{"id":"court_ctb_1711_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1711,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-04-26","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"听证会笔录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1711（2023-04-26立案）。记录了法官 Julie A. Manning 于 2023 年 4 月 18 日主持的听证会内容，主要涉及 Despins 诉 Bravo Luck Limited 附随诉讼（Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027）审前会议以及针对第 2004 条传票合规与民事藐视法庭的动议审理。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1711 (filed 2023-04-26). Official transcript of the April 18, 2023 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning covering the pretrial conference in Despins v. Bravo Luck Limited (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027) and motions regarding Rule 2004 subpoenas and orders to show cause.","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. \\* LUC A. DESPINS, et al., \\* Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027 \\* Plaintiffs, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* April 18, 2023 v. \\* \\* BRAVO LUCK LIMITED, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH BK. RULE 2004 SUBPOENA BY UBS AG; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT HOLD THE NON-RESPONDING PARTIES IN CONTEMPT OF COURT; CONTINUED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE RE #1 COMPLAINT BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Trustee: Paul Hastings, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Defendant, Bravo DAVID M.S. SHAIKEN, ESQ. Luck Limited: Shipman, Shaiken & Schwefel, LLC 433 South Main Street Suite 319 West Hartford, CT 06510 JOANNA J. CLINE, ESQ. Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP Hercules Plaza 1313 N. Market Street Suite 5100 Wilmington, DE 19899 For UBS: LISA FRIED, ESQ. Herbert Smith Freehills New York LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 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\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 3 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 2:02 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, Adversary No. 22-5027, Despins versus Bravo Luck, Limited. THE COURT: I am having difficulty with -- are we having -- isn't Mr. Despins going to be remote or is he going to be remote? MR. BASSETT: He's actually not going to be able to participate today. THE COURT: All right. MR. BASSETT: I think he's going to be remote on Thursday. THE COURT: So am I having anyone on camera or are we all set? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: (Inaudible) THE COURT: Say that again? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: (Inaudible) THE COURT: Okay. All right. Because I don't have any camera, so I couldn't see anybody anyway so I just wanted to make sure. All right. Then let's start with appearances with counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 4 of 53\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023
4 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 2 | MR. LINSEY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Patrick |\n| 3 | Linsey, Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, Connecticut counsel for |\n| 4 | the Trustee. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good afternoon.
Holley Claiborn |\n| 7 | for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 9 | Counsel? |\n| 10 | MR. SHAIKEN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
David |\n| 11 | Shaiken from Shipman, Shaiken & Schwefel, representing Bravo |\n| 12 | Luck, Limited as local counsel. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 14 | MS. CLINE:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Joanna |\n| 15 | Cline, Troutman Pepper, representing Bravo Luck. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 17 | All right.
There are a few matters on the |\n| 18 | calendar today.
If you just bear with me for a moment, I |\n| 19 | just need to make sure that my computer is working, which it |\n| 20 | is, but I still need to get to the right place.
So I'm |\n| 21 | sorry.
Hold on, please. |\n| 22 | All right.
So we have the continued pretrial |\n| 23 | conference in the Despins versus Bravo Luck adversary |\n| 24 | proceeding, the motion to compel compliance with the Rule |\n| 25 | 2004 subpoena directed to UBS, and an order to show cause |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 5 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 5 why non-responding parties to the subpoenas should not be held in contempt of court. So, Mr. Bassett, how are you intending to proceed this afternoon? MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, I'll let my colleague, Attorney Linsey, address the motion related to UBS, which I think has been consensually adjourned or that would be the ask I believe by the parties. Again, I'll let him speak to that. As to the -- as far as I am aware, the only two matters that are going forward today are the pretrial conference in the Bravo Luck adversary proceeding and then the order to show cause as to why Golden Spring and Lamp Capital should not be held in contempt of court although surveying the courtroom, I don't believe they have appeared today. THE COURT: Okay. With regard to the motion to compel compliance then are you saying that matter's going to be continued? MR. BASSETT: Well, Your Honor, I mean, I think we had -- we had moved to compel. Neither Lamp Capital nor Golden Spring responded in accordance with that, with the Court's order, compelling them to produce documents in response to our 2004 subpoenas and otherwise participate in 2004 discovery.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 6 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 6 We then sought an order to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt. And then the result of that was an order compelling them to appear here today. And we did, by the way, file a certificate of service on the docket indicating that we served both Golden Spring and Lamp Capital. So I guess it is a valid question of, you know, where do we go from here? And I think, frankly, we're finding ourselves in an untenable situation, and some of this will dovetail with a matter that the Court is going to hear on Thursday, which is a request by the debtor to stay his compliance with the Court's order on discovery, and I also think it dovetails in part actually with some of the issues related to Bravo Luck. We have a situation here where both Lamp Capital and Golden Spring, the two subjects of the order today, are critically important entities for discovery by the Trustee in his investigation. Both of these entities are entities that are purportedly owned and controlled ultimately by the debtor's son. Both entities have funded the debtor's expenses by admission of the debtor, including counsel fees in relation to this bankruptcy case, so we need documents and we need evidence from these two entities to complete our investigation and to administer this case.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 7 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 7 And there's little doubt in our mind that the debtor does, in fact, control these entities. They are obviously in the family insofar as the son purportedly owns and controls them. The officers and directors of these entities are individuals that are known associates of the debtor. Yvette Wang, whom the Court knows, is Golden Springs' president. The Court already found in connection with Ace Decade that the debtor controls Ms. Wang. And Golden Spring also has shared the same business address that the debtor and many of his entities have shared. And it's our view that because the debtor controls these entities, he should be the one to produce their documents. What is now happening, of course, as the Court knows from the motions that have been filed and what's going to be heard on Thursday, is that the debtor is asserting the Fifth Amendment and saying he can't produce this information. He can't go out and get documents that are in their control. So that leaves us with one option which, of course, is to pursue the documents from these entities themselves. But of course these entities are nowhere to be found. They're not appearing before this court. They're not responding to anything we serve. They're not\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 8 of 53\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023
8 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | participating at all.
And I think that's what leads also |\n| 2 | into the situation with Bravo Luck. |\n| 3 | As the Court knows, Bravo Luck is another entity |\n| 4 | that is purportedly owned and controlled by the debtor's |\n| 5 | son. |\n| 6 | And what the debtor's son is doing in connection |\n| 7 | with the Bravo Luck litigation, in connection with the claim |\n| 8 | he filed in this court, in connection with other things |\n| 9 | Bravo Luck is doing in this case, including filing an |\n| 10 | objection to the motion to limit notice that the Trustee |\n| 11 | filed over the last few days, is he's basically litigating |\n| 12 | in this court and availing himself of this court's resources |\n| 13 | and jurisdiction, when it's convenient for him to do so, |\n| 14 | through counsel from apparently the United Kingdom, without |\n| 15 | ever actually coming over and participating himself. |\n| 16 | But he's doing that selectively.
Because when it |\n| 17 | comes to the other entities that he owns and controls, or |\n| 18 | that he says he owns and controls, Lamp Capital, which is |\n| 19 | one of the debtor's cases, Golden Spring, which has done the |\n| 20 | same, he's not doing that.
We have no ability to find them. |\n| 21 | In fact, the debtor's son most recently has been |\n| 22 | evading service of documents we've tried to serve on him. |\n| 23 | We originally had a location of his apartment in the United |\n| 24 | Kingdom.
We served him documents there. |\n| 25 | When we went back to serve more documents after |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 9 of 53\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023
9 |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the debtor's indictment, all of a sudden the person at the |\n| 2 | desk said he no longer lived there and they'd never heard of |\n| 3 | him.
So we're in a situation where, you know, we're kind of |\n| 4 | at a loss. |\n| 5 | And obviously I don't have a proposal for the |\n\n Court, and I'm not prepared to tell the Court today exactly what relief we might be seeking to deal with this situation, but in the Trustee's view something needs to happen to prevent the situation where we have people, including the debtor, his relatives, and those who control these entities, who are orchestrating a scenario in which the debtor is -- in which the Trustee rather is simply unable to get the information that he needs to conduct his investigation.\n\n The debtor's taking the Fifth. The daughter is now taking the Fifth. The entities that would not have any ability to take the Fifth are not responding. But the person who controls those entities, the son, is participating when he wants to through counsel, through other entities.\n\n So something needs to happen to level the playing field to make sure that there's fair participation by the people who are ultimately making the decisions here to allow the Trustee to get the discovery that he needs. Again, some of this will come up again on Thursday.\n\nLike I said, I wish I had a creative proposal as\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 10 to what exactly to do, but we are considering our options. On the order before the Court, obviously, the Court could impose costs on -- and we think it's -- I think there's a clear basis for a finding of contempt now as against Golden Spring and Lamp Capital. I think the Court could impose costs and do other things that the Court has at its disposal to address contempt of court and to try to force compliance with the Court's orders, but obviously from our perspective that type of relief is going to be of little value for entities that we cannot contact and have no means of enforcing any order against. 13 So that's the update and the Trustee's view on where we stand as it relates to discovery from those two entities, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Let's just step back a moment. Other than the pretrial conference, what is on the calendar today is the order to appear and show cause why the non-responding parties, Lamp Capital and Golden Spring, should not be held in contempt of court. That's today. Then also the motion to compel compliance with the Rule 2004 subpoena served on UBS. And I think I heard you Case 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 10 of 53\n\nsay that that's going to be continued, that UBS --\n\nMR. BASSETT: That's correct.\n\nMR. LINSEY: And I can speak to that at the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 11 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 11 appropriate time, Your Honor. THE COURT: I think right now is the appropriate time. MR. LINSEY: Okay. THE COURT: I'd like to understand. If we're continuing it, that's fine. I just want to know that so then we can focus on what we need to focus on this afternoon. MR. LINSEY: That's fine. And counsel from UBS is here in the courtroom -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINSEY: -- who may wish to appear. THE COURT: I see counsel has stood up. MS. FRIED: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Would you just come up so we can hear your name for the record, please. MS. FRIED: Certainly. THE COURT: If you could speak into a microphone. MS. FRIED: Thank you. THE COURT: Sorry. Everything is audio so if we can't pick you up on the microphone, we won't be able to hear you. MS. FRIED: Of course. Your Honor, I'm Lisa Fried, from Herbert Smith Freehills, for UBS. THE COURT: Thank you. Good afternoon.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 12 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 12 MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, Patrick Linsey for the Trustee. My office has been handling UBS matters as conflicts counsel. Since the prior adjournment of the motion to compel, counsel for UBS and my office have had numerous email correspondence and also telephone conferences about compliance. There have been batches of document production. Based on what we've received and based on the Trustee's investigation, there are subjects and areas that the Trustee wants to drill down into. And I have been in touch with Mr. Fried, in fact, last week about that. And we are seeking to work together collaboratively to agree on discovery procedures that would include things like ESI searches, but it's involved and complicated given that we're talking about discovery in different jurisdictions, we're talking about obviously different technological platforms, and also different languages. So all of that poses challenges that are not insurmountable, but that require some effort and cooperation between counsel. And right now, it seems like that's coming. So what I would like to propose and the Trustee would like to propose, subject to the Court's consideration, is adjourning the motion to compel out something roughly two\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 13 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 13 weeks. I saw that there was a court date where matters related to this Chapter 11 case or related adversary proceedings are scheduled on May 2nd. That would work for counsel or something following that. And hopefully by that point, I don't know that we'll have production completed given sort of the nature of what everybody is talking about right now, but I do think it's reasonable to think that we could have agreement on the four corners of a discovery and ESI plan that hopefully will allow for production to happen in an orderly way. And the Trustee has been pleased with the cooperation that we've seen in the last couple of months in that regard. THE COURT: Counsel? MS. FRIED: Thank you, Your Honor. I agree with everything Mr. Linsey said. I would just note that as Mr. Linsey suggested with a global financial institution of the size of UBS sometimes it takes us a little time to connect and liaise with various representatives from our client around the world. We have been working diligently to do that and have been updating Mr. Linsey regularly and are committed to working collaboratively to search for what the Trustee has asked us to search for following our initial productions and we'll continue to do so.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 14 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 14 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Do you have any objection to continuing this hearing to May 2nd? MS. FRIED: Not at all, Your Honor. With the understanding that I think Mr. Linsey previewed, which is that we may not have completed production by then, but we certainly expect to have made progress agreeing on a protocol going forward by then. THE COURT: I think that's fair. And then I'll know where things stand. If there's additional time needed, additional issues that need to be addressed or resolved, I think that's fair. And as far as May 2nd is concerned, we have time at -- we have time -- we have something scheduled in this case at 1 p.m. and something scheduled at 2 p.m. I would schedule -- I would continue this to 1 p.m. because I think you'll -- whatever it is you have to tell the Court I believe won't be controversial. Although, who knows, it could be. But I'm going to continue it to 1 p.m. then. Okay. And then we'll see where things stand. And as you both have acknowledged, you know, you both have continuing duties to cooperate and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, so I think it makes sense then to continue this matter, given what you've both stated as far\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 15 of 53\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023
15 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | as the cooperative nature that you've been proceeding under, |\n| 2 | and that there is some additional time necessary for both |\n| 3 | parties to take certain actions.
I think it's fair and have |\n| 4 | no issue with continuing this hearing to May 2nd at 1 p.m. |\n| 5 | Okay? |\n| 6 | MS. FRIED:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you both. |\n| 9 | MS. FRIED:
Your Honor, may I be excused? |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | MS. FRIED:
Thank you very much. |\n| 12 | All right.
