{"id":"court_ctb_1719_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1719,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2023-04-28","title":"|","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In Re | *
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)
* |\n| HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | *
* |\n| Debtor. | *
* |\n| HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS
INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, | Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003
*
* |\n| Plaintiff, | * |\n| v. | *
*
Bridgeport, Connecticut
*
April 20, 2023 |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, | *
* |\n| Defendant. | *
* |\n| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | |\n| #185
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SECOND
COUNTERCLAIM
#1679 ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING ON ORAL MOTION FOR RELIEF
FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY
PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTION 554 AND
BANKRUPTCY RULE 6007 | TRANSCRIPT OF
#1453 MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEBTOR, MEI GUO and
HK (USA) SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY W/ORDER TO COMPEL RE FRBP 2004 SUBPOENAS
#1649 MOTION FOR A LIMITED STAY OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENA
FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.60
AND FED R. BANKR. P. 9024(THE 'MOTION') WITH REGARD
TO THE ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE
TO LIMIT NOTICE AND TO SEAL WITH RESPECT TO MOTION
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE |\n| produced by transcription service. | Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript |\n| | Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.
4 Research Drive, Suite 402
Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992 |\n\nAPPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Trustee: Paul Hastings, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 DOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For Bravo Luck Limited: JOANNA J. CLINE, ESQ. Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP Hercules Plaza 1313 N. Market Street Suite 5100 Wilmington, DE 19899 For the Plaintiff, MELISSA F. WERNICK, ESQ. HK International and Chiesa Shahinian & Mei Guo: Giantomasi, PC 105 Eisenhauer Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Debtor and JAMES MORIARTY, ESQ. Plaintiff, HK ERIC HENZY, ESQ. International and Mei Guo: Zeisler & Zeisler, PC 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Debtor: STEPHEN BEST, ESQ. WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Brown Rudnick 601 13th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005\n\n2\n\nAPPEARANCES (Cont'd): For Pacific Alliance PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Asia Opportunity Fund, LP: O'Melveny & Myers, LLP 1625 Eye Street NW Washington, DC 20006 For Rui Ma, Weican Meng, KRISTIN MAYHEW, ESQ. Zheng Wu, and Official Pullman & Comley, LLC Committee of Unsecured 850 Main Street, 8th Floor Creditors: P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\n3\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 4 of 159\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 4 (Proceedings commenced at 9:39. a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, and Adversary Number 22-5003, HK International Funds Investments vs. Despins. THE COURT: Good morning. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee, appearing remotely. Thank you. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. BASSETT: Good morning, Your Honor. Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, counsel to the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. SKALKA: Good morning, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka, of Neubert Pepe & Monteith, as Connecticut counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. WERNICK: Good morning, Your Honor. Melissa Wernick, from Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, on behalf of HK USA. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. MORIARTY: Good morning, Your Honor. James Moriarty, Zeisler & Zeisler, for HK USA and the debtor. And I believe that Attorney Henzy will be joining me shortly,\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 5 also for the debtor, which I believe that's on for 10:30. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Is anyone appearing on behalf of Ms. Guo? MS. WERNICK: Also on behalf of Ms. Guo, but the particular summary judgment motion is really directed towards HK USA. But we are also counsel for Mei Guo in connection with the motion as well. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. MORIARTY: As is Zeisler & Zeisler, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. On the calendar in Adversary 22-05003 is the motion for partial summary judgment filed on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee, counterclaimant. Mr. Bassett, are you going to be making that argument? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Please proceed. MR. BASSETT: So, again, Your Honor, for the record, Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. As the Court indicated, the reason we are here at this part of the hearing this morning is for the Court to Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 5 of 159\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 6 of 159\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
6 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | consider the trustee's second motion in this adversary |\n| 2 | proceeding for partial summary judgment, this time on his |\n| 3 | second counterclaim which seeks a ruling from this Court |\n| 4 | that HK USA is the alter ego of the debtor and, therefore, |\n| 5 | all of HK USA's property is the debtor's property. |\n| 6 | Your Honor, I hope I can keep my remarks this |\n| 7 | morning fairly brief.
And one of the reasons for that is |\n| 8 | that, as discussed in our papers and as the Court well |\n| 9 | knows, we are not operating on a blank slate here.
Far from |\n| 10 | it. |\n| 11 | In fact, the Court has already decided many of the |\n| 12 | key issues that are going to be discussed before the Court |\n| 13 | today on this motion for summary judgment. |\n| 14 | First, of course, the Court decided the trustee's |\n| 15 | prior partial motion for summary judgment on his first |\n| 16 | counterclaim.
And in doing so, the Court found that the |\n| 17 | debtor and now the trustee owns and controls the Lady May. |\n| 18 | Second, last Friday, the Court issued a decision |\n| 19 | denying in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, denying |\n| 20 | entirely the defendant's motion to dismiss the second |\n| 21 | counterclaim which is at issue here. |\n| 22 | And in doing so, the Court overruled arguments |\n| 23 | that the counter-defendants have raised again in response to |\n| 24 | summary judgment, including arguments related to the Wagoner |\n| 25 | rule, in pari delicto, and arguments related to the Lady May |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 7\n\n| 1 | stipulation. |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Your Honor, because of these prior rulings of the |\n| 3 | Court and because of the undisputed factual record that is |\n| 4 | before the Court on summary judgment, I would submit that as |\n| 5 | far as alter ego cases go, this case before Your Honor is |\n| 6 | about as simple as a case can get and is the perfect |\n| 7 | candidate for summary judgment at this stage of the |\n| 8 | litigation. |\n| 9 | The established, admitted, undisputed facts are, |\n| 10 | one, that HK USA never in its history conducted any business |\n| 11 | activities other than owning and operating the Lady May. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Are you referring specifically to the |\n| 13 | Rule 56(a)(1) and (a)(2) statements, Attorney Bassett? |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct.
And I can get to |\n| 15 | particular references where these facts -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
I would like both parties to do that |\n| 17 | when we make the arguments this morning, because, as you |\n| 18 | know, the District Court of Connecticut requires those |\n| 19 | statements for very specific purposes, including for the |\n| 20 | Court -- whatever Court is determining summary judgment to |\n| 21 | refer to those facts when necessary. |\n| 22 | So I didn't mean to interrupt your argument, which |\n| 23 | I did, but I did -- I'm doing so to let both parties know |\n| 24 | that I would like you to, when you can, reference the Rule |\n| 25 | 56 -- the Local Rule 56(a)(1), which would be your |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 8 statement, and then counsel for the plaintiff counterclaim defendants, their 56(a)(2) statement. Okay? So go right ahead. MR. BASSETT: That's fair, Your Honor. And to that point, on the statement I just made, if you were to look at the counter-defendant's response to the trustee's Rule 56 statement, which is at ECF 204, paragraph 11, the counter-defendants admit that \"On March 31, 2023, with the consent of the counter-defendants, the Court entered an order confirming that the Lady May II is also property of the debtor's estate.\" Next paragraph: \"The estate thus already owns and controls all of the assets that the counter-defendants contend HK USA has ever owned.\" So that, Your Honor, is -- back to what I was -- to my framing of the issues and the argument and why I think this is a very straightforward candidate for summary judgment, you have that admitted. The only assets that this entity ever owned and the only business it ever conducted with respect to the Lady May, and then as we later determined based on the undisclosed ownership of the Lady May II, the Lady May II as well. And then what we also have is, again, what I just read to the Court. We already have a binding ruling from Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 8 of 159\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 9 of 159\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 9 this Court that the debtor, not his daughter, as she contends, owns and controls both of these assets which are the only assets it has ever owned. And there is not a single -- and I can't point you to a negative, but there is not a single thing in the record suggesting that the Lady May -- or, sorry, that HK USA ever engaged in anything, any other business activities, any other ownership of assets historically other than owning and operating the Lady May and, along with it, the Lady May II. That, Your Honor, is the very essence, I would submit, of an alter ego claim. Because you have complete domination and control by the debtor of everything HK USA has ever done. In response, the counter-defendants have raised certain defenses. But I think, as I will describe later, the Court has already rejected those in ruling on the motion to dismiss. And while it's a different posture for reasons I will discuss, I don't think it makes a difference under the facts and circumstances here. So I'll spend the balance of my time -- and, again, I'll try to be relatively brief, but I'll first, again, walk through a little bit more -- in a little bit more detail the merits of the alter ego claim itself and responses to some of the counter arguments. And then, after that, I'll briefly adjust -- address some of the defenses.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 10 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 10 As to the merits of the alter ego claim, I think the standard is not disputed. Under Delaware law, to determine whether one entity is the alter ego of another, the Court will consider first -- there's two elements. First, whether the debtor -- and in this case, whether the debtor in HK USA operated as basically one single unit which involves a showing that the debtor dominated and controlled HK USA and its activities. That's the first element. And the second is whether this alter ego status was used to perpetuate some type of fraud or injustice. And I think both of those are readily satisfied beyond any genuine dispute of material fact. On the issue of the first prong, sort of the domination and control prong as I will call it, I would again emphasize that the starting point on this is the fact that it is now law of the case. This Court has already determined that the debtor dominates and controls the only assets that HK USA has ever had which formed the basis for the only business activities it has ever engaged in. So to the extent HK USA ever did anything, it was with respect to those assets. And the debtor controls them, so it is the debtor who dominates and controls HK USA in that manner. Now, the counter-defendants in their papers\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 11 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
11 |\n| 1 | mischaracterize the trustee's argument by saying that we're |\n| 2 | trying to basically, I guess you could say, bootstrap the |\n| 3 | Court's prior summary judgment ruling and the collateral |\n| 4 | estoppel issue at play there into effectively obtaining |\n| 5 | collateral estoppel as to the alter ego issue. |\n| 6 | But that is not at all what the trustee is |\n| 7 | arguing.
We're not arguing that the fact that the Court |\n| 8 | determined that the debtor owns and controls the Lady May |\n| 9 | and the Lady May II is itself determinative of the alter ego |\n| 10 | claim. |\n| 11 | What we're arguing is that under the facts and |\n| 12 | circumstances of this case, where the other facts establish |\n| 13 | that HK USA never did anything else, that that ruling and |\n| 14 | that finding goes all the way there or basically all the way |\n| 15 | there in getting to that point, because there's simply |\n| 16 | nothing else that HK USA has ever done for which facts need |\n| 17 | to demonstrate that the debtor exercised domination and |\n| 18 | control over HK USA. |\n| 19 | And the trustee is also not arguing, contrary to |\n| 20 | what the counter-defendants suggest, that Justice Ostrager |\n| 21 | decided the alter ego question.
He did not.
He decided, as |\n| 22 | the Court already recognized and held, that the debtor owns |\n| 23 | and controls the Lady May. |\n| 24 | And it's a little unclear to me if the |\n| 25 | counter-defendants are -- I mean, it appears to me, frankly, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 12 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 12 that the counter-defendants are asking the Court to revisit that prior finding. There's statements in their opposition and in their statement of facts that talk about the fact that, you know, the issue before Justice Ostrager was not ownership of the Lady May, et cetera. All that is irrelevant and not before the Court, because it's been decided by the Court. It's law of the case. They've appealed that decision. To the extent they have a problem with it, that's an issue for the district court. And I want to point out, because, again, the -- as the counter-defendants would frame it, we're saying ownership and control of the Lady May, that's it, there's nothing else. But that's not it. I mean, there are significant other facts in the record which go directly to the alter ego analysis and prove, as I said, the fact that there was no dispute that HK USA never did anything else. And this is in both sets of the Rule 56 fact statements. And I can get the particular reference. But I think it's easy to find. There is no dispute that HK USA \"has and has never had any officers, directors, or employees, that it does not file tax returns, that it has no bank accounts, that it is not capitalized, that it has no other assets than the Lady\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 13 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 13 May and the Lady May II, and that it has had no dedicated email server or email suffix, i.e., it has none of its own documents\" according to the debtor.\n\n Now, the counter-defendants say these facts could simply mean that HK USA is the alter ego of the debtor's daughter and not the alter ego of the debtor. But there's no basis for that position.\n\n Because in order to make that argument, they would have to show that HK USA has engaged in some business and done something in its existence other than owning and operating the Lady May, which activities the debtor's daughter and not the debtor could have exercised control over.\n\n But whereas here there was nothing else, all of these alter ego factors, the fact that it's a shell company with no assets, no employees, no assets other than the Lady May and the Lady May II, no employees, no officers, directors, no bank account, all of that only goes to show the fact that this is an entity dominated and controlled by the debtor who is the one this Court has found has dominion and control over the only assets that it ever had.\n\n In addition to the Rule 56.1 statement, paragraph 11, which I referenced on this point, I would direct the Court to the declaration of Mei Guo, which was submitted in the main case at ECF 1544, on the issue of HK USA's\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 14 compliance with its document production obligations. This is at paragraphs 24 and 25 where Mei Guo says, \"As explained above, I am the sole owner of HK USA, and HK USA does not have any employees or maintain any bank accounts. Indeed, the Lady May is HK USA's sole asset.\" Then she goes on, \"Moreover, the only documents or communications that I maintained for HK USA relate to the Lady May, which documents were excluded from the January 20th order.\" In other words, what she was saying is the only documents HK USA has are documents that I have, and the only documents that I have are documents that relate to the operation of the Lady May, because that's all HK USA has ever done. Now, this is another point we emphasized in our papers to which the counter-defendants did not even respond, but I think it's a critically important fact to emphasize for the Court and one which is, in my view, incredibly damning for the counter-defendant's position that the debtor's daughter and not the debtor is the one who owns and controls HK USA. And this is where in February 2022, before Justice Ostrager in the New York court, the debtor's daughter testified under oath that, as far as she knew, her brother owned the Lady May II. She was shown a picture of the Lady Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 14 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 15 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
15 |\n| 1 | May II, asked on the stand who owns this.
My brother does. |\n| 2 | Of course, now we know, and now it's been admitted |\n| 3 | and conceded, that the Lady May II is and always has been |\n| 4 | registered to HK USA, including at the time she gave that |\n| 5 | testimony. |\n| 6 | So unless she's going to admit that she committed |\n| 7 | perjury, which she's not doing, then what this shows, Your |\n| 8 | Honor, is that the person who purports to own and control HK |\n| 9 | USA did not even know that it owned one of HK USA's two |\n| 10 | assets. |\n| 11 | And this is not an immaterial asset.
The Lady May |\n| 12 | II is an approximately 50-foot long boat worth more than a |\n| 13 | million dollars that would be considered probably the |\n| 14 | largest luxury boat many of us have ever seen or set foot |\n| 15 | on. |\n| 16 | The fact that she didn't know her company owned it |\n| 17 | tells you all you need to know about whether or not she, in |\n| 18 | fact, owned and controlled that entity.
The answer is she |\n| 19 | didn't.
Her father did. |\n| 20 | Just briefly, as to some of the case law -- I |\n| 21 | think there's a statement in the counter-defendant's |\n| 22 | response that it's somehow relevant that the debtor is not |\n| 23 | the named member of HK USA in its operating agreement. |\n| 24 | That's irrelevant, because it's not a requirement of |\n| 25 | Delaware veil-piercing or alter ego law that the person at |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 16 of
159 | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
16 |\n| 1 | issue in the veil-piercing analysis be the named shareholder |\n| 2 | or, in this case, member of an LLC. |\n| 3 | Were it otherwise, that would obviously be ripe |\n| 4 | for abuse, because, as in a situation like this, any debtor |\n| 5 | who wants to hide his or her assets would simply put them in |\n| 6 | a company owned by, as in this case, a family member. |\n| 7 | Whereas here we've shown the requisite domination and |\n| 8 | control.
The fact that the debtor is not the named party in |\n| 9 | the LLC agreement is obviously irrelevant. |\n| 10 | On the second prong of the alter ego analysis, |\n| 11 | which is the existence of a fraud or injustice that was |\n| 12 | perpetuated by the alter ego relationship, although they try |\n| 13 | to do so, I don't see how the counter-defendants can |\n| 14 | credibly suggest that if, in fact, HK USA was the debtor's |\n| 15 | alter ego, it was not used to perpetuate an injustice on the |\n| 16 | debtor's creditors. |\n| 17 | Indeed, the entire purpose of HK USA being the |\n| 18 | debtor's alter ego is to shield the Lady May and the Lady |\n| 19 | May II from recovery by the debtor's creditors. |\n| 20 | That's the entire position he's taken before |\n| 21 | Justice Ostrager in the New York litigation, before this |\n| 22 | Court in litigation, and it's the position that the debtor's |\n| 23 | daughter herself supported in the testimony she tried to |\n| 24 | give before Justice Ostrager in February 2022, which |\n| 25 | testimony, as the Court knows, Justice Ostrager found had no |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 17 credibility. So I don't think it can possibly be disputed that if, in fact, there's an alter ego relationship, that alter ego relationship was used for the purpose of perpetuating an injustice on the debtor's creditors. I'll now move -- and I'll reserve time, obviously, to respond to any additional comments counsel may make on the sort of threshold alter ego analysis. But I'll now move to briefly talk about a couple of the defenses. First, as I mentioned, the counter-defendants raise the Wagoner rule and in pari delicto. I don't think there can be any disagreement -- and by the way, that brief was submitted by the counter-defendants before this Court issued its -- or before simultaneously with, I think, when this Court issued its -- or its decision on the motion to dismiss. But I think the decision on the motion to dismiss disposes with that issue, because as the Court properly held in that decision, the Wagoner rule and in pari delicto are inapplicable to the second counterclaim on alter ego, because the trustee has brought that counterclaim not standing in the debtor's shoes but rather in the shoes of the debtor's creditors under Section 544(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. So I think that issue has been settled. The other argument they raise is the argument with\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 18 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
18 |\n| 1 | respect to the Lady May stipulation contending that the |\n| 2 | stipulation prevents this Court from entering an order on |\n| 3 | the alter ego relationship, because it would result in the |\n| 4 | debtor -- sorry, the trustee becoming -- the owner of the |\n| 5 | estate, rather, becoming the owner of the escrowed funds |\n| 6 | which originally were 37 million and now are approximately |\n| 7 | \\$33 million. |\n| 8 | Again, I think this defense has been addressed and |\n| 9 | disposed of in a Court's -- in one of the Court's prior |\n| 10 | rulings, this time also -- I guess also the motion to |\n| 11 | dismiss ruling. |\n| 12 | And as the Court will recall, in that decision the |\n| 13 | Court conducted an extensive review of the applicable case |\n| 14 | law talking about the circumstances under which a |\n| 15 | stipulation entered into by a debtor in possession is or is |\n| 16 | not binding on a subsequently appointed trustee. |\n| 17 | And what the Court observed is that the case law |\n| 18 | is legion in holding that the answer to that question comes |\n| 19 | down to the facts and circumstances and the equities of the |\n| 20 | case. |\n| 21 | And then based on that law, the Court went through |\n| 22 | and conducted an analysis of the facts at issue here and |\n| 23 | made four points in particular. |\n| 24 | And as we pointed out in the reply brief that we |\n| 25 | filed, each of those four points is equally valid to the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 19 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
19 |\n| 1 | motion before the Court today for summary judgment as it was |\n| 2 | on the motion to dismiss, even though the standards are |\n| 3 | admittedly different. |\n| 4 | And the reason for that is because there is no |\n| 5 | genuine dispute of material fact as to any of the facts that |\n| 6 | are relevant to those four considerations that the Court |\n| 7 | identified. |\n| 8 | The first -- and I'll briefly recap those, but the |\n| 9 | first consideration which the Court identified was the fact |\n| 10 | that neither HK USA nor the debtor's daughter, parties to |\n| 11 | the stipulation against whom relief is sought, is a |\n| 12 | creditor. |\n| 13 | And because of that, the policy concern about |\n| 14 | creditors becoming comfortable with agreements in the -- |\n| 15 | with a debtor in possession was not implicated.
No dispute |\n| 16 | as to that -- as to the facts related to that consideration. |\n| 17 | The second consideration, and this one, in my |\n| 18 | view, is very important, is the Court acknowledged in ruling |\n| 19 | on the motion to dismiss that if it were to \"find in the |\n| 20 | trustee's favor on the merits of the alter ego claim, |\n| 21 | allowing the trustee to recover from the escrowed funds |\n| 22 | would not implicate any prejudice to HK USA, because the |\n| 23 | Court would have found that HK USA is the individual debtor |\n| 24 | or is owned or controlled by the individual debtor.\" |\n| 25 | Then the Court went on to say, \"There is no public |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 20 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
20 |\n| 1 | policy interest in allowing an individual debtor to self |\n| 2 | deal in bankruptcy to shield assets from bankruptcy |\n| 3 | proceedings.\" |\n| 4 | So obviously, Your Honor, this motion before the |\n| 5 | Court is all about whether or not HK USA is the debtor's |\n| 6 | alter ego.
And we're only going to get to the question of |\n| 7 | the applicability of the stipulation if the Court believes |\n| 8 | that the trustee has demonstrated that HK USA is, in fact, |\n| 9 | the debtor's alter ego. |\n| 10 | So we're operating in a world where all the facts |\n| 11 | relevant to this consideration of the Court and the motion |\n| 12 | to dismiss decision have been established. |\n| 13 | And I would stress that I think the Court was |\n| 14 | absolutely correct in emphasizing the -- this issue or these |\n| 15 | considerations, because I don't see how there could be any |\n| 16 | doubt that it would be highly inequitable, to say the least, |\n| 17 | to allow the debtor here in the event it is determined that |\n| 18 | HK USA is and always has been his alter ego, to have used |\n| 19 | the Lady May stipulation as an effective subterfuge to |\n| 20 | shield \\$30-plus million of assets that are now his from his |\n| 21 | creditors. |\n| 22 | Were that the case, were that known at the time, |\n| 23 | there's no way the parties to that stipulation, including |\n| 24 | PAX and the Committee, would have agreed to it.
And I can't |\n| 25 | imagine the Court would have approved it either. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 21 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 21 So I think that is a -- that, in and of itself, is reason enough on the equities for this Court to hold that the Lady May stipulation does not the -- does not prevent the relief that the trustee seeks. The next consideration that the Court identified is similar to the last one, which is that the debtor's history of engaging in shell games, et cetera, also provides appropriate context to decide for equitable reasons that the stipulation is not binding. And the Court observed there, again, I think, accurately, that the type of proof that the trustee would offer to show this type of use of shell games may be the same as the proof that the debtor -- or that the trustee has offered to show that HK USA is the debtor's alter ego. I say that that's exactly true. And for the reasons I just discussed, the fact that the debtor has used HK USA to shield assets from creditors is another reason why the stipulation here should not be used to prevent the relief the trustee seeks. Fourth consideration that the Court identified was that, unlike in many of the other cases that have held that stipulations of a debtor in possession are binding on a trustee, here the stipulation does not -- it's undisputed the stipulation on its face does not expressly bind the trustee despite the pendency at the time of the stipulation\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 22 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
22 |\n| 1 | of a motion to appoint the trustee. |\n| 2 | So, again, those are all the considerations the |\n| 3 | Court identified in finding that the stipulation is not |\n| 4 | binding on the trustee, and none of them involve a genuine |\n| 5 | issue of material fact.
Therefore, the Court can grant |\n| 6 | summary judgment as to that issue in the trustee's favor. |\n| 7 | The last point I would make is that we had raised |\n| 8 | another argument in our motion for summary judgment that the |\n| 9 | Court did not address in the motion to dismiss decision |\n| 10 | which is related to the ones that I just made, but it's the |\n| 11 | fact that, as a matter of law, if HK USA and the debtor were |\n| 12 | alter egos at the time of the Lady May stipulation, meaning |\n| 13 | that there was no distinction between them, then as a matter |\n| 14 | of law, and this is Hornbook contract law, an agreement |\n| 15 | between them is not binding, because it is a immutable |\n| 16 | principle of contract law that one cannot enter into an |\n| 17 | agreement with itself.
Every agreement needs two parties. |\n| 18 | And we've cited authority for that in our briefing. |\n| 19 | So, Your Honor, the last point I'll make, and then |\n| 20 | I'll reserve any additional comments for rebuttal, is that |\n| 21 | the counter-defendants had raised at the end of their |\n| 22 | opposition what appears to be a request to dissolve the PJR |\n| 23 | and the preliminary injunction in the event the Court grants |\n| 24 | the motion for summary judgment. |\n| 25 | All I would say in response to that is that that's |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 23 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
23 |\n| 1 | a separate request for relief.
And, in fact, acknowledging |\n| 2 | that, the counter-defendants have filed a separate motion |\n| 3 | asking for that relief, and that motion remains pending. |\n| 4 | They had asked to expedite it to have it heard |\n| 5 | today.
We objected to that.
And as far as I'm aware, the |\n| 6 | Court has not issued an order setting that on the calendar. |\n| 7 | So all I would say is that the trustee reserves his rights |\n| 8 | to address that argument if and when appropriate in response |\n| 9 | to that motion. |\n| 10 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Just a few questions. |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
So I understand your arguments, I |\n| 14 | believe.
I've read the papers.
As I noted at the beginning |\n| 15 | of your argument, I'm going to be -- I am focused on the |\n| 16 | five -- the 56(a)(1) and (a)(2) statement. |\n| 17 | And when counsel for the counter-defendant -- |\n| 18 | counterclaim defendants speak -- and I mean, I've seen |\n| 19 | several facts that the trustee put forth that the |\n| 20 | counterclaim defendants object to. |\n| 21 | And you may need to be prepared to respond to that |\n| 22 | if and when the counterclaim defendants raise those |\n\n know, the 44 facts in the trustee's 56(a)(1) statement, and then there's these additional material facts that the\n\nobjections in their argument, because there are, as you\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 24 counterclaim defendants have set forth. And while I -- you have not addressed those at this point, but I'm going to have the parties address those issues. So -- MR. BASSETT: No, no. THE COURT: -- I don't know if you want to make any statements at this point with regard to the additional material facts set forth by the counterclaim defendants, but I'm going to have you respond -- either tell me now or I'm going to have you respond to those issues when the counterclaim defendants make their arguments. MR. BASSETT: Sure. And I'm happy to -- maybe I'll respond now to the extent that I can. And then, obviously, when counsel -- if and when counsel raises particular issues, I can respond to those again in rebuttal. What I would say is that -- well, obviously, our 56.1 statement contained a number of facts, many of which are contextual, in leading up to the relief that we're ultimately seeking. What I tried to do in my argument today was emphasize for the Court the only facts that I think are the material facts that the Court needs to consider in order to determine that HK USA is the debtor's alter ego. And, you know, they dispute other facts. There may be facts that are disputed in our 56.1 statement, but Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 24 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 25 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
25 |\n| 1 | the Court -- to the extent that some of those facts are |\n| 2 | disputed, that would not prevent the issuance of summary |\n| 3 | judgment. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I'm not saying it would or wouldn't. |\n| 5 | I'm just saying I want the record to be clear -- |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
And what I would -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
-- with regard to these issues. |\n| 8 | MR. BASSETT:
And I would emphasize is that the |\n| 9 | Rule 56.1 statements are clear, and I articulated this |\n| 10 | before and I gave references to it, that the only assets |\n| 11 | that HK USA has ever had are the Lady May and now the Lady |\n| 12 | May II.
It's also undisputed that the trustee, via the |\n| 13 | debtor, owns and controls those assets.
There's an |\n| 14 | admission.
I think it was paragraph 12 that I referenced. |\n| 15 | It's also undisputed, and this is a quote, because |\n| 16 | it's a -- this comes from, in part, a letter that Attorney |\n| 17 | Vartan had submitted, I believe, to the New York court that |\n| 18 | we put before the Court.
And they, of course, admitted this |\n| 19 | in full in their statement of facts that HK USA has never |\n| 20 | had any officers, employees, or bank accounts or directors. |\n| 21 | It's never had any assets other than the Lady May and the |\n| 22 | Lady May II.
It's never had -- it's never been capitalized |\n| 23 | in any way.
It's never maintained its own email server for |\n| 24 | communications. |\n| 25 | Those facts demonstrate that all that's ever -- |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 26 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
26 |\n| 1 | all HK USA has ever done -- and there's no counter -- other |\n| 2 | than there are a couple of statements in the |\n| 3 | counter-defendant's statement of facts where they say that, |\n| 4 | well, HK USA through Mei Guo has entered into certain |\n| 5 | contracts.
These contracts that they reference are a series |\n| 6 | of non-disclosure agreements with parties who work on the |\n| 7 | boat and then one agreement with the staffing company. |\n| 8 | A couple of responses to that.
First, these are |\n| 9 | agreements that go to the ownership and control of the Lady |\n| 10 | May.
It has already been established that the debtor's |\n| 11 | daughter does not control the Lady May or its operations. |\n| 12 | And that's for good reason, by the way.
This record is |\n| 13 | before the Court, because the Court decided in connection |\n| 14 | with the first summary judgment motion. |\n| 15 | And while the Court decided that on the basis of |\n| 16 | collateral estoppel, there's a reason why Justice Ostrager |\n| 17 | reached the decision that he reached. |\n| 18 | Because at the February 2022 hearing, when all of |\n| 19 | these individuals testified -- and, by the way, this is also |\n| 20 | before this Court in Mei Guo's deposition testimony that we |\n| 21 | submitted as part of our reply on the motion for summary |\n| 22 | judgment where we asked her to review and confirm and agree |\n| 23 | with the statements that these individuals made before |\n| 24 | Justice Ostrager. |\n| 25 | The former captain of the Lady May, a person at |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 27 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
27 |\n| 1 | the management company, YACHTZOO, they all took the stand, |\n| 2 | and they all said they never had contact with the debtor's |\n| 3 | daughter.
She was not giving them directions.
And she |\n| 4 | agreed to all of that in her deposition.
And I can give the |\n| 5 | Court citations to the deposition transcript. |\n| 6 | They also testified that it was the debtor's -- |\n| 7 | that it was the debtor himself, the daughter's father, who |\n| 8 | gave directions as to where the boat should go.
One of them |\n| 9 | was asked, you know, who was on the boat more, the debtor or |\n| 10 | the debtor's daughter.
He said the debtor by far. |\n| 11 | All of that is relevant given the fact that the |\n| 12 | only thing counter-defendants can point to as purportedly |\n| 13 | additional activities of HK USA -- if you look at all of |\n| 14 | their statements of facts, it's all noise about what Justice |\n| 15 | Ostrager did or did not decide.
That's irrelevant and moot, |\n| 16 | because it's law of the case that collateral estoppel |\n| 17 | applies to the ownership question.
Everything else is |\n| 18 | irrelevant to the alter ego analysis. |\n| 19 | Again, because as far as I can recall, the only |\n| 20 | thing they point to are these contracts.
But those |\n| 21 | contracts prove nothing when they relate to the Lady May, |\n| 22 | which is the only asset of HK USA, which the Court has |\n| 23 | already found the debtor owned and controlled. |\n| 24 | So, again, I'm happy to address other facts, but I |\n| 25 | don't think there's anything else they raise that's material |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 28 to the analysis. THE COURT: Ms. Guo's deposition that you're speaking of, that is attached to your declaration, the deposition in January of this year? MR. BASSETT: That's correct. And I'll just give, for the record, some citations to particular testimony. And so that deposition transcript, page 93 -- THE COURT: All right. Just give me a moment. Okay? I'm looking -- MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: I'm looking at your declaration, and I believe it -- the deposition transcript is Exhibit 12 to your declaration. Is that right or no? MR. BASSETT: Let me check. THE COURT: I want to make sure I'm looking at the right thing. Oh, maybe not. MR. BASSETT: Well, it's -- THE COURT: Oh, you're look -- you're talking about your -- in the reply. MR. BASSETT: Yeah. It's attached to the reply. THE COURT: Okay. So not attached to your original declaration but attached to the reply. MR. BASSETT: That's right. THE COURT: Which is ECF Number 209 that was filed on Monday. I mean, what's today? On Tuesday. On Tuesday Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 28 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 29 the 18th. MR. BASSETT: That's right. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. You want me to go to page 93? Is that what you're saying? MR. BASSETT: Sure. And Your Honor can do it now, or I can give you the citations to the record to look at it later. It -- THE COURT: I'd like to go -- MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: -- there right now. MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: Okay? So where on page 93 do you specifically want me to look at? MR. BASSETT: So if you -- I think it's beginning at line 16. There are questions asked of -- we asked in the deposition Ms. Guo to look at the testimony of Russell Stockil, who was the person responsible for management at YACHTZOO. And if you look at that testimony from 93, I think, 16 to 94-16, she -- Mei Guo confirms the accuracy of his testimony that she never contacted him about the yacht. If you go down to 95-13 to 96-3, Mei Guo confirms the testimony that she never spoke to Mr. Stockil. And if you go to 96-4 to 22, she confirms his testimony that all instructions related to the Lady May came Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 29 of\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 30 of
159 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
30 |\n| from \"the family office.\" |\n| So again, you know, to the extent that they're |\n| pointing to these management agreements, it doesn't |\n| establish independent control over HK USA, one, because the |\n| Court already found that the debtor has that control, and |\n| two, because the other facts demonstrate that she, in |\n| reality, was not exercising control. |\n| 97-13 to 99-3 is another excerpt.
This is |\n| questions about the testimony of Momchil Ivanov. |\n| THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
97 what?
I apologize. |\n| MR. BASSETT:
97-13 to 99-3. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Give me one second, please. |\n| MR. BASSETT:
Sure. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| MR. BASSETT:
These are the questions about the |\n| testimony of Momchil Ivanov who is the former captain of the |\n| Lady May.
And here, again, if you look at the transcript, |\n| Mei Guo agreed with Mr. Ivanov's testimony that he never |\n| spoke to Mei Guo and never took directions from her. |\n| If you go to page 102, line 4 to 107, line 17, |\n| this is testimony about Craig Heaslop, who's the current |\n| Lady May captain.
And the testimony here, which Mei Guo |\n| confirmed she did not disagree with, was that the debtor was |\n| \"on and off the yacht.\"
And when asked, he said that the |\n| debtor was on the yacht much more than his daughter. |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 31 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
31 |\n| 1 | Mei Guo also confirmed the accuracy in this |\n| 2 | excerpt that I've referred the Court to of Mr. Heaslop's |\n| 3 | testimony that Mei Guo was not the one who ultimately told |\n| 4 | him -- told Mr. Heaslop that the yacht no longer needed to |\n| 5 | stay in New York.
She also confirmed his testimony that the |\n| 6 | debtor, when he would use the yacht, would direct where it |\n| 7 | goes on all occasions. |\n| 8 | I would also point the Court to page 168 of the |\n| 9 | deposition transcript. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Give me a moment to get there, please. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go right ahead. |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
And she was asked in particular |\n| 14 | about these NDAs and this staffing agreement and asked -- |\n| 15 | this is 168-13.
She was asked whether she was aware of any |\n| 16 | other documents at HK USA that bearing -- that bear her |\n| 17 | signature.
Her testimony, \"I'm not sure.\" |\n| 18 | That's not surprising, because, again, it is |\n| 19 | admitted and not disputed, much less genuinely disputed, |\n| 20 | that HK USA didn't do anything else.
There's nothing else |\n| 21 | for her to have signed a contract regarding. |\n| 22 | And the fact that she -- to be clear, the fact |\n| 23 | that she signed these NDAs and one staffing agreement does |\n| 24 | nothing to wrestle control over HK USA from the debtor where |\n| 25 | the debtor, indisputably at this point, is the one who owned |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 32 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
32 |\n| 1 | and controlled the Lady May.
He was the one making the |\n| 2 | decisions for the Lady May.
He controlled it, not her. |\n| 3 | I would also point out that these agreements, the |\n| 4 | NDAs and the staffing agreements, were provided and dated -- |\n| 5 | curiously, to say the least, they were provided in the midst |\n| 6 | of the PAX litigation in New York where the debtor's |\n| 7 | daughter was trying to show through the testimony which |\n| 8 | Justice Ostrager deemed completely not credible that there |\n| 9 | was some separateness and that she somehow exercised |\n| 10 | independent control over HK USA. |\n| 11 | And because of that curious timing, we, of course, |\n| 12 | asked her, as the deposition transcript indicates, whether |\n| 13 | she's aware of any other agreements, any NDAs with the |\n| 14 | current captain, any documents from other times. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
You asked her that? |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
We asked her that in her deposition. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Not in the deposition -- on the page |\n| 18 | you were just showing me?
Is that where you're talking |\n| 19 | about?
You said this came out during the PAX litigation -- |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
No.
That did.
But we were asking |\n| 21 | her about that -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | MR. BASSETT:
-- in her deposition. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
And it's the -- I think the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 33 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
33 |\n| 1 | deposition testimony that I just cited for the Court stands |\n| 2 | for that proposition, because we asked her are you aware of |\n| 3 | any other agreements.
She said, I'm not sure. |\n| 4 | I think there was a point where we asked her more |\n| 5 | specifically about whether there were NDAs with other |\n| 6 | people.
And I could find that.
But either way, the answer |\n| 7 | was no.
And I think that's revealing, because the only NDAs |\n| 8 | and the only agreement she were (sic) able to come up with |\n| 9 | were ones that came about when there was a litigation reason |\n| 10 | to produce them. |\n| 11 | So, you know, the other thing I would point out |\n| 12 | just on the issue -- all these facts that I've been |\n| 13 | discussing go to this. |\n| 14 | But on the issue of whether collateral estoppel |\n| 15 | applies here, again, that's not what we're arguing.
We're |\n| 16 | not arguing that this is a collateral estoppel issue where |\n| 17 | Ostrager decided collateral -- decided, you know, alter ego. |\n| 18 | Rather, the Court already decided ownership. |\n| 19 | That's binding.
That's law of the case.
Needs not be -- |\n| 20 | does not need to be revisited. |\n| 21 | But even if for some reason the Court were |\n| 22 | inclined to -- and, again, I don't even think the Court can, |\n| 23 | because it's on appeal, and there's no jurisdiction.
But |\n| 24 | even if the Court could reconsider that, these facts that |\n| 25 | I've just read and other facts in the record make clear |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 34 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
34 |\n| 1 | beyond doubt who the owner and controller of the Lady May |\n| 2 | was. |\n| 3 | In addition to the facts that I just read, if you |\n| 4 | look at the complaint itself, the story in the complaint in |\n| 5 | this action is that while Mei Guo was detained in China, her |\n| 6 | brother in February of 2015 purchased the Lady May for her |\n| 7 | even though she did not come to the U.S. and have access to |\n| 8 | the Lady May even in theory until -- by her own admission in |\n| 9 | her complaint, until May 2017. |\n| 10 | But who was in the U.S. and who did have access to |\n| 11 | the boat?
This is the paragraph immediately preceding the |\n| 12 | paragraph talking about the Lady May being purchased in |\n| 13 | February 2015 in their complaint.
The debtor fled to the |\n| 14 | United States in early 2015. |\n| 15 | It just -- and for all of these reasons, which |\n| 16 | again I -- we shouldn't even be talking about, because this |\n| 17 | issue need not be re-litigated.
But that's why Justice |\n| 18 | Ostrager reached the decision that he did.
There's simply |\n| 19 | no credible basis to believe that this yacht was actually |\n| 20 | purchased for the daughter and not the debtor. |\n| 21 | And it's also undisputed -- you looked at the |\n| 22 | complaint.
HK USA was created for the purpose of having the |\n| 23 | Lady May transferred from a BDI entity to a US entity. |\n| 24 | And I think Mei Guo said in her deposition -- I |\n| 25 | don't have the particular site for it -- the deposition in |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 35 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
35 |\n| 1 | this case that, oh, she thought it would be easier to |\n| 2 | control if the entity were in the U.S. |\n| 3 | But what the point is, is that by her own |\n| 4 | admission this was just a shell company created to own the |\n| 5 | yacht.
That's all it is.
And it's already been established |\n| 6 | that the debtor owns and controls the yacht. |\n| 7 | This is a rare alter ego case, as I said, for its |\n| 8 | simplicity.
You have a situation where this entity did |\n| 9 | nothing else ever, and the debtor dominated and controlled |\n| 10 | its only asset which provided the basis for the only |\n| 11 | operations and business the entity ever engaged in.
Thank |\n| 12 | you. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you, Attorney |\n| 14 | Bassett. |\n| 15 | Let me hear from the counterclaim defendants, |\n| 16 | please. |\n| 17 | MS. WERNICK:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 19 | MS. WERNICK:
Hi.
This morning, the trustee has |\n| 20 | asked the Court to make a remarkable finding that a |\n| 21 | non-record owner is the alter ego of a Delaware limited |\n| 22 | liability company. |\n| 23 | And it's remarkable, because there's no construct |\n| 24 | under Delaware corporate law to make such a finding.
And |\n| 25 | the trustee notably in its reply to the motion for summary |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 36 judgment offers no case law to the contrary and makes just a passing reference in its presentation this morning. THE COURT: Let me just stop you right there. MS. WERNICK: Uh-huh. THE COURT: What do you mean when you say there's no law in Delaware that supports a finding that there can't be an alter ego -- MS. WERNICK: Sure. Certainly. So under sort of black letter Delaware law, veil piercing applies to hold a member or shareholder responsible for a company's liability. And then there's a separate construct of a reverse veil-piercing claim that applies to hold the company liable for a shareholder's liability. THE COURT: Well, what about Judge Walrath's case that says it doesn't have to be companies, it doesn't have to be -- it says as long as there isn't a relationship, there can be veil piercing. What about that case? MS. WERNICK: So the relationship has to be established. And so, here, the essence of our argument is that the trustee is skipping steps, is taking the conclusion in the summary judgment decision that the Lady May is owned by the debtor and applying that, and I think it's stated quite clearly on page 2 of the initial moving papers, to say that the only reasonable conclusion must be that the debtor also controls and owns HK USA. Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 36 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 37 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
37 |\n| 1 | But that's a separate legal analysis and step that |\n| 2 | is really entirely glossed over in the entirety of the |\n| 3 | summary judgment proceedings, right?
It's -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I just want to understand your |\n| 5 | argument.
And I'm not saying -- just don't understand your |\n| 6 | argument at the moment.
Okay?
This is a counterclaim |\n| 7 | asserting an alter ego theory, right?
So they've made these |\n| 8 | assertions in the third counterclaim.
And you're saying |\n| 9 | they're skipping steps because summary judgment was entered |\n| 10 | on the first counterclaim? |\n| 11 | MS. WERNICK:
So, I mean, I think -- I don't know |\n| 12 | if it was inadvertent or intentional, but referencing, I |\n| 13 | think, the third counterclaim here is important, right?
So |\n| 14 | right now we're here on summary judgment proceedings with |\n| 15 | respect to the second counterclaim -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
The second counterclaim. |\n| 17 | MS. WERNICK:
-- on alter ego.
But I think it is |\n| 18 | important that the Court notes that there is a third |\n| 19 | counterclaim where the trustee specifically asserted a claim |\n| 20 | that HK USA is owned by the debtor in contrast to the alter |\n| 21 | ego claim that's now before the Court. |\n| 22 | And our position is that that's really a necessary |\n| 23 | step in the Court's consideration to reach the alter ego |\n| 24 | question.
And by skipping essentially what they had raised |\n| 25 | as a separate counterclaim in terms of ownership of HK USA, |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 38 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
38 |\n| 1 | the Court -- the trustee is asking the Court to really rely |\n| 2 | on more of a conclusory argument in reaching its alter ego |\n| 3 | determination. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
All right.
So you're saying that the |\n| 5 | motion for summary judgment should be on both Counts 2 and |\n| 6 | 3? |\n| 7 | MS. WERNICK:
So the -- because I think that |\n| 8 | the -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Is that your argument? |\n| 10 | MS. WERNICK:
Yeah.
Essentially.
Because it's an |\n| 11 | important step to -- for -- and it's really -- it's the |\n| 12 | trustee's burden, right? |\n| 13 | We're here on a summary judgment motion to |\n| 14 | establish the ownership and control of HK USA as part of the |\n| 15 | alter ego analysis.
