{"id":"court_ctb_1645_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1645,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2023-04-10","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"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 30, 2023 \\* v. \\* \\* LUC A. DESPINS, \\* \\* Defendant. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor and AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Plaintiff, HK Zeisler & Zeisler, PC International and 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Mei Guo: Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Plaintiff, MELISSA F. WERNICK, ESQ. HK International and Chiesa Shahinian & Mei Guo: Giantomasi, PC One Boland Drive West Orange, NJ 07052 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402**\n\n **Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd.) For the Defendant, AVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT, ESQ. Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Trustee: Paul Hastings, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 DOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Creditor, Pacific STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, 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 Logan Cheng, Creditor: JAY M. WOLMAN, ESQ. Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103\n\n2\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 1:31 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings, LLC and case No. 22-5003, HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited versus Despins. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: And Trustee's counsel? MR. BASSETT: Good -- sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's Okay. THE COURT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, as counsel to Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SKALKA: Sorry. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka, from Neubert, Pepe and Monteith, as Connecticut counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LUFT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Avi Luft, from Paul Hastings, also here on behalf of the Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Then if we could have appearances for counsel for the debtor, please.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 4 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
4 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. ROMNEY:
Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, for |\n| 2 | the debtor, as well as HK International (USA) and Ms. Mei |\n| 3 | Guo. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 5 | And counsel -- |\n| 6 | MS. WERNICK:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Melissa |\n| 7 | Wernick, from Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, on behalf of |\n| 8 | Mei Guo and HK International (USA). |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 10 | And counsel for PAX? |\n| 11 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
It's |\n| 12 | Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers.
Mr. Sarnoff is also |\n| 13 | -- on behalf of PAX.
Mr. Sarnoff is also on video, as is |\n| 14 | our Connecticut counsel, Annecca Smith, from the Robinson & |\n| 15 | Cole firm. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon to all of you. |\n| 17 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
The Office of the United States |\n| 19 | Trustee, please. |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Holley |\n| 21 | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And Attorney Wolman? |\n| 23 | MR. WOLMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Jay |\n| 24 | Wolman, of Randazza Legal Group, for creditor Logan Cheng. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 5 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
5 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | All right.
I believe that's -- I have taken |\n| 2 | everyone's -- oh, I'm sorry, Attorney Goldman.
I didn't |\n| 3 | take your appearance.
Go right ahead. |\n| 4 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Irve |\n| 5 | Goldman, Pullman & Comley, for the Creditors Committee. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 7 | All right.
Trustee Despins, you had asked for an |\n| 8 | emergency status conference and it has been scheduled for |\n| 9 | today at 1:30, so please proceed. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | We will do this in two parts.
And I'll cover the |\n| 12 | second part, which will be an update on the Lady May, and I |\n| 13 | would say that's generally good news.
But Mr. Bassett will |\n| 14 | begin with the issues relating to the Lady May II and |\n| 15 | related matters. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 17 | Mr. Bassett? |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Again, for |\n| 19 | the record, it is Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, as |\n| 20 | counsel to the Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 21 | Your Honor, one of the main reasons for the status |\n| 22 | conference, and certainly for the emergency nature of it, is |\n| 23 | to address recent information that has come to the Trustee's |\n| 24 | attention that is really beyond troubling in terms of how it |\n| 25 | fits into what the Trustee has been told for the duration of |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 6 this case by the debtor, by HK USA, and my Mei Guo, and their collective counsel. And this relates to the Trustee's discovery of HK USA's ownership of the Lady May II yacht. And I want to give some context for kind of how we got here and why this is so troubling. Before I do that I do want to note just to make clear to the extent that there was any suggestion to the contrary in what's been filed, the Lady May II while it is in some way -- I'm not a yacht or a boating person whatsoever but I understand it performs some service role with respect to the Lady May, but that not be mistaken, it is a significant vessel. For anyone other than a billionaire I would submit that it would be the yacht of a lifetime. I mean, we're talking about a, as far as I understand it, million dollar or so, if not more, vessel. And, again, I want to take a step back and just talk about how we got here and to put in context why we're so concerned about what we've -- what we've learned and then I'll tell the Court what we would propose in terms of the next steps and relief that the Trustee would need. But in terms of just how we got here, I won't belabor this because the Court knows it, but we've been at this obviously since August. We've been trying to get discovery from the debtor, from Mei Guo, from HK USA Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 6 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 7 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 7 concerning potential assets of the estate. We obviously went through motion to compel practice. We had an order to show cause. We had all of that and we went back and forth. It's notable that during the motion to compel argument and hearing and briefing one of the things we were focused on is whether -- if HK USA had additional assets that we weren't aware of beyond the Lady May, whether they would give us documents related to those assets. We actually used as an example, because we did not know that HK USA owned the Lady May II, we used as an example during all of that the hypothetical possibility that HK USA would own a yacht called the Lady May II and whether or not we would get documents related to that yacht. As the Court will recall what they said is, well, if there's not been any order saying that the Lady May II, if it existed, was property of the estate, we're not going to disclose anything regarding that. So I'll put that out there as one point that leads to how troubling this revelation is. The next thing, Your Honor, as you fast forward, the Court granted our motion to compel. We had a motion for an order to show cause regarding Mei Guo's and HK USA's lack of compliance with that -- with the order on the motion to compel. On March 13th of this year, in an effort to comply with the order to show cause, Mei Guo submitted a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 8 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
8 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | declaration on behalf of HK USA which states, and this is |\n| 2 | cited in our request for the status conference, which states |\n| 3 | at paragraph 24 unequivocally that HK USA's sole asset is |\n| 4 | the Lady May, period. |\n| 5 | Fast forward from there, the Court grants our |\n| 6 | motion for summary judgment earlier this week.
Thereafter, |\n| 7 | that same -- that same day -- sorry, this follows the |\n| 8 | Court's entry of an order granting our request for a PJR and |\n| 9 | preliminary injunction. |\n| 10 | As the Court knows, one of the requirements of the |\n| 11 | preliminary injunction of course was for Mei Guo and HK USA |\n| 12 | to identify to the Trustee their assets. |\n| 13 | As the Court knows, on Monday, Mei Guo submitted a |\n| 14 | brief saying that she, on her own behalf, was asserting the |\n| 15 | Fifth Amendment. |\n| 16 | For HK USA, Attorney Vartan sent a letter to the |\n| 17 | Trustee saying this is the disclosure about assets on behalf |\n| 18 | of HK USA.
And it stated again unequivocally the only asset |\n| 19 | of HK USA other than the Lady May was the \\$37 million in |\n| 20 | escrow which they actually contend was a liability.
Zero |\n| 21 | mention of the Lady May II. |\n| 22 | After the Court granted our motion for summary |\n| 23 | judgment, we immediately thereafter, when we had the |\n| 24 | opportunity to finally have privity and have direct |\n| 25 | discussions with those who are in control of the Lady May, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 9 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 9 my colleague reached out to representatives in Yachtzoo, who is the yacht management company, had a conversation with them about getting access to the Lady May and next steps and a representative said, well, what about the Lady May II? Don't you want information on that? Sure. He said because HK USA also owns the Lady May II. I said, well, do you have documentation that shows that? And he sent us a registration certificate which clearly stated that the Lady May II was registered to HK USA.\n\n Even after getting that on this Tuesday, I mean, we couldn't believe that we had gotten that in light of the unequivocal statements from Attorney Vartan and from Mei Guo in her declaration.\n\n But even after getting that, we still gave them the benefit of the doubt. I said to one of my colleagues, well, maybe it's possible that -- because the registration certificate, and I'll clarify, the registration certificate that we originally got was dated in 2020.\n\n So maybe it was transferred, with which it would have been troubling because we didn't know about the transfer, but maybe the ownership was transferred and that HK USA doesn't currently own it.\n\n So we asked the representative of Yachtzoo how can we can confirm that the ownership today is still with HK USA? He said you can request from the relevant Cayman\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 10 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
10 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Island Registry a current, up-to-the-moment report on who |\n| 2 | the current owner is.
We got that yesterday and it |\n| 3 | confirmed that today HK USA remains the sole owner of the |\n| 4 | yacht.
So that's why we requested our status conference. |\n| 5 | And I think these facts, Your Honor, I don't know |\n| 6 | how it can be explained other than in one of two ways. |\n| 7 | First, Mei Guo -- and before I get there, Your |\n| 8 | Honor, just one thing I wanted to note is that despite what |\n| 9 | Attorney Romney has said, and what he filed about how there |\n| 10 | was disclosures concerning this, he's referring to things |\n| 11 | that are buried in unrelated filings. |\n| 12 | No ownership of HK USA was ever disclosed to the |\n| 13 | Trustee or anyone else in this case in a responsive way, in |\n| 14 | response to our discovery requests in the adversary |\n| 15 | proceeding, none of that was ever disclosed. |\n| 16 | In fact, we had no reason to believe that it was |\n| 17 | owned by HK USA because in the PAX litigation, and this is |\n| 18 | an exhibit before the Court that the Court has, in the PAX |\n| 19 | litigation in February, the hearing on the final consent |\n| 20 | order, on February 2nd, 2022, which we just discussed at |\n| 21 | length earlier this week, Mei Guo, during cross-examination, |\n| 22 | and this is at page 72 of that hearing transcript, she was |\n| 23 | asked by counsel for PAX, she was shown a video that had a |\n| 24 | picture, that had an image of the Lady May II in it, she was |\n| 25 | asked during her cross-examination, are you familiar with |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 11 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 11 what that boat in the video is? She said, yes, that's the Lady May II. Then she was asked who owns the Lady May II? She said my brother. Your brother owns it? Yes. So that's what we understood until now. And what this tells us, Your Honor, is one of two things. One, either that Mei Guo's past testimony through today, including the declaration she submitted to this court, which by the way she also confirmed at her deposition, that she did not -- that HK USA had no other assets than the Lady May, either that she was perjuring herself and lying because she always knew that the -- that HK USA also owned the Lady May II or she doesn't even know. And if she doesn't even know, then that is further extraordinary compelling evidence to add to our mountain of compelling evidence that Mei Guo does not actually own or have any responsibility whatsoever with respect to HK USA and that it's all Mr. Kwok because she doesn't even know what assets it has. So, Your Honor, that leads us to where we are right now and what we think needs to happen.\n\n The first thing, Your Honor, and there are really three different things, and I'm sure the Trustee will jump in if I'm forgetting anything because we're all moving very quickly here, but the first thing is Attorney Vartan's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 12 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 12 letter that he sent to us in which he disclosed that HK USA has no assets other than the Lady May is obviously deficient. And what we're very concerned about is now that we've found out on our own about the Lady May II what else might there be? And what did Attorney Vartan do in order to get comfortable sending that letter? We need to know in detail who he spoke to? What he was told? Was this all from Attorney Mitchell? Was it conversations with his client? Whatever diligence they did was not remotely sufficient. Once we understood, after we were told by Yachtzoo about the Lady May II, it was not difficult at all to get that information. It would not have been difficult at all for him to get it, for Mei Guo to get it, for anyone who actually wanted to give us accurate information to get that. They could have done that. So that's number one. Number two is, in light of this, we've looked back at the order, the order the Court already entered, the preliminary injunction order and the PJR. And the preliminary injunction order, which applies to assets wherever located and freezing of those assets, we think needs to be clarified to make sure that the prohibition on HK USA and Mei Guo transferring, encumbering, moving or disposing of their interests in any property applies\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 13 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
13 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | regardless of whether that property has been disclosed.
And |\n| 2 | this is, for the Court's reference, ECF 142, is the |\n| 3 | preliminary injunction order.
And the way paragraph B -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
I have it.
