{"id":"court_ctb_1550_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1550,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-03-16","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 #1550（2023-03-16立案）。这是由法院认证记录员出具的2023年3月7日破产法官朱莉·A·曼宁主持的庭审官方笔录，内容涉及主案与附属诉讼中的多项动议，包括陈述理由令、藐视法庭裁决、传票合规以及上诉期间暂缓执行等议题。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui / 郭文贵), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1550 (filed 2023-03-16). A certified official transcript of the March 7, 2023 proceedings before Judge Julie A. Manning, covering multiple motions including show-cause contempt orders, subpoena compliance, stay pending appeal, and adversary proceeding matters.","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 A. DESPINS, et al., \\* Case No. 22-05027 (JAM) \\* Plaintiffs, \\* \\* v. \\* \\* BRAVO LUCK LIMITED, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,\\* Case No. 23-05002 (JAM) \\* Plaintiffs, \\* \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut v. \\* March 7, 2023 \\* HO WAN KWOK, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 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\nTRANSCRIPT OF ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT HOLD THE NON-RESPONDING PARTIES IN CONTEMPT OF COURT; ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT HOLD THE HK PARTIES IN CONTEMPT OF COURT; MOTION\n\nTO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 1/20/23; MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEBTOR SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY W/ ORDER TO COMPEL RE FRBP2004 SUBPOENAS; DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER HOLDING HIM IN CONTEMPT OF CORP. GOVERNANCE ORDER; MOTION TO SEAL SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE; OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION REQUEST AND MOTION TO QUASH AND/OR MODIFY 2004 EXAM SUBPOENAS; MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANT WITH BK. RULE 2004 SUBPOENA; CONTINUED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEAL AMENDED ADVERSARY COMPLAINTS; MOTION FOR AUTHORIZING SALES OFFICE AND SOTHEBY'S INTL. REALTY TO MARKET SHERRY-NETHERLAND APT FOR RENT; STATUS CONFERENCE MOTION FOR ORDER AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n\nAPPEARANCES:\n\n| For the Creditor, Pacific
Alliance Asia Opportunity
Fund L.P.: | ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.
Robinson & Cole
28 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT
06103 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY
10036 |\n| For the Chapter 11 Trustee: | NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ.
Paul Hastings LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY
10166 |\n| | PATRICK LINSEY, ESQ.
Neubert, Pepe and Monteith
195 Church Street
New Haven, CT
06510 |\n| Chapter 11 Trustee: | LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.
Paul Hastings LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY
10166 |\n\n2\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd.) 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: JONATHAN KAPLAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For The Sherry-Netherland, SHERRY J. MILLMAN, ESQ. Creditor: Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 TARUNA GARG, ESQ. Murtha Cullina 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the debtor, Mei Guo and STEPHEN KINDSETH, ESQ. HK International: ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. JAMES MORIARTY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 SAM DELLA FERA, JR., ESQ. Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi, P.C. 105 Eisenhower Parkway Rossland, NJ 07068 For UBS, AG, Interested LISA FRIED, ESQ. Party: Herbert Smith Freehills New York, LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 For Bravo Luck Limited, FRANCIS J. LAWALL, ESQ. Interested Party: Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP 1313 N. Market Street Washington, DC 19801\n\n3\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 4\n\n(Proceedings commenced at 1:18 p.m.)\n\n THE COURT: For today, where there's -- there are matters in the main case and then matters in adversary proceedings that the reporter -- not through the reporter's fault -- the reporter's not in court, so they do the best they can -- broke up the transcript into part of it filed in the main case, part of it filed in the adversary's, when that wasn't exactly accurate.\n\n So what we're going to make sure of in the future is that whenever anybody orders a transcript of a hearing like today's hearing, where they are matters scheduled in the main case and matters scheduled in the adversary, that the transcript will be filed both in the main case and in any adversary proceeding that is on the calendar for that day, so that there's no confusion and the transcriber doesn't have to make any kind of judgment call as to where this transcript should be and sit.\n\n So, for example, on the 20, I don't know what day it was, the 31st I think of January, there were hearings in the main case, and there were hearings in adversaries, and there was a hearing on a motion to seal that was in the main case, but it did affect an adversary.\n\n And long story short, although the transcript request didn't make any delineation between the main case and the adversary, the reporter did, and so the transcript\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 5 is broken down to partially filed in the main case and partially filed in an adversary, which is not completely accurate. So does anybody have any questions about that before the case gets called? (No response.) THE COURT: Okay. Then I would ask the courtroom deputy, she's going to call the main case and the adversary proceedings that are on the calendar for today. Then we're going to take appearances, and then we will start addressing the matters on the calendar in the order in which I will tell you they will be addressed. So I'm looking at the courtroom deputy, does that make sense? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Go right ahead then. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings, LLC.; Adversary No. 22-5027, Despins vs. Bravo Luck, Limited; and 23-5002, Genever Holdings, LLC vs Kwok. THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. If we could have appearances for the record please, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 5 of 183\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 6 of 183\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 6 Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of creditor PAX. And with me today is local counsel, Annecca Smith, of Robinson & Cole, on behalf of PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon to both of you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I'm sorry. I did not hear. You said who was with you? MR. SARNOFF: Annecca Smith from Robinson & Cole. Sorry, I was quiet. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, Connecticut counsel for the Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. KAPLAN: Good afternoon. Jonathan Kaplan on behalf of the committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 7 of 183\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
7 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | MS. GARG:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
You're going to have to come forward, |\n| 3 | Attorney Garg, because we won't be able to hear you on the |\n| 4 | microphones.
Okay?
Sorry.
It's just we won't be able to |\n| 5 | pick it up. |\n| 6 | MS. GARG:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Taruna |\n| 7 | Garg on behalf Sherry-Netherland.
I will be joined -- I |\n| 8 | expect to be joined by Sherry Millman also on behalf of |\n| 9 | Sherry-Netherland. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Who's the person that you expect to |\n| 11 | join you? |\n| 12 | MS. GARG:
Attorney Sherry -- Sherry Millman. |\n| 13 | She's of Strook. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 15 | MS. GARG:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Go ahead, Counsel. |\n| 17 | MR. KINDSETH:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Steve |\n| 18 | Kindseth, Zeisler & Zeisler, for Mei Guo and HK USA.
And |\n| 19 | with me is Attorney Sam Della Fera who has been admitted pro |\n| 20 | hac vice. |\n| 21 | Additionally, I'm also appearing on behalf of the |\n| 22 | debtor, Ho Wan Kwok.
And with me is Attorney Henzy for that |\n| 23 | -- for the debtor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good afternoon to all of you. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 8 of 183\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
8 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Privilege to appear, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
All right.
Is that everyone's |\n| 3 | appearance then? |\n| 4 | MS. FRIED:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
I'm Lisa |\n| 5 | Fried and I'm here on behalf of UBS, AG. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 7 | And I think I did see an appearance your behalf |\n| 8 | filed in the case.
Yes, thank you. |\n| 9 | Okay.
All right.
So we have several matters on |\n| 10 | the calendar.
We tried to group them by time in case there |\n| 11 | was parties that didn't need to be here the whole time.
I |\n| 12 | don't know if that makes sense anymore.
I mean, maybe we |\n| 13 | just set them all at the same time.
We'll see how things go |\n| 14 | today. |\n| 15 | But the first matter on the calendar today in the |\n| 16 | -- is the order to appear and show cause, ECF No. 1397, with |\n| 17 | regard to Lamp Capital and Golden Spring. |\n| 18 | So I need to talk to the Trustee's counsel about |\n| 19 | this order to appear and show cause, correct?
Attorney |\n| 20 | Bassett, you're going to address this matter? |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
Yeah.
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go right ahead. |\n| 23 | MR. BASSETT:
Good afternoon, again, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | For the record, Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf |\n| 25 | of the Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 9 of 183\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 9 Actually, Your Honor, with respect to this agenda item, the order to show cause at 1397, unless counsel for Lamp Capital and Golden Spring, and/or Golden Spring, are in the courtroom today, which I don't think I heard an appearance on either of their behalves, then I think we actually would request that the Court adjourn this matter, the issue being that the Trustee did not have the opportunity, encountered some issues, trying to serve the order to show cause on these two parties. So what I would respectfully request is that the matter be adjourned, a new date set for service, you know, adjourned by maybe, you know, sometime next month, and then a new date set for service and we'll try to do this again at a time when the other parties have appropriate notice. THE COURT: Okay. So you had difficulty serving them, is that what you're saying? MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. And obviously if the Trustee decides it prudent to bring some sort of request for alternative service to the Court, we would do that. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Hold on one second. I just want to take a look at this. (Pause.) THE COURT: Didn't Golden Spring have an appearance in this case some time ago? Didn't somebody\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 10 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
10 |\n| 1 | represent Golden Spring in this case? |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
And that's been -- and that appearance |\n| 4 | was withdrawn? |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
I'm not -- I'm not entirely sure of |\n| 6 | the status of -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
People behind you are nodding yes -- |\n| 8 | MR. BASSETT:
Yeah. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
-- so I think that that is correct. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
That's -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Just so you know.
You don't have to |\n| 13 | -- I mean, I'm pretty -- I think that's what happened. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
No.
That is -- that is correct. |\n| 15 | What I -- I'm not sure of the status of whether that was -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Because Golden Spring was the lender |\n| 17 | of the \\$8.8 million is my recollection back when the |\n| 18 | individual debtor was a debtor in possession. |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor.
Off the |\n| 20 | top of my head, I just don't know if that appearance had |\n| 21 | been withdrawn or not. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I think it has been actually.
And I'm |\n| 23 | almost certain of that. |\n| 24 | MR. BASSETT:
Okay. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
So you are not aware, at this point, |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 11 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
11 |\n| 1 | of any lawyers representing Golden Spring or Lamp Capital? |\n| 2 | MR. BASSETT:
Subject to the caveat I just gave |\n| 3 | about not personally being aware of whether that was |\n| 4 | withdrawn.
If that were the case, then, yes, Your Honor, I |\n| 5 | believe we are not aware. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
And to be -- you know, full |\n| 8 | disclosure, the issue that really prompted this is we were |\n| 9 | trying to serve both of them, and we got a return from the |\n| 10 | registered agent for Lamp Capital saying that sometime |\n| 11 | between when we had served them in the past with the |\n| 12 | subpoena and other documents, and when we attempted to serve |\n| 13 | them about a month ago, that registered agent in Delaware is |\n| 14 | saying they're no longer authorized to accept service on |\n| 15 | behalf of that entity. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
What does the Secretary of State's |\n| 17 | Office information say?
Do they say they're still the |\n| 18 | registered agent for service? |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:
Well, what we've been told is that |\n| 20 | they're apparently no longer a registered entity at this |\n| 21 | point.
So we're trying to figure out what does that mean, |\n| 22 | how can we move forward -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 24 | MR. BASSETT:
-- with respect to them in light of |\n| 25 | that. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 12 THE COURT: I understand. I think that's interesting. So you're saying at some point between when you tried to serve the record registered agent for service and now that that registered agent for service doesn't exist anymore? MR. BASSETT: The agent exists, but the response to us was we're no longer authorized to accept service of this entity. This entity, as far as their records show, is no longer operating. THE COURT: And which entity are you talking about? MR. BASSETT: Lamp Capital. THE COURT: Lamp Capital. All right. What about with Golden Spring? Don't they have a registered agent for service? MR. BASSETT: They do, and we can serve them. We wanted to do it all at once to bring both of them in. THE COURT: Understood. I'm just asking the question -- MR. BASSETT: Yeah. THE COURT: -- so I understand -- MR. BASSETT: So we'll do it that way. And, you know, we would obviously through any counsel who had appeared on their behalf if they were still counsel in the Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 12 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 13 case -- THE COURT: I don't think there is in this case, but I could be wrong about that. All right. So what -- you have a proposed date to adjourn this matter to and make service by? I can tell you that the first week of April does not work, just so -- before you throw out a date in the first week of April, it's not going to work. MR. BASSETT: I would say, Your Honor -- I was going to say the second week of April. And then -- THE COURT: What about -- MR. BASSETT: And then maybe give us two weeks from now to affect service. THE COURT: I can do Wednesday, April 12th. Or we can -- actually, there's already a matter scheduled in Adversary 05002 for April 18th at 2:00 p.m. I don't know if that's interesting to you or if that -- you don't want to go that long. MR. BASSETT: I mean, six days, I think that would be fine. THE COURT: Okay. Let's go back then. (Pause.) THE COURT: All right. So the order to appear and show cause, ECF 1397, why the Court should not hold the non- responding parties in contempt, Golden Spring, New York, Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 13 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 14 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
14 |\n| 1 | Limited and Lamp Capital, LLC, the hearing is continued to |\n| 2 | April 18th at 2:00 p.m. |\n| 3 | And what date do you want to make service by? |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
Like I said, Your Honor, if we could |\n| 5 | have two weeks, two weeks from today, I think would be okay. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
That's March 21st.
Does that -- that |\n| 7 | gives you enough time?
I think you could go to the end of |\n| 8 | that week, March 24th. |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
That would be -- if that's |\n| 10 | acceptable to the Court, that would be great, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
It is acceptable to the Court, because |\n| 12 | that still provides the parties with one, two, three full |\n| 13 | weeks and two days before the hearing.
Okay? |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
All right.
So let me just make a note |\n| 16 | of that, please. |\n| 17 | (Pause.) |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
So the service of the order to show |\n| 19 | cause will be on or before March 24th.
All right.
So that |\n| 20 | takes care of that matter then.
We're going to adjourn that |\n| 21 | motion -- I mean that order to appear and show cause I |\n| 22 | should say. |\n| 23 | Then the next matters on the calendar are the |\n| 24 | order to show cause, granting the motion, and the motion to |\n| 25 | extend time to comply with the Court's order dated January |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1550 | Filed 03/16/23 | Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 | Page 15 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 183
Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 15
20 on behalf of Mei Guo, HK International, Limited, and the |\n| | |\n| 2 | order that I -- we entered granting in part that motion, |\n| 3 | which required filings by Mei Guo and HK as to what they've |\n| 4 | done to turn over discovery responses to the Chapter 11 |\n| 5 | Trustee. |\n| 6 | So where do things stand as -- I mean, I know that |\n| 7 | things were filed late last night after the deadlines |\n| 8 | required in court orders, which the Court does not |\n| 9 | appreciate, and that you filed a response this morning, |\n| 10 | which I -- we had hearings today so, you know, I looked at |\n| 11 | it for about two minutes, but where do things stand as of -- |\n| 12 | on this matter? |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure.
I'm happy to give you the |\n| 14 | overview, Your Honor.
And I think in our filing this |\n| 15 | morning we did generally try to address the current status. |\n| 16 | But just obviously how we got here, filed a |\n| 17 | subpoena, served a subpoena on Mei Guo and HK International |\n| 18 | back I think in August, didn't get cooperation, did not get |\n| 19 | the documents to which we were entitled, filed a motion to |\n| 20 | compel later that fall, had a hearing in November. |\n| 21 | January 20th the Court issued its order compelling |\n| 22 | the production of documents by January 31st.
Didn't get the |\n| 23 | production of documents. |\n| 24 | We filed our motion for the order to show cause on |\n| 25 | February 10th.
Counsel for Mei Guo and HK International or |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 16 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
16 |\n| 1 | HK USA, rather, filed their motion for an extension of time. |\n| 2 | The Court entered its order on the 13th imposing |\n| 3 | the deadlines that the Court just discussed. |\n| 4 | And frankly, you know, we are a bit exhausted that |\n| 5 | we are still here, and in the Trustee's view not getting |\n| 6 | really anywhere close to compliance with the order that the |\n| 7 | Court entered on February 13th. |\n| 8 | As the Court observed, the order required Mei Guo |\n| 9 | and HK USA to submit by 5:00 p.m. yesterday a declaration |\n| 10 | detailing their compliance with the order on the motion to |\n| 11 | compel or explaining why they were unable to do so. |\n| 12 | The order also, as Your Honor will recall, because |\n| 13 | in the -- to take a step back -- in the motion for extension |\n| 14 | of time, Mei Guo and HK International, which they filed in |\n| 15 | the beginning of February, had stated to the Court that |\n| 16 | although they were unable to comply with their document |\n| 17 | production obligations at that time and meet the existing |\n| 18 | January 31st deadline, they very much intended to produce |\n| 19 | documents on a rolling basis throughout the month of |\n| 20 | February. |\n| 21 | In the Court's order entered on the 13th, the |\n| 22 | Court recognized that commitment and said that Your Honor |\n| 23 | expected them to continue producing documents on a rolling |\n| 24 | basis during the mediation. |\n| 25 | Fast forward, we got nothing.
We heard nothing |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 17 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
17 |\n| 1 | from counsel at all about the document production |\n| 2 | requirements or the Court's order to show cause during the |\n| 3 | mediation.
We received zero documents prior to last night. |\n| 4 | No request to meet and confer, nothing of that sort. |\n| 5 | At approximately 8:30 last night, we received a |\n| 6 | document production consisting from both -- both of the HK |\n| 7 | parties, Mei Guo and HK USA, consisting of a grand total of |\n| 8 | 11 documents. |\n| 9 | We then received, also at approximately 8:30 last |\n| 10 | night, the declaration of their counsel, Lee Vartan, |\n| 11 | purporting to describe the efforts that they believe |\n| 12 | indicate that the HK parties have complied with the document |\n| 13 | production obligations. |\n| 14 | And for a variety of reasons, which I will quickly |\n| 15 | go through, that declaration falls, in our view, woefully |\n| 16 | short of what the Court ordered and what is necessary to |\n| 17 | assess whether or not the HK parties are, in fact, complying |\n| 18 | with their document production obligations. |\n| 19 | As an initial matter, as I said, technically and |\n| 20 | timely, which in and of itself is a problem, the other |\n| 21 | issue, which is glaring and extremely troubling to the |\n| 22 | Trustee, is that it is a declaration from Mr. Vartan as |\n| 23 | counsel. |\n| 24 | The Court, in our view, is clear in its order to |\n| 25 | show cause that the parties themselves needed to file a |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 18 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 18 sworn declaration indicating what efforts they undertook. And if you look at the substance of the declaration that was filed, that distinction is critically important here. Because what you'll find in the declaration, and I'll go through some of these issues in a moment, are all kinds of incomplete, vague, and frankly totally not credible statements about the documents that Mei Guo does or does not have, the fact that she has only one email account that apparently has no responsive emails, whether or not she uses WhatsApp, another application for messaging, to whom she communicates; her lack of access to bank accounts. There are all kinds of statements, which I'll walk through, that if they're going to make those statements, and if they are going to rest and say we are not able to satisfy our document production obligations because we basically have no documents, and we don't communicate, then we need a sworn -- and I think the Court should have, a sworn declaration from the parties under penalty of perjury, actually attesting to these statements rather than have counsel who apparently is offering hearsay, based on what he heard from his client, in the form of a declaration. And Mr. Vartan who submitted the declaration also is not here. THE COURT: I noticed that.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 19 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 19 MR. BASSETT: The next thing I would like to do, Your Honor, is -- well, I just want to walk through, because I do think it is important, walk through some of the just I think facial, and we got this last night at 8:30. THE COURT: Well, let's pull it up -- MR. BASSETT: Yeah. THE COURT: -- so we can all read it at the same time since it was filed late and it's not in compliance with the Court's previous orders. (Pause.) MR. BASSETT: And obviously I'm happy to take it in whatever order the Court would like once it's pulled up on the screen, but I think it would be most efficient, at least at the beginning, for me to kind of go through some of the items that I had identified. THE COURT: Yes. Let's just get to -- MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: Let me just get the number for the courtroom deputy so we can pull it up. I think it's 1512, correct? MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: So we need to -- MR. BASSETT: And our response, just for the record, is 1517. (Pause.)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 20 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 20 THE COURT: Can we make it so people -- Where do you want to go with this, Mr. Bassett? What page would you like to go to first? MR. BASSETT: So I think what I'll do, Your Honor, is I'll -- THE COURT: Well, I would like to note for the record -- I'd like the courtroom deputy to scroll to the end of this document, go up one, a page, to page 10 -- so this is a document that's signed by a lawyer who's not here today, not in the courtroom. Mr. Vartan, you in the courtroom anywhere? (No response.) THE COURT: Okay. So I'd like that to be noted on the record, number one. If you could scroll up another page, please. Okay. You can keep going up if you don't mind. It might start -- I'm not sure if it starts on page 5 or 6 of this document, but -- no, keep going down then, I apologize. I'm not sure what page it starts on since it was filed at 8 o'clock, 8:30 last night, three hours after it was supposed to be filed pursuant to court order, which obviously didn't concern anyone. (Pause.) THE COURT: So my mistake. The whole thing is his -- is his declaration?\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1550 | Filed 03/16/23 | Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 | Page 21 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n| | | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 21 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
21 |\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I thought there was a page break |\n| 3 | there.
Sorry.
I thought it was an objection with a then |\n| 4 | attached declaration but, as I said, I haven't had a chance |\n| 5 | to read -- oh, it is the whole thing.
Okay.
So it's a |\n| 6 | declaration of counsel who represents Mei Guo and HK |\n| 7 | International. |\n| 8 | And during the last hearing we had before the |\n| 9 | mediation session, I specifically asked Mr. Rooney, who's |\n| 10 | not here today, Mr. Romney, excuse me, who's not here today, |\n| 11 | about why there needed to be other counsel for HK |\n| 12 | International and Mei Guo because they already have counsel, |\n| 13 | and no one could explain that.
No one could answer that |\n| 14 | question. |\n| 15 | And I asked the United States Trustee's Office to |\n| 16 | opine on the issue.
I haven't seen anything from the United |\n| 17 | States Trustee's Office other than -- not from the U.S. |\n| 18 | States Trustee's Office -- but the only thing I've seen |\n| 19 | since that last hearing is supplemental disclosures of |\n| 20 | compensation to Zeisler & Zeisler from entities of names |\n| 21 | that I've never seen before in this case about payments for |\n\ntheir legal fees.\n\n So I still don't have an answer as to why HK International -- and I'm going to turn to Zeisler & Zeisler -- and Mei Guo needs separate counsel, who by the way filed\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 22 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
22 |\n| 1 | this declaration supposedly in response to a court order and |\n| 2 | he's not here in court. |\n| 3 | So what do you have to say about that, Mr. |\n| 4 | Kindseth? |\n| 5 | MR. KINDSETH:
The client -- the clients have |\n| 6 | elected to retain separate lead counsel, which is her right |\n| 7 | and its right, and Zeisler & Zeisler is abiding by her |\n| 8 | direction.
Our role -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
She directed you specifically?
You're |\n| 10 | going to testify that Mei Guo looked you in the face and |\n| 11 | told you that she directed you specifically to allow her to |\n| 12 | retain separate counsel to address what?
What's your |\n| 13 | testimony going to be? |\n| 14 | MR. KINDSETH:
My testimony would be, and what |\n| 15 | actually transpired was that Ms. Guo has told me she wants |\n| 16 | new counsel to lead this case. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Oh, so you're going to -- so Zeisler & |\n| 18 | Zeisler is going to be leaving this case? |\n| 19 | MR. KINDSETH:
No.
We're local counsel in this |\n| 20 | regard.
We're just not lead counsel. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Well, that's not -- wait a minute. |\n| 22 | Slow down.
You're not local counsel. |\n| 23 | MR. KINDSETH:
In this -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
You've been -- you came into this case |\n| 25 | in July or whatever it was of last year as the debtor's |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 23 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
23 |\n| 1 | counsel.
We have been through time and time again about |\n| 2 | what -- how you communicate and what communications and who |\n| 3 | you get direction from in this case.
And we've talked about |\n| 4 | Mr. Mitchell.
We've talked about Ms. Francis.
We've had |\n| 5 | all different kinds of things come out in this case. |\n| 6 | And now you're telling me that you're only local |\n| 7 | counsel with regard to a subpoena served on your client that |\n| 8 | you are -- you are counsel of record for?
You're only local |\n| 9 | counsel? |\n| 10 | MR. KINDSETH:
There term I used for local counsel |\n| 11 | was in connection with the pro hac vice.
So for purposes of |\n| 12 | the pro hac vice, we were -- we were the sponsoring law firm |\n| 13 | for new counsel. |\n| 14 | And you're right, Your Honor.
In terms of |\n| 15 | appearances, there's no distinction, counsel is counsel. |\n| 16 | But I'm informing Your Honor that with respect to |\n| 17 | the client's wishes, the new firm is taking the lead role |\n| 18 | for these two clients. |\n| 19 | And it's no different than other firms who have |\n| 20 | joint counsel.
And sometimes counsel, certain counsel take |\n| 21 | the lead in some matters.
Sometimes other counsel take the |\n| 22 | lead in other matters. |\n| 23 | In fact, if you look at the other side, there's |\n| 24 | multiple local counsel and lead counsel and there's nothing |\n| 25 | inappropriate -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 24 of\n\n| | 183 | | | | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
24 | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
They're not the debtor's counsel, sir, | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | in a case where the debtor has been dispossessed of his | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | rights after filing a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in this | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | court. | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | MR. KINDSETH:
That's correct. | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | And I don't -- I guess I'm not sure what that | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | particular issue is.
We were discussing Ms. Guo. | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Who's taking direction?
From whom? | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | So you're telling me, you're telling me, that Mr. | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | Vartan, who isn't here by the way -- | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | MR. KINDSETH:
Had a conflict with this -- | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Where did he say he had a conflict, | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | Counsel?
There's nothing in the record that tells me he has | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | a conflict, is there? | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | MR. KINDSETH:
I've been informed by his | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | colleague, who's with me here now, that Mr. Vartan -- | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
That's not good enough. | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | MR. KINDSETH:
It is -- | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
That's not good enough. | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | MR. KINDSETH:
Well, he's -- | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
So go ahead, Attorney Bassett. | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | Because I cannot believe that you think that this | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | is an appropriate way to proceed in this case and that what | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | has happened with regard to this motion is appropriate, | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | because it's not. | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 25 MR. KINDSETH: Attorney Della Fera is prepared to respond to -- THE COURT: I don't -- that's fine. He can respond. It doesn't matter. It's inappropriate. The person who signed the declaration isn't even here. And the order required your clients and your clients to file their own declarations, which they didn't do. So I guess I'll grant the motion for contempt, right? Why shouldn't I? This is -- this is not how this is going to proceed. And I still don't understand why any party hasn't raised these issues with regard to these conflicts and why this is being allowed to happen. This court is not to be used in an improper manner and that's exactly what's happening. This is -- tell me where in the order, Attorney Kindseth, you could somehow feel and believe that a lawyer's declaration, who's not in the courtroom, was -- is in compliance with the Court's order? No, I'm asking you, Attorney Kindseth. MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor -- THE COURT: I'm asking you. MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor, my clients have chosen, which is their right, to have the counsel of their choice represent them in this matter. That counsel is prepared to Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 25 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 26 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
26 |\n| 1 | address these issues. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Why aren't you prepared to address |\n| 3 | them? |\n| 4 | MR. KINDSETH:
Because my client -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
You're their lawyer too. |\n| 6 | MR. KINDSETH:
A lawyer is a representative for |\n| 7 | the client.
The lawyer can only -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I understand that, Attorney Kindseth. |\n| 9 | MR. KINDSETH:
And then the lawyer can only do |\n| 10 | what they are instructed to do by their clients.
I -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
That is not true, Attorney Kindseth. |\n| 12 | MR. KINDSETH:
I have not been -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
That is -- that's an incorrect |\n| 14 | statement. |\n| 15 | MR. KINDSETH:
I have not been instructed by my |\n| 16 | client to represent her or HK USA in connection with this |\n| 17 | matter.
She has counsel who has been instructed -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
When this order was entered, there was |\n| 19 | no other counsel appearing on behalf of HK and Mei Guo. |\n| 20 | MR. KINDSETH:
I'm not sure -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
So you had to -- you had to -- your |\n| 22 | obligation as a lawyer is to explain to them what they |\n| 23 | needed to do.
Are you telling me you didn't have that |\n| 24 | conversation with them? |\n| 25 | MR. KINDSETH:
Your Honor, you're asking about |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 27 attorney-client communications. THE COURT: No, I'm not. I'm asking about compliance with a court order. That's a -- there's a huge difference there, Attorney Kindseth. MR. KINDSETH: And there's another -- there's other lawyers in my firm who were -- Attorney Romney handling this. THE COURT: Okay. Well, call him and get him here then. MR. KINDSETH: He's not -- he's not available. THE COURT: Okay. All right. You know what? That's fine. Go ahead. Go ahead, Attorney Bassett. You go right ahead. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. And for the reasons that were just discussed, I do think that there's a basis for a finding of contempt simply based on the fact that this declaration does not comply with the order, and was untimely, et cetera. I would like to just go through, even if the Court were to, you know, accept this declaration for what it purports to say in substance, I think there are all kinds of glaring omissions, ambiguities, and other problems that would prevent it from complying with the order in any event. The first of which, and some of these are sort of Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 28 global comments, so it doesn't make sense to go to a particular page -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: -- but the first of which is that, if you read through this declaration, what you will find is that it is Mr. Vartan, Attorney Vartan, talking about the situation confronting and the documents relating to Ms. Guo. It talks about how, you know, somehow her experiences in China have led to her not having documents. It talks about her apparent lack of communication with people via email and other, you know, common means, et cetera. What is glaringly omitted from this is any discussion whatsoever of HK USA. So even if the Court were to accept this on behalf of Ms. Guo, there's no declaration before the Court that in any substance at all talks about what HK USA has done, if anything, to comply with the order to show cause. Getting into -- and, again, Your Honor, we've had this for just overnight, so when we submitted our paper this morning, these were kind of initial reactions to some of the things that jumped off the page to us, but let me just go through the list. First of all, this declaration does not make clear what electronic documents Ms. Guo may or may not have in her Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 28 of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 29 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
29 |\n| 1 | possession, including the quantity and types of electronic |\n| 2 | devices that are within her custody, possession or control. |\n| 3 | There's no inventory or list of how many iPhones she's had, |\n| 4 | whether she has iPhones, whether she has a laptop, whether |\n| 5 | she has iPads, tablets, et cetera, there's no inventory of |\n| 6 | that. |\n| 7 | The one thing I would note though is that in her |\n| 8 | deposition taken on January 20th she noted that apparently |\n| 9 | due to concerns of spying by the CCP she gets a new cell |\n| 10 | phone -- what did she say? She changes her phone every |\n| 11 | month. |\n| 12 | There's nothing in this declaration that talks |\n| 13 | about what efforts were undertaken, if any, to the extent |\n| 14 | it's true that Ms. Guo really changes her phone every month, |\n| 15 | to capture, preserve, and extract all relevant documents |\n| 16 | that may be on each of those phones.
We've been at this for |\n| 17 | seven, eight months, so that's at least seven phones. |\n| 18 | There's no discussion of that at all in the declaration. |\n| 19 | The declaration also does not describe -- it talks |\n| 20 | about emails, but it does not describe that an adequate |\n| 21 | search was conducted. |\n| 22 | First of all, in paragraph 28 of the declaration, |\n| 23 | it states that Ms. Guo presently, and I'm quoting, |\n| 24 | \"Presently maintains three email addresses.\"
Apparently two |\n| 25 | of these email addresses she created solely for the purpose |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 1550 | Filed 03/16/23 | Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 | Page 30 of |\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
30 |\n| 1 | of communicating with counsel and, therefore, those, as far |\n| 2 | as the declaration suggests, weren't searched because all of |\n| 3 | that would be privileged. |\n| 4 | There's one other email address, email account, |\n| 5 | that she created I think in 2019, according to the |\n| 6 | declaration, but -- and it says that for the first time, and |\n| 7 | this I think goes to the heart of why sanctions are |\n| 8 | appropriate and why compliance with this court orders -- |\n| 9 | with this court's order has not been even in the vicinity of |\n| 10 | a priority for Ms. Guo and HK USA, is that the attorney |\n| 11 | declaration says that counsel first got access, they say |\n| 12 | unfettered access, to this email account in order to search |\n| 13 | it for the first time on February 20th.
That's three weeks |\n| 14 | after the deadline that they were ordered to produce |\n| 15 | documents under an order on a motion to compel. |\n| 16 | And even after they got that unfettered access, |\n| 17 | apparently they applied search terms, I'll get to those in a |\n| 18 | second, but even setting that aside, there's no discussion |\n| 19 | in the declaration of what did they do once they got access |\n| 20 | on February 20th to ensure that no emails had been deleted? |\n| 21 | What kind of spoliation issues might there be? |\n| 22 | Did they talk to their client before then to tell her to |\n| 23 | preserve documents or did they just look at what they found |\n| 24 | on February 20th and take it for face value that's all |\n| 25 | that's in there? |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 31 of\n\n| | 183
Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
31 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And I think there's really a strong basis to be |\n| 2 | very skeptical of all of this considering that they produced |\n| 3 | 11 documents.
And I don't know off the top of my head |\n| 4 | because I was flipping through them last night and I just |\n| 5 | don't recall if there's even a single email in there.
There |\n| 6 | may be one, but I think most of the documents were not. |\n| 7 | Another issue, Your Honor, is with the search |\n| 8 | terms.
The declaration, in paragraph 31, lists all these |\n| 9 | search terms that were apparently applied to search for the |\n| 10 | emails, but the search terms are facially, extraordinarily |\n| 11 | problematic, almost certainly designed to not capture |\n| 12 | documents that would be responsive. |\n| 13 | Just as a few examples, the search terms list, I |\n| 14 | believe -- yeah, Mei Guo's father, the debtor, they |\n| 15 | purported to search for \"Ho Wan Kwok, Miles Kwok, Miles Guo, |\n| 16 | Guo Wengui,\" in quotes. |\n| 17 | So unless she referred to her father in |\n| 18 | communications by using his full name, those emails would |\n| 19 | not be captured.
I would presume she talks to him by |\n| 20 | calling him dad or maybe his first name, but that's just one |\n| 21 | example of according to the searches that they apparently |\n| 22 | performed none of those documents would be captured. |\n| 23 | We have the same issue with all the individuals |\n| 24 | they searched for.
And individual whose name the Court has |\n| 25 | heard often in this case is Yvette Wang, who's heavily |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 32 of\n\n| | 183
Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
32 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | involved in the debtor's business, and is well known to and |\n| 2 | somebody with whom Ms. Guo has had frequent interactions, |\n| 3 | her name is just listed as Yvette Wang.
So unless there's |\n| 4 | an email that uses both her first and last name, apparently |\n| 5 | wouldn't be captured.
And I can't imagine she knows a lot |\n| | |\n| 6 | of Yvettes, but it would make sense to maybe do a search for |\n| 7 | individual names. |\n| 8 | The same thing is true with respect to entity |\n| 9 | names.
Only full entity names, not abbreviations.
ACA |\n| 10 | Investment Management, Limited.
There's no search for just |\n| 11 | ACA. |\n| 12 | All kinds of glaring problems with the search |\n| 13 | terms, even assuming they were searching the right corpus of |\n| 14 | documents, which is uncertain at best given the fact that |\n| 15 | only one of her three email accounts was searched and the |\n| 16 | access was not obtained until February 20th. There are other |\n| 17 | kinds of glaring omissions. |\n| 18 | The declaration in paragraph 34, and this is, Your |\n| 19 | Honor, I'll just refresh the Court's memory on this, I think |\n| 20 | in past hearings, including the preliminary injunction |\n| 21 | hearing with respect to the harassment, there was talk about |\n| 22 | people using WhatsApp and other similar messaging |\n| 23 | applications like Telegram to communicate with each other, |\n| 24 | including the debtor and some of the protestors and things |\n| 25 | of that nature. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 33 of\n\n| | 183
Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 33
Well, in the attorney declaration at paragraph 34, |\n| | |\n| 2 | Ms. Guo says with respect to WhatsApp and Telegram, which |\n| 3 | she has conceded she uses, concedes in the declaration she |\n| 4 | has used, and conceded in her deposition she has used, she |\n| 5 | simply says that she does not, quote, \"Typically communicate |\n| 6 | with her family on WhatsApp and Telegram.\" |\n| 7 | She fails to talk about what does typically mean? |\n| 8 | Did she search for any communications that she may have had |\n| 9 | even if they were atypical? |\n| 10 | She also says nothing about whether she has |\n| 11 | engaged in WhatsApp or Telegram messages with non-family |\n| 12 | members that would be responsive to the subpoena. |\n| 13 | So this idea that she's not searching WhatsApp and |\n| 14 | Telegram because she doesn't typically communicate with her |\n| 15 | family members is just -- it makes no sense, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | The attorney declaration talks about a search for |\n| 17 | hard copy documents.
It references that generally, but |\n| 18 | doesn't talk about what process was actually undertaken to |\n| 19 | search for hard copy documents, what set of hard copy |\n| 20 | documents were searched, where those documents are located, |\n| 21 | what kinds of hard copy documents Mei Guo would normally |\n| 22 | keep in the ordinary course of business, or HK USA for that |\n| 23 | matter, who's not even addressed in the declaration, all of |\n| 24 | that is missing. |\n| 25 | Your Honor, another glaring omission or issue with |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 34 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
34 |\n| 1 | the declaration is the description in paragraph 38 about |\n| 2 | bank accounts. |\n| 3 | So what Ms. Guo says is that -- I think she |\n| 4 | mentions two or three bank accounts that she previously had |\n| 5 | that are now closed.
She claims to have no access |\n| 6 | whatsoever to those accounts.
There's no discussion of |\n| 7 | whether or not the records might be available to her.
If |\n| 8 | they're still at the bank, if she were to call and get them. |\n| 9 | She has not provided account numbers to us so we could |\n| 10 | subpoena that information. |\n| 11 | She says that she has one account that's presently |\n| 12 | open at the Bank of China.
And she contends, again, this I |\n| 13 | believe is in paragraph 38, she contends that she does not |\n| 14 | have access to any account statements or other records at |\n| 15 | the Bank of China account because, one, she doesn't -- I |\n| 16 | guess apparently has not signed up for electronic online |\n| 17 | access, which I'm sure everyone else in this room probably |\n| 18 | has for their bank accounts -- she has not signed up for it. |\n| 19 | And, second, she's afraid for her personal safety |\n| 20 | due to I guess her concerns about the CCP to go to a |\n| 21 | physical branch location and ask for the documents. |\n| 22 | Your Honor, I'm not sure how Bank of China's |\n| 23 | online banking works, but I would imagine she could get |\n| 24 | access to her account online without appearing at the bank. |\n| 25 | I also think she could send a designee or representative to |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 35 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
35 |\n| 1 | the branch if she didn't feel safe going there herself. |\n| 2 | The idea that she's complied by simply stating |\n| 3 | that she doesn't have online access and won't go there, it's |\n| 4 | frankly beyond the pale. |\n| 5 | The other thing I would note is that in her |\n| 6 | deposition on January 20th she said that she -- she |\n| 7 | mentioned other bank accounts that are nowhere to be found |\n| 8 | in the declaration. |\n| 9 | She said that, this is in her deposition on |\n| 10 | January 20th, she said recently she has had five or six bank |\n| 11 | accounts that she's opened, used for a period, and then been |\n| 12 | closed.
According to her, they were shut down by the banks. |\n| 13 | But she said five or six of them. |\n| 14 | There are two to four, it's a little unclear |\n| 15 | whether it's, sorry, it's either three or four, it's unclear |\n| 16 | whether it's three or four, that are mentioned in the |\n| 17 | declaration. |\n| 18 | She also testified at her deposition that she's |\n| 19 | presently receiving her salary that she lives on into the |\n| 20 | Bank of China account, so she clearly has access to that |\n| 21 | account in order to get money out. |\n| 22 | There are a couple more, a couple more points, |\n| 23 | Your Honor.
And this one, I saved it for last, but this is |\n| 24 | perhaps the most -- one of the most critical of all. |\n| 25 | As the Court will recall, the January 20th order |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 36 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
36 |\n| 1 | on the motion to compel required Ms. Guo and HK USA to |\n| 2 | produce certain categories of documents, one of which was |\n| 3 | documents related to potential assets of the estate even if |\n| 4 | there was, you know, a dispute over whether or not those |\n| 5 | assets might be owned by the debtor. |\n| 6 | Another equally important category, which was |\n| 7 | really one of the main drivers behind our motion to compel |\n| 8 | in the first place, was that she search -- not only search, |\n| 9 | collect, and produce not only documents in her possession, |\n| 10 | but also documents in the possession of her current or |\n| 11 | former counsel, advisors, and agents that may be within her |\n| 12 | custody or control, regardless of whether or not -- and the |\n| 13 | order says this, regardless of whether or not the Trustee |\n| 14 | had sent subpoenas to those other agents and advisors, and |\n| 15 | regardless of whether productions from them might be |\n| 16 | forthcoming. |\n| 17 | The declaration is utterly silent on that point. |\n| 18 | It says absolutely nothing about Ms. Guo's efforts to |\n| 19 | contact or HK USA's for that matter efforts to contact |\n| 20 | current or former counsel, agents, or advisors and that is a |\n| 21 | glaring omission. |\n| 22 | Everything we've heard, including, again, in her |\n| 23 | deposition, is that Mei Guo is heavily involved, according |\n\nowner of a number of BVI entities. So she apparently is\n\nto her, in the family business. She is the director and\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 37 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
37 |\n| 1 | somebody who is able to conduct all of this business, |\n| 2 | according to her, earn her own income.
She does all of that |\n| 3 | without maintaining enough documents to produce more than |\n| 4 | 11.
I think she produced initially maybe 20 documents, |\n| 5 | something like that.
She does all of that without |\n| 6 | maintaining documents. |\n| 7 | And she did -- we know that she's worked with |\n| 8 | advisors, counsel, others in the past, made no effort to go |\n| 9 | out to them. |\n| 10 | To the extent it's all of her, you know, she has |\n| 11 | other people who do these things for her, whether it's |\n| 12 | counsel, advisors, people like Max Krasner, who the Court's |\n| 13 | heard, Yvette Wang, to the extent that she has them do her |\n| 14 | work and HK USA's work, it was incumbent upon her to go get |\n| 15 | the documents from them and there's nothing in the |\n| 16 | declaration that talks about those efforts. |\n| 17 | So, again, as I said, Your Honor, this is a fairly |\n| 18 | quick reaction based on, you know, having 12 or so hours |\n| 19 | with the declaration, all of which is overnight, but there |\n| 20 | are several fundamental problems with the declaration that |\n| 21 | prevents it from complying in any way with the Court's order |\n| 22 | to show cause. |\n| 23 | I think sanctions are appropriate.
I think |\n| 24 | sanctions to compensate the Trustee and the estate for all |\n| 25 | the expenses that were incurred in bringing the motion to |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 38 of
183 | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
38 |\n| 1 | compel, or bringing the motion for an order to show cause, |\n| 2 | being here today, all of this, that's one. |\n| 3 | And then also obviously sanctions moving forward |\n| 4 | to do what's necessary to finally, after I think more than |\n| 5 | seven months, get Ms. Guo and HK USA to comply with their |\n| 6 | discovery obligations per the orders of this court. |\n| 7 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Sam |\n| 10 | Della Fera, Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi, for the HK |\n| 11 | parties, including Ms. Guo. |\n| 12 | I have the unenviable task of trying to explain to |\n| 13 | Your Honor -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yes, you do. |\n| 15 | MR. DELLA FERA:
And I do apologize for the |\n| 16 | lateness of the filing.
I do hope Your Honor takes the |\n| 17 | opportunity to review it in detail because it is -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Why was it filed late, counsel? |\n| 19 | MR. DELLA FERA:
We did not have the information |\n| 20 | that we needed from our client until later in the day, |\n| 21 | including the documents that were produced to the Trustee. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
So why didn't you file a motion for |\n| 23 | extension of time if you weren't going to comply with the |\n| 24 | Court's order? |\n| 25 | MR. DELLA FERA:
I can't speak for Mr. Vartan, |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 39 Your Honor. By the way, I think when Mr. Kindseth referred to a conflict, just to be clear, it was a conflict of Mr. Vartan's being able to appear today, not necessarily a conflict that created this desire by Ms. Guo for new counsel. Mr. Vartan has appeared before Your Honor as you may recall and -- THE COURT: Once. MR. DELLA FERA: -- and he will be here next week again. THE COURT: Well, he may not be here next week. So I'm very displeased that he filed this declaration, which is in -- which is not in compliance with the Court order. They filed it at 8:14 last night. And he's not here. I feel for you too because you're going to have to listen to me because he's not here. I just don't understand how lawyers who practice in a court that review an order and understand that they have time, there are specific -- it says the -- it says that Mei Guo and HK shall, it doesn't say may, it says shall by 5:00 p.m. That's what it says. The order is very clear. So if I were that lawyer and I wasn't going to meet that deadline, I would have filed something to be respectful to the Court and not hopefully be found in contempt, because, you know, your firm could be found in Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 39 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 40 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
40 |\n| 1 | contempt.
You have not complied with a court order.
It's |\n| 2 | very clear that there's a lack of compliance.
It's not even |\n| 3 | a close call. |\n| 4 | And I just -- you know, I just can't -- you |\n| 5 | haven't told me anything to convince me why I should look at |\n| 6 | anything you filed.
It's late.
There's no motion.
Mr. |\n| 7 | Vartan isn't here.
He doesn't file a motion saying why he |\n| 8 | can't be here. |\n| 9 | This isn't a game of let's put somebody up for the |\n| 10 | day and make them make the argument.
That's not what we're |\n| 11 | doing here.
This is a very serious case with very serious |\n| 12 | allegations and accusations and all kinds of things that |\n| 13 | have gone on in this case.
And, you know, you have a duty |\n| 14 | of candor to the Court as does every lawyer in this |\n| 15 | courtroom. |\n| 16 | I just can't -- I just can't imagine it.
I can't |\n| 17 | imagine being a practicing lawyer and doing that.
Never in |\n| 18 | my life would I have done that as a practicing lawyer.
I |\n| 19 | would have been shaking in my boots if I didn't get |\n| 20 | something on file by a time frame that a court ordered in an |\n| 21 | order. |\n| 22 | And apparently nobody seems to care with regard to |\n| 23 | Ms. Guo and HK.
And that's just unacceptable to the Court. |\n| 24 | That's unacceptable.
There is nothing.
You didn't even |\n| 25 | make an attempt to comply timely with this order, not even |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 41 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 41 an attempt. MR. DELLA FERA: Well, Your Honor, as to the timeliness, I have -- I have no explanation for you. THE COURT: I know you don't. That's my point. MR. DELLA FERA: But I do -- THE COURT: There is no explanation. MR. DELLA FERA: I do want Your Honor to be assured that we are taking this matter very seriously. I don't think even Your Honor could suggest that this is a pattern of action on behalf of my firm or my colleague. We missed that 5:00 p.m. deadline. There's no excuse for that, Your Honor. I agree with you. But this is not a pattern. We take this matter very seriously. We appreciate the seriousness of the issues that the Trustee and others have raised. We've done our best to comply with deposition deadlines, et cetera. We're prepared to comply with the PJR hearing schedule next week. I do -- I would respectfully request that Your Honor -- just in order to understand why it is that Ms. Guo may not have kind of the ready access that most of us do to these hard copy documents or electronic versions of those documents, it is spelled out in Mr. Vartan's declaration. And perhaps -- THE COURT: It's really not. So you can argue\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 42 of
183 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
42 | |\n| 1 | that, but it's not.
And this subpoena's been outstanding | |\n| 2 | since August.
It's March.
It's March 7th. | |\n| 3 | I mean, I'm going to make -- let you make your | |\n| 4 | argument, but I don't think you're going to convince me of | |\n| 5 | anything, Counsel.
This is unacceptable.
This is | |\n| 6 | unacceptable. | |\n| 7 | And when a motion for contempt is filed, I think | |\n| 8 | the rule says, if it's granted, then sanctions are entered. | |\n| 9 | I mean, it's not even -- I don't even think it gives the | |\n| 10 | Court discretion.
I just -- I just am at a loss as to why | |\n| 11 | you would proceed this way.
I just -- and I -- | |\n| 12 | And you're right.
You're unfortunately the person | |\n| 13 | standing here today.
And I'm sorry for that for you, but | |\n| 14 | that is -- it's just not even remotely acceptable. | |\n| 15 | It's just -- it's as if you're saying to the | |\n| 16 | Court, and forget about your clients, it's as if you're | |\n| 17 | saying to the Court I don't care if the Court entered an | |\n| 18 | order requiring something to happen by 5:00 p.m.
I'll get | |\n| 19 | it in when I get it in. | |\n| 20 | That's not acceptable.
That's not how a court | |\n| 21 | works.
And as -- I'm just floored by it.
I'm honestly | |\n| 22 | floored that you, as your firm, as practicing lawyers, would | |\n| 23 | think that you didn't have to take some other step than just | |\n| 24 | file this late.
But that's what you've done, so, you know, | |\n| 25 | whatever consequences flow from that will flow from that. | |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 43 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
43 |\n| 1 | But with regard to the -- Mr. Vartan's |\n| 2 | declaration, it's completely -- lacks compliance with the |\n| 3 | Court's order.
There is -- again, if the order says, |\n| 4 | without question, I mean, we can pull it up if you'd like, |\n| 5 | it says Mei Guo -- |\n| 6 | And, as Mr. Bassett correctly points out, there's |\n| 7 | no argument about HK.
What did HK do?
They haven't done |\n| 8 | anything. |\n| 9 | And by the way, Mr. Kindseth stood here last April |\n| 10 | when the debtor was still a debtor in possession and said HK |\n| 11 | International -- I said to him are you sure you want to |\n| 12 | appear and subject yourself to the jurisdiction of this |\n| 13 | court? |\n| 14 | And he said absolutely.
We are subjecting |\n| 15 | ourselves to the jurisdiction of this court and we are going |\n| 16 | to enter into an order with regard to the Lady May.
And |\n| 17 | they went through the whole process. |\n| 18 | And so HK said, and they are bound by what they |\n| 19 | said last year, whether you represent them now or Mr. |\n| 20 | Kindseth does, which is another whole issue, they said they |\n| 21 | were subject to the jurisdiction of this court.
They put |\n| 22 | themselves here, just like the debtor did. |\n| 23 | And so why hasn't HK complied?
There isn't even |\n| 24 | an attempt in Mr. Vartan's non-compliance declaration to |\n| 25 | address HK.
So how do you respond to that? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 44 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 44 MR. DELLA FERA: Only, Your Honor, that Ms. Guo is the sole principal of HK and her records are effectively -- her HK USA's records are effectively her records. THE COURT: So we can collapse those two entities then into each other, HK and Ms. Guo? That's what we can do? You're admitting that? MR. DELLA FERA: Well, no. For purposes of producing documents -- THE COURT: No. It's not for purposes of producing documents. MR. DELLA FERA: Well, I could not -- THE COURT: It's for everything. You can't come in and say, well, I didn't say anything about HK because Ms. Guo is HK. But Ms. Guo isn't really HK when the Trustee's trying to get to HK's assets. Oh, but, no, that, no. You can't -- you can't have it both ways. I mean, I think you really need to think about what you're saying to the Court. This is a really serious issue. I'm not suggesting you don't think it's serious, but to come in and try to argue to this court that that declaration is somehow in compliance with the Court's order of January 20, how could it possibly be? The order says Mei Guo and HK shall by 5:00 p.m. on January 31st search for and produce to the Trustee, and it lists the categories of documents. That's what it says.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 45 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
45 |\n| 1 | It says that.
