{"id":"court_ctb_1634_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1634,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-04-05","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"听证会庭审记录（Transcript）—— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1634（2023-04-05立案）。记录了 2023 年 3 月 23 日 Julie A. Manning 法官主持的听证会，审理内容包括撤销传票动议、强制动议、受托人聘请英国律所 Pallas Partners LLP 的申请以及债权申报门户开放期限等事项。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1634 (filed 2023-04-05). Official transcript of the March 23, 2023 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning covering motions to quash subpoenas, motions to compel, the Trustee's application to retain Pallas Partners LLP as UK solicitors, and claims submission portal procedures.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003 INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, \\* \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut Plaintiff, \\* March 23, 2023 \\* v. \\* \\* LUC A, DESPINS, \\* \\* Defendant. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FROM TRUSTEE; OBJECTION AND CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL; APPLICATION TO EMPLOY PALLAS PARTNERS LLP AS U.K. SOLICITORS; MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FILED BY RICHARD N. FREETH; OBJECTION AND CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL and MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER TO MARCH 27, 2023 BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Defendant, NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ. Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 G. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ. Trustee: Paul Hastings, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 DOUGLAS G. SKALKA, ESQ. PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd.) Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Creditors Committee: KRISTIN MAYHEW, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 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 Jiaming Liu and RICHARD N. FREETH, ESQ. Himalaya Investment LLC, Freeth & Associates Interested Party: 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 For Pacific Alliance Asia STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Opportunity Fund, L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers, LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 For Mei Guo and HK Int'l AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Funds Investment (USA): Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 LEE VARTAN, ESQ. Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, P.C. One Boland Drive West Orange, NJ 07052\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 3 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 11:07 a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, and Case No. 22-5003, HK International Funds Investments versus Despins. THE COURT: Good morning. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. BASSETT: Good morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: And counsel for the -- go ahead, Attorney Bassett. I was just going to say and counsel for the Trustee, please. MR. BASSETT: Sorry, Your Honor. Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. SKALKA: Good morning, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka, as local counsel of Neubert Pepe & Monteith, on behalf of the Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. SMITH: Good morning, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff, of O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of creditor PAX. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. SMITH: Good morning, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, of Robinson & Cole, Connecticut counsel for PAX.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 4 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 4 THE COURT: Good morning. MS. MAYHEW: Good morning, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Creditors Committee. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. CLAIBORN: Good morning, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. Then, Attorney Freeth, the motions -- you have some motions on at 10 o'clock. Could you please note your appearance for the record. MR. FREETH: Sure. Richard Freeth, Freeth & Associates, for Interested Party Liu. THE COURT: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you, Mr. Freeth. Could you speak -- I don't know where your microphone is, but our record in the bankruptcy court is all audio so we -- if we can't hear you, that won't pick up, it won't make a record, so I'm going to ask you to do that again, please. MR. FREETH: Understood. My apologies. My name is Richard Freeth, Freeth & Associates, and I am here on behalf of -- for lack of a better term we call it an Interested Party, Mr. Liu, L-I-U, who received a subpoena, actually two subpoenas. THE COURT: And are you also appearing on behalf\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 5 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 5 of a corporate entity? MR. FREETH: Yes. His LLC, which is called Himalaya Investments -- Investment, LLC. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Attorney Linsey, did you want to note your appearance for the record? MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm up in Judge Tancredi's court this morning, but I'm trying to be on when I can. I apologize for coming in late. Patrick Linsey, Connecticut counsel for the Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. All right. So on the calendar at 11:00 a.m. are some discovery disputes, but also an application to employ that the Chapter 11 Trustee has filed with regard to retention of a solicitor in London. And I'd like to take that application to employ first please, which is 1496. MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. We filed this application to retain the Pallas firm as our solicitors. As you recall, that we had disclosed, this is at the beginning of the case, that Paul Hastings represented certain UBS entities and we had, you know, indicated that the firm would not be involved. I was able to (indiscernible) to UBS, but the firm would not be involved in the UBS matters.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 6 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 6 And that issue was also raised in the U.K. proceedings by Ace Decade and others. And we confirmed to the court in the U.K. that only I would be receiving information regarding UBS and would be retaining a separate solicitor firm to handle the UBS matters. And so that's how we're before the Court on the retention of the Pallas firm to be our solicitor counsel with respect to UBS matters in the U.K., Your Honor. I don't know if Your Honor has specific questions. THE COURT: I do not have any questions at the moment other than once the solicitor is retained, if no one opposes it, and I think the United States Trustee's Office has filed a statement of no objection, what are the next steps in the litigation in England? MR. DESPINS: So as I mentioned at the last hearing, UBS was unsuccessful in its attempt in the Court of Appeals to get the jurisdictional decision reversed, so now it goes back to the lower court, the trial court, and we believe that UBS has three months from the date of service of that Court of Appeals order, which just happened yesterday or the day before, to file a defense to the claim, so that's the next step. Obviously, there are issues, as I mentioned, with respect to costs and in the sense that in the U.K. if you're not successful in the litigation, your costs would be\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 7 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 7 awarded against the party that's not successful. And UBS is raising that issue vis-a-vis the Trustee and also vis-a-vis Ace Decade, and those issues are percolating now. So these are not public filings but they're hanging in the background. Basically UBS's position is that it needs to be protected in the event it prevails for the fees and expenses incurred in its defense. So that's the -- so the next steps is not for several months, Your Honor, but there's a lot of activity in the background with respect to these issues that I just described. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for that update. I appreciate that. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. I filed a statement of no objection which is at ECF 1542. THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. I've seen that statement of no objection. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the application of the Trustee to retain and employ Pallas as solicitors in the United Kingdom? (No response.) THE COURT: All right. Hearing nothing, then, no one has filed any written objection to the application and\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 8 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
8 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | there is no one participating in this hearing today that is |\n| 2 | objecting to the application.
I understand the reasons why |\n| 3 | the Trustee is seeking to retain the solicitors in the |\n| 4 | United Kingdom.
So for all those reasons, the application |\n| 5 | is granted. |\n| 6 | Trustee Despins, I'm going to make very minor |\n| 7 | changes to the proposed order, and they're not substantive |\n| 8 | in any way, in my opinion, the second page of the order. |\n| 9 | I think it's probably because the Southern |\n| 10 | District of New York has amended its standing order of |\n| 11 | reference, but the United States District Court for the |\n| 12 | District of Connecticut has not, so it's still -- the order |\n| 13 | of reference is still the order from 1984 signed by Judge |\n| 14 | Daly who was the District Court Judge at the time, Chief |\n| 15 | District Court Judge at the time, so I'm going to remove the |\n| 16 | words as amended at the top, the fourth line on page 2 of |\n| 17 | the order. |\n| 18 | And then before it is hereby ordered language, all |\n| 19 | I'm going to say is -- after a hearing held on -- just take |\n| 20 | out the after due deliberation and sufficient cause, we've |\n| 21 | already found all that above. |\n| 22 | So just change that, those minor changes and then |\n| 23 | the order will enter unless you have any concerns about what |\n| 24 | I just said. |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Not at all, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 9 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
9 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 2 | So the application is granted and the order will |\n| 3 | enter with minor changes noted on the record.
Okay?
I |\n| 4 | assume that will be later today or tomorrow at the latest. |\n| 5 | And I agree that your application was filed under |\n| 6 | our local rules within the time -- within 30 days of when |\n| 7 | the solicitor started rendering services, so that their |\n| 8 | services will be effective as of January 26th, 2023.
Okay? |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | Now, moving onto the other matters at 11:00, there |\n| 12 | are, Attorney Freeth has filed a motion to quash a subpoena |\n| 13 | directed to his individual client, which is ECF No. 1465, |\n| 14 | and a motion to quash subpoena directed to the corporate |\n| 15 | entity, which Attorney Freeth has described this morning as |\n| 16 | the individual's LLC, which is 1541.
And each one of those |\n| 17 | motions has an objection and cross-motion to compel filed by |\n| 18 | the Trustee. |\n| 19 | So, Attorney Freeth, to me, and you can -- you can |\n| 20 | state if you think I'm incorrect, but I believe the |\n| 21 | objections that you have in your motion to quash in both the |\n| 22 | subpoena directed to the individual and the subpoena |\n| 23 | directed to the corporation are substantially the same, is |\n| 24 | that correct? |\n| 25 | MR. FREETH:
Yes. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 10 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 10 THE COURT: Okay. MR. FREETH: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And then I see, it seems to me anyway, that there have been some discussions had between the parties with regard to the subpoenas but, I believe, unless something has occurred recently, that there's no agreement with regard to these motions between the parties, is that correct? MR. FREETH: At the moment, that's correct. THE COURT: Okay. So you, Attorney Freeth, want to quash the subpoenas because you believe that the Trustee shouldn't have served them, he should have done more due diligence and that they're broad, overly broad, is that correct? MR. FREETH: Well, the first half, yes, (indiscernible). The second half are technical things as far as CP -- it's cited in the motion. But he's in Scottsdale, Arizona, Mr. Liu, and his LLC is an Arizona LLC. And the subpoenas that he received directed him to appear and produce, and et cetera, in New York, obviously, more than 100 miles from where he resides or works, and so we have a technical issue that was the other half of my arguments for the quash. THE COURT: Okay. But I've read -- I think I've read in the documents that were in response to the motion to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 11 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 11 quash, that the Trustee has offered to travel to Arizona and conduct the deposition in Arizona within 100 miles of where your client, individual client, either lives or the business -- the business address of the corporate client, isn't that correct? MR. FREETH: That was brought up in our discussions. Again, we didn't have a conclusion to those discussions. We started talking and then the, well, the filed a motion to (indiscernible). The client gave the message to me that, okay, well, I guess we're not negotiating anything (indiscernible). THE COURT: I can't understand what you're saying. Attorney Freeth, I can't understand what you're saying. MR. FREETH: I'm sorry. THE COURT: You just have to talk closer to the microphone because I can't understand the words. I understood some of it, but I didn't understand all of it. MR. FREETH: I apologize. I'm fighting a cold, so I'm not exactly -- THE COURT: Okay. That may be. Yeah. That may be the reason why it sounds funny. Go ahead. MR. FREETH: I'll start from the beginning of what I -- the last part that I just said. We were in discussions to have some sort of solutions like that, but to me that begged the question he's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 12 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 12 the wrong person. They named him because he happened to choose Himalaya, which is the largest mountain chain in the world, (indiscernible), so he gets dragged into (indiscernible) and he has to spend his time dealing with a thing that -- I volunteered to provide an affidavit. I spent time with him on the phone. I went over every single element of the subpoenas to confirm that what he's telling me (indiscernible) case was correct, that he doesn't know any of the parties, has no information, has no documentation, doesn't even know 99 percent of the people, I've vaguely heard of Mr. Kwok. That's it. And that was where we left off. But as I mentioned, when we were trying to talk of some way to resolve things, they filed a motion to compel, which to me communicated that they want to do things forcefully. So I guess there's nothing else for me to say at this point other than hope that we can get to a resolution with the motion to quash. THE COURT: Okay. Well, you -- both sides have ongoing obligations to meet and confer and act in good faith with regard to discovery requests under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You indicated, Attorney Freeth, that you offered an affidavit, but I haven't seen any affidavit from your\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 13 client yet, have I? I don't see anything in the record of this case. MR. FREETH: No. We drafted it already. I can have it submitted probably in 48 hours if he can sign it before a notary out in Arizona. I'm assuming he has access to them somewhere in Scottsdale. So it's already drafted. We can probably turn it around maybe even in 24 hours. THE COURT: Have you shown that affidavit to Mr. Despins or his counsel? MR. FREETH: No, we can -- no, I don't believe we did. So I can send that to him first for his approval. THE COURT: Well, it's not necessarily his approval, but it's -- if yor clients -- see, first of all, Attorney Freeth, in bankruptcy cases, Rule 2004 discovery is broad and it's akin to a fishing exposition -- expedition. There's a number of cases that say that. It is broader than a subpoena in a specific lawsuit or adversary proceeding because in certain cases, like the case that is before this court now, the Trustee's charged with investigating the affairs of the debtor in order to determine whether or not there are assets available to pay the claims of creditors. MR. FREETH: Of course. THE COURT: So while you're -- while you may -- I think you -- I know you've argued that the subpoenas are Case 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 13 of 52\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 14 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
14 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | broad.
That's not necessarily a basis to quash a subpoena |\n| 2 | in connection with a Rule 2004 examination, number one. |\n| 3 | Number two, I have read in the papers that the |\n| 4 | Trustee and his counsel are willing to come to Arizona to |\n| 5 | conduct the deposition and to obtain document. |\n| 6 | So I'm not sure what -- why that -- you continue |\n| 7 | to raise the objection about it being outside of New York, |\n| 8 | because they've already said they're going to come to |\n| 9 | Arizona to do that.
So I don't see that that's a |\n| 10 | sustainable objection or basis to grant your motion to |\n| 11 | quash. |\n| 12 | So the two bases upon which you've asserted in |\n| 13 | your motion that the subpoenas should be quashed that the |\n| 14 | discovery is overly broad and the Trustee hasn't done |\n| 15 | anything that he needs to do for due diligence is not a -- |\n| 16 | is not a basis upon which this court would grant a motion to |\n| 17 | quash a Rule 2004 subpoena. |\n| 18 | And your other basis for outside of -- 100 miles |\n| 19 | outside of Arizona, the Trustee has stated in pleadings in |\n| 20 | this case that he will go to Arizona.
