{"id":"court_ctb_1196_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1196,"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 #1196（2022-12-03立案）。Julie A. Manning 法官于2022年11月18日举行的庭审正式笔录，审理内容包括封存动议、受托人提起的民事藐视动议，以及要求债务人及相关关联方遵守第2004条传票的强制作证动议。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1196 (filed 2022-12-03). Official transcript of the November 18, 2022 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning addressing a motion to seal, the Trustee's civil contempt motion, and motions to compel compliance with Bankruptcy Rule 2004 subpoenas.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, \\* Case No. 22-50592 (JAM) \\* Debtor. \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* November 18, 2022 \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO SEAL; MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER HOLDING DEBTOR IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS ORDER and MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER COMPELLING INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR, MEI GUI, HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC, HING CHI NGOK, GREENWICH LAND LLC, LAMP CAPITAL LLC and COLD SPRING (NEW YORK) LTR TO COMPLY WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. JAMES MORIARTY, ESQ. JOHN CESARONI, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ. AVI LUFT, ESQ. DOUGLASS BARRON, ESQ. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd.) For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 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: JONATHAN KAPLAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For Logan Cheng, Creditor: JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ. Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street Hartford, CT 06103\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 3 of 115\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 10:41 a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case no. 22-50592, Genever Holdings, LLC, and case no. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corporation. THE COURT: If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. BASSETT: Good morning, Your Honor. It's Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. Trustee Despins is unavailable for this session this morning. THE COURT: Okay. Good morning. Anyone else for the Chapter 11 Trustee? MR. LINSEY: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Patrick Linsey, also for the Trustee. MR. LUFT: And, Your Honor, this is Avi Luft, of Paul Hastings, also representing the Chapter 11 Trustee, Luc Despins. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. LUFT: Good morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. The Office of the United States Trustee? MR. BARRON: Your Honor, excuse me. This is Douglass Barron also representing -- THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't -- MR. BARRON: -- also representing the Chapter 11\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 4 of 115\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 4 Trustee. Sorry. THE COURT: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. We're talking over each other. I didn't see you, Attorney Barron, so go ahead, please. MR. BARRON: I apologize. There's some lag in my mute button. This is Douglass Barron representing the Chapter 11 Trustee also from Paul Hastings. I just wanted to make my appearance. THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. Good morning. The Office of the United States Trustee, please? MS. CLAIBORN: Good morning, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Counsel for the debtor? MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor. THE COURT: I should say -- MR. MORIARTY: Good morning, Your Honor. James Moriarty, Zeisler & Zeisler, a,lso for the debtor. MR. CESARONI: Good morning, Your Honor. John Cesaroni, also of Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor. THE COURT: I should say are we only -- are you only representing the individual debtor, Mr. Kwok? What about the other parties today? MR. HENZY: I believe, Your Honor, that the -- it's only Mr. Kwok that is involved in the contempt motion.\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 5 If the motion to compel is heard today, then we would also be appearing for Mei Guo and HK International. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Thank you. THE COURT: That's fine. Thank you for clarifying that for the record. Counsel for PAX? MR. SARNOFF: Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of Creditor PAX. MR. FRIEDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. It's Peter Friedman, from O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of PAX. MS. SMITH: Good morning, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, of Robinson & Cole, also on behalf of PAX. We're Connecticut counsel. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. KAPLAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Jonathan Kaplan, of Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Creditors Committee. THE COURT: Good morning. And, Attorney Wolman, for Creditor Cheng? MR. WOLMAN: Yes. Good morning. Jay Wolman, of Randazza Legal Group, for creditor Logan Cheng. THE COURT: Good morning. All right. I think everyone has noted their appearance for the record, is that correct?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 5 of 115\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 6 (No response) THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: Your Honor, this is Alex Bongartz, also of Paul Hastings, for the Chapter 11 Trustee. I apologize for having audio issues earlier on, but I'm also participating via Zoom. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Today is -- the first matter we're going to address today is the motion to seal and the objection to the motion to the seal, but before we do that there's a few things that I want to discuss with the parties before we proceed today or in any further hearings in this case. Yesterday's evidentiary hearing did not -- was not structured properly and was very confusing and difficult for the court to follow and that's one of the reasons why I've said on many occasions if we're going to have evidentiary hearings we're going to have them in person. As you can see we've already lost 25 minutes this morning because of technical issues and I'm not going to do this anymore. Okay? This case -- we need to address these issues in person. And today we're going to proceed via Zoom because I said we were, but this is -- we have to get over this expectation that everything's going to be via Zoom in Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 6 of 115\n\nthis case. This is important enough that everyone needs to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 7 of 115\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
7 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | be here in person if they wish to be, number one. |\n| 2 | Number two, when evidence is presented to the |\n| 3 | court during a hearing, whether it's through witnesses or |\n| 4 | counsel and argument, the counsel will need to ask the |\n| 5 | courtroom deputy to display whatever exhibit it is that |\n| 6 | counsel is asking the parties to look at.
And then, and |\n| 7 | only then, will control of that document be given to the |\n| 8 | lawyer if the Court agrees to that occurring. |\n| 9 | We need to maintain a record.
And the record of |\n| 10 | yesterday's hearing is a mess and we're not going to have |\n| 11 | that happen again. |\n| 12 | With regard to the motion to seal and the |\n| 13 | objection, I have read both of them and I am going to let |\n| 14 | you both argue. |\n| 15 | But before we get to the merits of the motion to |\n| 16 | seal, I need the trustee's counsel to identify with regard |\n| 17 | to each of the specific documents that the trustee is |\n| 18 | asserting that -- exhibits that would be introduced at this |\n| 19 | hearing, which grounds apply to each specific documents that |\n| 20 | the trustee is asserting are reason to seal that document. |\n| 21 | For example, are you asserting that it's protected |\n| 22 | by the protective order, the privileges order, who asserted |\n| 23 | what privilege, whether it's a third party, whether it's a |\n| 24 | debtor, was the debtor, and what level of confidentiality in |\n| 25 | connection with the terms and conditions of the protective |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 8 of 115\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
8 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | order, that needs to all be set forth specifically on the |\n| 2 | record of this case before we proceed on the motion to seal. |\n| 3 | So, Mr. Bassett, I don't know if you are prepared |\n| 4 | to do that at this moment.
And if you're not and you need |\n| 5 | to take a recess, we'll take a recess, but that -- this case |\n| 6 | has to prepare -- be prepared and structured in a way that |\n| 7 | makes sense. |\n| 8 | We are not going to have an unruly hearing.
We're |\n| 9 | not going to have people come in and out of a hearing.
This |\n| 10 | is a hearing that is an evidentiary hearing at which the |\n| 11 | lawyers have to present the evidence properly. |\n| 12 | So before we proceed on the motion to seal, that |\n| 13 | is what the trustee's counsel needs to do with regard to |\n| 14 | every one of the exhibits that the trustee is asserting |\n| 15 | should be sealed in connection with this hearing. |\n| 16 | So, Attorney Bassett, do you need some time to put |\n| 17 | that information together? |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, Attorney Linsey, for the |\n| 19 | trustee, is going to be handling the motion to seal.
And I |\n| 20 | will not speak for him, but I believe he is prepared to do |\n| 21 | that now. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Attorney Linsey? |\n| 23 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, Your Honor.
I can address -- I |\n| 24 | can address the Court's question. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, it's not a question.
It's a |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 9 of 115\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
9 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | requirement.
You are now faced with an objection to a -- |\n| 2 | not only you have to prove your entitlement to sealing, but |\n| 3 | you're faced with an objection that none of these documents |\n| 4 | should be sealed. |\n| 5 | MR. LINSEY:
Okay. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
So you have to establish why they |\n| 7 | should be. |\n| 8 | And I asked the questions very specifically |\n| 9 | yesterday and made a record about ECF No. 1099 and ECF No. |\n| 10 | 1110.
You told me that those are the sealed documents. |\n| 11 | Trustee's Exhibits 20 through 24, 28 through 30, 34 through |\n| 12 | 38, and ECF No. 1099 and Exhibit 27 and ECF No. 1110.
So |\n| 13 | you need to do that before we proceed with this motion to |\n| 14 | seal. |\n| 15 | MR. LINSEY:
You're right, Your Honor.
Let me |\n| 16 | respond to that, please. |\n| 17 | With respect to all but one of those exhibits, the |\n| 18 | Exhibit 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37 and |\n| 19 | 38, these are email correspondence or memoranda by the |\n| 20 | debtor's or among the debtor's former counsel that are |\n| 21 | subject to attorney-client privilege.
In some of these, |\n| 22 | there is attorney work product that I -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I'm going to stop you right there. |\n| 24 | That's not responsive to my question. |\n| 25 | You're going to take each exhibit one at a time |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 10 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
10 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | and you're going to tell me under what grounds the trustee |\n| 2 | is asserting that that document should be sealed. |\n| 3 | MR. LINSEY:
Okay. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
So let's start with Exhibit 20. |\n| 5 | MR. LINSEY:
Exhibit 20 is to be sealed as |\n| 6 | confidential attorney-client privilege. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
And who's asserting that attorney |\n| 8 | client privilege? |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
The estate, the trustee is asserting |\n| 10 | that attorney-client privilege.
He has assumed control of |\n| 11 | the attorney-client privilege from the debtor pursuant to |\n| 12 | the privileges order. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Hold on.
And that's the only |\n| 14 | protection under the privileges order?
You're not seeking |\n| 15 | -- you're not deeming it confidential or highly confidential |\n| 16 | or any of the other terms that are in the protective order, |\n| 17 | Exhibit 20? |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:
Your Honor, I don't want to waive |\n| 19 | that.
I will say that it's -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Well, you may not want to waive it, |\n| 21 | but you have to specify that you're asserting it.
So you |\n| 22 | need to -- |\n| 23 | MR. LINSEY:
Okay. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Because there's all different kinds of |\n| 25 | provisions in this protective order about highly -- regular |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 11 level of confidentiality, highly confidential, and then there's some other level I believe too. So you all created these documents. You all agreed to these documents. You need to use the provisions of these orders properly to establish a record as to whether or not I should grant your motion to seal. Okay? MR. LINSEY: Yes. THE COURT: So you need to -- MR. LINSEY: So let me -- let me try to respond to that more articulately, Your Honor. The reason I don't want to designate these under the protective order is because the protective order provides for certain designated material to be shared with certain other parties that we can't share privileged materials with. So while we're not waiving the right to designate if it were subsequently found to be not privileged, we think it's clearly privileged, but if it -- we're not waiving the right if there were a finding of non-privilege in the future. Right now the only protection being asserted with respect to 20 is attorney-client privilege confidentiality attendant to the privileges order and the attorney-client privilege that is in effect that existed as of the petition date, and control of which was assumed by the trustee Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 11 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 12 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
12 |\n| 1 | pursuant to the trustee's appointment, and as sort of |\n| 2 | effectuated by the consent privileges order that Your Honor |\n| 3 | entered. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
So Exhibit 20 is you are moving that |\n| 5 | that exhibit be sealed and that it should be sealed on the |\n| 6 | basis of the trustee is asserting an attorney-client |\n| 7 | privilege with regard to all the information in that |\n| 8 | exhibit.
Is that correct? |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 11 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Then let's move on to Exhibit 21. |\n| 13 | MR. LINSEY:
The same -- the same answer goes to |\n| 14 | Exhibit 21, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
So you're asking that Exhibit 21 be |\n| 16 | sealed due to the attorney-client privilege, which is |\n| 17 | asserted by the trustee in connection with the privileges |\n| 18 | order? |\n| 19 | MR. LINSEY:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Exhibit 22. |\n| 21 | MR. LINSEY:
The same answer as to Exhibit 22. |\n| 22 | It's attorney-client privilege with respect to the |\n| 23 | privileges order. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Exhibit 23. |\n| 25 | MR. LINSEY:
The same answer as to Exhibit 23, |\n| | |\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
13 |\n| 1 | attorney-client privilege with respect to the privileges |\n| 2 | order. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Exhibit 24. |\n| 4 | MR. LINSEY:
The same answer with respect to |\n| 5 | Exhibit 24, attorney-client privilege with respect to the |\n| 6 | privileges order. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Then moving on to Exhibit 28. |\n| 8 | MR. LINSEY:
Did we last skip 27, Your Honor? |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Exhibit 28.
Yeah.
We're skipping 27 |\n| 10 | because that's ECF No. 1110. |\n| 11 | MR. LINSEY:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
We're dealing with ECF No. 1099 right |\n| 13 | now. |\n| 14 | MR. LINSEY:
That's fine.
And I'll explain why |\n| 15 | they're separately docketed later. |\n| 16 | Exhibit 28 is the same answer, attorney-client |\n| 17 | privilege with respect to the Court's privileges order. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Then Exhibit 29. |\n| 19 | MR. LINSEY:
Attorney-client privilege with |\n| 20 | respect to the Court's privilege order. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
You say the Court's privilege order, |\n| 22 | but it's the consent order on the privileges that's been |\n| 23 | approved by the Court. |\n| 24 | MR. LINSEY:
Party's consent with the Court's |\n| 25 | order. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 13 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 14 THE COURT: Right. MR. LINSEY: But whatever the -- whatever the proper characterization is, I'll defer to Your Honor. THE COURT: I just want the record to be clear that it's a consent order. MR. LINSEY: I appreciate that, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Exhibit 30. MR. LINSEY: Attorney-client privilege with respect to the consent privilege order. THE COURT: Exhibit 34. MR. LINSEY: Attorney-client privilege with respect to the consent privilege order. THE COURT: Exhibit 35. MR. LINSEY: Attorney-client privilege with respect to the consent privilege order. THE COURT: 36. MR. LINSEY: Attorney-client privilege with respect to the consent privilege order. THE COURT: 37. MR. LINSEY: Attorney-client privilege with respect to the consent privilege order. THE COURT: 38. MR. LINSEY: Attorney-client privilege with respect to the consent privilege order. This one in particular has -- is also work product, which is just a Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 14 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 15 general, common law protection. And, Your Honor, in my -- in my argument, I'll address how all of this relates to 107. THE COURT: No. No. Stop. Stop. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Not yet. I'm not ready. We're not going go -- we're not going to have a free-for-all hearing. This is -- we're not -- we're not doing that. So now, Attorney Linsey, you have addressed every exhibit that's been filed under seal and ECF No. 1099, correct? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So then let's turn to ECF 1110, which is apparently only Exhibit 27. MR. LINSEY: That is the deposition transcript of the debtor from the debtor's deposition taken last week. Debtor's counsel marked that transcript highly confidential. The trustee is obligated to file anything highly confidential under seal and so that was filed under seal in compliance with the trustee's obligations under the protective order. THE COURT: And even if a party is a -- has agreed to be bound by the confidential, excuse me, the protective order by signing an agreement, the highly confidential\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 15 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 16 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
16 |\n| 1 | information is not shared or is it shared with that person? |\n| 2 | MR. LINSEY:
Parties that have -- so under the |\n| 3 | protective order, the attorney -- for anything designated |\n| 4 | highly confidential, and that's what we're talking about |\n| 5 | here, attorneys for the committee and the U.S. Trustee are |\n| 6 | permitted to view highly confidential documents. |\n| 7 | Attorneys for parties that have signed the |\n| 8 | attachment to the protective order may also view highly |\n| 9 | confidential documents.
However, that is subject to the |\n| 10 | consent of the designating party, which consent will not |\n| 11 | unreasonably withheld. |\n| 12 | My understanding is that PAX has signed the |\n| 13 | attachment to the protective order and I have posed to Mr. |\n| 14 | Henzy whether the debtor consents to disclosure of that |\n| 15 | exhibit to PAX as highly confidential.
And that my |\n| 16 | understanding, and Mr. Henzy can correct me if I'm wrong, is |\n| 17 | that the debtor does not object.
It's somewhat a fait |\n| 18 | accompli.
PAX's counsel was attending the deposition. |\n| 19 | So, you know, so for that reason, attorneys for |\n| 20 | the U.S. Trustee, for the committee, and for PAX, as well as |\n| 21 | the debtor, and obviously the Chapter 11 Trustee and the |\n\nCourt may view Exhibit 27.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay.\n\n MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, this is James Moriarty for the debtor. Is it okay with the Court if I just add a\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 17 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
17 |\n| 1 | little bit of color to the deposition transcript? |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
For what purpose? |\n| 3 | MR. MORIARTY:
Well, maybe I can make that piece |\n| 4 | of the motion potentially resolve itself. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Let me hear what you have to |\n| 6 | say then. |\n| 7 | MR. MORIARTY:
The debtor was deposed last Friday |\n| 8 | for a hearing that was supposed to begin on Tuesday.
Under |\n| 9 | the protective order, a deposition that is taken within less |\n| 10 | than five business days of a hearing is automatically deemed |\n| 11 | confidential. |\n| 12 | And then the party designating it, in this case, |\n| 13 | the debtor, has ten days to review the transcript and |\n| 14 | effectively make whatever more narrow designations to the |\n| 15 | extent designation should be more narrow that party deems |\n| 16 | appropriate. |\n| 17 | So our ten days, the debtor's ten days, expires |\n| 18 | this coming Monday.
The debtor's intention is to file on |\n| 19 | the docket a redacted version of Exhibit 27 to the extent |\n| 20 | where redactions are appropriate. |\n| 21 | For purposes of today's hearing, to the extent |\n| 22 | that Attorney Henzy or Attorney Bassett intend to use the |\n| 23 | transcript, we are not going to object.
We're not going to |\n| 24 | ask that the courtroom be closed.
And any portions that are |\n| 25 | discussed or shown during today's hearing will be unredacted |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 18 of\n\n| | 115 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----|----|--|\n| Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 | | 18 | |\n\nin the filing that is made on Monday.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. So what you're saying is that the document, as it exists right now in ECF No. 1110, which is sealed, you will -- the debtor has no opposition to that being shown during the hearing today by either Attorney Bassett or Attorney Henzy, and that you will be filing a redacted version of the document on the docket on Monday, which will include an unredacted -- which will include whatever is shown in court today, if anything, unredacted. Is that correct?\n\nMR. MORIARTY: That is correct, Your Honor.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. So then with regard to ECF No. 1110, if there is a sealing of that document, if the motion to seal is granted, it's only going to be partially sealed, and it may end up being only temporarily sealed, and there will be a redacted version that someone could look at and determine whether they want to see the remainder of it. Is that what you're saying?\n\nMR. MORIARTY: Yes, Your Honor.\n\n THE COURT: Or if someone wanted to see the ECF 1110 -- 1110 and they're not already a party to the protective order, they could become a party to the protective order, and see that transcript, correct? MR. MORIARTY: In accordance with the terms of the protective order and with whatever rights the designating\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 19 party has, that is correct. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. WOLMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard on this brief exhibit? THE COURT: We're not ready to talk about the motion to seal yet, Attorney Wolman, so, no. We're going to turn to the motion to seal in a minute. All right. So that is the status of the exhibits, Attorney Linsey? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now, please proceed with your motion to seal. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. I have to confess I was a little surprised someone found the motion to seal controversial, but in light of the objection that's been filed, I have a number of case citations that I can provide the Court reflecting that the code provides for sealing privileged, and specifically attorney-client privileged materials. First though I'd like to briefly outline what's at issue here and why the trustee -- the relief sought by the trustee is both important and narrowly tailored. This is a case where the trustee was appointed and was charged with some control of the debtor's attorney- client privilege on the material respects. Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 19 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 20 of\n\n| | 115 | | | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
20 | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | Your Honor found that and entered it as a consent | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | order as we discussed.
No one appealed the consent order. | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | This case has been fraught with constant conflict | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | between the trustee, for him to fulfill his obligations and | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | obtain control of the estate assets, and the debtor doing | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | what we've seen the debtor do in response. | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | The motion to seal is attendant to proceedings on | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | the trustee's motion for contempt, which is premised | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | ultimately to permit the trustee to assert the estate's | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | rightful control over assets Ace Decade and Dawn State which | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | are among the parties to a \\$500 million claim against UBS | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | pending in the United Kingdom.
That claim is an asset of | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | the estate. | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | As it relates to the motion for contempt, there | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | are certain privileged email communications and attorney | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | memorandum involving the debtor's former law firms that are | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | relevant to the factual issues in dispute, namely the | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | relationship between the debtor and Ms. Wang. | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | Attorney-client privilege, as it pertains to the | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | UBS litigation in the U.K., is of paramount importance. | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | We're talking about a potentially valuable asset of the | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | estate and the trustee has a duty to maximize its value for | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | the benefit of creditors. | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | Prejudicing attorney-client privilege on subject | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | matter related to the UBS litigation is plainly commercially | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 21 of
115 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
21 |\n| detrimental to the estate. |\n| Further the work product the debtor's former |\n| counsel equates to confidential research that has value to |\n| the debtor's estate, which value would be obliterated by its |\n| unnecessary disclosure. |\n| There is ongoing litigation concerning the UBS |\n| subject matter, a threat to the confidentiality of attorney |\n| client privilege and work product, therefore, threatens the |\n| value of the estate's claims. |\n| I just want to emphasize that because under |\n| Section 107 all that needs to be shown is the potential of |\n| harm to an entity. |\n| What we have here is the potential for harm to the |\n| entire estate and to numerous entities and the individuals |\n| that are parties in interest in this case. |\n| So that was the starting point for the trustee in |\n| dealing with these certain privileged documents. |\n| And so what was the trustee going to do? |\n| Well, the trustee could have sought to close the |\n| proceedings on the motion for contempt in their entirety and |\n| to seal the parties' exhibits and pleadings, but the trustee |\n| recognizes that there's a public interest in disclosure and |\n| so the trustee instead took a thoughtful, surgical approach. |\n| |\n| To the maximum extent possible, the trustee has |\n| |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1196 | Filed 12/03/22 | Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 | Page 22 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
22 |\n| 1 | confidentiality that was of paramount importance for all but |\n| 2 | one exhibit and that is because of the attorney-client |\n| 3 | privilege and the work product issues I've discussed.
All |\n| 4 | of the other exhibits are on the docket. |\n| 5 | The trustee has redacted only that information in |\n| 6 | his reply memorandum that comes from sealed exhibits or |\n| 7 | privileged or confidential material. |\n| 8 | The trustee has also conducted the hearing and was |\n| 9 | ready to continue conducting the hearing on the motion for |\n| 10 | contempt in public for the most part only seeking such |\n| 11 | limited sessions are as necessary to discuss protected |\n| 12 | material in the absence of all parties. |\n| 13 | The trustee also filed his reply on the public |\n| 14 | docket with targeted redactions of protected material and |\n| 15 | filed a motion to make sure that this issue was before the |\n| 16 | Court, understood and the Court's findings were narrow, |\n| 17 | targeted, justified and crystal clear. |\n| 18 | Section 107 of the code protects an entity with |\n| 19 | respect to trade secrets or confidential research, |\n| 20 | developments or commercial information. |\n| 21 | Numerous cases have found that attorney-client |\n| 22 | privilege or work product falls into 107.
I'll read from In |\n| 23 | re: 50-Off Stores, Inc.,
that's 213 B.R. 646, a bankruptcy |\n| 24 | case from the -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Could you state the name of the case. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 23 I'm sorry. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Could you state the name of the case and the cite again, Attorney Linsey? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. *In re 50-Off Stores, Inc.*, 213 B.R. 646, the pin cite is 655. It's a bankruptcy court case from the Western District of Texas in 1997. And this is quoting from that case. \"Section 107(b) by its express terms affords a bankruptcy judge some authority to prevent just such an obvious injustice by permitting the Court to protect an entity with respect to confidential research or commercial information. Certainly a lawyer's work product is one type of confidential research that falls within the plain language of the statute's protection. And certainly the client's disclosures made in confidence to its attorneys is one kind of confidential commercial information.\" I would also cite the case of *In re: Pasquinelli Home Building, LLC*. Pasquinelli is spelled P-A-S-Q-U-I-N-E- L-L-I. The Lexis cite is 213 Bankruptcy Lexis 605. The Westlaw cite is 213 W.L. 594459. That's a bankruptcy court decision from the Northern District of Illinois in 2013. In that decision, the Court, under 107, sealed documents with respect to a retention application where the Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 23 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 24 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 24 documents in the retention application disclosed confidential litigation strategy and subject matter with respect to attorney-client privilege. And what the bankruptcy court found is the reason that a retention application exists is to maximize its value of this asset of the estate and revealing attorney-client privilege would threaten that asset's value. So in that sense, it's particularly on point here. Another case I can cite is *Marigrove, Inc. v. De Arruda, D-E A-R-R-U-D-A, Pinto, P-I-N-T-O*, 215 U.S. District Lexis 66312. And that is a case where the bankruptcy court determined that sealed motions, including work product, regarding the progress of an investigation was justified because unsealing a motion could compromise efforts of the trustee to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. And the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court in that case. I'll also draw the Court's attention, and I think it's relevant by analogy -- it's not relevant with respect to 107, but *Team Obsolete, Ltd. vs. A.H.R.M.A.*, 464 F. Supp. 2d 164, that's an Eastern District of New York District Court case. What that decision notes is that routinely, with respect to motions to withdraw counsel, courts admit\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 25 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
25 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | attorney-client privilege evidence but seal it to protect |\n| 2 | the important interests in attorney-client privilege. |\n| 3 | And that collects cases throughout the Second |\n| 4 | Circuit in that regard.
So certainly, you know, there's all |\n| 5 | sorts of relief justifying the sealing in this case. |\n| 6 | But also common sense, and just that old maxim |\n| 7 | that where's there's a right there's a remedy, the trustee |\n| 8 | has the right to use -- to retain these attorney-client |\n| 9 | privilege documents because the trustee has assumed the |\n| 10 | privilege. |\n| 11 | It simply cannot be the case that the trustee |\n| 12 | cannot use those documents to correct a disagreement that |\n| 13 | the trustee has with the debtor without voiding the |\n| 14 | privilege and prejudicing the value of claims that are named |\n| 15 | at hundreds of millions of dollars. |\n| 16 | Now, I understand concerns that have been |\n| 17 | discussed generally, concerns about rights of access to |\n| 18 | publicly filed documents, concerns about rights that might |\n| 19 | exist under the First Amendment and the public's right to |\n| 20 | know, I get that.
I was a newspaper reporter before I went |\n| 21 | to law school and I believe in that. |\n| 22 | But, Your Honor, here, where there's been such a |\n| 23 | specific (indiscernible) showing as to why there needs to be |\n| 24 | confidentiality and also protection and procedures to make |\n| 25 | sure that it's as targeted as possible, I would say that at |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 26 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
26 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | some point it's incumbent on anyone who has an issue with |\n| 2 | that to explain exactly why they need to see these things. |\n| 3 | I mean, we're talking about limited communication |\n| 4 | being offered for a limited purpose, which is a discrete |\n| 5 | factual dispute, a factual dispute that only exists between |\n| 6 | the trustee and the debtor.
And the trustee's success in |\n| 7 | that dispute will benefit all creditors in the estate. |\n| 8 | So because there's been a showing of great |\n| 9 | importance for sealing the documents, because the procedures |\n| 10 | proposed by the trustee are narrow, and because they're |\n| 11 | supported by the Bankruptcy Code and the case law |\n| 12 | interpreting the code, we would ask that the Court grant the |\n| 13 | motion.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 15 | Attorney Wolman? |\n| 16 | MR. WOLMAN:
Your Honor, if I may? |\n| 17 | There is no reason -- we do not have to explain |\n| 18 | why.
The reason is because Mr. Cheng and the public have a |\n| 19 | right, that is why.
That is the only right that is ever -- |\n| 20 | that is the only reason that is ever needed.
No on has to |\n| 21 | explain why they want the vote.
No one ever has to explain |\n| 22 | why they want to bear arms.
No one ever has to explain why |\n| 23 | they want to invoke a lawyer to defend themselves at trial. |\n| 24 | They just can. |\n| 25 | The only -- Mr. Linsey mentioned that where |\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
27 |\n| 1 | there's a right there's a remedy.
The only right we're |\n| 2 | talking about here is the First Amendment right.
Attorney |\n| 3 | client privilege is a privilege.
A privilege is not a right |\n| 4 | by definition. |\n| 5 | So we have a number of exhibits here, 20, 21, 22, |\n| 6 | 23, et cetera, et cetera, from 1099, that I haven't seen. |\n| 7 | No idea what they are. |\n| 8 | We do not have a specification of what the -- the |\n| 9 | functional equivalent of a privilege log, of what each one |\n| 10 | is, who the communication is, and why that particular |\n| 11 | document, if it were revealed, would cause harm.
And |\n| 12 | they're listing them both under Section 107 and under the |\n| 13 | First Amendment right. |\n| 14 | They haven't identified what exactly is going to |\n| 15 | happen if this comes to light, you know. |\n| 16 | In the case of somebody withdrawing from |\n| 17 | representing somebody, you know, there's a direct attorney |\n| 18 | client communication that likely goes to some unethical |\n| 19 | issue typically, if that's why the Court needs to address it |\n| 20 | and permit a withdrawal, that could then harm that client if |\n| 21 | it were coming out. |\n| 22 | Here, the possibility that it somehow affects this |\n| 23 | UBS litigation, they say it, they say they're being surgical |\n| 24 | with their approach, I have no idea.
There's no way for me |\n| 25 | to assert that. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 27 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 28 of\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
28 |\n| 1 | And the Court needs to use its own judgment and |\n| 2 | say, okay, how does this document and the entirety of the |\n| 3 | document -- maybe a small portion of the document, what |\n| 4 | exactly are we talking about -- because the moving party, |\n| 5 | whose burden it is, and it's always the burden of the party |\n| 6 | seeking to seal to justify why it needs to be sealed, they |\n| 7 | haven't set forth. |\n| 8 | Now, with respect to Exhibit 27, which I believe |\n| 9 | is on -- I've heard -- actually I believe it's ECF 1100, not |\n| 10 | 1110. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
You're right.
I misspoke. |\n| 12 | MR. WOLMAN:
Yesterday we were talking 1100. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
You're correct.
I misspoke with the |\n| 14 | number. |\n| 15 | MR. WOLMAN:
But this morning the Court mentioned |\n| 16 | 1110, but I think that's an entirely different document and |\n| 17 | it's an order. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
No.
Let me stop you.
You're correct. |\n| 19 | I misspoke.
The ECF number is 1100.
So I misspoke. |\n| 20 | MR. WOLMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And we'll make that correction |\n| 22 | in the record throughout the record.
I made that -- I made |\n| 23 | a mistake because this case has over 1100 documents in it. |\n| 24 | Okay? |\n| 25 | So you're correct. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 29 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
29 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. WOLMAN:
Of course you -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
That is correct.
And I was going to |\n| 3 | correct that when you were done.
But since you've raised it |\n| 4 | now, the ECF number is 1100 immediately following 1099. |\n| 5 | MR. WOLMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | With respect to that document, you know, I do |\n| 7 | understand that Mr. Linsey had to do a pro forma request to |\n| 8 | seal under the order.
And then typically when that happens, |\n| 9 | then it's the party who claims the confidentiality who has |\n| 10 | to assert what the confidentiality basis is. |\n| 11 | And I appreciate Mr. Moriarty indicating that we |\n| 12 | can be open to whatever is being used. |\n| 13 | My concern, of course, is whether or not the Court |\n| 14 | would still rely upon portions that would be redacted as |\n| 15 | part of making its determination because those portions |\n| 16 | would still consist of judicial documents. |\n| 17 | With respect to the one exhibit that contains |\n| 18 | attorney work product, I believe that is Exhibit 38, you |\n| 19 | know, there's potentially an argument and I can recognize |\n| 20 | that that being what constitutes confidential research. |\n| 21 | But counsel hasn't pointed to any binding case law |\n| 22 | that shows that attorney-client privilege is itself the |\n| 23 | commercial information.
It's not confidential research. |\n| 24 | It's a communication.
There's nobody researching anything |\n| 25 | there.
And it's not commercial which 107(b) requires. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 30 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
30 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And they haven't said exactly what the harm is |\n| 2 | under the First Amendment that justifies it being withheld |\n| 3 | from the public.
The public has a right to know. |\n| 4 | Mr. Linsey, as a journalist, had the right to |\n| 5 | know.
He doesn't -- and while he's now advocating for the |\n| 6 | trustee, everybody else now has the right to know.
My next |\n| 7 | door neighbor has the right to know because he has the First |\n| 8 | Amendment right, and that -- |\n| 9 | While Mr. Cheng may be the one arguing for this |\n| 10 | right now, it's not merely for himself, but on behalf of the |\n| 11 | public to vindicate the public's right.
