{"id":"court_ctb_1307_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1307,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-01-09","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"庭审笔录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1307（2023-01-09立案）。官方笔录记录了破产法官 Julie A. Manning 于 2023 年 1 月 3 日主持的听证会，涉及债权申报截止期设定、专业机构聘用申请、游艇「Lady May」运营相关同意令修改以及受托人关于示威抗议情况的汇报。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1307 (filed 2023-01-09). The official transcript covers the January 3, 2023 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning regarding claims bar dates, professional employment applications, modification of consent orders regarding yacht operations, and trustee security updates.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, GENEVER HOLDINGS \\* CORPORATION and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS, LLC, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* \\* \\* LUC DESPINS, \\* Adv. Proc. No. 22-5027 \\* Plaintiff, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* January 3, 2022 v. \\* \\* BRAVO LUCK LIMITED, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING BAR DATES AND APPROVING FORM OF NOTICE; APPLICATION TO EMPLOY; APPLICATION TO EMPLOY ENGINEERING OPERATIONS AND CERTIFICATION SERVICES, LLC AS EXPERT; MOTION TO MODIFY CONSENT ORDER GRANTING INT'L FUNDS MOTION FOR ORDER and PRETRIAL CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: ERIC HENZY, ESQ. STEPHEN KINDSETH, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd.) For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole, LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: PATRICK LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. G. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ. Paul Hastings, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 3 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 3:39 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case no. 22-50073, How Wan Kwok, and adversary no. 22-5027, Despins versus Bravo Luck Limited, et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee please. MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, Connecticut counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee, Patrick Linsey. Mr. Despins' flight unfortunately was cancelled -- THE COURT: Oh. MR. LINSEY: -- and so he is unable to be here today. I filed this morning a request that he be able to participate by Zoom, but I understand Your Honor's been in calendars all day -- THE COURT: We've been in court, yes. MR. LINSEY: -- and I understand that you probably didn't have time to address that. THE COURT: Unfortunately, no. Does anyone have any opposition if we try to allow Mr. Despins to participate in this hearing? I don't know how it's going to work, but -- MR. HENZY: No opposition, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So hold on a second then. Okay? Let's let the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 4 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>4        |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | courtroom deputy see what we can do about getting               |\n| 2  | information to Mr. Despins.                                     |\n| 3  | So, yeah, we didn't see that request.<br>I mean --              |\n| 4  | MR. LINSEY:<br>No.<br>I realize it was just filed.              |\n| 5  | Obviously, I think it's been in the news, travel's              |\n| 6  | been difficult --                                               |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Oh, yeah.<br>No.<br>I understand that.            |\n| 8  | MR. LINSEY:<br>-- all around lately.                            |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Unfortunately, people -- I do                     |\n| 10 | understand.                                                     |\n| 11 | MR. LINSEY:<br>To everyone's consternation.                     |\n| 12 | (Pause.)                                                        |\n| 13 | MR. LINSEY:<br>And, Your Honor, we have reached out             |\n| 14 | to him.<br>I do want to -- I'll just note that I spoke with     |\n| 15 | -- was in touch with him when I was on my way here to the       |\n| 16 | proceeding hearing, and he understood that the Court was in     |\n| 17 | calendars and other matters, and I think he anticipated that    |\n| 18 | he likely would not be able to participate, so --               |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                             |\n| 20 | MR. LINSEY:<br>-- we should know shortly.                       |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>So you think we should proceed without            |\n| 22 | him?<br>Is that what you're saying?<br>Or do you want to wait a |\n| 23 | few minutes?                                                    |\n| 24 | MR. LINSEY:<br>I think there are a few -- I think we            |\n| 25 | can proceed.<br>And if we hear from him, then --                |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 5 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 5 THE COURT: All right. Let me just check with the courtroom deputy. (Pause.) THE COURT: So you sent Trustee Despins an email giving him the information in case he wants to -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: -- in case he's able to join? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So I think if that works for everyone, we'll proceed. And then if Trustee Despins joins, he joins. MR. LINSEY: That's good. THE COURT: Does that make the most sense? MR. LINSEY: Yes. And Alexander Bongartz of Paul Hastings, counsel for the trustee, is here with me and so we are prepared to address the matters that are on the calendar today. I will note that I am also here in my capacity as counsel for Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings, LLC. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So then we should continue taking appearances please. MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor.\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 6 Alex Bongartz, of Paul Hastings, for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. FRIEDMAN: Good afternoon and Happy New Year, Your Honor. It's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of PAX. I'm joined by my colleague, Mr. Stuart Sarnoff. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith of Robinson & Cole, Connecticut counsel for PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, for the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. KINDSETH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stephen Kindseth for the debtor as well as HK USA. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And I should have said Happy New Year to all. So there are a lot of matters on the calendar today, including the pretrial conference in Despins versus Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 6 of 62\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 7 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 7 Bravo Luck, but also the motion for order setting bar dates and approving form of notice, an application to employ in Genever Holdings Corporation case, an application to employ, there's quite -- and a motion to modify consent order, and another application to employ. I was looking at the matters trying to figure out what we should take up first and it sounds like it might make sense to take up the applications to employ first, because unless I'm missing something, I don't see any objection to the applications to employ. Am I correct on that? MR. LINSEY: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So then let's look at first the application -- let's look at 1198 which is the application to employ Epiq. Now, we had a discussion about this some time ago. Oh, there's Mr. Despins. He's joining us now. There he is. Okay. Good afternoon, Trustee Despins. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. I apologize for not being there in person. THE COURT: That's fine. Not a problem. Not a problem. I'm glad you could join us. We were just about to discuss the applications to employ that are on the calendar today because we thought we might -- I thought we might be able to address them in a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 8 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 8 somewhat summary fashion. But I did have a question on the application to employ the claims agent, because we had talked about that some time ago. Now, this was months ago, I think, if I remember correctly, but I wasn't sure why -- well, you're still intending to employ a claims agent, is that correct? MR. DESPINS: That is correct, Your Honor. That's a new issue. We did not intend to do that earlier. That came up as a result of, you know, a social media campaign by the trustee in the fact that claimants expressed to us their concern about filing a claim and being subject to some form of harassment and, therefore, we needed to figure out a way for people to file claims without disclosing their identity. And so initially we talked to the U.S. Trustee saying why don't they send them to us, the trustee, and they said, no, that's a bad idea because the debtor will say that somehow we're playing with the claims. So the only way to do it, and this is based on what happened in one of these, sorry for a better term, one of these catholic sex abuse cases was to use a claims agent so people can send to the claims agent something where the claims agent can redact the name and the information of the claimant to protect the identity of the claimant. So that just came up in the last 30 days, 40 days, Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 9 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>9        |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Your Honor.<br>We did not intend to use a claims agent before.  |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Well, you know, obviously,          |\n| 3  | the issues that are being raised in the Southern District of    |\n| 4  | New York with regard to claims agents.<br>I'm sure you're       |\n| 5  | aware of that, correct?                                         |\n| 6  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.                                            |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                             |\n| 8  | MR. DESPINS:<br>But I don't believe they're                     |\n| 9  | implicated here.                                                |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Well, that's what we need to make                 |\n| 11 | sure.<br>Okay?<br>We need to make sure because that's -- it's a |\n| 12 | -- it appears to be a serious issue that Chief Judge Glenn      |\n| 13 | and others in the Southern District of New York think are       |\n| 14 | very serious.                                                   |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.                                            |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>And, obviously, if we're going to have            |\n| 17 | a claims agent be employed by this estate, then I want to       |\n| 18 | make sure that their services are narrowed and very precise.    |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Correct.                                        |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>And I don't think anyone's objected to            |\n| 21 | this, but I do think that we have to see what happens as far    |\n| 22 | as the Southern District of New York issues are concerned.      |\n| 23 | Because whether or not anybody was aware of what might have     |\n| 24 | been going on, which I have no idea whether it was or           |\n| 25 | wasn't, that's what Judge Glenn is going to decide, right,      |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 10 it is -- I don't want to have to deal with that issue. Okay? So I want to make it very clear -- MR. DESPINS: But I think -- let me try to nip that one in the bud, not now, but with the claims agent after this hearing to make sure that none of those issues are present here and we can assure the Court of that fact. So that is what I would propose to do. Because, obviously, this is tied into the bar date. We need to get moving on that. So possibly it's time sensitive. So if we could then -- I understand Your Honor's concern. I'm aware of the issue. I don't think it applies here, but I don't want to give you that assurance without double checking with the claims agent and actually perhaps in the order tightening that up so there's no issue whatsoever. So let me do that and come back to the Court as soon as possible. THE COURT: Thank you. Does anyone have any objection with regard to the retention of Epiq as a claims agent in this case? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, Eric Henzy for the debtor. The debtor does not have any objection to the retention of Epiq as claims agent in the case. We have not objected to the bar date motion. I will have some comments on the bar date motion. And I think Mr. Despins may have previewed this in the sense that the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 10 of 62\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 11 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>11      |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | bar date motion and the Epiq retention are tied, because the   |\n| 2  | reason Epiq is being retained is in connection with the        |\n| 3  | relief being sought in the bar date motion.                    |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 5  | MR. HENZY:<br>So no objection to Epiq being                    |\n| 6  | retained, but I will have some comments that relate to Epiq.   |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 8  | So with regard to this order, Trustee Despins, I               |\n| 9  | think one of the things that I -- I have to say that I         |\n| 10 | haven't studied the order so it could be that it's there,      |\n| 11 | but I don't see -- so the clerk's office is not going to       |\n| 12 | maintain a proof of -- a claims register.<br>Epiq is going to? |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:<br>That's correct, Your Honor.<br>That's          |\n| 14 | the intent.<br>Yes.<br>And they will do so as agent of the     |\n| 15 | clerk's office.                                                |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:<br>Although, Your Honor, just to be                 |\n| 17 | clear, that in the Kwok case there already is a claims         |\n| 18 | register.                                                      |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>There are some claims that have been             |\n| 20 | filed.<br>That's true.                                         |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:<br>I think --                                       |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>There's a claims register that's been            |\n| 23 | created by the clerk's office.<br>That is correct.             |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:<br>Yeah.<br>So we may have two --                   |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>So are we talking about -- we're                 |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 12 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>12    |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | talking only about claims that haven't been filed yet?       |\n| 2  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Correct.<br>We're talking about -- the       |\n| 3  | claims that have been filed, I think there are no more than  |\n| 4  | 12, 13, something --                                         |\n| 5  | MR. HENZY:<br>I think it's 15.                               |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>15?                                            |\n| 7  | MR. HENZY:<br>Yeah.                                          |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Attorney Henzy thinks.<br>Okay.                |\n| 9  | So I guess we should make that clear, that there             |\n| 10 | are two claims registers, the claims registers that existed  |\n| 11 | before the retention of Epiq, and then the claims register   |\n| 12 | that Epiq is going to create and maintain, which --          |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:<br>I guess I --                                   |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>The language about the confidential --         |\n| 15 | I mean, I think I'm a little concerned that the order        |\n| 16 | doesn't say that the -- does not provide -- it attempts to,  |\n| 17 | but it says to provide public access to every proof of claim |\n| 18 | and to provide the clerk with a certified duplicate copy     |\n| 19 | thereof upon request of the clerk.                           |\n| 20 | But I thought the purpose of Epiq was that we                |\n| 21 | weren't going to provide the public access to every proof of |\n| 22 | claim?                                                       |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Maybe Mr. Bongartz, my colleague --          |\n| 24 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes.                                        |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Go ahead.                             |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 13 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>13     |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- can address that.                          |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead, Counsel.                              |\n| 3  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>May I approach?          |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Please.                                         |\n| 5  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                          |\n| 6  | Good afternoon, Your Honor.                                   |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                                 |\n| 8  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>You correctly identified that we             |\n| 9  | tried to address this through the immediately following       |\n| 10 | parenthetical at the end of paragraph 4 that the foregoing    |\n| 11 | is subject to and in accordance with any confidentiality      |\n| 12 | restrictions approved by the Court.                           |\n| 13 | If you would like us to specifically cross                    |\n| 14 | reference the confidentiality restrictions that will be or,   |\n| 15 | you know, request be approved pursuant to the bar date        |\n| 16 | order, I'd be more than happy to do so.                       |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I don't think you need to do           |\n| 18 | that yet.                                                     |\n| 19 | But, yes, if we're going to grant the bar date                |\n| 20 | motion, then I want it to be clear in this order what Epiq's  |\n| 21 | obligations are with regard to these confidentiality issues   |\n| 22 | and whether or not -- what if somebody in the public wants    |\n| 23 | to see what Epiq has?<br>How does that work?                  |\n| 24 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>This is explained in the bar date            |\n| 25 | order, proposed bar date order, as follows.<br>Epiq will keep |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 14 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>14       |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | the proofs of claims confidential, but will post redacted       |\n| 2  | versions of the proofs of claims where the names and contact    |\n| 3  | information of the claimants, if they choose to have their      |\n| 4  | proof of claim be treated confidentially where such             |\n| 5  | information would be redacted, and the claims register that     |\n| 6  | is publicly available on Epiq's website will post the proofs    |\n| 7  | of claims with that information redacted.                       |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>And then the public                      |\n| 9  | availability, how do they -- they just go on the website?       |\n| 10 | They don't have to register or anything?                        |\n| 11 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Correct.<br>It's a publicly available          |\n| 12 | website.<br>It will just be on a website on Epiq.               |\n| 13 | And I believe that in the bar date order we have                |\n| 14 | also identified the website where people can submit their       |\n| 15 | claims, which is the same website where people can also         |\n| 16 | review the redacted versions of claims that have been filed     |\n| 17 | and posted.                                                     |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I'm just looking at this as              |\n| 19 | well.                                                           |\n| 20 | (Pause.)                                                        |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>You know, I'm looking at the proposed             |\n| 22 | order and the agreement with Epiq.<br>And, again, just so it's  |\n| 23 | clear, Epiq's right to make reasonable price increases is       |\n| 24 | not absolute.<br>It's still subject to court approval.<br>Okay? |\n| 25 | So I think that needs to be clear.                              |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 15 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 15 Epiq understands there's no money to pay them, correct? MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: And, in fact, they have agreed -- THE COURT: Because that's not what this agreement says. MR. BONGARTZ: No. No. But they have agreed that they will defer payment until there are resources available in the estate. And, in fact, actually the agreement does cover this point. Let me -- THE COURT: Where does it say that? MR. BONGARTZ: Yeah. Let me point you to the section. It's Section 3.1 at the end. Epiq has agreed to defer payment -- THE COURT: Okay. I didn't see that sentence. Thank you. (Pause.) THE COURT: Why is there an indemnification provision in this agreement? I mean, I know the answer is because there always is. But why is there an indemnification provision? Why does Epiq need an indemnification provision? I don't understand that.\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 16 MR. BONGARTZ: Well, it is part of their engagement contract, but -- THE COURT: I know it's part of their standard agreement, but what -- MR. BONGARTZ: -- we have -- THE COURT: So we're going to open up claims against the estate by Epiq? I don't think that makes a lot of sense. I'd like you to see if they'd agree to delete that provision or substantially narrow it, because it says, I mean, it couldn't be broader, \"Indemnified person may be subject or involved in any capacity arising out of or relating to this agreement or Epiq's rendering of services pursuant hereto regardless of whether any indemnified person is a party to other than losses resulting solely from gross negligence or willful misconduct without limiting the generality of the foregoing. Losses include\" -- I don't want to -- I'm not having litigation over whether or not they should be indemnified. I'm not doing that. Okay? We've got too many other things going on in this case. We're not going to set ourselves up for an indemnification argument. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Understood. Understood, Your Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 16 of 62\n\nHonor.\n\nI just would like to point out to a separate\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 17 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 17 section of the agreement, and that is Section 8, 8.C, which applies notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the agreement including the -- THE COURT: Then you don't need the indemnity agreement. MR. BONGARTZ: Well, the -- THE COURT: See, that -- you know, I've done it all. I get it. I understand. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: I understand, but I'm not doing that. I'm not going to have a claims agent come in and have potential litigation in a Chapter -- it's just not going to happen. Or you're not going to have a claims agent. I'm not going to do it. It's a waste of time and resources in a case where we don't have the ability to waste more time or any more resources. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I hear you a hundred percent, but I had to beg to have these people take on this thing without any payment on the current basis. I really fear that they'll just tell us, sorry, we're not doing it. I don't disagree with your point. That's not my point. I'm just really concerned that we will lose them and nobody else is going to do this on a contingent basis. That's my only concern. THE COURT: I understand. But they're going to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 18 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>18    |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | have to make that decision because I'm not going to have     |\n| 2  | litigation about indemnity of a claims agent.<br>If all      |\n| 3  | they're doing is recording and taking claims in a case, then |\n| 4  | why do they need to be indemnified?<br>For what?             |\n| 5  | (No response.)                                               |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>With regard to -- so, as         |\n| 7  | Attorney Henzy stated, Attorney -- so we've got it -- you    |\n| 8  | need me to look at the bar date motion at the same time.     |\n| 9  | So we essentially need to cross-reference these              |\n| 10 | issues in these orders, correct?<br>Is that what you're      |\n| 11 | telling me?                                                  |\n| 12 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes.<br>The two go together.                |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>I know they go together.<br>But I'm            |\n| 14 | saying in the proposed orders, they don't -- there's no      |\n| 15 | reference from one to the other in the -- at least not in    |\n| 16 | the Epiq order, right?                                       |\n| 17 | So let's look at the bar date order.                         |\n| 18 | Wait a minute.<br>I'm sorry.<br>Attorney Henzy, you          |\n| 19 | said you had comments.<br>Are you talking about to the order |\n| 20 | or to the motion as a whole with regard to the bar date?     |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:<br>Really to the order.                           |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So then we'll go through the          |\n| 23 | order in a minute.                                           |\n| 24 | All right.<br>So the application to employ Epiq is           |\n| 25 | granted insofar as if they want to continue to be the claims |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 19 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>19     |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | agent after what I said needs to be limited and fixed with    |\n| 2  | regard to the order.<br>If they don't agree to that, then I   |\n| 3  | guess we'll have to figure out how to proceed.<br>But         |\n| 4  | otherwise there's no need for me to sit here and look at      |\n| 5  | these orders, right?                                          |\n| 6  | I mean, the Court has to have some control over               |\n| 7  | what happens in the case and that's how this court believes   |\n| 8  | that should work.<br>And if Epiq has an issue with that, then |\n| 9  | they'll have to let you know.<br>Okay?                        |\n| 10 | Now, let's look at the bar date order.                        |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:<br>Just so I'm clear, Your Honor.<br>So is         |\n| 12 | that -- is the application to retain Epiq going to get        |\n| 13 | continued?                                                    |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>No.<br>It's granted, unless they come           |\n| 15 | and tell me that Epiq isn't willing to abide by the terms     |\n| 16 | that I just stated on the record.                             |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>My only concern is you may             |\n| 18 | enter the bar date order and have it not really --            |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>I'm not going to enter anything until           |\n| 20 | I hear back on the whole -- since they're related, I'm not -  |\n| 21 | - that's not going to happen.<br>Okay?                        |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                          |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>But I understand your point, so that's          |\n| 24 | fine.                                                         |\n| 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Your Honor --                                |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 20 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>20 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>So now we're looking at 1212, correct?      |\n| 2  | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Your Honor?                              |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.                                       |\n| 4  | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>It's Peter Friedman for PAX.             |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                        |\n| 6  | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>May I just ask that there be a time      |\n| 7  | limit by which --                                         |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>I will take care of all of that once        |\n| 9  | we get --                                                 |\n| 10 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>-- yeah, by which they have to come      |\n| 11 | back, because --                                          |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>We're going to take care of all of          |\n| 13 | that once we get through these, through these motions.    |\n| 14 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                   |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>The motion for order setting bar date.      |\n| 16 | So this is the proposed order that I should be going      |\n| 17 | through, correct?<br>Right at the moment?                 |\n| 18 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>You said docket no. 1212.                |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>I said the wrong docket number.             |\n| 20 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Okay.                                    |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>You're right.<br>It's 1191, correct?        |\n| 22 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Correct.                                 |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>So that was my mistake.<br>I'm sorry.       |\n| 24 | So let me get to that order.                              |\n| 25 | (Pause.)                                                  |\n|    |                                                           |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 21 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>21    |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>I'm looking at the               |\n| 2  | redlined version of the order which is on -- I'll tell you   |\n| 3  | in a second where I am.                                      |\n| 4  | Do you want me to pull it up?<br>Would that be               |\n| 5  | helpful to you?                                              |\n| 6  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>I have it in front of me.                   |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Attorney Henzy, do you           |\n| 8  | need it pulled up or do you have it in front of you?         |\n| 9  | MR. HENZY:<br>I have it in front of me, Your Honor.          |\n| 10 | Thank you.                                                   |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So I'm at 191, page 48 of 81,         |\n| 12 | is that where I'm starting?<br>Right?<br>Okay.               |\n| 13 | All right.<br>So go -- I would like to hear from --          |\n| 14 | I've looked at the redlined.<br>I have a couple of questions |\n| 15 | possibly, but I don't really have anything that I think      |\n| 16 | needs to be immediately changed, so maybe we should hear     |\n| 17 | from Attorney Henzy about what his comments are and then see |\n| 18 | if there's anything else we need to do.                      |\n| 19 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>I'm more than happy to --                   |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Does that make sense?                          |\n| 21 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>That makes perfect sense.<br>I just         |\n| 22 | would like to preview that --                                |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Sure.<br>Go right ahead.                       |\n| 24 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>-- after discussions with counsel           |\n| 25 | for the official committee we have agreed to also make a few |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 22 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>22        |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | minor modifications.<br>I'm happy to walk Your Honor through     |\n| 2  | those before or after Mr. Henzy has provided --                  |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>That's fine.<br>The only question I have           |\n| 4  | -- actually, the only question I have is, I know we didn't       |\n| 5  | have the hearing until today.<br>You changed the date as of      |\n| 6  | December 2nd to January 27th --                                  |\n| 7  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes.                                            |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>-- but today's already January 3rd.                |\n| 9  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes.<br>Yes.                                    |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>So are you proposing to a different                |\n| 11 | date because the hearing wasn't held until today?                |\n| 12 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Correct.<br>I was going to address              |\n| 13 | that point as well.                                              |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Go right ahead.                      |\n| 15 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>We are prepared to move it out by               |\n| 16 | 30 days to February 27.                                          |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                                |\n| 18 | And then go ahead and preview the other issues                   |\n| 19 | you'd like to preview for me please.                             |\n| 20 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>Just give             |\n| 21 | me a second.                                                     |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Certainly.                                         |\n| 23 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>I'm just going to pull up the                   |\n| 24 | document.<br>Okay.<br>So there are -- it's really just a handful |\n| 25 | of changes.                                                      |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 23 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>23 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | The first document to look at actually is the             |\n| 2  | proposed bar date notice --                               |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                       |\n| 4  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>-- which is annex 1.                     |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Which is attached to the order.<br>Yeah.    |\n| 6  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Correct.<br>Let me -- I also have        |\n| 7  | hard copies of the markup if Your Honor prefers.          |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>I'm looking at it right now on the          |\n| 9  | computer.                                                 |\n| 10 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Okay.                                    |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Unless it's different from the --           |\n| 12 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>It is.                                   |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>-- December 2nd --                          |\n| 14 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>It is.                                   |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Oh.<br>Okay.<br>Yes.<br>Then would you hand |\n| 16 | that up please.                                           |\n| 17 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes.<br>Of course.<br>And I have extra   |\n| 18 | copies for --                                             |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Attorney Henzy and --                       |\n| 20 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>-- for the attorneys in the room.        |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Good.                              |\n| 22 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>May I approach?                          |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Please.<br>Thank you.                       |\n| 24 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Just a second while I --                 |\n| 25 | (Pause.)                                                  |\n|    |                                                           |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 24 MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. BONGARTZ: All right. In the bar date notice, the first change -- THE COURT: So don't go to the order, go to the notice first. MR. BONGARTZ: Yeah. THE COURT: That's fine. MR. BONGARTZ: That's how I had organized it here, but -- THE COURT: That's fine. MR. BONGARTZ: -- we'll flip back to the order in a second. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. BONGARTZ: This is on page 4 of the blackline, Section 2, entitled What to File. THE COURT: Uh-huh. MR. BONGARTZ: In the second paragraph, counsel to the committee suggested, and we agreed, to add the words or the claimant's attorney at the end of the first sentence such that it's consistent with the official form proof of claim. Then in -- THE COURT: That's fine. MR. BONGARTZ: -- in paragraph or Section 3, right\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 24 of 62\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 25 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>25      |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | after we identify the Epiq address where to submit proofs of   |\n| 2  | claims, as well as where we explain how to submit claims       |\n| 3  | electronically, we, again at the suggestion of counsel to      |\n| 4  | the committee, are adding a proviso to make absolutely clear   |\n| 5  | that if you do want to submit a claim on a confidential        |\n| 6  | basis you must submit the claim to the claims agent as         |\n| 7  | opposed to the Court directly.                                 |\n| 8  | So those are the two changes to the bar date                   |\n| 9  | notice.                                                        |\n| 10 | And then in the bar date order, in paragraph 3.D,              |\n| 11 | we have added, right after movants, we've added or the         |\n| 12 | debtors because the debtors could also amend the schedules.    |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Sure.                                   |\n| 14 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>That's just a clarifying change.              |\n| 15 | And then in paragraph 4, this is a clarification               |\n| 16 | from our end.<br>We just wanted to avoid any confusion in this |\n| 17 | regard, to make it clear, that the names and contact           |\n| 18 | information would be redacted wherever they may appear in      |\n| 19 | the proof of claim including in any attachments so, you        |\n| 20 | know, there's no gaps there.                                   |\n| 21 | And then the markup I've handed up to Your Honor               |\n| 22 | also reflects our new proposed bar date of February 27.        |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>I saw that.<br>Thank you.                        |\n| 24 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Okay.<br>Those are all the changes            |\n| 25 | from our end.                                                  |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 26 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>26     |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | And just to be clear, this blackline, where it's              |\n| 2  | marked to show changes, were against the proposed order that  |\n| 3  | we had attached to the addendum filed with the Court on       |\n| 4  | December 2nd.                                                 |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you very much.                   |\n| 6  | Attorney Henzy, do you want to address your                   |\n| 7  | comments then?                                                |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>Sure.<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                 |\n| 9  | First, just a clarification based on the earlier              |\n| 10 | discussion is I think that there will now be two claims       |\n| 11 | registers included on a going forward basis because the way   |\n| 12 | this is set up a claimant can file either with the Court or   |\n| 13 | with the claims agent if they want their -- to take           |\n| 14 | advantage of these confidentiality provisions.                |\n| 15 | So I have no objection to that, but just --                   |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Is that your understanding, Counsel,            |\n| 17 | that there will be two claims registers maintained?           |\n| 18 | So somebody may get this, some individual or                  |\n| 19 | company might get this order, they may decide they can just   |\n| 20 | file their proof of claim with the clerk's office.<br>Is that |\n| 21 | your anticipation?                                            |\n| 22 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes, that was the thinking.                  |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Okay.                                  |\n| 24 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>But obviously subject to Your                |\n| 25 | Honor's --                                                    |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 27 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>27   |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>No, it's fine.<br>It's fine.<br>I just        |\n| 2  | want to make sure everybody's on the same page.             |\n| 3  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>But the --                                 |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>This provision -- this proposal and           |\n| 5  | process is to really deal with confidential claims and      |\n| 6  | confidential information?                                   |\n|    |                                                             |\n| 7  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Correct.<br>It doesn't take anything       |\n| 8  | away from the process that we had envisioned prior --       |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                         |\n| 10 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>-- to the recent round of changes.         |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>That's fine.                                  |\n| 12 | Okay.<br>So, Attorney Henzy, does that satisfy your         |\n| 13 | question?                                                   |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:<br>Yeah.<br>Again, that was just a -- that       |\n| 15 | was my understanding, just a clarification based on the     |\n| 16 | earlier discussion about that.                              |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Sure.<br>Go ahead.                            |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:<br>Second, Your Honor, the debtor objects        |\n| 19 | to pushing the bar date out to February 27.                 |\n| 20 | I understand that the committee has agreed to               |\n| 21 | that, and I understand what the Court's view may be, but    |\n| 22 | that -- without getting into any detail at all on           |\n| 23 | discussions that have taken place in the case, the not      |\n| 24 | knowing is a significant driver in this case at this point. |\n| 25 | And pushing it out another month at the rate that           |\n|    |                                                             |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 28 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 28 I think administrative expenses are being incurred in this case is -- I think it's just -- it's too long. This is not a case that people don't know about. It has had certainly a certain amount of publicity or maybe notoriety. I think January 27 is over three weeks. I don't think -- I don't know what someone would need here in terms of times. I just don't see how anybody here would not understand whether or not they have a claim and they would need that much time. So I would ask that the date not be February 27, that it be sooner than that. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, this is Peter Friedman for PAX. We would join that request, just that it be moved as quickly as possible in the process. We do think it's important. We do think the case has had notoriety for some obvious reasons, and the sooner we -- the universe of claims, I think the better for everybody. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, the committee joins -- MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Hold on a second. MR. GOLDMAN: -- in Mr. -- THE COURT: Hold on a second Trustee Despins. Go ahead.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 29 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 29 MR. GOLDMAN: -- in Mr. Friedman's position on behalf of PAX. Perhaps another week or two. But I think we do benefit from having a claims bar date that is shorter than February 27th. THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee believes an additional amount of time is appropriate. There is notice provisions within this process that will take some time to actually accomplish. And so what we're really talking about by the time that is all said and done, and by the time this court enters this order, it's probably sometime around about a period of a month for creditors to actually get notice and get a proof of claim on file with the Court or with Epiq or wherever. And there are creditors who through no fault of anyone here may not actually be following the news coverage and may not be aware of what's going on, so we need time for those people to take this into consideration and take appropriate action if they want to file a proof of claim. THE COURT: Trustee Despins, did you want to be heard? MR. DESPINS: Yes. Just as Your Honor must remember that numerous claimants are located overseas so -- and English not being their first language there's a whole process issue here.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 30 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 30 So I get the point that the earlier the better. And I understand why PAX would want that because their claim is already there, so they don't really care about other claimants, but we have to be careful. There are, you know, numerous people that are contacting us from overseas. You know, not only China, but we're talking about Australia, U.K., et cetera, so to put a bar date at the 27th of January would be I'm sorry to say that it would be insane. February 27, now, can it be shorter by a few days? Sure. But we have to be careful here because there are a lot -- these people are pro se, English is not their first language, so there's a whole process issue that needs to occur here. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I guess I've said my piece. I think there should have been a bar date here a long time ago. The debtors had no control over this whatsoever. The longer this goes out, the higher degree of difficulty in this case, in a case that's already pretty high in a degree of difficulty. But, you know, I've said -- THE COURT: Okay.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 31 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>31    |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. HENZY:<br>-- I've made my position clear.                |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Well, I'll -- I'm                |\n| 3  | considering everyone's statements.                           |\n| 4  | Go on to your next point please.                             |\n| 5  | MR. HENZY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |\n| 6  | Again, the debtor does not agree that this                   |\n| 7  | confidentiality relief is necessary.<br>Other people have    |\n| 8  | filed proofs of claim and I'm not aware that there's been    |\n| 9  | any problem.<br>But, again, trying not to fight about things |\n| 10 | that we don't need to fight about, I think it probably makes |\n| 11 | sense to see what claims actually get filed under this       |\n| 12 | procedure.                                                   |\n| 13 | The order does provide that Zeisler & Zeisler gets           |\n| 14 | to see the proof of claim subject to confidentiality,        |\n| 15 | subject to a protective order, but at some point we can't by |\n| 16 | ourselves determine the validity or lack of validity of a    |\n| 17 | claim.<br>So at some point we're going to need someone on    |\n| 18 | behalf of the debtor potentially to look at this claims.     |\n| 19 | I mean, among other things, the debtor may file a            |\n| 20 | plan and it would be difficult for us to file a plan if we   |\n| 21 | don't know what the claims are.                              |\n| 22 | So my only comment is that this confidentiality              |\n| 23 | procedure should be subject to further order of the Court.   |\n| 24 | We should just have the ability after we've seen             |\n| 25 | what claims come in to come before the Court and ask for a   |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 32 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>32      |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | change and we can have a discussion at that time about         |\n| 2  | whatever protective mechanisms need to be put in place.        |\n| 3  | But just a simple addition to the order that says              |\n| 4  | this is subject to further order of the Court, which I think   |\n| 5  | arguably it is anyway, but I want everyone to be on notice     |\n| 6  | that we may be coming in front of you, Your Honor, and         |\n| 7  | saying we need to share this information with someone or the   |\n| 8  | debtor to be able to proceed with things that we have a        |\n| 9  | right to proceed with and that we want to proceed with.        |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Counsel?                                         |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:<br>We have no problems with that, Your            |\n| 12 | Honor.                                                         |\n| 13 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>And I was just going to point out             |\n| 14 | that the order already provides that the Court may authorize   |\n| 15 | that additional parties get access to the confidential         |\n| 16 | proofs of claims subject to the protective order.<br>So I      |\n| 17 | don't know if that's what Mr. Henzy had in mind or --          |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:<br>I wasn't clear that that covered -- at           |\n| 19 | some point we may need to go to the debtor and say this        |\n| 20 | person has made this claim against you, is there any           |\n| 21 | validity to the claim?<br>I don't know how we avoid having the |\n| 22 | debtor involved.                                               |\n| 23 | So I appreciate that language, but I -- kind of                |\n| 24 | the whole purpose of this was, as I understand it, was to      |\n| 25 | keep this information out of the hands of the debtor and at    |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 33 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>33      |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | some point I think that just doesn't work.<br>Maybe.<br>Again, |\n| 2  | it may be that no one files one of these claims.               |\n| 3  | So, again, we're trying to avoid fighting about                |\n| 4  | something we may not need to fight about.                      |\n| 5  | It may be that based on our -- just Zeisler &                  |\n| 6  | Zeisler's review of the claims we can -- that may be enough,   |\n| 7  | but there may be a situation where this -- a proof of claim,   |\n| 8  | one or more, needs to be shared with the debtor in order to    |\n| 9  | proceed with the case.                                         |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>What language were you referring to              |\n| 11 | that you thought might address, Attorney --                    |\n| 12 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes.<br>Yes.<br>This is on page 6,            |\n| 13 | paragraph 4.B.iii at the bottom, subject to the protective     |\n| 14 | order, such other persons as the Court may authorize to        |\n| 15 | access the confidential claim pursuant to a subsequent         |\n| 16 | order.<br>And that could include anyone that the Court deems   |\n| 17 | necessary to become an authorized party.                       |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, if counsel is saying on              |\n| 19 | the record that that other persons could include the debtor,   |\n| 20 | then I think that's subject to obviously the Court --          |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>I think that's what he's saying.                 |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:<br>Yes.                                             |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Right?                                           |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:<br>Then that -- then that --                        |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Then you're all set on that issue.               |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 34 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 34 MR. HENZY: -- then I think I'm all set. Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Then what's your next issue? MR. HENZY: That was it, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So the only issue is the bar date? That's the only issue? That's the only issue? MR. HENZY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: So some people want February 27th. Some people want January 27th. There's, you know -- I mean, we can be very non-scientific -- I'm sorry. Who's that? I don't know who that was. (Pause.) THE COURT: I'll set the bar date at February 17, which is a Friday. Okay? So then that -- so then that order will enter. Other than, counsel, I just think we do need to make a cross-reference between the Epiq order -- MR. BONGARTZ: Sure. THE COURT: -- and this order. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, we will. We will add language. And I think it goes right in the -- at the end of paragraph 4 where you've already identified the issue of access to the claims register.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 35 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>35      |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Yes.<br>Thank you.                               |\n| 2  | And I do -- I have reviewed the form of notice and             |\n| 3  | all that, the notice of deadlines that is attached.<br>I don't |\n| 4  | have any further questions, comments, concerns.                |\n| 5  | Obviously, you know, you're all going to do                    |\n| 6  | everything you can with regard to service.                     |\n| 7  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Of course.                                    |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>And you'll demonstrate how service of            |\n| 9  | this was made.                                                 |\n| 10 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes.                                          |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>And then we'll go from there.                    |\n| 12 | So the motion for order setting bar date is                    |\n| 13 | granted with -- you're going to have to submit the new order   |\n| 14 | anyway, right?                                                 |\n| 15 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Correct.                                      |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>As you will with the Epiq order.                 |\n| 17 | But I agree with Attorney Henzy.<br>We won't enter             |\n| 18 | any order until we -- the process that we use is that we       |\n| 19 | submit the orders to the courtroom deputy box in Bridgeport.   |\n| 20 | You don't have to put it on the docket.<br>I mean, some people |\n| 21 | do and that's fine, but you don't have to with everyone in     |\n| 22 | agreement here.<br>We're not --                                |\n| 23 | But do you think you'll be able to do that by this             |\n| 24 | Friday?                                                        |\n| 25 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes, we will.<br>We will endeavor,            |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 36 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 36 obviously subject to talking to Epiq -- THE COURT: Right. MR. BONGARTZ: -- which I don't know what their response is going to be. THE COURT: All right. Well, I would like you to try to do that by this Friday -- MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: -- because I would like to get the orders entered as soon as possible so you can start the process as soon as possible. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: All right. So then let's look at the next matter that we need to look at. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- if I may on the Epiq matter? I was wondering if there's a way to finesse the issue you raised by adding some language that would say something like provided, however, that the bankruptcy court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the right of Epiq to any such (indiscernible) so it's clear that we can go -- that (indiscernible) the only one -- it's clear that subject to the gross negligence exclusion. Because I really fear, Your Honor, that they'll say, look, this was a favor we're doing you because we've\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 37 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 37 dealt with you for many years. I know how they're -- they're so dogmatic about their rights. And I'm really trying to finesse the issue, Your Honor, so that you're comfortable and I can tell them they should be comfortable as well. THE COURT: Does anyone have any concerns about what Trustee Despins just said with regard to the indemnification provision in the Epiq agreement? MR. BONGARTZ: I just wanted to add to that if Your Honor won't mind? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. BONGARTZ: We've already included in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the proposed order a structure that there is no indemnification unless approved by the Court. THE COURT: Okay. Fine. Then we'll live with it, but I don't want to see any litigation over indemnification. I really don't. MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: I just don't think that would be of -- MR. DESPINS: We'll make sure they understand that. THE COURT: I think that would be a waste of everyone's time. MR. DESPINS: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: Just to --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 38 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 38 MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. BONGARTZ: Just so I can button his up -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. BONGARTZ: -- I want to make sure the only change then will be a process for notifying the Court and parties in interest of a change in the rates of Epiq. Is that -- THE COURT: And a cross-reference -- MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: -- between the two orders. MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. Okay. THE COURT: Both orders should cross-reference the other. I think they should. I think that if it's -- they work hand in hand, then we should make sure that they -- someone who has no idea of what's going on reading them might understand that. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Now, the next matter is the application to employ an engineering and operations and certification specialist? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. I will be handling that application. THE COURT: Go right ahead. Does anyone have any objection to this motion that you --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 39 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 39 MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. I was just going to start. This is an uncontested -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: -- application to retain Engineering Operations and Certification Services, LLC that the trustee engaged to conduct the inspection of the Lady May in accordance with the repair reserve order previously granted by the Court. I don't, as I -- as you correctly observed, there have been no objections. And I'm happy to walk the Court through the application, but if that's not necessary, we would obviously request that the application be granted. I do want to flag just briefly that we did file a revised proposed order -- THE COURT: I'm looking at the revised proposed order right now. MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. We filed that yesterday. THE COURT: Yes. MR. BONGARTZ: -- reflecting two changes requested by the United States Trustee's Office. They're fairly straight forward. They asked that it be made clear that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the engagement letter, that the retention is governed by the laws of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 40 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 40 Connecticut, that any dispute arising out of that retention be resolved by this court which obviously we were okay with. THE COURT: Thank you. Yes, I see that in paragraph 8. MR. BONGARTZ: I would like to add one sort of additional data point. The inspection was of the initial work, to be precise, the inspection of the initial work was conducted, and we have received an invoice from Mr. White, who is the President and CEO of Engineering Operation Services. And I just wanted to in the interest of full disclosure tell the court that their fees for that inspection were less than \\$10,000, so well below the cap envisioned under the fee protocol. And we intend, subject to approval of the retention, to submit that invoice obviously to the Court by filing it on the docket and giving parties in interest the contemplated notice period. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you. THE COURT: Mr. Kindseth? MR. KINDSETH: Yes. I actually wasn't going to make any comment, but in light of what was said about the initial inspection I just want to alert the Court that there is a dispute as to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 41 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 41 whether or not there was an inspection or this inspection period with an initial inspection and then some open-ended inspection duration, which we dispute. From our perspective, the inspection has been conducted and we've provided all the information. There's been a sea trial. I believe that everything has passed with flying colors. We've been seeking confirmation from the trustee that that is, in fact, the case, that the Lady May is in good working order. We're waiting for a response. And we dispute that there's this prolonged inspection process. THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's not on the calendar today. MR. KINDSETH: I was just responding -- THE COURT: I understand. What's on the calendar today is the retention of this entity, Engineering Operations and Certification Services. And no one has any objection to that that I -- no one has filed any written objection and there's no one participating in this hearing today that's objecting. So I appreciate your comment and we'll see what happens. Okay? MR. KINDSETH: Thank you. THE COURT: That's where we'll head. Does anyone else wish to be heard on this\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 42 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 42 application? (No response.) THE COURT: Okay. Hearing nothing, then the application to employ Engineering Operations and Certification Services, LLC as expert is granted for the reasons stated on the record and the revised proposed order will enter. MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Just give me one second please. (Pause.) THE COURT: All right. Then we also have an application to employ the lawyers in the British Virgin Islands, correct? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. I can address that. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel. MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, Patrick Linsey for -- I'll just take care of it if it's all the same to the Court -- Patrick Linsey for Genever Holdings Corporation, which again is the intermediate entity between Ho Wan Kwok, the debtor, individual debtor, and Genever Holdings, LLC, which is the owner of the apartment at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel. As Your Honor knows, we filed the Chapter 11 case for Genever Holdings Corporation, which has been\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 43 consolidated with the other two Chapter 11 cases -- rather is now jointly administered with the other two Chapter 11 cases. This law firm, Harney Westwood & Riegels, in the British Virgin Islands has already been employed by the Court's order to represent the trustee with respect to matters in the British Virgin Islands and BVI law. This application is for the firm to be employed to represent Genever Holdings Corporation. Genever Holdings Corporation has a director in the British Virgin Islands and issues of BVI law have come up and may come up in the future. There have been no objections filed and we would ask that the order be granted. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the application to employ Harney Westwood & Riegels as British Virgin Islands counsel for the debtor? One of the debtors obviously, Genever Holdings Corp., right, Corp., not LLC? MR. LINSEY: Corporation, yeah, as opposed to LLC. THE COURT: Right. (No response.) THE COURT: Okay. Hearing nothing, I have reviewed the application to employ. It appears that the application is in proper order. I understand why the debtor\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 43 of 62\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 44 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 44 is seeking to employ the counsel. The information submitted complies with the Bankruptcy Code and the bankruptcy rules and our local rules. No one has filed a written objection to the application and there is no one participating in this hearing today that is objecting to the application. For all those reasons, the application to employ is granted and the proposed order, which I have reviewed that was attached to the application, can enter. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Then we have two other things on the calendar, two other matters. We have the pretrial conference in the Bravo Luck adversary, but also the motion to modify a consent order with regard to the amounts in reserve for the repairs. I assume that the modification of the consent order will take more time than the adversary proceeding, but I'm not sure about that. MR. KINDSETH: It actually probably will not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead then. MR. KINDSETH: Thank you. Steve Kindseth for the movant, HK USA.