It's not -- it's not even remotely unclear. |\n| 2 | MR. DELLA FERA:
No.
And there was untimeliness |\n| 3 | with respect to that. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
So why didn't -- why didn't Mei Guo |\n| 5 | submit a declaration then? |\n| 6 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Well, on that point, Your Honor, |\n| 7 | and at the risk of appearing to be argumentative, and that's |\n| 8 | not the intention, the order directs, quote, \"The HK parties |\n| 9 | to file a sworn declaration on the docket detailing full |\n| 10 | compliance with the order, or failing that describing in |\n| 11 | detail the efforts taken to comply.\" |\n| 12 | Frankly, it was our interpretation of that that a |\n| 13 | declaration of counsel that detailed either full compliance |\n| 14 | or describing in detail the efforts taken to comply would |\n| 15 | satisfy that. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Where in the Federal Rules of Civil |\n| 17 | Procedure does that -- does that fall, Counsel? |\n| 18 | Tell me when there's a motion for contempt filed |\n| 19 | against a party that the lawyer who represents the |\n| 20 | individual can come in and testify about what steps were |\n| 21 | taken to comply with the discovery request.
Tell me where |\n| 22 | that is. |\n| 23 | MR. DELLA FERA:
I could not cite you that |\n| 24 | provision as I stand here, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 46 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 46 MR. DELLA FERA: We could and will, if Your Honor so directs, supply a declaration of Ms. Guo that reiterates and/or expands upon what -- much of what Mr. Vartan has declared if that is the Court's direction. I can't -- you know, I won't belabor the point. I certainly don't want to compound the problem by attempting to make declarations of my own. And so other than as set forth in Mr. Vartan's declaration, I don't have any additional facts to add. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DELLA FERA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Unless the Court has further questions for me, I don't have anything else to add at this point, Your Honor. THE COURT: So what are you -- what sanction are you asking the Court to impose? MR. BASSETT: I think there are two, potentially two issues, Your Honor. Again, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. So, you know, first we have the issue of, as I said before, the time and expense spent by the Trustee and his advisors trying to compel the production of these documents, right? The Trustee obviously had to file the motion to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 47 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
47 |\n| 1 | compel that was heard in November.
The Court then issued an |\n| 2 | order on that on January 20th.
And then we didn't get the |\n| 3 | documents so we had to file the motion that we filed that |\n| 4 | led us here today on February 10th. |\n| 5 | Obviously a lot of time and effort were spent |\n| 6 | preparing those documents, preparing for and appearing at |\n| 7 | today's hearing, so I think it's certainly within the |\n| 8 | Court's authority to impose costs on and charge Ms. Guo and |\n| 9 | HK USA with paying the fees and expenses and costs that have |\n| 10 | been incurred in those efforts. |\n| 11 | The other aspect of this, which I think is, you |\n| 12 | know, the most important for this case and for the Trustee's |\n| 13 | investigation to actually get us where we need to be, is for |\n| 14 | there to be, you know, forward looking sanctions that are |\n| 15 | designed to finally, after all this time, compel Ms. Guo and |\n| 16 | HK USA to comply with their obligations. |\n| 17 | So obviously I would defer heavily to the Court as |\n| 18 | to what is necessary and appropriate for that to happen.
I |\n| 19 | think whatever happens should be on expedited time frame. |\n| 20 | I think certainly the imposition of a daily, |\n| 21 | accruing fine is well within the Court's authority because |\n| 22 | we are talking about non-debtor parties here ostensibly. |\n| 23 | That would work going forward. |\n| 24 | And, you know, obviously, on the more extreme end, |\n| 25 | the Court has remedies available to it, including even |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550 | Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 48 of
183 |\n|----|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
48 |\n| 1 | | incarceration as we talked about before. |\n| 2 | | But I'm just going to let the Court I think |\n| 3 | | determine what would be most appropriate under the |\n| 4 | | circumstances to do what we think needs to be done and what |\n| 5 | | we've been trying to do all along, which is just get the |\n| 6 | | information which we need for our investigation and to |\n| 7 | administer this case. | |\n| 8 | | THE COURT:
The deposition transcript of Mei Guo, |\n| 9 | | that's not on the docket of this case, is it? |\n| 10 | | MR. BASSETT:
It is not, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | | I'd have to go back and check to see if there were |\n| 12 | | any confidentiality designations.
But subject to that, we |\n| 13 | | would, you know, be able to file it if the Court would like. |\n| 14 | | THE COURT:
Well, I might, given what's occurred, |\n| 15 | right? | |\n| 16 | | MR. BASSETT:
Yeah. |\n| 17 | | THE COURT:
And given what you've talked about |\n| 18 | today. | |\n| 19 | | MR. BASSETT:
Of course.
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | | THE COURT:
So I'd need to think about that.
All |\n| 21 | right. | |\n| 22 | | Did you take -- did you try to take the deposition |\n| 23 | of HK? | |\n| 24 | | MR. BASSETT:
We have not yet taken our 2004 |\n| 25 | | deposition of HK or -- I don't believe her deposition was a |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 49 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
49 |\n| 1 | 30(b)(6), so the answer to that I believe is -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I'm just curious.
Is there some other |\n| 3 | document that you may have to put on the record that would |\n| 4 | be of assistance to the Court in connection with your motion |\n| 5 | as it relates to HK? |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
Something may come to me momentarily |\n| 7 | before this hearing is over today, Your Honor, but the |\n| 8 | deposition transcript -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
That's fine. |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
-- is the main thing. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I'll let you -- if you come up with |\n| 12 | something, you let me know.
Okay? |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I'm going to think about it obviously. |\n| 15 | Documents were filed at 8 o'clock, 8:30 last night.
The |\n| 16 | Court had hearings today as already noted, so I've asked |\n| 17 | counsel and he's explained to me that -- he explained to me |\n| 18 | they didn't comply.
They did at 8 o'clock or 8:15.
And |\n| 19 | that there's no compliance issue in Mr. Vartan's non |\n| 20 | compliant declaration with regard to HK because Mei Guo is |\n| 21 | HK. |\n| 22 | So that's the answer that I've gotten and that's |\n| 23 | what I have to work with, in addition to the fact of all the |\n| 24 | other record of the case, which includes HK's voluntarily |\n| 25 | submitting itself to the jurisdiction of this court back in |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 50 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
50 |\n| 1 | April of last year.
Or it might be even March.
I'd have to |\n| 2 | look at the docket and make sure about that. |\n| 3 | And then also I'd have to think about what the |\n| 4 | appropriate sanctions will be, but I noticed -- would be if |\n| 5 | I entered sanctions, but I do note that Rule 7037, which |\n| 6 | incorporates Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil |\n| 7 | Procedure, says in (b)(2)(C), in addition, instead of or in |\n| 8 | addition to the orders above, the Court must order the |\n| 9 | disobedient party, the attorney advising the party, or both, |\n| 10 | to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, |\n| 11 | caused by the failure unless the failure was substantially |\n| 12 | justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses |\n| 13 | unjust. |\n| 14 | So, I'll be reviewing that provision of the |\n| 15 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of |\n| 16 | Bankruptcy Procedure as well. |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
And, Your Honor, in that regard, the |\n| 18 | one other type of sanction that is available to the Court, |\n| 19 | as a discovery sanction that I didn't mention before, is |\n| 20 | obviously determining -- either determining facts against |\n| 21 | the parties, determining that issues have been decided, or |\n| 22 | precluding them from arguing otherwise. |\n| 23 | Your Honor obviously has already, you know, |\n| 24 | pointed out the admission that Mei Guo and HK are |\n\neffectively one in the same, but it could obviously extend\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 51 beyond that to other issues in the case as well. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Counsel? MR. DELLA FERA: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DELLA FERA: I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence before this court that Mei Guo and HKI are one in the same. As I responded to the Court, in connection with responding to this discovery request, the information that Mei Guo had is the same information that's available to HKI because she is the principal of HKI. I hope Your Honor is not in a position to make a finding today that HKI and Mei Guo are one in the same. Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 51 of\n\n THE COURT: So why didn't you turn over the information from HK then?\n\n MR. DELLA FERA: There was no information to turn over, Your Honor.\n\n THE COURT: Where did it say that? Where does it say that anywhere? It doesn't say that in Mr. Vartan's declaration.\n\n MR. DELLA FERA: It indicates that Ms. Guo attempted to find information responsive to the subpoena -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DELLA FERA: -- and could not.\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 | Page 52 of |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
52 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 2 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
All right.
So I will review the |\n| 4 | documents filed, even the documents that are not -- were |\n| 5 | filed untimely and do not provide compliance with the |\n| 6 | Court's order, and I will determine next steps in the next |\n| 7 | day or two with regard to that -- the show cause order. |\n| 8 | And the motion for extension of time, Counsel, is |\n| 9 | denied.
There's no basis to extend time for Mei Guo or HK |\n| 10 | to respond.
You've had since August.
You haven't |\n| 11 | responded.
The motion for extension of time is denied.
And |\n| 12 | you certainly haven't put forth anything in argument or |\n| 13 | papers to support any extension of time. |\n| 14 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Your Honor, that motion may |\n| 15 | already have been ruled upon.
I don't believe it was -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
No, it wasn't. |\n| 17 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Okay. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
It was ruled upon in part.
And it was |\n| 19 | ruled upon based upon your colleague's representation to |\n| 20 | this court in writing that he would do a rolling disclosure |\n| 21 | of documents, which he didn't do. |\n| 22 | So he's now -- his credibility before this court |\n| 23 | is on life support because he said in his paper, under Rule |\n| 24 | 11, as a lawyer signing a pleading, that he would put forth |\n| 25 | on a rolling basis the discovery to the Trustee's counsel, |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 53 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
53 |\n| 1 | which he has not done. |\n| 2 | So the motion is denied.
And I'm extremely |\n| 3 | disappointed that any lawyer would come before this court |\n| 4 | and act that way. |\n| 5 | All right.
Now, Mr. Bassett, the next matter on |\n| 6 | the calendar is ECF 1453, which is a motion for an order to |\n| 7 | show cause why -- I'm sorry, that's the wrong number.
I |\n| 8 | have the wrong number.
I apologize.
Hold on.
That was my |\n| 9 | fault. |\n| 10 | (Pause.) |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Those are 155 -- 1455, 1454 and 1453 |\n| 12 | are all related and I'll be dealing with those matters. |\n| 13 | The only thing with regard to 1453 though, Mr. |\n| 14 | Bassett, that we haven't fully addressed is the issue on the |\n| 15 | individual debtor's filing a declaration asserting the Fifth |\n| 16 | Amendment privilege. |\n| 17 | And we -- I entered an order saying that there |\n| 18 | would be some scheduling order entered in connection with |\n| 19 | that issue following the conclusion of mediation. |\n| 20 | So I don't know if you're prepared to address that |\n| 21 | or if you have any suggestions with regard to that at the |\n| 22 | moment, Mr. Bassett? |\n| 23 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, again, Nick Bassett from |\n| 24 | Paul Hastings on behalf of the Trustee. |\n| 25 | And I think just so we can all orient ourselves |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 54 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
54 |\n| 1 | and for the sake of clarity of the record, Your Honor |\n| 2 | absoluteely was correct in her recollection. |\n| 3 | This is paragraph 2 of the February 13th order at |\n| 4 | ECF 1455.
And what it says was the Court is aware that the |\n| 5 | debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment Right against self |\n| 6 | incrimination regarding production under the order |\n| 7 | compelling production.
The applicability of the Act of |\n| 8 | Production Doctrine will require additional submissions and |\n| 9 | the Court will set a briefing schedule on that issue after |\n| 10 | the conclusion of the mediation. |\n| 11 | And then it goes on to encourage the parties to |\n| 12 | see if common ground could be reached.
I'll report that no |\n| 13 | common ground exists as to that issue. |\n| 14 | I don't necessarily have a schedule.
I think it |\n| 15 | is incumbent upon the debtor to respond to what we filed and |\n| 16 | to provide clarity as to the basis, if any, for the blanket |\n| 17 | assertion of the Fifth Amendment in response to literally |\n| 18 | every document production request. |\n| 19 | Not only it's in response to a request for the |\n| 20 | additional production of documents, which the Court ordered |\n| 21 | in the January 20th order, so there's a blanket assertion of |\n| 22 | the Fifth Amendment saying he can't produce any documents |\n| 23 | because doing so under the Act of Production Doctrine would |\n| 24 | somehow incriminate him across the board on every subject |\n| 25 | matter we covered in our subpoena. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 55 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
55 |\n| 1 | And then the second is that he took the Fifth |\n| 2 | Amendment in response to the January 20th order's |\n| 3 | requirement that he submit a declaration talking about the |\n| 4 | process that he went through similar to what we've been over |\n| 5 | with Ms. Guo and HK USA to identify responsive documents. |\n| 6 | He asserted the Fifth Amendment as a blanket assertion there |\n| 7 | as well. |\n| 8 | As I said, in what we filed, we have reached out |\n| 9 | to counsel for the debtor.
We said, hey, we hear what |\n| 10 | you're saying in response to our document request and |\n| 11 | received your declaration which said, from Mr. Kwok, I'm |\n| 12 | submitting, I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege. |\n| 13 | And the email we got in response was recorded in |\n| 14 | our submission to the Court was, I think this was somebody |\n| 15 | from the Zeisler firm said, we have nothing further to add |\n| 16 | at this time as to the debtor's assertion of his Fifth |\n| 17 | Amendment rights, but we are continuing to discuss the |\n| 18 | matter with his criminal counsel. |\n| 19 | I don't know who criminal counsel is.
I assume |\n| 20 | that's somebody who's not appeared in this bankruptcy case, |\n| 21 | but that was the response that we received. |\n| 22 | So, basically at this juncture, we don't have any |\n| 23 | visibility into the arguments that the debtor would raise as |\n| 24 | to how he's entitled to a blanket assertion of the Fifth |\n| 25 | across the board, so we really need some sort of briefing |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 56 of\n\n| | 183 | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 | 56 |\n| 1 | schedule that would give us clarity.
And then obviously | |\n| 2 | once we understand their position, we can respond. | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay. | |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
But I think -- | |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
So your -- | |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
You know, I think, given how long | |\n| 7 | we've been at this, I would -- I would, you know, | |\n| 8 | respectfully suggest that whatever happen happen on a | |\n| 9 | relative truncated timetable, but otherwise I don't have | |\n| 10 | particular dates in mind. | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Your suggestion is though that the | |\n| 12 | debtor must file the brief first? | |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
I think that makes sense, Your | |\n| 14 | Honor. | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
That's what I was asking, what your -- | |\n| 16 | not only dates -- | |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
Yeah. | |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
-- but what was your proposal with | |\n| 19 | regard to -- | |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood. | |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Mr. Kindseth, do you wish to be | |\n| 22 | heard on that issue? | |\n| 23 | MR. KINDSETH:
Yes. | |\n| 24 | First of all, we don't disagree that the debtor | |\n| 25 | should take the lead on briefing that particular issue. | |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 57 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 57 I would note, Your Honor, that matter 1455 was not on today's calendar. THE COURT: 53 -- 1453 -- MR. KINDSETH: I actually thought -- THE COURT: -- is on today's calendar. MR. KINDSETH: I thought the paragraph that was referred to was at paragraph 1455. THE COURT: No, 1455 -- no. That's the motion to appear and show cause why HK and Mei Guo shouldn't be held in contempt. We just dealt with that. MR. KINDSETH: Fourteen -- THE COURT: 1453 is a motion for order to show cause why the debtor, Mei Guo and HK, should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with an order, and Rule 2004 subpoenas. And your client did file something. He filed a declaration asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege. So you need to now brief as why he can do that with regard to the discovery sought by the Chapter 11 Trustee in this case. MR. KINDSETH: I see that it's on the screen, Your Honor. It's not on my printed calendar. But regardless, we respect the fact that there needs to be a briefing schedule with respect to that issue so it could be addressed. What I'd ask for is three weeks for an initial brief, Your Honor. It does represent some complicated\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 58 issues with respect to the Fifth Amendment and we'll need the assistance of other counsel, criminal counsel, to facilitate that brief, but we would be prepared to submit such a brief in three weeks. THE COURT: Three weeks from today is March 28th, is that the date that you're suggesting? MR. KINDSETH: That's the date that I'm asking for, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. All right. Hold on one second. (Pause.) THE COURT: I'm not going to set an exact time of the day, you know, but you've got to file it by 11:59 p.m. or it's not going to be timely. All right? MR. KINDSETH: I appreciate that, Your Honor. Very much so. THE COURT: Okay. Then, Attorney Bassett, how much time -- I would think you would need at least two weeks if not more to respond, but you tell me if I'm wrong. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I mean, the Trustee's view is that we'd like to have this submitted fully to the Court for a decision as soon as possible, again, just given how long we've been trying to get these documents. So, you know, if the Trustee's going to have -- sorry, if the debtor's going to have until March 28th, which Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 58 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 59 seems like frankly a lot of time at this juncture, that's fine, the Court has decided that, I think we'd be willing to do it in ten days after that. THE COURT: Okay. So give me a second, please. (Pause.) THE COURT: That would be Friday, April 7th is ten days. MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: Not that -- I don't think it has any impact on the Court's schedule, but I should ask, I think that's Good Friday. Are we open? I mean, you could still file if the clerk's office is closed, but I have no idea if we're closed. You don't think we are? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: We've normally been open. THE COURT: We've normally been open. It used to be a holiday, a state holiday in Connecticut, but I don't believe that it is anymore. But that's just so you know. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Okay. That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. April 7. And I'm not going to put a time frame on you either, except that it's got to be by 11:59 p.m. MR. BASSETT: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay? All right. Hold on one second Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 59 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 60 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 60 then. (Pause.) THE COURT: Attorney Kindseth? MR. KINDSETH: Nothing further. THE COURT: Okay. All right. MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor -- THE COURT: And then -- MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, the only thing I was going to suggest was, just so we have finality as to that issue, to the extent the Court would hold a hearing with respect to those submissions, I think it would be helpful if we could set that now. THE COURT: I will set a date and then I will determine whether or not we're actually going to have that hearing based upon the submissions made. MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: Okay? MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So give me one moment please to look at dates. (Pause.) MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I think we had talked about an April 18th date previously that was already -- THE COURT: Well, we -- you do have -- we now have two things scheduled already for -- we already had basically\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 61 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
61 |\n| 1 | a pretrial conference, that's what is what I would call the |\n| 2 | standard first pretrial conference that the clerk's office |\n| 3 | sets, when an adversary proceeding is commenced, in the |\n| 4 | Genever Holdings vs Kwok matter at 2:00 p.m. |\n| 5 | Then, a few hours ago now, we adjourned the |\n| 6 | hearing on the order to show cause with regard to Lamp |\n| 7 | Capital and Golden Spring and that's also going to be held |\n| 8 | on the 18th at 2:00, so that's fine. |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
Okay. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Let's schedule it for the 18th at |\n| 11 | 2:00.
And then I will tell the parties whether or not I |\n| 12 | feel I can rule on the submissions or I need any oral |\n| 13 | argument and whether there actually will be oral argument on |\n| 14 | that motion on the 18th.
Okay? |\n| 15 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
All right.
Let's just make sure I've |\n| 17 | got that correct.
And would be April 18th at 2:00 p.m. |\n| 18 | So I'm going to ask the courtroom deputy that we |\n| 19 | are going to note that the motion, 1453, will be continued |\n| 20 | to April, what did I just say, 18th, right, at 2:00 p.m. if |\n| 21 | necessary because I may determine something different based |\n| 22 | upon the submissions of the parties.
Okay? |\n| 23 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
You're welcome. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 62 (Pause.) THE COURT: All right. Now, the next matter on today I have, excuse me, I just have to get back to where I was, is the 1492, the individual debtor's motion for stay pending appeal of holding him in contempt of corporate governance motion, order, I should say, I'm sorry. Attorney Henzy, you're going to be addressing that motion? MR. HENZY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I'm not going to go into really any background. I know Your Honor is very familiar with the contempt order. As Your Honor knows, there's a four-part test on whether or not a stay pending appeal is appropriate. It's whether there's a probability of success or a substantial probability or possibility of success or serious legal questions going to the merits, irreparable injury, or balance of hardships tipping in favor of a party, whether there's substantial injury to the party opposing a stay if one is issued, and the public interest. And, Your Honor, I think the Trustee agrees that Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 62 of\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1550 | Filed 03/16/23 | Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 | | Page 63 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|--|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|--|------------|\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
63 |\n| 1 | in the Second Circuit the cases say that the degree to which |\n| 2 | a factor must be present varies with the strength of the |\n| 3 | other factors, meaning more of one excuses less of the |\n| 4 | other. |\n| 5 | Your Honor, on the likelihood of success.
And, |\n| 6 | again, so Your Honor, as Your Honor knows, you entered an |\n| 7 | order finding Mr. Kwok in contempt because he had not taken |\n| 8 | certain actions with respect to Ace Decade.
And you found |\n| 9 | that paragraph 3 of the corporate governance order which |\n| 10 | provides that he is to comply with, and I'm not going to |\n| 11 | quote the language, 521(a)(3) and (4) was the basis for him |\n| 12 | to have been required to take those actions. |\n| 13 | On likelihood of success, Your Honor, and I think |\n| 14 | Your Honor you recognized this case law in your contempt |\n| 15 | order, in the Second Circuit, it is axiomatic that a |\n| 16 | bankruptcy court's contempt power, like that of a district |\n| 17 | court, is narrowly circumscribed. |\n\n And in our motion for stay, I cited the *PHH Mortgage Corp.* at 6 F. 4th 503, the Second Circuit case from 2021, and other cases, including, Your Honor, the Supreme Court case, *International Longshoreman's Association*, 389 U.S. 64. It's a 1967 case where the Supreme Court stated that the judicial contempt power is a potent weapon.\n\n And, again, Your Honor, I cited in the motion other cases, Supreme Court and Second Circuit cases, that\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 64 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
64 |\n| 1 | say the same. |\n| 2 | And I believe Your Honor quoted this in your |\n| 3 | decision, in your contempt decision, that based on that, a |\n| 4 | civil contempt should not be resorted to where there is a |\n| 5 | fair ground of doubt.
So that is the standard that the |\n| 6 | Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have stated as to |\n| 7 | whether -- as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's |\n| 8 | conduct. |\n| 9 | And Your Honor I believe cited, and I cited in the |\n| 10 | motion, that the Supreme Court's Taggart decision, at 389 |\n| 11 | Supreme Court 1801. |\n| 12 | Consistent, Your Honor, with those basic |\n| 13 | principles, the Second Circuit has stated a clear standard |\n| 14 | that a contempt order is warranted only where the moving |\n| 15 | party establishes, that's the moving party establishes by |\n| 16 | clear and convincing evidence, that the alleged contemnor |\n| | |\n\n More specifically, a movant must establish that the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, the proof of non-compliance is clear and convincing, and the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner. And I cited in the motion, Your Honor, the *King* case, Second Circuit case, at 65 F. 3d at 1058, and other cases.\n\nviolated a district court's edict.\n\nYour Honor, specifically on the first factor the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 65 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
65 |\n| 1 | Second Circuit has stated on whether or not an order is |\n| 2 | clear and unambiguous, the Second Circuit, I'm sorry, the |\n| 3 | Supreme Court has stated when the judicial contempt power is |\n| 4 | founded upon a decree too vague to be understood, it can be |\n| 5 | a deadly one. |\n| 6 | Accordingly, civil contempt usually is not |\n| 7 | appropriate unless those who must obey orders will know what |\n| 8 | the Court intends to acquire and what it means to forbid. |\n| 9 | That is at the Supreme Court's International Longshoreman's |\n| 10 | decision and is also stated in the Supreme Court's Taggart |\n| 11 | decision. |\n| 12 | The Second Circuit adds to that, and critically I |\n| 13 | think in this case, and this is a quote, \"A clear and |\n| 14 | unambiguous order is one that leaves no uncertainty in the |\n| 15 | minds of those to whom it is addressed who must be able to |\n| 16 | ascertain from the four corners of the order precisely what |\n| 17 | acts are forbidden.\"
That's the King case at page 1058. |\n| 18 | And, again, in the motion I cite other Second Circuit cases |\n| 19 | that say the same. |\n| 20 | The Second Circuit has also stated that in |\n| 21 | contempt cases ambiguities and omissions are to redound to |\n| 22 | the benefit of the person charged with contempt.
And in the |\n| 23 | motion I cite the Drywall papers, local case at 889 F. 2d |\n| 24 | 389. |\n| 25 | Your Honor, of particular relevance here, and we |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 66 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 66 did object on this basis in the objection we filed to the Trustee's motion, of particular relevance here the general rule is that a statute cannot properly be made the basis of contempt merely by incorporating a reference to its broad terms into a court order. So I'm going to say that again. A statute cannot properly be made the basis of contempt proceedings merely by incorporating a reference to its broad terms into a court order. That's the general rule. And I cite, Your Honor, in the motion, a number of Supreme Court cases that state that rule. And I'm going to go back to those in a second. I also cite the leading Second Circuit, which is *S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc. vs Clorox Company*, 241 F. 3d 232 at 240 through 41. That's a Second Circuit 2001 case. In that case, the Second Circuit states an injunction must be more specific than a simple command that the defendant obey the law. To comply with the specificity, and this is a continuing quote, Your Honor, and clarity requirements, \"An injunction must be specific and definite enough to apprise those within its scope of the conduct that is being prescribed. This rule against broad, vague injunctions is designed to prevent uncertainty and confusion on the part of those to whom the injunction is directed, and to be sure\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 67 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
67 |\n| 1 | that the appellate court knows precisely what is being |\n| 2 | reviewed.\" |\n| 3 | So this general rule, Your Honor, on incorporating |\n| 4 | a statute or so-called obey the law orders circles back to |\n| 5 | the requirement that an order be clear and unambiguous. |\n| 6 | And just to give Your Honor some language from |\n| 7 | Supreme Court decisions, again, this is in the motion, NLRB |\n| 8 | vs. Express Publishing Company decision at 312 U.S. 426 at |\n| 9 | 435 through 36, the Supreme Court stated a federal court has |\n| 10 | broad power to restrain acts which are the same type or |\n| 11 | class as unlawful acts which the Court has found to have |\n| 12 | been committed or whose commission in the future unless |\n| 13 | enjoined may fairly be anticipated from the defendant's |\n| 14 | conduct in the past. |\n| 15 | But the mere fact that a court has found the |\n| 16 | defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute |\n| 17 | does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute |\n| 18 | and thus subject the defendant to contempt proceedings if he |\n| 19 | shall at anytime in the future commit some new violation |\n| 20 | unlike and unrelated to that with which he was originally |\n| 21 | charged. |\n| 22 | This court will strike from an injunction decree |\n| 23 | restraints upon the commission of unlawful acts which are |\n| 24 | thus disassociated from those which a defendant has |\n| 25 | committed. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 68 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 68 Your Honor, in the *McComb vs Jacksonville Paper* case at 336 U.S. 187, it's at page 195 through 96, this is a joint dissent. It is a dissent, Your Honor, so, therefore, admittedly, it's dicta, from Justices Rankfurter and Jackson. Although I will say that this language is quoted by courts sort of down the years, it's 1949 decision, in that dissent, Justices Rankfurter and Jackson state this court has indicated again and again that a statute cannot properly be made the basis of contempt proceedings merely by incorporating a reference to its broad terms into a court order. Again, Your Honor, in the motion, I cite other Supreme Court case law. And in addition to the Second Circuit case, I cite case law from other circuits that clearly state the general rule that against so-called obey the law orders, meaning orders that incorporate a general statute, and say follow that statute and overlay potential contempt proceeding if you don't -- if you don't follow the statute. Your Honor, in their objection, in his objection, the Trustee cites a number of cases which I'm just going to quickly refer to because I think they actually prove the point. The Trustee cites the *Ligon vs. City of New York*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 69 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
69 |\n| 1 | case at 925 F. Supp. 478.
In that case, the Court ordered |\n| 2 | the New York Police Department to immediately, this is the |\n| 3 | language of the Court's order, cease performing trespass |\n| 4 | stops outside of private buildings in the Bronx without |\n| 5 | reasonable suspicion of trespass. |\n| 6 | So, Your Honor, the New York Police Department had |\n| 7 | instituted a program where an owner of a private building |\n| 8 | could essentially ask the police to stop and frisk people |\n| 9 | who were coming out of their buildings, or near their |\n| 10 | buildings and the New York Police were sued based on Fourth |\n| 11 | Amendment grounds.
And, again, the Court specifically |\n| 12 | ordered the police to stop unless the police had reasonable |\n| 13 | suspicion of trespass. |\n| 14 | The Court then went to expressly define what its |\n| 15 | test was for reasonable suspicion rather than the Court just |\n| 16 | ordering the New York City Police Department to comply with |\n| 17 | the Fourth Amendment. |\n| 18 | The New York City Police Department complained |\n| 19 | that it was a simple command that they simply obey the law |\n| 20 | and so that that order was not enforceable. |\n| 21 | And the Court responded that it had expressly -- |\n| 22 | it had made express what the requirements were.
You are to |\n| 23 | stop arresting people or stop -- you're to stop stopping and |\n| 24 | frisking people unless you have reasonable suspicion.
And, |\n| 25 | again, the Court gave very, very clear definition on what it |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 70 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
70 |\n| 1 | meant by reasonable suspicion. |\n| 2 | Your Honor, as distinguished from here, what the |\n| 3 | corporate governance order, paragraph 3 of the corporate |\n| 4 | governance order, did was it quoted 521(a)(3) and (4) and |\n| 5 | said comply with these.
And 521(a)(3) provides the debtor |\n| 6 | is to cooperate, but it doesn't give -- its very |\n| 7 | distinguishable say from that --
the situation in the Ligon |\n| 8 | case where the Court specifically said you can't arrest |\n| 9 | people unless you have reasonable suspicion and it |\n| 10 | specifically defined what it meant by reasonable suspicion. |\n| 11 | The Trustee cites U.S. v. Miller.
Your Honor, |\n| 12 | it's a Ninth Circuit case at 588 F. 2d 1256.
Your Honor, in |\n| 13 | that case, the Court did order someone essentially to comply |\n| 14 | with the statute, but the distinction was that the statute |\n| 15 | itself, and the language of the order -- this was an |\n| 16 | interstate commerce case. |\n| 17 | And the Interstate Commerce Act requires people |\n| 18 | who are transporting goods on highways that they be licensed |\n| 19 | to do so.
And this entity apparently was not -- was not |\n| 20 | licensed and was transporting goods and so the Court ordered |\n| 21 | in compliance with the Interstate Commerce Act entered an |\n| 22 | order expressly directing this party to comply with the |\n| 23 | order. |\n| 24 | But, again, the specificity there is you can't |\n| 25 | transport goods on highways unless you go get licensed by |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 71 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
71 |\n| 1 | the ICC.
So not at all a general statute where a party |\n| 2 | wouldn't know what their obligation was purely based on that |\n| 3 | statute and that statute's incorporation into an order. |\n| 4 | With that order, and with the order in Ligon, you |\n| 5 | wouldn't have to outside of the four corners of the order to |\n| 6 | understand what it is that you're required to do or that you |\n| 7 | are prohibited from doing. |\n| 8 | The Trustee cites the SEC, I'm sorry, the Perez |\n| 9 | vs. Ohio Bell Telephone Company case.
It's at 655 F. App'x |\n| 10 | 404.
It's a Sixth Circuit, 2016 case.
That, Your Honor, |\n| 11 | there, the Sixth Circuit noted that there may be |\n| 12 | circumstances when obey the law injunctions are justified by |\n| 13 | the facts of the case in which the injunction is sought. |\n| 14 | But there, the Sixth Circuit actually denied the |\n| 15 | injunction that was being sought and relied on the general |\n| 16 | rule that an injunction that does no more than prohibit any |\n| 17 | and all conduct and contravention of already existing law is |\n| 18 | over broad under the terms of Rule 65. |\n| 19 | So, again, Your Honor, I think the cases that the |\n| 20 | Trustee cites really, if anything, prove the rule or are not |\n| 21 | inconsistent with my argument, which is there is a general |\n| 22 | rule, Supreme Court cases, Second Circuit cases, against |\n| 23 | obey the law injunctions and nothing in those cases say that |\n| 24 | that's not true. |\n| 25 | Again, those cases are very distinguishable |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 72 because there was specific conduct that was required in those cases to the extent that they were injunctions that were entered. In this case, Your Honor, paragraph 3, I'm going to disagree with what was in Your Honor's -- in the order. Paragraph 3 does not, as the Court stated in the order, require the individual debtor's cooperation with the Trustee in locating the individual debtor's nominee, Ms. Wang, in effectuating the turnover of her ownership interest in Ace Decade. Paragraph 3 says nothing whatsoever about Ms. Wang or about Ace Decade. It just broadly and generally requires the debtor to cooperate with the Trustee in accordance with Section 521(a)(3) and 521(a)(4). The specific action required of the debtor is not within the four corners of the order. The debtor could not tell from the order alone what he was required to do. The critical thing, Your Honor, is that the content here, or the specific action of the debtor, was left to the discretion of the Trustee. If the Trustee didn't tell Mr. Kwok to go do this with respect to Ace Decade, then he wouldn't have been required to do it. The order itself did not require him to do it. It was the order plus this direction from Mr. Despins that arguably required the debtor to go do this. And that is Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 72 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 73 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
73 |\n| 1 | where we run afoul of the general rule of the King case that |\n| 2 | says you have to -- it has to be within the four corners of |\n| 3 | the order and runs afoul of the rule against obey the law |\n| 4 | orders. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So let me just stop you right |\n| 6 | there. |\n| 7 | I'm not going to rule on what I've already ruled |\n| 8 | on.
Your arguing your appeal as opposed to how the factors |\n| 9 | on the stay pending appeal I should look at to determine |\n| 10 | whether I should grant a stay pending appeal. |\n| 11 | So I'm going to have you focus on the factors and |\n| 12 | tell me whether your client's going to suffer irreparable |\n| 13 | harm absent a stay, whether your client's going to suffer |\n| 14 | substantial injury absent a stay, whether the movant -- |\n| 15 | whether any party will suffer substantial injury if a stay |\n| 16 | is issued, whether you, as the movant, has demonstrated a |\n| 17 | substantial possibility, although less than a likelihood of |\n| 18 | success on appeal, and how the public interest may be |\n| 19 | affected if I don't stay your -- this order.
That's what I |\n| 20 | need you to tell me. |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
If I wasn't being clear, Your Honor, I |\n| 22 | was focusing on what I think you just laid out as the third |\n| 23 | factor which is the likelihood of success on appeal. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
Go |\n| 25 | ahead. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 74 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
74 |\n| 1 | MR. HENZY:
And so I apologize if I was not clear. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
So you're not saying that you're going |\n| 3 | to suffer irreparable -- are you arguing that your client -- |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
Oh, I'm going to get there.
I'm going |\n| 5 | to get there, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, let's do that. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
Your Honor, if I could finish |\n| 8 | on the likelihood of success point?
I just -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
Yeah.
Sure.
Sure.
I just |\n| 10 | want to focus on the elements.
That's what I want to focus |\n| 11 | on. |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
I'll try -- I'll try to shorten it up, |\n| 13 | Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:
I think, Your Honor, that your order |\n| 16 | is an obey the law order. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:
And I think the case law is clear that |\n| 19 | those cannot be the basis of contempt and they are not |\n| 20 | enforceable. |\n| 21 | Again, without -- you left to Mr. Despins' |\n| 22 | discretion what was going to be required.
You did not |\n| 23 | require Mr. Kwok to take action with respect to Ace Decade. |\n| 24 | It's Mr. Despins required Mr. Kwok to take action with |\n| 25 | respect to Ace Decade.
And that may be, Your Honor, the |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 75 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
75 |\n| 1 | basis for some other relief, but it's -- it's not, it can't |\n| 2 | be the basis for a contempt order. |\n| 3 | So Mr. Despins may have rights and he may be able |\n| 4 | to take action based on what's happening with Ace Decade, |\n| 5 | but he can't get contempt. |\n| 6 | So I think there's a distinction there.
It's not |\n| 7 | that Mr. Despins doesn't have any remedy, it's the remedy |\n| 8 | that he chose to pursue I think is not legally supportable. |\n| 9 | And I think, on likelihood of success, Your Honor, |\n| 10 | with all due respect, I think the case law is clear that |\n| 11 | obey the law injunctions are not -- are not enforceable. |\n| 12 | On the irreparable harm, Your Honor, case law is |\n| 13 | clear that where compliance -- when compliance would moot |\n| 14 | the appeal, that that may constitute irreparable harm. |\n| 15 | So if Mr. Kwok were to comply with the order, he |\n| 16 | was supposed to comply yesterday, and obviously, I mean he |\n| 17 | has not complied, that he would then not have the -- it |\n| 18 | would moot his appeal of Your Honor's contempt finding. |\n| 19 | And among other cases, and I did not cite these in |\n| 20 | the motion because this is really in response to the |\n| 21 | Trustee's objection, Becker vs. U.S., it's at 451 -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
It's not cited?
What you just said, |\n| 23 | Becker vs. U.S., you're saying you have not cited it or you |\n| 24 | did cite it?
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
So I didn't cite it in the -- in the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 76 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
76 |\n| 1 | motion, Your Honor, so this is I'm really responding to |\n| 2 | arguments that the Trustee made in his objection to the |\n| 3 | motion. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
But the Becker vs. U.S., 451 |\n| 6 | U.S. 1306, so that's -- I know I'm going fast, Your Honor -- |\n| 7 | so 451 U.S. 1306. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I got it. |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY:
At page 311, I'm sorry 1311, that's a |\n| 10 | 1981 Supreme Court case, where the Supreme Court says the |\n| 11 | balance in that case, the Court found I should say, it's a |\n| 12 | Justice Rehnquist opinion, the balance of the equities tips |\n| 13 | decidedly in favor of the applicant so the stay is not |\n| 14 | granted.
Applicant's appeal may well be mooted, I'm sorry, |\n| 15 | will be -- may well become moot. |\n| 16 | Second Supreme Court case, John Doe Agency vs. |\n| 17 | John Doe Corp.
It's at 488 U.S. 1306, so that's 448 U.S. |\n| 18 | 1306. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Same page number as the other?
That's |\n| 20 | kind of interesting, isn't it? |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
No.
So, Your Honor, the Becker case |\n| 22 | was at 451 U.S. -- oh, I definitely got my -- I will provide |\n| 23 | the citations to the Court, Your Honor, because I'm now |\n| 24 | looking at my notes and -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
It would be unusual to have two cases |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 77 start on the same page in different volumes. MR. HENZY: Well, actually, Your Honor -- so the *Becker* case is 451 U.S. -- well, Your Honor, sometimes -- so the *Becker* case is 451 U.S. 1306. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. HENZY: And the *John Doe Agency* case, in fact, is 488 U.S. -- THE COURT: Okay. Well, let's -- that's why I wanted to make sure. MR. HENZY: -- 1306. THE COURT: Okay. All right. MR. HENZY: So thank you for asking the question, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: And I don't need to provide you with the cite because that is the same page number, but the -- and that -- that case makes the same point. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: A third Supreme Court case, and I'm -- just want to make sure because it's not the same, but it's very close, is *New York vs. Kleppe* 429 U.S. 1307. It's a 1976 case. THE COURT: I'm laughing because of the page again, 1307. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I'm looking at it and I Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 77 of\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 78 of
183 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
78 |\n| had -- I wanted to confirm it too, but it is the correct |\n| page number. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| MR. HENZY:
Where the Supreme Court, the quote |\n| from that case, \"Perhaps the most compelling justification |\n| for a circuit justice to upset an interim decision by a |\n| Court of Appeals is to protect\" -- so this was on a motion |\n| for stay to a circuit justice as opposed to the full court |\n| -- \"is to protect this court's power to entertain a petition |\n| per certiorari before or after a final judgment of a Court |\n| of Appeals.\" |\n| Another cite, Your Honor, In re Adelphia |\n| Communications Corp. 361 B.R. 337.
And at page 348, the |\n| Southern District of New York states with a denial of a stay |\n| pending appeal risks mooting any appeal of significant |\n| claims of error, the irreparable harm standard requirement |\n| is satisfied.
So, again, Your Honor, the issue here is that |\n| if Mr. Kwok were to comply, he would -- it would moot his |\n| appeal. |\n| A second irreparable harm point, Your Honor, is |\n| that non-compliance will not result not in merely monetary |\n| damages, which is the argument the Trustee makes in his |\n| objection to the motion, it really will expose Mr. Kwok to |\n| further contempt.
He potentially is exposed to an argument |\n| that he's in contempt of your contempt order. |\n| |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 79 of\n\n| | 183
Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
79 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | So your contempt order says he's in contempt of |\n| 2 | the corporate governance order and the sanction, if he does |\n| | |\n| 3 | not purge himself, which he was supposed to purge himself by |\n| 4 | yesterday and he has not purged himself, is that he will be |\n| 5 | charged for the Trustee's attorney's fees in connection with |\n| 6 | this matter, in connection with the motion for contempt. |\n| 7 | Your Honor, Bankruptcy Code Section 1115 provides |\n| 8 | that any property that comes to Mr. Kwok post-petition, any |\n| 9 | income that he receives post-petition, is property of the |\n| 10 | bankruptcy estate; therefore, by definition, any property |\n| 11 | the debtor would have to comply with the sanction that |\n| 12 | you've ordered would be property of the bankruptcy estate, |\n| 13 | which I think means it would be legally impossible for him |\n| 14 | to comply. |\n| 15 | He would not -- he does not have, legally he would |\n| 16 | not have, any money that was not already property of the |\n| 17 | bankruptcy estate to pay for the Trustee's fees. |\n| 18 | And, Your Honor, I couldn't find a lot of case law |\n| 19 | specifically on that point. |\n| 20 | One case, a Southern District of New York case, |\n| 21 | U.S. vs. Fox, it's at 1983 U.S. District Lexis 19273, and |\n| 22 | there the Court states the respondent is faced with the |\n| 23 | irreparable -- with irreparable harm in that without a stay |\n| 24 | his only means of preserving his appeal is through risk of |\n| 25 | sanctions for contempt. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 80 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
80 |\n| 1 | So, here, Mr. Kwok is faced with that choice.
The |\n| 2 | only way he can preserve his appeal is to not comply with |\n| 3 | the order.
But by doing so, he exposes himself to a risk of |\n| 4 | sanctions for contempt. |\n| 5 | And, Your Honor, I believe that that, facing |\n| 6 | contempt, being -- potentially being held in contempt for |\n| 7 | not complying with Your Honor's contempt order, that that |\n| 8 | constitutes irreparable harm. |\n| 9 | In terms of harm to the Trustee, a couple of |\n| 10 | points Your Honor. |\n| 11 | What the Trustee argues in his objection to the |\n| 12 | motion is that because he doesn't have control of Ace Decade |\n| 13 | it's making what he's doing in the UBS litigation much more |\n| 14 | difficult.
And he goes through a recitation of what he has |\n| 15 | had to do over there, in the U.K., in connection with the |\n| 16 | UBS litigation. |\n| 17 | First, Your Honor, Mr. Despins is going to have to |\n| 18 | fight for control.
My understanding is he is going to have |\n| 19 | to fight for control over Ace Decade.
There is another |\n| 20 | person out there who claims he is the owner of Ace Decade. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Who's that? |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
His name is John Wey or Wang.
I think |\n| 23 | it's -- I don't -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Do you know how to spell it? |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
So, Your Honor, there's a -- he has a |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 81 Chinese name. THE COURT: I understand. I'm just asking you if you know how to spell it? MR. HENZY: And I believe the Chinese version, it's Wang Zei, and I -- I'm sorry, Zang Wey -- and I don't know how to spell it, Your Honor. The Americanized version is he's referred to as John Wey. THE COURT: Do you know how to spell Wey? MR. HENZY: I don't, Your Honor. I'm not -- I don't. I apologize. THE COURT: Well, how do you know this information? The reason I'm asking is it's not going to -- for transcript purposes, right, what's the transcriber going to do with that? So we need to know how it's spelled. MR. HENZY: I would spell -- THE COURT: Even if you only know the -- what you referred to as the American spelling. MR. HENZY: I would spell it John, J-O-H-N, and then Wey, W-E-Y. But I -- THE COURT: W-E-Y? MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: But, again, that's an Americanized version and -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 81 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 82 THE COURT: I understand. I just -- MR. HENZY: -- different people might have -- THE COURT: I just want to have something -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: -- in the record so when someone orders a transcript, the transcriber has something to work with. Okay? MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: That's my point. So go ahead. MR. HENZY: So the point, Your Honor, is that even if Mr. Kwok somehow could cause the nominee shareholder of Ace Decade to deliver to Mr. Despins what he wants, I don't think that's going to end it. I think that he is -- THE COURT: But that doesn't matter. I mean, I'm listening to all your other arguments, but that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. I don't -- John Wey isn't here. I don't have -- John Wey didn't voluntarily file a Chapter 11 petition, right? Mr. Kwok did. MR. HENZY: Mm-hmm. THE COURT: So, I mean, while I hear your other arguments, I don't find that argument persuasive, because if that's true, what you're saying is true about John Wey, then the Trustee will have to deal with that. That has nothing to do with whether or not Mr. Kwok should have done Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 82 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 83 something with regard to Ace Decade. So that's all I'm saying. Okay? MR. HENZY: I don't disagree with you, Your Honor. I think where that matters is on the stay pending appeal standard. So it's what's -- if you grant a stay -- THE COURT: But I -- but I can't -- I can't rely on what you just said on the stay pending appeal standard because I don't have any evidence. All you have, I mean, at this point, is you've been told, I think you said, you've been told that there is some other person out there who's claiming an interest in Ace Decade and his name is John Wey. That's all. I don't have any evidence in the record of this case about that, so I'm not going to consider that on stay pending appeal. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, I'm not sure you have any evidence of what's happening in the U.K. And if you are not going to take cognizance of what the Trustee put in his objection to the motion about what is going on in the U.K., then I would -- then I would say I'm okay with that. But I think it has to be -- there has to be equivalence. THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. When you're saying that -- I don't know yet because I haven't heard from the Trustee, but my recollection or my -- is that there was Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 83 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 84 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
84 |\n| 1 | some order issued in the United -- in the Untied Kingdom |\n| 2 | saying that -- I don't remember what it said, I'm going to |\n| 3 | let the Trustee tell me what it said, right -- but that he |\n| 4 | hash to turn over the information about Ace Decade.
That's |\n| 5 | what I believe. |\n| 6 | So hold on.
Just let me say what I'm going to say |\n| 7 | and you can tell me whatever you want to tell me. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
So if he shows me that order, why |\n| 10 | wouldn't I consider it? |\n| 11 | That's completely different from saying you've |\n| 12 | been told, in my opinion anyway, that is completely |\n| 13 | different from anything in this record that says there's |\n| 14 | somebody named John Wey who claims he owns Ace Decade. |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:
Well, it's more than a -- so two |\n| 16 | points. |\n| 17 | You're correct.
An order was entered in the U.K. |\n| 18 | litigation that granted Mr. Despins recognition in the U.K. |\n| 19 | litigation and ordered the U.K. lawyers to turn over -- I'm |\n| 20 | going to say as I understand it most but not all of the |\n| 21 | documents in their possession. |\n| 22 | So that you're absolutely correct.
An order that |\n| 23 | says roughly that Mr. Despins -- and Mr. Bassett I'm sure |\n| 24 | would know with more specificity what that order said -- but |\n| 25 | that order absolutely entered and I have no -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 85 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 85 Obviously Your Honor, I think can take cognizance of what's in an order entered by a court, but I think what Mr. -- in the objection, what the Trustee tells you is a lot more than what's in the order. He tells you about all the difficulty he has had over in the U.K. proceeding as a result of Mr. Kwok not having done whatever Mr. Despins wanted with respect to Ace Decade. So, again, I have no problem. In fact, one of the arguments I would make in terms of harm to the Trustee is he managed to get this order entered over there. He's doing great. He's gotten -- he's been recognized. He's getting all the information he wants. What's the problem? So I'm fine with that. I mean, again, you can take cognizance of that order. And the Trustee is doing his thing over there, and he's getting, so far, he's getting what he needs. It's not -- I'm telling you -- this is one of those difficult things in this case, Your Honor. I'm telling you that it has been claimed that there is this other person who's the owner. I'm not sure I can tell you the source of that because frankly it's in a document that I think is -- has been marked confidential. THE COURT: Well, it's not part of the motion anyway, so I think we need to move on. MR. HENZY: Okay.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 86 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
86 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
On harm to the Trustee, Your |\n| 3 | Honor, I want -- I want to try to get this right, the debtor |\n| 4 | is not going to comply.
He is not going to purge himself of |\n| 5 | the contempt.
And I understand that you found differently |\n| 6 | in the order, but he does not believe he has the ability to |\n| 7 | comply. |\n| 8 | So I understand this may be kind of a perverse |\n| 9 | argument. |\n| 10 | The Trustee's not going to be harmed at all |\n| 11 | because nothing is going to change with respect to the |\n| 12 | obligations on the Trustee depending on whether or not you |\n| 13 | stay this order.
The only thing that will change is is the |\n| 14 | debtor going to face the risk he will be held in further |\n| 15 | contempt by non-payment of the sanction that you ordered. |\n| 16 | Whatever burdens there are on the Trustee in the |\n| 17 | U.K. litigation, you entering a stay today or not entering a |\n| 18 | stay today are not going to change those burdens, because, |\n| 19 | again, Mr. Kwok is not going to, and I would argue he's not |\n| 20 | going to be able to, but he is not going to comply.
He's |\n| 21 | not going to deliver to Mr. Despins the share certificates |\n| 22 | of Ace Decade. |\n| 23 | So I don't think that you entering a stay -- |\n| 24 | again, Mr. Despins is going to argue, and it may well be |\n| 25 | true, him not having control of Ace Decade is creating these |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 87 of\n\n| | 183
Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
87 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | additional burdens and so there's harm to him, but the harm |\n| 2 | will not be caused by the fact that you enter a stay of the |\n| 3 | pending appeal if you decide to do so. |\n| 4 | Your Honor, on public interest, there is a public |\n| 5 | policy of preserving rights that would otherwise be lost. |\n| 6 | Again, if Mr. Kwok were to comply, it would moot his appeal. |\n| 7 | There is the seriousness of the contempt power. |\n| 8 | And I quoted and cited the cases from the Supreme Court and |\n| 9 | the Second Circuit that show stay contempt is a potent |\n| 10 | weapon.
And I think there's a policy that courts should be |\n| 11 | very careful before implementing them or at least give |\n| 12 | parties a full and fair opportunity to vindicate their |\n| 13 | rights. |\n| 14 | Your Honor, I'd also say that if there's not a |\n| 15 | stay here, there is going to be follow-on litigation, |\n| 16 | because presumably the Trustee is going to be in front of |\n| 17 | you seeking to put a dollar amount on the sanction that |\n| 18 | you've ordered. |\n| 19 | And just to be clear, you have ordered a sanction. |\n| 20 | If Mr. Kwok did not purge himself by yesterday, your order |\n| 21 | states that he is going to be sanctioned the amount of |\n| 22 | attorney's fees that the Trustee has incurred here.
There |\n| 23 | will be further litigation on that and that may not be |\n| 24 | necessary.