So that's another -- |\n| 21 | that basis to grant a motion to quash is also not |\n| 22 | sustainable at this point. |\n| 23 | So what other arguments do you have that would -- |\n| 24 | that you would like the Court to consider in your assertion |\n| 25 | that the subpoenas should be quashed? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 15 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 15 MR. FREETH: Well, to be specific, the subpoena says -- it doesn't say anything about going to Arizona. It's only what he said after a reasonable -- THE COURT: I understand it doesn't say. We're beyond the subpoena now. We're at the motion to quash stage and the response, right? And the response says that they're going to go to Arizona. So I'm not going to make your clients come to New York. That's fine. MR. FREETH: Okay. THE COURT: But they've already -- they've already conceded one of your arguments in your motion to quash, which is, okay, then we'll go to Arizona. So that's taken care of. MR. FREETH: Okay. THE COURT: So what's -- MR. FREETH: I believe that -- I believe that my client would do as, you know, instructed if this is what the order of the Court is, that he -- if someone on behalf of the Trustee goes there and does what they want to do there. I believe he's amenable. My personal objection is that it's a waste of his time. It's not fair to him. But if you're going to order that, even though he clearly (indiscernible), you don't have to take my word for it, or his word for it, I understand, but I do think it's practically speaking a waste of the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 16 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 16 Trustee's time and my client's time. But, sure. THE COURT: Well, maybe the Trustee would agree with you if you provided him with an affidavit that is signed by your client individually and your client on behalf of the corporation. I don't know. But he hasn't been provided with that yet, so he doesn't have anything to work with other than what he had originally which was a right to conduct a Rule 2004 examination and subpoena the individual client and the corporate client. So it's possible that if you provide him that with information. I have no idea. But with regard to your motions to quash and the bases set forth in your motions to quash, the Court finds that your argument about the 100-mile issue, which is a valid argument, is moot because the Trustee is going to go to Arizona. That's what he said. So he's already conceded that part of your argument. MR. FREETH: Okay. THE COURT: The argument with regard to the broadness of the subpoena, again, under Rule 2004, that's what is allowed under the bankruptcy rules. And I'm not suggesting that you would necessarily understand that unless you practiced in the Bankruptcy Court, but that is a well-known -- a well-known and well-settled principle of discovery under Rule 2004 of the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 17 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 17 bankruptcy rules. And that has been cited across the country in almost every jurisdiction as a broader discovery than would be allowed under the discovery rules in a specific adversary proceeding or civil cause of action. MR. FREETH: I understand that, Your Honor. THE COURT: So how would you like to proceed, Attorney Freeth? Are you going to -- how would you like to proceed? MR. FREETH: I can provide to counsel for the Trustee our draft or proposed affidavit for our client to sign time. And if they find it acceptable or some versions thereof acceptable, then we could resolve it that way quickly. Barring that, then my client, I believe, would appear, if he was instructed to by counsel. So if need be, then we can do it that way. But I'd like to be able to save everybody time. So maybe if I can have a window, at least maybe a day, where I can provide them. Like I said, this is rough. As soon as I'm off the phone to the counsel for the Trustee I'll draft a subpoena -- I'm sorry, affidavit. And if they find it acceptable, we can have it signed within a day or two. THE COURT: Trustee Despins or Attorney Bassett?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 18 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 18 MR. BASSETT: Yeah. Your Honor, Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Trustee. I'll be addressing this matter this morning. So just -- just a couple of remarks, and I'll respond specifically to the proposal regarding the affidavit in a moment. And I do feel compelled to raise this because in the papers, Your Honor, there were accusations that the Trustee and/or his counsel had failed to act with professionalism in pursuing the subpoena. I think that's paragraph 2 of the motion to quash. Obviously, we take exception to that. And I can assure the Court that the Trustee did have a good-faith basis for pursuing the subpoena. As the Court is aware, as it has come up in the past hearings on numerous occasions, you know, we've told the Court that the Trustee has a number of people who have provided information concerning the debtor and his organization, and that it is including the Himalaya entities with which the Court is very familiar from the PI hearing and otherwise. We filed this particular 2004 motion in I believe it was December of 2022. Prior to that, in mid-November of 2022, we received a tip or an email from one of the people who often provides us with information identifying some of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 19 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 19 the quote/unquote, \"Himalaya foreign entities.\" One of the entities in that email was Himalaya New World, Inc., which the Court may remember was the entity owned by a witness who testified in support of the debtor at his PI hearing. That tip obviously turned out to be correct as that witness confirmed on the stand. Another entity, an individual, named in that correspondence was the recipient of this 2004 subpoena, Mr. Freeth's client, and the entity that he controls. So that was the basis for serving it at that time. Your Honor, since then, you know, we've done further diligence. And just to point out a couple of things in the papers, Attorney Freeth said that his client is, you know, working as a delivery person at approximately \\$3,000 a month. That's his job. What we've come to understand, is in addition to this LLC in which we've received no explanation as to what type of business it's engaged in if it's not related to the debtor or his group of companies. In addition to that, Mr. Liu, the target of the subpoena, is the co-trustee of another entity called the Himalaya Revocable Trust. This is all from public property records in Arizona. That entity in turn owns at least five, maybe six, different real properties which appear to have a value of at least two to \\$3 million.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 20 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 20 And, you know, look, it could be -- it could be a coincidence. You know, these entities may have nothing to do the debtor. In this case, it could have been wrong. So as we told Mr. Freeth that we are willing to entertain an affidavit. We have no incentive to put anyone through unnecessary burdens in responding to a subpoena if they actually have no relevant information. In fact, I think the correspondence between us sort of left off on March 10th where Attorney Linsey had told Attorney Freeth that if he wanted to send an affidavit, we would consider that. And we stand by that. And we will consider whatever he would want to send. The only thing I would note is that, you know, that affidavit, for it to be acceptable to the Trustee, cannot simply say, you know, I know nothing and my Himalaya entities have nothing to do with the debtor. You know, given the circumstances, we're obviously going to require some explanation as to, you know, what do these entities actually do then. You know, how did he come to acquire these properties, things of that nature, to help us reconcile the assertion with sort of the facts that we've come to understand. The last thing I would note that is a connection that I think would need to be addressed is that Attorney Freeth happens to be the attorney who is counsel for a group\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 21 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 21 of plaintiffs who filed a FARA action against Paul Hastings asserting that Paul Hastings and Trustee Despins are somehow acting at the behest -- acting at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party, et cetera. So, again, maybe that's a coincidence, but I think the affidavit needs to address how this individual came to be represented by Attorney Freeth. So these are the types of the details that we're going to need to have addressed for us to get comfortable that there's nothing further to explore here. The last thing I'd note is that we, as the Court recognized, you know, we would come to Arizona. We also had proposed to make it easier for everybody to do the deposition, if there is one, remotely. And obviously the documents, as is customary, could be provided electronically to resolve any concern about that as well. So with that, Your Honor, that's all I have to say. I don't think it's a basis to quash the subpoena. But the Trustee will be reasonable in continuing to work with Mr. Freeth and his client to see if there's a way to resolve this without imposing an unnecessary, undue burden on anyone. THE COURT: Attorney Freeth? MR. FREETH: Your Honor, might I be heard? Oh, thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 22 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 22 THE COURT: Attorney Freeth, any response? MR. FREETH: The latter part of Mr. Bassett's comments about other businesses or LLC's, I have no knowledge about. So it may be that -- maybe it would behoove everyone for them to do this in person because they have the information that I spoke with Mr. Liu. According to him, you know, he's a simple guy. He only has this one business entity that he created to try to do a real estate project that never even got off the ground. This other information is new to me. I don't know. I don't know any of this. So if he's involved with other businesses, then maybe the ability to resolve this by an affidavit is wishful thinking. And I do object to their deposing other matters not relevant to this pending matter. I don't think -- I don't think it's relevant at all as far as my relationship with a particular client. I'm not going to get into that. So that's all I have to say. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FREETH: I'm willing to try to -- THE COURT: So what I need to know, Attorney Freeth, are you withdrawing these motions to quash then because you're going -- because you're acknowledging that the Trustee's going to examine your clients and require\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 23 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 23 documents? MR. FREETH: No. If they're going to withdraw the motions to compel, I'll withdraw the motion to quash, and we'll operate under the -- under the subpoenas as they are and just have them done, executed in Arizona by agreement. THE COURT: Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I missed the question that was directed to me. THE COURT: What I'm asking is, given what we just discussed this morning, I asked Attorney Freeth is he was going to withdraw the motions to quash the subpoenas, because he's just said that even though he may give an affidavit it may not be enough. And that as long as you're going to come to Arizona and conduct these depositions in person that you should proceed with the subpoenas as issued and that you'll -- What Attorney Freeth didn't say, but I would order, is that the parties confer on a date and time for these depositions to -- these Rule 2004 examinations to occur. Then he asked in response, and he said, I asked if he was, Attorney Freeth, if he was going to withdraw the motions to quash and he said he would do so if you withdrew your objection and your cross-motion to compel. MR. BASSETT: If the result, Your Honor, is that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 24 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 24 Mr. Freeth's clients are going to comply with the subpoenas, then, of course, we would withdraw the motion to compel. And his withdrawal of the motion to quash obviously would be acceptable as well. THE COURT: Okay. So then what we're going to do is, ECF 1465, the motion to quash the subpoena is withdrawn on the record for the reasons stated on the record. And the objection and cross-motion to compel is withdrawn as well on the record for the reasons stated on the record. And the same will be true with regard to the motion to quash that was filed on behalf of the corporate entity and the objection to that motion and the motion to -- the cross-motion to compel. And what the parties need to do now is you need to get together and agree on dates for compliance with the subpoena, including the date by which the documents will be produced and that are responsive to the subpoena and the date on which the examinations will be held. Okay? MR. FREETH: I've got it. Yes. THE COURT: All right. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further with regard to the discovery matters? (No response.)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 25 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
25 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 2 | Attorney Freeth, we have another matter on the |\n| 3 | calendar at 11:30 that does not involve you.
You're welcome |\n| 4 | to stay, but you do not have to stay.
That's your choice. |\n| 5 | MR. FREETH:
Appreciate it, Your Honor.
Thank |\n| 6 | you, very much. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 8 | MR. FREETH:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
All right.
Then on the calendar at |\n| 10 | 11:30, the Court set a hearing this morning on the motion to |\n| 11 | extend time to respond to a preliminary injunction order |\n| 12 | filed on behalf of Mei Guo and HK International Fund |\n| 13 | Investments and required Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan |\n| 14 | to -- and/or, but it appears they're both here, so I would |\n| 15 | need you both to note your appearances for the record, |\n| 16 | please. |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you. |\n| 18 | Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, on behalf of Mei |\n| 19 | Guo and HKI Investments. |\n| 20 | MR. VARTAN: Good morning, Your Honor.
Lee Vartan |\n| 21 | on behalf of the same parties. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 23 | All right.
I set this hearing because the motion |\n| 24 | to extend the time that you filed at, you know, whatever |\n| 25 | time it was, a little after 11:00, which was timely, didn't |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 26 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 26 provide at least the Court with the understanding of why you needed additional time until March 27. The information that was to be provided was Ms. Guo's individual address and the landowner of the building or apartment she lives which you agreed to provide and it would be deemed highly confidential in connection with the protective order that's been in place in the main case since, you know, I don't have the date in front of me, but it's August at the -- for months, for lack of a better term. So why do you need additional time to provide that information to the Trustee that you agreed, during the hearing on March 15th that we had, that you would provide to the Trustee and designate that as highly confidential in connection or in accordance with the provisions of the protective order. MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I can clarify that. So we were required under the Court's order to provide the information that Your Honor just put on the record by Friday, March 17th, which we did do. We did provide that information to Mr. Bassett and to Mr. Luft. The information that was required to be provided by yesterday, we did bring information. It was under -- the information was to be provided under I believe subparagraph (d) of the preliminary injunction order, which I think is Docket Entry 142.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 27 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
27 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And what information is that? |\n| 2 | MR. VARTAN:
That information had to do with any |\n| 3 | and all property that was owned or controlled by HK USA or |\n| 4 | Ms. Guo, individually.
And the property was not defined |\n| 5 | anywhere in the order, but that was really not the reason, |\n| 6 | of course, for seeking additional time as we put forward in |\n| 7 | our submission from last night. |\n| 8 | Ms. Guo is in the process of looking to obtain |\n| 9 | criminal counsel to advise her on all that's going on.
And |\n| 10 | some of this, of course, Your Honor is well familiar with |\n| 11 | based upon our last appearance on March 15th. |\n| 12 | She's not yet retained criminal counsel and she |\n| 13 | needs criminal counsel to consult with Mr. Romney and with |\n| 14 | me about how she's going to proceed with respect to the |\n| 15 | obligations under the preliminary injunction order. |\n| 16 | Then I believe, Your Honor, there's a PJR order |\n| 17 | within 30 days of entry of that order, which I believe was |\n| 18 | March 17th, Ms. Guo is required to sit for a deposition. |\n| 19 | And, again, she would want to consult with criminal counsel |\n| 20 | before she does though.
That's not time sensitive in the |\n| 21 | same way the corporate March 22nd obligation was. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
All right.
Let's go back.
