{"id":"court_ctb_1754_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1754,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-05-04","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"听证会记录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1754（2023-05-04立案）。Julie A. Manning 法官于 2023 年 4 月 27 日举行的听证会记录，审理受托人聘请 Edmiston 经纪出售 Lady May 和 Lady May II 游艇、将 Lady May 移至罗德岛水域及破产财产管理进展等事项。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1754 (filed 2023-05-04). Transcript of the April 27, 2023 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning addressing the Trustee's retention of Edmiston to broker the sale of Lady May and Lady May II yachts, the movement of Lady May to Rhode Island waters, and estate status updates.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* April 27, 2023 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF #1675 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO/APPLICATION OF TRUSTEE, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 327(a) and 328, BANKRUPTCY RULES 2014(a) and 2016 and Local Rule 2014 FOR ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION OF EDMISTON AND COMPANY LIMITED AS BROKER FOR SALE OF LADY MAY AND LADY MAY II #1696 MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTION 363(b) FOR ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING (I) MOVING LADY MAY TO NAVIGABLE WATERS OF RHODE ISLAND AND (II) ENTRY INTO AND PERFORMANCE UNDER NEWPORT DOCKAGE AGREEMENT #1704 AMENDED ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 G. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, 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 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 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 ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. Plaintiff, HK Zeisler & Zeisler, PC International and Mei Guo: 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Debtor: WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Brown Rudnick 601 13th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 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\n2\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 1:05 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. BONGARTZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Alex Bongartz of Paul Hastings for the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. SKALKA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka of Neubert, Pepe & Monteith as local counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Creditors Committee. MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy, Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor and also for Mei Guo and HK. MR. BALDIGA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick, special defense counsel to the debtor. THE COURT: Good afternoon to everyone. Okay. There are three matters on the calendar today in the Kwok\n\nand related Chapter 11 cases.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 4 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 4 The first matter is an application for approval for the Trustee to retain a broker to sell the Lady May and the Lady May II. The second is the motion of the Chapter 11 Trustee for an order authorizing that the Lady May be moved to the navigable waters of Rhode Island, and with regard to that motion to enter into a dockage agreement. And then an order setting a status conference on issues that were addressed at a prior hearing with regard to the debtor's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to discovery issues and an order for contempt. So Trustee Despins, are we proceeding first with the application to approve the retention of the broker? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Bongartz, will handle that. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BONGARTZ: Good afternoon, again. Alex Bongartz, of Paul Hastings, for the Chapter 11 Trustee. I'll be addressing first the application to retain Edmiston as the yacht broker to sell -- to market and sell the Lady May and the Lady May II. There have been no objections filed to the retention application, but I want to note that we have received informal comments from the United States Trustee and did file a revised proposed order yesterday afternoon at\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 5 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 5 Docket No. 1713. I'm happy to walk the Court through that blackline or we can -- I'll make a few introductory remarks. I'm happy to proceed either way. THE COURT: Why don't you go ahead and make a few introductory remarks, please. MR. BONGARTZ: Yeah. Of course. So we filed this motion because we believe it is critical to engage a qualified and seasoned yacht broker to market the two yachts for sale. Edmiston, we believe, is highly qualified and has substantial experience in marketing luxury super yachts of the type of -- like the Lady May. One specific example to flag, and that makes Edmiston actually particularly suitable to market the Lady May, is that they have been marketing the sister ship of the Lady May for about a year and have an extensive list of interested parties through that process. So they are already well steeped in this market for super yachts and in particular Feadship, which is the manufacturer of the Lady May. THE COURT: May I just stop you right there. When you say the sister ship, what do you mean? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. I believe that at around the time that the Lady May was manufactured, the manufacturer being Feadship, they also manufactured a nearly identical\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 6 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>6                                |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | ship, same dimensions, same specifications, generally            |\n| 2  | speaking.<br>Definitely if you look at them in pictures they     |\n| 3  | look virtually identical.<br>And that ship I believe is called   |\n| 4  | K-I-S-S, KISS, and has been on the market for about a year       |\n| 5  | under the stewardship of Edmiston as the broker.                 |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>And what's the sales price for that                |\n| 7  | boat that's been on the market, that yacht that's been on        |\n| 8  | the market for a year?                                           |\n| 9  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>I believe the listing price is                  |\n| 10 | somewhat over \\$30 million.<br>It was reduced to 29.<br>I'm      |\n| 11 | sorry.                                                           |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Go ahead.                                 |\n| 13 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Okay.<br>So as we've explained in our           |\n| 14 | motion, Edmiston will be -- or would, if approved by this        |\n| 15 | court, would be marketing the Lady May as well as the Lady       |\n| 16 | May II.<br>That process would include creating marketing         |\n| 17 | materials, reaching out to their database of potential           |\n| 18 | buyers.<br>Marketing materials in this day and age are not       |\n| 19 | just print materials.<br>They would include video shoots.<br>And |\n| 20 | then they would introduce the yacht to their extensive           |\n| 21 | database of potential buyers.                                    |\n| 22 | I should note that we've negotiated a couple of                  |\n| 23 | provisions in the engagement letter that are not standard.       |\n| 24 | We specifically asked for them, for the benefit of the           |\n| 25 | estate.<br>For example, Edmiston -- we requested Edmiston and    |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 7 Edmiston agreed to provide the Trustee on a monthly basis with a log of all parties that they have contacted and parties that contacted them either directly or through a sub-listing broker. We've also negotiated a provision that would allow the Trustee to terminate the broker agreement after three months, in which case, if that option is exercised, the agreement would terminate ten days after such notice. We believe that the fee structure that was agreed upon is competitive. Just in a nutshell, there's a five percent commission that will come due if the buyer is sold in house, meaning to an interested party that is in Edmiston's internal database of contacts, and there would be a six percent commission if the Lady May is sold to a buyer that is introduced through a sub-listing broker. In the case of the Lady May, in either event, whether it's in house or through a sub-listing broker, the commission would be five percent. We've also negotiated provisions that require Edmiston to come to this court and seek an application if it desires or if it believes it is entitled to any payment under the indemnity. So that process would be funneled through this court. And, in addition to that, there is a carve out from any claim for indemnity. Specifically carved out are Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 7 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 8 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>8                              |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | fraud, fraud from misrepresentations, knowing or willful       |\n| 2  | violation of law, willful misconduct, et cetera.<br>All that's |\n| 3  | detailed in our application.                                   |\n| 4  | So with these remarks, unless the Court has any                |\n| 5  | questions about what I've just said, I would turn to the       |\n| 6  | blackline that we filed yesterday afternoon.                   |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>I do have a few questions.                       |\n| 8  | So why does -- why would Edmiston need to work                 |\n| 9  | with a sub-listing broker?                                     |\n| 10 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Well --                                       |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Because that would increase the                  |\n| 12 | commission by a whole percent.<br>So we're talking, you know,  |\n| 13 | right now, if they sell it for 26 million they get a           |\n| 14 | million-three.<br>But if they have to use another broker,      |\n| 15 | right, then that amount of money -- why would they need to     |\n| 16 | use -- I'm just trying to understand.                          |\n| 17 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Understood.<br>The database, while            |\n| 18 | extensive in the case of Edmiston, there may be a buyer that   |\n| 19 | is already working with another broker and that is not         |\n| 20 | within the universe of Edmiston's potential clients.           |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 22 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>And if such another broker                    |\n| 23 | introduces the yacht to Edmiston -- sorry, is introduced to    |\n| 24 | the yacht through another broken, then I understand it is      |\n| 25 | customary in the industry that a sub-listing broker would      |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 9 get a portion of the fee. THE COURT: How does it get split? Because right now if a sub-listing -- if you take my example and the sub- listing broker brings forth the person, so it would be another \\$260,000 that would be payable out of the sales proceeds. How does it get split between the two? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, Luc Despins, for the record. It's a negotiation between the two brokers. It's not limited to the new broker getting the one percent. It could be more than that. And, as Mr. Bongartz mentioned, we receive bids from three different brokers. They all have the same structure except that the others had, or at least one other had a higher percentage, 7.5 percent. And so that it's a standard thing, which there are some brokers that control buyers, if you will, they have a relationship, and they're not going to bring them to the table unless they're guaranteed to get a cut from the existing broker. THE COURT: I understand that. I'm not -- I'm not asking that. I'm asking how is it going to be split? MR. DESPINS: It's a -- it's a negotiation between the two brokers. From our point of view, where obviously we want Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 9 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 10 the lowest fee possible, but we're indifferent as to how the six percent is split between the two brokers. THE COURT: What happens if there is a dispute? Then I have to decide that? MR. DESPINS: Well, you have exclusive jurisdiction to -- for any disputes relating to Edmiston. So we're not -- if there's a dispute, we're not going to pay Edmiston. It would have to be resolved by this court obviously. THE COURT: Okay. All right. That's the question. All right. Go ahead, Counsel. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. Sorry. I just want to make sure -- THE COURT: Oh, you don't have to go through the blackline by the way. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: I've looked at it. MR. BONGARTZ: All right. All right. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: So we believe that these -- we've shared these comments and the blackline with the U.S. Trustee's Office and we believe those comments were acceptable. Obviously, I defer to counsel if she has anything else to add. Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 10 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 11 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 11 MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. I do want to point the Court to one material change from the original proposal. The original proposal contemplated no fee application of any kind for Edmiston, and the revised order that's been submitted to Your Honor contains a methodology whereby the payment of the compensation commission will be sought in conjunction with a motion to sell that the Trustee files and not the subject of a separate fee application. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I did see that. MS. CLAIBORN: Other than that, Your Honor, I have one another comment. And I would like to just tell the Court that we are okay with the new proposed order that was filed at ECF 1713. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I do have another question I failed to ask with regard to -- first of all, I see the time line, right, that the broker has submitted. And, okay, so it doesn't detail necessarily everything they're going to do, but I understand that they're going to take videos and pictures and they're going to put things on social media and they're going to have a broker's open house and things like that. I understand all that.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 12 of 95\n\n| Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>12                               |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| But what I didn't see anywhere, and maybe I                      |\n| missed, is how are they going to market the sale of these        |\n| two yachts?                                                      |\n| UNIDENTIFIED:<br>(Indiscernible)                                 |\n| I have no idea who that is and why they're on the                |\n| phone.<br>Who is Doug White?<br>Oh, I'm sorry.<br>I apologize.   |\n| Forget it.<br>In any event, we should get that changed.<br>Okay? |\n| My question is this.<br>Have you discussed -- have               |\n| you or the Chapter 11 Trustee discussed with the broker how      |\n| they're going to market the sale of these yachts?<br>Are they    |\n| going to -- is there going to be a possibility that someone      |\n| could buy both or someone could buy one or the other?            |\n| And then how is it going to be determined, I mean,               |\n| it's going to be the Trustee that will bring the sale            |\n| forward, but, you know, what is the highest and best offer       |\n| with regard the sale of -- I think the broker needs to           |\n| understand that at least from the Court's perspective there      |\n| could be a situation where the sale of both would be more        |\n| beneficial, but there also could be a situation where the        |\n| sale of one versus another could be more beneficial to the       |\n| estate.<br>Right?<br>We want to be able to obtain the highest    |\n| and best offer for the sale of these two yachts.                 |\n| Now, from what I understand over the course of the               |\n| last month or so, the Lady May II wasn't anywhere near the       |\n| Lady May.