{"id":"court_ctb_1268_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1268,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-12-28","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUTBRIDGEPORT DIVISION EXHIBIT LIST FOR HO WAN KWOK, DEBTOR","summary_zh":"债务人证据清单及附件 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1268（2022-12-28立案）。债务人郭文贵就受托人提出的民事藐视动议（ECF #913）提交证据清单及材料，涵盖涉及 Ace Decade Holdings Limited 的股份转让文书及往来信函等。","summary_en":"Debtor's Exhibit List and Exhibits — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073, ECF No. 1268 (filed 2022-12-28). Debtor Ho Wan Kwok submitted an exhibit list and supporting materials in connection with the Trustee's civil contempt motion (ECF No. 913), including share transfer instruments and correspondence related to Ace Decade Holdings Limited.","body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 1 of 322\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUTBRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n## **EXHIBIT LIST FOR HO WAN KWOK, DEBTOR**\n\nIN RE:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, DEBTOR.\n\nCHAPTER 11\n\nCASE No.: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n**ECF No. 913** Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Holding Debtor in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Corporate Governance Rights Order filed by Douglas S. Skalka on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee\n\n**HEARING DATE(S)**: November 16-18, 2022\n\n**EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY:** Ho Wan Kwok, Debtor\n\n**ATTORNEY:** Eric Henzy\n\n| | | ID/FULL | SUBMIT |\n|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|------------|\n| EXHIBIT | DESCRIPTION | | DATE |\n| B | Letter dated November 10, 2022 from Debtor to the director and
nominee shareholder of Ace Decade Holdings Limited | FULL | 11/18/2022 |\n| C | Ace Decade Holdings Limited Share Transfer Instrument
signed by the Debtor. | FULL | 11/18/2022 |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1268 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 | Page 2 of 322 |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|---------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|---------------|\n\n| EXHIBIT | DESCRIPTION | ID/FULL | SUBMIT DATE |\n|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|-------------|\n| D | Ace Decade Holdings Limited Share Transfer Resolution
signed by the Debtor.1 | FULL | 11/18/2022 |\n| E | Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 1108, and
1505, (A) Confirming That Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All of
Debtor's Economic and Corporate Governance Rights in Debtor
Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Act in
Any Foreign Country on Behalf of Estate, and (C) Granting
Related Relief (ECF No. 717). | FULL | 11/18/2022 |\n| G | Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order, Pursuant to
Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 1108, and 1505, (A)
Confirming That Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All of Debtor's
Economic and Corporate Governance Rights in Debtor- Controlled
Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Act in Any Foreign
Country on Behalf of Estate, and (C) Granting Related Relief. | FULL | 11/18/2022 |\n| H | Hearing Transcript dated August 1, 2022
Page 118, Line 13;
Page 121, Lines 23-25 | FULL | 11/18/2022 |\n| I | Hearing Transcript dated August 4, 2022,
updated as of August 17, 2022
Page 47, Lines 15-17
Page 64, Lines 14 and 19-22 | FULL | 11/18/2022 |\n\n1 The Debtor denies that he is the director or nominee shareholder of Ace Decade. The Debtor has executed the i) Share Transfer Instrument, Exhibit C, and ii) Share Transfer Resolution, Exhibit D, and provided those documents to the Trustee to comply with the Trustee's demands. Those documents will have whatever legal force and effect that they will have based on the fact that the Debtor is not the director or nominee shareholder. In addition, the Debtor has hand delivered to the person who is the nominee shareholder and director of Ace Decade the letter with attached Share Transfer Instrument and Share Transfer Resolution marked as Exhibit B.\n\n| | | | 2022-50073 | |\n|--|-----------------------|------|--------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok
IN RE: | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | Debtor | | B | |\n| | | | | |\n| | 11/18/2022 | | | |\n| | | P.E. | | |\n| | | | Debtor's Exhibit B | |\n| | | | | |\n\n# **ACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED incorporated in the British Virgin Islands Company No. 1828656** (the *Company*)\n\n## **SHARE TRANSFER INSTRUMENT**\n\n**\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nI, Yanping (Yvette) Wang, of [*insert address*] (the *Transferor*) DO HEREBY transfer to **Luc A.**\n\n**Despins, solely in his capacity as trustee in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok**, of 200\n\nPark Avenue, New York, New York 10166 (the *Transferee*), all shares of the Company standing\n\n)\n\nin my name in the share register of the Company.\n\nThis share transfer instrument is governed by British Virgin Islands law.\n\nAs witness the hand of the Transferor this \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ day of November, 2022.\n\nExecuted by ) **Yanping (Yvette) Wang** ) \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n**This share transfer instrument is not subject to stamp duty in the British Virgin Islands unless the Company or its direct or indirect subsidiaries holds real property within the British Virgin Islands. The Company will not treat the Transferee as the registered holder of any shares until the name of the Transferee has been entered in the share register of the Company.**\n\n# **ACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED incorporated in the British Virgin Islands Company No. 1828656** (the *Company*)\n\n# WRITTEN RESOLUTIONS OF THE SOLE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY\n\nWHEREAS the Company has received a share transfer dated November \\_\\_, 2022 relating to the transfer of all shares in the capital of the Company (the *Shares*) executed by Yanping (Yvette) Wang in favour of Luc A. Despins, solely in his capacity as trustee in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok, of 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166 (the *Transferee*), together with a certificate representing the Shares (the *Certificate*).\n\nI, the undersigned, being the sole director of the Company, DO HEREBY ADOPT the following resolutions:\n\n1. the transfer of the Shares be and is hereby approved;\n\n2. the Certificate be and is hereby cancelled;\n\n3. a new certificate relating to the Shares and signed by the director of the Company be issued under the common seal of the Company to the Transferee;\n\n4. the registered agent of the Company be and is hereby authorised and directed to update the Company's share register; and\n\n5. any of the foregoing which have been done on or before the date hereof be and are hereby adopted, ratified, confirmed and approved.\n\nYanping (Yvette) Wang hereby confirms that she is the Transferor and therefore has an interest in and connection with the transactions contemplated by these resolutions.\n\nI have executed this director's resolution this \\_\\_ day of November 2022.\n\nYanping (Yvette) Wang – Director\n\n**\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_**\n\n| 2022-50073 | | | | |\n|-----------------------|------------|------|---|--|\n| Ho Wan Kwok
IN RE: | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | Debtor | | C | |\n| | | | | |\n| | 11/28/2022 | | | |\n| | | P.E. | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n| | | 2022-50073 | | | |\n|--|-----------------------|----------------------------|---|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok
IN RE: | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | Debtor | | D | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | 11/18/2022 | | | | |\n| | | P.E.
Debtor's Exhibit D | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Doc 717 | Filed 08/10/22
12/28/22 | Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37
12/28/22 13:58:25 | | | Page 1 of 24
8
2022-50073 | 322 | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|--------|------------|---------------------------------|-----|--|\n| | | | IN RE: | | Ho Wan Kwok | | |\n| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | | | | | | |\n| | | DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT | | Debtor | | E | |\n| | BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | | | | | | |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x | | | 11/18/2022 | | | |\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 | | | P.E. | | |\n| | : | | | | | | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | | | | | |\n| Debtor. | :
:
: | | | | | | |\n\n# **ORDER, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 363, 521, 541, 1108, AND 1505, (A) CONFIRMING THAT CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE HOLDS ALL OF DEBTOR'S ECONOMIC AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS IN DEBTOR-CONTROLLED ENTITIES, (B) AUTHORIZING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO ACT IN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY ON BEHALF OF ESTATE, AND (C) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF**\n\nx\n\n------------------------------------------------------\n\nUpon the motion (the \"Motion\") of Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), for the entry of an order (this \"Order\"), pursuant to sections 363, 541, 1108, and 1505 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), (a) confirming that the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and corporate governance rights in all corporate entities owned and/or controlled by the Debtor (the \"Debtor-Controlled Entities\"), including, without limitation, Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever (BVI)\") and granting related relief, (b) authorizing the Trustee to act in any foreign country on behalf of the Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\"), and (c) granting related relief, all as more fully set forth in the Motion; and this Court having jurisdiction to consider the Motion and the relief requested therein in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended); and consideration of the Motion and the relief requested therein being a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); and venue being proper in this Court\n\npursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; and the Court having found that the relief requested in the Motion is in the best interest of the Estate, its creditors, and all parties in interest; and due and sufficient notice of the Motion having been given under the particular circumstances; and it appearing that no other or further notice need be given; and upon all of the proceedings had before this Court; and any objections to the relief requested herein having been withdrawn or overruled on the merits; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor; and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearings held on August 1, 2022 and August 4, 2022 with respect to the Motion and the additional relief sought through, among other things, the filing of the revised proposed orders filed on July 31, 2022 [ECF No. 645], August 2, 2022 [ECF No. 671], and August 4, 2022 [ECF No. 681], it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. The Motion is granted as set forth herein.\n\n2. Effective as of entry of the order, dated July 8, 2022, granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [ECF No. 523], the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights, for the benefit of the Estate, with respect to all Debtor-Controlled Entities, including, without limitation, Genever (BVI). For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing rights include the Trustee's asserted authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager, or similar person of the Debtor-Controlled Entities. As part of the foregoing, to the extent necessary, the Trustee is authorized to act, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee in this Chapter 11 Case, as any such officer, director, manager, or similar person who has been removed.\n\n3. In accordance with sections 521(a)(3) and 521(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor is hereby directed to, respectively, (a) cooperate with the Trustee as necessary to enable the Trustee to perform his duties, including, without limitation, the Trustee's investigation into\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 3 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 10 of 322\n\nthe assets of the Debtor, and (b) surrender to the Trustee all property of the estate and any recorded information, including, without limitation, books, documents, records, and papers relating to property of the estate (including, without limitation, his shares in Genever (BVI) and all related corporate governance documents). In furtherance of the Debtor's duties under sections 521(a)(3) and 521(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor is hereby directed to:\n\n- (a) fill in all missing information and execute each of (i) the share transfer instrument, (ii) the director's resolution with respect to the Debtor's shares in Genever (BVI), and (iii) the director's resolution related to the restoration of the Genever (BVI), submission of the transfer-in pack, and appointment of a new registered agent, in each case in the forms attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (leaving such documents in undated form) and deliver, within two business days after entry of this Order, such completed and executed documents to the Trustee (who will then submit such documents to the new registered agent for Genever (BVI) in the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\")) as well as provide the Trustee with the information necessary for the Trustee to complete the transfer-in pack of Harneys Fiduciary, in the form included in **Exhibit A** hereto, within two business days after entry of this Order (who will then submit the transfer-in pack to the new registered agent for Genever (BVI) in the BVI); and\n- (b) deliver, no later than five business days after entry of this Order, a copy of the letter in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit B** (the \"Letter to UK Counsel\") to the law firm of Harcus Parker Limited, former counsel to the Debtor in the litigation styled *Kwok Ho Wan, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, and Dawn State Limited v. UBS AG (London Branch)*, Case No. CL-2020-000345, pending in the High Court\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 4 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 11 of 322\n\nof Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court (the \"UBS Litigation\"), with a copy of such letter to be delivered concurrently to the Trustee. For the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee shall be deemed, for all purposes, to be the owner of the Debtor's claims asserted in the UBS Litigation.\n\n4. To the extent the Trustee's exercise of economic and governance rights with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities is deemed to be outside the ordinary course of business, such exercise by the Trustee of economic and governance rights is hereby approved, as there is sound business justification for the exercise of such rights, including because the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to such entities for the benefit of the Estate. Notwithstanding the applicability of any of Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h) or any other provisions of the Bankruptcy Rules or the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut to the contrary, the terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry, and any applicable stay of the effectiveness and enforceability of this Order is hereby waived. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Order authorizes the Trustee to sell, otherwise dispose of, lease, or encumber any equity in Debtor-Controlled Entities or other assets of the Debtor.\n\n5. Pursuant to section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is hereby authorized to act, as the Estate's foreign representative, in any foreign country on behalf of the Estate in any way permitted by applicable foreign law for the purpose of (a) investigating, collecting, and recovering assets of the Debtor located in foreign countries, including relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, (b) exercising control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including seeking relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 5 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 12 of 322\n\nnecessary or appropriate, and (c) requesting and obtaining corporate documents from appropriate foreign corporate registries (or similar entities) holding such documents with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities. Without limiting the foregoing, the Trustee is authorized, pursuant to section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Court, to request and obtain the corporate documents related to Genever (BVI) from the appropriate BVI entity holding such corporate documents.\n\n6. The Debtor shall not interfere with, hinder, or delay the Trustee's exercise of the authority under this Order, including any action taken or to be taken by the Trustee in a foreign court on behalf of the Estate in furtherance of such authority. To the extent the Debtor opposes the Trustee's exercise of such authority, the Debtor shall be limited to seeking relief from this Court (and not the relevant foreign court or other foreign entity, as the case may be) on notice to parties in interest, to the extent the Debtor can show that he has standing to do so.\n\n7. In furtherance of the Trustee's exercise of the authority under this Order, the Court respectfully requests the assistance of the foreign courts with respect to the Trustee's exercise of corporate control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including, without limitation, Genever (BVI).\n\n8. Nothing in this Order shall be deemed to authorize any particular action with respect to Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever (US)\") in its chapter 11 case pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"Genever Court\"). The Trustee shall appear before, and seek guidance from, the Genever Court to the extent the Trustee's exercise of corporate governance rights with respect to Genever (US) would impact its chapter 11 case.\n\n9. Nothing in this Order shall constitute a ruling or determination regarding the validity or enforceability of the alleged trust agreement, purportedly dated February 17, 2015 and\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 6 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 13 of 322\n\nexecuted by the Debtor, Genever (US), Genever (BVI), and Bravo Luck Limited (the \"Alleged Trust Agreement\"), or regarding any challenges to the Alleged Trust Agreement, and all rights of all parties in respect thereto are preserved.\n\n10. The Trustee is authorized and empowered to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted in this Order.\n\n11. The terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry.\n\n12. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 10th day of August, 2022.\n\n## **Exhibit A**\n\n**Share Transfer Form and Director's Resolution**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 8 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 15 of 322\n\n# **GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION**\n\n**incorporated in the British Virgin Islands Company No. 1862840** (the *Company*)\n\n### **SHARE TRANSFER INSTRUMENT**\n\nI, **Ho Wan Kwok**, of [*insert address*] (the *Transferor*) DO HEREBY transfer to **Luc A. Despins, solely in his capacity as trustee in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok**, of 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166 (the *Transferee*), the 1000 shares of US\\$0.001 par value standing in my name in the share register of the Company.\n\nThis share transfer instrument is governed by British Virgin Islands law.\n\nAs witness the hand of the Transferor this \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ day of August, 2022.\n\n)\n\nExecuted by ) **Ho Wan Kwok** )\n\n**This share transfer instrument is not subject to stamp duty in the British Virgin Islands unless the Company or its direct or indirect subsidiaries holds real property within the British Virgin Islands. The Company will not treat the Transferee as the registered holder of any shares until the name of the Transferee has been entered in the share register of the Company.**\n\n### **GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION Incorporated in the British Virgin Islands Company No. 1862840** (the *Company*)\n\n### WRITTEN RESOLUTIONS OF THE SOLE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY\n\nWHEREAS the Company has received a share transfer dated August \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2022 relating to the transfer of 1000 shares in the capital of the Company (the *Shares*) executed by Ho Wan Kwok in favour of Luc A. Despins, solely in his capacity as trustee in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok, of 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166 (the *Transferee*), together with a certificate representing the Shares (the *Certificate*).\n\nI, the undersigned, being the sole director of the Company, DO HEREBY ADOPT the following resolutions:\n\n- 1. the transfer of the Shares be and is hereby approved;\n- 2. the Certificate be and is hereby cancelled;\n- 3. a new certificate relating to the Shares and signed by the director of the Company be issued under the common seal of the Company to the Transferee;\n- 4. the registered agent of the Company be and is hereby authorised and directed to update the Company's share register; and\n- 5. any of the foregoing which have been done on or before the date hereof be and are hereby adopted, ratified, confirmed and approved.\n\nHo Wan Kwok hereby confirms that he is the Transferor and therefore has an interest in and connection with the transactions contemplated by these resolutions.\n\nI have executed this director's resolution this ……. day of August 2022.\n\nHo Wan Kwok – Director\n\n**\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 10 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 17 of\n\n\n\n| PART A - COMPANY | | | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | Name of the Company
(Note: Type the name exactly as listed on the
Certificate of Incorporation/Registration) | | | | |\n| | Former Name(s) (if applicable) | | | | |\n| | Company Type | | | | |\n| Current Registered Agent | | Name of Registered Agent | | | |\n| | | Contact Person | | | |\n| | Contact Details | Email Address
Telephone Number | | | |\n| | Method of Change of registered office and agent | | □ I will arrange for the outgoing agent to file the transfer | | |\n| | | □ I would like to arrange a 'forced transfer' by Harneys legal team | | | |\n| | Reason for change of registered office and agent | | | | |\n| | Please click here for a template resolution to change the Company's
Director's Resolution
registered agent. | | | | |\n| Is the Company operating a non-profit/charity within
the British Virgin Islands? | | O Yes O No | | | |\n| | Is the Company regulated by or registered with the
Financial Services Commission? | O Yes O No | | | |\n| | Purpose of Company | | | | |\n| (Note: Please be specific \"holding Company\" or \"investment fund\" is insufficient) | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Intended nature of Company's business | | | | | |\n| Does the Company: | | | | | |\n| 1. | receive more than 20% of its revenue in the form of cash or equivalents? | O Yes ■ No | | | |\n| Is the company involved in: | | | | | |\n| 2. | the arms, defence, military or nuclear industries? | | O Yes
No | | |\n| 3. | trading oil and gas, precious metals, gems, jewels, fine art, real estate or other
O Yes
O No
collectors' items? | | | | |\n| 4. | the creation or provision of any one of the following: | | O Yes O No | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 11 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 18 of\n\n\n\n| | blockchain technology | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--|--|--|\n| | the creation or issuance of virtual assets or tokens | | | | |\n| | any one of the following: the offering of an exchange between virtual assets
and fiat currencies, the offering an exchange between one or more forms of
virtual assets, the provision of services relating to the transfer of virtual assets,
the provision of virtual asset custody services or the participation in, and
provision of, financial services related to a virtual asset issuance or the sale of
a virtual asset? | | | | |\n| 5. | the production or trading of substances or products? | O Yes [] No | | | |\n| 6. | gambling or the adult entertainment industry? | O Yes O No | | | |\n| 7. | activities that may have a major environmental impact (e.g. forestry, oil and gas, deep
sea mining, quarrying or power generation)? | O Yes O No | | | |\n| | Collective Investment | | | | |\n| | 8. | O Yes O No | | | |\n| Structure | | | | | |\n| | If this entity will form part of a group (includings of minority interests), please provide a chart indicating the
position this entity will take in the structure. The chart should include all entities holding, directly, an intere
st of 10% or more in this entity and any subsidiaries of the entity. If the structure has 3
layers or less then copies of the Reqister of Members of each entity through to the ultimate parent maybe provided as
an alternative to a structure chart. | | | | |\n| If you have answered YES to any of the questions above, please provide details. | | | | | |\n| If the intended nature of the Company's business is not identified above, please provide details. | | | | | |\n| Country(ies) of intended business activities | | | | | |\n| (Note: Please include location of customers, distributors and bank accounts.) | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Source of funds
(Note: Please provide details of the source of funding for the initial activities of the Company. You may be asked to provide
supporting documentation.) | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| PART B - ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE | | | | | |\n| The Company may be required to have adequate substance' in the BVI. | | | | | |\n| Please click here to review Harneys guidance requirements. If you have any queries please liaise with
your usual Harneys contact. | | | | | |\n| Economic Substance Financial Reporting Period | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 12 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 19 of\n\n\n\n| | | Default reporting periods depend on the date of incorporation. If you have elected to use an economic substance reporting
period end that is not your default date please tick here, and confirm the date of your reporting period end: | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|---------------|----------------------------|--|\n| | reporting period, our current reporting period end is: | We have formally notified the ITA of a change to our economic substance | | | [dd/mm/yyyy to dd/mm/yyyy] | |\n| | We would like to apply to make a change to our default reporting period. Harneys is able to arrange this notification - we
will contact you to discuss what is possible to achieve and provide a quote. | | | | | |\n| | If no box is ticked, the default reporting period will apply. | | | | | |\n| Does Company conduct: | | | | | | |\n| 1. | banking business? | | | | O Yes O No | |\n| 2. | distribution and service centre business? | | | | O Yes O No | |\n| 3. | financing and leasing business? | | | | O Yes O No | |\n| 4. | fund management business? | | | | T Yes ■ No | |\n| 5. | headquarters business? | | | | O Yes O No | |\n| ട. | holding company business? | | | | O Yes O No | |\n| | Please specify the types of asset(s) that the
Company is intending to hold. | | | | | |\n| | partnership interests, etc.) | Please provide details of any other legal entities in
which the Company will hold interests (e.g. shares, | | | | |\n| 7. | insurance business? | | | O Yes [] No | | |\n| 8. | intellectual property business? | | | O Yes O No | | |\n| ு. | shipping business? | | | O Yes [] No | | |\n| If you have answered YES to any of the questions above, please provide details.
(Note: The activities above may be relevant activities' for economic substance purposes. Please include as much detail as
possible on the exact scope of any relevant activity.) | | | | | | |\n| Please confirm the entity's country(ies) of tax residence. | | | | | | |\n| PART C - SHAREHOLDERS | | | | | | |\n| (Note: Details of additional shareholders can be entered in Part I.) | | | | | | |\n| | Name of Shareholder
Name | | | | | |\n| | Contact Details | Telephone Number | | Email Address | | |\n| | Name of Shareholder | Name | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 13 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 20 of 322\n\n\n\n| Contact Details | Telephone Number | Email Address | |\n|-------------------------------------|------------------|---------------|--|\n| | | | |\n| Name of Shareholder | Name | | |\n| Contact Details | Telephone Number | Email Address | |\n| | | | |\n| Name of Shareholder | Name | | |\n| Contact Details
Telephone Number | | Email Address | |\n| | | | |\n\n-\n-\n\n| First Name | Middle
Name | Surname | Residential Address | |\n|------------------------------|----------------|----------------------------|--------------------------|-------|\n| | | | Address 1 | |\n| Nationality | | Date of Birth (DD/MM/YYYY) | Address 2 | |\n| | | | City | State |\n| BOSS Act Beneficial
Owner | 0
Yes
0 | No | Country
Post/Zip Code | |\n| | | | | |\n| First Name | Middle
Name | Surname | Residential Address | |\n| | | | Address 1 | |\n| Nationality | | Date of Birth (DD/MM/YYYY) | Address 2 | |\n| | | | State
City | |\n| BOSS Act Beneficial
Owner | Yes
■ | No | Country
Post/Zip Code | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 14 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 21 of\n\n\n\n| First Name | Middle
Name | Surname | | Residential Address | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------------------|---------------------|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | | Address 1 | | | |\n| Nationality | | Date of Birth (DD/MM/YYYY) | | Address 2 | | |\n| | | | City | | State | |\n| BOSS Act Beneficial
Owner | Yes | No | Country | | Post/Zip Code | |\n| First Name | Middle
Name | Surname | Residential Address | | | |\n| | | | Address 1 | | | |\n| Nationality | | Date of Birth (DD/MM/YYYY) | Address 2 | | | |\n| | | | City | | State | |\n| BOSS Act Beneficial
Owner | Yes | No | Country | | Post/Zip Code | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| Beneficial Owner Particulars - Registrable Legal Entities | | | | | | |\n| may be requested. | | | | | Note: A registrable legal entity which would be a beneficial owner if it were a natural person and falls into one of
the following categories: (a) its securities are listed on a recognised stock exchange or an entity the securities of
which are so listed; (b) it is a BV regulated investment fund or a subsidiary of such a fund; (c) it is a BV/ regulated person or a
foreign regulated person; or (d) it is a sovereign state or a wholly owned subsidiary of a sovereign state. Additional information | |\n| Full Legal Name | | Registered Address | | | | |\n| | | Address 1 | | | | |\n| | | Address 2 | | | | |\n| Alternative Name(s) (if applicable) | | City | | City | | |\n| | | Country | | Country | | |\n| Country of Registration | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | (DD/MM/YYYY) | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| Registration Number
Date of incorporation
Name of Stock Exchange (if applicable)
Name of Regulator (if applicable) | | | | | | |\n| Location of Beneficial Ownership Database | | Address | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 15 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 22 of\n\n| | | Address 2 | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|------------------|---------------|---------------|------------|\n| | | City | | City | |\n| | | Country | | Country | |\n| Contact Details | | Telephone Number | | Email Address | |\n| Beneficial Owner - Exemption | | | | | |\n| Will the company be an exempt person under the BOSS Act? | | | | | O Yes ■ No |\n| If YES, on what basis? | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| PART E - DIRECTOR(S) | | | | | |\n| Each director must sign and complete the relevant section in our Compliance Pack (Individuals or Others)
together with a Consent to Act Form signed at their original date of appointment – if you need to reproduce this document
please use this template (Individual Directors or Non-Individual Directors).
Please refer to our Additional Services section for more information about our director services.
(Note: Details of additional directors can be entered in Part I.) | | | | | |\n| Name of Director | Name | | | | |\n| Contact Details | Telephone Number | | Email Address | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Name of Director | Name | | | | |\n| Contact Details | Telephone Number | | Email Address | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Name of Director | Name | | | | |\n| Contact Details | Telephone Number | | Email Address | | |\n| PART F - OFFICER(S) | | | | | |\n| (Note: Details of additional officers can be entered in Part I.) | | | | | |\n| Name of Officer | Name | | | | |\n| Contact Details | Telephone Number | | Email Address | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Name of Officer | Name | | | | |\n| Contact Details | Telephone Number | | Email Address | | |\n| PART G - COMPLIANCE QUESTIONNAIRE | | | | | |\n| Any natural person or corporate entity which is listed in one of the following sections must compliance
Questionnaire: | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 16 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 23 of\n\n\n\n| Corporate Record | Harneys | | Alternative Address | | |\n|----------------------------|------------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------------|--|\n| | 0 | Address 1 | | | |\n| | | Address 2 | | | |\n| Register of Members | | City | | State | |\n| | | Country | | Post/Zip Code | |\n| Contact Details | Telephone Number | | Email Address | | |\n| Corporate Record | Harneys | | Alternative Address | | |\n| | | Address 1 | | | |\n| | | Address 2 | | | |\n| Register of Directors | | City | | State | |\n| | | Country | | Post/Zip Code | |\n| Contact Details | Telephone Number | | Email Address | | |\n| Corporate Record | Harneys | Alternative Address | | | |\n| | ■ | Address 1 | | | |\n| Minutes and Resolutions of | | Address 2 | | | |\n| Directors and Members | | City | | State | |\n| | | Country | | Post/Zip Code | |\n| Contact Details | Telephone Number | | Email Address | | |\n| Corporate Record | Harneys | | Alternative Address | | |\n| | | Address 1 | | | |\n| Register of Charges | 0 | Address 2 | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 17 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 24 of\n\n| | | City | | State | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|-----------------------|---------------------|---------------|--|\n| | | Country | | Post/Zip Code | |\n| Contact Details | Telephone Number | | Email Address | | |\n| Note: Additional fees will be incurred annually by the Company which must be paid in advance if Harneys are required to
maintain the original financial records. | | | | | |\n| Corporate Record | Harneys | | Alternative Address | | |\n| | | Name of record keeper | | | |\n| Financial records and underlying | | Address 1 / Address 2 | | | |\n| documentation | | City | | State | |\n| | | Country | | Post/Zip Code | |\n| Contact Details | Telephone Number | | Email Address | | |\n| Harneys can also provide specialised Bookkeeping and
Financial Statement preparation services. Would you like
us to contact you with more information? | | O Yes | | | |\n| PART I - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | | | | | |\n| Note: Please use this space to provide us with any special information. Any work which is not within
the scope of our services may be referred to our affiliate law firm, Harneys Westwood & Riegels LP, who will contact you
directly. | | | | | |\n| PART J - PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS AND BILLING
If you have not received a quote in relation to our services please contact our New Business Team. | | | | | |\n| Method of payment: We accept payments via wire transfer and credit card. Please click here for our payment instructions
and use the reference 'New Business' and the proposed name of the Company provided in Part A. | | | | | |\n| Instructing Agent/Client | | | | | |\n| Please indicate your method of payment | | □ Credit Card | Wire | | |\n| | | Address 1 | | | |\n| | | Address 2 | | | |\n| Billing Address | | City | | City | |\n| | | Country | | Country | |\n| Billing Email (Note: We only send invoices by email.) | | | | | |\n| PART K - DECLARATION AND UNDERTAKING | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 18 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 25 of 322\n\n\n\n| Full Name | |\n|------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Name of corporate entity (if applicable) | |\n| Position with corporate entity (if applicable) | |\n| Signature | |\n| Date | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 19 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 26 of\n\n322\n\n*Transfer-In Pack – BVI Business Company*\n\n\n\n### **ADDITIONAL SERVICES**\n\n### **Company Secretarial Services**\n\nOur company administration teams provide secretarial and administrative support including acting as company secretary throughout the life of a business or project. This includes maintenance of company records.\n\n### **Nominee Shareholder Services & Trust Services**\n\nWe provide nominee shareholder services. For clients interested in succession planning involving their BVI business company shares we would invite you to consider the use of our trust services. Our experienced team of private wealth practitioners can advise you on this process. One of the key benefits of succession planning through trusts is avoiding the time, cost and publicity associated with a BVI probate application.\n\n### **Director Services**\n\nHarneys Fiduciary offers both corporate directors and qualified professionals who may be appointed to serve as directors of a BVI Company. Provision of director services is considered on a case by case basis, however, taking into consideration the type of company and its activities.\n\n### **Bank Accounts**\n\nWe work closely with numerous financial institutions in the BVI and internationally and can help you open a bank account for your new company quickly and efficiently. We can provide authorised signatories for bank accounts and maintain and keep your financial records.\n\n### **Accounting Services**\n\nHarneys Fiduciary has its own in-house accounting team specialising in the provision of bookkeeping and accounting services to meet the needs of companies, limited partnerships and trusts.\n\nOur accounting services include maintenance of financial records, preparation of monthly, quarterly, or annual management accounts, preparation of annual financial statements and liaising with external auditors and advisors as required.\n\nWe can also provide access to auditors and other specialists outside our firm if this is necessary to meet your particular needs. Our connections both locally in the BVI and internationally are numerous and well established.\n\n### **Other Services**\n\nHarneys Fiduciary also provides other services including liquidation services, authorised representative services, safe custody, escrow and a wide range of corporate secretarial services provided on an ad-hoc basis.\n\nIf you have any questions or would like more information on any of the above services please contact us.\n\n### **GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION Incorporated in the British Virgin Islands Company No. 1862840** (the *Company*)\n\n### WRITTEN RESOLUTIONS OF THE SOLE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY\n\nWHEREAS the Company's registered agent has resigned, and the Company is currently struck‐off of the Registry of Corporate Affairs (the *Registry*) pursuant to s.213(1) of the BVI Business Companies Act 2004.\n\nWHEREAS the Company intends to rectify the status of the Company and place it back in good standing and in order to do so desires to appoint Harneys Corporate Services Limited of Craigmuir Chambers, P.O. Box 71, Road Town, Tortola, VG 1110, British Virgin Islands as its registered agent.\n\nI, the undersigned, being the sole director of the Company, DO HEREBY ADOPT the following resolutions:\n\n- 1. the Company change its registered agent to Harneys Corporate Services Limited of Craigmuir Chambers, P.O. Box 71, Road Town, Tortola, VG 1110, British Virgin Islands;\n- 2. the Company change its registered office to Craigmuir Chambers, Road Town, Tortola, VG 1110, British Virgin Islands;\n- 3. a notice, in the approved form, of the change of registered agent and registered office of the Company, be filed with the BVI Registry of Corporate Affairs; and\n- 4. the sole director, any employee of Harneys Corporate Services Limited or any employee of Harney Westwood & Riegels LP, be and is hereby authorised to:\n\t- a. pay any outstanding fees due to the Registry;\n\t- b. execute or submit any document to the Registry; and\n\t- c. to take any and all other actions necessary to bring the Company into good standing and to give full effect to the change of registered agent and registered office; and\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 21 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 28 of 322\n\n5. the terms and conditions of Harneys Corporate Services Limited for the provision of registered office and registered agent services (as amended or supplemented from to time) be and are approved, and the completion and execution of the Harneys Corporate Services Limited 'transfer‐in pack' for and on behalf of the Company by the sole director be and is hereby approved.\n\nHo Wan Kwok hereby confirms that he has no conflict of interest in connection with the transactions contemplated by these resolutions.\n\nI have executed this director's resolution this ……. day of August 2022.\n\nHo Wan Kwok – Director\n\n**\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_**\n\n# **Exhibit B**\n\n**Letter to Harcus Parker Limited**\n\nHo Wan Kwok [*insert address*]\n\nAugust [\\_\\_], 2022\n\n# **VIA EMAIL**\n\nHarcus Parker Limited 7th Floor Melbourne House 44 - 46 Aldwych London, WC2B 4LL Attn: Jennifer Morrissey Email: JMorrissey@harcusparker.co.uk\n\n# **Re:** *Kwok Ho Wan, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, and Dawn State Limited v. UBS AG (London Branch)***, Case No. CL-2020-000345 – Appointment of Trustee in Chapter 11 Case of Ho Wan Kwok**\n\nDear Ms. Morrissey:\n\nThis is to confirm to you that Luc A. Despins has been appointed as the trustee (the \"Trustee\") in my chapter 11 case, pending before the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"U.S. Bankruptcy Court\"). All of my interests in the litigation against UBS AG (London Branch) pending in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court (the \"UBS Litigation\") is property of my bankruptcy estate as a matter of United States bankruptcy law.\n\nUpon Mr. Despins' appointment as the Trustee, he exercises control over all property of the bankruptcy estate, including my claim in the UBS Litigation, so that he now has authority and standing to apply to be recognized as the appropriate party to prosecute my claim in the UBS Litigation. As a matter of United States bankruptcy law, I have no authority or standing at this time to prosecute the UBS Litigation.\n\nIn furtherance of the foregoing, and for the avoidance of doubt, I hereby expressly authorize you to have full and complete discussions on my behalf with Mr. Despins regarding the UBS Litigation, the merits thereof, any related settlement discussions, and any other topics related to the prosecution of the UBS Litigation and to take instructions from him in relation to my claim in the UBS Litigation regardless of any attorney-client privilege, work product, or other privilege which belongs to me. Any waiver of privilege is limited to the provision of this information to the Trustee. My consent is limited to giving access to the Trustee to the extent that I am entitled and contains no wider waiver of privilege and is not consent by me to the Trustee to waive my privilege.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 24 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 31 of 322\n\nAmong other things, and as detailed in the order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit 1), I instruct you to (i) as soon as is practicable deliver to and share with the Trustee all memoranda, advice, and other communications by you to me regarding the UBS Litigation, any other information (whether in written form or not) regarding the merits of the UBS Litigation, and any settlement offers received or made by me or you in connection with such litigation, and (ii) as soon as is practicable provide the Trustee will full access to the parts of your case file in the UBS Litigation to which I am entitled as well as all pleadings and other court documents filed in the UBS Litigation.\n\nSincerely,\n\nHo Wan Kwok\n\ncc: Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as trustee in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok\n\nEnclosure\n\n# **Notice Recipients**\n\nDistrict/Off: 0205−5 User: admin Date Created: 8/10/2022 Case: 22−50073 Form ID: pdfdoc2 Total: 66\n\n### **Recipients submitted to the BNC (Bankruptcy Noticing Center) without an address:**\n\n20 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. cr Zheng Wu 20 Rui Ma 20 Weican Meng intp Golden Spring (New York) LTD crcm Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors intp HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC intp Mei Guo cr Baosheng Guo cr Yan Zhao cr Ning Ye cr Chong Shen Raphanella cr Xiaodan Wang cr Rong Zhang aty Michael S. Weinstein\n\n### **Recipients of Notice of Electronic Filing:**\n\n| ust | U. S. Trustee
USTPRegion02.NH.ECF@USDOJ.GOV |\n|-----|---------------------------------------------------------|\n| tr | Luc A. Despins
lucdespins@paulhastings.com |\n| aty | Aaron Romney
aromney@zeislaw.com |\n| aty | Aaron A Mitchell
aaron@lmesq.com |\n| aty | Annecca H. Smith
asmith@rc.com |\n| aty | Avram Emmanuel Luft
aviluft@paulhastings.com |\n| aty | Carollynn H.G. Callari
ccallari@callaripartners.com |\n| aty | David S. Forsh
dforsh@callaripartners.com |\n| aty | David V. Harbach, II
dharbach@omm.com |\n| aty | Douglas S. Skalka
dskalka@npmlaw.com |\n| aty | Douglass E. Barron
douglassbarron@paulhastings.com |\n| aty | Eric A. Henzy
ehenzy@zeislaw.com |\n| aty | G. Alexander Bongartz
alexbongartz@paulhastings.com |\n| aty | Holley L. Claiborn
holley.l.claiborn@usdoj.gov |\n| aty | Irve J. Goldman
igoldman@pullcom.com |\n| aty | James C. Graham
jgraham@npmlaw.com |\n| aty | James M. Moriarty
jmoriarty@zeislaw.com |\n| aty | Jay Marshall Wolman
jmw@randazza.com |\n| aty | John L. Cesaroni
jcesaroni@zeislaw.com |\n| aty | Jonathan Kaplan
jkaplan@pullcom.com |\n| aty | Kristin B. Mayhew
kmayhew@mdmc−law.com |\n| aty | Laura Aronsson
laronsson@omm.com |\n| aty | Luc A. Despins
lucdespins@paulhastings.com |\n| aty | Lucas Bennett Rocklin
lrocklin@npmlaw.com |\n| aty | Mia N. Gonzalez
mgonzalez@omm.com |\n| aty | Michael S. Weinstein
mweinstein@golenbock.com |\n| aty | Nicholas A. Bassett
nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com |\n| aty | Patrick M. Birney
pbirney@rc.com |\n| aty | Patrick R. Linsey
plinsey@npmlaw.com |\n| aty | Peter Friedman
pfriedman@omm.com |\n| aty | Peter J. Zarella
pzarella@mdmc−law.com |\n| aty | Sara Pahlavan
spahlavan@omm.com |\n| aty | Scott D. Rosen
srosen@cb−shea.com |\n| aty | Stephen M. Kindseth
skindseth@zeislaw.com |\n| aty | Stuart M. Sarnoff
ssarnoff@omm.com |\n| aty | Thomas J. Sansone
tsansone@carmodylaw.com |\n| aty | Timothy D. Miltenberger
Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com |\n| aty | William R. Baldiga
wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com |\n\nTOTAL: 15\n\nTOTAL: 38\n\n| | | Recipients submitted to the BNC (Bankruptcy Noticing Center): | | | | |\n|-------|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------|------------|----------------------|\n| db | Ho Wan Kwok | 373 Taconic Road | Greenwich, CT 06831 | | | |\n| cr | Logan Cheng | c/o Randazza Legal Group, PLLC | | 100 Pearl Street | 14th Floor | Hartford, CT |\n| | 06103 | | | | | |\n| ca | Stretto | 410 Exchange, Suite 100 | Irvine, CA 92602 | | | |\n| dbaty | Brown Rudnick LLP | One Financial Center | | Boston, MA 02111 | | |\n| crcm | Pullman & Comley, LLC | 850 Main Street | | Bridgeport, CT 06601 | | |\n| 20 | Huizhen Wang | c/o TroyGould PC | | 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor | | Attn: Christopher A. |\n| | Lilly | Los Angeles, CA 90067−2367 | | | | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 717-1 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 2 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 12/28/22 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 33 of\n\n322\n\ncr Chao−Chih Chiu c/o TroyGould PC 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor Attn: Christopher A.\n\n| | Lilly | Los Angeles, CA 90067−2367 | | |\n|----|-----------|----------------------------|------------------------------------|----------------------|\n| cr | Yunxia Wu | c/o TroyGould PC | 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor | Attn: Christopher A. |\n| | | | | |\n\nLilly Los Angeles, CA 90067 cr Keyi Zilkie c/o TroyGould PC 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor Attn: Christopher A. Lilly Los Angeles, CA 90067\n\nintp Yongbing Zhang 223 West Jackson Bl;vd. #1012 Chicago, IL 60606\n\ncr Brown Rudnick LLP One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111\n\naty Luc A. Despins Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\naty Steven E. Mackey Office of the U.S. Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\nTOTAL: 13\n\n| Case 22-50073
Case 22-50073 | Doc 598
Doc 1268
Filed 07/23/22
Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
322 | IN RE: | | Ho Wan Kwok | 2022-50073
Page 1 of 26
Page 34 of | |\n|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------|-------------|------------------------------------------|--|\n| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT | | Debtor | | G | |\n| | | BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | | | | | |\n| | -----------------------------------------------------------
x | | | 11/18/2022 | | | |\n| | : | | | | P.E. | | |\n| In re: | : | Chapter 11 | | | | | |\n| | : | | | | | | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | : | Case No. 22-50073 | (JAM) | | | | |\n| Debtor.1 | :
:
: | | | | | | |\n| | -----------------------------------------------------------
x | | | | | | |\n\n# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 363, 541, 1108, AND 1505, (A) CONFIRMING THAT CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE HOLDS ALL OF DEBTOR'S ECONOMIC AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS IN DEBTOR-CONTROLLED ENTITIES, (B) AUTHORIZING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO ACT IN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY ON BEHALF OF ESTATE, AND (C) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), respectfully states as follows in support of this motion (the \"Motion\"):\n\n## **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n1. By this Motion, the Trustee seeks entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"), confirming that, as of his appointment on July 8, 2022, the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights, for the benefit of the Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\"), with respect to all corporate entities owned and/or controlled by the Debtor (the \"Debtor-Controlled Entities\"). The Debtor-Controlled Entities include, without limitation, Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever (BVI)\"), a British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") corporation that, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Genever Holdings LLC\n\n1 Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases. The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 2 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 35 of 322\n\n(\"Genever (US)\"), 2 a New York limited liability company, is the registered owner of, among other things, an apartment at the Sherry-Netherland building in New York, New York (the \"Sherry-Netherland Apartment\"). 3 This relief is necessary because the Debtor has shown a willingness to defy court orders, suggesting that the Debtor and related persons (whether acting individually or through the Debtor-Controlled Entities) may try to take advantage of any ambiguity or misunderstanding concerning the Trustee's rights in order to frustrate the Trustee's efforts to identify and recover property of the Estate.\n\n2. In addition, to facilitate the Trustee's exercise of corporate control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities and to support the Trustee's investigation, collection, and recovery of other Estate assets that may be located in foreign jurisdictions, the Trustee requests, pursuant to section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Code, the authority to act, as the Debtor's foreign representative, in any foreign country on behalf of the Estate in any way permitted by applicable foreign law for the purpose of (a) investigating, collecting and recovering assets of the Debtor located in foreign countries, including seeking relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, (b) exercising control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including seeking relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, and (c) requesting and obtaining corporate documents from appropriate foreign corporate registries (or similar entities)\n\n2 On October 12, 2020, Genever (US) commenced a chapter 11 case, which is currently pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 20-12411 (JLG). For the avoidance of doubt, at this time, the Trustee is not requesting any relief with respect to the chapter 11 case of Genever (US), including any modification of the *Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement*, dated as of September 24, 2021 [ECF No. 131-1 in Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)]. Nor should the requested relief, if granted, be deemed to authorize the Trustee to take any particular action with respect to Genever (US) in its chapter 11 case, with respect to which the Trustee will seek relief from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"New York Bankruptcy Court\"), as may be appropriate. The Trustee reserves all its rights in that regard.\n\n3 As the Court is aware, the identity of the true owner of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment is presently subject to dispute.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 3 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 36 of 322\n\nholding such documents with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including the corporate documents related to Genever (BVI) from the appropriate BVI entity.\n\n3. To enable the Trustee to exercise the foregoing authority without interference from the Debtor, the Trustee requests confirmation from the Court that the Debtor may not interfere with, hinder, or delay the Trustee's exercise of the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities or the Trustee's authority as the Debtor's foreign representative under section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n4. Finally, the Trustee requests that the Court request the assistance of the foreign courts in furtherance of the Trustee's exercise of the foregoing authority, including the assistance of the BVI courts regarding any request of the Trustee for relief (including on an emergency basis) with respect to the Trustee's exercise of corporate control over Genever (BVI).\n\n## **JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STATUTORY BASES**\n\n5. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Court\") has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended). This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n\n6. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n7. The statutory bases for the relief requested herein are sections 363, 541, 1108, and 1505 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n8. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed with the Court a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 4 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 37 of 322\n\n9. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (\"Committee\") in the Debtor's chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"). No examiner has been appointed in the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n10. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [ECF No. 465] (the \"Trustee Order\") directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to the Trustee Order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee.\n\n11. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [ECF No. 523] (the \"Appointment Order\").\n\n### **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n## **A. The Court Should Confirm that the Trustee Holds All of Debtor's Economic and Governance Rights with Respect to All Debtor-Controlled Entities**\n\n12. Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that property of the estate includes \"all property, wherever located and by whomever held, to which the debtor has legal or equitable interest.\" 11 U.S.C. § 541. In addition, section 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that \"[u]nless the court, on request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, orders otherwise, the trustee may operate the debtor's business.\" *Id*. § 1108. The related case law confirms that a chapter 11 trustee \"possesses both the economic and governance rights to participate in the management of [the debtor-owned entity] that the Debtor himself enjoyed prior to his bankruptcy filing.\" *In re Modanlo*, 412 B.R. 715, 728 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006) (confirming chapter 11 trustee's authority to, among other things, amend formation papers of debtor's wholly-owned Delaware LLC, designate himself as the LLC manager, and place LLC into voluntary chapter 11). *See also In re Albright*, 291 B.R. 538 (Bankr. D. Col. 2003) (\"Because the Trustee became the sole member of [debtor-owned entity] upon the Debtor's bankruptcy\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 5 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 38 of 322\n\nfiling, the Trustee now controls, directly or indirectly, all governance of that entity, including decisions regarding liquidation of the entity's assets.\").\n\n13. It is paramount that the Trustee exercise, as soon as possible, economic and corporate control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including Genever (BVI), in order to preserve and recover assets for the benefit of the Estate. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the Trustee's authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager, or similar person of the Debtor-Controlled Entities.\n\n14. It is undisputed that the Debtor owns all of the equity in Genever (BVI).4 It is also undisputed that Genever (BVI), in turn, wholly owns Genever (US),5 which owns, among other things, the Sherry-Netherland Apartment. According to the Genever (US)'s schedules of assets and liabilities in its chapter 11 case, the Sherry-Netherland Apartment had an initial purchase price of \\$70 million, and the Trustee believes it continues to have substantial value. Genever (US) is seeking in its chapter 11 case to sell the Sherry-Netherland Apartment, with the proceeds to be distributed pursuant to a proposed chapter 11 plan.6 Chapter 11 counsel to Genever (US) has advised the Trustee that, to date, the Debtor has been directing such counsel in the conduct of Genever (US)'s chapter 11 case. In light of the Trustee having stepped into the shoes of the Debtor, including as it relates to the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to Genever (BVI), *the Trustee, not the Debtor*, should have the authority to provide direction to Genever (US). Accordingly, the Trustee needs to exercise, as soon as possible, the\n\n4 *See, e.g.*, *Global Notes and Statements of Limitations, Methodology, and Disclaims Regarding the Debtor's Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs* at 4 [ECF No. 77] (the \"Global Notes\"). The Debtor has asserted that he holds the equity in Genever (BVI) in trust for Bravo Luck Limited, the equity of which is owned by the Debtor's son. The Trustee is investigating to what extent this assertion is accurate.\n\n5 *See* List of Equity Holders attached to Chapter 11 Petition of Genever (US) [ECF No. 1] (Case No. 20-12411 (JLG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (identifying Genever (BVI) as sole equity holder).\n\n6 To be clear, the Trustee is not seeking to stop the sale process with respect to the Sherry Netherland Apartment. The Debtor reserves all rights, however, with respect to the proceeds of such sale.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 6 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 39 of 322\n\nEstate's rights in Genever (US)'s chapter 11 case, which will include seeking relief in the New York Bankruptcy Court, as necessary.\n\n15. In addition, the Trustee is investigating the extent to which the Debtor owns and/or controls additional corporate entities.7 As part of this investigation, on July 12, 2022, the Trustee sent letters to Debtor's counsel requesting, among other things, documentation and information regarding the Debtor's economic and governance rights in the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including Genever (BVI). Among other things, the Trustee requested, with respect to each such entity, the organizational documents, capitalization tables, structure charts, schedules identifying the composition of board of directors, board of directors, or similar governing bodies, schedules of all officers, and other related documents.8 To date, the Debtor has not provided any such documents to the Trustee. The Trustee needs these documents to understand the full universe of corporate entities with respect to which the Trustee has governance rights.\n\n16. Unless the Court confirms the Trustee's governance rights with respect to all Debtor-Controlled Entities, the Trustee is deeply concerned that the Debtor will continue his efforts to impede the Trustee's exercise of control over assets of the Estate. Indeed, as the Court is aware, Justice Barry Ostrager of the New York Supreme Court already found that the Debtor has a history of \"secret[ing] his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"9 He further observed:\n\n7 For example, in addition to Genever (BVI), the Debtor's *Statements of Financial Affairs* identifies two corporate entities that the Debtor claims he owned in the past, but for various reasons, no longer controls, namely Shiny Times Holdings, LTD, and Well Origin Limited. *See* Global Notes at 6-7.\n\n8 The Trustee's letter also requested that Debtor's counsel preserve all documents, data, information, and communications related in any what to the Debtor, his affiliates, the Estate, property of the Estate, and/or the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n9 *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al.*, Case No. 22-50073 (February 9, 2022) (the \"New York State Court Ruling\") at 1. A copy of New York State Court Ruling is attached hereto to **Exhibit B**.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 7 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 40 of 322\n\n[t]he machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending . . . 10\n\nAccordingly, the relief the Trustee seeks with respect to corporate governance rights is both critically important and very time sensitive.\n\n17. To be clear, through this Motion, the Trustee is merely seeking confirmation from this Court that he now holds the same economic and corporate governance rights in the Debtors-Controlled Entities as the Debtor had prior to entry of the Appointment Order. The Trustee is not seeking permission to *exercise* such governance rights, as doing so is well within the ordinary course of the Debtor's business. However, to the extent the Court finds it necessary to authorize such actions under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee requests such authorization and submits that sound business justification exists for this request for all the reasons set forth above. *See Modanlo*, 412 B.R. at 732 (granting chapter 11 trustee's request, under section 363(b) of Bankruptcy Code, to take corporate action related to subsidiary of entity owned by debtor, but without deciding whether such action was inside or outside the ordinary course of business). To be clear, by this Motion, the Trustee is not seeking authority to sell or otherwise dispose of any equity in any Debtor-Controlled Entities or other assets of the Debtor. To the extent the Trustee seeks to sell or otherwise dispose of assets that are identified and recovered for the benefit of the Estate, the Trustee will seek approval of any such sales or dispositions by separate motion.\n\n18. Finally, to the extent the Court finds it necessary to rely on section 363(b) for the relief requested in this Motion, the Trustee requests a waiver of the fourteen-day stay requirements under Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h), such that the Proposed Order be effective\n\n10 New York State Court Ruling at 7.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 8 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 41 of 322\n\nimmediately upon entry thereof. For all the reasons set forth above, delays in the Trustee's exercise of economic and corporate governance rights could adversely affect the Trustee's ability to identify and recover property of the Estate.\n\n### **B. The Court Should Appoint the Trustee as Foreign Representative of Debtor's Estate**\n\n19. Section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that, to the extent consistent with applicable foreign law, a \"trustee or another entity (including an examiner) may be authorized by the court to act in a foreign country on behalf of an estate created under section 541.\" 11 U.S.C. § 1505. Here, the Trustee requests authority under section 1505 to act as the Debtor's foreign representative in any foreign country for the purpose of (a) investigating, collecting, and recovering assets of the Debtor located in foreign countries, including seeking relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, (b) exercising control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including seeking relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, and (c) requesting and obtaining corporate documents from appropriate foreign corporate registries (or similar entities) holding corporate documents with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including the corporate documents related to Genever (BVI) from the appropriate BVI entity. The Trustee will, of course, comply with all applicable foreign law requirements when acting in any foreign country.\n\n20. In addition, and in furtherance of the this relief, the Trustee requests that the Court request the assistance of the foreign courts, including the assistance of the BVI courts regarding any request of the Trustee for relief with respect to the Trustee's exercise of corporate control over Genever (BVI). In this regard, the Trustee is informed by BVI counsel that the BVI courts will be in summer recess until September 2022, which practically means that no hearing could be held in the BVI until September 2022, except on an emergency basis. The Trustee respectfully\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 9 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 42 of 322\n\nrequests this Court's assistance in obtaining emergency relief from the BVI courts as necessary.11 Such relief is plainly warranted in light of the Debtor's propensity, as discussed above, to hide his assets from creditors and to disregard court orders (even when threatened with contempt sanctions). Given this history, the Debtor should not be left to exercise any corporate governance rights with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities for one more day.\n\n21. To enable the Trustee to exercise the foregoing authority without interference from the Debtor, the Court should confirm that the Debtor may not to interfere with, hinder, or delay the Trustee's exercise of the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities or the Trustee's authority as the Debtor's foreign representative under section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Code, including any action taken by the Trustee in a foreign court on behalf of the Estate in furtherance thereof. To the extent the Debtor opposes any action taken or to be taken by the Trustee in accordance with the foregoing authority, the Debtor should be limited to seeking relief from this Court (and not the relevant foreign court or other foreign entity, as the case may be) on notice of parties in interest in this case, to the extent the Debtor can show that he has standing to do so.\n\n### **NO PRIOR REQUEST**\n\n22. The Trustee has not previously sought the relief requested herein from this or any other court.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank.*]\n\n11 The Trustee is hopeful that he will not have to seek the intervention of the BVI courts on an emergency basis but needs to be authorized to do so to the extent necessary.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 10 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 43 of 322\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the\n\nProposed Order granting the relief requested in this Motion and such other relief as is just and\n\n## proper.\n\nDated: July 23, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(pro hac vice* pending) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Proposed counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Proposed Order**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| | : | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | :
: | Case No. 22-50073
(JAM) |\n| Debtor. | : | |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :
x | |\n| | | |\n\n# **ORDER, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 363, 541, 1108, AND 1505, (A) CONFIRMING THAT CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE HOLDS ALL OF DEBTOR'S ECONOMIC AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS IN DEBTOR-CONTROLLED ENTITIES, (B) AUTHORIZING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO ACT IN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY ON BEHALF OF ESTATE, AND (C) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF**\n\nUpon the motion (the \"Motion\") of Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), for the entry of an order (this \"Order\"), pursuant to sections 363, 541, 1108, and 1505 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), (a) confirming that the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and corporate governance rights in all corporate entities owned and/or controlled by the Debtor (the \"Debtor-Controlled Entities\"), including, without limitation, Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever (BVI)\") and granting related relief, (b) authorizing the Trustee to act in any foreign country on behalf of the Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\"), and (c) granting related relief, all as more fully set forth in the Motion; and this Court having jurisdiction to consider the Motion and the relief requested therein in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended); and consideration of the Motion and the relief requested therein being a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); and venue being proper in this Court\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 13 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 46 of 322\n\npursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; and the Court having found that the relief requested in the Motion is in the best interest of the Estate, its creditors, and all parties in interest; and due and sufficient notice of the Motion having been given under the particular circumstances; and it appearing that no other or further notice need be given; and upon all of the proceedings had before this Court; and any objections to the relief requested herein having been withdrawn or overruled on the merits; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. The Motion is granted as set forth herein.\n\n2. Effective as of entry of the order, dated July 8, 2022, granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [ECF No. 523], the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights, for the benefit of the Estate, with respect to all Debtor-Controlled Entities, including, without limitation, Genever (BVI). For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing rights include the Trustee's authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager, or similar person of the Debtor-Controlled Entities. As part of the foregoing, to the extent necessary, the Trustee is authorized to act, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee in this Chapter 11 Case, as any such officer, director, manager, or similar person who has been removed.\n\n3. To the extent the Trustee's exercise of economic and governance rights with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities is deemed to be outside the ordinary course of business, such exercise is hereby approved, as there is sound business justification for the exercise of such rights, including because the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to such entities for the benefit of the Estate. Notwithstanding the applicability of any of Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h) or any other provisions of the Bankruptcy Rules or the Local\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 14 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 47 of 322\n\nRules of Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut to the contrary, the terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry, and any applicable stay of the effectiveness and enforceability of this Order is hereby waived. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Order authorizes the Trustee to sell or otherwise dispose of any equity in Debtor-Controlled Entities or other assets of the Debtors.\n\n4. Pursuant to section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is hereby authorized to act, as the Debtor's foreign representative, in any foreign country on behalf of the Estate in any way permitted by applicable foreign law for the purpose of (a) investigating, collecting, and recovering assets of the Debtor located in foreign countries, including relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, (b) exercising control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including seeking relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, and (c) requesting and obtaining corporate documents from appropriate foreign corporate registries (or similar entities) holding such documents with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities. Without limiting the foregoing, the Trustee is authorized, pursuant to section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Court, to request and obtain the corporate documents related to Genever (BVI) from the appropriate British Virgin Island (\"BVI\") entity holding such corporate documents.\n\n5. The Debtor shall not interfere with, hinder, or delay the Trustee's exercise of the authority under this Order, including any action taken or to be taken by the Trustee in a foreign court on behalf of the Estate in furtherance of such authority. To the extent the Debtor opposes the Trustee's exercise of such authority, the Debtor shall be limited to seeking relief from this\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 15 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 48 of 322\n\nCourt (and not the relevant foreign court or other foreign entity, as the case may be) on notice to parties in interest, to the extent the Debtor can show that he has standing to do so.\n\n6. In furtherance of the Trustee's exercise of the authority under this Order, the Court respectfully requests the assistance of the foreign courts, including the assistance of the BVI courts regarding any request of the Trustee for relief (including on an emergency basis) with respect to the Trustee's exercise of corporate control over Genever (BVI).\n\n7. Nothing in this Order shall be deemed to authorize any particular action with respect to Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever (US)\") in its chapter 11 case pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"Genever Court\"). The Trustee shall appear before, and seek guidance from, the Genever Court to the extent the Trustee's exercise of corporate governance rights with respect to Genever (US) would impact its chapter 11 case.\n\n8. The Trustee is authorized and empowered to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted in this Order.\n\n9. The terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry.\n\n10. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 16 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 49 of 322\n\n## **EXHIBIT B**\n\n**February 9, 2022 Decision of Supreme Court of the Statue of New York**\n\n# **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 17 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 7 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 50 of 322\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|\n| | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND | | |\n| L.P., | | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | | |\n| | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 019 |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a | | |\n| | HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | | |\n| | | | |\n\n Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn this 2017 case with 1,180 docket entries – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok Ho Wan's (\"Kwok\") efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members -- this Court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok. For the reasons that follow, this Court is simultaneously issuing a final Order of Civil Contempt.\n\nPAX secured a judgment against Kwok in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716). Thereafter, PAX undertook a year's long effort to enforce its judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States. PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle, which plaintiff has catalogued with material from social\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 18 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 8 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 51 of 322\n\nmedia clippings, photographs and videotapes showing Kwok living large and boasting of his wealth, expensive homes, private plane, and yacht. As noted in the transcript of proceedings of February 2, 2022, this evidence is of little probative value, as the witnesses sponsoring this evidence have no first-hand knowledge of the authenticity of this \"evidence\" other than that it is accessible on various websites.\n\nOn February 2, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing at which seven witnesses submitted direct testimony by affidavit and were made available for cross-examination. The hearing followed protracted proceedings by PAX to locate and levy upon assets owned by defendant Kwok. Those proceedings established, among other things, that Kwok exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May and resulted in a series of orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the yacht called Lady May from removing the Lady May from the Court's jurisdiction. The first such Order was issued on September 30, 2020, as described in detail *infra,* and was followed by an October 15, 2020 Order that restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, the 'Lady May'\" from leaving the jurisdiction. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 630). As detailed *infra*, Kwok spent much of July, August and September of 2020 on the Lady May. Contemporaneously with the proceedings resulting in the September 30 and October 15, 2020 restraining Orders, Kwok and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas. On March 16, 2021, the Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt which directed that if Kwok failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 31, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000.00 fine for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\nThe Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly\n\nencourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing. . .\" NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021). The Appellate Division further held:\n\nThe motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights (*see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan*, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753). … The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\n\nPursuant to the Appellate Division's Order, this Court scheduled the February 2, 2022 evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht. Kwok failed to testify at the February 2, 2022 hearing, having previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify or respond to discovery requests relating to the Lady May in response to PAX's asset discovery efforts. PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 This invocation of the Fifth Amendment notwithstanding, Kwok is an active litigant in multiple fora and he has given prior testimony in this and other proceedings.\n\nKwok also filed a complaint in this court captioned *Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng*, 157025/2020, which references a blog post from Freebeacon.com dated September 8, 2017 in which Kwok complains about \"several incidents involving *his* 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May...\" (Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001) (\"the Zeng Complaint\"). The Zeng Complaint describes Kwok as an \"outspoken critic of the CCP\" who has gone to great \"lengths to expose the rampant corruption within the CCP and the Chinese government.\" The *Washington Post* reported that a former advisor to President Trump, Steve Bannon, was arrested in 2020 while on board the Lady May, and described Mr. Bannon as a friend and business\n\n1 \"PX\" refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 10 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 20 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 53 of 322\n\nassociate of Kwok, \"a vocal online critic of the Chinese government who was once close with that country's intelligence service but is now wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.\" Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Bannon utilized Kwok's private jet on more than one occasion to travel to political rallies.\n\nThe testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\n\nKwok once was the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). The testimony adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family. Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for £ 28 million GBP. No testimony adduced at the hearing established the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter Mei Guo established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to purchase the yacht. Tr. 44. 2 Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht. It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or around June 17, 2017, for \\$1 or no consideration. Tr. 47. According to Ms. Guo's affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162), Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the Lady May to the current title holder HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Ms. Guo further avers that she is the sole owner of HK USA, although all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the\n\n2 \"Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 11 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 21 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 54 of 322\n\nLady May, including fuel, maintenance, and the captain and crew are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring.\"), which is allegedly the Kwok family office.\n\nAt the hearing Ms. Guo testified that her brother had bought the Lady May for her. Tr. 46. The Court cannot credit this testimony as there is no evidence that Ms. Guo's brother was involved with the corporate transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of the title to the yacht. And, indeed, in response to a question from the Court, Ms. Guo acknowledged that her brother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht. Tr. 47.\n\nOther testimony adduced at the hearing established that Kwok was repeatedly on the yacht every summer and that Ms. Guo was infrequently on the yacht. Trial Tr. 88:8-20. The Lady May's captain testified that Kwok was aboard the yacht for a significant portion of the months of July, August and September in 2020 and that this was consistent with his usual practice in the summer. Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nMs. Guo testified that on the one hand, she directed the Lady May's itinerary but, on the other hand, testified that security for Kwok was such a concern that there would be no memorialization of any itinerary. Tr. 52. She further testified that when her father was on the yacht unaccompanied by her he had the freedom to choose wherever he wanted to go. Tr. 50. The fundamental issue, however, is who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020. Ms. Guo claims that in early October 2020 she no longer wished to\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 12 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 22 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 55 of 322\n\nuse the yacht and relayed that instruction to Golden Spring which, in turn, relayed her directive to the then captain of the ship, Captain Heaslop. Tr. 53.\n\nUpon further questioning, Ms. Guo admitted that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place. Tr. 55. Ms. Guo then repeated her retracted testimony that her brother had given her the yacht, and she stated that her brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring. Tr. 56. This testimony is not credible given that on September 30, 2020 the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Kwok\n\n. . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him, subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. Significantly, Captain Heaslop, the then Captain of the Lady May, testified that Mr. Kwok told Captain Heaslop that Kwok would no longer be a guest on the Lady May \"a few days\" before the Lady May departed for Florida in early October 2020 (and apparently after the issuance of this Court's September 30, 2020 Order). Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop also contradicted Ms. Guo's testimony that Ms. Guo gave Captain Heaslop instructions about the yacht's movement. Tr. 94.\n\nMs. Guo also acknowledged having subsequently read the Court's March 16, 2021 Order requiring the Lady May to be returned to the Court's jurisdiction by May 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728). She further acknowledged that she had discussed the Order with her lawyer (whose services were paid for by Golden Spring) and that she had *ignored* the Order.\n\nRussell Stockil, the Yacht Management Director for Yachtzoo SARL, testified that his company had a management contract with HK USA dated May 2021 and that he communicated with HK USA and Golden Spring, but never with Ms. Guo. Tr. 78. This was also the testimony of successor Captain Momchil Ivanov. Tr. 82. In short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 13 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 23 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 56 of 322\n\ncontrols the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her twenties, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\nThe machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in civil contempt under Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753—and \"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment\"—where, as here, the Court \"expressly find[s] that [Kwok's] actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to a civil proceeding.\" *Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.*, 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). Section 753 sets forth four requirements:\n\n[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n*Fleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc.*, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing *McCormick v Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)). The testimony adduced in this case satisfies each element of this standard. Indeed, the Appellate Division intimated as such. *See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P*., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 14 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 24 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 57 of 322\n\na lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. . .\").\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on whether PAX has demonstrated that it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its now centi-million dollar judgment against Kwok. Under CPLR § 5225, \"money or other personal property\" is leviable where the debtor holds the requisite \"interest.\" To satisfy this requirement, \"[i]t is not necessary that the judgment debtor have legal title to the property; a beneficial interest is sufficient.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. \"A beneficial interest is '[a] right or expectancy in something . . . as opposed to legal title to that thing.'\" *Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran*, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\n\nThe key factor is whether \"the property benefitted [the beneficial owner] as if he had received the property directly.\" *Id*. (quoting *Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.*, 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Gliklad v. Chernoi*, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015) (upholding rejection of the judgment debtor's contention that he no longer held an interest in property because he transferred his interest to his daughters); *Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc*., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (granting judgment creditor's turnover motion notwithstanding judgment debtor's assertion that he transferred property to a corporation, because even if true, the evidence showed that he \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\n\n\nThe evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. In the latter connection, the Court takes notice of the filing of the Zeng case and draws an inference from all the record facts that Kwok has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors. Moreover, Kwok's \"family office\" funds the yacht's day-to-day operations and maintenance.\n\nThe Court finds that Ms. Guo's testimony was not only internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also significantly undermined by the testimony of Captains Heaslop and Ivanov and Mr. Stockil, who stated that they have never taken yacht-related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and-a-half years that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht.\n\nIn addition, it is established New York law that a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" *DeBonis v. Corbisiero*, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). An adverse inference may be applied whenever a factual determination is necessary or permitted, including in the context of contempt motions. *S.E.C. v. Durante*, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), *aff'd*, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); *LiButti v. United States*, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\nSimilarly, under the missing witness rule, \"[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify.\" *Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.*, 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004) (applying adverse inference where defendant who failed to appear \"would be knowledgeable about a material issue raised by the evidence\").\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference under both of these avenues. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May. While Kwok\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 16 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 26 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 59 of 322\n\nargues that an adverse inference is not appropriate here because \"[o]nly after a threshold showing that a piece of evidence is authentic is a party obligated to respond to it,\" this contention fails of its own weight. PAX has proffered substantial admissible evidence that Kwok has the requisite beneficial interest in and control of the Lady May. *See People v. Primo*, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001) (explaining that evidence is probative if it \"tends to prove the existence or non-existence of a material fact, *i.e.*, a fact directly at issue in the case\").\n\nAs of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days. Based on the daily fine of \\$500,000 imposed by this Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division, the resultant fine would amount to \\$134,000,000.00, which is more than PAX's outstanding judgment of nearly \\$120 million and a multiple of the GBP £ 28 million purchase price of the Lady May. Nevertheless, if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law. Kwok must remit \\$134,000,000.00 to PAX within five business days of the service of this Court's Order with Notice of Entry. The Court is prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid.\n\nDated: February 9, 2022\n\n**CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED** X **NON-FINAL DISPOSITION** X **GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 60 of\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In Re | * | | Case No. 22-50073(JAM) |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | *
*
* | | Bridgeport, Connecticut
August 1, 2022 |\n| Debtor. | *
* | | |\n| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | | | |\n| TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE | | | |\n| APPEARANCES: | | | |\n| For the Debtor: | | Bridgeport, CT | AARON ROMNEY, ESQ.
ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.
STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.
Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.
10 Middle Street, 15th Floor
06604 |\n| | | New York, NY | WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.
Brown Rudnick, LLP
Seven Times Square
10036 |\n| For the Creditor, Pacific
Alliance Asia Opportunity
Fund L.P.: | | 7 Times Square
New York, NY | PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Times Square Tower
10036 |\n| | | Robinson & Cole
Hartford, CT | PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ.
28 Trumbull Street
06103 |\n| | | | 2022-50073 |\n| Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording,
transcript produced by transcription service. | | | Ho Wan Kwok
IN RE: |\n| Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.
4 Research Drive, Suite 402 | | | H
Debtor |\n| Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992 | | | |\n| | | | 11/18/2022 |\n| | | | P.E.
Debtor's Exhibit H |\n\nAPPEARANCES Cont'd: For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the Creditors, Rui Ma, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Weican Meng and Zheng Wu: McElroy Deutsch 225 Liberty Street 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For HK International and STEPHEN M. KINDSETH. ESQ. Mei Guo: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Proposed Counsel for the DOUGLAS SKALKA, ESQ. Chapter 11 Trustee: Neubert, Pepe & Monteith 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 3 |\n| 1 | ((Proceedings commenced at 12:15 p.m.) |\n| 2 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan |\n| 3 | Kwok. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good afternoon.
If we could |\n| 5 | have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter |\n| 6 | 11 Trustee, please. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Luc |\n| 8 | Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 10 | MR. SKALKA:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Douglas |\n| 11 | Skalka as proposed local counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 13 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good afternoon.
Holley Claiborn |\n| 14 | for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 16 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Irve |\n| 17 | Goldman, Pullman & Comley, representing the creditors |\n| 18 | committee. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 20 | MR. GOLDMAN:
If I can ask where I might get a |\n| 21 | mask from the Court? |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
There's some right on the table here, |\n| 23 | Attorney Goldman, right in front of Attorney Henzy. |\n| 24 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Oh, okay.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 62 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 63 of\n\n| | 4 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Peter |\n| 2 | Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of Pacific |\n| 3 | Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 5 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
And with your is your co-counsel and |\n| 7 | local counsel? |\n| 8 | MR. SARNOFF:
Stuart Sarnoff also of O'Melveny & |\n| 9 | Myers. |\n| 10 | MR. BIRNEY:
And Patrick Birney, Robinson & Cole. |\n| 11 | Good afternoon. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 13 | Attorney Henzy? |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
Eric Henzy for Ho Wan Kwok. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 16 | MR. ROMNEY:
Aaron Romney also on behalf of |\n| 17 | debtor, Ho Wan Kwok. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 19 | MR. KINDSETH:
Stephen Kindseth on behalf of Ho |\n| 20 | Wan Kwok. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
And what about your other clients, Mr. |\n| 22 | Kindseth? |\n| 23 | MR. KINDSETH:
I don't know if it would be |\n| 24 | necessary for us to appear on behalf of HK International, |\n| 25 | but also on behalf of HK International, Stephen Kindseth, |\n| | |\n\n Zeisler & Zeisler. THE COURT: And Mei Guo? MR. KINDSETH: And Mei Guo. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, on behalf of Creditors Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and Weican Meng. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Mr. Baldiga, I saw you back there, but please go ahead and announce -- MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick. Thank you. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Does anyone else wish to make an appearance on the record today? (No audible response.) THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Baldiga, we're going to take up your application, your motion to withdraw as attorney, first, if you'd like to come forward, please. You can come up to the lectern if that's easier, whatever is easier for you. MR. BALDIGA: I'll do that. Thank you. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BALDIGA: Good afternoon. Well, Your Honor, our motion was filed on July 13. We supplemented it with a\n\n further submission at docket 623 last week. THE COURT: I did see that. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. And I think there were possibly at least two concerns with the court or among other parties. One is a matter of law, whether we are entitled to withdraw, especially now that there has been the appearance of two other firms for Mr. Kwok as debtor out of possession. And then second, we anticipated, I think appropriately and had conversations with Ms. Claiborn and Mr. Despins, as to our continuing responsibilities as to our retainer and as former counsel to the debtor. We just wanted there to be no mystery or no question about the fact that we understand the rules. We've complied with the rules throughout and would continue to. And if -- if there were any concerns, I wanted to be proactive in addressing those, including with the court today. We have no benefit from holding the retainer. And so we -- other than security for our fee obviously -- and so we're happy to have whatever arrangements -- I think the current arrangements are fine with Ms. Claiborn and her office and with the trustee and his office -- THE COURT: For your firm to retain the -- or to keep the retainer subject to an order granting your fees, is\n\n that the current -- is that -- MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. Sure. Okay. Go ahead. That's fine. MR. BALDIGA: And, I mean, it's with a very wellregarded bank. It's not the firm's funds. THE COURT: Right. MR. BALDIGA: It's we keep retainers in a segregated account. We're a firm in -- fortunately in good standing financially and otherwise so I don't think they're at risk in any way. As to replacement counsel, I unfortunately was on vacation at the last hearing, but I've read the -- THE COURT: Well, hopefully it was a good vacation. MR. BALDIGA: -- transcript and I understand the dialog. THE COURT: Hopefully, it wasn't unfortunate that you were on vacation. Hopefully -- MR. BALDIGA: I wasn't going to say that, but I appreciate that comment. I think that's right. I'm not going to take a position as to the Zeisler retention. THE COURT: Understood. MR. BALDIGA: That's a matter for other parties to address. But Mr. Mitchell has appeared. The Zeisler firm\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 66 of\n\n has appeared. I think our motion to withdraw should be allowed as a matter of law whether or not actually there is replacement counsel. But with the replacement counsel, I think it should be, hopefully, routinely addressed. I'm happy to answer any questions from any party or the court, but otherwise I would just rest on those papers. THE COURT: Thank you. I want to hear from everyone else as -- I haven't seen anyone object to your motion and I don't know of any objection. So if anyone has an objection I'd like them to raise it now. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, it's not an objection, but we had subject to, so if we could be heard at the appropriate time? THE COURT: Well, subject to -- I'm going to make Brown Rudnick -- they're going to have to file a fee application. They know that. That's already -- that's not a problem. Is the issue -- when you say -- are you concerned about Brown Rudnick holding onto the funds? I thought there was no problem with that. MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. The issue is that we want them to confirm that they will make themselves\n\n available. And may I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. Yes. Yes, please. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I'm sorry. I understand what your point is now that I forgot to mention. You had said in your papers that you would like them to be available and to assist you if necessary. MR. DESPINS: Subject to whatever protective order Your Honor would enter. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: We filed a 2004 -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- last week. They're one of the targets. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: So we don't need to debate the merits of that. Just that -- THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: -- I want to make sure that they're not sailing into the sunset. That's all. THE COURT: Okay. And have you and Mr. Baldiga had any -- I don't know that you've had an opportunity, but have you had any conversations about what you've just said on the record?\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
Page 69 of
322 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 10 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
Not about that point. |\n| 2 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'd be happy to address it, Your |\n| 3 | Honor. |\n| 4 | Well, we have obligations, obviously, to the Court |\n| 5 | under the rules and under law.
Former counsel is in an |\n| 6 | awkward position when it comes to matters as to privilege. |\n| 7 | We don't want to be whipsawed in that I don't want to make a |\n| 8 | commitment to do something that could violate a privilege |\n| 9 | here. |\n| 10 | And so, for example, of course, I've already had |\n| 11 | conversations with Mr. Despins.
Will continue to be |\n| 12 | available.
I'm not hard to find. |\n| 13 | I certainly don't want to make a commitment that |\n| 14 | would put our firm at risk for a claim by a former client |\n| 15 | that we've somehow invaded a privilege or put them in a |\n| 16 | position where they couldn't defend a privilege. |\n| 17 | This is really I don't think an issue for Brown |\n| 18 | Rudnick as much as it is for the trustee and counsel, |\n| 19 | replacement counsel, to the debtor to navigate.
These, in |\n| 20 | my experience, have been challenging issues to navigate in |\n| 21 | the few other cases I've been in where there's a debtor out |\n| 22 | of -- out of possession. |\n| 23 | So I'm pleased to continue to be available to Paul |\n| 24 | Hastings as they -- as they wish, but I will not commit to |\n| 25 | do something that will put our firm at risk. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 70 of\n\n THE COURT: Understood. I have a question for you though too. MR. BALDIGA: Certainly. THE COURT: And I'll hear from Mr. Despins if he wants to respond to what you've said. What I would ask is -- and I -- I would assume this would not be a problem from your perspective, that the firm will, you know, accept service. There won't be any issue of service if -- Mr. Despins going to serve probably a subpoena, right, on your records. He's going to want to see your records. And you're going to -- you're going to either -- you or other counsel object on privilege grounds and then we'll have to see how it all works out at the end of the day, whether there can be some form of protective order that's agreed to or that the Court has to enter. I just don't want to have an issue that you wouldn't accept service or something along -- because, to me, that's rudimentary. You have every right, your firm has every right to file whatever documents they think are appropriate with regard to any discovery requests that are made upon you and anything like that. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm just talking about I don't want us all to spend time on issues of service or something that I would\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 71 of\n\n consider, you know, fundamental. There is every -- you have every right to raise any issue you feel is appropriate under applicable law and rules with regard to your attorney/client privilege and any other privilege that you may assert, but I just want -- that would be the commitment that the Court would -- I don't want to spend any time on that and I don't think you do either. MR. BALDIGA: So two commitments, Your Honor. One, as is customary and appropriate, the trustee as one of his first orders of business -- I think as he said in his papers, sent a simple letter, a document hold letter -- THE COURT: Right. MR. BALDIGA: -- which is customary in investigations more generally. And we have -- and I told the trustee this, we have implemented our hold internally, so we've been responsible in that regards. So nothing will be lost. That's step number one and frankly basics. Step number two, there will not need to be service or constables or any type of thing. If there's a 2004 order entered, we'll comply with it. We don't need a subpoena or other formal process as long as the debtor is not challenging whether this trustee has gone through the appropriate steps. That's really up for the debtor to say --\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 72 of\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. BALDIGA:
-- that something is lacking, but it |\n| 3 | won't be Brown Rudnick standing in the way. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
That's my question and my request and |\n| 5 | I appreciate that.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Now, Mr. Despins, do you have anything |\n| 8 | else you want to add to what Mr. Baldiga just stated? |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
No, Your Honor.
You covered my |\n| 10 | point.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
All right. |\n| 12 | So, Mr. Baldiga, as you said in your remarks, we |\n| 13 | haven't had that many cases where -- in recent past, where |\n| 14 | the debtor has been removed from possession and so the |\n| 15 | issues about whether -- you know, I don't even understand |\n| 16 | the two counsel yet. I'm going to talk to Mr. Henzy about |\n| 17 | that. |\n| 18 | But I agree with you that your motion should be |\n| 19 | granted.
And it is going to be granted on the grounds that |\n| 20 | other parties, other lawyers, have filed an appearance on |\n| 21 | behalf of the debtor, and the debtor is out of possession. |\n| 22 | So that's fine. |\n| 23 | What I need to know from you, and I don't know if |\n| 24 | you've had any conversations with Attorney Claiborn about |\n| 25 | this, or anybody else, and I'm not saying you should have -- |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 73 of\n\n how much time do you need to file a fee application? MR. BALDIGA: On that point, Your Honor, I have not had discussions, but I've had quite a bit of thought about it. At the -- at the last couple of hearings, one of the Court's comments, which I thought was very well taken by everyone, is that what you would hate to do is put people through a lot of work needlessly. I think the same goes -- there will be a time and a place for a fee application. Given the criteria for the allowance of fees, especially as counsel for the estate, is so what did your work come to? I think it would be very difficult for the Court or any party to assess today. For example, in your memorandum of decision appointing a trustee, you cited to two of the things that we brought about. One was we filed a plan. Whether that is stillborn or ends up being the basis for a plan that's confirmed in this case, time will tell. I don't think it's possible to assess that today and maybe not for some time. Second, the boat. We don't know where the boat -- the whole issue with the boat is going. Not just procedurally, but does that become part of the estate or not? Is it voluntary or by court decision? Is it part of the deal or not?\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 74 of\n\n| | 15 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | We take some pride in what we've done, substantial |\n| 2 | pride in what we've done.
The case, for us, is not ending |\n| 3 | in the way that we had intended, but I think the Court, and |\n| 4 | especially the trustee, the Office of the United States |\n| 5 | Trustee, the replacement counsel, the committee, will all be |\n| 6 | able to assess the value of what we've done with the benefit |\n| 7 | of some hindsight once the dust has settled here. |\n| 8 | So I -- and it's a lot of work to put together a |\n| 9 | fee application. |\n| 10 | The other problem with doing a fee application |\n| 11 | today is it's very hard to go further than what I just did |\n| 12 | without concerns of privilege and confidentiality.
Those |\n| 13 | will be lessened over time as discovery plays out. |\n| 14 | So I would ask that given the recognition, that I |\n| 15 | confirm again, that the money doesn't go anywhere without a |\n| 16 | fee application that we just table that for this -- at this |\n| 17 | point.
And at some point any party can say to the Court or |\n| 18 | to me, hey, I think we need to get this going.
But I just |\n| 19 | don't think it's today.
And I think as the case proceeds it |\n| 20 | will become more obvious when that will be. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I would like to hear from |\n| 22 | others about that point.
Okay? |\n| 23 | MR. BALDIGA:
Of course. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
But I understand your point.
Thank |\n| 25 | you. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
Page 75 of
322 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 16 |\n| 1 | All right.
Does anybody -- |\n| 2 | MR. BALDIGA:
Anything else from me right now, |\n| 3 | Your Honor? |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Say that again? |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
Anything else right now from -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I don't have any questions right now. |\n| 7 | I understand what your position is.
And I'm curious to hear |\n| 8 | what other parties think about that. |\n| 9 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'll stand back for a moment. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | I'd like to know what the other parties think |\n| 12 | about Mr. Baldiga's suggestion that while the motion to |\n| 13 | withdraw the appearance would be granted at this time that |\n| 14 | there wouldn't be a need to file a fee application at this |\n| 15 | time? |\n| 16 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, Holley Claiborn for the |\n| 17 | U.S. Trustee. |\n| 18 | I think Attorney Baldiga makes some fair and valid |\n| 19 | points about the process and about where we are in this |\n| 20 | case.
And perhaps the easiest way to do it is to put it on |\n| 21 | a tickler say four to six months out and we can revisit the |\n| 22 | issue, where we are in the case and whether or not it's an |\n| 23 | appropriate time to file a fee application. |\n| 24 | Because as Attorney Baldiga noted there would be a |\n| 25 | difficulty at this point in assessing the value to the |\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 17 |\n| 1 | estate of the services that were provided because we don't |\n| 2 | know all the facts and we aren't anywhere near the finish |\n| 3 | line. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 5 | Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, the trustee agrees with |\n| 7 | Mr. Baldiga's proposal. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 9 | Mr. Friedman? |\n| 10 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
It's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny |\n| 11 | & Myers.