I have it right in |\n| 5 | front of me so I know exactly what you're talking about. |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | The way paragraph B presently reads is that |\n| 8 | counter-defendants shall identify to the Trustee and to the |\n| 9 | Court within five days of the entry of this order any other |\n| 10 | property in which they hold an interest and counter |\n| 11 | defendants shall not transfer, encumber, move, dispose of, |\n| 12 | or in any way impair their interests in such property until |\n| 13 | further order of the Court. |\n| 14 | What has now happened, of course, is that we have |\n| 15 | Mei Guo who's taking the Fifth and refusing to disclose her |\n| 16 | assets, and we have Attorney Vartan, who has given us a |\n| 17 | facially incomplete recitation of HK USA's assets, so we |\n| 18 | need paragraph B to be clarified to say is that the |\n| 19 | requirement and the injunction that Mei Guo and HK USA not |\n| 20 | transfer, encumber, et cetera, their property applies to any |\n| 21 | property that they actually own regardless of whether they |\n| 22 | disclosed it in response to paragraph B. |\n| 23 | It can't operate any other way because if so, that |\n| 24 | would allow Mei Guo by taking the Fifth to not actually |\n| 25 | freeze any of her assets and would allow HK USA by providing |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 14 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
14 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | an untruthful and incomplete disclosure of its assets to not |\n| 2 | have to have them subject to the injunction. |\n| 3 | So we can provide exact language, but that |\n| 4 | clarification also needs to occur. |\n| 5 | Related to this, Your Honor, we think -- what we |\n| 6 | intend to do -- as the Court is aware, some assets of Mei |\n| 7 | Guo, that we are aware of that she again hasn't disclosed in |\n| 8 | response to this order because she took the Fifth, are her |\n| 9 | interests in multiple companies in the British Virgin |\n| 10 | Islands. |\n| 11 | And we understand that there is a process by which |\n| 12 | we can seek something that I believe is referred to as a |\n| 13 | stop order in the British Virgin Islands that would prevent |\n| 14 | anybody from transferring ownership in those entities. |\n| 15 | We think that is critically important for us to do |\n| 16 | in light of all the circumstances and the concerns we have |\n| 17 | about what other property there might be out there that |\n| 18 | we're not aware of that has deliberately not been disclosed |\n| 19 | to us that might be transferred.
We think it's very |\n| 20 | important for us to do that. |\n| 21 | That's not something again that we request before |\n| 22 | the Court, but we would ask for the Court to issue an order |\n| 23 | in aid of that relief we would be seeking in the BVI to |\n| 24 | author -- to specifically authorize the Trustee to do that |\n| 25 | because we think that will be helpful when we ask for that |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 15 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 15 relief in the BVI.\n\n The third and final thing, Your Honor, is that we wanted to inform the Court, we're not asking for any relief with respect to this today, we wanted to inform the Court that even prior to learning of these recent developments over the last two days, the Trustee had been preparing and intending to file as soon as possible a further motion for partial summary judgment in the HK USA adversary proceeding seeking summary judgment on the count of his complaint that seeks an order from the Court that HK USA is the debtor's alter ego.\n\n We think there is, before the development of the last two days, no dispute at all or genuine dispute of material facts to our entitlement to that relief.\n\n They've taken the position that the only asset prior to now was the Lady May. That asset is owned by the debtor. They've conceded that HK USA has no employees, et cetera, et cetera. It's a very narrow, factual, you know, set of facts that are relevant to that issue and we think it's ripe for summary adjudication.\n\n The reason I bring it up now is because we -- in light of these developments, we need to move very quickly on that. So I wanted to give the Court a heads-up that when we file that motion, and we expect to file it I would say sometime in the next couple of days, we're going to ask to\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 16 have it heard on a week's notice similar to the last motion that we filed. Again, we don't think that because all these facts have been briefed, the law has been briefed, we don't think there's any reason why it can't be heard on that track. And it's critically important that we do it quickly. And we'll put this in a motion to expedite that we file, but for a couple of reasons. One, we don't know right now what other assets, as I said before, HK USA might have that are not being reported to us. And, therefore, we need to move as quickly as possible for the Trustee to gain ownership of HK USA so it has the full ability to do what he needs to do on his own to try to identify any other assets of HK USA that might exist. The second thing is that if we are successful in proving that HK USA is the debtor's alter ego, that will result in HK USA's property, including the Lady May II, because we can then take action with respect to it if we own that boat, and the \\$37 million placed in escrow would become property of the estate. And we need that \\$37 million to fund ongoing expenses related to the Lady May and the Lady May II, all of that is critically important that we have that not in a month, not, you know, in two weeks, but as soon as we Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 16 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 17 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
17 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | possibly can.
And that's why we will be asking the Court to |\n| 2 | hear that motion on an expedited basis. |\n| 3 | Again, we're not asking for relief today, but we |\n| 4 | wanted to let the Court know that that will be happening, |\n| 5 | because it does tie into the recent events and it's sort of |\n| 6 | an exigency surrounding it or it's a function of or a by |\n| 7 | product of what's happened. |\n| 8 | So I'll stop there.
If the Trustee thinks I've |\n| 9 | missed anything, he can let me know.
But that was -- that |\n| 10 | was what I wanted to tell the Court on that first issue. |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
And, Your Honor, Mr. Bassett covered |\n| 12 | everything. |\n| 13 | The only thing I would add before turning it over |\n| 14 | to the other side is -- or to be supporting our position is |\n| 15 | that not the last point about summary judgment.
Of course |\n| 16 | we're not going to consent to that that, but the other ones |\n| 17 | to clarify the preliminary injunction order is stop noticing |\n| 18 | of that, that's something that the representatives of HK |\n| 19 | International and the debtor's daughter should consent to. |\n| 20 | Of course, they're going to say, well, that's for them to |\n| 21 | decide.
Absolutely.
But I would find it very hard, given |\n| 22 | the current posture of the case, to understand why they |\n| 23 | would not consent to those first items that Mr. Bassett |\n| 24 | described. |\n| 25 | Obviously, they're not going to consent to summary |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 18 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
18 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | judgment on the alter ego.
We would like them to do that, |\n| 2 | but that, I'm realistic, that's asking too much. |\n| 3 | But the other parts are, frankly, in the current |\n| 4 | posture almost like an automatic, but I'll turn over to them |\n| 5 | or to the counsel for PAX or the Committee if they want to |\n| 6 | be heard. |\n| 7 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Well, I'd like to ask Mr. Bassett a |\n| 9 | question first. |\n| 10 | Mr. Bassett, you said that you obtained the |\n| 11 | information from one of the representatives of Yachtzoo, is |\n| 12 | that correct? |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | So my colleague, Attorney Bongartz, on Monday, I |\n| 15 | believe, after the Court entered the summary judgment order |\n| 16 | which gave the Trustee ownership of the Lady May, then |\n| 17 | reached out to Yachtzoo to immediately open a line of |\n| 18 | communication as the owner of the yacht. |\n| 19 | At that point, we were able to interface directly |\n| 20 | with Yachtzoo as the owner.
And in that conversation, he |\n| 21 | said, the representative of Yachtzoo as I understand it, |\n| 22 | told Attorney Bongartz, well, we should also discuss the |\n| 23 | Lady May II.
And that's when we said, well, we understood |\n| 24 | that based on her testimony in PAX case that was owned by |\n| 25 | her brother.
And he said I think it's owned by HK USA. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 19 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 19 And we asked for the certificate of registry. He sent it to us. And then we confirmed by getting the updated one, as I described earlier. THE COURT: Okay. And that was the first that you learned that the Trustee and his counsel learned about the Lady May II? MR. BASSETT: We had heard the references to it, obviously, including in the PAX litigation, but that was the first time we had ever become aware that it was owned by HK USA. THE COURT: That's the question I should have asked you, Mr. Bassett. So you answered the question I should have asked. My question wasn't correct. My question was is that the first time that the Trustee and you as his counsel learned that the Lady May II was owned by HK USA? And you've just said yes. MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: And I just obviously -- yeah, okay. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. I didn't ask a very good question. So I apologize. MR. BASSETT: No problem. THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to turn to Attorney Romney and Attorney Wernick. I understand Attorney Vartan\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 20 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 20 is not here today. But in the meantime, when I reviewed the Trustee's request for an emergency status conference on this issue, and the reason that the conference was set was because what is in the record before this court, both in documents and testimony and in representations in writing made by Attorney Vartan and others, was that the only assets of HK USA was the Lady May. You're not even -- you wouldn't -- I mean, the documents say that you disagree that the 37 million is property of HK USA. So why was the ownership of the Lady May II not disclosed to the parties and to the Court, Attorney Romney and Attorney Wernick? MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, on behalf of HK International USA. I'm going to back it up a little bit and directly answer the Court's question, but as I sit here, I'm wondering why we're here because all of this could have been avoided, resolved with a simple phone call or an email. THE COURT: Hold on a second, Attorney Romney. Just hold on a second because you're a little muffled. Can you get a little closer to the microphone, because I'm having -- I can mostly hear what you're saying, but you're a little muffled.\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 21 MR. ROMNEY: I apologize. Is that better, Your Honor? THE COURT: That is better. MR. ROMNEY: Okay. So as I was saying, I'm a little bit perplexed as to why we're sitting here right now under these circumstances. I don't believe there's an emergency. I don't believe there's a situation that can't be resolved with a simple conversation and perhaps consensual modifications to orders. First, the existence of the Lady May II has been disclosed. It was disclosed to PAX and the Creditors Committee by Attorney Kindseth when he provided evidence of insurance at the inception of this case. Invoices concerning registration of the Lady May II in the name of HK USA had been produced to the Trustee in connection with other documentation concerning the boat. As to Mei Guo's testimony at her deposition, which to be honest, I was present at that deposition. I don't recall it as I sit here, so I haven't discussed it with her, but I can tell you that from my personal understanding, as well as Attorney Vartan's from having spoken to him and having reviewed his letter, is our understanding is that the Lady May II is a boat that effectively exists to service the Lady May. We viewed it -- THE COURT: But that doesn't -- Attorney Romney, Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 21 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 22 none of what you're saying answers the -- MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, may I finish my thoughts before -- THE COURT: -- none of what you're saying is answering -- hold on -- none of what you're saying is answering the question. I don't -- it doesn't matter whether the Lady II May [sic] services the Lady May. You need to show me where -- you just said -- you said something that is relevant. You said that you produced documents to PAX and others that show that the Lady May II was owned by HK USA. That's what I thought I heard you say. If that's true, then I'd like to see those -- MR. ROMNEY: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- I'd like to see those documents and I'd like to see when they were produced, number one. Number two, the issue with regard to what the Lady May II does or doesn't do is not relevant. If it's owned by HK USA, then that's relevant. And you -- MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, if I could have two minutes. I -- THE COURT: Hold on a second. Hold on a second, please, Attorney Romney. And there are two declarations of Mei Guo in addition to the testimony that I didn't -- I wasn't even looking at the testimony Mr. Bassett just talked about --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 22 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 23 that state as -- unequivocally that the only asset of HK USA is the Lady May. And that's what your client swore to under penalty of perjury. And Attorney Vartan's letter that was sent on the 27th, where we gave him time to -- additional time, the Court provided additional time to provide that information to the Trustee says the only asset of HK USA is the Lady May. So unless you can show me documents that -- MR. ROMNEY: I would like to answer your question -- THE COURT: -- unless you can show me documents that show this registration that was produced, that show this registration that -- of the Lady May II in the name of HK USA that were produced to the Trustee and his counsel, then I think you've got a problem. But you also have a problem because of what your client has sworn to in declarations, and apparently testified to at a 2004 examination, and what Mr. Vartan has represented in a written letter to the Trustee in compliance with an order of this court, in purported compliance with an order of this court. So I think you need to answer those questions. I don't -- it doesn't matter to me if the Lady May II services the Lady May because the Lady May II is a separate vessel. Even if it is the tender or whatever it Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 23 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 24 is, it doesn't matter. It's a separate vessel that needs to be insured, that has a different registration and apparently is registered in the name of HK USA. Okay? No one seems to be quarreling about that right now. Do you disagree that it's registered in the name of HK USA, the Lady May II? MR. ROMNEY: I do not, Your Honor. And I would like to answer your other questions as well if I can have an opportunity to do so. THE COURT: You absolutely shall have the opportunity. Go right ahead. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. So, again, speaking as for my understanding, as well as Attorney Vartan's, because I've discussed this issue with him, I also reviewed his letter, the reality is, and I apologize that neither of us are boating experts, we viewed the asset of the Lady May II as part of the same asset. If that's technically incorrect, we stand corrected. But to the Trustee's point, there was no intent to conceal anything. And based on our position that we had essentially viewed this as one in the same asset. While I believe there would need to be an amendment to the summary judgment order, for the same reasons there was no malicious intent, no intent to deceive, and this would have been resolved with a phone call or an Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 24 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 25 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 25 email, while we disagree with the Court's summary judgment motion, and we do reserve our rights to appeal it, that is a separate issue from the fact that for the same reasons that we believe disclosing the Lady May was substantively disclosing the Lady May II, and we believe that everyone knew of it, we would consent that the Court's summary judgment order applies. And I believe that for technical reasons we'd need a modification where it applies to the Lady May II. It's the exact same issue. In our view, it was the same asset. I apologize if we were technically incorrect. There was no intent to deceive. And I'm sitting here telling the Court, and I would have told the Trustee or his -- and his counsel, if they had picked up the phone or emailed me, that we can resolve the issue of the Lady May II through that. THE COURT: Well, Mr. Romney, your office has consistently said throughout these proceedings that the Trustee needs to file papers. The Trustee started this whole process off by trying to enter into agreements with you on behalf of Mr. Kwok and HK USA and Mei Guo. And you have stood here, as have other of your colleagues, and said is there a motion pending? Because I'm not going to address that unless there's a motion pending?