI shares as a post judgment enforcement action. And I would just raise that never proffered before\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 28 of\n\n|    | 105                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>28                            |\n| 1  | the Court was the alleged deed of trust.<br>But in any event, |\n| 2  | the judge -- on September 22nd, 2021, Judge Ostrager,         |\n| 3  | Justice Ostrager, in his ruling on the record, and then       |\n| 4  | confirmed in an order dated that day, ordered the turnover    |\n| 5  | to PAX of Mr. Kwok's Genever BVI share ownership because he   |\n| 6  | said, quote, on page 16 of the September 22nd, 2021           |\n| 7  | transcript, \"Mr. Kwok identified his ownership interest in    |\n| 8  | Genever Holdings BVI as his only asset worth more than        |\n| 9  | \\$10,000 in response to PAX's post-judgment interrogatories,\" |\n| 10 | which is the document at number 756 in this case at page 9.   |\n| 11 | The ownership shares -- and then he goes on to say the        |\n| 12 | ownership -- so he's admitted that this is his one asset.     |\n| 13 | And because PAX has a judgment of 130-something               |\n| 14 | million dollars at that time, \\$126,000 million, they're      |\n| 15 | entitled to get turnover.                                     |\n| 16 | We had to bring a subsequent contempt motion which            |\n| 17 | was pending when Mr. Kwok filed for bankruptcy because of     |\n| 18 | course Mr. Kwok didn't do what he was supposed to do, vis-a   |\n| 19 | vis, the turning over.                                        |\n| 20 | But there is -- you know, there's a judicial                  |\n| 21 | ruling that the shares belong to Mr. Kwok for purposes of     |\n| 22 | being able to turn them over or for, in this case, for Mr.    |\n| 23 | Despins to step into those shoes to have that same bundle of  |\n| 24 | rights.                                                       |\n| 25 | And I would also note, Your Honor, that Mr. Kwok              |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 29 did not appeal that ruling. You know, it should be collaterally estopped. You know, whatever it is. This has been litigated whether or not the shares are sufficiently his for purposes of turnover or for Mr. Despins to step into his shoes. And in a ruling on September 22nd, 2021 -- MR. HENZY: Your Honor. MR. SARNOFF: -- Justice Ostrager ruled on that. MR. HENZY: I want to be clear. Is Mr. -- are you taking this as Mr. Sarnoff's testimony? Because if you are, I would like him to be sworn. THE COURT: I'm not taking it as Mr. Sarnoff's testimony, Attorney Henzy. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Despins? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may very briefly? You are not -- we're not asking you today to find that the trust agreement isn't valid or doesn't exist. We added -- in what we filed today at 681, docket 681, we added a safety valve. So I thought that Mr. Henzy would jump at that. But basically it says the Court is not finding -- making any findings regarding the validity or invalidity of the trust agreement. Any challenges to the trust agreement Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 29 of\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nare preserved.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 30 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 30 However, what cannot be controverted is that he's the legal owner of these shares and now we are entitled to get those shares.\n\n And the issue of the validity of that trust -- by the way, we have craved out over it -- you know, that trust, the allegation that there's a trust was never raised in state court for four years, so that gives you a sense of how -- you know, that's let not editorialize over that.\n\n But the point is that there's a safety valve in the order and, therefore, the order should enter. And then Mr. Henzy also complained about the lack of notice in these documents.\n\n Your Honor, on August 1st, you may remember -- I don't know if you saw this, but I offered Mr. Henzy more documents. These were these documents and he threw them to the floor. A little temper tantrum there. I don't know if you saw that.\n\n But the point is that if he hadn't done that he would have all these exhibits, that these were the exhibits I was giving him at the time, which are, as you said, are exhibits, for example, in the Genever Chapter 11 case, which nobody can dispute.\n\n And those are to the effect that Mr. Kwok is exercising, and I've exercised, all corporate governance rights with respect to Genever Holdings, Genever USA, and --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 31 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 31 And so regardless of the trust agreement, there's never a -- in all these signature pages, you never see a countersign or approved by Bravo Luck or anything like that. It's Mr. Kwok signing. And so, therefore, that tells you that these are the rights we should have. And those include the rights to direct the Chapter 11 case of Genever Holdings subject to the jurisdiction of Judge Garrity. And there's also a safety valve in the order that says you're not ordering me or allowing me to do anything in that case without his approval. So that's all covered. But I think it's important to stick to the facts here. And it's a limited relief. And it's basically getting the shares in my name so I can exercise all the corporate governance rights of that entity. Thank you, Your Honor. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, just so I could be clear, I assume that that was -- you're not taking Mr. Despins' statements as testimony either? THE COURT: I'm not taking anyone's statements, including yours, as testimony either. MR. HENZY: Oh, I know you're not taking or I think I know you're not taking mine. Your Honor, I probably did have a little, very brief temper tantrum on Monday.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 32 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 32 But this is a trial by ambush, Your Honor, and I think the rules do need -- there does need to rules. There needs to be order in proceedings. And I don't -- I don't think that that is happening here. I've tried -- I don't know if Your Honor has more questions of me. I would like to make further points, again, just to make my record, you know. I believe there is a dispute. I understand that Mr. Despins doubts it. I understand that Mr. Despins and Mr. Sarnoff have formed a version of facts to, you know, to the Court that, again, I'm not in a position to rebut. I don't have a witness here. I don't -- I didn't know this was going to be a trial. I will point out, Your Honor, that this dispute is the subject of a settlement agreement in the Genever U.S. case that was approved by Judge Garrity, that as I understand it contemplates that this ownership issue is to be litigated in the BVI. Again, that is my -- THE COURT: So do you -- so you're asking for your exhibits then to become part of the record as well in evidence because now you're relying on exhibits that you attached to your objection to make the statement that you just made? MR. HENZY: You know, Your Honor, I am relying on that --\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 33 THE COURT: Okay. Then they'll be admitted into evidence as well. MR. HENZY: -- to try to make an argument, to try to respond. THE COURT: Okay. Well, then your exhibits are admitted into evidence as well. (Exhibits attached to Debtor's objection to Trustee's motion for an order received into evidence.) I mean, what else do you -- why else would you have filed an exhibit -- and the same reason that Mr. Despins did -- so the Court could review them in connection with your positions? MR. HENZY: In connection with -- THE COURT: And so to argue that this is now an evidentiary hearing and that you're being -- you're not given fair opportunity -- but you want to make your argument based upon the exhibits that you attached to your motion, your reply. So I think you need to be a little bit more -- we need to be -- treat this the same on both sides of these -- of the equation. You can't argue that Mr. Despins is now making this an evidentiary hearing because he's submitted exhibits and attached to his reply, but you can persuade the Court with regard to the exhibits you've attached to your -- to Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 33 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 34 your objection and that's -- that's not part of an evidentiary hearing. Well, of course it is. It's either -- it's all in evidence or it's not, Mr. Henzy. It's part of the record of this case. You made it part of the record when you submitted your objection with those exhibits. That's the record of this case, ss are the exhibits that Mr. Despins submitted. Then you made the argument, well, they're not in evidence. Well, I don't agree with you because they're part of the record of the case. But we'll just put them all in evidence. So there's no -- MR. HENZY: Well, Your -- THE COURT: -- there's nothing unfair about that, Mr. Henzy. That's how it works. MR. HENZY: Oh, I think there is something unfair about it, Your Honor, but I understand your ruling. THE COURT: I know you do. MR. HENZY: I understand -- THE COURT: But you haven't been able to articulate or point to any case law or statute that supports your argument. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, you're taking evidence. And I understand I attached a document to my memo. Okay. And that's for the purposes of argument. I was not Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 34 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 35 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 35 contemplating anything was going to be admitted into evidence. You're taking evidence. You're holding a trial right now as I understand it. THE COURT: No, I'm not holding a trial, Mr. Henzy. You're the one that said that Mr. Despins couldn't argue about the exhibits attached to his reply because they weren't in evidence. And I said to you, okay, well, then let's put them in evidence because they are part -- MR. HENZY: And I -- THE COURT: -- of the record of this case. And then you just said -- you just said -- you weren't relying on those exhibits to make findings but, yes, you are. You exactly just said the settlement agreement that's been approved by Judge Garrity is what controls Genever Holdings. And so it's either part of the record or it's not. If you're -- then nothing you've said -- you don't have any -- anything to support your argument because you don't want it to be part of the record. So fine. If you don't want it to be part of the record, that's fine. And if you don't -- but you already made it part of the record because you submitted it with your pleading. MR. HENZY: I'm not going to dispute, Your Honor, that you can take judicial notice for what it's worth of a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 36 of\n\n|    | 105                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>36                             |\n| 1  | document that's been filed in the Genever bankruptcy case.     |\n| 2  | I'm not going to -- I'm not going to dispute that.             |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>But you have to do that under the                |\n| 4  | federal rules of evidence, Attorney Henzy.<br>I don't just say |\n| 5  | I take judicial notice.<br>I have to do that under the -- the  |\n| 6  | applicable rule of evidence regarding judicial notice.<br>So   |\n| 7  | it's evidence, as is the documents you've submitted with       |\n| 8  | regard to the settlement agreement.                            |\n| 9  | MR. HENZY:<br>Yeah.<br>I understand, Your Honor.<br>I          |\n| 10 | understand your ruling.                                        |\n| 11 | But there is a dispute, Your Honor, as to the                  |\n| 12 | ownership.<br>Now, Mr. Despins did file -- and that dispute I  |\n| 13 | believe under applicable law has to be resolved by an          |\n| 14 | adversary proceeding.<br>And I've cited lots and lots of cases |\n| 15 | that say that.                                                 |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Henzy, let me stop you right there           |\n| 17 | on the adversary proceeding issue.                             |\n| 18 | I think you have a problem with the language in                |\n| 19 | 7004 -- 7001(a) that you didn't -- you stopped the sentence.   |\n| 20 | I mean, I looked back at it three times this morning because   |\n| 21 | I thought that you were -- that was not an accurate            |\n| 22 | statement.<br>And it says -- (a)(1) says a proceeding to       |\n| 23 | recover money or property other than a proceeding to compel    |\n| 24 | the debtor to deliver property to the trustee.                 |\n| 25 | How do you -- do you not see that language?<br>How             |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 37 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 37 do you interpret that language in any other way that that still requires Trustee Despins to file an adversary proceeding? How do -- I don't understand that. MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, just as with the cases that -- Judge Trancredi case that I cited that dealt with a 363 motion, I don't -- I understand he can file a motion for turnover but, Your Honor, he hasn't filed a motion for turnover. THE COURT: He doesn't have to. Your client is obligated to cooperate with him under the debtor's duties when he voluntarily came to this court and sought this court's protection. And then -- and to say that your client's being ambushed, this issue of the trustee has been pending since the middle of February. The trustee was appointed on July 8th. It's August 4th. And your client hasn't cooperated with the trustee. I mean, you can continue to make the argument, but your argument is not persuasive. MR. HENZY: May I speak, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: I don't agree that Mr. Kwok has not cooperated with the trustee. So that's one. I understand this case was filed in February. The trustee was not appointed until July 8th, Your Honor. I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 38 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 38 understand a trustee was appointed. I have tried to familiarize myself with as much of the record in this case as I could. I don't understand that Your Honor has ever made findings regarding the debtor's lack of cooperation, regarding the debtor being a bad person. My understanding of your ruling granting the motion was really -- that it was focused on best interest of creditors. You said that there may be assets -- just a centralized form. So really the best interest of creditors type of matters. I've read your decision and I don't see anything regarding misconduct. I believe that Mr. Kwok's consent that there was cause was based on best interest of creditors. There was no admission by him as to malfeasance or any kind of bad conduct. So in the -- I guess it's three or four weeks since Mr. Despins -- and I'll say, Your Honor, I don't -- I don't believe that because a person files Chapter 11 that they then waive any and all of their rights if and when a trustee is appointed. THE COURT: Okay. But you didn't answer my question, Mr. Henzy, about 7001(a) and how you could interpret it in any way other than the language in the rule? MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, 542 -- 7001(a)(1) --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 39 of\n\n|    | 105                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>39                             |\n| 1  | I'm sorry -- 7001(1) applies -- I recognize it applies to a    |\n| 2  | proceeding to compel the debtor to deliver property to the     |\n| 3  | trustee.<br>But where -- I think that is with respect to       |\n| 4  | property where there's no dispute that the property is         |\n| 5  | property of the estate.<br>And here there is a dispute.        |\n| 6  | It's the same as with the 363 motion, Your Honor.              |\n| 7  | The courts have held, including Judge Tancredi, that you       |\n| 8  | can't grant a 363 motion until you've decided whether the      |\n| 9  | property that's sought to be sold is property of the           |\n| 10 | bankruptcy estate.<br>And that requires an adversary           |\n| 11 | proceeding.                                                    |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>We're not selling property at this               |\n| 13 | time.<br>Number one.                                           |\n| 14 | And number two, it is being sold subject to the                |\n| 15 | New York Bankruptcy Court's order selling the property.<br>So  |\n| 16 | that's already been done, number one.                          |\n| 17 | And then your client admits that it is his asset               |\n| 18 | in some way, shape or form, Mr. Henzy.<br>I don't have to find |\n| 19 | whether he -- it's a legal interest, an equitable interest,    |\n| 20 | a beneficial interest.<br>I don't have to find any of that.    |\n| 21 | Your client has already admitted it, that it's his asset.      |\n| 22 | So I don't -- so I don't --<br>you still haven't               |\n| 23 | answered the question of how 7001(a) requires Mr. Despins to   |\n| 24 | bring an adversary proceeding.                                 |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:<br>Well, Your Honor, I think there is no            |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 40 7001(a). It's 7001(1), which does provide -- THE COURT: Okay. Sorry, 7001(1). MR. HENZY: -- a carve -- it carves out -- THE COURT: Sorry. MR. HENZY: -- it carves out turnover. But, again, that's for property of the estate. There has to be a determination that that, in fact, is property of the estate. And that -- THE COURT: Your client has already said it is property of the estate in the declaration. Even if he says he's holding it in trust, he still owns the shares. He says that in the declaration 107 that we talked about the other day. So he's already said that. MR. HENZY: What he said is that he has -- he has legal title as -- THE COURT: Okay. And guess what, as you know, the definition of property of the estate includes all interests, legal, beneficial, equitable, that you have in any property that you have. And so he has. MR. HENZY: But, Your -- THE COURT: It's property of the estate. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, Mr. Despins filed the -- the third revised proposed order, I think, nine -- or nine and a half minutes before the hearing. I did not have a chance to look at it. If there are appropriate protections Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 40 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 41 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 41 in there, then it may well be that the debtor won't object to the entry of that order, but I would like an opportunity, and not in the middle of this hearing, to review that order. THE COURT: Okay. Would you like to take a recess for an hour and you can go read the order? I mean, that's fine if that's what you'd like to do. But Mr. Despins just explained how he did put in safeguards in that order. MR. HENZY: I don't know what safeguards he put in and I don't know if they're sufficient. The issue, Your Honor, the problem, is that what Mr. Despins put in front of you would appear to be a -- require a transfer of the shares in full. Okay. That's the way I understood it. Okay. Where he said these shares get transferred to him solely in his capacity as Chapter 11 trustee. Well, if Mr. Kwok is the mere legal owner, as trustee, and these are now being transferred to Mr. Despins, I think Mr. Despins is becoming the trustee of that trust. If there's a valid -- if there's a valid trust, there has to be a trustee. And if Mr. Despins is now the legal owner of the shares, I think he's owning them as trustee of that trust. So, again, if we're all clear that that is the case, then maybe we don't have a problem. I'm not sure Mr. Despins really wants to be a\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 42 trustee of that trust with all that that might bring in terms of duties to the beneficiary of the trust, but you can't have it both ways. As Your Honor has said multiple times, you take the debtor as -- in this case -- he comes. And the argument is that with respect to this asset the way he came was as the legal owner, as trustee of a trust, for the benefit of a third party. So if -- if the -- all that he has is that legal ownership interest as trustee is what's being transferred, and it's being transferred to Mr. Despins as trustee of that trust, then maybe that's okay. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. MR. DESPINS: That argument is preserved. We're not asking you to go all the way and find that the trust is not valid. We're preserving that issue for another date. But he cannot have an advisory opinion saying that a trust is valid. As you pointed out in the interrogatories, it's not question whether they've been filed or not in New York State. They're signed under penalty of perjury by Mr. Kwok. And he never mentioned the trust, the trust that existed five years or four years before. So that's the state of the law. That's how we Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 42 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 43 take our debtor. The debtor said nothing about that trust. And I'm -- I think we're being kind. We're preserving their argument that there's a trust for a later date, meaning it would be unfair to ask you to rule that the trust is not valid. We have serious issues about it, but that's for another day. That's what the order provides. It leaves that issue open for another day. THE COURT: All right. So, Mr. Henzy, did you -- MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, it's Stuart Sarnoff. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on one second. MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, I was just going -- THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Sarnoff. Go ahead. MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, I was merely going to point out that the Court's decision and -- decision and order on motion with respect to PAX's motion for turnover, not the transcript, but the written decision and order, was filed. We filed it in this court's docket on March 1st, 2022 as I believe docket number 57-2. If I have my -- forgive me if my information is incorrect. We were scrambling. But I think that's the correct information. It's a Supreme Court in the State of New York decision and order, and that would be the court's -- Justice Ostrager's ruling on our motion for a turnover. The Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 43 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 44 predicate of which was it was his asset that he needed to turn over to PAX. THE COURT: You think it's at ECF what? What page? 57 at what page? MR. SARNOFF: Dash 2, Your Honor. THE COURT: It's just taking a minute to open. I'm trying to see. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, with your permission, could we show on the Zoom -- I don't know -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- my colleague -- put up the -- THE COURT: Yes, we can. What would you like to show? MR. DESPINS: Show the paragraph that we've added to the order so Mr. -- so they can see that. It's a very short paragraph. THE COURT: So we need to pull up ECF 681. And you want to go to the black lined version or the plain version? MR. DESPINS: My colleague -- my colleague, Mr. Bongartz, can tell us exactly where we have to go. MR. BONGARTZ: It's page 35 at 40. THE COURT: Okay. We'll just need a minute, and the clerk will pull it up so we can all read it. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 44 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 45 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 45 (Pause) MR. BONGARTZ: And, Your Honor, while he's doing that, I do have a page reference. I guess -- I guess 57-2 is an exhibit. I believe it's page 131 of the exhibit, 1-3- 1 of the exhibit. Sorry. THE COURT: Thank you. (Pause) THE COURT: We're just waiting on 681, right, to be pulled up? And go to page 35 of 40 on that, please. I'm looking at a hard copy of it, but I can -- I'm sure we can pull it up in a second. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. (Pause) THE COURT: If you're having difficulty, I can share my screen and show it. Right? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: Is there a -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: She is having a problem there. Yes, she's having a problem. THE COURT: All right. So then you need me to -- you need to let me share then. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. You can share. THE COURT: Okay. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: You have ability. (Pause)\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 46 THE COURT: Is it showing? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: I can't see because I can't know that I'm sharing. All right. So this is the paragraph, Mr. Despins, paragraph 9? MR. DESPINS: Yes. Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. Can everyone see that? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. Everyone can at least view that? Attorney Henzy, do you see that? I'm not suggesting that you can't have a recess to look at the whole order. I'm just asking do you see paragraph 9? MR. HENZY: I see it, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So, Attorney Henzy, are you -- are you asking the Court for a recess so that you can review this matter, or what are you asking the Court to do at this point? MR. HENZY: I don't think I was asking the Court to do anything, Your Honor. If the Court would like, I'm happy to take a recess and review this carefully. I don't know if it will take an hour. I don't know if it will require discussions with Mr. Despins or anyone else. I will though -- I want to be clear, Your Honor, Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 46 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 47 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 47 that I am pressing my objection that this was not in the motion that was filed. And under Rule 9013 and relevant case law, I think it's not properly before the Court. So principally my argument is that you should not rule on this and that you should tell Mr. Despins to file a motion so that this can be done in an orderly way, as opposed to this was first filed and raised at 10:09 on Sunday night, Your Honor. Okay. So, again, this is -- this is not fair. There's not sufficient notice. His support for the relief he's seeking is not stated with particularity anywhere. Certainly it's not in the motion. And I don't think it's -- the revised proposed order that he has, it does not speak for itself. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, we filed a very broad motion seeking all corporate governance rights and we mention BVI specifically. Mr. Henzy responded saying BVI, it's too late. There's no -- you can't just -- you can't give an open-ended order like that with respect to BVI. We responded by saying, okay, we'll be very precise. That's exactly what we need from BVI. That's subsumed in the relief sought. So I don't understand the -- but he got it Sunday. The relief, again, this is very simple. There's a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 48 of\n\n|    | 105                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>48                             |\n| 1  | car, we need the key.<br>If we're to get the keys to Genever,  |\n| 2  | we need the debtor to sign all these documents so that the     |\n| 3  | transfer is processed.<br>That's very consistent with the      |\n| 4  | motion.<br>It didn't have to be more specific than that, but   |\n| 5  | now it's very, very specific and it's been very specific       |\n| 6  | since Sunday.                                                  |\n| 7  | MR. HENZY:<br>I disagree, Your Honor.<br>I think it's          |\n| 8  | not -- it was not -- the relief that's sought now was not      |\n| 9  | part of the motion that was -- that was produced and filed.    |\n| 10 | So I'm going to -- I'm going to press that objection.          |\n| 11 | Again, if the Court or the parties think it makes              |\n| 12 | sense for us to take an hour recess so I can look at the       |\n| 13 | order and potentially talk to my client at least, I'm happy    |\n| 14 | to do that.                                                    |\n| 15 | But I don't -- I don't want there to be a surprise             |\n| 16 | if I come back and I say something like irrespective of        |\n| 17 | what's in this order I'm objecting to the relief being         |\n| 18 | entered.                                                       |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Does anyone else wish to be heard?               |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, this doesn't need to                 |\n| 21 | happen this way.<br>But the status in the Genever U.S. case is |\n| 22 | the property is being sold under the supervision of Melanie    |\n| 23 | Cyganowski.<br>As I understand it the debtor there has         |\n| 24 | essentially handed control of that process over to Melanie     |\n| 25 | Cyganowski.                                                    |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 49 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 49 As I understand it, I don't think the debtor can do anything to impede that process. So nothing here is going anywhere. There's going to be a sale process. The sale proceeds I believe will be property of that bankruptcy estate and I believe won't be distributed except pursuant to court order, a court order entered by Judge Garrity. So there's no -- I don't think there's any rush here. And, again, as with the discovery, the U.K. discovery issue, Your Honor, if it's done the right way, this might be a lot easier. I don't think -- I don't think I'm creating the agita here. I think the trustee is creating the agita by the way that he's choosing to do this, which is really just to try to push them through on essentially no notice. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the reason for the emergency is that we need to appear in the Genever case for reasons I explained about of last year. There are time- sensitive issues. We need to resolve them as soon as possible. And I don't want to go to that court and have someone like Bravo Luck say, well, he doesn't have the right to be here because he doesn't hold the shares. I don't want to be in that position, Your Honor. That's why we're doing this now.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 50 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 50 Thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman. If I may be heard for just a moment? We strongly agree with that. There's a plan on file in that case which PAX has objected to. But, you know, it has all sorts of provisions that we think unfairly favor certain parties that are aligned with Mr. Kwok. And obviously the debtor as a -- we don't think he's actually acted as a fiduciary in the context of that plan proposal and we believe that it would be much more appropriate to have Mr. Despins in whatever capacity dealing with the debtor in an even handed manner that benefits Mr. Kwok's legitimate creditors and so there actually is time sensitivity. I think there's a disclosure statement here -- and at least currently scheduled for August 16th. And the shape of the river of that case could be substantially changed if Mr. Despins' ability to participate in that case is made clear. THE COURT: Right. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, Irve Goldman for the committee. May I be heard briefly? THE COURT: Yes. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, I think a distinction has to be drawn between the equitable ownership of share\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 51 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 51 interests and the legal ownership of share interests which carry with it corporate governance rights. And I think it's unquestionable that the debtor has acknowledged he's the legal owner of the shares and he has exercised that legal ownership to control the administration of the Genever USA Chapter 11 case. So that is the subject of the motion. And the trustee has acknowledged by paragraph 9 of the order that the equitable interest by virtue of the trust agreement cannot be determined at this point. So I'm not sure what the argument is about. Secondly, even under the case law that Attorney Henzy cited regarding Rule 9013 and the need to be particular about the relief granted, this is simply incidental to the principal form of the relief that was sought in the first instance. It just got more -- the relief got more particular at the request of the debtor. So we support completely what the trustee has presented in the form of the proposed order. I just want to go back for a minute to the proposed letter to Attorney Morrissey before we break. And these are -- these comments are really pro estate comments. I think that the way the letter is drafted, the revised letter, could suggest that the attorney/client privilege belongs to the debtor. It does not.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 52 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 52 I agree fully with the trustee that the trustee holds the debtor's attorney/client privilege particularly when it relates to a matter that seeks to augment the estate. Now, this letter states that -- in part the black lined version states -- and to take instructions from him, meaning the trustee, in relation to my claim in the UBS litigation regardless of any attorney/client privilege, work product, or other privilege which belongs to me. I would suggest that the word may be inserted, which may belong to me, and then the following sentence. Any waiver of privilege is limited to the provision of this information to the trustee. My consent is limited to giving full access to the trustee and is not a consent by me to allow the trustee to waive the privilege. I don't want that sentence to be taken to mean that we need Mr. Kwok's allowance to the trustee to waive the privilege. The privilege belongs to the trustee in the first instance. So I would suggest if it wouldn't upset the agreement that the trustee reached, or apparent agreement the trustee reached with the U.K. firm that these provisions be massaged somewhat to -- not be taken to concede that it's the trustee that has the privilege. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, may I be heard?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 53 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 53 THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: Thank you. Mr. Goldman can hope, we can all, but I will tell you that that letter I'm aware has gone through several iterations between U.K. counsel and Mr. Despins' firm. And I think the U.K. counsel is taking a pretty careful approach and they're -- they are very concerned about their own professional obligations. In response to something that Mr. Goldman said, the trustee holds the privilege. We're talking about privilege under U.K. law, Your Honor. We're not talking about attorney/client privilege under U.S. law. There's new litigation pending in the U.K. Mr. Goldman may have some expertise on privilege under U.K. law. I'll admit I have none. I'm relying on what U.K. counsel has stated to me. So I don't think it's as simple as this is what the bankruptcy code says when a trustee is appointed vis-a- vis privilege. There's a -- how the privilege works in the U.K. is how it works in the U.K. So I don't think -- I don't know that anybody on this hearing can with any authority speak on that, on how the privilege works in the U.K. So I think -- I think it's dangerous to -- to be -- I'm trying to wordsmith -- when we frankly don't know\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 54 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 54 that we really know we're talking about. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? I totally feel Mr. Goldman's pain. I feel the same pain. He is correct. Except that here, you know, this is -- I think this could turn out to be a fool's errand, meaning that they could play a game where the letter is sent and they say, oh, we're not going to share anything with you because he hasn't waived the privilege or anything like that. Of course, we'll be back to Your Honor. The important thing is Your Honor or the trustee are not taking the position. The letter is being sent by or is supposed to be sent by Mr. Kwok to counsel and that's his letter. We're not -- the trustee is not taking the position that that's the correct view under U.S. law. It is my price of admission apparently to see what's behind the curtain. And if it's there's nothing behind the curtain, I'll be back to Your Honor. I hope that I will see what's behind the curtain. And I think the same thing as Your Honor. But because you're directed to send the letter doesn't mean that you agree that I don't have access to the privilege. It's a -- it's a practical solution. And I am -- this will be rare event. I would be aligned with Mr. Henzy on this. I\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 55 would not try to wordsmith the letter today on this if we can. And I am not naive. I know this -- this could be a setup where, in fact, there's nothing behind the curtain and I'll be back before Your Honor. Your Honor is not ruling that the privilege does not belong to me. It's just directing the debtor to send that letter. So I want to be -- So, Mr. Goldman, I understand his point completely, but I would urge the Court not at this stage to play with the language. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, I think with that, with that caveat, you know, I think I would be fine as long as we recognize that no ruling here -- there's no ruling on whether the trustee holds a privilege and -- or whether it's Mr. Kwok. I think there is an issue, given that this is an asset of a bankruptcy estate in the U.S., whether, you know, it's U.S. or U.K. law that governs a privilege -- but we -- I agree with Mr. Despins that it's not necessary to make that determination today. THE COURT: And the motion doesn't ask -- MR. HENZY: I think it's really not necessary because -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 55 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 56 of\n\n|    | 105                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>56                               |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>The motion doesn't ask for --                      |\n| 2  | MR. HENZY:<br>-- as I said --                                    |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Hold on a second, Attorney Henzy.                  |\n| 4  | And the motion doesn't ask for that determination                |\n| 5  | to be made.<br>So I'm not making that determination.             |\n| 6  | Sorry, Attorney Henzy.<br>Go ahead.                              |\n| 7  | MR. HENZY:<br>Well, Your Honor, actually the motion              |\n| 8  | doesn't address the Harcus Parker issue at all in any way,       |\n| 9  | shape or form.                                                   |\n| 10 | We can argue about whether the action on BVI is                  |\n| 11 | incidental to the motion that was filed, and I think it          |\n| 12 | wasn't, but I don't think there really is an argument that       |\n| 13 | the Harcus Parker issue is part of that motion.<br>It's just     |\n| 14 | not there, Your Honor.                                           |\n| 15 | And I'll say again I think that the right way to                 |\n| 16 | do this where, you know, it may be that we can get to a          |\n| 17 | productive place, and this -- this is not it.                    |\n| 18 | In terms of talking about the contents of the                    |\n| 19 | letter, Mr. Kwok is not going to waive, voluntarily waive,       |\n| 20 | attorney-client privilege.<br>He's not going to do it.<br>And as |\n| 21 | I said I'm not going to compel him to do it.<br>So it may be     |\n| 22 | that if you're going to enter an order we're going to get to     |\n| 23 | -- we're going to get to a contempt, but he's not going to       |\n| 24 | do it.                                                           |\n| 25 | So I don't know how much time we need to spend on                |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 57 the language of that, of that letter. THE COURT: Well, I'm going to take a recess until 3:30. And then we'll come back and see if you've had any discussions. And if not, we'll go from there. MR. HENZY: Right. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Court is in recess until 3:30. (Recess from 2:25 p.m. until 3:31 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: The United States Bankruptcy Court in the District of Connecticut is now in session after recess. We remain on case number 2022-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. We're back after recess. When we took a recess, the parties were going to attempt to talk and look at a proposed order that was filed on the docket today by the Chapter 11 trustee. So, Mr. Despins, where do things stand after a recess? MR. DESPINS: I'll let Mr. Henzy provide more detail because it's really the ball is in his camp. But we -- we did talk about one aspect -- well, we talked about all aspects, but one might be resolved, so maybe Mr. Henzy can address the Court on this. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 57 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 58 of\n\n|    | 105                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>58                           |\n| 1  | Mr. Henzy?                                                   |\n| 2  | MR. HENZY:<br>Sure.<br>So, Your Honor, with that             |\n| 3  | additional paragraph 9, you know, the Court -- the Court     |\n| 4  | enters an order directing Mr. Kwok to sign these -- the BVI  |\n| 5  | share transfer document and the resolution and the -- the    |\n| 6  | so-called Transfer-In Pack of Harneys Fiduciary, that Mr.    |\n| 7  | Kwok is going to do that.                                    |\n| 8  | Just for the record, I believe that, you know, the           |\n| 9  | trust agreement itself does prohibit Mr. Kwok from           |\n| 10 | transferring the shares, but he is not doing so voluntarily. |\n| 11 | He's being forced to by a court.<br>Whatever flows from that |\n| 12 | flows from that I believe.                                   |\n| 13 | And whatever other rights any party has as a                 |\n| 14 | result of Mr. Despins becoming the -- whatever he's          |\n| 15 | becoming, the legal owner, trustee under a trust, et cetera, |\n| 16 | whatever he is, flow from that, I just -- the debtor is not, |\n| 17 | you know, certainly not opining on what may flow from it.    |\n| 18 | And I don't think I want the debtor to be accused of having  |\n| 19 | failed to fully inform people or anything like that.         |\n| 20 | But all that being said, with that paragraph 9,              |\n| 21 | the debtor is not going to object to the entry of that       |\n| 22 | portion of the order.                                        |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                            |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor, just two seconds on              |\n| 25 | this.                                                        |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 59 of\n\n|    | 105                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>59                               |\n| 1  | The transfer occurred on July 8th when I was                     |\n| 2  | appointed.<br>The bankruptcy code made that transfer happen.     |\n| 3  | What we're doing here is we're documenting the transfer.         |\n| 4  | Again, you own the car.<br>The car became the trustee's car,     |\n| 5  | not personally, but in a trustee capacity, and now we're         |\n| 6  | dealing with the registration to make sure it's endorsed and     |\n| 7  | all that.                                                        |\n| 8  | The transfer occurred on July 8th by operation of                |\n| 9  | law.<br>I think that's very important to -- to understand        |\n| 10 | that.<br>But, you know, it is what it is.<br>So we're -- I think |\n| 11 | we're happy that this aspect of it was resolved.                 |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>And just for the record, I hear Mr.                |\n| 13 | Despins' position.<br>I don't agree with it.<br>But, again, this |\n| 14 | aspect of it is resolved because Mr. Kwok, upon being            |\n| 15 | ordered to do so, is going to sign these documents.              |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Then what is left is the issue            |\n| 17 | of the letter to counsel in -- to the firm in London.<br>Is      |\n| 18 | that the remaining issue?                                        |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:<br>So, Your Honor, just to be clear, I                |\n| 20 | had filed -- after the motion itself was filed, but before       |\n| 21 | the revised proposed order was filed, I filed an objection       |\n| 22 | raising other objections and I have not waived those             |\n| 23 | objections.                                                      |\n| 24 | I know at the last hearing you told me that -- and               |\n| 25 | I can't remember your exact words, you were inclined or you      |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 60 had -- to overrule those objections. But I want to be clear that I am not waiving those objections. That I'm pressing those objections. And I'm happy to be -- THE COURT: Well, let's make the record clear then because -- MR. HENZY: I would like to be -- THE COURT: -- I need to know what you're objecting to. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're objecting to the fact that Mr. -- that Mr. Despins didn't file an adversary proceeding to have the property turned over to him? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I think that issue is resolved. THE COURT: Well, I need to know that. When you say you think that issue is resolved, if it's not, I'm going to rule on it, so you need to tell me whether it's resolved. MR. HENZY: Now, Judge, I'm sorry. I think I was being unclear. The argument that this needs to be done by adversary proceeding, that argument has gone away because that related to this share transfer that we just told you is resolved and going to happen. So when I'm referring to my other objections, if dial back to the motion as originally filed -- give me one Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 60 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 61 second, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. HENZY: -- the motion as originally filed, which is document 598 -- THE COURT: ECF 598. Right. And you're saying you still want to preserve your objection that the trustee didn't specifically reference section 521 of the code? MR. HENZY: No. So, Your Honor, on July 29, I filed an objection. It's document number 643. THE COURT: Yes. I understand. MR. HENZY: Okay. Okay. And I raised objections to the relief that was originally sought in the motion that has nothing to do with Harcus Parkus -- I keep saying Harcus Parkus, which sounds terrible -- but Harcus Parker and then the share issue that we resolved. I raised other objections that we haven't talked about at all today. THE COURT: Okay. Well, go ahead then. MR. HENZY: And, again -- THE COURT: I want to know what it is specifically you are still objecting to. MR. HENZY: Okay. And maybe, Your Honor, the -- to try to be -- to try and like to be clear, I am objecting to -- give me one -- I'm sorry, Your Honor. Give me one second. THE COURT: That's fine. Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 61 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 62 (Pause) MR. HENZY: I'm sorry. I'm getting all these orders straight. So in the objection that I filed on July 29, if I -- if I look at the -- the easiest way to organize it might be the order that was filed this afternoon just before the hearing, which is document no. 681. THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. I'm listening. I'm not sure where you're going. I thought we were going to -- MR. HENZY: Okay. I just want -- THE COURT: -- talk about what you're -- MR. HENZY: I want -- Judge, I'm sorry. I just wanted to try to tie back to the objection I filed on July 29. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Okay. It's paragraph 2 -- and this is -- this is -- putting aside -- THE COURT: Paragraph 2 of what, the order or your objection? MR. HENZY: Of the order. THE COURT: Paragraph 2 of ECF 681. MR. HENZY: Correct. THE COURT: You're objecting to what? MR. HENZY: Okay. I'm objecting to paragraph 2, although, again, we've dealt with the BVI issue. Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 62 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 63 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 63 But this, the relief sought here asks for very broad relief with respect to entities that are not specified, the authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager or similar person. So Mr. Despins is seeking this court to give him authority over entities that are not specified without regard to those particular entities, what applicable law, non-bankruptcy law governs those entities and what the organization documents of those entities might provide. I don't think, Your Honor, that this works. I think that this type of authority -- with Mr. Despins, I think he has the authority that he has, and this goes -- and I'm not disputing any particular authority he has with respect to any entities because I don't know what entities we're talking about. But what this provision would do is give him authority that may not be provided for under applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents of particular entities. THE COURT: Can't that just be -- MR. HENZY: And the cases that Mr. -- THE COURT: Can't that just -- can't we just fix that problem by saying that -- you're talking about for the avoidance of doubt language, that sentence? For the avoidance of doubt, that foregoing rights include the trustee's asserted authority. He's asserting he\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 64 has the authority. If he doesn't and he does something wrong, then you can sue him. MR. HENZY: Actually, Your Honor, I mean, I think I put this in my response, which is, if this paragraph had just been made -- made subject to applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents of these entities, then I -- then I would have no objection to this provision. Again, I'm not trying -- I'm not trying to create an issue here. I really am not. But I think that that is the correct statement of law. He has whatever authority he has as trustee, but with respect to any particular entity, it is subject to applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents of that entity. That's all. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if we do, we do. If we don't, we don't. But I don't want to open satellite litigation over these issues with the debtor because that's how the fees are going to be -- you know, going to get out of control in this case. The reason we asked for blanket authority is because we will not exercise that right unless we believe through due diligence we have the power to do it. And if we're doubtful, we'll come back to the Court. But we cannot be in a position where there's a satellite litigation open whether -- what state law provides, what foreign law provides, because that's a -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 64 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 65 that's going to be another case basically. MR. HENZY: Judge, the last thing that Mr. Kwok wants to do is engage in litigation over how these entities are going to be governed. But if Mr. Despins is saying to you he -- after doing his diligence, that he would only do what he has the power to do, then I don't know -- all I want is to say that in this order, but I think that's not what this order says. THE COURT: Well, I think that a -- MR. HENZY: It goes -- it goes beyond that. THE COURT: -- I think my suggestion works. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing rights include the trustee's asserted authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager or similar person of the debtor- control entities. And then the next sentence says as part of the foregoing. So the point is he's asserting he has this authority. He's acting as a trustee. So that's what he's asserting. And that's what I'm going to -- I'm going to add the word assert. And that's all I'm going to change in paragraph 2. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Just to be clear, I'm not -- I am not -- I am pressing my objection to that, that language. THE COURT: Understood. That objection's Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 65 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 66 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 66 overruled. So what's your next objection? MR. HENZY: Okay. Again, I'm trying to simplify here, Your Honor. Is I have no objection on -- to the first decreedal paragraph of paragraph 3. And then now with this resolution on BVI that we had just told you about, to that -- then that -- as you go over to page 3, that little (a), I have no objection to that paragraph. Then that's been resolved. The next paragraph down on that page, paragraph (b), we've discussed that at length, the -- on the U.K. issue, the UK/UBS litigation issue and I maintain my objection on that issue. On paragraph -- THE COURT: Hold on. Just wait a minute. I'm just writing this down. So what else are we going to discuss about (b)? I think the arguments have been made, correct? MR. HENZY: I think the arguments have been made, Your Honor. I don't want to belabor anything. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: But, Your Honor, I just want to add briefly to that the only privilege information we're seeking is with respect to the merits of the affirmative claims of Mr. Kwok against UBS. No other issues.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 67 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 67 So, for example, crazy example, Mr. Kwok, in the context of that representation, said, oh, by the way, I've transferred an interest in a private jet to my daughter. I'm not -- I'm not seeking that. That's not part of the affirmative claim of Mr. Kwok against UBS. So that privilege that the -- that Your Honor is directing him to send a letter about is the privilege regarding that litigation, that affirmative litigation, only. I want to make sure the record is clear about that. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, I'd like to be clear. I understand Mr. Despins' position. I'd like to be clear that I believe Mr. Despins owns whatever -- I assume, again, I don't know U.K. law -- he owns whatever privilege he owns and Mr. Kwok has whatever privilege he has, if any. And Mr. Kwok is -- to the extent he has any privilege, he is not going to waive it. But, again, I think we've made -- I've made the argument that I have to make on that. I think. THE COURT: Okay. The objection to the language in paragraph (b) on page 3 of the proposed order is overruled. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So what's your next objection? MR. HENZY: On paragraph 4, on page 4, Your Honor, that essentially is a blanket authorization to the trustee\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 68 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 68 to act outside of the ordinary course of business with respect to so-called debtor controlled entities. And I object to that. Frankly, I've never heard of or seen that. My understanding of bankruptcy code Section 363 is that when a debtor trustee -- debtor or trustee -- debtor- in-possession or trustee wants to act out of the ordinary course of business, they need to notice a hearing, come and ask for the Court's authority to do that. And this would make it so that there doesn't have to be notice and a hearing. And, again, this is a blanket authority. And I think that is not provided for in the code. I think that is just extraordinary relief and I don't think it's appropriate. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, on that point, it's the same argument as to applicable law. We don't want to be in a position where later it is argued that we acted outside of the ordinary course of business. And the safe valve -- the safety valve, is at the end of paragraph 4 where it says for the avoidance of doubt nothing in this order authorizes the trustee to sell, otherwise dispose of, lease or encumber any equity in debtor controlled entities or other assets of the debtor. So, yes, the language is broad, but then it's completely narrowed at the end to avoid the type of concerns\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1082-9<br>Filed 11/11/22<br>Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26<br>Page 69 of<br>105 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>69                                                              |\n| 1  | that have been raised.                                                                          |\n| 2  | The reason we need the opening language is we                                                   |\n| 3  | don't want to be in a position where we're litigating over,                                     |\n| 4  | well, you know, you terminated or you removed a director, an                                    |\n| 5  | officer.<br>You shouldn't have done that.<br>That's not --                                      |\n| 6  | that's not in the ordinary course of business, and we have                                      |\n| 7  | all these satellite litigation over whether we acted within                                     |\n| 8  | -- with or without it.                                                                          |\n| 9  | We believe that we should get both reliefs as long                                              |\n| 10 | as the safety valve is in there which protects the estate,                                      |\n| 11 | no sale, no lease of property without a court order.                                            |\n| 12 | Thank you.                                                                                      |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Does anyone else --                                                               |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:<br>I see -- I see the limitation, Your                                               |\n| 15 | Honor, but I still think -- I don't think there's any such                                      |\n| 16 | thing as blanket authorization to act out of the ordinary                                       |\n| 17 | course under 363.                                                                               |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:<br>That solely to exercise corporate                                               |\n| 19 | governance rights, Your Honor.<br>Nothing else.                                                 |\n| 20 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Your Honor, may I be heard -- it's                                             |\n| 21 | Peter Friedman -- for just a moment?                                                            |\n| 22 | The order that was originally proposed did not                                                  |\n| 23 | include that language that Mr. Despins put in and we thought                                    |\n| 24 | it was extremely important.                                                                     |\n| 25 | And, you know, I think had that language not been                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 70 of\n\n|    | 105                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>70                             |\n| 1  | in there, as creditors, we would have objected.<br>But we      |\n| 2  | found that that addition to be -- to represent I think an      |\n| 3  | extremely good faith move by the trustee in balancing the      |\n| 4  | economic interests of creditors, which I think has to be       |\n| 5  | paramount, with efficiency.                                    |\n| 6  | So we strongly support the inclusion of that                   |\n| 7  | particular paragraph with the protective language that was     |\n| 8  | added at our request.                                          |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 10 | Does anyone else wish to be heard on paragraph 4?              |\n| 11 | (No audible response)                                          |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I'm just reading the language           |\n| 13 | again.                                                         |\n| 14 | (Pause)                                                        |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Anything further from anyone on         |\n| 16 | paragraph 4?                                                   |\n| 17 | (No audible response)                                          |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>While I understand the objection,                |\n| 19 | Attorney Henzy, I'm overruling it because I think that the     |\n| 20 | language -- it is specific to the economic and governance      |\n| 21 | rights with respect to the debtor-controlled entities.<br>And, |\n| 22 | you know, if litigation ensues about that, then it can         |\n| 23 | ensue.<br>But we're not going to -- it is -- it is qualified   |\n| 24 | by the last sentence and I think it's protective enough of     |\n| 25 | the debtor.                                                    |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 71 MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So what is your next objection? MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, great news, I have no objection to paragraph 5. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: On paragraph 6, the -- so paragraph 6 provides debtor shall not interfere with, hinder or delay trustee's exercise of authority on this order. I have no objection to the first sentence of paragraph 6. However, the second sentence would restrict the debtor's ability to seek relief and it would restrict it to seek relief from this court. And I don't -- I don't know that the debtor ever would seek relief. But because particularly for the fact this paragraph 4 and the broad authority that Mr. Despins is being granted there, I don't know what might occur here. I don't know what rights, if any, the debtor would have to do anything. But I don't think the debtor -- to the extent that the debtor otherwise would have a right to seek relief, I don't think it should be restricted by this order. Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 71 of\n\n So I would ask that the second sentence of paragraph 6 be struck from the order.\n\n MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, same issue. The debtor is before this court. He has worldwide assets. From your perspective you have exclusive jurisdiction over that. We\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1082-9<br>Filed 11/11/22<br>Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26<br>Page 72 of<br>105 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>72                                                              |\n| 1  | cannot have the debtor running in foreign courts to assert                                      |\n| 2  | claims.                                                                                         |\n| 3  | It may be that he comes, Your Honor, but, you know                                              |\n| 4  | what, there's a real important twist on the U.K. law                                            |\n| 5  | regarding issue XYZ there.<br>And you might decide, yeah,                                       |\n| 6  | you're right, go for it or something like that.<br>But                                          |\n| 7  | everything needs to be centralized in this court by this                                        |\n| 8  | debtor.<br>He cannot have satellite litigation elsewhere.<br>And                                |\n| 9  | they have the ability to come to this court for relief.<br>So                                   |\n| 10 | that's a very important position, Your Honor.                                                   |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, the way this order is set                                             |\n| 12 | up, Mr. Despins can run to other courts including courts in                                     |\n| 13 | foreign countries.                                                                              |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:<br>That's correct.                                                                 |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:<br>So the way that this would now be set                                             |\n| 16 | up is Mr. Despins decides he's going to go to a court in                                        |\n| 17 | this country or a foreign country and the debtor, even                                          |\n| 18 | assuming under the law of that foreign country, the debtor                                      |\n| 19 | has a right to appear and do whatever a debtor is going to                                      |\n| 20 | do. This order says the debtor can't do that.                                                   |\n| 21 | And it says the debtor I guess would have to come                                               |\n| 22 | back to you and say to you Mr. Despins is doing this thing                                      |\n| 23 | in a foreign court and I'm in front of you telling you he                                       |\n| 24 | shouldn't be doing it because I've been told I can't go to a                                    |\n| 25 | foreign court to make the argument that under the foreign                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1082-9<br>Filed 11/11/22<br>Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26<br>Page 73 of<br>105 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>73                                                              |\n| 1  | court law I'm entitled to make.<br>And that doesn't -- that                                     |\n| 2  | does not make any sense to me.                                                                  |\n| 3  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor --                                                                   |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>If Mr. Despins is going to have the                                               |\n| 5  | ability without seeking court authority to go to other                                          |\n| 6  | courts, then -- again, Your Honor, you said it, you take the                                    |\n| 7  | debtor as he comes.<br>The debtor should be able to go do                                       |\n| 8  | whatever the debtor has a right to do under the foreign law.                                    |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Well, the problem is --                                                           |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor --                                                                   |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>-- Mr. Despins is the debtor and so he                                            |\n| 12 | already has the rights.<br>He doesn't need authority from this                                  |\n| 13 | court to do what he's doing in the actions that are already                                     |\n| 14 | pending in which the debtor is a party.                                                         |\n| 15 | So your argument, while I understand it to an                                                   |\n| 16 | extent, the problem is what right would Mr. Kwok have to do                                     |\n| 17 | anything in any of those foreign courts if Mr. Despins has                                      |\n| 18 | now become Mr. Kwok?                                                                            |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:<br>Well, Mr. Despins is not --                                                       |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Which you've admitted in your papers                                              |\n| 21 | that as soon as the filing of -- as soon as the order                                           |\n| 22 | appointing the trustee was approved, that Mr. Despins became                                    |\n| 23 | Mr. Kwok.<br>So what possible rights would Mr. Kwok have?                                       |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:<br>Well, Your Honor --                                                               |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Despins has stepped into all of                                               |\n|    |                                                                                                 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 74 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 74 those rights. MR. HENZY: I think I agree. I didn't -- I don't think I said Mr. Despins became Mr. Kwok. And I'm going to guess Mr. Despins doesn't want to be Mr. Kwok, but he absolutely is substituted for Mr. Kwok in any pending litigation. But I don't think that the way this order is set up it's not just pending litigation, Mr. Despins can commence new litigation that the debtor might or might not even be a party to. Now, what rights in particular in a foreign jurisdiction Mr. Kwok might have as a debtor out of possession? Your Honor, I don't know. He may or may not have any. He may not have any rights. So I don't know because I don't know what jurisdiction we're talking about. I don't know what entity we're talking about. I don't know what action it is that Mr. Despins would be taking. So I'm perfectly -- look, the way, again, this is set up is Mr. Despins can go do whatever he's going to do, only to the extent that under some applicable foreign law Mr. Kwok would have a right to show up and do something -- and he might not, he might not, Your Honor, he should be able to do that. I don't -- I don't think he should have to come back to this court to find out whether or not he has a right to show up in another court under non-bankruptcy --\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 75 applicable non-bankruptcy law. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard for a moment on this issue? It's Peter Friedman. I think it is really important because I think the issue is, you know, in any premise, Mr. Kwok's going to have to determine if he has standing given the insolvency of his estate. So I think it's actually critical, given that he said he has \\$3,850, that before he goes to another court and be permitted to litigate, that he actually would show that he would have permission to interfere with the trustee's use of debtor property given his economic -- where the economics of this exist. I think that's an issue that really has to be made to determine with reference to U.S. bankruptcy law and his rights. So I actually think what Mr. Despins has proposed is extremely appropriate. It certainly is a prudent measure and one that falls really within core bankruptcy determination as to whether he even has standing to have standing to be heard. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, just to pose a hypothetical. Let's say Mr. Despins goes to a foreign court and in the foreign court seeks to compel Mr. Kwok to do the kind of things that he sought to do with this order. He seeks to Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 75 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 76 of\n\n|    | 105                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>76                             |\n| 1  | compel him to execute a document, let's say a corporate        |\n| 2  | document.<br>Then I don't -- I mean, would anyone say that Mr. |\n| 3  | Kwok wouldn't have standing in that foreign court to tell      |\n| 4  | the judge in the foreign court, well, I shouldn't have to      |\n| 5  | execute this document for whatever reason.                     |\n| 6  | And the judge may say, you're wrong, you have to               |\n| 7  | execute the document.<br>The judge is going to say whatever    |\n| 8  | the judge is going to say.<br>But how could Mr. Kwok not have  |\n| 9  | the right to show up in that foreign court -- and it's         |\n| 10 | before a judge -- before a judge can say to Mr. Kwok I don't   |\n| 11 | believe you have standing for whatever reason.<br>And Mr.      |\n| 12 | Despins can tell the judge, the foreign judge, Mr. Kwok        |\n| 13 | doesn't have standing.                                         |\n| 14 | So how can Mr. -- in my hypothetical, how can Mr.              |\n| 15 | Kwok not have the ability to show up in court and              |\n| 16 | potentially defend his rights to the extent that he has any?   |\n| 17 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Your Honor, I won't speak for Mr.             |\n| 18 | Despins, but I don't understand the order as depriving Mr.     |\n| 19 | Kwok of the ability to defend himself if there's a matter in   |\n| 20 | a different court.                                             |\n| 21 | But if he's seeking to initiate litigation, I                  |\n| 22 | think he would certainly have to come to this court.           |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:<br>Well, that's not what the order says.            |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>In any event, Your Honor, the point            |\n| 25 | is that the Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Mr. Kwok.    |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 77 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 77 He needs to come back to this court. And, in fact, if there are compelling circumstances, yeah we'll authorize him to go to Australia, for example, to defend some action to see that. The point is that he should not be roaming around and having the ability to disrupt what we're doing around the world without coming to Your Honor to say this is what I'm doing. I have some particularized injury that somehow I'm able to assert even though I'm out of possession. Well, that argument should only be made to Your Honor. And then if you find it compelling, you'll send -- you'll authorize him to do whatever he wants abroad. But you cannot have him running around in this. It's just fundamental, Your Honor. MR. HENZY: But, Your Honor, arguably what this order is doing though you are giving up a certain degree of jurisdiction to Mr. Despins, meaning you're telling him that he can act out of the ordinary course of business without coming and asking permission from you. But then what Mr. Despins and Mr. Friedman are essentially arguing is but you -- but you hang on with respect -- let's say to the same matter, you hang on to jurisdiction with respect to the debtor. So Mr. Despins can do whatever he wants to do, but Mr. Kwok can't respond to that. And that seems it should be\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 78\n\none way or the other.\n\n If Mr. Despins wants to come back and make a motion to act out of the ordinary course of business and the debtor has to respond to that in bankruptcy court, that's okay. But if he's going to not have to do that, then I think the debtor should be able to show up wherever he's doing things and respond to the extent that he has a right to do so.\n\n MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the debtor and the trustee are not on equal footing. This concept that somehow because we have the right to do it they should. That's not the way it works.\n\n THE COURT: Well, I was going to make that point. The point is Mr. Despins is an independent third party who's been appointed to run the -- administer the estate of Mr. Kwok.\n\n It's the -- the language says in the second sentence to the extent the debtor opposes the trustee's exercise of authority, okay, the debtor shall be limited to seeking relief from this court on notice to parties in interest to the extent the debtor can show he has standing to do so.\n\n And, unfortunately, given where -- for the debtor -- given what he's stated in all of his filings, and as we've talked before, there is no evidence before this court,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 79 of\n\n|    | 105                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>79                            |\n| 1  | and nothing in the record -- in fact, the only things in the  |\n| 2  | record support that the debtor will have no interest in this  |\n| 3  | estate because there won't be any -- a full payment to        |\n| 4  | creditors in this case.<br>And so there will not be any       |\n| 5  | surplus to which the debtor would have standing to raise      |\n| 6  | such arguments.                                               |\n| 7  | And if Mr. Despins does something outside of his              |\n| 8  | authority, then the debtor still has the right to make that   |\n| 9  | argument.<br>But he has to make it here in this court subject |\n| 10 | to this court's authority over this estate.<br>And that's one |\n| 11 | of the, you know, results of the appointment of a Chapter 11  |\n| 12 | trustee.                                                      |\n| 13 | So, again, while I understand your argument, it               |\n| 14 | doesn't foreclose the debtor from opposing the trustee's      |\n| 15 | exercise of authority, but he has to do it in this court.     |\n| 16 | And so I'm going to overrule your objection to                |\n| 17 | paragraph 6.                                                  |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                          |\n| 19 | Just as an aside, just saying, the damage claim in            |\n| 20 | the UBS litigation in the U.K. is \\$500 million.<br>I have no |\n| 21 | knowledge of the strength --                                  |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>That claim wasn't listed as an asset            |\n| 23 | of this estate, Mr. Henzy.                                    |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:<br>Oh, no, it was.                                 |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>No.<br>It actually wasn't originally.           |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 80 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 80 MR. HENZY: I believe it was. THE COURT: No. I think it was not. MR. HENZY: Okay. I'll go -- I'll go back and check, but I thought that it was. But in any event, I don't -- I don't think the debtor would dispute at all that to the extent that it wasn't in the schedules, Your Honor, it should have been. And I think the debtor absolutely -- THE COURT: Well, maybe it was. So let me just -- let me go back in the global notes which aren't really notes -- which, again, there's no authority for any debtor, that I'm aware of under the bankruptcy code, under case law, under statute, under local rules, under the federal rules, to file global notes to your -- to your schedules to disavow what you say in your schedules under penalty of perjury. I've never seen or heard of such a thing, but I understand that's now becoming something that people do. But that doesn't -- that doesn't mean that the global notes have any bearing on whether or not Mr. Kwok accurately completed his schedules. All that being said, even if he did list it, it's a \\$500 million claim with two other plaintiffs, correct? MR. HENZY: Yes, but -- THE COURT: So it would be split three ways, correct?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 81 of\n\n|    | 105                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>81                            |\n| 1  | MR. HENZY:<br>Under --                                        |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>And the claim of -- the claim of PAX            |\n| 3  | that your client did put in his schedules, actually on a      |\n| 4  | schedule, is -- he listed it as not less than \\$254 million,  |\n| 5  | I believe, maybe it's 53.<br>I haven't looked at it recently. |\n| 6  | But in any event, the solvency of your debtor, of             |\n| 7  | your client, is still very much at issue in this case.        |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>I don't -- I don't disagree with that           |\n| 9  | at all, Your Honor.                                           |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:<br>I'm just pointing out that you're not           |\n| 12 | -- I have no idea of what the strength or weakness of the     |\n| 13 | claim in the U.K. is and what percentage --                   |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>I understand.                                   |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:<br>-- if that's so.                                |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>But he'll have -- he'll have to come            |\n| 17 | back here and explain why he opposes the trustee's exercise   |\n| 18 | of authority.<br>And he'll be heard.                          |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>Understood.<br>My objection on --      |\n| 20 | I understood.                                                 |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Maybe.                                          |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:<br>That objection's overruled.                     |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Depending upon if he has standing,              |\n| 24 | okay, at that point in time.                                  |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:<br>Understood, Your Honor.                         |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 82 of\n\n|    | 105                                                         |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>82                          |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>So that -- so that, I overruled your          |\n| 2  | objection to paragraph 6, the language in paragraph 6 we    |\n| 3  | just discussed on the record.                               |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>So what is your next objection?               |\n| 6  | MR. HENZY:<br>The last objection is on paragraph 7.         |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                         |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>So this asks for an order where --            |\n| 9  | that provides that you request the assistance of foreign    |\n| 10 | courts, including the assistance of the BVI court regarding |\n| 11 | any request of the trustee for relief with respect to the   |\n| 12 | trustee exercising corporate control over Genever BVI.      |\n| 13 | I would -- I'm absolutely not going to tell the             |\n| 14 | Court what it ought to be telling other judges, but I just  |\n| 15 | -- I think that is very, very broad.                        |\n| 16 | And the way I read this is it would sort of give            |\n| 17 | Mr. Despins this court's impromatur to go in front of       |\n| 18 | another judge and say please give this to me -- and Judge   |\n| 19 | Manning tells you that you ought to give it to me, even if  |\n| 20 | you, Your Honor, don't know that -- what it is that he's    |\n| 21 | telling another judge that it is that he wants.             |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                         |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:<br>So, Your Honor, this type of                |\n| 24 | language is often used in the foreign, you know, foreign    |\n| 25 | representative context.                                     |\n|    |                                                             |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 83 of\n\n|    | 105                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>83                            |\n| 1  | I'm happy -- obviously, you don't know me and you             |\n| 2  | may not be comfortable giving me a blank check and I don't    |\n| 3  | think this is a blank check -- but it's really an indication  |\n| 4  | to foreign courts that it may not be (indiscernible) as U.S.  |\n| 5  | courts that this court is requesting their assistance not to  |\n| 6  | do something illegal or inappropriate, but in requesting      |\n| 7  | their assistance.                                             |\n| 8  | That's kind of run of the mill language, but I was            |\n| 9  | always told never raise section 105 in front of Judge         |\n| 10 | Manning, so I'm not going to raise it.                        |\n| 11 | But it's something along those lines.<br>So if you            |\n| 12 | -- I'm happy with it or without it.<br>I'd rather have it in, |\n| 13 | but I'm not going to -- I don't want to put you in a          |\n| 14 | position where you don't feel 100 percent comfortable with    |\n| 15 | that.                                                         |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I mean, I think that the section          |\n| 17 | in Chapter 15 -- you know, the whole purpose of Congress      |\n| 18 | making Chapter 15 part of the code in 2005 was to             |\n| 19 | acknowledge, you know, cross border cases and try to have     |\n| 20 | cooperation between the foreign courts and foreign            |\n| 21 | representatives.<br>Okay?                                     |\n| 22 | So I think we could -- we could say in furtherance            |\n| 23 | of the trustee's exercise of authority of this order, the     |\n| 24 | Court respectfully requests the assistance of foreign courts  |\n| 25 | with respect to the trustee's exercise of corporate control   |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 84 over debtor entities, including Genever BVI. I don't think there's -- MR. DESPINS: Absolutely. Good point. THE COURT: -- any problem with that. I mean. And I think that it -- I mean, I think in the -- there have been cases in this district where an order like that has entered with regard to proceedings in other -- outside of the United States. So I don't -- I think I could change -- Mr. Despins, do you have any problem -- I didn't write down exactly what I just said -- MR. DESPINS: No. THE COURT: -- but would the -- with the change that I described? MR. DESPINS: We'll make that change, Your Honor, if you want. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Or it's up to you. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, just for the record, I am -- if the Court's comfortable with the language, I'm not going to press an objection on that issue. THE COURT: All it's -- MR. HENZY: Again, that -- THE COURT: All it's asking for, and I believe is appropriate, is that because Congress decided to make Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 84 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 85 of\n\n|    | 105                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>85                             |\n| 1  | Chapter 15 a separate and distinct chapter in the code that    |\n| 2  | they're trying to recognize the cooperation between courts     |\n| 3  | that might be necessary for a case in one jurisdiction to be   |\n| 4  | carried out with respect to related proceedings in another     |\n| 5  | jurisdiction outside of this country.                          |\n| 6  | So I don't have a problem with it, with the                    |\n| 7  | changes as I've just described them.                           |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>Understood, Your Honor.                          |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:<br>We'll make the change, Your Honor.             |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>Last issue, Your Honor -- and I'm not            |\n| 13 | trying to go back and argue the --                             |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:<br>I thought it was the -- that was the           |\n| 15 | last issue.                                                    |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:<br>There's one more.<br>I'm not -- I'm not          |\n| 17 | trying to go back.<br>On paragraph 3, so back on page 3, this  |\n| 18 | is the Harcus Parker letter, what this says is that the        |\n| 19 | debtor is directed to deliver no later than two business       |\n| 20 | days after the entry of this order.<br>Well, there's a couple  |\n| 21 | of issues with that, Your Honor.                               |\n| 22 | The copy of the letter and the form attached as to             |\n| 23 | Exhibit B to what's in front of you has -- as I understand     |\n| 24 | it, that has not been agreed to by Harcus Parker.<br>So you're |\n| 25 | kind of in some sense --                                       |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 86 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 86 THE COURT: I just have a question about that though because Trustee Despins said that this is the letter he got back from them, so how would they not agree to it? MR. DESPINS: It's a letter. What I said is the letter we got back from them with some minor changes that we made. But in the event, I'll deal with that, meaning if they -- if they say -- I think the changes we made are -- and by the way, we did send them earlier today a -- the changes we made, so they've seen them. We haven't heard back from them. But if it's an issue, we'll fix it, meaning, that's not Mr. Kwok's issue, meaning, we have the letter as we submitted it to Your Honor and we'll see what they say. And if it needs to be modified, we'll just file a supplement. It would be very, very -- a very minor change really. MR. HENZY: I guess -- so I'm not clear if -- so he's going to be -- Mr. Kwok's going to be ordered to sign a letter that U.K. counsel may tell us is not acceptable. I don't want to be in a situation where Mr. Despins is negotiating for three days with the U.K. counsel on what a letter might say and this says he has to sign -- THE COURT: So I think what you're saying, Attorney Henzy, is you just don't want the Court to enter the order until you see the final version of the letter. Is\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1082-9<br>Filed 11/11/22<br>Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26<br>Page 87 of<br>105 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>87                                                              |\n| 1  | that what you're saying?                                                                        |\n| 2  | MR. HENZY:<br>Or at least until there -- yes, until                                             |\n| 3  | there is a final version.<br>Yes, until there is -- right now,                                  |\n| 4  | as I understand it, there is no final version.                                                  |\n| 5  | But then the second point is -- as I said earlier,                                              |\n| 6  | Mr. Kwok is not going to sign this letter.<br>This provides                                     |\n| 7  | that he must do so within two business days of whenever the                                     |\n| 8  | letter is actually finalized and complete.                                                      |\n| 9  | And I just -- you know, I -- we will be filing an                                               |\n| 10 | appeal.<br>We will seek a stay pending appeal.                                                  |\n| 11 | I just -- I don't want Mr. Kwok to be in contempt                                               |\n| 12 | because he has not -- he has not signed this order.<br>I just                                   |\n| 13 | want -- so I just wanted to alert the Court.                                                    |\n| 14 | I would -- I guess I don't know why there's a rush                                              |\n| 15 | of two business days.<br>I don't know what's going to happen                                    |\n| 16 | in two business days, you know, and why there couldn't be a                                     |\n| 17 | little longer period of time so that Mr. Kwok can get his                                       |\n| 18 | appeal filed and file whatever motion for stay pending                                          |\n| 19 | appeal he's going to file.                                                                      |\n| 20 | I just don't want to have an unnecessary fire                                                   |\n| 21 | drill, Your Honor.<br>If the order ends up not being stayed                                     |\n| 22 | and he -- and he's not signing it, then whatever                                                |\n| 23 | consequences from that will flow from that.                                                     |\n| 24 | But I don't -- I don't know how realistic it is                                                 |\n| 25 | going to be that we're going to be able to get in front of                                      |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 88 Your Honor within two business days on a motion for a stay pending appeal. That's all. And, again, I don't -- I would ask that this be a longer period than two days. MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, we -- I understand your concern and I share your concern to be sure that the changes we made were stylistic only. But, you know, given where this is heading, we should have precision. So what we should do is -- I'm just kind of thinking out loud here what's the best way to handle this -- I mean, there will be a letter. There should be a final letter. And maybe the order can provide that we will provide the letter in the final form within X days and the debtor will have Y days to -- to do it. Y number of days to do it. And the letter will be substantially in the form attached. So we can submit an order that will address that issue, that exact issue, Your Honor. And understand that precision -- we shouldn't -- we should be careful about this and have more precision rather than that. I understand your point, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you have any objection to extending the two days to a longer period of time for the debtor? He's not going to sign it, but I guess what he's saying is he wants the -- he's going to be filing an appeal so -- I Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 88 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 89 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 89 don't -- MR. DESPINS: Sure. THE COURT: I don't have an opinion either way. I was just asking you the question. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- and the answer is of course. I mean, whatever you, Your Honor, feels is a better period of time we'll obviously go with that. Generally we want to get the show on the road regarding that claim, but two versus four days is not going to, you know, break the bank. THE COURT: Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: I'd ask for five business days. That I don't -- I don't know when exactly this is all going to happen. I don't know what will be going on in my life. I don't know what will be going on with the Court. I don't -- I don't think a day or two one way or another -- MR. DESPINS: You know, five business days is fine, Your Honor. Thank you. MR. HENZY: I just -- THE COURT: Five days did you say, Mr. Despins? That's fine? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then there you go. You've got five days, Attorney Henzy. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, again, I -- because I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 90 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 90 don't want to have parties, you know, pointing at me or pointing at Mr. Kwok, I think this is going to be a mess, okay, in terms of getting this letter done. The Harcus Parker lawyer told me that a prerequisite to her ever agreeing to do anything is that any waiver by Mr. Kwok would have to be voluntary. And this is not going to be voluntary. I'm not telling her what position she should take based on that. Mr. Kwok is not communicating with her. So I don't -- what her response to Mr. Kwok being ordered over the objection to sending this letter, I, you know, that's not my -- that's not my thing. That's not Mr. Kwok's thing. The U.K. lawyer is going to react however -- they going to react however they react. Okay? MR. DESPINS: I understand that, Your Honor. And the point is that there's a certain limit to what we're going to allow these folks to dictate. If they get a letter from someone regardless of whether a court orders them to do it or not -- and by the way, this is moot because he's saying he's not going to sign the letter. So, you know, we're arguing -- we're -- THE COURT: Right. He's not going to sign it anyway. Right. MR. HENZY: Well, but the -- there just may never be a letter. That's all. I mean, at some point, I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 91 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 91 understand -- THE COURT: Oh, no. I think there'll be a letter. The point is your client's already stating he's not going to sign it. He's not. He's already stating through you that he's not going to comply with this court order. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor -- THE COURT: And it hasn't even entered yet, but he's not going to comply with it. MR. HENZY: He's not going to voluntarily waive his privilege, Your Honor, to the extent he has any. But I think -- the point I'm trying to make is a letter, I understand Mr. Despins at some point is going to put a letter in front of you and that letter may not be agreed to by the Harcus Parker firm. That's all. Because the Harcus Parker -- THE COURT: He's not going to put a letter in front of me that's not agreed to by that firm. They're the ones that have prepared it. MR. HENZY: No, they haven't. THE COURT: They're the ones who have made the final comments to it. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I don't know what they're going to do. If they understand that the debtor is not voluntarily waiving, they make take the position we're not -- we're just not doing it. Okay. I don't know that, Your\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 92 Honor. THE COURT: Well, then, Mr. Despins will have to deal with that. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: If he doesn't have a letter, then there isn't any five days to worry about. If he doesn't get a letter from them, then you -- there's nothing -- then your client won't be in violation of a court order because there wouldn't be a letter -- MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: -- for him to have to sign to deliver to them. MR. DESPINS: No. Actually, Your Honor, I think -- at one point we will need a letter from the debtor, because otherwise these lawyers would just keep us in limbo. What's going to happen is that if the debtor refuses to sign the letter, we'll have a court order. We'll go to U.K. court. It will cost a lot of money and all that, but we'll go to the U.K. courts and seek relief from the U.K. courts against these lawyers who are refusing to give us access even if there's a letter from the debtor that says you need to give them access. But, again, I -- you know, we're arguing over a letter that the debtor says we'll never -- they will never sign anyway, so, you know, I think that's -- let's get to Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 92 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 93 that point first. MR. HENZY: I'm comfortable with the Court saying if there's no -- if there's no letter the firm is agreeing to there's nothing for the debtor to do. MR. DESPINS: No. Your Honor, because that's giving -- that's -- THE COURT: Well, that's not what I said. I said then the five days doesn't matter. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: If there's no letter, than the five days doesn't matter. That's what I said. You asked for more time. MR. HENZY: Yeah. Yeah. THE COURT: He's agreed to more time. Then you've now said, what you've also said on many times during the -- during this day that your client's not going to sign the letter. MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: So I said if he's not going to sign the letter, then he's going to be in violation of the court order. MR. HENZY: I'm positing a situation where there is not a letter that the firm in the U.K. has agreed to. That's all. MR. DESPINS: And the firm in the U.K. cannot be Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 93 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 94 the ultimate arbiter of what happens in this case. We've given them a lot of leeway. And Your Honor is not going to give a U.K. lawyer control over privilege in this case. So we're willing to work with them. And we're doing that. But, you know, Mr. Henzy cannot use their ability to derail the process as a defense for him, his client, not signing the letter. MR. HENZY: I'm not using anything to derail the process here, Your Honor. Your Honor, if you -- I understand that if there is a letter and you order -- whether the U.K. firm has agreed to the letter or not, and you order Mr. Kwok to sign that letter that his five days will start to run. I understand that. MR. DESPINS: That's all I'm asking. And, Your Honor, we would propose to revise the order to deal with the letter and all that. So we will do that if Your Honor will authorize us because we need to fix the order. You suggested better language elsewhere so we need to do that and we will do that with your permission. THE COURT: Yes. You have my permission to do that. And do you think you will get that order to the Court tomorrow? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 94 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 95 of\n\n|    | 105                                                             |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>95                              |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Or Monday?                               |\n| 2  | MR. DESPINS:<br>From our point of view, yes.<br>We              |\n| 3  | will do our best to do that, yes.                               |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Or Monday.                                        |\n| 5  | MR. HENZY:<br>Can I have some time -- I would like              |\n| 6  | some time just to review the order, Your Honor.                 |\n| 7  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.                                            |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.                                             |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Well, we've just gone through what the            |\n| 10 | order is going to say.<br>We've gone through every paragraph    |\n| 11 | including every one of your objections, which were              |\n| 12 | overruled.<br>I've stated all the rulings on the record.        |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:<br>I would like to just put eyes on the              |\n| 14 | order, Your Honor, just -- I'm not -- I completely trust Mr.    |\n| 15 | Despins, that he's going to accurately make the changes that    |\n| 16 | we talked about, but I just am in the practice of wanting to    |\n| 17 | see the final order.<br>That's all.<br>I'm not saying I'm going |\n| 18 | to object to it or anything like that.                          |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>But then if you disagree, we're going             |\n| 20 | to have another hearing.<br>That's what -- that's what you're   |\n| 21 | trying -- that's what you're saying.<br>You're saying you --    |\n| 22 | if something -- if something doesn't comport with what you      |\n| 23 | think it is, then we're going to have another hearing.          |\n| 24 | That's what you're saying.                                      |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:<br>Yes.<br>But that's all because --                 |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 96 of\n\n|    | 105                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>96                             |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Well, I'm not going to have another              |\n| 2  | hearing.<br>I've ruled.<br>I've ruled what the order's -- what |\n| 3  | the order needs to say.<br>We've gone through it.              |\n| 4  | You just spent the time.<br>You said to me -- this             |\n| 5  | is what you said -- I asked you what your objections were to   |\n| 6  | the relief.<br>And I went back and I started with so you're    |\n| 7  | objecting about the fact that Mr. Despins didn't cite to       |\n| 8  | 521.<br>And you said, no, no.<br>Let's go -- let's go through  |\n| 9  | the order.<br>Let's go through my original objections and      |\n| 10 | let's go through the order.<br>So that's what we just did.     |\n| 11 | We're not coming back to court on this.<br>This is             |\n| 12 | what we just did.                                              |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:<br>So, Your Honor, what if -- what if --            |\n| 14 | what if the order that's submitted -- again, I am not          |\n| 15 | telling -- saying I think Mr. Despins is going to do this --   |\n| 16 | what if the order that's submitted is not consistent with      |\n| 17 | what's been on the record today?                               |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Then I'm not going to enter it.<br>I'm           |\n| 19 | going to read the order.                                       |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:<br>I'm sorry, Your Honor.<br>I think it's           |\n| 21 | customary for all counsel to have an opportunity to review     |\n| 22 | an order before it's entered.<br>But I understand.             |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>But that's what we just did.<br>We just          |\n| 24 | spent the time that you would spend going over an order.       |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:<br>I understand what the Court's saying.            |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 97 THE COURT: We just spent a substantial amount of time, as a matter of fact, going through every paragraph in the order. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if you're ruling I'm not going to have an opportunity to review the final order -- THE COURT: Mr. Despins -- MR. HENZY: -- then I understand the Court's -- THE COURT: You know, I'm -- Mr. Despins, is your firm going to have -- This is what I would want everyone to do. This is how it's going to work out because we are not doing this on a regular basis. Mr. Despins, would you please send an email to the courtroom deputy box, your firm will know and Mr. Linsey can help you if necessary, with the order CC'ing all the parties. I'm not going to enter that order for some period of time -- I don't know what -- but several hours probably. Okay? And then I'm going to enter the order. I'm not going to have another hearing going through the language of the order. We just did that. The only reason that that order will not enter is if Mr. Despins wrote something like the Court has allowed me to live in the courtroom. Then I wouldn't enter that order. Okay? For many reasons. It wouldn't be comfortable for him Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 97 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 98 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 98 anyway. But that's the point. We're not going to do this. We've had -- this is the second hearing on this issue. This motion was filed on July 23rd. It's August 4th. Your client is no longer a debtor in possession. Someone has to come to that realization. Okay? The trustee has that authority to do what he's doing as I have just ruled. And that's -- we've gone through every paragraph of the order and I have made rulings on those paragraphs. And there are changes that will be made. And so that's what we're going to do. Mr. Despins, your office or through Mr. Linsey will send -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: -- an email to the courtroom deputy box in Bridgeport and indicate that the order -- this is the order that has been prepared after the hearing on August 4th with all the changes discussed on the record. And you will CC all the parties, including Mr. Henzy. And then I will enter that order in due course after some period of time. But I am not having a further hearing. This hearing is concluded. MR. DESPINS: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: I have ruled. Okay?\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 99 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, two housekeeping matters. THE COURT: Yes. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Five minutes. Okay. First, we have suggested dates, but of course subject to Your Honor's schedule for status conferences. THE COURT: Did you submit them to someone yet? MR. DESPINS: Actually, we have not. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: So you're absolutely right. That's tabled. Let's table. We were going to post them. I don't know if my colleague has the ability to put that up on Zoom, the potential suggested dates. Or you know what, Your Honor, let's circulate. We'll table that. Let's circulate those dates. We'll come back to Your Honor about that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Apologies. You're absolutely right. We should -- THE COURT: And you can communicate to the courtroom deputy about those suggested dates through the email box and CC everybody so everybody knows this is what you're suggesting. MR. DESPINS: Will do. THE COURT: Okay? Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 99 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 100\n\n|    | of 105                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>100                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Will do, Your Honor.                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | Next item I want to raise is we've had a meet and            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | confer with the debtor's counsel regarding the Rule 2004     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | discovery on the issue of discovery of professionals, like   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | lawyers. And that issue is going to be a problem in the      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | sense that they -- their view is that we don't have access   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | to the -- at least the way it was articulated to me, that we |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | don't have access to the privilege documents when the debtor |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | -- with respect to assets of the debtor or assets we think   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | should be the debtor's such as the Lady May or Sherry        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | Netherland because the debtor believes they're not assets    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | and, therefore, they would be invading his privilege to go   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | after these documents.                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | So the reason I'm telling you this -- I'm not --             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | because I'm not asking you to rule on this, but we need to   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | tee that up sooner rather than later because they want to    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | tee it up 30 days after they receive the subpoena which      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | would get us into September/October.                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | There's a clear issue here which is an issue of              |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | what privilege the trustee succeeds to.<br>And I think the   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | case law is clear that when dealing with assets of the       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | estate, either assets that are already in the estate or      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | assets that there is a claim they belong to the estate, such |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | as the Lady May and the Sherry-Netherland, that the trustee  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | have access to privileged communications regarding these     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 101\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 101 assets, or with respect to administration of the case, for example, preparation of schedules by Brown Rudnick. I'm not asking you to rule, but we need to tee that up. And we're not going to do that now, but we want to tell you we're going to ask for a date earlier than 30 days after the service of subpoena because that could bring us to September or October. So that's an issue that's out there. The last issue, Your Honor, is, you know, you've asked us, you raised this issue of conflict before and we left it the other day. And you said, hey, people need to be attuned to this. But this meet and confer just made us or my partners realize that the issue is not a Zeisler issue. The issue is that a target of the trustee's investigation, which is his son, the debtor's son, is paying for the fees of counsel. It's impossible for counsel to be adverse or to think in any way adverse to somebody paying their fees. It's theoretically possible, but I wouldn't hold anyone to that standard. So we're not asking -- there's no punch line here where we're saying we're asking you to disqualify Zeisler. I don't think it's Zeisler issue. I think that it is very difficult for any firm of 105\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1082-9<br>Filed 11/11/22<br>Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26<br>Page 102<br>of 105 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>102                                                              |\n| 1  | that represents the debtor, that has duties to the estate,                                       |\n| 2  | to be paid by the targets of the trustee's claims.<br>And the                                    |\n| 3  | harm here, that's the Sherry-Netherland, Bravo Luck, et                                          |\n| 4  | cetera.                                                                                          |\n| 5  | And so, you know, again, I don't have a punch                                                    |\n| 6  | line.<br>We're still thinking about it, but I wanted to -- we                                    |\n| 7  | have a duty to relay the issue to the Court.                                                     |\n| 8  | I don't want somebody weeks from now to say you                                                  |\n| 9  | sat on this.<br>Really, that's the issue, is the payment of                                      |\n| 10 | fees by a target of the investigation to debtor's counsel.                                       |\n| 11 | That is problematic, I think.                                                                    |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                                                                |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:<br>That's all we have.                                                              |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:<br>May I be heard, Your Honor?                                                        |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                                                               |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:<br>Thank you.                                                                         |\n| 17 | On the 2004, I don't know why that's coming up                                                   |\n| 18 | now.<br>We're talking about 2004 orders that haven't been                                        |\n| 19 | entered.<br>As to the objection date to the 2004 motions that                                    |\n| 20 | were filed hasn't even come up.<br>It's tomorrow.<br>So we're                                    |\n| 21 | talking about 2004 orders that haven't entered and subpoenas                                     |\n| 22 | that haven't issued.<br>I don't know how that's going to play                                    |\n| 23 | out, but right now it's interesting to preview it I suppose,                                     |\n| 24 | but I have no idea how that's going to play out.                                                 |\n| 25 | On my firm's conflict issue, if Mr. Despins wants                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1082-9<br>Filed 11/11/22<br>Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26<br>Page 103<br>of 105 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>103                                                              |\n| 1  | to file a motion disqualifying my firm, he should do that.                                       |\n| 2  | Any party wants to file a motion to disqualify my firm, they                                     |\n| 3  | should do that.                                                                                  |\n| 4  | If the Court believes my firm should be                                                          |\n| 5  | disqualified, then the Court should take whatever action the                                     |\n| 6  | Court deems necessary.                                                                           |\n| 7  | But other than that, I'm not going to -- I'm not                                                 |\n| 8  | going to think about it and I'm not going to talk about it.                                      |\n| 9  | I'm going to represent my client.                                                                |\n| 10 | All the facts are out there.<br>If somebody thinks                                               |\n| 11 | there's a problem, they should -- they should do that.                                           |\n| 12 | I said this at the hearing the other day.<br>This                                                |\n| 13 | should not being used as<br>(indiscernible) sword against my                                     |\n| 14 | firm or against Mr. Kwok.<br>So either file your motion or                                       |\n| 15 | just leave it alone.                                                                             |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Anything further from                                                |\n| 17 | anyone this afternoon?                                                                           |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:<br>No, Your Honor.<br>Thank you.                                                    |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                                                                |\n| 20 | Then the -- so that the record is clear, the                                                     |\n| 21 | trustee's motion for order extending deadline to file                                            |\n| 22 | notices of removal is granted and the proposed order will                                        |\n| 23 | enter.                                                                                           |\n| 24 | The motion for order confirming that the Chapter                                                 |\n| 25 | 11 Trustee holds all of the debtor's economic and corporate                                      |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 104\n\n| of 105 |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n|        | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>104                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1      | governance rights in debtor controlled entities authorizing    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2      | Chapter 11 trustee to act in any foreign country on behalf     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3      | of the estate and granting related relief is granted for the   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4      | reasons stated on the record with an order to be submitted     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5      | by trustee's counsel on notice to all other parties who will   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6      | be -- receive a copy of that when it's submitted to the        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7      | Court.<br>And then the Court will review it and enter it after |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8      | the fact.                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9      | Okay?<br>All right.<br>Thank you, all.<br>This is the          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10     | last matter on the calendar, so court is adjourned.            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11     | ALL COUNSEL:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12     | (Proceedings concluded at 4:35 p.m.)                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13     |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14     |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15     | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16     | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17     | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18     | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19     | entitled matter.                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20     |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21     |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22     | October 17, 2022                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23     | Christine Fiore, CERT                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24     | Transcriber                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25     |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|        |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 1082-9        | Filed 11/11/22<br>of 105     | Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26       | Page 105 |     |\n|----|---------------|-------------------|------------------------------|---------------------------------|----------|-----|\n|    |               |                   | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 |                                 |          | 105 |\n| 1  |               |                   |                              | INDEX                           |          |     |\n| 2  |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\n| 3  |               | TRUSTEE EXHIBITS: |                              |                                 | PAGE     |     |\n| 4  | A-G           |                   |                              | Attachments to Trustee's motion | 33       |     |\n| 5  |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\n| 6  |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\n| 7  |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\n| 8  |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\n| 9  |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\n| 10 |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\n| 11 |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\n| 12 |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\n| 13 |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\n| 14 |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\n| 15 |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\n| 16 |               |                   |                              |                                 |          |     |\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　文件 1082-9　提交于 11/11/22　录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26　第 1 页，共\n\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院　更新于 10/17/22\n\n关于\n\n＊　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），＊　康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n\n＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊\n\n债务人。＊\n\n美利坚合众国破产法官 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下审理程序记录副本\n\n布里奇波特分部\n\n＊\n\n＊\n\n＊　August 4, 2022\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·A·亨齐律师）\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企业）：PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）；STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫律师）；O'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧麦尔文律师事务所）\n\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒专业公司）　10 Middle Street, 15th Floor　Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\nTimes Square Tower　7 Times Square　New York, NY 10036\n\nPATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·伯尼律师）　Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）　28 Trumbull Street　Hartford, CT 06103\n\n代表债权人委员会：IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师）　Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）　850 Main Street　Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\n程序以电子录音方式记录，记录副本由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）　4 Research Drive, Suite 402　Shelton, Connecticut 06484　(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）代表债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）、Weican Meng（孟伟灿）及 Zheng Wu（吴征）：KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休律师）　McElroy Deutsch（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇律师事务所）　225 Liberty Street　36th Floor　New York, NY 10281　代表美国受托人：HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）　Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）　The Giaimo Federal Building　150 Court Street, Room 302　New Haven, CT 06510　第 11 章受托人：LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（吕克·A·德斯平律师）　Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）　200 Park Avenue　New York, NY 10166　代表第 11 章受托人的律师：ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ.（亚历山大·邦加茨律师）　Paul Hastings LLP　200 Park Avenue　New York, NY 10166　PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林西律师）　Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思专业公司）　195 Church Street, 13th Floor　New Haven, CT 06510　代表债权人 Logan Cheng（陈洛根）：JAY M. WOLMAN, ESQ.（杰伊·M·沃尔曼律师）　Randazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团专业有限责任公司）　100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor　Hartford, CT 06103\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022　3\n\n（程序于下午 1:05 开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：谢谢。请各方为记录目的陈述出庭情况，先请第 11 章受托人。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平）。我与来自 Paul Hastings 的律师 Alex Bongartz（亚历克斯·邦加茨）以及受托人的当地律师 Linsey 先生一同出庭。\n\n法庭：下午好。接下来请委员会的律师。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Pullman & Comley 的 Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），代表债权人委员会。\n\n法庭：下午好。请债权人 PAX 的律师。\n\nBIRNEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Robinson & Cole 的 Patrick Birney（帕特里克·伯尼），代表 PAX。今天下午与我一同出庭的是来自 O'Melveny & Myers 的 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。\n\n法庭：下午好。还缺谁？律师——\n\nBIRNEY 先生：法官阁下，Friedman 先生刚刚也加入了。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 1082-9　提交于 11/11/22　录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26　第 3 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022　4\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。请债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）及相关债权人的律师。\n\nMAYHEW 女士：是。下午好，法官阁下。我是 McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇·马尔瓦尼与卡彭特律师事务所）的 Kristen Mayhew（克里斯滕·梅休），代表 Rui Ma、Zheng Wu（吴征）和 Weican Meng（孟伟灿）。\n\n法庭：下午好。请债务人的律师。\n\nHENZY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Zeisler & Zeisler 的 Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐），代表债务人。\n\n法庭：下午好。请美国受托人的律师。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。\n\n法庭：我想还有 Wolman 先生。截至目前，唯一还未发言的人就是他，对吗？\n\n法庭书记员：我相信是的，法官阁下。\n\nWOLMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Randazza Legal Group 的 Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼），代表债权人 Logan Chang（陈洛根）。\n\n法庭：下午好。好的。我认为各方出庭情况均已载入记录。正如我此前所述，日程表上有两项事项。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 1082-9　提交于 11/11/22　录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26　第 4 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 1082-9　提交于 11/11/22　录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26　第 5 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022　5\n\n我没有看到任何人对第 11 章受托人就移送民事诉讼期限延长所提动议提出异议或答复。该动议以及拟议命令在我看来均无问题。是否有人希望就受托人延长移送民事诉讼期限的动议发表意见？\n\n（无可听见的答复）\n\n法庭：好的。未听到答复——\n\nLINSEY 先生：法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是。\n\nLINSEY 先生：是。如果该动议在您看来无问题，我不会多说。\n\n法庭书记员：Linsey 律师——\n\nLINSEY 先生：我是代表受托人的 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西）。仅说明——\n\n法庭书记员：抱歉。Linsey 律师，请您陈述姓名。\n\nLINSEY 先生：我是代表受托人的 Patrick Linsey。\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\n法庭：请继续。\n\nLINSEY 先生：鉴于法官阁下表示该动议看来可以接受，我不会——我不会多说。我仅指出，债务人此前已提交一项动议，我相信没有人对该动议提出异议，但该动议尚未得到处理。假定法院作出我们随动议提交的命令，则将导致债务人的动议被撤回。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022　6\n\n法庭：是。你们的动议中已经提及此事。因此，谢谢。在该命令作出时，即随该动议提交、载于 ECF 672 第 10 页和第 11 页的拟议命令作出时，债务人先前的动议将被撤回；现由受托人在记录中撤回。\n\nLINSEY 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。因此，该动议获准，拟议命令可以作出。这样就处理了今日日程表上的第一项事项。第二项事项显然是——是从星期一，即 1 日，延期至今天审理的，即受托人请求作出命令、确认受托人持有债务人的全部经济权利和公司治理权利的动议。该事项延期至今天，是为给予债务人提交答复的机会，债务人今天上午已提交答复。我还——债务人提出了异议，随后第 11 章受托人对该异议提交了答复。因此，我从书面材料中了解到，或者至少我在书面材料中看到提及，Despins 先生，我先请你发言，似乎已经进行了一些讨论。我看到有一份命令的修订痕迹版本，似乎显示就我们星期一讨论的问题，与伦敦的律师已经取得了一些——我想我会称之为进展，但我希望听你说明目前的情况。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是，法官阁下。因此，这些动议有两个方面。嗯，有许多方面，但我认为其中有两个存在争议。重点是 UBS（瑞银集团），即您刚才提出的问题。另一个是英属维尔京群岛股份等事项的情况。因此，既然您先谈到 UBS，我就从这一点开始。我与——或债务人在该 UBS 诉讼中的律师之间有很多来回沟通。基本上，您知道，他们提出了若干问题。最后，我说，听着，你们何不草拟一封你们愿意从 Kwok 先生那里收到的信，该信将使你们能够，您知道，向我提供有关请求权实体问题、任何和解建议的最新情况，基本上就是客户会收到的内容。最终，她这样做了。并且——我们在答复中也说明了这一点。其中有些部分，我必须勉强接受。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 1082-9　提交于 11/11/22　录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26　第 6 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022　7\n\n也就是说，您知道，称法院的管辖权仅是美国问题。\n\n我的意思是，如您所知，在美国，我们认为，法官阁下，您对债务人的所有资产具有全球管辖权。\n\n但撇开这一点不谈，我认为不必就管辖权进行美英之间的辩论。\n\n因此，我们对她的信作了一些小改动，基本上，这就是我们现在请求法院命令债务人发送给她的信；该信基本上说，应给予他完全查阅权。\n\n但是，债务人依照她——英国律师的要求表示，他的同意，如该信所载，并不延伸至由我放弃特权。\n\n而这不是问题，也就是说，我无意这样做。尽管我原以为始终应由我放弃特权。\n\n但我的意思是，我们不要陷入这些问题。\n\n重要的是获得查阅文件的权限并了解案件情况，获得完整情况说明。并且基于该信，我认为，尽管他们非常谨慎地表示我们不能保证该信将对我们具有约束力，我们也表示可以，但我认为基于该信，我们应当能够完全查阅文件。这就是目标。\n\n因此，您知道，我们将不再追究限制法院管辖权的问题。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 1082-9　提交于 11/11/22　录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022\n\n及诸如此类的问题。因此，这就是我们在该问题上的现状。\n\n因此，就我与英国律师之间的关系而言，我认为我们已处理完毕。但我不知道债务人在该问题上的立场为何。\n\n法庭：Henzy 律师？\n\nHENZY 先生：我们在该问题上尚未处理完毕。有几点，法官阁下。\n\n首先，Despins 先生提到了英国律师，他和我一直与之沟通的人是 Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克律师事务所）的 Jenny Morrissey（珍妮·莫里西）。\n\n作为债务人的律师，我只想澄清一点。我不确定那是否正确。坦率地说，法官阁下，美国法与英国法的衔接对我而言有些不清楚。\n\n我知道，根据破产法典，在 Despins 先生获任命后，他自动成为该英国诉讼中的原告替代人。\n\n我从 Morrissey 律师那里听到的是，无论破产法典如何规定，那并不是她的观点。并且我不是——我不——我对英国法一无所知，因此，她是对是错，但那——那是她的观点。\n\n我相信，她还认为 Despins 先生尚不是该诉讼的一方。根据英国法，尚有一些步骤必须采取。再次说明，我不就此发表意见。我是在向您转述 Morrissey 律师\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 1082-9　提交于 11/11/22　录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26　第 10 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022　10\n\n向我表示的内容。因此，我不认为她是债务人的律师。我也不认为她是 Despins 先生的律师。坦率地说，我不确定这使得在英国该诉讼中作为原告的任何人的地位如何。\n\n我不确定该信的状况如何。我看到的该信最后版本是从 Paul Hastings 发给 Harcus Parker 的。我认为 Despins 先生在上次庭审日曾说过，Harcus Parker 在这里非常、非常谨慎，因此我不知道 Paul Hastings 发给 Harcus Parker 的最后版本是否会被 Harcus Parker 接受。即使假定会被接受，我认为毫无疑问，恕我对法院直言，法院不得强制 Kwok 先生放弃其律师—当事人保密特权。现在，我——\n\n法庭：该信并未表示他正在放弃其特权。事实上，该信表示，对该特权的任何放弃仅限于向受托人提供该等信息。这就是其内容。\n\nHENZY 先生：该放弃是——该放弃是特权，法官阁下。因此，其中——我想在此作一区分。有两种——并且，法官阁下，我们在此处理的是跨境问题。因此，至少我认为，此处的特权是\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 1082-9　提交于 11/11/22　录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26　第 11 页，共\n\n不适用美国法。\n\n适用英国法。\n\n据我从莫里西律师（Attorney Morrissey）处收到的沟通所理解，可能存在一些事项——我认为美国法下也是如此——即会指定一名受托人，并且公司债务人与自然人之间适用不同标准。\n\n自然人在指定受托人后，仍可能保有某些特权。\n\n据我所理解，英国的情况类似。\n\n因此，Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克）持有的某些事项，Kwok先生（郭文贵）可能仍对其享有特权；而其他事项则根据英国法他不享有该等特权。\n\n再次说明，我不了解英国法。\n\n我认为Despins先生（德斯平斯先生）也不了解英国法。\n\n哪些事项属于何种情况，我不知道。\n\n法官阁下，我认为有一种正确的处理方式。\n\nDespins先生需要采取措施，使其本人在英国诉讼中被认可为当事方，之后我认为应当解决该特权问题。\n\n我不知道债务人——我不知道Kwok先生如何能够说，我将放弃我拥有的任何特权权利。\n\n再次说明，是指他所拥有的任何特权权利。\n\n法官阁下，我不知道。\n\n莫里西律师可能会判断他不享有任何特权权利。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交，于 11/11/22 13:18:26 登记，第 12 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 12\n\n她可能会判断，就其持有的事项而言，他享有大量特权权利。我不知道，在他不知道自己就何事项放弃特权的情况下，如何能够公平地要求他放弃其仍享有的任何特权。因此，我不知道莫里西律师会认为哪些文件属于Kwok先生根据英国法仍享有特权的事项范围。再次说明，我认为有办法解决这个问题。莫里西律师可能会识别出一些具体数量的文件，并称这些是Kwok先生享有特权的文件，且可能需由我审阅；如果这些文件完全无害——那很好——但必须经过一个程序。Kwok先生在不知道自己放弃的是什么的情况下，无法作出知情且自愿的放弃。他不能这样做。而且他不会这样做。再次说明，恕我直言，我不认为您可以强迫他这样做。我不认为您可以强迫他通过签署这封信，放弃其——无论他根据英国法享有何种律师-当事人特权。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，如果可以？法庭：可以。DESPINS先生：您知道，这里有人试图\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 13\n\n混淆视听。如果这封信对英国的律师不起作用，我会处理这一问题。因此，我们暂时把这一点搁置。我认为它会起作用，因为她对我们的信作了修改，并向我们发送了这封信。我们作了一些非常轻微、非实质性的修改，所以这是第一点。那封她作了修改的信基本上写明，如果她收到那封信，她将就——或者说，她将向我提供受特权保护的信息。关于什么？关于该诉讼的实体问题。那是债务人的资产。Henzy先生（亨齐先生）大肆强调他的475 million或其他金额。那是债务人的资产。唯一的方式——这就像一辆汽车。为了使用这辆车，我需要钥匙。钥匙就是这封信。因为否则他们不会与我交谈，原因是，您知道，要么是英国的规则，要么是他们担心被起诉。他们从未明确说明过这一点，但这就是这里的潜台词。这一点非常清楚。因此，我认为这封信有效。这并非对特权的未知或无限制放弃。它涉及该诉讼的实体问题。这就是她将与我分享的内容。因为Henzy先生——您必须记得——曾非常妥当地向他们发送一封电子邮件，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交，于 11/11/22 13:18:26 登记，第 13 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 14\n\n其中称，我基本上拥有涉及Despins先生的请求权。Kwok先生完全脱离了这一——脱离了那项请求权。他确实这样说过。那么，如果我不能从律师处获知有关该请求权实体问题的情况，我拥有该请求权又有什么意义？再次说明，这就是让我取得汽车的钥匙。而我绝对需要它。法官阁下，判例法很明确，受托人可以获得与债务人资产有关的债务人受特权保护的信息。在这里甚至不存在争议。这不像游艇或Sherry-Netherland公寓，在那些事项中他称，哦，我并不拥有它。他称——他提交了一项请求权。他称，我拥有这个。显然，现在受托人拥有该请求权。显然，我有权获得该等信息。这并非未知或无限制的放弃。因此，我们认为法庭可以强制执行。这是521(a)(3),(a)(4)。法庭绝对可以这样做，因为这等同于债务人称，是的，这里是汽车，但我不给你钥匙。如果没有关于该请求权实体问题的说明，或者不知道是否已经达成任何和解，我无法驾驶这辆车。我无法出售这辆车。您知道，这就是类比。我们需要获得该等信息。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交，于 11/11/22 13:18:26 登记，第 14 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交，于 11/11/22 13:18:26 登记，第 15 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，如果可以？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nHENZY先生：有一点我希望明确，莫里西律师已向我明确说明，即这里还有另外两名原告，且该特权是共同享有的。\n\n莫里西律师已明确说明，对于与其他当事方共同享有的信息，Kwok先生不能主张特权。\n\n因此，她已非常、非常明确地说明，理论上Kwok先生唯一可能主张特权的事项，是关于据我所理解由他单独拥有的财产。\n\n因此，再次说明，Harcus Parker会称其将予以披露的信息范围究竟为何，我不知道。\n\n但我想向您提供两项未载于我异议中的引证。\n\n法官阁下，我确实只有相对较短的时间完成该异议。\n\n我确实引述了一项判例，其中第二巡回上诉法院（Second Circuit Court of Appeals）称，您不能强迫一人放弃其律师-当事人特权。\n\n再次说明，法官阁下，我希望明确，就Kwok先生不再拥有该特权的范围而言，根据——我认为是根据英国法——而不是美国法——英国的律师-当事人特权为何，以及该特权在何种范围内属于他\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交，于 11/11/22 13:18:26 登记，第 16 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n而非属于Despins先生，这是英国法问题。\n\n这不是美国法问题。\n\n但还有两项第二巡回上诉法院的判例。\n\n其中一项是Highland Capital Management v. United States。\n\n载于626 F. App'x——我从来不知道该如何念这个，324。\n\n这是2015年的裁决。\n\n法官阁下，如果我可以引述：“在未放弃特权或不存在可接受例外的情况下，强制披露受特权保护的律师-当事人通信，有悖于确立已久的先例。当当事方对特权是否适用存在争议时，法院通常会对争议材料进行不公开审查。相反，在未就请求的实体作出司法裁决的情况下，要求诉讼当事人向对方律师交出受到律师-当事人特权主张保护的文件，将损害律师-当事人特权，因而不被允许。”\n\n因此，再次说明，Kwok先生在这里享有哪些特权、未享有哪些特权，很可能存在争议。\n\n此外，在解决该争议之前，您不能命令他放弃特权。\n\n法官阁下，我再说一次，有一种正确的处理方式。\n\n如果Despins先生不试图通过一项命令强行推进，而是与英国律师及我合作，尝试识别甚至在此存在争议的文件可能范围，她可能会审阅\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交，于 11/11/22 13:18:26 登记，第 17 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 17\n\n她的文件，法官阁下，并称，我不能向你提供任何内容，因为这些其他人享有特权，我不会——我不会向你提供任何内容。她可能会说，有五份文件是Kwok先生单独拥有的，我可以向你披露。那五份文件是他孩子们的照片。没有人——也没有人会关心这些——或者它们会告诉我们若干事情。但有一个——有一个必须经过的程序。第二巡回法院称，在未就具体文件作出认定的情况下，您不能命令这种全面放弃。法庭：Highland案中哪里这样说？我正在看它。而且Highland案不是破产案件。它是关于美国国税局问题的第三方传票案件。那么，哪里这样说？哪里说法院不能强迫未占有财产的债务人，就债务人已在伪证罪处罚下声明是其破产财产资产的一项资产，放弃特权？HENZY先生：法官阁下，这——您说得对。这不是债务人案件。但我不认为——我不——我不知道有任何判例。而且我要这样说，法官阁下。我不知道有任何判例是这样说的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交，于 11/11/22 13:18:26 登记，第 18 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 18\n\n因为第二巡回法院所说的是，在存在适用的例外之后。我认为案件中通常出现的例外，是一方当事人——在刑事案件中——称其未获得有效的律师协助。规则是，除非你愿意放弃与律师之间的相关通信，否则你不能称自己未获得有效的律师协助。我不知道有任何判例称，对债务人存在一项适用的例外。但我要反驳我在这里提出的另一点。我不认为在此的债务人有义务证明否定事实。不是通过动议。但Despins先生通过提交一项拟议命令，正在寻求救济。他正在寻求让您强迫债务人——法庭：还没有。HENZY先生：——放弃其特权。法庭：还没有。如果债务人不签署该文件，那么——我前几天向Despins先生问过这个问题，然后他将提交一项动议。问题在于，你的判例法说，在未放弃或不存在适用例外的情况下，强制披露受特权保护的律师-当事人通信，有悖于确立已久的先例。那么，这——这——Kwok先生已在其清单中于伪证罪处罚下声明——而且你们已经\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交，于 11/11/22 13:18:26 登记，第 19 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n联系了英国的律师，称 Despins（德斯平斯）先生是当事方，并且您已承认，在英国的诉讼中，Despins 先生代位行使 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生的权利。因此，您不能随后又主张，郭先生——曾代理郭先生的律师不能将该信息交给 Despins 先生审阅。我的意思是，您可以提出该主张，但它没有说服力。您正在——\n\n亨齐先生：好的。没有——\n\n法庭：请原谅。让我——让我先说完。\n\n您来到本院。您的当事人自愿来到本院，并使其资产成为本破产财产债权人所涉的问题，并称该诉因是其本人的诉因，且是破产财产的一项资产。\n\n第11章受托人一经被任命，第11章受托人即代位行使郭先生的权利。因此，第11章受托人在该诉讼中享有郭先生的特权。\n\n因此，您的论点没有说服力。那么，我们转到下一个问题，即是否——因为那项命令——\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我能否——我能否——我是否可以——\n\n法庭：请原谅。我还没有说完。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交日期 11/11/22 录入日期 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 20 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日\n\n亨齐先生：好的。\n\n法庭：那封信——Despins 先生刚刚表示，如果他不正确，他将受到《规则》第11条制裁，亨齐先生。他从伦敦的律师——从大律师或事务律师那里收到这封信。他们愿意签署该信。他们对其作了修改。这将会发生。这将会发生。\n\n那么我们转到下一个问题，即与 Genever（吉尼弗）问题有关的问题，以及您曾主张郭先生，您知道，对 Genever 并无任何控制权这一事实。\n\n但是，当您查看受托人今晨对您异议的答复时，其中附有证据材料，郭先生在其中承认——这是一方当事人的承认——他拥有拥有该公寓的合作社的股份。\n\n那么您对此有何回应？\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，如果我可以先回到刚才的问题。为记录在案，您将不会再听到我就特权问题提出任何进一步论证。\n\n法庭：这是正确的。\n\n亨齐先生：我只是想作出——\n\n法庭：我已经裁定该问题。\n\n亨齐先生：我想作出记录。\n\n法庭：我已经裁定该问题。这是正确的。您关于特权的论点没有说服力。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 21\n\nDespins 先生在其成为第11章受托人时，即代位行使债务人的权利。对此已有确立已久的判例法，亨齐律师。您所援引的案件并不适用。这些案件不涉及代位行使已被剥夺占有权的债务人权利的第11章受托人。因此，您的判例法不支持您的论点。现在我将——我们可以转到下一个关于 Genever Holdings（吉尼弗控股）事项及 Sherry-Netherlands（雪莉—荷兰）公寓的问题。\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。关于 Genever BVI（英属维尔京群岛吉尼弗）问题，我首先——因为我不久前才收到这些材料——但附在答复中的文件并未作为证据提交，法官阁下。我认为我们都可以就此达成一致。而且我——我并非——我不——\n\n法庭：嗯，我不确定这是否属实。首先，其中一些来自纽约的破产法院。本院可以对这些文件及其可靠性予以司法认知，依据是它们是在纽约 Genever Holdings 的第11章案件中提交的。因此，当您说它们并非证据时，嗯，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交日期 11/11/22 录入日期 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 21 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交日期 11/11/22 录入日期 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 22 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日\n\n那么我可以使其成为证据。我可以认定，由于它们均已提交，其中许多——我们可以逐一查看——是在 Genever Holdings 的破产案件中提交的，因此它们现在是与受托人动议相关的证据。根据《联邦证据规则》，本院可以对此予以司法认知，因为其可靠性显而易见。\n\n因此，说它们并非证据，好吧，我现在裁定它们是证据。受托人为答复您的异议而于今日提交的答复所附证据材料A至G，均作为证据接纳，并将标记为证据材料。因此，如果您想上诉，您可以——这些证据材料将作为证据。\n\n（受托人要求作出命令的动议所附证据材料A至G，作为受托人证据材料A至G接收入证。）\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。仅为记录在案，以便我作出记录，我反对接纳它们。\n\n法庭：明白。\n\n亨齐先生：此外——根据《证据规则》，我须提出具体异议，但我处于困难境地，因为我几乎没有时间逐一审阅这些文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 23\n\n所以，这对我来说是一个问题。而且这多少会，您知道，把我推向另一个问题，即——\n\n法庭：那么我们现在就逐一审阅。我们调出证据材料A。\n\n亨齐先生：这不公平，法官阁下。因为如果我——\n\n法庭：不，这对律师而言并不不公平。\n\n亨齐先生：这是不公平的。\n\n法庭：因为这些都是您的当事人签署的证据材料，或者作为其律师您本应持有这些材料。您不能进来拖延事情。