{"id":"court_ctb_1737_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1737,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-05-01","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"债务人补充陈述文件 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1737（2023-05-01立案）。债务人郭文贵提交补充文件并附上 2023 年 4 月 20 日的庭审听证记录，主张其中期妥协方案是由政府直接向受托人提供文件而非由其本人直接提供，以此保障其宪法第五修正案权利。","summary_en":"Debtor's Supplemental Submission — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1737 (filed May 1, 2023). Debtor Ho Wan Kwok filed a supplemental submission attaching the transcript of the April 20, 2023 hearing, arguing that his proposed interim compromise was to facilitate direct document production by the Government to the Trustee rather than producing them himself, thereby preserving his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -------------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., | :
:
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.1 | :
: | Jointly Administered |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n\n# **DEBTOR'S SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION REGARDING HIS PROPOSED ORDER CONCERNING (I) MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE [DOCKET NO. 1453] AND (II) DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR A LIMITED STAY OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENA [DOCKET NO. 1649]**\n\nDebtor Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") hereby files this supplemental submission in\n\nconnection with the following:\n\n- (i) Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Order to Show Cause Why Debtor … Should not be Held in Contempt of Court for Failure to Comply with Order Compelling Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas and Sanctioned for Such Conduct [Docket No. 1453] (the \"OSC Motion\");\n- (ii) Debtor's Motion for Limited Stay of Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoena [Docket No. 1649] (the \"Stay Motion\");\n- (iii) Debtor's Proposed Order **c**oncerning (i) Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Order to Show Cause [Docket No. 1453] and (ii) Debtor's Motion for a Limited Stay of Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoena [Docket No. 1649] [Docket No. 1698] (the \"Debtor's Proposed Order\"); and\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n(iv) The Trustee's Notice of Submission of Proposed Order and Request for Hearing or Status Conference (the \"Trustee's Proposed Order\") [Docket 1699].\n\nIn particular, the Debtor respectfully states as follows:\n\n1. This Court conducted hearings on each of April 20 and April 27, 2023 to consider the OSC Motion, the Stay Motion, the Debtor's Proposed Order, and the Trustee's Proposed Order.\n\n2. The Court and the parties concluded the April 27 hearing by noting that they each would benefit by a review of the transcript of the April 20 hearing as to what, precisely, had been proposed by the Debtor as an interim compromise of sorts as to the OSC Motion and the Stay Motion, and in particular which of the proposed orders (the Debtor's Proposed Order, or the Trustee's Proposed Order) is more consistent with the proposal made by the Debtor during the April 20 hearing.\n\n3. The transcript of the April 20 hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the \"April 20 Transcript\").\n\n4. The April 20 Transcript makes clear that the Debtor's proposal at that hearing was to facilitate the Government's possible production to the Trustee of the materials that the Government may at some point produce to the Debtor's counsel, some portion of which may also be made to the Debtor (within the confines of national security concerns and other issues which have been or may be identified by the Government) (the \"Subject Materials\"), including by making requests of the Government and to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Debtor's proposal is reflected at several places in the April 20 Transcript, including:\n\n2\n\ni. Page 84, lines 11-12 (Best: \"They might as well make the request of the Government.\");\n\n- ii. Page 93, lines 11-14 (Court: \"Okay. So you're saying you're that the only way the trustee can proceed is to get the information from the Government?\" Best: \"Correct.\");\n- iii. Page 94, lines 1-11 (Best: \"They could go directly to the Government and bypass all of that.\"); and\n- iv. Page 113, lines 7-10 (Best: \"They can go to the Department of Justice Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District and ask for the discovery.\").\n\n5. The Debtor notes also that there continued to be colloquy among the parties and the Court as to these issues after Mr. Best made this proposal for the Debtor, and that the April 20 Transcript may be read as the Trustee asking for the Debtor to make the production of the Subject Materials, rather than the Government. However, in that regard, the Trustee himself agreed that the Debtor's proposal as to the possible direct production by the Government was more consistent with the protection of the Debtor's Fifth Amendment rights (see, e.g., page 122, lines 22-25 of the April 20 Transcript) (Trustee: \"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 issues there.\")\n\n6. Regardless of what the Trustee may or may not have agreed to during the hearing, or whether the Trustee in fact agreed to anything, the April 20 Transcript is clear as to the fact that the Debtor's proposed interim compromise was to facilitate the direct production by the Government, and not to produce directly, which is the only process consistent with the preservation of the Debtor's Constitutional rights.\n\nWHEREFORE, the Debtor respectfully suggests that the Court now enter the Debtor's\n\nProposed Order or, if the Court is not inclined to do so, schedule the OSC Motion and the Stay\n\nMotion for further hearings as may be appropriate.\n\nDated: April 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ *Stephen A. Best* Stephen A. Best 601 13th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Tel.: (202) 536-1737 Fax : (219) 938-2937 Email: [sbest@brownrudnick.com](mailto:sbest@brownrudnick.com)\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 209-4942 Email: [wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com](mailto:wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com)\n\nStephen R. Cook 2211 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor Irvine, California 92612 Tel: (949) 752-7100 Fax: (949) 252-1514 Email [scook@brownrudnick.com](mailto:scook@brownrudnick.com)\n\nSPECIAL (CRIMINAL DEFENSE) COUNSEL FOR DEBTOR HO WAN KWOK\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 1st day of May, 2023, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n*/s/ William R. Baldiga*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 6 of 165\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n| | 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
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 | MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SECOND
#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\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 4 1 (Proceedings commenced at 9:39. a.m.) 2 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Number 22-50073, Ho Wan 3 Kwok, and Adversary Number 22-5003, HK International Funds 4 Investments vs. Despins. 5 THE COURT: Good morning. If we could have 6 appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 7 Trustee, please. 8 MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Luc 9 Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee, appearing remotely. Thank you. 10 THE COURT: Good morning. 11 MR. BASSETT: Good morning, Your Honor. Nick 12 Bassett, from Paul Hastings, counsel to the Chapter 11 13 Trustee. 14 THE COURT: Good morning. 15 MR. SKALKA: Good morning, Your Honor. Douglas 16 Skalka, of Neubert Pepe & Monteith, as Connecticut counsel 17 for the Chapter 11 Trustee. 18 THE COURT: Good morning. 19 MS. WERNICK: Good morning, Your Honor. Melissa 20 Wernick, from Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, on behalf of HK 21 USA. 22 THE COURT: Good morning. 23 MR. MORIARTY: Good morning, Your Honor. James 24 Moriarty, Zeisler & Zeisler, for HK USA and the debtor. And 25 I believe that Attorney Henzy will be joining me shortly, 165\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 10 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 11 of
165 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
5 |\n| 1 | also for the debtor, which I believe that's on for 10:30. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 3 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Is anyone appearing on |\n| 5 | behalf of Ms. Guo? |\n| 6 | MS. WERNICK:
Also on behalf of Ms. Guo, but the |\n| 7 | particular summary judgment motion is really directed |\n| 8 | towards HK USA.
But we are also counsel for Mei Guo in |\n| 9 | connection with the motion as well. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | MR. MORIARTY:
As is Zeisler & Zeisler, Your |\n| 12 | Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 14 | On the calendar in Adversary 22-05003 is the |\n| 15 | motion for partial summary judgment filed on behalf of the |\n| 16 | Chapter 11 Trustee, counterclaimant. |\n| 17 | Mr. Bassett, are you going to be making that |\n| 18 | argument? |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
All right.
Please proceed. |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
So, again, Your Honor, for the |\n| 22 | record, Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the |\n| 23 | Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 24 | As the Court indicated, the reason we are here at |\n| 25 | this part of the hearing this morning is for the Court to |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 12 of\n\n| | 165 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
6 |\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 1 stipulation. 2 Your Honor, because of these prior rulings of the 3 Court and because of the undisputed factual record that is 4 before the Court on summary judgment, I would submit that as 5 far as alter ego cases go, this case before Your Honor is 6 about as simple as a case can get and is the perfect 7 candidate for summary judgment at this stage of the 8 litigation. 9 The established, admitted, undisputed facts are, 10 one, that HK USA never in its history conducted any business 11 activities other than owning and operating the Lady May. 12 THE COURT: Are you referring specifically to the 13 Rule 56(a)(1) and (a)(2) statements, Attorney Bassett? 14 MR. BASSETT: That's correct. And I can get to 15 particular references where these facts -- 16 THE COURT: I would like both parties to do that 17 when we make the arguments this morning, because, as you 18 know, the District Court of Connecticut requires those 19 statements for very specific purposes, including for the 20 Court -- whatever Court is determining summary judgment to 21 refer to those facts when necessary. 22 So I didn't mean to interrupt your argument, which 23 I did, but I did -- I'm doing so to let both parties know 24 that I would like you to, when you can, reference the Rule 25 56 -- the Local Rule 56(a)(1), which would be your\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 14 of
165 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
8 |\n| 1 | statement, and then counsel for the plaintiff counterclaim |\n| 2 | defendants, their 56(a)(2) statement.
Okay?
So go right |\n| 3 | ahead. |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
That's fair, Your Honor.
And to |\n| 5 | that point, on the statement I just made, if you were to |\n| 6 | look at the counter-defendant's response to the trustee's |\n| 7 | Rule 56 statement, which is at ECF 204, paragraph 11, the |\n| 8 | counter-defendants admit that \"On March 31, 2023, with the |\n| 9 | consent of the counter-defendants, the Court entered an |\n| 10 | order confirming that the Lady May II is also property of |\n| 11 | the debtor's estate.\" |\n| 12 | Next paragraph: \"The estate thus already owns and |\n| 13 | controls all of the assets that the counter-defendants |\n| 14 | contend HK USA has ever owned.\" |\n| 15 | So that, Your Honor, is -- back to what I was -- |\n| 16 | to my framing of the issues and the argument and why I think |\n| 17 | this is a very straightforward candidate for summary |\n| 18 | judgment, you have that admitted. |\n| 19 | The only assets that this entity ever owned and |\n| 20 | the only business it ever conducted with respect to the Lady |\n| 21 | May, and then as we later determined based on the |\n| 22 | undisclosed ownership of the Lady May II, the Lady May II as |\n| 23 | well. |\n| 24 | And then what we also have is, again, what I just |\n| 25 | read to the Court.
We already have a binding ruling from |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 9 1 this Court that the debtor, not his daughter, as she 2 contends, owns and controls both of these assets which are 3 the only assets it has ever owned. 4 And there is not a single -- and I can't point you 5 to a negative, but there is not a single thing in the record 6 suggesting that the Lady May -- or, sorry, that HK USA ever 7 engaged in anything, any other business activities, any 8 other ownership of assets historically other than owning and 9 operating the Lady May and, along with it, the Lady May II. 10 That, Your Honor, is the very essence, I would 11 submit, of an alter ego claim. Because you have complete 12 domination and control by the debtor of everything HK USA 13 has ever done. 14 In response, the counter-defendants have raised 15 certain defenses. But I think, as I will describe later, 16 the Court has already rejected those in ruling on the motion 17 to dismiss. And while it's a different posture for reasons 18 I will discuss, I don't think it makes a difference under 19 the facts and circumstances here. 20 So I'll spend the balance of my time -- and, 21 again, I'll try to be relatively brief, but I'll first, 22 again, walk through a little bit more -- in a little bit 23 more detail the merits of the alter ego claim itself and 24 responses to some of the counter arguments. And then, after 25 that, I'll briefly adjust -- address some of the defenses. Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 15 of 165\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 16 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 10 1 As to the merits of the alter ego claim, I think 2 the standard is not disputed. Under Delaware law, to 3 determine whether one entity is the alter ego of another, 4 the Court will consider first -- there's two elements. 5 First, whether the debtor -- and in this case, whether the 6 debtor in HK USA operated as basically one single unit which 7 involves a showing that the debtor dominated and controlled 8 HK USA and its activities. That's the first element. 9 And the second is whether this alter ego status 10 was used to perpetuate some type of fraud or injustice. And 11 I think both of those are readily satisfied beyond any 12 genuine dispute of material fact. 13 On the issue of the first prong, sort of the 14 domination and control prong as I will call it, I would 15 again emphasize that the starting point on this is the fact 16 that it is now law of the case. 17 This Court has already determined that the debtor 18 dominates and controls the only assets that HK USA has ever 19 had which formed the basis for the only business activities 20 it has ever engaged in. 21 So to the extent HK USA ever did anything, it was 22 with respect to those assets. And the debtor controls them, 23 so it is the debtor who dominates and controls HK USA in 24 that manner. 25 Now, the counter-defendants in their papers 165\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 17 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 18 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 12 1 that the counter-defendants are asking the Court to revisit 2 that prior finding. There's statements in their opposition 3 and in their statement of facts that talk about the fact 4 that, you know, the issue before Justice Ostrager was not 5 ownership of the Lady May, et cetera. 6 All that is irrelevant and not before the Court, 7 because it's been decided by the Court. It's law of the 8 case. They've appealed that decision. To the extent they 9 have a problem with it, that's an issue for the district 10 court. 11 And I want to point out, because, again, the -- as 12 the counter-defendants would frame it, we're saying 13 ownership and control of the Lady May, that's it, there's 14 nothing else. But that's not it. 15 I mean, there are significant other facts in the 16 record which go directly to the alter ego analysis and 17 prove, as I said, the fact that there was no dispute that HK 18 USA never did anything else. 19 And this is in both sets of the Rule 56 fact 20 statements. And I can get the particular reference. But I 21 think it's easy to find. 22 There is no dispute that HK USA \"has and has never 23 had any officers, directors, or employees, that it does not 24 file tax returns, that it has no bank accounts, that it is 25 not capitalized, that it has no other assets than the Lady 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 19 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 13 1 May and the Lady May II, and that it has had no dedicated 2 email server or email suffix, i.e., it has none of its own 3 documents\" according to the debtor.\n\n4 Now, the counter-defendants say these facts could 5 simply mean that HK USA is the alter ego of the debtor's 6 daughter and not the alter ego of the debtor. But there's 7 no basis for that position.\n\n8 Because in order to make that argument, they would 9 have to show that HK USA has engaged in some business and 10 done something in its existence other than owning and 11 operating the Lady May, which activities the debtor's 12 daughter and not the debtor could have exercised control 13 over.\n\n14 But whereas here there was nothing else, all of 15 these alter ego factors, the fact that it's a shell company 16 with no assets, no employees, no assets other than the Lady 17 May and the Lady May II, no employees, no officers, 18 directors, no bank account, all of that only goes to show 19 the fact that this is an entity dominated and controlled by 20 the debtor who is the one this Court has found has dominion 21 and control over the only assets that it ever had.\n\n22 In addition to the Rule 56.1 statement, paragraph 23 11, which I referenced on this point, I would direct the 24 Court to the declaration of Mei Guo, which was submitted in 25 the main case at ECF 1544, on the issue of HK USA's\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 20 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 14 1 compliance with its document production obligations. 2 This is at paragraphs 24 and 25 where Mei Guo 3 says, \"As explained above, I am the sole owner of HK USA, 4 and HK USA does not have any employees or maintain any bank 5 accounts. Indeed, the Lady May is HK USA's sole asset.\" 6 Then she goes on, \"Moreover, the only documents or 7 communications that I maintained for HK USA relate to the 8 Lady May, which documents were excluded from the January 9 20th order.\" 10 In other words, what she was saying is the only 11 documents HK USA has are documents that I have, and the only 12 documents that I have are documents that relate to the 13 operation of the Lady May, because that's all HK USA has 14 ever done. 15 Now, this is another point we emphasized in our 16 papers to which the counter-defendants did not even respond, 17 but I think it's a critically important fact to emphasize 18 for the Court and one which is, in my view, incredibly 19 damning for the counter-defendant's position that the 20 debtor's daughter and not the debtor is the one who owns and 21 controls HK USA. 22 And this is where in February 2022, before Justice 23 Ostrager in the New York court, the debtor's daughter 24 testified under oath that, as far as she knew, her brother 25 owned the Lady May II. She was shown a picture of the Lady 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 21 of
165 |\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| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 22 of
165 |\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\n25 testimony, as the Court knows, Justice Ostrager found had no\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 17 1 credibility. 2 So I don't think it can possibly be disputed that 3 if, in fact, there's an alter ego relationship, that alter 4 ego relationship was used for the purpose of perpetuating an 5 injustice on the debtor's creditors. 6 I'll now move -- and I'll reserve time, obviously, 7 to respond to any additional comments counsel may make on 8 the sort of threshold alter ego analysis. But I'll now move 9 to briefly talk about a couple of the defenses. 10 First, as I mentioned, the counter-defendants 11 raise the Wagoner rule and in pari delicto. I don't think 12 there can be any disagreement -- and by the way, that brief 13 was submitted by the counter-defendants before this Court 14 issued its -- or before simultaneously with, I think, when 15 this Court issued its -- or its decision on the motion to 16 dismiss. 17 But I think the decision on the motion to dismiss 18 disposes with that issue, because as the Court properly held 19 in that decision, the Wagoner rule and in pari delicto are 20 inapplicable to the second counterclaim on alter ego, 21 because the trustee has brought that counterclaim not 22 standing in the debtor's shoes but rather in the shoes of 23 the debtor's creditors under Section 544(a) of the 24 Bankruptcy Code. So I think that issue has been settled. 25 The other argument they raise is the argument with 165\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 24 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 25 of
165 |\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\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 20 1 policy interest in allowing an individual debtor to self 2 deal in bankruptcy to shield assets from bankruptcy 3 proceedings.\" 4 So obviously, Your Honor, this motion before the 5 Court is all about whether or not HK USA is the debtor's 6 alter ego. And we're only going to get to the question of 7 the applicability of the stipulation if the Court believes 8 that the trustee has demonstrated that HK USA is, in fact, 9 the debtor's alter ego. 10 So we're operating in a world where all the facts 11 relevant to this consideration of the Court and the motion 12 to dismiss decision have been established. 13 And I would stress that I think the Court was 14 absolutely correct in emphasizing the -- this issue or these 15 considerations, because I don't see how there could be any 16 doubt that it would be highly inequitable, to say the least, 17 to allow the debtor here in the event it is determined that 18 HK USA is and always has been his alter ego, to have used 19 the Lady May stipulation as an effective subterfuge to 20 shield \\$30-plus million of assets that are now his from his 21 creditors. 22 Were that the case, were that known at the time, 23 there's no way the parties to that stipulation, including 24 PAX and the Committee, would have agreed to it. And I can't 25 imagine the Court would have approved it either. Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 26 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 21 1 So I think that is a -- that, in and of itself, is 2 reason enough on the equities for this Court to hold that 3 the Lady May stipulation does not the -- does not prevent 4 the relief that the trustee seeks. 5 The next consideration that the Court identified 6 is similar to the last one, which is that the debtor's 7 history of engaging in shell games, et cetera, also provides 8 appropriate context to decide for equitable reasons that the 9 stipulation is not binding. 10 And the Court observed there, again, I think, 11 accurately, that the type of proof that the trustee would 12 offer to show this type of use of shell games may be the 13 same as the proof that the debtor -- or that the trustee has 14 offered to show that HK USA is the debtor's alter ego. 15 I say that that's exactly true. And for the 16 reasons I just discussed, the fact that the debtor has used 17 HK USA to shield assets from creditors is another reason why 18 the stipulation here should not be used to prevent the 19 relief the trustee seeks. 20 Fourth consideration that the Court identified was 21 that, unlike in many of the other cases that have held that 22 stipulations of a debtor in possession are binding on a 23 trustee, here the stipulation does not -- it's undisputed 24 the stipulation on its face does not expressly bind the 25 trustee despite the pendency at the time of the stipulation 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 28 of
165 |\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\n9 Court did not address in the motion to dismiss decision 10 which is related to the ones that I just made, but it's the 11 fact that, as a matter of law, if HK USA and the debtor were 12 alter egos at the time of the Lady May stipulation, meaning 13 that there was no distinction between them, then as a matter 14 of law, and this is Hornbook contract law, an agreement 15 between them is not binding, because it is a immutable 16 principle of contract law that one cannot enter into an 17 agreement with itself. Every agreement needs two parties. 18 And we've cited authority for that in our briefing.\n\n19 So, Your Honor, the last point I'll make, and then 20 I'll reserve any additional comments for rebuttal, is that 21 the counter-defendants had raised at the end of their 22 opposition what appears to be a request to dissolve the PJR 23 and the preliminary injunction in the event the Court grants 24 the motion for summary judgment.\n\n25 All I would say in response to that is that that's\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 29 of\n\n| | 165 |\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| 23 | objections in their argument, because there are, as you |\n| 24 | know, the 44 facts in the trustee's 56(a)(1) statement, and |\n| 25 | then there's these additional material facts that the |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 24 1 counterclaim defendants have set forth. 2 And while I -- you have not addressed those at 3 this point, but I'm going to have the parties address those 4 issues. So -- 5 MR. BASSETT: No, no. 6 THE COURT: -- I don't know if you want to make 7 any statements at this point with regard to the additional 8 material facts set forth by the counterclaim defendants, but 9 I'm going to have you respond -- either tell me now or I'm 10 going to have you respond to those issues when the 11 counterclaim defendants make their arguments. 12 MR. BASSETT: Sure. And I'm happy to -- maybe 13 I'll respond now to the extent that I can. And then, 14 obviously, when counsel -- if and when counsel raises 15 particular issues, I can respond to those again in rebuttal. 16 What I would say is that -- well, obviously, our 17 56.1 statement contained a number of facts, many of which 18 are contextual, in leading up to the relief that we're 19 ultimately seeking. 20 What I tried to do in my argument today was 21 emphasize for the Court the only facts that I think are the 22 material facts that the Court needs to consider in order to 23 determine that HK USA is the debtor's alter ego. 24 And, you know, they dispute other facts. There 25 may be facts that are disputed in our 56.1 statement, but Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 30 of 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 31 of
165 |\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\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 32 of\n\n| 165 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
26 |\n| all HK USA has ever done -- and there's no counter -- other |\n| than there are a couple of statements in the |\n| counter-defendant's statement of facts where they say that, |\n| well, HK USA through Mei Guo has entered into certain |\n| contracts.
These contracts that they reference are a series |\n| of non-disclosure agreements with parties who work on the |\n| boat and then one agreement with the staffing company. |\n| A couple of responses to that.
First, these are |\n| agreements that go to the ownership and control of the Lady |\n| May.
It has already been established that the debtor's |\n| daughter does not control the Lady May or its operations. |\n| And that's for good reason, by the way.
This record is |\n| before the Court, because the Court decided in connection |\n| with the first summary judgment motion. |\n| And while the Court decided that on the basis of |\n| collateral estoppel, there's a reason why Justice Ostrager |\n| reached the decision that he reached. |\n| Because at the February 2022 hearing, when all of |\n| these individuals testified -- and, by the way, this is also |\n| before this Court in Mei Guo's deposition testimony that we |\n| submitted as part of our reply on the motion for summary |\n| judgment where we asked her to review and confirm and agree |\n| with the statements that these individuals made before |\n| Justice Ostrager. |\n| The former captain of the Lady May, a person at |\n| |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 33 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1 to the analysis. 2 THE COURT: Ms. Guo's deposition that you're 3 speaking of, that is attached to your declaration, the 4 deposition in January of this year? 5 MR. BASSETT: That's correct. And I'll just give, 6 for the record, some citations to particular testimony. And 7 so that deposition transcript, page 93 -- 8 THE COURT: All right. Just give me a moment. 9 Okay? I'm looking -- 10 MR. BASSETT: Sure. 11 THE COURT: I'm looking at your declaration, and I 12 believe it -- the deposition transcript is Exhibit 12 to 13 your declaration. Is that right or no? 14 MR. BASSETT: Let me check. 15 THE COURT: I want to make sure I'm looking at the 16 right thing. Oh, maybe not. 17 MR. BASSETT: Well, it's -- 18 THE COURT: Oh, you're look -- you're talking 19 about your -- in the reply. 20 MR. BASSETT: Yeah. It's attached to the reply. 21 THE COURT: Okay. So not attached to your 22 original declaration but attached to the reply. 23 MR. BASSETT: That's right. 24 THE COURT: Which is ECF Number 209 that was filed 25 on Monday. I mean, what's today? On Tuesday. On Tuesday Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 34 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 29 1 the 18th. 2 MR. BASSETT: That's right. 3 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. You want me to go to 4 page 93? Is that what you're saying? 5 MR. BASSETT: Sure. And Your Honor can do it now, 6 or I can give you the citations to the record to look at it 7 later. It -- 8 THE COURT: I'd like to go -- 9 MR. BASSETT: Sure. 10 THE COURT: -- there right now. 11 MR. BASSETT: Sure. 12 THE COURT: Okay? So where on page 93 do you 13 specifically want me to look at? 14 MR. BASSETT: So if you -- I think it's beginning 15 at line 16. There are questions asked of -- we asked in the 16 deposition Ms. Guo to look at the testimony of Russell 17 Stockil, who was the person responsible for management at 18 YACHTZOO. 19 And if you look at that testimony from 93, I 20 think, 16 to 94-16, she -- Mei Guo confirms the accuracy of 21 his testimony that she never contacted him about the yacht. 22 If you go down to 95-13 to 96-3, Mei Guo confirms 23 the testimony that she never spoke to Mr. Stockil. 24 And if you go to 96-4 to 22, she confirms his 25 testimony that all instructions related to the Lady May came Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 35 of 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 36 of
165 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
30 |\n| 1 | from \"the family office.\" |\n| 2 | So again, you know, to the extent that they're |\n| 3 | pointing to these management agreements, it doesn't |\n| 4 | establish independent control over HK USA, one, because the |\n| 5 | Court already found that the debtor has that control, and |\n| 6 | two, because the other facts demonstrate that she, in |\n| 7 | reality, was not exercising control. |\n| 8 | 97-13 to 99-3 is another excerpt.
This is |\n| 9 | questions about the testimony of Momchil Ivanov. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
97 what?
I apologize. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
97-13 to 99-3. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Give me one second, please. |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 15 | MR. BASSETT:
These are the questions about the |\n| 16 | testimony of Momchil Ivanov who is the former captain of the |\n| 17 | Lady May.
And here, again, if you look at the transcript, |\n| 18 | Mei Guo agreed with Mr. Ivanov's testimony that he never |\n| 19 | spoke to Mei Guo and never took directions from her. |\n| 20 | If you go to page 102, line 4 to 107, line 17, |\n| 21 | this is testimony about Craig Heaslop, who's the current |\n| 22 | Lady May captain.
And the testimony here, which Mei Guo |\n| 23 | confirmed she did not disagree with, was that the debtor was |\n| 24 | \"on and off the yacht.\"
And when asked, he said that the |\n| 25 | debtor was on the yacht much more than his daughter. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 37 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 38 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 39 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 40 of
165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 41 of
165 |\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 1 judgment offers no case law to the contrary and makes just a 2 passing reference in its presentation this morning. 3 THE COURT: Let me just stop you right there. 4 MS. WERNICK: Uh-huh. 5 THE COURT: What do you mean when you say there's 6 no law in Delaware that supports a finding that there can't 7 be an alter ego -- 8 MS. WERNICK: Sure. Certainly. So under sort of 9 black letter Delaware law, veil piercing applies to hold a 10 member or shareholder responsible for a company's liability. 11 And then there's a separate construct of a reverse 12 veil-piercing claim that applies to hold the company liable 13 for a shareholder's liability. 14 THE COURT: Well, what about Judge Walrath's case 15 that says it doesn't have to be companies, it doesn't have 16 to be -- it says as long as there isn't a relationship, 17 there can be veil piercing. What about that case? 18 MS. WERNICK: So the relationship has to be 19 established. And so, here, the essence of our argument is 20 that the trustee is skipping steps, is taking the conclusion 21 in the summary judgment decision that the Lady May is owned 22 by the debtor and applying that, and I think it's stated 23 quite clearly on page 2 of the initial moving papers, to say 24 that the only reasonable conclusion must be that the debtor 25 also controls and owns HK USA. Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 42 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 43 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 44 of
165 |\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 1 MS. WERNICK: Because there's no nexus -- and 2 that's the key, to the summary judgment motion here this 3 morning. 4 And I think it would be all the more clear if we 5 were here in connection with a Count 3 counterclaim 6 regarding ownership of HK USA. Because there's nothing in 7 paragraph 7 that connects to the debtor, right? 8 So those are assertions generally with respect to 9 HK USA. But nothing therein ties back to ownership or 10 control to the debtor. And I think that's the step that the 11 trustee is -- 12 THE COURT: Well, when you say nothing ties back 13 to ownership or control, so you're saying the Court's prior 14 orders don't matter with regard to that issue? 15 MS. WERNICK: No, of course not, Your Honor. But 16 they're addressing separate things. And so the Court's 17 prior order with respect to the -- Count 1 of the 18 counterclaim relates to ownership of a specific asset, the 19 Lady May. 20 THE COURT: Right. And you've just admitted in 21 paragraph 7 that's all -- HK USA ever had. 22 MS. WERNICK: So that's the -- but that's not 23 the -- there's no admission there that that's the entirety 24 of the purpose or connecting the debtor to HK USA -- 25 THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 45 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 46 of\n\n| | 165 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
40 |\n| 1 | MS. WERNICK:
-- the entity. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Hold on.
That's a little bit |\n| 3 | different.
You're changing your argument now.
You admit |\n| 4 | that the only asset of the -- of HK USA is the Lady May. |\n| 5 | And you just stated that this Court found that the debtor |\n| 6 | owns and controls the Lady May, right?
So -- |\n| 7 | MS. WERNICK:
Yeah. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
So then I don't understand your |\n| 9 | argument. |\n| 10 | MS. WERNICK:
And so that's the exact equation |\n| 11 | that the trustee is asking you to make this morning, that |\n| 12 | the finding that the debtor owns -- that the debtor owns the |\n| 13 | Lady May is sufficient to determine that the debtor also |\n| 14 | must, without having additional showings or determinations, |\n| 15 | own HK USA or that it must therefore be the alter ego. |\n| 16 | And one thing -- and I think this is an important |\n| 17 | point that was absent from the earlier conversation with |\n| 18 | counsel is that while there -- we recognize that HK USA's |\n| 19 | asset was the Lady May, the real reason why we're here, |\n| 20 | right, is not the Lady May.
The trustee already has the |\n| 21 | Lady May.
The real reason why we're here is the \\$37 million |\n| 22 | loan from Himalaya that the trustee also wants to have as |\n| 23 | part of the estate. |\n| 24 | And so there's no question, and we've included it |\n| 25 | in our statement of material facts -- and I'll give you the |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 41 1 paragraph references related -- beginning at paragraph 53 of 2 our additional facts -- is that the loan agreements with 3 Himalaya -- 4 THE COURT: Wait. Hold on. You're on page what? 5 MS. WERNICK: I'm sorry. On paragraph 53. 6 THE COURT: Paragraph 53 of your additional 7 material facts? 8 MS. WERNICK: Yes. It's page 23, paragraph 53. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. 10 MS. WERNICK: Is that the agreements relating to 11 the Himalaya loan were entered by Ms. Guo and Ms. Guo has 12 taken a personal guaranty with respect to the \\$37 million 13 loan. And she was, in fact, personally sued in an 14 arbitration that's pending in the London Court of 15 International Arbitration as a result of the failure to 16 repay that loan amount. 17 THE COURT: Well, okay. Where does it say that in 18 paragraph 53, what you just said? 19 MS. WERNICK: So 53, continuing on to 56 on the 20 next page. 21 THE COURT: Okay. All right. That's what I'm 22 saying. 23 MS. WERNICK: Yes. 24 THE COURT: Just tell me where you're reading it. 25 Tell me -- okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 47 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 42 1 MS. WERNICK: Sure. No problem. And so not 2 reading directly. But those points are referenced generally 3 in paragraph -- 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 MS. WERNICK: -- 53 to 56. 6 THE COURT: Okay. And when at the time that the 7 \\$37 million was put into escrow was the Court made aware of 8 that the loan was guaranteed by Mei Guo? Because I don't 9 recall ever learning that until now. 10 MS. WERNICK: So this is certainly part of the 11 record. My belief is as part of the prior PJR 12 proceedings -- 13 THE COURT: But at the time -- I -- that wasn't 14 the question. 15 MS. WERNICK: Yeah. So I -- 16 THE COURT: The question was, when -- 17 MS. WERNICK: I don't know the answer to that 18 specific question as whether in August of 2022 that issue 19 was raised. 20 THE COURT: Oh, I think it was earlier than August 21 2022. I think the \\$37 million was delivered to the -- into 22 escrow before -- while the debtor was still a debtor in 23 possession. 24 That was all part of the resolution of the motion 25 for relief from stay and in connection with the debtor's Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 48 of 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 49 of
165 |\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 50 of\n\n| | 165 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
44 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Well, where is the guarantee |\n| 2 | agreement?
Did you submit it? |\n| 3 | MS. WERNICK:
It is -- it's referenced in the |\n| 4 | cites to the -- yeah.
So in our statement of fact -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
But is the actual agreement -- |\n| 6 | MS. WERNICK:
Correct. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 8 | MS. WERNICK:
As part of -- because I think they |\n| 9 | were all included in the exhibits to the PJR proceedings. |\n| 10 | And so the referenced statement of facts -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
But did you submit it in |\n| 12 | connection with this summary judgment motion, is my |\n| 13 | question. |\n| 14 | MS. WERNICK:
So, yes, by reference to the |\n| 15 | specific docket numbers in the statement of facts. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
All right.