And the ownership and control of HK USA |\n| 16 | is a much more fact-intensive question than this really |\n| 17 | threadbare record that's before the Court this morning. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, when you say threadbare record, |\n| 19 | you've admitted in the -- in your 56(a)(2) statement at |\n| 20 | paragraph 7 that HK USA generated no revenue; has no |\n| 21 | directors, officers, or employees; has not filed tax |\n| 22 | returns; had no bank account and otherwise -- had not |\n| 23 | otherwise been capitalized; and maintained no documents |\n| 24 | other than those relating to the Lady May.
That's your |\n| 25 | admission.
So how is that threadbare? |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 39 MS. WERNICK: Because there's no nexus -- and that's the key, to the summary judgment motion here this morning. And I think it would be all the more clear if we were here in connection with a Count 3 counterclaim regarding ownership of HK USA. Because there's nothing in paragraph 7 that connects to the debtor, right? So those are assertions generally with respect to HK USA. But nothing therein ties back to ownership or control to the debtor. And I think that's the step that the trustee is -- THE COURT: Well, when you say nothing ties back to ownership or control, so you're saying the Court's prior orders don't matter with regard to that issue? MS. WERNICK: No, of course not, Your Honor. But they're addressing separate things. And so the Court's prior order with respect to the -- Count 1 of the counterclaim relates to ownership of a specific asset, the Lady May. THE COURT: Right. And you've just admitted in paragraph 7 that's all -- HK USA ever had. MS. WERNICK: So that's the -- but that's not the -- there's no admission there that that's the entirety of the purpose or connecting the debtor to HK USA -- THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 39 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 40 MS. WERNICK: -- the entity. THE COURT: Hold on. That's a little bit different. You're changing your argument now. You admit that the only asset of the -- of HK USA is the Lady May. And you just stated that this Court found that the debtor owns and controls the Lady May, right? So -- MS. WERNICK: Yeah. THE COURT: So then I don't understand your argument. MS. WERNICK: And so that's the exact equation that the trustee is asking you to make this morning, that the finding that the debtor owns -- that the debtor owns the Lady May is sufficient to determine that the debtor also must, without having additional showings or determinations, own HK USA or that it must therefore be the alter ego. And one thing -- and I think this is an important point that was absent from the earlier conversation with counsel is that while there -- we recognize that HK USA's asset was the Lady May, the real reason why we're here, right, is not the Lady May. The trustee already has the Lady May. The real reason why we're here is the \\$37 million loan from Himalaya that the trustee also wants to have as part of the estate. And so there's no question, and we've included it in our statement of material facts -- and I'll give you the Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 40 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 41 paragraph references related -- beginning at paragraph 53 of our additional facts -- is that the loan agreements with Himalaya -- THE COURT: Wait. Hold on. You're on page what? MS. WERNICK: I'm sorry. On paragraph 53. THE COURT: Paragraph 53 of your additional material facts? MS. WERNICK: Yes. It's page 23, paragraph 53. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MS. WERNICK: Is that the agreements relating to the Himalaya loan were entered by Ms. Guo and Ms. Guo has taken a personal guaranty with respect to the \\$37 million loan. And she was, in fact, personally sued in an arbitration that's pending in the London Court of International Arbitration as a result of the failure to repay that loan amount. THE COURT: Well, okay. Where does it say that in paragraph 53, what you just said? MS. WERNICK: So 53, continuing on to 56 on the next page. THE COURT: Okay. All right. That's what I'm saying. MS. WERNICK: Yes. THE COURT: Just tell me where you're reading it. Tell me -- okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 41 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 42 MS. WERNICK: Sure. No problem. And so not reading directly. But those points are referenced generally in paragraph -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. WERNICK: -- 53 to 56. THE COURT: Okay. And when at the time that the \\$37 million was put into escrow was the Court made aware of that the loan was guaranteed by Mei Guo? Because I don't recall ever learning that until now. MS. WERNICK: So this is certainly part of the record. My belief is as part of the prior PJR proceedings -- THE COURT: But at the time -- I -- that wasn't the question. MS. WERNICK: Yeah. So I -- THE COURT: The question was, when -- MS. WERNICK: I don't know the answer to that specific question as whether in August of 2022 that issue was raised. THE COURT: Oh, I think it was earlier than August 2022. I think the \\$37 million was delivered to the -- into escrow before -- while the debtor was still a debtor in possession. That was all part of the resolution of the motion for relief from stay and in connection with the debtor's Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 42 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 43 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
43 |\n| 1 | proposed plan of reorganization in which the Lady May was |\n| 2 | going to be gifted, essentially, to the estate for the |\n| 3 | benefit of creditors. |\n| 4 | So my question is, you're raising facts now that |\n| 5 | were not ever disclosed or raised at the time that the \\$37 |\n| 6 | million transaction occurred.
It was a loan from Himalaya |\n| 7 | financial is my recollection.
And there was no -- I mean, |\n| 8 | someone should correct me if I'm wrong. |\n| 9 | But I don't remember ever hearing anything about |\n| 10 | Ms. Guo, who I don't even think had filed an appearance in |\n| 11 | the case at this time -- at that time and certainly wasn't |\n| 12 | represented in this Court at that time, that she guaranteed |\n| 13 | that \\$37 million loan. |\n| 14 | So now you're adding -- so you're -- and the |\n| 15 | reason I'm having this conversation with you is you're |\n| 16 | saying to me that these are additional material facts. |\n| 17 | Well, how is it material? |\n| 18 | How is it material to whether or not summary |\n| 19 | judgment should enter on the second counterclaim of whether |\n| 20 | Ms. Guo personally guaranteed a loan, didn't repay it, and |\n| 21 | there's some proceeding in Europe?
How is that a material |\n| 22 | fact? |\n| 23 | MS. WERNICK:
Certainly.
Because Ms. Guo |\n| 24 | guaranteed the loan as the owner of HK USA.
HK USA had the |\n| 25 | loan agreement with Himalaya.
Ms. Guo -- |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 44 THE COURT: Well, where is the guarantee agreement? Did you submit it? MS. WERNICK: It is -- it's referenced in the cites to the -- yeah. So in our statement of fact -- THE COURT: But is the actual agreement -- MS. WERNICK: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. MS. WERNICK: As part of -- because I think they were all included in the exhibits to the PJR proceedings. And so the referenced statement of facts -- THE COURT: Yeah. But did you submit it in connection with this summary judgment motion, is my question. MS. WERNICK: So, yes, by reference to the specific docket numbers in the statement of facts. THE COURT: All right. Let's go back to your paragraph then. You were at 53? MS. WERNICK: Correct. And so really the point is, is because that's the point why we're here. And so I think it's important to take note of that, right? We're here because the trustee is looking for the \\$37 million that are being held in escrow. And just on that alone makes clear that HK's separate corporate existence goes hand in hand with Ms. Guo as its sole member who signed the loan agreement and who Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 44 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 45 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
45 |\n| 1 | guaranteed the loan. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
All right.
Hold on one minute.
I |\n| 3 | want to look at this.
You're referring to, I believe, in |\n| 4 | this adversary proceeding -- the guarantee agreement, you |\n| 5 | say, is at ECF 84.
So let's just take a look at that for a |\n| 6 | second. |\n| 7 | And as you'll recall, your clients consented to |\n| 8 | the entry of the PJR.
So the Court never looked at and |\n| 9 | no -- nor was that exhibit introduced into evidence.
I |\n| 10 | mean, it's part of the record, but insofar as it appears on |\n| 11 | the docket.
So let me just take a look.
And your exhibits |\n| 12 | were 3,206 pages.
So I will look at Exhibit 84-2.
It's |\n| 13 | going to take a moment to -- |\n| 14 | Well, I'm looking at 84-1 which is in this |\n| 15 | adversary proceeding.
It says, HK International Funds |\n| 16 | Investments USA, incorporated in the State of Delaware, |\n| 17 | borrower, and Himalaya International Financial Group BBI |\n| 18 | (phonetic), lender, April 29, 2022.
Side letter to loan |\n| 19 | agreement dated April 19, 2022. |\n| 20 | MS. WERNICK:
Right.
And I believe -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
So the -- |\n| 22 | MS. WERNICK:
-- 84 proper is the full loan |\n| 23 | agreement, and the 84-1 is the side letter. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
But the side letter, when was that |\n| 25 | ever introduced into evidence in the debtor's case when the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 46 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
46 |\n| 1 | debtor was a debtor in possession? |\n| 2 | MS. WERNICK:
I guess I can't comment.
But I'm |\n| 3 | also not entirely sure as to the relevance as part of our |\n| 4 | discussion this morning. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Well, you're making it relevant, |\n| 6 | right?
You're saying that this is a -- this is a genuine |\n| 7 | issue of material fact.
You're saying to me that this is |\n| 8 | relevant.
So I'm saying to you, when was this ever -- and |\n| 9 | it's absolutely relevant. |\n| 10 | I mean, you're making an argument that this Court |\n| 11 | should somehow look at facts that have never been put into |\n| 12 | evidence before in any kind of evidentiary hearing that -- |\n| 13 | about a guarantee of a loan that when the loan was made and |\n| 14 | disclosed to this Court as part of a settlement of a motion |\n| 15 | for relief from stay none of these -- none of this was put |\n| 16 | before the Court.
None of this information was in front of |\n| 17 | the Court. |\n| 18 | And so now -- and you're saying -- and your |\n| 19 | argument is and, by the way, that stipulation that |\n| 20 | results -- that relates to all this 37 million, the |\n| 21 | trustee's bound by it.
That's what your argument is. |\n| 22 | So you're now saying to me how do I -- why do I |\n| 23 | think this is relevant?
Because you've now said you think |\n| 24 | it's relevant.
And I'm saying when was this information |\n| 25 | ever put in the record of the case prior to this adversary |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 47 proceeding. And, apparently, it wasn't. MS. WERNICK: Well, so, I mean, I guess my question is, is -- and I apologize if I'm, you know, having a misunderstanding over more semantics. Because my -- we're addressing it now -- THE COURT: I don't think it's semantics. I think it's facts, right? MS. WERNICK: Well, it's fact, but it's -- the existence of these agreements are facts that are material facts for purposes of -- THE COURT: So how are they -- no. Excuse me. But they're facts. How are they material if you're now saying the trustee should be bound by this stipulation, and you're saying the trustee should be bound by this stipulation for many reasons, including that Ms. Guo guaranteed the loan, a fact that no one knew prior to this adversary proceeding? MS. WERNICK: So to be clear, I'm -- my argument right now is not with respect to the stipulation. And I understand that the Court ruled in its motion to dismiss on the arguments surrounding the stipulation. So that was not my intent. Why I wanted to raise this guarantee is with respect to the notion that there's no connection between Ms. Guo and HK USA separate and apart from the agreements Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 47 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 48 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
48 |\n| 1 | that counsel had already referenced this morning.
And it |\n| 2 | gets -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Well, the 37 million was related to |\n| 4 | the Lady May.
So it's all related to the Lady May.
The \\$37 |\n| 5 | million that was put in escrow was put in escrow with regard |\n| 6 | to the stipulation for the return of the Lady May.
Isn't |\n| 7 | that correct? |\n| 8 | MS. WERNICK:
Yes.
And she -- and personally |\n| 9 | guaranteed by Ms. Guo. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
And no one knew that it was personally |\n| 11 | guaranteed.
And by the way, I'm looking at the guarantee |\n| 12 | agreement, and it says it's dated effective as of April 19, |\n| 13 | and it's signed with no witness, no nothing, no date.
So we |\n| 14 | have no idea when that guarantee agreement was signed. |\n| 15 | There's nothing in the record that establishes |\n| 16 | that this guarantee agreement was actually entered into at |\n| 17 | the time that the loan was made. |\n| 18 | And there was no evidence submitted to this Court |\n| 19 | at the time of the resolution of the relief from stay motion |\n| 20 | that talked about Ms. Guo personally guaranteeing the \\$37 |\n| 21 | million loan.
And what was she personally guaranteeing it |\n| 22 | with? |\n| 23 | MS. WERNICK:
Yeah. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
What was the collateral? |\n| 25 | MS. WERNICK:
So -- |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 49 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
49 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
What does she have? |\n| 2 | MS. WERNICK:
No.
And so right -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
You could get into that. |\n| 4 | MS. WERNICK:
Yeah. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
If you want to get into the |\n| 6 | materiality of it, and if you think it's material, then it |\n| 7 | would have to be material as to what it was that she had as |\n| 8 | assets to -- that -- why Himalaya Financial would want her |\n| 9 | personal guarantee.
Because that's what a guarantee's for. |\n| 10 | So what is it that she had as assets?
If you're |\n| 11 | saying that these facts are material, then you haven't gone |\n| 12 | all the way you need to go.
Okay? |\n| 13 | So I don't find that this is material unless you |\n| 14 | can somehow establish that -- first of all, there's a |\n| 15 | guarantee agreement that isn't -- is not dated.
It says |\n| 16 | effective as of.
I don't know when she signed it.
It never |\n| 17 | was part of this record. |\n| 18 | And you're now coming here and saying to me, but, |\n| 19 | you know, Judge, the reason you can't grant summary judgment |\n| 20 | on this counterclaim is because Mei Guo guaranteed the loan |\n| 21 | that Himalaya Financial made for the \\$37 million to come |\n| 22 | into this estate and to provide for the return of the Lady |\n| 23 | May to the United States.
That's what you're saying. |\n| 24 | MS. WERNICK:
So, I mean, I -- respectfully, Your |\n| 25 | Honor, I would submit that this has been part of the record |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 50 since it was included with our exhibits. The trustee certainly -- THE COURT: The PJR exhibits -- MS. WERNICK: Right. Correct. THE COURT: -- that were filed months ago and well after the loan was made and after Mr. Kwok was no longer a debtor in possession, correct? MS. WERNICK: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. MS. WERNICK: Correct. THE COURT: Go ahead. MS. WERNICK: Yeah. And there's no dispute that Ms. Guo has now been sued on this guarantee and is personally on the hook by virtue of -- THE COURT: Well, I don't know that there's no dispute. You put something in here that she's been sued. Okay. MS. WERNICK: Yeah. So, I mean -- THE COURT: She's been sued. MS. WERNICK: -- but we are -- I mean, we're -- we've again appended to -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. WERNICK: -- the docket -- THE COURT: Why don't you continue. MS. WERNICK: -- a -- all right. Thank you, Your Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 50 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 51 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
51 |\n| 1 | Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Why don't you continue. |\n| 3 | MS. WERNICK:
But this is exactly the point.
And |\n| 4 | I think it's a fallacy to say that this is the only thing |\n| 5 | that's being put forward to demonstrate Ms. Guo's ownership |\n| 6 | of -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Well, you put it into -- you've put it |\n| 8 | into question, because you say it's material. |\n| 9 | MS. WERNICK:
Oh, and I would maintain that point. |\n| 10 | I think it's material.
I think all -- the operating |\n| 11 | agreement for HK USA is material.
I think all of the -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
And it all relates -- and the only |\n| 13 | asset that HK USA had was the Lady May. |\n| 14 | MS. WERNICK:
Correct. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
And the only guarantee that supposedly |\n| 16 | Ms. Guo gave was with regard to a loan that relates directly |\n| 17 | to the Lady May, correct? |\n| 18 | MS. WERNICK:
And she is now on the hook for. |\n| 19 | Correct. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Well, whether she is or isn't, that's |\n| 21 | not this Court's issue, right? |\n| 22 | MS. WERNICK:
But it speaks directly to the point |\n| 23 | of the domination that the trustee is asking you to infer. |\n| 24 | The domination and the -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
They're not asking me to infer |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 52 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
52 |\n| 1 | anything.
They're asking me to find that there are no |\n| 2 | genuine issues of material fact, most of which you have |\n| 3 | admitted to in your Rule 56(a)(2) statement.
They're not |\n| 4 | asking me to infer anything. |\n| 5 | MS. WERNICK:
I mean, I disagree.
Because they |\n| 6 | are starting with the proposition that the Lady May is owned |\n| 7 | by the debtor, which this Court found, which is subject to |\n| 8 | the appeal and we're not looking to collaterally attack in |\n| 9 | this proceeding this morning. |\n| 10 | However, they're taking that proposition that the |\n| 11 | Court decided and -- I don't know how else you would phrase |\n| 12 | it but inferring, because that's essentially what they say |\n| 13 | on page 2 of their brief -- that the only possible |\n| 14 | conclusion on the record is that the debtor also owns and |\n| 15 | controls HK USA. |\n| 16 | I don't know what else to call that but for an |\n| 17 | inference that's not supported by any material facts |\n| 18 | presented in their statement connecting the debtor to the |\n| 19 | separate corporate entity, HK USA. |\n| 20 | I mean, again, going back to the paragraph that |\n| 21 | we -- that the Court referenced in paragraph 7.
Nothing in |\n| 22 | that paragraph connects HK USA to the debtor.
And so that's |\n| 23 | really the essence of the proceeding this morning is, from |\n| 24 | our perspective, to skip necessary steps in actually making |\n| 25 | a determination with respect to the debtor's ownership of HK |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 53 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
53 |\n| 1 | USA, which I don't see any, frankly, on the record that was |\n| 2 | submitted by the trustee. |\n| 3 | And I think, you know, to cut to the point of the |\n| 4 | alter ego determination -- and, I think, you know, it's fair |\n| 5 | to say the undisputed two-prong test that courts look to |\n| 6 | under Delaware law, this goes back to the domination and |\n| 7 | control discussion that we had a little while ago and |\n| 8 | whether there is operation as a single economic entity. |\n| 9 | So the record before the Court -- and, again, I |\n| 10 | would point you to in our statement of additional facts |\n| 11 | beginning at paragraph 10 is that Ms. Guo is the owner of HK |\n| 12 | USA.
She's the only member in -- referenced in the |\n| 13 | operating agreement. |\n| 14 | I think it's undisputed that she formed the |\n| 15 | company in 2019 which, incidentally, predates this |\n| 16 | bankruptcy by a number of years and predates the judgment in |\n| 17 | the New York action.
That Ms. Guo is the signatory on |\n| 18 | agreements relating to HK USA.
And, again, that Ms. Guo |\n| 19 | personally guaranteed the loan obligations of HK USA. |\n| 20 | And what is, you know, all the more important for |\n| 21 | purposes of this conversation, because the Court is not -- |\n| 22 | the trustee is not asking the Court to make a determination |\n| 23 | that HK USA has a alter ego.
It's asking the Court to make |\n| 24 | a determination that the debtor is HK USA's alter ego.
But |\n| 25 | there are no agreements involving the debtor.
There's no |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 54 agreements where the debtor is a signatory or a beneficiary. THE COURT: Where in the law does it say there have -- there has to be? MS. WERNICK: Well, so -- THE COURT: What cases are you citing from -- under Delaware law that says it has to -- there -- that has to be before any court could make the finding that the trustee's -- MS. WERNICK: Sure. And I would reference the Court to the cases cited in our brief with respect to the fact -- THE COURT: Well, no. I'm asking you. MS. WERNICK: It's a fact -- THE COURT: You tell me in those cases where -- MS. WERNICK: Yeah. Where -- THE COURT: -- where it holds that. MS. WERNICK: Certainly. That it's a fact-specific determination under Delaware law. And the facts before the Court, respectfully, do not yield to the conclusion that the trustee is asking the Court to find on summary judgment where it's their burden, right? So a number of times in counsel's presentation this morning is nothing that -- looking back to HK USA, nothing that we've presented to, you know, challenge their assumptions. But it's their burden, right? They have the Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 54 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 55 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
55 |\n| 1 | burden to show that -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Where does it say under Delaware law |\n| 3 | that they have the burden to show that the party who they're |\n| 4 | seeking to have this second counterclaim have summary |\n| 5 | judgment enter has to be a party to a contract?
Where does |\n| 6 | it say that under any of the cases that you've cited? |\n| 7 | MS. WERNICK:
It's a -- so, I mean, respectfully, |\n| 8 | it's a holistic determination.
But there's no case -- to |\n| 9 | put the shoe on the other foot, there's no case that the |\n| 10 | trustee has cited, and I'm sure that if there were, they |\n| 11 | would have pointed it out to the Court with flashing lights, |\n| 12 | that stands for the proposition that solely because there's |\n| 13 | a determination with respect to an asset that that must mean |\n| 14 | that a separate legal entity is the alter ego of the owner |\n| 15 | of that asset. |\n| 16 | And, in fact, I think it's -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
The only asset of that entity.
And |\n| 18 | you've admitted that -- |\n| 19 | MS. WERNICK:
Yeah. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
-- numerous occasions, as has your |\n| 21 | client in testimony. |\n| 22 | MS. WERNICK:
Certainly.
But that would create a |\n| 23 | slippery slope for conclusions that any holding company is |\n| 24 | automatically the alter ego -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, no, it wouldn't, because you |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 56 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
56 |\n| 1 | just stated it would depend upon the facts and circumstances |\n| 2 | of the case, correct? |\n| 3 | MS. WERNICK:
Correct. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 5 | MS. WERNICK:
Certainly.
It's a fact-specific -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 7 | MS. WERNICK:
-- inquiry that is often found by |\n| 8 | courts not to be ripe for determination on summary judgment |\n| 9 | because of that factual inquiry.
And so I would apologize |\n| 10 | for -- I'm finding the page.
But I would refer to the cases |\n| 11 | cited in paragraph 55 of our brief. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 13 | MS. WERNICK:
So that was touching upon the first |\n| 14 | prong of the alter ego analysis.
And I think the second |\n| 15 | prong is equally as conclusory from the trustee's |\n| 16 | presentation that somehow that HK USA was perpetrating a |\n| 17 | fraud or injustice. |\n| 18 | And I would go back to the notion that HK USA was |\n| 19 | formed by Ms. Guo in 2019, years before the bankruptcy |\n| 20 | proceeding and prior to the judgment in the New York action. |\n| 21 | So for them to conclusorily state that there can |\n| 22 | be no other conclusion that it was intended to serve as some |\n| 23 | fraud again jumps and seeks to skip necessary factual |\n| 24 | determinations on summary judgment. |\n| 25 | And so really, Your Honor, I mean, that's the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 57 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
57 |\n| 1 | essence of our argument and what we put forward in our |\n| 2 | papers is going back to the very simple assertion that we |\n| 3 | have a fundamental disagreement with where the trustee seeks |\n| 4 | to take part one that the Lady May is owned by the debtor |\n| 5 | and skip forward two or three steps to argue that HK USA |\n| 6 | therefore must somehow be the debtor's alter ego.
There is |\n| 7 | necessary findings that are required to reach that |\n| 8 | conclusion that we respectfully submit can't be made on the |\n| 9 | record before the Court. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Anything further? |\n| 11 | MS. WERNICK:
Nothing further.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Mr. Bassett, do you have any response? |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes, Your Honor.
Just a few points |\n| 14 | in response.
First, one of the arguments counsel made at |\n| 15 | the outset was that we're skipping a step, because we first |\n| 16 | have to establish that the debtor owns HK USA before we can |\n| 17 | thereafter ask for a finding that its his alter ego.
I |\n| 18 | don't think there's any support in the law for that |\n| 19 | proposition. |\n| 20 | The standard, as I think the Court acknowledged, |\n| 21 | is what it is as set out in the case law, which is you have |\n| 22 | to show that one person or one entity exercised dominion and |\n| 23 | control over another and that it did so for the purpose of |\n| 24 | perpetuating a fraud or an injustice. |\n| 25 | And I have some cases that I can point the Court |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 58 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
58 |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | to that stand for the proposition that in order to -- and I |\n| 2 | think it's an obvious one, but that in order to pierce the |\n| 3 | corporate veil or to find an alter ego relationship, it's |\n| 4 | not a predicate that the person who allegedly is using |\n| 5 | another entity as the alter ego is a named shareholder or |\n| 6 | owner or member of that company. |\n| 7 | Case I would cite the Court to is the United |\n\n States vs. Golden Acres case, 702 F. Supp. 1097 at page 113, Note 7, District of Delaware, 1988. It was affirmed subsequently by the Third Circuit. \"The alter ego doctrine may be applied even where defendants personally own no stock in the corporation so long as the necessary action and total control have been established.\"\n\n Another case, United States Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Levine, 671 F. Supp. 2d. 14, pages 34 to 35. This was the -- this one is District of D.C. 2009 applying Delaware law and finding that the lack of a status of shareholder, officer, or director is not preclusive in finding veil piercing.\n\n There's cases from other jurisdictions that have similar standards. Freeman vs. Complex Computing Company, 119 F.3d 1044, Second Circuit, 1997, page 1051. The court noted that New York courts only require equitable rather than actual ownership for piercing the corporate veil. Mallard Auto Group Ltd. vs. LeClair Management\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 59 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
59 |\n| 1 | Corporation, 153 F. Supp. 2d. 1211, District of Nevada 2001 |\n| 2 | at page 1215.
It has been noted elsewhere in decisions that |\n| 3 | the Delaware and Nevada analysis are the same for alter ego |\n| 4 | purposes.
And the case that I mentioned, the Court found |\n| 5 | that the lack of stock ownership is not determinative of the |\n| 6 | alter ego question. |\n| 7 | So, Your Honor, I don't think it's disputed that |\n| 8 | there's no predicate determination that needs to be made |\n| 9 | that the debtor first owns HK USA before it can be found to |\n| 10 | be his alter ego.
And I had made this point in my opening |\n| 11 | remarks, but just think about the consequences of that from |\n| 12 | a practical and an equitable point of view. |\n| 13 | Any debtor who's trying to shield assets from its |\n| 14 | creditors through the use of an alter ego would simply have |\n| 15 | his daughter, for example, or somebody else be the nominal |\n| 16 | owner.
And then, according to the defendants, the |\n| 17 | counter-defendants, veil piercing or reverse veil piercing |\n| 18 | and a finding of alter ego could never be established.
That |\n| 19 | can't be the law. |\n\n There was a lot of discussion about -- and, in fact, as it turns out, the entire counter argument on the facts as to why -- as I understand it, at least, basically the entire counter argument as to why HK USA is not the debtor's alter ego is because the daughter signed a personal guarantee of the Himalaya loan and because the Himalaya loan\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 60 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
60 |\n| 1 | itself was allegedly taken out by the daughter on behalf of |\n| 2 | HK USA.
A couple of responses to that. |\n| 3 | First of all, I think the Court was correct in |\n| 4 | noting that I don't see how there's any materiality to that |\n| 5 | fact, particularly as it relates to the personal guaranty. |\n| 6 | I mean, if, as we've alleged, HK USA -- and as we've proven, |\n| 7 | HK USA is the debtor's alter ego, the fact that the |\n| 8 | daughter, even if this is a real enforceable guarantee, the |\n| 9 | fact that the daughter took it out shows nothing more than |\n| 10 | that she guaranteed what was effectively her father's |\n| 11 | obligation.
It doesn't show in any way that she is the one |\n| 12 | who owns and controls HK USA. |\n| 13 | Also on the 33 -- or on the -- yeah.
On the |\n| 14 | Himalaya loan issue, I think the context and history and |\n| 15 | larger record of undisputed facts are absolutely critical. |\n| 16 | Because what we have is a situation where, for all the |\n| 17 | reasons I've discussed, and as the statement of the facts |\n| 18 | that the Court has gone through make clear, there's no |\n| 19 | dispute that HK USA has never done anything other than own |\n| 20 | the Lady May and the Lady May II. |\n| 21 | It's never had employees, officers, directors, |\n| 22 | bank account, no capitalization, no ability, frankly, to |\n| 23 | engage in any other business.
And that was all true.
It |\n| 24 | has been established that was all true at the time of the |\n| 25 | Lady May stipulation, at the time of this alleged loan. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 61 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 61 So all you have, according to what the defendants are alleging, is you have a situation where at best the debtor's daughter decided to use her father's alter ego to take out a loan. And oh, by the way, that makes a lot of sense given the context. Because the whole impetus for that loan and the whole impetus for the Lady May stipulation was the fact that the debtor was standing before this Court desperate to avoid the Court's lifting of the stay to allow PAX to proceed with its litigation before Justice Ostrager. So what I think the record pretty clearly shows is that this was all done for the debtor's benefit. Again, that's fully consistent with the fact that HK USA was and always has been, including at the time of the loan, the debtor's alter ego. It can't be that -- the best they're doing is pointing to this one isolated event in HK USA's entire history. But it can't be that that -- even if Mei Guo is a signatory to some of these documents, it can't be that that changes the true character of HK USA; it means it's not the alter ego of the debtor. I mean, what they're asking the Court to conclude, I think, is truly remarkable, because basically what they would be saying is that the daughter could execute this loan on behalf of HK USA, which was at the time and has always\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 62 of
159 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
62 | |\n| 1 | been the debtors alter ego, for the purpose of misleading | |\n| 2 | the Court on the Lady May stipulation. | |\n| 3 | And then because she did that, because of that, | |\n| 4 | that in and of itself means that the Court could not | |\n| 5 | subsequently find that HK USA is the debtor's alter ego.
I | |\n| 6 | mean, I think that's an absurd proposition, because it | |\n| 7 | allows them through misconduct to prevent a remedy for that | |\n| 8 | misconduct. | |\n| 9 | A couple of other points that were raised.
The | |\n| 10 | fact that the -- and this goes to the fraud or injustice | |\n| 11 | point as well. | |\n| 12 | But I think counsel said that while the daughter | |\n| 13 | nominally formed HK USA and it did so -- and she did so, you | |\n| 14 | know, prior to some of the events in question, but that's a | |\n| 15 | misconstruction of Delaware law to the extent she's arguing | |\n| 16 | that the entity in question has to have been created from | |\n| 17 | its inception for the purpose of perpetuating a fraud or | |\n| 18 | injustice or to be an alter ego or another -- that's just | |\n| 19 | not the law. | |\n| 20 | What the law is, is that it has to be used to be | |\n| 21 | the alter ego of another.
But even if it were the law, | |\n| 22 | which it's not, again I think the record is absolutely clear | |\n| 23 | what happened here.
You had the debtor's daughter say that | |\n| 24 | her brother bought her a yacht in 2015 when she is in China, | |\n| 25 | but yet she didn't come to the United States until 2017. | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 63 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
63 |\n| 1 | Meanwhile, the debtor was here the entire time.
And then |\n| 2 | she says HK USA was formed as a shell company to hold the |\n| 3 | yacht. |\n| 4 | I mean, none of that changes the alter ego |\n| 5 | analysis.
So it's just simply material, to go to the |\n| 6 | question the Court asked. |\n| 7 | Counsel did not revisit any of the defenses.
I |\n| 8 | think that's because there is an acknowledgment that the |\n| 9 | Court has already decided those in the motion to dismiss. |\n| 10 | So I won't revisit those again in my concluding remarks. |\n| 11 | All I would say, Your Honor, is that we do think |\n| 12 | this -- even though alter ego is admittedly usually a |\n| 13 | fact-intensive analysis, this is a case, due to the facts as |\n| 14 | agreed upon by their -- by the parties in their submissions, |\n| 15 | where it is ripe for summary judgment. |\n| 16 | Because there is simply no genuine dispute of |\n| 17 | material fact that the debtor dominated and controlled HK |\n| 18 | USA by exercising domination and control over its only asset |\n| 19 | which provided the only basis for any business that it |\n| 20 | conducted and that he did so for the purpose of shielding |\n| 21 | assets from his creditors which is made clear by the fact |\n| 22 | that the debtor and his daughter have scratched and clawed |\n| 23 | for years to put up the facade of separateness to hide the |\n| 24 | Lady May from creditors. |\n| 25 | So we think and we respectfully request that the |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 64 Court grant the motion for the trustee. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. (Counsel confer) THE COURT: I'm going to give them one more minute, and then I'll give you an opportunity to respond. Okay, counsel? (Counsel confer) MR. BASSETT: Sorry about that, Your Honor. I appreciate the indulgence. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Attorney Wernick, would you like to respond? MS. WERNICK: Sure. Just briefly. Thank you. One point just for clarification with respect to the defenses relating to the Wagoner rule, in pari delicto, and the Lady May stipulation. Just for clarity of the record, HK USA is not waiving and maintains its position on those doctrines and on the stipulation but in recognition of the Court's motion to dismiss ruling will not belabor those points for purposes of this argument this morning. And the lasting thing that I would want to leave with the Court, just with all of the information that was put forward in the briefing, I would just enforce that there is nothing connecting the debtor to the HK USA entity separate and apart from the Lady May. And we would continue Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 64 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 65 to submit that's insufficient for an alter ego determination at this stage. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. I have taken the arguments of the parties. I think there may have been one or two cases cited today that were not in the briefs. Is that correct, Mr. Bassett, those cases that you cited? MR. BASSETT: A couple of the cases that I cited on rebuttal, yes, that's correct. They were not. But they -- THE COURT: All right. So I'd have to take a look at those. MR. BASSETT: Thank you. THE COURT: So I will review the matter after our hearings today, and I will rule accordingly. Okay? Thank you. The next matter on the calendar today is the motion -- there are several matters, but the motion for order to show cause why the debtor, Mei Guo, and HK should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the 2004 subpoenas and the motion for a limited stay of order filed by Mr. Kwok, which I believe those matters -- I see those matters as related matters. So I would proceed first with the moving party's motion regarding contempt and the Fifth Amendment issue Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 65 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 66 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
66 |\n| 1 | regarding the Court's ruling that there be some further |\n| 2 | hearing on the Fifth Amendment issue.
Okay? |\n| 3 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes.
Your Honor, just for the |\n| 4 | record, the motion -- the contempt motion only relates as to |\n| 5 | the debtor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Right now it does. |\n| 7 | MR. MORIARTY:
Okay. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
That's correct. |\n| 9 | MR. MORIARTY:
So -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
But I'm just -- that was the title of |\n| 11 | the motion.
That's all. |\n| 12 | MR. MORIARTY:
I understand.
Attorney Wernick -- |\n| 13 | I think we're done with HK and Mei -- and Ms. Guo for today. |\n| 14 | So I think she will be excused, and other counsel will be |\n| 15 | joining us. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
You do whatever you think is |\n| 17 | appropriate, counsel. |\n| 18 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, this is Trustee Despins |\n| 20 | speaking.
I would like to be heard as a preliminary matter |\n| 21 | with respect to the Brown Rudnick involvement in these |\n| 22 | matters before we go to address the merits, if I may. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I will allow you to be heard, and then |\n| 24 | I'll have to allow the counsel to be able to respond to |\n| 25 | whatever your statements are for the record, Trustee |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 67 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
67 |\n| 1 | Despins. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
So just tell me when I can proceed. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Go right -- oh, actually, you're |\n| 4 | right.
Hold on a second.
We need to take appearances for |\n| 5 | Mr. Kwok, please. |\n| 6 | MR. BEST:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Stephen Best |\n| 7 | with the law firm of Brown Rudnick in the Washington D.C. |\n| 8 | office, B-E-S-T. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
Good morning again, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | William Baldiga. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler, for |\n| 15 | Mr. Kwok. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | MR. MORIARTY:
James Moriarty, Zeisler & Zeisler, |\n| 19 | also for the debtor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 21 | Hold on a second, Trustee Despins. |\n| 22 | Attorney Friedman, did you want to note your |\n| 23 | appearance? |\n| 24 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
Peter Friedman, |\n| 25 | from O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of PAX.
I will ask to |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 68 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
68 |\n| 1 | make brief remarks in the context of the motions. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 3 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | MS. CLAIBORN:
And good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 7 | All right.
I understand there have been some |\n| 8 | pleadings filed recently with regard to these issues, and |\n| 9 | apparently Trustee Despins would like to make an argument |\n| 10 | with regard to some of the issues that, while I may be aware |\n| 11 | of them, I don't know that I've actually studied yet. |\n| 12 | So go ahead, Trustee Despins. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
And just to facilitate the Court's |\n| 14 | task, you know, we're not seeking any relief today on this. |\n| 15 | But we certainly didn't want to be perceived as waiving any |\n| 16 | rights. |\n| 17 | And the point was made in the filing we made |\n| 18 | regarding the motion for a stay, and it is as follows that, |\n| 19 | you know, Brown Rudnick represented the debtor as debtor in |\n| 20 | possession in the case and now is representing him |\n| 21 | individually in a criminal -- as criminal counsel. |\n| 22 | And as Your Honor may know, we are -- as part of |\n| 23 | our investigation as to what happened here, we're deposing |\n| 24 | all the law firms that have prior -- previously provided |\n| 25 | services to the debtor.
That will include Brown Rudnick, |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 69 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
69 |\n| 1 | and that will include Mr. Baldiga. |\n| 2 | And the concern comes from the fact that, |\n| 3 | guaranteed, one of the questions that will be asked at their |\n| 4 | deposition is when did you know that the Government was |\n| 5 | investigating Mr. Kwok, when did you know that the |\n| 6 | Government was taking the position that all of this was |\n| 7 | Kwok's, meaning all of these assets were Kwok's assets. |\n| 8 | If that puts them in a position where he cannot |\n| 9 | answer those questions, because he's now appearing as |\n| 10 | criminal counsel, we have a problem with that. |\n| 11 | And if there's no issue, then we'll continue to |\n| 12 | monitor the situation.
But that issue is pretty |\n| 13 | fundamental.
When you represent a debtor in possession, you |\n| 14 | don't represent him individually.
You represent him as a |\n| 15 | fiduciary to the creditors. |\n| 16 | And now they don't.
And they could be a |\n| 17 | connection between these two worlds that it was not foreseen |\n| 18 | at the beginning when they took on this representation of |\n| 19 | Mr. Kwok as a criminal defendant.
But I want to be clear on |\n| 20 | the record that there may very well be connections.
And, |\n| 21 | therefore, we have to act very prudently in that regard. |\n| 22 | That's the only statement I wanted to make, Your |\n| 23 | Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Mr. Baldiga, just before you -- |\n| 25 | was -- the U.S. Trustee's office was here a moment ago, and |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 70 they're not -- oh. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes. THE COURT: Did you hear what Mr. Despins just stated for the record? MS. CLAIBORN: I did, Your Honor. THE COURT: And has the U.S. Trustee's Office known about -- I'm not saying you should have known. I'm saying is this the first time that you are hearing that the trustee has a concern with regard to Brown Rudnick's prior representation of the debtor as a debtor in possession and now Brown Rudnick's representation of the debtor in a criminal matter? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I read the pleading filed yesterday by the trustee which raised the issue on some level. And then the comments made today are the first time I've heard the explanation of some of the issues. So the U.S. Trustee is, at this time, not prepared to make any comments further about the issue. THE COURT: I understand you're not prepared at this time to make any comments, but when will you be prepared? MS. CLAIBORN: I cannot say, Your Honor. But I will bring the facts of today back to the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Well, I think you need to be prepared to respond as the United States Trustee, as the party that Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 70 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 71 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
71 |\n| 1 | oversees the administration of cases and deals with many |\n| 2 | issues, including conflict issues.
If this issue is -- if |\n| 3 | this is an issue, it needs to be raised and addressed.
And |\n| 4 | the United States Trustee's Office will need to have some |\n| 5 | position on this issue. |\n| 6 | This is not -- I mean, I just heard what |\n| 7 | Mr. Despins said.
I'm going to hear from Mr. Baldiga, |\n| 8 | obviously.
But, you know, we've been talking about |\n| 9 | conflicts in this case since the day it was filed.
And the |\n| 10 | parties need to appropriately address the issues before the |\n| 11 | Court in this case. |\n| 12 | And so the United States Trustee's Office, one of |\n| 13 | the roles is to -- as the overseer of the administration of |\n| 14 | cases has to assert a position on this issue. |\n| 15 | And so, Trustee Despins, you're saying you're not |\n| 16 | putting it before the Court today.
But you are, because you |\n| 17 | just did.
I mean, it may not be in writing, and there may |\n| 18 | not be a schedule with regard to briefing and issues and |\n| 19 | determinations that may or may not be made. |\n| 20 | But now the Court is in a position where we're |\n| 21 | having a hearing on whether or not -- and, Mr. Baldiga, |\n| 22 | Mr. Best can disagree with what I'm going to say. |\n| 23 | But my belief is that this hearing is -- has the |\n| 24 | debtor complied with the requirements of his obligations |\n| 25 | to -- his discovery obligations and, therefore, he's |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 72 of\n\n| | 159
Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 72 |\n| 1 | essentially -- because he's asserted the Fifth Amendment |\n| 2 | privilege, you know, can't be held in contempt and is not -- |\n| 3 | has no ability to purge himself from the contempt.
That's |\n| 4 | what I think you're going to argue.
Isn't that what you're |\n| 5 | going to argue, Mr. Best? |\n| 6 | MR. BEST:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So then we're in a difficult |\n| 8 | position, because right now the trustee is saying that he's |\n| 9 | concerned -- he hasn't said it in writing yet other than |\n| 10 | I -- in a statement, I understand, in a document that was |\n| 11 | filed yesterday which I didn't have an opportunity to read |\n| 12 | yet -- that if you represent -- my understanding of the |\n| 13 | argument is, is if you represent -- if Brown Rudnick |\n| 14 | represents Mr. Kwok in a criminal case and has already |\n| 15 | represented him as a debtor in possession, and the trustee's |\n| 16 | seeking information with regard to the assets of Mr. Kwok's |\n| 17 | estate and has to get that information or attempts to seek |\n| 18 | that information from Brown Rudnick, he believes he will be |\n| 19 | met with a statement that you can't respond, because you |\n| 20 | represent him in a -- now criminally. |\n| 21 | That could cause a problem.
I don't know what |\n| 22 | else to say about that.
What do you think, Mr. Best and |\n| 23 | Mr. Baldiga? |\n| 24 | MR. BEST:
Yeah.
Well, I'm going to -- excuse me. |\n| 25 | So it may very well be a germane issue in the future.
For |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 73 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
73 |\n| 1 | the purposes of this hearing and your determination of |\n| 2 | whether there has been compliance on the subpoena, I don't |\n| 3 | think the issue is germane.
And it may affect -- |\n| 4 | Mr. Despins' concern may affect future proceedings.
It |\n| 5 | doesn't affect this proceeding. |\n| 6 | I think the law -- by the way, thank you.
This is |\n| 7 | my first appearance before a bankruptcy court.
So I'm |\n| 8 | normally in other -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
You're welcome. |\n| 10 | MR. BEST:
-- federal courts. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Welcome to the bankruptcy court. |\n| 12 | MR. BEST:
Thank you very much.
I think that |\n| 13 | you're going to hear in a measured explanation that we have |\n| 14 | black letter law before us on the assertion of the Fifth |\n| 15 | Amendment privilege. |\n| 16 | And then Your Honor can then revisit the conflict |\n| 17 | issue if you think that after the arguments today that |\n| 18 | somehow they're implicated.
But I don't think it's germane |\n| 19 | for today at least. |\n| 20 | I'm going to let Mr. Baldiga speak. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
What I think I'm going to do is |\n| 22 | I'm going to take a five-minute recess.
I'll come back out |\n| 23 | here at 11 -- maybe more than five minutes, because I guess |\n| 24 | it's only 11:21.
But I'll come back out at 11:30.
And it's |\n| 25 | likely that we'll proceed with arguments.
But I'd like to |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 74 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
74 |\n| 1 | take a look at something for a moment. |\n| 2 | So Court is in recess until 11:30. |\n| 3 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
All rise.
Court is in |\n| 4 | recess until 11:30. |\n| 5 | (Court recessed from 11:21 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.) |\n| 6 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
All rise.
The United |\n| 7 | States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut is |\n| 8 | now in session after recess.
The Honorable Julie Manning |\n| 9 | presiding. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Please be seated.
Will someone |\n| 11 | mind going out and letting the trustee's counsel know that |\n| 12 | we're ready?
Oh, I think they're coming. |\n| 13 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
I believe Attorney Skalka |\n| 14 | just did that. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | (Pause) |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
All right.