PAX agrees that this is a sensible way to proceed. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Your Honor, for the committee, Irve |\n| 14 | Goldman.
We have no problem with the proposal suggested by |\n| 15 | the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
And Mr. Baldiga? |\n| 17 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Correct. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Thank you. |\n| 19 | Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 20 | (No audible response) |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So, Mr. Baldiga, the motion to |\n| 22 | withdraw as attorney filed on behalf of Brown Rudnick, and |\n| 23 | obviously all the individuals from Brown Rudnick who filed |\n| 24 | notices of appearance, in the case is granted. |\n| 25 | And there will not be a need to file a fee |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 76 of\n\n| | 18 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | application at this time. |\n| 2 | So the order, probably just do some firm of a |\n| 3 | virtual order that says the motion to withdraw is granted |\n| 4 | for the reasons stated on the record, and that further order |\n| 5 | of the Court will enter with regard to the filing of a fee |\n| 6 | application by Brown Rudnick. |\n| 7 | Does that make sense to you? |\n| 8 | MR. BALDIGA:
It does, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Well, I'm sorry to |\n| 10 | see you go.
But it is an unusual case.
And I understand |\n| 11 | the position that you and your firm have taken on the |\n| 12 | parties, all of the parties who have been intimately |\n| 13 | involved in the case, and newly involved in the case, agree |\n| 14 | with your position and so I have no reason to think it |\n| 15 | should move in any other direction at this point. |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 18 | MR. BALDIGA:
May I take my leave? |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| 20 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
Very good.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you very much. |\n| 24 | All right.
So the motion to withdraw as attorney |\n| 25 | is granted and an order will enter, but it will most likely |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 78 of\n\n| | 19 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | be just a virtual order.
Okay?
So that's ECF 543. |\n| 2 | All right.
Just if everyone could give me one |\n| 3 | moment and then we'll turn to the rest of the matters. |\n| 4 | (Pause) |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Now, with regard the rest of the |\n| 6 | matters on the calendar, I'm sure people have an idea of how |\n| 7 | they think they should proceed, as far as the order, in |\n| 8 | which they should go.
I have an idea of how I think they |\n| 9 | should proceed. |\n| 10 | Mr. Despins, what is your position as to what we |\n| 11 | should address next today? |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | Very briefly, as an initial matter I want to say |\n| 14 | that at the end of the hearing we have a lot of -- not a lot |\n| 15 | -- but we have a number of housekeeping matters that we will |\n| 16 | want to cover. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Well, do you want to cover them now? |\n| 18 | Are we talking about motions that have been pending by the |\n| 19 | debtor since the beginning of the case, or are you -- |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
No.
But, for example, the bar date |\n| 21 | order.
There's a -- I don't want to cover it now because |\n| 22 | it's actually more involved than initially thought. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
So the bar date order is one of |\n| 25 | them.
Also we would want the Court to -- so I'm not going |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 79 of\n\n to cover all of them -- but to schedule status conferences on a regular basis in the case. THE COURT: That's fine. MR. DESPINS: So things like that. THE COURT: I will say one thing that's not relevant to you actually -- or it might be -- Mr. Baldiga, as counsel, and his firm, filed several motions some time ago that never were resolved because of the change of the circumstance of the case when the debtor decided to withdraw the motion for funding. There are still outstanding motions out there that we're -- we can talk about later -- but the committee also has outstanding applications to employ professionals. There's a lot of things that maybe we do just address at a status conference or later today, but we're going to resolve those one way or another. I would want to know whether or not you, as the trustee, are going to, you know, step into the shoes of any of those pending motions that were -- for example, they were -- the debtor was -- we had an evidentiary hearing about a financial advisor. You know, I was about to rule when all of that changed, everything changed, the motion to withdraw the funding came. You know, it was withdrawn. And then I think that the reality is that that is a motion at least if Brown\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 80 of\n\n| | 21 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Rudnick stayed in the case they were no longer going to |\n| 2 | pursue.
I have no idea if you're going to do that.
But in |\n| 3 | any event we can talk about it later. |\n| 4 | With regard to where we are today -- |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- I mean, the most important things |\n| 7 | -- everything's important, but -- including the bar date |\n| 8 | order -- and I did look at -- I have to say I haven't |\n| 9 | scoured, but I looked at the proposed order that you |\n| 10 | submitted with redlining and things like that and I have a |\n| 11 | couple of thoughts on that but nothing substantial.
Okay? |\n| 12 | With regard to whether or not -- so the things |\n| 13 | that have to be decided today are -- everything has to -- |\n| 14 | has to be handled -- but as we had our last hearing, I know |\n| 15 | there's a lot of discovery that's been served on you because |\n| 16 | you filed motions to quash.
So I understand that. |\n| 17 | Mr. Henzy's pursuing this -- his motion for relief |\n| 18 | from judgment order.
That's been objected to by several |\n| 19 | parties.
I have some concerns about the motion and the |\n| 20 | process that we'll all need to talk about. |\n| 21 | And then you -- and then it's the Paul Hastings' |\n| 22 | retention and the -- and the local counsel retention. |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct.
And then there was also -- |\n| 24 | but I'm not sure you're going to take that up -- you had |\n| 25 | asked the Zeisler firm and the U.S. Trustee to brief some |\n| | |\n\n issue. THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: We didn't get involved in that -- THE COURT: No. MR. DESPINS: -- so I don't know where that stands. THE COURT: That has -- that's where we're going to turn next I believe. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. But let's do the housekeeping, for what we call housekeeping, although it has substantive impact at the end then. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: Let's hope. MR. DESPINS: There's a lot -- there's a lot to cover in a sense that -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- for example, the bar date, we did mark it up because you asked us to do that. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: And that's going to sound bizarre, but I don't think we should proceed with that for reasons related to the *Genever* case. There's a whole thing -- THE COURT: Oh, okay. MR. DESPINS: -- that I want to explain to Your\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 82 of\n\n Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- so we'll do that at the end of the hearing -- THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. So, Attorney Claiborn and Attorney Henzy, the last hearing I did ask you both -- and I know you did brief the issue on whether or not 327(a) applies to Zeisler & Zeisler and whether or not there's an actual conflict of interest because of the representation of three parties in this case at the same time. Before we get to that though, I don't understand the other lawyer, Attorney Henzy, who has filed an appearance and what his role is going to be and why there's a need for another attorney? MR. HENZY: I'm going to take my mask off just when I speak, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. HENZY: I apologize for that. I just -- So Attorney Mitchell appeared -- as I understand it, Your Honor, there was this window, I'll call it, between Brown Rudnick exiting and one -- I don't think it makes any difference to Mr. Baldiga's presentation, but the debtor had\n\n| | 24 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | --
I'm told -- I was not part of it, but made an |\n| 2 | affirmative decision to terminate -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
That's what we were told by someone |\n| 4 | from Brown Rudnick last week.
And I don't remember who it |\n| 5 | was, so I apologize. |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
And, of course, subject to any |\n| 7 | bankruptcy code, bankruptcy rules issue, under the Rules of |\n| 8 | Professional Conduct, if a client terminates a lawyer, the |\n| 9 | lawyer is ethically prohibited from representing a client |\n| 10 | any further. |\n| 11 | So there was this window where Brown Rudnick was |\n| 12 | no longer representing -- again, putting the bankruptcy |\n| 13 | code, bankruptcy rules and the need to withdraw aside -- but |\n| 14 | I could understand them taking the position they were no |\n| 15 | longer representing the debtor and my firm was not -- was |\n| 16 | not at that point retained by the debtor and Mr. Mitchell |\n| 17 | appeared really solely for the purpose -- I think at the |\n| 18 | time of that -- the July 8 hearing that Your Honor held on |\n| 19 | the U.S. Trustee's motion to appoint Mr. Despins as trustee, |\n| 20 | to put something on the record that the debtor in fact was |\n| 21 | objecting to Mr. Despins' appointment as trustee. |\n| 22 | And my recollection is that it was done by filing |\n| 23 | a kind of a letter as opposed to a formal pleading that you |\n| 24 | typically would see. |\n| 25 | But I believe that the debtor does not have any |\n\n# intention of having Attorney Mitchell be in court representing him. That's why he's retained -- he's retained us. THE COURT: Well, then, will Mr. Mitchell be withdrawing his appearance? MR. HENZY: I'd certainly discuss that with the debtor and with Mr. Mitchell, yes. THE COURT: Because Mr. Mitchell said in the letter that he understood all the rules in the bankruptcy court, but yet he filed this letter. So I -- I don't think that there should be two lawyers for the debtor in this court. I don't see the need for it. And I don't -- and Mr. Mitchell, who says he understood, does not understand how it works here apparently. So I would think that it would be wise for Mr. Mitchell to withdraw his appearance. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: And we'll get that cleaned up. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now, turning to the 327(a) issue, and Attorney Claiborn as well, and, you know, Attorney Henzy, I went back when you said, you know, it was black letter law. And of course it's not really black letter law. Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 84 of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 85 of\n\n It says it in a line in *Collier's* that -- and it doesn't cite to any cases. And then the cases that cite to the proposition that says that a debtor out of possession, 327(a), doesn't apply, cite to the *Collier's* cite. So it's very interesting actually because you would think there would have been more out there than there really is. And the cases that cite for the proposition that say you are out of possession and, therefore, the chapter -- I'm sorry -- therefore, the 327(a) does not apply all rely on a sentence in *Collier's* which is fairly interesting to me. But in any event there's other things in *Collier's* that are interesting as well with regard to the status of this case. Attorney Claiborn, your motion talks about whether the debtor's acting on behalf of the estate or on his individual -- in an individual way as to why -- whether 327(a) should apply. So where do things stand from the U.S. Trustee's standpoint at this point? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I don't think we're any further than we were when we filed our brief except to say that the debtor's brief filed by the Zeisler firm did acknowledge the fact that there have been conflict waivers\n\n# executed amongst the parties. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Attorney Claiborn, you're a little low. THE COURT: She can't -- yeah. You have to speak up a little bit. She can't you. I'm sorry. MS. CLAIBORN: I am actually speaking loudly, but I'll try again. I wanted to point the court to the fact that in the Zeisler brief at ECF 620 there is a representation that conflict waivers have been executed by and between the debtor, HK International and Ms. Guo. We have not seen those conflict waivers and we're not privy to any discussions that may have happened by and among the debtor, HK, and Ms. Guo and Zeisler's office. So as we are at the moment not any further along in the analysis than we were when we filed our brief back on July 27th, so in our viewpoint it very much depends on what the debtor is aiming towards and what the debtor is doing as to whether or not the Zeisler firm must comply with Section 327(a). And as part of that it has a lot to do with their role with respect to the three different parties, the debtor, HK and Ms. Guo. THE COURT: Okay. So you're -- you don't know whether 327(a) applies? Or you're saying it's not -- it's not discernible because you don't know what role they're Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 86 of\n\n playing? MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the conflict issue? The 327(a) issue, I have to say, again, *Collier* says in one line that it doesn't apply to a debtor not in possession. That's all it says. But that issue, you know, could be continually raised depending upon what happens in the case just because -- if I find 327(a) doesn't apply at this time, it doesn't mean I couldn't find 327(a) doesn't apply at some other time. But that's aside from the fact that the Zeisler firm represents now Mr. Kwok, HK International and Ms. Guo, and says that because the trustee now is automatically substituted as a party in the adversary proceeding that HK brought against Mr. Kwok that there's no conflict. Do you agree with that? MS. CLAIBORN: I don't think it's as pure as that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, that's their argument though. MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. And so what do you think? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee -- the brief that we filed sets out the opinions that have been issued in various different jurisdictions, and obviously not\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
Page 88 of
322 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 29 |\n| 1 | this one, as to the applicability of 327 and I think there |\n| 2 | is support for the idea that depending on what counsel is |\n| 3 | doing and what their role really is in the case, that they |\n| 4 | are subject to 327. |\n| 5 | To the extent that the debtor is pursuing the |\n| 6 | debtor's Rule 60(b) motion here today with the mind set and |\n| 7 | the goal that that trustee appointment is invalid because |\n| 8 | Trustee Despins does not satisfy the disinterested status |\n| 9 | that is required, that position is being taken and advocated |\n| 10 | for the apparent benefit of the estate. |\n| 11 | And so to the extent that that is the debtor's |\n| 12 | objective and that is the debtor's goal, there is an |\n| 13 | interpretation that can be made that 327(a) does in fact |\n| 14 | imply to Zeisler. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Attorney Henzy? |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
On the two points, Your Honor, I -- I |\n| 17 | did not recollect that all of the cases that I cited on the |\n| 18 | 327(a) issue that I -- I know for sure several of them did |\n| 19 | cite the Collier's, but I'm not sure all of them did. |\n| 20 | I could not find any case that said to the |\n| 21 | contrary, that a debtor out of possession is required to |\n| 22 | retain -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I think you're right.
I couldn't |\n| 24 | either.
I looked.
I agree with you.
I don't -- and I |\n| 25 | think the references in those cases to Collier is it. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 89 of\n\n There's other cases -- there's other issues about whether you can be compensated under 330. That's a different issue. MR. HENZY: Yeah. Yeah. Which I think the Supreme Court -- THE COURT: But I agree. The 327(a), there's nothing that says that a debtor in -- a debtor out of possession's counsel must abide by 327(a). I wasn't able to find anything. And then the only thing is whether or not you had to disclose your compensation. And you disclosed your compensation. But I don't understand what an evergreen retainer means from your perspective. I think I know what it means, but I assume that means when you're done with your hundred thousand you get another -- it's evergreen, it's always blooming, it never loses it's -- MR. HENZY: It always -- it's always blooming. THE COURT: It's always blooming. MR. HENZY: It's always blooming, yes. THE COURT: So you -- so you go -- you use the hundred thousand -- I'm just saying -- and then you get another hundred thousand. MR. HENZY: Or whatever has been used that particular billing period. Yeah.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
Page 90 of
322 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 31 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And so -- |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
So let's say in a month we billed |\n| 3 | \\$10,000, we would bill the client -- we would send the |\n| 4 | client an invoice for \\$10,000.
We would take the \\$10,000 |\n| 5 | from the retainer and the client would be obligated to |\n| 6 | replenish the retainer. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
That's the idea. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
And the -- and how would -- how would |\n| 10 | the Court know when your retainer is -- has -- is about to |\n| 11 | lose its bloom and needs to be replenished? |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
I don't know that the Court would know |\n| 13 | that.
I don't know that the Court under the rules needs to |\n| 14 | know that.
I suppose they're not -- I'm just saying in |\n| 15 | theory, say take a hypothetical, if the -- if a -- in a |\n| 16 | situation like that, the retainer stopped blooming, the way |\n| 17 | the Court might find out about it is that counsel might be |\n| 18 | filing a motion to withdraw on the basis that the client -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
-- is not satisfying its obligations. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
That's possible.
But, again, the |\n| 22 | debtor's son has provided you with the hundred thousand |\n| 23 | dollars, correct? |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
Yeah.
That's correct. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And so the debtor's son -- you |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 91 of\n\n represent the debtor, the debtor's daughter, the entity that asserts -- MR. HENZY: Says that it owns the boat. THE COURT: -- that they're the registered owner of the boat, and now -- now you're getting money from the debtor's son? MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. And you don't think any of that's a conflict? MR. HENZY: I do not believe that any of it is a non-waivable conflict other -- THE COURT: Well, there's other things you have to meet under Rule 1.7. It's not just that you got an informed consent waiver in writing. It's four things. That you reasonably believe that you'll be able to provide competent and diligent representation. I'm not suggesting you don't. You may believe that. Somebody might not agree with you, but you may reasonably believe that. The representation is not prohibited by law. Well, I'm not sure about that if the bankruptcy code sections apply, as Attorney Claiborn asserts they might. MR. HENZY: Which I would like to come back to that. THE COURT: Yeah. We'll come back to that. The representation does not involve the assertion\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 92 of\n\n of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal. So we're not just talking about the adversary proceeding here, right? We're talking about the case as a whole, the Chapter 11 case, where the entity -- Mr. Friedman reminded me last hearing, because I couldn't remember the entity who was loaning the money to the estate, was also an entity I believe controlled by the son, and now who's paying you, I guess not through an entity but by himself. That's what your disclosure says, correct? MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: That the money came directly from the son, not from any other entity? MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. And so you have four things you have to meet under Rule 1.7, not just -- not just the waiver of the conflict. And there's plenty of cases out there -- and I don't -- I'm not saying we're going to go through them today, okay -- but there's plenty of cases out there, bankruptcy judges saying you can assert all those things, but that doesn't mean that the conflict is truly waivable. Just because you got them to sign a letter that says they waive the conflict doesn't mean it's actually waivable.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 93 of\n\n That's the issue that you have -- or one of the issues that I think you have.\n\n And given what has occurred outside of this court before the filing of this case, there's a lot of information that could become fact in this case to the contrary, that there's -- they're all one in the same. And some people could argue that your representation of all of them just supports that they're all one in the same, because Mr. Despins said last time we were here that -- and he may be filling more of this in later -- that with regard to the New York bankruptcy case that the direction came from Mr. Kwok, not from the corporate entity.\n\n13 And, you know, I mean, Mr. Friedman's papers, as you know, Mr. Henzy, I'm sure you've read them, go through extensively all the findings that have been made outside of this court.\n\n So Mr. Friedman says, you know, you may need to think about that, Judge, because maybe this is all just a continuation of what was going on back in New York, that through this weave and this web of issues that we just continue to do the same thing, just in another court.\n\n And what I'm having difficulty with is I don't see how you can represent all three of those entities and now get paid by the son and say that you don't have a concurrent conflict of interest under Rule 1.7, which is different from\n\n| 322 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| 1 | the 327(a) issue.
Okay? |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | I'm not -- I'm saying even if I agree with you |\n| 3 | that 327a doesn't apply, and I think you might be right -- |\n| 4 | although I hear Attorney Claiborn's argument. I think the |\n| 5 | argument with that though is that it has to be raised when |\n| 6 | the issue has obviously come up.
I don't -- I don't think |\n| 7 | she's -- her office is able to at this point show that this |\n| 8 | issue that you're really -- that it's -- you're really |\n| 9 | representing the estate, because I'm not sure I agree with |\n| 10 | that at this point either. |\n| 11 | It's complex, obviously, as you know, and this has |\n| 12 | been going on for a long time.
So I just don't see how it's |\n| 13 | not a conflict of interest. |\n| 14 | There is -- there are claims in the estate that |\n| 15 | are going to -- how are you going to provide advice to Mr. |\n| 16 | Kwok individually, and HK and Ms. Guo, individually without |\n| 17 | being -- without having their interests overlap and/or |\n| 18 | conflict, which they can and very well may do? |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
So I guess a couple of preliminary |\n| 20 | points, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
Absolutely court has the authority to |\n| 23 | enforce the rules of professional conduct when it involves |\n| 24 | proceedings in their court.
Absolutely, no -- I don't |\n| 25 | question that in any way, shape or form. |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 95 of\n\n However, the principal -- in the first instance, it's up to the lawyer to be aware of and to -- their own conflicts and to make sure that they're in compliance with the rules of professional conduct. And, again, if something is in front fo the Court and the Court says that that's a conflict, the Court certainly has the authority and maybe the obligation to do something.\n\n Courts are, the Second Circuit says, to be somewhat deferential to a client's choice of counsel because there's a generally recognized right of people to retain counsel and to retain counsel of their choosing. And I think the 1.7(a) rules don't recognize that or address that or deal with that.\n\n On 1.7(a)(1), right now, there is no adversity. We represent HK International and I think -- and Mei Guo. And there may be other issues that we end up representing them on in the case, but principally, and I don't want to say almost exclusively, it's been on the Lady May.\n\n Now, I understand we filed appearances in the case -- and in theory could an issue come up other than with respect to the Lady May where they're adverse to each other -- but all we've done so far for those two -- those two -- the person and the entity is with respect to the Lady May.\n\n I think it is generally recognized, Your Honor, that where there is no existing concurrent conflict -- and\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 96 of\n\n that's what Rule 1.7 says, is a concurrent conflict of interest exists that the fact that there may be a conflict sometime in the future does not disqualify counsel and you potentially have to deal with that. And it certainly is our practice, and I think most firms' practice, to -- in any joint representation -- to advise clients if there -- if you end up with adverse -- end up adverse to each other, we're going to have to deal with that and that may have consequences to you. We may have to resign for one, both, all three, it's -- but you don't know that until you get to that concurrent conflict and you have to deal with it. Really, same theme on 1.7(a)(2), there is no -- THE COURT: I'm not talking about (a) though. I'm talking about (b). MR. HENZY: I'm going to -- I'm going to get to (b) because (b) follows (a). It's -- THE COURT: Yeah. But it says notwithstanding. MR. HENZY: But you don't get to (b) -- if there's no concurrent conflict of interest, you don't get to (b). THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. HENZY: (b) is notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under subsection (a). A lawyer may represent a client, yes, but you don't get to (b) unless you fail (a).\n\n THE COURT: How can you fail -- how do you get by (a)(1) then? You represent HK and Mr. Kwok. The boat -- the trustee wants the boat to be property of the estate. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: HK's got a different interest in that boat than Mr. Kwok does according to you. So how is it right now that there is -- they're not directly adverse to each other? MR. HENZY: Well, Mr. Kwok is no longer a party to that adversary proceeding -- THE COURT: That's not what I'm saying. MR. HENZY: -- and has no -- THE COURT: I don't care if he's not a party to the adversary proceeding. He still has an adverse interest with regard to the boat because he -- because they're still going to have to be -- if Mr. Despins is successful, right, in saying that the boat is property of the estate, then that is an -- then it's an adverse interest to your client and to HK because then HK doesn't have the boat and the debtor does. How are they not -- how are they not -- how is it not adverse? MR. HENZY: Certainly it would be adverse to HK if the Court said -- THE COURT: Right. And you represent HK and the\n\n debtor. MR. HENZY: Yeah. But I'm not sure I agree with you. Mr. Kwok's position is that HK owns the boat so they're not adverse. He does not believe that he owns the boat. He does not believe that it's property of the bankruptcy estate. I'll say that unequivocally on the record. So I don't see how they can be adverse if they take the same position. I think he's -- he would -- I know he would contemplate not being involved in that fight. That's a fight between presumably the trustee and HK International. But I don't -- Mr. Kwok -- again, I'll say this on the record, he will not be -- I suppose he might be involved if someone wants to call him as a witness or something like that, but he will not be taking positions. That will be a fight between the trustee and HK International, so there's no adversity, Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't agree with you, but go ahead. MR. HENZY: Okay. When you get to (b), as you said, we do believe that we can provide competent, diligent representation to each client. I'm not concerned that we're going to be pulling punches on behalf of HK International or having what's going on with the boat impact our representation of Mr. Kwok at all. On (b)(2), the 327 issue, again, we can talk more\n\n about. I've made the point in the papers -- I don't want to belabor it, Mr. Kwok is no longer a party to the adversary proceeding. I believe Mr. Despins said that at the last hearing. He was automatically substituted as the party in that -- in that adversary proceeding. And I cited the rule and cases that say that, that upon appointment of a trustee, he is automatically substituted for the debtor in that action. And all three clients have given consent. We did advise them, if they wanted to, to consult with other counsel and they've confirmed their consent in writing. So even assuming that there is a concurrent conflict under 1.7(a) -- and, Your Honor, to your point, it may be that at some point in this case a concurrent conflict does arise. I don't think one exists today -- there may be at some point a concurrent conflict arises. And if it does, then in compliance with the rules of professional responsibility, we will have a professional responsibility to address that. And, again, typically when you have a joint representation you advise clients if a concurrent conflict arises we may need to withdraw or otherwise address it. But if and when a conflict -- concurrent conflict\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 100 of\n\n arises, we'll -- we will have to address it. And the clients have been informed of that. And, again, they have -- they have given their consent. THE COURT: Well, we -- I don't know how they gave their consent. So, I mean, you could have just said I consent. I don't know what they said. I know what you're saying they said, but just by saying I consent doesn't mean that's a -- that is a waiveable conflict -- MR. HENZY: Well, the only -- THE COURT: -- because you have to know what they're consenting to. MR. HENZY: The only non-waiveable conflict under this rule is if we represent two parties in the same litigation. And because Mr. Kwok is no longer a party to the adversary proceeding, I believe that we do not represent two parties to the same litigation. So they can consent -- THE COURT: But it's not just to the litigation that -- you keep focusing on the issue of the adversary -- it's the case. It's the case. It's still Mr. Kwok is in the case. It's his case whether he's not -- out of possession or not. It doesn't just go away because he's out of possession. It's still an issue in the case. You know, it's too convenient to say Mr. Despins steps into the shoes of Mr. Kwok in that adversary but not in any of the 523 adversaries. And I understand the\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 101 of\n\n argument. I'm not -- I understand the argument. But it doesn't -- you just don't have a conflict and then it doesn't -- it just doesn't -- it goes away. It doesn't exist anymore. That's not how it works. The conflict as I think we talked about it the last time, you know, you take the client as you find him. You know, you may argue you don't have a conflict at the moment, but the parties have a conflict with each other. There's some issues here. MR. HENZY: I don't -- I don't see where the parties right now are directly adverse to each other. THE COURT: Well, you may not see it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. MR. HENZY: But if -- THE COURT: The problem is in this case, and in the case before this case, that there were -- there were many, many findings made with regard to this -- these number of family -- closely -- and they're all insiders by the way so let's just -- we didn't raise that either. They're all insiders. MR. HENZY: None of it before you, Your Honor. THE COURT: No. No. No. I'm talking -- MR. HENZY: None of it before you. THE COURT: No. No. No. I'm talking about in this case right now. Ms. Guo is an insider of Mr. Kwok.\n\n| 322 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| MR. HENZY:
Yes. |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| THE COURT:
The son who paid you a hundred |\n| thousand dollars is an insider of Mr. Kwok.
HK |\n| International may or may not be an insider of Mr. Kwok, but |\n| it's close. |\n| MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay?
So how is that not a conflict? |\n| MR. HENZY:
Because they are not adverse -- they |\n| are not directly adverse to each other.
Your Honor, if a -- |\n| THE COURT:
If Mr. Despins sues Ms. Guo right now |\n| -- |\n| MR. HENZY:
Yeah. |\n| THE COURT:
-- and says she got paid whatever she |\n| got -- I'm making -- I'm giving a hypothetical. She got paid |\n| by Mr. Kwok a hundred thousand dollars 90 days before the |\n| filing, then how are they not adverse? |\n| MR. HENZY:
I think that Mr. Despins and Ms. Guo |\n| would be adverse. |\n| THE COURT:
No.
Because the money's got to come |\n| back from Mr. Kwok and Mr. -- you've got -- you keep -- |\n| MR. HENZY:
If Ms. -- if Ms. Guo is sued for -- |\n| THE COURT:
What's the -- you're not going to -- |\n| are you going to raise a defense on her part?
What's her |\n| defense? |\n| MR. HENZY:
Hold on.
Assume -- I apologize, Your |\n| |\n\n Honor. THE COURT: No. That's okay. It's okay. MR. HENZY: No. No, that was not okay. I apologize. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. HENZY: If Mr. Despins sues Ms. Guo for a preference, which I think is what you were positing, or for whatever, for whatever -- THE COURT: For whatever. MR. HENZY: -- then the money would come back I think from Ms. Guo, not from Mr. -- THE COURT: But what's her defense? She's going to have a defense. She's not going to just turn it over. If she can, she can turn it over today then. MR. HENZY: I don't know -- THE COURT: How are you going to represent her? MR. HENZY: I don't know what claim Mr. Despins is bringing against her, so I don't -- THE COURT: I understand that. MR. HENZY: -- I don't know what her defense would be. It's possible. I suppose he would bring a claim, I don't know what it would be, that would create some direct adversity, in which case we would have to deal with that. But that doesn't exist today. THE COURT: Okay.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 104 of\n\n MR. HENZY: It may exist, Your Honor, sometime in the future, but it doesn't exist today. And for the 1.7(a) analysis, it's a concurrent conflict of interest exists. Today, is there a conflict? If a conflict -- and the rules specifically contemplate -- I think it's in the comments to 1.7 where it addresses joint representation -- that a conflict -- a conflict may arise in the future. And if it does, counsel has an ethical responsibility to address it. But today, Ms. Guo hasn't been sued by Mr. Despins for anything. She may get sued by him for something and that, whatever that suit is, may or may not raise -- put Ms. Guo and Mr. Kwok in a directly adverse position. But I -- but I don't know. I can't know that today. THE COURT: Well, (a) doesn't talk about the fact that there has to be a lawsuit by the way. MR. HENZY: Oh, no. It's any -- it's any adverse -- THE COURT: So it doesn't talk about it. MR. HENZY: No. It's any -- I was just -- I was addressing your -- THE COURT: (b) talks about it, not (a). MR. HENZY: I was addressing Your Honor's comment about what if -- THE COURT: I understand. So I'm saying there\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 46 |\n| 1 | doesn't have to be a lawsuit in (a).
It's if you have the |\n| 2 | representation of one client will be directly adverse to |\n| 3 | another. |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
And I -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
There doesn't have to be a lawsuit to |\n| 6 | have that issue. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
And today I don't see how Ms. Guo and |\n| 8 | Mr. Kwok are directly adverse -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
-- on anything.
I don't see how HK |\n| 11 | International and Mr. Kwok are directly adverse on anything. |\n| 12 | Again, Mr. Despins is going to bring whatever |\n| 13 | claims he brings and we're going to go -- we're going to go |\n| 14 | from there ormake whatever claims he makes. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, if I could be heard for |\n| 17 | two minutes on this? |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Yes, please. |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
Not on 327.
I don't have a view on |\n| 20 | that. |\n| 21 | But on the issue of waivable conflict or not, 521, |\n| 22 | debtor's duties, 521(a)(3), if there's a trustee appointed, |\n| 23 | the debtor's duty is to cooperate with the trustee as |\n| 24 | necessary to enable the trustee to perform the trustee's |\n| 25 | duties.
(a)(4), if there's a trustee serving, they must |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 105 of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 106 of\n\n| 1 | surrender all properties, et cetera. |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Of course their view is, oh, you know, he's a |\n| 3 | billionaire, but he has no assets so, therefore, we're on |\n| 4 | the same side of the V.
But that duty that a -- statutory |\n| 5 | duty that the debtor has exists today.
And you know that |\n| 6 | there are criminal provisions in 18 U.S.C. that tie into |\n| 7 | these obligations to do these things. |\n| 8 | So I'm -- so I'm not so sure this is a waivable |\n| 9 | conflict despite the fact that there's consent because the |\n| 10 | debtor has a statutory duty to do certain things that are in |\n| 11 | direct conflict with the other party that they're |\n| 12 | representing. |\n| 13 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
And also, by the way, I want to |\n| 16 | mention that chart that they said the son paid, they also |\n| 17 | checked the box that the debtor would -- might pay in the |\n| 18 | future.
I want to be very clear under 549 we reserve all |\n| 19 | rights.
If the debtor is paying Zeisler, I don't want them |\n| 20 | to think that because they checked that box that somehow |\n| 21 | we're looking the other way.
I don't see how the debtor is |\n| 22 | paying -- would be paying them during the case. |\n| 23 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
I'm pretty sure that Mr. Despins is |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 107 of\n\n not looking the other way on anything, Your Honor. THE COURT: But it's a good point about the debtor making future payments for fees. I think that would be tremendously problematic. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, the debtor is not going to make any payments at the very least out of any -- Mr. Despins references to 549 and any property that's property of the bankruptcy estate. And we wouldn't -- we wouldn't take any such payments, certainly not knowingly anyway. So I'll say again, Your Honor, the debtor -- so the debtor has duties under 521, but I'm not seeing how that -- and Mr. Despins already has made in the corporate governance motion some proposals, but I'm still not seeing that today that there's any directly adverse -- that anyone's directly adverse. Again, it may be that something happens in the future where there is adversity. The only conflict -- expressly under the rules, the only conflict that is not waivable is the (b)(3). So we may think that a client should not -- THE COURT: I'm not sure that's true by the way. I mean, that's not -- case law doesn't really support that completely. I understand that's your argument. But when do -- where -- what authority are you relying on that says the only thing that's not waivable is (b)(3)? MR. HENZY: I think that that's the plain language\n\n of the rule. That is the -- unless it's prohibited by law, which is back to the 327(a) issue. THE COURT: Which is (2). Yeah. MR. HENZY: Okay. But I'm not aware of any prohibition in any law -- THE COURT: Well, actually there's a lot -- believe it or not, I've seen some case law that the -- even when the informed consent is in writing, the bankruptcy court has found that it's not a waivable conflict no matter what, you know, was written in that consent. Okay? There's cases, and there's recent cases about it, throughout the country that talk about, you know, the -- that it's -- you know, you can waive -- you can say whatever you want and waive it, but just because you said it doesn't mean it's enforceable and it's waivable. MR. HENZY: Yeah. I -- THE COURT: And at this point, you know, I'm not sure that it is. But go ahead. MR. HENZY: I don't understand I guess that point. THE COURT: Well -- MR. HENZY: If there's no prohibition by law and it's not claims made against each other -- THE COURT: Because it impacts the estate as a whole. This isn't just about the one adversary proceeding in which HK International sued Mr. Kwok. It's what Mr. Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 108 of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 109 of\n\n Despins is saying and more. The debtor still has -- he may be a debtor out of possession, but he still has obligations under the bankruptcy code.\n\n He voluntarily came to this court and subjected himself to the jurisdiction of this court. And with that, you know, he gets all the benefits, but he also has the burdens. And he has to cooperate and turn over to the trustee all of his -- all property of the estate, whatever equitable or legal interest he has in a -- in a -- any piece of -- any property, whatever it is, whether it's real, personal, whatever. And when there are --\n\n We still haven't gotten to the issue of what HK is doing with regard to the certification on the boat. That seems to have gone by the wayside for a while. But there's \\$37 million in an escrow account that Mr. Despins is going to argue one way or another either that money or the boat's the estate. And that money --\n\n Now Mr. Friedman's going to have to remind me again, was that Golden Spring who funded that 37 million or was it somebody else?\n\n MR. HENZY: But, Your Honor, a couple of points. THE COURT: No. But wait a minute. Let me just finish my thought process first and I'll get back to you. But the point is Mr. Kwok is going to argue that something different -- how could Mr. Kwok -- is he -- he's\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 110 of\n\n| 322 | |\n|-----|--|\n| | |\n\n| | 51 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | going to say, oh, yeah, go ahead HK, give the boat over to |\n| 2 | the estate or don't?
Go ahead, Mr. -- escrow agent.
Give |\n| 3 | the 37
-- who's going to fight that fight? |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
Not Mr. Kwok. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Well, who's going to fight the fight? |\n| 6 | HK International.
And you represent HK International and |\n| 7 | Mr. Kwok. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
And Mr. Kwok's not fighting that fight |\n| 9 | at all. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
He's not going to fight the fight. |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:
No. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
So then I could find today -- I could |\n| 13 | make a ruling that the boat is property of the estate and |\n| 14 | Mr. Kwok's not going to fight that fight? |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:
Mr. Kwok is out of that fight. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
He's not going to fight it? |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:
He is -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
So you're going to represent HK |\n| 19 | International in that fight? |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
He is out of that fight.
That fight |\n| 21 | is now Mr. Despins' fight with HK International.
It's not |\n| 22 | Mr. Kwok's fight. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
All right.
What about the \\$37 million |\n| 24 | in escrow? |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
Same answer, that's not Mr. Kwok's |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1268 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 | Page 111 of | |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|--|\n| 322 | | | | | |\n\n| | 52 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | fight.
That is HK International's fight.
And Mr. -- I'm |\n| 2 | not sure that's even a fight. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
So how can you represent HK |\n| 4 | International in a fight against the estate in which the |\n| 5 | estate is your client's estate? |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
But the estate is not my client.
The |\n| 7 | Supreme Court says that in the Baker Botts decision and the |\n| 8 | -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Yes.
But the estate is the |\n| 10 | responsibility of your client. |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:
No. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
Yes, it is under 521. |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:
No.
I think that's wrong. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yes.
He's got to turn it over.
He's |\n| 15 | got to cooperate and turn it over. |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
He has responsibilities -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
So is he going to cooperate right now |\n| 18 | and say that, yeah, you know what, HK International really |\n| 19 | doesn't own the boat.
I do according to the New York State |\n| 20 | Court.
So why don't you just move it over here now? |\n| 21 | Is that how he's going to cooperate? |\n| 22 | And then how does that make sense for him to say |\n| 23 | that and then have HK say, no, I'm the -- I'm the record |\n| 24 | owner of the boat? |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
So he -- he has his obligations under |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 112 of\n\n| | 53 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 521, but that doesn't mean -- 521 doesn't mean that he has |\n| 2 | to say -- get on the witness stand and say something is true |\n| 3 | that he doesn't believe is true. |\n| 4 | So if Mr. Despins is pursuing that action or that |\n| 5 | action is being pursued and Mr. Kwok is put on the witness |\n| 6 | stand and Mr. Despins says, isn't it true that you own the |\n| 7 | boat?
And Mr. Kwok says, no.
That's not -- he's not |\n| 8 | violating his obligations under 521 of the bankruptcy code. |\n| 9 | He's giving truthful testimony.
So I'm not -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Well, whether it's true or not isn't |\n| 11 | for Mr. Kwok to decide.
That's the point.
Otherwise why |\n| 12 | are we here? |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:
Oh.
I agree with you.
But he's |\n| 14 | obligated to give truthful testimony. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
He's obligated to give testimony. |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
To give truthful -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
He makes the determination of whether |\n| 18 | or not it's truthful. |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
Well, but -- but no one would say, |\n| 20 | well, Mr. Kwok you believe that you don't own the boat? |\n| 21 | That's right, I believe I don't own the boat.
Well, you |\n| 22 | can't give that answer.
You have to testify that you do own |\n| 23 | the boat because 521 says you have to testify -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Nobody would suggest -- nobody's |\n| 25 | suggesting that. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
Page 113 of
322 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 54 |\n| 1 | MR. HENZY:
Then I'm missing -- I'm missing the |\n| 2 | point. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Maybe I'm not articulating it |\n| 4 | well.
I don't understand how this can continue, but we'll |\n| 5 | talk about it. |\n| 6 | Does anyone else wish to be heard on whether or |\n| 7 | not the Zeisler firm can represent these three entities at |\n| 8 | the same time and not have it be deemed to be a conflict of |\n| 9 | interest? |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
One point, Your Honor.
If you're |\n| 11 | going to rule that we have a conflict of interest, or you're |\n| 12 | not going to rule, then I don't believe anything else should |\n| 13 | go forward today.
You can't -- because the debtor is then |\n| 14 | -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I agree with you and that's why I |\n| 16 | asked to hear what everybody else -- |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
Because then the debtor is not |\n| 18 | -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
That's why we're talking about this |\n| 20 | right now. |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
The debtor is not represented.
And to |\n| 22 | the extent you haven't ruled -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Well, he is represented.
He's got |\n| 24 | another lawyer.
He's got Mr. -- whatever -- |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
No one's here in court today |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 114 of\n\n| | 55 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | representing the debtor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I understand that.
But that -- you |\n| 3 | know, this is not news that the issue was raised about the |\n| 4 | conflict of interest.
So just hold on. |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I hear you.
I hear you. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Does anyone else wish to be heard on |\n| 9 | this conflict of interest issue? |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
I would just say, Your Honor, that |\n| 11 | I'm not sure.
We need a genie to decide that issue today. |\n| 12 | I think the issue is still live, will continue to be live, |\n| 13 | you know, later. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 15 | Attorney Claiborn? |\n| 16 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, I agree the issue does |\n| 17 | not die today if the Court decides not to rule on it today. |\n| 18 | The only other issue that I would throw into the |\n| 19 | mix is that looking into the future and cognizant of the |\n| 20 | past, the debtor's position on things has changed over time. |\n| 21 | And to the extent that the debtor uses this particular |\n| 22 | conflict, albeit resolved at the moment as a future sword, |\n| 23 | then we have a problem in this case. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
What do you mean? |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
To the extent that he takes the |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 115 of\n\n position in the future that his guidance and his advice from his now current counsel, Zeisler, was conflicted and that he should not be bound by any of the outcomes of that, that's going to cause a problem in this case in the future. The debtor does have a history of parting ways with counsel. THE COURT: Okay. I think I understand your point. I might -- I might not be understanding it fully at the moment, but that's fine. Anyone else wish to be heard? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. So, Mr. Henzy, with regard to the concurrent representation of these three parties, Mr. Kwok, who has continuing and remaining and continuous obligations under the bankruptcy code, even if he is a debtor out of possession, and HK International, and Mei Guo, the debtor's daughter, I agree with you that at the moment there is -- you appear to be complying with all of the provisions of Rule 1.7. But I do agree that things can change very quickly and parties, including you, and/or the Court, and/or others, need to bring this to the Court's attention if there are issues that are happening in this case. I think your client, as I said to you the other day, you take your client as you found them. And as your client has some issues with regard to\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 116 of\n\n litigation that has occurred outside of this court, that at some point's going to come back to this court somehow. Mr. Despins is going to have to do what Mr. Despins has to do and so do all the other creditors. I have no idea what any of the other creditors are going to do. They have their rights too. And they -- they can seek whatever relief they think is appropriate with regard to your clients, all three of them. So I -- given the positions that have been taken, and that the U.S. Trustee believes that 327(a) may apply and that you may have a conflict, I think the issue is continuing before this court and there won't -- you know, could be a problem as early as tomorrow. Who knows? And we'll have to deal with that. With regard to your motion for relief from judgment order under -- MR. HENZY: Your Honor, can I -- can I just ask a question? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: I'd like to think anyway that I take my obligations under the rules of professional responsibility pretty seriously. THE COURT: No one's questioning that. MR. HENZY: Okay. I'll accept that. But -- THE COURT: But you have to understand that the\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 117 of\n\n issues that have been raised in this case are every day -- every week it changes, right? We're going down one path, then we go down another path, now we're down an other path. Now you're filing a motion to try to remove the trustee after, you know, you said -- after your client came in and wanted the boat to be part of the \\$8 million, have the boat be part of the estate, move forward, try to -- who Mr. Baldiga said on many occasions wants to have -- and it says it in the papers, so it's an admission of your party, of your client, whether or not you represent your client or Mr. Baldiga represented your client, that they wanted this case to be a place where everyone could come together and resolve all the issues and have a fair and equal distribution to creditors. And that's not what's happening. Okay? That's not what's happening. There wouldn't have been an appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee if that was what was happening. So I'm not trying to challenge your personal seriousness about the Rule 1.7. As I keep saying to you, you don't represent yourself. You represent your clients. And your clients already have some negative rulings against them that the Court has heard about time and time again.\n\n And your client has come in and said he wanted to do all these things and then immediately changes course and\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 118 of\n\n pulls the plug on everything and leaves everybody in a completely different -- on a completely different path than he came in here and said that he was going to pursue. That's what I'm talking about. Okay? MR. HENZY: The point I was going to make, Your Honor, is I think I take my obligations pretty seriously. And if I ever believe that I have a concurrent conflict, I'm going to address it, with the clients if necessary, with the Court. So I would -- I would always do that. A second point is, Mr. -- Ms. Claiborn's point that she doesn't want to see the debtor using a purported conflict of my firm as a sword, I make the same point back at people. To have this sort of weird maybe three -- so if 327 applies, if the debtor is asserting his rights, and if I'm arguing too vigorously about some issue, then 327(a) applies. But if the debtor just sits and doesn't -- quietly and doesn't push back on anything, then 327 doesn't apply. I would hope that parties aren't going to use that in the future when the debtor potentially is objecting to something to stand up and say now he's under 327, he's got to go. A third point, Your Honor, the -- what happened outside of this court in pre-bankruptcy litigation I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not my firm has a\n\n conflict under Rule 1.7 or 327(a) is implicated. I don't -- I don't think that it does.\n\n This is a tough case. I don't think anybody would disagree with that. This is a -- this is a tough, tough case. But the toughness of the issues isn't the driver on I have a conflict or I don't have a conflict. I either have a conflict or I don't have a conflict.\n\n And what I -- what I don't want to do, Your Honor, is go away from today with you having -- because I -- when you -- I think anyway, okay -- I never would intend to put words in Your Honor's mouth, that's why I'm going to say what I thought I heard -- what I thought I heard was you agree with me that today you believe I don't have an issue under Rule 1.7. But then you said -- I think anyway -- again, I want to be very careful -- but maybe you do.\n\n And if the Court is going to determine that today I have a concurrent conflict of interest and I should not be representing the debtor, I need to know that, because then if that's the case, from the time the Court says that every word that comes out of my mouth I am violating my obligations under the rules of professional responsibility. So either the Court finds I have a concurrent\n\n And recognizing that if something comes up in the future that creates that conflict, we're going to have to\n\nconflict of interest today or it doesn't.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
Page 120 of
322 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 61 |\n| 1 | deal with it.
But I -- I kind of need to know that today. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I think I said you didn't have a |\n| 3 | concurrent conflict of interest today, but you might in the |\n| 4 | future. |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
Agreed. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
And that parties needed to bring that |\n| 7 | to the Court's attention. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
All right.
With regard to Rule 9024 |\n| 12 | motion, as I mentioned to you last time, I didn't understand |\n| 13 | why you weren't moving under section 324, the removal of the |\n| 14 | trustee. |\n| 15 | And the case law that I've looked at says that a |\n| 16 | rule -- and Collier, again, says that Rule 60 is not the |\n| 17 | appropriate way to challenge the appointment of a trustee |\n| 18 | under -- that the United States -- because the Court's not |\n| 19 | involved in the appointment.
Remember.
Right?
The Court's |\n| 20 | not involved in the appointment.
The U.S. Trustee's |\n| 21 | involved in the appointment. |\n| 22 | And the U.S. Trustee is only simply asking that |\n| 23 | the appointment be approved and the Court approved it.
No |\n| 24 | one was able to put forth any evidence as to why it |\n| 25 | shouldn't be approved. |\n\n And so -- then it's -- then that appointment stands. And the way that you have to proceed is a motion of 324. And if that motion is denied, it's not a final appealable order. Which obviously you want the Rule 60 to be an appealable order. So we're not -- we're not proceeding down the Rule 60 road, because according to sources that I've looked at, it's not appropriate. Mr. Despins was appointed as the Chapter 11 Trustee. And the only way he can be removed is under 324. So if you want to file a motion under 324 and meet those requirements, you're entitled to do so. MR. HENZY: I think or under 1105, Your Honor. But the -- THE COURT: Under what? MR. HENZY: I think also 1105 provides for the termination of trustee's appointment. THE COURT: But it refers back to 324. MR. HENZY: 1105 doesn't, but that's neither here nor there. THE COURT: The rules do. MR. HENZY: I understand. Just to be clear, is Your Honor denying our -- THE COURT: Yes.\n\n MR. HENZY: -- 60(b) motion? THE COURT: I'm denying your 60(b) motion. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: And all discovery that was related to the 60(b) motion is denied because the motion -- because it's moot. MR. HENZY: Can I have one moment, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. (Pause) MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, the motion -- the motion to quash is granted? THE COURT: It doesn't need to be granted. It's moot. The Rule 60(b) motion is denied. MR. HENZY: Very well. Understood. THE COURT: Any discovery with it, associated with it, is moot. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. Understood. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- may I be heard on this? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: I know your reaction might be, you just won, why don't you sit down. But, Your Honor, I know in this case what's going to happen. Everything is going to get appealed. And I wonder whether the Court would Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 122 of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 123 of\n\n entertain alternative findings on this, which is that you've already ruled it's not procedurally proper. But in any event, the concept of disinterestedness under 101.54 or 59, I forget which subsection -- MR. HENZY: 14. MR. DESPINS: 14. Sorry. 101.14 deals with the estate, not the debtor. And there's nothing that's been alleged in anything they've produced that would somehow affect the disinterestedness of the trustee vis-a-vis the estate as an alternative finding. Just because what I -- you know what I'm -- I don't want to go back and forth, back and forth -- THE COURT: Well, I haven't -- I haven't written an order -- MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: -- denying the Rule 60 motion yet, which would have to happen before there could even be an appeal. Number one. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: And number two, if there was an appeal, they'd have to be a bond posted. MR. HENZY: And I don't know whether there will be an appeal or not. But, Your Honor, I think those alternative findings should not be made. And I actually disagree with Mr. Despins that a\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 124 of\n\n trustee does not have to be disinterested vis-a-vis a debtor. And there is case law that says a trustee has to be disinterested vis-a-vis a debtor. But, again, I don't think you need to make alternative findings. You've denied the motion. I understand the basis for the denial. And I think that should be it. THE COURT: Well, there's still going to be a written order. There has to be a written order. MR. HENZY: I mean, if you're going to go beyond denying on the I'll call it the 324 ground, which I understand, then I am aware Collier says a 324 or 1105 motion is preferable to a 60(b). But there -- I would -- if you're going to make alternative findings, I would at least like an opportunity to argue because -- THE COURT: You put that argument in your papers. Your argument is in the papers. You stated why you think the trustee should be removed and why the relief from the order should enter. And your papers say all that. You say -- you talk about all that in your papers. MR. HENZY: I think you can -- I would argue you can -- you can deny -- again, that sounds funny because you can do what you obviously decide to do. But denial based on that you need to bring a\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 125 of\n\n| | 66 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | motion under 324, I think you -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I didn't say -- I didn't say just |\n| 3 | that.
That's not appropriate. |\n| 4 | I said you have to bring a -- and I said to you at |\n| 5 | the last hearing that the standards under Rule 60 and the |\n| 6 | standards under 324 are completely different. |\n| 7 | And so I didn't just say it's denied because you |\n| 8 | didn't bring it under 324.
That's not what I said. |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay?
I said that the motion is |\n| 11 | denied because you didn't bring it under 324 because that's |\n| 12 | the appropriate section to bring it under.
Number one. |\n| 13 | And number two, I don't-- I don't have any -- |\n| 14 | there's no -- you didn't bring forth anything to me under a |\n| 15 | Rule 60 motion that met the standard under a Rule 60 motion, |\n| 16 | which is that under your 60(b) motion, you would have to |\n| 17 | find -- I would have had to have found that there was |\n| 18 | inadvertent mistakes, surprise or excusable neglect.
That's |\n| 19 | doesn't apply. |\n| 20 | Newly discovered evidence that with reasonable |\n| 21 | diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for |\n| 22 | a new trial.
That doesn't apply.
Fraud, which doesn't |\n| 23 | apply.
You brought forth no evidence of that.
That the |\n| 24 | judgment is void.
That doesn't apply.
The judgment has |\n| 25 | been satisfied, released or discharged.
That doesn't apply. |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 126 of\n\n| | 67 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Or any other reason that justifies relief.
There |\n| 2 | is no other reason that you've set forth that justifies |\n| 3 | relief under Rule 60. |\n| 4 | So if you want to file a motion and try to meet |\n| 5 | the requirements of 324, you're welcome to do so. |\n| 6 | But you already argued all of those issues in your |\n| 7 | Rule 60(b) motion and I'm denying it.
There are no grounds |\n| 8 | for relief that you have presented to the Court under Rule |\n| 9 | 60 and bankruptcy Rule 9024, to grant relief under those |\n| 10 | rules. |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | All right.
So now we can move on to the |\n| 14 | application to employ Paul Hastings. |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | There were two -- one statement and one objection. |\n| 17 | And the first, the objection, is filed by the |\n| 18 | debtor.
And we cited a Fifth Circuit decision -- although |\n| 19 | we don't need a Fifth Circuit decision, but the technical |\n| 20 | decision that says a debtor out of possession cannot -- does |\n| 21 | not have standing to object to the retention of counsel.
So |\n| 22 | I believe that's hornbook law. |\n| 23 | Actually, you had hinted at that at the last |\n| 24 | hearing without talking about the retention of counsel |\n| 25 | specifically. |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 127 of\n\n But that case applies to the retention of counsel because it's a case administration matter and the debtor out of possession does not have standing unless there's a surplus. And in this case, they're saying there's no surplus because they have no assets.\n\n Now, I think it's still important again, for appellate purposes, to just assume standing for two minutes and address the debtor's objection. And I go back to the definition of disinterestedness. It's keyed off to the word estate. And it's true that it talks about creditors, equity holders, and the debtor, but the test is vis-a-vis the estate. And none of what's been alleged here has anything to do with the estate.\n\n The issue of Mr. Wynn, you know, has nothing to do with the estate. And I want to be clear about this. My firm was retained after Mr. Wynn was sued by the DOJ, did not advise Mr. Wynn in any way regarding what to do or not to do vis-a-vis Mr. Kwok. There's none of that. Mr. Wynn is not a creditor. The Wynn litigation will not affect the estate up or down in any way and that's very important.\n\n And it's the same thing with the Chinese offices. I mean, that the fact that we have offices in China first of all was well known from the beginning.\n\n But it all falls on the basic point I made before -- and I want to explain this concept where I used insanity\n\n -- in their papers. They say that's outrageous that he says it was insane. I've always been very precise that what is insane is the lack of a link that they're establishing between what's happening between the debtor, his immigration status and the Chinese Communist Party, and this estate. Your Honor is not dealing with an immigration matter. Your Honor is not -- we are not dealing with that. We have no position on that. It's not our issue and we're not going to be involved in these issues. And that's where everything falls apart because there's no link between all of this and the -- and the estate and the job we have to do, which is to get the maximum assets possible and to the holders of allowed claims in this case. The other point is the UBS matter. That's another distraction. First, they've known about UBS from the beginning. That was in the first declaration we said that we represent UBS affiliates. I think I said predominantly or primarily regarding financing matters. We didn't say exclusively. But what does it matter whether we represent them regarding traffic tickets or financing matters or bankruptcy matters? I've said clearly that I've never represented them. I'm not representing them. I am able to be\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 129 of\n\n litigation adverse, meaning as trustee against them. And, in fact, the litigation against them is pending in England. And as Your Honor knows, you know, in England to be appearing in court and to argue a case you have to be a barrister. Paul Hastings are not barristers in the U.K. So practially the people will use -- if you look for example -- at their objection, attached to the complaint that filed against UBS, if you go to the end, there are three signatures there. These are three barristers. We don't have barristers. And those are the people I would think that would continue to handle this matter given they've been handling it for two years, with some success by the way. Well, procedural success I should say. So the issue of UBS is a non-issue because in any event I'm the one as trustee who will handle this. I will supervise the work of U.K. barristers -- who are not Paul Hastings people because we don't have barristers -- and that, again, resolves that issue. And I believe the rest is all the same as the 60(b). PAX also filed a response. I think it would probably make sense to deal with the debtor's issues first, and then we'll come back to PAX after that. Thank you. THE COURT: That's fine. Thank you. Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 130 of\n\n So if I could address the standing issue first. With standing, first point, 1109(b) says the debtor has a right to raise, appear and be heard on any issue in a Chapter 11 case. That's very, very clear. I recognize that 1109, courts hold that a debtor still has to have -- you may be able to raise, appear and be heard, but that doesn't necessarily mean listening to me talk is the equivalent of an objection that the Court needs to rule on. So you can maybe painfully have to listen to me, but then say, thank you, Mr. Henzy, but I don't -- you don't have standing to object. And you've raised, appeared and been heard, but I don't have to rule on anything. So I understand that there's -- there's really just two levels to the analysis. There's 1109(b) and then there's do you have standing. The traditional standing analysis is you have to -- you either have to be classically aggrieved -- and I don't think that's what's at issue here, because we're dealing with a statute -- or you have to have statutory standing. So you have to have a statute that Congress has passed where the argument is that Congress intended to give a party a right to be heard in connection with that. And that is all very well laid out in many Supreme Court\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 131 of\n\n| 1 | decisions, Your Honor. |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | The standard that the Supreme Court has laid out |\n| 3 | in those decisions -- so the principal decisions being |\n| 4 | Association of Data Processing Service vs. Camp, that's at |\n| 5 | 397 U.S. 150, and then Clarke vs. Security Industry |\n| 6 | Association, that's at 479 U.S. 388, where they lay out that |\n| 7 | it is a party within the zone of interest to be protected by |\n| 8 | the statute in question. |\n| 9 | The standard that the Supreme Court has laid out |\n| 10 | is a -- it's a pretty low bar.
It's a quote from the Clarke |\n| 11 | decision. |\n| 12 | The Court to say there's no standing would have to |\n| 13 | find that the zone of interest denies a right to participate |\n| 14 | of the parties because the parties' interests are so |\n| 15 | marginally related to or inconsistent with the purpose |\n| 16 | implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed |\n| 17 | that Congress intended to permit participation. |\n| 18 | The Clarke court further says the test is not |\n| 19 | meant to be especially demanding.
In particular, there be |\n| 20 | no indication of congressional purpose to benefit the would |\n| 21 | be plaintiff. |\n| 22 | And back to Collier's, the -- discussing those |\n| 23 | cases, Collier's at Volume 7, 1109.04, subparagraph (4)(b), |\n| 24 | says given the nature of Section 1109(b) because courts have |\n| 25 | said that in thinking about that zone of interest analysis |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 132 of\n\n| | 73 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | under the Supreme Court case law you plug that in together |\n| 2 | with 1109(b).
And so Collier's says given the nature of |\n| 3 | section 1109(b) and the purposes that it was designed to |\n| 4 | serve the zone of interest has to be liberally construed in |\n| 5 | favor of participation in Chapter 11 cases. |\n| 6 | There are cases, Your Honor, that say that a |\n| 7 | debtor has a right to object to the retention of counsel. |\n| 8 | Among other cases, Judge Krechevsky, in In re Pappas, at 216 |\n| 9 | B.R. 87, it's a 1997 decision, ruled that -- he actually |\n| 10 | ruled that Rule 2002 refers to a debtor as a party in |\n| 11 | interest and the debtor had standing to object under 327. |\n| 12 | And then Judge Brozman in a case, the Vebeliunas |\n| 13 | -- it's V-E-B-E-L-I-U-N-A-S -- it's 231 B.R. -- give me one |\n| 14 | second, Your Honor -- 181. |\n| 15 | And actually, Your Honor, there Judge Brozman |\n| 16 | disqualified trustee's counsel on the basis that trustee's |\n| 17 | counsel, before the 341 had occurred, before ever examining |\n| 18 | the debtor, had made public statements that indicated an |\n| 19 | extreme bias against the debtor.
He called the debtor a |\n| 20 | liar and other inappropriate things.
And Judge Brozman |\n| 21 | found that the debtor there both had standing to and, in |\n| 22 | fact, disqualified counsel on that basis. |\n| 23 | Also I point, Your Honor, to a Second Circuit |\n| 24 | decision, Savage & Associates, P.C. vs. K&L Gates, 640 F.3d |\n| 25 | 53, where the Second Circuit made clear that a debtor has |\n\n standing to -- I'm sorry -- that a party may have standing not just based -- not based on a financial interest alone, but also based on having a legal interest. And, again, both Judge Krechevsky and Judge Brozman found that a debtor did have a legal interest in objecting to a 327(a) application where counsel was not disinterested. On the financial interest, look, I have no idea where this case is going to come out, Your Honor. And I understand that at filing the debtor had some very small amount of money in his possession. But speaking of the U.K. litigation, the amount demanded there is \\$500 million. And I don't know anything really about the status other than I think I may have heard a comment that maybe sounds like something similar to what Mr. Despins has heard that that litigation apparently has gone reasonably well. So it may well be that this estate is not solvent. And it may be that there's a \\$500 million recovery against UBS in the U.K. And that would be terrific for everyone, including the debtor. So I believe that the debtor does have standing here to -- to object to Paul Hastings' retention. In terms of the conflicts and -- I did, you know,\n\nfile a witness and exhibit list with exhibits. I'm prepared\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 134 of\n\n| | 75 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | to put on evidence.
Although with respect to much of the |\n| 2 | evidence I would put on, I'm not sure that there's any |\n| 3 | disputed issue.
And I don't want to belabor or take up a |\n| 4 | lot of time that we don't need to take up. |\n| 5 | I don't think it's disputed that Paul Hastings |\n| 6 | does work for various UBS entities.
The initial declaration |\n| 7 | that Mr. Despins filed states that and names the entities. |\n| 8 | Actually the Paul Hastings financial restructuring web page |\n| 9 | says that they have done -- I don't know if they do today -- |\n| 10 | but that they have done work for UBS entities. |\n| 11 | I don't think it's disputed that the defendant in |\n| 12 | the U.K. action is UBS AG.
That the -- in the debtor's |\n| 13 | schedules, and I don't know why -- in the statement of |\n| 14 | financial affairs I don't know why this was done, but it was |\n| 15 | disclosed there was an action against UBS AG, and then, in |\n| 16 | parens, it says London branch. |\n| 17 | And in the initial declaration filed by Mr. |\n| 18 | Despins the UBS AG that he is talking about in the |\n| 19 | declaration is defined to be that UBS AG, in parens, London |\n| 20 | Branch. |\n| 21 | But if you look at the complaint, which I actually |\n| 22 | attached to our objection -- again, I could -- I'm happy to |\n| 23 | put it into evidence, Your Honor, but it's attached to our |\n| 24 | objection and I don't think there's any dispute that it is |\n| 25 | -- it is the complaint -- it's clear that the defendant |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 135 of\n\n there is UBS AG -- I'm going to say the big UBS AG -- the one that's headquartered in Switzerland and presumably is the parent of a whole bunch of other UBS entities. Again, the damages there asserted is \\$500 million. So this is not an insignificant claim. And that's in, again, in the complaint that I attached to the -- to the objection that we filed. Mr. Despins says he's never represented any UBS entity -- this is in his -- in his initial declaration -- and that he in his capacity as trustee is able to be adverse to UBS AG and to be named plaintiff. A couple of points. In the declaration, because of the way he's defined UBS AG, again, to be just UBS AG, in parens, London Branch, close parens, I don't think his declaration as filed actually covers the actual defendant in that lawsuit because his declaration -- he does say in the declaration that he can be adverse to any -- he's never represented any UBS -- what the declaration says is he's never represented any UBS entity. That's easy to understand. In my capacity as trustee, I'm able to be adverse to UBS AG and to be named plaintiff as Chapter 11 Trustee in any lawsuit against UBS AG. But, again, his definition of UBS AG is UBS AG, London Branch, and that's not -- the principal defendant in that action is UBS -- big UBS AG I'll\n\n call it. And so his declaration just -- it just does not -- other than that he's never represented any UBS entity, it does not address the actual defendant in that lawsuit. The actual -- THE COURT: Why does it need to address the actual defendant if he said he didn't represent any UBS entity ever? MR. HENZY: Well, Your Honor, because it's not clear from all of that whether Paul Hastings has represented -- if we were talking about my denied 60(b) motion, that would be important. But we're not. We're talking about Paul Hastings. And so the issue is whether -- not whether Mr. Despins has ever represented any UBS entity. It's whether any UBS entity is a former or current client of Paul Hastings. And I don't think that his declaration addresses that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Mr. Bassett -- in the actual application to retain Paul Hastings, it's Mr. Despins' application, but there's a declaration by his partner, Mr. Bassett, that's attached. And Mr. Bassett's declaration does not address that representation at all. What it does is it points to Mr. Despins' declaration, his first declaration and just\n\n says when it comes to connections, I'm just relying on his declaration. Which I actually under Rule -- under the rule, I'm not really sure that you can do that. I'm not sure counsel -- in a retention application, I'm not sure that the firm affidavit or declaration that's attached to the application can point to something else and say I'm not -- I'm not disclosing any conflicts. I'm pointing you to somebody -- a different declaration that somebody else has filed and go look at that. But I guess in some sense I'm not -- I'm not swearing to anything here other than what Mr. Despins said over there is true. So Mr. Bassett doesn't himself in his declaration address the UBS issue at all. So I think the bottom line of all of that is that I'm sure the UBS issue has been addressed by the existing declarations. And I'm also not sure how you get around -- or maybe you can get around Paul Hastings representing the trustee here, but I don't think that what is on file now does that. It doesn't carve out Paul Hastings from representing UBS. It just -- it just doesn't. They're being retained as general bankruptcy counsel to the trustee and I think that that's a significant conflict for them.\n\n That UBS is a client of Paul Hastings I think is admitted. And UBS is a defendant in a major asset of this bankruptcy estate. And I'm a -- I'm a little -- I could keep -- I don't know if we're going to address the PAX/PAG issue separately. Or I can keep going on the issues that I've raised. Because I guess I think the issues that Attorney Friedman has raised are actually different than the ones I would raise with respect to PAX and PAG. So should I keep going, Your Honor? THE COURT: Well, I don't know. Maybe we should hear from Mr. Despins first on this issue and then keep going. I mean, otherwise we're going to be here all day. Right? I mean, what -- you know, the issue is, Mr. Despins, Mr. Henzy's saying your firm has a conflict because they represent UBS. It's not clear that they represent UBS. And they're -- UBS is a defendant in the adversary -- in the case in London. So, you know, he's saying that Mr. Barnett I believe -- MR. DESPINS: Bassett. THE COURT: Bassett, I'm sorry, his affidavit isn't -- doesn't answer that question. MR. DESPINS: May I, Your Honor?\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 138 of\n\n THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. DESPINS: So the application to retain Paul Hastings, which I signed, incorporates by reference my declaration, and the declaration addresses both the trustee appointment and Paul Hastings. It says that expressly, that the disclosures in that declaration cover both the trustee and Paul Hastings. That declaration says that we don't represent London, sorry, UBS AG currently. We've represented them in the past, but we represent other UBS entities. And I don't think -- I'll check this -- but I don't think that the fact that it said, open paren, London Branch verses non-London Branch changes the analysis. I think that from my point of view it's the same thing. Luc Despines as Trustee can be trustee and handle as trustee litigation against any UBS entity, London Branch of not, and practically -- that's why Mr. Henzy has not -- he makes all of these great points, but doesn't die into reality. The reality here is that there is counsel involved in the case. They're barristers. These are the people that have been handling this case for two years. And I'm -- I think they will continue to do that. It would be not a good idea to replace them with new counsel. In any event, even if I wanted to do that, Paul Hastings are not barristers in\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 140 of\n\n| | 81 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | London, therefore, cannot handle that litigation. |\n| 2 | So Paul Hastings, it's a false issue.
Paul |\n| 3 | Hastings cannot handle that litigation.
So that's really |\n| 4 | the crux of the issue, Your Honor, is that it's a non-issue |\n| 5 | for that reason. |\n| 6 | And, you know -- you know, I'm sure Your Honor |\n| 7 | knows the difference between solicitors and barristers.
But |\n| 8 | we are solicitors in London, we're not barristers, cannot |\n| 9 | file a complaint or handle a trial.
I'd love to be able to |\n| 10 | do that, but we're not equipped to do that.
So that, to me, |\n| 11 | deals with that issue completely. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 15 | Go ahead, Mr. Henzy. |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
So just -- so just to be clear, Your |\n| 17 | Honor, the only place where the UBS issue is addressed is in |\n| 18 | the U.S. Trustee's application for order approving |\n| 19 | appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee, which attached to that |\n| 20 | was Mr. Despins' declaration of disinterestedness. |\n| 21 | And paragraph 7(c) of that declaration provides |\n| 22 | while Paul Hastings previously represented UBS AG, in |\n| 23 | parens, London Branch, defined -- it's in quotes -- \"UBS |\n| 24 | AG.\"
So in -- in his declaration, UBS AG means UBS AG, |\n| 25 | London Branch.
That's not my definition.
I'm not -- I |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 141 of\n\n| | 82 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | don't think I'm parsing things, words, or anything like |\n| 2 | that.
That's how he has defined UBS AG. |\n| 3 | And what the declaration says is then I have never |\n| 4 | represented any UBS entity, including UBS AG.
I, in my |\n| 5 | capacity as trustee, am able to be adverse to UBS AG -- |\n| 6 | again, substitute for that UBS AG, London Branch -- and to |\n| 7 | be named the plaintiff as Chapter 11 Trustee in a lawsuit |\n| 8 | against UBS AG -- again, substitute UBS AG, London Branch. |\n| 9 | What the declaration says about Paul Hastings is |\n| 10 | Paul Hastings does not currently represent UBS AG.
But, |\n| 11 | again, that-- the way he's defined it UBS AG means UBS AG, |\n| 12 | London Branch.
It doesn't mean big UBS AG.
That may -- I |\n| 13 | don't know.
It may or may not be true that Paul Hastings |\n| 14 | doesn't represent big UBS AG, but that's not what this says. |\n| 15 | Paul Hastings does currently represent certain UBS |\n| 16 | entities, namely UBS Securities, LLC, UBS Securities, |\n| 17 | Limited, Seoul Branch, UBS Investment Bank, that are |\n| 18 | affiliates of UBS AG, which again I think means UBS AG, |\n| 19 | London Branch, in unrelated matters. |\n| 20 | And so I don't think Mr. Despins' declaration |\n| 21 | addresses Paul Hastings' representation of big -- what I'm |\n| 22 | calling big UBS AG, which is the defendant in the U.K. |\n| 23 | action, at all.
It just doesn't. |\n| 24 | And Mr. Bassett's declaration does no more than |\n| 25 | refer to Mr. Despins's declaration. |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 142 of\n\n Mr. Despins' declaration may be adequate with respect to his being disinterested with respect to this issue. And he says that he is able to be adverse to UBS AG, and meaning London Branch, and to be the named plaintiff against UBS AG, London Branch, but it doesn't say anything about Paul Hastings. So right now I don't think there's been any disclosure, Your Honor. And, again, I don't know if it's -- I've never seen in an application to retain a professional that the declaration with the affidavit attached to the affidavit simply makes reference to somebody else's declaration. But that -- maybe there's something out there that says that's okay. So the application is for Paul Hastings to be general bankruptcy counsel. There's no -- there's no carve out. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I'm happy to put a carve out. Paul Hastings will not handle the U.K. litigation. That's the end -- that's the end of it. I mean, we can -- because we can't. We're not barristers, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further on that point, Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: I don't have anything further on that point, Your Honor.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. So what's your next point? MR. HENZY: With respect to PAX/PAG that was the subject of -- I understand there was disclosure right at the time of the July 8 hearing, and then there was a supplemental disclosure. There has been no disclosure with respect to the common officers, common directors, common control between the PAG, the so-called PAG entities, that Paul Hastings until very recently represented and apparently terminated that relationship. There's no disclosure of the circumstances of the termination of the relationship. And I -- Mr. Friedman can certainly correct this, but based on the statement that he made at the July 21 hearing, my sense was that PAG may not have understood that it was a former client of Paul Hastings. And, again, Mr. Bassett's declaration does not address PAX or PAG at all. It just refers to Mr. Despins' -- actually his initial declaration. So I don't think that the disclosure here has been adequate. And as the Court is obviously very, very aware, the -- PAX is a major creditor in this -- in this bankruptcy case. THE COURT: Mr. Despins? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the first supplemental declaration, again, says it's filed in support of the\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 144 of\n\n trustee appointment and the Paul Hastings retention. That's paragraph one. So that issue is addressed. My declaration covers both. So I don't understand why going back to Bassett -- Bassett is irrelevant for the purpose of conflict. There's only one conflict disclosure. They're my declarations. Number one, number two, number three. So Bassett, the fact that he's incorporated by reference is of no meaning because the application to employ Paul Hastings says we -- Paul Hastings is relying on the declarations of Luc Despins. Plural. Now, on the issue of PAX, he's saying we don't know if they're the same officers and all that, paragraph 4 of the declaration says, and in any event assuming without conceding the point that PAG entities and PAX would be treated as one for conflict purposes, meaning assuming that they have the same directors and officers, which we didn't get into, I'm still able to be adverse to them because they're a former client. So that's the end of the inquiry, meaning I'm assuming the worst here, that they are all the same, which I'm not sure is the case. But assuming it is the case, we are able to be adverse because they're former clients on a -- on a related matter.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 145 of\n\n There was -- the last transaction is a transaction that closed in May -- I forget the exact date -- May 15th, 17th, something like that. And it's a corporate transaction, and there was a closing, and that was the closing transaction. That was in May of 2022. So I'm not sure I see the point there. THE COURT: Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: I mean, again, Your Honor, the only declaration that was actually attached to the application to retain Paul Hastings was Mr. Bassett's. But, I mean, it's always the case, Your Honor, where you have a transactional client there's going to be periods of time where there's no transaction that's pending, and it sounds like PAG, these PAG entities, were transactional clients of Paul Hastings. And I don't -- I don't doubt that in I guess it was May that whatever transaction they were working on closed, but, I mean, at least it appears that there was a relationship. And Paul Hastings certainly can take the position that, well, right now we're not representing any of the PAG entities on any matter and, therefore, they're a former client. Now, that -- and that's always a sort of discussion thing. If you have a client and you're doing\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
Page 146 of
322 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 87 |\n| 1 | work for that client on a regular basis, but at a point in |\n| 2 | time you don't have any matter you're actively working on, |\n| 3 | is the client a former client or is the client a current |\n| 4 | client? |\n| 5 | I think I understand the technical argument is a |\n| 6 | former client, but I think often times clients don't |\n| 7 | understand the technical argument and might not always agree |\n| 8 | with that. |\n| 9 | I still think that there is a disclosure issue |\n| 10 | though.
What were the -- what were the circumstances of |\n| 11 | PAG, the PAG entities, becoming former clients? |\n| 12 | I mean, did Paul Hastings inform them we are not |\n| 13 | going to represent you anymore?
I think that is -- I think |\n| 14 | that's relevant. |\n| 15 | How many -- how long did the relationship exist? |\n| 16 | How many transactional matters did Paul Hastings represent |\n| 17 | the PAG entities on?
I think that is all relevant |\n| 18 | disclosure, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Anything further? |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Anything further on the application to |\n| 22 | employ Paul Hastings as a whole? |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
What?
What's next? |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
Next is I'll call it the |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 147 of\n\n broadly Paul Hastings' connections with China. I don't think, Your Honor, that it's disputed that Paul Hastings has a presence in China. It has offices in Beijing, in Shanghai, and it also has an office in Hong Kong. I don't know if it's -- would be disputed today that Paul Hastings does do work for Chinese state owned entities and it also does work for businesses. They're doing business in China. I don't expect anyone to agree with me today that China exercises significant review, control, over businesses in China. I will admit that I'm not going to be able to prove that today. I'm not sure how I would have prove it. I did cite a statement by the Director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, in the objection. I did not subpoena Mr. Wray to court here today to say in court today what he has said publicly in terms of China's -- the degree of control China exercises over -- over businesses in China, including their license to do business in China. I also believe, Your Honor -- I don't know if this would be disputed or not -- there's a pretty good public record of this, that to put it mildly, Mr. Kwok got on the wrong side of the government of China. He had to leave the country. He is seeking asylum here. The Peoples -- the Chinese government and/or the Hong Kong government seized billions of dollars of assets of\n\n family members, and others and potentially very significant dollars that I don't think he would dispute were in entities that he did control, like the Pangu Plaza, which my understanding is that that was actually PAX's -- connected with PAX's loan and kind of was the part anyway of the reason that a lot that unraveled. Mr. Kwok may have claims against the government of Hong Kong or the Peoples Republic of China based on the seizure of those assets. I am not obviously an expert in that world, but my understanding is that there at least in form is a procedure that a person can go through if their assets have been seized. I don't know of Mr. Despins has done any analysis of that at all in terms of is there a claim to be made by the estate based on the seizure of assets. So there's -- that's a specific concern. The general concern is that the Chinese government I think it has demonstrated that it is -- it is going after Mr. Kwok. Again, we cite Department of Justice documents in the objection, Your Honor, that make it clear that the government of China has attempted in various ways to remove Mr. Kwok from this country. And so there's a couple of concerns with that. One is that the Chinese government will seek to\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 149 of\n\n exercise influence over Paul Hastings. Paul Hastings cannot do business in China if -- unless China allows it to do business there. And, again, according to the FBI director, the government of China does exercise control over businesses that are doing business there. Very recent and up front is -- and Mr. Despins made reference to this, the United States Department of Justice has sued Mr. Stephen Wynn for failing to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. And the allegation is that Mr. Wynn acted as an agent for the Chinese government in seeking to have Mr. Kwok removed from -- from this country. On July 15, Paul Hastings appeared on behalf of Mr. Wynn in that District of Columbia action and they are seeking to dismiss that action. Mr. Despins -- after we put this in the objection, he filed a second supplemental disclosure, and among other things, in paragraph 3 of that disclosure, he said I did not disclose Paul Hastings' representation of Mr. Wynn in the prior declaration because he first learned about it by -- via the objection. Well, obviously the firm knew about its representation of Mr. Wynn and I think it's the firm has an\n\nobligation to make their adequate disclosure.\n\nIn the paragraph 4 of the declaration, Mr. Despins\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 150 of\n\n also says that he believes the Wynn representation has no bearing on the retention of Paul Hastings as counsel, and essentially it's just -- it's completely unconnected, irrelevant. I think it's connected in a number of ways. Or the Chinese government's actions are certainly connected in a number of ways. One, if Mr. Kwok is removed from this country that obviously has significant impact on this bankruptcy case if he's not here. Mr. Despins states in the -- in his declaration that the debtor will not be a witness in the action that's pending in -- in the District of Columbia. I don't know how Mr. Despins could know that to be true. I don't know how anyone, unless they talk to someone at the DOJ, could know whether or not the DOJ is going to decide, or maybe Mr. Wynn is going to decide, that Mr. Kwok should be called as a witness. Mr. Despins also states the debtor's estate will not be increased or decreased based on the action that's pending in the District of Columbia. I don't know if Mr. Despins has concluded that the debtor has no claim against Mr. Wynn. And if you -- if you read the complaint filed in the District of Columbia action, it essentially alleges a pretty broad, you know, pattern of behavior put it.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 151 of\n\n Someone might -- you know, someone might say it looks like a conspiracy amongst a group of people to have Mr. Kwok removed from the country. So he may well have a claim or there may well be a claim against Mr. Wynn on account of Mr. Wynn's conduct related to Mr. Kwok. So that is it, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Despins, did you want to respond to that last point? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. First, you know, the -- Mr. Henzy talks about claims the debtors may have. The schedules don't mention any of this. Claims against the Chinese government is not in the schedules. And here, again, the point about exercising pressure is, you know, there's always a failure to connect to the conduct by the trustee of this case. How is that going to be influenced by any pressure that the -- that could be put on. It's really not there. He's not going to be a witness because it has -- as my partner told me -- it could have been lobbying to sell Chinese technology or Chinese tea or something or anything like that. It's you need to register if you are acting as a foreign agent. The subject matter of the discussion is not\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 152 of\n\n part of the case. The fact is you did make representation or not -- don't know -- regarding -- on behalf of a foreign entity. And if that's the case, you need to register. That's the end of it. So that's why he's not going to be a witness.\n\n As to the Kwok claims against Mr. Wynn, you know, I hesitate to say this because -- but have at it. I mean, meaning Paul Hastings is not going to represent Mr. Wynn in defending him against claims asserted by Mr. Kwok because clearly they're trying to create a scenario of some kind where somehow Mr. Kwok, you know, has a legitimate concern.\n\n I'm telling you right now if Mr. Kwok decides to sue Mr. Wynn for whatever, Paul Hastings will not defend Mr. Wynn in that litigation. So there's no animosity or issue there. So I think that answers those questions. Thank you.\n\n MR. HENZY: I'll be brief. I probably was not clear. I think the concern is does the trustee and Paul Hastings representing the trustee have an obligation to investigate what claims might exist against Mr. Wynn or other people who were involved in this behavior where they were seeking to assist the Chinese government in having Mr. Kwok deported.\n\n I mean, in terms of a claim against either the government of Hong Kong or the government of China, the debtor did not schedule that. But presumably Mr. Despins\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n and Paul Hastings representing Mr. Despins would want to investigate that. Again, this Pangu Plaza was worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and it was -- and it was seized. And I think whatever assets that either indirectly or directly may have been owned by a debtor go away that that's something that needs to be looked at an investigated. THE COURT: Anything further? MR. DESPINS: Just one last point on this, Your Honor. If the debtor gets into a car accident tomorrow and has a claim against the other driver, am I supposed to pursue that or is that -- that's another, you know -- so the claims against Mr. Wynn have nothing to do with -- it's not a -- it's a post-petition claim by the debtor. I'm not sure that's for the trustee to prosecute. MR. HENZY: This is -- all the conduct here occurred pre-petition, Your Honor. All of the conduct. The lawsuit was filed by the DOJ post-petition, but all the conduct that occurred occurred pre-petition. And the same thing with the seizure of assets. So it's -- to the extent that there are assets, they're pre-petition. I think those would be property of the bankruptcy estate I believe. THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Henzy, on your objection to Paul Hastings being retained as counsel to the\n\n| | 95 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Chapter 11 trustee?
Mr. Henzy? |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
I'm sorry, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I said is there anything further that |\n| 4 | you want to state with regard to your objection of -- for |\n| 5 | Paul Hastings being retained as counsel to the trustee? |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
No, Your Honor.
No, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 8 | Anyone else? |\n| 9 | Mr. Friedman, didn't you file an objection or a |\n| 10 | limited objection with regard to the retention of Paul |\n| 11 | Hastings? |\n| 12 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
It's |\n| 13 | Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 15 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
So we noted our concern that if |\n| 16 | there's going to be a circus around this that that is a |\n| 17 | problem.
Obviously, there are other routes that could have |\n| 18 | been gone in terms of a trustee. |\n| 19 | But I don't -- we don't think, having looked at |\n| 20 | the issues, there's a statutory reason other than it not |\n| 21 | being potentially in the best interest of the estate to have |\n| 22 | Paul Hastings retained. Our objections were mostly fee |\n| 23 | oriented and cost-structurally oriented. |\n| 24 | The colloquy back and forth though did sort of |\n| 25 | remind me of an issue you talked about, which is, you know, |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 155 of\n\n you take the debtor as you find them. And it is a little weird to hear the debtor now talking about all these potentially valuable assets he has that weren't in the schedules and when it was convenient for him to say I have \\$3,850 or, no, the assets were never mine. They were always my families'. But now he claims he maybe does have lawsuits against the Chinese government. There is sort of this very weird miasma around -- it's almost like an -- the case is almost like an etch a sketch from the debtor's perspective.\n\n What he said in the past literally doesn't matter to what he feels today. I think that's sort of a troubling portion of this case, that it simply just doesn't matter what he said in the past in other context. Something else that comes up new that sort he thinks he can ride on the back -- like a blank slate, if it advantages him today and that is sort of a troubling pattern that we've seen over the years.\n\n Look, on fees, Your Honor, we were in a situation where the U.S. Trustee picked somebody who had a lower fee structure, much lower fee structure, which we do think is appropriate for the case overall, particularly if you wind up with either a non-consensual plan or low recoveries. We are concerned about eating into creditor recoveries, you know, if substantial costs are run up by the\n\ntrustee and his counsel.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 156 of\n\n The trustee sort of, you know, has a response. One of the points of the response is, well, on the other hand, we're not acting like a true contingency counsel fee firm because the upside isn't so great.\n\n And to be fair, Your Honor, if the upside turns out to be even better, right, maybe our proposals on the upside aren't as generous as they could be. If the trustee recovers \\$150 million, I think we, you know, we might be open to substantial fee enhancements.\n\n We just -- our real concern is, you know, if there is a low end or if some money gets exhausted after running after Mr. Kwok for many years. And Mr. Despins may well not.\n\n But, you know, and you end up with 60 or 70 million dollars of recovery, but you also wind up with 10 or 15 million dollars in legal fees, that would be a real loss from the PAX perspective and I think the perspective of other creditors, particularly where there was an option at the outset of the case for lower costs. So that's our concern.\n\n And so, you know, I think the Court has it in her power either to evaluate costs now, evaluate costs in the context of what value is given to the estate as things come up. Obviously, you know, people may prefer for it to be dealt with now. We would. But, you know, that's where we\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n| 1 | stand. |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | This is -- you know, I think you've heard from me |\n| 3 | over the course of years.