Now, Mr. Bassett, I understand what |\n| 13 | you've said about the order to show cause with regard to |\n| 14 | Lamp Capital and Golden Spring. |\n| 15 | Is there anybody in the courtroom representing |\n| 16 | Lamp Capital or Golden Spring in connection with the Chapter |\n| 17 | 11 jointly administered cases of Ho Wan Kwok's 22-50073? |\n| 18 | (No response) |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
All right.
I'm hearing nothing and |\n| 20 | I'm not seeing any individuals in the courtroom that are not |\n| 21 | here on other matters or that I am aware of the parties that |\n| 22 | they represent. |\n| 23 | So, Mr. Bassett, you're asking the Court to enter |\n| 24 | an order finding these two parties in contempt, is that |\n| 25 | correct? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 16 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 16 MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. And, you know, one other -- one other thought that I had is the debtor's son has filed a proof of claim in this case so I think there's no question that the Court has jurisdiction over him. To the extent that he claims to own and control both of these entities, I think the Court could order that he be required to accept service of the Rule 2004 subpoenas on behalf of those entities and be required to facilitate the responsive documents, the provision of documents in response to those subpoenas. Short of that, the question also becomes, or in addition to that the question becomes, you know, what else, what would be the consequences of finding both Lamp Capital and Golden Spring in contempt of court? Like I said, I certainly think costs and expenses that have been incurred in pursuing discovery from them would be appropriate, as well as any other sanctions that the Court thinks would be appropriate to try to force them to comply. But, again, when you're dealing with parties who have not shown up and we're not able to, you know, readily contact, it's not clear how effective those types of sanctions would be, but I guess on balance it would be better to have them than not have them.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 17 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 17 THE COURT: Well, Golden Spring had an appearance in this case for a while, didn't it? MR. BASSETT: They did, Your Honor. And I believe that that appearance was subsequently withdrawn. THE COURT: I agree. Did Lamp Capital ever have an appearance in this case? MR. BASSETT: I don't -- I don't believe so, Your Honor. THE COURT: But they were the -- were they the source of the \\$8.8 million loan that was supposed to be made to the debtor or was that Golden Spring? MR. BASSETT: Lamp Capital -- off the top of my head, I don't recall the \\$8.8 million, the source, but Lamp Capital was an entity that had provided a retainer originally to Brown Rudnick as part of its representation of the debtor in the case. And then Golden Spring has also funded the debtor's expenses. THE COURT: And you've obtained discovery from Brown Rudnick? MR. BASSETT: We have obtained Rule 2004 discovery from Brown Rudnick, correct. But we have obviously not obtained that discovery from Lamp or from Golden Spring themselves. THE COURT: All right. Give me just a moment, please. I just want to look back at --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 18 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 18 MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: -- early filings in the case. (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. There's a document filed on March 22nd, 2022, so more than a year ago, in which the debtor sought approval of an \\$8 million post-petition financing transaction in which Golden Spring, LTD, the DIP lender, is an entity controlled and owned by the debtor's son according to documents filed by the debtor in this case. (Pause) THE COURT: And you're saying, Attorney Bassett, that the million dollar retainer paid to Brown Rudnick at or about the time of the commencement of the case was funded by Lamp Capital? MR. BASSETT: Yeah. That's correct, Your Honor. And I don't know, maybe the U.S. Trustee has an actual reference to something on the docket, but I -- THE COURT: I'm sure there is somewhere. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, my recollection is that it's in the application to employ Brown Rudnick, but it's also in the 2060(b) disclosure filed by Brown Rudnick. THE COURT: Okay. With regard to -- I'm going to take a look at that in a second. With regard to the DIP financing motion that was filed by the debtor seeking a loan of \\$8 million for the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 19 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 19 estate from Golden Spring, an entity that the debtor asserts in its pleadings was controlled by the debtor's son -- (Pause) MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, we also had a hearing at which the debtor testified in connection with that loan and my recollection is he gave testimony as to how he went about arranging the loan with Golden Spring. THE COURT: I agree. I'm looking -- I was just looking for that hearing, which was I think in April, late March or April. MS. CLAIBORN: I will take a look at the docket as well. I don't remember the date off the top of my head. THE COURT: Well, there's 1,700 docket entries, so I wouldn't expect that you would remember the date of the hearing off the top of your head. But I think we can find it pretty easily if we just take a moment. (Pause) THE COURT: There was a hearing on April 28th, 2022, but I believe there was a hearing in March too. April 27, excuse me, 2022, that was continued to May 4th, 2022. There was also a hearing on April 13th, 2022 on the DIP motion. So the first hearing was April 13. Then it was continued to April 27. And then again to May 4th, 2022. And then on May, I think, 11th, but I'll triple check that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 20 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 20 before -- the motion for DIP financing was withdrawn by the debtor. May 11th, ECF No. 345, the debtor filed a notice of withdrawal of motion for entry of interim and DIP final orders without indicating in the document why the motion was being withdrawn and while the Court had that motion under advisement, after an evidentiary hearing, to rule on what relief would be granted, if any, on that motion. With regard to Lamp Capital, on March 16th an application was filed by the debtor for an entry of an order authorizing the employment and retention of Brown Rudnick as counsel for the debtor. In that document, ECF 86, Brown Rudnick indicates that immediately preceding the commencement of this Chapter 11 case Brown Rudnick received payments in the amount of \\$500,000 U.S. on February 14, 2022, and an additional deposit of \\$500,000 U.S. on the morning of February 15, 2022. To fund the retainer, this is in paragraph 17, Lamp Capital, LLC made a \\$1 million loan to Mr. Kwok and Mr. Kwok directed Lamp Capital, LLC to remit the proceeds directly to Brown Rudnick. Lamp Capital is an entity owned by Mr. Kwok's son. That is in a document, as I said, dated March 16, 2022, ECF No. 86, filed by Mr. Kwok -- signed by Mr. Kwok.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 21 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 21 And in the affidavit of Attorney Baldiga attached to the application, he recites in paragraph 7 that Brown Rudnick received payments totaling \\$1,000,000 U.S. on account of services to be performed, and expenses incurred in connection with its advice to Mr. Kwok as follows. \\$500,000 U.S. on February 14 and \\$500,000 U.S. on February 15, each by wire from Lamp Capital, LLC as a retainer for services to be performed in preparation of this Chapter 11 case. To fund the retainer, Lamp Capital made a \\$1,000,000 U.S. loan to Mr. Kwok and Mr. Kwok directed Lamp Capital, LLC to remit the proceeds directly to Brown Rudnick. That's also in Mr. Baldiga's affidavit, which appears at page 14 of 30 on ECF 36, I'm sorry, 86, 86. So, Mr. Bassett, let's go through how you served Golden Spring and Lamp Capital with regard to the original discovery requests. And then the order to appear and show cause, why they should not be held in contempt of court? MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, I don't -- I don't have it at my immediate fingertips. I'm sure I could find it, if I was given a short break, as to how we served them with the original discovery requests. THE COURT: We could probably pull it up, I mean. MR. BASSETT: Yeah. I'm sure. I'm sure we could pull it up, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 22 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 22 MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, I'll look for it while Mr. Bassett's speaking. MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: But as to the most recent order to show cause, the Court -- I think this was ECF 1546 -- was the order to show cause which required the Trustee to serve the document on Golden Spring and Lamp Capital. That was served on March 20th. And I'm looking at our certificate of service is at ECF 1593. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on. Let me -- MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: I just want to make sure I'm looking at everything. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Sure. (Pause) THE COURT: So what was the original order to appear and show cause, 14 what? MR. BASSETT: Well, the operative order for today's hearing I believe is 1546. Because I believe what happened, Your Honor, is there was an initial order -- THE COURT: That wasn't served? MR. BASSETT: Exactly. And then we adjourned to today. And that order I believe is 1546. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Then ECF 1546 is an\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 23 order to appear at continued hearing and show cause why the Court should not hold the non-responding parties in contempt of court. And it says in the order the Court has found that Golden Spring New York, Limited and Lamp Capital, LLC, together with Golden Spring, the non-responding parties, neither responded to nor complied with Rule 2004 subpoenas authorized by the Court. And there's a reference to ECF Nos. 1353 and 758. The Court issued a first order to show cause on January 27, 2023, set a hearing for March 7, 2023, at which the non-responding parties were to show cause why this court should not hold them in civil contempt of court for failing to respond or comply with subpoenas. During the show cause hearing, the Chapter 11 Trustee informed the Court he had been unable to serve Lamp Capital with the first show cause order and had not served Golden Spring because the Trustee wished to serve both of the non-responding parties simultaneously. So on the record, the Court continued the show cause hearing to April 18 and set a new service deadline of March 24th. Service was to be made on or before March 24th with a certificate of service filed on or before March 27. And you're saying the certificate of service is 1593? Case 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 23 of 53\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 24 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 24 MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. And I was also able to find the information about how we served them with the original subpoenas if we want to go back to that later. THE COURT: Okay. So the certificate of service filed on March 24th, 2023, ECF No. 1593, certifies that on March 16, 2023, the Court's order to appear at continued hearing and show cause why the Court should not hold the non-responding parties in contempt of court was filed electronically. And on and May [sic] 20, 2023, the undersigned caused copies of the order to show cause to be served on Golden Spring New York, Limited and Lamp Capital by FedEx overnight delivery and by first class mail at the following addresses:, Golden Spring New York, Limited, care of the Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware, and Lamp Capital, LLC, Attention Bernardo Enriquez, 667 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10065. On March 21st, the undersigned caused a copy of the order to show cause to be served on Lamp Capital, LLC by UPS overnight delivery and First Class mail at the following address, Lamp Capital, LLC, care of CT Corporation System, 820 Bear Tavern Road, West Trenton, New Jersey 068 -- 08628, excuse me.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 25 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 25 And what else did you want to note for the record, Attorney Bassett, with regard to service of the subpoenas? MR. BASSETT: Yes. So to the extent the Court was interested in having that information as well, I was able to pull up original motion to compel, which is at ECF 1046. And if you were to scroll to page 16, or paragraph 30 of that document, there's a detailed discussion of the Trustee's efforts to serve and contact both Lamp Capital and Golden Spring. THE COURT: I'm looking at paragraph 30 on page 16 of ECF No. 1046 filed on October 28th, 2022, and it says the defaulting respondents are Lamp Capital and Golden Spring. The Trustee has served each with a subpoena but none has responded. Specifically the Trustee served Lamp Capital via process server on August 23rd, 2022, at a Delaware address for its registered agent. Trustee sent two letters to the registered agent of Lamp Capital to follow up on the subpoena. The first on September 13 and the second on October 19. Counsel for the Trustee has received no response to either correspondence. Trustee served Golden Spring via process server on August 22nd, 2022, at a Delaware address for its registered agent. Golden Spring's deadline to serve objections was September 6th and its deadline for production of documents\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 26 of 53\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023
26 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | was September 21st, 2022.
Trustee has not received any |\n| 2 | objections or document productions from Golden Spring. |\n| 3 | Trustee sent two letters to the registered agent |\n| 4 | of Golden Spring to follow up on the subpoena, the first on |\n| 5 | September 13, 2022, and the second on September 30, 2022. |\n| 6 | Counsel for the Trustee received no response to either |\n| 7 | correspondence. |\n| 8 | Okay.
So then when we look at 1593, which is your |\n| 9 | certificate of service on the continued hearing on the order |\n| 10 | to show cause, Golden Spring was served at care of the |\n| 11 | Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 |\n| 12 | Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware, and Lamp Capital was |\n| 13 | served at an address on Madison Avenue, as I've already |\n| 14 | recited, and then again at a -- what appears to be a |\n| 15 | registered agent address care of CT Corporation, 829 Bear |\n| 16 | Tavern Road, West Trenton, New Jersey.
Okay. |\n| 17 | The non-responding parties, Lamp Capital and |\n| 18 | Golden Spring were to personally appear through an officer, |\n| 19 | director, manager, or member, at 2 p.m. on April 18, 2023. |\n| 20 | There's no one in the court that's responding to the inquiry |\n| 21 | of whether Lamp Capital and/or Golden Spring are in the |\n| 22 | courtroom. |\n| 23 | Those registered agent addresses, Attorney |\n| 24 | Bassett, are what anyone could find if they were looking for |\n| 25 | a registered agent address to serve these two entities, is |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 27 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 27 that accurate? MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. Those registered agent addresses are the ones that we found on the relevant Secretary of State websites I believe for purposes of serving these entities. THE COURT: And you've had no further discussions with -- I mean, you haven't had any discussions with anyone, is that correct? MR. BASSETT: We've never had any discussions with any representatives of either entity, that's correct. (Pause) THE COURT: I'm just looking at one other thing here. So I'm just trying to -- there isn't anything I can see in the record other than what you've put in your certificate of service that indicates who the registered agent is, which I'm not saying there should be. I'm just looking to see whether I see anything. MR. BASSETT: I'm not aware of anything either, Your Honor. I suspect that if we had submitted that documentation, that would have been part of the original motion to compel. And I'm not seeing in that motion any attached documentation containing documents from the Secretary of State websites or otherwise. Obviously, I can go back and take another look to see if there is something, and/or we're happy to find\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 28 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 28 something that we could submit to the Court if you would like. THE COURT: I'm just trying to, you know, just -- because there's nothing in this record yet other than -- I'm not saying what you said is incorrect, I just -- for me to determine that those are the registered agents, right, there is -- I don't think there's -- I'm just -- I just -- I think I need to see that. MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: Because if I'm going to say that they should be held in contempt of court, I have to -- it has to -- I have to establish that, or it has to be established that they were served at those -- and those have to be the addresses. MR. BASSETT: And we can -- and, Your Honor, we can either -- I think we'll do two things. Obviously, we'll look back and check to see if it is somewhere in what we've already submitted. If not, we can certainly submit by declaration or otherwise copies of the documents we relied upon in serving at these addresses. THE COURT: I think you can do it by declaration after today. I just -- because there is nothing in the record that establishes that those are the proper addresses, other than your certificate of service, I think I need to -- if\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 29 of 53\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023
29 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | I'm going to hold them in contempt, I need to be able to say |\n| 2 | that you served them at their proper, registered agent |\n| 3 | addresses.