Let's go back to your |\n| 17 | paragraph then.
You were at 53? |\n| 18 | MS. WERNICK:
Correct.
And so really the point |\n| 19 | is, is because that's the point why we're here.
And so I |\n| 20 | think it's important to take note of that, right?
We're |\n| 21 | here because the trustee is looking for the \\$37 million that |\n| 22 | are being held in escrow. |\n| 23 | And just on that alone makes clear that HK's |\n| 24 | separate corporate existence goes hand in hand with Ms. Guo |\n| 25 | as its sole member who signed the loan agreement and who |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 51 of
165 |\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\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 46 1 debtor was a debtor in possession? 2 MS. WERNICK: I guess I can't comment. But I'm 3 also not entirely sure as to the relevance as part of our 4 discussion this morning. 5 THE COURT: Well, you're making it relevant, 6 right? You're saying that this is a -- this is a genuine 7 issue of material fact. You're saying to me that this is 8 relevant. So I'm saying to you, when was this ever -- and 9 it's absolutely relevant. 10 I mean, you're making an argument that this Court 11 should somehow look at facts that have never been put into 12 evidence before in any kind of evidentiary hearing that -- 13 about a guarantee of a loan that when the loan was made and 14 disclosed to this Court as part of a settlement of a motion 15 for relief from stay none of these -- none of this was put 16 before the Court. None of this information was in front of 17 the Court. 18 And so now -- and you're saying -- and your 19 argument is and, by the way, that stipulation that 20 results -- that relates to all this 37 million, the 21 trustee's bound by it. That's what your argument is. 22 So you're now saying to me how do I -- why do I 23 think this is relevant? Because you've now said you think 24 it's relevant. And I'm saying when was this information 25 ever put in the record of the case prior to this adversary Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 52 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 47 1 proceeding. And, apparently, it wasn't. 2 MS. WERNICK: Well, so, I mean, I guess my 3 question is, is -- and I apologize if I'm, you know, having 4 a misunderstanding over more semantics. Because my -- we're 5 addressing it now -- 6 THE COURT: I don't think it's semantics. I think 7 it's facts, right? 8 MS. WERNICK: Well, it's fact, but it's -- the 9 existence of these agreements are facts that are material 10 facts for purposes of -- 11 THE COURT: So how are they -- no. Excuse me. 12 But they're facts. How are they material if you're now 13 saying the trustee should be bound by this stipulation, and 14 you're saying the trustee should be bound by this 15 stipulation for many reasons, including that Ms. Guo 16 guaranteed the loan, a fact that no one knew prior to this 17 adversary proceeding? 18 MS. WERNICK: So to be clear, I'm -- my argument 19 right now is not with respect to the stipulation. And I 20 understand that the Court ruled in its motion to dismiss on 21 the arguments surrounding the stipulation. So that was not 22 my intent. 23 Why I wanted to raise this guarantee is with 24 respect to the notion that there's no connection between 25 Ms. Guo and HK USA separate and apart from the agreements Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 53 of 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 54 of
165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 55 of
165 |\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\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 50 1 since it was included with our exhibits. The trustee 2 certainly -- 3 THE COURT: The PJR exhibits -- 4 MS. WERNICK: Right. Correct. 5 THE COURT: -- that were filed months ago and well 6 after the loan was made and after Mr. Kwok was no longer a 7 debtor in possession, correct? 8 MS. WERNICK: Correct. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MS. WERNICK: Correct. 11 THE COURT: Go ahead. 12 MS. WERNICK: Yeah. And there's no dispute that 13 Ms. Guo has now been sued on this guarantee and is 14 personally on the hook by virtue of -- 15 THE COURT: Well, I don't know that there's no 16 dispute. You put something in here that she's been sued. 17 Okay. 18 MS. WERNICK: Yeah. So, I mean -- 19 THE COURT: She's been sued. 20 MS. WERNICK: -- but we are -- I mean, we're -- 21 we've again appended to -- 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MS. WERNICK: -- the docket -- 24 THE COURT: Why don't you continue. 25 MS. WERNICK: -- a -- all right. Thank you, Your Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 56 of 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 57 of
165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 58 of
165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 59 of
165 |\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 1 agreements where the debtor is a signatory or a beneficiary. 2 THE COURT: Where in the law does it say there 3 have -- there has to be? 4 MS. WERNICK: Well, so -- 5 THE COURT: What cases are you citing from -- 6 under Delaware law that says it has to -- there -- that has 7 to be before any court could make the finding that the 8 trustee's -- 9 MS. WERNICK: Sure. And I would reference the 10 Court to the cases cited in our brief with respect to the 11 fact -- 12 THE COURT: Well, no. I'm asking you. 13 MS. WERNICK: It's a fact -- 14 THE COURT: You tell me in those cases where -- 15 MS. WERNICK: Yeah. Where -- 16 THE COURT: -- where it holds that. 17 MS. WERNICK: Certainly. That it's a 18 fact-specific determination under Delaware law. And the 19 facts before the Court, respectfully, do not yield to the 20 conclusion that the trustee is asking the Court to find on 21 summary judgment where it's their burden, right? 22 So a number of times in counsel's presentation 23 this morning is nothing that -- looking back to HK USA, 24 nothing that we've presented to, you know, challenge their 25 assumptions. But it's their burden, right? They have the Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 60 of 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 61 of
165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 62 of\n\n| | 165 |\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\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 63 of\n\n| | 165 |\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 64 of\n\n| | 165 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
58 |\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| 8 | States vs. Golden Acres case, 702 F. Supp. 1097 at page 113, |\n| 9 | Note 7, District of Delaware, 1988.
It was affirmed |\n| 10 | subsequently by the Third Circuit.
\"The alter ego doctrine |\n| 11 | may be applied even where defendants personally own no stock |\n| 12 | in the corporation so long as the necessary action and total |\n| 13 | control have been established.\" |\n| 14 | Another case, United States Securities and |\n| 15 | Exchange Commission vs. Levine, 671 F. Supp. 2d. 14, pages |\n| 16 | 34 to 35.
This was the -- this one is District of D.C. 2009 |\n| 17 | applying Delaware law and finding that the lack of a status |\n| 18 | of shareholder, officer, or director is not preclusive in |\n| 19 | finding veil piercing. |\n| 20 | There's cases from other jurisdictions that have |\n| 21 | similar standards.
Freeman vs. Complex Computing Company, |\n| 22 | 119 F.3d 1044, Second Circuit, 1997, page 1051.
The court |\n| 23 | noted that New York courts only require equitable rather |\n\n25 Mallard Auto Group Ltd. vs. LeClair Management\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n24 than actual ownership for piercing the corporate veil.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 65 of\n\n| | 165 |\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| 20 | There was a lot of discussion about -- and, in |\n| 21 | fact, as it turns out, the entire counter argument on the |\n| 22 | facts as to why -- as I understand it, at least, basically |\n| 23 | the entire counter argument as to why HK USA is not the |\n| 24 | debtor's alter ego is because the daughter signed a personal |\n\n25 guarantee of the Himalaya loan and because the Himalaya loan\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 66 of
165 |\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\n25 Lady May stipulation, at the time of this alleged loan.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 67 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 61 1 So all you have, according to what the defendants 2 are alleging, is you have a situation where at best the 3 debtor's daughter decided to use her father's alter ego to 4 take out a loan. And oh, by the way, that makes a lot of 5 sense given the context. 6 Because the whole impetus for that loan and the 7 whole impetus for the Lady May stipulation was the fact that 8 the debtor was standing before this Court desperate to avoid 9 the Court's lifting of the stay to allow PAX to proceed with 10 its litigation before Justice Ostrager. 11 So what I think the record pretty clearly shows is 12 that this was all done for the debtor's benefit. Again, 13 that's fully consistent with the fact that HK USA was and 14 always has been, including at the time of the loan, the 15 debtor's alter ego. 16 It can't be that -- the best they're doing is 17 pointing to this one isolated event in HK USA's entire 18 history. But it can't be that that -- even if Mei Guo is a 19 signatory to some of these documents, it can't be that that 20 changes the true character of HK USA; it means it's not the 21 alter ego of the debtor. 22 I mean, what they're asking the Court to conclude, 23 I think, is truly remarkable, because basically what they 24 would be saying is that the daughter could execute this loan 25 on behalf of HK USA, which was at the time and has always 165\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 68 of
165 | | |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 69 of
165 |\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 1 Court grant the motion for the trustee. Thank you. 2 THE COURT: Thank you. 3 (Counsel confer) 4 THE COURT: I'm going to give them one more 5 minute, and then I'll give you an opportunity to respond. 6 Okay, counsel? 7 (Counsel confer) 8 MR. BASSETT: Sorry about that, Your Honor. I 9 appreciate the indulgence. Thank you. 10 THE COURT: Okay. Attorney Wernick, would you 11 like to respond? 12 MS. WERNICK: Sure. Just briefly. Thank you. 13 One point just for clarification with respect to the 14 defenses relating to the Wagoner rule, in pari delicto, and 15 the Lady May stipulation. 16 Just for clarity of the record, HK USA is not 17 waiving and maintains its position on those doctrines and on 18 the stipulation but in recognition of the Court's motion to 19 dismiss ruling will not belabor those points for purposes of 20 this argument this morning. 21 And the lasting thing that I would want to leave 22 with the Court, just with all of the information that was 23 put forward in the briefing, I would just enforce that there 24 is nothing connecting the debtor to the HK USA entity 25 separate and apart from the Lady May. And we would continue Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 70 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 65 1 to submit that's insufficient for an alter ego determination 2 at this stage. Thank you. 3 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 4 All right. I have taken the arguments of the 5 parties. I think there may have been one or two cases cited 6 today that were not in the briefs. Is that correct, 7 Mr. Bassett, those cases that you cited? 8 MR. BASSETT: A couple of the cases that I cited 9 on rebuttal, yes, that's correct. They were not. But 10 they -- 11 THE COURT: All right. So I'd have to take a look 12 at those. 13 MR. BASSETT: Thank you. 14 THE COURT: So I will review the matter after our 15 hearings today, and I will rule accordingly. Okay? Thank 16 you. 17 The next matter on the calendar today is the 18 motion -- there are several matters, but the motion for 19 order to show cause why the debtor, Mei Guo, and HK should 20 not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the 2004 21 subpoenas and the motion for a limited stay of order filed 22 by Mr. Kwok, which I believe those matters -- I see those 23 matters as related matters. 24 So I would proceed first with the moving party's 25 motion regarding contempt and the Fifth Amendment issue Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 71 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 66 1 regarding the Court's ruling that there be some further 2 hearing on the Fifth Amendment issue. Okay? 3 MR. MORIARTY: Yes. Your Honor, just for the 4 record, the motion -- the contempt motion only relates as to 5 the debtor. 6 THE COURT: Right now it does. 7 MR. MORIARTY: Okay. 8 THE COURT: That's correct. 9 MR. MORIARTY: So -- 10 THE COURT: But I'm just -- that was the title of 11 the motion. That's all. 12 MR. MORIARTY: I understand. Attorney Wernick -- 13 I think we're done with HK and Mei -- and Ms. Guo for today. 14 So I think she will be excused, and other counsel will be 15 joining us. 16 THE COURT: You do whatever you think is 17 appropriate, counsel. 18 MR. MORIARTY: Thank you, Your Honor. 19 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, this is Trustee Despins 20 speaking. I would like to be heard as a preliminary matter 21 with respect to the Brown Rudnick involvement in these 22 matters before we go to address the merits, if I may. 23 THE COURT: I will allow you to be heard, and then 24 I'll have to allow the counsel to be able to respond to 25 whatever your statements are for the record, Trustee Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 72 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 67 1 Despins. 2 MR. DESPINS: So just tell me when I can proceed. 3 THE COURT: Go right -- oh, actually, you're 4 right. Hold on a second. We need to take appearances for 5 Mr. Kwok, please. 6 MR. BEST: Thank you, Your Honor. Stephen Best 7 with the law firm of Brown Rudnick in the Washington D.C. 8 office, B-E-S-T. 9 THE COURT: Good morning. 10 MR. BALDIGA: Good morning again, Your Honor. 11 William Baldiga. 12 THE COURT: Good morning. 13 MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. 14 MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler, for 15 Mr. Kwok. 16 THE COURT: Good morning. 17 MR. HENZY: Good morning, Your Honor. 18 MR. MORIARTY: James Moriarty, Zeisler & Zeisler, 19 also for the debtor. 20 THE COURT: Good morning. 21 Hold on a second, Trustee Despins. 22 Attorney Friedman, did you want to note your 23 appearance? 24 MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Peter Friedman, 25 from O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of PAX. I will ask to Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 73 of 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 74 of
165 |\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| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 75 of
165 |\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 1 they're not -- oh. Attorney Claiborn? 2 MS. CLAIBORN: Yes. 3 THE COURT: Did you hear what Mr. Despins just 4 stated for the record? 5 MS. CLAIBORN: I did, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: And has the U.S. Trustee's Office 7 known about -- I'm not saying you should have known. I'm 8 saying is this the first time that you are hearing that the 9 trustee has a concern with regard to Brown Rudnick's prior 10 representation of the debtor as a debtor in possession and 11 now Brown Rudnick's representation of the debtor in a 12 criminal matter? 13 MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I read the pleading 14 filed yesterday by the trustee which raised the issue on 15 some level. And then the comments made today are the first 16 time I've heard the explanation of some of the issues. So 17 the U.S. Trustee is, at this time, not prepared to make any 18 comments further about the issue. 19 THE COURT: I understand you're not prepared at 20 this time to make any comments, but when will you be 21 prepared? 22 MS. CLAIBORN: I cannot say, Your Honor. But I 23 will bring the facts of today back to the U.S. Trustee. 24 THE COURT: Well, I think you need to be prepared 25 to respond as the United States Trustee, as the party that Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 76 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 77 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 78 of\n\n| | 165 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 79 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 80 of
165 |\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 1 Mr. Best stated that he doesn't think there's a 2 conflict at the moment. I'm not -- I don't know if that's 3 fair, but I think that's what you said. And that you'd like 4 to -- 5 MR. BEST: In essence. 6 THE COURT: -- proceed with your arguments. I 7 think we're going to proceed with the arguments today, and 8 then we'll see where things go. 9 But the burden, I think, for this morning, 10 Mr. Best and Mr. Baldiga, are on the debtor in first 11 instance. And then I'll hear from counsel for the trustee. 12 And then as part of your argument, are you also going to 13 argue, Mr. Best, about this limited stay, or are you going 14 to take that separately? How are you -- 15 MR. BEST: I can do it all. I think it's all 16 wrapped up. 17 THE COURT: I think it is too. So that'd be fine. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. BEST: Thank you, Your Honor. 20 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, just briefly on this. 21 This is Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. 22 THE COURT: Yes. 23 MR. DESPINS: I want to be clear that there is -- 24 that Brown Rudnick is agreeing on the record that there is 25 no waiver of any argument with respect to the issues I Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 81 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 76 1 raised so that that's very clear. Otherwise, we should not 2 go forward without -- with that waiver. 3 THE COURT: Well, I'm not finding that there's a 4 waiver, so I don't know that I need to have Brown Rudnick 5 find -- to make any statement, Mr. Despins. The 6 statement -- 7 MR. DESPINS: Okay. 8 THE COURT: -- that you made this morning we've 9 all just talked about. It's an issue. I think it's pretty 10 clear that I'm going to have the parties have to address 11 that, including the Office of the United States Trustee. 12 Okay? 13 So I understand your point, but -- 14 MR. DESPINS: Okay. 15 THE COURT: -- there will be no waiver of the 16 argument made, because it was made last night in a pleading 17 for which I have not had an opportunity to really have any 18 kind of thoughtfulness about it yet. 19 And I will make -- I'm going to -- at the end of 20 today, we're going to have some kind of scheduling order 21 issue with regard to this issue so that it can be addressed 22 in short order. 23 Because even though we're going to have these 24 arguments today, which I agree we should, the issue is going 25 to have to be resolved one way or another, because the Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 82 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 83 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 84 of
165 |\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 85 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 79 1 MR. BEST: 1976. There may -- excuse me. It's 2 the Fisher case. 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 MR. BEST: I apologize. I misstated. Fisher v. 5 U.S., 425 U.S. at 408. 1976 decision. But the issue is 6 whether or not compulsion of production of documents 7 implicates the Fifth Amendment privilege that, in pertinent 8 part, no person shall be compelled in any criminal case or 9 any case which has criminal implications to be a witness 10 against himself. 11 And the Fisher case really lines out what is at 12 issue with the production of documents. And so it starts 13 with, you know, breaking down the Fifth Amendment privilege 14 which is the information sought was compelled here. 15 Nobody's arguing that the information sought, i.e. 16 documents, was compelled under a subpoena. 17 Second, that it arguably could be incriminating. 18 And so to that end, may I approach your -- 19 THE COURT: Certainly. Thank you. 20 MR. BEST: I passed up for Your Honor the unsealed 21 indictment in the Kwok case. 22 THE COURT: We've seen this. We -- 23 MR. BEST: Yeah. 24 THE COURT: -- saw this a few weeks ago. Right? 25 MR. BEST: Yeah. That's right. And so I point 165\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 86 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 87 of\n\n| | 165 |\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 88 of\n\n| | 165 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
82 |\n| 1 | cooperating with the Government. |\n| 2 | And the Sanjay Kumar case, for Your Honor, is 617 |\n| 3 | F.3d 612.
That's a Court of Appeals decision not reversing |\n| 4 | the convictions.
Really, they were pleas to these types of |\n| 5 | counts. |\n| 6 | So the second prong, which was their criminal -- |\n| 7 | it's -- real criminal process could be implicated by |\n| 8 | production of these documents, I think, is not in question. |\n| 9 | The final one is whether or not -- and this is where I'm |\n| 10 | going to spend most of my time discussing, which is whether |\n| 11 | the production is testimonial in nature. |\n| 12 | There are two critical reasons why, in fact, this |\n| 13 | prong has been met.
First, while it is our obligation to |\n| 14 | show that the assertion of the privilege is appropriate |\n| 15 | here, once you get to the testimonial piece of it, the |\n| 16 | burden tends to shift to the United States or, in this case, |\n| 17 | the counterparty to show that the Government doesn't already |\n| 18 | have the information in question. |\n| 19 | And it's not totally germane to Your Honor, but it |\n| 20 | is in the criminal cases, because if the Government doesn't |\n| 21 | already have the information -- it's called the foregone |\n| 22 | conclusion piece of this prong, which is the Government has |\n| 23 | to show that they already had access to the information or |\n| 24 | had it.
If that hat can't be shown either by the Government |\n| 25 | or the counterparty here, then the Fifth Amendment assertion |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 89 of
165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 90 of
165 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
84 |\n| 1 | And so the ask is going to be on -- it would be the same ask |\n| 2 | to the Government as to us.
We'd have to sign -- and so |\n| 3 | that's a perfectly relevant question. |\n| 4 | I couldn't turn over anything I get in discovery |\n| 5 | without the Government's consent anyway, because it's all |\n| 6 | part of the Southern District's confidentiality provisions |\n| 7 | of the discovery in the case. |\n| 8 | So the Government and the Southern District Court |\n| 9 | will be necessarily involved in any future production of |\n| 10 | that discovery anyway.
So they're going to be involved one |\n| 11 | way or the other.
They might as well make the request of |\n| 12 | the Government. |\n| 13 | The trustee actually in this case is a member of |\n| 14 | the Department of Justice.
Another arm of her department is |\n| 15 | the one with the documents in question.
So it's a natural |\n| 16 | course that way, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
One other question -- |\n| 18 | MR. BEST:
Yeah. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
-- before you go on with regard to |\n| 20 | this issue that you raised, the foregone conclusion, the |\n| 21 | third prong. |\n| 22 | MR. BEST:
Yeah. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
The subpoena and the request for |\n| 24 | information was -- the subpoena was served, and the request |\n| 25 | and the order granting the 2004 examination were -- those |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 91 of
165 |\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 1 and, as you said, the relevant persons and entities in 2 paragraphs 6 and 7 -- you know, 6 -- 3 MR. BEST: Yeah. 6 through, I think, 10 or 11. 4 THE COURT: Right. 5 MR. BEST: Right. 6 THE COURT: That doesn't necessarily cover all the 7 issues in this case, believe it or not. You may not have 8 looked at that, but it doesn't. I mean, it doesn't relate 9 to, in particular -- you were here, I think, and had to hear 10 a lot of the argument with regard to the Lady May and the 11 loan. 12 MR. BEST: Right. 13 THE COURT: It doesn't on its face -- the 14 indictment on its face does not necessarily address those 15 issues or seek information with regard -- doesn't put into 16 issue those issues. Nor does it put into issue issues or 17 information that are relevant to the trustee's investigation 18 with regard to -- 19 MR. BEST: Right. 20 THE COURT: -- an apartment in New York. 21 And so while I understand what you're saying, the 22 concern I have at this point -- but I'm going to let you -- 23 I'm going to -- I want to hear from you about what your 24 position is, is how does that -- how does the argument that 25 he doesn't have to produce anything with regard to matters Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 92 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 87 1 that aren't specific to the indictment, how does that case 2 law protect him on those issues? 3 MR. BEST: Yeah. So the -- thank you, Your Honor. 4 Another perfectly relevant point. 5 One, he doesn't have to be indicted and doesn't 6 have to be named, right? 7 THE COURT: Understood. 8 MR. BEST: And so at this point, everything that's 9 under his custody and control, I would argue, is under 10 federal criminal investigation. 11 THE COURT: Has he sworn to that, though? I mean, 12 wouldn't you have to -- if you're going to make a record 13 with this Court that says, look, we can't turn over anything 14 because it's all subject to the indictment and/or your 15 argument under Fisher, right -- 16 MR. BEST: Right. 17 THE COURT: -- which I, you know, have to look at, 18 and under Kumar, right, these two cases that you've told me 19 about -- 20 MR. BEST: Okay. 21 THE COURT: -- doesn't he still have to create the 22 record here in this court that he swears that he has turned 23 over -- he has nothing in his possession or control and 24 whatever he had the Government has? Doesn't he still have 25 to do that? Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 93 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 94 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 88 1 MR. BEST: That request of him is testimonial in 2 nature. He doesn't have -- under his Fifth Amendment 3 privilege, respectfully, he doesn't have to say anything. 4 And, in fact, swearing one way or the other -- so I'll give 5 you the perfect example. 6 If he swears to Your Honor on that point, and the 7 Government finds evidence that contradicts that affirmation, 8 then he can be criminal indicted -- 9 THE COURT: Well, it doesn't even have to be the 10 Government. It could be someone in this court, right? It 11 doesn't have to be the Government. It could be that he 12 swears he doesn't have anything, right? 13 MR. BEST: Yeah. 14 THE COURT: And then the trustee finds it. The 15 trustee could bring it forth, right? And then he'd still 16 have -- he'd have -- 17 MR. BEST: He'd -- 18 THE COURT: -- exposure. But isn't that part of 19 the process? 20 MR. BEST: It isn't. Part of the process is that 21 he's frozen right now, and he can't make any statements one 22 way or the other without implicating himself. And that's 23 black letter law as to the invocation of the Fifth Amendment 24 privilege. 25 THE COURT: Well, but, you know, when you said at 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 95 of\n\n| | 165 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
89 |\n| 1 | the beginning of your argument -- and I'm not suggesting I'm |\n| 2 | ruling on anything.
I'm trying to understand the positions |\n| 3 | of the parties, right?
You did mention the Harris case |\n| 4 | which is a case that was decided in 1911. |\n| 5 | MR. BEST:
Yeah. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
And when you read the language of it, |\n| 7 | it's interesting.
But it talks about the constitutional |\n| 8 | rights against self-incrimination in -- of a bankrupt and |\n| 9 | that they -- when a trustee or a receiver was trying to get |\n| 10 | the books and records, right? |\n| 11 | MR. BEST:
That law -- I think it -- I may have |\n| 12 | quoted it, because -- no.
I got another case.
I've been |\n| 13 | trying to learn bankruptcy law pretty quickly this morning, |\n| 14 | but -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, I don't think this has a lot to |\n| 16 | do with bankruptcy law, actually. |\n| 17 | MR. BEST:
But any cases that deal with the issue |\n| 18 | of invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege as regards |\n| 19 | production of documents are controlled by Fisher and its |\n| 20 | progeny, including U.S. vs. Doe, which was 1984. |\n| 21 | I'll give you the cite.
And then I have really |\n| 22 | the more recent U.S. Supreme Court case is U.S. vs. Hubbell, |\n| 23 | which was a grand jury proceeding. |\n| 24 | And then even more recently in the Second Circuit, |\n| 25 | it's U.S. vs. Greenfield.
The Hubbell case is -- excuse me, |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 90 1 120 S. Ct. 2037. And I'll pass it up to Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: I actually have it right here -- 3 MR. BEST: You do? 4 THE COURT: -- so you don't need to pass that up. 5 MR. BEST: Okay. And then I have Greenfield, if 6 you'd like me to pass that up. It's -- 7 THE COURT: I don't think I have seen Greenfield 8 before. I don't think that is -- is that cited in your 9 papers? 10 MR. BEST: It isn't. It was me doing -- 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 MR. BEST: -- work on the airplane coming up. 13 THE COURT: That's fair. Then I would like you 14 to -- and you gave counsel -- 15 MR. BEST: I -- 16 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 17 MR. BEST: Yeah. The other piece to this -- so 18 there is no unclean hand -- and may I -- the question you 19 asked had multiple ways to answer it. 20 THE COURT: It did. 21 MR. BEST: Right? And so there is no unclean 22 hands argument that because he didn't produce it and he 23 obstructed the process before, he has waived his right to 24 assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. 25 Importantly, you know, the foregone conclusion Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 96 of 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 97 of
165 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
91 |\n| 1 | piece, if indeed he had produced under compulsion and we had |\n| 2 | had these arguments months ago, and you nonetheless held him |\n| 3 | in contempt and -- okay, then he has a choice. |\n| 4 | And I actually don't know if the law goes this far |\n| 5 | as to -- I don't know if it's ever been decided that if a |\n| 6 | court forces compulsion and he produces under that |\n| 7 | compulsion whether he's waived his privilege.
I doubt it. |\n| 8 | I can't imagine that that would be the case. |\n| 9 | But if he did -- if we had this exercise months |\n| 10 | ago before the indictment in the case, there would be a |\n| 11 | significant challenge to the U.S. Government to put on a |\n| 12 | Kastigar hearing to show that they already had or knew about |\n| 13 | this information prior to that -- prior to our hearing that |\n| 14 | we're having today if it had taken place months before. |\n| 15 | The foregone conclusion piece is an obligation on |\n| 16 | the Government to show that they already had the information |\n| 17 | and knew about it.
And so it would have arguably tainted |\n| 18 | the Government's case that they wanted to bring against Kwok |\n| 19 | if we had had this exercise months before the indictment. |\n| 20 | So that would be my second answer to the query as |\n| 21 | to whether or not we had addressed this months before.
I |\n| 22 | wasn't involved at that point, but -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
No.
I don't think it was whether it |\n| 24 | was addressed.
I think my question was what about the |\n| 25 | information that doesn't directly relate to the indictment. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 98 of
165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 99 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1 THE COURT: -- the only way the trustee can 2 proceed is to get it from the Government. And I thought you 3 said earlier in the -- in your comments that you'd have to 4 agree to that. 5 MR. BEST: No. If it was through -- if the 6 exercise was we as defense counsel received a discovery 7 packet, we would have to go to the Government and get their 8 assent. We would also then have to go to the Court and get 9 the Court's assent to make a production to this Court 10 vis-a-vis the subpoena. They could go directly to the 11 Government and bypass all of that. 12 I don't know whether the Government would reach 13 out to us and say do we have your assent or not. 14 THE COURT: Is it required? 15 MR. BEST: I don't -- no, it's not. 16 THE COURT: Okay. I'm just asking. I -- 17 MR. BEST: No. I mean, I think it's more of a 18 courtesy than anything else. So the testimonial piece of 19 this, which is the second prong past the foregone 20 conclusion, Your Honor, is in the demand that's before us 21 which is, in essence, to produce documents which necessarily 22 are within his custody and control, which means that if 23 anything is produced pursuant to that provision of the 24 subpoena, then it's a tacit, if not explicit, admission that 25 the information in those entities were within his custody or Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 100 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 95 1 control, which directly implicates his right against 2 self-incrimination, because those issues are squarely before 3 the Court. 4 And they don't even have to be squarely before the 5 Court. As I said, it -- 99 percent of the time it's prior 6 to an indictment that all these issues come up. 7 And so when I looked at this originally, I didn't 8 even think about the foregone conclusion argument. It was 9 simply black letter law that what's being asked for here by 10 the trustee -- counsel for the trustee is testimonial in 11 nature in that if anything gets turned over, then it's an 12 admission that, in fact, those entities were within his 13 custody and control. 14 And that's simply black letter law that it's a 15 compulsion of process and once -- for information which 16 there's a causal link to incriminate him that he does not 17 have to -- he doesn't have to comply with pursuant to his 18 constitutional rights. 19 And so, for those reasons, I submit to Your Honor 20 that he has complied with the subpoena. Once you invoke 21 your constitutional rights on these points, unless there's 22 anything else that's open, it is -- it is considered fully 23 complied. So thank you very much. 24 THE COURT: Thank you. 25 Attorney Bassett or -- and Trustee Despins? 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 101 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 102 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 96 1 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I know Mr. Bassett will 2 address the technical parts of this, but I wanted to correct 3 one statement that was made, which is that I'm a Department 4 of Justice employee or somehow working for the Department of 5 Justice. 6 I'm not the Department of Justice. I was 7 appointed by the Department of Justice, but I don't report 8 to them. I have no -- as Your Honor knows, a trustee has no 9 reporting function to the Department of Justice. I wanted 10 to correct that. Thank you. 11 MR. BEST: Yeah. I didn't mean to imply that 12 Mr. Despins was a DOJ employee. But the U.S. -- a 13 representative from the U.S. Trustee's Office is, in fact, 14 here who is a Department of Justice employee. That's who I 15 was referring to, Mr. Despins. Thank you. 16 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 17 MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, again, it's Nick 18 Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 19 Trustee. 20 So I think -- I'm going to address, to the best I 21 can, the substance of all of the legal arguments that 22 counsel made as well as address one of the proposals he made 23 about getting documents that are subject to disclosure by 24 the Government in a criminal case which I do think may be a 25 useful subject to the trustee getting the right order on 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 103 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 97 1 that point. 2 Before I do those things, I do think, as I often 3 have done in this case, I think just to understand exactly 4 how we got here, which is part of what the Court was doing 5 with counsel, is important. 6 So obviously this case has been going on for over 7 a year. Trustee was appointed last summer. Immediately 8 upon his appointment, by operation of law -- and this is a 9 fact that's important and has sort of been glossed over to 10 some degree to this point. 11 But by operation of law, the debtor was required 12 and is still required, under Section 521 of the Bankruptcy 13 Code, (a)(3) and (a)(4), to produce records concerning 14 property of the estate to the trustee and also to provide 15 any property of the estate to the trustee. That's by 16 operation of the Bankruptcy Code. 17 In addition to that, shortly after the trustee's 18 appointment in August of 2022, as the Court knows, the 19 trustee served a Rule 2004 subpoena on the debtor. As the 20 Court also knows, and the reason we are here today, is in 21 the six-plus however months we are now since then, we've 22 received nothing but delay, excuses, obstruction, et cetera. 23 And as the Court pointed out, we're now at a point 24 where the debtor is actually using all that past obstruction 25 and delay essentially to his benefit, because he's now, 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 104 of 165\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\n8 I think that backdrop is very important, because 9 we're not operating on a blank slate. And the fact that 10 we're in bankruptcy in particular is important. We cited 11 some of these cases in the brief that we submitted to the 12 Court, and it goes back to the In Re Harris case that came 13 up during counsel's argument and during some of the Court's 14 comments.\n\n15 But I think, first, it's important to point out 16 that I don't believe in the motion to stay or in the 17 response on the order to show cause counsel has cited to any 18 bankruptcy case involving a stay as it relates to the debtor 19 in that case.\n\n20 They cite one case that's in our papers, I'm 21 trying to find it, that I'm escaping the name. But the one 22 case they cite that's a bankruptcy case involved an 23 adversary proceeding by the debtor against other defendants 24 who were under criminal investigation. Completely different 25 situation.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 105 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 106 of
165 |\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 1 more. 2 But another case that's more recent that I would 3 encourage the Court to take a look at is the In Re Ross case 4 from the Bankruptcy Court District of Idaho, 1993. That's 5 156 B.R. 272 at -- and the discussion is extensive. I think 6 part of it's at page 279. 7 But that was a case involving the question of 8 whether requiring a debtor in a Chapter 7 case to exercise 9 his rights under Section -- or to comply with his rights 10 under Section 521 of the Bankruptcy Code would implicate the 11 Fifth Amendment, including specifically the act of 12 production doctrine. 13 So what the Court did in that case is conduct an 14 extensive analysis talking about the interplay between the 15 act of production doctrine and bankruptcy cases. 16 In addition to Harris, there's progeny that 17 developed from there. The Ross court cited Johnson vs. 18 United States from a 1913 decision where the court again 19 articulated the same general principle of Harris that 20 compelling a debtor in possession to turn over property and 21 records of the estate is not something that implicates the 22 Fifth Amendment. 23 The court also cited the Fuller case, 262 U.S. 91 24 from 1923. The Dier v. Banton case, Supreme Court, 262 U.S. 25 147 from 1923. And McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 from 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 108 of
165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 109 of 165\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| 5 | So there's several reasons here.