\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 26 And so you can't take that position now. Number one. Number two, I don't know how anyone in their -- in a reasonable review of what an asset is could think that the Lady May II is part of the Lady May. If it was, then it should be sitting on the side of it over at the dock here in Bridgeport and it's not. And apparently the only testimony with regard to the Lady May II, apparently, and if someone shows me something different, I will review it, is that your client, Ms. Wernick and Mr. Romney, your client, Ms. Guo, testified that it was owned by her brother. So why would you then think that was part of the Lady May if that's what your client testified to in a deposition? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may jump in for two seconds? We will take Mr. Romney's concession. We will submit an amended order clarifying that the summary judgment applies to both. The consequences of what they did, we can deal with that later. But we can amend that order and say that we own the Lady May II as well. You know, it's like the bank robber with a bag of money saying look at me, I'm giving you the money back. Yeah. I'll take the money back. I'll take the bag. We'll deal with the rest -- THE COURT: Is it insured though -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 26 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 27 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 27 MR. DESPINS: -- we'll deal with the rest later, but we should amend the order. THE COURT: -- Trustee Despins? Do you know if there's any insurance on the property? MR. DESPINS: No, I don't know that. But if I'm going to own it, we'll have to insure it. THE COURT: Right. And as I noted, I believe in the written opinion, that supplemental opinion on summary judgment that was issued this morning, that in the stipulated order regarding the Lady May, HK USA stated that they would pay for the insurance on the Lady May II, unequivocally again and did not do so. So I think there's a lot of issues here. But fine. If the parties want to work it out and submit new orders, that's fine. I think that the prejudgment remedy order does not need to be modified, but if you want to modify it, that's fine because it says to attach any interests in any property that the defendants may have. But if you need to amend that, then fine. So then HK USA and Mei Guo, despite the testimony under oath that has been made repeatedly, are going to consent and concede that HK USA owns the Lady May II, and now in accordance with the summary judgment motion that that order can be amended to include the Lady May II.\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 28 Is that correct? Attorney Romney and Attorney Wernick? MR. DESPINS: That's what I understand the offer to be. MR. ROMNEY: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear. THE COURT: Attorney Wernick, Attorney Romney? I thought Attorney Wernick was the main counsel for HK USA . That's what I was told a few weeks ago, that office, so what's the answer to the question? MS. WERNICK: Our office is co-counsel, Your Honor. And, I mean, to Mr. Romney -- THE COURT: That's not what Attorney Vartan said, but go right ahead. MS. WERNICK: I think to stress -- to Mr. Romney's point that there is an agreement and there's no objection to amending the summary judgment order to include the Lady May II as an asset that's being turned over pursuant to the order. MR. DESPINS: Okay. So, Your Honor, therefore, there are couple of things that remain to be done. One, is we need to clarify the injunction order because it says -- it could be read to say -- THE COURT: I agree. MR. DESPINS: -- that it only applies to what they disclose. And since they don't -- they disclose nothing, we\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 28 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 29 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 29 need to fix that to say all your assets are frozen, you cannot transfer them. So that's number one. The first question is -- THE COURT: Whether they're disclosed or not disclosed. MR. DESPINS: Correct. And the question is is there consent to that? MS. WERNICK: I think it goes without saying. MR. DESPINS: Okay. So then -- THE COURT: I don't agree that it goes without saying, Attorney Wernick. Because if it went without saying, we'd all know about the Lady May II. That's such a -- that is -- okay. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: You better work it out because you're on thin ice. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Okay. So that -- THE COURT: This is really -- this is -- you have obligations of honesty and candor to this court and I just am -- anyway, go ahead, Trustee Despins. MR. DESPINS: So the next item is, and Mr. Bassett will help me, it is the stop orders in the BVI. So we want to know whether there will consent by both the daughter, the debtor's daughter -- this actually applies to only the debtor's daughter, she's the one who is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 30 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
30 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the beneficial owner nine BVI companies or so -- whether |\n| 2 | there's consent to this court entering an order saying that |\n| 3 | the Trustee is authorized and the Court seeks assistance of |\n| 4 | the BVI courts to issue a stop order which basically |\n| 5 | prevents any transfers of the interests of the daughter in |\n| 6 | these companies. |\n| 7 | And the way it works is that they can go back to |\n| 8 | the BVI court on two weeks' notice to undo that, but in the |\n| 9 | meantime the asset is frozen. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Attorney Wernick, Attorney Romney, you |\n| 11 | can respond to Trustee Despins' request? |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
Your Honor, I would say in response |\n| 13 | to that that if there is a -- there's two things. |\n| 14 | One, if the Trustee would like us to stipulate to |\n| 15 | something, we would like to see it in writing and -- I |\n| 16 | believe based upon my understanding of what's been described |\n| 17 | the order being requested would be redundant, the injunction |\n| 18 | already in place, which we understand to apply to all |\n| 19 | assets. |\n| 20 | I certainly never read the order, you know, not to |\n| 21 | sort of switch issues, but I never read the order to apply |\n| 22 | only to disclosed assets.
I think that would be an overly |\n| 23 | hypertechnical and ridiculous reading frankly that if one |\n| 24 | didn't disclose an asset it wouldn't be subject to an |\n| 25 | injunction. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 31 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 31 So if Trustee Despins has additional language for additional clarity or comfort that is in accordance with the spirit of the existing order, I would ask that he send it over to us and we will review it, discuss it with our client, and if it's the way it appears, I imagine we would consent to it, but it's not something we've discussed with our client because we're just learning about it for the first time at this status conference. MR. DESPINS: It is the equivalent, Your Honor, of a prejudgement remedy, which as you know is limited to Connecticut in the BVI. Basically that whether they decide to comply or not with the injunction, and we know that they have not in other cases, they as a group -- so the BVI course would go on in the transfers. That's what this does. It's the equivalent of a PJR order over there. That's what this does. The injunction is a good thing, but at the end of the day if somebody's willing to breach that, it's not an interim remedy. We all know that. THE COURT: Well, I think the way to proceed is to see if you get their agreement. And then if you don't, then you ask the Court to enter the order. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Will do, Your Honor. Thank you.\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 32 Mr. Bassett, I don't know if there's anything I forgot. MR. BASSETT: No. I mean, the only thing that I had mentioned is we are being lied to by somebody, Your Honor. There's no other way to put it. The testimony of Mei Guo was that her brother owned this boat, she testified that HK USA has no other assets. We got the letter from Attorney Vartan that didn't mention the Lady May II. And as the Court pointed out, no reasonable person could possibly inferred from that that they meant when they said that HK USA owns the Lady May it included the Lady May II. There's been months of discussion, more than a year I think at this point of discussion in this case, about getting the Lady May II, sorry, getting the Lady May to Connecticut, having a repair reserve established, all of these things. There was never a mention of getting the Lady May II there, about the condition of the Lady May II. About any of that stipulation applying to the Lady May II, none of that. There's zero reason why any reasonable person to have interpreted the statement to this court in the way that Attorney Romney asked the Court (indiscernible). And these other disclosures by the way, the one disclosure that Attorney Romney mentioned when he filed with the Court was from December of 2022 when his clients filed a Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 32 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 33 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 33 motion to modify the repair reserve for the Lady May. They had attached as exhibits like 40 pages of expenses and things like that. Part of one invoice referenced services that were provided on the Lady May II. We necessarily would have never thought to look at that document to determine that HK USA owned the Lady May II because they were filing it ironically in connection with expenses in the repair reserve applicable to the Lady May. It's beyond the pale. And the reason I'm saying all this is because we have to have some way to get actual compliance with the Court's order. The letter that Attorney Vartan sent us on Monday is not compliant. If there's one asset, the Lady May II, which is a very significant asset, that was omitted from that letter, what else is there? We have no way of knowing, but we need to know. And maybe we'll never get honest and forthright answers in this case, but at least we can know how he went about gathering this information. Did he actually even talk to his client? And maybe Attorney Vartan is just being fed, you know, incomplete information from Mei Guo and she's telling him, you know, this is the only asset. But maybe he's not even talking to her.\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 34 And even if he is getting information from her, how is he double-checking that? Did he think to go look at the registry for the Lady May II? What other diligence could be done to give us the information that we need? And we think a further order in that regard is required for us to get critical information about assets of the estate that we have just never gotten. THE COURT: And I would note for the record there was a discussion in front of this court on November 30, 2022, at which Mr. Moriarty talked about a hypothetical Lady May II and said that as we state in our objection at paragraph 9 if there was a hypothetical Lady May II that was exactly as the Lady May with an order from a court in New York finding what Justice Ostrager found, we would produce responsive documents. But, one, that hypothetical Lady May II was hypothetical. And two, hypothetical in the meet and confer was if there was a Lady May II would you produce documents? Not will all of the surrounding factual information. And the response was if there was a Lady May II and the debtor didn't have any interest in it, no responsive documents would be produced. That's what was said to the Court back in -- on November 30, 2022. So to say, Attorney Romney and Attorney Wernick, Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 34 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 35 that you thought the Lady May II was part of the Lady May is not persuasive to the Court. So I'm going to consider whatever remedies the Trustee thinks are appropriate in connection with the issue regarding the Lady May II. Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. ROMNEY: Yes, Your Honor. I'd just say in 15 years I've never been accused of making a misrepresentation to a court. I never made a misrepresentation to a court. I stand by it now. Attorney Vartan who is not here has spent the majority of his career serving his country for the Department of Justice. He's a respectful man of honor. All I can tell you is what was going on in my mind. I'm not the one behind these representations. But frankly, based upon my understanding, I would have made the same ones too because that's what I believed. People aren't perfect. With the benefit of hindsight should this have been disclosed? Yes. Clearly it is, they're two different boats. We did not understand them. The Lady May II, as I understand it, has been sitting in storage since when the Lady May went to Europe. It has been in storage. It has not been used. There was nothing to bring back because it never left. It's been in storage. Nobody's using it. Nobody's doing anything with\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 35 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 36 it. Nobody's been focused on it because the focus has been on the larger yacht. There was no intent whatsoever to deceive. And that's why I'm standing before this court saying, based on our perception, we are stipulating that the order applies to both vessels and that's all I have to say. But I -- as I said, I've never been accused in 15 years of lying, so today's the first. THE COURT: I didn't say you -- I didn't accuse you of lying, Mr. Romney. MR. ROMNEY: But I will stand by my integrity and my honor. THE COURT: I said you're not persuading me that you thought that the Lady May II was part of the Lady May, number one. Number two, Mr. Vartan's letter of two days, three days ago says earlier today the Court entered an order holding that effective as of 2:55 p.m., on March 27th, the Lady May is property of the debtor's Chapter 11 estate. HK's only other property is the escrowed funds deposited pursuant to the certain escrow agreement. That's what his letter says. He doesn't say anything about the Lady May II and he obviously knew about the Lady May II because you're telling me you all knew about it. And who knew that it was stored in a warehouse in Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 36 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 37 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 37 Mamaroneck? I don't. I've never heard that before today. So how can -- MR. ROMNEY: I didn't either actually, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, you could -- MR. ROMNEY: Before yesterday. THE COURT: Yes, you did, because you read the document that you were served with last night that the Trustee said -- MR. ROMNEY: No. I said before yesterday. THE COURT: -- it was in a document -- in a warehouse. So, you know, it's just not -- it's hard to believe the circumstances that the Court is being told. It's very disappointing. This is a situation where this case -- the fight has been intense, and it is -- it has been constant. And now to say to the Court, well, we didn't think that the Lady May II was different from the Lady May, that's just -- there's nothing in the record to support that thought. And it's very difficult for the Court to hear what I'm hearing. So I will have to see what Trustee Despins decides and we will go from there. But I am very, very troubled by this development. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, all I can tell you is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 38 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
38 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | what I believed, what I thought, and what I said, and stand |\n| 2 | by all of it because they're all consistent. |\n| 3 | I will also put on the record that my |\n| 4 | understanding to the point of the storage, I learned of the |\n| 5 | storage issue yesterday.
