{"id":"court_ctb_1403_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1403,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-01-29","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"听证会转录本 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1403（2023-01-29立案）。该文件为2023年1月17日破产法官 Julie A. Manning 主持的听证会笔录，记录 HK International、破产受托人及 PAX 就「Lady May」号游艇费用修改同意命令（ECF #930）的拟议文书进行陈述，法官就命令草案的修订表述与各方律师进行了审阅与确认。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1403 (filed 2023-01-29). This document is the certified transcript of a hearing held on January 17, 2023, before Bankruptcy Judge Julie A. Manning, where counsel for HK International, the Chapter 11 Trustee, and PAX discussed the terms of a proposed modified consent order regarding Lady May yacht expenses, and the court reviewed draft revisions to clarify the modification history.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, GENEVER HOLDINGS \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut CORPORATION and GENEVER \\* January 17, 2023 HOLDINGS, LLC, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO MODIFY ORDER GRANTING HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC'S MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING REPAIR RESERVE FOR THE LADY MAY BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Movant, H.K. CHRISTOPHER BLAU, ESQ. International Funds Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. Investments, USA, Ltd.: 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: PATRICK LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 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\nHo Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023 2 (Proceedings commenced at 2:07 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case no. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings, LLC. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee's counsel, please. MR. LINSEY: Patrick Linsey, of Neubert, Pepe and Monteith, for the Chapter 11 Trustee. Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Counsel for PAX. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, Robinson and Cole, Connecticut counsel for PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for H.K. International Funds Investments. MR. BLAU: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Chris Blau, from Zeisler and Zeisler, for H.K. International Funds Investments, USA, Limited, LLC. THE COURT: Good afternoon. So we had court this morning, but I know that you all submitted an order that we had talked about last week that you submitted today. So I've look at it. The only change I would make\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 3 of 17\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023<br>3                           |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | is when you get to the first ordered paragraph, and the     |\n| 2  | second ordered paragraph -- I think it's just those two,    |\n| 3  | actually.<br>I would just say the consent order is further  |\n| 4  | modified.<br>Okay?<br>And we can do that, if you have no    |\n| 5  | problem with it.                                            |\n| 6  | The reason I'm saying that is you do refer to the           |\n| 7  | first modified order.                                       |\n| 8  | But I'm just saying if some other court needs to            |\n| 9  | look at this and try to understand what -- you know, it's   |\n| 10 | not that this is supplanting the first modified consent     |\n| 11 | order. It's just an additional modification, or a further   |\n| 12 | modification to the order -- to the original consent order, |\n| 13 | 930, ECF 930.                                               |\n| 14 | So does that work for everyone if we add the words          |\n| 15 | -- we add the word, excuse me, further between the words    |\n| 16 | hereby and modified in the first and second ordered         |\n| 17 | paragraphs on page 2 and 3 of your proposed order?          |\n| 18 | MR. BLAU:<br>That change is fine for HK, Your Honor.        |\n| 19 | MR. LINSEY:<br>That's fine for the trustee, Your            |\n| 20 | Honor.                                                      |\n| 21 | MS. SMITH:<br>Likewise for PAX, Your Honor.                 |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                    |\n| 23 | I guess the only other thing I could do, to be              |\n| 24 | fully -- since I'm trying to address a concern about        |\n| 25 | somebody in the future not understanding what this all      |\n|    |                                                             |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 4 of 17\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023 4 means, see the fourth ordered paragraph on page 3 where it says, Ordered that except as modified herein, the provisions of the consent order remain in effect. We might need to say except as modified herein and in the -- MR. LINSEY: Well, Your Honor, on the first page, the definition of consent order is ECF no. 930, as modified. So I think that would be embedded in the definition -- in the defined term. THE COURT: I hope somebody gets that. MR. LINSEY: Okay. I don't -- I'm just trying -- THE COURT: I hear you. MR. LINSEY: -- to explain the drafting. THE COURT: I hear what you're saying but when you've got somebody -- if someone has to look at this that has no idea what's going on, they're going to say what? I mean, I would. MR. LINSEY: Yeah. I hear you. THE COURT: And I know what's going on pretty much with regard to the orders anyway. MR. LINSEY: Sure. THE COURT: Yes, because if you look at what you're talking about, Attorney Linsey, you're talking about the first six lines on the order of page 1. MR. LINSEY: Correct. The sixth line. The\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023 5 parenthetical. THE COURT: Yeah, it says ECF -- as modified, the consent order. But it doesn't tell you that it's already been modified at 12455 right there. It doesn't tell you that. It tells you that there's a -- later down the page it says tells you there's a modification that's in 1255. This court having issued that certain consent order modifying consent order -- I mean, all I'm saying is I don't think it's as clear as it could be but -- MR. LINSEY: As long as -- first of all, I understand. I don't disagree with Your Honor's point. I think I was just trying to explain the drafting process such as -- I was not directly involved in it, but just as I'm aware of it. As long -- if there were a reference that said the consent order as modified by -- my concern there would be if we say -- if that referenced the consent order says as modified by X, but then does every other reference to the consent order need to say as modified by X. THE COURT: Well, it either should say nothing. It should just say ECF 930, the consent order, because down below it says This court, having issued that certain consent order modifying consent order, granting H.K. International's motion for -- you know, that -- you know\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 6 of 17\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023 6 what I'm saying? MR. LINSEY: So what if we did this, subject to Your Honor and, obviously, counsel responding. In the parenthetical, rather than saying ECF 930 - - I should be standing. I apologize, Your Honor. ECF 930, as modified, the consent order, we said ECF 930 as modified by ECF 1276, the consent order to clarify what's modifying it. THE COURT: I don't know what 1276 is. MR. LINSEY: I'm sorry. 1255. Whatever the -- yeah, the prior order that modified the consent order. THE COURT: I don't know. What do you all think? I just want it to be clear. Everything that's modified is modifying 930, right? MR. LINSEY: Correct. THE COURT: SoI think it should just say ECF 930, the consent order, because after that then you then go -- then you then have language, ths court having issued that certain consent order modifying consent order, and then it refers to 1255, right? MR. LINSEY: Well, what if we defined -- where it's presently defined as the consent order, we define that as the original consent order. And then after the reference to 1255 we have a parenthetical that says the original consent order, as modified by 1255, the consent order --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 7 of 17\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023 7 THE COURT: I think you could do it a different way. MR. LINSEY: Okay. THE COURT: I think you take out as modified in the sixth line of this order in the parenthetical, ECF 930, the consent order. Then in -- top of page 2 where it says the motion for order establishing the Lady -- reserve for the Lady May, then you put the first modified consent order, right? That's how you define it. The first modified consent order. Because this is now the second -- or you could say first consent -- I would call