{"id":"court_ctb_1195_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1195,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-12-03","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"庭审笔录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1195（2022-12-03立案）。Julie A. Manning 法官于2022年11月17日举行的庭审正式笔录，重点围绕第11章受托人就债务人未能遵守公司治理权利裁定而提起的民事藐视法庭动议进行证据听审与质证。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1195 (filed 2022-12-03). Official transcript of the November 17, 2022 evidentiary hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning regarding the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to hold the Debtor in civil contempt for failure to comply with corporate governance rights orders.","body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 1 of 85\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* November 17, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER HOLDING DEBTOR IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS ORDER BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. JAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. PETER FREIDMAN, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Chapter 11 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Trustee and Genever, Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC BVI and Genever U.S.: 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Proceedings 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 Chapter 11 Trustee: NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ. DOUGLAS E. BARRON, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 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 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street, 8th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For Logan Cheng, Creditor: JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ. Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 3 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 12:17 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case no. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins with Paul Hastings, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee? MR. BASSETT: Yes. Hi, Your Honor. It's Nick Bassett -- THE COURT: Mr. Bassett -- MR. BASSETT: Sorry about that. Nick Bassett, Your Honor, from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Okay. Good. First of all, your connection -- it corrected itself, which is good. It sounded odd at first, but I think you're okay, Mr. Bassett. Mr. Barron? MR. BARRON: Hello, Your Honor. This is Douglas Barron, also of Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. Thank you. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for -- local counsel for the Chapter\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 4 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 4 11 Trustee? MR. LINSEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, Connecticut counsel for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And the Office of the United States Trustee? MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: And counsel for PAX? MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of PAX. My partner, Peter Freidman, is also with me. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, Robinson & Cole, Connecticut counsel for PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for the Committee? MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, representing the Creditors Committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for the debtor? MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Moriarty, of Zeisler & Zeisler,also for the debtor, as well\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 5 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
5 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | as Mei Guo and HK USA to the extent the Court is going to |\n| 2 | hear argument on the motion to compel today. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I don't think the motion to compel is |\n| 4 | on the calendar today. |\n| 5 | MR. MORIARTY:
Then I -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
At least not that I'm aware of. |\n| 7 | MR. MORIARTY:
Then I am just appearing for the |\n| 8 | debtor, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 10 | Attorney Wolman? |\n| 11 | MR. WOLMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Jay |\n| 12 | Wolman of -- of Randazza Legal Group for Creditor Logan |\n| 13 | Cheng. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 15 | I think that -- I think I have not missed anyone, |\n| 16 | and everyone has noted their appearance for the record.
Is |\n| 17 | that correct? |\n| 18 | Okay.
Yesterday was a hearing on -- was going to |\n| 19 | be an evidentiary hearing on the motion for contempt that |\n| 20 | was filed by the Chapter 11 Trustee in addition to some |\n| 21 | administrative hearings that were scheduled yesterday with |\n| 22 | regard to the joint administrative of the estates -- of the |\n| 23 | Connecticut estate with -- Connecticut estates with the New |\n| 24 | York estate and the order regarding a bar date. |\n| 25 | The night before the hearing, so Tuesday night, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 6 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 6 the 15th, an order was -- a notice of proposed order partially resolving the motion for contempt was filed by the Chapter 11 Trustee. And attached to that notice was an order that was entitled Order Regarding Debtor's Beneficial Ownership and Control of Ace Decade Holdings Limited and Dawn State Limited. And we had discussions about that order yesterday. And as everyone noted, including the Court, on the record that the Court really didn't have an opportunity to review that order since it was filed, I believe -- and it's fine that it was filed at 10:45 on Tuesday night. That's not an issue. But the point is that the Court didn't have the chance to truly review that order prior to the hearing. Trustee Despins and Eric Henzy agreed -- Attorney Henzy on behalf of the individual debtor, Mr. Kwok, agreed that the order could enter and that the debtor was not going to object to the order or appeal the order. After the hearing, which we discussed many things during the hearing yesterday, on the 16th, I went back and looked at that order. And I just have a few questions about it and I think probably a few revisions to it that I think are necessary in order for the record to be accurate and complete. MR. DESPINS: Judge, I think there's a problem with your line. Or I think it's your line in the sense\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 7 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
7 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | you're coming in and out. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
You can't hear me? |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
Well, maybe -- let me check to see |\n| 4 | if I'm the only one on the phone -- |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
I -- |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
-- that's experiencing the problem. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
I'm not having any issue with hearing |\n| 8 | you, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
I guess I -- others are not moving. |\n| 10 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
I'm not having any problem |\n| 11 | either. |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
The picture is frozen. |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:
I think it's you, Trustee Despins. |\n| 14 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
Yeah.
No problems here. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I think, Trustee Despins, what |\n| 16 | everybody is saying is that it must be your -- |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, it's NickBassett from |\n| 18 | Paul Hastings.
I'm actually in the same room as Trustee |\n| 19 | Despins, and he is working on his device.
I think he |\n| 20 | might -- may be having a connection issue. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Yeah.
And when you started |\n| 22 | talking, Attorney Bassett, at the very beginning of the |\n| 23 | hearing, you had -- you were having an issue being heard. |\n| 24 | So I don't know if it has something to do with the |\n| 25 | connection in your room.
But in any event, apparently,I am |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 8 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
8 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | being heard by everyone other than Trustee Despins.
So I'll |\n| 2 | wait for a moment.
I'll wait for -- |\n| 3 | MR. BASSETT:
If it's okay with Your Honor, would |\n| 4 | it be all right if Mr. Despins -- or Trustee Despins for the |\n| 5 | moment just slid in next to me? |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I have no problem with that. |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
All right.
Great. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I can see you both.
That's fine.
I |\n| 9 | think everyone else can see you who's looking, who's |\n| 10 | participating via Zoom.
So I think that's fine. |\n| 11 | So what I was saying was, Trustee Despins, and I'm |\n| 12 | sorry that you couldn't hear everything I said, was when I |\n| 13 | went back and looked at the order, the proposed order that |\n| 14 | was submitted, I just think it needs a few revisions in |\n| 15 | order for it to be accurate for the record and us to proceed |\n| 16 | with the hearing today.
First and foremost, I think it |\n| 17 | really should -- instead of saying -- instead of -- I mean, |\n| 18 | there's a -- there's two ways you can do it. |\n| 19 | The order says Order Regarding Debtor's Beneficial |\n| 20 | Ownership Interest and Control of Ace Decade Holdings and |\n| 21 | Dawn State Limited. |\n| 22 | I would think it would be more accurate to say, as |\n| 23 | you said in your proposed -- in the notice that it's an |\n| 24 | order partially resolving the motion for contempt.
And you |\n| 25 | can then say order partially resolving motion for contempt |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 9 in connection with Ace State -- you know, Ace Decade. However you want to say it. But I think it needs to be clear. Because you're all asking me to order findings that I've made that I haven't even made. So I want to make it very clear that this is a partial resolution of the motion for contempt. Okay? Number one. Number two, on page -- before you get to the order paragraphs, there is a discussion about exhibits being admitted into evidence. And that hasn't happened yet. And so -- and it says that the debtor has no objection. And that's fine. I -- again, I have no problem with any of this. But I want the record to be clear that the parties are agreeing that the exhibits -- apparently Exhibits 7 and 10, which are the 341 meeting transcripts, Exhibit -- I should say Trustee's Exhibits 7 and 10, Trustee's Exhibit 6, which is the bill of particulars from the cause of -- the action pending in London, and the Trustee's Exhibit 15, which is an affidavit of the individual debtor, Mr. Kwok, in an action in the New York State Court in the matter known as *Ace Decade vs. UBS* -- I think you have -- I know you don't want this to be a consent order, but it is. It's a stipulated order, at least with regard to paragraphs 1 and 2 and with regard to the evidence. Okay?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 9 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 10 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 10 With regard to paragraph 3 -- and this is why I was asking the question yesterday. And I said at one point I think Attorney Henzy said it better than I did. But I think the reality is this, your -- you -- and the order should reflect the reality, which is the debtor and -- the individual debtor and the trustee have partially resolved the motion for contempt with -- in connection with paragraphs 1 and 2 as that relates to Ace and Dawn. Okay? But they don't agree with regard to paragraph 3 that -- on whether or not Mr. Kwok has fully complied with the corporate governance order. Okay? Isn't that -- that's accurate. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I want to be clear that the debtor is not objecting to the Court making a finding that -- just what this paragraph 1 says. THE COURT: Right. MR. HENZY: But the debtor is not -- it -- that's not -- it's stipulated the debtor is not objecting, but the debtor is not stipulating to that finding. THE COURT: But you're stipulating that you're not going to appeal. MR. HENZY: I'm stipulating I'm not going to appeal. So I'm stipulating that I'm not going to object to that finding, and I'm stipulating I'm not going to appeal that finding.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 11 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
11 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Fine.
Great.
Then that's what you're |\n| 2 | going to say in this order.
Because it doesn't say that |\n| 3 | right now, because it's a little awkward in that I'm being |\n| 4 | ordered to find -- make findings that I haven't even made |\n| 5 | yet.
Okay?
So I want it to be clear that you -- and I |\n| 6 | agree with -- Mr. Henzy, that's fine.
You can say exactly |\n| 7 | what you just said. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
That the debtor is stipulating the -- |\n| 10 | the trustee and the debtor are stipulating that the debtor |\n| 11 | is not objecting to paragraphs 1 and 2.
And also the |\n| 12 | paragraph about the appeal, which I forget if that's |\n| 13 | paragraph 7 or 8 or whatever paragraph that is.
Okay? |\n| 14 | But what you're not stipulating to and why this |\n| 15 | isn't a consent order is because, Attorney Henzy, you're |\n| 16 | going to argue today, I believe, that Mr. Kwok, the |\n| 17 | individual debtor, has complied with the corporate |\n| 18 | governance order, and Mr. Despins is going to argue that he |\n| 19 | has not. |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
Yeah.
Well, Judge, as I said |\n| 21 | yesterday, I'm going to argue that in some sense he doesn't |\n| 22 | need to comply with the -- he doesn't need to do anything to |\n| 23 | comply with the corporate governance order.
But if he has, |\n| 24 | he has attempted to do so. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I think that -- I mean, I understand |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 12 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
12 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | that parsing of the words, but I think it's -- there is a -- |\n| 2 | there is no difference between what you just said and what I |\n| 3 | said, which is that you have -- that your client has |\n| 4 | complied with the corporate governance order, whatever that |\n| 5 | means. |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
That's fine. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay?
Whatever that means. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Yep. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So then in paragraph 3, the |\n| 10 | portion that I still -- the one substantive issue I do have |\n| 11 | with paragraph 3 -- and maybe it's not a substantive |\n| 12 | issue -- is it says, \"And the Court shall decide what the |\n| 13 | debtor will be required to do.\"
Okay. |\n| 14 | Well, the Court's only going to decide what the |\n| 15 | debtor will be required to do based upon the presentations |\n| 16 | of the parties of what it is parties believe the debtor has |\n| 17 | not done to be in compliance with the corporate governance |\n| 18 | order and/or for any sanction that should be imposed against |\n| 19 | the debtor for having the trustee have to bring forth the |\n| 20 | contempt motion without the resolution of the contempt -- |\n| 21 | full and complete resolution of the contempt motion. |\n| 22 | I'm not going to -- you're going to tell me what |\n| 23 | it is he has -- I am going to find.
I'm not going to find |\n| 24 | it, right?
You have to make that presentation. |\n| 25 | It's not up to me to determine -- I don't know |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 13 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
13 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | what it is that Mr. Kwok can or cannot do or should or |\n| 2 | shouldn't have done or whatever to be in compliance with the |\n| 3 | corporate governance order.
You're going to have to tell me |\n| 4 | what that is.
And you're going to have to make that |\n| 5 | presentation.
Because, at this point, what Mr. Kwok has |\n| 6 | done by stipulating to these findings is now abandoning the |\n| 7 | arguments and the objection that there was a problem with |\n| 8 | the translation, that he wasn't an owner -- a beneficial |\n| 9 | owner and whatever else the objection raised with regard to |\n| 10 | Ace Decade and Dawn State. |\n| 11 | So this order didn't enter after yesterday because |\n| 12 | of those reasons.
So I have no idea if the parties want to |\n| 13 | take a recess and discuss that; the parties are prepared to |\n| 14 | make those changes, as I've discussed on the record, and |\n| 15 | have the order entered before we proceed with the |\n| 16 | continuation of the hearing.
But I wanted to raise that |\n| 17 | issue immediately, because I'm not going to enter the order |\n| 18 | in the form that it is at the moment. |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
But just to be clear, Your Honor, |\n| 20 | there are parts of it that you raised that we could be |\n| 21 | satisfied. |\n| 22 | For example, on the issue of the exhibits or the |\n| 23 | documents you're going to rely on, Mr. Henzy could say, yes, |\n| 24 | I am not objecting to that.
And at that point, that part of |\n| 25 | the order should be okay.
But -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 14 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 14 THE COURT: But the exhibits aren't in evidence. I haven't looked at them. And I -- you're telling me I'm making -- you're saying the Court finds. You have to stipulate that I -- that you are agreeing that I can find. I'm not finding any -- I haven't found anything at this point, right? I haven't looked at any of the exhibits. MR. DESPINS: We understand. So what -- Mr. Bassett was going to handle the hearing. But he could take you through the exhibits and show you, look, here it says that he owns this, et cetera, et cetera. And then if Your Honor is convinced, you could then say, okay, I'm prepared to make the finding. THE COURT: Well, why can't you do it the other way where the debtor -- the individual debtor and Mr. -- and you as the trustee stipulate that these exhibits, once admitted into evidence, that the debtor will -- does not object to the Court making a finding that -- I'm not -- I -- you're asking -- if someone else reads this order -- let's just put it in that light. If someone else reads this order and then -- in the manner that -- in the version that it is right now, there will be a presumption that I went through these exhibits and made these findings. I didn't do that. I haven't made any findings. But you're agreeing that I can. So just say that.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 15 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 15 And put the exhibits into evidence. You haven't introduced those exhibits into evidence at this point. They're not part of the record. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if I -- I might be able to simplify -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. HENZY: -- at least on that issue. On Exhibits 7 -- 6, 7, 10 and 15, which is the -- THE COURT: The trustee's exhibits. MR. HENZY: Sorry, Your Honor. This is in the first decretal paragraph of the order that runs from page 1 over to page 2. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. HENZY: Okay. Where it lists those four exhibits. THE COURT: Uh-huh. MR. HENZY: I have no objection to those exhibits being admitted as full exhibits. And, in fact, I stipulate and I've agreed with counsel that those would be admitted as full exhibits. And so I agree with Mr. Despins that I think that the trustee can point you then now into the places in those exhibits that he wants you to look. THE COURT: But why do I need to do that if you can say that you both stipulate that I can make the -- the following findings based on those exhibits?\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 16 MR. HENZY: Well, I'm -- THE COURT: Why can't -- MR. HENZY: I'm not stipulating, Your Honor, to a finding. I'm not -- THE COURT: Then I don't know what this order does. MR. HENZY: I -- THE COURT: You're not stipulating, but you're not objecting. MR. HENZY: I'm not objecting. That's correct. THE COURT: Well, then I'm overruling your objection to the motion for contempt on -- in paragraphs 1 and 2. MR. HENZY: You're overruling my objection on the basis that -- on the argument made in the objection that Mr. Kwok was not the owner of Ace Decade as of Mr. Despins' appointment. So and I can tell you, Your Honor, it's -- THE COURT: Actually, it says as of the date of the petition. That would be -- MR. HENZY: It's both. It's both. It's both, Your Honor. But, I mean, I -- it -- Your Honor, I -- this may make it simpler is you can overrule my objection. So paragraphs 15 through 20 of my objection, which are the -- where I argue -- I make an impossibility argument on the ground that Mr. Kwok was not the owner as of both the Case 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 16 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 17 petition date and the date of the trustee's appointment, you can overrule my objection, paragraphs 15 through 20 of my objection. THE COURT: Well, it doesn't say that in the order, and -- MR. HENZY: But if that -- again, if that will make it simpler for the Court -- THE COURT: I don't know what will make it simpler. But what I'm saying to you right now is if someone else reads this order, they are -- they're going to believe that I -- we had a hearing where evidence was introduced and that after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefore, I find the following. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor? Sorry to interrupt, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. BASSETT: Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee. I think Your Honor is exactly correct. I mean, that's what we had anticipated. I think what Mr. Henzy -- what Attorney Henzy is trying to say is that his client's position, as it relates to this issue, is that he does not want to be on the record consenting to these findings. But at the same time, you are exactly correct that he has abandoned those arguments. He is no longer advancing the argument that he does not own Ace\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 17 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 18 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 18 Decade and, therefore, he is no longer objecting to our motion on that basis. So the resolution that we negotiated was we would submit this proposed order to Your Honor. The debtor would not object to the findings we are proposing that the Court make based on the documents that would be coming into evidence. And I would ask for Exhibits 6, 7, 10 and 15 to be moved into evidence. Based on those documents, the Court would then issue a finding that Mr. Kwok is the beneficial owner and, you know, make the finding that is actually articulated in the proposed order. I won't repeat it, because the order says what the finding would be. And we don't want to rush the Court in making that finding. So we're happy to do whatever is necessary. If the Court would like us to walk through the exhibits, I can do that. I will tell you that as far as the second phase, I'm planning to talk about some of those documents only because they're also relevant to the argument today. But I think -- I don't know if that clears things up, but I think that's what we were intending for this order to do. THE COURT: I don't think I need you to run through the specifics in those documents, but I do think I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 19 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
19 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | need you to -- what you just have done is moved for the |\n| 2 | introduction of the exhibits. |\n| 3 | And let's make the record clear that Trustee's |\n| 4 | Exhibits 6, 7, 10 and 15, Trustee's counsel is moving for |\n| 5 | the full admission of those documents into evidence.
And |\n| 6 | counsel for the individual debtor, Mr. Kwok, has just stated |\n| 7 | on the record that he has no opposition at all to the |\n| 8 | admission of those exhibits. |\n| 9 | Does anyone else have any opposition to the |\n| 10 | admission -- full admission of Exhibits 6 -- Trustee's |\n| 11 | Exhibits 6, 7, 10 and 15?
Okay.
Hearing nothing, then |\n| 12 | those exhibits will be admitted in full as part of the |\n| 13 | hearing on this motion for contempt. |\n| 14 | (Trustee's Exhibits Nos. 6, 7, 10 and 15 were admitted |\n| 15 | into evidence.) |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
And that's what I -- I want to make |\n| 17 | the record clear on this, because it -- I understand, and |\n| 18 | I -- as I said yesterday, I appreciate narrowing the issues. |\n| 19 | But we still need to make sure that it's clear that all of |\n| 20 | this is being done in connection with the motion for |\n| 21 | contempt and that the -- I -- the order isn't going to enter |\n| 22 | until that evidence is now admitted into evidence. |\n| 23 | And with regard to paragraph 3 of this order, I'm |\n| 24 | not going to decide what the debtor will be required to do |\n| 25 | without someone telling me what I should decide, right?
I |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 20 mean, I want that to be clear, Attorney Bassett and Attorney Henzy. It's not as if I'm going to sit down and look at all these things and then say, oh, well, I think he could have done X, Y or Z, so that's what I'm going to say. That's not my job. My job is to determine whether or not you or anyone has proven that there is a basis to enter in some form of an order of contempt and what form of order that should be. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Understood. Understood, Your Honor. And that's what we intend to do with the balance of today's hearing. THE COURT: So how do you want to handle this order, though? Because I thought you wanted this order to enter before -- and maybe we -- maybe it doesn't need to enter before we start the remainder of this hearing. But I'm not going to enter this order in the form that it is until some of those changes that we just discussed are made. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, if I may? Would it be okay to ask for a short recess, maybe ten minutes, to confer with the trustee and my colleagues and perhaps Attorney Henzy as well? THE COURT: Sure. We can -- we can take as much time as you need.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 20 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 21 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 21 MR. BASSETT: Well, I think I would start with ten minutes. That would be great. I don't know if there's an easy way for us to communicate with your chambers if we need more time or not. Maybe we can just hop back on Zoom -- THE COURT: Why don't you just hop back on Zoom. And -- MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: -- and the courtroom deputy will be monitoring it, and we'll go from there. And, again, I'm not trying -- you all have to understand I'm not -- I have to sign this order, right? So I need to make sure that I understand what the -- this order says and agree with what this order says. And even if this order isn't going to be appealed, it could be part of a record at some point, right, that if someone has to review, I want them to make sure -- I want to make sure that they understand what occurred in connection with this motion. And this order right now in the format that it's in I'm not comfortable with. And I -- but I think I can be come comfortable fairly quickly. But I think you need to address those issues. Okay? MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So then court will be in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 22 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
22 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | recess, and we'll hear back from you when you're ready.
But |\n| 2 | you can take more than ten minutes if you need.
You do |\n| 3 | whatever you think is appropriate.
Okay? |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Judge. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
All right.
Court is in recess. |\n| 6 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Court is in recess. |\n| 7 | (Court recessed from 12:43 p.m. to 1:48 p.m.) |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good afternoon again.