This isn't like a -- over the |\n| 4 | last six months.
This isn't like I'm going to pound the |\n| 5 | table because there are immediate factual issues that have |\n| 6 | to be addressed. |\n| 7 | But there are real concerns from PAX about how |\n| 8 | much money is PAX going to wind up with at the end of the |\n| 9 | day versus how much is going to be paid to professionals. |\n| 10 | So I think, and said, we've -- we've put forward. |\n| 11 | Beyond that, you know, our specific concerns and |\n| 12 | specific proposal, I think we're amenable to making the |\n| 13 | upside better from our perspective if that's enticing and |\n| 14 | appealing to the trustee and his law firm. |\n| 15 | But whether it's dealt with now or whether it has |\n| 16 | to be dealt with in the future when asset -- when cash comes |\n| 17 | in, we think it's really important to address. |\n| 18 | Thanks, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 20 | Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 21 | Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Despins.
Would you like to |\n| 22 | respond first? |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
No.
Maybe others want to be heard. |\n| 24 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Just briefly, Your Honor.
Irve |\n| 25 | Goldman for the creditors committee, Your Honor. |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 158 of\n\n On the -- this newly raised potential claim that the debtor says he may have against Steve Wynn, as Mr. Friedman pointed out, that's a claim that should have been but was not listed on the schedules. As Mr. Henzy said it's based on pre-petition conduct so it would have had to have been listed on the schedules as an asset of the estate. 8 There is well settled case law that when a debtor doesn't list a claim on its schedules and then tries to bring an action post confirmation, for example, it's going to be judicially estopped from pursuing that claim. And that's the situation here. It should be judicially estopped from making the argument that he has a claim that the trustee needs to investigate against Mr. Wynn. As to the Paul Hastings application, we did file a statement indicating that we had certain understandings concerning how the Paul Hastings firm would represent the trustee in this case, which were formed based on discussions with Mr. Despins. And that is that they would, whenever possible,\n\n economize by using local counsel, whose rates are much lower than the Paul Hastings firm, and that also they would not be seeking litigation funding for the causes of action that we believe exist and which results in a savings in the sense of it would have been an expensive proposition to obtain\n\n litigation funding. So I think it's important that these understandings at least be confirmed on the record here today. Another one of those understandings was that the trustee himself, in the capacity as trustee, would not be seeking percentage compensation under Section 326 for assets that may be recovered and distributed in this case, but that he would be just looking for his hourly rate as counsel for Paul Hastings for -- in lieu of any percentage compensation that he might claim under section 326 at the end of the day. So I would just appreciate if he can confirm those understandings on the record. As we said in our papers, we have no objection to the retention. THE COURT: Okay. And just why do you think that he should not be receiving a statutory percentage of any recovery? MR. GOLDMAN: Well, because if he's going to be compensated as a lawyer for Paul Hastings at these rates -- THE COURT: Oh, if he's going to be as -- working as a lawyer? MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. All right. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: I didn't understand. I got it now.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 160 of\n\n| | 101 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Okay. |\n| 2 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yeah. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Sorry. |\n| 4 | MR. GOLDMAN:
And that he -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I got you. |\n| 6 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Okay. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I didn't understand it.
I just didn't |\n| 8 | hear you properly I guess. |\n| 9 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry. |\n| 11 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Thank you. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | Attorney Claiborn? |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee has no |\n| 15 | objection to the employment of Paul Hastings based upon the |\n| 16 | documentation filed thus far in the case. |\n| 17 | I just would note, as we observed this previously |\n| 18 | in this case, that the continuing obligation to disclose |\n| 19 | exists today, tomorrow, into the future. |\n| 20 | And then with respect to the issue of the |\n| 21 | compensation, the U.S. Trustee's position is that attorneys |\n| 22 | carry their firm's fees and their own hourly rates with them |\n| 23 | from their home market. |\n| 24 | And that this is a complex case.
It's got a lot |\n| 25 | of moving parts and it requires experienced counsel and that |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 161 of\n\n necessarily sometimes translates into higher fees. The work that's got to get done in this case does need to get done in a cost effective manner. I think everyone has made that clear to Trustee Despins and he's aware of it and I'm sure that he's going to do his best to make sure that the skills match the services and that we are doing them in a cost effective manner. And that when we get to a place of fee application that is the appropriate place and the time to debate the cost effectiveness of the services rendered and the benefit to the estate. THE COURT: Thank you. Trustee Despins, is there -- would you like to respond? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll pick up where counsel for the committee, you know, left off, which is I've made that commitment to try to be as nimble as possible. First of all, it's our job to do that, but -- and that means practically relying on local counsel, on Mr. Skalka and Mr. Linsey, as much as we can. 22 And also leverage what PAX has done in the state court, because there's three years, maybe four years, of learning there and there's no point in us reinventing that wheel. Us as lawyers. We can just borrow from that and we\n\n intend to do that. And that combined together should lower the cost. But I don't want to mislead you. This is going to be an expensive process. And I want to touch on the point that I've agreed there will be no litigation funding. That is correct. But I did get a quote just to give Your Honor a sense. A litigation funder -- let's assume we wanted \\$5 million to pursue claims -- they -- the fee they will charge will be two to four times the amount. So you have to repay the 5 million. Then it would be a 10 to 20 million dollar fee. Just to put that in perspective. We're not asking for any of this. We're not asking for 30 percent, 40 percent. We're asking for our rates. I understand that our rates are high compared to local rates. I understand that, Your Honor. But here I could end up with a zero recovery. I know we all know and we believe what should happen. And I believe that too. But from that to reality is going to take a lot of time and a lot of effort. And we are bearing the risk of that because the debtor has unlimited resources and they will fight us on everything. It will be appealed to the Second Circuit. And if they can, to the Supreme Court. I've no doubt about\n\n that. And that's what we're facing in terms of getting paid. And, therefore, we believe in light of that it would be really inappropriate to say, oh, we're going to discount your rates if you don't collect more than X dollars. Because, for example, let's assume tomorrow I wave a magic wand in my dreams and I get the Sherry-Netherland and the yacht here, how much do they sell for? I don't know. What if they sell -- and this is not my goal -- I want them to sell for 70 million for the apartment and 40 million for the yacht. But let's assume they sell for 20 each. Well, under Mr. Friedman's proposal I'm taking a hit because even though I've obtained a good result in bringing these two assets in, I didn't get the value that people thought would be obtained from the assets. I've become an insurer of the value of the assets. That's really wrong. So I understand PAX's frustration. They've spent millions of dollars chasing this debtor in a kind of a catch me if you can caper. And they almost, almost got it. Almost got it, but they didn't. And now they have -- they have this fear -- and I share the fear -- which is is this the beginning of another\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 164 of\n\n catch me if you can? And my job is to make sure that the movie is shorter this time or more successful. But I -- but the point is that that should not translate into we're going to -- we're frustrated and we're going to hurt you on your fees. I just -- I don't want to sound arrogant about this, Judge, but if I came back to the office and said it's a contingent case and I took a discount on my hours, they would say what did you do? They would just say they would have to have my head examined. So I don't want to be arrogant about this, Judge, but -- and I wish -- I feel Mr. Friedman and his client's pain on this, but there's nothing I can do on the hourly rates. And I would urge Your Honor to look at this as a contingency fee transaction. And in that context, it's a very reasonable rate. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: So the -- on the Wynn claim, this action was just filed by the Department of Justice on May 17. So approximately three months after the petition was filed and after the schedules were filed. So a lot of -- THE COURT: But you said it was all pre-petition conduct. MR. HENZY: I'm basing that on -- I'm reading the\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 165 of\n\n| | 106 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | complaint, Your Honor. I'm saying the complaint was filed -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Well, your client would know or not |\n| 3 | know whether it was pre-petition conduct.
That's -- |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Yes, he would. |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
That's not -- the facts of what |\n| 7 | happened here became public on May 17.
They all occurred |\n| 8 | years ago.
They became public on May 17, 2022 when the |\n| 9 | government filed it's complaint against Mr. Wynn. So I'm |\n| 10 | just -- I'm pointing out that many of the facts which |\n| 11 | occurred years ago became public for the first time when |\n| 12 | this complaint was filed.
That's all. |\n| 13 | So three months after the case was filed and after |\n| 14 | the schedules were filed. |\n| 15 | A second point -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, the trustee didn't get appointed |\n| 17 | until July 8th.
So your client could have amended his |\n| 18 | schedules before that. |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
I suppose he could have, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | I'm not sure -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Well, he has a duty to do that. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
I'm not sure in this case -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
It's not just a supposition. |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
Yeah, given all that was going on I |\n| 25 | don't know -- |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 166 of\n\n THE COURT: What was going on? Your client wasn't doing anything. They weren't fighting anything. They decided that the case should be dismissed. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: Right. So he then just decided what he thought should happen and he doesn't have any other obligations under the code? MR. HENZY: No, I don't think that's fair, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I don't think it's fair to say that he could have maybe amended his schedules. MR. HENZY: Maybe. THE COURT: He had an obligation to amend his schedules. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I'm pointing out the facts here became public well after the case was filed and also -- THE COURT: It wasn't well after the case was filed, by the way. The schedules weren't filed until March. MR. HENZY: Mr. Despins I don't think is judicially estopped by what's in the debtor's schedules. So whether there's a claim against Mr. Wynn or not I don't know, but I do know that Mr. Despins is not estopped. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, two seconds on that. THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: Just to show you -- you know, Mr.\n\n Henzy's very creative. We'll give him that. So we could have a claim. Let's look at his motion to remove me as trustee. THE COURT: Why don't we do that. MR. DESPINS: It says -- THE COURT: Hold on a second. Let's look at it all together because it's a lot easier for me when we're all looking at it together. So his motion to remove you -- MR. DESPINS: Is 561. THE COURT: 561. Let's look at that. MR. DESPINS: Paragraph 21. THE COURT: Just give the courtroom deputy a second and we'll pull it up. (Pause.) THE COURT: What page? MR. DESPINS: Paragraph 21, page 7, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Can we make that bigger, please? Thank you. Okay. MR. DESPINS: So the point there, Your Honor, as you'll see, it talks about a former DOJ official pleaded guilty to facilitating the transfer of millions of dollars from foreign bank accounts to the United States to fund a lobbying campaign to pressure a high ranking U.S. official\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 167 of\n\n to unlawfully remove the debtor from the United States. Whoa, that's pretty bad. And is that claim in the schedules anywhere? That's 2018. Is that in the schedule? It's not in the schedules. Why? Because, again, I give credit to Mr. Henzy to come up with these theories, but the debtor had a beautiful claim apparently here against this person but is not pursuing that claim. So the claims against Wynn are all of the same ilk, meaning obviously, if the debtor thought they had a claim against Wynn, they would have asserted this one for sure against the DOJ -- ex DOJ official. So it's just to show you that this all pretends to try to bounce Paul Hastings from the case, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Anyone else wish to be heard? All right. The application -- go ahead, Mr. Friedman. I'm sorry. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, the only thing I would say is just in response to Attorney Claiborn's position is obviously they also thought that the first counsel they hired was sophisticated and capable and just came in with a different set of rates. That's all I have to say, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 169 of\n\n Now Mr. Despins, I just have to look back at -- with your application did you file a proposed order? I think you did. I'm not sure it was filed with it or subsequent. MR. DESPINS: It should have been. Let me -- THE COURT: I've looked at -- I may even have it right here. As you can imagine -- MR. DESPINS: Let me find it. (Pause.) THE COURT: I'll look. Don't worry. I can take a look. It will just take me a second. (Pause.) MR. DESPINS: It's document 539. THE COURT: Yeah, it's there. It is there. It's Exhibit -- it's -- proposed order is five pages. MR. DESPINS: Yes. 531 -- 539-1. THE COURT: Yes, I'm looking at it right now. Thank you. (Pause.) When do -- Mr. Despins, do hourly rate increases go into effect in your firm? Does it happen at the beginning of the year or -- is it normally when that happens? MR. DESPINS: Typically, yes, Your Honor, but we have a fiscal year that starts in February, February 1st. So\n\n typically it would be at that time. THE COURT: Okay. Because I think -- and one of the things that I tend to do in cases where people are concerned about hourly rates is to make sure that I'm aware of whatever rate increases there are before they would be binding on anyone in this case. So, for example, in your proposed order you say that you would give no less than ten business day's notice about any increases in rates. And you'll file such notice with the court. I think that's fine, because it may be that depending upon where we are, that maybe the rate will not be increased in the case, okay? It's possible. MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: Okay. And then I just want to look at one other thing and then I'll -- (Pause.) I know that -- as everybody has acknowledged today, that this is a difficult case. There are many issues and I understand everyone's concerns. I think people have a right to -- raise the concerns that they've raised and I have listened to them. I have looked at the documents that have been filed in the connection with the application to employ Paul Hastings. I know that Paul Hastings and Trustee Despins have a continuing duty, as does everyone in the case, to address\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 171 of\n\n issues that may impact conflicts or disinterestedness. I at this point find that Paul Hastings is disinterested. That the arguments that have been set forth by the debtor through counsel are not persuasive and that the application to employ Paul Hastings will be granted. The proposed order, Mr. Despins, if there's any minor change to it, it will be minor, but I note, as I note for all counsel, or at least try to remember to. I don't know if I do it as well as I think I do or should, but Section 330 of the bankruptcy code allows the court after a hearing on reimbursement of compensation and expenses to award and amount less than that sought and, therefore, while these rates and issues are before the court are -- you've set forth what you're going to charge, that those are your rates, that the court could make a different finding in the future. But I'm not suggesting that that's what's going to happen. I'm just suggesting the code -- I like to make sure that counsel knows that the code says that. The code says, and I think it's 330(b), that compensation can be awarded in an amount of less than that sought.\n\n And I do understand your point with regard to this case and how to view it, but at this point the application is granted. The proposed order with some minor change may - - I think the only change it will be -- a reference to rule\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 172 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | -- I mean, excuse me, Section 330 and that, you know, the |\n| 2 | court may not enforce an increase in rates if one is filed |\n| 3 | with the court. It may not be enforced against the estate or |\n| 4 | it may, depending upon the circumstances of what happens. |\n| 5 | Again, I think this case has a lot of issues and, |\n| 6 | you know, I think we just have to see what happens. I think |\n| 7 | the flexibility is there in the code to give the court as |\n| 8 | the oversight body the ability to make a determination on |\n| 9 | the fees and expenses. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Understood, Your Honor. Our only |\n| 11 | point is that we didn't want that discretion, which is |\n| 12 | normal, meaning if it costs us \\$500,000 to obtain a bond, |\n| 13 | you should disallow that.
Okay? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Right? |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
But I want to be clear is that |\n| 16 | that's not going to be a back door way to bring local rates, |\n| 17 | or anything like that -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
No, I'm not doing that. I agree with |\n| 19 | that. |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
That is not happening.
The only thing |\n| 22 | that would happen is if an application is filed and the |\n| 23 | court finds that there's some reason why the services |\n| 24 | rendered should not be reimbursed. |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Absolutely.
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\n THE COURT: And not an increase in rates. I'm not sure that an increase in rates will be -- we'll have to see where we stand at that point. MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: Mr. Friedman. MR. FRIEDMAN: I just want to make clear, and I don't think we need to add this to the order because I think it's always part of the procedure that, for example, if we want to object to compensability for sideshows about whether a disclosure was appropriate, or if there's an appeal to the Supreme Court that somebody brings, we always have the right in connection with each application, whether interim or final, to assert that a specific time entry was not for value to the estate. THE COURT: Absolutely. Everybody has that right. That is correct. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you very much. THE COURT: Okay. And the court could make that determination as well, upon review of the fee application. So the application to employ Paul Hastings is granted and the order will enter with minor changes, Trustee Despins, okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Now we can move onto the application\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 174 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 115 |\n| 1 | to employ Neubert, Pepe and Monteith. |\n| 2 | MR. SKALKA:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 4 | MR. SKALKA:
Douglas Skalka on behalf of Neubert, |\n| 5 | Pepe and Monteith's application. |\n| 6 | Your Honor, as you I think are aware, the trustee |\n| 7 | filed an application to retain my firm as his local counsel. |\n| 8 | The application was dated July 19th. It's docket no. 569. |\n| 9 | We received no objections or responses to the application. |\n| 10 | We did get a request from the U.S. Trustee's |\n| 11 | Office to submit a supplemental declaration, which we did on |\n| 12 | July 26th. |\n| 13 | As part of that supplemental application we |\n| 14 | indicated that we no objection to amending our order to add |\n| 15 | a paragraph indicating that we would need seek compensation |\n| 16 | for trustee related services.
So that's not in the order |\n| 17 | that's on file, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 19 | MR. SKALKA:
I can submit a revised order to that |\n| 20 | effect and certainly would be willing to do that later today |\n| 21 | or tomorrow. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
And does anyone else wish to be heard |\n| 23 | in connection with the trustee's application to employ |\n| 24 | Neubert, Pepe and Monteith? |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, just briefly.
Holley |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 175 of\n\n| 322 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| 1 | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | The paragraph to which Attorney Skalka's referring |\n| 3 | is also found in the application to employ Paul Hastings in |\n| 4 | that proposed order for Paul Hastings at paragraph 5. |\n| 5 | And it limits the compensation that might be |\n| 6 | awarded to the firm and excludes compensation for trustee |\n| 7 | services. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | So you're saying Attorney Skalka just needs to |\n| 10 | have that language in the proposed order. |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Correct. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That's fine. |\n| 13 | MS. CLAIBORN: And with that the U.S. Trustee has |\n| 14 | no objection. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 16 | MR. SKALKA:
And it's completely acceptable to |\n| 17 | Your Honor -- to my firm, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Does anyone else wish to be heard on |\n| 19 | the application to employ Neubert, Pepe, Monteith? |\n| 20 | Okay.
Hearing nothing from anyone else and having |\n| 21 | reviewed the application and the desire of all parties to |\n| 22 | attempt to make this case as efficient as possible, |\n| 23 | including fees and expenses, I understand the trustee's |\n| 24 | reason for seeking to employ Neubert, Pepe and Monteith. |\n| 25 | I think that Neubert, Pepe and Monteith has |\n\n demonstrated that they are disinterested and that no one else has any objection to the application. Neubert, Pepe and Monteith has stated that they will submit a new proposed order with the qualifications set forth on the record by the United States Trustee's Office and that were in the order approving the application to employ Paul Hastings. So for all those reasons the application to employ Neubert, Pepe and Monteith is granted and the proposed order -- Attorney Skalka, how much time do you need to submit that proposed order? MR. SKALKA: I think I'll have it by tomorrow, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'll give you -- so it's easier for the clerk's office I'll say till August 3rd. How's that? That's Wednesday. MR. SKALKA: That's fine. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SKALKA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: If everyone could just give me one moment, please. (Pause.) Okay. So that application is granted. Then just so we're clear on what's on the calendar today, then -- I already said that the motion to quash is moot due to the denial of the Rule 60 motion.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 177 of\n\n So then we just have left on the calendar the motion for order confirming that the Chapter 11 trustee holds all the debtor's economic and corporate governance rights and debtor controlled entities and authorizing the trustee to act in a foreign country. So Mr. Despins, would you like to be heard on that? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Please. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: And also remember that we have housekeeping matters. THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: Okay. So the corporate governance motion is basically to confirm that we step into the shoes of the debtor. And I'm glad we filed the motion because the debtor's response made clear that it's unclear to the extent they will cooperate with us. So basically they raised issues regarding BVI -- sorry. Genever BVI. Remember, that's the parent holding company in BVI that holds the interest in the Chapter 11 debtor that's in front of Judge Garrity. And to address their concern about what would happen there we actually provided yesterday, last night fairly late, we filed an amended proposed order that says okay, this is what we need from the debtor.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 178 of\n\n We look at this, to be kind of colloquial about it, the debtor has a car. We want the keys to the car. Or the debtor has stock. We want the debtor to endorse the stock essentially to give it to us. So the way to do that under BVI law is that he needs to sign certain documents, which we have attached drafts thereof, which our BVI counsel has drafted, and basically the order says Mr. Kwok will within I guess two business days sign these documents, assigning his rights to those share to the trustee. And there's a lot of text, but that's really what it is. In addition to that, because of an issue that was unresolved with the UK lawyers that I mentioned that represent Mr. Kwok in the litigation against UBS, basically, I reached out to them a long time ago, I think two days or three days after being appointed, and they called Mr. Henzy -- actually it would have been later because Mr. Henzy was not appointed til Friday the 14th or something like that. In any event, they reached out to Mr. Henzy saying this guy, meaning the trustee, is calling us. Should we talk to him. Mr. Henzy, to his credit, wrote a very nice email to them saying the trustee owns all the rights in the litigation. Mr. Kwok doesn't control any of this. Talk to\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 120 |\n| 1 | him. |\n| 2 | So we got on the phone with them and they said |\n| 3 | well, that may be the U.S. view of the law, but that's not |\n| 4 | the U.K. view.
You may have to file a motion to be |\n| 5 | recognized as a foreign -- and I said, no. I need to do that |\n| 6 | if I want to start a foreign insolvency proceeding against |\n| 7 | someone. But if I just want to be substituted as a plaintiff |\n| 8 | I don't need to do that. |\n| 9 | Not to make the story too long, Your Honor, they |\n| 10 | said well, actually, what we need is a letter from Mr. Kwok, |\n| 11 | because they're afraid of getting sued for -- they haven't |\n| 12 | used those terms getting sued but it's clear from the body |\n| 13 | language that they don't want to do anything with a letter |\n| 14 | from Mr. Kwok. |\n| 15 | So that's the same analogy here. I need the keys |\n| 16 | to the car and the keys to the car, Mr. Kwok has it.
He |\n| 17 | just needs to send a letter to them. It's basically -- |\n| 18 | parrots what Mr. Henzy has written to them already but it |\n| 19 | would be under the debtor's signature that says this |\n| 20 | litigation is owned by the Chapter 11 Trustee now.
He has |\n| 21 | all the rights.
You should tell him everything, privileged |\n| 22 | or not.
You should communicate everything with him. |\n| 23 | So that's really what we're doing with this |\n| 24 | motion. The criticism we've received is by the debtors that |\n| 25 | -- first of all there's a standing issue and the debtor be |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 180 of\n\n heard on these issues. They raised the rights of others like Bravo Luck, although we gave notice to Bravo Luck. We served Bravo Luck's counsel. So that's not an issue. But the debtor's standing on this is questionable. But putting aside the standing yes, we're seeking broad relief, Your Honor. Why, because cost. We don't want to come back to the court saying hey, could you authorize this for Australia, please? Could you authorize this for Canada? I'm making those up. And come back to court all the time. So, yes, we're asking for something that's broad. The idea is that the trustee will use his discretion to do this in a way that makes sense and if not, you're going to get me basically. You're going to tell me that I shouldn't have done these things. But I think that it is standard, and we cited cases to that effect, to have the trustee's authority to act from a corporate governance point of view recognized. For example, we need to see Judge Garrity in the Genever case. I don't want to be in a situation where Bravo Luck, which is the son's alleged company, shows up to say he's not authorized to speak. He didn't get the shares from BVI, et cetera. We can't deal with that. And that's what this accomplishes. Basically, it makes it very clear that we hold all these rights and that's why we would ask Your Honor to enter the order.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 181 of\n\n But I'm happy to answer any questions, Your Honor, or respond to any remaining criticism by the debtor. THE COURT: I just have a question about this -- again, the order was filed yesterday. So I looked at it I would say not as intently as I might otherwise. But that's fine. I've looked at it. I would assume, but I shouldn't assume, but I won't assume. What -- if this order enters and Mr. Kwok doesn't sign these documents, then what's the next step? MR. DESPINS: You're getting to a point that we'll get to in this case eventually, which is contempt. THE COURT: So we need to have another hearing. MR. DESPINS: Well, there'll be a motion to hold them in contempt. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. So that's -- I mean, that's my read of it but, again, as I'm saying to you, I read it not as thoroughly as I might have otherwise because I just had a little bit of time this morning to look at it, but that's fine. I understand the terms and conditions of it in general and I understand that you are asking the court to enter an order under specific sections of the bankruptcy code, including the sections that --\n\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
521. |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE COURT:
The debtor's duties under the code, |\n| 3 | whether the debtor's in possession or not.
And that you |\n| 4 | need this for different -- not only in the United States but |\n| 5 | for different matters that are pending and were pending at |\n| 6 | the time that Mr. Kwok filed his Chapter 11 case here in |\n| 7 | Connecticut. |\n| 8 | So I have no further questions. I just was asking |\n| 9 | about that issue. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Mr. Henzy? |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
So, Your Honor -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
So you wish to be heard on this? |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
I do, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
On the two what I'm going to call new |\n| 17 | pieces of relief that are now being sought, they were not in |\n| 18 | the motion. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
You mean the letters? |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
So the letter that he's asking you to |\n| 21 | order Mr. Kwok to sign that would be sent to the Harcus |\n| 22 | Parker law firm in the U.K., that was not addressed in the |\n| 23 | motion in any way, shape or form. |\n| 24 | So I don't know how Mr. Despins gets that relief |\n| 25 | today.
That's new. |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 183 of\n\n With respect to the substance there, Mr. Despins is right. I tried to get out front on that because the Harcus Parker people were trying to contact me and my position was I don't want to talk to you because Mr. Kwok is no longer party in that action. You need to talk to Mr. Despins. And I copied him on the email that I sent him and I have not been part of any communication between them and him since I sent that email. I don't know what the law is in the U.K. I don't know what requirements there are for a court over there. I don't know what privilege issues they live under. I do know -- I mean, I don't represent these people but Mr. Kwok is being asked to sign a letter that may impact other people's rights. I don't know -- the Harcus Parker firm I believe represents other people in that action as well. So I'm in a position where Mr. Despins is adding relief to what was in the motion and I don't know what -- and the relief -- with respect to this anyway would direct Mr. Kwok to do something and I have no idea whether -- what Mr. Kwok is being directed to do is appropriate in the facts and circumstances. THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question. MR. HENZY: Sure.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 184 of\n\n| | 125 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
You are objecting to Mr. Kwok even |\n| 2 | signing the share transfer instrument of the Genever |\n| 3 | Holdings Corporation? |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
Well, let me get to that. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
That's my question.
Are you objecting |\n| 6 | to that. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
So that was not part of the relief |\n| 8 | sought either. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Let me just ask the question. |\n| 10 | You now have come in and you articulated very |\n| 11 | clearly that Mr. Kwok is no longer a debtor in possession. |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
That's right. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So he still has obligations |\n| 14 | under the bankruptcy code and Mr. Despins has asked him to |\n| 15 | provide information to him, including turning over the |\n| 16 | shares of Genever Holdings Corporation, correct? |\n| 17 | Didn't you say you got a letter -- Mr. Despins |\n| 18 | sent you a letter or sent Mr. Kwok a letter saying he wanted |\n| 19 | all the information? |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
I don't -- |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, we sent a letter to Mr. |\n| 22 | Baldiga before he was terminated.
We sent a letter to Mr. |\n| 23 | Mitchell?
And then we copied -- when they were appointed we |\n| 24 | copied saying we need all this.
And it asked for all the |\n| 25 | corporate governance documents regarding BVI. |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 185 of\n\n| | 126 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Right.
So wait a minute. So my |\n| 2 | question to you is why would Mr. Kwok not sign over the |\n| 3 | shares of a company that he owns to this trustee? |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
I didn't know if you were done, Your |\n| 5 | Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I am, actually.
So go right ahead. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
So the background is that |\n| 8 | there's this apartment in New York at the Sherry Netherland |\n| 9 | Hotel.
That's owned by an entity that is in a Chapter 11 |\n| 10 | before Judge Garrity. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
And my understanding, okay, |\n| 13 | because I haven't spent a bunch of time looking at |\n| 14 | everything that's gone in that case is that the ownership of |\n| 15 | then the BVI parent is -- has been disputed. |\n| 16 | And actually, Judge Garrity -- there was a |\n| 17 | settlement -- an order, a settlement type of order I guess |\n| 18 | I'll call it, by Judge Garrity where he -- it basically |\n| 19 | provides for the sale of the apartment and it's to be |\n| 20 | overseen by Melanie Cyganowski. |\n| 21 | And as I understand it the debtor in the Chapter |\n| 22 | 11 case really signed away almost most of its -- or maybe |\n| 23 | all of its ability to control that sale. |\n| 24 | So everybody agreed the apartment's going to get |\n| 25 | sold and we're going to put it in Melanie Cyganowski's hands |\n\n to do that. So that -- the apartment's not going anywhere. It's going to get sold. And I assume the money is going to be in a DIP account in that case and nothing bad is going to happen. But again, the ownership of the parent is in dispute. The allegation is that a trust owns the parent and Mr. Kwok holds the shares as trustee. Your Honor, I want to be clear, that's the allegation that has been made, again, in the Chapter 11 case in front of Judge Garrity. I haven't spent any time on it. My concern is that Mr. Kwok with -- this is -- I saw these documents for the first time -- actually I think I saw them this morning when I woke up because they were filed at 10:09 last night and, frankly, I turned my phone off probably not long before that. So Mr. Kwok -- Mr. Despins has asked you to enter an order directing Mr. Kwok to sign these documents. I have no idea, Your Honor, whether these documents are the appropriate documents. I have no idea how this impacts what's going on in Judge Garrity's case. How it impacts anything. I have no idea. I'm not a BVI lawyer. I don't know if these are the correct documents. I don't know what BVI law says. I've never seen the trust agreement that allegedly exists that\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 187 of\n\n| would control anybody's rights here. |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| So if Mr. Despins wants to get an order from the |\n| court directing Mr. Kwok to sign specific documents and here |\n| -- these specific documents, my argument is that he should |\n| have to file a motion and that -- I should have some time to |\n| review the motion and to review these documents and try to |\n| get an understanding about whether or not these documents |\n| are appropriate documents. |\n| Again, these documents were not attached to the |\n| motion that was filed with the court, Your Honor.
This is |\n| new relief that is being sought. |\n| All that was sought -- what was sought with |\n| respect to the corporate governance was just this |\n| confirmation that the trustee has all of the economic and |\n| governance rights of the debtor.
It wasn't -- there was |\n| nothing in the motion that said please give me an order that |\n| directs the order to sign specific documents. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Mr. Despins? |\n| MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| The history there, as you relate is, is that we've |\n| been asking for documents since July 14th.
They have not |\n| produced one single document, and the document on corporate |\n| governance of this entity. |\n| So when we filed this motion they said oh, we're |\n| not sure this works under BVI law, I said fine.
We'll make |\n| |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
Page 188 of
322 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 129 |\n| 1 | it work.
That's why the order actually provides what it |\n| 2 | provides. |\n| 3 | And it's true that it's on short notice, but 1021 |\n| 4 | says that -- I'm sorry.
Which section says after notice and |\n| 5 | a hearing -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
1021 |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
1021.
It is whatever notice is |\n| 8 | appropriate under the particular circumstances. |\n| 9 | So if Your Honor wanted to -- and I think you have |\n| 10 | -- Tuesday are bad days for you, right?
You have a full |\n| 11 | calendar or -- I don't know -- or Wednesday morning, so he |\n| 12 | can respond but I want before we close on this to provide an |\n| 13 | exhibit to, Your Honor, if I may approach. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Is it something in the record already? |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
No.
It's something in the record of |\n| 16 | the New York court where Mr. Kwok -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Judge Garrity's case? |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
No.
It's in the New York Ostrager |\n| 19 | case.
Where Mr. Kwok swore that he's the only owner of the |\n| 20 | shares.
So may -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yes, you could approach the courtroom |\n| 22 | deputy, please.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, I'm not -- I'm going to |\n| 24 | object to the admission here.
This is an affidavit by -- |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
It's more than that.
It's a |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 189 of\n\n compilation of documents, but in the first affidavit you'll see it's highlighted. And it says Mr. -- this is an affidavit by and entity that is related to Mr. Kwok. And it says Mr. Kwok is a sole shareholder of BVI. But let's assume that doesn't exist. Let's continue flipping the pages. Then we get to Defendant Kwok's responses and objections to plaintiff Pacific Alliance set of interrogatories. Then you go to a page, page 6, responses to interrogatories. Subject to general, dah, dah, dah, I respond that I am the legal owner of the issued shares of Genever Holdings Corporation. And then if you go to the end of that document it's signed by Kwok Ho Wan, December 4th, 2020. THE COURT: And actually, he says it again on page 9 in response to interrogatory number 5. MR. DESPINS: So yes, there's this issue of -- okay, I'm not trying to be cute here. There is an issue of a trust agreement that would render the son the beneficial owner of the apartment. But that does not -- that does not affect the fact that Kwok is the sole shareholder of the BVI holding entity. And, in fact, the fact that he has -- him, not his son, has continued to exercise control over the debtor entity. For example, when the debtor in front of Judge Garrity enters\n\n into an agreement, it's signed by Mr. Kwok on behalf of the debtor entity. So the only thing we're asking is to have the same rights at BVI and at the debtor entity level so that we can be recognized by Judge Garrity in that case. So -- and I've said this before. We're not trying to stop the sale. But there are things I will address during the housekeeping issues that are fundamental issues that we need to address in that case that makes this a time sensitive issue. MR. HENZY: I'm not clear. Are we having a trial, Your Honor, on the issues -- the ownership issues on this that have been in front of Judge Garrity and that I think the order he entered contemplates that are going to get resolved in litigation someplace else, that's not -- none of this is before the court. None of this was in the motion that was filed by Mr. Despins. He asked for a broad confirmation of whatever governance and economic rights he has. And this is -- none of this is in that motion. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: It's Peter Friedman. I just want to be heard for two seconds on this. THE COURT: Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: I just think, again, there's a lot\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 191 of\n\n of etch-a-sketch and just to go back to one of the issues we talked about a moment ago, if you look at -- I think it's docket no. 107, I think it's paragraph 16, just to be clear and I think you should take into this account the etch-a- sketch nature of everything that happens from that side. Mr. Kwok actually says under oath in that declaration that he knew in May, 2021 about Steve Wynn, right? And now you hear he didn't know until May, 2022. I just think you need to be really careful with everything you hear connected to Mr. Kwok. And that goes to who owns the Genever shares. The one thing I wanted to add is that one of the thing we won in addition to the contempt order, in addition to the judgment, was a turnover the shares from Justice Ostrager who said that Mr. Kwok was actually required to turn over the shares of Genever BVI to PAX. So this is just another -- as we see it as this is another attempt to frustrate legitimate creditor access to the shares of valuable entities. And we think it should stop and we think that the shares should be ordered to be turned -- that the shares have already been ordered to be turned over and that should be effectuated by the relief sought today. And it's just -- it's just a continued pattern of really trying to thwart every effort of creditors to recover\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 133 |\n| 1 | assets.
And that's just so important from PAX's perspective |\n| 2 | that that not be delayed any further.
Thank you, Your |\n| 3 | Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Mr. Henzy? |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
I never said that Mr. Kwok didn't know |\n| 6 | about Mr. Wynn prior to the case being filed.
What I said |\n| 7 | was that a lot of the facts came out after the case was |\n| 8 | filed, when the DOJ filed it's complaint. |\n| 9 | And so I think that to keep going back to that, |\n| 10 | it's twisting I think what I said.
I said when I stood up, |\n| 11 | Your Honor, that it may be that signing these documents, |\n| 12 | that there's no objection. |\n| 13 | What there's an objection to is that the -- |\n| 14 | there's nothing in the motion that asks for this relief. |\n| 15 | The first -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, it asks for it generally. I |\n| 17 | understand your point.
There were -- |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:
The -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I understand your point.
There |\n| 20 | weren't two letters attached to the motion for Mr. Kwok to |\n| 21 | sign. I understand that. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
That would be egregious, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | To say that the relief sought in that motion translates to - |\n| 24 | - and you have to sign these specific documents -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, I don't know if it's egregious |\n| | |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 192 of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 193 of\n\n| | 134 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | though.
I don't know if I agree with you completely, okay, |\n| 2 | insofar as there's been a trustee in place since July 8th. |\n| 3 | It's August 1st.
The debtor has obligations.
The debtor |\n| 4 | stated in prior documents in different cases that he owns |\n| 5 | certain things. |\n| 6 | There's a share certificate that has been |\n| 7 | produced.
There's -- this isn't anything new. It may be new |\n| 8 | to you, but it's not new.
And looking at what Mr. Friedman |\n| 9 | just pointed out to me again the declaration of Mr. Kwok |\n| 10 | that was entered on March 20, 2022, where he references the |\n| 11 | article -- and article about Steve Wynn facing Justice |\n| 12 | Department action. |\n| 13 | You know, there comes a point where the arguments |\n| 14 | start to not be credible.
And the problem is Mr. Kwok |\n| 15 | thought his case was going to get dismissed.
I don't know |\n| 16 | why he thought that, but he thought that. |\n| 17 | After -- you know, when there was a potential -- |\n| 18 | two other things happening.
Appointment of Chapter 11 |\n| 19 | trustee or conversion to Chapter 7. |\n| 20 | He has obligations.
He doesn't -- he hasn't met |\n| 21 | those obligations.
With regard to your argument -- |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
In what way?
In what way? |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Hold on a second. |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
In what way, Your Honor, has he not |\n| 25 | met -- since the -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 194 of\n\n THE COURT: He hasn't turned over to Mr. Despins what Mr. Despins' asked him to turn over. MR. HENZY: Mr. Despins sent a letter -- THE COURT: Hold on. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Now you're not answering my question. MR. HENZY: Well, what's your -- I don't -- THE COURT: He hasn't turned over to Mr. Despins what Mr. Despins rightfully under the Bankruptcy Code told him to turn over. MR. HENZY: Okay. I don't have the letter in front of me and I -- and what I don't want -- THE COURT: Well, your client should have provided it to you. MR. HENZY: What I don't -- no, I've seen the letter, Your Honor. And what I don't want is for Mr. Friedman to jump up and say -- and twist my words and say I said something I didn't say, okay? But I don't have the letter in front of me. I don't -- THE COURT: Well, no, but -- MR. HENZY: I don't have the letter in front of me, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. HENZY: I think what Mr. Despins asked for in the letter, and Mr. Despins has the letter out and he's\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 195 of\n\n going to tell you if I'm wrong, is it was a very broad -- we want to see a whole bunch of information about specific entities, okay? So I don't remember right now, was there a demanding that letter that these documents, okay, but -- which I don't know if these documents even exist. I don't remember there being a demand in that letter that said anything other than we want you to turn over a whole bunch of stuff to us, which I will tell you, Your Honor, the debtor -- we are working on that. We are trying to collect those documents to send them to Mr. Despins. We are doing that, okay? I have no doubt that Mr. Despins and maybe Your Honor thinks that that should go faster and fine. But we are working on that. But I don't remember in that letter a document that said -- okay. Mr. Kindseth is telling me, and I think he has a better knowledge of that letter than I do, that there was no such request, okay? So I'm not -- THE COURT: No specific letter or with regard to Genever? I mean, that's a different -- you're parsing things differently. MR. HENZY: I'm not parsing things. There was a letter that Mr. Despins sent that appropriately -- okay,\n\n there's no push back -- said you've got to send me this stuff, okay? That hasn't happened yet. I admit that. The debtor -- we're working on that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Should it go more quickly? Maybe it should. THE COURT: But let me just say why your argument is failing, okay? Mr. Kwok submitted an affidavit in this court on May -- March 20, ECF 107, paragraph -- I'll tell you what page. Page 16 or 108. Cooperative shares in the Sherry Netherland apartment are held by Genever Holdings, LLC. The membership interests in Genever U.S. are in turn held by Genever Holdings Corporation, Genever BVI. I hold all of the equity of Genever BVI. That's Mr. Kwok. MR. HENZY: But you have to keep going. I think -- I would suggest -- THE COURT: No, I don't. MR. HENZY: However -- THE COURT: No, I really don't. Not when it matters with regard to Genever BVI and that's what the trustee's asking about. MR. HENZY: However, pursuant to a declaration of trustee agreement dated February 17, 2015 I hold such equity in trust for Bravo Luck Limited. My son owns the equity of Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 196 of\n\n the apartment owner. THE COURT: Well, guess what? You don't get to Bravo Luck, Limited till you get to Genever BVI. You can't -- all you have to do is look at the chain. You don't get to Bravo Luck Limited until you get to Genever BVI because he holds all the equity but then he holds it in a trust. I mean, it's going to be very difficult. We can do a chart. We can make a nice little chart. We can draw the lines from entity to entity. But this -- MR. HENZY: What this -- I apologize, Your Honor. THE COURT: This is what he said. And he said it also bears noting that any interest I have in Genever BVI has been ordered by Justice Ostrager to be turned over to PAX, provided that such a turnover does not interfere with pending litigation in the British Virgin Islands or Genever U.S. bankruptcy. Okay? So Mr. Kwok said this on March 20. It's August 1st. For him to be -- I'm not saying I'm not going to give you an opportunity to respond, because I am going to give you one, okay? It's not going to be long. And the point is this -- to make an argument that you don't -- not that you, not about you. That counsel for Mr. Kwok doesn't know whether this will have an impact and other parties, worried about other third parties, that's all\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 198 of\n\n irrelevant because Mr. Kwok already swore to this court that he holds all the equity of Genever BVI. MR. HENZY: I think that you and I are reading this differently, Your Honor. I'm sorry. THE COURT: Okay. Then we're reading it differently. But then guess what? Then you'll have -- I'm going to rule that he has to do this ultimately. This is what he said. This is what he said. My son owns -- the apartment owner. However, pursuant to a declaration of trust, I hold such equity in trust for Bravo Limited. MR. DESPINS: He still holds it. MR. HENZY: He holds it in -- THE COURT: He's still -- MR. HENZY: He holds it in trust for Bravo Limited. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Look, I -- THE COURT: And how did Bravo Limited pay for that apartment? Are we just going to go through all the -- this is what -- we're going to follow the money, right? Is that what we're going to do? Isn't that what we're doing? MR. HENZY: I have no idea. THE COURT: That's what we're doing. That's why there was a Chapter 11 trustee appointed. That's what we're\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | doing. |\n| 2 | What's happened here is -- |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY:
There's a bunch of things here that |\n| 4 | seem to me like they're not connected, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Well, how can they not be connected? |\n| 6 | He said they're connected.
He wrote it in his own |\n| 7 | declaration.
This is what he -- he is saying.
So -- |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
He says he holds it in trust for |\n| 9 | someone else.
And look, again, I haven't had -- I have not |\n| 10 | had time to analyze this because this was -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Let's look at the certificate. |\n| 12 | Let's look at the certificate that was in the New York State |\n| 13 | action, which is dated some time in -- February 13, 2015. |\n| 14 | He holds the -- it says \"I certify that I am the registered |\n| 15 | holder of 1,000 share of U.S. dollar, one penny par value, |\n| 16 | each being fully paid in the above company subject to the |\n| 17 | memorandum and article association of the company.\" |\n| 18 | So that's February 13, 2015.
This trust was dated |\n| 19 | four days later.
So then he took his equity.
So then maybe |\n| 20 | it's a fraudulent transfer. |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
It might be. It might, Judge. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
It might be. |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
But we're not -- I don't think |\n| 24 | we can resolve that on essentially 14 hours notice. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I just told you I'm going to give you |\n\n| | 141 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | time to respond. |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I'm going to give you time to respond. |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
To circle all the way back here, I |\n| 5 | said, Your Honor, it may be completely appropriate, the |\n| 6 | debtor may have no objection to signing these documents, but |\n| 7 | I don't know because this was filed at 10:09 last night. |\n| 8 | And it wasn't in the motion that had previously been filed. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, I'm going to give you an |\n| 10 | opportunity to ask your client if he's going to sign the |\n| 11 | documents, okay? |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
Can I have enough time to do the |\n| 15 | diligence?
Because I have -- I would like to find out -- |\n| 16 | for me to advise my client I think I need to do some |\n| 17 | diligence and understand this, okay?
So I'm hoping I'm |\n| 18 | going to get more than 24 or 36 hours. I heard Mr. Despins |\n| 19 | say Wednesday morning.
Nothing is happening here, Your |\n| 20 | Honor.
The apartment -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
That's the point. Nothing is happening |\n| 22 | here. |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:
No, no, no, no.
On the apartment -- |\n| 24 | and everybody -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
And we've got to get some stuff to |\n| | |\n\n move forward. MR. HENZY: I don't know what I said that was funny. I'm generally not viewed as being a funny guy, but the apartment is going to get sold under a process that's being supervised by Melanie Cyganowski. The apartment, the money, it's all going to be property of that bankruptcy estate in the Southern District under Judge Garrity's supervision. It's not going anywhere. I don't know -- is the idea that Mr. Kwok is going to somehow abscond with the apartment, he's going to take the Sherry Netherland apartment and go away with it or he's going to take the money from the apartment and go away with it. That's not going to happen. So I think it's fair given the complexity here. And you and I do read this paragraph differently. I think that -- I don't know, Your Honor, what the structure is here. I do know that property that's held in trust for another is not property of a bankruptcy estate, depending on -- THE COURT: I'm not so sure about that. MR. HENZY: Depending on facts and circumstances. THE COURT: I'm not so sure about that. MR. HENZY: So maybe sometimes it is. I think often times it is not. So I don't know what all of the facts are here because as I said, this was not part of a\n\n motion that had been filed. This was in an order that was filed at 10:09 last night. THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, I'll provide Mr. Henzy more documents. Actually, there's one which is -- MR. HENZY: Don't hand -- I don't want you to hand me documents. We're in court. MR. DESPINS: Okay. MR. HENZY: You can get me documents. MR. DESPINS: Okay. But the point, Your Honor, is that Mr. Kwok is exercising control over that entity. So ti's not his son. So, for example, when the Genever U.S. wanted to file for bankruptcy the authorization is signed by Mr. Kwok. It's not signed by the son or Bravo Luck. It's signed by Mr. Kwok. So I guess, Your Honor, we're talking about scheduling since -- THE COURT: Yes, we are. We're talking about scheduling. I'm going to give Mr. Henzy some time to look at this and file a response. I'm looking at -- hold on one second, okay? I just need to look at the calendar. (Pause.) All right. With regard to the motion filed by the Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 202 of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 203 of\n\n| | 144 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | trustee, the motion for order confirming that the Chapter 11 |\n| 2 | trustee holds all the debtor's economic and corporate |\n| 3 | governance rights, ECF 598, and the order -- revised |\n| 4 | proposed order with regard to that motion that appears at |\n| 5 | ECF 645, for the reasons stated on the record that matter |\n| 6 | will -- this matter will be continued to Thursday, August |\n| 7 | 4th at 1:00 p.m. |\n| 8 | Now with regard to the -- so that I think takes |\n| 9 | care of all of our matters, other than the housekeeping |\n| 10 | matters, Trustee Despins, which includes the proof of claim |\n| 11 | bar date order. |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
Can I have one point or question, Your |\n| 13 | Honor? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
On the letter to the Harcus |\n| 16 | Parker firm, I'm not talking to Harcus Parker without Mr. |\n| 17 | Despins being on the phone because I think I'm going to get |\n| 18 | -- probably I'm going to get accused of saying something I |\n| 19 | shouldn't have said or my words are going to get twisted. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Well, you and Mr. Despins work that |\n| 21 | out. I'm not ordering that you be on the phone. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
I don't know what their availability |\n| 23 | is. I don't know -- you know, so I don't know if that can |\n| 24 | happen by August 4 at 1 o'clock.
That's all. |\n| 25 | I certainly will make myself available and use |\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 145 |\n| 1 | best efforts, but we're talking about talking to lawyers in |\n| 2 | London and I don't know what -- how much time that's going |\n| 3 | to take. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I don't think anybody's talking about |\n| 5 | talking to lawyers in London other than you. |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
We have to. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Then that's your issue. You can figure |\n| 8 | it out. We're having a hearing on Thursday at 1:00 p.m. |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
So I don't know how I figure it |\n| 10 | out if I -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Well, you'll try.
You can figure it |\n| 12 | out.
You'll try to. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, Thursday at 1:00 is that |\n| 14 | in person or a Zoom? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, what do you -- do you have a |\n| 16 | conflict with Thursday?
Is that what you're telling me? |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, I'm out of the country. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Oh, you're out of the country.
Well, |\n| 19 | that's -- |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
But I can do Zoom. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, then we can -- I guess -- |\n| 22 | when are you going to be back?
Are you out for a long time? |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
So then we'll do it |\n| 25 | by Zoom then. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 204 of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 205 of\n\n MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: We'll do it by Zoom. MR. DESPINS: So now I would go into the housekeeping matters, but -- THE COURT: Last point and I'll be quiet, Your Honor. I promise. I just want to be clear. There's other relief sought in that motion that the debtor objected to. So I don't want the court to think that -- and I'm fine if that goes to -- THE COURT: I don't know -- we're going to talk all about that on Thursday. MR. HENZY: So everything is getting carried to -- THE COURT: I will tell you, I -- my initial review, subject to further argument on Thursday, is I don't know what the basis for the objection of the debtor would be to any other relief set forth in that motion. MR. HENZY: Okay. Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, we've been at it for three hours and 45 minutes. I don't know if you want to take a break before we go into the -- because there's a good 20 -- THE COURT: Well, I'll ask the courtroom staff. Would you like to take a break? I'm sure they would, actually. Would you like to take a few minute break? Okay.\n\n Thank you. So it's 3:40. What, do you want to come back at 3:50 or you want longer than that? MR. DESPINS: No, that's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does that work for you -- all of us? I mean, it works for me. So court will be in recess until 3:50. (Recess from 3:37 p.m. until 3:50 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: We're still on case no. 22- 50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Despins. Before the recess we were going to talk about a few -- MR. DESPINS: Housekeeping. THE COURT: -- housekeeping matters, so go right\n\nahead.\n\n MR. DESPINS: The first one, Your Honor, was the request to have the status conference every ten days or so. And the trustee would have an obligation to file an agenda 24 hours before.\n\n I may be that sometimes we'll say no need for the status conference, but I think it's really important, especially in the first few months of the case, to stay in touch with the court and so, therefore, we would ask that we could just --\n\nTHE COURT: That's fine. That's absolutely fine.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
Page 207 of
322 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 148 |\n| 1 | Do you have proposed dates in mind or -- |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Not yet.
I'll discuss this with Mr. |\n| 3 | Skalka and we'll come back to Your Honor but I just want to |\n| 4 | -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Certainly. |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| 7 | The next item -- this is more complicated.
And I |\n| 8 | know last time we talked about the bar date and I said we |\n| 9 | would mark it up and we did. |\n| 10 | But I started looking deeper into this and |\n| 11 | realized that there's a fundamental problem here and it is |\n| 12 | as follows. |\n| 13 | You've go the Genever U.S. case that was filed |\n| 14 | before this case -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
-- and what's at state there is who |\n| 17 | owns the Sherry Netherland.
And there was a bar date set in |\n| 18 | that case, but notice was not given -- first of all, there |\n| 19 | was no publication notice and there was no notice given to |\n| 20 | potential creditors of Mr. Kwok.
It was given to a few |\n| 21 | people and Mr. Friedman and his colleagues, of course, were |\n| 22 | around the hoop because they were already involved. |\n| 23 | And God bless them from their point of view.
They |\n| 24 | did file a claim of PAX against Genever there but my |\n| 25 | position vis-a-vis that entity is I'm an equity holder |\n\n| | 149 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | because I'm -- I own the shares. |\n| 2 | Well, I own the shares not personally, but this |\n| 3 | estate owns the share.
And that doesn't work because the |\n| 4 | bar date has passed in that case.
My Goldman's clients were |\n| 5 | never on notice of this because he didn't exist then because |\n| 6 | there was no case here. |\n| 7 | So there is a need -- a pretty important need to |\n| 8 | coordinate these two cases, not only because of that issue, |\n| 9 | because there are many ways of fixing that issue. One would |\n| 10 | be expand the bar date in that case, reopen it to allow Mr. |\n| 11 | Goldman's clients to file claims. I'm not saying that's a |\n| 12 | preferred course, but that's one. |\n| 13 | Another one would be for us to file a piercing the |\n| 14 | veil or alter ego claim in that case, et cetera, et cetera. |\n| 15 | But the point is there's a need for coordination |\n| 16 | because right now that case is going on its merry way.
The |\n| 17 | sale is not an issue.
That's not a problem. |\n| 18 | It's going on its merry way where at the end of |\n| 19 | the day assuming the best thing, which is the Sherry |\n| 20 | Netherland is owned by Mr. Kwok, that money would be shared |\n| 21 | with those creditors around the hoop there only and that's |\n| 22 | PAX and the Sherry Netherland, the hotel itself and very few |\n| 23 | other people.
Well, that's -- a fiduciary to the creditors |\n| 24 | in this case to me that can't work. |\n| 25 | So -- and there's a second thing that's |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 209 of\n\n fundamental. We should not have two courts, two separate courts, deciding the issue of the Sherry Netherland -- the ownership of the Sherry Netherland and the issue of who owns the yacht. And you might say well, the yacht is different than the hotel, yes. But at the end of the day, one is the daughter, one is the son. It's all the same issues. Yes, there'll be different timing issues, but at the end of the day the arguments will all be the same. To have two separate courts decide that issue would be a huge waste of judicial resources and professional fees. So you might say well, that's a lot to process and to digest and I've been struggling with this. And I've talked to the committee and to PAX about this and they're proceeding it too. But I think what needs to happen is there should be - - because I would appear in front of Judge Garrity and tell him the same things. But I think you and him need to either -- I don't know how you feel about that, have a conversation about this or have a joint status conference, which is very unusual, but it's been done. But that issue needs to be tackled in one way or another in the next month or so because it is unfair to the people who have claims against Mr. Kwok to have missed out on the bar date in that case because they have no greater or worse\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 210 of\n\n right than PAX had. PAX claim against Genever is a piercing the veil, an alter ego claim.\n\n And, again, I'm not criticizing them. They're doing their job. They're not a fiduciary for anyone and for some reason the debtor -- well, the debtor was controlled by Mr. Kwok so obviously not interested in publicizing -- having publication notice et cetera, et cetera, and that's why I told you the bar date, even though we marked it up an all that.\n\n I think until that issue is resolved we should park it because what I don't want to do is do two publication notice and we need to resolve this issue one way or another and my job is to propose a path forward which I'm not ready to do without talking again to the committee and to PAX and to debtor's counsel in the Genever case.\n\n And I want to be clear, this does not affect the sale. I'm not trying to say oh, we're not going to sell the -- that's not the case.\n\n But there's a nee for coordination and I wanted to put that in front of Your Honor. I don't expect you to have a response on the spot because there's a lot of moving pieces to this but I think that -- and I know you have a full docket, so I'm not trying to put another case on your plate. I understand that.\n\n Judge Garrity is also very busy so that's why I think there needs to be either a call between the two of you or a\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 211 of\n\n joint status conference but I think that makes sense to happen once we have a path forward to recommend. THE COURT: Well, so what I think you're saying is you think that both of the cases should be in front of the same judge. So isn't there a way to do that by filing a motion? MR. DESPINS: Yeah, there is. But I -- THE COURT: Because I don't know that a judge should have a conversation with another judge about -- I mean, I -- THE COURT: Well, especially do you want to -- one of the reasons I would be not inclined to do that is I don't want to open up any allegations that there was something improper or -- MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: I mean, what -- you know, but if you think that's appropriate, then you can file -- anyone can file a motion. MR. DESPINS: Well, but to be clear, that motion would have to be filed in front of Judge Garrity, because he's the first to file. THE COURT: I understand. And so this case may go there is what you're saying. MR. DESPINS: What I'm saying is that, first of all, I would never file that motion without talking to you first because you might say what did you just do? And so I'm socializing the issue with you. You should think about it and\n\n we will come back to the court probably at our next status conference on this. But I want to make sure that is something that you're thinking about because it needs to be resolved in one way or another. So that's really the issue regarding the bar date in Genever. The next thing I wanted to mention very briefly the Lady May inspection. Mr. Kindseth last time described the fact that they were very -- well, I won't say very minor, but fairly discreet issues that need to be resolved. It turns out that that's not the case. As Your Honor will remember even though I'm not a party to the stipulation, they allowed me visiting rights or inspection right and it turns out that there are more issues. But the parties are talking and we're hopeful that that will be resolved. But I wanted to make sure that you knew that that dialogue was ongoing. We had a call I think last week about this with the Zeisler firm and with PAX's counsel. Your Honor, you will recall that we hired Paul Derektor as an expert to assist us with that, \\$2,500. And it's a request for Your Honor, and I know the rules and the U.S. Trustee will probably scream about this, but would it be okay if we just expensed it. What I mean by that is not file a motion to retain him as an expert? We can do that but it's going to cost more\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 213 of\n\n than the \\$2,500 and my point is -- expensive meaning right now there are no assets. So I mean we're paying for it. Eventually we hope that there'll be money to be paid but we would put that as a line item expense rather than filing a motion to retain Mr. Derektor in the case as an expert. But I don't feel strongly. It's just from a cost savings point of view I think it would make sense. THE COURT: Well, I think you should talk to the parties about that too. I mean, if people don't have an objection, then it's likely to be fine. MR. DESPINS: Okay. We'll table that. You're absolutely right, Your Honor. Lady May we talked about. Just housekeeping, the debtors are still -- their monthly operating reports from May and June still haven't been filed. The debtor still is under obligation to file that so I want to remind everyone of that and that's all I have from a housekeeping point of view, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: Let me just take one look for a second and see if there's anything else that I think I had any questions about. (Pause.) So with regard to the bar date motion and the\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 214 of\n\n| | 155 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | proposed order then, we're just going to continue those to a |\n| 2 | future status conference?
Is that what you're thinking? |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So to a date to be determined |\n| 5 | essentially. |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | (Pause.) |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Mr. Kindseth? |\n| 9 | MR. KINDSETH:
Yes, Your Honor.
In the interest of |\n| 10 | just basically updating Your Honor and the other parties with |\n| 11 | respect to the Lady May, Your Honor, for HK International, no |\n| 12 | one is more interested in expediting the satisfaction of the |\n| 13 | requirements set forth in the stipulation with respect to the |\n| 14 | Lady May more than my client.
We've been working very |\n| 15 | diligently to satisfy those obligations. |\n| 16 | Your Honor made reference to the certification.
My |\n| 17 | client is unable to file the certification until the other |\n| 18 | elements are satisfied, one of which is this court's |\n| 19 | establishment of the repair reserve. The repair reserve |\n| 20 | requires my client to provide proposals with respect to the |\n| 21 | repairs that need to be done for the Lady May to be returned in |\n| 22 | good working order. |\n| 23 | There's been some delay with respect to finding and |\n| 24 | getting proposals from entities just because they're very busy |\n| 25 | right now. |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 215 of\n\n As we've received proposals we've circulated them with the trustee, creditors committee counsel and PAX counsel. With respect to the actual repairs that need to be performed, unbeknownst to me at the time before Your Honor last there was an additional repair that needs to be performed. Apparently when the fuel pump failed, which I did disclose to the court, it caused the gears, some gears to basically get stripped. And so there are tiny shards of metal that you can see from the gears -- and, again, this was produced to everybody -- that were circulated in the oil system within the engine. So the oil needs to be cleaned out. The shards need to be reduced. We's just talking about little pieces but obviously it needs to be repaired and we received a quote for that. And so we're in communications with the trustee and counsel for the creditors committee and counsel for PAX to try to come up with an agreed up number for the repair reserve which would then enable us, once this court orders the repair reserve, to file the certification. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. HENZY: Not on the Lady Mae, Your Honor, but am I to file a replay before Thursday at 1 o'clock on the -- THE COURT: Yes. Yes.\n\n| 322 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | 157 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. HENZY:
And I didn't write it down -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I didn't give you a time frame, but I can |\n| 3 | give you till Thursday morning at 9 o'clock, if you'd like. |\n| 4 | But I can't give you any longer than that. I've got to be able |\n| 5 | to read it before the hearing or there's no point in the |\n| 6 | hearing. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
I'll get it -- thank you, Your Honor.
I |\n| 8 | expect I'll get it filed before then but thank you. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 10 | (No audible response.) |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay. I think that takes care of all the |\n| 12 | matters today then in this case and we will reconvene on |\n| 13 | Thursday, via Zoom at 1:00 p.m.
And the debtor has until 9:00 |\n| 14 | a.m. on Thursday morning to file the response to the corporate |\n| 15 | governance motion, okay? |\n| 16 | That takes care of all the matters on the calendar so |\n| 17 | court is adjourned. |\n| 18 | (Proceedings adjourned at 4:05 p.m.) |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n| | 322 | |\n|--|-----|--|\n\n| 1 | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and |\n| 3 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the |\n| 4 | foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic |\n| 5 | sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled |\n| 6 | matter. |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | |\n| 9 | August 9, 2022 |\n| 10 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 11 | Transcriber |\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| | |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 218 of\n\n## 322\n\n| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
UPDATED
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
10/17/22
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In Re | *
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)
* |\n| HO WAN KWOK,
Debtor. | *
Bridgeport, Connecticut
*
August 4, 2022
*
* |\n| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE |\n| APPEARANCES: | |\n| For the Debtor: | ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.
Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.
10 Middle Street, 15th Floor
Bridgeport, CT
06604 |\n| For the Creditor, Pacific
Alliance Asia Opportunity
Fund L.P.: | PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY
10036 |\n| | PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ.
Robinson & Cole
28 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT
06103 |\n| For the Creditors Committee: | IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.
Pullman & Comley
850 Main Street
Bridgeport, CT
06601 |\n| Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording,
transcript produced by transcription service. | 2022-50073
Ho Wan Kwok
IN RE: |\n| Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.
4 Research Drive, Suite 402
Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992 | I
Debtor |\n| | 11/18/2022 |\n| | Debtor's Exhibit I
P.E. |\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors, Rui Ma, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Weican Meng and Zheng Wu: McElroy Deutsch 225 Liberty Street 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Counsel for the G. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ. Chapter 11 Trustee: Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For Creditor Logan Cheng: JAY M. WOLMAN, ESQ. Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 220 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 1:05 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Thank you. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. And I'm here with my counsel from Paul Hastings, Alex Bongartz, and Mr. Linsey, local counsel to the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And then if we could have counsel for the committee, please. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, representing the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for the creditor PAX. MR. BIRNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Birney, Robinson & Cole, on behalf of PAX. With me this afternoon is Stuart Sarnoff from O'Melveny & Myers. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Who am I missing? Counsel -- MR. BIRNEY: Your Honor, Mr. Friedman has just\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 4 joined as well. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Counsel for the creditors Rui Ma and related creditors. MS. MAYHEW: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, on behalf of Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and Weican Meng. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Counsel for the debtor. MR. HENZY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Counsel for the U.S. Trustee, please. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: And I think Mr. Wolman. And that's the only person I'm missing at this point, is that right? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I believe so, Your Honor. MR. WOLMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jay Wolman, of Randazza Legal Group, for creditor Logan Chang. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Okay. I think everyone's appearances have been noted for the record. As I stated before, that there are two matters on the calendar. Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 221 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 222 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 5 I did not see any objection or response to the Chapter 11 trustee's motion for extension of time with regard to the removal of civil actions. The motion looks fine to me, as does the proposed order. Does anyone wish to be heard on the trustee's motion to extend the deadline for removal of civil actions? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. Hearing no response -- MR. LINSEY: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINSEY: Yeah. I won't say much if the motion looks fine to you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Attorney Linsey -- MR. LINSEY: This is Patrick Linsey for the trustee. Just note -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Excuse me. Attorney Linsey, if you could just state your name. MR. LINSEY: This is Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. LINSEY: I won't -- I won't say much considering Your Honor said the motion looks acceptable. I will just note there was a prior motion that had been filed by the debtor that I do not believe there were\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 6 any objections to that's not been acted upon. And presuming the Court enters the order that we filed with our motion will then be causing the debtor's motion to be withdrawn. THE COURT: Yes. That was noted in your motion. So thank you. And when this order enters, that -- the proposed order that was submitted with the motion, as appears at pages 10 and 11 of ECF 672,and when that order enters, then the prior motion of the debtor will be withdrawn is on the record now withdrawn by the trustee. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So that motion is granted and the proposed order can enter. So that takes care of the first matter on today's calendar. The second matter obviously is the -- was continued from Monday, the 1st, to today, and it is the trustee's motion for an order confirming that the trustee holds all the debtor's economic and corporate governance rights. And this was continued to today to give the debtor an opportunity to file a response, which the debtor did this morning. And I also -- the debtor objected and then the Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 223 of\n\nChapter 11 Trustee filed a reply to the objection.\n\nSo I understand in the papers, or at least I've\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 224 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 7 seen some mention in the papers, and I'll turn to you, Mr. Despins, first, that there's been some discussions. And I see that there's been a redline version of an order that appears to show there's been some I guess I would call progress with counsel in London about the issues that we discussed on Monday, but I'd like to hear from you on where things stand, please. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. So there are two aspects to the motions. Well, there are many aspects, but there are two that are contested I think. The focus is on UBS, which is you just raised. And then the other one is what's happening with the BVI shares, et cetera. So since you started with UBS, let me launch into that. There were a lot of back and forth between me and counsel for -- or counsel for the debtor in that UBS action. And basically, you know, they raised several issues. And at the end of the day, I said, look, why don't you just draft a letter that you would be comfortable receiving from Mr. Kwok that would allow you to, you know, give me an update on the merits of the claims, any settlement proposals, basically what a client would receive. And eventually she did that. And the -- and we said that in the reply. There are parts of this that I have swallow hard\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 225 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
8 |\n| 1 | to accept in the sense that, you know, you know, to say |\n| 2 | that, you know, that the Court's jurisdiction is a U.S. |\n| 3 | issue only.
I mean, as you know in the U.S. we view you, |\n| 4 | Your Honor, as having worldwide jurisdiction over all assets |\n| 5 | of the debtor. |\n| 6 | But putting that aside I figure let's not have a, |\n| 7 | you know, US/UK debate over jurisdiction. |\n| 8 | And so we took her letter with some minor changes |\n| 9 | and basically that's the letter that we're now asking the |\n| 10 | Court to direct the debtor to send to her that basically |\n| 11 | says give him full access. |\n| 12 | But the debtor, per her -- U.K. counsel's request |\n| 13 | is saying that his consent, and this is in the letter, does |\n| 14 | not extend to me waiving a privilege. |\n| 15 | And that's not an issue meaning, I didn't intend |\n| 16 | to do that anyways.
But I thought it's always my privilege |\n| 17 | to waive.
But my point is let's not get into those issues. |\n| 18 | The important thing is to get access to the files |\n| 19 | and understand the case, to get a full briefing.
And based |\n| 20 | on the letter I think, although they were very careful about |\n| 21 | saying we cannot guarantee that this letter will bind us, |\n| 22 | and we said fine, but I think that based on that letter we |\n| 23 | should have full access to the files.
And that's the goal. |\n| 24 | And, therefore, you know, we're going to look the |\n| 25 | other way on the issues of limiting the Court's jurisdiction |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 9 and all that. So that's where we are on that. So from my point of view, vis-a-vis U.K. counsel, I think we're done. But I don't know where the debtor is at on that issue. THE COURT: Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: We're not done on that issue. A couple of points, Your Honor. First, Mr. Despins referred to U.K. counsel, which the person that he and I both have been communicating with is Jenny Morrissey of the Harcus Parker firm. As debtor's counsel, I just want to be clear. I'm not sure that that is correct. I'll be honest with you, Your Honor. The convergence of U.S. and U.K. law is a little bit unclear to me. I know that under the bankruptcy code that upon his appointment Mr. Despins was automatically substituted as the plaintiff in that U.K. action. What I've heard from Attorney Morrissey is that what the bankruptcy code says, that's not her view anyway. And I'm not -- I don't -- I know zero about U.K. law, so she's right, she's wrong, but that -- that is her view. I believe it's also her view that Mr. Despins is not yet a party in that action. There are some steps that have to be taken under U.K. law. Again, I don't opine as to that. I'm reporting to you what Attorney Morrissey Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 226 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 227 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 10 indicated to me. So I don't think she's the debtor's lawyer. I don't think she's Mr. Despins' lawyer. I frankly am not sure where that leaves the status of whoever is the plaintiff in that action in the U.K. I'm not sure where the letter stands. The last iteration of the letter that I saw was from Paul Hastings to Harcus Parker. I think Mr. Despins said this on the last day Harcus Parker is being very, very careful here, so I don't know if the last iteration that Paul Hastings sent to Harcus Parker would be acceptable to Harcus Parker or not. Even assuming that it is, I believe that it is simply beyond question that the Court, with all due respect to the Court, may not compel Mr. Kwok to waive his attorney- client privilege. Now, I -- THE COURT: The letter doesn't say that he is waiving his privilege. In fact, it says that any waiver of the privilege is limited to the provision of this information to the trustee. That's what it says. MR. HENZY: That the waiver is -- that the waiver is privileged, Your Honor. So there's -- I want to make a distinction here. There are two -- and, Your Honor, we're dealing with cross- border issues here. So the privilege here I think anyway is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 228 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
11 |\n| 1 | not under U.S. law.
It's under U.K. law. |\n| 2 | And as I understand my communications from |\n| 3 | Attorney Morrissey, there may be items that -- I think this |\n| 4 | is true under U.S. law too, a trustee is appointed and |\n| 5 | there's different standards between a corporate debtor and |\n| 6 | an actual person.
An actual person may maintain certain |\n| 7 | privilege even after the appointment of a trustee.
And as I |\n| 8 | understand it, it is similar in the U.K. |\n| 9 | So there may be items that are in the possession |\n| 10 | of Harcus Parker that Mr. Kwok personally still has a |\n| 11 | privilege with respect to, as opposed to items that under |\n| 12 | U.K. law he doesn't. |\n| 13 | And I -- again, I don't know U.K. law.
I don't |\n| 14 | think Mr. Despins knows U.K. law.
What's what I do not |\n| 15 | know. |\n| 16 | There's a right way to do this, Your Honor, I |\n| 17 | think.
Mr. Despins needs to take steps to have himself |\n| 18 | recognized as a party in the U.K. action and that privilege |\n| 19 | issue then I think needs to be worked through. |\n| 20 | I don't know how the debtor -- I don't know how |\n| 21 | Mr. Kwok can say I'm going to grant a waiver of any |\n| 22 | privilege rights I have.
Again, it's any privilege rights |\n| 23 | that he has. |\n| 24 | Your Honor, I don't know.
Attorney Morrissey may |\n| 25 | make a judgment that he doesn't have any privilege rights. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 229 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 12 She may make a judgment that he has a lot of privilege rights with respect to what's in her possession. I don't know how he can fairly be asked to waive any privilege that he still has when he doesn't know what he's waiving it with respect to. So I don't know what documents Attorney Morrissey would say would come under an umbrella of things that Mr. Kwok under U.K. law still has a privilege in. Again, I think there is a way to work through this. It may be that Attorney Morrissey would identify some discrete number of documents that she would say these are documents that Mr. Kwok has privilege in and possibly subject to me reviewing and they're completely innocuous -- and that's great -- but there has to be a process gone through. Mr. Kwok cannot make a knowing and voluntary waiver when he doesn't know what he's waiving. He can't do that. And he's not going to do that. And, again, with all due respect, I don't believe you can compel him to do that. I do not believe that you can compel him by signing this letter to waive his -- whatever his attorney/client privilege is under U.K. law. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: You know, there's an attempt to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 13 muddy the waters here. If the letter doesn't work for counsel in the U.K., I'll deal with that. So let's put that aside for now. I think it will work because she marked up our letter and she sent us this letter. We made some very minor nonsubstantive kind of changes, so that's number one. And that letter basically, that she marked up, says that if she gets that letter she will share the privilege as to -- or she will give me privileged information. As to what? As to the merits of the litigation. That's an asset of the debtor. Mr. Henzy made a big deal about his 475 million or whatever sum. That's an asset of the debtor. The only way -- this is like a car. In order to access the car, I need the key. The key is the letter. Because otherwise they won't talk to me because, you know, either U.K. rules or their concern about being sued. They've never actually articulated that, but that's the subtext here. It's pretty clear. So the letter I think works. There's not an unknown or unlimited waiver of the privilege. It's regarding the merits of that litigation. That's what she's going to share with me. Because Mr. Henzy has -- you must remember -- had very nicely sent an email to Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 230 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 14 them a long time ago that said I own the claims basically dealing with Mr. Despins. Mr. Kwok is completely out of this -- out of that claim. He did say that. So what would be the point of me being, you know, having the claim if I cannot be briefed by the lawyers about the merits of the claim? Again, it's the key that gets me the car. And I absolutely need that. And case law is clear, Your Honor, that the trustee can have access to privileged information of the debtor with respect to assets of the debtor. Here there's not even a dispute. This is not like the yacht or the Sherry-Netherland apartment where he says, oh, I don't own it. He says -- he filed a claim. He said I own this. It's clear that the trustee owns the claim now. And clearly I have the right to have access to that. There's not an unknown or unlimited waiver. And so, therefore, we believe the Court can compel. This is 521(a)(3),(a)(4). The Court can absolutely do that because this is equal to the debtor saying, yeah, here's the car, but I'm not giving you the key. Without the briefing on the merits of the claim or knowing whether there has been any settlement, I cannot drive the car. I cannot sell the car. You know, that's the analogy. And we need access to that. Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 231 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 232 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 15 MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: One point I want to be clear on, that Attorney Morrissey's clear with me on, is that there's two other plaintiffs here and the privilege is joint. And Attorney Morrissey's been clear that Mr. Kwok cannot raise the privilege with respect to information that is the joint information of -- along with those other parties. So she's been very, very clear that the only thing that in theory Mr. Kwok could raise with respect to -- with the property that as I understand it he is the sole owner of. So, again, what the -- the universe of information here is that Harcus Parker would ever say that they're going to release is that, you know, I don't know. But I want to give you two cites that were not in my objection. I did have a relatively short time to get the objection done, Your Honor. I did cite one case where the Second Circuit says that you cannot compel a person to waive their attorney/client privilege. And, again, I want to be clear here, Your Honor, to the extent that Mr. Kwok no longer owns the privilege, under -- I think it's under U.K. law -- not under U.S. law -- whether -- what the attorney-client privilege is in the U.K. and what -- to what extent the privilege belongs to him\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 233 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
16 |\n| 1 | versus belongs Mr. Despins, that's what's -- that's a matter |\n| 2 | of U.K. law.
It's not U.S. law. |\n| 3 | But two other Second Circuit Court of Appeals |\n| 4 | cases.
One is Highland Capital Management vs. United |\n| 5 | States.
It's at 626 F. App'x -- I never know how to |\n| 6 | pronounce that thing, 324.
It's a 2015 decision. |\n| 7 | If I could quote, Your Honor.
\"Compelled |\n| 8 | disclosure of privileged attorney/client communications |\n| 9 | absent waiver or acceptable exception is contrary to well |\n| 10 | established precedent.
When parties disagree whether a |\n| 11 | privilege applies, courts often review the contested |\n| 12 | material in camera.
In contrast, requiring a litigant to |\n| 13 | turn over documents subject to claims of attorney/client |\n| 14 | privilege to opposing counsel without a judicial ruling on |\n| 15 | the merits of the claim will undermine the attorney/client |\n| 16 | privilege and it's, therefore, impermissible.\" |\n| 17 | So, again, what privilege Mr. Kwok has here and |\n| 18 | what privilege he doesn't have may well be subject to |\n| 19 | dispute.
Plus you can't order him to waive privilege |\n| 20 | without working through that dispute. |\n| 21 | And I'll say again, Your Honor, there's a right |\n| 22 | way to do this.
If Mr. Despins, rather than trying to |\n| 23 | bulldoze through an order here, would work with U.K. counsel |\n| 24 | and me to try to identify what potentially is the universe |\n| 25 | of documents that even are at issue here she may go through |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 234 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 17 her documents, Your Honor, and say I can't give you anything because these other people have privilege and I'm not going to -- I'm not going to give you anything. She may say there's five pieces of paper that Mr. Kwok is the sole owner of that I could ever release to you. And the five pieces of paper are pictures of his kids. And no one -- and no one's going to care about that -- to tell us any number of things. But there's a -- there's a process that has to be worked through. The Second Circuit says that you cannot order this kind of blanket waiver without making findings with respect to specific documents. THE COURT: Where does it say that in the *Highland* case? I'm looking at it. And the *Highland* case is not a bankruptcy case. It's a third-party subpoena with regard to an IRS issue. So where does it say that? Where does it say that a court cannot compel a debtor out of possession to waive a privilege with regard to an asset that the debtor has stated under penalty of perjury is an asset of his estate? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, this is -- you're right. This is not a debtor case. But I don't think -- I don't -- I'm not aware of any case. And I will say this, Your Honor. I'm not aware of any case that says that.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 235 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 18 Because what the Second Circuit says is that after an applicable exception. And I think the typical exception that comes up in cases is where a party -- in criminal cases where a party says it had ineffective assistance of counsel. And the rule is that you can't say you haven't had effective assistance counsel unless you're going to be willing to waive relevant communications with counsel. I'm not aware of any case that says that a -- that there's an applicable exception for a debtor. But I'm going to push back to one of the other points I've made here. I don't think it's up to the debtor that's here to prove the negative. Not by motion. But by submitting a proposed order Mr. Despins is seeking relief from it. He is seeking to have you compel the debtor -- THE COURT: Not yet. MR. HENZY: -- to waive his privilege. THE COURT: Not yet. If the debtor doesn't sign the document, then -- I asked that question of Mr. Despins the other day, and then he will file a motion. The problem is your case law says compel disclosure of privileged attorney/client communications absent waiver or applicable exceptions contrary to well- established precedent. Well, this is -- this is -- Mr. Kwok has stated under penalty of perjury in his schedules -- and you've\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 236 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
19 |\n| 1 | reached out to the lawyer in the U.K. saying that Mr. |\n| 2 | Despins is the party, and you've acknowledged that Mr. |\n| 3 | Despins steps into the shoes of Mr. Kwok in the action in |\n| 4 | the U.K.
And so you can't then argue that Mr. Kwok -- the |\n| 5 | lawyers who represented Mr. Kwok can't turn over that |\n| 6 | information to Mr. Despins for his review.
I mean, you can |\n| 7 | make that argument, but it's not persuasive. |\n| 8 | You're having -- |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
There's nothing -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Excuse me.
Let me -- let me just |\n| 11 | finish. |\n| 12 | You are coming to this court.
Your client |\n| 13 | voluntarily came to this court and put his assets in |\n| 14 | question for creditors of this estate and has stated that |\n| 15 | this cause of action is his cause of action and an asset of |\n| 16 | the estate. |\n| 17 | The minute the Chapter 11 trustee was appointed, |\n| 18 | the Chapter 11 trustee steps into the shoes of Mr. Kwok.
So |\n| 19 | the Chapter 11 trustee has the privilege of Mr. Kwok in that |\n| 20 | lawsuit. |\n| 21 | And so your arguments are not persuasive.
So |\n| 22 | let's move onto the next issue about whether -- because that |\n| 23 | order -- |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, can I -- can I -- may I -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Excuse me.
I'm not finished. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 237 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
20 |\n| 1 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
That letter -- Mr. Despins has just |\n| 3 | stated he's a -- he is subject to Rule 11 sanctions if he's |\n| 4 | incorrect, Mr. Henzy.
That he got this letter from the |\n| 5 | lawyers in -- from the barristers or solicitors in London. |\n| 6 | They're willing to sign it.
They marked it up.
That's |\n| 7 | what's going to happen.
That's what's going to happen. |\n| 8 | So let's go to the next issue which has to do with |\n| 9 | the Genever issue and the fact that you've argued that Mr. |\n| 10 | Kwok, you know, doesn't have any control over Genever. |\n| 11 | But when you look at the trustee's reply to your |\n| 12 | objection this morning, there are exhibits attached to it |\n| 13 | where Mr. Kwok admits -- it's an admission of a party, that |\n| 14 | he owns the shares of the cooperative that owns the |\n| 15 | apartment. |\n| 16 | So what's your response to that? |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, just if I could go back |\n| 18 | for a second.
For the record, you're not going to hear any |\n| 19 | further arguments from me on the privilege issue. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
That is correct. |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
I just want to make -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I've decided the issue. |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:
I want to make a record. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I've decided the issue.
That is |\n| 25 | correct.
Your arguments about the privilege are not |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 21 persuasive. Mr. Despins stepped into the shoes of the debtor when he became the Chapter 11 trustee. There's well settled case law on that, Attorney Henzy. The cases that you've cited are not applicable. They're not involving a Chapter 11 trustee who steps into the shoes of a debtor who has been taken out of possession. And so, therefore, your case law does not support your argument. And I will -- and we can move on to the next issue now about the Genever Holdings matter and the Sherry- Netherlands apartment. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. On the Genever BVI issue, my first -- because I got this not that long ago, but the documents that are attached to the reply are not in evidence, Your Honor. I think we can all agree on that. And I -- I'm not -- I do not -- THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure that's true. First of all, some of them are from the bankruptcy court in New York. And this court can take judicial notice of those documents and their reliability based upon the fact that they were filed in a -- in the Chapter 11 case of Genever Holdings in New York. So when you say they're not in evidence, well, Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 238 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 239 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 22 then I can make them in evidence. I can say that they are now evidence in connection with the trustee's motion because they were all filed, many of them -- and we can go through each one -- in the -- in the bankruptcy case of Genever Holdings. And the Court can take judicial notice under the federal rules of evidence of that because the reliability of that is obvious. So to say that they're not in evidence, well, okay, I'm going to now rule that they are in evidence. That the exhibits attached to the trustee's reply that was filed today in response to your objection, Exhibits A through G, are in evidence and they will be marked as exhibits. So that if you want to appeal you can -- these exhibits will be in evidence. (Exhibits A through G attached to Trustee's motion for an order received into evidence as Trustee Exhibits A through G.) MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Just for the record, so I make my record, I do object to their admission. THE COURT: Understood. MR. HENZY: And in addition to -- I'm in a difficult position to give you specific objections as I'm required to do under the rules of evidence as I've -- as that I've had almost no time to go through these documents\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 23 individually. So that is an issue for me. And that kind puts, you know, pushes me to a different issue which -- THE COURT: Well, let's go through them right now. We'll pull up Exhibit A. MR. HENZY: That's unfair, Your Honor. Because if I -- THE COURT: No, it's not unfair, counsel. MR. HENZY: It is. THE COURT: Because these are all exhibits that your client signed or you should have as his counsel. You don't get to come in and stall things. And I'm not saying -- you don't get to come in and say the trustee, who's been appointed since July 8th, can't do his job because I'm new counsel and I haven't had a chance to look at all this. You don't get that opportunity. MR. HENZY: No. THE COURT: It doesn't happen that way. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor. MR. HENZY: The point -- the point I was going to make, Your Honor, is that you're admitting exhibits in connection with relief sought by the trustee that is not in the motion that he filed and on a hearing that as far as I know was not scheduled as a trial, but an evidentiary hearing. I have no ability to try to rebut what is in these documents. That this is just -- it is fundamentally unfair. Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 240 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 241 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 24 THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: I have no notice -- THE COURT: How would you rebut the -- your client's answers to interrogatories that were filed in the New York State Court, which is Exhibit A and which he signed? How would you rebut that? What could you possibly put forth that could rebut that -- those interrogatory answers that your client signed in an action in New York that has been pending for years? MR. HENZY: I'm going to try to answer that specifically, Your Honor, but I think -- and actually I'm going to try to answer your question. Okay. The first -- I don't know. I'm not -- I don't -- I do not practice trial law in New York State so I don't know if interrogatories are filed. They're not filed, for example, in federal court or state court in Connecticut. So maybe they are and maybe they aren't. I don't know that. So that if they're not, I don't think you could take judicial notice. That's one issue. THE COURT: Well, there's a file stamp on the top of it from New York filed New York County Clerk 4/28/2021, 10:54 p.m. That states that on the top of the document. MR. HENZY: Sorry. I don't -- again, Your Honor, I'm not -- I don't practice trial law in New York so I don't know what the procedure is.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 25 I will point out, Your Honor, if you go to page 3, the definition of interest. THE COURT: Page 3 of Exhibit A? Is that what you're saying? MR. HENZY: Of what I -- what I'm understanding is now you've admitted this as Exhibit A. THE COURT: That is correct. MR. HENZY: Okay. And just to be clear, I do object to that, Your Honor. I understand you're overruling my objection, but the -- on page 3, definition 2 -- I might -- I might be getting this wrong, Your Honor -- again, I have not -- I understand Your Honor. I'm not telling you that I don't have a responsibility to have gone through things, but there is a lot that was put on in connection with this this morning. But the definition of interest is very, very broadly defined there. The term interest means any direct, indirect interest, whether partial, whole or potential, et cetera. So it's a very, very broad definition of interest. Again, if I go to response interrogatory number one, where, among other things, there's a little box that says admission of ownership -- and I don't, Your Honor, where that came from. I don't -- I don't know if that was part of what was filed with the New York State Court. I'm going to doubt it, as opposed to this is somehow Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 242 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 243 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 26 constructive for your purposes or someone else's purposes. I don't know. I just wasn't -- I did -- I don't know the answer to that. That -- I think that should not be before Your Honor.\n\n But his answer is I am the legal owner of the issued shares of Genever Holdings Corporation. And if you go back to definition of interest -- again, it's a very, very broad definition, it makes the distinction between legal and equitable.\n\n And if I jump to response interrogatory number 5, on page 9, again, I am the legal owner of the issued shares of Genever Holdings Corporation. That statement is consistent with the statements that Mr. Kwok made in the declaration he filed in this case and also consistent with the global notes to the statement of financial affairs that he filed in this case. That is, that he is the legal owner of the issued shares of Genever Holdings Corporation, which will be referred to as Genever BVI.\n\n And what he's said there -- in the declaration filed in this case and in the global notes filed in this case -- is that he holds those shares, he holds legal title to those shares as trustee under a trust. And the beneficiary of that trust is Bravo Luck.\n\n So I -- we can debate -- and I know Mr. Sarnoff really wants to debate -- about what this says. But my\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 244 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 27 point is I'm -- I am not able to put on evidence, Your Honor, to explain this and to explain what's in the declaration and to explain what's in the global notes. And that's not -- that's fundamentally unfair. This was not scheduled to have an evidentiary trial. I have -- this is not even -- what the relief sought here -- as I pointed out in my objection, Your Honor, it is not even relief that's sought in the motion that was actually filed. This is -- this is new relief. And we're now having, as I understand it, a trial on almost no notice on new relief where I have absolutely no ability to meet the claim that is now being made. And that is -- again, I think that's fundamentally unfair and I absolutely object to it. MR. SARNOFF: Judge Manning, this is Stuart Sarnoff. May I be very, very briefly heard, because I might be able to help the Court on an issue relating to this? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. SARNOFF: So I -- Judge Manning, I've been the lead counsel for PAX in the state court litigation. I filed the complaint on its behalf. All I want to do, Your Honor, is to point out that PAX filed and won a turnover motion with respect to Genever BVI shares as a post judgment enforcement action. And I would just raise that never proffered before\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 245 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
28 |\n| 1 | the Court was the alleged deed of trust.