Before the Court took a |\n| 18 | recess, you know, the issue was raised about conflicts |\n| 19 | and -- with regard to Brown Rudnick serving as both the |\n| 20 | debtor in possession counsel to Mr. Kwok and the duties and |\n| 21 | obligations that Brown Rudnick has in that role that |\n| 22 | continue regardless of the fact that the debtor is no longer |\n| 23 | in possession and Brown Rudnick's now representation of |\n| 24 | Mr. Kwok in connection with the allegations -- the criminal |\n| 25 | allegations made against Mr. Kwok. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 75 Mr. Best stated that he doesn't think there's a conflict at the moment. I'm not -- I don't know if that's fair, but I think that's what you said. And that you'd like to -- MR. BEST: In essence. THE COURT: -- proceed with your arguments. I think we're going to proceed with the arguments today, and then we'll see where things go. But the burden, I think, for this morning, Mr. Best and Mr. Baldiga, are on the debtor in first instance. And then I'll hear from counsel for the trustee. And then as part of your argument, are you also going to argue, Mr. Best, about this limited stay, or are you going to take that separately? How are you -- MR. BEST: I can do it all. I think it's all wrapped up. THE COURT: I think it is too. So that'd be fine. Thank you. MR. BEST: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, just briefly on this. This is Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: I want to be clear that there is -- that Brown Rudnick is agreeing on the record that there is no waiver of any argument with respect to the issues I Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 75 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 76 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
76 |\n| 1 | raised so that that's very clear.
Otherwise, we should not |\n| 2 | go forward without -- with that waiver. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Well, I'm not finding that there's a |\n| 4 | waiver, so I don't know that I need to have Brown Rudnick |\n| 5 | find -- to make any statement, Mr. Despins.
The |\n| 6 | statement -- |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
-- that you made this morning we've |\n| 9 | all just talked about.
It's an issue.
I think it's pretty |\n| 10 | clear that I'm going to have the parties have to address |\n| 11 | that, including the Office of the United States Trustee. |\n| 12 | Okay? |\n| 13 | So I understand your point, but -- |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
-- there will be no waiver of the |\n| 16 | argument made, because it was made last night in a pleading |\n| 17 | for which I have not had an opportunity to really have any |\n| 18 | kind of thoughtfulness about it yet. |\n| 19 | And I will make -- I'm going to -- at the end of |\n| 20 | today, we're going to have some kind of scheduling order |\n| 21 | issue with regard to this issue so that it can be addressed |\n| 22 | in short order. |\n| 23 | Because even though we're going to have these |\n| 24 | arguments today, which I agree we should, the issue is going |\n| 25 | to have to be resolved one way or another, because the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 77 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
77 |\n| 1 | Court's not going to proceed down a path of many, many |\n| 2 | issues in this case if there is an issue that needs to be |\n| 3 | resolved one way or another with regard to conflicts.
Okay? |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
All right.
Go ahead, Mr. Best. |\n| 6 | MR. BEST:
Thank you, Your Honor.
May it please |\n| 7 | the Court.
I am here to assert that the debtor, also |\n| 8 | Mr. Guo, also known as Mr. Kwok, has fully complied with his |\n| 9 | obligations under the subpoena that's before the Court |\n| 10 | today.
In wrapping the second argument as to a stay in, I |\n| 11 | give Your Honor and the parties multiple options to explore |\n| 12 | past that, but it's all wrapped up into the following. |\n| 13 | The documents that have been requested under the |\n| 14 | subpoena I am sure will be part of the Government's |\n| 15 | production, the U.S. Department of Justice's production in |\n| 16 | the criminal case at issue. |\n| 17 | And the trustee or any other party who believes |\n| 18 | they have standing can subpoena those documents which are |\n| 19 | germane to the specific issue, documents that evidence |\n| 20 | custody and control by Mr. Guo or Mr. Kwok in other entities |\n| 21 | or persons. |\n| 22 | And so whether Your Honor takes it as a stay where |\n| 23 | then the documents then will be produced and we can agree on |\n| 24 | protective orders or they're publically produced by the |\n| 25 | Department of Justice, they are going to be produced in |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 78 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
78 |\n| 1 | terms of their discovery demands. |\n| 2 | And now there's two cases.
There's the Southern |\n| 3 | District case where Mr. Guo is a defendant.
And now there's |\n| 4 | also as of, I think, yesterday or the day before an Eastern |\n| 5 | District of New York case where Mr. Guo is a victim.
And so |\n| 6 | there will be ample evidence provided by the Department of |\n| 7 | Justice in that case as well. |\n| 8 | Today, however, the issue that's implicated is an |\n| 9 | invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against |\n| 10 | self-incrimination.
And, specifically, the question before |\n| 11 | the Court is, well, how can a mere act of production of |\n| 12 | documents implicate the Fifth Amendment privilege. |\n| 13 | And so the doctrine -- and if I may?
I'm sure |\n| 14 | this is not always on your plate, so I'll walk you |\n| 15 | through -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 17 | MR. BEST:
-- a bit of history of this privilege. |\n| 18 | It's called the act of production document doctrine.
And |\n| 19 | the first case that addressed this that became controlling |\n| 20 | law for this country was in, I believe, 1974 or 1976.
And |\n| 21 | it's the Harris case.
And I'll give you the cite, Your |\n| 22 | Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Isn't the Harris case 1911? |\n| 24 | MR. BEST:
No.
425 -- excuse me. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, what's -- |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 79 MR. BEST: 1976. There may -- excuse me. It's the Fisher case. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BEST: I apologize. I misstated. Fisher v. U.S., 425 U.S. at 408. 1976 decision. But the issue is whether or not compulsion of production of documents implicates the Fifth Amendment privilege that, in pertinent part, no person shall be compelled in any criminal case or any case which has criminal implications to be a witness against himself. And the Fisher case really lines out what is at issue with the production of documents. And so it starts with, you know, breaking down the Fifth Amendment privilege which is the information sought was compelled here. Nobody's arguing that the information sought, i.e. documents, was compelled under a subpoena. Second, that it arguably could be incriminating. And so to that end, may I approach your -- THE COURT: Certainly. Thank you. MR. BEST: I passed up for Your Honor the unsealed indictment in the Kwok case. THE COURT: We've seen this. We -- MR. BEST: Yeah. THE COURT: -- saw this a few weeks ago. Right? MR. BEST: Yeah. That's right. And so I point Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 79 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 80 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
80 |\n| 1 | out for Your Honor page 3 of this indictment speaking on |\n| 2 | paragraph 6 to the relevant persons and entities.
Just to |\n| 3 | point to specifically the relevant parts of the |\n| 4 | indictment -- and it's relevant -- the whole indictment's |\n| 5 | relevant -- but in part, those entities which have been |\n| 6 | alleged to be in the custody or control of Mr. Guo, also |\n| 7 | known as Mr. Kwok. |\n| 8 | So the second prong of the Fifth Amendment |\n| 9 | privilege, which is could this be incriminating, I think is |\n| 10 | by itself, on its face, clearly shown here that his custody |\n| 11 | and control of various entities has been -- is part of an |\n| 12 | active criminal case now filed before the Southern District. |\n| 13 | Importantly, I don't have to even stop there, even |\n| 14 | though I think that's enough under the prong.
As I |\n| 15 | understood from my conversations today, the Department of |\n| 16 | Justice is also conducting a criminal investigation of |\n| 17 | whether there's been bankruptcy fraud. |\n| 18 | And I point out that that is a second -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
And what -- how do you know that, sir? |\n| 20 | MR. BEST:
I'm going to have my colleague -- I |\n| 21 | think there's a subpoena. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
Yes.
Yeah.
I'm sure Mr. Best will |\n| 23 | address this, Your Honor, but the trustee has been served |\n| 24 | with a subpoena.
And -- |\n| 25 | MR. BEST:
Can I approach? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 81 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
81 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Yes, please. |\n| 2 | MR. BEST:
So I'm presenting to Your Honor a copy |\n| 3 | of the subpoena that I think that was served on Paul |\n| 4 | Hastings regarding an active criminal investigation of |\n| 5 | bankruptcy fraud which I think is gleaned from -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
The statutes. |\n| 7 | MR. BEST:
Yeah. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 9 | MR. BEST:
So, importantly, if that hasn't built |\n| 10 | the cake, and I haven't put icing on it, let me put the |\n| 11 | cherry on top.
In the Second Circuit, which is the only |\n| 12 | circuit in the country that has actually acknowledged this |\n| 13 | extension -- incredible extension of the law, the Second |\n| 14 | Circuit recognizes that you can commit a criminal violation |\n| 15 | not only by lying to the court but by lying to attorneys who |\n| 16 | are cooperating with the Government, if you will. |\n| 17 | And so I cite that.
It's U.S. vs. Kumar from the |\n| 18 | Second Circuit.
And it's the Computer Associates case, |\n| 19 | which is widely known in the white collar community, where |\n| 20 | Sanjay Kumar and other individuals pled guilty to lying in |\n| 21 | their corporate criminal -- excuse me, corporate internal |\n| 22 | investigation that was being conducted because the |\n| 23 | Government has taken the position -- and in fact they ended |\n| 24 | up pleading guilty, it's settled law in this jurisdiction -- |\n| 25 | they knew or should have known that the private counsel were |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 82 cooperating with the Government. And the Sanjay Kumar case, for Your Honor, is 617 F.3d 612. That's a Court of Appeals decision not reversing the convictions. Really, they were pleas to these types of counts. So the second prong, which was their criminal -- it's -- real criminal process could be implicated by production of these documents, I think, is not in question. The final one is whether or not -- and this is where I'm going to spend most of my time discussing, which is whether the production is testimonial in nature. There are two critical reasons why, in fact, this prong has been met. First, while it is our obligation to show that the assertion of the privilege is appropriate here, once you get to the testimonial piece of it, the burden tends to shift to the United States or, in this case, the counterparty to show that the Government doesn't already have the information in question. And it's not totally germane to Your Honor, but it is in the criminal cases, because if the Government doesn't already have the information -- it's called the foregone conclusion piece of this prong, which is the Government has to show that they already had access to the information or had it. If that hat can't be shown either by the Government or the counterparty here, then the Fifth Amendment assertion Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 82 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 83 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
83 |\n| 1 | is valid. |\n| 2 | And where it impacts Your Honor is if that is |\n| 3 | turned over by compulsion and the Government isn't shown to |\n| 4 | have a foregone -- it's not a foregone conclusion that they |\n| 5 | already had this information, it will have significant and |\n| 6 | negative implications for the Government in their criminal |\n| 7 | proceedings. |\n| 8 | So one thing that Your Honor should consider is |\n| 9 | getting the U.S. Department of Justice's view on this |\n| 10 | specific issue and asking that they as a related party to |\n| 11 | this argument make a presentation on the foregone conclusion |\n| 12 | piece. |\n| 13 | If that is asking too much, then I specifically -- |\n| 14 | excuse me, I respectfully submit that it's not a foregone |\n| 15 | conclusion that they have this information.
I don't know, |\n| 16 | because we haven't gotten discovery yet. |\n| 17 | So that's the first core argument.
The second |\n| 18 | core argument is by producing any documents -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
May I stop you for a second just -- |\n| 20 | MR. BEST:
Of course. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
So if it is a foregone conclusion, if |\n| 22 | the Government already has this information, what are you |\n| 23 | saying then?
That the trustee has to get it from the |\n| 24 | Government? |\n| 25 | MR. BEST:
It would be the cleanest way, right? |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 84 of
159 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
84 |\n| And so the ask is going to be on -- it would be the same ask |\n| to the Government as to us.
We'd have to sign -- and so |\n| that's a perfectly relevant question. |\n| I couldn't turn over anything I get in discovery |\n| without the Government's consent anyway, because it's all |\n| part of the Southern District's confidentiality provisions |\n| of the discovery in the case. |\n| So the Government and the Southern District Court |\n| will be necessarily involved in any future production of |\n| that discovery anyway.
So they're going to be involved one |\n| way or the other.
They might as well make the request of |\n| the Government. |\n| The trustee actually in this case is a member of |\n| the Department of Justice.
Another arm of her department is |\n| the one with the documents in question.
So it's a natural |\n| course that way, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
One other question -- |\n| MR. BEST:
Yeah. |\n| THE COURT:
-- before you go on with regard to |\n| this issue that you raised, the foregone conclusion, the |\n| third prong. |\n| MR. BEST:
Yeah. |\n| THE COURT:
The subpoena and the request for |\n| information was -- the subpoena was served, and the request |\n| and the order granting the 2004 examination were -- those |\n| |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 85 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
85 |\n| 1 | issues -- the order was issued and the subpoena was served |\n| 2 | well before the indictment, right? |\n| 3 | And while -- and some of -- you could argue some, |\n| 4 | if not all, of the information sought by the trustee |\n| 5 | relates -- definitely some of the -- and I'm not going to |\n| 6 | say, because I don't know what the percentage is. |\n| 7 | But I would say most likely more than half if -- |\n| 8 | of the information, maybe even more, that the trustee seeks |\n| 9 | was information that the debtor was obligated to maintain |\n| 10 | and provide and provide to the Court and others while he was |\n| 11 | a debtor in possession, well before the indictment. |\n| 12 | So how does that change, if at all, from your |\n| 13 | perspective this whole issue of the foregone conclusion? |\n| 14 | Because the foregone conclusion, at least my reading of the |\n| 15 | indictment -- and that doesn't mean anything, okay -- but is |\n| 16 | that it's related to certain business entities and |\n| 17 | transactions that the debtor is alleged to have controlled |\n| 18 | and raised money through and doesn't necessarily relate to |\n| 19 | all of the issues that the debtor would be responsible for |\n| 20 | providing while a debtor in possession in a bankruptcy |\n| 21 | proceeding. |\n| 22 | So how do you respond to that with regard to this |\n| 23 | foregone conclusion?
Because if all the Government has -- |\n| 24 | and let's just be -- you know, give a hypothetical and -- if |\n| 25 | all the Government has is issues related to this indictment |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 86 and, as you said, the relevant persons and entities in paragraphs 6 and 7 -- you know, 6 -- MR. BEST: Yeah. 6 through, I think, 10 or 11. THE COURT: Right. MR. BEST: Right. THE COURT: That doesn't necessarily cover all the issues in this case, believe it or not. You may not have looked at that, but it doesn't. I mean, it doesn't relate to, in particular -- you were here, I think, and had to hear a lot of the argument with regard to the Lady May and the loan. MR. BEST: Right. THE COURT: It doesn't on its face -- the indictment on its face does not necessarily address those issues or seek information with regard -- doesn't put into issue those issues. Nor does it put into issue issues or information that are relevant to the trustee's investigation with regard to -- MR. BEST: Right. THE COURT: -- an apartment in New York. And so while I understand what you're saying, the concern I have at this point -- but I'm going to let you -- I'm going to -- I want to hear from you about what your position is, is how does that -- how does the argument that he doesn't have to produce anything with regard to matters Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 86 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 87 that aren't specific to the indictment, how does that case law protect him on those issues? MR. BEST: Yeah. So the -- thank you, Your Honor. Another perfectly relevant point. One, he doesn't have to be indicted and doesn't have to be named, right? THE COURT: Understood. MR. BEST: And so at this point, everything that's under his custody and control, I would argue, is under federal criminal investigation. THE COURT: Has he sworn to that, though? I mean, wouldn't you have to -- if you're going to make a record with this Court that says, look, we can't turn over anything because it's all subject to the indictment and/or your argument under Fisher, right -- MR. BEST: Right. THE COURT: -- which I, you know, have to look at, and under Kumar, right, these two cases that you've told me about -- MR. BEST: Okay. THE COURT: -- doesn't he still have to create the record here in this court that he swears that he has turned over -- he has nothing in his possession or control and whatever he had the Government has? Doesn't he still have to do that? Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 87 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 88 MR. BEST: That request of him is testimonial in nature. He doesn't have -- under his Fifth Amendment privilege, respectfully, he doesn't have to say anything. And, in fact, swearing one way or the other -- so I'll give you the perfect example. If he swears to Your Honor on that point, and the Government finds evidence that contradicts that affirmation, then he can be criminal indicted -- THE COURT: Well, it doesn't even have to be the Government. It could be someone in this court, right? It doesn't have to be the Government. It could be that he swears he doesn't have anything, right? MR. BEST: Yeah. THE COURT: And then the trustee finds it. The trustee could bring it forth, right? And then he'd still have -- he'd have -- MR. BEST: He'd -- THE COURT: -- exposure. But isn't that part of the process? MR. BEST: It isn't. Part of the process is that he's frozen right now, and he can't make any statements one way or the other without implicating himself. And that's black letter law as to the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege. THE COURT: Well, but, you know, when you said at Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 88 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 89 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 89 the beginning of your argument -- and I'm not suggesting I'm ruling on anything. I'm trying to understand the positions of the parties, right? You did mention the Harris case which is a case that was decided in 1911. MR. BEST: Yeah. THE COURT: And when you read the language of it, it's interesting. But it talks about the constitutional rights against self-incrimination in -- of a bankrupt and that they -- when a trustee or a receiver was trying to get the books and records, right? MR. BEST: That law -- I think it -- I may have quoted it, because -- no. I got another case. I've been trying to learn bankruptcy law pretty quickly this morning, but -- THE COURT: Well, I don't think this has a lot to do with bankruptcy law, actually. MR. BEST: But any cases that deal with the issue of invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege as regards production of documents are controlled by Fisher and its progeny, including U.S. vs. Doe, which was 1984. I'll give you the cite. And then I have really the more recent U.S. Supreme Court case is U.S. vs. Hubbell, which was a grand jury proceeding. And then even more recently in the Second Circuit, it's U.S. vs. Greenfield. The Hubbell case is -- excuse me,\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 90 120 S. Ct. 2037. And I'll pass it up to Your Honor. THE COURT: I actually have it right here -- MR. BEST: You do? THE COURT: -- so you don't need to pass that up. MR. BEST: Okay. And then I have Greenfield, if you'd like me to pass that up. It's -- THE COURT: I don't think I have seen Greenfield before. I don't think that is -- is that cited in your papers? MR. BEST: It isn't. It was me doing -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. BEST: -- work on the airplane coming up. THE COURT: That's fair. Then I would like you to -- and you gave counsel -- MR. BEST: I -- THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BEST: Yeah. The other piece to this -- so there is no unclean hand -- and may I -- the question you asked had multiple ways to answer it. THE COURT: It did. MR. BEST: Right? And so there is no unclean hands argument that because he didn't produce it and he obstructed the process before, he has waived his right to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. Importantly, you know, the foregone conclusion Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 90 of\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 91 of
159 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
91 |\n| piece, if indeed he had produced under compulsion and we had |\n| had these arguments months ago, and you nonetheless held him |\n| in contempt and -- okay, then he has a choice. |\n| And I actually don't know if the law goes this far |\n| as to -- I don't know if it's ever been decided that if a |\n| court forces compulsion and he produces under that |\n| compulsion whether he's waived his privilege.
I doubt it. |\n| I can't imagine that that would be the case. |\n| But if he did -- if we had this exercise months |\n| ago before the indictment in the case, there would be a |\n| significant challenge to the U.S. Government to put on a |\n| Kastigar hearing to show that they already had or knew about |\n| this information prior to that -- prior to our hearing that |\n| we're having today if it had taken place months before. |\n| The foregone conclusion piece is an obligation on |\n| the Government to show that they already had the information |\n| and knew about it.
And so it would have arguably tainted |\n| the Government's case that they wanted to bring against Kwok |\n| if we had had this exercise months before the indictment. |\n| So that would be my second answer to the query as |\n| to whether or not we had addressed this months before.
I |\n| wasn't involved at that point, but -- |\n| THE COURT:
No.
I don't think it was whether it |\n| was addressed.
I think my question was what about the |\n| information that doesn't directly relate to the indictment. |\n| |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 92 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
92 |\n| 1 | And, you know, with regard to the boat, we -- the yacht -- |\n| 2 | MR. BEST:
Yeah. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
-- there's nothing in the indictment |\n| 4 | about the yacht that I see.
Now, you could say it doesn't |\n| 5 | matter, Judge, because that -- the Government can doesn't |\n| 6 | have to say anything about the yacht. |\n| 7 | MR. BEST:
Yeah. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
But I'm trying to understand why he |\n| 9 | doesn't need to make a record before this Court to say what |\n| 10 | you're saying, which is, look, whatever I had the Government |\n| 11 | has anyway. |\n| 12 | MR. BEST:
So, again, first of all, as Mr. Baldiga |\n| 13 | has pointed out, paragraph 23 of the indictment does talk |\n| 14 | about the boat. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, then it talks about the |\n| 16 | boat.
Then I'm wrong. |\n| 17 | MR. BEST:
But to your -- to the relevant question |\n| 18 | as to anything else that's not covered in the indictment, |\n| 19 | the perfect answer to this is all of these inquiries and the |\n| 20 | invocation of this, 95 percent of the time it happens |\n| 21 | pre-indictment, right?
And so and the relevance of that is |\n| 22 | you don't know what is at issue for the Government or not |\n| 23 | when you're getting a compulsory process. |\n| 24 | If there is a -- if they -- there is a |\n| 25 | determination that he wants to invoke -- he or she wants to |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 93 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
93 |\n| 1 | invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against |\n| 2 | self-incrimination, that's where the exercise has to stop. |\n| 3 | There is no inquiry as to -- past that as to him or her, in |\n| 4 | this case him, affirming to any court the breadth of that |\n| 5 | invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, if you will. |\n| 6 | And so it's a -- look, the simplest answer is his |\n| 7 | invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege can never be |\n| 8 | held to be an obstruction of any process.
It's as simple as |\n| 9 | that.
So I've never seen one instance where an invocation |\n| 10 | of the privilege has been held to be an obstruction. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So you're saying that the only |\n| 12 | way the trustee can proceed is to get the information from |\n| 13 | the Government? |\n| 14 | MR. BEST:
Correct.
Now -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Did you say that you have to agree to |\n| 16 | that too? |\n| 17 | MR. BEST:
Well, I don't think we'd object, right? |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, I'm trying to understand the |\n| 19 | process, right?
I don't understand the process. |\n| 20 | MR. BEST:
Yeah.
So I'm sorry. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I don't -- as you said quite clearly |\n| 22 | and correctly, this is not something that the bankruptcy |\n| 23 | court has to deal with on a regular basis, although we deal |\n| 24 | with it.
But so your point is -- |\n| 25 | MR. BEST:
The could go to -- |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 94 THE COURT: -- the only way the trustee can proceed is to get it from the Government. And I thought you said earlier in the -- in your comments that you'd have to agree to that. MR. BEST: No. If it was through -- if the exercise was we as defense counsel received a discovery packet, we would have to go to the Government and get their assent. We would also then have to go to the Court and get the Court's assent to make a production to this Court vis-a-vis the subpoena. They could go directly to the Government and bypass all of that. I don't know whether the Government would reach out to us and say do we have your assent or not. THE COURT: Is it required? MR. BEST: I don't -- no, it's not. THE COURT: Okay. I'm just asking. I -- MR. BEST: No. I mean, I think it's more of a courtesy than anything else. So the testimonial piece of this, which is the second prong past the foregone conclusion, Your Honor, is in the demand that's before us which is, in essence, to produce documents which necessarily are within his custody and control, which means that if anything is produced pursuant to that provision of the subpoena, then it's a tacit, if not explicit, admission that the information in those entities were within his custody or Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 94 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 95 of
159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
95 |\n| 1 | control, which directly implicates his right against |\n| 2 | self-incrimination, because those issues are squarely before |\n| 3 | the Court. |\n| 4 | And they don't even have to be squarely before the |\n| 5 | Court.
As I said, it -- 99 percent of the time it's prior |\n| 6 | to an indictment that all these issues come up. |\n| 7 | And so when I looked at this originally, I didn't |\n| 8 | even think about the foregone conclusion argument.
It was |\n| 9 | simply black letter law that what's being asked for here by |\n| 10 | the trustee -- counsel for the trustee is testimonial in |\n| 11 | nature in that if anything gets turned over, then it's an |\n| 12 | admission that, in fact, those entities were within his |\n| 13 | custody and control. |\n| 14 | And that's simply black letter law that it's a |\n| 15 | compulsion of process and once -- for information which |\n| 16 | there's a causal link to incriminate him that he does not |\n| 17 | have to -- he doesn't have to comply with pursuant to his |\n| 18 | constitutional rights. |\n| 19 | And so, for those reasons, I submit to Your Honor |\n| 20 | that he has complied with the subpoena.
Once you invoke |\n| 21 | your constitutional rights on these points, unless there's |\n| 22 | anything else that's open, it is -- it is considered fully |\n| 23 | complied.
So thank you very much. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 25 | Attorney Bassett or -- and Trustee Despins? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 96 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 96 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I know Mr. Bassett will address the technical parts of this, but I wanted to correct one statement that was made, which is that I'm a Department of Justice employee or somehow working for the Department of Justice. I'm not the Department of Justice. I was appointed by the Department of Justice, but I don't report to them. I have no -- as Your Honor knows, a trustee has no reporting function to the Department of Justice. I wanted to correct that. Thank you. MR. BEST: Yeah. I didn't mean to imply that Mr. Despins was a DOJ employee. But the U.S. -- a representative from the U.S. Trustee's Office is, in fact, here who is a Department of Justice employee. That's who I was referring to, Mr. Despins. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, again, it's Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. So I think -- I'm going to address, to the best I can, the substance of all of the legal arguments that counsel made as well as address one of the proposals he made about getting documents that are subject to disclosure by the Government in a criminal case which I do think may be a useful subject to the trustee getting the right order on\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 97 that point. Before I do those things, I do think, as I often have done in this case, I think just to understand exactly how we got here, which is part of what the Court was doing with counsel, is important. So obviously this case has been going on for over a year. Trustee was appointed last summer. Immediately upon his appointment, by operation of law -- and this is a fact that's important and has sort of been glossed over to some degree to this point. But by operation of law, the debtor was required and is still required, under Section 521 of the Bankruptcy Code, (a)(3) and (a)(4), to produce records concerning property of the estate to the trustee and also to provide any property of the estate to the trustee. That's by operation of the Bankruptcy Code. In addition to that, shortly after the trustee's appointment in August of 2022, as the Court knows, the trustee served a Rule 2004 subpoena on the debtor. As the Court also knows, and the reason we are here today, is in the six-plus however months we are now since then, we've received nothing but delay, excuses, obstruction, et cetera. And as the Court pointed out, we're now at a point where the debtor is actually using all that past obstruction and delay essentially to his benefit, because he's now, Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 97 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 98 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
98 |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | whether he wanted to or not, created a bridge to a situation |\n| 2 | where he is under criminal indictment.
Now he's using that |\n| 3 | criminal indictment as a means to say I can't give you |\n| 4 | anything.
Sorry.
No more cooperation from me.
No more |\n| 5 | documents related to property of the estate.
Nothing else. |\n| 6 | Can't do it, because I'm under criminal investigation, and |\n| 7 | there's a criminal case against me. |\n\n I think that backdrop is very important, because we're not operating on a blank slate. And the fact that we're in bankruptcy in particular is important. We cited some of these cases in the brief that we submitted to the Court, and it goes back to the In Re Harris case that came up during counsel's argument and during some of the Court's comments.\n\n But I think, first, it's important to point out that I don't believe in the motion to stay or in the response on the order to show cause counsel has cited to any bankruptcy case involving a stay as it relates to the debtor in that case.\n\n They cite one case that's in our papers, I'm trying to find it, that I'm escaping the name. But the one case they cite that's a bankruptcy case involved an adversary proceeding by the debtor against other defendants who were under criminal investigation. Completely different situation.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 99 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
99 |\n| 1 | What they're asking for here is an order staying |\n| 2 | the bankruptcy case -- order staying discovery in the |\n| 3 | bankruptcy case from the debtor related to property of the |\n| 4 | estate and other issues that are critical to the trustee's |\n| 5 | investigation and to the ultimate administration of this |\n| 6 | case. |\n| 7 | What they're saying is, well, they're not seeking |\n| 8 | a stay of the whole case.
And they cite cases from district |\n| 9 | courts and other civil litigation where courts have stayed |\n| 10 | discovery. |\n| 11 | But what they haven't cited to, and what I don't |\n| 12 | think any court would hold, is that the trustee here has to |\n| 13 | go forward, as he must, in the interest of the bankruptcy |\n| 14 | process and in the interest of the debtor's creditors and |\n| 15 | continue to administer this case and ultimately bring it to |\n| 16 | a conclusion. |\n| 17 | But he has to do that without any participation or |\n| 18 | cooperation from the debtor in providing to the trustee the |\n| 19 | documents that we've not only requested in discovery but are |\n| 20 | entitled to under the Bankruptcy Code. |\n| 21 | And I think that's where the Harris case and some |\n| 22 | of the other cases that it relies on come into play.
And |\n| 23 | the Harris case is, admittedly, an old decision from the |\n| 24 | Supreme Court back in 1911, but it involved the question of |\n| 25 | the production of documents from a debtor in possession and |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 100 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
100 |\n| 1 | whether or not his Fifth Amendment rights would be |\n| 2 | implicated. |\n| 3 | And what the court said was in that situation |\n| 4 | constitutional rights were not touched, because \"The |\n| 5 | question is not of testimony but of surrender, not of |\n| 6 | compelling the bankrupt to be a witness against himself in a |\n| 7 | criminal case present or future but of compelling him to |\n| 8 | yield possession of property that he is no longer entitled |\n| 9 | to keep.
That is one of the misfortunes of bankruptcy if it |\n| 10 | follows a crime.
The right not to be compelled to be a |\n| 11 | witness against oneself is not a right to appropriate |\n| 12 | property that may tell one's story.\" |\n| 13 | And the Supreme Court in the Baltimore City |\n| 14 | Department of Social Services v. Bouknight case in 1990 |\n| 15 | again referenced the Harris decision.
Bouknight involved a |\n| 16 | different regulatory regime. |\n| 17 | It involved a mother who was forced to bring her |\n| 18 | child to the court or to child services by compulsion of |\n| 19 | law, and the court said that is not -- you know, citing to |\n| 20 | the principle annunciated in Harris, that type of action is |\n| 21 | not something that invokes the Fifth Amendment through the |\n| 22 | act of production doctrine or otherwise. |\n| 23 | Like counsel, I've been moving quickly here.
The |\n| 24 | motion was filed on an expedited basis.
I've also been |\n| 25 | doing some further looking.
And I'm sure we all could do |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 101 more. But another case that's more recent that I would encourage the Court to take a look at is the In Re Ross case from the Bankruptcy Court District of Idaho, 1993. That's 156 B.R. 272 at -- and the discussion is extensive. I think part of it's at page 279. But that was a case involving the question of whether requiring a debtor in a Chapter 7 case to exercise his rights under Section -- or to comply with his rights under Section 521 of the Bankruptcy Code would implicate the Fifth Amendment, including specifically the act of production doctrine. So what the Court did in that case is conduct an extensive analysis talking about the interplay between the act of production doctrine and bankruptcy cases. In addition to Harris, there's progeny that developed from there. The Ross court cited Johnson vs. United States from a 1913 decision where the court again articulated the same general principle of Harris that compelling a debtor in possession to turn over property and records of the estate is not something that implicates the Fifth Amendment. The court also cited the Fuller case, 262 U.S. 91 from 1923. The Dier v. Banton case, Supreme Court, 262 U.S. 147 from 1923. And McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 from\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 102 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
102 |\n| 1 | 1924. |\n| 2 | Ultimately, in the Ross case, the court |\n| 3 | concluded -- I'm just going to quote from it, because I |\n| 4 | think it's helpful.
\"The court finds that the Fifth |\n| 5 | Amendment privilege may not be claimed by the debtors with |\n| 6 | regard to property of the estate for the following reasons. |\n| 7 | First, the Fifth Amendment provides no protection for the |\n| 8 | contents of the documents.\"
I think that's an immutable |\n| 9 | principle. |\n| 10 | \"Second, the act of producing documents required\" |\n| 11 | in that case the court found, \"was not sufficiently |\n| 12 | testimonial or incriminating to come within the protection |\n| 13 | fo the Fifth Amendment. |\n| 14 | \"Third,\" the court observed, \"the Harris line of |\n| 15 | cases holds that a bankrupt is not able to claim the |\n| 16 | privilege with regard to documents relating to property of |\n| 17 | the estate, and Fisher does not modify that rule.\" |\n| 18 | \"Fourth, even if the act of producing documents |\n| 19 | (sic) might be testimonial by implicitly authenticating the |\n| 20 | documents, the debtors have not made a positive disclosure |\n| 21 | to support invocation of the privilege\" in that way. |\n| 22 | And then there's a fifth reason that -- yeah, the |\n| 23 | fifth reason is: \"Fifth, even if the act of production |\n| 24 | doctrine (sic) involved here was both testimonial and |\n| 25 | incriminating, the nature of Chapter 7 as a regulatory |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 103 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
103 |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | regime directed toward society as a whole, and not |\n| 2 | inherently toward suspected (sic) criminal classes renders |\n| 3 | the act of production doctrine (sic) outside the protection |\n| 4 | of the Fifth Amendment.\" |\n\n So there's several reasons here. I'm not disputing that this is a complicated, nuanced area of criminal law that's not normally before this Court and certainly isn't what I normally deal with. But there are a lot of issues that I don't think have been addressed as it relates to do these concepts even apply in bankruptcy. If they do apply in bankruptcy, how is it modified by the fact that there are statutory obligations that require the production of these documents?\n\n And by the way, the motion to compel that we filed which led to the order to show cause also referenced 521 and the obligations thereunder as the basis for the production. We were not solely relying on our 2004 subpoena and the lack of compliance with that.\n\n So another point I want to address that came up during the argument previously is the type of showing -- and I think the Court hit on this in some of the questions that Your Honor asked -- the type of showing that if the act of production doctrine applies and if the debtor is going to seek to invoke it, what kind of showing does he have to make in order to demonstrate to the Court that he has fully\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 104 complied with all aspects of the January 20th order. And I think what the case law makes pretty clear is that the showing has to be particularized. The debtor cannot just say in a blanket matter -- and that's really what I hear the argument being. You know, I'm under criminal indictment. And our -- and criminal investigation. And our position is that that means that everything the debtor owns, everything he's ever touched, everything he has in his possession that could somehow be relevant to this bankruptcy case is somehow involved in or related to these criminal issues and, therefore, production of them could implicate the Fifth Amendment. I don't think the debtor can do that in that blanket manner. And the trustee is entitled, for good reason, to a more specific showing. To give a particular example, counsel spent a lot of time talking about the fact that if the debtor were required to produce documents under the control of certain other associated entities and associated individuals as those terms are defined in our subpoena that he would basically be conceding that control by producing documents, and that would implicate the indictment and his criminal exposure. But I don't see how the debtor can possibly say that -- and I think the Court was attuned to this as well -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 104 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 105 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
105 |\n| 1 | that literally every -- and I don't have our subpoena right |\n| 2 | here, and it wouldn't be a productive use of time to go |\n| 3 | through every entity we've identified and every person we've |\n| 4 | identified in those defined terms, but there's a lot of |\n| 5 | them. |\n| 6 | And I don't see how the debtor can say that every |\n| 7 | single one of those entities somehow falls within the scope |\n| 8 | of what's been plausibly alleged in the criminal case for |\n| 9 | which he is under investigation and, therefore, he doesn't |\n| 10 | need to say anything else.
He just doesn't have to produce |\n| 11 | anything, doesn't have to look for anything, and he's done |\n| 12 | complying with the January 20th order. |\n| 13 | He has to do more than that, and we're entitled to |\n| 14 | more than that.
We're entitled to a particularized showing |\n| 15 | or assertion by the debtor as to each of those entities. |\n| 16 | And that's consequential. |\n| 17 | Because if he's going to say that I can't produce |\n| 18 | documents from this entity, because that would demonstrate |\n| 19 | my control over it, then we're entitled to ask the Court to |\n| 20 | take an adverse inference from that as we have in the past. |\n| 21 | He can't simply get away with saying I'm not |\n| 22 | producing anything and giving the trustee no recourse which |\n| 23 | he would otherwise have to ask this Court to take |\n| 24 | appropriate -- to make appropriate findings as a result of |\n| 25 | his invocation of the Fifth. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 106 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 106 The other -- so subject to checking my notes, the -- and the one other point I wanted to make was to go back to this question of the documents that the Government will produce to the debtor, purportedly is going to produce to the debtor in connection with the criminal case. Obviously, the trustee would want those documents. Counsel said that, well, we -- you know, we could subpoena them and then, you know, do whatever we want to try to do to get them. Two main points in response to that. First, I don't see why we would need to subpoena them. There's already a subpoena that the debtor is under. And to the extent that the documents are responsive to that subpoena, when the debtor becomes in possession of them, they need to be produced not only in accordance with that subpoena but in accordance with the January 20th order that is operative. To the extent the trustee needed to serve a new subpoena asking specifically for these documents, we could do so. We may do so anyway. But I don't think it's necessary. The second point I would make, which I think is critical, is that if they're offering that as a partial solution to the issue, any order that this Court issues in the trustee's view has to very clearly require the debtor to take whatever action it needs to take vis-a-vis the\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 107 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
107 |\n| 1 | Government or vis-a-vis the criminal court to get permission |\n| 2 | to give us those documents. |\n| 3 | What it sounds like they're proposing is, well, |\n| 4 | let's put the onus on the trustee.
It's not our problem. |\n| 5 | If you want to try to get the documents, you can.
You go |\n| 6 | ask the criminal court.
You go ask the Government. |\n| 7 | We may well do that as well, but the debtor has |\n| 8 | obligations before this Court under the orders of this Court |\n| 9 | and under the Bankruptcy Code.
So the onus should be on him |\n| 10 | to do what's necessary to get us the documents that we're |\n| 11 | entitled to, not on the trustee. |\n| 12 | I just want to check my notes, Your Honor, to see |\n| 13 | if I had other points I wanted to make. |\n| 14 | (Counsel confer) |\n| 15 | MR. BASSETT:
I think that's all for the moment, |\n| 16 | Your Honor.
The one thing I noticed in looking at my |\n| 17 | outline is that the case I was trying to find earlier that |\n| 18 | is the only case in bankruptcy that I've noticed that the |\n| 19 | debtor cited was the In Re Julmice case, Bankruptcy Court |\n| 20 | Eastern District of New York, 2011.
And, again, that was |\n| 21 | not a case involving, you know, the debtor and a stay of |\n| 22 | discovery against the debtor but rather an adversary |\n| 23 | proceeding against other defendants. |\n| 24 | Subject to the Court's questions, that's what I |\n| 25 | had. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 108 THE COURT: I do not have any questions of you at this time. Thank you, Attorney Bassett. Attorney Friedman, you wish to be heard? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of PAX. I wanted to add a little bit of context to what Attorney Bassett said in his remarks. This is not just an issue of what's happened in this Chapter 11 case. PAX has been pursuing its claims against Mr. Kwok for years going back to the inception of the loan made more than a decade ago. It has been consistently told there are no assets. There have been shifting assertions of the Fifth Amendment in the past when it was convenient and then they have been revoked. There was a Chapter 11 filing, a filing that said Mr. Kwok had \\$3,850, as you'll recall, and a Pomeranian, but he needed time to put together his schedules. He hired the Verdolino & Lowey entity which apparently he, you know, didn't tell them about substantial assets that actually exist in his name. But this has been going on for years. PAX has been frustrated for years. And yet, with very little insight into this debtor's assets, of course money shows up whenever it's needed to pay lawyers, although, you know, purportedly not from Mr. Kwok. Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 108 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 109 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 109 We'll find out shortly who's paying for Brown Rudnick to be here today when they file their required pleadings, unless of course they try to claim that's -- some sort of barrier to that because that would also incriminate Mr. Kwok. If you think about the logical extent of what they're saying, they would be immune from having to comply with that regulation as well, that statute as well, which of course can't be right. But in any event, Your Honor, the other thing I wanted to just raise with you is in one of the pleadings there's a statement that the bankruptcy and the prior case is all a product of CCP machinations. And I think as Your Honor has heard from me before, that's just -- I don't know whether to be mad about it or to laugh at it, but it's just absurd. This Court, I think, knows the bona fides of the PAX litigation that proceeded in front of Justice Ostrager. And it knows that Mr. Kwok actually offered to pay, because he broadcasted on Twitter or GETTR, you know, an extraordinarily large amount of money, maybe not his own money but somebody's money, to PAX to settle litigation. And Mr. Kindseth testified that Mr. Kwok knew that PAX was owed money and that Mr. Kwok went on GETTR to say that they had to make piece with Kwok, all of which are\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 110 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
110 |\n| 1 | completely at odds with this phony narrative that's being |\n| 2 | pitched both here and, sadly, in federal court in the |\n| 3 | criminal matter just to make what are absurd assertions that |\n| 4 | have no basis in truth and are, you know, more of the same. |\n| 5 | One point, Your Honor.
Well, I won't -- I |\n| 6 | actually can't do it, because counsel for the summary |\n| 7 | judgment proceedings wasn't here.
So I won't go back and |\n| 8 | re-argue that.
But there's stuff in the documents there |\n| 9 | that's very troubling. |\n| 10 | In any event, Your Honor, I did want to echo also |\n| 11 | Mr. Bassett's comments about the very nature of bankruptcy, |\n| 12 | the obligation as to, you know, fulsome disclosure that |\n| 13 | arose immediately when Mr. Kwok voluntarily filed for |\n| 14 | bankruptcy, filed schedules, showed up at 341s that he |\n| 15 | needed to appear in and may not have testified honestly. |\n| 16 | But there were certainly many requests made there that we |\n| 17 | still need to be able to prove out. |\n| 18 | And for parties like PAX that have waited for over |\n| 19 | a decade to be repaid, the idea and prospect that, yet |\n| 20 | again, there can be obfuscation and delay should be viewed |\n| 21 | with, you know, intense skepticism by this Court.
Thank |\n| 22 | you, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 24 | Mr. Best, would you like to respond? |\n| 25 | MR. BEST:
Yes, Your Honor.
I literally could not |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 111 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
111 |\n| 1 | have made a better argument for the proper invocation of the |\n| 2 | Fifth Amendment privilege than what we just heard from |\n| 3 | opposing counsel or creditor's counsel and trustee's |\n| 4 | counsel.
Their explanations to Your Honor are the absolute |\n| 5 | reason why a proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment |\n| 6 | privilege is applicable here. |\n| 7 | Specifically, the trustee's counsel said, I |\n| 8 | think -- I think the record will be correct.
I counted |\n| 9 | three times trustee's counsel said that my client has |\n| 10 | obstructed the bankruptcy process. |\n| 11 | Even better, counsel for the creditor from |\n| 12 | O'Melveny & Myers -- or is it just O'Melveny?
I don't know. |\n| 13 | But said that -- I think the words were \"phony narrative\" |\n| 14 | that has been advanced, which is essentially a fraud on the |\n| 15 | bankruptcy court. |\n| 16 | And I will tell you that the head of O'Melveny's |\n| 17 | white collar practice, Steven Olson, would also tell Your |\n| 18 | Honor this is the perfect application of the Fifth Amendment |\n| 19 | privilege for these exact issues which are before us. |\n| 20 | Counsel has conceded the issues that are before |\n| 21 | us.
It's not that he doesn't have a right.
And by the way, |\n| 22 | I want to start by saying with all due respect to Your |\n| 23 | Honor, the bankruptcy court, and counsel who are all |\n| 24 | bankruptcy practitioners, the constitutional rights of an |\n| 25 | individual trump any Bankruptcy Code. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 112 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
112 |\n| 1 | And so when bankruptcy counsel was quoting the |\n| 2 | Harris case, it specifically referenced that the Harris case |\n| 3 | noted that what was being asked for -- and I don't -- I |\n| 4 | haven't dug into it -- but he specifically said was not |\n| 5 | testimonial in nature.