I'm not |\n| | |\n\n6 disputing that this is a complicated, nuanced area of 7 criminal law that's not normally before this Court and 8 certainly isn't what I normally deal with. But there are a 9 lot of issues that I don't think have been addressed as it 10 relates to do these concepts even apply in bankruptcy. If 11 they do apply in bankruptcy, how is it modified by the fact 12 that there are statutory obligations that require the 13 production of these documents?\n\n14 And by the way, the motion to compel that we filed 15 which led to the order to show cause also referenced 521 and 16 the obligations thereunder as the basis for the production. 17 We were not solely relying on our 2004 subpoena and the lack 18 of compliance with that.\n\n19 So another point I want to address that came up 20 during the argument previously is the type of showing -- and 21 I think the Court hit on this in some of the questions that 22 Your Honor asked -- the type of showing that if the act of 23 production doctrine applies and if the debtor is going to 24 seek to invoke it, what kind of showing does he have to make 25 in order to demonstrate to the Court that he has fully\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 110 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 104 1 complied with all aspects of the January 20th order. 2 And I think what the case law makes pretty clear 3 is that the showing has to be particularized. The debtor 4 cannot just say in a blanket matter -- and that's really 5 what I hear the argument being. You know, I'm under 6 criminal indictment. And our -- and criminal investigation. 7 And our position is that that means that 8 everything the debtor owns, everything he's ever touched, 9 everything he has in his possession that could somehow be 10 relevant to this bankruptcy case is somehow involved in or 11 related to these criminal issues and, therefore, production 12 of them could implicate the Fifth Amendment. 13 I don't think the debtor can do that in that 14 blanket manner. And the trustee is entitled, for good 15 reason, to a more specific showing. 16 To give a particular example, counsel spent a lot 17 of time talking about the fact that if the debtor were 18 required to produce documents under the control of certain 19 other associated entities and associated individuals as 20 those terms are defined in our subpoena that he would 21 basically be conceding that control by producing documents, 22 and that would implicate the indictment and his criminal 23 exposure. 24 But I don't see how the debtor can possibly say 25 that -- and I think the Court was attuned to this as well -- 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 111 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 112 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 106 1 The other -- so subject to checking my notes, 2 the -- and the one other point I wanted to make was to go 3 back to this question of the documents that the Government 4 will produce to the debtor, purportedly is going to produce 5 to the debtor in connection with the criminal case. 6 Obviously, the trustee would want those documents. 7 Counsel said that, well, we -- you know, we could subpoena 8 them and then, you know, do whatever we want to try to do to 9 get them. 10 Two main points in response to that. First, I 11 don't see why we would need to subpoena them. There's 12 already a subpoena that the debtor is under. And to the 13 extent that the documents are responsive to that subpoena, 14 when the debtor becomes in possession of them, they need to 15 be produced not only in accordance with that subpoena but in 16 accordance with the January 20th order that is operative. 17 To the extent the trustee needed to serve a new 18 subpoena asking specifically for these documents, we could 19 do so. We may do so anyway. But I don't think it's 20 necessary. 21 The second point I would make, which I think is 22 critical, is that if they're offering that as a partial 23 solution to the issue, any order that this Court issues in 24 the trustee's view has to very clearly require the debtor to 25 take whatever action it needs to take vis-a-vis the 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 113 of
165 |\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 114 of\n\n| | 165 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
108 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I do not have any questions of you at |\n| 2 | this time.
Thank you, Attorney Bassett. |\n| 3 | Attorney Friedman, you wish to be heard? |\n| 4 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
Peter Friedman |\n| 5 | from O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of PAX.
I wanted to add a |\n| 6 | little bit of context to what Attorney Bassett said in his |\n| 7 | remarks. |\n| 8 | This is not just an issue of what's happened in |\n| 9 | this Chapter 11 case.
PAX has been pursuing its claims |\n| 10 | against Mr. Kwok for years going back to the inception of |\n| 11 | the loan made more than a decade ago.
It has been |\n| 12 | consistently told there are no assets.
There have been |\n| 13 | shifting assertions of the Fifth Amendment in the past when |\n| 14 | it was convenient and then they have been revoked. |\n| 15 | There was a Chapter 11 filing, a filing that said |\n| 16 | Mr. Kwok had \\$3,850, as you'll recall, and a Pomeranian, but |\n| 17 | he needed time to put together his schedules.
He hired the |\n| 18 | Verdolino & Lowey entity which apparently he, you know, |\n| 19 | didn't tell them about substantial assets that actually |\n| 20 | exist in his name. |\n| 21 | But this has been going on for years.
PAX has |\n| 22 | been frustrated for years.
And yet, with very little |\n| 23 | insight into this debtor's assets, of course money shows up |\n| 24 | whenever it's needed to pay lawyers, although, you know, |\n| 25 | purportedly not from Mr. Kwok. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 115 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 109 1 We'll find out shortly who's paying for Brown 2 Rudnick to be here today when they file their required 3 pleadings, unless of course they try to claim that's -- some 4 sort of barrier to that because that would also incriminate 5 Mr. Kwok. 6 If you think about the logical extent of what 7 they're saying, they would be immune from having to comply 8 with that regulation as well, that statute as well, which of 9 course can't be right. 10 But in any event, Your Honor, the other thing I 11 wanted to just raise with you is in one of the pleadings 12 there's a statement that the bankruptcy and the prior case 13 is all a product of CCP machinations. And I think as Your 14 Honor has heard from me before, that's just -- I don't know 15 whether to be mad about it or to laugh at it, but it's just 16 absurd. 17 This Court, I think, knows the bona fides of the 18 PAX litigation that proceeded in front of Justice Ostrager. 19 And it knows that Mr. Kwok actually offered to pay, because 20 he broadcasted on Twitter or GETTR, you know, an 21 extraordinarily large amount of money, maybe not his own 22 money but somebody's money, to PAX to settle litigation. 23 And Mr. Kindseth testified that Mr. Kwok knew that 24 PAX was owed money and that Mr. Kwok went on GETTR to say 25 that they had to make piece with Kwok, all of which are 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 116 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 117 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 118 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 119 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 120 of
165 |\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 1 some limitations on the application of that assertion. 2 MR. BEST: It has to be -- so the limitations 3 here, Your Honor -- would it be a harder argument for me if 4 there was just a subpoena issued broadly for all documents? 5 Probably. 6 What was -- the limitations, though -- I can 7 guaranty you in that case it doesn't talk about a specific 8 issue where the documents that are requested are not simply 9 the documents that were in possession of the debtor, 10 Mr. Guo. 11 It was those documents in addition to those that 12 he possessed, which I believe as I understand have been 13 turned over, that -- for him to go and get documents in the 14 custody or control of him which by production necessarily is 15 testimonial that he's in custody or control of those 16 entities. And I can -- I know that Harris didn't stand for 17 that. 18 THE COURT: Okay. And then this Ross case that 19 counsel has cited from Idaho in 1993 talks about Harris, and 20 it also talks about some of the cases you cited saying 21 that -- in Doe -- well, you cited Doe. You said -- you 22 mentioned Doe. It says -- and I'm not saying it's -- I'm 23 just telling you what it says. I -- 24 MR. BEST: I appreciate this. 25 THE COURT: Okay. It says -- Justice O'Connor Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 121 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 122 of\n\n| | 165 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
116 |\n| 1 | states she has written to make explicit what is implicit in |\n| 2 | the analysis of that opinion, that the Fifth Amendment |\n| 3 | provides absolutely no protection for any contents of |\n| 4 | private papers of any kind. |\n| 5 | MR. BEST:
Yeah. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
That's what it says. |\n| 7 | MR. BEST:
That had -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
And then the Bouknight case that -- I |\n| 9 | don't know that you addressed but counsel cited.
That's the |\n| 10 | case that was not a bankruptcy case.
No question.
It was |\n| 11 | the case involving the mother of the child with regard to |\n| 12 | the city department of social services turning over |\n| 13 | information with regard to the custody of her child. |\n| 14 | I mean, the facts of the case are very difficult |\n| 15 | facts.
But the Bouknight case said that the mother couldn't |\n| 16 | resist production of the information on the grounds that the |\n| 17 | child might reveal incriminating evidence. |\n| 18 | MR. BEST:
I understand your argument, and I'm |\n| 19 | not -- |\n| 20 | MR. BEST:
Let me -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I'm not saying anything you're saying |\n| 22 | is inaccurate.
I'm saying -- |\n| 23 | MR. BEST:
Let me -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
-- there appears to be some cases out |\n| 25 | there that limit the applicability -- there appears to be, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 123 of\n\n| | 165 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
117 |\n| 1 | that limit the applicability of the extent of the Fifth |\n| 2 | Amendment privilege with regard to the obligations of a |\n| 3 | debtor under the Bankruptcy Code. |\n| 4 | MR. BEST:
I would agree with that.
It has to be |\n| 5 | a determination, one, as to whether or not -- really, |\n| 6 | it's -- I would -- you know, all the analysis you see in |\n| 7 | court cases start with the foregone conclusion argument |\n| 8 | first. |\n| 9 | I focus on the testimonial nature of the admission |\n| 10 | that if he produces documents as regards entities that he's |\n| 11 | in the custody or control of or be required to, as you |\n| 12 | brought up at our first discussion about it, affirm one way |\n| 13 | or the other as to those, that that is the most -- is the |\n| 14 | reason why he has the best argument as to invocation of his |\n| 15 | Fifth Amendment privilege on these issues. |\n| 16 | Their request is, essentially, admit that these |\n| 17 | are within your custody and control and give me the |\n| 18 | documents.
That's what's being asked by the subpoena.
So I |\n| 19 | agree with you there are limitations. |\n| 20 | Doe did not address that piece.
Doe was squarely |\n| 21 | focused on the foregone conclusion piece.
And, in fact, Doe |\n| 22 | ended up in the defendant's favor, affirming his right to |\n| 23 | invoke the privilege against self-incrimination and |\n| 24 | admonishing the Government for using Doe to get information |\n| 25 | which they should have been able to get themselves through |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 118 1 the grand jury process. 2 So Doe does not talk about the -- it focuses on 3 foregone conclusion. It doesn't focus on really what is 4 being asked here is the testimonial nature of the 5 production. 6 So happy to go through -- I'm happy to do a full 7 briefing on this. I know it's not normally before Your 8 Honor or these esteemed counsel from fine firms. 9 I do this for a living. I will tell you the 10 Government wouldn't be super happy if their case was 11 negatively implicated because of the demands of a creditor's 12 counsel or of trustee's counsel. Because I'd be using that 13 in the Southern District case to require the U.S. Department 14 of Justice to put on a Kastigar hearing to prove that they 15 have this information before it was turned over. 16 And if not -- and by the way, the lineage of cases 17 is that the Government's burden on Kastigar is severe. And 18 it would -- if I win that, which I'm pretty confident I 19 would on a number of issues and other entities, it would, 20 one, thwart their present investigations they have going on, 21 and two, implicate what they could do and what evidence they 22 could produce in their present case. 23 And so I'm not speaking for the Government. I'm 24 just talking about all the complications that would arise 25 out of this Court requiring either that he produce and not Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 124 of 165\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1737 | Filed 05/01/23 | Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 | Page 125 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 119 1 honor his Fifth Amendment privilege or then have him sign 2 some sort of declaration or affidavit attendant thereto. 3 THE COURT: Well, I just -- on the Bouknight case 4 that has been cited, the Supreme Court case, you know, 5 they -- the Supreme Court talks about that -- says even if 6 the act of production would amount to what you call a tacit 7 admission of the debtor's control over something or 8 possession of something, that that -- the privilege can't be 9 invoked to resist the production in the -- in that 10 circumstance, right? 11 And so the circumstances that we have in this case 12 is that, as we've all talked about and you know, this is 13 information that the trustee is looking to obtain which the 14 debtor was required to produce once he voluntarily consented 15 to this -- the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a 16 bankruptcy case, which he did. He voluntarily did it. 17 Nobody forced him to do it. 18 And so that Supreme Court case, when you -- I 19 understand your argument about if he has to turn it over 20 then he's -- and -- then he's admitting that he had 21 possession or control. 22 Well, this Supreme Court case, Bouknight case, 23 seems to say that that's not necessarily determinative of 24 whether or not the Fifth Amendment privilege would apply to 25 not require the debtor -- or the party -- it wasn't a debtor 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 120 1 in that case, it's the -- that's the case that we talked 2 about already through the mother and the son -- 3 MR. BEST: Uh-huh. 4 THE COURT: -- to require the debtor to provide 5 this information to the trustee. 6 Now, all I'm saying to you is I think it's -- I 7 understand all the arguments that you've made. I believe I 8 do. And I've looked at a lot of the cases, if not all of 9 the cases, that you've cited. But there is an issue here 10 that's a little bit different from some of the -- from 11 Fisher and other cases that you've cited, because those were 12 not addressing the present circumstances and the specific 13 circumstances of a debtor in possession -- 14 MR. BEST: Right. 15 THE COURT: -- who voluntarily came before the 16 Court and -- 17 MR. BEST: Right. 18 THE COURT: -- and subjected himself to the duties 19 and responsibilities of a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code. 20 MR. BEST: I also think that it needs to be stated 21 that the case that trustee cited -- is it the Idaho case? 22 THE COURT: The Rogers case, I think it was 23 called. 24 MR. BEST: As well as the -- 25 THE COURT: Ross case. I'm sorry. Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 126 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 127 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1 documents which is being called for in this case. 2 And I respect this Court's desire to honor its 3 obligations. And I understand that he filed for protections 4 here. There are always intervening circumstances that have 5 to be taken into consideration here. And that is what's 6 before us right now. 7 THE COURT: Okay. I understand. Thank you. 8 MR. BEST: Okay. 9 THE COURT: Is there anything further you'd like 10 to add? 11 MR. BEST: Not at this time. I'm happy to do 12 further briefing if Your Honor desires. 13 THE COURT: I need to think about that. But thank 14 you. 15 MR. BEST: Yeah. 16 MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, may I be heard and 17 respond to this? 18 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I -- just if I can 19 just jump in here for a second? I want to offer a practical 20 solution to this. I understand the issue. Act of 21 production. Got it. 22 But I think counsel for Mr. Kwok will agree that 23 the act of production doctrine does not apply to documents 24 provided by the Government to Mr. Kwok. There's no act of 25 production issue there. Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 128 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 129 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 123 1 So he's saying let's have the U.S. Trustee call 2 the DOJ, da, da, da. That's not the way that works. We 3 don't exist in the criminal court. We don't exist in the 4 Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney group, I mean, 5 meaning that they do their own thing. And we wish them the 6 best, also Mr. Kwok. It's not our issue. 7 But the defendant, he has standing in that court 8 to say, you know what, Judge, criminal judge, we would like 9 a modification to the protective order, and that 10 modification would be that we can provide to the trustee -- 11 Chapter 11 trustee copies of the documents that the 12 Government gives us. This Court, Your Honor, could direct 13 the debtor to seek such a modification to the protective 14 order. 15 That doesn't guarantee that the criminal court 16 will agree to that or that the Government will agree to 17 that. But the debtors seem to be okay with that, meaning 18 have no problems with us seeing the documents that are being 19 produced to the defendant by the Government. He just 20 doesn't want to be involved in it. 21 And as I -- I'm telling you, Your Honor, we have 22 no standing in that court. We cannot go to the criminal 23 court and be heard on that issue. But the defendant can. 24 And he -- the defendant happens to be a debtor in your 25 court, and you can direct the defendant to seek that relief. 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 130 of
165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 131 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 132 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 126 1 Court to amend their order, but -- 2 THE COURT: I don't think that -- I think Trustee 3 Despins already acknowledged that. 4 MR. DESPINS: No, that's not what -- 5 THE COURT: He's already acknowledged that they 6 might not do it. 7 MR. BEST: Yeah. 8 THE COURT: Right? 9 MR. BEST: Happy to try. 10 THE COURT: I think what he was asking was would 11 this Court enter an order requiring the debtor to seek that 12 relief from the Southern District of New York, knowing that 13 the Southern District of New York may say no. But I don't 14 know -- 15 MR. DESPINS: Correct. 16 THE COURT: -- you know, if you oppose that. If 17 you don't oppose that, and you all can come up with an order 18 that this Court could enter, then that's fine. But, I mean, 19 you need -- yeah. You need time to talk about it. That's 20 fine. 21 MR. BEST: Yeah. If I may? 22 THE COURT: Do you want a few minutes? 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sure. 24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. If we could. 25 THE COURT: All right. So before we take a break 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 133 of
165 |\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 1 matter, and then I'll take some form of a recess, and you 2 all -- you can all convene first, and then you can talk to 3 the trustee's counsel. 4 MR. BEST: Great. 5 THE COURT: Okay? I think that's -- let's do 6 that. And there are conference rooms, they should be 7 unlocked, in the hallways. 8 MR. BEST: They're much nicer than any conference 9 rooms I deal with on criminal cases, so -- 10 THE COURT: Well, that's good. 11 MR. BEST: It is. 12 THE COURT: Maybe that'll produce a result. 13 MR. BEST: Yes. 14 THE COURT: Okay? But in any event, why don't you 15 do that. All the -- Mr. Kwok's lawyers can be excused for 16 now. And I'll have Bravo Luck's counsel come forward. 17 We'll address the final matter on the calendar. And then 18 I'm going -- I am going to take a recess, because not only 19 we -- does the staff need some time but then you can have a 20 conversation with trustee's counsel. 21 MR. BEST: Absolutely. Why don't we plan at least 22 on -- I don't know how long your recess -- 2:00, 2:15 being 23 back. 24 THE COURT: I would think we would do about an 25 hour. Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 134 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 135 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 136 of
165 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
130 |\n| that has not been filed yet but that the Court had allowed |\n| to be filed under seal. |\n| So, Trustee Despins, I set this for a hearing |\n| because I wanted to give counsel the opportunity -- she |\n| explained why she wants to be a notice party.
From what I |\n| understand on the record the other day, there was an |\n| affirmative decision not to make Bravo Luck a notice party. |\n| Is that correct? |\n| MR. DESPINS:
That's correct. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Could you just explain -- |\n| MR. DESPINS:
Or any other creditor other than the |\n| ones that are listed -- that's correct, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
That are already what?
Subject to the |\n| protective order? |\n| MR. DESPINS:
That are listed -- so the -- no.
So |\n| the -- it would be the creditors' committee, PAX, the U.S. |\n| Trustee, and the debtor. |\n| THE COURT:
All of whom are -- |\n| MR. DESPINS:
And there's a -- |\n| THE COURT:
-- signatories to the protective |\n| order, correct? |\n| MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
But it was not driven by that. |\n| But, yes, they are all signatories for that. |\n| But so if I can explain in my three minutes? |\n| Basically, this is an issue that -- granted, the motion that |\n| |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 137 of
165 |\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 1 And PAX is there. And the reason for PAX is that, 2 you know, they do happen to have a judgment for millions of 3 dollars. 4 So they're not like a defendant that is trying to 5 get involved in the case in some fashion. So that -- 6 basically, that's my (indiscernible), Your Honor. They 7 don't belong there. They shouldn't be there. This deals 8 with very sensitive information. 9 And it does not affect them, because it doesn't 10 affect The Sherry Netherland or Bravo Luck directly. So it 11 may impact them as a creditor of Kwok. Frankly, I'm not 12 sure how they're a creditor of Kwok. But assuming that they 13 are, it may affect them in that capacity. But there's 14 plenty of coverage there with the U.S. Trustee and the 15 creditors' committee covering that. 16 Thank you, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Thank you. 18 Counsel, you wish to be heard? 19 MS. CLINE: Yes, Your Honor. Joanna Cline on 20 behalf of Bravo Luck. 21 I guess what the trustee is seeking are two 22 things: one, to limit notice, and two, to file this motion 23 for abandonment under seal. And there's no basis in the 24 case law or nor has he articulated a factual reason for 25 either request. Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 138 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 139 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 133 1 On the issue of notice, limiting notice usually is 2 done where the party giving notice seeks to avoid the cost 3 or the time that's required for notice. The case cited by 4 the trustee in his papers, In Re Karan (ph), does relate to 5 the Court's ability to limit notice in the context of an 6 abandonment proceeding, but it actually supports our 7 position and underscores the proposition that the purpose of 8 the notice requirement is to provide an opportunity for 9 people to be heard and to object. 10 That case doesn't articulate the standard for 11 limiting notice, and instead if denies a motion for an entry 12 of a consent order on abandonment, because the parties did 13 not file an appropriate motion to limit notice that fully 14 stated the limits of service that was supported by an 15 affidavit. 16 We are not aware of and the trustee has not cited 17 any cases in which a court has, in fact, limited notice in 18 an abandonment proceeding for a reason other than cost or 19 timing of notice. In fact, the case law says that notice is 20 a crucial aspect of abandonment. And that can be found in a 21 case called In Re Telcar. 22 With respect to the notion of filing under seal -- 23 THE COURT: Do you have a cite for that case, 24 In Re Telcar? 25 MS. CLINE: Yeah. In Re Telcar, 363 B.R. 345 at 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 134 1 Note 19, Bankruptcy Eastern District 2007. 2 THE COURT: Thank you. 3 MS. CLINE: And all of this is also in Collier's 4 section on Rule 6007. 5 THE COURT: On Rule 6007? Okay. 6 MS. CLINE: Yes, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 8 MS. CLINE: And then on the second point, filing 9 under seal, as a preliminary matter, we're not aware of any 10 case in which an abandonment motion was sealed and kept from 11 parties in interest in a litigation. 12 But the proper standard is under Rule 107(b), 13 which if one are -- is to read it carefully, I think the 14 cite that the trustee is relying on relates to the notion 15 that the Court may protect an entity with respect to a trade 16 secret or confidential research, development, or commercial 17 information. So that's the prong they rely on. 18 This is a case involving an individual debtor, and 19 the trustee has not articulated whether there's a trade 20 secret, what's so confidential, what's the commercial -- the 21 supposedly commercial information that's in dispute here. 22 The trustee has a burden to overcome the 23 presumption of open public access to our court system that 24 is the very foundation of the way we do business in the 25 United States courts. A generalized interest is not enough. Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 140 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 141 of\n\n| | 165 |\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| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 142 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 136 1 And they are represented by the U.S. Trustee and 2 the creditors' committee. They're there as watch dogs to 3 make sure we're not doing anything crazy. 4 In terms of the secrecy around this is because it 5 involves complex strategies involving that asset and how 6 it's being abandoned and what is being preserved that I 7 really don't want Bravo Luck to have any knowledge of or 8 other creditors, by the way. Because they -- unless they 9 have a particularly -- particularized interest in that 10 matter, they should not participate in this. Because it's 11 highly confidential and could be damaging to the estate 12 (indiscernible). 13 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 14 MR. DESPINS: Thank you. 15 THE COURT: Anything further, counsel? 16 MS. CLINE: Yeah. Just, Your Honor, that -- yeah, 17 just to point out the obvious, which is that the burden is 18 not ours. The burden is on the trustee to overcome the 19 presumption of access to the public records in the court 20 system. 21 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 22 Does anyone else wish to be heard? 23 MS. MAYHEW: The only thing I'd like to add, Your 24 Honor -- Kristen Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the 25 committee -- is that based on the representations from the 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 143 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 144 of
165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 145 of
165 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023
139 |\n| for a limited stay of the order granting in part the motion |\n| to compel compliance with the 2004 examination.
And |\n| Mr. Best and the parties were going to have some |\n| discussions. |\n| Mr. Best, did you want to report on where things |\n| stand at the moment? |\n| MR. BEST:
Yes, Your Honor.
We were in agreement |\n| even, I think, before the recess as to the -- Mr. Despins' |\n| request that the invocation of the Fifth be specific -- |\n| subject matter specific.
And then the only remaining |\n| question was on any discovery in the Southern District case |\n| and the trustee's availability to it. |\n| We are in agreement in principle that, subject to |\n| the U.S. Department of Justice and really, most importantly, |\n| the district court judge agreeing to the disclosure of it, |\n| I'm sure with many limitations or qualifications, that we |\n| won't stand in the way of that.
The discussion really is |\n| what's the best way -- how's the best way to accomplish |\n| that. |\n| We have not received any discovery, as I |\n| understand, yet.
Whether it be that the present subpoena |\n| remains in force with specific provisos regarding this |\n| specific issue -- all this is, I guess -- we didn't talk |\n| about this, but, you know, I would ask that the motion to |\n| hold the client in contempt be withdrawn without prejudice |\n| |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 140 1 and that we'll withdraw our extension motion as well. And 2 then we're left with let's sit down and try to figure out 3 the best course ahead. 4 There is a concern from the U.S. Trustee's counsel 5 that they don't have standing in the Southern District for 6 this subpoena. I don't care how we get home. There are 7 multiple ways to do it so that -- they spoke about not 8 wanting to have the obligation to go to the Department of 9 Justice themselves. 10 They're going to end up -- just so I'm transparent 11 with the Court, they're going to end up in front of the U.S. 12 District Court judge in the Southern District of New York, 13 because I'm sure she or he is going to want to hear from 14 them on the issues regarding limitations of use and the 15 confidentiality and protective order. So -- 16 THE COURT: When you say they, do you mean the 17 Office of the United States Trustee? 18 MR. BEST: Correct. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MR. BEST: And so I want to help the Court explore 21 this and then help the Court in fashioning an order that -- 22 or a ruling or -- and you don't -- I mean, I don't even know 23 if you need to issue a ruling. But I'd like clarity on the 24 way forward. I know you would. I know everyone would. And 25 understanding that we will abide by whatever process makes Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 146 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 147 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 141 1 the best sense. 2 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 3 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee has 4 nothing to do with this, with all due respect. This is 5 discovery of the Chapter 11 Trustee. 6 MR. BEST: Chapter 11 Trustee. 7 MR. DESPINS: So and, you know, that's very 8 different. 9 THE COURT: Yes. 10 MR. DESPINS: And so what should happen is that I 11 think the Court should enter an order saying that the debtor 12 is directed to seek a modification of any applicable 13 protective order in the criminal case to allow the Chapter 14 11 Trustee access to the documents produced by the 15 Government to the debtor. And you can add language saying 16 that the debtor does not represent in any way that they have 17 the ability to achieve that, but they're just going to ask 18 and -- because they have standing. 19 And if they get shot down, they get shot down. 20 That's the risk we take. They cannot oppose that relief, 21 because there's nothing -- with act of production, that's 22 totally out the door then. 23 So I think that should happen. And we should 24 adjourn the hearing on the underlying motions for 20 days or 25 something like that to see what transpires in the criminal 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 148 of
165 |\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| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 149 of
165 |\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 150 of\n\n| | 165 |\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 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 151 of
165 |\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 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 152 of\n\n| | 165 |\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| 20 | conduct the investigation.
That's what he's going to do. |\n| 21 | And whatever -- or he's going to try to do.