But in any event, |\n| 2 | the judge -- on September 22nd, 2021, Judge Ostrager, |\n| 3 | Justice Ostrager, in his ruling on the record, and then |\n| 4 | confirmed in an order dated that day, ordered the turnover |\n| 5 | to PAX of Mr. Kwok's Genever BVI share ownership because he |\n| 6 | said, quote, on page 16 of the September 22nd, 2021 |\n| 7 | transcript, \"Mr. Kwok identified his ownership interest in |\n| 8 | Genever Holdings BVI as his only asset worth more than |\n| 9 | \\$10,000 in response to PAX's post-judgment interrogatories,\" |\n| 10 | which is the document at number 756 in this case at page 9. |\n| 11 | The ownership shares -- and then he goes on to say the |\n| 12 | ownership -- so he's admitted that this is his one asset. |\n| 13 | And because PAX has a judgment of 130-something |\n| 14 | million dollars at that time, \\$126,000 million, they're |\n| 15 | entitled to get turnover. |\n| 16 | We had to bring a subsequent contempt motion which |\n| 17 | was pending when Mr. Kwok filed for bankruptcy because of |\n| 18 | course Mr. Kwok didn't do what he was supposed to do, vis-a |\n| 19 | vis, the turning over. |\n| 20 | But there is -- you know, there's a judicial |\n| 21 | ruling that the shares belong to Mr. Kwok for purposes of |\n| 22 | being able to turn them over or for, in this case, for Mr. |\n| 23 | Despins to step into those shoes to have that same bundle of |\n| 24 | rights. |\n| 25 | And I would also note, Your Honor, that Mr. Kwok |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 246 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 29 did not appeal that ruling. You know, it should be collaterally estopped. You know, whatever it is. This has been litigated whether or not the shares are sufficiently his for purposes of turnover or for Mr. Despins to step into his shoes. And in a ruling on September 22nd, 2021 -- MR. HENZY: Your Honor. MR. SARNOFF: -- Justice Ostrager ruled on that. MR. HENZY: I want to be clear. Is Mr. -- are you taking this as Mr. Sarnoff's testimony? Because if you are, I would like him to be sworn. THE COURT: I'm not taking it as Mr. Sarnoff's testimony, Attorney Henzy. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Despins? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may very briefly? You are not -- we're not asking you today to find that the trust agreement isn't valid or doesn't exist. We added -- in what we filed today at 681, docket 681, we added a safety valve. So I thought that Mr. Henzy would jump at that. But basically it says the Court is not finding -- making any findings regarding the validity or invalidity of the trust agreement. Any challenges to the trust agreement are preserved.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 247 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 30 However, what cannot be controverted is that he's the legal owner of these shares and now we are entitled to get those shares.\n\n And the issue of the validity of that trust -- by the way, we have craved out over it -- you know, that trust, the allegation that there's a trust was never raised in state court for four years, so that gives you a sense of how -- you know, that's let not editorialize over that.\n\n But the point is that there's a safety valve in the order and, therefore, the order should enter. And then Mr. Henzy also complained about the lack of notice in these documents.\n\n Your Honor, on August 1st, you may remember -- I don't know if you saw this, but I offered Mr. Henzy more documents. These were these documents and he threw them to the floor. A little temper tantrum there. I don't know if you saw that.\n\n But the point is that if he hadn't done that he would have all these exhibits, that these were the exhibits I was giving him at the time, which are, as you said, are exhibits, for example, in the Genever Chapter 11 case, which nobody can dispute.\n\n And those are to the effect that Mr. Kwok is exercising, and I've exercised, all corporate governance rights with respect to Genever Holdings, Genever USA, and --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 248 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 31 And so regardless of the trust agreement, there's never a -- in all these signature pages, you never see a countersign or approved by Bravo Luck or anything like that. It's Mr. Kwok signing. And so, therefore, that tells you that these are the rights we should have. And those include the rights to direct the Chapter 11 case of Genever Holdings subject to the jurisdiction of Judge Garrity. And there's also a safety valve in the order that says you're not ordering me or allowing me to do anything in that case without his approval. So that's all covered. But I think it's important to stick to the facts here. And it's a limited relief. And it's basically getting the shares in my name so I can exercise all the corporate governance rights of that entity. Thank you, Your Honor. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, just so I could be clear, I assume that that was -- you're not taking Mr. Despins' statements as testimony either? THE COURT: I'm not taking anyone's statements, including yours, as testimony either. MR. HENZY: Oh, I know you're not taking or I think I know you're not taking mine. Your Honor, I probably did have a little, very brief temper tantrum on Monday.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 249 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 32 But this is a trial by ambush, Your Honor, and I think the rules do need -- there does need to rules. There needs to be order in proceedings. And I don't -- I don't think that that is happening here. I've tried -- I don't know if Your Honor has more questions of me. I would like to make further points, again, just to make my record, you know. I believe there is a dispute. I understand that Mr. Despins doubts it. I understand that Mr. Despins and Mr. Sarnoff have formed a version of facts to, you know, to the Court that, again, I'm not in a position to rebut. I don't have a witness here. I don't -- I didn't know this was going to be a trial. I will point out, Your Honor, that this dispute is the subject of a settlement agreement in the Genever U.S. case that was approved by Judge Garrity, that as I understand it contemplates that this ownership issue is to be litigated in the BVI. Again, that is my -- THE COURT: So do you -- so you're asking for your exhibits then to become part of the record as well in evidence because now you're relying on exhibits that you attached to your objection to make the statement that you just made? MR. HENZY: You know, Your Honor, I am relying on that --\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 33 THE COURT: Okay. Then they'll be admitted into evidence as well. MR. HENZY: -- to try to make an argument, to try to respond. THE COURT: Okay. Well, then your exhibits are admitted into evidence as well. (Exhibits attached to Debtor's objection to Trustee's motion for an order received into evidence.) I mean, what else do you -- why else would you have filed an exhibit -- and the same reason that Mr. Despins did -- so the Court could review them in connection with your positions? MR. HENZY: In connection with -- THE COURT: And so to argue that this is now an evidentiary hearing and that you're being -- you're not given fair opportunity -- but you want to make your argument based upon the exhibits that you attached to your motion, your reply. So I think you need to be a little bit more -- we need to be -- treat this the same on both sides of these -- of the equation. You can't argue that Mr. Despins is now making this an evidentiary hearing because he's submitted exhibits and attached to his reply, but you can persuade the Court with regard to the exhibits you've attached to your -- to Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 250 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 34 your objection and that's -- that's not part of an evidentiary hearing. Well, of course it is. It's either -- it's all in evidence or it's not, Mr. Henzy. It's part of the record of this case. You made it part of the record when you submitted your objection with those exhibits. That's the record of this case, ss are the exhibits that Mr. Despins submitted. Then you made the argument, well, they're not in evidence. Well, I don't agree with you because they're part of the record of the case. But we'll just put them all in evidence. So there's no -- MR. HENZY: Well, Your -- THE COURT: -- there's nothing unfair about that, Mr. Henzy. That's how it works. MR. HENZY: Oh, I think there is something unfair about it, Your Honor, but I understand your ruling. THE COURT: I know you do. MR. HENZY: I understand -- THE COURT: But you haven't been able to articulate or point to any case law or statute that supports your argument. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, you're taking evidence. And I understand I attached a document to my memo. Okay. And that's for the purposes of argument. I was not Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 251 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 252 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 35 contemplating anything was going to be admitted into evidence. You're taking evidence. You're holding a trial right now as I understand it. THE COURT: No, I'm not holding a trial, Mr. Henzy. You're the one that said that Mr. Despins couldn't argue about the exhibits attached to his reply because they weren't in evidence. And I said to you, okay, well, then let's put them in evidence because they are part -- MR. HENZY: And I -- THE COURT: -- of the record of this case. And then you just said -- you just said -- you weren't relying on those exhibits to make findings but, yes, you are. You exactly just said the settlement agreement that's been approved by Judge Garrity is what controls Genever Holdings. And so it's either part of the record or it's not. If you're -- then nothing you've said -- you don't have any -- anything to support your argument because you don't want it to be part of the record. So fine. If you don't want it to be part of the record, that's fine. And if you don't -- but you already made it part of the record because you submitted it with your pleading. MR. HENZY: I'm not going to dispute, Your Honor, that you can take judicial notice for what it's worth of a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 253 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
36 |\n| 1 | document that's been filed in the Genever bankruptcy case. |\n| 2 | I'm not going to -- I'm not going to dispute that. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
But you have to do that under the |\n| 4 | federal rules of evidence, Attorney Henzy.
I don't just say |\n| 5 | I take judicial notice.
I have to do that under the -- the |\n| 6 | applicable rule of evidence regarding judicial notice.
So |\n| 7 | it's evidence, as is the documents you've submitted with |\n| 8 | regard to the settlement agreement. |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY:
Yeah.
I understand, Your Honor.
I |\n| 10 | understand your ruling. |\n| 11 | But there is a dispute, Your Honor, as to the |\n| 12 | ownership.
Now, Mr. Despins did file -- and that dispute I |\n| 13 | believe under applicable law has to be resolved by an |\n| 14 | adversary proceeding.
And I've cited lots and lots of cases |\n| 15 | that say that. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Mr. Henzy, let me stop you right there |\n| 17 | on the adversary proceeding issue. |\n| 18 | I think you have a problem with the language in |\n| 19 | 7004 -- 7001(a) that you didn't -- you stopped the sentence. |\n| 20 | I mean, I looked back at it three times this morning because |\n| 21 | I thought that you were -- that was not an accurate |\n| 22 | statement.
And it says -- (a)(1) says a proceeding to |\n| 23 | recover money or property other than a proceeding to compel |\n| 24 | the debtor to deliver property to the trustee. |\n| 25 | How do you -- do you not see that language?
How |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 254 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 37 do you interpret that language in any other way that that still requires Trustee Despins to file an adversary proceeding? How do -- I don't understand that. MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, just as with the cases that -- Judge Trancredi case that I cited that dealt with a 363 motion, I don't -- I understand he can file a motion for turnover but, Your Honor, he hasn't filed a motion for turnover. THE COURT: He doesn't have to. Your client is obligated to cooperate with him under the debtor's duties when he voluntarily came to this court and sought this court's protection. And then -- and to say that your client's being ambushed, this issue of the trustee has been pending since the middle of February. The trustee was appointed on July 8th. It's August 4th. And your client hasn't cooperated with the trustee. I mean, you can continue to make the argument, but your argument is not persuasive. MR. HENZY: May I speak, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: I don't agree that Mr. Kwok has not cooperated with the trustee. So that's one. I understand this case was filed in February. The trustee was not appointed until July 8th, Your Honor. I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 255 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 38 understand a trustee was appointed. I have tried to familiarize myself with as much of the record in this case as I could. I don't understand that Your Honor has ever made findings regarding the debtor's lack of cooperation, regarding the debtor being a bad person. My understanding of your ruling granting the motion was really -- that it was focused on best interest of creditors. You said that there may be assets -- just a centralized form. So really the best interest of creditors type of matters. I've read your decision and I don't see anything regarding misconduct. I believe that Mr. Kwok's consent that there was cause was based on best interest of creditors. There was no admission by him as to malfeasance or any kind of bad conduct. So in the -- I guess it's three or four weeks since Mr. Despins -- and I'll say, Your Honor, I don't -- I don't believe that because a person files Chapter 11 that they then waive any and all of their rights if and when a trustee is appointed. THE COURT: Okay. But you didn't answer my question, Mr. Henzy, about 7001(a) and how you could interpret it in any way other than the language in the rule? MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, 542 -- 7001(a)(1) --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 256 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 39 I'm sorry -- 7001(1) applies -- I recognize it applies to a proceeding to compel the debtor to deliver property to the trustee. But where -- I think that is with respect to property where there's no dispute that the property is property of the estate. And here there is a dispute. It's the same as with the 363 motion, Your Honor. The courts have held, including Judge Tancredi, that you can't grant a 363 motion until you've decided whether the property that's sought to be sold is property of the bankruptcy estate. And that requires an adversary proceeding. THE COURT: We're not selling property at this time. Number one. And number two, it is being sold subject to the New York Bankruptcy Court's order selling the property. So that's already been done, number one. And then your client admits that it is his asset in some way, shape or form, Mr. Henzy. I don't have to find whether he -- it's a legal interest, an equitable interest, a beneficial interest. I don't have to find any of that. Your client has already admitted it, that it's his asset. So I don't -- so I don't -- you still haven't answered the question of how 7001(a) requires Mr. Despins to bring an adversary proceeding. MR. HENZY: Well, Your Honor, I think there is no\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 40 7001(a). It's 7001(1), which does provide -- THE COURT: Okay. Sorry, 7001(1). MR. HENZY: -- a carve -- it carves out -- THE COURT: Sorry. MR. HENZY: -- it carves out turnover. But, again, that's for property of the estate. There has to be a determination that that, in fact, is property of the estate. And that -- THE COURT: Your client has already said it is property of the estate in the declaration. Even if he says he's holding it in trust, he still owns the shares. He says that in the declaration 107 that we talked about the other day. So he's already said that. MR. HENZY: What he said is that he has -- he has legal title as -- THE COURT: Okay. And guess what, as you know, the definition of property of the estate includes all interests, legal, beneficial, equitable, that you have in any property that you have. And so he has. MR. HENZY: But, Your -- THE COURT: It's property of the estate. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, Mr. Despins filed the -- the third revised proposed order, I think, nine -- or nine and a half minutes before the hearing. I did not have a chance to look at it. If there are appropriate protections Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 257 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 258 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 41 in there, then it may well be that the debtor won't object to the entry of that order, but I would like an opportunity, and not in the middle of this hearing, to review that order. THE COURT: Okay. Would you like to take a recess for an hour and you can go read the order? I mean, that's fine if that's what you'd like to do. But Mr. Despins just explained how he did put in safeguards in that order. MR. HENZY: I don't know what safeguards he put in and I don't know if they're sufficient. The issue, Your Honor, the problem, is that what Mr. Despins put in front of you would appear to be a -- require a transfer of the shares in full. Okay. That's the way I understood it. Okay. Where he said these shares get transferred to him solely in his capacity as Chapter 11 trustee. Well, if Mr. Kwok is the mere legal owner, as trustee, and these are now being transferred to Mr. Despins, I think Mr. Despins is becoming the trustee of that trust. If there's a valid -- if there's a valid trust, there has to be a trustee. And if Mr. Despins is now the legal owner of the shares, I think he's owning them as trustee of that trust. So, again, if we're all clear that that is the case, then maybe we don't have a problem. I'm not sure Mr. Despins really wants to be a\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 42 trustee of that trust with all that that might bring in terms of duties to the beneficiary of the trust, but you can't have it both ways. As Your Honor has said multiple times, you take the debtor as -- in this case -- he comes. And the argument is that with respect to this asset the way he came was as the legal owner, as trustee of a trust, for the benefit of a third party. So if -- if the -- all that he has is that legal ownership interest as trustee is what's being transferred, and it's being transferred to Mr. Despins as trustee of that trust, then maybe that's okay. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. MR. DESPINS: That argument is preserved. We're not asking you to go all the way and find that the trust is not valid. We're preserving that issue for another date. But he cannot have an advisory opinion saying that a trust is valid. As you pointed out in the interrogatories, it's not question whether they've been filed or not in New York State. They're signed under penalty of perjury by Mr. Kwok. And he never mentioned the trust, the trust that existed five years or four years before. So that's the state of the law. That's how we Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 259 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 43 take our debtor. The debtor said nothing about that trust. And I'm -- I think we're being kind. We're preserving their argument that there's a trust for a later date, meaning it would be unfair to ask you to rule that the trust is not valid. We have serious issues about it, but that's for another day. That's what the order provides. It leaves that issue open for another day. THE COURT: All right. So, Mr. Henzy, did you -- MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, it's Stuart Sarnoff. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on one second. MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, I was just going -- THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Sarnoff. Go ahead. MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, I was merely going to point out that the Court's decision and -- decision and order on motion with respect to PAX's motion for turnover, not the transcript, but the written decision and order, was filed. We filed it in this court's docket on March 1st, 2022 as I believe docket number 57-2. If I have my -- forgive me if my information is incorrect. We were scrambling. But I think that's the correct information. It's a Supreme Court in the State of New York decision and order, and that would be the court's -- Justice Ostrager's ruling on our motion for a turnover. The Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 260 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 44 predicate of which was it was his asset that he needed to turn over to PAX. THE COURT: You think it's at ECF what? What page? 57 at what page? MR. SARNOFF: Dash 2, Your Honor. THE COURT: It's just taking a minute to open. I'm trying to see. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, with your permission, could we show on the Zoom -- I don't know -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- my colleague -- put up the -- THE COURT: Yes, we can. What would you like to show? MR. DESPINS: Show the paragraph that we've added to the order so Mr. -- so they can see that. It's a very short paragraph. THE COURT: So we need to pull up ECF 681. And you want to go to the black lined version or the plain version? MR. DESPINS: My colleague -- my colleague, Mr. Bongartz, can tell us exactly where we have to go. MR. BONGARTZ: It's page 35 at 40. THE COURT: Okay. We'll just need a minute, and the clerk will pull it up so we can all read it. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 261 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 45 (Pause) MR. BONGARTZ: And, Your Honor, while he's doing that, I do have a page reference. I guess -- I guess 57-2 is an exhibit. I believe it's page 131 of the exhibit, 1-3- 1 of the exhibit. Sorry. THE COURT: Thank you. (Pause) THE COURT: We're just waiting on 681, right, to be pulled up? And go to page 35 of 40 on that, please. I'm looking at a hard copy of it, but I can -- I'm sure we can pull it up in a second. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. (Pause) THE COURT: If you're having difficulty, I can share my screen and show it. Right? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: Is there a -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: She is having a problem there. Yes, she's having a problem. THE COURT: All right. So then you need me to -- you need to let me share then. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. You can share. THE COURT: Okay. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: You have ability. (Pause) Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 262 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 46 THE COURT: Is it showing? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: I can't see because I can't know that I'm sharing. All right. So this is the paragraph, Mr. Despins, paragraph 9? MR. DESPINS: Yes. Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. Can everyone see that? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. Everyone can at least view that? Attorney Henzy, do you see that? I'm not suggesting that you can't have a recess to look at the whole order. I'm just asking do you see paragraph 9? MR. HENZY: I see it, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So, Attorney Henzy, are you -- are you asking the Court for a recess so that you can review this matter, or what are you asking the Court to do at this point? MR. HENZY: I don't think I was asking the Court to do anything, Your Honor. If the Court would like, I'm happy to take a recess and review this carefully. I don't know if it will take an hour. I don't know if it will require discussions with Mr. Despins or anyone else. I will though -- I want to be clear, Your Honor, Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 263 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 264 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 47 that I am pressing my objection that this was not in the motion that was filed. And under Rule 9013 and relevant case law, I think it's not properly before the Court. So principally my argument is that you should not rule on this and that you should tell Mr. Despins to file a motion so that this can be done in an orderly way, as opposed to this was first filed and raised at 10:09 on Sunday night, Your Honor. Okay. So, again, this is -- this is not fair. There's not sufficient notice. His support for the relief he's seeking is not stated with particularity anywhere. Certainly it's not in the motion. And I don't think it's -- the revised proposed order that he has, it does not speak for itself. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, we filed a very broad motion seeking all corporate governance rights and we mention BVI specifically. Mr. Henzy responded saying BVI, it's too late. There's no -- you can't just -- you can't give an open-ended order like that with respect to BVI. We responded by saying, okay, we'll be very precise. That's exactly what we need from BVI. That's subsumed in the relief sought. So I don't understand the -- but he got it Sunday. The relief, again, this is very simple. There's a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 265 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
48 |\n| 1 | car, we need the key.
If we're to get the keys to Genever, |\n| 2 | we need the debtor to sign all these documents so that the |\n| 3 | transfer is processed.
That's very consistent with the |\n| 4 | motion.
It didn't have to be more specific than that, but |\n| 5 | now it's very, very specific and it's been very specific |\n| 6 | since Sunday. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
I disagree, Your Honor.
I think it's |\n| 8 | not -- it was not -- the relief that's sought now was not |\n| 9 | part of the motion that was -- that was produced and filed. |\n| 10 | So I'm going to -- I'm going to press that objection. |\n| 11 | Again, if the Court or the parties think it makes |\n| 12 | sense for us to take an hour recess so I can look at the |\n| 13 | order and potentially talk to my client at least, I'm happy |\n| 14 | to do that. |\n| 15 | But I don't -- I don't want there to be a surprise |\n| 16 | if I come back and I say something like irrespective of |\n| 17 | what's in this order I'm objecting to the relief being |\n| 18 | entered. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Does anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, this doesn't need to |\n| 21 | happen this way.
But the status in the Genever U.S. case is |\n| 22 | the property is being sold under the supervision of Melanie |\n| 23 | Cyganowski.
As I understand it the debtor there has |\n| 24 | essentially handed control of that process over to Melanie |\n| 25 | Cyganowski. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 266 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 49 As I understand it, I don't think the debtor can do anything to impede that process. So nothing here is going anywhere. There's going to be a sale process. The sale proceeds I believe will be property of that bankruptcy estate and I believe won't be distributed except pursuant to court order, a court order entered by Judge Garrity. So there's no -- I don't think there's any rush here. And, again, as with the discovery, the U.K. discovery issue, Your Honor, if it's done the right way, this might be a lot easier. I don't think -- I don't think I'm creating the agita here. I think the trustee is creating the agita by the way that he's choosing to do this, which is really just to try to push them through on essentially no notice. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the reason for the emergency is that we need to appear in the Genever case for reasons I explained about of last year. There are time- sensitive issues. We need to resolve them as soon as possible. And I don't want to go to that court and have someone like Bravo Luck say, well, he doesn't have the right to be here because he doesn't hold the shares. I don't want to be in that position, Your Honor. That's why we're doing this now.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 267 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 50 Thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman. If I may be heard for just a moment? We strongly agree with that. There's a plan on file in that case which PAX has objected to. But, you know, it has all sorts of provisions that we think unfairly favor certain parties that are aligned with Mr. Kwok. And obviously the debtor as a -- we don't think he's actually acted as a fiduciary in the context of that plan proposal and we believe that it would be much more appropriate to have Mr. Despins in whatever capacity dealing with the debtor in an even handed manner that benefits Mr. Kwok's legitimate creditors and so there actually is time sensitivity. I think there's a disclosure statement here -- and at least currently scheduled for August 16th. And the shape of the river of that case could be substantially changed if Mr. Despins' ability to participate in that case is made clear. THE COURT: Right. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, Irve Goldman for the committee. May I be heard briefly? THE COURT: Yes. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, I think a distinction has to be drawn between the equitable ownership of share\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 268 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 51 interests and the legal ownership of share interests which carry with it corporate governance rights. And I think it's unquestionable that the debtor has acknowledged he's the legal owner of the shares and he has exercised that legal ownership to control the administration of the Genever USA Chapter 11 case. So that is the subject of the motion. And the trustee has acknowledged by paragraph 9 of the order that the equitable interest by virtue of the trust agreement cannot be determined at this point. So I'm not sure what the argument is about. Secondly, even under the case law that Attorney Henzy cited regarding Rule 9013 and the need to be particular about the relief granted, this is simply incidental to the principal form of the relief that was sought in the first instance. It just got more -- the relief got more particular at the request of the debtor. So we support completely what the trustee has presented in the form of the proposed order. I just want to go back for a minute to the proposed letter to Attorney Morrissey before we break. And these are -- these comments are really pro estate comments. I think that the way the letter is drafted, the revised letter, could suggest that the attorney/client privilege belongs to the debtor. It does not.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 269 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 52 I agree fully with the trustee that the trustee holds the debtor's attorney/client privilege particularly when it relates to a matter that seeks to augment the estate. Now, this letter states that -- in part the black lined version states -- and to take instructions from him, meaning the trustee, in relation to my claim in the UBS litigation regardless of any attorney/client privilege, work product, or other privilege which belongs to me. I would suggest that the word may be inserted, which may belong to me, and then the following sentence. Any waiver of privilege is limited to the provision of this information to the trustee. My consent is limited to giving full access to the trustee and is not a consent by me to allow the trustee to waive the privilege. I don't want that sentence to be taken to mean that we need Mr. Kwok's allowance to the trustee to waive the privilege. The privilege belongs to the trustee in the first instance. So I would suggest if it wouldn't upset the agreement that the trustee reached, or apparent agreement the trustee reached with the U.K. firm that these provisions be massaged somewhat to -- not be taken to concede that it's the trustee that has the privilege. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, may I be heard?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 270 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 53 THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: Thank you. Mr. Goldman can hope, we can all, but I will tell you that that letter I'm aware has gone through several iterations between U.K. counsel and Mr. Despins' firm. And I think the U.K. counsel is taking a pretty careful approach and they're -- they are very concerned about their own professional obligations. In response to something that Mr. Goldman said, the trustee holds the privilege. We're talking about privilege under U.K. law, Your Honor. We're not talking about attorney/client privilege under U.S. law. There's new litigation pending in the U.K. Mr. Goldman may have some expertise on privilege under U.K. law. I'll admit I have none. I'm relying on what U.K. counsel has stated to me. So I don't think it's as simple as this is what the bankruptcy code says when a trustee is appointed vis-a- vis privilege. There's a -- how the privilege works in the U.K. is how it works in the U.K. So I don't think -- I don't know that anybody on this hearing can with any authority speak on that, on how the privilege works in the U.K. So I think -- I think it's dangerous to -- to be -- I'm trying to wordsmith -- when we frankly don't know\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 271 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 54 that we really know we're talking about. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? I totally feel Mr. Goldman's pain. I feel the same pain. He is correct. Except that here, you know, this is -- I think this could turn out to be a fool's errand, meaning that they could play a game where the letter is sent and they say, oh, we're not going to share anything with you because he hasn't waived the privilege or anything like that. Of course, we'll be back to Your Honor. The important thing is Your Honor or the trustee are not taking the position. The letter is being sent by or is supposed to be sent by Mr. Kwok to counsel and that's his letter. We're not -- the trustee is not taking the position that that's the correct view under U.S. law. It is my price of admission apparently to see what's behind the curtain. And if it's there's nothing behind the curtain, I'll be back to Your Honor. I hope that I will see what's behind the curtain. And I think the same thing as Your Honor. But because you're directed to send the letter doesn't mean that you agree that I don't have access to the privilege. It's a -- it's a practical solution. And I am -- this will be rare event. I would be aligned with Mr. Henzy on this. I\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 55 would not try to wordsmith the letter today on this if we can. And I am not naive. I know this -- this could be a setup where, in fact, there's nothing behind the curtain and I'll be back before Your Honor. Your Honor is not ruling that the privilege does not belong to me. It's just directing the debtor to send that letter. So I want to be -- So, Mr. Goldman, I understand his point completely, but I would urge the Court not at this stage to play with the language. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, I think with that, with that caveat, you know, I think I would be fine as long as we recognize that no ruling here -- there's no ruling on whether the trustee holds a privilege and -- or whether it's Mr. Kwok. I think there is an issue, given that this is an asset of a bankruptcy estate in the U.S., whether, you know, it's U.S. or U.K. law that governs a privilege -- but we -- I agree with Mr. Despins that it's not necessary to make that determination today. THE COURT: And the motion doesn't ask -- MR. HENZY: I think it's really not necessary because -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 272 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 273 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 56 THE COURT: The motion doesn't ask for -- MR. HENZY: -- as I said -- THE COURT: Hold on a second, Attorney Henzy. And the motion doesn't ask for that determination to be made. So I'm not making that determination. Sorry, Attorney Henzy. Go ahead. MR. HENZY: Well, Your Honor, actually the motion doesn't address the Harcus Parker issue at all in any way, shape or form. We can argue about whether the action on BVI is incidental to the motion that was filed, and I think it wasn't, but I don't think there really is an argument that the Harcus Parker issue is part of that motion. It's just not there, Your Honor. And I'll say again I think that the right way to do this where, you know, it may be that we can get to a productive place, and this -- this is not it. In terms of talking about the contents of the letter, Mr. Kwok is not going to waive, voluntarily waive, attorney-client privilege. He's not going to do it. And as I said I'm not going to compel him to do it. So it may be that if you're going to enter an order we're going to get to -- we're going to get to a contempt, but he's not going to do it. So I don't know how much time we need to spend on\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 274 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 57 the language of that, of that letter. THE COURT: Well, I'm going to take a recess until 3:30. And then we'll come back and see if you've had any discussions. And if not, we'll go from there. MR. HENZY: Right. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Court is in recess until 3:30. (Recess from 2:25 p.m. until 3:31 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: The United States Bankruptcy Court in the District of Connecticut is now in session after recess. We remain on case number 2022-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. We're back after recess. When we took a recess, the parties were going to attempt to talk and look at a proposed order that was filed on the docket today by the Chapter 11 trustee. So, Mr. Despins, where do things stand after a recess? MR. DESPINS: I'll let Mr. Henzy provide more detail because it's really the ball is in his camp. But we -- we did talk about one aspect -- well, we talked about all aspects, but one might be resolved, so maybe Mr. Henzy can address the Court on this. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 275 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 58 Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: Sure. So, Your Honor, with that additional paragraph 9, you know, the Court -- the Court enters an order directing Mr. Kwok to sign these -- the BVI share transfer document and the resolution and the -- the so-called Transfer-In Pack of Harneys Fiduciary, that Mr. Kwok is going to do that. Just for the record, I believe that, you know, the trust agreement itself does prohibit Mr. Kwok from transferring the shares, but he is not doing so voluntarily. He's being forced to by a court. Whatever flows from that flows from that I believe. And whatever other rights any party has as a result of Mr. Despins becoming the -- whatever he's becoming, the legal owner, trustee under a trust, et cetera, whatever he is, flow from that, I just -- the debtor is not, you know, certainly not opining on what may flow from it. And I don't think I want the debtor to be accused of having failed to fully inform people or anything like that. But all that being said, with that paragraph 9, the debtor is not going to object to the entry of that portion of the order. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, just two seconds on this.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 276 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 59 1 The transfer occurred on July 8th when I was appointed. The bankruptcy code made that transfer happen. What we're doing here is we're documenting the transfer. Again, you own the car. The car became the trustee's car, not personally, but in a trustee capacity, and now we're dealing with the registration to make sure it's endorsed and all that. The transfer occurred on July 8th by operation of law. I think that's very important to -- to understand that. But, you know, it is what it is. So we're -- I think we're happy that this aspect of it was resolved. MR. HENZY: And just for the record, I hear Mr. Despins' position. I don't agree with it. But, again, this aspect of it is resolved because Mr. Kwok, upon being ordered to do so, is going to sign these documents. THE COURT: Okay. Then what is left is the issue of the letter to counsel in -- to the firm in London. Is that the remaining issue? MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, just to be clear, I had filed -- after the motion itself was filed, but before the revised proposed order was filed, I filed an objection raising other objections and I have not waived those objections. I know at the last hearing you told me that -- and I can't remember your exact words, you were inclined or you\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 60 had -- to overrule those objections. But I want to be clear that I am not waiving those objections. That I'm pressing those objections. And I'm happy to be -- THE COURT: Well, let's make the record clear then because -- MR. HENZY: I would like to be -- THE COURT: -- I need to know what you're objecting to. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're objecting to the fact that Mr. -- that Mr. Despins didn't file an adversary proceeding to have the property turned over to him? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I think that issue is resolved. THE COURT: Well, I need to know that. When you say you think that issue is resolved, if it's not, I'm going to rule on it, so you need to tell me whether it's resolved. MR. HENZY: Now, Judge, I'm sorry. I think I was being unclear. The argument that this needs to be done by adversary proceeding, that argument has gone away because that related to this share transfer that we just told you is resolved and going to happen. So when I'm referring to my other objections, if dial back to the motion as originally filed -- give me one Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 277 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 61 second, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. HENZY: -- the motion as originally filed, which is document 598 -- THE COURT: ECF 598. Right. And you're saying you still want to preserve your objection that the trustee didn't specifically reference section 521 of the code? MR. HENZY: No. So, Your Honor, on July 29, I filed an objection. It's document number 643. THE COURT: Yes. I understand. MR. HENZY: Okay. Okay. And I raised objections to the relief that was originally sought in the motion that has nothing to do with Harcus Parkus -- I keep saying Harcus Parkus, which sounds terrible -- but Harcus Parker and then the share issue that we resolved. I raised other objections that we haven't talked about at all today. THE COURT: Okay. Well, go ahead then. MR. HENZY: And, again -- THE COURT: I want to know what it is specifically you are still objecting to. MR. HENZY: Okay. And maybe, Your Honor, the -- to try to be -- to try and like to be clear, I am objecting to -- give me one -- I'm sorry, Your Honor. Give me one second. THE COURT: That's fine. Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 278 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 62 (Pause) MR. HENZY: I'm sorry. I'm getting all these orders straight. So in the objection that I filed on July 29, if I -- if I look at the -- the easiest way to organize it might be the order that was filed this afternoon just before the hearing, which is document no. 681. THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. I'm listening. I'm not sure where you're going. I thought we were going to -- MR. HENZY: Okay. I just want -- THE COURT: -- talk about what you're -- MR. HENZY: I want -- Judge, I'm sorry. I just wanted to try to tie back to the objection I filed on July 29. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Okay. It's paragraph 2 -- and this is -- this is -- putting aside -- THE COURT: Paragraph 2 of what, the order or your objection? MR. HENZY: Of the order. THE COURT: Paragraph 2 of ECF 681. MR. HENZY: Correct. THE COURT: You're objecting to what? MR. HENZY: Okay. I'm objecting to paragraph 2, although, again, we've dealt with the BVI issue. Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 279 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 280 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 63 But this, the relief sought here asks for very broad relief with respect to entities that are not specified, the authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager or similar person. So Mr. Despins is seeking this court to give him authority over entities that are not specified without regard to those particular entities, what applicable law, non-bankruptcy law governs those entities and what the organization documents of those entities might provide. I don't think, Your Honor, that this works. I think that this type of authority -- with Mr. Despins, I think he has the authority that he has, and this goes -- and I'm not disputing any particular authority he has with respect to any entities because I don't know what entities we're talking about. But what this provision would do is give him authority that may not be provided for under applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents of particular entities. THE COURT: Can't that just be -- MR. HENZY: And the cases that Mr. -- THE COURT: Can't that just -- can't we just fix that problem by saying that -- you're talking about for the avoidance of doubt language, that sentence? For the avoidance of doubt, that foregoing rights include the trustee's asserted authority. He's asserting he\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 64 has the authority. If he doesn't and he does something wrong, then you can sue him. MR. HENZY: Actually, Your Honor, I mean, I think I put this in my response, which is, if this paragraph had just been made -- made subject to applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents of these entities, then I -- then I would have no objection to this provision. Again, I'm not trying -- I'm not trying to create an issue here. I really am not. But I think that that is the correct statement of law. He has whatever authority he has as trustee, but with respect to any particular entity, it is subject to applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents of that entity. That's all. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if we do, we do. If we don't, we don't. But I don't want to open satellite litigation over these issues with the debtor because that's how the fees are going to be -- you know, going to get out of control in this case. The reason we asked for blanket authority is because we will not exercise that right unless we believe through due diligence we have the power to do it. And if we're doubtful, we'll come back to the Court. But we cannot be in a position where there's a satellite litigation open whether -- what state law provides, what foreign law provides, because that's a -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 281 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 65 that's going to be another case basically. MR. HENZY: Judge, the last thing that Mr. Kwok wants to do is engage in litigation over how these entities are going to be governed. But if Mr. Despins is saying to you he -- after doing his diligence, that he would only do what he has the power to do, then I don't know -- all I want is to say that in this order, but I think that's not what this order says. THE COURT: Well, I think that a -- MR. HENZY: It goes -- it goes beyond that. THE COURT: -- I think my suggestion works. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing rights include the trustee's asserted authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager or similar person of the debtor- control entities. And then the next sentence says as part of the foregoing. So the point is he's asserting he has this authority. He's acting as a trustee. So that's what he's asserting. And that's what I'm going to -- I'm going to add the word assert. And that's all I'm going to change in paragraph 2. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Just to be clear, I'm not -- I am not -- I am pressing my objection to that, that language. THE COURT: Understood. That objection's Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 282 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 283 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 66 overruled. So what's your next objection? MR. HENZY: Okay. Again, I'm trying to simplify here, Your Honor. Is I have no objection on -- to the first decreedal paragraph of paragraph 3. And then now with this resolution on BVI that we had just told you about, to that -- then that -- as you go over to page 3, that little (a), I have no objection to that paragraph. Then that's been resolved. The next paragraph down on that page, paragraph (b), we've discussed that at length, the -- on the U.K. issue, the UK/UBS litigation issue and I maintain my objection on that issue. On paragraph -- THE COURT: Hold on. Just wait a minute. I'm just writing this down. So what else are we going to discuss about (b)? I think the arguments have been made, correct? MR. HENZY: I think the arguments have been made, Your Honor. I don't want to belabor anything. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: But, Your Honor, I just want to add briefly to that the only privilege information we're seeking is with respect to the merits of the affirmative claims of Mr. Kwok against UBS. No other issues.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 284 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 67 So, for example, crazy example, Mr. Kwok, in the context of that representation, said, oh, by the way, I've transferred an interest in a private jet to my daughter. I'm not -- I'm not seeking that. That's not part of the affirmative claim of Mr. Kwok against UBS. So that privilege that the -- that Your Honor is directing him to send a letter about is the privilege regarding that litigation, that affirmative litigation, only. I want to make sure the record is clear about that. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, I'd like to be clear. I understand Mr. Despins' position. I'd like to be clear that I believe Mr. Despins owns whatever -- I assume, again, I don't know U.K. law -- he owns whatever privilege he owns and Mr. Kwok has whatever privilege he has, if any. And Mr. Kwok is -- to the extent he has any privilege, he is not going to waive it. But, again, I think we've made -- I've made the argument that I have to make on that. I think. THE COURT: Okay. The objection to the language in paragraph (b) on page 3 of the proposed order is overruled. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So what's your next objection? MR. HENZY: On paragraph 4, on page 4, Your Honor, that essentially is a blanket authorization to the trustee\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 285 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 68 to act outside of the ordinary course of business with respect to so-called debtor controlled entities. And I object to that. Frankly, I've never heard of or seen that. My understanding of bankruptcy code Section 363 is that when a debtor trustee -- debtor or trustee -- debtor- in-possession or trustee wants to act out of the ordinary course of business, they need to notice a hearing, come and ask for the Court's authority to do that. And this would make it so that there doesn't have to be notice and a hearing. And, again, this is a blanket authority. And I think that is not provided for in the code. I think that is just extraordinary relief and I don't think it's appropriate. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, on that point, it's the same argument as to applicable law. We don't want to be in a position where later it is argued that we acted outside of the ordinary course of business. And the safe valve -- the safety valve, is at the end of paragraph 4 where it says for the avoidance of doubt nothing in this order authorizes the trustee to sell, otherwise dispose of, lease or encumber any equity in debtor controlled entities or other assets of the debtor. So, yes, the language is broad, but then it's completely narrowed at the end to avoid the type of concerns\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 69 that have been raised. The reason we need the opening language is we don't want to be in a position where we're litigating over, well, you know, you terminated or you removed a director, an officer. You shouldn't have done that. That's not -- that's not in the ordinary course of business, and we have all these satellite litigation over whether we acted within -- with or without it. We believe that we should get both reliefs as long as the safety valve is in there which protects the estate, no sale, no lease of property without a court order. Thank you. THE COURT: Does anyone else -- MR. HENZY: I see -- I see the limitation, Your Honor, but I still think -- I don't think there's any such thing as blanket authorization to act out of the ordinary course under 363. MR. DESPINS: That solely to exercise corporate governance rights, Your Honor. Nothing else. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard -- it's Peter Friedman -- for just a moment? The order that was originally proposed did not include that language that Mr. Despins put in and we thought it was extremely important. And, you know, I think had that language not been Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 286 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 287 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
70 |\n| 1 | in there, as creditors, we would have objected.
But we |\n| 2 | found that that addition to be -- to represent I think an |\n| 3 | extremely good faith move by the trustee in balancing the |\n| 4 | economic interests of creditors, which I think has to be |\n| 5 | paramount, with efficiency. |\n| 6 | So we strongly support the inclusion of that |\n| 7 | particular paragraph with the protective language that was |\n| 8 | added at our request. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 10 | Does anyone else wish to be heard on paragraph 4? |\n| 11 | (No audible response) |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm just reading the language |\n| 13 | again. |\n| 14 | (Pause) |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Anything further from anyone on |\n| 16 | paragraph 4? |\n| 17 | (No audible response) |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
While I understand the objection, |\n| 19 | Attorney Henzy, I'm overruling it because I think that the |\n| 20 | language -- it is specific to the economic and governance |\n| 21 | rights with respect to the debtor-controlled entities.
And, |\n| 22 | you know, if litigation ensues about that, then it can |\n| 23 | ensue.
But we're not going to -- it is -- it is qualified |\n| 24 | by the last sentence and I think it's protective enough of |\n| 25 | the debtor. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 71 MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So what is your next objection? MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, great news, I have no objection to paragraph 5. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: On paragraph 6, the -- so paragraph 6 provides debtor shall not interfere with, hinder or delay trustee's exercise of authority on this order. I have no objection to the first sentence of paragraph 6. However, the second sentence would restrict the debtor's ability to seek relief and it would restrict it to seek relief from this court. And I don't -- I don't know that the debtor ever would seek relief. But because particularly for the fact this paragraph 4 and the broad authority that Mr. Despins is being granted there, I don't know what might occur here. I don't know what rights, if any, the debtor would have to do anything. But I don't think the debtor -- to the extent that the debtor otherwise would have a right to seek relief, I don't think it should be restricted by this order. So I would ask that the second sentence of paragraph 6 be struck from the order. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, same issue. The debtor is before this court. He has worldwide assets. From your perspective you have exclusive jurisdiction over that. We Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 288 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
Page 289 of
322 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
72 |\n| 1 | cannot have the debtor running in foreign courts to assert |\n| 2 | claims. |\n| 3 | It may be that he comes, Your Honor, but, you know |\n| 4 | what, there's a real important twist on the U.K. law |\n| 5 | regarding issue XYZ there.
And you might decide, yeah, |\n| 6 | you're right, go for it or something like that.
But |\n| 7 | everything needs to be centralized in this court by this |\n| 8 | debtor.
He cannot have satellite litigation elsewhere.
And |\n| 9 | they have the ability to come to this court for relief.
So |\n| 10 | that's a very important position, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, the way this order is set |\n| 12 | up, Mr. Despins can run to other courts including courts in |\n| 13 | foreign countries. |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct. |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:
So the way that this would now be set |\n| 16 | up is Mr. Despins decides he's going to go to a court in |\n| 17 | this country or a foreign country and the debtor, even |\n| 18 | assuming under the law of that foreign country, the debtor |\n| 19 | has a right to appear and do whatever a debtor is going to |\n| 20 | do. This order says the debtor can't do that. |\n| 21 | And it says the debtor I guess would have to come |\n| 22 | back to you and say to you Mr. Despins is doing this thing |\n| 23 | in a foreign court and I'm in front of you telling you he |\n| 24 | shouldn't be doing it because I've been told I can't go to a |\n| 25 | foreign court to make the argument that under the foreign |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 73 court law I'm entitled to make. And that doesn't -- that does not make any sense to me. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- MR. HENZY: If Mr. Despins is going to have the ability without seeking court authority to go to other courts, then -- again, Your Honor, you said it, you take the debtor as he comes. The debtor should be able to go do whatever the debtor has a right to do under the foreign law. THE COURT: Well, the problem is -- MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- Mr. Despins is the debtor and so he already has the rights. He doesn't need authority from this court to do what he's doing in the actions that are already pending in which the debtor is a party. So your argument, while I understand it to an extent, the problem is what right would Mr. Kwok have to do anything in any of those foreign courts if Mr. Despins has now become Mr. Kwok? MR. HENZY: Well, Mr. Despins is not -- THE COURT: Which you've admitted in your papers that as soon as the filing of -- as soon as the order appointing the trustee was approved, that Mr. Despins became Mr. Kwok. So what possible rights would Mr. Kwok have? MR. HENZY: Well, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Mr. Despins has stepped into all of Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 290 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 291 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 74 those rights. MR. HENZY: I think I agree. I didn't -- I don't think I said Mr. Despins became Mr. Kwok. And I'm going to guess Mr. Despins doesn't want to be Mr. Kwok, but he absolutely is substituted for Mr. Kwok in any pending litigation. But I don't think that the way this order is set up it's not just pending litigation, Mr. Despins can commence new litigation that the debtor might or might not even be a party to. Now, what rights in particular in a foreign jurisdiction Mr. Kwok might have as a debtor out of possession? Your Honor, I don't know. He may or may not have any. He may not have any rights. So I don't know because I don't know what jurisdiction we're talking about. I don't know what entity we're talking about. I don't know what action it is that Mr. Despins would be taking. So I'm perfectly -- look, the way, again, this is set up is Mr. Despins can go do whatever he's going to do, only to the extent that under some applicable foreign law Mr. Kwok would have a right to show up and do something -- and he might not, he might not, Your Honor, he should be able to do that. I don't -- I don't think he should have to come back to this court to find out whether or not he has a right to show up in another court under non-bankruptcy --\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 75 applicable non-bankruptcy law. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard for a moment on this issue? It's Peter Friedman. I think it is really important because I think the issue is, you know, in any premise, Mr. Kwok's going to have to determine if he has standing given the insolvency of his estate. So I think it's actually critical, given that he said he has \\$3,850, that before he goes to another court and be permitted to litigate, that he actually would show that he would have permission to interfere with the trustee's use of debtor property given his economic -- where the economics of this exist. I think that's an issue that really has to be made to determine with reference to U.S. bankruptcy law and his rights. So I actually think what Mr. Despins has proposed is extremely appropriate. It certainly is a prudent measure and one that falls really within core bankruptcy determination as to whether he even has standing to have standing to be heard. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, just to pose a hypothetical. Let's say Mr. Despins goes to a foreign court and in the foreign court seeks to compel Mr. Kwok to do the kind of things that he sought to do with this order. He seeks to Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 292 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 293 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
76 |\n| 1 | compel him to execute a document, let's say a corporate |\n| 2 | document.
Then I don't -- I mean, would anyone say that Mr. |\n| 3 | Kwok wouldn't have standing in that foreign court to tell |\n| 4 | the judge in the foreign court, well, I shouldn't have to |\n| 5 | execute this document for whatever reason. |\n| 6 | And the judge may say, you're wrong, you have to |\n| 7 | execute the document.
The judge is going to say whatever |\n| 8 | the judge is going to say.
But how could Mr. Kwok not have |\n| 9 | the right to show up in that foreign court -- and it's |\n| 10 | before a judge -- before a judge can say to Mr. Kwok I don't |\n| 11 | believe you have standing for whatever reason.
And Mr. |\n| 12 | Despins can tell the judge, the foreign judge, Mr. Kwok |\n| 13 | doesn't have standing. |\n| 14 | So how can Mr. -- in my hypothetical, how can Mr. |\n| 15 | Kwok not have the ability to show up in court and |\n| 16 | potentially defend his rights to the extent that he has any? |\n| 17 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Your Honor, I won't speak for Mr. |\n| 18 | Despins, but I don't understand the order as depriving Mr. |\n| 19 | Kwok of the ability to defend himself if there's a matter in |\n| 20 | a different court. |\n| 21 | But if he's seeking to initiate litigation, I |\n| 22 | think he would certainly have to come to this court. |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:
Well, that's not what the order says. |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
In any event, Your Honor, the point |\n| 25 | is that the Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Mr. Kwok. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 77 He needs to come back to this court. And, in fact, if there are compelling circumstances, yeah we'll authorize him to go to Australia, for example, to defend some action to see that. The point is that he should not be roaming around and having the ability to disrupt what we're doing around the world without coming to Your Honor to say this is what I'm doing. I have some particularized injury that somehow I'm able to assert even though I'm out of possession. Well, that argument should only be made to Your Honor. And then if you find it compelling, you'll send -- you'll authorize him to do whatever he wants abroad. But you cannot have him running around in this. It's just fundamental, Your Honor. MR. HENZY: But, Your Honor, arguably what this order is doing though you are giving up a certain degree of jurisdiction to Mr. Despins, meaning you're telling him that he can act out of the ordinary course of business without coming and asking permission from you. But then what Mr. Despins and Mr. Friedman are essentially arguing is but you -- but you hang on with respect -- let's say to the same matter, you hang on to jurisdiction with respect to the debtor. So Mr. Despins can do whatever he wants to do, but Mr. Kwok can't respond to that. And that seems it should be Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 294 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 295 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 78 one way or the other. If Mr. Despins wants to come back and make a motion to act out of the ordinary course of business and the debtor has to respond to that in bankruptcy court, that's okay. But if he's going to not have to do that, then I think the debtor should be able to show up wherever he's doing things and respond to the extent that he has a right to do so. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the debtor and the trustee are not on equal footing. This concept that somehow because we have the right to do it they should. That's not the way it works. THE COURT: Well, I was going to make that point. The point is Mr. Despins is an independent third party who's been appointed to run the -- administer the estate of Mr. Kwok. It's the -- the language says in the second sentence to the extent the debtor opposes the trustee's exercise of authority, okay, the debtor shall be limited to seeking relief from this court on notice to parties in interest to the extent the debtor can show he has standing to do so. And, unfortunately, given where -- for the debtor -- given what he's stated in all of his filings, and as\n\nwe've talked before, there is no evidence before this court,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 296 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 79 and nothing in the record -- in fact, the only things in the record support that the debtor will have no interest in this estate because there won't be any -- a full payment to creditors in this case. And so there will not be any surplus to which the debtor would have standing to raise such arguments. And if Mr. Despins does something outside of his authority, then the debtor still has the right to make that argument. But he has to make it here in this court subject to this court's authority over this estate. And that's one of the, you know, results of the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. So, again, while I understand your argument, it doesn't foreclose the debtor from opposing the trustee's exercise of authority, but he has to do it in this court. And so I'm going to overrule your objection to paragraph 6. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Just as an aside, just saying, the damage claim in the UBS litigation in the U.K. is \\$500 million. I have no knowledge of the strength -- THE COURT: That claim wasn't listed as an asset of this estate, Mr. Henzy. MR. HENZY: Oh, no, it was. THE COURT: No. It actually wasn't originally.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 297 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 80 MR. HENZY: I believe it was. THE COURT: No. I think it was not. MR. HENZY: Okay. I'll go -- I'll go back and check, but I thought that it was. But in any event, I don't -- I don't think the debtor would dispute at all that to the extent that it wasn't in the schedules, Your Honor, it should have been. And I think the debtor absolutely -- THE COURT: Well, maybe it was. So let me just -- let me go back in the global notes which aren't really notes -- which, again, there's no authority for any debtor, that I'm aware of under the bankruptcy code, under case law, under statute, under local rules, under the federal rules, to file global notes to your -- to your schedules to disavow what you say in your schedules under penalty of perjury. I've never seen or heard of such a thing, but I understand that's now becoming something that people do. But that doesn't -- that doesn't mean that the global notes have any bearing on whether or not Mr. Kwok accurately completed his schedules. All that being said, even if he did list it, it's a \\$500 million claim with two other plaintiffs, correct? MR. HENZY: Yes, but -- THE COURT: So it would be split three ways, correct?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 298 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 81 MR. HENZY: Under -- THE COURT: And the claim of -- the claim of PAX that your client did put in his schedules, actually on a schedule, is -- he listed it as not less than \\$254 million, I believe, maybe it's 53. I haven't looked at it recently. But in any event, the solvency of your debtor, of your client, is still very much at issue in this case. MR. HENZY: I don't -- I don't disagree with that at all, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: I'm just pointing out that you're not -- I have no idea of what the strength or weakness of the claim in the U.K. is and what percentage -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. HENZY: -- if that's so. THE COURT: But he'll have -- he'll have to come back here and explain why he opposes the trustee's exercise of authority. And he'll be heard. MR. HENZY: Okay. Understood. My objection on -- I understood. THE COURT: Maybe. MR. HENZY: That objection's overruled. THE COURT: Depending upon if he has standing, okay, at that point in time. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 299 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
82 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
So that -- so that, I overruled your |\n| 2 | objection to paragraph 6, the language in paragraph 6 we |\n| 3 | just discussed on the record. |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
So what is your next objection? |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
The last objection is on paragraph 7. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
So this asks for an order where -- |\n| 9 | that provides that you request the assistance of foreign |\n| 10 | courts, including the assistance of the BVI court regarding |\n| 11 | any request of the trustee for relief with respect to the |\n| 12 | trustee exercising corporate control over Genever BVI. |\n| 13 | I would -- I'm absolutely not going to tell the |\n| 14 | Court what it ought to be telling other judges, but I just |\n| 15 | -- I think that is very, very broad. |\n| 16 | And the way I read this is it would sort of give |\n| 17 | Mr. Despins this court's impromatur to go in front of |\n| 18 | another judge and say please give this to me -- and Judge |\n| 19 | Manning tells you that you ought to give it to me, even if |\n| 20 | you, Your Honor, don't know that -- what it is that he's |\n| 21 | telling another judge that it is that he wants. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
So, Your Honor, this type of |\n| 24 | language is often used in the foreign, you know, foreign |\n| 25 | representative context. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 300 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
83 |\n| 1 | I'm happy -- obviously, you don't know me and you |\n| 2 | may not be comfortable giving me a blank check and I don't |\n| 3 | think this is a blank check -- but it's really an indication |\n| 4 | to foreign courts that it may not be (indiscernible) as U.S. |\n| 5 | courts that this court is requesting their assistance not to |\n| 6 | do something illegal or inappropriate, but in requesting |\n| 7 | their assistance. |\n| 8 | That's kind of run of the mill language, but I was |\n| 9 | always told never raise section 105 in front of Judge |\n| 10 | Manning, so I'm not going to raise it. |\n| 11 | But it's something along those lines.
So if you |\n| 12 | -- I'm happy with it or without it.
I'd rather have it in, |\n| 13 | but I'm not going to -- I don't want to put you in a |\n| 14 | position where you don't feel 100 percent comfortable with |\n| 15 | that. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, I mean, I think that the section |\n| 17 | in Chapter 15 -- you know, the whole purpose of Congress |\n| 18 | making Chapter 15 part of the code in 2005 was to |\n| 19 | acknowledge, you know, cross border cases and try to have |\n| 20 | cooperation between the foreign courts and foreign |\n| 21 | representatives.
Okay? |\n| 22 | So I think we could -- we could say in furtherance |\n| 23 | of the trustee's exercise of authority of this order, the |\n| 24 | Court respectfully requests the assistance of foreign courts |\n| 25 | with respect to the trustee's exercise of corporate control |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 84 over debtor entities, including Genever BVI. I don't think there's -- MR. DESPINS: Absolutely. Good point. THE COURT: -- any problem with that. I mean. And I think that it -- I mean, I think in the -- there have been cases in this district where an order like that has entered with regard to proceedings in other -- outside of the United States. So I don't -- I think I could change -- Mr. Despins, do you have any problem -- I didn't write down exactly what I just said -- MR. DESPINS: No. THE COURT: -- but would the -- with the change that I described? MR. DESPINS: We'll make that change, Your Honor, if you want. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Or it's up to you. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, just for the record, I am -- if the Court's comfortable with the language, I'm not going to press an objection on that issue. THE COURT: All it's -- MR. HENZY: Again, that -- THE COURT: All it's asking for, and I believe is appropriate, is that because Congress decided to make Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 301 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 302 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
85 |\n| 1 | Chapter 15 a separate and distinct chapter in the code that |\n| 2 | they're trying to recognize the cooperation between courts |\n| 3 | that might be necessary for a case in one jurisdiction to be |\n| 4 | carried out with respect to related proceedings in another |\n| 5 | jurisdiction outside of this country. |\n| 6 | So I don't have a problem with it, with the |\n| 7 | changes as I've just described them. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
We'll make the change, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
Last issue, Your Honor -- and I'm not |\n| 13 | trying to go back and argue the -- |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
I thought it was the -- that was the |\n| 15 | last issue. |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
There's one more.
I'm not -- I'm not |\n| 17 | trying to go back.
On paragraph 3, so back on page 3, this |\n| 18 | is the Harcus Parker letter, what this says is that the |\n| 19 | debtor is directed to deliver no later than two business |\n| 20 | days after the entry of this order.
Well, there's a couple |\n| 21 | of issues with that, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | The copy of the letter and the form attached as to |\n| 23 | Exhibit B to what's in front of you has -- as I understand |\n| 24 | it, that has not been agreed to by Harcus Parker.
So you're |\n| 25 | kind of in some sense -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 303 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 86 THE COURT: I just have a question about that though because Trustee Despins said that this is the letter he got back from them, so how would they not agree to it? MR. DESPINS: It's a letter. What I said is the letter we got back from them with some minor changes that we made. But in the event, I'll deal with that, meaning if they -- if they say -- I think the changes we made are -- and by the way, we did send them earlier today a -- the changes we made, so they've seen them. We haven't heard back from them. But if it's an issue, we'll fix it, meaning, that's not Mr. Kwok's issue, meaning, we have the letter as we submitted it to Your Honor and we'll see what they say. And if it needs to be modified, we'll just file a supplement. It would be very, very -- a very minor change really. MR. HENZY: I guess -- so I'm not clear if -- so he's going to be -- Mr. Kwok's going to be ordered to sign a letter that U.K. counsel may tell us is not acceptable. I don't want to be in a situation where Mr. Despins is negotiating for three days with the U.K. counsel on what a letter might say and this says he has to sign -- THE COURT: So I think what you're saying, Attorney Henzy, is you just don't want the Court to enter the order until you see the final version of the letter. Is\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
Page 304 of
322 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
87 |\n| 1 | that what you're saying? |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
Or at least until there -- yes, until |\n| 3 | there is a final version.
Yes, until there is -- right now, |\n| 4 | as I understand it, there is no final version. |\n| 5 | But then the second point is -- as I said earlier, |\n| 6 | Mr. Kwok is not going to sign this letter.
This provides |\n| 7 | that he must do so within two business days of whenever the |\n| 8 | letter is actually finalized and complete. |\n| 9 | And I just -- you know, I -- we will be filing an |\n| 10 | appeal.
We will seek a stay pending appeal. |\n| 11 | I just -- I don't want Mr. Kwok to be in contempt |\n| 12 | because he has not -- he has not signed this order.
I just |\n| 13 | want -- so I just wanted to alert the Court. |\n| 14 | I would -- I guess I don't know why there's a rush |\n| 15 | of two business days.
I don't know what's going to happen |\n| 16 | in two business days, you know, and why there couldn't be a |\n| 17 | little longer period of time so that Mr. Kwok can get his |\n| 18 | appeal filed and file whatever motion for stay pending |\n| 19 | appeal he's going to file. |\n| 20 | I just don't want to have an unnecessary fire |\n| 21 | drill, Your Honor.
If the order ends up not being stayed |\n| 22 | and he -- and he's not signing it, then whatever |\n| 23 | consequences from that will flow from that. |\n| 24 | But I don't -- I don't know how realistic it is |\n| 25 | going to be that we're going to be able to get in front of |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 88 Your Honor within two business days on a motion for a stay pending appeal. That's all. And, again, I don't -- I would ask that this be a longer period than two days. MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, we -- I understand your concern and I share your concern to be sure that the changes we made were stylistic only. But, you know, given where this is heading, we should have precision. So what we should do is -- I'm just kind of thinking out loud here what's the best way to handle this -- I mean, there will be a letter. There should be a final letter. And maybe the order can provide that we will provide the letter in the final form within X days and the debtor will have Y days to -- to do it. Y number of days to do it. And the letter will be substantially in the form attached. So we can submit an order that will address that issue, that exact issue, Your Honor. And understand that precision -- we shouldn't -- we should be careful about this and have more precision rather than that. I understand your point, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you have any objection to extending the two days to a longer period of time for the debtor? He's not going to sign it, but I guess what he's saying is he wants the -- he's going to be filing an appeal so -- I Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 305 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 306 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 89 don't -- MR. DESPINS: Sure. THE COURT: I don't have an opinion either way. I was just asking you the question. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- and the answer is of course. I mean, whatever you, Your Honor, feels is a better period of time we'll obviously go with that. Generally we want to get the show on the road regarding that claim, but two versus four days is not going to, you know, break the bank. THE COURT: Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: I'd ask for five business days. That I don't -- I don't know when exactly this is all going to happen. I don't know what will be going on in my life. I don't know what will be going on with the Court. I don't -- I don't think a day or two one way or another -- MR. DESPINS: You know, five business days is fine, Your Honor. Thank you. MR. HENZY: I just -- THE COURT: Five days did you say, Mr. Despins? That's fine? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then there you go. You've got five days, Attorney Henzy. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, again, I -- because I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 307 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 90 don't want to have parties, you know, pointing at me or pointing at Mr. Kwok, I think this is going to be a mess, okay, in terms of getting this letter done. The Harcus Parker lawyer told me that a prerequisite to her ever agreeing to do anything is that any waiver by Mr. Kwok would have to be voluntary. And this is not going to be voluntary. I'm not telling her what position she should take based on that. Mr. Kwok is not communicating with her. So I don't -- what her response to Mr. Kwok being ordered over the objection to sending this letter, I, you know, that's not my -- that's not my thing. That's not Mr. Kwok's thing. The U.K. lawyer is going to react however -- they going to react however they react. Okay? MR. DESPINS: I understand that, Your Honor. And the point is that there's a certain limit to what we're going to allow these folks to dictate. If they get a letter from someone regardless of whether a court orders them to do it or not -- and by the way, this is moot because he's saying he's not going to sign the letter. So, you know, we're arguing -- we're -- THE COURT: Right. He's not going to sign it anyway. Right. MR. HENZY: Well, but the -- there just may never be a letter. That's all. I mean, at some point, I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 308 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 91 understand -- THE COURT: Oh, no. I think there'll be a letter. The point is your client's already stating he's not going to sign it. He's not. He's already stating through you that he's not going to comply with this court order. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor -- THE COURT: And it hasn't even entered yet, but he's not going to comply with it. MR. HENZY: He's not going to voluntarily waive his privilege, Your Honor, to the extent he has any. But I think -- the point I'm trying to make is a letter, I understand Mr. Despins at some point is going to put a letter in front of you and that letter may not be agreed to by the Harcus Parker firm. That's all. Because the Harcus Parker -- THE COURT: He's not going to put a letter in front of me that's not agreed to by that firm. They're the ones that have prepared it. MR. HENZY: No, they haven't. THE COURT: They're the ones who have made the final comments to it. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I don't know what they're going to do. If they understand that the debtor is not voluntarily waiving, they make take the position we're not -- we're just not doing it. Okay. I don't know that, Your\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 92 Honor. THE COURT: Well, then, Mr. Despins will have to deal with that. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: If he doesn't have a letter, then there isn't any five days to worry about. If he doesn't get a letter from them, then you -- there's nothing -- then your client won't be in violation of a court order because there wouldn't be a letter -- MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: -- for him to have to sign to deliver to them. MR. DESPINS: No. Actually, Your Honor, I think -- at one point we will need a letter from the debtor, because otherwise these lawyers would just keep us in limbo. What's going to happen is that if the debtor refuses to sign the letter, we'll have a court order. We'll go to U.K. court. It will cost a lot of money and all that, but we'll go to the U.K. courts and seek relief from the U.K. courts against these lawyers who are refusing to give us access even if there's a letter from the debtor that says you need to give them access. But, again, I -- you know, we're arguing over a letter that the debtor says we'll never -- they will never sign anyway, so, you know, I think that's -- let's get to Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 309 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 93 that point first. MR. HENZY: I'm comfortable with the Court saying if there's no -- if there's no letter the firm is agreeing to there's nothing for the debtor to do. MR. DESPINS: No. Your Honor, because that's giving -- that's -- THE COURT: Well, that's not what I said. I said then the five days doesn't matter. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: If there's no letter, than the five days doesn't matter. That's what I said. You asked for more time. MR. HENZY: Yeah. Yeah. THE COURT: He's agreed to more time. Then you've now said, what you've also said on many times during the -- during this day that your client's not going to sign the letter. MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: So I said if he's not going to sign the letter, then he's going to be in violation of the court order. MR. HENZY: I'm positing a situation where there is not a letter that the firm in the U.K. has agreed to. That's all. MR. DESPINS: And the firm in the U.K. cannot be Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 310 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 94 the ultimate arbiter of what happens in this case. We've given them a lot of leeway. And Your Honor is not going to give a U.K. lawyer control over privilege in this case. So we're willing to work with them. And we're doing that. But, you know, Mr. Henzy cannot use their ability to derail the process as a defense for him, his client, not signing the letter. MR. HENZY: I'm not using anything to derail the process here, Your Honor. Your Honor, if you -- I understand that if there is a letter and you order -- whether the U.K. firm has agreed to the letter or not, and you order Mr. Kwok to sign that letter that his five days will start to run. I understand that. MR. DESPINS: That's all I'm asking. And, Your Honor, we would propose to revise the order to deal with the letter and all that. So we will do that if Your Honor will authorize us because we need to fix the order. You suggested better language elsewhere so we need to do that and we will do that with your permission. THE COURT: Yes. You have my permission to do that. And do you think you will get that order to the Court tomorrow? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 311 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 312 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
95 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Or Monday? |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
From our point of view, yes.
We |\n| 3 | will do our best to do that, yes. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Or Monday. |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
Can I have some time -- I would like |\n| 6 | some time just to review the order, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Well, we've just gone through what the |\n| 10 | order is going to say.
We've gone through every paragraph |\n| 11 | including every one of your objections, which were |\n| 12 | overruled.
I've stated all the rulings on the record. |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:
I would like to just put eyes on the |\n| 14 | order, Your Honor, just -- I'm not -- I completely trust Mr. |\n| 15 | Despins, that he's going to accurately make the changes that |\n| 16 | we talked about, but I just am in the practice of wanting to |\n| 17 | see the final order.
That's all.
I'm not saying I'm going |\n| 18 | to object to it or anything like that. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
But then if you disagree, we're going |\n| 20 | to have another hearing.
That's what -- that's what you're |\n| 21 | trying -- that's what you're saying.
You're saying you -- |\n| 22 | if something -- if something doesn't comport with what you |\n| 23 | think it is, then we're going to have another hearing. |\n| 24 | That's what you're saying. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
Yes.
But that's all because -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 313 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
96 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Well, I'm not going to have another |\n| 2 | hearing.
I've ruled.
I've ruled what the order's -- what |\n| 3 | the order needs to say.
We've gone through it. |\n| 4 | You just spent the time.
You said to me -- this |\n| 5 | is what you said -- I asked you what your objections were to |\n| 6 | the relief.
And I went back and I started with so you're |\n| 7 | objecting about the fact that Mr. Despins didn't cite to |\n| 8 | 521.
And you said, no, no.
Let's go -- let's go through |\n| 9 | the order.
Let's go through my original objections and |\n| 10 | let's go through the order.
So that's what we just did. |\n| 11 | We're not coming back to court on this.
This is |\n| 12 | what we just did. |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:
So, Your Honor, what if -- what if -- |\n| 14 | what if the order that's submitted -- again, I am not |\n| 15 | telling -- saying I think Mr. Despins is going to do this -- |\n| 16 | what if the order that's submitted is not consistent with |\n| 17 | what's been on the record today? |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Then I'm not going to enter it.
I'm |\n| 19 | going to read the order. |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.
I think it's |\n| 21 | customary for all counsel to have an opportunity to review |\n| 22 | an order before it's entered.
But I understand. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
But that's what we just did.
We just |\n| 24 | spent the time that you would spend going over an order. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
I understand what the Court's saying. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 97 THE COURT: We just spent a substantial amount of time, as a matter of fact, going through every paragraph in the order. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if you're ruling I'm not going to have an opportunity to review the final order -- THE COURT: Mr. Despins -- MR. HENZY: -- then I understand the Court's -- THE COURT: You know, I'm -- Mr. Despins, is your firm going to have -- This is what I would want everyone to do. This is how it's going to work out because we are not doing this on a regular basis. Mr. Despins, would you please send an email to the courtroom deputy box, your firm will know and Mr. Linsey can help you if necessary, with the order CC'ing all the parties. I'm not going to enter that order for some period of time -- I don't know what -- but several hours probably. Okay? And then I'm going to enter the order. I'm not going to have another hearing going through the language of the order. We just did that. The only reason that that order will not enter is if Mr. Despins wrote something like the Court has allowed me to live in the courtroom. Then I wouldn't enter that order. Okay? For many reasons. It wouldn't be comfortable for him Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 314 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 315 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 98 anyway. But that's the point. We're not going to do this. We've had -- this is the second hearing on this issue. This motion was filed on July 23rd. It's August 4th. Your client is no longer a debtor in possession. Someone has to come to that realization. Okay? The trustee has that authority to do what he's doing as I have just ruled. And that's -- we've gone through every paragraph of the order and I have made rulings on those paragraphs. And there are changes that will be made. And so that's what we're going to do. Mr. Despins, your office or through Mr. Linsey will send -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: -- an email to the courtroom deputy box in Bridgeport and indicate that the order -- this is the order that has been prepared after the hearing on August 4th with all the changes discussed on the record. And you will CC all the parties, including Mr. Henzy. And then I will enter that order in due course after some period of time. But I am not having a further hearing. This hearing is concluded. MR. DESPINS: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: I have ruled. Okay?\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 99 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, two housekeeping matters. THE COURT: Yes. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Five minutes. Okay. First, we have suggested dates, but of course subject to Your Honor's schedule for status conferences. THE COURT: Did you submit them to someone yet? MR. DESPINS: Actually, we have not. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: So you're absolutely right. That's tabled. Let's table. We were going to post them. I don't know if my colleague has the ability to put that up on Zoom, the potential suggested dates. Or you know what, Your Honor, let's circulate. We'll table that. Let's circulate those dates. We'll come back to Your Honor about that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Apologies. You're absolutely right. We should -- THE COURT: And you can communicate to the courtroom deputy about those suggested dates through the email box and CC everybody so everybody knows this is what you're suggesting. MR. DESPINS: Will do. THE COURT: Okay? Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 316 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 317 of\n\n| | 322 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
100 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
Will do, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | Next item I want to raise is we've had a meet and |\n| 3 | confer with the debtor's counsel regarding the Rule 2004 |\n| 4 | discovery on the issue of discovery of professionals, like |\n| 5 | lawyers. And that issue is going to be a problem in the |\n| 6 | sense that they -- their view is that we don't have access |\n| 7 | to the -- at least the way it was articulated to me, that we |\n| 8 | don't have access to the privilege documents when the debtor |\n| 9 | -- with respect to assets of the debtor or assets we think |\n| 10 | should be the debtor's such as the Lady May or Sherry |\n| 11 | Netherland because the debtor believes they're not assets |\n| 12 | and, therefore, they would be invading his privilege to go |\n| 13 | after these documents. |\n| 14 | So the reason I'm telling you this -- I'm not -- |\n| 15 | because I'm not asking you to rule on this, but we need to |\n| 16 | tee that up sooner rather than later because they want to |\n| 17 | tee it up 30 days after they receive the subpoena which |\n| 18 | would get us into September/October. |\n| 19 | There's a clear issue here which is an issue of |\n| 20 | what privilege the trustee succeeds to.
And I think the |\n| 21 | case law is clear that when dealing with assets of the |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nestate, either assets that are already in the estate or\n\nassets that there is a claim they belong to the estate, such\n\nas the Lady May and the Sherry-Netherland, that the trustee\n\nhave access to privileged communications regarding these\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 318 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 101 assets, or with respect to administration of the case, for example, preparation of schedules by Brown Rudnick. I'm not asking you to rule, but we need to tee that up. And we're not going to do that now, but we want to tell you we're going to ask for a date earlier than 30 days after the service of subpoena because that could bring us to September or October. So that's an issue that's out there. The last issue, Your Honor, is, you know, you've asked us, you raised this issue of conflict before and we left it the other day. And you said, hey, people need to be attuned to this. But this meet and confer just made us or my partners realize that the issue is not a Zeisler issue. The issue is that a target of the trustee's investigation, which is his son, the debtor's son, is paying for the fees of counsel. It's impossible for counsel to be adverse or to think in any way adverse to somebody paying their fees. It's theoretically possible, but I wouldn't hold anyone to that standard. So we're not asking -- there's no punch line here where we're saying we're asking you to disqualify Zeisler. I don't think it's Zeisler issue. I think that it is very difficult for any firm\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 102 that represents the debtor, that has duties to the estate, to be paid by the targets of the trustee's claims. And the harm here, that's the Sherry-Netherland, Bravo Luck, et cetera. And so, you know, again, I don't have a punch line. We're still thinking about it, but I wanted to -- we have a duty to relay the issue to the Court. I don't want somebody weeks from now to say you sat on this. Really, that's the issue, is the payment of fees by a target of the investigation to debtor's counsel. That is problematic, I think. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: That's all we have. MR. HENZY: May I be heard, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: Thank you. On the 2004, I don't know why that's coming up now. We're talking about 2004 orders that haven't been entered. As to the objection date to the 2004 motions that were filed hasn't even come up. It's tomorrow. So we're talking about 2004 orders that haven't entered and subpoenas that haven't issued. I don't know how that's going to play out, but right now it's interesting to preview it I suppose, but I have no idea how that's going to play out. On my firm's conflict issue, if Mr. Despins wants Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 319 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1268
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25
Page 320 of
322 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
103 |\n| 1 | to file a motion disqualifying my firm, he should do that. |\n| 2 | Any party wants to file a motion to disqualify my firm, they |\n| 3 | should do that. |\n| 4 | If the Court believes my firm should be |\n| 5 | disqualified, then the Court should take whatever action the |\n| 6 | Court deems necessary. |\n| 7 | But other than that, I'm not going to -- I'm not |\n| 8 | going to think about it and I'm not going to talk about it. |\n| 9 | I'm going to represent my client. |\n| 10 | All the facts are out there.
If somebody thinks |\n| 11 | there's a problem, they should -- they should do that. |\n| 12 | I said this at the hearing the other day.
This |\n| 13 | should not being used as
(indiscernible) sword against my |\n| 14 | firm or against Mr. Kwok.
So either file your motion or |\n| 15 | just leave it alone. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
All right.
Anything further from |\n| 17 | anyone this afternoon? |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
No, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 20 | Then the -- so that the record is clear, the |\n| 21 | trustee's motion for order extending deadline to file |\n| 22 | notices of removal is granted and the proposed order will |\n| 23 | enter. |\n| 24 | The motion for order confirming that the Chapter |\n| 25 | 11 Trustee holds all of the debtor's economic and corporate |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 321 of\n\n| 322 | | | | | | | | | |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
104 | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | governance rights in debtor controlled entities authorizing | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | Chapter 11 trustee to act in any foreign country on behalf | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | of the estate and granting related relief is granted for the | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | reasons stated on the record with an order to be submitted | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | by trustee's counsel on notice to all other parties who will | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | be -- receive a copy of that when it's submitted to the | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | Court.
And then the Court will review it and enter it after | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | the fact. | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Okay?
All right.
Thank you, all.