it the first modified consent order and then this is going to be the second modified consent order. MR. LINSEY: Well, I think they're two -- begging Your Honor's pardon, I think they're two separate -- I understand that the prior order modified -- I understand that the prior order with consent on this motion modified what's defined herein as the consent order. However, the consent order still has independent effect such that -- THE COURT: I understand all that. And all we're saying is that the first modified order modified the consent order. And this order modifies the consent order again to provide different provisions. The\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 8 of 17\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023<br>8                              |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | order -- the so ordered paragraphs in this order don't         |\n| 2  | appear in the first modified order, do they?                   |\n| 3  | MR. BLAU:<br>No, Your Honor.<br>They don't.                    |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>They're all separate modifications.              |\n| 5  | These are -- so when it comes to the end of the day and        |\n| 6  | we're going to have a hearing on this, there's going to be     |\n| 7  | three orders I need to look at;<br>the original consent order, |\n| 8  | the first modified consent order and the second modified       |\n| 9  | consent order.<br>Maybe it will be more. Who knows.            |\n| 10 | They're not -- none of them replace -- the first               |\n| 11 | order doesn't replace the consent order and the second order   |\n| 12 | doesn't replace the first order -- modified order or the       |\n| 13 | original consent order.<br>There's three orders I need to look |\n| 14 | at because they all have different provisions.                 |\n| 15 | And these two consent orders are modifying terms               |\n| 16 | and conditions in 930.<br>That's the way I read it.<br>And     |\n| 17 | that's why we're having this discussion.                       |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:<br>That's absolutely right, Your Honor.            |\n| 19 | The only thing I'm trying to do -- and I'm absolutely not      |\n| 20 | trying to -- as much as like the word nerd part of my brain    |\n| 21 | always likes to argue about semantics, I really try not to.    |\n| 22 | I just wanted to avoid a situation where every reference to    |\n| 23 | consent order in the order has to be changed to consent to     |\n| 24 | modify --                                                      |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>It doesn't have to be.<br>That's my              |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023 9 point. MR. LINSEY: Okay. THE COURT: That's exactly my point, that you take out as modified in the sixth line of the order. You've just talking about 930, the consent order. Then when you go on to the bottom of page 1, onto the top of page 2, you're talking about the first modified consent order. Then when you go down to the ordered paragraph it says the consent order, 930, is hereby further modified to authorize blah, blah, blah, because all of these ordered paragraphs in this document that I'm holding, which is ECF no. 1330, all of these ordered paragraphs do not appear in the first modified order. MR. LINSEY: But respectfully, Your Honor, I think that the consent -- in terms of the first thing on the third page, the order -- the consent order is hereby modified -- THE COURT: Hereby further modified. Further modified. MR. LINSEY: Further modified. THE COURT: That's how I started the whole hearing off. Further modified. It's already been modified once. This is the second time it's being modified. MR. LINSEY: Okay. THE COURT: That's the point.