And, you know, I'm not saying you didn't.
I'm |\n| 4 | just saying it's not in the record.
Right? |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood.
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
It's just not in the record. |\n| 7 | And, you know, there's no -- obviously, as you |\n| 8 | know, in order for contempt to be found, you have to also |\n| 9 | find that the parties' due process rights were met, so I |\n| 10 | need to be able to do that. |\n| 11 | So I think, you know, you can do that.
How much |\n| 12 | time would you like to do that? |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
A day or two tops, I'm sure we can |\n| 14 | do that. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I do find though that the |\n| 16 | record does establish that the debtor's son, according to |\n| 17 | the debtor in documents filed by the debtor and the debtor's |\n| 18 | counsel, controls the two entities -- because it's an |\n| 19 | admission of a party. |\n| 20 | It's an admission of the debtor and his counsel |\n| 21 | that Lamp Capital, LLC and Golden Spring New York, Limited |\n| 22 | are controlled by the debtor's son.
And as I've already |\n| 23 | stated before -- |\n| 24 | MR. BASSETT:
And just to make perfectly clear, |\n| 25 | just so the record is clear, I think the Trustee's position |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 30 of 53\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023
30 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | is that that's what the debtor has said.
I think our |\n| 2 | objective and our intent in this case would be to prove that |\n| 3 | is, in fact, the debtor who controls these entities. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I understand.
But there's no question |\n| 5 | that the debtor has already admitted on the docket of this |\n| 6 | case in pleadings filed by -- that he signed and his counsel |\n| 7 | signed while he was a debtor in possession that he was |\n| 8 | asserting that Golden Spring New York, Limited and Lamp |\n| 9 | Capital, LLC were controlled by his son, and he directed his |\n| 10 | son to have Golden Spring make a loan to the estate of \\$8 |\n| 11 | million, which was later withdrawn, and that he directed |\n| 12 | Lamp Capital to pay the million dollar retainer to Brown |\n| 13 | Rudnick.
When I say he, I'm talking about Mr. Kwok.
That's |\n| 14 | what these documents say.
So I just want to make that clear |\n| 15 | for the record. |\n| 16 | So I need you to submit a further declaration, or |\n| 17 | maybe just submit a declaration in further support of the |\n| 18 | order to appear and show cause demonstrating -- giving me |\n| 19 | the information from the respective or relevant Secretary of |\n| 20 | States Office to establish that the addresses that you used |\n| 21 | in service -- in serving the order to appear and show cause |\n| 22 | are the registered agents for service of these two entities. |\n| 23 | And you can do that by this Friday, which is I |\n| 24 | think the 21st.
Okay? |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
And the last -- we will do that, |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 31 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 31 Your Honor. The last thing I would note is that if the Court were inclined to enter an order in light of the admissions that we just discussed that the debtor's son purportedly owns and controls these entities, if the Court were to order that, something to the effect of that these two subpoenas on these entities could be served on the son, I'm just looking forward to the next issue which of course then we'll still have a problem with serving the son. And I think a potential solution to that would be if the son is going to continue to prosecute through Bravo Luck this adversary proceeding, including obviously appearing for and attending a deposition by the Trustee, that he could be served through Bravo Luck's counsel in connection with any such litigation in a Bravo Luck adversary proceeding, which obviously is before this court, that would be a submission by the son to the jurisdiction of this court, because obviously if we just have an order saying we can serve the son as I said before, unfortunately, he's hard to find I think on purpose based on our recent efforts to contact him and serve him with documents. MS. CLINE: May I be heard on that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sure. MS. CLINE: Yeah. So Joanna Cline on behalf of Bravo Luck.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 32 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 32 I mean, we understand that the Trustee's position is that all of these entities can be disregarded and that the distinct members of the debtor's family can be disregarded and that they're all the same, one in the same, but we're here to represent Bravo Luck. And sort of the logical leap that these two entities, Golden Spring and Lamp Capital, can somehow be served by -- by service upon counsel for Bravo Luck has no basis in the law. There's no veil that's been pierced and we just think it's improper. So it may be putting the cart before the horse, because I don't know that Your Honor is addressing that issue today, but since counsel for the Trustee put it out there, we just wanted to record our objection. THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. All right, Attorney Bassett. I understand your position. And I will look at a declaration with regard to the registered agents of Lamp Capital and Golden Spring and I will act accordingly. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Now, the final matter on the calendar is the continued pretrial conference in Despins versus Bravo Luck, Limited, et al. And I did see, although I didn't study, that there Case 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 33 of 53\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023
33 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | was a request for entry of a pretrial order, but it appeared |\n| 2 | to me there was a lot of -- there weren't really a lot of |\n| 3 | agreements on any dates in that pretrial order.
So I'm |\n| 4 | going to have to just pick those dates then if there isn't |\n| 5 | an agreement. |\n| 6 | So do the parties want to be heard on that or do |\n| 7 | you want me to just -- I will just enter whatever dates I |\n| 8 | think are appropriate? |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, I think it may be |\n| 10 | helpful for us to be heard briefly. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Sure.
Go right ahead. |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you. |\n| 13 | So we did submit the proposed pretrial order |\n| 14 | that's at ECF 73 in the adversary proceeding.
As the Court |\n| 15 | correctly noted, there is really not agreement at all. |\n| 16 | Actually with one exception.
I think we've agreed on a |\n| 17 | deadline for initial disclosures. |\n| 18 | Outside of that, there is agreement on a form |\n| 19 | generally of an order that sets forth a schedule in this |\n| 20 | case. |\n| 21 | I don't think there are any major disagreements |\n| 22 | about kind of what an orderly sequence of events would look |\n| 23 | like and what types of disclosures and discovery deadlines |\n| 24 | are necessary. |\n| 25 | But within that generally agreed upon framework, |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 34 there's a lot of disagreement about how long this case should take. Our schedule, and I won't belabor all the interim deadlines in going over that, but the bottom line is that we think it is imminently reasonable to have a trial in this case, if necessary, if the course of litigation is not resolved by other means prior to that time, by approximately the end of July. The position of Bravo Luck is that this litigation should take six months longer than that and we should have a trial in December. The position that we've heard from Bravo Luck is that the time table that we've proposed is just way too fast, it's not workable. They may need a bunch of discovery. And I think I would respond to that in a few ways. First of all, we've all been at this case for, at least as the Trustee is concerned, you know, coming up on the one-year anniversary here before we know it. And Bravo Luck is not new to it either. So the events and the circumstances underlying the allegations in the adversary proceeding with the Sherry- Netherland, all of that, has been out there for a very long time with the parties to think about the positions and arguments for a very long time. That's point number one. Case 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 34 of 53\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 35 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 35 Point number two is that obviously the reasonableness of any schedule depends upon the complexity of a particular litigation, the amount of discovery that it requires, and other related issues. From my experience, while a federal district court civil litigation may typically take longer than what we proposed, the time table that we proposed here is not at all uncommon. As the Court well knows, in bankruptcy, you know, there are many contested matters that are far more complex than adversary proceedings and often those are heard in a matter of weeks. So I think this schedule is imminently doable. The last point I would make is that there's really no reason why the type of complicated and drawn-out discovery proposed by Bravo Luck would even conceivably be necessary here. And this is an adversary proceeding about Bravo Luck's alleged ownership of the Sherry-Netherland apartment through a trust agreement. And if it doesn't own the Sherry-Netherland apartment through a trust agreement, we have alternative fraudulent transfer claims where the debtor fraudulently transferred beneficial ownership of the Sherry-Netherland to his son through Genever without consideration and for the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 36 of 53\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023
36 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | purpose of hindering or delaying his creditors. |\n| 2 | All the facts that Bravo Luck would need to |\n| 3 | respond, to make its case in response to that complaint, are |\n| 4 | necessarily entirely, or at a minimum almost entirely, |\n| 5 | within its control and those of its purported owner and |\n| 6 | controller, the debtor's son, or possibly the debtor. |\n| 7 | Bravo Luck is going to have to show to defeat the |\n| 8 | Trustee's claims that it owns and controls the Sherry |\n| 9 | Netherland.
Those facts, whether that's true, they're |\n| 10 | necessarily within its control.
It wouldn't need discovery |\n| 11 | from third parties to demonstrate that it owns an asset. |\n| 12 | To the extent anybody would have information, it |\n| 13 | may be the debtor.
Obviously, I don't think -- I could be |\n| 14 | wrong, but I would imagine that the debtor's son is not |\n| 15 | going to seek formal discovery from his father, so that |\n| 16 | should not elongate the schedule. |\n| 17 | And then, you know, there may be some discovery |\n| 18 | needed from parties like the Sherry-Netherland, et cetera, |\n| 19 | but that's not -- this is not the type of case where we need |\n| 20 | several months for fact discovery. |\n| 21 | Bravo Luck has indicated that it may have an |\n| 22 | expert.
They haven't told us what expert that would be.
We |\n| 23 | expanded the original schedule we sent them by a few weeks |\n| 24 | to accommodate expert discovery.
We do not at this time |\n| 25 | intend to have an expert, although we reserve the right to |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 37 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 37 have an rebuttal expert. So, Your Honor, we just don't think this is a case that needs to take that long, particularly where the Trustee has a real need to move, not just this adversary proceeding forward, but this case forward, and this adversary proceeding is a critical component of this overall case. So I think it would be unfair to everybody involved, most notably the debtor's creditors, to let this drag out until December. So, Your Honor, subject to any response to what counsel may raise, you know, for those reasons, we think the schedule that we've submitted is a reasonable one. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. CLINE: So, Your Honor, the Trustee says there's no reason that we need to go through a discovery process in this case. And from Bravo's perspective, there is a reason that it's called due process. By contrast, we've not heard articulated a reason for any urgency to attend to the schedule set forth by the Trustee in this case. We heard Your Honor loud and clear that you wanted this case tried by December, you wanted it tried in this year, and we put forth a schedule that does that. This is a dispute over a \\$70 million apartment.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 38 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 38 The parties are still amid briefing as the Court knows on a motion to dismiss that finishes up I guess in a week or so. And due process requires that we get a fair shot, assuming our motions to dismiss are not granted, to defend the case that the Trustee has the burden to put on. Yes, counsel is right that there is some evidence in our control, but not all of it, and we're talking about a transaction that happened eight years ago. In terms of, you know, we've all been going at this a long time, I mean, yes, we've been involved for a bit, but we've not been taking the 2000 and -- we don't have the advantage of being the ones driving the aggressive 2004 campaign that the Trustee's been involved in. We don't know the extent of the documents they've collected. We don't know what they have. We're going to ask for it. Presumably then we'll need some time to review it, decide upon whether we need to follow up with our own supplemental subpoenas or anything like that, and it's simply infeasible to assume that this is all going to take place within the next 45 days. Just by way of specific example, there are subpoenas that presumably have resulted in relevant information with respect to the following custodians, UBS, Paul Weiss, Williams & Connolly, Brown Harris Stevens, the Sherry, maybe Stevenson, Wong.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 39 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 39 It's Bravo Luck's right to get this information that presumably is already in the Trustee's possession, examine it, and see whether we need it to defend Bravo's rights. So if that's not the case and we're not able to take our discovery, our rights will be severely prejudiced. By contrast, as I said, we haven't heard the Trustee articulate what's going to happen to it. What is the harm that the Trustee faces if our -- if the Court were to go with our schedule rather than the Trustee's schedule? The only thing we heard in the course of meet and confer, and, Your Honor, I can submit that the parties engaged in a few meet and confer calls on this to try to get some agreement here, the only thing that we heard was that the Trustee was anxious to sell the property. But there's already an agreement, a settlement agreement, on a sales process and a sales agent. And we think if that's what the Trustee wants, it can go ahead and do that and any money can be put in escrow until this is all taken care of. But bottom line, there's no reason for any urgency. There's every reason to give Bravo Luck some due process and at least an abbreviated schedule as we've set forth to complete discovery here so we can get this to trial and can get it taken care of. THE COURT: Okay. I just have a question or two.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 40 of 53\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023
40 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | I noticed that you filed your appearance the other |\n| 2 | day.
I think you still need to file a corporate ownership |\n| 3 | statement under Rule 7007.1
Okay? |\n| 4 | MS. CLINE:
Understood. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
And that needs to happen. |\n| 6 | With regard to the initial disclosures, it does |\n| 7 | appear that you have an agreed-upon date for the initial |\n| 8 | disclosures.
I don't want to see that date change without |\n| 9 | good cause being shown.
And so if either party changes that |\n| 10 | date, someone's going to have to come in and explain to me |\n| 11 | why, because you could make an argument that the initial |\n| 12 | disclosures should have already happened under the Federal |\n| 13 | Rules of Civil Procedure. |\n| 14 | But if you have it, you do agree on that date, I |\n| 15 | did see that, whatever, I'm ordering that date on the record |\n| 16 | right now regardless of what I do with the rest of the |\n| 17 | dates.
Okay?
Because I think that that -- as I said, |\n| 18 | someone could come in and argue that the initial disclosures |\n| 19 | should have already occurred. |\n| 20 | With regard to the other issues that you raise, |\n| 21 | I'm going to take it all under consideration.