I |\n| 9 | received after our recess -- or during our recess a revised |\n| 10 | order regarding partial resolution of trustee's contempt |\n| 11 | motion. |\n| 12 | Mr. Bassett, before the break -- before the |\n| 13 | recess, you made a suggestion to me -- well, first of all, |\n| 14 | the exhibits in that -- in the first introductory paragraph |\n| 15 | for the order, Exhibit -- Trustee's Exhibits 6, 7, 10 and |\n| 16 | 15, have now been admitted into evidence.
You suggested at |\n| 17 | one point that you are going to be referencing those |\n| 18 | exhibits during the continuation of this hearing.
Is that |\n| 19 | correct? |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
That is correct, Your Honor.
And I |\n| 21 | think what I had also offered to do is to walk the Court |\n| 22 | through the relevant portions of those documents that I |\n| 23 | think firmly support the findings that we're asking the |\n| 24 | Court to enter in this order partially resolving the |\n| 25 | contempt motion.
But it is important to us, and I also |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 23 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
23 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | understand to the debtor, to have this order entered before |\n| 2 | we proceed with the balance of the hearing on the unresolved |\n| 3 | portion of the contempt motion. |\n| 4 | So I could -- I'm happy to do that first.
And if |\n| 5 | the Court wanted a break or -- I'm happy to proceed however |\n| 6 | Your Honor would like.
But I just wanted to say -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Why don't you go ahead and point me to |\n| 8 | the proof that you have in those exhibits that supports the |\n| 9 | findings that you're saying the Court's making in paragraphs |\n| 10 | 1 and 2 of this order and that the debtor does not contest. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure.
Your Honor, would it be |\n| 12 | possible to give my colleague, Douglas Barron, access to |\n| 13 | screen share, because I'll make it even easier by having him |\n| 14 | put up some documents on the screen that I think are even |\n| 15 | highlighted. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Absolutely.
We can give control to |\n| 17 | Attorney Barron. |\n| 18 | MR. BARRON:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:
Okay, Your Honor.
So the -- if my |\n| 20 | colleague could put the first document on the screen, which |\n| 21 | is Trustee's Exhibit 7, which is a copy of the April 6, |\n| 22 | 2022, transcript of the Section 341 meeting of creditors. |\n| 23 | I'll start with that one. |\n| 24 | MR. BARRON:
Yes.
And just a second. |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
So, Your Honor, this is on page 60 |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 24 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 24 of the transcript. You will see it highlighted there. And, again, the finding that we're asking the Court to make in paragraph 1 of the order is that the debtor has exclusively beneficially owned and controlled Ace Decade Holdings Limited on the petition date and has maintained such control thereafter. I'm paraphrasing. Your Honor, what we were showing you here in this document is the debtor's testimony at the Section 341 meeting where he is asked about whether he owns any interest in Ace Decade Holdings Limited. As you can see there, he testified yes. When asked what the nature of his ownership interest was, he described that interest. The trustee then asked him whether he was the only legal owner of Ace Decade Holdings Limited. That question was repeated. He said, I am a legal representing owner. The question was, are there any other owners of Ace Decade? His response was no. When asked when he became an owner of Ace Decade, he said at the end of 2014. That, Your Honor -- and I'll get to the other exhibits in a moment. But this was obviously a meeting where the debtor gave sworn testimony post petition on April 6th, directly asked about his ownership interest in Ace Decade. He said that he was the owner. When he was asked whether there were any other owners, he said no. So I think that, in and of itself, establishes the exclusive ownership\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 25 that we're asking the Court to find in paragraph 1 of the order. Now, if we could go to the second document, which is Exhibit 6 on the trustee's exhibit list. This is the particulars of claim or essentially the complaint that was filed on September 23, 2020, in the litigation against UBS in which both the debtor, Ace Decade -- and Ace Decade and Dawn State are plaintiffs. There is a -- I don't know if my colleague can do this or not, but at the end before the exhibits there's a verification page where the debtor has signed his signature swearing to the truth and accuracy of all the allegations in this complaint. There it is right there. That's the debtor's signature. I believe it's Exhibit 26, although that's not in the record. But I -- he confirmed as much to me in his deposition. And then if we can go back to -- THE COURT: Could I stop you for one second, Attorney Bassett? I thought you said this was Exhibit 6, not 26. MR. BASSETT: It is Exhibit 6, Your Honor. I apologize. THE COURT: That's all right. I just want to make sure I have that correct. I have seen Exhibit 6 before, so you don't need to -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 25 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 26 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 26 MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: -- do anything more with Exhibit 6. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Just for purposes of the record -- I won't take you through it -- but, you know, some of the language that goes directly to the fact that the debtor owns and controls Ace Decade, made the investments that Ace Decade used to do a transaction with UBS that is the subject of the litigation, those are paragraph 7, paragraph 8, paragraph 11 and paragraph 4 and also paragraph 24. Again, we don't need to look at those (indiscernible) for the record. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. BASSETT: The next document, Your Honor -- and I don't know if the Court has also had the opportunity to look at this document, but it's Exhibit 15 on the trustee's exhibit list. THE COURT: Yeah. I have not seen that document before -- MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: -- Exhibit 15. MR. BASSETT: So if Mr. Barron could pull that one on the screen, please. Okay. This document, again, Exhibit 15 on our exhibit list, this is the February 5, 2016, affidavit that the debtor submitted in a related but earlier Case 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 27 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 27 litigation against UBS involving the same subject matter. In that case, only Ace Decade was the named plaintiff against UBS. But the debtor nevertheless submitted this affidavit on behalf of Ace Decade as plaintiff in that case. Again, I'll -- I think the statements in here demonstrate very clearly that the debtor, in fact, is and always has been the owning and controlling interest behind Ace Decade and the investment that it made that is at issue in the UBS litigation. If you look at paragraph 1 -- sorry, paragraph 10. I apologize. My colleague is correct. At paragraph 10, look to the language that we've highlighted. This demonstrates that when the debtor was in discussions with UBS, in particular an individual named Mr. Wong at UBS, he testified in this affidavit that Mr. Wong told me, the debtor, that because of the size of the investment that I was planning to make the executives from UBS globally would participate in structuring a deal. Again, the relevant focus there is that this is an investment that he, not anyone else, not some other beneficial owner or other person, was planning to make. If you go to paragraph 11 on the next page, please. Again, similar language. You'll see that the debtor testified under oath in this affidavit -- or asserted under oath in this affidavit that the senior executives at\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 28 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 28 UBS who were overseeing the structuring of the investment would act in my, the debtor's, best interest. And he says that I, the debtor, entrusted UBS to act as my advisor for the investment. If you go to the next paragraph, this again provides more detail as to the events leading to the investment. He mentions in the language that's highlighted there -- and I'll talk about this in the next portion of the hearing a bit further, but he notes that employees at UBS advised him, the debtor, on which of his employees to appoint as the sole shareholder and director of Ace Decade. He further states in that same paragraph that those same individuals advised him how best to transfer the funds -- and this is critical to the ownership question, I believe, Your Honor -- how best to transfer the funds necessary for the investment from one of my UBS accounts to the Ace Decade account. So the investment that Ace Decade entered into was funded by the debtor's own funds from his own account. The next paragraph, 13, that you see there contains similar language. I think they can be read really in no other way than as indicating that the debtor viewed the investment that Ace Decade was making as his investment. So I think, Your Honor, when you take this\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 29 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
29 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | document together with the particulars of claims and the |\n| 2 | statements with which Your Honor is familiar from that |\n| 3 | document and the clear testimony post petition at the 341 |\n| 4 | meeting where he was directly asked the question of |\n| 5 | ownership, you know, we would submit that these documents |\n| 6 | support the findings that we're asking the Court to make. |\n| 7 | I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I do not have any questions.
Thank |\n| 9 | you. |\n| 10 | Attorney Henzy, do you have any opposition to the |\n| 11 | Court making the findings in paragraph 1 after the |\n| 12 | information that's been pointed out by Attorney Bassett |\n| 13 | in -- in Trustee's Exhibits 7, 6 and 15? |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
The debtor does not object to the |\n| 15 | Court making the findings. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 17 | Okay.
Attorney Bassett, did you want to do the |\n| 18 | same thing with paragraph 2, or are you asserting that it |\n| 19 | would be the same information with regard to paragraph 2 in |\n| 20 | the order? |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
Paragraph 2 in the order, I think |\n| 22 | it's the same information.
It would -- the finding that |\n| 23 | we're asking the Court in paragraph 2 would be based both on |\n| 24 | the same evidence as well as the representation that is |\n| 25 | articulated in paragraph 2. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 30 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 30 THE COURT: Okay. I'm fine with that now that you have pointed out the specific information in the exhibits that have been admitted as full exhibits. So with regard to your other changes in the provision to the order, paragraph 3 change is find with me. I think there are no further changes, so I can -- we can enter that order now. Do you -- I think we need to give the courtroom deputy five minutes to do that. So we'll have to take a very brief recess for the courtroom deputy to do that, and then we can come back and continue with the evidentiary hearing. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Thank you very much, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. The court is in recess. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: The court is in recess. (Court recessed from 2:11 p.m. to 2:11 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Court is in session after recess. THE COURT: Okay. The courtroom deputy has entered the order with the changes made by the parties earlier today on the docket. It is ECF Number 110 -- 1110, entered at 2:11:25. So, Mr. Bassett, did you want to proceed now with the rest of the evidentiary hearing? MR. BASSETT: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 31 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 31 Before we proceed with the remainder of the hearing, I think there is one -- well, maybe two slight housekeeping issues. The first is at the beginning of today's hearing, there was a question, I think, raised by Attorney Moriarty about the motion to compel. THE COURT: Right. And I did go back and look at that. MR. BASSETT: Yes. THE COURT: And the order on the motion to compel says that it will be -- a hearing will be held at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, either today or at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing on the motion for contempt. And, obviously, we haven't concluded. So, Attorney Moriarty, you are correct that it should have appeared on the calendar today, but it didn't, because the evidentiary hearing -- well, not because. It should have appeared on the calendar today. However, it would not be commenced until after -- or it would not commence, the hearing on the motion to compel, until after the conclusion of the hearing -- the evidentiary hearing on the motion for contempt. That's what the order setting the hearing on the motion for compel said. MR. BASSETT: That's -- THE COURT: Does anybody disagree with that?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 32 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 32 MR. BASSETT: No. That was our understanding, Your Honor. I think it had said at the conclusion of today's evidentiary hearing and then also carried over to tomorrow if necessary. So, you know, we're at the Court's mercy as to what will happen when we finish today. You know, we're happy to do that today, happy to do it tomorrow if that ends up being better. THE COURT: Well, yeah. We'll see how things play out. But Attorney Moriarty was right that it -- the motion -- and I apologize, Attorney Moriarty. It wasn't on the calendar, but it should have been. But it would not be scheduled to commence until this evidentiary hearing on the motion for contempt is concluded. Okay? MR. MORIARTY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. BASSETT: And then the other -- the only other open issue that I thought we should address before I proceed with the remainder of the hearing is the issue regarding the motion to seal that we had discussed with the Court yesterday. My colleague, Mr. -- or Attorney Linsey, I think, can walk the Court through where we are as -- THE COURT: Well, let me stop you on that too. I did go back and look at that after our hearing yesterday. And under our local rules, Appendix N, motions to seal must\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 33 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 33 be set for a hearing. And the motion for -- to seal that was filed on Monday has not been set for a hearing yet. So I -- are you saying, Attorney Bassett, that there's -- you need that motion to seal to be addressed before this hearing -- evidentiary hearing on the motion for contempt can be concluded? MR. BASSETT: You know, I -- Your Honor, I was -- there's -- certainly some of the exhibits that are going to be relevant to this next portion of the hearing are exhibits that are confidential and/or privileged or both such that not everyone who is a party to this Zoom call today can have access to that information. However, I think I will be able to give my presentation today by describing those documents in generalities without disclosing the information that can't be disclosed. So from that -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: From that standpoint, I think we could do the argument without necessarily having that sealing issue resolved. Although if my colleague, Attorney Linsey, who's a little bit closer to the sealing order has a different view, he can let us know. MR. LINSEY: No. I agree with that. I think it makes sense. I would just ask that the Court schedule the hearing with respect to the order as soon as possible.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 34 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
34 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Well, what I intended to -- thank you, |\n| 2 | Attorney -- I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to cut you off.
Was |\n| 3 | there something else that you wanted to say, Attorney |\n| 4 | Linsey? |\n| 5 | MR. LINSEY:
No, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | Having heard the issue raised yesterday, I did go |\n| 8 | back and look at the docket and what -- where things stand |\n| 9 | with regard to other issues. |\n| 10 | And I'm going to orally order that the hearing on |\n| 11 | the motion to seal, which is ECF 1095, be scheduled for |\n| 12 | Monday, which I believe is the 21st of November, at noon, |\n| 13 | along with the -- at the same time as the status conference |\n| 14 | is held.
And if anybody opposes the motion to seal, they |\n| 15 | must file an objection to the motion to seal by 3:00 p.m. |\n| 16 | tomorrow. |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, may I be heard? |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you.
Let me just preface, Your |\n| 20 | Honor, I would very much like to get this hearing completed |\n| 21 | as soon as possible. |\n| 22 | And I'm -- and we are not going to have an |\n| 23 | objection to the motion to seal.
But just logistically, how |\n| 24 | are we going to do this today if there are documents that |\n| 25 | are being introduced into evidence that should be under |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 35 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 35 seal? I'm just -- I'm missing, I guess, the point as to how are we doing that? If they're not under seal, and they're being introduced into evidence, and they're -- THE COURT: They're not being introduced into evidence. Attorney Bassett just said he wasn't -- I think what Attorney Bassett -- MR. HENZY: I'm not sure that's right, Your Honor, but -- MR. BASSETT: Yeah. Your Honor, if I could clarify. I do think I will be asking the Court to have -- I will be asking for certain of our exhibits to be admitted into evidence, including a couple of exhibits that are confidential and/or privileged. I think maybe a way to deal with that would be to have a -- I don't know if the documents could be admitted and the sealing aspect of that dealt with later. As I said, I will not be disclosing the confidential contents of those documents during my presentation today. If that's not possible, I don't know if the documents could be admitted provisionally with the sealing issue to be decided on Monday. But I -- it seems to me there's a way to navigate that, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 36 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 36 MR. HENZY: Your Honor -- MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, may I add something? There's a provision under the existing protective order for documents to be filed under seal. The fact is, these exhibits are filed under seal. They're on the Court's docket. And I think they can be properly admitted today. We have -- in order to make sure that this issue is crystal clear, we filed a motion to seal. And we would like an order on that. But that part, I think -- and I think this was sort of along the lines of what Mr. Bassett is saying, it can probably wait until Monday, unless anybody else on the line disagrees with me. MR. HENZY: I'm not trying to make trouble here, Your Honor. But I'll be honest with you. It's making my head hurt to understand how we're admitting exhibits into evidence today in a public trial where the exhibits are either under seal or they're not. I also -- I don't know what Mr. Bassett is going to argue based on those documents, and so I don't know what I would argue in response. So I just logistically -- I'm not sure how we're doing this. But, again, I want to go forward, and I -- we are not going to oppose the motion to seal. But I also don't want to be prejudiced but -- that I can't argue something that's in a document that Mr. Bassett has put into evidence\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 37 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 37 on whatever provisional or on whatever other basis. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, to help the Court and maybe Attorney Henzy understand, I think what I envision -- I think there will probably be two documents that I would reference by exhibit number. Attorney Henzy has copies of those two exhibits. I think he's going to -- I think that actually our exhibits are listed in paragraph 4, I believe it is, of the order that the Court just entered. So Attorney Henzy is familiar with those documents. I am going to refer to them generally as why I think they are documents that are relevant for the Court to consider. And I am fairly confident that Attorney Henzy in responding is not going to need to do anything more than that. MR. HENZY: Well, that -- I appreciate that Mr. Bassett is confident about that, but until I know what his argument is, I don't know whether I'm going to need to refer to something specifically in the document. And I don't think it would be appropriate to prejudice me from being able to do that. If Mr. Bassett -- I'm not trying to prejudice Mr. Bassett and not have him be able to use these documents. We've stipulated to their admissibility. But I can't be prohibited from potentially reading something in the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 38 document into the record if I think that's appropriate in making argument. THE COURT: Well, the -- how are you going to do that if the documents are going to be under seal? MR. HENZY: Well, Your Honor, if they're under seal, and they're put in evidence, I think if I need to then refer to something in the document, the courtroom would have to be -- THE COURT: Right. That's what -- MR. HENZY: -- cleared. THE COURT: Okay. That's what I'm -- I just wanted to make sure you were -- that's what you were envisioning. MR. HENZY: I don't know any other way to do it, Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't either, but I didn't understand what -- that you were thinking that. You seemed -- I didn't understand what you were saying. So -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. I apologize, yeah, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's fine. That's fine. MR. HENZY: Well, the problem is the motion hasn't been set for a hearing, the motion to seal. And is anyone -- any party that's on the phone -- on this -- in -- participating in this virtual remote hearing today objecting to the motion to seal?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 38 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 39 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 39 MR. FREIDMAN: Your Honor, this is Peter Freidman from O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of PAX. We don't have any intention of objecting. And I do note that the Court in connection with the identity of a Golden Spring employee earlier in this case, you may remember, did permit the admission of something into evidence as -- with the designation of it as being under seal during the middle of the hearing and then just let parties without a prior oral motion or prior motion from the -- from Golden Springs' counsel and the -- and let the issue be resolved later. I think the -- now, it may remain under seal, but people were able to figure out how to handle it with the Court's guidance. So we certainly hope that this can proceed and, you know, don't object to documents being admitted under seal. MR. LINSEY: And, Your Honor, I think that's in keeping with the protective order which allows documents to be filed under seal and then creates a remedy for anyone who wants to challenge that, which is to file a motion. Again, because we take the privilege issue seriously, we have put the issue before Your Honor by filing a motion that Your Honor -- sounds like you're inclined to consider on Monday. But for present purposes today, I think that ought to be sufficient.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 40 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
40 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. WOLMAN:
Your Honor, this is Jay Wolman for |\n| 2 | Mr. Cheng.
I mean, the order, notwithstanding contempt, |\n| 3 | doesn't override, you know, a party's rights and the rights |\n| 4 | of the public under the common law and the first amendment. |\n| 5 | So as a general proposition, to the extent the order is in |\n| 6 | conflict with that, that yields to the common law and the |\n| 7 | first amendment.
You know, I -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
What order are you referring to, |\n| 9 | Attorney Wolman? |\n| 10 | MR. WOLMAN:
The one Mr. Linsey was just referring |\n| 11 | to about being able to -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
The protective order? |\n| 13 | MR. WOLMAN:
What? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
The protective order? |\n| 15 | MR. WOLMAN:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 17 | MR. WOLMAN:
And do I know whether or not I'm |\n| 18 | going to object, per se, to this?
You know, Mr. Bassett |\n| 19 | said he was going to describe the documents.
And so -- and |\n| 20 | that's -- upon his description, I might think that there is |\n| 21 | a sufficient interest that it's not worth challenging.
But |\n| 22 | I can't say -- but I'm going to reserve the right to |\n| 23 | challenge it. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
All right.
So then I think let's just |\n| 25 | proceed, and we'll see how it goes.
Okay?