Because |\n| 23 | the preliminary injunction order, you're saying she had to |\n| 24 | produce what in connection? |\n| 25 | First of all, it's at HK, but, what paragraph are |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 28 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 28 you saying that she needed to provide information and she has not yet? What is the -- I don't see what you're talking about. Are you sure you're not talking about the prejudgment remedy order, the motion for disclosure of assets, that's part of that order? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, this is Trustee Despins here. It's subparagraph (d) of the preliminary injunction order. The counter defendant shall identify to the Trustee and to the Court within five days of entry of this order, so last Friday -- THE COURT: Oh, (d), (d), okay. MR. DESPINS: -- any other property in which they hold an interest. And counter defendant shall not transfer, encumber, remove or dispose, et cetera, et cetera, of such property. THE COURT: Okay. So subparagraph (d) of page -- okay. I see. I couldn't -- I didn't understand that's what Mr. Vartan said. All right. So, Mr. Vartan, as we discussed last week, neither HK or Mei Guo are under indictment, so what -- what is -- you know, I mean, getting criminal -- you agreed to -- you consented and agreed to the entry of this order. And there's no -- unless you're showing me there's some indictment that issued in the last two or three days\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 29 against Mei Guo or HK International, then I don't understand the need for additional time. MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, there is no new indictment. But what we had put on the record on the 15th, and will again put on the record here is that Ms. Guo is at least named glancingly in the indictment as relative one or relative two. I think Your Honor is aware that she is named as a relief defendant in the SEC complaint. Since we were before Your Honor, I learned that there was a companion complaint, not an indictment, that was issued out of the Southern District of New York. We know of no charges against Ms. Guo. We know of no imminent charges against Ms. Guo. There may never be charges. But the point is that we're operating five days into all of this. There's a lot going on, as I know Your Honor knows. And Ms. Guo, as do Mr. Romney and I, feel it's prudent for her to consult with criminal counsel before making further representations given that there is effectively complete overlap, as I understand it, between what's happening in this court in the adversary proceeding and what has been itemized or described in the indictment and the SEC complaint. So we understand, of course, what the order says. Case 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 29 of 52\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 30 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 30 We did not want to ignore the obligation in the order which is why she is seeking criminal counsel to consult with her. We would ask for a brief adjournment or continuance for us to meet or address that obligation. I think Monday is not so significant, and ask -- given the fact that the indictment was just handed down on March 15th. THE COURT: Trustee Despins or Mr. Bassett, what's your position regarding the requested extension of time? MR. BASSETT: Sure. I'm happy to address that, Your Honor. Again, Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Trustee. You know, our position is I think consistent with some of the remarks the Court made insofar as, you know, this order was consented to and it contained the deadline that it contains at the time of that consent. It was then submitted to the Court, again, contained that language and there was no response or objection to the deadline at that time. So it seems to us that, you know, there's really no basis for this request at this time. All that being said, you know, they are requesting in this instance, which, you know, by comparison is a relatively modest extension as compared to other requests that have been made, so I think the Trustee is prepared to not oppose an extension to Monday, which is next Monday,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 31 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
31 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | March 27th, to provide this information subject to, you |\n| 2 | know, a couple of I would say caveats or conditions, the |\n| 3 | first of which is the Trustee expects and would respectfully |\n| 4 | request that the Court order that there be no further |\n| 5 | extension beyond next Monday. |\n| 6 | Obviously, we don't want to be in a position where |\n| 7 | this is just the first request and then Monday comes around |\n| 8 | and we find out they need more time.
In that circumstance, |\n| 9 | the Trustee would certainly have an issue. |\n| 10 | The other point that I would make is -- and we've |\n| 11 | already been down the road of the debtor at least in this |\n| 12 | case asserting that he can't provide any information at all |\n| 13 | to the Trustee on account of the Fifth Amendment, and his |\n| 14 | Act of Production Doctrine privilege that he's asserted, |\n| 15 | which as the Court is aware from the hearing we had earlier |\n| 16 | this week, the debtor made that assertion over a month ago, |\n| 17 | before any criminal charges were announced. |\n| 18 | So the reason I bring that up is because we also |\n| 19 | don't really want to be in a position where we find out on |\n| 20 | Monday that Ms. Guo and HK are somehow saying they can't |\n| 21 | produce anything, give us any information, on that same |\n| 22 | basis. |\n| 23 | You know, any opposition by the Trustee to this |\n| 24 | request of extension is with the understanding and |\n| 25 | expectation that actual information concerning assets in |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 32 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
32 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | accordance with the order will be provided on Monday. |\n| 2 | So with that, and, again, just to reiterate as we |\n| 3 | have over the last couple of hearings, that the Trustee |\n| 4 | cannot emphasize enough how he does not want to have the |\n| 5 | criminal charges pending against the debtor to be used |\n| 6 | continually for further delay. |\n| 7 | With all the sort of, you know, reservations, if |\n| 8 | you will, in this instance, given the relatively limited |\n| 9 | nature of the request for an extension, we would not have an |\n| 10 | opposition to the extension until Monday being granted. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | Attorney Vartan or Attorney Romney, any response |\n| 13 | to Attorney Bassett? |\n| 14 | MR. VARTAN:
I just have two quick responses, Your |\n| 15 | Honor. |\n| 16 | Certainly we're not going to seek additional time. |\n| 17 | As we've represented to the Court, Ms. Guo is actively |\n| 18 | seeking criminal representation and so that will be secured |\n| 19 | well before Monday, and that attorney, he or she, will be on |\n| 20 | board and able to appropriately advise Ms. Guo. |\n| 21 | Certainly with respect to what that advice is, I |\n| 22 | don't think either Attorney Romney or I are in a position to |\n| 23 | prejudge what criminal counsel is going to tell her.
I |\n| 24 | don't think I'm prepared, nor could I be to say that the |\n| 25 | advice is going to be to produce documents or not produce |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 33 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
33 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | documents.
That's the whole point of her consulting with |\n| 2 | criminal counsel in the first place. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
So what are you going to do then on |\n| 4 | Monday, Attorney Vartan?
How are you going to comply with |\n| 5 | paragraph (d) -- |\n| 6 | MR. VARTAN:
D like door, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Yes.
On page -- how are you going to |\n| 8 | comply with that then?
You're not -- the criminal lawyer |\n| 9 | isn't coming into this court and representing her.
You are. |\n| 10 | So how are you going to comply with that? |\n| 11 | MR. VARTAN:
I wouldn't be in a position to tell |\n| 12 | the Court that at this point because we haven't consulted |\n| 13 | with our client, nor is criminal counsel on board.
So at |\n| 14 | this point, it would be premature for me to say what will |\n| 15 | happen on Monday because there is no criminal attorney |\n| 16 | presently representing Ms. Guo. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
That's not my question.
My question |\n| 18 | is how are you going -- Attorney Vartan, you have to figure |\n| 19 | out what the eventualities are, right?
What are the |\n| 20 | possibilities? |\n| 21 | The possibilities are you either give the Trustee |\n| 22 | an entire list of information that is responsive to (d) or |\n| 23 | you don't.
And if you don't, that's -- you're going to say |\n| 24 | because that's on the advice of her criminal counsel? |\n| 25 | MR. VARTAN:
Again, I can't predict the future -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 34 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
34 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Well, yes, you can. |\n| 2 | MR. VARTAN:
Your Honor is correct. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Because you're her lawyer in this |\n| 4 | courtroom you, can predict the future.
You are saying that |\n| 5 | you need an extension of time to -- because she has to |\n| 6 | consult with a criminal lawyer.
Okay.
And you've said that |\n| 7 | you need that extension of time because you don't -- because |\n| 8 | the criminal lawyer may have to provide her with advice |\n| 9 | about criminal matters.
This isn't a criminal matter.
This |\n| 10 | is a civil action -- |\n| 11 | MR. VARTAN:
But I -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
-- in the Bankruptcy Court in which |\n| 13 | you, as her lawyer, consented to the entry of a preliminary |\n| 14 | injunction. |\n| 15 | So, yes, you can predict what's going to happen. |\n| 16 | You're either going to comply or you're not.
So I want to |\n| 17 | know how you're not going to comply.
What are you going to |\n| 18 | say?
And the lawyer -- you're her lawyer here, Counsel. |\n| 19 | Remember, you're her lawyer. |\n| 20 | MR. VARTAN:
Understood.
Understood.
But all I'm |\n| 21 | saying is, in complying, and we certainly do not waive her |\n| 22 | Constitutional right, nor could we. |\n| 23 | So to the extent that providing certain |\n| 24 | information is going to potentially incriminate her, and |\n| 25 | that's the purpose of consulting with a criminal counsel, we |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 35 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
35 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | may take the position that we're not able to provide some or |\n| 2 | all of the information required. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, if you do that -- |\n| 4 | MR. VARTAN:
But I don't know that at this point. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
-- then you're going to have to |\n| 6 | support that with law.
You're not -- I'm not going -- it's |\n| 7 | not going to be acceptable compliance for you to say on the |\n| 8 | advice of her criminal counsel we are not going -- she's not |\n| 9 | going to comply.
That's not compliance. |\n| 10 | And you have obligations, as a lawyer in this |\n| 11 | court, subject to discovery and other rules that are |\n| 12 | applicable in this case, and the preliminary injunction |\n| 13 | order that you consented to the entry of, your compliance is |\n| 14 | going to have to establish a legal basis why she would not - |\n| 15 | - she and HK would not comply with (d) in the preliminary |\n| 16 | injunction order. |\n| 17 | So, for example, with regard to Mr. Kwok, he |\n| 18 | asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege on February 7th, but |\n| 19 | he didn't say -- he didn't submit any bases legally to |\n| 20 | support why that was applicable to the civil matter that was |\n| 21 | pending in front of him at that time when there was not any |\n| 22 | criminal matter pending against him in that time.
And, |\n| 23 | therefore, those issues are to be briefed and heard.
And |\n| 24 | I'm telling you right now I'm not setting a new |\n| 25 | briefing schedule with regard to this.
You consented to the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 36 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 36 entry of the preliminary injunction. So if you fail to comply, if your attempt at compliance is we've been told by her criminal counsel, whoever that might be, by the way, which you're going to have to disclose, and you're going to have to have an affidavit of that criminal counsel that says I advised my client, or clients, not to respond to the preliminary injunction order, paragraph (d), that they consented to because it exposes them to criminal liability. So you're going to have to do that and you're going to have to have an affidavit of that counsel and you're going to have to have law that supports that claim. Without that, you will not be in compliance with the preliminary injunction order. And then you'll be -- they'll\n\n be subject to further and appropriate relief which could include additional sanctions.\n\n So I want to be very clear that by coming in and saying, well, she needs to get a criminal lawyer so we don't know what's going to happen, that's not accurate. You do know what's going to happen. You're either going to comply or you're not going to comply.\n\n And let's assume that you're not going to comply because you're going to be -- because you're going to say that you were told by criminal counsel that it could implicate her criminally.\n\nWell, again, you're going to have to disclose that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 37 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
37 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | criminal counsel, that criminal counsel's going to have to |\n| 2 | file an affidavit in this court that says that's the advice |\n| 3 | that was provided and that it was -- and it's a proper |\n| 4 | assertion of whatever that advice is sustained by law. |\n| 5 | If those things don't happen, then your clients, |\n| 6 | HK and Ms. Guo, will be in -- will be -- will have violated |\n| 7 | an order which seeks relief to which they consented to. |\n| 8 | Do you have any questions about that? |\n| 9 | MR. VARTAN:
No.
No, Your Honor.
But, you know, |\n| 10 | I guess I would say two things. |\n| 11 | Again, at no point in any of this has Ms. Guo, nor |\n| 12 | could we, or could she waive her Fifth Amendment rights. |\n| 13 | And the whole -- this is not, you know, done against the |\n| 14 | backdrop of speculation or done against the backdrop of the |\n| 15 | potentiality of criminal charges.
There are live criminal |\n| 16 | charges that were brought -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Not against your clients, Mr. Vartan. |\n| 18 | MR. VARTAN:
There's -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Not against your clients. |\n| 20 | MR. VARTAN:
There's a live SEC complaint where my |\n| 21 | client is named as a relief defendant.
And whether she |\n| 22 | makes -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
That's not a criminal action, is it? |\n| 24 | Is that a criminal action or a civil action? |\n| 25 | MR. VARTAN:
There need not be a criminal action |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 38 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 38 pending in order to rightly invoke your Fifth Amendment rights. This is black letter law. THE COURT: So show me the -- it's not black letter law. But you're going to have cite the law -- MR. VARTAN: It is. THE COURT: -- that supports your assertion, Mr. Vartan. That's what you're going to have to do. I think I've been very clear about that. MR. VARTAN: And there's no issue in doing that because, again, there need not be a pending criminal matter in order for someone to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights. That is black letter law. THE COURT: Okay. We'll see. I'd like to see it in black and white, Mr. Vartan. You can show me in your -- MR. VARTAN: I will provide that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Because it's -- it appears likely then what we're going to find on Monday is that you're not going to comply with this order. MR. VARTAN: That's not -- that's not to keep -- again, the whole point of what we put forward to the Court was to say that we want to consult with competent criminal counsel. That that is her right. It makes perfect sense to want to do that here given an indictment and an SEC complaint and another complaint. We don't know what the U.S. Attorney's Office is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 39 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
39 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | thinking about, contemplating or doing. So I can't tell you |\n| 2 | what criminal counsel is going to tell us and, therefore, |\n| 3 | we're going to be representing to the Court or the Trustee. |\n| 4 | What I will say is -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
What other complaint are you talking |\n| 6 | about? |\n| 7 | MR. VARTAN:
That there's a complaint, or there's |\n| 8 | a criminal complaint, against Yvette Wang -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 10 | MR. VARTAN:
-- that was also filed. |\n| 11 | So at the end of the day, Your Honor, very simply, |\n| 12 | we don't know what is in the mind of the U.S. Attorney for |\n| 13 | the Southern District of New York. |\n| 14 | We do know that whatever is happening in this |\n| 15 | proceeding is very likely overlapping with what is |\n| 16 | enumerated in the indictment and so it's perfectly |\n| 17 | reasonable for Mei Guo to want to consult with criminal |\n| 18 | counsel.