The public has a |\n| 12 | right of access under Section 107.
The public has a right |\n| 13 | of access under the First Amendment which trumps Section |\n| 14 | 107. |\n| 15 | And since we haven't specified other than a |\n| 16 | generic invocation for all of these exhibits, except for 27, |\n| 17 | as to it just being the trustee claiming privilege because |\n| 18 | it might harm the estate in the UBS case, that is not |\n| 19 | sufficient a reason, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | MR. LINSEY:
Your Honor, I want to be crystal |\n| 21 | clear on this.
The trustee's primary concern is that if the |\n| 22 | trustee begins posting, publicly disclosing attorney-client |\n| 23 | communications with respect to subject matter under |\n| 24 | litigation, the trustee is concerned that UBS could say |\n| 25 | you've waived the privilege. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 31 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
31 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And we are entitled to obtain -- what otherwise |\n| 2 | would be attorney-client communications that are relevant to |\n| 3 | the estate's claims, \\$500 million claims.
That is plainly |\n| 4 | prejudicial to the estate's ability to litigate those |\n| 5 | claims. |\n| 6 | And the 50-Off case that I cited actually |\n| 7 | discusses that very construct.
And it notes the threat of |\n| 8 | disclosure without taking steps to seal documents or |\n| 9 | otherwise to prevent public disclosure, the threat that |\n| 10 | unnecessary public disclosure has to attorney-client |\n| 11 | privilege. |\n| 12 | I could read all of the exhibits into the record, |\n| 13 | but that would cause the very harm that the trustee is |\n| 14 | seeking to prevent.
So that is the reason, among many |\n| 15 | others, the Court should grant this motion. |\n| 16 | MR. WOLMAN:
Your Honor, there's nothing here, no |\n| 17 | U.K. law, that says --that's been submitted and offered to |\n| 18 | the Court to suggest that submitting one document that's |\n| 19 | privileged then opens the door to all privileged documents |\n| 20 | and waives it in perpetuity. |\n| 21 | MR. LINSEY:
Well, this is like 20.
But, I mean, |\n| 22 | at a certain point, the rule of reason has got to kick in. |\n| 23 | We've more than met the standard.
This should not be |\n| 24 | controversial.
We need to get on with the hearing.
I'm |\n| 25 | happy to answer any questions that the Court has. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 32 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 32 THE COURT: I have no questions. Anyone else wish to be heard? MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, James Moriarty on behalf of the debtor. The privilege consent order, docket 856, specifically provides at paragraph 8 that the trustee does not have the right to waive any trustee privilege. And it says in parentheticals, \"For example, (By disclosing privileged documents or information in open court or on any public docket or by sharing such documents or information with a third party).\" THE COURT: Tell me again what you're referring to, Attorney Moriarty. MR. MORIARTY: It is the consent order regarding control of attorney-client privilege -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: -- and work product protection -- THE COURT: ECF 856? MR. MORIARTY: 856, yes. And this is at paragraph 8. THE COURT: And what paragraph? Paragraph 8? MR. MORIARTY: Yes. So if I may, Your Honor, under that paragraph, the trustee's entitled to use documents that are the debtor's privileged documents which the trustee now owns, but the\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
33 |\n| 1 | trustee is not entitled to waive it.
And if those documents |\n| 2 | are posted on the public docket, anybody who sees them is |\n| 3 | going to argue there's a waiver and the trustee would be in |\n| 4 | violation of this order. |\n| 5 | So the debtor's going to object to those documents |\n| 6 | being used if they're not sealed. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
The paragraph also says that any |\n| 8 | request to waive a trustee privilege has to be made by |\n| 9 | motion, and no one's done that. |\n| 10 | MR. LINSEY:
Certainly the trustee is not doing |\n| 11 | that.
And the trustee agrees the privileges order requires |\n| 12 | that these items be filed under seal, which is why they were |\n| 13 | filed under seal in the first place along with the motion. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 15 | MR. WOLMAN:
And, Your Honor, I would like to |\n| 16 | reiterate that the order itself yields to Section 107 and |\n| 17 | the First Amendment. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
What order?
What order, Attorney |\n| 19 | Wolman? |\n| 20 | MR. WOLMAN:
The one we were just discussing -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
The privileges order? |\n| 22 | MR. WOLMAN:
-- the one at 856, paragraph 8. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
The privileges order? |\n| 24 | MR. WOLMAN:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
You say it yields to 107?
Is that |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 33 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 34 what -- was that your term? MR. WOLMAN: Yes. To the extent it is inconsistent with Section 107 or the First Amendment, the First Amendment and Section 107 governs, in that order. THE COURT: Okay. Anything further? MR. WOLMAN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Court will be in recess until 11:45. (Recess from 11:27 a.m. until 12:37 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Court is in session after recess. The Honorable Julie Ann Manning is presiding. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. We're back on the record after taking a recess following the hearing and argument made in connection with the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to seal, and to enlarge the time to -- enlarge the page limit to file a reply. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I'm sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're not picking me up? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I didn't -- it wasn't moving so -- THE COURT: Okay. We have to start again? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: -- we have to start it again. Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Tell me when you're ready. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I think there was a little Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 34 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 35 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
35 |\n| 1 | delay.
I'm ready. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And it's recording? |\n| 3 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Yes, it is recording. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
We're back on the |\n| 5 | record after a recess. |\n| 6 | Prior to the recess, the Court heard argument on |\n| 7 | the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to seal and the objection to |\n| 8 | the motion to seal filed on behalf of the creditor, Logan |\n| 9 | Cheng.
The parties cited to different case law and |\n| 10 | authority that was not previously brought to the Court's |\n| 11 | attention. |\n| 12 | The Court reviewed that information during the |\n| 13 | recess and is ready to rule. |\n| 14 | Therefore, the Court will -- I will announce the |\n| 15 | ruling on the record, and that will be followed up with a |\n| 16 | written order to be entered on the docket, hopefully, maybe |\n| 17 | later today, hopefully today. |\n| 18 | In any event, this is the Court's ruling on the |\n| 19 | motion to seal. |\n| 20 | A hearing on the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to |\n| 21 | seal in support of holding the debtor in civil contempt for |\n| 22 | failure to comply with corporate governance rights order and |\n| 23 | related documents, and to enlarge page limit for a reply, |\n| 24 | which is ECF No. 1095, and the objection to the motion to |\n| 25 | seal, 1115, ECF No. 1115, was held earlier today on November |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 36 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
36 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 18, 2022. |\n| 2 | The documents identified by the trustee's counsel |\n| 3 | during the hearing as exhibits that the trustee may |\n| 4 | introduce at the hearing, but wishes to be sealed, the |\n| 5 | trustee asserts are protected by a trustee privilege.
And |\n| 6 | those privileged documents are included in ECF No. 1099, and |\n| 7 | that includes Trustee Exhibits 20 through 24, 38 through 30, |\n| 8 | and 34 through 38. |\n| 9 | The privilege being asserted pursuant to a consent |\n| 10 | order regarding control of attorney-client privilege and |\n| 11 | work product protection related to the Rule 2004 subpoena |\n| 12 | documents, and that I will refer to as the privileges |\n| 13 | consent order, ECF No. 856, those documents are ordered |\n| 14 | sealed based upon the assertion of the attorney-client |\n| 15 | privilege applicable to those documents and also because the |\n| 16 | Court finds that under 11 U.S.C. 107(b)(1), and District |\n| 17 | Court of Connecticut Local Rule, Local Civil Rule 5(e), that |\n| 18 | the potential harm to the estate from the waiver of the |\n| 19 | attorney-client privilege relating to a substantial |\n| 20 | litigation asset of the estate outweighs the public's |\n| 21 | interest in disclosure, and further that the disclosure at |\n| 22 | this time will negatively impact the trustee's ability to |\n| 23 | conduct and carry out an investigation of the debtor's asset |\n| 24 | -- assets, excuse me. |\n| 25 | The trustee also identified one of the privileged |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 37 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
37 |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | documents as an attorney work product privileged document. |\n| 2 | The work product exhibit in ECF 1099 was identified by the |\n| 3 | trustee's counsel as Trustee's Exhibit 38, which document |\n| 4 | shall be also sealed as protected attorney work product |\n| 5 | information. |\n\n In addition, one exhibit, the individual debtor's deposition, which is the entirety of ECF No. 1100, has been designated by the individual debtor as highly confidential information under the protective order that was entered in this case, ECF No. 923, and the harm of the disclosure of the individual debtor's deposition at this time outweighs the interest of the public, and having access to that document because it will negatively impact the trustee's ability to conduct and carry out the investigation of the debtor's assets as required by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n Accordingly, it's hereby ordered that the motion to seal is granted for the reasons stated on the record, and that the privileged documents, the work product exhibit, and the debtor's deposition are temporarily sealed in connection with the hearing on the motion for contempt and will remain sealed until further order of the Court.\n\nThat is the ruling of the Court.\n\n So that we now can proceed with the continued evidentiary hearing on the motion for contempt.\n\nBefore we proceed with the -- continue to proceed\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 38 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 38 with the hearing on the motion for contempt, I want to make sure that everyone understands how we will be proceeding with the hearing on the motion for contempt.\n\n We are not going to have a hearing like we had yesterday where people come in and out of the hearing. If the trustee, who will continue the hearing from where he left, trustee's counsel, from where he left yesterday, has points to make to support the motion for contempt, he will do so first with all evidence and documents that are not sealed.\n\n Then the debtor's counsel will have an opportunity to review and respond to -- I don't mean review meaning looking at documents, I should just say respond to and challenge and object to the trustee's presentation on evidence that is not under seal.\n\n And then if there is a need to introduce documents that are now under seal, then we'll have to remove the appropriate people from the courtroom and proceed that way, and that portion of the hearing will be under seal. And that is how we are going to proceed.\n\n Does anyone have any questions? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, it's Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee. Just a point of clarification. I think I understand Your Honor, but I just want to make sure.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 39 of\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
39 |\n| 1 | As I had indicated yesterday, I do think I could |\n| 2 | cover my entire argument by just referring to some of the |\n| 3 | under seal exhibits very -- at a very high level.
I take it |\n| 4 | that is not how Your Honor would like to proceed.
And that |\n| 5 | if I want to refer to those documents, even in a general |\n| 6 | way, that I should do that as part of a separate sealed |\n| 7 | session at the end.
Is that correct, Your Honor? |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Well, it's not how I want to proceed. |\n| 9 | It's that yesterday Mr. Henzy said that he could not proceed |\n| 10 | in the manner that you've just described, that he would need |\n| 11 | to be able to respond -- he did not want to be foreclosed, |\n| 12 | for lack of a better term, from responding to any issue of a |\n| 13 | document under seal by having -- he wants to be able to talk |\n| 14 | about the document. |\n| 15 | So I don't think it's going to work unless you and |\n| 16 | Attorney Henzy have had some discussion since yesterday |\n| 17 | about how to handle that issue.
If you don't have an |\n| 18 | agreement on that issue, which is fine, then we're going to |\n| 19 | proceed in the manner in which I stated we're going to |\n| 20 | proceed. |\n| 21 | Attorney Henzy? |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, we haven't talked about |\n| 23 | it.
I'm not going to tell Mr. Bassett obviously how to |\n| 24 | conduct his argument.
If he can make his argument without |\n| 25 | having a problem with the sealing order that's now been |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 40 of
115 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
40 | |\n| 1 | entered, that's totally up to him. | |\n| 2 | I'm going to want to refer specifically to matters | |\n| 3 | in those documents so that -- | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, then we're going to | |\n| 5 | handle the matter in the way that I already stated.
We're | |\n| 6 | going to have a hearing that everyone is going to be able to | |\n| 7 | listen to with regard to documents that are not sealed, and | |\n| 8 | then we'll have to have a sealed portion of the hearing to | |\n| 9 | deal with the issues that are sealed. | |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, I don't want to belabor | |\n| 11 | it, just so I understand, the deposition transcript is | |\n| 12 | sealed for today's hearing, period, correct? | |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
That is correct. | |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
That is correct.
All of the documents | |\n| 16 | that were addressed this morning and the Court specifically | |\n| 17 | asked Attorney Linsey about, all the trustee's exhibits that | |\n| 18 | are part of ECF No. 1099 and 1100 are sealed. | |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
But, Your Honor, just to get out ahead | |\n| 20 | of it, when I do ask you to admit or not admit, the exhibits | |\n| 21 | that I want admitted, I am going to want portions of the | |\n| 22 | deposition transcript admitted. | |\n| 23 | I don't know if Mr. Bassett is going to object. | |\n| 24 | He may not know if he's going to object until I tell him | |\n| 25 | what the portions are. | |\n| | | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 41 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
41 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | But I think if there's no objection, I think I |\n| 2 | could do that without saying what is in those portions.
I |\n| 3 | just want to give the Court that may be -- that may be |\n| 4 | something we have to sort out when we get there.
Okay? |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I think what you're saying, Attorney |\n| 6 | Henzy, is similar to what Mr. Bassett was saying, but you |\n| 7 | weren't necessarily agreeing to, which is you were going to |\n| 8 | say to me -- let me just play this out, okay, Attorney |\n| 9 | Henzy? |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
Yeah. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I think what you -- what I heard you |\n| 12 | say is you may refer to specific portions of the transcript |\n| 13 | without having to say what they say -- |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
Yes. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
-- and ask me to consider those and |\n| 16 | that I wouldn't have to have -- you wouldn't have to have |\n| 17 | that discussion under seal.
Is that what you're telling me? |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:
No, I'm sorry, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | So yesterday Mr. Bassett had admitted documents |\n| 20 | that are now under seal.
Those were actually admitted as |\n| 21 | full exhibits by stipulation.
And the issue I think now -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:
-- is Mr. Bassett wants to talk about |\n| 24 | the exhibits, show you and talk about the exhibits that are |\n| 25 | now admitted in full.
I think that's where we potentially |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 42 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 42 run into a problem.\n\n What I'm telling -- what I'm going over with you, the evidence that I would like to have admitted before I make my argument, you know, I could say, Your Honor, of the deposition transcript, which is Exhibit 27, I want this page and these lines and this page and these lines and I could do that without saying what's in those lines of deposition transcript.\n\n And if Mr. Bassett said, no objection, I think it could be similar as yesterday, it could be admitted in full, but he may not be okay doing that. Certainly telling us now he's okay doing it because we may need to talk about what those are in order for you to make those rulings.\n\n MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, first of all, in response to Attorney Henzy's comments, I absolutely intend to object to his effort to introduce his own client's deposition testimony, his own client who is very transparently not here before the Court today offering testimony subject to cross-examination. He has no ability to introduce his client's deposition testimony under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 32 or the Federal Rules of Evidence. It's all hearsay. He has no ability to do that. What I was going to propose, Your Honor, in accordance with your instructions at the outset of the hearing this morning, was before making my argument I think\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 43 of\n\n| | 115 |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
43 |\n| 1 | what Your Honor had said is that, you know, and I think this |\n| 2 | is the correct way to proceed, is to deal with the evidence, |\n| 3 | make sure everybody understands what evidence is in the |\n| 4 | record, on both sides, and then we can argue from that |\n| 5 | evidence. |\n\n If we need to deal with objections to Mr. Henzy's attempts to introduce the deposition transcript, I don't know how he could do that in open court because I'd assume I'm going to have to -- I mean, I think it's wholesale improper, but I assume I may have to refer to the specific lines that he's trying to introduce.\n\n But from the trustee's standpoint, Your Honor, what I can -- what I can tell you is that the exhibits that we are relying upon as part of our presentation and our affirmative case, as it relates to the motion to hold the debtor in contempt, are the documents that are already set forth in the order that the Court entered yesterday and that were admitted into evidence yesterday. I'm happy to go through those again, but I think that is on the record from yesterday.\n\n That's Trustee Exhibits 7 and 10, Trustee Exhibit 6, Trustee Exhibit 15. And then in paragraph 4 of the order that the Court entered yesterday we also had admitted into evidence a portion of Exhibit 13, all of Exhibits 28 to 30, Exhibit 34, Exhibits 36 and 37, and a portion of Exhibit 39.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 44 of\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
44 |\n| 1 | The only additional exhibits that at this point, |\n| 2 | as part of again the trustee's affirmative presentation that |\n| 3 | I plan to have admitted into evidence or to ask the Court to |\n| 4 | admit into evidence, are Exhibits 32 and 33 on the trustee's |\n| 5 | list, which are not confidential. |\n| 6 | And then I was planning to refer to and ask the |\n| 7 | Court to admit very small portions of Exhibit 27, which is |\n| 8 | the debtor's deposition transcript from last week, which is |\n| 9 | usable by the trustee and admissible under both the Federal |\n| 10 | Rules and the Federal Rules -- the Federal Rules of Civil |\n| 11 | Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. |\n| 12 | But that, at this point, subject to the trustee's |\n| 13 | right to ask the Court to admit additional exhibits for |\n| 14 | rebuttal purposes would be the extent of the exhibits that |\n| 15 | we'd ask the Court to admit for purposes of this hearing. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, again, we're going to |\n| 17 | take the -- you're going to tell me -- you started |\n| 18 | yesterday, by showing me specific information in exhibits |\n| 19 | that support your claim that the debtor is still not in |\n| 20 | compliance with the corporate governance order.
You're |\n| 21 | going to continue that presentation with exhibits that are |\n| 22 | not sealed. |\n| 23 | Then Mr. Henzy can respond to that presentation |\n| 24 | when you're done with any exhibits that are not sealed. |\n| 25 | And then if you want to, and I believe you do |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 45 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
45 |\n| 1 | because you've just mentioned exhibits that are under seal, |\n| 2 | then we will have to close the courtroom and have that |\n| 3 | section of the hearing under seal with regard to the |\n| 4 | documents that are under seal. |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor.
Does Your |\n| 6 | Honor want to deal with all evidence at the outset prior to |\n| 7 | the continuation of argument? |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
No.
I want -- I want you to deal with |\n| 9 | the evidence that is public record first and make your |\n| 10 | points.
If you have four or five points, A through D, on |\n| 11 | why, or however many you have, on why the debtor is in |\n| 12 | contempt, then you will tell me what exhibits that are |\n| 13 | public record and that have been admitted you're relying on |\n| 14 | to support those assertions. |\n| 15 | If you're telling me now that there are other |\n| 16 | exhibits that -- in addition to the exhibits that were -- |\n| 17 | you introduced yesterday to be admitted into evidence that |\n| 18 | are not under seal, then, yes, you can proceed with -- you |\n| 19 | can tell me what those exhibits are first and we can move |\n| 20 | for the admission. |\n| 21 | It appears that Attorney Henzy doesn't have any |\n| 22 | objection to the admission of those exhibits that are not |\n| 23 | under seal. |\n| 24 | And then you can make your argument.
And then |\n| 25 | Attorney Henzy will be able to respond.
And then we will |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 46 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
46 |\n| 1 | close the hearing and we will have the hearing only limited |\n| 2 | to the parties with regard to the matters under seal.
And |\n| 3 | if you have to go back to points A, B, C and D again, that's |\n| 4 | what you'll have to do. |\n| 5 | I'm not having a hearing where we break every two |\n| 6 | minutes to come back and forth.
It's untenable.
It makes |\n| 7 | no sense.
You're asking the Court to do something that is |\n| 8 | unfair and does -- not unfair, I'm saying how I'm -- how do |\n| 9 | you want me to make this record? |\n| 10 | I am not making a record where we have ten minutes |\n| 11 | of public hearing, ten minutes under seal, ten minutes -- |\n| 12 | that's not going to happen.
That is not a good use of |\n| 13 | anyone's time or resources. |\n| 14 | I've made the ruling on the motion to seal.
I've |\n| 15 | explained to you how the hearing is going to proceed. |\n| 16 | So if there are -- if you would like to introduce |\n| 17 | other exhibits that are on the trustee's exhibit list that |\n| 18 | are not subject to the order that was just entered sealing |\n| 19 | those specific exhibits, you may do so and then you must use |\n| 20 | the exhibits to explain to me your points as to why and how |\n| 21 | the debtor is in contempt of the corporate governance order. |\n| 22 | Then Attorney Henzy will do the same thing. |\n| 23 | And then we'll move on to the sealed portion of |\n| 24 | the hearing.
Okay? |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood.
Understood, Your Honor. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 47 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
47 |\n| 1 | And I think that's what I was attempting to do at least. |\n| 2 | The two exhibits that I mentioned that are not |\n| 3 | confidential that I would like to have -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Then you need to move for their |\n| 5 | admission and see what -- tell me what they are, move for |\n| 6 | their admission, and I have to see if anybody has any |\n| 7 | objection to them. |\n| 8 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | The two exhibits are Trustee Exhibits 32 and 33. |\n| 10 | Those are -- Exhibit 32 is an affidavit from a process |\n| 11 | server indicating the trustee's attempts to locate and serve |\n| 12 | Ms. Yvette Wang with a subpoena.
Exhibit 33 is an exchange |\n| 13 | with her counsel indicating that he refused to accept |\n| 14 | service of the subpoena. |\n| 15 | I plan to refer to those documents at some point |\n| 16 | in my comments today.
And the trustee would move for their |\n| 17 | admission into evidence. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 19 | Attorney Henzy, do you have any objection to the |\n| 20 | admission of Trustee's Exhibits 32 and 33 as full exhibits? |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, I do not object to Exhibit |\n| 22 | 32.
It's an affidavit from a process server.
It's a sworn |\n| 23 | affidavit. |\n| 24 | I do object to Exhibit 33.
It's from someone that |\n| 25 | I don't -- I don't know who it is and I think it's hearsay. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 48 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
48 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, the exhibit is not |\n| 2 | hearsay.
It's not being offered for the truth of the matter |\n| 3 | asserted.
It's being offered for the statement that this |\n| 4 | individual, who is Ms. Yvette Wang's attorney, is |\n| 5 | representing on the face of the document that he's unwilling |\n| 6 | to accept service of the subpoena. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
Well, that is -- that is the truth of |\n| 8 | the matter asserted, Your Honor.
I mean, that's what's |\n| 9 | asserted.
What's asserted is that this person is unwilling |\n| 10 | to accept service of a subpoena.
I don't understand how |\n| 11 | that's not the truth of the matter asserted. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Attorney Bassett? |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, that statement is being |\n| 14 | offered for its effect on the listener and what it is saying |\n| 15 | about the state of minds of the attorney who is making that |\n| 16 | representation.
It's not being offered for the underlying |\n| 17 | truth or any fact that we're trying to prove. |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:
I'm not sure what the purpose of |\n| 19 | admitting it is then.
I mean, I think Mr. Bassett just said |\n| 20 | what the purpose is. |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, this is a document -- |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
It's to show -- it's to show that this |\n| 23 | person is not authorized to accept service.
I don't know |\n| 24 | what other purpose it would serve. |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
At a minimum, Your Honor, it shows |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 49 of\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
49 |\n| 1 | that we have -- it's another document in relation -- in |\n| 2 | addition to the affidavit from the process server showing |\n| 3 | our efforts to try to find this witness.
Again, it's being |\n| 4 | offered for that -- for that purpose.
It's not being |\n| 5 | offered for any other purpose beyond that. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Well, so you're saying that Exhibit 33 |\n| 7 | is being offered as evidence of the trustee's attempt to |\n| 8 | locate Ms. Wang and not that he wouldn't -- not that the |\n| 9 | lawyer would not accept service?
Is that what you're |\n| 10 | saying? |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, I don't think it matters |\n| 12 | whether that statement is true or not.
This document speaks |\n| 13 | for itself in terms of our efforts to locate the witness who |\n| 14 | is not here. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, I think it does.
I think it |\n| 16 | might matter.
So if you're -- if you're saying that you |\n| 17 | want it admitted solely for the purpose of demonstrating |\n| 18 | that the trustee tried to make service, that's one thing, |\n| 19 | versus saying that it establishes that the lawyer declined |\n| 20 | to accept service. |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, we're fine with it |\n| 22 | coming in for the former purpose that's stated by the Court. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Attorney Henzy? |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
I think that makes no sense here, Your |\n| 25 | Honor.
It doesn't -- I don't think it shows anything about |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 50 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
50 |\n| 1 | -- I think it's a statement by -- it's a statement by a |\n| 2 | person. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I'm not -- I just said if I was going |\n| 4 | to admit it I would admit it solely as an example or |\n| 5 | evidence of an attempt to serve a person.
That's it. |\n| 6 | I wasn't talking about whether he -- I wasn't |\n| 7 | going to give any weight to the evidence that somehow he |\n| 8 | refused to accept service. |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, then the exhibit makes no |\n| 10 | sense.
I'm sorry. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Well, I'm going to overrule your |\n| 12 | objection and you can -- |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
-- you can reserve your right to |\n| 15 | appeal that. |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
So I will admit that. |\n| 18 | But for the limited purpose, Mr. Bassett, the |\n| 19 | limited purpose of -- |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
-- establishing that it was -- it |\n| 22 | shows an effort to make service on Ms. Wang.
That's it. |\n| 23 | Okay? |\n| 24 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Not anything else.
Not anything with |\n| | |\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
51 |\n| 1 | regard to the lawyer's statement.
Okay? |\n| 2 | So admit -- Trustee's Exhibit 32 is admitted in |\n| 3 | full. |\n| 4 | Trustee's Exhibit 33 is admitted solely to support |\n| 5 | a finding that the trustee made an additional effort to |\n| 6 | serve Ms. Wang. |\n| 7 | (Trustee's Exhibit 32 received in evidence.) |\n| 8 | (Trustee's Exhibit 33 received in evidence.) |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | So are you ready to proceed, to continue your |\n| 12 | argument that you began yesterday? |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
I am, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 15 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | So yesterday, obviously, Your Honor, we've been a |\n| 17 | bit interrupted in the flow of my remarks, and I'm certainly |\n| 18 | not going to repeat everything I said yesterday, but just to |\n| 19 | very quickly recap where we are. |\n| 20 | At the outset of the argument yesterday I started |\n| 21 | with the corporate governance rights order and the |\n| 22 | provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that references what that |\n| 23 | order demonstrates is that it very clearly applies to all of |\n| 24 | the entities in which the debtor has an interest, including |\n| 25 | Ace Decade. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 51 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 52 of\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
52 |\n| 1 | And it also makes clear that, as is already clear |\n| 2 | in the Bankruptcy Code, the debtor has a duty to cooperate |\n| 3 | in making sure that the trustee has the ability to enjoy the |\n| 4 | benefits of ownership and get control over entities that he |\n| 5 | is now the owner of. |\n| 6 | I then, Your Honor, after summarizing the |\n| 7 | provisions of that order and the code, you know, noted that |\n| 8 | the debtor's argument today, as set forth in his paper, I |\n| 9 | expect is going to be that he is unable to do anything more |\n| 10 | than he has already done in order to cause who he now says |\n| 11 | is the nominee shareholder, Ms. Yvette Wang, to transfer the |\n| 12 | shares of Ace Decade to the trustee. |\n| 13 | I walked the Court through several of the non |\n| 14 | confidential, non-privileged exhibits on the list, which |\n| 15 | demonstrate first, beyond any doubt I think, that the debtor |\n| 16 | from the beginning of Ace Decade's formation through its |\n| 17 | investment in the UBS transaction and through everything |\n| 18 | else that it's ever done as an entity has been the |\n| 19 | principal, the person in control, the single person behind |\n| 20 | Ace Decade. |\n| 21 | I also walked the Court through some additional |\n| 22 | exhibits that demonstrate that Yvette Wang, like her |\n| 23 | predecessor before her, was merely planted as a nominal |\n| 24 | director and nominee shareholder of this entity.
There's an |\n\nabundance of testimony indicating that Ms. Wang is an\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 53 employee of Mr. Kwok's, simply serves as an assistant -- MR. HENZY: Your Honor, actually I'm going to -- I'm going to object. That -- THE COURT: You're going to object for what? MR. HENZY: That's not in -- THE COURT: On what basis? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, right now Mr. Bassett is I think arguing based on things that are not in evidence and/or I think are in -- maybe he could tell us what he's referring to. I don't see any testimony that's in evidence here at all. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor -- MR. HENZY: There's no -- there's no testimony that has been admitted, Your Honor. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I would appreciate not being interrupted during my argument. I'm making an argument based on the evidence that we discussed yesterday. If Mr. Henzy disagrees with the way that I'm characterizing that, he is free to make that point during his response. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, it's improper to argue evidence that's not in evidence. It's improper. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor -- Your Honor -- MR. HENZY: I can come back and -- I can come back and make that in my argument, Your Honor, but it's improper. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, yesterday we walked Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 53 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 54 of\n\n| | 115 |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
54 |\n| 1 | through -- and I really did not want to have to go back and |\n| 2 | do my entire presentation of our case again, because I |\n| 3 | walked the Court through exhibits that are in evidence where |\n| 4 | Ms. Wang is referring to the debtor as her boss, where the |\n| 5 | debtor refers to her as his employee, other statements and |\n| 6 | documents that have been admitted into evidence where she's |\n| 7 | referred as his chief of staff. |\n| 8 | Your Honor, we went through all of these documents |\n| 9 | yesterday as part of the continued argument. |\n| | |\n\n So to the extent Mr. Henzy wants to respond to those exhibits and arguments as part of my continued argument, which he has not yet responded to, he'll have the opportunity to do that.\n\n MR. HENZY: And I apologize, Your Honor. But what Mr. -- I will try to do that, Your Honor, but I think what Mr. Bassett just said is incorrect in terms of what did happen yesterday, and what he just referred to was testimony and there's been no testimony in this hearing.\n\n MR. BASSETT: I did not -- if I used the word testimony, that was not my intention. I think I referred to evidence which has been admitted through the documents that are exhibits in this matter.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. We're going to continue to proceed.\n\nAttorney Henzy, any other -- make your notes and\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 55 of\n\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 | | | | | | 55 |\n|--|--|-----------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|----|\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\n| 1 | you can raise these in your response to -- once Mr. |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Bassett's done with his presentation on the information and |\n| 3 | exhibits that are not under seal.
Okay?
Thank you. |\n| 4 | Go ahead, Attorney Bassett. |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | The additional documents that I would refer to, |\n| 8 | but I will reserve for the closed session, will continue |\n| 9 | some of those points and I think flesh out those points that |\n| 10 | have already been made.
But per Your Honor's instructions, |\n| 11 | we will do that as part of the separate session. |\n| 12 | So, Your Honor, what -- and I'm glad Mr. Henzy |\n| 13 | made this point -- but what we don't have today from anyone |\n| 14 | is testimony.
We certainly don't have testimony from the |\n| 15 | debtor and that is -- that comes as no surprise whatsoever |\n| 16 | to the trustee based not only on the testimony he's given in |\n| 17 | this matter, but in past cases. |\n| 18 | So I think the Court can and should derive |\n| 19 | something from the fact that the debtor is not here today to |\n| 20 | give testimony in support of what he could or could not do |\n| 21 | to avoid being in contempt of court. |\n| 22 | We also do not have today testimony from Ms. |\n| 23 | Yvette Wang.
Why?
Because we cannot find her.
There are |\n| 24 | two documents that we just discussed that are in the record. |\n| 25 | We tried to serve her with a subpoena.
We've otherwise |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 56 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
56 |\n| 1 | tried to reach out to her.
There are other documents that I |\n| 2 | will refer to in the private session that go to this point |\n| 3 | as well. |\n| 4 | What we are left with are the documents that I've |\n| 5 | referenced that establish a clear relationship between Ms. |\n| 6 | Wang and the debtor that we think indicates beyond doubt |\n| 7 | that he has the ability to direct her to transfer these |\n| 8 | shares if she would do so. |\n| 9 | So, Your Honor, to recap where we are, I think the |\n| 10 | rest of the evidence that I would have to present would be |\n| 11 | in the closed session. |\n| 12 | What I had planned to do is after finishing my |\n| 13 | discussion of the evidence to talk about what I think that |\n| 14 | means in terms of the relief we're asking the Court to issue |\n| 15 | and the order that we would ask the Court to enter. |\n| 16 | I assume Your Honor wants me to move into that now |\n| 17 | even though it kind of flows from what would be discussed in |\n| 18 | the closed session.
Is that correct, Your Honor? |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
If you can do so without divulging |\n| 20 | anything in the information in the sealed documents, yes. |\n| 21 | If not, then we'll do it as part of the sealed session. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Okay.
All right.
Sorry, Your |\n| 23 | Honor.