It's the specific requests beyond |\n| 6 | the foregone conclusion piece. |\n| 7 | It's the demand of the trustee's counsel asking |\n| 8 | for all documents which are in the custody and control of |\n| 9 | the individual which then specifically, tacitly requires my |\n| 10 | client to turn over documents of entities which he may be in |\n| 11 | custody and control of. |\n| 12 | And with all due respect to trustee's counsel, |\n| 13 | it's not for him to determine whether it has been brought |\n| 14 | before the Department of Justice in their criminal case. |\n| 15 | To give clarity now to the issue of a blanket |\n| 16 | invocation, when it happens in the grand jury and a |\n| 17 | prosecutor is allowed to ask specific questions and not |\n| 18 | accept a blanket invitation (sic passim) of the privilege, |\n| 19 | so instead of accepting the blanket invitation, they can ask |\n| 20 | a hundred questions specific to the issues before, and that |\n| 21 | individual can then assert the privilege on those specific |\n| 22 | questions.
But you end up at the same place, which is |\n| 23 | they're allowed to assert a blanket privilege or do it |\n| 24 | through either one blanket privilege or a hundred different |\n| 25 | questions that are posed to them. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 113 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
113 |\n| 1 | I tried to come in here and craft a solution which |\n| 2 | may work.
This whole notion that we have some obligation to |\n| 3 | present any documents when they can simply go -- the |\n| 4 | trustee -- the representative from the Department of Justice |\n| 5 | is here from the U.S. Trustee's Office -- is a member of the |\n| 6 | Department of Justice. |\n| 7 | They can go to the Department of Justice Criminal |\n| 8 | Division, U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District and ask |\n| 9 | for the discovery. |\n| 10 | What they -- what the problem, which we need to |\n| 11 | figure out, is the Southern District has a protective order |\n| 12 | over the use of that information.
I don't know how that can |\n| 13 | be worked out with Your Honor and with counsel, but that |\n| 14 | will come up whether it's directly to the Department of |\n| 15 | Justice or through us. |\n| 16 | And so this whole notion that we have to turn |\n| 17 | something over is, quite honestly, having no respect for the |\n| 18 | proceedings in the Southern District.
It all has to be |\n| 19 | addressed.
I wanted -- I fronted this as an opportunity, |\n| 20 | which I didn't have to do, to show a way through this rather |\n| 21 | than just-- and basically a grounds for the stay here while |\n| 22 | that gets worked out. |\n| 23 | Again, with all due respect to the Bankruptcy Code |\n| 24 | and this Court, an individual's constitutional rights |\n| 25 | against self-incrimination trump any requirements and |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 114 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
114 |\n| 1 | demands under a Bankruptcy Code proceeding.
And I'm happy |\n| 2 | to answer any questions, and I appreciate Your Honor giving |\n| 3 | me the time. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
The only question I have is -- I think |\n| 5 | you just said you haven't read Harris yet.
Is that what you |\n| 6 | said? |\n| 7 | MR. BEST:
No.
I haven't read the details of -- |\n| 8 | the specific fact details. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Because it does talk about -- it's an |\n| 10 | old case. |\n| 11 | MR. BEST:
Yeah. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
It's 1911.
But it is the United |\n| 13 | States Supreme Court saying under the Bankruptcy Act that |\n| 14 | was in existence at the time, before the 1978 Bankruptcy |\n| 15 | Code was modernized, that the debtor's duty in turning over |\n| 16 | the information was surrender and not testimonial.
That's |\n| 17 | what it says in light of a Fifth Amendment privilege against |\n| 18 | self-incrimination. |\n| 19 | So I -- what I'm saying to you is, I understand |\n| 20 | your argument.
And I don't think anyone is arguing that -- |\n| 21 | at least I haven't heard anyone argue that the debtor -- any |\n| 22 | debtor isn't entitled to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege |\n| 23 | when they feel -- when they assert it.
They're entitled to |\n| 24 | assert it. |\n| 25 | I think what Harris is saying is that there are |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 115 some limitations on the application of that assertion. MR. BEST: It has to be -- so the limitations here, Your Honor -- would it be a harder argument for me if there was just a subpoena issued broadly for all documents? Probably. What was -- the limitations, though -- I can guaranty you in that case it doesn't talk about a specific issue where the documents that are requested are not simply the documents that were in possession of the debtor, Mr. Guo. It was those documents in addition to those that he possessed, which I believe as I understand have been turned over, that -- for him to go and get documents in the custody or control of him which by production necessarily is testimonial that he's in custody or control of those entities. And I can -- I know that Harris didn't stand for that. THE COURT: Okay. And then this Ross case that counsel has cited from Idaho in 1993 talks about Harris, and it also talks about some of the cases you cited saying that -- in Doe -- well, you cited Doe. You said -- you mentioned Doe. It says -- and I'm not saying it's -- I'm just telling you what it says. I -- MR. BEST: I appreciate this. THE COURT: Okay. It says -- Justice O'Connor Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 115 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 116 states she has written to make explicit what is implicit in the analysis of that opinion, that the Fifth Amendment provides absolutely no protection for any contents of private papers of any kind. MR. BEST: Yeah. THE COURT: That's what it says. MR. BEST: That had -- THE COURT: And then the Bouknight case that -- I don't know that you addressed but counsel cited. That's the case that was not a bankruptcy case. No question. It was the case involving the mother of the child with regard to the city department of social services turning over information with regard to the custody of her child. I mean, the facts of the case are very difficult facts. But the Bouknight case said that the mother couldn't resist production of the information on the grounds that the child might reveal incriminating evidence. MR. BEST: I understand your argument, and I'm not -- MR. BEST: Let me -- THE COURT: I'm not saying anything you're saying is inaccurate. I'm saying -- MR. BEST: Let me -- THE COURT: -- there appears to be some cases out there that limit the applicability -- there appears to be, Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 116 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 117 that limit the applicability of the extent of the Fifth Amendment privilege with regard to the obligations of a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code. MR. BEST: I would agree with that. It has to be a determination, one, as to whether or not -- really, it's -- I would -- you know, all the analysis you see in court cases start with the foregone conclusion argument first. I focus on the testimonial nature of the admission that if he produces documents as regards entities that he's in the custody or control of or be required to, as you brought up at our first discussion about it, affirm one way or the other as to those, that that is the most -- is the reason why he has the best argument as to invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege on these issues. Their request is, essentially, admit that these are within your custody and control and give me the documents. That's what's being asked by the subpoena. So I agree with you there are limitations. Doe did not address that piece. Doe was squarely focused on the foregone conclusion piece. And, in fact, Doe ended up in the defendant's favor, affirming his right to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination and admonishing the Government for using Doe to get information which they should have been able to get themselves through Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 117 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 118 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
118 |\n| 1 | the grand jury process. |\n| 2 | So Doe does not talk about the -- it focuses on |\n| 3 | foregone conclusion.
It doesn't focus on really what is |\n| 4 | being asked here is the testimonial nature of the |\n| 5 | production. |\n| 6 | So happy to go through -- I'm happy to do a full |\n| 7 | briefing on this.
I know it's not normally before Your |\n| 8 | Honor or these esteemed counsel from fine firms. |\n| 9 | I do this for a living.
I will tell you the |\n| 10 | Government wouldn't be super happy if their case was |\n| 11 | negatively implicated because of the demands of a creditor's |\n| 12 | counsel or of trustee's counsel.
Because I'd be using that |\n| 13 | in the Southern District case to require the U.S. Department |\n| 14 | of Justice to put on a Kastigar hearing to prove that they |\n| 15 | have this information before it was turned over. |\n| 16 | And if not -- and by the way, the lineage of cases |\n| 17 | is that the Government's burden on Kastigar is severe.
And |\n| 18 | it would -- if I win that, which I'm pretty confident I |\n| 19 | would on a number of issues and other entities, it would, |\n| 20 | one, thwart their present investigations they have going on, |\n| 21 | and two, implicate what they could do and what evidence they |\n| 22 | could produce in their present case. |\n| 23 | And so I'm not speaking for the Government.
I'm |\n| 24 | just talking about all the complications that would arise |\n| 25 | out of this Court requiring either that he produce and not |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 119 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
119 |\n| 1 | honor his Fifth Amendment privilege or then have him sign |\n| 2 | some sort of declaration or affidavit attendant thereto. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Well, I just -- on the Bouknight case |\n| 4 | that has been cited, the Supreme Court case, you know, |\n| 5 | they -- the Supreme Court talks about that -- says even if |\n| 6 | the act of production would amount to what you call a tacit |\n| 7 | admission of the debtor's control over something or |\n| 8 | possession of something, that that -- the privilege can't be |\n| 9 | invoked to resist the production in the -- in that |\n| 10 | circumstance, right? |\n| 11 | And so the circumstances that we have in this case |\n| 12 | is that, as we've all talked about and you know, this is |\n| 13 | information that the trustee is looking to obtain which the |\n| 14 | debtor was required to produce once he voluntarily consented |\n| 15 | to this -- the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a |\n| 16 | bankruptcy case, which he did.
He voluntarily did it. |\n| 17 | Nobody forced him to do it. |\n| 18 | And so that Supreme Court case, when you -- I |\n| 19 | understand your argument about if he has to turn it over |\n| 20 | then he's -- and -- then he's admitting that he had |\n| 21 | possession or control. |\n| 22 | Well, this Supreme Court case, Bouknight case, |\n| 23 | seems to say that that's not necessarily determinative of |\n| 24 | whether or not the Fifth Amendment privilege would apply to |\n| 25 | not require the debtor -- or the party -- it wasn't a debtor |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 120 in that case, it's the -- that's the case that we talked about already through the mother and the son -- MR. BEST: Uh-huh. THE COURT: -- to require the debtor to provide this information to the trustee. Now, all I'm saying to you is I think it's -- I understand all the arguments that you've made. I believe I do. And I've looked at a lot of the cases, if not all of the cases, that you've cited. But there is an issue here that's a little bit different from some of the -- from Fisher and other cases that you've cited, because those were not addressing the present circumstances and the specific circumstances of a debtor in possession -- MR. BEST: Right. THE COURT: -- who voluntarily came before the Court and -- MR. BEST: Right. THE COURT: -- and subjected himself to the duties and responsibilities of a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code. MR. BEST: I also think that it needs to be stated that the case that trustee cited -- is it the Idaho case? THE COURT: The Rogers case, I think it was called. MR. BEST: As well as the -- THE COURT: Ross case. I'm sorry. Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 120 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 121 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
121 |\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
Ross. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
The Ross case. |\n| 3 | MR. BEST:
As well as the case Your Honor's |\n| 4 | referring to does not have in play that the debtor that's |\n| 5 | before you is actively criminally charged and is -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
But as you said -- |\n| 7 | MR. BEST:
-- as well -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
-- he doesn't have to be actively |\n| 9 | criminally charged, right? |\n| 10 | MR. BEST:
I understand.
But is under active |\n| 11 | criminal investigation for fraud in this Court.
And so |\n| 12 | that's a nuance to this whole exercise that -- there's no |\n| 13 | question if he's under investigation for fraud in relation |\n| 14 | to any of his statements in the Bankruptcy Court that any |\n| 15 | demand upon him for production along those lines is a |\n| 16 | compulsory process which he's allowed to invoke his Fifth |\n| 17 | Amendment privilege of. |\n| 18 | It in essence is the documents that would be |\n| 19 | produced, if there are any, would be used not only for Your |\n| 20 | Honor's purposes and the trustee's purposes and the |\n| 21 | bankruptcy purposes but would be part of a ongoing criminal |\n| 22 | investigation of what we now know is allegations of fraud in |\n| 23 | this Court. |\n| 24 | I mean, it -- there's no stronger case that I know |\n| 25 | of for the testimonial component of a production of |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 122 documents which is being called for in this case. And I respect this Court's desire to honor its obligations. And I understand that he filed for protections here. There are always intervening circumstances that have to be taken into consideration here. And that is what's before us right now. THE COURT: Okay. I understand. Thank you. MR. BEST: Okay. THE COURT: Is there anything further you'd like to add? MR. BEST: Not at this time. I'm happy to do further briefing if Your Honor desires. THE COURT: I need to think about that. But thank you. MR. BEST: Yeah. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, may I be heard and respond to this? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I -- just if I can just jump in here for a second? I want to offer a practical solution to this. I understand the issue. Act of production. Got it. But I think counsel for Mr. Kwok will agree that the act of production doctrine does not apply to documents provided by the Government to Mr. Kwok. There's no act of production issue there. Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 122 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 123 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 123 So he's saying let's have the U.S. Trustee call the DOJ, da, da, da. That's not the way that works. We don't exist in the criminal court. We don't exist in the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney group, I mean, meaning that they do their own thing. And we wish them the best, also Mr. Kwok. It's not our issue. But the defendant, he has standing in that court to say, you know what, Judge, criminal judge, we would like a modification to the protective order, and that modification would be that we can provide to the trustee -- Chapter 11 trustee copies of the documents that the Government gives us. This Court, Your Honor, could direct the debtor to seek such a modification to the protective order. That doesn't guarantee that the criminal court will agree to that or that the Government will agree to that. But the debtors seem to be okay with that, meaning have no problems with us seeing the documents that are being produced to the defendant by the Government. He just doesn't want to be involved in it. And as I -- I'm telling you, Your Honor, we have no standing in that court. We cannot go to the criminal court and be heard on that issue. But the defendant can. And he -- the defendant happens to be a debtor in your court, and you can direct the defendant to seek that relief.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 124 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
124 |\n| 1 | No guarantee of a positive result.
But, to me, that would |\n| 2 | avoid a lot of brain damage on everyone's part. |\n| 3 | And the second part is that on the issue of |\n| 4 | negative inferences that we want to be able to derive from |\n| 5 | his invocation of the Fifth, there is a way for that |\n| 6 | invocation of the Fifth Amendment to be particularized and |\n| 7 | to address our concern.
And I don't think that criminal |\n| 8 | counsel to Mr. Kwok should have an issue about that, because |\n| 9 | they are invoking the Fifth as to all those documents.
It's |\n| 10 | not like some of them they'll answer.
They're invoking the |\n| 11 | Fifth as to all of them. |\n| 12 | There should be a procedural way -- Mr. Bassett |\n| 13 | can propose something -- but that would allow for that |\n| 14 | individualized or particularized invocation of the Fifth as |\n| 15 | to each of the document production requests. |\n| 16 | So, to me, if we deal with these two issues, I |\n| 17 | think we've resolved or we've arguably made a lot of |\n| 18 | progress in resolving the issues without going into a -- |\n| 19 | what I would call a complete clash between criminal court |\n| 20 | and bankruptcy court. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Mr. Best? |\n| 22 | MR. BEST:
Yeah.
I have no objections if counsel |\n| 23 | for the trustee wants to put a long list of requests |\n| 24 | together to do a particularized -- review them, make sure |\n| 25 | it's appropriate with -- in how they're written, to go |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 125 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
125 |\n| 1 | through them with the client and get his determination as to |\n| 2 | whether he is going to do a particularized invocation on one |\n| 3 | or all of the inquiries by the trustee's counsel. |\n| 4 | So to that point, I agree with Mr. Despins that if |\n| 5 | that's presented, it's -- if that's a solution, I -- I'm |\n| 6 | here to try to solve -- I understand the issues.
I'm |\n| 7 | trying -- I want to -- I went through it, and I offered it |\n| 8 | up as to how the process works in grand jury.
And it would |\n| 9 | be the normal course for that to be the way here as well. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
What about the -- and I have no idea. |\n| 11 | But what about what Trustee Despins just said about a |\n| 12 | modification of the protective order in the criminal |\n| 13 | proceeding to have the Government share the documents they |\n| 14 | have that they were going to produce to your client also to |\n| 15 | the trustee? |\n| 16 | MR. BEST:
So it's not our protective order. |\n| 17 | That's the point.
I have no problem working with the court |\n| 18 | and the Department of Justice on that.
But it's the court's |\n| 19 | order.
And so that, I'm sure, can get figured out along the |\n| 20 | way.
But -- |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, the criminal court -- |\n| 22 | MR. BEST:
But just understand -- |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
-- the criminal court does not enter |\n| 24 | (indiscernible). |\n| 25 | MR. BEST:
-- I can't force the Southern District |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 126 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 126 Court to amend their order, but -- THE COURT: I don't think that -- I think Trustee Despins already acknowledged that. MR. DESPINS: No, that's not what -- THE COURT: He's already acknowledged that they might not do it. MR. BEST: Yeah. THE COURT: Right? MR. BEST: Happy to try. THE COURT: I think what he was asking was would this Court enter an order requiring the debtor to seek that relief from the Southern District of New York, knowing that the Southern District of New York may say no. But I don't know -- MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: -- you know, if you oppose that. If you don't oppose that, and you all can come up with an order that this Court could enter, then that's fine. But, I mean, you need -- yeah. You need time to talk about it. That's fine. MR. BEST: Yeah. If I may? THE COURT: Do you want a few minutes? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sure. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. If we could. THE COURT: All right. So before we take a break\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 127 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
127 |\n| 1 | on this, okay, and we'll take a recess, we have one other |\n| 2 | matter in this case today.
And it was -- it's with regard |\n| 3 | to Bravo Luck whose counsel's been, I think, here the whole |\n| 4 | time. |\n| 5 | And it's -- it was an issue regarding this motion |\n| 6 | for relief for judgment or order on -- I guess that -- I'm |\n| 7 | asking, how much time do the parties think that hearing is |\n| 8 | going to take?
Do you have any idea? |\n| 9 | MS. CLINE:
It should be short (indiscernible). |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
From my point of view, Your Honor, |\n| 11 | three minutes.
What I have to say will take three minutes. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
So this is what my thought is.
Okay? |\n| 13 | And so I -- and I think, counsel, you're agreeing with |\n| 14 | Trustee Despins that it would be a short hearing? |\n| 15 | MS. CLINE:
So depending on what he says, yes, |\n| 16 | Your Honor, it should be short. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
That's fair, I suppose.
In any event, |\n| 18 | why don't you all -- the -- Mr. Kwok's counsel be excused |\n| 19 | for now.
We'll pass the hearing that is ongoing right now. |\n| 20 | We'll stop it for now.
You'll be excused.
You can go have |\n| 21 | some conversations. |\n| 22 | You're going to have to have conversations with |\n| 23 | the trustee's counsel at some point, though, too. |\n| 24 | MR. BEST:
Absolutely. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So why don't we hear this final |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 128 matter, and then I'll take some form of a recess, and you all -- you can all convene first, and then you can talk to the trustee's counsel. MR. BEST: Great. THE COURT: Okay? I think that's -- let's do that. And there are conference rooms, they should be unlocked, in the hallways. MR. BEST: They're much nicer than any conference rooms I deal with on criminal cases, so -- THE COURT: Well, that's good. MR. BEST: It is. THE COURT: Maybe that'll produce a result. MR. BEST: Yes. THE COURT: Okay? But in any event, why don't you do that. All the -- Mr. Kwok's lawyers can be excused for now. And I'll have Bravo Luck's counsel come forward. We'll address the final matter on the calendar. And then I'm going -- I am going to take a recess, because not only we -- does the staff need some time but then you can have a conversation with trustee's counsel. MR. BEST: Absolutely. Why don't we plan at least on -- I don't know how long your recess -- 2:00, 2:15 being back. THE COURT: I would think we would do about an hour. Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 128 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 129 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
129 |\n| 1 | MR. BEST:
Okay. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Because I have some other things I |\n| 3 | have to attend to later this afternoon. |\n| 4 | MR. BEST:
Come back at 2:00 or 2:15? |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I would say 2:00, please. |\n| 6 | MR. BEST:
Great. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 8 | MR. BEST:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 10 | All right.
Now, we -- because we're suspending |\n| 11 | that hearing in some respects so that parties can have some |\n| 12 | discussions, let's turn to the last matter on the calendar |\n| 13 | that was set for hearing quickly, because counsel -- oh, |\n| 14 | counsel, could you state your appearance for the record, |\n| 15 | please? |\n| 16 | MS. CLINE:
Yes, Your Honor.
Joanna Cline, |\n| 17 | Troutman Pepper, on behalf of Bravo Luck. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon.
All right.
Hold on |\n| 19 | one second, please. |\n| 20 | So with regard to the -- ECF Number 1679, the |\n| 21 | order scheduling hearing on motion -- on the oral motion |\n| 22 | that Attorney Cline made the other day when she was in court |\n| 23 | on Tuesday in a pretrial conference, she was concerned about |\n| 24 | the notice parties -- who are deemed to be the notice |\n| 25 | parties in connection with a proposed abandonment motion |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 130 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
130 |\n| 1 | that has not been filed yet but that the Court had allowed |\n| 2 | to be filed under seal. |\n| 3 | So, Trustee Despins, I set this for a hearing |\n| 4 | because I wanted to give counsel the opportunity -- she |\n| 5 | explained why she wants to be a notice party.
From what I |\n| 6 | understand on the record the other day, there was an |\n| 7 | affirmative decision not to make Bravo Luck a notice party. |\n| 8 | Is that correct? |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Could you just explain -- |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
Or any other creditor other than the |\n| 12 | ones that are listed -- that's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
That are already what?
Subject to the |\n| 14 | protective order? |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
That are listed -- so the -- no.
So |\n| 16 | the -- it would be the creditors' committee, PAX, the U.S. |\n| 17 | Trustee, and the debtor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
All of whom are -- |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
And there's a -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
-- signatories to the protective |\n| 21 | order, correct? |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
But it was not driven by that. |\n| 23 | But, yes, they are all signatories for that. |\n| 24 | But so if I can explain in my three minutes? |\n| 25 | Basically, this is an issue that -- granted, the motion that |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 131 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
131 |\n| 1 | Mr. Linsey filed does not disclose what property is to be |\n| 2 | abandoned. |\n| 3 | But I can tell -- and I hope that it would give |\n| 4 | comfort to -- but, actually, we've already tried that, I |\n| 5 | don't think it worked -- to counsel for Bravo Luck that has |\n| 6 | nothing to do with The Sherry Netherland or Bravo Luck.
So |\n| 7 | that's the first part.
It's an issue in the Kwok case. |\n| 8 | So they're saying, well, we're a creditor in the |\n| 9 | Kwok case.
They're not a fiduciary.
We have a fiduciary, |\n| 10 | which is the creditors' committee. |\n| 11 | As Your Honor will know from the testimony I will |\n| 12 | give at that hearing, there are very sensitive issues to be |\n| 13 | discussed in terms of strategy of abandonment and potential |\n| 14 | other alternative approaches.
And I just don't want this to |\n| 15 | be out there. |\n| 16 | And it doesn't involve Bravo Luck.
Bravo Luck -- |\n| 17 | you know, let's remember, they're a fraudulent transfer of |\n| 18 | defendant.
And that's all they are.
And they -- you know, |\n| 19 | their principal has refused to be served. |\n| 20 | It's just -- you know, they can't be involved in |\n| 21 | any other thing.
They should not be involved in any other |\n| 22 | thing.
This is an issue that goes to the core of the |\n| 23 | administrative of the case.
There's a fiduciary, the |\n| 24 | creditors' committee.
The U.S. Trustee is there.
The |\n| 25 | debtor's counsel is there. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 132 And PAX is there. And the reason for PAX is that, you know, they do happen to have a judgment for millions of dollars. So they're not like a defendant that is trying to get involved in the case in some fashion. So that -- basically, that's my (indiscernible), Your Honor. They don't belong there. They shouldn't be there. This deals with very sensitive information. And it does not affect them, because it doesn't affect The Sherry Netherland or Bravo Luck directly. So it may impact them as a creditor of Kwok. Frankly, I'm not sure how they're a creditor of Kwok. But assuming that they are, it may affect them in that capacity. But there's plenty of coverage there with the U.S. Trustee and the creditors' committee covering that. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Counsel, you wish to be heard? MS. CLINE: Yes, Your Honor. Joanna Cline on behalf of Bravo Luck. I guess what the trustee is seeking are two things: one, to limit notice, and two, to file this motion for abandonment under seal. And there's no basis in the case law or nor has he articulated a factual reason for either request. Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 132 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 133 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 133 On the issue of notice, limiting notice usually is done where the party giving notice seeks to avoid the cost or the time that's required for notice. The case cited by the trustee in his papers, In Re Karan (ph), does relate to the Court's ability to limit notice in the context of an abandonment proceeding, but it actually supports our position and underscores the proposition that the purpose of the notice requirement is to provide an opportunity for people to be heard and to object. That case doesn't articulate the standard for limiting notice, and instead if denies a motion for an entry of a consent order on abandonment, because the parties did not file an appropriate motion to limit notice that fully stated the limits of service that was supported by an affidavit. We are not aware of and the trustee has not cited any cases in which a court has, in fact, limited notice in an abandonment proceeding for a reason other than cost or timing of notice. In fact, the case law says that notice is a crucial aspect of abandonment. And that can be found in a case called In Re Telcar. With respect to the notion of filing under seal -- THE COURT: Do you have a cite for that case, In Re Telcar? MS. CLINE: Yeah. In Re Telcar, 363 B.R. 345 at\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 134 Note 19, Bankruptcy Eastern District 2007. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. CLINE: And all of this is also in Collier's section on Rule 6007. THE COURT: On Rule 6007? Okay. MS. CLINE: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MS. CLINE: And then on the second point, filing under seal, as a preliminary matter, we're not aware of any case in which an abandonment motion was sealed and kept from parties in interest in a litigation. But the proper standard is under Rule 107(b), which if one are -- is to read it carefully, I think the cite that the trustee is relying on relates to the notion that the Court may protect an entity with respect to a trade secret or confidential research, development, or commercial information. So that's the prong they rely on. This is a case involving an individual debtor, and the trustee has not articulated whether there's a trade secret, what's so confidential, what's the commercial -- the supposedly commercial information that's in dispute here. The trustee has a burden to overcome the presumption of open public access to our court system that is the very foundation of the way we do business in the United States courts. A generalized interest is not enough. Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 134 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 135 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
135 |\n| 1 | And types of information that the courts have found to be |\n| 2 | confidential relate to sort of -- some sort of business |\n| 3 | value when the debtor's asset is at stake, a customer list |\n| 4 | or a creditor list or something to that effect. |\n| 5 | But to sort of generalize -- generally just say, |\n| 6 | as the trustee here does even in his brief, things would run |\n| 7 | more smoothly without the interference of Bravo is an |\n| 8 | argument that has been squarely rejected by courts on this |\n| 9 | point.
And that case is called Itel, I-T-E-L, which is |\n| 10 | cited -- there's a discussion in Collier's -- the Collier's |\n| 11 | section on Rule 107.03(a). |\n| 12 | The trustee's essentially saying what we're doing |\n| 13 | may affect the rights of others, so we'd like to keep them |\n| 14 | in the dark so they can't complain.
And that's just at odds |\n| 15 | with the way our system of justice works and is at odds with |\n| 16 | Bravo's due process rights. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you, counsel. |\n| 18 | Anything further, Trustee Despins? |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, you know, the right of |\n| 20 | others is not Bravo Luck.
It's somebody else.
We don't |\n| 21 | want them to be -- to know of this or to learn of this.
And |\n| 22 | I haven't heard anything about the particularized interest |\n| 23 | that Bravo Luck has after the representation I made that |\n| 24 | this has nothing to do with Bravo Luck, it doesn't involve |\n| 25 | The Sherry Netherland. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 136 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 136 And they are represented by the U.S. Trustee and the creditors' committee. They're there as watch dogs to make sure we're not doing anything crazy. In terms of the secrecy around this is because it involves complex strategies involving that asset and how it's being abandoned and what is being preserved that I really don't want Bravo Luck to have any knowledge of or other creditors, by the way. Because they -- unless they have a particularly -- particularized interest in that matter, they should not participate in this. Because it's highly confidential and could be damaging to the estate (indiscernible). THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: Anything further, counsel? MS. CLINE: Yeah. Just, Your Honor, that -- yeah, just to point out the obvious, which is that the burden is not ours. The burden is on the trustee to overcome the presumption of access to the public records in the court system. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? MS. MAYHEW: The only thing I'd like to add, Your Honor -- Kristen Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the committee -- is that based on the representations from the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 137 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
137 |\n| 1 | Chapter 11 Trustee that this is a highly confidential, |\n| 2 | sensitive matter, we believe that as a fiduciary to all of |\n| 3 | the creditors, the creditors' committee having received |\n| 4 | notice, we will be in an appropriate position if there's |\n| 5 | anything that will be of concern to individualized |\n| 6 | creditors, we will have that information.
But based on the |\n| 7 | representations of the trustee, we do not believe that Bravo |\n| 8 | Luck should be given notice of the abandonment. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 10 | MS. MAYHEW:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 12 | MS. CLINE:
If I may?
Just one last -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 14 | MS. CLINE:
-- thing, Your Honor.
I guess if the |\n| 15 | committee has access and PAX has access, we haven't heard |\n| 16 | why -- why Bravo can't have access. |\n| 17 | There's been no particularized explanation as to |\n| 18 | why our client needs to be kept into the -- in the dark |\n| 19 | other than, I assume, the trustee's theory that underlies |\n| 20 | his whole case.
But there's been no showing here, and |\n| 21 | there's no basis for denying us access. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 23 | All right.
I am going to take the matter under |\n| 24 | advisement, and I will rule accordingly.
Okay? |\n| 25 | And, counsel, you do not need to stay unless you |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 138 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
138 |\n| 1 | want to.
You're more than welcome to.
I didn't anticipate |\n| 2 | that the hearings would be this length and that we wouldn't |\n| 3 | have gotten to your hearing sooner.
But that's completely |\n| 4 | up to you. |\n| 5 | But the Court is going to take a recess until 2 |\n| 6 | p.m. as noted with regard to the prior matter that the Court |\n| 7 | was hearing so that the parties can have some discussions. |\n| 8 | So Court is in recess until 2 p.m. |\n| 9 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Court is in recess until 2 |\n| 10 | p.m. |\n| 11 | (Court recessed from 1:07 p.m. to 2:03 p.m.) |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Please be seated.
All right.
Before |\n| 13 | we took a recess -- |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, I apologize for |\n| 15 | interrupting, but I don't see Trustee Despins on the Zoom. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Oh.
Here he comes, it appears. |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
Apologies.
Sorry. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
That's okay.
That's fine. |\n| 19 | All right.
Before we took a recess, we were |\n| 20 | addressing two motions that are pending in the case -- in |\n| 21 | the main case of Mr. Kwok. |\n| 22 | And the motions were the motion for an order -- |\n| 23 | related to the motion for order to show cause why Mr. Kwok |\n| 24 | should not be held in contempt with regard to his invocation |\n| 25 | of his Fifth Amendment privilege and then Mr. Kwok's motion |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 139 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
139 |\n| 1 | for a limited stay of the order granting in part the motion |\n| 2 | to compel compliance with the 2004 examination.
And |\n| 3 | Mr. Best and the parties were going to have some |\n| 4 | discussions. |\n| 5 | Mr. Best, did you want to report on where things |\n| 6 | stand at the moment? |\n| 7 | MR. BEST:
Yes, Your Honor.
We were in agreement |\n| 8 | even, I think, before the recess as to the -- Mr. Despins' |\n| 9 | request that the invocation of the Fifth be specific -- |\n| 10 | subject matter specific.
And then the only remaining |\n| 11 | question was on any discovery in the Southern District case |\n| 12 | and the trustee's availability to it. |\n| 13 | We are in agreement in principle that, subject to |\n| 14 | the U.S. Department of Justice and really, most importantly, |\n| 15 | the district court judge agreeing to the disclosure of it, |\n| 16 | I'm sure with many limitations or qualifications, that we |\n| 17 | won't stand in the way of that.
The discussion really is |\n| 18 | what's the best way -- how's the best way to accomplish |\n| 19 | that. |\n| 20 | We have not received any discovery, as I |\n| 21 | understand, yet.
Whether it be that the present subpoena |\n| 22 | remains in force with specific provisos regarding this |\n| 23 | specific issue -- all this is, I guess -- we didn't talk |\n| 24 | about this, but, you know, I would ask that the motion to |\n| 25 | hold the client in contempt be withdrawn without prejudice |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 140 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
140 |\n| 1 | and that we'll withdraw our extension motion as well.
And |\n| 2 | then we're left with let's sit down and try to figure out |\n| 3 | the best course ahead. |\n| 4 | There is a concern from the U.S. Trustee's counsel |\n| 5 | that they don't have standing in the Southern District for |\n| 6 | this subpoena.
I don't care how we get home.
There are |\n| 7 | multiple ways to do it so that -- they spoke about not |\n| 8 | wanting to have the obligation to go to the Department of |\n| 9 | Justice themselves. |\n| 10 | They're going to end up -- just so I'm transparent |\n| 11 | with the Court, they're going to end up in front of the U.S. |\n| 12 | District Court judge in the Southern District of New York, |\n| 13 | because I'm sure she or he is going to want to hear from |\n| 14 | them on the issues regarding limitations of use and the |\n| 15 | confidentiality and protective order.
So -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
When you say they, do you mean the |\n| 17 | Office of the United States Trustee? |\n| 18 | MR. BEST:
Correct. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 20 | MR. BEST:
And so I want to help the Court explore |\n| 21 | this and then help the Court in fashioning an order that -- |\n| 22 | or a ruling or -- and you don't -- I mean, I don't even know |\n| 23 | if you need to issue a ruling.
But I'd like clarity on the |\n| 24 | way forward.
I know you would.
I know everyone would.
And |\n| 25 | understanding that we will abide by whatever process makes |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 141 the best sense. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee has nothing to do with this, with all due respect. This is discovery of the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. BEST: Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. DESPINS: So and, you know, that's very different. THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: And so what should happen is that I think the Court should enter an order saying that the debtor is directed to seek a modification of any applicable protective order in the criminal case to allow the Chapter 11 Trustee access to the documents produced by the Government to the debtor. And you can add language saying that the debtor does not represent in any way that they have the ability to achieve that, but they're just going to ask and -- because they have standing. And if they get shot down, they get shot down. That's the risk we take. They cannot oppose that relief, because there's nothing -- with act of production, that's totally out the door then. So I think that should happen. And we should adjourn the hearing on the underlying motions for 20 days or something like that to see what transpires in the criminal Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 141 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 142 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
142 |\n| 1 | case.
That's, I think, the path forward. |\n| 2 | And, again, it doesn't cause the debtor to agree |\n| 3 | to something that they cannot deliver, because it's |\n| 4 | understood that they will simply ask.
And that's our |\n| 5 | pathway to that.
And if that doesn't work, you know, |\n| 6 | because the criminal court or the DOJ vetoes it, that's our |\n| 7 | risk.
We understand that. |\n| 8 | But the debtor has no standing -- I'm not using |\n| 9 | standing in the legal sense but practical sense -- to oppose |\n| 10 | an order that says you shall seek the right to share this |\n| 11 | with your Chapter 11 Trustee.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 13 | Attorney Claiborn? |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I do want |\n| 15 | to echo the clarification just made by Trustee Despins which |\n| 16 | is to say that Attorney Best's references to the Chapter -- |\n| 17 | to the U.S. Trustee are, in fact, references to the Chapter |\n| 18 | 11 Trustee.
The U.S. Trustee is not part of the discussions |\n| 19 | that have been happening between counsel and is not party to |\n| 20 | the agreement or lack thereof that they've been discussing. |\n| 21 | MR. BEST:
I apologize that I misspoke. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
That's okay. |\n| 23 | MR. BEST:
I'm sorry.
Go ahead. |\n| 24 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Go ahead.
Go ahead. |\n| 25 | MR. BEST:
No.
I'm fine with counsel proposing a |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 143 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
143 |\n| 1 | draft order that we look at and get to Your Honor if that's |\n| 2 | the easiest way of doing it. |\n| 3 | I just want to make sure everybody knows that |\n| 4 | there will be -- the protective order has limitations of use |\n| 5 | of the information.
And I think -- I see Mr. Despins |\n| 6 | shaking his head in acknowledgment. |\n| 7 | So that I think there's an agreement to be -- |\n| 8 | abide by if the Southern District Court so allows to use the |\n| 9 | information subject to the protective -- them being part of |\n| 10 | the protective order. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So I think what I'm hearing |\n| 12 | is -- Mr. Friedman, did you want to be heard? |\n| 13 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
I did, Your Honor.
It's Peter |\n| 14 | Friedman for O'Melveny & Myers.
And I'm going to also be |\n| 15 | joined by Ms. Mayhew -- |\n| 16 | MS. MAYHEW:
Yes. |\n| 17 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
-- on the committee.
We would both |\n| 18 | ask for -- to be in whatever discussions there are about a |\n| 19 | modification to the protective order in SDNY.
Both of our |\n| 20 | clients would like to be able to have access to documents |\n| 21 | or -- you know, subject to their willingness to sign onto |\n| 22 | any protective order the same way as occurred in the Chapter |\n| 23 | 11 case. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
The problem is, it's not the Chapter |\n| 25 | 11 case, though.
I mean, that's the problem, right? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 144 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
144 |\n| 1 | I mean, Trustee Despins, you have -- you're trying |\n| 2 | to get this information for your investigation. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct.
And, by the way, I could |\n| 4 | not hear what Mr. Friedman said, because he was -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Mr. Friedman is -- |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
-- too far from the -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Oh, yeah.
He -- |\n| 8 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Sorry. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Go ahead. |\n| 10 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
May I -- should I speak, Your |\n| 11 | Honor, or -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Please. |\n| 13 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Okay.
We were just requesting |\n| 14 | permission to also be able to review documents that are |\n| 15 | received in connection with your investigation subject to |\n| 16 | being a party to any protective order.
And I think the |\n| 17 | committee is making the same request. |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
And I -- normally, I would say |\n| 19 | absolutely.
But this is a sure bet way of making sure that |\n| 20 | we never get access to those documents.
The more people |\n| 21 | have access, the less likely it is that we have a right |\n| 22 | to -- that even we have the right to seek it.
So I'm not |\n| 23 | trying to be a difficult participant here, but I just -- |\n| 24 | it's not going to work. |\n| 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Your Honor, we believe that we |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 145 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
145 |\n| 1 | should be -- that the trustee should -- and we should be |\n| 2 | permitted to make the request.
If the judge in New York |\n| 3 | says that's an issue, then that's an issue.
But -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Well, it's not an issue for the judge |\n| 5 | in New York.
It's an issue here.
Right?
We're resolving |\n| 6 | matters that are in front of this Court.
And whether the |\n| 7 | judge in New York agrees to what the trustee is seeking is a |\n| 8 | different issue. |\n| 9 | But right now, the trustee is seeking to continue |\n| 10 | to perform his duties under the Bankruptcy Code. |\n| 11 | Apparently, Mr. Best, I think, and the trustee have an |\n| 12 | agreement that there'll be some form of an order that will |\n| 13 | be presented to this Court resolving these two matters that |\n| 14 | are on today's calendar, which is the trustee's motion |\n| 15 | which -- with regard to the trustee's motion to compel and |\n| 16 | the debtor's motion for stay. |\n| 17 | And the resolution is that the trustee is going to |\n| 18 | seek those documents from the court in the Southern District |\n| 19 | of New York, which the District of New York court may say |\n| 20 | no.
And but -- |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
Well, actually, Your Honor, it's |\n| 22 | that the debtor will seek -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Well, yes. |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
We're not seeking. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 146 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
146 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
The debtor will seek. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
The debtor will seek but then share |\n| 3 | with you once they're -- when they're -- |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Right.
Right.
And I have to say, |\n| 6 | under the circumstances as we're in right now, I have to |\n| 7 | agree with the Chapter 11 Trustee at this point that the -- |\n| 8 | that at this point, if the debtor seeks a modification of |\n| 9 | whatever the application orders are in the Southern District |\n| 10 | of New York, and if the Southern District of New York judge |\n| 11 | and, I guess, the U.S. Attorney's Office don't oppose that |\n| 12 | and it's granted, then the only information that will be |\n| 13 | produced to -- at this point to Mr. Kwok would be shared |\n| 14 | only with the Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 15 | There's just too much going on in this case right |\n| 16 | now that we can't have another month of fight about who gets |\n| 17 | what.
And that's what's going to happen.
And I'm not going |\n| 18 | to have that happen. |\n| 19 | The trustee has been appointed by this Court to |\n| | |\n\n conduct the investigation. That's what he's going to do. And whatever -- or he's going to try to do. And if he is -- if his resolution of these motions between the trustee and the debtor are on the terms and conditions that Mr. Best and Mr. Despins agree to, then that's how we're going to proceed at this time.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 147 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
147 |\n| 1 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
So, Your Honor, I guess my concern |\n| 2 | is then suppose the trustee files something in this Court |\n| 3 | under seal -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Then we'll address that -- |\n| 5 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
-- we would -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- when that happens. |\n| 7 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
So would we then have the ability |\n| 8 | to ask this Court to permit us -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
We'll -- |\n| 10 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
-- to review documents filed under |\n| 11 | seal and not be precluded, because we've been told we -- you |\n| 12 | know, that when the negotiations occur in -- between the |\n| 13 | trustee and the debtor in SDNY that, well, that order |\n| 14 | doesn't say that parties can apply to Judge Manning in order |\n| 15 | to obtain documents filed under seal.
That -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
We'll address that when and if that -- |\n| 17 | we get to that point. |\n| 18 | Look, the situation is this.
As you all know, |\n| 19 | we're up to over 1,700 docket entries in this case.
Every |\n| 20 | single day there is a new motion filed that needs an |\n| 21 | emergency hearing.
Every day.
I don't think we've gone |\n| 22 | through a day -- a week where we haven't had that.
Okay? |\n| 23 | There's an agreement here to try to make some |\n| 24 | progress between the trustee and Mr. Kwok's counsel.
I'm |\n| 25 | going to allow that to occur, and then we'll see what |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 148 happens. Every single thing in this case has changed from day to day and week to week. And so we'll see. I understand the concerns of PAX, and I understand the concerns of the committee. But if I'm -- I'm seeing that when you made that request, the debtor's counsel shake their head no. I'm not going to have another fight. We're not going to have briefs that are going to be filed about who can get what and -- There's an agreement. We're going to proceed with that agreement. I'm going to hold Mr. Best and Mr. Despins to that agreement. If they don't -- if something goes awry, then they'll have a problem in this Court. But right now, there's an agreement that could result in some progress for the trustee. And that's where we're going to -- that's how we're going to resolve the issue right now. That doesn't mean you can't ask anything you want to ask at some point in the future. But I -- we can't provide for every eventuality, or we'll never leave this room. And we've been here on this matter -- you know, we've been here on this matter then -- many more times than complex Chapter 11 corporate cases have been. And I think it's time to -- everyone has been trying. And I understand that. But at this point, that's where we are. Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 148 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 149 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
149 |\n| 1 | The trustee and Mr. Best are going to submit an |\n| 2 | order.
How much time do you both need?
Are you going to do |\n| 3 | it by tomorrow? |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, from our point of view. |\n| 5 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor.
May I be |\n| 6 | excused from the lectern so that it can be used? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Thank you. |\n| 8 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thanks. |\n| 9 | MR. BEST:
If Mr. Despins or his colleagues can |\n| 10 | get us the draft order for Your Honor to sign, we just need |\n| 11 | a little time to take it to see our client.
We don't have |\n| 12 | him -- we don't have easy access in that vein.
So by |\n| 13 | Monday, if we can get by close of business Monday? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
All I would say about what you just |\n| 15 | said is when you say see your client -- I understand you |\n| 16 | have to see your client.
But you've agreed that your |\n| 17 | client's not going to oppose this.
So -- |\n| 18 | MR. BEST:
I agree. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 20 | MR. BEST:
He just needs to see the order and -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And that's fair. |\n| 22 | MR. BEST:
Yeah. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I'm not suggesting anything to the |\n| 24 | contrary.