And I can't prejudge what criminal counsel is |\n| 19 | going to tell her. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Well, yes, you can, because you told |\n| 21 | me you're a criminal defense lawyer.
You can prejudge.
You |\n| 22 | can have a very good idea of what criminal counsel's going |\n| 23 | to tell her.
You've made it clear to the Court that that's |\n| 24 | what your area of expertise is. |\n| 25 | MR. VARTAN:
But I'm not, as Your Honor made |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 40 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
40 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | clear, I'm not here as her criminal attorney.
I'm here as |\n| 2 | her civil attorney in the adversary proceeding. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
But you just said you can't |\n| 4 | begin to predict.
I disagree with you.
I think you can |\n| 5 | predict.
You can predict what the advice may be. |\n| 6 | MR. VARTAN:
Maybe better stated -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
So I just want to be clear for the |\n| 8 | record, Mr. Vartan, you've got to be careful about what you |\n| 9 | say. |\n| 10 | Because when you say you can't possibly begin to |\n| 11 | predict what criminal counsel will say, I don't think that's |\n| 12 | -- that is not persuasive to the Court when you've made it |\n| 13 | clear to the Court on many occasions that you're a criminal |\n| 14 | defense lawyer.
So I just don't -- so I think we just stop |\n| 15 | that conversation right now, Mr. Vartan. |\n| 16 | Now, the only other thing I'm going to say to you |\n| 17 | and Mr. Romney is that I want to be very clear on the record |\n| 18 | about your motion for extension of time, because in your |\n| 19 | motion for extension of time, in paragraph 6, at ECF 154, |\n| 20 | you say thereafter HK USA and Ms. Guo consented to the |\n| 21 | entry, for the time being, of a prejudgement attachment |\n| 22 | order and preliminary injunction.
That statement for the |\n| 23 | time being is inaccurate.
And if you don't strike that from |\n| 24 | the pleading, then I will. |\n| 25 | Because I -- we can go back and listen to the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 41 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
41 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | hearing.
You consented to the entry of the orders clearly |\n| 2 | and you said -- and I said and you can have whatever |\n| 3 | applicable non-bankruptcy law rights that you have that |\n| 4 | exist, that existed before you consented and existed after |\n| 5 | you consented, which is you can move to dissolve the |\n| 6 | prejudgment remedy or set aside the preliminary injunction, |\n| 7 | but it is not for the time being. |\n| 8 | And if I see that again in any pleading that you |\n| 9 | sign under Rule 11, then you will be sanctioned.
You'll be |\n| 10 | further sanctioned. |\n| 11 | So are you agreeing on the record that the words |\n| 12 | for the time being can be stricken? |\n| 13 | MR. ROMNEY:
Your Honor, Aaron Romney, Zeisler & |\n| 14 | Zeisler.
I signed this pleading.
No, I'm not. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
So did Mr. Vartan, Mr. Romney.
So did |\n| 16 | Mr. Vartan.
You both did.
So go ahead. |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:
When I said for the time being in the |\n| 18 | pleading that I signed, I was referring to Your Honor's |\n| 19 | comment on the record consistent with Connecticut law that |\n| 20 | we have the right to seek to modify or discharge the PJR. |\n| 21 | That was my intention -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
But that doesn't mean you don't |\n| 23 | consent, Mr. Romney.
That doesn't mean you didn't consent. |\n| 24 | You'd have to have a basis. |\n| 25 | MR. ROMNEY:
I didn't say that I didn't consent. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 42 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 42 I'm sorry if -- THE COURT: Okay. Well, for the time being implies that. MR. ROMNEY: I apologize if that's the way that those words were interpreted. But the intention behind those words when I signed this pleading in good faith was referring to our rights to seek to modify based on future events, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. That's fair. Then I appreciate you've made that clarification on the record. Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Then with regard to the motion for extension of time, the motion for extension of time will be granted through March 27th for the reasons stated on the record. There will be no further extensions, not only because the Chapter 11 Trustee's counsel has asked for that, but because Attorney Vartan has stated on the record that he will not seek any additional time, and that criminal counsel will be secured well before Monday. That's what Attorney Vartan's representations to the Court have been on the record. So an order will enter to that extent probably later today. Now, with regard to other matters that -- whether or not Attorney Romney or Attorney Vartan or anybody else\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 43 of 52\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023
43 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | wants to continue to participate in this hearing, you're |\n| 2 | welcome to, but you don't have to. |\n| 3 | I asked the Trustee to consider some issues with |\n| 4 | regard to Epiq during our hearings a few days ago and I |\n| 5 | wanted to address that. |\n| 6 | And I also wanted to address that we have an |\n| 7 | application for compensation pending, which under the rules, |\n| 8 | Rule 2002, requires notice to be provided to all creditors. |\n| 9 | But we don't know who all creditors are at this |\n| 10 | point, because of the Epiq issues and, so, therefore, I was |\n| 11 | going to ask you, Trustee Despins, do you -- are you seeking |\n| 12 | to have a hearing set on that application for compensation |\n| 13 | in the next 30 to 45 days? |\n| 14 | If you are, I don't know if we're going to have an |\n| 15 | entire service list available because of the issues with |\n| 16 | Epiq, as far as names that have been captured under both |\n| 17 | public proofs of claim and confidential proofs of claim. |\n| 18 | And it looks like there may be some duplication on a claim |\n| 19 | that was filed here in the court and then sent to Epiq and |\n| 20 | then Epiq may have entered it again. |\n| 21 | So there's a lot of service issues, unfortunately, |\n| 22 | that I think absolutely can be corrected and put in order, |\n| 23 | but I don't know that that will be done in the next week or |\n| 24 | two so I wanted to ask you about that as well. |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
And I will, Your Honor, in two |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 44 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 44 seconds. But before Mr. Romney and Mr. Vartan leave, I want to give them a heads-up that I'm going to raise an issue related to the Lady May. But to answer your question, what I -- well, obviously, would like, and this is going back to September expenses, and I would (indiscernible), but we would -- we could move -- I believe the Court has the ability to narrow the notice to the (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: I agree. You'd have to file a motion, but you could do that. MR. DESPINS: And so we will do that. We will do that. THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you do that. Then that will be -- that will address the issue at least for the time being. MR. DESPINS: Okay. So, Your Honor, I didn't want to cut you off, but can I raise the Lady May issue at this point? THE COURT: And then we'll go back to Epiq after you raise the Lady May issue. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: Okay? MR. DESPINS: So the Lady May issue, and I want to be clear, I'm not -- I don't want to be perceived as\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 45 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 45 presumptuous in anyway, but if, and there are a lot of if's here, but if the Court were going to grant the relief we're seeking in the summary judgment on Monday, we would have only 24 hours to get insurance. And I'm told that if the ship does not have insurance, it's a huge problem from a maritime law point of view. And so where I'm heading is that we would file today a motion to show notice to have a motion allowing us to use the repair reserve to make the payment of the insurance on the ship, and we'd have that heard either immediately after the hearing on Monday or Tuesday morning. Again, I want to be careful. I don't want to be presumptuous, but the point is that we would not have -- if we were going to prevail, we would not have time to turn and file that motion and have it heard, so we need to file it as kind of a conditional motion. I would stipulate that the opponents of that don't need to file papers against that because, you know, we don't want them to spend money on this, but basically it could be heard immediately after on Monday on the summary judgment, depending on Your Honor's ruling. If the ruling is not favorable to us, then there's nothing to be heard. But if it's favorable to us, you know, it's an emergency that it be heard. And so we haven't filed this. We just wanted to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 46 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 46 give you the heads-up, and give Zeisler and Mr. Vartan the heads-up that we were going to file that motion to short notice. So that's all I wanted to accomplish with that, Your Honor, for now. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So, Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan, you just heard what the Trustee said. He's going to file an emergency motion. He's asking for it to be scheduled on the 27th following the preliminary -- excuse me, the summary judgment hearing, and he's saying that he will waive any requirement for you to file any written response. You can make your argument at that hearing. Do you have any questions about that? I mean, nothing's going to happen until he files that motion obviously, but that's what he's saying he's going to file. MR. ROMNEY: Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, on behalf of HK International and Mei Guo. I guess what I would say is if Trustee Despins has a motion to file, we will read it. I'm unfamiliar with any rule of civil procedure that would preclude us from objecting to a motion in writing. THE COURT: Oh, he's not -- he's not saying he's precluding you. That's not at all what he said, Attorney Romney. He said and I won't make them do it in writing so\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 47 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 47 they don't have to spend money. And it's a timing issue. It's an emergency. He didn't say you couldn't do it. He was trying to be -- he was actually trying to be professional in my opinion and, say, look, I'm not giving them a lot of time, so I'm not going to -- if they don't have time to file a written objection, I get it, and let them object orally. That's all he said. He wasn't trying to preclude you. MR. ROMNEY: I appreciate the professional courtesy, Trustee Despins, and Your Honor for the explanation. I misunderstood. That sounds great. We will review his motion and we will respond to it and perhaps we will have no objection. THE COURT: Okay. Great. And if you have an objection and you want to file one, then you're all -- you're more than welcome too, Attorney Romney. Okay? I'm not -- I would never preclude anyone from filing anything unless the rules or the circumstances justified it. So anyway -- you understand. All he's saying is, that, Judge, don't make them have to file something in writing if they don't have a lot of time to do it. They have a right to make their oral objection at the hearing. That's what he said. I'm fine with that. But that doesn't preclude you, Attorney Romney, from filing something. Okay?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 48 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 48 MR. ROMNEY: Sounds great, and I very much appreciate the courtesy, Trustee Despins. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. So, Trustee Despins, that motion that you're speaking of you think will be filed before the close of business today? MR. DESPINS: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Then with regard to the Epiq issue, Trust Despins, did you have an opportunity to discuss with them the issues that we -- and maybe you haven't, the issues that we talked about I guess just -- what's today, Thursday -- so I guess Tuesday about whether they were going to keep the docket up and whether they were going to continue to allow you and the United States Trustee and parties to the protective order, which includes the committee, to have access to confidential information? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. So those discussions took place. This is a bit unorthodox, Your Honor, but I am here with my colleague, Mr. Bongartz, who has had those discussions. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: He has not appeared yet, but it probably would make better sense for him to address these issues. I can, but it's going to be less efficient than if\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 49 he does. With your permission, can we do that? He's just here beside me. THE COURT: I have no problem with it. I have no problem. And you can just file an appearance after the hearing, please. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. I'll just announce my appearance. I'm Alex Bongartz, with Paul Hastings, for the Chapter 11 Trustee. So I believe there were three open issues that Your Honor had asked that we talk to Epiq about. So the first one is the data room of the claims to which certain authorized parties, the Trustee, committee counsel, would continue to have access to Epiq. It has no issue with continuing to maintain that data room and keep uploading claims to the extent (indiscernible) require the clerk to share claims that get filed with the clerk. But Epiq is prepared to continue to maintain that data room for the benefit of the authorized parties that are entitled to receive access to it. So that was issue one. Issue number two was the online docket to the main case that is currently being maintained on the Epiq case website for the Kwok matter. Epiq did also okay and is agreeable to maintain and continue maintaining that website going forward. To be clear, this will only be the docket in the main case. It would not be the claims register or any docket in the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 49 of 52\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 50 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 50 adversary proceedings. THE COURT: I agree. MR. BONGARTZ: And it would just be for -- THE COURT: I agree with that. Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. And then the third point is the claims submission portal, which is part of the case website on the Epiq web page. I think we previously raised the concern to keep the portal open for the time being. I want to add one additional point in that regard. And that is the governmental bar date in the Genever Holdings Corporation case has not yet passed. It is April 10th of this year. And so at a minimum we would ask that the portal be kept open until then, or say the end of April, so that both the governmental claims as well as any other late filed claims, you know, could still be submitted. Obviously, Epiq would forward any claims that do get filed, as it has done in the past, to the clerk of the court so the clerk would know about those claims as well. Again, none of those claims get posted on the Epiq website. THE COURT: Yeah. And none of the claims -- even if Epiq were to receive claims, they're not going to put them -- make them as part of a register, correct? MR. BONGARTZ: No. No. THE COURT: They're going to take them and forward\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 51 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 51 them to the clerk of the court? MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: Absolutely correct. THE COURT: All right. Well, I think that does address the three issues then. And so what we need -- what we're going to need -- the Court will do is we'll get together a proposed order that will be shared with the parties, including the debtor's counsel. And before it gets docketed, everybody will have an opportunity to make any comments about it and then we'll go from there. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you. THE COURT: Does that make sense, Counsel? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, it does. Thank you. THE COURT: I don't know when that order will be available, probably by early next week. And then there will be some time frame set for parties to file any comments or suggest any comments or changes to the order before it enters. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I appreciate the update. MR. BONGARTZ: You're welcome. THE COURT: All right. I believe that that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 52 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 23, 2023 52 concludes all of the business in these matters today unless someone has some other issue that they want to raise. (No response.) THE COURT: Okay. Then thank you, all. And court is adjourned. ALL COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. (Proceedings concluded at 12:19 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 15 April 3, 2023 16 Christine Fiore, CERT","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于 * 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n *\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及GENEVER *\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司）， *\n *\n债务人。 *\n *\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS 对抗程序案号：22-05003\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（香港国际基金投资 *\n（美国）有限公司）， * 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n原告， * 2023年3月23日\n *\n诉 *\n *\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯）， *\n *\n被告。 *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n关于受托人提出的撤销传票动议；异议及交叉动议要求强制执行；申请聘请PALLAS PARTNERS LLP（帕拉斯合伙律师事务所）担任英国事务律师；RICHARD N. FREETH（理查德·N·弗里思）提出的撤销传票动议；异议及交叉动议要求强制执行，以及将对初步禁令命令作出答复的期限延长至2023年3月27日的动议之庭审记录\n\n在尊敬的JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国联邦破产法官面前\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表被告：\nNICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特律师）\nLuc A. Despins，第11章\nG. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ.（G·亚历山大·邦加茨律师）\n受托人：\nPaul Hastings, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nDOUGLAS G. SKALKA, ESQ.（道格拉斯·G·斯卡尔卡律师）\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林赛律师）\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（纽伯特·佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（吕克·A·德斯平斯律师）\nPaul Hastings, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表债权人Pacific\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯律师）\nAlliance Asia Opportunity\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\nFund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nKRISTIN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯汀·梅休律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building（贾伊莫联邦大楼）\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表Jiaming Liu（刘家明）及\nRICHARD N. FREETH, ESQ.（理查德·N·弗里思律师）\nHimalaya Investment LLC（喜马拉雅投资有限责任公司），\nFreeth & Associates（弗里思律师事务所）\n利害关系方：\n260 Madison Avenue\nNew York, NY 10016\n\n代表Pacific Alliance Asia\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫律师）\nOpportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲\nO'Melveny & Myers, LLP（奥迈瑞律师事务所）\n机会基金有限合伙企业）：\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表Mei Guo（郭美）及HK Int'l\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·罗姆尼律师）\nFunds Investment (USA)（香港国际基金投资（美国））：\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\nLEE VARTAN, ESQ.