And there is case law that says that judicial |\n| 25 | economy is -- constitutes public interest within the meaning |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 88 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
88 |\n| 1 | of the stay statute. |\n| 2 | And the one case I would cite, Your Honor, is In |\n| 3 | re Gorsoan.
It's G-O-R-S-O-A-N.
It's a Southern District |\n| 4 | of New York case from 2020 at 2020 U.S. District Lexis |\n| 5 | 128980.
And the Court says, among other things, that |\n| 6 | there's a public interest in preserving judicial resources |\n| 7 | by avoiding unnecessary proceedings while an appeal is |\n| 8 | pending. |\n| 9 | And I think that is the case that we have here. |\n| 10 | There is an appeal.
And to continue to litigate around this |\n| 11 | matter while that appeal is pending risks duplication of |\n| 12 | judicial efforts. |\n| 13 | So, Your Honor, with that, I'd ask that the motion |\n| 14 | for stay be granted.
Thank you. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | Trustee Despins? |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
For the |\n| 18 | record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee.
I'll try to be |\n| 19 | brief on this. |\n| 20 | And I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the |\n| 21 | issue of the likelihood that Your Honor's decision would be |\n| 22 | upheld on appeal because I've seen very -- I've rarely seen |\n| 23 | a bankruptcy judge say, actually, I got it wrong, let me |\n| 24 | correct it now.
And so we believe you got it right.
We |\n| 25 | believe that it was precise. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 89 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 89 And actually to the extent they're confused somehow, the motion or the order granting the contempt is very precise, page 6 and 7, as to what they should have done. So by now, they should know. This is kind of, you know, insulting people's intelligence saying we're really confused. We don't know what we have to do or not do. We had a whole trial on this. What were we trying to get? Control of Ace Decade. That is what we want and that's what they need to give us. And Your Honor found that they can do that. I would like to talk about the harm to the estate here. And what's happening, and we filed this -- or maybe on Monday, Your Honor, so you probably didn't get a chance to look at it, but Mr. Kwok -- you know, we always, you know, appreciate the gifts that he gives us -- but he's on the internet. This is a quote from him. This is on paragraph 11 of our response. He says, \"I guess when Luc was asking UBS for money, UBS told him you can kick Miles Guo out of the case, but Ace Decade and Dawn State have nothing to do with Miles Guo. How can you guarantee that dismissal of the case\" -- in other words -- this is still him saying this -- \"If UBS decided to pay Luc, how could Luc manage to close the case for good? He is not capable of doing so.\" He's basically taunting the Trustee and the Court\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1550 | Filed 03/16/23 | Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 | Page 90 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
90 |\n| 1 | because he's saying the Trustee cannot settle the UBS |\n| 2 | litigation because the Trustee does not have control of Ace |\n| 3 | Decade and -- he doesn't say that -- but he's the one who's |\n| 4 | preventing that. |\n| 5 | And as to the harm, you know, Mr. Henzy was |\n| 6 | talking about, well, I don't know, we should exclude what |\n| 7 | the Trustee said about the harm to the Trustee or to the |\n| 8 | estate, I mean, it's flagrant here. |\n| 9 | We've spent hundreds of hours in the U.K. -- and I |\n| 10 | remember vividly because I have to get up at 4 o'clock, |\n| 11 | sometimes 5 o'clock in the morning to be on these court Zoom |\n| 12 | calls -- where the other party opposing us is Ace Decade. |\n| 13 | It's Ace Decade opposing us at every turn. |\n| 14 | And you might say -- he might say, well, he got |\n| 15 | what he wanted.
Ultimately, we did after two or three |\n| 16 | hearings.
But this continues in the sense the judge said |\n| 17 | you will, you, the lawyers, will produce the advice you gave |\n| 18 | to Mr. Kwok and Ace Decade to the Trustee so he can review |\n| 19 | that advice.
And they did that, but the lawyers for Ace |\n| 20 | Decade redacted. |\n| 21 | So, for example, there's a sentence that says on |\n| 22 | this issue there are three important factors.
Everything is |\n| 23 | redacted after that.
So I have a document that is useless |\n| 24 | or quasi-useless so I need to go back to court again.
So |\n| 25 | this is trench warfare. |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 91 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
91 |\n| 1 | And, you know, so there's irreparable harm to the |\n| 2 | estate because we're not getting to where we want to be |\n| 3 | because the UBS litigation in theory could be a valuable |\n| 4 | asset, but he is preventing me from getting at that. |\n| 5 | And I have the utmost respect for Mr. Henzy, but I |\n| 6 | cannot believe that he pulled the Zang Wey rabbit out of the |\n| 7 | hat. |\n| 8 | Mr. Kwok has three or four go-to responses when |\n| 9 | he's in trouble. |\n| 10 | One is CCP.
Whoever did something wrong to me, |\n| 11 | like Paul Hastings, is CCP.
Ostrager is CCP now.
We've |\n| 12 | read recently that somehow he's influenced by the CCP. |\n| 13 | The next one is forgery.
You will hear that, I |\n| 14 | guarantee you, in this case.
He will argue that some |\n| 15 | documents are forged.
That's what happened in the PAX |\n| 16 | litigation.
They produced documents.
And they later said |\n| 17 | these are forgery.
These are not -- I didn't sign those. |\n| 18 | So that's the next one. |\n| 19 | Then the other one is take the Fifth. |\n| 20 | And the last one is Zang Wey.
Zang Wey is the ace |\n| 21 | in the whole because -- we have this saying in French, I'm |\n| 22 | not going to say it -- but basically somebody who comes from |\n| 23 | afar can lie very easily.
And what I'm saying about that is |\n| 24 | that he has said all sorts of things about Zang Wey.
That |\n| 25 | Zang Wey is in prison.
We cannot contact him.
He's been -- |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 92 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
92 |\n| 1 | he is being detained.
But he owns all of -- it's just -- |\n| 2 | it's insanity. |\n| 3 | And, Your Honor, you've probably excluded that, |\n| 4 | but I think it's really important for the Court to deal with |\n| 5 | this, you know, by denying the stay because this is, you |\n| 6 | know, fundamental and goes to the integrity of the process. |\n| 7 | And, Your Honor, your order on contempt said, |\n| 8 | that's built into the order, that the Court can impose |\n| 9 | additional sanctions. |\n| 10 | And what I didn't understand from Mr. Henzy's |\n| 11 | argument, he said, well, it's irreparable harm because |\n| 12 | compliance would moot the appeal.
I hear that as, oh, we |\n| 13 | can comply, but we won't because that would moot the appeal. |\n| 14 | And it's a bizarre argument for somebody who's been held in |\n| 15 | contempt to make I think because it implies that, in fact, |\n| 16 | they could.
But then later on he says we can't and we |\n| 17 | won't. |\n| 18 | But if the concern is that compliance would moot |\n| 19 | the appeal, there's an implication here that they could |\n| 20 | comply.
And if they can comply, they should comply, Your |\n| 21 | Honor. |\n| 22 | And those are basically my remarks on this topic. |\n| 23 | Thank you. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Anything further, Mr. |\n| 25 | Henzy. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 93 MR. HENZY: Just briefly, Your Honor. First, I'm going to ask that -- it's in paragraph 11 of their objection. And then Mr. -- what Mr. Despins just quoted from paragraph 11 on this Gettr -- THE COURT: You want to see it? Is that what you're saying? MR. HENZY: -- this Gettr thing. THE COURT: Is that what you're -- you're saying you want to see it? MR. HENZY: No, I -- no, no. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. HENZY: No. I can see -- I'm going to ask that it be stricken, Your Honor. It's not properly in evidence. It goes -- it's -- I have no idea whether Mr. Kwok said this. So I'm going to ask that that be stricken from this argument. Really, Mr. Despins' argument, Your Honor, I think went almost all to the harm to the estate. And, again, I'm not -- I want to be clear. I'm not arguing that Zang Wey or John Wey owns Ace Decade. I'm not arguing that, because I don't know if he owns it. What I'm arguing is Mr. Despins is going to have a contest. The fight on Ace Decade is not going to go away because you don't stay pending appeal. That is not going to change. He's going to have that fight whatever you do. Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 93 of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 94 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
94 |\n| 1 | And I believe him that he's having to fight these |\n| 2 | issues in the UK.
But I think as with the recognition -- |\n| 3 | and as I argued in connection all the way back, Your Honor, |\n| 4 | in the corporate governance order in connection with him |\n| 5 | being ordered to -- Mr. Kwok being ordered to sign a letter, |\n| 6 | the proper place to fight out those attorney/client |\n| 7 | privilege issues is not here.
It's in the UK.
And, again, |\n| 8 | he -- Mr. Despins has been successful on that. |\n| 9 | So, Your Honor, with that, thank you. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | Anything further, Mr. Despins? |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
I would just say, Your Honor, that |\n| 13 | you can infer from all the circumstances that there is harm |\n| 14 | to the estate if -- unless and until we get control of Ace |\n| 15 | Decade.
And that's obvious from the record.
And I don't |\n| 16 | think anything else needs to be added to that. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 18 | All right.
With regard to the motion for stay |\n| 19 | pending appeal, the Court will take the matter under |\n| 20 | advisement and rule accordingly. |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Your Honor, if |\n| 22 | I could? |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
May I be excused?
I am not involved |\n| 25 | in any of the other matters on the calendar. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 95 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 95 THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. The next matter to be heard is the 1489 motion to seal the supplemental objection to the motion to modify the consent order establishing the repair reserve. So who's going to argue that motion? MR. DESPINS: I will, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Hopefully this will not be too controversial. But, basically, we obtained a document from a firm called Phillips Nizer, which is a management and operating agreement, regarding the Lady May. It's an agreement between a company called Lamp Capital and HK International. That document, when it was produced, was designated as highly confidential and under the protective order that Your Honor entered. We're duty bound to -- when we refer to it or when we attach it to file it under seal. And that's why we did it. Either way, the trustee doesn't believe it's confidential. But the order presumes that we need to do that until somebody else agrees otherwise. And, therefore, that's why we did this. And so, therefore, what's redacted from our supplemental objection are just references to that agreement\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 96 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
96 |\n| 1 | and quotes from the debtor's daughter with respect to that |\n| 2 | agreement from her deposition.
And so that's all the relief |\n| 3 | we're asking for on that matter, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 5 | Does anyone object to this motion to seal? |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, thank you.
Holley |\n| 7 | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee.
We have no objection to the |\n| 8 | motion to seal,
but I note that the order that was proposed |\n| 9 | with the motion doesn't contain the statutory acts as |\n| 10 | provided to the U.S. Trustee under Section 107. |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
That was our mistake, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | We'll add -- we'll submit a new order. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Hold on. |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Let me just take a look at the order |\n| 16 | for a moment, please. |\n| 17 | (Pause) |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So the proposed order looks |\n| 19 | fine to me.
You just need to add a -- the reference that |\n| 20 | Attorney Claiborn has noted.
So as soon as you do that -- |\n| 21 | can you do that by this Friday? |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor.
We'll do it |\n| 23 | tomorrow. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So then I -- no other party has |\n| 25 | objected to the motion.
No one's filed a written objection. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 97 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
97 |\n| 1 | There is nobody -- no one participating in this hearing |\n| 2 | today that is objecting to the motion to seal.
So for all |\n| 3 | those reasons, the motion to seal is granted and a revised |\n| 4 | proposed order will be submitted on or before March 10. |\n| 5 | Okay? |\n| 6 | All right.
Next matter on the calendar is an |\n| 7 | order setting a status conference on the supplemental |\n| 8 | objection of the Chapter 11 trustee to the motion to modify |\n| 9 | the consent order granting HK International's motion for |\n| 10 | order establishing reserve for the Lady May.
So who's going |\n| 11 | to be arguing this matter? |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, for the record, Luc |\n| 13 | Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee.
I don't believe that is on for |\n| 14 | a hearing today. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, there's a status conference. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
Status conference.
So -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
So I want to know what's going on. |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
So -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Isn't there some issue about -- |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
-- money? |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
So, Your Honor, by way of |\n| 25 | background, this is the issue of the use of the \\$4 million |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 98 reserve to pay for maintenance costs relating to -- maintenance and other related costs -- operating costs of the Lady May. And this supplemental objection, what it did is said, hey, we just learned through discovery, and I just mentioned this, that there's an operating and management agreement between HK USA and Lamp Capital that says that Lamp Capital is going to pay for those expenses. So the trustee, you know, shame on us for having paid all the prior requests or have allowed that -- the prior request to the tune of \\$520,000 came out of the reserve. But this is another -- an additional argument why the money should not be coming out of the reserve. It should be coming from Lamp Capital that has agreed to cover these expenses. And in -- during the deposition of the debtor's daughter, we asked her is this agreement still in effect, and she said yes. And so that's what the supplement -- THE COURT: Her deposition was on what day? MR. DESPINS: Sorry, Your Honor? THE COURT: Her deposition was on what day? It was in January, I think Mr. Bassett said. MR. DESPINS: It doesn't matter. You don't have to know. If you don't know -- MR. DESPINS: It was in the last three weeks, Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 98 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 99 of
183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
99 |\n| 1 | three or four weeks maximum, so -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
And so that's really the point we're |\n| 4 | making which is Lamp Capital should be paying for that. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
So -- |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
But I think that there's -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
HK has come to the Court and asked |\n| 8 | that monies held in the funds that are in escrow be released |\n| 9 | to pay the expenses. |\n| 10 | But there's a -- there's an agreement that HK |\n| 11 | should absolutely know about, because HK and Mei Guo are -- |\n| 12 | she's -- controls HK according to counsel.
So they should |\n| 13 | know that there's an agreement.
Yet, they came to the Court |\n| 14 | and said that you needed to release \\$4 million in proceeds |\n| 15 | to pay the expenses that Lamp Capital should have been |\n| 16 | paying all along? |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
Well, the 4 million was -- that's
a |\n| 18 | bit of a -- that's not the right amount of the -- the actual |\n| 19 | amount of the maintenance so far that we've actually |\n| 20 | authorized -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Right.
But wasn't the request that 4 |\n| 22 | million be taken out of the 37 million? |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
That was to do repairs and |\n| 24 | maintenance.
The repairs -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 100 MR. DESPINS: -- was always -- we never disputed the -- THE COURT: Well, does this agreement require Lamp Capital to pay for the repairs? It's an operating agreement. MR. DESPINS: To be honest with you, Your Honor, I did not look at that angle. I looked purely at the angle of the maintenance and the payment of the crew and all of that. THE COURT: Doesn't maintenance include repairs? If something breaks, you've got maintain it, don't you? MR. DESPINS: Yeah. I would like to review the agreement more carefully. THE COURT: I understand. So what are you asking? So we're having a status conference on this, because -- what do you want the Court to do? MR. DESPINS: We're not asking for anything, because I think that what's -- THE COURT: Well, somebody's come in and say somebody's got to pay. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: Right? MR. DESPINS: What's happening is that the debtor -- or, sorry, HK filed this motion which -- for which there's no scheduled date, as far as I know. And so, therefore, I assume they will ask the Court for a date on Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 100 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 101 which this would be heard. I think that's my understanding of the status, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Counsel? MR. DELLA FERA: I think that's -- sorry. Sam Della Fera, CSG Law, for the HK parties. I think that's right, Your Honor, subject to perhaps an opportunity to reply to the supplemental objection that was recently filed by the trustee. THE COURT: Well, what reply would you have? MR. DELLA FERA: Well, first of all, the trustee has a habit of seeking the benefits of certain agreements without having to bear the burdens -- THE COURT: How could HK not know about this agreement, counsel? MR. DELLA FERA: It wasn't about -- THE COURT: How -- MR. DELLA FERA: It wasn't that HK didn't know about it, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, then why did HK come to the Court and ask for money to be taken out of the reserve to pay repairs? MR. DELLA FERA: Because we believe this agreement is unenforceable. And I'll -- I can explain that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go right ahead. Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 101 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 102 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
102 |\n| 1 | MR. DELLA FERA:
So conspicuously absent from the |\n| 2 | trustee's submission to this Court is any reference to |\n| 3 | Section 7 of the agreement which provides for the |\n| 4 | compensation to be provided to Lamp Capital as the SP, |\n| 5 | service provider, okay? |\n| 6 | Section 7A of the agreement says, \"While service |\n| 7 | provider is employed by the company hereunder and as |\n| 8 | otherwise provided in this agreement, the company shall |\n| 9 | provide consideration in the form of general purpose use of |\n| 10 | the pleasure lot -- pleasure yacht,\" pardon me, \"Lady May |\n| 11 | and/or Lady May II owned by the company for up to 30 |\n| 12 | calendar days a quarter to the service provider.
Lamp\" -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Who's the service provider? |\n| 14 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Lamp Capital, Your Honor.
Who, |\n| 15 | by the way, I don't represent. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Wait, wait.
So hold on.
Hold on.
So |\n| 17 | what's the point of that provision?
You give them -- you |\n| 18 | give the boat to them for 30 days?
That's the point of the |\n| 19 | provision that you just read? |\n| 20 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Apparently they have use of the |\n| 21 | yacht for 30 days -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | MR. DELLA FERA:
-- per quarter. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
So what does that have to do with |\n| 25 | anything? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 103 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
103 |\n| 1 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Well, they haven't been given use |\n| 2 | of the yacht for 30 days per quarter. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Have they asked? |\n| 4 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Have -- I don't -- I don't -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I understand you don't. |\n| 6 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Right. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
But you can't make an argument about |\n| 8 | that -- what their rights are if you don't represent them, |\n| 9 | right?
And you can't answer the question. |\n| 10 | MR. DELLA FERA:
It's -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
And I'm not saying you should be able |\n| 12 | to answer question. |\n| 13 | MR. DELLA FERA:
No, I understand.
But I -- it's |\n| 14 | my understanding that my client's understanding is that Lamp |\n| 15 | Capital is not prepared to provide its -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 17 | MR. DELLA FERA:
-- half of the bargain unless it |\n| 18 | receives what it bargained for. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So, well, your client -- your |\n| 20 | clients affirmatively subjected themselves to the |\n| 21 | jurisdiction of this Court.
Your clients affirmatively |\n| 22 | entered into a consent order with regard to the Lady May. |\n| 23 | There's still a restraining order in place with regard to |\n| 24 | the Lady May.
So aren't all your arguments about Lamp |\n| 25 | Capital beside the point?
Your client started an adversary |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 104 proceeding with regard to the Lady May -- MR. DELLA FERA: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- in April of last year. MR. DELLA FERA: That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. So aren't all your clients -- look, this is what we'll do. We'll set a hearing. And I'm going to require Mei Guo to come here and testify, so you better get her ready. MR. DELLA FERA: Okay, Your Honor. I appreciate that. THE COURT: Because that's what's going to happen. And you're going to ask her -- and if you don't ask her the questions that needs to be asked and the trustee doesn't, then we'll -- then I'll ask the questions. Your client started the adversary proceeding, not the trustee, while the individual debtor was a debtor-in-possession. Your client made that decision. So now you're coming in and you're saying you want Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 104 of\n\n to -- that you want a motion to modify the consent order that your client entered into voluntarily and consensually. And you now -- what is it that you want at this point? I don't understand what you want. There already have been agreements with regard to release of funds to pay for repairs. So what is it that you want? What is it that HK and Mei Guo want?\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 105 MR. DELLA FERA: Additional releases from the \\$4 million reserve -- THE COURT: For what? MR. DELLA FERA: -- to maintain and repair the Lady May. THE COURT: For what? It's been fixed. It's sitting in the water over there. We went through this whole thing. MR. DELLA FERA: Well, Your Honor, there are substantial expenses, including crew expenses -- THE COURT: The boat's not going anywhere. What do you need a crew for? MR. DELLA FERA: Your Honor, I don't operate yachts. I'm just -- THE COURT: I don't either. MR. DELLA FERA: I'm just an attorney. THE COURT: So I guess Ms. Guo's going to have to come in and testify about all that. MR. DELLA FERA: Or someone will. Yes. THE COURT: No. She will. She is, as you said today three or four times -- MR. DELLA FERA: Right. THE COURT: -- in control of HK International. You didn't respond to the discovery, because she didn't respond to the discovery. So, no, not somebody else will. Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 105 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 106 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
106 |\n| 1 | She's going to have to testify. |\n| 2 | MR. DELLA FERA:
As to the -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
We're not going to do this anymore, |\n| 4 | counsel.
Okay?
This is not going to happen.
You need to |\n| 5 | understand that. |\n| 6 | So, okay, so why don't I set a hearing for a few |\n| 7 | weeks from now, and I'm going to order that she appear and |\n| 8 | testify. |\n| 9 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Well, Your Honor, if the Court is |\n| 10 | inclined not to allow any money to be spent for the |\n| 11 | maintenance and repair of the ship, I don't believe that's |\n| 12 | in anyone's best interest.
I don't believe it's in the |\n| 13 | trustee's best interest, the estate's best interest.
There |\n| 14 | needs to be funds expended to maintain and operate this |\n| 15 | yacht to the tune of roughly 100 -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
So let Lamp Capital pay.
That was the |\n| 17 | agreement. |\n| 18 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Well, Lamp -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I'm being told that's the agreement. |\n| 20 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Lamp Capital is not here, so.
I |\n| 21 | would prefer that they pay.
I think that would help |\n| 22 | relations between the trustee and my clients.
But Lamp |\n| 23 | Capital, I'm told, is unwilling to pay, because their |\n| 24 | compensation -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, you know what?
We're all going |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 107 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
107 |\n| 1 | to find out whether they're unwilling to pay, because we're |\n| 2 | going to schedule a hearing, and we're going to -- |\n| 3 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Well, that's the goal.
Yes. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
-- and we're going to have Ms. Guo |\n| 5 | come and testify.
That's what's -- |\n| 6 | MR. DELLA FERA:
And -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
-- going to happen. |\n| 8 | MR. DELLA FERA:
And Lamp Capital may have to -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Well, you're going to have to deal |\n| 10 | with that, counsel, right?
You're going to -- we don't -- |\n| 11 | nobody here has any -- there's no attorney for Lamp Capital. |\n| 12 | So you're going to have to figure that out.
And if you |\n| 13 | can't, then you can't.
Then we'll just keep moving along |\n| 14 | the way that we have already -- we already have in existing |\n| 15 | orders.
But that's -- you know, that's how it's going to |\n| 16 | work. |\n| 17 | MR. DELLA FERA:
I understand. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
This boat is subject to a restraining |\n| 19 | order. |\n| 20 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 22 | MR. DELLA FERA:
And it need -- but there needs to |\n| 23 | be funds expended -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Well, then you better find -- see if |\n| 25 | you can find out a way to get those funds.
Because this |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 108 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
108 |\n| 1 | isn't -- so, anyway -- |\n| 2 | MR. DELLA FERA:
But -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I'm going to set a hearing on your |\n| 4 | motion HK International's motion to modify the consent order |\n| 5 | is ECF Number 1216. |\n| 6 | It's going to be an evidentiary hearing, because |\n| 7 | you're going to have to present evidence, not legal |\n| 8 | argument, as to what has to be done to -- according to the |\n| 9 | motion to maintain the boat in the condition that it's in |\n| 10 | for whatever repairs and crew costs, whatever you've decided |\n| 11 | that it needs to -- that needs to be in place -- |\n| 12 | MR. DELLA FERA:
We welcome that opportunity, Your |\n| 13 | Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm going to give it to you. |\n| 15 | I'm just looking at the calendar right now.
March 23rd is a |\n| 16 | Thursday.
We'll start the evidentiary hearing at 11:00 a.m. |\n| 17 | The list of witnesses and exhibits must be filed by the |\n| 18 | parties by noon on March 17th.
And Mei Guo is ordered to |\n| 19 | appear at the hearing and testify on behalf of HK |\n| 20 | International. |\n| 21 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 23 | Okay.
So I'm turning to the courtroom deputy now. |\n| 24 | So we are going to issue a notice of hearing on 12/16 for |\n| 25 | March 23rd at -- did I say 11 a.m.?
Yes.
Right? |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 109 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: And all exhibits need to be filed on the docket in PDF format with the list of witnesses and exhibits. And the documents shall have numbers associated with them. No letters. So it could be HK 1, HK 2, Trustee's 1, Trustee's 2, however many exhibits you have. Okay. Hold on one second, please. (Pause) THE COURT: Actually, I'm not going to have you issue a notice of hearing. I'm going to issue an order scheduling the hearing. Okay? So we will do that. All right? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: All right. So that is the result of the status conference on ECF 1216. Now let's move on to the next matter on today's calendar, which is an objection to production request and motion to quash and modify subpoenas filed by Scott Charmoy on behalf of HCHK Property Management. Is Mr. Charmoy in the courtroom? MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, Patrick Linsey for the trustee. May I approach? THE COURT: Please. MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, Mr. Charmoy has withdrawn from representation of HK -- of, rather, of these 2004 Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 109 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 110 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 110 examinees. THE COURT: Has that been granted? MR. LINSEY: That was, Your Honor. My understanding is he withdrew after new counsel appeared for these examinees. THE COURT: Oh. So who's the new counsel? MR. LINSEY: I can find their name, but I can -- I am aware that there have been conversations between counsel for the trustee and counsel for this new counsel. Counsel -- or rather counsel for this -- new counsel for these examinees. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: New counsel for these examinees informed us that they were withdrawing this motion and were not proceeding on it in advance -- THE COURT: Well, they haven't done that yet. MR. LINSEY: Apparently they haven't done the paperwork, Your Honor. I will alert them that's something they need to do. But they -- THE COURT: Tell them that I'm ordering to do -- them to do so by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow or they're going to have to come in and explain what they're doing. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? MR. LINSEY: Understood.\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 111 THE COURT: All right. So what you're saying -- I'm not going to act on this motion then, this objection, because I want to see this withdrawal filed by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? I mean, that's not your -- they have to do it. I understand. MR. LINSEY: Yeah. And I don't know if they regularly practice in this court, Your Honor, but we will -- we will -- and it's -- THE COURT: Well, they better learn how to. MR. LINSEY: We will advise them. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. The next matter on the calendar is the motion to compel compliance with 2004 subpoena directed to UBS. So who's handling that matter? MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, again, Patrick Linsey for the trustee. MS. FRIED: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Again, I'm Lisa Fried, from Herbert Smith Freehills, for UBS. THE COURT: Okay. You're going to have to go to the table, because we're not -- or you come forward and share the microphone, whatever you're going to do. But we can't hear unless you speak -- MR. LINSEY: Do you want to share -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 111 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 112 of\n\n| 183 |\n|-----|\n| |\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
112 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
-- into the microphone. |\n| 2 | MR. LINSEY:
-- share the mic? |\n| 3 | MS. FRIED:
I'm happy to share the mic. |\n| 4 | MR. LINSEY:
All right. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go right ahead. |\n| 6 | MR. LINSEY:
In the spirit of our report, we'll |\n| 7 | share the mic, Your Honor.
Since we were last in court on |\n| 8 | this, which I believe was about a month ago, there have been |\n| 9 | four productions made by UBS.
Counsel for the trustee is |\n| 10 | working together with UBS.
That counsel would be my firm in |\n| 11 | this case. |\n| 12 | And we do have some questions about the documents |\n| 13 | that have been produced to date.
The most recent document |\n| 14 | production came in on Friday, and that's not been fully |\n| 15 | reviewed yet.
There's also been an amended subpoena that |\n| 16 | was served just today on UBS that I expect counsel and I |\n| 17 | will be working together to go through compliance on. |\n| 18 | So in light of that, I don't know that we've |\n| 19 | necessarily resolved all issues that fall under the existing |\n| 20 | motion. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
It doesn't sound like you have, so |\n| 22 | we're going to continue the hearing then, and we'll see -- |\n| 23 | how much time are you both thinking you are going to be |\n| 24 | talking to each other to try to resolve these issues? |\n| 25 | MR. LINSEY:
Well, we were both available on the |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 113 18th, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. We'll continue it to the 18th. But I'm very hopeful that before the 18th I'll see that there's an agreement reached between the parties with regard to the production. MR. LINSEY: And, Your Honor, when that happened -- or at least when issues were resolved with Chase, we did withdraw that motion. THE COURT: Yes. Yes. MR. LINSEY: And we know how to do that, and we'll do the same thing when -- THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: -- when that happens here. THE COURT: So what we'll do is we'll continue this hearing on this matter, the motion to compel compliance, 1362, to April 18th at 2:00 p.m. as well. So there's going to be a number of matters on, on the 18th, but maybe there'll be one less if you both resolve this between now and then. Okay? MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MS. FRIED: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. FRIED: Your Honor, that was the only matter involving UBS. May I be excused? Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 113 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 114 THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. MS. FRIED: Thank you very much. THE COURT: All right. The next matters on the calendar are in connection with Adversary Proceeding 22-0527, Despins vs. Bravo Luck Limited. There's a continued pretrial conference and an omnibus motion of the Chapter 11 Trustee to seal amended adversary complaints. So, Mr. Despins, are you arguing this or Mr. Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, again, it's Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. So I'll take the -- maybe the two items in reverse order. With respect to the continued pretrial conference in these consolidated adversary proceedings, there have been intervening events, I would say, since that conference was scheduled, the most significant of which is that the trustee has filed amended complaints in the matter. Prior to that, counsel for the trustee and counsel for Bravo Luck had begun conferring on, you know, the 26F conference that needs to take place prior to a fulsome scheduling conference before the Court in the adversary Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 114 of\n\nproceeding.\n\n We had identified during that conference some of the kind of big picture issues that both sides would need to address in terms of the contours of discovery and other\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 115 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
115 |\n| 1 | items.
I think we both agree that the filing of the amended |\n| 2 | complaints kind of changes the landscape in terms of the |\n| 3 | scope of discovery and other issues that would need to be |\n| 4 | discussed in scheduling. |\n| 5 | That also dovetails with a pending 2004 subpoena |\n| 6 | that the trustee has issued to Bravo Luck which, I think, |\n| 7 | was removed from the calendar on the basis of the trustee's |\n| 8 | withdrawal that we noted yesterday of our subpoena subject |\n| 9 | to our right to serve another subpoena. |\n| 10 | But the bottom line, Your Honor, is that all of |\n| 11 | those discovery issues relating to Bravo Luck, both under |\n| 12 | 2004 and in the adversary proceeding, sort of remain in |\n| 13 | flux.
We're continuing to work with and confer with |\n| 14 | counsel. |\n| 15 | So as to the pretrial conference in the adversary |\n| 16 | proceeding, we would request that that be adjourned, again I |\n| 17 | think to sometime next month.
In the interim, we will work |\n| 18 | with counsel at Bravo Luck to have a further meet and confer |\n| 19 | under 26(f) and then be prepared to address -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Be prepared to enter into a pretrial |\n| 21 | order at the next conference. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
That's what I'm proposing, Your |\n| 23 | Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
That's what the Court's going to |\n| 25 | order.
Okay? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 116 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 116 Counsel? MR. LAWALL: Your Honor, Fran Lawall, Troutman Pepper, for Bravo. We're in agreement with trustee's counsel. THE COURT: That's good, because that's what I was going to order regardless whether you were in agreement. So what date are you looking for, Mr. -- both of you? Have you talked about a date? MR. BASSETT: We would have the 18th as a hold date. THE COURT: Well, the 18th -- I mean, we're going to be here until 9:00 on the 18th at this rate, which -- so, you know, I mean, that's fine. But then I want you to both have a pretrial order already -- dates already agreed to. I'm not going to spend an amount of time on dates on a pretrial order. And, you know, and I don't want to see -- unless somebody can show me some reason why there could be a possible basis for summary judgment -- which maybe there is. Then you need to show me that if we're going to enter into dates. This isn't going to be a pretrial order that's going to go out to a trial in 2024. MR. LAWALL: Your Honor? THE COURT: So I want to be very clear about that. MR. LAWALL: I don't think we're contemplating\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 117 of
183 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
117 |\n| that, Your Honor.
I think that -- |\n| THE COURT:
Well, even if you are, whether you are |\n| or not, I'm telling you that it's not going to be allowed. |\n| So we need to get this in order and get this done.
So do |\n| you -- if you want to do the 18th at 2:00 p.m., that's fine. |\n| I don't know what time on that -- what actual time on that |\n| date this will be heard.
But that's fine. |\n| MR. BASSETT:
That's okay with the trustee, Your |\n| Honor, and we will certainly work with counsel to have that |\n| all buttoned up before coming before Your Honor that day. |\n| THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| MR. LAWALL:
Yeah.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| MR. BASSETT:
The other item, Your Honor, was the |\n| motion to seal.
This is similar to the other motion to seal |\n| that the trustee commented on earlier. |\n| The amended complaints cite to a handful of |\n| documents that were produced in discovery by two Rule 2004 |\n| examinees.
There were a couple of documents, I believe, |\n| that were produced by the law firm Paul, Weiss which |\n| previously represented the debtor. |\n| Those were marked confidential or -- I believe |\n| confidential or -- it might have been high confidential. |\n| And then there were also a few documents produced by UBS |\n| which were also marked confidential in discovery. |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 118 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
118 |\n| 1 | So, again, it's a situation where the trustee is |\n| 2 | merely complying with his obligations under the protective |\n| 3 | order to file those documents marked in discovery as |\n| 4 | confidential under seal.
It's not our position that they |\n| 5 | need to remain sealed, necessarily, but we're asking that |\n| 6 | the complaint be sealed for the time being for that reason. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Does anyone object to your motion? |\n| 8 | MR. BASSETT:
I don't believe any objections were |\n| 9 | filed, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I didn't see any. |\n| 11 | Does anyone object to the trustee's motion? |\n| 12 | Okay.
I'm looking at the proposed order.
Okay. |\n| 13 | That motion is granted, and your proposed order will enter. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you very much, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | Okay.
So the next motion on the calendar is a |\n| 17 | motion filed by the Chapter 11 Trustee authorizing sales |\n| 18 | officer and Sotheby's to market Sherry-Netherland apartment |\n| 19 | for rent.
Who's going to address that motion? |\n| 20 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Your Honor, if I may address the |\n| 21 | Court for a moment?
In reviewing the balance of the Court's |\n| 22 | calendar, it doesn't appear that any of the other matters |\n| 23 | relate to HK or Ms. Guo, and I'd ask to be excused at this |\n| 24 | point. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
Thank you. |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 119 of\n\n| | 183 | |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
119 | |\n| 1 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Thank you, Your Honor. | |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
I will address this motion, Your | |\n| 3 | Honor.
This is Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee, for the | |\n| 4 | record.
You'll recall that we had submitted a motion to | |\n| 5 | continue the sale process.
And after the fact, based on | |\n| 6 | conversations I had with Judge Cyganowski, the issue of the | |\n| 7 | wisdom of also trying to rent the property was raised. | |\n| 8 | And there was an objection by Bravo Luck.
You | |\n\n said that's well taken; you should have included that in your motion, but we will allow the trustee to file a supplemental to the motion to authorize that relief.\n\n The relief, to be clear, is not to rent the property but to market the property for rent. So, therefore, to the extent they would ever find a renter, we would have to come back here to get your authorization subject to objections by Bravo Luck or any other party.\n\n So that's the motion we filed. You had directed that we file this motion by February 7th. We did. And Bravo Luck objected, and their argument is basically that marketing the property for rent is inconsistent with the settlement agreement and, therefore, the Court cannot grant that relief.\n\n The first point on that is your order approving the continuation of the sale process included language saying the trustee is authorized or directed to file this\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 120 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
120 |\n| 1 | motion regarding rental. |\n| 2 | So I'm not saying that you said you want grant |\n| 3 | that, but obviously it could not be that by entering an |\n| 4 | order you were locking yourself up and precluding yourself |\n| 5 | from considering the motion that that same order provided |\n| 6 | could be filed by February 7th. |\n| 7 | The second point Bravo Luck makes is that the |\n| 8 | marketing of the apartment could undermine the sale process. |\n| 9 | And on that, first of all, it's not their business judgment. |\n| 10 | It's our business judgment. |\n| 11 | And as I said, we're not asking the Court to |\n| 12 | authorize the rental.
We're asking the Court to authorize |\n| 13 | the consideration and the marketing of the property for rent |\n| 14 | but not exclusively.
The main goal again here is to sell |\n| 15 | the property, because we need money. |\n| 16 | And the problem is that the property has been on |\n| 17 | the market for a year, and the property has not sold.
And |\n| 18 | to be prudent, because there is a escrow agreement or a fund |\n| 19 | that's dedicated to the payment of the 85 or 87,000 a month |\n| 20 | maintenance, and that is a depleting asset which will be |\n| 21 | exhausted in about a year, it is prudent to look at rentals. |\n| 22 | Because if we could rent it, if -- for a sum that |\n| 23 | is close to the maintenance, then you prolong your ability |\n| 24 | to sell it in a -- perhaps, better market.
And that -- |\n| 25 | obviously, that's the best position to be in to have |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 121 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
121 |\n| 1 | optionality.
It gives us a longer runway. |\n| 2 | But we would like to sell the property if we can, |\n| 3 | and that's our -- that's the primary goal.
That continues |\n| 4 | to be the primary goal.
But as a insurance device, it is |\n| 5 | prudent to look at rentals.
That's all, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 7 | MR. LAWALL:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Fran |\n| 8 | Lawall, Troutman Pepper, on behalf of Bravo Luck.
Your |\n| 9 | Honor, I know -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 11 | MR. LAWALL:
-- you've heard a lot of this |\n| 12 | argument already with respect to the rental issue.
We do |\n| 13 | believe if the trustee moves forward it would be a breach of |\n| 14 | the settlement agreement.
But we won't reargue that at the |\n| 15 | moment. |\n| 16 | One of our primary concerns -- and it's really |\n| 17 | tied up with the adversary that the trustee has now filed |\n| 18 | for which we have filed a motion to intervene.
I realize |\n| 19 | that maybe the next issue up on your calendar. |\n| 20 | This really has to do, Your Honor, with respect to |\n| 21 | the three adversaries that have been filed against Bravo |\n| 22 | Luck and the issue as to whether this property is actually |\n| 23 | property of the estate or not. |\n| 24 | To the extent that it's not property of the |\n| 25 | estate, Your Honor, the trustee doesn't have the authority |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 122 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
122 |\n| 1 | to either market or to do anything outside of the agreement. |\n| 2 | I recognize this is a controversial issue, but Your Honor, |\n| 3 | this is tied up directly with respect to the three adversary |\n| 4 | proceedings. |\n| 5 | I realize today the only relief that the trustee |\n| 6 | is asking for is for purposes of marketing.
So my only |\n| 7 | point, Your Honor, is twofold. |\n| 8 | One is, if Your Honor is inclined to grant that |\n| 9 | relief that it has no determination with respect to whether |\n| 10 | this is property of the estate, because that's more properly |\n| 11 | part of the three adversaries and now may be the fourth |\n| 12 | adversary that's filed, and that to the extent that a renter |\n| 13 | is brought to this floor, Your Honor, that this issue with |\n| 14 | respect to whether the trustee has the ability to amend the |\n| 15 | documents for purposes of renting the property, that will |\n| 16 | have to ultimately be determined.
Not -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I understood your first part, but I |\n| 18 | didn't understand your second -- what you -- second point |\n| 19 | you just made.
Amend what documents? |\n| 20 | MR. LAWALL:
Your Honor, the subject of the |\n| 21 | trustee's adversary, which I believe is up for the next |\n| 22 | matter on the status conference, has to do with modifying |\n| 23 | certain documents that were executed apparently in |\n| 24 | connection with the original acquisition of the property. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 123 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 123 MR. LAWALL: And they have to do with certain rights for certain people to use the property or not use the property. The trustee has filed a motion seeking the ability to try and amend that document. Our point here, Your Honor, is until it is determined whether this is property of the estate, that relief may not be appropriate. All we're really looking to do here, Your Honor, is to make this as efficient as possible. And I just want to remind the Court, notwithstanding everything that's going on today, from the beginning Bravo Luck in the original bankruptcy entered into this settlement agreement to provide a really efficient way of selling this property. And we believe that rental of the property could cause negative implications, but we'll wait to see, I guess, Your Honor, if Your Honor approves this today and if there's a hearing for a renter, whether that's going to impact actually the marketing of the property. There has been no testimony, no evidence before Your Honor at this point exactly what impact rental of the property will have on the overall marketing strategy or the ability to maximize the return. But, again, Your Honor, returning to center, the issue here really comes down to it's property of the estate\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 124 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
124 |\n| 1 | or not.
And these are issues which the trustee has raised |\n| 2 | in three separate adversaries.
There is now a fourth |\n| 3 | pending. |\n| 4 | We have filed a counterclaim in -- a motion to |\n| 5 | intervene as well as a counterclaim with respect to the |\n| 6 | issue of the property of the estate, because our concern was |\n| 7 | that in that adversary there were a number of statements |\n| 8 | that this property was property of the estate.
We didn't |\n| 9 | want to have an inadvertent ruling that it was property of |\n| 10 | the estate without having a fulsome ruling in connection |\n| 11 | with the three adversaries. |\n| 12 | And that was the whole reason why, Your Honor, |\n| 13 | you're seeing multiple pleadings.
We're more than happy to |\n| 14 | consolidate it all.
We will work with the trustee's counsel |\n| 15 | to put together a scheduling order to get this resolved, and |\n| 16 | we will move forward. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
A couple of things that you |\n| 18 | just said that I did want to discuss, so I appreciate you |\n| 19 | raising them.
So now that they've been consolidated, we |\n| 20 | don't need -- do we need three amended complaints and three |\n| 21 | answers? |\n| 22 | MR. LAWALL:
I -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Don't we have one -- |\n| 24 | MR. LAWALL:
I asked that question myself, Your |\n| 25 | Honor, and I was told the trustee was sticking with the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 125 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
125 |\n| 1 | three complaints.
As you recall, we filed three motions to |\n| 2 | dismiss. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Yes, I do. |\n| 4 | MR. LAWALL:
We're -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I'm trying to make it more -- |\n| 6 | MR. LAWALL:
Understood.
We agree. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
-- efficient as well.
But I don't -- |\n| 8 | maybe there is a need for three amended complaints.
I don't |\n| 9 | know.
But I want to know the answer to that question, |\n| 10 | because it's confusing.
It can be confusing to people as to |\n| 11 | what we're doing.
And it's confusing to the clerk's office. |\n| 12 | And I think there was some entry made today about |\n| 13 | you not filing an appearance or something.
Just disregard |\n| 14 | that.
You filed a motion to intervene.
That's going to get |\n| 15 | set for a hearing.
We'll deal with it.
Okay? |\n| 16 | MR. LAWALL:
I filed another notice of |\n| 17 | admission -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Oh. |\n| 19 | MR. LAWALL:
-- this afternoon too. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Sorry. |\n| 21 | MR. LAWALL:
No.
That's okay. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
It's confusing to people. |\n| 23 | MR. LAWALL:
Understood. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 25 | MR. LAWALL:
Understood. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 126 THE COURT: So, Attorney Bassett, just to -- I'm putting you on the spot, because I did mean to ask this question, and I forgot. Do we need to have three amended complaints? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I'm happy to think about ways to make the process more efficient. Because, obviously, we're aligned in that goal. However, we do -- we did technically need to file three amended complaints, because -- THE COURT: I agree. I completely agree. MR. BASSETT: But -- THE COURT: But at this point now there's an order consolidating all these adversary proceedings, right? MR. BASSETT: Right. Well, the issue -- THE COURT: So why don't you both think about this -- MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: -- before the April 18th conference. You know, I just want to -- we don't -- we're not going to write, you know, three decisions on everything that's filed. That doesn't make any sense, right? So think about whether or not there really needs to be three amended complaints. At this point, counsel, you're going to have to file an answer. I think wasn't there an agreement that -- MR. LAWALL: Yeah. Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 126 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 127 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
127 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
-- you're going to file an answer at a |\n| 2 | certain time once the amended complaints were filed? |\n| 3 | MR. LAWALL:
Procedurally, Your Honor, what |\n| 4 | happened was they filed their original complaints.
We filed |\n| 5 | three motions to dismiss. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 7 | MR. LAWALL:
They filed their amended complaints. |\n| 8 | We're scheduled to file our responses which will be motions |\n| 9 | to dismiss on March 21. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 11 | MR. LAWALL:
And so that's in process. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
I guess if -- I would ask the |\n| 13 | parties to really think about this before March 21st then |\n| 14 | to -- because I'd rather -- if it's -- and maybe it's not. |\n| 15 | Okay?
I haven't looked at everything.
I haven't had an |\n| 16 | opportunity to look at all the issues in the amended |\n| 17 | complaint and -- but if there's an ability to not have three |\n| 18 | motions to dismiss versus one motion to dismiss, then I |\n| 19 | would like you to explore that and see whether or not that |\n| 20 | can be accomplished. |\n| 21 | If you say it can't be, then I will look at that |\n| 22 | too.
I just don't know.
And it is confusing to parties |\n| 23 | that -- and the clerk's office, in particular. |\n| 24 | MR. LAWALL:
There's no question, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | From what I've seen, there are certain nuances within the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 128 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
128 |\n| 1 | complaints themselves.
There are certain issues that are |\n| 2 | common among the three.
Maybe between ourselves and |\n| 3 | trustee's counsel, we can figure out a way of presenting it |\n| 4 | to Your Honor so that at least when Your Honor is |\n| 5 | considering the issues they'll be in silos so that'll it |\n| 6 | make it a little bit easier. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Whatever -- right.
I just -- I agree |\n| 8 | with you.
I'm asking you to undertake that analysis and |\n| 9 | discussion and see what you can come up with.
Okay? |\n| 10 | MR. LAWALL:
Certainly we'll work on that, Your |\n| 11 | Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
We'll do that as well, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Yeah.
And maybe there has to |\n| 15 | be three.
I don't know.
But I understand that you're |\n| 16 | saying by the 21st you -- at this point, unless there's some |\n| 17 | agreement, that you will be filing three motions to dismiss. |\n| 18 | And that's fine. |\n| 19 | MR. LAWALL:
That's the current expectation, Your |\n| 20 | Honor.
We think ultimately it'll probably be more efficient |\n| 21 | unfortunately now, given where we are at the moment.
So |\n| 22 | but, Your Honor, we will work with trustee's counsel to |\n| 23 | figure out a way to try to make this as efficiently as -- as |\n| 24 | efficient as possible. |\n| 25 | With respect to the rent issue, Your Honor, I |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 129 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
129 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | think you understand the concern.
It's that if the -- I |\n| 2 | really do believe that with respect to renting this property |\n| 3 | absent a consent, which doesn't exist at the moment, I don't |\n| 4 | think until the issue with respect to property of the estate |\n| 5 | is resolved, which is front and center in all these |\n| 6 | adversaries, that the underlying agreements can be revised |\n| 7 | to allow, from what the trustee's apparent perspective is, a |\n| 8 | free path to rent these properties. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Well, what about -- and I think I |\n\n heard -- let me step back. I haven't looked at the -- or I don't have it right in front of me at the moment, but I could get it, whatever the proposed order is that would be granting this motion.\n\n What if the order said that the trustee's authorized to undertake the marketing of renting this property and that -- and I'm not saying it's just going to say that. But that no further -- that no -- that any lease has to come before the Court first. And you have all your rights to object at the same time.\n\nMR. LAWALL: I think --\n\n THE COURT: And including your objection to these documents that I'm not truly familiar with at the moment. MR. LAWALL: Understood.\n\n THE COURT: But that -- to me, and maybe I'm wrong. But to me, that seems -- that does not seem -- or\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 130 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
130 |\n| 1 | let me say it this way.
That seems reasonable that the |\n| 2 | trustee would have the opportunity to attempt to market the |\n| 3 | property for rent, but he can't enter into a lease or he |\n| 4 | can't do anything with regard to the rental until he comes |\n| 5 | before this Court, makes a motion, which you're -- you would |\n| 6 | have the absolute right to object to and be heard on. |\n| 7 | And under 363 of the Code anyway, as you know, I |\n| 8 | mean, there's going to have to be a hearing on the lease of |\n| 9 | property.
I agree that, though, you could still make the |\n| 10 | argument at that hearing that, Judge, you can't grant that, |\n| 11 | because you -- they haven't established that this is |\n| 12 | property of the estate. |\n| 13 | MR. LAWALL:
Your Honor, I think -- in many |\n| 14 | respects, I think Mr. Despins will tell you that's pretty |\n| 15 | close to the essence of his motion, that he -- all he's |\n| 16 | asking for today is to rent the property.
Or not -- I'm |\n| 17 | sorry.
Let me take that back.
To market the property |\n| 18 | subject to Your Honor's subsequent determination. |\n| 19 | My biggest concern is to the extent we have this |\n| 20 | settlement agreement that we not be in a position -- our |\n| 21 | position is going to be maintained that any change to that |\n| 22 | settlement agreement, which was carefully constructed, to |\n| 23 | rent the property would be a breach of that agreement. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
To sell the property, you mean? |\n| 25 | MR. LAWALL:
Yeah.
I'm sorry. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 131 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
131 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
That's okay. |\n| 2 | MR. LAWALL:
Anything -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
But the problem with the settlement |\n| 4 | agreement, at least from my perspective -- |\n| 5 | MR. LAWALL:
Right. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- is it's expired.
The settlement -- |\n| 7 | this was all in front of a different judge, right, when this |\n| 8 | happened. |\n| 9 | MR. LAWALL:
It was, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay?
And so I have to look at it as |\n| 11 | what the documents say.
And my -- the issue that I've seen, |\n| 12 | anyway, is that it appears to me that the settlement |\n| 13 | agreement has expired.
That doesn't mean the parties |\n| 14 | couldn't work cooperatively, and there's all other things |\n| 15 | you could do.
And it doesn't mean you can't still argue |\n| 16 | that you believe that the settlement agreement is -- has -- |\n| 17 | is not expired. |\n| 18 | But for purposes of allowing the trustee to |\n| 19 | attempt to rent the property -- just market it, not actually |\n| 20 | have the authority to enter into the lease and do whatever |\n| 21 | else he would need to do with regard to an actual rental, |\n| 22 | assuming there is one, which we -- none of us know if it'll |\n| 23 | even happen. |\n| 24 | MR. LAWALL:
Sure. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Right?
Then I'm more persuaded to |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 132 allow that marketing process to occur than to not occur at this point in time with all your rights reserved. MR. LAWALL: Your Honor, I -- two points. One, with respect to whether the settlement agreement's terminated or not, I think as I may have explained at that last hearing, there's more to the settlement agreement than simply marketing the property. There are issues in there with respect to the use of the deposit for purpose of -- THE COURT: Understood. MR. LAWALL: And all that stuff. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. LAWALL: But I think, Your Honor, if your decision today is the trustee can go out and market and it is with complete reservation of Bravo's rights across the board, including if, in fact, it gets leased that would be a violation of the settlement agreement -- THE COURT: You can still make that argument. MR. LAWALL: -- then -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. LAWALL: -- then if that's how the trustee wants to move forward and it's without -- completely without prejudice on our part, then go with God. From that perspective, I think that -- we think because the property of the estate issue is going to be key, it may be a mistake. But if that's how the trustee wants to Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 132 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 133 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
133 |\n| 1 | move forward, and it's with full reservation, then I won't |\n| 2 | stand in the way. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Well, what we'll do -- or what you'll |\n| 4 | do then, counsel, is you'll go over the order with the |\n| 5 | trustee and just make sure you both agree to the -- what it |\n| 6 | says and submit it.
If you don't agree, then you'll have to |\n| 7 | show me why -- what it is you don't agree to.