I'm just trying to -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Take your time. |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
-- reorient myself given the -- |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 57 THE COURT: Take your time. MR. BASSETT: -- given the bifurcation of the hearing. THE COURT: Unfortunately, I have no choice but to bifurcate the hearing. MR. BASSETT: No, I'm not -- MR. HENZY: Your Honor -- THE COURT: It's just too complex. MR. HENZY: I apologize, Your Honor. If it's all right with the Court, I have no problem with Mr. Bassett coming back after I've gone through mine and we've done our sealed session because I -- so that he -- I understand it would cause his close to be disjointed because he hasn't had a chance to -- again, if that's a better way to do it, I'm fine with that. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I really don't -- I really don't think I can -- I can go to the rest without referring back to information that -- THE COURT: That's fine. MR. BASSETT: -- Your Honor's -- THE COURT: I want to be clear for the record because we need to be clear in this hearing, as we do in every hearing, but because this hearing is going to have different parts to it, the trustee's motion for contempt and the evidence that has been presented so far to the Court on\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 57 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 58 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
58 |\n| 1 | the trustee's motion that we began talking about yesterday, |\n| 2 | the following exhibits were entered into evidence yesterday: |\n| 3 | Trustee's 6, 7, 10 and 15 in full without objection, |\n| 4 | Trustee's 13, page 3.
And then the next exhibits were |\n| 5 | subject to sealing, 28 through 30, 34, 36 through 37, and |\n| 6 | 39, page 55, line 25. |\n| 7 | And then today Trustee's Exhibits 32 and 33. |\n| 8 | Are there any other exhibits at this point, |\n| 9 | Attorney Bassett, that I'm missing on your presentation that |\n| 10 | you've already made to the Court? |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
I don't believe so.
I think you've |\n| 12 | captured them all, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | The only minor correction is I think with respect |\n| 14 | to Exhibit 39.
I think Your Honor said page 55, line 25, |\n| 15 | but it's actually lines 23 through 25. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Oh, you're right, 23 through 25. |\n| 17 | Sorry.
Okay. |\n| 18 | And that -- and those exhibits in the mind, not |\n| 19 | the mind, I mean, the trustee's presentation support |\n| 20 | contempt for the following reasons. That Mr. Kwok remains in |\n| 21 | contempt because he can take action to have the shares of |\n| 22 | Ace Decade signed over to the trustee through Ms. Wang, who |\n| 23 | the trustee asserts, as the evidence establishes, that Mr. |\n| 24 | Kwok has a business relationship with Ms. Wang, that Ms. |\n| 25 | Wang referred to Mr. Kwok on numerous occasions as her boss, |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 59 of\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
59 |\n| 1 | that Ms. Wang acted as a go-between in connection with |\n| 2 | different transactions, and that the -- that that |\n| 3 | establishes that Mr. Kwok has not done everything that he |\n| 4 | can do to cooperate with the trustee, not only in connection |\n| 5 | with the corporate governance order provisions itself, but |\n| 6 | the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that require the |\n| 7 | cooperation of the debtor with the trustee, to cooperate |\n| 8 | with the trustee so that the trustee can conduct the |\n| 9 | investigation of the affairs of the debtor's estate. |\n| 10 | In addition to the fact that the evidence |\n| 11 | establishes those facts according to the trustee, the |\n| 12 | evidence also establishes that there's no testimony from |\n| 13 | either Mr. Kwok or Ms. Wang that would refute anything that |\n| 14 | the trustee has stated and argued in support of those |\n| 15 | claims. |\n| 16 | Is that accurate, Mr. Bassett? |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, again, I think that was |\n\n a fair summary. Obviously, I'll let the argument that I've made speak for itself, but I think generally Your Honor captured the key points that we're trying to make.\n\n THE COURT: All right. I want to make sure that that is the case. Because, again, we are going to be having two portions of the hearing. So I want to make sure we're addressing the appropriate issues of evidence during the appropriate sessions of the hearing.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 60 of\n\n| | G |\n|--|---|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
60 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor.
I mean, |\n| 2 | I think the additional discussion that we will have in the |\n| 3 | sealed portion will provide further support -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Correct.
Understood. |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
-- for the arguments -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Understood.
I'm trying to separate |\n| 7 | out the arguments I'm going to hear that are not sealed or |\n| 8 | subject to not having everyone be in attendance.
And so |\n| 9 | that's what I've heard you say with regard to the public |\n| 10 | part of this hearing.
Okay? |\n| 11 | If I'm missing something, I'd like you to tell me |\n| 12 | now. |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
I don't believe so, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 15 | So, Attorney Henzy, it's your turn to reply to the |\n| 16 | presentation that Attorney Bassett has made up to this |\n| 17 | point.
Okay? |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
And if you're going to seek to |\n| 20 | introduce exhibits, I would like you to do that first -- |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
-- and then we'll find out whether or |\n| 23 | not there's any objection to those exhibits. |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | Your Honor, I would ask that my Exhibits B, C, D, |\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
61 |\n| 1 | E, G, H and I be admitted. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Let me just repeat that to make sure I |\n| 3 | heard you properly.
Did you say B, C, E, G, H and I? |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
I think -- I think I may have -- let |\n| 5 | me restate it, Your Honor, to make sure. |\n| 6 | So B as in boy. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
C, as in cat.
D, as in dog. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I missed that. |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
E, as in Eric.
G, as in George.
H, |\n| 11 | as in Harry.
And I, as in iguana. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I missed D then when you |\n| 13 | recited those, so that was my mistake.
Thank you. |\n| 14 | All right.
Are you moving for the admission in |\n| 15 | full of those exhibits, Attorney Henzy? |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Attorney Bassett, do you have |\n| 18 | any objection to the admission in full of the exhibits that |\n| 19 | Attorney Henzy just stated on the record? |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
I do, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | I would object to the admission of Exhibits H and |\n| 22 | I.
Those are hearing transcripts of I believe not an |\n| 23 | insignificant length.
I don't know what counsel is seeking |\n| 24 | to admit. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
Just -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 61 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 62 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
62 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
All right.
So hold on a second.
Hold |\n| 2 | on.
Hold on.
All right. |\n| 3 | So, Mr. Bassett, you're only objecting to H and I |\n| 4 | at this -- that's what -- I want to know right now so I can |\n| 5 | admit the others if you're -- and then we can talk about H |\n| 6 | and I. |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor.
I will |\n| 8 | make arguments from the other exhibits, but I do not object |\n| 9 | to them being admitted. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | So let's make the record clear.
The Debtor's |\n| 12 | Exhibits B, as in boy, C, as in cat, D, as in dog, E, as in |\n| 13 | Eric, G, as in George, are admitted as full exhibits.
Okay? |\n| 14 | (Debtor's Exhibit B, C, D, E and G received in |\n| 15 | evidence.) |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Now, let's talk about H and I. |\n| 17 | So, Mr. Bassett, tell me -- you started to, and I |\n| 18 | probably stopped you in some respects, but tell me the basis |\n| 19 | for your objection to the admission in full of the Debtor's |\n| 20 | H and I, please. |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, actually, maybe I could |\n| 22 | make it simpler. |\n| 23 | Mr. Bassett's point is a fair one, and I do not |\n| 24 | intend to use or admit the full transcript. |\n| 25 | So H is a transcript of the August 1 hearing in |\n| | |\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
63 |\n| 1 | this matter and I is the transcript of the August 4 hearing |\n| 2 | in this matter.
And the only portions of those transcripts |\n| 3 | that I am moving into evidence is the August 1 transcript, |\n| 4 | which is my Exhibit H, it's at page 121, lines 23 through |\n| 5 | 25. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Lines 23 through 25? |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, let's give Mr. |\n| 9 | Bassett a minute to look at that then, please. |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
I'm trying to do that now, Your |\n| 11 | Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
Take your time. |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
I'm sorry.
Attorney Henzy, can you |\n| 14 | tell me the page and line reference one more time? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Page 121, lines 23 through 25.
Do you |\n| 16 | want us to pull that up, Mr. Bassett? |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
No.
I have it, Your Honor.
I'm just |\n| 18 | trying to figure out who's speaking. |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
Actually, I apologize for that.
I |\n| 20 | would have to actually go back. |\n| 21 | I'll represent that that's Mr. Despins.
And you |\n| 22 | have to go back to page 118 at line 13. |\n| 23 | So I guess I would ask that be admitted as well, |\n| 24 | Your Honor, because Mr. Bassett is correct, that it's a |\n| 25 | multiple page over then to be able to identify that Mr. |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 63 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 64 Despins is the speaker. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: I don't have an objection to the entry of that testimony. I reserve the right to potentially ask the Court to consider other aspects of this transcript in rebuttal, but, you know, having just seen it right now, I don't know what that might be until I hear Mr. Henzy's argument. THE COURT: So are we admitting from 118 through 121, or you just want at this point 118, line 13 and 121, lines 23 and 25, Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: I'm asking for 118, line 13, because that identifies Mr. Despins, and then 121, lines 23 through 25. MR. BASSETT: And I have no objection to that subject to -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: -- the reservation of rights that I just gave. But just to be clear, it's not 118, line 13 through the end, just 118, line 13, and then separately from that -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. BASSETT: -- 121 -- THE COURT: Yes. Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 64 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 65 MR. BASSETT: -- 23 to 25. THE COURT: So Exhibit H is admitted as a full exhibit to the following extent: we're only admitting -- it's not -- it's admitted in full, but the parties are agreeing what the Court is going to look at is page 118, line 13, and page 121, lines 23 through 25. Correct? MR. HENZY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. (Debtor's Exhibit H, page 118, line 13, and page 121, lines 23 through 25, received in evidence.) THE COURT: And then what about Exhibit I? MR. HENZY: So on Exhibit I, Your Honor, I would ask that page 47, lines 15 through 16, be admitted. THE COURT: You're going to have to give Mr. Bassett a minute there. MR. BASSETT: 15 through 17 on page 47? THE COURT: 15 through 16 I thought Attorney Henzy said. What did you say? MR. HENZY: 15 through 16 on page 47. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. BASSETT: You're cutting off the end of a sentence. Is that intentional? MR. HENZY: Oh, so 15 through 17. MR. BASSETT: No objection. Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 65 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 66 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 66 THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: Subject to the same reservation I gave for the last exhibit. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Then Exhibit I is admitted, page 47, lines 15 through 17, with no objection from Mr. Bassett except for the reservation of -- in response citing to possibly other parts of that transcript. (Debtor's Exhibit I, page 17, lines 15 through 17, received in evidence.) THE COURT: Okay. What else, Attorney Henzy? Is that -- those are your exhibits? MR. HENZY: And then, Your Honor, I would ask that Exhibit 27. Now, again, Your Honor, we're going to run into the problem of this document is -- THE COURT: We're not going to talk about Exhibit 27 right now. MR. HENZY: Okay. Perfect. THE COURT: That's going to be part of the sealed portion of the hearing. MR. HENZY: Okay. Very, well, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: So go ahead. MR. HENZY: So one point I want to get out of the way, Your Honor, is Mr. Bassett points out that Mr. Kwok is\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 67 of\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
67 |\n| 1 | not here today.
He was on the trustee's witness list. |\n| 2 | And my understanding was that we had resolved his |\n| 3 | needing to testify through the partial resolution order that |\n| 4 | we entered and I was not under the -- I did not have the |\n| 5 | understanding that Mr. Bassett expected or wanted Mr. Kwok |\n| 6 | to be here today. |\n| 7 | Your Honor, I know that there is a lot going on in |\n| 8 | this case, but I think it's critically important to focus on |\n| 9 | what is before you. |\n| 10 | There's a whole -- this is a contempt motion |\n| 11 | specifically related to the corporate governance order and |\n| 12 | whether or not Mr. Kwok is in violation of the corporate |\n| 13 | governance order.
So all of these other things going on are |\n| 14 | not part of that.
There's a very narrow issue that all the |\n| 15 | other things in the case do not connect to. |\n| 16 | I think it's also critically important to focus on |\n| 17 | the contempt standard. |\n| 18 | The Supreme Court in the Taggart case that I cite |\n| 19 | in the objection, that's at 139 Supreme Court 1795, says |\n| 20 | civil contempt should not be resorted to where there is not |\n| 21 | -- where there -- I'm sorry, where there is -- so civil |\n| 22 | contempt should not be resorted to where there is a fair |\n| 23 | ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's |\n| 24 | conduct.
So no civil contempt where there's a fair ground |\n| 25 | of doubt. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 68 of\n\n| 115 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
68 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | The Second Circuit in the King case which is at -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
In what case?
In what case, Mr. |\n| 3 | Henzy?
I'm sorry.
I couldn't hear you. |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
It's the King vs. Allied Vision case. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
It's at 65 F.3d 1051.
And that case, |\n| 7 | Your Honor, has been cited and quoted by many other Second |\n| 8 | Circuit decisions and district court decisions in this |\n| 9 | circuit, states a contempt order, following on that fair |\n| 10 | ground of doubt standard, a contempt order is only warranted |\n| 11 | where the moving party, that here is the trustee, |\n| 12 | establishes by clear and convincing evidence -- so it's not |\n| 13 | a preponderance standard, Your Honor -- it's clear and |\n| 14 | convincing evidence that the alleged conduct contemnor |\n| 15 | violated the Court's edict. |\n| 16 | The King court goes on to say, more specifically, |\n| 17 | a movant must establish:
One, the order the contemnor |\n| 18 | failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous; two, the |\n| 19 | proof of non-compliance is clear and convincing; and, three, |\n| 20 | the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a |\n| 21 | reasonable manner. |\n| 22 | The King court goes on to state a clear and |\n| 23 | unambiguous order is one that leaves no uncertainty in the |\n| 24 | minds of those to whom it is addressed who must be able to |\n| 25 | ascertain from the four corners of the order precisely what |\n| | |\n\n# Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 69 acts are forbidden. In the Second Circuit case of *United States v. Wendy*, it's at 575 F.2d, and this is at 1075 of that decision, the Second Circuit stated a long recognized defense to a civil contempt citation is the cited individual's inability to comply with the Court's order. Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 69 of\n\n Critically, Your Honor, the trustee has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok is not in compliance with a clear and unambiguous order where it's within the four corners of that order that what he's being accused of having failed to do is within the four corners of that order.\n\n My first argument, Your Honor, is that Mr. Kwok is not in violation of the order. And I am not arguing that your order is not clear and that it is ambiguous.\n\n I am arguing that what the trustee requires you to do, in some sense, would create ambiguity, because I just don't think it's in the order.\n\n The question on this first one I'm making is is there no fair ground of doubt that -- and has the trustee shown by clear and convincing evidence, that the order clearly and unambiguously requires what the trustee is demanding?\n\n I'm not arguing impossibility here, Your Honor, based on Mr. Kwok never having owned Ace Decade. Again,\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 70 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
70 |\n| 1 | that was -- that was taken care of in the partial resolution |\n| 2 | order which we did not object to. |\n| 3 | Your Honor, I'd ask that Exhibit E be brought up. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Just give us a second and it |\n| 5 | will be.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Exhibit E is being shown on |\n| 7 | the screen. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | And, Your Honor, can control be turned over to Mr. |\n| 10 | Cesaroni, please. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Just give that a second, please. |\n| 12 | MR. CESARONI:
Your Honor, I have control of the |\n| 13 | screen. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | Mr. Cesaroni, can you please take it to paragraph |\n| 17 | 2 on page 2.
Thank you.
Right there. |\n| 18 | Your Honor, I'm focusing you on the first sentence |\n| 19 | of that paragraph 2.
So effective as of the entry of the |\n| 20 | order dated, July 8, 2022, granting the appointment of Luc |\n| 21 | A. Despins as the trustee in the Chapter 11 case the trustee |\n| 22 | holds all of the debtor's economic and governance rights for |\n| 23 | the benefit of the estate with respect to all debtor |\n| 24 | controlled entities, including, without limitation Genever |\n| 25 | BVI. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 71 I'd ask that the Court show Exhibit -- put up Exhibit G. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Exhibit G is being shown on the screen. MR. HENZY: Thank you. Once Mr. Cesaroni has control of it, Can you please take it to paragraph 12 on page 4. THE COURT: Hold on. What's Exhibit G? Exhibit G is what, the privileges order? MR. HENZY: Exhibit G, Your Honor, I apologize -- so Exhibit E was the corporate governance order. THE COURT: Right. I saw that. MR. HENZY: Okay. Exhibit G is the motion filed by the trustee asking that the corporate governance order be entered. THE COURT: Okay. So it's the motion for the entry of the corporate governance order. Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: Mr. Cesaroni, could you please go to paragraph 12 at page 4. And, Your Honor, I'm not going to read that entire paragraph into the record. Essentially it's a recitation in the motion of what I would call the black letter law that upon his appointment that Mr. Despins, in fact, succeeded to all corporate governance and economic rights that the debtor had in any entities, or debtor controlled entities as Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 71 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 72 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
72 |\n| 1 | defined in this motion. |\n| 2 | Has Your Honor had a chance to look at that? |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Yes.
I'm looking at paragraph 12 of |\n| 4 | Exhibit G. |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Do you want me to go onto the next |\n| 7 | page since it's an incomplete sentence at the bottom of page |\n| 8 | 4? |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY:
It's just a citation, Your Honor.
I |\n| 10 | don't need you to go past that. |\n| 11 | But actually, on the next page, at paragraph 13, I |\n| 12 | would ask you to -- I'll read the first sentence of that |\n| 13 | paragraph 13.
It is paramount that the trustee exercises as |\n| 14 | soon as possible economic and corporate control over the |\n| 15 | debtor-controlled entities, including Genever BVI, in order |\n| 16 | to preserve and recover assets for the benefit of the |\n| 17 | estate. |\n| 18 | Then I'd ask, Mr. Cesaroni, if you could page down |\n| 19 | to paragraph 20 at page 9.
So actually that runs over.
If |\n| 20 | you could go over to paragraph, I'm sorry, page 9, Mr. |\n| 21 | Cesaroni. |\n| 22 | The last sentence in that paragraph 20 that runs |\n| 23 | over from page 8 to page 9, Your Honor, it says given this |\n| 24 | history the debtor should not be left to exercise any |\n| 25 | corporate governance rights with respect to the debtor- |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 73 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
73 |\n| 1 | controlled entities for one more day. |\n| 2 | And then at paragraph 21, the first sentence, Your |\n| 3 | Honor, to enable the trustee to exercise the foregoing |\n| 4 | authority without interference from the debtor, the Court |\n| 5 | should confirm that the debtor may not interfere with, |\n| 6 | hinder, or delay the trustee's exercise of the debtor's |\n| 7 | economic and governance rights with respect to the debtor |\n| 8 | controlled entities. |\n| 9 | When you're ready, Your Honor, if the Court could |\n| 10 | bring up Exhibit H. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Exhibit H.
And we're just |\n| 12 | going to what, the page 121 again? |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Lines 23 through 25? |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
But we know that's Trustee Despins |\n| 18 | speaking because page 118 indicates -- at line 13 indicates |\n| 19 | that? |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Hold on a second.
You don't |\n| 22 | have to go to page 118.
You just have to go to page -- I |\n| 23 | think everybody's agreeing that we can just go to page 121, |\n| 24 | lines 23 through 25. |\n| 25 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Exhibit H is on the screen. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 74 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
74 | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Could you scroll down -- | | | | |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
And go to lines -- | | | | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
-- to page 121, lines 23 to 25, | | | | |\n| 4 | please.
Thank you.
Right there. | | | | |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, Mr. Despins at the August | | | | |\n| 6 | 1 hearing, I'm sorry, yes, at the August 1 hearing, on the | | | | |\n| 7 | motion to approve corporate governance order, states and | | | | |\n| 8 | that's what this accomplishes.
Basically it makes it very | | | | |\n| 9 | clear that we hold all these rights and that's why we ask | | | | |\n| 10 | Your Honor to enter the order. | | | | |\n| 11 | And if the Court could go to Exhibit I when Your | | | | |\n| 12 | Honor is ready. | | | | |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Certainly.
Okay.
Debtor's Exhibit I. | | | | |\n| 14 | And, again, we're going to a specific page, correct? | | | | |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:
Yes, Your Honor.
We're going to page | | | | |\n| 16 | 47. | | | | |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
What lines on page 47?
Wasn't there a | | | | |\n| 18 | specific reference to lines? | | | | |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
15 through 17, Your Honor. | | | | |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
15 through 17. | | | | |\n| 21 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Exhibit -- | | | | |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
And, Your Honor, where Mr. Despins | | | | |\n| 23 | says -- | | | | |\n| 24 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Exhibit I is on the screen. | | | | |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
-- Your Honor we filed -- | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 75 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
75 | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 1 | I apologize. | | | |\n| 2 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. | | | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
The courtroom deputy just noted for | | | |\n| 4 | the record that Exhibit I is on the screen. | | | |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. | | | |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
And now I'm looking at page 47, lines | | | |\n| 7 | 15 through 17. | | | |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | |\n| 9 | Where Mr. Despins states Your Honor we filed a | | | |\n| 10 | very broad motion to (indiscernible) all corporate | | | |\n| 11 | governance rights and we mention BVI specifically. | | | |\n| 12 | And then, Your Honor, if we go to page 64, at | | | |\n| 13 | lines 19 through 22. | | | |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Did we -- we didn't talk about 64 | | | |\n| 15 | before, did we though?
I mean, I'm not -- I don't know -- | | | |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
Oh, I thought -- | | | |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
-- Attorney Bassett's going to have | | | |\n| 18 | any objection to it, but did we talk about that before? | | | |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
I thought -- I thought we did, Your | | | |\n| 20 | Honor. | | | |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
No.
We only talked about page 47, | | | |\n| 22 | lines 15 -- at least my notes indicate that.
I could have | | | |\n| 23 | missed something. | | | |\n| 24 | Attorney Bassett, did you have any indication that | | | |\n| 25 | we were looking at anything other than page 47, lines 15 | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 76 of
115 | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
76 | | | |\n| 1 | through 17 in I? | | | |\n| 2 | MR. BASSETT:
I did not, Your Honor.
That was the | | | |\n| 3 | only -- that was the only portion of this document that was | | | |\n| 4 | moved into evidence. | | | |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
That was my oversight, Your Honor. | | | |\n| 6 | I'd ask that page 64 at 19 -- at lines 19 through 22 be | | | |\n| 7 | admitted. | | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Let me let Attorney Bassett take a | | | |\n| 9 | look at that off, you know, on his -- I'm asking the | | | |\n| 10 | courtroom deputy not to go to that other page yet. | | | |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:
That's fine. | | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Attorney Bassett, you can take a look | | | |\n| 13 | at it yourself or do you want us to go to that page? | | | |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
I'll get it.
Can you just give me | | | |\n| 15 | the reference one more time, please. | | | |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
What is it, Attorney Henzy? | | | |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:
Page 64 at lines 19 through 22. | | | |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
What does it start with?
I just | | | |\n| 19 | want to make sure I'm at the right place. | | | |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
So it's at the reason we ask. | | | |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
Well, that's -- oh, okay.
I thought | | | |\n| 22 | that was a statement you were making.
Let me read it.
I | | | |\n| 23 | see -- I see that it's Mr. Despins now.
One second. | | | |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
You're taking a look, Mr. Bassett?
Or | | | |\n| 25 | do you want us to turn to that page? | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 77 of
115 | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
77 | | | |\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
No.
I am, Your Honor. | | | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
What I should say to you is do you -- | | | |\n| 3 | have you had an opportunity to look at it and do you have | | | |\n| 4 | any objection to it? | | | |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
The problem, Your Honor, is it's not | | | |\n| 6 | -- it's not very clear as a stand alone excerpt, so I'm | | | |\n| 7 | reading back to other pages.
It's hard to do this on a | | | |\n| 8 | moment's notice.
I apologize. | | | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
That's okay.
Take your time. | | | |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, I have to object at this | | | |\n| 11 | point.
The excerpt is not clear and I can't -- it's not | | | |\n| 12 | complete.
I mean, there's a reference in the language back | | | |\n| 13 | to something that's being discussed in prior pages of the | | | |\n| 14 | transcript, and I cannot -- not object to the document at | | | |\n| 15 | this stage. | | | |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, if I may? | | | |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Yes, please. | | | |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:
Mr. Bassett can certainly go back as | | | |\n| 19 | rebuttal if you ask that the Court -- any portion of the | | | |\n| 20 | transcript be admitted. | | | |\n| 21 | I think that the excerpt is clear for the purposes | | | |\n| 22 | I'm going to use it.
And this is his client's statement.
I | | | |\n| 23 | don't know how it could not be admissible. | | | |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Well, he's not saying that it's not | | | |\n| 25 | admissible.
He's saying that he objects to it right now | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 78 of
115 | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
78 | | | |\n| 1 | because he doesn't understand it, it's context, because he | | | |\n| 2 | doesn't -- it's talking about a bunch of different things | | | |\n| 3 | and going back. | | | |\n| 4 | I don't know.
I'll have to look at it.
So you'll | | | |\n| 5 | have to give me a second.
I haven't seen it.
And it wasn't | | | |\n| 6 | raised obviously already before we started the argument, so | | | |\n| 7 | let me take a look at it.
So you'll have to be patient for | | | |\n| 8 | a moment. | | | |\n| 9 | (Pause) | | | |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Mr. Bassett, I'm going to let | | | |\n| 11 | that in.
I'm going to let page 64, lines 19 through 22 be | | | |\n| 12 | admitted. | | | |\n| 13 | And then you absolutely have the right to, in | | | |\n| 14 | response, suggest that something else should be added to the | | | |\n| 15 | record from that transcript. | | | |\n| 16 | And then I'll rule on that when and if you decide | | | |\n| 17 | to do that.
Okay? | | | |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
That's fine, Your Honor. | | | |\n| 19 | And just to be clear, I've not been able to | | | |\n| 20 | understand from looking at it in, you know, three or four | | | |\n| 21 | minutes what that right in the passage that Mr. Henzy is | | | |\n| 22 | going to read or (indiscernible).
Maybe he can shed some | | | |\n| 23 | light on what he believes it means when he does his | | | |\n| 24 | argument. | | | |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
That's fine. | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 79 of\n\n| 7 | O |\n|---|---|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
79 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Your Honor, actually I would ask that I think line |\n| 2 | 14 at least -- but I say just to make 14 through 22 needs to |\n| 3 | be admitted because that -- we need 14 in order for the |\n| 4 | record to identify the speaker is Mr. Despins. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
So 14 through 22? |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
I have no -- |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Attorney Bassett, were you going to |\n| 9 | say something? |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
Yeah.
I think, Your Honor, we |\n| 11 | should do what we did before which is line 14 comes in and |\n| 12 | then 19 through 22. |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:
That's fine.
I'm fine with that. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm fine with that too.
Okay. |\n| 15 | (Debtor's Exhibit I, page 64, line 14, and lines 19 |\n| 16 | through 22, received in evidence.) |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Then let's continue, please, Attorney |\n| 18 | Henzy. |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | So, Your Honor, in the motion the trustee told you |\n| 21 | that the law provides that when he was appointed he |\n| 22 | succeeded to all corporate governance rights. |\n| 23 | The trustee told you in the motion that Mr. Kwok |\n| 24 | should not have any governance rights for -- and give me one |\n| 25 | second, Your Honor, I want to make sure I get the words |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 80 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
80 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | right. |\n| 2 | (Pause.) |\n| 3 | Mr. Kwok should not have any governance rights for |\n| 4 | one more day.
Again, that's at paragraph 20, last sentence |\n| 5 | of paragraph 20 of the motion.
The debtor should not be |\n| 6 | left to exercise any corporate governance rights with |\n| 7 | respect to debtor-controlled entities for one more day.
It |\n| 8 | was so important to get this out of the hands of the debtor, |\n| 9 | it couldn't be there for one more day. |\n| 10 | The trustee in the motion specifically said it is |\n| 11 | paramount that the trustee exercise as soon as possible the |\n| 12 | economic and corporate control over debtor-controlled |\n| 13 | entities. |\n| 14 | The order itself, and, again, that is consistent |\n| 15 | with the statements that Mr. Despins made on the record that |\n| 16 | are now in evidence at the August 1 and August 4 hearings. |\n| 17 | And that, Your Honor, if you circle back to the |\n| 18 | first sentence of paragraph 2 of the order, effective at the |\n| 19 | entry of the order granting -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Hold on a second.
Hold on a second, |\n| 21 | Attorney Henzy.
Let's just make sure we're citing to the |\n| 22 | exhibits.
So circle back to E? |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:
Exhibit E. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
Exhibit E. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 81 of\n\n| 115 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
81 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
That first sentence, Your Honor, that |\n| 3 | I pointed you to and read into the record, effective at the |\n| 4 | entry of the order dated July 8th, 2022 granting the |\n| 5 | appointment of Luc Despins as the trustee in the Chapter 11 |\n| 6 | case.
The trustee holds all of the debtor's economic and |\n| 7 | governance rights for the benefit of the estate with respect |\n| 8 | to all debtor-controlled entities including but not limited |\n| 9 | to Genever BVI. |\n| 10 | So as of -- the trustee -- so what Mr. Despins is |\n| 11 | asking you to do is hold Mr. Kwok in contempt for not |\n| 12 | exercising some authority he had as owner to direct Ms. |\n| 13 | Wang, as nominee shareholder, and director of Ace Decade to |\n| 14 | take certain action. |\n| 15 | But this order, at Mr. Despins' request, upon Mr. |\n| 16 | Despins's appointment, again, he tells you in the motion as |\n| 17 | a matter of black letter law that the debtor was divested of |\n| 18 | any corporate governance rights and he succeeded to those |\n| 19 | rights.
He then had you or asked you and you did confirm |\n| 20 | that in this order in very, very unequivocal terms. |\n| 21 | If Mr. Despins wants to argue that notwithstanding |\n| 22 | the language of what he asked -- the language he asked for |\n| 23 | you -- he asked for this order in and then the language of |\n| 24 | the order that Mr. Kwok has some residual corporate |\n| 25 | authority, and this court decides to determine or hold that |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 82 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
82 |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | notwithstanding the language of this order that Mr. Kwok has |\n| 2 | some residual corporate authority to, as equitable owner or |\n| 3 | beneficial shareholder, direct Ms. Wang to take some action |\n| 4 | as nominee shareholder and director, Mr. Despins can make |\n| 5 | that argument.
And Your Honor, with all due respect, you |\n| 6 | can -- you can order that, but that's not what this order |\n| 7 | says. |\n| 8 | If Your Honor were to find today that there is |\n\n residual corporate authority in this order for Mr. Kwok to take some action, from a perspective of corporate authority, at the very least, Your Honor, given the language of the order, the order -- the order is ambiguous because the order doesn't say that. It doesn't reserve -- it doesn't purport to reserve any residual corporate authority in Mr. Kwok.\n\n So if I dial back to the standard that I set out, if you were going to hold Mr. Kwok in contempt, the trustee has to prove that the order clearly and unambiguously requires what the trustee is demanding. That's my point one. My point --\n\n THE COURT: Let me stop you though because you've already stated before we talked about Exhibit E and Exhibit G that you're not arguing that the order is not clear and ambiguous, but now you are. So --\n\n MR. HENZY: No. I'm not -- I'm not arguing that, Your Honor, because I think that the order is clear. I\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 83 of\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
83 |\n| 1 | think that the order has made clear that Mr. Kwok is |\n| 2 | divested of all corporate authority.
I don't -- I don't -- |\n| 3 | With your finding that Mr. Kwok was the beneficial |\n| 4 | owner through the appointment of Mr. Despins as trustee that |\n| 5 | what follows is that your order is not ambiguous at all. |\n| 6 | What your order says is that Mr. Kwok, as of the |\n| 7 | trustee's appointment, is divested of all corporate |\n| 8 | authority.
So I don't think -- I don't think the order -- |\n| 9 | actually I don't think the order is ambiguous.
And I think |\n| 10 | that there is no residual corporate authority in your order |\n| 11 | and, therefore, Mr. Kwok can't, as beneficial owner, direct |\n| 12 | the shareholder or director to do anything as a matter of |\n| 13 | corporate authority.
Okay? |\n| 14 | My argument though was a different one, which is, |\n| 15 | if you were to find today that my
-- I'll call it argument |\n| 16 | 1(a) is wrong, that Mr. Kwok, notwithstanding the trustee's |\n| 17 | appointment and notwithstanding your entry of this order, of |\n| 18 | the corporate governance order, has some authority, has some |\n| 19 | residual authority to act as beneficial owner to direct Ms. |\n| 20 | Wang to take corporate action, then I would argue to you -- |\n| 21 | that's the way you interpret your order, Your Honor, then I |\n| 22 | would argue to you then your order is ambiguous because -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
-- it is so clear.