I'm just saying I don't want to hear that there's |\n| 25 | not -- there's no longer an agreement, because otherwise |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 150 then I'm -- MR. BEST: I completely understand. THE COURT: -- going to rule on these motions. MR. BEST: And without a doubt, you'd be free to. And I'm not using it as a qualifier. THE COURT: I'm not suggesting you are. MR. BEST: Okay. THE COURT: I want to make it very clear for the record. Okay? MR. BEST: And as I -- so in that vein, when we submit it and it's ordered, as I understand it, the trustee's motion for sanctions or contempt, show cause hearing and contempt are going to be withdrawn -- THE COURT: I don't think there is an agreement on withdrawal. MR. DESPINS: No. Adjourned. THE COURT: I think the agreement was about the order. What the Court what I would do, and I think is appropriate in this case, that we would continue these hearings out for some time to see where things stand. Because we need -- the trustee -- I know you haven't been involved in this case, Mr. Best -- MR. BEST: Right. THE COURT: -- for very long. But the trustee needs to do his investigation, right? What he -- and if Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 150 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 151 this is -- it may not even work, what he's trying to do, right? But he's trying to do it. And this Court's going to support that, because that's why the trustee -- not Mr. Despins in particular, but that's why a trustee was appointed in this case. Okay? So I am not going to have the motions be withdrawn to only have them have to be filed again. I'm going to continue them for some time. And we'll see where things stand. And what we need to do is have the parties, you - and you will, you and Mr. Despins, cooperate and see what can be done, if anything, in the Southern District of New York. I have ruled right now that the only parties that are going to see these documents are -- is the trustee. No one else. Okay? And where that goes, who knows. We'll see. But at this point, I am not going to have either of the motions withdrawn. I will have them both continued. Okay? MR. BEST: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And we will figure out -- and I'm going to continue them -- well, I'll take a look at the calendar in a moment. But I'm not going to go much beyond 30 or so days, because I want to see what progress has been made in the Southern District of New York. Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 151 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 152 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
152 |\n| 1 | MR. BEST:
I want to be clear.
We haven't gotten |\n| 2 | any discovery yet, so I -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I understand all that. |\n| 4 | MR. BEST:
So -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I completely -- |\n| 6 | MR. BEST:
Okay. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
And I appreciate that. |\n| 8 | MR. BEST:
Okay. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
But once you both start talking to the |\n| 10 | parties in the Southern District of New York, who knows what |\n| 11 | will happen, right? |\n| 12 | MR. BEST:
Right. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Or you may report back they're telling |\n| 14 | us they're not going to give us anything for 60 days.
I |\n| 15 | don't know what you're going to report back.
But we need to |\n| 16 | keep the trustee's ability to try to do his job at least |\n| 17 | moving in a forward direction -- |\n| 18 | MR. BEST:
Understood. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
--
however small that may be. |\n| 20 | MR. BEST:
Understood. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 22 | MR. BEST:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
All right.
So then let's see.
Well, |\n| 24 | we have a hearing scheduled in the case -- in the -- I'm |\n| 25 | sorry.
Not in the case but in an adversary proceeding |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 153 of\n\n| | 159 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
153 |\n| 1 | related to Mr. Kwok's case on March -- excuse me, May 30 at |\n| 2 | 1 p.m.
So I would continue the -- both of these matters |\n| 3 | until May 30 at 1:00 p.m., both the motion -- I will note it |\n| 4 | for the record since we -- our record is only audio, so we |\n| 5 | have to be very careful about what we say, make sure it's |\n| 6 | clear. |\n| 7 | So the motion for order to show cause with regard |\n| 8 | to the contempt issue with -- in particular with regard to |\n| 9 | Mr. Kwok, ECF 1453, is continued until May 30 at 1:00 p.m., |\n| 10 | as is the debtor's motion -- if you just give me one second, |\n| 11 | I'm sorry -- as is the debtor's motion for a limited stay of |\n| 12 | the order granting in part motion to compel compliance with |\n| 13 | Rule 2004 examination.
Subpoena, I should say.
Excuse me. |\n| 14 | Subpoena.
So that matter is continued which is ECF 1649. |\n| 15 | That matter is also continued to May 30 at 1:00 p.m. |\n| 16 | Now, Mr. Despins, before we adjourn for the day, |\n| 17 | you've now -- and you're both going to get that order to the |\n| 18 | Court no later than Monday, the agreed-upon order regarding |\n| 19 | documents in the control of the Southern District of New |\n| 20 | York.
I guess that's really what it is, right? |\n| 21 | MR. BEST:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
So, Mr. Despins, you started the |\n| 23 | argument today by indicating your concern about a conflict |\n| 24 | issue.
And I let these hearings go forward for many |\n| 25 | reasons, including the fact that everyone's here, and these |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 154 issues do need to be addressed. Are you pressing the issue of the conflict now, or are you holding that -- are you not pressing it at the moment in light of trying to proceed with your investigation? Because I need to determine whether or not I need to set a briefing schedule. And if -- I'll -- to be fair, since some -- you've had some discussions over the last hour. I will allow you to tell the Court that when you and Mr. Best submit the order regarding the attempt to -- you know, the process of trying to obtain the information in the Southern District of New York, if that's how you want to proceed. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. I was going to say I need to reflect on it. There's something I learned through the hearing today that, you know, made me think more about it, which is I knew we had received a subpoena, of course I knew that, from the DOJ. And it was to produce the deposition transcripts. That was very clear to me on that. But what I did not -- I have not focused on is that there was a line item that Mr. Best, you know, focused on which is Title 18 Section 152 which is bankruptcy crime, bankruptcy fraud. And the point there is -- first of all, there's nothing in the indictment about that at all. The subpoena clearly says that. And if that's real, I mean, if that -- they Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 154 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 155 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 155 actually are looking at that, that could only cover the period during which Brown Rudnick was counsel. So I need to get smarter about that issue, frankly, before I come back to Your Honor. I'm sorry. THE COURT: That's fine. That's fine. No. MR. DESPINS: I would love to be able to do it on the spot, but -- THE COURT: That's fine. That's fine. I do not want to have parties engage in briefing when it's not clear we're going to be doing that at this point in time. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Okay. And, Your Honor, I have a few housekeeping matters, if we can. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: First, I want to make sure you've seen the -- you remember that emergency order that describes who can have access to The Sherry Netherland and who cannot? We're submit -- THE COURT: All I know is -- MR. DESPINS: We submitted -- THE COURT: All I know is at some point yesterday afternoon there was a request that it be amended. But I -- do I actually have an amended order? The courtroom deputy is nodding her head. MR. DESPINS: You should have it, I believe. THE COURT: All right. I haven't seen it yet, but\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 156 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
156 |\n| 1 | I'll take a look at it. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
So that's one thing.
The |\n| 3 | second thing is that we had asked for a hearing date or |\n| 4 | objection deadline for the retention of Edmiston, |\n| 5 | E-D-M-I-S-T-O-N.
They're the Lady May sales broker.
We |\n| 6 | asked for -- we moved on an expedited basis.
Apologies. |\n| 7 | But, you know, they -- since they're starting to sell the |\n| 8 | yacht now, we need -- they want an order entered saying |\n| 9 | they're retained. |\n| 10 | So I just -- you don't have to decide that now.
I |\n| 11 | want to make sure it's on -- you know, that it's on your |\n| 12 | radar screen. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
So hold on. |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
And the last -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Hold on a second. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
Oh. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
An emergency motion on -- I thought we |\n| 18 | retained all the people for the yacht.
No? |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
No.
There was a -- the broker piece |\n| 20 | was missing.
We basically interviewed three different |\n| 21 | brokers.
We received bids for that.
And we filed a motion, |\n| 22 | I want to say -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Oh, okay. |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
-- Monday or -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 157 MR. DESPINS: -- seeking emergency relief on that. So I just wanted to make sure it's on your radar -- THE COURT: Is that where you're seeking a hearing for next Thursday? Is that the one? I -- MR. DESPINS: Well, not this Thursday. The Thursday next week for -- THE COURT: Right. A week from today. Isn't today Thursday? I hope it's Thursday. Okay. MR. DESPINS: Yeah, you're right. Sorry. THE COURT: A week from today. MR. DESPINS: Yes, you're right. Yes. THE COURT: All right. Yeah. I believe that the Court can accommodate the request, but it will -- might -- won't -- it most likely will not be until noon or later that day. MR. DESPINS: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? MR. DESPINS: And the last point I wanted to mention is that the order you entered, and thank you very much for doing that, regarding the motion to abandon scheduled a hearing on that motion for May 2nd. And, of course, implicit in that is that we would file the motion, which we have not. This week -- or and I'm not sure we'll be in a position to do that. And, therefore, we may need to move that May 2nd hearing to a later date, not too much Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 157 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 158 later but maybe five days or six days after -- THE COURT: That's fine. You can report on that next week. You can report on that -- MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: -- next week if you're not ready to go forward on the 2nd of May on that issue. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. So that's all I had in terms of housekeeping matters. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So then all of the matters then on today's calendar have been addressed, and the Court has no further hearings this afternoon. So court is adjourned. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. Court is adjourned. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. (Proceedings concluded at 2:33 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 158 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1719
Filed 04/28/23
Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48
Page 159 of
159 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
159 |\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | |\n| 3 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and |\n| 4 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that |\n| 5 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official |\n| 6 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above |\n| 7 | entitled matter. |\n| 8 | |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | April 27, 2023 |\n| 11 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| | |\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事由 *\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司）， *\n*\n债务人。 *\n*\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）， 对抗程序案号 22-05003\n*\n*\n原告， *\n诉 *\n*\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n*\nApril 20, 2023\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）， *\n*\n被告。 *\n*\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n#185\n关于第二项反诉的部分简易判决动议\n#1679 关于就请求作出准许放弃财产之命令的口头救济动议安排听证的命令\n根据《破产法典》第554条及\n《破产程序规则》第6007条 庭审记录\n#1453 请求作出说明理由令的动议，要求说明债务人、MEI GUO（郭美）及\nHK (USA) 不应因未遵守关于 FRBP 2004 传票的强制令\n而被认定藐视法庭的理由\n#1649 根据 FED. R. CIV. P.60\n及 FED R. BANKR. P. 9024，就部分准许\n要求遵守《规则》2004传票之强制执行动议的命令或判决\n提出有限中止执行动议（下称“该动议”），涉及\n准许第11章受托人限制通知并予以密封的动议之命令\n于尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官面前\n美国破产法官\n由速记服务机构制作。诉讼程序以电子录音方式记录，庭审记录\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 (203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：代表第11章 NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·巴塞特律师）\n受托人：Paul Hastings, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 DOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ.（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡律师） Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（诺伊伯特·佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所） 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 第11章受托人：LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·A·德斯平斯律师） Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 代表 Bravo Luck Limited（博瑞福有限公司）：JOANNA J. CLINE, ESQ.（乔安娜·J·克莱恩律师） Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP（特劳特曼·佩珀·汉密尔顿·桑德斯律师事务所） Hercules Plaza 1313 N. Market Street Suite 5100 Wilmington, DE 19899 代表原告、MELISSA F. WERNICK, ESQ.（梅丽莎·F·韦尼克律师）HK International 及 Chiesa Shahinian & Mei Guo：Giantomasi, PC（基耶萨·沙希尼安及贾恩托马西律师事务所）105 Eisenhauer Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 代表美国受托人：HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）美国受托人办公室 The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 代表债务人及 JAMES MORIARTY, ESQ.（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂律师）原告 HK ERIC HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·亨齐律师）International 及 Mei Guo：Zeisler & Zeisler, PC（蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒律师事务所）10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 代表债务人：STEPHEN BEST, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·贝斯特律师）WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.（威廉·巴尔迪加律师）Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）601 13th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005\n\n出庭人员（续）：代表 Pacific Alliance PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）Asia Opportunity Fund, LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，有限合伙）：O'Melveny & Myers, LLP（欧麦律师事务所）1625 Eye Street NW Washington, DC 20006 代表 Rui Ma（马锐）、Weican Meng（孟伟灿）、KRISTIN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯汀·梅休律师）Zheng Wu（吴征）及 Official Pullman & Comley, LLC（普尔曼及康利律师事务所）无担保债权人正式委员会：850 Main Street, 8th Floor Creditors: P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 4 of 159\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 4 （庭审于上午9:39开始。）法庭书记员：案号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok，以及对抗程序案号22-5003，HK International Funds Investments诉Despins。法官：早上好。请各方为记录作出庭声明，先请第11章受托人。DESPINS先生：早上好，法官阁下。卢克·德斯平斯，第11章受托人，远程出庭。谢谢。法官：早上好。BASSETT先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所的尼克·巴塞特，第11章受托人的代理律师。法官：早上好。SKALKA先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是诺伊伯特·佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所的道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡，作为第11章受托人的康涅狄格州律师。法官：早上好。WERNICK女士：早上好，法官阁下。我是基耶萨·沙希尼安及贾恩托马西律师事务所的梅丽莎·韦尼克，代表HK USA。法官：早上好。MORIARTY先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒律师事务所的詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂，代表HK USA和债务人。我相信亨齐律师不久将与我一同出庭，\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 5 同样代表债务人，我相信那项事项定于10:30。法官：好的。MORIARTY先生：谢谢。法官：谢谢。是否有人代表Guo女士出庭？WERNICK女士：我也代表Guo女士，但该项具体的简易判决动议实际上针对HK USA。不过，就该动议而言，我们也担任Mei Guo的律师。法官：好的。谢谢。MORIARTY先生：蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒律师事务所也是如此，法官阁下。法官：好的。谢谢。在对抗程序案号22-05003的日程中，有第11章受托人，即反诉原告，提出的部分简易判决动议。Bassett先生，您将进行该项辩论吗？BASSETT先生：是的，法官阁下。法官：好的。请继续。BASSETT先生：那么，法官阁下，再次为记录说明，我是保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所的尼克·巴塞特，代表第11章受托人。如法院所述，我们今天上午在本次听证的这一部分到庭，是为了请法院\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 5 of 159\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 6 of 159\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023\n1 审议受托人在本对抗程序中提出的第二项\n2 部分简易判决动议，此次针对其\n3 第二项反诉，该反诉请求本法院裁定\n4 HK USA为债务人的另我，因此，\n5 HK USA的全部财产均为债务人的财产。\n6 法官阁下，我希望今天上午能使我的陈述\n7 相当简短。其中一个原因是，\n8 正如我们在书面文件中所讨论的，以及法院十分\n9 清楚的，我们在此并非从一张白纸开始。远非如此。\n10 \n11 事实上，法院已经就今天将在法院\n12 面前审议的这项简易判决动议中\n13 许多关键争点作出了裁决。\n14 首先，当然，法院已经裁决了受托人就其第一项\n15 反诉提出的先前部分简易判决动议。在作出该裁决时，\n16 法院认定债务人，以及现为受托人的一方，拥有并控制Lady May（“五月女士”号）。\n17 \n18 第二，上周五，法院作出裁定，部分驳回被告的驳回动议，\n19 并完全驳回被告针对\n20 此处争议中的第二项反诉提出的驳回动议。\n21 \n22 在作出该裁定时，法院驳回了反诉被告为回应\n23 简易判决而再次提出的论点，包括与Wagoner rule（瓦格纳规则）、\n24 in pari delicto（不法行为同等原则）有关的论点，以及与Lady May\n25 有关的论点。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 7\n\n1 约定。\n\n2 法官阁下，鉴于法院的这些先前裁定，以及\n3 法院在简易判决阶段面前无争议的事实记录，\n4 我认为，就另我案件而言，本案在法官阁下面前\n5 可谓是最简单的案件，并且是诉讼此阶段\n6 进行简易判决的完美候选案件。\n7 \n8 已经确立、承认且无争议的事实是：\n9 第一，HK USA在其历史上从未从事任何\n10 除拥有和运营Lady May以外的商业活动。\n11 \n12 法官：Bassett律师，您具体指的是\n13 《规则》56(a)(1)和(a)(2)陈述吗？\n14 BASSETT先生：正是。我可以说明这些事实\n15 所对应的具体引文——\n16 法官：我希望双方在今天上午进行辩论时都这样做，\n17 因为，如您所知，康涅狄格州联邦地区法院要求提交这些陈述\n18 具有十分具体的目的，包括使\n19 法院——无论哪一个法院裁定简易判决——\n20 在必要时援引这些事实。\n21 \n22 因此，我并非意图打断您的辩论，尽管我确实打断了；\n23 但我这样做是为了让双方知道，\n24 我希望你们在可以时援引《规则》56——即《地方规则》56(a)(1)，\n25 那将是你方的\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 8 陈述，随后是代表原告反诉被告的律师所提交的56(a)(2)陈述。好吗？那么，请继续。BASSETT先生：这很公平，法官阁下。就此而言，关于我刚才所作的陈述，如果法院查阅反诉被告对受托人《规则》56陈述的答复，即ECF 204第11段，反诉被告承认：“On March 31, 2023, with the consent of the counter-defendants, the Court entered an order confirming that the Lady May II is also property of the debtor's estate.” 下一段：“The estate thus already owns and controls all of the assets that the counter-defendants contend HK USA has ever owned.” 因此，法官阁下，这就回到了我方对争点和论证的界定，以及我为何认为本案是非常直接的简易判决候选案件：你们已有该项承认。该实体曾拥有的唯一资产，以及其曾就Lady May开展的唯一业务，后来根据未披露的Lady May II所有权所确定的，还有Lady May II。然后，我们还拥有的，正是我刚才向法院宣读的内容。我们已经获得本法院作出的具有约束力的裁定，即\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 8 of 159\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 9 of 159\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 9 债务人而非如其女儿所主张的她本人，拥有并控制这两项资产；这两项资产是该实体曾经拥有的唯一资产。记录中没有任何——我无法向法院指出一个不存在的事实——但记录中没有任何内容表明，Lady May——抱歉，是HK USA，曾经从事任何其他事项、任何其他商业活动，或历史上曾拥有除拥有和运营Lady May以及随之的Lady May II以外的任何其他资产。法官阁下，我认为，这正是另我请求的本质。因为债务人对HK USA曾经进行的一切拥有完全支配和控制。\n\n作为回应，反诉被告提出了某些抗辩。但我认为，正如我稍后将说明的，法院在裁定驳回动议时已经驳回这些抗辩。尽管程序立场不同，但基于我将讨论的理由，我认为在此处的事实和情形下这并无区别。\n\n因此，我将用余下时间——再次说明，我会尽量相对简短——首先进一步、更详细地说明另我请求本身的实体理由，以及对一些反驳论点的回应。随后，我将简要处理一些抗辩。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 10 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 10 就另我请求的实体理由而言，我认为适用标准没有争议。根据特拉华州法律，为确定一个实体是否为另一个实体的另我，法院将首先审查——其中有两个要件。第一，债务人——在本案中，即债务人与HK USA——是否基本上作为一个单一单位运作；这要求证明债务人支配并控制HK USA及其活动。这是第一项要件。第二，该另我地位是否被用于持续实施某种欺诈或不公正行为。我认为，这两个要件均可轻易满足，不存在任何关于重大事实的真实争议。\n\n关于第一项要件，即我所谓的支配和控制要件，我再次强调，其出发点是，这如今已成为本案既定法律原则。本法院已经确定，债务人支配并控制HK USA曾经拥有的唯一资产，而这些资产构成其曾经从事的唯一商业活动的基础。因此，就HK USA曾经从事任何事项而言，均与这些资产有关。债务人控制这些资产，因此债务人以该种方式支配并控制HK USA。现在，反诉被告在其书面文件中\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 11 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n歪曲受托人的论点，称我们基本上是在——我想可以说——试图借助本院先前的简易判决裁定及其中涉及的争点排除问题，实际上就另我问题取得争点排除效力。\n\n但这根本不是受托人所主张的。我们并未主张，本院认定债务人拥有并控制 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）和 Lady May II（“Lady May II”号游艇）这一事实，本身即可决定另我请求。\n\n我们所主张的是，在本案的事实和情形下，其他事实表明 HK USA（HK USA公司）从未从事任何其他活动，该项裁定和认定已足以，或者说基本上足以，得出该结论，因为 HK USA 从未从事任何其他需要通过事实证明债务人对其行使支配和控制的活动。\n\n此外，与反诉被告所称相反，受托人也未主张 Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）已经裁决了另我问题。他没有。本院已经确认并裁定，他所裁决的是债务人拥有并控制 Lady May。\n\n我不太清楚反诉被告是否——我的意思是，坦率地说，在我看来，反诉被告是在要求本院重新审查该先前认定。他们在其反对意见和事实陈述中称，Justice Ostrager 面前的问题并非 Lady May 的所有权，等等。这些都无关紧要，也不在本院审理范围内，因为本院已经对此作出裁决。这是本案既定法则。他们已对该裁决提出上诉。如其对此有异议，应由区法院处理。我还想指出，因为反诉被告再次将我们的立场描述为：Lady May 的所有权和控制权，仅此而已，没有其他内容。但并非如此。记录中还有其他重要事实，直接涉及另我分析，并证明了如我所述的事实，即不存在争议：HK USA 从未从事任何其他活动。这一点载于两套 Rule 56 事实陈述中。我可以提供具体引文，但我认为很容易找到。不存在争议的是，据债务人所述，HK USA“没有且从未有过任何高级职员、董事或雇员；其不提交纳税申报表；没有银行账户；未获资本注入；除 Lady May 和 Lady May II 外没有其他资产；并且从未有过专用电子邮件服务器或电子邮件后缀，即其没有任何自身文件”。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 12 of 19\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023\n\n反诉被告现在称，这些事实可能仅意味着 HK USA 是债务人女儿的另我，而非债务人的另我。但该立场毫无依据。\n\n因为要提出该论点，他们必须证明 HK USA 在其存续期间从事过某些业务，并且除拥有和经营 Lady May 之外还做过其他事情，而这些活动可能由债务人的女儿而非债务人行使控制。\n\n但本案中并无其他活动，所有这些另我因素，即它是一家空壳公司，没有资产，没有雇员，除 Lady May 和 Lady May II 外没有其他资产，没有雇员，没有高级职员、董事，没有银行账户，所有这些只能证明这是一个由债务人支配和控制的实体；本院已认定债务人对该实体曾经拥有的唯一资产享有支配权和控制权。\n\n除我就此引用的 Rule 56.1 陈述第11段外，我还请本院注意 Mei Guo（郭美）的声明，该声明已在主案中作为 ECF 1544 提交，涉及 HK USA 履行其文件提交义务的问题。这见于第24和25段，其中郭美称：“如上所述，我是 HK USA 的唯一所有人，HK USA 没有任何雇员，也不维持任何银行账户。事实上，Lady May 是 HK USA 的唯一资产。”她接着称：“此外，我为 HK USA 保存的唯一文件或通信均与 Lady May 有关，而该等文件已被排除在 January 20th 命令之外。”换言之，她所说的是，HK USA 拥有的唯一文件是我持有的文件，而我持有的唯一文件是与 Lady May 运营有关的文件，因为那是 HK USA 曾经从事的全部活动。这是我们在书面文件中强调的另一点，反诉被告甚至没有作出回应；但我认为，这是应当向本院强调的一项极其重要的事实，并且在我看来，它极其有力地反驳了反诉被告关于债务人的女儿而非债务人拥有并控制 HK USA 的立场。这是因为，在 February 2022，债务人的女儿在纽约法院 Justice Ostrager 面前宣誓作证称，据她所知，她的兄弟拥有 Lady May II。她被展示了一张 Lady May II 的照片，并在证人席上被问及谁拥有它。她回答：我的兄弟拥有。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 13 of 19\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023\n\n当然，我们现在知道，并且现已获承认和让步的是，Lady May II 现在以及一直以来均登记在 HK USA 名下，包括在她作出该证词时。\n\n因此，除非她将承认自己作了伪证——而她并未如此承认——否则，法官阁下，这表明自称拥有并控制 HK USA 的人，甚至不知道其拥有 HK USA 的两项资产之一。\n\n而这并非不重要的资产。Lady May II 是一艘长约50英尺、价值超过一百万美元的船，可能会被认为是我们许多人见过或登上过的最大豪华游艇。\n\n她不知道她的公司拥有该船这一事实，已经充分说明她是否实际拥有并控制该实体。答案是她没有。她的父亲拥有并控制该实体。\n\n简要而言，关于若干判例法——我认为反诉被告的答复中有一种说法，即债务人并非 HK USA 经营协议中列名的成员，这不知为何具有相关性。这无关紧要，因为特拉华州揭开公司面纱或另我法并不要求在揭开公司面纱分析中处于争议中的人必须是列名股东，或者在本案中是有限责任公司的列名成员。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 14 of 19\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023\n\n如果不是这样，显然极易被滥用，因为如同本案这种情形，任何想要隐藏其资产的债务人只需将其资产置于一家由家庭成员——如本案中——拥有的公司名下即可。而本案中，我们已经证明了所需的支配和控制。债务人并非有限责任公司协议中的列名当事人这一事实显然无关紧要。\n\n就另我分析的第二项要件而言，即由另我关系促成的欺诈或不公，尽管反诉被告试图如此主张，但我看不出他们如何能够可信地声称：如果 HK USA 确为债务人的另我，它并未被用于对债务人的债权人造成不公。\n\n事实上，HK USA 成为债务人另我的全部目的，就是使 Lady May 和 Lady May II 免于被债务人的债权人追偿。\n\n这正是他在纽约诉讼中向 Justice Ostrager 所采取的全部立场，也是他在本院诉讼中采取的立场，并且也是债务人的女儿本人在 February 2022 于 Justice Ostrager 面前试图作出的证词所支持的立场；如本院所知，Justice Ostrager 认定该证词毫无可信度。因此，我认为，不可能对以下事实存在争议：如果确实存在另我关系，则该另我关系被用于对债务人的债权人造成不公。我现在转而——当然，我会保留时间，以回应律师可能就这种门槛性的另我分析提出的任何进一步意见。但我现在将简要谈谈几项抗辩。第一，如我所述，反诉被告提出 Wagoner 规则和同等过错抗辩。我认为对此不可能存在任何分歧——顺便说一句，该书状是反诉被告在本院作出其——或者我认为是在本院作出其驳回动议裁定之前或同时提交的。但我认为，驳回动议裁定已解决该问题，因为如本院在该裁定中正确认定，Wagoner 规则和同等过错不适用于关于另我的第二项反诉请求，原因在于受托人提出该反诉请求时并非代位于债务人的地位，而是依据《破产法》Section 544(a) 代位于债务人债权人的地位。因此，我认为该问题已经解决。其提出的另一项论点是关于 Lady May 协议约定的论点，主张该协议约定阻止本院就另我关系作出命令，因为这将导致债务人——抱歉，受托人成为——或者说，财产成为——托管资金的所有人；该等资金最初为37 million，现在约为$33 million。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 18 of 19\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023\n\n我再次认为，该项抗辩已在本院——在本院先前的一项裁定中得到处理和解决，这次也是——我想也是驳回动议裁定。\n\n如本院所记得，在该裁定中，本院广泛审查了适用判例法，讨论了由自行管理债务人订立的协议约定在何种情形下对后来任命的受托人具有或不具有约束力。\n\n本院注意到，浩繁判例认为，该问题的答案取决于案件的事实、情形及衡平因素。\n\n随后，根据该法律，本院审查并分析了本案所涉事实，特别提出了四点。\n\n正如我们在已提交的答复书状中指出的，这四点中的每一点同样有效，适用于\n\n本院今日审理的简易判决动议，与此前审理驳回动议时一样，尽管所适用的标准确有不同。\n\n原因在于，对于本院确定的四项考量中与之相关的任何事实，均不存在真正的重大事实争议。\n\n第一项——我将简要回顾这些考量——本院确定的第一项考量是，HK USA及债务人的女儿，即寻求针对其获得救济的该项约定当事人，均非债权人。\n\n因此，关于债权人会因与占有中的债务人达成协议而感到安心的政策关切，并不涉及于此。对于与该项考量相关的事实，不存在争议。\n\n第二项考量，而且我认为这一项非常重要，是本院在裁定驳回动议时承认，如果本院“就揭开公司面纱主张的实体问题作出有利于受托人的认定，允许受托人从托管资金中获得追偿，将不会对HK USA造成任何不利影响，因为本院将已认定HK USA即为该个人债务人，或者由该个人债务人拥有或控制。”\n\n随后，本院表示：“不存在任何公共政策利益，允许个人债务人在破产程序中进行自我交易，以使资产免受破产程序的影响。”\n\n因此，显然，法官阁下，本院当前审理的这项动议完全取决于HK USA是否为债务人的另一个自我。\n\n只有在本院认为受托人已证明HK USA事实上是债务人的另一个自我时，我们才会讨论该项约定是否适用的问题。\n\n因此，我们是在这样的前提下进行讨论：与本院该项考量及驳回动议裁定相关的全部事实均已得到确认。\n\n我还要强调，我认为本院着重强调这一问题或这些考量是完全正确的，因为如果最终认定HK USA是且一直是债务人的另一个自我，那么允许本案债务人利用Lady May约定作为有效的掩饰手段，将现属其所有的超过$30 million资产从其债权人处隐藏起来，将是极不公平的——至少可以这样说。\n\n如果当时情况如此，并且当时已知晓这一点，该约定的当事人，包括PAX和委员会，都不可能同意该约定。我也无法想象本院会批准该约定。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n因此，我认为，单就这一点而言，基于衡平原则，已足以使本院认定Lady May约定并不阻止受托人所寻求的救济。本院确定的下一项考量与上一项类似，即债务人从事空壳交易等行为的历史，也为基于衡平理由决定该约定不具有约束力提供了适当背景。本院在该处再次准确地指出，我认为，受托人为证明此类空壳交易的使用而提出的证据类型，可能与债务人——或者说受托人——为证明HK USA是债务人的另一个自我而提出的证据相同。我认为这完全正确。基于我刚才讨论的理由，债务人利用HK USA将资产从债权人处隐藏的事实，是该约定不应被用来阻止受托人寻求救济的又一理由。本院确定的第四项考量是，与许多认定占有中的债务人所作约定对受托人具有约束力的其他案件不同，本案中该约定并未——无争议的是，该约定从其表面上看并未明确约束受托人，尽管在订立该约定时已有一项指定受托人的动议尚待裁定。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n因此，再次强调，这些都是本院在认定该约定对受托人不具有约束力时所确定的考量，而且其中没有任何一项涉及真正的重大事实争议。因此，本院可以就该问题作出有利于受托人的简易判决。\n\n我最后要指出的是，我们在简易判决动议中提出了另一项论点，本院在驳回动议裁定中未予处理。该论点与我刚才所述的论点有关，即作为法律问题，如果HK USA与债务人在订立Lady May约定时互为另一个自我，也就是说二者之间不存在区别，那么作为法律问题，并且这是合同法的基本原则，二者之间的协议不具有约束力，因为合同法的一项不可变原则是，任何人不得与其自身订立协议。每一项协议均需要两方当事人。我们已在书面陈述中援引了支持该点的判例依据。\n\n因此，法官阁下，我最后要说的一点是，反诉被告在其反对意见末尾提出了一项看似请求，即如本院批准简易判决动议，则解除PJR及初步禁令。\n\n我对此的回应仅是，这是一项独立的救济请求。事实上，反诉被告也承认这一点，并已提交一项单独动议请求该项救济，而该动议仍在待决中。\n\n他们曾请求加快审理，以便于今日进行听证。我们对此提出了异议。据我所知，本院尚未发布命令将该事项列入日程。\n\n因此，我仅要指出，受托人保留其权利，在适当时就该动议作出回应时处理该论点。\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n本院：仅有几个问题。\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。\n\n本院：我相信我理解你们的论点。我已阅读书面材料。正如我在你们陈述开始时所指出的，我将会——我正着重关注第56(a)(1)和(a)(2)项陈述。\n\n在反诉被告——反诉原告的律师发言时——我的意思是，我看到受托人提出的若干事实，反诉原告对此提出异议。\n\n如果以及当反诉原告在其陈述中提出这些异议时，你们可能需要准备作出回应，因为，如你们所知，受托人的56(a)(1)陈述中有44项事实，此外还有反诉原告提出的这些额外重大事实。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n反诉原告已列明这些事实。虽然我——你们目前尚未对此作出回应，但我将要求各方就这些问题进行陈述。因此——\n\n巴塞特先生：不，不。