That's what |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 41 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 41 we'll do. So go ahead, Attorney Bassett. You proceed. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. So we are here at the second portion of the hearing today on the trustee's contempt motion, which is at ECF 913. What the trustee is asking in that motion is for an order holding the debtor in contempt for his failure to take necessary actions to ensure that complete ownership and control of Ace Decade is transferred to the trustee. Now, I want to just start -- and I hope my colleague, Mr. Barron, still has access to screen share. THE COURT: If he doesn't, we'll make sure we give it to him. I'll ask the courtroom deputy -- MR. HENZY: Can I ask a question, Your Honor? I'm sorry. Just sort of before we start sharing screens, before -- Your Honor, before we start sharing screens with -- with potential evidence -- MR. BASSETT: This is the governance rights order, Attorney Henzy. MR. HENZY: Okay. But maybe -- can I just ask a question about we're doing this? Are we going to admit evidence and then have argument or -- I want -- THE COURT: Well, that -- I think that is actually a good point, so I -- Attorney Henzy raises the point that in this order that I just entered, subsequent to the four\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 42 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 42 exhibits that have already been introduced into evidence, there's an agreement in a paragraph about a bunch of other exhibits, right, that you both agree can be admitted as full exhibits. MR. HENZY: Well, to be clear, Your Honor, the -- it's -- these are exhibits the trustee has told me that they want to admit and that I have stipulated will be admitted. But there's no prohibition on other evidence being admitted. THE COURT: I didn't say that. I said let's start -- MR. HENZY: Okay. Okay. THE COURT: -- let's start with the -- MR. HENZY: Yep. THE COURT: -- exhibits that everybody agrees can be admitted. Okay? MR. HENZY: Okay. Okay. THE COURT: So I'm not -- I didn't say that, and I didn't think that. I -- MR. HENZY: I misunderstood. I misunderstood. THE COURT: I was suggesting let's get the record -- let's try to make this record clear and straight right now. You asked me before we -- you both asked me before we continue this evidentiary hearing to enter an order regard -- with regard to the partial resolution of the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 43 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 43 contempt motion which I have -- which we have now just done. In that order that was entered at 211 or whatever time it was that I stated it was, stated on the record, there's a -- there's a paragraph that relates to this continuation or what I think you referred to as compliance hearing that indicates that there are a number of exhibits that the parties agree can be admitted in full. So we should do that first. We should -- MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- get that done, Attorney Bassett. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. So at this time, I would ask the Court to admit into evidence Trustee Exhibits 13, 28 to 30, 34, 36 to 37, and 39. And I would note that just for the record, I believe Exhibits 34, 36 and 37 are documents that are subject to the request for sealing. THE COURT: I'm looking at that. All right. Let me -- before we go any further, does anyone have any objections to the admissions -- to the admission in full of Exhibits 13, 28 through 30, 34, 36 through 37 and 39 and with the understanding that Exhibits 34, 36 and 37 are subject to the requests for sealing that the trustee has made in connection with the motion to seal? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, the one issue I have is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 44 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 44 that the stipulation was that Exhibit 13 -- just page 3 of Exhibit 13 would be admitted. And I don't know if Attorney Bassett intended on doing more than that. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I did not intend to do more than that. I did not intend to say anything different from what is in the stipulation. I think the stipulation also refers to certain -- a certain part of Exhibit 39, page 55, lines 23 to 25 of that exhibit. MR. HENZY: So with that, Your Honor, I have no objection to the full admission of these per the stipulation subject to on 34, 36 and 37, you know, my concern about my ability to now use them during this hearing. THE COURT: Okay. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the exhibits? Okay. Then the exhibits -- Trustee Exhibits 13 page 3, Exhibits 28 through 30, 34, 36, 37 and 39 page -- I didn't hear the part that -- of page -- of 39, Attorney Bassett. What is it? Page what? MR. BASSETT: I just misplaced the document, Your Honor. THE COURT: Take your time. MR. HENZY: Which exhibit, Your Honor? Sorry. MR. BASSETT: Exhibit 39. MR. HENZY: Yeah. It -- THE COURT: 39. You said there was a -- just a portion of that exhibit coming --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 45 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 45 MR. BASSETT: Yeah. Sorry. I have it now. I apologize. It's a deposition transcript. And then the stipulation referred to -- or the order, rather, referred to page 55, lines 23 to 25. THE COURT: Okay. Then all of those documents are -- all of those exhibits are admitted as full exhibits for the reasons stated on the record. And we will address the issues of the sealing of Exhibits 34, 36 and 37 if and when they arise during the hearing. So you -- so that's the exhibits. (Trustee's Exhibits Nos. 13, 28, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37 and 39 were admitted into evidence.) THE COURT: Now, Attorney Henzy also asked a question of Attorney Bassett, because there are no witnesses in this hearing, how are you proceeding? Are you proceeding with showing the Court these exhibits all at once, one at a time, making arguments one at a time with regard to each exhibit? How do you intend to proceed? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, during the course of my argument today, I will -- my intent was to refer to these documents as they become relevant to points that I'm making. And to make it easy for the Court and everyone else, I will have -- I will try to have my colleague put them on the screen except, of course, for the ones that are confidential.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 46 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 46 As Attorney Henzy mentioned, there are -- the order is not exhaustive in terms of the exhibits that the parties may rely upon. I do think I may end up referencing a few other exhibits on our list today, and I think it would be probably most efficient to just address those as they arise. And as I refer to them, I could ask the Court to have those admitted, and we can take any objections up at that time. Or we can do it at the end. I'm happy to proceed however the Court would like. THE COURT: Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: That's fine with me, Your Honor. And I would -- assuming Mr. Bassett is done, then I would go through the exhibits that I would propose to have admitted. And I would then do -- I would do the same. I would refer to the exhibits throughout my argument. THE COURT: That's fine with me then. I think what will happen then is Attorney Bassett will start to make his arguments, and he will refer to whatever exhibits he thinks are relevant. If there are any admitted exhibits, obviously, we won't have to worry about that unless it's one of the exhibits that's subject to the sealing motion. If it is an exhibit that has -- is on the list of exhibits but has not yet been offered and admitted, then we will address that issue when we come to it. Okay? Does\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 47 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
47 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | that make sense to everyone? |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
It does to me, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
All right.
Then please proceed. |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
Oh, I'm -- I'll -- should I go forward |\n| 7 | with my -- I'm sorry, Your Honor.
I don't mean to interrupt |\n| 8 | Attorney Bassett.
Should I go forward with my -- so I guess |\n| 9 | my thought is do -- can we close the evidence and go to |\n| 10 | argument?
But, again, I'm at -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I don't think we can yet, because we |\n| 12 | have to hear from Attorney Bassett in case there's other |\n| 13 | exhibits he wants to introduce, right?
And I -- it's his |\n| 14 | motion, right?
So he's got to proceed with his motion or |\n| 15 | he's got to -- |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I think that's the better way to |\n| 18 | proceed, Attorney Henzy.
Okay? |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
Very well, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
So one of |\n| 22 | the arguments that -- one of the principal arguments that |\n| 23 | the debtor has relied upon in opposition to the trustee's |\n| 24 | contempt motion is that the corporate governance rights |\n| 25 | order, which I've now put on the screen that this Court |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 48 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
48 | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 1 | entered on August 10, 2022, is not sufficiently clear in | | | |\n| 2 | terms of what the debtor has been instructed to do with | | | |\n| 3 | respect to the trustee's economic and governance rights and | | | |\n| 4 | the entities he controls, including Ace Decade.
The reason | | | |\n| 5 | I put this language on the screen, and I think it's helpful | | | |\n| 6 | to refer back to it, is that I don't think there is even | | | |\n| 7 | arguably an ounce of ambiguity in the language in the order | | | |\n| 8 | as to what the debtor wants to do. | | | |\n| 9 | In paragraph 2, the court ordered that the trustee | | | |\n| 10 | holds all of the debtor's economic and governance rights for | | | |\n| 11 | the benefit of the estate with respect to all | | | |\n| 12 | debtor-controlled entities.
And that, of course, now | | | |\n| 13 | includes Ace Decade. | | | |\n| 14 | It goes on and it says that for the avoidance of | | | |\n| 15 | doubt, those rights include the trustee's authority to | | | |\n| 16 | replace any existing officer, director, manager or similar | | | |\n| 17 | person of those entities.
Then it further states that the | | | |\n| 18 | trustee is authorized to act in his capacity as a Chapter 11 | | | |\n| 19 | trustee in this Chapter 11 case absent any such officer, | | | |\n| 20 | director, manager (indiscernible). | | | |\n| 21 | (Pause.) | | | |\n| 22 | That does not happen magically.
And the Code | | | |\n| 23 | anticipates this, and the Court's corporate governance | | | |\n| 24 | rights order that we're looking at anticipates this. | | | |\n| 25 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Excuse me, Your Honor. | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 49 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 49 This is the courtroom deputy. There was a long pause from Attorney Bassett. I'm not sure if he wasn't talking or if he was frozen. It seemed it was frozen. THE COURT: Attorney Bassett, I think there was some problem with your connection there again. That was similar to this morning. So I don't know if there's anything you can do about that. But I -- Madam Courtroom Deputy, heard, I think, everything that Mr. Bassett said. But there was -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: -- a communication lapse, I guess I would say -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Uh-huh. THE COURT: -- in the audio. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: So -- MR. BASSETT: Yeah. I'm sorry, Your Honor. I'm on the same connection that I've been on all day long. I honestly don't know what might have happened. Hopefully I can just proceed. And, obviously, if there's another issue, somebody could point that out. I could try -- THE COURT: Yeah. If there's another issue, and we'll -- and we point it out, what you could do is you could call in and talk on the phone and then turn off your audio on Zoom. And that might work. We've had that happen\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 50 before. So we'll see. MR. BASSETT: All right. Yeah. I apologize in advance. And if it happens again, maybe we'll go that route. But I think for now I'll just try to continue if that's okay. THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. BASSETT: So just to rewind very briefly in case there was any inability to hear what I was saying. Paragraph 3 of the order, as I was saying, is, I think, critically important, because what that paragraph does is it recognizes that although the trustee by operation of law becomes the owner of the debtor's property upon his appointment, that transfer does not happen magically. And the ability of the trustee to actually exercise the rights of ownership and have the benefits of ownership is not something that he can be expected to do without the cooperation and the assistance of the debtor. And that's why in this order there's a specific reference to Sections 521(a)(3) and 521(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code which spell out the requirements of the debtor to both have property conveyed to the trustee and to otherwise assist the trustee in allowing him to carry out his duties and responsibilities under the Bankruptcy Code. So while those obligations already exist by operation of law under the Bankruptcy Code, the corporate\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 50 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 51 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 51 governance rights order makes it further clear by spelling that out and, I think, removing any doubt whatsoever that could even arguably exist concerning the obligations of the debtor in this case to take steps to ensure that with respect to his economic and governance rights and all of the entities that he owns and controls, including Ace Decade, he has to do what is necessary to help the debtor actually exercise the benefits of that ownership and control. Now, before, Your Honor, this morning and before yesterday, we had a dispute over whether the debtor in fact had beneficial ownership and control over Ace Decade. Now that the Court has entered the order that hit the docket a few moments before we began the session, there is no longer any dispute. The Court has made a finding that the debtor is the exclusive beneficial owner and the person in control of Ace Decade and that, but for the trustee's appointment, he still would be today. So taking that finding together with the corporate governance rights order and the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code, I don't think there could possibly be any dispute that the debtor has an obligation to take action to ensure that the trustee obtains his ownership and control rights over Ace Decade, including, as I will discuss in more detail later, making sure that the shares are transferred to the trustee.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 52 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 52 So the debtor's argument, I think, now that the ownership issue is off the table, what you'll hear from Attorney Henzy is essentially that there's nothing more the debtor can do to comply with his obligations under this order and under the Bankruptcy Code to direct the person -- who we did not learn in the debtor's objections, because this person was not mentioned. So we finally learned in his deposition, Ms. Yvette Wang, is now the current nominee shareholder who holds the shares of Ace Decade for the benefit of formerly the debtor and now the trustee. And what I think Attorney Henzy is going to tell you is that Mr. -- that the debtor has already asked Ms. Wang by sending her a letter to transfer the shares, and it's out of his hands. There's nothing else that he can do. And, therefore, he should not possibly be held in contempt of court. And that entire argument, Your Honor, is built on an entirely false premise. It is based on the notion, unsupported by any evidence, that the relationship between the debtor and Ms. Wang is an arm's length relationship where he has no ability to do anything other than send the letter asking her politely to transfer the shares, has no ability to take further steps to call her, to do anything else to assist the trustee in making sure that he is able to exercise control over Ace Decade.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 53 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 53 And I'm going to walk the Court through the evidence that is completely to the contrary. And I'd like my colleague, Mr. Barron, if he can -- I was going to start actually, Your Honor, back at the beginning with some of the documents that we've already gone over, including the bill of particulars, the testimony from the 341 transcript and the affidavit in the New York litigation. I won't belabor those points, because I've already walked the Court through them. But just as a quick recap, these documents show that from the inception of the creation of Ace Decade and, I think, maybe the end of 2014 or 2015, just before the UBS investment was entered into by Ace Decade, the debtor at all times was the one who was providing the funding, making decisions and acting on behalf of Ace Decade. I pointed the Court to a line in Mr. Kwok's -- in the debtor's affidavit in the UBS litigation in New York State Court, which I believe is at Exhibit 15, earlier where it talks about how a represntative of UBS told the debtor in structuring the transaction that he needed to place one of his employees as the director and sole shareholder in name of the entity in order to accomplish the structure that they were hoping to accomplish, but it had no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the debtor was always the principal behind the company, the one making decisions and the one in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 54 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 54 control. Now, what the debtor has now testified to, and he submitted an exhibit on his exhibit list which I'll get to later that contains a letter dated November 10th that he purportedly sent to this person, what he has now testified to is that the original person who at the direction of UBS was placed as the director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade, Ms. Yong Yu, has since at some point in time transferred the name -- the ownership and name -- the nominee ownership of the shares to another individual, Ms. Yvette Wang, who I mentioned to you previously. And what the debtor is going to tell you is that -- well, his counsel will represent -- the debtor won't testify, because he's not here today to testify, which to us is not a surprise. But what Mr. Henzy will tell you is that the debtor would say that Ms. Wang is not an employee and doesn't answer to him, and, therefore, there's nothing he can do. But I want to walk the Court through some of the documents that are in the record that prove just the opposite. And if my colleague could start with -- and this first document is -- it's going to be Trustee's -- I may have misreferenced an exhibit previously. I'm just going to go ahead and ask my colleague, Mr. Barron.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 55 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 55 The arbitration award is the document, but what exhibit on our list is that, Mr. Barron? MR. BARRON: Yes. That's Exhibit 13. MR. BASSETT: 13. Okay. Thank you. So, Your Honor, this is a document that I don't believe was in the list that we walked through earlier. No, it is. Sorry. THE COURT: It is. MR. BASSETT: Exhibit 13. THE COURT: It's Exhibit -- I thought we were just looking at page -- MR. BASSETT: You're right. THE COURT: -- 3 of (indiscernible, audio break). MR. BASSETT: Yes. You're correct, Your Honor. I apologize. So if Mr. Barron could scroll to page 3. Keep going, keep going, keep going. Okay. It's the next page. So this is an arbitration award that the law firm Boies Schiller obtained against the debtor. And what you'll see here is a -- an indication in this order that Yvette Wang is, in fact, the debtor's chief of staff, at least in the eyes of the arbitration panel that heard the dispute. The next document that I would like to bring to the Court's attention is Exhibit 39 on the witness list. This is also in the list that we discussed earlier and,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 56 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 56 therefore, it has been admitted to the Court. This is a deposition transcript from a deposition that the debtor gave on October 3, 2018, where he is asked, who is your assistant? His answer was, we're together. Yve (Wang, Wang Yanping. And the question -- the response to that was, does she go by Yvette, not Yve? He says yes. So this is Mr. Kwok, the debtor, referring to Ms. Wang as his assistant. Now, the next document is Exhibit 29 on our list, which is also in the documents that were admitted previously. MR. BARRON: And I'm going to show that on the screen. MR. BASSETT: Now, Your Honor, this is an email from this individual to another individual -- from Ms. Wang to another individual. And, again, this is from the 2016 time period. But what this document shows, and it's an example, really, of what you'll see in many of the other documents, is Ms. Wang is not only, as highlighted here, referring to the debtor as her boss but what this document shows she is, in fact, doing is simply serving as a go-between, effectively passing on messages to and from the debtor. And I think, you know, completely contradicts, as I said before, this notion that she doesn't work for or\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 57 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 57 answer to or have any obligation to be responsive to anything the debtor might ask her to do. The next document is Exhibit 30 on the exhibit list. MR. HENZY: I'm sorry. Is that 30, or is that 34? MR. BASSETT: That document -- that's not the right document. Take that one off the screen, please, Mr. Barron. And this one, I guess, we do not have highlighted for Your Honor. I apologize. This is also on the list that were admitted -- that -- on the exhibits that have been admitted to the Court. This is another example of Ms. Wang communicating on behalf of the debtor. And there's a line, although not highlighted, again referring to the debtor as her boss. And I think my colleague has just highlighted it. The other documents that I would point the Court to, I think, are documents -- these are the documents that I will only reference in generalities. But I think they are actually the ones that really drive home the point that I have been trying to make most clearly. Because they are documents where -- and, again, I'm not going to reveal the substance of what is contained in these documents, because it's confidential. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I'm going to object. I think we have to resolve this issue. Because there is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 58 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 58 information in the documents that for me to be able to fairly address what Mr. Bassett is saying I'm going to want to point to and tell the Court about. And I don't -- so I can't do that in a general way. There's specific information in the documents. I can't tell you specific information in a general way. THE COURT: All right. Let me just ask you a question. Let's take it either way. Well, it doesn't matter if I deny the motion to seal. But if I grant the motion to seal, how would this proceed? How would we proceed? And I'm just asking because I want to make sure I understand the positions of the parties. If I grant the motion to seal with regard to these specific documents -- that I don't know which ones we're talking about yet, but we already talked about at least 34, 36 and 37 being subject to the motion to seal. If I were to grant that motion, Attorney Bassett and Attorney Henzy, then you would say no further argument could be made until the only people left would be the two of you and me? MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. Because these particular documents are documents that not only are confidential but are also subject to a privilege that the debtor formerly held that the trustee now holds.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 59 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 59 MR. HENZY: I agree with that, Your Honor. THE COURT: So we -- there -- we either have to do that now or we have to wait until Monday to rule on the motion to seal, which seems to make not a lot of sense, although the motion to seal is supposed to be set for a hearing. That's what our local rules require. So how is it that you both propose we proceed? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I just -- I guess I don't understand why Attorney Henzy believes he needs to disclose the content of these documents before I've even made the very high-level point that I would want to make. And if in responding to that he wants to -- he can even direct the Court, who has copies of these documents, to particular lines. As long as he's not disclosing the contents, then I don't think it's a problem. I mean, I hate to offer to ask to take another recess, but one option is I could spend two minutes telling Mr. Henzy what I'm going to say and we could figure out if that resolves the issue. THE COURT: Or we could -- you could tell me that you want me to look at these exhibits for some -- and you don't have to tell me why. And, Attorney Henzy, you can tell me why I shouldn't look at those exhibits. And we can still rule on whether or not they're sealed or not sealed.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 60 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 60 I mean, the problem we have is -- I know everybody wants the Court to just rule one way or another on the motion to seal. But the problem is our rules require that it be scheduled for a hearing, and it's not scheduled for a hearing at this point in time. And the -- it was filed Monday. The -- I mean, I'm not even -- MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, can I make a suggestion? THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINSEY: That the documents are now presently on the Court's record under seal. THE COURT: I understand. MR. LINSEY: And I think that's permissible according to the protective order. Your Honor is -- we've asked -- we have filed the motion. We've asked Your Honor to rule. Your Honor has indicated that you're going to take that motion up on Monday. But I think the status quo now is they're under seal. And, you know, perhaps there could be a -- you know, a more limited proceeding in terms of who's on there today, but -- and anyone has remedies on Monday if there's a decision made that things under seal shouldn't be. I can't imagine there would be, but people will have that remedy then. But to delay this entire proceeding for days after\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 61 the delays we already have been through just seems very inefficient. THE COURT: I understand it seems inefficient. But, unfortunately, we have processes under our local rules that a motion to seal needs to be scheduled for a hearing. And it hasn't been, number one. But I -- I don't want to stop the proceedings either. But I have to handle the evidence in the appropriate manner, correct? Or not just I. All the parties have to handle the evidence in the appropriate manner. So my suggestion was -- these documents that are under seal that I think, Mr. Bassett -- I think, I don't know -- but that you're going to refer to are the documents that were filed yesterday on the docket, Attorney Linsey. Is it the documents at 1099 and 1100? MR. LINSEY: These documents, I believe, are at -- the -- this -- what we're talking about now, the sealed documents, I believe they're at 1091. I'd have to take a look where exactly they are on the docket under seal. MR. BASSETT: And -- MR. LINSEY: If you give me one -- if you give me a moment, I can pull the -- THE COURT: Sure. Sure. (Pause.)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 61 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 62 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
62 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
All right.
There is a sealed document |\n| 2 | at 1091.
There's a sealed document at 1092. |\n| 3 | MR. LINSEY:
Yeah.
No.
Your Honor was right in |\n| 4 | the first instance, though.
There are two sealed documents |\n| 5 | that were filed yesterday, 1099 and at 1100. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 7 | MR. LINSEY:
And this document, I believe, is |\n| 8 | within the documents that are in 1099. |\n| 9 | (Pause.) |\n| 10 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
Which exhibit are we |\n| 11 | talking about again?
Which number? |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
We don't know yet what exhibit we're |\n| 13 | talking about. |\n| 14 | MR. LINSEY:
The one -- the sealed -- so the -- |\n| 15 | they break down this way.
1099 are the sealed documents -- |\n| 16 | rather the sealed exhibits that are privileged.
1100 is -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:
-- one other -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
But I think -- |\n| 20 | MR. LINSEY:
-- one -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I think part of the problem is, right, |\n| 22 | the sealed documents don't indicate what exhibit numbers |\n| 23 | they are, at least on the docket itself, right?