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 45 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 45 Before the Court is a motion by my client to obtain this court's permission to use some of the repair reserve money to pay ongoing operating expenses for the Lady May. In response to the motion, the trustee has made a proposal, and we're evaluating the proposal, and I anticipate -- THE COURT: Oh, okay. MR. KINDSETH: -- we're going to be engaging in conversations concerning a hopefully consensual resolution to this motion, so I'd ask to continue it one week if I could, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on one second please. But I understand what you're saying, so just give me a second to look at the calendar and things. (Pause.) THE COURT: Next Tuesday is -- we have regular calendar and Chapter 13 day so that wouldn't -- I mean, you could wait around. I mean, I can't promise you you'd be heard before 2:30, 3 o'clock, but we could continue it to that if you would like to do so. MR. KINDSETH: That would -- that's fine by me. THE COURT: Trustee Despins and counsel for Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: That works.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 46 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>46     |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>So then let's -- I       |\n| 2  | would say to be on the safe side, I would say 3 p.m. to be    |\n| 3  | on the safe side.<br>Okay?                                    |\n| 4  | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Thank you very much, Your Honor.             |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>If you want to some in at 2:45 and              |\n| 6  | we're done with the other matters, we can start then, but     |\n| 7  | I'm just not sure.<br>It's hard to predict on Chapter 13      |\n| 8  | hearings how long they'll last.                               |\n| 9  | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Thank you.                                   |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So then we will continue          |\n| 11 | the hearing on the motion to modify the consent order         |\n| 12 | regarding the repair reserve to January 10 at 3 p.m.<br>Okay. |\n| 13 | Then the only thing left on the calendar today                |\n| 14 | then is the adversary proceeding pretrial conference.<br>Is   |\n| 15 | that -- that's all I see anyway.<br>Am I missing something?   |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:<br>That's correct.                               |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>So in the pretrial       |\n| 18 | conference, there has not been an answer filed by the         |\n| 19 | defendants, correct?                                          |\n| 20 | So who will be discussing the pretrial conference             |\n| 21 | at the moment?                                                |\n| 22 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Your Honor, there was a -- we were             |\n| 23 | contacted yesterday by counsel who will be coming in to       |\n| 24 | represent the defendant, Bravo Luck Limited, whose name is    |\n| 25 | Francis Lawall, of the law firm Troutman Pepper.<br>And he    |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 47 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>47     |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | notified us that he will be filing an appearance and          |\n| 2  | responding to the complaint.<br>However --                    |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Only for Bravo Luck?                            |\n| 4  | MR. LINSEY:<br>Correct, Your Honor.                           |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Go ahead.                              |\n| 6  | MR. LINSEY:<br>However, he's --                               |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Sorry.<br>I didn't mean to interrupt,           |\n| 8  | but I just wanted to make sure.                               |\n| 9  | MR. LINSEY:<br>No.<br>No.<br>I appreciate the question,       |\n| 10 | Your Honor.                                                   |\n| 11 | However, he's in the process of locating                      |\n| 12 | Connecticut counsel and he asked that the -- this pretrial    |\n| 13 | conference be continued.<br>And the trustee consents to that. |\n| 14 | I should say all the adversary plaintiffs would consent to    |\n| 15 | that.                                                         |\n| 16 | It may make more sense to have a pretrial                     |\n| 17 | conference after the response date in any event to the        |\n| 18 | complaints, so --                                             |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Well, the response date has passed.             |\n| 20 | You're talking about with regard to the other                 |\n| 21 | adversary proceedings?                                        |\n| 22 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Correct, Your Honor.                           |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>So right now you filed a motion to              |\n| 24 | consolidate three adversary proceedings, correct?             |\n| 25 | MR. LINSEY:<br>I have, Your Honor.                            |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 48 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 48 THE COURT: Okay. And we haven't -- MR. LINSEY: And in one -- THE COURT: -- we haven't -- motions to consolidate normally do get set for a hearing in case someone has an opposition to that. The problem with these three adversary proceedings, it's not a problem, is that we don't have appearance on behalf of the defendants yet, correct? In any of them, do we? MR. LINSEY: We do not. And I anticipate that that problem will be resolved in short order, in a matter of days, as to what we heard from Mr. Lawall. THE COURT: So how -- what would you like to do? MR. LINSEY: What we'd like to do is continue this pretrial conference to a date in early November, I'm sorry, early February. THE COURT: When you say early November, wow. All right. Early February is either -- I think it's going to have to be February 14th, but let me look at the docket. (Pause.) THE COURT: It's going to have to be February 14th in the afternoon or some other day that week. But if -- that's a Tuesday. I mean, that's where we are. Now, the motion to consolidate these adversaries\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 49 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>49    |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | could come on before then and they could be consolidated and |\n| 2  | we could figure out how you're going to deal with them if    |\n| 3  | you want to do that.                                         |\n| 4  | MR. LINSEY:<br>It may, Your Honor.<br>The motions to         |\n| 5  | consolidate are also something that we're discussing with    |\n| 6  | Mr. Lawall and it is possible that there will be a consent   |\n| 7  | order submitted.                                             |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Well, do you want to continue this             |\n| 9  | pretrial conference to January 31st then?                    |\n| 10 | MR. LINSEY:<br>I believe that would be fine.<br>Sure.        |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Does anyone have any opposition to             |\n| 12 | January 31st at 3:00 p.m.?                                   |\n| 13 | (No response.)                                               |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So then we will continue         |\n| 15 | the pretrial conference to January 31st at 3:00 p.m.         |\n| 16 | So the motion to consolidate, are you asking the             |\n| 17 | Court to set that for a hearing on these three adversary     |\n| 18 | proceedings, Attorney Linsey?                                |\n| 19 | MR. LINSEY:<br>No, Your Honor.<br>There have not been        |\n| 20 | any objections filed at this point, so I think we'd like to  |\n| 21 | see --                                                       |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>There is an objection deadline.<br>You         |\n| 23 | filed motions to consolidate.<br>I don't think you filed an  |\n| 24 | objection deadline, did you?                                 |\n| 25 | MR. LINSEY:<br>No.                                           |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 50 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>50        |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | But based on my understanding of the local rules                 |\n| 2  | we would then be following District Court Local Rule 7, so       |\n| 3  | there would be a 21-day objection period.                        |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>That's true and not true.                          |\n| 5  | Because that's true if you seek it -- generally                  |\n| 6  | that's true in adversary proceedings, but I don't know that      |\n| 7  | any of the adversary proceedings say that.                       |\n| 8  | Actually, you filed the motions all in the                       |\n| 9  | adversary proceedings, so did the docket entry indicate          |\n| 10 | there was a 21-day response date?                                |\n| 11 | I'm looking at the courtroom deputy now.<br>I can                |\n| 12 | look too.                                                        |\n| 13 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                            |\n| 14 | (Pause.)                                                         |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>There has not been any               |\n| 16 | response date indicated on the docket yet, at least in 27-       |\n| 17 | 5027.<br>What happened was the rules require you to file them    |\n| 18 | in all the cases.<br>You did on the 29th it looks like.<br>We'll |\n| 19 | look at it.<br>Okay.<br>We'll just look at it.                   |\n| 20 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>I think there was on the                |\n| 21 | 18th.                                                            |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.                                              |\n| 23 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>I think then the deadline               |\n| 24 | was the 18th.                                                    |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>The 18th of what?                                  |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 51 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>51          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Of January, coming up.<br>Or              |\n| 2  | is it the 18th?                                                    |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Where does it say that?                              |\n| 4  | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Let me --                                 |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>It doesn't say that on the docket                    |\n| 6  | though.                                                            |\n| 7  | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>In number 5, I'm sorry,                   |\n| 8  | number 8, ECF No. 8.                                               |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Oh, good.<br>All right.<br>There it is.              |\n| 10 | All right.<br>Then it's the 18th.<br>Okay.<br>Great.<br>Thank you. |\n| 11 | See that's why I ask the courtroom deputy.                         |\n| 12 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>You're welcome.                           |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>And it says that in the other               |\n| 14 | two adversaries as well?                                           |\n| 15 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Let me check.                             |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>It might not.<br>It might --                         |\n| 17 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Right.                                    |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>It might be one more day.                            |\n| 19 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>On 22 -- on 22-5030, it's                 |\n| 20 | January 19th.                                                      |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.<br>The next day.                               |\n| 22 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>And let me --                             |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>And the same thing will be true in 35,               |\n| 24 | because that 21 days was keyed off when you filed the motion       |\n| 25 | to consolidate in the other two adversary proceedings.             |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 52 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 52 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Right. MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: So the 19th is going to be the response date essentially. MR. LINSEY: So here's what I would propose, Your Honor. I don't know that we need to have a hearing at this point. THE COURT: No, we don't. We'll wait and see what response you get, if any. MR. LINSEY: Correct. And I would ask that if there is a consent to a form of consolidation order -- THE COURT: Yeah. Then you just file it. MR. LINSEY: -- that we just be permitted to file that -- THE COURT: You just file it. You don't need -- MR. LINSEY: -- as a consent order. THE COURT: You don't need permission. MR. LINSEY: Okay. THE COURT: You just file it. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Let me make sure that we're not missing anything. Does anyone else think that there's anything else we need to address this afternoon?\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 53 MR. BONGARTZ: Your Honor, I have one final matter I would address. THE COURT: Is it on the calendar today? If it's -- I'm not saying I'm not going to listen to you. I'm just saying is there something that's -- that I'm missing that's on today's calendar? And you're saying, no, but there's something else you want to talk about? MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. I hope this can be resolved quickly and briefly. So this relates to the HK USA adversary proceeding. And as Your Honor knows there is a PJR hearing coming up in mid-February. In connection with the trustee's application for prejudgment remedies, we intend to depose the debtor, and we had listed him as a witness on our witness list, and HK USA had listed him on their list as well, although they have recently indicated that they may not call him as a witness. We sought confirmation from debtor's counsel that they would accept service of the subpoena, but we've been informed that Zeisler is not authorized to accept service of the deposition subpoena. And Zeisler has also informed us that the debtor's other counsel, Mr. Aaron Mitchell, has\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 53 of 62\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 54 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 54 also not been authorized by the debtor to accept service. This puts us, you know, in a position where we will have to incur additional expense to serve the debtor here in this case with a subpoena related to an application in one of the adversary proceedings. And we believe that debtor's counsel should accept the subpoena under these circumstances. I mean, it is the debtor's case. The debtor does have a duty to cooperate with the trustee under the Bankruptcy Code. The debtor's counsel has also filed a notice of appearance demanding that all notices and all papers served be served on them. So we're looking for, you know, the Court's guidance and hopefully instruction as to how to proceed here. You know, that's the issue I wanted to raise. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Henzy, Attorney Kindseth, why would you not accept service of a subpoena when you are representing the debtor in this case? You've made -- MR. KINDSETH: First of all, Your Honor, I don't think we've responded to that email. And I'm not lead counsel. And so you're saying my office affirmatively said\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 55 that we would not accept service, or are you still waiting for a response? MR. BONGARTZ: We have an affirmative response from Mr. Aaron Romney -- MR. KINDSETH: Right. MR. BONGARTZ: -- confirming that -- MR. KINDSETH: So Attorneys Romney and Moriarty are handling this matter, Your Honor. And the adversary proceeding is not -- THE COURT: You know what? They may be handling this matter, but you're all working together in this case. There's no reason why your firm shouldn't accept service of a subpoena when you represent this individual in this case. What's the reason? MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Tell me why you shouldn't be required to accept service of that subpoena. MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor, I can only -- as a representative, as a lawyer for a client, I can only do and my firm can only do what we are authorized to do. If we're not authorized to do it, then it's as simple as that. THE COURT: You're the debtor in a Chapter 11 case in which your client voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of this court. You can't do things to evade service. And your\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 55 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 56 client can't do things to evade service. He voluntarily came to this court. And if I have to, I will order that you have to accept service, because I don't want to spend one more minute on that. That's a complete waste of time. And that doesn't help your client in this case. MR. KINDSETH: And just to be very clear, Your Honor -- THE COURT: So this is a prejudgment remedy hearing that has been going on -- we've been working toward very -- there's been parts of the time where you've -- the parties have worked well, but I am not going to have a fight about service of a subpoena on a debtor who -- by the way, every single matter that we put on the calendar you're allowed to come in and object to when you're no longer the debtor-in-possession, when your client is no longer the debtor-in-possession. But he came to this court voluntarily. If you're telling me that your -- you are not authorized and will not be authorized to seek service of a subpoena, then I'll have to enter some kind of a form of order that your client's not going to like. And you're not Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 56 of 62\n\n as the debtor's counsel whether this debtor is in possession or not in possession.