\n\n本院：——我不知道你们目前是否希望就反诉原告列明的额外重大事实作出任何陈述，但我将要求你们作出回应——要么现在告诉我，要么在反诉原告进行陈述时要求你们回应这些问题。\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。我愿意——或许我现在可以在能力所及的范围内作出回应。然后，显然，当律师——如果以及当律师提出具体问题时，我可以在反驳中再次回应。\n\n我要说的是——显然，我们的56.1陈述载有若干事实，其中许多是为最终寻求的救济提供背景的事实。我今天在陈述中试图做的是，向本院强调我认为本院为认定HK USA是债务人的另一个自我而需要考虑的唯一重大事实。\n\n而且，您知道，他们对其他事实提出争议。我们的56.1陈述中可能有存在争议的事实，但——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n本院——在其中某些事实存在争议的范围内，这并不会阻止作出简易判决。\n\n本院：我不是说这会或不会。我只是说，我希望记录清楚——\n\n巴塞特先生：而我要——\n\n本院：——关于这些问题。\n\n巴塞特先生：而我要强调的是，第56.1条陈述很清楚，而且我此前已经说明并提供了相应引述，即HK USA曾经拥有的唯一资产是Lady May，现在则是Lady May II。无争议的是，受托人经由债务人拥有并控制这些资产。对此有一项承认。我认为是我所引述的第12段。\n\n同样无争议的是——我现在引用原文，因为这部分来自瓦尔坦律师（Attorney Vartan）提交给纽约法院的一封信，我们已将该信提交本院。而且，他们当然在其事实陈述中完全承认，HK USA从未有过任何高级职员、雇员、银行账户或董事。除Lady May和Lady May II外，它从未拥有任何其他资产。它从未——从未以任何方式获得资本注入。它从未为通信维护自己的电子邮件服务器。\n\n这些事实表明，HK USA所做的一切——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n——HK USA曾经做过的一切——而且不存在相反证据——除反诉被告的事实陈述中有几项陈述称，HK USA通过Mei Guo（郭美）订立了某些合同。这些被其援引的合同，是与在该游艇上工作的各方订立的一系列保密协议，以及一份与人事服务公司订立的协议。\n\n对此有几点回应。第一，这些协议涉及Lady May的所有权和控制权。已经确认，债务人的女儿并不控制Lady May或其运营。\n\n顺便说一句，这是有充分理由的。这一记录已提交本院，因为本院已就第一项简易判决动议作出裁定。\n\n虽然本院是基于争议排除作出该裁定的，但奥斯特拉格法官（Justice Ostrager）作出其所作决定是有理由的。\n\n因为在2022年2月听证会上，当所有这些人作证时——顺便说一句，这也已作为我们就简易判决动议提交的答复材料的一部分，以Mei Guo的证言形式提交本院；我们要求她审阅、确认并同意这些人在奥斯特拉格法官面前所作的陈述。\n\nLady May的前船长，一名人士在\n\n管理公司 YACHTZOO 的人员均出庭作证，他们都表示从未与债务人的女儿联系。她并未向他们发出指示。她在其证言录取中也同意所有这些内容。我可以向法庭提供证言录取笔录的引用。\n\n他们还作证称，是债务人本人——即该女儿的父亲——就该船应驶往何处发出指示。其中一人被问及，债务人与债务人的女儿谁更常在船上。他说债务人多得多。\n\n鉴于反诉被告所能指出的、据称属于 HK USA（HK USA）额外活动的唯一事项——如果查看其所有事实陈述，全部都是关于 Ostrager 法官（Justice Ostrager）作出或未作出何种裁决的无关论调——所有这些均具有关联性。那无关紧要且已无实际意义，因为禁止反言适用于所有权问题已构成案件既判法。其他一切均与另我分析无关。\n\n再次，就我所能回忆的，他们所指出的唯一事项就是这些合同。但这些合同在涉及 Lady May（Lady May号游艇）时并不能证明任何事情；Lady May 是 HK USA 的唯一资产，而法庭已经认定债务人拥有并控制该资产。\n\n因此，再次说明，我乐于回应其他事实，但我认为他们提出的没有任何其他事项对该分析具有重要性。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 28 至分析。\n\n法庭：您所说的郭女士的证言录取，即附在您声明中的今年一月的证言录取，对吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：是的。我将为记录提供对具体证言的若干引用。因此，该证言录取笔录，第93页——\n\n法庭：好的。请稍等片刻，好吗？我正在看——\n\nBASSETT 先生：当然。\n\n法庭：我正在看您的声明，我相信——该证言录取笔录是您声明的附件12。对吗，还是不是？\n\nBASSETT 先生：让我核实一下。\n\n法庭：我想确保我看的是正确的文件。哦，也许不是。\n\nBASSETT 先生：嗯，它是——\n\n法庭：哦，您正在看——您说的是您在答复中的材料。\n\nBASSETT 先生：对。它附在答复中。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，它并非附在您的原始声明中，而是附在答复中。\n\nBASSETT 先生：没错。\n\n法庭：即 ECF Number 209，于星期一提交。我的意思是，今天是星期几？星期二。星期二。Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 28 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 29 18日。\n\nBASSETT 先生：没错。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。您是要我看第93页吗？您的意思是这样吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：当然。法官阁下现在可以查看，或者我可以向您提供记录引用，供您稍后查看。它——\n\n法庭：我想——\n\nBASSETT 先生：当然。\n\n法庭：——现在就看那里。\n\nBASSETT 先生：当然。\n\n法庭：好的？那么，在第93页上，您具体希望我查看何处？\n\nBASSETT 先生：如果您看，我认为是从第16行开始。我们在证言录取中要求郭女士查看 Russell Stockil 的证言，他是负责 YACHTZOO 管理事务的人。如果您查看第93页第16行至第94页第16行的该证言，她——郭美确认其证言准确，即她从未就该游艇与他联系。如果您看第95页第13行至第96页第3行，郭美确认她从未与 Stockil 先生交谈的证言。如果您看第96页第4行至第22行，她确认其证言，即与 Lady May 有关的所有指示均来自 Case 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 29 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023\n\n“家族办公室”。\n\n因此，再次，就其援引这些管理协议而言，这并不能证明其对 HK USA 具有独立控制权：第一，法庭已经认定债务人具有该控制权；第二，其他事实表明，她实际上并未行使控制权。\n\n第97页第13行至第99页第3行是另一段摘录。这是关于 Momchil Ivanov 的证言的问题。\n\n法庭：对不起。97什么？抱歉。\n\nBASSETT 先生：第97页第13行至第99页第3行。\n\n法庭：好的。请给我一秒钟。\n\nBASSETT 先生：当然。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\nBASSETT 先生：这些是关于 Momchil Ivanov 的证言的问题，他是 Lady May 的前船长。再次，如果您查看笔录，郭美同意 Ivanov 先生的证言，即他从未与郭美交谈，也从未接受她的指示。\n\n如果您看第102页第4行至第107页第17行，这是关于 Craig Heaslop 的证言，他是现任 Lady May 船长。此处的证言——郭美确认她对此并无异议——是债务人“时常在游艇上”。当被问及此事时，他说债务人在游艇上的时间远多于其女儿。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 31 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023\n\n郭美还在我向法庭提请注意的这段摘录中确认 Heaslop 先生的证言准确，即郭美并非最终告诉他——告诉 Heaslop 先生——该游艇不再需要停留在纽约的人。她还确认他的证言，即债务人在使用游艇时，每次都会指示游艇驶往何处。\n\n我还请法庭注意证言录取笔录第168页。\n\n法庭：请给我一点时间翻到那里。\n\nBASSETT 先生：当然。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\nBASSETT 先生：她被特别问及这些保密协议和这份人员配备协议，并被问及——这是第168页第13行。她被问及是否知悉 HK USA 有任何其他带有——带有她签名的文件。她的证言是：“我不确定。”\n\n这并不令人意外，因为再次说明，HK USA 没有从事任何其他活动是已获承认且未受争议的事实，更遑论真正存在争议。因此，没有其他合同可供她就其签署。\n\n而且，为明确起见，她签署这些保密协议和一份人员配备协议这一事实，并不能在债务人无可争议地拥有并控制 Lady May 的情况下，从债务人手中夺走对 HK USA 的控制权。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 32 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023\n\n他才是为 Lady May 作出决定的人。他控制了它，而不是她。\n\n我还要指出，这些协议，即保密协议和人员配备协议，被提供并注明日期——至少可以说，令人好奇的是，它们是在纽约 PAX 诉讼期间提供的；在该诉讼中，债务人的女儿试图通过 Ostrager 法官认定完全不可信的证言，证明存在某种独立性，并证明她以某种方式对 HK USA 行使独立控制权。\n\n由于这一令人好奇的时间安排，我们当然如证言录取笔录所示，询问她是否知悉任何其他协议、与现任船长的任何保密协议、任何其他时间的文件。\n\n法庭：您问过她这个问题？\n\nBASSETT 先生：我们在她的证言录取中问过她。\n\n法庭：不是在证言录取中——在您刚才向我展示的那一页上？您说这发生在 PAX 诉讼期间——\n\nBASSETT 先生：不。那确实发生了。但我们是在——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nBASSETT 先生：——她的证言录取中问她这个问题。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\nBASSETT 先生：而且，我认为我刚才向法庭引用的证言录取证言支持该命题，因为我们问她是否知悉任何其他协议。她说：“我不确定。”\n\n我认为有一处我们更具体地问她是否与其他人存在保密协议。我可以找到该处。但无论如何，答案是否定的。我认为这很能说明问题，因为她能够提出的唯一保密协议和唯一协议，都是在存在诉讼理由需要提供它们时才出现的。\n\n因此，就该问题而言——我一直在讨论的所有这些事实均与此有关——我还要指出的是：\n\n但是，关于禁止反言是否适用于此处的问题，再次说明，这并非我们所主张的。我们并不主张这是一个禁止反言问题，即 Ostrager 法官裁定了禁止反言——裁定了，您知道，另我问题。\n\n相反，法庭已经裁定了所有权问题。这具有约束力。这是案件既判法。无需——不需要重新审理。\n\n但即使法庭出于某种原因倾向于——而且，再次说明，我甚至不认为法庭可以这样做，因为该事项正在上诉中，且不存在管辖权——但即使法庭可以重新考虑该问题，我刚才宣读的这些事实以及记录中的其他事实也清楚表明。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023\n\nLady May 的所有人和控制人是谁，这一点毫无疑问。\n\n除我刚才宣读的事实外，如果您查看起诉状本身，本案起诉状中的叙述是：郭美在中国被拘留期间，她的兄弟于2015年2月为她购买 Lady May，尽管她并未来到美国，且即使理论上也无法接触 Lady May，直至——根据她在起诉状中的承认——2017年5月。\n\n但谁在美国，谁能够接触该船？这正是其起诉状中谈及 Lady May 于2015年2月被购买的段落之前紧接的一段。债务人于2015年初逃往美国。\n\n这只是——而且基于所有这些理由，我们本不应谈论此事，因为该问题无需重新诉讼。但这就是 Ostrager 法官作出其裁决的原因。根本不存在任何可信依据认为这艘游艇实际上是为女儿而非债务人购买的。\n\n而且同样不存在争议——您看过起诉状。设立 HK USA 的目的是将 Lady May 从一个 BDI 实体转移至一个美国实体。\n\n而且，我认为郭美在其证言录取中说过——我没有具体引文——在本案的证言录取中，她说，哦，她认为如果实体在美国，控制起来会更容易。\n\n但关键在于，根据她自己的承认，这只是一家为持有该游艇而设立的空壳公司。仅此而已。而且，已经确定债务人拥有并控制该游艇。\n\n如我所说，这是一宗因其简单性而罕见的另我案件。这里的情况是，该实体从未从事任何其他活动，而债务人支配并控制其唯一资产；该资产构成该实体曾经从事的唯一运营和业务的基础。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢您，Bassett 律师。\n\n请反诉被告陈述。\n\nWERNICK 女士：早上好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nWERNICK 女士：您好。今天上午，受托人请求法庭作出一项不同寻常的认定，即一名非登记所有人是一家 Delaware（特拉华州）有限责任公司的另我。\n\n而这很不同寻常，因为 Delaware 公司法中没有作出此类认定的法律构造。而且，受托人在其对简易判决动议的答复中明显地——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 36 该简易判决未提出任何相反的判例法，且其今晨的陈述中仅一笔带过地提及此事。法院：请让我就在这里打断您。WERNICK女士（韦尼克女士）：嗯。法院：您所说的特拉华州没有法律支持认定不存在另我关系，这是什么意思——WERNICK女士：当然。确实如此。因此，依照特拉华州明确确立的法律，揭开公司面纱适用于使成员或股东对公司的债务承担责任。另有一种独立的反向揭开公司面纱请求，适用于使公司对股东的债务承担责任。法院：那么，Walrath法官的案件怎么说？该案称不一定必须是公司，也不一定必须是——其称只要不存在某种关系，就可以揭开公司面纱。该案怎么说？WERNICK女士：因此，该关系必须得到确立。因此，本案中，我们论点的实质是，受托人跳过了步骤，将简易判决裁定中Lady May（“Lady May”号）由债务人所有的结论加以适用，而且我认为，最初动议文件第2页已相当明确地表述，即称唯一合理的结论必定是债务人亦控制并拥有HK USA（美国HK公司）。案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第36页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第37页，共\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023\n\n但是，这是独立的法律分析和步骤，在整个简易判决程序中实际上完全被忽略了，对吗？法院：好的。我只是想理解您的论点。我并不是说——只是目前不理解您的论点。好吗？这是一项依据另我理论提出的反诉请求，对吗？所以，他们在第三项反诉请求中作出了这些主张。而您是说，他们跳过了步骤，因为第一项反诉请求已作出简易判决？WERNICK女士：所以，我的意思是，我认为——我不知道这是无意还是有意，但我认为，在此提及第三项反诉请求很重要，对吗？所以，我们现在是在就第二项反诉请求进行简易判决程序——法院：抱歉。第二项反诉请求。WERNICK女士：——关于另我关系。但我认为，法院注意到存在第三项反诉请求很重要，其中受托人明确主张HK USA由债务人所有，这与目前提交法院审理的另我请求形成对比。我们的立场是，这确实是法院审议时必须采取的步骤，方能处理另我问题。通过实质上跳过他们就HK USA所有权提出的独立反诉请求，\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交于 04/28/23\n录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023\n\n受托人是在要求法院在作出其另我认定时，实际上依赖更多结论性的论点。法院：好的。那么，您是说，简易判决动议应当同时针对第2项和第3项？WERNICK女士：所以，因为我认为——法院：这是您的论点吗？WERNICK女士：是，基本上是。因为这是一项重要步骤，而且确实——举证责任在受托人一方，对吗？我们现在是在一项简易判决动议中，须将HK USA的所有权和控制权作为另我分析的一部分予以确立。HK USA的所有权和控制权，是一个比今晨提交法院的这份相当单薄的记录更依赖事实的问题。法院：那么，当您说记录单薄时，您已在您方的56(a)(2)陈述第7段中承认，HK USA未产生任何收入；没有董事、高级管理人员或雇员；未提交纳税申报表；没有银行账户，且未以其他方式获得资本注入；除与Lady May有关的文件外，未保存任何文件。这是您方的承认。那么，这怎么会是单薄的？\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023 39 WERNICK女士：因为不存在关联——而这正是今晨本简易判决动议的关键所在。我认为，如果我们是在就有关HK USA所有权的第三项反诉请求进行审理，这一点会更加清楚。因为第7段中没有任何内容与债务人相联系，对吗？因此，那些只是关于HK USA的一般性主张。但其中没有任何内容将所有权或控制权关联至债务人。我认为，这就是受托人正在——法院：那么，当您说没有任何内容关联至所有权或控制权时，您是说法院先前的命令就该问题而言无关紧要吗？WERNICK女士：不，当然不是，法官阁下。但它们处理的是不同事项。因此，法院先前就反诉请求第一项作出的命令，涉及一项特定资产，即Lady May的所有权。法院：对。而您刚刚在第7段中承认，那就是HK USA曾经拥有的一切。WERNICK女士：所以，那是——但那不是——其中并未承认那是全部目的，也未承认其将债务人与HK USA——法院：那么，等一下。案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第39页，共\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023 40 WERNICK女士：——该实体联系起来。法院：等一下。这有些不同。您现在正在改变您的论点。您承认HK USA的唯一资产是Lady May。并且您刚才称，本院认定债务人拥有并控制Lady May，对吗？所以——WERNICK女士：是。法院：那么，我不理解您的论点。WERNICK女士：因此，这正是受托人今晨要求您作出的推论，即认定债务人拥有——债务人拥有Lady May，足以认定债务人亦必定在未作出其他证明或认定的情况下拥有HK USA，或者其因此必定是另我。还有一点——我认为这是先前与律师的讨论中未涉及的重要一点——即，尽管我们承认HK USA的资产是Lady May，但我们来到这里的真正原因，对吗，并不是Lady May。受托人已经拥有Lady May。我们来到这里的真正原因是，受托人还希望将Himalaya（喜马拉雅）提供的$37 million贷款作为破产财产的一部分取得。因此，毫无疑问，而且我们已将其列入我们的重要事实陈述中——我会向您提供相关段落引用——自我们补充事实第53段开始——即，关于Himalaya贷款的贷款协议——法院：等一下。您在第几页？WERNICK女士：抱歉。第53段。法院：您补充重要事实的第53段？WERNICK女士：是。第23页，第53段。法院：好的。请继续。WERNICK女士：即，与Himalaya贷款有关的协议由Guo女士（郭女士）签订，且Guo女士就该$37 million贷款作出了个人保证。事实上，由于未偿还该贷款金额，她在London Court of International Arbitration（伦敦国际仲裁法院）正在进行的仲裁中被个人起诉。法院：好的。那么，您刚才所说的内容在第53段的何处？WERNICK女士：第53段，延续至下一页的第56段。法院：好的。好。这就是我所说的。WERNICK女士：是。法院：请告诉我您是在何处读到的。告诉我——好的。案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第40页，共\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023 41 WERNICK女士：当然，没问题。因此，并非直接照读。但这些要点在第——法院：好的。WERNICK女士：——53至56段中作了一般性提及。法院：好的。在$37 million被存入托管账户时，法院何时得知该贷款由Mei Guo（郭梅）保证？因为我不记得在现在之前曾得知此事。WERNICK女士：这当然是记录的一部分。我认为这属于先前PJR程序的一部分——法院：但是当时——我——那不是问题。WERNICK女士：是。所以我——法院：问题是，何时——WERNICK女士：我不知道该具体问题的答案，即在2022年8月是否提出过该事项。法院：哦，我认为那早于2022年8月。我认为，在债务人仍为占有中的债务人期间，在此之前，$37 million便已交付至——存入托管账户。这一切都是解除自动中止动议的解决方案的一部分，并且与债务人的案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第41页，共\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023 42 拟议重整计划有关，在该计划中，Lady May本质上将被赠与破产财产，以惠及债权人。因此，我的问题是，您现在提出的事实，在$37 million交易发生时从未披露或提出。根据我的记忆，那是来自Himalaya Financial（喜马拉雅金融）的一笔贷款。并且不存在——我的意思是，如我有误，应有人纠正我。但我不记得曾听说任何有关Guo女士的事；我甚至不认为她当时——在彼时——已在本案中提交出庭登记，而且她当时当然未由本院代理，即她为该$37 million贷款提供了保证。因此，您现在是在补充——所以您——而我与您进行这番谈话的原因是，您对我说这些是补充重要事实。那么，它如何具有重要性？对于是否应就第二项反诉请求作出简易判决，Mei Guo女士是否个人保证一笔贷款、未偿还该贷款，以及欧洲存在某项程序，如何构成重要事实？WERNICK女士：当然。因为Guo女士作为HK USA的唯一成员，为该贷款提供了保证。HK USA与Himalaya签订了贷款协议。Guo女士——\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023 44 法院：那么，保证协议在哪里？您提交了吗？WERNICK女士：它——在对——是的。因此，在我们的事实陈述中——法院：但实际协议是否——WERNICK女士：是。法院：好的。WERNICK女士：作为——因为我认为它们都被列入PJR程序的证据附件中。因此，所引用的事实陈述——法院：是。但我的问题是，您是否在本简易判决动议中提交了它？WERNICK女士：所以，是的，通过事实陈述中对具体案卷编号的引用。法院：好的。那么回到您的段落。您是在第53段？WERNICK女士：正确。因此，真正的要点是，因为这就是我们来到这里的原因。因此，我认为注意到这一点很重要，对吗？我们来到这里，是因为受托人正在寻求被托管的$37 million。仅此一点就清楚表明，HK USA独立的法人存在与作为其唯一成员、签署贷款协议并且案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第44页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交于 04/28/23\n录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023\n\n担保了该贷款。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n请稍等一分钟。\n我想看一下这个。\n我相信，你所指的是，在本对抗程序中——你说担保协议见 ECF 84。\n那么我们就花一点时间看一下。\n如你所记得，你的当事人同意作出 PJR（判决前救济）。\n因此，法庭从未审阅过该证物，且该证物也未被作为证据提出。\n我的意思是，就其出现在案卷目录中的范围而言，它是记录的一部分。\n那么让我看一下。\n而你们的证物共有 3,206 页。\n因此我会看证物 84-2。\n这需要一点时间——\n嗯，我正在看本对抗程序中的 84-1。\n其载明：HK International Funds Investments USA（香港国际基金投资美国公司），于 Delaware（特拉华州）注册成立，借款人；Himalaya International Financial Group BBI（喜马拉雅国际金融集团 BBI，按发音），贷款人，April 29, 2022。\n日期为 April 19, 2022 的贷款协议附函。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n是的。我相信——\n\n法庭：\n所以——\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n——84 本身是完整的贷款协议，而 84-1 是附函。\n\n法庭：\n但是，该附函何时曾在债务人作为占有中债务人期间的债务人案件中被作为证据提出？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交于 04/28/23\n录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n债务人作为占有中债务人时？\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n我想我无法置评。\n但我也并不完全确定其与我们今晨讨论的相关性。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，是你使其具有相关性的，对吗？\n你说这是一个——这是一个对重要事实的真实争议。\n你对我说这具有相关性。\n所以我对你说，这何时曾经——而且它绝对具有相关性。\n我的意思是，你主张本法庭应当以某种方式审阅此前从未在任何证据听证中作为证据提出的事实——即关于一项贷款担保的事实；在该贷款作出并作为解除自动中止动议和解的一部分向本法庭披露时，这些——这些内容均未提交法庭。\n这些信息均未呈交法庭。\n而现在——你说——而你的主张是，顺便说一句，与这全部 $37 million 有关的那项约定，受托人受其约束。\n这就是你的主张。\n所以，你现在对我说，我如何——我为何认为这具有相关性？\n因为你现在说你认为它具有相关性。\n而我在说，在本对抗程序之前，这些信息何时曾被纳入本案记录？\n显然，它没有。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n嗯，所以，我的意思是，我想我的问题是，是否——如果我只是对措辞有更多误解，我表示歉意。\n因为我的——我们现在正在处理这个问题——\n\n法庭：\n我不认为这是措辞问题。\n我认为这是事实问题，对吗？\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n嗯，这是事实，但——这些协议的存在，为了——之目的，是重要事实。\n\n法庭：\n那么它们如何——不。请原谅。\n但它们是事实。\n如果你现在说受托人应受该约定约束，并且你说受托人基于诸多理由应受该约定约束，包括 Guo 女士担保了该贷款——这是在本对抗程序之前无人知晓的事实——那么它们如何具有重要性？\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n为明确起见，我——我目前的主张并非关于该约定。\n我理解法庭已在其驳回动议裁定中就围绕该约定的论点作出裁决。\n因此，那并非我的意图。\n我想提出这项担保，是针对这样一种说法：除今晨律师已经提及的协议外，Guo 女士与 HK USA（香港美国公司）之间不存在联系。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交于 04/28/23\n录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 47 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n即今晨律师已经提及的协议。\n而这涉及——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，这 $37 million 与 Lady May（“Lady May”号）有关。\n所以一切都与 Lady May 有关。\n为返还 Lady May 而达成的约定所涉 $37 million 被存入托管账户。\n这是否正确？\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n是的。\n而且该贷款由 Guo 女士个人担保。\n\n法庭：\n而无人知晓该贷款由其个人担保。\n顺便说一句，我正在看担保协议，其载明生效日期为 April 19，但其签署时没有见证人，没有任何其他内容，也没有日期。\n因此我们完全不知道该担保协议何时签署。\n记录中没有任何内容证明，该担保协议实际上是在贷款作出时订立的。\n在解除自动中止动议得到解决时，也没有任何证据向本法庭提交，说明 Guo 女士个人担保了该笔 $37 million 贷款。\n她用什么为该贷款提供个人担保？\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n抵押物是什么？\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n所以——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交于 04/28/23\n录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n法庭：\n她有什么资产？\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n没有。所以现在——\n\n法庭：\n你可以谈到这一点。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n如果你想讨论其重要性，并且如果你认为其具有重要性，那么其重要性就必须涉及她拥有什么资产——也就是为何 Himalaya Financial（喜马拉雅金融）会希望得到她的个人担保。\n因为担保的目的就在于此。\n那么她拥有什么资产？\n如果你说这些事实具有重要性，那么你尚未完成你所需要完成的论证。\n明白吗？\n因此，除非你能够以某种方式证明——首先，存在一项没有日期的担保协议。\n它写的是“生效日期为”。\n我不知道她何时签署。\n它从未成为本案记录的一部分。\n而你现在到这里来对我说，但是，法官，你无法就本反诉作出简易判决的理由，是 Mei Guo（郭梅）担保了 Himalaya Financial 作出的 $37 million 贷款；该贷款用于进入本破产财产，并为将 Lady May 返还美国作出安排。\n这就是你所说的。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n所以，我的意思是，我——恭敬地说，法官阁下，我认为，自从其被纳入我们的证物后，这已成为记录的一部分。\n受托人当然——\n\n法庭：\nPJR 的证物——\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n是的。正确。\n\n法庭：\n——是在数月前提交的，且远在贷款作出之后，并且在 Kwok 先生不再是占有中债务人之后，对吗？\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n继续。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n是的。而且对于 Guo 女士现已因该担保被起诉，并且她因——而个人承担责任，并无争议——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我不知道是否并无争议。\n你在这里提交了一些材料，说她已被起诉。\n好的。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n是。所以，我的意思是——\n\n法庭：\n她已被起诉。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n——但我们——我的意思是，我们再次已附加至——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n——案卷目录——\n\n法庭：\n你为何不继续。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n——一项——好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交于 04/28/23\n录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 50 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n你为何不继续。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n但这正是关键所在。\n我认为，说这是为证明 Guo 女士对——的所有权而提出的唯一事项，是一种谬误。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，是你将其——你已将其置于争议之中，因为你说它具有重要性。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n哦，而且我坚持这一点。\n我认为它具有重要性。\n我认为 HK USA 的经营协议具有重要性。\n我认为所有——\n\n法庭：\n而且它全都涉及——HK USA 唯一的资产就是 Lady May。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n而 Guo 女士据称作出的唯一担保，是关于一笔直接涉及 Lady May 的贷款，对吗？\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n而且她现在要为此承担责任。\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，无论她是否承担责任，那不是本法庭要处理的问题，对吗？\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n但这直接涉及受托人要求您推断的支配问题。\n该支配以及——\n\n法庭：\n他们并未要求我作出任何推断。\n他们要求我认定不存在对重要事实的真实争议，其中大多数你已在你的 Rule 56(a)(2) 声明中承认。\n他们并未要求我作出任何推断。\n\nWERNICK 女士：\n我的意思是，我不同意。\n因为他们是从 Lady May 由债务人所有这一命题出发——本法庭已作出该认定，该认定正处于上诉中，而我们并非寻求在今晨的本程序中对其进行间接攻击。\n但是，他们拿着法庭已经裁定的该命题，并且——我不知道还能如何措辞，除了称之为推断，因为这实质上就是他们在其书状第 2 页所说的——即根据记录，唯一可能的结论是债务人亦拥有并控制 HK USA。\n我不知道除此之外还能称之为何物，只能称为一种推断；该推断并无其声明中所提出的、将债务人与独立法人实体 HK USA 联系起来的任何重要事实支持。\n我的意思是，再次回到我们——法庭在第 7 段所提及的段落。\n该段没有任何内容将 HK USA 与债务人联系起来。\n因此，从我们的角度看，今晨本程序的实质是，在实际就债务人对 HK USA 的所有权作出认定时，跳过必要步骤；坦率地说，我没有在受托人提交的记录中看到任何此类内容。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交于 04/28/23\n录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\nUSA，而坦率地说，我没有在受托人提交的记录中看到任何此类内容。\n我认为，直入关于另我认定的要点——而且，我认为，可以公平地说，法院根据 Delaware（特拉华州）法律所采用的无争议两要件检验，这又回到了我们刚才讨论的支配与控制问题，以及是否作为单一经济实体运营。\n因此，呈交法庭的记录——再一次，我请您注意我们补充事实陈述中自第 10 段起的内容——是 Guo 女士为 HK USA 的所有人。\n她是经营协议中提及的唯一成员。\n我认为，她于 2019 年成立该公司这一点并无争议；顺带一提，这比本次破产早数年，也早于 New York（纽约）诉讼中的判决书。\nGuo 女士是与 HK USA 有关协议的签署人。\n并且，再次强调，Guo 女士个人担保了 HK USA 的贷款义务。\n而对于本次讨论而言更为重要的是，因为法庭并非——受托人并非要求法庭认定 HK USA 存在一个另我。\n其要求法庭认定债务人是 HK USA 的另我。\n但是，没有涉及债务人的协议。\n没有——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日 54 债务人为签署方或受益人的协议。法院：法律中何处规定必须有——必须存在该等协议？WERNICK 女士（维尼克）：嗯，所以——法院：根据特拉华州法律，您援引哪些判例说明，在任何法院能够认定受托人所主张的事项之前，必须——必须具备该等条件？WERNICK 女士：当然。我请法院参阅我方书面意见中援引的、关于以下事实的判例——法院：不，我是在问您。WERNICK 女士：这是一个事实——法院：您告诉我，在那些判例中何处——WERNICK 女士：是。何处——法院：——认定了这一点。WERNICK 女士：当然。根据特拉华州法律，这是一项取决于具体事实的认定。而恭敬地说，法院面前的事实并不能得出受托人请求法院在简易判决中作出的结论，因为举证责任在他们，对吗？因此，今天上午对方律师的陈述中多次提到，没有任何内容——回看 HK USA——是我方为质疑其假设而提出的内容。但举证责任在他们，对吗？他们负有——案号 22-50073，文件 1719，提交日期 04/28/23，录入日期 04/28/23 08:44:48，第54页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交日期 04/28/23\n录入日期 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 举证责任，以证明——\n2 法院：根据特拉华州法律，何处规定\n3 他们负有举证责任，证明他们寻求就第二项反诉获得\n4 简易判决的当事人\n5 必须是合同的一方？在\n6 您援引的任何判例中，何处如此规定？\n7 WERNICK 女士（维尼克）：这是——所以，我的意思是，恭敬地说，\n8 这是一项整体性认定。但是没有判例——换个角度说，受托人\n9 没有援引任何判例，而且我相信，如果有，他们\n10 一定会以醒目的方式向法院指出，\n11 该判例支持如下命题：\n12 仅仅因为就某项资产作出认定，\n13 就必然意味着一个独立法人实体是该资产所有人的\n14 另一个自我。\n15 \n16 事实上，我认为这——\n17 法院：该实体的唯一资产。而且\n18 您已承认——\n19 WERNICK 女士：是。\n20 法院：——多次承认，如同您的\n21 委托人在证词中所承认的那样。\n22 WERNICK 女士：当然。但这将导致一种\n23 滑坡式结论，即任何控股公司都会\n24 自动成为另一个自我——\n25 法院：不，并不会，因为您\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1719，提交日期 04/28/23，录入日期 04/28/23 08:44:48，第56页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 刚刚陈述，这取决于案件的具体事实和情形，\n2 对吗？\n3 WERNICK 女士：对。\n4 法院：好。\n5 WERNICK 女士：当然。这是一项取决于具体事实的——\n6 法院：好。\n7 WERNICK 女士：——审查，法院经常认定其\n8 不适宜在简易判决阶段作出裁定，\n9 正是因为需要进行这种事实审查。因此，我为——我正在找页码，表示抱歉。但我请法院\n10 参阅我方书面意见第55段所援引的判例。\n11 \n12 法院：好。\n13 WERNICK 女士：因此，这涉及另一个自我分析的\n14 第一项要件。我认为，受托人关于\n15 第二项要件的陈述同样只是结论性地称，\n16 HK USA 实施了某种欺诈或不公。\n17 \n18 我还要回到这样一点：HK USA 是由 Guo 女士（郭女士）于2019年设立的，\n19 该时间早于破产程序数年，也早于纽约诉讼中的判决书。\n20 \n21 因此，他们结论性地声称，\n22 不可能得出其他结论，即该实体意图服务于某种\n23 欺诈，再次跳过并试图绕过在简易判决阶段必需作出的\n24 事实认定。\n25 因此，法官阁下，我的意思是，这就是\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1719，提交日期 04/28/23，录入日期 04/28/23 08:44:48，第57页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 我方论点的实质，也是我方在书面材料中提出的内容，\n2 即回到一个非常简单的主张：我们与受托人\n3 试图在第一部分所作的推论存在根本分歧，即 Lady May（“丽迪·梅”号）\n4 由债务人所有，然后再跳过两三步，主张\n5 因此 HK USA 必定以某种方式成为债务人的另一个自我。\n6 要得出该结论，\n7 必须作出必要的认定；我方恭敬地提交，这些认定不能依据法院面前的\n8 记录作出。\n9 \n10 法院：好。还有其他内容吗？\n11 WERNICK 女士：没有了。谢谢。\n12 法院：Bassett 先生（巴塞特），您有回应吗？\n13 BASSETT 先生：有，法官阁下。仅作几点\n14 回应。首先，对方律师一开始提出的一个论点是，\n15 我们跳过了一个步骤，因为我们必须先证明\n16 债务人拥有 HK USA，之后才能请求认定其为债务人的另一个自我。我\n17 认为法律没有任何依据支持该\n18 命题。\n19 \n20 我认为，正如法院所确认的，\n21 标准就是判例法所规定的标准，即必须证明一个人或一个实体对另一人或另一实体\n22 行使支配和控制，\n23 并且这样做是为了实施\n24 欺诈或不公。\n25 我有一些判例可供法院参阅，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1719，提交日期 04/28/23，录入日期 04/28/23 08:44:48，第58页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 其支持如下命题：为——我认为这是显而易见的，但为\n2 刺破公司面纱或认定存在另一个自我关系，\n3 并不以被指称将另一实体作为其另一个自我使用的人\n4 是该公司的记名股东、\n5 所有人或成员为前提。\n6 \n7 我请法院参阅的判例是 United States vs. Golden Acres，702 F. Supp. 1097，第113页，注释7，District of Delaware，1988。该案随后经 Third Circuit 确认。“即使被告个人并不拥有公司任何股份，只要已确立必要的行为和完全控制，仍可适用另一个自我原则。”\n8 \n9 另一判例是 United States Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Levine，671 F. Supp. 2d. 14，第34至35页。本案——该案为 District of D.C. 2009，适用特拉华州法律，并认定不具有股东、高管或董事身份，并不排除作出刺破公司面纱的认定。\n10 \n11 其他司法辖区亦有采用类似标准的判例。Freeman vs. Complex Computing Company，119 F.3d 1044，Second Circuit，1997，第1051页。该法院指出，纽约法院对于刺破公司面纱仅要求衡平法上的所有权，而非实际所有权。Mallard Auto Group Ltd. vs. LeClair Management\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1719，提交日期 04/28/23，录入日期 04/28/23 08:44:48，第59页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 Corporation，153 F. Supp. 2d. 1211，District of Nevada 2001，第1215页。其他判决已指出，\n2 就另一个自我而言，特拉华州和内华达州的分析标准相同。\n3 而我提到的该案中，法院认定，\n4 不持有股份并非\n5 另一个自我问题的决定性因素。\n6 \n7 因此，法官阁下，我认为不存在争议的是，\n8 无需先作出债务人拥有 HK USA 的前提性认定，\n9 才能认定其为债务人的另一个自我。我在开场陈述中\n10 已经提出这一点，但请从\n11 实际和衡平的角度考虑其后果。\n12 \n13 任何试图通过利用另一个自我来向债权人\n14 隐匿资产的债务人，只需让其女儿，例如，\n15 或其他人担任名义所有人。\n16 然后，按照被告方、\n17 反诉被告方的说法，刺破公司面纱、反向刺破公司面纱\n18 以及认定另一个自我将永远无法成立。\n19 这不可能是法律。\n20 \n21 关于——实际上，如结果所示，关于为何——至少按我的理解，事实上全部反驳论点，即为何 HK USA 不是债务人的另一个自我，进行了大量讨论，因为女儿就 Himalaya 贷款签署了个人保证，且 Himalaya 贷款\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交日期 04/28/23\n录入日期 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 据称是由女儿代表 HK USA 取得的。对此有几点回应。\n2 \n3 首先，我认为法院正确地指出，\n4 我看不出该事实具有任何重要性，\n5 特别是就个人保证而言。\n6 我的意思是，如果如我方所主张——且如我方所证明——HK USA 是债务人的另一个自我，\n7 即使这是一项真实且可执行的保证，\n8 女儿签署该保证这一事实，\n9 至多表明她保证了实际上属于其父亲的\n10 义务。\n11 这绝不表明她是\n12 拥有并控制 HK USA 的人。\n13 \n14 此外，就33——或者就——是的。关于\n15 Himalaya 贷款问题，我认为，背景、历史以及无争议事实的更完整记录至关重要。\n16 因为我们面临的情形是，基于我所讨论的一切理由，\n17 并且正如法院已经审查过的事实陈述所清楚表明，\n18 毫无争议，HK USA 除拥有\n19 Lady May 和 Lady May II（“丽迪·梅二号”）外，从未从事过任何其他事项。\n20 \n21 它从未有过雇员、高管、董事、\n22 银行账户、资本金，坦率地说，也没有能力\n23 从事任何其他业务。这些情况全部属实。在\n24 Lady May 约定作出时，在该被指称贷款发生时，\n25 均已确定这些情况全部属实。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1719，提交日期 04/28/23，录入日期 04/28/23 08:44:48，第61页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日 61 因此，按照被告方所主张的内容，你们所拥有的至多是一种情形：债务人的女儿决定利用其父亲的另一个自我取得一笔贷款。顺便说一句，鉴于背景，这很有道理。因为该笔贷款的全部动因以及 Lady May 约定的全部动因，是债务人站在本法院面前，急切希望避免法院解除中止，以允许 PAX 在 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）面前继续其诉讼。因此，我认为记录相当清楚地表明，这一切都是为了债务人的利益而进行。再次，这完全符合如下事实：HK USA 是且一直是债务人的另一个自我，包括在贷款发生时亦然。不能这样——他们所能做的至多是指出 HK USA 整个历史中的这一孤立事件。但不能因为——即使 Mei Guo（郭梅）是其中某些文件的签署人，也不能因此改变 HK USA 的真实性质；不能因此意味着它不是债务人的另一个自我。我的意思是，我认为，他们请求法院作出的结论确实非同寻常，因为基本上他们是在说，女儿可以代表 HK USA 执行该笔贷款，而该公司当时并且一直以来都\n\n1 一直是债务人的另一个自我，其目的在于就 Lady May 约定误导本院。\n\n2 而后，因为她这样做了，正因如此，\n\n3 仅凭这一点就意味着本院不能\n\n4 随后认定 HK USA 是债务人的另一个自我。\n\n5 我的意思是，我认为这是一个荒谬的主张，因为它\n\n6 允许他们通过不当行为来阻止对此种\n\n7 不当行为的救济。\n\n8 还有几个提出的要点。该\n\n9 事实——这也涉及欺诈或不公正\n\n10 的问题。\n\n11 但我认为律师说，虽然该女儿\n\n12 名义上设立了 HK USA，且其确实如此设立——她确实如此，你\n\n13 知道，在所涉部分事件之前——但这是对\n\n14 特拉华州法律的错误理解，倘若她主张\n\n15 所涉实体必须自其成立之初即为实施欺诈或\n\n16 不公正，或成为另一个自我或其他目的而设立——这\n\n17 并非法律规定。\n\n18 法律规定的是，它必须被用于成为\n\n19 他人的另一个自我。但即使法律确实如此规定，\n\n20 而事实并非如此，我仍认为记录绝对清楚地表明\n\n21 此处发生了什么。债务人的女儿称，\n\n22 2015年她在中国时，她哥哥给她买了一艘游艇，\n\n23 然而她直到2017年才来到美国。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n1 与此同时，债务人始终在这里。随后\n\n2 她称，HK USA 是作为一家空壳公司设立，用于持有该\n\n3 游艇。\n\n4 我的意思是，这些均不改变另一个自我\n\n5 分析。因此，就本院提出的问题而言，这显然具有重要性。\n\n6 \n\n7 律师没有重新论述任何抗辩。我\n\n8 认为，这是因为已承认本院已在驳回动议中\n\n9 对这些问题作出了裁定。\n\n10 因此，我不会在结案陈词中再次论述这些问题。\n\n11 我只想说，法官阁下，我们确实认为，\n\n12 即使另一个自我显然通常属于\n\n13 高度依赖事实的分析，本案基于双方在其书面陈述中\n\n14 同意的事实，\n\n15 已具备作出简易判决的条件。\n\n16 因为对于以下重要事实根本不存在真实争议：\n\n17 债务人通过对 HK\n\n18 USA 的唯一资产实施支配和控制，从而支配和控制了 HK USA；\n\n19 该资产为其开展的任何业务提供了唯一基础，\n\n20 且其这样做的目的，是向其债权人隐匿\n\n21 资产；债务人及其女儿多年来竭尽全力\n\n22 制造相互独立的假象，以向债权人隐瞒\n\n23 Lady May，这一事实清楚地表明了这一点。\n\n24 因此，我们认为并恭请本院\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 64 批准受托人的动议。谢谢。法庭：谢谢。（律师商议）法庭：我再给他们一分钟，然后给你们回应的机会。好的，律师？（律师商议）巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）：对此很抱歉，法官阁下。感谢您的宽容。谢谢。法庭：好的。沃尼克律师（Attorney Wernick），您是否愿意回应？沃尼克女士（Ms. Wernick）：当然。仅作简要回应。谢谢。就与 Wagoner 规则、不法行为抗辩（in pari delicto）及 Lady May 约定有关的抗辩，作一点澄清。为使记录明确，HK USA 并未放弃，并维持其就这些原则及该约定所持立场；但鉴于本院对驳回动议的裁定，HK USA 不会为今日上午的本次辩论而赘述这些要点。我希望留给本院的最后一点是，鉴于书面陈述中提出的所有信息，我只想强调，除 Lady May 外，没有任何证据将债务人与 HK USA 实体联系起来。我们将继续\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\nPage 64 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 65 主张，在现阶段，这不足以作出另一个自我的认定。谢谢。法庭：好的。谢谢。好。我已听取双方的辩论。我认为今天可能引用了一两个书面陈述中未载的案件。巴塞特先生，您引用的那些案件是这样吗？巴塞特先生：我在反驳中引用的几件案件，是的，确实如此。它们并未载入。但它们——法庭：好。那么我必须审阅那些案件。巴塞特先生：谢谢。法庭：因此，我将在今日庭审后审阅此事，并相应作出裁定。好的？谢谢。今日日程中的下一事项是该项动议——有数项事项，但包括要求说明为何债务人、Mei Guo（郭美）及 HK 不应因未遵守 2004 传票而被认定藐视法庭的命令理由动议，以及由 Kwok 先生提出的限制性暂缓命令动议；我认为这些事项——我认为这些事项彼此相关。因此，我将首先审理动议方关于藐视法庭及第五修正案问题的动议。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\nPage 65 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n1 关于本院裁定就第五修正案问题举行进一步\n\n2 听证的事项。好的？\n\n3 莫里亚蒂先生（Mr. Moriarty）：是。法官阁下，为使记录明确，\n\n4 该动议——藐视法庭动议仅涉及\n\n5 债务人。\n\n6 法庭：目前确实如此。\n\n7 莫里亚蒂先生：好的。\n\n8 法庭：这是正确的。\n\n9 莫里亚蒂先生：那么——\n\n10 法庭：但我只是——那是\n\n11 动议的标题。仅此而已。\n\n12 莫里亚蒂先生：我明白。沃尼克律师——\n\n13 我认为，关于 HK 和 Mei——以及 Guo 女士，我们今天已处理完毕。\n\n14 所以我认为她可以离开，其他律师将\n\n15 加入我们。\n\n16 法庭：律师，您自行作出您认为\n\n17 适当的安排。\n\n18 莫里亚蒂先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n19 德斯潘斯先生（Mr. Despins）：法官阁下，我是受托人德斯潘斯\n\n20 发言。在我们处理实体问题之前，如获准许，我希望就\n\n21 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）参与这些\n\n22 事项的问题，先行发表意见。\n\n23 法庭：我将允许您陈述意见，然后\n\n24 我必须允许律师就您为记录所作的\n\n25 任何陈述作出回应，受托人\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n1 德斯潘斯。\n\n2 德斯潘斯先生：那么，请告诉我何时可以继续。\n\n3 法庭：请继续——哦，实际上，您说得\n\n4 对。请稍等。我们需要请 Kwok 先生的代理律师\n\n5 作出出庭声明。\n\n6 贝斯特先生（Mr. Best）：谢谢，法官阁下。Stephen Best（史蒂芬·贝斯特），\n\n7 来自 Brown Rudnick 华盛顿特区\n\n8 办公室，B-E-S-T。\n\n9 法庭：早上好。\n\n10 鲍尔迪加先生（Mr. Baldiga）：再次向您道早安，法官阁下。\n\n11 William Baldiga（威廉·鲍尔迪加）。\n\n12 法庭：早上好。\n\n13 鲍尔迪加先生：谢谢。\n\n14 亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）：Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐），来自 Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所），代理\n\n15 Kwok 先生。\n\n16 法庭：早上好。\n\n17 亨齐先生：早上好，法官阁下。\n\n18 莫里亚蒂先生：James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂），Zeisler & Zeisler，\n\n19 亦代理债务人。\n\n20 法庭：早上好。\n\n21 请稍等，受托人德斯潘斯。\n\n22 弗里德曼律师（Attorney Friedman），您是否要作出\n\n23 出庭声明？\n\n24 弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）：是，法官阁下。Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），\n\n25 来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所），代表 PAX。我将请求\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n1 在各项动议的背景下作简要陈述。\n\n2 法庭：谢谢。\n\n3 弗里德曼先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n4 克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：法官阁下，早上好。\n\n5 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）。\n\n6 法庭：早上好。\n\n7 好。我了解到，近日已就这些问题提交了一些\n\n8 诉状，而显然受托人德斯潘斯希望就\n\n9 一些问题进行辩论；尽管我可能知悉这些问题，\n\n10 但我不确定我是否实际上已经研究过。\n\n11 \n\n12 因此，请继续，受托人德斯潘斯。\n\n13 德斯潘斯先生：为便于本院\n\n14 处理此事，您知道，我们今天并不就此请求任何救济。\n\n15 但我们当然不希望被视为放弃任何\n\n16 权利。\n\n17 而我们在就暂缓动议提交的文件中提出了这一点，\n\n18 内容如下：您知道，\n\n19 Brown Rudnick 曾在本案中作为占有中的债务人的律师代表债务人，现在又\n\n20 以个人身份在刑事案件中\n\n21 作为刑事辩护律师代表他。