{"id":"court_ctb_1228_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1228,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-12-13","title":"EXHIBIT B UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\*","summary_zh":"听证笔录（附件 B） —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1228-2（2022年12月13日立案）。该份 2022 年 9 月 6 日的庭审笔录记录了法院与各方律师就律师-委托人特权移交受托人、法律适用标准及对涉及个人侵权与庇护申请等敏感内容的排除安排进行的讨论。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript (Exhibit B) — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1228-2 (filed Dec 13, 2022). The transcript of the September 6, 2022 hearing reflects judicial proceedings and counsel arguments concerning the transfer of attorney-client privilege control to the Chapter 11 trustee and exclusions for sensitive personal tort/asylum matters.","body_en":"## **EXHIBIT B**\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* September 6, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR ORDER PROVIDING THAT CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES PASSED TO TRUSTEE UPON APPOINTMENT AND FOR RELATED RELIEF BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, ERIC HENZY, ESQ. HK International and AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Mei Guo: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity O'Melveny & Myers LLP Fund L.P.: Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA SMITH, 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**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (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 For the Chapter 11 NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. 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 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-2 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 4 of 8\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 49 this order because this order is designed to prevent the debtor from doing that.\n\n Another bucket I think that could exist that could generate future disputes as to privileged communications is that, as we've made clear in our order, you know, there are carve outs designed to address specifically the concerns that the debtor has raised concerning privileged communications that relate to criminal allegations that have been made against him or that relate to his asylum application. And I'm happy to and I'm prepared to walk through our changes in more detail.\n\n But, again, if the debtor were to assert a privilege over those documents on a privilege log, then we could be back before the Court disputing those privileges because the point of the order is to reserve all rights with respect to those privileges.\n\n It could be that the debtor asserts a privilege over criminal allegations. Then, you know, we would argue that there's a crime fraud exception and we would otherwise argue that the document is just not privileged. So that could be back before the Court.\n\n But to answer the Court's question, if this order is entered, it does resolve what we are asking the Court to do today.\n\nAnd, again, Your Honor, what we filed was a copy\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-2 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 5 of 8\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 68 out anything with regard to the asylum issue, anything with regard to these alleged tort issues and, obviously, with regard to the Fifth Amendment. I mean, he was -- he's not asserting and never has asserted that he's going to exercise that right. MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. Well, there is a discrepancy, as I read the orders on the -- what I would describe as tort issue. THE COURT: Well, I -- I mean -- MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. THE COURT: -- I'm talking about the allegations of rape and things like that. I don't know what those are about, but that's what's been put forth, right, in this -- in the record of this case. Before the trustee was even appointed there were people that said that they -- these causes of action were out there. Those creditors filed motions in this case. They said a lot of things, obviously, none of which have been substantiated in this court at this point and maybe never will be. Okay? So that's what I'm talking about when I'm talking -- I'm talking about some of the alleged very difficult to discuss torts, not, you know, if there was some other -- like maybe you claimed the -- I don't even know. As you know, I didn't read the UBS complaint. Is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-2 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 6 of 8\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022<br>76                        |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Second Circuit authority on this question -- but I do think, |\n| 2  | as we tried to marshal in our papers and talk about at last  |\n| 3  | week's hearing, there are many bankruptcy cases out there    |\n| 4  | that have tried to address the issue of the individual       |\n| 5  | privileges passing to a trustee in the wake of Weintraub.    |\n| 6  | And I think the overwhelming majority of those               |\n| 7  | cases and the clear trend of the case law is to say that the |\n| 8  | trustee passes when the privilege relates to efforts by the  |\n| 9  | trustee to identify estate assets, to investigate the        |\n| 10 | debtor's financial condition, and certainly with respect to  |\n| 11 | any post-petition matters affecting the administration of    |\n| 12 | his estate prior to the appointment of a trustee.            |\n| 13 | And that is exactly how we tried to craft our                |\n| 14 | revised proposed order is to track those categories in that  |\n| 15 | weight of the case law and then to also make clear to        |\n| 16 | address the debtor's concerns that he is still able to       |\n| 17 | assert privileges over documents related to criminal         |\n| 18 | allegations or to his asylum application but are not related |\n| 19 | to those four -- to those three categories that I just       |\n| 20 | mentioned.                                                   |\n| 21 | So to address the particular comment that Attorney           |\n| 22 | Romney made, I think he said, you know, there may be a       |\n| 23 | document that talks about estate assets, but it also, you    |\n| 24 | know, is a privileged communication related to criminal      |\n| 25 | allegations against the debtor, you know, that have been     |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-2 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 7 of 8\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 108 communications with Brown Rudnick when he was a debtor-in- possession, there's no debate in the case law that we have access to that. It's narrow. It's a demonstration of the case. And he was acting as a fiduciary, not in his own capacity. And he was getting -- you know, shame on Brown Rudnick if they were giving him advice on his personal situation. They were giving advice to him as a debtor-in-possession. And that's fundamental, Your Honor.\n\n So the balancing -- you're doing the balancing. You're doing it on a category-by-category document with some very specific carve outs regarding the -- what do we call the crime, I want to be precise about this, although it's unfortunate, but the rape and confinement allegations carved out, the asylum issue carved out, you're doing the balancing.\n\n And courts, that's the way they've done it, by categories of documents. Where courts have been reversed, the only circuit court that reversed, and in that case, it's the same as here, where both sides agreed there should be a balancing test, is that the Court did not look at any documents or any category of documents.\n\n And here the Court has right in front of it the very narrow categories that we're raising. And on that basis you have the power to do this.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Anything further from anyone\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-2 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 8 of 8\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022<br>110                     |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | hearing today on the Kwok matter.                          |\n| 2  | MR. BASSETT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                     |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                   |\n| 4  | (Proceedings concluded at 3:31 p.m.)                       |\n| 5  | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court             |\n| 6  | Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a  |\n| 7  | correct transcript from the official electronic sound      |\n| 8  | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |\n| 9  |                                                            |\n| 10 |                                                            |\n| 11 | September 14, 2022                                         |\n| 12 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                      |\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|    |                                                            |\n|    |                                                            |","body_zh":"证物 B\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n关于\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n债务人。