{"id":"court_ctb_1228_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1228,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-12-13","title":"EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\*","summary_zh":"听证笔录（附件 A） —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1228-1（2022年12月13日立案）。该份 2022 年 8 月 30 日的庭审笔录记录了各方围绕破产受托人是否承继法律特权、游艇 Lady May 维修储备金及排除郭文贵个人刑事与庇护材料范围的辩论。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript (Exhibit A) — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1228-1 (filed Dec 13, 2022). The transcript of the August 30, 2022 court proceeding covers arguments regarding the scope of trustee control over legal privileges, repair reserves for the yacht Lady May, and carve-outs for debtor's personal and asylum records.","body_en":"## **EXHIBIT A**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-1 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 2 of\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* August 30, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF ORDER SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE; MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING REPAIR RESERVE FOR LADY MAY; MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING; MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL ESTABLISHING REPAIR RESERVE FOR THE LADY MAY; MOTION TO STAY SECS.523/727 ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS; MOTION FOR ORDER PROVIDING THAT CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES PASSED TO TRUSTEE UPON APPOINT AND FOR RELATED RELIEF BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, STEPHEN M. KINDSETH. ESQ. HK International and AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Mei Guo: ERIC HENZY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992** 11\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-1 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 3 of 11\n\n> APPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Counsel for the NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Chapter 11 Trustee: Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For Verdolino & Lowey: WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Brown Rudnick Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\n2\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1228-1<br>Filed 12/13/22<br>Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46<br>Page 4 of<br>11 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>104                                                          |\n| 1  | are limiting that.                                                                            |\n| 2  | If you look at the request for release section of                                             |\n| 3  | our motion, which we cited again in our reply, we're looking                                  |\n| 4  | specifically for assets of the estate, his financial                                          |\n| 5  | condition and matters relating to administration.                                             |\n| 6  | The debtor identifies his concerns about                                                      |\n| 7  | potentially privileged documents related to criminal issues                                   |\n| 8  | such as allegations of rape and false imprisonment and other                                  |\n| 9  | things that have been made against him as well as his asylum                                  |\n| 10 | application.<br>We are not, in our investigation at this time,                                |\n| 11 | seeking any documents related to those issues.                                                |\n| 12 | Again, we're focused on assets and an                                                         |\n| 13 | investigation that hopefully be used to augment this estate.                                  |\n| 14 | Second, Your Honor, we're not asking for a waiver                                             |\n| 15 | or any control over privileges that belong to other parties.                                  |\n| 16 | And, in fact, I don't know how one could even read our                                        |\n| 17 | motion to be requesting that relief.                                                          |\n| 18 | We are, to be clear, seeking a determination that                                             |\n| 19 | the trustee has succeeded to any privileges that the debtor                                   |\n| 20 | holds with other parties in terms of a common interest or a                                   |\n| 21 | joint defense privilege.<br>And we cite case law for that in                                  |\n| 22 | our motion.<br>And I don't think that's contested, frankly.                                   |\n| 23 | But what we're not seeking, what the debtor seems                                             |\n| 24 | to suggest we are seeking, but we're not, is an order from                                    |\n| 25 | the Court that the trustee now controls any privilege that                                    |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-1 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 5 of\n\n|    | 11                                                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>107                           |\n| 1  | that very specifically seek documents related to assets of     |\n| 2  | the estate, other transactional matters involving the debtor   |\n| 3  | prior to the bankruptcy, and other things that simply do not   |\n| 4  | implicate the types of concerns regarding criminal             |\n| 5  | liability, et cetera, that this debtor is worried about.       |\n| 6  | So there's nothing in the approach that the Foster             |\n| 7  | case was concerned about that we're trying to ask the Court    |\n| 8  | to do here.                                                    |\n| 9  | And frankly, if you look at other cases, there are             |\n| 10 | plenty of other cases that have issued the type of order       |\n| 11 | that we're asking this court to issue, including one of the    |\n| 12 | cases we cite is the In re Tarkington case from the Eastern    |\n| 13 | District of North Carolina in 2010.                            |\n| 14 | There, there was an investigation into potential               |\n| 15 | estate assets.<br>The trustee wanted to depose an attorney who |\n| 16 | represented the debtor prior to the bankruptcy, and what the   |\n| 17 | Court ended up doing was, all right, I'm going to let the      |\n| 18 | deposition go forward, here is what I consider to be within    |\n| 19 | the scope of the privilege.                                    |\n| 20 | All of the privilege related to assets of the                  |\n| 21 | estate, et cetera, has passed to the trustee.<br>Anything that |\n| 22 | could go under criminal liability or those things could        |\n| 23 | still be covered by a privilege.                               |\n| 24 | So you can go take the deposition, and counsel to              |\n| 25 | the debtor can interpose objections consistent with that,      |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 110 These are cases where the issue was the trustee was trying to investigate assets of the estate that would potentially relate in, you know, augmenting the estate, of the value of those assets. And what the courts held in those cases is that this is a situation where the debtor would benefit from that. These are -- when the debtor's estate is augmented by additional -- the location of causes of action or the identification of other assets he benefits. He's not harmed by that. So, you know, the debtor contends, well, as I said before, there's a concern that, you know, it's possible documents that the trustee is seeking to have access to could involve potential criminal liability, whether it's the rape allegations that he mentioned, false imprisonment, or completely unrelated issues like his asylum application, but, again, as I said before, we're not seeking to get those documents through our discovery requests. The debtor has identified one request in our subpoena directed to the debtor's former law firms and professionals, Request 17, that asks for information about legal disputes which could be read to include criminal actions against him, to the extent there are any, or his asylum application, we're willing to make clear on the Case 22-50073 Doc 1228-1 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 6 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-1 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 7 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 111 record that we're not seeking to get that type of information and we'll limit that request accordingly. I mean, the only plausible scenario where the debtor could say that he has a document that is responsive to our subpoena, but also could result in harm to him, is that there's some document that relates to his assets, relates to the topics that we're seeking to explore, and also somehow implicates his criminal liability. But the debtor has not even offered one hint of what that could be. He's come forward with nothing to suggest other than, as he said in his opposition, allegations of false imprisonment and the like. There is no reason to believe that he's given of that we have that I could even imagine as to why the documents we're seeking related to, for example, his interest in the New York condominium, the Lady May, to all the other private jets and things like that that he's talked about, there's no conceivable scenario where those documents would relate to these types of issues. So this idea that the balancing test would weigh in favor of not passing control over of these privileges to the estate is just -- I think there's no weight to that. The debtor also raises, Your Honor, the non- dischargeability actions that have been filed against him. And he says that while there's a concern there I could be\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1228-1<br>Filed 12/13/22<br>Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46<br>Page 8 of<br>11 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>113                                                          |\n| 1  | all.