And if he is -- |\n| 22 | if his resolution of these motions between the trustee and |\n| 23 | the debtor are on the terms and conditions that Mr. Best and |\n| 24 | Mr. Despins agree to, then that's how we're going to proceed |\n\n25 at this time.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 153 of\n\n| | 165 |\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 154 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 148 1 happens. Every single thing in this case has changed from 2 day to day and week to week. And so we'll see. 3 I understand the concerns of PAX, and I understand 4 the concerns of the committee. But if I'm -- I'm seeing 5 that when you made that request, the debtor's counsel shake 6 their head no. I'm not going to have another fight. We're 7 not going to have briefs that are going to be filed about 8 who can get what and -- 9 There's an agreement. We're going to proceed with 10 that agreement. I'm going to hold Mr. Best and Mr. Despins 11 to that agreement. If they don't -- if something goes awry, 12 then they'll have a problem in this Court. 13 But right now, there's an agreement that could 14 result in some progress for the trustee. And that's where 15 we're going to -- that's how we're going to resolve the 16 issue right now. 17 That doesn't mean you can't ask anything you want 18 to ask at some point in the future. But I -- we can't 19 provide for every eventuality, or we'll never leave this 20 room. And we've been here on this matter -- you know, we've 21 been here on this matter then -- many more times than 22 complex Chapter 11 corporate cases have been. 23 And I think it's time to -- everyone has been 24 trying. And I understand that. But at this point, that's 25 where we are. 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 155 of\n\n| | 165 |\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 156 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 150 1 then I'm -- 2 MR. BEST: I completely understand. 3 THE COURT: -- going to rule on these motions. 4 MR. BEST: And without a doubt, you'd be free to. 5 And I'm not using it as a qualifier. 6 THE COURT: I'm not suggesting you are. 7 MR. BEST: Okay. 8 THE COURT: I want to make it very clear for the 9 record. Okay? 10 MR. BEST: And as I -- so in that vein, when we 11 submit it and it's ordered, as I understand it, the 12 trustee's motion for sanctions or contempt, show cause 13 hearing and contempt are going to be withdrawn -- 14 THE COURT: I don't think there is an agreement on 15 withdrawal. 16 MR. DESPINS: No. Adjourned. 17 THE COURT: I think the agreement was about the 18 order. What the Court what I would do, and I think is 19 appropriate in this case, that we would continue these 20 hearings out for some time to see where things stand. 21 Because we need -- the trustee -- I know you haven't been 22 involved in this case, Mr. Best -- 23 MR. BEST: Right. 24 THE COURT: -- for very long. But the trustee 25 needs to do his investigation, right? What he -- and if 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 151 1 this is -- it may not even work, what he's trying to do, 2 right? But he's trying to do it. And this Court's going to 3 support that, because that's why the trustee -- not 4 Mr. Despins in particular, but that's why a trustee was 5 appointed in this case. Okay? 6 So I am not going to have the motions be withdrawn 7 to only have them have to be filed again. I'm going to 8 continue them for some time. And we'll see where things 9 stand. 10 And what we need to do is have the parties, you - 11 and you will, you and Mr. Despins, cooperate and see what 12 can be done, if anything, in the Southern District of New 13 York. 14 I have ruled right now that the only parties that 15 are going to see these documents are -- is the trustee. No 16 one else. Okay? And where that goes, who knows. We'll 17 see. But at this point, I am not going to have either of 18 the motions withdrawn. I will have them both continued. 19 Okay? 20 MR. BEST: Yes, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: And we will figure out -- and I'm 22 going to continue them -- well, I'll take a look at the 23 calendar in a moment. But I'm not going to go much beyond 24 30 or so days, because I want to see what progress has been 25 made in the Southern District of New York. Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 157 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 158 of\n\n| | 165 |\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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 159 of\n\n| | 165 |\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| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 160 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 154 1 issues do need to be addressed. 2 Are you pressing the issue of the conflict now, or 3 are you holding that -- are you not pressing it at the 4 moment in light of trying to proceed with your 5 investigation? Because I need to determine whether or not I 6 need to set a briefing schedule. 7 And if -- I'll -- to be fair, since some -- you've 8 had some discussions over the last hour. I will allow you 9 to tell the Court that when you and Mr. Best submit the 10 order regarding the attempt to -- you know, the process of 11 trying to obtain the information in the Southern District of 12 New York, if that's how you want to proceed. 13 MR. DESPINS: Yeah. I was going to say I need to 14 reflect on it. There's something I learned through the 15 hearing today that, you know, made me think more about it, 16 which is I knew we had received a subpoena, of course I knew 17 that, from the DOJ. And it was to produce the deposition 18 transcripts. That was very clear to me on that. 19 But what I did not -- I have not focused on is 20 that there was a line item that Mr. Best, you know, focused 21 on which is Title 18 Section 152 which is bankruptcy crime, 22 bankruptcy fraud. And the point there is -- first of all, 23 there's nothing in the indictment about that at all. The 24 subpoena clearly says that. 25 And if that's real, I mean, if that -- they 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 161 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 155 1 actually are looking at that, that could only cover the 2 period during which Brown Rudnick was counsel. So I need to 3 get smarter about that issue, frankly, before I come back to 4 Your Honor. I'm sorry. 5 THE COURT: That's fine. That's fine. No. 6 MR. DESPINS: I would love to be able to do it on 7 the spot, but -- 8 THE COURT: That's fine. That's fine. I do not 9 want to have parties engage in briefing when it's not clear 10 we're going to be doing that at this point in time. Okay? 11 MR. DESPINS: Okay. And, Your Honor, I have a few 12 housekeeping matters, if we can. 13 THE COURT: Go right ahead. 14 MR. DESPINS: First, I want to make sure you've 15 seen the -- you remember that emergency order that describes 16 who can have access to The Sherry Netherland and who cannot? 17 We're submit -- 18 THE COURT: All I know is -- 19 MR. DESPINS: We submitted -- 20 THE COURT: All I know is at some point yesterday 21 afternoon there was a request that it be amended. But I -- 22 do I actually have an amended order? The courtroom deputy 23 is nodding her head. 24 MR. DESPINS: You should have it, I believe. 25 THE COURT: All right. I haven't seen it yet, but 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 162 of
165 |\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 1 MR. DESPINS: -- seeking emergency relief on that. 2 So I just wanted to make sure it's on your radar -- 3 THE COURT: Is that where you're seeking a hearing 4 for next Thursday? Is that the one? I -- 5 MR. DESPINS: Well, not this Thursday. The 6 Thursday next week for -- 7 THE COURT: Right. A week from today. Isn't 8 today Thursday? I hope it's Thursday. Okay. 9 MR. DESPINS: Yeah, you're right. Sorry. 10 THE COURT: A week from today. 11 MR. DESPINS: Yes, you're right. Yes. 12 THE COURT: All right. Yeah. I believe that the 13 Court can accommodate the request, but it will -- might -- 14 won't -- it most likely will not be until noon or later that 15 day. 16 MR. DESPINS: That's fine, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Okay? 18 MR. DESPINS: And the last point I wanted to 19 mention is that the order you entered, and thank you very 20 much for doing that, regarding the motion to abandon 21 scheduled a hearing on that motion for May 2nd. And, of 22 course, implicit in that is that we would file the motion, 23 which we have not. This week -- or and I'm not sure we'll 24 be in a position to do that. And, therefore, we may need to 25 move that May 2nd hearing to a later date, not too much Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 163 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 158 1 later but maybe five days or six days after -- 2 THE COURT: That's fine. You can report on that 3 next week. You can report on that -- 4 MR. DESPINS: Okay. 5 THE COURT: -- next week if you're not ready to go 6 forward on the 2nd of May on that issue. 7 MR. DESPINS: Okay. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. 8 So that's all I had in terms of housekeeping matters. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 10 All right. So then all of the matters then on 11 today's calendar have been addressed, and the Court has no 12 further hearings this afternoon. So court is adjourned. 13 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. Court is 14 adjourned. 15 MR. DESPINS: Thank you. 16 (Proceedings concluded at 2:33 p.m.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 164 of 165\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1737
Filed 05/01/23
Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20
Page 165 of
165 |\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| | Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. |","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格州联邦地区 布里奇波特分院\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， :\n:\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1 :\n: 合并管理\n-------------------------------------------------------------- x\n债务人就其拟议命令所作的补充陈述，该命令涉及：（I）第11章受托人要求说明理由的动议［案卷编号 1453］；及（II）债务人请求对准予部分强制遵守规则2004传票之动议的命令实行有限暂缓执行的动议［案卷编号 1649］\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（下称“债务人”）现就下列事项提交本补充陈述：\n\n(i) 第11章受托人要求说明理由的动议，要求说明债务人……为何不应因未遵守强制遵守规则2004传票的命令而被裁定藐视法庭并就该行为受到制裁［案卷编号 1453］（下称“说明理由动议”）；\n\n(ii) 债务人请求对准予部分强制遵守规则2004传票之动议的命令实行有限暂缓执行的动议［案卷编号 1649］（下称“暂缓执行动议”）；\n\n(iii) 债务人拟议的命令，涉及（i）第11章受托人要求说明理由的动议［案卷编号 1453］及（ii）债务人请求对准予部分强制遵守规则2004传票之动议的命令实行有限暂缓执行的动议［案卷编号 1649］［案卷编号 1698］（下称“债务人拟议命令”）；以及\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（Paul Hastings律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），作为 Ho Wan Kwok 财产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n(iv) 受托人提交拟议命令的通知及要求举行听证会或状态会议的请求（下称“受托人拟议命令”）［案卷编号 1699］。\n\n具体而言，债务人谨陈如下：\n\n1. 本院于 2023 年 4 月 20 日及 4 月 27 日分别举行听证会，以审理说明理由动议、暂缓执行动议、债务人拟议命令及受托人拟议命令。\n\n2. 法院及各方当事人在 4 月 27 日听证会结束时指出，各方均将受益于审阅 4 月 20 日听证会记录，以确定债务人就说明理由动议和暂缓执行动议所提出的临时折衷方案究竟为何，尤其是两份拟议命令中哪一份（债务人拟议命令或受托人拟议命令）更符合债务人在 4 月 20 日听证会上提出的方案。\n\n3. 4 月 20 日听证会记录作为附件 A 附于本文件之后（下称“4 月 20 日记录”）。\n\n4. 4 月 20 日记录清楚表明，债务人在该次听证会上的方案，是促成政府可能向受托人直接提供政府可能在某一时点向债务人律师提供的材料，其中部分材料也可能向债务人提供（须受国家安全关切及政府已经或可能认定的其他问题之限制）（下称“相关材料”），包括向政府及纽约南区联邦地区法院提出请求。债务人的方案在 4 月 20 日记录中的多处有所反映，包括：\n\ni. 第 84 页，第 11-12 行（Best：“他们不妨向政府提出请求。”）；\n\nii. 第 93 页，第 11-14 行（法院：“好的。那么你的意思是，受托人能够继续推进的唯一方式是从政府获得信息吗？”Best：“正确。”）；\n\niii. 第 94 页，第 1-11 行（Best：“他们可以直接向政府提出请求并绕过所有这些程序。”）；以及\n\niv. 第 113 页，第 7-10 行（Best：“他们可以向司法部刑事司、南区联邦检察官办公室提出请求，要求提供证据开示材料。”）。\n\n5. 债务人还指出，在 Best 先生代表债务人提出该方案后，各方当事人与法院之间仍就这些问题进行了讨论，而 4 月 20 日记录可以被理解为受托人要求债务人而非政府提供相关材料。然而，就此而言，受托人本人同意，债务人关于政府可能直接提供材料的方案更符合对债务人第五修正案权利的保护（例如，见 4 月 20 日记录第 122 页，第 22-25 行）（受托人：“但我认为 Kwok 先生的律师会同意，提供行为原则不适用于政府向 Kwok 先生提供的文件。对此不存在提供行为问题。”）\n\n6. 无论受托人在听证会期间可能同意或不同意何事，或受托人事实上是否同意任何事项，4 月 20 日记录均清楚表明，债务人所提议的临时折衷方案是促成政府直接提供材料，而非由债务人直接提供；后者是唯一符合维护债务人宪法权利的程序。\n\n因此，债务人谨请法院现行作出债务人拟议命令；或者，如法院不倾向于如此行事，则酌情安排就说明理由动议和暂缓执行动议举行进一步听证会。\n\n日期：2023 年 4 月 10 日 谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Stephen A. Best（斯蒂芬·A·贝斯特）\nStephen A. Best\n601 13th Street, NW, Suite 600\nWashington, DC 20005\n电话：(202) 536-1737\n传真：(219) 938-2937\n电子邮箱：[sbest@brownrudnick.com]\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga（威廉·R·巴尔迪加）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 209-4942\n电子邮箱：[wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com]\n\nStephen R. Cook（斯蒂芬·R·库克）\n2211 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor\nIrvine, California 92612\n电话：(949) 752-7100\n传真：(949) 252-1514\n电子邮箱：[scook@brownrudnick.com]\n\n债务人 HO WAN KWOK 的特别（刑事辩护）律师\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2023 年 5 月 1 日，前述文件副本已以电子方式提交。根据法院电子提交系统的运行，将通过电子邮件向所有当事人发送该提交文件的通知；对于无法接受电子提交的任何人，则按电子提交通知中所示通过邮件发送。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅该提交文件。\n\n/s/ William R. Baldiga\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 6 页，共 165 页\n\n附件 A\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州联邦地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于 ＊\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n＊\nHO WAN KWOK 和 GENEVER\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION， ＊\n＊\n债务人。 ＊\n＊\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（HK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＊\n2023 年 4 月 20 日\nLUC A. DESPINS， ＊\n＊\n被告。 ＊\n＊\n＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊\n\n185\n反诉\n\n1679 根据《破产法》第 554 条及《破产程序规则》第 6007 条，就授权放弃财产的命令所提出的口头救济动议安排听证会的命令\n\n就第二项请求作出部分简易判决的动议\n\n1453 要求说明理由的动议，要求说明债务人、MEI GUO（郭美）及 HK (USA) 为何不应因未遵守关于《联邦破产程序规则》2004传票的强制执行命令而被裁定藐视法庭\n\n1649 根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》60条及《联邦破产程序规则》9024，就准予第11章受托人限制通知及对有关动议予以密封之动议的命令所提出的、关于判决书或命令的有限暂缓执行动议（下称“该动议”）\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官面前\n美国破产法官\n\n程序由电子录音记录，记录文本由转录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录及转录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：代表第11章受托人：\nNICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·巴塞特律师）\nPaul Hastings, LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nDOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ.（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡律师）\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（纽伯特·佩佩与蒙泰思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表 Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃幸运有限公司）：\nJOANNA J. CLINE, ESQ.（乔安娜·J·克莱恩律师）\nTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP（特劳特曼·佩珀·汉密尔顿·桑德斯律师事务所）\nHercules Plaza\n1313 N. Market Street\nSuite 5100\nWilmington, DE 19899\n\n代表原告、HK International 及 Mei Guo：\nMELISSA F. WERNICK, ESQ.（梅丽莎·F·韦尼克律师）\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC（基耶萨·沙希尼安与贾恩托马西律师事务所）\n105 Eisenhauer Pkwy\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债务人及原告 HK International 和 Mei Guo：\nJAMES MORIARTY, ESQ.（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂律师）\nERIC HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·亨齐律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, PC（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债务人：\nSTEPHEN BEST, ESQ.\nWILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.\nBrown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\n601 13th Street NW, Suite 600\nWashington, DC 20005\n\n出庭人员（续）：代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers, LLP（欧麦律师事务所）\n1625 Eye Street NW\nWashington, DC 20006\n\n代表 Rui Ma（马瑞）、Weican Meng（孟伟灿）、Zheng Wu（吴铮）及无担保债权人官方委员会：\nKRISTIN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯汀·梅休律师）\nPullman & Comley, LLC（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor\nP.O. Box 7006\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023 年 4 月 20 日 4 1 （程序于上午 9:39 开始。）\n2 法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan\n3 Kwok；以及对抗程序案号 22-5003，HK International Funds\n4 Investments 诉 Despins。\n5 法院：早上好。请先由第11章\n6 受托人开始，为记录在案说明出庭人员。\n7 DESPINS 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Luc\n8 Despins，第11章受托人，远程出庭。谢谢。\n9 法院：早上好。\n10 BASSETT 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Nick\n11 Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，担任第11章\n12 受托人的律师。\n13 法院：早上好。\n14 SKALKA 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Douglas\n15 Skalka，来自 Neubert Pepe & Monteith，担任\n16 第11章受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n17 法院：早上好。\n18 WERNICK 女士：早上好，法官阁下。Melissa\n19 Wernick，来自 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi，代表 HK\n20 USA。\n21 法院：早上好。\n22 MORIARTY 先生：早上好，法官阁下。James\n23 Moriarty，Zeisler & Zeisler，代表 HK USA 和债务人。并且\n24 我相信 Henzy 律师很快会加入我，\n25 也代表债务人，我相信其出庭时间定在 10:30。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 10 页，共 165 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023 年 4 月 20 日\n\n1 法院：好的。\n2 MORIARTY 先生：谢谢。\n3 法院：谢谢。是否有人代表\n4 Guo 女士出庭？\n5 WERNICK 女士：也代表 Guo 女士，但该项\n6 特定的简易判决动议实际上是针对\n7 HK USA 的。不过，我们也在该动议中担任 Mei Guo 的\n8 律师。\n9 法院：好的。谢谢。\n10 MORIARTY 先生：Zeisler & Zeisler 也是如此，法官阁下。\n11 法院：好的。谢谢。\n12 在对抗程序 22-05003 的日程中，\n13 有由第11章受托人、反诉原告代表提交的\n14 部分简易判决动议。\n15 Bassett 先生，您将就该事项进行\n16 陈述吗？\n17 BASSETT 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n18 法院：好的。请继续。\n19 BASSETT 先生：那么，再次说明一下，法官阁下，为记录在案，\n20 我是 Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，代表第11章\n21 受托人。\n22 如法院所述，我们今天上午在听证会这一部分\n23 到庭的原因，是请法院\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 12 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023 年 4 月 20 日\n\n审议受托人在本对抗程序中提出的第二项部分简易判决动议；此次动议针对其第二项反诉请求，该请求寻求本院裁定：HK USA（美国香港公司）系债务人的另一个自我，因此，HK USA 的全部财产均为债务人的财产。\n\n法官阁下，我希望今天上午能使我的陈述相当简短。其中一个原因是，正如我们在书面文件中讨论的，以及本院十分清楚的，我们并非在一张白纸上开展审理。绝非如此。\n\n事实上，本院已经就今天本次简易判决动议将在本院讨论的许多关键问题作出了裁决。\n\n首先，当然，本院已就受托人关于其第一项反诉请求此前提出的部分简易判决动议作出了裁决。作出该裁决时，本院认定债务人、现由受托人，拥有并控制 Lady May。\n\n其次，上周五，本院作出裁决，部分驳回被告的驳回动议，并完全驳回被告针对本案所涉第二项反诉请求提出的驳回动议。\n\n作出该裁决时，本院驳回了反诉被告在回应简易判决时再次提出的论点，包括与 Wagoner 规则、同等过错原则以及 Lady May 1 项协议有关的论点。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n法官阁下，鉴于本院此前作出的这些裁决，以及本院在简易判决程序中面前无争议的事实记录，我谨提交意见认为，就另一个我案件而言，法官阁下面前的本案可谓是最简单的案件之一，并且是诉讼现阶段作出简易判决的完美候选案件。\n\n已确立、已承认且无争议的事实是：第一，HK USA 在其历史上从未开展过除拥有和经营 Lady May 以外的任何经营活动。\n\n法院：巴塞特律师，您具体指的是规则 56(a)(1) 和 (a)(2) 陈述吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：正是如此。我可以说明这些事实所依据的具体引述——\n\n法院：我希望双方在今天上午进行辩论时都这样做，因为如您所知，District Court of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦地区法院）要求提交这些陈述具有非常具体的目的，包括供本院——无论是哪一法院在裁定简易判决——在必要时援引这些事实。\n\n因此，我并非有意打断您的辩论，尽管我确实打断了；但我这样做是为了让双方知道，我希望你们在可以时援引规则 56——即地方法院规则 56(a)(1)，也就是你方的陈述；以及原告反诉被告的律师所提交的 56(a)(2) 陈述。可以吗？请继续。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\nFiled 05/01/23\nEntered 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n巴塞特律师：这很公平，法官阁下。就我刚才所作的陈述而言，如您查看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.”\n\n下一段写道：“因此，财产管理机构已拥有并控制反诉被告主张 HK USA 曾经拥有的全部资产。”\n\n因此，法官阁下，这就回到了我刚才对问题及论证所作的界定，也说明了为何我认为本案是非常直接的简易判决候选案件：这些事实已经得到承认。\n\n该实体曾拥有的唯一资产，以及其就 Lady May 所开展的唯一业务，均与 Lady May 有关；随后，我们根据未披露的 Lady May II 所有权认定，其业务也包括 Lady May II。\n\n此外，我们还拥有——再次重申——我刚刚向本院宣读的内容。我们已经获得本院具有约束力的裁决，即债务人而非如其女儿所主张的由其女儿拥有并控制这两项资产；而这两项资产是该实体曾拥有的唯一资产。\n\n并且，记录中没有任何——我无法向您指出一个否定事实——但记录中没有任何内容表明 Lady May——或者，抱歉，表明 HK USA 曾从事任何其他事项、任何其他经营活动，或者在历史上曾拥有除拥有和经营 Lady May 及其附带的 Lady May II 之外的任何其他资产。\n\n法官阁下，我谨提交意见认为，这正是另一个我请求的核心。因为债务人对 HK USA 曾经所做的一切具有完全支配和控制。\n\n作为回应，反诉被告提出了某些抗辩。但是，我认为，如我稍后将说明的，本院已在裁定驳回动议时驳回了这些抗辩。尽管由于我将讨论的理由，程序姿态不同，但我认为在本案事实和情形下这并无区别。\n\n因此，我将用余下的时间——再次重申，我会尽量相对简短——首先再更详细地说明另一个我请求本身的实体理由，并回应部分反驳论点。之后，我将简要处理一些抗辩。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\nFiled 05/01/23\nEntered 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 15 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n关于另一个我请求的实体理由，我认为其标准并无争议。根据 Delaware（特拉华州）法律，为确定一个实体是否为另一实体的另一个我，法院首先将考虑——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；这需要证明债务人支配和控制了 HK USA 及其活动。这是第一个要件。\n\n第二个要件是，该另一个我身份是否被用于实施某种欺诈或不公正行为。我认为，这两个要件均已轻易满足，且不存在任何重大事实的真正争议。\n\n关于第一个要件，即我称之为支配和控制要件，我再次强调，其出发点是，这现已构成本案既定法则。\n\n本院已认定，债务人支配和控制 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经营活动的基础。\n\n因此，只要 HK USA 曾经做过任何事情，都是与这些资产有关。债务人控制这些资产，因此债务人以该种方式支配和控制 HK USA。\n\n现在，反诉被告在其书面文件中歪曲了受托人的论点，称我们试图——我想可以这样说——将本院此前的简易判决裁决及其中涉及的附带禁反言问题，借以实际上就另一个我问题取得附带禁反言效果。\n\n但这完全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 和 Lady May II 这一事实本身足以决定另一个我请求。\n\n我们所主张的是，在本案事实和情形下，其他事实证明 HK USA 从未从事任何其他事项，因此，该裁决和认定在达到该结论方面已经走得非常远，或者说基本上已达到该结论；因为 HK USA 从未从事其他任何需要通过事实证明债务人对 HK USA 行使支配和控制的事项。\n\n并且，与反诉被告所暗示的相反，受托人也未主张 Ostrager 法官已经裁定了另一个我问题。他没有。本院已经确认并裁定，他裁定的是债务人拥有并控制 Lady May。\n\n而且，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视此前的该项认定。他们在其反对意见和事实陈述中称，例如，Ostrager 法官面前的问题并非 Lady May 的所有权，等等。\n\n所有这些都不相关，也不在本院审理范围内，因为本院已经作出裁决。这是本案既定法则。他们已对该裁决提起上诉。如果他们对此有异议，那是地区法院需要处理的问题。\n\n我还要指出，因为再次重申，按照反诉被告对问题的表述，我们是在说拥有和控制 Lady May，如此而已，没有其他内容。但并非如此。\n\n我的意思是，记录中还有其他重要事实直接涉及另一个我分析，并证明了如我所说的事实：不存在争议，即 HK USA 从未从事任何其他事项。\n\n这些事实载于两套规则 56 事实陈述中。我可以提供具体引述，但我认为很容易找到。\n\n不存在争议的是，债务人称，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；其没有银行账户；其未获资本注入；其除 Lady May 和 Lady May II 之外没有其他资产；且其没有专用电子邮件服务器或电子邮件后缀，即其没有自身的任何文件”。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\nFiled 05/01/23\nEntered 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 19 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n现在，反诉被告称，这些事实可能仅意味着 HK USA 是债务人女儿的另一个我，而非债务人的另一个我。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 在其存续期间曾从事某项经营活动，并且曾做过除拥有和经营 Lady May 以外的其他事情，而债务人的女儿而非债务人本可以对该等活动行使控制。