而且我并不是说——您不能进来说，受托人自7月8日以来即已被任命，却因为我是新任律师且还没有机会审阅所有这些材料，就不能履行其职责。您没有这种机会。\n\n亨齐先生：不。\n\n法庭：事情不是这样进行的。\n\nDespins 先生：法官阁下。\n\n亨齐先生：我原本要说的重点——重点，法官阁下，是您正在就受托人所寻求的救济接纳证据材料，而该救济并不在其提交的动议中；并且，据我所知，本次听证并非安排为审判，而是证据听证会。我没有任何能力试图反驳这些文件中的内容。这实在——这根本不公平。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交日期 11/11/22 录入日期 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 23 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交日期 11/11/22 录入日期 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 24 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n亨齐先生：我没有收到任何通知——\n\n法庭：您将如何反驳——您的当事人在纽约州法院提交并由其签署的书面质询答复，即证据材料A？您将如何反驳？对于您的当事人在一宗已在纽约持续多年的诉讼中签署的书面质询答复，您究竟可能提出什么来反驳？\n\n亨齐先生：我将尽量具体回答该问题，法官阁下，但我认为——实际上，我将尽量回答您的问题。好的。首先——我不知道。我并不——我不——我并不在纽约州从事审判业务，因此我不知道书面质询是否会提交。例如，它们并不在联邦法院或康涅狄格州法院提交。因此，也许它们会提交，也许不会。我不知道这一点。因此，如果它们未被提交，我认为您不能予以司法认知。这是一个问题。\n\n法庭：嗯，其顶部有纽约的归档戳记，载明“New York County Clerk 4/28/2021, 10:54 p.m.”。文件顶部就是这样写的。\n\n亨齐先生：抱歉。我——再次说明，法官阁下，我并不——我不在纽约从事审判业务，因此我不知道程序为何。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 25\n\n我将指出，法官阁下，如果您看第3页，“权益”的定义。\n\n法庭：证据材料A的第3页？您是这个意思吗？\n\n亨齐先生：据我的理解，这份文件现在已被您接纳为证据材料A。\n\n法庭：这是正确的。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。并且为明确起见，我确实反对该项接纳，法官阁下。我理解您驳回了我的异议，但是——在第3页，定义2——我可能——我可能理解错了，法官阁下——再次说明，我尚未——我理解法官阁下的意思。我并不是告诉您，我没有责任审阅这些材料，但今晨就此提交了大量材料。然而，“权益”的定义在其中非常、非常宽泛。“权益”一词是指任何直接、间接的权益，无论是部分、全部或潜在的权益，等等。因此，这是对“权益”的非常、非常宽泛的定义。再次，如果我查看书面质询答复第1项，其中还有一个写有“承认所有权”的小方框——而我不知道，法官阁下，该方框从何而来。我不知道——我不知道那是否是向纽约州法院提交材料的一部分。我对此表示怀疑，而非这在某种程度上是为您的目的或他人的目的而构成的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交日期 11/11/22 录入日期 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 25 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 26\n\n我不知道。我只是没有——我确实——我不知道该问题的答案。我认为那不应当提交给法官阁下。\n\n但他的答复是：“我是 Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）已发行股份的法定所有人。”如果您回看“权益”的定义——再次说明，这是一个非常、非常宽泛的定义，它区分法定权益与衡平权益。\n\n如果我跳到第9页的书面质询答复第5项，再次是：“我是 Genever Holdings Corporation 已发行股份的法定所有人。”该陈述与郭先生在本案中提交的声明中的陈述一致，也与其在本案中提交的财务状况说明书的总体注释一致。即，他是 Genever Holdings Corporation 已发行股份的法定所有人，该公司将被称为 Genever BVI。\n\n而他在本案提交的声明及本案提交的总体注释中所说的是，他持有这些股份，他作为信托项下的受托人持有这些股份的法定所有权。该信托的受益人是 Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运）。\n\n因此，我——我们可以争论——我知道 Sarnoff（萨诺夫）先生非常想争论——这意味着什么。但我的\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交日期 11/11/22 录入日期 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 27 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 27\n\n观点是，我——我无法提出证据，法官阁下，来解释这一点，解释声明中的内容，并解释总体注释中的内容。这并非——这根本不公平。本案并未安排进行证据审判。我——这甚至不是——正如我在异议中所指出，法官阁下，此处所寻求的救济甚至不是实际提交的动议中所寻求的救济。这是——这是新的救济。而现在，据我理解，我们正在就新的救济进行审判，几乎没有任何通知，而我绝对没有能力应对现在提出的主张。而且这——再次说明，我认为这根本不公平，我绝对反对此举。\n\n萨诺夫先生：Manning（曼宁）法官，这是 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。我可以非常、非常简短地陈述吗，因为我或许可以就与此有关的一个问题协助本院？\n\n法庭：请讲。\n\n萨诺夫先生：所以我——Manning 法官，我一直是 PAX（帕克斯）在州法院诉讼中的主办律师。我代表其提交了起诉状。我唯一想做的是，法官阁下，指出 PAX 就 Genever BVI 股份作为判决后执行措施提交并胜诉了一项移交动议。我还想提出的是，此前从未提出过的\n\n提交给本院的是所称信托契据。但无论如何，2021年9月22日，Ostrager法官（Judge Ostrager），即Ostrager大法官（Justice Ostrager），在其当庭裁决中，随后又在当日作出的命令中，命令将Kwok先生所持有的Genever BVI股份所有权移交给PAX，因为他在2021年9月22日庭审记录第16页中表示，引述如下：“Kwok先生在答复PAX判决后书面质询时，将其在Genever Holdings BVI中的所有权权益列为其唯一价值超过$10,000的资产，”该文件为本案第756号文件第9页。该等所有权股份——随后他又说到该所有权——因此，他已承认这是其唯一资产。并且，由于PAX当时拥有一项一亿三千多万美元、$126,000 million的判决，他们有权取得移交。我们不得不提出后续的藐视法庭动议；在该动议待决期间，Kwok先生申请破产，原因当然是Kwok先生没有履行其应当履行的义务，即移交义务。但是，就为能够移交这些股份而言，或者在本案中，就Despins先生代位取得同一整套权利而言，已有一项司法裁决认定这些股份属于Kwok先生。并且，法官阁下，我还要指出，Kwok先生\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 29 未对该裁决提出上诉。您知道，这应当受争点排除原则阻却。您知道，不管怎么说，关于这些股份是否在移交目的上充分属于他，或者是否充分属于他以供Despins先生代位取得其地位，这一问题已经经过诉讼。并且，在2021年9月22日的裁决中——\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下。\n\nSARNOFF先生：——Ostrager大法官对此作出了裁决。\n\nHENZY先生：我想澄清一点。您是否——您是否将此视为Sarnoff先生的证言？因为如果是，我希望他宣誓作证。\n\n法庭：我并未将此视为Sarnoff先生的证言，Henzy律师。\n\nHENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。Despins先生？\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，如允许，我简要说几句？您并未——我们今天并未要求您认定该信托协议无效或不存在。我们在今天提交的第681号文件、案卷第681号中，加入了一项安全阀条款。因此，我原以为Henzy先生会欣然接受。其基本内容是，本院并未就该信托协议的有效性或无效性作出任何认定。对该信托协议提出的任何异议\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1082-9，提交于 11/11/22，登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26，第29页，共\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore记录与速记服务公司）\n\n均予保留。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1082-9，提交于 11/11/22，登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26，第30页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 30 然而，无可争议的是，他是这些股份的法定所有人，而现在我们有权取得这些股份。\n\n顺便说一句，关于该信托的有效性问题——我们已将其排除在外——您知道，关于存在一项信托的主张，四年来从未在州法院提出，因此这让您能够了解——您知道，对此我们暂且不作评论。\n\n但关键在于，该命令中设有一项安全阀条款，因此该命令应当作出。随后，Henzy先生还抱怨这些文件缺乏通知。\n\n法官阁下，在8月1日，您可能记得——我不知道您是否看见，但我向Henzy先生提供了更多文件。这些就是那些文件，而他把它们扔到了地上。有点发脾气。我不知道您是否看见。\n\n但关键在于，如果他当时没有那样做，他就会拥有所有这些证物；这些就是我当时交给他的证物，正如您所说，例如Genever Chapter 11案中的证物，对此无人能够争议。\n\n这些证物表明，Kwok先生一直在行使，而且我也一直在行使，与Genever Holdings、Genever USA以及——有关的全部公司治理权利。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1082-9，提交于 11/11/22，登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26，第31页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 31 因此，无论信托协议如何，在所有这些签字页上，您从未看到Bravo Luck的会签或批准，或者诸如此类的内容。是Kwok先生在签字。因此，这表明这些是我们应当拥有的权利。其中包括指示Genever Holdings的Chapter 11案件的权利，但须受Garrity法官（Judge Garrity）的管辖。该命令中还有一项安全阀条款，规定您并未命令或允许我在未经其批准的情况下在该案件中采取任何行动。因此，这些都已涵盖。但我认为，坚持事实很重要。这是一项有限救济。其基本上是将股份登记在我名下，以便我能够行使该实体的全部公司治理权利。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，为使我明确，我假定您也并未将Despins先生的陈述作为证言？\n\n法庭：我也未将任何人的陈述，包括您的陈述，作为证言。\n\nHENZY先生：哦，我知道您没有将——或者我想我知道您没有将我的陈述作为证言。法官阁下，我周一可能确实短暂地发了一点脾气。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1082-9，提交于 11/11/22，登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26，第32页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 32 但这是一场伏击式审判，法官阁下，而且我认为规则确实需要——程序确实需要有规则。程序需要有秩序。而我不——我不认为这里正在发生这种情况。我已经尝试过——我不知道法官阁下是否还有问题要问我。我希望进一步陈述几点，再次说明，只是为了保留我的记录，您知道。我相信存在争议。我理解Despins先生对此表示怀疑。我理解Despins先生和Sarnoff先生已向本院形成了一套事实版本，而我再次无法予以反驳。我这里没有证人。我不——我并不知道这会是一场审判。我要指出，法官阁下，该争议是Genever U.S.案件中一项和解协议的标的，该协议已获Garrity法官批准；据我理解，该协议预期该所有权问题应当在BVI进行诉讼。再次说明，这是我的——\n\n法庭：那么您——那么您是要求您的证物也成为记录的一部分并作为证据，因为您现在正依赖附在您异议书中的证物来作出您刚才的陈述？\n\nHENZY先生：您知道，法官阁下，我正依赖该——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 33\n\n法庭：好的。那么它们也将被接纳为证据。\n\nHENZY先生：——以尝试提出论点，尝试作出回应。\n\n法庭：好的。那么您的证物也被接纳为证据。\n\n（附于债务人对受托人请求作出命令之动议的异议书后的证物，被接纳为证据。）\n\n我的意思是，您还能——您为什么还要提交证物——Despins先生也是出于同样的原因——以便本院能够结合您的立场审阅它们？\n\nHENZY先生：结合——\n\n法庭：而您现在主张这是一场证据听证，且您被——未获公平机会——但您希望基于附在您的动议、答复中的证物提出论点。因此，我认为您需要更——我们需要——以同样方式对待这个等式的双方。您不能主张Despins先生现在因为他提交了证物并将其附于答复中，就使这成为一场证据听证；但您却可以就您附于您的——的证物说服本院。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1082-9，提交于 11/11/22，登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26，第33页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 34 您的异议书，而那——那却不属于证据听证。嗯，当然属于。要么——要么全部都是证据，要么都不是，Henzy先生。它们是本案记录的一部分。您在提交附有这些证物的异议书时，就使它们成为本案记录的一部分。这就是本案的记录，Despins先生提交的证物也是如此。随后您又主张，嗯，它们不是证据。嗯，我不同意您的意见，因为它们是本案记录的一部分。但我们就把它们全部作为证据提交。这样就没有——\n\nHENZY先生：嗯，法官——\n\n法庭：——这没有任何不公平之处，Henzy先生。就是这样运作的。\n\nHENZY先生：哦，我认为其中确有不公平之处，法官阁下，但我理解您的裁定。\n\n法庭：我知道您理解。\n\nHENZY先生：我理解——\n\n法庭：但您一直未能阐明或指出任何支持您论点的判例法或法规。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，您正在采纳证据。我理解我在备忘录中附了一份文件。好的。那是为了论证之目的。我并未\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1082-9，提交于 11/11/22，登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26，第34页，共\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1082-9，提交于 11/11/22，登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26，第35页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 35 预期任何内容会被接纳为证据。据我理解，您正在采纳证据。您现在正在进行审判。\n\n法庭：不，我并未进行审判，Henzy先生。是您说Despins先生不能就附于其答复的证物提出论点，因为它们并非证据。而我对您说，好，那么就将它们作为证据提交，因为它们是——\n\nHENZY先生：而我——\n\n法庭：——本案记录的一部分。随后您刚刚说——您刚刚说——您并非依赖那些证物作出认定，但事实上您是。您刚才明确说过，获Garrity法官批准的和解协议控制Genever Holdings。因此，要么它是记录的一部分，要么不是。如果您——那么您所说的任何话都——您没有任何——任何内容支持您的论点，因为您不希望它成为记录的一部分。所以，好的。如果您不希望它成为记录的一部分，也可以。如果您不——但您已经使其成为记录的一部分，因为您将其随诉状一并提交。\n\nHENZY先生：我不会争议，法官阁下，您可以就其价值对一份已在Genever破产案件中提交的\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1082-9，提交于 11/11/22，登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26，第36页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n已在Genever破产案件中提交的文件采取司法认知。我不会——我不会对此提出争议。\n\n法庭：但您必须依据联邦证据规则这样做，Henzy律师。我不能只是说我采取司法认知。我必须依据——有关司法认知的适用证据规则这样做。因此，这是证据，正如您就和解协议提交的文件也是证据一样。\n\nHENZY先生：是的。我理解，法官阁下。我理解您的裁定。\n\n但所有权问题确有争议，法官阁下。现在，Despins先生确实提交了——而我相信，根据适用法律，该争议必须通过对抗程序解决。我引用了大量判例来说明这一点。\n\n法庭：Henzy先生，让我就在对抗程序问题上打断您。\n\n我认为您对7004——7001(a)中的措辞存在问题；您没有——您把该句子截断了。我的意思是，我今天早上回看了三遍，因为我认为您——那不是准确的陈述。其规定——(a)(1)规定，为收回金钱或财产而进行的程序，但要求债务人向受托人交付财产的程序除外。您如何——您难道没有看到该措辞吗？如何\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1082-9，提交于 11/11/22，登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26，第37页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 37 您是否以任何其他方式理解该措辞，而该方式仍要求受托人 Trustee Despins（德斯平斯）提起对抗程序？如何——我不明白。亨齐先生：因此，法官大人，正如我引用的、处理过一项 363 动议的坦克雷迪法官案件一样，我不——我理解他可以提出交付动议，但法官大人，他并未提出交付动议。法院：他不必提出。你的当事人在自愿来到本院并寻求本院保护时，根据债务人的义务，有义务与他合作。而且——至于说你的当事人遭到了突袭，受托人问题自二月中旬以来一直悬而未决。受托人于 July 8th 被任命。现在是 August 4th。你的当事人并未与受托人合作。我的意思是，你可以继续提出该论点，但你的论点没有说服力。亨齐先生：法官大人，我可以发言吗？法院：可以。亨齐先生：我不同意郭先生没有与受托人合作这一说法。这是一点。我理解本案于二月提交。受托人直到 July 8th 才被任命，法官大人。我\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 38 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 38 理解已任命了一名受托人。我已尽力熟悉本案中尽可能多的记录。我不理解法官大人是否曾就债务人缺乏合作作出认定，或就债务人是坏人作出认定。我对您准许该动议之裁定的理解实际上是——其重点在于债权人的最佳利益。您说可能存在资产——只是一个集中化的形式。因此，实际上是债权人最佳利益类型的事项。我读过您的裁定，并未看到任何有关不当行为的内容。我相信，郭先生同意存在事由是基于债权人的最佳利益。他并未承认存在渎职或任何形式的不当行为。因此，在德斯平斯先生被任命以来——我想是三或四周——我还要说，法官大人，我不——我不认为因为一个人申请了 Chapter 11（第11章），该人便在受托人被任命时放弃其任何及全部权利。法院：好的。但你没有回答我的问题，亨齐先生，关于 7001(a)，以及你如何能以规则文字以外的任何方式理解它？亨齐先生：因此，法官大人，542——7001(a)(1)——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 39 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1　抱歉——7001(1) 适用于——我承认它适用于\n2　要求债务人向\n3　受托人交付财产的程序。\n但是，我认为那是针对\n4　不存在争议、该财产属于\n5　破产财产的财产。\n而本案存在争议。\n6　这与 363 动议的情形相同，法官大人。\n7　各法院，包括坦克雷迪法官，均裁定，\n8　在确定拟出售的财产是否属于\n9　破产财产之前，不得准许 363 动议。\n而这需要一项对抗\n10　程序。\n11　法院：\n我们目前并未出售财产。\n12　第一。\n13　第二，该财产的出售受纽约破产法院（New York Bankruptcy Court）的出售该财产裁定约束。因此\n14　该事项已经完成，第一。\n15　并且，你的当事人承认，以某种方式、形式或情形而言，\n16　该资产是他的，亨齐先生。我无需认定\n17　其是否为法律权益、衡平权益\n18　或受益权益。\n我无需作出任何此类认定。\n19　你的当事人已经承认，该资产是他的。\n20　因此，我不——所以我不——\n你仍未\n21　回答 7001(a) 如何要求德斯平斯先生\n22　提起对抗程序这一问题。\n23　亨齐先生：\n那么，法官大人，我认为并不存在\n24　7001(a)。是 7001(1)，其规定——\n25　法院：\n好的。抱歉，是 7001(1)。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 40 亨齐先生：——一项例外规定——它排除了——法院：抱歉。亨齐先生：——它排除了交付。但再次强调，那是针对破产财产。必须确定该财产事实上属于破产财产。而且——法院：你的当事人已在声明中表示它是破产财产。即使他说他是以信托方式持有，他仍然拥有这些股份。他在我们前几天谈到的声明 107 中如此表示。因此，他已经这么说了。亨齐先生：他说的是，他拥有——他拥有作为——的法定所有权。法院：好的。而且你知道，破产财产的定义包括你在任何财产中拥有的一切权益，包括法律权益、受益权益、衡平权益。因此，他拥有。亨齐先生：但是，法官——法院：这是破产财产。亨齐先生：法官大人，德斯平斯先生在听证会开始前九——或九分半钟提交了第三份修订后的拟议裁定。我没有机会查看。如果其中有适当的保障措施\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 40 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 41 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 41，那么债务人很可能不会反对该裁定的作出，但我希望有机会审阅该裁定，而不是在本次听证会进行期间。法院：好的。你想休庭一小时，然后去阅读该裁定吗？我的意思是，如果这是你想做的，那没问题。但德斯平斯先生刚刚解释了他确实在该裁定中加入了保障措施。亨齐先生：我不知道他加入了什么保障措施，也不知道它们是否充分。问题在于，法官大人，德斯平斯先生呈交给您的内容似乎会——要求完整转让这些股份。好的。这是我的理解。好的。他说这些股份仅以其作为 Chapter 11（第11章）受托人的身份转让给他。那么，如果郭先生仅仅是作为受托人的法定所有人，而这些股份现被转让给德斯平斯先生，我认为德斯平斯先生正在成为该信托的受托人。如果存在有效的——如果存在有效信托，就必须有一名受托人。如果德斯平斯先生现在是这些股份的法定所有人，我认为他是作为该信托的受托人持有这些股份。因此，再次强调，如果我们都明确情况确实如此，那么或许我们没有问题。我不确定德斯平斯先生真的愿意成为\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 42 该信托的受托人，并承担由此可能产生的对该信托受益人的全部义务，但你不能两头兼得。正如法官大人多次所说，你按债务人——在本案中——前来的状态接受债务人。论点是，就该资产而言，他前来时的身份是法定所有人，即为了第三方利益而作为信托受托人。因此，如果——如果他所拥有的全部仅是作为受托人的该法定所有权权益，并且该权益正被转让给德斯平斯先生作为该信托的受托人，那么或许这没有问题。德斯平斯先生：法官大人。法院：好的。请讲。德斯平斯先生：该论点予以保留。我们并未请求您作出最终认定，认定该信托无效。我们将该问题保留至另一日期。但他不能获得一项咨询意见，称某项信托有效。正如您在质询书中指出的，问题并不在于它们是否已在纽约州提交。它们由郭先生在伪证处罚的约束下签署。而他从未提及该信托，即在五年前或四年前就已存在的该信托。因此，这就是法律状态。这就是我们接受债务人的方式。债务人对该信托只字未提。而且我——我认为我们已经很宽厚。我们为日后保留其关于存在信托的论点，这意味着要求您裁定该信托无效将是不公平的。我们对其存在严重疑问，但那是另一天的问题。这正是该裁定所规定的。它将该问题留待日后处理。法院：好的。那么，亨齐先生，你是否——萨诺夫先生：法官大人，我是 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。法院：好的。稍等一下。萨诺夫先生：法官大人，我只是想——法院：请讲，萨诺夫先生。请讲。萨诺夫先生：法官大人，我只是想指出，法院关于 PAX（PAX）提出的交付动议的裁决以及——动议裁决和命令，并非庭审记录，而是书面裁决和命令，已经提交。我们于 March 1st, 2022 将其提交至本院案卷，我相信案卷编号为 57-2。如果我的——请原谅，如果我的信息不正确。我们当时很匆忙。但我认为信息是正确的。这是纽约州最高法院（Supreme Court in the State of New York）的裁决和命令，也就是奥斯特拉格法官（Justice Ostrager）就我们交付动议作出的裁决。其\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 43 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 44 前提是该资产是他的，他需要将其交付给 PAX。法院：你认为它在 ECF 的什么编号？什么页？57 的什么页？萨诺夫先生：-2，法官大人。法院：打开需要一点时间。我正在查看。德斯平斯先生：而且，法官大人，经您许可，我们能否在 Zoom 上展示——我不知道——法院：可以。德斯平斯先生：——我的同事——调出——法院：可以。你想展示什么？德斯平斯先生：展示我们加入裁定的段落，这样萨——这样他们就能看到。这是一段很短的文字。法院：那么我们需要调出 ECF 681。你想看带黑线的版本，还是普通版本？德斯平斯先生：我的同事——我的同事，Bongartz（邦加茨）先生，可以准确告诉我们需要到哪里。邦加茨先生：第 35 页，共 40 页。法院：好的。我们只需稍等片刻，书记员会将其调出，以便我们都能阅读。德斯平斯先生：谢谢，法官大人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 44 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 45 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 45 （暂停）邦加茨先生：法官大人，在他操作时，我有一个页码引用。我想——我想 57-2 是一份证物。我相信是该证物的第 131 页，证物的 1-3-1 页。抱歉。法院：谢谢。（暂停）法院：我们正在等待调出 681，对吗？请转到其中第 35 页，共 40 页。我正在看纸质副本，但我可以——我相信我们很快就能调出来。法庭助理：是。（暂停）法院：如果你们有困难，我可以共享屏幕并展示。对吗？法庭助理：是。法院：是否有——法庭助理：她在那里遇到了问题。是的，她遇到了问题。法院：好的。那么你们需要我——那么你们需要让我共享。法庭助理：好的。您可以共享。法院：好的。法庭助理：您有权限。（暂停）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 46 法院：显示出来了吗？法庭书记员：是。法院：我看不到，因为我无法知道我是否正在共享。好的。那么这是第9段，Despins先生（德斯平斯先生），对吗？DESPINS先生：是的。正确，法官阁下。法院：是。大家都能看到吗？（无可听见的回应）法院：好的。大家至少都能查看到吗？Henzy律师（亨齐律师），您看到了吗？我并不是说你们不能休庭查看整个命令。我只是问您是否看到了第9段？HENZY先生：我看到了，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。那么，Henzy律师，您是否请求法院休庭，以便您审阅此事，还是您此时请求法院采取什么行动？HENZY先生：我认为我并未请求法院采取任何行动，法官阁下。如果法院愿意，我很乐意休庭并仔细审阅。我不知道这是否需要一个小时。我不知道这是否需要与Despins先生或其他任何人讨论。不过，我将——我想明确说明，法官阁下，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第46页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第47页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 47，我坚持提出异议，即这并不在已提交的动议中。根据 Rule 9013 及相关判例法，我认为此事并未被适当地提交至法院。因此，我的主要主张是，您不应就此作出裁定，并且您应告知Despins先生提交一项动议，以便能以有序的方式处理此事，而不是像这样在周日晚上10:09才首次提交并提出此事，法官阁下。好的。因此，再说一次，这——这并不公平。通知不充分。他所寻求救济的依据没有在任何地方具体说明。当然，动议中没有。而且我认为——他所提交的经修订拟议命令本身并不能说明问题。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，我们提交了一项非常宽泛的动议，寻求所有公司治理权利，并且我们特别提到了BVI（英属维尔京群岛）。Henzy先生回应说，BVI，太晚了。没有——您不能就BVI作出这样的开放式命令。我们回应说，好的，我们会非常精确。这正是我们从BVI所需要的。这包含在所请求的救济之中。因此，我不明白——但他周日就收到了。再说一次，所请求的救济非常简单。有一辆车，我们需要钥匙。如果我们要获得Genever（吉尼弗）的钥匙，我们需要债务人签署所有这些文件，以便完成转让手续。这与该动议完全一致。它本不需要比这更具体，但现在它非常、非常具体，而且自周日以来一直非常具体。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第48页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022\n\nHENZY先生：我不同意，法官阁下。我认为——现在所寻求的救济并不是——并不是已出具并提交的动议的一部分。因此，我将——我将坚持该异议。再说一次，如果法院或各方认为我们休庭一小时，以便我查看该命令并至少可能与我的当事人交谈，是有意义的，我很乐意这样做。但我不——我不希望在我回来后说，无论该命令中有什么内容，我都反对作出该项救济时，大家感到意外。法院：还有其他人希望发言吗？HENZY先生：法官阁下，这不必以这种方式发生。但是，在Genever美国案件中，该财产正在Melanie Cyganowski（梅拉妮·齐加诺夫斯基）的监督下出售。据我了解，该案债务人已实质上将该程序的控制权交给了Melanie Cyganowski。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第49页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 49，据我了解，我认为该债务人无法采取任何行动阻碍该程序。因此，这里的任何事情都不会有任何进展。将会有一个出售程序。我相信出售所得将属于该破产财产，并且我相信，除非根据Garrity法官（加里蒂法官）作出的法院命令，否则不会进行分配。因此，没有——我认为这里并不紧急。而且，再次如同证据开示、英国证据开示问题一样，法官阁下，如果以正确方式处理，这可能会容易得多。我不认为——我不认为是我在制造麻烦。我认为是受托人通过他选择的处理方式制造了麻烦，这种方式实际上就是试图在基本没有通知的情况下强行推进。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，紧急的原因是，基于我刚才解释的去年原因，我们需要在Genever案件中出庭。其中存在时间敏感的问题。我们需要尽快解决它们。而且我不想去那个法院，然后让诸如Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）之类的人说，哦，他无权在这里出庭，因为他并不持有股份。我不想处于那种境地，法官阁下。这就是我们现在这样做的原因。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第50页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 50，谢谢。FRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，我是Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我可以简短发言吗？我们强烈同意这一点。该案中已提交一项计划，PAX对此提出了异议。但是，您知道，其中包含各种我们认为不公平地偏袒与郭先生一致的某些当事方的条款。而且显然，债务人作为——我们不认为他在该计划提案的背景下实际履行了受信义务人的职责，并且我们相信，由Despins先生以任何身份与债务人打交道，以公平方式使郭先生的合法债权人受益，将会更加适当，因此确实具有时间敏感性。我认为这里有一份披露声明——至少目前安排在8月16日。若明确Despins先生参与该案的能力，该案的走向可能会发生重大改变。法院：对。GOLDMAN先生：法官阁下，我是委员会代理人Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼）。我可以简短发言吗？法院：可以。GOLDMAN先生：法官阁下，我认为必须区分股份权益的衡平所有权和附带公司治理权利的股份权益的法定所有权。而且我认为毫无疑问，债务人已承认他是股份的法定所有人，并且他已行使该法定所有权，以控制Genever USA（吉尼弗美国）第11章案件的管理。因此，这正是该动议的标的。并且受托人已在命令第9段中承认，因信托协议而产生的衡平权益目前无法确定。因此，我不确定争议是什么。其次，即使根据Henzy律师援引的、关于 Rule 9013 及所授予救济须具体明确的判例法，这也只是最初所寻求的主要救济形式所附随的事项。只是在债务人的请求下，该救济变得更加——该救济变得更加具体。因此，我们完全支持受托人以拟议命令形式提出的内容。我想在休庭前回到给Morrissey律师（莫里西律师）的拟议信函一分钟。这些——这些意见实际上是为破产财产提出的意见。我认为，该信函的起草方式，即经修订的信函，可能会表明律师—客户特权属于债务人。并非如此。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第52页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 52，我完全同意受托人的意见，即受托人持有债务人的律师—客户特权，尤其是在其涉及寻求增加破产财产的事项时。现在，该信函载明——标注修订痕迹的版本部分载明——“并就我在UBS（瑞银）诉讼中的请求向他，即受托人，接受指示，而不论任何属于我的律师—客户特权、工作成果特权或其他特权。”我建议插入“可能”一词，即“可能属于我的”，然后接下来的句子是：“任何特权放弃均限于向受托人提供该信息。我的同意仅限于向受托人提供完全访问权限，并非我同意允许受托人放弃该特权。”我不希望这句话被理解为我们需要郭先生允许受托人放弃该特权。该特权首先属于受托人。因此，我建议，如果这不会扰乱受托人与英国律所达成的协议，或受托人与英国律所表面上达成的协议，则可对这些条款作某些修改，以便不被理解为承认受托人享有该特权。HENZY先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第53页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 53 法院：可以。HENZY先生：谢谢。Goldman先生可以希望，我们大家都可以，但我要说的是，我知道该信函已经在英国律师和Despins先生的律所之间经历了数个版本。并且我认为英国律师采取了相当谨慎的做法，而且他们——他们非常关切自身的职业义务。针对Goldman先生所说的受托人持有特权这一点，我们谈论的是英国法下的特权，法官阁下。我们谈论的不是美国法下的律师—客户特权。英国有新的诉讼正在进行。Goldman先生或许对英国法下的特权有所专长。我承认我完全没有。我依赖于英国律师向我所陈述的内容。因此，我认为事情并不像在受托人被任命时《破产法典》如何规定特权那样简单。英国的特权如何运作，就应当如何运作。因此，我不认为——我不知道本次听证中的任何人能以任何权威性方式就此发言，就英国的特权如何运作发言。因此，我认为——我认为在我们坦率地并不知道\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第54页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 54，我们实际上知道我们在谈论什么之前，尝试——尝试斟酌措辞是危险的。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，如果可以？我完全理解Goldman先生的痛苦。我有同样的痛苦。他是正确的。只是这里，您知道，这——我认为这最终可能是一场徒劳之举，也就是说，他们可能会玩一种游戏，即信寄出后，他们说，哦，我们不会与您分享任何内容，因为他没有放弃特权或任何类似的东西。当然，我们会回到法官阁下这里。重要的是，法官阁下或受托人并未采取该立场。该信函由郭先生发送，或应由郭先生发送给律师，这是他的信。我们并未——受托人并未采取这样的立场，即这在美国法下是正确观点。这显然是我看到帷幕背后内容所必须付出的代价。如果帷幕背后什么也没有，我会回到法官阁下这里。我希望我能看到帷幕背后的内容。我与法官阁下的看法相同。但因为您被指示发送该信，并不意味着您同意我无权访问该特权。这是——这是一个实际的解决方案。而且我——这将是罕见的情形。我会在这个问题上与Henzy先生立场一致。我\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 55：如果可以的话，我今天不会试图在这封信的措辞上反复斟酌。我也并不天真。我知道——这可能是一个安排，事实上，帷幕背后什么也没有，而我将再次出现在法官阁下面前。法官阁下并未裁定该特权不属于我。法官阁下只是指示债务人寄出那封信。因此，我希望——所以，Goldman先生（戈德曼），我完全理解他的观点，但我敦请法院在此阶段不要对措辞进行斟酌。谢谢。法庭：谢谢。Goldman先生：法官阁下，我认为有了该项保留，您知道，我认为只要我们确认此处没有作出裁定——并未就受托人是否持有一项特权，或者该特权是否属于Kwok先生作出裁定，我就可以接受。我认为，鉴于这是美国境内破产财产的一项资产，究竟是美国法还是英国法管辖一项特权，存在一个问题——但我们——我同意Despins先生（德斯潘斯）的意见，即今天无需作出该项认定。法庭：而且该动议并未请求——Henzy律师（亨齐）：我认为这确实没有必要，因为——案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交 于 11/11/22 13:18:26 录入 第55页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交 于 11/11/22 13:18:26 录入 第56页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日\n\n法庭：该动议并未请求作出该项认定。因此，我不会作出该项认定。抱歉，Henzy律师。请继续。\n\nHenzy律师：嗯，法官阁下，事实上，该动议完全没有以任何方式、形式或形态涉及Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克律师事务所）问题。我们可以争论针对BVI（英属维尔京群岛）的行动是否附属于已提交的动议，我认为并非如此，但我认为确实不存在任何争议，即Harcus Parker问题属于该动议的一部分。该问题根本不在其中，法官阁下。\n\n我再说一次，我认为在这里正确的处理方式是，您知道，或许我们可以达成一个有成效的结果，而这——这并非如此。就讨论该信函的内容而言，Kwok先生不会放弃，也不会自愿放弃，律师—委托人特权。他不会这么做。而且，如我所说，我不会强迫他这么做。因此，如果您要作出一项裁定，我们可能会走到——我们可能会走到藐视法庭的地步，但他不会这么做。因此，我不知道我们需要花多少时间讨论那封信的措辞。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 57：法庭：那么，我将休庭至3:30。之后我们回来，看看你们是否进行过任何讨论。如果没有，我们将据此继续。Henzy律师：好的。谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的。法庭休庭至3:30。（自下午2:25休庭至下午3:31。）法庭书记员：康涅狄格地区美国破产法院现于休庭后开庭。我们继续审理案件编号2022-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。法庭：好的。下午好。我们在休庭后恢复开庭。休庭时，各方将尝试讨论并审阅第11章受托人今日在案卷中提交的一份拟议裁定。因此，Despins先生，休庭后情况如何？Despins先生：我会让Henzy先生提供更多细节，因为实际上球在他那边。但我们——我们确实讨论了一个方面——嗯，我们讨论了所有方面，但其中一个可能已经解决，因此或许Henzy先生可以就此向法院说明。法庭：好的。谢谢。案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交 于 11/11/22 13:18:26 录入 第57页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交 于 11/11/22 13:18:26 录入 第58页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日\n\n法庭：Henzy先生？\n\nHenzy律师：当然。因此，法官阁下，加入该第9段后，您知道，法院——法院作出裁定，指示Kwok先生签署这些——BVI股份转让文件和决议，以及Harneys Fiduciary（哈尼受托服务公司）的所谓Transfer-In Pack（转入文件包），Kwok先生将会这样做。\n\n为作记录，我相信，您知道，该信托协议本身确实禁止Kwok先生转让股份，但他并非自愿这样做。他是被法院强制这样做。由此产生的一切，就由此产生，我相信。\n\n而且，因Despins先生成为——无论他成为何种身份，信托项下的法定所有人、受托人等等，无论他是什么身份——而使任何一方享有的任何其他权利，均由此产生；我只是——债务人当然不会就可能由此产生何种后果发表意见。我也不希望债务人被指称未能充分告知他人或诸如此类。\n\n但话虽如此，有了该第9段，债务人不会反对裁定中该部分的作出。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nDespins先生：法官阁下，就此只需两秒钟。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交 于 11/11/22 13:18:26 录入 第59页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日\n\nDespins先生：该转让于我获任命的7月8日发生。《破产法》使该转让发生。我们现在所做的是记录该转让。\n\n再说一次，您拥有这辆车。这辆车成为受托人的车，并非其个人所有，而是以受托人身份持有，现在我们正在处理登记事宜，以确保其获得背书等等。\n\n该转让于7月8日依法发生。我认为理解这一点非常重要。但，您知道，事实就是如此。因此，我们——我认为我们很高兴这一方面的问题已经解决。\n\nHenzy律师：并为作记录，我听到了Despins先生的立场。我不同意。但同样，这一方面的问题已经解决，因为Kwok先生在被命令这样做后，将签署这些文件。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，剩下的是向伦敦的律师——向该律师事务所发送信函的问题。这是剩余的问题吗？\n\nHenzy律师：因此，法官阁下，为澄清起见，在动议本身提交之后、但经修订的拟议裁定提交之前，我提交了一项异议，提出其他异议，我并未放弃这些异议。\n\n我知道在上次听证会上您告诉我——我记不起您的确切措辞，您倾向于或者已经——驳回这些异议。但我想明确，我并未放弃这些异议。我正在坚持这些异议。而且我乐于——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 60：法庭：那么，让记录清楚，因为——Henzy律师：我希望——法庭：——我需要知道你反对什么。Henzy律师：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：你反对的是Despins先生——即Despins先生未提起对抗性程序以要求将该财产移交给他这一事实吗？Henzy律师：法官阁下，我认为该问题已经解决。法庭：嗯，我需要知道这一点。当你说你认为该问题已经解决时，如果没有解决，我将对此作出裁定，所以你需要告诉我它是否已经解决。Henzy律师：现在，法官阁下，抱歉。我认为我没有说清楚。认为此事需要通过对抗性程序进行的论点，已经不再存在，因为该论点涉及我们刚刚告诉您已经解决并将发生的这项股份转让。因此，当我提及我的其他异议时，如果回到最初提交的动议——请给我一——案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交 于 11/11/22 13:18:26 录入 第60页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 61：法庭：当然。Henzy律师：——最初提交的动议，即文书598——法庭：ECF 598。对。而你是说你仍想保留你的异议，即受托人没有具体援引《法典》第521条？Henzy律师：不。因此，法官阁下，7月29日，我提交了一项异议。其文书编号为643。法庭：是的。我明白。Henzy律师：好的，好的。我对动议最初请求的救济提出了异议，该异议与Harcus Parkus——我一直说Harcus Parkus，听起来很糟糕——但与Harcus Parker以及我们已经解决的股份问题无关。我提出了其他异议，我们今天完全没有讨论过。法庭：好的。那么请继续。Henzy律师：而且，再次——法庭：我想知道你仍在具体反对什么。Henzy律师：好的。也许，法官阁下，为了尝试——尝试并且想要说清楚，我反对——请给我一——抱歉，法官阁下。请给我一秒钟。法庭：没问题。案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交 于 11/11/22 13:18:26 录入 第61页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 62：（暂停）Henzy律师：抱歉。我正在把所有这些裁定理清。因此，在我于7月29日提交的异议中，如果我——如果我查看——最容易的组织方式也许是今天下午听证会前刚刚提交的裁定，即文书编号681。法庭：是。请继续。我在听。我不确定你要说什么。我以为我们要——Henzy律师：好的。我只是想——法庭：——讨论你所——Henzy律师：我想——法官阁下，抱歉。我只是想试着回到我于7月29日提交的异议。法庭：好的。Henzy律师：好的。是第2段——而这是——这是——暂且不论——法庭：哪一份文件的第2段，裁定还是你的异议？Henzy律师：裁定的第2段。法庭：ECF 681的第2段。Henzy律师：正确。法庭：你反对什么？Henzy律师：好的。我反对第2段，尽管再次，我们已经处理了BVI问题。案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交 于 11/11/22 13:18:26 录入 第62页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1082-9 于 11/11/22 提交 于 11/11/22 13:18:26 录入 第63页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 63：但此处请求的救济，就未指明的实体而言，请求非常广泛的救济，包括替换任何现任高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员的权限。因此，Despins先生寻求让本法院授予他对未指明实体的权限，而不考虑这些特定实体、何种适用的非破产法管辖这些实体，以及这些实体的组织文件可能如何规定。法官阁下，我认为这行不通。我认为这类权限——就Despins先生而言，我认为他拥有其所拥有的权限，而这超出了——我并不对他就任何实体所拥有的任何特定权限提出争议，因为我不知道我们在谈论哪些实体。但该条款所产生的结果是授予他可能并未由适用的非破产法和特定实体的管辖文件规定的权限。\n\n法庭：这难道不能仅仅——\n\nHenzy律师：而且Despins先生所援引的判例——\n\n法庭：这难道不能——我们难道不能仅仅通过说明——你是在谈论“为免疑义”措辞，即那句话？为免疑义，前述权利包括受托人所主张的权限。他主张他\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 64 有该等权限。如果他没有该等权限而且做了错误的事，那么你们可以起诉他。HENZY（亨齐先生）：实际上，法官阁下，我的意思是，我想我在我的答复中已经写过，如果这一段只是以适用的非破产法及这些实体的治理文件为准，那么我——那么我就不会反对这一条款。再次强调，我并非试图——我并非试图在这里制造争议。我确实不是。但我认为那才是对法律的正确表述。他作为受托人拥有其所拥有的任何权限，但就任何特定实体而言，该权限须受适用的非破产法和该实体治理文件的约束。仅此而已。DESPINS（德斯平斯先生）：法官阁下，如果我们有，我们就有。如果我们没有，我们就没有。但我不希望因为这些问题与债务人展开附带诉讼，因为那样本案的费用将会——您知道——变得失控。我们请求概括性授权的原因是，除非我们经尽职调查认为我们有权这样做，否则我们不会行使该项权利。如果我们存有疑问，我们会回到法庭。但我们不能处于这样一种境地：就是否——州法规定什么、外国法规定什么而展开附带诉讼，因为那将是一个——案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交 11/11/22 录入 11/11/22 13:18:26 第64页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 65 那基本上将成为另一个案件。HENZY先生：法官阁下，郭先生最不愿意做的事情就是就如何治理这些实体展开诉讼。但如果德斯平斯先生是在告诉您，他——在完成尽职调查后——只会做他有权做的事情，那么我不知道——我只想在本裁定中写明这一点，但我认为本裁定并非如此表述。法庭：嗯，我认为——HENZY先生：它——它超出了这一点。法庭：——我认为我的建议可行。为免生疑，前述权利包括受托人所主张的、替换债务人控制实体任何现有高级管理人员、董事、经理或类似人员的权限。下一句随后写道“作为前述事项的一部分”。因此，关键在于他主张自己拥有该项权限。他是以受托人身份行事。因此，这就是他所主张的内容。这就是我要——我要加上“主张”一词的地方。这是我将对第2段作出的唯一修改。HENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。为明确起见，我并未——我并未——我坚持反对该、该措辞。法庭：明白。该反对意见——案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交 11/11/22 录入 11/11/22 13:18:26 第65页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交 11/11/22 录入 11/11/22 13:18:26 第66页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 66 被驳回。那么你的下一项反对意见是什么？HENZY先生：好的。再次强调，法官阁下，我正试图简化问题。我对第3段中的第一项裁定性条款没有异议。并且，鉴于我们刚刚向您说明的关于BVI（英属维尔京群岛）的这一解决方案，那么——那么——当您翻到第3页时，对其中的小项(a)，我对该段没有异议。该问题已经解决。该页下一段，即第(b)项，我们已经就英国问题、UK/UBS（瑞银集团）诉讼问题进行了详尽讨论，我维持我对该问题的反对意见。关于第——法庭：等一下。请稍等片刻。我正在记下来。那么关于(b)我们还要讨论什么？我认为论点已经提出了，对吗？HENZY先生：我认为论点已经提出了，法官阁下。我不想赘述任何事情。法庭：好的。DESPINS先生：但，法官阁下，我只想就此简要补充一点：我们所寻求的唯一特权信息，是关于郭先生针对瑞银所提出的主动诉请实体理由的信息。没有其他问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交 11/11/22 录入 11/11/22 13:18:26 第67页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 67 因此，例如，举一个荒唐的例子，郭先生在该项代理关系中说：“哦，顺便说一下，我已将一架私人飞机的权益转让给我女儿。”我并未——我并未寻求该信息。那不是郭先生针对瑞银提出的主动诉请的一部分。因此，法官阁下指示他就此致函所涉及的特权，仅是关于该诉讼、该主动诉讼的特权。我希望确保记录在这方面清楚明确。HENZY先生：而且，法官阁下，我想明确一点。我理解德斯平斯先生的立场。我想明确的是，我认为德斯平斯先生拥有其所拥有的任何——我再次假定，我不了解英国法——特权，而郭先生拥有其所拥有的任何特权，如有的话。并且，郭先生——在其拥有任何特权的范围内——不会放弃该特权。但再次强调，我认为我们已经——我已经提出了我必须就此提出的论点。我认为如此。法庭：好的。对拟议裁定第3页第(b)项措辞的反对意见被驳回。HENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：那么你的下一项反对意见是什么？HENZY先生：关于第4页第4段，法官阁下，其实质上是概括性授权受托人就所谓债务人控制实体在正常营业过程之外行事。我反对这一点。坦率地说，我从未听说过或见过这种做法。我对《破产法典》第363条的理解是，当债务人受托人——债务人或受托人——占有中的债务人或受托人希望在正常营业过程之外行事时，他们需要通知举行听证会，前来请求法庭授权其这样做。而这将使得无需通知和听证会。并且，再次强调，这是概括性授权。我认为《法典》并未规定这种授权。我认为这只是非常救济，而且我认为其并不适当。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，就此而言，论点与适用法律的问题相同。我们不希望日后被主张我们在正常营业过程之外行事。并且，安全阀——保障机制——位于第4段末尾，其中规定，为免生疑，本裁定中的任何内容均不授权受托人出售、以其他方式处置、出租或设置负担于债务人控制实体的任何股权或债务人的其他资产。因此，是的，该措辞很宽泛，但其后在末尾被完全限缩，以避免所提出的这类顾虑。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1082-9\n提交 11/11/22\n录入 11/11/22 13:18:26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n1　提出的顾虑。\n2　我们需要开头措辞的原因是，我们不希望处于这样一种境地：我们需要就——\n3　嗯，您知道，您终止或免除了某位董事、\n4　高级管理人员。\n您不应当这样做。\n这并非——\n5　这并非正常营业过程，而我们就我们是否在\n6　正常营业过程之内或之外行事，展开所有这些附带诉讼。\n7　\n8　我们认为，只要其中有保护破产财团的安全阀，\n9　我们就应当获得两项救济，\n10　即未经法院命令，不得出售或出租财产。\n11　\n12　谢谢。\n13　法庭：\n还有其他人——\n14　HENZY先生：\n我明白——我明白该限制，法官\n15　阁下，但我仍然认为——我认为根据第363条，不存在任何概括性授权\n16　在正常营业过程之外行事这种情况。\n17　\n18　DESPINS先生：\n仅限于行使公司治理\n19　权利，法官阁下。没有其他事项。\n20　FRIEDMAN（弗里德曼先生）：\n法官阁下，我能否发言——这是\n21　彼得·弗里德曼——只说片刻？\n22　最初提出的裁定并未\n23　包括德斯平斯先生加入的该等措辞，而我们认为\n24　那极其重要。\n25　而且，您知道，如果没有该等措辞——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交 11/11/22 录入 11/11/22 13:18:26 第70页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n1　包含在其中，作为债权人，我们本会提出异议。但我们\n2　认为该项增补——我认为——体现了受托人为平衡\n3　债权人的经济利益所作出的极具善意的努力，而我认为\n4　该利益必须居于首位，同时兼顾效率。\n5　\n6　因此，我们强烈支持纳入\n7　该特定段落及应我们请求增加的\n8　保护性措辞。\n9　法庭：\n谢谢。\n10　还有其他人希望就第4段发言吗？\n11　（无可听到的答复）\n12　法庭：\n好的。\n我正在再次阅读该措辞。\n13　\n14　（停顿）\n15　法庭：\n好的。\n还有任何人就\n16　第4段进一步发言吗？\n17　（无可听到的答复）\n18　法庭：\n虽然我理解该反对意见，\n19　亨齐律师，我将予以驳回，因为我认为该\n20　措辞——其具体针对债务人控制实体的经济及\n21　治理权利。而且，\n22　您知道，如果就此发生诉讼，那么可以\n23　发生诉讼。但我们不会——其——其受到最后一句的限制，\n24　而我认为这对债务人提供了充分保护。\n25　\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 71 HENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：那么你的下一项反对意见是什么？HENZY先生：而且，法官阁下，有个好消息，我对第5段没有异议。法庭：好的。谢谢。HENZY先生：关于第6段，——因此第6段规定，债务人不得干扰、阻碍或拖延受托人行使本裁定项下的权限。我对第6段第一句没有异议。然而，第二句将限制债务人寻求救济的能力，并将其限制为向本法庭寻求救济。我并不——我并不知道债务人是否会寻求救济。但特别是鉴于第4段及德斯平斯先生在其中被授予的广泛权限，我不知道这里可能会发生什么。我不知道债务人有何权利，如有的话，可以做任何事情。但我认为，债务人——在其原本有权寻求救济的范围内——不应受本裁定限制。案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交 11/11/22 录入 11/11/22 13:18:26 第71页，共\n\n因此，我请求将第6段第二句从裁定中删除。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，还是同一问题。债务人正在本法庭审理之中。他拥有遍布全球的资产。从您的角度而言，您对此拥有专属管辖权。我们——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1082-9\n提交 11/11/22\n录入 11/11/22 13:18:26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n1　不能让债务人前往外国法院提出\n2　主张。\n3　他可以前来，法官阁下，但您知道\n4　吗，关于英国法中\n5　的XYZ问题存在一个非常重要的转折点。\n而您可能会决定，是的，\n6　你是对的，去做吧，或诸如此类。\n但是\n7　一切事项都需要由该债务人集中于本法庭处理。\n他不能在其他地方进行附带诉讼。\n并且\n8　\n9　他们有能力前来本法庭寻求救济。因此\n10　这是一个非常重要的立场，法官阁下。\n11　HENZY先生：\n法官阁下，按照本裁定的\n12　设置方式，德斯平斯先生可以前往其他法院，包括外国\n13　法院。\n14　DESPINS先生：\n这是正确的。\n15　HENZY先生：\n因此，按照现在的\n16　设置方式，德斯平斯先生决定前往本国或外国的某一\n17　法院，而债务人，即使假定根据该外国的法律，\n18　债务人有权出庭并做债务人将会做的任何事情。\n19　\n20　本裁定规定债务人不能这样做。\n21　而且其规定债务人，我想，必须回到您这里，\n22　并向您说，德斯平斯先生正在外国法院做这件事，\n23　而我在您面前告诉您，他不应当这样做，因为我被告知不能前往\n24　外国法院提出以下论点：根据该外国——\n25　\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1082-9\n提交 11/11/22\n录入 11/11/22 13:18:26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n1　我有权作出的法院法律。那对我而言完全没有意义。\n\n3　德斯平先生（Mr. Despins）：法官阁下——\n\n4　亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）：如果德斯平先生无需寻求法院授权，便能够前往其他法院，那么——再次强调，法官阁下，您已经说过，应当接受债务人的现状。债务人应当能够依照外国法律，行使债务人有权行使的一切权利。\n\n9　法院：问题在于——\n\n10　德斯平先生：法官阁下——\n\n11　法院：——德斯平先生就是债务人，因此他已经拥有这些权利。他无需获得本院授权，便可在债务人为当事人的已决诉讼中进行其正在进行的行为。\n\n15　因此，尽管我在一定程度上理解你的论点，但问题在于，如果德斯平先生现已成为郭文贵先生（Mr. Kwok），那么郭文贵先生在任何一个外国法院中还能有什么权利做任何事情？\n\n19　亨齐先生：嗯，德斯平先生并不是——\n\n20　法院：你在书面文件中已经承认，一旦任命受托人的命令获批，德斯平先生就成为了郭文贵先生。那么，郭文贵先生还能有什么可能的权利？\n\n24　亨齐先生：嗯，法官阁下——\n\n25　法院：德斯平先生已经承继了所有这些权利。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 74 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022 74\n\n亨齐先生：我想我同意。我没有——我认为我没有说德斯平先生成为了郭文贵先生。我猜德斯平先生也不想成为郭文贵先生，但他在任何未决诉讼中绝对替代了郭文贵先生。但我认为，按照这项命令的设定，这不仅限于未决诉讼；德斯平先生可以提起新的诉讼，而债务人甚至可能不是该诉讼的当事人。现在，郭文贵先生作为未占有财产的债务人，在外国司法管辖区内具体可能拥有什么权利？法官阁下，我不知道。他可能有，也可能没有任何权利。他可能没有任何权利。因此我不知道，因为我不知道我们谈论的是哪个司法管辖区。我不知道我们谈论的是哪个实体。我不知道德斯平先生将采取何种行动。因此，我完全——请看，再次强调，这项命令的设定是，德斯平先生可以去做他将要做的一切事情；但仅在根据某项适用的外国法律，郭文贵先生有权出面并采取某种行动的范围内——而他可能没有，他可能没有，法官阁下——他应当能够这样做。我不——我不认为，他应当为了确定自己是否有权依据非破产——\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022 75\n\n适用的非破产法，在另一法院出面，而必须回到本院。\n\n弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）：法官阁下，我能否就此问题陈述片刻？我是彼得·弗里德曼（Peter Friedman）。我认为这确实很重要，因为我认为问题在于，无论基于何种前提，鉴于其财产无力偿债，郭文贵先生都必须确定自己是否具有诉讼资格。因此，我认为，鉴于他称自己有 $3,850，在他前往另一法院并获准进行诉讼之前，他实际上应当证明，考虑到本案的经济状况，他有权干预受托人对债务人财产的使用。我认为，这是一个确实必须参照美国破产法及其权利来作出确定的问题。因此，我实际上认为德斯平先生所提议的做法极为适当。这当然是一项审慎措施，而且确实属于破产核心裁判的范围，即确定他是否甚至具有获得陈述机会的诉讼资格。\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，仅提出一个假设。假设德斯平先生前往外国法院，并在该外国法院寻求强制郭文贵先生实施他曾通过该命令寻求实施的那类行为。他寻求——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 75 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 76 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n1　强制他签署一份文件，比如说公司文件。那么我不——我的意思是，有人会说郭文贵先生在该外国法院没有诉讼资格向该外国法院的法官表示，嗯，无论出于何种原因，我不应当必须签署该文件吗？\n\n6　法官可能会说，你错了，你必须签署该文件。法官将作出法官将要作出的任何裁定。但是，郭文贵先生怎么可能没有权利在该外国法院出面——而且是在法官面前——在法官能够因任何理由对郭文贵先生说，我不认为你具有诉讼资格之前。德斯平先生可以对法官，即外国法官说，郭文贵先生没有诉讼资格。\n\n14　那么，在我的假设中，郭文贵先生怎么可能没有能力出庭，并在其拥有任何权利的范围内，可能地维护其权利？\n\n17　弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，我不替德斯平先生发言，但我不理解该命令是在剥夺郭文贵先生在另一法院有事项时为自己辩护的能力。\n\n21　但如果他寻求提起诉讼，我认为他当然必须来到本院。\n\n23　亨齐先生：嗯，这不是该命令所说的内容。\n\n24　德斯平先生：无论如何，法官阁下，关键在于，本院对郭文贵先生享有专属管辖权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 77 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022 77\n\n他需要回到本院。而且，事实上，如果存在令人信服的情形，是的，我们将授权他前往澳大利亚，例如，为抗辩某项诉讼而前往那里。关键在于，他不应当四处奔走，并且无需向法官阁下说明这就是我正在做的事情，便有能力在世界各地干扰我们正在做的事情。我遭受了某种特定损害，尽管我未占有财产，但我不知何故能够主张该损害。嗯，该论点只能向法官阁下提出。然后，如果您认为其具有说服力，您将派——您将授权他在国外做任何他想做的事情。但您不能允许他在这种情况下四处奔走。这是基本原则，法官阁下。\n\n亨齐先生：但是，法官阁下，可以说该命令正在做的是，您正在将一定程度的管辖权交给德斯平先生，也就是说，您是在告诉他，他可以在正常营业范围之外采取行动，而无需来向您请求许可。但随后德斯平先生和弗里德曼先生实质上主张的是，然而您——然而您仍就——比如说同一事项——仍对债务人保留管辖权。因此，德斯平先生可以做他想做的一切事情，但郭文贵先生不能对此作出回应。而这似乎应当是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 78 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022 78\n\n要么这样，要么那样。\n\n如果德斯平先生想要回来提出动议，以在正常营业范围之外采取行动，而债务人必须在破产法院对此作出回应，那没有问题。但如果他无需这样做，那么我认为，债务人应当能够在他进行活动的任何地方出面，并在其有权这样做的范围内作出回应。\n\n德斯平先生：法官阁下，债务人与受托人的地位并不平等。认为由于我们有权这样做，他们就也有权这样做的这种观念，并非运作方式。\n\n法院：嗯，我正要提出这一点。关键在于，德斯平先生是一名独立第三方，被任命负责经营——管理郭文贵先生的财产。\n\n第二句的措辞是，在债务人反对受托人行使权限的范围内，好，债务人应被限于向本院寻求救济，并向利害关系方发出通知，且以债务人能够证明其具有如此行事的诉讼资格为限。\n\n而且，不幸的是，鉴于——就债务人而言——鉴于他在所有申报文件中所述的情况，以及如我们此前所讨论的，本院面前没有任何证据——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 79 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n1　记录中也没有任何内容——事实上，记录中仅有的内容支持债务人不会在该财产中拥有任何利益，因为本案不会对债权人作出全额清偿。因此，不会有债务人有诉讼资格就此类论点提出主张的任何剩余。\n\n7　而且，如果德斯平先生做了超出其权限的事情，那么债务人仍有权提出该论点。但他必须在本院提出，受本院对该财产的管辖。因此，这也是任命第 11 章受托人的——你知道——结果之一。\n\n13　因此，再次强调，尽管我理解你的论点，它并未排除债务人反对受托人行使权限，但他必须在本院这样做。\n\n16　因此，我将驳回你对第 6 段的异议。\n\n18　亨齐先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。顺便说一句，只是说明一下，英国 UBS（瑞银）诉讼中的损害赔偿请求为 $500 million。我不了解其强度——\n\n22　法院：该请求未被列为该财产的一项资产，亨齐先生。\n\n24　亨齐先生：哦，不，它被列入了。\n\n25　法院：没有。实际上，最初没有。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 80 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022 80\n\n亨齐先生：我相信它被列入了。\n\n法院：没有。我认为没有。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。我会——我会回去核查，但我认为它被列入了。但无论如何，我不——我不认为债务人会完全否认，在其未列入财产申报表的范围内，法官阁下，它本应被列入。我认为债务人绝对——\n\n法院：嗯，也许它被列入了。那么让我——让我回到总说明，那并不真正是说明——再次强调，据我所知，根据《破产法》、判例法、成文法、地方法规或联邦规则，没有任何授权允许任何债务人向其——向其财产申报表提交总说明，以否认其在宣誓后如实申报的财产申报表中所说的内容。我从未见过或听说过这种事情，但我理解这现在正成为人们所做的事情。但这并不——这并不意味着总说明对郭文贵先生是否准确完成其财产申报表具有任何影响。话虽如此，即使他确实列入了该项请求，那也是一项由另外两名原告共同提出的 $500 million 请求，对吗？\n\n亨齐先生：是，但是——\n\n法院：那么将分成三份，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 81 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n1　亨齐先生：根据——\n\n2　法院：以及你当事人在其财产申报表中确实列入的 PAX（PAX）请求，实际上是在一份财产申报表中——我相信，他将其列为不少于 $254 million，也许是 53。我最近没有看过。\n\n6　但无论如何，你的债务人、你的当事人的清偿能力，在本案中仍然非常有争议。\n\n8　亨齐先生：我完全不——我完全不反对这一点，法官阁下。\n\n10　法院：好的。\n\n11　亨齐先生：我只是指出，你并不——我完全不知道英国请求的强弱，以及其所占比例——\n\n14　法院：我明白。\n\n15　亨齐先生：——如果确实如此。\n\n16　法院：但他将——他将必须回到这里，并说明他为何反对受托人行使权限。并且将听取他的陈述。\n\n19　亨齐先生：好的。明白了。我对——的异议——我明白了。\n\n21　法院：也许。\n\n22　亨齐先生：该异议被驳回。\n\n23　法院：取决于届时他是否具有诉讼资格，好吗。\n\n25　亨齐先生：明白了，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 82 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n法庭：\n因此——因此，我驳回了你对第6段的异议，即我们刚才在庭审记录中讨论的第6段措辞。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐）：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n那么你的下一项异议是什么？\n\nHENZY先生：\n最后一项异议针对第7段。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nHENZY先生：\n因此，这要求作出一项命令，其中——该命令规定您请求外国法院提供协助，包括英属维尔京群岛法院（BVI court）的协助，涉及受托人就其对Genever BVI（Genever英属维尔京群岛公司）行使公司控制权而提出的任何救济请求。\n\n我绝对不会告诉法庭它应当对其他法官说什么，但我只是——我认为这非常、非常宽泛。\n\n而且我对这项规定的理解是，它会在某种程度上赋予Despins先生（德斯平斯）本法庭的认可，使其可以到另一位法官面前说，请把这个给我——Manning法官（曼宁）告诉您，您应当把它给我，即使您，法官阁下，并不知道——他告诉另一位法官他想要的究竟是什么。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n因此，法官阁下，这类措辞经常用于外国——您知道，外国代表的情形。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 83 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n显然，您不了解我，您可能不愿意给我一张空白支票，而且我不认为这是空白支票——但它实际上是向外国法院表明，这或许并非如同美国法院那样，即本法庭请求其协助并非为了实施任何非法或不当之事，而是在请求其协助。\n\n这算是常规措辞，但我一直被告知绝不要在Manning法官面前援引第105条，所以我不会援引它。\n\n但意思大致是这样。因此，如果您——有或没有该措辞我都可以。我希望保留它，但我不会——我不希望让您处于您对此不能百分之百放心的境地。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我的意思是，我认为第15章中的该条款——您知道，国会于2005年将第15章纳入法典的全部目的，是承认——您知道，跨境案件，并努力促进外国法院与外国代表之间的合作。明白吗？\n\n因此，我认为我们可以——我们可以说，为促进受托人行使本命令授予的权限，法庭谨请求外国法院就受托人对债务人实体（包括Genever BVI）行使公司控制权提供协助。我认为这——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 第84页，对债务人实体（包括Genever BVI）行使公司控制权。我认为这——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n当然。说得很好。\n\n法庭：\n——不存在任何问题。我的意思是。而且我认为——我的意思是，我认为在本辖区，已有案件就其他——美国境外的程序作出过类似命令。因此，我不——我认为我可以修改——Despins先生，你是否有任何问题——我没有记下我刚才具体说了什么——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n没有。\n\n法庭：\n——但对于我所述的修改，你是否——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n如果您愿意，我们会作出该修改，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n或者由您决定。\n\nHENZY先生：\n并且，法官阁下，为记录起见，如果法庭对该措辞感到满意，我不会就该问题坚持提出异议。\n\n法庭：\n它所——\n\nHENZY先生：\n再次，那——\n\n法庭：\n它所要求的，而且我相信是适当的，只是因为国会决定将——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 84 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n第15章设为法典中一个独立且不同的章节，他们是在努力承认，为使一个辖区的案件得以实施，可能需要与本国境外另一辖区的相关程序之间进行法院合作。\n\n因此，按照我刚才所述的修改，我对此没有问题。\n\nHENZY先生：\n明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我们会作出修改，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\nHENZY先生：\n最后一个问题，法官阁下——我并不是要回头争论——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我以为那——那就是最后一个问题。\n\nHENZY先生：\n还有一个。我不是——我不是要回头。在第3段，也就是回到第3页，这是Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克）的信函，其中写的是，债务人被命令在本命令录入后不迟于两个营业日交付。\n\n嗯，这里有几个问题，法官阁下。\n\n据我了解，摆在您面前的材料中作为附件B附上的该信函副本及表格，尚未获得Harcus Parker同意。因此，您在某种意义上——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 第86页\n\n法庭：\n不过，我对此有一个问题，因为Despins受托人说，这是他从他们那里收到的回函，那么他们怎么会不同意呢？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n这是一封信。我所说的是，这是我们从他们那里收到的信，我们作了一些细微修改。但是无论如何，我会处理这个问题，也就是说，如果他们——如果他们说——我认为我们作的修改是——顺便说一句，我们今天早些时候确实把我们作的修改发送给了他们，所以他们已经看到了。我们尚未收到他们的回复。但如果这是个问题，我们会予以解决，也就是说，这不是Kwok先生的问题，也就是说，我们已将该信按提交给法官阁下的版本提交，我们将看看他们怎么说。如果需要修改，我们只需提交一份补充材料。这实际上将是非常、非常细微的修改。\n\nHENZY先生：\n我想——所以我不清楚是否——所以他将会——Kwok先生将被命令签署一封英国律师可能告诉我们不可接受的信。我不希望出现这样一种情况：Despins先生就信函内容与英国律师协商三天，而这里却说他必须签署——\n\n法庭：\n因此，我认为你的意思是，Henzy律师，你只是不希望法庭在你看到信函最终版本之前录入该命令。是——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 1082-9\n提交于 11/11/22\n录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n你所说的吗？\n\nHENZY先生：\n或者至少在存在——是的，在存在最终版本之前。是的，在存在——据我了解，目前没有最终版本。\n\n但第二点是——如我先前所说，Kwok先生不会签署这封信。这规定，他必须在该信实际最终定稿并完整后的两个营业日内签署。\n\n而且我只是——您知道，我——我们将提出上诉。我们将申请上诉期间中止执行。\n\n我只是——我不希望Kwok先生因其没有——没有签署该命令而被认定藐视法庭。我只是想——所以我只是想提醒法庭。\n\n我会——我想我不知道为什么要在两个营业日内如此仓促。我不知道两个营业日内会发生什么，您知道，也不知道为什么不能有稍长一些的期限，以便Kwok先生能够提出上诉，并提交他将要提交的任何上诉期间中止执行动议。\n\n我只是，不希望出现不必要的紧急状况，法官阁下。如果该命令最终未被中止执行，而他——而他未签署，那么由此产生的任何后果将随之而来。\n\n但我不——我不知道我们能否实际在两个营业日内，就上诉期间中止执行动议到法官阁下面前进行审理。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 第88页\n\n仅此而已。而且，再次，我不——我请求这应当比两天更长一些。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n因此，法官阁下，我们——我理解您的关切，我也有同样的关切，即确保我们作出的修改仅属文体上的修改。但是，您知道，鉴于事情正朝这个方向发展，我们应当做到准确。因此，我们应当做的是——我只是在思考处理此事的最佳方式——我的意思是，将会有一封信。应当有一封最终信函。或许命令可以规定，我们将在X日内提供最终形式的信函，债务人将有Y日——来完成这件事。Y个日子来完成。并且该信函将与所附形式基本一致。因此，我们可以提交一项命令，处理该问题，即确切的该问题，法官阁下。并且要明白，准确性——我们不应当——我们应当谨慎处理此事，并应当更加准确，而不是那样。我理解您的观点，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n你是否反对将债务人的两日期限延长为较长的一段时间？他不会签署它，但我想他的意思是，他将提出上诉，所以——我\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 88 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 89 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 第89页\n\n不——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n当然。\n\n法庭：\n我也没有任何倾向性意见。我只是问你这个问题。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n法官阁下——答案当然是可以。我的意思是，法官阁下认为哪个期限更好，我们显然都会遵从。通常，我们希望就该项请求尽快推进，但两天还是四天不会，您知道，造成重大影响。\n\n法庭：\nHenzy先生？\n\nHENZY先生：\n我请求五个营业日。我不——我不知道这一切究竟何时会发生。我不知道我的生活中会有什么事情。我不知道法庭会有什么事情。我不——我不认为相差一天或两天会有任何影响——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n您知道，五个营业日可以，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\nHENZY先生：\n我只是——\n\n法庭：\nDespins先生，你说五天？可以吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么就这样。Henzy律师，你有五天。\n\nHENZY先生：\n并且，法官阁下，再次，我——因为我不希望当事人，您知道，指责我或指责Kwok先生，我认为就完成这封信而言，这将是一团糟，好吗。Harcus Parker律师告诉我，她同意做任何事情的前提条件是，Kwok先生作出的任何放弃都必须是自愿的。而这不会是自愿的。我并不是告诉她应当基于此采取什么立场。Kwok先生没有与她沟通。因此，我不——对于她就Kwok先生在反对之下被命令发送这封信所作出的反应，我，您知道，那不是我的——那不是我的事。那不是Kwok先生的事。英国律师将会作出任何——他们将会作出他们会作出的反应。明白吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我理解这一点，法官阁下。关键在于，我们允许这些人左右我们的事情有一定限度。如果他们收到某人寄来的信，无论是否有法院命令要求其这样做——顺便说一句，这没有实际意义，因为他说他不会签署这封信。因此，您知道，我们在争论——我们——\n\n法庭：\n对。他无论如何都不会签署。对。\n\nHENZY先生：\n嗯，但是——可能永远不会有一封信。仅此而已。我的意思是，在某个时候，我——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 90 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 录入于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第 91 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- August 4, 2022 91 理解——法庭：哦，不，我认为会有一封信函。关键在于，你的当事人已经表示他不会签署该信函。他不会。他已经通过你表示，他不会遵守这项法院命令。亨齐先生（MR. HENZY）：而且，法官阁下——法庭：而且该命令甚至尚未录入，但他不会遵守它。亨齐先生：他不会自愿放弃其特权，法官阁下，前提是他享有任何特权。但是我认为——我想表达的是，我理解德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）在某个时候会向您提交一封信函，而该信函可能未获哈克斯·帕克律师事务所（Harcus Parker firm）同意。仅此而已。因为哈克斯·帕克——法庭：他不会向我提交一封未经该律所同意的信函。是他们起草了该信函。亨齐先生：不，他们没有。法庭：是他们对其作出了最终意见。亨齐先生：法官阁下，我不知道他们会怎么做。如果他们理解债务人不会自愿放弃特权，他们可能会采取这样的立场：我们不——我们就是不这么做。好吧。我不知道，法官阁下。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- August 4, 2022 92 法庭：那么，德斯平斯先生将不得不处理此事。亨齐先生：好的。法庭：如果他没有一封信函，那么就无需担心任何五日期限。如果他没有从他们那里收到信函，那么你——就没有任何——那么你的当事人不会违反法院命令，因为不会有一封——亨齐先生：好的。法庭：——他必须签署并交付给他们的信函。德斯平斯先生：不。实际上，法官阁下，我认为——在某个时候我们将需要债务人出具的一封信函，因为否则这些律师只会让我们一直处于悬而未决的状态。将会发生的是，如果债务人拒绝签署该信函，我们将会有一项法院命令。我们会去英国法院。这将花费很多钱，诸如此类，但我们会去英国法院，并向英国法院寻求针对这些律师的救济；即便他们收到债务人出具的一封信函，说明你们需要让他们获得查阅权限，这些律师仍拒绝让我们获得查阅权限。但是，再次说明，我——您知道，我们正在就一封债务人称其永远——他们无论如何都永远不会签署的信函争论，所以，您知道，我认为那就是——我们先谈到这一点。Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 92 of 105\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- August 4, 2022 93 亨齐先生：我接受法庭这样说：如果没有——如果没有该律所同意的信函，债务人就无须采取任何行动。德斯平斯先生：不，法官阁下，因为那是在给予——那是——法庭：嗯，那不是我所说的。我说的是，那么五日期限就无关紧要。亨齐先生：好的。法庭：如果没有信函，那么五日期限就无关紧要。这是我所说的。你要求更多时间。亨齐先生：是。是。法庭：他已同意给予更多时间。然后你现在又表示，你在——在今天期间也多次表示，你的当事人不会签署该信函。亨齐先生：是。法庭：所以我说，如果他不会签署该信函，那么他将违反法院命令。亨齐先生：我是在提出一种情形，即英国的律所并未同意一封信函。仅此而已。德斯平斯先生：而且英国的律所不能成为本案中会发生何事的最终裁决者。Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 93 of 105\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- August 4, 2022 94 我们已经给予他们很大的回旋余地。法官阁下不会让一名英国律师控制本案中的特权。因此我们愿意与他们合作。我们正在这么做。但是，您知道，亨齐先生不能把他们阻挠程序的能力作为其本人及其当事人不签署该信函的辩解。亨齐先生：我并未利用任何事情来阻挠这里的程序，法官阁下。法官阁下，如果您——我理解，如果存在一封信函，且您命令郭先生（Mr. Kwok）签署该信函——无论英国律所是否同意该信函——并且您命令郭先生签署该信函，他的五日期限将开始起算。我理解这一点。德斯平斯先生：这就是我所请求的全部。而且，法官阁下，我们拟议修改命令，以处理该信函及所有相关事项。因此，如果法官阁下授权我们，我们将这样做，因为我们需要修改该命令。您在其他地方建议使用更好的措辞，所以我们需要这样做，并且经您许可，我们会这样做。法庭：是。你获得我的许可这样做。你认为你明天会将该命令提交法庭吗？德斯平斯先生：是，法官阁下。Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 94 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 95 of 105\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- August 4, 2022\n法庭：好的。还是周一？\n德斯平斯先生：从我们的角度看，可以。我们会尽最大努力这样做，是的。\n法庭：或者周一。\n亨齐先生：我可以有一些时间吗——法官阁下，我想要一些时间，仅审阅该命令。\n德斯平斯先生：可以。\n亨齐先生：好的。\n法庭：嗯，我们刚刚已经逐项说明该命令将会写什么。我们已经逐一审查每个段落，包括你的每一项异议；这些异议均被驳回。我已经在记录中说明全部裁决。\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我只是想亲眼看看该命令——我并不是——我完全相信德斯平斯先生会准确作出我们讨论过的修改，但我一贯希望看到最终命令。仅此而已。我并不是说我会对其提出异议或诸如此类。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 96 of 105\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- August 4, 2022\n法庭：但是，如果你不同意，那么我们就要再举行一次听证会。这正是——这正是你想——这正是你所说的。你是在说，如果某些事项——如果某些事项不符合你所认为的内容，那么我们就要再举行一次听证会。这正是你所说的。\n亨齐先生：是。但是这全是因为——\n法庭：嗯，我不会再举行一次听证会。我已作出裁决。我已裁决该命令——该命令需要写明什么。我们已经审查过了。\n你刚刚花了这些时间。你对我说过——这是你所说的——我问你对所请求救济有哪些异议。然后我回过头来，从“所以你是反对德斯平斯先生没有援引 521”开始。你说，不，不。我们来——我们来审查该命令。我们来审查我最初的异议，并审查该命令。因此，这就是我们刚刚所做的。\n我们不会就此再回到法庭。这就是我们刚刚所做的。\n亨齐先生：那么，法官阁下，如果——如果——如果提交的命令——再次说明，我不是在告——说我认为德斯平斯先生会这样做——如果提交的命令与今天记录中所载内容不一致，怎么办？\n法庭：那么我不会录入它。我会阅读该命令。\n亨齐先生：抱歉，法官阁下。我认为，让全体律师都有机会在命令录入前审阅该命令，是惯常做法。但是我明白。\n法庭：但这就是我们刚刚所做的。我们刚刚已经花费了你本会用来审阅命令的时间。\n亨齐先生：我理解法庭所说的。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- August 4, 2022 97 法庭：事实上，我们刚刚花费了大量时间，逐一审查命令中的每个段落。亨齐先生：法官阁下，如果您的裁决是我将不会有机会审阅最终命令——法庭：德斯平斯先生——亨齐先生：——那么我理解法庭的——法庭：您知道，我——德斯平斯先生，你们律所是否会——这是我希望每个人都做的。这将是处理方式，因为我们并非经常这样做。德斯平斯先生，请你向法庭书记员邮箱发送一封电子邮件；你们律所会知道，必要时林赛先生（Mr. Linsey）可以协助你，附上该命令，并抄送全体当事人。我不会在一段时间内录入该命令——我不知道是多久——但可能是数小时。好吗？然后我将录入该命令。我不会再举行一次听证会来审查该命令的措辞。我们刚刚已这样做。该命令不被录入的唯一原因，是德斯平斯先生写了诸如“法庭允许我住在法庭内”之类的话。那样我就不会录入该命令。好吗？有很多理由。他无论如何都会住得不舒服。Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 97 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 98 of 105\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- August 4, 2022 98 但这就是重点。我们不会这么做。我们已经——这是就此问题举行的第二次听证会。该动议于 July 23rd 提交。现在是 August 4th。你的当事人不再是占有中的债务人。必须有人认识到这一点。好吗？如我刚刚裁决，受托人有权实施他正在实施的事项。而且——我们已经逐一审查命令中的每个段落，我已就这些段落作出裁决。将作出一些修改。因此，这就是我们将要做的。德斯平斯先生，你的办公室或通过林赛先生将发送——德斯平斯先生：是。法庭：——一封电子邮件至Bridgeport（布里奇波特）的法庭书记员邮箱，并说明该命令——这是在 August 4th 听证会后，已纳入记录中讨论的全部修改后准备的命令。你将抄送全体当事人，包括亨齐先生。然后，在一段时间后，我将适时录入该命令。但我不会再举行听证会。本次听证会结束。德斯平斯先生：明白，法官阁下。法庭：我已作出裁决。好吗？\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- August 4, 2022 99 德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，有两项事务性事项。法庭：是。请讲。德斯平斯先生：五分钟。好的。第一，我们已经建议了日期，但当然须视法官阁下的日程安排而定，用于举行状态会议。法庭：你是否已经向某人提交这些日期？德斯平斯先生：实际上，我们尚未提交。法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生：所以您完全正确。此事暂缓。我们暂缓处理。我们原本打算展示它们。我不知道我的同事是否可以在 Zoom 上展示建议的可能日期。或者您知道吗，法官阁下，我们来传阅这些日期。我们暂缓处理此事。我们将传阅这些日期。我们将就此向法官阁下回复。法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生：抱歉。您完全正确。我们应该——法庭：你可以通过电子邮件向法庭书记员告知这些建议日期，并抄送所有人，以使每个人都知道这是你所建议的。德斯平斯先生：会这样做。法庭：好吗？Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 99 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-9 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 100 of 105\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- August 4, 2022\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n会的，法官阁下。\n我接下来想提出的是，我们已就《规则》2004规定的取证中有关对专业人士（如律师）进行取证的问题，与债务人律师进行了会面与协商。该问题将会成为一个难题，因为他们——他们的观点是，我们无法获取——至少据向我表述的方式，我们无法获取特权文件，原因是债务人的资产或我们认为应属于债务人的资产，例如 Lady May（“Lady May”号）或 Sherry Netherland（谢里-尼德兰），债务人认为并非资产，因此，追索这些文件将侵犯其特权。\n我之所以向您说明这一点——我并非——因为我并未请求您就此作出裁定，但我们需要尽早而非拖延地提出该问题，因为他们希望在收到传票后30天提出该问题，那将使我们进入September/October。\n这里有一个明确的问题，即受托人承继何种特权的问题。我认为判例法很明确：在处理破产财团资产时，无论是已属于破产财团的资产，还是有人主张属于破产财团的资产，例如 Lady May（“Lady May”号）和 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-尼德兰），受托人均可获取有关这些资产的特权通信，或者获取与案件管理有关的特权通信，例如 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）编制资产负债表的相关通信。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22 登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第101页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 101\n\n我并非请求您作出裁定，但我们需要提出该问题。我们现在不会这样做，但我们想告诉您，我们将请求确定一个早于送达传票后30天的日期，因为那可能使我们拖到September或October。因此，这是一个尚待处理的问题。最后一个问题，法官阁下，是，您知道，您曾要求我们注意，您此前提出过利益冲突问题，而我们前几天暂时搁置了该问题。您说过，大家需要关注这一点。但这次会面与协商刚刚使我们或我的合伙人意识到，问题不是 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）的问题。问题在于，受托人调查的对象，即债务人的儿子，正在支付律师费用。律师不可能与支付其费用的人持对立立场，或以任何方式认为自己与其对立。这在理论上是可能的，但我不会要求任何人达到该标准。因此，我们并非请求——这里并没有什么结论，即我们请求您取消 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）的代理资格。我认为这不是 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）的问题。我认为，对于任何代表债务人并对破产财团负有义务的律师事务所而言，由受托人请求权的对象支付费用，都是非常困难的。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1082-9\n提交于 11/11/22\n登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n这里的损害涉及 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-尼德兰）、Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）等等。\n因此，您知道，再次说明，我并没有什么结论。我们仍在思考这个问题，但我想——我们有义务向法院转达该问题。\n我不希望数周后有人说你们对此置之不理。真正的问题是，调查对象向债务人律师支付费用。我认为这是有问题的。\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n德斯平斯先生：\n我们要说的就是这些。\n亨齐先生：\n法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n法院：\n可以。\n亨齐先生：\n谢谢。\n关于2004，我不知道为什么现在提出这个问题。我们谈论的是尚未作出的2004命令。对于已提交的2004动议的异议截止日期甚至尚未到来。是在明天。因此，我们谈论的是尚未作出的2004命令和尚未发出的传票。我不知道这将如何发展，但我想，现在预先讨论这个问题倒是有意思，不过我完全不知道这将如何发展。\n关于我所在律师事务所的利益冲突问题，如果德斯平斯先生想提交取消我所代理资格的动议，他应当这样做。任何一方想提交取消我所代理资格的动议，都应当这样做。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1082-9\n提交于 11/11/22\n登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n如果法院认为我所应被取消代理资格，那么法院应采取法院认为必要的任何行动。\n但除此之外，我不会——我不会考虑此事，也不会谈论此事。我将代理我的当事人。\n所有事实都已摆在那里。如果有人认为存在问题，他们应当——他们应当这样做。\n我前几天在听证会上说过这一点。这不应被用作针对我所或郭先生的（无法辨认）利剑。因此，要么提交你们的动议，要么就不要再提。\n法院：\n好的。今天下午还有其他人要进一步发言吗？\n德斯平斯先生：\n没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n那么——为使记录明确，受托人关于延长提交移送通知期限的命令动议获准，拟议命令将予以登记。\n关于确认 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）持有债务人控制实体中的债务人全部经济及公司治理权利、授权第11章受托人代表破产财团在任何外国行事并给予相关救济的命令动议，基于记录中陈述的理由获准；命令将由受托人律师拟定，并通知所有其他当事人，其他当事人在该命令提交法院时将收到副本。随后法院将予以审查，并在此后登记该命令。\n好的？好的。谢谢各位。这是日程表上的最后一项事项，现休庭。\n全体律师：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n（程序于4:35 p.m.结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法院批准的速录员及认证电子记录员和速录员，证明上述内容是就上述案件程序的正式电子录音制作的准确庭审记录。\n\nOctober 17, 2022\nChristine Fiore（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），CERT\n速录员\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1082-9 提交于 11/11/22\n共105页 登记于 11/11/22 13:18:26 第105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 105\n\n索引\n\n受托人证据： 页码\nA-G 受托人动议的附件 33","key_entities":["Kwok","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":598,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":672,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":681,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":28501,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-11-11 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-11-11","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:19:36"}