My understanding had been -- and, |\n| 6 | again, our focus has always been on the Lady May. |\n| 7 | To Your Honor's point about there's always been |\n| 8 | many issues, there's five things going on in this case at |\n| 9 | once.
We're all human beings.
We can't focus on everything |\n| 10 | at once.
We're doing our best.
There is no basis for any |\n| 11 | lack of integrity on the part of myself or Attorney Vartan. |\n| 12 | My understanding, and granted it was -- I don't |\n| 13 | know who told me this, it was obviously misinformation.
I |\n| 14 | had thought that the Lady May II was inside the Lady May I |\n| 15 | and that's why I thought it was all part of one asset |\n| 16 | because sometimes larger boats actually house the smaller |\n| 17 | boat and serve the purpose of transport to and from.
That |\n| 18 | was my understanding. |\n| 19 | It was obviously misinformation and it was |\n| 20 | obviously not something that I considered significant enough |\n| 21 | to follow up and verify because the focus had been on the |\n| 22 | Lady May as well as the many other issues at stake. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
But, Attorney Romney, I understand |\n| 24 | what you're saying. |\n| 25 | However, the discovery process has been ongoing |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 39 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
39 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | since August.
Tomorrow is April.
So it's very difficult |\n| 2 | for the Court to look at this in a way that what -- the way |\n| 3 | that you've described.
This has been going on since April. |\n| 4 | Mr. Kwok and Ms. Guo and HK USA have been represented by |\n| 5 | numerous attorneys.
These issues have been raised and |\n| 6 | discovery has been going on. |\n| 7 | And actually HK USA came to this court and |\n| 8 | subjected itself to the jurisdiction of this court in April |\n| 9 | of last year, so actually, it's been almost a year. |\n| 10 | And it's very difficult to think that somebody at |\n| 11 | HK USA and Mei Guo didn't understand that, and their |\n| 12 | counsel, that the boat known as the Lady May II is a |\n| 13 | separate and distinct asset when the Trustee and PAX before |\n| 14 | it in the state court action all was -- all they were trying |\n| 15 | to do was seize assets, discover and seize assets.
That's |\n| 16 | clear.
I mean, it's clear.
No one can dispute that. |\n| 17 | So I understand what you've just said.
But as I |\n| 18 | said before, I will consider whatever Trustee Despins puts |\n| 19 | in front of the Court and give anybody an opportunity to |\n| 20 | respond, but it is very troublesome that this is what is |\n| 21 | being presented to the Court at this point in time.
And |\n| 22 | that's putting it mildly. |\n| 23 | MR. ROMNEY:
Your Honor, the only thing I will say |\n| 24 | is I don't know how HK or my firm could have been attempting |\n| 25 | to conceal an asset when my understanding is that Attorney |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 40 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 40 Kindseth at the inception of this case, going back to April, turned over the proof of insurance in the name of HK International to PAX and the Creditors Committee. And to use Trustee Despins' bank robber explanation, so we told PAX and the Committee that we were going to rob a bank and then we robbed the bank a year later, that doesn't make any sense to me. THE COURT: Okay. So are you saying the proof of insurance shows that it insures the Lady May and the Lady May II? MR. ROMNEY: That is my understanding. Yes. THE COURT: Well, you'd need to show that to me then. MR. ROMNEY: I will -- would be glad to. Would the Court like me to file it on the docket, whatever he has? THE COURT: Yes. MR. ROMNEY: Again, it's Attorney Kindseth. We will put it on the docket today. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, these insurance papers, which I have not seen myself, cannot overcome the direct and unequivocal testimony and letters regarding ownership. It just -- and also we know Mr. Vartan was involved in representing the daughter in the PAX litigation, so he knew her position there was the Lady May was owned by the son, not by her.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 41 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 41 So when did it change that they all agreed that, in fact, it was owned by HK International, everything was fine. It just makes no sense. But anyway, the Court doesn't need -- we don't need to resolve that today. I'd like Your Honor's permission to move onto the other aspects of the status conference, which is the Lady May itself. THE COURT: Yes. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Okay. And this actually is for a change better news. So we received confirmation from the insurers that we have insurance coverage. I was very nervous about that, but we did get the insurance coverage. It's in place. We are in the process of changing the ownership registration in the Cayman Islands because that's a Cayman Islands registered ship. And, Your Honor, I have the same reaction you have, because I personally know nothing about yachts and all that, but I thought, hey, if this thing is not moving, why do we need a crew and all that? And I learned a lot about these yachts in the last five days, and basically there are insurance requirements, and the registration requirements that a crew be on there and same thing for the marina. The marina will not accept the Lady May there unless there's a crew of X, because they\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 42 need to -- you need that number of people to move the yacht if there's a problem. And so it's all -- and my reaction is we don't need anybody there. We just lock it up and leave it there. But you can't do that. So there's a lot of work that needs to be done. For example, there's the management company. We need to hire the same management company. We need to have new contracts. Same thing for the crew. The crew is hired by some intermediate company and we're working on that. We are also -- I mentioned the insurance, the crew. We also need to sign an agreement with the Bridgeport Seaport Marina. That's in progress. And, Your Honor, we will need to file a motion on short notice to get the Court to approve all this because, you know, I'm not in the business, the Trustee is not -- it's not in the ordinary course of business for the the Trustee to do this, and so we want the Court to approve the execution of these agreements. And the goal, Your Honor, to be very clear, is to sell this asset as soon as we can. And in order to do that, we'll need to retain a broker. We will need to file a motion to get the Court to approve the retention of a broker and the terms of that commission. Next item is, you will recall that there was one Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 42 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 43 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 43 repair that needed to be done, which is the valve repairs. That has not been done. That needs to be done. That was supposed to be covered by the repair reserve. We'll talk to Mr. Moriarty as to whether they'll agree that it can come out of the repair reserve. But it needs to. And if we don't have an agreement, we'll be back in front of Your Honor on this. The next item, Your Honor, is that we may need to move the yacht from Bridgeport to Newport. And the reason for that, and, again, I'm learning a lot about this, is that because this was a foreign registered ship you cannot market it and sell it in the U.S. with Americans visiting the ship for the purpose of buying it. You cannot do that. There are tax issues involved in that. It's because the ship -- it's like an immigration visa. It has an immigration visa. They can do chartering or cruising around the U.S., but it cannot be in the process of being sold. And in Newport, Rhode Island, I'm informed that there is a tax-free zone where you can actually moor these boats that are foreign, that are on foreign flag, and you can actually sell them or attempt to sell them through that process. So we will keep the Court informed about this and we will not just move it, you know, on short notice, but I want to make sure that the Court knows that there's a very\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 44 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
44 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | good possibility that we will have to move it to Newport to |\n| 2 | accomplish a sale or at least to market it. |\n| 3 | What else? |\n| 4 | I just want to mention one thing, Your Honor, is |\n| 5 | that the 500,000 we got is not going to get us very far and |\n| 6 | that's why we need access to the 33 million because, as I |\n| 7 | said, it's a shock to me.
I thought we could just lock it |\n| 8 | up, but you cannot do that.
There's a crew.
There's a |\n| 9 | management company.
Just, you know, to own these ships you |\n| 10 | have to be a billionaire.
And we're not a billionaire, so |\n| 11 | we need to sell it.
And, therefore, depending on how long |\n| 12 | it takes to sell it, you know, we need access to other |\n| 13 | funds. |\n| 14 | Just to give you a sense, just to moor the boat in |\n| 15 | low season, Your Honor, it costs \\$16,000 a month in |\n| 16 | Bridgeport.
In high season, I think it's double or triple |\n| 17 | that, and we're getting to high season soon. |\n| 18 | So we will come back to court to report with |\n| 19 | requests with respect to these various agreements, but I |\n| 20 | wanted to give Your Honor a preview of that. |\n| 21 | And of course the crew, the management company, |\n| 22 | and the marina, you know, they want everything done |\n| 23 | yesterday.
I said that's not the way it works.
We're in |\n| 24 | bankruptcy.