You know, you |\n| 8 | could file the order with, you know, all this language is |\n| 9 | agreed, this language isn't agreed to by Bravo or by the |\n| 10 | trustee.
And then I'll do what I think is appropriate. |\n| 11 | MR. LAWALL:
That's fine, Your Honor.
And we will |\n| 12 | try and keep it simple. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I appreciate that. |\n| 14 | MR. LAWALL:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | All right.
So did the U.S. Trustee wish to be |\n| 17 | heard on this motion? |\n| 18 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Just briefly, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Go ahead. |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Holley Claiborn for the U.S. |\n| 21 | Trustee.
I wanted to rise and tell the Court that we have |\n| 22 | no objection to the marketing of the property for rent.
I |\n| 23 | did want to make a point that I think is silent in the |\n| 24 | motion but which I understand from Trustee Despins, and that |\n| 25 | is to say that the cost of the marketing, to the extent that |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 134 a renter is obtained, will be borne by the renter and not borne by the estate. THE COURT: I don't know how you can -- I'm not sure how you can do that. MR. DESPINS: Well, I inquired -- the U.S. Trustee's concern is that are we approving sub silentio a fee for the broker to rent. And I was told not to worry about this. Rental fees in New York are paid by the renter, not by the person renting, not -- by the entity renting, not the -- THE COURT: So whatever commission the broker -- MR. DESPINS: Tenant. Not -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not the landlord. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well said. MR. DESPINS: God. THE COURT: Whatever -- MR. DESPINS: Not the landlord. Thank you. THE COURT: Whatever commission the broker would be entitled to, the renter has to pay, is what you're saying? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: Well, then good luck with that. I mean, I'm not going to -- MS. CLAIBORN: That's my understanding. I just wanted -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 134 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 135 THE COURT: You know, I -- MS. CLAIBORN: I just wanted to say that out loud -- THE COURT: Yeah. MS. CLAIBORN: -- so that we're all on the same page. MR. DESPINS: It took a while, but yes. THE COURT: Counsel, did you want to come forward? MS. MILLMAN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Your Honor. I'm Sherry Millman with Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, admitted pro hac vice on behalf of The Sherry-Netherland, Inc. It sounds like the Court has agreed to grant the relief as to which we have no objection. We filed papers to that effect. And part of it is because we understand that the trustee's goal is really to sell, which is what we share, and that the rental may accomplish that in a way. We approve of the proposed order which actually reserves everybody's rights. But in particular, what's important to us is the Sherry-Netherland's rights as we have specific consent rights over the rental. THE COURT: Sure. MS. MILLMAN: While I'm up here just wanted to respond, because I've heard this comment made a couple of times during the transcript, on the record by Bravo Luck's Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 135 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 136 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
136 |\n| 1 | counsel.
In terms of the settlement agreement and the |\n| 2 | reference to application of the deposit, there is a separate |\n| 3 | consent order that Judge Garrity entered. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 5 | MS. MILLMAN:
It's at Docket Number 107. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 7 | MS. MILLMAN:
And it gave us the ability to apply |\n| 8 | the deposit to pay the monthly maintenance and assessments. |\n| 9 | And that's been going on since that order was entered last |\n| 10 | year. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That's helpful to me.
Thank |\n| 12 | you. |\n| 13 | MS. MILLMAN:
Okay.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Right.
Because I don't know |\n| 15 | everything that occurred in the case, obviously, before it |\n| 16 | came here.
And with regard to your statement, I appreciate |\n| 17 | that.
The order -- it will be to market the property for |\n| 18 | rent. |\n| 19 | If there is someone or entity coming that wants to |\n| 20 | rent, it's still going to be -- the trustee's going to have |\n| 21 | to bring that motion forward, and it will be noticed to |\n| 22 | everyone and including the Sherry-Netherland would have any |\n| 23 | rights it has to object to or to consent to the renter |\n| 24 | becoming -- coming into the property. |\n| 25 | MS. MILLMAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
And I think how it |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 137 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
137 |\n| 1 | would work -- and I think that Mr. Despins has recognized |\n| 2 | that -- is there would be discussions first and an agreement |\n| 3 | first before this ever came before the Court. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Before the motion gets filed.
Right. |\n| 5 | MS. MILLMAN:
Okay. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you very much, counsel. |\n| 7 | MS. MILLMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I appreciate that. |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
So, Your Honor, just to be very |\n| 10 | precise on that, the order says nothing herein amends, |\n| 11 | modify, or supersedes any rights, including any approval |\n| 12 | rights, of the Sherry-Netherland, because -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
All right.
Let me take a look at |\n| 14 | that.
I just don't have it right in front of me at the |\n| 15 | moment. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
It's Docket 1446. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Right.
I just have to open it -- I'm |\n| 18 | just not there yet at the moment. |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
Page 11 of 14. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 21 | (Pause) |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
So do you think the Bravo Luck |\n| 23 | language, Trustee Despins, that's in this order right now |\n| | |\n\ncovers what I've said in court today?\n\nMR. DESPINS: I believe so. But, you know, this\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 138 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
138 |\n| 1 | was provided to Bravo Luck, so they -- I don't know if you |\n| 2 | have any comments on the order.
But it says it -- the |\n| 3 | rights of all parties in interest, including without |\n| 4 | limitation PAX and Bravo Luck, to object to approval of such |\n| 5 | agreements are preserved.
To me, that's fairly broad. |\n| 6 | MR. LAWALL:
Your Honor, if I may?
And I'm sure |\n| 7 | we can work this out in the next day or so.
There may be |\n| 8 | some just additional protections based on our colloquy that |\n| 9 | I'd like to put in there.
But the essence is there. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That's fine.
I think just work |\n| 11 | on it for the next day or two and submit the revised |\n| 12 | proposed order with the comments.
And if for some reason |\n| 13 | there's still a disagreement, then note -- you know, give a |\n| 14 | redline version of the order, who agrees to what, and then |\n| 15 | I'll do what I think is appropriate. |\n| 16 | MR. LAWALL:
Very good.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay?
All right.
So the motion is |\n| 18 | granted for the reasons stated on the record.
And a revised |\n| 19 | proposed order will be submitted by Friday.
Obviously, |\n| 20 | you'll probably do it before then, but I'm giving a date for |\n| 21 | the clerk's office.
Okay? |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
So the last two |\n| 24 | matters on the calendar today -- but we still have a few |\n| 25 | things to talk about that aren't on the calendar -- is a |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 139 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
139 |\n| 1 | status conference -- there are two status conferences.
The |\n| 2 | first is -- in Adversary 23-5002, the -- go ahead, Trustee |\n| 3 | Despins.
I've got two issues here. A motion for order to |\n| 4 | schedule a hearing on a summary judgment and the motion for |\n| 5 | summary judgment. |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
Obviously, the motion for summary |\n| 9 | judgment is not before the Court.
But by way of |\n| 10 | background -- and I want to correct the record here. |\n| 11 | Genever USA owns the lease.
There's no -- so the state -- |\n| 12 | the legal status right now is that that debtor is the entity |\n| 13 | that owns the lease. |\n| 14 | And so any argument that somehow Bravo Luck has |\n| 15 | that right is something that Bravo Luck would need to |\n| 16 | establish.
But the legal entitlement today is that Genever |\n| 17 | USA is the entity to the lease, not Bravo Luck.
So that's |\n| 18 | very important. |\n| 19 | So what are we trying to do -- to achieve here? |\n| 20 | As you know, we're trying to sell the property or rent it. |\n| 21 | Mr. Kwok is using the property from time to time.
And, |\n| 22 | obviously, we cannot be in the position where somebody says, |\n| 23 | okay, I'm interested in renting or buying the property, and |\n| 24 | we have to say, well, you know what, let's check with |\n| 25 | Mr. Kwok to see how that works. |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 140 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 140 Because what happened, when Genever USA acquired this property, there was a -- as part of the lease agreement between the Sherry-Netherland and Genever USA, there was an agreement just between those two parties, Your Honor, not with Mr. Kwok but just between those two parties, to allow Mr. Kwok and his immediate family, which means his son and daughter and his spouse, if she is his spouse -- that's not a knock. I think that technically she may not be, but so that's beside the point for today. But so that that immediate family can use the apartment under that lease between Genever USA and the Sherry-Netherland. That is a right that's modifiable by those two parties, those two parties being Genever USA and the Sherry-Netherland. There's no requirement to have Mr. Kwok's consent for that. But, obviously, we know the nature of this case and how litigious it is, and we basically need to clear that issue out so that if we find a buyer or a renter we don't have to wait months and months to litigate this issue, potential appeals, et cetera, et cetera. We need to get that done. And by the way, there's no benefit to the estate in having Mr. Kwok use that property. He is not paying anything. So there's no contribution to the estate of any kind.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 141 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
141 |\n| 1 | So what we did is we filed a complaint for a |\n| 2 | declaration that we can do that based on the documents.
And |\n| 3 | we also filed on the same day a motion for summary judgment |\n| 4 | saying -- plus a Rule -- I think it's a Rule 56 declaration |\n| 5 | that basically says there are no contested facts here. |\n| 6 | Because through discovery we've established that |\n| 7 | his \"wife\" does not reside there.
The daughter doesn't |\n| 8 | reside there.
The son does not reside there.
And Mr. Kwok |\n| 9 | himself in his petition said that he has some kind of |\n| 10 | entitlement to use the property but certainly not that it |\n| 11 | was his residence. |\n| 12 | So that subsequently we did.
We served this on |\n| 13 | Paul, Weiss.
And you might say, well, why serve Paul, |\n| 14 | Weiss?
Because the lease agreement had a -- very specific |\n| 15 | provisions.
Section 15 of the agreement said that Paul, |\n| 16 | Weiss is appointed as the service of process agent for all |\n| 17 | disputes regarding the lease, anything arising there under |\n| 18 | that and is appointed by Mr. Kwok and the permitted |\n| 19 | occupants, meaning the family members. |\n| 20 | So we served that on Paul, Weiss.
They rejected |\n| 21 | service.
But eventually we served them by Federal Express. |\n| 22 | We also served the Kwok family and their counsel and Bravo |\n| 23 | Luck.
And -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Let me just stop you right there -- |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 142 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
142 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
-- for a moment, please.
When you say |\n| 2 | Paul, Weiss rejected service, you mean someone went to their |\n| 3 | offices and -- |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Oh, and they said -- |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
They were -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
They refused to accept service? |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
And we told them, look, Section 15 |\n| 9 | of the agreement provided that.
And not to spend time on |\n| 10 | it, we just Federal Expressed it to them.
And so that's -- |\n| 11 | that accomplished service on them. |\n| 12 | But the agreement is very clear that they were |\n| 13 | appointed as agent and attorney in fact to accept service of |\n| 14 | process in any action or proceeding arising under or in |\n| 15 | connection with the lease and/or this agreement with respect |\n| 16 | to, among others, the occupant, Mr. Kwok, and any permitted |\n| 17 | occupant, i.e. the members of the occupant's immediate |\n| 18 | family. |\n| 19 | But in any event, we served the other party, so |\n| 20 | there's no issue of service here.
So what we're before -- |\n| 21 | we're before the Court here today to try to have a schedule |\n| 22 | on this.
We filed this on February 15th.
So they've had |\n| 23 | this for a while.
And we were asking the Court to order |\n| 24 | that they would have until March 20th to respond and that we |\n| 25 | would like -- we wanted a hearing on March 27th. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 143 Obviously, you didn't enter those orders, so we need to now discuss the issue of when would be a reasonable response date. Remember, they've had this since February 15th or 16th. THE COURT: Well, let's -- so the summons was served -- MR. DESPINS: I think on the 17th. It was issued on the -- it was issued on February 16th. And after the summons issued, we served the summons together with the complaint and the summary judgment on all the parties I list -- THE COURT: On February 16th, right. So let's look at their original summons. MR. DESPINS: Which names Mr. Kwok and his immediate family members as defendants. THE COURT: And the answer date in the summons is March 20, isn't it? MR. DESPINS: That may be, Your Honor. THE COURT: Am I looking at that right? All right. Hold on a second. MR. DESPINS: But we're really focusing on the summary judgment. THE COURT: No, I understand. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I'm just -- I am looking -- I want to Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 143 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 144 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
144 |\n| 1 | see what the summons itself says. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
Yes, Your Honor.
So let me |\n| 3 | address right now the issue that -- raised by Bravo Luck |\n| 4 | then.
Let's remember, Bravo Luck is the debtor's son, so |\n| 5 | let's never forget that. |\n| 6 | So Bravo Luck is saying, wait a minute, this |\n| 7 | implies that you own it.
And the answer is, yes, we do own |\n| 8 | it.
Legally, we own it.
I mean, I don't want to -- when I |\n| 9 | say we own it, it's not a condo.
It's a co-op.
But do you |\n| 10 | understand what I mean?
Own it is that we are the party |\n| 11 | with legal title to the -- as far as the lease is concerned. |\n| 12 | And the point here, and I will make that very |\n| 13 | clear, is that nothing that happens in this adversary |\n| 14 | proceeding impacts Bravo Luck's rights. |\n| 15 | What I mean by that is that we're willing to |\n| 16 | stipulate that any ruling by this Court saying that Mr. Kwok |\n| 17 | needs to vacate the premise, et cetera, et cetera, will not |\n| 18 | affect the issue of claimed ownership by Bravo Luck under |\n| 19 | the trust agreement.
That's not -- we're not attempting to |\n| 20 | influence that at any point. |\n| 21 | But if we're going to sell this property, if we're |\n| 22 | going to rent it, we cannot be in a position where we're |\n| 23 | telling a renter, yes, you're interested, but it could take |\n| 24 | six, seven months, maybe a year before you can get the |\n| 25 | property.
That's not real life.
These people who want to |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 145 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
145 |\n| 1 | rent these types of property, they want to sign something |\n| 2 | and be in there very soon. |\n| 3 | And, therefore, the argument that somehow we don't |\n| 4 | have a renter today, we don't have a buyer today, that's not |\n| 5 | relevant, because we need this apartment to be vacant, |\n| 6 | because the apartment is not -- we're not getting paid in |\n| 7 | any way.
The estate is not recovering any money from the |\n| 8 | use of the apartment.
And it's important for the sale or |\n| 9 | rental that the apartment be empty. |\n| 10 | So, again, this is not the motion for summary |\n| 11 | judgment.
This is just -- the issue we're debating is the |\n| 12 | timing.
And so I'm sure counsel for Bravo Luck will want to |\n| 13 | be heard on that issue.
Thank you. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Thank you. |\n| 15 | MR. LAWALL:
Thank you, Your Honor.
And, again, |\n| 16 | Fran Lawall, Troutman Pepper, for Bravo. |\n| 17 | What the trustee is not thinking about, |\n| 18 | apparently, is the whole 541 property of the estate issue |\n| 19 | where cases from the Supreme Court all the way down suggest |\n| 20 | that when a property is being held in trust by the debtor, |\n| 21 | and the debtor simply has legal but not beneficial |\n| 22 | ownership, it's not property of the estate.
That is an |\n| 23 | issue that the trustee has now raised directly and |\n| 24 | indirectly through three complaints plus the latest |\n| 25 | complaint that they have filed. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 146 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
146 |\n| 1 | Our only point here is that that issue has to be |\n| 2 | resolved before any position can be taken whether this is |\n| 3 | property of the estate.
The trustee is right.
We have to |\n| 4 | affirmatively raise that.
We have filed a motion to |\n| 5 | intervene as well as a counterclaim in the latest adversary |\n| 6 | in order to bring that issue on. |\n| 7 | That is precisely why summary judgment is |\n| 8 | inappropriate here, because there are clearly, as Your Honor |\n| 9 | well knows, going to be significant issues of fact that are |\n| 10 | going to have to be sorted through which are complex. |\n| 11 | And so based on my earlier statements, which is |\n| 12 | why I thought these are going to have to be conflated and |\n| 13 | resolved in one time, one of the things I think the trustee |\n| 14 | misses in all of this is that the whole purpose of that |\n| 15 | settlement agreement that was done in Genever was to do just |\n| 16 | what he wants to do as to provide a mechanism for selling |\n| 17 | this property free and clear.
Bravo Luck agreed to it.
It |\n| 18 | provides a pathway for the estate to sell the property and |\n| 19 | put the money into escrow. |\n| 20 | And that's -- and we -- but if that settlement |\n| 21 | agreement is blown up or it's breached, then that consent |\n| 22 | may not be there.
But that was one of the major benefits of |\n| 23 | this that we worked hard in the New York court to get that |\n| 24 | done.
And that is still in place, and we are not trying to |\n| 25 | walk away from it. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 147 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
147 |\n| 1 | But that is why, Your Honor, I think as we paint |\n| 2 | the broader picture, why that settlement agreement was so |\n| 3 | important and why starting to deviate from it may not only |\n| 4 | be bad for maybe Bravo but possibly the estate and possibly |\n| 5 | other parties.
We agree we have to get these issues |\n| 6 | resolved.
We've tried to do it efficiently by filing an |\n| 7 | affirmative -- an intervention as well as an affirmative |\n| 8 | request for a determination. |\n| 9 | But we do think it's all going to have to be |\n| 10 | molded into this one case, into whatever, quite frankly, |\n| 11 | scheduling order that we're able to reach in order to get |\n| 12 | the discovery done and get it before Your Honor and heard. |\n| 13 | It's complex, but we're ready to move forward and try and |\n| 14 | get this done. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you, counsel. |\n| 16 | MR. MORIARTY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 18 | MR. MORIARTY:
James Moriarty from Zeisler & |\n| 19 | Zeisler for the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok, who is a defendant in |\n| 20 | this adversary proceeding. |\n| 21 | Your Honor, we're happy to work with the trustee |\n| 22 | and Attorney Lawall to come up with a scheduling order. |\n| 23 | We're happy to work with them if this new adversary is to be |\n| 24 | consolidated into the other three so that we can come up |\n| 25 | with a scheduling order that works for everybody. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 148 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
148 |\n| 1 | I think Attorney Lawall is right that there is an |\n| 2 | issue of fact that would permeate this summary judgment |\n| 3 | motion, and that is, is this lease property of the Genever |\n| 4 | estate?
Because if it's not, then Genever doesn't have the |\n| 5 | right to do what it's seeking to do via the summary judgment |\n| 6 | motion. |\n| 7 | This is a contract claim.
And on behalf of my |\n| 8 | client, we believe that there are issues of fact.
This |\n| 9 | consent agreement is a three-party agreement.
The debtor is |\n| 10 | a party to that agreement.
The trustee's position and |\n| 11 | Genever's position is there are specific provisions in that |\n| 12 | agreement to which the trustee is not a party. |\n| 13 | But it's a fully integrated agreement, so there's |\n| 14 | going to be issues of fact as to the agreement and as to the |\n| 15 | intent of the parties.
And we would like the opportunity to |\n| 16 | take discovery as it relates to the intent of the parties. |\n| 17 | And that discovery would be narrow, Your Honor.
It would |\n| 18 | really be limited to the Sherry-Netherland and the intent of |\n| 19 | the Sherry-Netherland when it was entering into these |\n| 20 | agreements. |\n| 21 | And the trustee may have all of the documents that |\n| 22 | we would need to take that discovery.
So that discovery |\n| 23 | could be limited.
I don't know what discovery the trustee |\n| 24 | would need and what discovery Bravo Luck would need.
But, |\n| 25 | again, we would be happy to work with them to come up with a |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 149 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
149 |\n| 1 | scheduling order that works for everybody. |\n| 2 | The trustee made the comment that we need this to |\n| 3 | be done quickly without appeal so that we can rent the |\n| 4 | apartment.
This is a summary judgment motion.
Summary |\n| 5 | judgment motions are generally not granted at the beginning |\n| 6 | of a case without discovery. |\n| 7 | If this motion is pushed through and the trustee |\n| 8 | prevails, there's going to be appeals.
So that's not going |\n| 9 | to get to the ultimate goal that the trustee is looking for. |\n| 10 | This should be done deliberately, but it should be done |\n| 11 | correctly. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Are you saying -- I mean, I have no |\n| 13 | idea.
I haven't looked.
Okay?
This case was just filed a |\n| 14 | couple of days ago, right?
I mean -- |\n| 15 | MR. MORIARTY:
It was filed about three weeks ago. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well -- |\n| 17 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yeah. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
-- in any event, I haven't looked at |\n| 19 | it, right?
It was served on the 16th of February.
So we're |\n| 20 | talking two weeks ago, two and a half weeks ago. |\n| 21 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Are you -- is it the debtor's position |\n| 23 | that Genever USA does not -- is not a party to the lease |\n| 24 | with the agreement with the Sherry-Netherland? |\n| 25 | MR. MORIARTY:
No, that's not the debtor's |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 150 position, Your Honor. THE COURT: So what is the debtor's position? MR. MORIARTY: So there's a lease between the Sherry-Netherland and Genever. There is a second agreement. It is a consent agreement. That agreement -- THE COURT: About the use of the property? MR. MORIARTY: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. So, okay. So then what -- so what's the point? I'm a little confused. MR. MORIARTY: The debtor is a party to that agreement. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: And the debtor's -- THE COURT: So what does that have to do with anything? They're not a -- he's not a party to the lease. MR. MORIARTY: Correct, Your Honor. But what the trustee is trying to do through this adversary proceeding is amend that consent agreement. And his position is the debtor doesn't need to be a party to that amendment, because the debtor is not a party to the particular provision in the agreement that allows for it to be amended. And our position is he is, because he's a party to the agreement, and it's a fully integrated agreement. You can't carve out one provision that you believe is beneficial to your argument and say the debtor's not a party to that Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 150 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 151 provision. THE COURT: So this is a declaratory judgment action. That's what this is, right? MR. MORIARTY: Yes. THE COURT: And the trustee is asking the Court to declare that -- I'm going to look and see what he says. (Pause.) To declare that on March 6, 2015, Genever USA as lessee and the Sherry-Netherland as lessor entered into the leases that relate to the common stock allocated to the apartment which is -- we -- it's a co-op, so we know that. Okay? That Genever US and the Sherry-Netherland are the only parties to the leases. That the purchase price was approximately \\$70 million. That Genever US and Sherry-Netherland entered into an agreement with consent with respect to shares and proprietary lease. All right. Let's see. That's Exhibit 4. Let's take a look at that. (Pause) THE COURT: I'm trying to find the beginning of Exhibit 4. There's 260 pages, so it's taking me a minute to find it. Does anybody know where Exhibit 4 starts, what page number, since it's 250 pages? So, oh, here. I got it. I just found it. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 151 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 152 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
152 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Page 145, Exhibit 4.
This agreement |\n| 2 | is made as of the 6th day of March.
Agreement and consent |\n| 3 | with respect to shares and proprietary lease by and between |\n| 4 | the Sherry-Netherland, Inc., Genever Holdings, LLC, and |\n| 5 | Mr. Kwok, known as Miles Kwok, known as Miles Guo, having an |\n| 6 | address at -- okay. |\n| 7 | All right.
So you're saying he's a party to this |\n| 8 | agreement? |\n| 9 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And because of that, you want |\n| 11 | to do discovery with regard to what? |\n| 12 | MR. MORIARTY:
What was the intent of the parties |\n| 13 | when they entered into that agreement? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Well, it doesn't matter. |\n| 15 | MR. MORIARTY:
Was the intent to make Mr. Kwok -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
I mean, contract law says it doesn't |\n| 17 | matter what their intent was.
It says what the contract |\n| 18 | says, right? |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
Well, if the contract -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Isn't that the old -- I mean, parol |\n| 21 | evidence.
Didn't we all learn about that?
I mean, |\n| 22 | that's -- |\n| 23 | MR. MORIARTY:
There are exceptions, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
But there aren't many. |\n| 25 | MR. MORIARTY:
That's true.
But there are |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 153 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
153 |\n| 1 | exceptions.
And in this case, that contract is not as clear |\n| 2 | as the trustee would contend it is.
And to the extent |\n| 3 | there's ambiguities in the contract, those ambiguities can |\n| 4 | be proven -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Well, I'm going to take a look.
I'm |\n| 6 | not convinced that there's any need for discovery.
That |\n| 7 | doesn't mean he's going to win.
But I don't understand why |\n| 8 | you need discovery on a summary judgment motion.
He's put |\n| 9 | forth what he says will establish that there's no genuine |\n| 10 | issue of material law -- I mean, material fact to be tried. |\n| 11 | You can respond to that.
And you can say, well, |\n| 12 | yeah, there is.
But I don't see discovery.
You're not |\n| 13 | convincing me of that at this point. |\n| 14 | MR. MORIARTY:
Well, Your Honor, we can certainly |\n| 15 | say that there are issues of fact, but we can't just say |\n| 16 | that. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Well, there has to be an issue -- a |\n| 18 | genuine issue of material fact.
It doesn't have to be just |\n| 19 | an issue of fact.
There's always an issue of fact. |\n| 20 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct, Your Honor.
But under |\n| 21 | Local Rule 56(a)(2), we are required to come forward with |\n| 22 | evidence as to those issues of fact.
And if we can't take |\n| 23 | discovery, where do we get that evidence from? |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Discovery on what? |\n| 25 | MR. MORIARTY:
Again, Your Honor, on -- |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 154 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
154 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Just because you -- what discovery |\n| 2 | could you possibly need?
Seriously?
I need to understand |\n| 3 | that.
You're going to take Mr. Kwok's deposition of what he |\n| 4 | thought it meant? |\n| 5 | MR. MORIARTY:
Of course not, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Then what are going to do? |\n| 7 | MR. MORIARTY:
Because I don't need to do that.
I |\n| 8 | would take discovery from the Sherry-Netherland as to what |\n| 9 | the intent of the Sherry-Netherland was.
The trustee |\n| 10 | alleges and argues that the Kwok family are licensees of |\n| 11 | this property and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to |\n| 12 | force them to vacate.
They don't have to go to New York. |\n| 13 | They don't have to go through housing court. |\n| 14 | Well, was it the intent of the parties to this |\n| 15 | agreement that the Kwok family, the debtor and his wife and |\n| 16 | his two children, would be licensees?
Or was it the intent |\n| 17 | that they would be tenants?
If they're tenants, they have |\n| 18 | different rights.
The trustee admits that.
That's the type |\n| 19 | of discovery we need to be able to take. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
But what discovery would you take to |\n| 21 | establish that? |\n| 22 | MR. MORIARTY:
We would obtain documents from The |\n| 23 | Sherry-Netherland, take a 30(b)(6) deposition of the |\n| 24 | Sherry-Netherland.
And we would determine what it was at |\n| 25 | that time that the Sherry-Netherland understood. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 155 Mr. Kwok can come forward with an affidavit and say this was the intent, but the Court may reject that affidavit. THE COURT: Well, I have to think about it. I have to think about it. I'll think about it. But that's what you're asking? You don't want there to be a motion -- a hearing set on summary judgment right now. You want there to be a discovery schedule set. That's what you're asking? MR. MORIARTY: I'm asking for a discovery schedule, Your Honor. And, again, we would coordinate with Bravo Luck's attorney and the trustee's attorney to set a schedule, because we do think there is an issue of fact as to whether the lease is property of the estate. I understand Genever is the party to the lease, but there are three adversary proceedings. And now there's a fourth where Bravo Luck is seeking to intervene where Bravo Luck is claiming, no, that's not property of the estate. To the extent the Court's not going to allow us to take discovery, we would at least ask for more than two weeks from today to be able to respond to the summary judgment motion. At least 30 days from the date -- THE COURT: Well, I -- there's no date set to respond to the summary judgment motion yet. The only date that's set to respond to anything is the responsive pleading Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 155 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 156 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
156 |\n| 1 | due under the summons. |\n| 2 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct, Your Honor.
The trustee |\n| 3 | is asking for the Court to set a summary judgment response |\n| 4 | date -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 6 | MR. MORIARTY:
-- of March 20th. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I understand.
And I haven't done |\n| 8 | that.
I haven't done that.
I'm not saying I'm doing that. |\n| 9 | I'm saying -- but regardless of what I do with the summary |\n| 10 | judgment motion, there is a responsive pleading deadline in |\n| 11 | this adversary proceeding that's set by the summons that has |\n| 12 | to be complied with. |\n| 13 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct, Your Honor.
I understand |\n| 14 | that.
And that's March 20th.
My only point to the Court is |\n| 15 | to the extent Your Honor is not going to allow discovery to |\n| 16 | be taken, we would ask that we be given sufficient time to |\n| 17 | respond to the summary judgment motion. |\n| 18 | And if that's 30 days, if it's 45 days from |\n| 19 | whenever the Court issues an order, either granting or, more |\n| 20 | likely -- or I shouldn't say more likely, but denying |\n| 21 | discovery.
Because if you grant discovery, then we don't |\n| 22 | have to worry about an immediate response.
If you deny it, |\n| 23 | then we do have to be concerned with an immediate response. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I understand.
And I just want |\n| 25 | to be clear.
I completely understand what you just said. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 157 But I'm not changing the response date of the summons as they're two separate things. And I just want to be very clear about that. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay? MR. MORIARTY: And I'm not asking for an extension -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: -- of the answer date, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, very briefly. THE COURT: We have to just still hear from -- MR. MORIARTY: Oh, sorry. Excuse me. THE COURT: -- the debtor's spouse, right? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Could you state your name for the -- you know, I'm sorry. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Of course. THE COURT: Will you just make your appearance for the record, please? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Of course. Evan Goldstein at Updike, Kelly & Spellacy on behalf of Hing Chi Guo, the debtor's wife of 37 years, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Good afternoon. Just for the Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 157 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 158 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
158 |\n| 1 | record, I -- to -- and not to repeat the arguments that were |\n| 2 | made by the debtor and Bravo Luck.
Hing Chi Guo objected to |\n| 3 | Genever Holdings and the trustee's scheduling motion related |\n| 4 | to the motion for summary judgment, Document Number 22. |\n| 5 | The request that we're asking is actually denying |\n| 6 | the scheduling motion and defer the hearing on the summary |\n| 7 | judgment based on the fact that there is no standing at this |\n| 8 | point. |\n| 9 | As the Court points out, there's three adversary |\n| 10 | proceedings pending, making that determination at some point |\n| 11 | of actually who has ownership of the property, of the |\n| 12 | apartment. |\n| 13 | And until that is determined by the Court, it's |\n| 14 | our position that the trustee does not have standing to |\n| 15 | actually make a claim to remove my client as use and |\n| 16 | occupancy of the property. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I think there's two different |\n| 18 | issues in what you just said.
I mean, I think standing is |\n| 19 | interesting insofar as it appears that there's a lease |\n| 20 | between Genever USA and the Sherry-Netherland.
No one's -- |\n| 21 | no one has disputed that.
Whether or not it's property of |\n| 22 | the estate, I think, is, you know, maybe a different issue. |\n| 23 | But I hear what you've said.
You don't want |\n| 24 | anything to be scheduled right now.
However, I want to be |\n| 25 | very clear.
I'm not deciding this today.
I can't.
I |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 159 haven't even looked at all this. You filed things in the last -- and that's fine -- in the last few days. We've had -- we've been sitting -- we've been in court here for four hours, right, on about 12 different things. And we still have to talk about other things. So I'm not going to schedule the summary judgment motion hearing today or a response deadline. Would I do that tomorrow? I don't know. It's possible. I'm going to take into account everything everyone said, of course. But that doesn't change any requirement to respond to the complaint, whatever that response is. So I just want to be very clear about that. I understand that the trustee filed the complaint and the summary judgment motion the same day. I understand all that. But we're not changing the date to respond to the complaint. And you file whatever response you think is appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. That's absolutely fine. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Understood. THE COURT: So with regard to the -- these two motions -- I'm sorry. I shouldn't say that. It's with regard to the two matters on the calendar today in this Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 159 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 160 adversary proceeding, 23-5002, which is a motion for order to schedule a hearing on summary judgment, which is ECF 6. And then a -- the motion for summary judgment. I'm not going to act on those today. I have to look at them, and I'll rule accordingly. I'm not going to have any further hearings on the issue. I understand the parties' positions, and I will figure out what to do. Okay? But I haven't had the opportunity other than just talking with you right now in court to fully understand what's happening and -- although I think I have a pretty good idea. But so that's what I'm going to do. Does anyone have any questions about that? MR. DESPINS: No. But I -- just two seconds, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: So I -- when you get to that, Your Honor, I would urge you to look at Section 9 of the agreement and consent. It says lessor, that means Sherry-Netherland, and lessee, that means Genever, hereby agree that the apartment will be occupied as a private dwelling, et cetera, et cetera, for no other person and that only the occupant, that's Mr. Kwok, and the members of the occupant's immediate family may occupy or use the apartment. That's an agreement -- this is not like a -- this is standard boilerplate period that basically says that it's Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 160 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 161 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
161 |\n| 1 | the lessee and the lessor that agree to that and that grant |\n| 2 | them that right.
Therefore, those two parties are the |\n| 3 | parties that can take away that right. |\n| 4 | And as to Mr. Lawall's argument that, hey, there's |\n| 5 | property of the estate, let's step back for a second, Your |\n| 6 | Honor.
This is a -- what he's relying on is an agreement |\n| 7 | between Mr. Kwok and his son.
And there's a lot of issues |\n| 8 | about that, and we'll cover that in the -- at the various |\n| 9 | adversary proceedings. |\n| 10 | But the point here is that Genever USA is the |\n| 11 | title -- legal title owner.
They are trying to impose a |\n| 12 | trust on it that they claim is valid. |\n| 13 | It doesn't mean that -- if that happens in a |\n| 14 | bankruptcy case, it doesn't mean that everything stops with |\n| 15 | respect to the property where the debtor holds title.
Not |\n| 16 | everything stops until they prove their case that that trust |\n| 17 | agreement is valid and is enforceable and is not a |\n| 18 | fraudulent transfer. |\n| 19 | So I would urge Your Honor to look at it in that |\n| 20 | context which is that it's up to them to impose that trust. |\n| 21 | We don't come to the Court with the assumption that that |\n| 22 | trust between the father and son is valid and is not subject |\n| 23 | to avoidance.
It is up to them to prove that that trust |\n| 24 | should be imposed on the legal title owner, which is Genever |\n| 25 | USA.
Thank you. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 162 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
162 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 2 | MR. LAWALL:
Your Honor? |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Counsel, go ahead. |\n| 4 | MR. LAWALL:
I don't mean to belabor this, but -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Just wait until you get closer to the |\n| 6 | microphone, please, just so we can pick it up. |\n| 7 | MR. LAWALL:
Yeah.
I apologize, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | Again, for the record, Fran Lawall of Troutman.
The |\n| 9 | trustee's own papers have repeatedly said that there is an |\n| 10 | issue with respect to title that has to be resolved.
So and |\n| 11 | by the way, we have filed a motion to intervene plus an |\n| 12 | affirmative pleading in order to seek a determination of the |\n| 13 | trust issue. |\n| 14 | We're not also -- we're not just relying upon the |\n| 15 | fact that there's this trust agreement.
The trustee has |\n| 16 | admitted again and again that Bravo Luck was the one who |\n| 17 | paid the \\$70 million for this property.
It doesn't say that |\n| 18 | Miles Kwok paid for it.
It was Bravo Luck. |\n| 19 | So there's more than just simply a trust agreement |\n| 20 | here.
There's a lot more here, Your Honor.
And I don't |\n| 21 | want to belabor it. |\n| 22 | But, again, there is a significant 541 issue |\n| 23 | that's got to be resolved.
We do have the motion to |\n| 24 | intervene pending, Your Honor.
I don't know -- |\n| 25 | procedurally, how would you like -- |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 163 THE COURT: I think it was just filed. Wasn't it just filed yesterday? MR. LAWALL: It was, Your Honor, together with the proposed answer. THE COURT: Well, normally when a motion is filed in an adversary proceeding under the general rules -- I have to look, but the general rules of the district court and the bankruptcy court is that there's a 21-day response period -- MR. LAWALL: Right. THE COURT: -- for a motion. So I've got to take a look, okay? MR. LAWALL: That's fine, Your Honor. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. THE COURT: Oh, I haven't had a chance. I know you filed it. MR. LAWALL: Right. THE COURT: That's all I know. Because I saw that. I did -- it was brought to my attention, something about the appearance, and I just said that's not -- you don't have to worry about that, because -- MR. LAWALL: Got it. THE COURT: -- unless and until they intervene -- or granted to intervene -- but you filed the appearance, so that's fine. MR. LAWALL: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 163 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 164 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
164 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 2 | MR. LAWALL:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I'll take a look.
Thank you. |\n| 4 | Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 5 | Okay.
So I'm going to -- the summary judgment |\n| 6 | motion is a pending motion.
Whether and when it gets set |\n| 7 | for hearing is what ECF Number 6 is asking.
It's asking for |\n| 8 | an order setting the hearing and the response date on the |\n| 9 | summary judgment. |\n| 10 | I'm not doing that today.
So I have to take a |\n| 11 | look at it.
And I will do that in short order.
And you |\n| 12 | will all know when you get your -- the notice of electronic |\n| 13 | filing of whatever order I issue.
Okay? |\n| 14 | All right.
Now, that does address everything |\n| 15 | that's on the calendar today, but there are two further |\n| 16 | issues that I need to address. |\n| 17 | So it was brought to my attention that with regard |\n| 18 | to the prejudgment remedy hearing scheduled to start next |\n| 19 | week that, Attorney Kindseth, you want to testify at a |\n| 20 | different time, because you have a vacation.
Which I |\n| 21 | understand. |\n| 22 | But I was confused by that, because your office |\n| 23 | asked for those dates for the actual evidentiary hearing. |\n| 24 | So I -- I'm a little bit at a loss, because I removed -- |\n| 25 | moved things around the calendar to set those dates as -- on |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 165 consecutive dates, because your office in the actual pleading said those dates work. Now, it appears that the trustee -- and maybe I'm wrong, Mr. Despins. You don't object to Mr. Kindseth's testimony being taken out of order. I don't know. But I'm not taking it this Friday. I'm not going to change the schedule all around when we -- you know, that's concerning to me a little bit. So I'm not doing it this week. It can't happen. Okay? The hearings are scheduled next week for -- what is it? It starts on the 15th. We have the 15th, 16th, and 17th, right? Isn't that what we had scheduled for the PJR hearing? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KINDSETH: Yes, Your Honor. And if I could -- THE COURT: So then -- so you're going to be back from vacation on Monday the 20th? MR. KINDSETH: I am. And I apologize, Your Honor. THE COURT: So you're going to testify on Monday the 20th. I don't know why you need to testify. But if you're going to testify, that's when you're going to testify. I'm not going to break up the -- you know, we've done this in a couple of matters, and it's really not Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 165 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 166 actually fair to the Court to break up the presentation of evidence to suit the lawyers. And I'm not -- that didn't come out right. I know if you have a vacation, you have a vacation. But I'm still confused, because your office specifically asked for those dates. So what were you going to say, Attorney -- what were you going to say? MR. BASSETT: Yeah. Your Honor, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings for the record. I was just going to say that we -- well, first of all, we were also surprised that it didn't work, because from our perspective we worked together with Zeisler to come up with this schedule to do the hearing on dates when we all knew we would be available. And we, on our end, were specifically navigating issues of availability including family vacations. And the one significant week that we navigated around that does not work for us is the week of the 20th, which is the week after next week. So what we told Attorney Kindseth and his colleagues when they reached out, we said, look, we don't understand how this was not addressed at the time we set the schedule. But, of course, we are willing to be reasonable in trying to accommodate the vacation if we can. So the solution that we came up with was for Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 166 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 167 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
167 |\n| 1 | Mr. Kindseth, if it were acceptable to the Court, to testify |\n| 2 | early this week.
I understand that doesn't work. |\n| 3 | So now I think we're at a loss for where we go |\n| 4 | from here.
I had two ideas, one of which was |\n| 5 | Mr. Kindseth -- and, first of all, I think from the |\n| 6 | trustee's perspective, it's not clear to us either why |\n| 7 | Mr. Kindseth needs to testify.
Be that as it may, he's on |\n| 8 | their exhibit list. |\n| 9 | We took his deposition.
Prior to that deposition, |\n| 10 | the issue of Mr. Kindseth's unavailability during the court |\n| 11 | ordered hearing dates -- that arose prior to the deposition. |\n| 12 | So at that deposition, we hadn't resolved the issue. |\n| 13 | One thing we could have done is they could have |\n| 14 | asked questions of Mr. Kindseth at the deposition.
And by |\n| 15 | the way, counsel who's representing the daughter and HK |\n| 16 | left, so he's not here to address the reasons why |\n| 17 | Mr. Kindseth may testify and what happened at the |\n| 18 | deposition.
But our position was let's do it by deposition |\n| 19 | then. |\n| 20 | We asked him everything he was going to testify |\n| 21 | about.
What we were told is that he's going to testify |\n| 22 | about the Himalaya loan that was allegedly provided in |\n| 23 | connection with the stipulation on the \\$37 million in |\n| 24 | escrow.
We asked repeatedly, is there anything else you've |\n| 25 | got to testify about?
He testified to all of that.
We |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 168 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 168 think the testimony is exhaustive. In our view, let's submit the deposition testimony via designations from each side. That can come in as testimony. Another option, which I would hate to impose on Mr. Kindseth, is if it's amenable to the Court, he could testify remotely while he's on vacation. But we specifically navigated around the week of the 20th, because that does not work for us. The other obvious issue, Your Honor, is I don't see how it would be possible to not have closing argument, which we think is very important, until after the close of evidence. So moving -- you know, it's not an issue of just moving Mr. Kindseth's testimony to a half day. It would be let's move that to a day when thereafter we would have time to do closings, which could take a significant amount of time. So, you know, again, we're trying to accommodate. Nobody wants to ruin vacations. But it's -- we find ourselves in a very difficult position. THE COURT: So what's wrong with using your deposition testimony? MR. KINDSETH: First, Your Honor, if I could, I'd like to address what transpired. First, there was no communication with me,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 169 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
169 |\n| 1 | contrary to what Attorney Bassett stated, concerning the |\n| 2 | date, which was the problem.
The -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
What date? |\n| 4 | MR. KINDSETH:
The date of the trial. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Your firm filed a motion and |\n| 6 | said you wanted it on those dates. |\n| 7 | MR. KINDSETH:
It was a joint -- Your Honor -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Wait a minute.
Let me -- |\n| 9 | MR. KINDSETH:
Can I -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Let me just stop you right there. |\n| 11 | Seriously.
Let me stop you right there.
That is just not |\n| 12 | going to work.
You all have decided that you're all going |\n| 13 | to take on whatever you're going to take on.
That's |\n| 14 | absolutely fine.
I don't -- you know, whatever you're going |\n| 15 | to do. |\n| 16 | But you can't then submit something to the Court, |\n| 17 | say this is the week that's going to work for us.
Then I |\n| 18 | change everything around to make it work.
And then you come |\n| 19 | in less than two weeks before and say, oh, by the way, I |\n| 20 | can't -- I'm going to testify, and I can't be there, so you |\n| 21 | need to do it on a different day, Judge.
Well, that's not |\n| 22 | how it works. |\n| 23 | MR. KINDSETH:
Your Honor, I understand -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
It's not going to work that way. |\n| 25 | MR. KINDSETH:
Your Honor, it was an internal |\n| | Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 170 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
170 |\n| 1 | issue where the parties scheduling the dates did not |\n| 2 | communicate with me personally.
We accept responsibility |\n| 3 | for that internal mistake. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Well, then we'll use your deposition. |\n| 5 | What's wrong with using your deposition? |\n| 6 | MR. KINDSETH:
It was only an examination of me -- |\n| 7 | first of all, I'd like to alert the Court to the fact that |\n| 8 | lead counsel is not present.
I'm the proposed witness. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Well, then he should have stayed here. |\n| 10 | MR. KINDSETH:
Well, Your Honor, it wasn't on the |\n| 11 | calendar. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Well, you mean to tell me none of you |\n| 13 | were going to talk about the PJR -- |\n| 14 | MR. KINDSETH:
No. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
-- hearing today? |\n| 16 | MR. KINDSETH:
What we contemplated doing is |\n| 17 | filing a motion. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, why didn't you? |\n| 19 | MR. KINDSETH:
No.
Because -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
You haven't filed a motion. |\n| 21 | MR. KINDSETH:
We actually -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
And the hearing is next week. |\n| 23 | MR. KINDSETH:
As a courtesy on agreement, we |\n| 24 | submitted an email to the courtroom deputy alerting the |\n| 25 | Court to this request.
Since we had not heard a response, |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 171 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 171 we anticipated filing a motion as soon as possible so this issue can be addressed by counsel who are trying the case. And so but since Your Honor raised the issue, I wanted to alert Your Honor and explain. And it is unfortunate. It is an internal problem that happened within Zeisler & Zeisler. That's unfortunate. And it's unfortunately affecting my vacation with my family. And I would prefer not to fly back from Portugal on Thursday in the middle of the vacation and leave my wife and two kids, but I will if I have to. Because I have a commitment to the client. The client -- THE COURT: Why do you need to testify? Why can't you accomplish it in some other way so you can enjoy your vacation with your wife and your kids? MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor, I understand the fact that a mistake was made, but the fact -- THE COURT: No, no. That's not answering my question. You're the lawyer. What are you going to testify about with regard to a transaction? And if you do -- MR. KINDSETH: Because they're claiming it's not -- THE COURT: -- aren't you waiving the attorney/client privilege -- MR. KINDSETH: No. It's a -- THE COURT: -- with regard to that transaction?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 172 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
172 |\n| 1 | MR. KINDSETH:
It's a transaction with a third |\n| 2 | party.
The loan that my client obtained from Himalaya, I |\n| 3 | was lead transactional counsel negotiating that loan.
And |\n| 4 | I'm being called to testify as to that transaction. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
For what purpose? |\n| 6 | MR. KINDSETH:
For purposes of rebutting their |\n| 7 | contention that Himalaya is a \"shell\" of Mr. Kwok.
And -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Well, how can you prove that? |\n| 9 | MR. KINDSETH:
No.
I'm just going to simply |\n| 10 | testify -- and, again, I'm not -- I'm not lead counsel. |\n| 11 | Trial counsel should be making these arguments. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I understand that.
But you can't |\n| 13 | prove that even -- no matter what you say. |\n| 14 | MR. KINDSETH:
But, Your Honor, two points.
First |\n| 15 | of all, other counsel should be arguing it.
Second of all, |\n| 16 | this is -- and I understand Your Honor's -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Fine.
You know what we're going to |\n| 18 | do?
We're going to have a conference tomorrow and get |\n| 19 | counsel back here.
And he's going to explain why this is -- |\n| 20 | why he waited to do all this and what the problem is. |\n| 21 | Because I don't understand why your deposition |\n| 22 | testimony can't come in.
What possibly could you say on the |\n| 23 | stand that you haven't already said in your deposition |\n| 24 | testimony?
So fine. |\n| 25 | MR. KINDSETH:
We would appreciate that very much, |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 173 Your Honor. THE COURT: Fine. Everybody's got to be back here tomorrow then. I just need to look at timing. MR. LAWALL: Your Honor, just to be clear, Bravo is not part of this, so you're not expecting Bravo to be here, are you? THE COURT: You can be here if you'd like to be, but I'm not -- the issue right now is between the HK parties and Mr. Kindseth and the debtor -- and the trustee. Okay? You can be here if you want. MR. LAWALL: No. I'm more than happy not to be, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're not calling witnesses or introducing exhibits -- MR. LAWALL: Not at all, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- at a PJR hearing next week. Mr. LAWALL: Nope. THE COURT: Okay. So then -- MR. LAWALL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. But you're more than welcome to come. MR. LAWALL: Understood. THE COURT: All right. 1:00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon, unless there's an agreement submitted by the parties that the deposition testimony can be used. Then Case 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 173 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 174 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
174 |\n| 1 | counsel for HK has to be here in this court and explain why |\n| 2 | this has to happen.
Okay? |\n| 3 | So that's what we're going to do.
We're going to |\n| 4 | issue -- there is no motion pending.
So we're going to -- |\n| 5 | I'm going to issue an order -- well, I'm doing it on the |\n| 6 | record. |\n| 7 | I am not going to issue a separate order, because |\n| 8 | it's 5:15.
I mean, when is the -- the clerk's office isn't |\n| 9 | going to be able to deal with this.
They've got to go home |\n| 10 | and eat and be with their families too. |\n| 11 | So I am issuing -- I'm making an oral ruling that |\n| 12 | there's going to be a status conference with regard to the |\n| 13 | prejudgment remedy trial scheduled to begin I believe at |\n| 14 | 10:00 a.m. on the 15th at 1:00 p.m. tomorrow unless there's |\n| 15 | an agreement in writing between counsel that the deposition |\n| 16 | testimony of Mr. Kindseth can be used at trial. |\n| 17 | Is that -- you have any questions on that, |\n| 18 | Mr. Bassett? |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:
That's fine, Your Honor.
I'm sorry. |\n| 20 | But one additional -- I would just like to say that if we |\n| 21 | are going to be before the Court tomorrow, there are some |\n| 22 | other issues related to the PJR hearing.
So if it's a |\n| 23 | general status conference, I think that would -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Sure. |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
Yeah.
Okay. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 175 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
175 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
We'll talk about it. |\n| 2 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
All right.
So that's |\n| 4 | one thing that I wanted to talk about. |\n| 5 | The other thing that I wanted to talk about, which |\n| 6 | is not -- it's not -- the process has not been -- Judge |\n| 7 | Tancredi entered an order in the Norwich Diocese -- Roman |\n| 8 | Catholic Diocese case yesterday and had a hearing apparently |\n| 9 | on February 15 with regard to disclosure of confidential |\n| 10 | information by Epiq and the names and addresses of the |\n| 11 | sexual abuse victims in the -- in that case. |\n| 12 | And the victims have all -- have now filed a -- an |\n| 13 | action in the district court of Connecticut seeking damages |\n| 14 | against Epiq for that disclosure and apparently have, I -- |\n| 15 | from -- I believe I am accurate in stating, seeking to have |\n| 16 | that action be certified as a class action and have alleged |\n| 17 | that Epiq has disclosed confidential information in several |\n| 18 | cases throughout the country and in Canada.
That's my |\n| 19 | understanding. |\n| 20 | The proof of claim bar date in this case has |\n| 21 | passed.
The clerk's office of this Court received proofs of |\n| 22 | claim in this case during the same time that Epiq received |\n| | |\n\n claims register that the Court has, and Epiq hasn't, apparently, finished processing of all of its claims.\n\nproofs of claim in this case. And so there is an existing\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 176 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
176 |\n| 1 | But at this time, that claims register is not |\n| 2 | available for public view in light of many issues, including |\n| 3 | Judge Tancredi's order, that he's concerned about this |\n| 4 | across the judiciary, not just in his case.