I'm not going |\n| 22 | to determine dates right now as we sit here.
Will I |\n| 23 | determine dates by -- we have other hearings on Thursday.
I |\n| 24 | don't recall whether you will be here on Thursday.
I have |\n| 25 | to always look because there are so many things each day |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 41 it's hard to remember. Could I make that ruling by Thursday? It's possible. I just don't know. I have to go back and look at it. As I said, I saw the document that was filed yesterday. I saw it this morning, that was filed yesterday afternoon, and I noticed -- I think the initial belief was, just because of the docket entry, that it might be an agreed upon order, but I quickly learned, saw that it was not. And that's fine. It's fine. So I don't -- I have to take a look at it and see what we're going to do. I do agree with you though that I did say that this is going to move ahead. So we'll see where we end up at the end of the day. Is there anything else you'd like to add for the record? MS. CLINE: Yes, Your Honor. I just wanted to put one thing on the record with respect to a comment that Mr. Bassett had made with respect to the motion to limit notice. I just wanted to make a record on that if I may? THE COURT: Yes. MS. CLINE: So we saw Your Honor's ruling on the motion and I guess I just wanted to articulate -- THE COURT: On which motion are you talking about? MS. CLINE: Sorry. The motion to limit notice Case 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 41 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 42 with respect to a motion to abandon property. THE COURT: Oh, yes, yes, yes. Okay. Sorry. I just -- MS. CLINE: I understand. THE COURT: -- want to be as clear as we can be. So thank you. MS. CLINE: Yes. Apologies. And so we just wanted to put our position on the record, which is that, as the Court's painfully aware I think, the definition of what is property of the estate is very much at issue here. And as a result of the Court's granting that motion to limit notice, Bravo really has no idea what the property is that the Trustee may seek to abandon. And it may well have nothing to do with us. On the other hand, it may in our view have everything to do with property that we believe to be owned by Bravo. So from our perspective, Bravo is being denied due process and the right to object to whatever it is the Trustee might do with respect to whatever it is, the property that's at issue. And from our perspective, the Trustee has not articulated a specific concern. There's been a general argument about confidentiality. And if that were a problem, we could take it on a asset by asset basis, and I'm sure we Case 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 42 of 53\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 43 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 43 could figure out some kind of a, you know, attorney's eyes only or some kind of a way to deal with that. But as it stands, we're sort of hamstrung and not able to even stand up and object as to what we may think may be Bravo's property. So we just wanted to sort of put on the record that we think that there's a due process issue with respect to that motion to limit notice. We would ask under Rules 59 and 60 for the Court to reconsider and just include Bravo in the notice provision. THE COURT: All right. I'll take a look at that. I have to say, sitting here right now without looking at it, I don't recall everything it says. But even though it's limiting notice and shortening time, I think you still have an ability to object. But I could be wrong about that. Attorney Linsey? MR. LINSEY: One of the things that the motion to limit notice does is it defines the noticed parties. And with respect to the notice parties, they are the U.S. Trustee, PAX, and the Creditors Committee as a representative of creditors at large. THE COURT: Well, that's the noticed parties. If someone become aware of a motion and they want to object to it, I don't think they're precluded from doing\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 44 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 44 that. MR. SHAIKEN: If I may, Your Honor, the motion and the order say that the motion will be sealed. So even someone with access to the docket -- THE COURT: I understand. But there's -- MR. SHAIKEN: -- won't know what it's about, and the courtroom will be sealed. THE COURT: But there's -- we have mechanisms in this case with regard to confidential information, so you need to talk to the Trustee's counsel about that and see if there can be some kind of agreement. There's been a mechanism in place for almost a year with regard to confidential information in the case as a whole. And whether that applies to this issue, I don't know sitting here. But what I'm saying to you is you're all, and you know this, so I really don't -- you're all lawyers, you have the conversations and try to figure it out. If Bravo Luck wants to file an objection to something that they don't know what it is and they think their due process rights haven't been met, then they can file that. Whatever happens with it, I can't say as we sit here right now. They have a right to do that. Whether or not any relief will be given to Bravo Luck, is not before the Court today. Okay?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 45 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 45 But I understand your oral request. I will look at it. And then I might say, okay, you made an -- I don't know what I'm going to say. But I might say you made an oral request during a pretrial conference, which you're absolutely entitled to do, and I might say, okay, I agree with you. I might say I disagree with you. Or I might say I'd like the Trustee to file something or respond to that. I just have to think about it having not -- you know, it's not something I was prepared to address at the moment, but I'm fine -- it's fine that you raised it and we'll see where we go. But with regard to the confidential information and the issues that you raised, and Attorney Shaiken raises, with regard to you don't know what you don't know, there are mechanisms in this case. Parties can be -- there is a confidentiality agreement that parties can decide to be bound by, and they - - you know, there is a process. Whether or not you decide to be bound by that, I have no -- your clients, I have no idea, but there is a process. And, unfortunately, it's been a case in which -- it's not unfortunate, it is -- it's the facts, there's a case in which there's been a lot of need for confidentiality agreements.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 46 of 53\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023
46 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | You know, the District Court in Connecticut has |\n| 2 | standing confidentiality agreements the minute you file a |\n| 3 | case.
The minute it gets filed, it gets spit out as an |\n| 4 | automatic confidentiality agreement. |\n| 5 | So this isn't anything, from this court's |\n| 6 | perspective anyway, that's a novel issue.
It's just an |\n| 7 | issue of how the lawyers handle it.
And so I will let you |\n| 8 | all have that discussion and we'll see where we go. |\n| 9 | MS. CLINE:
Understood. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 11 | MS. CLINE:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
And, Your Honor, if I may, I just |\n| 14 | wanted to add one very brief point in response to a comment |\n| 15 | that counsel made as to the discovery schedule? |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
And it's simply that counsel had |\n| 18 | emphasized the Trustee has been conducting 2004 discovery, |\n| 19 | and has discovery from other parties that may be relevant to |\n| 20 | the adversary proceeding, and they need all that, and that's |\n| 21 | something that from their point of view they have been |\n| 22 | saying to us at least, and to the Court, is the reason why |\n| 23 | this litigation is going to take a significant amount of |\n| 24 | time.
I just wanted to point out to the Court that we |\n| 25 | looked at that in advance of today's hearing. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 47 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 47 And the parties that they mentioned, Paul Weiss, we have 715 documents, we have not taken a deposition. UBS, we have 124 documents, we have not taken a deposition. We have something like 4,000 documents from Williams & Connolly, but most of those are unrelated to this adversary proceeding. We also did a search in our entire database across the hundreds of thousands of documents, if not more than that, that we've received, and I think there is something like 2500 total documents related to Bravo Luck or the Sherry-Netherland. So the bottom line is it's not -- it's not the case that we're sitting on some just vast volume of information that's relevant to this adversary proceeding and it's going to take Bravo Luck months to go through it. For a variety of reasons, as the Court well knows, we've, you know, struggled to get a lot of information in this case, so it's not like we have so much that it's going to really impact the discovery schedule here. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. And I will say that, you know, as I say quite often, not just in this case, but in every case, as you all know, you all have duties as lawyers to act in good faith and to continue to try to resolve issues, specifically\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 48 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 48 discovery issues. And if there are discovery disputes regarding the scope or what is requested by one party from another, then if it's not worked out, then the Court will have to rule. And that's what we'll do. Okay? But this adversary proceeding is about -- the complaint as I read it has two counts. One is -- I think the first count talks about saying that the trust agreement is void or at the very least voidable. And the second is that it's a fraudulent transfer, that the whole transaction was a fraudulent transfer under state law. That's it. Those are the causes of action. Not that those don't -- aren't -- do not require discovery necessarily, but with regard to the information that the Trustee's obtained through 2004 examination processes, which the Trustee is entitled to do, and the Bankruptcy Code provides that ability in a bankruptcy case, I'm not sure all of whatever the Trustee has obtained through 2004 discovery would be relevant in this adversary proceeding, but you'll let me know. Okay? MS. CLINE: Yes, Your Honor. If I may? Understood. And I'm sure there are reams of paper that are not relevant to these particular proceedings. And just wanted to note that there's actually three proceedings that have been consolidated.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 49 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 49 THE COURT: Yes. I'm glad you raised that actually. We've got to figure out a different way than filing three motions to dismiss and three answers and all those other things, right?\n\n So what I -- I understand the argument that there could be some specific issues in each one, but then I want you to talk, figure out a way to have a complaint and an answer both, that, you know, have different -- have the count either apply to all three, two of the three, one of the three, however you want to do it, but I don't think it makes sense to be filing three pleadings. These are consolidated for a reason, right? Otherwise they wouldn't be consolidated. So the pleadings should be consolidated. All right?\n\n And I think you, both of you, can agree on that without -- you should be able to come to an agreement without impacting any substantive rights that either -- either the plaintiffs -- plaintiff or the defendants have with regard to the ultimate relief sought in the complaint. Okay? But it doesn't' make sense to have three different pleadings in the -- in these jointly administered adversary proceedings. Okay? MS. CLINE: Understood. THE COURT: Attorney Bassett, I'm sure you can -- you can all figure out a way to deal with that, right?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 50 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 50 MR. BASSETT: We will, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I've raised that before, so I would like that to be addressed. Is there any other matter that we need to address in this adversary proceeding today? (No response) THE COURT: No? What about -- all right. What other matters are not on the calendar that you want to bring to the Court's attention? MR. LINSEY: It's one we've already discussed if that helps, Your Honor. The motion to limit notice with respect to the motion to abandon. The Court entered an order yesterday granting that motion. And I believe that the Court's order that the schedule in the order would seem to anticipate the immediate filing of a motion to abandon. There is some information that my office is compiling from third-party sources to go into that motion and we may not have the motion finalized until the end of the week. The reason I report that to Your Honor is because the motion to limit notice contemplates a 14-day objection period between the filing of the motion to abandon and the hearing on the motion to abandon which has been scheduled for May 2nd.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 51 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 51 So here's what the Trustee contemplates. The Trustee contemplates that none of the noticed parties are going to object to the motion to abandon and that no one is going to have a problem with having the hearing go forward as scheduled on less than 14-day's notice. I've spoken with debtor's counsel about this earlier today. And what I suggest that we do is the Trustee will file the motion to abandon later this week, will reach out to counsel for the various noticed parties. If anyone takes issue with the less than 14-day notice period, then we will reach out to the Court and request to continue the hearing date on the motion to abandon. And if, as the Trustee anticipates, no one has an issue, then we'll continue with the hearing as scheduled. And I realize I'm technically bringing up something that's not on the docket, but we just wanted to make sure the Court wasn't looking at the docket saying where is this motion that I thought was going to be immediately filed? So that's why I bring it up. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I heard what you just said, but you also heard what Bravo Luck said. You may have an objection to your motion, even if you claim that they're not entitled to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 52 object to it. So I'm going to look back at the -- at the whole issue and revisit it. I don't know if I'm going to do anything, but there's -- I need to look back at it and see whether or not we have to think about that a little bit more. MR. LINSEY: And if Your Honor wants a written submission from the Trustee on the reason that the Trustee did not include Bravo Luck as a noticed party, we're happy to do that. The Trustee -- I have discussed that issue with the Trustee as recently as last Friday and that was an intelligently made decision, so he'd probably want to be heard on that as well. THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm going to think about it. And if I'm going to do anything, you'll all know because it will be on the docket. Okay? MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Anything further we need to address this afternoon? MS. CLINE: Not from Bravo, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. BASSETT: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 53 of 53\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023
53 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Then this is the last hearing on the Court's |\n| 2 | calendar today, so court is adjourned. |\n| 3 | (Proceedings concluded 3:24 p.m.) |\n| 4 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved |\n| 5 | transcriber and certified electronic reporter and |\n| 6 | transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct |\n| 7 | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of |\n| 8 | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | April 26, 2023 |\n| 12 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州联邦地区\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（杰尼弗控股公司）， *\n *\n债务人。 *\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）等， * 对抗程序案号：22-05027\n *\n原告， * 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n * April 18, 2023\n诉 *\n *\nBravo Luck Limited（布拉沃·拉克有限公司）等，*\n *\n被告。 *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n根据UBS AG的《破产程序规则》第2004条传票强制遵从的动议；说明理由令，要求说明法院为何不应认定未回应方藐视法庭；就#1起诉状继续举行审前会议的庭审记录\n\n在尊敬的JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章\n受托人：\n\nNICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·巴塞特，律师）\nPaul Hastings, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林西，律师）\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（纽伯特·佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n庭审程序以电子录音记录，记录文本由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录及速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表被告Bravo\nLuck Limited：\n\nDAVID M.S. SHAIKEN, ESQ.（大卫·M.S.·谢肯，律师）\nShipman, Shaiken & Schwefel, LLC（希普曼、谢肯及施韦费尔律师事务所）\n433 South Main Street\nSuite 319\nWest Hartford, CT 06510\n\nJOANNA J. CLINE, ESQ.（乔安娜·J·克莱因，律师）\nTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP（特劳特曼·佩珀·汉密尔顿·桑德斯律师事务所）\nHercules Plaza\n1313 N. Market Street\nSuite 5100\nWilmington, DE 19899\n\n代表UBS：\n\nLISA FRIED, ESQ.（莉萨·弗里德，律师）\nHerbert Smith Freehills New York LLP（赫伯特·史密斯·弗里希尔斯纽约律师事务所）\n450 Lexington Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n代表美国受托人：\n\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩，律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 3 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 3\n\n（庭审程序于下午2:02开始）\n\n法庭书记员：案号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok，对抗程序案号22-5027，Despins诉Bravo Luck, Limited。\n\n法官：我对——我们是否有——Despins先生不是要远程参加吗，还是他将远程参加？\n\n巴塞特律师：实际上，他今天无法参加。\n\n法官：好的。\n\n巴塞特律师：我认为他将在周四远程参加。\n\n法官：那么，有人开摄像头吗，还是我们都准备好了？\n\n法庭书记员：（听不清）\n\n法官：再说一遍？\n\n法庭书记员：（听不清）\n\n法官：好的。好的。因为我没有任何摄像头，所以无论如何我也看不到任何人，我只是想确认一下。好的。那么，请先由第11章受托人的律师进行出庭陈述。\n\n巴塞特律师：下午好，法官阁下。Nick Bassett，来自Paul Hastings，担任第11章受托人的律师。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 4 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023\n\n1 法官：\n下午好。\n\n2 林西律师：\n下午好，法官阁下。Patrick\n\n3 Linsey，来自Neubert, Pepe & Monteith，担任受托人在康涅狄格州的律师。\n\n4\n\n5 法官：\n下午好。\n\n6 克莱伯恩律师：\n下午好。Holley Claiborn\n\n7 代表美国受托人。\n\n8 法官：\n下午好。\n\n9 律师？\n\n10 谢肯律师：\n下午好，法官阁下。David\n\n11 Shaiken，来自Shipman, Shaiken & Schwefel，作为当地律师代表Bravo\n\n12 Luck, Limited。\n\n13 法官：\n下午好。\n\n14 克莱因律师：\n下午好，法官阁下。Joanna\n\n15 Cline，来自Troutman Pepper，代表Bravo Luck。\n\n16 法官：\n下午好。\n\n17 好的。今天的日程上有几项事项。\n\n18 请稍候片刻，我\n\n19 只需确认我的电脑是否正常工作，电脑确实正常，\n\n20 但我仍需进入正确的位置。因此，我\n\n21 很抱歉。请稍等。\n\n22 好的。因此，我们有Despins诉Bravo Luck对抗\n\n23 程序中的继续审前会议，针对UBS的\n\n24 第2004条传票要求强制遵从的动议，以及一项说明理由令，\n\n25 要求说明为何不应认定未回应传票的各方\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 5 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 5\n\n藐视法庭。