We need to -- there's a process, et cetera. |\n| 25 | But I ask the Court to be prepared for this so |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 45 that when we ask for short notice, because they're -- they have the ability in theory to walk off and we don't want them to do that obviously. The last point I would ask, Your Honor, is, you know, remember the contempt order you entered and we had to file a fee application by a certain date. We obtained an extension from Your Honor to April 3rd. But given everything that's going on and the work on the summary judgment and all that, we would ask for another extension. If we could get another seven days to April 10th, we would really appreciate that. This is the fee application for -- THE COURT: I have no problem with that. You can take as much as you'd like. It's a matter of you submitting information that would then form the basis for the sanction that would be imposed. So that's -- MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. Okay. So we will submit an order, I guess, to the courtroom deputy -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- extending it to the 10th of April. THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: And that is all we have for today, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 45 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 46 of 46\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023
46 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Does anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 4 | (No response.) |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Hearing nothing, then this is |\n| 6 | the last matter on the calendar, so court is adjourned. |\n| 7 | Thank you. |\n| 8 | (Proceedings concluded at 2:33 p.m.) |\n| 9 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic |\n| 10 | Court Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing |\n| 11 | is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound |\n| 12 | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | April 7, 2023 |\n| 16 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\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　　＊\n控股公司），　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n债务人。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS　　　　　　对抗程序案号：22-05003\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（HK国际　＊\n基金投资（美国）有限公司），　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n原告，　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊　2023年3月30日\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n诉　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平），　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n被告。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊\n\n尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国联邦破产法官主持\n案件状态会议庭审记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人及原告 HK International 和 Mei Guo（郭美）：\nAARON ROMNEY（亚伦·罗姆尼）, ESQ.\nZeisler & Zeisler, PC（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表原告 HK International 和 Mei Guo：\nMELISSA F. WERNICK（梅利莎·F·韦尼克）, ESQ.\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC（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庭审程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由转录服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表被告、Chapter 11 受托人 Luc A. Despins：\nAVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT（阿夫拉姆·伊曼纽尔·卢夫特）, ESQ.\nNICHOLAS BASSETT（尼古拉斯·巴塞特）, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings, LLP（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nDOUGLAS S. SKALKA（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）, ESQ.\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（诺伊伯特·佩佩与蒙泰思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\nChapter 11 受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平）, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings, LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）：\nSTUART SARNOFF（斯图亚特·萨诺夫）, ESQ.\nPETER FRIEDMAN（彼得·弗里德曼）, ESQ.\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美伟律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nANNECCA H. SMITH（安妮卡·H·史密斯）, ESQ.\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN（欧文·戈德曼）, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩）, ESQ.\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程龙）：\nJAY M. WOLMAN（杰伊·M·沃尔曼）, ESQ.\nRandazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团）\n100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023 3\n\n（庭审于下午1:31开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever 控股公司）和 Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），以及案号 22-5003，HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）诉 Despins。\n\n法官：好的。下午好。请 Chapter 11 受托人先为记录声明出庭身份。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，Chapter 11 受托人。\n\n法官：受托人的代理律师呢？\n\nBASSETT 先生：下午好——抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法官：没关系。\n\nBASSETT 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，担任 Chapter 11 受托人的代理律师。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nSKALKA 先生：抱歉。下午好，法官阁下。Douglas Skalka，来自 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith，担任 Chapter 11 受托人的康涅狄格州代理律师。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nLUFT 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Avi Luft，来自 Paul Hastings，亦代表受托人出庭。\n\n法官：下午好。那么请债务人的代理律师声明出庭身份。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 4 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023\n\nROMNEY 先生：\nAaron Romney，Zeisler & Zeisler，代表债务人，以及 HK International (USA) 和 Mei Guo 女士。\n\n法官：\n下午好。代理律师——\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Melissa Wernick，来自 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi，代表 Mei Guo 和 HK International (USA)。\n\n法官：\n下午好。PAX 的代理律师呢？\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 O'Melveny & Myers 的 Peter Friedman。Sarnoff 先生也代表 PAX 出庭。Sarnoff 先生以及我方康涅狄格州代理律师、来自 Robinson & Cole 律师事务所的 Annecca Smith，也通过视频出席。\n\n法官：\n各位下午好。\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法官：\n请美国受托人办公室声明出庭身份。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\n法官：\n好的。Wolman 律师呢？\n\nWOLMAN 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Jay Wolman，来自 Randazza Legal Group，代表债权人 Logan Cheng。\n\n法官：\n下午好。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 5 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023\n\n好的。我相信我已经记下了所有人的——哦，抱歉，Goldman 律师。我没有记下您的出庭身份。请讲。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman，来自 Pullman & Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法官：\n下午好。\n\n好的。Despins 受托人，您请求召开紧急状态会议，现已安排于今日下午1:30举行，请继续。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n我们将分两部分进行。我将说明第二部分，即关于 Lady May 的最新情况，我会说这总体上是好消息。但 Bassett 先生将首先说明与 Lady May II 及相关事项有关的问题。\n\n法官：\n好的。谢谢。Bassett 先生？\n\nBASSETT 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。再次为记录起见，我是来自 Paul Hastings 的 Nick Bassett，担任 Chapter 11 受托人的代理律师。\n\n法官阁下，召开本次状态会议的主要原因之一，当然也是其紧急性质的原因，是为了处理受托人最近获悉的信息；就其与债务人、HK USA、Mei Guo 女士及其共同代理律师在本案期间一直向受托人所作陈述的契合程度而言，该信息确实极其令人不安。这涉及受托人发现 HK USA 对 Lady May II 游艇的所有权。我想就我们如何走到这一步以及为何这如此令人不安提供一些背景。\n\n在此之前，我确实想指出，为明确起见，就已提交文件中是否有任何相反暗示而言，Lady May II 虽然在某种程度上——我完全不是游艇或船只方面的人士，但我理解它就 Lady May 而言发挥某种服务性作用——但不要误解，它是一艘重要船只。对于除亿万富翁之外的任何人，我会说它将是一生一遇的游艇。我的意思是，据我理解，我们谈论的是一艘价值约百万美元、甚至可能更高的船只。再次，我想退一步，只谈谈我们是如何走到这一步的，并说明我们为何对我们所获悉的情况如此担忧，然后我将向法院说明我们拟议的下一步措施，以及受托人所需的救济。\n\n但就我们如何走到这一步而言，我不会赘述，因为法院知悉此事；显然，自8月以来，我们一直在处理此事。我们一直试图从债务人、Mei Guo、HK USA 获取有关可能属于破产财产的资产的证据开示。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 6 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 7 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK v Despins - March 30 2023\n\n有关可能属于破产财产的资产。显然，我们经历了强制披露动议程序。我们曾有说明理由令。我们有过所有这些，并且来回交锋。值得注意的是，在强制披露动议的辩论、听证和书面陈述期间，我们关注的问题之一是，如果 HK USA 拥有我们除 Lady May 之外并不知晓的额外资产，他们是否会向我们提供与这些资产有关的文件。事实上，我们以此为例，因为我们不知道 HK USA 拥有 Lady May II；在所有这些程序中，我们以 HK USA 假设拥有一艘名为 Lady May II 的游艇，以及我们是否会获得与该游艇有关的文件为例。正如法院所记得的，他们所说的是，嗯，如果没有任何裁定认定 Lady May II（假设其存在）属于破产财产，我们不会披露与其有关的任何信息。