Okay? |\n| 5 | So the likelihood is -- and I don't really think |\n| 6 | it really impacts anybody other than, I think, to tell you |\n| 7 | that the likelihood is that all of those claims that Epiq |\n| 8 | has or -- will be turned over to this Court, and this Court |\n| 9 | will maintain the claims register of both non-confidential |\n| 10 | and confidential claimants. |\n| 11 | And any service to be made in this case, as |\n| 12 | already was ordered in an enter -- an order entered on |\n| 13 | February 8th regarding Epiq's services, which was entered |\n| 14 | when I had no idea about what happened in the Norwich |\n| 15 | Diocese case, said that they're supposed to -- Epiq was |\n| 16 | supposed to serve things only at the direction of the Court, |\n| 17 | the clerk, or the Chapter 11 trustee. |\n| 18 | So I don't think it's -- I think that that is the |\n| 19 | proper way to proceed because, as we also all know, I think, |\n| 20 | my understanding, again, is that there are some 1,300 claims |\n| 21 | filed and that there are likely going to be a lot of issues |\n| 22 | raised at some point in this case about the validity of many |\n| 23 | of those claims. |\n| 24 | So it makes more sense for those claims to be here |\n| 25 | with our court for us to deal with it, because Epiq |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 177 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
177 |\n| 1 | apparently testified that they -- well, they want to get rid |\n| 2 | of the -- I shouldn't -- that's not fair.
Not rid of. |\n| 3 | They're turning over, if Judge Tancredi orders it, the |\n| 4 | processing of claims and other issues in that case for |\n| 5 | specific reasons to a different claims agent, although that |\n| 6 | case has money to pay a claims agent. |\n| 7 | And I don't see the reason to do that in this |\n| 8 | case.
I think the bar date's passed.
We get all the |\n| 9 | claims.
We deal with them here in the court and the clerk's |\n| 10 | office as the statute requires the clerk's office to do. |\n| 11 | So does anyone have any concerns about that?
I |\n| 12 | know I'm -- we can -- you can raise them tomorrow, I |\n| 13 | suppose, if -- you haven't really had any time to think |\n| 14 | about it, obviously. |\n| 15 | And I don't remember -- I can look right now while |\n| 16 | we're here.
I can try to find Judge Tancredi's order that |\n| 17 | issued yesterday.
I've seen it, so I know it exists.
But I |\n| 18 | don't know if I have it right in front of me. |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
So, Your Honor, if I may just |\n| 20 | address it -- this briefly? |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee.
I |\n| 23 | was aware of what was going on.
I am not aware of the order |\n| 24 | entered yesterday, but I was aware of what was going on in |\n| 25 | that case.
I think Mr. Kindseth actually represents the |\n\n| 183
Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
178 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| committee, but -- in that case. |\n| And we did have a discussion with Epiq saying what |\n| measures have you taken so -- to make sure that nothing like |\n| this happens here. |\n| THE COURT:
Yeah.
But they haven't taken any |\n| measures, according to Judge Tancredi, unfortunately, |\n| Trustee Despins. |\n| MR. DESPINS:
No, no.
I understand.
So I'm |\n| not -- |\n| THE COURT:
And I guess he's actually -- this |\n| order that entered yesterday.
He's requiring them to, in |\n| addition to the fact that they testified, to file a |\n| declaration about what they're going to do.
I just -- |\n| there's too much going on in this case. |\n| MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| THE COURT:
I cannot spend my life -- |\n| MR. DESPINS:
No, I understand. |\n| THE COURT:
-- worrying about the proofs of claim. |\n| MR. DESPINS:
No, no.
We -- |\n| THE COURT:
I mean, this is -- |\n| MR. DESPINS:
We understand, Your Honor.
So -- |\n| THE COURT:
It just doesn't make any sense to me. |\n| MR. DESPINS:
So we're not trying to defend Epiq. |\n| I just wanted to let you know that we had attempted to -- |\n| THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 179 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
179 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
-- cover that. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I appreciate that. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
And what I would like to do is be |\n| 4 | able to talk to my colleague who's handling this process so |\n| 5 | I can have a more intelligent response to Your Honor's |\n| 6 | position, but -- and I can report on that tomorrow. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I'm trying to find the case right now. |\n| 8 | And I'm just probably looking in the wrong place.
But maybe |\n| 9 | I'm not.
So give me a second. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Well, Attorney Kindseth, do you know |\n| 12 | the case number?
You're involved in the case, aren't you? |\n| 13 | Or -- |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
The Norwich case number? |\n| 15 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
I think it's 21 -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
All right.
Hold on.
The -- |\n| 17 | MS. CLAIBORN:
It's 21-20687. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
21-20867. |\n| 19 | MS. CLAIBORN:
20687. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Oh, 20687.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you. |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, if I just could put one |\n| 23 | comment on the record, which is that one of the issues that |\n| 24 | prompted the use of Epiq in this particular case was the |\n| 25 | concern that creditors who may file proofs of claim may be |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1550
Filed 03/16/23
Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05
Page 180 of
183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
180 |\n| 1 | concerned about airing their addresses and their public |\n| 2 | information with the debtor and/or the people in the |\n| 3 | debtor's camp. |\n| 4 | So what I have seen is, notwithstanding the |\n| 5 | passage of the bar date, creditors are continuing to file |\n| 6 | proofs of claim.
And so to the extent we have to figure out |\n| 7 | a better solution to protect creditors, we need to take into |\n| 8 | account the fact that there may be creditors who properly |\n| 9 | have late filed claims and who need to be treated as |\n| 10 | confidential and protected. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Without question.
And if Epiq gets |\n| 12 | that information, they're going to have to continue to turn |\n| 13 | it over to us.
That's what the order of February 8 said. |\n| 14 | So I understand what you're saying. |\n| 15 | And the anticipation is, if this is to occur that |\n| 16 | the Court is going to -- well, I don't mean the Court.
The |\n| 17 | clerk's office is going to be, as it's statutorily required |\n| 18 | to be, the repository of the -- all claims in a case.
Then |\n| 19 | there will be a confidential claims register that will not |\n| 20 | be available to the public.
I mean, that's just the way |\n| 21 | it's going to have to be until there's further order of the |\n| 22 | Court. |\n| 23 | I just -- I -- with -- I just don't want to spend |\n| 24 | any more time worrying about -- other than maintaining what |\n| 25 | we all -- everybody agreed was appropriate and was ordered |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 181 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
181 |\n| 1 | that there be confidential claims and non-confidential |\n| 2 | claims, our clerk's office can handle it.
And I don't |\n| 3 | want -- according to the -- what I've been told and seen, |\n| 4 | there's a person pressing a button that pressed a button on |\n| 5 | occasions in the Norwich case and others that disclosed that |\n| 6 | information. |\n| 7 | I'm not going to have that.
I don't need to have |\n| 8 | that in this case.
Okay?
Does that make sense? |\n| 9 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Does anyone else wish to be |\n| 11 | heard on that issue?
All right.
Well, we can talk about it |\n| 12 | more tomorrow.
All right? |\n| 13 | But it's a serious issue, and there's some serious |\n| 14 | allegations out there.
And I completely understand why |\n| 15 | there was a request to retain Epiq to do what -- to have |\n| 16 | confidential claims filed.
But if we can't be confident |\n| 17 | that those confidential claims will remain confidential, |\n| 18 | then I just don't need to address -- I just don't see the |\n| 19 | point in having that continue.
Okay? |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
Understood. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
All right.
That takes care of |\n| 22 | everything on today's calendar.
Even if you have an |\n| 23 | agreement with regard to Mr. Kindseth's testimony by 1:00 |\n| 24 | p.m. tomorrow, we're still going to talk about the PJR |\n| 25 | hearing? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 182 of\n\n| | 183 | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023 | 182 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Is that correct? | |\n| 3 | MR. BASSET:
That's correct, Your Honor. | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
All right. | |\n| 5 | MR. LINSEY:
Your Honor? | |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Yes. | |\n| 7 | MR. LINSEY:
We reached out to counsel for HCHK in | |\n| 8 | Lexington.
They did file that notice of withdrawal. | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
I actually just saw that, thank you, | |\n| 10 | when I looked at the docket.
So I saw the withdrawal of | |\n| 11 | that motion that was on the calendar today.
I'm looking at | |\n| 12 | the courtroom deputy.
It'll come up.
It was withdrawn | |\n| 13 | while we were in court today. | |\n| 14 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay? | |\n| 16 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Yes. | |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you, all. | I'll see |\n| 18 | you tomorrow.
We will see you tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. | Court |\n| 19 | is adjourned. | |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you. | |\n| 21 | (Proceedings adjourned at 5:22 p.m.) | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 183 of\n\n| | 183 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 7, 2023
183 |\n| 1 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified |\n| 2 | electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the |\n| 3 | foregoing is a correct transcript from the official |\n| 4 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above |\n| 5 | entitled matter. |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | March 15, 2023 |\n| 9 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |","body_zh":"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案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）、GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰纳维尔控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（杰纳维尔控股有限责任公司），\n*\n*\n债务人。\n*\n*\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）等，\n*\n案件编号 22-05027 (JAM)\n*\n原告，\n*\n*\n诉\n*\n*\nBRAVO LUCK LIMITED（博瑞好运有限公司）等，\n*\n*\n被告。\n*\nGENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（杰纳维尔控股有限责任公司）等，\n*\n案件编号 23-05002 (JAM)\n*\n原告，\n*\n*\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n诉\n2023年3月7日\n*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n*\n*\n被告。\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n审判长 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n美国联邦破产法官\n\n庭审程序以电子录音记录，记录副本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）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\n康涅狄格州谢尔顿 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n关于责令到庭并说明法院为何不应裁定未作回应的当事人藐视法庭的命令之记录副本；部分准许关于责令到庭并说明法院为何不应裁定香港当事人藐视法庭的命令之动议；动议\n\n延长遵守法院2023年1月20日命令的期限；关于因债务人未遵守就 FRBP2004 传票所作强制命令而应被裁定藐视法庭的说明理由命令之动议；债务人关于在对裁定其藐视公司治理命令提出上诉期间中止执行的动议；关于密封对第11章受托人命令之补充异议的动议，该命令设定了状态会议；对文件提供请求的异议以及撤销和／或修改2004审查传票的动议；强制遵守破产规则第2004条传票的动议；续行的审前会议；密封经修订对抗性诉状的综合动议；授权 Sales Office and Sotheby's Intl. Realty（销售办公室及苏富比国际地产）为出租 Sherry-Netherland APT（雪莉-荷兰公寓）进行营销的动议；状态会议、命令动议及简易判决动议\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债权人 Pacific\nAlliance Asia Opportunity\nFund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯律师）\nRobinson & Cole\n28 Trumbull Street\n康涅狄格州哈特福德\n\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨尔诺夫律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\n纽约州纽约市\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nNICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·巴塞特律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\n纽约州纽约市\n\nPATRICK LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·林赛律师）\nNeubert, Pepe and Monteith\n195 Church Street\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·A·德斯平斯律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\n纽约州纽约市\n\n出庭人员：（续）代表美国受托人：HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师） 美国受托人办公室 The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 康涅狄格州纽黑文 06510 代表债权人委员会：JONATHAN KAPLAN, ESQ.（乔纳森·卡普兰律师） Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street 康涅狄格州布里奇波特 06601 代表债权人 The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰）：SHERRY J. MILLMAN, ESQ.（雪莉·J·米尔曼律师） Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 180 Maiden Lane 纽约州纽约市 10038 TARUNA GARG, ESQ.（塔鲁娜·加格律师） Murtha Cullina 280 Trumbull Street 康涅狄格州哈特福德 06103 代表债务人、Mei Guo（郭梅）及 HK International（香港国际）：STEPHEN KINDSETH, ESQ.（史蒂芬·金德塞斯律师） ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·A·亨齐律师） JAMES MORIARTY, ESQ.（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂律师） Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor 康涅狄格州布里奇波特 06604 SAM DELLA FERA, JR., ESQ.（小萨姆·德拉费拉律师） Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi, P.C. 105 Eisenhower Parkway 新泽西州罗斯兰 07068 代表利害关系方 UBS, AG（瑞银集团）：LISA FRIED, ESQ.（丽莎·弗里德律师） Herbert Smith Freehills New York, LLP 450 Lexington Avenue 纽约州纽约市 10017 代表利害关系方 Bravo Luck Limited（博瑞好运有限公司）：FRANCIS J. LAWALL, ESQ.（弗朗西斯·J·劳沃尔律师） Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP 1313 N. Market Street 华盛顿特区 19801\n\nHo Wan Kwok－2023年3月7日 4\n\n（程序于下午1时18分开始。）\n\n法庭：关于今天的庭审，主案中有事项，对抗性程序中也有事项；书记员——这并非书记员的过错——书记员并未在法庭内，因此他们尽力而为——将记录副本拆分为一部分提交在主案中，一部分提交在对抗性程序中，而这并不完全准确。\n\n因此，我们今后将确保，每当任何人订购类似今天庭审的记录副本，而主案中安排有事项、对抗性程序中也安排有事项时，该记录副本将同时提交至主案和当日列入日程的任何对抗性程序中，以免产生混淆，并且速记员无需就是否以及应将该记录副本放置于何处作出任何判断。\n\n例如，在20日，我不知道是哪一天，我想是1月31日，主案中有听证会，对抗性程序中也有听证会，还有一项关于密封的动议听证会，该动议在主案中提出，但确实影响了一项对抗性程序。\n\n长话短说，虽然记录副本请求未对主案和对抗性程序作任何区分，但书记员作了区分，因此，该记录副本\n\nHo Wan Kwok－2023年3月7日 5\n\n被拆分为部分提交在主案中、部分提交在一项对抗性程序中，这并不完全准确。那么，在案件被叫到之前，是否有人对此有任何问题？（无人回应。）\n\n法庭：好的。那么我将请法庭书记员叫到今天列入日程的主案和对抗性程序。然后我们将记录出庭人员，之后将按照我将告知各位的处理顺序，开始处理日程上的事项。因此，我看向法庭书记员，这是否合理？\n\n法庭书记员：是。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。那么请开始。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok、Genever Holdings Corporation 及 Genever Holdings, LLC；对抗性程序编号 22-5027，Despins 诉 Bravo Luck, Limited；以及 23-5002，Genever Holdings, LLC 诉 Kwok。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。请先由第11章受托人开始，为记录在案说明出庭情况。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 5 页，共 183 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 6 页，共 183 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok－2023年3月7日 6\n\nDespins，第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nBASSETT 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，代表第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Stuart Sarnoff，O'Melveny & Myers，代表债权人 PAX。今天与我一同出庭的是当地律师 Annecca Smith，来自 Robinson & Cole，代表 PAX。\n\n法庭：两位下午好。\n\n法庭书记员：抱歉，我没有听清。您说与您一同出庭的是谁？\n\nSARNOFF 先生：Annecca Smith，来自 Robinson & Cole。抱歉，我声音太小了。\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nLINSEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nKAPLAN 先生：下午好。Jonathan Kaplan，代表委员会。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 7 页，共 183 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok－2023年3月7日\n\n1 GARG 女士：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n2 法庭：Garg 律师，您必须到前面来，\n\n3 因为我们无法通过\n\n4 麦克风听到您的声音。好吗？抱歉。只是我们无法\n\n5 将其录下来。\n\n6 GARG 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Taruna\n\n7 Garg，代表 Sherry-Netherland。我将与——我预计\n\n8 Sherry Millman 也将代表\n\n9 Sherry-Netherland 一同出庭。\n\n10 法庭：您预计将与您一同出庭的是谁？\n\n11 \n\n12 GARG 女士：Sherry 律师——Sherry Millman。\n\n13 她来自 Stroock。\n\n14 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n15 GARG 女士：谢谢。\n\n16 法庭：请继续，律师。\n\n17 KINDSETH 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Steve\n\n18 Kindseth，来自 Zeisler & Zeisler，代表 Mei Guo 和 HK USA。并且\n\n19 与我一同出庭的是已获准\n\n20 特别许可出庭的 Sam Della Fera 律师。\n\n21 此外，我还代表\n\n22 债务人 Ho Wan Kwok 出庭。与我一同出庭的还有代表该\n\n23 ——代表债务人的 Henzy 律师。\n\n24 法庭：好的。各位下午好。\n\n25 HENZY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 8 页，共 183 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok－2023年3月7日\n\n1 DELLA FERA 先生：很荣幸出庭，法官阁下。\n\n2 法庭：好的。那么这就是所有\n\n3 出庭人员了吗？\n\n4 FRIED 女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Lisa\n\n5 Fried，我代表 UBS, AG 出庭。\n\n6 法庭：谢谢。\n\n7 我想我确实看到您代表该方提交的出庭\n\n8 通知已在本案中备案。是的，谢谢。\n\n9 好的。好。那么日程上有数项事项。\n\n10 我们试图按时间将它们分组，以防有\n\n11 当事人无需全程在场。我\n\n12 不知道那是否仍然合理。我的意思是，也许我们\n\n13 只需将它们全部安排在同一时间。我们看看今天\n\n14 情况如何。\n\n15 但是，今天日程上的第一项事项\n\n16 是关于 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）及 Golden Spring（金泉）的责令到庭并说明理由命令，ECF No. 1397。\n\n17 \n\n18 因此，我需要就该责令到庭并说明理由命令与受托人的律师\n\n19 讨论，对吗？Bassett 律师，您将处理这项\n\n20 事项吗？\n\n21 BASSETT 先生：是的。没错，法官阁下。\n\n22 法庭：好的。请继续。\n\n23 BASSETT 先生：再次下午好，法官阁下。\n\n24 为记录在案，Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，代表\n\n25 第11章受托人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 9 页，共 183 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok－2023年3月7日 9\n\n实际上，法官阁下，关于该日程事项，即 1397 号责令说明理由命令，除非代表 Lamp Capital 和 Golden Spring，和／或 Golden Spring 的律师今天在法庭内——我认为我没有听到他们任何一方的出庭声明——否则，我认为我们实际上会请求法庭延期审理该事项。问题是，受托人未能有机会，且在尝试向该两方当事人送达责令说明理由命令时遇到了一些问题。因此，我谨请求该事项延期，重新设定送达日期，例如延期至下个月某个时候，然后重新设定送达日期；我们将尝试在其他当事人已获适当通知的时间再次办理此事。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，您的意思是，您向他们送达有困难，是吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：没错，法官阁下。显然，若受托人认为向法庭提出某种替代送达请求属审慎之举，我们会这样做。\n\n法庭：好的。好。稍等一下。我只想看一下这个。（暂停。）\n\n法庭：Golden Spring 不是曾在本案中提交过出庭通知吗？不是有人\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok－2023年3月7日\n\n1 代表 Golden Spring 出席本案吗？\n\n2 DESPINS 先生：是。\n\n3 法庭：而且该——该出庭通知\n\n4 已被撤回？\n\n5 BASSETT 先生：我——我并不完全确定\n\n6 其状态——\n\n7 法庭：您身后的人在点头表示是——\n\n8 BASSETT 先生：是。\n\n9 法庭：——所以我认为那是正确的。\n\n10 DESPINS 先生：是。\n\n11 BASSETT 先生：那是——\n\n12 法庭：只是让您知道。您不必\n\n13 ——我的意思是，我相当——我认为这就是发生的情况。\n\n14 BASSETT 先生：不。那——那是正确的。\n\n15 我——我不确定的是，该出庭通知是否已经——\n\n16 法庭：因为我记得，在个人债务人为占有中的债务人时，\n\n17 Golden Spring 是那笔 \\$8.8 million 贷款的\n\n18 贷款人。\n\n19 BASSETT 先生：没错，法官阁下。我\n\n20 一下子确实不知道该出庭通知是否\n\n21 已经被撤回。\n\n22 法庭：我认为实际上已经被撤回了。而且我\n\n23 几乎可以确定这一点。\n\n24 BASSETT 先生：好的。\n\n25 法庭：因此，截至目前，您并不知道，\n\n代表 Golden Spring（戈尔登斯普林）或 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）的任何律师吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n须受我刚才所述保留意见的限制，即我本人并不知悉该项授权是否已被撤销。若情况如此，那么，是的，法官阁下，我相信我们并不知悉。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n为——您知道，完整披露——真正促使产生这一问题的是，我们试图向二者送达，而我们收到 Lamp Capital 的登记代理人的回复称，在我们过去向其送达传票及其他文件之时与我们约一个月前试图向其送达之时之间的某个时间，该特拉华州登记代理人表示，其已不再获授权代表该实体接受送达。\n\n法庭：\n州务卿办公室的信息显示什么？其是否称他们仍是送达登记代理人？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n嗯，我们被告知的是，该实体显然现已不再是登记在案的实体。因此，我们正试图弄清这意味着什么，以及我们如何能够继续推进——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n——就其而言，鉴于该情况。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n法庭：\n我明白。我认为这很有意思。因此，你是说，在你试图向登记在案的送达代理人送达与现在之间的某个时间，该送达登记代理人已不复存在了吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n该代理人仍然存在，但其对我们的回复是，我们已不再获授权接受向该实体的送达。就其记录所示，该实体已不再运营。\n\n法庭：\n你说的是哪个实体？\n\n巴塞特先生：\nLamp Capital。\n\n法庭：\nLamp Capital。好的。那么 Golden Spring 呢？他们没有送达登记代理人吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n他们有，我们可以向他们送达。我们本想一次性完成，以便将二者都纳入程序。\n\n法庭：\n明白。我只是提出这个问题——\n\n巴塞特先生：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n——以便我了解——\n\n巴塞特先生：\n那么我们会按该方式办理。而且，您知道，如果任何代表他们出庭的律师在本案中仍是其律师，我们显然会通过该律师——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第12页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n——本案中——\n\n法庭：\n我认为本案中没有，但我对此也可能有误。好的。那么——你们是否提议了一个延期至何日以及须在何日前完成送达的日期？我可以告诉你，四月第一周不合适，所以——在你提出四月第一周的日期之前——那不会合适。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n我会说，法官阁下——我本来想说四月第二周。然后——\n\n法庭：\n那么——\n\n巴塞特先生：\n然后或许给我们从现在起两周时间完成送达。\n\n法庭：\n我可以安排在4月12日，星期三。或者我们可以——实际上，已在对抗程序 05002 中安排了一项事项，于4月18日下午2:00进行。我不知道这是否令你感兴趣，或者你是否不想拖那么久。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n我的意思是，相隔六天，我认为可以。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么我们回到那个日期。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：\n好的。因此，就 ECF 1397 号出庭说明理由裁定而言，即关于法庭为何不应认定未作回应当事人 Golden Spring, New York, Limited（Golden Spring纽约有限公司）和 Lamp Capital, LLC（Lamp Capital有限责任公司）藐视法庭的事项，听证会延期至4月18日下午2:00。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n你们希望在何日前完成送达？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n如我所言，法官阁下，如果我们能有两周时间，即从今天起两周，我认为可以。\n\n法庭：\n那是3月21日。那——那给你们足够时间吗？我认为你们可以延至该周末，即3月24日。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n如果法庭可以接受，那将非常好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n法庭可以接受，因为那样在听证会前仍给予各方完整的一、二、三周和两天时间。好吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么请让我记下这一点。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：\n因此，出庭说明理由裁定的送达应于3月24日或之前完成。好的。那么这件事项就处理完了。我们将延期审理该动议——我的意思是，该出庭说明理由裁定。\n\n接下来日程表上的事项是出庭说明理由裁定、准予该动议的裁定，以及代表 Mei Guo（梅果）、HK International, Limited（HK国际有限公司）的遵守法庭1月15日裁定期限延长动议，以及我——我们作出的部分准予该动议的裁定；该裁定要求 Mei Guo 和 HK 就其为向 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）移交证据开示答复所采取的行动提交文件。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第15页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n那么，截至目前情况如何——我的意思是，我知道昨晚在法庭裁定要求的期限之后提交了文件，法庭对此并不认可，而你们今天上午提交了答复；我——我们今天有听证会，所以，您知道，我大约看了两分钟，但就此事项而言，目前情况如何？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n当然。我很乐意概述情况，法官阁下。我认为我们今天上午提交的文件总体上确实试图说明目前状况。\n\n但显然，就我们如何走到这一步而言，我们提交了一份传票，并在我想是8月时向 Mei Guo 和 HK International 送达了传票；未获得配合，未获得我们有权取得的文件，随后于该年秋季晚些时候提出强制动议，并于11月举行了听证会。\n\n1月20日，法庭作出裁定，强制要求于1月31日前提交文件。未收到文件提交。\n\n我们于2月10日提交了出庭说明理由裁定动议。Mei Guo 和 HK International 的律师，或者更确切地说 HK USA（HK美国），提交了其延长期限动议。\n\n法庭于13日作出裁定，规定了法庭刚才讨论的期限。\n\n坦率地说，您知道，我们有些疲惫，因为我们仍在这里，而且依受托人之见，就遵守法庭2月13日作出的裁定而言，实际上毫无接近之处。\n\n正如法庭所指出的，该裁定要求 Mei Guo 和 HK USA 于昨日下午5:00前提交声明，详细说明其对强制动议裁定的遵守情况，或者解释其为何无法遵守。\n\n该裁定还——正如法官阁下会记得，因为——退一步说——在 Mei Guo 和 HK International 于2月初提交的延长期限动议中，他们曾向法庭表示，尽管当时无法履行其文件提交义务并赶上现有的1月31日截止日期，但他们非常打算在整个2月期间以滚动方式提交文件。\n\n在法庭于13日作出的裁定中，法庭确认了该承诺，并表示法官阁下预期他们在调解期间继续以滚动方式提交文件。\n\n快进至今，我们什么也没收到。在调解期间，我们完全没有从律师处听到任何有关文件提交要求或法庭出庭说明理由裁定的消息。昨晚之前，我们收到的文件为零。\n\n没有提出会面协商请求，也没有任何此类事项。\n\n昨晚约8:30，我们收到一份文件提交，其中来自两方——两名 HK 当事人，即 Mei Guo 和 HK USA——的文件合计仅11份。\n\n随后，同样在昨晚约8:30，我们收到其律师 Lee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦）的声明，该声明声称说明了他们认为表明 HK 当事人已履行文件提交义务的努力。\n\n基于多种原因，我将很快逐一说明，该声明在我们看来远未达到法庭所命令的要求，也远未达到评估 HK 当事人是否事实上正在履行其文件提交义务所必需的程度。\n\n首先，如我所言，在技术上及时这一点本身就是一个问题；另一个对受托人而言显而易见且极为令人担忧的问题是，这是由 Vartan 先生以律师身份作出的声明。\n\n在我们看来，法庭在其出庭说明理由裁定中明确要求，当事人本人须提交经宣誓的声明，说明其采取了何种努力。\n\n而且，如果您查看所提交声明的实质内容，该区别在此处至关重要。因为您会在该声明中发现各种关于 Mei Guo 持有或未持有的文件、她仅有一个显然没有任何相关电子邮件的电子邮件账户、她是否使用 WhatsApp——另一款即时通讯应用程序——、她与何人通信，以及她无法使用银行账户等问题的不完整、含糊且坦率地说完全不可信的陈述。\n\n存在各种陈述，我将逐一说明；如果他们要作出那些陈述，并且如果他们要依赖并表示我们无法履行文件提交义务，因为我们基本上没有文件，也不通信，那么我们需要——而且我认为法庭应当要求——由当事人在伪证处罚之下作出的经宣誓声明，实际证明这些陈述，而不是由显然根据其从客户处听说的内容提供传闻证据的律师，以声明形式作出陈述。\n\n而提交该声明的 Vartan 先生也未出席。\n\n法庭：\n我注意到了。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第19页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n巴塞特先生：\n法官阁下，我接下来想做的是——嗯，我只是想逐一说明，因为我确实认为这很重要，说明其中一些仅从表面来看——而且我们是在昨晚8:30收到的——\n\n法庭：\n那么让我们把它调出来——\n\n巴塞特先生：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n——这样我们可以同时阅读，因为它提交逾期，且不符合本庭先前裁定。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n巴塞特先生：\n当然，一旦将其调至屏幕上，法庭希望以任何顺序进行，我都乐意配合；但我认为至少一开始，由我大致逐一说明我已识别出的若干事项会最有效率。\n\n法庭：\n是。让我们先到——\n\n巴塞特先生：\n当然。\n\n法庭：\n让我先给法庭书记员查找编号，以便我们调出来。我想是1512，对吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n所以我们需要——\n\n巴塞特先生：\n另外，为完整记录，我们的答复是1517。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第20页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n法官：能否让大家——巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett），您打算怎么进行？您想先看哪一页？\n\n巴塞特先生：因此，我想我会这样做，法官阁下，我会——\n\n法官：嗯，我想在记录中注明——请法警助理将该文件滚动至末页，再往上一页，到第10页——这是一份由今天不在场、未在法庭内的一名律师签署的文件。瓦尔坦先生（Mr. Vartan），您在法庭内吗？（无人回应。）\n\n法官：好的。因此，第一，我希望将此记入记录。请再向上滚动一页。好的。如果不介意，您可以继续向上滚动。它可能开始于——我不确定是从该文件的第5页还是第6页开始，但是——不，请继续向下滚动，我很抱歉。我不确定它从哪一页开始，因为它是在昨晚8点、8点半提交的，比根据法院命令应提交的时间晚了三个小时，这显然没有引起任何人的重视。（暂停。）\n\n法官：所以，是我弄错了。整份文件都是他的——都是他的声明？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第21页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 巴塞特先生：\n这是正确的，法官阁下。\n2 法官：\n我原以为那里有分页。\n3 抱歉。我以为那是一份异议，后附一份声明，但是，正如我所说，我还没有机会\n4 阅读——哦，整份文件确实都是这个。好的。因此，这是代理 Mei Guo（郭美）和 HK\n5 International（香港国际公司）的律师所作的声明。\n6 \n7 并且，在调解会议之前我们举行的上一次听证会上，\n8 我特别询问了鲁尼先生（Mr. Rooney），他今天不在场——抱歉，罗姆尼先生（Mr. Romney），他今天不在场，\n9 为何 HK\n10 International 和 Mei Guo 需要另行聘请律师，因为他们已经有律师，\n11 但没有人能够解释。没有人能够回答\n12 该问题。\n13 \n14 我还要求 United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）就该问题\n15 发表意见。除——并非来自美国\n16 受托人办公室——以外，我没有看到美国\n17 受托人办公室提交的任何材料；但自上次听证会以来，我所看到的唯一材料\n18 是就向 Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）支付报酬所作的补充披露，\n19 该等披露来自本案中我此前从未见过名称的实体，涉及支付\n\n其律师费。\n\n因此，我仍未得到答案，为什么 HK International——我将转向 Zeisler & Zeisler——以及 Mei Guo 需要另行聘请律师；顺便说一句，该律师据称为回应法院命令而提交了\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月7日\n\n1 该声明，但他并未出庭。\n2 \n3 那么，金德塞斯先生（Mr. Kindseth），您对此有何说法？\n4 \n5 金德塞斯先生：委托人——委托人选择聘请独立的主办律师，这是她的权利，也是其的权利，而 Zeisler & Zeisler 正在遵从她的\n6 指示。我们的角色——\n7 \n8 法官：是她专门指示你们的吗？您将作证称，Mei Guo 当面\n9 告诉您，她专门指示您允许她\n10 聘请独立律师来处理什么问题？您的\n11 证词将是什么？\n12 \n13 金德塞斯先生：我的证词将是，实际上发生的\n14 情况是，Guo 女士告诉我，她希望由新律师主导本案。\n15 \n16 法官：哦，所以你们将要——所以 Zeisler &\n17 Zeisler 将要退出本案？\n18 \n19 金德塞斯先生：不。就此而言，我们是当地律师。\n20 我们只是不是主办律师。\n21 \n22 法官：嗯，这不是——等一下。\n23 慢一点。你们不是当地律师。\n24 \n25 金德塞斯先生：在这个——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第23页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月7日\n\n1 法官：你们——去年7月或不管是什么时候，作为债务人的\n2 律师进入本案。我们已反复讨论过\n3 在本案中你们如何沟通、沟通什么事项以及你们从谁那里\n4 获得指示。我们讨论过米切尔先生（Mr. Mitchell）。我们讨论过弗朗西斯女士（Ms. Francis）。本案中已经出现\n5 了各种不同的事情。\n6 \n7 而现在你告诉我，对于向你们的委托人送达的传票——你们是该委托人的\n8 登记在案律师——你们仅仅是当地\n9 律师？\n10 \n11 金德塞斯先生：我使用“当地律师”一词，\n12 是与 pro hac vice（临时出庭许可）有关。因此，为了\n13 pro hac vice 的目的，我们——我们是新律师的\n14 推荐律师事务所。\n15 \n16 而且您是对的，法官阁下。就出庭而言，没有区别，律师就是律师。\n17 \n18 但我是在告知法官阁下，就委托人的意愿而言，\n19 新律师事务所正为这两名委托人承担主导角色。\n20 \n21 这与其他拥有共同代理律师的律师事务所没有区别。\n22 有时，某些律师在某些事项中发挥主导作用；有时其他律师在其他事项中\n23 发挥主导作用。\n24 \n25 事实上，如果您看另一方，有多名当地律师和主办律师，并没有任何不当之处——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第24页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月7日\n\n1 法官：他们不是债务人的律师，先生，\n2 在债务人向本院提交自愿 Chapter 11（第11章）破产申请后，\n3 其权利已被剥夺的案件中。\n4 \n5 金德塞斯先生：这是正确的。\n6 而且我不——我想我不确定\n7 具体争议是什么。我们讨论的是 Guo 女士。\n8 \n9 法官：谁在下达指示？从谁那里获得指示？\n10 所以，你是在告诉我，你是在告诉我，瓦尔坦先生——顺便说一句，他不在场——\n11 \n12 金德塞斯先生：与此存在利益冲突——\n13 \n14 法官：他在哪里说过自己存在利益冲突，律师？记录中没有任何内容\n15 告诉我他存在利益冲突，是吗？\n16 \n17 金德塞斯先生：我从他的\n18 同事——现在就在此与我一起的同事——那里获悉，瓦尔坦先生——\n19 \n20 法官：这还不够。\n21 \n22 金德塞斯先生：这——\n23 \n24 法官：这还不够。\n25 \n26 金德塞斯先生：嗯，他——\n27 \n28 法官：那么请继续，巴塞特律师。\n29 因为我无法相信你认为\n30 这是在本案中适当的进行方式，并且认为就该动议\n31 所发生的事情是适当的，\n32 因为事实并非如此。\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月7日\n\n金德塞斯先生：德拉费拉律师（Attorney Della Fera）已准备好回应——\n\n法官：我不——没关系。他可以回应。这无关紧要。这是不适当的。签署该声明的人甚至不在场。而该命令要求你们的委托人自行提交声明，但他们没有这样做。因此，我想我将准许藐视法庭动议，对吗？我为什么不应当准许？这——这不是本案将要进行的方式。而且我仍不明白，为何没有任何一方就这些利益冲突问题提出异议，以及为何会允许这种情况发生。本院不得被以不当方式利用，而这正是正在发生的事情。这是——金德塞斯律师，请告诉我，该命令中哪里能让您以某种方式觉得并相信，一名不在法庭内的律师所作的声明，曾经——现在符合本院命令？不，我是在问您，金德塞斯律师。\n\n金德塞斯先生：法官阁下——\n\n法官：我在问您。\n\n金德塞斯先生：法官阁下，我的委托人已选择——这是他们的权利——由他们自行选择的律师在本事项中代理他们。该律师已准备好\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第25页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第26页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月7日\n\n1 处理这些问题。\n2 \n3 法官：为什么你没有准备好处理\n4 这些问题？\n5 \n6 金德塞斯先生：因为我的委托人——\n7 \n8 法官：你也是他们的律师。\n9 \n10 金德塞斯先生：律师是委托人的代表。律师只能——\n11 \n12 法官：我明白这一点，金德塞斯律师。\n13 \n14 金德塞斯先生：而且律师只能\n15 按照其委托人的指示行事。我——\n16 \n17 法官：这不正确，金德塞斯律师。\n18 \n19 金德塞斯先生：我未被——\n20 \n21 法官：那是——那是一项不正确的陈述。\n22 \n23 金德塞斯先生：我的委托人没有指示我\n24 就该事项代理她或 HK USA（香港美国公司）。\n25 她有已获指示的律师——\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月7日\n\n法官：在作出该命令时，没有其他律师代表 HK 和 Mei Guo 出庭。\n\n金德塞斯先生：我不确定——\n\n法官：因此你必须——你必须——作为律师，你的义务是向他们解释他们需要做什么。你是在告诉我，你没有与他们进行那次谈话吗？\n\n金德塞斯先生：法官阁下，您正在询问律师与委托人之间的沟通。\n\n法官：不，我没有。我是在询问是否遵守法院命令。这两者——两者之间存在巨大差异，金德塞斯律师。\n\n金德塞斯先生：而且还有另一——我所在律师事务所中还有其他律师——罗姆尼律师正在处理此事。\n\n法官：好的。那么打电话给他，让他来这里。\n\n金德塞斯先生：他不——他无法到场。\n\n法官：好的。好吧。你知道吗？没关系。请继续。请继续，巴塞特律师。您尽管继续。\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。并且，基于刚才讨论的理由，我确实认为，仅基于该声明不符合命令要求且逾期提交等事实，就有作出藐视法庭认定的依据。我想逐项说明，即使法院——您知道——接受该声明就其实质内容所声称的内容而言，我认为其中存在各种明显遗漏、含糊之处和其他问题，无论如何均会妨碍其符合该命令。第一项，而且其中一些属于较为总体性的意见，因此没有必要翻到特定页面——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第27页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月7日\n\n法官：好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：——但第一项是，如果您通读该声明，您将发现，瓦尔坦先生、瓦尔坦律师所谈论的是 Guo 女士所面临的情况以及与其有关的文件。其谈到，不知何故，她在中国的经历导致她没有文件。其谈到她显然未通过电子邮件及其他——您知道——常见方式与他人沟通，等等。其中明显遗漏的是，完全没有讨论 HK USA。因此，即使法院代表 Guo 女士接受该声明，法院面前也没有任何声明在任何实质意义上谈及 HK USA 为遵守责令说明理由命令而采取了什么行动——如有任何行动的话。关于——再次说明，法官阁下，我们仅在昨晚收到该文件，因此当我们今天上午提交文件时，这些是我们对一些明显问题的初步反应，但请让我逐项说明。首先，该声明没有明确 Guo 女士可能拥有或可能未拥有何种电子文件。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第28页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第29页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月7日\n\n其保管、持有或控制之中的电子设备的数量和类型。\n\n没有关于她拥有多少部 iPhone、她是否拥有 iPhone、是否拥有笔记本电脑、是否拥有 iPad、平板电脑等等的清单或列表，没有此类清单。\n\n不过，我要指出的一点是，在她于 January 20th 进行的证言记录中，她提到，显然是由于担心受到中国共产党（CCP）的监视，她会更换一部新的手机——她是怎么说的？她每个月更换一次手机。\n\n这份声明中没有说明，为了获取、保存和提取可能存储在每一部此类手机上的所有相关文件，已经采取了何种措施（如有）；前提是郭女士（Ms. Guo）确实每个月更换一次手机。\n\n我们已经进行了七、八个月，因此至少涉及七部手机。\n\n该声明完全没有讨论此事。\n\n该声明也没有描述——它谈到了电子邮件，但没有说明已进行了充分的搜索。\n\n首先，声明第 28 段载明，郭女士目前——我引用原文——“目前保有三个电子邮件地址。”\n\n显然，其中两个电子邮件地址是她专为与律师沟通而创建的，因此，根据该声明所示，这两个地址未被搜索，因为其中所有内容都将受到特权保护。\n\n还有另一个电子邮件地址、电子邮件账户，根据声明，我认为是她于 2019 年创建的；但是——该声明称，律师于 February 20th 才首次获得该电子邮件账户的访问权限，他们称之为不受限制的访问权限，以便对其进行搜索。\n\n这比根据强制披露动议裁定而被命令提交文件的期限晚了三周。\n\n而且，即使他们获得了这种不受限制的访问权限，显然他们使用了搜索关键词，我稍后会谈到这些关键词；但即便暂且不谈这一点，该声明也没有讨论，他们在 February 20th 获得访问权限后采取了什么措施，以确保没有电子邮件被删除？\n\n可能存在何种毁损证据问题？\n\n他们此前是否与其当事人交谈，告知她保存文件，还是他们只查看了 February 20th 发现的内容，并照单全收地认为其中的内容就是全部？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 30 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023\n\n我认为，鉴于他们仅提交了 11 份文件，确实有充分理由对这一切持高度怀疑态度。\n\n我一时想不起来，因为我昨晚翻阅了这些文件，而我只是记不得其中是否甚至有一封电子邮件。\n\n可能有一封，但我认为大多数文件都不是电子邮件。\n\n另一个问题，法官阁下，是搜索关键词。\n\n声明第 31 段列出了据称用于搜索电子邮件的所有这些搜索关键词，但这些搜索关键词从表面上看就存在极其严重的问题，几乎可以肯定是为了避免获取应予回应的文件而设计的。\n\n仅举几个例子，我认为搜索关键词列表——是的，郭梅（Mei Guo）的父亲、债务人，据称他们搜索了带引号的“Ho Wan Kwok, Miles Kwok, Miles Guo, Guo Wengui”。\n\n因此，除非她在通信中以其父亲的全名指称他，否则那些电子邮件不会被获取。\n\n我推定她会称他为爸爸，或者也许直呼其名，但这只是一个例子：根据他们显然进行的搜索，这些文件均不会被获取。\n\n他们搜索的所有个人均存在同样的问题。\n\n本案中法院经常听到提及的一名人士是王雁峰（Yvette Wang），她深度参与债务人的业务，并且是郭女士熟知且与其频繁互动的人士；其姓名仅列为 Yvette Wang。\n\n因此，除非某封电子邮件同时使用她的名字和姓氏，否则显然不会被获取。\n\n我无法想象她认识很多名叫 Yvette 的人，但或许搜索个人名字也是合理的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 32 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023\n\n实体名称亦是如此。\n\n只搜索完整实体名称，而不搜索缩写。\n\nACA Investment Management, Limited。\n\n没有仅搜索 ACA。