<br>It was in -- it's in some -- I don't know if it     |\n|                                                                  |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 13 still is, but it was in a warehouse in I think somebody said Mamaroneck. And so I have -- and how is the Lady May II going to be marketed if it's in a warehouse in Mamaroneck and the Lady May is going to be in Newport, assuming that the order enters allowing it to travel to Newport? MR. BONGARTZ: Let me take those questions in order. So we have maximum flexibility under the brokerage agreement the boats can be sold together, they can be sold separately, they will be marked -- THE COURT: Does it say that? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. That's what I said. I may have missed it. I don't recall seeing that, but I'd want to make sure that that's clear to the broker. MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. It's the last -- second to last sentence of Section 2 of the Central Agency Sale Agreement. THE COURT: Okay. Let me get there, please. So I'm looking at the document that's signed by Trustee Despins and Dirk Johnson on 4/18/2023? MR. BONGARTZ: That is correct. If you -- THE COURT: All right. What provision am I looking at? Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 13 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 14 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>14                              |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>If you look at -- it's page number             |\n| 2  | 19 of 36 to go with the --                                      |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Yeah.<br>Let me get there.               |\n| 4  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>-- docketed.                                   |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead.                                         |\n| 6  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes.<br>It's the sentence towards the          |\n| 7  | top of that page, carryover paragraph, the yachts shall be      |\n| 8  | marketed and sold separately unless otherwise agreed by the     |\n| 9  | owner.<br>So we can --                                          |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>It says yacht number one will be                  |\n| 11 | offered for sale at yacht number one price.<br>Yacht number     |\n| 12 | two will be offered at yacht number two price.<br>No other      |\n| 13 | prices shall be quoted without specific authorization from      |\n| 14 | the owner.                                                      |\n| 15 | The broker shall submit all offers of any type to               |\n| 16 | the owner for his consideration.<br>The owner agrees to sell    |\n| 17 | yacht number one to any customer who's ready, willing and       |\n| 18 | able to purchase.<br>And yacht number two.<br>The yachts may be |\n| 19 | marketed and sold separately unless otherwise agreed to by      |\n| 20 | owner.                                                          |\n| 21 | But it doesn't say that the yachts may be marketed              |\n| 22 | and sold together.<br>Right?<br>I mean, all I'm saying is that  |\n| 23 | needs to be out there, both, right?                             |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>Again, for the              |\n| 25 | record, Luc Despins.                                            |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 15 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 15 We've had extensive discussions with the various potential brokers about that. The advice I got from all of them is that if you sell it together, you will not get a penny more for the Lady May II in the sense that people will say -- THE COURT: Well, let's hope. MR. DESPINS: No, no. So there's no prohibition. THE COURT: We'll see if they're right. We'll see if they're right. MR. DESPINS: We'll make sure that it's clear that they can be marketed together. But generally people will say fine, through that in and I'll pay X, but the maximum price for the Lady May II is on a standalone basis. But we -- there's no -- there's no prohibition against doing it together, and we'll tell them, and we can correct this to make sure that we can. THE COURT: We don't know what's going to happen. Somebody may come in and offer to buy both of them for a price that's equal to somebody who's buying them separately but maybe has no contingencies and can pay in cash or whatever the situation may be. Right? MR. DESPINS: Right. THE COURT: So I need -- because I'm going to have to -- the Court is going to have to approve whatever happens, I mean, I want to make sure that the marketing of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 16 the yachts is designed to produce the highest offer for the estate. So where is -- is the Lady May II still in a warehouse in Mamaroneck? MR. BONGARTZ: It is currently in a warehouse. It needs to be re-commissioned and then put back in the water. That is -- that process has not yet begun, but we are planning to do so very soon, certainly during the month of May. And we will then move the Lady May also to Newport so that it can be -- so that it's in the same location as the Lady May I. And just to be clear, we will come back to this court to seek authorization to conduct any -- enter into any new contracts or conduct any repairs to the extent necessary in connection with the Lady May II. THE COURT: But the broker knows that the yacht is -- that the Lady May II is in Mamaroneck? MR. BONGARTZ: Absolutely. They are aware of that. THE COURT: And they're going to start -- MR. BONGARTZ: Yeah. THE COURT: -- they're going to start to sell it from its location in Mamaroneck? MR. BONGARTZ: They can't market it while it is currently under wraps. It's under a plastic flow right now Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 16 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 17 in a storage facility. But, in any event, it could not be put immediately into the water unless it's first re- commissioned. The fluids need to be exchanged or filled up again. So there is a -- there's a process for that and it is going to happen in the very near future. So we are expecting that the boat, Lady May II, will also be moved to Newport during the month of May. And I should note that the broker has actually already visited the Lady May II in order to get a sense of the need for what needs to be done in order to get it ready for marketing and viewings. THE COURT: And if the broker, or the broker with -- the sub-broker, whatever, I forget the term, brings forth Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 17 of 95\n\n a buyer for one or both and there's a motion to sell to a purchaser, are we -- are you contemplating that there's going to be an auction of that boat or that that sale is only going to be out on notice to people to object and possibly make a counter offer?\n\n MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, it would be subject to higher and better offer, but I don't think that it would be best advised to announce that there will be an auction.\n\n I mean, in the sense that we will give notice to people, people who visited the ship and all that, so they can -- they understand that it's subject to higher and\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 18 better offer in the Bankruptcy Court, but I don't think we'd want to say that there will be an auction -- THE COURT: That's fine. Does the broker understand that though? MR. DESPINS: I believe he does, that it's subject to -- THE COURT: Well, we need to make sure he does, right? MR. DESPINS: We'll do that. THE COURT: That the broker understands that when someone comes and makes an offer for one or -- one or both, either or both of the yachts, that that person needs to understand that the Bankruptcy Court has to approve that and that it's possible that someone could offer a higher amount of money for that purchase. Right? MR. BONGARTZ: Yeah. THE COURT: I didn't see that. I'm not saying he should have said this by the way in the -- his affidavit, but I didn't see any indication that he was aware and I want to make sure that that's clear. MR. BONGARTZ: We will make sure that that is clear. THE COURT: Okay. All right. With regard to the -- does anyone else wish to be heard before I just talk with counsel about the order?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 18 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 19 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 19 Go ahead, Attorney Henzy. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, for Mei Guo and HK, we do reserve all rights as to whether or not the boat can be sold. As you know, your summary judgment decision has been appealed. But with respect to this application, we take no position. THE COURT: You take no position? MR. HENZY: On this application. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: But I do want to be clear that that -- we are reserving all rights with respect to any sale of the boat. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. With regard to the order that was submitted yesterday, at ECF 173, I'm just looking at the clean copy, I'm not looking at the redlines -- MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: -- so there's just a couple of things in here that I just want to have changed. So tell me, do you have it in front of you, Counsel? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, I do. THE COURT: Okay. So on the top of the second page of the order, after the reference to that it's a core\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 20 proceeding, you know, 28 USC 157(b)(2) -- MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: -- I'm going to delete the language on which the Court may enter a final order consistent with Article 3 of the United States Constitution. Because a reviewing court may not agree with that, so I'm not going to put that in there. All right? MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: In that same paragraph, about six to seven lines down, I don't have to find under 328(a) -- under 327(a) or 328 that the relief requested is in the best interest of the debtor's estate. That's if it was a 327(e) application. So I'm going to strike that language. And the Court having found that the relief requested in the application is in the best interest of the debtor's estate, their creditors and parties in interest, there's nothing that I can see in the code or the rules that requires that that needs to be a finding in connection with an application made under 327(a) or 328. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: Then with regard to the next provision that appearing that proper and adequate notice of the application has been given and that no further notice is necessary, you need to establish that for me. Right? I didn't go look at your service. Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 20 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 21 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 21 So you just need to tell me -- and I know we -- people use the word notice, but you really mean service, you mean people have been served -- MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: -- and they've had an opportunity to object. Right? So do you want that language in there? If you do, you need to make a record. MR. BONGARTZ: We would like that language in there. THE COURT: So go ahead. MR. BONGARTZ: And we have served the motion when it was filed on April 18 via ECF. And upon entry of the order granting the motion to expedite, we have served it in addition -- we have served both the order and the motion. Well, first of all, the order was automatically served via ECF. But on the additional parties that have, well, that have selected or chosen not to -- have requested hard copy service, we have also then served the order and the application on those parties as well. And I believe the certificate of service is on the docket to that effect. I unfortunately don't have the specific docket number handy. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. I just want you to make that record. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Okay.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 22 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 22 THE COURT: And then the first ordered paragraph, this is my final change by the way -- MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: -- so it says the application is approved as set forth herein. All objections to the relief requested in the application, whether filed or not, I'm not going to say that. I could say whether filed or not raised during the hearing, right? MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: Then it's fine with me if that's fine with you. MR. BONGARTZ: That is fine. There were no filed objections. And I'm -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: No objections were raised. So I would add the words or not raised -- THE COURT: We can take of this. MR. BONGARTZ: Oh, okay. THE COURT: I'm not -- I'm just explaining to you what it's going to look like when we're done. All right? MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: So it's minimal changes, but there are going to be changes to the form of the -- and I don't find that they're -- that they in any way impact the ability of the Trustee to retain the broker and, therefore, the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 23 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>23                            |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Trustee's application is going to be approved, it's just      |\n| 2  | certain language in the order that I'm not going to put in    |\n| 3  | that order.<br>Okay?                                          |\n| 4  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Understood.                                  |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So for all the reasons            |\n| 6  | that have just been stated on the record, the Trustee's       |\n| 7  | application for approval to employ a broker to market and     |\n| 8  | attempt to sell the Lady May and the Lady May II is granted,  |\n| 9  | and the proposed order submitted by counsel at ECF 1713,      |\n| 10 | with the changes noted on the record, will enter.             |\n| 11 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                       |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                             |\n| 13 | Now are you proceeding?                                       |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor.                                   |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>You're going to take care of the next           |\n| 16 | motion?                                                       |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:<br>No.<br>I just wanted to make just a           |\n| 18 | quick editorial comment regarding the sale process.           |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Sure.<br>Sure.                                  |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor knows this because you've          |\n| 21 | been a bankruptcy judge for a long time, but some people,     |\n| 22 | potential buyers, will perceive that there's blood in the     |\n| 23 | water because a Trustee's involved.<br>And so they will be -- |\n| 24 | we will receive I'm sure very low bids from some of these     |\n| 25 | bottom fishers and that's par for the course.                 |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 24 Our public posture is that we're not in a rush to sell this. On the other hand, I'm well aware that the costs of owning that boat is/are, sorry, my editorial comment, insane, including \\$45,000 a month to moor the boat in Newport. So there's a balance that will have to be struck here. I'm sure that there will be interest. The question is where do we draw the line between what is a completely unacceptable bid and and considering all the costs involved, et cetera, et cetera, so that, you know, the story remains, you know, to unfold. The sister ship has been for sale for a year and a half. That's because they're asking \\$32 million for a year. And the broker told me that's clearly not achievable. So that tells you that these ships don't get sold on two-weeks, three-weeks, or two-months notice. It can be a long process. Obviously, we want to sell this as quickly as we can. So I want to make sure the Court knew about this background. THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. All right. Then we'll move on to the next, the motion for the order to move the Lady May to the navigable waters of Newport, Rhode Island. Counsel, are you going to be handling that as Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 24 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 25 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 25 well? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, I will. THE COURT: All right. Please proceed. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. So the next matter is the motion to move the Lady May to Newport, Rhode Island and enter into a dockage agreement with the Safe Harbor Newport Shipyard located in Newport, Rhode Island. So this is -- this motion is probably best understood as the first step in a two-step process. We are ultimately -- ultimately we intend to move the Lady May into the foreign trade zone in Newport, Rhode Island, which is also located at the same shipyard by the way. But as an initial step, we first need to move the boat there. And as Your Honor is well aware, earlier in the case a stipulated order was entered that required the Lady May to be returned to the navigable waters of Connecticut and remain in the navigable waters of Connecticut, so we need relief from that restriction. Now, as Your Honor will also recall, at the time the restriction was put in place there were concerns that given the track record of the Lady May having been moved outside the jurisdiction of the New York Court in connection with the New York State Court litigation, there were concerns that the boat could potentially be moved out of Connecticut waters again and, hence, as part of the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 26 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 26 stipulated order, which the parties at the time and the parties to that order agreed to, the Lady May would remain in Connecticut waters.\n\n Now, fast forward. As you know, and the Court has found that the Lady May is property of the estate, it's not property of HK USA -- and over the last month -- and I point to the management agreement and other agreements that this court has approved, the Trustee has taken control of the Lady May. So we believe there is no longer a need to continue the restriction that the Lady May remain in Connecticut waters.\n\n I should also note that we are -- we strongly believe, and we have conferred with this -- on this point with our -- with the yacht broker, that there are substantial advantages to having the Lady May in Newport now versus keeping it in Bridgeport. Newport is a well-known hub for marketing and selling super yachts. Bridgeport is not.\n\n Edmiston, the broker, has a fully-staffed office in Newport. And, as I've indicated earlier, they want to start marketing as soon as possible. They need to be liaising with the crew. They need to be taking pictures, videos. They need to be around the boat. Traveling back and forth is just not practical.\n\nNewport also has other significant brokerage\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 27 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 27 houses. So to the extent a buyer is introduced through a sub-listing broker, there are certain -- there are numerous benefits from having access to those resources in Newport. And as a purely practical matter, potential buyers are obviously aware that Newport is a hub for buying and selling super yachts, so they are more likely to frequent that shipyard. And, in particular, yeah, in particular the Safe Harbor Shipyard where the Lady May would be docked. And one final point. Even though the Lady May will not immediately be transferred into the foreign trade zone, Edmiston will commence marketing right away. This is not -- they're not going to wait until then. And my understanding is, I'm not the expert on the foreign trade zones' laws, but it can be marketed. Even while it is not yet in the FTZ, the foreign trade zone, it can be marketed to non-U.S. residents. So for all these reasons we believe there is -- that it is in the best interest of the estate to move the Lady May now to Newport. I am not going to hide anything here. We fully understand that the docking -- the dockage fee in Newport is substantially higher than in Bridgeport. That is just a function of Newport being a hub for, again, the marketing, selling and docking of yachts of the size like the Lady May\n\nand there's just nothing we can do about that,\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 28 unfortunately. We have, and this is the second part of the relief we're seeking in this motion, we have entered into a dockage agreement obviously subject to Your Honor's approval. And as part of that agreement, negotiated a series of modifications similar to what we had agreed to with the Bridgeport marina about a month ago, but with I would say additional protections as it relates to the indemnity. But let's just go just really quickly. The Bankruptcy Court has exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute that may arise out of the agreement. And as far as the indemnity, to the extent that the shipyard, I've been using the acronym SHM which stands for Safe Harbor Marina, SHM, to the extent that they believe there is a -- they have a claim for -- claim under the indemnity, they must come to this court and file an application. And as is customary there are -- there's a series of exclusions, including for fraud, willful misconduct, gross negligence, et cetera. So a couple of points. While we have received informal comments from the U.S. Trustee's Office, and we've tried to accommodate as much as we could, those comments -- and I want to flag that paragraph 4 was, which by the way we've, I apologize if I've\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 29 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 29 taken this out of order, but we did file a revised proposed order earlier this morning.\n\n And in that proposed order you will see that we have added a paragraph 4 to make clear that the shipyard, Safe Harbor Shipyard, would have to give notice three days, three business days' notice, in advance that they believe that a lien is being imposed as a result of nonpayment under the dockage agreement.\n\n And then to the extent they desire to exercise any rights to liquidate that lien, they would have to come to this court and seek approval of that. That's a -- that was something that the U.S. Trustee requested. We have run this by the shipyard. They've agreed to that. And my understanding is that the language, as reflected in the order filed this morning, is acceptable to the U.S. Trustee.\n\n I should also note, and this was reflected in the order we filed this morning, we made a few minor, clarifying changes to the rider. This was done at the request of the shipyard. I apologize. For some reason, my hard copy printout does not have the blackline of the rider attached to it, so if I may have just another second and pick another copy. I apologize for that. THE COURT: That's fine.\n\n MR. BONGARTZ: The printout was just cut off one page early.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 30 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 30 So we have added that obviously, and this subject to the Court approving obviously this motion, that the Trustee's authorized to enter into the dockage agreement. That was -- we added that provision at the request of the shipyard. Any claims would obviously -- can only be asserted against the Trustee in its capacity, in his capacity as Trustee. There's no claims against Mr. Despins in his personal capacity or Paul Hastings. In paragraph 4 of the rider, we -- and this was at the request of the shipyard, there's a -- it's not a carve out, but it reflects the fact that any liens to the extent it may arise is actually governed by the new language that we -- that I just referenced and that was agreed upon with the U.S. Trustee. To the extent there are any liens, there is a separate process to give notice and come to this court to enforce or liquidate any lien. And then the rest is just verbiage in the carve out. But as you can see, it covers basically the same litany with the exception of breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing, which don't -- we don't believe apply in the first instance because there are no fiduciary duties as between the shipyard and the estate. I mean, there's duties, there's contractual obligations, of course, but the reference to fiduciary duty didn't make much sense and they've asked us to take that out.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 31 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 31 So those are the changes to the rider. And I'm also happy to briefly recap the changes that were made to the proposed order. And I have extra copies with me in case folks want to take a look at this. I'm not -- I obviously apologize for not having filed it sooner than this morning. THE COURT: Okay. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the Trustee's motion? I may have some questions, Counsel, too, but I'd like to hear from others first. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. I do have a couple of comments to make. First of all, I do want to echo the comments made by Attorney Bongartz about the changes to the lien language. Those were as a result of the U.S. Trustee's comments. The prior existing small print of the agreement provided that the shipyard could simply impose a lien and then sell the yacht exercising its lien rights and so we have scaled that back. Those lien rights would have been as a result of any nonpayment under the agreement and now they are revised and addressed properly so that the estate has an opportunity to weigh in on any lien that may be imposed as to whether or not they can exercise it or not.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 32 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 32 And then with respect to Section 17 of the agreement, that's another area of concern for the U.S. Trustee. That is the section that deals with the liability and indemnity provisions. And similar to Your Honor's hearing from me in conjunction with the motion to enter into the agreement with the Bridgeport marina, the language in this agreement is similar, not as broad, but similar in that it disclaims responsibility for a whole myriad of things and that puts the estate at risk. The changes that the Trustee negotiated to limit the indemnification process and procedure are much appreciated. I just want to note that for the record there are some exposures still to the estate under this agreement that have not been addressed. I understood the Court's comments and concerns at the last hearing and I take those into consideration. I just want to make it clear to the Court that we remain concerned about the scope of this agreement and the protections that the shipyard has kept for itself at the risk of the estate. But the U.S. Trustee is not objecting to the entering into this agreement. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Attorney\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 33 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 33 Henzy? MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Yeah. For Mei Guo and HK. We did file a reservation of rights, Your Honor. It's document No. 1712. No position on the motion, but again reserving rights with respect to any sale and also with respect to funding under the various obligations the U.S. Trustee, I'm sorry, that the Trustee is undertaking. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anyone else wish to be heard? (No response) THE COURT: All right. I have a couple of questions, Attorney Bongartz, with regard to the commercial yard and dockage license and service agreements with Safe Harbor Newport Shipyard. The document that's attached to 1696, on page 20, I think that's the agreement, right? That starts the agreement? MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. THE COURT: So it says that does the vessel have a tender? And it says yes. But there isn't going to -- the tender isn't going to be there for a while, right? So is the cost of docking at the -- at this marina, at the shipyard, going to be the same whether the tender's there or\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 34 not? Or is it going to increase once the tender gets there? MR. BONGARTZ: When we're referring to the tender, when the Lady May -- I assume you're referring to the Lady May II in this instance. Yes. THE COURT: Well, that's what I've been told is the tender. Is it not? MR. BONGARTZ: There is another tender that is actually the boat that goes inside the Lady May I. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: That is currently in storage in Florida I believe. THE COURT: So that's the length -- the 21 feet -- that's what that means? That's the tender that goes inside the boat? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. Because the actual Lady May II is not -- it's more than 50 -- THE COURT: Right. It's 50. MR. BONGARTZ: It's 50 feet. THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: It's very large. THE COURT: That's why I'm asking the question. So now there's another part of this Lady May that's somewhere else. It's in Florida? MR. BONGARTZ: Yeah. It's in a storage pod I understand in Florida. But I don't know -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 34 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 35 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>35                            |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Is it going to stay there or is it              |\n| 2  | going to go to Newport and become part of the Lady May?       |\n| 3  | MR. DESPINS:<br>It's going to become part.<br>That one        |\n| 4  | needs to be sold with the Lady May because it's a safety --   |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>So is it going to be inside the boat            |\n| 6  | so it shouldn't need additional dockage?                      |\n| 7  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>It fits inside the boat.<br>I've been        |\n| 8  | --                                                            |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>But what I'm -- all I'm asking        |\n| 10 | is cost, right?<br>All I'm trying to drill down here is cost. |\n| 11 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>There is no --                               |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Is there -- is there an additional              |\n| 13 | cost with regard to the tender?                               |\n| 14 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>No.                                          |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>All right.               |\n| 16 | Then with regard to -- assume that this motion is             |\n| 17 | granted, when -- and maybe, again, I could have missed this,  |\n| 18 | there's a lot of papers, as you know, in the case -- so when  |\n| 19 | will the Lady May leave Bridgeport to go to Newport and       |\n| 20 | who's going to get her there?<br>The crew that's here?<br>Or  |\n| 21 | how's that going to work?                                     |\n| 22 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>The when is either Monday or                 |\n| 23 | Tuesday next week.<br>There's a little bit of uncertainty     |\n| 24 | about the weather.<br>But we would like to move it as --      |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>If you rely on the weather, it doesn't          |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 36 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 36 sound very good for the weekend. MR. BASSETT: But definitely as soon as possible. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: Assuming this is approved. In terms of who is going to move her? It is the current captain and the current crew that will stay with the ship, and they will -- the captain will navigate the Lady May up to Newport. In fact, the proposed order includes a specific provision to relieve the captain of his own duty to keep the boat and the Lady May in Connecticut waters. He'd asked for that clarification and we've made sure that would be included. THE COURT: And is he going -- he and the crew going to stay with the boat -- MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: -- until it's sold? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: The yacht until it's sold? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. I just am trying to figure out how it all works. Okay. All right. Let me see if I had any other questions. (Pause.) THE COURT: So, again, it's just I'm just trying\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 37 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 37 to figure out how it works, right, and how the estate's interest is protected. So do you already have a slip or a space that is designated for the Lady May when it arrives? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. I would assume so, but I don't know that. MR. BONGARTZ: We have a reserved spot. THE COURT: Okay. So this location, I think used to be Newport Offshore, didn't it? Do you know what Newport Offshore was? That was a company that went into Chapter 11. They used to make and house yachts in Newport. Not just yachts. I suppose they made other boats. But it appears to me from what you've shown me that this is, you know, I think that's the spot. So it's -- where is the -- if you look, if you at all know how -- where that is, that's closer to the Newport Bridge than to the other end of Newport that goes out toward the ocean. So you said a term that I had a question about. Let me think about that for a second. Oh, the foreign, the sales zone. So where's that in relation to, if you know, to actually where the boat is going to be docked? MR. BONGARTZ: My understanding is it's not a geographical location, but it's a legal designation. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: Now, you have to be within Newport,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 38 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 38 Rhode Island to take advantage of that. But you can be both -- there could be boats at the -- sorry, at the Safe Harbor Newport Shipyard that are inside the foreign trade zone, and then there could be a boat right next to it that is outside the zone. I mean, it's not like there's a -- THE COURT: It's not like you have to be in a specific -- MR. BONGARTZ: -- line on the ground or -- THE COURT: -- point of Newport Harbor. I have no idea. MR. BONGARTZ: No, no. THE COURT: I'm just asking the question. I mean, I'm just asking. Because there's a benefit to it being in this zone, correct? MR. DESPINS: Yes, there is a benefit. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. BONGARTZ: Yeah. No. The principal benefit of being in the foreign trade zone is that you can show it to non, sorry, you can show it to U.S. residents. You can't do it right now because the Lady May is in U.S. waters based on a -- as a visiting boat. It's not passed customs. And then the other benefit is, in the event of a sale, it allows the buyer to reduce and potentially avoid customs duties. THE COURT: Okay. Custom fees?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 39 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 39 MR. BONGARTZ: Custom. Yeah. THE COURT: Yeah. Right. MR. BONGARTZ: Duties. Yeah. Fees. Yes. Yes. THE COURT: Okay. That's what I -- I mean, I thought that's what I heard someone say at some point. All right. Then when the broker -- the boat gets -- the yacht gets to Newport, it's at SHM and it's docked at its slip, the broker agreement says they're going to do all kinds of things. They're going to have open houses, all those kind of things. But I assume that at some point, and I guess it would have to work through the Trustee, but I'm not sure this is true, someone's going to want to -- if they're really going to want to buy it, they're going to want to take it out, right? MR. BONGARTZ: Mm-hmm. THE COURT: For a sea trial. So who's going to -- who's going to do that? The captain and crew? MR. BONGARTZ: The captain. The captain. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: The existing captain and crew will take the boat out. THE COURT: Okay. But does the Trustee have to be made aware of that or do they already have the authority to do that? When I say they, I mean the captain and the crew.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 40 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 40 MR. BONGARTZ: I don't -- I don't know if we've had that specific discussion. MR. DESPINS: They do, Your Honor. And I, for better or worse, I get a report every day of the location of the Lady May -- of course, it's always in Bridgeport -- but so I can see where it's been, whether it has moved or not. So they have to tell me in advance whether they take it out. THE COURT: Okay. I think that might make sense, unfortunately, for you to get that information because it will also help you understand -- I think it could help you understand if things are progressing toward a sale. So, okay. Let me just see if I had any other questions. (Pause) THE COURT: I don't have any other questions at the moment. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: I have one final thought I wanted to communicate. THE COURT: Sure. MR. BONGARTZ: In circling back to what I said at the beginning that this is the initial, the first step of a two-step process, the second step will be to actually put the Lady May into the foreign trade zone. And we will come back to this court to request\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 41 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 41 approval to do so, but I just want to preview that there is actually an application process that goes along with that and we will need to post a bond called the FTZ Indemnity Bond. And there's some modifications I understand that will have to then be made at that point to the dockage agreement. So we'll come back. I'm not asking for Your Honor to approve anything in that regard right now, but I just wanted to make sure that you are aware that that's forthcoming and very likely in the near future. This is not something we're going to be doing months down the road. This is going to happen in the next few weeks. THE COURT: But the foreign trade zone will be where the boat is docked -- MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: -- once that agreement is approved and all whatever you need to do to be -- MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, yes. THE COURT: -- considered part of it? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: The foreign trade zone, it will not move to a different location. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Then I'm looking at the order that was submitted today about 11:05 a.m. I'm looking at the redline version.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 42 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>42                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Okay.                                         |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>And I understand the U.S. Trustee's              |\n| 3  | Office comments that certain of these additions are helpful    |\n| 4  | and address some of the concerns that the U.S. Trustee's       |\n| 5  | Office had, but the U.S. Trustee's Office still has concerns   |\n| 6  | about some other provisions in the boat -- in the boat, I'm    |\n| 7  | sorry, in the agreement that aren't completely addressed.      |\n| 8  | But I'm seeing only, and I could be, again, missing            |\n| 9  | something, that the agreement with the -- with SHM is -- has   |\n| 10 | its standard terms and it's, I think, nine pages without the   |\n| 11 | rider.<br>And then there's the rider that's going to be        |\n| 12 | attached to the agreement.<br>Correct?                         |\n| 13 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>That is correct.                              |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>And the rider, so the amended rider is           |\n| 15 | really what's going to be part of the order, right, not the    |\n| 16 | -- there was I think an addition -- there was a rider at       |\n| 17 | first, but then it's been amended?                             |\n| 18 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Correct.<br>That is exactly right.            |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>So I don't have any changes to the               |\n| 20 | redline version of the order that you submitted.<br>So I would |\n| 21 | just like you to -- I'm going to grant the motion.<br>I'd like |\n| 22 | you to submit -- does 1714 have a clean copy?                  |\n| 23 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes.                                          |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Oh, it does.                                     |\n| 25 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes, it does.                                 |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 43 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>43                           |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>It's the first part of the --                  |\n| 2  | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Yes.                                        |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>So we'll have to --     |\n| 4  | we'll enter the clean version, the unedited version, so hold |\n| 5  | on one second, please.                                       |\n| 6  | (Pause)                                                      |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So then for the reasons          |\n| 8  | that we just went through on the record and have been stated |\n| 9  | on the record, the motion for the order filed by the Chapter |\n| 10 | 11 Trustee authorizing the Trustee to enter into -- to move  |\n| 11 | the Lady May to the waters, the navigable waters of Rhode    |\n| 12 | Island, and to enter in and perform under a Newport dockage  |\n| 13 | agreement is granted.                                        |\n| 14 | And the proposed order that was submitted earlier            |\n| 15 | today that we've just discussed on the record will enter.    |\n| 16 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                      |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                            |\n| 18 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>I don't have anything further.              |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                            |\n| 20 | MR. BONGARTZ:<br>So I think I'm going to pass the            |\n| 21 | podium on to Mr. Despins.                                    |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Certainly.                                     |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.<br>Your Honor, the other matters,       |\n| 24 | well, there is a contested issue regarding the proposed      |\n| 25 | order.                                                       |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 44 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 44 But before that, I believe Mr. Baldiga was going to make a statement regarding the conflict issue that I raised. And I think we have a resolution. THE COURT: Okay. Let me, before you do that -- that's fine, that's absolutely fine. The clerk's office has pointed out to me, Mr. Baldiga, that you have to file an appearance now. I mean, you're not debtor's counsel anymore. You're counsel -- I'm sorry, in the bankruptcy case, right? You're here appearing as counsel for the debtor in proceedings in New York, correct? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. So you don't have an appearance on file in this -- in these Chapter 11 cases right now because your prior appearance was withdrawn because you were counsel to the debtor in possession, which was withdrawn. And I understand that. So you've got to file some kind of appearance on the docket of this case. And I think you say you're counsel to the debtor in the criminal proceedings, whatever it is, right, but it's got to be filed. The clerk's office has correctly pointed out to me that that is -- those are our rules. So today or tomorrow when you're back in your office, someone needs to do that for you. Okay? And anybody else that's going to appear in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 45 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 45 the case. So, for example, if you were going to file some pleading and there's some one of your colleagues is also appearing, they've got to file a notice of appearance. Okay? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. That's all. I just didn't want to forget to say that before you went any further. But if you would like to speak then with regard to -- You're saying, Trustee Despins, that you two have reached an agreement in connection with your concerns -- MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: -- about the representation by Brown Rudnick of the debtor, the individual debtor, in the criminal proceedings and prior representation as debtor in possession counsel? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Baldiga. If you would just state your name for the record, please. MR. BALDIGA: Sure. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick. And, Your Honor, just as per the discussion just now, Brown Rudnick is special counsel for Mr. Kwok's criminal defense in the pending criminal proceeding. And I do appreciate the opportunity to talk to Mr. Despins as to what we are doing, what we're not doing, and I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 46 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>46                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | think this will, well, it has alleviated the concerns.<br>And  |\n| 2  | I think also any concerns that the Court may have.<br>And I am |\n| 3  | making certain representations for the benefit of the Court    |\n| 4  | in that regard that I've already made to Mr. Despins.          |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 6  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Our defense of Mr. Kwok in the                 |\n| 7  | pending criminal case in the Southern District of New York,    |\n| 8  | which is Docket 23-CR-118, there's also a parallel SEC case,   |\n| 9  | which we expect to be stayed, as is customary in these, has    |\n| 10 | not and will not interfere with our continued full and         |\n| 11 | timely compliance with the discovery as propounded on our      |\n| 12 | firm in the Chapter 11 case, including any depositions.        |\n| 13 | You may remember that I was before you more times              |\n| 14 | than I think any of us would care to remember back in August   |\n| 15 | and September in that regard and I think you've heard and      |\n| 16 | saw that we've worked very hard to be compliant and we have.   |\n| 17 | But if there's more required of us, we will                    |\n| 18 | continue to honor the subpoena served on our firm.             |\n| 19 | There appears, and I use that word intentionally,              |\n| 20 | to be a separate criminal investigation with respect to        |\n| 21 | possible bankruptcy crimes that may relate in some way to      |\n| 22 | the Kwok Chapter 11 case.                                      |\n| 23 | Neither Brown Rudnick nor the Trustee knows the                |\n| 24 | targets of that separate criminal investigation.<br>We don't   |\n| 25 | know what the subject matter of that investigation or don't    |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 47 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>47                           |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | know whether the subject matters of that investigation       |\n| 2  | covers actions that date after our involvement in the        |\n| 3  | Chapter 11 case was terminated or charges may at some point  |\n| 4  | be brought.                                                  |\n| 5  | Brown Rudnick has confirmed to the Trustee, and I            |\n| 6  | so confirm to the Court, that our engagement from Mr. Kwok   |\n| 7  | does not extend to that separate criminal proceeding,        |\n| 8  | whatever that is.                                            |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>And there isn't one that you're aware          |\n| 10 | of.<br>You're saying there may be?                           |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>No.<br>There is one.                         |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Oh, there is one.                              |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Mr. Despins -- we found out about it         |\n| 14 | --                                                           |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Oh, because of the subpoena that you           |\n| 16 | showed -- okay.                                              |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>-- the subpoena upon the Trustee.            |\n| 18 | And because of a prior protective order entered by this      |\n| 19 | court, the Trustee was obligated to share that subpoena with |\n| 20 | us to seek our consent or whether we had an objection to the |\n| 21 | production of certain materials.<br>We said we had no        |\n| 22 | objection.<br>That's how we found out about this.            |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>So the proceeding has actually been            |\n| 24 | brought?<br>It's not just seeking --                         |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>It's a -- it appears to be a grand           |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 48 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 48 jury proceeding. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: Whether you call that a proceeding or not, I -- THE COURT: I understand. Okay. Thank you. Now I understand what you're saying. Go ahead. MR. BALDIGA: That's all we know. And it's conceivable that it's not a grand jury proceeding, it's something else, but we don't know what that would be. It's not intended that, frankly, any of us know at this point. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: As far as we can tell. In any event, our engagement does not extend to that, whatever that is. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: And we will not accept any engagement as to that investigation just to obviate any concerns as to potential conflicts of interest. During the period of our representation of Mr. Kwok as debtor in possession here, Brown Rudnick had no knowledge of any criminal investigation of Mr. Kwok. The only proceeding in this Chapter 11 case in which we've advocated since the Trustee's appointment, other than at the hearings last fall, which I already mentioned in connection with our compliance with the Trustee's discovery\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 49 on us, is as to this request for a limited stay that we were here last week to preserve Mr. Kwok's Fifth Amendment rights. And Brown Rudnick is not a necessary witness in connection with that stay requested. In fact, no one has seen the need for any witnesses. But there doesn't seem to be a material fact in dispute. And based on these representations, and of course the continuing truth of them, the Trustee seeks no relief. But I'll let Mr. Despins speak to that. And Brown Rudnick feels that there is no conflict. But, again, Mr. Despins is committing not to seek relief based on the continuing truth of those representations. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: For the record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. That's correct, Your Honor. That's accurately stated. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, both. Now, there's still an issue of this order, right? MR. DESPINS: Yes. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. So go ahead. MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, Docket 1699, I Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 49 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 50 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 50 contain as Exhibit B a mark to show a changes version. I think that's probably the best order to look at. THE COURT: 1699? MR. DESPINS: 1699, correct. At pages -- because there's various exhibits, but at pages 11 of 30, that's where -- the marked to show changes order. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: But let me try to capture the disagreement in a nutshell. You know, memory is a fickle thing, but my recollection, and I think Mr. Bassett's recollection from -- what had been agreed at the last hearing, and that's where there's a disagreement because their recollection is different, is that they would seek from -- permission from the Department of Justice and from the criminal court permission for them to give to us whatever is produced to them by the Department of Justice in the criminal case. Their understanding is, no, that's not what they agreed to. That they agreed that we could -- they would seek permission from the DOJ and from the Court for the DOJ to give to us directly documents. And that doesn't work at all. The DOJ is not going to give us documents. As I said before, when I was on Zoom, we don't exist in that criminal proceeding. There are two parties to it. The DOJ, the defendant. The defendant is a debtor in\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 51 this court. And the only portal for us to access to these documents is through the defendant. And, as we said before, there's no act of production issue at all for them to turn over to us the documents that the DOJ gives to them because these are not - - you know, it's not a recognition by them that these documents are accurate or they show anything. The only recognition is they got it from the DOJ. That's all. So there's no act of production issue at all. So all of the dispute with respect to the terms of the order it really turns on that issue, because they would like the DOJ to give us the documents. That will never happen. I know that. And remember that we are taking the risk that the criminal court says no, we're not going to allow you, defendant, to give the documents you get from the DOJ to the Trustee. It expressly says that in the order. And so that's where we are. Basically there's a disagreement over what was agreed to. That's my recollection. That's all. Unfortunately, we have no transcript. Perhaps Your Honor has a transcript. We couldn't find the transcript. It was not available. THE COURT: Was there a request made for a transcript? MR. DESPINS: Perhaps by PAX. Yes. But I don't Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 51 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 52 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 52 think it's -- the transcript from the 18th was available, but not from the 20th. So we're kind of in a -- we're guessing or we're relying on our memory. So I'll let Mr. Baldiga, you know, address this. MR. BALDIGA: Again, Your Honor, Mr. Baldiga for Mr. Kwok. The proposed orders, again, before you, each have been submitted. The debtor's at Docket 1698 and the Trustee's at 6699. The Trustee then as part of 1699 redlined but against a different version. So I just want to make it clear that the debtor's suggested order is at 1698. There's not too much difference in what the Trustee redlined from, but there are a few differences. Your Honor, we actually have a very distinct memory of what we agreed to and we think the Court will as well. We did not agree and we wouldn't have agreed and I'll explain why. But, in any event, we start from we're here to have an order entered as to what was agreed. And what we agreed to, and there was an extensive discussion about this, we will ask the Government and we will -- and then the request was not just the Government but you also have to ask the Court. Well, we wouldn't have had to ask the Court if we\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 53 were just agreeing to turn over whatever we got from the DOJ. And we wouldn't have done that, Your Honor, for at least five reasons. Well, first of all, we didn't, but I'll go further. We shouldn't have to go further, but we wouldn't have for several reasons. We have no idea what DOJ may turn over to us. No idea. There is -- our client would not be able to make a knowing agreement in that regard because we have no idea. The client has no idea what DOJ may turn over. Our firm has no idea what the DOJ may turn over. No one, the Trustee, us, our client, this court has any idea what rights there could be implicated by what - - the Government has told us to expect several tetrabytes -- and I'm not a tech person, I have no idea what a tetrabyte is, except it sounds like a lot -- several tetrabytes of information. Importantly, Your Honor, DOJ is obligated to turn over this to counsel. It's not, as the Trustee seems to now maybe wish it were, that these are Mr. Kwok's materials. That's not what we're talking about. This is whatever DOJ has taken in the course of its investigation from who knows who. So we're not even now talking about materials of Mr. Kwok. How could we ever make a commitment, and we never Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 53 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 54 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 54 would have made a commitment, to turn over something that we haven't seen, are not our client's materials, and we have no idea what they --[ what to even expect. Next, there are Fifth Amendment issues here perhaps. There is -- and I'll come -- I'll come back to that. Then there's the issue, Your Honor, of privilege. I think this court, certainly Mr. Henzy, and almost certainly the Trustee thought that maybe they were done debating the issue of privilege. I know I sat in the back of the courtroom for more hearings than anyone cared to admit about the so-called consent order of Docket 856 about what is -- what the debtor has a privilege to and what the debtor has assigned to the Trustee. But, Your Honor, there are three categories of materials in that consent order, 856, which the debtor assigned to the Trustee. The three categories are assets of the debtor. Two, are the debtor's financial condition. And three, documents as to the administration of the estate in between the petition date and when the Trustee was appointed. Of these tetrabytes of data that we may get from DOJ, or we should get from DOJ, we have no idea what subset of those may fall into any of those three categories. But\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 55 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>55                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | the debtor, and Mr. Henzy can speak more to what, I mean, we   |\n| 2  | were not involved in the negotiation of that order, but the    |\n| 3  | debtor may or may not have attorney-client or any other        |\n| 4  | privilege as to some subsets of that data.<br>We have no idea. |\n| 5  | And neither will anybody else until that data is reviewed.     |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>Let me just -- I'm a little            |\n| 7  | confused at the moment, so give me a second.                   |\n| 8  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>But what is it that you're -- that               |\n| 10 | you, as special counsel to Mr. Kwok, are agreeing to do        |\n| 11 | aside from --                                                  |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Exactly what we have in our proposed           |\n| 13 | order, we will --                                              |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Well, your proposed order says -- 1698           |\n| 15 | is your proposed order, correct?                               |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                               |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So it says request -- you'll            |\n| 18 | promptly request that the Assistant United States Trustee      |\n| 19 | from the Southern District of New York assigned to the         |\n| 20 | criminal prosecution of the debtor, the Government,            |\n| 21 | including, if necessary, by filing a motion with the United    |\n| 22 | States Court of the Southern District of New York, to modify   |\n| 23 | any existing protective order, provide to the Trustee the      |\n| 24 | documents and materials the Government produces to the         |\n| 25 | debtor as part of the Government's disclosures to the          |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 56 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 56 debtor. And as part of such request, the debtor shall inform the Government and the criminal court of this order. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: So what -- you keep talking about the DOJ. MR. BALDIGA: That is the Government. THE COURT: So what is it -- MR. BALDIGA: The Government acts in that proceeding -- THE COURT: -- that you're not agreeing to turn over that the Trustee thought you were? MR. BALDIGA: I'm sorry? THE COURT: You said I would never agree to -- I think you said I've never agreed to turn over what the DOJ has because I don't know what they have. MR. BALDIGA: We're talking about at last week's hearing -- THE COURT: Yeah. MR. BALDIGA: -- we did not -- we had an agreement. Our agreement was that we would make a request to the Government and a request to the Court that the Government turn over to the Trustee whatever it was going to turn over to us and leave it to them. And you heard Mr. Best explain at length the Government may impose restrictions on that, may do it, may\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 57 not. The Court may have restrictions. We don't know. But we're out of it. We will do everything we can to facilitate by making that request and then we step out of it. It's totally up to the Government. That's the agreement that was made. And I'm confident that when there is a transcript it will bear that out. So we did not agree to produce anything, including -- because the whole reason we're here is that the debtor producing things may implicate his Fifth Amendment rights. THE COURT: So you're saying that the problem you have is that it's not an act of production by the debtor. It's an act of production by the Government. MR. BALDIGA: That's right. If the Government chooses to produce something to the Trustee, there's no Fifth Amendment rights implicated. THE COURT: Well, it wouldn't be to the Trustee. Isn't it -- it's not -- would it be directly to the Trustee or it would it be to you -- MR. BALDIGA: That's what we agreed to. THE COURT: Okay. So it would be from the Government -- MR. BALDIGA: To the Trustee. THE COURT: You would make a motion. You would agree first at least to ask and then -- but also file a Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 57 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 58 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 58 motion in the -- MR. BALDIGA: Southern District case. Yeah. THE COURT: -- criminal proceedings that we've all talked about in the past. The indictment was handed down and somebody showed it to me, whatever day of that hearing it was. Right? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: That case. And you've already stated on the record what its number is. I don't remember what its number is. MR. BALDIGA: Right. And that's the only -- THE COURT: Okay. And so you're saying -- MR. BALDIGA: -- proceeding in which we represent the client. THE COURT: -- that you'll ask them to give that information to the Trustee? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: But you're not producing any information to the -- that Mr. -- MR. BALDIGA: That's right. As Mr. Best explains, it takes our Fifth Amendment rights out of it. THE COURT: Okay. I don't recall, sitting here, exactly what was said, but I understand your position. That's why I was asking. MR. BALDIGA: Okay.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 59 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>59                            |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Your point is you can -- you, as                |\n| 2  | counsel to the -- to Mr. Kwok in the criminal proceedings     |\n| 3  | have not agreed to produce any documents, that any            |\n| 4  | production has to go from -- has to be had if at all through  |\n| 5  | the Government to the Trustee?                                |\n| 6  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>That's right.                                 |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 8  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>And, again, for several reasons.              |\n| 9  | And I haven't even gotten to the -- one is the client         |\n| 10 | doesn't know what it is.<br>We don't know what it is.         |\n| 11 | And other than the Government, they -- but it's               |\n| 12 | certainly beyond the client's materials.<br>So it's not like  |\n| 13 | our client should know what's in there already.<br>We don't   |\n| 14 | know.<br>So how can you have an agreement as to something you |\n| 15 | don't even know what it is?                                   |\n| 16 | Second, there may be Fifth Amendment rights                   |\n| 17 | implicated by some of that, which you don't know until you    |\n| 18 | look at it, but we wouldn't know.                             |\n| 19 | Third, there could be privilege issues or not.                |\n| 20 | There were certain privileges assigned to the Trustee.        |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Well, privilege issues can be dealt             |\n| 22 | with.<br>So I understand what you're saying --                |\n| 23 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Okay.                                         |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>-- but that can be handled.                     |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>And then there are national security          |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 60 restrictions. We have been told -- THE COURT: What does that mean? MR. BALDIGA: Well, we have been told, my firm, that the Government intends to enforce a procedure under CIPA, the Classified Information Procedures Act, 18 USC App 3, for very significant restrictions on the review of certain of the materials that would require, for example, any attorney at my firm that reviews any materials to obtain top secret national security clearance, which takes a while. We can't make any commitment as to what we do with things that we ourselves have to get a national security clearance for. We would never purport to do it. Now, I've never done that. I'm a bankruptcy lawyer. But my partners, Mr. Best and Mr. Crook, have done this before and they say it's an elaborate process. We can't -- we, ourselves, can't turn things over. The Government has a process to make sure that the people whose eyes are reviewing things have the necessary clearances. We can't administer that. Our client can't administer that. So we can't produce anything. We can't by federal law. And let me -- and then I don't think we have to go back to the merits because, again, we're here to implement an agreement that was made on the 20th and not to reargue, but the Trustee went down the path again of saying that Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 60 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 61 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 61 there's no act of production with respect to a pile of documents that none of us know about. And to that another reason is the Trustee has a subpoena to the debtor. We have no idea. And that's what we're here all about, right, the enforcement of a subpoena to the debtor. There's no one, including this court, who has any idea what portion of those documents may or may not be subject to the Trustee's prior subpoena. We don't know. How could we ever make an agreement as to things that have never even been subpoenaed from anyone? Maybe some of that is subpoena to the subpoena. But until someone looks at the documents and matches them up against the subpoena, we're all just guessing. That's why if they want to send a subpoena to the Government, we said go ahead and we'll ask the Government to comply. We'll take the debtor out of it. All of the Trustee's cases that he cites that we talked about at the last hearing, *Harris*, *Baltimore*, *Ross*, and so forth, are all Section 521(4) cases. They have to do with turnover of property of the estate. And the cases are legion that those do not implicate Fifth Amendment concerns because you're giving the Trustee what the Trustee owns. And you don't have Fifth Amendment implications from that because it's not testimonial.