因此，我提出这一点，作为说明这一发现为何如此令人不安的一点。\n\n接下来，法官阁下，若时间向前推移，法院准许了我们的强制披露动议。就 Mei Guo 和 HK USA 未遵守该强制披露动议裁定一事，我们提出了说明理由令动议。今年3月13日，为遵守说明理由令，Mei Guo 代表 HK USA 提交了一份声明；该声明在我们请求召开状态会议的申请中被援引，其第24段明确无误地称，HK USA 的唯一资产是 Lady May，仅此而已。\n\n再向前推移，本周早些时候，法院准许了我们的简易判决动议。此后，同日——抱歉，这是在法院作出裁定准许我们提出的 PJR 和初步禁令请求之后。\n\n如法院所知，初步禁令的要求之一，当然是 Mei Guo 和 HK USA 向受托人确认其资产。\n\n如法院所知，周一，Mei Guo 提交了一份书面陈述，称其以个人名义援引第五修正案。\n\n就 HK USA 而言，Vartan 律师致函受托人，称这是代表 HK USA 就资产所作的披露。该函再次明确无误地称，HK USA 除 Lady May 外的唯一资产是托管中的 $37 million，而他们实际主张该项为负债。完全未提及 Lady May II。\n\n在法院准许我们的简易判决动议后，我们随即在终于有机会与控制 Lady May 的人士建立直接法律关系并直接讨论时，我的同事联系了游艇管理公司 Yachtzoo（游艇动物园）的代表，与其讨论取得 Lady May 的访问权及后续步骤；一名代表说，嗯，Lady May II 呢？你们不想要关于它的信息吗？当然想要。他说，因为 HK USA 也拥有 Lady May II。我说，嗯，你有显示这一点的文件吗？他向我们发送了一份登记证书，明确载明 Lady May II 登记在 HK USA 名下。\n\n即使在本周二取得该文件后，我的意思是，鉴于 Vartan 律师和 Mei Guo 在其声明中所作的明确无误陈述，我们仍无法相信我们取得了该文件。\n\n但即便取得该文件后，我们仍然给予他们合理怀疑的利益。我对我的一名同事说，嗯，也许有可能——因为该登记证书，我要澄清一下，我们最初取得的登记证书日期为2020年。\n\n因此，也许它已被转让；那会令人不安，因为我们不知道该转让，但也许所有权已被转让，而 HK USA 目前并不拥有它。\n\n因此，我们询问 Yachtzoo 的代表，我们如何能够确认目前的所有权仍归 HK USA 所有？他说，你们可以向相关开曼群岛——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 10 of 46\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）/HK 诉 德斯平斯（Despins）— March 30 2023\n\nIsland Registry（岛屿登记处）提供了一份关于当前所有权人是谁的最新即时报告。我们昨天取得了该报告，它确认截至今日，HK USA（HK USA）仍是该游艇的唯一所有权人。因此，这就是我们请求召开状态会议的原因。\n\n而且，法官阁下，我认为这些事实，我不知道除了以下两种解释之外还能如何解释。第一，郭梅（Mei Guo）——在此之前，法官阁下，我想指出一件事，即尽管罗姆尼律师（Attorney Romney）所言，以及他提交的关于就此已有披露的材料，他所指的是埋没在无关提交文件中的内容。HK USA的所有权从未以回应性的方式向受托人或本案中的任何其他人披露，也从未在回应我们于对抗程序中的证据开示请求时披露。\n\n事实上，我们没有理由相信该游艇由HK USA所有，因为在PAX（PAX）诉讼中——这是本院持有的一份证物——在PAX诉讼中，于2022年2月2日关于最终同意命令的听证会上，我们本周早些时候刚刚对此进行了长篇讨论，郭梅在交叉询问期间——见该听证会笔录第72页——被PAX的律师询问。她被出示了一段视频，其中有一张Lady May II（“梅夫人二号”）的图像。在交叉询问中，她被问及：您熟悉视频中的那艘船是什么吗？她说，是的，那是Lady May II。随后她被问及，谁拥有Lady May II？她说，我哥哥。您哥哥拥有它？是的。因此，这就是我们直到现在所理解的情况。而这告诉我们的，法官阁下，是以下两种情况之一。第一，要么郭梅截至今日之前的证词——包括她向本院提交的声明，顺便说一下，她在证言录取中也确认了该声明——即HK USA除Lady May（“梅夫人”号）之外没有其他资产，是伪证和谎言，因为她一直知道HK USA也拥有Lady May II；要么她根本不知道。如果她根本不知道，那么这就为我们大量令人信服的证据进一步提供了非同寻常且有力的证据，证明郭梅实际上并不拥有HK USA，亦不对HK USA承担任何责任，而一切都是郭先生的，因为她甚至不知道HK USA拥有哪些资产。因此，法官阁下，这就引出了我们目前所处的位置，以及我们认为需要发生的事情。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 11 of 46\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）/HK 诉 德斯平斯（Despins）— March 30 2023 11\n\n第一件事，法官阁下——实际上有三件不同的事，如果我遗漏了任何事项，我相信受托人会补充，因为我们都在非常迅速地推进——但第一件事是瓦尔坦律师（Attorney Vartan）向我们发出的信函，其中披露HK USA除Lady May之外没有任何资产，这显然是不充分的。我们现在极为担心的是，既然我们自行发现了Lady May II，那么可能还存在什么其他资产？瓦尔坦律师为确信可以发出该信函采取了什么措施？我们需要详细了解他与谁交谈、他被告知了什么。这些信息是否全部来自米切尔律师（Attorney Mitchell）？是否来自与其客户的谈话？无论他们进行了何种审慎调查，均远远不够。一旦Yachtzoo（Yachtzoo）告知我们Lady May II的情况，我们便毫不困难地取得了该信息。他取得该信息、郭梅取得该信息，或者任何真正希望向我们提供准确信息的人取得该信息，均毫无困难。他们本可以这样做。因此，这是第一点。第二点是，鉴于此，我们回顾了本院已经作出的命令，即初步禁令裁定和PJR。该初步禁令裁定适用于无论位于何处的资产及对该等资产的冻结，我们认为需要予以澄清，以确保禁止HK USA和郭梅转让、设定负担、移动或处分其在任何财产中的权益，适用于任何该等财产，无论该财产是否已被披露。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 12 of 46\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）/HK 诉 德斯平斯（Despins）— March 30 2023 12\n\n为供本院参考，ECF 142即为初步禁令裁定。B段目前的表述方式——\n\n本院：是的。我有。我就在面前有这份文件，因此我完全知道你在说什么。\n\n巴塞特先生（MR. BASSETT）：谢谢您，法官阁下。B段目前的表述是，反诉被告应在本命令作出之日起五日内，向受托人及本院指明其在其中持有权益的任何其他财产；并且，除非本院进一步命令，反诉被告不得转让、设定负担、移动、处分，或以任何方式损害其在该等财产中的权益。\n\n当然，现在发生的情况是，郭梅援引第五修正案并拒绝披露其资产，而瓦尔坦律师向我们提供了一份表面上不完整的HK USA资产陈述，因此我们需要澄清B段，明确规定郭梅和HK USA不得转让、设定负担等其财产的要求及禁令，适用于其实际拥有的任何财产，无论其是否为回应B段而披露该等财产。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 13 of 46\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）/HK 诉 德斯平斯（Despins）— March 30 2023\n\n不能以任何其他方式执行，因为否则，郭梅便可通过援引第五修正案而实际上不必冻结其任何资产，HK USA也可通过对其资产作出不真实且不完整的披露而不必使该等资产受禁令约束。\n\n因此，我们可以提供确切的措辞，但也需要作出该项澄清。\n\n与此相关，法官阁下，我们认为——我们打算做的是——如本院所知，郭梅的一些资产，即我们所知但她因援引第五修正案而再次未为回应本命令所披露的资产，是她在英属维尔京群岛（British Virgin Islands）的多家公司的权益。\n\n我们了解到，英属维尔京群岛有一项程序，通过该程序我们可以寻求我相信被称为停止令（stop order）的措施，该措施将阻止任何人转让该等实体的所有权。\n\n鉴于所有情况以及我们对可能存在其他我们并不知晓、且被故意未向我们披露、可能被转让的财产的担忧，我们认为采取该措施至关重要。我们认为采取该措施非常重要。\n\n这同样不是我们现在向本院请求的救济，但我们将请求本院作出一项命令，以协助我们将在英属维尔京群岛寻求的该项救济，具体授权受托人这样做，因为我们认为这将在我们于英属维尔京群岛请求该项救济时有所帮助。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 14 of 46\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）/HK 诉 德斯平斯（Despins）— March 30 2023 15\n\n第三项也是最后一项，法官阁下，我们想告知本院，我们今天并未就此请求任何救济。即使在过去两天得知这些最新进展之前，受托人已经在准备并打算尽快在HK USA对抗程序中提交另一项部分简易判决动议，请求就其诉状中寻求本院作出命令认定HK USA是债务人替身（alter ego）的罪名项作出简易判决。\n\n我们认为，在过去两天的事态发展之前，对我们有权获得该项救济不存在任何争议或对重要事实的真实争议。\n\n他们的立场是，此前唯一的资产是Lady May。该资产归债务人所有。他们承认HK USA没有雇员，等等，等等。这是一组与该问题相关的非常狭窄的事实，我们认为该问题已经适于作出简易裁决。\n\n我现在提及此事的原因是，鉴于这些事态发展，我们需要非常迅速地就此采取行动。因此，我想提醒本院，当我们提交该动议时——我们预计将在未来几天内某个时候提交——我们将请求以与我们提交的上一项动议相类似的一周期限进行审理。再次强调，我们认为，由于所有这些事实和法律问题都已得到书面陈述，没有理由不能按照该进度进行审理。我们迅速推进至关重要。我们将在所提交的加速审理动议中说明这一点，但有几个原因。第一，如我先前所言，我们目前不知道HK USA可能拥有哪些未向我们报告的其他资产。因此，我们需要尽快使受托人取得HK USA的所有权，以便其完全能够自行采取必要行动，尝试查明HK USA可能存在的任何其他资产。第二，如果我们成功证明HK USA是债务人的替身，这将导致HK USA的财产，包括Lady May II，成为破产财产，因为届时如果我们拥有该船，我们可以就其采取行动；而被置于托管账户中的$37 million也将成为破产财产。我们需要该$37 million来支付与Lady May和Lady May II有关的持续费用。所有这些至关重要，我们不能在一个月后、也不能在两周后，而是要在我们尽可能快的时间内取得这些。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 16 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 17 of 46\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）/HK 诉 德斯平斯（Despins）— March 30 2023\n\n这就是为什么我们将请求本院加速审理该动议。\n\n再次强调，我们今天并未请求救济，但我们想让本院知道将会发生此事，因为这确实与最近事件有关，并且这是围绕该事件的一种紧急情形，或者是已经发生之事的一个结果或副产品。\n\n那么我就说到这里。如果受托人认为我遗漏了任何事项，他可以告诉我。但这就是——这就是我想就第一个问题告知本院的内容。\n\n德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：而且，法官阁下，巴塞特先生已经涵盖了一切。\n\n在交给另一方之前，我唯一要补充的——或者说支持我们立场的一点是——并非关于简易判决的最后一点。当然，我们不会同意那一点；但关于澄清初步禁令裁定以及发出停止令的其他事项，是HK International（HK International）的代表和债务人的女儿应当同意的事项。当然，他们会说，那由他们决定。绝对如此。但鉴于本案目前的态势，我会非常难以理解他们为什么不会同意巴塞特先生所描述的前几项事项。\n\n显然，他们不会同意简易判决。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK 诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 30 2023\n\n就另我认定作出判决。我们希望他们这样做，\n\n但现实地说，这要求太高了。\n\n但其他部分，坦率地说，在目前的\n\n状态下几乎是顺理成章的，不过如果他们想要\n\n陈述意见，我会交由他们，或者交由 PAX 或委员会的律师\n\n处理。\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的，我想先问 Bassett 先生一个\n\n问题。\n\nBassett 先生，您说您从 Yachtzoo 的一名代表那里\n\n获得了该信息，\n\n这是否正确？\n\nBASSETT 先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n\n我想，我的同事 Bongartz 律师在周一，\n\n在法庭作出简易判决裁定后，\n\n该裁定赋予受托人对 Lady May 的所有权，随后\n\n联系了 Yachtzoo，以便立即作为该游艇的所有人建立\n\n沟通渠道。\n\n届时，我们能够作为所有人\n\n直接与 Yachtzoo 对接。在那次谈话中，他，\n\n据我了解，Yachtzoo 的代表，\n\n对 Bongartz 律师说，我们还应讨论\n\nLady May II。于是我们说，我们了解到，\n\n根据她在 PAX 案件中的证词，该船由\n\n她的兄弟拥有。他说，我认为它由 HK USA 所有。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 19 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK 诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 30 2023\n\n19 我们要求提供登记证书。他把它发给了我们。然后，如我先前所述，我们通过取得更新后的证书予以确认。法庭：好的。这是否是您首次得知受托人及其律师得知 Lady May II 的时候？BASSETT 先生：显然，我们听说过对它的提及，包括在 PAX 诉讼中，但这是我们首次得知它由 HK USA 所有。法庭：这才是我本应问您的问题，Bassett 先生。因此，您回答了我本应问的问题。我的问题不正确。我的问题是，这是否是受托人及作为其律师的您首次得知 Lady May II 由 HK USA 所有？而您刚才说是。BASSETT 先生：正确，法官阁下。法庭：好的。BASSETT 先生：而且我显然只是——是的，好的。谢谢。法庭：谢谢。我问得不太好。因此，我道歉。BASSETT 先生：没关系。法庭：好的。我将转向 Romney 律师和 Wernick 律师。我理解 Vartan 律师今天不在场。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 20 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK 诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 30 2023\n\n20 不过，当我审阅受托人就此问题提出的紧急状态会议请求时，之所以安排此次会议，是因为在本院面前的记录中，无论是文件、证词，还是 Vartan 律师及其他人以书面作出的陈述，均表明 HK USA 唯一的资产是 Lady May。您甚至并未——您不会——我的意思是，文件表明您不同意该 37 million 是 HK USA 的财产。那么，为什么没有向各方及法庭披露 Lady May II 的所有权，Romney 律师和 Wernick 律师？ROMNEY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我是 Aaron Romney，Zeisler & Zeisler 律师事务所，代表 HK International USA。我会稍微回溯一下，并直接回答法庭的问题，但我坐在这里时想知道我们为什么会在这里，因为所有这些本可通过一个简单电话或一封电子邮件避免和解决。法庭：等一下，Romney 律师。请等一下，因为您的声音有些含混。您能离麦克风近一点吗，因为我正——我大体能听见您所说的，但您的声音有些含混。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK 诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 30 2023\n\n21 ROMNEY 先生：我道歉。现在好些了吗，法官阁下？法庭：好些了。ROMNEY 先生：好的。那么，如我刚才所说，我对于在这种情况下我们此刻为什么坐在这里有些困惑。我认为不存在紧急情况。我认为不存在不能通过简单交谈及或许经同意修改裁定来解决的情况。首先，Lady May II 的存在已经披露。案件伊始，Kindseth 律师提供保险证据时，已向 PAX 和债权人委员会披露。关于以 HK USA 名义登记 Lady May II 的发票，已连同有关该船的其他文件一并向受托人提供。