\n\n搜索关键词存在各种明显问题，即使假定他们搜索的是正确的文件范围——鉴于她的三个电子邮件账户中只有一个被搜索，且直到 February 20th 才获得访问权限，这一点至多也是不确定的。\n\n还有其他种类的明显遗漏。\n\n声明第 34 段——法官阁下，我仅为唤起法院对此的记忆——我认为在过去的听证中，包括有关骚扰问题的初步禁令听证中，曾谈到人们使用 WhatsApp 和其他类似的即时通讯应用程序，例如 Telegram，彼此通信，其中包括债务人和一些抗议者等。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 33 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023\n\n33\n\n那么，在律师声明第 34 段中，郭女士就 WhatsApp 和 Telegram 表示——她已承认自己使用这些应用程序，在声明中承认曾使用，在其证言记录中也承认曾使用——她只是说，她并不，引用原文，“通常通过 WhatsApp 和 Telegram 与其家人沟通。”\n\n她没有说明“通常”究竟是什么意思？\n\n她是否搜索过任何她可能进行过的通信，即使那些通信并不属于通常情形？\n\n她也没有说明，她是否曾与非家庭成员通过 WhatsApp 或 Telegram 发送信息，而该等信息应当回应传票。\n\n因此，她以自己通常不与家人沟通为由而不搜索 WhatsApp 和 Telegram 的这种说法——完全说不通，法官阁下。\n\n律师声明谈到了对纸质文件的搜索。\n\n它笼统地提及了此事，但没有说明实际采取了何种程序来搜索纸质文件、搜索了哪些纸质文件、这些文件位于何处、郭梅在正常业务过程中通常会保存何种纸质文件，或者 HK USA 通常会保存何种纸质文件；HK USA 甚至根本未在声明中被提及，所有这些内容均告缺失。\n\n法官阁下，该声明的另一个明显遗漏或问题，是第 38 段中关于银行账户的描述。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1550\nFiled 03/16/23\nEntered 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023\n\n因此，郭女士所称的是——我认为她提到她此前拥有的两个或三个现已关闭的银行账户。\n\n她声称自己完全无法访问这些账户。\n\n没有讨论这些记录是否可能由她取得。\n\n如果记录仍在银行，她是否可以打电话取得这些记录。\n\n她没有向我们提供账户号码，以便我们能够传唤取得该等信息。\n\n她称，目前在中国银行（Bank of China）有一个仍然开放的账户。\n\n她再次主张——我相信这在第 38 段中——她无法获取中国银行账户的任何账户对账单或其他记录，原因之一是，她没有——我想显然没有注册电子网上访问服务，我相信在场其他所有人可能都已为其银行账户注册了该服务——她没有注册该服务。\n\n第二，她因担心中国共产党（CCP）而恐惧其人身安全，不敢前往实体分行索取文件。\n\n法官阁下，我不确定中国银行的网上银行如何运作，但我认为她无需亲自到银行露面便可在线访问其账户。\n\n我也认为，如果她觉得亲自前往不安全，她可以派遣指定人员或代表前往分行。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1550\nFiled 03/16/23\nEntered 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023\n\n她仅仅声称自己没有在线访问权限且不愿前往，便认为自己已履行义务，这坦率地说实在令人无法接受。\n\n我还要指出的是，在她于 January 20th 进行的证言记录中，她说她——她提到其他银行账户，而这些账户在声明中完全找不到。\n\n她说，这是在她 January 20th 的证言记录中，她说最近她曾开设五或六个银行账户，使用一段时间后便被关闭。\n\n据她所称，这些账户由银行关闭。\n\n但她说是五或六个。\n\n声明中提及了两个至四个，稍有不清楚——抱歉，是三个或四个，不清楚究竟是三个还是四个。\n\n她还在证言记录中作证称，她目前将自己赖以生活的薪水存入中国银行账户，因此她显然能够访问该账户以取出资金。\n\n还有几个要点，还有几个要点，法官阁下。\n\n这一点我留到最后，但这或许是所有问题中最关键的一个，或者说是最关键的问题之一。\n\n如法院所记得，January 20th 对强制披露动议作出的裁定要求郭女士和 HK USA 提交某些类别的文件，其中一类是与遗产潜在资产有关的文件，即使对于该等资产是否可能由债务人所有存在争议。\n\n另一类同等重要的文件——这实际上是我们最初提出强制披露动议的主要原因之一——是要求她搜索——不仅搜索、收集和提交其持有的文件，也搜索、收集和提交其现任或前任律师、顾问和代理人持有的、可能处于其保管或控制之下的文件，无论——而裁定如此规定——无论受托人（Trustee）是否已向该等其他代理人和顾问发出传票，也无论是否可能从他们那里获得文件提交。\n\n该声明对此完全保持沉默。\n\n其中绝对没有说明郭女士为联系现任或前任律师、代理人或顾问所作的努力，或者就此而言 HK USA 为联系他们所作的努力；这是一个明显遗漏。\n\n我们所听到的一切，包括再次在她的证言记录中所述，都是郭梅据她所言深度参与家族企业。\n\n她是多个 BVI 实体的董事和所有人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 37 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023\n\n1 一个能够处理所有这些业务、\n2 据她所称，能够赚取自己的收入的人。她在没有保留足够文件的情况下\n3 做了所有这些事情，能够出示的文件不超过\n4 11份。我认为她最初可能提交了20份文件，\n5 大致如此。她在没有\n6 保留文件的情况下做了所有这些事情。\n7 而且她确实——我们知道她曾与\n8 顾问、律师及其他人合作过，却没有作出任何努力去\n9 向他们索取文件。\n10 即使这一切都由她本人完成，您知道，她还有\n11 其他人为她处理这些事情，无论是\n12 律师、顾问，还是像马克斯·克拉斯纳（Max Krasner）这样的人，法院\n13 已经听取过其陈述；又如伊薇特·王（Yvette Wang）。只要她让这些人处理她本人\n14 及 HK USA（HK USA）的工作，她就有责任向他们取得\n15 文件，而该声明中没有任何内容\n16 谈及这些努力。\n17 因此，再次如我所说，法官阁下，这是基于\n18 对该声明约12小时左右的审阅所作出的相当迅速的回应，\n19 而这些审阅全部是在一夜之间完成的，但该声明\n20 存在若干根本性问题，\n21 使其完全无法遵从法院要求说明理由的\n22 命令。\n23 我认为制裁是适当的。我认为，\n24 应实施制裁，以补偿受托人和财产因提出强制\n25 动议而产生的全部费用。\n\n案号 Case 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 履行的动议，或提出要求说明理由的动议，\n2 以及今日出庭等一切费用，这是其一。\n3 此外，显然还应实施未来的制裁，\n4 以采取必要措施，终于在我认为已超过\n5 七个月之后，使郭女士（Ms. Guo）和 HK USA 遵守其\n6 依本院命令承担的证据开示义务。\n7 谢谢，法官阁下。\n8 法官：\n谢谢。\n9 德拉费拉先生（MR. DELLA FERA）：\n下午好，法官阁下。我是萨姆·德拉费拉（Sam\n10 Della Fera），来自基耶萨、沙希尼安及贾恩托马西律师事务所（Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi），代理 HK\n11 各方，包括郭女士。\n12 我肩负着向\n13 法官阁下解释的艰巨任务——\n14 法官：\n是的，你确实如此。\n15 德拉费拉先生：\n我确实为\n16 迟延提交表示歉意。我希望法官阁下能\n17 借此机会详细审阅，因为该文件——\n18 法官：\n律师，为何迟延提交？\n19 德拉费拉先生：\n我们直到当天较晚时候才从\n20 当事人处获得我们所需的信息，\n21 包括已向受托人提交的文件。\n22 法官：\n那么，如果你们不打算遵从\n23 法院命令，为何没有提交延期\n24 动议？\n25 德拉费拉先生：\n我不能代表瓦尔坦先生（Mr. Vartan）发言，\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日 39\n\n法官阁下。顺便说一句，我认为金塞思先生（Mr. Kindseth）提到利益冲突时，为澄清起见，那是瓦尔坦先生今日能否出庭的冲突，并不一定是郭女士希望更换律师所产生的冲突。正如法官阁下可能记得，瓦尔坦先生此前曾在法官阁下面前出庭，并且——\n\n法官：\n一次。\n\n德拉费拉先生：\n——而且他下周还会再次到庭。\n\n法官：\n嗯，他下周未必会到庭。因此，我对他提交这份声明感到非常不满，该声明——该声明不符合本院命令。他们昨晚8:14才提交，而且他没有到庭。我也替你感到为难，因为他不在场，你将不得不听我说。我实在不明白，在本院执业、审阅命令并且明白自己有时间履行的律师，怎么会这样做；命令中有明确规定——它写的是——它写的是郭美（Mei Guo）和 HK 应当，而不是可以；写的是应当在下午5:00之前。这就是命令的内容。命令非常明确。因此，如果我是那名律师，而我无法赶上该截止期限，我就会提交某些文件，以示对法院的尊重，并避免可能被认定为藐视法庭，因为，您知道，你们律所可能会被认定为\n\n案号 Case 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第39页，共\n\n案号 Case 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日\n\n1 藐视法庭。你们没有遵从法院命令。\n2 显然存在不遵从情形。这甚至\n3 毫无疑问。\n4 而我只是——您知道，我就是无法——你们\n5 没有告诉我任何足以说服我为何我应当审阅\n6 你们所提交任何文件的内容。它迟交了。没有动议。瓦尔坦\n7 先生不在场。他也没有提交动议说明他为何\n8 不能到场。\n9 这不是一场“找个人来出庭一天并让他进行辩论”的游戏。\n10 我们在这里不是做这种事。这是一起非常严肃的案件，涉及非常严重的\n11 指控和控诉，以及本案中\n12 已经发生的各种事情。而且，您知道，\n13 你们对法院负有坦诚义务，本\n14 法庭中的每一位律师也都如此。\n15 \n16 我就是无法——我实在无法想象。我无法\n17 想象一名执业律师会这样做。我作为执业律师的一生中\n18 从未会这样做。如果我没有在法院命令规定的\n19 期限内\n20 提交文件，\n21 我会吓得发抖。\n22 而且显然，没有人对\n23 郭女士和 HK 的问题表示在意。这是法院绝不能接受的。\n24 这是不可接受的。什么也没有。你们甚至\n25 没有试图及时遵从该命令，甚至没有\n\n案号 Case 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第41页，共\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日 41\n\n作出任何尝试。\n\n德拉费拉先生：\n嗯，法官阁下，关于及时性，我——我无法向您作出解释。\n\n法官：\n我知道你无法解释。这正是我要说的。\n\n德拉费拉先生：\n但是我确实——\n\n法官：\n没有任何解释。\n\n德拉费拉先生：\n我确实希望法官阁下确信，我们正极为严肃地对待此事。我认为，即使法官阁下也无法说，这是我们律所或我同事一方的一种行为模式。我们错过了下午5:00的截止期限。对此没有任何借口，法官阁下。我同意您的看法。但这不是一种模式。我们极为严肃地对待此事。我们理解受托人及其他人所提出问题的严重性。我们已尽最大努力遵从证言录取期限等等。我们已准备好遵从下周 PJR 听证会日程。我确实——我恭敬地请求法官阁下——仅为理解郭女士为何可能不像我们大多数人那样，能够随时取得这些纸质文件或这些文件的电子版本，这一点已在瓦尔坦先生的声明中作出说明。或许——\n\n法官：\n实际上并没有。所以你可以那样辩称，\n\n案号 Case 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日\n\n1 但事实并非如此。这份传票自8月以来一直\n2 尚未履行。现在是3月。今天是3月7日。\n3 我的意思是，我会让——让你提出你的\n4 论点，但我认为你不会让我相信\n5 任何事情，律师。这是不可接受的。这是\n6 不可接受的。\n7 而且，在提出藐视法庭动议时，我认为\n8 规则规定，如果该动议获准，就应当作出制裁。\n9 我的意思是，甚至——我甚至不认为这赋予\n10 法院自由裁量权。我只是——我实在不明白你们为何\n11 会以这种方式行事。我只是——而我——\n12 而你说得对。遗憾的是，你是今天\n13 站在这里的人。我对此为你感到抱歉，但\n14 这——这根本完全不能接受。\n15 这就仿佛你们是在对\n16 法院说，且先不谈你们的当事人，这就仿佛你们在对\n17 法院说：我不在乎法院是否作出\n18 命令，要求在下午5:00之前完成某事。我\n19 想什么时候交就什么时候交。\n20 这是不可接受的。这不是法院\n21 运作的方式。而且——我对此感到震惊。我确实\n22 震惊于你们作为律所、作为执业律师，竟然会\n23 认为除了迟延提交此文件以外，自己无需采取其他措施。\n24 但你们就是这样做了，所以，您知道，\n25 由此产生的任何后果都将由此产生。\n\n案号 Case 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第43页，共\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日\n\n1 但是，关于——瓦尔坦先生的\n2 声明，它完全——不符合本院\n3 命令。再次，如果命令明确规定，\n4 我的意思是，如果你愿意，我们可以调出来看，\n5 它写的是郭美——\n6 而且，如巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）正确指出的那样，\n7 根本没有关于 HK 的论证。HK 做了什么？\n8 他们什么也没做。\n9 顺便说一句，去年4月金塞思先生站在这里，当时债务人仍是自行管理的债务人，\n10 他说 HK International（HK International）——我对他说，你确定\n11 要出庭并使自己受本\n12 法院管辖吗？\n13 \n14 他说，绝对确定。我们将\n15 接受本法院管辖，并且我们\n16 将就 Lady May（Lady May）订立一项命令。\n17 他们经历了整个程序。\n18 因此，HK 已经表示，并且他们受其去年所说内容的约束，无论现在由你代理他们，还是由\n19 金塞思先生代理他们，\n20 这又是另一个问题；他们说\n21 自己受本法院管辖。他们使自己置于本院管辖之下，\n22 就如同债务人所做的那样。\n23 那么，HK 为何没有遵从？在瓦尔坦先生这份不遵从的声明中，甚至\n24 没有尝试\n25 处理 HK 的问题。那么，你如何回应？\n\n案号 Case 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第44页，共\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日 44\n\n德拉费拉先生：\n仅是，法官阁下，郭女士是 HK 的唯一负责人，其记录实际上——其 HK USA 的记录实际上就是她的记录。\n\n法官：\n那么，我们可以将这两个主体相互合并，即 HK 和郭女士？这就是我们可以做的吗？你是在承认这一点吗？\n\n德拉费拉先生：\n嗯，不是。为出示文件之目的——\n\n法官：\n不，不是为出示文件之目的。\n\n德拉费拉先生：\n嗯，我不能——\n\n法官：\n这是为一切目的。你不能到庭说，嗯，我没有就 HK 说任何内容，因为郭女士就是 HK。但是，当受托人试图取得 HK 的资产时，郭女士又并不是真正的 HK。哦，但是，不，那不行。你不能——你不能两头都占。我的意思是，我认为你确实需要思考你对法院所说的话。这是一个极为严肃的问题。我并非暗示你不认为它严肃，但你到庭并试图向本院辩称，该声明以某种方式符合本院1月20日的命令，这怎么可能呢？该命令写的是，郭美和 HK 应当在1月31日下午5:00之前查找并向受托人出示文件，并列出了文件类别。这就是命令所写的内容。\n\n案号 Case 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日\n\n1 就是这样写的。这根本——根本毫不含糊。\n2 德拉费拉先生：\n是的。而且就此存在迟延。\n3 \n4 法官：\n那么，为何——为何郭美\n5 没有提交一份声明？\n6 德拉费拉先生：\n嗯，关于这一点，法官阁下，\n7 即使有显得是在争辩的风险，而这并非\n8 我们的意图，该命令指示，原话是：“HK\n9 各方应当在案卷中提交一份经宣誓的声明，详细说明其完全\n10 遵从该命令的情况；如未能完全遵从，则详细说明为遵从该命令所采取的\n11 努力。”\n12 坦率地说，我们对此的理解是，一份由律师作出的声明，如详细说明完全遵从\n13 情况，或详细说明为遵从命令所采取的努力，\n14 即可满足\n15 该项要求。\n16 法官：\n在《联邦民事诉讼规则》中，\n17 这——这属于哪里，律师？\n18 请告诉我，在针对一方当事人提出藐视法庭动议时，代理该\n19 个人的律师何时可以出庭，\n20 就为遵从证据开示请求而\n21 采取的措施作证。请告诉我依据在哪里。\n22 \n23 德拉费拉先生：\n我此刻无法向您援引\n24 该项规定，法官阁下。\n25 法官：\n好的。好。谢谢。\n\n案号 Case 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第46页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年3月7日 46\n\n德拉费拉律师（MR. DELLA FERA）：如果法官阁下如此指示，我们可以并且将会提供郭女士的声明，重申及／或扩展瓦尔坦先生（Mr. Vartan）在其声明中所述的大部分内容，如果这是法院的指示。我不能——您知道，我不想就此赘述。我当然不希望试图作出我自己的声明而使问题更加复杂。因此，除瓦尔坦先生的声明所载内容外，我没有其他事实可补充。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n德拉费拉律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：巴塞特先生？\n\n巴塞特律师（MR. BASSETT）：除非法院还有进一步问题要问我，否则我目前没有其他内容要补充，法官阁下。\n\n法院：那么，你们——你们请求法院施加什么制裁？\n\n巴塞特律师：我认为这里有两个，可能是两个问题，法官阁下。再次说明，我是代表第11章受托人的普衡律师事务所（Paul Hastings）的尼克·巴塞特（Nick Bassett）。首先，我们面临的问题是，如我之前所说，受托人及其顾问为强制出示这些文件所花费的时间和费用，对吗？受托人显然不得不提出强制出示动议，该动议于11月审理。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 47 页，共\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日\n\n强制出示动议于11月审理。法院随后于1月20日就此作出命令。之后我们没有收到文件，因此不得不于2月10日提出导致我们今天到此的动议。显然，为准备这些文件、准备并出席今天的听证会，耗费了大量时间和精力，因此我认为，法院当然有权命令郭女士和 HK USA（HK USA）支付在这些工作中产生的律师费、开支和费用。\n\n此事的另一方面，我认为对于本案以及受托人的调查而言最重要、并且实际上能够使我们达到所需目标的，是采取前瞻性的制裁措施，旨在最终促使郭女士和 HK USA 在经历这么长时间后履行其义务。\n\n因此，显然，我将主要听从法院对实现该目标所必需且适当措施的判断。我认为，无论采取何种措施，都应在加快的时间框架内进行。我当然认为，按日累积罚款完全在法院权限之内，因为这里表面上涉及的是非债务人当事人。这将对今后起作用。\n\n而且，您知道，显然，在更严厉的一端，法院可采取的救济措施包括——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 1550 提交于 03/16/23\n录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日\n\n如我们此前谈到的监禁。\n\n但我认为，我将让法院决定，在这种情形下，什么做法最为适当，以实现我们认为必须实现、且我们一直努力实现的目标，也就是获得我们为调查和管理本案所需的信息。\n\n法院：梅·郭（Mei Guo）的证言笔录不在本案的案卷记录中，是吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：不在，法官阁下。我得回去核查是否有任何保密指定。但在此前提下，如果法院希望，我们可以提交该笔录。\n\n法院：嗯，鉴于已经发生的情况，我可能会希望这样做，对吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：是的。\n\n法院：以及鉴于你们今天所谈到的情况。\n\n巴塞特律师：当然。明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：所以我需要考虑一下。好的。你们是否进行了——是否尝试进行 HK 的证言录取？\n\n巴塞特律师：我们尚未进行对 HK 的2004证言录取，而且——我认为她的证言录取不是根据30(b)(6)进行的，所以我认为对此的回答是——\n\n法院：我只是好奇。是否还有其他文件可提交至记录中，以便法院就你们与 HK 有关的动议作出判断时获得帮助？\n\n巴塞特律师：在今天听证会结束前，我可能会想到一些文件，法官阁下，但证言笔录——\n\n法院：没关系。\n\n巴塞特律师：——是主要的。\n\n法院：我会让你——如果你想到了什么，告诉我。好吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：谢谢。\n\n法院：显然，我会考虑此事。文件是在昨晚8点、8点30分提交的。如先前所述，法院今天已有听证会，因此我询问了律师，他向我解释——他向我解释说，他们没有遵守。他们是在8点或8点15分才遵守。而且，瓦尔坦先生不合规的声明中不存在与 HK 有关的合规问题，因为梅·郭就是 HK。\n\n所以，这就是我得到的回答，也是我必须据以处理的材料，此外还有本案的所有其他记录，其中包括 HK 在去年4月自愿接受本法院管辖。或者甚至可能是3月。我必须查阅案卷记录以确认。\n\n此外，我还必须考虑适当的制裁为何——但我注意到——如果我施加制裁，制裁将会是什么；但我确实注意到，纳入《联邦民事诉讼规则》第37条的第7037条规则在(b)(2)(C)中规定，除上述命令之外或作为其补充，法院必须命令不服从的一方、向该方提供建议的律师，或两者，支付因该不履行而产生的合理费用，包括律师费，除非该不履行具有实质正当理由，或其他情形使费用裁定不公正。\n\n因此，我也将审查《联邦民事诉讼规则》和《联邦破产程序规则》的该项规定。\n\n巴塞特律师：而且，法官阁下，就此而言，法院可采取的另一种我此前未提及的制裁，即证据开示制裁，显然是认定对相关当事人不利的事实、认定争议事项已获决定，或者禁止他们作出相反主张。\n\n法官阁下显然已经，您知道，指出了梅·郭和 HK 实际上是同一主体这一承认，但这显然也可以延伸至本案中的其他争议事项。\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日 51\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。律师？\n\n德拉费拉律师：法官阁下，我可以说几句吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\n德拉费拉律师：我不认为本法院面前有充分证据表明梅·郭和 HKI（HKI）是同一主体。正如我在回应法院、处理该证据开示请求时所答复的，梅·郭所掌握的信息与 HKI 可获得的信息相同，因为她是 HKI 的负责人。我希望法官阁下目前不会作出认定，认为 HKI 和梅·郭是同一主体。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 51 页，共\n\n法院：那么，你们为什么没有交出 HK 的信息？\n\n德拉费拉律师：没有信息可交出，法官阁下。\n\n法院：哪里这样说了？哪里有任何地方这样说了？瓦尔坦先生的声明中没有这样说。\n\n德拉费拉律师：该声明表明郭女士试图查找对传票有回应的信息——\n\n法院：好的。\n\n德拉费拉律师：——但未能找到。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 1550\n提交于 03/16/23\n录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 52 页，共\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日\n\n法院：好的。\n\n德拉费拉律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。因此，我将审查已提交的文件，包括未及时提交且未遵守法院命令的文件，并将在未来一两天内就该——说明理由命令确定后续步骤。\n\n并且，律师，延长时间动议被驳回。没有任何依据延长梅·郭或 HK 的答复期限。自8月以来你们一直有时间。你们没有答复。延长时间动议被驳回。而且，你们在辩论或书面材料中当然没有提出任何支持延长期限的内容。\n\n德拉费拉律师：法官阁下，该动议可能已经获得裁定。我不认为它是——\n\n法院：不，没有。\n\n德拉费拉律师：好的。\n\n法院：该动议获得了部分裁定。该裁定是基于你同事向本法院作出的书面陈述，即他将逐步披露文件，但他没有这样做。\n\n因此，他现在——他在本法院面前的可信度已岌岌可危，因为他在其书面文件中，根据第11条规则，作为签署诉状的律师，表示他将逐步向受托人的律师提供证据开示材料，\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 1550\n提交于 03/16/23\n录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日\n\n而他并未这样做。\n\n因此，该动议被驳回。我对任何律师会到本法院面前并以那种方式行事感到极其失望。\n\n好的。现在，巴塞特先生，日程表上的下一事项是 ECF 1453，即请求作出说明理由命令的动议，要求说明为何——抱歉，号码不对。我写错号码了。对此我表示歉意。请稍等。这是我的错误。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法院：这些事项是155——1455、1454和1453，均相互关联，我将处理这些事项。\n\n不过，就1453而言，巴塞特先生，我们尚未完全处理的唯一问题是个别债务人提交声明主张第五修正案特权的问题。\n\n我们——我曾作出命令，说明在调解结束后，将就该问题作出某种日程安排命令。\n\n所以我不知道你是否准备好处理该问题，或者目前你是否对此有任何建议，巴塞特先生？\n\n巴塞特律师：法官阁下，再次说明，我是代表受托人的普衡律师事务所的尼克·巴塞特。\n\n我认为，为使我们都能厘清情况并为记录清楚起见，法官阁下的回忆绝对正确。\n\n这是 ECF 1455 中2月13日命令的第2段。其内容是，法院知悉债务人就根据强制出示命令进行的出示主张了第五修正案反自证其罪权利。出示行为原则的适用性将需要进一步提交材料，法院将在调解结束后就该问题制定书面辩论日程。\n\n随后，该命令鼓励各方尝试能否达成共同立场。我报告，就该问题而言，不存在共同立场。\n\n我不一定有一份日程安排。我认为，债务人有责任对我们提交的内容作出回应，并就其针对实际上每一项文件出示请求概括主张第五修正案的依据（如有）作出说明。\n\n这不仅是针对法院在1月20日命令中要求补充出示文件的请求作出的回应，因此存在一项概括主张第五修正案的说法，即他不能出示任何文件，因为根据出示行为原则这样做会以某种方式使其在我们传票涵盖的每一主题事项上全面自证其罪。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 55 页，共\n\n郭文贵—2023年3月7日\n\n1 其次，他针对 January 20th 命令所要求提交的声明援引了美国宪法第五修正案，\n2 该声明应说明他为识别相关文件所经历的程序，\n3 与我们已就 Ms. Guo（郭美）及 HK USA（美国HK）\n4 所讨论的程序类似，用于识别相关文件。\n5 他在该事项中亦一概援引了美国宪法第五修正案。\n6 如我所述，在我们提交的文件中，我们已经联系了\n7 债务人的律师。我们说，嘿，我们听到了\n8 你们针对我们的文件请求所说的内容，并且收到了你们的声明，\n9 其中 Mr. Kwok（郭文贵）称，我提交该声明，我援引我的美国宪法第五修正案特权。\n10 而我们收到的电子邮件回复，已记录在\n11 我们向法院提交的文件中，我认为该回复来自 Zeisler 律师事务所，\n12 其称，我们目前就债务人援引其\n13 美国宪法第五修正案权利一事没有进一步补充，\n14 但我们仍在与其刑事辩护律师讨论该事项。\n15 我不知道刑事辩护律师是谁。我推定\n16 那是尚未在本破产案件中出庭的人，\n17 但那就是我们收到的回复。\n18 因此，基本上在目前这个阶段，我们无法了解\n19 债务人将提出何种论点，以说明他为何有权\n20 全面一概援引美国宪法第五修正案，因此我们确实需要某种书面陈述\n21 时间表，以使我们明确了解情况。一旦\n22 我们了解他们的立场，我们显然可以作出回应。\n23 法庭：好的。\n24 巴塞特先生：但是，我认为——\n25 法庭：那么你们的——\n26 巴塞特先生：您知道，我认为，鉴于\n27 我们已经处理此事这么久了，我会——我会，您知道，\n28 谨此建议，无论发生什么，都应在一个相对\n29 缩短的时间表内发生，但除此之外，我没有\n30 特别具体的日期。\n31 法庭：不过，你的建议是\n32 债务人必须先提交书面陈述？\n33 巴塞特先生：我认为这很合理，法官阁下。\n34 法庭：这正是我所问的，即你的——\n35 不仅是日期——\n36 巴塞特先生：是。\n37 法庭：——而且是你就此\n38 所提出的方案——\n39 巴塞特先生：明白。\n40 法庭：好的。金塞思先生，你希望\n41 就该问题陈述意见吗？\n42 金塞思先生：是。\n43 首先，我们并不反对债务人\n44 应当主导就该特定问题提交书面陈述。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交 03/16/23 录入 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 56 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023 56\n1 我会指出，法官阁下，事项 1455 不在今天的日程上。\n2 法庭：53——1453——\n3 金塞思先生：我实际上以为——\n4 法庭：——在今天的日程上。\n5 金塞思先生：我以为所提及的段落是在第 1455 段。\n6 法庭：不，1455——不。那是要求 HK 及 Mei Guo（郭美）\n7 说明为何不应被裁定藐视法庭的出庭说明理由动议。\n8 我们刚刚处理了那一事项。\n9 金塞思先生：十四——\n10 法庭：1453 是一项要求债务人、Mei Guo 和 HK\n11 说明为何不应因未遵守一项命令及\n12 Rule 2004 传票而被裁定藐视法庭的命令动议。并且你的当事人确实提交了文件。\n13 他提交了一份声明，援引美国宪法第五修正案特权。\n14 因此，你们现在需要书面说明，他为何能够就本案 Chapter 11 受托人所寻求的\n15 证据开示而如此做。\n16 金塞思先生：我看到它显示在屏幕上，法官阁下。\n17 它不在我的纸质日程表上。但无论如何，\n18 我们尊重这样一个事实：关于该问题需要制定书面陈述时间表，\n19 以便能够加以处理。我所请求的是给予三周时间\n20 提交初步书面陈述，法官阁下。这确实涉及一些复杂的\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023 58\n1 与美国宪法第五修正案有关的问题，我们将需要其他律师，即刑事辩护律师的协助，\n2 以便完成该书面陈述，但我们将准备在三周内提交该书面陈述。\n3 法庭：从今天起三周是 March 28th，这就是你建议的日期吗？\n4 金塞思先生：这就是我所请求的日期，法官阁下。\n5 法庭：好的。没问题。好。请稍等。\n6 （暂停。）\n7 法庭：我不会规定一天中的确切时间，您知道，\n8 但你们必须在 11:59 p.m. 前提交，否则就不及时。明白吗？\n9 金塞思先生：我对此表示感谢，法官阁下。非常感谢。\n10 法庭：好的。那么，巴塞特律师，需要多少时间——\n11 我认为你们至少需要两周，甚至更多时间来回应，\n12 但请告诉我，如果我错了。\n13 巴塞特先生：法官阁下，我的意思是，受托人的立场是，\n14 我们希望尽快将此事完整提交法院作出裁决，\n15 再次强调，这只是因为我们试图取得这些文件已经很久了。\n16 所以，您知道，如果受托人将有——抱歉，如果债务人将有\n17 到 March 28th 为止的时间，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交 03/16/23 录入 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 58 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023 59\n1 坦率地说，在目前这个阶段看来时间已经很多了，\n2 也没关系，法院已经作出了该决定，我认为我们愿意在此后十天内完成。\n3 法庭：好的。请稍等。\n4 （暂停。）\n5 法庭：十天后就是 Friday, April 7th。\n6 巴塞特先生：好的。\n7 法庭：并不是说——我不认为这会对法院的日程产生任何影响，\n8 但我应该问一下，我认为那天是 Good Friday。我们办公吗？\n9 我的意思是，即使书记官办公室关闭，你们仍然可以提交，\n10 但我不知道我们是否关闭。你不认为我们关闭？\n11 法庭书记官助理：我们通常是办公的。\n12 法庭：我们通常是办公的。以前那是 Connecticut 的州假日，\n13 但我相信现在已不再是了。不过，这只是让你们知道。\n14 好的？\n15 巴塞特先生：好的。没问题，法官阁下。\n16 法庭：好的。April 7。我也不会给你规定时间范围，\n17 只不过必须在 11:59 p.m. 前提交。\n18 巴塞特先生：是。\n19 法庭：好的？好。请稍等。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交 03/16/23 录入 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 59 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交 03/16/23 录入 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 60 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023 60\n1 那么。\n2 （暂停。）\n3 法庭：金塞思律师？\n4 金塞思先生：没有其他事项。\n5 法庭：好的。好。\n6 巴塞特先生：并且，法官阁下——\n7 法庭：然后——\n8 巴塞特先生：法官阁下，我唯一想建议的是，\n9 为了使该问题得到最终确定，如法院将就这些提交文件举行听证，\n10 我认为如果我们现在能确定该日期将会有所帮助。\n11 法庭：我将确定一个日期，然后我将根据所提交的文件\n12 决定我们实际上是否举行该听证。\n13 巴塞特先生：好的。\n14 法庭：好的？\n15 巴塞特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n16 法庭：好的。那么请给我一点时间查看日期。\n17 （暂停。）\n18 巴塞特先生：法官阁下，我认为我们此前谈过一个 April 18th 的日期，\n19 那已经——\n20 法庭：嗯，我们——你们确实有——我们现在已经有两件事项安排在——\n21 我们原本基本上已经有\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交 03/16/23 录入 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 61 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023\n1 一场审前会议，那是书记官办公室在提起对抗程序时安排的、\n2 我称之为标准首次审前会议，\n3 即在 Genever Holdings（杰内弗控股公司）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）事项中，\n4 于 2:00 p.m. 举行。\n5 然后，大约几个小时前，我们延期了\n6 有关 Lamp Capital（兰普资本）和 Golden Spring（黄金之泉）的出庭说明理由命令听证，\n7 该听证也将于 18th\n8 在 2:00 举行，所以没有问题。\n9 巴塞特先生：好的。\n10 法庭：让我们将其安排在 18th 的\n11 2:00。然后我会告知各方，我是否认为我能够根据所提交的文件作出裁定，\n12 或者我是否需要任何口头辩论，以及在 18th 是否实际会就\n13 该动议进行口头辩论。好的？\n14 巴塞特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n15 法庭：好的。让我们确认一下我是否\n16 记对了。应为 April 18th at 2:00 p.m.\n17 因此，我将请法庭书记官助理注意，\n18 动议 1453 将续期至 April——我刚才说什么，18th，对吗，\n19 at 2:00 p.m.，如有必要，因为我可能会根据\n20 各方提交的文件作出不同决定。好的？\n21 法庭书记官助理：好的。\n22 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n23 法庭书记官助理：不客气。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023 62\n1 （暂停。）\n2 法庭：好的。现在，我今天排在下一项的事项是，请原谅，\n3 我只是需要回到刚才的位置，即 1492，个人债务人关于在其因公司治理\n4 动议——命令，我应该说，对不起——被裁定藐视法庭后，\n5 在上诉期间暂停执行的动议。亨齐律师，您将就该动议发言吗？\n6 亨齐先生：是，法官阁下。\n7 法庭：好的。请开始。\n8 亨齐先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。下午好。\n9 法庭：下午好。\n10 亨齐先生：法官阁下，我实际上不会详述任何背景。\n11 我知道法官阁下非常熟悉该藐视法庭命令。如法官阁下所知，\n12 对于上诉期间暂停执行是否适当，有一项四因素检验。\n13 即是否存在胜诉可能性，或者实质性胜诉概率或可能性，\n14 或者实体问题上存在严肃的法律问题；是否存在不可弥补的损害，\n15 或者困难衡量是否倾向于一方；如准予暂停执行，\n16 反对暂停执行的一方是否将遭受实质性损害；以及公共利益。\n17 并且，法官阁下，我认为受托人同意，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交 03/16/23 录入 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 62 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交 03/16/23 录入 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 63 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023\n1 在 Second Circuit（第二巡回区），判例表明，\n2 某一因素必须具备的程度会随其他因素的强弱而变化，\n3 这意味着某一因素越强，就越可弥补其他因素的不足。\n4 法官阁下，关于胜诉可能性。\n5 并且，再次说明，法官阁下，如法官阁下所知，您作出了一项\n6 命令，认定 Kwok 先生因其未就 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）\n7 采取某些行动而藐视法庭。并且您认定\n8 公司治理命令第 3 段规定他必须遵守——我不会引用原文——\n9 521(a)(3) and (4)，构成要求他采取该等行动的依据。\n10 关于胜诉可能性，法官阁下，我认为\n11 法官阁下在您的藐视法庭命令中也承认了这一判例法，在\n12 Second Circuit 中，破产法院的藐视法庭权力与地区法院的该等权力一样，\n13 受到严格限制。\n\n并且，在我们的暂停执行动议中，我引用了 PHH Mortgage Corp.（PHH 抵押贷款公司）案，见 6 F. 4th 503，这是 Second Circuit 于 2021 年作出的判决，以及其他判例，包括，法官阁下，Supreme Court（联邦最高法院）判例 International Longshoreman's Association（国际码头工人协会），389 U.S. 64。这是 1967 年的判例，其中 Supreme Court 表明司法藐视法庭权力是一项强有力的武器。\n\n并且，再次说明，法官阁下，我在该动议中引用了其他判例，包括 Supreme Court 和 Second Circuit 的判例，\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交 03/16/23\n录入 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023\n1 其表达了同样的观点。\n2 而且我相信法官阁下在您的裁决中、在您的\n3 藐视法庭裁决中引用过这一点，即基于此，\n4 如果存在合理的疑义，就不应诉诸民事藐视法庭。\n5 因此，这就是 Supreme Court 和 Second Circuit\n6 就被告行为是否不当所阐明的标准。\n7 法官阁下，我相信您引用过，而且我在该动议中也引用了\n8 Supreme Court 的 Taggart 判决，见 389 Supreme Court 1801。\n9 与这些基本原则一致，\n10 Second Circuit 已阐明了一项明确标准，即只有在动议方证明时，\n11 藐视法庭命令才有正当依据，即动议方必须以\n12 明确且令人信服的证据证明，被指称藐视法庭者\n\n更具体地说，动议人必须证明：被藐视法庭者未遵守的命令是明确且无歧义的；未遵守的证据是明确且令人信服的；且被藐视法庭者未以合理方式勤勉地尝试遵守。法官阁下，我在该动议中援引了 King 案，即 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）案件，载于 65 F. 3d 1058，以及其他案件。\n\n违反地区法院的命令。\n\n法官阁下，具体就第一项要素而言，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 65 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 关于一项命令是否\n2 明确且无歧义，第二巡回上诉法院——抱歉，\n3 最高法院曾指出，当司法藐视法庭权力\n4 建立在一项过于模糊、无法理解的裁定之上时，\n5 它可能是致命的。\n6 因此，民事藐视法庭通常并不\n7 适当，除非那些必须遵守命令的人知道\n8 法院意图取得什么以及意图禁止什么。\n9 这见于最高法院的 International Longshoreman's 判决，\n10 也见于最高法院的 Taggart 判决。\n11 \n12 第二巡回上诉法院对此作了补充，并且我认为\n13 在本案中至关重要，以下为引文：“一项明确且\n14 无歧义的命令，是指不会使其所针对之人的\n15 心中留下任何不确定性；这些人必须能够\n16 仅从该命令文本本身准确确定\n17 哪些行为被禁止。”这就是 King 案第 1058 页所述。\n18 而且，法官阁下，我在该动议中再次援引了其他\n19 表述相同观点的第二巡回上诉法院案件。\n20 第二巡回上诉法院还指出，在\n21 藐视法庭案件中，歧义和遗漏应当有利于\n22 被指控藐视法庭的人。在该\n23 动议中，我援引了 Drywall 文书，即本地案件，载于 889 F. 2d\n24 389。\n25 法官阁下，在此尤具相关性的是，而且我们\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 66 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 66 我们确实在对受托人动议所提交的异议中基于此理由提出了异议；在此尤具相关性的是，一般规则是，不得仅仅通过在法院命令中纳入对法条宽泛条款的引用，而适当地将该法条作为藐视法庭的依据。因此，我再说一遍。不得仅仅通过在法院命令中纳入对法条宽泛条款的引用，而适当地将该法条作为藐视法庭程序的依据。这是一般规则。法官阁下，我在动议中援引了若干阐明该规则的最高法院案件。我稍后会回到这些案件。我还援引了第二巡回上诉法院的主要判例，即 S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc.（S.C. Johnson and Son 公司）诉 Clorox Company（Clorox 公司），241 F. 3d 232，第 240 至 41 页。这是第二巡回上诉法院 2001 年的案件。在该案中，第二巡回上诉法院指出，禁令必须比要求被告遵守法律这一简单命令更具体。为符合具体性——法官阁下，以下继续引述——及明确性要求，“禁令必须足够具体和确定，以使其适用范围内的人知悉所规定的行为。本项禁止宽泛、模糊禁令的规则，旨在防止被指向禁令的人产生不确定性和混乱，并确保\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 上诉法院准确知悉\n2 其正在审查的内容。”\n3 因此，法官阁下，关于纳入\n4 一项法条或所谓“遵守法律”命令的一般规则，又回到\n5 一项命令必须明确且无歧义的要求。\n6 为向法官阁下提供一些\n7 最高法院判决中的表述，再次说明，这些内容载于该动议中，NLRB\n8 诉 Express Publishing Company（Express Publishing 公司）判决，载于 312 U.S. 426，第\n9 435 至 36 页，最高法院指出，联邦法院拥有\n10 广泛权力，可禁止与法院认定已经实施的违法行为属于同一类型或\n11 类别的行为，或禁止未来实施该等行为；若不加禁止，\n12 基于被告过去的行为，可以合理预见\n13 其将实施该等行为。\n14 \n15 但是，法院仅仅认定\n16 被告实施了违反某项法条的行为，\n17 并不足以正当化一项宽泛要求其遵守该法条的禁令，\n18 从而使被告在其\n19 日后任何时候实施某项新的违法行为时受到藐视法庭程序约束，\n20 即使该违法行为不同于且无关乎其最初\n21 被指控的行为。\n22 本法院将从禁令裁定中删除\n23 对实施违法行为的限制，凡该等违法行为\n24 与被告已经实施的行为如此脱离关联者。\n25 \n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 68 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 68 法官阁下，在 McComb 诉 Jacksonville Paper 案，载于 336 U.S. 187，第 195 至 96 页，这是联合异议意见。这是一份异议意见，法官阁下，因此诚然属于附带意见，出自 Rankfurter 和 Jackson 两位大法官。尽管我要指出，此种表述多年来一直被法院援引；这是 1949 年的判决。在该异议意见中，Rankfurter 和 Jackson 两位大法官指出，本法院一再表明，不得仅仅通过在法院命令中纳入对法条宽泛条款的引用，而适当地将该法条作为藐视法庭程序的依据。法官阁下，再次说明，我在动议中援引了其他最高法院判例。除第二巡回上诉法院案件外，我还援引了其他巡回法院的判例，这些判例明确阐明了反对所谓“遵守法律”命令的一般规则，即纳入一项一般性法条、要求遵循该法条、并且如果你——如果你不遵循该法条，则附加可能的藐视法庭程序的命令。法官阁下，在其异议中，在他的异议中，受托人援引了若干案件；我将仅快速提及这些案件，因为我认为它们实际上证明了这一点。受托人援引了 Ligon 诉 City of New York（纽约市）案。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 69 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 该案载于 925 F. Supp. 478。在该案中，法院命令\n2 New York Police Department（纽约市警察局）立即——这是\n3 法院命令的措辞——停止在 Bronx（布朗克斯区）私人建筑物外\n4 未具有合理怀疑发生侵入行为的情况下，\n5 进行侵入拦截。\n6 因此，法官阁下，纽约市警察局曾\n7 实施一项计划，私人建筑物的所有人\n8 基本上可以要求警察对从其建筑物出来的人，\n9 或在其建筑物附近的人进行拦截和搜身，\n10 纽约市警察因此基于 Fourth Amendment（第四修正案）\n11 理由被起诉。再次说明，法院具体\n12 命令警察停止该行为，除非警察有合理\n13 怀疑发生侵入行为。\n14 法院随后明确界定了其关于\n15 合理怀疑的标准，而非仅仅命令法院\n16 纽约市警察局遵守\n17 第四修正案。\n18 纽约市警察局主张\n19 这是一项仅仅要求其遵守法律的简单命令，\n20 因此该命令不可执行。\n21 法院回应称，其已明确——\n22 已明确规定了相关要求。你们不得再逮捕他人，或者停止——除非\n23 具有合理怀疑，否则你们不得再拦截和\n24 搜查他人。再次说明，法院非常、非常明确地界定了其所称的\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 70 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 合理怀疑的含义。\n2 法官阁下，与本案不同，公司治理命令中\n3 公司治理命令第 3 段\n4 所作的是引用 521(a)(3) 和 (4)，并\n5 称应遵守这些规定。而 521(a)(3) 规定债务人\n6 应予合作，但其并未规定——这与\n7 Ligon 案中的情形有显著区别；在该案中，\n8 法院具体规定，除非具有合理怀疑，否则不得逮捕\n9 他人，并且\n10 具体界定了合理怀疑的含义。\n11 受托人援引 U.S. v. Miller（美国诉 Miller）案。法官阁下，\n12 这是第九巡回上诉法院案件，载于 588 F. 2d 1256。法官阁下，在\n13 该案中，法院确实命令某人基本上遵守\n14 法条，但区别在于该法条本身及命令的措辞——这是一起\n15 州际商业案件。\n16 \n17 Interstate Commerce Act（州际商业法）要求\n18 在公路上运输货物的人必须取得从事该活动的许可。\n19 而该实体显然没有——没有取得许可，却在运输货物，因此法院\n20 为遵守州际商业法，\n21 作出命令，明确指示该当事人遵守\n22 该命令。\n23 \n24 但是，再次说明，该处的具体性在于，除非你取得\n25 ICC 的许可，否则不得在公路上运输货物。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 因此，这根本不是一项一般性法条；当事人不会仅仅基于该\n2 法条及其被纳入命令之中，而不知道其义务为何。\n3 \n4 根据该命令及 Ligon 案中的命令，\n5 你无需超出命令文本本身，\n6 即可理解你必须做什么，或者\n7 被禁止做什么。\n8 受托人援引 SEC——抱歉，援引 Perez\n9 诉 Ohio Bell Telephone Company（俄亥俄贝尔电话公司）案。该案载于 655 F. App'x\n10 404。这是第六巡回上诉法院 2016 年的案件。法官阁下，\n11 在该案中，第六巡回上诉法院指出，\n12 在某些情形下，“遵守法律”禁令可能因申请禁令的案件事实而正当化。\n13 \n14 但是，在该案中，第六巡回上诉法院实际上驳回了\n15 所申请的禁令，并依据一般\n16 规则：一项仅仅禁止任何和所有违反现行法律\n17 行为的禁令，\n18 根据 Rule 65（规则第 65 条）属于过于宽泛。\n19 因此，法官阁下，我认为受托人援引的案件，\n20 如果说有什么作用，确实证明了该规则，或者并不\n21 与我的论点相矛盾；我的论点是，最高法院案件和\n22 第二巡回上诉法院案件确立了一项反对\n23 “遵守法律”禁令的一般规则，而这些案件中没有任何一项表明\n24 该规则不成立。\n25 再次说明，这些案件具有显著区别。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 72 因为在那些案件中，就已作出禁令的范围而言，要求采取具体行为。在本案中，法官阁下，就第 3 段而言，我不同意法官阁下的——命令中所述内容。第 3 段并未如法院在命令中所述，要求个人债务人与受托人合作，以寻找个人债务人的代名人 Wang 女士，并实现她在 Ace Decade 中所有权权益的交付。第 3 段完全没有提及 Wang 女士，也没有提及 Ace Decade。它只是宽泛、笼统地要求债务人根据 Section 521(a)(3) 和 521(a)(4) 与受托人合作。命令文本本身并未规定债务人须采取的具体行动。债务人无法仅凭该命令得知其必须做什么。法官阁下，关键在于，此处的内容或债务人的具体行动由受托人自行决定。如果受托人没有告诉 Kwok 先生就 Ace Decade 去做这件事，那么他本无须这样做。命令本身并未要求他这样做。是该命令加上 Despins 先生的这一指示，才可以说要求债务人去做这件事。而这就是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 72 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 我们触犯了 King 案的一般规则，该规则\n2 规定你必须——它必须在该命令的四个角之内，\n3 并且触犯了反对“遵守法律”\n4 命令的规则。\n5 法 院：\n好的。那么我就在这里\n6 打断您。\n7 我不会就我已经作出的裁定\n8 再次作出裁定。您是在陈述上诉理由，而不是说明我应当如何审视\n9 上诉待决期间中止执行的各项因素，以决定\n10 我是否应当准予上诉待决期间中止执行。\n11 因此，我要您聚焦于这些因素，并且\n12 说明在不予中止的情况下，您的当事人是否会遭受不可弥补的\n13 损害；在不予中止的情况下，您的当事人是否会遭受\n14 重大损害；动议方——\n15 如果准予中止，任何一方是否会遭受重大损害；\n16 以及作为动议方，您是否已经证明存在\n17 实质性的胜诉可能性，尽管该可能性低于\n18 上诉胜诉的可能性；还有，如果我不暂缓执行您的——这项命令，\n19 公共利益可能会受到何种\n20 影响。这才是我需要您说明的。\n21 HENZY 律师：\n如果我刚才表述得不清楚，法官阁下，我\n22 是在聚焦于我认为您刚才所述的第三项\n23 因素，即上诉胜诉的可能性。\n24 法 院：\n好的。谢谢。好。\n25 请继续。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 HENZY 律师：\n因此，如果我表述得不清楚，我表示歉意。\n2 法 院：\n所以您不是说您将会\n3 遭受不可弥补的——您是在主张您的当事人——\n4 HENZY 律师：\n哦，我会讲到这一点。我会讲到\n5 这一点，法官阁下。\n6 法 院：\n好的。那么我们来谈这个。\n7 HENZY 律师：\n好的。法官阁下，我是否可以先\n8 讲完胜诉可能性这一点？我只是——\n9 法 院：\n可以。可以。当然。当然。我只是\n10 想聚焦于各项要件。这是我想要聚焦的\n11 内容。\n12 HENZY 律师：\n我会尽量——我会尽量简短一些，\n13 法官阁下。\n14 法 院：\n好的。\n15 HENZY 律师：\n法官阁下，我认为您的命令\n16 是一项“遵守法律”命令。\n17 法 院：\n好的。\n18 HENZY 律师：\n而且我认为判例法明确指出，\n19 此类命令不能构成藐视法庭的依据，\n20 也不可执行。\n21 再次说明，在没有——您将所要求的内容留给 Despins 先生\n22 自行决定。您并未\n23 要求 Kwok 先生就 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）采取行动。\n24 是 Despins 先生要求 Kwok 先生就\n25 Ace Decade 采取行动。而这或许是，法官阁下，\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 其他某种救济的依据，但它——它不是，也不可能\n2 成为藐视法庭命令的依据。\n3 因此，Despins 先生可能享有权利，并且可能能够\n4 根据 Ace Decade 正在发生的情况采取行动，\n5 但他不能获得藐视法庭救济。\n6 因此，我认为这里存在一个区别。这并不是说\n7 Despins 先生没有任何救济途径，而是我认为他选择\n8 寻求的救济在法律上缺乏依据。\n9 而且，法官阁下，就胜诉可能性而言，\n10 恕我直言，我认为判例法明确指出，\n11 “遵守法律”禁令不可——不可执行。\n12 关于不可弥补的损害，法官阁下，判例法\n13 明确指出，在遵守命令——当遵守命令将使\n14 上诉失去意义时，这可能构成不可弥补的损害。\n15 因此，如果 Kwok 先生遵守该命令，他本应于昨日\n16 遵守，而且显然，我的意思是，他\n17 尚未遵守，那么他将不再拥有——这将使他对\n18 法官阁下作出的藐视法庭认定提出的上诉失去意义。\n19 并且，在其他案例中，我没有在\n20 动议中援引这些案例，因为这实际上是对\n21 受托人异议的回应，Becker v. U.S.，载于 451——\n22 法 院：\n没有援引？您刚才所说的\n23 Becker v. U.S.，您的意思是您没有援引它，还是您\n24 已经援引了它？抱歉，我没听清。\n25 HENZY 律师：\n所以我没有在该——该\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 动议中援引它，法官阁下，因此我实际上是在回应\n2 受托人在其对该动议的异议中提出的论点。\n3 \n4 法 院：\n好的。\n5 HENZY 律师：\n好的。但 Becker v. U.S.，451\n6 U.S. 1306，所以——我知道我说得很快，法官阁下——\n7 所以是 451 U.S. 1306。\n8 法 院：\n我记下来了。\n9 HENZY 律师：\n在第 311 页，抱歉，是 1311 页，这是一宗\n10 1981 年最高法院案例，其中最高法院称，该案中的衡量，\n11 我应当说是法院作出的认定，这是 Rehnquist 大法官的意见，\n12 衡平因素的权衡明显\n13 有利于申请人，因此中止执行未获准。申请人的上诉很可能\n14 已经失去意义，抱歉，\n15 将会——很可能会失去意义。\n16 第二宗最高法院案例，John Doe Agency v.\n17 John Doe Corp.，载于 488 U.S. 1306，所以是 448 U.S.\n18 1306。\n19 法 院：\n与另一宗案件页码相同？这\n20 有点意思，不是吗？\n21 HENZY 律师：\n不。所以，法官阁下，Becker 案\n22 载于 451 U.S.——哦，我肯定把我的——我会向\n23 法院提供引文，法官阁下，因为我现在正在看我的笔记，而且——\n24 \n25 法 院：\n两宗案件\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 77 在不同卷册中从同一页开始，这很不寻常。HENZY 律师：嗯，实际上，法官阁下——所以 Becker 案是 451 U.S.——嗯，法官阁下，有时——所以 Becker 案是 451 U.S. 1306。法 院：是。HENZY 律师：而 John Doe Agency 案，事实上，是 488 U.S.——法 院：好的。那么——这就是我想确认的原因。HENZY 律师：——1306。法 院：好的。好。HENZY 律师：因此，谢谢您提出这个问题，法官阁下。法 院：好的。HENZY 律师：而且我无需向您提供引文，因为该案的页码相同，但——而且——该案提出了同样的观点。法 院：好的。HENZY 律师：第三宗最高法院案例，而且我——只是想确认，因为它并不相同，但非常接近，是 New York v. Kleppe，429 U.S. 1307。这是一宗 1976 年的案例。法 院：我笑是因为又是这个页码，1307。HENZY 律师：法官阁下，我正在看它，而且我\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n曾经——我也想确认它，但这确实是正确的\n页码。\n法 院：\n好的。\nHENZY 律师：\n最高法院在该案中说，\n该案的引文是：“巡回法官推翻上诉法院临时决定\n的最有力理由，或许是为了保护”——因此，这是一项\n向巡回法官而非向全体法院提出的中止执行动议——\n“为了保护本院在上诉法院作出终局判决前或后\n受理调卷令申请的权力。”\n另一项引文，法官阁下，In re Adelphia\nCommunications Corp.，361 B.R. 337。并且在第 348 页，\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）指出，拒绝\n上诉待决期间中止执行会使对重大错误主张的任何上诉失去意义的风险，\n满足不可弥补损害标准的要求。\n因此，再次说明，法官阁下，这里的问题是，\n如果 Kwok 先生遵守命令，他将会——这将使他的\n上诉失去意义。\n法官阁下，第二项不可弥补损害的论点是，\n不遵守命令不会仅仅导致金钱损害，这正是受托人在其对该动议\n异议中提出的论点；这实际上将使 Kwok 先生面临进一步的\n藐视法庭。\n他可能面临一种主张，即他藐视了您的藐视法庭命令。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n第 79 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n1 因此，您的藐视法庭命令称，他藐视了\n2 公司治理命令；如果他不消除其藐视状态，而他本应在\n3 昨日之前消除其藐视状态且他尚未消除，\n4 制裁措施是，他将被收取\n5 受托人与本案有关、与该项藐视法庭动议有关的\n6 律师费。\n7 法官阁下，《破产法》第 1115 条规定，\n8 Kwok 先生在提交破产申请后取得的任何财产，以及其在提交破产申请后\n9 获得的任何收入，均为\n10 破产财产；因此，根据定义，为遵守\n11 您所命令的制裁措施而债务人必须拥有的任何财产\n12 都将是破产财产，\n13 我认为这意味着他在法律上不可能\n14 遵守。\n15 他不会——他没有，从法律上说他不会拥有\n16 任何并非已经属于破产财产的金钱，\n17 以支付受托人的费用。\n18 而且，法官阁下，我没有找到很多专门针对\n19 这一点的判例法。\n20 一宗案件，纽约南区的一宗案件，\n21 U.S. v. Fox，载于 1983 U.S. District Lexis 19273，其中\n22 法院指出，被申请人面临不可弥补的——\n23 不可弥补的损害，因为在没有中止执行的情况下，\n24 他保全其上诉的唯一方法是冒着受到\n25 藐视法庭制裁的风险。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 因此，在这里，Kwok 先生面临这一选择。他\n2 保全其上诉的唯一方式就是不遵守\n3 该命令。但这样做，他就使自己面临\n4 藐视法庭制裁的风险。\n5 并且，法官阁下，我相信，这种面临\n6 藐视法庭、因不遵守法官阁下的藐视法庭命令而可能\n7 被认定为藐视法庭的情形，\n8 构成不可弥补的损害。\n9 关于对受托人的损害，法官阁下，有几点。\n10 \n11 受托人在其对该动议的异议中主张的是，\n12 由于他没有控制 Ace Decade，\n13 这使他在 UBS（瑞银）诉讼中所做的事情困难得多。\n14 他逐一说明了他在英国为\n15 UBS 诉讼所必须采取的行动。\n16 \n17 首先，法官阁下，Despins 先生将不得不\n18 争取控制权。据我理解，他将不得不\n19 争取对 Ace Decade 的控制权。另有一名\n20 人士声称他是 Ace Decade 的所有者。\n21 法 院：\n是谁？\n22 HENZY 律师：\n他的名字是 John Wey 或 Wang。我认为\n23 是——我不——\n24 法 院：\n您知道怎么拼写吗？\n25 HENZY 律师：\n所以，法官阁下，有一——他有一个\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 81 中文名字。法 院：我明白。我只是问您是否知道如何拼写？HENZY 律师：而且我相信中文版本是 Wang Zei，而且我——抱歉，是 Zang Wey——而且我不知道如何拼写，法官阁下。美国化的版本中，他被称为 John Wey。法 院：您知道 Wey 如何拼写吗？HENZY 律师：我不知道，法官阁下。我不是——我不知道。我表示歉意。法 院：那么您是如何得知这一信息的？我问的原因是，它不会——就庭审记录而言，对吧，书记员将如何处理这个名字？所以我们需要知道它如何拼写。HENZY 律师：我会拼写为——法 院：即使您只知道您所称的美国式拼写。HENZY 律师：我会将其拼写为 John，J-O-H-N，然后是 Wey，W-E-Y。但是我——法 院：W-E-Y？HENZY 律师：是。法 院：好的。HENZY 律师：但是，再次说明，这是美国化的版本，而且——案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 81 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n82 法庭：我明白。我只是——\n\n亨齐先生：——不同的人可能会——\n\n法庭：我只是想在案卷记录中留下一些内容，以便有人订购庭审记录副本时，记录员有内容可据以处理。好吗？\n\n亨齐先生：好的。\n\n法庭：这就是我的意思。请继续。\n\n亨齐先生：所以，法官大人，关键在于，即使郭先生以某种方式能够使 Ace Decade（艾斯·迪凯德）的名义股东向 Despins 先生交付他所想要的东西，我认为这也不会终结此事。我认为他——\n\n法庭：但那无关紧要。我的意思是，我在听取你的其他所有论点，但这无关紧要。无关紧要。我不——John Wey（约翰·韦）不在这里。我没有——John Wey 并未自愿提交 Chapter 11（第11章）破产申请，对吗？郭先生提交了。\n\n亨齐先生：嗯。\n\n法庭：所以，我的意思是，尽管我听取你的其他论点，我并不认为该论点有说服力，因为如果确如你所言，关于 John Wey 的说法属实，那么受托人将不得不处理该问题。这与郭先生是否应当就 Ace Decade 采取某些行动毫无关系。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 82 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n83 所以这就是我要说的。好吗？\n\n亨齐先生：我并不反对您，法官大人。我认为这在上诉待决期间中止执行的标准方面具有意义。所以，如果您准予中止执行——\n\n法庭：但我——但我不能——我不能依据你刚才所说的内容适用上诉待决期间中止执行的标准，因为我没有任何证据。我的意思是，截至目前，你所掌握的只是，据我理解你所说，你被告知外面存在另一名主张对 Ace Decade 享有权益的人，他的名字叫 John Wey。仅此而已。本案记录中没有任何关于此事的证据，因此我不会在上诉待决期间中止执行问题上考虑此事。\n\n亨齐先生：而且，法官大人，我不确定您是否有任何证据证明英国正在发生什么。如果您不打算考虑受托人在对该动议的异议中所陈述的英国正在发生的情况，那么我——那么我会说，我对此没有异议。但我认为必须——必须保持对等。\n\n法庭：嗯，等一下。当你这样说时——我现在还不知道，因为我尚未听取受托人的陈述，但我的记忆或者我的——是曾有一项——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 83 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 84 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 在联合——在英国作出的某项命令，\n\n2 其中说——我不记得它说了什么，我将\n\n3 让受托人告诉我它说了什么，对吗——但他\n\n4 必须交出有关 Ace Decade 的信息。这\n\n5 是我的理解。\n\n6 所以，等一下。先让我说完我要说的话，\n\n7 然后你可以告诉我任何你想告诉我的事情。\n\n8 亨齐先生：好的。\n\n9 法庭：所以，如果他向我出示该命令，我\n\n10 为何不应当考虑它？\n\n11 这完全不同于称，你被告知——在我看来，无论如何——这完全\n\n12 不同于本案记录中任何表明存在\n\n13 一名叫 John Wey 的人主张其拥有\n\n14 Ace Decade 的内容。\n\n15 亨齐先生：嗯，这不仅仅是——所以有两\n\n16 点。\n\n17 您说得对。