\n\n22 正如法官阁下可能知道的，作为我们\n\n23 调查此处发生何事的一部分，我们正在对所有此前\n\n24 曾向债务人提供服务的律师事务所进行取证。这将包括 Brown Rudnick，\n\n25 也将包括鲍尔迪加先生。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n1 而顾虑在于，\n\n2 可以肯定，在其证言录取中将被问及的问题之一是：\n\n3 你何时知道政府正在调查 Kwok 先生？你何时知道\n\n4 政府主张所有这些都是\n\n5 Kwok 的，也就是说，所有这些资产均为 Kwok 的资产？\n\n6 \n\n7 如果这使他们处于无法回答这些问题的境地，\n\n8 因为他现在以刑事辩护律师身份出庭，\n\n9 那我们就存在问题。\n\n10 如果不存在问题，那么我们将继续\n\n11 监测情况。但该问题相当\n\n12 根本。当你代表占有中的债务人时，你\n\n13 并非以个人身份代表他。你是将其作为对债权人负有信义义务之人\n\n14 来代表。\n\n15 \n\n16 而现在他们并非如此。这两个领域之间可能存在\n\n17 某种联系，而他们在一开始接受\n\n18 代表 Kwok 先生作为刑事被告时，并未预见到这种联系。\n\n19 但我想在记录中明确，确实很可能存在联系。\n\n20 因此，我们必须在这方面非常审慎地行事。\n\n21 \n\n22 法官阁下，这就是我想作出的唯一陈述。\n\n23 谢谢。\n\n24 法庭：好的。鲍尔迪加先生，在您——\n\n25 美国受托人办公室刚才在这里，而\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 70 他们不——哦。克莱伯恩律师？克莱伯恩女士：是。法庭：您听到德斯潘斯先生刚才为记录所作的陈述了吗？克莱伯恩女士：我听到了，法官阁下。法庭：而美国受托人办公室是否知道——我并不是说你们本应知道。我是说，这是你们第一次听说受托人对 Brown Rudnick 此前作为占有中的债务人律师代表债务人，以及如今 Brown Rudnick 在刑事事项中代表债务人，存在顾虑吗？克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，我阅读了受托人昨天提交的诉状，其中在某种程度上提出了该问题。而今天所作的评论，是我第一次听到对其中一些问题的说明。因此，美国受托人目前尚未准备好就该问题作出进一步评论。法庭：我明白你们目前尚未准备好作出任何评论，但你们何时能准备好？克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，我无法说明。但我会将今天的事实情况反馈给美国受托人。法庭：嗯，我认为你们作为美国受托人，作为该方，应当准备好作出回应。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\nPage 70 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\nPage 71 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n监督案件管理，并处理许多问题，包括利益冲突问题。若该问题——若这确为一个问题，则需要提出并予以处理。美国受托人办公室也需要就此问题表明立场。\n\n这并不是——我的意思是，我刚刚听到了 Despins 先生所说的内容。我显然还将听取 Baldiga 先生的意见。但是，您知道，自本案立案之日起，我们一直在讨论利益冲突问题。各方需要适当地处理本案中提交本院的问题。\n\n因此，美国受托人办公室的职责之一是——作为案件管理的监督者，必须就此问题提出立场。\n\n因此，Despins 受托人，您是说您今天并未将此事提交本院。但您已经这样做了，因为您刚才已经提出了。我的意思是，这或许尚未以书面形式提出，也可能尚未就书面陈述、问题及可能作出或不作出的决定制定时间表。\n\n但现在本院面临这样一种情况：我们正在就是否——而且，Baldiga 先生、Best 先生可以不同意我接下来要说的话——举行听证。但我认为，本次听证所要审查的是，债务人是否履行了其义务中的要求——其证据开示义务，以及因此，他是否\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1719 提交 04/28/23 录入 04/28/23 08:44:48 第72页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n实质上——由于他主张第五修正案特权，您知道，不能被认定藐视法庭，且无法通过履行义务消除藐视法庭状态。这正是我认为您将要主张的内容。Best 先生，这不正是您将要主张的吗？\n\nBEST 先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们就处于一个困难的境地，因为目前受托人表示他担心——他尚未以书面形式说明，除非是在我所理解的、昨日提交的一份文件中的一项陈述；我尚未有机会阅读该文件——即，若您代理——我对该论点的理解是，若 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克）在刑事案件中代理 Kwok 先生，并且此前已作为占有中债务人的律师代理他，而受托人正在寻求有关 Kwok 先生破产财产资产的信息，并且必须从 Brown Rudnick 获取该信息，或试图从 Brown Rudnick 寻求该信息，他认为将会得到这样的答复：您不能回应，因为您现在在刑事事项中代理他。\n\n这可能造成问题。对此我不知道还能说什么。Best 先生和 Baldiga 先生，您们认为呢？\n\nBEST 先生：是的。嗯，我将要——抱歉。因此，这在将来很可能是一个相关问题。就本次听证以及您对是否已遵从传票作出裁定而言，我认为该问题并不相关。Despins 先生所担忧的问题可能影响未来程序，但不影响本程序。\n\n我认为法律——顺便说一句，谢谢您。这是我首次在破产法院出庭。因此，我通常在其他——\n\n法庭：不客气。\n\nBEST 先生：——联邦法院出庭。\n\n法庭：欢迎来到破产法院。\n\nBEST 先生：非常感谢。我认为您将听到一项经过审慎说明的论述，即我们面前有关于主张第五修正案特权的明确法律规则。\n\n如果法官阁下认为，在今日的辩论之后，利益冲突问题以某种方式受到牵涉，您可以重新审视该问题。但我认为，至少就今日而言，这并不相关。我将让 Baldiga 先生发言。\n\n法庭：好的。我想我要做的是休庭五分钟。我将在11点——可能不止五分钟，因为我想现在才11:21。但我会在11:30回来。我们很可能将继续进行辩论。但我想先\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1719 提交 04/28/23 录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n看一下某些内容。\n\n因此，法庭休庭至11:30。\n\n法庭法警：全体起立。法庭休庭至11:30。\n\n（法庭于上午11:21至上午11:30休庭。）\n\n法庭法警：全体起立。康涅狄格州联邦破产法院现于休庭后开庭。由尊敬的 Julie Manning（朱莉·曼宁）法官主持。\n\n法庭：好的。请坐。有人介意出去通知受托人的律师我们已准备好了吗？哦，我想他们来了。\n\n身份不明的发言人：我相信 Skalka 律师刚刚已经这样做了。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：好的。在本院休庭之前，您知道，已提出有关利益冲突的问题，以及——关于 Brown Rudnick 同时担任 Kwok 先生的占有中债务人律师，以及 Brown Rudnick 在该角色下所承担的职责和义务；尽管债务人已不再占有财产，这些职责和义务仍持续存在；并且，Brown Rudnick 现就针对 Kwok 先生提出的指控——即针对 Kwok 先生提出的刑事指控——代理 Kwok 先生。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日 75\n\nBest 先生表示，他认为目前不存在利益冲突。我并不——我不知道这是否准确，但我认为这就是您所说的。并且您希望——\n\nBEST 先生：实质上如此。\n\n法庭：——继续进行您的辩论。我认为我们今天将继续进行辩论，然后再看事态发展。不过，我认为，就今天上午而言，Best 先生和 Baldiga 先生，举证责任首先在债务人一方。然后我将听取受托人律师的意见。作为您论点的一部分，Best 先生，您是否也将就这一有限中止提出论证，还是将其另行处理？您将如何——\n\nBEST 先生：我可以一并处理。我认为这些问题全都相互关联。\n\n法庭：我也这样认为。那样可以。谢谢。\n\nBEST 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，仅就此事简要说明一下。我是第11章受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）。\n\n法庭：是。\n\nDESPINS 先生：我想明确的是，Brown Rudnick 正在记录中同意，对于我提出的问题，不放弃任何论点，以便这一点非常明确。否则，我们不应在存在该项放弃的情况下继续进行。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1719 提交 04/28/23 录入 04/28/23 08:44:48 第75页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n法庭：嗯，我并未认定存在放弃，因此我不知道是否需要 Brown Rudnick 作出——作出任何陈述，Despins 先生。该陈述——\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——您今天上午所作的陈述，我们刚才都已讨论过。这是一个问题。我认为非常明确，我将要求各方就此作出回应，包括美国受托人办公室。好吗？\n\n因此，我理解您的观点，但是——\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——不会视为放弃所提出的论点，因为该论点是在昨晚的一份书面文件中提出的，而我尚未有机会真正对此进行任何审慎考虑。\n\n并且，我将在——我将于今天结束时，就该问题作出某种排期命令，以便能迅速处理该问题。\n\n因为即使我们今天将进行这些辩论，而我同意我们应当这样做，该问题仍必须以某种方式得到解决，因为本院不会在本案中沿着涉及许多、许多问题的路径继续推进，若存在一个必须以某种方式就利益冲突予以解决的问题。好吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续，Best 先生。\n\nBEST 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。请允许我向本院陈述。我在此主张，债务人，即 Guo 先生，亦称 Kwok 先生，已完全履行其在今日提交本院的传票项下义务。在一并提出关于中止的第二项论点时，我向法官阁下及各方提供多种进一步探讨的选择，但这些都归结为以下内容。\n\n传票所要求的文件，我确信将构成政府——美国司法部——在相关刑事案件中提供的材料的一部分。\n\n受托人或任何认为其具有诉讼资格的一方，可以就与具体问题相关的文件发出传票，即证明 Guo 先生或 Kwok 先生对其他实体或人员享有保管和控制权的文件。\n\n因此，无论法官阁下将其视为中止，继而文件将被提供并且我们可就保护令达成一致，还是由司法部公开提供，该等文件都将在其证据开示请求中被提供。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n就其证据开示请求而言。\n\n现在有两起案件。一起是纽约南区（Southern District of New York）的案件，其中 Guo 先生是被告。并且，据我认为，是自昨日或前日起，还有一起纽约东区（Eastern District of New York）的案件，其中 Guo 先生是受害人。因此，司法部也将在该案中提供充分的证据。\n\n然而，今天所涉及的问题是援引第五修正案反对自证其罪特权。具体而言，本院面临的问题是，仅仅提供文件的行为如何可能涉及第五修正案特权。\n\n因此，该原则——若可允许？我确信这并非总是您处理的事项，所以我将向您说明——\n\n法庭：请讲。\n\nBEST 先生：——该特权的一些历史。它被称为文件提供行为原则。就此问题作出审理、并成为全国具有约束力法律的首个案件，我相信是在1974年或1976年。该案是 Harris 案。我将向您提供引注，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：Harris 案不是1911年的吗？\n\nBEST 先生：不是。425——抱歉。\n\n法庭：那么，是哪一个——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日 79\n\nBEST 先生：1976年。可能——抱歉。是 Fisher 案。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nBEST 先生：我道歉。我说错了。Fisher v. U.S., 425 U.S. at 408。1976年的判决。但问题在于，强制提供文件是否涉及第五修正案特权；该修正案的相关部分规定，任何人不得在任何刑事案件或具有刑事影响的任何案件中被强迫成为不利于其本人的证人。Fisher 案确实阐明了提供文件时所涉及的问题。因此，首先是——您知道——分解第五修正案特权，即此处所寻求的信息是被强制提供的。没有人主张所寻求的信息，即文件，并非依据传票被强制提供。第二，该等信息可以说可能具有自证其罪性。因此，就此而言，我可以走近您的——\n\n法庭：当然可以。谢谢。\n\nBEST 先生：我向法官阁下递交了 Kwok 案中已解封的起诉书。\n\n法庭：我们已经看过这个。我们——\n\nBEST 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：——几周前看过这个。对吗？\n\nBEST 先生：是的。没错。因此，我指出\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1719 提交 04/28/23 录入 04/28/23 08:44:48 第79页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1719 提交 04/28/23 录入 04/28/23 08:44:48 第80页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n为法官阁下概述了本起诉书第3页第6段所述的相关人员和实体。具体指出起诉书的相关部分——而且它是相关的——整份起诉书都是相关的——但其中一部分涉及被指称由Guo先生（郭文贵）保管或控制的实体，Guo先生亦称Kwok先生。\n\n因此，第五修正案特权的第二项要件，即这是否可能构成自证其罪，我认为其本身从表面上已清楚表明：其对各实体的保管和控制一直是——现已在Southern District（纽约南区）提起的一宗活跃刑事案件的一部分。\n\n重要的是，我甚至不必止步于此，尽管我认为这已足以满足该项要件。根据我今天谈话中的了解，Department of Justice（美国司法部）还正在就是否存在破产欺诈进行刑事调查。\n\n我指出，这是第二项——\n\n法庭：等等——你是如何得知这一点的，先生？\n\nBest先生（贝斯特）：我要请我的同事——我想有一份传票。\n\nHenzy先生（亨齐）：是的。是的。我相信贝斯特先生会就此向法官阁下说明，但受托人已被送达一份传票。而且——\n\n贝斯特先生：我可以走近吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1719 于 04/28/23 提交 于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记 第 81 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023（2023年4月20日）\n\n法庭：可以，请。\n\n贝斯特先生：因此，我向法官阁下提交一份我认为已向Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）送达的传票副本，该传票涉及一项关于破产欺诈的活跃刑事调查，我认为这可从——\n\n法庭：这些法条。\n\n贝斯特先生：是。\n\n法庭：是。\n\n贝斯特先生：因此，重要的是，如果这还没有把蛋糕做好，而我还没有加上糖霜，那就让我在上面放上一颗樱桃。在Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院），即全国唯一实际承认这一扩张——令人难以置信的法律扩张——的巡回法院，第二巡回上诉法院承认，刑事违法行为不仅可因向法院作虚假陈述而构成，也可因向与政府合作的律师作虚假陈述而构成，如果您愿意这样说的话。\n\n因此，我援引该案。该案是第二巡回上诉法院的U.S. v. Kumar（美国诉库马尔案）。它是Computer Associates（美国联合电脑公司）案，在白领犯罪领域广为人知；该案中，Sanjay Kumar（桑杰·库马尔）及其他人就其公司刑事——抱歉，公司内部调查中作虚假陈述而认罪答辩，该调查之所以进行，是因为政府采取的立场是——而且他们事实上最终认罪答辩，这在本辖区是既定法律——他们知道或应当知道私人律师正与政府合作。\n\n法官阁下，Sanjay Kumar案为617 F.3d 612。这是一项上诉法院裁决，未推翻定罪。实际上，那些是针对这类罪名项的认罪答辩。因此，第二项要件，即其刑事——也就是说，实际的刑事程序可能因提交这些文件而受到牵连，我认为不存在疑问。\n\n最后一项是是否——而这正是我将花费大部分时间讨论的——提交行为是否具有证言性质。有两个关键理由说明，事实上，该项要件已经满足。第一，虽然由我们证明在此主张该特权是适当的乃是我们的义务，但一旦涉及其证言性质部分，举证责任往往转移至United States（美国政府），或者在本案中转移至对方当事人，以证明政府并不已经拥有所涉信息。\n\n这与法官阁下并非完全直接相关，但在刑事案件中相关，因为如果政府并不已经拥有该信息——这被称为该项要件中的“既定结论”部分，即政府必须证明其已经能够取得该信息，或者已经拥有该信息。如果政府或本案对方当事人均不能证明这一点，则第五修正案特权的主张\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1719 于 04/28/23 提交 于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记 第 82 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n于 04/28/23 提交\n于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023（2023年4月20日）\n\n成立。\n\n其对法官阁下的影响在于，如果该等材料是经强制而交出，而又未能证明政府已将其作为既定结论——即并非既定结论表明政府已经拥有该信息——这将对政府的刑事程序产生重大且不利的影响。\n\n因此，法官阁下应当考虑的一件事，是征询U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）对这一具体问题的意见，并要求其作为与本项争议有关的当事方，就“既定结论”部分作出陈述。\n\n如果这要求过多，那么我具体地——抱歉，我谨陈述，这并非既定结论，即其拥有该信息。我不知道，因为我们尚未获得证据开示。\n\n因此，这是第一项核心论点。第二项核心论点是，因提交任何文件——\n\n法庭：我可以打断您一下吗——\n\n贝斯特先生：当然。\n\n法庭：所以，如果这是既定结论，如果政府已经拥有该信息，那么您是在说什么？受托人必须从政府那里取得吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：那将是最干净的方式，对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n于 04/28/23 提交\n于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023（2023年4月20日）\n\n因此，请求将会是——对政府提出的请求将与对我们提出的请求相同。我们必须签署——因此，这是一个完全相关的问题。\n\n无论如何，未经政府同意，我无法交出我在证据开示中获得的任何材料，因为这些材料均受Southern District（纽约南区）关于本案证据开示的保密规定约束。\n\n因此，政府和Southern District Court（纽约南区法院）无论如何都必然会参与今后对该等证据开示材料的任何提交。因此，他们无论如何都会参与。不如由受托人向政府提出请求。\n\n事实上，本案受托人是Department of Justice（美国司法部）的一名成员。其部门的另一机构正是掌有相关文件的机构。因此，这是一条自然的路径，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。还有一个问题——\n\n贝斯特先生：是。\n\n法庭：——在您继续之前，关于您提出的这个问题，即“既定结论”，第三项要件。\n\n贝斯特先生：是。\n\n法庭：传票和信息请求——传票已经送达，而请求以及准许进行2004审查的命令——这些\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n于 04/28/23 提交\n于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023（2023年4月20日）\n\n事项——该命令是在起诉书之前很久作出的，传票也是在起诉书之前很久送达的，对吗？\n\n而且——其中一些——您可以主张，受托人所寻求的信息中，有些即便不是全部——肯定有一些——而我不会说，因为我不知道比例是多少。\n\n但我会说，很可能超过一半——如果——受托人所寻求的信息，也许甚至更多，是债务人在作为占有中债务人期间、远在起诉书之前就有义务保存、提供并向法院及其他人提供的信息。\n\n那么，从您的角度看，这如何改变——如果确有改变——整个“既定结论”问题？因为“既定结论”，至少按我对起诉书的解读——而这并不意味着什么，好吗——是它与债务人被指称控制并通过其筹集资金的某些商业实体和交易有关，并不必然涉及债务人在破产程序中作为占有中债务人时应负责提供的所有事项。\n\n那么，就这一“既定结论”而言，您如何回应？因为如果政府所拥有的一切——我们就——您知道，举个假设——如果政府所拥有的一切都只是与本起诉书有关的事项\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023（2023年4月20日）86页\n\n以及，如您所说，第6和第7段中相关人员和实体——您知道，第6——\n\n贝斯特先生：是。第6至第10或第11段，我认为。\n\n法庭：对。\n\n贝斯特先生：对。\n\n法庭：信不信由你，这并不必然涵盖本案的所有事项。您可能没有看过这一点，但确实没有。我的意思是，尤其是，它并不涉及——我想您当时在场，并且不得不听取了关于Lady May（“五月夫人”号）和该笔贷款的大量辩论。\n\n贝斯特先生：对。\n\n法庭：从表面上看，它并不——起诉书从表面上看并不必然处理那些问题或寻求有关信息——并未将那些问题置于争议之中。它也未将与受托人就以下事项的调查有关的问题或信息置于争议之中——\n\n贝斯特先生：对。\n\n法庭：——纽约的一套公寓。因此，虽然我理解您所说的，但我此时的担忧——不过我会让您——我会——我想听您说明您的立场——是，关于与起诉书并非具体相关的事项，他无需提交任何材料的论点，这些判例法如何在那些问题上保护他？\n\n贝斯特先生：是。因此——谢谢，法官阁下。这是另一个完全相关的观点。第一，他不必被起诉，也不必被点名，对吗？\n\n法庭：明白。\n\n贝斯特先生：因此，在此时，我会主张，凡属其保管和控制之下的一切，均正受到联邦刑事调查。\n\n法庭：不过，他是否已宣誓确认这一点？我的意思是，您难道不必须——如果您要在本庭建立记录，说，看，我们不能交出任何材料，因为一切都受起诉书和／或您依据Fisher（费舍尔案）提出的论点约束，对吗——\n\n贝斯特先生：对。\n\n法庭：——我需要审阅该案，并且依据Kumar（库马尔案），对吗，这两个您告诉我的案件——\n\n贝斯特先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——他是否仍必须在本庭建立记录，宣誓说明他已经交出——他并无任何处于其占有或控制之下的材料，而无论他拥有过什么，政府都拥有？他是否仍必须这么做？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1719 于 04/28/23 提交 于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记 第 87 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023（2023年4月20日）88页\n\n贝斯特先生：要求他这样做具有证言性质。在其第五修正案特权之下，恕我直言，他无需作出任何陈述。而且，事实上，无论向哪个方向宣誓——我给您举一个完全恰当的例子。如果他就该点向法官阁下宣誓，而政府发现与该确认相矛盾的证据，那么他可能被刑事起诉——\n\n法庭：其实甚至不必是政府。可以是本庭中的某个人，对吗？不必是政府。可能是他宣誓称自己没有任何东西，对吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：是。\n\n法庭：然后受托人找到了它。受托人可以将其提出，对吗？那么他仍然会——他会——\n\n贝斯特先生：他会——\n\n法庭：——面临风险。但这不正是程序的一部分吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：不是。程序的一部分是，他现在被冻住了，他无法以任何一种方式作出陈述而不使自己受到牵连。而且，就援引第五修正案特权而言，这是明确的既定法律。\n\n法庭：但是，您知道，当您在\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1719 于 04/28/23 提交 于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记 第 88 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1719 于 04/28/23 提交 于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记 第 89 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 89\n\n您论述的开头——我并不是说我正在就任何事项作出裁定。我是在试图了解各方的立场，对吗？您确实提到了Harris（哈里斯）案，该案是在1911年作出的裁决。\n\n贝斯特（Best）先生：是的。\n\n法院：而当您阅读其措辞时，很有意思。但它谈及破产人免于自证其罪的宪法权利，以及当受托人或接管人试图取得账簿和记录时，他们——对吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：那项法律——我认为它——我可能引用过它，因为——不。我找到了另一个案件。我今天上午一直在试图尽快学习破产法，但是——\n\n法院：实际上，我认为这与破产法并没有太大关系。\n\n贝斯特先生：但是，任何涉及就提交文件而援引第五修正案特权问题的案件，均受Fisher（费舍尔）案及其后续判例的控制，包括1984年的U.S. v. Doe（美国诉Doe案）。我会给您引证。然后，我有一项较新的美国最高法院判例，即U.S. v. Hubbell（美国诉哈贝尔案），那是一起大陪审团程序。再之后，第二巡回区有U.S. v. Greenfield（美国诉格林菲尔德案）。Hubbell案是——对不起，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 90\n\n120 S. Ct. 2037。我会将其递交给法官阁下。\n\n法院：我实际上就在这里有——\n\n贝斯特先生：您有？\n\n法院：——所以您不必递交。\n\n贝斯特先生：好的。然后我有Greenfield案，如果您希望我递交的话。它是——\n\n法院：我想我以前没有看过Greenfield案。我认为那——它是否在您提交的文件中被引用？\n\n贝斯特先生：没有。这是我在——\n\n法院：好的。\n\n贝斯特先生：——乘飞机过来时所做的研究。\n\n法院：这很公平。那么我希望您——而且您已向律师提供——\n\n贝斯特先生：我——\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n贝斯特先生：是的。关于此事的另一部分——因此不存在不洁之手抗辩——我可以——您所问的问题有多种回答方式。\n\n法院：确实如此。\n\n贝斯特先生：对吗？因此，不存在这样一种不洁之手抗辩，即因为他此前没有提交，并且妨碍了程序，他就放弃了主张其第五修正案特权的权利。重要的是，您知道，既定结论——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 90 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n部分，如果他确实是在强制之下提交，而我们数月前已经进行过这些争论，而您仍然判定他藐视法庭并且——好的，那么他就有一个选择。\n\n而且我实际上不知道法律是否已延伸至如此程度，即——我不知道是否曾经裁定过，如果法院施加强制，而他在该强制下提交，他是否已放弃其特权。\n\n我怀疑如此。\n\n我无法想象情况会是那样。\n\n但是，如果他已经——如果我们在本案起诉书提出之前数月就进行过这一程序，美国政府将面临重大挑战，需要举行Kastigar（卡斯蒂加）听证会，以证明他们在那之前——在我们今天举行的听证会之前——已经拥有或知晓该等信息，假如该听证会已在数月前举行。\n\n既定结论部分是政府负有证明其已拥有该信息并知晓该信息的义务。\n\n因此，如果我们在起诉书提出前数月进行了这一程序，就可以说会污染政府希望针对郭文贵提起的案件。\n\n因此，这就是我对有关我们是否数月前已处理过此事这一问题的第二个回答。\n\n当时我没有参与，但是——\n\n法院：不。我认为问题不在于是否已处理过。我想我的问题是，与起诉书不直接相关的信息怎么办。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n1 而且，您知道，关于那艘船，我们——那艘游艇——\n\n2 贝斯特先生：是的。\n\n3 法院：——我所看到的起诉书中没有任何关于该游艇的内容。现在，您可以说这不重要，法官，因为——政府可以不必就该游艇说明任何事项。\n\n7 贝斯特先生：是的。\n\n8 法院：但我试图理解，为什么他不需要在本院作出记录，以说明您所说的内容，即，看，我拥有的任何东西，政府无论如何都有。\n\n12 贝斯特先生：那么，再次，首先，正如Baldiga（巴尔迪加）先生指出的，起诉书第23段确实谈到了该船。\n\n15 法院：好的。那么它谈到了该船。那么是我错了。\n\n17 贝斯特先生：但是，对于您所提与起诉书未涵盖的任何其他事项有关的问题，最恰当的回答是，所有这些调查以及对此项权利的援引，95%的时候发生在起诉前，对吗？因此，其相关性在于，当您收到强制程序时，您并不知道什么事项是政府所关注或不关注的。\n\n24 如果存在——如果他们——存在一项认定，即他希望援引——他或她希望——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 93 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n1 援引其免于自证其罪的第五修正案特权，那么程序就必须止于此。不得就此之后要求他或她——本案中是他——向任何法院确认该项第五修正案特权援引的范围，如果您愿意这样说。\n\n6 因此，这是一个——看，最简单的回答是，他援引第五修正案特权绝不能被认定为妨碍任何程序。就是这么简单。因此，我从未见过任何一个事例，其中援引该特权被认定为妨碍。\n\n11 法院：好的。那么您是说，受托人唯一可以继续进行的方式是从政府取得该信息？\n\n14 贝斯特先生：正确。现在——\n\n15 法院：您是否说过，您也必须同意这一点？\n\n17 贝斯特先生：嗯，我不认为我们会反对，对吗？\n\n18 法院：嗯，我是在试图理解程序，对吗？我不理解这个程序。\n\n20 贝斯特先生：是的。那么，对不起。\n\n21 法院：我不——正如您相当清楚且正确地说的，这不是破产法院必须经常处理的事情，尽管我们会处理它。但是，所以您的观点是——\n\n25 贝斯特先生：他们可以去——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 94\n\n法院：——受托人唯一可以继续进行的方式是从政府取得它。而且我以为您先前在——在您的陈述中说过，您必须同意这一点。\n\n贝斯特先生：不。如果是通过——如果该程序是我们作为辩护律师收到一份证据开示材料包，我们就必须去找政府并取得其同意。然后，我们还必须去找法院并取得法院同意，以便根据传票向本院提交文件。他们可以直接去找政府并绕过所有这些。我不知道政府是否会联系我们并问我们是否同意。\n\n法院：这是必需的吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：我不——不，不是。\n\n法院：好的。我只是问一下。我——\n\n贝斯特先生：不。我的意思是，我认为这更多是一种礼节，而非其他。因此，本案的证言性部分，即在既定结论之后的第二个要件，法官阁下，是在我们面前的要求中，即实质上要求提交必然处于其保管和控制之下的文件，这意味着，如果依照传票的该项规定提交任何材料，那么这就是一种默示的、即使不是明示的承认，即这些实体中的信息处于其保管或——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 94 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1719\nFiled 04/28/23\nEntered 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n1 控制之下，这直接涉及其免于自证其罪的权利，因为这些问题正明确地提交于本院。\n\n4 而且，它们甚至不必明确地提交于本院。正如我所说，99%的时候，所有这些问题都是在起诉书提出之前出现的。\n\n7 因此，当我最初审视此事时，我甚至没有考虑既定结论论点。这只是明确的法律规则，即受托人——受托人的律师——在此所要求的内容具有证言性质，因为如果交出任何材料，那么这就是承认，事实上，那些实体处于其保管和控制之下。\n\n14 而且，明确的法律规则就是，这是对程序的强制，对于与使其入罪存在因果联系的信息，他无需——他无需依其宪法权利予以遵从。\n\n19 因此，基于这些理由，我向法官阁下陈述，他已遵从传票。一旦您就这些事项援引您的宪法权利，除非还有其他未决事项，否则即——即被视为已完全遵从。因此，非常感谢。\n\n24 法院：谢谢。\n\n25 Bassett（巴塞特）律师，或者——Despins（德斯平斯）受托人？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 96 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 96\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我知道巴塞特先生将处理其中的技术性部分，但我想纠正刚才所作的一项陈述，即我是司法部雇员，或以某种方式为司法部工作。我不是司法部。我是由司法部任命的，但我不向他们汇报。正如法官阁下所知，受托人没有向司法部报告的职能。我想纠正这一点。谢谢。\n\n贝斯特先生：是的。我并非意图暗示德斯平斯先生是司法部雇员。但是，美国——美国受托人办公室的一名代表事实上在场，其为司法部雇员。这就是我所指的人，德斯平斯先生。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n巴塞特先生：那么，法官阁下，再次说明，我是代表第11章受托人的Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。因此，我认为——我将尽我所能处理律师所提出的所有法律论点的实质内容，并处理他提出的一项关于取得政府在刑事案件中应当披露的文件的建议；我确实认为，这可能是受托人就该事项取得适当命令的一个有用议题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 97\n\n在我处理这些事项之前，我确实认为，正如我在本案中经常做的那样，我认为，为了确切理解我们是如何走到这里的——这也是法院正在与律师做的部分工作——是重要的。因此，显然，本案已进行了一年多。受托人于去年夏天被任命。其被任命后立即，依法——这是一个重要事实，并且在此之前在某种程度上被略过了。但是，依法，债务人依据《破产法典》第521条(a)(3)和(a)(4)项，被要求且目前仍被要求向受托人提交有关破产财产的记录，并向受托人提供任何破产财产。这是依《破产法典》而定的。\n\n除此之外，如法院所知，在受托人于2022年8月被任命后不久，受托人向债务人送达了一份Rule 2004传票。法院也知道，也是我们今天在此的原因，是在此后的六个多月里，无论现在具体是多少个月，我们收到的只有拖延、借口、妨碍，等等。正如法院所指出的，我们现在到了这样一个地步：债务人实际上利用所有这些过去的妨碍和拖延，使其本质上对自己有利，因为他现在——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 97 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1719 Filed 04/28/23 Entered 04/28/23 08:44:48 Page 98 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n1 无论他是否愿意，都造成了一种局面，\n2 在该局面下，他正面临刑事起诉书。\n现在，他正以该\n3 刑事起诉书为由，称我无法向你们提供\n4 任何东西。\n抱歉。\n我将不再配合。\n不再提供\n5 与破产财产有关的文件。\n没有别的了。\n6 我做不到，因为我正受到刑事调查，并且\n7 有一起刑事案件针对我。\n\n我认为这一背景非常重要，因为我们并非在一张白纸上开展工作。尤其是我们正处于破产程序这一事实很重要。我们在提交给本院的书面意见中引用了其中一些案件，这可以追溯到律师在辩论中以及本院若干评论中提到的 In Re Harris 案。\n\n但我认为，首先必须指出的是，我不认为律师在中止动议或对说明理由命令的答复中，引用过任何涉及中止该案债务人相关程序的破产案件。\n\n他们引用了一起出现在我方文件中的案件，我正在试图找到它，但一时想不起名称。不过，他们引用的唯一一起破产案件，涉及债务人针对其他正受到刑事调查的被告提起的对立程序。情况完全不同。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第 99 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 他们在此请求的是一项中止\n2 破产案件的命令——中止在该\n3 破产案件中由债务人提供与破产\n4 财产及其他对受托人调查以及本案\n5 最终管理至关重要事项有关的证据开示的\n6 命令。\n7 他们所说的是，他们并未请求\n8 中止整个案件。\n他们引用了地区\n9 法院及其他民事诉讼中的案件，其中法院中止了\n10 证据开示。\n11 但他们没有引用、且我认为\n12 任何法院都不会认定的是，本案受托人必须\n13 如其所必须的那样，为了破产程序的利益，\n14 以及为了债务人债权人的利益，继续\n15 管理本案，并最终使其\n16 结案。\n17 但他必须在债务人完全不参与或\n18 不配合向受托人提供\n19 我们不仅在证据开示中要求，而且依据\n20 《破产法典》有权获得的文件的情况下这样做。\n21 我认为，这正是 Harris 案及其所依据的\n22 一些其他案件发挥作用之处。\n而且\n23 Harris 案诚然是美国联邦最高法院（Supreme Court）在\n24 1911年作出的旧判决，但它涉及\n25 要求占有财产的债务人提交文件，以及\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交于 04/28/23\n录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 其第五修正案权利是否会受到\n2 牵涉的问题。\n3 该法院在该情形下所说的是，\n4 宪法权利并未受到触及，因为“问题\n5 不在于作证，而在于交还；不在于强迫\n6 破产人在当前或未来的刑事案件中成为\n7 指证自己的证人，而在于强迫其\n8 交出其已无权继续保有的\n9 财产。\n如果破产发生于犯罪之后，这是破产的不幸之一。\n10 不被强迫作不利于己证言的权利，\n11 并非是挪用\n12 可能讲述某人经历的财产的权利。”\n13 而美国联邦最高法院在1990年的 Baltimore City\n14 Department of Social Services v. Bouknight（巴尔的摩市社会服务局诉 Bouknight）案中，\n15 再次援引了 Harris 判决。\nBouknight 案涉及\n16 一种不同的监管制度。\n17 该案涉及一名母亲被依法强制\n18 将其子女带到法院或儿童服务机构，而该法院表示，这并不——如其\n19 援引 Harris 案所阐明的原则——\n20 该类型行为\n21 不会通过提交行为原则或以其他方式引发\n22 第五修正案问题。\n23 和律师一样，我在此也一直迅速推进。\n该\n24 动议以加急方式提交。\n我也一直在\n25 作进一步研究。\n我相信我们都可以作\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日 101 更多研究。但还有一个较近的案件，我建议本院审阅，即爱达荷州破产法院（Bankruptcy Court District of Idaho）于1993年作出的 In Re Ross 案。该案载于 156 B.R. 272，讨论内容广泛。我认为其中一部分在第279页。但该案涉及的问题是，在第7章案件中要求债务人行使其根据《破产法典》第——条的权利，或者遵守其根据《破产法典》第521条所承担的义务，是否会牵涉第五修正案，包括具体而言提交行为原则。因此，该案法院进行了广泛分析，讨论提交行为原则与破产案件之间的相互关系。除 Harris 案外，还有由其发展而来的后续判例。Ross 案法院引用了 1913 年的 Johnson v. United States 案，其中法院再次阐明了 Harris 案的相同一般原则，即强制占有财产的债务人交出破产财产及其记录，不会牵涉第五修正案。该法院还引用了 1923 年的 Fuller 案，262 U.S. 91；1923 年美国联邦最高法院（Supreme Court）作出的 Dier v. Banton 案，262 U.S. 147；以及 McCarthy v. Arndstein，266 U.S. 34，载于\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交于 04/28/23\n录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 1924年。\n2 最终，在 Ross 案中，该法院\n3 得出结论——我将直接引用，因为我\n4 认为这很有帮助。\n“法院认定，债务人\n5 不得就\n6 破产财产主张第五修正案特权，理由如下。\n7 第一，第五修正案并未为\n8 文件内容提供保护。”\n我认为这是一个不可改变的\n9 原则。\n10 “第二，该案中所要求的提交文件的行为”，\n11 法院认定，“不具有足够的\n12 证言性或自证其罪性，因而不属于\n13 第五修正案的保护范围。\n14 “第三，”该法院指出，“Harris 一系列\n15 案件认定，破产人不能就与\n16 破产财产有关的文件主张该特权，\n17 而 Fisher 并未改变该规则。”\n18 “第四，即使提交文件的行为\n19 （原文如此）可能因默示认证\n20 文件而具有证言性，债务人亦未作出积极披露，\n21 以支持以该方式援引该特权。”\n22 然后还有第五项理由——是的，\n23 第五项理由是：“第五，即使此处涉及的\n24 提交行为原则（原文如此）同时具有证言性和\n25 自证其罪性，第7章作为一种监管\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第 103 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 制度，面向整个社会，而非\n2 固有地面向被怀疑的（原文如此）犯罪群体，其性质使得\n3 提交行为原则（原文如此）不受\n4 第五修正案保护。”\n\n因此，这里有若干理由。我并不否认，这是刑法中一个复杂、细微的领域，通常并非本院审理的事项，当然也不是我通常处理的事项。但有许多问题，我认为尚未得到处理，即这些概念是否适用于破产程序。如果其适用于破产程序，鉴于存在要求提交这些文件的法定义务，这一点又会如何改变其适用？\n\n顺便说一下，我们提出、并导致说明理由命令的强制执行动议，也援引了第521条及其项下义务，作为要求提交文件的依据。我们并非仅仅依赖我们的 2004 传票及未遵从该传票的情形。\n\n我想处理的另一点，是先前辩论期间提出的证明类型——我认为本院在法官阁下所问的一些问题中也谈到了这一点——即如果提交行为原则适用，而且债务人将寻求援引该原则，那么他必须作出何种证明，才能向本院表明他已完全\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日 104 遵从 1月20日命令的所有方面。我认为判例法已相当清楚地表明，该证明必须具体化。债务人不能笼统地说——而我所听到的论点实际上就是如此。您知道，我正面临刑事起诉书。并且我们——还有刑事调查。我们的立场是，这意味着债务人拥有的一切、他曾接触过的一切、他所持有且可能以某种方式与本破产案件有关的一切，都以某种方式涉入或关联于这些刑事问题，因此，提交这些材料可能牵涉第五修正案。我不认为债务人可以如此笼统地行事。受托人有充分理由有权要求得到更具体的证明。举一个具体例子，律师花了大量时间谈论这一事实：如果债务人被要求提交由某些其他关联实体和关联个人控制的文件——这些术语均在我方传票中作出定义——他实际上将因提交文件而承认其控制权，而这将牵涉起诉书及其刑事责任风险。但我看不出债务人如何能够说——而我认为本院也注意到了这一点——案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第 104 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第 105 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 即事实上每一个——我现在没有带着我方传票，\n2 而且逐一审查我们所列明的每个实体和\n3 每个人也不会是对时间的有效利用，\n4 这些定义术语中列明了很多实体和人员，\n5 确实有很多。\n6 我看不出债务人如何能够说，\n7 其中每一个实体都以某种方式落入\n8 针对他的刑事案件中所可信主张的、他正受到调查的事项范围内，\n9 因而\n10 他不需要再说任何事情。\n他根本无需提交\n11 任何东西，无需寻找任何东西，并且他就已\n12 完成对 1月20日命令的遵从。\n13 他必须做得更多，而我们有权要求\n14 更多。\n我们有权要求债务人就每一个该等实体\n15 作出具体化的证明\n16 或主张。\n17 而这具有重要后果。\n18 因为如果他要说，我不能提交该实体的\n19 文件，因为这会证明\n20 我对其具有控制权，那么我们有权请求本院\n21 如同过去所做的那样据此作出不利推定。\n22 他不能仅仅以我不会提交任何材料为由脱身，\n23 使受托人无法获得其本可拥有的救济，\n24 即请求本院因其援引第五修正案而作出适当的\n25 认定。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第 106 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年4月20日 106 另外一项——因此须核对我的笔记——我想提出的另一点，是回到政府将向债务人出示、据称将就刑事案件向债务人出示的文件这一问题。显然，受托人希望取得那些文件。律师称，嗯，我们——您知道，我们可以传唤取得它们，然后，您知道，尽力采取任何我们想采取的措施来取得它们。对此有两点主要回应。第一，我不明白为什么我们需要传唤它们。债务人已经受到传票约束。而只要这些文件属于该传票要求的范围，债务人一旦持有这些文件，就必须不仅依照该传票，而且依照现行有效的1月20日命令出示这些文件。如受托人需要送达一份特别要求提供这些文件的新传票，我们可以这样做。无论如何，我们也可能会这样做。但我认为没有必要。我要提出的第二点，我认为至关重要的是，如果他们将此作为该问题的部分解决方案，本院作出的任何命令，依受托人的看法，必须非常明确地要求债务人就其与政府的关系或与刑事法院的关系，采取其为取得准许而需要采取的一切行动，以便向我们提供那些文件。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交日期 04/28/23\n登记日期 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年4月20日\n\n1 向我们提供那些文件。\n2 \n3 听起来他们提出的是，嗯，\n4 让受托人承担责任。这不是我们的问题。\n5 如果你们想设法取得文件，你们可以。你们去\n6 请求刑事法院。你们去请求政府。\n7 我们很可能也会这样做，但债务人在本院\n8 命令以及《破产法》之下，对本院负有义务。\n9 因此，应由他承担责任，\n10 采取必要行动，使我们取得我们有权获得的文件，\n11 而不是由受托人承担责任。\n12 法官阁下，我只是想核对一下我的笔记，看看\n13 是否还有其他要提出的观点。\n14 （律师协商）\n15 巴塞特先生：法官阁下，我想目前就这些。\n16 我在查看提纲时注意到的一点是，我先前试图找到的那个案件，\n17 即我注意到债务人所援引的唯一一宗破产案件，\n18 是 In Re Julmice 案，纽约东区破产法院，\n19 2011年。而且，再次说明，\n20 该案并非涉及债务人以及对债务人的证据开示中止，\n21 而是针对其他被告的\n22 对抗程序。\n23 \n24 如本院没有问题，这就是我要说的。\n25 \n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年4月20日 108 法院：目前我没有要问你的问题。谢谢你，巴塞特律师。弗里德曼律师，你希望陈述意见吗？弗里德曼先生：是，法官阁下。我是代表 PAX 的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所）。我想为巴塞特律师刚才的陈述补充一点背景。这不仅仅是本 Chapter 11 案件中所发生情况的问题。PAX 多年来一直在追究其针对 Kwok 先生的请求权，可追溯至十多年前发放贷款之时。它一直被告知没有资产。在过去，方便时便会提出第五修正案主张，之后又予以撤回。曾有一项 Chapter 11 申请，该申请称 Kwok 先生有 $3,850——各位会记得——以及一只博美犬，但他需要时间编制其资产负债表。他聘用了 Verdolino & Lowey（Verdolino & Lowey）实体，而显然他，您知道，没有告诉他们实际上以其名义存在的大量资产。但这种情况已持续多年。PAX 多年来一直受挫。然而，在对该债务人资产知之甚少的情况下，当然，每当需要支付律师费时就会有钱出现，尽管，您知道，据称并非来自 Kwok 先生。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交日期 04/28/23\n登记日期 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 108 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交日期 04/28/23\n登记日期 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 109 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年4月20日 109 当 Brown Rudnick（布朗鲁德尼克律师事务所）提交其所要求提交的诉状时，我们很快就会知道今天是谁在为其到庭付费，当然，除非他们试图主张对此存在某种障碍，因为那也会使 Kwok 先生被定罪。若你考虑他们所言在逻辑上的延伸，他们也将无需遵守该项规章、该项法规，这显然不可能是正确的。但无论如何，法官阁下，我还想向您提出的是，其中一份诉状称，本破产案和先前案件皆是 CCP 的策划产物。我认为，如同法官阁下此前听我所述，这实在是——我不知道是该对此生气还是该对此发笑，但这实在荒谬。本院，我认为，了解在 Ostrager 法官面前进行的 PAX 诉讼的真实性。本院也知道 Kwok 先生实际上曾提出付款，因为他在 Twitter 或 GETTR 上发布称，愿意向 PAX 支付数额极为巨大的款项——或许不是他自己的钱，而是某人的钱——以和解该诉讼。Kindseth 先生作证称，Kwok 先生知道 PAX 被拖欠款项，并且 Kwok 先生曾在 GETTR 上表示，他们必须与 Kwok 达成和解，而这一切均与这里以及令人遗憾地在联邦法院刑事案件中所兜售的虚假叙事完全相悖，其目的只是提出毫无事实依据、荒谬的主张，而且，您知道，不过是故技重施。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交日期 04/28/23\n登记日期 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 110 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年4月20日\n\n1 与这里以及令人遗憾地在联邦法院刑事案件中所兜售的虚假叙事完全相悖，\n2 其目的只是提出\n3 毫无事实依据、荒谬的主张，\n4 而且，您知道，不过是故技重施。\n5 有一点，法官阁下。嗯，我不会——我\n6 实际上不能这样做，因为简易判决程序的律师不在场。\n7 所以我不会回头重新辩论此事。但那些文件中有些内容\n8 非常令人不安。\n9 \n10 无论如何，法官阁下，我确实还想重申\n11 巴塞特先生关于破产本质本身的意见，\n12 即关于充分披露的义务；该义务在 Kwok 先生自愿申请\n13 破产、提交资产负债表、出席其\n14 必须出席的 341 会议时即已产生，而他在会上\n15 可能并未如实作证。\n16 但当时当然提出了许多请求，我们\n17 仍需要能够对此加以证明。\n18 对于像 PAX 这样等待偿还已逾\n19 十年的当事人而言，再一次可能\n20 出现掩饰和拖延这一想法与前景，应当受到\n21 本院的，您知道，强烈质疑。谢谢\n22 法官阁下。\n23 法院：谢谢。\n24 贝斯特先生，你想回应吗？\n25 贝斯特先生：是，法官阁下。我实在不可能\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交日期 04/28/23\n登记日期 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 111 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年4月20日\n\n1 比我们刚刚从对方律师、债权人律师和受托人\n2 律师那里听到的内容，更好地论证适当援引\n3 第五修正案特权。\n4 他们向法官阁下作出的解释，正是\n5 在此适用适当援引第五修正案\n6 特权的绝对理由。\n7 具体而言，受托人律师说，我\n8 认为——我认为记录会是准确的。我数到\n9 受托人律师三次说我的当事人\n10 妨碍了破产程序。\n11 更有甚者，来自\n12 O'Melveny & Myers——或者只是 O'Melveny？我不知道——的债权人律师\n13 说，我认为原话是“虚假叙事”，\n14 该叙事已被提出，而这实质上是对\n15 破产法院的欺诈。\n16 我可以告诉法官阁下，O'Melveny 白领业务的负责人\n17 Steven Olson（史蒂文·奥尔森）也会告诉\n18 法官阁下，对于我们面前的这些确切问题，这正是\n19 第五修正案特权的完美适用情形。\n20 律师已承认我们面前的问题。\n21 并非他没有该项权利。顺便说一下，\n22 我想首先说，在充分尊重法官阁下、\n23 破产法院以及均为破产从业者的律师的前提下，\n24 个人的宪法权利优先于任何《破产法》。\n25 \n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交日期 04/28/23\n登记日期 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 112 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年4月20日\n\n1 因此，当破产律师引用\n2 Harris 案时，他特别提到 Harris 案\n3 指出，被要求提供的内容——我没有——我\n4 尚未深入研究——但他特别说其不具有\n5 证言性质。这是超出“既定事实”\n6 部分的具体请求。\n7 受托人律师提出的要求是，\n8 要求提供所有处于该个人保管和控制之下的文件，\n9 而这随后具体地、默示地要求我的\n10 当事人交出其可能保管和控制的实体的文件。\n11 \n12 并且，在充分尊重受托人律师的前提下，\n13 是否已在其刑事案件中提交给\n14 司法部，并非由他决定。\n15 现在，为澄清概括性援引的问题，\n16 当这种情形发生在大陪审团程序中，而检察官获准提出\n17 具体问题且不接受对特权的概括性援引时，\n18 因此，检察官不接受概括性援引，\n19 可以就面前的问题提出一百个具体问题，\n20 而该个人随后可以就那些具体\n21 问题主张该特权。但结果仍然相同，即\n22 他们可以主张概括性特权，或者通过\n23 一项概括性特权，或通过向其提出的一百个不同\n24 问题来主张该特权。\n25 \n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交日期 04/28/23\n登记日期 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 113 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年4月20日\n\n1 我试图到这里来拟定一个可能奏效的解决方案。\n2 他们声称我们有义务\n3 提交任何文件，而他们明明可以直接去——\n4 受托人——来自司法部的代表\n5 来自美国受托人办公室——是\n6 司法部的一员。\n7 他们可以去司法部刑事司、\n8 美国检察官办公室南区，请求取得证据开示材料。\n9 \n10 他们——我们需要弄清的问题是，南区对于\n11 该信息的使用有一项保护令。我不知道\n12 如何能由法官阁下和律师解决此事，但无论是直接向\n13 司法部提出，还是通过我们提出，\n14 这个问题都会出现。\n15 \n16 因此，他们认为我们必须交出某些东西的整套说法，\n17 坦白说，是对南区程序毫无尊重。