至于 Mei Guo 在其证言录取中的证词，坦白说，我当时在场。我现在坐在这里不记得该证词，所以尚未与她讨论，但我可以告诉您，基于我的个人理解，以及 Vartan 律师与我交谈并审阅其信函后的理解，我们的理解是，Lady May II 是一艘实际上为 Lady May 提供服务的船。我们认为它——法庭：但这并不——Romney 律师，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 21 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK 诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 30 2023\n\n22 您所说的都没有回答——ROMNEY 先生：法官阁下，我可以在——之前讲完我的想法吗？法庭：——您所说的都没有回答——等一下——您所说的都没有回答这个问题。我不——Lady II May [原文如此] 是否为 Lady May 提供服务并不重要。您需要向我展示在哪里——您刚才说——您说了一件相关的事。您说您向 PAX 和其他人提供了表明 Lady May II 由 HK USA 所有的文件。我想我听见您是这么说的。如果属实，那么我想看那些——ROMNEY 先生：正确，法官阁下。法庭：——我想看那些文件，也想看它们是在何时被提供的，这是第一。第二，Lady May II 做什么或不做什么的问题并不相关。如果它由 HK USA 所有，那么这才相关。而您——ROMNEY 先生：法官阁下，如果我能有两分钟。我——法庭：等一下。请等一下，Romney 律师。而且，除我刚才没有——我甚至没有在看 Bassett 先生刚才谈到的证词之外，还有 Mei Guo 的两份声明——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 22 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK 诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 30 2023\n\n23 其明确无误地陈述，HK USA 唯一的资产是 Lady May。这是您的当事人在伪证处罚的约束下宣誓所作的陈述。而 Vartan 律师 27 日发出的信函中，本院给予他时间——额外时间，本院给予额外时间以向受托人提供该信息——写明 HK USA 唯一的资产是 Lady May。因此，除非您能向我出示文件——ROMNEY 先生：我想回答您的问题——法庭：——除非您能向我出示已向受托人及其律师提供的、显示以 HK USA 名义登记 Lady May II 的文件，那么我认为您有问题。但您还存在一个问题，即您的当事人在声明中所宣誓的内容、显然在 2004 审查中所作的证词，以及 Vartan 先生在遵从本院命令时向受托人作出的书面陈述——所谓遵从本院命令——所产生的问题。因此，我认为您需要回答这些问题。如果 Lady May II 为 Lady May 服务，这对我并不重要，因为 Lady May II 是一艘独立船只。即使它是附属艇，或者不论它是何物，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 23 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK 诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 30 2023\n\n24 这也不重要。它是一艘独立船只，需要投保，具有不同的登记，而且显然以 HK USA 名义登记。明白吗？此刻似乎没有人对此提出异议。您是否不同意 Lady May II 以 HK USA 名义登记？ROMNEY 先生：我不同意，法官阁下。如果可以，我也想回答您的其他问题。法庭：您当然会有机会。请继续。ROMNEY 先生：谢谢。那么，仍然是就我的理解以及 Vartan 律师的理解而言，因为我已与他讨论此问题，也审阅了他的信函，实际情况是，我为我们两人都不是航船专家而道歉，我们将 Lady May II 这一资产视为同一资产的一部分。如果从技术上说这是不正确的，我们接受纠正。但就受托人所说，并无意隐瞒任何事情。并且基于我们的立场，即我们实质上将其视为同一资产。虽然我认为需要修改简易判决裁定，但基于同样的理由，并无恶意、无意欺骗，而且这本可通过一个电话或一封\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 24 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 25 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK 诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 30 2023\n\n25 电子邮件解决，尽管我们不同意法庭的简易判决动议，并保留对其提起上诉的权利，但这与下述事实是不同的问题：基于同样的理由，我们认为披露 Lady May 在实质上即为披露 Lady May II，而且我们认为每个人都知道它的存在，我们同意法庭的简易判决裁定适用。我认为，出于技术原因，需要作出修改，使其适用于 Lady May II。这完全是同一问题。在我们看来，它是同一资产。如果我们在技术上不正确，我道歉。没有意图欺骗。我现在在此向法庭说明，如果他们给我打电话或给我发电子邮件，我本来也会告诉受托人或其——及其律师，我们可以通过这种方式解决 Lady May II 问题。法庭：Romney 先生，在整个这些程序中，您的事务所始终表示受托人需要提交书面材料。受托人起初曾试图代表 Kwok 先生、HK USA 及 Mei Guo 与您达成协议。而您和您的其他同事一直站在这里说，有未决动议吗？因为除非存在未决动议，我不会处理此事？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK 诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 30 2023\n\n26 因此，您现在不能采取那种立场。第一。第二，我不知道任何人在——在合理审查何为资产时，怎么会认为 Lady May II 是 Lady May 的一部分。如果是，那么它就应当停在这里 Bridgeport 码头的旁边，而它并不在那里。而且，显然，就 Lady May II 而言，唯一的证词——显然，如果有人向我出示不同的内容，我会审阅——是您的当事人，Wernick 女士和 Romney 先生，您的当事人 Guo 女士，证称它由她的兄弟所有。那么，如果您的当事人在证言录取中作出了这种证词，您为什么会认为它是 Lady May 的一部分？DESPINS 先生：法官阁下，我能插话两秒钟吗？我们接受 Romney 先生的让步。我们将提交一项经修订的命令，澄清简易判决适用于两者。他们所作所为的后果，我们以后可以处理。但我们可以修改该命令，并说明我们也拥有 Lady May II。您知道，这就像带着一袋钱的银行劫匪说，看着我，我正在把钱还给您。是的。我会把钱拿回来。我会拿那袋子。其余的我们将处理——法庭：不过它投保了吗——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 26 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 27 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK v. Despins（德斯平斯）—2023年3月30日 27 德斯平斯先生：——其余部分我们稍后处理，但我们应当修改该命令。法庭：——德斯平斯受托人？您知道该财产是否有任何保险吗？德斯平斯先生：不，我不知道。但如果我将拥有它，我们就必须为其投保。法庭：对。而且正如我指出的，我相信是在今早发布的那份关于即决判决的补充书面意见中，关于 Lady May 号游艇的约定命令中，HK USA 声明其将支付 Lady May II 号游艇的保险费用，再次毫无保留地作出该声明，却未这样做。因此，我认为这里存在很多问题。但可以。如果各方希望自行解决并提交新的命令，可以。我认为审前救济命令无需修改，但如果你们想修改，也可以，因为该命令规定扣押被告可能拥有的任何财产中的任何权益。但如果你们需要修改该命令，那么可以。因此，HK USA 和 Mei Guo（郭美），尽管已多次作出宣誓证词，现在将同意并承认 HK USA 拥有 Lady May II 号游艇，并且现根据即决判决动议，该命令可以修改，以纳入 Lady May II 号游艇。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK v. Despins（德斯平斯）—2023年3月30日 28 这是否正确？Romney 律师和 Wernick 律师？德斯平斯先生：这就是我所理解的提议。Romney 先生：抱歉，我没听见。法庭：Wernick 律师，Romney 律师？我原以为 Wernick 律师是 HK USA 的主要代理律师。几周前有人告诉我，该律师事务所是主要代理律师，所以对该问题的回答是什么？Wernick 女士：本所是共同代理律师，法官阁下。而且，我的意思是，就 Romney 先生而言——法庭：那不是 Vartan 律师所说的，但请继续。Wernick 女士：我认为需要强调的是——就 Romney 先生的观点而言，存在一项协议，而且不反对修改即决判决命令，以将 Lady May II 号游艇作为依该命令移交的资产纳入其中。德斯平斯先生：好的。因此，法官阁下，仍有几件事需要完成。第一，我们需要澄清禁令命令，因为其表述是——可以被理解为——法庭：我同意。德斯平斯先生：——它仅适用于他们披露的内容。而既然他们什么也不披露，我们\n\nFiore 记录与誊写服务公司\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 28 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 29 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK v. Despins（德斯平斯）—2023年3月30日 29 需要修改该命令，明确你们的所有资产均被冻结，你们不得转让。因此，这是第一项。第一个问题是——法庭：无论是否已披露。德斯平斯先生：正确。问题是，是否同意这一点？Wernick 女士：我认为这是不言而喻的。德斯平斯先生：好的。那么——法庭：我不同意这是不言而喻的，Wernick 律师。因为如果这是不言而喻的，我们大家就都会知道 Lady May II 号游艇的事。这真是——这——好吧。德斯平斯先生：好的。法庭：你们最好解决此事，因为你们如履薄冰。明白吗？德斯平斯先生：好的。那么——法庭：这实在是——这——你们对本法庭负有诚实和坦诚的义务，而我只是——无论如何，请继续，德斯平斯受托人。德斯平斯先生：那么下一项是，Bassett 先生会协助我，即 BVI 的停止令。我们想知道，债务人的女儿双方是否会同意——这实际上仅适用于债务人的女儿，她是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 30 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK v. Despins（德斯平斯）—2023年3月30日\n1　约九家 BVI 公司受益所有人——是否\n2　同意本法庭作出命令，规定\n3　受托人获授权，并且本法庭请求\n4　BVI 法院协助发布停止令，\n5　该命令基本上禁止对该女儿在\n6　这些公司中的权益进行任何转让。\n7　其运作方式是，\n8　他们可以提前两周通知后向 BVI 法院申请撤销该命令，但在\n9　此期间，该资产被冻结。\n10　法庭：Wernick 律师、Romney 律师，你们\n11　可以回应德斯平斯受托人的请求吗？\n12　Romney 先生：法官阁下，我对此的回应是，\n13　如果存在——有两件事。\n14　第一，如果受托人希望我们就\n15　某事达成约定，我们希望先以书面形式看到该内容，而且——我\n16　相信，根据我对所述情况的理解，\n17　所请求的命令将是重复的，因为\n18　现有禁令，我们理解其适用于所有\n19　资产。\n20　当然，我从未将该命令理解为——您知道，\n21　并非要转换议题，但我从未将该命令理解为\n22　仅适用于已披露的资产。我认为那将是过于\n23　吹毛求疵且坦率说荒谬的解读，即如果某人\n24　未披露一项资产，该资产就不受\n25　禁令约束。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 31 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK v. Despins（德斯平斯）—2023年3月30日 31 因此，如果德斯平斯受托人有任何额外措辞，以提供符合现有命令精神的额外明确性或保障，我请求其发送给我们，我们将予以审阅，与我们的当事人讨论，并且如果情况如其所呈现，我想我们会同意，但我们尚未与当事人讨论此事，因为我们是在本次状态会议上首次得知此事。德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，这相当于一种审前救济；如您所知，在 BVI，其效力仅限于康涅狄格州。基本上，无论他们决定是否遵守禁令，而我们知道他们在其他案件中未曾遵守，他们作为一个群体——因此 BVI 法院将阻止转让。这就是该命令的作用。它相当于那里的 PJR 命令。这就是其作用。禁令是一件好事，但归根结底，如果有人愿意违反禁令，它并非临时救济。我们都知道这一点。法庭：那么，我认为适当的处理方式是先看你是否取得他们的同意。如果没有，那么你请求法庭作出该命令。德斯平斯先生：好的，会这样做，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK v. Despins（德斯平斯）—2023年3月30日 32 Bassett 先生，我不知道是否有任何遗漏。Bassett 先生：没有。我的意思是，我唯一提到的是，有人正在对我们说谎，法官阁下。没有别的说法。Mei Guo 的证词是，她的兄弟拥有这艘船；她作证称 HK USA 没有其他资产。我们收到 Vartan 律师的信，其中未提及 Lady May II 号游艇。而且，正如法庭所指出的，没有任何理性之人可能从该信中推断出，他们称 HK USA 拥有 Lady May 号游艇时，包含 Lady May II 号游艇。数月以来，我认为到目前为止本案已讨论一年多，一直在讨论让 Lady May II 号游艇——抱歉，让 Lady May 号游艇到康涅狄格州、设立维修准备金，以及所有这些事项。从未提及让 Lady May II 号游艇到那里，未提及 Lady May II 号游艇的状况，也未提及该等约定中的任何内容适用于 Lady May II 号游艇，完全没有。没有任何理由使任何理性之人以 Romney 律师请求法庭所作出的方式理解向本法庭作出的陈述（听不清）。顺便说一句，Romney 律师提到的其他披露中，有一项是其当事人于 2022年12月向法庭提交的，当时其当事人提交了一项 Case 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 32 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 33 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK v. Despins（德斯平斯）—2023年3月30日 33 修改 Lady May 号游艇维修准备金的动议。他们附上了约 40 页的费用及类似材料作为证据。某一发票的一部分提及向 Lady May II 号游艇提供的服务。我们必然从未会想到查看该文件，以确定 HK USA 拥有 Lady May II 号游艇，因为具有讽刺意味的是，他们提交该文件是为了与适用于 Lady May 号游艇维修准备金中的费用有关。实在离谱。我之所以说这些，是因为我们必须有某种方式获得对法庭命令的实际遵守。Vartan 律师周一寄给我们的信并不合规。如果有一项资产，即 Lady May II 号游艇——这是一项非常重要的资产——被遗漏在该信中，那么还有什么？我们无从得知，但我们需要知道。也许在本案中我们永远不会得到诚实坦率的答复，但至少我们可以知道他是如何收集这些信息的。他是否实际与其当事人交谈过？也许 Vartan 律师只是从 Mei Guo 获得了——您知道——不完整的信息，而她告诉他——您知道——这是唯一资产。但也许他甚至没有与她交谈。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK v. Despins（德斯平斯）—2023年3月30日 34 即使他确实从她那里获得信息，他如何复核该信息？他是否想到查看 Lady May II 号游艇的登记册？还可以进行何种其他尽职调查，以向我们提供所需的信息？我们认为，为使我们获得从未得到过的、关于破产财产资产的关键信息，需要就此作出进一步命令。法庭：我还要为记录指出，2022年11月30日曾在本法庭进行讨论，当时 Moriarty 先生谈及一艘假设的 Lady May II 号游艇，并称，正如我们在异议第 9 段中所述，如果存在一艘假设的 Lady May II 号游艇，其与 Lady May 号游艇完全相同，并且纽约法院作出命令认定 Ostrager 法官所认定的事项，我们将提交相应文件。但是，第一，该假设的 Lady May II 号游艇是一个假设。第二，在会谈协商中提出的假设是，如果存在一艘 Lady May II 号游艇，你们是否会提交文件？并不是会提交所有周边事实信息。答复是，如果存在一艘 Lady May II 号游艇，而债务人对其不拥有任何权益，则不会提交相应文件。这就是在——2022年11月30日向法庭所说的内容。