This is the | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | last matter on the calendar, so court is adjourned. | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | ALL COUNSEL:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | (Proceedings concluded at 4:35 p.m.) | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | entitled matter. | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | October 17, 2022 | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | Christine Fiore, CERT | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | Transcriber | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 1268 | Filed 12/28/22 | 322 | Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 | Page 322 of | |\n|----|---------------|-------------------|----------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------|-----|\n| | | | | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 | | | 105 |\n| 1 | | | | INDEX | | | |\n| 2 | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | | TRUSTEE EXHIBITS: | | | | PAGE | |\n| 4 | A-G | | | Attachments to Trustee's motion | | 33 | |\n| 5 | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |","body_zh":"案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 1 页，共 322 页\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格州联邦地区 布里奇波特分庭\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）债务人证物清单\n\n关于：\n\n郭文贵，债务人。\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nECF 编号 913 第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）代表第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins，由 Douglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）提交的动议，请求作出命令，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\n\n听证日期：November 16-18, 2022\n\n提交证物者：郭文贵，债务人\n\n律师：Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐）\n\n编号/完整 提交\n\n证物 说明 日期\nB 债务人于 November 10, 2022 致 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）的董事及名义股东的信函 完整 11/18/2022\nC 由债务人签署的 Ace Decade Holdings Limited 股份转让文书。 完整 11/18/2022\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 2 页，共 322 页\n\n证物 说明 编号/完整 提交日期\n\nD 由债务人签署的 Ace Decade Holdings Limited 股份转让决议。1 完整 11/18/2022\nE 根据《破产法典》第 363、521、1108 及 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及公司治理权利，(B) 授权第 11 章受托人代表财产在任何外国行事，以及 (C) 准予相关救济（ECF 编号 717）。 完整 11/18/2022\nG 第 11 章受托人根据《破产法典》第 363、521、1108 及 1505 条提交的动议，请求作出命令，(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及公司治理权利，(B) 授权第 11 章受托人代表财产在任何外国行事，以及 (C) 准予相关救济。 完整 11/18/2022\nH 日期为 August 1, 2022 的听证笔录\n第 118 页，第 13 行；\n第 121 页，第 23-25 行 完整 11/18/2022\nI 日期为 August 4, 2022 的听证笔录，\n更新至 August 17, 2022\n第 47 页，第 15-17 行\n第 64 页，第 14 行及第 19-22 行 完整 11/18/2022\n\n1 债务人否认其为 Ace Decade 的董事或名义股东。债务人已签署 i) 股份转让文书，即证物 C，以及 ii) 股份转让决议，即证物 D，并将该等文件提供给受托人，以遵从受托人的要求。鉴于债务人并非董事或名义股东这一事实，该等文件将具有其应具有的任何法律效力和效果。此外，债务人已亲手向作为 Ace Decade 名义股东及董事的人交付附有股份转让文书和股份转让决议的信函，该信函标记为证物 B。\n\n2022-50073\n\n郭文贵\n关于：\n\n债务人 B\n\n11/18/2022\nP.E.\n债务人证物 B\n\n在英属维尔京群岛注册成立的 ACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED，公司编号 1828656（以下简称“公司”）\n股份转让文书\n\n________________________________________________\n\n________________________________________________\n\n本人，Yanping (Yvette) Wang（王艳萍［伊薇特］），地址为 [填写地址]（以下简称“转让人”），特此将登记于公司股东名册中、以本人名义持有的公司的全部股份，转让给 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），其仅以郭文贵第 11 章案件受托人的身份行事，地址为 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166（以下简称“受让人”）。\n\n本股份转让文书受英属维尔京群岛法律管辖。\n\n转让人于 2022 年 November ____ 日签署为证。\n\n由以下人员签署 ) Yanping (Yvette) Wang ) ________________________________\n\n除非公司或其直接或间接子公司持有位于英属维尔京群岛境内的不动产，否则本股份转让文书无需缴纳英属维尔京群岛印花税。在受让人的姓名被记载于公司股东名册之前，公司不会将受让人视为任何股份的登记持有人。\n\n在英属维尔京群岛注册成立的 ACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED，公司编号 1828656（以下简称“公司”）\n公司唯一董事书面决议\n\n鉴于，公司已收到一份日期为 November __, 2022 的股份转让文件，该文件涉及将公司全部股本股份（以下简称“股份”）转让给 Luc A. Despins，其仅以郭文贵第 11 章案件受托人的身份行事，地址为 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166（以下简称“受让人”）；该文件由 Yanping (Yvette) Wang 为受让人利益签署，并附有代表该等股份的证书（以下简称“证书”）。\n\n本人，即下述签署人，作为公司的唯一董事，特此通过以下决议：\n\n1. 兹批准该等股份的转让；\n\n2. 兹注销该证书；\n\n3. 应以公司公章向受让人签发一份与该等股份有关、并由公司董事签署的新证书；\n\n4. 兹授权并指示公司的注册代理人更新公司的股东名册；及\n\n5. 对于在本决议日期当日或之前已完成的任何上述事项，兹予以通过、追认、确认及批准。\n\nYanping (Yvette) Wang 特此确认，其为转让人，因此在本决议所设想的交易中具有权益并与之存在关联。\n\n本人于 2022 年 November __ 日签署本董事决议。\n\nYanping (Yvette) Wang－董事\n\n________________________________________________\n\n2022-50073\n\n郭文贵\n关于：\n\n债务人 C\n\n11/28/2022\nP.E.\n\n2022-50073\n\n郭文贵\n关于：\n\n债务人 D\n\n11/18/2022\nP.E.\n债务人证物 D\n\n案号 22-50073\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1268\n文件 717 提交日期 08/10/22\n12/28/22 录入日期 08/10/22 13:12:37\n12/28/22 13:58:25 第 1 页，共 24 页\n\n2022-50073 322\n\n关于： 郭文贵\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州联邦地区 债务人 E\n布里奇波特分庭\n------------------------------------------------------ x 11/18/2022\n关于： ：\n： 第 11 章 P.E.\n\n郭文贵， ： 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n\n根据《破产法典》第 363、521、541、1108 及 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及公司治理权利，(B) 授权第 11 章受托人代表财产在任何外国行事，以及 (C) 准予相关救济\n\nx\n\n经 Luc A. Despins 先生以其作为在郭文贵（以下简称“债务人”）第 11 章案件中获任命的第 11 章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）的身份提出动议（以下简称“动议”），请求根据《美国法典》第 11 篇（以下简称“破产法典”）第 363、541、1108 及 1505 条作出一项命令（以下简称“本命令”），(a) 确认受托人持有债务人在全部由债务人拥有和/或控制的公司实体（以下简称“债务人控制实体”）中的全部经济权利及公司治理权利，包括但不限于 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever（BVI）），并准予相关救济，(b) 授权受托人代表债务人财产（以下简称“财产”）在任何外国行事，以及 (c) 准予相关救济，具体内容均如动议中更充分陈述；且本院根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334 以及美国康涅狄格州联邦地区法院（经修订）的移送常设命令，对审理该动议及其中请求的救济具有管辖权；且根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，对该动议及其中请求的救济的审理属于核心程序；且依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本院为适当审理地；且本院已认定，动议中请求的救济符合财产、其债权人及所有利害关系方的最佳利益；且在具体情形下已就该动议作出适当且充分的通知；且看来无需作出其他或进一步通知；且经本院进行的全部程序；且对本命令所请求救济的任何异议均已撤回或经实体审理驳回；且经适当审议并显示存在充分理由；且基于就该动议以及通过包括但不限于提交日期为 July 31, 2022 [ECF No. 645]、August 2, 2022 [ECF No. 671] 及 August 4, 2022 [ECF No. 681] 的修订拟议命令所请求的额外救济，于 August 1, 2022 和 August 4, 2022 举行的听证会上记录在案的理由，现特此命令如下：\n\n1. 兹按本命令所载准许该动议。\n\n2. 自日期为 July 8, 2022、准许在本第 11 章案件中任命 Luc A. Despins 为受托人的命令录入之日起生效 [ECF No. 523]，受托人为财产利益持有债务人在所有债务人控制实体中的全部经济权利及治理权利，包括但不限于 Genever（BVI）。为免生疑义，上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限。作为上述事项的一部分，在必要范围内，受托人获授权以其作为本第 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\n3. 根据《破产法典》第 521(a)(3) 及 521(a)(4) 条，债务人特此被指示分别：(a) 在使受托人能够履行其职责所必需的范围内与受托人合作，包括但不限于受托人对债务人资产的调查；以及 (b) 向受托人交付所有财产财产及任何记录的信息，包括但不限于与财产财产有关的账簿、文件、记录及文书（包括但不限于其在 Genever（BVI）中的股份及全部相关公司治理文件）。为进一步履行债务人在《破产法典》第 521(a)(3) 及 521(a)(4) 条下的义务，债务人特此被指示：\n\n(a) 填写所有缺失信息，并签署以下各项：(i) 股份转让文书，(ii) 与债务人在 Genever（BVI）中的股份有关的董事决议，以及 (iii) 与恢复 Genever（BVI）、提交转入资料包以及任命新的注册代理人有关的董事决议；各项均采用作为本命令证物 A 附后的格式（使该等文件保持未注明日期的形式），并于本命令录入后两个营业日内将该等填妥并签署的文件交付受托人（其后受托人将向英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）Genever（BVI）的新注册代理人提交该等文件）；并于本命令录入后两个营业日内向受托人提供使受托人能够填妥 Harneys Fiduciary 的转入资料包所必需的信息，该资料包采用本命令证物 A 所附格式（其后受托人将向 BVI 的 Genever（BVI）新注册代理人提交该转入资料包）；以及\n\n(b) 不迟于本命令录入后五个营业日内，向 Harcus Parker Limited 律师事务所交付一份采用本命令证物 B 所附格式的信函副本（以下简称“致英国律师的信函”）。该律师事务所曾在题为 Kwok Ho Wan, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, and Dawn State Limited v. UBS AG (London Branch)、案号 CL-2020-000345、目前在高等法院审理的诉讼中担任债务人的前任律师。\n\n英格兰和威尔士商务与财产法院王座分庭商事法院（Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court）（“UBS Litigation（UBS 诉讼）”）发出该等函件，并应同时向受托人交付该函件副本。为免疑义，就一切目的而言，受托人应被视为 UBS 诉讼中债务人所主张索赔权的所有人。\n\n4. 在受托人就债务人控制实体（Debtor-Controlled Entities）行使经济及治理权利被视为超出正常营业过程的范围内，现批准受托人行使该等经济及治理权利，因为行使该等权利具有充分的商业理由，包括因为受托人为破产财产的利益持有债务人就该等实体享有的全部经济及治理权利。尽管 Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h) 或《美国康涅狄格地区破产法院地方破产实务与程序规则》（Local Rules of Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut）的任何其他相反规定可能适用，本裁定的条款和条件应于录入后立即生效并可执行，且现放弃任何适用的对本裁定效力及可执行性的中止。为免疑义，本裁定中的任何内容均不授权受托人出售、以其他方式处分、出租或设定负担于债务人控制实体中的任何股权或债务人的其他资产。\n\n5. 根据 Bankruptcy Code（《破产法典》）第1505条，现授权受托人作为破产财产的境外代表，代表破产财产在任何外国以适用外国法律允许的任何方式行事，以便：(a) 调查、收集和追偿位于外国的债务人资产，包括在必要或适当时为此在外国法院寻求救济；(b) 对债务人控制实体行使控制权，包括在必要或适当时为此在外国法院寻求救济；以及 (c) 向持有与债务人控制实体有关的该等公司文件的适当外国公司登记机构（或类似实体）请求并取得公司文件。在不限制前述规定的情况下，根据《破产法典》第1505条，受托人获授权向持有该等公司文件的适当英属维尔京群岛实体请求并取得与 Genever (BVI) 有关的公司文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 5 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 12 of 322\n\n6. 债务人不得干扰、阻碍或延迟受托人行使本裁定项下的授权，包括受托人为推进该等授权而代表破产财产在外国法院采取或将采取的任何行动。在债务人反对受托人行使该等授权的范围内，债务人应仅限于在通知利害关系方后向本院（而非视具体情况而定的相关外国法院或其他外国实体）寻求救济，前提是债务人能够证明其具有如此行事的诉讼资格。\n\n7. 为推进受托人行使本裁定项下的授权，本院谨请外国法院就受托人对债务人控制实体行使公司控制权予以协助，包括但不限于 Genever (BVI)。\n\n8. 本裁定中的任何内容均不得被视为授权就 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings LLC）（“Genever (US)”）在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国破产法院）（“Genever Court（Genever 法院）”）待决的第11章案件采取任何特定行动。在受托人就 Genever (US) 行使公司治理权利将影响其第11章案件的范围内，受托人应在 Genever 法院出庭并向其寻求指引。\n\n9. 本裁定中的任何内容均不构成对据称日期为 February 17, 2015、并由债务人、Genever (US)、Genever (BVI) 和 Bravo Luck Limited（Bravo Luck Limited）（“Alleged Trust Agreement（被指称信托协议）”）签署的信托协议的有效性或可执行性的裁决或认定，亦不构成对任何针对被指称信托协议的异议的裁决或认定；各方就此享有的一切权利均予保留。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 6 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 13 of 322\n\n10. 授权并赋予受托人采取一切必要行动，以落实本裁定授予的救济。\n\n11. 本裁定的条款和条件应于录入后立即生效并可执行。\n\n12. 本院应保留对因实施、解释和执行本裁定而产生或与之相关的一切事项的管辖权。\n\n本裁定于 2022 年 August 10th 日在康涅狄格州布里奇波特作出。\n\n附件 A\n\n股份转让表及董事决议\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 8 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 15 of 322\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings 公司）\n\n于英属维尔京群岛注册成立，公司编号 1862840（以下简称“公司”）\n股份转让文书\n\n本人，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），地址为 [insert address]（以下简称“转让人”），特此将登记于公司股东名册中、以本人名义持有的 1000 股每股面值 US$0.001 的股份，转让给 Luc A. Despins（Luc A. Despins），其仅以 Ho Wan Kwok 第11章案件受托人的身份行事，地址为 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166（以下简称“受让人”）。\n\n本股份转让文书受英属维尔京群岛法律管辖。\n\n转让人于 2022 年 August 的 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 日亲笔签署，以资证明。\n\n)\n\n由 ) Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵） ) 签署\n\n除非公司或其直接或间接子公司在英属维尔京群岛持有不动产，否则本股份转让文书不须缴纳英属维尔京群岛印花税。在受让人的姓名被记入公司股东名册之前，公司不会将受让人视为任何股份的登记持有人。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings 公司）于英属维尔京群岛注册成立，公司编号 1862840（以下简称“公司”）\n公司唯一董事书面决议\n\n鉴于，公司已收到一份日期为 2022 年 August \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 日的股份转让文书，该文书涉及 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）向 Luc A. Despins（Luc A. Despins）转让公司股本中的 1000 股股份（以下简称“股份”）。Luc A. Despins 仅以 Ho Wan Kwok 第11章案件受托人的身份行事，地址为 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166（以下简称“受让人”）；公司亦已收到代表该等股份的股票（以下简称“股票”）。\n\n本人，即下方签署人，作为公司的唯一董事，特此通过以下决议：\n\n一、现批准该等股份的转让；\n\n二、现注销该股票；\n\n三、应以公司公章向受让人签发一份与该等股份有关、并由公司董事签署的新股票；\n\n四、现授权并指示公司的注册代理人更新公司的股东名册；以及\n\n五、凡于本决议日期当日或之前已完成的任何前述事项，现予通过、追认、确认及批准。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）特此确认，其为转让人，因此对本决议所设想的交易具有利益关系及关联。\n\n本人于 2022 年 August 的…….日签署本董事决议。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 董事\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 10 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 17 of\n\nA 部分－公司\n\n公司名称\n（注：请完全按照公司注册成立／登记证书上所列的名称填写）\n\n原名称（如适用）\n\n公司类型\n\n现任注册代理人 注册代理人名称\n\n联系人\n\n联系信息 电子邮件地址\n\n电话号码\n\n变更注册办事处及代理人的方式 □ 本人将安排卸任代理人提交转移申请\n□ 本人希望安排由 Harneys（Harneys）法律团队进行“强制转移”\n\n变更注册办事处及代理人的原因\n\n请点击此处获取用于变更公司注册代理人的董事决议模板。\n\n该公司是否在英属维尔京群岛境内经营非营利／慈善业务？ ○ 是 ○ 否\n\n该公司是否受 Financial Services Commission（金融服务委员会）监管或在其登记？ ○ 是 ○ 否\n\n公司宗旨\n（注：请具体说明；“控股公司”或“投资基金”并不充分）\n\n公司的拟经营业务性质\n\n该公司是否：\n\n1. 以现金或现金等价物形式收取超过其收入 20% 的款项？ ○ 是 ■ 否\n\n该公司是否涉及：\n\n2. 武器、国防、军事或核工业？ ○ 是\n否\n\n3. 石油和天然气、贵金属、宝石、珠宝、艺术精品、房地产或其他收藏品的交易？ ○ 是\n○ 否\n\n4. 创建或提供以下任何一项： ○ 是 ○ 否\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 11 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 18 of\n\n区块链技术\n\n创建或发行虚拟资产或代币\n\n以下任何一项：提供虚拟资产与法定货币之间的兑换；提供一种或多种形式虚拟资产之间的兑换；提供与虚拟资产转让有关的服务；提供虚拟资产托管服务；或参与及提供与虚拟资产发行或虚拟资产出售有关的金融服务？\n\n5. 生产或交易物质或产品？ ○ 是 [] 否\n\n6. 赌博或成人娱乐业？ ○ 是 ○ 否\n\n7. 可能对环境造成重大影响的活动（例如林业、石油和天然气、深海采矿、采石或发电）？ ○ 是 ○ 否\n\n集合投资\n8. ○ 是 ○ 否\n结构\n\n如该实体将构成某集团的一部分（包括少数股权），请提供图表，说明该实体在该结构中所处的位置。图表应包括直接持有该实体 10% 或以上权益的所有实体，以及该实体的任何子公司。如该结构不超过 3 层，则可提供自各实体直至最终母公司的成员名册副本，作为结构图的替代文件。\n\n如您对上述任何问题回答“是”，请提供详情。\n\n如公司的拟经营业务性质未在上文列明，请提供详情。\n\n拟开展业务活动的国家／地区\n\n（注：请包括客户、分销商和银行账户所在地。）\n\n资金来源\n\n（注：请提供公司初始活动资金来源的详情。可能要求您提供证明文件。）\n\nB 部分－经济实质\n\n公司可能须在英属维尔京群岛具备充分的“经济实质”。\n\n请点击此处查阅 Harneys 指引要求。如有任何疑问，请与您通常联系的 Harneys 联系人联络。\n\n经济实质财务报告期间\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 717 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 13:12:37 Page 12 of 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 19 of\n\n默认报告期间取决于注册成立日期。如您已选择使用并非默认日期的经济实质报告期间截止日，请在此勾选，并确认您的报告期间截止日期：\n\n报告期间，我们当前报告期间的结束日期为： 我们已正式通知 ITA 我们的经济实质发生变更 [dd/mm/yyyy to dd/mm/yyyy]\n\n我们希望申请变更我们的默认报告期间。Harneys（哈尼斯）可安排该通知——我们将联系您，讨论可实现的方案并提供报价。\n\n如未勾选任何方框，将适用默认报告期间。\n\n公司是否从事：\n\n1. 银行业务？ O 是 O 否\n\n2. 分销及服务中心业务？ O 是 O 否\n\n3. 融资及租赁业务？ O 是 O 否\n\n4. 基金管理业务？ T 是 ■ 否\n\n5. 总部业务？ O 是 O 否\n\n6. 控股公司业务？ O 是 O 否\n\n请说明公司拟持有的资产类型。\n\n合伙权益等。） 请提供公司将持有权益的任何其他法律实体的详细资料（例如股份、\n\n7. 保险业务？ O 是 [] 否\n\n8. 知识产权业务？ O 是 O 否\n\n9. 航运业务？ O 是 [] 否\n\n如您对上述任何问题回答“是”，请提供详细资料。\n\n（注：上述活动可能就经济实质而言构成“相关活动”。请尽可能详细说明任何相关活动的确切范围。）\n\n请确认该实体的税务居民国。\n\nC部分——股东\n\n（注：额外股东的详细资料可填写于 I 部分。）\n\n股东姓名 姓名\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\n股东姓名 姓名\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 717 提交日期 08/10/22 录入日期 08/10/22 13:12:37 第 13 页，共 24 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 20 页，共 322 页\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\n股东姓名 姓名\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\n股东姓名 姓名\n\n联系方式\n\n电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏 居住地址\n\n地址 1\n\n国籍 出生日期 (DD/MM/YYYY) 地址 2\n\n城市 州\n\nBOSS Act（BOSS法）受益所有人 0\n\n是\n\n0 否 国家\n\n邮政编码\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏 居住地址\n\n地址 1\n\n国籍 出生日期 (DD/MM/YYYY) 地址 2\n\n州\n\n城市\n\nBOSS Act 受益所有人 是\n\n■ 否 国家\n\n邮政编码\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 717 提交日期 08/10/22 录入日期 08/10/22 13:12:37 第 14 页，共 24 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 21 页，共\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏 居住地址\n\n地址 1\n\n国籍 出生日期 (DD/MM/YYYY) 地址 2\n\n城市 州\n\nBOSS Act 受益所有人 是 否 国家 邮政编码\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏 居住地址\n\n地址 1\n\n国籍 出生日期 (DD/MM/YYYY) 地址 2\n\n城市 州\n\nBOSS Act 受益所有人 是 否 国家 邮政编码\n\n受益所有人资料——须登记法律实体\n\n可能被要求提供。 注：如某须登记法律实体在其为自然人的情况下将构成受益所有人，且属于下列类别之一：(a) 其证券在获认可证券交易所上市，或其证券在该等交易所上市的实体；(b) 其为 BV 受监管投资基金或该等基金的子公司；(c) 其为 BV/受监管人士或外国受监管人士；或 (d) 其为主权国家或主权国家的全资子公司。可能需要额外资料。\n\n完整法定名称 注册地址\n\n地址 1\n\n地址 2\n\n别名（如适用） 城市 城市\n\n国家 国家\n\n注册国家\n\n(DD/MM/YYYY)\n\n注册号码\n\n成立日期\n\n证券交易所名称（如适用）\n\n监管机构名称（如适用）\n\n受益所有权数据库所在地 地址\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 717 提交日期 08/10/22 录入日期 08/10/22 13:12:37 第 15 页，共 24 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 22 页，共\n\n地址 2\n\n城市 城市\n\n国家 国家\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\n受益所有人——豁免\n\n该公司是否为 BOSS Act 下的豁免人士？ O 是 ■ 否\n\n如是，依据为何？\n\nE部分——董事\n\n每名董事均须签署并完成我们的合规资料包（个人或其他）中的相关部分，并连同一份在其原任命日期签署的同意任职表一并提交——如您需要复制本文件，请使用此模板（个人董事或非个人董事）。\n\n有关我们的董事服务的更多资料，请参阅我们的附加服务部分。\n\n（注：额外董事的详细资料可填写于 I 部分。）\n\n董事姓名 姓名\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\n董事姓名 姓名\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\n董事姓名 姓名\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\nF部分——高级管理人员\n\n（注：额外高级管理人员的详细资料可填写于 I 部分。）\n\n高级管理人员姓名 姓名\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\n高级管理人员姓名 姓名\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\nG部分——合规问卷\n\n列于下列任一部分的任何自然人或法人实体均须完成合规问卷：\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 717 提交日期 08/10/22 录入日期 08/10/22 13:12:37 第 16 页，共 24 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 23 页，共\n\n公司记录 Harneys 替代地址\n\n0 地址 1\n\n地址 2\n\n成员名册 城市 州\n\n国家 邮政编码\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\n公司记录 Harneys 替代地址\n\n地址 1\n\n地址 2\n\n董事名册 城市 州\n\n国家 邮政编码\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\n公司记录 Harneys 替代地址\n\n■ 地址 1\n\n董事及成员会议记录和决议 地址 2\n\n城市 州\n\n国家 邮政编码\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\n公司记录 Harneys 替代地址\n\n地址 1\n\n押记登记册 0 地址 2\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 717 提交日期 08/10/22 录入日期 08/10/22 13:12:37 第 17 页，共 24 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 24 页，共\n\n城市 州\n\n国家 邮政编码\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\n注：如要求 Harneys 保管原始财务记录，公司每年将产生额外费用，且该等费用必须预先支付。\n\n公司记录 Harneys 替代地址\n\n记录保管人姓名\n\n财务记录及基础文件 地址 1 / 地址 2\n\n城市 州\n\n国家 邮政编码\n\n联系方式 电话号码 电子邮箱地址\n\nHarneys 亦可提供专业簿记及财务报表编制服务。您是否希望我们联系您并提供更多资料？ O 是\n\nI部分——附加资料\n\n注：请使用此栏向我们提供任何特别资料。任何不属于我们服务范围的工作，可能会转介给我们的关联律师事务所 Harneys Westwood & Riegels LP（Harneys Westwood & Riegels 律师事务所），该所将直接与您联系。\n\nJ部分——付款指示及账单\n\n如您尚未收到有关我们服务的报价，请联系新业务团队。\n\n付款方式：我们接受电汇和信用卡付款。请点击此处查看我们的付款指示，并使用“New Business”及 A 部分所提供的公司拟定名称作为付款附言。\n\n委托代理人/客户\n\n请注明您的付款方式 □ 信用卡 电汇\n\n地址 1\n\n地址 2\n\n账单地址 城市 城市\n\n国家 国家\n\n账单电子邮箱（注：我们仅通过电子邮件发送发票。）\n\nK部分——声明及承诺\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 717 提交日期 08/10/22 录入日期 08/10/22 13:12:37 第 18 页，共 24 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 25 页，共 322 页\n\n全名\n\n法人实体名称（如适用）\n\n在法人实体中的职务（如适用）\n\n签名\n\n日期\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 717 提交日期 08/10/22 录入日期 08/10/22 13:12:37 第 19 页，共 24 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 26 页，共\n\n转入资料包——BVI 商业公司\n\n附加服务\n\n公司秘书服务\n\n我们的公司管理团队提供秘书及行政支持，包括在企业或项目的整个存续期间担任公司秘书。这包括维护公司记录。\n\n名义股东服务及信托服务\n\n我们提供名义股东服务。对于有意就其 BVI 商业公司股份进行继承规划的客户，我们建议您考虑使用我们的信托服务。我们经验丰富的私人财富执业团队可就该程序向您提供建议。通过信托进行继承规划的一项主要好处是，可避免与 BVI 遗嘱认证申请相关的时间、成本和公开性。\n\n董事服务\n\nHarneys Fiduciary（哈尼斯信托服务）提供公司董事及可获委任担任 BVI 公司的董事的合资格专业人士。董事服务按个案予以考虑，并会考虑公司的类型及其活动。\n\n银行账户\n\n我们与 BVI 及国际上的众多金融机构密切合作，可协助您迅速、高效地为您的新公司开立银行账户。我们可为银行账户提供获授权签字人，并维护及保管您的财务记录。\n\n会计服务\n\nHarneys Fiduciary 设有内部会计团队，专门提供簿记及会计服务，以满足公司、有限合伙企业及信托的需要。\n\n我们的会计服务包括维护财务记录、编制月度、季度或年度管理账目、编制年度财务报表，以及按需要与外部审计师和顾问联络。\n\n如为满足您的特定需要而有必要，我们亦可提供本所外审计师及其他专业人士的联系渠道。我们在 BVI 当地及国际上均拥有广泛且稳固的联系网络。\n\n其他服务\n\nHarneys Fiduciary 亦提供其他服务，包括清算服务、授权代表服务、安全保管、托管，以及按临时需要提供的广泛公司秘书服务。\n\n如您对上述任何服务有任何疑问或希望获得更多资料，请联系我们。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION）于英属维尔京群岛注册成立，公司编号 1862840（以下简称“公司”）\n\n公司唯一董事的书面决议\n\n鉴于，公司的注册代理人已辞任，且公司目前根据《BVI Business Companies Act 2004》第 213(1) 条被公司事务登记处（以下简称“登记处”）除名。\n\n鉴于，公司拟纠正其状态并恢复良好存续状态，为此希望委任注册地址为 Craigmuir Chambers, P.O. Box 71, Road Town, Tortola, VG 1110, British Virgin Islands 的 Harneys Corporate Services Limited（哈尼斯企业服务有限公司）担任其注册代理人。\n\n本人，即下方签署人，作为公司的唯一董事，特此通过下列决议：\n\n1. 公司将其注册代理人变更为位于英属维尔京群岛（British Virgin Islands）VG 1110、托托拉岛（Tortola）、罗德城（Road Town）、邮政信箱 71 号、Craigmuir Chambers 的 Harneys Corporate Services Limited（Harneys 公司服务有限公司）；\n\n2. 公司将其注册地址变更为英属维尔京群岛 VG 1110、托托拉岛、罗德城、Craigmuir Chambers；\n\n3. 应以核准格式向英属维尔京群岛公司事务登记处（BVI Registry of Corporate Affairs）提交公司变更注册代理人及注册地址的通知；以及\n\n4. 唯一董事、Harneys Corporate Services Limited 的任何雇员或 Harney Westwood & Riegels LP（Harney Westwood & Riegels 有限合伙企业）的任何雇员，特此获授权：\na. 支付应付给登记处的任何未付费用；\nb. 签署或向登记处提交任何文件；以及\nc. 采取使公司恢复良好存续状态并充分落实注册代理人及注册地址变更所必需的任何及一切其他行动；以及\n案号 22-50073 文件 717 提交日期 08/10/22 登记日期 08/10/22 13:12:37 第 21 页，共 24 页 案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 28 页，共 322 页\n\n5. Harneys Corporate Services Limited 提供注册地址及注册代理人服务的条款和条件（经不时修订或补充）获核准，且唯一董事代表公司完成并签署 Harneys Corporate Services Limited 的“转入文件包”，特此获核准。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）特此确认，其就本等决议拟议的交易不存在利益冲突。\n\n本人已于 2022 年 8 月……日签署本董事决议。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 董事\n\n附件 B\n\n致 Harcus Parker Limited（Harcus Parker 有限公司）的函\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）[填写地址]\n\n2022 年 8 月 [__]\n通过电子邮件发送\n\nHarcus Parker Limited（Harcus Parker 有限公司） 墨尔本大厦（Melbourne House）7 层 奥德维奇街（Aldwych）44—46 号 伦敦，WC2B 4LL 收件人：Jennifer Morrissey（詹妮弗·莫里西） 电子邮件：JMorrissey@harcusparker.co.uk\n事由：Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）、Ace Decade Holdings Limited（Ace Decade 控股有限公司）及 Dawn State Limited（Dawn State 有限公司）诉 UBS AG (London Branch)（瑞银集团股份公司〔伦敦分行〕），案号 CL-2020-000345——在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）第 11 章案件中任命受托人\n\n尊敬的 Morrissey 女士：\n\n本函确认，Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）已在本人目前由美国康涅狄格地区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Connecticut）（“美国破产法院”）审理的第 11 章案件中被任命为受托人（“受托人”）。根据美国破产法，本人在英格兰和威尔士高等法院（High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales）、王座法院（Queen's Bench Division）、商事法庭（Commercial Court）审理的针对 UBS AG (London Branch)（瑞银集团股份公司〔伦敦分行〕）的诉讼（“瑞银诉讼”）中的全部权益，均属于本人的破产财产。\n\n自 Despins 先生获任受托人后，其对破产财产的全部财产行使控制权，包括本人在瑞银诉讼中的请求权，因此其现有权且具备诉讼资格申请被承认为推进本人在瑞银诉讼中请求权的适格当事人。根据美国破产法，本人目前无权且不具备诉讼资格推进瑞银诉讼。\n\n为落实上述事项并为免生疑义，本人特此明确授权贵方代表本人，就瑞银诉讼、其实体理由、任何相关和解讨论，以及与推进瑞银诉讼有关的任何其他事项，与 Despins 先生进行充分和完整的讨论；并授权贵方就本人在瑞银诉讼中的请求权接受其指示，而不论任何属于本人的律师—当事人保密特权、工作成果特权或其他特权。对特权的任何放弃仅限于向受托人提供该等信息。本人同意仅限于在本人有权享有的范围内向受托人提供访问权限，不包含任何更广泛的特权放弃，亦不构成本人同意受托人放弃本人的特权。\n案号 22-50073 文件 717 提交日期 08/10/22 登记日期 08/10/22 13:12:37 第 24 页，共 24 页 案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 31 页，共 322 页\n\n除其他事项外，且如美国破产法院命令（其副本作为附件 1 随附）所详述，本人指示贵方：(i) 在切实可行的最早时间，向受托人交付并与其分享贵方就瑞银诉讼向本人提供的全部备忘录、意见及其他通信、有关瑞银诉讼实体理由的任何其他信息（无论是否以书面形式），以及本人或贵方就该诉讼收到或提出的任何和解要约；以及 (ii) 在切实可行的最早时间，向受托人充分提供贵方瑞银诉讼案卷中本人有权查阅的部分，以及在瑞银诉讼中提交的全部诉状和其他法院文件。\n\n此致\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n抄送：Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯），以 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）第 11 章案件受托人的身份\n\n附件\n通知收件人\n\n地区/办公室：0205−5 用户：admin 创建日期：8/10/2022 案件：22−50073 表格编号：pdfdoc2 总计：66\n已提交至 BNC（破产通知中心）（Bankruptcy Noticing Center）且未附地址的收件人：\n\n20 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 致 Zheng Wu 20 Rui Ma 20 Weican Meng 利益相关方 Golden Spring (New York) LTD 债权人委员会 无担保债权人正式委员会 利益相关方 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 利益相关方 Mei Guo 债权人 Baosheng Guo 债权人 Yan Zhao 债权人 Ning Ye 债权人 Chong Shen Raphanella 债权人 Xiaodan Wang 债权人 Rong Zhang 律师 Michael S. Weinstein\n\n电子提交通知的收件人：\n\n美国受托人 U. S. Trustee\nUSTPRegion02.NH.ECF@USDOJ.GOV\n\n受托人 Luc A. Despins\nlucdespins@paulhastings.com\n律师 Aaron Romney\naromney@zeislaw.com\n律师 Aaron A Mitchell\naaron@lmesq.com\n律师 Annecca H. Smith\nasmith@rc.com\n律师 Avram Emmanuel Luft\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n律师 Carollynn H.G. Callari\nccallari@callaripartners.com\n律师 David S. Forsh\ndforsh@callaripartners.com\n律师 David V. Harbach, II\ndharbach@omm.com\n律师 Douglas S. Skalka\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\n律师 Douglass E. Barron\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n律师 Eric A. Henzy\nehenzy@zeislaw.com\n律师 G. Alexander Bongartz\nalexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n律师 Holley L. Claiborn\nholley.l.claiborn@usdoj.gov\n律师 Irve J. Goldman\nigoldman@pullcom.com\n律师 James C. Graham\njgraham@npmlaw.com\n律师 James M. Moriarty\njmoriarty@zeislaw.com\n律师 Jay Marshall Wolman\njmw@randazza.com\n律师 John L. Cesaroni\njcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n律师 Jonathan Kaplan\njkaplan@pullcom.com\n律师 Kristin B. Mayhew\nkmayhew@mdmc−law.com\n律师 Laura Aronsson\nlaronsson@omm.com\n律师 Luc A. Despins\nlucdespins@paulhastings.com\n律师 Lucas Bennett Rocklin\nlrocklin@npmlaw.com\n律师 Mia N. Gonzalez\nmgonzalez@omm.com\n律师 Michael S. Weinstein\nmweinstein@golenbock.com\n律师 Nicholas A. Bassett\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n律师 Patrick M. Birney\npbirney@rc.com\n律师 Patrick R. Linsey\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n律师 Peter Friedman\npfriedman@omm.com\n律师 Peter J. Zarella\npzarella@mdmc−law.com\n律师 Sara Pahlavan\nspahlavan@omm.com\n律师 Scott D. Rosen\nsrosen@cb−shea.com\n律师 Stephen M. Kindseth\nskindseth@zeislaw.com\n律师 Stuart M. Sarnoff\nssarnoff@omm.com\n律师 Thomas J. Sansone\ntsansone@carmodylaw.com\n律师 Timothy D. Miltenberger\nTmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com\n律师 William R. Baldiga\nwbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\n总计：15\n\n总计：38\n\n已提交至 BNC（破产通知中心）（Bankruptcy Noticing Center）的收件人：\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 373 Taconic Road Greenwich, CT 06831\n债权人 Logan Cheng c/o Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor Hartford, CT\n\n通知代理人 Stretto 410 Exchange, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602\n债务人律师 Brown Rudnick LLP One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111\n债权人委员会 Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601\n20 Huizhen Wang c/o TroyGould PC 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor 收件人：Christopher A. Lilly Los Angeles, CA 90067−2367\n案号 22-50073 文件 717-1 提交日期 08/10/22 登记日期 08/10/22 13:12:37 第 2 页，共 2 页 案号 22-50073 文件 1268 12/28/22 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 33 页，共\n\n债权人 Chao−Chih Chiu c/o TroyGould PC 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor 收件人：Christopher A. Lilly Los Angeles, CA 90067−2367\n\n债权人 Yunxia Wu c/o TroyGould PC 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor 收件人：Christopher A. Lilly Los Angeles, CA 90067\n\n债权人 Keyi Zilkie c/o TroyGould PC 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor 收件人：Christopher A. Lilly Los Angeles, CA 90067\n\n利益相关方 Yongbing Zhang 223 West Jackson Boulevard, #1012 Chicago, IL 60606\n\n债权人 Brown Rudnick LLP One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111\n\n律师 Luc A. Despins Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\n律师 Steven E. Mackey 美国受托人办公室（Office of the U.S. Trustee） The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\n总计：13\n\n案号 22-50073\n案号 22-50073 文件 598\n文件 1268\n提交日期 07/23/22\n提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 07/23/22 20:10:20\n登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25\n322 关于： Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2022-50073\n\n第 34 页，共\n\n美国破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT） 康涅狄格地区（DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT） 债务人 G\n布里奇波特分庭（BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\nx 11/18/2022\n： P.E.\n关于： ： 第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， ： 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1 ：\n\nx\n第 11 章受托人依据《破产法典》第 363、541、1108 及 1505 条提出的动议，请求作出命令：(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及公司治理权利；(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) 给予相关救济\n\nLuc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）以在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）第 11 章案件中获任命的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）身份，谨就支持本动议（“本动议”）陈述如下：\n请求的救济\n\n1. 受托人通过本动议请求作出一项命令，其实质形式如随附附件 A（“拟议命令”）所示，以确认自其于 July 8, 2022 获任命之日起，受托人为了债务人破产财产（“破产财产”）的利益，持有债务人拥有和/或控制的全部公司实体（“债务人控制实体”）中的债务人全部经济权利及治理权利。债务人控制实体包括但不限于 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever (BVI)”），一家英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）公司；该公司通过其全资子公司 Genever Holdings LLC\n\n1 尽管债务人的法定名称为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），其亦被称为 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名。债务人纳税人识别号码的最后四位数为 9595。\n案号 22-50073 文件 598 提交日期 07/23/22 登记日期 07/23/22 20:10:20 第 2 页，共 26 页 案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 35 页，共 322 页\n\n（“Genever (US)”），2 一家纽约有限责任公司，系包括纽约州纽约市 Sherry-Netherland 大厦内一套公寓（“Sherry-Netherland 公寓”）在内的财产的登记所有人。3 该救济是必要的，因为债务人已表现出违抗法院命令的意愿，这表明债务人及相关人员（无论是以个人身份行事，还是通过债务人控制实体行事）可能试图利用有关受托人权利的任何歧义或误解，以阻挠受托人识别和追回破产财产的努力。\n\n2. 此外，为便利受托人对债务人控制实体行使公司控制权，并支持受托人对可能位于外国司法辖区的其他破产财产资产进行调查、收集和追回，受托人依据《破产法》第1505条，请求获准作为债务人的外国代表，在任何外国代表破产财产以适用外国法律所允许的任何方式行事，以便：(a) 调查、收集和追回位于外国的债务人资产，包括在必要或适当时为此向外国法院寻求救济；(b) 对债务人控制实体行使控制权，包括在必要或适当时为此向外国法院寻求救济；以及 (c) 向持有与债务人控制实体有关的该等文件的适当外国公司登记机构（或类似实体）请求并取得公司文件，包括向适当的英属维尔京群岛实体取得与 Genever (BVI)（Genever（英属维尔京群岛））有关的公司文件。\n\n2 Genever (US)（Genever（美国））于 October 12, 2020 提起第11章案件，该案目前正在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国破产法院）审理，案号为 Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)。为免生疑义，目前，受托人并未就 Genever (US) 的第11章案件请求任何救济，包括对日期为 September 24, 2021 的《第二次修订及重述和解协议》作出任何修改 [Case No. 20-12411 (JLG) 中的 ECF No. 131-1]。即使所请求的救济获准，也不应被视为授权受托人就 Genever (US) 的第11章案件采取任何特定行动；对于该等行动，受托人将在适当情况下向 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国破产法院）（“纽约破产法院”）寻求救济。受托人保留其在该方面的一切权利。\n\n3. 如法院所知，Sherry-Netherland Apartment（Sherry-Netherland 公寓）的真实所有人的身份目前存在争议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 598 提交 07/23/22 登记 07/23/22 20:10:20 第 3 页，共 26 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交 12/28/22 登记 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 36 页，共 322 页\n\n3. 为使受托人能够在不受债务人干扰的情况下行使上述权限，受托人请求法院确认，债务人不得干扰、阻碍或延迟受托人行使债务人就债务人控制实体所享有的经济权利和治理权利，亦不得干扰、阻碍或延迟受托人依据《破产法》第1505条作为债务人外国代表所享有的权限。\n\n4. 最后，受托人请求法院请求外国法院协助受托人行使上述权限，包括英属维尔京群岛法院就受托人有关其对 Genever (BVI) 行使公司控制权的任何救济请求（包括紧急情况下的请求）提供协助。\n\n管辖权、审理地及法定依据\n\n5. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦地区美国破产法院）（“法院”）依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 以及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦地区美国地区法院）作出的移送常设命令（经修订），对本事项享有管辖权。本案属于 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 所称的核心程序。\n\n6. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本地区为适当审理地。\n\n7. 本文所请求救济的法定依据为 United States Code（美国法典）第11编（“破产法”）第363、541、1108及1505条。\n\n背景\n\n8. 于 February 15, 2022（“申请日”），债务人向法院提交了根据《破产法》第11章请求救济的自愿申请。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 598 提交 07/23/22 登记 07/23/22 20:10:20 第 4 页，共 26 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交 12/28/22 登记 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 37 页，共 322 页\n\n9. 于 March 21, 2022，United States Trustee（美国受托人）在债务人的第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中指定了一个 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人正式委员会）（“委员会”）。第11章案件中尚未指定审查员。\n\n10. 于 June 15, 2022，法院作出了一份裁决备忘录及命令 [ECF No. 465]（“受托人命令”），指示美国受托人在第11章案件中指定一名第11章受托人。根据受托人命令，美国受托人选定 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯平）担任受托人。\n\n11. 于 July 8, 2022，法院作出命令，批准在第11章案件中指定 Luc A. Despins 担任受托人 [ECF No. 523]（“指定命令”）。\n\n救济依据\n\nA. 法院应确认受托人持有债务人就所有债务人控制实体享有的全部经济权利和治理权利\n\n12. 《破产法》第541条规定，破产财产包括“债务人具有法定或衡平权益的一切财产，无论其位于何处或由何人持有。”11 U.S.C. § 541。此外，《破产法》第1108条规定：“除非法院应利害关系方请求，并在通知及举行听证后另有命令，受托人可以经营债务人的业务。”Id. § 1108。相关判例确认，第11章受托人“拥有债务人在申请破产前所享有的、参与管理[债务人所有实体]的经济权利和治理权利。”In re Modanlo, 412 B.R. 715, 728 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006)（确认第11章受托人有权进行包括修改债务人全资拥有的 Delaware LLC（特拉华有限责任公司）的设立文件、指定其本人为该有限责任公司的经理，以及使该有限责任公司自愿进入第11章程序等事项）。另见 In re Albright, 291 B.R. 538 (Bankr. D. Col. 2003)（“由于受托人在债务人提交破产申请时成为[债务人所有实体]的唯一成员，受托人现直接或间接控制该实体的全部治理事务，包括有关清算该实体资产的决定。”）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 598 提交 07/23/22 登记 07/23/22 20:10:20 第 5 页，共 26 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交 12/28/22 登记 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 38 页，共 322 页\n\n13. 为了保存并追回资产以惠及破产财产，受托人尽快对债务人控制实体（包括 Genever (BVI)）行使经济控制权和公司控制权至关重要。为免生疑义，这包括受托人有权替换债务人控制实体的任何现任高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员。\n\n14. 债务人拥有 Genever (BVI) 的全部股权一事不存在争议。4 同样不存在争议的是，Genever (BVI) 进而全资拥有 Genever (US)，5 后者拥有包括 Sherry-Netherland Apartment 在内的资产。根据 Genever (US) 在其第11章案件中提交的资产和负债明细表，Sherry-Netherland Apartment 的最初购买价格为 \\$70 million，且受托人认为其仍具有重大价值。Genever (US) 正在其第11章案件中寻求出售 Sherry-Netherland Apartment，所得款项将根据拟议的第11章计划予以分配。6 Genever (US) 的第11章代理律师已向受托人告知，迄今为止，债务人一直在指示该代理律师处理 Genever (US) 的第11章案件。鉴于受托人已取代债务人的地位，包括就债务人针对 Genever (BVI) 所享有的经济权利和治理权利而言，应由受托人而非债务人有权向 Genever (US) 作出指示。因此，受托人需要尽快行使破产财产在 Genever (US) 第11章案件中的权利，其中将包括在必要时向纽约破产法院寻求救济。\n\n4 例如，见《有关债务人资产和负债明细表及财务状况说明的全球注释、限制说明及方法论》[ECF No. 77] 第4页（“全球注释”）。债务人主张，其以信托方式为 Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃·拉克有限公司）持有 Genever (BVI) 的股权，而 Bravo Luck Limited 的股权由债务人的儿子拥有。受托人正在调查该主张在何种程度上准确。\n\n5 见附于 Genever (US) 第11章申请书的《股权持有人名单》[ECF No. 1]（Case No. 20-12411 (JLG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)（将 Genever (BVI) 认定为唯一股权持有人））。\n\n6 为明确起见，受托人并非寻求停止有关 Sherry Netherland Apartment 的出售程序。然而，债务人保留就该出售所得款项享有的一切权利。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 598 提交 07/23/22 登记 07/23/22 20:10:20 第 6 页，共 26 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交 12/28/22 登记 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 39 页，共 322 页\n\n15. 此外，受托人正在调查债务人在何种程度上拥有和/或控制其他公司实体。7 作为该调查的一部分，于 July 12, 2022，受托人向债务人的代理律师发送函件，要求提供包括与债务人就债务人控制实体（包括 Genever (BVI)）享有的经济权利和治理权利有关的文件及信息在内的材料。除其他事项外，受托人就每一该等实体要求提供组织文件、资本结构表、结构图、列明董事会、董事会或类似治理机构组成的清单、全体高级职员名单及其他相关文件。8 截至目前，债务人尚未向受托人提供任何该等文件。受托人需要这些文件，以了解受托人就哪些全部公司实体享有治理权利。\n\n16. 除非法院确认受托人就所有债务人控制实体享有的治理权利，受托人深切担忧债务人将继续努力阻碍受托人对破产财产资产行使控制权。事实上，如法院所知，New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的 Barry Ostrager 法官已认定，债务人有“将其资产隐匿于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员之中的”历史。9 他还指出：\n\n7 例如，除 Genever (BVI) 外，债务人的《财务状况说明》列明两家债务人声称其过去拥有、但因各种原因现已不再控制的公司实体，即 Shiny Times Holdings, LTD（Shiny Times Holdings, LTD）及 Well Origin Limited（Well Origin Limited）。见全球注释第6-7页。\n\n8 受托人的函件还要求债务人的代理律师保存一切以任何方式与债务人、其关联方、破产财产、破产财产财产和/或第11章案件有关的文件、数据、信息及通信。\n\n9 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）v. Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）, et al., Case No. 22-50073 (February 9, 2022)（“纽约州法院裁定”）第1页。纽约州法院裁定的副本作为附件 B 附于本文件。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 598 提交 07/23/22 登记 07/23/22 20:10:20 第 7 页，共 26 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交 12/28/22 登记 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 40 页，共 322 页\n\n“与 Kwok 就 Lady May 所策划的蒙混把戏有关的种种手腕，与 Kwok 在本诉讼待决的五年期间采取的其他一切规避性和藐视性行为如出一辙……”。10\n\n因此，受托人就公司治理权利所寻求的救济既极为重要，亦对时间极为敏感。\n\n17. 为明确起见，受托人通过本动议仅寻求本院确认，其现持有债务人在任命令作出前在债务人控制实体中所享有的相同经济权利和公司治理权利。受托人并非寻求获准行使该等治理权利，因为行使该等权利完全属于债务人日常业务范围。然而，如本院认为有必要根据《破产法》第363(b)条授权采取该等行动，受托人请求获得该等授权，并主张基于上述所有理由，本项请求具有合理的商业依据。参见 Modanlo, 412 B.R. at 732（根据《破产法》第363(b)条，准予第11章受托人就债务人拥有实体的子公司采取公司行动的请求，但未裁定该等行动是否属于日常业务范围）。为明确起见，受托人并非通过本动议寻求出售或以其他方式处分其在任何债务人控制实体中的任何股权或债务人的其他资产的授权。如受托人寻求出售或以其他方式处分为遗产利益而识别并追回的资产，受托人将通过单独动议寻求批准任何该等出售或处分。\n\n18. 最后，如本院认为有必要依赖第363(b)条给予本动议所请求的救济，受托人请求豁免《破产规则》6004(h)规定的十四日期限，以使拟议命令在其作出后立即生效。\n\n10 New York State Court Ruling at 7.\n案件 22-50073 文书 598 于 07/23/22 提交 于 07/23/22 20:10:20 录入 第 8 页，共 26 页 案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 录入 第 41 页，共 322 页\n\n基于上述所有理由，延迟受托人行使经济权利和公司治理权利，可能会不利影响受托人识别和追回遗产财产的能力。\n\nB. 本院应指定受托人为债务人遗产的外国代表\n\n19. 《破产法》第1505条规定，在符合适用外国法的范围内，“受托人或其他实体（包括审查员）可经法院授权代表根据第541条设立的遗产在外国行事。”11 U.S.C. § 1505。在此，受托人根据第1505条请求授权其在任何外国作为债务人的外国代表，以便：(a) 调查、收集和追回位于外国的债务人资产，包括在必要或适当时为此向外国法院寻求救济；(b) 对债务人控制实体行使控制权，包括在必要或适当时为此向外国法院寻求救济；以及 (c) 向持有与债务人控制实体有关的公司文件的适当外国公司登记机构（或类似实体）请求并取得公司文件，包括向适当的英属维尔京群岛实体取得与 Genever (BVI) 有关的公司文件。受托人在任何外国行事时，当然将遵守所有适用外国法的要求。\n\n20. 此外，为实现该等救济，受托人请求本院请求外国法院提供协助，包括就受托人请求有关其对 Genever (BVI) 行使公司控制权的救济时，请求英属维尔京群岛法院提供协助。就此而言，受托人获英属维尔京群岛律师告知，英属维尔京群岛法院将休夏季休庭期直至 September 2022，这实际上意味着除紧急情形外，英属维尔京群岛在 September 2022 前无法举行听证会。受托人谨此\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 598 于 07/23/22 提交 于 07/23/22 20:10:20 录入 第 9 页，共 26 页 案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 录入 第 42 页，共 322 页\n\n请求本院协助其在必要时从英属维尔京群岛法院获得紧急救济。11 鉴于如上所述债务人倾向于向债权人隐匿资产并无视法院命令（即使受到藐视法庭制裁威胁），显然有理由给予该等救济。鉴于该等历史，不应再让债务人多一天行使与债务人控制实体有关的任何公司治理权利。\n\n21. 为使受托人能够在不受债务人干扰的情况下行使上述权力，本院应确认，债务人不得干扰、妨碍或延误受托人就债务人控制实体行使债务人的经济权利和治理权利，或受托人根据《破产法》第1505条作为债务人外国代表的权力，包括受托人为实现该等目的代表遗产在外国法院采取的任何行动。如债务人反对受托人依照上述权力已采取或拟采取的任何行动，债务人应仅限于向本院（而非视情况而定的有关外国法院或其他外国实体）寻求救济，并应向本案利害关系方发出通知，但以债务人能够证明其具有提出该等请求的资格为限。\n\n此前未提出请求\n\n22. 受托人此前未向本院或任何其他法院寻求本文件所请求的救济。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n11 受托人希望其无须以紧急方式寻求英属维尔京群岛法院的介入，但其需要获得在必要范围内如此行事的授权。\n案件 22-50073 文书 598 于 07/23/22 提交 于 07/23/22 20:10:20 录入 第 10 页，共 26 页 案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 录入 第 43 页，共 322 页\n\n因此，基于前述理由，受托人谨此请求作出拟议命令，准予本动议所请求的救济以及其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：July 23, 2022 卢克·A·德斯平斯（LUC A. DESPINS），\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 第11章受托人\n\n签字人：/s/ 帕特里克·R·林赛（Patrick R. Linsey）\n\n帕特里克·R·林赛（Patrick R. Linsey）(ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\n尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特（Nicholas A. Bassett）(pro hac vice 待决) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\n阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特（Avram E. Luft）(pro hac vice 待决) 道格拉斯·巴伦（Douglass Barron）(pro hac vice 待决) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人的拟任律师\n\n附件 A\n\n拟议命令\n\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT）\n布里奇波特分庭\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， :\n: 案件编号 22-50073\n(JAM)\n债务人。 :\n\nx\n\n根据《破产法》第363、541、1108及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章受托人代表遗产在任何外国行事，以及 (C) 准予相关救济\n\n兹就卢克·A·德斯平斯（Luc A. Despins）先生以其作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）身份提出的动议（“本动议”），请求根据《美国法典》第11编（“《破产法》”）第363、541、1108及1505条作出命令（“本命令”），(a) 确认受托人持有债务人在其拥有和/或控制的所有公司实体（“债务人控制实体”）中的全部经济权利和公司治理权利，包括但不限于 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever (BVI)），并准予相关救济；(b) 授权受托人代表债务人遗产（“遗产”）在任何外国行事；以及 (c) 准予相关救济，所有内容均如本动议中更充分载明；且本院根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦地区法院）作出的移送常设命令（经修订）对审理本动议及其中请求的救济具有管辖权；且根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，审理本动议及其中请求的救济属于核心程序；且本院为适当审理地\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 598 于 07/23/22 提交 于 07/23/22 20:10:20 录入 第 13 页，共 26 页 案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 录入 第 46 页，共 322 页\n\n，依照 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409；且本院已认定，本动议所请求的救济符合遗产、其债权人及所有利害关系方的最佳利益；且在具体情形下已就本动议发出适当且充分的通知；且看来无需发出其他或进一步通知；且在本院已进行所有程序；且对本文件所请求救济提出的任何异议均已撤回或经实体审理驳回；且经适当审议并有充分理由，特此命令：\n\n1. 本动议按本命令所载内容获准。\n\n2. 自日期为 July 8, 2022 的、准予任命卢克·A·德斯平斯为本第11章案件受托人的命令 [ECF No. 523] 作出之日起生效，受托人为遗产利益持有债务人就所有债务人控制实体享有的全部经济权利和治理权利，包括但不限于 Genever (BVI)。为免疑义，前述权利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。作为前述事项的一部分，在必要范围内，受托人获授权以其作为本第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\n3. 如受托人就债务人控制实体行使经济权利和治理权利被视为超出日常业务范围，该等行使特此获准，因为行使该等权利具有合理的商业依据，包括因为受托人为遗产利益持有债务人就该等实体享有的全部经济权利和治理权利。尽管《破产规则》6004(h)或 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）《破产实务与程序地方法规》的任何其他规定有相反适用，本命令的条款和条件应于其作出时立即生效并可执行，特此豁免本命令效力和可执行性的任何适用中止。为免疑义，本命令的任何内容均不授权受托人出售或以其他方式处分债务人控制实体中的任何股权或债务人的其他资产。\n\n4. 根据《破产法典》第1505条，特此授权受托人作为债务人的外国代表，在任何外国根据适用的外国法律，以为破产财产行使下列任何获准方式：(a) 调查、收集和追回位于外国的债务人资产，包括在必要或适当时为此在外国法院寻求救济；(b) 对债务人控制实体行使控制权，包括在必要或适当时为此在外国法院寻求救济；以及 (c) 向持有与债务人控制实体有关的该等公司文件的适当外国公司登记机构（或类似实体）请求并取得公司文件。在不限制前述规定的情况下，根据破产法院第1505条，授权受托人向持有该等公司文件的适当英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）实体请求并取得与 Genever (BVI) 有关的公司文件。\n\n5. 债务人不得干扰、阻碍或延误受托人行使本命令项下的权限，包括受托人为推进该等权限而代表破产财产在外国法院已采取或将采取的任何行动。如债务人反对受托人行使该等权限，债务人仅可在通知利害关系方后向本法院（而非视具体情况而定的相关外国法院或其他外国实体）寻求救济，前提是债务人能够证明其具有提出该等请求的诉讼资格。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 598 于 07/23/22 提交 于 07/23/22 20:10:20 登记 第 15 页，共 26 页；案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 48 页，共 322 页\n\n6. 为推进受托人行使本命令项下的权限，本法院谨请求外国法院予以协助，包括就受托人为其对 Genever (BVI) 行使公司控制权而提出的任何救济请求（包括紧急救济请求），请求 BVI 法院予以协助。\n\n7. 本命令中的任何规定均不得视为授权就 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever (US)”）在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国破产法院）（“Genever Court”）待决的第11章案件采取任何特定行动。如受托人就 Genever (US) 行使公司治理权利将影响其第11章案件，受托人应在该等范围内出庭于 Genever Court，并向其寻求指引。\n\n8. 授权并赋予受托人采取落实本命令所准予救济所必需的一切行动的权力。\n\n9. 本命令的条款和条件应于其登记后立即生效并可强制执行。\n\n10. 本法院应对因本命令的实施、解释和执行而产生或与之相关的一切事项保留管辖权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 598 于 07/23/22 提交 于 07/23/22 20:10:20 登记 第 16 页，共 26 页；案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 49 页，共 322 页\n\n附件 B\n\n2022年2月9日纽约州最高法院的裁决\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/09/2022\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 598 于 07/23/22 提交 于 07/23/22 20:10:20 登记 第 17 页，共 26 页；案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 于 02/28/22 提交 于 02/28/22 21:19:53 登记 第 7 页，共 73 页；案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 50 页，共 322 页\n\n出席：尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官 庭别 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机遇基金有限合伙企业） 案卷编号 652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉 动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 动议序号 019\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever Holdings LLC），以及 动议裁决和命令\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings Corporation），\n\n被告。---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n在这起始于2017年的案件中，共有1,180项案卷登记——其中几乎全部涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）通过将其巨额个人资产置于一系列公司、受信任的知己及家庭成员名下，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为——本法院须裁定，原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）是否已完成举证责任，以证明本法院应对 Kwok 作出最终民事藐视法庭命令。基于下述理由，本法院同时作出最终民事藐视法庭命令。\n\nPAX 于 February 3, 2021 就 Kwok 获得金额为 $116,402,019.57 的判决书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 716）。其后，PAX 历经一年，首先识别、继而试图扣押 Kwok 在美国的资产，以执行其判决书。PAX 在识别由 Kwok 行使控制权的资产时遇到困难，因为自称亿万富翁的 Kwok 已将其资产藏匿于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员名下。该安排使 Kwok 得以声称其没有资产，尽管其生活奢华；原告以社交媒体剪报、照片和录像资料对此加以罗列，显示 Kwok 奢侈度日，并夸耀其财富、昂贵住宅、私人飞机和游艇。正如 February 2, 2022 的庭审记录所述，该等证据证明力甚低，因为提供该等证据的证人除知道其可在各种网站上获取外，对该“证据”的真实性并无第一手了解。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/09/2022；案件 22-50073 文件 598 于 07/23/22 提交 于 07/23/22 20:10:20 登记 第 18 页，共 26 页；案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 于 02/28/22 提交 于 02/28/22 21:19:53 登记 第 8 页，共 73 页；案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 51 页，共 322 页\n\n于 February 2, 2022，本法院举行证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交直接证言，并可供交叉询问。该听证会之前，PAX 为查找并扣押被告 Kwok 所有的资产进行了长期程序。除其他事项外，该等程序确定 Kwok 对名为 Lady May 的游艇行使支配和控制，并导致作出一系列命令，禁止 Kwok 和／或名为 Lady May 的游艇的登记所有人将 Lady May 移出本法院的管辖范围。首项该等命令于 September 30, 2020 作出，如下文详述；随后于 October 15, 2020 作出的命令，禁止“Kwok 先生和／或……该游艇，即‘Lady May’的登记所有人”离开本管辖范围。（NYSCEF Doc. No. 630）。如下文详述，Kwok 在2020年7月、8月和9月的大部分时间均在 Lady May 上度过。在导致作出 September 30 和 October 15, 2020 禁止令的程序同时，Kwok 及其同伙作出安排，使 Lady May 于2020年10月初驶往佛罗里达州，之后前往巴哈马。于 March 16, 2021，本法院作出附条件民事藐视法庭命令，指示如 Kwok 未能在 May 31, 2021 前将 Lady May 返还至本法院管辖范围内，则 Lady May 留在本法院管辖范围外的每一天，他均应被处以 $500,000.00 罚款。\n\n上诉分庭第一部门维持本法院认定 Kwok 构成附条件民事藐视法庭的命令，认定“每日 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭行为；尽管其获准如此做，但其并未显示有任何兴趣……”。NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉分庭进一步裁定：\n\n动议法院在认定被告构成民事藐视法庭时行使了其自由裁量权，因为原告以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了其知悉的法院合法、明确命令，且该等违反导致原告权利受损（见 El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753）。……指示动议法院继续举行证据听证会，以解决关于该游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n\n根据上诉分庭的命令，本法院安排 February 2, 2022 的证据听证会，以解决 Kwok 是否实益拥有并控制该游艇的问题。Kwok 未在 February 2, 2022 的听证会上作证；此前，在回应 PAX 就资产进行的取证工作时，他援引《宪法》第五修正案权利，拒绝就 Lady May 作证或回应与之有关的证据开示请求。PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 尽管援引了《宪法》第五修正案，Kwok 仍是多个审判地的积极诉讼当事人，且曾在本案及其他程序中作出证言。\n\nKwok 还在本法院提起题为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng，157025/2020 的诉状，该诉状提及 Freebeacon.com 于 September 8, 2017 发表的一篇博客文章，其中 Kwok 就“涉及其152英尺机动游艇 Lady May 的若干事件……”提出抱怨。（诉状第8段，NYSCEF Doc. No. 001）（“Zeng 诉状”）。Zeng 诉状将 Kwok 描述为“一名直言不讳的中共批评者”，其为揭露中共和中国政府内部普遍存在的腐败，付出了巨大“努力”。The Washington Post（《华盛顿邮报》）报道，前特朗普总统顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于2020年在 Lady May 船上被捕，并将 Bannon 先生描述为 Kwok 的朋友和商业伙伴，“一名直言不讳的中国政府网络批评者，曾与该国情报机构关系密切，但现因欺诈、敲诈和贿赂罪名被北京当局通缉。”其他新闻媒体报道称，Bannon 先生曾不止一次使用 Kwok 的私人飞机前往政治集会。\n\n1 “PX”系指原告的审判证物。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/09/2022；案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 于 02/28/22 提交 于 02/28/22 21:19:53 登记 第 10 页，共 73 页；案件 22-50073 文件 598 于 07/23/22 提交 于 07/23/22 20:10:20 登记 第 20 页，共 26 页；案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 53 页，共 322 页\n\n听证会上由被告证人亲口作出的证言，以清楚且令人信服的方式证明，Kwok 实益拥有并控制 Lady May，且其对本法院及司法程序极为蔑视。\n\n郭文贵（Kwok）曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，以下简称“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上提出的证词证实，2014年，郭文贵无偿将 HK International 的100%权益转让给瞿国娇（Qu Guo Jiao）。瞿女士是郭氏家族信赖的商业伙伴。其后，郭文贵逃离中国，并于2015年2月23日，HK International 以 £ 28 million GBP 购得“Lady May”号游艇（Lady May）。听证会上提出的证词未能证明购买“Lady May”号游艇的资金来源，但郭文贵之女郭美（Mei Guo）未经反驳的证词证实，瞿女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。Tr. 44. 2 因此，可以作出合理推断，即郭文贵向 HK International 提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。无争议的是，瞿女士于2017年6月17日前后以 \\$1 或无偿将“Lady May”号游艇的所有权转让给郭文贵之女郭美。Tr. 47. 根据郭女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162），郭女士最终将“Lady May”号游艇的所有权转让给现时登记所有人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司，以下简称“HK USA”）。郭女士进一步宣称，她是 HK USA 的唯一所有人，尽管该游艇每年数百万美元的所有开支，包括燃料、维护以及船长和船员费用，均由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring.”）支付；据称该公司是郭氏家族办公室。\n\n2 “Tr.”系指证据听证会记录，其已作为 NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179 电子提交。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1181 NYSCEF 收讫：02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 11 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 21 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 54 of 322\n\n在听证会上，郭女士证称，她的兄弟为她购买了“Lady May”号游艇。Tr. 46. 法院不能采信该证词，因为没有证据表明郭女士的兄弟参与了促成郭女士取得该游艇所有权的公司交易。而且，实际上，针对法院的提问，郭女士承认，在她取得该游艇之前发生的任何转让中，她的兄弟均未参与。Tr. 47.\n\n听证会上提出的其他证词证实，郭文贵每年夏季多次登上该游艇，而郭女士很少登上该游艇。Trial Tr. 88:8-20. “Lady May”号游艇的船长证称，郭文贵于2020年7月、8月及9月的大部分时间均在游艇上，这与其夏季的一贯做法相符。Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. 在本院2020年9月30日限制令之后，2020年10月，“Lady May”号游艇被送往佛罗里达州，随后送往巴哈马群岛进行维修，并于2021年10月被派往意大利，据称是按照 Golden Spring 的指示。郭女士承认，她知悉本院2020年9月30日的限制令，以及本院其后于2021年3月16日作出的命令，要求将“Lady May”号游艇送回本院管辖范围内。Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\n郭女士证称，一方面，她指示“Lady May”号游艇的航程安排；但另一方面，她又证称，对郭文贵的安保担忧如此重大，以致不会留存任何航程安排记录。Tr. 52. 她进一步证称，当其父亲未由她陪同在游艇上时，他可自由选择前往任何其想去的地方。Tr. 50. 然而，根本问题在于，谁指示该游艇于2020年10月移出本院管辖范围。郭女士主张，2020年10月初，她不再希望使用该游艇，并将该指示转达给 Golden Spring；Golden Spring 随后将她的指示转达给当时的船长 Heaslop 船长（Captain Heaslop）。Tr. 53.\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1181 NYSCEF 收讫：02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 12 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 22 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 55 of 322\n\n经进一步询问，郭女士承认，是 Golden Spring 告知她该游艇需要移往较温暖的地方。Tr. 55. 郭女士随后重复了其已撤回的证词，即其兄弟将该游艇赠予她，并称其兄弟是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。Tr. 56. 该证词不可信，因为在2020年9月30日，法院作出临时限制令，限制郭文贵\n\n……不得就其享有权益的任何财产进行或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干预，亦不得交付或以其他方式处分现已到期或此后到期应付给他的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 规定的例外情形及正常业务过程中进行的行为除外。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. 值得注意的是，当时“Lady May”号游艇的船长 Heaslop 船长证称，在该游艇于2020年10月初启程前往佛罗里达州前“几天”，郭文贵告诉 Heaslop 船长，郭文贵将不再是“Lady May”号游艇的客人（且显然是在本院2020年9月30日命令作出之后）。Tr. 89. Heaslop 船长还反驳了郭女士关于由郭女士向其指示该游艇移动事宜的证词。Tr. 94.\n\n郭女士还承认，其后已阅读法院于2021年3月16日作出的命令，该命令要求“Lady May”号游艇于2021年5月31日前送回本院管辖范围内（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她进一步承认，她已与其律师讨论该命令（该律师的服务费用由 Golden Spring 支付），且她未遵守该命令。\n\nYachtzoo SARL 的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（罗素·斯托基尔）证称，其公司与 HK USA 订有一份日期为2021年5月的管理合同，且他与 HK USA 和 Golden Spring 沟通，但从未与郭女士沟通。Tr. 78. 继任船长 Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫）亦作出相同证词。Tr. 82. 简言之，郭女士关于其拥有并控制“Lady May”号游艇的证词，在任何方面均不能采信。郭女士似为一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据证明她对“Lady May”号游艇行使支配和控制，也未提供任何证明表明她如何取得“Lady May”号游艇，除了作为一种掩饰手段，以使该游艇免遭其父债权人扣押。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1181 NYSCEF 收讫：02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 13 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 23 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 56 of 322\n\n郭文贵就“Lady May”号游艇所策划的这场障眼法相关的种种手腕，与本诉讼待决五年来郭文贵所采取的其他一切规避性及蔑视法庭的行为如出一辙，这也是本案有1,180项案卷记录的原因。\n\n法院有权根据《司法法》第 § 753 条认定郭文贵构成民事藐视法庭——并“以罚款和监禁予以惩处”——在如本案情形中，法院“明确认定[郭文贵]的行为旨在或实际上确实挫败、削弱、阻碍或损害民事程序一方当事人的权利或救济”。Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985)（援引 N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753）。第753条规定四项要求：\n\n“为认定某一案件中已发生藐视法庭，必须确定：[1] 一项明确表达无歧义指令的合法法院命令当时有效；[2] 必须能够以合理确定性表明该命令已被违反……；[3] 此外，被认定构成藐视法庭的一方必须知悉法院命令，尽管无需该命令实际送达该方……；[4] 最后，必须证明对诉讼一方权利造成了损害。”\n\nFleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc., 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)（援引 McCormick v Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)）。本案中提出的证词满足该标准的各项要件。实际上，上诉分庭已对此作出暗示。见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1st Dep't 2021)（“[PAX]已以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，[郭文贵]违反了一项其知悉的、合法且明确的法院指令，且该等违反导致原告权利受损……”）。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1181 NYSCEF 收讫：02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 14 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 24 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 57 of 322\n\nPAX 持续“受损”的程度，取决于 PAX 是否证明其最终可对“Lady May”号游艇实施扣押，以满足其现已达数亿美元的针对郭文贵的判决书。根据 CPLR § 5225，在债务人享有必要“权益”时，“金钱或其他动产”可以被扣押。为满足该要求，“判决债务人不必拥有财产的法定所有权；受益权益即足够。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“受益权益是‘对某物享有的一项权利或期待……而非对该物的法定所有权。’”Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)（援引 Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)）。郭文贵对“Lady May”号游艇所享有的远不止受益权益。郭文贵不仅控制该游艇，而且看来是其提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享用该游艇的人。\n\n关键因素在于，该“财产是否使[受益所有人]如同其直接取得该财产一般受益”。Id.（引述 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；另见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)（维持驳回判决债务人关于其因将其权益转让给女儿而不再享有财产权益的主张）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（尽管判决债务人声称其已将财产转让给一家公司，仍准许判决债权人的交付动议，因为即使该说法属实，证据也表明其“保留了对该财产的控制和/或权益”））。\n\n证据清楚且令人信服地表明，郭文贵对“Lady May”号游艇享有受益权益并控制该游艇。就后一点而言，法院对 Zeng 案的提交予以司法认知，并根据全部案卷事实推断，郭文贵已采取非常措施，以保护该游艇免受其债权人的追索。