\n\n但本案中并无其他事项，所有这些另一个我因素——即其是一家没有资产、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、没有董事、没有银行账户的空壳公司——均只表明，该实体由债务人支配和控制；而本院已认定债务人对其曾拥有的唯一资产具有支配权和控制权。\n\n除我就此援引的规则 56.1 陈述第 11 段外，我还请本院注意 Mei Guo（郭梅）在主案中于 ECF 1544 提交的声明，该声明涉及 HK USA 的问题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023 14\n\n遵守其文件提交义务。这体现在第24和第25段，其中Mei Guo（郭美）称：“如上所述，我是HK USA（美国HK）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（“五月夫人”号）是HK USA的唯一资产。”随后她又称：“此外，我为HK USA保存的唯一文件或通信资料均与Lady May有关，而这些文件被排除在January 20th命令之外。”换言之，她所说的是，HK USA仅有的文件就是我所持有的文件，而我所持有的唯一文件则是与Lady May运营有关的文件，因为这就是HK USA历来所做的一切。\n\n现在，这是我们在书面材料中强调的另一点，反诉被告对此甚至没有回应；但我认为，这是应当向本院强调的一项极其重要的事实，并且依我之见，它对反诉被告所持立场极为不利，即债务人的女儿而非债务人才是拥有并控制HK USA的人。\n\n这涉及February 2022期间，在纽约法院（New York court）的Ostrager法官（Justice Ostrager）面前，债务人的女儿宣誓作证称，据她所知，她的兄弟拥有Lady May II（“五月夫人II号”）。她被出示了一张Lady May II的照片，并在证人席上被问及谁拥有这艘船。她回答：我兄弟拥有。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交 05/01/23\n录入 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n当然，现在我们知道，而且现已得到承认和让步的是，Lady May II当时及一直以来均登记在HK USA名下，包括她作出该证言之时。\n\n因此，除非她将承认自己作了伪证——而她并未如此——那么这表明，法官阁下，自称拥有并控制HK USA的人，甚至不知道其拥有HK USA两项资产中的一项。\n\n这并非一项无关紧要的资产。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所见过或登上过的最大豪华船只。\n\n她不知道自己的公司拥有该船这一事实，已经说明了关于她是否实际上拥有并控制该实体所需要知道的一切。答案是：她没有。她的父亲拥有并控制它。\n\n简要谈一下若干判例法——我认为反诉被告的答复中有一项说法，即债务人并非HK USA经营协议中列名的成员，这不知何故具有相关性。\n\n这无关紧要，因为特拉华州的揭开公司面纱或另我法理并不要求，在揭开公司面纱分析中所涉之人必须是列名股东，或者在本案中，必须是有限责任公司的列名成员。\n\n若非如此，这显然极易被滥用，因为，如同本案这种情形，任何希望隐藏其资产的债务人都只需将资产置于一家由家庭成员——如本案中一样——所有的公司名下。\n\n而在本案中，我们已证明了所要求的支配和控制。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关于另我分析的第二项要件，即由另我关系所实施的欺诈或不公，尽管反诉被告试图如此主张，我看不出他们如何能够可信地提出：即使HK USA事实上是债务人的另我，它也未被用来对债务人的债权人实施不公。\n\n事实上，HK USA作为债务人的另我的全部目的，就是使Lady May和Lady May II免遭债务人债权人的追偿。\n\n这正是他在纽约诉讼中向Ostrager法官、本案诉讼中向本院所持的全部立场；这也是债务人的女儿本人在February 2022试图向Ostrager法官作证时所支持的立场，而本院知道，Ostrager法官认定该证言毫无可信性。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023 17\n\n因此，我认为，如果事实上存在另我关系，那么该另我关系被用于对债务人的债权人实施不公这一点，不可能存在争议。\n\n我现在将转而讨论——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。但我现在将转而简要讨论几项抗辩。\n\n首先，如我所述，反诉被告提出了Wagoner规则和同等过错原则。我认为对此不可能存在任何分歧——顺便说一句，该书面陈述是反诉被告在本院作出其——或者我认为是在本院作出其——关于驳回动议的裁定之前或同时提交的。\n\n但我认为，关于驳回动议的裁定已经处理了该问题，因为正如本院在该裁定中正确认定，Wagoner规则和同等过错原则不适用于关于另我的第二项反诉请求，因为受托人提出该项反诉请求，并非代位债务人，而是根据《破产法典》第544(a)条代位债务人的债权人。因此，我认为该问题已经得到解决。\n\n他们提出的另一项论点，是关于Lady May约定的论点，即主张该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，受托人将成为——更确切地说，破产财产的所有人将成为托管资金的所有人；该资金原本为37 million，目前约为$33 million。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交 05/01/23\n录入 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 24 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n我再次认为，这项抗辩已经在本院此前的一项裁定中得到处理并予以驳回；这次也是——我想也是关于驳回动议的裁定。\n\n本院将会记得，在该裁定中，本院广泛审查了适用的判例法，讨论了由占有中的债务人订立的约定在何种情形下对后来指定的受托人具有或不具有约束力。\n\n本院指出，大量判例均认定，该问题的答案取决于案件的事实和情形以及衡平因素。\n\n随后，本院依据该法律，逐项分析了本案所涉事实，并特别提出了四点。\n\n正如我们在所提交的答复书中指出的那样，这四点中的每一点，对于今日提交本院的简易判决动议，均与其对于驳回动议时同样有效，尽管两者的标准无疑不同。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交 05/01/23\n录入 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n其原因在于，对于与本院所确定的该四项考量有关的任何事实，不存在任何真实的重大事实争议。\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和债务人的女儿均不是债权人；二者都是约定的当事人，并且针对二者请求救济。\n\n正因如此，关于债权人对与占有中的债务人达成协议感到安心的政策关切并不涉及。对于与该项考量相关的事实，不存在争议。\n\n第二项考量，且依我之见极为重要的是，本院在裁定驳回动议时承认，若其“在另我请求的实体问题上认定受托人胜诉，允许受托人从托管资金中追偿不会对HK USA造成任何不利影响，因为本院将认定HK USA即为该个人债务人，或由该个人债务人拥有或控制。”\n\n随后，本院又称：“不存在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追索的公共政策利益。”\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023 20\n\n因此显然，法官阁下，本院面前的这项动议完全涉及HK USA是否为债务人的另我。只有在本院认为受托人已证明HK USA事实上是债务人的另我时，我们才会涉及该约定是否适用的问题。\n\n因此，我们是在这样一种情形下运作：与本院该项考量及驳回动议裁定有关的所有事实均已得到确立。\n\n我还要强调，我认为本院着重强调该问题或这些考量完全正确，因为如果最终认定HK USA是且一直是债务人的另我，那么允许本案债务人将Lady May约定作为一种有效的掩饰手段，以使现属其所有的$30 million以上资产免受其债权人追索，至少可以说将是极不公平的。\n\n若当时情况如此，且当时已知晓该情况，该约定的当事人，包括PAX（PAX）和Committee（委员会），绝不可能同意该约定。我也无法想象本院会批准该约定。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交 05/01/23\n录入 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 26 页，共 165 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交 05/01/23\n录入 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 27 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023 21\n\n因此，我认为，仅此一点，基于衡平因素，便足以使本院认定Lady May约定并不阻止受托人所寻求的救济。\n\n本院确定的下一项考量与上一项类似，即债务人从事空壳公司操弄等行为的历史，也为基于衡平理由裁定该约定不具约束力提供了适当背景。\n\n本院在此再次指出，我认为这一点很准确，即受托人为证明这种使用空壳公司操弄的行为而提出的证据类型，可能与债务人——或者受托人为证明HK USA是债务人另我而提出的证据相同。\n\n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使资产免受债权人追索这一事实，是本案约定不应被用来阻止受托人所寻求救济的另一理由。\n\n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指定受托人的动议尚待裁决。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交 05/01/23\n录入 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n因此，再次重申，这些都是本院在认定该约定对受托人不具约束力时所确定的考量因素，其中没有任何一项涉及真实的重大事实争议。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我最后想指出的是，我们在简易判决动议中还提出了另一项论点，即\n\n法院在驳回动议的裁定中未处理与我刚才所述事项相关的一个问题，但事实是，作为法律问题，如果在关于 Lady May（“Lady May”号）的约定作出时，HK USA（美国HK）与债务人互为另一个自我，即二者之间没有区别，那么作为法律问题，而且这是法律教科书中的合同法原则，二者之间的协议不具有约束力，因为合同法有一项不可改变的原则：任何人不得与其自身订立协议。每一项协议均须有两方当事人。我们已在书面材料中援引了支持该原则的权威依据。\n\n因此，法官阁下，我要提出的最后一点，随后我将保留任何补充意见以供反驳时提出，是反诉被告似乎在其异议书末尾提出请求，即如法院准许简易判决动议，则解除 PJR 和初步禁令。\n\n对此我只想说，这是\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 登记日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 29 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n一项单独的救济请求。事实上，反诉被告也承认这一点，已另行提出动议请求该项救济，该动议仍在审理中。他们曾请求加快审理，以便于今日审理。我们对此提出异议。据我所知，法院尚未发布命令将该事项排入日程。因此，我只想说，受托人保留在适当时候就该动议作出回应时处理该论点的权利。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我只有几个问题。\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。\n\n法院：我相信我理解你们的论点。我已阅读书面材料。正如我在你方陈述开始时所指出的，我将会——我正重点关注五项——即 56(a)(1) 和 (a)(2) 陈述。当反诉被告——反诉原告的律师陈述时——我的意思是，我已看到受托人提出的若干事实，反诉原告对此提出异议。当反诉原告在其陈述中提出该等异议时，你方可能需要准备作出回应，因为如你所知，受托人的 56(a)(1) 陈述中有 44 项事实，随后还有这些额外的重要事实，即\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n反诉原告所列明的事实。虽然你方目前尚未处理这些事实，但我将要求当事人处理这些问题。因此——\n\n巴塞特先生：不，不。\n\n法院：——我不知道你方是否希望此时就反诉原告列明的额外重要事实作出任何陈述，但我将要求你方作出回应——要么现在告诉我，要么我将在反诉原告提出其论点时要求你方回应这些问题。\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。我很愿意——或许我现在会在我能够回应的范围内作出回应。然后，显然，当律师——如若律师提出具体问题时，我可以在反驳时再次回应这些问题。我想说的是——显然，我们的 56.1 陈述载有若干事实，其中许多是为我们最终所请求的救济提供背景的事实。我今天在陈述中试图做的是，向法院强调我认为法院为认定 HK USA 是债务人的另一个自我而需要考虑的唯一重要事实。你知道，他们对其他事实提出异议。我们 56.1 陈述中的某些事实可能存在争议，但\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 登记日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 30 页，共 165 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n登记日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n法院——即使其中某些事实存在争议，也不会妨碍作出简易判决。\n\n法院：我并不是说会或不会。我只是说，我希望记录清楚——\n\n巴塞特先生：而我想要——\n\n法院：——关于这些问题。\n\n巴塞特先生：而我要强调的是，Rule 56.1 陈述很清楚，而且我此前已阐明并提供了相关引证，即 HK USA 曾经拥有的唯一资产是 Lady May，现在则是 Lady May II（“Lady May II”号）。同样无争议的是，受托人通过债务人拥有并控制这些资产。对此有一项承认。我认为是我所援引的第 12 段。同样无争议的是，以下是原文引述，因为它部分来源于 Vartan 律师提交给纽约法院的一封信，我们已将该信提交给法院。当然，他们在其事实陈述中完全承认，HK USA 从未有过管理人员、雇员、银行账户或董事。除 Lady May 和 Lady May II 外，其从未拥有其他资产。其从未——从未以任何方式获得资本注入。其从未为通信维护自己的电子邮件服务器。这些事实表明，HK USA 曾经所做的一切——\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 登记日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 32 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\nHK USA 曾经所做的一切——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）订立了某些合同之外，并无相反证据。他们所提及的合同，是与在船上工作的当事人订立的一系列保密协议，以及与人事公司订立的一份协议。\n\n对此有几点回应。\n\n第一，这些协议涉及 Lady May 的所有权和控制权。已经确定，债务人的女儿并不控制 Lady May 或其运营。顺便说一句，这是有充分理由的。该记录已提交法院，因为法院是在审理第一次简易判决动议时作出的决定。\n\n尽管法院基于争议遮断作出该项决定，但 Ostrager 法官作出其所作决定是有原因的。\n\n因为在 2022年2月的听证会上，当所有这些人员作证时——顺便说一句，Mei Guo 的证词记录也已提交本法院；我们作为简易判决动议答复的一部分提交了该记录，并要求她审阅、确认并同意这些人员在 Ostrager 法官面前所作的陈述。\n\nLady May 的前任船长、管理公司 YACHTZOO（YACHTZOO 管理公司）的人员，均出庭作证，且均称他们从未与债务人的女儿联系。她没有向他们发出指示。她在其证词中同意所有这些内容。我可以向法院提供证词记录的引证。\n\n他们还作证称，是债务人——即债务人本人、该女儿的父亲——就该船应驶往何处发出指示。有人被问及，债务人和债务人的女儿谁更多地在船上。他回答说，债务人多得多。\n\n鉴于反诉被告作为 HK USA 所谓额外活动唯一能够指出的事项，所有这些都具有相关性——如果你查看他们的全部事实陈述，其中全是关于 Ostrager 法官作出或未作出何种决定的无关内容。这既无关紧要也已无实际意义，因为争议遮断适用于所有权问题已构成案件既定法律。其他一切均与另一个自我分析无关。\n\n再次强调，因为据我所能回忆，他们唯一指出的是这些合同。但这些合同与 Lady May 有关，无法证明任何事项；Lady May 是 HK USA 唯一的资产，法院已经认定债务人拥有并控制该资产。\n\n因此，再次说明，我很愿意处理其他事实，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）— 2023年4月20日\n\n法院：你所说的 Guo 女士的证词，是附在你的声明中的那份，即今年1月的证词吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：是的。为记录起见，我将提供若干对具体证词的引证。该证词记录第 93 页——\n\n法院：好的。请稍等。好吗？我正在查看——\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。\n\n法院：我正在查看你的声明，我相信——证词记录是你声明的附件 12。对吗，还是不是？\n\n巴塞特先生：让我核实一下。\n\n法院：我想确保我查看的是正确文件。哦，也许不是。\n\n巴塞特先生：嗯，它是——\n\n法院：哦，你在看——你说的是你的——在答复中。\n\n巴塞特先生：是的。它附在答复中。\n\n法院：好的。因此，它并未附在你的原始声明中，而是附在答复中。\n\n巴塞特先生：没错。\n\n法院：即于星期一提交的 ECF 编号 209。我是说，今天是几号？星期二。星期二\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 登记日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 34 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n18 日。\n\n巴塞特先生：没错。\n\n法院：好的。继续。你是要我看第 93 页吗？你的意思是这样吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。法官阁下现在可以看，或者我可以向您提供记录引证，供您稍后查看。它——\n\n法院：我想现在就——\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。\n\n法院：——查看。\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。\n\n法院：好的？那么，在第 93 页的什么位置，你具体希望我查看？\n\n巴塞特先生：那么，如果您——我认为是从第 16 行开始。在证词中，我们要求 Guo 女士查看 Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）的证词，他是负责 YACHTZOO 管理工作的人。\n\n如果您查看第 93 页第 16 行至第 94 页第 16 行的该部分证词，她——Mei Guo 确认其证词准确，即她从未就游艇一事与他联系。\n\n如果您看第 95 页第 13 行至第 96 页第 3 行，Mei Guo 确认了她从未与 Stockil 先生交谈的证词。\n\n如果您看第 96 页第 4 行至第 22 行，她确认其证词，即所有与 Lady May 有关的指示均来自\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 登记日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 35 页，共 165 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n登记日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n“家族办公室”。\n\n因此，再次强调，你知道，即使他们指出这些管理协议，也不能确立对 HK USA 的独立控制，第一，因为法院已认定债务人拥有该控制权；第二，因为其他事实表明，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（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫）证词的问题。\n\n法院：抱歉。97 什么？请原谅。\n\n巴塞特先生：第 97 页第 13 行至第 99 页第 3 行。\n\n法院：好的。请稍等一下。\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。\n\n法院：好的。继续。\n\n巴塞特先生：这些是关于 Momchil Ivanov 的证词的问题，他是 Lady May 的前任船长。在此同样地，如果您查看记录，Mei Guo 同意 Ivanov 先生的证词，即他从未与 Mei Guo 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（克雷格·希斯洛普）的证词，他是现任 Lady May 船长。该处证词——Mei Guo 确认她对此没有异议——称债务人“时常在游艇上”。在被问及此事时，他称债务人比其女儿更多地在游艇上。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 登记日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 37 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\nMei Guo（郭美）也确认了我向法庭提请注意的这段摘录中 Mr. Heaslop（希斯洛普先生）的证词准确无误，即最终告诉他——告诉希斯洛普先生——该游艇不再需要停留在纽约的人并非郭美。她还确认了他的证词：债务人在使用该游艇时，每次都会指示其驶往何处。\n\n我还请法庭注意证言笔录第168页。\n\n法庭：请给我一点时间找到该页。\n\n巴西特律师：当然。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\n巴西特律师：她尤其被问及这些保密协议和这份人员配置协议，并被问到——这是168-13。她被问及是否知悉 HK USA（美国HK）还有任何载有——载有她签名的其他文件。她的证词是：“我不确定。”\n\n这并不令人惊讶，因为同样地，已经承认且不存在争议——更不用说真正的争议——HK USA没有从事任何其他活动。没有任何其他与她可能签署合同有关的事项。\n\n而且，为明确起见，她签署这些保密协议及一份人员配置协议这一事实，并不能从债务人手中夺走对HK USA的控制权；在此时，债务人无可争议地拥有并控制Lady May（“五月夫人”号）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 38 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n并控制Lady May。他是为Lady May作出决定的人。控制它的是他，而不是她。\n\n我还要指出，这些协议，即保密协议和人员配置协议，被提供并注明日期——至少可以说，颇为奇怪的是——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Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）认定完全不可信的证词，证明存在某种独立性，以及她以某种方式对HK USA行使独立控制。\n\n鉴于这一奇怪的时机，我们当然如证言笔录所示问过她，是否知悉任何其他协议、与现任船长签订的任何保密协议、其他时间的任何文件。\n\n法庭：你问过她这个问题？\n\n巴西特律师：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——在你刚才给我看的那一页上？你指的是那里吗？你说这发生在PAX诉讼期间——\n\n巴西特律师：不是。那件事是发生在那时。但我们是在——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴西特律师：——她的证言录取中问她这个问题。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\n巴西特律师：而且，我认为我刚才向法庭援引的证言录取证词正好证明了这一点，因为我们问她是否知悉任何其他协议。她说：“我不确定。”\n\n我认为有一次我们更具体地问她，是否与其他人签订过保密协议。我可以找到那部分内容。但无论如何，答案是否定的。我认为这很能说明问题，因为她唯一能够提出的保密协议和唯一协议，都是在存在诉讼理由需要出示它们时才出现的。\n\n所以，您知道，我还要仅就这个问题指出——我一直讨论的所有这些事实都与此相关。\n\n但关于禁止反言是否适用于此处的问题，再次说明，这不是我们主张的。我们并非主张这是一个禁止反言问题，即奥斯特拉格法官裁定了禁止反言——裁定了，您知道，另一个自我。\n\n相反，法庭已经裁定了所有权。这具有约束力。这是案件法则。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——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，刚才我所读的这些事实及记录中的其他事实也清楚表明——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1737\nFiled 05/01/23\nEntered 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n毫无疑问，Lady May的所有人和控制人是谁。\n\n除我刚才所读的事实外，如果您查看本案起诉状本身，其中的叙述是：郭美在中国被拘留期间，她的兄长于2015年2月为她购买了Lady May，尽管她直到——按她在起诉状中的自认——2017年5月之前，甚至在理论上都未曾来到美国并接触Lady May。\n\n但谁在美国，又谁能够使用这艘船？这是其起诉状中谈及Lady May于2015年2月被购买的段落之前的紧接一段。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，我们根本不应讨论此事，因为这个问题无需重新诉讼。但这就是奥斯特拉格法官作出该项裁定的原因。根本没有可信依据相信这艘游艇实际上是为该女儿而非债务人购买的。\n\n而且同样无争议——您看过起诉状。设立HK USA的目的是将Lady May从一个BDI实体转让给一个美国实体。\n\n我认为郭美在她的证言录取中说过——我没有该内容的具体出处——在本案的证言录取中，她说，哦，她认为如果该实体位于美国，会更容易控制。\n\n但重点在于，按照她自己的承认，这只是为持有该游艇而设立的空壳公司。仅此而已。并且已经确定，债务人拥有并控制该游艇。\n\n正如我所说，这是一个罕见的另一个自我案件，其罕见之处在于其简单性。这里的情况是，该实体从未从事过任何其他活动，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。谢谢你，巴西特律师。请反诉被告方陈述。\n\n韦尼克女士：早上好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n韦尼克女士：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特拉华州有限责任公司的另一个自我。\n\n这不同寻常，因为根据特拉华州公司法，并不存在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，尤其没有提出任何相反的判例法，并且今天上午在其陈述中仅作了顺带提及。\n\n法庭：让我在这里打断你一下。\n\n韦尼克女士：嗯哼。\n\n法庭：你说特拉华州没有法律支持认定不存在另一个自我——这是什么意思？\n\n韦尼克女士：当然，当然。因此，根据某种明确的特拉华州法律，揭开公司面纱适用于让成员或股东对公司的责任承担责任。\n\n此外，另有一种反向揭开公司面纱请求的法律构造，适用于让公司对股东的责任承担责任。\n\n法庭：那么，Walrath法官（沃尔拉特法官）的案件如何？该案称，不一定必须是公司，不一定必须是——它说，只要不存在某种关系，就可以揭开公司面纱。那个案件如何？\n\n韦尼克女士：因此，该关系必须得到确立。因此，在这里，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由债务人所有这一结论加以适用；而且我认为，在最初动议文件第2页上写得相当清楚，即唯一合理的结论必然是债务人也控制并拥有HK USA。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 42 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 43 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n但那是一个独立的法律分析和步骤，而在整个简易判决程序中确实被完全略过了，对吗？这——\n\n法庭：好的。我只是想理解你的论点。我并不是说——只是此刻不理解你的论点。好吗？这是一项依据另一个自我理论提出的反诉，对吗？所以他们在第三项反诉中作出了这些主张。而你说他们跳过了步骤，因为第一项反诉已经作出简易判决？\n\n韦尼克女士：所以，我的意思是，我认为——我不知道这是无意还是有意，但我认为提及这里的第三项反诉很重要，对吗？所以，目前我们是在就第二项反诉——\n\n法庭：抱歉。第二项反诉。\n\n韦尼克女士：——另一个自我问题进行简易判决程序。但我认为，法庭注意到存在第三项反诉是重要的；在该项反诉中，受托人明确主张HK USA由债务人所有，这与目前法庭面前的另一个自我主张形成对比。\n\n而我们的立场是，这是法庭审议并得出另一个自我问题结论所必需的步骤。通过实质上跳过他们就HK USA所有权提出的独立反诉——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1737\nFiled 05/01/23\nEntered 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n受托人是在请求法庭在作出其另一个自我认定时，实际上依赖更多结论性的论点。\n\n法庭：好的。所以你是说，简易判决动议应当同时涉及第2项和第3项罪名项？\n\n韦尼克女士：所以，因为我认为——\n\n法庭：这就是你的论点吗？\n\n韦尼克女士：是的。本质上是。因为这对于——而言是一个重要步骤，而且确实——这是受托人的举证责任，对吗？\n\n我们现在是在一项简易判决动议中，以确立作为另一个自我分析一部分的HK USA所有权和控制权。而HK USA的所有权和控制权，是一个比今天上午法庭面前这份确实相当单薄的记录更需要事实密集审查的问题。\n\n法庭：那么，当你说记录单薄时，你已经在你方56(a)(2)陈述第7段中承认，HK USA没有产生收入；没有董事、高管或雇员；没有提交纳税申报表；没有银行账户，也未以其他方式——未以其他方式获得资本注入；并且除与Lady May有关的文件外，没有保存任何文件。这是你方的承认。那么这怎么会是单薄的？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—April 20, 2023 39\n\n1 WERNICK 女士：因为不存在关联——而这正是今天上午本简易判决动议的关键所在。2 而且，我认为，如果我们是在就有关 HK USA（HK USA）所有权的反诉第三项出庭，情况会更加清楚。因为第 7 段中没有任何内容将其与债务人联系起来，对吗？8 因此，这些是一般性地关于 HK USA 的陈述。但其中没有任何内容将所有权或控制权与债务人联系起来。我认为，这正是受托人所——\n\n12 法庭：那么，当你说没有任何内容与所有权或控制权相联系时，你是说本庭此前的命令与该问题无关吗？\n\n15 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，本庭此前关于反诉第一项的命令涉及一项特定资产，即 Lady May（Lady May 号）。\n\n20 法庭：对。而你刚刚在第 7 段中承认，那就是——HK USA 曾拥有的全部资产。\n\n22 WERNICK 女士：所以，那是——但那不是——其中并未承认那就是其全部目的，或并未将债务人与 HK USA 联系起来——\n\n25 法庭：那么，等一下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 45 页，共 165 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 46 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—April 20, 2023\n\n1 WERNICK 女士：——该实体。\n\n2 法庭：等一下。这就有些不同了。你现在改变了你的论点。你承认 HK USA 唯一的资产是 Lady May 号。5 而且你刚刚陈述，本庭认定债务人拥有并控制 Lady May 号，对吗？那么——\n\n7 WERNICK 女士：是的。\n\n8 法庭：那么我就不理解你的论点了。\n\n10 WERNICK 女士：而这正是受托人今天上午要求您作出的推论，即认定债务人拥有——债务人拥有 Lady May 号，就足以确定债务人也必定拥有 HK USA，或者其必定因此是另一实体的替身，而无需作出额外的举证或认定。16 还有一点——我认为这是此前与律师讨论中遗漏的重要一点——即，尽管我们承认 HK USA 的资产是 Lady May 号，但我们来到这里的真正原因，对吗，并不是 Lady May 号。受托人已经拥有 Lady May 号。我们来到这里的真正原因，是受托人也希望将 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）提供的 \\$37 million 贷款作为破产财产的一部分取得。24 因此，毫无疑问，我们已在我们的重要事实陈述中纳入这一点——我将向您提供相关段落引用——从我们补充事实的第 53 段开始——即与 Himalaya 的贷款协议——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—April 20, 2023 41\n\n1 法庭：等一下。你在第几页？\n\n5 WERNICK 女士：抱歉。在第 53 段。\n\n6 法庭：你补充的重要事实中的第 53 段？\n\n8 WERNICK 女士：是。第 23 页，第 53 段。\n\n9 法庭：好的。请继续。\n\n10 WERNICK 女士：即，关于 Himalaya 贷款的协议是由 Guo 女士（郭女士）订立的，而 Guo 女士已就该 \\$37 million 贷款提供个人保证。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）待决的一项仲裁中被作为个人起诉。\n\n17 法庭：那么，好吧。你刚才所说的内容在第 53 段的什么地方？\n\n19 WERNICK 女士：第 53 段，延续至下一页的第 56 段。\n\n21 法庭：好的。好。这正是我所说的。\n\n23 WERNICK 女士：是。\n\n24 法庭：请告诉我你是在什么地方读到的。告诉我——好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 47 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—April 20, 2023 42\n\n1 WERNICK 女士：当然。没问题。因此，并非直接宣读。但这些要点在第——\n\n4 法庭：好的。\n\n5 WERNICK 女士：——53 至 56 段中有一般性提及。\n\n6 法庭：好的。那么，在 \\$37 million 被存入托管时，法庭何时得知该贷款由 Mei Guo（郭美）保证？因为我不记得在现在之前曾经得知此事。\n\n10 WERNICK 女士：这当然是记录的一部分。我相信这是此前 PJR 程序的一部分——\n\n13 法庭：但在当时——我——那不是问题所在。\n\n15 WERNICK 女士：是。所以我——\n\n16 法庭：问题是，何时——\n\n17 WERNICK 女士：我不知道这一具体问题的答案，即在 August of 2022 是否提出了该问题。\n\n20 法庭：哦，我认为那早于 August 2022。我认为 \\$37 million 在——在债务人仍为占有中的债务人时，就已被交付并存入托管。24 那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——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 48 页，共 165 页\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—April 20, 2023\n\n1 拟议重组计划有关，其中 Lady May 号将被实质上赠与破产财产，以使债权人受益。\n\n4 因此，我的问题是，你现在提出的事实，在该 \\$37 million 交易发生时从未披露或提出。根据我的记忆，这是来自 Himalaya financial 的一笔贷款。并且没有——我的意思是，如果我错了，应当有人纠正我。9 但我不记得曾听说任何关于 Guo 女士的事；我甚至不认为她当时——在那个时候——已在本案中提交出庭通知，而且她当时当然也未在本庭获得代理，即她保证了该 \\$37 million 贷款。14 所以你现在增加——所以你——我之所以与你进行这番讨论，是因为你告诉我这些是额外的重要事实。那么，它如何具有重要性？18 就第二项反诉而言，就 Guo 女士是否个人保证一笔贷款、未予偿还，以及欧洲存在某项程序，简易判决是否应作出，这如何构成重要事实？\n\n23 WERNICK 女士：当然。因为 Guo 女士作为 HK USA 的所有者保证了该贷款。HK USA 与 Himalaya 签订了贷款协议。Guo 女士——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 50 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—April 20, 2023\n\n1 法庭：那么，保证协议在哪里？你提交了吗？\n\n3 WERNICK 女士：它——在对——是的。因此，在我们的事实陈述中——\n\n5 法庭：但实际协议是否——\n\n6 WERNICK 女士：是的。\n\n7 法庭：好的。\n\n8 WERNICK 女士：作为——因为我认为它们都被纳入 PJR 程序的证物中。因此，被引用的事实陈述——\n\n11 法庭：是的。但我的问题是，你是否就本简易判决动议提交了它？\n\n14 WERNICK 女士：是的，通过事实陈述中对具体案卷编号的引用。\n\n16 法庭：好。那么回到你的那一段。你是在第 53 段？\n\n18 WERNICK 女士：对。因此，真正的要点是，因为这正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。23 仅此一点就清楚表明，HK 的独立法人地位与其唯一成员 Guo 女士密不可分；她签署了贷款协议并且——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—April 20, 2023\n\n1 保证了该贷款。\n\n2 法庭：好的。等一下。我想看一下这个。你所指的是，我相信，在本对抗程序中——你说保证协议在 ECF 84。因此，让我们用一点时间看一下。7 而且，如你所记得，你的当事人同意作出 PJR。因此，法庭从未审阅过该证物，也没有——也没有将该证物作为证据引入。我的意思是，它是记录的一部分，但仅限于其出现在案卷上的意义而言。因此，让我看一下。你们的证物共有 3,206 页。因此我将查看证物 84-2。这需要一点时间来——14 嗯，我正在查看本对抗程序中的 84-1。其载明，HK International Funds Investments USA（HK International Funds Investments USA），在 Delaware（特拉华州）注册成立，借款人，Himalaya International Financial Group BBI（Himalaya International Financial Group BBI，音），贷款人，April 29, 2022。April 19, 2022 贷款协议的附函。\n\n20 WERNICK 女士：对。而且我相信——\n\n21 法庭：所以——\n\n22 WERNICK 女士：——84 正本是完整的贷款协议，而 84-1 是附函。\n\n24 法庭：但在债务人作为占有中的债务人时，该附函何时曾在债务人案件中被作为证据引入？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—April 20, 2023 46\n\n1 债务人是占有中的债务人？\n\n2 WERNICK 女士：我想我无法评论。但我也不完全确定，就我们今天上午的讨论而言，这一点的关联性为何。\n\n5 法庭：那么，是你使它具有关联性的，对吗？你说这是一个——这是一个对重要事实的真实争议。你告诉我这具有关联性。因此我问你，这何时曾经——而且它绝对具有关联性。10 我的意思是，你主张本庭应当以某种方式审阅此前从未在任何形式的证据听证中作为证据提出过的事实，即关于一项贷款保证；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庭披露时，这些——这些内容均未提交给法庭。所有这些信息均未呈现在法庭面前。18 而现在——你说——而且你的论点是，顺便说一句，涉及全部这 37 million 的那项约定，受托人受其约束。这就是你的论点。22 因此，你现在问我，我为何认为这具有关联性？因为你现在说你认为它具有关联性。而我问你，在本对抗程序之前，该信息何时曾被载入本案记录。显然，它没有。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 52 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—April 20, 2023 47\n\n1 程序之前。而且，显然，它没有。\n\n2 WERNICK 女士：那么，我的意思是，我想我的问题是——如果我由于更多语义上的误解而感到抱歉——因为我的——我们现在正在处理它——\n\n6 法庭：我不认为这是语义问题。我认为这是事实问题，对吗？\n\n8 WERNICK 女士：嗯，这是事实，但——这些协议的存在是为了——目的的重要事实——\n\n11 法庭：那么它们如何——不。请原谅。但它们是事实。如果你现在说受托人应受该约定约束，而你又说受托人应因诸多理由受该约定约束，包括 Guo 女士保证了该贷款——这一事实在本对抗程序之前无人知晓——那么它们如何具有重要性？\n\n18 WERNICK 女士：为明确起见，我——我现在的论点并不涉及该约定。我理解本庭已在其驳回动议的裁定中，就围绕该约定的论点作出了裁决。因此，那并非我的意图。23 我想提出这项保证，是就如下观点而言：除这些协议之外，Guo 女士与 HK USA 之间不存在任何联系。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第 53 页，共 165 页\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—April 20, 2023\n\n1 该律师今晨已经提及。\n而且它\n2 涉及——\n3 法庭：\n那么，37 million 与 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）有关。因此，所有事项都与 Lady May 有关。存入托管账户的 \\$37\n4 million，是就返还 Lady May 的约定而存入托管账户的。\n5\n6 这是否\n7 正确？\n8 Wernick 女士（韦尼克）：\n是。而且该项保证由 Guo 女士（郭美）个人\n9 作出。\n10 法庭：\n而且无人知晓该保证是由其个人\n11 作出的。顺便说一下，我正在查看该保证\n12 协议，其中写明其生效日期为 April 19，\n13 且签字没有见证人，没有任何其他内容，也没有日期。因此，我们\n14 无从得知该保证协议是在何时签署的。\n15 案卷中没有任何内容能够证明\n16 该保证协议实际上是在\n17 贷款发放时订立的。\n18 在本院审理\n19 解除自动停止效力动议并作出裁决时，也没有向本院提交任何证据\n20 表明 Guo 女士个人保证该 \\$37\n21 million 贷款。她以何种财产为该贷款提供个人保证\n22 ？\n23 Wernick 女士：\n是。\n24 法庭：\n担保物是什么？\n25 Wernick 女士：\n那么——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n1 法庭：\n她拥有什么？\n2 Wernick 女士：\n没有。而且现在——\n3 法庭：\n你可以谈谈这个。\n4 Wernick 女士：\n是。\n5 法庭：\n如果你想讨论其\n6 重要性，并且如果你认为其重要，那么它\n7 就必须与她拥有什么资产有关——即——\n8 为何 Himalaya Financial（喜马拉雅金融）会需要她的\n9 个人保证。因为这正是保证的用途。\n10 那么，她拥有什么资产？如果你\n11 说这些事实很重要，那么你尚未\n12 完成你需要完成的全部论证。明白吗？\n13 因此，我不认为这具有重要性，除非你\n14 能够以某种方式证明——首先，存在一份\n15 没有日期的保证协议。其并非——确实没有日期。它写的是\n16 生效日期为。我不知道她何时签署该协议。它从未\n17 成为本案案卷的一部分。\n18 而你现在来到这里对我说，但是，\n19 法官，您不能就这项反诉作出简易判决的原因\n20 是，Mei Guo（郭美）保证了 Himalaya Financial 为使 \\$37\n21 million 进入本破产财产并为将 Lady\n22 May 返还美国而发放的贷款。\n23 这就是你所说的。\n24 Wernick 女士：\n那么，我——恭敬地说，法官阁下，我主张这已作为\n25 我们证据附件的一部分而成为案卷的一部分\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023 50 1 自其被纳入我们的证据附件以来。