（李·瓦尔坦律师）\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, P.C.（基耶萨·沙希尼安与贾恩托马西律师事务所）\nOne Boland Drive\nWest Orange, NJ 07052\n\n案件22-50073，文件1634，提交日期04/05/23，登记日期04/05/23 08:30:41，第3页，共52页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年3月23日\n\n3\n\n（程序于上午11:07开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案件22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）；以及案件22-5003，HK International Funds Investments（香港国际基金投资）诉Despins（德斯平斯）。\n\n法官：早上好。请先由第11章受托人作出庭声明。\n\nDESPINS先生：早上好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nBASSETT先生：早上好，法官阁下。\n\n法官：以及代表——请继续，Bassett律师。我正要说，请受托人的律师作出庭声明。\n\nBASSETT先生：抱歉，法官阁下。Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），来自Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），担任第11章受托人的律师。\n\nSKALKA先生：早上好，法官阁下。Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡），作为Neubert Pepe & Monteith（纽伯特·佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所）的本地律师，代表受托人出庭。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nSMITH先生：早上好，法官阁下。Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），来自O'Melveny & Myers（奥迈瑞律师事务所），代表债权人PAX出庭。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nSMITH女士：早上好，法官阁下。Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯），来自Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所），担任PAX的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n案件22-50073，文件1634，提交日期04/05/23，登记日期04/05/23 08:30:41，第4页，共52页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年3月23日\n\n4\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nMAYHEW女士：早上好，法官阁下。Kristin Mayhew（克里斯汀·梅休），Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所），代表债权人委员会出庭。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：早上好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人出庭。\n\n法官：早上好。那么，Freeth律师，您有一些动议定于10点审理。请您作出庭声明。\n\nFREETH先生：好的。Richard Freeth（理查德·弗里思），Freeth & Associates（弗里思律师事务所），代表利害关系方Liu（刘）出庭。\n\n法官：抱歉，我听不清您说的话，Freeth先生。您能否——我不知道您的麦克风在哪里，但我们破产法院的记录全部依靠音频，因此我们——如果听不见您说话，便无法录入记录，也就不能形成庭审记录，所以请您再说一遍。\n\nFREETH先生：明白。抱歉。我叫Richard Freeth（理查德·弗里思），来自Freeth & Associates（弗里思律师事务所），我代表——姑且称为利害关系方——Liu先生，即L-I-U，他收到了传票，实际上是两份传票。\n\n法官：您是否也代表某一法人实体出庭？\n\n案件22-50073，文件1634，提交日期04/05/23，登记日期04/05/23 08:30:41，第5页，共52页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年3月23日\n\n5\n\nFREETH先生：是的。他的有限责任公司，名为Himalaya Investments -- Investment, LLC（喜马拉雅投资有限责任公司）。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。早上好。Linsey律师，您是否要作出庭声明？\n\nLINSEY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我今天上午在Tancredi法官的法庭，但我会尽可能上线。很抱歉迟到。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法官：早上好。好的。那么，上午11:00排期审理的是一些证据开示争议，此外还有第11章受托人就聘请伦敦事务律师提交的一项聘用申请。我想请先审理该聘用申请，即1496号文件。\n\nDESPINS先生：早上好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。我们提交了该申请，以聘请Pallas律师事务所担任我们的事务律师。如您所记得，我们已经披露，在本案开始时，Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）代理某些UBS实体，而我们曾——您知道——说明该律师事务所不会参与。就UBS而言，我能够（听不清），但该律师事务所不会参与UBS事项。\n\n案件22-50073，文件1634，提交日期04/05/23，登记日期04/05/23 08:30:41，第6页，共52页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年3月23日\n\n6\n\n该问题也由Ace Decade（艾斯·迪凯德）及其他方在英国程序中提出。我们向英国法院确认，只有我会接收有关UBS的信息，并且会聘请一家独立的事务律师事务所处理UBS事项。因此，法官阁下，这就是我们就聘请Pallas律师事务所担任我们在英国处理UBS事项的事务律师而来到本庭的原因。我不知道法官阁下是否有具体问题。\n\n法官：目前我没有任何问题，除了，如果事务律师获聘，而无人提出异议，并且我认为美国受托人办公室已提交无异议声明，那么英国诉讼的下一步是什么？\n\nDESPINS先生：如我在上次听证会上所提及，UBS未能在上诉法院推翻管辖权裁决，因此现在案件将返回下级法院，即审判法院。我们认为，自上诉法院命令送达之日起，UBS有三个月时间对该请求提出答辩；该命令就在昨天或前天作出，因此这是下一步。显然，正如我所提及，存在与费用有关的问题，意思是，在英国，如果您在诉讼中未获成功，您的费用将判给胜诉方，由未获成功的一方承担。UBS就该问题针对受托人以及Ace Decade提出主张，而这些问题目前正在酝酿中。因此，这些并非公开提交的文件，但在背景中悬而未决。基本上，UBS的立场是，如其胜诉，就其为抗辩所产生的律师费及费用，必须受到保障。因此，法官阁下，下一步不会在数月内进行，但就我刚才所述的这些问题，背景中有许多活动。\n\n案件22-50073，文件1634，提交日期04/05/23，登记日期04/05/23 08:30:41，第7页，共52页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年3月23日\n\n7\n\n法官：好的。感谢您的更新。我对此表示感谢。Claiborn律师？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：谢谢，法官阁下。我已提交无异议声明，即ECF 1542。\n\n法官：是的。谢谢。我已看到该无异议声明。是否还有其他人希望就受托人申请聘请Pallas担任英国事务律师一事发表意见？\n\n（无人答复。）\n\n法官：好的。既然没有人发言，也没有人就该申请提交书面异议，并且\n\n案件22-50073，文件1634，提交日期04/05/23，登记日期04/05/23 08:30:41，第8页，共52页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年3月23日\n\n1 今日参加本次听证会的人员中无人对该申请提出\n2 异议。我理解受托人寻求聘请英国\n3 事务律师的理由。因此，基于所有这些理由，该申请\n4 获准。\n5\n6 Despins受托人，我将对拟议命令作出极为细微的\n7 修改，我认为这些修改在任何方面均不涉及实体内容，即\n8 命令的第二页。\n9\n10 我认为这可能是因为Southern\n11 District of New York（纽约南区）已修订其移送常设命令，\n12 而United States District Court for the\n13 District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦地区法院）尚未修订，因此——移送\n14 命令仍是1984年的命令，由当时的地区法院法官、\n15 当时的地区法院首席法官Daly法官签署，因此我将删除\n16 命令第2页第4行顶部的\n17 “经修订”字样。\n18\n19 然后，在“现特此命令”措辞之前，\n20 我只会写——“于……举行听证会后”——请删除\n21 “经适当审议且理由充分”这一措辞，我们已经在上述内容中认定了所有这些。\n22\n23 因此，只需作出这些细微修改，随后该命令将予登记，除非您对\n24 我刚才所说的内容有任何疑虑。\n25 DESPINS先生：完全没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n案件22-50073，文件1634，提交日期04/05/23，登记日期04/05/23 08:30:41，第9页，共52页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年3月23日\n\n1 法官：好的。好的。谢谢。\n2 因此，该申请获准，命令将按庭审记录中注明的细微修改予以登记。好吗？我\n3 预计该命令将在今天晚些时候，最迟于明天登记。\n4\n5 而且我同意，您的申请根据\n6 本院地方法则，在事务律师开始提供服务之日起——在30日内——提交，因此其\n7 服务将自2023年1月26日起生效。好吗？\n8\n9 DESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n10 法官：好的。谢谢。\n11 现在转向11:00的其他事项，\n12 Freeth律师已提交一项撤销向其个人当事人发出的传票的动议，\n13 即ECF No. 1465，\n14 以及一项撤销向该法人实体发出的传票的动议，\n15 Freeth律师今天上午将该实体描述为该个人的有限责任公司，\n16 即1541号文件。这两项\n17 动议中，受托人均已提交异议及交叉动议要求强制执行。\n18\n19 因此，Freeth律师，在我看来，您可以——如果您认为我不正确，您可以\n20 说明，但我认为您在两项撤销传票动议中提出的\n21 异议，即针对个人发出的传票和针对\n22 公司发出的传票，实质上相同，\n23 是否正确？\n24\n25 FREETH先生：是。\n\n案件22-50073，文件1634，提交日期04/05/23，登记日期04/05/23 08:30:41，第10页，共52页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月23日 10 法院：好的。弗里斯律师：是的，法官阁下。法院：好的。然后，我看到，至少在我看来，双方似乎已经就传票进行了某些讨论，但是，除非最近发生了什么情况，我相信双方就这些动议尚未达成协议，对吗？弗里斯律师：目前是这样。法院：好的。那么，弗里斯律师，您希望撤销传票，因为您认为受托人不应当送达这些传票，他本应进行更多尽职调查，而且这些传票范围很广、过于宽泛，对吗？弗里斯律师：嗯，前半部分是的，（听不清）。后半部分是关于《民事诉讼程序》（CP）的技术性问题——该问题在动议中已有引用。但是，刘先生在亚利桑那州斯科茨代尔，其有限责任公司是亚利桑那州有限责任公司。他收到的传票要求他在纽约出庭、提交文件等等，显然距离其居住或工作地点超过100英里，因此这是一项技术性问题，也是我主张撤销传票的另一半理由。法院：好的。但我已阅读——我认为我已在针对撤销动议提交的文件中读到——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 11 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月23日 11 法院：受托人已提议前往亚利桑那州，并在亚利桑那州、即距您的个人委托人居住地点或公司委托人的营业地址100英里以内，对其进行讯问，对吗？弗里斯律师：我们在讨论中提到过这一点。再次说明，我们并未就这些讨论得出结论。我们开始交谈，随后，嗯，他们提交了一项动议以（听不清）。委托人向我传达的信息是，好吧，我想我们并没有在协商任何事情（听不清）。法院：我听不清您在说什么。弗里斯律师，我听不清您在说什么。弗里斯律师：抱歉。法院：您必须靠近麦克风说话，因为我听不清这些话。我听懂了一部分，但并非全部。弗里斯律师：我很抱歉。我正在感冒，所以我的声音并不完全——法院：好的。可能是这样。是的。这可能就是听起来奇怪的原因。请继续。弗里斯律师：我从头开始说我刚才所说的最后一部分。我们正在讨论采取类似的某种解决方案，但对我而言，这就提出了一个问题：他是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 12 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月23日 12 错误的人。他们指定他，是因为他碰巧选择了 Himalaya（喜马拉雅），即世界上最大的山脉，（听不清），所以他被卷入（听不清），而且他不得不花时间处理这样一件事——我自愿提出提供一份宣誓书。我曾与他通电话，并逐项审查了传票中的每一项内容，以确认他告诉我的关于该案的情况（听不清）是正确的，即他不认识任何一方当事人，没有任何信息，没有任何文件，甚至不认识99%的人；我只是模糊地听说过郭先生，仅此而已。事情就停留在这里。但是，正如我所提到的，当我们试图商谈某种解决方式时，他们提交了一项强制动议，这向我传达的信息是，他们希望以强制方式行事。因此，我想此时除了希望我们能够就撤销动议达成解决办法之外，我没有别的话可说。法院：好的。那么，双方均负有持续义务，即根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》，就证据开示请求进行会商，并以诚信行事。弗里斯律师，您表示您提出提供一份宣誓书，但我尚未看到您的——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月23日 13 委托人提交的任何宣誓书，对吗？我在本案记录中没有看到任何此类文件。弗里斯律师：没有。我们已经起草好了。如果他能在亚利桑那州当着公证人签署，我大概可在48小时内提交。我假定他在斯科茨代尔的某处可以找到公证人。因此，该文件已经起草完毕。我们大概甚至可以在24小时内完成。法院：您是否已向德斯平斯先生或其律师出示该宣誓书？弗里斯律师：没有，我们可以——没有，我认为我们没有。因此，我可以先将其发送给他供其审阅。法院：嗯，这不一定是要获得他的批准，但这——如果您的委托人——您看，首先，弗里斯律师，在破产案件中，根据第2004条规则进行的证据开示范围很广，类似于钓鱼式取证——探寻。有许多案件是这样说的。它比在特定诉讼或对抗程序中的传票范围更广，因为在某些案件中，例如目前摆在本院面前的案件，受托人负有调查债务人事务的职责，以确定是否存在可用于偿付债权人债权的资产。弗里斯律师：当然。法院：因此，虽然您——虽然您可能——我认为您——我知道您主张这些传票——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 13 页，共 52 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 14 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月23日\n1 范围很广。\n这不一定构成撤销与第2004条规则审查有关的传票的依据，\n2 这是第一点。\n3 第二点，我已从文件中读到，\n4 受托人及其律师愿意前往亚利桑那州，\n5 进行讯问并获取文件。\n6 因此，我不确定为何——为何您仍继续\n7 提出该事项发生在纽约以外的异议，\n8 因为他们已经表示将前往\n9 亚利桑那州办理此事。因此，我认为这并不是\n10 可维持的异议，或准许您撤销\n11 传票动议的依据。\n12 因此，您在动议中主张应撤销传票的两项依据，\n13 即证据开示范围过于宽泛以及\n14 受托人未进行任何其为尽职调查所需进行的事项，\n15 并不是——\n16 并不是本院会据以准许\n17 撤销第2004条规则传票动议的依据。\n18 您提出的另一项依据，即在亚利桑那州以外超过100英里，\n19 受托人已在本案提交的诉状中表示，\n20 他将前往亚利桑那州。因此，这又是——\n21 该项准许撤销传票动议的依据目前同样\n22 不能成立。\n23 那么，您还有什么其他论点——\n24 希望本院在您主张\n25 应撤销传票时予以考虑？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 15 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月23日 15 弗里斯律师：嗯，具体来说，传票写的是——它没有提及任何前往亚利桑那州的事。那只是他在合理的——之后所说的。法院：我明白它没有写。我们现在已经超出传票本身的阶段。我们正处于撤销动议阶段，以及答复阶段，对吗？而答复称他们将前往亚利桑那州。因此，我不会要求您的委托人到纽约来。这没有问题。弗里斯律师：好的。法院：但是，他们已经——他们已经承认了您撤销动议中的一项论点，即，好吧，那么我们将前往亚利桑那州。因此，这一点已经解决。弗里斯律师：好的。法院：那么，什么——弗里斯律师：我相信——我相信，如果这是法院的命令，我的委托人将会按照指示行事，即如果代表受托人的人前往那里，并在当地进行他们希望进行的事项。我相信他愿意配合。我个人的异议是，这浪费他的时间，对他不公平。但是，如果您将作出这样的命令，尽管他显然（听不清），您不必相信我的话或他的话，我理解，但我确实认为，从实际角度来说，这浪费了——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 16 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月23日 16 受托人的时间和我委托人的时间。但是，当然可以。法院：嗯，如果您向受托人提供由您的个人委托人和代表公司签署的委托人签署的宣誓书，也许受托人会同意您的看法。我不知道。但他尚未获得该文件，因此，除其原先已有的权利外，他没有任何可据以行事的材料，即进行第2004条规则审查并向个人委托人和公司委托人发出传票的权利。因此，倘若您向他提供载有信息的该文件，或许会有所不同。我无从得知。但是，就您的撤销动议及其中列明的依据而言，本院认定，您关于100英里问题的论点——这是一项有效论点——因受托人将前往亚利桑那州而无实际意义。这是他所说的。因此，他已经承认了您论点的那一部分。弗里斯律师：好的。法院：关于传票范围宽泛的论点，再次说明，根据第2004条规则，这是破产规则所允许的。我并不是说，除非您在破产法院执业，否则您必然会了解这一点；但这是——这是破产规则第2004条规则下众所周知且已确立的证据开示原则——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 17 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月23日 17 。全国几乎所有司法辖区都援引过这一原则，认为其证据开示范围比在特定对抗程序或民事诉因中根据证据开示规则所允许的范围更广。弗里斯律师：我理解，法官阁下。法院：那么，弗里斯律师，您希望如何继续进行？您将要——您希望如何继续进行？弗里斯律师：我可以向受托人的律师提供供我方委托人尽快签署的宣誓书草案或拟议稿。如果他们认为该文件或其某些版本可以接受，那么我们可以迅速以此方式解决问题。否则，我相信，如果律师指示，我的委托人将出庭。因此，如有必要，我们可以那样做。但我希望能够节省大家的时间。因此，也许我至少可以有一天的时间，在这期间向他们提供该文件。正如我所说，这还是粗略的。只要我与受托人的律师结束通话，我就会起草一份传票——抱歉，一份宣誓书。如果他们认为可以接受，我们可以在一两天内让其签署。法院：德斯平斯受托人或巴塞特律师？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 18 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月23日 18 巴塞特律师：是的。法官阁下，我是尼克·巴塞特，来自 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），代表受托人。今天上午我将就此事发言。因此——我先简要说几句，稍后我会具体回应有关宣誓书的提议。我确实认为有必要提出这一点，因为在文件中，法官阁下，有人指称受托人和/或其律师在寻求该传票时未能以专业方式行事。我认为那是撤销动议的第2段。显然，我们对此提出异议。我可以向法院保证，受托人寻求该传票具有善意依据。正如法院所知，正如此前数次庭审中所提及的，我们已向法院说明，受托人有若干人士提供了有关债务人及其组织的信息，其中包括法院从初步禁令听证会及其他方面十分熟悉的 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）实体。我相信，我们于2022年12月提交了这项具体的第2004条规则动议。