\n* 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n* 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n* 2022年9月6日\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n关于裁定特权控制权在指定时移交予受托人及相关救济的动议庭审笔录\n审理法官：Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下\n美国破产法官\n出庭人员：\n代表债务人：\nEric Henzy, Esq.（埃里克·亨齐律师）\nHK International 及 Aaron Romney, Esq.（亚伦·罗姆尼律师）\nMei Guo：\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n代表债权人：\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）：\nPeter Friedman, Esq.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\nAnnecca Smith, Esq.（安妮卡·史密斯律师）\nRobinson & Cole\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录，笔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\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n代表债权人委员会：\nIrve Goldman, Esq.（欧文·高德曼律师）\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n代表美国受托人：\nHolley Claiborn, Esq.（霍利·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代表第11章受托人：\nNicholas Bassett, Esq.（尼古拉斯·巴塞特律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esq.（帕特里克·R·林西律师）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n第11章受托人：\nLuc A. Despins, Esq.（吕克·A·德斯平斯律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-2 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 4 of 8\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年9月6日 49\n这份命令，因为这份命令旨在防止债务人这样做。\n\n我认为可能存在的另一个类别，可能会在未来就特权通信产生争议的是，正如我们在命令中所明确的那样，大家知道，存在一些专门针对债务人提出的关切而设计的排除条款，涉及针对他的刑事指控或涉及他的庇护申请的特权通信。我很高兴并且也准备好更详细地逐一介绍我们的修改。\n\n但是，再次强调，如果债务人在特权清单上主张对这些文件享有特权，那么我们可能会重新回到法庭就这些特权进行辩论，因为该命令的主旨是保留就这些特权而言的所有权利。\n\n可能出现的情况是债务人对刑事指控主张特权。那么，大家知道，我们将主张存在犯罪欺诈例外，并且我们还会主张该文件根本不享有特权。所以这可能会重新回到法庭解决。\n\n但回答法庭的问题，如果签署了这份命令，它确实解决了我方今天请求法庭处理的事项。\n\n而且，法官阁下，再次说明，我们提交的是一份副本\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-2 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 5 of 8\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年9月6日 68\n排除任何与庇护问题有关的事项，排除任何与这些所谓的侵权问题有关的事项，而且显而易见，排除与第五修正案有关的事项。我的意思是，他——他并没有主张，而且也从未主张过他将行使该权利。\nRomney 律师：是的。嗯，在我看来，关于——我称之为侵权问题上的命令存在差异。\n法庭：嗯，我——我的意思是——\nRomney 律师：是的。\n法庭：——我指的是关于强奸指控以及诸如此类的事情。我不知道那些具体是怎么回事，但这些就是被提出的内容，对吧，在本案的案卷记录中。在受托人被指定之前，就有人表示他们——这些诉由是存在的。那些债权人在本案中提交了动议。他们说了许多事情，显然，在现阶段没有一件在本法院得到证实，也许永远也不会得到证实。好吗？所以这就是我所谈到的——我谈到的是某些据称非常难以讨论的侵权行为，而不是，你知道，如果存在其他一些——比如也许你声称的——我甚至不知道。如你所知，我没有读过 UBS（瑞银）的诉状。是不是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-2 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 6 of 8\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年9月6日\n1 第二巡回法院关于此问题的权威判例——但我确实认为，\n2 正如我们试图在书面文件中归纳并在上周的\n3 听证会上讨论的那样，有许多破产案件\n4 试图解决在 Weintraub 案之后\n5 个人特权移交给受托人的问题。\n6 而且我认为绝大多数\n7 案件以及判例法的明确趋势是，\n8 当特权与受托人识别破产财产资产、\n9 调查债务人财务状况的努力相关，并且当然与\n10 在受托人被指定之前影响其破产财产管理的\n11 任何申请后事项相关时，\n12 特权移交给受托人。\n13 这正是我们试图起草\n14 修改后的拟定命令的方式，即遵循判例法中的\n15 这些主要类别，然后也明确\n16 解决债务人的关切，即他仍然能够\n17 对与刑事指控或其庇护申请相关、\n18 但与我刚才提到的那四项——\n19 那三项类别无关的文件\n20 主张特权。\n21 因此，针对 Romney 律师\n22 提出的具体意见，我认为他说，你知道，可能存在一份\n23 谈论破产财产资产的文件，但它同时也，\n24 你知道，是与针对债务人的刑事指控相关的\n25 特权通信，你知道，这些指控已经被\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-2 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 7 of 8\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年9月6日 108\n与 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）在他是占有中债务人时的通信，判例法中毫无争议的是我们有权获取该等通信。这是狭义的。这是对案件的论证。而且他当时是以受托人身份行事，而非以其个人身份行事。而且他当时获得了——你知道，如果 Brown Rudnick 就他的个人情况向他提供建议，那是他们的问题。他们是向作为占有中债务人的他提供建议。法官阁下，这是根本性的。\n\n所以权衡——您正在进行权衡。您正在逐个文件类别进行权衡，并针对——我们称之为犯罪的部分进行了非常具体的排除，我想在此表述准确，尽管这很令人遗憾，但强奸和非法拘禁指控被排除了，庇护问题被排除了，您正在进行权衡。\n\n而法院，这就是他们一贯的做法，按文件类别进行处理。在法院被推翻判决的情况下，唯一推翻判决的巡回法院，在该案中，情况与本案相同，双方都同意应当采用权衡检验，问题在于该法院没有审查任何文件或任何文件类别。\n\n而在这里，法庭面前摆着我们提出的非常狭窄的类别。在此基础上，您有权力做出此项裁定。\n\n法庭：好的。关于 Kwok 案今天的听证，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1228-2 Filed 12/13/22 Entered 12/13/22 11:40:46 Page 8 of 8\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2022年9月6日\n\n1 任何人还有其他要补充的吗。\n2 Bassett 律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n3 法庭：\n谢谢。\n4 （庭审于下午3点31分结束。）\n5 本人，Christine Fiore（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），持证电子法庭\n6 记录员兼转录员，特此证明上述内容为\n7 上述案由事项诉讼程序的官方电子声音\n8 记录的准确转录本。\n\n11 2022年9月14日\n12 Christine Fiore, CERT（持证人员）","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings","Guo","Despins"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1528,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-12-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-12-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:54:07"}