受托人\n2 当然——\n3 法庭：PJR 证据附件——\n4 Wernick 女士：\n对。正确。\n5 法庭：——是在数月前提交的，且远在\n6 贷款发放之后，以及 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）不再是\n7 占有中的债务人之后，对吗？\n8 Wernick 女士：\n正确。\n9 法庭：\n好的。\n10 Wernick 女士：\n正确。\n11 法庭：\n请继续。\n12 Wernick 女士：\n是。毫无争议的是，\n13 Guo 女士现已因该保证而被起诉，且\n14 其个人须承担责任，原因在于——\n15 法庭：\n嗯，我不知道是否毫无\n16 争议。你在这里提交了她已被起诉的材料。\n17 好的。\n18 Wernick 女士：\n是。那么，我的意思是——\n19 法庭：\n她已被起诉。\n20 Wernick 女士：\n——但我们正在——我的意思是，我们——\n21 我们再次附上了——\n22 法庭：\n好的。\n23 Wernick 女士：\n——至案卷——\n24 法庭：\n请继续。\n25 Wernick 女士：\n——一份——好吧。谢谢您，法官\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 56 页，共 165 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n1 阁下。\n2 法庭：\n请继续。\n3 Wernick 女士：\n但这恰恰是关键所在。并且\n4 我认为，说这是为证明 Guo 女士对\n5 下述事项所有权而提出的唯一内容，是一种谬误：\n6 ——\n7 法庭：\n嗯，是你将其——你已经将其\n8 置于争议之中，因为你说它具有重要性。\n9 Wernick 女士：\n哦，我仍坚持该观点。\n10 我认为它很重要。我认为 HK USA（香港美国公司）的\n11 运营协议很重要。我认为所有——\n12 法庭：\n而且这一切都有关联——并且 HK USA 所拥有的唯一\n13 资产是 Lady May。\n14 Wernick 女士：\n正确。\n15 法庭：\n而且 Guo 女士据称作出的唯一\n16 保证，是针对一笔直接与 Lady May\n17 有关的贷款，对吗？\n18 Wernick 女士：\n而且她现在须对此承担责任。\n19 正确。\n20 法庭：\n嗯，无论她是否须承担责任，\n21 那都不是本院要处理的问题，对吗？\n22 Wernick 女士：\n但这直接关系到受托人要求您推断的\n23 支配控制问题。该支配控制以及——\n24 法庭：\n他们并未要求我作出推断\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n1 任何事项。他们要求我认定不存在\n2 任何真实的重大事实争议，而其中大部分你已在你的 Rule 56(a)(2) 声明中\n3 承认。他们并未\n4 要求我作出任何推断。\n5 Wernick 女士：\n我的意思是，我不同意。因为他们\n6 是从 Lady May 归债务人所有这一命题出发，\n7 该命题已由本院认定，目前正处于上诉中，而我们今天上午并不寻求\n8 在本程序中对其进行附带攻击。\n9\n10 然而，他们以本院已经裁定的该命题为基础，并且——\n11 我不知道除此之外还能如何表述，但这就是推断，因为他们实质上在其书状第 2 页\n12 所称的内容是——案卷中唯一可能的\n13 结论是，债务人也拥有并控制\n14 HK USA。\n15\n16 我不知道该如何称呼，除非称其为\n17 一项未由其声明中所提出的任何重大事实支持的推断，该等事实\n18 将债务人与独立法人实体\n19 HK USA 联系起来。\n20 我的意思是，再次回到我们——本院在第 7 段中\n21 提到的段落。该段中没有任何内容\n22 将 HK USA 与债务人联系起来。因此，\n23 从我们的角度来看，今天上午程序的真正核心是，\n24 在实际就债务人对 HK\n25 USA 的所有权作出认定时跳过必要步骤；坦率地说，我在受托人提交的案卷中看不到任何此类内容。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n1 USA 的所有权作出认定时跳过必要步骤；坦率地说，我在受托人提交的案卷中看不到任何此类内容。\n2\n3 而且我认为，切入另我认定的要点——并且，我认为，\n4 可以公平地说，法院根据 Delaware law（特拉华州法）审查的无争议双要件检验，\n5 这又回到了我们不久前讨论的支配控制\n6 问题，以及是否作为一个单一经济实体经营。\n7\n8 因此，提交给本院的案卷——并且，我再次请您注意我们补充事实声明\n9 中自第 10 段开始的内容——表明 Guo 女士是 HK\n10 USA 的所有人。她是\n11 运营协议中提及的唯一成员。\n12\n13 我认为，毫无争议的是，她于\n14 2019 年设立该公司，顺便说一句，这比本次破产\n15 早数年，也早于\n16 纽约诉讼中的判决书。Guo 女士是\n17 与 HK USA 有关协议的签署人。而且，Guo 女士\n18 再次个人保证 HK USA 的贷款义务。\n19\n20 而且，就本次讨论而言，更为重要的是，\n21 因为本院并未——\n22 受托人并未要求本院认定\n23 HK USA 存在一个另我。其要求本院\n24 认定债务人是 HK USA 的另我。但是\n25 不存在任何涉及债务人的协议。没有\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023 54 1 债务人作为签署人或受益人的协议。\n2 法庭：\n法律中的何处规定\n3 必须——必须存在该等协议？\n4 Wernick 女士：\n那么——\n5 法庭：\n你援引 Delaware law 下的哪些案例——\n6 其规定必须——必须存在该等协议，\n7 任何法院方可作出受托人所寻求的\n8 认定——\n9 Wernick 女士：\n当然。我请本院注意我们书状中就该\n10 事实所援引的案例——\n11 法庭：\n不，我是在问你。\n12 Wernick 女士：\n这是一个事实——\n13 法庭：\n你在那些案例中告诉我，哪里——\n14 Wernick 女士：\n是。哪里——\n15 法庭：\n——哪里持有该观点。\n16 Wernick 女士：\n当然。根据 Delaware law，这是一个\n17 取决于具体事实的认定。而且，恭敬地说，本院面前的事实\n18 并不能得出受托人要求本院在\n19 简易判决中作出的结论，因为举证责任在他们一方，对吗？\n20\n21 因此，今天上午律师陈述中多次提到的\n22 是，没有任何——回看 HK USA，\n23 没有任何我们提出的内容能够——您知道——挑战他们的\n24 假设。但举证责任在他们一方，对吗？他们承担\n25 举证责任以证明——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 60 页，共 165 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n1 举证责任以证明——\n2 法庭：\nDelaware law 中何处规定\n3 他们有举证责任证明，他们寻求就该第二项反诉\n4 获得简易判决的一方\n5 必须是合同的一方？在你援引的任何案例中，\n6 何处有此规定？\n7 Wernick 女士：\n这是一项——那么，我的意思是，恭敬地说，\n8 这是一项整体性认定。但是，没有任何案例——换个角度说，\n9 受托人并未援引任何案例，而且我确信如果有的话，\n10 他们一定会以醒目的方式向本院指出——该案例支持如下命题：\n11 仅仅因为就一项资产作出了认定，\n12 就必然意味着一个独立法人实体是该资产所有人的\n13 另我。\n14\n15 而且，事实上，我认为这——\n16 法庭：\n该实体的唯一资产。而且\n17 你已经承认——\n18 Wernick 女士：\n是。\n19 法庭：\n——多次承认，正如你的\n20 当事人在证言中所承认的。\n21 Wernick 女士：\n当然。但是，那将导致如下滑坡式\n22 结论：任何控股公司都会自动成为另我——\n23 法庭：\n嗯，不会，因为你\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 62 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n1 刚才陈述，这取决于案件的事实和情况，\n2 对吗？\n3 Wernick 女士：\n正确。\n4 法庭：\n好的。\n5 Wernick 女士：\n当然。这是一个取决于具体事实的——\n6 法庭：\n好的。\n7 Wernick 女士：\n——审查，而法院经常认定，\n8 由于该事实审查，其尚不适宜在简易判决中作出认定。\n9 因此，我为——我正在找页码，抱歉。\n10 但我请您注意我们书状第 55 段所援引的案例。\n11\n12 法庭：\n好的。\n13 Wernick 女士：\n这涉及另我分析的第一项\n14 要件。而且我认为，受托人所作陈述对于第二项\n15 要件同样只是结论性陈述，即不知何以 HK USA 是在实施\n16 欺诈或不公。\n17\n18 我将回到如下事实：HK USA 是\n19 Guo 女士于 2019 年设立的，早于破产\n20 程序数年，也早于纽约诉讼中的判决书。\n21\n22 因此，他们以结论性方式称，不可能有其他结论认为其意图服务于某种\n23 欺诈，再次跳过并试图在简易判决中跳过必要的\n24 事实认定。\n25 因此，确实，法官阁下，我的意思是，这就是——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 63 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 20, 2023\n\n我们论证的核心以及我们在书面文件中所提出的内容，是回到一个非常简单的主张：我们根本不同意受托人试图采取的第一步，即认定 Lady May 属于债务人所有；然后再跳过两三步，主张 HK USA 因此必定以某种方式是债务人的另一个自我。要得出该结论，必须作出若干必要认定；我们谨此陈述，根据法院目前掌握的记录，无法作出这些认定。\n\n法院：好的。还有什么要补充的吗？\n\n韦尼克女士：没有了。谢谢。\n\n法院：巴塞特先生，您有什么回应吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：有，法官阁下。我仅就回应提出几点。首先，对方律师一开始提出的论点之一是，我们跳过了一个步骤，因为我们必须先确定债务人拥有 HK USA，之后才能请求认定其为债务人的另一个自我。我认为法律上没有任何依据支持该主张。\n\n我认为，正如法院所确认的，适用标准就是判例法所规定的标准：必须证明某一人或实体对另一人或实体行使支配和控制，并且其目的在于实施欺诈或造成不公正。\n\n我可以向法院援引一些案件，以支持如下主张：为了——我认为这显而易见——刺破公司面纱或认定存在另一个自我关系，据称将另一实体作为其另一个自我使用的人，并不必须是该公司的登记股东、所有人或成员。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1737 于 05/01/23 提交 于 05/01/23 14:40:20 录入 第 64 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n我向法院援引的案件是 United States（美国）诉 Golden Acres（黄金亩地）案，702 F. Supp. 1097，第 113 页，注释 7，District of Delaware（特拉华地区法院），1988 年。该案随后获 Third Circuit（第三巡回上诉法院）维持。“即使被告个人并不持有公司任何股份，只要已确立必要的行为及完全控制，仍可适用另一个自我原则。”\n\n另一案件是 United States Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）诉 Levine（莱文）案，671 F. Supp. 2d. 14，第 34 至 35 页。本案是 District of D.C.（哥伦比亚特区地区法院）于 2009 年适用 Delaware（特拉华州）法律作出的裁决，并认定缺乏股东、高级管理人员或董事身份，并不妨碍作出刺破公司面纱的认定。\n\n其他司法辖区的案件也适用类似标准。Freeman（弗里曼）诉 Complex Computing Company（复杂计算公司）案，119 F.3d 1044，Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院），1997 年，第 1051 页。法院指出，New York（纽约州）法院对于刺破公司面纱，仅要求衡平法上的所有权，而不要求实际所有权。\n\nMallard Auto Group Ltd.（野鸭汽车集团有限公司）诉 LeClair Management（勒克莱尔管理公司）\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\nCorporation（公司）案，153 F. Supp. 2d. 1211，District of Nevada（内华达地区法院）2001 年，第 1215 页。其他判决指出，为认定另一个自我，Delaware（特拉华州）与 Nevada（内华达州）的分析方法相同。在我提及的案件中，法院认定，未持有股份并非另一个自我问题的决定性因素。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1737 于 05/01/23 提交 于 05/01/23 14:40:20 录入 第 65 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n因此，法官阁下，我认为不存在争议：在认定 HK USA 为债务人的另一个自我之前，无须先行作出债务人拥有 HK USA 的前提性认定。我在开场陈述中已经提出这一点，但请从实际和衡平的角度考虑其后果。\n\n任何试图通过使用另一个自我来向其债权人隐匿资产的债务人，都只需让其女儿或其他人为名义所有人。如此一来，按照被告及反诉被告的主张，就永远无法刺破公司面纱或反向刺破公司面纱，也永远无法认定存在另一个自我。这不可能是法律规定。\n\n就相关事实存在大量讨论——实际上，据我理解，关于 HK USA 为何不是债务人另一个自我的全部反驳理由，基本上都在于女儿为 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）贷款签署了个人保证，以及据称该项 Himalaya 贷款是女儿代表 HK USA 取得的。对此有几点回应。\n\n首先，我认为法院正确地指出，我看不出该事实如何具有重要性，尤其是在涉及个人保证时。我的意思是，如果如我们所主张——并且如我们所证明——HK USA 是债务人的另一个自我，那么女儿作出该保证这一事实，即便该保证是真实且可执行的，也至多表明她保证了实质上属于其父亲的义务。这丝毫不能证明她才是拥有和控制 HK USA 的人。\n\n关于第 33 项——或者，关于——是的，关于 Himalaya 贷款问题，我认为其背景、历史以及更广泛且无争议的事实记录至关重要。因为，基于我已经讨论的所有理由，并且正如法院所审查的事实陈述所明确显示的，毫无争议的是，HK USA 除持有 Lady May 和 Lady May II 之外，从未从事过任何其他活动。\n\n它从未有过雇员、高级管理人员、董事或银行账户，没有资本金，坦率地说，也没有能力从事任何其他业务。这些情况均属事实。已经证实，在 Lady May 约定达成时以及在该项据称贷款发生时，这些情况均属事实。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1737 于 05/01/23 提交 于 05/01/23 14:40:20 录入 第 67 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023 61\n\n因此，按照被告所主张的情况，你至多只能得出：债务人的女儿决定使用其父亲的另一个自我来取得一笔贷款。顺便说一句，鉴于相关背景，这完全合乎逻辑。\n\n因为该笔贷款的全部动因，以及 Lady May 约定的全部动因，都是债务人站在本法院面前，迫切希望避免法院解除中止令，从而允许 PAX 在 Ostrager 法官面前继续其诉讼。\n\n因此，我认为记录相当清楚地显示，这一切都是为了债务人的利益而进行的。再次说明，这完全符合 HK USA 在贷款发生时是、并且始终都是债务人的另一个自我这一事实。\n\n不能因为——对方所能提出的最好依据，就是 HK USA 整个历史中的这一孤立事件。但不能因为——即便 Mei Guo（郭梅）签署了其中一些文件，也不能因此改变 HK USA 的真实性质；不能因此意味着它不再是债务人的另一个自我。\n\n我的意思是，我认为他们要求法院得出的结论确实令人惊异，因为他们实际上是在说，女儿可以代表 HK USA 签署该项贷款，而 HK USA 在当时以及始终都是债务人的另一个自我，其目的在于就 Lady May 约定误导法院。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1737 于 05/01/23 提交 于 05/01/23 14:40:20 录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n然后，因为她这样做了，仅因这一点，法院随后便不能认定 HK USA 是债务人的另一个自我。我的意思是，我认为这是一项荒谬的主张，因为它允许他们通过不当行为来阻止针对该不当行为的救济。\n\n还有几点被提出。该事实——这也涉及欺诈或不公正的问题。\n\n但我认为，对方律师称，虽然女儿名义上设立了 HK USA，而且她确实是在所涉部分事件发生之前设立的，但如果她主张所涉实体必须自设立之初即为了实施欺诈或不公正，或为了成为另一个自我，而设立，那么这就是对 Delaware（特拉华州）法律的误解——这根本不是法律规定。\n\n法律规定的是，该实体必须被用作另一人的另一个自我。但即便法律确有如此规定——而事实上并非如此——我再次认为，记录绝对清楚地表明此处发生了什么。债务人的女儿称，她的兄弟在她身处 China（中国）时于 2015 年为她购买了一艘游艇，但她直到 2017 年才来到 United States（美国）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1737 于 05/01/23 提交 于 05/01/23 14:40:20 录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n与此同时，债务人一直在这里。然后她称，HK USA 是作为持有该游艇的空壳公司设立的。\n\n我的意思是，这一切均不改变另一个自我的分析。因此，为回应法院提出的问题，这并不具有重要性。\n\n对方律师没有重新论及任何抗辩。我认为这是因为他们承认法院已经在驳回动议中裁定了这些问题。因此，我不会在结案陈述中再次论及这些问题。\n\n法官阁下，我只想说，我们确实认为，尽管另一个自我无疑通常需要进行高度依赖事实的分析，但根据双方在其书面陈述中一致认可的事实，本案已适合进行简易判决。\n\n因为不存在任何真正的重大事实争议：债务人通过对 HK USA 唯一资产行使支配和控制，从而支配和控制了 HK USA；该唯一资产构成其所从事任何业务的唯一基础；并且他这样做的目的，是为了向其债权人隐匿资产。这一点已由如下事实明确显示：债务人与其女儿多年来竭力维持彼此独立的假象，以向债权人隐匿 Lady May。\n\n因此，我们认为并谨此请求法院准许受托人的动议。谢谢。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\n（律师协商）\n\n法院：我再给他们一分钟，然后给您回应的机会。好的，律师？\n\n（律师协商）\n\n巴塞特先生：对此抱歉，法官阁下。感谢您的宽容。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。韦尼克律师，您想回应吗？\n\n韦尼克女士：当然。仅简要回应。谢谢。\n\n关于涉及 Wagoner rule（瓦格纳规则）、in pari delicto（同等过错）以及 Lady May 约定的抗辩，我想澄清一点。\n\n为明确记录，HK USA 并未放弃，并维持其就这些原则及该约定所持的立场；但鉴于法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问题。\n\n最后，我想向法院强调的是，鉴于书面陈述中提出的所有信息，除 Lady May 外，没有任何事实将债务人与 HK USA 实体联系起来。我们将继续\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1737 于 05/01/23 提交 于 05/01/23 14:40:20 录入 第 70 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 65\n\n所提交的材料不足以在现阶段作出人格混同认定。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n好的。我已听取各方的论点。我认为今天可能援引了一两个未载于书面陈述中的案件。Bassett先生（巴塞特），是这样吗，即您援引的那些案件？\n\nBassett先生：是的，我在反驳时援引的几个案件确实未载于书面陈述中。但是它们——\n\n法庭：好的。那么我必须审阅那些案件。\n\nBassett先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：因此，我将在今天的听证会后审阅此事，并将据此作出裁定。好吗？谢谢。\n\n今天日程上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（郭梅）及HK不应因未遵守2004传票而被裁定藐视法庭的动议，以及由Kwok先生提出的请求有限中止命令之动议；我认为这些事项——我认为这些事项相互关联。\n\n因此，我将首先审理动议方关于藐视法庭以及宪法第五修正案问题的动议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 71 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 66\n\n涉及法庭裁定应就宪法第五修正案问题进行进一步听证。好吗？\n\nMoriarty先生（莫里亚蒂）：是的，法官阁下，仅为记录在案，该动议——藐视法庭动议仅涉及债务人。\n\n法庭：目前是这样。\n\nMoriarty先生：好的。\n\n法庭：没错。\n\nMoriarty先生：所以——\n\n法庭：但我只是——那是该动议的标题，仅此而已。\n\nMoriarty先生：我明白。Wernick律师（韦尼克）——我认为我们今天已处理完HK、Mei以及Guo女士的事项。因此，我认为她可以离席，其他律师将加入我们。\n\n法庭：律师，你们可自行采取认为适当的做法。\n\nMoriarty先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nDespins先生（德斯平斯）：法官阁下，我是受托人Despins。在处理实体问题之前，如获准许，我希望就Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）参与这些事项一事，先行陈述意见。\n\n法庭：我将允许你陈述意见，然后我必须允许律师就你为记录在案所作的任何陈述作出回应，Despins受托人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 72 of 165\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 67\n\nDespins先生：那么请告诉我何时可以开始。\n\n法庭：请开始——哦，实际上，你说得对。请稍等。我们需要请Kwok先生的代理律师作出出庭声明。\n\nBest先生（斯蒂芬·贝斯特）：谢谢，法官阁下。我是Stephen Best，来自Brown Rudnick律师事务所华盛顿哥伦比亚特区办公室，B-E-S-T。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nBaldiga先生（威廉·鲍尔迪加）：再次向您道早安，法官阁下。William Baldiga。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nBaldiga先生：谢谢。\n\nHenzy先生（埃里克·亨齐）：我是Eric Henzy，来自Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），代理Kwok先生。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nHenzy先生：早上好，法官阁下。\n\nMoriarty先生：James Moriarty，Zeisler & Zeisler律师事务所，同样代理债务人。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nDespins受托人，请稍等。\n\nFriedman律师，您是否要作出出庭声明？\n\nFriedman先生（彼得·弗里德曼）：是的，法官阁下。我是Peter Friedman，来自O'Melveny & Myers（奥梅尔文尼与迈尔斯律师事务所），代表PAX。我将请求在动议的背景下作简要陈述。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1737\nFiled 05/01/23\nEntered 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\nFriedman先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nClaiborn女士（霍莉·克莱伯恩）：法官阁下，早上好。\n\nHolley Claiborn，代表U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n好的。我了解到，近期已就这些问题提交了一些诉状，而Despins受托人显然希望就其中一些问题提出论点；尽管我可能知悉这些问题，但我不确定我是否已实际研究过。\n\n那么请开始，Despins受托人。\n\nDespins先生：为便于法庭处理，您知道，我们今天并不就此请求任何救济。\n\n但我们当然不希望被视为放弃任何权利。\n\n我们就中止动议提交的文件中已提出这一点，具体如下：Brown Rudnick在本案中曾作为占有中债务人的代理律师代表债务人，现在则以刑事辩护律师身份代表其个人。\n\n正如法官阁下可能知道的，作为我们对这里发生何事进行调查的一部分，我们正在对所有此前曾向债务人提供服务的律师事务所进行讯问。这将包括Brown Rudnick，\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1737\nFiled 05/01/23\nEntered 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n也将包括Baldiga先生。\n\n问题在于，可以肯定的是，在其讯问中将会被问到的问题之一是：你们何时知道政府正在调查Kwok先生？你们何时知道政府主张这一切均属于Kwok，即所有这些资产均为Kwok的资产？\n\n如果这使他们处于其无法回答这些问题的境地，因为其现作为刑事辩护律师出庭，那么我们对此存在问题。\n\n如果不存在问题，那么我们将继续关注该情况。但该问题相当根本。\n\n当你代表占有中债务人时，你并非代表其个人。你代表的是其作为对债权人负有信义义务者的身份。\n\n而现在他们不再如此。且这两个领域之间可能存在联系，而在他们开始代理Kwok先生作为刑事被告时，该联系并未被预见。\n\n但我希望明确记录在案，两者之间很可能存在联系。因此，我们必须在这方面非常审慎地行事。\n\n法官阁下，这就是我想作出的唯一陈述。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。Baldiga先生，就在你——U.S. Trustee办公室刚才在场，而他们并未——哦。Claiborn律师？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023 70\n\nClaiborn女士：是。\n\n法庭：你是否听到了Despins先生刚才为记录在案所作的陈述？\n\nClaiborn女士：听到了，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：而U.S. Trustee办公室是否知悉——我并不是说你们本应知悉。我是说，这是你们首次听说受托人对Brown Rudnick此前作为占有中债务人的代理律师代表债务人、现又在刑事事项中代表债务人一事表示关切吗？\n\nClaiborn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。今天所作的评论则是我首次听到对其中部分问题的说明。因此，U.S. Trustee目前尚未准备就该问题进一步发表任何意见。\n\n法庭：我理解你目前尚未准备发表任何意见，但你何时会准备好？\n\nClaiborn女士：我无法说明，法官阁下。但我会将今天的事实情况报告给U.S. Trustee。\n\n法庭：嗯，我认为你们作为United States Trustee，应当准备作出回应，作为监督案件管理并处理包括利益冲突问题在内的众多事项的一方。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 76 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 77 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n如果该问题是——如果这确实是一个问题，就需要被提出并处理。而United States Trustee办公室将需要就该问题持有某种立场。\n\n这并不是——我的意思是，我刚刚听到Despins先生所说的内容。显然，我将听取Baldiga先生的意见。但是，您知道，自本案提交之日起，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法庭面前的问题。\n\n因此，United States Trustee办公室的职责之一，就是作为案件管理的监督者，必须就该问题表明立场。\n\n因此，Despins受托人，你说你今天并未将此事提交法庭。但你已经提交了，因为你刚刚就此作出了陈述。我的意思是，它可能尚未以书面形式提出，也可能尚未就书面陈述、问题以及可能作出或不作出的裁定制定时间表。\n\n但现在法庭正处于这样一种境地，即我们正在举行听证，以确定是否——而且，Baldiga先生、Best先生可以不同意我接下来要说的话。\n\n但我认为，本次听证会是为了确定债务人是否遵守了其义务的要求——其证据开示义务，因而他实质上——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 20, 2023\n\n因为其主张宪法第五修正案特权，您知道，不能被裁定藐视法庭，也没有能力通过履行义务解除藐视法庭状态。这就是我认为你们将要提出的论点。Best先生，这不正是你将要提出的论点吗？\n\nBest先生：是的，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——除了一份昨天提交、我尚未来得及阅读的文件中的陈述外，他尚未以书面形式提出——我对该论点的理解是，如果Brown Rudnick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代理律师代表过他，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取得该信息或试图取得该信息，他认为将会得到如下答复：你们不能作出回应，因为你们现在以刑事辩护律师身份代理他。\n\n这可能导致问题。对此我不知道还能说什么。Best先生和Baldiga先生，你们怎么看？\n\nBest先生：是的。嗯，我将要——请原谅。\n\n因此，这在未来很可能是一个相关问题。就本次听证会以及您对是否已遵守传票作出的认定而言，我认为该问题并不相关。它可能影响——Despins先生的关切可能影响未来的程序。它不影响本程序。\n\n顺便说一下，我认为法律——谢谢。这是我首次在破产法院出庭。因此，我通常是在其他——\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。我认为您将听到关于主张宪法第五修正案特权的明确法律规则的审慎说明。\n\n然后，如果您认为在今天的论证之后，该等利益冲突问题以某种方式受到牵涉，法官阁下可以重新审视该问题。但我认为至少就今天而言，它并不相关。\n\n我将让Baldiga先生发言。\n\n法庭：好的。我认为我将休庭五分钟。我将在11点——可能超过五分钟，因为我想现在才11:21。但我将在11:30回来。届时很可能将继续进行论证。但我想要\n\n请稍等片刻，查看一下某些事项。\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 休庭，至上午 11:30 复庭。）\n\n法庭法警：全体起立。Connecticut District United States Bankruptcy Court（康涅狄格地区美国破产法院）现于休庭后开庭。由尊敬的 Julie Manning（朱莉·曼宁）法官主持。\n\n法官：好的。请坐。有人介意出去通知受托人律师我们已经准备好了吗？哦，我想他们来了。\n\n身份不明发言人：我相信 Skalka 律师刚刚已经这样做了。\n\n法官：谢谢。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法官：好的。在法庭休庭之前，已经提出了关于利益冲突的问题，即 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）既担任 Kwok 先生的占有中债务人律师，又承担该角色所具有的职责和义务；尽管债务人现已不再占有财产，该等职责和义务仍持续存在；以及 Brown Rudnick 现就针对 Kwok 先生提出的指控——刑事指控——代理 Kwok 先生一事。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023 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，但我认为这就是你的意思。并且你希望——\n\nBEST 先生：实质上是这样。\n\n法官：——继续进行你们的论证。我认为我们今天将继续进行论证，然后再看事态如何发展。\n\n但是，我认为，今天上午的举证责任首先在债务人一方，Best 先生和 Baldiga 先生。然后我将听取受托人律师的陈述。另外，作为你论证的一部分，Best 先生，你是否还将就这项有限中止提出论证，还是你将把它单独处理？你将如何——\n\nBEST 先生：我可以一并处理。我认为这些问题都包含在其中。\n\n法官：我也这么认为。因此这样可以。谢谢。\n\nBEST 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，关于此事，简要说几句。我是 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘），Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）。\n\n法官：是。\n\nDESPINS 先生：我想明确，Brown Rudnick 同意在记录中确认，就我提出的问题而言，不放弃任何论点，这一点应当非常明确。否则，我们不应在没有——没有该项放弃的情况下继续进行。\n\n法官：嗯，我并未认定存在放弃，因此我不知道是否需要 Brown Rudnick 作出——作出任何声明，Despins 先生。该声明——\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法官：——即你今天上午所作的声明，我们刚才都已经讨论过。这是一个问题。我认为非常明确的是，我将要求各方对此作出回应，包括 Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）。好吗？\n\n因此，我理解你的观点，但是——\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法官：——不会放弃所提出的论点，因为该论点是在昨晚的一份书状中提出的，我尚未有机会真正对此作任何深入思考。\n\n而且，我将作出——我将会——在今天结束时，就此问题作出某种排期命令，以便能够迅速处理。\n\n因为即使我们今天将进行这些论证——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，因为如果存在一个必须以某种方式解决的利益冲突问题，法庭不会在本案中就许多、许多问题继续推进。好吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。请继续，Best 先生。\n\nBEST 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。谨请法庭垂注。我在此主张，债务人，亦即 Guo 先生，也称 Kwok 先生，已完全履行其根据今天提交法庭审理的传票所承担的义务。在将关于中止的第二项论证一并纳入时，我向法官阁下及各方提供了多个可供进一步探讨的选项，但这些都归结于以下内容。\n\n我确信，根据传票所请求的文件将构成政府、U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）在相关刑事案件中提供的证据开示材料的一部分。\n\n而受托人或任何其他认为其具有诉讼资格的一方，可以传唤与具体问题相关的那些文件，即证明 Guo 先生或 Kwok 先生对其他实体或个人拥有保管和控制权的文件。\n\n因此，无论法官阁下将其作为一项中止处理，在此情况下文件随后将被提供，并且我们可以就保护令达成一致；还是这些文件由司法部公开提供，它们都将在司法部的证据开示请求中被提供。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1737\nFiled 05/01/23\nEntered 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n目前有两个案件。有 Southern District（纽约南区）的案件，Guo 先生是被告。并且，我认为自昨天或前天起，还有一个 Eastern District of New York（纽约东区）的案件，Guo 先生是受害人。因此，司法部也将在该案中提供充足的证据。\n\n然而，今天所涉及的问题是援引 Fifth Amendment（第五修正案）免于自证其罪的特权。具体而言，法庭面临的问题是，仅仅提交文件的行为如何可能涉及第五修正案特权。\n\n因此，该项原则——如果可以的话？我相信这并不总是法官阁下需要处理的事项，所以我将向您说明——\n\n法官：请便。\n\nBEST 先生：——这项特权的一些历史。它被称为文件提交行为原则。首个处理此问题、并成为本国具有约束力法律的案件，我认为是在 1974 或 1976 年。它是 Harris 案。我将向您提供引证，法官阁下。\n\n法官：Harris 案不是 1911 年的吗？\n\nBEST 先生：不是。425——抱歉。\n\n法官：那么，是什么——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 85 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023 79\n\nBEST 先生：1976 年。可能是——抱歉。是 Fisher 案。\n\n法官：好的。\n\nBEST 先生：我道歉。我表述错误。Fisher v. U.S., 425 U.S. at 408。1976 年的判决。但问题在于，强制提交文件是否涉及第五修正案特权；该修正案相关部分规定，任何人不得在任何刑事案件或任何具有刑事影响的案件中被强迫成为不利于其本人的证人。\n\nFisher 案确实阐明了文件提交所涉及的问题。因此，它首先——您知道——将第五修正案特权分解为：此处所寻求的信息是被强制取得的。没有人争辩所寻求的信息，即文件，是根据传票被强制取得的。\n\n第二，该信息可能具有自证其罪性质。为此，我可以走近您的——\n\n法官：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法官：我们已经看过这个。我们——\n\nBEST 先生：是。\n\n法官：——几周前看过。对吗？\n\nBEST 先生：是。没错。因此，我请法官阁下注意该起诉书第 3 页第 6 段，其中涉及相关个人和实体。只是具体指出起诉书的相关部分——而且整份起诉书都相关——但其中包括那些被指称处于 Guo 先生、亦称 Kwok 先生保管或控制之下的实体。\n\n因此，第五修正案特权的第二项要件，即这是否可能具有自证其罪性质，我认为仅凭其表面即可清楚表明，他对各个实体的保管和控制已成为现已向 Southern District（纽约南区）提起的一宗正在进行的刑事案件的一部分。\n\n重要的是，我甚至不必止步于此，尽管我认为就该要件而言这已足够。据我今天的谈话所了解，司法部也正在就是否存在破产欺诈进行刑事调查。\n\n而我指出，这是第二——\n\n法官：而你——先生，你如何知道这一点？\n\nBEST 先生：我将请我的同事——我想有一份传票。\n\nHENZY 先生：是。是的。我确信 Best 先生将会说明这一点，法官阁下，但受托人已经收到一份传票。并且——\n\nBEST 先生：我可以走近吗？\n\n法官：可以，请。\n\nBEST 先生：因此，我向法官阁下提交一份传票副本；我认为该传票已送达 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所），涉及一项关于破产欺诈的正在进行的刑事调查，我认为可从——\n\n法官：法条中看出。\n\nBEST 先生：是。\n\n法官：是。\n\nBEST 先生：因此，重要的是，如果这还没有构成充分理由，而我还没有在上面加糖霜，那么让我再加上樱桃。在 Second Circuit（第二巡回区），即本国唯一实际上承认该项扩张——令人难以置信的法律扩张——的巡回区，第二巡回区承认，你不仅可以因向法庭说谎而构成刑事违法，也可以因向与政府合作的律师说谎而构成刑事违法。\n\n因此，我援引该案。它是 Second Circuit（第二巡回区）的 U.S. vs. Kumar。它是 Computer Associates（计算机联合公司）案，该案在白领犯罪界广为人知；Sanjay Kumar（桑杰·库马尔）及其他人因在公司刑事——抱歉，公司内部调查中说谎而认罪答辩。该项调查正在进行，因为政府采取的立场是——而事实上他们最终认罪答辩，这在本辖区已是确定的法律——他们知道或应当知道私人律师正在与政府合作。\n\n就法官阁下而言，Sanjay Kumar 案为 617 F.3d 612。这是一项上诉法院维持定罪的判决。实际上，他们是就这些类型的罪名项作出认罪答辩。\n\n因此，第二项要件，即他们的刑事——也就是实际的刑事程序可能因提交这些文件而受到影响，我认为不存在疑问。最后一项是，提交行为是否具有证言性质。这也是我将花费大部分时间讨论的问题。\n\n事实上，有两个关键理由说明该项要件已经满足。第一，虽然我们有义务证明在此援引特权是适当的，但一旦涉及其证言性质部分，举证责任往往转移给美国，或者在本案中转移给对方当事人，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相关，但与刑事案件有关，因为如果政府尚未拥有该信息——这被称为该要件中的“既成结论”部分——政府必须证明其已经能够获得该信息或已经拥有该信息。如果无论是政府还是本案对方当事人都无法证明这一点，那么第五修正案的援引\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日\n\n是有效的。\n\n而这对法官阁下的影响在于，如果该等信息是在强制之下被交出，而政府未能证明其已掌握该信息——即并非不言自明的结论认为其已经掌握该信息——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点是，就这一具体问题征询 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）的意见，并要求其作为与本项论证有关的一方，就不言自明结论部分作出陈述。\n\n如果这要求过高，那么我特别地——抱歉，我谨提交意见认为，并非不言自明的结论认为他们掌握该信息。我不知道，因为我们尚未获得证据开示。\n\n因此，这是第一项核心论证。第二项核心论证是，通过提交任何文件——\n\n法庭：我能打断您一下吗——\n\nBEST先生：当然可以。\n\n法庭：那么，如果这是不言自明的结论，如果政府已经掌握该信息，那么您主张什么？受托人必须从政府处取得吗？\n\nBEST先生：那将是最妥当的方式，对吧？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日\n\n因此，请求将是针对——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，我不能交出我在证据开示中取得的任何材料，因为这些材料均受该案纽约南区（Southern District）证据开示保密规定的约束。\n\n因此，政府和纽约南区法院（Southern District Court）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，他们无论以何种方式都会参与。不如向政府提出该请求。\n\n本案中的受托人实际上是美国司法部的一名成员。其部门的另一机构掌握相关文件。因此，法官阁下，这是一条自然的途径。\n\n法庭：好的。还有一个问题——\n\nBEST先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——在您继续之前，关于您提出的这个问题，即不言自明的结论，第三项要件。\n\nBEST先生：好的。\n\n法庭：传票和信息请求——传票已送达，而请求及准许进行 2004 审查的命令——那些\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日\n\n事项——该命令已作出，传票已送达，均远早于起诉书，对吗？\n\n而且，尽管——对于受托人所寻求的信息中，有些——如果不是全部——您可以主张某些信息与之有关。肯定有部分信息——我不打算说，因为我不知道比例是多少。\n\n但我会说，受托人所寻求的信息中，很可能超过一半——也许更多——是债务人在作为自行管理债务人期间、远在起诉书之前，有义务保存并向法庭及他人提供的信息。\n\n因此，从您的角度看，这对不言自明结论这一整个问题有何影响，如果有的话？\n\n因为，不言自明的结论——至少根据我对起诉书的理解，当然这并不代表什么——是其与某些商业实体及交易有关，据称债务人控制了这些实体及交易，并通过其筹集资金；而这未必涉及债务人在破产程序中作为自行管理债务人时应负责提供的所有事项。\n\n因此，关于这一不言自明的结论，您如何回应？因为如果政府所掌握的只是——我们就假设一下——如果政府所掌握的只是与本起诉书有关的事项\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日 86\n\n以及，如您所说，第 6 段和第 7 段中的相关人员和实体——也就是第 6 段——\n\nBEST先生：是的。第 6 段至我认为的第 10 或第 11 段。\n\n法庭：对。\n\nBEST先生：对。\n\n法庭：信不信由你，那并不一定涵盖本案中的所有事项。您可能没有看过这一点，但事实如此。我的意思是，特别是，它并不涉及——我认为您当时在场，并且不得不听取了关于 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）和该笔贷款的大量辩论。