\n\ngoing to like. Because you have obligations to this court\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 57 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 57 MR. KINDSETH: May I be heard, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. KINDSETH: Thank you, Your Honor. First of all, to be very clear, this is not in the bankruptcy case. This is in the adversary proceeding brought with HK USA and Mei Guo, and Mr. Kwok is a -- THE COURT: That your client brought. Your client, HK International, commenced that adversary proceeding. MR. KINDSETH: Which is -- and Mr. Kwok is not a party. So this is a non-party, third-party subpoena, not in the bankruptcy case -- THE COURT: Okay. All right. If you're going to take that position, then you can't complain about the cost that the trustee has to incur in order to serve Mr. Kwok. So you do that at your own peril. MR. KINDSETH: Again, we were -- I was not aware that a definitive response had been provided. We will consult with our client, that being Mr. Kwok. But, again, in the context of the adversary proceeding is a third-party witness. And, you know, he will guide us and instruct us as he deems appropriate. THE COURT: You put on your list of witnesses and exhibits Mr. Kwok as a witness. MR. KINDSETH: And we actually have already\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 58 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>58     |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | advised -- I believe we've already advised counsel for the    |\n| 2  | trustee that that is being amended based upon this decision.  |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Based upon the decision not to accept           |\n| 4  | service of a subpoena?                                        |\n| 5  | MR. KINDSETH:<br>And not testify.                             |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Counsel, you can take whatever         |\n| 7  | action you think is appropriate.<br>If you do not -- if they  |\n| 8  | will not accept service, you file the appropriate documents   |\n| 9  | with the Court and the Court will act on them accordingly.    |\n| 10 | Okay?                                                         |\n| 11 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Thank you.<br>Thank you, Your Honor.         |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>With regard to a motion that was                |\n| 13 | apparently filed by HK International in the main case with    |\n| 14 | regard to hiring a new captain, has the trustee seen this     |\n| 15 | motion?                                                       |\n| 16 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>We have, Your Honor.                         |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Do you have any opposition to the               |\n| 18 | motion?                                                       |\n| 19 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>We had two comments that we have             |\n| 20 | provided to counsel to the debtor which we understand are     |\n| 21 | acceptable.<br>In essence, they are to make sure that the new |\n| 22 | incoming captain remains subject to the stipulated order      |\n| 23 | regarding the Lady May to the same extent that the old        |\n| 24 | captain was and he currently is.                              |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Absolutely.<br>They have to be bound by         |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 59 the -- that they're restrained from removing the boat from the navigable waters of Connecticut and all the other provisions. And that's going to be clear in that order, Attorney Kindseth? MR. KINDSETH: Yes, Your Honor. I believe that was already in there, but if not, we'll clarify it. And that, of course, was our intention. And we said we'd be serving the new captain. And I plan on having the captain served either Thursday or Friday before there's any transition of the captain. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on the motion with regard to the replacement of the captain of the Lady May? MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, to the extent you would like the committee's input here, I'm still polling the committee. But I'm going to recommend that they consent to the release subject to the caveats that counsel for the trustee mentioned. THE COURT: Well, I don't want to have a separate hearing on this. We're here. We're all here. There's no reason to have a separate hearing on this. There's going to be a captain or there isn't going to be a captain. If people have an objection, I want to know about it now. MR. GOLDMAN: I can't say we have an objection,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 59 of 62\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 60 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 60 Your Honor. MR. KINDSETH: I believe PAX has already indicated that they do not object to the change of captain. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman. PAX does not object. I just want to have it be very clear that I'm just remembering there's something in the motion that how Yachtzoo hadn't recalled exactly when to serve certain materials on certain people. Just an assurance from counsel that we've very clearly communicated to Yachtzoo what their obligations are. MR. KINDSETH: Correct. We obviously -- this occurred because of Yachtzoo, unfortunately, not recalling that a change in the captain required a court order. Additionally, the captain only gave his notice on December 23rd. And just so the record's very clear, our expectation, and it will happen, that the captain will comply with the stipulation, so the captain, the new captain, will have to sign the declaration. The new captain will have to be served with a copy of the order. And so our expectation is that we will fully comply with the stipulation with this as the captain with respect to the stipulated order concerning the return of the Lady May. THE COURT: Okay. Then with regard to some\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 61 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 61 motions that were filed, I believe yesterday or the day before, I'm not even sure at this point, it might have been filed today. Let's see. They were filed on the 30th, and the Court was closed on the 30th, so Friday, and the Court was closed yesterday, the 2nd, but the -- what was filed on Friday was a motion for order authorizing HK International Funds Investment to engage James Pizzarusso, I don't know if I pronounced that properly, as captain of the Lady May and a motion to expedite. Denying the motion to expedite is moot since we just discussed the motion on the record. And the motion, ECF 1272, is granted subject to all parties seeing the proposed order and you submitting the order to the courtroom deputy, cc'ing all parties so that I know that everyone is in agreement with the order. Okay? MR. KINDSETH: Thank you, Your Honor. Very much appreciated, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. Thank you. All right. Is there anything further we need to discuss this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. Very briefly, not on the agenda, and it does not require comment, but I just wanted to make sure Your Honor knew that the picketing has gone on unabated. And more than\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 62 of 62\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022<br>62  |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | that, it has expanded.<br>And as of today, back at my ex   |\n| 2  | spouses house, at my two daughters' houses, one in Los     |\n| 3  | Angeles and one in Boston.<br>Thank you, Your Honor.       |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you for providing an          |\n| 5  | update.                                                    |\n| 6  | Anything further from anyone?                              |\n| 7  | (No response.)                                             |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>That concludes the             |\n| 9  | hearings in the Kwok Chapter 11 case and related adversary |\n| 10 | proceedings, so Court is adjourned.                        |\n| 11 | (Proceedings adjourned at 4:56 p.m.)                       |\n| 12 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter    |\n| 13 | and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct   |\n| 14 | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of |\n| 15 | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.              |\n| 16 |                                                            |\n| 17 |                                                            |\n| 18 | January 9, 2023                                            |\n| 19 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                      |\n| 20 |                                                            |\n| 21 |                                                            |\n| 22 |                                                            |\n| 23 |                                                            |\n| 24 |                                                            |\n| 25 |                                                            |\n|    |                                                            |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）、GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰尼维尔控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（杰尼维尔控股有限责任公司），\n\n债务人。\n\nLUC DESPINS（吕克·德斯平斯），\n\n对抗程序案号：22-5027\n\n原告，\n\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n\nJanuary 3, 2022\n\n诉\n\nBRAVO LUCK LIMITED（布拉沃幸运有限公司）等，\n\n被告。\n\n关于设定申报截止日期并批准通知格式的命令动议；聘用申请；聘用 ENGINEERING OPERATIONS AND CERTIFICATION SERVICES, LLC（工程运营与认证服务有限责任公司）作为专家的聘用申请；修改准许 INT'L FUNDS 命令动议的同意命令之动议；以及\n\n在美国破产法官 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下面前举行的审前会议记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\n\nERIC HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·亨齐律师）\n\nSTEPHEN KINDSETH, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·金德塞思律师）\n\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒专业公司）\n\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\n\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，记录稿由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\n\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\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）：\n\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\n\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫律师）\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n\nTimes Square Tower\n\n7 Times Square\n\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·H·史密斯律师）\n\nRobinson & Cole, LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n\n280 Trumbull Street\n\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表第 11 章受托人：\n\nPATRICK LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·林西律师）\n\nNeubert, Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n\n195 Church Street\n\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n第 11 章受托人：\n\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（吕克·A·德斯平斯律师）\n\nG. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ.（G·亚历山大·邦加茨律师）\n\nPaul Hastings, LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n\n200 Park Avenue\n\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表美国受托人：\n\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）\n\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\n\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n\n150 Court Street, Room 302\n\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人委员会：\n\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师）\n\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n\n850 Main Street\n\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 3 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Despins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022\n\n3\n\n（程序于下午 3:39 开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok，以及对抗程序案号 22-5027，Despins 诉 Bravo Luck Limited 等。\n\n法庭：好的。下午好。请先由第 11 章受托人作庭审记录在案的出庭声明。\n\n林西律师：法官阁下，我是第 11 章受托人的康涅狄格州律师帕特里克·林西。德斯平斯先生的航班不幸被取消了——\n\n法庭：噢。\n\n林西律师：——因此他今天无法到场。我今天上午提交了一项请求，请求允许他通过 Zoom 参加，但我了解法官阁下整天都在审理案件——\n\n法庭：是的，我们一直在开庭。\n\n林西律师：——我了解您可能没有时间处理该请求。\n\n法庭：不幸的是，没有。若我们尝试允许德斯平斯先生参加本次听证，有人反对吗？我不知道这将如何进行，但是——\n\n亨齐律师：不反对，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。那么请稍等一下。好吗？让法庭——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 4 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Despins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022\n\n1　书记员看看我们能否向德斯平斯先生提供相关\n\n2　信息。\n\n3　所以，是的，我们没有看到那项请求。我是说——\n\n4　林西律师：没有。我知道它刚刚才提交。\n\n5　显然，我想这已见诸新闻，旅行一直——\n\n6　颇为困难——\n\n7　法庭：噢，是的。没有。我理解。\n\n8　林西律师：——近来各处都是如此。\n\n9　法庭：不幸的是，人们——我确实\n\n10　理解。\n\n11　林西律师：令所有人都感到沮丧。\n\n12　（暂停。）\n\n13　林西律师：并且，法官阁下，我们已与他联系。\n\n14　我确实想——我只想说明，我在前往本次程序\n\n15　听证的路上时曾与他交谈——曾与他保持联系，\n\n16　而他理解法院正在审理案件及处理其他事项，我认为他预期\n\n17　自己很可能无法参加，因此——\n\n18　\n\n19　法庭：好的。\n\n20　林西律师：——我们应当很快就会知道。\n\n21　法庭：那么你认为我们应当在没有\n\n22　他的情况下继续？这是你的意思吗？还是你想再等几\n\n23　分钟？\n\n24　林西律师：我认为有几项——我认为我们\n\n25　可以继续。如果我们收到他的消息，那么——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 5 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Despins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022\n\n5\n\n法庭：好的。我先向法庭书记员确认一下。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：那么你向受托人德斯平斯发送了一封电子邮件，向他提供了相关信息，以防他想要——\n\n法庭书记员：是。\n\n法庭：——以防他能够加入？\n\n法庭书记员：是。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。那么我认为，如果各方均可接受，我们就继续进行。然后，如果受托人德斯平斯加入，他就加入。\n\n林西律师：可以。\n\n法庭：这样是否最为合理？\n\n林西律师：是。此外，受托人的律师、普衡律师事务所的亚历山大·邦加茨与我一同到庭，因此我们已准备好处理今天待审的事项。我还要说明，我也是以 Genever Holdings Corporation 和 Genever Holdings, LLC 律师的身份到庭。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n林西律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么请继续进行出庭声明。\n\n邦加茨律师：好的。下午好，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Despins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022\n\n6\n\n邦加茨律师：我是普衡律师事务所的亚历克斯·邦加茨，代表受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n弗里德曼律师：下午好，并祝您新年快乐，法官阁下。我是奥美律师事务所的彼得·弗里德曼，代表 PAX。我与我的同事斯图尔特·萨诺夫先生一同到庭。\n\n萨诺夫律师：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n史密斯律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所的安妮卡·史密斯，PAX 的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n克莱伯恩律师：下午好，法官阁下。霍莉·克莱伯恩，代表美国受托人。\n\n戈德曼律师：下午好，法官阁下。欧文·戈德曼，普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n亨齐律师：泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所的埃里克·亨齐，代表债务人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n金德塞思律师：下午好，法官阁下。斯蒂芬·金德塞思，代表债务人以及 HK USA。\n\n法庭：下午好。我本也应当向各位祝贺新年快乐。因此，今天待审事项很多，包括 Despins 诉——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 6 of 62\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 7 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Despins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022\n\n7\n\nBravo Luck 案的审前会议，还有设定申报截止日期并批准通知格式的命令动议、Genever Holdings Corporation 案中的一项聘用申请、一项聘用申请——事项相当多——以及一项修改同意命令的动议和另一项聘用申请。我一直在审阅这些事项，试图确定我们应当先处理什么，而看来先处理聘用申请可能是合理的，因为除非我遗漏了什么，我没有看到任何人对这些聘用申请提出异议。我理解得对吗？\n\n林西律师：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们先看申请——我们来看 1198 号，即聘用 Epiq（艾匹克公司）的申请。此前我们曾就此讨论过。噢，德斯平斯先生来了。他现在加入我们了。他在这里。好的。下午好，受托人德斯平斯。\n\n德斯平斯律师：下午好，法官阁下。我为未能亲自到场表示歉意。\n\n法庭：没关系。不是问题，不是问题。我很高兴您能够加入我们。我们正准备讨论今天待审的聘用申请，因为我们认为我们可能——我认为我们可能能够以——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 8 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Despins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022\n\n8\n\n某种较为简略的方式处理这些申请。但我对聘用债权申报代理人的申请确有一个问题，因为我们此前曾讨论过此事。现在，我想这是数月前的事了，如果我记得没错，但我不确定为什么——那么，你们仍打算聘用一名债权申报代理人，正确吗？\n\n德斯平斯律师：正确，法官阁下。这是一个新问题。我们此前并无此意图。这是由于受托人开展的一项社交媒体活动而出现的，债权申报人向我们表达了他们对提交债权申报并遭受某种形式骚扰的担忧，因此，我们需要找到一种让人们能够提交债权申报而不披露其身份的方式。因此，起初我们与美国受托人讨论，称为何不让他们将申报材料发送给我们，即受托人，而他们说，不，这不是一个好主意，因为债务人会说我们以某种方式操纵债权申报。因此，唯一的办法——这是根据在其中一宗，抱歉这么说，在其中一宗天主教性虐待案件中发生的情况——是使用一名债权申报代理人，以便人们可以向债权申报代理人提交材料，债权申报代理人可以遮盖债权申报人的姓名和信息，以保护债权申报人的身份。因此，这仅是在过去 30 天、40 天内出现的，法官阁下。我们此前并不打算使用债权申报代理人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 9 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Despins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022\n\n1　法庭：好的。那么，显然，\n\n2　纽约南区（Southern District of New York）就债权申报代理人提出的问题，\n\n3　我相信您知悉，正确吗？\n\n4　\n\n5　德斯平斯律师：是。\n\n6　法庭：好的。\n\n7　德斯平斯律师：但我不认为那些问题\n\n8　在此处受到牵涉。\n\n9　法庭：那么，这正是我们需要确保的\n\n10　事情。好吗？我们需要确保，因为那——这是一个——\n\n11　看来是首席法官格伦以及纽约南区的其他人\n\n12　认为非常严重的问题。\n\n13　\n\n14　德斯平斯律师：是。\n\n15　法庭：而且，显然，如果本破产财产要\n\n16　聘用一名债权申报代理人，那么我希望确保其服务范围受到\n\n17　限制并且非常明确。