英国诉讼中作出了一项命令，\n\n18 该命令承认 Despins 先生在英国诉讼中的资格，\n\n19 并命令英国律师交出——据我理解，我\n\n20 要说的是其持有的绝大多数但并非全部\n\n21 文件。\n\n22 所以您完全正确。有一项命令\n\n23 大致表明 Despins 先生——而 Bassett 先生肯定\n\n24 会更具体地知道该命令说了什么——但该\n\n25 命令确实已经作出，而且我没有——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 85 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n85 显然，法官大人，我认为您可以考虑法院所作命令中载明的内容，但我认为受托人在异议中告诉您的内容远多于该命令中的内容。他向您讲述了，由于郭先生未就 Ace Decade 按 Despins 先生所要求的方式采取任何行动，他在英国程序中遭遇的所有困难。\n\n所以，重申一遍，我对此没有异议。事实上，就对受托人的损害而言，我会提出的一项论点是，他设法在英国取得了该命令。他做得很好。他已获得——他已获承认。他正在取得他想要的全部信息。有什么问题？所以我对此没有异议。我的意思是，重申一遍，您可以考虑该命令。受托人在那边正在做他的事情，截至目前，他正在取得他所需要的东西。这不是——我告诉您——这是本案中那些棘手问题之一，法官大人。我告诉您，有人主张存在这另一名所有人。我不确定我能否告诉您该主张的来源，因为坦率地说，它载于一份我认为——已被标记为保密的文件中。\n\n法庭：无论如何，这不是该动议的一部分，所以我认为我们需要继续进行。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交于 03/16/23\n录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 法庭：好吗？\n\n2 亨齐先生：好的。关于对受托人的损害，法官\n\n3 大人，我想——我想把这说准确，债务人\n\n4 不会遵从。他不会消除其藐视法庭状态。\n\n5 我理解您在该命令中作出了不同认定，\n\n6 但他认为自己没有遵从的能力。\n\n7 \n\n8 所以我理解这可能是一种颇为反常的\n\n9 论点。\n\n10 受托人根本不会受到损害，\n\n11 因为无论您是否中止执行该命令，受托人的\n\n12 义务都不会发生任何变化。\n\n13 唯一会改变的是，债务人是否将面临因未支付您所命令的制裁金\n\n14 而被进一步认定构成藐视法庭的风险。\n\n15 \n\n16 无论受托人在英国诉讼中承担何种负担，\n\n17 您今天作出中止执行或不作出\n\n18 中止执行，都不会改变该等负担，因为，\n\n19 重申一遍，郭先生不会，而且我会主张他也\n\n20 无能力，但他不会遵从。他\n\n21 不会向 Despins 先生交付 Ace Decade 的\n\n22 股票证书。\n\n23 所以，我不认为您作出中止执行——\n\n24 重申一遍，Despins 先生会主张，而且很可能\n\n25 确实如此，他未能控制 Ace Decade 正造成这些\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 87 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 额外负担，因此他受到了损害，但该损害\n\n2 并非由您在决定作出上诉待决期间中止执行时\n\n3 中止执行所造成。\n\n4 法官大人，关于公共利益，存在一项保护否则将丧失之权利的\n\n5 公共政策。\n\n6 重申一遍，如果郭先生遵从，这将使其上诉失去意义。\n\n7 还涉及藐视法庭权力的严重性。\n\n8 我引用并援引了 Supreme Court（美国联邦最高法院）和 Second Circuit（联邦第二巡回上诉法院）的判例，\n\n9 这些判例表明，中止藐视法庭处罚是一项强有力的\n\n10 武器。我认为，法院在实施该等措施之前应当\n\n11 非常谨慎，或者至少给予当事人充分、公正的机会来维护其\n\n12 权利，这是一项政策。\n\n13 \n\n14 法官大人，我还想说，如果这里没有\n\n15 中止执行，就会有后续诉讼，\n\n16 因为推定受托人将会到您面前\n\n17 请求确定您所命令制裁的\n\n18 金额。\n\n19 为明确起见，您已经命令实施制裁。\n\n20 如果郭先生截至昨日未消除其藐视法庭状态，您的命令\n\n21 载明，他将被处以\n\n22 受托人在本案中已发生的律师费金额的制裁。此后\n\n23 还将就此进行进一步诉讼，而这或许没有必要。\n\n24 判例法指出，司法\n\n25 经济——构成该意义上的公共利益\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交于 03/16/23\n录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 中止执行法规所称的公共利益。\n\n2 法官大人，我要援引的一宗判例是 In re Gorsoan（戈尔索安案）。\n\n3 拼写为 G-O-R-S-O-A-N。这是 Southern District\n\n4 of New York（纽约南区）于 2020 年作出的一项判例，载于 2020 U.S. District Lexis\n\n5 128980。法院除其他事项外指出，\n\n6 在上诉待决期间避免不必要的程序、从而保护司法资源，\n\n7 符合公共利益。\n\n8 \n\n9 我认为这正是我们在此所面临的情形。\n\n10 已有上诉。在该上诉待决期间继续围绕此事进行诉讼，\n\n11 存在重复司法工作\n\n12 的风险。\n\n13 因此，法官大人，基于上述理由，我请求准予\n\n14 中止执行动议。谢谢。\n\n15 法庭：谢谢。\n\n16 Despins 受托人？\n\n17 Despins 先生：下午好，法官大人。为供记录，\n\n18 我是 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯潘斯），Chapter 11（第11章）受托人。我会尽量\n\n19 简短说明。\n\n20 我不会花太多时间讨论\n\n21 法官大人的决定在上诉中获维持的可能性，因为我见过极少——我很少见到\n\n22 一名破产法官说，实际上，我弄错了，让我\n\n23 现在予以纠正。因此，我们认为您作出了正确决定。我们\n\n24 认为该决定很准确。\n\n25 \n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 89 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n89 事实上，即便他们以某种方式感到困惑，准予藐视法庭的动议或命令也非常明确，第 6 页和第 7 页明确说明了他们应当做什么。因此，到现在，他们应当已经知道。这种说法有点——你知道——是在侮辱人的智力，说我们真的很困惑。我们不知道自己必须做什么或不做什么。我们就此进行了完整审理。我们试图得到什么？对 Ace Decade 的控制权。这正是我们想要的，也是他们需要交给我们的。法官大人认定他们能够做到。\n\n我想谈谈对破产财产的损害。正在发生的事情是，我们提交了这个——或者可能是在周一提交的，法官大人，所以您可能没有机会看它——但郭先生——你知道，我们一直——你知道——很感谢他给我们的礼物——但他在互联网上。这是他的引述。这是在我们答复的第 11 段。他说：“我猜，当 Luc 向 UBS（瑞银）要钱时，UBS 告诉他，你可以把 Miles Guo（郭文贵）踢出本案，但 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State（道恩州）与 Miles Guo 毫无关系。你怎么能保证案件的驳回”——换言之——这仍然是他所说的话——“如果 UBS 决定向 Luc 付款，Luc 怎么可能彻底结案？他没有能力这样做。”\n\n他基本上是在嘲弄受托人和法庭。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 90 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 因为他声称，受托人不能就 UBS（瑞银）诉讼达成和解，\n2 因为受托人并不控制 Ace\n3 Decade（艾斯十年），而且——他没有这么说——但正是他\n4 阻止了这一点。\n5 至于损害，亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）一直在\n6 谈论，嗯，我不知道，我们应当排除受托人就对受托人或\n7 破产财产造成的损害所作的陈述，我是说，这里实在是公然的。\n8 \n9 我们已在英国（U.K.）花费了数百小时——我\n10 记忆犹新，因为我必须在凌晨 4 点起床，\n11 有时凌晨 5 点起床参加这些法院 Zoom\n12 庭审电话会议——在其中，与我方对立的另一方是 Ace Decade。\n13 Ace Decade 在每一个环节都与我方对立。\n14 而您可能会说——他可能会说，嗯，他得到了\n15 他想要的东西。最终，在两三次\n16 听证之后，我们确实得到了。但这种情况仍在继续，因为法官说，\n17 你们，律师们，应当向受托人提交你们向\n18 郭文贵先生（Mr. Kwok）和 Ace Decade 提供的法律意见，\n19 以便他审阅该意见。他们确实这么做了，但 Ace\n20 Decade 的律师作了遮盖。\n21 例如，有一句话说，\n22 就这一问题而言，有三个重要因素。其后所有内容\n23 均被遮盖。因此，我手中有一份毫无用处\n24 或几乎毫无用处的文件，所以我需要再次回到法院。因此，\n25 这是一场阵地战。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交于 03/16/23 登记于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 91 页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023（2023 年 3 月 7 日）\n\n1 而且，您知道，因此对破产财产造成了不可弥补的损害，\n2 因为我们未能达到我们希望达到的状态，\n3 因为 UBS 诉讼理论上可能是一项有价值的\n4 资产，但他正在阻止我取得该资产。\n5 我对亨齐先生怀有最高敬意，但我\n6 无法相信他竟然变出了 Zang Wey（臧伟）这只\n7 兔子。\n8 郭文贵先生在陷入困境时有三、四种惯用回应。\n9 \n10 其一是中国共产党（CCP）。任何对我做错事的人，\n11 例如 Paul Hastings（宝维斯律师事务所），都是中国共产党。Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）\n12 如今也是中国共产党。我们最近读到，他不知怎么受到了中国共产党的影响。\n13 第二种是伪造。您将会听到这一点，\n14 我向您保证，在本案中。他会主张某些\n15 文件是伪造的。这就是在 PAX\n16 诉讼中发生的情况。他们提交了文件，后来却说\n17 这些是伪造的。这些不是——我没有签署那些文件。\n18 因此，这就是第二种。\n19 然后另一种是援引第五修正案。\n20 最后一种是 Zang Wey。Zang Wey 是整件事中的王牌，\n21 因为——我们有一句法语谚语，我\n22 不打算说出来——但基本上，来自远方的人\n23 很容易说谎。我对此的意思是，\n24 他就 Zang Wey 说了各种各样的事情。说\n25 Zang Wey 在监狱里。我们无法联系他。他一直——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1550\n提交于 03/16/23\n登记于 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023（2023 年 3 月 7 日）\n\n1 他被拘押。但他拥有全部的——这实在是——\n2 这太荒谬了。\n3 而且，法官阁下，您可能已经排除了该事项，\n4 但我认为法院处理这一点确实十分重要，\n5 即驳回中止执行，因为这事关\n6 根本问题，并涉及程序的完整性。\n7 而且，法官阁下，您关于藐视法庭的命令中说，\n8 该命令本身规定，法院可以施加\n9 额外制裁。\n10 我不理解亨齐先生论点的一点是，\n11 他说，嗯，这是不可弥补的损害，因为\n12 遵从命令将使上诉失去意义。我听起来觉得这就是，哦，我们\n13 可以遵从，但我们不会，因为那会使上诉失去意义。\n14 我认为，对于一个已被裁定藐视法庭的人而言，这是一个奇怪的论点，\n15 因为它意味着，事实上，\n16 他们可以遵从。但他随后又说我们不能，而且我们\n17 不会。\n18 但如果所担心的是遵从命令会使\n19 上诉失去意义，这里就暗示他们可以\n20 遵从。如果他们能够遵从，他们就应当遵从，法官\n21 阁下。\n22 以上基本就是我就这一事项所作的陈述。\n23 谢谢。\n24 法院：谢谢。还有其他要说的吗，亨齐\n25 先生？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023（2023 年 3 月 7 日）93 亨齐先生：仅简要说明，法官阁下。首先，我将请求——这在他们异议的第 11 段中。然后，德斯潘斯先生（Mr. Despins）刚才从第 11 段引用的有关这个 Gettr（盖特尔）——法院：您想看一下吗？您是这个意思吗？亨齐先生：——这个 Gettr 的事情。法院：您是——您是说您想看一下吗？亨齐先生：不，我——不，不。法院：好的。请继续。亨齐先生：不。我看得见——我将请求将其删除，法官阁下。它并未适当地作为证据提交。这涉及——它——我完全不知道郭文贵先生是否说过这话。因此，我将请求从这一论证中删除该内容。实际上，法官阁下，我认为德斯潘斯先生的论证几乎全部涉及对破产财产的损害。而且，再次说明，我并非——我想明确一点。我并非主张 Zang Wey 或 John Wey（魏杰）拥有 Ace Decade。我并非作此主张，因为我不知道他是否拥有它。我的主张是，德斯潘斯先生将会面临一场争议。关于 Ace Decade 的争斗不会因为您在上诉期间不予中止执行而消失。这不会改变。他无论您怎么做，都将面临那场争斗。案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交于 03/16/23 登记于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 93 页（共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交于 03/16/23 登记于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 94 页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023（2023 年 3 月 7 日）\n\n1 而且，我相信他确实必须在英国就这些\n2 问题进行争斗。但我认为，如同承认程序——\n3 并且如同我早先就公司治理命令所作的论证一样，法官阁下，\n4 关于命令他——即命令郭文贵先生签署一封信一事，\n5 \n6 解决那些律师—委托人特权问题的适当地点\n7 不在这里，而在英国。而且，再次说明，\n8 他——德斯潘斯先生在该事项上已经成功。\n9 因此，法官阁下，以上，谢谢。\n10 法院：好的。谢谢。\n11 还有其他要说的吗，德斯潘斯先生？\n12 德斯潘斯先生：我只想说，法官阁下，\n13 您可以从所有情形推断，除非并直至我们取得对 Ace\n14 Decade 的控制权，否则破产财产将受到损害。\n15 案卷记录已清楚表明这一点。\n16 我认为无需再补充任何内容。\n17 法院：好的。谢谢。\n18 好。关于上诉期间中止执行的动议，\n19 法院将对此事项留待审议，\n20 并作出相应裁决。\n21 亨齐先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法官阁下，如果\n22 可以的话？\n23 法院：可以。\n24 亨齐先生：我可以离席吗？我不参与\n25 日程表上的任何其他事项。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交于 03/16/23 登记于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 95 页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023（2023 年 3 月 7 日）95 法院：可以。德斯潘斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。好的。下一项待审事项是第 1489 号关于对修订设立维修准备金的同意命令之动议的补充异议予以密封的动议。那么，谁将就该动议进行陈述？德斯潘斯先生：我，法官阁下。法院：好的。请开始。德斯潘斯先生：希望这不会太有争议。但基本上，我们从一家名为 Phillips Nizer（菲利普斯·尼泽）的律所取得了一份文件，即有关 Lady May（梅夫人号）的管理和运营协议。这是一家名为 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）与 HK International（香港国际）之间的协议。该文件在提交时被标记为高度保密，且受法官阁下作出的保护令约束。我们有义务——在提及该文件或将其作为附件提交时——以密封方式提交。这就是我们这样做的原因。无论如何，受托人不认为该文件具有保密性。但该命令假定，在其他人同意采取不同做法之前，我们需要这样做。因此，这就是我们这样做的原因。因此，我们的补充异议中被遮盖的内容，仅仅是对该协议的提及\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交于 03/16/23 登记于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 96 页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023（2023 年 3 月 7 日）\n\n1 以及债务人的女儿在其证言中就该\n2 协议所作陈述的引文。因此，这就是我们就该事项请求\n3 获得的全部救济，法官阁下。\n4 法院：谢谢。\n5 有人反对这项密封动议吗？\n6 克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：法官阁下，谢谢。Holley\n7 Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）代表美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）。我们不反对该\n8 密封动议，但我注意到，随该动议提出的拟议命令\n9 未包含依第 107 条向美国受托人\n10 提供的法定行为。\n11 德斯潘斯先生：那是我们的错误，法官阁下。\n12 我们会补充——我们会提交一份新命令。\n13 法院：好的。请稍等。\n14 克莱伯恩女士：谢谢。\n15 法院：请允许我暂时看一下该命令。\n16 \n17 （暂停）\n18 法院：好的。因此，拟议命令\n19 对我而言看起来没有问题。您只需补充一项——\n20 克莱伯恩律师所指出的引用。那么，您一完成该项——\n21 您能在本周五前完成吗？\n22 德斯潘斯先生：可以，法官阁下。我们将于\n23 明天完成。\n24 法院：好的。那么，我——没有其他当事人\n25 反对该动议。没有人提交书面异议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交于 03/16/23 登记于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 97 页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023（2023 年 3 月 7 日）\n\n1 没有任何人——今天参加本次听证的任何人\n2 均未反对该密封动议。因此，基于所有\n3 这些理由，密封动议获准，并将于 3 月 10 日或之前\n4 提交经修订的拟议命令。\n5 好的？\n6 好。日程表上的下一事项是，就\n7 第 11 章受托人针对修订准许 HK International 动议、\n8 以设立 Lady May 准备金的同意命令之动议所提补充异议\n9 举行状态会议的命令。\n10 那么，谁将就此事项进行陈述？\n11 德斯潘斯先生：法官阁下，为记录在案，Luc\n12 Despins（吕克·德斯潘斯），第 11 章受托人。我认为该事项\n13 今天并未安排听证。\n14 法院：嗯，这是一次状态会议。\n15 德斯潘斯先生：状态会议。那么——\n16 法院：所以我想知道正在发生什么。\n17 德斯潘斯先生：好的。那么——\n18 法院：是不是有关于——\n19 德斯潘斯先生：是。\n20 法院：——款项的问题？\n21 德斯潘斯先生：是。\n22 法院：好的。\n23 德斯潘斯先生：那么，法官阁下，作为\n24 背景，这是关于使用 \\$4 million\n25 准备金支付与——支付维护费用及其他相关费用——即 Lady May 的运营费用的问题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023（2023 年 3 月 7 日）98 而该补充异议所称的是，嘿，我们刚刚通过证据开示获悉，而且我刚才提到过，HK USA（香港美国）与 Lamp Capital 之间有一份运营和管理协议，其中规定 Lamp Capital 将支付这些费用。因此，受托人，您知道，我们为先前所有请求付款，或者允许先前总额达 \\$520,000 的请求从准备金中支付，实属我们的失误。但这是另一个——额外的论点，说明这笔钱不应从准备金中支付。它应当由已同意承担这些费用的 Lamp Capital 支付。而且在——在债务人女儿的证言中，我们问她该协议是否仍然有效，她回答说是。因此，这就是补充异议——法院：她的证言是哪一天作出的？德斯潘斯先生：对不起，法官阁下？法院：她的证言是哪一天作出的？我想是在 1 月，Bassett 先生（Mr. Bassett）说。德斯潘斯先生：这不重要。您不必知道。如果您不知道——德斯潘斯先生：是在过去三周内，案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交于 03/16/23 登记于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 98 页（共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1550\n提交于 03/16/23\n登记于 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 7, 2023\n\n最多三至四周，所以——\n\n法院：\n好。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n因此，我们真正要强调的是，Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）应当支付该等费用。\n\n法院：\n那么——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n但我认为，这里存在——\n\n法院：\nHK已向本院请求，将托管资金中持有的款项予以释放，以支付相关费用。\n\n但是，存在一项HK绝对应该知悉的协议，因为据律师所述，HK及Mei Guo（郭美）——她——控制着HK。因此，他们应当知道该协议。然而，他们却来到本院，称您需要释放$4 million的收益，以支付本应一直由Lamp Capital承担的费用？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n嗯，这$4 million——那有点——那并不是我们迄今实际获准的维护费用的正确金额——\n\n法院：\n对。但请求难道不是从$37 million中取出$4 million吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n那是用于进行修理和维护。修理——\n\n法院：\n好。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 100\n\nDESPINS先生：\n——一向都是——我们从未对——提出异议——\n\n法院：\n那么，该协议是否要求Lamp Capital支付修理费用？这是一份运营协议。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n坦率地说，法官阁下，我没有从那个角度审阅。我纯粹从维护以及支付船员费用等角度审阅。\n\n法院：\n维护难道不包括修理吗？如果有什么东西坏了，您就得维护它，不是吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n是的。我希望更仔细地审阅该协议。\n\n法院：\n我理解。那么您请求什么？我们正在就此举行状态会议，因为——您希望本院做什么？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我们并未请求任何事项，因为我认为目前——\n\n法院：\n嗯，有人已经来到这里说，必须由某人付款。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n是。\n\n法院：\n对吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n目前的情况是，债务人——或者，抱歉，HK提交了这项动议；据我所知，该动议尚未安排日期。因此，我认为他们将请求本院确定就此举行听证会的日期。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第100页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 101\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我理解目前的情况是这样，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好。律师？\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n我认为是这样——抱歉。Sam Della Fera（萨姆·德拉费拉），CSG Law（CSG律师事务所），代表HK各方。我认为是这样，法官阁下，但可能需要有机会对受托人最近提交的补充异议作出答复。\n\n法院：\n那么，您会作出什么答复？\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n首先，受托人有一种习惯，即寻求某些协议的利益，却无需承担其负担——\n\n法院：\nHK怎么可能不知道这项协议，律师？\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n这不是关于——\n\n法院：\n怎么——\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n并不是HK不知道该协议，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n那么，HK为何来到本院，请求从储备金中取出款项支付修理费用？\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n因为我们认为该协议不可执行。我可以解释这一点，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n请讲。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第101页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第102页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n受托人向本院提交的文件中，显著缺少对该协议第7条的任何提及；该条规定，应向作为SP即服务提供商的Lamp Capital提供报酬，可以吗？\n\n该协议第7A条规定：“在服务提供商根据本协议受雇于公司期间，以及本协议另有规定时，公司应以允许服务提供商每季度最多30个日历日的一般用途使用公司所有的游艇——抱歉，‘Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）和/或Lady May II（“Lady May II”号游艇）’的形式提供对价。Lamp”——\n\n法院：\n谁是服务提供商？\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\nLamp Capital，法官阁下。顺便说一下，我并不代表它。\n\n法院：\n等等，等等。那么，停一下。停一下。那么该条款的意义是什么？您把——您把船给他们使用30天？这就是您刚才所读条款的意义？\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n显然，他们每——\n\n法院：\n好。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n——季度可使用该游艇30天。\n\n法院：\n那么，这与任何事情有什么关系？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第103页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n嗯，他们并未被给予每季度使用游艇30天的权利。\n\n法院：\n他们提出过请求吗？\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n他们——我不——我不——\n\n法院：\n我明白您不知道。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n对。\n\n法院：\n但是，如果您不代表他们，您就不能就其权利提出论点，对吗？而且您无法回答这个问题。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n这——\n\n法院：\n而且我并不是说您应当能够回答这个问题。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n不，我明白。但我——据我了解，我的当事人所理解的是，Lamp Capital并不准备提供其——\n\n法院：\n好。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n——交易中的一半，除非它获得其议定应得之物。\n\n法院：\n好。那么，嗯，您的当事人——您的当事人主动服从本院的管辖权。您的当事人就Lady May主动订立了一项同意裁定。关于Lady May，目前仍有效限制令。那么，您关于Lamp Capital的所有论点是否都无关紧要？您的当事人就Lady May启动了一项对抗程序——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 104\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n——是在去年4月。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n是的。\n\n法院：\n好。那么，您当事人的所有——您看，我们将这样处理。我们将安排听证会。我将要求Mei Guo到庭作证，所以您最好让她做好准备。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n好的，法官阁下。我对此表示感谢。\n\n法院：\n因为这将会发生。而且您将向她提问——如果您不问需要问的问题，受托人也不问，那么我们——那么我将提问。是您的当事人启动了对抗程序，而不是受托人；当时个别债务人是占有中的债务人。您的当事人作出了该决定。因此，现在您来到这里，说您希望——您希望修改您的当事人自愿且合意订立的同意裁定的动议。现在——此时您究竟想要什么？我不明白您想要什么。关于释放资金支付修理费用，已经存在协议。那么，您究竟想要什么？HK和Mei Guo究竟想要什么？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第104页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 105\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n从$4 million储备金中进一步释放款项——\n\n法院：\n用于什么？\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n——用于维护和修理Lady May。\n\n法院：\n用于什么？它已经修好了。它就停在那边水里。我们已经处理过整件事。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n嗯，法官阁下，存在大量费用，包括船员费用——\n\n法院：\n船又不会去任何地方。您需要船员做什么？\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n法官阁下，我不经营游艇。我只是——\n\n法院：\n我也不经营。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n我只是一名律师。\n\n法院：\n那么，我想Guo女士将不得不来这里，就所有这些事项作证。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n或者会有人作证。是的。\n\n法院：\n不。她会。正如您今天三四次所说的那样，她——\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n对。\n\n法院：\n——控制HK International（HK国际）。您没有回应证据开示请求，因为她没有回应证据开示请求。所以，不会由其他人作证。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第105页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交于 03/16/23\n录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n她将不得不作证。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n关于——\n\n法院：\n我们不会再这样做了，律师。好吗？这不会发生。您需要明白这一点。\n\n那么，好吧，我为何不安排数周后举行听证会，并且我将命令她到庭作证。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n嗯，法官阁下，如果本院倾向于不允许将任何资金用于船舶的维护和修理，我认为那不符合任何人的最佳利益。我认为那不符合受托人的最佳利益，也不符合破产财产的最佳利益。需要支出资金来维护和运营这艘游艇，金额大约为100——\n\n法院：\n那就让Lamp Capital支付。这是协议的约定。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n嗯，Lamp——\n\n法院：\n有人告诉我，那就是协议内容。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\nLamp Capital不在这里，所以。我希望由他们支付。我认为这将有助于改善受托人与我的当事人之间的关系。但是，据告知，Lamp Capital不愿支付，因为他们的报酬——\n\n法院：\n嗯，您知道吗？我们都将会查明他们是否不愿支付，因为我们将安排听证会，并且我们将——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第107页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n法院：\n——并且我们将让Guo女士来作证。这就是——\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n而且——\n\n法院：\n——将会发生的事。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n而且Lamp Capital可能必须——\n\n法院：\n嗯，您将不得不处理此事，律师，对吗？您将——我们不——这里没有任何人——没有Lamp Capital的律师。所以您将不得不想办法解决。如果您不能，那么您就不能。那我们就将继续按照已经——我们已有的现行裁定推进。但这——您知道，这就是它将如何运作。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n我明白。\n\n法院：\n该船受限制令约束。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好吗？\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n并且它需要——但需要支出资金——\n\n法院：\n那么，您最好想办法——看看您能否找到取得那些资金的办法。因为这——所以，无论如何——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交于 03/16/23\n录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n但是——\n\n法院：\n我将就你们的动议安排听证会；HK International要求修改同意裁定的动议是ECF Number 1216。\n\n这将是一场证据听证会，因为对于为使该船维持在目前状况而必须采取的措施——依该动议所述，无论是修理费用、船员费用，还是您已决定其需要具备的任何事项——您们必须提交证据，而不是法律论证。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n我们欢迎这个机会，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好。我会给你们这个机会。我现在正在看日历。March 23rd是星期四。我们将于11:00 a.m.开始证据听证会。各方必须于March 17th中午前提交证人和证物清单。并且命令Mei Guo出席听证会，并代表HK International作证。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n谢谢。好。我现在转向法庭书记员。那么，我们将就12/16发布听证会通知，定于March 23rd——我刚才说的是11 a.m.吗？是。对吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-2023年3月7日 109 法庭书记员：是。\n\n法院：所有证物均须连同证人及证物清单以 PDF 格式提交至案卷。文件应附有相应编号，不得使用字母。因此，可以是 HK 1、HK 2、受托人 1、受托人 2，依你们拥有的证物数量而定。好的。请稍等一下。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：实际上，我不会让你们发出听证通知。我将发布一项安排听证会的命令。好吗？所以我们会这么做。好不好？\n\n法庭书记员：是。\n\n法院：好的。这就是关于 ECF 1216 状态会议的结果。现在我们转入今日日程中的下一事项，即 Scott Charmoy（斯科特·查莫伊）代表 HCHK Property Management（HCHK物业管理公司）提交的对文件提交请求的异议，以及撤销和修改传票的动议。Charmoy 先生在法庭内吗？\n\nLINSEY 先生：法官阁下，受托人代理律师 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西）。我可以上前吗？\n\n法院：请。\n\nLINSEY 先生：法官阁下，Charmoy 先生已退出代理 HK——或者更准确地说，代理这些 2004\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 109 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 110 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-2023年3月7日 110 受询问人。\n\n法院：该申请获准了吗？\n\nLINSEY 先生：是的，法官阁下。据我了解，他是在这些受询问人的新代理律师出庭后退出代理的。\n\n法院：哦。那么新代理律师是谁？\n\nLINSEY 先生：我可以查到他们的姓名，但我——我知道受托人代理律师与该新代理律师的代理律师之间已经进行过沟通。代理律师——或者更准确地说，这些受询问人的新代理律师。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nLINSEY 先生：这些受询问人的新代理律师告知我们，他们将撤回该动议，并且不再继续推进该动议——\n\n法院：嗯，他们尚未这样做。\n\nLINSEY 先生：显然他们尚未办理相关文件，法官阁下。我会提醒他们这是他们需要做的事。但是他们——\n\n法院：告诉他们，我命令他们于明日下午 5:00 前这样做，否则他们将不得不到庭说明他们在做什么。\n\nLINSEY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好吗？\n\nLINSEY 先生：明白。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-2023年3月7日 111 法院：好的。那么你的意思是——我不会就这项动议，即这项异议，采取行动，因为我希望在明日下午 5:00 前看到已提交的撤回文件。\n\nLINSEY 先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好吗？我的意思是，那不是你的事——他们必须做。我明白。\n\nLINSEY 先生：是的。而且我不知道他们是否经常在本院执业，法官阁下，但我们将会——我们将会——而且这——\n\n法院：嗯，他们最好学会如何做。\n\nLINSEY 先生：我们会告知他们。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。日程中的下一事项是要求 UBS（瑞银集团）遵守 2004 传票的强制执行动议。那么谁负责处理该事项？\n\nLINSEY 先生：法官阁下，仍然是受托人代理律师 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西）。\n\nFRIED 女士：下午好，法官阁下。我仍然是 Lisa Fried（丽莎·弗里德），来自 Herbert Smith Freehills（史密夫斐尔律师事务所），代理 UBS。\n\n法院：好的。你们必须到桌前，因为我们无法——或者你们上前共用麦克风，随你们怎么做。但除非你们对着——\n\nLINSEY 先生：您想要共用——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 111 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 112 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-2023年3月7日\n\n法院：\n——麦克风说话。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n——共用麦克风吗？\n\nFRIED 女士：\n我很乐意共用麦克风。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n好的。\n\n法院：\n好的。请继续。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n按照我们报告的精神，我们将共用麦克风，法官阁下。自我们上次就此事项到庭以来，我相信大约是一个月前，UBS 已作出四次提交。受托人代理律师正与 UBS 共同处理此事。该代理律师在本案中就是我的律师事务所。\n\n我们对迄今已提交的文件有一些问题。最近一次文件提交是在周五，尚未得到全面审查。此外，今日刚向 UBS 送达了一份经修改的传票，我预计代理律师和我将共同就其遵从事宜开展工作。\n\n因此，鉴于此，我不确定我们是否已经解决了现有动议所涉及的全部问题。\n\n法院：\n听起来你们尚未解决，因此我们将延期举行听证会。你们二位认为还要互相沟通多长时间，以尝试解决这些问题？\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n法官阁下，我们二位均可于 18 日出席。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-2023年3月7日 113 法院：好的。我们将延期至 18 日。但我非常希望，在 18 日之前，我会看到双方已就文件提交达成协议。\n\nLINSEY 先生：法官阁下，当时——或者至少在与 Chase（大通银行）有关的问题得到解决时，我们确实撤回了该动议。\n\n法院：是的。是的。\n\nLINSEY 先生：我们知道如何这样做，并且在——\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nLINSEY 先生：——在此处发生这种情况时，我们会采取同样做法。\n\n法院：那么，我们将把本事项的听证会，即要求强制遵从的动议 1362，也延期至 4 月 18 日下午 2:00。这样一来，18 日将有多项事项，但如果你们二位在此之前解决此事，或许会少一项。好吗？\n\nLINSEY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nFRIED 女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nFRIED 女士：法官阁下，那是唯一涉及 UBS 的事项。我可以退庭吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 113 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-2023年3月7日 114 法院：可以。谢谢。\n\nFRIED 女士：非常感谢。\n\n法院：好的。日程中的下一事项涉及对抗程序 22-0527，Despins（德斯平）诉 Bravo Luck Limited（博拉克有限公司）。其中包括一次续行的审前会议，以及 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）就封存经修改的对抗程序起诉状提出的一项综合动议。那么，Despins 先生，是由您辩论此事，还是由 Bassett 先生？\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我仍然是 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），来自 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所），代表第11章受托人。因此，我将按相反顺序处理这两项事项。关于这些合并对抗程序中的续行审前会议，自该会议排定以来，我认为已发生若干介入事件，其中最重要的是受托人已在该事项中提交经修改的起诉状。在此之前，受托人代理律师和 Bravo Luck 的代理律师已开始就 26(f) 会议进行协商；在法院于该对抗程序中举行全面排期会议之前，该会议是必须进行的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 114 页，共\n\n对抗程序。\n\n在该会议期间，我们已确定双方均须处理的一些总体问题，涉及证据开示的范围及其他\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-2023年3月7日\n\n事项。我认为我们双方均同意，经修改起诉状的提交在证据开示的范围以及排期中须讨论的其他问题方面，某种程度上改变了局面。\n\n这也与受托人向 Bravo Luck 发出的一项尚待处理的 2004 传票相衔接；我认为该传票已从日程中移除，理由是受托人昨日撤回了我们的传票，但不影响我们再次送达传票的权利。\n\n但归根结底，法官阁下，所有与 Bravo Luck 有关的证据开示问题，无论是在 2004 程序下还是在对抗程序中，均仍处于变动之中。我们正继续与代理律师合作并进行协商。\n\n因此，就对抗程序中的审前会议而言，我们请求将其延期，我认为再次延至下个月的某个时间。在此期间，我们将与 Bravo Luck 的代理律师合作，依照 26(f) 进一步会谈协商，然后准备处理——\n\n法院：\n在下次会议时准备订立一项审前命令。\n\nBASSETT 先生：\n这正是我所提议的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n这正是法院将要命令的。好吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 116 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-2023年3月7日 116 法院：代理律师？\n\nLAWALL 先生：法官阁下，我是 Fran Lawall（弗兰·洛沃尔），来自 Troutman Pepper（特劳特曼佩珀律师事务所），代理 Bravo。我们同意受托人代理律师的意见。\n\n法院：那很好，因为无论你们是否同意，我本来都要作出该命令。那么，二位——你们希望安排在哪个日期？你们讨论过日期吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：我们可将 18 日暂定为日期。\n\n法院：嗯，18 日——我是说，照这个速度，我们 18 日要在这里待到 9:00，这——所以，你知道，我是说，这没问题。但我希望你们二位届时已经有一项审前命令——日期已经商定。我不会在审前命令的日期问题上花费大量时间。而且，除非有人能向我说明为何可能存在简易判决的依据——或许确实有。若我们要确定日期，那么你们就需要向我说明。这不会是一项将审判排至 2024 年的审前命令。\n\nLAWALL 先生：法官阁下？\n\n法院：所以我希望对此非常明确。\n\nLAWALL 先生：我认为我们并未考虑\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-2023年3月7日\n\n这一点，法官阁下。我认为——\n\n法院：即便你们确实在考虑，不论是否如此，我都告诉你们，这是不会被允许的。所以我们需要把此事理顺并完成。那么，你们——如果你们希望安排在 18 日下午 2:00，那没问题。我不知道该日期当天实际会在什么时间审理此事。但这没问题。\n\nBASSETT 先生：受托人对此没有异议，法官阁下，我们当然会与代理律师合作，确保在当日到您面前之前一切均已妥善办结。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nLAWALL 先生：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，另一项事项是封存动议。这与受托人先前评述的另一项封存动议类似。经修改的起诉状引用了两名 2004 规则受询问人在证据开示中提交的少量文件。\n\n我相信有几份文件是此前代理债务人的 Paul, Weiss（普衡律师事务所）提交的。这些文件被标记为保密，或者——我相信是保密，或者——可能是高度保密。\n\n此外，UBS 还提交了几份文件，在证据开示中亦被标记为保密。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 118 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-2023年3月7日\n\n因此，再次说明，这是受托人仅仅是在遵守保护令规定的义务，将在证据开示中标记为保密的那些文件以密封方式提交。\n\n我们的立场并非认为这些文件必然需要继续密封，但我们请求基于该理由暂时将该起诉状密封。\n\n法庭：有人反对你方的动议吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：据我所知，没有提交任何异议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我也没有看到任何异议。\n\n有人反对受托人的动议吗？\n\n好的。我正在查看拟议裁定。好的。\n\n该动议获准，且你方拟议裁定将予以登记。\n\n巴塞特先生：非常感谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n好的。那么，日程表上的下一项动议，是由第11章受托人提出的动议，请求授权销售专员和Sotheby's（苏富比）为Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）公寓进行出租营销。谁将就该动议发言？\n\n德拉费拉先生：法官阁下，我能否向法庭陈述片刻？在审阅法庭日程表的其余事项后，似乎其他事项均不涉及HK或Guo女士，因此我请求此时获准离席。\n\n法庭：可以。谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 登记日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第119页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n德拉费拉先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我将就该动议发言，法官阁下。为记录在案，我是Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。您会记得，我们曾提交一项动议，请求继续出售程序。事后，根据我与Cyganowski法官的交谈，提出了同时尝试出租该房产是否明智的问题。\n\nBravo Luck（博裕运气）提出了异议。您曾表示，该异议有充分理由；你们本应在动议中纳入该项内容，但我们将允许受托人提交补充材料，以请求授权该救济。\n\n为明确起见，所请求的救济不是出租该房产，而是为出租该房产进行营销。因此，即使我们找到承租人，我们也必须回到这里，在受到Bravo Luck或任何其他当事人异议的前提下，请求您授权。\n\n这就是我们提交的动议。您曾指示我们在2月7日前提交该动议。我们照做了。Bravo Luck提出了异议，其主张基本上是，为出租该房产进行营销与和解协议不一致，因此法庭不能准许该救济。\n\n对此，第一点是，您批准继续出售程序的裁定中包含如下措辞，即授权或指示受托人提交该项有关出租的动议。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n登记日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n该项有关出租的动议。\n\n因此，我并不是说您表示会准许该救济，但显然不可能是，您通过作出一项裁定，就束缚了自己，并排除了自己审理该裁定本身规定可于2月7日前提交的动议的可能性。\n\nBravo Luck提出的第二点是，对该公寓进行营销可能会损害出售程序。\n\n对此，首先，这不是他们的商业判断。这是我们的商业判断。\n\n而且正如我所说，我们并未请求法庭授权出租。我们请求法庭授权考虑并为出租该房产进行营销，但并非排他性地进行。此处的主要目标仍然是出售该房产，因为我们需要资金。\n\n问题在于，该房产已挂牌一年，但尚未售出。并且，为审慎起见，由于存在一项托管协议或一笔专门用于支付每月85或87,000维护费的资金，而该资金是一项正在耗减的资产，大约一年后将耗尽，考虑出租是审慎之举。\n\n因为如果我们能够以接近维护费的金额将其出租，那么您就可以延长在或许更好的市场中出售它的时间。而且，这显然是拥有选择余地的最佳处境。\n\n这给了我们更长的缓冲期。\n\n但如果可以，我们希望出售该房产，这才是我们的——这是首要目标。这仍然是首要目标。但作为一种保险措施，考虑出租是审慎之举。仅此而已，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n拉沃尔先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是Fran Lawall（弗兰·拉沃尔），来自Troutman Pepper（特劳特曼·佩珀律师事务所），代表Bravo Luck。法官阁下，我知道——\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n拉沃尔先生：——关于出租问题，您已经听取了许多此类论点。我们确实认为，如果受托人继续推进，这将构成对和解协议的违反。但我们此刻不再就此重复辩论。\n\n我们最主要的关切之一——而且这确实与受托人现已提起的对抗程序密切相关，我们已就该程序提交了介入动议。我意识到，这也许是您日程表上的下一项事项。\n\n法官阁下，这确实涉及针对Bravo Luck提起的三项对抗程序，以及该房产实际上是否属于破产财产的问题。\n\n如果该房产不属于破产财产，法官阁下，受托人无权进行营销，亦无权在协议范围之外采取任何行动。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n登记日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n进行营销，亦无权在协议范围之外采取任何行动。\n\n我承认这是一个有争议的问题，但法官阁下，这与三项对抗程序直接相关。\n\n我明白，受托人今日请求的唯一救济是为了营销目的。因此，法官阁下，我的观点有两点。\n\n第一，如果法官阁下倾向于准许该救济，则该救济不应就该房产是否属于破产财产作出任何认定，因为这更适宜作为三项对抗程序的一部分处理，而现在可能还有第四项已提起的对抗程序；并且，如果有承租人被带至本庭，法官阁下，关于受托人是否有能力为出租该房产而修改文件的问题，最终必须作出裁定。不是——\n\n法庭：我理解你说的第一部分，但我不理解你的第二——你刚才提出的第二点。修改什么文件？\n\n拉沃尔先生：法官阁下，受托人对抗程序的标的，据我所知，将在下一事项的状态会议上审理，涉及修改若干显然在最初取得该房产时签署的文件。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 登记日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第123页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 123 拉沃尔先生：这些文件涉及某些人使用或不使用该房产的某些权利。受托人已提交动议，请求获得尝试修改该文件的权力。法官阁下，我们在此的观点是，在确定该房产是否属于破产财产之前，该救济可能并不适当。法官阁下，我们真正希望做的是尽可能提高效率。我只想提醒法庭，尽管今日正在发生的一切，自始至终，Bravo Luck在最初的破产程序中签订该和解协议，是为了提供一种非常高效的方式来出售该房产。我们认为，出租该房产可能造成不利影响，但我想我们将拭目以待，法官阁下，如果法官阁下今日批准此项请求，并且就承租人举行听证会，这是否将实际影响该房产的营销。迄今为止，在法官阁下面前没有任何证词，也没有任何证据说明，出租该房产将对整体营销策略或最大化回报的能力产生何种确切影响。但是，再次回到核心问题，法官阁下，此处的问题实际归结为该房产是否属于破产财产。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n登记日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n还是不属于。而这些问题是受托人在三项独立对抗程序中提出的。现在还有第四项待决。\n\n我们已就破产财产问题提出反诉——介入动议以及反诉，因为我们担心，在该对抗程序中存在许多称该房产属于破产财产的陈述。我们不希望在未就三项对抗程序作出充分裁定的情况下，无意中作出该房产属于破产财产的裁定。\n\n法官阁下，这正是您看到多份诉状的全部原因。我们非常愿意将其全部合并。我们将与受托人的律师合作，制定一项排期命令以解决此事，并将继续推进。\n\n法庭：好的。你刚才所说的有几件事我确实想讨论，因此感谢你提出这些问题。那么，既然它们已被合并，我们不需要——我们是否需要三份修订起诉状和三份答辩状？\n\n拉沃尔先生：我——\n\n法庭：我们难道不是有一份——\n\n拉沃尔先生：法官阁下，我自己也提出了那个问题，并被告知受托人坚持保留三份起诉状。如您所记得，我们提交了三项驳回动议。\n\n法庭：是的，我记得。\n\n拉沃尔先生：我们——\n\n法庭：我正试图使其更——\n\n拉沃尔先生：明白。我们同意。\n\n法庭：——更有效率。但我不——也许确有必要提交三份修订起诉状。我不知道。但我想知道这个问题的答案，因为这令人困惑。人们可能会对我们正在做什么感到困惑。而且这也使书记官办公室感到困惑。\n\n我认为今天有一项记录称你没有提交出庭通知或类似事项。请忽略该记录。你已提交介入动议。该动议将安排举行听证会。我们会处理。好吗？\n\n拉沃尔先生：我还提交了另一份准入通知——\n\n法庭：哦。\n\n拉沃尔先生：——今天下午也提交了。\n\n法庭：好的。抱歉。\n\n拉沃尔先生：不。没关系。\n\n法庭：好的。这会使人们感到困惑。\n\n拉沃尔先生：明白。\n\n法庭：好吗？\n\n拉沃尔先生：明白。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 126 法庭：那么，巴塞特律师，我要——我现在让你临时回答，因为我确实打算问这个问题，但忘了。我们是否需要三份修订起诉状？巴塞特先生：法官阁下，我很乐意考虑使程序更有效率的方法。因为显然，我们在这一目标上是一致的。不过，我们确实——我们在技术上确实需要提交三份修订起诉状，因为——法庭：我同意。我完全同意。巴塞特先生：但是——法庭：但现在已有一项命令合并所有这些对抗程序，对吗？巴塞特先生：对。嗯，问题是——法庭：那么，你们双方何不在4月18日会议之前考虑一下这个问题——巴塞特先生：好的。法庭：——你知道，我只是想——我们不——我们不会就提交的每一项事项撰写三份裁决。那没有意义，对吗？所以，请考虑是否确实需要三份修订起诉状。现在，律师，你们将必须提交答辩状。我想不是已有一项协议——拉沃尔先生：是的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 登记日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第126页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 登记日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第127页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n法庭：\n——一旦修正后的起诉状提交，你们将在特定期限内提交答辩，是吗？\n\nLAWALL先生（劳沃尔）：\n从程序上讲，法官阁下，情况是他们提交了最初的起诉状。我们提交了三项驳回动议。\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n他们提交了修正后的起诉状。我们计划于 March 21 提交答复，该等答复将为驳回动议。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n该事项正在进行中。\n\n法庭：\n是。我想，如果——我希望各方在 March 21 之前认真考虑此事，因为我宁愿——如果可以的话——也许并不可以，好吗？我尚未审阅全部材料。我还没有机会审阅修正后起诉状中的所有争点，而且——但如果有可能不提交三项驳回动议而只提交一项驳回动议，我希望你们对此进行探讨，看看是否能够做到。\n\n如果你们说做不到，那么我也会审阅。只是我不知道。此事会令当事人感到困惑，尤其是书记官办公室。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n毫无疑问，法官阁下。根据我所看到的情况，起诉状本身存在某些细微差别。三案之间也有一些共同问题。也许我们与受托人律师之间可以想出一种向法官阁下陈述的方式，以便至少在法官阁下审议这些问题时，它们能够被分类处理，从而使事情稍微容易一些。\n\n法庭：\n无论如何——对。我只是——我同意你的意见。我要求你们进行该项分析和讨论，看看能提出什么方案。好吗？\n\nLAWALL先生：\n当然，我们会处理此事，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nBASSETT先生（巴塞特）：\n我们也会这样做，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。是。也许必须提交三项，我不知道。但我理解你们的意思是，到 21 日时——在目前阶段，除非达成某种协议——你们将提交三项驳回动议。这没有问题。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n这是目前的预期，法官阁下。遗憾的是，鉴于我们目前所处的情况，我们认为最终这可能会更有效率。因此，法官阁下，我们将与受托人律师合作，设法尽可能高效地处理此事。\n\n关于租金问题，法官阁下，我认为您理解其中的担忧。即，如果——我确实认为，就出租该不动产而言，在不存在同意的情况下——目前并不存在该等同意——在破产财产问题得到解决之前，我认为不能修改基础协议，以允许——根据受托人显然的立场——自由出租这些不动产。该问题是所有这些对立诉讼的核心问题。\n\n法庭：\n那么，关于——我想我听到了——让我退一步说。我尚未查看——或者目前手头没有——但我可以取得——拟议命令，无论其内容为何，该命令将准许该项动议。\n\n如果命令规定受托人获授权开展该不动产出租的营销工作，又如何？并且——我并不是说命令只会如此规定。但是，不再——不——任何租赁都必须先提交法庭。与此同时，你们保有提出异议的一切权利。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n我认为——\n\n法庭：\n包括你们就我目前并不真正熟悉的这些文件提出异议的权利。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n明白。\n\n法庭：\n但是——在我看来，也许我错了。但在我看来，这似乎——这并不似乎——或者让我这样说。让受托人有机会尝试将该不动产作为出租物业进行营销，似乎是合理的；但在他来到本法庭、提出动议之前，他不能订立租约，也不能就出租采取任何行动，而你们将有绝对权利对此提出异议并获得陈述意见的机会。\n\n而且，无论如何，正如你所知，根据《破产法典》第 363 条，将不动产出租必须举行听证。我同意，不过，你们仍可以在该听证中主张，法官，您不能准许该事项，因为他们尚未证明这是破产财产。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n法官阁下，我认为——在许多方面，我认为 Despins先生（德斯平斯）会告诉您，这已相当接近其动议的实质内容；他——他今天所请求的只是出租该不动产。或者，不是——抱歉，让我收回这句话。是在法官阁下后续裁定的前提下，对该不动产进行营销。\n\n我最大的担忧是，鉴于我们有这份和解协议，我们不能处于这样一种境地——我们的立场将是，对该经审慎拟定的和解协议作出的任何变更，如为出租该不动产而作出的变更，均将构成对该协议的违反。\n\n法庭：\n你的意思是出售该不动产？\n\nLAWALL先生：\n是。抱歉。\n\n法庭：\n没关系。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n任何——\n\n法庭：\n但从我的角度看，和解协议的问题是——\n\nLAWALL先生：\n对。\n\n法庭：\n——它已经届满。该和解协议——此事发生时，都是在另一位法官面前处理的，对吗？\n\nLAWALL先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的？因此，我必须按照文件所载内容来审视。而且，无论如何，我看到的问题是，在我看来，该和解协议似乎已经届满。这并不意味着当事人不能合作处理，也不意味着你们不能采取其他一切措施。也不意味着你们仍不能主张你们认为该和解协议——已经——尚未届满。\n\n但就允许受托人尝试出租该不动产而言——仅进行营销，而不实际拥有订立租约的权限，也不拥有就实际出租所需采取其他任何行动的权限，假设确实会有出租——我们谁也不知道这是否会发生。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n当然。\n\n法庭：\n对吗？那么，我更倾向于允许该营销程序在目前这个时候进行，而非不允许进行，同时保留你们的一切权利。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\nLAWALL先生：\n法官阁下，我——有两点。第一，关于和解协议是否终止，我认为，正如我可能在上次听证会上解释的那样，和解协议的内容不仅仅是营销该不动产。其中涉及保证金用途的问题，目的在于——\n\n法庭：\n明白。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n以及所有这些事项。\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n但我认为，法官阁下，如果您今天的决定是受托人可以出去进行营销，并且完全保留 Bravo（布拉沃）各方面的权利，包括如果事实上该不动产被出租，这将违反和解协议——\n\n法庭：\n你们仍然可以提出该主张。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n——那么——\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n——那么，如果这就是受托人希望推进的方式，并且对我方完全不构成不利影响，那么就按其意愿办理。从这个角度看，我们认为，由于破产财产问题将是关键问题，这可能是一个错误。