So and I'm |\n| 24 | not saying that that's -- I'm -- the trustee filed a list of |\n| 25 | witnesses and exhibits with one PDF document of 1,600 pages. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 63 And I think that includes 53 exhibits. I think. Something along those lines. While they are book marked, they are not separately filed. With regard to those exhibits, they're -- I believe, Attorney Linsey, but I could be wrong, because as you know, and you're correct, some of this was filed yesterday; some of this was filed two days ago, three days ago. I can't -- unless I open up those documents, which I'm obviously entitled to do, I don't know what exhibits are in those sealed documents. I don't know what exhibits are in any of those sealed documents. And the problem is I think we, you know, need to -- I need to be able to figure that out. Okay? MR. LINSEY: I can put it into the record right now that it's Exhibits 20 through 24, 28 -- THE COURT: In which one? In which one? MR. LINSEY: I'm sorry. I'm talking about 1099 right now. THE COURT: Okay. Good. That's helpful. So let's go through that. 1099 is what? What exhibit -- what trustee exhibits is that? MR. LINSEY: 20 through 24, 28 through 30, 34 through 38. That's it. THE COURT: Okay. That's in 1099. Those are the Case 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 63 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 64 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 64 trustee's exhibits that are under seal in 1099. MR. LINSEY: Correct. THE COURT: What about 1100? MR. LINSEY: Only one exhibit. That's Exhibit 27. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Now, what about the other exhibits that are -- what about the other documents that are under seal that were filed a few days ago? MR. LINSEY: Those documents are the motion to seal and -- itself and the reply memorandum in support of the trustee's motion for contempt which is -- some of which is a little bit behind some of the subsequent developments that have happened in terms of, you know, this partial consent order that's entered. But that's what those treat. In terms of the sealed exhibits, everything is in 1099 and 1100. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: No problem. THE COURT: So, Attorney Bassett and Attorney Henzy, there are two sealed documents on the docket of this case that obviously no one can see what they are, because I -- because they're sealed. However, we've just recited -- Attorney Linsey has just recited what the exhibits are. And there's already a list of witnesses and exhibits that indicates what those\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 65 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
65 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | exhibits are.
It doesn't tell you what they say in them, |\n| 2 | obviously, but it tells you what they are, correct? |\n| 3 | I mean, if you go back to your trustee's list of |\n| 4 | exhibits -- so, for example, if we look at Exhibit 20 on the |\n| 5 | trustee's list of exhibits -- that list of exhibits is on |\n| 6 | the docket. |\n| 7 | It's not under seal, Attorney Linsey, correct? |\n| 8 | MR. LINSEY:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 10 | MR. LINSEY:
The list of exhibits is not under |\n| 11 | seal. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Right.
So Exhibit 20 is an email |\n| 13 | chain beginning on January 30, 2015, in which R. Bartlett of |\n| 14 | Williams & Connolly emailed multiple individuals concerning |\n| 15 | Mr. Kwok's desire to retain real estate counsel.
That's |\n| 16 | what the list of -- that's what it says. |\n| 17 | And then Exhibit 21 is identified as an email |\n| 18 | chain.
Exhibit 22 is identified as an email chain.
Exhibit |\n| 19 | 23 is identified as an email chain.
And Exhibit 24 is an |\n| 20 | email chain.
Exhibit 28 is identified as an email chain. |\n| 21 | Exhibit 29 is identified as an email chain.
Exhibit 30 is |\n| 22 | an email. |\n| 23 | And what -- and the last one -- you said 34 |\n| 24 | through what, Attorney Linsey?
I apologize.
You said it, |\n| 25 | and I didn't write it down properly.
The last part of 1099. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 66 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 66 MR. LINSEY: No problem, Your Honor. It's 34 through 38. THE COURT: Oh, through 38. Okay. I didn't -- MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor, I -- this part won't be controversial, because we already covered it when we admitted the exhibits under the order. But the three exhibits that I was just going to reference again only generally are Exhibits 34, 36 and 37. And I'm not going to reveal anything that I shouldn't. But just so the Court knows, all I am going to say is that these documents show Ms. Wang acting in a certain capacity on a certain issue. That's it. And -- And I don't understand why Attorney Henzy could not respond and say, Your Honor, if you look at those documents, including, you know, paragraph X, Y or Z, you know, they actually don't show that, without divulging on the record the contents. I don't understand why that would be necessary. So it seems to me we could proceed here. MR. HENZY: Okay. That is completely unfair, Your Honor. And I have the greatest respect for counsel. I did not create this issue. The motion to seal could have been expedited. It wasn't. It would not be fair for me to be restricted in what I can do with these documents. And I will tell you that I would have -- at least with a couple of them, I would\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 67 have a different characterization than Mr. Bassett is giving you. Or I would add a lot -- I would add color to what Mr. Bassett is saying to you. And I can't do that without making -- THE COURT: Okay. So let me ask you then, are -- you want me to excuse everyone and let Attorney Bassett make his argument and you give your response to these three exhibits? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I want to -- MR. BASSETT: If that's what -- Your Honor, if that's what Attorney Henzy insists on. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, what I want is to be able to make whatever use of these exhibits I deem appropriate. And it -- you know, I told you I'm not objecting to the motion to seal. THE COURT: Right. So then -- so that's what I asked you before. I said, so assume it's granted; how would we proceed? And you said -- I think you said that -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: -- everybody else would have to be excused. MR. HENZY: That's correct. Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Right. So then that's what I just said. So that's what you're asking, and that's what we'll do. That's what we'll do. We'll excuse everyone. And\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 67 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 68 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 68 it'll be you, me and Mr. Bassett. MR. HENZY: And we're going to do that today? THE COURT: We're going to do that right now. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor? MR. HENZY: All right. I thought you didn't want to do that, but that -- I'm not objecting to that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WOLMAN: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. WOLMAN: This is a public proceeding. There's a public access line. Unlike the other day at least was an emergency issue, again, this has been teed up previously. As Mr. Henzy said, this could have been expedited. And the Court cannot just seal the public and close the courtroom without that very same public hearing on whether or not it should do so. And so we're putting the cart before the horse. The public -- even the ability to observe the court and court proceedings is part of that common law and First Amendment right of access. And so we object to the sealing of the courtroom at this time. They may be provisionally under seal, but that does not mean that the Court has now determined that they should be under seal.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 69 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 69 And if the Court decides that the documents should not be under seal, then the public will have been denied access to this very proceeding improperly. THE COURT: So they -- actually, they won't, because then you will have access to the proceeding. So I don't agree with your argument, Attorney Wolman. And there is already a protective order in place that already anticipated things being filed under seal. This hearing on this motion for contempt has been set for some time. And if you had concerns about these issues, you could have raised them ahead of time as well. You know that -- you've seen the matter has been filed under seal. You haven't filed anything. And no other party is on the phone or participating in this that's objecting to the process that we just set forth in order to continue the hearings in this case and to allow this investigation to go forward, which is what is going on in this case. The cases that you've cited to yesterday have been cited in the Second Circuit as not applying in bankruptcy cases. And the public interest in this case may, in fact, well be served even after today because of whatever ruling is made. However, there are already orders in place that anticipated that there are privileges asserted -- that can be asserted with these documents and that there were\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 70 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 70 confidential information in these documents. And if you wanted to be bound by those things, your client could have signed onto those orders. And I don't believe your client has. And so we're going to proceed in the manner that I've just stated we are going to proceed. So I'm going to have everyone be removed from the public access line and from the courtroom, and I will continue on with regard to Exhibits 34, 36 and 37 at this time with Attorney Bassett and Attorney Henzy only. When those issues are resolved, everybody else will be brought back into the hearing. MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, this is Attorney Moriarty. I'm also counsel for the debtor. Is there any reason why I would need to leave? THE COURT: Yes. We're going to keep it to Attorney -- to the people making the argument. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, full disclosure, the trustee, as you know, is in the room with me. I assume it's acceptable for him to stay. THE COURT: Yes. The trustee can stay. All right. Let's go ahead and remove -- MR. HENZY: Your Honor? I apologize Your Honor. I'd ask that my partner, Mr. Moriarty, be able to stay with me. He -- THE COURT: Look, everybody, I just want to say\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 71 one thing. This is getting out of control. This is a hearing. We are -- we're not going to have this hearing -- every single moment we have in a hearing somebody say, oh, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. We are -- this is an evidentiary hearing. Evidence is being presented. Mr. Moriarty, you can -- you are not to say anything. You turn off your microphone. That's it. I have ruled. If no one likes the ruling, you can appeal it. Let's proceed the way that I've just stated. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay, Your Honor. We're just removing people. THE COURT: Yes. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. (Pause. Parties placed in waiting room.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay, Your Honor. I believe I have Attorney Bassett, Attorney Moriarty and Attorney Henzy still in the room. THE COURT: Is the public access line -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: They're in the waiting room. That's in the -- THE COURT: There's no one else -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: The public access line is --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 71 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 72 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 72 THE COURT: There's no one else -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: -- in the waiting room. THE COURT: All right. I want everyone to know we are getting -- we're going to address this issue, because I'm not going to have this hearing anymore. I'm not going to have fights over motions to seal. I'm not going to go through this. This is ridiculous. It's a waste of everyone's time. I've got an attorney who's going to object that this is under seal. So I'm not going to continue this hearing. I'm going -- you're going -- someone has to file a motion -- an emergency motion to have the motion for -- to seal put on the calendar tomorrow morning. And we'll address it. And I'm not going to do this. I'm not going to spend my time and my days having to worry about people appealing whether this is a public hearing or not. You've all entered into orders. You're all sophisticated lawyers. You need to figure this out. I am not going to do this. Okay? So I am -- we're going to go back on the record. And we're going to tell everybody that given the objection to the fact that the sealing motion hasn't been held yet and -- we're going to stop today's hearing and we are going to have the -- someone's going to have to move to put the motion for seal on the hearing calendar for tomorrow\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 73 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 73 morning. And you can make an oral motion to do that. I will allow that. And I will tell anyone if they need -- want to file an objection, they need to do so by whatever time it is. Now, I will also tell you that tomorrow at noon I have an appointment that I have to keep. So we -- if we're going to start this hearing tomorrow morning at whatever time we're going to start it at, it's going to have to be stopped again. So you're all going to have to decide how you want to proceed. But this is not how we're going to proceed. I am not going to sit here and have to make rulings about whether something is public record or not and what the effect of prior orders that you all agreed to and that have been entered in this case have in this case. I'm not doing that. That is a waste of judicial resources, and it is not an efficient use of an evidentiary hearing. So, Mr. Bassett and Mr. Henzy, what are your -- what do you propose to do this afternoon once we conclude this hearing? Because I'm not doing anything else today. I am not getting involved in fights about whether or not the public has been excluded from this hearing. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if I could? I don't want to be involved in that fight either. I'm not fighting that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 74 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 74 issue in any way, shape or form. I apologize. All I want to do is be able to use the exhibits in a full way. I don't want to be prejudiced by not being able to tell you specifically what I am talking about in the exhibits. I do think -- and as I said earlier, I want to get this done. I think it is impossible that we will finish in two hours tomorrow. I'm happy to start at 10:00, stop at noon and then continue it at the Court's next available date. Or if the Court is available on Monday at 10:00 a.m. -- I don't know what the Court's calendar is. I'm happy to continue it until Monday. But I -- again, I'm at the Court's, you know, and Mr. Bassett and Mr. Despins', you know, discretion. But I just -- I absolutely do not want the Court to think that I'm saying I think we can finish in two hours tomorrow. By the time we get through -- Mr. Wolman is going to argue the sealing, Your Honor -- and I don't mean that as a criticism of Mr. Wolman. And it's going to be 10:30 before we get going. And we're not going to finish this case in an hour and a half. We're not going to. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, just for clarification, were you suggesting that when we go back on the public docket that we could make an oral request to have the sealing motion heard tomorrow morning?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 75 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 75 THE COURT: That is correct. MR. DESPINS: Okay. So at least we can get that out of the way tomorrow. MR. HENZY: And I will -- THE COURT: That is correct. MR. HENZY: Yeah. And I will have no objection to that, just to be clear. I'm -- THE COURT: And I'm not saying we can't have a hearing -- the hearing couldn't continue at 1:00 or 1:30 tomorrow afternoon -- MR. HENZY: Oh. Oh. THE COURT: -- or something. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying there's going to be a definite stopping point -- MR. HENZY: Okay. Okay. THE COURT: -- I have no control over. MR. HENZY: Okay. All right. I misunderstood that. So that's fine. THE COURT: Sorry. You didn't misunderstand. I didn't say -- MR. HENZY: No, no, no. THE COURT: -- that I -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. No, that's fine. That's fine. THE COURT: But I just -- I can't -- I'm not going to do that. I just -- it's just not -- it's not worth\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 76 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 76 anyone's time or energy. It's just not. MR. BASSETT: Okay. We apologize as well, Your Honor, for the challenges that this has created. THE COURT: I just -- so, ultimately, I'm going to unseal everything that I -- well, I don't know what I'm going to do, actually, except that I'm going to go back on the record, and I'm going to say we -- I told the parties that we are not going to continue this hearing today because of the objection with regard to the public access. And then the parties -- and then you all can take whatever action you think is appropriate this afternoon. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So I'm going to ask the courtroom deputy to please bring in -- bring everyone back in. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Your Honor, I have to say that I did not hear you say to go off the record, so although I did remove those parties, there is a recording. THE COURT: That's fine. That's fine. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: So I just wanted you to know that so -- THE COURT: That's fine. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. Okay. THE COURT: But before you bring them back in -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 77 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 77 THE COURT: -- because there's a -- there is a recording -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: -- are -- we didn't talk about anything that is related to any specifics of under seal. So I don't think there's a problem with the recording being public of what we just talked about. Does anybody -- MR. HENZY: I don't -- THE COURT: -- disagree with that? MR. HENZY: I agree, Your Honor. I agree with that. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, we don't have a disagreement with that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Good. Then that's what I'm going to do. I don't need to get involved in any more of this -- of these issues. You know, unless they're warranted. And I'm not saying it's not warranted. He can make -- any lawyer can make whatever argument they feel is appropriate. But I can't have an evidentiary hearing be subject to this issue. The issue needs to be decided. Okay? All right. So, Madam Courtroom Deputy, you're correct. Just keep the record the same. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 78 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 78 THE COURT: It is what it is. And we didn't discuss any of the exhibits that are subject to the sealing motion. And I will explain that to everyone when we get back on the record. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. Okay. We are -- we have never been off the record. I just want to make it clear. THE COURT: I'm sorry. When you bring everyone back in, I should say. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: When you bring everyone back in to the hearing, the virtual hearing -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: -- which is another reason why these hearings are -- virtual hearings are -- just add another layer of complexity. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. All right. Thank you, Your Honor. So I'm going to admit all now. THE COURT: Thank you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: You're welcome. Okay. I believe everyone is back in the hearing. THE COURT: Okay, everyone. I removed everyone from the courtroom for a few minutes, but I can tell you that the transcript of that time is public record. It's not filed under seal.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 79 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 79 I informed the parties, much as you could say -- you could do in a sidebar, that the Court is not going to continue with the evidentiary hearing today in light of the objection of Mr. Wolman with regard to the public access to the hearing. Therefore, we are not going to proceed. I told the trustee's counsel that if they want to move orally to schedule the hearing on the motion to seal for tomorrow morning, I would entertain that motion. And that if someone objected, they can object orally to that being scheduled tomorrow morning. And if it is scheduled tomorrow morning, then they can file a written objection before the hearing tomorrow morning. So, Mr. Bassett, how would you like to proceed? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee. The trustee hereby moves to set the motion to seal, which I believe is at ECF 1095, for hearing tomorrow morning when the Court resumes. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Wolman, what's your position on that motion? MR. WOLMAN: At this point, I have to reserve my rights to object, so -- THE COURT: Are you objecting to it being scheduled tomorrow morning? MR. WOLMAN: No. THE COURT: Okay. Then the hearing on the motion\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 80 of 85\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022
80 | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | to seal is scheduled for tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m.
It | | | | | |\n| 2 | will again be held via remote access via Zoom. | | | | | |\n| 3 | Attorney Wolman, you'll have until 9 a.m. to file | | | | | |\n| 4 | an opposition to the motion.
No other party is objecting to | | | | | |\n| 5 | the motion to seal. | | | | | |\n| 6 | So and we will -- anything -- that -- so that is | | | | | |\n| 7 | how we are going to handle the evidentiary hearing.
It's | | | | | |\n| 8 | going to be suspended at this time until we can address the | | | | | |\n| 9 | motion to seal tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. | | | | | |\n| 10 | Mr. Moriarty, that means -- | | | | | |\n| 11 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes? | | | | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
-- the motion to compel again, | | | | | |\n| 13 | obviously, will not be commenced today, because the hearing | | | | | |\n| 14 | on the -- the evidentiary hearing on the motion to -- for | | | | | |\n| 15 | contempt has not concluded yet. | | | | | |\n| 16 | So you're just -- unfortunately, the motion to | | | | | |\n| 17 | compel will just have to be continued until whatever time | | | | | |\n| 18 | there is a conclusion of the hearing on the motion for | | | | | |\n| 19 | contempt.
Okay? | | | | | |\n| 20 | MR. MORIARTY:
Your Honor, the motion to compel | | | | | |\n| 21 | seeks to compel my clients to do something, so I'm okay | | | | | |\n| 22 | without you hearing it today. | | | | | |\n| 23 | Just Attorney Bassett -- I think he mentioned ECF | | | | | |\n| 24 | 1095 as the motion to seal.
And I believe previously | | | | | |\n| 25 | Attorney Linsey mentioned it at 1099.