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 10 of 17\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023 10 MR. BLAU: Your Honor, in the second to last ordered paragraph on page 3 of docket 1330, as I understand Your Honor's point, it would say ordered that except as modified herein and in the -- THE COURT: And in the first modified consent order. MR. BLAU: Correct. The provision of the consent order, 930, is -- THE COURT: Remain in effect. MR. BLAU: Remain in effect. THE COURT: That is correct. MR. LINSEY: So is the idea that the penultimate paragraph on page 3, the order that except as modified herein provisions of the consent order -- THE COURT: Except as modified herein and in the first modified consent order. MR. LINSEY: Okay. THE COURT: Comma, the provisions of the consent order remain in effect, including, but not limited to, the handling of any repair reserve excess. MR. BLAU: Those changes would be fine with H.K. MR. LINSEY: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: I think it's much clearer that way. I mean, otherwise you got a court going what? What is this modifying? Is this changing -- someone could think that\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023 11 it's superceding a prior order. It's not superceding. All that's happening is 930 has been effect since October, I believe. Then 1220 -- the first modified -- and this was all in connection with me suggesting when there was an argument about this reserve issue, to take it in increments, right? You need to pay the people for -- I think the first modification paid like October through December or something, right? And how you're paying -- now you're making authorizations to pay through the end of February. It's like an interim cash collateral order. There's a first, there's a second, there's a third. That's what this is, right, but it goes back and it relates back to the original consent order entered in October. So I think those changes make it more clear, because then what are you going to say every single time? ECF no. 30, as modified by the first consent order, the second consent order, the third consent order, and then still call it the consent order? That doesn't make any sense because then you still have to look at four orders. That's the point. The point is the first modified consent order and the second modified consent order do not override or supercede the consent order except for as expressly stated in the modified orders. Case 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 11 of 17\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 12 of 17\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023 12 MR. LINSEY: I understand Your Honor's point. I think you're right. That's a clear way to put it. Why don't we -- THE COURT: I can make these changes. We can do that. There's no need to submit a new order. We can do this. Because all I'm doing is I'm deleting one word on page 1, adding in the top of page 2, defining 1255 as the first modified consent order. The bottom of page 2, in the first ordered paragraph, adding the word further in between the words hereby and modified -- well, fine. If you guys want to do it, that's fine. I mean, whatever you want to do. MR. LINSEY: Respectfully -- THE COURT: But that's what it's going to say. It's going to say what I just said it's going to say. MR. LINSEY: I understand that, Your Honor. I just want my client to be able to lay eyes on it. That's all. I understand -- and I will tell him that Your Honor was very clear about that. THE COURT: It's going to say what I said it's going to say or I'm not going to enter it. Because that's - - look, we have to understand that probably some other court's going to look at this at some time. I'm not going to have a situation where if I'm confused, how do you think another court's going to be,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 13 of 17\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023<br>13                              |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | right?<br>I need it to be as clear as it possibly can be.       |\n| 2  | So let's go over this again so we make sure we're               |\n| 3  | all on the same page.<br>Page 1, line 6, that starts Lady May   |\n| 4  | (ECF No. 930, delete the words as modified).<br>Top of page     |\n| 5  | 2, first line, where it says ECF No. 1255.<br>Before that add   |\n| 6  | the words the and then in quotations first modified consent     |\n| 7  | order, ECF No. 1255.                                            |\n| 8  | Then at the ordered paragraph at the bottom of                  |\n| 9  | page 2, that the consent order is hereby further modified.      |\n| 10 | Okay.<br>Top of page 3, Ordered that the consent order is       |\n| 11 | hereby further modified.<br>Then the fourth ordered paragraph   |\n| 12 | on page 3, Except -- Ordered that except as modified herein,    |\n| 13 | and in the first modified consent order, then the remaining     |\n| 14 | language remains the same.                                      |\n| 15 | Now that's it.