那么，巴塞特律师，您今天下午打算如何进行？\n\n巴塞特律师：法官阁下，我将请我的同事Linsey律师处理与UBS有关的动议；我认为该事项已由各方协商延期，或者我相信这将是各方提出的请求。再次说明，我将请他就此发言。至于——据我所知，今天将继续进行的仅有两项事项，即Bravo Luck对抗程序中的审前会议，以及关于为何不应认定Golden Spring（戈尔登斯普林）和Lamp Capital（兰普资本）藐视法庭的说明理由令，尽管环视法庭，我认为它们今天没有出庭。\n\n法官：好的。就强制遵从动议而言，您的意思是该事项将延期吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：嗯，法官阁下，我的意思是，我认为我们已经——我们已申请强制遵从。Lamp Capital和Golden Spring均未按照该项命令，即法院要求它们提交文件以回应我们的第2004条传票并以其他方式参与第2004条证据开示的命令，作出回应。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 6 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 6\n\n随后，我们申请了一项说明理由令，要求说明为何不应认定它们藐视法庭。其结果是一项命令，要求它们今天到庭。顺便说一下，我们确已在案卷中提交送达证明，表明我们已向Golden Spring和Lamp Capital送达。因此，我想这是一个合理的问题，即，您知道，我们接下来怎么办？而且我认为，坦率地说，我们正处于一种难以维持的境地，其中一部分将与法院将在周四审理的一项事项相衔接，即债务人请求暂停其遵从法院有关证据开示命令的请求；我也认为，这在一定程度上实际上与Bravo Luck有关的一些问题相衔接。我们目前的情形是，Golden Spring和Lamp Capital，即今日命令所涉的两个主体，对受托人在其调查中的证据开示而言是至关重要的实体。这两个实体据称最终均由债务人的儿子拥有并控制。根据债务人的承认，这两个实体均曾为债务人的开支提供资金，包括与本破产案件有关的律师费用，因此，我们需要这两个实体的文件和证据，以完成我们的调查并管理本案。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 7 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 7\n\n而且我们毫不怀疑，债务人事实上确实控制这些实体。显然，就其儿子据称拥有并控制这些实体而言，它们属于该家族。上述实体的高级职员和董事是债务人已知的关联人士。法院知悉的Yvette Wang（王雁平）是Golden Springs的总裁。法院此前已在与Ace Decade（艾斯十年）有关的事项中认定，债务人控制Wang女士。Golden Spring还与债务人及其众多实体共用同一营业地址。我们的观点是，由于债务人控制这些实体，他应当负责提交其文件。现在正在发生的情况，当然，正如法院从已提交的动议以及周四将审理的事项中所知，债务人正在援引第五修正案，并称他不能提交这些信息。他不能取得由它们控制的文件。因此，这留给我们一个选择，当然，就是向这些实体本身追索文件。但当然，这些实体无处可寻。它们没有在本法院出庭。它们没有回应我们送达的任何文件。它们没有\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 8 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023\n\n1 以任何方式参与。我认为，这也导致了\n\n2 与Bravo Luck有关的情形。\n\n3 如法院所知，Bravo Luck是另一家据称由债务人\n\n4 之子拥有并控制的实体。\n\n5\n\n6 债务人的儿子就Bravo Luck诉讼所做的事情，\n\n7 就其在本法院提交的债权请求所做的事情，\n\n8 以及就Bravo Luck在本案中所做的其他事情，包括\n\n9 在过去数日对受托人提交的限制通知动议提出\n\n10 异议，基本上是\n\n11 在其认为方便时，通过显然来自英国的律师，\n\n12 在本法院进行诉讼，并利用本法院的资源\n\n13 和管辖权，\n\n14 却从未实际前来亲自参与。\n\n15\n\n16 但他是选择性地这样做。因为当涉及\n\n17 他拥有和控制的其他实体，或者\n\n18 他称其拥有和控制的实体，即Lamp Capital——这是债务人案件中的一个实体——\n\n19 以及Golden Spring——其也做过同样的事——时，他并未这样做。\n\n20 我们无法找到它们。\n\n21 事实上，债务人的儿子最近一直在\n\n22 规避我们试图向其送达的文件。\n\n23 我们最初掌握其在英国公寓的地址。\n\n24 我们在那里向他送达了文件。\n\n25 当我们在债务人起诉书提交后回去送达更多文件时，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 9 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023\n\n1 突然之间，前台人员说他已不再住在那里，而且他们从未听说过\n\n2 他。因此，我们处于一种，您知道，近乎\n\n3 束手无策的境地。\n\n4\n\n5 显然，我没有向\n\n法院提出建议，也没有准备好今天向法院确切说明我们可能会寻求何种救济来处理这种情形，但受托人认为，必须采取某些措施，以防止出现这样一种情形：包括债务人、其亲属及控制这些实体的人在内的人员正在策划一种局面，使债务人——或者说受托人——根本无法获得其进行调查所需的信息。\n\n债务人援引第五修正案。其女儿现在也援引第五修正案。那些无法援引第五修正案的实体没有回应。但控制这些实体的人，即其儿子，却在其愿意时通过律师、通过其他实体参与。\n\n因此，必须采取某些措施以使双方处于平等地位，确保最终作出决定的人员能够公平参与，从而使受托人获得其所需的证据开示。再次说明，其中一部分将在周四再次提出。\n\n正如我所说，我希望我有一项富有创意的建议，作为\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 10 至于究竟应当采取何种措施，但我们正在考虑各种选择。就本院目前审理的命令而言，显然，本院可以对——而且我们认为——我认为现在已有明确依据认定 Golden Spring 和 Lamp Capital 藐视法庭。本院可以判处费用，并采取本院可用的其他措施，以处理藐视法庭行为并试图迫使其遵守本院命令；但显然，从我们的角度看，对于我们无法联系且无法执行任何命令的实体而言，该类救济的价值将微乎其微。13 因此，法官阁下，这就是有关从该两实体取得证据开示的现状及受托人的看法。法庭：好的。让我们暂且退一步。除审前会议外，今天日程上安排的是出庭说明理由命令，即未作答复的当事人 Lamp Capital 和 Golden Spring 为何不应被认定为藐视法庭。那是今天的事项。此外，还有一项要求 UBS 遵守送达给其的《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条传票的强制遵守动议。我想我听到您说\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 10 of 53\n\n该事项将延期，即 UBS——\n\n巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）：正确。\n\n林西先生（Mr. Linsey）：我可以在适当的时候就此发言，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 11 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 11 法庭：我认为现在就是适当的时候。林西先生：好的。法庭：我想了解情况。如果我们要延期，那没问题。我只是想知道，以便我们可以专注于今天下午需要专注的事项。林西先生：没问题。UBS 的律师也在法庭内——法庭：是的。林西先生：——她可能希望出庭。法庭：我看到律师已经站起来了。弗里德女士（Ms. Fried）：下午好，法官阁下。法庭：请您上前，以便我们记录您的姓名，可以吗。弗里德女士：当然可以。法庭：请您对着麦克风讲话。弗里德女士：谢谢。法庭：抱歉。所有内容都是音频记录，因此如果麦克风无法收录您的声音，我们将无法听到您讲话。弗里德女士：当然，法官阁下。我是 Lisa Fried（丽莎·弗里德），来自 Herbert Smith Freehills（史密夫斐尔律师事务所），代表 UBS。法庭：谢谢。下午好。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 12 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 12 林西先生：谢谢，法官阁下。再次说明，我是代表受托人的 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西）。我的办公室一直作为利益冲突特别律师处理 UBS 事项。自上次强制遵守动议延期以来，UBS 的律师与我的办公室就遵守事宜进行了多次电子邮件往来和电话会议。已经分批提交了文件。根据我们收到的材料以及受托人的调查，有一些主题和领域是受托人希望进一步深入了解的。事实上，我上周已就此与弗里德女士联系。我们正寻求通过协作方式，就证据开示程序达成一致，其中将包括诸如电子存储信息检索等事项；但由于我们讨论的是不同司法辖区的证据开示，显然还涉及不同的技术平台和不同的语言，因此该事项错综复杂。所有这些都带来了并非无法克服的挑战，但需要律师之间付出一定努力并开展合作。目前看来，这种合作正在形成。因此，在法庭考虑后，受托人和我希望提出的建议是，将强制遵守动议延期约两周。我看到，5 月 2 日安排了与本 Chapter 11 案件或相关对抗程序有关的事项开庭。该日期对律师来说可行，或者此后的某个日期也可以。希望届时，鉴于目前各方所讨论事项的性质，我不知道文件提交是否能够完成；但我确实认为，预期我们能够就证据开示和电子存储信息方案的基本框架达成一致是合理的，这应能使文件以有序方式提交。受托人对于我们过去数月在这方面看到的合作感到满意。法庭：律师？\n\n弗里德女士：谢谢，法官阁下。我同意林西先生所说的一切。我仅想指出，正如林西先生所暗示的，对于 UBS 这样规模的全球金融机构，有时我们需要一些时间与世界各地代表我们客户的不同人员取得联系并进行协调。我们一直在努力这样做，并持续向林西先生通报进展；在完成初步提交后，我们承诺以协作方式检索受托人要求我们检索的内容，并将继续这样做。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 14 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 14 法庭：好的。谢谢。对于将本次听证延期至 5 月 2 日，您是否有异议？弗里德女士：完全没有，法官阁下。前提是如我认为林西先生已预告的那样，即届时我们可能尚未完成文件提交，但我们当然预计届时将在就今后适用的程序达成一致方面取得进展。法庭：我认为这很公平。如此，我就能了解事项进展。如果需要额外时间，或有需要处理或解决的额外问题，我认为这很公平。至于 5 月 2 日，我们在——我们有时间——本案下午 1 时已有一项安排，下午 2 时也有一项安排。我将安排——我将把本事项延期至下午 1 时，因为我认为您们——无论您们必须向法庭说明什么，我相信不会有争议。当然，谁知道呢，也可能有争议。但我将其延期至下午 1 时。好的。届时我们再看事项进展。而且，正如双方均已承认的，你们双方都有持续合作并遵守《联邦民事诉讼规则》和《联邦破产程序规则》的义务，因此鉴于双方所陈述的情况，我认为延期审理本事项是合理的，尤其是考虑到\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 15 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023\n1 你们一直据以推进事项的合作性质，\n2 以及双方均需有一些额外时间采取某些行动。\n3 我认为这是公平的，并且\n4 对于将本次听证延期至 5 月 2 日下午 1 时没有异议。\n5 好吗？\n6 弗里德女士：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n7 林西先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n8 法庭：\n好的。\n谢谢二位。\n9 弗里德女士：\n法官阁下，我可以退庭吗？\n10 法庭：\n可以。\n谢谢。\n11 弗里德女士：\n非常感谢。\n12 好的。\n现在，巴塞特先生，我理解您\n13 就 Lamp Capital 和 Golden Spring 的出庭说明理由命令\n14 所作的陈述。\n15 在法庭内是否有人代表\n16 Lamp Capital 或 Golden Spring，就 Ho Wan Kwok 的 Chapter\n17 11 合并管理案件 22-50073 出庭？\n18 （无人答复）\n19 法庭：\n好的。\n我没有听到任何答复，\n20 也没有看到法庭内有任何并非因其他事项出庭\n21 或我知晓其所代表当事人的人员。\n22 \n23 因此，巴塞特先生，您请求法庭作出命令，\n24 认定这两个当事人藐视法庭，是否正确？\n25 \n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 16 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 16 巴塞特先生：正确，法官阁下。而且，您知道，我还有一个——我还有一个想法：债务人的儿子已在本案中提交债权证明，因此我认为毫无疑问法庭对其具有管辖权。如果他声称拥有并控制这两个实体，我认为法庭可以命令其代表这些实体接受第 2004 条传票的送达，并要求其协助提供对该等传票作出回应的文件，即提供文件。除此之外，问题还在于，或者说除此之外的问题是，您知道，认定 Lamp Capital 和 Golden Spring 均藐视法庭将产生何种后果？如我所述，我当然认为，追索其证据开示所产生的费用和开支是适当的，此外还包括法庭认为适当、为迫使其遵守而采取的任何其他制裁。但同样，当面对未出庭且我们无法轻易联系的当事人时，尚不清楚此类制裁将有多大效力；但我想，权衡而言，有这些制裁总比没有好。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 17 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 17 法庭：嗯，Golden Spring 曾有一段时间在本案中出庭，是吗？巴塞特先生：是的，法官阁下。我相信该出庭随后已被撤回。法庭：我同意。Lamp Capital 是否曾在本案中出庭？巴塞特先生：我不——我不这么认为，法官阁下。法庭：但它们是——它们是否是本应向债务人提供的 $8.8 million 贷款的来源，还是 Golden Spring？巴塞特先生：Lamp Capital——凭我的即时记忆，我不记得 $8.8 million 的来源，但 Lamp Capital 是一家实体，其最初向 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）支付了一笔预付聘金，作为其在本案中代理债务人的一部分。Golden Spring 也曾为债务人的开支提供资金。法庭：您已从 Brown Rudnick 取得证据开示？巴塞特先生：我们已从 Brown Rudnick 取得依据第 2004 条进行的证据开示，正确。但我们显然尚未从 Lamp 或 Golden Spring 本身取得该等证据开示。法庭：好的。请稍等片刻。我只是想回看一下——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 18 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 18 巴塞特先生：当然。法庭：——本案早期提交的文件。（暂停）法庭：好的。2022 年 3 月 22 日提交了一份文件，即一年多以前，债务人在其中请求批准一项 $8 million 的破产申请后融资交易；根据债务人在本案中提交的文件，债务人之子控制并拥有作为 DIP 贷款人的 Golden Spring, LTD。（暂停）法庭：而且，巴塞特律师，您是说，在本案启动时或大致在本案启动时支付给 Brown Rudnick 的 million dollar 预付聘金，是由 Lamp Capital 提供资金的？巴塞特先生：是的。正确，法官阁下。我不知道，也许美国受托人对于案卷中的某项内容有确切引用，但是我——法庭：我相信某处有。克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：法官阁下，我记得，该内容载于聘用 Brown Rudnick 的申请中，也载于 Brown Rudnick 提交的 2060(b) 披露文件中。法庭：好的。关于——我马上会查看。关于债务人提交的、请求获得 $8 million 贷款的 DIP 融资动议，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 19 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 19 遗产来自 Golden Spring（金泉），该实体债务人在其诉状中主张由债务人的儿子控制——（停顿）克莱伯恩女士：法官大人，我们还举行过一次听证会，债务人就该笔贷款作证；据我记忆，他就其如何安排与 Golden Spring 的贷款作了证言。法院：我同意。我正在查找——我刚才正查找那次听证会，我想是在四月，三月底或四月。克莱伯恩女士：我也会查看案卷记录。我一时想不起日期。法院：嗯，共有 1,700 项案卷记录，所以我不会指望您一时能记得听证会日期。但我认为只要花点时间，我们就能很容易找到。（停顿）法院：2022 年 4 月 28 日举行过一次听证会，但我相信三月也举行过一次听证会。抱歉，是 2022 年 4 月 27 日，延期至 2022 年 5 月 4 日。2022 年 4 月 13 日还就 DIP 动议举行过一次听证会。因此，第一次听证会是在 4 月 13 日。随后延期至 4 月 27 日。之后再次延期至 2022 年 5 月 4 日。然后在 5 月，我想是 11 日，但我会再三核实。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 20 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 20 在此之前——债务人撤回了 DIP 融资动议。May 11th, ECF No. 345，债务人提交了一份撤回关于作出临时及 DIP 最终命令之动议的通知，未在文件中说明撤回该动议的原因；而在法院于证据听证会后将该动议留待裁决、以决定就该动议给予何种救济（如有）期间。关于 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本），March 16th，债务人提交了一项申请，请求作出命令，授权聘用并留任 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）担任债务人的律师。在该文件 ECF 86 中，Brown Rudnick 表示，在本 Chapter 11 案件开始前不久，Brown Rudnick 于 February 14, 2022 收到 \\$500,000 U.S. 付款，并于 February 15, 2022 上午收到额外 \\$500,000 U.S. 保证金。为支付该预付聘金，见第 17 段，Lamp Capital, LLC 向 Kwok 先生提供了一笔 \\$1 million 贷款，而 Kwok 先生指示 Lamp Capital, LLC 将款项直接汇给 Brown Rudnick。Lamp Capital 是由 Kwok 先生儿子拥有的实体。如我所述，该内容载于一份日期为 March 16, 2022、ECF No. 86 的文件，该文件由 Kwok 先生提交——并由 Kwok 先生签署。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 21 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 21 在随附于该申请的 Baldiga 律师（巴尔迪加）的宣誓书中，他在第 7 段陈述，Brown Rudnick 因将要提供的服务以及就其向 Kwok 先生提供建议而产生的费用，收到合计 \\$1,000,000 U.S. 的付款，具体如下：February 14 支付 \\$500,000 U.S.，以及 February 15 支付 \\$500,000 U.S.，均由 Lamp Capital, LLC 电汇，作为为本 Chapter 11 案件筹备而将要提供服务的预付聘金。为支付该预付聘金，Lamp Capital 向 Kwok 先生提供了一笔 \\$1,000,000 U.S. 贷款，而 Kwok 先生指示 Lamp Capital, LLC 将款项直接汇给 Brown Rudnick。这也载于 Baldiga 先生的宣誓书中，见 ECF 36——抱歉，86，86——第 14 页，共 30 页。因此，巴塞特先生（Bassett），让我们审查一下，关于最初的证据开示请求，你们如何向 Golden Spring 和 Lamp Capital 送达。然后是要求其出庭并说明理由的命令，即为何不应认定其藐视法庭？巴塞特先生：那么，法官大人，我——我手边没有该信息。