<br>So there's just no legitimate concern at all that                                     |\n| 2  | somehow we're going to get information related to these                                       |\n| 3  | actions.                                                                                      |\n| 4  | And by the way, we're not going to share the                                                  |\n| 5  | documents we get with the plaintiffs to those actions, so                                     |\n| 6  | this idea of a concern on the 523 actions, again, I think is                                  |\n| 7  | just -- it's really nonexistent.                                                              |\n| 8  | A couple -- a couple more points, Your Honor,                                                 |\n| 9  | before I wrap up.<br>At least on my opening remarks.                                          |\n| 10 | The debtor in his objection, although he initially                                            |\n| 11 | says the Court shouldn't issue any ruling here, he says,                                      |\n| 12 | well, if the Court does, it could issue certain guidance.                                     |\n| 13 | And the way I think the debtor frames that                                                    |\n| 14 | guidance is to say that the Court could direct the                                            |\n| 15 | recipients -- and this is in paragraph 33 of the objection -                                  |\n| 16 | - the Court could direct the recipients of the subpoenas to                                   |\n| 17 | withhold documents on the basis of privilege, quote, \"Only                                    |\n| 18 | documents that they believe potentially implicate harm to                                     |\n| 19 | the debtor such as criminal allegations, facts relating to                                    |\n| 20 | non-dischargeability, or facts that have nothing to do with                                   |\n| 21 | the debtor's estate, such as his pending asylum application.                                  |\n| 22 | Now, some of that actually sounds consistent with                                             |\n| 23 | the remarks I've given today, but I think it also highlights                                  |\n| 24 | sort of what we're also worried about and the mischief that                                   |\n| 25 | could result if an order specific to that language is                                         |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 1228-1<br>Filed 12/13/22<br>Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46<br>Page 9 of<br>11 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>137                                                          |\n| 1  | questions.<br>Thank you.                                                                      |\n| 2  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                         |\n| 3  | MR. BASSETT:<br>Your Honor, just briefly in                                                   |\n| 4  | response.<br>I think I might stay here this time if that's                                    |\n| 5  | okay.                                                                                         |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>That's fine.                                                                    |\n| 7  | MR. BASSETT:<br>So Mr. Romney, in addressing our                                              |\n| 8  | proposed changes to the language, I think his position was                                    |\n| 9  | that, well, we're still not providing for the application of                                  |\n| 10 | a balancing test because if what we're saying is that                                         |\n| 11 | privileges related to the debtor's assets, financial                                          |\n| 12 | condition, or the administration of his estate, pass to the                                   |\n| 13 | trustee, it doesn't account for the possibility that there's                                  |\n| 14 | some other personal, individual interest, criminality or                                      |\n| 15 | otherwise that the debtor might have.                                                         |\n| 16 | And I think the fallacy in that logic is that                                                 |\n| 17 | there is no basis that's been provided as to why documents                                    |\n| 18 | would relate to assets, financial condition, or the                                           |\n| 19 | administration of the estate, would have anything to do with                                  |\n| 20 | the debtor's asylum application, with criminal allegations                                    |\n| 21 | that are made against -- that have been made against him for                                  |\n| 22 | rape or false imprisonment.                                                                   |\n| 23 | I mean, if the debtor's concern is that there                                                 |\n| 24 | could be hypothetically a document where the debtor was                                       |\n| 25 | having a conversation with his counsel about both false                                       |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-1 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 10 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 139 unrelated criminal liability or, you know, the particular things, again, that he's mentioned, his asylum application, things like that, in his objection, I think we could work out language to put in the proposed order to again make clear that we're not seeking that. I think there are other tweaks we would need, including to reserve our right to the extent of any withheld documents that we think might be relevant to the trustee's investigation on a crime-fraud exception to the attorney- client privilege, for example, but I do think there is a way to work out some language that could address some of the debtor's concerns. But, again, it cannot be a situation where the debtor gets to decide when he's harmed by the disclosure of a document because that is an open invitation for him to just withhold documents that he doesn't want us to see. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Yes. MR. ROMNEY: Very, very briefly. I've already said creating a privilege log is not deciding. But I do want to make one perhaps significant clarification, which is, these order -- the proposed order\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 150 MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is there anything else that we can address today in the case? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. This was the last matter on today's calendar, so we will see you next Tuesday at 1:00 p.m., and court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 4:29 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above- entitled matter. 16 September 10, 2022 17 Christine Fiore, CERT Transcriber Case 22-50073 Doc 1228-1 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 11 of","body_zh":"物证 A\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1228-1 提交于 12/13/22 录入于 12/13/22 11:40:46 第 2 页 共 11 页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n关于\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n债务人。\n案件号 22-50073 (JAM)\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n2022年8月30日\n排定案件进展会议日期的裁定；建立 Lady May 号维修准备金的动议；加快听证的动议；上诉期间暂缓执行建立 Lady May 号维修准备金的动议；暂缓第 523/727 条对抗性程序的动议；关于规定特权控制权在受托人获任命时移交给受托人及相关救济的动议之听证记录\n在 HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁法官阁下）面前\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE（美国破产法官）\n出庭人员：\n代表债务人：\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞斯）律师\nHK International（香港国际）及 Mei Guo（美国）：\nAARON ROMNEY（亚伦·罗姆尼）律师\nERIC HENZY（埃里克·亨齐）律师\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）：\nLAURA ARONSSON（劳拉·阿伦森）律师\nSTUART M. SARNOFF（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫）律师\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\nPATRICK BIRNEY（帕特里克·伯尼）律师\nRobinson & Cole\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n程序由电子录音设备记录，文字记录由转录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992 11\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1228-1 提交于 12/13/22 录入于 12/13/22 11:40:46 第 3 页 共 11 页\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN（欧文·高德曼）律师\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06106\n代表 U.S. Trustee（美国联邦破产受托人）：\nHOLLEY CLAIBORN（霍利·克莱伯恩）律师\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国联邦破产受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\nChapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）：\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯）律师\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n第 11 章受托人法律顾问：\nNICHOLAS BASSETT（尼古拉斯·巴塞特）律师\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\nPATRICK R. LINSEY（帕特里克·R·林赛）律师\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n代表 Verdolino & Lowey：\nWILLIAM BALDIGA（威廉·巴尔迪加）律师\nBrown Rudnick\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1228-1 提交于 12/13/22 录入于 12/13/22 11:40:46 第 4 页\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日\n\n1 正在对此予以限制。