<br>That's all that needs to be done.             |\n| 16 | With regard to the scheduling of the hearing                    |\n| 17 | though I can't tell you right now when this is going to be      |\n| 18 | scheduled and I can't tell you -- I mean, I believe it can      |\n| 19 | be scheduled before February 28th.<br>I'm pretty sure but I'm   |\n| 20 | not scheduling it right at the moment.<br>So I'll schedule it   |\n| 21 | once this order enters.                                         |\n| 22 | Do you want me to put a date in that paragraph                  |\n| 23 | then?<br>Is that what you're looking for?<br>A date and time of |\n| 24 | hearing in that final paragraph on page 3?                      |\n| 25 | MR. BLAU:<br>Speaking for H.K., Your Honor, if Your             |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023 14 Honor wanted to put a date and time certain in that range of February 15th to February 28th, H.K. would not have an objection to that. The objective was to make sure that any further hearing on the motion to modify, which is docket 1216, was heard after the PJR hearing, but before the March expenses come due. So we're trying to thread the needle while not scheduling something on the court's calendar without asking you, Your Honor. So yes, if you wanted to -- if the court wanted to pick something between February 15 and February 28th, I think that would be -- THE COURT: And nobody has any objection to any date and time I pick in that time frame? Because I don't want to pick a date and then have somebody say well, I'm not available. Or this can't happen, because then I'll have to enter another order. MR. BLAU: Speaking for H.K., Your Honor, I think we can make someone available in that range. MR. LINSEY: I would need to talk with the trustee to confirm dates, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. What you're going to do then -- that's fair. And I'm sure PAX probably has the same -- this is what you're going to do. You're going to take this order and you're going Case 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 14 of 17\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 15 of 17\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023<br>15                           |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | to fix it the way we just talked and then you're all going   |\n| 2  | to talk about dates for a hearing and then you're going to   |\n| 3  | submit three dates between -- and times between February 15  |\n| 4  | and February 28th, when you submit this order, that          |\n| 5  | everybody agrees to and I'll pick the one that works best    |\n| 6  | for the court's schedule. How about that?                    |\n| 7  | MR. LINSEY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>I hear a resounding yes.                       |\n| 9  | MR. LINSEY:<br>Are there any days that are better            |\n| 10 | for the court in that range or --                            |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>There are no days that are better.             |\n| 12 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Okay.                                         |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>And there's no days that are worse.<br>I       |\n| 14 | mean, it is what it is.<br>The 17th and the 24th and -- I'm  |\n| 15 | sorry.<br>The 21st and the 28th are calendar hearing dates.  |\n| 16 | Regular calendar hearings.                                   |\n| 17 | The 21st probably is not the best day because                |\n| 18 | we're closed on the 20th for President's Day, okay.          |\n| 19 | The 22nd, actually is not a great day.<br>There's a          |\n| 20 | trial scheduled.<br>Whether that goes forward or not I don't |\n| 21 | know, but it's scheduled.<br>The 22nd and the 23rd.          |\n| 22 | So to answer your question the 15th looks okay.              |\n| 23 | The 16th looks okay. The 27th looks okay and the 28th in the |\n| 24 | afternoon looks okay.<br>Okay?                               |\n| 25 | MR. LINSEY:<br>We'll get back to Your Honor.                 |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 16 of 17\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023 16 THE COURT: All right. I think that's the best way to proceed, right? MR. LINSEY: I appreciate Your Honor's point about the changes. I'm sorry if I was a little slow to pick up on them. THE COURT: No, it's fine. I just -- you know, I try to look at things in every case -- and it doesn't mean I do it right, but I try to look at things in every case like what if somebody else needed to look at this? Will they understand what's happening? And like I said, I'm sure I don't do it right all the time, but I try to make it as clear as possible so that somebody doesn't have to go back and look at motions, or look at other things. You know, that's what I try to do. MR. LINSEY: I appreciate it, Your Honor. THE COURT: So that's where that came from. MR. LINSEY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm just trying to make it as clear as possible. All right? So is there anything further we need to address this afternoon? MR. BLAU: Not for H.K., Your Honor. MR. LINSEY: Just five housekeeping -- no, I'm kidding. I apologize, Your Honor. Nothing, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 17 of 17\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok-January 17, 2023<br>17                         |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Anything -- counsel for PAX?        |\n| 2  | MS. SMITH:<br>Nothing.                                     |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>So this was the       |\n| 4  | last matter on today's calendar so court is adjourned.     |\n| 5  | (Proceedings concluded at 2:28 p.m.)                       |\n| 6  | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court             |\n| 7  | Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a  |\n| 8  | correct transcript from the official electronic sound      |\n| 9  | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |\n| 10 |                                                            |\n| 11 |                                                            |\n| 12 | January 26, 2023                                           |\n| 13 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                      |\n| 14 |                                                            |\n| 15 |                                                            |\n| 16 |                                                            |\n| 17 |                                                            |\n| 18 |                                                            |\n| 19 |                                                            |\n| 20 |                                                            |\n| 21 |                                                            |\n| 22 |                                                            |\n| 23 |                                                            |\n| 24 |                                                            |\n| 25 |                                                            |\n|    |                                                            |","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n关于：\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）、GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（日辉控股公司）以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（日辉控股有限责任公司），\n债务人。\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n2023年1月17日\n修改批准 HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）关于为 LADY MAY（梅夫人号）设立维修准备金之裁定的动议听证笔录\n审理法官：JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下，美国破产法院法官\n出庭人员：\n动议人 H.K. International Funds Investments, USA, Ltd. 的代理人：\nCHRISTOPHER BLAU（克里斯托弗·布劳）律师\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）的代理人：\nANNECCA SMITH（安妮卡·史密斯）律师\nRobinson & Cole\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n第 11 章受托人的代理人：\nPATRICK LINSEY（帕特里克·林赛）律师\nNeubert, Pepe and Monteith\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n诉讼程序由电子录音设备记录，笔录由转录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n郭文贵-2023年1月17日 第 2 页（诉讼程序于下午 2:07 开始）\n法庭副书记官：案号 22-50073，郭文贵、日辉控股公司及日辉控股有限责任公司。\n法庭：下午好。请各位在记录中登记出庭信息，先从第 11 章受托人的代理律师开始。\n林赛律师：Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 律所的帕特里克·林赛，代表第 11 章受托人。法官阁下，下午好。\n法庭：下午好。PAX（太盟）的代理律师。\n史密斯律师：法官阁下，下午好。Robinson and Cole 律所的安妮卡·史密斯，PAX 的康涅狄格州代理律师。\n法庭：下午好。还有 H.K. International Funds Investments 的代理律师。\n布劳律师：法官阁下，下午好。Zeisler and Zeisler 律所的克里斯·布劳，代表 HK International Funds Investments, USA, Limited, LLC。\n法庭：下午好。我们今天上午开过庭，但我知道你们提交了一份我们上周讨论过的裁定草案，你们是今天提交的。我看过了。我唯一想作出的修改\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1403 归档于 01/29/23 录入于 01/29/23 14:43:37 第 3 页，共 17 页\n\n郭文贵-2023年1月17日\n1 是在涉及第一个裁定段落和\n2 第二个裁定段落时——实际上我认为就这两处。\n3 我觉得只写该同意裁定被“进一步修改”（further modified）即可。\n4 可以吗？