\n\n18　\n\n19　德斯平斯律师：正确。\n\n20　法庭：我认为没有人反对\n\n21　此事，但我确实认为，我们必须看看纽约南区相关\n\n22　问题的进展情况。因为，不论是否有人知悉可能\n\n23　发生的事情——我完全不知道是否发生过或\n\n24　未发生过——这是格伦法官将要裁决的事情，正确吗，\n\n25　\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Despins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022\n\n10\n\n法庭：它是——我不想不得不处理该问题。好吗？所以我想说得非常明确——\n\n德斯平斯律师：但我认为——让我暂且消除这一担忧，不是现在，而是在本次听证会后与债权申报代理人核实，以确保这些问题均不存在于本案中，并且我们可以向法院作出该等保证。这就是我建议要做的事。因为，显然，这与申报截止日期有关联。我们需要推动此事。因此，可能具有时间敏感性。所以，如果我们可以——我理解法官阁下的担忧。我知悉该问题。我不认为其适用于本案，但在与债权申报代理人再次核实之前，并且实际上或许在命令中进一步严格限定之前，我不想作出该保证，以确保完全不存在任何问题。因此，请允许我这样做，并尽快回复法院。\n\n法庭：谢谢。关于在本案中聘用 Epiq 作为债权申报代理人，有人反对吗？\n\n亨齐律师：法官阁下，代表债务人的埃里克·亨齐。债务人不反对在本案中聘用 Epiq 作为债权申报代理人。我们没有反对申报截止日期动议。我将就申报截止日期动议发表一些意见。我认为德斯平斯先生可能已就此作了预先说明，即——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 11 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Depsins（德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运）——January 3, 2022\n1　债权申报截止日动议和对 Epiq（艾匹克）的聘用是相互关联的，因为\n2　聘用 Epiq 的原因与\n3　债权申报截止日动议所请求的救济有关。\n4　法院：\n好的。\n5　HENZY 先生：\n因此，对聘用 Epiq 没有异议，\n6　但我会提出一些与 Epiq 有关的意见。\n7　法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n8　那么，关于这项命令，Despins 受托人，我\n9　认为有一点，我——我必须说，我\n10　尚未研究该命令，所以其中可能已有规定，\n11　但我没有看到——因此，书记官办公室不会\n12　维护债权申报——债权登记簿。Epiq 会维护吗？\n13　DESPINS 先生：\n正确，法官阁下。这\n14　正是意图。是的。他们将作为\n15　书记官办公室的代理人这样做。\n16　HENZY 先生：\n不过，法官阁下，为了\n17　明确起见，在 Kwok 案件中已经有一份\n18　债权登记簿。\n19　法院：\n已有一些债权申报\n20　提交。这是真的。\n21　HENZY 先生：\n我认为——\n22　法院：\n书记官办公室已经创建了一份\n23　债权登记簿。这是正确的。\n24　HENZY 先生：\n是的。因此，我们可能会有两份——\n25　法院：\n那么，我们谈论的是——我们\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 12 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck——January 3, 2022\n1　谈论的只是尚未提交的债权申报吗？\n2　DESPINS 先生：\n正确。我们谈论的是——\n3　已经提交的债权申报，我认为不超过\n4　12、13 项，大概——\n5　HENZY 先生：\n我认为是 15 项。\n6　法院：\n15 项？\n7　HENZY 先生：\n是的。\n8　法院：\nHenzy 律师这样认为。好的。\n9　那么，我想我们应当明确，存在两份\n10　债权登记簿，即聘用 Epiq 之前已存在的\n11　债权登记簿，以及\n12　Epiq 将要创建和维护的债权登记簿，后者——\n13　HENZY 先生：\n我想我——\n14　法院：\n关于保密的措辞——\n15　我的意思是，我认为我有些担心，该命令\n16　没有说明——没有规定——它试图这样做，\n17　但它说要向公众提供每一份债权申报的查阅机会，\n18　并应书记官要求向书记官提供\n19　经认证的副本。\n20　但是，我以为聘用 Epiq 的目的在于，\n21　我们不会向公众提供每一份\n22　债权申报的查阅机会？\n23　DESPINS 先生：\n也许我的同事 Bongartz 先生——\n24　BONGARTZ 先生：\n是的。\n25　法院：\n好的。请讲。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 13 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck——January 3, 2022\n1　DESPINS 先生：\n——可以回答这个问题。\n2　法院：\n请讲，律师。\n3　BONGARTZ 先生：\n是的，法官阁下。我可以上前吗？\n4　法院：\n请。\n5　BONGARTZ 先生：\n好的。谢谢。\n6　下午好，法官阁下。\n7　法院：\n下午好。\n8　BONGARTZ 先生：\n您正确地指出，我们\n9　试图通过第 4 段末尾紧接着的\n10　括号内容解决这一问题，即前述内容\n11　受制于并遵守法院批准的任何\n12　保密限制。\n13　如果您希望我们具体交叉引用将会或，\n14　您知道，根据债权申报截止日\n15　命令请求批准的保密限制，我非常乐意这样做。\n16　\n17　法院：\n好的。我认为您暂时不需要\n18　这样做。\n19　但是，是的，如果我们要准许债权申报截止日\n20　动议，那么我希望在该命令中明确 Epiq\n21　就这些保密问题所负有的义务，\n22　以及是否——如果公众中的某人想\n23　查看 Epiq 持有的内容，该如何处理？\n24　BONGARTZ 先生：\n拟议的债权申报截止日\n25　命令对此作如下说明。Epiq 将保持\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 14 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck——January 3, 2022\n1　债权申报的保密性，但将公布经删节的\n2　债权申报版本，其中债权申报人姓名和联系\n3　信息，如其选择对其\n4　债权申报作保密处理，则该等\n5　信息将被删节；并且 Epiq 网站上公开提供的\n6　债权登记簿将公布已将该等信息\n7　删节的债权申报。\n8　法院：\n好的。那么公众\n9　如何查阅？他们——他们只需访问该网站吗？\n10　他们无需登记或办理其他事项吗？\n11　BONGARTZ 先生：\n正确。这是一个公开可访问的\n12　网站。它将直接设在 Epiq 的网站上。\n13　我相信，在债权申报截止日命令中，我们\n14　也已说明人们可提交\n15　债权申报的网站，该网站也是人们可以\n16　查阅已提交并公布的债权申报经删节版本的\n17　同一网站。\n18　法院：\n好的。我现在也正在看这个。\n19　\n20　（暂停。）\n21　法院：\n您知道，我正在看拟议\n22　命令以及与 Epiq 的协议。再次说明，为了\n23　明确起见，Epiq 作出合理价格上调的权利\n24　并非绝对。其仍须经法院批准。好吗？\n25　所以我认为这一点需要明确。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 15 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck——January 3, 2022\n15　法院：Epiq 明白没有资金支付给他们，对吗？\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：正确。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：事实上，他们已同意——\n\n法院：因为这不是这份协议所写的内容。\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：不是。不是。但是，他们已同意，在遗产中有可用资源之前，他们将延期收款。事实上，实际上，该协议确实涵盖了这一点。让我——\n\n法院：该协议哪里这样写了？\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：是的。让我向您指出该条款。该协议第 3.1 节末尾。Epiq 已同意延期收款——\n\n法院：好的。我没有看到那一句。谢谢。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法院：为什么这份协议中有赔偿条款？我的意思是，我知道答案是因为总会有这种条款。但为什么会有赔偿条款？Epiq 为什么需要赔偿条款？我不明白。\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck——January 3, 2022\n16　BONGARTZ 先生：嗯，这是他们聘用合同的一部分，但是——\n\n法院：我知道这是他们标准协议的一部分，但是什么——\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：——我们已经——\n\n法院：因此我们要让 Epiq 对遗产提出债权？我认为这毫无意义。我希望你们看看他们是否同意删除该条款，或者大幅缩小其范围，因为其中写道，我的意思是，这不可能更宽泛了：“受赔偿人可能因本协议或 Epiq 根据本协议提供服务而产生或与之有关的任何事项，以任何身份受到追究或被卷入其中，无论任何受赔偿人是否为当事方，但完全因重大过失或故意不当行为所致的损失除外，且不限制前述规定的一般性。损失包括”——我不想——我不会就他们是否应获赔偿进行诉讼。我不会那样做。好吗？本案还有太多其他事情在进行。我们不会让自己陷入关于赔偿的争议。好吗？\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：明白。明白，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 16 页，共 62 页\n\n我只想指出协议中的另一项\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 17 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck——January 3, 2022\n17　协议条款，即第 8 节第 8.C 项，其规定不受协议中任何相反内容的影响，包括——\n\n法院：那你们就不需要赔偿协议。\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：嗯，这个——\n\n法院：你看，这个——你知道，我都做过。我明白。我理解。\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：好的。\n\n法院：我理解，但我不会那样做。我不会让一个债权代理人进入案件，并在一个 Chapter——中产生潜在诉讼——这根本不会发生。否则你们就不会有债权代理人。我不会这样做。这是在一个我们没有能力浪费更多时间或任何更多资源的案件中浪费时间和资源。\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，我百分之百理解您的意思，但在目前没有任何付款的情况下，我不得不恳求这些人接下这件事。我确实担心他们会直接告诉我们，抱歉，我们不做。我并不同意您的观点，这不是我的意思。我只是非常担心我们会失去他们，而且没有其他人会按或有条件做这件事。这是我唯一担心的。\n\n法院：我理解。但是他们将不得不\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 18 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck——January 3, 2022\n1　作出该决定，因为我不会就债权代理人的赔偿问题\n2　进行诉讼。如果他们所做的只是记录和接收本案中的\n3　债权申报，那么他们为什么需要获得赔偿？\n4　为了什么？\n5　（无人回应。）\n6　法院：\n好的。关于——那么，正如 Henzy\n7　律师所述，律师——所以我们已经明白——你们\n8　需要我同时审查债权申报截止日动议。\n9　所以，我们实质上需要在这些命令中交叉引用\n10　这些问题，对吗？你们是在告诉我这个吗？\n11　\n12　BONGARTZ 先生：\n是的。这两者是相互关联的。\n13　法院：\n我知道它们相互关联。但我是\n14　说，在拟议命令中，它们没有——在\n15　两者之间没有相互引用——至少在 Epiq 命令中\n16　没有，对吗？\n17　那么我们看看债权申报截止日命令。\n18　等一下。抱歉。Henzy 律师，您\n19　说您有意见。您是指对该命令\n20　的意见，还是对有关债权申报截止日的整个动议的意见？\n21　HENZY 先生：\n实际上是对该命令。\n22　法院：\n好的。那么我们一会儿审阅该\n23　命令。\n24　好的。因此，聘用 Epiq 的申请获准，只要他们希望在我所说的内容\n25　就命令而言得到限制和修正之后继续担任债权\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 19 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck——January 3, 2022\n1　代理人。如果他们不同意，那么我想\n2　我们就必须弄清楚如何继续进行。但是，\n3　否则我没有必要坐在这里审阅\n4　这些命令，对吗？\n5　我的意思是，法院必须对\n6　本案中发生的事项拥有一定的控制权，而本法院认为\n7　这就是应当的运作方式。如果 Epiq 对此有异议，\n8　那么他们必须告知你们。好吗？\n9　现在，我们看看债权申报截止日命令。\n10　HENZY 先生：\n只是为了让我明确，法官阁下。那么，\n11　聘用 Epiq 的申请是否会\n12　延期审理？\n13　法院：\n不会。该申请获准，除非他们来\n14　告诉我 Epiq 不愿遵守我刚才在庭审记录中\n15　所述的条款。\n16　HENZY 先生：\n好的。我唯一担心的是，您可能\n17　会签发债权申报截止日命令，而该命令实际上并不——\n18　法院：\n在我收到关于整个事项的回复之前，我不会签发任何命令——由于它们相互关联，我不会——\n19　这不会发生。好吗？\n20　\n21　HENZY 先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n22　法院：\n但我理解您的观点，所以这没问题。\n23　\n24　FRIEDMAN 先生：\n法官阁下——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 20 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）—2022年1月3日\n\n法庭：\n那么，我们现在看的是1212，对吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生（弗里德曼）：\n法官阁下？\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n我是代表PAX（PAX公司）的彼得·弗里德曼（Peter Friedman）。\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n我能否仅请求设定一个期限——\n\n法庭：\n等我们处理完——\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n——也就是说，要求他们必须在该期限内回来，因为——\n\n法庭：\n等我们处理完这些动议之后，我们会处理所有这些事项。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n关于设定申报截止日期命令的动议。\n\n所以，这是我现在应当审阅的拟议命令，对吗？\n\nBONGARTZ先生（邦加茨）：\n您刚才说的是案卷编号1212。\n\n法庭：\n我说错案卷编号了。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n你说得对。是1191，对吗？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n那是我的错误。抱歉。\n\n那么，让我看一下那份命令。\n\n（暂停。）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 21 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）—2022年1月3日\n\n法庭：\n好的。我正在看该命令的红线版本，我马上告诉你我看到哪里了。\n\n你要我把它调出来吗？这对你会有帮助吗？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n我面前就有。\n\n法庭：\n好的。Henzy律师（亨齐），你需要把它调出来，还是你面前就有？\n\nHENZY先生：\n我面前就有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么我看到的是191，第81页中的第48页，是从这里开始吗？对吗？好的。\n\n好的。那么继续——我想听取——我看过红线版本了。我可能有几个问题，但我并没有认为需要立即修改的事项，所以或许我们应当听听Henzy律师的意见，然后看看是否还有其他需要处理的事项。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n我非常乐意——\n\n法庭：\n这样说合理吗？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n完全合理。我只想预先说明——\n\n法庭：\n当然。请继续。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n——经与官方委员会的律师讨论后，我们同意再作几项——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 22 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）—2022年1月3日\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n——小幅修改。我很乐意在Henzy先生提出意见之前或之后，向法官阁下说明这些修改——\n\n法庭：\n可以。我唯一的问题——实际上，我唯一的问题是，我知道听证会直到今天才举行。你将日期从12月2日改为1月27日——\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n——但今天已经是1月3日。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n是，是。\n\n法庭：\n那么，由于听证会直到今天才举行，你是否提议另一个日期？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n正确。我本来也打算说明这一点。\n\n法庭：\n好的。请继续。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n我们准备将其延后30天，至2月27日。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n然后请继续预先说明你希望向我说明的其他问题。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。请给我一点时间。\n\n法庭：\n当然。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n我只是要把文件调出来。好的。那么，实际上只是少数几项修改。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 23 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）—2022年1月3日\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n实际应先看的第一份文件是拟议的申报截止日期通知——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n——即附件1。\n\n法庭：\n即附于该命令的文件。是的。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n正确。让我——如果法官阁下愿意，我也有标记稿的纸质副本。\n\n法庭：\n我现在正在电脑上看。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n除非它与——\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n不一样。\n\n法庭：\n——12月2日的版本——\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n不一样。\n\n法庭：\n哦。好的，是。那么请把它递交上来。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n是，当然。我还为——准备了额外副本。\n\n法庭：\nHenzy律师以及——\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n——在场的律师。\n\n法庭：\n好的，很好。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n我可以走近吗？\n\n法庭：\n请。谢谢。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n请稍等，我——\n\n（暂停。）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）—2022年1月3日\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n好的。在申报截止日期通知中，第一项修改——\n\n法庭：\n所以先不要看命令，先看通知。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n我在这里就是这样编排的，不过——\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n——我们稍后会再回到命令。\n\n法庭：\n好的。请继续。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n这是黑线稿第4页，第2节，标题为“应提交的文件”。\n\n法庭：\n嗯。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n在第二段中，委员会律师建议，并且我们同意，在第一句末尾增加“或债权人的律师”一语，以使其与正式债权申报表格式一致。然后在——\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n——在第3段或第3节中，正好——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 24 of 62\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 25 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）—2022年1月3日\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n——在我们列明向Epiq（Epiq）提交债权申报表的地址，以及说明如何以电子方式提交债权申报之后，我们再次根据委员会律师的建议，增加了一项但书，以绝对明确地说明，如你确实希望以保密方式提交债权申报，你必须向债权代理人提交债权申报，而不是直接向法庭提交。\n\n因此，这就是对申报截止日期通知作出的两项修改。\n\n然后，在申报截止日期命令第3.D段中，我们在“动议提出人”之后增加了“或债务人”，因为债务人也可以修改清单。\n\n法庭：\n好的。当然。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n这只是澄清性修改。\n\n然后，在第4段中，这是我们作出的澄清。我们只是希望避免在这方面产生任何混淆，明确姓名和联系信息无论出现于债权申报表的任何地方，包括任何附件中，均会被涂黑删节，因此不会存在任何漏洞。\n\n我递交给法官阁下的标记稿也反映了我们新提议的申报截止日期，即2月27日。\n\n法庭：\n我看到了。谢谢。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n好的。这就是我们方面的全部修改。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 26 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）—2022年1月3日\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n并且为明确起见，这份黑线稿中标明修改之处，是相对于我们附在12月2日向法庭提交的补充文件中的拟议命令而言的。\n\n法庭：\n好的。非常感谢。\n\nHenzy律师，那么你要说明你的意见吗？\n\nHENZY先生：\n当然。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n首先，根据先前的讨论作一项澄清，我认为今后将会有两个债权登记册，因为按照这一安排，债权人若想利用这些保密规定，可以向法庭或债权代理人提交。\n\n因此，我对此没有异议，但只是——\n\n法庭：\n律师，这是你的理解吗，即将维持两个债权登记册？\n\n那么，有人可能收到这份命令，某个个人或公司可能决定，他们可以仅向书记官办公室提交其债权申报表。这是你的预期吗？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n是，这正是我们的考虑。\n\n法庭：\n好的，好的。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n但显然须以法官阁下的——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 27 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）—2022年1月3日\n\n法庭：\n不，可以。可以。我只是想确保大家理解一致。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n但是——\n\n法庭：\n这项规定——这项提议和程序，确实是为了处理保密债权和保密信息？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n正确。这并未剥夺我们在最近一轮修改之前所设想程序中的任何内容——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n——的任何内容。\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\n好的。那么，Henzy律师，这是否解答了你的问题？\n\nHENZY先生：\n是。再次说明，那只是——那是我的理解，只是根据先前关于该问题的讨论作出的澄清。\n\n法庭：\n当然。请继续。\n\nHENZY先生：\n第二，法官阁下，债务人反对将申报截止日期延后至2月27日。\n\n我理解委员会已同意该日期，也理解法庭的看法可能是什么，但——完全不涉及本案已经进行的任何讨论细节——目前的不确定性是本案的重要驱动因素。\n\n而且，鉴于我认为本案正在产生行政费用的速度，再延后一个月——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 28 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）—2022年1月3日\n\nHENZY先生：\n——我认为实在太长了。这不是一个人们不知道的案件。它当然已有一定程度的曝光，或者说恶名。我认为1月27日还有三周多。我不认为——我不知道这里任何人在时间方面还需要什么。我只是看不出这里任何人怎么会不知道他们是否拥有债权，以至于需要那么长的时间。因此，我请求日期不要定为2月27日，而应早于该日期。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n法官阁下，我是代表PAX的彼得·弗里德曼。我们支持该请求，即应在程序中尽快推进。我们确实认为这很重要。我们确实认为，本案因一些明显原因而具有恶名，而且我们越早确定债权的总体范围，我认为对所有人就越好。\n\nGOLDMAN先生（戈德曼）：\n法官阁下，委员会支持——\n\nDESPINS受托人（德斯平斯）：\n法官阁下——\n\n法庭：\n请稍等。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：\n——弗里德曼先生——\n\n法庭：\nDespins受托人，请稍等。请继续。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 29 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）—2022年1月3日\n\nGOLDMAN先生：\n——代表PAX的弗里德曼先生的立场。或许再增加一周或两周。但我认为，设定一个早于2月27日的债权申报截止日期确有益处。\n\n法庭：\nClaiborn律师？\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：\n法官阁下，美国受托人认为额外增加一些时间是适当的。这一程序中有送达通知规定，实际完成这些规定需要一些时间。因此，实际而言，等所有这些完成，并且等本法庭作出该命令时，债权人大概将有约一个月的时间实际收到通知，并向法庭、Epiq或其他地方提交债权申报表。\n\n而且，有些债权人并非因在场任何人的过错，可能实际上并未关注新闻报道，也可能不了解正在发生的情况，因此我们需要给这些人时间来考虑此事，并在他们希望提交债权申报表时采取适当行动。\n\n法庭：\nDespins受托人，你想发言吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n是。正如法官阁下必须记得，许多债权人位于海外，因此——而且英语并非他们的第一语言，这里存在整个程序方面的问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 30 of 62\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Depsins（德普辛斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克） - January 3, 2022 30 所以，我明白越早越好这一点。我也理解为什么 PAX（派克斯）会希望如此，因为他们的债权已经在那里了，所以他们实际上并不关心其他债权人，但我们必须谨慎。有很多人正在从海外联系我们。不仅是中国，我们说的是澳大利亚、英国等等，因此将申报截止日定在 January 27，我很抱歉地说，那将是荒谬的。February 27，现在，能否缩短几天？当然可以。但我们必须谨慎，因为有很多人——这些人是自行诉讼当事人，英语不是他们的第一语言，因此这里有一个完整的程序问题需要处理。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。亨齐律师？\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我想我已经表达了我的意见。我认为这里早就应当设定申报截止日。债务人对此完全没有控制权。拖延得越久，本案的难度就越高，而本案的难度本来就已经相当高。但是，您知道，我已经说过——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 31 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022\n\n亨齐先生：——我已经明确了我的立场。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我——我正在考虑各方的陈述。请继续说下一点。\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。再次说明，债务人不同意认为这种保密救济是必要的。其他人已经提交了债权证明，我不知道曾出现过任何问题。但是，再次说明，为避免就我们不需要争论的事情争论，我认为看看根据该程序实际提交了哪些债权可能是有意义的。该命令规定，Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒）可以在保密条件下、受保护令约束查阅债权证明，但在某个时候，我们无法仅凭自己确定一项债权是否有效。因此，在某个时候，我们可能需要代表债务人的某人查阅这些债权。我的意思是，除其他事项外，债务人可能会提交一项计划；如果我们不知道债权是什么，就很难提交计划。因此，我唯一的意见是，该保密程序应受法庭后续命令约束。我们应当有能力，在我们看到提交了哪些债权后，到法庭面前请求作出变更，并可在当时讨论需要采取何种保护机制。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 32 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022\n\n亨齐先生：但只需在命令中简单增加一句，说明其受法庭后续命令约束；我认为无论如何均可这样理解，但我希望每个人都知悉，我们可能会到您面前，法官阁下，并称我们需要与某人或债务人分享该等信息，以便能够推进我们有权推进且希望推进的事项。\n\n法庭：律师？\n\n德斯平斯先生：我们对此没有异议，法官阁下。\n\n邦加茨先生：我只是想指出，该命令已经规定，法庭可以授权其他当事方在受保护令约束的情况下查阅保密债权证明。因此，我不知道这是否是亨齐先生所设想的，或者——\n\n亨齐先生：我不清楚这是否涵盖——在某个时候，我们可能需要去找债务人并说，此人对你提出了该项债权，该债权是否有任何依据？我不知道我们如何避免让债务人参与其中。因此，我理解该措辞，但据我理解，此举的整体目的，是使该信息不落入债务人手中，而在某个时候，我认为这行不通。也许。再次说明，也可能没有人提交这类债权。因此，再次说明，我们是在努力避免就可能不需要争论的事情争论。也可能根据我们——仅由泽斯勒与泽斯勒对债权的审查，我们可以——那可能已经足够，但也可能存在一种情形，为推进本案，需要与债务人分享一份或多份债权证明。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 33 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022\n\n法庭：你所指的是哪一项措辞？你认为它可能处理了什么问题，律师——\n\n邦加茨先生：是的。是的。这在第 6 页，第 4.B.iii 段底部：受保护令约束，经后续命令，法庭可授权其他人员查阅保密债权。该等人员可以包括法庭认为有必要成为获授权当事方的任何人。\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，如果律师在庭审记录中表示，其他人员可以包括债务人，那么我认为这显然受法庭——\n\n法庭：我认为他就是这个意思。\n\n亨齐先生：是的。\n\n法庭：对吗？\n\n亨齐先生：那么——那么——\n\n法庭：那么你们在这个问题上就都解决了。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 34 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 34\n\n亨齐先生：——那么我认为我就没有其他问题了。是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。那么你的下一个问题是什么？\n\n亨齐先生：就是这些，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么唯一的问题就是申报截止日？这是唯一的问题？这是唯一的问题？\n\n亨齐先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：所以，有些人希望定在 February 27。有些人希望定在 January 27。有，您知道——我的意思是，我们可以非常不科学地——抱歉。那是谁？我不知道那是谁。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：我将把申报截止日定在 February 17，星期五。好吗？那么，该命令将予以录入。除此之外，律师，我认为我们确实需要在 Epiq（埃皮克）命令——\n\n邦加茨先生：当然。\n\n法庭：——与本命令之间作出交叉引用。好吗？\n\n邦加茨先生：是的，我们会。我们会增加措辞。我认为应当放在第 4 段末尾，即您已经指出查阅债权登记册问题的地方。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 35 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022\n\n法庭：是的。谢谢。而且我确实——我已经审阅了通知格式以及所有相关内容，即所附的截止期限通知。我没有进一步的问题、意见或顾虑。显然，您知道，关于送达，你们都会尽一切努力。\n\n邦加茨先生：当然。\n\n法庭：而且你们将证明本文件是如何送达的。\n\n邦加茨先生：是的。\n\n法庭：然后我们将从那里继续。因此，设定申报截止日的命令动议获准，但——反正你们无论如何都必须提交新的命令，对吗？\n\n邦加茨先生：正确。\n\n法庭：正如你们将就 Epiq 命令所做的那样。但我同意亨齐律师的意见。我们不会录入任何命令，直到我们——我们所使用的程序是将命令提交至 Bridgeport（布里奇波特）法庭书记官信箱。你们不必将其放到案卷中。我的意思是，有些人会这样做，这没问题，但在这里每个人都同意的情况下，你们不必这样做。我们不会——但你认为你们能在本周五之前完成吗？\n\n邦加茨先生：是的，我们会。我们将尽力，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 36 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 36 显然这取决于与 Epiq 沟通——\n\n法庭：对。\n\n邦加茨先生：——我不知道他们会作出何种回应。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我希望你们努力在本周五之前完成——\n\n邦加茨先生：是的。\n\n法庭：——因为我希望尽快录入命令，以便你们能尽快启动程序。好吗？\n\n邦加茨先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。