\n2 如果您看我们动议中的请求救济部分，\n3 我们在答辩意见中也再次引用了这部分，我们具体寻找的\n4 是破产财产的资产、他的财务\n5 状况以及与管理相关的事项。\n6 债务人指出了他所担忧的\n7 可能涉及刑事问题的潜在特权文件，\n8 例如针对他提出的强奸和非法拘禁指控，\n9 以及针对他提出的其他指控，还有他的庇护\n10 申请。我们在目前的调查中，\n11 并没有索取与这些问题相关的任何文件。\n12 再次强调，我们关注的是资产，以及\n13 有望用于增加该破产财产价值的调查。\n14 其次，法官阁下，我们并未要求放弃\n15 或对属于其他当事方的特权进行任何控制。\n16 事实上，我不知道怎么会有人把我们的动议\n17 解读为是在请求获得这种救济。\n18 需要明确的是，我们是在请求作出认定：\n19 受托人已承继了债务人\n20 基于共同利益或联合辩护特权\n21 与其他当事方共同享有的任何特权。\n22 我们在动议中为此引用了判例法。而且坦率地说，我认为这是没有争议的。\n23 但我们并没有请求——虽然债务人似乎\n24 暗示我们在请求，但我们并没有——请求法院\n25 作出裁定由受托人现在控制属于\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1228-1 提交于 12/13/22 录入于 12/13/22 11:40:46 第 5 页\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日\n\n1 非常具体地索取与破产财产的资产、\n2 债务人在破产前涉及的其他交易事项，\n3 以及完全不涉及该债务人所担忧的\n4 关于刑事责任等类型问题\n5 的其他事项相关的文件。\n6 因此，我们在请求法院在此裁定的内容中，\n7 完全没有 Foster 案所担心的那种做法。\n8 坦率地说，如果看其他案件，\n9 有大量其他案件已经作出了\n10 我们请求本法院作出的那种裁定，包括\n11 我们引用的判例之一，即 2010 年 North Carolina（北卡罗来纳州）Eastern District（东区）\n12 的 In re Tarkington 案。\n13 在该案中，存在针对潜在\n14 破产财产资产的调查。\n15 受托人希望对一名在破产前\n16 代表债务人的律师进行证词录取，而法院\n17 最终所做的是：好吧，我将允许\n18 证词录取继续进行，以下是我认为属于\n19 特权范围内的内容。\n20 与破产财产资产等相关的所有\n21 特权均已转移给受托人。任何\n22 可能归于刑事责任或此类事项的内容\n23 仍可受特权保护。\n24 因此你可以去进行证词录取，而债务人的律师\n25 可以据此提出异议，\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日 第 110 页 在这些案件中，争议点在于受托人试图调查破产财产的资产，这些资产可能与增加破产财产、增加这些资产的价值相关。法院在这些案件中认定，这属于债务人将从中受益的情形。这些——当债务人的破产财产通过增加诉讼事由的发现或其他资产的查明而得以扩充时，他是受益的。他并没有因此受损。因此，如我之前所说，债务人主张，存在一种担忧，即受托人寻求查阅的文件可能会涉及潜在的刑事责任，无论是他提到的强奸指控、非法拘禁，还是像他的庇护申请这样完全无关的问题，但是，再次强调，正如我之前所说，我们并没有试图通过我们的证据开示请求来获取这些文件。债务人在我们向债务人前律师事务所和专业人士发出的传票中指出了一项请求，即第 17 项请求，该请求索取有关法律纠纷的信息，这可以被解读为包括针对他的刑事诉讼（如果存在的话）或他的庇护申请，我们愿意在记录中明确表示\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1228-1 提交于 12/13/22 录入于 12/13/22 11:40:46 第 6 页\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1228-1 提交于 12/13/22 录入于 12/13/22 11:40:46 第 7 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日 第 111 页 我们不寻求获取此类信息，并且我们将相应地限制该请求。我的意思是，债务人唯一可以说他拥有符合我们传票要求但同时也可能对他造成损害的文件之合理情形，就是存在某份既与他的资产相关、与我们寻求调查的主题相关，又在某种程度上涉及其刑事责任的文件。但是债务人甚至没有提供哪怕一丝关于这可能是什么的线索。他除了如其在异议中所述的非法拘禁及类似指控外，什么都没有提出。鉴于他所给出的理由，我们没有任何理由相信，我也根本无法想象，为什么我们寻求的与例如他在纽约共有公寓中的权益、Lady May 号、以及他谈到的所有其他私人飞机和类似事物相关的文件，在任何可设想的情形下会与这些类型的问题相关。因此，认为权衡测试的结果会倾向于不将这些特权的控制权移交给破产财产的这一观点，根本——我认为是站不住脚的。法官阁下，债务人还提到了针对他提起的不可免责之诉。他说虽然那里存在担忧，我可能会\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1228-1 提交于 12/13/22 录入于 12/13/22 11:40:46 第 8 页\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日\n\n1 完全没有。因此，根本不存在任何合理的担忧认为\n2 我们会以某种方式获取与这些\n3 诉讼相关的信息。\n4 顺便说一句，我们不会将获取到的\n5 文件与那些诉讼的原告分享，因此\n6 关于对 523 条诉讼担忧的这一观点，再次强调，我认为\n7 完全——这实际上是不存在的。\n8 在我结束发言之前，法官阁下，还有几点——\n9 还有几点意见。\n10 至少就我的开场陈述而言。\n11 债务人在其异议中，虽然最初\n12 表示法院在此不应作出任何裁决，但他表示，\n13 好吧，如果法院要作出裁决，可以发布某些指导意见。\n14 而我认为债务人构建该指导意见的方式\n15 是说，法院可以指示\n16 接收人——这在异议书第 33 段中——\n17 法院可以指示传票的接收人\n18 基于特权扣留文件，引用如下：“仅限\n19 他们认为可能对债务人造成损害的文件，\n20 例如刑事指控、与不可免责性相关的事实，\n21 或与债务人破产财产无关的事实，例如其未决的庇护申请。”\n22 现在，其中某些内容听起来确实与\n23 我今天的发言一致，但我认为这也凸显了\n24 我们所担忧的事情以及如果作出针对该措辞\n25 的裁定可能导致的危害。\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1228-1 提交于 12/13/22 录入于 12/13/22 11:40:46 第 9 页\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年8月30日\n\n1 问题。谢谢。\n2 罗姆尼律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n3 巴塞特律师：法官阁下，仅简要\n4 作出回应。如果可以的话，这次我想就留在这里发言。\n5\n6 法庭：可以。\n7 巴塞特律师：因此罗姆尼律师在谈及我们\n8 提议修改措辞时，我认为他的立场是，\n9 好的，我们仍然没有规定适用\n10 权衡测试，因为如果我们主张的是\n11 与债务人资产、财务状况或其破产财产\n12 管理相关的特权移交给受托人，\n13 并没有考虑到可能存在\n14 债务人可能具有的某些其他个人、个别利益、刑事犯罪\n15 或其他方面的利益。\n16 我认为该逻辑的谬误在于，\n17 没有任何依据说明为什么与资产、\n18 财务状况或破产财产管理相关的\n19 文件，会与债务人的庇护申请、\n20 与针对他提出的——针对他提出的\n21 强奸或非法拘禁刑事指控\n22 有任何关系。\n23 我的意思是，如果债务人的担忧是\n24 假设可能存在一份债务人与其律师\n25 同时讨论了非法拘禁\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 1228-1 提交于 12/13/22 录入于 12/13/22 11:40:46 第 10 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 30, 2022 139 无关的刑事责任，或者，您知道的，他在异议中提到的那些具体事项，他的庇护申请，诸如此类的事情，我认为我们可以在拟议裁定书中拟定具体措辞，再次明确我们并未寻求这些内容。我认为我们还需要进行其他调整，包括保留我们的权利，范围涵盖任何我们认为可能与受托人就律师-委托人保权特免权适用的“犯罪-欺诈例外”进行调查相关的扣留文件，但我确实认为有办法拟定出一些措辞来解决债务人的一些顾虑。但是，再次强调，绝不能出现由债务人来决定何时因披露某份文件而受到损害的情况，因为这无异于公开邀请他直接扣留他不希望我们看到的文件。谢谢您，法官阁下。 法庭：谢谢。 ROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼先生）：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？ 法庭：可以。 ROMNEY 先生：非常、非常简短地说一句。我已经说过，制作特权日志并不等同于做出决定。但我确实想做一个可能很重要的澄清，那就是，这些裁定——拟议裁定\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 150 BASSETT 先生（巴塞特先生）：谢谢您，法官阁下。 法庭：今天本案中我们还有其他可以处理的事项吗？（无回应） 法庭：好的。这是今天日程上的最后一项事务，所以我们下周二下午 1:00 再见，现在休庭。（庭审于下午 4:29 结束） 我，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），法院认可的转录员以及认证电子记录员和转录员，特此证明上述内容为上述标题事项庭审诉讼程序的官方电子录音的正确记录文本。 16 September 10, 2022 17 Christine Fiore, CERT Transcriber Case 22-50073 Doc 1228-1 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 11 of","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Paul Hastings","Guo","Despins"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2538,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-12-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-12-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:25:09"}