此外，郭文贵的“家族办公室”为该游艇的日常运营和维护提供资金。\n\n法院认定，郭女士的证词不仅前后矛盾且具有欺瞒性，而且被 Heaslop 船长、Ivanov 船长及 Stockil 先生的证词显著削弱；他们称，在郭女士直接或间接持有该游艇所有权的四年半期间，他们从未就该游艇相关事项接受过郭女士的指示。\n\n此外，根据已确立的纽约州法律，一方当事人在民事程序中援引第五修正案，“可以构成作出不利事实推定的依据。”DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。凡有必要或允许作出事实认定时，均可适用不利推定，包括在藐视法庭动议的情形中。S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997)。\n\n同样，根据缺席证人规则，“事实裁判者可以对未作证的证人作出对方证据所允许的最强推定。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（在未出庭的被告“将知悉证据提出的重大争议事项”的情况下适用不利推定）。\n\nPAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）有权通过上述两种途径获得不利推定。郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）就PAX判决后的证据开示提出的问题援引其第五修正案免于自证其罪的权利，包括针对Lady May号游艇的具体请求。尽管郭文贵主张，在此不宜作出不利推定，因为“只有在初步证明一项证据真实后，当事人才有义务对其作出回应”，但该主张不攻自破。PAX已提出大量可采纳证据，证明郭文贵对Lady May号游艇享有必要的受益权益并具有控制权。见People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（说明如果证据“倾向于证明某一重大事实，即案件中直接争议的事实，存在或不存在”，则该证据具有证明力）。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文书编号：1181 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文书 50-1 提交日期：02/28/22 登记日期：02/28/22 21:19:53 第 16 页，共 73 页 案件 22-50073 文书 598 提交日期：07/23/22 登记日期：07/23/22 20:10:20 第 26 页，共 26 页 案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交日期：12/28/22 登记日期：12/28/22 13:58:25 第 59 页，共 322 页\n\n截至 February 7, 2022，Lady May号游艇已在本院管辖范围之外停留268天。根据本院裁定并经上诉庭确认的每日 $500,000 罚款，累计罚款将为 $134,000,000.00，超过PAX尚未履行的近 $120 million 判决金额，且为Lady May号游艇 GBP £ 28 million 购买价格的数倍。然而，若亿万富翁诉讼当事人可以一方面寻求利用纽约州及美国其他地区的法院程序，另一方面明知且故意违反法院命令，则法治将不复存在。郭文贵必须在送达本院附有登记通知的命令之日起五个工作日内向PAX支付 $134,000,000.00。如未及时支付罚款，本院准备根据 Judiciary Law § 753 行使全部权力。\n\n日期：February 9, 2022\n\n勾选一项：案件已结案 X 非终局性处置 X 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他申请：和解命令 提交命令 如适用请勾选：包括移送/重新指派 受托人指定 交付审查\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交日期：12/28/22 登记日期：12/28/22 13:58:25 第 60 页，共\n\n美国破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT）\n康涅狄格州地区（DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT）\n布里奇波特分院（BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n关于 * 案件编号：22-50073(JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， *\n*\n* 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\nAugust 1, 2022\n债务人。 *\n*\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n动议听证会记录\n审判长：尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n美国破产法官\n出庭人员：\n代表债务人： 康涅狄格州布里奇波特 AARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·罗姆尼律师）\nERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·A·亨齐律师）\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\n\n纽约州纽约市 WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.（威廉·巴尔迪加律师）\nBrown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\n\n代表债权人，Pacific\nAlliance Asia Opportunity\nFund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）： 7 Times Square\n纽约州纽约市 PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n康涅狄格州哈特福德 PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·伯尼律师）\n28 Trumbull Street\n\n2022-50073\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，\n记录文本由速记服务机构制作。 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n关于：\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402 H\n债务人\nShelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992\n11/18/2022\nP.E.\n债务人证据 H\n\n出庭人员（续）：代表债权人委员会：IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师）Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）850 Main Street 康涅狄格州布里奇波特 06601 代表债权人Rui Ma（马蕊）、Weican Meng（孟维灿）和Zheng Wu（吴铮）：KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休律师）McElroy Deutsch（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇律师事务所）225 Liberty Street 36th Floor 纽约州纽约市 10281 代表美国受托人：HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 康涅狄格州纽黑文 06510 代表HK International（HK国际）和Mei Guo（郭美）：STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思律师）Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）10 Middle Street, 15th Floor 康涅狄格州布里奇波特 06604 第11章受托人：LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·A·德斯平斯律师）Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）200 Park Avenue 纽约州纽约市 10166 第11章受托人的拟任律师：DOUGLAS SKALKA, ESQ.（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡律师）Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所）195 Church Street 康涅狄格州纽黑文 06510\n\n1 （（程序于下午12:15开始。）\n2 法庭书记员：\n案件编号22-50073，Ho Wan\n3 Kwok。\n4 法庭：\n好的。下午好。如果可以，\n5 请各方为记录目的作出出庭声明，先请第\n6 11章受托人。\n7 DESPINS先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Luc\n8 Despins，第11章受托人。\n9 法庭：\n下午好。\n10 SKALKA先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Douglas\n11 Skalka，作为第11章受托人的拟任本地律师。\n12 法庭：\n下午好。\n13 CLAIBORN女士：\n下午好。Holley Claiborn\n14 代表美国受托人。\n15 法庭：\n下午好。\n16 GOLDMAN先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Irve\n17 Goldman，Pullman & Comley，代表债权人\n18 委员会。\n19 法庭：\n下午好。\n20 GOLDMAN先生：\n请问我可以从法庭哪里取得\n21 口罩？\n22 法庭：\n这里桌上就有一些，\n23 Goldman律师，就在Henzy律师面前。\n24 GOLDMAN先生：\n哦，好的。谢谢。\n25 法庭：\n不客气。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交日期：12/28/22 登记日期：12/28/22 13:58:25 第 62 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交日期：12/28/22 登记日期：12/28/22 13:58:25 第 63 页，共\n1 FRIEDMAN先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Peter\n2 Friedman，来自O'Melveny & Myers，代表Pacific\n3 Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.\n4 法庭：\n下午好。\n5 FRIEDMAN先生：\n谢谢。\n6 法庭：\n与你一同出庭的是你的共同律师和\n7 本地律师吗？\n8 SARNOFF先生：\nStuart Sarnoff，同样来自O'Melveny &\n9 Myers。\n10 BIRNEY先生：\n还有Patrick Birney，来自Robinson & Cole。\n11 下午好。\n12 法庭：\n下午好。\n13 Henzy律师？\n14 HENZY先生：\nEric Henzy，代表Ho Wan Kwok。\n15 法庭：\n下午好。\n16 ROMNEY先生：\nAaron Romney，同样代表\n17 债务人Ho Wan Kwok。\n18 法庭：\n下午好。\n19 KINDSETH先生：\nStephen Kindseth，代表Ho\n20 Wan Kwok。\n21 法庭：\n那你的其他当事人呢，Kindseth\n22 先生？\n23 KINDSETH先生：\n我不知道我们是否有必要\n24 代表HK International出庭，\n25 但同样代表HK International的是Stephen Kindseth，\n\nZeisler & Zeisler。法庭：郭美呢？KINDSETH先生：还有郭美。法庭：好的。谢谢。MAYHEW女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew，McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter，代表债权人马蕊、吴铮和孟维灿。法庭：下午好。Baldiga先生，我看到你在后面，但请继续作出出庭声明——BALDIGA先生：是，法官阁下。William Baldiga，Brown Rudnick。谢谢。法庭：下午好。今天还有其他人希望为记录目的作出出庭声明吗？（无可听见的答复。）法庭：好的。Baldiga先生，我们将首先审理你的申请，即你作为律师申请退出代理的动议；请你到前面来。若较方便，你可以到讲台前，无论哪种方式对你较方便。BALDIGA先生：我会到讲台前。谢谢。法庭：下午好。BALDIGA先生：下午好。法官阁下，我们的动议于July 13提交。上周我们在案卷编号623提交了补充材料。法庭：我看到了。谢谢。BALDIGA先生：好的。我认为法庭或其他当事人之间可能至少存在两个疑虑。其一是法律问题，即我们是否有权退出代理，特别是现在已有另外两家律所作为债务人占有中的Kwok先生的代理律师出庭。其二，我们预期到——我认为这是适当的——并且已与Claiborn女士和Despins先生就我们关于预付聘金以及作为债务人前代理律师所持续承担的责任进行了交谈。我们只是希望毫无疑义地表明，我们理解相关规则。我们始终遵守这些规则，并将继续遵守。如果——如果存在任何疑虑，我希望主动处理这些疑虑，包括今天向法庭处理。我们不会从持有预付聘金中获益。因此，我们——当然，除将其作为我们律师费的担保外——所以我们乐意作出任何安排——我认为目前与Claiborn女士及其办公室以及受托人及其办公室的安排都没有问题——法庭：你们律所保留——或者继续持有该预付聘金，但须以准许你们律师费的命令为条件，这是目前的——是这样吗？BALDIGA先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：是的。当然。好的。请继续。这没有问题。BALDIGA先生：而且，我是说，这笔钱存放在一家声誉极佳的银行。它不是律所的资金。法庭：对。BALDIGA先生：我们将预付聘金存放在独立账户中。幸运的是，我们律所的财务及其他状况均良好，因此我认为其绝不会面临任何风险。关于替任律师，我不幸在上次听证会时正在休假，但我已阅读了——法庭：嗯，希望那是一次愉快的休假。BALDIGA先生：——记录文本，我理解相关讨论。法庭：希望你休假并非不幸。希望——BALDIGA先生：我本来不打算这样说，但我感谢您的这番话。我认为确实如此。关于聘用Zeisler律所一事，我不打算表明立场。法庭：明白。BALDIGA先生：那是应由其他当事人处理的问题。但Mitchell先生已出庭。Zeisler律所\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交日期：12/28/22 登记日期：12/28/22 13:58:25 第 66 页，共\n\n已出庭。我认为，无论实际上是否存在替任律师，依法均应准许我们退出代理的动议。但既然有替任律师，我认为该事项应当能够——希望能够——按常规处理。我愿意回答任何当事人或法庭的问题，但除此之外，我仅依赖这些书面材料。法庭：谢谢。我想听取其他所有人的意见——我尚未见到有人反对你的动议，也不知道有任何反对意见。因此，如果任何人有反对意见，我希望其现在提出。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，这不是反对意见，但我们有保留意见，因此能否在适当时候听取我们的意见？法庭：嗯，保留意见——我将要求Brown Rudnick——他们必须提交律师费申请。他们知道这一点。这已经——这不是问题。问题是——当你说——你是否担心Brown Rudnick继续持有这笔资金？我原以为这没有问题。DESPINS先生：不，法官阁下。问题是我们希望他们确认，他们将使自己\n\n可供使用。请问我可以到审判席前吗，法官阁下？法院：可以。可以。可以，请。DESPINS先生：好的。法院：抱歉。我现在明白了您的意思，我之前忘记提到这一点。您在书面文件中说过，您希望他们能够提供协助，并在必要时协助您。DESPINS先生：以法官阁下将作出的任何保护令为限。法院：对。DESPINS先生：我们上周提交了一项 2004 审查申请——法院：是。DESPINS先生：——他们是目标之一。法院：对。DESPINS先生：所以我们不必就其实体问题进行辩论。只是——法院：对。DESPINS先生：——我想确保他们不会一走了之。仅此而已。法院：好的。您和Baldiga先生是否有过——我不知道您是否有机会，但您是否就刚才在庭上陈述的事项进行过任何交谈？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1268\n提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25\n\nDESPINS先生：没有就该点进行过交谈。\n\nBALDIGA先生：我很乐意就此作出回应，法官阁下。\n\n显然，根据规则和法律，我们对法院负有义务。就特权事项而言，前任律师处于一个尴尬的位置。我们不希望陷入两难境地，因为我不想作出可能违反此处特权的承诺。\n\n因此，举例而言，当然，我已经与Despins先生进行过交谈。今后也将继续提供协助。我不难找到。\n\n我当然不想作出会使本所面临前客户提出主张的承诺，称我们以某种方式侵犯了特权，或使他们无法维护特权。\n\n我认为，这实际上与其说是Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的问题，不如说是受托人以及债务人的律师、替代律师需要处理的问题。根据我的经验，在我参与过的其他少数几起债务人脱离占有的案件中，这些都是难以处理的问题。\n\n因此，我很高兴继续根据Paul Hastings（保罗·哈斯廷斯律师事务所）的意愿提供协助，但我不会承诺做任何会使本所面临风险的事情。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 70 页（共\n\n法院：明白。不过我也有一个问题要问您。\n\nBALDIGA先生：当然。\n\n法院：如果Despins先生希望回应您刚才所说的话，我会听取他的意见。我想提出的是——而且我认为，从您的角度看这不会有问题——贵所将接受送达。如果——Despins先生可能会向贵所档案送达传票，对吗？他会希望查阅贵所档案。然后，您或其他律师将以特权为由提出异议，而后我们最终将不得不看看这一切如何处理，是否可以达成某种形式的保护令，或者是否需要由法院作出保护令。我只是不希望出现贵所不接受送达之类的问题——因为对我而言，那是最基本的。您有完全的权利，贵所有完全的权利，就向贵所提出的任何证据开示请求以及诸如此类的任何事项，提交其认为适当的任何文件。这不是我所说的。我只是说，我不希望我们所有人都在送达问题或我认为属于基本的问题上花费时间。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 71 页（共\n\n您有完全的权利，就您的律师—客户特权以及您可能主张的任何其他特权，依据适用法律和规则提出您认为适当的任何问题，但我只是希望——那将是法院所希望得到的承诺——我不希望在这上面花费任何时间，我想您也不希望如此。\n\nBALDIGA先生：那么，有两项承诺，法官阁下。第一，如同惯例且适当的那样，受托人作为其最初事务之一——我认为正如他在书面文件中所说——发出了一封简单的信函，即文件保全函——\n\n法院：对。\n\nBALDIGA先生：——这在更广泛的调查中属于惯例。我们已经——我也向受托人说明了这一点——在内部实施了保全措施，因此我们在这方面一直是负责任的。因此，不会有任何资料丢失。这是第一步，坦率地说也是基本措施。第二步，不需要送达或执达员或任何此类事项。如果作出 2004 命令，我们将予以遵从。我们不需要传票或其他正式程序，只要债务人未质疑该受托人是否已经采取适当步骤。那实际上应由债务人说明——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 72 页（共\n\n法院：我明白。\n\nBALDIGA先生：——存在某些欠缺，但不会是Brown Rudnick从中阻挠。\n\n法院：这正是我的问题和我的请求，我对此表示感谢。谢谢。\n\nBALDIGA先生：好的。\n\n法院：现在，Despins先生，您是否还想就Baldiga先生刚才的陈述补充什么？\n\nDESPINS先生：没有，法官阁下。您已经涵盖了我的观点。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。好的。\n\n那么，Baldiga先生，正如您在陈述中所说，我们近来没有那么多债务人被移出占有的案件，因此，关于是否——您知道，我甚至尚未了解这两位律师。我会就此与Henzy先生谈谈。\n\n但我同意，应当准许您的动议。该动议将基于以下理由获准：其他当事人、其他律师已经代表债务人提交出庭通知，而债务人已脱离占有。因此，这没有问题。\n\n我需要知道的是，我不知道您是否就此与Claiborn律师或其他任何人进行过交谈，我并不是说您应该进行过——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 73 页（共\n\n您需要多长时间提交费用申请？\n\nBALDIGA先生：就这一点，法官阁下，我尚未进行讨论，但我已经对此作了相当多的思考。在最近几次听证会上，法院的意见之一——我认为所有人都认为这一意见很有道理——是您不希望让人们无谓地投入大量工作。我认为同样适用于此——提交费用申请会有适当的时间和场合。鉴于费用获准的标准，尤其是作为破产财团律师，关键在于您的工作最终产生了什么结果？我认为，法院或任何当事人今天都很难作出评估。\n\n例如，在您指定受托人的裁决备忘录中，您提到了我们促成的两件事情。其中之一是我们提交了一项计划。该计划是夭折，还是最终成为本案获确认计划的基础，时间会给出答案。我认为今天不可能对此作出评估，也许在相当一段时间内都无法评估。第二，是那艘船。我们不知道有关该船的整个问题将如何发展。不仅是程序上，而且它是否会成为破产财团的一部分？是自愿的，还是依据法院裁决？它是否属于协议的一部分？\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司）\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 74 页（共\n\n我们对自己所做的工作感到些许自豪，对所做的工作感到非常自豪。就我们而言，本案并未以我们原本预期的方式结束，但我认为，法院，尤其是受托人、United States Trustee（美国受托人）办公室、替代律师及委员会，在此处尘埃落定后，都能够以事后回顾的视角评估我们所做工作的价值。\n\n因此，我——而且整理一份费用申请需要大量工作。\n\n今天提交费用申请的另一个问题是，在不涉及特权和保密性顾虑的情况下，很难比我刚才所说的进一步展开。随着证据开示的进行，这些顾虑将随时间减轻。\n\n因此，我请求，鉴于我再次确认，在未提交费用申请的情况下，该款项不会被动用，我们目前先将此事搁置。在某个时候，任何当事人都可以对法院或对我说，嘿，我认为我们需要推进此事。但我只是不认为现在是时候。我认为随着案件推进，何时应当进行将会变得更加明显。\n\n法院：好的。我希望听取其他人就该点发表意见。好吗？\n\nBALDIGA先生：当然。\n\n法院：但我明白您的观点。谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1268\n提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25\n\n好的。是否有人——\n\nBALDIGA先生：法官阁下，目前您还有其他要问我的吗？\n\n法院：请再说一遍？\n\nBALDIGA先生：目前还有其他——\n\n法院：我目前没有问题。我明白您的立场是什么。我很好奇想听听其他当事人对此的看法。\n\nBALDIGA先生：我暂时退到一旁。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n我想知道，其他当事人如何看待Baldiga先生的建议，即目前将准许撤回出庭的动议，但目前无需提交费用申请？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，我是代表美国受托人的Holley Claiborn。\n\n我认为Baldiga律师就程序以及我们在本案中所处阶段提出了一些公平且有效的观点。或许最简便的做法是，将此事列入备忘清单，例如四至六个月后，我们可以重新审议该问题、我们在本案中所处的阶段，以及届时是否为提交费用申请的适当时间。\n\n因为，如Baldiga律师所指出，目前难以评估所提供服务对破产财团的价值，因为我们尚不了解全部事实，也远未到终点。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发表意见吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，受托人同意Baldiga先生的提议。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。Friedman先生？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：我是来自O'Melveny & Myers（奥睿律师事务所）的Peter Friedman。PAX同意这是合理的推进方式。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：法官阁下，我是代表委员会的Irve Goldman。我们对美国受托人提出的建议没有异议。\n\n法院：还有Baldiga先生？\n\nGOLDMAN先生：是的。\n\n法院：是。谢谢。还有其他人希望发表意见吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应）\n\n法院：好的。那么，Baldiga先生，准许代表Brown Rudnick提出的撤回作为律师的动议，显然也准许所有已在本案中提交出庭通知的Brown Rudnick个人律师撤回。\n\n并且无需提交费用\n\n现阶段的申请。\n\n因此，该命令可能只会以某种电子命令的形式作出，说明基于记录中陈述的理由，准许撤回代理的动议，并且本院将就 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）提交费用申请另行作出命令。\n\n这对您来说合理吗？\n\nBALDIGA 先生（巴尔迪加）：\n合理，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。好吧。很遗憾看到您离开。但这是一个不寻常的案件。我理解您及贵所对当事人所采取的立场，所有与本案密切相关以及新近参与本案的当事人都同意您的立场，因此我没有理由认为目前本案应朝任何其他方向发展。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：\n我可以告退吗？\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：\n很好。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。非常感谢。\n\n好的。因此，准许撤回代理律师资格的动议，并将作出命令，但该命令最有可能只是电子命令。可以吗？这就是 ECF 543。\n\n好的。请各位给我一点时间，然后我们将处理其余事项。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：\n现在，关于日程表上的其余事项，我相信各方对于应如何推进以及应按何种顺序处理，都有自己的想法。我也有我认为应如何推进的想法。\n\nDespins 先生（德斯平斯），对于我们今天接下来应处理什么事项，您的立场是什么？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n首先，我想非常简要地说明，在听证会结束时，我们有很多——并非很多——但有若干事务性事项需要处理。\n\n法庭：\n那么您想现在处理吗？我们谈的是自本案开始以来债务人尚未处理的动议，还是您——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n不是。不过，例如申报截止日期命令。有一项——我不想现在处理，因为它实际上比最初设想的更为复杂。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n因此，申报截止日期命令是其中之一。此外，我们还希望本院——所以我不会逐一说明所有事项——在本案中定期安排案件状态会议。\n\n法庭：\n这没有问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n诸如此类的事项。\n\n法庭：\n我要说一件与您实际上无关的事——或者可能有关——Baldiga 先生作为律师及其律师事务所，早些时候提交了数项动议；由于债务人决定撤回融资动议后本案情势发生变化，这些动议从未得到处理。仍有尚未处理的动议——我们可以稍后讨论——但委员会也有聘用专业人士的待决申请。有许多事项，也许我们可以在案件状态会议上或今天稍后处理，但我们无论如何都会解决这些事项。\n\n我想知道，您作为受托人，是否会在任何这些待决动议中承接原申请人的地位。例如，债务人曾经——我们曾就一名财务顾问举行证据听证会。我当时正准备作出裁定，随后一切发生变化，融资撤回动议提出了。您知道，该动议后来被撤回。然后我认为，现实情况是，至少如果 Brown Rudnick 继续留在本案中，他们将不再继续推进该动议。我不知道您是否会这样做。但无论如何，我们可以稍后讨论。\n\n关于我们今天所处的阶段——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n——我的意思是，最重要的事项——所有事项都很重要，但——包括申报截止日期命令——我确实看了——我必须说，我没有仔细审阅，但我看了您提交的附有修订痕迹等内容的拟议命令，我对此有一些想法，但没有实质性的意见。可以吗？\n\n关于是否——因此今天必须决定的事项是——所有事项都必须——都必须得到处理——但正如我们上一次听证会时所述，我知道已有大量取证请求向您送达，因为您已提交撤销传票动议。因此，我理解这一点。\n\nHenzy 先生（亨齐）正在推进其请求解除判决书的动议。数方当事人已对此提出异议。我对该动议及我们都需要讨论的程序有一些顾虑。\n\n然后您——然后还有 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的聘用以及当地律师的聘用。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n正确。还有——但我不确定您是否会处理这一事项——您曾要求 Zeisler 律师事务所（泽斯勒律师事务所）和 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）就某一问题提交书面意见。\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n我们没有参与该事项——\n\n法庭：\n没有。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n——所以我不知道该事项目前进展如何。\n\n法庭：\n我认为那正是我们接下来要处理的事项。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n好的。但我们先在最后处理我们所谓的事务性事项，尽管其具有实质性影响。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n但愿如此。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n有很多——在某种意义上有很多事项需要处理——\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n——例如，关于申报截止日期，我们确实根据您的要求作了修改。\n\n法庭：\n对。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n这听起来可能很奇怪，但出于与 Genever 案有关的理由，我认为我们不应继续处理该事项。其中有一整套情况——\n\n法庭：\n哦，好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n——我想向法官阁下说明。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n——因此我们将在听证会结束时处理该事项——\n\n法庭：\n好的，没问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n好的。因此，Claiborn 律师（克莱伯恩）和 Henzy 律师，在上一次听证会上，我确实要求你们二位——我知道你们确实就 327(a) 是否适用于 Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒和泽斯勒律师事务所），以及由于同时代理本案三方当事人是否存在实际利益冲突这一问题提交了书面意见。\n\n不过，在讨论该问题之前，我不明白另一位已提交出庭代理声明的律师，即 Henzy 律师，他将发挥什么作用，以及为什么还需要另一位律师？\n\nHENZY 先生：\n法官阁下，我仅在发言时摘下口罩。\n\n法庭：\n请便。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n对此我表示歉意。我只是——据我理解，Mitchell 律师（米切尔）出庭代理——法官阁下，在 Brown Rudnick 退出与——我认为这对 Baldiga 先生的陈述没有任何影响——之间，存在一个我称之为“窗口期”，但债务人曾——\n\n——据告知——我并未参与其中——作出明确决定终止——\n\n法庭：\n上周 Brown Rudnick 的某个人曾这样告诉我们。我不记得是谁，因此请原谅。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n当然，在遵守任何《破产法典》、破产规则问题的前提下，根据《职业行为规则》，如果客户终止与律师的委托关系，该律师在职业伦理上被禁止进一步代理该客户。\n\n因此，存在这样一个窗口期，在该期间 Brown Rudnick 不再代理——再次说明，暂且不论《破产法典》、破产规则以及撤回代理的必要性——但我可以理解他们采取不再代理债务人的立场；而我的律师事务所当时尚未受债务人聘用，Mitchell 先生出庭代理确实仅仅是为了——我认为是在法官阁下就 U.S. Trustee 提出的任命 Despins 先生为受托人的动议于 7 月 8 日举行的听证会时——在记录中说明债务人事实上反对任命 Despins 先生为受托人。\n\n我记得，该事项是通过提交某种信函而非通常会看到的正式诉状提出的。\n\n但我相信债务人无意让 Mitchell 律师出庭代理他。这就是为什么他聘用了——他聘用了我们。\n\n法庭：\n那么，Mitchell 先生会撤回其出庭代理声明吗？\n\nHENZY 先生：\n是，我当然会与债务人和 Mitchell 先生讨论此事。\n\n法庭：\n因为 Mitchell 先生在信中表示，他理解破产法院的所有规则，但他却提交了这封信。因此，我——我认为在本院中债务人不应有两名律师。我看不出其必要性。而且我不——显然，Mitchell 先生虽说他理解，却并不理解这里的运作方式。因此，我认为 Mitchell 先生撤回其出庭代理声明是明智的。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我们会处理好这件事。\n\n法庭：\n好的。好吧。现在，转向 327(a) 问题，以及 Claiborn 律师和——您知道，Henzy 律师，当您说这是明确的法律规则时，我又回头审视了这一问题。当然，这实际上并不是明确的法律规则。\n\nCollier's（科利尔破产法论著）中有一句是这样说的——而且它没有引用任何判例。随后，那些援引“非占有债务人不适用 327(a)”这一命题的判例，都引用了 Collier's 中的那一处引文。因此，这实际上很有意思，因为你原本会认为相关材料会比实际存在的更多。那些援引“你并非占有中的债务人，因此第——抱歉——因此 327(a) 不适用”这一命题的判例，都依赖于 Collier's 中的一句话，这对我而言颇有意思。不过，无论如何，Collier's 中就本案的状态而言还有其他有意思的内容。Claiborn 律师（克莱伯恩律师），你的动议谈到债务人是代表财产还是以其个人身份行事，以及这对于 327(a) 是否应当适用的影响。那么，目前从 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的立场来看，情况如何？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，我认为我们目前并未比提交书面意见时有所进展，只是债务人由 Zeisler firm（蔡斯勒律师事务所）提交的书面意见确实承认，各方之间已签署利益冲突豁免书。\n\n法庭书记员：Claiborn 律师，您的声音有点低。\n\n法庭：她听不——是的。您得再大声一点。她听不见您。抱歉。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：实际上我说得很大声，但我再试一次。我想请法庭注意，在 ECF 620 的 Zeisler 书面意见中，有陈述称债务人、HK International（HK 国际公司）与 Guo 女士（郭女士）之间已签署利益冲突豁免书。我们没有见过这些利益冲突豁免书，也不了解债务人、HK、Guo 女士与 Zeisler 律师事务所之间可能进行过的任何讨论。因此，截至目前，我们在分析上并未比 7 月 27 日提交书面意见时更进一步，所以在我们看来，Zeisler 律师事务所是否必须遵守第 327(a) 条，在很大程度上取决于债务人的目标是什么以及债务人正在做什么。作为其中的一部分，这与他们相对于三个不同当事人——债务人、HK 和 Guo 女士——所扮演的角色密切相关。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，你们不知道 327(a) 是否适用？还是说，因为你们不知道他们所扮演的角色，所以无法确定其是否适用？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 86 页，共 93 页\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他人希望就利益冲突问题发表意见吗？关于 327(a) 问题，我必须再次说明，Collier's 用一句话说它不适用于非占有债务人。它就只说了这一点。但是，该问题，你知道，可能会随着案件中发生的情况而不断被提出，因为——如果我认定 327(a) 此时不适用，并不意味着我不能在其他时候认定 327(a) 不适用。但这还不包括这样一个事实：Zeisler 律师事务所目前代表 Kwok 先生（郭先生）、HK International 和 Guo 女士，并称由于受托人现已自动代位成为 HK 对 Kwok 先生提起的对抗程序中的一方当事人，因此不存在利益冲突。你同意吗？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，我认为事情并非如此纯粹。\n\n法庭：不过那是他们的论点。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。那么你怎么看？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，U.S. Trustee——我们提交的书面意见列出了在多个不同司法辖区作出的有关第 327 条适用性的意见，显然不包括本辖区。我认为，有观点支持这样一种看法：视律师在案件中所做的事情及其真正所扮演的角色而定，他们受第 327 条约束。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1268\n提交于 12/28/22\n登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25\n\n1 本辖区，关于第 327 条的适用性，我认为\n2 有依据支持这样一种观点，即取决于律师\n3 正在做什么，以及他们在案件中实际承担的角色，\n4 他们受第 327 条约束。\n5 在债务人以如下心态和\n6 目标在今日继续推进债务人的《规则》60(b) 动议的范围内，\n7 即该受托人任命无效，因为\n8 Despins 受托人（德斯平斯受托人）不具备所要求的\n9 无利害关系人资格，\n10 该立场显然是为了财产的利益而被采取和主张的。\n11 因此，在这是债务人的\n12 目标和宗旨的范围内，\n13 可以作出一种解释，即第 327(a) 条事实上\n14 适用于 Zeisler。\n15 法庭：好的。Henzy 律师（亨齐律师）？\n16 HENZY 先生（亨齐先生）：关于这两点，法官阁下，我——我\n17 不记得我就\n18 327(a) 问题引用的所有判例——我确实知道其中数个\n19 引用了 Collier's，但我不确定是否全部如此。\n20 我未能找到任何持相反观点的判例，即认为\n21 非占有债务人必须\n22 聘请——\n23 法庭：我认为你是对的。我也\n24 没有找到。我查过。我同意你。我不——而且我\n25 认为那些判例中对 Collier's 的引用就是全部依据。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 89 页，共 93 页\n\n还有其他判例——还有其他关于你是否可以根据第 330 条获得报酬的问题。那是不同的问题。\n\nHENZY 先生：是的。是的。我认为最高法院——\n\n法庭：但我同意。关于 327(a)，没有任何规定表明非占有债务人的律师必须遵守 327(a)。我没有找到任何这样的规定。然后唯一的问题是你是否必须披露你的报酬。你披露了你的报酬。但我不明白，从你的角度看，“常青预付聘金”是什么意思。我想我知道它的意思，但我假定那意味着，当你的十万美元用完时，你就会再得到一笔——它是常青的，永远盛开，永远不会失去它的——\n\nHENZY 先生：它总是——它总是盛开。\n\n法庭：它总是盛开。\n\nHENZY 先生：是的，它总是盛开。\n\n法庭：所以你——所以你用掉那十万美元——我只是说——然后你再得到十万美元。\n\nHENZY 先生：或者无论在该特定计费期间已经使用了多少。是的。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1268\n提交于 12/28/22\n登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25\n\n1 法庭：好的。那么——\n2 HENZY 先生：那么，假设某个月我们计费\n3 $10,000，我们会向客户计费——我们会向\n4 客户发送一张 $10,000 的发票。我们会从\n5 预付聘金中提取这 $10,000，而客户将有义务\n6 补足该预付聘金。\n7 法庭：好的。\n8 HENZY 先生：这就是这个意思。\n9 法庭：而且——而且法庭如何——法庭如何\n10 知道你的预付聘金——已经——即将\n11 不再盛开并需要补足？\n12 HENZY 先生：我不知道法庭会知道\n13 这一点。我不知道依照规则法庭是否需要\n14 知道这一点。我想他们并不——我只是说，从理论上说，\n15 假设——举一个假设，如果——如果在——在\n16 那种情况下，预付聘金不再盛开，法庭\n17 可能得知此事的方式是，律师可能会\n18 基于客户——提出退出代理的动议。\n19 法庭：好的。\n20 HENZY 先生：——未履行其义务。\n21 法庭：这是可能的。但是，再说一次，\n22 债务人的儿子向你支付了十万\n23 美元，对吗？\n24 HENZY 先生：是的。这是正确的。\n25 法庭：好的。那么债务人的儿子——你\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 91 页，共 93 页\n\n代表债务人、债务人的女儿、主张——\n\nHENZY 先生：称其拥有该船只的实体。\n\n法庭：——他们是该船只登记所有人的实体，而现在——现在你从债务人的儿子那里收钱？\n\nHENZY 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。你不认为其中任何一项构成利益冲突吗？\n\nHENZY 先生：我不认为其中任何一项构成不可豁免的利益冲突，其他——\n\n法庭：嗯，根据规则 1.7，你还必须满足其他要求。并非只是你获得了书面的知情同意豁免。有四项要求。即你合理地相信你将能够提供胜任且勤勉的代理。我并不是说你不能。你可能相信这一点。其他人可能不同意你，但你可能合理地相信这一点。该代理不受法律禁止。嗯，如果破产法条款适用，我不确定是否如此，正如 Claiborn 律师主张它们可能适用。\n\nHENZY 先生：我想回到那个问题。\n\n法庭：是的。我们会回到那个问题。该代理不涉及律师在同一诉讼或法庭前其他程序中代表的一名客户向另一名客户主张\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 92 页，共 93 页\n\n请求权。因此，我们这里谈论的不只是对抗程序，对吗？我们谈论的是整个案件，即第 11 章案件。其中，该实体——Friedman 先生（弗里德曼先生）在上次听证时提醒了我，因为我不记得向财产出借资金的实体——我相信也是由儿子控制的一个实体，而现在是谁在付你钱，我猜不是通过一个实体，而是由他本人支付。这是你披露文件所说的，对吗？\n\nHENZY 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：资金直接来自儿子，而非任何其他实体？\n\nHENZY 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。因此，根据规则 1.7，你必须满足四项要求，而不仅仅是——不仅仅是利益冲突豁免。有大量判例——我并不是说我们今天要逐一讨论它们，好吗——但有大量判例，其中破产法官表示，你可以主张所有这些事项，但这并不意味着该利益冲突确实可以豁免。仅仅因为你让他们签署了一封称其豁免利益冲突的信，并不意味着它实际上可以豁免。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 93 页，共 93 页\n\n这就是你所面临的问题——或者说，是我认为你所面临的问题之一。\n\n鉴于在本案提交之前本庭之外发生的事情，有大量信息可能会在本案中成为相反事实，即他们——他们全都是同一回事。有人可能会主张，你对他们所有人的代理恰恰支持了他们全都是同一回事，因为 Despins 先生上次我们在这里时说过——他日后可能会补充更多内容——关于纽约破产案件，指示来自 Kwok 先生，而不是来自公司实体。\n\n13 而且，你知道，我是说，Friedman 先生的文件，如你所知，Henzy 先生，我相信你已经读过，广泛列举了本庭之外已经作出的所有认定。\n\n因此，Friedman 先生说，你知道，你可能需要考虑一下这一点，法官，因为这也许只是纽约当时所发生事情的延续，即通过这些交织和网络般的问题，我们只是继续做同样的事情，只是在另一家法院而已。\n\n而我难以理解的是，我看不出你怎么能够代表这三个实体，现在又由儿子付费，并称你在规则 1.7 下不存在同时利益冲突，这不同于\n\n1 第 327(a) 条问题。好吗？\n\n我不是——我是说，即使我同意你的意见，认为327a不适用，而且我认为你可能是对的——尽管我听到了Claiborn律师（克莱伯恩律师）的论点。我认为，问题在于，当该问题显然已经出现时，就必须提出这一点。我不——我不认为她——她的律所目前能够表明，这一问题是你确实——也就是说——你确实在代表破产财团，因为我目前也不确定我是否同意这一点。这显然很复杂，正如你所知，而且这已经持续很长时间了。所以我就是看不出这怎么会不构成利益冲突。\n\n破产财团中存在请求权，而这些请求权将会——你将如何在不使其利益发生重叠和／或冲突的情况下，分别向Kwok先生（郭文贵）、HK以及Guo女士（郭美）提供建议？而这种重叠和／或冲突可能会发生，并且很可能发生。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：\n那么，我想先提出几点初步意见，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nHENZY先生：\n当然，法庭有权在涉及其法庭内的程序时执行职业行为规则。当然，毫无疑问——我绝不以任何方式、形态或形式对此提出质疑。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 95 of\n\n然而，主要的是——首先，律师有责任了解其自身的利益冲突，并确保其遵守职业行为规则。而且，再次强调，如果某事项呈现在法庭面前，而法庭认定该事项构成利益冲突，法庭当然有权，或许也有义务，采取措施。\n\n第二巡回上诉法院认为，法院应当在一定程度上尊重当事人选择律师的权利，因为人们普遍认可，当事人有权聘请律师，并聘请自己选择的律师。我认为1.7(a)规则并未承认、处理或涉及这一点。\n\n就1.7(a)(1)而言，目前不存在对立。我们代表HK International（HK国际），我认为——以及Mei Guo（郭美）。在本案中，我们最终可能还会就其他事项代理他们，但主要地，而且我不想说几乎完全地，都是就Lady May（梅女士号）一事。\n\n现在，我理解我们已在本案中提交出庭代理声明——理论上，除Lady May外，是否可能出现他们彼此对立的问题——但迄今为止，我们为那两位——那两位——该个人和该实体所做的一切，均涉及Lady May。\n\n我认为，法官阁下，普遍认可的是，在不存在现有的同时利益冲突时——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 96 of\n\n而这正是规则1.7所说的，即存在同时利益冲突——未来某个时候可能发生利益冲突这一事实，并不会导致律师丧失代理资格；该潜在问题届时必须处理。这当然也是我们的惯例，而且我认为也是大多数律所的惯例，即在任何共同代理中——告知客户，如果你们最终彼此对立——最终彼此成为对立方，我们将不得不处理该问题，这可能会对你们产生后果。我们可能必须辞去对其中一方、双方或三方的代理，情况是——但在出现该同时利益冲突之前，你无法知晓这一点，而一旦发生，就必须处理。对于1.7(a)(2)，实质上也是同一主题，不存在——\n\n法庭：\n不过我谈的不是(a)。我谈的是(b)。\n\nHENZY先生：\n我会——我会谈到(b)，因为(b)在(a)之后。它是——\n\n法庭：\n是的。但它写的是“尽管如此”。\n\nHENZY先生：\n但如果不存在同时利益冲突，你就不进入(b)。\n\n法庭：\n好的。请继续。\n\nHENZY先生：\n(b)规定，尽管(a)款项下存在同时利益冲突，律师可以代理客户，是的；但除非你未能满足(a)的要求，否则你不进入(b)。\n\n法庭：\n那么，你如何未能满足——你又如何符合(a)(1)？你代表HK和Kwok先生。该船——受托人希望该船被认定为破产财产。\n\nHENZY先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n根据你的说法，HK对该船的利益与Kwok先生不同。那么，目前他们怎么会——彼此不直接对立？\n\nHENZY先生：\n嗯，Kwok先生已不再是该对抗程序的一方——\n\n法庭：\n我说的不是这个。\n\nHENZY先生：\n——而且没有——\n\n法庭：\n我不在乎他是否不是该对抗程序的一方。他对于该船仍然有对立利益，因为他——因为他们仍将不得不——如果Despins先生（德斯平斯先生）成功，对吧，主张该船是破产财产，那么这就是一项——那么这对你的客户和HK而言就是对立利益，因为届时HK不再拥有该船，而债务人拥有该船。他们怎么会不是——他们怎么会不是——这怎么会不构成对立？\n\nHENZY先生：\n如果法庭认定——\n\n法庭：\n对。你代表HK和债务人。\n\nHENZY先生：\n是。但我不确定我同意您的意见。Kwok先生的立场是，HK拥有该船，因此他们并不对立。他不认为自己拥有该船。他不认为该船是破产财产。我明确在记录中如此说明。因此，如果他们采取相同立场，我看不出他们怎么会对立。我认为他——他会——我知道他会考虑不参与该争议。推定而言，那是受托人与HK International之间的争议。但是我不——Kwok先生——再次，我在记录中说明，他不会——我想，如果有人希望传唤他作为证人或类似情况，他可能会参与，但他不会采取立场。那将是受托人与HK International之间的争议，所以不存在对立，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n我不同意你的意见，但请继续。\n\nHENZY先生：\n好的。如您所说，谈到(b)时，我们确实相信我们能够向每位客户提供胜任、勤勉的代理服务。我并不担心我们会在代表HK International时有所保留，或有关该船的情况会以任何方式影响我们对Kwok先生的代理。关于(b)(2)，即327问题，我们同样可以进一步讨论。我已在书面文件中提出这一点——我不想赘述，Kwok先生已不再是该对抗程序的一方。我相信Despins先生在上次听证会上说过这一点。他在该——该对抗程序中被自动替代为当事人。我引用了规则和判例，它们表明，在指定受托人后，他在该诉讼中自动替代债务人。三位客户均已给予同意。我们确实建议他们，如其愿意，可以咨询其他律师；他们已书面确认其同意。因此，即使假定1.7(a)项下存在同时利益冲突——而且，法官阁下，正如您所指出的，本案在某个时候可能确实会出现同时利益冲突。我认为目前不存在——将来某个时候可能出现同时利益冲突。如果出现，那么依照职业责任规则，我们将负有职业责任来处理该问题。再次强调，通常在共同代理时，你会告知客户，若出现同时利益冲突，我们可能需要退出代理，或以其他方式处理该问题。但如果且当利益冲突——同时利益冲突——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 100 of\n\n出现时，我们——我们将不得不处理。客户已被告知这一点。而且，再次强调，他们已经——他们已经给予同意。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我们——我不知道他们如何给予同意。所以，我的意思是，你们可能只是说“我同意”。我不知道他们说了什么。我知道你所说的他们说了什么，但仅仅说“我同意”并不意味着这是一项——这是一项可放弃的利益冲突——\n\nHENZY先生：\n嗯，唯一——\n\n法庭：\n——因为你必须知道他们同意的是什么。\n\nHENZY先生：\n该规则项下唯一不可放弃的利益冲突，是我们在同一诉讼中代表两个当事人。而由于Kwok先生已不再是该对抗程序的一方，我相信我们并未代表同一诉讼中的两个当事人。因此，他们可以同意——\n\n法庭：\n但这不只是该诉讼——你一直聚焦于对抗程序的问题——而是本案。是本案。Kwok先生仍在本案中。这是他的案件，无论他是否——不再占有财产。他不再占有财产，并不意味着该问题就此消失。这仍是本案中的一个问题。你知道，说Despins先生在该对抗程序中取代Kwok先生的位置、但在任何523对抗程序中却不取代他的位置，这太方便了。我理解该论点。我并非——我理解该论点。但这并不——你不能只是存在利益冲突，然后它就不——它就这样消失，不再存在。这不是其运作方式。正如我认为我们上次谈到的，利益冲突是，你知道，你接受客户本来的状况。你知道，你可以主张你目前没有利益冲突，但各方彼此之间存在利益冲突。这里存在一些问题。\n\nHENZY先生：\n我不——我看不出目前各方彼此之间何处直接对立。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，你可能看不出来，但这并不意味着它不存在。\n\nHENZY先生：\n但是如果——\n\n法庭：\n本案的问题，以及本案之前那宗案件中的问题，是就这一——这些若干家庭——密切相关——而且顺便说一句，他们全都是内部人，所以让我们——我们也没有提出这一点。他们全都是内部人。\n\nHENZY先生：\n没有任何事项在您面前，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n不，不，不。我谈的是——\n\nHENZY先生：\n没有任何事项在您面前。\n\n法庭：\n不，不，不。我谈的是本案目前的情况。Guo女士是Kwok先生的内部人。\n\nHENZY先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n支付给你十万美元的那名儿子，是Kwok先生的内部人。HK International可能是、也可能不是Kwok先生的内部人，但非常接近。\n\nHENZY先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n好的？那么，这怎么会不构成利益冲突？\n\nHENZY先生：\n因为他们并不对立——他们彼此并不直接对立。法官阁下，如果——\n\n法庭：\n如果Despins先生现在起诉Guo女士——\n\nHENZY先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n——并称她收到了无论她收到的款项——我是在提出——我是在给出一个假设。她在提交申请前90天从Kwok先生处收到十万美元，那么他们怎么会不对立？\n\nHENZY先生：\n我认为Despins先生和Guo女士会彼此对立。\n\n法庭：\n不。因为该笔钱必须从Kwok先生处返还，而且Kwok先生——你一直——\n\nHENZY先生：\n如果Guo女士因——\n\n法庭：\n什么——你不会——你是否会代表她提出抗辩？她的抗辩是什么？\n\nHENZY先生：\n请稍等。我假设——我很抱歉，阁下。\n\n法官阁下。法庭：不，没关系。没关系。HENZY先生：不，不，那样不妥。我道歉。法庭：没关系。HENZY先生：如果Despins先生（德斯平斯先生）以偏颇清偿为由起诉Guo女士（郭女士），我认为这正是法庭刚才所设想的情形，或者以任何其他事由，无论什么事由——法庭：无论什么事由。HENZY先生：——那么，我认为款项将从Guo女士处返还，而不是从郭先生——法庭：但她的抗辩是什么？她会提出抗辩。她不会就这样交出来。如果她能，她今天就可以交出来。HENZY先生：我不知道——法庭：你们将如何代理她？HENZY先生：我不知道Despins先生对她提出的是什么请求，所以我——法庭：我明白。HENZY先生：——我不知道她的抗辩会是什么。这是有可能的。我想他会提出某项请求，我不知道会是什么，该请求会造成某种直接对立，在这种情况下我们将不得不处理该问题。但今天并不存在这种情况。法庭：好的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 104 of\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，将来某个时候可能会存在，但今天并不存在。就1.7(a)的分析而言，存在同时利益冲突。今天，是否存在冲突？如果存在冲突——而规则明确设想——我认为是在1.7的注释中，其论及共同代理——冲突可能会在将来发生。如果发生，律师负有处理该问题的伦理责任。但今天，Guo女士尚未因任何事项被Despins先生起诉。她可能会因某事项被他起诉，而无论该诉讼为何，可能会或可能不会导致Guo女士与Kwok先生（郭文贵先生）处于直接对立的地位。但我——但我不知道。我今天无法知道这一点。法庭：嗯，顺便说一下，(a)并没有规定必须存在诉讼。HENZY先生：哦，没有。任何——任何不利——法庭：所以它没有这样规定。HENZY先生：没有。任何——我刚才只是——我是在回应法庭的——法庭：(b)谈到这一点，而不是(a)。HENZY先生：我是在回应法官阁下关于如果——法庭：我明白。所以我说，在(a)中\n\n1 不必有诉讼。\n如果你对一名当事人的\n2 代理将与\n3 另一名当事人直接对立，即属如此。\n4 HENZY先生：\n而我——\n5 法庭：\n不必存在诉讼才会\n6 产生该问题。\n7 HENZY先生：\n而今天我看不出Guo女士与\n8 Kwok先生存在直接对立——\n9 法庭：\n好的。\n10 HENZY先生：\n——就任何事项而言。\n我看不出HK\n11 International（香港国际）与Kwok先生在任何事项上存在直接对立。\n12 再次说明，Despins先生将提出任何\n13 他提出的请求，而我们将从那里——我们将从那里\n14 继续，或者处理他提出的任何请求。\n15 法庭：\n好的。\n16 DESPINS先生：\n法官阁下，我能否就此\n17 陈述两分钟？\n18 法庭：\n可以。请讲。\n19 DESPINS先生：\n不是就327而言。\n我对此没有看法。\n20 。\n21 但就利益冲突是否可豁免的问题而言，521，\n22 债务人的义务，521(a)(3)，如果指定了受托人，\n23 债务人负有在必要范围内与受托人合作的义务，以使受托人能够履行受托人的\n24 职责。\n(a)(4)，如果有受托人任职，他们必须\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 105 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 106 of\n\n1 交出全部财产，等等。\n\n2 当然，他们的观点是，哦，您知道，他是个\n3 亿万富翁，但他没有资产，因此，我们站在V.的\n4 同一方。但债务人所负的该项——法定\n5 义务今天就存在。您也知道，\n6 18 U.S.C.中有刑事规定与\n7 履行这些义务相联系。\n8 因此，我——因此，我不太确定这是否属于可豁免的\n9 利益冲突，尽管存在同意，因为\n10 债务人负有作出某些行为的法定义务，而这些行为\n11 与其所代理的另一方当事人的利益\n12 直接冲突。\n13 谢谢，法官阁下。\n14 法庭：\n谢谢。\n15 DESPINS先生：\n另外，顺便一提，我想\n16 提及他们所说儿子已支付的那张表格，他们还\n17 勾选了债务人将会——可能在未来支付的\n18 方框。我想根据549明确说明，我们保留全部\n19 权利。如果债务人正在支付Zeisler（蔡斯勒），我不希望他们认为\n20 仅因其勾选了该方框，\n21 我们就在某种程度上对此视而不见。我看不出债务人如何\n22 会在本案期间向他们支付——将会向他们支付。\n23 谢谢，法官阁下。\n24 法庭：\n谢谢。\n25 HENZY先生：\n我十分确定Despins先生并未\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 107 of\n\n对任何事情视而不见，法官阁下。法庭：但关于债务人为未来律师费付款，这是个好观点。我认为这将极其成问题。HENZY先生：法官阁下，债务人不会作出任何付款，至少不会从任何——Despins先生提到549，以及任何属于破产财产的财产中作出付款。我们也不会接受任何该等付款，当然，无论如何不会明知而接受。因此，我再说一遍，法官阁下，债务人——所以债务人根据521负有义务，但我看不出这如何——而Despins先生已在公司治理动议中提出了一些建议，但我仍然看不出今天存在任何直接对立——任何人存在直接对立。再次说明，将来可能发生某事而出现对立。唯一的冲突——根据规则明确规定，唯一不可豁免的冲突是(b)(3)。因此，我们可能认为一名当事人不应——法庭：顺便说一句，我不确定这是否正确。我的意思是，这并非——判例法并不完全支持这一点。我明白这是你的论点。但是，你依赖什么权威依据，认为唯一不可豁免的是(b)(3)？HENZY先生：我认为那是该规则的字面含义。也就是说——除非法律禁止，这又回到327(a)的问题。法庭：即(2)。是的。HENZY先生：好的。但我不知道有任何法律禁止——法庭：嗯，实际上，有很多——信不信由你，我看过一些判例法，即使知情同意以书面形式作出，破产法院仍认定无论该同意书写了什么，这都是不可豁免的利益冲突。好吗？有判例，而且全国各地都有近期判例讨论这一点，您知道，即——您知道，您可以豁免——您可以说任何您想说的话并予以豁免，但仅因为您这样说，并不意味着它可执行且可豁免。HENZY先生：是的。我——法庭：而在目前这个阶段，您知道，我不确定它是否可豁免。但请继续。HENZY先生：我想我不理解该观点。法庭：嗯——HENZY先生：如果没有法律禁止，而且不是彼此之间提出的请求——法庭：因为这影响整个破产财产。这不只是HK International起诉Kwok先生的那一宗对抗程序。这是Despins先生所说的以及更多内容。债务人仍然——他可能是不占有财产的债务人，但他仍然负有破产法典规定的义务。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 108 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 109 of\n\n他自愿来到本法庭，并使自己受本法庭管辖。因此，您知道，他获得全部利益，但也承担负担。他必须与受托人合作，并向受托人交出其全部——全部破产财产，即他在任何——任何一项——任何财产中拥有的任何衡平或法定权益，无论该财产为何，无论是不动产、动产，或任何其他财产。而当存在——\n\n我们仍未讨论HK就该船舶认证所作行为的问题。该问题似乎已经被搁置了一段时间。但有$37 million存于一个托管账户中，Despins先生无论以何种方式都将主张该笔款项或该船舶属于破产财产。而该笔款项——\n\n现在Friedman先生（弗里德曼先生）必须再次提醒我，是Golden Spring（黄金泉）为那37 million提供资金，还是其他人？\n\nHENZY先生：但是，法官阁下，有几点。法庭：不，但等一下。让我先完成我的思路，然后我会回到你这里。但关键在于Kwok先生将主张不同的立场——Kwok先生怎么可能——他是否——他将会说，哦，是的，继续吧，HK，把船交给破产财产，还是不交？继续吧，托管代理人。交出37——谁将就此进行抗辩？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 110 of\n\n1 HENZY先生：\n不是Kwok先生。\n2 法庭：\n嗯，谁将进行抗辩？\n3 HK International。你们代理HK International以及\n4 Kwok先生。\n5 HENZY先生：\n而Kwok先生根本不参与该抗辩。\n6 法庭：\n他不会参与该抗辩。\n7 HENZY先生：\n不会。\n8 法庭：\n那么，我今天就可以认定——我可以\n9 作出裁定，认定该船舶属于破产财产，而\n10 Kwok先生不会对此进行抗辩？\n11 HENZY先生：\nKwok先生不参与该抗辩。\n12 法庭：\n他不会对此进行抗辩？\n13 HENZY先生：\n他——\n14 法庭：\n那么你们将代理HK\n15 International进行该抗辩？\n16 HENZY先生：\n他不参与该抗辩。\n该抗辩\n17 现在是Despins先生与HK International之间的抗辩。\n这不是\n18 Kwok先生的抗辩。\n19 法庭：\n好的。\n关于托管中的$37 million\n20 呢？\n21 HENZY先生：\n答案相同，那不是Kwok先生的\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 111 of\n\n1 抗辩。\n那是HK International的抗辩。\n而我——我\n2 甚至不确定那是否属于抗辩。\n3 法庭：\n那么，你们如何能够代理HK\n4 International与破产财产之间的抗辩，而该\n5 破产财产是你们当事人的破产财产？\n6 HENZY先生：\n但破产财产不是我的当事人。\n最高法院在Baker Botts判决中\n7 这样说，而且——\n8 ——\n9 法庭：\n是。\n但破产财产是你们当事人的\n10 责任。\n11 HENZY先生：\n不是。\n12 法庭：\n是的。\n根据521，确实如此。\n13 HENZY先生：\n不是。\n我认为这是错误的。\n14 法庭：\n是的。\n他必须交出。\n他\n15 必须合作并交出。\n16 HENZY先生：\n他负有责任——\n17 法庭：\n那么他现在会合作并说，\n18 是的，您知道，HK International实际上\n19 并不拥有该船。根据纽约州法院的裁定，\n20 是我拥有。因此，你们为何现在不把它移交到这里？\n21 这就是他将如何合作吗？\n22 然后，他这样说，而HK又说，\n23 不，我是——我是该船的登记\n24 所有人，这怎么会合理？\n25 HENZY先生：\n所以他——他承担其根据\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第112页，共521页\n\n521，但这并不意味着——521并不意味着他必须说——登上证人席并说出他并不相信是真实的事情。\n\n因此，如果 Despins先生（德斯平斯）正在推进该诉讼，或者该诉讼正在被推进，而 Kwok先生（郭文贵）被传唤至证人席，Despins先生问道：“你拥有那艘船，这不是真的吗？”\n\n而 Kwok先生说：“不。”\n\n这并不意味着——他并未违反《破产法典》第521条规定的义务。\n\n他是在作出真实证言。因此，我并不是——\n\n法庭：嗯，是否真实并不由 Kwok先生决定。这正是关键所在。否则我们为何在这里？\n\nHenzy先生（亨齐）：哦。我同意您的看法。但他有义务作出真实证言。\n\n法庭：他有义务作出证言。\n\nHenzy先生：作出真实的——\n\n法庭：由他来判断该证言是否真实。\n\nHenzy先生：嗯，但是——但是没有人会说：“嗯，Kwok先生，你相信自己并不拥有那艘船吗？”\n\n“是的，我相信我并不拥有那艘船。”嗯，你不能作出那样的回答。你必须作证说你确实拥有那艘船，因为第521条规定你必须作证——\n\n法庭：没有人会提出这种说法——没有人正在提出这种说法。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1268\n于 12/28/22 提交\n于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记\n\nHenzy先生：那么我没有理解——我没有理解要点。\n\n法庭：好的。也许是我表述得不够清楚。我不明白这如何能够继续下去，但我们会谈谈这个问题。\n\n还有其他人希望就 Zeisler firm（蔡斯勒律师事务所）能否同时代理这三个实体且不被视为存在利益冲突发表意见吗？\n\nHenzy先生：一点意见，法官阁下。如果您将裁定我们存在利益冲突，或者您不作出裁定，那么我认为今天不应再继续进行任何其他事项。你不能——因为债务人届时——\n\n法庭：我同意您的看法，这就是为什么我要求听取其他所有人的意见——\n\nHenzy先生：好的。因为届时债务人未被——\n\n法庭：这就是我们现在正在讨论此事的原因。\n\nHenzy先生：债务人未获代理。而且，就您尚未作出裁定而言——\n\n法庭：嗯，他已获代理。他有另一位律师。他有那位——无论是谁——\n\nHenzy先生：今天没有人在法庭上代理债务人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第114页，共521页\n\n法庭：我明白。但这——你知道，利益冲突问题被提出并不是什么新消息。因此，请稍等。\n\nHenzy先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我听到了。我听到了。\n\nHenzy先生：好的。\n\n法庭：还有其他人希望就该利益冲突问题发表意见吗？\n\nDespins先生：我只想说，法官阁下，我不确定。我们需要一位精灵今天来裁决该问题。我认为该问题仍然存在，并且日后仍将继续存在。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nClaiborn律师（克莱伯恩）？\n\nClaiborn女士：法官阁下，我同意，如果法庭决定今天不就该问题作出裁定，该问题今天并不会消失。\n\n我还想补充的一点是，着眼于未来并考虑到过去，债务人对各项事项的立场已经随着时间而改变。\n\n而且，如果债务人将这一特定利益冲突——尽管目前已解决——作为未来的一把剑来使用，那么本案就会出现问题。\n\n法庭：你的意思是什么？\n\nClaiborn女士：如果他日后采取这样的立场，即他现任律师 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）对他的指导和建议存在利益冲突，且他不应受由此产生的任何结果约束，那么这将在本案未来造成问题。债务人确实有与代理律师解除关系的历史。\n\n法庭：好的。我想我明白你的意思了。我目前可能——可能没有完全理解，但没关系。还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应）\n\n法庭：好的。那么，Henzy先生，关于对这三方的同时代理，即 Kwok先生——即使他是不占有财产的债务人，他仍持续负有并保有《破产法典》规定的义务——以及 HK International（HK国际）和债务人的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美），我同意你的看法，即目前看来，你正在遵守规则1.7的全部规定。但我确实同意，情况可能极快发生变化，若本案发生问题，各方，包括你和/或法庭和/或其他人，都需要将此事提请法庭注意。\n\n我认为，正如我前几天对你所说，你必须接受你所发现的客户。而且，由于你的客户就本法院之外发生的诉讼存在一些问题，某个时候这将以某种方式回到本法院。Despins先生必须做他必须做的事，所有其他债权人也是如此。我不知道其他任何债权人会做什么。他们也有其权利。而且他们——他们可以就你的客户，即三人中的任何一人，请求他们认为适当的任何救济。\n\n因此，我——鉴于已经采取的立场，以及 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）认为327(a)可能适用且你可能存在利益冲突，我认为该问题仍在本法院审理中，并且不会——你知道，可能最早明天就会出现问题。谁知道呢？我们将不得不处理此事。\n\n关于你根据——提出的请求免除判决命令的动议——\n\nHenzy先生：法官阁下，我能否——我能否问一个问题？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nHenzy先生：无论如何，我愿意认为我非常认真地对待我在职业责任规则下的义务。\n\n法庭：没有人质疑这一点。\n\nHenzy先生：好的。我接受这一点。但是——\n\n法庭：但你必须明白，本案中提出的问题每天——每周都在变化，对吗？我们沿着一条路径前进，然后又沿着另一条路径前进，现在我们又走上另一条路径。现在，你在提交一项动议，试图免除受托人，此前，你知道，在你说过之后——在你的客户到庭并希望将那艘船作为 $8 million 的一部分，将该船纳入破产财产，继续推进，试图——正如 Baldiga先生（巴尔迪加）多次所说他希望做到的——而且文件中也写明了，因此这是你方当事人、你的客户的承认，无论是你代理你的客户，还是 Baldiga先生代理你的客户，他们希望本案成为一个让所有人可以聚集在一起、解决所有问题并向债权人作出公平和平等分配的场所。\n\n而这并非正在发生的事情。明白吗？这并非正在发生的事情。如果这正是正在发生的事情，就不会任命第11章受托人。因此，我并非试图质疑你个人对规则1.7的认真态度。正如我不断对你说的，你并不代理自己。你代理的是你的客户。而你的客户已经有一些对他们不利的裁定，法庭一再听闻此事。\n\n而你的客户到庭时说他希望做所有这些事情，随后又立即改变方向，撤销一切，使所有人完全走上了一条不同于他到这里时所说将要推进的路径。这就是我所说的。明白吗？\n\nHenzy先生：法官阁下，我本来想说明的是，我认为我非常认真地对待我的义务。如果我曾经认为自己存在同时利益冲突，我将会处理该问题；如有必要，将与客户处理，并与法庭处理。因此，我——我始终会这样做。\n\n第二点是，Claiborn女士所说她不希望看到债务人将我所的所谓利益冲突作为一把剑来使用，我也向其他人提出同样的观点。存在这种奇怪的或许三种——因此，如果327适用，如果债务人在主张其权利，而如果我在某个问题上辩论得过于积极，则327(a)适用。但如果债务人只是坐着，并且不——安静地坐着，不反驳任何事情，那么327就不适用。我希望各方今后不会在债务人可能反对某项事项时，站起来说他现在受327约束，他必须离开。\n\n第三点，法官阁下，本法院之外在破产前诉讼中发生的事情，我不确定这与我所是否根据规则1.7存在利益冲突，或者327(a)是否被触发，有何关系。我不——我不认为有关系。\n\n这是一个困难的案件。我认为任何人都不会不同意这一点。这是一个——这是一个非常、非常困难的案件。但问题的困难程度并不是决定我是否存在利益冲突的因素。我要么存在利益冲突，要么不存在利益冲突。\n\n而我——我不想做的是，法官阁下，今天离开时让您——因为我——当您——无论如何，我认为——好的——我绝不意图把话塞进法官阁下嘴里，所以我要说我以为我听到的内容——我以为我听到的是，您同意我的看法，即今天您认为我在规则1.7下没有问题。但随后您说——无论如何，我认为——再说一次，我想非常谨慎——但也许我有问题。\n\n而如果法庭今天将认定我存在同时利益冲突，且我不应代理债务人，我需要知道这一点，因为如果是这样，从法庭作出该认定时起，我所说的每一个字都在违反我在职业责任规则下的义务。因此，法庭要么认定我今天存在同时——\n\n并且承认，如果未来出现造成该利益冲突的情况，我们将不得不——\n\n利益冲突，要么认定我不存在。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1268\n于 12/28/22 提交\n于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记\n\n处理该问题。但我——我确实需要今天知道这一点。\n\n法庭：我认为我说的是，你今天不存在同时利益冲突，但未来可能存在。\n\nHenzy先生：同意。\n\n法庭：并且各方需要将该情况提请法庭注意。\n\nHenzy先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的？\n\nHenzy先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：好。关于规则9024动议，正如我上次向你提到的，我不明白你为何不根据第324条，即免除受托人，提出动议。\n\n而我查阅的判例法表明，一项规则——而 Collier（科利尔）再次指出，规则60并不是对受托人的任命提出质疑的适当方式，因为法庭并未参与该任命。记住。对吗？法庭并未参与该任命。U.S. Trustee参与了该任命。\n\n而 U.S. Trustee 只是请求批准该任命，而法庭批准了该任命。没有人能够提出任何证据说明为何不应予以批准。\n\n因此——那么——该项任命仍然有效。你必须采取的程序是依据 324 提出的动议。若该动议被驳回，则不是可作最终上诉的命令。显然，你希望 Rule 60 成为可上诉的命令。因此，我们——我们不会沿着 Rule 60 这条路径推进，因为根据我查阅的资料，那样做并不适当。Despins（德斯平斯）先生被任命为 Chapter 11 受托人。他只能依据 324 被免职。因此，如果你想依据 324 提交动议并满足相关要求，你有权这样做。HENZY（亨齐）先生：我认为也可依据 1105，法官阁下。但是——法庭：依据什么？HENZY 先生：我认为 1105 也规定了终止受托人任命。法庭：但它又指向 324。HENZY 先生：1105 并非如此，但这无关紧要。法庭：规则是如此规定的。HENZY 先生：我明白。为明确起见，法官阁下是否驳回了我们的——法庭：是。\n\nHENZY 先生：——60(b) 动议？法庭：我驳回你们的 60(b) 动议。HENZY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：与 60(b) 动议相关的所有证据开示请求均予驳回，因为该动议——因为其已无实际意义。HENZY 先生：法官阁下，我可以有一点时间吗？法庭：可以。（暂停）HENZY 先生：那么，法官阁下，撤销传票动议——获准了吗？法庭：无需获准。它已无实际意义。Rule 60(b) 动议被驳回。HENZY 先生：很好。明白。法庭：与其有关联的任何证据开示均已无实际意义。HENZY 先生：明白，法官阁下。明白。DESPINS 先生：法官阁下——法庭：是。DESPINS 先生：——我可以就此发言吗？法庭：可以。DESPINS 先生：我知道您的反应可能是，你刚刚赢了，为什么不坐下。但法官阁下，我知道本案将会发生什么。一切都会被上诉。我想知道法庭是否会——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 录入，第 122 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 录入，第 123 页，共\n\n就此作出备选认定，即您已经裁定该程序上不适当。但无论如何，101.14 下无利害关系的概念——我忘记是哪一项分款了——HENZY 先生：14。DESPINS 先生：14。抱歉。101.14 涉及的是破产财产，而非债务人。他们在提交的任何材料中所主张的内容，没有任何一项会影响受托人相对于破产财产的无利害关系身份，这可作为备选认定。因为我所——您知道我的意思——我不想来回争论、反复争论——法庭：嗯，我尚未——我尚未撰写命令——DESPINS 先生：好的。法庭：——驳回 Rule 60 动议的命令，而在那之前甚至不可能提出上诉。这是第一点。DESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：第二点，即使有上诉，他们也必须提供保证金。HENZY 先生：我不知道是否会有上诉。但是，法官阁下，我认为不应作出那些备选认定。事实上，我不同意 Despins 先生所说，即受托人无需相对于债务人保持无利害关系。而且有判例法表明，受托人必须相对于债务人保持无利害关系。但再次强调，我认为您无需作出备选认定。您已经驳回该动议。我明白驳回的依据。我认为应当到此为止。法庭：嗯，仍将有一份书面命令。必须有一份书面命令。HENZY 先生：我的意思是，如果您要超出——我姑且称之为依据 324 理由予以驳回——我明白这一点，那么我知道 Collier 认为 324 或 1105 动议优于 60(b)。但是——我会——如果您要作出备选认定，我至少希望有机会进行辩论，因为——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 录入，第 124 页，共\n\n受托人不必相对于债务人保持无利害关系。而且有判例法表明，受托人必须相对于债务人保持无利害关系。但再次强调，我认为您无需作出备选认定。您已经驳回该动议。我明白驳回的依据。我认为应当到此为止。法庭：嗯，仍将有一份书面命令。必须有一份书面命令。HENZY 先生：我的意思是，如果您要超出——我姑且称之为依据 324 理由予以驳回——我明白这一点，那么我知道 Collier 认为 324 或 1105 动议优于 60(b)。但是——我会——如果您要作出备选认定，我至少希望有机会进行辩论，因为——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 录入，第 125 页，共\n\n1 法庭：我没有说——我没有只说\n\n2 这一点。那样并不适当。\n\n3 我说你必须提出一项——而且我在\n\n4 上次听证会上对你说过，Rule 60 下的标准和\n\n5 324 下的标准完全不同。\n\n6 因此，我并非只是说，由于你\n\n7 没有依据 324 提出该动议，所以该动议被驳回。\n\n8 那不是我所说的。\n\n9 HENZY 先生：好的。\n\n10 法庭：好的？我说该动议被\n\n11 驳回，是因为你没有依据 324 提出该动议，而 324\n\n12 是提出该动议的适当条款。第一点。\n\n13 第二点，我不——我没有任何——\n\n14 没有——你没有在 Rule 60 动议下向我提出任何\n\n15 符合 Rule 60 动议标准的内容，\n\n16 即在你们的 60(b) 动议下，你必须认定——我本应\n\n17 认定存在\n\n18 无意的错误、意外或可宽恕的疏忽。这\n\n19 并不适用。\n\n20 以合理勤勉仍无法在及时申请\n\n21 重新审判之前发现的新发现证据。\n\n22 这并不适用。欺诈，也不适用。\n\n23 你没有提出任何此类证据。判决书\n\n24 无效。这并不适用。判决书已经\n\n25 得到履行、解除或免除。这并不适用。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 录入，第 126 页，共\n\n1 或者任何其他足以使救济具有正当性的理由。你\n\n2 没有提出任何其他足以使\n\n3 Rule 60 下救济具有正当性的理由。\n\n4 因此，如果你想提交一项动议，并尝试满足\n\n5 324 的要求，欢迎你这样做。\n\n6 但是，你已经在 Rule 60(b) 动议中论证了所有这些问题，\n\n7 而我正在驳回该动议。你向法庭提出的\n\n8 Rule 60 和破产 Rule 9024 下，\n\n9 不存在可根据这些规则授予\n\n10 救济的理由。\n\n11 HENZY 先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n12 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n13 好。那么我们现在可以转到\n\n14 聘用 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的申请。\n\n15 DESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n16 有两项——一项陈述和一项异议。\n\n17 第一项，即异议，是由\n\n18 债务人提出的。我们援引了一项 Fifth Circuit（第五巡回上诉法院）的判决——尽管我们并不需要 Fifth Circuit 的判决，但该技术性\n\n19 判决表明，未掌控财产的债务人不能——\n\n20 无权对聘任律师提出异议。因此，\n\n21 我认为这是基础法律原则。\n\n22 事实上，您在上次听证会上已对此有所暗示，\n\n23 尽管当时并未具体谈及聘任律师。\n\n24 但该案适用于聘任律师，因为这是案件管理事项，\n\n25 而未掌控财产的债务人无权提出异议，除非存在剩余财产。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 录入，第 127 页，共\n\n但该案适用于聘任律师，因为这是案件管理事项，而未掌控财产的债务人无权提出异议，除非存在剩余财产。本案中，他们称不存在剩余财产，因为他们没有资产。\n\n现在，我认为，为了上诉目的，仍然重要的是暂且假定其具有诉讼资格两分钟，并处理债务人的异议。我回到无利害关系的定义。其关键在于“破产财产”一词。确实，它谈到债权人、股权持有人和债务人，但检验标准是相对于破产财产而言。而此处被主张的内容，没有任何一项与破产财产有关。\n\nWynn（温）先生的问题，与破产财产毫无关系。我想对此明确说明。我的律师事务所在 Wynn 先生被 DOJ（美国司法部）起诉后受聘，并未就相对于 Kwok（郭文贵）先生应当做什么或不应当做什么，以任何方式向 Wynn 先生提供建议。不存在这种情况。Wynn 先生不是债权人。Wynn 诉讼无论以何种方式都不会影响破产财产，这一点非常重要。\n\n中国办公室也是同样的情况。我的意思是，首先，我们在中国设有办公室这一事实，从一开始就是众所周知的。\n\n但这一切都归结于我此前提出的基本观点——我想解释一下我在其书面材料中使用“荒谬”一词时所指的概念。他们说，他称其为荒谬，这太离谱了。我一直非常准确地指出，荒谬之处在于，他们试图在债务人、其移民身份和中国共产党之间发生的事情，与本破产财产之间建立关联，却缺乏这种关联。法官阁下处理的不是移民事项。法官阁下并未——我们并不处理该事项。我们对此没有立场。这不是我们的问题，我们也不会参与这些问题。正是在这里，所有论点都站不住脚，因为所有这些事项与破产财产以及我们必须完成的工作之间没有联系；我们必须完成的工作，是尽可能取得最多资产，并将其交给本案获准债权的持有人。另一点是 UBS（瑞银集团）事项。那是另一种干扰。首先，他们从一开始就知道 UBS。我们在第一份声明中说明，我们代表 UBS 的关联方。我认为我说过，主要或首要涉及融资事项。我们并没有说仅限于此。但是，无论我们代表他们处理交通罚单、融资事项还是破产事项，这又有什么关系？我已明确表示，我从未代表过他们。我现在也没有代表他们。我能够以——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 录入，第 129 页，共\n\n受托人身份对他们提起对立诉讼。事实上，针对他们的诉讼正在英格兰进行。正如法官阁下所知，在英格兰，若要出庭并辩论案件，你必须是 barrister（大律师）。Paul Hastings 在英国并非 barrister。因此，实际上将会使用的人员——例如，如果您看他们的异议所附的、针对 UBS 提交的起诉状，翻到最后，有三个签名。这三人都是 barrister。我们没有 barrister。鉴于他们已处理该事项两年，并且顺便说一句取得了一些成功，我认为他们将继续处理该事项。嗯，我应当说是程序上的成功。因此，UBS 问题并非问题，因为无论如何，我将以受托人身份处理此事。我将监督英国 barrister——他们并非 Paul Hastings 的人员，因为我们没有 barrister——的工作，而这再次解决了该问题。我认为其余内容都与 60(b) 相同。PAX 也提交了一份答复。我认为先处理债务人的问题可能较为合理，然后我们再回到 PAX。谢谢。法庭：可以。谢谢。Henzy 先生？HENZY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 录入，第 130 页，共\n\n那么，我先谈一下诉讼资格问题。关于诉讼资格，第一点，1109(b) 规定，债务人有权就第 11 章案件中的任何问题提出意见、出庭并陈述。这一点非常、非常明确。我承认，法院认为，根据 1109，债务人仍然必须具备——您或许能够提出意见、出庭并陈述，但这并不必然意味着听我发言就等同于一项需要法院作出裁决的异议。因此，您或许不得不痛苦地听我发言，但随后可以说，谢谢您，亨齐先生，但我不——您没有资格提出异议。您已经提出意见、出庭并陈述，但我无需就任何事项作出裁决。因此，我理解——分析实际上只有两个层面。一个是 1109(b)，另一个是您是否具有诉讼资格。传统的诉讼资格分析是，您必须——您要么必须是传统意义上权利受损的一方——我认为这并非本案争议所在，因为我们处理的是一项法规——要么必须具有法定诉讼资格。因此，您必须有一项由国会通过的法规，而论点是国会意图赋予一方当事人就此获得陈述机会的权利。所有这些在许多美国联邦最高法院（Supreme Court）判决中都得到了非常充分的阐述，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 1268，提交于 12/28/22，录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25，第 131 页，共\n\n美国联邦最高法院在这些判决中确立的标准——主要判决包括 Association of Data Processing Service v. Camp（数据处理服务协会诉坎普案），载于 397 U.S. 150，以及 Clarke v. Security Industry Association（克拉克诉证券业协会案），载于 479 U.S. 388——其中阐明，当事人应处于相关法规旨在保护的利益范围之内。\n\n美国联邦最高法院确立的标准是——门槛相当低。这是引自 Clarke 判决的一段话。\n\n法院若要认定不存在诉讼资格，就必须认定，该利益范围否定当事人的参与权，因为当事人的利益与法规所隐含目的之间的关联过于边缘，或者与该目的不一致，以至于无法合理推定国会意图允许其参与。\n\nClarke 法院进一步指出，该项检验并非意在设置特别严格的要求。尤其是，无须表明国会有意使拟议原告受益。\n\n再回到 Collier's（《科利尔破产法论》），其在讨论这些案件时，于第 7 卷第 1109.04 节第 (4)(b) 项中称，鉴于第 1109(b) 条的性质，因为法院已表示，在依据美国联邦最高法院判例法进行该利益范围分析时，应将其与 1109(b) 一并纳入考量。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 1268，提交于 12/28/22，录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25，第 132 页，共\n\n因此，Collier's 称，鉴于第 1109(b) 条的性质及其旨在实现的目的，应当为有利于参与第 11 章案件而宽泛解释利益范围。\n\n法官阁下，有一些案件认为，债务人有权对律师的聘任提出异议。\n\n除其他案件外，克雷切夫斯基法官（Judge Krechevsky）在 In re Pappas（帕帕斯案）中，载于 216 B.R. 87，该案是 1997 年的判决，裁定——他实际上裁定，《规则》2002 将债务人称为利害关系方，且债务人有资格根据 327 对此提出异议。\n\n随后，布罗兹曼法官（Judge Brozman）在 Vebeliunas（韦贝利乌纳斯案）中——拼写为 V-E-B-E-L-I-U-N-A-S——载于 231 B.R.——请稍等一下，法官阁下——181。\n\n而且，法官阁下，在该案中，布罗兹曼法官以受托人律师在 341 会议举行之前、在从未询问债务人之前，就曾发表公开声明，显示其对债务人存在极端偏见为由，取消了受托人律师的资格。他称债务人为骗子，并使用了其他不当言辞。布罗兹曼法官认定，该案债务人既有资格提出异议，并且实际上据此取消了该律师的资格。\n\n此外，法官阁下，我提请您注意第二巡回上诉法院（Second Circuit）在 Savage & Associates, P.C. v. K&L Gates（萨维奇律师事务所诉凯易律师事务所案）中作出的判决，载于 640 F.3d 53，其中第二巡回上诉法院明确表示，债务人具有\n\n诉讼资格——抱歉——一方当事人可能具有诉讼资格，其依据不仅——并非仅基于财务利益，也可以基于具有法律利益。而且，克雷切夫斯基法官和布罗兹曼法官均认定，在律师不具备无利害关系资格的情况下，债务人对 327(a) 申请提出异议具有法律利益。至于财务利益，您看，法官阁下，我完全不知道本案最终将如何裁定。我理解，提交申请时，债务人持有很少一笔钱。但谈到英国诉讼，那里请求的金额是 \\$500 million。除非我可能听到过一项评论，听起来或许类似于德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）所听到的内容，即该诉讼显然进展得相当顺利，否则我对其状况确实一无所知。因此，完全可能该财产并非无力偿债。也可能在英国针对 UBS 的追偿金额为 \\$500 million。那将对包括债务人在内的所有人都极为有利。因此，我认为债务人在此有资格——对 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的聘任提出异议。至于利益冲突问题——我确实，您知道，\n\n提交了一份附有证据材料的证人和证据清单。我已准备好\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 1268，提交于 12/28/22，录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25，第 134 页，共\n\n提出证据。不过，关于我将提出的大部分证据，我不确定是否存在任何争议问题。我不想冗长陈述或占用大量不必要的时间。\n\n我认为不存在争议的是，Paul Hastings 为多个 UBS 实体提供服务。德斯平斯先生提交的初始声明说明了这一点，并列出了这些实体。\n\n实际上，Paul Hastings 金融重组网页称，他们曾经——我不知道他们今天是否仍然如此——为 UBS 实体提供服务。\n\n我认为不存在争议的是，英国诉讼中的被告是 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）。债务人的清单中——我不知道为什么——在财务状况说明中，我不知道为什么这样做，但其中披露了针对 UBS AG 的诉讼，随后在括号中写着伦敦分行。\n\n而在德斯平斯先生提交的初始声明中，他在声明中所称的 UBS AG 被定义为该 UBS AG，即括号中的 London Branch（伦敦分行）。\n\n但如果您查看起诉状，我实际上将其附在了我们的异议中——再次说明，我可以——我很乐意将其作为证据提交，法官阁下，但它附在我们提交的异议中，而且我认为不存在任何争议，即它是——它确实是起诉状——很明显，该案被告\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 1268，提交于 12/28/22，录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25，第 135 页，共\n\n是 UBS AG——我将称其为大的 UBS AG——即总部位于瑞士、并推定为一大批其他 UBS 实体母公司的那一家。再次说明，该案主张的损害赔偿是 \\$500 million。因此，这不是一项微不足道的请求。这同样载于我附在——我们提交的异议中的起诉状。德斯平斯先生称，他从未代理过任何 UBS 实体——这是在他的——他的初始声明中——并且其作为受托人的身份能够与 UBS AG 对立，并作为具名原告。有几点需要说明。由于他将 UBS AG 再次定义为仅指 UBS AG，即括号中的 London Branch、括号结束，我认为其已提交的声明实际上并未涵盖该诉讼中的实际被告，因为他的声明——他确实在声明中称，他能够与任何——他从未代理过任何 UBS——该声明所称的是，他从未代理过任何 UBS 实体。这很容易理解。作为受托人，我能够与 UBS AG 对立，并在针对 UBS AG 的任何诉讼中作为第 11 章受托人担任具名原告。但是，再次强调，他对 UBS AG 的定义是 UBS AG, London Branch，而这并不是——该案的主要被告是 UBS——我将其称为大的 UBS AG。因此，他的声明仅仅——仅仅除了他从未代理过任何 UBS 实体这一点外，并未涉及该诉讼中的实际被告。实际——\n\n法官：如果他说他从未代理过任何 UBS 实体，为什么还需要涉及实际被告？\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，因为从所有这些内容中并不清楚 Paul Hastings 是否代理过——如果我们谈论的是我被驳回的 60(b) 动议，那将很重要。但我们现在不是在谈这个。我们谈论的是 Paul Hastings。因此，问题并不是——并不是德斯平斯先生是否曾代理过任何 UBS 实体，而是任何 UBS 实体是否为 Paul Hastings 的前客户或现客户。我认为他的声明没有涉及这一点。\n\n法官：好的。\n\n亨齐先生：巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）——在实际申请聘任 Paul Hastings 的申请中，这是德斯平斯先生的申请，但附有其合伙人巴塞特先生的声明。巴塞特先生的声明完全没有涉及该代理关系。它所做的是援引德斯平斯先生的声明，即他的第一份声明，并且只是\n\n说，谈到关联关系，我只是依赖他的声明。实际上，依据《规则》——依据该规则，我确实不确定您是否可以这么做。我不确定律师——在一项聘任申请中，我不确定附于申请的律师事务所宣誓书或声明能否指向其他材料并说，我不会——我不会披露任何利益冲突。我会指向某人——另一份由其他人提交的声明，你们去看那个。但我想，从某种意义上说，我没有——我没有在此就任何事项宣誓，只是确认德斯平斯先生在那边所说的是真实的。因此，巴塞特先生本人在其声明中根本没有涉及 UBS 问题。因此，我认为所有这些的核心是，我不确定 UBS 问题已经通过现有声明得到处理。我也不确定如何回避——或者也许您可以回避 Paul Hastings 在此代理受托人的问题，但我不认为目前已提交的材料做到了这一点。它没有将 Paul Hastings 排除在代理 UBS 之外。它只是——它就是没有。他们被聘任为受托人的一般破产律师，我认为这对他们而言构成重大利益冲突。\n\n我认为 UBS 是 Paul Hastings 的客户这一点已被承认。而 UBS 是本破产财产一项重大资产中的被告。我有一点——我可以继续——我不知道我们是否会单独处理 PAX/PAG 问题。或者我可以继续谈我提出的问题。因为我想，我认为弗里德曼律师（Attorney Friedman）提出的问题，实际上不同于我就 PAX 和 PAG 将提出的问题。因此，法官阁下，我应否继续？\n\n法官：嗯，我不知道。也许我们应该先就这个问题听取德斯平斯先生的意见，然后再继续。我的意思是，否则我们会在这里待一整天。对吧？我的意思是，问题是，德斯平斯先生，亨齐先生说你们律师事务所存在利益冲突，因为他们代理 UBS。目前并不清楚他们代理 UBS。而且——UBS 是对抗性程序中的被告——伦敦案件中的被告。因此，您知道，他说巴尼特先生，我相信——\n\n德斯平斯先生：巴塞特。\n\n法官：巴塞特，抱歉，他的宣誓书没有——没有回答那个问题。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 1268，提交于 12/28/22，录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25，第 138 页，共\n\n法庭：好的，请。\n\n德斯平斯先生：因此，我签署的聘用 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的申请通过援引纳入了我的声明，而该声明同时涉及受托人的任命和 Paul Hastings。声明中对此有明确说明，即该声明中的披露涵盖受托人和 Paul Hastings。该声明称，我们目前不代理 London，抱歉，UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）。我们过去曾代理过他们，但我们代理其他 UBS 实体。我认为——我会核实这一点——但我不认为其中所称的“London Branch”与非伦敦分行会改变分析结果。我认为，从我的角度看，这是一回事。作为受托人的 Luc Despines（卢克·德斯平斯）可以担任受托人，并以受托人身份处理针对任何 UBS 实体的诉讼，无论是否为伦敦分行；而实际上——这就是 Henzy 先生没有——他提出了所有这些很好的观点，但没有深入现实。这里的现实是，本案已有律师参与。他们是出庭大律师。这些人已经处理本案两年了。而且我——我认为他们会继续这样做。以新的律师替换他们并不是一个好主意。无论如何，即使我想这么做，Paul Hastings 也不是伦敦的出庭大律师，因此不能处理该诉讼。因此，Paul Hastings 是一个虚假争议。Paul Hastings 不能处理该诉讼。因此，法官大人，这确实是问题的关键，即基于该理由，这根本不是一个问题。并且，您知道——您知道，我相信法官大人知道事务律师与出庭大律师之间的区别。但我们在伦敦是事务律师，不是出庭大律师，不能提交起诉状或处理审判。我很希望能够这样做，但我们不具备这样做的条件。因此，对我而言，这完全处理了该问题。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。请继续，Henzy 先生。\n\nHenzy 先生：因此——因此，为明确起见，法官大人，唯一涉及 UBS 问题的地方，是美国受托人关于批准任命 Chapter 11 受托人的命令申请，其所附的是 Despins 先生的无利害关系声明。该声明第 7(c) 段规定，Paul Hastings 此前曾代理 UBS AG，括号内为 London Branch，定义——该定义加有引号——“UBS AG”。因此——在他的声明中，UBS AG 指 UBS AG, London Branch。这不是我的定义。我不是——我不认为我是在咬文嚼字或诸如此类。这就是他对 UBS AG 的定义。而该声明接着称，我从未代理过任何 UBS 实体，包括 UBS AG。以我作为受托人的身份，我能够与 UBS AG 利益相对——再次，将该 UBS AG 替换为 UBS AG, London Branch——并在针对 UBS AG 的诉讼中作为 Chapter 11 受托人被列为原告——再次，将 UBS AG 替换为 UBS AG, London Branch。该声明就 Paul Hastings 所称的是，Paul Hastings 目前不代理 UBS AG。但再次强调，按照他所作的定义，UBS AG 是指 UBS AG, London Branch。它并非指大型 UBS AG。这可能——我不知道。Paul Hastings 是否不代理大型 UBS AG，可能属实，也可能不属实，但该声明并非如此表述。Paul Hastings 目前确实代理某些 UBS 实体，即 UBS Securities, LLC、UBS Securities, Limited、Seoul Branch、UBS Investment Bank，它们是 UBS AG 的关联方——而我再次认为，该 UBS AG 是指 UBS AG, London Branch——所代理事项与本案无关。因此，我不认为 Despins 先生的声明完全涉及 Paul Hastings 对大型——我所称的大型 UBS AG 的代理，该实体是英国诉讼中的被告。它根本没有涉及。Bassett 先生的声明也仅仅援引了 Despins 先生的声明。\n\n就他在这一问题上是否无利害关系而言，Despins 先生的声明可能是充分的。他称，他能够与 UBS AG，即 London Branch，利益相对，并在针对 UBS AG, London Branch 的诉讼中作为具名原告，但该声明没有提及 Paul Hastings。因此，目前我认为尚未作出任何披露，法官大人。再次强调，我不知道是否——我从未见过在聘用专业人士的申请中，所附宣誓书中的声明只是援引他人的声明。但这——也许存在某些规定认为这样可以。因此，申请是要求 Paul Hastings 担任一般破产法律顾问。没有——没有任何排除条款。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官大人，我愿意加入排除条款。Paul Hastings 不会处理英国诉讼。事情就到此为止——就到此为止。我的意思是，我们可以这样做——因为我们不能处理。我们不是出庭大律师，法官大人。\n\n法庭：Henzy 先生，就该点还有其他内容吗？\n\nHenzy 先生：就该点而言，我没有其他内容了，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。那么你的下一点是什么？\n\nHenzy 先生：关于 PAX/PAG，我理解在 7 月 8 日听证会时已作出披露，随后又作出了补充披露。对于 PAG，即所谓 PAG 实体与 Paul Hastings 直到最近仍代理、并且显然终止了该代理关系的实体之间的共同高级管理人员、共同董事、共同控制，并未作出披露。对于终止该关系的情形，也未作出披露。而且——Friedman 先生当然可以纠正这一点——但根据他在 7 月 21 日听证会上的陈述，我的理解是，PAG 可能并不知道它曾是 Paul Hastings 的客户。再次强调，Bassett 先生的声明完全没有涉及 PAX 或 PAG。它只是援引 Despins 先生的——实际上是他的最初声明。因此，我不认为这里的披露是充分的。而且，法庭显然非常、非常清楚，PAX 是本破产案件中的主要债权人。\n\n法庭：Desp ins 先生？\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官大人，第一份补充声明再次称，它是为支持受托人任命及聘用 Paul Hastings 而提交的。这是第一段。因此，该问题已被涉及。我的声明涵盖两者。因此，我不理解为什么要回到 Bassett——就利益冲突而言，Bassett 无关紧要。只有一项利益冲突披露。即我的声明。第一份、第二份、第三份。因此，Bassett 被通过援引纳入这一事实没有任何意义，因为聘用 Paul Hastings 的申请称，我们——Paul Hastings 依赖 Luc Despins 的多份声明。现在，关于 PAX 问题，他称我们不知道他们是否有相同的高级管理人员及诸如此类；声明第 4 段称，无论如何，在不承认该点的前提下假定 PAG 实体与 PAX 将在利益冲突目的上被视为同一实体，即假定它们有相同的董事和高级管理人员——对此我们没有展开讨论——我仍能够与它们利益相对，因为它们是前客户。因此，审查到此结束，意思是我在这里假定最不利的情形，即它们全都是同一实体，我不确定是否确实如此。但即使确实如此，我们也能够与其利益相对，因为它们是就一项——一项相关事项而言的前客户。\n\n最后一项交易是一项于 5 月完成的交易——我忘了确切日期——5 月 15 日、17 日，或类似日期。那是一项公司交易，并且已经完成交割，那就是完成交割的交易。那是在 2022 年 5 月。因此，我不确定我看到了其中的争点。\n\n法庭：Henzy 先生？\n\nHenzy 先生：我的意思是，再次强调，法官大人，实际附在聘用 Paul Hastings 申请中的唯一声明是 Bassett 先生的声明。