如果给我短暂休庭时间，我肯定可以查到我们如何向他们送达最初的证据开示请求。法院：我的意思是，我们大概可以调出来。巴塞特先生：是的。我相信。法官大人，我相信我们可以调出来。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 22 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 22 林赛先生（Linsey）：法官大人，在巴塞特先生发言期间，我会查找。巴塞特先生：好的。法院：好的。巴塞特先生：但就最近的说明理由命令而言，法院——我认为这是 ECF 1546——即要求说明理由的命令，要求受托人向 Golden Spring 和 Lamp Capital 送达该文件。该文件于 March 20th 送达。我正在查看我们的送达证明，见 ECF 1593。法院：好的。稍等。让我——巴塞特先生：当然。法院：我只是想确保我已查看所有内容。好吗？巴塞特先生：当然。（停顿）法院：那么，最初的出庭说明理由命令是 14 的哪一号？巴塞特先生：嗯，我相信今天听证会适用的命令是 1546。因为我相信发生的情况是，法官大人，最初有一项命令——法院：那项命令没有送达？巴塞特先生：正是如此。然后我们延期至今日。而我相信该命令是 1546。法院：好的。好。那么 ECF 1546 是一项——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 23 要求出席续期听证会并说明法院为何不应认定未回应方藐视法庭的命令。该命令载明，法院已认定 Golden Spring New York, Limited（金泉纽约有限公司）和 Lamp Capital, LLC，连同 Golden Spring，作为未回应方，均未对法院授权的 Rule 2004 传票作出回应或予以遵从。并援引 ECF Nos. 1353 和 758。法院于 January 27, 2023 发布了第一项说明理由命令，定于 March 7, 2023 举行听证会，届时未回应方应说明为何本法院不应因其未回应或遵从传票而认定其构成民事藐视法庭。在说明理由听证会期间，Chapter 11 受托人告知法院，他未能向 Lamp Capital 送达第一项说明理由命令，且未向 Golden Spring 送达，因为受托人希望同时向两名未回应方送达。因此，法院在庭审记录中将说明理由听证会延期至 April 18，并将新的送达期限定为 March 24th。送达须于 March 24th 当日或之前完成，并须于 March 27 当日或之前提交送达证明。你说送达证明是 1593？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 23 of 53\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 24 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 24 巴塞特先生：正确，法官大人。而且，如我们稍后希望回到该问题，我也已找到有关我们如何向其送达最初传票的信息。法院：好的。因此，于 March 24th, 2023 提交的送达证明 ECF No. 1593 证明，March 16, 2023，法院要求出席续期听证会并说明法院为何不应认定未回应方藐视法庭的命令已通过电子方式提交。并于 May [原文如此] 20, 2023，签署人促使以 FedEx 隔夜递送及一类邮件方式，向下列地址的 Golden Spring New York, Limited 和 Lamp Capital 送达说明理由命令副本：Golden Spring New York, Limited，转交 Corporation Trust Company，Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware；以及 Lamp Capital, LLC，收件人 Bernardo Enriquez（贝尔纳多·恩里克斯），667 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10065。March 21，签署人促使以 UPS 隔夜递送及一类邮件方式，向下列地址的 Lamp Capital, LLC 送达说明理由命令副本：Lamp Capital, LLC，转交 CT Corporation System，820 Bear Tavern Road, West Trenton, New Jersey 068——抱歉，08628。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 25 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 25 关于传票的送达，巴塞特律师，你还想为记录说明什么？巴塞特先生：是的。因此，若法院也希望取得该信息，我已调出最初的强制动议，见 ECF 1046。若您滚动至该文件的第 16 页或第 30 段，其中对受托人为向 Lamp Capital 和 Golden Spring 送达及联系二者所作的努力有详细讨论。法院：我正在查看于 October 28th, 2022 提交的 ECF No. 1046 第 16 页第 30 段，该段称，未履行义务的被传唤方为 Lamp Capital 和 Golden Spring。受托人已向各方送达传票，但均未作出回应。具体而言，受托人于 August 23rd, 2022 通过送达人员在其登记代理人的 Delaware 地址向 Lamp Capital 送达。受托人向 Lamp Capital 的登记代理人发出两封信函，以跟进该传票。第一封于 September 13 发出，第二封于 October 19 发出。受托人的律师未收到对任何一封函件的回复。受托人于 August 22nd, 2022 通过送达人员在其登记代理人的 Delaware 地址向 Golden Spring 送达。Golden Spring 提出异议的期限为 September 6th，其提交文件的期限为——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 26 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023\n1 September 21st, 2022。\n受托人未收到 Golden Spring 提出的任何\n2 异议或提交的任何文件。\n3 受托人向 Golden Spring 的登记代理人发出两封信函，\n4 以跟进该传票，第一封于\n5 September 13, 2022 发出，第二封于 September 30, 2022 发出。\n6 受托人的律师未收到对任何一封\n7 函件的回复。\n8 好的。因此，当我们查看 1593，即你们就续期听证会\n9 及说明理由命令提交的送达证明时，\n10 Golden Spring 通过 Corporation Trust Company 转交方式在\n11 Corporation Trust Center, 1209\n12 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 送达，而 Lamp Capital 在\n13 Madison Avenue 的一个地址送达，如我已\n14 陈述；随后又在一个——看起来是\n15 登记代理人的地址，通过 CT Corporation 转交方式，即 829 Bear\n16 Tavern Road, West Trenton, New Jersey 再次送达。好的。\n17 未回应方 Lamp Capital 和\n18 Golden Spring 应由其高级职员、\n19 董事、经理或成员亲自出席，于 April 18, 2023 下午 2 时。\n20 法庭内没有任何人回应关于 Lamp Capital 和/或 Golden Spring 是否在\n21 法庭内的询问。\n22 \n23 巴塞特律师，那些登记代理人地址，\n24 任何人为向这两个实体送达而查找登记代理人地址时都能找到，\n25 是这样吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 27 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 27 巴塞特先生：正确，法官大人。我相信，为向这些实体送达，我们在相关 Secretary of State 网站上找到的登记代理人地址就是这些。法院：而且你们未再与任何人讨论过——我的意思是，你们没有与任何人讨论过，对吗？巴塞特先生：我们从未与任一实体的任何代表讨论过，正确。（停顿）法院：我正在看这里的另一件事。因此，我只是想——除你们在送达证明中记载的内容外，我在记录中看不到任何表明登记代理人是谁的内容；我并不是说应当有，我只是看看是否能看到任何内容。巴塞特先生：我也不知道有任何内容，法官大人。我猜想，若我们提交过该文件，那么它应当属于最初强制动议的一部分。我在该动议中未看到附有任何包含来自 Secretary of State 网站或其他来源文件的附件。显然，我可以回去再查一次，看看是否有任何内容，和/或我们很乐意查找。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 28 如您愿意，我们可以向法院提交相关材料。\n\n法 院：我只是想，您知道，只是——因为目前案卷中除了——我并不是说您所说的不正确，我只是——为了让我认定那些是注册代理人，对吧，案卷中——我认为没有——我只是——我只是——我想我需要看到相关证明。\n\n巴塞特律师：当然。\n\n法 院：因为如果我要认定他们藐视法庭，我必须——必须——我必须确认这一点，或者必须证明他们已在那些地址被送达——而且那些必须是相应的地址。\n\n巴塞特律师：我们可以——法官阁下，我们可以采取两项措施。我想我们会做两件事。显然，我们会回头核查，看看是否已在我们此前提交的材料中。如果没有，我们当然可以通过声明或其他方式，提交我们在这些地址进行送达时所依据文件的副本。\n\n法 院：我认为您今天之后可以通过声明来做。我只是——因为除您的送达证明外，案卷中没有任何材料证明那些是适当地址，我认为我需要——如果\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1711 于 04/26/23 提交 于 04/26/23 14:55:58 登记 第 29 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023\n1 如果我要认定他们藐视法庭，我需要能够说明\n2 您是在其适当的、注册代理人\n3 地址向他们进行了送达。\n而且，您知道，我并不是说您没有这样做。我\n4 只是说案卷中没有相关内容。对吧？\n5 巴塞特律师：明白。明白，法官阁下。\n6 法 院：只是案卷中没有。\n7 而且，您知道，没有——显然，如您\n8 所知，要认定藐视法庭，还必须\n9 认定当事人的正当程序权利已得到满足，因此我\n10 需要能够作出该认定。\n11 所以我认为，您知道，您可以做到。您\n12 希望用多长时间完成？\n13 巴塞特律师：最多一两天，我相信我们可以\n14 做到。\n15 法 院：好的。不过，我确实认定\n16 案卷证明，根据债务人在债务人提交的文件以及债务人\n17 律师提交的文件中所述，债务人的儿子\n18 控制这两个实体——因为这是当事人自认。\n19 \n20 这是债务人及其律师的自认，\n21 即 Lamp Capital, LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）和 Golden Spring New York, Limited（纽约金泉有限公司）\n22 由债务人的儿子控制。而且，如我此前\n23 已经说明的——\n24 巴塞特律师：为完全明确起见，\n25 并使案卷明确，我认为受托人的立场是\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1711 于 04/26/23 提交 于 04/26/23 14:55:58 登记 第 30 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023\n1 这就是债务人所说的。我认为我们在本案中的\n2 目标和意图是证明\n3 事实上控制这些实体的是债务人。\n4 法 院：我明白。但是毫无疑问，\n5 债务人已经在本案案卷中，由其——在其作为占有中的债务人期间\n6 签署、其律师也签署的诉状中，\n7 承认其主张\n8 Golden Spring New York, Limited 和 Lamp\n9 Capital, LLC 由其儿子控制，并且他指示其\n10 儿子让 Golden Spring 向财产支付 $8\n11 million 的贷款，该贷款后来被撤回，而且他指示\n12 Lamp Capital 向 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）支付一百万美元预付聘金。\n13 我所说的“他”是指 Kwok 先生。这些\n14 文件就是这样写的。因此，我只想为案卷\n15 明确这一点。\n16 因此，我需要您提交进一步声明，或者\n17 也许只需提交一份声明，以进一步支持\n18 出庭说明理由命令，证明——向我提供\n19 相关或有关州务卿办公室的信息，\n20 以确立您在送达中所使用的地址——在送达\n21 出庭说明理由命令时所使用的地址——\n22 是这两个实体的送达注册代理人地址。\n23 您可以在本周五之前完成，我\n24 认为是 21st。好吗？\n25 巴塞特律师：最后一点——我们会这样做，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1711 于 04/26/23 提交 于 04/26/23 14:55:58 登记 第 31 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 31 法官阁下。最后一点我要指出的是，如果法院倾向于基于我们刚刚讨论的、债务人的儿子据称拥有并控制这些实体这一自认作出命令，如果法院作出命令，大意是可以向债务人的儿子送达针对这两个实体的这两份传票，我只是预先考虑下一个问题，即我们当然仍会面临向该儿子送达的问题。我认为一个可能的解决办法是，如果该儿子将继续通过 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）推进这一对抗程序，包括显然为受托人出席并接受其询问，那么可就 Bravo Luck 对抗程序中的任何此类诉讼，通过 Bravo Luck 的律师向他送达；该对抗程序显然正在本法院审理，这将构成该儿子接受本法院管辖，因为显然，如果我们只是有一项命令说可以向该儿子送达，正如我此前所说，不幸的是，根据我们近期与他联系并向他送达文件所作的努力，我认为他是故意难以找到的。\n\n克莱因律师：法官阁下，我可以就此陈述意见吗？\n\n法 院：当然。\n\n克莱因律师：好的。我是代表 Bravo Luck 的 Joanna Cline（乔安娜·克莱因）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1711 于 04/26/23 提交 于 04/26/23 14:55:58 登记 第 32 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 32 我的意思是，我们理解受托人的立场是，所有这些实体均可不予理会，债务人家庭中不同的成员也可不予理会，并且他们全都是同一回事，但我们在此代表 Bravo Luck。认为这两个实体，即 Golden Spring 和 Lamp Capital，可以通过——通过向 Bravo Luck 的律师送达而以某种方式获得送达的这种逻辑跳跃，没有任何法律依据。尚未刺破公司面纱，我们认为这并不适当。因此，这或许是本末倒置，因为我不知道法官阁下今天是否正在处理该问题，但既然受托人的律师提出了这一点，我们只是希望记录我们的异议。\n\n法 院：明白。谢谢。好的，巴塞特律师。我理解您的立场。我将审阅有关 Lamp Capital 和 Golden Spring 注册代理人的声明，并将酌情处理。好吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：谢谢。现在，日程表上的最后事项是 Despins（德斯平）诉 Bravo Luck, Limited 等案的继续审前会议。我确实看到，尽管我没有仔细研究，有一项要求作出审前命令的请求，但在我看来，该审前命令中有关日期的约定并不多。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1711 于 04/26/23 提交 于 04/26/23 14:55:58 登记 第 33 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023\n1 所以，如果没有达成协议，我将不得不自行确定\n2 那些日期。\n3 \n4 所以，当事人是否希望就此发表意见，还是希望我——我将只\n5 作出我认为适当的日期安排？\n6 巴塞特律师：法官阁下，我认为让我们简要\n7 陈述意见可能会有帮助。\n8 法 院：当然。请讲。\n9 巴塞特律师：谢谢。\n10 因此，我们确实提交了拟议审前命令，\n11 该命令在对抗程序中载于 ECF 73。正如法院\n12 正确指出的，实际上根本没有达成协议。\n13 实际上只有一个例外。我认为我们已就\n14 初步披露的截止日期达成一致。\n15 在此之外，就总体上\n16 载明本案进度安排的命令形式，双方已有一致意见。\n17 \n18 \n19 我认为，对于有序的程序步骤\n20 应当是什么样，以及需要哪些类别的披露和\n21 证据开示截止日期，并不存在重大分歧。\n22 \n23 \n24 但是，在这个总体上已达成一致的框架内，\n25 \n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 34 对于本案应持续多久存在很大分歧。我们的时间安排，我不会在说明时赘述所有中间截止日期，但关键在于，我们认为，如果有必要，如果诉讼进程在此之前未通过其他方式得到解决，那么在大约 7 月底前对本案进行审判是极其合理的。Bravo Luck 的立场是，本诉讼应当比这多持续六个月，并应在 12 月进行审判。我们从 Bravo Luck 听到的立场是，我们提出的时间表实在太快，不可行。他们可能需要大量证据开示。我认为我可以从几个方面回应这一点。\n\n首先，就受托人而言，我们都已处理本案将近一年，很快就会到一周年。Bravo Luck 对此也并不陌生。因此，对抗程序中涉及 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰）的指控所依据的事件和情形，早已存在，各方早已就其立场和论点进行思考。这是第一点。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1711 于 04/26/23 提交 于 04/26/23 14:55:58 登记 第 34 页，共 53 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1711 于 04/26/23 提交 于 04/26/23 14:55:58 登记 第 35 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023 35 第二点显然是，任何时间安排是否合理，取决于特定诉讼的复杂程度、其所需证据开示的数量以及其他相关问题。根据我的经验，尽管联邦地区法院民事诉讼通常可能比我们提出的时间更长，但我们在此提出的时间表并不罕见。正如法院非常清楚的，在破产案件中，有许多比对抗程序复杂得多的争议事项，而这些事项通常在数周内即获审理。因此，我认为该时间表完全可行。\n\n我要提出的最后一点是，Bravo Luck 所提出的那种复杂且拖延的证据开示，在此根本没有任何理由甚至可以设想为必要。本案是一项有关 Bravo Luck 据称通过信托协议拥有 Sherry-Netherland 公寓的对抗程序。如果其并非通过信托协议拥有 Sherry-Netherland 公寓，我们则提出备选的欺诈性转让主张，即债务人欺诈性地通过 Genever（吉尼弗）将 Sherry-Netherland 的受益所有权无偿转让给其儿子，并且为了\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1711 于 04/26/23 提交 于 04/26/23 14:55:58 登记 第 36 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023\n\n其目的在于妨碍或拖延其债权人。\n\nBravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）为答复该项诉状、就该项诉状提出其主张所需的全部事实，必然完全、或至少几乎完全处于其控制之下，以及处于其所谓所有人和控制人——债务人的儿子，或可能是债务人——的控制之下。\n\n为驳回受托人的请求，Bravo Luck 将必须证明其拥有并控制 Sherry Netherland（雪莉-内德兰）。无论该事实是否属实，该等事实必然处于其控制之下。其无需从第三方进行证据开示，即可证明其拥有一项资产。\n\n就任何人可能掌握相关信息而言，该人可能是债务人。显然，我认为——我可能错了，但我猜想债务人的儿子不会向其父亲寻求正式的证据开示，因此这不应延长时间安排。\n\n此外，可能需要从 Sherry-Netherland 等当事方取得一些证据开示，但这并非需要数月进行事实证据开示的案件类型。\n\nBravo Luck 表示其可能会有一名专家证人。其尚未告知我们该专家证人会是谁。我们已将最初向其提交的时间安排延长数周，以便进行专家证据开示。