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 62 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>62                               |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Turnover and surrender.<br>Surrender is the key to               |\n| 2  | every one of those cases, including Ross, which Mr. Bassett      |\n| 3  | made much of at the hearing.<br>It's a -- those are surrender    |\n| 4  | cases or turnover cases.<br>We're not here talking about         |\n| 5  | turnover or surrender.                                           |\n| 6  | I can tell you what Mr. Kwok has today.<br>Nothing.              |\n| 7  | He's incarcerated and bail has been denied.<br>He can't --       |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Did he turn over any documents to the              |\n| 9  | Government as part of this proceeding yet?                       |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Well, the Government didn't actually             |\n| 11 | ask him.<br>The Government seized it.<br>Whatever Mr. Kwok has - |\n| 12 | -<br>THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So they have information is          |\n| 13 | what you're saying that otherwise might have been produced       |\n| 14 | by Mr. Kwok --                                                   |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>The Government?                                  |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>-- because they seized it?                         |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Well, the Government seized, and                 |\n| 18 | this is another point the Trustee has made, the Government       |\n| 19 | did a seizure, several seizures, in Greenwich, in New            |\n| 20 | Jersey, in New York, on the day of Mr. Kwok's arrest.<br>Mr.     |\n| 21 | Kwok was in shackles and handcuffs during the seizure.           |\n| 22 | We have an inventory, but it doesn't go into much                |\n| 23 | detail.<br>They seized a lot of things.<br>We haven't seen what  |\n| 24 | they seized.<br>We don't know.<br>It goes well beyond what Mr.   |\n| 25 | Kwok owns.<br>There was no requirement that they seize only      |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 63 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 63 what Mr. Kwok has. So they talk about all these devices, computers, and so forth. That's not limited to what Mr. Kwok -- whatever was -- the Government seized what they seized. But they -- it wasn't a process of asking Mr. Kwok to hand over anything. He was taken away. And then the Government did its seizure. So there are three categories of possible materials here that the Trustee wishes to have the Court deal with. It's what the debtor has. Well, I can -- I can be clear in my representation this debtor, incarcerated for at least the foreseeable future with bail denied, has nothing. Okay. So that's pretty clear. That's the (indiscernible). It's what the Government has seized from the debtor's -- from the debtor and others. We don't know what that is. It goes well beyond what the debtor had. It could be from hundreds of other parties. We don't know. So we can't even have an intelligent debate, and no one can make intelligent rulings as to that until we know what we're talking about, and only the Government can administer that. And third, then, and I think this is the key to the whole contempt proceeding, what others have under the debtor's control. That goes exactly to the Fifth Amendment\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 64 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 64 concern because the heart of the indictment is that the debtor controlled third parties with a tremendous overlap between the Trustee's allegations in the Chapter 11 case and Mr. Kwok's indictment. So the Trustee has said we'd -- we want the debtor to exercise his control and turn over things in the possession of other third parties. That's exactly what is implicated by the Fifth Amendment and that he cannot do and will not do. That is testimonial. And there is not a single case that says that that type of thing is not testimonial. And that's the -- that's the nub of the issue. And the Trustee's response at Docket 1670 to the debtor's contempt response has six arguments. And I think it's instructive to go through those six. The first argument is that the debtor prior to his arrest had no reasonable apprehension of criminal risk and so Fifth Amendment isn't implicated. Well, if that was ever a good argument, it certainly isn't today. I mean, that's mooted at best. Second, the production of estate property is not testimonial. We agree. Those are the one -- those are the turnover cases, but that's not what we're arguing about here because the debtor has nothing. Third, that the debtor must assert the Fifth Amendment in a particularized manner. We've agreed. In\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 65 both consent orders that you see, we've agreed to that, so that's no longer an issue. The Trustee can ask however many questions he wants and the debtor will deal with each of those in turn, one by one, and either assert his Fifth Amendment rights or not. THE COURT: How is that going to occur? I'm just -- when and how is that going to occur? So if you have an agreement that the Trustee needs particularized findings, right, he needs to be able to determine -- he needs to be able to ask questions, even to which Mr. Kwok can assert his Fifth Amendment privilege, right? MR. BALDIGA: Right. THE COURT: So when and how is that going to happen? MR. BALDIGA: We have -- I think we'll have to ask the Government. The Government is -- that's the whole reason we asked for a stay here, Your Honor. This whole thing is a little bit -- THE COURT: Why would you have to ask the Government? MR. BALDIGA: Well, because he -- THE COURT: I'm just asking. MR. BALDIGA: -- he can't get visitors except for Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 65 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 66 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 66 his legal counsel. THE COURT: He can't get -- I have no idea, Mr. Baldiga. MR. BALDIGA: No. That's why this whole thing -- THE COURT: I'm just asking the question. MR. BALDIGA: Again, we're all here as bankruptcy lawyers talking about how the Fifth Amendment works. Someone is going to have to -- THE COURT: Well, it's not about the Fifth Amendment. It's about he's in jail. MR. BALDIGA: He's in jail. THE COURT: And can somebody come and ask him questions? I don't -- I mean -- MR. BALDIGA: No. THE COURT: Okay. That's what I'm asking. MR. BALDIGA: No. You can't have a stenographer. We can barely get in an interpreter. Sometimes, after a very long clearance for security purposes, it's -- and we, even our own ability to access our client is very limited. I mean, that's why the whole idea that a client should be able to, well, look at all of these tetrabytes of data so he can exercise his constitutional rights or not is in the context of this criminal proceeding beyond preposterous. I just don't see how it would ever happen.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 67 He can't -- he can't be on the internet, for example. THE COURT: Well, I don't know about -- I have no idea about that. But it seems like if you're in jail I can -- MR. BALDIGA: Well, I can. I can represent that. THE COURT: -- that I could see how that could happen. But I was asking questions about whether some party other than the Government could go ask him questions while he's in jail, or present to him a list of questions to which he could assert his Fifth Amendment privileges? Because, at some point, and I'm not suggesting I know the point, right, but at some point, I think the Trustee is entitled to that record, right? He needs to be able to make that record even if -- because it has to be specified in order for the Trustee to ask any court to make some kind of inference. So, for example, you're talking about the issues in the cases that say it's not testimonial when you turn over documents, which I've read those cases. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: You know, a week or so ago. So the Trustee's asked for documents prior to when -- and I think I asked this question last week, I think I did, but maybe I didn't ask it well, I don't know -- that Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 67 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 68 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 68 about the assets of the estate, right, what assets do you have? And that question's never been answered other than what was in the debtor's schedules and statements, right? But, at some point, you know, you just mentioned the New Jersey house -- I mean, that was never even mentioned in the Chapter 11 proceedings at all. MR. BALDIGA: And all -- and all we're talking is the -- that's a location not owned by the debtor that was -- there were -- there were properties -- there was material seized at that house. THE COURT: But the debtor's never testified one way or another whether he owned that property. Doesn't the Trustee have the right to the -- MR. BALDIGA: I wouldn't know that. THE COURT: Well, in this court anyway? MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: I don't know. THE COURT: I have no idea about anywhere else, right? I'm just focusing on this court. Doesn't the Trustee have the right to ask him that question? Even if Mr. Kwok asserts the Fifth Amendment. MR. BALDIGA: And I will commit that we -- we intend -- we've told the Trustee you draft up as many\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 69 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 69 questions as you want. I fully expect Mr. Kwok to take the Fifth with respect to each. And I think it's implicit in the commitment we've made to the Trustee to do our best here without waiving constitutional protections. We will -- we will have translated those questions and we will take them to Mr. Kwok. We can access our client. So we will do that. THE COURT: Well, okay. Wouldn't that solve the problem then? At least in the short run for the Trustee. MR. BALDIGA: Well, that would take care of his testimony. Yeah. THE COURT: I mean -- MR. BALDIGA: But the Trustee goes beyond that to the documents the DOJ has in which we've thrown up hands and say -- THE COURT: Okay. Well, why can't we separate the two at least for now -- MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: -- until we figure this out. MR. BALDIGA: I think we have. THE COURT: Why can't we -- MR. BALDIGA: And I think the -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: -- the Trustee and us have been contemplating, which is the reason why they've drafted these Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 70 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>70                              |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | questions, is that it wouldn't just be for the fun of it, we    |\n| 2  | would take those questions to Mr. Kwok, and with the full       |\n| 3  | expectation, but, you know, until we talk to our client one     |\n| 4  | by one, with the full expectation though that he will invoke    |\n| 5  | his Fifth Amendment rights as to each.<br>That's what we would  |\n| 6  | expect.<br>And so the testimonial aspects will<br>be --         |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>But I think they need the record.<br>I            |\n| 8  | think they're entitled to a record.<br>You know, that's what    |\n| 9  | I'm suggesting is.<br>I mean -- and you're right.<br>We're in a |\n| 10 | bankruptcy court.<br>But for good --                            |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>But he can't --                                 |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>-- for good or for bad, we've had                 |\n| 13 | Fifth Amendment issues come up in bankruptcy proceedings.       |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yeah.                                           |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Okay?<br>And in every situation in which          |\n| 16 | they've come up, the person who has asserted the Fifth          |\n| 17 | Amendment privilege has had to answer specific questions,       |\n| 18 | even if the answer is I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment          |\n| 19 | privilege against self-incrimination, so that there's a         |\n| 20 | record established that whomever the party was, whether it's    |\n| 21 | a Trustee or creditor or whomever, then has established for     |\n| 22 | purposes of whatever it is that that person is trying to        |\n| 23 | prove, in whatever proceeding it is before the Court, right?    |\n| 24 | And so it sounds like you agree that that can                   |\n| 25 | happen.                                                         |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 71 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 71 MR. BALDIGA: Well, we agree that we will try to make it happen. I think the distinction, Your Honor, is we're before the same court that granted bail to Sam Bankman-Fried and Bernie Madoff that has denied bail to our client, which I don't -- my partners at least -- and we do a lot of bankruptcy crime work on both sides -- we can't remember a case where there is indefinite incarceration and such restrictions on access. So, yes, there are bankruptcy cases in which the Fifth is invoked at an examination because arrest doesn't stop on its own a deposition necessarily. But this is different. Being incarcerated in -- under these conditions with extremely limited access, and then that's even before you get to the national security concerns, it's a challenge, which is why a stay was we thought the obvious way to go. And we understand bankruptcy estates have to be administered, but we're trying to do that consistent with the Fifth Amendment rights. But even with that, we're trying to be cooperative. I commit if it's not -- I think it's implicate in both orders, but I commit on top of that that we will take those questions and I believe that we will come back with the invocation of Fifth Amendment to each of them, or maybe\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 72 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>72                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | answers to some of them.<br>But we just don't know.            |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>I understand.                                    |\n| 3  | So I'm trying to -- so there's two issues.<br>The              |\n| 4  | issues of the questions that the Trustee has, would like       |\n| 5  | answers to, even if it's an assertion of a Fifth Amendment     |\n| 6  | privilege, and/or the request for production of a document     |\n| 7  | that the -- because I looked at -- I'm not saying I studied    |\n| 8  | it, okay, but I understand that -- today's what, the 27th,     |\n| 9  | so the other day, I guess I don't know what day it was, but    |\n| 10 | --                                                             |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>A week ago I think.                            |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Well, no.<br>I think the order that was          |\n| 13 | submitted was on Monday, the 24th.                             |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>And it -- by the Trustee.<br>And --              |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>I think by both of us.                         |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Oh, I don't know.