So that serves as |\n| 25 | my argument 1(b). |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 84 of\n\n| 115 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
84 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | I don't think the order is ambiguous.
But if |\n| 2 | you're going to find there's this residual authority, then I |\n| 3 | think your order is ambiguous because I don't see any |\n| 4 | residual authority in the four corners of that order. |\n| 5 | Which, again, that's the -- the King, Second Circuit, case |\n| 6 | said it has to be in the four corners of the order. |\n| 7 | What it is that Mr. Kwok is supposed to do and is |\n| 8 | not doing has to be in the four corners of the order. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I understand.
Thank you. |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | My argument -- so I'm going to phrase it as |\n| 12 | argument 1(a) and 1(b) I've already made. |\n| 13 | My argument two, it is -- it may sound somewhat |\n| 14 | the same, but actually I think it's related but it's |\n| 15 | different. |\n| 16 | Now, again, the basic point on my argument number |\n| 17 | 2 is, or the frame of reference is, is there no fair ground |\n| 18 | of doubt that and has the trustee shown by clear and |\n| 19 | convincing evidence the debtor -- that the order clearly and |\n| 20 | unambiguously requires what the trustee is demanding? |\n| 21 | If I could take you back to Exhibit E, Your Honor, |\n| 22 | which is the corporate governance order. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Shall we pull that up? |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
Yes, please, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Exhibit E, please. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 85 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
85 |\n| 1 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Exhibit E is on the screen. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 3 | Do you want control over that document, Attorney |\n| 4 | Henzy, or do you want us to go to a specific place in the |\n| 5 | document? |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
If you could page to paragraph 2 on |\n| 7 | page 2, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY:
That's perfect.
That's perfect. |\n| 10 | Thank you.
Your Honor -- oh, could you just page down a |\n| 11 | little bit, Your Honor, because the bottom of that paragraph |\n| 12 | 2 is being cut off.
That's perfect.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | Your Honor, I've already -- previously I focused |\n| 14 | you on the first sentence of that paragraph 2.
Now I want |\n| 15 | to focus you on the second and third sentences of that |\n| 16 | paragraph 2.
So I'll read them into the record. |\n| 17 | \"For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing rights |\n| 18 | throughout\" -- if you go back up to sentence number 1, in |\n| 19 | that paragraph 2, the foregoing rights is referring to all |\n| 20 | the debtor's economic and governance rights -- \"for the |\n| 21 | avoidance of doubt, the foregoing rights include the |\n| 22 | trustee's asserted authority to replace any existing |\n| 23 | officer, director, manager, or similar person of debtor |\n| 24 | controlled entities.
As part of the foregoing, to the |\n| 25 | extent necessary, the trustee is authorized to act in his |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 86 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
86 |\n| 1 | capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee in a Chapter 11 case as any |\n| 2 | such officer, director, manager, or similar person who has |\n| 3 | been removed.\" |\n| 4 | So, Your Honor, the order expressly contemplates |\n| 5 | that the trustee can remove a director and remove a nominee |\n| 6 | shareholder for a debtor-controlled entity. |\n| 7 | If I could you back to Exhibit G, Your Honor, if |\n| 8 | you could bring that up. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Sure.
Just give the courtroom |\n| 10 | deputy a moment to get that, to get Debtor's Exhibit G. |\n| 11 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Exhibit G is on the screen. |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
And, Attorney Henzy, where -- |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
If you could page to page 5, paragraph |\n| 15 | 13. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm looking at page 5, |\n| 17 | paragraph 13, of Exhibit G. |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, I previously pointed you |\n| 19 | to the first sentence of that paragraph 13.
Now I'd pointed |\n| 20 | you to the second sentence of that paragraph 13 which states |\n| 21 | -- again, this is the trustee's motion seeking entry of the |\n| 22 | corporate governance order -- for the avoidance of doubt, |\n| 23 | this includes the trustee's authority to replace any |\n| 24 | existing officer, director, manager, or similar person of |\n| 25 | the debtor-controlled entities. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 87 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
87 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | So in the motion the trustee is asking for |\n| 2 | specific authority to replace officers, directors, et |\n| 3 | cetera, and the Court in paragraph 2 of Exhibit E, the |\n| 4 | corporate governance order, ordered that the trustee has |\n| 5 | authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager |\n| 6 | or similar person. |\n| 7 | The Court has found, and the trustee has so |\n| 8 | convinced Your Honor that Mr. Kwok is the beneficial owner |\n| 9 | through the trustee's appointment, therefore, that he is now |\n| 10 | the beneficial owner.
He's so convinced of that that he's |\n| 11 | seeking to hold Mr. Kwok in contempt for failing to act. |\n| 12 | This language, the language in paragraph 2 of |\n| 13 | Exhibit E, the corporate governance order, expressly |\n| 14 | contemplated what the trustee could do in a situation like |\n| 15 | this. |\n| 16 | As the beneficial owner, he could replace any |\n| 17 | officer, director or like person and he could then direct |\n| 18 | that person to do whatever he deems appropriate, including, |\n| 19 | I believe, issue a new share certificate to him as -- or to |\n| 20 | whoever the shareholder is going to be. |\n| 21 | Not only would that procedure be more effective, |\n| 22 | not only would it have been massively simpler than to hold |\n| 23 | the debtor in contempt for doing something -- not doing |\n| 24 | something that I think this order doesn't require him to do, |\n| 25 | in fact, it makes the order -- I'm sorry, when I say this |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 88 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 88 order, the corporate governance order -- really nonsensical -- not only is it more -- be more effective to do it that way, I believe, Your Honor, under the corporate governance order, the correct action to take is what the corporate governance order expressly contemplates, that the trustee as the beneficial owner would have the right to replace the director and nominee shareholder and then take whatever corporate action he deems necessary.\n\n I have told the trustee, I will tell the Court, that the debtor will not object to the trustee doing exactly that, to doing what the corporate governance order expressly contemplates that he has authority to do.\n\n So that process or that type of procedure is exactly the relief that was requested by the Court and that the Court ordered.\n\n And the trustee has chosen rather than to pursue that path, which he requested in the court order, to spend a lot of time and money seeking to hold Mr. Kwok in contempt for something that, as I said, I believe the Court order doesn't require and, in fact, that it does require him to do what the trustee is asking is really nonsensical.\n\n Your Honor, my point three is that again can the trustee or has the trustee shown that there is no fair ground of doubt and quite clear and convincing evidence that the -- that the debtor has failed to comply.\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 89 And, Your Honor, on my point three, I would ask the courtroom deputy to bring up Exhibit 10. THE COURT: The Trustee's Exhibit 10? MR. HENZY: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I'm sorry. My Exhibit B. I apologize, Your Honor. THE COURT: B, as in boy? MR. HENZY: B, as in boy. THE COURT: Okay. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Exhibit B is on the screen. MR. HENZY: Thank you. THE COURT: Exhibit B is there, Attorney Henzy. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, you can review the document, but I'd represent that this is a letter from Mr. Kwok addressed to Yvette Wang, and the letter -- it attaches a share transfer instrument and a written resolution, director resolution, in the form demanded by the trustee, and on that -- right where we are right now, Your Honor, you can see the last clause or the last sentence of that letter states, \"Therefore, in compliance with the trustee's demand and to the extent that I may have any authority over Ace Decade I hereby direct you to execute the attached share transfer instrument and share transfer resolution.\" Your Honor, in his reply that was filed under seal -- and I think I can -- well, in his reply to our objection, Your Honor, the trustee argues that sending this letter to Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 89 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 90 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
90 |\n| 1 | Ms. Wang with the share transfer instrument and the director |\n| 2 | resolution attached is a litigation tactic. |\n| 3 | I argue it is not a litigation tactic.
It is an |\n| 4 | attempt to comply. |\n| 5 | Contempt -- the purpose of civil contempt, is not |\n| 6 | to punish, it is to compel compliance.
What Mr. Kwok is |\n| 7 | trying to do here is comply.
He does not want to have this |\n| 8 | fight. |\n| 9 | If the trustee wants a different letter, or if the |\n| 10 | Court thinks there should be a different letter, then that |\n| 11 | should be specified. |\n| 12 | And that goes back to Mr. Kwok needs to know |\n| 13 | within the four corners of the order that you entered what |\n| 14 | it is that he is required to do? |\n| 15 | He has attempted to comply by sending this letter |\n| 16 | to Ms. Wang.
If there is something else he needs to do, I |\n| 17 | think it is not specified in the order. |\n| 18 | And, again, the King case says that what is |\n| 19 | required has to be in the four corners of an order entered |\n| 20 | by the Court, and there's nothing in the order that |\n| 21 | specifically says how Mr. -- it doesn't specifically address |\n| 22 | this issue; that is, Mr. Kwok as the beneficial owner trying |\n| 23 | to get a director and nominee shareholder to act at all, but |\n| 24 | it certainly doesn't specify what exactly the action that he |\n| 25 | would have to take would be. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 91 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
91 |\n| 1 | I will point out, Your Honor, and if you could -- |\n| 2 | if the courtroom deputy could bring up Exhibits C -- Exhibit |\n| 3 | C first. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Debtor's Exhibit C. |\n| 5 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Exhibit C is on the screen. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
The share transfer instrument, is that |\n| 7 | what you're looking at, Attorney Henzy? |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Yes, Your Honor.
And if you page down |\n| 9 | -- and I don't -- that's -- maybe page back up a little bit. |\n| 10 | Thank you.
That's probably great. |\n| 11 | So, Your Honor, you'll see that that is a share |\n| 12 | transfer instrument executed by Mr. Kwok.
Your Honor, the |\n| 13 | trustee's demand was that Mr. Kwok execute a share transfer |\n| 14 | and director resolution or cause the director and nominee |\n| 15 | shareholder to do so. |\n| 16 | I don't believe that anyone has ever claimed, I |\n| 17 | don't believe the trustee has argued, that Mr. Kwok is, in |\n| 18 | fact, this nominee shareholder or director, but I had him |\n| 19 | execute this document anyway.
This is the share transfer |\n| 20 | agreement. |\n| 21 | And Exhibit D, Your Honor, if you could bring that |\n| 22 | up. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Which one now?
Go back to B? |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
Exhibit D as in dog. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Oh, D.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
Debtor's |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 92 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
92 |\n| 1 | Exhibit D as in dog. |\n| 2 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Exhibit D is on the screen. |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY:
That is the resolution of sole |\n| 4 | director, Your Honor.
Again, that's executed by Mr. Kwok. |\n| 5 | Although, to be very, very clear, no one has ever argued, I |\n| 6 | don't believe the trustee argues, that Mr. Kwok, in fact, is |\n| 7 | the director, but that was in the demand letter that the |\n| 8 | trustee sent. |\n| 9 | Again, he asked Mr. Kwok to execute a share |\n| 10 | transfer agreement and a director resolution or cause this |\n| 11 | nominee shareholder and director to execute such documents. |\n| 12 | So, again, I had him execute this document so that |\n| 13 | any claim that he hasn't complied with, the trustee's first |\n| 14 | demand I think is answered by that. |\n| 15 | So, again, Your Honor, Mr. Kwok has attempted to |\n| 16 | comply.
If there is something more that he needs to do, I |\n| 17 | would ask really the Court to instruct. |\n| 18 | My last point, Your Honor, is sort of hopelessly |\n| 19 | tied up with the sealed documents and -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Well, then we're not going to talk |\n| 21 | about them, that last point, right now, Attorney Henzy. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
And, Your Honor, the deposition |\n| 23 | transcript that I am going to be -- ask to be admitted. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I think it already is.
It's been |\n| 25 | sealed, right, 27?
I think it's been already admitted |\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 93 yesterday. MR. HENZY: No. No. I think Mr. Bassett and I would agree it has not been admitted, Your Honor. It's sealed. And it was identified by the trustee as an exhibit, but it has not been admitted. THE COURT: I thought it was admitted yesterday. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, it was not admitted yesterday. And I think -- THE COURT: Okay. All right. That's fine. I'm just, you know, trying to keep up. I thought I had made a note about that exhibit, but, in any event, let me see. Oh, you're right. It has not been. All right. Well, we're not going to admit it now. We'll admit it during the portion of the sealed portion of the hearing. So, Attorney -- MS. SMITH: Your Honor, to the -- to the extent that we'll be addressing the deposition transcript, PAX is a party to the protective order and was, in fact -- counsel for PAX was present at the deposition and we would request that we be allowed to participate to the limited extent that it concerns the deposition transcript. THE COURT: We will address that when we come to that issue, but thank you. MS. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 93 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 94 THE COURT: Attorney Bassett, you were going to respond to Attorney Henzy's arguments about the evidence that is not under seal? MR. BASSETT: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. I will do that, and then obviously save the balance of my remarks for the closed session. So, Your Honor, the first argument that you heard Attorney Henzy make is that as of the entry of the corporate governance order his client has effectively been divested with any corporate authority and, therefore, at this point, is, as Mr. Henzy would have it as a technical matter, incapable of taking action to have transfer of Ace Decade -- to have Ace Decade's ownership rights, control and shares transferred to the estate and to Trustee Despins. That argument, Your Honor, is nonsensical, to put it bluntly, and completely inconsistent not only with the order the Court ordered, the corporate governance rights order, but also, as I said at the outset of my remarks yesterday, a clear command of the Bankruptcy Code and the debtor's duty to cooperate. I'd like to have Exhibit E, and my colleague, Doug Barron, who's on the line, can either put it up or take control of the document, but I'd just like to -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 94 of\n\n THE COURT: We're going to -- we'll have to -- we have to --\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 95 MR. BASSETT: -- to go back -- THE COURT: The courtroom deputy will have to do that first. We have to do this to keep the record clear with regard to the exhibits. MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: So you'd like the courtroom deputy to pull up the Debtor's Exhibit E, Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: The Debtor's Exhibit E, yes, Your Honor. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Exhibit E is on the screen. THE COURT: Okay. It's there now, Attorney Bassett. How do you want to handle that? MR. BASSETT: If control could be passed to my colleague, Mr. Barron, that would be great. THE COURT: We can do that. We're passing control of Exhibit E to trustee's counsel for purposes of this argument right now. MR. BASSETT: Thank you. I'd ask Mr. Barron, once he has control, to go down to I believe it's paragraph 2. I don't know if we are having some technical difficulties here? MR. BARRON: I am. Sorry. I apologize. I'm having a little trouble moving the screen. Here we go. MR. BASSETT: Okay. Thank you. So, Your Honor -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 95 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 96 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
96 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I see paragraph 2.
Go ahead. |\n| 2 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | I think it's telling the way that Attorney Henzy |\n| 4 | sequenced his argument in talking about the case law that |\n| 5 | applies to a motion for contempt and then directing the |\n| 6 | Court to the order that I started my argument with yesterday |\n| 7 | and that governs this dispute and demonstrates beyond doubt |\n| 8 | that the debtor is, in fact, in contempt for failing to |\n| 9 | comply with the order. |\n| 10 | So what Attorney Henzy said was, you know, an |\n| 11 | order has to be clear and unambiguous in what it commands |\n| 12 | for someone to be held in contempt for failing to comply |\n| 13 | with that order. |\n| 14 | Your Honor, paragraph 2, as I said yesterday, |\n| 15 | based on the order that the Court has now entered, based on |\n| 16 | the debtor abandoning the argument he previously led with in |\n| 17 | his objection to our motion for contempt that he did not |\n| 18 | actually own Ace Decade at all, which he's rightfully now |\n| 19 | abandoned because it has no merit whatsoever as the |\n| 20 | documents that we presented to the Court made clear, |\n| 21 | notwithstanding the fact that he made the trustee spend |\n| 22 | hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating that issue, |\n| 23 | under paragraph 2 it says the trustee holds all of the |\n| 24 | debtor's economic and governance rights for the benefit of |\n| 25 | the estate with respect to the debtor-controlled entities |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 97 of\n\n| 115 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
97 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | which includes Ace Decade. |\n| 2 | Now, what the debtor would have the Court do is |\n| 3 | stop there and say that's it. The trustee got what he |\n| 4 | wanted, might have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in |\n| 5 | fighting to finally unveil the truth that the debtor does, |\n| 6 | in fact, own Ace Decade, but now that he has the entity, |\n| 7 | what else can I do?
Now it's the trustee's problem. |\n| 8 | But that is not what this order requires and it's |\n| 9 | not what the Bankruptcy Code requires. |\n| 10 | If you look at paragraph 3 of this order, Your |\n| 11 | Honor, again, as I focused the Court to yesterday, it says |\n| 12 | very clearly, and as unambiguously as possible, that in |\n| 13 | accordance with Sections 521(a)(3) and 521(a)(4) of the |\n| 14 | Bankruptcy Code the debtor is hereby directed to cooperate |\n| 15 | with the trustee as necessary to enable the trustee to |\n| 16 | perform his duties. |\n| 17 | Sections 521(a)(3) and (a)(4) of the Bankruptcy |\n| 18 | Code, Your Honor, are very clear in what they direct. |\n| 19 | 521(a)(3) says that if a trustee has been appointed, the |\n| 20 | debtor must cooperate with the trustee as necessary to |\n| 21 | enable the trustee to perform his duties under this title. |\n| 22 | Section 521(a)(4) says that if a trustee has been appointed, |\n| 23 | the debtor must surrender to the trustee all property of the |\n| 24 | estate and recorded information. |\n| 25 | Your Honor, these provisions of the Bankruptcy |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 98 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 98 Code and this provision of this order make the abundantly obvious point that the mere transfer as a matter of law of the debtor's property to the trustee upon a bankruptcy filing does not end the debtor's obligation to cooperate with the trustee and take steps necessary to ensure that the trustee is actually able to obtain control of that property, including entities through its acquisition of corporate governance rights.\n\n That is what the debtor is required to do and that is what he has utterly failed to do.\n\n The other thing that Mr. Henzy omitted in his argument was the history of how we got here, barely covered the fact that since we filed this motion, they made the completely unsupported argument that the debtor didn't own the entity, notwithstanding the crystal clear evidence to the contrary, which the Court has now entered a finding on, but it also ignores how we got here more broadly in this case.\n\n Trustee Despins was appointed in July of this year. And as I just showed Your Honor the Bankruptcy Code at that point was very clear in directing what the debtor was required to do thereafter to cooperate with the trustee.\n\n But what happened then and what's happened at every single stage of this case since, whether it's with respect to corporate governance rights or discovery or\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 99 of
115 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
99 |\n| 1 | anything else, the debtor refused to cooperate and did |\n| 2 | everything in his power to make life difficult and expensive |\n| 3 | for the trustee. |\n| 4 | The trustee had no choice but to file a corporate |\n| 5 | governance rights motion seeking relief in the order to make |\n| 6 | it even more clear than it already was.
We now have that |\n| 7 | order entered and we are still here. |\n| 8 | Because notwithstanding the fact that control of |\n| 9 | Ace Decade should have transferred to the estate, the debtor |\n| 10 | is not taking action necessary to make that happen. |\n| 11 | Now, what Attorney Henzy (indiscernible) to in his |\n| 12 | second argument is the fact that, well, you know, even if |\n| 13 | the debtor is able, notwithstanding the fact that he no |\n| 14 | longer technically has the ability to do anything, but even |\n| 15 | if he did, he's done everything he can do because -- |\n| 16 | And I'd like to ask the courtroom deputy to pull |\n| 17 | up Exhibit B, the Debtor's Exhibit B, please. |\n| 18 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Exhibit B is on the screen. |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you very much. |\n| 20 | And if my colleague, Mr. Barron, could have |\n| 21 | control, that would be much appreciated. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I think he does already have control. |\n| 23 | MR. BASSETT:
Okay.
Great.
Sorry.
Thank you, |\n| 24 | Your Honor. |\n| 25 | So this letter, Your Honor, which Attorney Henzy |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 100 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 100 focused on, and which I'll spend more time talking about in the private session because there's testimony on it that's under seal, is a farce to be honest. The letter is dated November 10th, 2022 first of all. Our motion was filed weeks, if not at least a month before that. The debtor could have, had he been serious about attempting to take action, at least at a minimum, tried to do that prior to last week. I'll get into the testimony on the timing once we get into the private session. The other thing I would point out about this letter is that it tellingly does not contain an address for Ms. Wang. I'll get into that more in the private session. It says it was sent by personal delivery. There's no evidence at all this was actually delivered. And if you look at the text of what is written here it is so abundantly, transparently a litigation tactic in that the debtor sends a letter saying that Ms. Wang, I want you to -- plus he says, and he says in the second sentence, the trustee believes that I control Ace Decade and is requiring that I utilize that perceived control to direct you to execute the attached share transfer instrument and share transfer resolution. But he's admitting on the face of the letter that he's sending to Ms. Wang, purportedly asking her to take\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 101 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 101 these actions that he doesn't even think he has the ability to request what's he's requesting. The idea that he in good faith believes that she's actually going to comply with that request is simply not -- it's not believable.\n\n Similarly in the last sentence, to the extent I have any authority. Again, a transparent admission to the recipient of the letter don't do what I'm asking you to do because I don't have the ability to do it.\n\n Your Honor, this was filed in order to make it seem like the debtor is taking action to comply with his obligation under the corporate governance order and the Bankruptcy Code. Again, we'll get into more testimony about it in the closed session.\n\n And the share transfer resolution and the director resolution, Attorney Henzy conceded to you in his argument that those were ineffectual because Ms. Wang -- and by the way, Your Honor, the debtor, in his opposition to the motion, again, which led with the now dropped argument that he didn't own Ace Decade, he didn't even mention who the beneficial or nominee or other shareholder of Ace Decade was. That remained a mystery until this letter was entered as an exhibit as far as the debtor is concerned.\n\n So the idea that he has been acting in good faith to take steps to cause Ms. Wang, who he didn't even identify to us until November 10th, to take action to cause control\n\n| | 115 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
102 |\n| 1 | of Ace Decade to be transferred to the trustee is simply |\n| 2 | untrue. |\n| 3 | Your Honor, before we go into the private session, |\n| 4 | I just want to wrap things up and recap where we are. |\n| 5 | What the debtor would ask the Court to do is not |\n| 6 | there.
And the consequence of that would be for the trustee |\n| 7 | to have to continue doing what he's had to do since day one |\n| 8 | in this case, which is scratch and fight and claw and spend |\n| 9 | a ton of money and unnecessary time and effort to get what |\n| 10 | he should have as a matter of law. |\n| 11 | The debtor would have the trustee chase Yvette |\n| 12 | Wang, to the extent he can even find her, to the BVI or |\n| 13 | elsewhere, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying |\n| 14 | to compel her to do something that the evidence is very |\n| 15 | clear the debtor can do. |\n| 16 | There is no credible argument that the debtor, who |\n| 17 | has a long relationship with Ms. Wang, has done everything |\n| 18 | he reasonably is required to do in accordance with the order |\n| 19 | of this court and his obligations under the Bankruptcy Code |\n| 20 | to make the transfer of the shares occur and to allow the |\n| 21 | trustee to have the control that he is entitled to have. |\n| 22 | Now, I have more comments that go to that and more |\n| 23 | evidence that supports those points that I will reserve for |\n| 24 | the private session, but, Your Honor, we think, based on the |\n| 25 | record relating to this motion, based on the record in this |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 102 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 103 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
103 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | case, that it is clear the debtor has not complied with the |\n| 2 | corporate governance rights order, should be held in |\n| 3 | contempt, and he should be ordered not to take some |\n| 4 | additional specific action to, oh, you know, revise that |\n| 5 | letter, which I'm sure is an argument that Mr. Henzy will |\n| 6 | make to say something slightly different, what the debtor |\n| 7 | needs to do and what the trustee would ask the Court to do |\n| 8 | is to compel the debtor to have the shares transferred to |\n| 9 | the trustee, period.
He has the ability to do that. |\n| 10 | The Court should set a deadline.
If he doesn't do |\n| 11 | it by that deadline, and the trustee doesn't have the |\n| 12 | shares, then the Court should at that point consider what |\n| 13 | the sanctions are going to be for his continued failure to |\n| 14 | comply.
And those sanctions are wide ranging in the |\n| 15 | discretion of the Court and they include confinement. |\n| 16 | I had a case last year before Judge Sontchi in |\n| 17 | Delaware, very similar circumstances, exactly, actually a |\n| 18 | year ago today, Your Honor, November 2021.
The Eagle |\n| 19 | Hospitality case.
We were debtor's counsel.
We had two |\n| 20 | former principals of the debtor who were subject to a |\n| 21 | preliminary injunction order that we entered against them. |\n| 22 | They were required to provide an accounting, to take public |\n| 23 | steps to provide information to the debtor.
They repeatedly |\n| 24 | failed to do that. |\n| | |\n\nWe asked the Court to enter an order of contempt\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1196 | Filed 12/03/22 | Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 | Page 104 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
104 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | with the consequence of failure to comply being confinement. |\n| 2 | Judge Sontchi entered an order that gave them two |\n| 3 | weeks to comply.
If they didn't within those two weeks, the |\n| 4 | order stated that they would be committed and confined |\n| 5 | without further notice by order of the sheriff. |\n| 6 | And what happened?
They complied.
And that, the |\n| 7 | case reference, for Your Honor, just so you have it, again, |\n| 8 | as I said, it's the Eagle Hospitality case.
The case number |\n| 9 | is 21-10036 and the order is at ECF 1686. |\n| 10 | So, Your Honor, we are really -- and I think, I |\n| 11 | hope Your Honor is gathering from my comments that we are |\n| 12 | getting to our wits end with the amount of effort we've had |\n| 13 | to expend getting simple compliance from this debtor in this |\n| 14 | case in order for the trustee to exercise his duties that he |\n| 15 | is tasked with exercising under the Bankruptcy Code. |\n| 16 | So we would ask that an order be issued finding |\n| 17 | the debtor in contempt. |\n| 18 | Again, as I said, I'm happy to address additional |\n| 19 | points during the closed session. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | Attorney Henzy -- |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
May I respond, Your Honor? |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- you have an opportunity to reply |\n| 24 | and then this will -- then we will be done with the portion |\n| 25 | of the hearing that will be open to the public.
So go right |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 105 of
115 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
105 |\n| 1 | ahead. |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | Almost the first remark I made, Your Honor, was I |\n| 4 | understand -- I could not understand that there had been a |\n| 5 | tremendous amount of activity and dispute in this case. |\n| 6 | The only thing before the Court today is whether |\n| 7 | or not the debtor has failed to comply with the corporate |\n| 8 | governance order.
There is no other part of this case that |\n| 9 | is relevant to what is before the Court today. |\n| 10 | I will get to the 521(a)(3) and (4) argument in |\n| 11 | terms of the debtor's ability -- sort of I'll call it |\n| 12 | practical ability to comply. |\n| 13 | But this is important.
This goes to my first |\n| 14 | argument, Your Honor, about what the corporate governance |\n| 15 | order says and does.
It states what is the black letter |\n| 16 | law, which that as of Mr. Despins' appointment he had all |\n| 17 | corporate governance rights. |\n| 18 | In terms of the debtor's ability to cooperate |\n| 19 | under 521(a)(3), a demand by the trustee for cooperation has |\n| 20 | to be reasonable. |\n| 21 | What Mr. Despins is positing in this situation |\n| 22 | where the debtor is -- who Mr. Despins has consistently said |\n| 23 | is not the beneficial owner upon Mr. Despins' appointment -- |\n| 24 | is going to the director and nominee shareholder and saying |\n| 25 | to the director and nominee shareholder I am directing you |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 106 of
115 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
106 |\n| and telling you to do this. |\n| And under the corporate governance order the |\n| director and nominee shareholder would be well within that |\n| person's right to say what is your authority to be asking me |\n| to do this? |\n| And the answer is that Mr. -- as of Mr. Despins' |\n| appointment Mr. Kwok has no authority according to the |\n| trustee.
He had no authority to direct the director and |\n| nominee shareholder to do anything. |\n| So the 521(a)(3), and I'll get to the second part |\n| of the 521(a)(3) problem, the 521(a)(3) problem is by the |\n| corporate governance order that Mr. Despins asked you to |\n| order, enter, and by the operation of the Bankruptcy Code, |\n| how does Mr. Kwok comply with that? |\n| Does he -- does he use physical force if the |\n| person says, no, I don't think that that is what is -- that |\n| is what is complicated -- contemplated. |\n| Give me one moment, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| MR. HENZY:
Mr. Bassett, I think, just passed over |\n| my second argument. |\n| And, you know, I don't know that anybody is going |\n| to feel sorry for me if I'm at my wits end, but my |\n| consistent position or my consistent belief here, Your |\n| Honor, has been this is -- this has been a waste of time. |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 107 of\n\n| 115 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
107 | | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | The corporate governance order is clear what Mr. | | | | | |\n| 2 | Despins could have done here.
He had the authority under | | | | | |\n| 3 | that order to replace the director and nominee shareholder | | | | | |\n| 4 | and to take whatever corporate action he wanted to take. | | | | | |\n| 5 | That would have been fast.
It would have been cheap.
It | | | | | |\n| 6 | would have been easy. | | | | | |\n| 7 | As I've said, the debtor will not object to that. | | | | | |\n| 8 | The debtor never would have objected to that. | | | | | |\n| 9 | If Mr. Despins wants to have -- wanted to or wants | | | | | |\n| 10 | to have that blessed by the Court, he can do that. | | | | | |\n| 11 | I don't know why we've had to have this fight. | | | | | |\n| 12 | This is distinguishable.
And, again, this goes to | | | | | |\n| 13 | my argument, Your Honor, that if you're going to read into | | | | | |\n| 14 | this order what the trustee is asking you to read into the | | | | | |\n| 15 | order, then I think the order is ambiguous. | | | | | |\n| 16 | And I haven't seen Judge Sontchi's order, but just | | | | | |\n| 17 | from what Mr. Bassett said, this is not a case where you | | | | | |\n| 18 | ordered -- you ordered Mr. Kwok to provide an accounting. | | | | | |\n| 19 | This is -- this is an order where you said the | | | | | |\n| 20 | trustee has all corporate governance rights of any debtor | | | | | |\n| 21 | controlled entity, and you ordered Mr. Kwok to cooperate. | | | | | |\n| 22 | This is not something where you specifically said | | | | | |\n| 23 | something like provide an accounting.
You didn't | | | | | |\n| 24 | specifically say here, notwithstanding that you are not the | | | | | |\n| 25 | beneficial owner, you need to go and direct this person to | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1196 | Filed 12/03/22 | Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 | Page 108 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
108 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | take corporate action when you -- will not just enter an |\n| 2 | order that says you have no corporate authority. |\n| 3 | The 521(a)(3) language, Your Honor, in the order, |\n| 4 | it says, as Mr. Bassett quoted, as necessary to perform |\n| 5 | trustee's duties.
And that's from the code. |\n| 6 | And, again, the argument is this was -- this was |\n| 7 | not necessary for the trustee to perform the trustee's |\n| 8 | duties.
What the trustee could have done very easily and |\n| 9 | quickly and cheaply was simply to take corporate action by |\n| 10 | himself.
That was expressly provided for in the corporate |\n| 11 | governance order. |\n| 12 | Your Honor, I'll say again, if -- and this, you |\n| 13 | know, we'll get to the 521(a)(3) argument in terms of what |\n| 14 | Mr. Kwok can or can't do.
He can't use physical force. |\n| 15 | If there's a communication that the trustee or the |\n| 16 | Court thinks is necessary to send, then I would like to be |\n| 17 | told that, what it is, because right now I don't know what |\n| 18 | it is that would satisfy the trustee or from the Court's |\n| 19 | perspective the order entered by the Court. |\n| 20 | And, you know, within reason, Mr. Kwok is going to |\n| 21 | do what the Court specifically orders him to do.
That's |\n| 22 | all, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
All right. |\n| 24 | With regard to the continuation of the hearing |\n| 25 | that will be under seal, Attorney Bassett and Attorney |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 109 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 109\n\n| 1 | Linsey, your motion for seal talked about certain parties |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | being able to see the information even under seal because of |\n| 3 | the protective order and all those parties being bound by |\n| 4 | the protective order.