但如果这就是受托人希望采取的推进方式——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1550\nFiled 03/16/23\nEntered 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\nLAWALL先生：\n——并且完全保留权利，那么我不会阻拦。\n\n法庭：\n那么，我们将会——或者届时由你们办理，律师，即与受托人共同审阅该命令，确保你们双方都同意其内容，然后提交。如果你们不能达成一致，那么你们必须向我说明——你们不同意的内容是什么。你知道，你们可以提交该命令，并注明，例如，所有这些措辞已获同意，这些措辞未获 Bravo 或受托人同意。然后我将作出我认为适当的处理。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n没有问题，法官阁下。我们将尽量保持简单。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我对此表示感谢。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。好的。那么，美国受托人是否希望就该动议发表意见？\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：\n仅简要说明，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n请讲。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\nHolley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。我想起立向法庭说明，我们不反对为出租而营销该不动产。我确实想指出一点，我认为动议中对此没有说明，但我从 Despins受托人处了解到，即营销费用，如获得承租人，将由承租人承担，而非由破产财产承担。\n\n法庭：\n我不知道你们如何能够——我不确定你们如何能够这样做。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n嗯，我询问过——美国受托人的担忧是，我们是否在默示批准经纪人出租的费用。有人告诉我不必担心此事。在纽约，租赁费用由承租人支付，而不是由出租的人支付，不是——由出租实体支付，不是——\n\n法庭：\n所以，无论经纪人有权收取何种佣金——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n承租人。不是——\n\n身份不明的发言人：\n不是房东。\n\n身份不明的发言人：\n说得好。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n天啊。\n\n法庭：\n无论——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n不是房东。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n你是说，无论经纪人有权获得何种佣金，均须由承租人支付？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n那么，祝你们好运。我是说，我不会——\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n这是我的理解。我只是想——\n\n法庭：\n你知道，我——\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n我只是想把这明确说出来——\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n——以便我们大家达成一致。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n花了一些时间，但对。\n\n法庭：\n律师，你想上前来吗？\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼）：\n是的。谢谢您，法官阁下。下午好，法官阁下。我是 Sherry Millman（雪莉·米尔曼），来自 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan（斯特鲁克·斯特鲁克·拉文律师事务所），代表 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（谢里-内瑟兰公司）以 pro hac vice 身份获准出庭。听起来法庭已同意准许我们不反对的救济。我们已为此提交文件。部分原因是，我们理解受托人的目标实际上是出售，这也是我们共同的目标，而出租可能以某种方式实现该目标。我们同意拟议命令，其实际保留了所有人的权利。但对我们而言，尤其重要的是谢里-内瑟兰公司的权利，因为我们对出租拥有特定的同意权。\n\n法庭：\n当然。\n\nMILLMAN女士：\n既然我已在此，我还想作出回应，因为我在庭审记录中已听到 Bravo Luck 的——这一评论被数次提出。\n\n律师。\n\n就和解协议以及关于保证金使用的提及而言，Garrity（加里蒂）法官已作出一项单独的同意命令。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nMillman（米尔曼）女士：该命令载于案卷编号 107。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nMillman女士：该命令允许我们使用保证金支付每月的维护费和摊派费用。\n\n自去年该命令作出以来，我们一直如此办理。\n\n法庭：好的。这对我很有帮助。谢谢。\n\nMillman女士：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：对。因为显然，在本案移送至此之前发生的一切，我并不全都知晓。关于您的陈述，我对此表示感谢。\n\n该命令将规定为将该房产投放出租市场。\n\n如有个人或实体有意租赁，仍将需要由受托人提出该动议，并向所有人发出通知；包括 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）在内，将享有其对租户进入该房产提出异议或表示同意的任何权利。\n\nMillman女士：是，法官阁下。我认为其运作方式——而且我认为 Despins（德斯潘）先生已经认识到这一点——是在此事提交法庭之前，双方会先行讨论并先达成协议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 137 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\n法庭：在提交动议之前。对。\n\nMillman女士：好的。\n\n法庭：好的。非常感谢，各位律师。\n\nMillman女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：对此我表示感谢。\n\nDespins先生：因此，法官阁下，为了对此作出非常准确的说明，该命令称，本命令中的任何内容均不修订、修改或取代 Sherry-Netherland 的任何权利，包括任何批准权，因为——\n\n法庭：好的。让我看一下。我此刻手边没有该文件。\n\nDespins先生：案卷编号 1446。\n\n法庭：对。我只是需要打开它——我此刻尚未打开。\n\nDespins先生：第 11 页，共 14 页。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：Despins受托人，您认为该命令中目前的 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）条款涵盖了我今天在法庭上所说的内容吗？\n\nDespins先生：我相信是的。但是，您知道，该文件已提供给 Bravo Luck，所以他们——我不知道您对该命令是否有任何意见。但其中称，所有利益相关方，包括但不限于 PAX 和 Bravo Luck，对批准此类协议提出异议的权利均予保留。对我而言，这一表述相当宽泛。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 138 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\nLawall（洛沃尔）先生：法官阁下，如可允许？我相信我们能在接下来一天左右解决此事。基于我们刚才的讨论，可能有一些我希望加入其中的额外保障措施。但其核心内容已经具备。\n\n法庭：好的。可以。我认为你们只需在接下来一两天内就此处理，并连同意见提交修订后的拟议命令。如果因某些原因仍有分歧，那么请——您知道，提供该命令的标红修订版本，说明谁同意什么，然后我将作出我认为适当的处理。\n\nLawall先生：很好。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的？好。因此，基于记录中所述理由，该动议获准。修订后的拟议命令将在周五前提交。显然，你们可能会在此之前完成，但我是在为书记官办公室设定一个日期。好的？\n\nDespins先生：是。\n\n法庭：好的。好。那么，今天日程上的最后两项事项——不过我们仍有几件未列入日程的事项需要讨论——是一次状态会议——有两次状态会议。第一项是——在对抗程序 23-5002 中——请继续，Despins受托人。我这里有两个事项：请求裁定安排就简易判决举行听证的动议，以及简易判决动议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 139 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\nDespins先生：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDespins先生：显然，简易判决动议尚未提交法庭审理。但作为背景说明——并且我想在此更正记录——Genever USA（吉尼弗美国）拥有该租约。因此，并不存在——目前的法律地位是，该债务人是拥有该租约的实体。\n\n因此，任何有关 Bravo Luck 以某种方式享有该项权利的主张，均须由 Bravo Luck 予以证明。但目前的法律权利归属于 Genever USA，即拥有该租约的实体，而非 Bravo Luck。因此，这一点非常重要。\n\n那么，我们试图——在此实现什么？如您所知，我们正试图出售该房产或将其出租。\n\n郭先生不时使用该房产。而且，显然，我们不能处于这样的境地：有人说，好，我有兴趣租赁或购买该房产，而我们不得不说，您知道吗，让我们先与郭先生确认一下这该如何处理。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 140 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023 140 因为所发生的是，当 Genever USA 取得该房产时，作为 Sherry-Netherland 与 Genever USA 之间租约协议的一部分，双方——法官阁下，仅该双方，而非郭先生——达成了一项协议，允许郭先生及其直系亲属，即其儿子、女儿和其配偶，如其确系其配偶——这并非贬损。我认为从技术上而言，她可能并非其配偶，但这与今天的争议无关。因此，该直系亲属可以根据 Genever USA 与 Sherry-Netherland 之间的该租约使用该公寓。该权利可由该双方修改，该双方即 Genever USA 与 Sherry-Netherland。无需取得郭先生的同意。但显然，我们知道本案的性质以及其诉讼争议之多，我们基本上需要澄清该问题，以便如果我们找到买方或承租人，就不必等待数月之久来就此问题进行诉讼，以及可能的上诉，等等，等等。我们需要完成此事。顺便说一句，让郭先生使用该房产对破产财产没有任何益处。他未支付任何款项。因此，他没有以任何形式对破产财产作出贡献。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 141 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\n因此，我们所做的是，根据文件提起诉讼，请求作出我们可以如此办理的宣告。\n\n我们还在同一天提出简易判决动议，称——另加一份规则——我认为是一份 Rule 56 声明，基本上称此处不存在有争议的事实。\n\n因为我们已通过证据开示确定，他的“妻子”并不居住于此。\n\n女儿并不居住于此。\n\n儿子并不居住于此。\n\n而郭先生本人在其申请书中称，他对使用该房产享有某种权利，但当然并未称该处是其住所。\n\n随后，我们这样做了。我们向 Paul, Weiss（保罗·韦斯）送达了该文件。\n\n您可能会说，为什么向 Paul, Weiss 送达？因为租约协议中有一项——非常具体的条款。协议第 15 条规定，Paul, Weiss 被指定为有关租约的一切争议、根据该租约产生的一切事项的诉讼文书送达代理人，并由郭先生和获准居住人，即家庭成员，指定为该代理人。\n\n因此，我们向 Paul, Weiss 送达了该文件。他们拒绝接受送达。但最终我们通过 Federal Express（联邦快递）向他们送达。\n\n我们还向郭家及其律师和 Bravo Luck 送达了该文件。而且——\n\n法庭：请让我就在这里打断您——\n\nDespins先生：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 142 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\n法庭：——请稍等片刻。当您说 Paul, Weiss 拒绝接受送达时，您的意思是有人前往他们的办公室并且——\n\nDespins先生：是。\n\n法庭：哦，然后他们说——\n\nDespins先生：他们当时——\n\n法庭：他们拒绝接受送达？\n\nDespins先生：我们告诉他们，请看，协议第 15 条作出了该项规定。为了不在这上面耗费时间，我们直接通过 Federal Express 向他们寄送。因此，那——那就完成了对他们的送达。\n\n但该协议非常明确地规定，他们被指定为代理人和授权代理人，以接受任何根据或有关该租约和/或本协议提起的诉讼或程序的诉讼文书送达，其中包括居住人郭先生及任何获准居住人，即居住人的直系亲属。\n\n但无论如何，我们已向另一方送达，因此此处不存在送达问题。因此，我们今天——我们今天来到法庭，是为了就此确定一个时间安排。我们于 February 15th 提交了该文件。因此，他们已经持有该文件一段时间了。\n\n我们请求法庭命令他们在 March 20th 前作出答复，并且我们希望——我们原本希望在 March 27th 举行听证。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023 143 显然，您并未作出那些命令，因此我们现在需要讨论何时是合理的答复日期。请记住，他们自 February 15th 或 16th 起就已持有该文件。\n\n法庭：那么，让我们——传票已送达——\n\nDespins先生：我认为是在 17th。传票于——传票于 February 16th 签发。在传票签发后，我们将传票连同起诉书和简易判决材料一并向我列出的所有当事人送达——\n\n法庭：是在 February 16th，对。那我们来看看他们最初的传票。\n\nDespins先生：该传票将郭先生及其直系亲属列为被告。\n\n法庭：传票中的答辩日期是 March 20，对吗？\n\nDespins先生：可能是这样，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我看得对吗？好的。请稍等。\n\nDespins先生：但我们实际上聚焦于简易判决。\n\n法庭：不，我明白。\n\nDespins先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我只是——我在看——我想要\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 143 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\n看看传票本身写了什么。\n\nDespins先生：是。是，法官阁下。因此，现在请让我回应——Bravo Luck 提出的该问题。\n\n让我们记住，Bravo Luck 是债务人的儿子，因此让我们永远不要忘记这一点。\n\n因此，Bravo Luck 说，等一下，这意味着你们拥有它。答案是，是的，我们拥有它。从法律上讲，我们拥有它。我的意思是，我不想——当我说我们拥有它时，它不是共管公寓。它是合作公寓。但您明白我的意思吗？所谓拥有，是指就租约而言，我们是享有法律所有权的一方。\n\n而这里的关键在于，我将明确说明，对抗程序中发生的任何事情均不会影响 Bravo Luck 的权利。\n\n我的意思是，我们愿意约定，本法庭作出的任何要求郭先生腾退该房产等的裁决，均不会影响 Bravo Luck 根据信托协议主张所有权的问题。我们并未——我们在任何时候都无意影响该问题。\n\n但如果我们要出售该房产，如果我们要将其出租，我们不能处于这样的境地：我们告诉承租人，是的，您有兴趣，但可能需要六、七个月，甚至一年后，您才能取得该房产。这不符合现实。这些想要\n\n租赁这类房产时，他们希望签署某些文件，\n\n并且很快入住。\n\n因此，认为我们今天不一定有承租人，今天不一定有买方的论点，并不相关，因为我们需要这套公寓保持空置，\n\n因为该公寓并非——我们并未以任何方式获得付款。遗产并未从该公寓的使用中收回任何款项。为出售或出租起见，该公寓保持空置是重要的。\n\n所以，再次说明，这不是简易判决动议。我们正在讨论的问题只是时机问题。因此，我相信 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）的律师希望就该问题发表意见。谢谢。\n\n法庭：是。谢谢。\n\nLAWALL 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。再次说明，我是 Fran Lawall（弗兰·拉沃尔），来自 Troutman Pepper（特劳特曼·佩珀律师事务所），代理 Bravo（布拉沃）。\n\n受托人显然没有考虑的是，《破产法》第 541 条关于遗产财产的整个问题；从最高法院到下级法院的判例均表明，当某项财产由债务人以信托形式持有，而债务人仅拥有法律所有权、并不拥有受益所有权时，该财产并非遗产财产。受托人现已通过三份起诉状以及他们最新提交的起诉状，直接和间接提出了该问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 146 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 3 月 7 日\n\n我们在此唯一的观点是，在就该财产是否属于遗产财产采取任何立场之前，必须先解决该问题。受托人是对的。我们必须主动提出该问题。我们已在最新的对抗程序中提交了介入动议及反诉，以提出该问题。\n\n这正是简易判决在此不适当的原因，因为正如法官阁下十分清楚的，显然将会存在必须厘清的重大且复杂的事实争议。\n\n因此，基于我先前的陈述——这也是我认为这些事项必须合并并一次性解决的原因——我认为受托人在这一切中忽略的一点是，在 Genever（吉内维尔）达成该和解协议的全部目的，正是为了实现他所希望实现的事情，即提供一种无任何负担地出售该财产的机制。Bravo Luck 同意了该协议。该协议为遗产出售该财产并将款项存入托管账户提供了路径。\n\n而且，这就是——我们——但是，如果该和解协议被推翻或被违约，则该同意可能不复存在。但这是我们努力在纽约法院促成该事项的主要益处之一。该协议仍然有效，我们并未试图摆脱它。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 147 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 3 月 7 日\n\n但是，法官阁下，这就是为什么，当我们描绘更广泛的图景时，该和解协议如此重要，以及为何开始偏离该协议可能不仅对 Bravo 不利，也可能对遗产和其他当事人不利。我们同意必须解决这些问题。我们已通过提交主动——介入申请以及主动请求作出裁定，试图高效地解决这些问题。\n\n但我们确实认为，坦率地说，这一切都必须纳入本案，并纳入我们能够达成的任何排期命令，以便完成证据开示，并提交法官阁下审理。这很复杂，但我们已准备好继续推进并努力完成此事。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢，律师。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：我是 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂），来自 Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），代理本对抗程序中的被告、债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法官阁下，我们愿意与受托人及 Lawall 律师合作，拟定一份排期命令。若这项新的对抗程序将与其他三项合并，我们也愿意与他们合作，以制定一份适合所有人的排期命令。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 148 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 3 月 7 日\n\n我认为 Lawall 律师是对的，本简易判决动议中存在一个贯穿性的事实问题，即：该租赁权益是否属于 Genever 遗产？因为如果不属于，那么 Genever 无权通过简易判决动议寻求其所要采取的行动。\n\n这是合同请求。代表我的当事人，我们认为存在事实争议。这份同意协议是一份三方协议。债务人是该协议的一方。受托人和 Genever 的立场是，该协议中有特定条款，受托人并非该等条款的一方。\n\n但这是一份完整合并协议，因此将存在关于该协议以及当事人意图的事实争议。我们希望有机会就当事人的意图进行证据开示。\n\n而且，该证据开示范围将是有限的，法官阁下。它实际上将仅限于 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰）及 Sherry-Netherland 在订立这些协议时的意图。\n\n受托人可能已拥有我们进行该证据开示所需的全部文件。因此，该证据开示可以受到限制。我不知道受托人需要什么证据开示，也不知道 Bravo Luck 需要什么证据开示。但是，再次说明，我们愿意与他们合作，制定一份适合所有人的排期命令。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 1550\n提交于 03/16/23\n录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 3 月 7 日\n\n受托人评论说，我们需要迅速完成此事且不发生上诉，以便能够出租该公寓。这是一项简易判决动议。简易判决动议通常不会在案件开始时、未经证据开示即获准。\n\n如果强行推进该动议且受托人胜诉，将会有上诉。因此，这不会实现受托人所寻求的最终目标。此事应当审慎进行，但也应当正确进行。\n\n法庭：你的意思是——我是说，我不知道。我还没有看过。好的？本案几天前才刚刚提交，对吗？我是说——\n\nMORIARTY 先生：大约三周前提交的。\n\n法庭：好的。那么——\n\nMORIARTY 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：——无论如何，我还没有看过，对吗？它于 2 月 16 日送达。因此，我们说的是两周前、两周半前。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：正确。\n\n法庭：债务人的立场是否是，Genever USA（吉内维尔美国）不是——不是与 Sherry-Netherland 签订租赁协议的一方？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：不，那不是债务人的立场，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 3 月 7 日 150\n\n法庭：那么债务人的立场是什么？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：Sherry-Netherland 与 Genever 之间存在一份租约。另有一份协议。它是一份同意协议。该协议——\n\n法庭：关于使用该财产？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，好。那么——那么重点是什么？我有点困惑。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：债务人是该协议的一方。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：而债务人的——\n\n法庭：那么这与任何事情有什么关系？他们不是——他不是该租约的一方。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：正确，法官阁下。但是，受托人试图通过本对抗程序做的是修改该同意协议。他的立场是，债务人无需成为该修改的一方，因为债务人不是允许修改该协议的特定条款的一方。我们的立场是，他是该条款的一方，因为他是该协议的一方，而且该协议是一份完整合并协议。你不能挑出你认为有利于你论点的一项条款，然后说债务人不是该条款的一方。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 3 月 7 日 151\n\n法庭：因此，这是一项确认判决之诉。这就是本案，对吗？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：受托人请求法庭宣告——我来看看他说了什么。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n宣告于 March 6, 2015，作为承租人的 Genever USA 与作为出租人的 Sherry-Netherland 订立了与分配给该公寓的普通股有关的租约；该公寓——我们——它是合作公寓，所以我们知道这一点。好的？Genever US 和 Sherry-Netherland 是该等租约的唯一当事人。购买价格约为 $70 million。Genever US 与 Sherry-Netherland 订立了一份关于股份和专有租约的同意协议。好的。让我看看。那是证据 4。让我们看看。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：我正在试图找到证据 4 的开头。这有 260 页，所以我需要一点时间找到它。既然有 250 页，有谁知道证据 4 从哪里开始、是第几页吗？哦，在这里。我找到了。我刚找到它。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 151 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 152 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 3 月 7 日\n\n法庭：第 145 页，证据 4。本协议于 3 月 6 日订立。Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（雪莉-尼德兰公司）、Genever Holdings, LLC（吉内维尔控股有限责任公司）与 Kwok 先生（又名 Miles Kwok，又名 Miles Guo）之间关于股份和专有租约的协议及同意书，其地址为——好的。\n\n好的。所以你是说他是该协议的一方？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。正因为如此，你想就什么进行证据开示？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：当事人在订立该协议时的意图是什么？\n\n法庭：嗯，那无关紧要。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：意图是否是使 Kwok 先生——\n\n法庭：我是说，合同法规定他们的意图无关紧要。合同怎么写就怎么解释，对吗？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：嗯，如果合同——\n\n法庭：这不就是那个老问题——我是说，口头证据。我们不都是学过那个吗？我是说，那就是——\n\nMORIARTY 先生：有例外，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是的。但例外不多。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：这是真的。但确有例外。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 1550\n提交于 03/16/23\n录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 3 月 7 日\n\n有例外。而且在本案中，该合同并不像受托人所主张的那样清楚。只要合同存在歧义，这些歧义就可以得到证明——\n\n法庭：嗯，我会看一下。我并不确信有任何进行证据开示的必要。这并不意味着他会胜诉。但我不明白为什么你需要就一项简易判决动议进行证据开示。他已提出他所称将证明不存在任何真实的重大法律——我是说，重大事实争议的内容。你可以对此作出回应。你可以说，嗯，是的，存在。但是我看不出需要证据开示。到目前为止，你尚未说服我这一点。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：嗯，法官阁下，我们当然可以说存在事实争议，但我们不能只是这么说。\n\n法庭：嗯，必须存在一个争议——一个真实的重大事实争议。不能只是一个事实争议。总是会有事实争议。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：正确，法官阁下。但是，根据地方法则 56(a)(2)，我们必须就这些事实争议提出证据。如果我们不能进行证据开示，我们从哪里获得该证据？\n\n法庭：就什么进行证据开示？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：再次说明，法官阁下，就——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1550 提交于 03/16/23 录入于 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 154 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\n法庭：仅仅因为你——你究竟可能需要什么证据开示？真的吗？我需要理解这一点。你要就郭先生认为这是什么意思，对郭先生进行证言录取吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂律师（Mr. Moriarty）：当然不会，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那你们打算做什么？\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：因为我不需要那样做。我会向 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）就 Sherry-Netherland 的意图进行证据开示。受托人主张并辩称，郭氏家族是该房产的被许可使用人，因此本法庭有管辖权强制其腾退。他们无需前往纽约。他们无需通过住房法院。那么，本协议各方的意图是否是让郭氏家族，即债务人、其妻子及其两名子女，成为被许可使用人？还是意图让他们成为承租人？如果他们是承租人，他们享有不同的权利。受托人承认这一点。这就是我们需要能够进行的证据开示类型。\n\n法庭：但你们会进行什么证据开示来证明这一点？\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：我们将从 Sherry-Netherland 获取文件，对 Sherry-Netherland 进行 30(b)(6) 证言录取。我们将确定 Sherry-Netherland 当时的理解为何。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023 155\n\n郭先生可以提交一份宣誓书并称这就是其意图，但法庭可能不采纳该宣誓书。\n\n法庭：嗯，我必须考虑一下。我必须考虑一下。我会考虑。但这就是你所请求的？你不希望现在就安排就简易判决举行听证。你希望制定一份证据开示时间表。这就是你所请求的？\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：我请求制定一份证据开示时间表，法官阁下。而且，再次强调，我们会与 Bravo Luck（百乐）的律师和受托人的律师协调制定时间表，因为我们确实认为，就租约是否属于破产财产存在事实争议。我理解 Genever（吉尼弗）是该租约的一方，但存在三项对抗程序。现在又有第四项程序，Bravo Luck 正寻求介入，其中 Bravo Luck 主张，不，该租约不属于破产财产。如果法庭不允许我们进行证据开示，我们至少请求给予我们超过自今日起两周的时间，以便对简易判决动议作出回应。至少自该日期起 30 天——\n\n法庭：嗯，我——尚未设定对简易判决动议作出回应的日期。唯一已设定的回应任何事项的日期，是传票项下到期的回应性诉状。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1550\nFiled 03/16/23\nEntered 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：正确，法官阁下。受托人正在请求法庭设定简易判决回应日期——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：——为 March 20th。\n\n法庭：我明白。而我尚未这样做。我尚未这样做。我并不是说我会这样做。我是说——但无论我如何处理简易判决动议，本对抗程序中存在由传票设定的回应性诉状期限，必须予以遵守。\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：正确，法官阁下。我明白这一点。那是 March 20th。我向法庭提出的唯一一点是，如果法官阁下不允许进行证据开示，我们请求给予我们充足时间对简易判决动议作出回应。如果是 30 天，如果是自法庭发布命令之日起 45 天——无论该命令是准许证据开示，还是更有可能——或者我不该说更有可能，而是驳回证据开示。因为如果您准许证据开示，那么我们无需担心立即作出回应。如果您驳回，那么我们确实必须关注立即作出回应。\n\n法庭：好的。我明白。我只是想明确一点。我完全明白你刚才所说的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023 157\n\n但我不会改变传票的回应日期，因为这是两件不同的事情。我只是想对此非常明确。\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：好的。\n\n法庭：好的？\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：而且我并未请求延期——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：——延长答辩日期，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯律师（Mr. Despins）：法官阁下，非常简短地说。\n\n法庭：我们仍然必须听取——\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：哦，抱歉。请原谅。\n\n法庭：——债务人的配偶的意见，对吗？\n\n戈尔茨坦律师（Mr. Goldstein）：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。你能否说明你的姓名以供——您知道，我很抱歉。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：当然可以。\n\n法庭：请你为记录作出出庭声明，可以吗？\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：当然可以。我是 Updike, Kelly & Spellacy（厄普代克、凯利和斯佩拉西律师事务所）的 Evan Goldstein（埃文·戈尔茨坦），代表 Hing Chi Guo（郭颖芝），即债务人结婚 37 年的妻子，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：下午好。仅为记录在案，我——并且不重复债务人和 Bravo Luck 已提出的论点。Hing Chi Guo 反对 Genever Holdings（吉尼弗控股）及受托人就简易判决动议，即文件编号 22，提出的排期动议。我们实际请求的是驳回该排期动议，并基于目前不存在诉讼资格这一事实，推迟简易判决听证。\n\n如法庭所指出，目前有三项对抗程序待决，将在某个时候就究竟谁拥有该财产、该公寓的所有权作出认定。\n\n在法庭作出该认定之前，我们的立场是，受托人实际上并无诉讼资格提出请求，将我的当事人从对该房产的使用和占有中移除。\n\n法庭：好的。我认为你刚才所说涉及两个不同的问题。我的意思是，诉讼资格颇有意思，因为看来 Genever USA（吉尼弗美国）与 Sherry-Netherland 之间存在一份租约。没有人——没有人对此提出异议。至于其是否属于破产财产，我认为，这或许是一个不同的问题。但我听取了你所说的话。你不希望现在安排任何事项。然而，我想非常明确。我今天不会对此作出裁定。我不能。我甚至尚未审阅所有这些材料。你们在过去——这没有问题——几天内提交了材料。我们已经——我们一直——已经在这里开庭四个小时了，对吗，处理了大约 12 项不同事项。我们仍须讨论其他事项。因此，我今天不会安排简易判决动议听证，也不会设定回应期限。我明天会这样做吗？我不知道。有这种可能。我当然会考虑各方所说的一切。但这并不改变对起诉状作出回应的任何要求，无论该回应为何。因此，我只是想对此非常明确。我明白受托人在同一天提交了起诉状和简易判决动议。我明白这一切。但我们不会改变对起诉状作出回应的日期。你们可根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》——《联邦破产程序规则》提交你们认为适当的任何回应。这完全没有问题。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：明白。\n\n法庭：因此，关于——这两项动议——我很抱歉。我不该这么说。这是关于今天日程中的这两项事项。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1550\nFiled 03/16/23\nEntered 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023 160\n\n在该对抗程序 23-5002 中，一项是请求下令安排简易判决听证的动议，即 ECF 6。然后还有一项——简易判决动议。我今天不会对这些采取行动。我必须审阅它们，并将相应作出裁定。我不会就该问题再举行任何听证。我理解各方的立场，并将决定如何处理。好的？但除了刚才在法庭上与你们交谈之外，我尚未有机会充分了解正在发生的事情——尽管我认为自己已有相当不错的了解。但这就是我要做的。对此有人有任何问题吗？\n\n德斯平斯律师：没有。但是我——只需两秒钟，法官阁下？\n\n法庭：可以。请继续。\n\n德斯平斯律师：因此，我——当您审理该事项时，法官阁下，我敦请您审阅协议和同意书的 Section 9。其中写道，出租人，即 Sherry-Netherland，和承租人，即 Genever，特此同意，该公寓将作为私人住所使用，诸如此类，不得供任何其他人使用，并且只有居住人，即郭先生，以及该居住人的直系亲属可以占有或使用该公寓。这是一项协议——这并非类似于——这是一项标准格式条款，仅此而已，其基本含义是：\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1550\nFiled 03/16/23\nEntered 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\n由承租人和出租人同意该事项，并赋予他们该项权利。因此，这两方才是可以剥夺该项权利的当事人。\n\n至于 Lawall 律师（Mr. Lawall）的论点，即，嘿，这里存在破产财产，让我们退一步来看，法官阁下。他所依赖的是郭先生与其儿子之间的一份协议。对此存在许多问题，我们将在——各项对抗程序中予以讨论。\n\n但此处的要点是，Genever USA 是产权——法定产权所有人。他们正试图对其设定一项他们声称有效的信托。\n\n在破产案件中，即便发生这种情况，也并不意味着债务人持有产权的财产的一切事项都会停止。在他们证明其主张，即该信托协议有效、可执行且并非欺诈性转让之前，并非一切事项都会停止。\n\n因此，我敦请法官阁下在该背景下审视此事，即应由他们来设定该信托。我们不会在来到法庭时便假定父子之间的该项信托有效且不受撤销的约束。应由他们证明应当对法定产权所有人，即 Genever USA，设定该信托。谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1550\nFiled 03/16/23\nEntered 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n劳沃尔律师（Mr. Lawall）：法官阁下？\n\n法庭：律师，请继续。\n\n劳沃尔律师：我无意对此冗长陈述，但是——\n\n法庭：请等你靠近麦克风后再说，这样我们才能录到。\n\n劳沃尔律师：好的。我很抱歉，法官阁下。再次为记录在案，我是 Troutman（特劳特曼律师事务所）的 Fran Lawall（弗兰·劳沃尔）。受托人自己的文件一再表示，存在一个必须解决的有关产权的问题。因此，顺便说一句，我们已提交介入动议以及一项积极诉状，以寻求对信托问题作出认定。\n\n我们并非也——并非仅仅依赖存在这份信托协议这一事实。受托人一再承认，是 Bravo Luck 为该房产支付了 $70 million。文件并未称 Miles Kwok（郭某）为其付款。是 Bravo Luck。\n\n因此，此处不只是简单的一份信托协议。这里还有更多内容，法官阁下。我不想冗长陈述。\n\n但是，再次强调，存在一个必须解决的重大 541 问题。我们的介入动议正在待决，法官阁下。我不知道——从程序上说，您希望——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 163 法庭：我想它刚刚提交。不是昨天刚提交的吗？劳沃尔律师：是的，法官阁下，连同拟议答辩状一起提交。法庭：嗯，通常在对抗程序中依一般规则提交动议时——我得看一下，但地区法院和破产法院的一般规则规定有 21 天的答复期限——劳沃尔律师：对。法庭：——针对一项动议。因此我得看一下，明白吗？劳沃尔律师：没问题，法官阁下。我只是想提请您注意这一点。法庭：哦，我还没有机会看。我知道你们提交了。劳沃尔律师：对。法庭：这就是我所知道的。因为我看到了。我确实——有人提请我注意有关出庭代理的事情，我只是说那不是——你们不必担心，因为——劳沃尔律师：明白。法庭：——除非并直至他们介入——或者获准介入——但你们提交了出庭代理声明，所以没问题。劳沃尔律师：好的。案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 163 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 164 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 法庭：好的。\n2 劳沃尔律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n3 法庭：我会看一下。谢谢。\n4 还有其他人希望发言吗？\n5 好的。因此，我要说的是——简易判决动议是一项待决动议。\n6 是否以及何时安排开庭审理，\n7 正是 ECF 编号 6 所请求的事项。它请求\n8 一项命令，为\n9 简易判决确定开庭日期和答复日期。\n10 我今天不会这么做。因此我得\n11 看一下。我会很快处理。你们\n12 都会在收到——我所作出任何命令的电子\n13 提交通知时知晓。明白吗？\n14 好的。现在，这确实处理了今天日程表上的所有事项，\n15 但还有两个进一步\n16 问题需要我处理。\n17 有人提请我注意，就定于下\n18 周开始的判决前救济听证会而言，\n19 金德塞思律师，你希望在不同时间作证，\n20 因为你要休假。这一点我\n21 理解。\n22 但我对此感到困惑，因为你们律师事务所\n23 为实际证据听证会请求了那些日期。\n24 所以我——我有点不知所措，因为我移除——\n25 调整了日程表上的事项，将那些日期安排为——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 165 连续的日期，因为你们律师事务所在实际诉状中称那些日期可行。现在，受托人——也许我错了，德斯平斯先生。你不反对不按顺序采集金德塞思先生的证言。我不知道。但我不会在本周五进行。我不会把日程安排全都改来改去，因为我们——你知道，这让我有点担忧。因此本周我不会这么做。这不可能发生。明白吗？听证会安排在下周——是什么时候？从 15 日开始。我们有 15 日、16 日和 17 日，对吗？那不是我们为 PJR 听证会安排的日期吗？身份不明的发言人：正确，法官阁下。法庭：好的。金德塞思律师：是的，法官阁下。如果我可以——法庭：那么——那么你会在 20 日星期一结束休假回来？金德塞思律师：是的。我向您道歉，法官阁下。法庭：那么你将在 20 日星期一作证。我不知道你为什么需要作证。但如果你要作证，那就是你作证的时间。我不会打断——你知道，我们在几件事项中已经这样做过，这确实并不\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 165 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 166 公平，对法庭而言，为迎合律师而打断证据的呈现。并且我不是——我刚才说得不对。我知道，如果你有假期，你就有假期。但我仍然感到困惑，因为你们律师事务所明确请求了那些日期。那么你要说什么，律师——你要说什么？巴西特律师：是的。法官阁下，为记录在案，我是代表 Paul Hastings（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的尼克·巴西特。我只是想说，我们——嗯，首先，我们也很惊讶这行不通，因为从我们的角度看，我们与 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）共同制定了该日程，以便在我们都知道自己有空的日期举行听证会。而且，我们这一方专门协调了可用性问题，包括家庭假期。我们特意避开的一个重要星期、即对我们不适用的星期，是 20 日所在的一周，也就是下下周。因此，当金德塞思律师及其同事联系我们时，我们告诉他们，看，我们不明白为什么在设定日程时没有解决这个问题。但是，当然，如果可以，我们愿意采取合理方式，努力迁就该假期。因此，我们提出的解决方案是让\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 166 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1550\n提交日期 03/16/23\n录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 金德塞思先生，如法庭可以接受，在本周\n2 较早时候作证。我理解这行不通。\n3 因此现在我认为我们不知道\n4 接下来该怎么办。我有两个想法，其中之一是\n5 金德塞思先生——而且，首先，我认为从\n6 受托人的角度来看，我们也不清楚\n7 金德塞思先生为什么需要作证。无论如何，他在\n8 他们的证物清单上。\n9 我们对他进行了证言笔录。在该证言笔录之前，\n10 金德塞思先生在法院命令的听证日期期间无法出席的问题——\n11 该问题在证言笔录之前就已出现。\n12 所以在该证言笔录时，我们尚未解决该问题。\n13 我们本可以做的一件事是，他们本可以\n14 在证言笔录中向金德塞思先生提问。而且\n15 顺便说一句，代表女儿和 HK 的律师\n16 已经离开，因此他不在这里说明\n17 金德塞思先生可能作证的原因以及\n18 证言笔录中发生的情况。但我们的立场是，那就通过证言笔录来处理。\n19 \n20 我们问了他将要作证的所有事项。\n21 我们被告知，他将就据称\n22 与关于托管中 \\$37 million 的约定有关而提供的\n23 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）贷款作证。\n24 我们反复询问，还有其他任何你必须作证的事项吗？\n25 他已就所有这些作证。我们\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 168 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 168 认为该证言已穷尽。从我们的角度看，让双方各自通过指定部分提交证言笔录证言。那可以作为证言采纳。另一个选择，我不愿强加给金德塞思先生，是如果法庭同意，他可以在休假期间远程作证。但我们特意避开了 20 日所在的一周，因为那一周对我们不适用。另一个显而易见的问题，法官阁下，是我看不出在证据结束之后、在进行结案陈词之前怎么可能不进行结案陈词，而我们认为结案陈词非常重要。因此，调整——你知道，这不只是把金德塞思先生的证言调整到半天的问题。而是要把它调整到此后我们有时间进行结案陈词的一天，而这可能需要相当长的时间。因此，你知道，再次强调，我们正试图迁就。没有人想毁掉假期。但我们发现自己处于一个非常困难的境地。法庭：那么，使用你的证言笔录证言有什么问题？金德塞思律师：首先，法官阁下，如果可以，我想说明发生了什么。首先，与巴西特律师所说相反，没有人就\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 169 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 日期问题与我沟通，而那正是\n2 问题所在。这个——\n3 法庭：什么日期？\n4 金德塞思律师：审判日期。\n5 法庭：是的。你们律师事务所提交了一项动议，并且\n6 说你们希望安排在那些日期。\n7 金德塞思律师：那是一份共同——法官阁下——\n8 法庭：等一下。让我——\n9 金德塞思律师：我能否——\n10 法庭：让我就在这里制止你。说真的。\n11 让我就在这里制止你。这根本\n12 行不通。你们都已决定，你们都要\n13 承担任何你们要承担的事项。这\n14 完全没问题。我不——你知道，无论你们要\n15 做什么。\n16 但你们不能向法庭提交某项材料，\n17 说这一周对我们可行。然后我\n18 调整一切以使其可行。然后你们在不到两周前\n19 来到法庭说，哦，顺便说一下，我不能——我\n20 要作证，而我不能到场，所以你需要在不同日期进行，法官。\n21 嗯，这不是运作方式。\n22 \n23 金德塞思律师：法官阁下，我理解——\n24 法庭：这不会以这种方式进行。\n25 金德塞思律师：法官阁下，这是一个内部\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与誊录服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 170 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 问题，负责安排日期的当事方\n2 没有亲自与我沟通。我们对此内部错误\n3 承担责任。\n4 法庭：那么我们将使用你的证言笔录。使用你的证言笔录有什么问题？\n5 \n6 金德塞思律师：那只是对我的询问——\n7 首先，我想提请法庭注意，\n8 首席律师不在场。我是拟议证人。\n9 法庭：那么他本应留在这里。\n10 金德塞思律师：嗯，法官阁下，这不在\n11 日程表上。\n12 法庭：嗯，你是说你们没有任何人\n13 今天打算谈论 PJR——\n14 金德塞思律师：没有。\n15 法庭：——听证会？\n16 金德塞思律师：我们原计划\n17 提交一项动议。\n18 法庭：那你们为什么没有提交？\n19 金德塞思律师：没有。因为——\n20 法庭：你们尚未提交动议。\n21 金德塞思律师：我们实际上——\n22 法庭：而听证会在下周。\n23 金德塞思律师：作为依照协议的礼遇，我们\n24 向法庭书记官发送了一封电子邮件，提请\n25 法庭注意这一请求。由于我们没有收到答复，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1550 提交日期 03/16/23 录入日期 03/16/23 21:47:05 第 171 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 171 我们预计将尽快提交一项动议，以便正审理该案的律师能够处理这一问题。因此，但是既然法官阁下提出了这一问题，我想提请法官阁下注意并作出解释。这很不幸。这是 Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）内部发生的问题。这很不幸。而且不幸地影响到了我与家人的假期。我不希望在假期中途于星期四从葡萄牙飞回来，留下我的妻子和两个孩子，但如果必须如此，我会这么做。因为我对客户负有承诺。客户——法庭：你为什么需要作证？你为什么不能以其他方式完成，以便你能与你的妻子和孩子享受假期？金德塞思律师：法官阁下，我理解发生了错误这一事实，但事实——法庭：不，不。这没有回答我的问题。你是律师。你将就一项交易作证什么？而且如果你这样做——金德塞思律师：因为他们主张这不是——法庭：——你是否就该交易放弃律师—客户保密特权——金德塞思律师：不。这是一个——法庭：——？\n\n1 KINDSETH先生：\n这是一项与第三方进行的交易。我客户从Himalaya取得的贷款，我曾作为主办交易律师就该贷款进行谈判。我现被传唤就该项交易作证。\n\n5 法庭：\n目的为何？\n\n6 KINDSETH先生：\n为反驳对方所称Himalaya是Kwok先生的“空壳”的主张。并且——\n\n8 法庭：\n那么，你如何证明这一点？\n\n9 KINDSETH先生：\n不。我只是将简单作证——而且，再说一次，我不是——我不是主办律师。应由审判律师提出这些论点。\n\n12 法庭：\n我明白。但无论你说什么，你都无法证明这一点。\n\n14 KINDSETH先生：\n但是，法官阁下，有两点。第一，应由其他律师提出这一论点。第二，这——我理解法官阁下的——\n\n17 法庭：\n好。你知道我们要怎么做吗？我们明天举行会议，并让律师回到这里。他将解释为何会是这样——为何他等到现在才做这一切，以及问题何在。因为我不明白为什么你的证言笔录不能被采纳。你在证人席上究竟还能说什么，是你尚未在证言笔录中说过的？那就这样。\n\n25 KINDSETH先生：\n我们将非常感谢，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日 第173页\n\n法庭：\n好。那么所有人明天都必须回到这里。我只需要看看时间安排。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n法官阁下，为明确起见，Bravo（Bravo）并非此事的一部分，所以您并不期待Bravo到场，是吗？\n\n法庭：\n如果你愿意，可以到场，但我并不——目前的问题发生在HK各方、Kindseth先生、债务人以及受托人之间。明白吗？如果你愿意，可以到场。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n不，法官阁下，我非常乐意不出席。\n\n法庭：\n你不会在下周的PJR听证会上传唤证人或提交证物——\n\nLAWALL先生：\n完全不会，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n——对吗？\n\nLAWALL先生：\n对。\n\n法庭：\n好。那么——\n\nLAWALL先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好，谢谢。但非常欢迎你来。\n\nLAWALL先生：\n明白。\n\n法庭：\n好。明天下午1:00，除非各方提交协议，同意可以使用证言笔录。届时——\n\n案件22-50073\n文件1550\n提交日期03/16/23\n录入日期03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 HK方律师必须到本法庭，并解释为何必须如此。明白吗？\n\n3 所以这就是我们要做的。我们将发布——目前没有待决动议。所以我们将——我将发布一项命令——嗯，我现在在庭审记录中作出。由于现在是5:15，我不会另行发布书面命令。我的意思是，书记官办公室无法处理此事。他们也得回家吃饭、陪伴家人。\n\n11 因此，我正在作出——我作出口头裁定：就定于15日上午10:00开始的判决前救济审判举行一次状态会议，时间为明天下午1:00，除非律师之间有书面协议，同意可以在审判中使用Kindseth先生的证言笔录。对此——Bassett先生，你有什么问题吗？\n\n19 BASSETT先生：\n这样可以，法官阁下。抱歉。但还有一点——我想说，如果我们明天要出庭，还有一些与PJR听证会有关的其他问题。因此，如果这是一次一般性的状态会议，我认为那将——\n\n24 法庭：\n是。当然。\n\n25 BASSETT先生：\n是。好。\n\n案件22-50073\n文件1550\n提交日期03/16/23\n录入日期03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 法庭：\n我们会讨论。\n\n2 BASSETT先生：\n谢谢。\n\n3 法庭：\n可以。好。这是我想谈的一件事。\n\n5 我想谈的另一件事是，这并非——并非——程序尚未——Tancredi法官昨日在Norwich Diocese—Roman Catholic Diocese（诺里奇教区—罗马天主教教区）一案中作出命令，并且显然于2月15日就Epiq（Epiq）披露机密信息以及该案性虐待受害人的姓名和地址举行了听证会。\n\n12 受害人现已在District Court of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦地区法院）提起诉讼，要求Epiq就该披露承担损害赔偿责任；而且据称，我——我相信我可以准确地说，他们正在寻求将该诉讼认证为集体诉讼，并主张Epiq在全国各地及加拿大的数个案件中披露了机密信息。这是我的理解。\n\n20 本案申报债权截止日期已经届满。本法庭书记官办公室在Epiq收到本案债权申报的同一期间收到了本案债权申报。因此，本法庭现有一份债权登记册，而Epiq显然尚未完成对其所有债权的处理。\n\n案件22-50073\n文件1550\n提交日期03/16/23\n录入日期03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 但目前，鉴于包括Tancredi法官的命令在内的许多问题，该债权登记册不向公众公开；他担心的是整个司法系统的这一问题，而不仅限于他的案件。明白吗？\n\n5 因此，很可能——而且我认为这确实不会影响任何人，除了我认为应当告诉你们——很可能Epiq现有的或将有的所有债权材料都将移交本法庭，本法庭将维护非机密债权人和机密债权人的债权登记册。\n\n11 本案中应当作出的任何送达，如同已于2月8日就Epiq服务作出的命令所规定的那样——该命令是在我完全不知道Norwich Diocese案件中发生何事时作出的——其中规定，他们，即Epiq，只能依照法庭、书记官或第11章受托人的指示进行送达。\n\n18 因此，我认为——我认为这是适当的处理方式，因为我们也都知道，我的理解仍然是，已提交约1,300项债权，而在本案某个阶段，很可能会就其中许多债权的有效性提出大量问题。\n\n24 所以，由我们在本法庭处理这些债权更有意义，因为Epiq——\n\n案件22-50073\n文件1550\n提交日期03/16/23\n录入日期03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 显然曾作证称，他们——嗯，他们想摆脱——我不应该——那样说不公平。不是摆脱。他们正在根据Tancredi法官的命令，出于具体原因，将该案中的债权处理及其他事项移交给另一名债权代理人，尽管该案有资金支付债权代理人的费用。\n\n7 我看不出在本案中这样做的理由。我认为截止日期已经届满。我们收到所有债权。我们在本法庭和书记官办公室处理这些债权，正如法律要求书记官办公室所做的那样。\n\n11 那么，有人对此有任何疑虑吗？我知道我——我们可以——我想，你们可以明天提出，如果——显然你们确实还没有时间思考此事。\n\n15 我不记得——我们既然在这里，我现在可以查找。我可以尝试找到Tancredi法官昨天作出的命令。我见过该命令，所以我知道它存在。但我不知道它是否就在我面前。\n\n19 DESPINS先生：\n那么，法官阁下，如果可以的话，我能否就此——简要说明一下？\n\n21 法庭：\n可以。\n\n22 DESPINS先生：\nLuc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。我知道正在发生的事情。我不知道昨天作出的命令，但我知道该案中正在发生的事情。我认为Kindseth先生实际上代表该案中的委员会，但是——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n我们确实曾与Epiq讨论，询问你们采取了什么措施，以确保这里不会发生类似情况。\n\n法庭：\n是。但不幸的是，根据Tancredi法官的说法，他们没有采取任何措施，Despins受托人。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n不，不。我明白。所以我并不是——\n\n法庭：\n而且我想他实际上——这项昨天作出的命令。他要求他们除已作证外，还须提交一份声明，说明他们将采取什么措施。我只是——本案有太多事情在进行。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n好。\n\n法庭：\n我不能耗尽我的人生——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n不，我明白。\n\n法庭：\n——担心债权申报。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n不，不。我们——\n\n法庭：\n我的意思是，这——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我们明白，法官阁下。所以——\n\n法庭：\n这对我而言毫无道理。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n因此，我们并非试图为Epiq辩护。我只是想让您知道，我们曾试图——\n\n法庭：\n好。\n\n案件22-50073\n文件1550\n提交日期03/16/23\n录入日期03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 DESPINS先生：\n——对此加以防范。\n\n2 法庭：\n我感谢这一点。\n\n3 DESPINS先生：\n我希望能够与负责该程序的同事交谈，以便我能够对法官阁下的立场作出更明智的回应，但是——我可以明天就此报告。\n\n7 法庭：\n我现在正在找那个案件。而且我可能只是在错误的地方查找。但也许不是。请给我一点时间。\n\n10 DESPINS先生：\n好。\n\n11 法庭：\n那么，Kindseth律师，你知道案号吗？你参与该案，不是吗？还是——\n\n14 CLAIBORN女士：\nNorwich案件的案号？\n\n15 身份不明的发言人：\n我想是21——\n\n16 法庭：\n好。等一下。这个——\n\n17 CLAIBORN女士：\n是21-20687。\n\n18 法庭：\n21-20867。\n\n19 CLAIBORN女士：\n20687。\n\n20 法庭：\n哦，20687。谢谢。\n\n21 DESPINS先生：\n谢谢。\n\n22 CLAIBORN女士：\n法官阁下，如果我可以在记录中补充一点意见，即在本案中使用Epiq的原因之一，是担心可能提交债权申报的债权人会担心向债务人和／或债务人阵营中的人员披露其地址和公开信息。\n\n案件22-50073\n文件1550\n提交日期03/16/23\n录入日期03/16/23 21:47:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月7日\n\n1 我所见的是，尽管截止日期已经届满，债权人仍在继续提交债权申报。因此，在我们必须找出更好的解决方案以保护债权人的范围内，我们需要考虑到，可能存在适当地逾期提交债权申报、且需要被视为机密并受到保护的债权人。\n\n11 法庭：\n毫无疑问。如果Epiq获得该信息，他们将必须继续把它移交给我们。这正是2月8日的命令所规定的。因此，我理解你的意思。\n\n15 并且预期是，如果发生这种情况，法庭将——嗯，我不是指法庭。书记官办公室将如法律要求的那样，成为案件中所有债权的保管机构。届时将有一份不向公众公开的机密债权登记册。我的意思是，在法庭进一步命令作出之前，只能如此。\n\n23 我只是——我——除维护我们所有人——每个人都同意是适当且已被命令要求的事项外，我不想再花任何时间担心——\n\n只要既有保密索赔请求又有非保密索赔请求，我们书记官办公室可以处理。我不希望——根据我被告知和所见——有一个人在按按钮，而该人在 Norwich（诺里奇）案及其他案件中曾多次按下按钮，披露了该等信息。\n\n我不会允许那种情况。我不需要在本案中出现那种情况。明白吗？这样说合理吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。还有其他人希望就该问题发表意见吗？好。那么，我们明天可以再多谈谈。好吧？\n\n但这是一个严重问题，而且外面存在一些严重指控。我完全理解为何有人请求聘请 Epiq（Epiq）来做这件事——即提交保密索赔请求。但是，如果我们不能确信那些保密索赔请求将保持保密，那么我就不需要处理——我只是不明白继续这样做有什么意义。明白吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：明白。\n\n法院：好。这就处理完了今天日程上的所有事项。即使你们在明天 1:00 p.m. 前就金塞斯先生的证言达成协议，我们仍将讨论 PJR 听证会，对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 182 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023 182\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法院：这正确吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好。\n\n林赛先生：法官阁下？\n\n法院：是。\n\n林赛先生：我们联系了位于 Lexington（列克星敦）的 HCHK（HCHK）的律师。他们确实提交了那份撤回通知。\n\n法院：我刚刚在查看案卷时看到了，谢谢。因此，我看到了原定于今天日程上的那项动议被撤回。我正在看法庭书记官。它会显示出来。该动议是在我们今天开庭期间被撤回的。\n\n法庭书记官：好的。\n\n法院：好的？\n\n法庭书记官：是。\n\n法院：好。谢谢各位。我明天见。我们明天 1:00 p.m. 见。现在休庭。\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢。\n\n（庭审于 5:22 p.m. 休庭。）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1550 Filed 03/16/23 Entered 03/16/23 21:47:05 Page 183 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 7, 2023\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的笔录员及认证电子记录员兼笔录员，证明上述内容系根据上述案件庭审程序的官方电子录音制作的正确笔录。\n\nMarch 15, 2023\nChristine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Je","Paul Hastings","CCP","CIPA","Miles Guo","Luc Despins","Himalaya","HCHK","GETTR"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":6,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1216,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1397,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1453,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1455,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":52734,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-03-16 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-03-16","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:17:14"}