\n如果我们这么改，大家没\n5 意见吧。\n6 我之所以这么说，是因为你们确实提到了\n7 第一份修改裁定。\n8 但我的意思是，如果有其他法院需要\n9 审查这份文书并试图理解其中的内容——你们懂的，这\n10 并不是要取代第一份修改后的同意\n11 裁定。它只是对该裁定——对原同意裁定\n12 （930，即 ECF 930）的额外修改或进一步\n13 修改。\n14 所以，如果我们在你们提交的裁定草案第 2 页和第 3 页的第一和第二个裁定段落中的\n15 “特此”（hereby）和“修改”（modified）两个词之间\n16 加上“进一步”（further）这个词，抱歉，\n17 大家觉得可以吗？\n18 布劳律师：法官阁下，该项修改对 HK 而言没有问题。\n19 林赛律师：法官阁下，受托人这边也可以。\n20\n21 史密斯律师：法官阁下，PAX 这边同样可以。\n22 法庭：谢谢。\n23 我想，为了完全周全起见，我唯一能做的另一件事——既然我是在试图解决一个令人担忧的问题，即将来有人可能不理解这所有内容的\n24 含义，\n25\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1403 归档于 01/29/23 录入于 01/29/23 14:43:37 第 4 页，共 17 页\n\n郭文贵-2023年1月17日 第 4 页 请看第 3 页的第四个裁定段落，其中写道：“兹裁定，除本裁定所修改的内容外，同意裁定的各项条款继续有效。”我们可能需要表述为“除本裁定及……中所修改的内容外”。\n林赛律师：嗯，法官阁下，在第一页上，“同意裁定”的定义是经修改的 ECF 第 930 号文件。因此我认为这已经包含在该定义——即已定义的术语中了。\n法庭：希望有人能看得懂。\n林赛律师：好的。我没有——我只是试图——\n法庭：我明白你的意思。\n林赛律师：——解释一下起草逻辑。\n法庭：我理解你说的，但当有人——如果某个对此案一无所知的人来看这份文件，他们会觉得莫名其妙。我的意思是，换作我也会这样。\n林赛律师：是的。我明白您的意思。\n法庭：而且不管怎么说，我对这些裁定的来龙去脉其实已经相当清楚了。\n林赛律师：那是当然。\n法庭：是的，因为如果你看看你所提到的部分，林赛律师，你指的是裁定第 1 页的前六行。\n林赛律师：没错。第六行。那个\n\n郭文贵-2023年1月17日 第 5 页 括号里的内容。\n法庭：对，上面写着“ECF——经修改的同意裁定”。但它并没有在那里直接告诉你它已经在 12455 号中被修改过了。它没告诉你这一点。它只告诉你有一处——在页面稍后部分它写道，告诉你有在 1255 号中的修改。“本院已发布该特定修改同意裁定的同意裁定……”——我的意思是，我只是觉得这不够清晰，但是——\n林赛律师：只要——首先，我明白。我并不反对法官阁下的观点。我想我只是在试图解释当时的起草过程，尽管——我没有直接参与其中，但我了解相关情况。只要——如果有一处表述为“由……修改的同意裁定”——我所担心的在于，如果我们说——如果该处提及同意裁定时表述为“经 X 修改”，那么之后每一次提到同意裁定时，是否都必须表述为“经 X 修改”。\n法庭：嗯，要么就什么都不加。就直接写“ECF 930，即同意裁定”，因为在下方已经写了“本院已发布该特定修改同意裁定的同意裁定，批准 H.K. International 关于……的动议”——你们懂我的意思吧？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1403 归档于 01/29/23 录入于 01/29/23 14:43:37 第 6 页，共 17 页\n\n郭文贵-2023年1月17日 第 6 页 你们明白我说的意思吗？\n林赛律师：那么如果我们这样做呢，当然这要以法官阁下以及各位代理律师的回应为准。在括号中，与其写“ECF 930——我应该站起来说话。法官阁下，我很抱歉。与其写“ECF 930，经修改的同意裁定”，不如写成“经 ECF 1276 修改的 ECF 930，即同意裁定”，以澄清到底是什么对其进行了修改。\n法庭：我不知道 1276 是什么。\n林赛律师：对不起。是 1255。不管是哪个——是的，就是修改了同意裁定的前一份裁定。\n法庭：我不知道。大家怎么看？我只是希望它清晰明了。所有修改的内容都是在修改 930，对吧？\n林赛律师：没错。\n法庭：所以我认为只要写“ECF 930，即同意裁定”即可，因为在那之后你们接着写——接着就有这样的表述，“本院已发布该特定修改同意裁定的同意裁定”，然后提到了 1255，对吧？\n林赛律师：那么，如果我们将——目前定义为“同意裁定”的地方，我们将其定义为“原同意裁定”。然后在提及 1255 之后加上一个括号，写上“经 1255 修改的原同意裁定，即同意裁定”——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1403 归档于 01/29/23 录入于 01/29/23 14:43:37 第 7 页，共 17 页\n\n郭文贵-2023年1月17日 第 7 页\n法庭：我认为可以用另一种方式来处理。\n林赛律师：好的。\n法庭：我认为可以把本裁定第六行括号里的“经修改”（as modified）删掉，只保留“ECF 930，即同意裁定”。然后在——第 2 页顶部写着“关于为梅夫人号设立准备金的裁定动议”的地方，在那里写上“第一份修改后的同意裁定”，对吧？你们就这样定义它：“第一份修改后的同意裁定”。因为这现在是第二份——或者你们可以说“第一份同意……”——我会称其为“第一份修改后的同意裁定”，而这份将是“第二份修改后的同意裁定”。\n林赛律师：嗯，我认为这是两份——恕我冒昧，法官阁下，我认为这是两份各自独立的——我理解先前的裁定修改了——我理解基于该动议经各方同意作出的先前裁定，修改了本裁定中所定义的“同意裁定”。然而，该同意裁定仍然具有独立的效力，因此——\n法庭：这些我都明白。我们所说的无非是，第一份修改裁定修改了该同意裁定。而本裁定再次修改该同意裁定，以规定不同的条款。本裁定中的——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1403 归档于 01/29/23 录入于 01/29/23 14:43:37 第 8 页，共 17 页\n\n郭文贵-2023年1月17日\n1 本裁定中“兹裁定”的那些段落，并没有\n2 出现在第一份修改裁定中，对吧？\n3 布劳律师：是的，法官阁下。确实没有。\n4 法庭：它们都是各自独立的修改。\n5 这些是——因此归根结底，当我们\n6 就此举行听证会时，将会有\n7 三份裁定需要我去查阅；\n8 原同意裁定、第一份修改后的同意裁定以及第二份修改后的同意\n9 裁定。\n可能以后还会更多，谁知道呢。\n10 它们并不是——它们谁也没有取代——第一份\n11 裁定并没有取代该同意裁定，而第二份裁定\n12 也没有取代第一份裁定——即第一份修改裁定或\n13 原同意裁定。\n我有三份裁定需要查阅，\n14 因为它们都包含不同的条款。\n15 这两份同意裁定都是在修改 930 中的条款\n16 和条件。\n我是这样理解的。\n这也是\n17 我们现在进行讨论的原因。\n18 林赛律师：完全没错，法官阁下。\n19 我唯一想做的——而且我绝不是\n20 想——尽管我脑子里那部分文字强迫症总是\n21 喜欢争辩文字细节，但我真的尽量不这么做。\n22 我只是想避免出现这样一种情况，即裁定中每次提到\n23 “同意裁定”都必须改成“同意\n24 修改……”——\n25 法庭：根本不必这样。\n这就是我的\n\n郭文贵-2023年1月17日 第 9 页 观点。\n林赛律师：好的。\n法庭：这正是我的观点，即你们把裁定第六行的“经修改”删掉。你们谈论的就只是 930，即同意裁定。然后当你们翻到第 1 页底部并进入第 2 页顶部时，你们谈论的是第一份修改后的同意裁定。然后当你们往下看到裁定段落时，上面写着“特此进一步修改同意裁定 930 以授权某某事项”，因为我手中拿的这份文件（即 ECF 第 1330 号文件）中的所有这些裁定段落，所有这些裁定段落都没有出现在第一份修改裁定中。\n林赛律师：但恕我直言，法官阁下，我认为该同意——就第三页的第一项而言，该裁定——“特此修改同意裁定”——\n法庭：特此进一步修改。进一步修改。\n林赛律师：进一步修改。\n法庭：我一开始整个听证会就是这么说的。进一步修改。它已经被修改过一次了。这是第二次被修改。\n林赛律师：好的。\n法庭：这就是重点所在。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1403 归档于 01/29/23 录入于 01/29/23 14:43:37 第 10 页，共 17 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月17日 第10页 MR. BLAU（布劳先生）：法官阁下，在卷宗 docket 1330 第3页倒数第二段裁定段落中，按照我对法官阁下意思的理解，它应当表述为：现裁定，除本文及—— 法庭：以及在第一份修改后的同意裁定中。 布劳先生：没错。同意裁定 930 的条款是—— 法庭：继续有效。 布劳先生：继续有效。 法庭：没错。 MR. LINSEY（林赛先生）：那么意思是，第3页倒数第二段，裁定除本文修改外同意裁定的条款—— 法庭：除本文及第一份修改后的同意裁定修改的内容外。 林赛先生：好的。 法庭：逗号，同意裁定的各项条款继续有效，包括但不限于对任何维修准备金结余的处理。 布劳先生：这些修改 H.K.（郭文贵）方面可以接受。 林赛先生：法官阁下，这样可以。 法庭：我认为这样清楚得多。我是说，否则别的法院看了会纳闷：这是在修改什么？这是在变更——有人可能会认为\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月17日 第11页 它取代了先前的裁定。它并没有取代。实际情况只是，据我了解 930 从10月起就一直有效。然后是 1220 ——第一份修改裁定——这一切都源于在就准备金问题发生争执时，我建议逐步处理，对吧？你需要给那些人付款——我认为第一次修改支付了大概10月到12月的费用之类的，对吧？而你们现在是如何支付的——现在你们是在授权支付截至2月底的费用。这就像一份临时现金担保裁定。有第一份、第二份、第三份。