\n18 一切都必须得到处理。我将此作为一个机会提出，\n19 而我本没有义务这样做，是为了展示一条解决路径，而不是仅仅——\n20 并且基本上是在问题处理期间，为本案中止提供依据。\n21 \n22 再次强调，在充分尊重《破产法》\n23 和本院的前提下，个人免于自证其罪的宪法权利\n24 优先于任何要求以及\n\n1 根据《破产法典》程序提出的要求。并且我很乐意回答任何问题，也感谢法官阁下给予我时间。\n\n4 法庭：\n我唯一的问题是——我想您刚才说您还没有读过 Harris案。这是您所说的吗？\n\n7 BEST先生：\n不是。我尚未阅读具体的事实细节。\n\n9 法庭：\n因为它确实谈到了——这是一个旧案。\n\n11 BEST先生：\n是。\n\n12 法庭：\n这是1911年的案子。但这是 United States Supreme Court（美国联邦最高法院）根据当时有效的《破产法》所作出的表述，该法是在1978年《破产法典》现代化之前有效的：债务人交出信息的义务是交付，而非作证性质的行为。鉴于 Fifth Amendment（美国宪法第五修正案）禁止自证其罪的特权，这就是该案所说的内容。\n\n19 所以，我想对您说的是，我理解您的论点。而且我不认为有人主张——至少我没有听到有人主张——债务人，任何债务人，在其认为适当并援引 Fifth Amendment 特权时，无权主张该特权。他们有权主张该特权。\n\n25 我认为 Harris案所说的是，该项主张的适用存在一些限制。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023 115\n\nBEST先生：\n必须是——因此，这里的限制，法官阁下——如果仅是广泛发出一份要求提供所有文件的传票，我的论点会更难成立吗？可能会。然而，限制在于——我可以向您保证，该案并未讨论这样的具体问题：所要求的文件并不只是债务人 Guo先生（郭文贵）所持有的文件。我理解，除他已持有且相信已经交出的那些文件外，还要求他去取得由其保管或控制的文件；而通过提交这些文件，必然构成对其保管或控制这些实体的作证性承认。我知道 Harris案并不支持这种情形。\n\n法庭：\n好的。然后，律师援引的这起1993年 Idaho（爱达荷州）案件 Ross案谈到了 Harris案，也谈到了您援引的一些案件，并指出——在 Doe案中——嗯，您援引了 Doe案。您提到了 Doe案。该案称——我并不是说它——我只是告诉您它所说的内容。我——\n\nBEST先生：\n我对此表示感谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。它说——O'Connor大法官表示，她写此意见是为了明确该意见分析中隐含的内容，即 Fifth Amendment 对任何种类私人文件的任何内容绝对不提供保护。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第115页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023 116\n\nBEST先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n这就是它所说的内容。\n\nBEST先生：\n那曾经——\n\n法庭：\n然后是 Bouknight案，我不知道您是否谈到过该案，但律师援引了它。那不是破产案件，毫无疑问。该案涉及一名儿童的母亲，就市社会服务部门要求提供有关其子女监护权的信息而言。我的意思是，该案的事实非常棘手。但 Bouknight案称，该母亲不能以该儿童可能揭示使其罪责成立的证据为由拒绝提供该信息。\n\nBEST先生：\n我理解您的论点，而且我并不——\n\nBEST先生：\n让我——\n\n法庭：\n我并不是说您所说的任何内容不准确。我是说——\n\nBEST先生：\n让我——\n\n法庭：\n——似乎存在一些案件限制了其适用性——似乎存在一些案件，\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第116页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023 117\n\n限制了 Fifth Amendment 特权就债务人在《破产法典》项下义务的适用范围。\n\nBEST先生：\n我同意这一点。必须作出判断，第一，是否——实际上，我会——您知道，您在法院判例中看到的所有分析，首先都从“既定结论”论点开始。我关注的是承认行为的作证性：如果他就其保管或控制的实体提交文件，或者如您在我们第一次讨论此事时提出的那样，被要求就这些实体作出肯定或否定的确认，那么这正是他在这些问题上援引 Fifth Amendment 特权的最有力理由。他们的要求实质上是：承认这些文件在您的保管和控制之下，并将文件交给我。这就是传票所要求的内容。\n\n所以，我同意您所说存在限制。Doe案没有处理那一部分。Doe案直接聚焦于“既定结论”部分。事实上，Doe案最终支持了被告，确认其援引禁止自证其罪特权的权利，并谴责政府利用 Doe案获取本应能够自行通过以下方式获取的信息：\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n1 大陪审团程序。因此，Doe案并未讨论——它聚焦于既定结论。它并未真正聚焦于此处所要求的提交行为的作证性。\n\n6 因此，我很乐意进一步说明——我很乐意就此进行完整书面陈述。我知道这通常并非在法官阁下或这些来自优秀律所的受尊敬律师面前处理的事项。\n\n9 我以此为业。我可以告诉您，如果由于债权人律师或受托人律师的要求而对政府的案件产生不利影响，政府不会太高兴。因为我会在 Southern District（纽约南区）案件中利用这一点，要求 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）进行 Kastigar 听证，以证明他们在文件被交出之前已掌握该信息。\n\n16 而且，如果不是这样——顺便说一句，判例脉络表明，政府在 Kastigar案项下承担的举证责任很重。如果我在这方面胜诉——我相当有信心我会在若干问题及其他实体方面胜诉——这将会，第一，妨碍他们目前正在进行的调查；第二，影响他们在当前案件中能够采取的行动以及能够提出的证据。\n\n23 因此，我并非代表政府发言。我只是谈论本法院要求他提交并且不尊重其 Fifth Amendment 特权，或者随后要求他签署某种相关声明或宣誓书，将会引发的所有复杂问题。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n1 法庭：\n嗯，我只是——关于所援引的 Bouknight案，即最高法院案件，您知道，他们——最高法院谈到了这一点——称即使提交行为会构成您所称债务人对某物控制权或占有某物的默示承认，在那种情形下，也不能援引该特权来抗拒提交，对吗？\n\n11 因此，本案中的情形是，正如我们都谈到的，而且您也知道，这是受托人寻求取得的信息；债务人在通过提交破产案件而自愿接受本法院管辖时，即被要求提供该信息，他确实这样做了。他是自愿这样做的。没有人强迫他这样做。\n\n18 因此，该最高法院案件——我理解您的论点，即如果他必须交出该信息，那么他就是——并且——那么他就是在承认其拥有或控制该信息。\n\n22 嗯，这起最高法院的 Bouknight案似乎称，这一点不必然决定 Fifth Amendment 特权是否适用，从而不要求债务人——或者当事人——该案中不是债务人，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023 120\n\n而是——就是我们刚才通过那位母亲和儿子已经谈过的案件——要求债务人向受托人提供该信息。\n\nBEST先生：\n嗯哼。\n\n法庭：\n现在，我想对您说的只是，我认为——我理解您提出的所有论点。我相信我是理解的。我已经审阅了您援引的许多案件，即使不是全部案件。但本案存在一个问题，与您援引的 Fisher案及其他案件中的一些问题略有不同，因为那些案件并未处理当前情形以及占有中债务人的具体情形——\n\nBEST先生：\n对。\n\n法庭：\n——该债务人自愿来到法庭面前，并且——\n\nBEST先生：\n对。\n\n法庭：\n——使自己受制于《破产法典》项下债务人的义务和责任。\n\nBEST先生：\n我还认为，需要指出的是，受托人援引的案件——是 Idaho案吗？\n\n法庭：\n我认为它叫 Rogers案。\n\nBEST先生：\n以及——\n\n法庭：\nRoss案。抱歉。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第120页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第121页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n1 BASSETT先生：\nRoss。\n\n2 法庭：\nRoss案。\n\n3 BEST先生：\n以及法官阁下所提到的案件，并未涉及目前摆在您面前的债务人正面临积极的刑事指控，并且——\n\n6 法庭：\n但正如您所说——\n\n7 BEST先生：\n——同样——\n\n8 法庭：\n——他并不一定要正面临积极的刑事指控，对吗？\n\n10 BEST先生：\n我理解。但他正因在本法院的欺诈行为而接受积极的刑事调查。因此，这是整个事项中的一个细微差别——毫无疑问，如果他因其在破产法院作出的任何陈述而受到欺诈调查，那么要求其就该等事项提交材料，属于强制程序，他有权援引 Fifth Amendment 特权。\n\n18 实质上，如果有任何文件被提交，其不仅将用于法官阁下的目的、受托人的目的和破产程序的目的，还将成为我们现在所知、关于本法院欺诈指控的持续刑事调查的一部分。\n\n24 我的意思是，据我所知，对于本案所要求的文件提交行为的作证性要素，没有比这更有力的案件了。我尊重本法院履行其义务的意愿。我理解他在此申请保护。这里始终存在必须予以考虑的介入情形。这正是我们目前面临的问题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023 122\n\n法庭：\n好的。我理解。谢谢。\n\nBEST先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n您还有什么想补充的吗？\n\nBEST先生：\n目前没有。如果法官阁下希望，我很乐意进一步提交书面陈述。\n\n法庭：\n我需要考虑一下。但谢谢。\n\nBEST先生：\n是。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n法官阁下，我可以就此发言并作出回应吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n法官阁下，如果我——如果我能在这里插一句？我想就此提出一个实际的解决方案。我理解这个问题。提交行为。明白了。但我认为 Kwok先生的律师会同意，提交行为原则不适用于政府向 Kwok先生提供的文件。对此不存在提交行为问题。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第122页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第123页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n所以，他是在说，让美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）给司法部（DOJ）打电话，诸如此类。事情不是这么运作的。我们在刑事法院中没有地位。我们也不属于纽约南区（Southern District of New York）联邦检察官团队；我的意思是，他们自行处理自己的事务。我们祝愿他们以及郭先生一切顺利。这不是我们的问题。但被告在该法院具有诉讼资格，可以说：“法官阁下，刑事法官，我们希望对保密令作出修改，该修改将允许我们向受托人——第11章受托人——提供政府交给我们的文件副本。”本法院，法官阁下，可以命令债务人寻求对保密令作出此类修改。这并不保证刑事法院或政府会同意。但是，债务人似乎对此没有异议，也就是说，他们不反对我们查阅政府向被告提供的文件。他只是不想参与其中。而且，正如我告诉您的，法官阁下，我们在该法院没有诉讼资格。我们不能前往刑事法院并就该问题获得陈述意见的机会。但被告可以。而且，该被告恰好是您法院中的债务人，您可以命令被告寻求该项救济。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1719\n提交日期 04/28/23\n录入日期 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n不能保证会得到积极结果。但对我而言，这将避免各方大费周章。\n\n第二部分是，关于我们希望能够从其援引第五修正案中得出的不利推定，有一种方式可以使该第五修正案主张具体化，并解决我们的顾虑。我不认为郭先生的刑事辩护律师会对此有异议，因为他们就所有那些文件援引第五修正案。并不是说其中有些他们会作答。他们对全部文件均援引第五修正案。应当存在一种程序上的方式——巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）可以提出某种方案——使得能够针对受托人律师提出的每一项文件提交请求，分别或具体地援引第五修正案。因此，对我而言，如果我们处理这两个问题，我认为我们已经解决了这些问题，或者至少在解决这些问题方面取得了很大进展，而无需陷入我所谓的刑事法院与破产法院之间的全面冲突。\n\n法院：贝斯特先生（Mr. Best）？\n\n贝斯特先生：是的。如果受托人律师希望汇集一长串请求，以便进行逐项审查，确保其措辞恰当，并与当事人逐项讨论，取得其对于是否将就受托人律师的一个或全部询问作出逐项援引的决定，我没有异议。\n\n因此，就此而言，我同意德斯潘斯先生（Mr. Despins）的意见：如果提出该方案——如果那是一种解决办法，我在这里就是为了设法解决问题——我理解这些问题。我正在努力——我希望——我已经审阅过此事，并说明了该程序在大陪审团程序中如何运作。这也将是此处采取该方式的通常做法。\n\n法院：那么——我对此毫无了解——德斯潘斯受托人刚才所说的，在刑事程序中修改保密令，使政府将其拟向您当事人提供的文件也提供给受托人，这一点如何？\n\n贝斯特先生：因此，那不是我们的保密令。这正是关键所在。我不反对就此与法院和司法部（Department of Justice）合作。但那是法院的命令。因此，我确信可以在过程中设法解决。但是——\n\n德斯潘斯先生：法官阁下，刑事法院——\n\n贝斯特先生：但请理解——\n\n德斯潘斯先生：——刑事法院并未作出（听不清）。\n\n贝斯特先生：——我无法强迫纽约南区法院修改其命令，但是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交日期 04/28/23 录入日期 04/28/23 08:44:48 第125页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n法院：我不认为——我认为德斯潘斯受托人已经承认了这一点。\n\n德斯潘斯先生：不，那不是——\n\n法院：他已经承认他们可能不会这样做。\n\n贝斯特先生：是的。\n\n法院：对吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：乐意尝试。\n\n法院：我认为他所问的是，本法院是否会作出命令，要求债务人向纽约南区寻求该项救济，同时知道纽约南区可能会拒绝。但是我不知道——\n\n德斯潘斯先生：正确。\n\n法院：——您是否反对该项请求。如果您不反对，并且各方能够拟定一项本法院可以作出的命令，那就可以。但是，我的意思是，您们需要——是的。您们需要时间讨论此事。没问题。\n\n贝斯特先生：是的。如果可以的话？\n\n法院：您们想要几分钟时间吗？\n\n身份不明的发言人：当然。\n\n身份不明的发言人：是的，如果可以的话。\n\n法院：好的。那么，在我们就此休庭之前，我们今天在本案中还有另一事项。该事项涉及Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克），我想其律师一直都在场。\n\n该事项涉及一项请求免除判决或命令效力的动议；我想问的是，各方认为该听证会需要多长时间？您有任何想法吗？\n\n克莱因女士（Ms. Cline）：应当很短（听不清）。\n\n德斯潘斯先生：从我的角度来看，法官阁下，三分钟。我需要说的内容需要三分钟。\n\n法院：那么我的想法是这样的。好的？我认为，律师，您同意德斯潘斯受托人的意见，即这将是一次简短的听证会？\n\n克莱因女士：那么，取决于他所说的内容，是的，法官阁下，应当很短。\n\n法院：我想这很公平。无论如何，何不让——郭先生的律师暂时离席。我们将暂缓目前正在进行的听证会。现在先停止。您们可以离席。您们可以去进行一些讨论。\n\n不过，您们在某个时候也需要与受托人律师进行讨论。\n\n贝斯特先生：当然。\n\n法院：好的。那么我们何不先审理这最后一项事项，然后我将休庭一段时间，您们——您们可以先集合，然后可以与受托人律师交谈。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n贝斯特先生：很好。\n\n法院：好的？我认为——就这么办。走廊里有会议室，应当没有上锁。\n\n贝斯特先生：它们比我在刑事案件中使用的任何会议室都好得多，所以——\n\n法院：那很好。\n\n贝斯特先生：确实如此。\n\n法院：也许那会促成一个结果。\n\n贝斯特先生：是的。\n\n法院：好的？但无论如何，您们何不这样做。郭先生的所有律师现在都可以离席。我将请Bravo Luck的律师上前。我们将处理日程中最后一项事项。然后我将——我确实会休庭，因为不仅工作人员需要一些时间，之后您们也可以与受托人律师交谈。\n\n贝斯特先生：当然。我们何不计划至少——我不知道您的休庭时间会有多长——2:00、2:15回来。\n\n法院：我想我们大约休庭一小时。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交日期 04/28/23 录入日期 04/28/23 08:44:48 第128页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1719 提交日期 04/28/23 录入日期 04/28/23 08:44:48 第129页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n贝斯特先生：好的。\n\n法院：因为今天下午晚些时候我还有一些其他事情需要处理。\n\n贝斯特先生：2:00还是2:15回来？\n\n法院：请2:00。\n\n贝斯特先生：很好。\n\n法院：好的？\n\n贝斯特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\n好的。现在，由于我们在某种程度上暂停该听证会，以便各方进行一些讨论，让我们转向日程中最后一项已安排快速听证的事项，因为律师——哦，律师，请您为记录说明您的出庭代理身份，好吗？\n\n克莱因女士：是的，法官阁下。乔安娜·克莱因（Joanna Cline），特劳特曼·佩珀律师事务所（Troutman Pepper），代表Bravo Luck。\n\n法院：下午好。好的。请稍等一下。\n\n那么，关于ECF编号1679，即安排动议听证会的命令——关于克莱因律师前几天星期二在庭前会议上出庭时提出的口头动议——她对通知当事人感到担忧，即就一项尚未提交、但法院已允许密封提交的拟议财产放弃动议而言，哪些人被视为通知当事人。\n\n因此，德斯潘斯受托人，我安排这次听证会，是因为我想给律师一个机会——她说明了为何希望成为通知当事人。根据我对那天记录的理解，曾作出明确决定，不将Bravo Luck列为通知当事人。正确吗？\n\n德斯潘斯先生：正确。\n\n法院：好的。您能否说明——\n\n德斯潘斯先生：或者除所列人员之外的任何其他债权人——正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：已经是什么的那些人？\n\n受到保密令约束？\n\n德斯潘斯先生：所列人员——所以，不是。也就是说，将是债权人委员会、PAX（帕克斯）、美国受托人和债务人。\n\n法院：他们全部都是——\n\n德斯潘斯先生：并且还有——\n\n法院：——保密令的签署方，正确吗？\n\n德斯潘斯先生：是的。但这并非由此决定的。不过，是的，他们都是该保密令的签署方。但如果我能用三分钟说明？\n\n基本上，这是一个问题——诚然，林赛先生（Mr. Linsey）提交的动议并未披露拟放弃的是何种财产。\n\n但我可以告诉您——我希望这会使——但实际上，我们已经尝试过了，我认为没有奏效——Bravo Luck的律师放心，这与The Sherry Netherland（谢里·尼德兰酒店）或Bravo Luck毫无关系。这是第一部分。这是郭案中的一个问题。\n\n因此，他们说，嗯，我们是郭案中的债权人。他们不是受托义务人。我们有一个受托义务人，即债权人委员会。\n\n如法官阁下将从我在该听证会上提供的证词中得知，就放弃财产的策略以及其他潜在替代方法而言，有非常敏感的问题需要讨论。我只是不希望这些内容泄露出去。\n\n而且这不涉及Bravo Luck。Bravo Luck——请记住，他们是欺诈性转让案件的被告。这就是他们的全部身份。而且，他们——您知道，其负责人拒绝接受送达。\n\n这只是——您知道，他们不能参与任何其他事项。他们不应参与任何其他事项。这是关系到案件管理核心的问题。有一个受托义务人，即债权人委员会。美国受托人在场。债务人的律师也在场。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日 132 而且 PAX 在场。PAX 在场的原因是，如您所知，他们确实持有一份数百万美元的判决书。因此，他们不像是试图以某种方式介入本案的被告。因此，基本上，这就是我的（听不清），法官阁下。他们不应当在那里。他们本不应在那里。这涉及非常敏感的信息。而且这不会影响他们，因为这并不直接影响 The Sherry Netherland（雪莉·尼德兰酒店）或 Bravo Luck（博拉沃·拉克）。因此，这可能会以其作为郭文贵债权人的身份影响他们。坦率地说，我不确定他们如何成为郭文贵的债权人。但假定他们确实是，这可能会以该身份影响他们。但美国受托人和债权人委员会对此已提供了充分保障。谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。律师，您希望陈述意见吗？CLINE 女士：是的，法官阁下。Joanna Cline（乔安娜·克莱因）代表 Bravo Luck 出庭。我想，受托人寻求的是两件事：第一，限制通知；第二，将这项放弃动议密封提交。无论是判例法，还是其所陈述的事实理由，均不支持这两项请求。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1719 于 04/28/23 提交 于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记 第 132 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1719 于 04/28/23 提交 于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记 第 133 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年4月20日 133 关于通知问题，限制通知通常是在作出通知的一方试图避免通知所需的成本或时间时采用。受托人在其文件中援引的案件，In Re Karan（Karan 案，音），确实涉及法院在放弃程序中限制通知的权力，但它实际上支持我们的立场，并强调了这样一项主张：通知要求的目的在于为相关人员提供陈述意见和提出异议的机会。该案并未阐明限制通知的标准，反而因当事人未提交适当的限制通知动议而驳回了作出有关放弃的同意命令的动议；该动议本应完整说明送达限制，并有宣誓书支持。我们不知道，而且受托人也未援引任何案件表明，法院事实上曾因通知的成本或时间以外的原因，在放弃程序中限制通知。实际上，判例法指出，通知是放弃程序的关键方面。这一点可见于 In Re Telcar（Telcar 案）。关于密封提交这一概念——法院：您有 In Re Telcar 案的引证吗？CLINE 女士：有。In Re Telcar，363 B.R. 345，载于\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年4月20日 134 注释 19，破产法院东区，2007年。法院：谢谢。CLINE 女士：而且这些内容也都载于 Collier 关于规则 6007 的章节中。法院：规则 6007？好的。CLINE 女士：是的，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。CLINE 女士：然后是第二点，即密封提交。作为初步事项，我们不知道有任何案件曾将放弃动议密封，并对诉讼中的利害关系方予以隐瞒。但适当标准见于规则 107(b)；如果仔细阅读，我认为受托人所依赖的引证涉及这样一种概念，即法院可就商业秘密或保密的研究、开发或商业信息保护某一实体。因此，这是他们所依赖的要件。本案涉及一名个人债务人，而受托人并未说明是否存在商业秘密、什么内容如此保密，或者此处争议的所谓商业信息究竟是什么。受托人负有责任，必须推翻对法院系统公开公共查阅的推定；该推定正是我们在美国法院开展工作的根本基础。笼统的利益主张并不足够。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1719 于 04/28/23 提交 于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记 第 134 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1719 于 04/28/23 提交 于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记 第 135 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年4月20日\n\n1 而法院认定属于保密的信息类型，涉及某种——当债务人的资产处于危险中时的某种商业价值，例如客户名单、债权人名单，或诸如此类的内容。\n\n2 但笼统地——概括地声称，如本案受托人即使在其书面意见中所称，若没有 Bravo 的干预，事情会进展得更顺利，这一论点已被法院就此问题明确驳回。\n\nAnd that case is called Itel, I-T-E-L, which is\n\n10 该案名为 Itel，即 I-T-E-L；Collier——Collier 关于规则 107.03(a) 的章节中对此有讨论。\n\n12 受托人实质上是在说，我们正在做的事情可能影响他人的权利，因此我们希望让他们不知情，以便他们无法提出异议。这完全违背了我们司法制度的运作方式，也违背了 Bravo 的正当程序权利。\n\n17 法院：好的。谢谢，律师。\n\n18 Despins 受托人，您还有什么要补充的吗？\n\n19 DESPINS 先生：法官阁下，如您所知，其他人的权利并非 Bravo Luck 的权利，而是其他某人的权利。我们不希望他们知道此事或得知此事。而且，在我已陈述此事与 Bravo Luck 毫无关系、也不涉及 The Sherry Netherland 之后，我没有听到任何关于 Bravo Luck 所具有的具体化利益的意见。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1719 于 04/28/23 提交 于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记 第 136 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年4月20日 136 而且他们由美国受托人和债权人委员会代表。他们在场是作为监督者，以确保我们没有做任何疯狂的事情。至于围绕此事的保密性，是因为它涉及与该资产有关的复杂策略，涉及该资产如何被放弃以及保留何种内容；我确实不希望 Bravo Luck 或其他债权人知悉这些内容。因为他们——除非其对该事项具有特别的、具体化的利益，否则他们不应参与其中。因为这高度保密，并且可能损害破产财产（听不清）。法院：好的。谢谢。DESPINS 先生：谢谢。法院：律师，您还有什么要补充的吗？CLINE 女士：有。法官阁下，只是——是的，只是要指出显而易见的一点，即举证责任不在我们。举证责任在受托人，其须推翻对法院系统公共记录查阅的推定。法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？MAYHEW 女士：法官阁下，我唯一想补充的是——Kristen Mayhew（克里斯滕·梅休），Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所），代表委员会出庭——基于\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1719 于 04/28/23 提交 于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记 第 137 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年4月20日\n\n1 第 11 章受托人的陈述，即此事属于高度保密、敏感事项，我们认为，作为对全体债权人负有信义义务的债权人委员会，在已收到通知的情况下，如有任何可能引起个别债权人关切的事项，我们将处于适当位置获得该信息。但基于受托人的陈述，我们不认为应向 Bravo Luck 发出放弃通知。\n\n9 法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n10 MAYHEW 女士：谢谢。\n\n11 法院：还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\n12 CLINE 女士：如果可以的话？最后一点——\n\n13 法院：当然。\n\n14 CLINE 女士：——法官阁下。我想，如果委员会能够查阅，PAX 也能够查阅，我们没有听到为什么——为什么 Bravo 不能查阅。\n\n17 对于为什么除我推定为受托人贯穿其整个案件的理论之外，我们的客户需要被蒙在鼓里，并未作出任何具体化的解释。但此处没有任何证明，也没有拒绝我们查阅的依据。\n\n22 法院：好的。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\n23 好的。我将对此事项暂予审议，并将相应作出裁定。可以吗？\n\n25 而且，律师，除非您\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n于 04/28/23 提交\n于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年4月20日\n\n1 愿意，否则您不必留下。您当然可以留下。我没有预料到听证会会如此冗长，以致我们未能更早处理到您的听证事项。但这完全由您决定。\n\n5 但法院将休庭至下午 2 点，正如就法院此前正在审理的事项所说明的那样，以便各方可以进行一些讨论。\n\n8 因此，法庭休庭至下午 2 点。\n\n9 法庭书记员：法庭休庭至下午 2 点。\n\n11 （法庭于下午 1:07 至下午 2:03 休庭。）\n\n12 法院：请就座。好的。在我们休庭之前——\n\n14 BASSETT 先生：法官阁下，很抱歉打断您，但我在 Zoom 上没有看到 Despins 受托人。\n\n16 法院：哦。看来他来了。\n\n17 DESPINS 先生：抱歉。对不起。\n\n18 法院：没关系。没问题。\n\n19 好的。在我们休庭之前，我们正在处理本案——郭文贵先生主案中待决的两项动议。\n\n22 这些动议是与要求说明为何不应因郭文贵先生援引其第五修正案特权而认定其藐视法庭的命令动议有关的动议，以及郭文贵先生提出的、请求有限中止部分准许要求其遵从 2004 审查之动议的命令的动议。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1719\n于 04/28/23 提交\n于 04/28/23 08:44:48 登记\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年4月20日\n\n1 请求有限中止部分准许要求遵从 2004 审查之动议的命令。而且\n\n3 Best 先生和各方原本将进行一些讨论。\n\n5 Best 先生，您是否想报告一下目前的情况？\n\n7 BEST 先生：是的，法官阁下。我认为，即使在休庭之前，我们就 Despins 先生提出的要求已经达成一致，即对第五修正案的援引应当是具体的——针对特定事项的。\n\n10 然后，唯一剩余的问题是 Southern District（纽约南区）案件中的任何证据开示，以及受托人能否获得该等材料。\n\n13 我们原则上同意，前提是美国司法部以及实际上最重要的是地区法院法官同意披露该等材料——我确信会附带许多限制或条件——我们不会阻碍该事项。真正讨论的问题是，如何以最佳方式实现这一点。\n\n20 据我了解，我们尚未收到任何证据开示材料。无论是现有传票在就该具体问题设有特定附带条件的情况下继续有效——我想，这一切都是——我们没有讨论过这一点，但，如您所知，我会请求不妨害重新提出地撤回认定客户藐视法庭的动议。\n\n以及我们也将撤回我们的延期动议。\n\n然后，我们就可以坐下来，尽力确定今后最妥当的处理方案。\n\n美国受托人办公室（Office of the United States Trustee）的律师担心，他们在纽约南区（Southern District of New York）对于该传票不具有资格。\n\n我不在乎我们以何种方式达成目的。有多种方式可以做到这一点；他们谈到不希望自己承担前往司法部（Department of Justice）的义务。\n\n为向本院如实说明情况，他们最终将出现在纽约南区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the Southern District of New York）的法官面前，因为我相信她或他会希望就使用限制以及保密和保护令问题听取他们的意见。\n\n本院：你说的“他们”，是指美国受托人办公室吗？\n\n贝斯特先生（Mr. Best）：是的。\n\n本院：好的。\n\n贝斯特先生：因此，我希望协助本院审视此事，并协助本院拟定一项命令——或者裁定，或者——而且您不——我的意思是，我甚至不知道您是否需要作出裁定。但我希望明确今后的处理方式。我知道您也是如此。我知道所有人都是如此。并且，我们理解并将遵守任何最为合理的程序。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023 141\n\n本院：好的。谢谢。\n\n德斯潘斯先生（Mr. Despins）：法官阁下，恕我直言，美国受托人与此毫无关系。这是第11章受托人的证据开示。\n\n贝斯特先生：第11章受托人。\n\n德斯潘斯先生：所以，您知道，这非常不同。\n\n本院：是。\n\n德斯潘斯先生：因此，我认为应当发生的是，本院应当作出命令，指示债务人在刑事案件中寻求修改任何适用的保护令，以允许第11章受托人查阅政府向债务人提供的文件。您可以加入这样的措辞，即债务人并未以任何方式表示其有能力实现该结果，但他们只是将提出请求，因为他们具有资格。如果他们被驳回，他们就被驳回。这是我们承担的风险。他们不能反对该救济，因为没有任何——一旦涉及文件提交行为，那就完全不复存在了。因此，我认为应当如此处理。我们应当将对基础动议的听证延期20天或类似期限，以观察刑事案件中会发生什么。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 141 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n刑事案件。这是我认为今后的处理路径。\n\n再次说明，这并不会使债务人同意其无法交付的事项，因为双方理解，他们仅会提出请求。这就是我们实现该结果的路径。如果这不起作用，例如刑事法院或司法部否决了它，那是我们承担的风险。我们理解这一点。\n\n但债务人没有资格——我并非在法律意义上使用“资格”一词，而是在实际意义上——反对一项命令，该命令要求你们应当寻求将此与第11章受托人共享的权利。谢谢。\n\n本院：谢谢。\n\n克莱伯恩律师（Attorney Claiborn）？\n\n克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：谢谢，法官阁下。我确实想重申德斯潘斯受托人刚刚作出的澄清，即贝斯特律师提及第11章——提及美国受托人之处，实际上是指第11章受托人。美国受托人并未参与律师之间一直进行的讨论，也不是他们一直讨论的协议或未达成协议的一方。\n\n贝斯特先生：我对我的口误表示歉意。\n\n本院：没关系。\n\n贝斯特先生：抱歉。请继续。\n\n弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）：请继续。请继续。\n\n贝斯特先生：不。我同意律师拟定一份命令草案，由我们审阅后提交给法官阁下，如果这是最容易的处理方式。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n我只是想确保所有人都知道，保护令中包含对信息使用的限制。我认为——我看到德斯潘斯先生点头表示确认。\n\n因此，我认为，如果纽约南区法院允许使用该信息，则存在一项协议，即在他们成为保护令所约束的一方的前提下遵守该保护令。\n\n本院：好的。因此，我认为我所听到的是——弗里德曼先生，您想发表意见吗？\n\n弗里德曼先生：是的，法官阁下。我是奥梅尔文尼与迈尔斯律师事务所（O'Melveny & Myers）的彼得·弗里德曼（Peter Friedman）。梅休女士（Ms. Mayhew）也将与我共同代表委员会。\n\n梅休女士：是。\n\n弗里德曼先生：我们两人都请求参与有关修改纽约南区保护令的任何讨论。我们的两名委托人均希望能够查阅文件，或者——您知道，前提是他们愿意以与第11章案件中所发生的相同方式签署加入任何保护令。\n\n本院：但问题是，这不是第11章案件。我的意思是，这就是问题所在，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 144 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n我的意思是，德斯潘斯受托人，您——您正试图为您的调查获取这些信息。\n\n德斯潘斯先生：正确。顺便说一句，我听不见弗里德曼先生所说的话，因为他——\n\n本院：弗里德曼先生在——\n\n德斯潘斯先生：——离——太远了。\n\n本院：哦，是的。他——\n\n弗里德曼先生：抱歉。\n\n本院：请继续。\n\n弗里德曼先生：我可以——我应当发言吗，法官阁下，还是——\n\n本院：请讲。\n\n弗里德曼先生：好的。我们只是请求许可，也能够审阅与您的调查有关而收到的文件，前提是我们成为任何保护令的一方。我认为委员会提出了同样的请求。\n\n德斯潘斯先生：而我——通常，我会说当然可以。但这是确保我们永远无法获得那些文件的万全方法。能够查阅的人越多，我们拥有寻求获取文件的权利的可能性就越低——甚至连我们是否有权寻求获取文件也更不可能。因此，我并非试图在这里成为一个难以合作的参与者，但我只是——这行不通。\n\n弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，我们认为我们应当——受托人应当——并且我们应当被允许提出该请求。如果纽约的法官认为这是一个问题，那么那就是一个问题。但是——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n本院：嗯，这不是纽约法官的问题。这是本院的问题。对吗？我们正在解决提交至本院的事项。而纽约法官是否同意受托人所寻求的内容，则是另一个问题。\n\n但目前，受托人正在寻求继续履行其根据《破产法》承担的职责。显然，我认为，贝斯特先生和受托人已有一项协议，将向本院提交某种形式的命令，以解决今天日程上的这两项事项，即受托人的动议——关于受托人强制履行动议——以及债务人的中止动议。\n\n而解决方案是，受托人将向纽约南区法院寻求那些文件，纽约地区法院可能会说不。但是——\n\n德斯潘斯先生：嗯，实际上，法官阁下，是债务人将寻求——\n\n本院：嗯，是的。\n\n德斯潘斯先生：不是我们寻求。\n\n本院：抱歉。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 146 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n德斯潘斯先生：债务人将寻求。\n\n本院：债务人将寻求，然后在他们——当他们——取得后与您共享。\n\n德斯潘斯先生：正确。\n\n本院：对。对。而且我必须说，在我们目前所处的情形下，此时我必须同意第11章受托人的意见，即——即此时，如果债务人寻求修改纽约南区任何适用的保护令，并且纽约南区法官以及我认为美国检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney's Office）不反对且该请求获准，那么目前将向郭先生提供的唯一信息将仅与第11章受托人共享。\n\n目前本案涉及的事情太多，我们不能再用一个月时间争论谁能得到什么。而这正是将会发生的情况。我不会让这种情况发生。\n\n受托人由本院指定进行调查。这就是他将要做的事情。无论如何——或者说，他将尝试去做。而且，如果他就受托人与债务人之间这些动议的解决方案，是按照贝斯特先生和德斯潘斯先生同意的条款和条件进行，那么我们目前就将如此推进。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 147 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n弗里德曼先生：那么，法官阁下，我想我的担忧是，假设受托人向本院密封提交某些文件——\n\n本院：届时我们将处理——\n\n弗里德曼先生：——我们将——\n\n本院：——在该情况发生时处理。\n\n弗里德曼先生：那么，我们届时是否能够请求本院允许我们——\n\n本院：我们将——\n\n弗里德曼先生：——审阅密封提交的文件，而不被排除在外，因为有人告诉我们——您知道，当受托人与债务人在纽约南区进行协商时，嗯，该命令并未规定当事人可以向曼宁法官（Judge Manning）申请获取密封提交的文件。那——\n\n本院：如果及当我们到了那一步，我们会处理。\n\n请看，情况是这样的。正如各位所知，本案的案卷记录已经超过1,700项。每天都有新的动议提交，需要紧急听证。每天都是如此。我认为我们没有经历过一天——一周没有发生这种情况。好吗？\n\n这里有一项协议，旨在让受托人与郭先生的律师之间取得一些进展。我将允许其继续进行，然后我们将看看会发生什么。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023 148\n\n本案中的每一件事情都日复一日、周复一周地发生变化。因此，我们将拭目以待。我理解PAX的担忧，也理解委员会的担忧。但如果我——我看到，当你们提出该请求时，债务人的律师摇头表示不同意。我不会再进行一场争论。我们不会就谁可以获得什么而提交书面意见，且——存在一项协议。我们将按照该协议推进。我将要求贝斯特先生和德斯潘斯先生遵守该协议。如果他们不遵守——如果出现任何问题，那么他们将在本院遇到麻烦。\n\n但目前，有一项协议可能使受托人取得一些进展。这就是我们目前将要——这就是我们目前解决该问题的方式。这并不意味着你们在将来的某个时候不能提出任何你们想提出的请求。但我——我们不能为每一种可能发生的情况作出安排，否则我们将永远无法离开这个房间。而且，就此事项而言，我们已经在这里——您知道，我们就此事项已经到庭的次数，远远多于复杂的第11章公司案件。我认为现在是时候——每个人都一直在努力。我理解这一点。但目前，这就是我们的处境。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 148 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1719\n提交 04/28/23\n录入 04/28/23 08:44:48\n第 149 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n受托人和贝斯特先生（Mr. Best）将提交一项命令。你们双方需要多长时间？你们准备在明天之前完成吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：是的，就我们而言。\n\n弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）：谢谢，法官阁下。我可以离开讲台，以便他人使用吗？\n\n法庭：可以。谢谢。\n\n弗里德曼先生：谢谢。\n\n贝斯特先生：如果德斯平斯先生或其同事能向我们提供供法官阁下签署的命令草案，我们只需要一点时间拿给我们的当事人看。我们没有他——我们无法在这方面便捷地接触到他。因此，如果我们能够在周一营业结束前完成，可以吗？\n\n法庭：对于你刚才所说的，我只想说，当你说要见你的当事人时——我理解你必须见你的当事人。但你们已同意，你们的当事人不会反对此事。因此——\n\n贝斯特先生：我同意。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n贝斯特先生：他只需要看一下该命令，而且——\n\n法庭：好的。这很公平。\n\n贝斯特先生：是。\n\n法庭：我并没有作出相反的暗示。我只是说，我不想听到说不存在——不再存在协议，因为否则——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023 150\n\n贝斯特先生：我完全理解。\n\n法庭：——我将就这些动议作出裁定。\n\n贝斯特先生：毫无疑问，您完全可以这样做。而且我并非将此作为限定条件。\n\n法庭：我并没有暗示你是这样做的。\n\n贝斯特先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我想为记录明确说明这一点。好吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：而且如我——因此，就此而言，当我们提交该命令并且该命令获准时，据我理解，受托人提出的制裁或藐视法庭动议、说明理由听证以及藐视法庭事项将被撤回——\n\n法庭：我认为并不存在关于撤回的协议。\n\n德斯平斯先生：不。延期审理。\n\n法庭：我认为该协议是关于该命令的。法庭——我将采取的做法，而且我认为在本案中适当的做法，是将这些听证延期一段时间，以了解情况进展。因为我们需要——受托人——我知道你参与本案的时间还不长，贝斯特先生——\n\n贝斯特先生：对。\n\n法庭：——但受托人需要进行调查，对吗？他所——即使这件事——他所试图做的可能根本行不通，对吗？但他正在尝试这样做。而本法庭将支持这一点，因为这正是为什么——并非特别因为德斯平斯先生，而是为什么本案要指定一名受托人。好吗？因此，我不会撤回这些动议，以至于之后又不得不重新提交。我会将它们延期一段时间。我们将看看情况进展。我们需要做的是让各方，你——而且你会这样做——你和德斯平斯先生合作，并看看在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）能够做些什么，如果能做任何事的话。目前我已裁定，唯一将看到这些文件的一方是——是受托人。没有其他人。好吗？至于事情会如何发展，谁知道。我们拭目以待。但目前，我不会撤回任何一项动议。我将把两项动议均延期。好吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我们将弄清楚——而且我将把它们延期——嗯，我稍后会查看日程表。但我不会延期超过约30天，因为我想看看在纽约南区取得了什么进展。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第150页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第151页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n贝斯特先生：我想明确一点。我们尚未获得任何证据开示材料，因此我——\n\n法庭：我明白这一切。\n\n贝斯特先生：所以——\n\n法庭：我完全——\n\n贝斯特先生：好的。\n\n法庭：而且我理解这一点。\n\n贝斯特先生：好的。\n\n法庭：但一旦你们双方开始与纽约南区的各方交谈，谁知道会发生什么，对吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：对。\n\n法庭：或者你们可能回来报告说，他们告诉我们60天内不会给我们任何东西。我不知道你们会回来报告什么。但我们至少需要使受托人尝试履行其职责的能力继续朝着推进的方向发展——\n\n贝斯特先生：明白。\n\n法庭：——无论这种推进多么微小。\n\n贝斯特先生：明白。\n\n法庭：好吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们看看。嗯，我们在本案中——在——抱歉，不是在本案中，而是在与郭先生案件有关的一项对抗性程序中，安排了一次听证。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第152页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n于3月——抱歉，5月30日下午1点举行。因此，我将把——这两项事项均延期至5月30日下午1:00，包括该动议——我将为记录注明，因为我们——我们的记录只有音频，所以我们必须非常谨慎地说明，确保清楚。\n\n因此，关于藐视法庭问题的说明理由令动议——特别是关于郭先生的，ECF 1453——延期至5月30日下午1:00；债务人的动议亦然——请给我一秒钟，抱歉——即部分暂缓准予要求遵守 Rule 2004 审查的动议的命令之动议。传票，我应该说。抱歉。传票。因此，该事项，即 ECF 1649，延期。该事项也延期至5月30日下午1:00。\n\n现在，德斯平斯先生，在我们今天休庭之前，你现在——而且你们双方将不晚于周一向法庭提交该命令，即关于由纽约南区控制的文件的双方同意命令。我想这实际上就是它，对吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么，德斯平斯先生，你今天开始陈述时表示了你对利益冲突问题的担忧。出于许多原因，我允许这些听证继续进行，其中包括所有人都在场，以及这些问题确实需要处理。你现在是否坚持提出利益冲突问题，还是你保留该问题——鉴于你正试图推进调查，你目前不坚持该问题？因为我需要确定是否需要设定书面陈述时间表。而且——我将——为公平起见，鉴于你们在过去一小时进行了一些讨论，我将允许你在你和贝斯特先生提交关于尝试——你知道——尝试在纽约南区获取信息的程序的命令时，向法庭说明这一点，如果这是你希望采取的做法。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。我正要说，我需要对此进行思考。今天的听证中有一件我了解到的事情——你知道——让我对其作了更多思考，即我知道我们收到了司法部（DOJ）的传票，当然我知道这一点。该传票要求出示证言笔录。就此而言，这对我非常清楚。但我没有——我此前没有关注到的是，贝斯特先生——你知道——所关注的一项条目，即 Title 18 Section 152，该条规定的是破产犯罪、破产欺诈。关键在于——首先，起诉书中完全没有提到这一点。传票明确写明了这一点。而且如果这是真的，我是说，如果他们——\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第153页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023 154\n\n实际上正在调查这一点，那么其只能涵盖 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）担任代理律师期间。因此，坦率地说，在我回到法官阁下面前之前，我需要更深入了解该问题。抱歉。\n\n法庭：没关系。没关系。不。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我很希望能够当场处理，但——\n\n法庭：没关系。没关系。我不希望各方在目前尚不清楚我们是否会这样做的情况下进行书面陈述。好吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。而且，法官阁下，如果可以的话，我有几项事务性事项。\n\n法庭：请讲。\n\n德斯平斯先生：首先，我想确保您看到了——您是否记得那项紧急命令，该命令说明谁可以进入 The Sherry Netherland（雪莉内德兰），谁不可以？我们提交——\n\n法庭：我所知道的只是——\n\n德斯平斯先生：我们提交了——\n\n法庭：我所知道的只是，昨天下午某个时候有人请求修改该命令。但我——我实际上是否有一项修改后的命令？法庭书记员正在点头。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我相信您应该有。\n\n法庭：好的。我还没有看过，但——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 1719\n提交于 04/28/23\n录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n我会看一下。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。这是一件事。第二件事是，我们曾就聘用 Edmiston（埃德米斯顿）请求确定听证日期或异议截止日期，E-D-M-I-S-T-O-N。他们是 Lady May（“五月女士”号）的销售经纪人。我们曾请求——我们以加急方式提出了动议。抱歉。但是，你知道，由于他们现在开始出售该游艇，我们需要——他们希望有一项命令获准，说明他们已被聘用。\n\n因此，我只是——您现在不必就此作出决定。我想确保这已——你知道——进入您的关注范围。\n\n法庭：那么，等一下。\n\n德斯平斯先生：还有最后一项——\n\n法庭：等一下。\n\n德斯平斯先生：哦。\n\n法庭：一项紧急动议——我以为我们已经聘用了该游艇的所有人员。不是吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：不是。经纪人部分遗漏了。我们基本上面谈了三家不同的经纪人。我们收到了有关该事项的投标。我们提交了一项动议，我想是在——\n\n法庭：哦，好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——周一或——\n\n法庭：好的。好吧。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023 157\n\n德斯平斯先生：——寻求就此获得紧急救济。因此，我只是想确保这进入您的关注范围——\n\n法庭：这是否就是你们请求在下周四举行听证的那项？是那一项吗？我——\n\n德斯平斯先生：嗯，不是本周四。下周的周四，为了——\n\n法庭：对。从今天起一周。今天是周四，对吗？我希望是周四。好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是，您说得对。抱歉。\n\n法庭：从今天起一周。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是，您说得对。是。\n\n法庭：好的。是。我相信法庭可以满足该请求，但将会——可能——不会——最有可能要到当天中午或更晚才能举行。\n\n德斯平斯先生：可以，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：我想提到的最后一点是，您作出的命令——非常感谢您这样做——关于放弃动议的命令，已安排于5月2日就该动议举行听证。当然，这隐含的前提是我们将提交该动议，而我们尚未提交。本周——或者我不确定我们是否能够做到。因此，我们可能需要将5月2日的听证推迟至较晚日期，不会太晚，但可能在——之后五天或六天。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第157页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023 158\n\n法庭：没关系。你们可以在下周就此报告。你们可以在——\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——下周报告，如果你们届时尚未准备好于5月2日就该问题继续进行。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。好的。谢谢，法官阁下。因此，就事务性事项而言，我要说的就是这些。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。那么，今天日程表上的所有事项都已处理完毕，本法庭今日下午没有进一步听证。因此，法庭休庭。\n\n法庭书记员：全体起立。法庭休庭。\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢。\n\n（程序于下午2:33结束。）\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1719 提交于 04/28/23 录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48 第158页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 1719\n提交于 04/28/23\n录入于 04/28/23 08:44:48\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n3 本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的听录员及\n4 持证电子法庭记录员和听录员，特此证明，\n5 上述内容系根据上述\n6 标题所示事项程序的官方\n7 电子录音制作的正确笔录。\n\n10 April 27, 2023\n11 Christine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Je","Himalaya","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Luc Despins","GETTR","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":84,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":204,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1453,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1544,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1649,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":45676,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-28","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:09:48"}