但是，法官大人，对于交易型客户而言，总会存在没有任何待决交易的期间，而且听起来 PAG，这些 PAG 实体，是 Paul Hastings 的交易型客户。我并不——我不怀疑，我想是在 5 月，他们所处理的任何交易已经完成交割，但我的意思是，至少表面上存在一种关系。Paul Hastings 当然可以采取这样的立场：目前我们没有在任何事项上代理任何 PAG 实体，因此它们是前客户。现在，这——而这始终是一种有待讨论的问题。如果你有一个客户，并且你定期为该客户工作，但在某一时点没有任何你正在积极处理的事项，该客户是前客户，还是现有客户？我认为我理解技术性论点是前客户，但我认为很多时候客户并不理解技术性论点，也未必总是同意该论点。我仍认为存在披露问题。PAG、这些 PAG 实体成为前客户的情形是什么？我的意思是，Paul Hastings 是否通知它们，我们将不再代理你们？我认为这——我认为这是相关的。该关系持续了多久？Paul Hastings 曾在多少交易事项中代理 PAG 实体？我认为这些都是相关披露，法官大人。\n\n法庭：还有其他内容吗？\n\nHenzy 先生：没有，法官大人。\n\n法庭：关于整体聘用 Paul Hastings 的申请，还有其他内容吗？\n\nHenzy 先生：有，法官大人。\n\n法庭：什么？下一点是什么？\n\nHenzy 先生：好的。下一点，我将其广义地称为 Paul Hastings 与中国的关联。法官大人，我不认为 Paul Hastings 在中国设有业务存在这一点存在争议。它在北京、上海设有办事处，也在香港设有办事处。我不知道今天是否会对 Paul Hastings 确实为中国国有实体开展工作、并且也为在中国开展业务的企业开展工作提出争议。我不期待今天有人会同意我：中国对在中国的企业行使重大审查和控制。我承认我今天无法证明这一点。我不确定我将如何证明。我在异议中确实引用了 FBI 局长 Christopher Wray（克里斯托弗·雷）的一项陈述。我今天没有传唤 Wray 先生到法庭，就中国对在中国企业所行使的控制程度，包括它们在中国经营的许可证，陈述他曾公开说过的话。我也认为，法官大人——我不知道这是否会受到争议——对此有相当好的公开记录，即轻描淡写地说，Kwok 先生站在了中国政府的对立面。他不得不离开该国。他正在此处寻求庇护。中国政府和/或香港政府扣押了数十亿美元的资产。\n\n家庭成员及其他人，还有可能数额极大的资金，我认为他不会否认这些资金存在于其确实控制的实体中，例如盘古广场（Pangu Plaza）；据我了解，该项目实际上与PAX（PAX）的贷款有关联，并且无论如何也是导致许多事情开始瓦解的部分原因。郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）先生可能基于这些资产被扣押而对香港政府或中华人民共和国政府提出索赔。我显然不是该领域的专家，但据我了解，至少在形式上，资产被扣押的人可以遵循一项程序。我不知道德斯平斯（Despins）先生是否就此进行过任何分析，即遗产是否可以基于资产被扣押而提出索赔。因此，这是一项具体关切。总体关切是，我认为中国政府已经表明其正在追查郭先生。法官阁下，我们再次在异议中引用了美国司法部（United States Department of Justice）的文件，这些文件明确表明，中国政府曾以各种方式试图将郭先生从本国移除。因此，这引发了几项关切。其中之一是，中国政府将试图\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第149页，共\n\n对保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所（Paul Hastings）施加影响。除非中国允许其在中国开展业务，否则保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所无法在中国开展业务。而且，根据联邦调查局（FBI）局长的说法，中国政府确实对在当地开展业务的企业施加控制。近期且直接相关的是——德斯平斯先生也提到过这一点——美国司法部已起诉史蒂芬·韦恩（Stephen Wynn）先生，指控其未依《外国代理人登记法》（Foreign Agent Registration Act）进行登记。指控称，韦恩先生作为中国政府的代理人行事，试图将郭先生从——从本国移除。7月15日，保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所代表韦恩先生出庭参与该哥伦比亚特区（District of Columbia）诉讼，并正寻求驳回该诉讼。在我们于异议中提出此事后，德斯平斯先生提交了第二份补充披露；除其他事项外，他在该披露的第3段中表示，我此前未在声明中披露保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所对韦恩先生的代理，因为我是通过——经由该异议才首次得知此事。显然，该律所知道其对韦恩先生的代理，我认为该律所有\n\n义务作出充分披露。\n\n在该声明第4段中，德斯平斯先生\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第150页，共\n\n还表示，他认为代理韦恩一事与聘请保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所担任律师无关，实质上完全——完全没有关联、不相关。我认为其在多个方面有关联。或者说，中国政府的行为当然在多个方面有关联。其一，如果郭先生被从本国移除，显然会对本破产案件产生重大影响，因为他不在这里。德斯平斯先生在——在其声明中称，债务人不会成为哥伦比亚特区待决诉讼中的证人。我不知道德斯平斯先生如何能知道这是真的。我不知道任何人如何能知道司法部是否会决定，或者也许韦恩先生会决定，应当传唤郭先生作为证人，除非他们与司法部的某人交谈过。德斯平斯先生还称，债务人遗产不会因哥伦比亚特区待决诉讼而增加或减少。我不知道德斯平斯先生是否已认定债务人对韦恩先生不享有任何索赔权。而且，如果你——如果你阅读在哥伦比亚特区诉讼中提交的起诉状，其实质上指称了相当广泛的、你知道的、行为模式。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第151页，共\n\n有人可能——你知道，有人可能会说，这看起来像是一群人之间的共谋，意图将郭先生从本国移除。因此，他很可能对韦恩先生享有索赔权，或者很可能基于韦恩先生与郭先生有关的行为而对韦恩先生存在索赔权。以上就是这些，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。德斯平斯先生，您想回应最后一点吗？德斯平斯先生：是的，法官阁下。首先，你知道，亨齐（Henzy）先生谈到债务人可能享有的索赔权。财产清单中没有提及任何这些事项。对中国政府的索赔不在财产清单中。而且，再次说到施加压力这一点，你知道，始终未能将其与本案受托人的行为联系起来。这将如何受到任何可能施加的压力影响？这确实不存在。他不会成为证人，因为正如我的合伙人告诉我的——这可能是游说出售中国技术、中国茶叶，或类似任何事项。如果你作为外国代理人行事，就需要登记。讨论事项的标的不是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第152页，共\n\n本案的一部分。事实是，你确实曾经代理，或者没有——不知道——就某外国实体或代表某外国实体进行代理。如果是这样，你就需要登记。仅此而已。因此，他不会成为证人。\n\n至于郭先生对韦恩先生的索赔，你知道，我犹豫是否要这么说，但是——尽管去做。我的意思是，保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所不会代理韦恩先生，就郭先生提出的索赔为其抗辩，因为显然他们正试图构建某种情形，借此让郭先生不知何故、你知道，似乎有一个正当关切。\n\n我现在告诉你们，如果郭先生决定以任何理由起诉韦恩先生，保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所不会在该诉讼中为韦恩先生辩护。因此，不存在敌意或问题。我认为这回答了这些问题。谢谢。\n\n亨齐先生：我会简短说明。我可能没有说清楚。我认为关切在于，受托人及代表受托人的保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所是否有义务调查，针对韦恩先生或参与此种行为的其他人可能存在何种索赔权；他们曾试图协助中国政府将郭先生驱逐出境。\n\n我的意思是，就针对香港政府或中国政府的索赔而言，债务人没有将其列入财产清单。但推定德斯平斯先生\n\nFiore 记录与誊写服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n及代表德斯平斯先生的保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所会希望对此进行调查。再次说明，这座盘古广场价值数亿美元，并且它被——它被扣押了。我认为，任何可能由债务人直接或间接拥有的资产消失，都是需要审查和调查的事项。法院：还有其他事项吗？德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，就此我只作最后一点说明。如果债务人明天发生车祸，并对另一名驾驶人享有索赔权，我是否应当追索该项权利，还是说——那又是另一项，你知道——因此，对韦恩先生的索赔与——无关；它不是——它是债务人在申请破产后产生的索赔。我不确定这是否应由受托人提起诉讼。亨齐先生：法官阁下，此处所有行为均发生在申请破产前。所有行为。该诉讼由司法部在申请破产后提起，但所有已发生的行为均发生在申请破产前。资产扣押也是如此。因此，倘若存在资产，它们是在申请破产前的资产。我认为这些应当属于破产财产。法院：亨齐先生，对于您反对聘请保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所担任第11章受托人律师一事，您还有其他要说的吗？\n1 第11章受托人？\n亨齐先生？\n2 亨齐先生：\n抱歉，法官阁下。\n3 法院：\n我是问，关于您反对——\n4 聘请保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所担任受托人律师，\n5 您还有其他想陈述的吗？\n6 亨齐先生：\n没有，法官阁下。没有，法官阁下。\n7 法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n8 还有其他人吗？\n9 弗里德曼（Friedman）先生，您是否就聘请保罗·\n10 黑斯廷斯律师事务所提交了异议或有限异议？\n11 弗里德曼先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。这里是奥麦文律师事务所（O'Melveny & Myers）的\n12 彼得·弗里德曼（Peter Friedman）。\n13 \n14 法院：\n下午好。\n15 弗里德曼先生：\n因此，我们指出，我们关切的是，如果围绕此事会出现\n16 一场闹剧，那将构成问题。显然，在受托人方面本来还可以\n17 采取其他途径。\n18 但是，我不——我们认为，在审查相关问题后，除非\n19 聘请保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所可能不符合遗产的最佳利益，\n20 否则不存在法定理由反对聘请该所。我们的异议主要\n21 针对费用，\n22 以及费用结构。\n23 \n24 不过，这一来一回的交谈确实让我想起您谈到的一个问题，即，你知道，\n25 \n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第155页，共\n\n你要接受现有的债务人。现在听到债务人谈论其拥有的所有这些可能价值很高、但未列入财产清单的资产，确实有点奇怪；而当对他有利时，他又说我有$3,850，或者，不，这些资产从来不是我的，它们一直是我家人的。但现在他声称，他或许确实可以对中国政府提起诉讼。围绕这一点存在一种非常奇怪的氛围——从债务人的角度看，本案几乎就像一个神奇画板。\n\n他过去所说的话，实际上对他今天的感受无关紧要。我认为这是本案中一个令人担忧的部分，即他过去在其他情境中所说的话根本无关紧要。只要有任何新出现的事情，他认为自己今天可以借此获益，就像在一张白纸上重新开始，这就是我们多年来所见的一种令人担忧的模式。\n\n法官阁下，说到费用，我们当时处于这样一种情况：美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）选择了一位收费结构较低、低得多的人选；我们确实认为，这总体上适合本案，特别是如果最终形成非协商一致的计划或较低的追偿额。我们担心，如果受托人及其律师产生大量费用，就会侵蚀债权人的追偿。\n\n受托人及其律师。\n\nFiore 记录与誊写服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第156页，共\n\n受托人的回应大致是，你知道，回应中的一点是，另一方面，我们并不像真正的风险代理律师事务所那样行事，因为上行空间并没有那么大。\n\n而且，公允地说，法官阁下，如果上行结果证明更好，对吧，也许我们关于上行的提议并不像本可以做到的那样慷慨。如果受托人追回$150 million，我认为我们，你知道，可能愿意接受大幅提高费用。\n\n我们只是——我们真正关切的是，如果结果处于较低水平，或者在多年追查郭先生后一些资金被耗尽。而德斯平斯先生很可能不会如此。\n\n但是，你知道，最终追回60或70 million dollars，但同时又产生10或15 million dollars的律师费，这从PAX的角度以及我认为其他债权人的角度而言都将是真正的损失，尤其是在本案开始时原本存在费用更低的选择。因此，这就是我们的关切。\n\n因此，你知道，我认为法院有权选择现在评估费用，或在后续事项出现时，结合向遗产提供了何种价值来评估费用。显然，你知道，人们可能更希望现在就处理此事。我们会如此。但，你知道，这就是我们\n\nFiore 记录与誊写服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n1 的立场。\n\n这是——您知道，我想您这些年来一直听我这样说。这不像是——在过去六个月里。这不像是因为有必须立即处理的事实问题，我就要拍桌子。但是，PAX 对于最终一天结束时 PAX 能拿到多少钱、相比之下要付给专业人士多少钱，确实存在担忧。因此，我认为，而且如我所说，我们已经提出了。除此以外，您知道，我们的具体关切和具体提议是，如果这对受托人及其律师事务所有吸引力和诱惑力，我们愿意从我们的角度提高上行空间。但是，无论现在处理，还是日后资产——现金到账时必须处理，我们认为处理此事确实非常重要。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？哦，抱歉，Despins先生（德斯潘斯）。您想先回应吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：不。也许其他人想发言。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：简要说几句，法官阁下。我是债权人委员会代理人 Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 158 of\n\n关于——债务人现称其可能对 Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·永利）享有的这项新提出的潜在请求权，正如 Friedman先生（弗里德曼）指出的那样，该项请求权本应但并未列入清单。正如 Henzy先生（亨齐）所说，该请求权基于申请破产前的行为，因此本应作为破产财团资产列入清单。已有确立的判例法规定，债务人未在其清单中列出一项请求权，之后又试图在确认后提起诉讼，例如，其将因司法禁反言而不得追究该项请求权。这正是此处的情况。他应因司法禁反言而不得主张其对 Wynn先生享有一项受托人需要调查的请求权。至于 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的申请，我们确实提交了一份声明，表明我们就 Paul Hastings 律师事务所将如何在本案中代理受托人有某些共识，这些共识是基于与 Despins先生的讨论形成的。即，他们将在可能的情况下，\n\n通过使用当地律师来节约开支，当地律师的费率远低于 Paul Hastings 律师事务所；并且，他们也不会就我们认为存在的诉因寻求诉讼融资，这也带来了节约，因为取得\n\n诉讼融资本会是一项昂贵的安排。因此，我认为，至少应当在今天的记录中确认这些共识。另一个共识是，受托人本人以受托人身份，不会根据 Section 326 就本案中可能追回并分配的资产寻求按比例计算的报酬，而只会寻求其作为 Paul Hastings 律师的小时费率——以替代其最终可能根据 Section 326 主张的任何比例报酬。因此，如果他能在记录中确认这些共识，我将不胜感激。正如我们在书面文件中所说，我们不反对聘用该所。\n\n法院：好的。那您为什么认为他不应当就任何追回款项获得法定比例的报酬？\n\nGOLDMAN先生：嗯，因为如果他将以 Paul Hastings 律师的身份按这些费率获得报酬——\n\n法院：哦，如果他要——作为律师工作？\n\nGOLDMAN先生：是的。\n\n法院：好的。好的。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：是的。\n\n法院：我刚才没有理解。现在明白了。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 160 of\n\n法院：好的。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：是的。\n\n法院：抱歉。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：而且他——\n\n法院：我明白您的意思。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：好的。\n\n法院：我没有理解。我想我只是没有听清您说的话。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：好的。谢谢。\n\n法院：抱歉。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。Claiborn律师（克莱伯恩）？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，美国受托人对于基于本案迄今提交的文件聘用 Paul Hastings 没有异议。我只想指出，正如我们此前在本案中所观察到的，持续披露的义务今天存在、明天存在，并将持续存在于未来。然后，关于报酬问题，美国受托人的立场是，律师会将其所在律师事务所的费用以及其自身的小时费率从其本地市场一并带来。而且这是一个复杂案件。它有许多\n\n相互关联的部分，并且需要经验丰富的律师，这必然有时会转化为较高的费用。本案必须完成的工作确实需要以具有成本效益的方式完成。我认为每个人都已向受托人 Despins 明确说明了这一点，他也知悉此事；我相信他会尽最大努力确保技能与服务相匹配，并确保我们以具有成本效益的方式开展工作。当我们进入费用申请阶段时，那才是讨论已提供服务的成本效益以及对破产财团利益的适当地点和时机。\n\n法院：谢谢。受托人 Despins，您是否——您想回应吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我接着委员会律师刚才所说的话继续，也就是说，我已作出承诺，尽可能灵活应对。首先，这是我们应当做的工作，而且——这在实际操作中意味着，尽可能依赖当地律师，依赖 Skalka先生（斯卡尔卡）和 Linsey先生（林赛）。并且利用 PAX 在州法院所做的工作，因为其中有三年、也许四年的经验积累，我们没有必要重新发明轮子。我们作为律师，可以直接借鉴，并且我们\n\n打算这样做。两者结合起来应当降低成本。但是，我不想误导您。这将是一个昂贵的过程。我想谈一下我已同意不会有诉讼融资这一点。这是正确的。不过，我确实得到了一份报价，只是让法官阁下有所了解。诉讼融资方——假设我们想要 $5 million 来追究请求权——他们将收取的费用将是该金额的两到四倍。因此，您必须偿还这 5 million。然后还要支付 10 至 20 million dollar 的费用。只是为了说明这一点。我们并未要求其中任何一项。我们并未要求 30 percent、40 percent。我们要求的是我们的费率。我理解，与当地费率相比，我们的费率很高。我理解这一点，法官阁下。但是，在这里，我最终可能一无所获。我知道，我们都知道并相信应当发生什么。我也相信这一点。但是，从那里到现实，需要大量时间和大量努力。我们承担着这种风险，因为债务人拥有无限资源，并且他们会在每一件事上与我们抗争。案件将上诉至 Second Circuit（联邦第二巡回上诉法院）。如果他们能够，还会上诉至 Supreme Court（联邦最高法院）。对此我毫不怀疑。这就是我们在获得报酬方面所面临的情况。因此，我们认为，鉴于此，若说，哦，如果你们收回的金额不足 X dollars，我们就要下调你们的费率，这将是极不恰当的。因为，例如，假设明天我在梦中挥动魔杖，把 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰大厦）和游艇拿到这里，它们能卖多少钱？我不知道。假如它们卖出——这并非我的目标——我希望公寓卖出 70 million，游艇卖出 40 million。但假设它们各卖 20 million。那么，根据 Friedman先生的提议，我就要蒙受损失，因为尽管我取得了将这两项资产追回的良好结果，但我没有获得人们原以为会从这些资产中获得的价值。我成了这些资产价值的保险人。这确实不对。因此，我理解 PAX 的挫败感。他们花了数百万美元追逐这名债务人，像是在进行一场“抓我啊，如果你能”的闹剧。他们几乎——几乎抓到了。几乎抓到了，但他们没有。现在他们——他们有这种恐惧——我也有同样的恐惧——那就是，这是否又是另一场\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 164 of\n\n“抓我啊，如果你能”的开始？而我的工作是确保这次这部电影更短，或者更成功。但是，我——但关键是，这不应转化为我们要——我们感到挫败，因此要在你们的费用上让你们受损。我只是——法官，我不想对此显得傲慢，但如果我回到办公室说这是一个风险代理案件，而且我对自己的工时打了折扣，他们会说你做了什么？他们只会说，他们得让人检查一下我的脑子。因此，法官，我不想对此显得傲慢，但是——我希望——我感受到 Friedman先生及其当事人在这件事上的痛苦，但我对小时费率无能为力。我会敦促法官阁下将此视为一项风险代理费交易。在这种情形下，这是一个非常合理的费率。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。Henzy先生？\n\nHENZY先生：那么——关于 Wynn 请求权，这项诉讼刚刚由 Department of Justice（司法部）于 May 17 提起。因此，大约是在申请提交后三个月，并且是在清单提交之后。所以许多——\n\n法院：但您说那全都是申请破产前的行为。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，我是基于——我在阅读该项\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 165 of\n\n起诉状，法官阁下。我是说，起诉状是在——\n\n法院：嗯，您的当事人会知道或者不知道那是否属于申请破产前的行为。这——\n\nHENZY先生：不，法官阁下。\n\n法院：是的，他会知道。\n\nHENZY先生：这不是——这里发生之事的事实于 May 17 才公之于众。它们全都发生在数年前。它们于 May 17, 2022 政府对 Wynn先生提起起诉状时才公之于众。所以我只是——我指出的是，许多发生于数年前的事实是在该起诉状提交时首次公开的。仅此而已。因此，是在案件提交并且清单提交后的三个月。\n\n第二点——\n\n法院：嗯，受托人直到 July 8th 才被任命。因此，您的当事人在那之前本可以修改其清单。\n\nHENZY先生：我想他可以，法官阁下。我不确定——\n\n法院：嗯，他有义务这样做。\n\nHENZY先生：我不确定在本案中——\n\n法院：这不只是一个推测。\n\nHENZY先生：是的，考虑到当时发生的一切，我不知道——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 166 of\n\n法院：发生了什么？您的当事人什么也没做。他们没有对任何事情提出抗争。他们决定案件应当被驳回。\n\nHENZY先生：是的。\n\n法院：对。因此，他随后只是决定了他认为应当发生什么，而他在法典下就没有其他义务了吗？\n\nHENZY先生：不，法官阁下，我认为这不公平。\n\n法院：嗯，我认为说他或许可以修改其清单并不公平。\n\nHENZY先生：或许。\n\n法院：他有义务修改其清单。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，我指出的是，这里的事实是在案件提交很久之后才公之于众，而且——\n\n法院：顺便说一句，并不是在案件提交很久之后。清单直到 March 才提交。\n\nHENZY先生：Despins先生不会因债务人清单中的内容而受司法禁反言约束。因此，是否存在针对 Wynn先生的请求权，我不知道，但我确实知道 Despins先生不受禁反言约束。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，关于这一点，请给我两秒钟。\n\n法院：可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：只是向您说明——您知道，Mr.\n\nHenzy（亨齐）非常有创造力。我们承认这一点。因此，我们可能有一项请求权。让我们看看他要求解除我受托人职务的动议。法庭：我们何不这样做。DESPINS 先生：上面写着——法庭：等一下。让我们把它们一起看，因为大家一起看时，对我来说容易得多。那么，他要求解除你的职务的动议——DESPINS 先生：是 561。法庭：561。让我们看看。DESPINS 先生：第 21 段。法庭：请稍等一下，让法庭书记员把它调出来。（暂停。）法庭：第几页？DESPINS 先生：第 21 段，第 7 页，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。请把它放大一些，可以吗？谢谢。好。DESPINS 先生：因此，法官阁下，正如您将看到的，其中谈到一名前 DOJ（美国司法部）官员认罪，承认协助将数百万美元从外国银行账户转移到美国，以资助一场游说活动，向一名美国高级官员施压。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 167 页，共\n\n非法将债务人驱逐出美国。哇，这相当糟糕。而该项请求权在任何清单中列明了吗？那是 2018 年的事。它在清单中吗？它不在清单中。为什么？因为，再次说明，我赞赏 Henzy 先生提出这些理论，但债务人显然在这里对这个人拥有一项很好的请求权，却没有追究该项请求权。因此，对 Wynn（永利）的请求权都属同一性质，也就是说，显然，如果债务人认为其对 Wynn 有请求权，他们肯定会对这名前 DOJ 官员主张这一项请求权。因此，这只是向您表明，这一切都假装是在试图把 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）从本案中排除出去，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。好的。还有其他人希望发言吗？好的。该申请——请讲，Friedman 先生。抱歉。FRIEDMAN 先生：法官阁下，我唯一想说的是，对 Claiborn 律师立场的回应显然是，他们也认为他们聘请的第一位律师很成熟且有能力，只是其收费标准不同。这就是我要说的全部，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 169 页，共\n\n现在，Despins 先生，我只需要回头看一下——随同你的申请，你是否提交了一份拟议命令？我想你提交了。我不确定它是随申请一并提交，还是之后提交的。DESPINS 先生：应该提交了。让我——法庭：我已经看过——它甚至可能就在这里。正如您可以想象的——DESPINS 先生：让我找一下。（暂停。）法庭：我来找。别担心。我可以看一下。这只需要我一秒钟。（暂停。）DESPINS 先生：是文件 539。法庭：是的，它在那里。它确实在那里。它是附件——它是——拟议命令有五页。DESPINS 先生：是。531——539-1。法庭：是的，我现在正在看。谢谢。（暂停。）什么时候——Despins 先生，你们律所的小时费率上调何时生效？是在年初发生，还是——通常是在什么时候发生？DESPINS 先生：通常是的，法官阁下，但我们的财政年度从二月开始，即 2 月 1 日。因此，通常会在那个时候。\n\n法庭：好的。因为我认为——在当事人对小时费率感到关切的案件中，我倾向于做的一件事，是确保在任何费率上调对本案任何人具有约束力之前，我知悉该等上调。例如，在你的拟议命令中，你表示，对于任何费率上调，你将至少提前十个工作日发出通知。并且你将向法院提交该通知。我认为这没有问题，因为视我们届时所处的情况而定，该费率可能不会在本案中上调，可以吗？这是有可能的。DESPINS 先生：明白。法庭：好的。然后我还想看另一件事，然后我将——（暂停。）我知道——正如今天各方都已承认的，这是一个困难的案件。存在许多问题，我理解每个人的关切。我认为人们有权提出他们已经提出的关切，而我已经听取了这些关切。我已经审阅了与聘用 Paul Hastings 有关的申请所提交的文件。我知道 Paul Hastings 和 Despins 受托人，以及本案中的每个人，都有持续义务处理可能影响利益冲突或无利害关系状态的问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 171 页，共\n\n我目前认定 Paul Hastings 无利害关系。债务人通过律师提出的论点没有说服力，聘用 Paul Hastings 的申请将获准。Despins 先生，对拟议命令如有任何细微修改，也将只是细微修改，但我注意到，正如我对所有律师所注意到的，或者至少我会努力记得这样做。我不知道我是否做得像我自认为或应当做的那样好，但《破产法》第 330 条允许法院在就报酬和费用的补偿举行听证后，裁定低于所请求金额的数额，因此，尽管这些费率和问题现已提交法院审理——你已经说明你将收取的费用，那些是你们的费率——法院未来可能作出不同认定。但我并不是说这将会发生。我只是说该法典——我希望确保律师知道法典是这样规定的。法典规定，我认为是 330(b)，可以裁定低于所请求金额的报酬。\n\n我确实理解你就本案及应如何看待本案所提出的观点，但目前该申请获准。拟议命令可能会有一些细微修改——我认为唯一的修改将是——提及第\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 172 页，共\n\n1 条——我的意思是，抱歉，第 330 条，以及，如果向法院提交了费率上调，法院可能不会执行该上调。\n\n2 法院可能不会针对破产财团执行该上调，\n\n3 或者可能会执行，视具体发生情况而定。\n\n4 再次，我认为本案存在许多问题，\n\n5 而且，\n\n6 我认为我们只能看看会发生什么。我认为\n\n7 法典中存在这种灵活性，使法院作为\n\n8 监督机构，能够就\n\n9 费用和开支作出决定。\n\n10 DESPINS 先生：明白，法官阁下。我们唯一的\n\n11 观点是，我们不希望该裁量权——这是\n\n12 正常的——意味着，如果我们为取得一项担保花费 $500,000，\n\n13 您就应当不予准许。可以吗？\n\n14 法庭：对吗？\n\n15 DESPINS 先生：但我想明确的是，\n\n16 那不会成为引入当地费率的后门方式，\n\n17 或任何类似方式——\n\n18 法庭：不会，我不会那样做。我同意\n\n19 这一点。\n\n20 DESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n21 法庭：不会发生那种情况。唯一可能\n\n22 发生的是，如果提交了一项申请，并且\n\n23 法院认定存在某种理由，说明已提供的服务\n\n24 不应获得补偿。\n\n25 DESPINS 先生：绝对如此。明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：而不是费率上调。我不确定费率上调是否会——届时我们得看情况。DESPINS 先生：明白。法庭：Friedman 先生。FRIEDMAN 先生：我只是想明确说明，而且我认为我们不需要把这加入命令，因为我认为这始终是程序的一部分，即，例如，如果我们想对有关某项披露是否适当的枝节问题的可获报酬性提出异议，或者有人向最高法院提出上诉，我们始终有权在每项申请中，无论是中期申请还是最终申请，主张某一具体工时记录并非对破产财团有价值。法庭：绝对如此。每个人都有该权利。没错。FRIEDMAN 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。非常感谢。法庭：好的。法院在审查费用申请后，也可以作出该项决定。因此，聘用 Paul Hastings 的申请获准，命令将作出，但会有细微修改，Despins 受托人，可以吗？DESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：现在我们可以转入该申请。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 174 页，共\n\n1 聘用 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）。\n\n2 SKALKA 先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n3 法庭：下午好。\n\n4 SKALKA 先生：Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡），代表 Neubert,\n\n5 Pepe and Monteith 的申请。\n\n6 法官阁下，正如我认为您所知，受托人\n\n7 提交了一项申请，拟聘用我的律所担任其当地律师。\n\n8 该申请日期为 7 月 19 日。案卷编号为 569。\n\n9 我们没有收到对该申请的任何异议或答复。\n\n10 我们确实收到美国受托人办公室\n\n11 提出的要求，要求提交补充声明，我们已于\n\n12 7 月 26 日提交。\n\n13 作为该补充申请的一部分，我们\n\n14 表明我们不反对修改我们的命令，以增加\n\n15 一段文字，表明我们不会为与受托人有关的服务\n\n16 寻求报酬。因此，这并未载入\n\n17 已提交的命令中，法官阁下。\n\n18 法庭：好的。\n\n19 SKALKA 先生：我可以为此提交一份修订后的命令，\n\n20 当然愿意在今天晚些时候或明天\n\n21 这样做。\n\n22 法庭：还有其他人希望就受托人聘用\n\n23 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 的申请\n\n24 发言吗？\n\n25 CLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，简要说几句。Holley\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 175 页，共\n\n1 Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。\n\n2 Skalka 律师所指的那一段文字\n\n3 也见于聘用 Paul Hastings 的申请中，\n\n4 即 Paul Hastings 拟议命令的第 5 段。\n\n5 它限制了可能裁定给该律所的\n\n6 报酬，并排除了受托人服务的报酬。\n\n7\n\n8 法庭：谢谢。\n\n9 因此，你是说 Skalka 律师只需要\n\n10 在拟议命令中加入该等文字。\n\n11 CLAIBORN 女士：正确。\n\n12 法庭：好的。没问题。\n\n13 CLAIBORN 女士：基于此，美国受托人\n\n14 没有异议。\n\n15 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n16 SKALKA 先生：法官阁下，这对\n\n17 我的律所完全可以接受，法官阁下。\n\n18 法庭：还有其他人希望就\n\n19 聘用 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 的申请发言吗？\n\n20 好的。没有听到其他任何人的意见，并且\n\n21 已审阅该申请以及所有当事人希望\n\n22 尽可能提高本案效率的意愿，\n\n23 包括费用和开支，我理解受托人\n\n24 寻求聘用 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 的理由。\n\n25 我认为 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 已经\n\n证明其无利害关系，而且没有其他任何人反对该申请。Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 已表示，他们将提交一份新的拟议命令，其中载明美国受托人办公室在庭审记录中提出、且已载于批准聘用 Paul Hastings 申请的命令中的限制条件。因此，基于所有这些理由，聘用 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 的申请获准。至于拟议命令——Skalka 律师，你需要多长时间提交该拟议命令？SKALKA 先生：我想我明天就能提交，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那么，我给你——为方便书记员办公室，我会说截至 8 月 3 日。怎么样？那是星期三。SKALKA 先生：可以。法庭：好的。谢谢。SKALKA 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：请各位给我一点时间。（暂停。）好的。因此，该申请获准。然后，为明确今天日程上的事项——我已经说过，由于第 60 条动议被驳回，撤销传票动议已无实际意义。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 177 页，共\n\n那么，日程上只剩下这项动议：请求作出裁定，以确认第11章受托人持有债务人的全部经济及公司治理权利以及债务人控制实体的相关权利，并授权受托人在外国采取行动。那么，Despins先生（德斯平斯先生），您是否希望就此陈述意见？德斯平斯先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：请。请开始。德斯平斯先生：并且请记得，我们还有一些事务性事项。法庭：是的。德斯平斯先生：好的。因此，这项公司治理动议基本上是为了确认我们取代债务人的地位。我很高兴我们提交了该动议，因为债务人的答复明确表明，尚不清楚他们将在何种程度上与我们合作。因此，他们基本上提出了有关BVI——抱歉，Genever BVI（根纳维尔BVI）的问题。请记得，那是在BVI（英属维尔京群岛）的母控股公司，持有目前在Garrity法官（加里蒂法官）面前的第11章债务人的权益。为回应他们对于那里将会发生什么的担忧，我们实际上昨天——昨晚相当晚的时候——提交了一份修订后的拟议裁定，其中说明，好，这就是我们需要债务人做的事。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第178页，共\n\n我们对此的理解，用一种比较口语的说法，是债务人有一辆车。我们要这辆车的钥匙。或者债务人有股票。我们要债务人背书该股票，实质上将其交给我们。因此，根据BVI法律，做到这一点的方式是，他需要签署某些文件；我们已附上这些文件的草案，由我们的BVI律师起草。该裁定基本上规定，Kwok先生（郭文贵）应在我想两个工作日内签署这些文件，将其对这些股份的权利转让给受托人。文字很多，但实质上就是如此。此外，由于我提到的、在针对UBS（瑞银）的诉讼中代理Kwok先生的英国律师存在一个尚未解决的问题，基本上，我很早以前就联系了他们，我想是在我被任命后两三天；他们联系了Henzy先生（亨齐先生）——实际上那应当更晚，因为Henzy先生直到14日星期五左右才被任命。无论如何，他们联系Henzy先生说，这个人，也就是受托人，正在给我们打电话。我们应当和他谈吗？Henzy先生值得称赞的是，给他们写了一封非常友好的电子邮件，说受托人拥有该诉讼中的全部权利。Kwok先生不控制其中任何事项。和他谈。\n\n于是我们与他们通了电话，他们说，好吧，这或许是美国法律的观点，但不是英国法律的观点。您可能必须提出动议，以获承认为外国——我说，不。如果我想对某人启动外国破产程序，我需要这样做。但如果我只是想作为原告被替换，我不需要这样做。法官阁下，长话短说，他们说，好吧，实际上，我们需要一封Kwok先生的信，因为他们担心被起诉——他们没有用“被起诉”这个词，但从肢体语言显然可以看出，他们不想仅凭Kwok先生的一封信就采取任何行动。因此，这里也是同样的类比。我需要车钥匙，而Kwok先生持有车钥匙。他只需要给他们寄一封信。该信基本上复述了Henzy先生已经写给他们的内容，但会由债务人签署，说明该诉讼现由第11章受托人所有。他拥有全部权利。你们应向他告知一切，无论是否享有特权。你们应当就一切事项与他沟通。因此，这就是我们通过本动议所做的事情。债务人对我们提出的批评是——首先，存在当事人资格问题，并且债务人应当就这些问题陈述意见。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第180页，共\n\n他们提出了其他方的权利，例如Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克），尽管我们已经向Bravo Luck发出了通知。我们向Bravo Luck的律师送达了文件。因此，这不是问题。但债务人在此问题上的当事人资格值得质疑。不过，撇开当事人资格不谈，是的，法官阁下，我们正在寻求广泛的救济。为什么？因为成本。我们不希望不断回到法庭说，嘿，您能否授权我们在澳大利亚这样做？您能否授权我们在加拿大这样做？我只是随便举例。并且不停地回到法庭。因此，是的，我们请求的内容是广泛的。其理念是，受托人将自行酌情以合乎情理的方式行使该项权力；如果不是这样，您基本上就会找我。您会告诉我，我不应当做这些事情。但我认为，受托人从公司治理的角度获得采取行动的权力承认，是标准做法，我们也援引了相关判例。例如，我们需要在Genever案中向Garrity法官陈述。我不希望出现这样的情况：Bravo Luck——据称是其儿子的公司——到场后说，他无权发言。他没有从BVI取得股份，等等。我们无法应对此种情况。而这项裁定正实现了这一点。基本上，它非常明确地表明我们持有所有这些权利，因此我们请求法官阁下作出该裁定。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第181页，共\n\n但法官阁下，我很乐意回答任何问题，或者回应债务人尚未回应的任何批评。法庭：我只是想问一个有关此事的问题——再次说明，该裁定是昨天提交的。因此，我查看了它，我想说，没有像我在其他情况下可能会做的那样仔细。但这没关系。我已经看过了。我本来会假定，但我不应该假定，所以我不会假定。如果该裁定作出，而Kwok先生不签署这些文件，那么下一步是什么？德斯平斯先生：您谈到了我们最终会在本案中涉及的一点，那就是藐视法庭。法庭：所以我们需要再举行一次听证会。德斯平斯先生：嗯，会提出一项请求认定他们藐视法庭的动议。法庭：对。德斯平斯先生：是。法庭：好的。所以那就是——我的意思是，这是我对它的理解，但再次如我对您所说，我没有像在其他情况下那样彻底阅读它，因为我今天早上只有一点时间来看它，但这没关系。我总体上理解其条款和条件，也理解您是在请求法院根据破产法的特定条款作出裁定，包括以下条款——\n\n德斯平斯先生：第521条。\n\n法庭：债务人在法典下的义务，无论债务人是否为占有中的债务人。并且您不仅在美国，而且对于在Kwok先生在康涅狄格州提交第11章案件时正在进行或尚待处理的不同事项，都需要该裁定。因此，我没有其他问题。我只是询问该问题。德斯平斯先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。Henzy先生？Henzy先生：那么，法官阁下——法庭：那么，您希望就此陈述意见吗？Henzy先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。请讲。Henzy先生：就我将称为现正请求的两项新增救济而言，它们并未载于该动议中。法庭：您是指那些信函？Henzy先生：他请求您命令Kwok先生签署、将寄给英国Harcus Parker律师事务所（哈克斯·帕克律师事务所）的那封信，在任何方面、任何形式上均未在动议中提及。因此，我不知道Despins先生今天如何能够获得该项救济。这是新增的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第183页，共\n\n就其实体内容而言，Despins先生是对的。我试图提前处理该问题，因为Harcus Parker的人试图联系我，而我的立场是，我不想与你们谈，因为Kwok先生已不再是该诉讼的一方。你们需要与Despins先生谈。我将他抄送在我发给他们的电子邮件中，而自从我发送该电子邮件后，我就未参与他们与他之间的任何沟通。我不知道英国的法律是什么。我不知道那边法院有什么要求。我不知道他们适用什么特权问题。我确实知道——我的意思是，我并不代理这些人，但Kwok先生被要求签署一封可能影响其他人权利的信。我不知道——我相信Harcus Parker律师事务所在该诉讼中也代理其他人。因此，Despins先生正在为该动议中所请求的内容增加救济，而我不知道究竟是什么——并且就此而言，该救济将指示Kwok先生做某事，我完全不知道——指示Kwok先生做的事，在该等事实和情形下是否适当。法庭：那么，让我问您一个问题。Henzy先生：当然。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第184页，共\n\n法庭：您反对Kwok先生甚至签署Genever Holdings Corporation（根纳维尔控股公司）的股份转让文书吗？Henzy先生：嗯，让我说到这一点。法庭：这是我的问题。您是否反对？Henzy先生：因此，那也不属于所请求的救济。法庭：让我就问这个问题。您现在已经到庭，并且非常明确地阐述，Kwok先生不再是占有中的债务人。Henzy先生：没错。法庭：好的。因此，他在破产法下仍负有义务，而Despins先生已要求他向其提供信息，包括交付Genever Holdings Corporation的股份，对吗？您不是说过您收到一封信——Despins先生给您或给Kwok先生寄了一封信，说他想要全部信息吗？Henzy先生：我不——德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我们在Baldiga先生（巴尔迪加先生）被解除职务之前向他寄了一封信。我们向Mitchell先生（米切尔先生）寄了一封信？在他们被任命后，我们抄送了他们，说明我们需要所有这些资料。该信要求提供有关BVI的全部公司治理文件。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1268 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第185页，共\n\n法庭：对。那么等一下。因此，我的问题是，为什么Kwok先生不将其拥有的一家公司的股份转让给该受托人？Henzy先生：我不知道您是否已经说完了，法官阁下。法庭：实际上我说完了。因此，请继续。Henzy先生：好的。因此，背景是，纽约Sherry Netherland Hotel（谢里·内瑟兰酒店）有一套公寓。该公寓由目前在Garrity法官面前进行第11章程序的一个实体拥有。法庭：我明白。Henzy先生：好的。据我了解——好的，因为我没有花很多时间查看该案中发生的一切——随后该BVI母公司的所有权一直存在争议。实际上，Garrity法官作出过一项和解裁定——我想我会称之为一种和解类型的裁定——其中基本规定出售该公寓，并由Melanie Cyganowski（梅拉妮·西加诺夫斯基）监督。并且据我了解，该第11章案件中的债务人实际上已经通过签署文件放弃了几乎大部分——或者也许全部——控制该出售的能力。因此，所有人都同意该公寓将被出售，并且我们将把它交由Melanie Cyganowski处理。\n\n这样做。因此，公寓不会消失。它将被出售。我假定在那种情况下，款项将存入DIP账户，不会发生任何不利情况。但同样，母公司的所有权存在争议。所称情况是，一项信托拥有该母公司，而Kwok先生以受托人身份持有股份。法官阁下，我想明确一点，这只是所提出的指称，同样是在Garrity法官面前的第11章案件中提出的。我没有花时间研究此事。我所担心的是，Kwok先生——这是——我第一次看到这些文件——实际上，我想我今天早上醒来时才看到，因为它们昨晚10:09提交，而坦率地说，我可能在那之前不久就关掉了手机。因此，Kwok先生——Despins先生请求您作出命令，指示Kwok先生签署这些文件。法官阁下，我完全不知道这些文件是否为适当的文件。我不知道这将如何影响Garrity法官案件中正在发生的事情。如何影响任何事情。我不知道。我不是BVI（英属维尔京群岛）律师。我不知道这些是否为正确的文件。我不知道BVI法律如何规定。我从未见过据称存在的、将会\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第187页（共\n\n控制任何人在此权利的信托协议。\n\n因此，如果Despins先生希望取得法院命令，指示Kwok先生签署特定文件——即这些特定文件，我的主张是，他应当提交一项动议，而我应当有一些时间审阅该动议、审阅这些文件，并尝试了解这些文件是否为适当的文件。\n\n同样，这些文件并未附于向法院提交的动议，法官阁下。\n\n这是现正请求的新救济。\n\n就公司治理而言，所请求的只是确认受托人拥有债务人的全部经济权利和治理权利。\n\n并不是——该动议中没有任何内容称，请给我一项命令，指示签署特定文件。\n\n法庭：好的。Despins先生？\n\nDESPINS先生：是，法官阁下。正如您所述，其经过是，我们自7月14日起一直在索要文件。他们连一份文件也没有提供，包括该实体公司治理方面的文件。\n\n因此，当我们提交该动议时，他们说，哦，我们不确定这在BVI法律下是否有效，我说，好的。我们会使\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1268\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25\n\n其生效。这就是该命令实际上作出如此规定的原因。\n\n而且确实是在短时间通知下提出的，但第1021条规定——抱歉。哪一条规定了经通知和听证后——\n\n法庭：第1021条。\n\nDESPINS先生：第1021条。通知应当是在特定情形下适当的任何通知。\n\n因此，如果法官阁下愿意——而且我认为您——星期二对您来说是不方便的日子，对吗？您的日程排得很满，或者——我不知道——或者星期三上午，那么他可以作出回应，但在我们就此结束前，我希望向法官阁下提交一份证物，如果我可以走近的话。\n\n法庭：这已经在案卷中吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：没有。这是在纽约法院的案卷中，Kwok先生——\n\n法庭：Garrity法官的案件？\n\nDESPINS先生：不是。这是在纽约Ostrager法官案件中。Kwok先生在那里宣誓称，他是该股份的唯一所有人。因此，我是否可以——\n\n法庭：可以，请您走近法庭书记员。谢谢。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，我并非——我将反对在此接纳该证据。这是一份宣誓书，由——\n\nDESPINS先生：不止如此。这是一份文件汇编，但在第一份宣誓书中，您会看到其已被标注。它写道，Kwok先生——这是由与Kwok先生有关联的实体作出的宣誓书。其称Kwok先生是BVI的唯一股东。但假设该文件不存在。让我们继续翻页。然后我们会看到被告Kwok对原告Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）所提询问书的答复及异议。然后您会看到第6页，即对询问书的答复。在遵循一般性、诸如此类的保留后，我答复称，我是Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）已发行股份的法定所有人。然后，如果您翻到该文件末尾，文件由Kwok Ho Wan于December 4th, 2020签署。\n\n法庭：实际上，他在第9页对第5号询问的答复中再次作出了该陈述。\n\nDESPINS先生：所以，是的，存在这个问题——好的，我并非试图耍小聪明。确实存在一项信托协议的问题，该协议将使其儿子成为该公寓的受益所有人。但这并不——这并不影响Kwok是该BVI控股实体唯一股东这一事实。而且事实上，是他，而不是他的儿子，继续对债务人实体行使控制权。例如，当前述Garrity法官面前的债务人订立协议时，协议由Kwok先生代表债务人实体签署。\n\n因此，我们所请求的只是，在BVI层面和债务人实体层面拥有同样的权利，以便我们能够在该案件中获得Garrity法官的认可。因此——我之前已说过。我们并非试图阻止出售。但在处理事务性问题时，我将处理一些根本性问题，我们需要在该案件中解决这些问题，这使其成为一项有时间紧迫性的问题。\n\nHENZY先生：我不清楚。法官阁下，我们是否正在就这些问题——已在Garrity法官面前提出、并且我认为其所作命令设想将通过其他地方的诉讼予以解决的所有权问题——进行审理？这些均未提交给本法庭。这些均未包含在Despins先生所提交的动议中。他请求对其所拥有的任何治理权利和经济权利作出广泛确认。而这——这些均不在该动议中。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下？\n\n法庭：是。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：我是Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我只想就此发言两秒钟。\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：我只是认为，同样，这里存在很多像蚀刻画板一样反复改变的说法。回到我们刚才谈到的问题之一，如果您看——我认为是案卷编号107，我认为是第16段，为明确起见，我认为您应当将对方所发生一切那种反复改变的性质纳入考量。Kwok先生实际上在该声明中宣誓称，他在May, 2021就知道Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·永利）的事情，对吗？而现在您听到的是，他直到May, 2022才知道。我只是认为，您需要对与Kwok先生有关联的一切说法格外谨慎。这涉及谁拥有Genever股份。\n\n我想补充的一点是，除藐视法庭命令和判决书外，我们还从Ostrager法官处获得了一项交付股份的命令；该法官称，Kwok先生实际上被要求将Genever BVI的股份交付给PAX。因此，这只是另一项——依我们看来，这是又一次试图阻挠合法债权人取得有价值实体股份的行为。我们认为这应当停止，并且应当命令交付该等股份——该等股份已被命令交付，而今日所请求的救济应当使该命令得以执行。这只是——这只是持续存在的一种模式，真正试图挫败债权人为收回\n\n资产所作的每一项努力。这一点从PAX的角度而言极为重要，不应再有任何延误。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。Henzy先生？\n\nHENZY先生：我从未说过Kwok先生在案件提起前不知道Wynn先生的事情。我所说的是，许多事实是在案件提起后、司法部提交其起诉状时才披露出来的。\n\n因此，我认为不断回到该问题，是在歪曲我所说的话。我在发言时说过，法官阁下，签署这些文件可能不会有异议。\n\n异议在于——该动议中没有任何内容请求该救济。\n\n首先——\n\n法庭：嗯，它概括性地请求了该救济。我理解你的观点。没有——\n\nHENZY先生：该——\n\n法庭：我理解你的观点。该动议没有附上两封供Kwok先生签署的信函。我明白。\n\nHENZY先生：若称该动议所请求的救济意味着——您必须签署这些特定文件——那将是令人震惊的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：嗯，我不知道这是否令人震惊\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n案件 22-50073 文档 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第192页（共）\n案件 22-50073 文档 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第193页（共）\n\n。不过。我不知道我是否完全同意你的意见，好吗？因为自7月8日起就已有一名受托人在任。\n\n现在是8月1日。债务人负有义务。债务人在先前不同案件中的文件里称，他拥有某些财产。\n\n已提交了一份股票证书。这——这并非任何新事物。对你而言可能是新的，但它并不新。而且再看Friedman先生刚向我指出的、Kwok先生于March 20, 2022提交的声明，其中他提及该文章——一篇关于Steve Wynn面临司法部行动的文章。\n\n你知道，总会到某个时候，这些论点开始变得不可信。问题在于，Kwok先生认为他的案件会被驳回。我不知道他为什么这么认为，但他确实这么认为。\n\n之后——你知道，当时存在两种可能——任命第11章受托人，或者转换为第7章。\n\n他负有义务。他没有——他尚未履行这些义务。关于你的论点——\n\nHENZY先生：以何种方式？以何种方式？\n\n法庭：稍等一下。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，他以何种方式没有履行——自从——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第194页（共）\n\n法庭：他没有向Despins先生交付Despins先生要求他交付的东西。\n\nHENZY先生：Despins先生寄了一封信——\n\n法庭：稍等。等一下。等一下。现在你没有回答我的问题。\n\nHENZY先生：嗯，您的——我不——\n\n法庭：他没有向Despins先生交付Despins先生根据《破产法》有权要求他交付的东西。\n\nHENZY先生：好的。我手头没有那封信，而且我——而且我不希望——\n\n法庭：嗯，你的当事人本应向你提供该信。\n\nHENZY先生：我不希望——不，我看过那封信，法官阁下。而且我不希望Friedman先生跳出来说——并歪曲我的话，说我说了我没有说过的话，好吗？但我手头没有那封信。我不——\n\n法庭：嗯，不是，但是——\n\nHENZY先生：我手头没有那封信，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是。\n\nHENZY先生：我认为Despins先生在信中所要求的内容，而且Despins先生已经把那封信拿出来了，他——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第195页（共）\n\n我要告诉您，如果我错了，那是一项范围非常广泛的——我们想查看关于特定实体的大量信息，好吗？所以我现在不记得了，那封信中是否要求提供这些文件，好吗？但是——我甚至不知道这些文件是否存在。我不记得那封信中有任何要求，除了说我们希望你们向我们交出大量材料；我可以告诉您，法官阁下，债务人——我们正在处理此事。我们正在收集这些文件，以便发送给Despins先生（德斯平斯）。我们正在这样做，好吗？我毫不怀疑Despins先生，也许法官阁下，认为这件事应当加快，没问题。但我们正在处理。我不记得那封信中有一份文件写着——好吧。Kindseth先生（金德塞思）告诉我，而且我认为他对那封信的了解比我更深入，其中没有这样的请求，好吗？所以我并不是——法庭：没有针对Genever（杰内弗）的具体信函或要求吗？我的意思是，那是不同的——你对事情作出了不同的细分。HENZY先生（亨齐）：我不是在细分事情。有一封Despins先生适当地——好吧，\n\n没有任何反对意见——说你们必须把这些材料交给我，好吗？这尚未发生。我承认这一点。债务人——我们正在处理。法庭：好的。HENZY先生：是否应该更快？也许应该。法庭：但让我说明一下为什么你的论点站不住脚，好吗？Kwok先生（郭文贵）于May——March 20向本法庭提交了一份宣誓书，ECF 107，第——我告诉你是哪一页。第16页或108页。Sherry Netherland（谢里·内瑟兰）公寓的合作社股份由Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever Holdings, LLC）持有。Genever U.S.（Genever U.S.）的成员权益继而由Genever Holdings Corporation, Genever BVI（Genever Holdings Corporation, Genever BVI）持有。我持有Genever BVI的全部股权。那是Kwok先生所说的。HENZY先生：但您必须继续往下看。我认为——我建议——法庭：不，我不必。HENZY先生：但是——法庭：不，我确实不必。在涉及Genever BVI的问题上不必，而这正是受托人所要求提供的信息。HENZY先生：但是，根据日期为February 17, 2015的受托人声明协议，我以信托方式为Bravo Luck Limited（Bravo Luck Limited）持有该等股权。我的儿子拥有Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 196 of\n\n该公寓所有人的股权。法庭：那么，你猜怎么着？在到达Genever BVI之前，你无法到达Bravo Luck, Limited。你不能——你只需看看这个链条。在到达Genever BVI之前，你无法到达Bravo Luck Limited，因为他持有全部股权，但随后他以信托方式持有该等股权。我的意思是，这将会非常困难。我们可以制作一张图表。我们可以制作一张漂亮的小图表。我们可以画出实体与实体之间的连线。但这——HENZY先生：这——我很抱歉，法官阁下。法庭：这就是他说的。而且他说，还应当指出，我在Genever BVI中持有的任何权益，已被Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格）命令移交给PAX（PAX），前提是该移交不干扰英属维尔京群岛待决诉讼或Genever U.S.破产程序。好吗？所以Kwok先生在March 20说了这些。现在是August 1。至于他——我并不是说我不会给你一个回应的机会，因为我会给你一个，好吗？时间不会很长。关键在于——提出这样的论点，即你不知道——不是你，不是关于你。即Kwok先生的律师不知道这是否会产生影响，以及其他当事人担心其他第三方，这一切都\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 198 of\n\n无关紧要，因为Kwok先生已经向本法庭宣誓，他持有Genever BVI的全部股权。HENZY先生：我认为您和我对这段文字的理解不同，法官阁下。我很抱歉。法庭：好的。那么我们理解不同。但你猜怎么着？那么你将会——我最终将裁定他必须这样做。这就是他说的。这就是他说的。我的儿子拥有——该公寓所有人。但是，根据一份信托声明，我以信托方式为Bravo Limited（Bravo Limited）持有该等股权。DESPINS先生：他仍然持有它。HENZY先生：他以——法庭：他仍然——HENZY先生：他为Bravo Limited以信托方式持有。法庭：好的。HENZY先生：听着，我——法庭：那么Bravo Limited是如何支付那套公寓的？我们是不是要逐一审查所有——这就是——我们要追查资金流向，对吗？这就是我们要做的事情吗？难道这不是我们正在做的事情吗？HENZY先生：我不知道。法庭：这就是我们正在做的事情。这就是为什么指定了Chapter 11受托人。这就是我们\n\n正在做的事情。\n这里发生的情况是——\nHENZY先生：这里有很多事情，在我看来似乎彼此没有关联，法官阁下。\n法庭：那么它们怎么可能没有关联？\n他说它们有关联。他在自己的声明中写了这一点。\n这就是他——他所说的。所以——\nHENZY先生：他说他为其他人以信托方式持有它。\n而且，听着，我再次说明，我没有——我还没有时间分析这个问题，因为这件事是——\n法庭：好的。让我们看看证书。\n让我们看看纽约州诉讼中提交的那份证书，其日期是——February 13, 2015的某个时候。\n他持有——上面写着：“我证明，我是上述公司1,000股每股面值一美分、已全额缴付、受公司组织章程大纲及章程约束的美元股份的登记持有人。”\n所以那是February 13, 2015。这份信托文件的日期是在四天之后。\n因此，他随后转移了其股权。因此，这或许是一项欺诈性转让。\nHENZY先生：可能是。可能是，法官。\n法庭：可能是。\nHENZY先生：好的。但我们——我认为我们不能在实质上仅提前14小时通知的情况下解决这个问题。\n法庭：我刚才已经告诉你，我会给你\n\n时间回应。\nHENZY先生：好的。\n法庭：我会给你时间回应。\nHENZY先生：回到这里，我说过，法官阁下，这可能完全适当，债务人可能并不反对签署这些文件，但我不知道，因为这项内容是在昨晚10:09提交的。\n而且它不在先前已经提交的动议中。\n法庭：好的。那么，我会给你机会询问你的客户是否会签署这些文件，好吗？\nHENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n法庭：好的。\nHENZY先生：我能否有足够的时间进行尽职调查？因为我——我想查明——\n为了向我的客户提供建议，我认为我需要进行一些尽职调查并理解这件事，好吗？所以我希望得到超过24或36小时的时间。我听到Despins先生说Wednesday早晨。\n这里没有任何事情在发生，法官阁下。那套公寓——\n法庭：这正是关键。这里没有任何事情在发生。\nHENZY先生：不，不，不，不。关于那套公寓——\n以及每个人——\n法庭：而且我们必须取得一些材料才能\n\n向前推进。HENZY先生：我不知道我说了什么好笑的话。我通常并不被认为是个有趣的人，但该公寓将依照由Melanie Cyganowski（梅拉妮·西加诺夫斯基）监督的程序出售。该公寓、资金，全部都将成为Southern District（纽约南区）中由Garrity法官（加里蒂）监督的该破产财产的一部分。它不会去任何地方。我不知道——难道想法是Kwok先生会以某种方式带着该公寓逃走，他会带着Sherry Netherland公寓离开，或者他会拿走该公寓的资金后离开。这不会发生。因此，鉴于此处的复杂性，我认为这是公平的。而且您和我确实对这段文字有不同理解。我认为——我不知道，法官阁下，这里的结构是什么。我确实知道，为他人以信托方式持有的财产并非破产财产，取决于——法庭：我对此并不那么确定。HENZY先生：取决于事实和情形。法庭：我对此并不那么确定。HENZY先生：所以也许有时是。我认为多数时候不是。所以我不知道这里所有的事实是什么，因为正如我所说，这不是已提交的\n\n动议的一部分。这是在昨晚10:09提交的一项命令中。法庭：我明白。DESPINS先生：而且，法官阁下，我会向Henzy先生提供更多文件。实际上，有一份是——HENZY先生：不要递给我——我不希望你把文件递给我。我们在法庭上。DESPINS先生：好的。HENZY先生：你可以把文件交给我。DESPINS先生：好的。但关键是，法官阁下，Kwok先生正在对该实体行使控制权。因此它不是他的儿子。例如，当Genever U.S.想要申请破产时，授权文件是由Kwok先生签署的。不是由其儿子或Bravo Luck签署的。是由Kwok先生签署的。所以我想，法官阁下，我们是在讨论日程安排，因为——法庭：是的，我们是在讨论日程安排。我会给Henzy先生一些时间审阅此事并提交回应。我正在看——请等一下，好吗？我只需要看一下日历。（暂停。）好的。就受托人提交的动议而言，Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 202 of\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 203 of\n\n受托人申请确认Chapter 11受托人持有债务人全部经济权利和公司治理权利的动议，ECF 598，以及——关于该动议的经修订拟议命令载于ECF 645，基于记录中陈述的理由，该事项将——本事项将续延至Thursday, August 4th at 1:00 p.m.\n现在，至于——所以我认为，除行政性事项外，这已经处理了我们的所有事项，Despins受托人，其中包括债权申报截止日期命令。\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，我可以提出一点或一个问题吗？\n法庭：可以。\nHENZY先生：好的。关于致Harcus Parker律师事务所（Harcus Parker）的那封信，没有Despins先生在线上，我不会与Harcus Parker交谈，因为我认为我将会——很可能会被指控说了不该说的话，或者我的话会被曲解。\n法庭：那么你和Despins先生自行解决。我不会命令你必须在线上。\nHENZY先生：我不知道他们何时有空。我不知道——您知道，所以我不知道这能否在August 4 at 1 o'clock之前发生。就这些。\n我当然会让自己有空，并尽\n\n最大努力，但我们谈的是与London（伦敦）的律师交谈，我不知道——这将花费多少时间。\n法庭：我认为除了你以外，没有人在谈论与London的律师交谈。\nHENZY先生：我们必须这样做。\n法庭：那么那是你的问题。你可以想办法解决。我们将在Thursday at 1:00 p.m.举行听证会。\nHENZY先生：好的。所以如果我——我不知道该如何想办法解决。\n法庭：那么，你会尽力。你可以想办法解决。你会尽力去做。\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，Thursday at 1:00是现场进行还是Zoom？\n法庭：那么，怎么——你与Thursday有冲突吗？你是在这样告诉我吗？\nDESPINS先生：是的，我在国外。\n法庭：哦，你在国外。那么，那——\nDESPINS先生：但我可以通过Zoom参加。\n法庭：好的。那么我们可以——我想——你什么时候回来？你会离开很长时间吗？\nDESPINS先生：是的。\n法庭：好的。好吧。那么我们就通过Zoom进行。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 204 of\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 205 of\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：我们将通过 Zoom 进行。德斯平斯先生：那么现在我将转入事务性事项，但是——法庭：最后一点，我就不再说话了，法官阁下。我保证。我只是想澄清一下。该动议中还请求了债务人提出异议的其他救济。因此，我不希望法庭认为——如果那部分转至——我也没有意见——法庭：我不知道——我们将在周四详细讨论所有这些问题。亨齐先生：那么所有事项都将延至——法庭：我可以告诉你，我——经初步审查，且以周四进一步辩论为准，我不知道债务人对该动议中所列任何其他救济提出异议的依据为何。亨齐先生：好的。明白，法官阁下。法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生：那么，法官阁下，我们已经进行了三小时四十五分钟。我不知道您是否想在我们转入——之前休息一下，因为还有整整 20——法庭：那么，我会问一下法庭工作人员。你们想休息一下吗？我想他们实际上会想休息。你们想休息几分钟吗？好的。\n\n谢谢。那么现在是 3:40。怎么说，你们想在 3:50 回来，还是想要更长一点？德斯平斯先生：不，这样可以，法官阁下。法庭：这对你们——对我们所有人都可以吗？我的意思是，对我可以。那么法庭休庭至 3:50。（下午 3:37 休庭至下午 3:50。）法庭书记员：我们仍在审理案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生。休庭前我们准备讨论几项——德斯平斯先生：事务性事项。法庭：——事务性事项，那么请继续。\n\n德斯平斯先生：第一项，法官阁下，是要求大约每十天举行一次状态会议。受托人将负有在会议前 24 小时提交议程的义务。\n\n有时我们可能会说无需举行状态会议，但我认为，尤其是在本案开始后的头几个月，与法庭保持联系确实很重要，因此，我们请求可以——\n\n法庭：可以。这绝对可以。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1268\n提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25\n\n您是否已有拟定日期，还是——\n德斯平斯先生：尚未。我会与 Skalka（斯卡尔卡）先生讨论，然后再回复法官阁下，但我只是想——\n法庭：当然。\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n下一项——这更为复杂。我知道上次我们讨论了申报债权截止日，我说我们会对其作出标记，我们也确实这样做了。\n但我开始更深入地研究此事，并意识到这里存在一个根本问题，具体如下。\n在本案之前已提交的 Genever U.S.（Genever U.S.公司）案件——\n法庭：是的。\n德斯平斯先生：——其中争议的是谁拥有 Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内瑟兰酒店）。该案设定了申报债权截止日，但未发出通知——首先，没有公告通知，也没有向郭先生的潜在债权人发出通知。通知只发给了几个人，当然，Friedman（弗里德曼）先生及其同事已参与其中。因此，从他们的角度看，愿上帝保佑他们。他们确实在该案中代表 PAX（派克斯）向 Genever 提交了一项债权申报，但我相对于该实体的立场是，我是股权持有人，\n\n因为我——我拥有该等股份。\n嗯，我并非以个人身份拥有该等股份，而是本破产财团拥有该等股份。这行不通，因为该案的申报债权截止日已经过了。我的 Goldman（戈德曼）先生的客户从未获悉此事，因为当时他尚不存在，因为这里尚无案件。\n因此，有必要——而且是相当重要的必要性——协调这两个案件，不仅因为该问题，因为有许多解决该问题的方法。其中一种是在该案中延长申报债权截止日，重新开放该案，以允许戈德曼先生的客户提交债权申报。我并不是说这是首选方案，但这是其中一种。\n另一种是我们在该案中提出揭开公司面纱或另我人格债权，等等，等等。\n但关键在于需要协调，因为目前该案正自行推进。出售不是问题。那没有问题。\n该案正自行推进，而最终假定最理想的情况，即 Sherry Netherland 归郭先生所有，该笔资金将仅与其中已参与的债权人分享，即 PAX、Sherry Netherland，即该酒店本身，以及极少数其他人。嗯，这样——作为本案债权人的受托人，对我而言这行不通。\n因此——还有第二个根本性问题。我们不应由两个法庭、两个不同的法庭，来裁决 Sherry Netherland 的问题——即 Sherry Netherland 的所有权问题——以及谁拥有该游艇的问题。您可能会说，嗯，游艇与酒店不同，是的。但归根结底，一个是女儿，一个是儿子。都是同样的问题。是的，时间安排问题会有所不同，但归根结底，论点都会是相同的。由两个不同的法庭来裁决该问题，将是对司法资源和专业费用的巨大浪费。因此，您可能会说，嗯，这需要处理和消化很多内容，而我一直在为此苦苦思索。我已与委员会和 PAX 就此进行了交谈，他们也正在推进此事。但我认为需要发生的是，应当——因为我会出庭到 Garrity（加里蒂）法官面前，向他陈述同样的内容。但我认为您与他需要要么——我不知道您对此有何看法——就此进行一次交谈，或者举行一次联合状态会议，这非常不寻常，但此前已有先例。不过，无论如何，该问题都需要在未来一个月左右得到处理，因为对于对郭先生享有债权的人而言，由于他们错过了该案的申报债权截止日，这并不公平，因为他们并不比 PAX 享有更大或更小的\n\n权利。PAX 对 Genever 的债权是一项揭开公司面纱、另我人格债权。\n\n而且，再次说明，我并非批评他们。他们是在履行自己的职责。他们并非任何人的受托人，而且出于某种原因，债务人——嗯，债务人由郭先生控制，所以显然无意对外宣传——发布公告通知，等等，等等，这就是为什么我向您说明申报债权截止日的原因，尽管我们对其作了标记以及诸如此类。\n\n我认为，在该问题得到解决之前，我们应暂缓处理，因为我不想做的是发布两次公告通知，而我们需要以某种方式解决该问题。我的职责是提出一条前进路径，但在再次与委员会、PAX 以及 Genever 案中债务人的代理律师交谈之前，我尚未准备好这样做。\n\n我想澄清，这不影响出售。我并不是想说，哦，我们不会出售——情况不是这样。\n\n但确有协调的必要，我想把这一点提交法官阁下面前。我不期望您当场作出回应，因为其中有许多相互关联的因素，但我认为——而且我知道您的案件安排很满，因此我并非试图再把一个案件放到您的案头上。我理解这一点。\n\nGarrity 法官也非常繁忙，因此这就是为什么我认为你们二位之间需要进行一次通话，或者举行一次\n\n联合状态会议，但我认为，一旦我们有一条可供建议的前进路径，这样做是合理的。法庭：那么，我认为你所说的是，你认为这两个案件都应由同一位法官审理。那么，难道不能通过提交一项动议来做到这一点吗？德斯平斯先生：是的，可以。但是我——法庭：因为我不知道一位法官是否应当与另一位法官就——我的意思是，我——法庭：嗯，尤其是，你是否想要——我不倾向于这样做的原因之一是，我不希望引起任何关于存在不当行为或——的指控。德斯平斯先生：是的。法庭：我的意思是，什么——你知道，但如果你认为这样做适当，那么你可以提交——任何人都可以提交一项动议。德斯平斯先生：嗯，但需要澄清的是，该动议必须在 Garrity 法官面前提交，因为他的案件先提交。法庭：我明白。因此，你的意思是，本案可能会转至那里。德斯平斯先生：我的意思是，首先，未经事先与您交谈，我绝不会提交该动议，因为您可能会说，你刚刚做了什么？因此，我是在向您介绍这个问题。您应当考虑一下，我们可能会在下一次状态会议上就此回到法庭。但我想确保这是您正在考虑的事项，因为它需要以某种方式得到解决。因此，这确实是关于 Genever 案申报债权截止日的问题。我接下来想非常简要提到的是 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）的检查。Kindseth（金德塞思）先生上次说明，需要解决的事项非常——嗯，我不想说非常轻微，但相当有限。事实证明并非如此。法官阁下会记得，尽管我不是该项约定的当事人，他们允许我享有登船访问权或检查权，而事实证明存在更多问题。但各方正在交谈，我们希望这将得到解决。但我想确保您知道该对话仍在进行。我们上周我想就此与 Zeisler（泽斯勒）律师事务所和 PAX 的律师举行了一次通话。法官阁下，您会记得，我们聘请了 Paul Derektor（保罗·德雷克托）作为专家协助我们处理该事项，$2,500。这是向法官阁下提出的一项请求，我知道相关规则，而且 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）可能会对此强烈反对，但如果我们仅将其作为费用列支，是否可以？我的意思是，不提交动议聘请他作为专家？我们可以这样做，但那样将花费更多\n\n超过 $2,500，而我的意思是——费用的意思是，目前没有资产。因此，我的意思是，我们正在为此付款。我们最终希望会有资金可供支付，但我们会将其作为一项逐项费用列支，而不是在本案中提交动议聘请 Derektor 先生作为专家。但我对此并不坚持。这只是从节省成本的角度看，我认为这样做是合理的。法庭：嗯，我认为你也应当与各方讨论该事项。我的意思是，如果没有人提出异议，那么很可能可以。德斯平斯先生：好的。我们将暂缓处理该事项。您完全正确，法官阁下。Lady May 的事项我们已经讨论过。仅就事务性事项而言，债务人仍然——其 5 月和 6 月的月度经营报告仍未提交。债务人仍负有提交该等报告的义务，因此我想提醒各方这一点。从事务性事项的角度看，我就这些，法官阁下。法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生：谢谢。法庭：让我看一下，看看是否还有我认为需要询问的问题。（停顿。）那么，关于申报债权截止日动议以及\n\n那么，对于拟议命令，我们就只是将那些事项延期至日后举行的状态会议？您是这么想的吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，实质上延期至一个待定日期。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：Kindseth先生？\n\nKINDSETH先生：是的，法官阁下。为便于向法官阁下及其他各方作出最新说明，就Lady May（“Lady May”号）而言，代表HK International（香港国际公司），没有人比我的当事人更希望加快满足有关Lady May的约定中所列要求。我们一直非常勤勉地履行这些义务。\n\n法官阁下提到了证明文件。在其他要件得到满足之前，我的当事人无法提交该证明文件，其中一项要件是本法庭设立维修准备金。维修准备金要求我的当事人就为使Lady May恢复良好运行状态所需进行的维修提供方案。\n\n由于相关实体目前非常繁忙，在寻找并取得其方案方面出现了一些延迟。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 215 of\n\n我们收到方案后，已将其发送给受托人、债权人委员会律师及PAX律师。关于实际需要进行的维修，在法官阁下上次开庭之前我并不知情的一项额外维修需要进行。显然，燃油泵发生故障时——我已向法庭披露该情况——导致一些齿轮基本上被磨损。因此，可以看到来自齿轮的细小金属碎片——再次说明，这些材料已向所有人提供——在发动机的润滑油系统中循环。因此，需要清理润滑油。需要减少这些碎片。我们谈论的只是小碎片，但显然仍需维修，而我们已收到该项维修的报价。因此，我们正与受托人、债权人委员会律师及PAX律师沟通，尝试就维修准备金商定一个金额；本法庭一旦下令设立维修准备金，即可使我们提交证明文件。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，并非就Lady Mae事项，但我是否应在星期四下午1点之前提交一份答复，就该——\n\n法庭：是。是的。\n\nHENZY先生：我没有记下来——\n\n法庭：我没有给你规定期限，但如果你愿意，我可以给你至星期四上午9点。\n\n但我不能给你更长时间。我必须能够在听证会前阅读该文件，否则举行听证会就没有意义。\n\nHENZY先生：我会提交——谢谢，法官阁下。我预计会在那之前提交，但谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\n（无可听见的答复。）\n\n法庭：好的。我认为这就处理完本案今日的全部事项，我们将于星期四下午1:00通过Zoom再次开庭。债务人须于星期四上午9:00前就公司治理动议提交答复，好吗？\n\n这就处理完日程表上的全部事项，法庭休庭。\n\n（程序于下午4:05休庭。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法庭批准的速记员及认证电子记录员和速记员，证明上述内容系根据上述案件程序的官方电子录音制作的正确笔录。\n\nAugust 9, 2022\n\nChristine Fiore（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），CERT\n\n速记员\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 218 of\n\n美国破产法院\n更新版\n康涅狄格区\n10/17/22\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于 ＊\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n＊\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n债务人。 ＊\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n＊\nAugust 4, 2022\n＊\n＊\n＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ 程序笔录\n于尊敬的JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官前\n美国破产法官\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·A·亨齐，律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT\n\n代表债权人Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼，律师）\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫，律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧麦律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY\n\nPATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·伯尼，律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT\n\n代表债权人委员会：IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼，律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT\n\n程序由电子录音记录，笔录由速记服务机构制作。 2022-50073\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n关于：\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992 I\n债务人\n11/18/2022\n债务人证据I\nP.E.\n\n出庭人员：（续）代表债权人Rui Ma（马蕊）、Weican Meng（孟伟灿）及Zheng Wu（吴征）：\nKRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休，律师）\nMcElroy Deutsch（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇律师事务所）\n225 Liberty Street\n36th Floor\nNew York, NY 10281\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩，律师）\n美国受托人办公室\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\nChapter 11受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·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\nChapter 11受托人律师：\nG. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ.（G. 亚历山大·邦加茨，律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林赛，律师）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人Logan Cheng（程龙安）：\nJAY M. WOLMAN, ESQ.（杰伊·M·沃尔曼，律师）\nRandazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团）\n100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 220 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 3\n\n（程序于下午1:05开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：Case No. 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：谢谢。请先由Chapter 11受托人作出出庭声明，以供记录。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），Chapter 11受托人。我与我的Paul Hastings律师Alex Bongartz（亚历克斯·邦加茨）以及受托人的本地律师Linsey先生一同出庭。\n\n法庭：下午好。接下来请委员会律师作出出庭声明。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：下午好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），Pullman & Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法庭：下午好。以及债权人PAX的律师。\n\nBIRNEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Birney（帕特里克·伯尼），Robinson & Cole，代表PAX。今日下午与我一同出庭的是O'Melveny & Myers的Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。\n\n法庭：下午好。我遗漏了谁？律师——\n\nBIRNEY先生：法官阁下，Friedman先生也刚刚加入。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 4\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。债权人Rui Ma及相关债权人的律师。\n\nMAYHEW女士：是的。下午好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew（克里斯滕·梅休），McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter，代表Rui Ma、Zheng Wu及Weican Meng。\n\n法庭：下午好。债务人律师。\n\nHENZY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐），Zeisler & Zeisler律师事务所，代表债务人。\n\n法庭：下午好。请美国受托人律师作出出庭声明。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：我想还有Wolman先生。截至目前，他是我唯一遗漏的人，对吗？\n\n法庭书记员：我相信是这样，法官阁下。\n\nWOLMAN先生：下午好，法官阁下。Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼），Randazza Legal Group，代表债权人Logan Chang（张龙安）。\n\n法庭：下午好。好的。我认为所有人的出庭声明均已载入记录。如我先前所述，日程表上有两项事项。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 221 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 222 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 5\n\n我未见任何人就Chapter 11受托人有关延长移送民事诉讼期限的动议提出异议或答复。该动议以及拟议命令在我看来均无问题。是否有人希望就受托人延长移送民事诉讼期限的动议陈述意见？\n\n（无可听见的答复。）\n\n法庭：好的。未听到答复——\n\nLINSEY先生：法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是。\n\nLINSEY先生：是的。如果该动议在您看来没有问题，我就不多说了。\n\n法庭书记员：Linsey律师——\n\nLINSEY先生：我是代表受托人的Patrick Linsey，只是说明——\n\n法庭书记员：请原谅。Linsey律师，请您陈述姓名。\n\nLINSEY先生：我是代表受托人的Patrick Linsey。\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\n法庭：请继续。\n\nLINSEY先生：鉴于法官阁下称该动议可予接受，我不会多说。我只想指出，债务人此前曾提交一项动议，我认为没有人对此提出异议，但该动议尚未得到处理。假定法庭作出我们随动议提交的命令，则将导致债务人的动议被撤回。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 6\n\n法庭：是。你们的动议中已指出这一点。因此，谢谢。在该命令作出时，即随动议提交的拟议命令，如ECF 672第10页和第11页所示，在该命令作出时，债务人先前的动议将被撤回；现已由受托人在记录中撤回。\n\nLINSEY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。因此，该动议获准，拟议命令可以作出。这就处理完今日日程表上的第一项事项。显然，第二项事项是原定于星期一即1日、后延期至今日的事项，即受托人请求作出命令，确认受托人持有债务人的全部经济权利和公司治理权利的动议。该事项延期至今日，以便债务人有机会提交答复，债务人已于今日上午提交答复。我还注意到——债务人提出异议，随后Chapter 11受托人就该异议提交答复。\n\n因此，我理解在书面文件中，或者至少我在书面文件中看到了一些提及，我先请Despins先生说明，似乎已进行了一些讨论。我看到一份命令的修订痕迹版本，似乎表明就我们星期一讨论的问题，与伦敦的律师之间已取得一些——我想我会称之为——进展，但我想请您说明目前情况如何。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。因此，这些动议有两个方面。嗯，有许多方面，但我认为其中有两个方面存在争议。焦点在于UBS（瑞银集团），即您刚刚提到的事项。另一个事项是有关BVI股份等的情况。因此，既然您先谈到UBS，我就从此谈起。\n\n在我与——或者说债务人在该UBS诉讼中的律师之间进行了大量来回沟通。基本上，您知道，他们提出了若干问题。最终，我说，看，你们何不拟定一封信，写明你们愿意从Kwok先生处收到何种信件，以使你们能够向我提供关于请求权实体内容的最新情况、任何和解方案，基本上也就是客户会收到的内容。最终她拟定了该信。而且——我们在答复中说明了这一点。这其中有些部分，我不得不强忍着接受。\n\n即以这样的意义接受，即，您知道，您知道，就是说，法院的管辖权仅仅是一个美国问题。\n\n我的意思是，如您所知，在美国，我们认为您，法官阁下，对债务人的所有资产享有全球管辖权。\n\n但先把这一点放在一边，我想我们不要就管辖权进行美英辩论。\n\n因此，我们对她的信作了一些小改动，基本上，这就是我们现在请求法院命令债务人发送给她的那封信，其基本内容是给予他完全访问权限。\n\n但债务人，根据她——其英国律师的请求——表示，他的同意，如信中所述，并不延及我放弃一项特权。\n\n这不是问题，意思是，我无论如何都无意这样做。但我认为，放弃特权始终是我的特权。\n\n但我的观点是，我们不要陷入这些问题。\n\n重要的是获得对文件的访问权并了解案件，以取得完整的情况说明。基于该信，我认为，尽管他们非常谨慎地表示我们不能保证该信将对我们具有约束力，而我们说可以，但我认为，基于该信，我们应当完全访问这些文件。这就是目标。\n\n因此，您知道，我们将不再追究限制法院管辖权等问题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 9\n\n这就是我们在该问题上的现状。因此，从我的角度来看，就英国律师而言，我认为我们已经处理完毕。但我不知道债务人在该问题上的立场。\n\n法 院：亨齐律师？\n\n亨齐律师：该问题尚未处理完毕。有几点，法官阁下。首先，德斯平斯先生提到英国律师；他和我一直与之沟通的人是Harcus Parker律师事务所的珍妮·莫里西（Jenny Morrissey）。作为债务人的律师，我想澄清一点。我不确定这是否正确。坦率地说，法官阁下，美国法与英国法的衔接对我而言有些不清楚。我知道，根据破产法典，在德斯平斯先生获任命时，他自动替代为该英国诉讼中的原告。莫里西律师告诉我的情况是，破产法典所规定的内容，无论如何并非她的观点。而且我并非——我不——我对英国法一无所知，因此她是对是错，但那——那是她的观点。我相信，她的观点也是德斯平斯先生尚不是该诉讼的当事人。根据英国法，尚有一些步骤必须采取。再次说明，我对此不发表意见。我是在向您转述莫里西律师所表示的内容。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 226 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 227 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 10\n\n因此，我不认为她是债务人的律师。我不认为她是德斯平斯先生的律师。坦率地说，我不确定这使得英国该诉讼中无论谁是原告的地位如何。我不确定该信的地位如何。我所见到的该信最后版本，是由Paul Hastings律师事务所发送给Harcus Parker律师事务所的。我认为德斯平斯先生上次开庭时说过，Harcus Parker律师事务所对此非常、非常谨慎，因此我不知道Paul Hastings律师事务所发送给Harcus Parker律师事务所的最后版本是否会为Harcus Parker律师事务所接受。即使假定会被接受，我相信，毫无疑问，恕我对法院不敬，法院不得强迫郭先生放弃其律师—当事人保密特权。现在，我——\n\n法 院：该信并未说他正在放弃其特权。事实上，该信称，任何特权放弃仅限于向受托人提供该等信息。这就是其所称内容。\n\n亨齐律师：放弃的是——放弃的是特权，法官阁下。因此——我想在这里作一区分。有两种——而且，法官阁下，我们在此处理跨境问题。因此，我认为此处的特权并非依据美国法，而是依据英国法。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 228 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n正如我从与莫里西律师的沟通中所理解的，可能存在一些事项——我认为美国法下也是如此——即受托人获任命后，公司债务人与自然人的适用标准不同。自然人即使在受托人获任命后，仍可能保有某些特权。依我所理解，英国的情况也类似。\n\n因此，Harcus Parker律师事务所持有的某些事项，郭先生可能仍对其享有个人特权，而根据英国法，他对另一些事项则不享有该特权。\n\n而且我——再次说明，我不了解英国法。我不认为德斯平斯先生了解英国法。具体情况如何，我不知道。\n\n我认为，有一种正确的处理方式，法官阁下。德斯平斯先生需要采取步骤，使其本人获承认为英国诉讼的当事人，然后我认为应当处理该特权问题。\n\n我不知道债务人——我不知道郭先生如何能够说，我将放弃我拥有的任何特权权利。再次说明，是指他拥有的任何特权权利。\n\n法官阁下，我不知道。莫里西律师可能会判断他并不享有任何特权权利。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 229 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 12\n\n她可能会判断，对于其持有的材料，郭先生享有大量特权权利。我不知道，在他不知道其就何种事项放弃特权的情况下，如何能够公平地要求他放弃其仍享有的任何特权。因此，我不知道莫里西律师会认为哪些文件属于郭先生根据英国法仍享有特权的事项范围。再次说明，我认为存在处理此事的方法。莫里西律师可能会指明若干特定文件，并称这些是郭先生享有特权的文件；可能在我审阅后，发现其完全无害——那很好——但必须经过一个程序。郭先生在不知道其放弃何种特权的情况下，不能作出知情且自愿的放弃。他不能这样做。而且他不会这样做。再次说明，恕我对法院不敬，我不认为您可以强迫他这样做。我不认为您可以通过签署该信，强迫他放弃其——无论其依据英国法享有何种律师—当事人保密特权。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我可以说几句吗？\n\n法 院：可以。\n\n德斯平斯先生：您知道，这里有人试图把水搅浑。如果该信不适合英国律师，我会处理。因此，我们暂且把这一点放在一边。我认为它会适用，因为她对我们的信作了修改，并向我们发送了这封信。我们作了一些非常轻微、非实质性的改动，所以这是第一点。\n\n而该信，基本上，就是她修改过的那封信，称如果她收到该信，她将就——或者她将向我提供特权信息。关于什么？关于诉讼的实体问题。这是债务人的一项资产。亨齐律师大谈他的475 million或其他数额。这是债务人的一项资产。唯一的方法——这就像一辆车。为了使用这辆车，我需要钥匙。钥匙就是这封信。因为否则他们不会与我交谈，因为，您知道，可能是英国规则或他们担心被起诉。他们实际上从未明确说明过这一点，但这就是潜台词。很明显。\n\n因此，我认为该信有效。这并非对特权作出的未知或无限制放弃。它涉及该诉讼的实体问题。这就是她将向我提供的内容。因为亨齐律师——您必须记得——很友好地很久以前向他们发送了一封电子邮件，其中称，就德斯平斯先生而言，我基本上拥有该等请求权。郭先生完全不再涉及这一——不再涉及该请求权。他确实如此说过。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 230 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 14\n\n那么，如果我不能由律师就该请求权的实体问题向我作出情况说明，我拥有该请求权又有什么意义？再次说明，这就是让我获得那辆车的钥匙。而且我绝对需要它。法官阁下，判例法很明确，受托人可以就债务人的资产获得债务人的特权信息。此处甚至不存在争议。这不像游艇或Sherry-Netherland公寓，在那里他说，哦，我不拥有它。他说——他提交了一项请求权。他说我拥有这个。显然，受托人现在拥有该请求权。而且显然，我有权获得对该事项的访问权。这并非未知或无限制的特权放弃。因此，我们认为法院可以强制。这是521(a)(3),(a)(4)。法院绝对可以这样做，因为这相当于债务人说，是的，这里有车，但我不给你钥匙。如果不能就该请求权的实体问题获得说明，或不知道是否已达成任何和解，我就无法开这辆车。我无法出售这辆车。您知道，这就是类比。我们需要获得对此的访问权。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 231 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 232 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 15\n\n亨齐律师：法官阁下，我可以说几句吗？\n\n法 院：可以。\n\n亨齐律师：我想澄清一点，莫里西律师已向我明确说明，该案还有两名其他原告，且该特权为共同特权。莫里西律师已明确表示，郭先生不能就与其他当事人共同拥有的信息主张特权。因此，她已非常、非常明确地表示，理论上郭先生唯一可以主张的，是据我理解他为唯一所有人的财产所涉及的事项。因此，Harcus Parker律师事务所会表示将会披露的信息范围究竟为何，我不知道。但我想向您提供两项我在异议中未列出的引证。法官阁下，我确实只有相对较短的时间完成该异议。我确实引用了一宗案件，其中第二巡回上诉法院称，您不能强迫一个人放弃其律师—当事人保密特权。再次说明，我想在这里澄清，法官阁下，如果郭先生不再拥有该特权，根据——我认为是英国法——而非美国法——英国的律师—当事人保密特权是什么，以及该特权在何种程度上属于他。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 233 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1 相对方属于 Despins 先生（德斯潘），这——这是英国法事项。\n\n2 这不是美国法。\n\n3 但还有另外两起第二巡回上诉法院的案件。\n\n4 其中一起是 Highland Capital Management v. United States。\n\n5 其引注为 626 F. App'x——我从来不知道该如何读那个东西，324。\n\n6 这是 2015 年的判决。\n\n7 如果可以引用，法官阁下。“在没有放弃特权或可接受例外的情况下，被强制披露受特权保护的律师—当事人通讯，\n\n8 有悖于\n\n9 确立已久的判例。当事人就某项特权是否适用存在分歧时，\n\n10 法院通常会对争议\n\n11 材料进行不公开审查。相反，要求诉讼当事人\n\n12 在未就该项主张的实体问题作出司法裁定的情况下，\n\n13 向对方律师交出受到律师—当事人\n\n14 特权主张约束的文件，\n\n15 将损害律师—当事人特权，因此是不允许的。”\n\n16 \n\n17 因此，再次说明，Kwok 先生（郭文贵）在此享有哪些特权，\n\n18 以及他不享有哪些特权，很可能仍存在争议。\n\n19 而且，在解决该争议之前，您不能命令他放弃特权。\n\n20 \n\n21 我再说一次，法官阁下，有一种\n\n22 正确的处理方式。如果 Despins 先生（德斯潘）不试图\n\n23 凭借此处的一项命令强行推进，而是与英国律师\n\n24 和我合作，尝试确定此处实际\n\n25 涉及的文件范围，她可以审查其文件，法官阁下，并称：我不能向你提供任何东西，因为其他这些人享有特权，而且我不会——我不会向你提供任何东西。她可能会说，有五张纸是 Kwok 先生唯一拥有、我可以向你披露的。那五张纸是他孩子们的照片。没有人——也没有人会关心这些——以向我们说明任何数量的情况。但这里有一个——有一个必须完成的程序。第二巡回法院称，在未就具体文件作出认定的情况下，你不能命令作出这种一揽子放弃。法庭：Highland 案中哪里这么说？我正在看。Highland 案不是破产案件。它是涉及国税局事项的第三方传票案件。那么，哪里这么说？哪里说法院不能强制一名失去占有权的债务人，就该债务人已在伪证处罚下声明为其破产财产资产的一项资产放弃特权？HENZY 律师（亨齐）：法官阁下，这——您说得对。这不是债务人案件。但我不认为——我不——我不知道有任何案件。而且我要说这一点，法官阁下。我不知道有任何案件是这么说的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 234 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 17 因为第二巡回法院所说的是，在存在适用的例外之后。我认为案件中通常出现的例外是，当一方——在刑事案件中，一方称其未获得有效律师协助。规则是，除非你愿意放弃与律师的相关通讯，否则你不能称自己未获得有效的律师协助。我不知道有任何案件称，对债务人而言存在——存在适用的例外。但我要反驳我在此提出的另一点。我不认为应由在此的债务人来证明否定事实。并非通过动议。但通过提交一项拟议命令，Despins 先生正在寻求其中的救济。他正寻求让您强制债务人——法庭：还没有。HENZY 律师：——放弃其特权。法庭：还没有。如果债务人不签署该文件，那么——我前几天向 Despins 先生问过这个问题，然后他将提出动议。问题在于，你的判例法称，在未放弃或不存在适用例外的情况下强制披露受特权保护的律师—当事人通讯，有悖于确立已久的判例。好，这——这——Kwok 先生已在伪证处罚下于其清单中声明——而你们已经\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 235 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 18\n\n1 联系了英国的律师，称 Despins 先生是当事人，而且你已承认 Despins 先生在英国的诉讼中取代 Kwok 先生的地位。\n\n2 \n\n3 \n\n4 因此，你不能接着主张，代表 Kwok 先生的律师不能向 Despins 先生交出该信息供其审阅。我的意思是，你可以提出该主张，但它没有说服力。\n\n5 \n\n6 \n\n7 \n\n8 你正在——\n\n9 HENZY 律师：好的。没有任何——\n\n10 法庭：请原谅。让我——让我先说完。\n\n11 \n\n12 你来到本法庭。你的委托人自愿来到本法庭，并将其资产交由本破产财产的债权人审查，而且已称该诉因是他的诉因，并且是破产财产的一项资产。\n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n\n16 \n\n17 第 11 章受托人一经被任命，\n\n18 第 11 章受托人即取代 Kwok 先生的地位。因此，\n\n19 第 11 章受托人在该诉讼中享有 Kwok 先生的特权。\n\n20 \n\n21 因此，你的论点没有说服力。因此，\n\n22 我们转到下一个问题，即是否——因为那项\n\n23 命令——\n\n24 HENZY 律师：法官阁下，我能否——我能否——可以吗——\n\n25 法庭：请原谅。我还没说完。