So the trustee, the debtor, PAX, the |\n| 5 | committee and the United States Trustee are all bound by the |\n| | |\n\n MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. Solely with respect to the Kwok deposition transcript.\n\nprotective order. Is that accurate?\n\n THE COURT: What about the other documents then? MR. LINSEY: The other documents can only be available to the Court, the debtor and the trustee.\n\n THE COURT: So we're going to have to break down the session into two sessions. We're going to have to deal with the deposition transcript separate and apart from all the other exhibits. Is that correct?\n\n MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. I apologize. I know it's inconvenient. It is -- THE COURT: Oh, that's --\n\n MR. LINSEY: -- unfortunately just a creature -- THE COURT: That's what I --\n\n MR. LINSEY: -- of what we're dealing with. THE COURT: That's what I envisioned, but I needed -- I need you to, as you just have, articulate that for the record.\n\n#### MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 110 of\n\n| | 11 | 0 |\n|--|----|---|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
110 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I mean, that's what I had -- you're |\n| 2 | breaking -- it's breaking down into the parties who are |\n| 3 | bound by the protective order can see the deposition |\n| 4 | transcript.
But no one other than the debtor and the |\n| 5 | trustee can argue about the other documents that are under |\n| 6 | seal because they subject to the attorney-client privilege |\n| 7 | and the work product doctrine? |\n| 8 | MR. LINSEY:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
And, Your Honor, practically I don't |\n| 11 | know how that's going to work, Your Honor, because I don't |\n| 12 | know how I'm going to try to pull the pieces of the argument |\n| 13 | apart to make reference to parts that are under seal as |\n| 14 | attorney-client privilege versus not under seal as attorney |\n| 15 | client privilege. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, I'll tell you how it's going to |\n| 17 | work.
We're going to limit the discussion with everyone |\n| 18 | else in the room to the deposition transcript and then we're |\n| 19 | going to break again and you're going to talk about the |\n| 20 | sealed exhibits.
That's how it's going to work. |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
Very well, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay?
So what we're going to do now |\n| 23 | then is we will take a recess until 3:00 p.m. |\n| 24 | And the hearing will reconvene to address solely |\n| 25 | Exhibit -- I think it's Exhibit 27, which is ECF 1100, which |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 111 of
115 | | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
111 | | | | |\n| 1 | is the deposition of Mr. Kwok that was conducted last Friday | | | | |\n| 2 | I believe. | | | | |\n| 3 | And the parties that will be able to be in that | | | | |\n| 4 | portion of the hearing are the parties bound by the | | | | |\n| 5 | protective order, that have all signed onto the protective | | | | |\n| 6 | order, that I already mentioned on the record, which is the | | | | |\n| 7 | debtor, the trustee, the U.S. Trustee, PAX and the | | | | |\n| 8 | committee. | | | | |\n| 9 | Okay.
Court is in recess until 3:00 p.m. | | | | |\n| 10 | (Recess from 2:42 p.m. until 3:14 p.m.) | | | | |\n| 11 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Court is in sessions after | | | | |\n| 12 | recess. | | | | |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good afternoon.
In accordance | | | | |\n| 14 | with the order that was read into the record during this | | | | |\n| 15 | hearing today granting the trustee's motion to dismiss, the | | | | |\n| 16 | trustee's motion to seal, excuse me, I looked at something | | | | |\n| 17 | that says dismissed on it when I was saying that, I | | | | |\n| 18 | apologize, this portion of the hearing will be under seal | | | | |\n| 19 | and the parties that are able to attend this portion of the | | | | |\n| 20 | hearing are the trustee, the debtor, the United States | | | | |\n| 21 | Trustee and Pax. | | | | |\n| 22 | Have I forgotten anyone?
I see no one else | | | | |\n| 23 | participating in the hearing looking at the screen other | | | | |\n| 24 | than those parties.
Oh, except Mr. Wolman.
I don't know | | | | |\n| 25 | why Mr. Wolman is still here because he's not one of those | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 112 parties. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I can put him in the waiting room and I will do that now. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KAPLAN: And, Your Honor, I believe the committee. I not sure if you said us, but I think we were included in that. THE COURT: I might not have said that, Attorney Kaplan, so you're right to make sure I did because the committee is one of the parties. I did say that before the recess, but I didn't just say that. So thank you. Okay. So we are going to only address -- oh, I'm sorry, go ahead. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Am I sealing the recording? THE COURT: You're sealing the recording as well, yes. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. I will. THE COURT: This is going to be a sealed portion of this hearing. (Audio portion from 3:15 p.m. until 4:04 p.m. sealed.) Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 112 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 113 of
115 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022
113 |\n| 1 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court |\n| 2 | Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a |\n| 3 | correct transcript from the official electronic sound |\n| 4 | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |\n| 5 | |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | December 2, 2022 |\n| 8 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
Page 114 of
115 | | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|------|--|--|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 | 114 | | |\n| 1 | | INDEX | | | |\n| 2 | | | Page | | |\n| 3 | | TRUSTEE'S EXHIBITS: | | | |\n| 4 | 32 | Declaration of Guo Wengui in Wengui v. Li | 51 | | |\n| 5 | 33 | Letter from Wedlake Bell LLP to Paul Hastings | 51 | | |\n| 6 | | dated November 3, 2022 concerning Ace Decade | | | |\n| 7 | | Holdings Limited and Dawn State Limited | | | |\n| 8 | | | | | |\n| 9 | | DEBTOR'S EXHIBITS: | | | |\n| 10 | B | November 10, 2022 letter from the Debtor to | 62 | | |\n| 11 | | the director and nominee shareholder of | | | |\n| 12 | | Ace Decade Holdings Limited with attached | | | |\n| 13 | | Share Transfer Instrument and Share | | | |\n| 14 | | Transfer Resolution | | | |\n| 15 | C | Ace Decade Holdings Limited Share Transfer | 62 | | |\n| 16 | | Instrument signed by the Debtor | | | |\n| 17 | D | Ace Decade Holdings Limited Share Transfer | 62 | | |\n| 18 | | Resolution signed by the Debtor | | | |\n| 19 | E | Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections | 62 | | |\n| 20 | | 363, 521, 1108, and 1505, (A) Confirming that | | | |\n| 21 | | Chapter 11 Trustee holds all of the Debtor's | | | |\n| 22 | | Economic and Corporate Governance Rights in | | | |\n| 23 | | Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing | | | |\n| 24 | | Chapter 11 Trustee to act in any foreign country on | | | |\n| 25 | | behalf of Estate, and, (C) Granting related relief. | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 1196
Filed 12/03/22
Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16
115 | Page 115 of |\n|----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 | 115 |\n| 1 | | INDEX (Continued) | |\n| 2 | | | Page |\n| 3 | | DEBTOR'S EXHIBITS (Continued): | |\n| 4 | G | Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of | 62 |\n| 5 | | Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections | |\n| 6 | | 363, 521, 1108, and 1505, (A) Confirming that | |\n| 7 | | Chapter 11 Trustee holds all of the Debtor's | |\n| 8 | | Economic and Corporate Governance Rights in | |\n| 9 | | Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing | |\n| 10 | | Chapter 11 Trustee to act in any foreign | |\n| 11 | | country on behalf of Estate, and, | |\n| 12 | | (C) Granting related relief. | |\n| 13 | H | August 1, 2022 Hearing Transcript excerpts, | 65 |\n| 14 | | page 118, line
13, and page 121, lines 13 | |\n| 15 | | through 25 | |\n| 16 | I | August 4, 2022 Hearing Transcript excerpts, | 66 |\n| 17 | | page 17, lines 15 through 17 | |\n| 18 | | August 4, 2022 Hearing Transcript excerpts, | 79 |\n| 19 | | page 64, line 14, and lines 19 through 22 | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部\n\n关于 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings Corporation），\n\n债务人。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（Genever Holdings, LLC）， 案件编号 22-50592 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\nNovember 18, 2022\n\n关于密封动议；第11章受托人请求作出裁定，因债务人未遵守公司治理权利命令而认定其构成民事藐视法庭的动议；以及第11章受托人请求作出裁定，强制个人债务人、MEI GUI（梅贵）、HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC（HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC）、HING CHI NGOK（邢志岳）、GREENWICH LAND LLC（Greenwich Land LLC）、LAMP CAPITAL LLC（Lamp Capital LLC）及 COLD SPRING (NEW YORK) LTR（Cold Spring (New York) LTR）遵守规则2004传票的动议之庭审记录\n\n主审法官：尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官\n\n出庭律师：\n\n代理债务人：\nERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·A·亨齐律师）\nJAMES MORIARTY, ESQ.（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂律师）\nJOHN CESARONI, ESQ.（约翰·塞萨罗尼律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代理第11章受托人：\nNICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特律师）\nAVI LUFT, ESQ.（阿维·卢夫特律师）\nDOUGLASS BARRON, ESQ.（道格拉斯·巴伦律师）\nALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ.（亚历山大·邦加茨律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n庭审程序以电子录音方式记录，庭审记录由转录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与转录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭律师：（续）\n\n代理债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.）：\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫律师）\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥麦文与迈尔斯律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代理美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（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\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代理债权人委员会：\nJONATHAN KAPLAN, ESQ.（乔纳森·卡普兰律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代理债权人 Logan Cheng（郑洛根）：\nJAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ.（杰伊·马歇尔·沃尔曼律师）\nRandazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团）\n100 Pearl Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1196，提交于 12/03/22，录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16，第 3 页，共 115 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022\n\n3\n\n（程序于上午10:41开始）\n\n法庭书记员：案件编号 22-50592，Genever Holdings, LLC，以及案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok 和 Genever Holdings Corporation。\n\n法庭：请第11章受托人先为记录说明出庭身份。\n\nBASSETT先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所的尼克·巴塞特，代表第11章受托人。Despins受托人今天上午无法出席本次庭审。\n\n法庭：好的。早上好。还有其他代表第11章受托人的人吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是帕特里克·林西，也代表受托人。\n\nLUFT先生：法官阁下，我是保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所的阿维·卢夫特，也代表第11章受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nLUFT先生：早上好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。美国受托人办公室？\n\nBARRON先生：法官阁下，请原谅。我是道格拉斯·巴伦，也代表——\n\n法庭：哦，对不起。我没有——\n\nBARRON先生：——也代表第11章\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1196，提交于 12/03/22，录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16，第 4 页，共 115 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022\n\n4\n\n受托人。抱歉。\n\n法庭：请等一下。请等一下。我们在互相抢话。我没看到您，巴伦律师，所以请继续。\n\nBARRON先生：抱歉。我的静音按钮有些延迟。我是道格拉斯·巴伦，也代表第11章受托人，同样来自保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所。我只是想说明我的出庭身份。\n\n法庭：是的。谢谢。早上好。请美国受托人办公室说明出庭身份？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：早上好，法官阁下。霍莉·克莱伯恩，代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：债务人的律师？\n\nHENZY先生：Zeisler & Zeisler 律师事务所的埃里克·亨齐，代表债务人。\n\n法庭：我应当说——\n\nMORIARTY先生：早上好，法官阁下。詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂，Zeisler & Zeisler 律师事务所，也代表债务人。\n\nCESARONI先生：早上好，法官阁下。约翰·塞萨罗尼，也来自 Zeisler & Zeisler 律师事务所，代表债务人。\n\n法庭：我应当问——你们是否仅——你们是否仅代理个人债务人 Kwok先生？今天其他当事方如何？\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，我相信——本藐视法庭动议中仅涉及 Kwok先生。\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022\n\n5\n\n如果今天审理强制执行动议，那么我们也将代理 Mei Guo（梅国）和 HK International。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nHENZY先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：可以。感谢您为记录澄清这一点。PAX的律师？\n\nSARNOFF先生：斯图尔特·萨诺夫，奥麦文与迈尔斯律师事务所，代表债权人 PAX。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是奥麦文与迈尔斯律师事务所的彼得·弗里德曼，代表 PAX。\n\nSMITH女士：早上好，法官阁下。罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所的安妮卡·史密斯，也代表 PAX。我们是康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nKAPLAN先生：早上好，法官阁下。普尔曼与康利律师事务所的乔纳森·卡普兰，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法庭：早上好。沃尔曼律师，您代理债权人 Cheng？\n\nWOLMAN先生：是的。早上好。兰达扎法律集团的杰伊·沃尔曼，代理债权人 Logan Cheng。\n\n法庭：早上好。好的。我认为每个人都已为记录说明其出庭身份，是否正确？\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1196，提交于 12/03/22，录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16，第 5 页，共 115 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022\n\n6\n\n（无人回应）\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：法官阁下，我是亚历克斯·邦加茨，同样来自保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所，代表第11章受托人。我为之前出现音频问题表示歉意，但我也正通过 Zoom 参加庭审。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。今天——今天我们首先要处理的事项是密封动议及对该密封动议的异议，但在此之前，我有几件事要在我们今天继续进行之前，或在本案任何进一步听证之前，与各方讨论。\n\n昨天的证据听证并未——其组织方式不恰当，且令法院感到非常混乱和难以跟进。这也是我多次表示，如果我们要举行证据听证，就应当亲自到场举行的原因之一。正如各位所见，我们今天上午已经因技术问题损失了25分钟，我不会再这样做了。明白吗？本案——我们需要亲自处理这些问题。今天我们将通过 Zoom 继续进行，因为我曾说过会这样做，但我们必须消除这样一种预期，即本案的一切都将通过 Zoom 进行。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1196，提交于 12/03/22，录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16，第 6 页，共 115 页\n\n这件事足够重要，如果各方希望参加，每个人都需要亲自到场，第一点。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1196，提交于 12/03/22，录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16，第 7 页，共 115 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022\n\n1 第二点，在听证期间向法院提交证据时，无论是通过证人，还是通过律师及其辩论，律师均须请求法庭书记员展示该律师要求各方查阅的相关证物。然后，并且仅在那时，如法院同意如此进行，才会将该文件的控制权交给该律师。\n\n2 我们需要维持一份记录。昨天听证的记录一团糟，我们不会再让这种情况发生。\n\n3 关于密封动议及异议，我已经阅读了二者，并将允许双方进行辩论。\n\n4 但在我们审理密封动议的实质问题之前，我需要受托人的律师就受托人主张——将在本次听证中提交的证物——的每一份具体文件，说明受托人主张构成密封该文件理由的依据适用于每一份具体文件。\n\n5 例如，你们是否主张该文件受保护令、特权令保护；是谁主张何种特权；是第三方，还是债务人；是否为债务人；以及就保护令的条款和条件而言适用何种保密级别，这些都必须在我们审理密封动议之前，在本案记录中具体说明。\n\n6 所以，Bassett先生，我不知道您现在是否准备好这样做。如果没有，而您需要休庭，我们就休庭，但本案必须准备——必须以合乎逻辑的方式准备和组织。\n\n7 我们不会举行一场无序的听证。我们不会让人们进进出出地参加听证。本次听证是一场证据听证，律师必须适当地提交证据。\n\n8 因此，在我们审理密封动议之前，这就是受托人的律师就受托人主张应在本次听证中予以密封的每一份证物所必须做的事。\n\n9 所以，Bassett律师，您是否需要一些时间来整理该等信息？\n\n10 BASSETT先生：法官阁下，受托人的 Linsey律师将负责处理密封动议。我不替他发言，但我相信他现在已准备好这样做。\n\n11 法庭：Linsey律师？\n\n12 LINSEY先生：是的，法官阁下。我可以回应——我可以回应法院的问题。\n\n13 法庭：这不是问题。这是一项要求。你现在面临对一项——\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1196，提交于 12/03/22，录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16，第 8 页，共 115 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022\n\n1 你不仅必须证明你有权要求密封，而且你还面临一项异议，即这些文件均不应被密封。\n\n2 LINSEY先生：好的。\n\n3 法庭：因此，你必须确立为何应当密封。\n\n4 昨天我已非常具体地提出了问题，并就 ECF No. 1099 和 ECF No. 1110 作出了记录。你告诉我那些是密封文件。受托人的证物第20至24号、第28至30号、第34至38号，以及 ECF No. 1099 和证物第27号及 ECF No. 1110。因此，在我们继续审理这项密封动议之前，你需要这样做。\n\n5 LINSEY先生：您说得对，法官阁下。请允许我对此作出回应。\n\n6 就除其中一份以外的所有证物而言，即证物第20、21、22、23、24、28、29、30、34、35、36、37和38号，这些是债务人前律师所作或前律师之间的电子邮件通信或备忘录，受律师—当事人特权保护。在其中一些文件中，存在律师工作成果，我——\n\n7 法庭：我现在就要打断你。这并未回应我的问题。\n\n8 你将逐一处理每一份证物。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）- November 18, 2022\n\n法庭：你将说明受托人依据何种理由主张该文件应予密封。\n\nLINSEY先生（林赛）：好的。\n\n法庭：那么我们从附件20开始。\n\nLINSEY先生：附件20应作为保密的律师—当事人特权材料予以密封。\n\n法庭：谁在主张该律师—当事人特权？\n\nLINSEY先生：财产，即受托人，正在主张该律师—当事人特权。根据特权裁定，他已从债务人处接管对该律师—当事人特权的控制。\n\n法庭：好的。请等一下。这是根据特权裁定所主张的唯一保护吗？你们并未寻求将其认定为保密或高度保密，或者保护令中载明的任何其他类别，对吗，附件20？\n\nLINSEY先生：法官阁下，我不想放弃该项主张。我会说，它是——\n\n法庭：你或许不想放弃，但你必须明确说明你正在主张它。因此你需要——\n\nLINSEY先生：好的。\n\n法庭：因为这项保护令中有各种不同的规定，涉及高度——普通保密级别、高度保密，而且我相信还有其他级别。因此，这些文件是你们制定的。这些文件是你们同意的。你们需要恰当地运用这些裁定的规定，以形成记录，使我能够确定是否应准许你们的密封动议。好吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：是。\n\n法庭：所以你们需要——\n\nLINSEY先生：那么，请允许我——请允许我更清楚地回应这一点，法官阁下。我不想根据保护令对这些材料作出指定的原因是，保护令规定某些被指定的材料可与某些其他方共享，而我们不能与其共享享有特权的材料。因此，尽管如其后认定该材料不享有特权，我们并不放弃作出指定的权利；我们认为该材料显然享有特权，但如将来作出不享有特权的认定，我们并不放弃该项权利。目前，就附件20而言，唯一主张的保护是随附于特权裁定的律师—当事人特权保密性，以及在申请日生效且存在、并由受托人根据其任命而接管控制权的律师—当事人特权，该等控制权亦由法官阁下作出的经同意特权裁定予以实现。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1196 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16 第11页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交于 12/03/22\n录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）- November 18, 2022\n\n法庭：那么，对于附件20，你们请求将该附件密封，且应基于受托人就该附件中所有信息主张律师—当事人特权而予以密封。对吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLINSEY先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么我们继续看附件21。\n\nLINSEY先生：对附件21也是同样的回答，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因此，你们请求因受托人结合特权裁定所主张的律师—当事人特权，而将附件21密封？\n\nLINSEY先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。附件22。\n\nLINSEY先生：对附件22也是同样的回答。即与特权裁定有关的律师—当事人特权。\n\n法庭：附件23。\n\nLINSEY先生：对附件23也是同样的回答，即与特权裁定有关的律师—当事人特权。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）- November 18, 2022\n\n法庭：附件24。\n\nLINSEY先生：对于附件24也是同样的回答，即与特权裁定有关的律师—当事人特权。\n\n法庭：好的。接下来是附件28。\n\nLINSEY先生：法官阁下，我们刚才是否跳过了27？\n\n法庭：附件28。是的。我们跳过27，因为那是 ECF No. 1110。\n\nLINSEY先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我们现在处理的是 ECF No. 1099。\n\nLINSEY先生：没问题。我稍后会说明为什么它们被分别登记。附件28也是同样的回答，即与法院特权裁定有关的律师—当事人特权。\n\n法庭：好的。然后是附件29。\n\nLINSEY先生：与法院特权裁定有关的律师—当事人特权。\n\n法庭：你说法院特权裁定，但那是经法院批准的关于特权的同意裁定。\n\nLINSEY先生：当事人的同意以及法院的裁定。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1196 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16 第13页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）- November 18, 2022\n\n法庭：对。\n\nLINSEY先生：但无论何种表述才是适当的，我都遵从法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我只是希望记录明确表明，这是经同意作出的裁定。\n\nLINSEY先生：感谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。附件30。\n\nLINSEY先生：与同意特权裁定有关的律师—当事人特权。\n\n法庭：附件34。\n\nLINSEY先生：与同意特权裁定有关的律师—当事人特权。\n\n法庭：附件35。\n\nLINSEY先生：与同意特权裁定有关的律师—当事人特权。\n\n法庭：36。\n\nLINSEY先生：与同意特权裁定有关的律师—当事人特权。\n\n法庭：37。\n\nLINSEY先生：与同意特权裁定有关的律师—当事人特权。\n\n法庭：38。\n\nLINSEY先生：与同意特权裁定有关的律师—当事人特权。尤其是这一份还属于工作成果，这仅是一项一般性的普通法保护。并且，法官阁下，在我的——在我的论证中，我将说明所有这些如何与107相关。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1196 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16 第14页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）- November 18, 2022\n\n法庭：不。不。停下。停下。\n\nLINSEY先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：现在还不行。我还没准备好。我们不会——我们不会举行一场毫无约束的听证会。这是——我们不——我们不会那样做。因此现在，Linsey律师，你已说明了以密封方式提交的每一份附件以及 ECF No. 1099，对吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们转到 ECF 1110，显然其中只有附件27。\n\nLINSEY先生：那是债务人的证词笔录，来自上周对债务人进行的证词询问。债务人的律师将该笔录标记为高度保密。受托人有义务将任何高度保密材料以密封方式提交，因此，为遵守受托人在保护令下的义务，该材料被以密封方式提交。\n\n法庭：即使一方通过签署协议同意受保密——抱歉，保护令约束，高度保密信息也不与该人共享，还是会与该人共享？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1196 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16 第15页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交于 12/03/22\n录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）- November 18, 2022\n\nLINSEY先生：已——因此，根据保护令，对于任何被指定为高度保密的材料，而这正是我们此处所讨论的，委员会和 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的律师获准查阅高度保密文件。\n\n已签署保护令附件的当事人的律师也可查阅高度保密文件。然而，这须经作出指定的一方同意，且该同意不得被无理拒绝。\n\n据我了解，PAX（PAX）已签署保护令附件，而我已向 Henzy先生（亨齐）询问债务人是否同意向PAX披露该附件并将其视为高度保密。并且，据我了解，如我有误 Henzy先生可以纠正我，债务人并不反对。这多少已成既成事实。PAX的律师当时正在参加证词询问。\n\n因此，出于该原因，U.S. Trustee、委员会以及PAX的律师，连同债务人，当然还有 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）和法院，均可查阅附件27。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nMORIARTY先生（莫里亚蒂）：法官阁下，我是代表债务人的 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）。如果我对证词笔录补充一点背景情况，法院是否允许？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交于 12/03/22\n录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）- November 18, 2022\n\n法庭：目的何在？\n\nMORIARTY先生：嗯，也许我可以使该项动议的那一部分有可能自行解决。\n\n法庭：好的。那么让我听听你要说什么。\n\nMORIARTY先生：上周五对债务人进行了证词询问，原定于周二开始举行听证会。