And I just -- | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 81 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 81 THE COURT: 1099 is -- no. The motion is -- the motion is 1095. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. Thank you. THE COURT: The documents that are sealed are 1099 and 1100. Those are the two documents that are sealed. The actual motion is 1095. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. So Attorney Bassett was correct. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't an issue tomorrow morning. THE COURT: With regard to what? MR. MORIARTY: With regard to the motion number being incorrect. THE COURT: Oh, I see. MR. MORIARTY: But I was incorrect. THE COURT: I see. I see. Well, I'm going to look right now again for the fifth time to make sure that I'm correct so that we can get this record -- make sure this record is accurate with -- since we have over a thousand docket entries since February. So I am looking at the official docket of the case, the CM/ECF docket. 1095 is the motion to seal related to Documents 1083, which are the exhibits. So it does say that on the docket, Attorney Moriarty, that the motion to seal is 1095. Okay? MR. MORIARTY: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 82 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 82 THE COURT: And then -- no, that's okay. And then Attorney Linsey indicated and articulated on the record today within the last hour when I asked the question that the two sealed documents, 1099 -- 1099 is -- are Trustee Exhibits 20 through 24, 28 through 30 and 34 through 38. And ECF 1100 is Trustee Exhibit 27. Are there any other documents that I should be addressing with regard to this motion to seal, 1095, that we'll be hearing tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m.? (No audible response) 11 Okay. Hearing nothing, then that -- then we will have the hearing on the motion to seal tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. And I think there is no -- nothing further that we can address this afternoon. The court will be in recess until 10:00 a.m. MR. GOLDMAN: Judge, just one point for clarification. Following the hearing on the motion to seal, Your Honor will continue with the motion for contempt, I take it? THE COURT: That is correct. MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Court is in recess -- excuse me, is adjourned. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 83 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 83 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Court is adjourned. MR. BASSETT: Thank you. (Proceedings concluded at 3:28 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 13 December 1, 2022 14 Christine Fiore, CERT\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 84 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 84 INDEX TRUSTEE'S EXHIBITS: Received 6 Particular of Claims, *Kwok Ho Wan & Ors. v. UBS,* C1-2020-00345 High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Div. Commercial Court, 9/23/20 19 7 Transcript of Section 341 Meeting, 4/6/22 19 10 Transcript of Section 341 Meeting, 3/21/22 19 13 Final Arbitration Award in *Boies Schiller Flexner LLP v. Miles Kwok* 45 15 Affidavit of in *Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. UBS AG* 19 28 Email Chain Beginning 7/11/19 at 7:08 p.m. in which M. Krasner emailed Y. Wang and K. Maistrello concerning Chateau Ridge property 45 29 Email Chain Beginning 11/10/16 in which K. Sloane emailed Y. Wang concerning the Sherry Netherland 45 30 Email from K. Sloane to Y. Wang on 5/12/17 concerning the Sherry Netherland 45\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 85 of 85\n\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - November 17, 2022 | 85 |\n|----|----|--------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | | Received | |\n| 2 | 34 | Email Chain Beginning 12/8/22 at 2:57 p.m. | |\n| 3 | | in which Q. Gao emailed Y. Yu, copying | |\n| 4 | | J. Schiller and M. Huange concerning | |\n| 5 | | NY UBS action
45 | |\n| 6 | 36 | Email Chain Beginning 12/8/16 at 3:00 p.m. | |\n| 7 | | in which Q. Gao emailed D. Boies and L. Carlsen, | |\n| 8 | | copying J. Schiller and M. Huange, | |\n| 9 | | concerning NY UBS action
45 | |\n| 10 | 37 | Email Chain Beginning 12/8/16 at 3:00 p.m. | |\n| 11 | | in which Q. Gao emailed D. Boies and L. Carlsen, | |\n| 12 | | copying J. Schiller and M. Huange, | |\n| 13 | | concerning NY UBS action
45 | |\n| 14 | 39 | Deposition Transcript of Ho Wan Kwok in | |\n| 15 | | PAX v. Kwok, 10/3/18
45 | |\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 文书 1195 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 1 页，共 85 页\n\n美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分庭\n\n关于 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n 2022年11月17日\n债务人。\n\n关于作出命令认定债务人因未遵守公司治理权利裁定而构成民事藐视法庭的动议之庭审记录\n\n审判长：尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官\n美国联邦破产法院法官\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nERIC A. HENZY（埃里克·A·亨齐）律师\nJAMES M. MORIARTY（詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂）律师\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒专业公司）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\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）：\nANNECCA SMITH（安妮卡·史密斯）律师\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nSTUART SARNOFF（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）律师\nPETER FREIDMAN（彼得·弗里德曼）律师\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美文律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表第11章受托人以及 Genever, Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC BVI 和 Genever U.S.：\nPATRICK R. LINSEY（帕特里克·R·林西）律师\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由记录服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nNICHOLAS A. BASSETT（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）律师\nDOUGLAS E. BARRON（道格拉斯·E·巴伦）律师\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平）律师\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩）律师\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building（贾伊莫联邦大楼）\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE J. GOLDMAN（欧文·J·戈德曼）律师\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程龙）：\nJAY MARSHALL WOLMAN（杰伊·马歇尔·沃尔曼）律师\nRandazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团专业有限责任公司）\n100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1195 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 3 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月17日 3\n\n（程序于下午12时17分开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：好的。下午好。请各方为记录说明出庭身份，先由第11章受托人开始。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平），第11章受托人。\n\n法官：下午好。第11章受托人的代理律师呢？\n\nBASSETT 先生：是的。您好，法官阁下。我是 Nick Bassett——\n\n法官：Bassett 先生——\n\nBASSETT 先生：对此抱歉。法官阁下，我是 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）代表第11章受托人的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。\n\n法官：好的。很好。首先，您的连接——它自行恢复了，这很好。一开始听起来有些异常，但我认为您现在没有问题，Bassett 先生。Barron 先生？\n\nBARRON 先生：您好，法官阁下。我是同样来自 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）、代表第11章受托人的 Douglas Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）。谢谢。\n\n法官：下午好。第11章受托人的代理律师——当地代理律师呢？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1195 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 4 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月17日 4\n\nLINSEY 先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是受托人的康涅狄格州代理律师 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西）。\n\n法官：下午好。美国受托人办公室呢？\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法官：PAX 的代理律师呢？\n\nSARNOFF 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 O'Melveny & Myers（奥美文律师事务所）代表 PAX 的 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。我的合伙人 Peter Freidman（彼得·弗里德曼）也和我在一起。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nSMITH 女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）担任 PAX 康涅狄格州代理律师的 Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯）。\n\n法官：下午好。委员会的代理律师呢？\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）代表债权人委员会的 Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼）。\n\n法官：下午好。债务人的代理律师呢？\n\nHENZY 先生：我是 Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒专业公司）代表债务人的 Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐）。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒专业公司）的 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂），同样代表债务人，并在法院今日将就强制履行动议听取辩论的范围内，代表 Mei Guo（郭美）和 HK USA。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1195 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 5 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月17日\n\n法官：我认为强制履行动议今日不在日程上。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：那么我——\n\n法官：至少据我所知不在。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：那么，法官阁下，我仅代表债务人出庭。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\nWolman 律师？\n\nWOLMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Randazza Legal Group（兰达扎法律集团）代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程龙）的 Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼）。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\n我认为——我认为我没有遗漏任何人，并且每个人都已为记录说明其出庭身份。是否正确？\n\n好的。昨天原定就第11章受托人提出的藐视法庭动议举行证据听证会，此外，还就康涅狄格州财产与纽约州财产的合并管理以及有关申报债权截止日期的命令，安排了一些昨日举行的行政听证会。\n\n听证会前一晚，即星期二晚上15日，第11章受托人提交了一份拟议命令通知，该命令部分解决藐视法庭动议。该通知所附的命令题为《关于债务人对 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）及 Dawn State Limited（道恩州有限公司）的受益所有权及控制权的命令》。昨天我们讨论了该命令。正如包括法院在内的每个人都在记录中指出的，法院实际上没有机会审阅该命令，因为我相信——在星期二晚上10时45分提交该命令并无问题，这不是问题所在。但关键在于，法院在听证会前没有机会真正审阅该命令。Despins 受托人和 Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐）——Henzy 律师代表个人债务人 Kwok 先生——同意该命令可以签发，且债务人不会对该命令提出异议或对该命令上诉。在昨天16日的听证会之后，在听证会期间我们讨论了许多事项，我回去审阅了该命令。我仅就该命令有几个问题，我认为可能还需要作出若干修改，以使记录准确且完整。\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官，我认为您的线路有问题。或者我认为是您的线路，就这个意义而言——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1195 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 7 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月17日\n\n您断断续续地传来。\n\n法官：你听不到我吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：嗯，也许——让我查看一下，看看是否只有我一个人在电话上——\n\nHENZY 先生：我——\n\nDESPINS 先生：——遇到了这个问题。\n\nHENZY 先生：法官阁下，我听您没有任何问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：我想我——其他人没有动。\n\n身份不明的发言人：我也没有任何问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：画面卡住了。\n\nHENZY 先生：我认为是您那边的问题，Despins 受托人。\n\n身份不明的发言人：是的。这里没有问题。\n\n法官：我想，Despins 受托人，大家所说的是，这一定是您的——\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我是 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。我实际上与 Despins 受托人在同一房间里，他正在处理他的设备。我认为他可能遇到了连接问题。\n\n法官：好的。是的。而且，Bassett 律师，在听证会一开始您发言时，您也遇到了别人听不到您的问题。因此，我不知道这是否与您房间内的连接有关。但无论如何，显然除 Despins 受托人以外，其他所有人都能听到我。因此，我会稍等片刻。我会等——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1195 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 8 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月17日\n\nBASSETT 先生：如果法官阁下不介意，Despins 先生——或者说 Despins 受托人——暂时坐到我旁边，可以吗？\n\n法官：我对此没有问题。\n\nBASSETT 先生：好的。太好了。\n\n法官：我能看到你们两位。这样没问题。我认为其他正在观看、通过 Zoom 参与的人也都能看到你们。因此，我认为这样可以。\n\n因此，Despins 受托人，我刚才所说的是——很抱歉您没有听到我所说的全部内容——当我回去查看所提交的命令、即拟议命令时，我认为该命令需要作出若干修改，以使其对于记录准确，并使我们能够在今天继续进行听证会。首先，我认为它确实应当——不要写成——不要——我的意思是，有两种处理方式。\n\n该命令写的是《关于债务人对 Ace Decade Holdings（艾斯十年控股）和 Dawn State Limited（道恩州有限公司）的受益所有权权益及控制权的命令》。\n\n我认为，更准确的说法应当是，如同您在通知中所述，该命令是部分解决藐视法庭动议的命令。然后您可以说，该命令为与 Ace State——您知道，Ace Decade 有关的、部分解决藐视法庭动议的命令。无论您希望如何表述。但我认为必须明确。因为你们都要求我命令载明我甚至尚未作出的认定。因此，我希望非常明确，这是对藐视法庭动议的部分解决。好吗？这是第一点。第二点，在——在进入命令各段之前，有一部分讨论了将证物准予作为证据。该事项尚未发生。因此——其中还写明债务人不提出异议。这没有问题。我再次说明，我对其中任何内容均无异议。但我希望记录明确，即各方同意这些证物——显然是证物7和10，即第341条会议记录；证物——我应当说，是受托人证物7和10；受托人证物6，即伦敦待决诉讼中的详述书；以及受托人证物15，即个人债务人 Kwok 先生在纽约州法院一宗称为 Ace Decade 诉 UBS 的案件中所作的宣誓书——我认为你们有——我知道你们不希望这是一项同意命令，但它确实是。至少就第1和第2段以及证据而言，这是一项约定命令。好吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月17日 9\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1195 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 9 页，共 85 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1195 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 10 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 10 关于第3段——这就是我昨天提出该问题的原因。我曾说过，我认为 Henzy（亨齐）律师有一次表述得比我更好。但我认为实际情况是：你们——你——而且该命令应当反映实际情况，即债务人——个人债务人与受托人已就与 Ace（艾斯）和 Dawn（道恩）有关的第1段和第2段所涉藐视法庭动议达成部分解决。明白吗？但双方对于第3段——即 Kwok 先生是否已完全遵守公司治理命令——并无一致意见。明白吗？这——这是准确的，对吗？HENZY 律师：法官阁下，我想明确的是，债务人并不反对法院作出认定，即本第1段所述的认定。法庭：对。HENZY 律师：但债务人并非——这并不是——已约定债务人不反对，但债务人并未同意该项认定。法庭：但你同意你不会上诉。HENZY 律师：我同意我不会上诉。因此，我同意我不会反对该项认定，并且我同意我不会就该项认定上诉。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 11 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022\n1 法庭：好。很好。那么这就是你们将在该命令中说明的内容。因为目前其中并未如此表述，因为让我被要求作出——作出我甚至尚未作出的认定，这有些不妥。明白吗？所以我希望明确，你们——而且我同意——Henzy 律师，这没问题。你可以完全按照你刚才所说的表述。\n8 HENZY 律师：好的。\n9 法庭：即债务人同意——受托人与债务人同意，债务人不反对第1段和第2段。以及关于上诉的那一段，我忘了那是第7段还是第8段，或者无论是哪一段。明白吗？\n14 但你们未同意的内容，以及这并非同意命令的原因是，Henzy 律师，我相信你今天将主张，个人债务人 Kwok 先生已遵守公司治理命令，而 Despins（德斯平斯）先生将主张他没有遵守。\n20 HENZY 律师：是的。嗯，法官阁下，正如我昨天所说，我将主张，从某种意义上说，他无需遵守——他无需采取任何行动来遵守公司治理命令。但如果他已经采取行动，他已尝试如此做。\n25 法庭：我认为——我的意思是，我理解\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 12 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022\n1 你对措辞所作的那种区分，但我认为——你刚才所说的内容与我所说的内容没有区别，即你——即你的当事人已遵守公司治理命令，无论这意味着什么。\n6 HENZY 律师：好的。没问题。\n7 法庭：明白吗？无论这意味着什么。\n8 HENZY 律师：是。\n9 法庭：好的。那么，在第3段中，我仍然——我对第3段仍有的一个实质性问题——也许这不是实质性问题——其写道：“法院应决定债务人将被要求采取何种行动。”明白吗？\n14 嗯，法院只会基于双方对于债务人为遵守公司治理命令尚未完成何事的陈述，和／或基于因受托人不得不提出藐视法庭动议、却未能全面且彻底解决该藐视法庭动议而应对债务人施加的任何制裁，来决定债务人将被要求采取何种行动。\n22 我不会——你们将告诉我他已——我将作出认定。我不会自行认定，对吗？你们必须作出该陈述。\n25 这并不由我决定——我不知道\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 13 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022\n1 Kwok 先生能够或不能够做什么，或者为遵守公司治理命令而应当或不应当做什么，或诸如此类的事项。你们必须告诉我那是什么。你们必须作出该陈述。因为，在此时，Kwok 先生通过同意这些认定，现已放弃关于翻译存在问题、他不是所有人——受益所有人，以及就 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）和 Dawn State（道恩州）提出的异议中所提出的其他任何事项的论点和异议。