那么让我们看看接下来需要审理的事项。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下——\n\n法庭：是。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——如果我可以就 Epiq 事项说几句？我想知道是否有办法通过增加一些措辞来妥善处理您提出的问题，比如写明：但是，破产法院应对确定 Epiq 就任何此类（听不清）所享有的权利具有专属管辖权，这样就明确我们可以去——（听不清）是唯一的——在重大过失排除条款约束下，这是明确的。因为我确实担心，法官阁下，他们会说，听着，这是我们为你们做的一项人情，因为我们已经与你们打交道多年。我知道他们是怎样的——他们对自己的权利如此教条。我确实是在努力妥善处理这个问题，法官阁下，以便您感到满意，而我也可以告诉他们，他们也应当感到满意。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 37 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 37\n\n法庭：对于德斯平斯受托人刚才就 Epiq 协议中的赔偿条款所说的内容，有人有任何顾虑吗？\n\n邦加茨先生：如果法官阁下不介意，我只是想补充一点？\n\n法庭：请讲。\n\n邦加茨先生：我们已经在拟议命令的第 12 和第 13 段中规定了一个框架，即除非法庭批准，否则不予赔偿。\n\n法庭：好的。很好。那么我们就按这样办，但我不希望看到任何关于赔偿的诉讼。我确实不希望。\n\n德斯平斯先生：明白。\n\n法庭：我只是认为那将会是——\n\n德斯平斯先生：我们会确保他们理解这一点。\n\n法庭：我认为那将是浪费每个人的时间。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n\n邦加茨先生：只是为了——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 38 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins 诉 Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 38\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n邦加茨先生：只是为了让我把这个问题彻底处理好——\n\n法庭：当然。\n\n邦加茨先生：——我想确认，唯一的变更将是设置一项程序，以通知法庭和利害关系方 Epiq 费率的变更。是这样吗——\n\n法庭：以及——\n\n邦加茨先生：是的。\n\n法庭：——两项命令之间的交叉引用。\n\n邦加茨先生：正确。好的。\n\n法庭：两项命令均应交叉引用另一项。我认为应当如此。我认为，如果它们——它们是相互配合运作的，那么我们应当确保，一个完全不了解情况的人阅读它们时，可能会理解这一点。好吗？\n\n邦加茨先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。现在，下一事项是聘用一名工程、运营及认证专家的申请？\n\n邦加茨先生：是的。我将处理该申请。\n\n法庭：请讲。有人对你们提出的这项动议有任何异议吗——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 39 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins（郭文贵/德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022 39\n\n邦加茨先生：是。我正准备开始。这是一项无争议的——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n邦加茨先生：——申请，申请留任 Engineering Operations and Certification Services, LLC（工程运营与认证服务有限责任公司）；受托人聘请该公司，依照本院此前作出的维修准备金命令，对 Lady May（“Lady May”号）进行检查。正如我——正如您正确地指出的，没有任何异议。我很乐意向本院说明该申请，但如果没有必要，我们显然请求准予该申请。我确实想简要提请注意，我们提交了一份修订后的拟议命令——\n\n法庭：我现在正在看修订后的拟议命令。\n\n邦加茨先生：是。我们昨天提交了该命令。\n\n法庭：是。\n\n邦加茨先生：——其反映了 United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）要求的两项修改。它们相当直接明了。他们要求明确，无论委托函中有任何相反规定，该留任均受下列法律管辖：\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记，第 40 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins（郭文贵/德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022 40\n\n康涅狄格州法律管辖，且因该留任产生的任何争议均由本院解决；显然，我们对此没有异议。\n\n法庭：谢谢。是的，我在第 8 段看到了这一点。\n\n邦加茨先生：我想补充一项额外的信息。已对初步工作进行了检查，准确地说，已完成对初步工作的检查；我们已收到怀特先生（Mr. White，Engineering Operation Services 的总裁兼首席执行官）开具的发票。我只是想，为充分披露起见，向本院说明，他们就该次检查收取的费用不足 \\$10,000，远低于费用程序所设想的上限。经批准留任后，我们拟当然通过在案卷中提交该发票的方式将其呈交本院，并给予利害关系方所设想的通知期限。\n\n法庭：好的。非常感谢。\n\n邦加茨先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：金塞思先生？\n\n金塞思先生：是。事实上我本不打算发表任何意见，但鉴于刚才对初步检查的说法，我只想提醒本院，对于是否进行过检查，或者该检查期间是否包括一次初步检查以及随后某种开放式的检查期限，存在争议；我们对此有异议。从我们的角度看，检查已经完成，我们已提供全部信息。已经进行了海试。我相信一切都以优异成绩通过。我们一直在寻求受托人确认，事实确实如此，即 Lady May（“Lady May”号）处于良好工作状态。我们正在等待答复。我们对存在这种延长的检查程序提出异议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记，第 41 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins（郭文贵/德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022 41\n\n法庭：好的。不过那不是今天日程中的事项。\n\n金塞思先生：我只是在回应——\n\n法庭：我明白。今天日程中的事项是留任该实体，即 Engineering Operations and Certification Services（工程运营与认证服务公司）。据我所知，没有人对此提出异议——没有人提交书面异议，并且今天参加本次听证会的任何人都没有提出异议。因此，我感谢您的意见，我们将看看会发生什么。好吗？\n\n金塞思先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：这就是我们接下来要处理的事项。还有其他人希望就这项申请发表意见吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记，第 42 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins（郭文贵/德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022 42\n\n（无人回应。）\n\n法庭：好的。既然没有人发言，基于庭审记录中陈述的理由，准予聘用 Engineering Operations and Certification Services, LLC（工程运营与认证服务有限责任公司）担任专家的申请，并将签发修订后的拟议命令。\n\n邦加茨先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。请稍等我一下。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们还有一项申请，申请聘用 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）的律师，对吗？\n\n林赛先生：是，法官阁下。我可以就此发言。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。谢谢，律师。\n\n林赛先生：法官阁下，Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），代表——如果本院不介意，我就一并处理——帕特里克·林赛，代表 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）；该公司再次说明，是个人债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）与拥有 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-内瑟兰酒店）公寓的 Genever Holdings, LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）之间的中间实体。正如法官阁下所知，我们已为 Genever Holdings Corporation 提交 Chapter 11（第 11 章）案件，该案件已与另外两个 Chapter 11 案件合并——更准确地说，目前与另外两个 Chapter 11 案件共同管理。本院此前已通过命令聘用这家位于 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）的律师事务所 Harney Westwood & Riegels（哈尼·韦斯特伍德与里格尔斯律师事务所），就 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）事项及 BVI law（英属维尔京群岛法律）代表受托人。本申请旨在聘用该所代表 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）。Genever Holdings Corporation 在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）设有一名董事，且 BVI law（英属维尔京群岛法律）问题已经出现，今后也可能出现。未提交任何异议，我们请求准予该命令。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望就聘用 Harney Westwood & Riegels（哈尼·韦斯特伍德与里格尔斯律师事务所）担任债务人的 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）律师的申请发表意见吗？显然是其中一名债务人，即 Genever Holdings Corp.，对吗？是 Corp.，不是 LLC？\n\n林赛先生：是 Corporation，不是 LLC。\n\n法庭：对。\n\n（无人回应。）\n\n法庭：好的。既然没有人发言，我已审阅该聘用申请。该申请看来形式适当。我理解债务人为何寻求聘用该律师。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记，第 43 页，共 62 页\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记，第 44 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins（郭文贵/德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022 44\n\n所提交的信息符合 Bankruptcy Code（破产法典）、破产规则以及本院地方法规。没有人对该申请提交书面异议，今天参加本次听证会的任何人也没有反对该申请。基于所有这些理由，准予聘用申请；我已审阅附于该申请的拟议命令，该命令可以签发。\n\n林赛先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。那么日程中还有另外两项事项。另外两项事务。我们有 Bravo Luck 对抗程序中的审前会议，也有一项动议，请求就为维修而留存的准备金金额修改一项同意命令。我推测，修改同意命令将比对抗程序耗时更长，但我对此不确定。\n\n金塞思先生：事实上可能不会，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么请继续。\n\n金塞思先生：谢谢。Steve Kindseth（史蒂夫·金塞思），代表动议方 HK USA（美国 HK 公司）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记，第 45 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins（郭文贵/德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022 45\n\n本院面前的是我当事人提出的一项动议，请求获得本院许可，使用部分维修准备金支付 Lady May（“Lady May”号）的持续运营费用。作为对该动议的回应，受托人提出了一项建议，我们正在评估该建议；我预计——\n\n法庭：哦，好的。\n\n金塞思先生：——我们将就希望达成协商一致的解决方案进行讨论，因此，如果可以的话，我请求将该事项延后一个星期，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请稍等一下。不过我明白您的意思，所以请给我一点时间查看日程和其他事项。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：下周二是——我们有常规日程和 Chapter 13 日，所以那不会——我的意思是，你们可以等候。我不能保证你们会在 2:30、3 点之前获得听审，但如果你们愿意，我们可以将其延至那天。\n\n金塞思先生：那样——我可以接受。\n\n法庭：受托人德斯平斯及受托人德斯平斯的律师？\n\n德斯平斯先生：可以。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记，第 46 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins（郭文贵/德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022\n\n法庭：好的。好。那么，让我们——为稳妥起见，我会说下午 3 点。为稳妥起见。好吗？\n\n金塞思先生：非常感谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：如果你们想在 2:45 进来，而我们已处理完其他事项，我们可以届时开始，但我不确定。很难预测 Chapter 13 听证会会持续多久。\n\n金塞思先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我们将把关于修改维修准备金同意命令的动议听证会延至 January 10 下午 3 点。好的。那么今天日程中唯一剩下的事项就是对抗程序审前会议。是这样吗——反正这就是我看到的全部事项。我遗漏了什么吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。好。那么，在审前会议中，被告尚未提交答辩状，对吗？那么目前谁将就审前会议进行讨论？\n\n林赛先生：法官阁下，昨天有一位将出庭代理被告 Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃·拉克有限公司）的律师联系我们，他名为 Francis Lawall（弗朗西斯·劳沃尔），来自 Troutman Pepper（特劳特曼·佩珀律师事务所）。而且他——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记，第 47 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/Depsins（郭文贵/德斯平斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022\n\n通知我们，他将提交出庭通知并对起诉状作出回应。不过——\n\n法庭：仅代表 Bravo Luck？\n\n林赛先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\n林赛先生：不过，他——\n\n法庭：抱歉。我无意打断您，但我只是想确认一下。\n\n林赛先生：不。不。我感谢您的问题，法官阁下。不过，他正在寻找 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）律师，并请求将——本次审前会议延后。受托人同意。我应该说，所有对抗程序原告均会同意。无论如何，在针对起诉状的答复期限之后举行审前会议或许更合理，所以——\n\n法庭：那么，答复期限已经过了。您是在谈论其他对抗程序吗？\n\n林赛先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么，您目前已提交一项动议，请求合并三项对抗程序，对吗？\n\n林赛先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记，第 48 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Depsins（德普辛斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— 2022年1月3日\n\n法庭：好的。而且我们尚未——\n\n林西律师：还有一点——\n\n法庭：——我们尚未——合并动议通常会安排听证，以防有人对此提出异议。这三起对抗程序的问题——这并不是问题——是我们尚未有被告方出庭，对吗？任何一起都没有，是吗？\n\n林西律师：没有。而且根据我们从 Lawall 先生处所听到的情况，我预计这个问题将在短期内、数日内得到解决。\n\n法庭：那么——您想怎么做？\n\n林西律师：我们希望将本次审前会议延期至11月初，对不起，2月初的某个日期。\n\n法庭：您说11月初，哇。好吧。2月初要么是——我认为必须是2月14日，但让我查看一下案卷。（暂停。）\n\n法庭：必须是2月14日下午，或者那一周的其他某一天。但如果——那是周二。我的意思是，情况就是这样。现在，合并这些对抗程序的动议\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记 第 49 页，共 62 页\n\n郭文贵/德普辛斯诉布拉沃·拉克—2022年1月3日\n\n可以在此之前开庭审理，它们可以被合并，我们也可以弄清楚，如果您希望这样做，您将如何处理它们。\n\n林西律师：有这种可能，法官阁下。我们也正在与 Lawall 先生讨论合并动议，可能会提交一份经同意的命令。\n\n法庭：那么，您想将本次审前会议延期至1月31日吗？\n\n林西律师：我相信这样可以。当然。\n\n法庭：有人反对将其延期至1月31日下午3:00吗？\n\n（无人回应。）\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们将把审前会议延期至1月31日下午3:00。那么，关于合并动议，林西律师，您是否请求法庭就这三起对抗程序安排听证？\n\n林西律师：不，法官阁下。目前尚未提出任何异议，所以我认为我们希望看看——\n\n法庭：有异议期限。您提交了合并动议。我认为您没有提交异议期限，对吗？\n\n林西律师：没有。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记 第 50 页，共 62 页\n\n郭文贵/德普辛斯诉布拉沃·拉克—2022年1月3日\n\n但根据我对地方法院地方法规则的理解，我们随后将适用地方法院地方法规则第7条，因此将有21天的异议期。\n\n法庭：这既对也不对。\n\n因为如果您寻求该期限——一般而言，在对抗程序中确实如此，但我不知道任何对抗程序是否这样规定。\n\n实际上，您在所有对抗程序中都提交了动议，因此案卷条目是否注明了21天的答复日期？\n\n我现在在看法庭书记员。我也可以查看。\n\n林西律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：好的。案卷中尚未注明任何答复日期，至少在27-5027案中如此。规则要求您在所有案件中提交它们。看来您是在29日提交的。我们会查看。好的。我们就查看一下。\n\n法庭书记员：我认为是在18日。\n\n法庭：是的。\n\n法庭书记员：我认为截止日期是18日。\n\n法庭：哪个月的18日？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记 第 51 页，共 62 页\n\n郭文贵/德普辛斯诉布拉沃·拉克—2022年1月3日\n\n法庭书记员：即将到来的1月。还是18日？\n\n法庭：哪里写了这个？\n\n法庭书记员：让我——\n\n法庭：不过案卷上没有这样写。\n\n法庭书记员：在第5号，对不起，第8号，ECF No. 8。\n\n法庭：哦，很好。好的。就在这里。好的。那么是18日。好的。很好。谢谢。\n\n您看，这就是我为什么询问法庭书记员。\n\n法庭书记员：不客气。\n\n法庭：好的。其他两起对抗程序中也这样写了吗？\n\n法庭书记员：让我核查。\n\n法庭：可能没有。可能——\n\n法庭书记员：对。\n\n法庭：可能会多一天。\n\n法庭书记员：在22-5030案中，是1月19日。\n\n法庭：是的。次日。\n\n法庭书记员：让我——\n\n法庭：在35案中也是如此，因为那21天是以您在另外两起对抗程序中提交合并动议的时间为起算点。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记 第 52 页，共 62 页\n\n郭文贵/德普辛斯诉布拉沃·拉克—2022年1月3日\n\n法庭书记员：对。\n\n林西律师：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因此，19日实质上将是答复日期。\n\n林西律师：那么，法官阁下，我的建议如下。我不知道目前是否需要举行听证。\n\n法庭：不，我们不需要。我们将等待并看看您会收到何种答复，如果有的话。\n\n林西律师：对。我请求，如果同意某种合并命令的形式——\n\n法庭：是。那么您只需提交它。\n\n林西律师：——允许我们仅将其——\n\n法庭：您只需提交它。您不需要——\n\n林西律师：——作为经同意的命令提交。\n\n法庭：您不需要许可。\n\n林西律师：好的。\n\n法庭：您只需提交它。\n\n林西律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。让我确认我们没有遗漏任何事项。还有其他人认为，今天下午我们还需要处理其他事项吗？\n\n郭文贵/德普辛斯诉布拉沃·拉克—2022年1月3日\n\n邦加茨律师：法官阁下，我还有最后一项事项需要提出。\n\n法庭：它在今天的日程上吗？如果它——我不是说我不会听您陈述。我只是说，今天的日程上是否有我遗漏的某项事项？而您是在说，没有，但还有其他事项您想谈？\n\n邦加茨律师：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。请讲。\n\n邦加茨律师：是。我希望这件事可以迅速且简短地解决。因此，这涉及 HK USA 对抗程序。如法官阁下所知，2月中旬将举行 PJR 听证。就受托人提出判决前救济申请一事，我们拟对债务人进行宣誓取证，并且我们已将他列入证人名单，HK USA 也将他列入其名单，尽管他们最近表示可能不会传唤他作为证人。我们向债务人的律师寻求确认，他们将接受传票送达，但我们获悉 Zeisler 未获授权接受该宣誓取证传票的送达。Zeisler 还告知我们，债务人的另一名律师 Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）先生\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记 第 53 页，共 62 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记 第 54 页，共 62 页\n\n郭文贵/德普辛斯诉布拉沃·拉克—2022年1月3日\n\n也未获债务人授权接受送达。这使我们处于这样一种境地，即我们将不得不额外支出费用，在本案中向债务人送达一份与其中一项对抗程序申请有关的传票。我们认为，在这些情况下，债务人的律师应当接受该传票。我的意思是，这是债务人的案件。根据《破产法》，债务人负有配合受托人的义务。债务人的律师还提交了出庭通知，要求将所有通知和所有送达文件送达给他们。因此，我们寻求法庭的指引，并希望获得关于如何在此继续推进的指示。这就是我想提出的问题。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n邦加茨律师：谢谢。\n\n法庭：Henzy 律师、Kindseth 律师，你们在本案中代理债务人时，为何不接受传票送达？你们已经作出——\n\nKindseth 律师：首先，法官阁下，我认为我们尚未回复那封电子邮件。而且我不是主办律师。因此，您的意思是我的律所明确表示\n\n郭文贵/德普辛斯诉布拉沃·拉克—2022年1月3日\n\n我们不会接受送达，还是您仍在等待回复？\n\n邦加茨律师：我们已收到 Aaron Romney（阿伦·罗姆尼）先生明确的回复——\n\nKindseth 律师：对。\n\n邦加茨律师：——确认——\n\nKindseth 律师：因此，Romney 律师和 Moriarty 律师正在处理此事，法官阁下。而该对抗程序并非——\n\n法庭：您知道吗？他们可能正在处理此事，但你们在本案中都在共同工作。贵所既然在本案中代理该个人，就没有理由不接受传票送达。理由是什么？\n\nKindseth 律师：法官阁下——\n\n法庭：告诉我，为什么不应当要求您接受该传票的送达。\n\nKindseth 律师：法官阁下，作为一名代表、作为客户的律师，我只能做、我的律所也只能做我们获授权做的事情。如果我们未获授权这样做，那就是这么简单。\n\n法庭：您是第11章案件中的债务人，您的客户自愿同意接受本法庭的管辖。您不能做逃避送达的事情。并且您的\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记 第 55 页，共 62 页\n\n郭文贵/德普辛斯诉布拉沃·拉克—2022年1月3日\n\n客户也不能做逃避送达的事情。他是自愿来到本法庭的。如果有必要，我将命令你们必须接受送达，因为我不想在这件事上再花一分钟。这完全是在浪费时间。而且这对您在本案中的客户没有帮助。\n\nKindseth 律师：而且为了非常明确，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：因此，这是一场一直在进行的判决前救济听证——我们一直在努力推进——有一段时间你们——各方合作得很好，但我不会就向一名债务人送达传票发生争执，顺便说一句，当你们不再是占有中的债务人、当你们的客户不再是占有中的债务人时，对于我们列入日程的每一事项，你们都可以到庭提出异议。但他是自愿来到本法庭的。如果您告诉我，您——您未获授权且将不会获授权接受传票送达，那么我将不得不作出某种您的客户不会喜欢的命令。而且你们也不会喜欢。因为无论该债务人是否处于占有状态，作为债务人的律师，你们对本法庭负有义务。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记 第 56 页，共 62 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1307 于 01/09/23 提交，于 01/09/23 18:36:55 登记 第 57 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Depsins（德普辛斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022 57\n\nKINDSETH 律师：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。首先，为明确起见，这并非破产案件中的事项。这是在由 HK USA（美国香港）和 Mei Guo（美国）提起的对抗程序中，而 Kwok 先生是——\n\n法庭：是你的当事人提起的。你的当事人 HK International（香港国际）启动了该对抗程序。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：即——而且 Kwok 先生不是当事人。因此，这是非当事第三方传票，不是在破产案件中——\n\n法庭：好的。好吧。如果你要采取该立场，那么你就不能抱怨受托人为向 Kwok 先生送达而必须承担的费用。因此，你自行承担风险。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：再说一次，我们当时——我不知道已经作出了最终答复。我们将与我们的当事人，即 Kwok 先生协商。但是，再说一次，在该对抗程序中，他是一名第三方证人。而且，您知道，他将自行酌情指导我们并向我们作出指示。\n\n法庭：你在证人和证据清单中将 Kwok 先生列为证人。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：而且我们实际上已经\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 58 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Depsins（德普辛斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022\n\n1 已告知——我相信我们已经告知受托人的律师，根据该决定正在对此作出修改。\n\n2\n\n3 法庭：根据不接受传票送达的决定？\n\n4\n\n5 KINDSETH 律师：以及不出庭作证。\n\n6\n\n7 法庭：好的。律师，你可以采取任何你认为适当的行动。如果你们不——如果他们不接受送达，你就向法庭提交适当文件，法庭将据此作出处理。好吗？\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11 BONGARTZ 律师：谢谢。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n12 法庭：关于 HK International（香港国际）显然在主案中就聘任一名新船长提出的一项动议，受托人是否已阅悉该动议？\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16 BONGARTZ 律师：我们已阅悉，法官阁下。\n\n17 法庭：你们是否反对该动议？\n\n18\n\n19 BONGARTZ 律师：我们有两点意见，已向债务人的律师提出，据我们了解，对方可以接受。实质上，是要确保新任船长在与原船长过去及目前相同的程度上，继续受有关 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）的约定命令约束。\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25 法庭：完全正确。他们必须受以下规定约束——即不得将该船只移出 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的可航行水域，以及所有其他规定。Kindseth 律师，该命令中将对此作出明确规定，对吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Depsins（德普辛斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022 59\n\nKINDSETH 律师：是，法官阁下。我相信其中已经载明了这一点，但如未载明，我们将予以澄清。当然，这原本就是我们的意图。我们曾表示将向新船长送达。我计划在船长交接之前，于周四或周五向该船长送达。\n\n法庭：是否还有其他人希望就更换 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）船长的动议发言？\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：法官阁下，如您希望听取委员会的意见，我仍在征询委员会意见。但我将建议他们同意该许可，但须受受托人律师所提到的限制条件约束。\n\n法庭：嗯，我不希望就此另行举行听证会。我们在这里。我们都在这里。没有理由就此另行举行听证会。要么会有一名船长，要么不会有一名船长。如果有人反对，我现在就要知道。\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：我不能说我们有反对意见，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 59 页，共 62 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 60 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Depsins（德普辛斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022 60\n\n法官阁下。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：我相信 PAX 已经表示，他们不反对更换船长。\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：法官阁下，我是 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。PAX 不反对。我只是希望非常明确地说明，我刚刚想起来，动议中有些内容涉及 Yachtzoo（游艇动物园）未能准确记得何时向某些人送达某些材料。希望律师能够保证，我们已非常明确地向 Yachtzoo 传达了其义务。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：正确。显然，这件事发生是因为 Yachtzoo 不幸未能记得更换船长需要法院命令。此外，该船长直到 December 23rd 才发出通知。为使记录非常明确，我们预期，而且这将会发生，即该船长将遵守该约定，因此该新船长将必须签署声明。新船长将必须获送达该命令的副本。因此，我们预期将就该船长完全遵守关于归还 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）的约定命令。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，关于一些\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 61 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Depsins（德普辛斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022 61\n\n已经提交的动议，我相信是在昨天或前天提交的，此刻我甚至不确定，也可能是今天提交的。让我们看看。它们是在 30th 提交的，而法庭在 30th，即星期五闭庭，法庭昨天，即 2nd，也闭庭，但是——星期五提交的是一项请求授权 HK International Funds Investment（香港国际基金投资）聘任 James Pizzarusso（詹姆斯·皮扎鲁索）担任 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）船长的动议，以及一项加速处理动议。我对加速处理动议的驳回已无实际意义，因为我们刚刚已在记录中讨论了该动议。动议 ECF 1272 获准，但须以所有当事人审阅拟议命令，并且你将该命令提交给法庭书记官，同时抄送所有当事人为条件，这样我便知道每个人都同意该命令。好吗？\n\nKINDSETH 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。非常感谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。那么，今天下午还有任何需要讨论的事项吗？\n\nDESPINS 律师：有，法官阁下。非常简短，不在议程上，也无需评论，但我只是想确保法官阁下知道，抗议活动一直未曾停止。而且不仅如此，它还扩大了。截至今天，在我前配偶的住所、在我两个女儿的住所，一处在 Los Angeles（洛杉矶），一处在 Boston（波士顿）。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1307 提交于 01/09/23 录入于 01/09/23 18:36:55 第 62 页，共 62 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/Depsins（德普辛斯）诉 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）— January 3, 2022\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4 法庭：好的。感谢你提供最新情况。\n\n5\n\n6 还有其他人有进一步事项吗？\n\n7 （无人回应。）\n\n8 法庭：好的。至此，Kwok Chapter 11（郭文贵第 11 章）案件及相关对抗程序的听证会结束，现休庭。\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11 （程序于下午 4:56 休庭。）\n\n12 本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭记录员兼文字记录员，兹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\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n18 January 9, 2023\n\n19 Christine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Despins","CIPA","Paul Hastings","Guo","Luc Despins","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":8,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1272,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":15719,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-09 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-09","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:43:22"}