根据保护令，在听证会前不足五个工作日进行的证词询问，自动被视为保密。\n\n随后，作出指定的一方，在本案中即债务人，有十天时间审阅笔录，并在其认为指定应更为狭窄的范围内，实际作出其认为适当的任何更狭窄指定。\n\n因此，我们的十日期限，即债务人的十日期限，将于即将到来的周一届满。债务人打算在案卷中提交附件27的删节版本，限于适宜删节的部分。\n\n就今日听证会而言，若 Henzy律师或 Bassett律师（巴塞特）拟使用该笔录，我们不会提出异议。我们不会请求清空法庭。今日听证会期间被讨论或展示的任何部分，将在周一提交的文件中不作删节。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1196 提交于 12/03/22 录入于 12/03/22 11:30:16 第18页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）- November 18, 2022\n\n法庭：好的。因此，你的意思是，就目前存在于 ECF No. 1110 中且已被密封的文件而言，债务人不反对在今天的听证会上由 Bassett律师或 Henzy律师展示该文件；并且你们将在周一于案卷中提交该文件的删节版本，其中将包括——将包括今天在法庭上展示的任何内容，如有，且不作删节。对吗？\n\nMORIARTY先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，关于 ECF No. 1110，如该文件被密封，如密封动议获准，它只会被部分密封，而且最终可能只是暂时密封；将会有一个删节版本，任何人均可查看并确定其是否想查看其余部分。你的意思是这样吗？\n\nMORIARTY先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：或者，如果有人想查看 ECF 1110——1110，而其尚非保护令的一方，其可成为保护令的一方，并查看该笔录，对吗？\n\nMORIARTY先生：依照保护令的条款以及作出指定的一方所享有的任何权利。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n当事人所持有的，正确。法庭：好的。非常感谢。Wolman 律师（沃尔曼律师）：法官阁下，我可以就这份简短的证物陈述意见吗？法庭：我们尚未准备讨论密封动议，Wolman 律师，所以不可以。我们将在一分钟后讨论密封动议。好的。那么，这就是证物的状况，对吗，Linsey 律师（林齐律师）？Linsey 律师：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。好的。现在，请就你的密封动议继续陈述。Linsey 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。我必须承认，我有些惊讶有人认为该密封动议具有争议性，但鉴于已经提交的异议，我可以向法庭提供若干判例引文，表明该法典规定应对享有特权的材料，特别是受律师—当事人特权保护的材料予以密封。不过，首先我想简要概述这里所涉事项，以及为何受托人所请求的救济既重要又范围狭窄。本案中，受托人被指定，并被赋予对债务人律师—当事人特权在实质事项上的某些控制权。Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 19 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 20 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n法官阁下曾作出该项认定，并如我们所讨论的那样将其作为一项同意命令录入。没有人对该同意命令提出上诉。\n\n本案始终充满冲突：一方面，受托人为履行其义务并取得对破产财产资产的控制权；另一方面，债务人则作出我们所见的回应行为。\n\n密封动议附随于受托人提出的藐视法庭动议程序，该动议最终旨在允许受托人主张破产财产对资产 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）和 Dawn State（道恩州）的合法控制权；二者均为针对 UBS（瑞银集团）在英国待决的一项 $500 million 索赔的当事方。该索赔是破产财产的一项资产。\n\n就藐视法庭动议而言，涉及债务人前律师事务所的某些享有特权的电子邮件通信和律师备忘录，与存在争议的事实问题有关，即债务人与 Wang 女士（王女士）之间的关系。\n\n与英国 UBS 诉讼有关的律师—当事人特权至关重要。我们所谈的是一项可能具有价值的破产财产资产，而受托人负有为债权人利益最大化其价值的义务。\n\n损害与 UBS 诉讼有关主题事项上的律师—当事人特权，显然会在商业上损害破产财产。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1196\nFiled 12/03/22\nEntered 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n对债务人前任律师工作成果的进一步披露，相当于披露具有价值的机密研究；不必要地披露该等研究将使其价值荡然无存。\n\n目前就 UBS 相关事项仍有诉讼在进行；因此，对律师—当事人特权和工作成果保密性的威胁，会威胁到破产财产索赔的价值。\n\n我只想强调这一点，因为根据 Section 107，只需证明对某一实体存在损害的可能性。\n\n这里存在的是对整个破产财产、众多实体以及本案利害关系人造成损害的可能性。\n\n因此，这就是受托人在处理这些特定享有特权文件时的出发点。\n\n那么，受托人本来会怎么做？\n\n受托人本可以请求完全不公开审理藐视法庭动议程序，并密封各方的证物和诉状，但受托人认识到公众对公开享有利益，因此受托人采取了一种审慎、精准的做法。\n\n在最大可能范围内，受托人已对除一份证物外的所有证物维持了至关重要的保密性，原因在于我已讨论过的律师—当事人特权和工作成果问题。所有其他证物均已列入案卷。\n\n受托人仅在其答复备忘录中遮盖了源自已密封证物、享有特权材料或机密材料的信息。\n\n受托人还已公开举行听证，并准备在大部分情况下继续公开审理藐视法庭动议，仅在必要时请求举行有限的庭审环节，以便在各方均不在场的情况下讨论受保护材料。\n\n受托人还以有针对性地遮盖受保护材料的方式，在公开案卷中提交了其答复，并提出动议以确保该问题提交法庭审理、得到理解，且法庭的认定范围狭窄、具有针对性、正当且清晰明确。\n\n该法典的 Section 107 保护实体免受有关商业秘密或机密研究、开发或商业信息的损害。\n\n众多判例认定，律师—当事人特权或工作成果属于 107 的范围。我要宣读 In re: 50-Off Stores, Inc.，其引注为 213 B.R. 646，一宗来自——的破产法院案件。\n\n法庭：你能说一下案件名称吗。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n抱歉。Linsey 律师：是的，法官阁下。法庭：你能再说一遍案件名称和引注吗，Linsey 律师？Linsey 律师：是的，法官阁下。In re 50-Off Stores, Inc., 213 B.R. 646，具体页码引注为 655。这是 Texas（得克萨斯州）Western District（西区）破产法院在 1997 年作出的案件。以下引自该案：“Section 107(b) 依其明文规定，赋予破产法官一定权力，可通过允许法庭就机密研究或商业信息保护某一实体，来防止这种显而易见的不公。律师的工作成果当然是一种机密研究，属于该法条保护的明确文字范围。而当事人向其律师秘密作出的披露，当然也是一种机密商业信息。”我还要引用 In re: Pasquinelli Home Building, LLC 一案。Pasquinelli 拼写为 P-A-S-Q-U-I-N-E-L-L-I。Lexis 引注为 213 Bankruptcy Lexis 605。Westlaw 引注为 213 W.L. 594459。这是 Illinois（伊利诺伊州）Northern District（北区）破产法院在 2013 年作出的裁决。在该裁决中，法庭根据 107，就一项聘任申请密封了文件，因为该聘任申请中的文件披露了涉及律师—当事人特权的机密诉讼策略和主题事项。Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 23 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 24 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n破产法院认定，聘任申请存在的理由是为了最大化该项破产财产资产的价值，而披露律师—当事人特权将威胁该资产的价值。因此，从这个意义上说，该案与本案尤其切题。\n\n我还可以引用 Marigrove, Inc. v. De Arruda, D-E A-R-R-U-D-A, Pinto, P-I-N-T-O, 215 U.S. District Lexis 66312 一案。该案中，破产法院认定，对包括工作成果在内、有关调查进展的已密封动议予以密封是正当的，因为解封该动议可能危及受托人追回数亿美元损失的努力。该案中的地区法院维持了破产法院的裁决。\n\n我还要提请法庭注意，我认为通过类比该案具有相关性——其与 107 无关，但 Team Obsolete, Ltd. vs. A.H.R.M.A., 464 F. Supp. 2d 164，是 Eastern District of New York（纽约东区）地区法院的一宗案件。该裁决指出，就律师退出代理的动议而言，法院通常接纳律师—当事人特权证据，但会将其密封，以保护律师—当事人特权所涉的重要利益。Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 25 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 26 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n该案就此汇集了 Second Circuit（第二巡回区）的判例。因此，当然，本案中存在各种支持密封的救济依据。\n\n但从常识以及“有权利即有救济”的古老格言来看，受托人有权使用——保留这些享有律师—当事人特权的文件，因为受托人已经承继了该特权。\n\n不可能出现这样的情况：受托人不能使用这些文件来纠正其与债务人之间的分歧，除非放弃该特权并损害价值数亿美元的索赔价值。\n\n现在，我理解已经普遍讨论过的关切，即查阅公开提交文件的权利、可能根据 First Amendment（美国宪法第一修正案）存在的权利，以及公众知情权方面的关切，我明白。我在上法学院之前曾是一名报纸记者，我相信这些。\n\n但是，法官阁下，在这里，既然已经就为何需要保密作出了如此具体的（听不清）说明，也已采取保护措施和程序，以确保其尽可能具有针对性，我要说，在某个时候，任何对此有异议的人都有责任准确说明他们为何需要看到这些材料。\n\n我的意思是，我们讨论的是为有限目的提交的有限通信，即一项独立的事实争议，一项仅存在于受托人与债务人之间的事实争议。受托人在该争议中的成功将使破产财产中的所有债权人受益。\n\n因此，鉴于已证明密封文件具有重大必要性，鉴于受托人提出的程序范围狭窄，并且该等程序得到《破产法典》及解释该法典的判例法支持，我们请求法庭准许该动议。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。Wolman 律师？\n\nWolman 律师：法官阁下，如果可以？\n\n没有理由——我们无需说明理由。理由是 Cheng 先生（郑先生）和公众享有权利，这就是理由。这是唯一曾经——唯一需要的理由。没有人必须解释为何他们想要投票。没有人必须解释为何他们想要持有武器。没有人必须解释为何他们想要在审判中聘请律师为自己辩护。他们就是可以。\n\n唯一的——Linsey 律师提到，在……之处\n\n有权利即有救济。我们此处所讨论的唯一权利是《第一修正案》权利。律师—当事人特权是一项特权。特权在定义上不是一项权利。\n\n因此，这里有大量证据材料，即来自 1099 的 20、21、22、23 等等，我尚未见过。我不知道它们是什么。\n\n我们没有对相当于特权清单的内容作出说明，即每一项是什么、通信主体是谁，以及为何披露该特定文件会造成损害。他们既根据第 107 条，也根据《第一修正案》权利列举了这些材料。\n\n他们没有说明，如果这些内容曝光，究竟会发生什么。例如，在某人退出代理某人的情况下，通常会存在直接的律师—当事人通信，可能涉及某种不道德问题；如果这就是法院需要处理并准许退出代理的原因，那么一旦披露，可能会损害该当事人。\n\n在此处，他们称这可能会以某种方式影响这起 UBS 诉讼；他们说，他们的处理方式具有针对性，但我无从知晓。我无法作出这种断言。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 27 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 28 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）—2022年11月18日\n\n法院需要运用其自身判断并说明，好，这份文件以及文件的全部内容——也许只是文件的一小部分，我们究竟在讨论什么——因为提出动议的一方负有举证责任，而且寻求密封的一方始终负有证明为何需要密封的责任，但他们尚未作出陈述。\n\n现在，关于证据材料 27，我认为它在——我听说——实际上，我认为它是 ECF 1100，而不是 1110。\n\n法院：你说得对。我口误了。\n\nWOLMAN先生（沃尔曼先生）：昨天我们讨论的是 1100。\n\n法院：你说得对。我把编号说错了。\n\nWOLMAN先生：但今天上午法院提到了 1110，不过我认为那是完全不同的一份文件，而且是一项命令。\n\n法院：不。让我打断你。你说得对。我口误了。ECF 编号是 1100。所以我说错了。\n\nWOLMAN先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好。我们将在记录中全面作出该项更正。我犯了一个错误——我犯了一个错误，因为本案有超过 1100 份文件。好吧？所以你说得对。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 29 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）—2022年11月18日\n\nWOLMAN先生：当然，您——\n\n法院：确实如此。我本打算在你讲完后予以更正。但既然你现在提出了，ECF 编号是在 1099 之后紧接着的 1100。\n\nWOLMAN先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。关于该文件，我确实理解 Linsey先生（林赛先生）必须依照该命令提出一项形式上的密封请求。通常在此情形下，主张保密的一方必须说明保密的依据。\n\n我感谢 Moriarty先生（莫里亚蒂先生）表示，我们可以对所使用的任何内容持开放态度。\n\n当然，我担心的是，法院在作出裁定时，是否仍会依赖将被删节的部分，因为那些部分仍将构成司法文件。\n\n关于包含律师工作成果的一项证据材料，我认为是证据材料 38，可能存在一种论点，我也承认其可构成保密研究成果。\n\n但律师并未援引任何具有约束力的判例法，以表明律师—当事人特权本身属于商业信息。它不是保密研究成果。它是一项通信。没有人在其中进行任何研究。而且它也不具有商业性质，而这是 107(b) 所要求的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 30 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）—2022年11月18日\n\n而且，他们没有说明《第一修正案》项下究竟存在何种损害，足以证明应当不向公众披露。公众有知情权。\n\n作为一名记者，Linsey先生有知情权。他并不——尽管他现在代表受托人主张立场，其他所有人现在都有知情权。我的邻居也有知情权，因为他享有《第一修正案》权利，并且——\n\n尽管 Cheng先生（郑先生）现在可能是主张此项权利的人，但他不仅是为其本人主张，也是代表公众维护公众的权利。公众根据第 107 条享有查阅权。公众根据《第一修正案》享有查阅权，而该权利优先于第 107 条。\n\n既然除证据材料 27 之外，他们对于所有这些证据材料均未作出具体说明，只是笼统主张受托人享有特权，因为这可能损害 UBS 案中的破产财产，那么这不是充分的理由，法官阁下。\n\nLINSEY先生：法官阁下，我希望对此表述得绝对清楚。受托人首要关切的是，如果受托人开始公开发布、公开披露有关诉讼标的事项的律师—当事人通信，受托人担心 UBS 可能会称，你们已放弃特权。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 31 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）—2022年11月18日\n\n而我们有权取得——原本属于与破产财产的主张、$500 million 主张相关的律师—当事人通信。这显然有损破产财产就这些主张进行诉讼的能力。\n\n我援引的 50-Off 案实际上讨论了正是这种架构。该案指出，在未采取措施密封文件或以其他方式防止公开披露的情况下，披露所带来的威胁，以及不必要的公开披露对律师—当事人特权造成的威胁。\n\n我可以将所有证据材料宣读并载入记录，但那将造成受托人寻求防止的恰恰那种损害。因此，这正是法院应准许该动议的诸多理由之一。\n\nWOLMAN先生：法官阁下，这里没有任何英国法规定——也没有向法院提交并提供任何材料表明——提交一份享有特权的文件，就会为所有享有特权的文件打开大门，并永久放弃该特权。\n\nLINSEY先生：嗯，这里有大约 20 份。但是，我的意思是，到了一定程度，合理原则必须发挥作用。我们已经完全满足该标准。这不应当存在争议。我们需要继续进行听证。如果法院有任何问题，我很乐意回答。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 32 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）—2022年11月18日\n\n法院：我没有问题。还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nMORIARTY先生：法官阁下，我是代表债务人的 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）。特权同意命令，案卷编号 856，在第 8 段明确规定，受托人无权放弃任何受托人特权。其在括号中写道：“例如，（通过在公开法庭或任何公共案卷上披露享有特权的文件或信息，或通过与第三方分享该等文件或信息。）”\n\n法院：请再告诉我一次，你所指的是什么，莫里亚蒂律师。\n\nMORIARTY先生：这是关于控制律师—当事人特权的同意命令——\n\n法院：好。\n\nMORIARTY先生：——以及工作成果保护——\n\n法院：ECF 856？\n\nMORIARTY先生：是的，856。这是在第 8 段。\n\n法院：哪一段？第 8 段？\n\nMORIARTY先生：是的。因此，如蒙许可，法官阁下，根据该段，受托人有权使用现由受托人拥有的、属于债务人且享有特权的文件，但\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）—2022年11月18日\n\n受托人无权放弃该特权。如果这些文件被发布在公共案卷上，任何看到它们的人都会主张特权已被放弃，而受托人将违反该命令。\n\n因此，如果这些文件未被密封，债务人将反对使用这些文件。\n\n法院：该段还规定，任何要求放弃受托人特权的请求都必须通过动议提出，而无人这样做。\n\nLINSEY先生：受托人当然没有这样做。受托人同意特权命令要求这些材料以密封方式提交，这就是它们最初与该动议一并以密封方式提交的原因。\n\n法院：好。还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nWOLMAN先生：而且，法官阁下，我想重申，该命令本身应让位于第 107 条和《第一修正案》。\n\n法院：什么命令？什么命令，沃尔曼律师？\n\nWOLMAN先生：我们刚才讨论的那一项——\n\n法院：特权命令？\n\nWOLMAN先生：——856 的那一项，第 8 段。\n\n法院：特权命令？\n\nWOLMAN先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：你说它应让位于 107？那是——那是你的用语吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 33 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）—2022年11月18日\n\nWOLMAN先生：是的。在其与第 107 条或《第一修正案》不一致的范围内，《第一修正案》和第 107 条具有支配效力，依此顺序。\n\n法院：好。还有其他内容吗？\n\nWOLMAN先生：没有了，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。法庭休庭至 11:45。\n\n（自上午 11:27 至下午 12:37 休庭。）\n\n法庭书记员：休庭后开庭。Julie Ann Manning（朱莉·安·曼宁）法官主持审理。\n\n法院：好。下午好。我们在就 Chapter 11 受托人提出的密封动议，以及延长时间以——延长提交答复的页数限制的动议所进行的听证和辩论之后休庭，现在恢复记录。\n\n法庭书记员：抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法院：你没有录到我？\n\n法庭书记员：我没有——它没有动，所以——\n\n法院：好。我们必须重新开始吗？\n\n法庭书记员：——我们必须重新开始。是的。\n\n法院：好。你准备好时告诉我。\n\n法庭书记员：我认为有一点\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 34 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）—2022年11月18日\n\n延迟。我准备好了。\n\n法院：好。正在录音吗？\n\n法庭书记员：是的，正在录音。\n\n法院：好。好的。我们在休庭后恢复记录。\n\n休庭前，法院听取了关于 Chapter 11 受托人提出的密封动议以及债权人 Logan Cheng（洛根·郑）代表提交的对该密封动议之异议的辩论。各方援引了此前未曾提请法院注意的不同判例法和依据。\n\n法院在休庭期间审查了该等信息，现已准备好作出裁定。\n\n因此，法院将——我将当庭宣布裁定，随后将有一项书面命令录入案卷，希望是在今天晚些时候，希望是在今天。\n\n无论如何，以下是法院对该密封动议的裁定。\n\n今日 11 月 18 日早些时候，就 Chapter 11 受托人为支持因债务人未遵守公司治理权利命令而认定债务人民事藐视法庭及相关文件的密封动议，以及扩大答复页数限制的动议，即 ECF No. 1095，和对该密封动议的异议，即 1115，ECF No. 1115，举行了听证。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n18, 2022。\n\n受托人律师在庭审期间认定为证物的文件，受托人可能在庭审中提交，但希望予以密封；受托人主张，该等文件受受托人特权保护。该等受特权保护的文件载于 ECF No. 1099，包括受托人证物20至24、28至30及34至38。\n\n根据关于与 Rule 2004 传票文件相关的律师—当事人特权控制权及诉讼准备材料保护的同意命令，即下文称为“特权同意命令”的 ECF No. 856，所主张的特权，基于适用于该等文件的律师—当事人特权主张，命令对该等文件予以密封；此外，法院认定，根据 11 U.S.C. 107(b)(1) 及 District Court of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦地区法院）地方规则 Local Civil Rule 5(e)，就遗产的一项重大诉讼资产而言，放弃律师—当事人特权可能对遗产造成的损害，超过公众对披露的利益；并且，此时的披露将对受托人开展和实施对债务人资产的调查的能力产生不利影响——资产，请原谅。\n\n受托人还将其中一份受特权保护的文件认定为受律师诉讼准备材料特权保护的文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 37 of\n\n郭文贵和 Genever控股公司—2022年11月18日\n\nECF 1099 中的诉讼准备材料证物被受托人律师认定为受托人证物38，该文件亦应作为受保护的律师诉讼准备材料信息予以密封。\n\n此外，一份证物，即个人债务人的证言笔录，即 ECF No. 1100 的全部内容，已由个人债务人根据本案已作出的保护令 ECF No. 923 指定为高度机密信息；目前披露个人债务人的证言笔录所造成的损害，超过公众获得该文件的利益，因为这将对受托人依《破产法》要求开展和实施对债务人资产的调查的能力产生不利影响。\n\n因此，兹命令，基于记录中所述理由，准许密封动议；受特权保护的文件、诉讼准备材料证物及债务人的证言笔录，就藐视法庭动议的庭审而言暂予密封，并将继续密封，直至法院另行作出命令。\n\n此为法院裁定。\n\n因此，我们现在可以继续就藐视法庭动议进行证据听证。\n\n在我们继续——继续进行藐视法庭动议的听证之前，我想确保每个人都了解我们将如何进行该听证。\n\n我们不会像昨天那样进行听证，让人员进出听证程序。受托人将从其昨日中断之处继续进行听证；受托人律师将从其昨日中断之处继续进行。如果他有论点支持藐视法庭动议，他将首先就所有未密封的证据和文件提出该等论点。\n\n随后，债务人律师将有机会审查并回应——我所说的审查并非指查看文件，我应当仅说回应、质疑并反对受托人就未处于密封状态的证据所作的陈述。\n\n然后，如有必要提交目前已密封的文件，我们将必须请适当人员离开法庭，并以该种方式继续进行；听证的该部分将处于密封状态。这就是我们将如何进行。\n\n有人有任何问题吗？巴塞特先生：法官大人，我是代表受托人的 Paul Hastings 的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。仅作一点澄清。我想我理解法官大人的意思，但我只是想确认一下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 39 of\n\n郭文贵和 Genever控股公司—2022年11月18日\n\n如我昨天所表示，我认为我可以仅在非常——非常高的层面上提及一些密封证物，即可涵盖我的全部论点。我理解这并非是法官大人希望进行的方式。并且，如果我希望提及这些文件，即使是以概括性方式，我也应当在最后作为单独的密封程序的一部分进行。这样对吗，法官大人？\n\n法院：嗯，这不是我希望进行的方式。昨天 Henzy（亨齐）先生说，他不能以您刚才所描述的方式进行；他需要能够回应——换言之，他不希望被排除在对任何密封文件问题作出回应之外；他希望能够谈论该文件。\n\n因此，我认为这行不通，除非您和亨齐律师自昨天以来已就如何处理该问题进行了一些讨论。如果你们对该问题没有达成协议，这没有问题，那么我们将按照我所述的方式进行。\n\n亨齐律师？\n\n亨齐先生：法官大人，我们没有讨论过。我显然不会告诉巴塞特先生如何进行他的论证。如果他可以在不违反现已作出的密封命令的情况下进行论证，那完全由他决定。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1196\nFiled 12/03/22\nEntered 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\n郭文贵和 Genever控股公司—2022年11月18日\n\n我将希望具体提及那些文件中的事项，因此——\n\n法院：好的。那么，我们将按照我已经说明的方式处理此事。我们将就未密封文件举行每个人都能够听取的听证，然后我们将必须举行听证的密封部分，以处理已密封的问题。\n\n亨齐先生：法官大人，我不想赘述，只是为了确认我的理解，证言笔录在今天的听证中被密封，句号，对吗？\n\n法院：正确。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。\n\n法院：正确。今天上午所处理的全部文件，以及法院特别向 Linsey（林赛）律师询问的全部文件，作为 ECF No. 1099 和 1100 一部分的所有受托人证物，均已密封。\n\n亨齐先生：但是，法官大人，为了预先说明，当我请求您接纳或不接纳我希望接纳的证物时，我将希望接纳证言笔录的部分内容。\n\n我不知道巴塞特先生是否会提出异议。在我告诉他具体是哪些部分之前，他可能不知道自己是否会提出异议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 41 of\n\n郭文贵和 Genever控股公司—2022年11月18日\n\n但我认为，如果没有异议，我认为我可以在不说明那些部分内容的情况下这样做。我只是想告知法院，那可能——那可能是我们届时必须解决的事项。好的？\n\n法院：亨齐律师，我认为您所说的与巴塞特先生所说的类似，但您不一定同意，即您将会对我说——让我把这个情形推演一下，好吗，亨齐律师？\n\n亨齐先生：好的。\n\n法院：我认为您——我听到您说的是，您可能会提及笔录的具体部分，而无需说明其中所述内容——\n\n亨齐先生：是的。\n\n法院：——并请求我考虑这些内容，而您无需在密封状态下进行该讨论。您是在这样告诉我吗？\n\n亨齐先生：不，抱歉，法官大人。\n\n所以，昨天巴塞特先生接纳了现已密封的文件。这些文件实际上是经双方约定作为完整证物接纳的。现在的问题，我认为是——\n\n法院：好的。\n\n亨齐先生：——巴塞特先生希望谈论这些证物，向您展示并谈论现已完整接纳的证物。我认为这就是我们可能会遇到问题的地方。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 42 of\n\n郭文贵和 Genever控股公司—2022年11月18日\n\n我正在告诉您——我正在与您讨论的是，在我提出论证之前，我希望获准接纳的证据。您知道，我可以说，法官大人，就作为证物27的证言笔录而言，我希望接纳这一页及这些行，以及这一页及这些行；我可以在不说明证言笔录这些行中内容的情况下这样做。\n\n而如果巴塞特先生说没有异议，我认为这可以与昨天类似，可以作为完整证物接纳；但他可能不愿意这样做。当然，现在告诉我们他愿意这样做，因为我们可能需要讨论这些内容是什么，以便您作出这些裁定。\n\n巴塞特先生：法官大人，首先，回应亨齐律师的意见，我绝对打算反对他试图提交其自己当事人的证言，即其当事人显然今天没有出庭接受交叉询问，却提供证言。他无权根据 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 32 或 Federal Rules of Evidence 提交其当事人的证言。这些全都是传闻证据。他无权这样做。法官大人，我原本拟依照您今天上午在听证开始时的指示，在提出我的论证之前，我认为——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 43 of\n\n郭文贵和 Genever控股公司—2022年11月18日\n\n我认为法官大人所说的是，您知道，而且我认为这是正确的进行方式，即处理证据，确保每个人都了解记录中存在哪些证据，双方均然，然后我们可以基于该等证据进行论证。\n\n如果我们需要处理对亨齐先生试图提交证言笔录的异议，我不知道他如何能在公开法庭上这样做，因为我假定我将不得不——我的意思是，我认为这完全不适当，但我假定我可能不得不提及他试图提交的具体行数。\n\n但从受托人的立场而言，法官大人，我能够——我能够告诉您的是，我们作为陈述及初步举证一部分所依赖的、与请求认定债务人藐视法庭的动议相关的证物，是法院昨天作出的命令中已经列明且昨天已获准作为证据接纳的文件。我很乐意再次逐一说明这些文件，但我认为昨天的记录中已有记载。\n\n即受托人证物7和10、受托人证物6、受托人证物15。然后，在法院昨天作出的命令第4段中，我们还获准作为证据接纳证物13的一部分、证物28至30的全部内容、证物34、证物36和37，以及证物39的一部分。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 44 of\n\n郭文贵和 Genever控股公司—2022年11月18日\n\n目前作为受托人积极举证的一部分，我计划申请作为证据接纳或请求法庭接纳的唯一额外证物，是受托人证物清单中的第32号和第33号证物，该等证物并非保密。\n\n然后，我计划援引并请求法庭接纳第27号证物中极少部分内容，即债务人上周的证言记录；该记录可由受托人使用，并且根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》和《联邦证据规则》均可予以接纳。\n\n但是，目前而言，在不影响受托人为反驳目的请求法庭接纳额外证物之权利的前提下，这将是我们请求法庭为本次听证目的而接纳的全部证物。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，再次说明，你们将——你将向我说明——你昨天已经开始通过出示证物中的具体信息，来支持你关于债务人仍未遵守公司治理命令的主张。你将继续使用未被密封的证物进行陈述。\n\n在你完成对任何未被密封证物的陈述后，Henzy 律师可以对此作出回应。\n\n然后，如果你希望如此，而且我相信你确实希望如此，因为你刚才提到了被密封的证物，那么我们将不得不清空法庭，并就被密封的文件对听证的该部分进行密封审理。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰纳弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\nBASSETT 先生：明白，法官阁下。法官阁下是否希望在继续进行辩论之前，先处理所有证据问题？\n\n法庭：不。我希望——我希望你先处理作为公开记录的证据，并陈述你的观点。如果你有四或五点，即 A 至 D，说明为何——或者无论你有多少点，说明为何债务人构成藐视法庭，那么你将向我说明你所依赖以支持这些主张的、作为公开记录且已经被接纳的证物。\n\n如果你现在告诉我，除你昨天提出请求接纳为证据的证物之外，还有其他未被密封的证物，那么，是的，你可以先继续——你可以先告诉我那些证物是什么，然后我们可以申请接纳。\n\n看来 Henzy 律师并不反对接纳那些未被密封的证物。\n\n然后你可以进行辩论。随后 Henzy 律师将能够作出回应。然后我们将——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰纳弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n关闭公开听证，并仅限当事人就密封事项进行听证。如果你必须再次回到 A、B、C 和 D 各点，那你就必须这样做。\n\n我不会进行一种每两分钟就来回切换一次的听证。那是不可行的。毫无道理。你在要求法庭做某件不公平的事，而且——不是不公平，我是说我该如何——你希望我如何形成这份记录？\n\n我不会形成一种先进行十分钟公开听证、再进行十分钟密封听证、再进行十分钟——的记录。这不会发生。这不是对任何人的时间或资源的良好利用。\n\n我已就密封动议作出裁定。我已向你们说明听证将如何进行。\n\n因此，如果你希望提出受托人证物清单中的其他证物，而这些证物不受刚刚作出的关于密封那些具体证物的命令约束，你可以这样做；然后你必须使用这些证物向我说明债务人为何以及如何构成藐视公司治理命令。\n\n随后 Henzy 律师将做同样的事。\n\n然后我们将进入听证的密封部分。好吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：明白。明白，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰纳弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n而且，我认为这至少是我试图做的事。\n\n我提到的两份并非保密、且我希望——\n\n法庭：那么你需要申请接纳它们，并看看——告诉我它们是什么，申请接纳它们，而我必须查看是否有人对此提出异议。\n\nBASSETT 先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n这两份证物是受托人第32号和第33号证物。\n\n其中，第32号证物是一份送达员的宣誓书，说明受托人为找到并向 Yvette Wang 女士送达传票所作的尝试。第33号证物是与其律师的往来，该律师表示他拒绝接受该传票的送达。\n\n我计划在今天的陈述中某个时候援引这些文件。受托人申请将其接纳为证据。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nHenzy 律师，你是否反对将受托人第32号和第33号证物作为完整证物接纳？\n\nHENZY 先生：法官阁下，我不反对第32号证物。它是一份送达员的宣誓书。这是一份宣誓书。\n\n我反对第33号证物。它来自某个人，而我——我不知道此人是谁，而且我认为这是传闻证据。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n第 48 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰纳弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，该证物并非传闻证据。提出该证物并非为了证明所主张事项的真实性。提出它是为了证明，该个人，即 Yvette Wang 女士的律师，在文件表面上表示他不愿接受传票的送达。\n\nHENZY 先生：嗯，那——那正是所主张事项的真实性，法官阁下。我的意思是，这正是所主张的内容。所主张的是，此人不愿接受传票的送达。我不明白这为何不是所主张事项的真实性。\n\n法庭：Bassett 律师？\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，提出该陈述是为了说明其对听者产生的影响，以及该陈述对作出该表示的律师之心理状态所说明的内容。提出它并非为了证明我们试图证明的任何基础事实或事实真实性。\n\nHENZY 先生：那么我不确定接纳它的目的是什么。我的意思是，我认为 Bassett 先生刚才已经说明了目的。\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，这是一份文件——\n\nHENZY 先生：其目的在于表明——其目的在于表明该人无权接受送达。我不知道它还能有什么其他目的。\n\nBASSETT 先生：至少，法官阁下，它表明——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n第 49 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰纳弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n我们已——这是与送达员宣誓书相关的另一份文件，是对该宣誓书的补充，显示我们为试图找到该证人所作的努力。再次说明，提出它是为了该——为了该目的。提出它并非为了除此之外的任何目的。\n\n法庭：那么，你是说第33号证物作为受托人试图找到 Wang 女士的证据而提出，而不是为了证明他不会——不是为了证明该律师不会接受送达？你是这个意思吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我认为该陈述是否真实并不重要。就我们寻找未出庭证人的努力而言，这份文件本身已说明一切。\n\n法庭：嗯，我认为这确实重要。我认为这可能重要。因此，如果你——如果你是说，你希望仅为证明受托人尝试送达的目的而接纳它，那是一回事；而如果你是说，它证明该律师拒绝接受送达，则是另一回事。\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我们同意为法庭所述的前一目的接纳它。\n\n法庭：Henzy 律师？\n\nHENZY 先生：我认为这在此毫无道理，法官阁下。这——我认为它没有显示任何关于——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰纳弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n——我认为这是一人的陈述——这是一人的陈述。\n\n法庭：我并非——我刚才说过，如果我要接纳它，我将仅把它作为向某人送达的一次尝试的例子或证据予以接纳。仅此而已。\n\n我不是在谈论他是否——我不会对他以某种方式拒绝接受送达的证据赋予任何权重。\n\nHENZY 先生：法官阁下，那么该证物毫无道理。抱歉。\n\n法庭：嗯，我将驳回你的异议，而你可以——\n\nHENZY 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——你可以保留对此提出上诉的权利。\n\nHENZY 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因此，我将接纳该证物。\n\n但是，仅限于——Bassett 先生——以下有限目的：\n\nBASSETT 先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——证明其是——它显示了向 Wang 女士送达的一项努力。仅此而已。好吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：明白。\n\n法庭：不作其他用途。不作任何与该律师陈述有关的用途。好吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰纳弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n因此，受托人第32号证物全部接纳。\n\n受托人第33号证物仅为支持认定受托人为向 Wang 女士送达而作出了额外努力之目的予以接纳。\n\n（受托人第32号证物已收为证据。）\n\n（受托人第33号证物已收为证据。）\n\nBASSETT 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n那么你准备好继续进行你昨天开始的辩论了吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：准备好了，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：请继续。\n\nBASSETT 先生：谢谢。\n\n因此，显然，法官阁下，昨天我的陈述进程受到了一些打断，我当然不会重复昨天所说的一切，但只是非常简要地回顾一下我们目前的情况。\n\n在昨天辩论开始时，我首先谈到公司治理权利命令以及《破产法典》的相关规定；该命令所表明的是，它非常明确地适用于债务人在其中拥有权益的所有实体，包括 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）。\n\n而且，这也明确表明，正如《破产法典》中已经明确规定的那样，\n\n债务人负有配合义务，以确保受托人能够享有所有权的利益，并取得对其现为所有人的实体的控制权。\n\n然后，法官阁下，在概述该命令和法典的规定之后，我指出，正如债务人在其书面文件中所陈述的，我预计他今天的论点将是：除其已经采取的行动外，他无法再采取任何行动，以促使其现称为代名股东的 Yvette Wang（王雁冰）女士将 Ace Decade（Ace Decade公司）的股份转让给受托人。\n\n我向本院逐一说明了清单中的若干非保密、非特权证据材料；我认为，这些材料首先毫无疑问地表明，自 Ace Decade 成立之初，经过其对 UBS（瑞银集团）交易的投资，以及该实体曾经进行的所有其他活动，债务人一直是该公司的主事人、控制人，也是 Ace Decade 背后的唯一之人。\n\n我还向本院逐一说明了一些补充证据材料，这些材料表明，Yvette Wang 女士与其前任一样，只是被安插为该实体名义上的董事和代名股东。\n\n有大量证词表明，Wang 女士是 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生的雇员，仅担任助理——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司）— 2022年11月18日 53\n\nHENZY 律师：法官阁下，实际上我要——我要提出异议。\n\n本院：你要基于什么提出异议？\n\nHENZY 律师：那不在——\n\n本院：依据是什么？\n\nHENZY 律师：法官阁下，目前我认为 Bassett 先生是在基于未被采纳为证据的事项进行辩论，并且/或者，我认为这些事项在——也许他可以告诉我们他所指的是什么。我根本看不到这里有任何已被采纳的证词。\n\nBASSETT 律师：法官阁下——\n\nHENZY 律师：没有——没有任何证词被采纳，法官阁下。\n\nBASSETT 律师：法官阁下，我希望在我陈述过程中不要被打断。我是根据我们昨天讨论过的证据进行辩论。如果 Henzy 律师不同意我对该证据的表述方式，他可以在其答辩时提出这一点。\n\nHENZY 律师：法官阁下，就未被采纳为证据的证据进行辩论是不恰当的。这是不恰当的。\n\nBASSETT 律师：法官阁下——法官阁下——\n\nHENZY 律师：我可以回来——我可以在我的陈述中提出这一点，法官阁下，但这是不恰当的。