\n11 因此，该命令昨天未被录入，原因即在于此。因此，我不知道双方是否希望休庭并讨论该问题；双方已准备好作出我已在庭上讨论的这些修改，并在我们继续审理听证会之前使该命令获得录入。但我希望立即提出该问题，因为我不会以其目前的形式录入该命令。\n19 DESPINS 律师：但为明确起见，法官阁下，您提出的其中一些部分，我们可以接受。\n22 例如，就您将依赖的证物或文件问题，Henzy 律师可以说，是的，我不反对该等文件。届时，该命令的该部分应当没有问题。但是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 14 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 14 法庭：但是证物尚未作为证据提交。我尚未审阅它们。而且我——你们是在告诉我，我正在作出——你们说法院作出认定。你们必须同意我——同意我可以作出认定。我并未作出任何——截至目前我尚未作出任何认定，对吗？我尚未审阅任何证物。DESPINS 律师：我们理解。那么——Bassett（巴塞特）先生原本将负责该听证会。但他可以带您逐一审阅证物，并向您说明，看，这里写明他拥有这个，诸如此类。然后，如果法官阁下信服，您可以说，好，我准备作出该项认定。法庭：那么为什么你们不能换一种方式，即债务人——个人债务人与——以及作为受托人的你，同意这些证物一经作为证据接纳，债务人将——不反对法院作出认定，即——我不是——我——你们是在要求——如果其他人阅读该命令——让我们从这个角度来看。如果其他人以目前的方式——以目前的版本阅读该命令，就会推定我审阅了这些证物并作出了这些认定。我并没有这样做。我尚未作出任何认定。但你们同意我可以作出认定。那么就这样写。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 15 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 15 并将证物作为证据提交。截至目前，你们尚未将那些证物作为证据提出。它们不是记录的一部分。HENZY 律师：法官阁下，如果我——我或许能够简化——法庭：当然。HENZY 律师：——至少就该问题而言。关于证物7——6、7、10和15，即——法庭：受托人的证物。HENZY 律师：抱歉，法官阁下。这是在该命令的第一项命令性段落中，从第1页延续至第2页。法庭：是。HENZY 律师：好的。其中列出了那四项证物。法庭：嗯。HENZY 律师：我不反对将那些证物作为完整证物接纳。事实上，我同意，并且我已与对方律师达成一致，将其作为完整证物接纳。因此，我同意 Despins 先生的意见，我认为受托人现在可以向您指出他希望您审阅的那些证物中的位置。法庭：但是，如果你们可以说你们双方均同意我可以基于这些证物作出——作出以下认定，我为何需要这样做？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 16 HENZY 律师：嗯，我——法庭：为什么不能——HENZY 律师：法官阁下，我并不同意作出认定。我并非——法庭：那么我不知道该命令有什么作用。HENZY 律师：我——法庭：你不同意，但你不反对。HENZY 律师：我不反对。是的。法庭：那么，我驳回你对第1段和第2段中藐视法庭动议的异议。HENZY 律师：您驳回我的异议，依据是——依据异议中提出的论点，即截至 Despins 先生被任命时，Kwok 先生并非 Ace Decade 的所有人。因此，我可以告诉您，法官阁下，这——法庭：实际上，其写的是截至申请日期。那将是——HENZY 律师：两者都是。两者都是。两者都是，法官阁下。但是，我的意思是，我——法官阁下，我——这样或许更简单，您可以驳回我的异议。因此，我异议的第15至20段，其中——我在其中主张——我以 Kwok 先生在案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 16 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 17 申请日期和受托人任命日期时均非所有人为由提出不可能履行的论点，您可以驳回我的异议，即我异议的第15至20段。法庭：嗯，该命令中并未如此表述，而且——HENZY 律师：但如果那——再次，如果那会使法院更容易处理——法庭：我不知道什么会使其更容易处理。但我现在要对你说的是，如果其他人阅读该命令，他们将——他们会认为我——我们举行了一场听证会，证据已被提出，并且在经过适当审议且有充分理由显示后，我作出以下认定。BASSETT 律师：法官阁下？抱歉打断您，法官阁下。法庭：请讲。BASSETT 律师：我是代表受托人的 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。我认为法官阁下完全正确。我的意思是，那正是我们预期的。我认为 Henzy 先生——Henzy 律师试图表达的是，其当事人就该问题的立场是，他不希望在记录中同意这些认定。但与此同时，您完全正确，他已放弃那些论点。他不再主张他并不拥有 Ace\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 17 页，共 85 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 18 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 18 Decade，因此，他不再以该理由反对我们的动议。因此，我们协商达成的解决办法是，我们将向法官阁下提交该拟议命令。债务人不会反对我们提议由法院根据将作为证据提交的文件作出的认定。我将请求将证物6、7、10和15作为证据提交。法院随后将基于这些文件作出认定，即 Kwok 先生是受益所有人，并且，您知道，作出拟议命令中实际表述的认定。我不会重复，因为该命令说明了该认定将是什么。我们不希望催促法院作出该认定。因此，我们乐意采取任何必要措施。如果法院希望我们逐一审阅证物，我可以这样做。我将说明，至于第二阶段，我计划讨论其中一些文件，只是因为它们也与今天的论证有关。但我认为——我不知道这是否澄清了情况，但我认为这正是我们意图通过该命令实现的内容。法庭：我认为我不需要你逐一说明那些文件中的具体内容，但我确实认为我\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 19 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022\n\n我需要您——您刚才所做的是申请将证物引入。\n\n并请明确记录：受托人证物6、7、10和15，受托人的律师申请将这些文件全部接纳为证据。并且，个人债务人郭先生的律师刚刚在记录中陈述，他完全不反对接纳这些证物。\n\n是否还有其他人反对接纳——全部接纳证物6——受托人证物6、7、10和15？好的。既然无人表示反对，则这些证物将被全部接纳，作为本次藐视法庭动议听证的一部分。\n\n（受托人证物第6、7、10和15号被接纳为证据。）\n\n法庭：我想要——我想要就此明确记录，因为——我理解，而且我——如同我昨天所说，我赞赏缩小争议范围。但我们仍需确保明确：所有这些都是与藐视法庭动议有关而进行的，并且——我——在该证据现已获接纳为证据之前，裁定不会作出。至于该裁定第3段，在无人告诉我应当作何决定的情况下，我不会决定债务人将被要求做什么，对吗？我的意思是，我希望巴塞特律师和亨齐律师对此明确。这并不是说我会坐下来审阅所有这些事项，然后说，哦，好吧，我认为他本可以做X、Y或Z，因此我就会这样说。那不是我的职责。我的职责是确定您或任何人是否已证明存在作出某种形式藐视法庭裁定的依据，以及该裁定应采取何种形式。好吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：明白，明白，法官阁下。这正是我们打算在今天其余听证中完成的事情。\n\n法庭：不过，您想如何处理这份裁定？因为我以为您希望在——也许我们——也许在开始本次听证的其余部分之前，该裁定不必作出。但在我们刚才讨论的某些修改完成之前，我不会按其现有形式作出这份裁定。\n\n巴塞特先生：法官阁下，恕我请求？是否可以请求短暂休庭，也许十分钟，以便与受托人、我的同事以及可能还有亨齐律师商议？\n\n法庭：当然。您需要多少时间，我们就可以给多少时间。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore记录与转录服务公司）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 20 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 21 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022\n\n巴塞特先生：嗯，我想先从十分钟开始。那会很好。我不知道如果我们需要更多时间，是否有便捷的方式与法官办公室沟通。也许我们可以重新登录Zoom——\n\n法庭：您就重新登录Zoom吧。并且——\n\n巴塞特先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——法庭书记员将会监控，我们再据此处理。再者，我并不是试图——各位必须理解，我并不是——我必须签署这份裁定，对吗？因此，我需要确保我理解这份——这份裁定写了什么，并且同意这份裁定写的内容。即便这份裁定不会被上诉，它在某个时候也可能成为记录的一部分，对吗？如果有人必须审查，我希望他们确保——我希望确保他们理解与这项动议有关而发生了什么。这份裁定目前以其现有格式，我对此并不满意。而且我——但我认为我可以相当快地变得满意。但我认为你们需要处理这些问题。好吗？\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。那么法庭将休庭，待你们准备好后，我们将听取你们的意见。但如果需要，你们可以超过十分钟。你们做任何认为适当的事情。好吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢您，法官。\n\n法庭：好。法庭休庭。\n\n法庭书记员：法庭休庭。\n\n（法庭于下午12:43至下午1:48休庭。）\n\n法庭：好的。再次午安。我在我们休庭后——或在我们休庭期间，收到了关于部分解决受托人藐视法庭动议的修订裁定。巴塞特先生，在休息前——休庭前，您向我提出了一项建议——嗯，首先，该裁定第一项导言段落中的证物，即受托人证物6、7、10和15，现已被接纳为证据。您曾建议，您将在本次听证继续进行期间援引这些证物。对吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：是的，法官阁下。而且我认为我也提出过，我会向法庭说明这些文件中我认为有力支持我们请求法庭在该裁定中作出的认定、以部分解决藐视法庭动议的相关部分。但对我们而言，而且我也理解对债务人而言，在我们就藐视法庭动议未解决部分继续进行其余听证之前作出该裁定是重要的。因此，我可以——我很乐意先做这件事。如果法庭希望休息，或者——我很乐意按照法官阁下希望的任何方式继续进行。但我只是想说——\n\n法庭：您何不继续指出这些证物中支持您所称法庭将在该裁定第1和第2段作出的、且债务人不予争议的认定的证据。\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。法官阁下，是否可以让我的同事Douglas Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）获得屏幕共享权限，因为让他在屏幕上展示一些我认为甚至已被标注的文件，会更加容易。\n\n法庭：当然可以。我们可以将控制权授予巴伦律师。\n\n巴伦先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n巴塞特先生：好的，法官阁下。那么——如果我的同事可以在屏幕上展示第一份文件，即受托人证物7，它是2022年4月6日《Section 341债权人会议》笔录的副本。我将从这一份开始。\n\n巴伦先生：好的。请稍等。\n\n巴塞特先生：那么，法官阁下，这是笔录第60页。您会看到那里已作标注。再次，我们请求法庭在裁定第1段作出的认定是：债务人在申请日对Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）拥有排他的受益所有权并对其实施控制，此后一直维持该控制。我是在转述。法官阁下，我们在这份文件中向您展示的是债务人在Section 341会议上的证词，当时有人问他是否拥有Ace Decade Holdings Limited的任何权益。如您所见，他作证称是。当被问及其所有权权益的性质时，他描述了该权益。受托人随后问他是否是Ace Decade Holdings Limited的唯一法定所有人。该问题被重复提出。他说：“我是法定代表所有人。”问题是：“Ace Decade是否还有其他所有人？”他的回答是否定的。当被问及他何时成为Ace Decade的所有人时，他说是在2014年底。法官阁下，这一点——我稍后将说明其他证物。但这显然是一次会议，债务人在申请提交后于4月6日作出了宣誓证词，并被直接问及他对Ace Decade的所有权权益。他说他是所有人。当被问及是否有其他所有人时，他说没有。因此，我认为，这本身就证明了我们请求法庭在裁定第1段认定的排他性所有权。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022\n\n现在，如果我们可以转到第二份文件，即受托人证物清单中的证物6。这是诉讼请求详情，或者实质上是于2020年9月23日在针对UBS的诉讼中提交的起诉状，其中债务人、Ace Decade——Ace Decade和Dawn State（道恩州）均为原告。有一份——我不知道我的同事能否做到，但在证物之前的末尾有一页核证页，债务人在该页签名，宣誓本起诉状中所有指控均真实准确。就在这里。这是债务人的签名。我相信这是证物26，尽管那并不在记录中。但是我——他在其证言录取中向我确认了这一点。然后，如果我们可以回到——\n\n法庭：巴塞特律师，我能打断您一下吗？我以为您说这是证物6，不是26。\n\n巴塞特先生：是证物6，法官阁下。我很抱歉。\n\n法庭：没关系。我只是想确保我记录正确。我之前看过证物6，因此您不需要——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 25 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 26 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022\n\n巴塞特先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——再对证物6做任何说明。谢谢。\n\n巴塞特先生：仅为记录之目的——我不会逐一向您说明——但您知道，一些直接涉及债务人拥有并控制Ace Decade、作出了Ace Decade用于与UBS进行交易的投资、而该交易是本案诉讼标的的表述，见第7段、第8段、第11段和第4段，以及第24段。再次，我们无需为记录审阅这些（听不清）。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n巴塞特先生：下一份文件，法官阁下——我不知道法庭是否也有机会审阅该文件，但它是受托人证物清单中的证物15。\n\n法庭：是的。我此前没有看过那份文件——\n\n巴塞特先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——证物15。\n\n巴塞特先生：因此，请巴伦先生将其展示在屏幕上。好的。这份文件，再次说明，是我们证物清单中的证物15，这是债务人于2016年2月5日在一宗相关但更早的案件中提交的宣誓书。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 27 就同一事项对 UBS（瑞银集团）提起的诉讼。在该案中，只有 Ace Decade（艾斯十年公司）被列为针对瑞银集团的原告。但债务人仍代表作为该案原告的艾斯十年公司提交了这份宣誓书。再次说明，我——我认为其中的陈述非常清楚地表明，债务人事实上是、且一直是艾斯十年公司及其在瑞银集团诉讼中所涉投资背后的拥有和控制权益人。请看第 1 段——抱歉，第 10 段。谨致歉意。我的同事是正确的。在第 10 段，请看我们标注的文字。这表明，当债务人与瑞银集团进行讨论时，特别是与瑞银集团一名名为 Wong 先生的个人进行讨论时，他在该宣誓书中证明，Wong 先生告诉我，即债务人，由于我计划进行的投资规模，瑞银集团全球的高管将参与构建一项交易。再次说明，相关重点在于，这是他计划进行的一项投资，而非任何其他人、非某一其他受益所有人或其他人计划进行的投资。请看下一页第 11 段。再次，类似的措辞。您会看到，债务人在该宣誓书中宣誓作证——或在该宣誓书中宣誓陈述，负责监督该投资构建的瑞银集团高级管理人员将\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 28 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 28 瑞银集团中负责监督该投资构建的高级管理人员将为我，即债务人的最大利益行事。他还表示，我，即债务人，委托瑞银集团担任我在该投资中的顾问。如果您看下一段，该段再次提供了导致该投资的事件的更多细节。他在其中标注的文字中提到——我将在听证会的下一部分进一步谈及这一点——但他指出，瑞银集团的员工曾就应指定其哪一名员工担任艾斯十年公司的唯一股东和董事向他，即债务人，提供建议。他在同一段中进一步陈述，这些相同的个人曾向他建议如何以最佳方式转移资金——我认为这对所有权问题至关重要，法官阁下——如何以最佳方式将投资所需资金从我的一个瑞银集团账户转移至艾斯十年公司账户。因此，艾斯十年公司所进行的投资由债务人自己账户中的自有资金出资。您看到的下一段，即第 13 段，包含类似措辞。我认为，除了表明债务人将艾斯十年公司所进行的投资视为其自己的投资之外，确实无法作其他解读。因此，我认为，法官阁下，当您将这\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 29 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022\n1 份文件与权利主张书以及法官阁下从该文件中熟悉的陈述，还有在申请后第 341 会议上他被直接问及所有权问题时所作的明确证言一并考虑时，您知道，我们主张这些文件支持我们请求法院作出的认定。\n7 我很乐意回答您可能提出的任何问题。\n\n8 法 院：\n我没有任何问题。谢谢。\n\n10 Henzy 律师，鉴于 Bassett 律师在受托人证据 7、6 和 15 中指出的信息，您是否反对法院作出第 1 段中的认定？\n\n14 HENZY 先生：\n债务人不反对法院作出该等认定。\n\n16 法 院：\n谢谢。\n\n17 好的。Bassett 律师，您是否想对第 2 段作同样处理，还是您主张关于命令中第 2 段的信息将是相同的？\n\n21 BASSETT 先生：\n我认为命令中的第 2 段是相同的信息。我们请求法院在第 2 段中作出的认定，将同时基于相同的证据以及第 2 段中阐明的陈述。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 30 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 30 法 院：好的。既然您已指出作为完整证据收录的证物中的具体信息，我对此没有异议。因此，关于您对命令条款作出的其他修改，第 3 段的修改我同意。我认为没有进一步修改，因此我可以——我们现在可以录入该命令。您是否——我认为我们需要给法庭书记员五分钟来办理此事。因此，我们必须作非常短暂的休庭，以便法庭书记员办理此事，然后我们可以回来继续进行证据听证会。好吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：非常感谢，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：好的。谢谢。现在休庭。\n\n法庭书记员：现在休庭。\n\n（法庭于下午 2:11 至下午 2:11 休庭。）\n\n法庭书记员：休庭后现在开庭。\n\n法 院：好的。法庭书记员已将当事人今天早些时候作出的修改后的命令录入案卷。其为 ECF 编号 110——1110，于 2:11:25 录入。因此，Bassett 先生，您现在是否想继续进行其余的证据听证会？\n\nBASSETT 先生：是的。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 31 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 31 在我们继续进行听证会其余部分之前，我认为有一个——也许两个轻微的程序性事项。第一个是，在今天听证会开始时，我认为 Moriarty 律师就强制动议提出了一个问题。\n\n法 院：对。我确实回去查看了该事项。\n\nBASSETT 先生：是的。\n\n法 院：关于强制动议的命令写明，将在证据听证会结束时举行听证会，即在今天或者就藐视法庭动议举行的证据听证会结束时举行听证会。而且，显然，我们尚未结束。因此，Moriarty 律师，您说得对，该事项本应今天列入日程，但没有，因为证据听证会——嗯，并非因为这个原因。该事项本应今天列入日程。然而，在听证会结束之后——或者说，在就藐视法庭动议举行的证据听证会结束之前，强制动议听证会不会开始。这就是设定强制动议听证会的命令所说的内容。\n\nBASSETT 先生：这——\n\n法 院：有人不同意吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 32 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 32 BASSETT 先生：没有。这是我们的理解，法官阁下。我认为该命令说的是在今天的证据听证会结束时，如有必要则延续至明天。因此，您知道，今天结束时会如何处理，由法院决定。我们很乐意今天处理；如果届时明天处理更好，我们也很乐意明天处理。\n\n法 院：嗯，是的。我们将视事态发展而定。但 Moriarty 律师说得对，即该——动议——我对此表示歉意，Moriarty 律师。该事项没有列入日程，但本应列入。不过，在本次就藐视法庭动议举行的证据听证会结束之前，不会安排其开始。好吗？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：谢谢。\n\nBASSETT 先生：然后，我认为在我继续进行听证会其余部分之前，我们应处理的唯一另一个未决问题，是我们昨天与法院讨论过的密封动议问题。我的同事，Linsey 先生——或者 Linsey 律师，我认为，可以向法院说明我们目前的情况——\n\n法 院：好，我也要就此打断您。我在昨天的听证会后确实回去查看了该事项。根据我们的地方法规，附录 N，密封动议必须安排举行听证会。而周一提交的密封动议尚未安排听证会。因此，我——Bassett 律师，您是说，在本次就藐视法庭动议举行的证据听证会结束之前，您需要处理该密封动议吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 33 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 33 BASSETT 先生：您知道，我——法官阁下，我当时——有——当然，本次听证会下一部分将相关的一些证物属于保密和/或受特权保护的证物，因此并非今天参加本次 Zoom 电话会议的每一方都能够接触该等信息。然而，我认为今天我可以通过概括描述这些文件而不披露不得披露的信息来进行陈述。因此，从这一点——\n\n法 院：好的。\n\nBASSETT 先生：从这个角度看，我认为我们可以进行辩论，而不必先解决该密封问题。尽管如果我的同事 Linsey 律师对密封命令更为了解，且有不同看法，他可以告知我们。\n\nLINSEY 先生：没有。我同意这一点。我认为这样做是合理的。我只请求法院尽快安排就该命令举行听证会。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 34 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022\n1 法 院：\n嗯，我原本打算——谢谢，律师——抱歉。我并非有意打断您。Linsey 律师，您还有其他想说的吗？\n\n5 LINSEY 先生：\n没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n6 法 院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n7 听取昨天提出的问题后，我确实回去查看了案卷以及其他问题的进展情况。\n\n10 我将口头命令，就 ECF 1095 号密封动议的听证会安排在周一，我认为是 11 月 21 日，中午，与举行状态会议同时进行。如果有人反对密封动议，必须于明天下午 3:00 前提交对密封动议的异议。\n\n17 HENZY 先生：\n法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n\n18 法 院：\n可以。\n\n19 HENZY 先生：\n谢谢。法官阁下，请允许我先说明，我非常希望尽快完成本次听证会。\n\n22 并且我——我们不会反对密封动议。但是从程序上讲，如果有正在作为证据提交、且应当予以密封的文件，我们今天将如何处理？我只是——我想，我没有理解我们将如何这样做的要点。如果它们未被密封，而它们正作为证据提交，并且它们——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 35 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 35 密封？我只是——我想，我没有理解我们将如何这样做的要点。如果它们未被密封，而它们正作为证据提交，并且它们——\n\n法 院：它们没有作为证据提交。Bassett 律师刚才说他不会——我认为 Bassett 律师——\n\nHENZY 先生：我不确定那是正确的，法官阁下，但是——\n\nBASSETT 先生：是的。法官阁下，如果我可以澄清一下。我确实认为我将请求法院——我将请求将我们的一些证物作为证据接纳，其中包括几份保密和/或受特权保护的证物。我认为，处理这一问题的一种方式可能是——我不知道这些文件是否可以被接纳，而后续再处理其密封问题。如我所说，我今天陈述期间不会披露这些文件的保密内容。如果这不可行，我不知道这些文件是否可以暂时被接纳，并于周一决定密封问题。但是我——在我看来，有办法解决这个问题，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 36 页，共 85 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年11月17日 36 亨齐先生（MR. HENZY）：法官阁下——林西先生（MR. LINSEY）：法官阁下，我可以补充一点吗？现有保护令中有一项规定，允许将文件密封提交。事实上，这些证物已密封提交。它们已载入法院案卷。我认为今天可以适当接纳这些证物。我们已经——为确保这一问题毫无疑义，我们已提交密封动议。我们希望就此获得一项命令。但我认为这一部分——我认为这大致也是巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）所说的意思——除非线上其他人不同意，否则大概可以等到星期一再处理。亨齐先生：法官阁下，我并非要在这里制造麻烦。但我得坦白说，我很难理解在公开审判中，我们今天如何将证物作为证据接纳，而这些证物要么处于密封状态，要么不处于密封状态。我也——我不知道巴塞特先生将基于这些文件提出何种论点，因此我不知道该如何回应。所以从程序操作上说——我不确定我们该如何进行。但再次说明，我希望继续进行，而且我——我们不会反对密封动议。但我也不希望因此受到不利影响，即我不能就巴塞特先生以任何临时或其他依据作为证据提交的文件中的某些内容提出论证。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 37 of 85\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年11月17日 37 就任何临时或其他依据而言。巴塞特先生：法官阁下，为帮助法院并或许帮助亨齐律师（Attorney Henzy）理解，我认为我所设想的是——我可能会通过证物编号援引两份文件。亨齐律师持有这两份证物的副本。我认为他将会——我认为实际上我们的证物列在法院刚刚作出的命令第4段中，我相信是第4段。因此，亨齐律师熟悉这些文件。我将概括地提及这些文件，说明为何我认为它们是与法院应予考虑相关的文件。我相当确信亨齐律师在回应时无须做更多的事情。亨齐先生：嗯，我——我感谢巴塞特先生对此充满信心，但在我知道他的论点之前，我不知道自己是否需要具体援引文件中的某些内容。我认为，妨碍我这样做并不适当。如果巴塞特先生——我并非试图使巴塞特先生受到不利影响，或使他不能使用这些文件。我们已约定其可采性。但我不能被禁止在我认为适合进行论证时，可能将文件中的某些内容宣读并记入记录。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年11月17日 38 文件记入记录。法院：嗯，如果文件将被密封，你要如何做到这一点？亨齐先生：嗯，法官阁下，如果它们被密封并作为证据提交，我认为如果我随后需要援引文件中的某些内容，法庭就必须——法院：对。这正是——亨齐先生：——清场。法院：好的。这正是我——我只是想确认你——这就是你所设想的。亨齐先生：我不知道还有其他方法，法官阁下。法院：我也不知道，但我没有理解——你是在这么想。你似乎——我没有理解你的意思。所以——亨齐先生：是的。我很抱歉，是的，法官阁下。法院：没关系。没关系。亨齐先生：嗯，问题在于密封动议尚未排期开庭审理。今天通过电话——通过本次——参与本次远程虚拟听证的任何当事方，是否反对密封动议？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 38 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 39 of 85\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年11月17日 39 弗里德曼先生（MR. FREIDMAN）：法官阁下，我是代表PAX的彼得·弗里德曼（Peter Freidman），来自奥美律师事务所（O'Melveny & Myers）。我们无意提出反对。我还注意到，就本案早先涉及Golden Spring（黄金泉）一名雇员身份的问题，您可能记得，法院确实允许在听证过程中将某项内容作为证据接纳，并指定其处于密封状态，然后在没有事先口头动议或Golden Springs（黄金泉公司）律师事先提出动议的情况下，让各方——并让该问题随后得到解决。我认为——现在，它可能仍将处于密封状态，但在法院的指导下，人们能够弄清如何处理。因此，我们当然希望这可以继续进行，并且不反对以密封状态接纳文件。