因此，Romney 律师和 Wernick 律师，称你们认为 Lady May II 号游艇是 Lady May 号游艇的一部分，无法说服本法庭。故此，我将考虑受托人认为就 Lady May II 号游艇相关问题而言适当的任何救济。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？Romney 先生：是的，法官阁下。我只想说，在 15 年中，我从未被指控向法庭作出虚假陈述。我从未向法庭作出虚假陈述。我现在仍坚持这一点。未到庭的 Vartan 律师，其职业生涯的大部分时间都在司法部为国家服务。他是一位受人尊敬、品格高尚的人。我所能告诉您的，是我当时的想法。作出这些陈述的人不是我。但坦率说，根据我的理解，我也会作出同样的陈述，因为那是我所相信的。人并不完美。事后看来，这是否应当披露？是的。显然如此，它们是两艘不同的船。我们并不了解它们。据我了解，自 Lady May 号游艇前往欧洲以来，Lady May II 号游艇一直处于储存状态。它一直处于储存状态。没有任何东西需要带回，因为它从未离开。它一直处于储存状态。没有人使用它，也没有人对其进行任何事情\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 35 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK（HK）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）—March 30 2023，第36页。没有人一直关注它，因为重点一直放在那艘更大的游艇上。绝无任何欺骗意图。因此，我站在本法院面前陈述，根据我们的理解，我们同意该命令适用于两艘船只，这就是我要说的全部。但是我——正如我所说，在15年中从未被指控撒谎，所以今天是第一次。\n\n法院：我没有说您——我没有指控您撒谎，Romney（罗姆尼）先生。\n\nRomney先生：但我将捍卫我的诚信和荣誉。\n\n法院：我说的是，您没有说服我相信您认为 Lady May II 是 Lady May 的一部分，这是第一点。第二点，Vartan（瓦坦）先生两天、三天前的信中说，今天早些时候，法院作出命令，认定自 March 27th 下午2:55起，Lady May 是债务人第11章破产财产的财产。HK仅有的其他财产是依据某一托管协议存入的托管资金。这就是他的信所说的内容。他没有提及 Lady May II，而且他显然知道 Lady May II 的情况，因为您告诉我你们都知道它。而且，谁知道它被存放在 Mamaroneck 的仓库里？\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1645，提交于 04/10/23，录入于 04/10/23 10:58:24，第36页，共46页。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1645，提交于 04/10/23，录入于 04/10/23 10:58:24，第37页，共46页。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK（HK）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）—March 30 2023，第37页。\n\n法院：我不知道。我今天之前从未听说过这件事。那么怎么能——\n\nRomney先生：事实上，我也不知道，法官阁下。\n\n法院：嗯，您可以——\n\nRomney先生：昨天之前。\n\n法院：是的，您知道，因为您阅读了昨晚送达给您的文件，受托人说——\n\nRomney先生：不。我说的是昨天之前。\n\n法院：——它在一份文件中——在一个仓库里。所以，您知道，这实在不是——很难相信法院被告知的这些情况。这非常令人失望。这是一个案件——争斗一直非常激烈，而且一直持续不断。现在却对法院说，嗯，我们不认为 Lady May II 与 Lady May 不同，这实在是——案卷中没有任何内容支持这种想法。法院很难听到我现在所听到的内容。因此，我将不得不看看 Despins 受托人决定怎么做，然后我们再据此处理。但这一进展令我非常、非常不安。\n\nRomney先生：法官阁下，我能告诉您的只是——\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1645，提交于 04/10/23，录入于 04/10/23 10:58:24，第38页，共46页。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK（HK）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）—March 30 2023。\n\n我所相信、我所认为以及我所说的话，并且我坚持所有这些说法，因为它们全都一致。\n\n我还要记录在案，就存放一事而言，我是在昨天得知存放问题的。我的理解一直是——而且，再次说明，我们的重点始终是 Lady May。\n\n关于法官阁下所说一直存在很多问题这一点，本案同时有五件事情在进行。我们都是人。我们无法同时关注所有事情。我们正在尽力而为。对于我本人或 Vartan 律师不存在任何缺乏诚信的依据。\n\n我的理解是，而且诚然——我不知道是谁告诉我的，那显然是错误信息。我原以为 Lady May II 位于 Lady May I 之内，这就是为什么我认为它们都是同一资产的一部分，因为较大的船只有时实际上会容纳较小的船只，并承担往返运输的作用。这就是我的理解。\n\n这显然是错误信息，而且显然不是我认为足够重要而需要跟进核实的事情，因为重点一直放在 Lady May 以及许多其他争议问题上。\n\n法院：但是，Romney 律师，我理解您所说的。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1645，提交于 04/10/23，录入于 04/10/23 10:58:24，第39页，共46页。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK（HK）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）—March 30 2023。\n\n然而，证据开示程序自 August 起一直在进行。明天就是 April。因此，法院很难按照您所描述的方式来看待此事。这件事自 April 起就在进行。\n\nKwok 先生、Guo（郭）女士以及 HK USA（HK美国公司）一直由众多律师代理。这些问题已被提出，证据开示一直在进行。\n\n事实上，HK USA 在去年 April 来到本法院并接受本法院的管辖，因此实际上已经将近一年了。\n\n很难认为 HK USA 和 Mei Guo（郭梅）中的任何人，以及他们的律师，不明白名为 Lady May II 的船只是一项独立且不同的资产；因为受托人和在州法院诉讼中在其之前的 PAX（PAX）所做的一切——他们试图做的一切——都是扣押资产、查明并扣押资产。这很明确。我的意思是，这很明确。没有人能够对此提出异议。\n\n所以我理解您刚才所说的。但如我先前所说，我将考虑 Despins 受托人提交给法院的任何内容，并给予任何人回应的机会，但在目前这个时点向法院提出这种说法，实在令人非常困扰。这还是轻描淡写的说法。\n\nRomney先生：法官阁下，我唯一要说的是，我不知道 HK 或我的律师事务所怎么可能试图隐瞒一项资产，因为我的理解是，Kindseth（金德塞思）律师在本案开始时，追溯至 April，已将以 HK International（HK国际公司）名义出具的保险凭证交给 PAX 和债权人委员会。借用 Despins 受托人的银行劫匪解释，我们告诉 PAX 和委员会我们要抢劫一家银行，然后一年后我们抢了银行，这对我来说毫无道理。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1645，提交于 04/10/23，录入于 04/10/23 10:58:24，第40页，共46页。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK（HK）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）—March 30 2023，第40页。\n\n法院：好的。那么您是说，该保险凭证显示其承保 Lady May 和 Lady May II 吗？\n\nRomney先生：这是我的理解。是的。\n\n法院：那么您需要向我出示该凭证。\n\nRomney先生：我将——很乐意这样做。法院是否希望我将他所持有的任何文件提交至案卷？\n\n法院：是的。\n\nRomney先生：再次说明，是 Kindseth 律师。我们今天将其提交至案卷。\n\nDespins先生：法官阁下，这些保险文件——我本人尚未见到——不能推翻有关所有权的直接且明确的证言和信件。这根本——此外，我们知道 Vartan 先生曾在 PAX 诉讼中代理该女儿，因此他知道她在该案中的立场是 Lady May 由儿子所有，而非由她所有。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1645，提交于 04/10/23，录入于 04/10/23 10:58:24，第41页，共46页。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK（HK）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）—March 30 2023，第41页。\n\n那么，何时变成他们都同意，事实上它由 HK International 所有，一切都没问题？这根本说不通。不过无论如何，法院不需要——我们今天不需要解决这个问题。我希望获得法官阁下的许可，转到状态会议的其他方面，即 Lady May 本身。\n\n法院：可以。请继续。\n\nDespins先生：好的。而且这次实际上是较好的消息。因此，我们已从保险公司收到确认，我们拥有保险保障。我对此非常担心，但我们确实获得了保险保障。该保障已经生效。我们正在 Cayman Islands（开曼群岛）变更所有权登记，因为这是一艘在开曼群岛登记的船只。\n\n而且，法官阁下，我和您的反应相同，因为我个人对游艇及其相关事宜一无所知，但我想，嘿，如果这东西不移动，为什么我们需要船员及其相关安排？在过去五天里，我对这些游艇了解了很多，基本上，保险要求和登记要求船上必须有船员，码头也是如此。除非有 X 名船员，否则码头不会接受 Lady May 停靠在那里，因为他们需要——如果出现问题，您需要该数量的人员来移动游艇。\n\n因此，这完全是——我的反应是，我们不需要任何人待在那里。我们只要把它锁起来，留在那里即可。但您不能这么做。因此，有很多工作需要完成。例如，管理公司。我们需要聘用同一家管理公司。我们需要签订新合同。船员也是如此。船员由某个中介公司雇用，我们正在处理此事。\n\n我们还——我提到了保险、船员。我们还需要与 Bridgeport Seaport Marina（布里奇波特海港码头）签署协议。此事正在进行中。\n\n而且，法官阁下，我们需要在短通知期内提交一项动议，请求法院批准所有这些事项，因为，您知道，我并非从事这一行业，受托人也不是——受托人这样做并非正常营业过程，因此我们希望法院批准签署这些协议。\n\n法官阁下，为明确起见，目标是尽快出售这项资产。为此，我们需要聘请经纪人。我们需要提交一项动议，请求法院批准聘请经纪人及该佣金的条款。下一事项是，您会记得，有一项——\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1645，提交于 04/10/23，录入于 04/10/23 10:58:24，第42页，共46页。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1645，提交于 04/10/23，录入于 04/10/23 10:58:24，第43页，共46页。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK（HK）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）—March 30 2023，第43页。\n\n需要完成的维修，即阀门维修。该维修尚未完成。需要完成。该项本应由维修准备金支付。我们将与 Moriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生讨论他们是否同意可以从维修准备金中支出。但这必须如此。如果我们无法达成协议，我们将就此再次到法官阁下面前。\n\n法官阁下，下一事项是，我们可能需要将该游艇从 Bridgeport（布里奇波特）移至 Newport（纽波特）。其原因是——再次说明，我正在了解很多有关此事的内容——因为这是一艘外国登记船只，您不能在美国营销和出售该船，同时让美国人为购买目的登船参观。您不能这样做。这涉及税务问题。因为该船——它就像一个移民签证。它有一个移民签证。它们可以在美国周边进行包租或巡航，但不能处于出售过程中。\n\n据我获悉，在 Rhode Island（罗得岛州）的 Newport，有一个免税区，您实际上可以将这些外国船只、悬挂外国船旗的船只停泊在那里，并且实际上可以通过该程序出售或尝试出售它们。因此，我们将就此随时向法院通报，我们不会仅仅在短通知期内移动它，您知道，但我希望确保法院知道，存在一个非常——\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1645，提交于 04/10/23，录入于 04/10/23 10:58:24，第44页，共46页。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK 诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 30 2023\n\n很有可能我们将不得不把它移至 Newport，以完成出售，或者至少对其进行营销。\n\n还有别的吗？\n\n我只想提一件事，法官大人，即我们拿到的 500,000 不会让我们支撑太久，这就是为什么我们需要动用那 33 million，因为正如我所说，这令我感到震惊。我原以为我们可以直接把它封存起来，但你不能这么做。那里有一组船员，还有一家管理公司。您知道，仅仅拥有这些船只，就得是亿万富翁。而我们不是亿万富翁，所以我们需要出售它。因此，视出售所需时间而定，您知道，我们需要动用其他资金。只是让您了解一下，法官大人，仅在淡季将船停泊，每月在 Bridgeport 就要花费 \\$16,000。旺季时，我想这个数额会翻倍或增至三倍，而我们很快就要进入旺季了。所以，我们将就这些不同协议相关的请求回到法院作报告，但我想先向法官大人预先说明这一点。当然，船员、管理公司和码头，您知道，他们希望所有事情昨天就办妥。我说事情不是这样运作的。我们正处于破产程序中。我们需要——有一个程序，诸如此类。但我请求法院为此做好准备，以便当我们请求缩短通知期限时，因为他们——理论上他们有能力一走了之，而我们显然不希望他们这样做。最后一点，法官大人，我想请求的是，您知道，请记得您作出的藐视法庭命令，我们必须在某一日期前提交费用申请。我们获得了法官大人批准的延期至 April 3rd。但是，鉴于正在发生的一切，以及关于简易判决的工作及其他事项，我们请求再次延期。如果我们能再获七天延期至 April 10th，我们将不胜感激。这是关于——的费用申请。\n\n法院：我对此没有问题。你们可以自行决定需要多长时间。这关系到你们提交信息，而该等信息随后将构成拟施加制裁的依据。所以这——\n\nDESPINS先生：正确，法官大人。好的。那么，我想我们将向法庭书记员提交一项命令——\n\n法院：是。\n\nDESPINS先生：——将期限延至 April 10th。\n\n法院：是。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官大人，这就是我们今天要处理的全部事项。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 45 of 46\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1645 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:58:24 Page 46 of 46\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK 诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 30 2023\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢，法官大人。\n\n法院：还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\n（无人回应。）\n\n法院：好的。既然没有听到任何意见，那么这是日程表上的最后一项事项，现休庭。谢谢。\n\n（程序于下午 2:33 结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭记录员兼誊录员，证明上述内容是对上述案件程序官方电子录音的正确誊录。\n\nApril 7, 2023\n\nChristine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Je","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":142,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":12354,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-10","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:15:37"}