\n\nBASSETT 律师：法官阁下，昨天我们逐一说明了——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 53 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 54 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n——并且我确实不希望不得不回头重新完整陈述一次我们的案件，因为我向本院逐一说明了已被采纳为证据的证据材料，其中 Wang 女士称债务人为她的老板，债务人称她为其雇员；还有其他已被采纳为证据的陈述和文件，其中她被称为其办公厅主任。\n\n法官阁下，昨天我们在继续进行的辩论中已经审查过所有这些文件。\n\n因此，若 Henzy 律师希望就这些证据材料和论点——作为我继续陈述的一部分，且他尚未对此作出回应——作出回应，他将有机会这样做。\n\nHENZY 律师：法官阁下，我表示歉意。但是，我——我会尽力这样做，法官阁下，不过我认为 Bassett 先生刚才所说的关于昨天实际发生之事并不正确；而他刚才提及的是证词，但本次听证中没有任何证词。\n\nBASSETT 律师：我没有——如果我使用了“证词”一词，那并非我的本意。我认为我所指的是通过本案证据材料文件而被采纳的证据。\n\n本院：好。我们将继续进行。\n\nHenzy 律师，还有其他——请作好笔记，并且\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 55 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司）— 2022年11月18日 55\n\n你可以在——待 Bassett 先生完成其就未密封信息和证据材料所作陈述后——在你的回应中提出这些问题。\n\n好吗？\n\n谢谢。\n\n请继续，Bassett 律师。\n\nHENZY 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nBASSETT 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n我将援引的补充文件，但我将留待非公开审理时再援引，将继续证明其中若干要点，并且我认为会进一步充实已经提出的要点。\n\n但依照法官阁下的指示，我们将在单独的庭审环节中进行。\n\n因此，法官阁下，正如——我很高兴 Henzy 律师提出了这一点——但我们今天从任何人那里都没有得到证词。\n\n我们当然也没有债务人的证词；基于他不仅在本案中、而且在过去案件中所作的证词，这对受托人而言完全不令人意外。\n\n因此，我认为，本院可以且应当从债务人今天未到庭作证、以支持其为避免被认定藐视法庭而能够或不能采取何种行动这一事实中得出某些结论。\n\n今天我们也没有 Yvette Wang 女士的证词。为什么？因为我们找不到她。我们刚讨论过的两份文件已载入案卷。\n\n我们试图向她送达传票。我们还以其他方式\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n试图联系她。我将在非公开审理中援引的其他文件也涉及这一点。\n\n剩下的是我所援引的文件，这些文件确立了 Wang 女士与债务人之间的明确关系；我们认为，该关系毫无疑问地表明，如果她愿意这样做，他有能力指示她转让这些股份。\n\n因此，法官阁下，概括而言，我认为我还需提出的其余证据应在非公开审理中提出。\n\n我原计划在完成对证据的讨论后，谈谈我认为这对于我们请求本院给予的救济以及我们请求本院作出的命令意味着什么。\n\n我假定法官阁下希望我现在转入这一部分，尽管它在某种程度上取决于将在非公开审理中讨论的内容。这样是否正确，法官阁下？\n\n本院：如果你能在不披露密封文件中任何信息的情况下这样做，可以。\n\n如果不能，那么我们将在密封审理环节中处理。\n\nBASSETT 律师：好的。明白。抱歉，法官阁下。我只是试图——\n\n本院：慢慢来。\n\nBASSETT 律师：——鉴于——重新理清思路。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司）— 2022年11月18日 57\n\n本院：慢慢来。\n\nBASSETT 律师：——鉴于听证被分为两个部分。\n\n本院：遗憾的是，我别无选择，只能将听证分为两个部分。\n\nBASSETT 律师：不，我不是——\n\nHENZY 律师：法官阁下——\n\n本院：情况实在太复杂了。\n\nHENZY 律师：法官阁下，我表示歉意。如果本院认为合适，我不反对 Bassett 先生在我完成陈述并进行完密封审理后再回来继续，因为我——这样他——我理解这会导致他的结案陈述不连贯，因为他还没有机会——再次说明，如果这是更好的做法，我对此没有异议。\n\nBASSETT 律师：法官阁下，我确实不——我确实不认为我能——我能在不回头提及以下信息的情况下继续其余部分，即——\n\n本院：可以。\n\nBASSETT 律师：——法官阁下的——\n\n本院：我希望为记录明确说明，因为我们需要在本次听证中明确，如同在每次听证中一样；但由于本次听证将包含不同部分，受托人提出的藐视法庭动议，以及截至目前已向本院提出、且我们昨天开始讨论的关于受托人动议的证据如下：\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 57 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n昨天，以下证据材料被采纳为证据：\n\n受托人证据材料第 6、7、10 及 15 号均完整采纳，且无人提出异议；\n\n受托人证据材料第 13 号，第 3 页。随后，下列证据材料须予密封：第 28 至 30 号、第 34 号、第 36 至 37 号及第 39 号，第 55 页第 25 行。\n\n今天则为受托人证据材料第 32 及 33 号。\n\nBassett 律师，截至目前，在你已经向本院作出的陈述中，是否还有我遗漏的其他证据材料？\n\nBASSETT 律师：我认为没有。我认为法官阁下已经全部涵盖。\n\n唯一的小更正是，我认为关于第 39 号证据材料，我认为法官阁下说的是第 55 页第 25 行，但实际应为第 23 至 25 行。\n\n本院：哦，你说得对，第 23 至 25 行。抱歉。好的。\n\n并且——上述证据材料，在头脑中，不是头脑中，我是指，受托人的陈述，基于以下理由支持认定藐视法庭：Kwok 先生仍处于藐视法庭状态，因为他可以通过 Wang 女士采取行动，将 Ace Decade 的股份签署转让给受托人；受托人主张，证据表明 Kwok 先生与 Wang 女士存在业务关系，Wang 女士多次称 Kwok 先生为她的老板，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 59 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\nWang 女士曾就不同交易充当中间人，而这——这表明 Kwok 先生并未尽其所能与受托人合作，不仅未遵守公司治理命令本身的规定，也未遵守《破产法典》中要求债务人与受托人合作的规定，以便受托人能够对债务人破产财产的事务进行调查。\n\n除受托人认为证据确立了上述事实外，证据还表明，Kwok 先生或 Wang 女士均未提供任何证词，以反驳受托人为支持这些主张所陈述和辩论的任何内容。\n\nBassett 先生，这是否准确？\n\nBASSETT 律师：法官阁下，再次说明，我认为这是一个公允的概述。当然，我会让自己已经作出的辩论自行说明，但我认为总体而言，法官阁下已经抓住了我们试图提出的关键要点。\n\n本院：好的。我想确保确实如此。因为，再次说明，我们将把听证分为两个部分。因此，我想确保我们在听证的适当环节处理适当的证据问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 60 页，共\n\nG 英文\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n1 BASSETT先生（巴塞特先生）：\n确实如此，法官阁下。我的意思是，\n\n2 我认为，我们将在密封部分进行的进一步讨论将为——\n\n3 ——提供更多支持。\n\n4 法院：\n正确。明白了。\n\n5 BASSETT先生：\n——这些论点提供支持——\n\n6 法院：\n明白了。我正试图区分\n\n7 我将听取的、未密封且不受并非所有人均须出席之限制的论点。\n\n8 因此，\n\n9 就本次听证会的公开部分而言，\n\n10 这就是我所听到您所说的内容。好吗？\n\n11 如果我遗漏了什么，我希望您现在\n\n12 告诉我。\n\n13 BASSETT先生：\n我不这么认为，法官阁下。\n\n14 法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n15 那么，Henzy律师（亨齐律师），现在轮到您对\n\n16 Bassett律师迄今所作陈述作出答复。\n\n17 好吗？\n\n18 HENZY先生（亨齐先生）：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n19 法院：\n如果您准备申请\n\n20 提交证物，我希望您先这样做——\n\n21 HENZY先生：\n明白，法官阁下。\n\n22 法院：\n——然后我们将确定\n\n23 是否有人对这些证物提出异议。\n\n24 HENZY先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n25 法官阁下，我请求准许接纳我的证物 B、C、D、\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n1 E、G、H 和 I。\n\n2 法院：\n让我重复一遍，以确保我\n\n3 正确听到了您的话。您说的是 B、C、E、G、H 和 I 吗？\n\n4 HENZY先生：\n我想——我想我可能——\n\n5 让我重新说一遍，法官阁下，以确保无误。\n\n6 所以，B，如 boy。\n\n7 法院：\n是。\n\n8 HENZY先生：\nC，如 cat。D，如 dog。\n\n9 法院：\n好的。我漏听了那个。\n\n10 HENZY先生：\nE，如 Eric。G，如 George。H，\n\n11 如 Harry。以及 I，如 iguana。\n\n12 法院：\n好的。那您列举这些时我漏听了 D，\n\n13 所以是我的错误。谢谢。\n\n14 好的。Henzy律师，您是否申请\n\n15 完整接纳这些证物？\n\n16 HENZY先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n17 法院：\n好的。Bassett律师，您是否\n\n18 反对完整接纳 Henzy律师刚刚记入记录的\n\n19 证物？\n\n20 BASSETT先生：\n反对，法官阁下。\n\n21 我反对接纳证物 H 和\n\n22 I。我相信那些是篇幅不短的听证会记录。\n\n23 我不知道律师寻求\n\n24 接纳什么。\n\n25 HENZY先生：\n只是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1196 提交 12/03/22 录入 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 61 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1196\n提交 12/03/22\n录入 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n1 法院：\n好的。那么请稍等一下。请\n\n2 稍等。稍等。好的。\n\n3 那么，Bassett先生，您目前只反对 H 和 I——\n\n4 这就是——我现在想知道，以便如果您——我可以\n\n5 接纳其他证物，然后我们可以讨论 H\n\n6 和 I。\n\n7 BASSETT先生：\n确实如此，法官阁下。我将\n\n8 根据其他证物提出论点，但我不反对\n\n9 接纳它们。\n\n10 法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n11 那么，让记录清楚。债务人的\n\n12 证物 B，如 boy，C，如 cat，D，如 dog，E，如\n\n13 Eric，G，如 George，作为完整证物予以接纳。好吗？\n\n14 （债务人证物 B、C、D、E 和 G 被接纳为证据。）\n\n15 \n\n16 法院：\n现在，我们来讨论 H 和 I。\n\n17 那么，Bassett先生，请告诉我——您刚刚开始说，\n\n18 而我可能在某些方面打断了您，但请告诉我\n\n19 您反对完整接纳债务人证物\n\n20 H 和 I 的依据。\n\n21 HENZY先生：\n法官阁下，实际上，也许我可以\n\n22 把事情简化一些。\n\n23 Bassett先生的观点是公允的，我无意\n\n24 使用或接纳完整记录。\n\n25 因此，H 是本案 August 1 听证会的记录，而\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n1 I 是本案 August 4 听证会的记录。而这些记录中\n\n2 我申请作为证据接纳的唯一部分是 August 1 的记录，\n\n3 即我的证物 H，位于第 121 页，第 23 至\n\n4 25 行。\n\n5 \n\n6 法院：\n第 23 至第 25 行？\n\n7 HENZY先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n8 法院：\n好的。那么请给 Bassett先生\n\n9 一分钟时间查看，好吗？\n\n10 BASSETT先生：\n我现在正试图查看，法官\n\n11 阁下。\n\n12 法院：\n是。请慢慢来。\n\n13 BASSETT先生：\n抱歉。Henzy律师，您能否\n\n14 再说一遍页码和行号引用？\n\n15 法院：\n第 121 页，第 23 至第 25 行。Bassett先生，\n\n16 您要我们调出该部分吗？\n\n17 法院：\n不。我有，法官阁下。我只是\n\n18 试图弄清楚是谁在发言。\n\n19 HENZY先生：\n实际上，我对此表示歉意。我\n\n20 确实得回头查看。\n\n21 我表示那是 Despins先生（德斯潘先生）。而且您\n\n22 必须回到第 118 页第 13 行。\n\n23 所以我想我也请求接纳该部分，\n\n24 法官阁下，因为 Bassett先生说得对，这需要跨越\n\n25 多页，才能确定 Despins先生\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— November 18, 2022 64\n\nDespins先生是发言者。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n我不反对接纳该证言。我保留可能请求法院考虑该记录其他部分以作反驳的权利，但您知道，我刚刚才看到它，在听到 Henzy先生的论点之前，我不知道那可能是什么。\n\n法院：\n那么，我们是接纳第 118 页至第 121 页，还是您目前只要第 118 页第 13 行，以及第 121 页第 23 和第 25 行，Henzy律师？\n\nHENZY先生：\n我请求接纳第 118 页第 13 行，因为该行确认 Despins先生的身份，然后是第 121 页第 23 至第 25 行。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n我对此没有异议，但须以——\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n——我刚才所述的保留权利为条件。但为明确起见，并非第 118 页自第 13 行至末尾，仅是第 118 页第 13 行，然后与该行分别——\n\n法院：\n是。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n——第 121 页——\n\n法院：\n是。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1196 提交 12/03/22 录入 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 64 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— November 18, 2022 65\n\nBASSETT先生：\n——第 23 至第 25 行。\n\n法院：\n因此，证物 H 作为完整证物接纳的范围如下：我们仅接纳——并非——它被完整接纳，但双方同意法院将审阅的是第 118 页第 13 行，以及第 121 页第 23 至第 25 行。正确吗？\n\nHENZY先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。好的。\n\n（债务人证物 H，第 118 页第 13 行，以及第 121 页第 23 至第 25 行，被接纳为证据。）\n\n法院：\n那么，证物 I 呢？\n\nHENZY先生：\n关于证物 I，法官阁下，我请求接纳第 47 页第 15 至第 16 行。\n\n法院：\n您必须给 Bassett先生一点时间。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n第 47 页第 15 至第 17 行？\n\n法院：\n我认为 Henzy律师说的是第 15 至第 16 行。您说的是多少？\n\nHENZY先生：\n第 47 页第 15 至第 16 行。\n\n法院：\n是。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n您截断了一句话的结尾。这是有意的吗？\n\nHENZY先生：\n哦，那么第 15 至第 17 行。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n没有异议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1196 提交 12/03/22 录入 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 65 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1196 提交 12/03/22 录入 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 66 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— November 18, 2022 66\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n但须受我就前一证物所作相同保留的限制。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。那么，证物 I 第 47 页第 15 至第 17 行予以接纳，Bassett先生没有异议，但保留——为回应而援引该记录其他部分的权利。\n\n（债务人证物 I，第 17 页第 15 至第 17 行，被接纳为证据。）\n\n法院：\n好的。还有什么，Henzy律师？这——这些是您的证物吗？\n\nHENZY先生：\n然后，法官阁下，我请求接纳证物 27。不过，法官阁下，我们又将遇到该文件——\n\n法院：\n我们现在不讨论证物 27。\n\nHENZY先生：\n好的，太好了。\n\n法院：\n那将是听证会密封部分的一部分。\n\nHENZY先生：\n好的，非常好，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法院：\n那么请继续。\n\nHENZY先生：\n法官阁下，我想先处理的一点是，Bassett先生指出 Kwok先生\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1196 提交 12/03/22 录入 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 67 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n1 今天未到场。他在受托人的证人名单上。\n\n2 而我的理解是，我们已通过所作出的部分解决裁定，\n\n3 解决了他须作证的问题，而我并未——我并不\n\n4 理解 Bassett先生预期或希望 Kwok先生\n\n5 今天到场。\n\n6 \n\n7 法官阁下，我知道本案中有很多事情正在进行，\n\n8 但我认为，着眼于摆在您面前的事项极为重要。\n\n9 \n\n10 这是一项——这是一项具体涉及公司治理命令\n\n11 以及 Kwok先生是否违反公司治理命令的藐视法庭动议。\n\n12 \n\n13 因此，所有这些其他正在进行的事项都不属于该动议的一部分。\n\n14 这是一个非常狭窄的问题，本案中所有其他\n\n15 事项均与之无关。\n\n16 \n\n17 我认为，着眼于藐视法庭的标准也极为重要。\n\n18 \n\n19 我在异议中援引的 Taggart案，载于 139 Supreme Court 1795，\n\n20 其中称，不应在不存在——\n\n21 存在——抱歉，在存在——的情况下采取民事藐视法庭措施；\n\n22 因此，在对被告行为的不当性存在合理怀疑依据时，\n\n23 不应采取民事藐视法庭措施。\n\n24 因此，在存在合理怀疑依据时，不构成民事藐视法庭。\n\n25 \n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1196 提交 12/03/22 录入 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 68 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n1 第二巡回法院在 King案中，该案载于——\n\n2 法院：\n哪一个案子？哪一个案子，Henzy\n\n3 先生？抱歉，我没有听清。\n\n4 HENZY先生：\n是 King vs. Allied Vision案。\n\n5 法院：\n好的。\n\n6 HENZY先生：\n载于 65 F.3d 1051。该案，\n\n7 法官阁下，已被本巡回区的许多其他第二巡回法院判决\n\n8 及地区法院判决援引和引用，其中指出，遵循上述合理\n\n9 怀疑依据标准，只有在申请方——即本案的受托人——\n\n10 以明确且令人信服的证据证明时，才有理由作出藐视法庭命令；\n\n11 \n\n12 因此，并非优势证据标准，法官阁下——而是明确且令人信服的\n\n13 证据，证明被指称的藐视法庭人违反了法院的命令。\n\n14 \n\n15 King法院继而更具体地指出，\n\n16 申请方必须证明：第一，藐视法庭人未能遵守的命令\n\n17 是明确且无歧义的；第二，不遵守的证明\n\n18 是明确且令人信服的；以及第三，\n\n19 藐视法庭人未以合理方式勤勉地尝试遵守该命令。\n\n20 \n\n21 King法院继而指出，明确且无歧义的命令是指\n\n22 不会使受命令对象的心中留下任何不确定性、且他们能够\n\n23 仅从该命令的文字本身准确确定\n\n24 何种行为被禁止的命令。\n\n25 \n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— November 18, 2022 69\n\n在第二巡回法院的 United States v. Wendy案中，载于 575 F.2d，该判决的第 1075 页，第二巡回法院指出，对民事藐视法庭指控的一项长期获认可的抗辩是，被指控个人无能力遵守法院命令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1196 提交 12/03/22 录入 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 69 页，共\n\n至关重要的是，法官阁下，受托人负有举证责任，须以明确且令人信服的证据证明，Kwok先生未遵守一项明确且无歧义的命令；该命令的文字本身必须表明，被指控未履行的事项属于该命令的范围。\n\n我的第一个论点，法官阁下，是 Kwok先生并未违反该命令。我并非主张您的命令不明确或存在歧义。\n\n我主张，受托人要求您采取的行为，在某种意义上会造成歧义，因为我认为该命令中并未载明这一点。\n\n我就第一个问题所作的论证是：是否不存在任何公平怀疑的余地，即受托人是否已以明确且令人信服的证据证明，该命令清楚、明确地要求了受托人所要求的事项？\n\n法官阁下，我在此并非基于Kwok先生从未拥有Ace Decade而主张不可能履行。再次强调，\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及Genever Holdings Corp（Genever Holdings公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n1 该事项——该事项已在我们未提出异议的部分解决\n2 命令中得到处理。\n3 法官阁下，我请求展示证据附件E。\n4 法院：\n好的。请稍等片刻，\n5 马上就会展示。谢谢。\n6 法庭书记员：\n证据附件E正在\n7 屏幕上展示。\n8 HENZY先生：\n谢谢。\n9 并且，法官阁下，请将控制权交给\n10 Cesaroni先生。\n11 法院：\n好的。请稍等片刻。\n12 CESARONI先生：\n法官阁下，我已取得\n13 屏幕控制权。\n14 法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n15 HENZY先生：\n谢谢。\n16 Cesaroni先生，请您转到第2页\n17 第2段。谢谢。就在这里。\n18 法官阁下，我请您关注该第2段\n19 的第一句话。因此，自2022年7月8日作出的\n20 命令录入之日起生效，该命令准许在第11章案件中任命Luc\n21 A. Despins（Luc A. Despins）为受托人；受托人\n22 为财产的利益，就所有债务人\n23 控制实体持有债务人的全部经济权利和公司治理权利，\n24 包括但不限于Genever\n25 BVI。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及Genever Holdings Corp（Genever Holdings公司）— 2022年11月18日 71 我请求法院展示证据附件——调出证据附件G。法庭书记员：证据附件G正在屏幕上展示。HENZY先生：谢谢。在Cesaroni先生取得控制权后，请您转到第4页第12段。法院：请等一下。证据附件G是什么？证据附件G是特权命令吗？HENZY先生：证据附件G，法官阁下，我很抱歉——证据附件E是公司治理命令。法院：对，我看到了。HENZY先生：好的。证据附件G是受托人提出的、请求录入公司治理命令的动议。法院：好的。所以这是请求录入公司治理命令的动议。好的。谢谢。HENZY先生：Cesaroni先生，请您转到第4页第12段。法官阁下，我不会将整个段落读入记录。实质上，这是该动议对我所称的既定法律规则的陈述，即在获任命后，Despins先生事实上承继了债务人就任何实体或债务人控制实体所拥有的全部公司治理权利和经济权利，如案号22-50073、文件1196、提交日期12/03/22、录入日期12/03/22 11:30:16、第71页所载\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及Genever Holdings Corp（Genever Holdings公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n1 该动议中所定义的那样。\n2 法官阁下，您是否有机会查看该内容？\n3 法院：\n有。我正在查看证据附件G的\n4 第12段。\n5 HENZY先生：\n谢谢。\n6 法院：\n您是否要我翻到下一页，\n7 因为第4页底部的句子并不完整？\n8 \n9 HENZY先生：\n那只是一处引注，法官阁下。我\n10 不需要您翻过那里。\n11 不过实际上，在下一页的第13段，\n12 我请求您——我将读出该\n13 第13段的第一句话。受托人务必尽快对\n14 债务人控制实体行使经济控制权和公司控制权，\n15 包括Genever BVI，以便为\n16 财产的利益保存并追回资产。\n17 \n18 然后我请求，Cesaroni先生，您能否向下翻页\n19 至第9页第20段。因此实际上该段延续到了下一页。如果\n20 您能转到第9页，抱歉，\n21 Cesaroni先生。\n22 法官阁下，从第8页延续至第9页的该第20段\n23 最后一句写道：鉴于该历史，\n24 不应再让债务人就债务人—\n25 控制实体行使任何公司治理权利，哪怕再多一天。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及Genever Holdings Corp（Genever Holdings公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n1 \n2 然后，第21段的第一句话，法官阁下，为使\n3 受托人能够不受债务人干扰地行使上述\n4 权限，法院\n5 应确认债务人不得干涉、\n6 阻碍或延迟受托人行使债务人的\n7 经济权利和公司治理权利，就债务人\n8 控制实体而言。\n9 法官阁下，您准备好后，如法院可以\n10 展示证据附件H。\n11 法院：\n好的。证据附件H。我们只是要看\n12 第121页，对吗？\n13 BASSETT先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n14 HENZY先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n15 法院：\n第23至25行？\n16 HENZY先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n17 法院：\n但我们知道那是受托人Despins\n18 发言，因为第118页第13行表明了\n19 这一点？\n20 HENZY先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n21 法院：\n好的。请等一下。您不必\n22 转到第118页。您只需转到第——我\n23 认为大家同意，我们可以直接看第121页\n24 第23至25行。\n25 法庭书记员：\n证据附件H已显示在屏幕上。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件1196 提交日期12/03/22 录入日期12/03/22 11:30:16 第74页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及Genever Holdings Corp（Genever Holdings公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n1 法院：\n谢谢。您能否向下滚动——\n2 HENZY先生：\n并转到第——\n3 法院：\n——第121页第23至25行，\n4 请。谢谢。就在这里。\n5 HENZY先生：\n法官阁下，Despins先生在8月\n6 1日的听证会上，抱歉，是的，在8月1日关于\n7 批准公司治理命令动议的听证会上表示，\n8 这正是该命令所实现的内容。基本上，它非常\n9 清楚地表明我们持有所有这些权利，因此我们请求\n10 法官阁下录入该命令。\n11 如法院准备就绪，请转到证据附件I。\n12 \n13 法院：\n当然。好的。债务人证据附件I。\n14 并且，再次确认，我们要看特定页码，对吗？\n15 HENZY先生：\n是的，法官阁下。我们要看第\n16 47页。\n17 法院：\n第47页的哪几行？是否有\n18 对具体行数的引述？\n19 HENZY先生：\n第15至17行，法官阁下。\n20 法院：\n第15至17行。\n21 法庭书记员：\n证据附件——\n22 HENZY先生：\n并且，法官阁下，在Despins先生\n23 说——\n24 法庭书记员：\n证据附件I已显示在屏幕上。\n25 HENZY先生：\n——法官阁下，我们提交了——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件1196 提交日期12/03/22 录入日期12/03/22 11:30:16 第75页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及Genever Holdings Corp（Genever Holdings公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n1 我很抱歉。\n2 法庭书记员：\n好的。\n3 法院：\n法庭书记员刚刚为\n4 记录注明，证据附件I已显示在屏幕上。\n5 HENZY先生：\n好的。\n6 法院：\n现在我正在查看第47页第\n7 15至17行。\n8 HENZY先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n9 Despins先生在此表示：“法官阁下，我们提交了一项\n10 非常广泛的动议，以（无法辨认）所有\n11 公司治理权利，并且我们特别提及BVI。”\n12 然后，法官阁下，如果我们转到第64页，\n13 第19至22行。\n14 法院：\n我们——我们之前没有谈到第64页，\n15 对吗？我的意思是，我并不——我不知道——\n16 HENZY先生：\n哦，我以为——\n17 法院：\n——Bassett律师会不会\n18 对此提出异议，但我们之前谈到过这个吗？\n19 HENZY先生：\n我以为——我以为我们谈到了，法官\n20 阁下。\n21 法院：\n没有。我们只谈到了第47页，\n22 第15行——至少我的笔记是这样记载的。我可能\n23 遗漏了什么。\n24 Bassett律师，您是否知道我们要查看第47页第15\n25 行以外的内容？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及Genever Holdings Corp（Genever Holdings公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n1 至17行，证据附件I中的内容？\n2 BASSETT先生：\n不知道，法官阁下。这是\n3 该文件中唯一——唯一被\n4 作为证据提交的部分。\n5 HENZY先生：\n那是我的疏忽，法官阁下。\n6 我请求接纳第64页第19——第19至22行\n7 为证据。\n8 法院：\n让我先让Bassett律师自行查看，\n9 您知道，在他那边——我请法庭书记员暂时\n10 不要转到那一页。\n11 HENZY先生：\n没问题。\n12 法院：\nBassett律师，您可以自行查看，\n13 还是希望我们转到那一页？\n14 BASSETT先生：\n我来找。请您\n15 再给我一次引述位置。\n16 法院：\n是什么，Henzy律师？\n17 HENZY先生：\n第64页第19至22行。\n18 BASSETT先生：\n它以什么开头？我只是\n19 想确认我找到了正确的位置。\n20 HENZY先生：\n它是从“我们请求的理由”开始。\n21 BASSETT先生：\n嗯，那是——哦，好的。我以为\n22 那是您正在作出的陈述。让我读一下。我\n23 明白了——我现在看到是Despins先生。请稍等。\n24 法院：\n您正在查看，Bassett先生？还是\n25 希望我们转到那一页？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及Genever Holdings Corp（Genever Holdings公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n1 BASSETT先生：\n不，我正在查看，法官阁下。\n2 法院：\n我应该问您的是，您是否——\n3 是否已有机会查看，并且您对此有\n4 任何异议？\n5 BASSETT先生：\n问题在于，法官阁下，它并非——\n6 它作为独立摘录并不十分清楚，因此我正在回看\n7 其他页面。临时这样做很困难。\n8 我很抱歉。\n9 法院：\n没关系。您慢慢来。\n10 BASSETT先生：\n法官阁下，我此时必须提出异议。\n11 该摘录不清楚，而且我不能——它并不\n12 完整。我的意思是，该措辞中有一处引述，回指\n13 庭审记录先前页面中正在讨论的某些内容，\n14 而我不能——在这一阶段不对该文件\n15 提出异议。\n16 HENZY先生：\n法官阁下，如果可以？\n17 法院：\n可以，请。\n18 HENZY先生：\n如果您要求法院——将庭审记录的任何部分\n19 接纳为证据，Bassett先生当然可以在\n20 反驳时回溯引用。\n21 我认为，就我将要使用该摘录的目的而言，\n22 该摘录是清楚的。而且这是其当事人的陈述。我\n23 不知道它怎么会不具可采性。\n24 法院：\n嗯，他并不是说它不\n25 具可采性。他是说他此刻对此提出异议，\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及Genever Holdings Corp（Genever Holdings公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n1 因为他不理解它及其语境，因为他不——它谈论\n2 了许多不同的事项并且有所回溯。\n3 \n4 我不知道。我得看一看。因此您得给我一点时间。\n5 我还没见过它。而且显然在我们开始辩论之前\n6 它并未被提出，所以让我看一看。因此您需要\n7 稍候片刻。\n8 \n9 （暂停）\n10 法院：\n好的。Bassett先生，我将准许\n11 其作为证据。我将接纳第64页第19至22行\n12 为证据。\n13 然后，您当然有权在回应中\n14 建议从该庭审记录中向记录补充其他内容。\n15 \n16 然后，如果以及当您决定这样做时，\n17 我将对此作出裁定。好吗？\n18 BASSETT先生：\n没问题，法官阁下。\n19 并且，为明确起见，我在查看了大约\n20 三四分钟后，尚无法理解该段中\n21 Henzy先生将要读出或（无法辨认）的那项权利\n22 是什么。\n23 也许他在陈述其\n24 论点时，可以阐明他认为其含义是什么。\n25 HENZY先生：\n没问题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司） - November 18, 2022\n法官阁下，实际上，我请求至少第14行——但我认为，为使第14至22行获准作为证据，我们需要第14行，以便记录能够确认发言人是 Despins（德斯潘）先生。\n\n法庭：\n所以是第14至22行？\n\nBASSETT（巴塞特）律师：\n我没有——\n\nHENZY（亨齐）律师：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n巴塞特律师，您刚才要说什么吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：\n是的。我认为，法官阁下，我们应当像之前那样处理，即准许第14行以及第19至22行作为证据。\n\n亨齐律师：\n可以。我对此没有异议。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我对此也没有异议。好的。\n\n（债务人证物 I，第64页第14行及第19至22行，已作为证据接收。）\n\n法庭：\n那么请继续，亨齐律师。\n\n亨齐律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n因此，法官阁下，受托人在该动议中向您说明，法律规定，当他被任命时，他承继了所有公司治理权利。\n\n受托人在动议中向您说明，Kwok 先生不应再享有任何公司治理权利——请稍等一下，法官阁下，我想确保措辞准确。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 80 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司） - November 18, 2022\n准确无误。\n\n（暂停。）\n\nKwok 先生不应再享有任何公司治理权利，哪怕再多一天。再次说明，这见于动议第20段第20段的最后一句。不得再让债务人就债务人控制实体行使任何公司治理权利，哪怕再多一天。将此事从债务人手中移出如此重要，以至于不能再由其掌控哪怕一天。\n\n受托人在动议中明确表示，受托人尽快对债务人控制实体行使经济及公司控制权至关重要。\n\n该裁定本身也是如此，而且，正如 Despins 先生在记录中所作、现已作为证据载入8月1日和8月4日听证会记录的陈述一致。\n\n而且，法官阁下，如果您回到该裁定第2段第一句，自准许——\n\n法庭：\n请稍等。请稍等，亨齐律师。我们先确保引用的是证物。因此，回到证物 E？\n\n亨齐律师：\n证物 E。\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\n亨齐律师：\n证物 E。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 81 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司） - November 18, 2022\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n亨齐律师：\n法官阁下，我刚才请您注意并读入记录的第一句：自2022年7月8日任命 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘）为第11章案件受托人的裁定作出之日起生效。受托人为财产利益，就包括但不限于 Genever BVI（Genever 英属维尔京群岛公司）在内的所有债务人控制实体持有债务人的全部经济和治理权利。\n\n因此，自——受托人——所以 Despins 先生请求您作出的，是因 Kwok 先生未行使其作为所有人指示 Wang（王）女士以 Ace Decade（艾斯十年公司）的代名股东及董事身份采取某些行动的权力，而认定 Kwok 先生藐视法庭。\n\n但是，这项裁定是应 Despins 先生请求而作出的；在 Despins 先生获得任命时，他再次在动议中向您说明，作为明确的法律原则，债务人被剥夺了一切公司治理权利，而他承继了这些权利。随后，他让您——或者说请求您——并且您确实在本裁定中以非常、非常明确无误的措辞确认了这一点。\n\n如果 Despins 先生希望主张，尽管他所请求的措辞——他请求您作出该裁定时所要求的措辞——以及该裁定的措辞，Kwok 先生仍保留某些公司权力，而本法庭决定认定或裁定——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 82 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司） - November 18, 2022\n尽管该裁定的措辞，Kwok 先生作为衡平所有人或受益股东，仍保留某些公司权力，可以指示 Wang 女士作为代名股东和董事采取某些行动，Despins 先生可以提出该主张。法官阁下，恕我直言，您可以——您可以作出该命令，但这并非该裁定所述内容。\n\n如果法官阁下今天认定，该裁定中存在 Kwok 先生可采取某些行动的剩余公司权力，那么从公司权力的角度看，至少鉴于该裁定的措辞，该裁定——该裁定存在歧义，因为裁定并未这样说。它没有保留——也没有声称保留 Kwok 先生任何剩余公司权力。\n\n因此，如果我回到我所阐述的标准，如果您要认定 Kwok 先生藐视法庭，受托人必须证明，该裁定明确且毫无歧义地要求受托人所要求的事项。这是我的第一点。我的观点——\n\n法庭：\n不过让我打断您，因为在我们谈到证物 E 和证物 G 之前，您已经表示您并不主张该裁定不清晰且存在歧义，但现在您却在这样主张。因此——\n\n亨齐律师：\n不。我并非——我并非在作此主张，法官阁下，因为我认为该裁定是清晰的。我——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 83 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司） - November 18, 2022\n认为该裁定已明确，Kwok 先生被剥夺了一切公司权力。我不——我不——基于您认定 Kwok 先生是受益所有人，并通过任命 Despins 先生为受托人，随之而来的结论是，您的裁定毫无歧义。\n\n您的裁定所说的是，自受托人获得任命之日起，Kwok 先生被剥夺了一切公司权力。因此，我不认为——我不认为该裁定——实际上，我不认为该裁定存在歧义。我认为您的裁定中不存在任何剩余公司权力，因此，Kwok 先生不能作为受益所有人，以公司权力为由指示股东或董事做任何事情。好吗？\n\n不过，我的论点是另一个不同的论点，即如果您今天认定我的——我称之为论点 1(a)——是错误的，即尽管受托人获得任命，尽管您作出了这项公司治理裁定，Kwok 先生仍有某些权力、某些作为受益所有人指示 Wang 女士采取公司行动的剩余权力，那么我会向您主张——如果这是您对裁定的解释，法官阁下——那么我会向您主张，您的裁定就存在歧义，因为——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n亨齐律师：\n——它如此清楚。因此，这构成我的论点 1(b)。