林西先生：而且，法官阁下，我认为这符合保护令，该命令允许将文件密封提交，并为任何希望质疑该做法的人提供救济途径，即提交动议。再次说明，由于我们严肃对待特权问题，我们已通过提交动议将该问题提交法官阁下，而听起来您倾向于在星期一审议该动议。但就今天目前而言，我认为这应当足够。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 40 of 85\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年11月17日\n1 沃尔曼先生（MR. WOLMAN）：法官阁下，我是代表程先生（Mr. Cheng）的杰伊·沃尔曼（Jay Wolman）。\n2 我的意思是，尽管有藐视法庭的问题，该命令并未凌驾于当事方的权利以及\n3 公众在普通法和《第一修正案》下的权利之上。\n4 \n5 因此，作为一般命题，只要该命令与\n6 普通法和《第一修正案》相冲突，\n7 该命令即应让位于普通法和《第一修正案》。您知道，我——\n8 法院：沃尔曼律师（Attorney Wolman），您指的是哪一项命令？\n9 \n10 沃尔曼先生：林西先生刚才所说的那项\n11 关于能够——\n12 法院：保护令？\n13 沃尔曼先生：什么？\n14 法院：保护令？\n15 沃尔曼先生：是的，法官阁下。\n16 法院：好的。\n17 沃尔曼先生：至于我是否会严格意义上反对这一点，\n18 我现在是否知道？您知道，巴塞特先生\n19 说他将描述这些文件。因此——并且\n20 这——根据他的描述，我可能会认为\n21 存在足够的利益，以至于不值得提出异议。但是\n22 我不能说——但我将保留\n23 质疑它的权利。\n24 法院：好的。那么我认为我们就\n25 继续进行，看看情况如何。好吗？这就是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 41 of 85\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年11月17日 41 我们要做的。那么请继续，巴塞特律师。你继续。巴塞特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。因此，我们现在进行的是今天关于受托人藐视法庭动议的听证的第二部分，该动议载于ECF 913。受托人在该动议中请求的是一项命令，认定债务人因未采取必要行动确保Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的完整所有权和控制权移交给受托人而构成藐视法庭。现在，我想先开始——我希望我的同事巴伦先生（Mr. Barron）仍可使用屏幕共享。法院：如果他不能，我们会确保给予他权限。我会请法庭书记员——亨齐先生：我可以问一个问题吗，法官阁下？抱歉。就是在我们开始共享屏幕之前，在——法官阁下，在我们开始共享包含潜在证据的屏幕之前——巴塞特先生：这是公司治理权利命令，亨齐律师。亨齐先生：好的。但或许——我能否就我们如何进行提出一个问题？我们是要接纳证据，然后进行论证，还是——我想——法院：嗯，这——我认为这实际上是一个好问题，所以我——亨齐律师提出，在我刚刚作出的这项命令中，在此前已作为证据引入的四份\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 42 of 85\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年11月17日 42 证物之后，有一段关于许多其他证物的协议，对吗？你们双方同意可以将其作为完整证物接纳。亨齐先生：为明确起见，法官阁下，——这是——这些是受托人告诉我他们希望接纳，而我已约定将予接纳的证物。但并不禁止接纳其他证据。法院：我没这么说。我是说我们先从——亨齐先生：好的。好的。法院：——我们先从——亨齐先生：是。法院：——所有人都同意可以接纳的证物开始。好吗？亨齐先生：好的。好的。法院：所以我没有——我没有这么说，我也不是这么想的。我——亨齐先生：我误解了。我误解了。法院：我是在建议我们把记录——现在就尽量把本案记录弄得清晰明了。在我们继续本次证据听证之前，你们双方之前请求我就\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 43 of 85\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年11月17日 43 藐视法庭动议的部分解决作出一项命令，我已经——我们现在刚刚已经完成了。在该项于我所述的211或其他时间作出的、并在记录中说明的命令中，有——有一段涉及本次继续审理，或者我认为你们称之为合规听证，其表明有若干证物当事方同意可以完整接纳。因此，我们应当先这样做。我们应当——巴塞特先生：是的，法官阁下。法院：——完成此事，巴塞特律师。好吗？巴塞特先生：明白，法官阁下。因此，此时我请求法院将受托人证物13、28至30、34、36至37以及39作为证据接纳。我还要说明，为记录起见，我认为证物34、36和37是受密封请求约束的文件。法院：我正在看。好的。让我——在我们继续之前，是否有人反对完整接纳证物13、28至30、34、36至37和39，并且理解证物34、36和37受受托人就密封动议提出的密封请求约束？亨齐先生：法官阁下，我唯一的问题是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 44 of 85\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年11月17日 44 约定的是证物13——仅接纳证物13的第3页。我不知道巴塞特律师是否打算做得更多。巴塞特先生：法官阁下，我无意做得更多。我无意说出任何与约定不同的内容。我认为约定还提及证物39的某一——某一部分，即该证物第55页第23至25行。亨齐先生：那么，在此情况下，法官阁下，我不反对按照约定完整接纳这些证物，但对于34、36和37，须保留我对现在在本次听证中使用它们的能力的担忧。法院：好的。还有其他人希望就这些证物发表意见吗？好的。那么这些证物——受托人证物13第3页、证物28至30、34、36、37和39第——我没有听到——39的页码部分，巴塞特律师。是什么？第几页？巴塞特先生：我刚刚把文件放错地方了，法官阁下。法院：不着急。亨齐先生：哪一份证物，法官阁下？抱歉。巴塞特先生：证物39。亨齐先生：是。它——法院：39。你说该证物只有——只有其中一部分将要——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 45 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 45 巴塞特先生：是的。抱歉。我现在找到了。我致歉。这是一份证言记录。然后，所提及的约定——或者说裁定——提及第55页，第23至25行。法庭：好的。那么，基于记录中所述理由，所有这些文件——所有这些证物——均作为完整证物予以接纳。对于证物34、36和37的密封问题，我们将在听证过程中该等问题出现时予以处理。因此，你——那么，这些就是证物。（受托人证物第13、28、29、30、34、36、37及39号获准作为证据。）法庭：现在，亨齐律师也向巴塞特律师提出了一个问题：由于本次听证没有证人，你打算如何进行？你是打算一次性向法庭展示所有这些证物，还是逐一展示，并就每一份证物逐一进行陈述？你打算如何进行？巴塞特先生：法官阁下，在我今天的陈述过程中，我将——我原本打算在这些文件与我所提出的论点相关时提及它们。为便于法庭及其他所有人，我将——我会尽量让我的同事将它们显示在屏幕上，当然，保密的文件除外。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 于 12/03/22 提交 于 12/03/22 11:29:38 录入 第 46 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 46 正如亨齐律师所提到的，就当事人可以援引的证物而言，该裁定并非穷尽无遗。我确实认为，我今天最终可能会引用我们清单上的其他几份证物，我认为最有效率的做法可能是在它们出现时处理。并且，在我提及它们时，我可以请求法庭接纳这些证物，我们可以届时处理任何异议。或者，我们也可以在最后处理。我愿意按照法庭希望的任何方式进行。法庭：亨齐律师？亨齐先生：我没有异议，法官阁下。而且，我将——假定巴塞特先生已经结束，那么我将逐一说明我拟请求接纳的证物。然后我会——我会以同样方式进行。我会在我的陈述过程中引用这些证物。法庭：那么我没有异议。我认为接下来将是巴塞特律师开始陈述其论点，并引用他认为相关的任何证物。如果有任何已经接纳的证物，显然我们无需担心这一点，除非它是受密封动议约束的证物之一。如果某份证物已在证物清单上，但尚未提交并获准接纳，那么我们将在处理到该证物时处理该问题。好吗？是否\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 于 12/03/22 提交 于 12/03/22 11:29:38 录入 第 47 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022\n1 这对大家都有道理吗？\n2 亨齐先生：对我来说有道理，法官阁下。\n3 巴塞特先生：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。\n4 法庭：好的。那么请继续。\n5 巴塞特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n6 亨齐先生：哦，我——我——我是否应当继续\n7 进行我的——抱歉，法官阁下。我无意打断\n8 巴塞特律师。我是否应当继续进行我的——所以我想\n9 我的意思是，我们是否可以结束证据程序并进入\n10 陈述阶段？但是，再次说明，我——\n11 法庭：我认为我们现在还不能，因为我们\n12 必须先听取巴塞特律师的意见，以防他还有其他\n13 想要提交的证物，对吗？而且我——这是他的\n14 动议，对吗？所以他必须就其动议继续进行，或者\n15 他必须——\n16 亨齐先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n17 法庭：我认为这是更好的\n18 进行方式，亨齐律师。好吗？\n19 亨齐先生：很好，法官阁下。\n20 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n21 巴塞特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。因此，其中一项\n22 论点——债务人为反对受托人的\n23 藐视法庭动议所依赖的一项主要论点是，\n24 公司治理权利裁定——我现已将该裁定显示在屏幕上，该裁定由本法庭\n25 在2022年8月10日作出——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 于 12/03/22 提交 于 12/03/22 11:29:38 录入 第 48 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022\n1 对于债务人就受托人的经济权利和治理权利以及\n2 其所控制实体应采取何种行为，表述得不够明确，\n3 包括 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）。\n4 我把这段文字显示在屏幕上的原因，并且我认为回头参考它是有帮助的，\n5 是因为我认为，裁定中的措辞对于债务人需要做什么，\n6 甚至可以说，\n7 不存在丝毫歧义。\n8 \n9 在第2段中，法庭裁定，受托人为破产财产的利益，\n10 持有债务人就所有\n11 由债务人控制的实体所享有的全部经济权利和治理权利。当然，\n12 这现在包括 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）。\n13 \n14 裁定接着指出，为免生疑义，\n15 这些权利包括受托人有权\n16 更换该等实体的任何现任高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员。\n17 随后还进一步规定，\n18 受托人获授权以其在本 Chapter 11（第11章）案件中的 Chapter 11（第11章）受托人身份行事，\n19 无需任何该等高级职员、\n20 董事、经理（听不清）。\n21 （停顿。）\n22 这并不会神奇地发生。而《法典》\n23 预见到了这一点，我们正在审阅的法庭公司治理\n24 权利裁定也预见到了这一点。\n25 法警：对不起，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 于 12/03/22 提交 于 12/03/22 11:29:38 录入 第 49 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 49 这是法警。巴塞特律师长时间停顿。我不确定他是没有讲话，还是画面卡住了。看起来像是卡住了。法庭：巴塞特律师，我认为你的连接又出现了一些问题。这与今天上午的情况类似。因此，我不知道你是否可以对此采取什么措施。不过，我——法警女士，我认为，听到了巴塞特先生所说的一切。但是存在——法警：好的。法庭：——我想我会说，是音频——法警：嗯哼。法庭：——通信中断。法警：好的。法庭：那么——巴塞特先生：是的。抱歉，法官阁下。我一直使用的是今天一整天都在使用的同一连接。我确实不知道可能发生了什么。希望我可以继续进行。显然，如果再出现问题，有人可以指出来。我可以尝试——法庭：是的。如果再出现问题，而我们——而且我们指出来，你可以拨打电话并通过电话讲话，然后关闭你在 Zoom 上的音频。那样或许可行。我们以前遇到过这种情况\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 50 。我们看看吧。巴塞特先生：好的。是的。我先行致歉。如果再次发生，也许我们就采用那种方式。但我认为目前如果可以的话，我会尝试继续。法庭：是的，请继续。巴塞特先生：因此，为防有人未能听清我刚才所说的话，我非常简要地回顾一下。正如我所说，裁定的第3段极为重要，因为该段确认，尽管受托人在其获任命时依法成为债务人财产的所有人，但该转移并不会神奇地发生。并且，不能期待受托人在没有债务人的合作和协助下，实际行使所有权权利并享有所有权利益。这就是为什么该裁定特别提及《破产法典》第521(a)(3)条和第521(a)(4)条，该等条款明确了债务人必须将财产转让给受托人，以及以其他方式协助受托人，使其能够履行《破产法典》项下职责和责任的要求。因此，尽管这些义务已根据《破产法典》依法存在，但公司\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 于 12/03/22 提交 于 12/03/22 11:29:38 录入 第 50 页，共 85 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 于 12/03/22 提交 于 12/03/22 11:29:38 录入 第 51 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 51 治理权利裁定通过明确规定该等内容，进一步澄清了这一点，并且我认为，消除了本案中就债务人有义务采取措施确保其就经济权利和治理权利以及其拥有和控制的所有实体——包括 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）——而言，必须采取必要行动，以帮助受托人实际行使该等所有权和控制权利益的义务，可能存在的任何哪怕可以说的疑问。现在，法官阁下，在今天上午之前以及昨天之前，我们对于债务人事实上是否对 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）拥有受益所有权和控制权存在争议。既然法庭已经作出在本次庭审开始前几分钟录入案卷的裁定，就不再有任何争议。法庭已认定，债务人是 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的唯一受益所有人及控制人，并且，若非受托人获得任命，他今天仍将如此。因此，将该认定与公司治理权利裁定及《破产法典》的要求相结合，我认为不可能存在任何争议，即债务人有义务采取行动，确保受托人获得其对 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的所有权和控制权，包括——正如我稍后将更详细讨论的——确保股份转让给受托人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 于 12/03/22 提交 于 12/03/22 11:29:38 录入 第 52 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 17, 2022 52 因此，我认为，既然所有权问题已不再是争议焦点，债务人的论点——你将从亨齐律师那里听到的——实质上是，债务人已经无法再做任何事情来履行其在本裁定及《破产法典》项下的义务，以指示该名人士——我们未能从债务人的异议中得知此人的身份，因为该人士未被提及。因此，我们最终在其证言中得知，Yvette Wang（王伊薇）女士现为名义股东，她为原先的债务人、现为受托人的利益持有 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的股份。而且，我认为亨齐律师将会告诉你的是，巴——债务人已经通过向王女士发送一封信，要求她转让股份，而此事已经不在他的掌控之中。他无法再做任何其他事情。因此，他不应被判定藐视法庭。而这一整套论点，法官阁下，建立在一个完全错误的前提之上。它基于一种没有任何证据支持的观点，即债务人与王女士之间的关系是一种独立交易关系，他除了发送一封信礼貌地要求她转让股份之外，无法采取任何行动；他也无法采取进一步措施联系她，或采取任何其他行动协助受托人，以确保受托人能够行使对 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的控制权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 于 12/03/22 提交 于 12/03/22 11:29:38 录入 第 53 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 53 而我将向法庭说明完全相反的证据。我想请我的同事 Barron 先生（巴伦）——如果可以的话——实际上，法官阁下，我本打算从一开始就讲起，先讲我们已经审阅过的一些文件，包括详细说明书、341 记录中的证词以及纽约诉讼中的宣誓书。我不会详述这些要点，因为我已经向法庭说明过它们。但简要回顾一下，这些文件表明，自 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）设立之初，直至我认为可能是在 2014 年底或 2015 年、即 Ace Decade 作出 UBS（瑞银）投资之前，债务人始终是提供资金、作出决定并代表 Ace Decade 行事的人。我曾向法庭指出，Kwok 先生——即债务人——在纽约州法院 UBS 诉讼中的宣誓书里有一段，我相信是在此前的证物 15，其中谈到 UBS 的一名代表在安排该交易时告诉债务人，为实现他们希望实现的架构，他需要将其一名雇员安排为该实体名义上的董事及唯一股东；但这丝毫不影响债务人始终是该公司背后的实际负责人、作出决定的人以及\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 54 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 54 控制人。现在，债务人现已作证称，并且他在其证物清单中提交了一份证物——我稍后会谈到——其中包含一封日期为 November 10th、据称由他寄给此人的信；他现已作证称，最初依 UBS 指示被安排担任 Ace Decade 的董事及唯一股东的人，即 Yong Yu 女士（雍瑜），后来在某个时间点将股份的名义——所有权及名义——即股份的代名持有人所有权，转让给另一名个人，即我此前向您提到过的 Yvette Wang 女士（王燕平）。而债务人将会告诉您的是——嗯，他的律师将作出陈述——债务人不会作证，因为他今天不在这里作证，这对我们而言并不意外。但 Henzy 律师（亨齐）会告诉您，债务人会说 Wang 女士并非其雇员，也不向其负责，因此他无能为力。但我想向法庭说明记录中一些恰恰证明相反情况的文件。如果我的同事可以先展示——这第一份文件将是受托人的——我之前可能错误引用了一份证物。我现在就请我的同事 Barron 先生。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 55 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 55 仲裁裁决是该文件，但它在我们的清单中是哪一份证物，Barron 先生？\n\nBARRON 先生：是的。那是证物 13。\n\nBASSETT 律师（巴塞特）：13。好的。谢谢。因此，法官阁下，这是我认为不在我们先前审阅的清单中的一份文件。不，它在。抱歉。\n\n法庭：它在。\n\nBASSETT 律师：证物 13。\n\n法庭：它是证物——我以为我们刚才在看第——\n\nBASSETT 律师：您说得对。\n\n法庭：——3 页的（听不清，音频中断）。\n\nBASSETT 律师：是的。您说得对，法官阁下。我道歉。因此，如果 Barron 先生可以滚动至第 3 页。继续，继续，继续。好的。是下一页。因此，这是 Boies Schiller（博伊斯·希勒）律师事务所取得的针对债务人的一项仲裁裁决。您将在这里看到，该命令表明，事实上，Yvette Wang 是债务人的幕僚长，至少在审理该争议的仲裁庭看来如此。下一份我想请法庭注意的文件，是证人清单上的证物 39。这也在我们先前讨论的清单中，并且，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 56 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 56 因此，已被法庭接纳。这是一份债务人于 October 3, 2018 作出的证词记录，其中有人问他：谁是你的助理？他的回答是：我们在一起。Yve（Wang，Wang Yanping。对此的提问——回应是：她是用 Yvette，而不是 Yve 吗？他说是。因此，这是债务人 Kwok 先生称 Wang 女士为其助理。现在，下一份文件是我们清单上的证物 29，该文件也在此前已被接纳的文件之中。\n\nBARRON 先生：我将把它展示在屏幕上。\n\nBASSETT 律师：现在，法官阁下，这是一封由此人发给另一人的电子邮件——由 Wang 女士发给另一名个人。而且，这同样来自 2016 年期间。但该文件所表明的，以及实际上您将在许多其他文件中看到的一个例子是，Wang 女士不仅如这里突出显示的那样称债务人为其老板，而且该文件表明她实际上所做的只是充当中间人，实际上传递债务人发出及发给债务人的信息。而且我认为，这完全反驳了——正如我之前所说——她不为债务人工作、不向债务人负责、或没有义务回应债务人可能要求她做的任何事情这一说法。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 57 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 57 下一份文件是证物清单上的证物 30。\n\nHENZY 律师：抱歉。那是 30，还是 34？\n\nBASSETT 律师：那份文件——那不是正确的文件。请把那一份从屏幕上撤下，Barron 先生。而且这一份，我想，我们没有为法官阁下作突出显示。我道歉。这也在已被接纳——即已被法庭接纳的证物清单上。这是 Wang 女士代表债务人进行沟通的又一个例子。虽然未突出显示，其中有一句再次称债务人为她的老板。我想我的同事刚刚已经突出显示了它。我想请法庭注意的其他文件，我认为是一些文件——这些文件我只会概括提及。但我认为，它们实际上最清楚地强调了我一直试图说明的要点。因为它们是一些文件，其中——而且，我再次说明，我不会披露这些文件所载内容的实质，因为它们是保密的。\n\nHENZY 律师：法官阁下，我要提出异议。我认为我们必须解决这个问题。因为文件中有一些信息，为了能够公平回应 Bassett 律师所说的内容，我会想要向法庭指出并说明。我不能——所以我不能笼统地这么做。文件中有具体信息。我不能以笼统方式向您说明具体信息。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 58 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 58 信息。\n\n法庭：好的。让我问你一个问题。我们不妨两种情况都考虑。嗯，如果我驳回密封动议，也无关紧要。但如果我批准密封动议，程序将如何进行？我们将如何进行？我这样问只是因为我想确保自己理解各方的立场。如果我就这些具体文件批准密封动议——我还不知道我们谈的是哪些文件，但我们已谈到至少 34、36 和 37 是密封动议的对象。如果我批准该动议，Bassett 律师和 Henzy 律师，那么你们会说，除非仅剩你们二人和我，否则不得再作进一步辩论？\n\nBASSETT 律师：正确，法官阁下。因为这些特定文件不仅是保密的，而且还受一项特权保护，该特权原先由债务人持有，现由受托人持有。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 59 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 59 HENZY 律师：我同意，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么我们——那里——我们要么现在就这样做，要么就得等到 Monday 才能就密封动议作出裁决，这似乎没有太大意义，尽管密封动议本应安排举行听证会。这是我们地方法规所要求的。那么你们两位建议我们如何进行？\n\nBASSETT 律师：法官阁下，我只是——我想我不明白为什么 Henzy 律师认为，在我甚至尚未提出我想提出的非常概括的观点之前，他就需要披露这些文件的内容。而且，如果他在回应时想要——他甚至可以指引持有这些文件副本的法庭查看特定行。只要他不披露内容，那么我认为这不是问题。我的意思是，我不愿提出再要求一次休庭，但一种选择是，我可以花两分钟告诉 Henzy 律师我将要说什么，我们可以判断这是否解决问题。\n\n法庭：或者我们可以——你可以告诉我，你希望我为了某些——你不必告诉我原因——查看这些证物。Henzy 律师，你可以告诉我为什么我不应查看那些证物。我们仍然可以裁定它们是否应被密封。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 60 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 60 我的意思是，我们面临的问题是——我知道每个人都希望法庭就密封动议以某种方式作出裁决。但问题在于，我们的规则要求安排听证会，而目前尚未安排听证会。而且，该动议是在 Monday 提交的。这个——我的意思是，我甚至没有——\n\nLINSEY 律师（林赛）：法官阁下，我可以提出一个建议吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nLINSEY 律师：这些文件目前已在法庭记录中处于密封状态。\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\nLINSEY 律师：而且我认为，根据保护令，这是允许的。法官阁下，我们已经——我们已经提交了动议。我们已请求法官阁下作出裁决。法官阁下已表示您将在 Monday 审理该动议。但我认为目前的现状是，它们处于密封状态。而且，您知道，也许今天就出席人员范围而言可以进行一个——您知道，更有限的程序，但是——而如果 Monday 作出决定，认为密封的事项不应密封，任何人届时都有救济。我无法想象会是那样，但人们届时将有该救济。但在我们已经经历的延误之后，再将整个程序延迟数日，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 61 似乎非常低效。\n\n法庭：我理解这似乎低效。但不幸的是，我们的地方法规规定，密封动议需要安排举行听证会。第一，它尚未被安排。但我——我也不想中止程序。不过，我必须以适当方式处理证据，对吗？或者不只是我。所有当事人都必须以适当方式处理证据。因此，我的建议是——这些处于密封状态的文件，我认为，Bassett 律师——我想，我不知道——但你将要提及的文件，是昨天在案卷中提交的文件，Linsey 律师。是 1099 和 1100 号文件吗？\n\nLINSEY 律师：我相信这些文件是——我们现在谈论的这些密封文件，我相信是在 1091。我得查看一下它们在密封案卷中的确切位置。\n\nBASSETT 律师：而且——\n\nLINSEY 律师：如果您给我——如果您给我一点时间，我可以调出——\n\n法庭：当然。当然。（暂停。）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 61 of 85\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1195 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:29:38 Page 62 of 85\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 17, 2022\n\n法院：\n好的。编号1091处有一份密封文件。编号1092处也有一份密封文件。\n\nLINSEY先生：\n是。不是。不过，法官大人一开始是对的。昨天提交了两份密封文件，编号1099和1100。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nLINSEY先生：\n而且，我认为这份文件属于编号1099中的文件。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n身份不明的发言人：\n我们刚才说的是哪一份证物？哪个编号？\n\n法院：\n我们现在还不知道说的是哪一份证物。\n\nLINSEY先生：\n那一份——密封的——所以——它们是这样划分的。1099是密封文件——或者说，是享有特权的密封证物。1100是——\n\n法院：\n是。\n\nLINSEY先生：\n——另一份——\n\n法院：\n但我认为——\n\nLINSEY先生：\n——一份——\n\n法院：\n我认为问题的一部分在于，对吧，密封文件至少在案卷本身上并未注明它们是哪些编号的证物，对吧？所以，我并不是说那——我是说，受托人提交了一份证人和证物清单，其中包含一个1,600页的PDF文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 17, 2022 63\n\n我认为其中包括53份证物。