\n\nBEST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一定涉及那些事项，或寻求与之有关的信息——并未将那些事项置于争议之中。它也未将与受托人就——进行调查有关的事项或信息置于争议之中。\n\nBEST先生：对。\n\n法庭：——纽约的一套公寓。\n\n因此，虽然我理解您所说的内容，但我目前的担忧——不过我会让您——我会——我想听听您的立场，即关于与起诉书并不具体相关的事项，他无需提交任何材料这一论证，如何——该判例法如何在这些事项上保护他？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 92 页，共 165 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日 87\n\nBEST先生：是的。因此——谢谢您，法官阁下。这是另一个完全相关的观点。\n\n第一，他不必已被起诉，也不必被点名，对吗？\n\n法庭：明白。\n\nBEST先生：因此，在此时，我会主张，凡在其保管和控制之下的一切，均处于联邦刑事调查之中。\n\n法庭：不过，他是否已就此宣誓？我的意思是，难道您不必须——如果您要向本法庭形成记录，说，您看，我们不能交出任何东西，因为所有东西都受起诉书和／或您根据 Fisher 案提出的论证约束，对吗——\n\nBEST先生：对。\n\n法庭：——我当然必须审查该案；以及根据 Kumar 案，对吗，即您告诉我的这两个案件——\n\nBEST先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——他是否仍然必须在本法庭形成记录，表明他宣誓称其已经交出——其未持有或控制任何东西，而他曾持有的一切均由政府掌握？他是否仍然必须这样做？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 93 页，共 165 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 94 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日 88\n\nBEST先生：要求他作出该等陈述本质上具有证言性质。恕我直言，根据其第五修正案特权，他没有义务说任何话。事实上，无论向哪个方向宣誓——我给您举一个恰当的例子。\n\n如果他就此向法官阁下宣誓，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：实际上甚至不一定是政府。也可能是本法庭中的其他人，对吗？不一定是政府。可能是他宣誓称自己什么都没有，对吗？\n\nBEST先生：是的。\n\n法庭：然后受托人发现了它。受托人可以将其提交出来，对吗？那么他仍然会——他会——\n\nBEST先生：他会——\n\n法庭：——面临风险。但这难道不是程序的一部分吗？\n\nBEST先生：不是。程序的一部分是，他现在处于被冻结状态，未经自证其罪，他不能以任何一种方式作出陈述。这是关于援引第五修正案特权的明确法律。\n\n法庭：但是，您知道，当您在论证开始时说——我并不是说我要就任何事项作出裁定。我是在试图理解各方的立场，对吗？您确实提到了 Harris 案，该案是在 1911 年判决的。\n\nBEST先生：是的。\n\n法庭：当您阅读其措辞时，很有意思。但它谈到破产人的反对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，对吗？\n\nBEST先生：那项法律——我认为它——我可能引用了它，因为——不。我还有另一个案件。我今天上午一直在试图很快学习破产法，但是——\n\n法庭：实际上，我认为这与破产法没有太大关系。\n\nBEST先生：但是，凡涉及就提交文件援引第五修正案特权问题的案件，均受 Fisher 案及其后续判例的控制，包括 1984 年的 U.S. vs. Doe 案。我会给您引注。\n\n然后，我所掌握的较新的 U.S. Supreme Court（美国最高法院）案件是 U.S. vs. Hubbell 案，该案是一项大陪审团程序。\n\n再然后，在 Second Circuit（第二巡回区）较近的案件是 U.S. vs. Greenfield 案。Hubbell 案是——抱歉，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日 90\n\n120 S. Ct. 2037。我会将其递交给法官阁下。\n\n法庭：实际上我就在这里有——\n\nBEST先生：您有？\n\n法庭：——因此您不需要递交。\n\nBEST先生：好的。然后我有 Greenfield 案，如果您希望我递交。它是——\n\n法庭：我认为我以前没有看过 Greenfield 案。我认为它——它是否在您提交的文件中被引用？\n\nBEST先生：没有。那是我在——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nBEST先生：——乘飞机来这里的途中所做的工作。\n\n法庭：可以理解。那么我希望您——而且您已向律师提供了——\n\nBEST先生：我——\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nBEST先生：是的。关于这一点的另一部分——因此，并不存在不洁之手——我可以——您所问的问题有多种回答方式。\n\n法庭：确实如此。\n\nBEST先生：对吗？因此，不存在这样一种不洁之手论证：即因为他此前没有提交材料并阻碍了程序，他已放弃主张其第五修正案特权的权利。\n\n重要的是，您知道，不言自明结论\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n第 96 页，共 165 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日\n\n部分，如果确实他是在强制之下提交，而我们数月前就已进行这些论证，且您仍然认定他藐视法庭——好，那么他就有一个选择。\n\n而且，我实际上不知道法律是否延伸至如此程度，即——我不知道是否曾就此作出裁决：如果法庭实施强制，而他在该强制之下提交材料，他是否已放弃其特权。我对此表示怀疑。我无法想象会是这种情况。\n\n但如果他这样做了——如果我们在本案起诉书之前数月就已进行这项程序，那么美国政府将面临重大挑战，必须举行 Kastigar 听证，以证明在此之前——即在我们今天举行的听证之前，如果该听证在数月前举行——其已经掌握或知悉该信息。\n\n不言自明结论部分要求政府证明其已经掌握并知悉该信息。因此，如果我们在起诉书之前数月进行了这项程序，那么这本可以说会污染政府希望针对 Kwok（郭文贵）提起的案件。\n\n因此，这将是我对于我们是否在数月前处理过此事这一问题的第二个回答。我当时并未参与，但是——\n\n法庭：不。我认为问题不在于是否处理过。我认为我的问题是，那些并不直接涉及起诉书的信息怎么办？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n1 而且，您知道，关于那艘船，我们——那艘游艇——\n2 贝斯特先生：\n是。\n3 法院：\n——我所看到的起诉书中没有任何\n4 关于该游艇的内容。现在，您可以说这不\n5 重要，法官，因为——政府无需\n6 就该游艇说明任何事项。\n7 贝斯特先生：\n是。\n8 法院：\n但我试图理解，为何他\n9 无需在本法院作出记录，说明\n10 您所说的内容，即，您看，无论我有什么，政府\n11 反正都已经有了。\n12 贝斯特先生：\n那么，再次说明，首先，正如巴尔迪加先生\n13 所指出的，起诉书第23段确实谈到了\n14 该船。\n15 法院：\n好的。那么，它确实谈到了\n16 该船。那么是我错了。\n17 贝斯特先生：\n但就您——就相关问题而言，\n18 即关于起诉书未涵盖的其他任何事项，\n19 对此的完美回答是，所有这些调查以及对此项权利的\n20 援引，95%的情况下都发生在\n21 起诉前，对吗？因此，其相关性在于，\n22 当您收到强制程序时，您不知道什么事项对政府而言\n23 是争议事项，或不是争议事项。\n24 如果存在一项——如果他们——存在一项\n25 认定，即他想要援引——他或她想要\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第99页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n1 援引其第五修正案免于\n2 自证其罪特权，则程序必须止于此处。\n3 不存在关于——在此之后对其或她的进一步调查，即在\n4 本案中对他，向任何法院确认其对第五修正案特权\n5 援引范围的确认，如果您愿意如此表述。\n6 因此，这——您看，最简单的回答是，他对\n7 第五修正案特权的援引绝不能\n8 被视为对任何程序的妨碍。就是如此\n9 简单。因此，我从未见过任何一次特权援引\n10 被认定为构成妨碍。\n11 法院：\n好的。因此，您是说受托人\n12 能够继续进行的唯一方式是从\n13 政府获得信息？\n14 贝斯特先生：\n正确。现在——\n15 法院：\n您是否说过，您也必须同意\n16 这一点？\n17 贝斯特先生：\n嗯，我不认为我们会反对，对吗？\n18 法院：\n嗯，我试图理解这个\n19 程序，对吗？我不理解这个程序。\n20 贝斯特先生：\n是。因此，抱歉。\n21 法院：\n我不——如您非常清楚\n22 且正确地说，这并非破产\n23 法院必须经常处理的事情，尽管我们会处理\n24 它。但因此，您的观点是——\n25 贝斯特先生：\n他们可以去——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日 94 1 法院：——受托人能够继续进行的唯一方式是从政府获得信息。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。2 贝斯特先生：不。如果——如果所采取的做法是，我们作为辩护律师收到了证据开示材料包，我们将必须前往政府并取得其同意。我们随后还必须前往法院，并取得法院同意，才能就传票向本法院作出提供。他们可以直接前往政府，绕过所有这些程序。3 我不知道政府是否会联系我们并询问我们是否同意。4 法院：这是必须的吗？5 贝斯特先生：我不——不，不是。6 法院：好的。我只是问问。我——7 贝斯特先生：不。我的意思是，我认为这更多是一种礼貌，而非其他任何事情。因此，其中的证言性部分，即在“既成结论”之后的第二项要件，法官阁下，存在于我们面前的要求中；该要求实质上是要求提供必然处于其保管和控制之下的文件，这意味着，如果根据传票的该项规定提供了任何材料，那么这就构成默示的——即使并非明示的——承认，即这些实体中的信息处于其保管或控制之下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第100页，共165页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日 95 1 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法院审理。2 而且，它们甚至不必明确地提交于法院审理。正如我所说，99%的情况下，所有这些问题都发生在起诉书提出之前。3 因此，当我最初审阅此事时，我甚至没有考虑“既成结论”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，那就是承认，事实上，这些实体处于其保管和控制之下。4 而且，明确的法律规则是，这是对程序的强制；一旦——对于与使其被定罪存在因果联系的信息，他根据其宪法权利无需——无需遵从。5 因此，基于这些理由，我向法官阁下陈述，他已经遵从了传票。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。6 法院：谢谢。7 巴西特律师，或者——德斯平斯受托人？165\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第101页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第102页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日 96 1 德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我知道巴西特先生将处理其中的技术性部分，但我想纠正一项陈述，即我是司法部雇员，或以某种方式为司法部工作。2 我不是司法部。我是由司法部任命的，但我不向其汇报。正如法官阁下所知，受托人没有——受托人没有向司法部汇报的职能。我想纠正这一点。谢谢。3 贝斯特先生：是。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实际上在场，其为司法部雇员。我所指的是那个人，德斯平斯先生。谢谢。4 法院：好的。谢谢。5 巴西特先生：那么，法官阁下，再次说明，我是代表第11章受托人的、来自 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的尼克·巴西特。6 因此，我认为——我将尽我所能处理律师所提出的全部法律论点的实质内容，并处理他提出的一项关于取得在刑事案件中须由政府披露的文件的建议；我确实认为，这可能是受托人就此问题取得适当裁定的有用事项。165\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第103页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日 97 1 在我处理这些事项之前，我确实认为，如同我在本案中经常所做的那样，我认为仅仅为了准确理解我们是如何走到这一步——这也是法院与律师进行的部分工作——是重要的。2 因此，显然本案已持续一年多。受托人于去年夏天被任命。其被任命后立即，依法律实施——而这是一个重要事实，且截至目前在某种程度上被忽略了。3 但是，依法律实施，根据《破产法典》第521条(a)(3)和(a)(4)，债务人被要求且目前仍被要求，向受托人提供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》实施的。4 除此之外，正如法院所知，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第2004条规则传票。正如法院也知道的，以及我们今日为何在此的原因是，自那时起的六个多月以来，我们所收到的只有拖延、借口、妨碍等等。5 而且，正如法院所指出，我们现在到了这样一个阶段：债务人实际上是在利用所有那些过去的妨碍和拖延，实质上使其自身受益，因为他现在，165\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第104页，共165页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n1 无论其是否有意，已经搭建了一座通向这样一种情形的桥梁，\n2 即他正面临刑事起诉书。现在，他利用该\n3 刑事起诉书作为一种手段，说我不能向你们提供\n4 任何东西。抱歉。我不再与你们合作。不再提供\n5 与破产财产有关的文件。没有其他任何东西。\n6 做不到，因为我正受刑事调查，而且\n7 有针对我的刑事案件。\n\n8 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。而且，我们尤其处于破产程序中这一事实很重要。我们在提交给法院的书面陈述中援引了一些此类案件，它可以追溯至律师在辩论期间和法院部分评论期间提到的 In re Harris（哈里斯案）。\n\n15 但是，我认为首先重要的是指出，我不相信律师在中止动议或对说明理由命令的答复中，援引了任何涉及就该案债务人作出中止的破产案件。\n\n20 他们援引了一宗载于我们文件中的案件，我正在试图找到它，但我一时想不起名称。但他们援引的唯一一宗破产案件，涉及债务人对其他正受刑事调查的被告提起的对抗程序。这是完全不同的情形。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第105页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月20日\n\n1 他们在此要求的是一项中止破产案件的命令——中止债务人就破产财产以及对受托人调查和本案最终管理至关重要的其他事项，在破产案件中进行证据开示的命令。\n7 他们所说的是，嗯，他们并未寻求中止整个案件。他们援引地区法院及其他民事诉讼中的案件，在这些案件中法院中止了证据开示。\n11 但他们没有援引的，而且我认为任何法院都不会裁定的是，本案受托人必须为了破产程序的利益以及债务人债权人的利益，如其必须做的那样，继续管理本案，并最终使其完结。\n17 但他必须在债务人不参与或不合作的情况下这样做，债务人不向受托人提供我们不仅在证据开示中所请求、而且根据《破产法典》有权获得的文件。\n21 而且，我认为这正是哈里斯案及其所依据的其他一些案件发挥作用之处。哈里斯案诚然是最高法院于1911年作出的一项旧判决，但它涉及从占有财产的债务人处提供文件的问题，并且\n\n无论他的第五修正案权利是否会受到牵涉。\n\n法院在该情形中所说的是，宪法权利并未受到触及，因为“问题不在于作证，而在于交出；不在于强迫破产人在当前或将来的刑事案件中成为不利于自己的证人，而在于强迫其交出其已无权继续保有的财产。这是破产若因犯罪而起所带来的不幸之一。不被强迫成为不利于自己的证人的权利，并非侵占可能讲述自己故事之财产的权利。”\n\n1990年，联邦最高法院在 Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight（巴尔的摩市社会服务局诉布奈特案）中再次援引了 Harris 判决。\n\nBouknight 案涉及不同的监管制度。\n\n该案涉及一名母亲依法被强制将其子女带至法院或儿童服务机构；法院表示，该情形并不——您知道，援引 Harris 案所阐明的原则——该类行为并不通过提交行为原则或其他方式引发第五修正案问题。\n\n和对方律师一样，我刚才讲得很快。这项动议是在加急基础上提出的。我也作了一些进一步查阅。我相信我们都可以再做一些。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日 101\n\n但还有一个较新的案件，我建议法院查阅，即 1993年爱达荷州联邦破产法院的 In Re Ross（罗斯案）。该案载于 156 B.R. 272，讨论内容十分广泛。我认为其中一部分在第279页。\n\n但该案涉及的问题是，在 Chapter 7（第7章）案件中，要求债务人行使其根据 Section 521 所享有的权利，或者履行其根据 Bankruptcy Code（《破产法》）Section 521 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。\n\n因此，该案中的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。\n\n除 Harris 案外，之后还形成了相关判例。Ross 法院援引了 1913年的 Johnson v. United States（约翰逊诉美国案）；该案法院再次阐明了 Harris 案的同一一般原则，即强制占有中的债务人交出破产财产及记录，并不会牵涉第五修正案。\n\n法院还援引了 1923年的 Fuller 案，262 U.S. 91；1923年联邦最高法院的 Dier v. Banton（迪尔诉班顿案），262 U.S. 147；以及 1924年的 McCarthy v. Arndstein（麦卡锡诉阿恩斯坦案），266 U.S. 34。\n\n案件编号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年4月20日\n\n1924年。\n\n最终，在 Ross 案中，法院作出结论——我将直接引用，因为我认为这很有帮助。“法院认定，债务人不得就破产财产主张第五修正案特权，理由如下。第一，第五修正案不保护文件的内容。”我认为这是不可改变的原则。\n\n“第二，法院认定，该案所要求的提交文件行为，不具有足够的证言性或自证其罪性，因而不属于第五修正案的保护范围。\n\n“第三，”法院指出，“Harris 系列案件认为，破产人不能就与破产财产有关的文件主张该特权，而 Fisher 并未改变该规则。”\n\n“第四，即使提交文件的行为（原文如此）可能因默示认证文件而具有证言性，债务人也未作出积极披露以支持其以该方式援引该特权。”\n\n然后还有第五项理由——对，第五项理由是：“第五，即使本案涉及的提交行为原则（原文如此）既具证言性又具自证其罪性，第7章作为面向整个社会、而非本质上面向涉嫌犯罪类别的监管制度之性质，仍使提交行为原则（原文如此）不属于第五修正案的保护范围。”\n\n案件编号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第109页，共165页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年4月20日\n\n所以这里有若干理由。我并不争议这是刑法中一个复杂、细致的领域，通常不在本院审理范围内，当然也不是我通常处理的事项。但是，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。如果它们适用于破产，要求提交这些文件的法定义务这一事实又会如何改变其适用方式？\n\n顺便说一下，我们提出的、导致说明理由令的强制动议，也援引了 Section 521 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 传票及未遵守该传票的情形。\n\n因此，我想处理的另一点，是先前辩论期间提出的证明类型——我认为法院在法官阁下提出的一些问题中已经谈到了这一点——即如果提交行为原则适用，且债务人拟援引该原则，他必须作出何种证明，才能向法院表明他已完全遵守 1月20日命令的所有方面。\n\n案件编号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第110页，共165页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年4月20日 104\n\n我认为判例法已相当明确地表明，该证明必须具体化。债务人不能仅作笼统陈述——而我所听到的论点实际上就是如此。您知道，我受到刑事起诉书指控，并且受到刑事调查。我们的立场是，这意味着债务人拥有的一切、他曾经接触过的一切、他所占有而可能以某种方式与本破产案件相关的一切，都以某种方式牵涉或关联这些刑事问题，因此提交这些物品可能牵涉第五修正案。\n\n我认为债务人不能以如此笼统的方式行事。受托人有充分理由获得更具体的证明。\n\n举一个具体例子，对方律师花了大量时间谈及，如果要求债务人提交由某些其他关联实体和关联个人控制的文件——这些术语均在我们的传票中作出定义——他通过提交文件实质上将承认其控制权，而这将牵涉起诉书及其刑事责任风险。\n\n但是，我看不出债务人如何可能主张——而且我认为法院也注意到了这一点——\n\n案件编号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第111页，共165页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年4月20日\n\n即字面意义上的每一个——我现在手边没有我们的传票，而且逐一审阅我们在这些定义术语中所列出的每个实体和每个人，并非对时间的有效利用，但其中有很多——\n\n我看不出债务人如何能够说，其中每一个实体都以某种方式属于刑事案件中已被可信指称、且他正因此受到调查的范围，因此他无需再说任何其他内容。他什么也不必提交，什么也不必寻找，就已经完成对1月20日命令的遵守。\n\n他必须做得更多，我们也有权要求更多。我们有权要求债务人就每一个该等实体作出具体化的证明或主张。\n\n而且这具有重要后果。\n\n因为如果他要说，我不能提交来自该实体的文件，因为那会证明我对其拥有控制权，那么我们就有权请求法院如同我们过去所做的那样，据此作出不利推定。\n\n他不能仅以“我不提交任何东西”为由脱身，使受托人没有任何本可请求本院因其援引第五修正案而作出适当认定的救济途径。\n\n案件编号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第112页，共165页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年4月20日 106\n\n另一点——所以，待我核对笔记后——我想提出的另一点，是回到政府将向债务人提供的文件这一问题；据称政府将就刑事案件向债务人提供这些文件。\n\n显然，受托人希望取得这些文件。对方律师说，嗯，我们——您知道——可以传唤它们，然后，您知道，尽我们所能设法取得它们。\n\n对此有两点主要回应。第一，我不明白我们为什么需要传唤它们。债务人已经受到一份传票的约束。在该等文件回应这份传票的范围内，当债务人取得该等文件时，不仅应依照该传票提交，也应依照仍然有效的1月20日命令提交。\n\n如果受托人需要送达一份专门要求这些文件的新传票，我们可以这样做。无论如何我们也可能这样做。但我认为这并非必要。\n\n我想提出的第二点，而且我认为这是关键的一点，是如果他们将此作为该问题的部分解决方案，那么在受托人看来，本院作出的任何命令都必须非常明确地要求债务人采取一切必要行动，就政府方面或刑事法院方面取得许可，以便将这些文件交给我们。\n\n案件编号 22-50073\n文件 1737\n提交日期 05/01/23\n录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年4月20日\n\n听起来他们提出的是，嗯，让受托人承担责任。这不是我们的问题。如果你们想设法取得这些文件，你们可以去。你们去请求刑事法院。你们去请求政府。\n\n我们很可能也会这样做，但债务人根据本院命令及 Bankruptcy Code（《破产法》）对本院负有义务。因此，应由他承担责任，采取必要措施向我们提供我们有权取得的文件，而不是由受托人承担责任。\n\n法官阁下，我只是想核对一下我的笔记，看看我是否还有其他要提出的观点。\n\n（律师商议）\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我目前就这些。我在查看提纲时注意到，我先前试图找到的案件，是我注意到债务人所援引的唯一一宗破产案件，即 2011年纽约东区联邦破产法院的 In Re Julmice（朱尔米斯案）。而且，该案并非涉及债务人及针对债务人的证据开示中止，而是针对其他被告的对立程序。\n\n除非法院有问题，这就是我要陈述的内容。\n\n案件编号 22-50073 文件 1737 提交日期 05/01/23 录入日期 05/01/23 14:40:20 第114页，共165页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年4月20日\n\n法庭：\n\n目前我没有任何问题要问您。\n\n谢谢您，Bassett律师（Attorney Bassett）。\n\nFriedman律师（Attorney Friedman），您希望发言吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n\n是的，法官阁下。我是代表PAX（PAX）的Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），来自O'Melveny & Myers（欧麦利文律师事务所）。我想对Bassett律师在其陈述中所说的内容补充一点背景。\n\n这不仅仅是本第11章案件中发生了什么的问题。PAX自十多年前发放该笔贷款之初起，多年来一直在向Kwok先生（郭文贵）追索其债权。\n\n其一贯被告知不存在任何资产。过去，在方便时曾反复援引第五修正案，之后又撤回该主张。\n\n曾提交一份第11章申请，该申请称Kwok先生拥有$3,850，如您所记得的，还有一只博美犬，但他需要时间编制其财产清单。他聘用了Verdolino & Lowey（维尔多利诺与洛伊）实体，而显然，他，您知道，并未告知他们以其名义实际存在的大量资产。\n\n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，只要需要支付律师费用，资金就会出现，尽管，您知道，据称并非来自Kwok先生。\n\n案号22-50073 文件1737 提交日期05/01/23 录入日期05/01/23 14:40:20 第115页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日 109\n\n我们很快就会知道，届时Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）提交其必须提交的诉状文件时，究竟是谁支付该所今天在场的费用，除非他们当然试图主张，那是——因为那也会使Kwok先生自证其罪的某种障碍。\n\n如果您考虑他们所说内容的逻辑延伸，他们也将无需遵守该规定、该法条，这当然不可能是正确的。\n\n但无论如何，法官阁下，我还想向您提出的是，其中一份诉状文件中有一项陈述称，破产案和先前案件完全是中国共产党（CCP）操弄的产物。我认为，正如法官阁下以前听我所说的那样，这实在是——我不知道该为此生气还是发笑，但这实在荒谬。\n\n我认为，本法庭知道PAX在Ostrager法官（Justice Ostrager）面前进行的诉讼是真实可信的。本法庭也知道Kwok先生实际上曾提出付款，因为他曾在Twitter或GETTR上发布消息，您知道，向PAX支付一笔数额极其巨大的款项以和解诉讼，也许不是他自己的钱，而是某人的钱。\n\nKindseth先生（Mr. Kindseth）作证称，Kwok先生知道PAX被欠款，并且Kwok先生在GETTR上表示，他们必须与Kwok讲和；所有这些都与这里以及令人遗憾地在联邦法院刑事案件中所兜售的这一虚假叙事完全相悖，而该叙事只是为了提出毫无事实依据、荒谬的主张，并且，您知道，不过是故技重施。\n\n还有一点，法官阁下。嗯，我不会——我实际上不能这么做，因为参与简易判决程序的律师不在这里。因此，我不会回头再次辩论该问题。但那里的文件中有一些内容非常令人不安。\n\n无论如何，法官阁下，我也想呼应Bassett先生关于破产性质本身的评论，即Kwok先生自愿申请破产、提交财产清单、出席其必须出席的341会议，并且可能未如实作证时，立即产生的、关于全面披露的义务。\n\n但在那些程序中当然提出了许多请求，我们仍需要能够加以证实。\n\n对于像PAX这样等待偿还已逾十年的当事人而言，再次可能出现隐瞒和拖延的想法及前景，应当受到本法庭的强烈怀疑。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n谢谢。\n\nBest先生（Mr. Best），您想回应吗？\n\nBEST先生：\n\n是的，法官阁下。我确实无法提出比我们刚才从对方律师、债权人律师和受托人律师那里听到的内容更好的论点，来支持适当援引第五修正案特权。他们向法官阁下作出的解释，正是第五修正案特权在此适用的绝对理由。\n\n具体而言，受托人律师说，我认为——我认为记录会是正确的。我数了三次，受托人律师称我的当事人妨碍了破产程序。\n\n更妙的是，来自O'Melveny & Myers——或者只是O'Melveny？我不知道——的债权人律师说，我认为原话是“虚假叙事”，该叙事已被提出，而这本质上是对破产法院的欺诈。\n\n我可以告诉您，O'Melveny白领业务主管Steven Olson（史蒂文·奥尔森）也会告诉法官阁下，对于目前摆在我们面前的这些确切问题，这正是适用第五修正案特权的完美情形。\n\n律师已承认我们面前的问题。并不是说他没有这项权利。顺便说一下，我想先表示，在充分尊重法官阁下、破产法院以及均为破产从业人员的律师的前提下，个人的宪法权利优先于任何《破产法典》。\n\n案号22-50073 文件1737 提交日期05/01/23 录入日期05/01/23 14:40:20 第118页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日\n\n因此，当破产律师援引Harris案（Harris case）时，他特别提到，Harris案指出，被要求提供的内容——我并未——我没有深入研究——但他特别说，其并非具有证言性质。问题在于超出不言而喻原则部分的具体请求。\n\n问题在于，受托人律师要求提供个人保管和控制下的所有文件，而这随后具体且默示地要求我的当事人交出其可能保管和控制的实体文件。\n\n并且，在充分尊重受托人律师的前提下，是否已在其刑事案件中提交给司法部（Department of Justice），并非由他决定。\n\n现为澄清一概援引的问题：在大陪审团程序中，检察官可以提出具体问题，而不能接受对该特权的一概援引（原文如此，全文同）；因此，检察官可以提出一百个针对所涉问题的具体问题，而不是接受一概援引，而该个人随后可针对那些具体问题主张该特权。但结果仍是一样，即，他们可以主张一概特权，或者通过一概特权，或者针对向其提出的一百个不同问题来主张。\n\n我试图来到这里并拟定一个可能可行的解决方案。所谓我们有义务提交任何文件的说法——而他们完全可以去——受托人——来自美国受托人办公室（U.S. Trustee's Office）的司法部代表在这里——其是司法部成员。\n\n他们可以前往司法部刑事司（Criminal Division）、美国检察官办公室纽约南区（U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District），索取证据开示材料。\n\n他们——他们所面临且我们需要解决的问题是，纽约南区对该信息的使用作出了保护令。我不知道这如何能够由法官阁下和律师加以解决，但无论是直接向司法部提出，还是通过我们提出，这个问题都会出现。\n\n因此，所谓我们必须交出某些东西的说法，坦率地说，是对纽约南区程序毫不尊重。这一切都必须得到处理。我将此作为一个机会提出——我本不必这么做——以展示一条解决路径，而不是仅仅——并且基本上，作为在该问题得到解决期间中止本案程序的理由。\n\n再次，在充分尊重《破产法典》和本法庭的前提下，个人免于自证其罪的宪法权利优先于破产法典程序下的任何要求和请求。我很乐意回答任何问题，并感谢法官阁下给我时间。\n\n法庭：\n\n我唯一的问题是——我认为您刚才说您还没有阅读Harris案。您是这样说的吗？\n\nBEST先生：\n\n不。我没有阅读——具体事实细节。\n\n法庭：\n\n因为它确实谈到——那是一个旧案。\n\nBEST先生：\n\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n\n那是1911年的案件。但它是美国联邦最高法院（United States Supreme Court）在说，根据当时存在的、1978年《破产法典》现代化之前的《破产法》，债务人交出信息的义务属于交付，而不具有证言性质。这正是其在第五修正案免于自证其罪特权背景下所说的内容。\n\n因此，我——我想对您说的是，我理解您的论点。我认为没有任何人在主张——至少我没有听到任何人主张——债务人——任何债务人无权在其认为——在其主张第五修正案特权时援引该特权。他们有权主张。\n\n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）- 2023年4月20日 115\n\nBEST先生：\n\n必须是——因此，此处的限制，法官阁下——如果只是广泛签发一份传票，要求提供所有文件，对我而言会是一个更难提出的论点吗？很可能是。\n\n但限制在于——我可以保证，该案并未谈到这样一个具体问题：所请求的文件并非仅仅是债务人Guo先生（郭先生）所持有的文件。\n\n其不仅包括他所持有的文件——据我理解，我相信那些文件已经交出——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，必然构成其对自己保管或控制那些实体的证言。我可以——我知道Harris案并不支持这一点。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。然后，律师援引的1993年爱达荷州Ross案（Ross case）谈到了Harris案，也谈到了您援引的一些案件，并称——在Doe案（Doe）中——嗯，您援引了Doe。您提到了Doe。它说——我并不是说它——我只是告诉您它说了什么。我——\n\nBEST先生：\n\n我对此表示感谢。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。它说——O'Connor大法官（Justice O'Connor）\n\n案号22-50073 文件1737 提交日期05/01/23 录入日期05/01/23 14:40:20 第121页，共165\n\n案号22-50073 文件1737 提交日期05/01/23 录入日期05/01/23 14:40:20 第122页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年4月20日\n\n她表示，她写信是为了明确该意见分析中隐含的内容，即《第五修正案》绝对不保护任何种类私人文件的任何内容。\n\n贝斯特先生：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n它就是这么说的。\n\n贝斯特先生：\n那曾经——\n\n法庭：\n然后是布克奈特案（Bouknight case），我不知道您是否讨论过该案，但律师援引了该案。这不是一起破产案件，毫无疑问。该案涉及一名儿童的母亲，就该市社会服务部门要求移交有关其子女监护权的信息一事。\n\n我的意思是，该案的事实情况非常棘手。但布克奈特案认为，该母亲不能以该儿童可能揭示不利己的证据为由拒绝提供该信息。\n\n贝斯特先生：\n我理解您的论点，而且我并非——\n\n贝斯特先生：\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\n贝斯特先生：\n让我——\n\n法庭：\n——似乎有一些判例限制其适用性——似乎存在一些判例，限制《第五修正案》特权就《破产法典》下债务人义务而言的适用范围。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 123 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n贝斯特先生：\n我同意这一点。必须作出判断，第一，关于是否——实际上，我会——您知道，您在判例中看到的所有分析，首先都是从“既定结论”论点开始。\n\n我着重关注的是承认行为的证言性质：如果他就其保管或控制的实体出示文件，或者如您在我们第一次讨论此事时所提到的那样，被要求以某种方式确认那些实体，那么这正是他在这些问题上援引《第五修正案》特权具有最佳论据的原因。\n\n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，然后把文件交给我。这就是传票所要求的。因此，我同意您所说，确有各种限制。\n\nDoe案没有处理那一部分。Doe案明确聚焦于“既定结论”部分。事实上，Doe案最终有利于被告，确认了他援引反自证其罪特权的权利，并告诫政府不要利用Doe案获取其本应能够自行通过大陪审团程序取得的信息。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 118 1 通过大陪审团程序。\n\n因此，Doe案没有讨论——它聚焦于“既定结论”。它实际上没有聚焦于此处所要求内容的证言性质，即提交文件的证言性质。\n\n我很乐意进一步说明——我很乐意就此进行完整的书面陈述。我知道，这通常不在法官阁下或这些来自优秀律所的尊敬律师面前审理。\n\n我以此为业。我可以告诉您，如果政府的案件因债权人律师或受托人律师的要求而受到不利影响，政府不会非常高兴。因为我会在纽约南区（Southern District of New York）的案件中利用这一点，要求美国司法部（U.S. Department of Justice）进行Kastigar听证（Kastigar hearing），以证明他们在文件被移交前已经掌握该信息。\n\n而且，如果不是这样——顺便说，相关判例的发展脉络表明，政府在Kastigar案下的举证责任很重。如果我在这方面胜诉——我相当确信，就若干问题及其他实体而言我会胜诉——那么，第一，这将妨碍他们正在进行的调查；第二，这将影响他们在当前案件中能够采取的行动以及能够提出何种证据。\n\n因此，我并非代表政府发言。我只是说明，如果本法庭要求他提交文件而不尊重其《第五修正案》特权，或者随后要求他签署某种相关声明或宣誓书，将会产生的各种复杂问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 124 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 125 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 119\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我只是——就已经援引的布克奈特案，即最高法院案件而言，您知道，最高法院讨论了这一点——其表示，即使提交行为会构成您所称债务人对某物的控制或占有的默示承认，在该情形下也不能援引该特权以抗拒提交，对吗？\n\n因此，我们在本案中的情形是，正如我们都讨论过的，您也知道，这是受托人寻求取得的信息；债务人在提交破产案件、自愿接受本法庭管辖后，即被要求提供该信息。他是自愿这样做的。没有人强迫他这样做。\n\n因此，就该最高法院案件而言，当您——我理解您的论点，即如果他必须移交文件，那么他——并且——他就承认自己拥有或控制这些文件。\n\n嗯，这一最高法院案件，即布克奈特案，似乎表明，这一点并不必然决定是否可以援引《第五修正案》特权，以免要求债务人——或当事人——该案中不是债务人——提供该信息给受托人。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 120\n\n法庭：\n在该案中，是——那就是我们已经讨论过的涉及母亲和儿子的案件——\n\n贝斯特先生：\n嗯哼。\n\n法庭：\n——要求债务人向受托人提供该信息。\n\n现在，我对您所说的一切只是，我认为——我理解您提出的所有论点。我相信我理解。我已经审阅了您援引的许多判例，即使不是全部判例。但这里有一个问题，与您援引的Fisher案及其他案件略有不同，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\n贝斯特先生：\n对。\n\n法庭：\n——其自愿来到本法庭面前并且——\n\n贝斯特先生：\n对。\n\n法庭：\n——使自己受《破产法典》下债务人的义务和责任约束。\n\n贝斯特先生：\n我还认为，应当说明，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\n贝斯特先生：\n以及——\n\n法庭：\nRoss案。抱歉。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 126 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 127 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023\n\n巴塞特先生：\nRoss案。\n\n法庭：\nRoss案。\n\n贝斯特先生：\n以及法官阁下所提到的案件，并未涉及目前在您面前的债务人正面临刑事指控并且——\n\n法庭：\n但如您所说——\n\n贝斯特先生：\n——同样——\n\n法庭：\n——他不一定必须正面临刑事指控，对吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：\n我理解。但他正因本法庭中的欺诈行为而受到积极的刑事调查。因此，这构成整个程序中的一个细微差别——毫无疑问，如果他正因与其在破产法院所作任何陈述有关的欺诈而受到调查，那么任何要求他就该等事项提交材料的要求，都是强制程序，而他有权援引其《第五修正案》特权。\n\n其实质是，如果有任何文件被提交，该等文件不仅将用于法官阁下的目的、受托人的目的及破产目的，也将成为我们现在所知的、有关本法庭中欺诈指控的持续刑事调查的一部分。\n\n我的意思是，就本案所要求提交文件的证言组成部分而言，我所知道的没有比这更有力的案件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 122\n\n我尊重本法庭履行其义务的意愿。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性情形。而这正是我们目前面临的问题。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我明白。谢谢。\n\n贝斯特先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n您还有什么要补充的吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：\n目前没有。如果法官阁下希望，我很乐意进一步进行书面陈述。\n\n法庭：\n我需要考虑一下。但谢谢。\n\n贝斯特先生：\n是的。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n法官阁下，我可以就此发表意见并作出回应吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n法官阁下，如果我——如果我可以插话片刻？我想就此提出一个实际解决方案。我理解这个问题。提交行为。明白了。\n\n但我认为，郭先生的律师会同意，提交行为原则不适用于政府向郭先生提供的文件。该方面不存在提交行为问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 128 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 129 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023 123\n\n因此，他说，让美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）致电司法部（DOJ），诸如此类。这不是事情的运作方式。我们不在刑事法院中。我们的意思是，我们不属于纽约南区美国检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney group），他们自行处理自己的事务。我们祝愿他们一切顺利，也祝愿郭先生一切顺利。这不是我们的问题。\n\n但被告在该法院有资格主张，您知道，法官，刑事法官，我们希望修改保护令，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。本法庭，法官阁下，可以指示债务人寻求对保护令作出该等修改。\n\n这并不保证刑事法院会同意，或政府会同意。但债务人似乎对此没有异议，即他们不反对我们看到政府向被告提供的文件。他只是不想参与其中。\n\n而且，如我——我告诉您，法官阁下，我们在该法院没有诉讼资格。我们不能到刑事法院就该问题陈述意见。但被告可以。而且，该被告恰好是您法庭中的债务人，您可以指示被告寻求该项救济。\n\n165\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1737\nFiled 05/01/23\nEntered 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 20, 2023\n\n不能保证取得积极结果。但对我而言，那将避免各方遭受大量脑损伤。\n\n第二部分是，关于我们希望根据他援引第五修正案权利而作出不利推论的问题，有一种方式可以使该项对第五修正案的援引具体化，并解决我们的担忧。我认为 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）的刑事辩护律师不应对此有异议，因为他们就所有这些文件均援引第五修正案权利。这并不是说其中有些文件他们会作答；他们就所有文件均援引第五修正案权利。\n\n应当有一种程序性方式——Bassett 先生可以提出某种方案——允许就每一项文件出示请求分别或具体地援引第五修正案权利。