这就是它的性质，对吧，但它回溯并关联到10月份作出的最初同意裁定。所以我认为这些修改能让它更清楚，因为否则你们每次都要怎么说？ECF No. 30，经第一份同意裁定、第二份同意裁定、第三份同意裁定修改，然后仍然称其为同意裁定？这毫无意义，因为那样你仍然得查阅四份裁定。这就是关键所在。关键在于，第一份修改后的同意裁定和第二份修改后的同意裁定并不推翻或取代同意裁定，除非修改后的裁定中有明确说明。Case 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 11 of 17\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 12 of 17\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月17日 第12页 林赛先生：我明白法官阁下的意思了。我认为您是对的。这样表述很清楚。不如我们—— 法庭：我可以做这些修改。我们可以这么办。不需要重新提交一份新裁定。我们可以直接处理。因为我所做的只是在第1页删掉一个词，在第2页顶部增加内容，将 1255 界定为第一份修改后的同意裁定。在第2页底部，在第一段裁定段落中，在 hereby（特此）和 modified（修改）两词之间加上 further（进一步）——好吧，行。如果你们想自己改，也行。我是说，随你们便。 林赛先生：恕我冒昧—— 法庭：但内容就必须这么写。就按我刚才说的那么写。 林赛先生：法官阁下，我明白。我只是想让我的当事人能过目一下。仅此而已。我明白——而且我会告诉他法官阁下对此要求非常明确。 法庭：内容必须按我说的写，否则我不会签署下达。因为那——听着，我们必须明白，将来很可能会有其他法院来审查这份文件。我绝不能容许出现我自己都觉得混乱的情况，要是我都觉得乱，你想想其他法院会怎么想，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 13 of 17\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月17日 第13页\n1 对吧？我需要它尽可能地清楚明白。\n2 那么我们再过一遍，确保我们\n3 大家的理解完全一致。\n第1页第6行，以 Lady May（Lady May 游艇）开头那处\n4 （ECF No. 930，删除 as modified [经修改的] 这几个词）。\n第2页\n5 顶部第一行，写着 ECF No. 1255 的地方。\n在那之前加上\n6 the 这个词，然后加引号 first modified consent\n7 order（第一份修改后的同意裁定），ECF No. 1255。\n8 然后在第2页底部的\n9 裁定段落中，写明 the consent order is hereby further modified（同意裁定特此进一步修改）。\n10 好的。\n第3页顶部，Ordered that the consent order is\n11 hereby further modified（裁定同意裁定特此进一步修改）。\n然后是第3页上的\n12 第四个裁定段落，Except —— Ordered that except as modified herein（除 —— 现裁定，除本文修改外），\n13 and in the first modified consent order（以及第一份修改后的同意裁定中修改的内容外），随后的其余\n14 语句保持不变。\n15 现在就这样。\n需要做的就只有这些。\n16 不过关于听证会的时间安排，\n17 我现在无法告诉你们具体将定在\n18 什么时候，我也无法告诉你们——我是说，我相信可以\n19 安排在2月28日之前。\n我基本可以确定，但我\n20 目前暂时不作排期。\n因此我会在\n21 本裁定下达后进行排期。\n22 那么你们希望我在该段落中填入一个日期吗？\n23 这就是你们所希望的吗？\n在第3页最后一段中填入听证会的\n24 日期和时间？\n25 布劳先生：\n法官阁下，代表 H.K. 而言，如果法官\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月17日 第14页 阁下希望在2月15日至2月28日这个范围内确定一个确切的日期和时间，H.K. 对此不会有异议。我们的目的是确保对修改动议（即卷宗 docket 1216）的任何进一步听证，都安排在 PJR（判决前救济）听证会之后、但在3月份费用到期之前进行。所以我们是在试图把握平衡，同时又不在未征询法官阁下意见的情况下直接把事情排进法院的日程表。所以是的，如果您想——如果法庭想在2月15日至2月28日之间挑选一个时间，我认为那将是—— 法庭：那么对于我在该时间范围内挑选的任何日期和时间，没有任何人有异议吗？因为我不想定下一个日期后，又有人说过不来。或者说这不行，因为那样我还得再下一份裁定。 布劳先生：法官阁下，代表 H.K. 而言，我认为我们可以在该时间范围内安排人员出席。 林赛先生：法官阁下，我需要与破产受托人沟通以确认日期。 法庭：好的。那么你们接下来要做的是——这很合理。我相信 PAX（PAX）大概也是同样——你们要这么做。你们把这份裁定拿回去，你们将 Case 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 14 of 17\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 15 of 17\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月17日 第15页\n1 按照我们刚才讨论的方式进行修改，然后你们大家一起\n2 商讨听证会日期，接着你们要在\n3 提交本裁定时，在2月15日\n4 至2月28日之间提交三个\n5 各方均同意的日期和时间，我来挑选一个最适合\n6 法院日程的。这样如何？\n7 林赛先生：\n谢谢法官阁下。\n8 法庭：\n我听到了大家一致赞同。\n9 林赛先生：\n在该时间范围内，法院是否有任何更方便的\n10 日期，或者——\n11 法庭：\n没有哪个日子更方便。\n12 林赛先生：\n好的。\n13 法庭：\n也没有哪个日子更不方便。\n我\n14 是说，情况就是这样。\n17日和24日以及——抱歉。\n15 21日和28日是常规开庭听证日。\n16 常规排期听证。\n17 21日可能不是最好的日子，因为\n18 我们在20日因 President's Day（总统日）休假，好的。\n19 22日其实也不是个好日子。\n有一场\n20 审判排期。\n届时是否会进行我还\n21 不清楚，但已经排期了。\n22日和23日。\n22 因此回答你的问题，15日看着可以。\n23 16日看着可以。27日看着可以，28日\n24 下午看着可以。\n行吗？\n25 林赛先生：\n我们会再向法官阁下汇报。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 16 of 17\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月17日 第16页 法庭：好的。我认为这是最好的推进方式，对吧？ 林赛先生：感谢法官阁下就修改提出的意见。如果我刚才反应有点慢，还请见谅。 法庭：不，没关系。我只是——你知道，我在每个案件中都尽量去看——这并不意味着我都做对了，但我尽量在每个案件中去考虑，万一其他人需要查阅这份文件会怎样？他们能明白发生了什么吗？正如我所说，我相信自己不可能每一次都做得尽善尽美，但我尽量让它尽可能清晰，这样别人就不必回头去查动议或查其他材料。你知道，我就是想做到这一点。 林赛先生：感谢法官阁下。 法庭：所以我的考虑就是由此而来的。 林赛先生：好的。 法庭：我只是想让它尽可能清晰明白。好的？那么今天下午我们还有其他事情需要处理吗？ 布劳先生：法官阁下，H.K. 方面没有了。 林赛先生：就五件程序性琐事——开玩笑的。抱歉，法官阁下。没有了，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1403 Filed 01/29/23 Entered 01/29/23 14:43:37 Page 17 of 17\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月17日 第17页\n1 法庭：\n好的。还有什么——PAX 的代理律师？\n2 MS. SMITH（史密斯女士）：\n没有了。\n3 法庭：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n那么这是\n4 今天日程上的最后一项事务，现在休庭。\n5 （庭审于下午2点28分结束）\n6 本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭\n7 速记员与转录员，特此证明上述内容为\n8 上述标题案件庭审官方电子录音的\n9 正确转录文本。\n\n12 2023年1月26日\n13 Christine Fiore, CERT（认证速记员）","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":30,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":930,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1255,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1276,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1330,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4153,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-29 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-29","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:51:52"}