我认为。大致如此。尽管它们设有书签，但并未分别提交。关于那些证物，它们——我相信，Linsey律师，但我也可能错了，因为如您所知，而且您说得对，其中一些是昨天提交的；一些是两天前、三天前提交的。除非我打开那些文件——显然我有权这样做——否则我不知道那些密封文件中有哪些证物。我不知道任何一份密封文件中有哪些证物。问题是，我认为我们，您知道，需要——我需要能够弄清楚这一点。好吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：\n我现在可以记入记录：是证物20至24、28——\n\n法院：\n在哪一份里？在哪一份里？\n\nLINSEY先生：\n抱歉。我现在说的是1099。\n\n法院：\n好的。很好。这很有帮助。那么我们来看一下。1099是什么？其中有哪些受托人证物？\n\nLINSEY先生：\n20至24、28至30、34至38。就这些。\n\n法院：\n好的。那是在1099中。那些是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 63 页，共 85 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 64 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 17, 2022 64\n\n受托人在1099中处于密封状态的证物。\n\nLINSEY先生：\n正确。\n\n法院：\n1100呢？\n\nLINSEY先生：\n只有一份证物。即证物27。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。那么，数日前提交的其他处于密封状态的证物呢？其他文件呢？\n\nLINSEY先生：\n那些文件是密封动议本身，以及支持受托人藐视法庭动议的答复备忘录——其中一部分在某种程度上落后于后来发生的一些进展，就这项已作出的部分同意命令而言。不过，那些文件涉及的就是这些事项。就密封证物而言，所有证物都在1099和1100中。\n\n法院：\n好的。好的。这很有帮助。谢谢。\n\nLINSEY先生：\n不客气。\n\n法院：\n所以，Bassett律师和Henzy律师，本案案卷中有两份密封文件，显然没有人能够看到其内容，因为我——因为它们是密封的。不过，我们刚才已经陈述过——Linsey律师刚刚陈述了这些证物是什么。并且已有一份证人和证物清单，表明这些\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 65 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 17, 2022\n\n证物是什么。显然，它并未告诉你其中写了什么，但它告诉你它们是什么，对吗？我的意思是，如果回看你们受托人的证物清单——例如，如果我们查看受托人证物清单上的证物20——该证物清单在案卷中。\n\n它不是密封的，Linsey律师，对吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：\n正确，法官大人。\n\n法院：\n对。\n\nLINSEY先生：\n证物清单不是密封的。\n\n法院：\n对。因此，证物20是一组电子邮件往来，始于January 30, 2015，其中Williams & Connolly（威廉斯与康诺利律师事务所）的R. Bartlett（R. 巴特利特）向多名人士发送电子邮件，内容涉及Kwok先生希望聘请房地产法律顾问。这就是清单——清单上所写的内容。\n\n然后，证物21被标明为一组电子邮件往来。证物22被标明为一组电子邮件往来。证物23被标明为一组电子邮件往来。证物24是一组电子邮件往来。证物28被标明为一组电子邮件往来。证物29被标明为一组电子邮件往来。证物30是一封电子邮件。\n\n还有——最后一部分——您说是34至多少，Linsey律师？抱歉。您说过了，但我没有正确记下来。1099的最后一部分。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 66 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 17, 2022 66\n\nLINSEY先生：\n没问题，法官大人。是34至38。\n\n法院：\n哦，至38。好的。我没有——\n\nBASSETT先生：\n而且，法官大人，我——这一部分不会有争议，因为我们在根据该命令接纳证物时已经讨论过了。但我刚才只打算再次概括提及的三份证物是证物34、36和37。我不会披露任何我不应披露的内容。但仅为让法院知悉，我所要说的只是，这些文件显示Wang女士以某种身份处理某一事项。仅此而已。而且——我不明白为什么Henzy律师不能回应说，法官大人，如果您看那些文件，包括，例如，第X、Y或Z段，它们实际上并未显示这一点，而无须在记录中泄露其内容。我不明白为什么那会是必要的。因此，在我看来，我们可以在这里继续进行。\n\nHENZY先生：\n好的。这完全不公平，法官大人。我对对方律师抱有最大的敬意。这个问题不是我造成的。密封动议本可以加急处理，但没有。限制我可以如何使用这些文件是不公平的。而且我告诉您，至少就其中几份而言，我会对Bassett先生向您作出的描述有不同的表述。或者我会增加很多——我会为Bassett先生对您所说的内容增添背景。而我无法在不作出——的情况下做到这一点。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么让我问您，您是——您希望我让所有人离开，然后让Bassett律师陈述其论点，而您就这三份证物作出回应吗？\n\nHENZY先生：\n法官大人，我想要——\n\nBASSETT先生：\n如果那是——法官大人，如果那是Henzy律师坚持的做法。\n\nHENZY先生：\n法官大人，我想要的是能够以我认为适当的任何方式使用这些证物。而且——您知道，我已经告诉您，我不反对密封动议。\n\n法院：\n对。那么——所以这就是我之前问您的。我说，假定该动议获准；我们将如何继续？而您说——我认为您说——\n\nHENZY先生：\n是。\n\n法院：\n——其他所有人都必须离开。\n\nHENZY先生：\n正确。是的，法官大人。\n\n法院：\n对。那么这就是我刚才所说的。因此，这就是您所请求的，也是我们将要做的。我们将这样做。我们会让所有人离开。并且\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 67 页，共 85 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 68 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 17, 2022 68\n\n将只剩您、我和Bassett先生。\n\nHENZY先生：\n我们今天就要这样做吗？\n\n法院：\n我们现在就要这样做。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n法官大人？\n\nHENZY先生：\n好的。我原以为您不想这样做，但那——我不反对这样做，法官大人。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nWOLMAN先生：\n法官大人？\n\n法院：\n是。\n\nWOLMAN先生：\n这是公开程序。有一条公众接入线路。与前几天至少属于紧急事项不同，这个问题此前已经提交供处理。如Henzy先生所说，本可以加急处理。法院不能在没有就是否应当这样做举行同样的公开听证的情况下，直接对公众保密并关闭法庭。因此，我们是在本末倒置。即使是旁听法院和法院程序的能力，也是普通法和《第一修正案》规定的接近权的一部分。因此，我们反对目前对法庭进行保密。它们可能暂时处于密封状态，但这并不意味着法院现已认定它们应当处于密封状态。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 69 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 17, 2022 69\n\n如果法院决定这些文件不应处于密封状态，那么公众将被不当地拒绝接触本次程序。\n\n法院：\n实际上，他们不会，因为那样你们将能够接触本次程序。因此，我不同意您的论点，Wolman律师。而且，已有一项保护令，已经预见到会有事项以密封方式提交。这次关于藐视法庭动议的听证已经安排了一段时间。如果您对这些问题有疑虑，您本来也可以提前提出。您知道——您已经看到该事项以密封方式提交。您没有提交任何文件。也没有其他当事人通过电话参加或参与本程序，并对我们刚才为继续审理本案以及允许本案调查继续进行而阐明的程序提出异议，而这正是本案正在进行的事情。您昨天援引的案例，在第二巡回上诉法院中已被援引以表明其不适用于破产案件。本案的公众利益实际上也可能会因今日之后作出的任何裁定而得到服务。然而，已有命令预见到，对于这些文件可以主张特权——可以主张特权，而且这些文件中含有保密信息。如果您希望受这些事项约束，您的委托人本可以加入那些命令。而我认为您的委托人没有。因此，我们将按照我刚才所说的方式继续进行。因此，我将让所有人离开公众接入线路和法庭，此时我将仅与Bassett律师和Henzy律师就证物34、36和37继续进行。在这些问题解决后，其他所有人将被带回听证。\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n法官大人，我是Moriarty律师。我也是债务人的律师。有什么理由需要我离开吗？\n\n法院：\n有。我们将只保留——提出论点的人员。谢谢。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n法官大人，完全披露，受托人如您所知，正与我在同一房间。我假定允许他留下。\n\n法院：\n是。受托人可以留下。好的。让我们继续移除——\n\nHENZY先生：\n法官大人？抱歉，法官大人。我请求允许我的合伙人Moriarty先生与我一同留下。他——\n\n法院：\n各位，我只想说\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年11月17日 71 一件事。这已经失控了。这是一场听证会。我们将——我们不会让这场听证会——在听证会进行的每一个时刻，都有人说，哦，等一下，等一下，等一下。我们正在——这是一场证据听证会。证据正在提交。Moriarty先生（莫里亚蒂先生），你可以——你不得说任何话。请关闭你的麦克风。就这样。我已经作出裁定。如果任何人不喜欢该裁定，你们可以上诉。让我们按照我刚才所说的方式继续进行。法庭书记员：好的，法官阁下。我们正在移出人员。法庭：是。法庭书记员：好的。（暂停。各方被置于等候室。）法庭书记员：好的，法官阁下。我相信Bassett律师（巴塞特律师）、Moriarty律师（莫里亚蒂律师）和Henzy律师（亨齐律师）仍在房间内。法庭：公众接入线路——法庭书记员：他们在等候室。这是在——法庭：没有其他人——法庭书记员：公众接入线路在——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 71 页，共 85 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 72 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年11月17日 72 法庭：没有其他人——法庭书记员：——在等候室。法庭：好。我希望所有人都知道，我们正在——我们将处理这个问题，因为我不会再继续举行这场听证会。我不会就密封动议发生争执。我不会经历这种事情。这很荒谬。这是在浪费所有人的时间。有一位律师将会提出异议，称这件事处于密封状态。因此，我不会继续这场听证会。我将——你们将——必须有人提交一项动议——一项紧急动议，以便将关于——密封的动议排入明天上午的日程。我们将处理它。我不会这样做。我不会把我的时间和日子花在担心人们是否会就这是否是公开听证会提出上诉上。你们都已订立命令。你们都是经验丰富的律师。你们需要弄清楚这一点。我不会这样做。明白吗？所以我——我们将恢复正式记录。我们将告知所有人，鉴于有人对密封动议尚未举行听证这一事实提出异议，并且——我们将停止今天的听证会，我们将——必须有人提出动议，将密封动议排入明天上午的听证日程。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 73 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年11月17日 73 上午。你们可以为此提出口头动议。我会允许这样做。我会告知任何人，如其需要——希望提出异议，必须在届时确定的时间之前提出。现在，我还要告诉你们，明天中午我有一个必须赴约的预约。因此，如果我们明天上午在无论什么时间开始这场听证会，就必须再次停止。因此，你们都必须决定希望如何继续进行。但这不是我们将要采取的方式。我不会坐在这里，必须就某事项是否为公开记录、以及你们都同意且已在本案中作出的先前命令在本案中具有什么效力作出裁定。我不会这样做。这是对司法资源的浪费，也不是对证据听证会的有效利用。因此，Bassett先生和Henzy先生，在我们结束本次听证会后，你们建议今天下午做什么？因为我今天不会再做任何事。我不会介入有关公众是否被排除在本次听证会之外的争执。HENZY先生：法官阁下，我可以说几句吗？我也不想卷入那场争执。我绝不会以任何方式、形式或形态争执该问题。我表示歉意。我只想能够充分使用证物。我不想因无法具体告诉您我在证物中所谈论的内容而受到不利影响。我确实认为——如我先前所说，我希望完成此事。我认为，我们明天不可能在两小时内完成。我愿意在10:00开始，中午停止，然后在法庭下一个可用日期继续。或者，如果法庭周一上午10:00有空——我不知道法庭的日程安排。我愿意继续至周一。但是我——再次，我服从法庭，以及Bassett先生和Despins先生（德斯平斯先生）的酌处决定。但我只是——我绝对不希望法庭认为我是在说，我认为我们明天能在两小时内完成。等我们处理完——Wolman先生（沃尔曼先生）将就密封问题进行辩论，法官阁下——我并非以此批评Wolman先生。到我们开始时将已经是10:30。我们不可能在一个半小时内结束本案。我们不可能。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，为澄清起见，您的意思是，当我们恢复公开记录后，我们可以口头请求在明天上午审理密封动议吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 74 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年11月17日 74 问题，无论以何种方式、形式或形态。我表示歉意。我只想能够充分使用证物。我不想因无法具体告诉您我在证物中所谈论的内容而受到不利影响。我确实认为——如我先前所说，我希望完成此事。我认为，我们明天不可能在两小时内完成。我愿意在10:00开始，中午停止，然后在法庭下一个可用日期继续。或者，如果法庭周一上午10:00有空——我不知道法庭的日程安排。我愿意继续至周一。但是我——再次，我服从法庭，以及Bassett先生和Despins先生的酌处决定。但我只是——我绝对不希望法庭认为我是在说，我认为我们明天能在两小时内完成。等我们处理完——Wolman先生将就密封问题进行辩论，法官阁下——我并非以此批评Wolman先生。到我们开始时将已经是10:30。我们不可能在一个半小时内结束本案。我们不可能。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，为澄清起见，您的意思是，当我们恢复公开记录后，我们可以口头请求在明天上午审理密封动议吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 75 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年11月17日 75 法庭：正是如此。DESPINS先生：好的。这样我们至少可以在明天解决该事项。HENZY先生：而且我将——法庭：正是如此。HENZY先生：是。而且为明确起见，我不会对此提出异议。我——法庭：而且我并不是说我们不能举行听证会——听证会不能在明天下午1:00或1:30继续进行——HENZY先生：哦。哦。法庭：——或者类似时间。我不是这个意思。但我是说，将会有一个明确的停止点——HENZY先生：好的。好的。法庭：——我无法控制。HENZY先生：好的。好吧。我误解了。这样就可以。法庭：抱歉。你没有误解。我没有说——HENZY先生：不，不，不。法庭：——我——HENZY先生：是。不，这没关系。这没关系。法庭：但我只是——我不能——我不会这样做。我只是——这实在不——这不值得\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 76 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年11月17日 76 任何人的时间或精力。确实不值得。BASSETT先生：好的。法官阁下，我们也对这造成的困难表示歉意。法庭：我只是——所以，最终，我将解除我——嗯，实际上，我不知道我将做什么，只是我将恢复正式记录，并且我将说，我们——我已告知各方，由于有关公众接入的异议，我们今天不会继续这场听证会。然后各方——然后你们都可以在今天下午采取你们认为适当的任何行动。明白吗？BASSETT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好。那么，我将请法庭书记员请——请所有人回来。法庭书记员：法官阁下，我必须说明，我没有听到您说要停止正式记录，因此，尽管我移出了那些当事人，仍有录音记录。法庭：没关系。没关系。法庭书记员：所以我只是想让您知道，以便——法庭：没关系。法庭书记员：好的。好的。法庭：但在你让他们回来之前——法庭书记员：是。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 77 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年11月17日 77 法庭：——因为有一段——有录音记录——法庭书记员：是。法庭：——我们没有讨论任何与任何密封事项具体内容有关的事情。因此，我认为刚才我们所谈内容的录音公开不存在问题。是否有人——HENZY先生：我不——法庭：——不同意这一点？HENZY先生：我同意，法官阁下。我同意这一点。BASSETT先生：法官阁下，我们对此没有异议，法官阁下。法庭：好的。很好。那么我就这样做。我不需要再介入这些——这些问题。您知道，除非它们有正当理由。我并不是说它没有正当理由。他可以提出——任何律师都可以提出他们认为适当的任何论点。但我不能让一场证据听证会受制于这个问题。这个问题需要被决定。明白吗？好。那么，法庭书记员女士，你是正确的。保持记录不变即可。法庭书记员：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 78 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年11月17日 78 事已至此。我们没有讨论受密封动议约束的任何证物。恢复正式记录后，我会向所有人解释这一点。法庭书记员：好的。好的。我们——我们从未停止正式记录。我只是想明确说明。法庭：抱歉。我是说，当你让所有人回来时。法庭书记员：好的。法庭：当你让所有人回到听证会，即虚拟听证会时——法庭书记员：好的。法庭：——这也是为什么这些听证会——虚拟听证会——只会增加一层复杂性。法庭书记员：好的。好吧。谢谢您，法官阁下。那么，我现在将允许所有人进入。法庭：谢谢。法庭书记员：不客气。好的。我相信所有人都已回到听证会。法庭：好的，各位。我刚才将所有人移出法庭几分钟，但我可以告诉你们，那段时间的记录是公开记录。它并非密封提交。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1195 提交于 12/03/22 登记于 12/03/22 11:29:38 第 79 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年11月17日 79 我告知各方，正如你们可以说——你们可以在法官席前私下商议时所做的那样，鉴于Wolman先生就公众接入本次听证会提出异议，法庭今天不会继续进行证据听证会。因此，我们不会继续进行。我告知受托人律师，如果他们希望口头提出动议，将密封动议的听证会安排在明天上午，我将审理该动议。如果有人提出异议，他们可以口头反对将其安排在明天上午。如果安排在明天上午，那么他们可以在明天上午听证会之前提交书面异议。因此，Bassett先生，您希望如何继续进行？BASSETT先生：法官阁下，我是代表受托人的Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）律师事务所的Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。受托人特此请求将我相信为 ECF 1095 的密封动议安排在法庭明天上午恢复审理时举行听证。法庭：好的。Wolman先生，您对该动议的立场是什么？WOLMAN先生：目前，我必须保留提出异议的权利，因此——法庭：您是否反对将其安排在明天上午？WOLMAN先生：不反对。法庭：好的。那么就该动议举行的听证会\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022\n\n封存动议定于明天上午10:00举行。该听证仍将通过 Zoom 远程接入方式举行。Wolman 律师（沃尔曼），您须在上午9:00前提交对该动议的反对意见。没有其他当事人反对该封存动议。因此，这就是我们将如何处理证据听证的方式。目前将暂停该听证，直至我们明天上午10:00审理封存动议。Moriarty 先生（莫里亚蒂），这意味着——\n\nMORIARTY 先生：是？\n\n法庭：——显然，强制履行动议将不会于今日开始审理，因为关于藐视法庭动议的证据听证尚未结束。因此，很遗憾，强制履行动议只能延期至关于藐视法庭动议的听证作出结论后的任何时间。好吗？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：法官阁下，该强制履行动议寻求强制我的当事人采取某项行动，因此您今天不审理该动议，我没有异议。只是 Bassett 律师（巴塞特）——我认为他提到 ECF 1095 是封存动议。而且我相信此前 Linsey 律师（林赛）提到的是 1099。我只是——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1195 于 12/03/22 提交，于 12/03/22 11:29:38 登记 第 81 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 81\n\n法庭：1099 是——不。该动议是——该动议是 1095。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：好的。谢谢。\n\n法庭：被封存的文件是 1099 和 1100。那是两份被封存的文件。实际动议是 1095。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：好的。所以 Bassett 律师是正确的。我只是想确保明天上午不会出现问题。\n\n法庭：就什么而言？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：就动议编号不正确而言。\n\n法庭：哦，我明白了。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：但我是错的。\n\n法庭：我明白。我明白。好，我现在将第五次查看，以确保我是正确的，从而确保这份记录准确无误——因为自二月以来我们已有一千多项案卷登记。因此，我正在查看本案的官方案卷，即 CM/ECF 案卷。1095 是与文件 1083 有关的封存动议，该文件为证物。因此，Moriarty 律师，案卷中确实写明封存动议是 1095。好吗？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1195 于 12/03/22 提交，于 12/03/22 11:29:38 登记 第 82 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 82\n\n法庭：然后——不，没关系。然后，Linsey 律师在过去一小时内，今天当我提出问题时，在庭审记录中表示并说明，这两份被封存的文件，1099——1099 是受托人证物 20 至 24、28 至 30 以及 34 至 38。ECF 1100 是受托人证物 27。关于这项我们将于明天上午10:00审理的封存动议 1095，是否还有任何其他文件需要我处理？\n\n（无可听见的答复）\n\n好的。既然没有听到答复，那么我们将于明天上午10:00举行关于封存动议的听证。我认为今天下午没有——没有其他事项可以处理。本庭将休庭至上午10:00。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生（戈德曼）：法官，就一点澄清而言。在封存动议听证之后，我理解法官阁下将继续审理藐视法庭动议，是吗？\n\n法庭：正确。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。本庭休庭——抱歉，散庭。\n\nHENZY 先生（亨齐）：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1195 于 12/03/22 提交，于 12/03/22 11:29:38 登记 第 83 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 83\n\n身份不明的发言人：谢谢。\n\n法庭书记员：本庭散庭。\n\nBASSETT 先生：谢谢。\n\n（庭审于下午3:28结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭记录员兼誊录员，证明上述内容是从上述案件庭审的官方电子录音中制作的正确誊本。\n\nDecember 1, 2022\n\nChristine Fiore（克里斯廷·菲奥雷）, CERT\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1195 于 12/03/22 提交，于 12/03/22 11:29:38 登记 第 84 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 84\n\n索引\n\n受托人证物：\n\n已接收\n\n6 诉讼请求书，Kwok Ho Wan & Ors.（郭文贵等）v. UBS（瑞银集团），C1-2020-00345，High Court of Justice of England and Wales（英格兰和威尔士高等法院）Queen's Bench Div. Commercial Court（王座法庭商务法庭），9/23/20 19\n\n7 Section 341 Meeting（第341条会议）誊本，4/6/22 19\n\n10 Section 341 Meeting（第341条会议）誊本，3/21/22 19\n\n13 Boies Schiller Flexner LLP（博伊斯·席勒·弗莱克斯纳律师事务所）v. Miles Kwok（郭文贵）中的最终仲裁裁决 45\n\n15 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）v. UBS AG（瑞银股份公司）中的宣誓书 19\n\n28 始于 7/11/19 下午7:08的电子邮件链，其中 M. Krasner（M. 克拉斯纳）就 Chateau Ridge（里奇庄园）房产向 Y. Wang（Y. 王）和 K. Maistrello（K. 迈斯特雷洛）发送电子邮件 45\n\n29 始于 11/10/16的电子邮件链，其中 K. Sloane（K. 斯隆）就 Sherry Netherland（谢里荷兰酒店）向 Y. Wang（Y. 王）发送电子邮件 45\n\n30 K. Sloane（K. 斯隆）于 5/12/17 就 Sherry Netherland（谢里荷兰酒店）向 Y. Wang（Y. 王）发送的电子邮件 45\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1195 于 12/03/22 提交，于 12/03/22 11:29:38 登记 第 85 页，共 85 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 17, 2022 85\n\n已接收\n\n34 始于 12/8/22 下午2:57的电子邮件链，其中 Q. Gao（Q. 高）向 Y. Yu（Y. 余）发送电子邮件，并抄送 J. Schiller（J. 席勒）和 M. Huange（M. 黄），内容涉及 NY UBS action（纽约瑞银诉讼）\n\n36 始于 12/8/16 下午3:00的电子邮件链，其中 Q. Gao（Q. 高）向 D. Boies（D. 博伊斯）和 L. Carlsen（L. 卡尔森）发送电子邮件，并抄送 J. Schiller（J. 席勒）和 M. Huange（M. 黄），内容涉及 NY UBS action（纽约瑞银诉讼）\n\n37 始于 12/8/16 下午3:00的电子邮件链，其中 Q. Gao（Q. 高）向 D. Boies（D. 博伊斯）和 L. Carlsen（L. 卡尔森）发送电子邮件，并抄送 J. Schiller（J. 席勒）和 M. Huange（M. 黄），内容涉及 NY UBS action（纽约瑞银诉讼）\n\n39 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）在 PAX v. Kwok 案中的证言笔录，10/3/18","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Despins","CIPA","Paul Hastings","Guo","Luc Despins","Wang Yanping"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":913,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1095,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1100,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":21591,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-12-03 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-12-03","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:56:18"}