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 84 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司） - November 18, 2022\n我不认为该裁定存在歧义。但是，如果您要认定存在这种剩余权力，那么我认为您的裁定存在歧义，因为我在该裁定的四角之内看不到任何剩余权力。\n\n再次说明，这正是 King（金）案——第二巡回上诉法院的案件——所说的，它必须存在于裁定的四角之内。\n\nKwok 先生应当做而未做的事情，必须存在于裁定的四角之内。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我明白。谢谢。\n\n亨齐律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n我的论点——因此，我将我已经提出的论点表述为论点 1(a) 和 1(b)。\n\n我的第二项论点，它——听起来可能有些相同，但实际上我认为它相关但不同。\n\n现在，再次说明，我的第二项论点的基本要点，或者说参照框架是，是否不存在合理怀疑，以及受托人是否已以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，该裁定明确且毫无歧义地要求债务人做受托人所要求的事情？\n\n如果我可以请您回到证物 E，法官阁下，即公司治理裁定。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我们把它调出来好吗？\n\n亨齐律师：\n是的，请，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。请调出证物 E。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1196\nFiled 12/03/22\nEntered 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司） - November 18, 2022\n法庭书记员：\n证物 E 已显示在屏幕上。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n亨齐律师，您想控制该文件，还是希望我们转到该文件的特定位置？\n\n亨齐律师：\n如果您能翻到第2页第2段，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n亨齐律师：\n很好。很好。谢谢。法官阁下——噢，您能否稍微向下翻一点，法官阁下，因为该第2段的底部被截掉了。很好。谢谢。\n\n法官阁下，我之前已请您注意该第2段的第一句。现在，我想请您注意该第2段的第二句和第三句。因此，我将把它们读入记录。\n\n“为免生疑，前述权利贯穿于”——如果您回到该第2段的第一句，“前述权利”是指债务人的全部经济和治理权利——“为免生疑，前述权利包括受托人所主张的替换债务人控制实体任何现任高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员的权力。作为前述事项的一部分，在必要范围内，受托人获授权以其——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1196\nFiled 12/03/22\nEntered 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司） - November 18, 2022\n作为第11章案件第11章受托人的身份，担任任何已被免职的该等高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员。”\n\n因此，法官阁下，该裁定明确设想，受托人可免除债务人控制实体的董事和代名股东。\n\n如果我可以请您回到证物 G，法官阁下，如果您能把它调出来。\n\n法庭：\n好的。当然。请给法庭书记员一点时间调出债务人证物 G。\n\n法庭书记员：\n证物 G 已显示在屏幕上。\n\n亨齐律师：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n亨齐律师，在何处——\n\n亨齐律师：\n如果您能翻到第5页第13段。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我正在查看证物 G 第5页第13段。\n\n亨齐律师：\n法官阁下，我之前已请您注意该第13段的第一句。现在我想请您注意该第13段的第二句，其中写道——再次说明，这是受托人请求作出公司治理裁定的动议——为免生疑，这包括受托人替换债务人控制实体任何现任高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员的权力。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 87 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰尼弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n因此，在该动议中，受托人请求获得明确授权，以更换高级管理人员、董事等等；法院在附件E第2段，即公司治理命令中，命令受托人有权更换任何现任高级管理人员、董事、经理或类似人员。\n\n法院已认定，并且受托人已使法官阁下相信，Kwok先生通过受托人的任命成为实益所有人，因此，受托人现为实益所有人。他对此深信不疑，以至于正在寻求因Kwok先生未采取行动而认定其藐视法庭。\n\n该措辞，即附件E第2段、公司治理命令中的措辞，明确预见到受托人在此类情形下可以采取的行动。\n\n作为实益所有人，他可以更换任何高级管理人员、董事或类似人员，随后可以指示该人员采取其认为适当的任何行动，包括，我相信，向其本人——或者向最终成为股东的任何人——签发新的股票证书。\n\n该程序不仅会更为有效，不仅会比因债务人未做某事——即我认为该命令并未要求其做的事——而寻求认定其藐视法庭简单得多，事实上，它会使该命令——抱歉，当我说该命令时，是指公司治理命令——变得完全不合逻辑。以该方式行事不仅会更为有效，法官阁下，我相信，根据公司治理命令，正确的行动是公司治理命令所明确预见的行动，即受托人作为实益所有人，有权更换董事和名义股东，随后采取其认为必要的任何公司行动。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 88 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰尼弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022 88\n\n我已告知受托人，我也将告知法院，债务人不会反对受托人恰恰采取该等行动，即采取公司治理命令明确预见其有权采取的行动。\n\n因此，该程序或该类程序正是法院所要求并由法院命令的救济。\n\n而受托人没有选择追求其在法院命令中请求的该一路径，反而耗费大量时间和金钱，寻求因某件事而认定Kwok先生藐视法庭；如我所言，我认为法院命令并未要求他做该件事，事实上，认为该命令要求他做受托人所要求的事，实在完全不合逻辑。\n\n法官阁下，我的第三点是，受托人是否能够，或者受托人是否已经证明，不存在合理疑义，并且存在清楚且令人信服的证据证明债务人未遵守命令。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰尼弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022 89\n\n此外，法官阁下，就我的第三点而言，我请求法庭书记员调出附件10。\n\n法院：受托人的附件10？\n\nHENZY律师（亨齐）：抱歉，法官阁下。抱歉。我的附件B。对不起，法官阁下。\n\n法院：B，如同 boy 中的 B？\n\nHENZY律师：B，如同 boy 中的 B。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n法庭书记员：附件B已显示在屏幕上。\n\nHENZY律师：谢谢。\n\n法院：附件B已经显示，Henzy律师。\n\nHENZY律师：法官阁下，您可以审阅该文件，但我陈述，这是一封Kwok先生致 Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）的信，该信附有一份股份转让文书和一份书面决议、董事决议，其格式符合受托人的要求；法官阁下，在该信中——就在我们目前看到的位置——您可以看到该信的最后一项条款或最后一句写道：“因此，为遵从受托人的要求，并在我对 Ace Decade（艾斯·迪凯德）可能拥有任何权限的范围内，我在此指示您签署所附股份转让文书及股份转让决议。”\n\n法官阁下，在其以密封方式提交的答复中——我想我可以——嗯，在其对我方异议的答复中，法官阁下，受托人主张，将该信连同所附股份转让文书和董事决议发送给Wang女士，是一种诉讼策略。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 89 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1196\nFiled 12/03/22\nEntered 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰尼弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n我主张，这不是一种诉讼策略。这是一次遵守命令的尝试。\n\n藐视法庭——民事藐视法庭的目的不是惩罚，而是强制遵守。Kwok先生在这里所试图做的是遵守。他不想进行这场争执。\n\n如果受托人想要一封不同的信，或者法院认为应当有一封不同的信，那么应当对此作出明确规定。\n\n这又回到了这样一点：Kwok先生需要从您作出的命令文本本身得知，他被要求做什么。\n\n他已通过向Wang女士发送该信，尝试遵守命令。如果他还需要做其他事情，我认为命令中并未作出规定。\n\n而且，King案（King）再次表明，所要求的内容必须载于法院作出的命令文本本身，而该命令中没有任何内容具体说明Kwok先生应如何——它没有具体处理这个问题；也就是说，Kwok先生作为实益所有人，试图让董事和名义股东采取任何行动，但该命令当然也没有具体说明他必须采取的行动究竟是什么。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1196\nFiled 12/03/22\nEntered 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰尼弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n我要指出，法官阁下，如果您可以——如果法庭书记员可以先调出附件C。\n\n法院：好的。债务人附件C。\n\n法庭书记员：附件C已显示在屏幕上。\n\n法院：股份转让文书，是您要看的那个吗，Henzy律师？\n\nHENZY律师：是的，法官阁下。如果您向下翻页——我不——那是——也许稍微向上翻一点。谢谢。那样大概正好。\n\n因此，法官阁下，您会看到，那是一份由Kwok先生签署的股份转让文书。法官阁下，受托人的要求是，Kwok先生签署股份转让文件和董事决议，或者促使董事和名义股东签署该等文件。\n\n我不认为任何人曾经主张过，也不认为受托人曾主张，Kwok先生事实上就是该名义股东或董事，但我仍让他签署了该文件。这是股份转让协议。\n\n法官阁下，还有附件D，如果您可以调出该附件。\n\n法院：现在是哪一份？回到B？\n\nHENZY律师：附件D，如同 dog 中的 D。\n\n法院：哦，D。抱歉。好的。债务人的——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1196\nFiled 12/03/22\nEntered 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰尼弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022\n\n债务人附件D，如同 dog 中的 D。\n\n法庭书记员：附件D已显示在屏幕上。\n\nHENZY律师：那是唯一董事的决议，法官阁下。再次说明，该决议由Kwok先生签署。\n\n尽管需要非常、非常明确的是，我不认为任何人曾经主张过，也不认为受托人主张Kwok先生事实上是该董事，但那是受托人发出的要求函中所载的要求。\n\n再次说明，他要求Kwok先生签署一份股份转让协议和一份董事决议，或者促使该名义股东和董事签署该等文件。\n\n所以，再次说明，我让他签署了该文件，因此，我认为，任何声称他未遵守受托人最初要求的主张，都已由此得到回应。\n\n所以，再次说明，法官阁下，Kwok先生已尝试遵守命令。如果他还需要做更多事情，我确实请求法院予以指示。\n\n我的最后一点，法官阁下，与密封文件有些难以分割地交织在一起，而且——\n\n法院：那么，我们现在就不讨论最后一点，对吗，Henzy律师。\n\nHENZY律师：而且，法官阁下，我将请求准予接纳的证词笔录——\n\n法院：我认为它已经被接纳了。它已被密封，对吗，27？我认为它昨天已经被接纳了。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰尼弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022 93\n\n昨天。\n\nHENZY律师：没有。没有。我认为 Bassett先生（巴塞特）和我都会同意，它尚未被接纳，法官阁下。它已被密封。受托人已将其标识为一份附件，但它尚未被接纳。\n\n法院：我以为它昨天已被接纳。\n\nBASSETT先生：法官阁下，它昨天未被接纳。而且我认为——\n\n法院：好的。好吧，没问题。我只是，您知道，尽量跟上。我以为我已经就该附件做了记录，但无论如何，让我看看。哦，您是对的。它尚未被接纳。好的。那么，我们现在不会接纳它。我们将在听证会密封部分进行期间接纳它。所以，律师——\n\nSMITH女士（史密斯）：法官阁下，在我们将讨论证词笔录的范围内，PAX（PAX）是保护令的当事方，而且事实上——PAX的律师当时在证词录取现场，我们请求获准在与该证词笔录相关的有限范围内参与。\n\n法院：我们将在讨论该问题时处理此事，但谢谢。\n\nSMITH女士：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 93 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（杰尼弗控股公司）— November 18, 2022 94\n\n法院：Bassett律师，您将就Henzy律师关于未被密封的证据所作的论点作出回应，对吗？\n\nBASSETT律师：是的。是的，法官阁下。我会这样做，然后显然将我其余的陈述留待非公开庭审。\n\n因此，法官阁下，您听到Henzy律师提出的第一个论点是，自公司治理命令作出之时起，他的当事人实际上已被剥夺一切公司权限，因此，在此时，按照Henzy先生所称，从技术层面而言，其已无法采取行动，以促成将 Ace Decade（艾斯·迪凯德）的所有权权益、控制权和股份转让给破产财产及 Despins受托人（德斯平斯）。\n\n法官阁下，坦率地说，该论点完全不合逻辑，并且不仅与法院作出的命令、公司治理权利命令完全不一致，也与我在昨天陈述开始时所说的《破产法典》的明确要求以及债务人的合作义务完全不一致。\n\n我想调出附件E；我的同事 Doug Barron（道格·巴伦）在线上，他可以将其调出或控制该文件，但我只是想——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 94 of\n\n法院：我们将要——我们必须——我们必须——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司）- November 18, 2022 95 巴西特律师：——回到——法庭：法庭书记员必须先这样做。为了使关于证物的记录清晰，我们必须这么做。巴西特律师：当然。法庭：那么，巴西特律师，您希望法庭书记员调出债务人证物 E 吗？巴西特律师：是的，债务人证物 E，法官阁下。法庭书记员：证物 E 已显示在屏幕上。法庭：好的。现在已经显示出来了，巴西特律师。您想如何处理？巴西特律师：如果可以把控制权交给我的同事巴伦先生（Mr. Barron），那就太好了。法庭：可以。现为本次辩论之目的，将证物 E 的控制权交给受托人律师。巴西特律师：谢谢。我想请巴伦先生在取得控制权后，向下滚动至我认为是第 2 段的位置。我不知道这里是否遇到了一些技术困难？巴伦先生：是的。抱歉。我很抱歉。我在移动屏幕时有点困难。好了。巴西特律师：好的。谢谢。那么，法官阁下——Case 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 95 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 96 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok 和 Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022\n\n1 法庭：\n好的。\n我看到第 2 段了。\n请继续。\n\n2 巴西特律师：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n3 我认为，亨齐律师（Attorney Henzy）在谈论适用于藐视法庭动议的判例法时所作的论述顺序，\n\n4 以及随后引导法庭查阅我昨天开始陈述时所援引、且规制本争议的命令，\n\n5 颇能说明问题；该命令毫无疑问地表明，\n\n6 债务人实际上因未遵守该命令而构成藐视法庭。\n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n9 \n\n10 因此，亨齐律师所说的是，您知道，\n\n11 命令所要求的内容必须明确且毫不含糊，\n\n12 某人才能因未遵守该命令而被认定构成藐视法庭。\n\n13 \n\n14 法官阁下，如我昨天所述，第 2 段，\n\n15 根据法庭现已作出的命令，并鉴于债务人放弃了其先前在\n\n16 对我们藐视法庭动议的异议中首先提出的论点，即他根本\n\n17 不拥有 Ace Decade；他现在适当地放弃了该论点，\n\n18 因为该论点毫无依据，正如我们向法庭提交的文件所清楚表明的那样，\n\n19 尽管他使受托人为就该问题进行诉讼花费了\n\n20 数十万美元；第 2 段规定，受托人为\n\n21 破产财产的利益持有债务人对债务人控制实体的全部\n\n22 经济权利和治理权利，\n\n23 \n\n24 \n\n25 其中包括 Ace Decade。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 97 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok 和 Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022\n\n1 其中包括 Ace Decade。\n\n2 现在，债务人希望法庭所做的是\n\n3 止步于此，并说就是这样。受托人得到了他\n\n4 想要的东西；他可能花费了数十万美元，\n\n5 争取最终揭开债务人确实\n\n6 拥有 Ace Decade 的真相；但现在他取得了该实体，\n\n7 我还能做什么？现在这是受托人的问题。\n\n8 但这并非该命令所要求的，也并非《破产法典》所要求的。\n\n9 \n\n10 法官阁下，如果您查看该命令的第 3 段，\n\n11 正如我昨天向法庭强调的那样，其中\n\n12 非常清楚、且尽可能毫不含糊地规定，\n\n13 根据《破产法典》第 521(a)(3) 条和第 521(a)(4) 条，\n\n14 现命令债务人应在必要范围内与\n\n15 受托人合作，以使受托人能够\n\n16 履行其职责。\n\n17 法官阁下，《破产法典》第 521(a)(3) 条和第 521(a)(4) 条\n\n18 所作的指示非常明确。\n\n19 第 521(a)(3) 条规定，如已任命受托人，\n\n20 债务人必须在必要范围内与受托人合作，\n\n21 以使受托人能够履行其在本法典下的职责。\n\n22 第 521(a)(4) 条规定，如已任命受托人，\n\n23 债务人必须向受托人交付破产财产的全部财产\n\n24 及已记录的信息。\n\n25 法官阁下，《破产法典》的这些规定\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 98 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok 和 Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 98 以及该命令的这一规定，极其明确地指出一个显而易见的要点：在提交破产申请时，债务人的财产依法仅仅转移给受托人，并不终止债务人与受托人合作的义务，也不终止其采取必要措施以确保受托人实际上能够取得对该财产的控制权的义务，包括通过取得公司治理权利而取得对实体的控制权。\n\n这正是债务人被要求做的，也是他完全未能做到的。\n\n亨齐律师在其论述中遗漏的另一件事，是我们如何走到今天这一步的经过。他几乎没有提及这样一个事实：自我们提出本动议以来，他们提出了债务人并不拥有该实体这一完全毫无依据的论点，尽管存在明显相反的确凿证据，而法庭现已对此作出认定；但他也忽略了本案更广泛意义上我们如何走到今天这一步。\n\nDespins 受托人（Trustee Despins）于今年 7 月被任命。正如我刚才向法官阁下展示的那样，《破产法典》当时非常明确地规定了债务人此后为与受托人合作而必须做什么。\n\n但当时发生的事情，以及自那以后本案每一个阶段发生的事情，无论是关于公司治理权利、证据开示，还是\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1196\nFiled 12/03/22\nEntered 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok 和 Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022\n\n1 其他任何事项，债务人都拒绝合作，并且\n\n2 竭尽所能使受托人的工作困难且昂贵。\n\n3 \n\n4 受托人别无选择，只能提出一项关于公司\n\n5 治理权利的动议，寻求该命令所规定的救济，以使本已明确的事项\n\n6 更加明确。我们现已有该\n\n7 命令作出，但我们仍在这里。\n\n8 因为尽管 Ace Decade 的控制权本应已转移给破产财产，\n\n9 \n\n10 债务人并未采取使该转移发生所必要的行动。\n\n11 现在，亨齐律师在其\n\n12 第二项论述中提到的是这样一个事实：嗯，您知道，即使\n\n13 债务人有能力，尽管事实上他已不再\n\n14 严格具备做任何事情的能力；但即使他有能力，\n\n15 他也已经做了他能做的一切，因为——\n\n16 我想请法庭书记员调出证物 B，即债务人证物 B，谢谢。\n\n17 \n\n18 法庭书记员：\n证物 B 已显示在屏幕上。\n\n19 巴西特律师：\n非常感谢。\n\n20 如果我的同事巴伦先生能够取得\n\n21 控制权，我们将不胜感激。\n\n22 法庭：\n我认为他已经取得控制权了。\n\n23 巴西特律师：\n好的。\n很好。\n抱歉。\n谢谢，\n\n24 法官阁下。\n\n25 那么，法官阁下，这封信，亨齐律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 100 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok 和 Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 100 着重谈到过；我将在非公开庭审中花更多时间谈论它，因为有关该信的证词已被密封。坦白说，这封信是一场闹剧。首先，该信日期为 November 10th, 2022。我们的动议是在此前数周，即使不是至少一个月前，就已提交。债务人本可以，如果他确实认真尝试采取行动，至少最起码在上周之前尝试这样做。待我们进入非公开庭审后，我将说明有关时间安排的证词。关于这封信，我还要指出的是，它颇能说明问题地没有载明 Wang 女士（Ms. Wang）的地址。我将在非公开庭审中进一步谈论这一点。该信称其通过专人递送发送。完全没有证据证明该信实际已被送达。如果您查看这里所写文字的内容，其显然、透明地是一种诉讼策略：债务人发出一封信说，Wang 女士，我希望您——此外，他在第二句话中说，受托人认为我控制 Ace Decade，并要求我利用这种被认为的控制权，指示您签署随附的股份转让文书和股份转让决议。但在他寄给 Wang 女士、据称要求她采取\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 101 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok 和 Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022 101 这些行动的信函表面上，他承认自己甚至不认为他有能力提出他所提出的要求。他真诚地相信她实际上会遵从该请求的说法，根本不——不可信。\n\n同样，在最后一句中，“在我拥有任何权限的范围内”。这再次是向信函收件人作出的透明承认：不要做我要求您做的事，因为我没有能力这样做。\n\n法官阁下，提交此信是为了使人看起来债务人正在采取行动，遵守其根据公司治理命令及《破产法典》所负的义务。同样，待在非公开庭审中，我们将进一步讨论相关证词。\n\n至于股份转让决议和董事决议，亨齐律师在其陈述中已向您承认，这些文件没有效力，因为 Wang 女士——顺便说一句，法官阁下，债务人在其对该动议的异议中，也就是再次以现已放弃的、其并不拥有 Ace Decade 的论点为开端的异议中，甚至没有提及 Ace Decade 的受益股东、名义股东或其他股东是谁。就债务人而言，在此信作为证物提交之前，这仍是一个谜。\n\n因此，认为他一直在真诚采取步骤，促使他直到 November 10th 才向我们确认身份的 Wang 女士采取行动，以促使 Ace Decade 的控制权转移给受托人，这根本不真实。\n\nHo Wan Kwok 和 Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022\n\n1 Ace Decade 的控制权转移给受托人，这根本\n\n2 不真实。\n\n3 法官阁下，在我们进入非公开庭审之前，\n\n4 我只想作一个总结，并概述我们目前的情况。\n\n5 债务人希望法庭所做的是不作出藐视法庭认定。\n\n6 其后果将是，受托人必须继续自本案第一天起\n\n7 一直不得不做的事情，即竭力争取、奋力抗争、耗费\n\n8 大量金钱以及不必要的时间和精力，\n\n9 以取得他依法本应获得的东西。\n\n10 \n\n11 债务人希望受托人追查 Yvette Wang（王女士），\n\n12 即使受托人能够找到她，也要追到英属维尔京群岛或\n\n13 其他地方，花费数十万美元试图\n\n14 强迫她做证据清楚表明债务人能够做的事情。\n\n15 \n\n16 没有任何可信的论点能够证明，与 Wang 女士有长期关系的\n\n17 债务人，已经按照本法庭的命令及其根据《破产法典》所负的义务，\n\n18 尽其合理应尽之责，\n\n19 使股份转让得以发生，并使\n\n20 受托人获得其有权获得的控制权。\n\n21 \n\n22 现在，我还有更多与此相关的意见和更多支持这些要点的\n\n23 证据，我将留待非公开庭审中提出；但法官阁下，我们认为，根据\n\n24 与本动议有关的记录，并根据本案中的记录\n\n25 \n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 102 of\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1196 Filed 12/03/22 Entered 12/03/22 11:30:16 Page 103 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok 和 Genever Holdings Corp - November 18, 2022\n\n本案中，显然债务人未遵守公司治理权利命令，应被裁定藐视法庭，并应被命令不得采取某些额外的具体行动，以便，呃，您知道，修改那封信。我确信亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）会提出论点，主张略有不同的说法；债务人需要做的，以及受托人将请求法院做的，是强制债务人将股份转让给受托人，仅此而已。\n\n他有能力这样做。\n\n法院应设定期限。如果他未在该期限内完成，而受托人也未取得股份，那么法院届时应考虑，对于他持续未能遵守命令，将施加何种制裁。\n\n该等制裁由法院酌情决定，范围广泛，包括拘禁。\n\n去年，我在特拉华州（Delaware）桑奇法官（Judge Sontchi）面前处理过一个案件，情形非常相似；事实上，正好是一年前的今天，法官阁下，即 2021 年 11 月。\n\nEagle Hospitality（鹰酒店）案。我们当时担任债务人的律师。债务人的两名前主要负责人受我们针对其作出的临时禁令命令约束。\n\n他们被要求提供账目说明，并采取公开步骤向债务人提供信息。他们一再未能这样做。\n\n我们请求法院作出藐视法庭命令。\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 104 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— 2022 年 11 月 18 日\n\n若不遵守，其后果为拘禁。\n\n桑奇法官作出了一项命令，给予他们两周时间遵守。如果他们未在该两周内遵守，该命令规定，他们将由治安官命令收押并拘禁，无需另行通知。\n\n结果如何？他们遵守了。为便于法官阁下查阅，该案引注，如我所述，是 Eagle Hospitality（鹰酒店）案。案号为 21-10036，该命令载于 ECF 1686。\n\n因此，法官阁下，我们确实——我希望法官阁下从我的陈述中能够明白——我们已对为使本案债务人作出简单遵守而不得不付出的努力感到束手无策，而受托人须依《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）履行其被赋予的职责。\n\n因此，我们请求作出命令，认定债务人藐视法庭。\n\n再次，如我所述，我乐于在非公开庭审中就其他要点作出回应。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n亨齐律师——\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我可以回应吗？\n\n法庭：——您有机会答复，随后我们将结束本次公开庭审部分。所以，请继续。\n\n案件号 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— 2022 年 11 月 18 日\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法官阁下，我最先作出的评论之一是，我理解——我不可能不理解——本案中已经发生了大量活动和争议。\n\n今日提交法院审理的唯一问题，是债务人是否未遵守公司治理命令。本案中没有其他部分与今日提交法院审理的事项相关。\n\n我将就债务人的能力——姑且称为实际遵守能力——讨论 521(a)(3) 和 (4) 的论点。\n\n但这一点很重要。这涉及我的第一项论点，法官阁下，即公司治理命令所述及所作出的内容。该命令载明了一项明确的法律规则，即自德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）获任命之时起，他拥有全部公司治理权利。\n\n就债务人依 521(a)(3) 进行合作的能力而言，受托人提出的合作要求必须合理。\n\n德斯平斯先生在此种情形下所主张的是，债务人——德斯平斯先生一贯称其在获任命时并非实益所有人——将去找董事和名义股东，并对董事和名义股东说：“我指示并命令你这样做。”\n\n而根据公司治理命令，董事和名义股东完全有权说：“你有什么权限要求我这样做？”\n\n答案是，按照受托人的说法，自德斯平斯先生获任命之时起，郭先生已无任何权限。他无权指示董事和名义股东作任何事情。\n\n因此，关于 521(a)(3)——我还会谈到 521(a)(3) 问题的第二部分——521(a)(3) 的问题在于，按照德斯平斯先生请求您作出和签发的公司治理命令，以及《破产法典》的施行，郭先生如何遵守该命令？\n\n如果对方说“不，我不认为那是——那是命令所设想的内容”，他是否要使用武力？\n\n请稍等片刻，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：当然。\n\n亨齐先生：我认为巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）刚刚略过了我的第二项论点。\n\n而且，您知道，如果我感到束手无策，我不知道是否有人会同情我；但我在此始终的立场或始终的看法，法官阁下，是这——这一直是在浪费时间。\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 107 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— 2022 年 11 月 18 日\n\n公司治理命令明确规定，德斯平斯先生本可以在此采取何种行动。\n\n根据该命令，他有权更换董事和名义股东，并采取他希望采取的任何公司行动。\n\n那将会很快，成本很低，也很容易。\n\n如我所述，债务人不会反对。债务人从来不会反对。\n\n如果德斯平斯先生希望——曾希望或现在希望——让法院批准该做法，他可以这样做。\n\n我不知道为什么我们必须进行这场争执。\n\n这可以区别对待。并且，再次，这涉及我的论点，法官阁下，即如果您要将受托人请求您解读进该命令的内容解读进该命令，那么我认为该命令含糊不清。\n\n我没有看过桑奇法官的命令，但仅根据巴塞特先生所说，这并不是一个您命令——您命令郭先生提供账目说明的案件。\n\n这是——这是一项命令，其中您说受托人拥有任何由债务人控制实体的全部公司治理权利，并且您命令郭先生予以合作。\n\n这并不是您明确说了诸如“提供账目说明”之类事项的情形。您在这里没有明确说，尽管您不是实益所有人，您仍需去指示此人采取公司行动，而您——不会仅作出一项命令说您没有公司权限。\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 108 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— 2022 年 11 月 18 日\n\n法官阁下，命令中的 521(a)(3) 用语，如巴塞特先生所引用，是“为履行受托人职责所必需”。这来自法典。\n\n再次，论点是，这——这对于受托人履行受托人职责并非必要。受托人本可非常容易、迅速且低成本地自行采取公司行动。公司治理命令明确规定了这一点。\n\n法官阁下，我再说一次，如果——而且这，您知道，我们将就郭先生能做或不能做什么讨论 521(a)(3) 论点。他不能使用武力。\n\n如果受托人或法院认为有必要发送某种通信，那么我希望被告知那是什么，因为目前我不知道什么能够令受托人满意，或者从法院角度而言，什么能够满足法院作出的命令。\n\n而且，您知道，在合理范围内，郭先生将会做法院明确命令他做的事情。仅此而已，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好。\n\n关于将在密封状态下继续进行的庭审，巴塞特律师和林赛律师（Attorney Linsey），你们的密封动议谈到，即使在密封状态下，某些当事人也能够查看该信息，因为有保护令，并且所有这些当事人均受保护令约束。因此，受托人、债务人、PAX、委员会和美国受托人（United States Trustee）均受该保护令约束。\n\n林赛先生：是的，法官阁下。仅就郭的证言笔录而言。\n\n保护令约束。这样准确吗？\n\n法庭：那么其他文件呢？\n\n林赛先生：其他文件只能由法院、债务人和受托人查阅。\n\n法庭：那么我们必须将庭审分为两个部分。我们必须将证言笔录与所有其他证物分开处理。对吗？\n\n林赛先生：是的，法官阁下。我很抱歉。我知道这不方便。这——\n\n法庭：哦，那——\n\n林赛先生：——不幸地只是一个——\n\n法庭：这正是我——\n\n林赛先生：——我们所处理事项的产物。\n\n法庭：这正是我所设想的，但我需要——我需要您如刚才所做的那样，为记录明确说明这一点。\n\n林赛先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第 110 页，共\n\n110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever控股公司）— 2022 年 11 月 18 日\n\n法庭：我的意思是，这就是我所理解的——你们正在划分——即受保护令约束的当事人可以查看证言笔录。\n\n但是，除债务人和受托人外，任何人均不得就其他密封文件进行辩论，因为这些文件受律师—当事人特权和工作成果原则保护？\n\n林赛先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n亨齐先生：而且，法官阁下，从实际操作上说，我不知道这将如何进行，法官阁下，因为我不知道该如何将论点的各部分拆开，以提及受律师—当事人特权保护而处于密封状态的部分，与不受律师—当事人特权保护而未密封的部分。\n\n法庭：那么，我告诉您将如何进行。我们将把与房间内其他所有人的讨论限制于证言笔录，然后我们会再次休庭，而您将讨论密封证物。这将如何进行。\n\n亨齐先生：好的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的？那么我们现在要做的是，休庭至下午 3:00。\n\n庭审将恢复进行，仅处理证物——我认为是证物 27，即 ECF 1100，即\n\n我相信，这是上周五进行的 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）的证言。\n\n能够出席本次听证该部分的当事人，是受保护令约束、且均已签署我先前在庭上提及的保护令的当事人，即债务人、受托人、美国受托人、PAX 和委员会。\n\n好的。\n\n法庭休庭至下午 3:00。\n\n（下午 2:42 至下午 3:14 休庭。）\n\n法庭书记员：\n休庭结束后，法庭继续开庭。\n\n法官：\n好的。下午好。根据今日本次听证期间宣读并载入记录的命令，该命令准许受托人提出的驳回动议，受托人提出的密封动议——抱歉，我刚才说那句话时看到了一份写有“驳回”字样的文件，我表示歉意——本次听证的该部分将予以密封，能够出席本次听证该部分的当事人为受托人、债务人、美国受托人和 Pax。\n\n我是否遗漏了任何人？除上述当事人外，我看着屏幕，没有看到其他人参与本次听证。哦，Wolman 先生（沃尔曼先生）除外。我不知道 Wolman 先生为何仍在这里，因为他不是这些当事人之一。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司）— 2022年11月18日 112\n\n法庭书记员：\n我可以将他移至等候室，我现在就这么做。\n\n法官：\n好的。\n\nKAPLAN 律师：\n此外，法官阁下，我相信还有委员会。我不确定您是否提到我们，但我认为我们也包括在内。\n\n法官：\n我可能没有说到这一点，Kaplan 律师（卡普兰律师），所以您确认我已说到此点是对的，因为委员会是当事人之一。我在休庭前确实说过这一点，但刚才没有说。因此，谢谢。好的。那么我们将仅处理——哦，抱歉，请说。\n\n法庭书记员：\n我是否也要将录音密封？\n\n法官：\n是的，您也要将录音密封。\n\n法庭书记员：\n好的。我会这样做。\n\n法官：\n这将是本次听证的密封部分。\n\n（下午 3:15 至下午 4:04 的音频部分已密封。）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1196 提交日期 12/03/22 录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16 第112页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司）— 2022年11月18日\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭记录员兼誊录员，证明上述内容是对上述案件程序官方电子录音的准确誊本。\n\n2022年12月2日\nChristine Fiore（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），CERT\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司）— 2022年11月18日 114\n\n索引\n\n页码\n\n受托人证物：\n\n32 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）在 Wengui v. Li（Wengui 诉 Li）案中的声明 51\n\n33 Wedlake Bell LLP（韦德莱克·贝尔律师事务所）致 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的函件 51\n日期为 2022年11月3日，涉及 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）和 Dawn State Limited（道恩州有限公司）\n\n债务人证物：\n\nB 债务人于 2022年11月10日致 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）的董事及名义股东的函件，随附股份转让文书和股份转让决议 62\n\nC 由债务人签署的 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）股份转让文书 62\n\nD 由债务人签署的 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）股份转让决议 62\n\nE 根据《破产法典》第 363、521、1108 和 1505 条作出的命令，(A) 确认第 11 章受托人持有债务人在债务人控制实体中的全部经济权利和公司治理权利，(B) 授权第 11 章受托人代表破产财产在任何外国行事，以及 (C) 准予相关救济。 62\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1196\n提交日期 12/03/22\n录入日期 12/03/22 11:30:16\n115 第115页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corp（Genever 控股公司）— 2022年11月18日 115\n\n索引（续）\n\n页码\n\n债务人证物（续）：\n\nG 第 11 章受托人提出的动议，请求根据《破产法典》第 363、521、1108 和 1505 条作出命令，(A) 确认第 11 章受托人持有债务人在债务人控制实体中的全部经济权利和公司治理权利，(B) 授权第 11 章受托人代表破产财产在任何外国行事，以及 (C) 准予相关救济。 62\n\nH 2022年8月1日听证笔录节选，第118页第13行，以及第121页第13至25行 65\n\nI 2022年8月4日听证笔录节选，第17页第15至17行 66\n\n2022年8月4日听证笔录节选，第64页第14行，以及第19至22行 79","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Despins","Guo","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":856,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":923,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1095,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1099,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1100,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1110,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1115,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1686,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":34909,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-12-03 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-12-03","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:46:35"}