我们目前无意聘请专家证人，但保留聘请反驳专家证人的权利。因此，法官阁下，我们认为本案无需耗费如此长的时间，尤其是受托人确有必要推进的不仅是本对抗程序，而且是本案，而本对抗程序是整个案件的关键组成部分。因此，我认为，允许此事拖延至12月，对所有相关人员，尤其是债务人的债权人，将是不公平的。因此，法官阁下，在不妨碍对律师可能提出的任何意见作出回应的前提下，基于上述理由，我们认为我们提交的时间安排是合理的。谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 37 of 53\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nCLINE女士（克莱恩女士）：因此，法官阁下，受托人称，我们没有理由在本案中经历证据开示程序。从 Bravo 的角度而言，存在一个理由，这就是所谓的正当程序。相反，我们没有听到任何明确说明的理由，表明为何必须紧急遵循受托人在本案中提出的时间安排。我们清楚地听到法官阁下表示，您希望本案在12月前审理，您希望在本年度审理，而我们提出的时间安排能够做到这一点。这是一宗关于一套价值 \\$70 million 公寓的争议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 38 of 53\n\n正如法院所知，各方仍在就一项驳回动议进行书面陈述，我想大约一周后结束。正当程序要求，假定我们的驳回动议未获准许，我们应获得公平的机会，就受托人负有举证责任提出的案件进行抗辩。是的，律师说得对，部分证据处于我们的控制之下，但并非全部，而且我们谈论的是八年前发生的一项交易。至于，您知道，我们所有人都已为此忙碌很久，我的意思是，是的，我们参与了一段时间，但我们并未进行 2004——我们并不具备作为推动受托人所参与的积极 2004 证据调取行动的一方所具有的优势。我们不知道他们收集的文件范围。我们不知道他们掌握什么。我们将请求取得该等材料。然后可以推定，我们将需要一些时间审查这些材料，并决定是否需要通过我们自己的补充传票或类似方式进一步跟进，而且假定这一切将在未来45天内完成，根本不可行。作为具体示例，可以推定，就下列资料保管人而言，传票已产生相关信息：UBS、Paul Weiss（保罗·魏斯）、Williams & Connolly（威廉斯与康诺利）、Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯）、Sherry（雪莉）、或许还有 Stevenson（史蒂文森）、Wong（黄）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 39 of 53\n\nBravo Luck 有权取得推定已经由受托人持有的该等信息，对其进行审查，并确定我们是否需要该等信息以维护 Bravo 的权利。因此，如果情况并非如此，且我们无法进行我们的证据开示，我们的权利将受到严重损害。相反，如我所说，我们尚未听到受托人说明其将会遭受何种影响。如果法院采纳我们的时间安排而非受托人的时间安排，受托人将面临何种损害？我们在协商过程中唯一听到的事情——法官阁下，我可以说明，各方就此进行了数次协商电话，以尝试达成一致——我们唯一听到的是受托人急于出售该财产。但就出售程序和销售代理人而言，已经有一项协议，即和解协议。我们认为，如果这是受托人希望做的，其可以继续这样做，且任何款项均可存入第三方保管账户，直至此事全部处理完毕。但归根结底，并无任何紧急性的理由。完全有理由给予 Bravo Luck 正当程序，至少给予我们所提出的简化时间安排，以完成此处的证据开示，从而使本案能够进入审理并得到处理。\n\n法院：好的。我只有一两个问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 40 of 53\n\n我注意到你前几天提交了出庭代理通知。我认为你仍需根据 Rule 7007.1 提交公司所有权声明。好的？\n\nCLINE女士：明白。\n\n法院：而且这必须完成。\n\n关于初步披露，看来你们已就初步披露商定了日期。我不希望看到该日期在未证明有正当理由的情况下变更。因此，如果任何一方变更该日期，某人必须到庭向我说明原因，因为你们可以主张，根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》，初步披露本应已经完成。\n\n但如果你们已就该日期达成一致，我确实看到了，无论如何，无论我如何处理其余日期，我现在在记录中命令采用该日期。好的？因为我认为，正如我所说，某人可能到庭主张初步披露本应已经发生。\n\n关于你们提出的其他问题，我将全部纳入考虑。我不会在目前坐在这里时确定日期。我会在——我们周四还有其他听证会。我不记得你们周四是否会在场。我总是得查看，因为每天有如此多的事项，很难记住。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023\n\n我能否在周四之前作出该裁定？有可能。我只是尚不清楚。我必须回去查看。正如我所说，我看到了昨天提交的文件。我今天上午看到了该文件，是昨天下午提交的，我注意到——我认为最初仅因案卷记录，大家以为它可能是一项经同意的命令，但我很快了解到，并看到它并不是。那没有问题。没有问题。因此，我——我必须查看一下，并确定我们将如何处理。不过，我同意你所说的，我确实说过本案将会推进。因此，我们将看看最终结果如何。你还有什么希望补充记入记录的吗？\n\nCLINE女士：有，法官阁下。我只是想就 Bassett先生（巴西特先生）关于限制通知动议所作的评论，将一件事情记入记录。如果可以，我想就此作出记录？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nCLINE女士：因此，我们看到了法官阁下对该动议的裁定，我想我只是想说明——\n\n法院：你说的是哪一项动议？\n\nCLINE女士：抱歉。关于放弃财产动议的限制通知动议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 41 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023\n\n关于放弃财产动议的限制通知动议。\n\n法院：哦，是，是，是。好的。抱歉。我只是——\n\nCLINE女士：我理解。\n\n法院：——希望尽可能明确。因此，谢谢。\n\nCLINE女士：是。抱歉。因此，我们只是希望将我们的立场记入记录，即如法院痛苦地意识到的，我认为，何为破产财产的界定在此处极具争议。因此，由于法院准许了该项限制通知动议，Bravo 实际上完全不知道受托人可能寻求放弃的是何种财产。该财产很可能与我们毫无关系。另一方面，依我们看来，该财产也可能完全涉及我们认为由 Bravo 所有的财产。因此，从我们的角度而言，Bravo 被剥夺了正当程序，以及对受托人可能就争议财产采取的任何行动提出异议的权利。而从我们的角度而言，受托人尚未说明具体关切事项。其提出了关于保密性的一般性主张。如果这构成问题，我们可以逐项资产处理，我相信我们\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 42 of 53\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 43 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 18, 2023\n\n可以制定某种，例如仅限律师阅览的安排，或某种处理方式。但按目前情况，我们有些束手束脚，甚至无法就我们可能认为属于 Bravo 的财产提出异议。因此，我们只是希望记入记录，我们认为该项限制通知动议存在正当程序问题。我们请求法院根据 Rules 59 and 60 重新考虑，并仅将 Bravo 纳入通知规定。\n\n法院：好的。我会看看。我必须说，此刻坐在这里而尚未查看该事项，我不记得其中的全部内容。但即使该动议限制了通知并缩短了期限，我认为你们仍有提出异议的能力。但我对此可能错了。Linsey律师（林赛律师）？\n\nLINSEY先生（林赛先生）：限制通知动议所做的事项之一，是界定受送达通知当事人。就受送达通知当事人而言，其包括 U.S. Trustee、PAX 和作为全体债权人代表的 Creditors Committee（债权人委员会）。\n\n法院：嗯，那些是受送达通知当事人。如果有人知悉一项动议并希望对此提出异议，我不认为他们被禁止这样做。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1711 Filed 04/26/23 Entered 04/26/23 14:55:58 Page 44 of 53\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 44 那一点。SHAIKEN 律师：如果可以，法官大人，该动议和命令均称该动议将予以密封。因此，即使是有权查阅案卷的人——法庭：我明白。但是——SHAIKEN 律师：——也不会知道其内容，法庭将予以不公开审理。法庭：但是——本案对于保密信息设有相关机制，因此你们需要与受托人律师就此沟通，看看是否能够达成某种协议。就整个案件中的保密信息而言，相关机制已实施近一年。该机制是否适用于本事项，我坐在这里无法确定。但我要对你们说的是，你们都是律师，而且你们知道这一点，所以我实在不——你们都是律师，应当进行沟通并设法解决。如果 Bravo Luck（博拉沃·拉克）想要对其并不知道内容的某事提出异议，并认为其正当程序权利未获保障，那么其可以提出该异议。对于该异议将如何处理，我现在无法说明。他们有权这样做。是否会给予 Bravo Luck 任何救济，并非今日提交法庭审理之事项。明白吗？\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1711，提交于 04/26/23，录入于 04/26/23 14:55:58，第 45 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 45 但我理解你方的口头请求。我会予以审阅。然后我可能会说，好，你在审前会议期间提出了一个——我不知道我会怎么说。但我可能会说，你在审前会议期间提出了口头请求，而你完全有权这样做；我可能会说，好，我同意你方。也可能会说，我不同意你方。或者我可能会说，我希望受托人就此提交文件或作出回应。我只是需要考虑一下，因为——你知道，这不是我当时准备处理的事项，但我不介意——你们提出这一点没有问题，我们再看看下一步如何进行。但是，关于保密信息以及你方提出的、SHAIKEN 律师提出的有关你们不知道自己不知道什么的问题，本案中存在相关机制。当事人可以——存在一项保密协议，当事人可以决定受其约束，而且他们——你知道，存在一个程序。你们是否决定受该协议约束，我不——你们的当事人，我不清楚，但确实存在一个程序。而且，遗憾的是，本案一直是这样一种案件——这并不遗憾，这就是——事实如此，本案中对保密协议有大量需求。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1711，提交于 04/26/23，录入于 04/26/23 14:55:58，第 46 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023\n\n你知道，康涅狄格联邦地区法院（District Court in Connecticut）在案件一经提交时即设有常设保密协议。案件一经提交，系统就会自动生成一项保密协议。\n\n因此，至少从本法庭的角度来看，这并不是什么新颖的问题。这只是律师如何处理的问题。因此，我会让你们就此进行讨论，我们再看看下一步如何进行。\n\nCLINE 女士：明白。\n\n法庭：明白吗？\n\nCLINE 女士：谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nBASSETT 律师：法官大人，如果可以的话，我只想就律师针对证据开示进度所作的一项评论，作一个非常简短的补充？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nBASSETT 律师：仅仅是，律师强调受托人一直在进行 2004 调查取证，并且掌握来自其他当事人的、可能与该对抗程序有关的证据开示材料，他们需要所有这些材料；至少从他们的角度来看，他们一直向我们以及法庭表示，这就是为何本诉讼将耗费大量时间的原因。我只是想向法庭指出，我们在今天的听证会之前已经审查了这一点。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1711，提交于 04/26/23，录入于 04/26/23 14:55:58，第 47 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 47 就他们提到的当事人而言，Paul Weiss（保罗·魏斯），我们有 715 份文件，尚未进行证词录取。UBS（瑞银），我们有 124 份文件，尚未进行证词录取。我们从 Williams & Connolly（威廉斯与康诺利）获得约 4,000 份文件，但其中大多数与该对抗程序无关。我们还在整个数据库中进行了检索，该数据库包含我们收到的数十万份、甚至更多文件；我认为与 Bravo Luck 或 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）有关的文件总数约为 2500 份。因此，归根结底，情况并不是我们掌握了某种与该对抗程序有关的海量信息，而 Bravo Luck 将需要数月时间审阅这些信息。出于多种原因，正如法庭非常清楚的，我们一直——你知道，在本案中艰难地获取大量信息，因此情况并不是我们拥有如此之多的信息，以至于会真正影响此处的证据开示进度。我想说的就是这些。谢谢。法庭：好的。谢谢。我还要说，正如我经常所说的，不仅在本案中，而且在每一个案件中，如你们都知道的，你们作为律师均有义务秉持善意行事，并继续努力解决问题，特别是\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1711，提交于 04/26/23，录入于 04/26/23 14:55:58，第 48 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 48 证据开示问题。如果就范围或者一方当事人向另一方当事人所请求的事项存在证据开示争议，而该争议未能解决，则法庭将必须作出裁定。这就是我们将要做的。明白吗？但该对抗程序涉及的是——据我理解，起诉状包含两个罪名项。第一项是——我认为第一项称信托协议无效，或者至少可撤销。第二项是该交易构成欺诈性转让，即根据州法，整项交易均构成欺诈性转让。仅此而已。这些就是诉因。并不是说它们不——并不——不必然需要证据开示；但关于受托人通过 2004 审查程序获取的信息，受托人有权这样做，《破产法》规定了其在破产案件中进行此类审查的权限，我不确定受托人通过 2004 调查取证取得的所有材料是否都与该对抗程序有关，但你们会告知我。明白吗？CLINE 女士：是，法官大人。如果可以？明白。而且我确信有大量文件与这些特定程序无关。只是想指出，实际上有三个程序已被合并。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1711，提交于 04/26/23，录入于 04/26/23 14:55:58，第 49 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 49 法庭：是的。实际上，我很高兴你提出这一点。我们必须想出一种不同的方式，而不是提交三份驳回动议、三份答辩以及所有其他那些文件，对吗？\n\n因此，我——我理解每一个程序中可能存在一些具体问题的论点，但我希望你们沟通，想出一种方式，提交一份起诉状和一份答辩状，其中——你知道，让不同的——让罪名项适用于三个程序中的全部、其中两个、其中一个，随你们如何处理，但我认为提交三份诉状没有意义。这些程序被合并是有原因的，对吗？否则它们就不会被合并。因此，诉状也应当合并。好吗？\n\n我认为你们双方无需——你们应当能够达成协议，而不会影响原告或被告就起诉状中请求的最终救济所享有的任何实体权利。明白吗？但在这些共同管理的对抗程序中提交三份不同的诉状没有意义。明白吗？CLINE 女士：明白。法庭：BASSETT 律师，我相信你——你们都可以想出办法处理这一点，对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1711，提交于 04/26/23，录入于 04/26/23 14:55:58，第 50 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 50 BASSETT 律师：我们会的，法官大人。法庭：好的。我之前已提出过这一点，所以我希望这一问题得到处理。今天我们还需要处理该对抗程序中的其他事项吗？（无人回应）法庭：没有吗？那么——好的。还有哪些未列入日程的事项，你们希望提请法庭注意？LINSEY 律师：如果这有帮助的话，法官大人，这是我们已经讨论过的一项事项。即有关限制就放弃动议发出通知的动议。法庭昨日已作出命令，准许该动议。我相信法庭命令中规定的日程似乎预期会立即提交一项放弃动议。我的办公室正在汇编来自第三方来源的一些信息，以纳入该动议，我们可能要到本周末才能最终确定该动议。我向法官大人报告此事的原因是，该限制通知动议设想，在提交放弃动议与已安排于 May 2nd 就放弃动议举行的听证会之间，设有 14 天的异议期限。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1711，提交于 04/26/23，录入于 04/26/23 14:55:58，第 51 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 51 因此，受托人目前的设想如下。受托人设想，没有任何被通知的当事人会反对该放弃动议，也不会有人对在不足 14 天通知期的情况下按原定计划继续进行听证会提出异议。我今天早些时候已就此与债务人律师进行过沟通。我建议我们这样做：受托人将于本周晚些时候提交放弃动议，并将联系各被通知当事人的律师。如果任何人对不足 14 天的通知期提出异议，我们将联系法庭，并请求延后放弃动议的听证日期。如果如受托人所预期，没有人提出异议，那么我们将按原定计划继续举行听证会。我知道我在技术上提出了一项未载于案卷的事项，但我们只是想确保法庭不会查看案卷后问，那个我以为会立即提交的动议在哪里？这就是我提出此事的原因。法庭：好的。谢谢。我听到了你刚才所说的，但你也听到了 Bravo Luck 所说的。他们可能会对你的动议提出异议，即使你主张他们无权\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023 52 对其提出异议。因此，我将回过头审查——审查整个问题，并重新考虑。我不知道我是否会采取任何行动，但——我需要重新审查，并看看我们是否必须对此再多加考虑一些。LINSEY 律师：如果法官大人希望受托人就受托人未将 Bravo Luck 列为被通知当事人的理由提交书面陈述，我们很乐意这样做。受托人——就在上周五，我已与受托人讨论过该问题，那是一项经过审慎作出的决定，因此他可能也希望就此陈述意见。法庭：好的。那么，我会考虑。如果我要采取任何行动，你们都会知道，因为会记载在案卷中。明白吗？LINSEY 律师：谢谢您，法官大人。法庭：好的。谢谢。今天下午我们还有任何需要处理的事项吗？CLINE 女士：Bravo 没有，法官大人。法庭：谢谢。BASSETT 律师：没有，法官大人。法庭：好的。好的。谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1711，提交于 04/26/23，录入于 04/26/23 14:55:58，第 53 页，共 53 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 18, 2023\n\n那么，这是法庭今天日程上的最后一场听证会，因此现在休庭。\n\n（程序于 3:24 p.m. 结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法庭批准的书记员兼认证电子记录员及书记员，特此证明，上述内容系根据上述案件程序的官方电子录音制作的正确庭审记录。\n\n11 April 26, 2023\n\n12 Christine Fiore（克里斯汀·菲奥雷）, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","CIPA","Despins","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":36,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":73,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":86,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":345,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1046,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1546,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1593,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":13174,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-26 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-26","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:27:00"}