在此之前，于2022年11月中旬，我们从经常向我们提供信息的一名人士处收到了一条线索或一封电子邮件，其中指认了一些——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 19 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 23, 2023 19 所谓的“喜马拉雅境外实体”。该电子邮件中的实体之一是 Himalaya New World, Inc.（喜马拉雅新世界公司），法院可能记得，该实体由一名证人所有，该证人在债务人的初步禁令听证会上出庭作证支持债务人。正如该证人在证人席上确认的那样，该线索显然最终被证实是正确的。该通信中提及的另一实体，即一名个人，是该 2004 传票的受送达人，是 Freeth律师（弗里思）的委托人，也是他控制的实体。因此，这就是当时送达传票的依据。法官阁下，自那以后，您知道，我们进一步进行了审查。仅指出书面材料中的几点，Freeth律师称，他的委托人，您知道，作为送货员工作，每月约收入 \\$3,000。这是他的工作。我们所了解到的是，除该有限责任公司外，我们尚未收到任何关于该公司从事何种业务的说明，倘若其并非与债务人或其公司集团有关。除此之外，传票的对象 Liu先生（刘先生）是另一实体 Himalaya Revocable Trust（喜马拉雅可撤销信托）的共同受托人。这些均来自 Arizona（亚利桑那州）的公开财产记录。该实体继而拥有至少五处、可能六处不同的不动产，价值似乎至少为 \\$2 million 至 \\$3 million。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 20 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 23, 2023 20 而且，您知道，听着，这可能——可能只是巧合。您知道，这些实体可能与债务人毫无关系。在本案中，这也可能是错误的。因此，正如我们告诉 Freeth律师的那样，我们愿意考虑一份宣誓书。如果任何人实际上没有相关信息，我们没有动机让其因回应传票而承担不必要的负担。事实上，我认为我们之间的通信大致停留在 March 10th，当时 Linsey律师（林赛）已告知 Freeth律师，如其愿意提交一份宣誓书，我们将予以考虑。我们坚持这一点。我们会考虑他希望提交的任何材料。我唯一想指出的是，您知道，为使该宣誓书能被受托人接受，其不能仅仅写道，您知道，我一无所知，我的喜马拉雅实体与债务人毫无关系。您知道，鉴于相关情形，我们显然将要求对这些实体实际上从事何种业务作出某些说明。您知道，他如何取得这些不动产，诸如此类的事项，以帮助我们将该主张与我们所了解到的事实加以协调。我最后想指出的一项我认为需要处理的关联是，Freeth律师恰好是代表一组原告的律师，该组原告对 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）提起了 FARA 诉讼，主张 Paul Hastings 和 Despins受托人（德斯平斯）以某种方式受中国共产党的指使——以中国共产党的指使行事，等等。因此，重申一次，也许那只是巧合，但我认为该宣誓书需要说明该个人如何由 Freeth律师代理。因此，为使我们确信此处没有进一步需要调查的事项，这些是我们需要得到处理的细节类型。我最后想指出的是，正如法院所承认的，您知道，我们会前往 Arizona。我们还提议，为便于所有人，如有证言录取，可以远程进行。显然，文件也可以按照惯例以电子方式提供，以解决对此的任何疑虑。就此，法官阁下，我要说的就是这些。我不认为这是撤销传票的依据。但受托人将在继续与 Freeth先生及其委托人合作时保持合理，以确定是否有办法在不给任何人施加不必要、不当负担的情况下解决此事。法院：Freeth律师？Freeth先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？哦，谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 22 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 23, 2023 22 法院：Freeth律师，有何回应？Freeth先生：关于 Bassett先生（巴塞特）就其他企业或有限责任公司所作评论的后半部分，我并不了解。因此，可能是——也许由他们亲自进行会更有利，因为他们掌握我与 Liu先生交谈时所说的信息。据他所述，您知道，他是个简单的人。他只有这一家企业实体，是他为尝试开展一个甚至从未启动的房地产项目而设立的。这些其他信息对我而言是新的。我不知道。我对这些一无所知。因此，如果他参与其他企业，那么或许通过宣誓书解决此事的可能性只是美好的愿望。我反对他们就与本待决事项无关的其他事项进行证言录取。至于我与特定委托人的关系，我认为——我认为这完全没有相关性。我不会谈及这一点。这就是我要说的全部。法院：好的。Freeth先生：我愿意尝试——法院：那么，Freeth律师，我需要知道的是，既然您承认受托人将审查您的委托人并要求其提供文件，您是否因此撤回这些撤销动议？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 23 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 23, 2023 23 Freeth先生：不。如果他们撤回强制执行动议，我将撤回撤销动议，我们将依照现有传票行事，并通过协议在 Arizona 执行和完成。法院：Bassett律师？Bassett先生：抱歉，法官阁下。我没有听到向我提出的问题。法院：我所问的是，鉴于我们今天上午刚刚讨论的内容，我问 Freeth律师，他是否准备撤回撤销传票的动议，因为他刚才说，即使他提交宣誓书，也可能不足以解决问题。而且，只要你们将前往 Arizona 并亲自进行这些证言录取，你们就应按照已签发的传票继续进行，并且你们将——Freeth律师没有说，但我会命令各方就这些证言录取——即这些 Rule 2004 审查——进行的日期和时间协商。随后，他回应请求，并称，我问他，即 Freeth律师，是否会撤回撤销动议，而他说，如果你撤回你的异议及交叉强制执行动议，他就会如此做。Bassett先生：法官阁下，如果结果是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 24 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 23, 2023 24 Freeth先生的委托人将遵守传票，那么，当然，我们会撤回强制执行动议。他撤回撤销动议显然也是可以接受的。法院：好的。那么我们将这样处理，ECF 1465，即撤销传票的动议，基于庭上陈述的理由，在记录中予以撤回。异议及交叉强制执行动议也基于庭上陈述的理由，在记录中予以撤回。对于代表该法人实体提出的撤销动议、对该动议的异议以及强制执行交叉动议，亦同样处理。现在各方需要做的是，你们需要共同协商并同意遵守传票的日期，包括提交响应传票的文件的截止日期，以及举行审查的日期。好吗？Freeth先生：我明白了。是。法院：好的。Bassett先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：关于证据开示事项，还有其他事项吗？（无人回应。）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 25 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 23, 2023\n1 法院：好的。谢谢。\n2 Freeth律师，我们在\n3 11:30 的日程表上还有另一事项，与你无关。欢迎你\n4 留下，但你不必留下。这由你自行选择。\n5 Freeth先生：感谢您，法官阁下。非常\n6 感谢。\n7 法院：好的。谢谢。\n8 Freeth先生：谢谢。\n9 法院：好的。那么，日程表上\n10 11:30 的事项，法院于今晨就代表 Mei Guo（郭美）和 HK International Fund\n11 Investments（香港国际基金投资）提出的、请求延长答复初步禁令命令期限的动议\n12 安排了听证，\n13 并要求 Romney律师（罗姆尼）和 Vartan律师（瓦尔坦）\n14 ——和／或，但看来两位都在场，因此我需要\n15 请两位均为记录注明出庭身份。\n16 请。\n17 Romney先生：谢谢。\n18 Aaron Romney（阿伦·罗姆尼），Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒和泽斯勒律师事务所），代表 Mei\n19 Guo 和 HKI Investments。\n20 Vartan先生：早上好，法官阁下。Lee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦）\n21 代表同一当事人。\n22 法院：早上好。\n23 好的。我安排此次听证，是因为你们在，您知道，\n24 大约 11:00 刚过的某个时间提交的延长期限动议，虽属及时，却未\n25 至少向法院说明为何你们需要延长至 March 27 的额外时间。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 26 of 52\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 23, 2023 26 所需提供的信息是 Guo女士的个人地址，以及她居住的楼宇或公寓的物业所有人；你们已同意提供该等信息，并根据主案中自——我手头没有该日期，但自 August 起至少已有数月——一直有效的保护令，将其视为高度机密。因此，你们为何需要额外时间向受托人提供该信息？在我们于 March 15th 举行的听证中，你们同意将该信息提供给受托人，并根据保护令的规定将其指定为高度机密。Vartan先生：法官阁下，我可以澄清一下。因此，根据法院命令，我们须于 Friday, March 17th 前提供法官阁下刚刚记入记录的信息，我们确已如此做。我们已向 Bassett先生和 Luft先生（卢夫特）提供该信息。截至昨日需要提供的信息，我们确实带来了相关信息。其依据是——我认为该信息须根据初步禁令命令第 (d) 项提供，我认为该命令是 Docket Entry 142。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1634 Filed 04/05/23 Entered 04/05/23 08:30:41 Page 27 of 52\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年3月23日\n\n1 法庭：\n好的。\n那是什么信息？\n\n2 VARTAN 律师：\n该信息涉及由 HK USA 或郭女士（Ms. Guo）个人拥有或控制的任何及全部财产。该裁定中并未在任何地方界定“财产”，但当然，如我们在昨晚提交的材料中所述，这并非寻求额外时间的真正原因。\n\n郭女士正在寻求聘请刑事辩护律师，就正在发生的一切向其提供意见。而且，当然，法官阁下根据我们于3月15日上次出庭的情况，对其中部分事项已十分熟悉。\n\n她尚未聘请刑事辩护律师，并且需要刑事辩护律师与 Romney 律师（Attorney Romney）及我商议，她将如何履行初步禁令命令项下的义务。\n\n此外，我相信，法官阁下，根据判决前救济命令（PJR order），在该命令录入后30日内，我相信该日期为3月17日，郭女士须接受宣誓证言。再者，她在接受宣誓证言之前希望先咨询刑事辩护律师。不过，这不像公司于3月22日履行义务那样具有时间紧迫性。\n\n22 法庭：\n好的。让我们回过头来。因为关于初步禁令命令，您是说她必须就什么事项提交什么材料？\n\n首先，这是关于 HK，但您所说她需要提供信息而尚未提供的是哪一段？这是什么——我看不出您在说什么。您确定您不是在说判决前救济命令，即披露资产动议，那是该命令的一部分吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 录入于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 28 页，共 52 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年3月23日 28\n\nDESPINS 律师：\n法官阁下，我是受托人 Despins（Trustee Despins）。这是初步禁令命令第（d）子项。反诉被告须于本命令录入后五日内，即上周五之前，向受托人及法庭确认其拥有权益的任何其他财产。\n\n法庭：\n哦，（d），（d），好的。\n\nDESPINS 律师：\n——以及反诉被告不得转让、设定负担、移走或处分，等等，等等，该等财产。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么是第——页的第（d）子项。好的。我明白了。我没能——我当时不明白 Vartan 律师说的是这个。好的。因此，Vartan 律师，正如我们上周讨论的，HK 和郭美（Mei Guo）均未被起诉，因此——这——我是说，聘请刑事辩护律师这件事——您已同意并同意录入该命令。而且，除非您向我出示，在过去两三天内针对郭美或 HK International（HK International）的某项起诉书已被签发——\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年3月23日 29\n\n——否则我不理解为何需要额外时间。\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n法官阁下，没有新的起诉书。但是，我们在15日已载入记录、并将在此再次载入记录的是，郭女士至少在起诉书中被略微提及为亲属一或亲属二。我认为法官阁下知道，她在美国证券交易委员会（SEC）起诉书中被列为救济被告。自我们上次在法官阁下面前出庭以来，我获悉纽约南区（Southern District of New York）已提出一份相关起诉状，而不是起诉书。我们不知道有针对郭女士的任何指控。我们不知道有针对郭女士的任何即将提出的指控。也许永远不会有指控。但关键是，我们是在所有这些事情发生后的第五天开展工作。正如我知道法官阁下所知，有很多事情正在发生。并且，郭女士以及 Romney 律师和我都认为，鉴于据我理解，本法庭对抗程序中正在发生的事项，与起诉书和 SEC 起诉状中逐项列明或描述的事项，实际上完全重叠，因此她在作出进一步陈述前咨询刑事辩护律师是审慎的。因此，我们当然理解该命令的规定。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 录入于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 29 页，共 52 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 录入于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 30 页，共 52 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年3月23日 30\n\n我们不想无视该命令中的义务，这就是她正寻求刑事辩护律师与她商议的原因。我们请求短暂延期或续期，以便我们会面并处理该义务。我认为星期一并非如此重要，并且——鉴于起诉书刚于3月15日提出——提出该请求。\n\n法庭：\nDespins 受托人或 Bassett 律师（Attorney Bassett），对于所请求的延期，您的立场是什么？\n\nBASSETT 律师：\n当然可以，我很乐意就此回应，法官阁下。再次说明，我是代表受托人的 Paul Hastings 律师事务所（Paul Hastings）的 Nick Bassett。我们的立场，我认为与法庭的一些意见一致，即该命令是经同意作出的，并且在作出该同意时即包含其中规定的期限。该命令随后提交给法庭，再次包含该措辞，而当时并未就该期限作出回应或提出异议。因此，在我们看来，目前确实没有任何依据支持该请求。\n\n尽管如此，他们在此情形下请求的延期，与此前提出的其他请求相比，相对有限，因此我认为受托人准备不反对延期至下周一，即下周一，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 录入于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 31 页，共 52 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年3月23日\n\n1 3月27日，提供该信息，但须满足，我想说，若干保留或条件。第一，受托人预期并恭请法庭命令，不得在下周一之后进一步延期。\n\n显然，我们不希望处于这样的境地：这只是第一次请求，然后到了星期一，我们发现他们需要更多时间。在这种情况下，受托人当然会提出异议。\n\n我想提出的另一点是——我们此前已经历过本案中债务人主张，他基于第五修正案以及其所主张的“提交行为原则”特权，完全不能向受托人提供任何信息。正如法庭从我们本周早些时候举行的听证中所知，债务人在任何刑事指控宣布前一个多月就提出了该主张。\n\n因此，我提出此事的原因是，我们也确实不希望处于这样的境地：到了星期一，我们发现郭女士和 HK 以同一理由主张其不知何故不能提交任何材料、不能向我们提供任何信息。\n\n受托人对该延期请求不提出反对，是基于这样一种理解和预期：将于星期一依照命令提供有关资产的实际信息。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 录入于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 32 页，共 52 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年3月23日\n\n1 因此，基于上述情况，并且再次重申我们在过去几次听证中所述，受托人再怎么强调也不为过：他不希望针对债务人悬而未决的刑事指控被持续用来进一步拖延。\n\n在本案中，鉴于延期请求的性质相对有限，附带所有这些保留，如果您愿意这样说，我们不会反对批准延期至星期一。\n\n11 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nVartan 律师或 Romney 律师，您对 Bassett 律师有什么回应吗？\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n法官阁下，我只有两点简短回应。\n\n我们当然不会寻求额外时间。正如我们向法庭陈述的，郭女士正在积极寻求刑事代理，因此将在星期一之前很早就确定该代理，而该律师，无论男女，届时将加入并能够适当地向郭女士提供意见。\n\n当然，就该意见的内容而言，我认为 Romney 律师和我都无权预先判断刑事辩护律师将向她作何建议。我认为我尚未准备好，也无法表示，该建议将是提交文件还是不提交文件。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 录入于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 33 页，共 52 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年3月23日\n\n1 这正是她首先咨询刑事辩护律师的全部目的。\n\n法庭：\n那么，Vartan 律师，您星期一要做什么？您将如何遵守第（d）段——\n\nVARTAN 律师：\nD，如 door 中的 D，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n是的。在第——页，您届时将如何遵守该项？刑事律师不会来本法庭代理她。是您。那么，您将如何遵守？\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n目前我无法就此向法庭说明，因为我们尚未与我们的当事人商议，刑事辩护律师也尚未加入。因此，目前我若说明星期一将发生什么，将为时过早，因为目前没有刑事律师代理郭女士。\n\n法庭：\n那不是我的问题。我的问题是您将如何——Vartan 律师，您必须弄清楚可能的情况，对吗？有哪些可能性？\n\n可能性是，您要么向受托人提供完整的信息清单，以回应第（d）项，要么不提供。如果您不提供，那——您将说这是根据她的刑事辩护律师的建议？\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n再次说明，我无法预测未来——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 录入于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 34 页，共 52 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年3月23日\n\n1 法庭：\n不，您可以。\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n法官阁下是正确的。\n\n法庭：\n因为您是她在本法庭中的律师，您可以预测未来。您是在说，您需要延期，因为她必须咨询刑事律师。好的。并且您已说，您需要该延期，因为您不——因为刑事律师可能必须就刑事事项向她提供意见。这不是刑事事项。这是一起民事诉讼——\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n但是我——\n\n法庭：\n——是在破产法院（Bankruptcy Court）进行的民事诉讼，而您作为她的律师，已同意录入初步禁令。\n\n因此，是的，您可以预测将发生什么。您要么遵守，要么不遵守。因此，我想知道您将如何不遵守。您将怎么说？而律师——您是她在这里的律师，辩护律师。请记住，您是她的律师。\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n明白。明白。但我所说的只是，在遵守时，我们当然不放弃她的宪法权利，而且我们也不能放弃。\n\n因此，如提供某些信息将可能使她自证其罪，而这正是咨询刑事辩护律师的目的，我们\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— March 23, 2023\n\n可能会采取立场，认为我们无法提供所要求的部分或全部信息。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n那么，如果你们这样做——\n\nVartan先生：\n但我目前还不知道是否如此。\n\n法庭：\n——那么你们将必须以法律依据予以支持。你们不能——我不会——你们不能仅仅说，根据她的刑事律师的建议，我们不会——她不会遵从。这不构成遵从。\n\n而且，作为本法庭的律师，你们负有义务，受本案适用的证据开示及其他规则，以及你们同意作出的初步禁令命令所约束；你们的遵从必须确立法律依据，说明为什么她——她和HK不会遵从初步禁令命令第（d）款。