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 236 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日\n\n1 HENZY 律师：好的。\n\n2 法庭：那封信——Despins 先生刚刚称，他——如果他不正确，他将受到第 11 条制裁，Henzy 先生。那封信是他从——从伦敦的大律师或事务律师那里收到的。\n\n3 \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n6 他们愿意签署该文件。他们作了标注修改。这\n\n7 就是将要发生的事。这就是将要发生的事。\n\n8 所以，我们转到下一个问题，该问题涉及 Genever 问题，以及你主张 Kwok 先生，你知道，对 Genever 没有任何控制权这一事实。\n\n9 \n\n10 \n\n11 但当你查看受托人今天上午对你异议的答复时，随附有证物，其中 Kwok 先生承认——这是当事人的自认——他拥有持有该公寓的合作社股份。\n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n\n16 那么，你对此有何回应？\n\n17 HENZY 律师：法官阁下，如果我能先回到刚才的问题。\n\n18 为作记录起见，您不会再听取我就特权问题提出的任何进一步论点。\n\n19 \n\n20 法庭：正确。\n\n21 HENZY 律师：我只是想作出——\n\n22 法庭：我已就该问题作出决定。\n\n23 HENZY 律师：我想作出记录。\n\n24 法庭：我已就该问题作出决定。那是\n\n25 正确的。你有关特权的论点没有\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 21 说服力。Despins 先生在被任命为第 11 章受托人时，即取代了债务人的地位。对此有确立已久的判例法，Henzy 律师。你所援引的案件不适用。它们并不涉及取代失去占有权债务人地位的第 11 章受托人。因此，你的判例法并不支持你的论点。我将——现在我们可以转到有关 Genever Holdings（吉尼弗控股）事项以及 Sherry-Netherlands 公寓的下一个问题。HENZY 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。关于 Genever BVI 问题，我首先——因为我不久前才收到这个，但对答复所附的文件并未作为证据提交，法官阁下。我认为我们都可以同意这一点。而且我——我并不——我不——法庭：嗯，我不确定这是否属实。首先，其中一些来自纽约破产法院，本法庭可以基于它们是在纽约的 Genever Holdings 第 11 章案件中提交的这一事实，对这些文件及其可靠性进行司法认知。因此，当你说它们不是证据时，嗯，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 237 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 238 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 22 那么我可以将它们作为证据。我可以说，它们现作为与受托人动议有关的证据，因为它们均已提交，其中许多——我们可以逐一审查——是在 Genever Holdings 的破产案件中提交的。根据联邦证据规则，法庭可以对此进行司法认知，因为其可靠性显而易见。因此，说它们不是证据，嗯，好，我现在裁定它们是证据。作为对你异议的答复、于今日提交的受托人答复所附的证物 A 至 G，均为证据，并将标记为证物。因此，如果你想上诉，你可以——这些证物将作为证据。（随附于受托人请求作出命令的动议的证物 A 至 G，作为受托人证物 A 至 G 被接纳为证据。）HENZY 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。仅为作记录，以便保留我的记录，我反对接纳它们。法庭：明白。HENZY 律师：此外——根据证据规则，我须提出具体异议，但我处于困难境地，因为我——因为我几乎没有时间逐一审阅这些文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 239 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 23 因此，这对我是个问题。这有点使我，你知道，转向另一个问题，即——法庭：那么，我们现在就逐一审查。我们将调出证物 A。HENZY 律师：那不公平，法官阁下。因为如果我——法庭：不，这对律师而言并不不公平。HENZY 律师：是的。法庭：因为这些都是你的委托人签署的证物，或者你作为其律师本应持有。你不能来到这里拖延事情。我并不是说——你不能来到这里说，自 7 月 8 日起已被任命的受托人不能履行其职责，因为我是新律师，而且我还没有机会查看所有这些材料。你没有这个机会。HENZY 律师：不。法庭：事情不是这样运作的。DESPINS 律师：法官阁下。HENZY 律师：我要说明的——我要说明的要点，法官阁下，是您正在就受托人所寻求、但其提交的动议中并未提出的救济接纳证物，而且该听证会，据我所知，并非被安排为审判，而是证据听证会。我没有能力尝试反驳这些文件中的内容。这实在——这根本不公平。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 240 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 241 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 24 法庭：好的。HENZY 律师：我没有收到通知——法庭：你将如何反驳——你委托人对询问书所作的答复，该答复已在纽约州法院提交，即证物 A，且由他签署？你将如何反驳？对于你委托人在纽约一宗已审理多年的诉讼中签署的那些询问书答复，你究竟能提出什么予以反驳？HENZY 律师：我将尝试具体回答，法官阁下，但我认为——实际上，我将尝试回答您的问题。好的。首先——我不知道。我不是——我不——我并不在纽约州从事审判法律业务，因此我不知道询问书是否会被提交。例如，在联邦法院或康涅狄格州州法院，询问书不会被提交。因此，也许它们会被提交，也许不会。我不知道这一点。因此，如果它们没有被提交，我认为您不能进行司法认知。这是一个问题。法庭：嗯，其顶部有纽约提交戳记：纽约县书记官 4/28/2021, 10:54 p.m.。文件顶部就是这样写的。HENZY 律师：抱歉。我不——再次说明，法官阁下，我不——我并不在纽约从事审判法律业务，因此我不知道程序是什么。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 25 我想指出，法官阁下，如果您翻到第3页，那里有“权益”的定义。法庭：附件A的第3页？您是这个意思吗？HENZY先生：据我——据我的理解，现在您已经将此作为附件A接纳。法庭：正确。HENZY先生：好的。为明确起见，法官阁下，我对此提出异议。我理解您驳回了我的异议，但是——在第3页，定义2——我可能——我可能弄错了，法官阁下——再次说明，我没有——我理解法官阁下的意思。我并不是告诉您，我没有责任事先审阅这些材料，但今天上午与此有关的材料提交了很多。但是其中对“权益”的定义非常、非常宽泛。“权益”一词是指任何直接、间接的权益，无论是部分、全部或潜在的权益，等等。因此，这是一项非常、非常宽泛的“权益”定义。再次，如果我查看对第1号质询的答复，其中除其他事项外，有一个写着“承认所有权”的小方框——法官阁下，我不知道那是从哪里来的。我不知道——我不知道那是否是向纽约州法院提交的材料的一部分。我对此表示怀疑，而不是说这不知怎么被构造出来用于您的目的或他人的目的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 242 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 243 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 26 我不知道。我当时只是没有——我——我不知道这个问题的答案。我认为这不应当呈交给法官阁下。\n\n但他的答复是：我是Genever Holdings Corporation的已发行股份的法定所有人。如果您回到“权益”的定义——再次说明，这是一个非常、非常宽泛的定义，它区分了法定权益和衡平权益。\n\n如果我跳到第5号质询的答复，在第9页，再次写道：我是Genever Holdings Corporation的已发行股份的法定所有人。该陈述与Kwok先生在本案中提交的声明中的陈述一致，也与他在本案中提交的财务状况说明的总体注释一致。即，他是Genever Holdings Corporation已发行股份的法定所有人，该公司将被称为Genever BVI。\n\n而他在本案提交的声明以及在本案提交的总体注释中所说的是，他持有这些股份，他作为信托受托人持有这些股份的法定所有权。该信托的受益人是Bravo Luck。\n\n因此，我——我们可以争论——而且我知道Sarnoff先生非常想争论——这意味着什么。但我的\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 244 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 27 观点是，我——我无法提出证据，法官阁下，来解释这一点，解释声明中的内容，并解释总体注释中的内容。这——这从根本上是不公平的。原本并未安排进行证据审理。我——这甚至不是——此处所请求的救济——正如我在异议中指出的——甚至不是实际提交的动议中所请求的救济。这——这是新的救济。而现在，据我理解，我们几乎未获通知便就新的救济进行审理，而我绝对无力应对现今提出的主张。这——再次说明，我认为这从根本上不公平，我对此坚决反对。SARNOFF先生：Manning法官，我是Stuart Sarnoff。我能否非常、非常简短地陈述，因为我或许能够就与此有关的一个问题帮助法庭？法庭：请讲。SARNOFF先生：那么，我——Manning法官，我一直是PAX在州法院诉讼中的主办律师。我代表其提交了起诉状。我只想指出，法官阁下，PAX就Genever BVI股份作为判决后的执行行动，提交并胜诉了一项交付动议。我还想提出，此前从未向\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 245 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1 法庭提交过所谓的信托契据。但无论如何，\n2 法官——于2021年9月22日，Ostrager法官，\n3 Ostrager大法官，在其当庭裁决中，随后又在\n4 当日作出的命令中确认，命令向PAX交付\n5 Kwok先生对Genever BVI股份的所有权，因为他\n6 说，引用2021年9月22日庭审记录第16页：\n7 “Kwok先生在答复PAX的判决后质询时，将其在\n8 Genever Holdings BVI中的所有权权益列为其唯一\n9 价值超过\\$10,000的资产，”\n10 这就是本案编号756的文件第9页。\n11 这些所有权股份——随后他接着说，所有权——因此他已承认这是他的唯一资产。\n12 \n13 而且，由于当时PAX拥有1.3亿多美元的判决，即\\$126,000 million，\n14 \n15 他们有权获得交付。\n16 我们不得不随后提出一项藐视法庭动议，\n17 该动议在Kwok先生申请破产时仍在审理中，因为\n18 当然，Kwok先生没有按其应当做的去做，即\n19 交付股份。\n20 但是，您知道，已有一项司法\n21 裁决认定，为了能够交付股份的目的，这些股份属于Kwok先生，或者，在本案中，为了让\n22 Despins先生代位取得其地位，以取得同一整套\n23 权利。\n24 \n25 我还想指出，法官阁下，Kwok先生\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 246 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 29 没有对该裁决提起上诉。您知道，这应当受到争点排除。无论怎么说。这些股份是否在交付的目的上充分属于他，或者是否足以让Despins先生代位取得其地位，已经经过诉讼。在2021年9月22日作出的裁决中——HENZY先生：法官阁下。SARNOFF先生：——Ostrager大法官已对此作出裁决。HENZY先生：我想明确一下。您是将此视为Sarnoff先生的证言吗？如果是，我希望他宣誓。法庭：我并未将其视为Sarnoff先生的证言，Henzy律师。HENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。Despins先生？DESPINS先生：法官阁下，我能否非常简短地说几句？您并非——我们并未请求您今天认定该信托协议无效或不存在。我们在今天提交的681号文件，即案卷681号中，加入了一项保障条款。因此，我原以为Henzy先生会欣然接受。但其基本上规定，法庭并未就该信托协议的有效性或无效性作出任何认定。对该信托协议的任何异议均予保留。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 247 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 30 但是，无可争议的是，他是这些股份的法定所有人，而我们现在有权取得这些股份。\n\n至于该信托的有效性问题——顺带一提，我们已将其排除在外——您知道，该信托，即存在信托的主张，从未在州法院四年间被提出，所以这让您感受到——您知道，就不对此发表议论了。\n\n但关键在于，该命令中有一项保障条款，因此该命令应当作出。然后，Henzy先生还抱怨这些文件缺乏通知。\n\n法官阁下，您或许记得，8月1日——我不知道您是否看到了，但我向Henzy先生提供了更多文件。这些就是那些文件，而他把它们扔到了地板上。有点发脾气。我不知道您是否看到了。\n\n但关键在于，如果他当时没有那样做，他就会拥有所有这些附件；这些正是我当时给他的附件，正如您所说，例如，它们是Genever Chapter 11案件中的附件，对此任何人都无法否认。\n\n而且，这些附件表明，Kwok先生正在行使，而我也一直在行使，与Genever Holdings、Genever USA以及——有关的全部公司治理权利。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 248 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 31 因此，无论信托协议如何，在所有这些签字页上，您从未看到Bravo Luck的会签、批准或诸如此类的内容。是Kwok先生在签字。因此，这说明我们应当拥有这些权利。其中包括指示Genever Holdings的Chapter 11案件的权利，但须受Garrity法官管辖。该命令中还有一项保障条款，规定您并未命令我或允许我在未经其批准的情况下在该案件中采取任何行动。因此，这些都已涵盖。但我认为重要的是要坚持事实。这是一项有限的救济。其基本上是将股份登记在我名下，以便我能够行使该实体的所有公司治理权利。谢谢您，法官阁下。HENZY先生：法官阁下，为明确起见，我认为您也没有将Despins先生的陈述视为证言？法庭：我也没有将任何人的陈述，包括你的陈述，视为证言。HENZY先生：哦，我知道您没有将——或者我认为我知道您没有将我的陈述视为证言。法官阁下，星期一我可能确实有一点非常短暂的小脾气。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 249 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 32 但这是突袭式审理，法官阁下，我认为规则确实需要——程序中确实需要有规则。程序需要有秩序。我不——我不认为这里正在发生这种情况。我已经尝试——我不知道法官阁下是否还有更多问题要问我。我想再提出几点，只是为了保留我的记录，您知道。我相信存在争议。我理解Despins先生对此表示怀疑。我理解Despins先生和Sarnoff先生已向法庭形成了一套事实版本，而我再次无从反驳。我这里没有证人。我不——我不知道这将是一场审理。我想指出，法官阁下，这一争议是Genever U.S.案件中一项和解协议的标的，该和解协议已获Garrity法官批准，据我理解，该协议设想这一所有权问题应当在BVI进行诉讼。再次说明，那是我的——法庭：那么你——那么你是请求将你的附件也作为证据纳入记录，因为你现在正依赖你随异议附上的附件，来作出你刚才所作的陈述？HENZY先生：您知道，法官阁下，我正依赖该——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 33 法庭：好的。那么它们也将获准作为证据。HENZY先生：——以尝试提出论点，尝试作出回应。法庭：好的。那么你的附件也获准作为证据。（随债务人对受托人请求作出命令之动议的异议所附附件，作为证据收取。）我的意思是，你还会为什么提交附件——与Despins先生所为的理由相同——让法庭能够结合你们的立场审阅它们？HENZY先生：结合——法庭：因此，你一方面主张这现在是一场证据听证，而且你未获得公平的机会——但你又希望基于你随动议、答复所附的附件提出论点。因此，我认为你需要更加——我们需要在这一问题的双方一视同仁。你不能主张Despins先生因其提交附件并随其答复附上附件，而使这成为一场证据听证，但你却可以凭借你随——随\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 250 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 34 你提出异议，而那——那并非证据听证会的一部分。嗯，当然是。它要么——它们全都是证据，要么就不是，Henzy 先生。这是本案记录的一部分。你在提交附有那些证据附件的异议时，就使其成为记录的一部分。这就是本案的记录，那些是 Despins 先生提交的附件。然后你提出论点，说，嗯，它们不是证据。嗯，我不同意你的说法，因为它们是本案记录的一部分。但我们就把它们全都作为证据提交。这样就没有——\nHENZY 先生：嗯，法官阁下——\n法庭：——这并无任何不公平之处，Henzy 先生。程序就是这样运作的。\nHENZY 先生：哦，我认为其中确有不公平之处，法官阁下，但我理解您的裁定。\n法庭：我知道你这么认为。\nHENZY 先生：我理解——\n法庭：但你未能阐明或指出任何支持你论点的判例法或法规。\nHENZY 先生：法官阁下，您正在采纳证据。我明白我将一份文件附在了我的备忘录中。好的。那是为了辩论之目的。我并未——\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 251 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 252 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 35 预期任何内容会被接纳为证据。据我理解，您正在采纳证据。您现在正在举行审判。\n法庭：不，我并未举行审判，Henzy 先生。是你说 Despins 先生不能就其答复中所附的证据附件进行辩论，因为它们不是证据。而我对你说，好的，那么就让我们把它们作为证据提交，因为它们是——\nHENZY 先生：而且我——\n法庭：——本案记录的一部分。然后你刚刚说——你刚刚说——你并未依赖那些附件作出认定，但事实上，你确实依赖。你刚刚明确表示，经 Garrity 法官批准的和解协议才是约束 Genever Holdings 的文件。因此，它要么是记录的一部分，要么不是。如果你——那么你所说的任何内容都——你没有任何——任何支持你论点的依据，因为你不希望它成为记录的一部分。那么好。如果你不希望它成为记录的一部分，那也没关系。而如果你不——但你已经使其成为记录的一部分，因为你随同诉状提交了它。\nHENZY 先生：法官阁下，我不会争议，您可以就以下事项采取司法认知——就其价值而言——\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 253 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1 一份已在 Genever 破产案件中提交的文件。\n2 我不会——我不会争议这一点。\n3 法庭：\n但您必须根据\n4 《联邦证据规则》这样做，Henzy 律师。我不能只是说\n5 我采取司法认知。我必须根据——\n6 关于司法认知的适用证据规则这样做。因此，\n7 它属于证据，正如您就和解协议所提交的\n8 文件一样。\n9 HENZY 先生：\n是的。我理解，法官阁下。我\n10 理解您的裁定。\n11 但法官阁下，对于所有权存在争议。\n12 现在，Despins 先生确实提交了——而我认为该争议\n13 根据适用法律必须通过一项\n14 对抗程序予以解决。我援引了许多许多案例\n15 说明这一点。\n16 法庭：\nHenzy 先生，让我就在对抗程序这一问题上\n17 打断你。\n18 我认为你对\n19 7004——7001(a)中的措辞存在问题；你没有——你中断了该句子。\n20 我的意思是，我今天上午回头看了三遍，因为\n21 我认为你所作的——那并不是准确的\n22 陈述。其中写道——(a)(1)规定，为\n23 追索金钱或财产而提起的程序，但要求\n24 债务人向管理人交付财产的程序除外。\n25 你如何——你难道没有看到该措辞吗？如何——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 254 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 37 你如何以任何其他方式解释该措辞，从而仍要求 Despins 管理人提起对抗程序？我如何——我不理解这一点。\nHENZY 先生：因此，法官阁下，正如我援引的——Trancredi 法官审理的涉及 363 动议的案件一样，我不——我明白他可以提出交付动议，但法官阁下，他并未提出交付动议。\n法庭：他不必提出。你的当事人在其自愿来到本法庭并寻求本法庭保护时，依债务人的义务负有与其合作的义务。而且——至于说你的当事人遭到了突袭，管理人问题自二月中旬以来一直悬而未决。管理人于 July 8th 被任命。现在是 August 4th。而你的当事人一直未与管理人合作。我的意思是，你可以继续提出该论点，但你的论点并无说服力。\nHENZY 先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n法庭：可以。\nHENZY 先生：我不同意 Kwok 先生未与管理人合作的说法。这是第一点。我明白本案于二月提起。管理人直到 July 8th 才被任命，法官阁下。我——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 255 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 38 明白管理人已被任命。我已尽力熟悉本案中尽可能多的记录。我不认为法官阁下曾就债务人缺乏合作、或债务人是坏人作出任何认定。我理解您准许该动议的裁定实际上——其重点在于债权人的最佳利益。您说可能存在资产——只是一种集中化的形式。因此，实际上是债权人最佳利益类型的事项。我读过您的裁定，我没有看到任何有关不当行为的内容。我相信，Kwok 先生同意存在理由，是基于债权人的最佳利益。他并未承认任何失职或任何种类的不良行为。因此，在 Despins 先生被任命后的——我想是三或四周内——而且我要说，法官阁下，我不——我不认为，仅因一人提交 Chapter 11，该人便在管理人被任命时或一旦管理人被任命，就放弃其任何及一切权利。\n法庭：好的。但你没有回答我关于 7001(a) 的问题，以及你如何以不同于该规则措辞的任何方式解释它？\nHENZY 先生：因此，法官阁下，542——7001(a)(1)——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 256 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 39 对不起——7001(1)适用——我承认其适用于要求债务人向管理人交付财产的程序。但我认为，那是针对不存在争议、即该财产属于破产财产的财产。而此处存在争议。这与 363 动议相同，法官阁下。法院已裁定，包括 Tancredi 法官在内，在决定拟出售的财产是否属于破产财产之前，不得准许 363 动议。而这需要一项对抗程序。\n法庭：我们目前并未出售财产。第一。第二，该财产是依照纽约破产法院关于出售该财产的命令出售的。因此，那已经完成了，第一。而且你的当事人承认，无论以何种方式、形式或形态，这是他的资产，Henzy 先生。我无需认定他是否拥有——法律权益、衡平权益、受益权益。我无需作出任何该等认定。你的当事人已经承认，这是他的资产。因此我不——因此我不——你仍未回答 7001(a) 如何要求 Despins 先生提起对抗程序的问题。\nHENZY 先生：嗯，法官阁下，我认为并不存在——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 40 7001(a)。是 7001(1)，其中规定——\n法庭：好的。抱歉，7001(1)。\nHENZY 先生：——一项排除——它排除了——\n法庭：抱歉。\nHENZY 先生：——它排除了交付。但是，再次说明，那是针对破产财产。必须先确定该财产事实上属于破产财产。而且——\n法庭：你的当事人已在声明中称其为破产财产。即使他说他是以受托人身份持有，他仍拥有该等股份。他在我们前几天讨论过的声明 107 中就是这么说的。因此，他已经这样说过了。\nHENZY 先生：他说的是，他拥有——他拥有法律所有权，作为——\n法庭：好的。而且你知道，破产财产的定义包括你对任何财产拥有的所有权益，包括法律权益、受益权益、衡平权益。因此，他拥有。\nHENZY 先生：但是，法官——\n法庭：这是破产财产。\nHENZY 先生：法官阁下，Despins 先生在听证会前九——或九分半钟提交了第三份修订后的拟议命令。我没有机会审阅它。如果其中有适当的保障措施——\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 257 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 258 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 41，那么债务人很可能不会反对该命令的作出，但我希望有机会——而不是在本次听证会进行期间——审阅该命令。\n法庭：好的。你希望休庭一小时，以便去阅读该命令吗？我的意思是，如果这正是你希望做的，那没问题。但 Despins 先生刚刚解释了他确实在该命令中加入了保障措施。\nHENZY 先生：我不知道他加入了什么保障措施，也不知道它们是否充分。问题在于，法官阁下，Despins 先生向您提交的内容看来会——要求完整转让该等股份。好的。这是我的理解。好的。他说这些股份被转让给他，仅以 Chapter 11 管理人的身份。如果 Kwok 先生仅是法律所有人，作为一项信托的受托人，而这些股份现被转让给 Despins 先生，我认为 Despins 先生将成为该信托的受托人。如果存在一项有效——如果存在一项有效信托，就必须有一名受托人。如果 Despins 先生现在是该等股份的法律所有人，我认为他是作为该信托的受托人拥有它们。因此，再次说明，如果我们都明确情况确实如此，那么我们可能没有问题。我不确定 Despins 先生是否真的希望成为一项——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 42 信托的受托人，并承担由此可能产生的对信托受益人的全部义务，但你不能两头兼得。正如法官阁下多次所说，你接受债务人原本的——在本案中——他来到法庭时的状态。而论点是，就该资产而言，他来到法庭时是作为法律所有人、作为一项信托的受托人，为第三方的利益持有。因此，如果——如果他所拥有的全部只是作为受托人的该项法律所有权权益被转让，并且该权益被转让给 Despins 先生作为该信托的受托人，那么这或许可以。\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下。\n法庭：是。请继续。\nDESPINS 先生：该论点已被保留。我们并未请求您彻底作出认定，认定该信托无效。我们将该问题保留至另一日期处理。但他不能获得一项咨询性意见，宣告该信托有效。正如您在书面询问中指出的，问题不在于它们是否已在纽约州提交。它们由 Kwok 先生在伪证处罚下签署。而他从未提及该信托，即在五年前或四年前已存在的那项信托。因此，这就是法律状况。这就是我们——\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 259 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 43 接管我们的债务人。债务人对该信托只字未提。而且我——我认为我们已经相当宽容。我们保留他们日后就存在一项信托提出论点的权利，这意味着要求您裁定该信托无效将是不公平的。我们对该问题有严重疑虑，但那是另日的问题。这正是该命令所规定的内容。它将该问题留待日后处理。\n\n法 院：好的。那么，亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy），您是否——\n\n萨诺夫先生（Mr. Sarnoff）：法官阁下，我是斯图尔特·萨诺夫（Stuart Sarnoff）。\n\n法 院：好的。请稍等一下。\n\n萨诺夫先生：法官阁下，我正要——\n\n法 院：请讲，萨诺夫先生。请讲。\n\n萨诺夫先生：法官阁下，我只是想指出，法院就 PAX（PAX）提出的交付动议所作的裁决及——关于动议的裁决和命令，不是庭审记录，而是书面裁决和命令，已经提交。我们于 2022年3月1日将其提交至本院案卷，我相信其案卷编号为 57-2。如果我的——如我的信息有误，请原谅。我们当时很仓促。但我认为这是正确的信息。这是纽约州最高法院（Supreme Court in the State of New York）的裁决和命令，也就是奥斯特拉格法官（Justice Ostrager）就我们提出的交付动议所作的裁定。案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 260 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 44 其前提是，该资产是他的资产，他需要将其交付给 PAX。\n\n法 院：您认为它在 ECF 的什么编号？哪一页？57 的哪一页？\n\n萨诺夫先生：57-2，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：打开需要一点时间。我正在查看。\n\n德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：并且，法官阁下，经您许可，我们能否在 Zoom 上展示——我不知道——\n\n法 院：可以。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——我的同事——展示该——\n\n法 院：可以。您想展示什么？\n\n德斯平斯先生：展示我们加入该命令的段落，以便亨齐——以便他们能看到。那是一段很短的文字。\n\n法 院：那么，我们需要调出 ECF 681。您想看标注修订版本还是无标注版本？\n\n德斯平斯先生：我的同事——我的同事邦加茨先生（Mr. Bongartz）可以准确告诉我们应当查看何处。\n\n邦加茨先生：第 35 页，共 40 页。\n\n法 院：好的。我们需要一点时间，书记员会将其调出，以便我们都能阅读。\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 261 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 45\n\n（暂停）\n\n邦加茨先生：并且，法官阁下，在他操作期间，我有一个页码引用。我想——我想 57-2 是一份证据。我相信是该证据的第 131 页，证据的第 1-3-1 页。抱歉。\n\n法 院：谢谢。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法 院：我们只是在等调出 681，对吗？并请转到其中第 35 页，共 40 页。我正在看它的纸质副本，但我可以——我相信我们很快就能将其调出。\n\n法庭书记官：是的。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法 院：如果您遇到困难，我可以共享屏幕并展示它。对吗？\n\n法庭书记官：是的。\n\n法 院：是否有——\n\n法庭书记官：她那里出了问题。是的，她那里出了问题。\n\n法 院：好的。那么，您需要让我——您需要让我共享。\n\n法庭书记官：好的。您可以共享。\n\n法 院：好的。\n\n法庭书记官：您具备权限。\n\n（暂停）案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 262 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 46\n\n法 院：显示出来了吗？\n\n法庭书记官：是的。\n\n法 院：我看不到，因为我无法知道自己是否正在共享。好的。那么，这就是该段落，德斯平斯先生，第 9 段？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是的。正确，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：是的。每个人都能看到吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应）\n\n法 院：好的。每个人至少都能查看该内容吗？亨齐律师（Attorney Henzy），您看到了吗？我不是说您不能休庭以查看整份命令。我只是问您是否看到了第 9 段？\n\n亨齐先生：我看到了，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：好的。谢谢。好的。那么，亨齐律师，您——您是在请求法院休庭，以便您审阅此事，还是您此时请求法院采取什么行动？\n\n亨齐先生：我认为我并未请求法院采取任何行动，法官阁下。如果法院愿意，我很乐意休庭并仔细审阅。我不知道是否需要一个小时。我不知道是否需要与德斯平斯先生或其他任何人讨论。不过，我将——我想明确说明，法官阁下，案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 263 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 264 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 47 我坚持提出异议，即该内容并未包含在已提交的动议中。根据规则 9013 及相关判例法，我认为该事项并未适当地提交至法院。因此，我的主要论点是，您不应就此作出裁定，并应告知德斯平斯先生提出动议，以便能够有序处理此事，而不是像现在这样在周日晚上 10:09 才首次提交并提出此事，法官阁下。好的。因此，再次说明，这——这并不公平。没有充分通知。他对其寻求救济的支持依据在任何地方均未具体说明。当然，动议中没有说明。我认为——他所提交的经修订拟议命令并不能不言自明。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我们提交了一项范围非常广泛的动议，寻求所有公司治理权利，并且我们特别提到了英属维尔京群岛（BVI）。亨齐先生回应称，英属维尔京群岛的事项太迟了。不存在——您不能仅就英属维尔京群岛作出那种开放式命令。我们回应称，好的，我们会非常准确。这正是我们需要从英属维尔京群岛取得的内容。这包含在所请求的救济之中。因此，我不理解——但他周日已收到。该救济，再次说明，这非常简单。有一辆\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 265 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日\n\n1 车，我们需要钥匙。\n如果我们要取得 Genever（Genever）的钥匙，\n2 我们需要债务人签署所有这些文件，以便\n3 完成转让程序。这与\n4 该动议完全一致。它本无需如此具体，但\n5 现在它非常、非常具体，而且自周日以来一直非常具体。\n6\n7 亨齐先生：我不同意，法官阁下。我认为\n8 不是——现在所寻求的救济并非——并非\n9 已制作并提交的动议的一部分。\n10 因此，我将——我将坚持该项异议。\n11 再次说明，如果法院或各方认为\n12 我们休庭一小时，以便我审阅该\n13 命令并至少可能与我的当事人交谈，是有意义的，我很乐意\n14 这样做。\n15 但是我不——我不希望出现意外，\n16 即如果我回来后表示，无论\n17 该命令中载有什么内容，我都反对作出\n18 该项救济。\n19 法 院：还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n20 亨齐先生：法官阁下，这不必\n21 以这种方式进行。但在 Genever 美国案件中的现状是，\n22 该财产正在梅拉妮·西加诺夫斯基（Melanie Cyganowski）的监督下出售。\n23 据我了解，该案中的债务人已经\n24 基本上将该程序的控制权交给梅拉妮·西加诺夫斯基。\n25\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 266 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 49 据我了解，我认为债务人无法做任何事情来阻碍该程序。因此，这里的任何事项都不会流失。将会有一个出售程序。我相信出售所得将构成该破产财团的财产，并且我相信除非根据法院命令——即加里蒂法官（Judge Garrity）作出的法院命令——否则不会予以分配。因此，不存在——我认为这里没有任何紧迫性。而且，再次如同证据开示、英国证据开示问题一样，法官阁下，如果以正确方式进行，这可能会容易得多。我不认为——我不认为是我在制造这里的焦躁。我认为受托人正通过他选择的处理方式制造焦躁，那就是实际上试图在基本没有通知的情况下强行推进这些事项。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，紧急性的原因是，基于我说明过的去年相关理由，我们需要在 Genever 案件中出庭。有时效敏感的问题。我们需要尽快解决这些问题。我不想去那个法院，然后让像 Bravo Luck（Bravo Luck）这样的人说，嗯，他无权在这里出现，因为他并不持有股份。我不想处于那种境地，法官阁下。这就是我们现在这样做的原因。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 267 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 50 谢谢。\n\n弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）：法官阁下，我是彼得·弗里德曼（Peter Friedman）。我能否仅陈述片刻？\n\n我们强烈同意这一点。该案件中已有一项计划备案，而 PAX 已对此提出异议。但是，您知道，该计划包含各种我们认为不公平地偏袒与郭先生立场一致的某些当事人的条款。显然，债务人作为——我们认为他在该计划提议的背景下实际上并未履行受托义务；我们相信，由德斯平斯先生以任何身份与债务人打交道，并以公正方式使郭先生的合法债权人受益，将更为适当。因此，确实存在时间敏感性。我认为这里有一份披露声明——并且至少目前安排在 8月16日。若明确德斯平斯先生参与该案件的权限，该案件的走向可能会发生重大改变。\n\n法 院：对。\n\n戈德曼先生（Mr. Goldman）：法官阁下，我是代表委员会的欧文·戈德曼（Irve Goldman）。我可以简短陈述吗？\n\n法 院：可以。\n\n戈德曼先生：法官阁下，我认为必须区分股份权益的衡平法所有权与附带公司治理权利的股份权益法律所有权。我认为毫无疑问，债务人已承认他是股份的法定所有人，并且他已行使该法定所有权来控制 Genever USA（Genever USA）第 11 章案件的管理。因此，这正是该动议的标的。受托人已在命令第 9 段中承认，基于信托协议的衡平法权益目前无法确定。因此，我不确定争议为何。其次，即使根据亨齐律师就规则 9013 及授予的救济须具体明确之必要性所援引的判例法，这也仅是最初所寻求主要救济形式的附带事项。只是应债务人的请求，该救济变得更为——该救济变得更为具体。因此，我们完全支持受托人以拟议命令形式所提交的内容。我想在休庭前回到致莫里西律师（Attorney Morrissey）的拟议信函片刻。这些——这些意见确实是有利于破产财团的意见。我认为，该信函的起草方式，即经修订的信函，可能会暗示律师—委托人特权属于债务人。事实并非如此。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 13:58:25 登记 第 269 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 52 我完全同意受托人的意见，即受托人持有债务人的律师—当事人特权，尤其是在该特权涉及旨在增加破产财产的事项时。现在，这封信载明——部分标黑修订版本载明——“并就我在 UBS（瑞银集团）诉讼中的请求向其，即受托人，征求指示，而不论任何属于我的律师—当事人特权、工作成果特权或其他特权。”我建议加入“可能”一词，即“可能属于我的”，然后是下一句：“任何对特权的放弃仅限于向受托人提供该等信息。我的同意仅限于给予受托人完全访问权，并不构成我同意允许受托人放弃该特权。”我不希望该句话被理解为，我们需要 Kwok 先生允许受托人放弃该特权。特权首先属于受托人。因此，我建议，如果这不会扰乱受托人与英国律师事务所达成的协议，或者表面上达成的协议，则应对这些条款作一些措辞调整，以避免被理解为承认受托人拥有该特权。HENZY 律师：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 270 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 53 法院：可以。HENZY 律师：谢谢。Goldman 先生可以希望，我们都可以希望，但我要告诉您，据我所知，那封信已在英国律师与 Despins 先生的律师事务所之间经过数次修改。我认为英国律师采取了相当谨慎的做法，而且他们——他们非常关注自身的职业义务。针对 Goldman 先生所说的一点，即受托人持有特权。我们讨论的是英国法下的特权，法官阁下。我们不是在讨论美国法下的律师—当事人特权。英国有新的诉讼正在进行。Goldman 先生可能对英国法下的特权有所专长。我承认我毫无专长。我依赖的是英国律师向我所作的陈述。因此，我认为这并不像受托人就特权被任命时《破产法典》所规定的那样简单。英国的特权如何运作，就按英国的方式运作。因此，我认为——我不知道本次听证中的任何人能否有权威地就此发言，即英国的特权如何运作。因此，我认为——我认为，在我们坦率地并不真正知道我们在谈论什么时，试图斟酌措辞——是危险的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 271 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 54 DESPINS 律师：法官阁下，如果可以？我完全理解 Goldman 先生的苦衷。我有同样的苦衷。他是正确的。不过在这里，您知道，这——我认为这最终可能是一场徒劳之举，意思是他们可能玩一种游戏：信寄出后，他们说，哦，我们不会与你分享任何信息，因为他没有放弃特权，或诸如此类。当然，我们会再回到法官阁下这里。重要的是，法官阁下或受托人并未采取该立场。这封信由 Kwok 先生寄给律师，或者应由其寄给律师，这是他的信。我们并非——受托人并未采取这样的立场，即这就是美国法下的正确观点。显然，这是我为看清帷幕后面有什么所付出的代价。如果帷幕后面什么也没有，我会再回到法官阁下这里。我希望我能看清帷幕后面有什么。我与法官阁下的看法相同。但是，因为您被指示寄出该信，并不意味着您同意我无法取得该特权。这是一个——这是一个务实的解决方案。而且我——这将是罕见情形。在这一点上，我会与 Henzy 先生立场一致。我\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 55 不会试图在今天就该信的措辞斟酌字句，如果我们可以避免这样做的话。而且我并不天真。我知道这——这可能是一个安排，事实上帷幕后面什么也没有，而我会再回到法官阁下面前。法官阁下并未裁定特权不属于我。这只是指示债务人寄出该封信。所以我想——所以，Goldman 先生，我完全理解他的观点，但我敦促法院在现阶段不要改动措辞。谢谢。法院：谢谢。GOLDMAN 律师：法官阁下，我认为有了这一点，有了这一保留，您知道，只要我们承认这里没有裁定——没有就受托人是否持有特权和——或者是否由 Kwok 先生持有特权作出裁定，我想我会接受。鉴于这是美国破产财产的一项资产，我认为存在一个问题，即，您知道，究竟是美国法还是英国法管辖特权——但我们——我同意 Despins 先生的意见，即今天没有必要作出该项决定。法院：而且该动议并未请求——HENZY 律师：我认为确实没有必要，因为——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 272 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 273 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 56 法院：该动议并未请求——HENZY 律师：——正如我所说——法院：等一下，Henzy 律师。而且该动议并未请求作出该项决定。因此，我不会作出该项决定。抱歉，Henzy 律师。请继续。HENZY 律师：嗯，法官阁下，实际上，该动议在任何方面、任何形式上都没有涉及 Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克）问题。我们可以争论 BVI 的诉讼是否附带于已提交的动议，我认为不是，但我认为实际上不存在任何争议，即 Harcus Parker 问题并非该动议的一部分。该问题根本不在其中，法官阁下。我再说一次，我认为正确的处理方式是，您知道，可能我们可以达成一个富有成效的结果，而这——这不是。就讨论该信内容而言，Kwok 先生不会放弃，不会自愿放弃律师—当事人特权。他不会这样做。正如我所说，我也不会强迫他这样做。因此，如果您要作出裁定，可能我们会走向——我们会走向藐视法庭程序，但他不会这样做。因此，我不知道我们需要花多少时间讨论该封信的措辞。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 274 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 57 法院：嗯，我将休庭至 3:30。然后我们回来，看看你们是否进行了任何讨论。若没有，我们再视情况而定。HENZY 律师：好的。谢谢，法官阁下。法院：好的。法庭休庭至 3:30。（从 2:25 p.m. 休庭至 3:31 p.m.）法庭书记员：康涅狄格地区美国破产法院现于休庭后开庭。我们继续审理案号 2022-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）案。法院：好的。下午好。我们休庭后回来了。我们休庭时，当事方将尝试讨论并审阅第 11 章受托人今天在案卷中提交的拟议裁定。因此，Despins 先生，休庭后情况如何？DESPINS 律师：我会让 Henzy 先生提供更多细节，因为实际上决定权在他手中。但我们——我们讨论了一个方面——嗯，我们讨论了所有方面，但其中一个可能已经解决，所以或许 Henzy 先生可以就此向法院陈述。法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 275 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 58 Henzy 先生？HENZY 律师：当然。因此，法官阁下，有了新增的第 9 段，您知道，法院——法院作出裁定，指示 Kwok 先生签署这些——BVI 股份转让文件和决议，以及 Harneys Fiduciary（哈尼信托服务公司）的所谓 Transfer-In Pack（转入文件包），Kwok 先生将会这样做。仅为记录在案，我认为，您知道，信托协议本身确实禁止 Kwok 先生转让股份，但他并非自愿这样做。他是被法院强制这样做的。由此产生什么后果，就产生什么后果，我认为。任何一方因 Despins 先生成为——无论他成为什么，信托项下的法定所有人、受托人等——而享有的任何其他权利，也由此产生；我只是——债务人并未，您知道，当然并未就可能由此产生什么发表意见。我也不希望债务人被指称未能充分告知他人或诸如此类。但是，尽管如此，有了该第 9 段，债务人不会反对就该部分裁定作出裁定。法院：好的。谢谢。DESPINS 律师：法官阁下，关于此事只说两秒钟。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 276 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 59 该转让于 July 8th 在我被任命时已经发生。《破产法典》使该转让发生。我们在这里所做的是将该转让文件化。再说一次，您拥有这辆车。这辆车成为受托人的车，并非由其个人拥有，而是由其以受托人身份拥有，而现在我们正在处理登记事宜，以确保其获得背书，等等。该转让于 July 8th 依法发生。我认为理解这一点非常重要。但是，您知道，事实就是如此。所以，我们——我认为我们很高兴这一方面已经得到解决。HENZY 律师：并且仅为记录在案，我听到了 Despins 先生的立场。我不同意。但同样，这一方面已经解决，因为 Kwok 先生在被命令这样做后，将会签署这些文件。法院：好的。那么剩下的是致伦敦律师事务所律师的那封信的问题。这是剩下的问题吗？HENZY 律师：因此，法官阁下，为明确起见，我曾在提交动议本身之后、提交经修订的拟议裁定之前提出异议，提出其他异议，而我并未放弃该等异议。我知道在上次听证会上您告诉我——我记不清您的确切措辞，您倾向于或者您已经——驳回该等异议。但我想明确，我并未放弃该等异议。我仍坚持该等异议。我很乐意——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 60 法院：那么让记录明确，因为——HENZY 律师：我希望——法院：——我需要知道你反对什么。HENZY 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：你反对的是，Despins 先生——Despins 先生没有提起对抗性程序，要求将财产交付给他？HENZY 律师：法官阁下，我认为该问题已经解决。法院：嗯，我需要知道这一点。当你说你认为该问题已经解决时，如果没有解决，我将对此作出裁定，所以你需要告诉我它是否已经解决。HENZY 律师：现在，法官阁下，抱歉。我认为我表达得不清楚。认为这需要通过对抗性程序处理的论点已经不复存在，因为那与我们刚刚告诉您已经解决并将会发生的股份转让有关。因此，当我提及我的其他异议时，如果回到最初提交的动议——给我一\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 61 秒，法官大人——法庭：当然可以。HENZY 先生（亨齐先生）：——如原先提交的动议，即文件 598——法庭：ECF 598。对。那么，你是说你仍希望保留你对于受托人未具体援引法典第 521 条的异议？HENZY 先生：不是。因此，法官大人，7 月 29 日，我提交了一份异议。文件编号为 643。法庭：是。我明白。HENZY 先生：好的。好的。我对该动议原先请求的救济提出了异议，该异议与 Harcus Parkus（哈克斯·帕克斯）无关——我一直说 Harcus Parkus，听起来很糟糕——而是 Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克），以及我们已经解决的股份问题。我还提出了其他异议，我们今天完全没有讨论过。法庭：好的。那么请继续。HENZY 先生：并且，再次——法庭：我想知道你具体仍在反对什么。HENZY 先生：好的。或许，法官大人，为了——尽量——尽量说清楚，我反对——请给我一——抱歉，法官大人。请给我一秒钟。法庭：没问题。案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 278 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 62\n\n（暂停）\n\nHENZY 先生：抱歉。我正在理清所有这些命令。因此，就我于 7 月 29 日提交的异议而言，如果我——如果我查看——最容易整理的方式可能是今天下午听证会前刚刚提交的命令，即文件编号 681。法庭：是。请继续。我在听。我不确定你要说什么。我以为我们要——HENZY 先生：好的。我只是想——法庭：——讨论你所——HENZY 先生：我想——法官，对不起。我只是想尝试关联到我于 7 月 29 日提交的异议。法庭：好的。HENZY 先生：好的。是第 2 段——而且这——这——暂且不谈——法庭：哪一份文件的第 2 段，命令还是你的异议？HENZY 先生：命令的。法庭：ECF 681 的第 2 段。HENZY 先生：正确。法庭：你反对什么？HENZY 先生：好的。我反对第 2 段，尽管再次说明，我们已经处理了 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）问题。案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 279 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 280 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 63\n\n但是，此处请求的救济对于未指明的实体请求了非常广泛的救济，即替换任何现有高管、董事、经理或类似人员的授权。因此，Despins 先生（德斯平斯先生）请求本庭授予其对未指明实体的授权，而不考虑这些特定实体、适用于这些实体的非破产法，以及这些实体的组织文件可能作出的规定。法官大人，我认为这行不通。我认为此类授权——就 Despins 先生而言，我认为他拥有其所拥有的授权，而这涉及——并且我并不质疑他就任何实体拥有的任何特定授权，因为我不知道我们在谈论哪些实体。但该条款会赋予他可能未由适用的非破产法以及特定实体的治理文件所规定的授权。法庭：难道不能仅仅——HENZY 先生：而 Despins 先生所援引的判例——法庭：难道不能——难道我们不能仅通过说明——你是在谈论“为免生疑”措辞，即那句话？为免生疑，前述权利包括受托人所主张的授权。他主张他\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 64\n\n拥有该授权。如果他没有该授权而且做错了事，那么你可以起诉他。HENZY 先生：实际上，法官大人，我的意思是，我认为我在答复中提出了这一点，即如果本段仅规定须受适用的非破产法和这些实体的治理文件约束，那么我——那么我就不会反对该条款。再次说明，我并非想——我并非想制造争议。我确实不是。但我认为那才是对法律的正确表述。他作为受托人拥有其所拥有的任何授权，但就任何特定实体而言，该授权须受适用的非破产法和该实体的治理文件约束。仅此而已。DESPINS 先生：法官大人，如果我们有，我们就有。如果我们没有，我们就没有。但我不想就这些问题与债务人展开附带诉讼，因为这正是本案费用将会——你知道，变得失控的方式。我们请求概括性授权的原因是，除非我们经尽职调查后认为我们有权这样做，否则我们不会行使该权利。如果我们存疑，我们会回到法庭。但我们不能处于这样一种境地，即就——州法规定什么、外国法规定什么展开附带诉讼，因为那是——案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 281 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 65\n\n那基本上将成为另一起案件。HENZY 先生：法官，Kwok 先生最不想做的事就是就这些实体应如何治理展开诉讼。但如果 Despins 先生是在向您表示，他——在完成尽职调查后——只会做他有权做的事，那么我不知道——我所希望的只是将此写入该命令，但我认为这并非该命令所表述的内容。法庭：那么，我认为一个——HENZY 先生：它——它超出了这一点。法庭：——我认为我的建议可行。为免生疑，前述权利包括受托人所主张的替换债务人控制实体任何现有高管、董事、经理或类似人员的授权。接着下一句话说，作为前述事项的一部分。因此，关键在于他主张拥有该授权。他是以受托人的身份行事。因此，那是他所主张的内容。而且我将——我将加入“主张”一词。这是我对第 2 段唯一会作出的修改。HENZY 先生：谢谢您，法官大人。为明确起见，我并未——我并未——我仍坚持我对该措辞的异议。法庭：明白。该异议已被——案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 282 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 283 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 66\n\n驳回。那么你的下一项异议是什么？HENZY 先生：好的。再次说明，我试图简化，法官大人。我对第 3 段的第一项判令段落没有异议。然后，现在就我们刚刚向您告知的 BVI 问题达成这一解决方案后，对于该——那么——当您翻到第 3 页，那个小项 (a)，我对该段没有异议。该问题已经解决。该页往下的下一段，即 (b) 段，我们已就该段进行了充分讨论，即关于英国问题、UK/UBS 诉讼问题，而我维持对该问题的异议。关于第——法庭：等等。稍等一下。我正在记下来。那么对于 (b)，我们还要讨论什么？我认为双方已经陈述过论点了，正确吗？HENZY 先生：我认为论点已经陈述过了，法官大人。我不想赘述任何事情。法庭：好的。DESPINS 先生：但是，法官大人，我只想简要补充一点，我们所寻求的唯一特权信息，是关于 Kwok 先生针对 UBS（瑞银集团）的积极请求之实体问题的特权信息。没有其他问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 284 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 67\n\n因此，例如，举一个荒谬的例子，Kwok 先生在该代理关系中说，哦，顺便说一句，我已将一架私人飞机的权益转让给我的女儿。我并不——我并不寻求取得该信息。那不是 Kwok 先生针对 UBS 的积极请求的一部分。因此，法官大人指示他就此发送函件的该项特权，仅指与该诉讼、该积极诉讼有关的特权。我想确保记录对此是明确的。HENZY 先生：并且，法官大人，我想说明清楚。我理解 Despins 先生的立场。我想明确说明，我认为 Despins 先生拥有其所拥有的任何——我再次假定，我不了解英国法律——特权，而 Kwok 先生拥有其所拥有的任何特权，如有的话。并且，Kwok 先生——在其拥有任何特权的范围内——不会放弃该特权。但再次说明，我认为我们已经——我已经提出了我必须就此提出的论点。我认为如此。法庭：好的。对于拟议命令第 3 页 (b) 段措辞的异议予以驳回。HENZY 先生：谢谢您，法官大人。法庭：那么你的下一项异议是什么？HENZY 先生：法官大人，在第 4 页第 4 段，该段实质上是概括性授权受托人\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 285 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 68\n\n就所谓债务人控制实体在正常营业范围之外行事。我反对此项授权。坦率地说，我从未听说过或见过这种做法。我对《破产法典》第 363 条的理解是，当债务人受托人——债务人或受托人——占有中的债务人或受托人希望在正常营业范围之外行事时，他们需要通知听证，并前来请求法庭授权其这样做。而这会使得无需通知和听证。并且，再次说明，这是概括性授权。我认为《法典》并未规定这种授权。我认为这只是非常救济，而且我认为并不适当。DESPINS 先生：法官大人，关于这一点，这与适用法律的论点相同。我们不想处于日后有人主张我们在正常营业范围之外行事的境地。而安全阀——保障措施——在第 4 段末尾，其表述为：为免生疑，本命令中的任何内容均未授权受托人出售、以其他方式处分、出租或设定负担于债务人控制实体的任何股权或债务人的其他资产。因此，是的，该措辞很广泛，但随后在末尾被完全限缩，以避免所提出的这类关切\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 69\n\n。我们需要开头措辞的原因是，我们不想处于就以下事项进行诉讼的境地：嗯，你知道，你解除了或撤换了一名董事、一名高管。你不应当这样做。那并非——那并非正常营业范围内的行为，然后我们就我们是否在——是否有权或无权行事而展开所有这些附带诉讼。我们认为，只要其中包含保护破产财产的安全阀，我们就应获得两项救济；未经法庭命令，不得出售或出租财产。谢谢。法庭：还有其他人——HENZY 先生：我明白——我明白该限制，法官大人，但我仍然认为——我不认为第 363 条下存在在正常营业范围之外行事的概括性授权。DESPINS 先生：仅为行使公司治理权，法官大人。别无其他。FRIEDMAN 先生（彼得·弗里德曼先生）：法官大人，我能否发言——我是 Peter Friedman——片刻？原先拟议的命令并未包含 Despins 先生加入的那项措辞，而我们认为该措辞极其重要。而且，你知道，我认为如果那项措辞没有——案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 286 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 287 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n若加入该内容，作为债权人，我们本会提出异议。但我们认为，这一补充——我认为——体现了受托人在平衡债权人的经济利益与效率方面极其善意的举措；我认为，债权人的经济利益必须居于首要地位。\n\n因此，我们强烈支持纳入该特定段落及应我们要求添加的保护性措辞。\n\n法庭：谢谢。还有其他人希望就第4段发表意见吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应）\n\n法庭：好的。我正在再次阅读该措辞。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：好的。还有任何人就第4段有进一步意见吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应）\n\n法庭：Henzy律师（亨齐），虽然我理解你提出的异议，但我予以驳回，因为我认为该措辞——其具体针对的是与由债务人控制的实体有关的经济权利和治理权利。而且，如就此发生诉讼，则可以发生诉讼。但我们不会——该措辞受到最后一句的限制，我认为其对债务人已提供了足够的保护。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 71\n\nHENZY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么你的下一项异议是什么？\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，有个好消息，我对第5段没有异议。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nHENZY先生：关于第6段，呃——第6段规定，债务人不得干扰、阻碍或延迟受托人行使本命令项下的权限。我对第6段第一句没有异议。然而，第二句将限制债务人寻求救济的能力，并将其限制为只能向本法庭寻求救济。我并不——我并不知道债务人是否会寻求救济。但尤其鉴于第4段以及德斯潘先生在其中被授予的广泛权限，我不知道这里可能发生什么。我不知道债务人会拥有何种权利，如有的话，去做任何事情。但我认为，债务人在其他情况下如有寻求救济的权利，就不应受本命令限制。因此，我请求从该命令中删除第6段第二句。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯潘）：法官阁下，同样的问题。债务人正在本法庭面前。他拥有全球资产。从您的角度看，您对此拥有专属管辖权。我们不能让债务人到外国法院去主张请求权。他可以来这里，法官阁下，但是，您知道，比如英国法律中关于XYZ事项有一个非常重要的转折点。您可能会决定，是的，你说得对，去办吧，或类似决定。但是，债务人所涉一切都需要集中于本法庭。他不能在其他地方进行卫星诉讼。他们可以到本法庭寻求救济。因此，这是一项非常重要的立场，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1268\n提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n债务人不得在外国法院四处奔走并主张请求权。\n\n他可以来这里，法官阁下，但是，您知道，比如英国法律中关于XYZ事项有一个非常重要的转折点。您可能会决定，是的，你说得对，去办吧，或类似决定。但是，债务人所涉一切都需要集中于本法庭。他不能在其他地方进行卫星诉讼。他们可以到本法庭寻求救济。因此，这是一项非常重要的立场，法官阁下。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，按照该命令的设置方式，德斯潘先生可以前往其他法院，包括外国法院。\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。\n\nHENZY先生：因此，按照现在的设置方式，德斯潘先生决定前往本国法院或外国法院，而债务人，即使假定根据该外国的法律，债务人有权出庭并做债务人会做的任何事情，本命令规定债务人不能这样做。\n\n而且，该命令规定，我想债务人必须回到您这里，对您说，德斯潘先生正在外国法院做这件事，而我在您面前告诉您他不应当这样做，因为我被告知不能到外国法院提出根据外国法院法律我有权提出的论点。这——这对我而言毫无道理。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 73\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下——\n\nHENZY先生：如果德斯潘先生有权在不寻求法庭授权的情况下前往其他法院，那么——再次，法官阁下，您说过，您按债务人本来的状况对待债务人。债务人应当能够根据外国法律，去做债务人有权做的任何事情。\n\n法庭：问题在于——\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下——\n\n法庭：——德斯潘先生就是债务人，因此他已经拥有这些权利。在债务人作为当事人的已决诉讼中，他无需本法庭授权即可做他正在做的事情。因此，尽管我在某种程度上理解你的论点，问题在于，如果德斯潘先生现在已经成为郭先生，郭先生在任何这些外国法院中还有什么权利做任何事情？\n\nHENZY先生：嗯，德斯潘先生并没有——\n\n法庭：你已在你的书面文件中承认，一旦提交——一旦任命受托人的命令获准，德斯潘先生就成为了郭先生。那么郭先生还可能有什么权利？\n\nHENZY先生：嗯，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：德斯潘先生已承接所有这些权利。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第290页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第291页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 74\n\nHENZY先生：我想我同意。我没有——我不认为我说过德斯潘先生成为了郭先生。我猜德斯潘先生不想成为郭先生，但在任何未决诉讼中，他确实取代了郭先生。但我认为，按照该命令的设置方式，它并不只是涉及未决诉讼；德斯潘先生可以提起新的诉讼，而债务人甚至可能是也可能不是该诉讼的当事人。\n\n现在，郭先生作为失去占有的债务人，在外国司法管辖区具体可能拥有什么权利？法官阁下，我不知道。他可能有，也可能没有。他可能没有任何权利。因此，我不知道，因为我不知道我们谈论的是哪个司法管辖区。我不知道我们谈论的是哪个实体。我不知道德斯潘先生将采取何种行动。\n\n所以，我完全——您看，再次，按照这样的设置，德斯潘先生可以去做他将要做的任何事情；但只要根据某项适用的外国法律，郭先生有权出面并做些什么——而他可能没有，他可能没有，法官阁下——他就应当能够这样做。我不——我不认为他必须回到本法庭，以确定他根据非破产——\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 75\n\n适用的非破产法律，是否有权在另一法院出面。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生（弗里德曼）：法官阁下，我可以就此问题发言片刻吗？我是Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我认为这确实很重要，因为我认为，无论基于何种前提，鉴于其破产财产的无力偿债状况，郭先生都必须确定自己是否具有诉讼资格。因此，我认为，鉴于他表示自己有$3,850，在他前往另一法院并获准进行诉讼之前，他实际上应表明，鉴于其经济——此事的经济情况，他获准干预受托人使用债务人财产。我认为，这是一个确实必须参照美国破产法及其权利来作出裁定的问题。因此，我实际上认为德斯潘先生所提议的做法极为适当。这当然是一项审慎措施，并且确实属于核心破产事项裁定的范围，即裁定他是否甚至具有获得陈述机会的诉讼资格。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，仅提出一个假设。假设德斯潘先生前往外国法院，并在外国法院寻求强制郭先生做他曾试图通过本命令要求其做的那类事情。他寻求——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第292页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第293页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n强制他签署一份文件，比如说一份公司文件。那么我不——我的意思是，难道有人会说，郭先生在该外国法院没有诉讼资格，向该外国法院的法官说，嗯，无论基于何种理由，我不应当必须签署这份文件？\n\n法官可能会说，你错了，你必须签署该文件。法官会说法官要说的话。但是，郭先生怎么可能没有权利在该外国法院出面——而且是在法官面前——在法官能够以任何理由对郭先生说，我不认为你具有诉讼资格之前？德斯潘先生可以告诉该法官、该外国法官，郭先生没有诉讼资格。\n\n那么，在我的假设中，郭先生怎么可能没有能力出庭，并在其拥有任何权利的范围内可能为其权利进行辩护？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，我不会代表德斯潘先生发言，但我并不理解该命令是在剥夺郭先生在另一法院有案件时为自己辩护的能力。\n\n但如果他寻求提起诉讼，我认为他当然必须来到本法庭。\n\nHENZY先生：嗯，但该命令并非如此规定。\n\nDESPINS先生：无论如何，法官阁下，关键在于本法庭对郭先生拥有专属管辖权。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 77\n\n他需要回到本法庭。事实上，如果存在令人信服的情形，是的，例如，我们会授权他前往澳大利亚，为某项诉讼进行抗辩，以处理该事项。关键在于，他不应当在世界各地四处奔走，并有能力在未向法官阁下说明自己在做什么的情况下扰乱我们正在进行的工作。他有某种具体化的损害，即使他已失去占有，他仍能够以某种方式主张该损害。嗯，该论点只能向法官阁下提出。然后，如果您认为其具有说服力，您将派——您将授权他在国外做他想做的任何事情。但不能让他在这方面四处奔走。这是根本性的，法官阁下。\n\nHENZY先生：但是，法官阁下，可以说该命令正在做的是，您将一定程度的管辖权交给德斯潘先生，也就是说，您告诉他，他可以在不回来请求您许可的情况下，在正常经营过程之外采取行动。但是，德斯潘先生和弗里德曼先生实质上主张的是，您——但您就——比如同一事项而言，仍然保留对债务人的管辖权。因此，德斯潘先生可以做任何他想做的事，但郭先生不能对此作出回应。而这似乎应当只能二选一。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第294页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第295页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 78\n\n如果德斯潘先生想要回来提出动议，以在正常经营过程之外采取行动，而债务人必须在破产法院对此作出回应，这没有问题。但如果他无需这样做，那么我认为债务人应当能够在他采取行动的任何地方出面，并在其有权这样做的范围内作出回应。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，债务人与受托人并非处于平等地位。这种认为因为我们有权这样做，他们就也有权这样做的观念，并非事情运作的方式。\n\n法庭：嗯，我正要提出这一点。关键在于，德斯潘先生是被任命来管理——管理郭先生破产财产的独立第三方。第二句的措辞是，在债务人反对受托人行使权限的范围内，好的，债务人应限于向本法庭寻求救济，并通知利害关系方，前提是债务人能够证明其具有这样做的诉讼资格。而且，不幸的是，鉴于——对债务人而言——鉴于他在所有提交文件中所陈述的内容，以及正如我们之前讨论过的，本法庭面前没有任何证据，\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 296 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 79，且案卷中没有任何内容——事实上，案卷中唯一的内容支持债务人将不会对该破产财产享有任何权益，因为在本案中不会有——对债权人的全额清偿。因此，不会有任何剩余财产使债务人具备提出此类论点的诉讼资格。如果德斯平先生（Mr. Despins）从事超出其权限的行为，债务人仍有权提出该论点。但他必须在本法院、受本法院对该破产财产的管辖权约束，提出该论点。这是任命第11章受托人的结果之一。因此，再次说明，虽然我理解你的论点，但这并不排除债务人反对受托人行使权限，不过他必须在本法院这样做。因此，我将驳回你对第6段的异议。亨齐先生（MR. HENZY）：谢谢，法官大人。顺便说一句，英国 UBS 诉讼中的损害赔偿请求为 \\$500 million。我不了解其强弱——法院：该项请求未被列为该破产财产的一项资产，亨齐先生。亨齐先生：哦，不，它被列了。法院：不。实际上，它最初没有被列入。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 297 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 80 亨齐先生：我相信它被列了。法院：不。我认为没有。亨齐先生：好的。我会——我会回去核查，但我原以为它被列了。不过无论如何，我不——我不认为债务人会对以下一点有任何异议，即在其未列入申报表的范围内，法官大人，它本应被列入。我认为债务人绝对——法院：嗯，也许它被列了。那么让我——让我回顾一下总体说明，那些实际上并非说明——再说一次，据我所知，依据《破产法》、判例法、成文法、地方法则或联邦规则，没有任何授权允许债务人在其申报表中以伪证罪处罚为担保作出陈述后，再向其申报表提交总体说明以否认其所述内容。我从未见过或听说过这种事情，但我理解这如今正在成为人们会做的事情。但这并不——这并不意味着总体说明对于郭先生是否准确完成其申报表具有任何影响。尽管如此，即使他确实列了该项请求，这是一项与另外两名原告共同提出的 \\$500 million 请求，对吗？亨齐先生：是的，但是——法院：因此将三方分配，对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 298 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 81 亨齐先生：根据——法院：而你的当事人确实在其申报表中列入的 PAX 请求，实际上是在一份申报表上——我相信，他将其列为不少于 \\$254 million，也许是 53。我最近没有看过。但无论如何，你的债务人、你的当事人的偿付能力，在本案中仍然是一个重大争议问题。亨齐先生：我——我完全不反对这一点，法官大人。法院：好的。亨齐先生：我只是指出，您并非——我完全不知道英国该项请求的强弱为何，以及百分比——法院：我理解。亨齐先生：——如果确实如此。法院：但他将——他将必须回到本法院并说明为何反对受托人行使权限。他将获得陈述机会。亨齐先生：好的。明白了。我对——我明白了。法院：也许。亨齐先生：该异议被驳回。法院：取决于届时他是否具有诉讼资格，好的。亨齐先生：明白了，法官大人。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 299 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1 法院：\n因此——因此，我驳回了你对第6段的异议，即我们刚刚在记录中讨论的第6段措辞。\n4 亨齐先生：\n谢谢，法官大人。\n5 法院：\n那么你的下一项异议是什么？\n6 亨齐先生：\n最后一项异议针对第7段。\n7 法院：\n好的。\n8 亨齐先生：\n因此，这要求作出一项裁定，其中——规定您请求外国法院提供协助，包括请求 BVI 法院就受托人有关其对 Genever BVI 行使公司控制权所寻求的任何救济提供协助。\n13 我——我绝不会告诉法院应当如何告知其他法官，但我只是——我认为这非常、非常宽泛。\n16 而我对这一内容的理解是，它会在某种程度上给予德斯平先生本法院的认可，使他到另一位法官面前说，请把这个给我——而且曼宁法官告诉你，你应当把它给我，即使您，法官大人，并不知道——他向另一位法官所称他想要的究竟是什么。\n22 法院：\n好的。\n23 德斯平先生（MR. DESPINS）：\n因此，法官大人，此类措辞经常用于外国——您知道的，外国代表情形。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 300 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1 我很乐意——显然，您不了解我，您可能不愿意给我一张空白支票，而且我不认为这是一张空白支票——但这实际上是向外国法院表明，它们可能不像美国法院那样（听不清），本法院正在请求它们提供协助，并非请求其实施任何违法或不当行为，而是在请求其提供协助。\n8 这算是常规措辞，但我一直被告知，绝不要在曼宁法官面前援引第105条，所以我不会援引它。\n11 但大致就是那个意思。因此，如果您——无论有无该措辞，我都可以。我更愿意保留它，但我不会——我不想让您处于对该事项并非百分之百放心的境地。\n16 法院：\n嗯，我的意思是，我认为第15章中的那一节——您知道，国会于 2005 将第15章纳入法典的整个目的，是为了确认——您知道，跨境案件，并努力促成外国法院与外国代表之间的合作。好的？\n22 因此，我认为我们可以——我们可以说，为促进受托人依照本裁定行使权限，法院谨请求外国法院就受托人对债务人实体，包括 Genever BVI，行使公司控制权提供协助。我不认为存在——\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 84 德斯平先生：完全同意。说得好。法院：——任何问题。我的意思是。而且我认为——我的意思是，我认为在本地区曾有案件就其他——美国境外的程序作出过此类裁定。因此，我不——我认为我可以修改——德斯平先生，你是否有任何问题——我没有准确记下我刚才所说的话——德斯平先生：没有。法院：——但是否按照我所述的修改？德斯平先生：如果您希望，我们会作出该修改，法官大人。法院：好的。德斯平先生：或者由您决定。亨齐先生：并且，法官大人，为记录起见，我——如果法院对该措辞感到满意，我不会就该问题坚持提出异议。法院：它所——亨齐先生：再次说明，那——法院：它所请求的一切，而且我相信这是适当的，是因为国会决定使\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 301 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 302 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1 第15章成为法典中一个独立且不同的章节，他们试图确认法院之间可能需要的合作，以便一个司法辖区的案件能够就本国境外另一司法辖区的相关程序得到执行。\n6 因此，按照我刚才所述的修改，我对此没有问题。\n8 亨齐先生：\n明白了，法官大人。\n9 法院：\n好的。\n10 德斯平先生：\n我们会作出修改，法官大人。\n11 法院：\n谢谢。\n12 亨齐先生：\n最后一个问题，法官大人——我并非试图回过头来争论——\n14 德斯平先生：\n我以为那——那就是最后一个问题。\n16 亨齐先生：\n还有一个。我并非——我并非试图回头。在第3段，回到第3页，这是 Harcus Parker（Harcus Parker 律师事务所）函件，其中所述的是，债务人被指示在本裁定录入后不迟于两个营业日交付。\n22 嗯，这里有几个问题，法官大人。\n22 我理解，作为您面前材料之附件 B 所附的该函件副本及表格，尚未获得 Harcus Parker 的同意。因此，从某种意义上说，您有点——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1268 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 303 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 86 法院：不过，我对此有一个问题，因为德斯平受托人说这是他从他们那里收到的回函，那么他们怎么会不同意呢？德斯平先生：这是一封函件。我的意思是，这是我们从他们那里收到的函件，我们作了一些轻微修改。但无论如何，我会处理该问题，即如果他们——如果他们说——我认为我们作出的修改是——顺便说一下，我们今天早些时候确实向他们发送了——我们作出的修改，所以他们已经看到了。我们尚未收到他们的回复。但如果这是一个问题，我们会解决它，也就是说，这不是郭先生的问题，也就是说，我们已按向法官大人提交的形式提交该函件，我们将看看他们怎么说。如果需要修改，我们只会提交一份补充文件。实际上会是非常、非常——轻微的修改。亨齐先生：我想——所以我不清楚是否——因此，他将被——郭先生将被命令签署一封英国律师可能会告诉我们不可接受的函件。我不希望出现这样的情况：德斯平先生与英国律师就一封函件可能写什么协商三天，而这里规定他必须签署——法院：因此，我认为你所说的是，亨齐律师，你只是不希望法院在看到函件最终版本之前作出裁定。是\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 1268\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 13:58:25\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1 你所说的是这样吗？\n2 亨齐先生：\n或者至少在存在——是，在存在最终版本之前。是，在存在——目前，据我理解，不存在最终版本。\n5 但第二点是——如我先前所说，郭先生不会签署这封函件。该规定要求他在函件实际最终确定并完成后的两个营业日内签署。\n9 而我只是——您知道，我——我们将提起上诉。我们将寻求上诉期间中止执行。\n11 我只是——我不希望郭先生因未——未签署本裁定而被认定藐视法庭。我只是希望——所以我只是想提醒法院。\n14 我会——我想我不知道为什么要如此紧迫地规定两个营业日。我不知道两个营业日内会发生什么，您知道，也不知道为何不能给予稍长一些的期限，以便郭先生可以提起上诉，并提出他将要提出的任何上诉期间中止执行动议。\n20 我只是不希望出现不必要的紧急混乱，法官大人。如果该裁定最终未被中止执行，而他——而他未签署，那么由此产生的任何后果将随之而来。\n24 但我不——我不知道我们是否现实地能够在……之前到庭。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 88 在两个工作日内向法官阁下提交一项关于上诉待决期间中止的动议。仅此而已。而且，再次说明，我并不——我请求该期限长于两天。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：那么，法官阁下，我们——我理解您的关切，也赞同您的关切，即确保我们所作的修改仅属文体性修改。但是，鉴于本案的发展方向，我们应当做到准确。因此，我们应当做的是——我只是就如何以最佳方式处理此事随口思考——我的意思是，将会有一封信。应当有一封最终信函。也许该命令可以规定，我们将在X日内提供最终形式的信函，而债务人将在Y日内——完成此事。Y天的期限来完成此事。并且该信函将基本按照所附格式。因此，我们可以提交一份命令，处理该问题，即该确切问题，法官阁下。并且请理解，准确性——我们不应——我们应当对此谨慎，并做到更加准确，而不是那样。我理解您的意思，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：对于将债务人的两日期限延长至更长期间，你是否有异议？他不会签署该信函，但我想他的意思是，他将提出上诉，所以我——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 305 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 306 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 89 我不知道——\n\nDESPINS先生：当然。\n\n法庭：我对此也没有任何倾向性意见。我只是向你提出这个问题。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下——答案当然是可以。我的意思是，无论法官阁下认为哪一期间更合适，我们显然都会遵从。通常，我们希望就该项权利要求尽快推进，但两天还是四天并不会，您知道，造成重大影响。\n\n法庭：Henzy先生（亨齐）？\n\nHENZY先生：我请求五个工作日。我不——我不知道这一切究竟何时会发生。我不知道我的生活中将会发生什么。我不知道法庭方面将会发生什么。我不——我认为一两天的差别——\n\nDESPINS先生：您知道，五个工作日可以，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\nHENZY先生：我只是——\n\n法庭：Despins先生，你说五天？可以吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。那么就这样。Henzy律师，你有五天。\n\nHENZY先生：而且，法官阁下，再次说明，我——因为我不希望当事人，您知道，指责我或指责Kwok先生，我认为在完成这封信方面将会是一团糟，好吗。Harcus Parker律师事务所（哈克斯·帕克律师事务所）的律师告诉我，她同意采取任何行动的前提条件是，Kwok先生作出的任何放弃必须是自愿的。而这不会是自愿的。我并未告诉她应当基于此采取何种立场。Kwok先生没有与她沟通。因此，我不——对于命令Kwok先生不顾异议发送该信函后，她会作何反应，我，您知道，那不是我的事。那也不是Kwok先生的事。英国律师将会作出任何——他们将会作出他们所作出的反应。好吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 307 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 90\n\nDESPINS先生：我理解这一点，法官阁下。关键在于，对于允许这些人决定的事项，我们有一定限度。如果他们收到某人发出的信函，无论是否有法院命令其这样做——顺便说一句，这已无实际意义，因为他说他不会签署该信函。因此，您知道，我们正在争论——我们——\n\n法庭：对。他无论如何不会签署。对。\n\nHENZY先生：嗯，但是——可能根本不会有信函。仅此而已。我的意思是，在某个时候，我——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 308 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 91\n\n法庭：哦，不，我认为会有一封信函。关键是，你的当事人已经表示他不会签署。他不会。他已经通过你表示，他不会遵守这项法院命令。\n\nHENZY先生：而且，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：该命令甚至尚未录入，但他不会遵守。\n\nHENZY先生：他不会自愿放弃其特权，法官阁下，前提是他拥有任何特权。但我认为——我试图表达的关键是，我理解Despins先生在某个时候将向您提交一封信函，而Harcus Parker律师事务所可能不会同意该信函。仅此而已。因为Harcus Parker——\n\n法庭：他不会向我提交一封未经该律师事务所同意的信函。是他们起草了该信函。\n\nHENZY先生：不，他们没有。\n\n法庭：是他们对该信函提出了最终意见。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，我不知道他们会怎么做。如果他们理解债务人并非自愿放弃，他们可能采取这样的立场：我们不——我们就是不这样做。好。我不知道这一点，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 92\n\n法庭：那么，Despins先生将必须处理该问题。\n\nHENZY先生：好。\n\n法庭：如果他没有信函，那么就没有任何五天期限需要担心。如果他没有从他们那里获得信函，那么你——没有任何事情——那么你的当事人就不会违反法院命令，因为不会有一封——\n\nHENZY先生：好。\n\n法庭：——需要他签署并交付给他们的信函。\n\nDESPINS先生：不。实际上，法官阁下，我认为——在某个时候我们将需要债务人出具的一封信函，否则这些律师就会一直让我们处于悬而未决的状态。将会发生的是，如果债务人拒绝签署该信函，我们将有一项法院命令。我们将前往英国法院。这将花费很多钱，诸如此类，但我们将前往英国法院，并向英国法院寻求救济，以对抗这些即使收到债务人表示你们需要允许他们查阅的信函，仍拒绝给予我们查阅权限的律师。但是，再次说明，我——您知道，我们正在争论一封债务人说他永远——他们无论如何都永远不会签署的信函，所以，您知道，我认为——让我们先到达那个阶段。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 309 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 93\n\nHENZY先生：如果法庭说，如果没有——如果没有该律师事务所同意的信函，债务人便无需采取任何行动，我对此没有异议。\n\nDESPINS先生：不，法官阁下，因为那是在给予——那是——\n\n法庭：嗯，那不是我所说的。我所说的是，那么五天期限就不重要了。\n\nHENZY先生：好。\n\n法庭：如果没有信函，那么五天期限就不重要了。这是我所说的。你请求了更多时间。\n\nHENZY先生：是。是。\n\n法庭：他已同意给予更多时间。那么，你现在又说，你今天在整个——在今天期间多次所说的是，你的当事人不会签署该信函。\n\nHENZY先生：是。\n\n法庭：所以我说，如果他不会签署该信函，那么他将违反法院命令。\n\nHENZY先生：我是假设这样一种情况，即英国律师事务所没有同意一封信函。仅此而已。\n\nDESPINS先生：而且，英国律师事务所不能成为决定本案如何处理的最终裁决者。我们已经给予他们很大的回旋余地。法官阁下不会让一名英国律师控制本案中的特权问题。因此，我们愿意与他们合作。我们正在这样做。但是，您知道，Henzy先生不能把他们阻挠程序的能力作为他本人或其当事人不签署该信函的抗辩理由。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 310 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 94\n\nHENZY先生：我并未利用任何事情来阻挠此处的程序，法官阁下。法官阁下，如果您——我理解，如果存在一封信函，而您命令——无论英国律师事务所是否同意该信函，并且您命令Kwok先生签署该信函，那么他的五日期限将开始计算。我理解这一点。\n\nDESPINS先生：这就是我所请求的一切。而且，法官阁下，我们将提议修改该命令，以处理信函及所有相关事项。因此，如果法官阁下授权我们，我们将这样做，因为我们需要修改该命令。您在其他地方建议了更好的措辞，因此我们需要这样做；经您许可，我们将这样做。\n\n法庭：是。你有我的许可这样做。你认为你们明天能将该命令提交给法庭吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 311 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 312 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日\n\n法庭：好。或者星期一？\n\nDESPINS先生：从我们的角度来看，可以。我们将尽最大努力这样做，是的。\n\n法庭：或者星期一。\n\nHENZY先生：我可以有一些时间吗——法官阁下，我希望有一些时间审阅该命令。\n\nDESPINS先生：可以。\n\nHENZY先生：好。\n\n法庭：嗯，我们刚刚已经逐项审议了该命令将要写明的内容。我们已经审议了每一段，包括你的每一项异议，均已被驳回。我已在庭审记录中陈述了所有裁定。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，我只是希望看一眼该命令——我并不是——我完全信任Despins先生会准确作出我们讨论过的修改，但我一贯希望看到最终命令。仅此而已。我并不是说我会对此提出异议，或诸如此类。\n\n法庭：但如果你不同意，那么我们将举行另一次听证会。这就是——这就是你试图——这就是你所说的。你是在说，如果某些内容——如果某些内容不符合你所认为的内容，那么我们将举行另一次听证会。这就是你所说的。\n\nHENZY先生：是。但那都是因为——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1268 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 13:58:25 第 313 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日\n\n法庭：嗯，我不会再举行一次听证会。我已经作出裁定。我已经裁定该命令——该命令需要写明什么。我们已经审议过了。\n\n你刚才已经花了时间。你对我说过——这就是你所说的——我问你对所请求救济有何异议。然后我回过头来，从“因此，你反对Despins先生未援引521这一事实”开始。你说，不，不。让我们——让我们审议该命令。让我们审议我最初的异议，并审议该命令。因此，这就是我们刚才所做的。\n\n我们不会就此再回到法庭。这就是我们刚才所做的。\n\nHENZY先生：那么，法官阁下，如果——如果——如果提交的命令——再次说明，我并不是说我认为Despins先生会这样做——如果提交的命令与今天庭审记录中的内容不一致，该怎么办？\n\n法庭：那么我不会录入该命令。我将阅读该命令。\n\nHENZY先生：对不起，法官阁下。我认为，所有律师在命令录入前均有机会审阅命令，这是惯例。但我理解。\n\n法庭：但这就是我们刚才所做的。我们刚才已经花了你审阅一项命令所会花费的时间。\n\nHENZY先生：我理解法庭所说的意思。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 97 法院：事实上，我们刚刚花了大量时间逐段审阅该命令。HENZY先生（亨齐）：法官阁下，如果您正在作出裁定，我将没有机会审阅最终命令——法院：Despins先生（德斯平斯）——HENZY先生：——那么我理解法院的——法院：您知道，我——Despins先生，贵所是否会——这是我希望大家做的。这将按如下方式进行，因为我们并非经常这样做。Despins先生，请您向法庭书记员邮箱发送一封电子邮件，贵所会知道该邮箱，如有必要，Linsey先生（林赛）可以协助您，并将该命令抄送给所有当事人。我不会在一段时间内录入该命令——我不知道是多久——但可能是数小时。好吗？然后我将录入该命令。我不会再举行一次听证会来逐项审阅该命令的措辞。我们刚刚已经这样做了。该命令唯一不会被录入的原因，是Despins先生写了诸如法院允许我住在法庭里之类的内容。那样我就不会录入该命令。好吗？原因很多。那对他来说也不会舒服。Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 314 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 315 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 98 无论如何。但重点就是如此。我们不会这么做。我们已经——这是就该问题举行的第二次听证会。该动议于 July 23rd 提交。现在是 August 4th。你的当事人不再是占有中的债务人。总得有人认识到这一点。好吗？正如我刚刚裁定的，受托人有权采取其正在采取的行动。而且——我们已经逐段审阅了该命令，我也已就那些段落作出裁定。还将作出修改。因此，这就是我们将要做的。Despins先生，贵所或通过Linsey先生将发送——DESPINS先生：是。法院：——一封电子邮件至Bridgeport的法庭书记员邮箱，并说明该命令——这是在 August 4th 听证会后根据记录中讨论的所有修改而准备的命令。你将抄送所有当事人，包括Henzy先生。然后，我将在一段时间后适时录入该命令。但我不会再举行听证会。本次听证会结束。DESPINS先生：明白，法官阁下。法院：我已经作出裁定。好吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 99 DESPINS先生：法官阁下，有两项事务性事项。法院：是。请讲。DESPINS先生：五分钟。好的。首先，我们已建议了一些日期，但当然须服从法官阁下的日程安排，以举行状态会议。法院：你们已经把这些日期提交给谁了吗？DESPINS先生：实际上，尚未。法院：好的。DESPINS先生：所以您完全正确。这个问题暂缓。让我们暂缓。我们原本要展示这些日期。我不知道我的同事是否能够在Zoom上展示潜在的建议日期。或者您知道吗，法官阁下，让我们传阅。我们暂缓该事项。让我们传阅这些日期。我们将就此再向法官阁下报告。法院：好的。DESPINS先生：抱歉。您完全正确。我们应该——法院：你们可以通过该电子邮件邮箱向法庭书记员传达这些建议日期，并抄送所有人，以便每个人都知道这是你们的建议。DESPINS先生：照办。法院：好吗？Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 316 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 317 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1 DESPINS先生：\n照办，法官阁下。\n2 我想提出的下一项事项是，我们已就《规则》2004项下有关专业人士、例如律师的证据开示问题，与债务人的律师进行了会谈协商。\n3 \n4 \n5 该问题将会成为问题，\n6 因为他们——他们的观点是，我们无权取得——至少按向我表述的方式，\n7 \n8 我们无权取得享有保密特权的文件，而债务人——就债务人的财产或我们认为应属债务人的财产而言，\n9 \n10 例如Lady May（“Lady May”号）或Sherry Netherland（“Sherry-Netherland”号），\n11 因为债务人认为它们并非财产，\n12 因此，追索这些文件将侵犯其特权。\n13 \n14 所以我告诉您这一点的原因是——我并非——\n15 因为我并非请求您就此作出裁定，但我们需要尽早而非推迟安排该问题，\n16 因为他们希望在收到传票后30天安排该问题，\n17 \n18 那将使我们进入September/October。\n19 这里存在一个明确的问题，即受托人承继何种特权的问题。\n20 而且我认为，\n21 判例法明确规定，在处理破产财产中的财产时，\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n无论是已在破产财产中的财产，还是有人主张属于破产财产的财产，\n\n例如Lady May（“Lady May”号）和Sherry-Netherland（“Sherry-Netherland”号），\n\n受托人有权取得有关这些财产的享有特权的通信，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 318 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 101 或有关案件管理的享有特权的通信，例如Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）编制财产清单。我并非请求您作出裁定，但我们需要安排该问题。我们现在不会这样做，但我们想告诉您，我们将请求一个早于送达传票后30天的日期，因为那可能使我们进入September或October。因此，这是一项尚待解决的问题。最后一个问题，法官阁下，是，您知道，您此前曾要求我们关注，您提出过利益冲突问题，我们前几天就此暂时搁置。您说，嘿，大家需要注意这一点。但这次会谈协商刚刚使我们或我的合伙人意识到，该问题并非Zeisler（蔡斯勒）的问题。问题在于，受托人调查的目标，即其儿子、债务人的儿子，正在支付律师费用。律师不可能对支付其费用的人持不利立场，或者以任何方式考虑对其不利。理论上这是可能的，但我不会要求任何人达到那个标准。因此，我们并非请求——这里没有结论说我们请求您取消Zeisler的代理资格。我不认为这是Zeisler的问题。我认为，对于任何代表债务人、对破产财产负有义务的律师事务所而言，由受托人主张权利的目标支付费用，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 102 是非常困难的。而这里所涉的损害，是Sherry-Netherland（“Sherry-Netherland”号）、Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运）等等。因此，您知道，再次说明，我没有结论。我们仍在考虑，但我想要——我们有义务向法院转达该问题。我不希望数周后有人说你们对此置之不理。实际上，这就是问题，即调查目标向债务人的律师支付费用。我认为这是有问题的。法院：好的。谢谢。DESPINS先生：我们就这些。HENZY先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？法院：可以。HENZY先生：谢谢。关于2004，我不知道为什么现在要提出这个问题。我们正在谈论尚未录入的2004命令。对于已提交的2004动议的异议期限甚至还没有到。是在明天。因此，我们正在谈论尚未录入的2004命令和尚未签发的传票。我不知道这将如何发展，但目前我想预先讨论它倒是有趣，不过我完全不知道这将如何发展。关于我律师事务所的利益冲突问题，如果Despins先生想要 Case 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 319 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1268\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 13:58:25\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1 提交动议取消我律师事务所的代理资格，他就应当这样做。\n2 任何当事人想要提交动议取消我律师事务所的代理资格，\n3 都应当这样做。\n4 如果法院认为我的律师事务所应当\n5 被取消代理资格，那么法院应当采取\n6 法院认为必要的任何行动。\n7 但除此之外，我不会——我不会\n8 考虑此事，也不会谈论此事。\n9 我将代理我的当事人。\n10 所有事实都已摆在那里。\n如果有人认为\n11 存在问题，他们应当——他们应当这样做。\n12 我前几天在听证会上说过这一点。\n这\n13 不应被用作针对我律师事务所或Kwok先生的\n（听不清）利剑。\n14 \n所以，要么提交你们的动议，\n15 要么就别再提了。\n16 法院：\n好的。\n今天下午还有\n17 任何人有其他事项吗？\n18 DESPINS先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n谢谢。\n19 法院：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n20 那么——为使记录清楚，\n21 受托人请求延长提交移送通知期限的命令之动议\n22 获准，拟议命令将予以录入。\n23 \n24 关于确认Chapter\n25 11受托人持有债务人控制实体中的全部经济和公司\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 321 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1 治理权利、授权Chapter 11受托人代表破产财产在任何外国行事\n2 并给予相关救济的命令之动议，基于记录中所述理由获准，\n3 \n4 受托人律师将向所有其他当事人发出通知后提交命令，\n5 他们将会——在该命令提交法院时收到副本。\n6 \n7 随后法院将审阅该命令，并在之后予以录入。\n8 \n9 好吗？\n好的。\n谢谢各位。\n这是\n10 日程表上的最后事项，因此现在休庭。\n11 全体律师：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n12 （程序于4:35 p.m.结束。）\n\n15 本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的转录员及认证电子记录员和转录员，\n16 兹证明，\n17 上述内容是从上述案件程序的官方电子录音中制作的正确记录。\n18 \n19 \n\n22 October 17, 2022\n23 Christine Fiore（克里斯汀·菲奥雷）, CERT\n24 转录员\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1268 Filed 12/28/22 322 Entered 12/28/22 13:58:25 Page 322 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 105\n1 索引\n\n3 受托人证物： 页码\n4 A-G 受托人动议的附件 33","key_entities":["Kwok","Despins","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings","Guo","CIPA","Luc Despins","CCP","Miles Guo","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":50,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":131,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":523,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":539,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":543,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":598,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":620,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":645,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":671,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":672,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":681,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":717,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":913,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":84205,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-12-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-12-28","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:55:31"}