\n\n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，而无需陷入我所称的刑事法院与破产法院之间的全面冲突。\n\n法院：\nBest 先生？\n\nBEST 先生：\n是的。如果受托人的律师希望汇编一份很长的请求清单，以进行逐项审查，确保其书写方式适当，并与当事人逐项审阅，以取得他就是否将就受托人律师的某一项或全部询问分别援引第五修正案权利的决定，我没有异议。\n\n因此，就此而言，我同意 Despins 先生的意见：如果提出这一方案，而且如果这是一种解决办法，我愿意努力解决问题——我理解这些问题。我一直在努力——我想要——我已经审阅过，并提出了大陪审团程序的运作方式。这也将是此处采取该方式的正常做法。\n\n法院：\n关于——我完全不清楚——但受托人 Despins 刚才所说的，对刑事程序中的保护令作出修改，使政府将其已持有、原本将向你的当事人出示的文件也提供给受托人，这一点如何？\n\nBEST 先生：\n这不是我们的保护令。这正是问题所在。我不反对就此与法院和司法部（Department of Justice）合作。但这是法院的命令。因此，我相信这可以在过程中得到解决。但是——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n法官阁下，刑事法院——\n\nBEST 先生：\n但请理解——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n——刑事法院不会作出（听不清）。\n\nBEST 先生：\n——我无法强制 Southern District Court（纽约南区法院）修改其命令，但是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1737 于 05/01/23 提交 于 05/01/23 14:40:20 登记 第 132 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 4 月 20 日\n\n法院：\n我不认为——我认为受托人 Despins 已经承认这一点。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n不，那不是——\n\n法院：\n他已经承认他们可能不会这样做。\n\nBEST 先生：\n是的。\n\n法院：\n对吗？\n\nBEST 先生：\n很愿意尝试。\n\n法院：\n我认为他所询问的是，本院是否会作出一项命令，要求债务人向 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）寻求该项救济，明知 Southern District of New York 可能会说不。但我不知道——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n正确。\n\n法院：\n——你知道，你是否反对这一点。如果你不反对，而且你们都能拟定一项本院可以作出的命令，那就可以。但我的意思是，你们需要——是的。你们需要时间讨论此事。这没问题。\n\nBEST 先生：\n是的。我可以说一句吗？\n\n法院：\n你们想要几分钟吗？\n\n身份不明的发言人：\n当然。\n\n身份不明的发言人：\n是的，如果可以的话。\n\n法院：\n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项事项。它涉及 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克），我想其律师一直都在场。\n\n这——这是一项关于请求免除判决或命令效力的动议的问题，我想——我是在问，各方认为该听证将花费多长时间？你们知道吗？\n\nCLINE 女士：\n应该很短。（听不清）\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n从我的角度来看，法官阁下，三分钟。我要说的内容需要三分钟。\n\n法院：\n那么，这是我的想法。好吗？所以我——我认为，律师，你同意受托人 Despins 的意见，认为这将是一次简短的听证？\n\nCLINE 女士：\n因此，取决于他说什么，是的，法官阁下，应该很短。\n\n法院：\n我想这是公平的。无论如何，为什么不让——Kwok 先生的律师暂时离席。我们将暂缓目前正在进行的听证。我们暂时停止它。你们可以离席。你们可以去进行一些沟通。\n\n不过，你们也必须在某个时候与受托人的律师沟通。\n\nBEST 先生：\n当然。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么，为什么不先审理这最后一项事项，然后我将休庭一段时间，你们——你们可以先会面，然后再与受托人的律师交谈。\n\nBEST 先生：\n太好了。\n\n法院：\n好吗？我认为——就这么办。走廊里的会议室应该没有上锁。\n\nBEST 先生：\n它们比我在刑事案件中接触的任何会议室都好得多，所以——\n\n法院：\n那很好。\n\nBEST 先生：\n确实如此。\n\n法院：\n也许那会产生结果。\n\nBEST 先生：\n是的。\n\n法院：\n好吗？但无论如何，为什么不这么做。Kwok 先生的所有律师现在都可以离席。我将请 Bravo Luck 的律师上前。我们将处理日程表上的最后一项事项。然后我将——我确实将休庭，因为不仅我们的工作人员需要一些时间，你们也可以与受托人的律师交谈。\n\nBEST 先生：\n当然。为什么不计划至少——我不知道您的休庭将持续多久——在 2:00、2:15 回来。\n\n法院：\n我想我们会休庭约一小时。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1737 于 05/01/23 提交 于 05/01/23 14:40:20 登记 第 134 页，共 165 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1737 于 05/01/23 提交 于 05/01/23 14:40:20 登记 第 135 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 4 月 20 日\n\nBEST 先生：\n好的。\n\n法院：\n因为今天下午晚些时候我还有其他事项需要处理。\n\nBEST 先生：\n2:00 或 2:15 回来？\n\n法院：\n请于 2:00。\n\nBEST 先生：\n太好了。\n\n法院：\n好吗？\n\nBEST 先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n谢谢。\n\n好的。现在，由于我们在某种程度上暂停该听证，以便各方进行一些讨论，让我们转而处理日程表上最后一项被安排快速举行听证的事项，因为律师——哦，律师，请您为记录说明您的出庭身份，好吗？\n\nCLINE 女士：\n是的，法官阁下。Joanna Cline（乔安娜·克莱恩），Troutman Pepper（特劳特曼·佩珀），代表 Bravo Luck。\n\n法院：\n下午好。好的。请稍等一下。\n\n因此，关于——ECF Number 1679，即安排就动议举行听证的命令——关于 Cline 律师前几天在周二审前会议期间出庭时提出的口头动议，她担心与一项尚未提交、但法院已允许密封提交的拟议放弃财产动议有关的通知对象——即被视为通知对象的当事人。\n\n因此，受托人 Despins，我安排本次听证，是因为我想给律师一个机会——她已经解释了为什么她希望成为通知对象。根据我对前几日记录的理解，已有一项明确决定，不将 Bravo Luck 列为通知对象。对吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n正确。\n\n法院：\n好的。您能否解释一下——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n或者除所列者之外的任何其他债权人——正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n已经是什么的那些人？受保护令约束？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n所列者——所以——不。所以——将是债权人委员会、PAX（PAX）、美国受托人和债务人。\n\n法院：\n他们所有人都是——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n并且有一项——\n\n法院：\n——保护令的签署方，对吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n是的。但这并非由此驱动。不过，是的，他们全都是该保护令的签署方。不过，如果我能在我的三分钟内解释一下？\n\n基本上，这是一个问题——诚然，Linsey 先生提交的动议并未披露将被放弃的是什么财产。\n\n但我可以说——而且我希望这会让——但实际上，我们已经尝试过了，我不认为奏效——让 Bravo Luck 的律师放心的是，这与 The Sherry Netherland（雪梨尼德兰酒店）或 Bravo Luck 毫无关系。因此，这是第一部分。这是 Kwok 案中的一个问题。\n\n因此，他们说，好吧，我们是 Kwok 案的债权人。他们不是受托人。我们有一名受托人，即债权人委员会。\n\n正如法官阁下将从我在该听证中所作的证言中了解到的，就放弃策略和其他潜在替代做法而言，有非常敏感的问题需要讨论。我只是不希望这些内容被公开。\n\n而且这不涉及 Bravo Luck。Bravo Luck——请记住，他们是诈欺转让案件的被告。这就是他们的全部身份。而且他们——你知道，他们的负责人拒绝接受送达。\n\n这只是——你知道，他们不能参与任何其他事项。他们不应参与任何其他事项。这是涉及本案管理核心的问题。有一名受托人，即债权人委员会。美国受托人在场。债务人的律师在场。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 4 月 20 日\n\nPAX 在场。PAX 在场的原因是，你知道，他们确实拥有一项数百万美元的判决书。\n\n因此，他们不像是试图以某种方式介入本案的被告。因此，这——基本上，这就是我的（听不清），法官阁下。他们不属于那里。他们不应在那里。这涉及非常敏感的信息。\n\n而且这不会影响他们，因为它不会直接影响 The Sherry Netherland 或 Bravo Luck。因此，它可能以其作为 Kwok 债权人的身份影响他们。坦率地说，我不确定他们如何成为 Kwok 的债权人。但假定他们是，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已经对此提供了充分保障。\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n谢谢。律师，您希望发表意见吗？\n\nCLINE 女士：\n是的，法官阁下。Joanna Cline，代表 Bravo Luck。\n\n我认为受托人所寻求的是两件事：第一，限制通知；第二，密封提交该放弃财产动议。判例法中没有任何依据支持任一请求，他也没有说明任一请求的事实理由。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1737 于 05/01/23 提交 于 05/01/23 14:40:20 登记 第 138 页，共 165 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1737 于 05/01/23 提交 于 05/01/23 14:40:20 登记 第 139 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n关于通知问题，通常限制通知是在作出通知的一方试图避免通知所需的费用或时间时进行的。受托人在其书面文件中援引的案件 In Re Karan（卡兰案，发音不确定）确实涉及法院在放弃程序中限制通知的权限，但该案实际上支持我方立场，并强调了如下命题：通知要求的目的，是为相关人员提供陈述意见和提出异议的机会。\n\n该案并未阐明限制通知的标准；相反，由于当事人未提交适当的限制通知动议，未能充分说明送达限制并由宣誓书支持，故该案驳回了作出关于放弃事项的合意命令的动议。\n\n我们并不知悉、且受托人也未援引任何案件表明，法院曾在放弃程序中因通知费用或时间以外的理由而实际限制通知。事实上，判例法表明，通知是放弃事项的关键方面。这一点可见于名为 In Re Telcar（泰尔卡案）的案件。\n\n关于密封提交这一概念——\n\n法官：你有 In Re Telcar（泰尔卡案）的引证吗？\n\n克莱因女士：有。In Re Telcar，363 B.R. 345 at 165 Note 19, Bankruptcy Eastern District 2007。\n\n法官：谢谢。\n\n克莱因女士：而且这些内容也都载于 Collier's（科利尔著作）关于 Rule 6007 的章节中。\n\n法官：关于 Rule 6007？好的。\n\n克莱因女士：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n克莱因女士：然后，就第二点，即密封提交而言，作为初步事项，我们并不知悉有任何案件曾将放弃动议予以密封并对诉讼利害关系方保密。\n\n但适当的标准是 Rule 107(b)；如果仔细阅读该规则，我认为受托人所依赖的引证涉及这样一种概念：法院可以就商业秘密或保密的研究、开发或商业信息对实体提供保护。因此，这就是他们所依赖的分支。\n\n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、何种信息如此保密，或者此处争议的所谓商业信息究竟是什么。\n\n受托人负有举证责任，以推翻对本法院系统公开公共访问的推定；该推定正是美国法院运作方式的根本基础。笼统的利益不足以满足要求。Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 140 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 141 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n法院认定为保密的信息类型，通常与债务人资产受到影响时的某种商业价值有关，例如客户名单、债权人名单或类似事项。\n\n但是，如同本案受托人甚至在其书面陈述中所做的那样，笼统地说，没有 Bravo（布拉沃）的干预，事情会更顺利，这一论点已被法院就此问题明确驳回。\n\n该案名为 Itel，I-T-E-L；Collier's（科利尔著作）关于 Rule 107.03(a) 的章节中对此有所讨论。\n\n受托人本质上是在说，我们正在做的事情可能会影响他人的权利，因此我们希望让他们蒙在鼓里，这样他们就无法提出异议。\n\n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\n法官：好的。谢谢，律师。Despins 受托人，还有其他内容吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，您知道，相关的是他人的权利，不是 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·勒克）的权利，而是其他人的。我们不希望他们知晓此事或得悉此事。而且，在我陈述本案与 Bravo Luck 无关、也不涉及 The Sherry Netherland（雪莉内德兰酒店）之后，我没有听到任何关于 Bravo Luck 具有何种具体利益的内容。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 142 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n他们由 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）和 creditors' committee（债权人委员会）代表。他们在场充当监督者，以确保我们没有做任何荒唐的事情。\n\n关于本事项的保密性，是因为它涉及与该资产有关的复杂策略，包括如何放弃该资产以及保留哪些内容；我确实不希望 Bravo Luck 或其他债权人知晓这些内容。顺便说一句，除非他们对此事项具有特别具体的利益，否则他们不应参与其中。因为这些内容高度保密，并可能对破产财产造成损害。（听不清）\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢。\n\n法官：律师，还有其他内容吗？\n\n克莱因女士：有，法官阁下，只是——是的，只是指出显而易见的一点，即举证责任不在我方。举证责任在受托人，由其推翻对法院系统公共记录可被公众查阅的推定。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\n梅休女士：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——基于 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）所作出的陈述，即此事高度保密且敏感，我们认为，作为对所有债权人负有受托责任的债权人委员会，在已收到通知的情况下，如有任何会令个别债权人关注的事项，我们将会掌握该等信息。但基于受托人的陈述，我们不认为应向 Bravo Luck 发出放弃通知。165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 143 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n梅休女士：谢谢。\n\n法官：还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\n克莱因女士：如果可以的话？最后还有一件——\n\n法官：当然。\n\n克莱因女士：——事，法官阁下。我想，如果委员会可以查阅，PAX 也可以查阅，我们尚未听到为何——为何 Bravo 不能查阅。\n\n对于为何应当让我们的客户蒙在鼓里，除我推测受托人的理论构成其整个案件的基础之外，并没有作出任何具体说明。但此处并无任何证明，也不存在拒绝我方查阅的依据。\n\n法官：好的。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？好。我将对此事项保留裁决，并将作出相应裁决。好吗？律师，除非你们愿意，否则无需留下。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1737\nFiled 05/01/23\nEntered 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n你们完全可以留下。我原本未预料到听证会会持续这么长时间，也未预料到我们无法更早审理你们的听证事项。但这完全由你们自行决定。\n\n但如法院就此前审理事项所说明的那样，为使各方能够进行一些讨论，法院将休庭至下午 2 点。因此，法院休庭至下午 2 点。\n\n法庭书记员：法院休庭至下午 2 点。\n\n（法庭于下午 1:07 至下午 2:03 期间休庭。）\n\n法官：请坐。好的。在我们休庭之前——\n\n巴塞特先生：法官阁下，抱歉打断您，但我没有在 Zoom 上看到 Despins 受托人。\n\n法官：哦，看起来他来了。\n\n德斯平斯先生：抱歉。对不起。\n\n法官：没关系。没事。\n\n法官：好的。在我们休庭之前，我们正在处理本案——即 Kwok 先生主案——中尚待裁决的两项动议。\n\n这些动议是：关于命令说明为何不应就 Kwok 先生援引其 Fifth Amendment（第五修正案）特权一事认定其藐视法庭的动议；以及 Kwok 先生提出的有限中止部分准许要求遵守 2004 examination（2004 审查）的强制遵守动议之命令的动议。\n\nBest 先生和各方原本将进行一些讨论。Best 先生，您是否想报告一下目前的情况？\n\n贝斯特先生：是的，法官阁下。我认为，甚至在休庭之前，我们就 Despins 先生的请求，即对 Fifth Amendment（第五修正案）特权的援引应当具体到特定事项，已经达成一致。唯一剩下的问题，是 Southern District of New York（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\n我们原则上同意，前提是 U.S. Department of Justice（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这些材料——我确信会附带许多限制或条件——我们不会加以阻挠。真正要讨论的是，完成此事的最佳方式是什么。\n\n据我了解，我们尚未收到任何证据开示材料。无论是维持现有传票的效力，并就这一具体问题附加具体但书——我想，这些都是——我们没有讨论过这一点，但是，您知道，我会请求无损权利地撤回要求认定客户藐视法庭的动议，并且我们也会撤回我们的延期动议。然后我们就只需坐下来，努力确定今后的最佳行动方案。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 20, 2023\n\n美国受托人的律师担心，他们对于该传票在纽约南区不具有诉讼地位。我不在乎我们如何达成结果。存在多种方式可以做到这一点；他们提到，他们不希望自己承担亲自前往美国司法部的义务。\n\n为向法院保持透明，他们最终将出现在纽约南区的 U.S. District Court（美国地区法院）法官面前，因为我确信她或他会希望听取他们就使用限制、保密性以及保护令相关问题的意见。因此——\n\n法官：当你说“他们”时，你指的是 Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：正确。\n\n法官：好的。\n\n贝斯特先生：因此，我想协助法院探讨此事，并协助法院拟定一项命令——或裁决，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决。但我希望今后的路径明确。我知道您也希望如此。我知道每个人都希望如此。并且我们理解，我们将遵守任何能够使——Case 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 146 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 147 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日 141 1 最妥当的意义上。2 法院：好的。谢谢。3 DESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：法官阁下，恕我直言，美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）与此毫无关系。这是第11章受托人（Chapter 11 Trustee）的证据开示。6 BEST先生（贝斯特）：第11章受托人。7 DESPINS先生：所以，您知道，这是非常不同的。9 法院：是。10 DESPINS先生：因此，我认为应当发生的是，法院应作出一项命令，指示债务人寻求修改刑事案件中任何适用的保护令，以允许第11章受托人查阅政府向债务人提供的文件。您可以加入措辞，说明债务人绝不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。19 如果他们被驳回，那就被驳回。这是我们承担的风险。他们不能反对该项救济，因为关于制作行为的问题，届时就完全不存在了。23 因此，我认为应当如此。我们应将对基础动议的听证会延期20天左右，以了解刑事案件中发生的情况。165\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1737\n提交 05/01/23\n录入 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 这是我认为推进此事的路径。2 而且，再次说明，这不会导致债务人同意其无法交付的事项，因为大家都理解，他们仅仅会提出请求。这就是我们的路径。5 如果这不起作用，您知道，由于刑事法院或司法部（DOJ）否决了它，那是我们的风险。我们理解这一点。8 但债务人没有资格——我不是在法律意义上使用“资格”，而是在实际意义上——反对一项命令，该命令称你应当寻求与你的第11章受托人共享这些材料的权利。谢谢。12 法院：谢谢。13 克莱伯恩律师（Attorney Claiborn）？14 CLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：谢谢，法官阁下。我确实想重申受托人德斯平斯刚刚作出的澄清，即贝斯特律师所称的第11章——美国受托人，实际上是指第11章受托人。美国受托人并非律师之间一直进行的讨论的一部分，也不是他们一直讨论的协议或未能达成协议的一方。21 BEST先生：我为我的失言道歉。22 法院：没关系。23 BEST先生：对不起。请继续。24 FRIEDMAN先生（弗里德曼）：请继续。请继续。25 BEST先生：不。我同意律师提出一份裁定草案。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1737\n提交 05/01/23\n录入 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 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。3 我只是想确保每个人都知道，保护令对信息的使用有限制。我认为——我看到德斯平斯先生点头表示认可。7 因此，我认为已有协议，即若Southern District Court（纽约南区法院）允许使用该信息，则应当遵守相关规定，但以他们受该保护令约束为条件。11 法院：好的。因此，我认为我听到的是——弗里德曼先生，您想发言吗？13 FRIEDMAN先生：是的，法官阁下。我是O'Melveny & Myers（欧麦律师事务所）的彼得·弗里德曼（Peter Friedman），梅休女士（Ms. Mayhew）也将与我一同代表委员会。17 FRIEDMAN先生：我们二人都请求参与关于修改SDNY（纽约南区）保护令的任何讨论。我们双方的委托人都希望能够查阅文件，或者——您知道，以其愿意像第11章案件中所发生的那样签署任何保护令为条件。24 法院：但问题在于，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 文书 1737 提交 05/01/23 录入 05/01/23 14:40:20 第150页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 我的意思是，受托人德斯平斯，您正在试图为您的调查获取这些信息。3 DESPINS先生：正确。顺便说一下，我听不见弗里德曼先生所说的话，因为他——5 法院：弗里德曼先生是——6 DESPINS先生：——离——太远了。7 法院：哦，是。他——8 FRIEDMAN先生：抱歉。9 法院：请继续。10 FRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，我可以——我应该发言吗，还是——12 法院：请。13 FRIEDMAN先生：好的。我们只是请求许可，以便也能够审阅与您的调查相关而收到的文件，但以成为任何保护令的一方为条件。我认为委员会提出的是同样的请求。18 DESPINS先生：而且我——通常，我会说绝对可以。但这是确保我们永远无法获得这些文件的万全办法。接触这些文件的人越多，我们甚至有权寻求这些文件的可能性就越小。所以我并非试图在此作出困难的参与者，但我只是——这行不通。25 FRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，我们认为我们应当——受托人应当——我们也应当被允许提出该请求。如果纽约的法官说那是一个问题，那么那就是一个问题。但是——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1737\n提交 05/01/23\n录入 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 法院：嗯，这不是纽约法官的问题。这是本院的问题，对吗？我们正在解决本院面前的事项。纽约法官是否同意受托人所寻求的事项，是另一个问题。9 但目前，受托人正寻求继续履行其根据《破产法》承担的职责。显然，我认为贝斯特先生与受托人达成了一项协议，即将向本院提交某种形式的裁定，以解决今日日程上的这两项事项，即受托人的强制动议以及债务人的中止动议。17 而解决办法是，受托人将向Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的法院寻求这些文件，该纽约地区法院可能会说不。但——21 DESPINS先生：嗯，实际上，法官阁下，是债务人将寻求——23 法院：嗯，是的。24 DESPINS先生：不是我们寻求。25 法院：抱歉。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1737 提交 05/01/23 录入 05/01/23 14:40:20 第152页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 DESPINS先生：债务人将寻求。2 法院：债务人将寻求，然后在他们——当他们——之后与您共享。4 DESPINS先生：正确。5 法院：对。对。而且我必须说，在我们目前所处的情形下，我此时必须同意第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的任何适用命令，并且纽约南区法官以及我想美国检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney's Office）不反对，且该请求获准，那么目前向郭先生提供的唯一信息将仅与第11章受托人共享。15 本案目前发生的事情太多了，我们不能再花一个月就谁得到什么进行争斗。这就是将会发生的事情。我不会让这种情况发生。19 受托人由本院指定进行调查。这就是他将要做的事情，或者说，他将试图做的事情。如果他对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平斯先生同意的条款和条件，那么我们目前就将如此推进。25\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1737 提交 05/01/23 录入 05/01/23 14:40:20 第153页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 FRIEDMAN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材料——4 法院：那么我们将在——5 FRIEDMAN先生：——我们将会——6 法院：——发生时处理。7 FRIEDMAN先生：那么我们是否将有能力请求本院允许我们——9 法院：我们将——10 FRIEDMAN先生：——审阅密封提交的文件，而不因我们被告知——您知道，在受托人与债务人在SDNY进行谈判时，被告知该裁定并未规定当事人可以向曼宁法官（Judge Manning）申请取得密封提交的文件。这——16 法院：如果、以及当我们到了那一步时，我们会处理该问题。18 看，情况是这样的。如各位所知，本案的案卷条目已超过1,700项。每天都有需要紧急听证的新动议被提交。每天。我认为我们没有经历过一天——一周没有发生这种情况。好吗？23 此处存在一项协议，试图在受托人与郭先生的律师之间取得一些进展。我将允许该协议得到落实，然后我们看看会发生什么。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1737 提交 05/01/23 录入 05/01/23 14:40:20 第154页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日 148 1 发生什么。本案中的每一件事每天、每周都在变化。因此，我们拭目以待。3 我理解PAX（PAX）的关切，也理解委员会的关切。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。我不会再进行另一场争斗。我们不会就谁能够得到什么提交书面意见，并且——9 存在一项协议。我们将依照该协议推进。我将要求贝斯特先生和德斯平斯先生遵守该协议。如果他们不遵守——如果出了什么差错，那么他们在本院将面临问题。13 但目前，存在一项可能为受托人带来一些进展的协议。这就是我们将要——这就是我们目前解决该问题的方式。17 这并不意味着你们在未来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情况作出规定，否则我们永远无法离开这个法庭。而且我们已经就此事项出庭——您知道，我们就此事项出庭的次数，已经比复杂的第11章公司案件更多。23 而且我认为现在是时候了——每个人一直都在努力。我理解这一点。但此时，这就是我们所处的位置。165\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1737 提交 05/01/23 录入 05/01/23 14:40:20 第155页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月20日\n\n1 受托人与贝斯特先生将提交一项裁定。你们两位需要多长时间？你们会在明天之前完成吗？4 DESPINS先生：从我们的角度来看，是的。5 FRIEDMAN先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我可以离开讲台，以便他人使用吗？7 法院：可以。谢谢。8 FRIEDMAN先生：谢谢。9 BEST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裁定草案，我们只需要一点时间将其交给我们的委托人看。我们——我们在这方面不容易接触到他。所以，如果能在周一营业结束前完成，可以吗？14 法院：对于你刚刚所说的，我只想说，当你说见你的委托人——我理解你必须见你的委托人。但你已经同意你的委托人不会反对这一点。所以——18 BEST先生：我同意。19 法院：好的。20 BEST先生：他只需要看一下裁定，而且——21 法院：好的。这是公平的。22 BEST先生：是。23 法院：我并非提出任何相反的建议。我只是说，我不想听到不存在——不再存在协议，因为否则\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- April 20, 2023 150\n\n那么我将就这些动议作出裁定。\n\n贝斯特先生（MR. BEST）：我完全理解。\n\n法院：您当然有权这么做，毫无疑问。\n\n贝斯特先生：我并未将此作为限定条件。\n\n法院：我并没有暗示您是这样做的。\n\n贝斯特先生：好的。\n\n法院：我想让记录非常清楚。好吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：就此而言，当我们提交该命令且其获签发时，据我了解，受托人的制裁或藐视法庭动议、说明理由听证以及藐视法庭事项都将被撤回——\n\n法院：我不认为就撤回一事已达成协议。\n\n德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：没有。延期。\n\n法院：我认为协议是关于该命令的。法院将会做的，以及我认为在本案中适宜的做法，是将这些听证延期一段时间，以观察事态进展。\n\n因为我们需要——受托人——我知道您参与本案的时间还不长，贝斯特先生——\n\n贝斯特先生：是的。\n\n法院：——但受托人需要进行调查，对吗？他——而且即使这可能根本行不通，他正在尝试做的事情，对吗？但他正在尝试。法院将支持这一点，因为这正是本案任命受托人的原因——并非特指德斯平斯先生，而是本案任命受托人的原因。好吗？\n\n因此，我不会让这些动议被撤回，结果却只是不得不再次提交。我将把它们延期一段时间。我们将观察事态进展。\n\n我们需要做的是让各方——您会这样做，您和德斯平斯先生——相互合作，并看看在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）能够做些什么，如果能做任何事情的话。\n\n我现已裁定，唯一能够查看这些文件的一方是受托人。没有其他人。好吗？此事会如何发展，谁知道。我们将拭目以待。但目前，我不会让任何一项动议被撤回。我将把两项动议都延期。好吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我们会弄清楚——我将把它们延期——嗯，我稍后看一下日程表。但我不会延期超过约 30 天，因为我想看看在 Southern District of New York 已取得何种进展。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 157 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 158 of\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023\n\n贝斯特先生：我想说清楚。我们尚未获得任何证据开示材料，所以我——\n\n法院：我明白这一切。\n\n贝斯特先生：所以——\n\n法院：我完全——\n\n贝斯特先生：好的。\n\n法院：我对此表示理解。\n\n贝斯特先生：好的。\n\n法院：但一旦你们双方开始与 Southern District of New York 的当事人沟通，谁知道会发生什么，对吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：对。\n\n法院：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。但我们至少需要让受托人尝试履行其职责的能力继续朝前推进——\n\n贝斯特先生：明白。\n\n法院：——无论这种推进有多么微小。\n\n贝斯特先生：明白。\n\n法院：好吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么我们看看。嗯，本案——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程序中——我们安排了一次听证。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 159 of\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023\n\n该听证定于 March——抱歉，May 30 下午 1 点举行。因此，我将把这两项事项均延期至 May 30 下午 1:00，即两项动议——我将为记录说明，因为我们的记录仅为音频，所以我们必须非常谨慎地表述，确保清楚。\n\n因此，关于藐视法庭问题的说明理由命令动议——尤其是关于郭先生的事项，ECF 1453——延期至 May 30 下午 1:00；债务人的动议亦同——请给我一秒钟，抱歉——即债务人请求对部分准许强制遵守 Rule 2004 审查的动议之命令予以有限暂缓执行的动议。传票，我应该说。抱歉。传票。因此，该事项，即 ECF 1649，予以延期。该事项也延期至 May 30 下午 1:00。\n\n现在，德斯平斯先生，在我们今天休庭之前，您现在——你们双方将最迟于 Monday 向法院提交该命令，即关于由 Southern District of New York 控制的文件的协议命令。我想这确实就是其内容，对吗？\n\n贝斯特先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：那么，德斯平斯先生，您今天开始陈述时表示您担心利益冲突问题。出于多种原因，我允许这些听证继续进行，其中包括所有人都在场，而且这些问题确实需要处理。\n\n您现在是否坚持提出利益冲突问题，还是鉴于您正尝试推进调查，您暂时不坚持提出该问题？因为我需要决定是否需要确定书面陈述时间表。\n\n而且，如果——为公平起见，鉴于你们过去一小时进行了一些讨论——当您和贝斯特先生提交关于尝试——您知道，即尝试在 Southern District of New York 获取信息的程序的命令时，我将允许您向法院说明情况，如果这就是您希望采取的做法。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是的。我正要说，我需要思考一下。今天通过听证我得知了一些事情，您知道，这让我对其进行了更多思考。我当然知道我们收到了 DOJ（美国司法部）的传票。该传票要求提交证言笔录。这一点对我而言非常清楚。\n\n但我没有——我此前没有关注的是，贝斯特先生关注的一项内容，即 Title 18 Section 152，这涉及破产犯罪、破产欺诈。关键在于——首先，起诉书中完全没有涉及这一点。传票中明确写明了这一点。\n\n如果那是真的，我的意思是，如果他们确实在调查此事，那就只能涵盖 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）担任律师期间。因此，坦率地说，在我再次向法官阁下陈述之前，我需要更深入地了解该问题。抱歉。\n\n法院：没关系。没关系。不。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我很希望能当场处理，但——\n\n法院：没关系。没关系。我不希望当事人在目前尚不明确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，我有几项事务性事项。\n\n法院：请讲。\n\n德斯平斯先生：首先，我想确认您是否看到了——您还记得那项紧急命令吗？该命令说明了谁可以进入 The Sherry Netherland（谢里-内德兰酒店），谁不可以？我们提交——\n\n法院：我所知道的只是——\n\n德斯平斯先生：我们已提交——\n\n法院：我所知道的只是，昨天某个时候下午有人请求对其进行修改。但我——我实际上是否已有一份修改后的命令？法庭书记员正在点头。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我相信您应当已经收到。\n\n法院：好的。我尚未看到，但我会看一下。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1737\nFiled 05/01/23\nEntered 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\n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，我们曾请求为聘任 Edmiston（埃德米斯顿）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（“梅夫人”号）游艇的销售经纪人。我们请求——我们以加急方式提出了动议。抱歉。但您知道，由于他们现在开始出售该游艇，我们需要——他们希望有一项已签发的命令，说明他们已获聘任。\n\n因此，我只是——您现在不必作出决定。我只是想确保此事已——您知道，已进入您的关注范围。\n\n法院：那么，等一下。\n\n德斯平斯先生：最后一件——\n\n法院：等一下。\n\n德斯平斯先生：哦。\n\n法院：一项紧急动议——我以为我们已经聘任了游艇的所有相关人员。没有吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：没有。经纪人部分缺失了。我们基本上面谈了三家不同的经纪人。我们收到了相关报价。我们提交了一项动议，我想是在——\n\n法院：哦，好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——Monday 或——\n\n法院：好的。好。\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023 157\n\n德斯平斯先生：——就此请求紧急救济。因此，我只是想确保此事在您的关注范围内——\n\n法院：这是否就是您请求在下周 Thursday 举行听证的事项？是那一项吗？我——\n\n德斯平斯先生：嗯，不是本周 Thursday。是下周的 Thursday，为了——\n\n法院：对。从今天起一周后。今天不是 Thursday 吗？我希望今天是 Thursday。好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是的，您说得对。抱歉。\n\n法院：从今天起一周后。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是，您说得对。是。\n\n法院：好的。是的。我相信法院可以满足该请求，但将会——可能——不会——最有可能要到当天中午或更晚。\n\n德斯平斯先生：可以，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：我最后想提及的一点是，您签发的关于放弃动议的命令——非常感谢您签发该命令——安排了 May 2nd 就该动议举行听证。当然，这其中隐含的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 May 2nd 的听证延期至稍后的日期，不必晚得太多——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 163 of 165\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023 158\n\n晚些，但可能在其后五天或六天——\n\n法院：没关系。您可以在下周报告此事。您可以在下周报告——\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n\n法院：——如果您尚未准备好在 May 2nd 就该问题继续进行。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。因此，就事务性事项而言，我就这些。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n好的。因此，今日排期的所有事项均已处理完毕，法院今日下午不再举行进一步听证。因此，休庭。\n\n法庭书记员：全体起立。休庭。\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢。\n\n（程序于下午 2:33 结束。）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1737 Filed 05/01/23 Entered 05/01/23 14:40:20 Page 164 of 165\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1737\nFiled 05/01/23\nEntered 05/01/23 14:40:20\n\n郭文贵 - April 20, 2023\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法院批准的听录员及认证电子记录员兼听录员，特此证明，上述内容系根据上述案件程序的官方电子录音制作的正确笔录。\n\nApril 27, 2023\nChristine Fiore, CERT\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Je","Himalaya","Paul Hastings","CIPA","GETTR","Miles Guo","Luc Despins","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":48478,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-05-01 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-05-01","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:10:18"}