\n\n因此，例如，就Kwok先生而言，他于February 7th主张了第五修正案特权，但他没有说明——没有提交任何法律依据，以支持为何该特权适用于当时在其面前待决的民事事项，而当时并无任何针对他的刑事事项待决。因此，这些问题应当提交书面意见并举行听证。\n\n我现在就告诉你们，就此事我不会另行制定书面意见提交时间表。你们同意作出初步禁令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 36 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— March 23, 2023 36 你们同意作出初步禁令。因此，如果你们未能遵从，如果你们所谓的遵从尝试是：我们被她的刑事律师告知——顺便说一下，无论该刑事律师是谁，你们都必须披露——而且你们必须取得该刑事律师的宣誓书，说明我建议我的当事人或当事人们不要回应他们同意的初步禁令命令第（d）款，因为这会使他们面临刑事责任。那么，你们必须这样做；你们必须取得该律师的宣誓书；你们还必须有法律支持该项主张。否则，你们将不构成遵从初步禁令命令。届时，你们——他们将受到进一步且适当的救济，其中可能包括额外制裁。\n\n因此，我想非常明确地说明，你们来到这里说，嗯，她需要聘请一名刑事律师，所以我们不知道会发生什么，这并不准确。你们确实知道会发生什么。你们要么遵从，要么不遵从。\n\n并且，假定你们将不遵从，因为你们将要——因为你们将说，刑事律师告知你们这可能使她承担刑事责任。\n\n那么，再说一次，你们必须披露该刑事律师。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 37 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— March 23, 2023\n\n该刑事律师必须向本法庭提交一份宣誓书，说明这是所提供的建议，并且该建议——以及对该建议所涉任何事项的主张——均有法律支持。\n\n如果这些事情没有发生，那么你们的当事人HK和Guo女士将——将会违反一项他们同意获得救济的命令。\n\n对此你们有任何问题吗？\n\nVartan先生：\n没有。没有，法官阁下。不过，我想我会说两点。\n\n再者，在这一过程中的任何时候，Guo女士都没有、也不能由我们或由她放弃其第五修正案权利。\n\n而且，整个——这并非建立在猜测的背景之下，也并非建立在可能提出刑事指控的背景之下。已有实际的刑事指控被提出——\n\n法庭：\n并非针对你们的当事人，Vartan先生。\n\nVartan先生：\n存在——\n\n法庭：\n并非针对你们的当事人。\n\nVartan先生：\n存在一项仍在进行的SEC申诉，其中我的当事人被列为救济被告。至于她是否作出——\n\n法庭：\n那不是刑事诉讼，对吗？那是刑事诉讼还是民事诉讼？\n\nVartan先生：\n为正当地援引第五修正案权利，并不需要有一项待决的刑事诉讼。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 38 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— March 23, 2023 38 为正当地援引第五修正案权利，并不需要有一项待决的刑事诉讼。这是明确的既定法律。\n\n法庭：\n那么请向我展示——这不是明确的既定法律。但你必须引用支持你主张的法律——\n\nVartan先生：\n这是。\n\n法庭：\n——来支持你的主张，Vartan先生。这是你必须做的。我认为我对此已说得非常清楚。\n\nVartan先生：\n而且这样做不存在任何问题，因为再说一次，一个人援引其第五修正案权利并不需要有待决的刑事事项。这是明确的既定法律。\n\n法庭：\n好。我们会看。我希望看到白纸黑字的依据，Vartan先生。你可以在你的——\n\nVartan先生：\n我会提供，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n因为——这样看来，我们周一很可能会发现你们不会遵从这项命令。\n\nVartan先生：\n那不是——那不是为了继续——再说一次，我们向法庭提出的全部要点是，我们希望咨询有资质的刑事律师。那是她的权利。鉴于有一份起诉书、一项SEC申诉及另一项申诉，希望这样做完全合理。我们不知道美国检察官办公室正在考虑、谋划或进行什么。因此，我无法告诉您刑事律师会对我们说什么，从而我们将向法庭或受托人作出何种陈述。我所能说的是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 39 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— March 23, 2023\n\n法庭：\n你在说哪一项其他申诉？\n\nVartan先生：\n有一项申诉，或者说，有一项针对Yvette Wang（王雁威）的刑事控告——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nVartan先生：\n——也已提交。\n\n因此，归根结底，法官阁下，非常简单，我们不知道Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的美国检察官心中所想为何。\n\n我们确实知道，本程序中发生的任何事情很可能与起诉书中列举的事项重叠，因此Mei Guo（郭美）希望咨询刑事律师完全合理。而且，我不能预先判断刑事律师会对她说什么。\n\n法庭：\n不，你可以，因为你告诉我你是一名刑事辩护律师。你可以预先判断。你可以非常清楚刑事律师将会对她说什么。你已向法庭明确表示，那是你的专业领域。\n\nVartan先生：\n但是，我并非如法官阁下所明确指出的那样，以她的刑事律师身份出庭。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 40 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— March 23, 2023\n\n我在这宗对抗程序中是以她的民事律师身份出庭。\n\n法庭：\n是的。但你刚才说你根本无法预测。我不同意你的说法。我认为你可以预测。你可以预测该建议可能是什么。\n\nVartan先生：\n也许更准确地说——\n\n法庭：\n因此，我只想为记录明确说明，Vartan先生，你必须谨慎你所说的话。\n\n因为，当你说你根本无法开始预测刑事律师会说什么时，我不认为这——当你已多次向法庭明确表示你是一名刑事辩护律师时，这一点并不能说服法庭。因此，我不——所以我认为我们现在就停止这场谈话，Vartan先生。\n\n现在，我唯一还要对你和Romney先生说的是，我希望就你们的延期动议在记录中说得非常清楚，因为在你们的延期动议中，ECF 154第6段，你们说此后HK USA和Guo女士同意暂时作出一项判决前扣押令和初步禁令。该“暂时”表述不准确。如果你们不从该诉状中删除该表述，那么我会删除。\n\n因为我——我们可以回去听取听证记录。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 41 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— March 23, 2023\n\n你们明确同意作出这些命令，而你们说过——我也说过，你们可以拥有任何适用的非破产法权利，即你们在同意之前已存在并在同意之后仍存在的权利；也就是说，你们可以动议解除判决前救济措施或撤销初步禁令，但这不是“暂时”。\n\n如果我在你们根据Rule 11签署的任何诉状中再次看到这种表述，那么你们将受到制裁。你们将受到进一步制裁。\n\n因此，你们是否在记录中同意删除“暂时”一词？\n\nRomney先生：\n法官阁下，我是Aaron Romney（阿伦·罗姆尼），来自Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒和泽斯勒律师事务所）。我签署了这份诉状。不，我不同意。\n\n法庭：\nVartan先生也签了，Romney先生。Vartan先生也签了。你们两人都签了。请继续。\n\nRomney先生：\n当我在我签署的诉状中使用“暂时”时，我指的是法官阁下在记录中所作的、符合Connecticut（康涅狄格州）法律的说明，即我们有权请求修改或解除PJR。\n\n那是我的本意——\n\n法庭：\n但这并不意味着你没有同意，Romney先生。这并不意味着你未曾同意。你必须有依据。\n\nRomney先生：\n我并没有说我没有同意。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 42 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— March 23, 2023 42 如果——我很抱歉。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么，“暂时”暗示了这一点。\n\nRomney先生：\n如果那些词被这样理解，我表示歉意。但我本着善意签署这份诉状时，那些词背后的意图是指我们基于未来事件请求修改的权利，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那是公平的。那么，我感谢你已在记录中作出该澄清。谢谢。\n\nRomney先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。好的。那么，关于延期动议，基于记录中陈述的理由，延期动议将获准延至March 27th。不会再有进一步延期，不仅因为Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）的律师已提出该请求，也因为Vartan律师已在记录中表示，他不会寻求任何额外时间，并且将在周一之前很早就聘定刑事律师。这就是Vartan律师在记录中向法庭作出的陈述。因此，相应范围内的命令可能会在今天稍后作出。现在，关于其他事项——无论是Romney律师、Vartan律师还是其他任何人——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1634 提交于 04/05/23 登记于 04/05/23 08:30:41 第 43 页，共 52 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 23, 2023\n\n如果您希望继续参加本次听证，欢迎您参加，但您并非必须参加。\n\n几天前的听证期间，我请受托人考虑与Epiq（Epiq公司）有关的一些问题，我想对此作出处理。\n\n我还想处理一项目前待决的报酬申请；根据规则，即Rule 2002，必须向全体债权人发出通知。\n\n但目前我们不知道所有债权人是谁，因为存在Epiq方面的问题。因此，我想问您，Despins受托人，您是否打算在未来30至45天内就该报酬申请安排听证？\n\n如果是，我不知道我们是否能够获得完整的送达名单，因为Epiq存在的问题涉及根据公开债权证明和保密债权证明所记录的姓名。\n\n而且，看起来对于一项在本法院提交后又发送给Epiq的债权，可能存在重复；Epiq随后可能又将其录入了一次。\n\n因此，遗憾的是，存在许多送达问题。我认为这些问题当然可以纠正并理顺，但我不知道这是否能在未来一两周内完成，所以我也想就此询问您。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n是的。法官阁下，我将在两秒钟内回答您的问题。但在Romney先生和Vartan先生离开之前，我想提醒他们，我将提出一个与Lady May有关的问题。但回答您的问题，我的意思是——显然，我希望如此，而且这涉及追溯至九月份的费用，我会（听不清），但我们会——我们可以提出——我相信法院有权将通知范围缩小至（听不清）——\n\n法院：\n我同意。您必须提交一项动议，但您可以这样做。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n那么我们会这样做。我们会这样做。\n\n法院：\n好的。您就这样做吧。这样至少暂时可以处理这个问题。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n好的。那么，法官阁下，我不想打断您，但我现在可以提出Lady May的问题吗？\n\n法院：\n您提出Lady May的问题后，我们再回到Epiq的问题。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n好的。\n\n法院：\n好的？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n那么，关于Lady May的问题，我想明确说明，我并不——我不希望以任何方式被认为是擅作主张，但如果——这里有很多假设——但如果法院准备在周一就简易判决中我们所请求的救济作出准许，我们将只有24小时来取得保险。据告知，如果该船没有保险，从海商法角度而言将是一个重大问题。因此，我要说的是，我们今天将提交一项申请缩短通知期限的动议，请求准许我们使用维修准备金支付该船的保险费；我们将在周一听证结束后立即，或周二上午，就该动议进行听证。再次说明，我想谨慎行事，我不希望擅作主张，但关键是，如果我们将获得胜诉，我们将没有时间转而提交该动议并就其举行听证，因此我们需要将其作为某种附条件动议提交。我愿意约定，其反对方无需就此提交书面文件，因为，您知道，我们不希望他们为此花费费用；但基本上，该动议可以在周一关于简易判决的听证结束后立即审理，取决于法官阁下的裁定。如果裁定对我们不利，则没有任何事项需要审理。但如果裁定对我们有利，那么，您知道，紧急情况下必须审理。因此，我们尚未提交该动议。我们只是想提醒您，并提醒Zeisler（泽斯勒律师事务所）和Vartan先生，我们将提交该项申请缩短通知期限的动议。因此，法官阁下，目前这就是我想通过此事完成的全部事项。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。因此，Romney律师和Vartan律师，你们刚才听到了受托人所说的话。他将提交一项紧急动议。他请求将其安排在27日初步——抱歉，简易判决听证之后审理，并且他说他将放弃要求你们提交任何书面答复。你们可以在该听证中提出论证。对此你们有任何问题吗？我的意思是，显然，在他提交该动议之前不会发生任何事情，但那就是他说他将提交的内容。\n\nROMNEY先生：\n我是Aaron Romney，来自Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒律师事务所），代表HK International（香港国际）和Mei Guo（郭美）。我想说的是，如果Despins受托人有动议要提交，我们会阅读该动议。我不熟悉任何会禁止我们以书面形式反对一项动议的民事诉讼规则。\n\n法院：\n哦，他并不是——他并不是说要禁止你们。Romney律师，他根本没有那样说。他说的是，我不会要求他们必须以书面形式提交，以免他们花费费用。这是时间问题，是紧急情况。他并没有说你们不能这样做。他是在努力——我认为他实际上是在努力保持专业，并且说，听着，我没有给他们很多时间，因此我不会——如果他们没有时间提交书面异议，我理解，让他们口头提出异议。这就是他所说的全部内容。他并非试图禁止你们这样做。\n\nROMNEY先生：\n我感谢Despins受托人的专业礼遇，也感谢法官阁下的解释。是我误解了。这听起来很好。我们将审阅他的动议并作出答复，也许我们不会提出异议。\n\n法院：\n好的。很好。如果你们有异议并希望提交异议，Romney律师，你们完全——非常欢迎这样做。好吗？除非规则或情形有正当理由，否则我绝不会禁止任何人提交任何文件。总之——您明白。法官，他所说的只是，不要让他们在没有很多时间的情况下还必须提交书面文件。他们有权在听证中口头提出异议。这就是他所说的。我对此没有意见。但这并不禁止您，Romney律师，提交任何文件。好吗？\n\nROMNEY先生：\n听起来很好，我非常感谢Despins受托人的礼遇。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么，Despins受托人，您所说的那项动议，您认为会在今天营业结束前提交吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n是的。是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。好。那么，关于Epiq的问题，Despins受托人，您是否有机会与他们讨论我们——也许您还没有——我们刚刚讨论的问题，我想——今天是星期四，对吧——那么我想是星期二讨论的，即他们是否将继续维护案卷，以及他们是否将继续允许您、United States Trustee（美国受托人）以及保护令所涉当事方——其中包括委员会——查阅保密信息？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n是的，法官阁下。已经进行了这些讨论。这有些不寻常，法官阁下，但我的同事Bongartz先生在场，他参与了这些讨论。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n他尚未出庭，但由他处理这些问题或许更有意义。我可以处理，但效率会低于由他处理。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 23, 2023 49\n\n经您许可，我们可以这样做吗？他就在我身边。\n\n法院：\n我没有问题。我没有问题。请您在听证后提交出庭代理声明。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n好的。我就声明出庭。我是Alex Bongartz，来自Paul Hastings（宝盛律师事务所），代表Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）。我相信法官阁下要求我们与Epiq讨论的尚未解决问题有三个。因此，第一个是债权数据室，某些获授权方、受托人和委员会律师将继续能够访问该数据室。Epiq对于继续维护该数据室，并在（听不清）要求书记官将向书记官提交的债权共享给其的范围内继续上传债权，没有任何问题。但Epiq准备继续为有权获得访问权限的获授权方维护该数据室。因此，这是第一个问题。第二个问题是目前由Epiq在Kwok案件的网站上维护的主案件在线案卷。Epiq也同意并愿意今后继续维护该网站。为明确起见，这将仅限于主案件的案卷，不包括债权登记册或任何对抗程序中的任何案卷。\n\n法院：\n我同意。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n而且这将仅用于——\n\n法院：\n我同意这一点。好的。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n好的。第三点是债权提交门户，该门户是Epiq网页上案件网站的一部分。我认为我们此前提出了暂时保持该门户开放的关切。我想就此补充一点。即Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）案件中政府债权申报截止日期尚未届满。截止日期为本年April 10th。因此，至少我们请求该门户保持开放至届时，或至四月底，以便政府债权以及任何其他迟延提交的债权仍可提交。显然，Epiq会像过去一样，将实际提交的任何债权转交给法院书记官，以便书记官也知悉这些债权。再次说明，这些债权均不会发布在Epiq网站上。\n\n法院：\n是的。而且没有任何债权——即使Epiq收到债权，它们也不会将其——将其作为登记册的一部分，对吗？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n不。不会。\n\n法院：\n他们将接收这些债权并转交给法院书记官？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n正确。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n完全正确。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么，我认为这确实处理了这三个问题。因此，我们需要——我们将需要——法院将准备一份拟议命令，并将与各方共享，包括债务人律师。在该命令录入案卷之前，每个人都有机会就其提出任何意见，然后我们再继续处理。好吗？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法院：\n律师，这样有道理吗？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n是的，有道理。谢谢。\n\n法院：\n我不知道该命令何时能够出具，可能在下周初。随后将设定一个期限，供各方在该命令生效前提交任何意见，或建议对该命令作出的任何意见或修改。好吗？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。我感谢这次更新。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：\n不客气。\n\n法院：\n好的。我相信这——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— March 23, 2023 52 至此，除非有人有其他问题需要提出，否则本庭今日对这些事项的全部审理即告结束。（无人回应。）法庭：好的。那么，谢谢各位。现在休庭。全体律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。（庭审于下午 12:19 结束。）本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经认证电子法庭记录员兼誊录员，特此证明：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庭审记录。April 3, 2023 Christine Fiore，CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Guo","Paul Hastings","Himalaya","Luc Despins","CIPA","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":154,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1542,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":13628,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-05 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-05","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:27:07"}