<br>It's 1699 that has,         |\n| 18 | attached as Exhibit A, a request to debtor regarding           |\n| 19 | associated entities and associated individuals listed in the   |\n| 20 | 2004 subpoena.<br>And there are 202 questions and/or requests. |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>So what I'm trying to understand is,             |\n| 23 | and I think is, are you saying that you will produce -- you    |\n| 24 | will at some point soon have access to your client and will    |\n| 25 | be able to get a response to all 100 -- all 202 of these       |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 73 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>73                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | questions or requests --                                       |\n| 2  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>-- set forth in Exhibit A?<br>Okay.              |\n| 4  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>So you're saying you'll do that?                 |\n| 6  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So that's one issue.                    |\n| 8  | Then the other issue is the production of                      |\n| 9  | documents that are in the control of the United States         |\n| 10 | Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.       |\n| 11 | That's the second issue, correct?                              |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>And your position -- when I say you,             |\n| 14 | I'm obviously speaking of you as counsel to Mr. Kwok --        |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Understood.                                    |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>-- is that you'll request them through           |\n| 17 | the Assistant U.S. Attorney who's handling the matter.<br>And, |\n| 18 | if you need to, you'll file a motion with the Court.<br>But    |\n| 19 | that you're not producing anything because you can't for       |\n| 20 | many reasons of the -- you recited five on the record.         |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So that's your position.<br>So --       |\n| 23 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>And then the third category is                 |\n| 24 | documents under the control of third --                        |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Oh, right.                                       |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 74 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>74                            |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>-- parties.                                   |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>That's fair.                           |\n| 3  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>And that -- I don't think there's a           |\n| 4  | serious argument that that is not testimonial.<br>That is at  |\n| 5  | the heart of something that's testimonial.                    |\n| 6  | Because the Trustee's allegations, as I understand            |\n| 7  | them from Mr. Henzy, in the bankruptcy case since we left it  |\n| 8  | and the criminal indictment have a tremendous amount of       |\n| 9  | overlap as to much of the bankruptcy case, as this court      |\n| 10 | knows more than anyone else, seems to be, from my read,       |\n| 11 | about what entities or alter egos or what does Mr. Kwok       |\n| 12 | control or not, and the indictment is frankly all about       |\n| 13 | that.                                                         |\n| 14 | And so it would be the essence of a Fifth                     |\n| 15 | Amendment violation to have Mr. Kwok compelled to admit that  |\n| 16 | he controls someone by instructing them to turn over          |\n| 17 | something when that's what he's indicted about.               |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I hear your point.<br>I'm not          |\n| 19 | sure the indictment is all about that when you say that.<br>I |\n| 20 | mean, not from the Bankruptcy Court perspective.<br>Maybe it  |\n| 21 | is from the criminal court perspective.                       |\n| 22 | What the bankruptcy court perspective is is the               |\n| 23 | Trustee was appointed to investigate the affairs, financial   |\n| 24 | affairs and -- of the debtor, and to locate assets that       |\n| 25 | belong to or are controlled by the debtor and turn them into  |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 75 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 75 cash and pay claims, right? That's what the Bankruptcy Court's perspective is? MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. THE COURT: And the indictment is based on criminal laws and things that aren't really relevant to the Trustee trying to -- MR. BALDIGA: No, not at all. THE COURT: -- exercise his duties and -- MR. BALDIGA: No, just the opposite. Most of the claims in the case, as I understand it, are on account of so-called victims of the alleged crimes. THE COURT: We haven't even gotten to the claims yet. MR. BALDIGA: No. But as I understand it -- THE COURT: And who knows if any of those claims are valid? You know -- MR. BALDIGA: No idea. THE COURT: -- I hear what you're saying, but I don't think the two work in tandem. MR. BALDIGA: So the indictment in shortest hand is that Mr. Kwok influenced or controlled securities offerings or membership offerings by entities other than himself, and that he was in control of them even though technically not an officer, director or owner of any of those. And that is, as I understand it --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 76 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>76                            |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Again, there are a lot of docket entries since I              |\n| 2  | left the Chapter 11 case.<br>There are a lot of allegations,  |\n| 3  | including in the 202 -- really, the 202 questions that the    |\n| 4  | Trustee intends to put to Mr. Kwok are largely about do you   |\n| 5  | control this entity?<br>Do you control that entity?           |\n| 6  | And the heart of the criminal case is --                      |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I see what you're saying.              |\n| 8  | But I still think that regardless of what you've              |\n| 9  | just said, you've said to the Court that those questions      |\n| 10 | will be provided to the debtor and he will answer them --     |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.                                          |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>-- even if the assertion is -- even if          |\n| 13 | the answer is I'm asserting my right against self             |\n| 14 | incrimination under the Fifth Amendment?                      |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Exactly.                                      |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So I think that if we have to          |\n| 17 | do things in increments, maybe -- I don't know yet.<br>I have |\n| 18 | to go back -- you all can continue to talk, right, about the  |\n| 19 | issue of how you want to try to get whatever information the  |\n| 20 | Government has.<br>It seems to me that you've made some       |\n| 21 | progress, but you haven't made complete progress.             |\n| 22 | But you do have an agreement on these 202                     |\n| 23 | questions, so let's just get that started.<br>Right?          |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Fair enough.                                  |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Why don't we get that started.                  |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 77 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 77 Then with regard to -- so the other two issues would be the process from which, through which on agreement, if there is an agreement, that the Trustee could attempt to obtain documents from the Government in the criminal proceeding and the issues related to documents or information that would be in the control of third parties. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: That's what we have left? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: Right? Okay. So, Trustee Despins, what -- And you don't have to leave Attorney Baldiga, just in case there's questions. So can't we start with the 202 issues? I mean, I have to go figure out what you both said. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: I don't know sitting here. MR. DESPINS: Exactly. THE COURT: I'm not going to -- I can't remember everything you said. Right? And it does appear that there was a request for a transcript entered, excuse me, filed, but, you know, the hearing was seven days ago. If it wasn't requested on any expedited manner, there isn't going to be a transcript in an expedited manner. So I'm going to have to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 78 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 78 figure out what you both said on the issue of -- I recall the discussion, no question, about how there was going -- there was going to be an attempt to get information out of the criminal proceedings, but I don't remember what was said. I can't -- I just can't remember. MR. BALDIGA: Fair enough. And I think, you know, as we've reflected, we're all, as we've said, Mr. Despins and I have both said, we're doing this from memory. We all have good notes. We all have good colleagues who took notes. But the record will reflect it. THE COURT: And then the, you know, the issue of the third parties, again, I don't know how we deal with that at the moment. Do your 202 questions, I have no idea, I mean, Trustee Despins, I've looked at them. But have I looked at them from the perspective of what you're seeking to obtain as information that would be responsive to your discovery? MR. DESPINS: This certainly goes a long way on the issue of control. So basically we're asking directly did you control so-and-so, that company? And I assume he's going to plead the Fifth. We're going to get a document back from them that presumably will be sworn to by Mr. Kwok and they will say I assert my Fifth Amendment rights and off we go from there. So I think that -- we can submit an order that really boxes\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 79 that in that should be not controversial. The question is how much time? We would think that just to get that 30 days should be sufficient. We know he's going to take the Fifth with regards to all of them so there's not a lot of need to spend a lot of time on this. So 30 days should be sufficient so we can have a return from them which will be a sworn statement with the answers to these questions. And we all know what the answers will be, but. THE COURT: Well, I do think that they're entitled to that record, specifically with regard to the questions. And you have no quarrel with that, so fine. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: So you'll produce an order. You know, today's what? Thursday. I don't know if you're going to have an order by tomorrow. MR. DESPINS: Yes, we will. THE COURT: Okay. So then you both can talk about that. With regard to the issues of obtaining documents from the Government, I'm going to have to go back and figure that out. Do we have hearing -- you know, I'm saying this, and I'm not saying it in a flippant manner, I'm not trying to, but don't we have hearings on Tuesday in this case? I Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 79 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 80 think we do. Let me take a look. Yes, we do. MR. DESPINS: Yes, we do. THE COURT: And some of them are about the discovery issues. Just one actually. But, you know, either you'll have an agreement at that time or you won't with regard to the issues that we've just discussed this afternoon, which are the -- which is the -- how do you get the information from the Government? Is there an agreement that it's going to be done by the debtor requesting it through the U.S. Attorney's Office and/or the Court, or is it going to be that the documents are produced to the debtor and then turned over? I think that's the issue, isn't it? MR. DESPINS: That is the issue, Your Honor. MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: May I ask? I have a personal commitment at 4 o'clock in Boston. And Mr. Best is on trial, which is why he's not here. And it will be next week as well. MR. DESPINS: Zoom. THE COURT: Yes, you could appear remotely if that's your request. MR. BALDIGA: Or if it's in the morning, I could be here. Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 80 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 81 THE COURT: It's not in the morning unfortunately. It starts at 1:00 p.m. MR. BALDIGA: Then, if I could, Your Honor, that would it -- THE COURT: Well, if you have an agreement, you don't have to appear. MR. BALDIGA: I understand. But it would be a terrible thing to make an agreement because I'd have to drive -- THE COURT: This is what I'm going to do though. I'll make -- I'll continue this to -- we'll continue this, what is a status, a status conference, right, until -- I mean, there's four matters on at 1:00 and one matter on at 2:00. I try to space them out because obviously it takes long to discuss these issues. Right? I don't know if you want to join at 1:00 or you want to join at 2:00. MR. BALDIGA: It doesn't really matter. THE COURT: Okay. All right. I'd like to try to address, if there isn't an agreement between the two of you, which there may not be, I'd like to try to address the other matters first because -- MR. BALDIGA: Of course. So why don't I plan to join at 2:00. THE COURT: Yeah. I mean -- MR. BALDIGA: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 81 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 82 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>82                         |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>-- I think that we'll continue this          |\n| 2  | hearing until 2:00.<br>All right?                          |\n| 3  | Some of the other matters, looking at them on a            |\n| 4  | calendar, that's all I'm doing right now, look as though   |\n| 5  | they may not be controversial or take a lot of time.       |\n| 6  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>You do have things in this, in this        |\n| 7  | case that are not controversial?                           |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Yes, we do.<br>Some we do.                   |\n| 9  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Very good.                                 |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>But I don't know that.<br>So that's why      |\n| 11 | I don't want you to be sitting on the phone for an hour if |\n| 12 | you don't have to be.                                      |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Understood.                                |\n| 14 | And can I just on the issue of the transcript,             |\n| 15 | because I think everybody agrees that we all need a        |\n| 16 | transcript, were you going to request that on an expedited |\n| 17 | basis?                                                     |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>It was the creditor PAX that ordered         |\n| 19 | the transcript.                                            |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:<br>PAX requested it.                          |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Oh, PAX and the debtor are good            |\n| 22 | friends.<br>Could we have a copy when you get it?          |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Well, you all have to work that out.         |\n| 24 | I'm not getting involved in that.                          |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Okay.                                      |\n|    |                                                            |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 83 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>83                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>But I don't know if it was ordered on            |\n| 2  | an expedited basis or not.<br>And if it wasn't then it will -- |\n| 3  | you know, we have no control over the court reporters.         |\n| 4  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Okay.<br>I just, you know, we just             |\n| 5  | didn't want waste --                                           |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>We have no control, you know.                    |\n| 7  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>-- but we'll work that out.                    |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.<br>You can work that out.                  |\n| 9  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Okay?                                            |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Well, we have the one from the 18th.           |\n| 12 | It was requested on the same basis, meaning non-expedited,     |\n| 13 | so.                                                            |\n| 14 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>It is a longer -- the 20th            |\n| 15 | was a longer --                                                |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:<br>The 20th was a longer transcript.              |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Well, you can -- I mean, there's, you            |\n| 18 | know, you can contact the --                                   |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:<br>There's no way to know.<br>There's no            |\n| 20 | way to know.<br>We've been giving the transcriber a lot of     |\n| 21 | business, Your Honor.<br>There's no way to know whether the    |\n| 22 | transcript --                                                  |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>No, I know.                                      |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:<br>-- will be available.                            |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Then you contact the reporter --                 |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 84 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 84 MR. HENZY: Yeah. Right. THE COURT: -- and you see what the reporter says. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: That's all you do. MR. DESPINS: We'll do that. MR. BALDIGA: We'll do that without bothering the Court. THE COURT: Yeah. You just contact the reporter and find out what the status is. That's all. MR. BALDIGA: We appreciate that very much, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So I think, unless I'm -- MR. BALDIGA: And thank you for permission to appear remotely. THE COURT: Yes. That's fine. MR. BALDIGA: I know it's not the favored -- THE COURT: Well, it's not -- MR. BALDIGA: way to do it, but I appreciate it. THE COURT: -- because I think we make -- MR. BALDIGA: I just wanted to express my appreciation. THE COURT: And I appreciate that. The reason it's not favored is because, as you know, there's so much going on in this case. MR. BALDIGA: Yes.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 85 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>85                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>It's very difficult, no matter what              |\n| 2  | anyone says, to address these really serious issues looking    |\n| 3  | at people's faces on a black screen.<br>I'm sorry, but it is.  |\n| 4  | I think it's -- this is a very -- I mean, you know, you        |\n| 5  | could argue every case is a very important case no matter      |\n| 6  | who it is, whether it's a debtor trying to save a car or       |\n| 7  | this situation.                                                |\n| 8  | We -- this court, has been back in person since                |\n| 9  | February of 2022.<br>The Court is a place and it's a place for |\n| 10 | a reason.<br>It has, as do all of you, serious obligations to  |\n| 11 | the public and to ensure that the laws are properly            |\n| 12 | followed.                                                      |\n| 13 | And whether or not it's intentional, and I don't               |\n| 14 | think it is, I've never thought that it is, some people        |\n| 15 | argue that it is, there's a lot less formality and             |\n| 16 | understanding of the importance when I'm -- when people are    |\n| 17 | on a screen looking at each other.                             |\n| 18 | I could tell you stories, which I'm sure you don't             |\n| 19 | want to hear about some of the things that have happened       |\n| 20 | when people are on a screen and think it's not a big deal.     |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>My wife is a college professor.<br>I           |\n| 22 | think her stories would top yours.                             |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>I'm sure they would, actually,                   |\n| 24 | unfortunately.                                                 |\n| 25 | But all that being said, under specific                        |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 86 circumstances of a case, including what you've requested, that your partner's on trial, you have to be in Boston, I'm going to allow it. But I do think that even in what people think are routine matters, not in a -- not in this Chapter 11 case, I'm just saying as a whole, the judges of this district have decided and been encouraged to decide that people should be in person in court. MR. BALDIGA: It is more effective. THE COURT: And it's not as if the three of us made this decision without people who are, you know, in authority suggesting that we should be in person. MR. BALDIGA: Understood. THE COURT: And so that's all I want to say about that, except that I also do agree that a court is a place for a reason and I think we can't -- none of us, and I'm not suggesting any of you have, none of us, when I'm saying none of us I mean the whole, should lose sight of that. Because the minute that we do lose sight of that, I think it can undermine the system -- MR. BALDIGA: Appreciate it. THE COURT: -- and don't want, we don't, none of us want to do that. So in any event, that was a long way of saying, yes, you can appear. Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 86 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 87 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 87 MR. BALDIGA: Okay. And thank you for your -- THE COURT: You'll have to contact the -- you'll have to have someone from your office -- and Mr. Best is going to have to file an appearance, you know, when I talked about -- MR. BALDIGA: We will. THE COURT: -- what are somewhat administerial things, but they're not, they're important, you know, you'll have to contact -- I guess Calendar Connect is that where Attorney Baldiga and Attorney Best would get that information? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: To get the information which hasn't even been created yet, Mr. Baldiga, because we haven't created any information for next week's hearings yet -- MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: -- because they're in person. So the clerk's office staff will have to do that. And then they will -- they'll get that information to you. MR. BALDIGA: Very good. THE COURT: Okay? MR. BALDIGA: Thank you very much. THE COURT: Thank you. Is there anything further we need to address today?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 88 of 95\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023<br>88                           |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor, two minutes for an               |\n| 2  | update?                                                      |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Sure.<br>Go right ahead.                       |\n| 4  | MR. DESPINS:<br>And I'll --                                  |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Before you say anything.                       |\n| 6  | So just so it's clear for the record, we're                  |\n| 7  | continuing the status conference to next Tuesday, May 2nd at |\n| 8  | 2:00 p.m.<br>And Mr. Baldiga will be allowed to appear       |\n| 9  | remotely.                                                    |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Thank you.                                   |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                            |\n| 12 | Sorry, Trustee Despins.<br>I just need to make that          |\n| 13 | statement for the record.                                    |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:<br>No problem, Your Honor.                      |\n| 15 | I'll start with the unusual good news.<br>I would            |\n| 16 | put the caveat that it's not done yet, but it appears as if  |\n| 17 | the Sherry-Netherland will agree to abate the \\$87,000 a     |\n| 18 | month maintenance, because the apartment is not useable, for |\n| 19 | a period of -- to an amount that's about 12,000, so that's a |\n| 20 | huge delta.<br>Not a done deal, but the early indication is  |\n| 21 | that they will do that.                                      |\n| 22 | Now, because I start with good news, I have to               |\n| 23 | give you the other news, which is that the insurance company |\n| 24 | has cancelled the insurance for the Sherry-Netherland.       |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Effective when?                                |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 89 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 89 MR. DESPINS: End of May. THE COURT: Because there's no money to pay the premium or because of the fire? MR. DESPINS: No, no, no. Because they say that there's been a change in circumstance. Yes, there has been a change in circumstance. Actually the premium should be reduced because there's nothing going on there. But I'm being facetious. But they -- you'll hear more about this, but there's no way we can let that terminate. And the -- so there's a lot of pieces relating to the apartment. That company that owns the Sherry-Netherland apartment has about \\$60,000 left in the bank account. We need to hire a law firm that is specialized on insurance coverage disputes. And so we'll come back to that because -- THE COURT: Do you mean Genever USA? Is that what you're talking about? MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Genever. THE COURT: Okay. When you say company that owns, I just -- MR. DESPINS: Yeah. Genever. THE COURT: Yeah.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 90 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 90 MR. DESPINS: Genever Holdings, USA. THE COURT: Genever, Genever, however -- MR. DESPINS: And we call it USA. Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: That's the entity. It has \\$60,000 left in the bank account. So there's the issue of retaining, because this is really a specialty. First of all, we have a conflict with AIG. But two, there's -- it's a real specialty to deal with coverage disputes involving fires, so I've -- I'm in the process of finalizing that. There may be a need for inter-estate financing, meaning -- THE COURT: I understand, yeah. MR. DESPINS: -- the Kwok estate financing Genever. Of course that assumes that the Kwok estate would have some money, but that's, you know, we don't have it now. So there are a lot of complex issues here. There are possibilities of selling this apartment at the -- what I would call scavenger price. But of course that may not be optimal. That depends also on insurance coverage issues. So there's guaranteed there will be an insurance coverage dispute. I say this always jokingly, but insurance companies don't make money by paying on claims.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 91 They make money by not paying on claims. Sorry. And so they are doing that here. So they've sent us a reservation of rights letter. But we started fairly modestly by saying, look, you need to clean up the dust, the soot, and the damage to the apartment because it continues through the air conditioning system to be sent to other apartments throughout the -- it's a hotel actually -- and they responded saying suspicious circumstances, we're not advancing a penny. And of course that's not a basis to deny coverage. They have to prove arson. And my bet is they won't be able to prove that. And so there will be a -- there will be a fight over that money, over getting money for that apartment. So spending a lot of time on that, Your Honor, these days. I wanted to make sure that you knew about this because sometimes we hit you with things at the last minute and there's been no warning. So this issue is a complex and hot issue and we will come back to the Court with more on that I think soon. THE COURT: Has the sales process still -- I mean, I understand, I haven't seen, I have no idea other than representations, which are fine, but has the sales process just been not proceeding because of the fire? MR. DESPINS: In a bizarre way, Your Honor, we Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 91 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 92 have gotten more interest that we've had in the last year -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- but from scavengers. Basically people saying, oh, this is going to be a great unfortunately to buy this for pennies on the dollar. And, you know, just to, so you understand the thinking there, is that, I'm not going to use real numbers, but we have the ability under the policy, if there is coverage, to sue the insurance company and to get the cost of refurbishing the apartment, even though you haven't spent a penny doing it. So I want to make sure, it was not obvious to me, that the policy says that you can get paid from the insurance company the amount of repairs even though you have not incurred those repairs. So if -- and I have an expert that's doing this now, if the repairs, for example, just round numbers, are -- would be \\$10 million, and I'm not saying that's the number, but -- and if I can sell the apartment to what I call scavengers for just to pick a number \\$17 million, well, that's, in theory, \\$27 million. We were selling the apartment for 32.5. So I'm not saying I'm selling it for the 27, but I -- so these are the calculations that are going on right now. Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 92 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 93 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 93 However, if the cost of repairs are only \\$3 million, you would never sell to a scavenger at 17, because 17 plus 3 gives you -- gets you to 20, and certainly that apartment is worth more than 20, a lot more than 20 if there is insurance coverage. But the insurance coverage issue is an issue we own anyway whether you sell to a scavenger or not. The insurance company will fight on coverage. That's what they do. So more to come. So the sale price has not started. In fact, that's why we modified -- remember, we modified the emergency order to allow for visits to occur for potential interested parties, and there are some people that have gone to see the apartment. So it's -- it's a complex process. And the last piece that I didn't discuss is the other owners in the building. The apartment below it was completely destroyed by water. They gutted it. And the insurance company for that apartment is the same insurance company that we have. So this is going to be another interesting spy versus spy. So that's just for old people who love this stuff. So it's going to be AIG versus AIG. But then there are other people in the building above that are insured by CHUB. And so CHUB is going to assert probably a claim against Genever, so that this is an\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 94 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 94 -- endless permutations here. We have \\$11 million of third-party coverage if there is coverage. So, you know, there would be a greater and more fuller description, Your Honor, to Your Honor eventually of this whole situation, but I wanted you to know that there's a lot of work being done around there. And, you know, there are challenges. One of them that the estate is facing now is the lack of cash obviously for all sorts of reasons. These toys that he had cost incredible amounts of money. They're just -- and we know that now. So that's the report I wanted to give Your Honor. Also, I forgot to mention, the motion to abandon, remember that we had scheduled, you had scheduled a hearing for May 2nd or 5th, that motion has not been filed. And so, therefore, we will not need that hearing. That hearing should be pushed back probably 30 days. THE COURT: Okay. I don't remember when it's scheduled either, but I'll take a look at it. MR. DESPINS: It's the 2nd or 5th of May. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: And that's it for today, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on any matters?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 95 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 95 (No response) THE COURT: Okay. Then that is the last matter on today's calendar, so court is adjourned. Thank you. (Proceedings concluded at 3:08 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above- entitled matter. 14 May 3, 2023 15 Christine Fiore, CERT","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n关于\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司）\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n2023年4月27日\n债务人。\n\n关于 #1675 申请的庭审记录：受托人根据《破产法典》第 327(a) 条及第 328 条、《破产规则》第 2014(a) 条及第 2016 条以及地方法规第 2014 条，申请作出命令，授权聘用并留用 EDMISTON AND COMPANY LIMITED（Edmiston and Company Limited公司）作为经纪人出售 Lady May 号和 Lady May II 号\n\n#1696 第11章受托人根据《破产法典》第 363(b) 条提出的动议，申请作出命令，授权：(I) 将 Lady May 号移至罗得岛州可通航水域；以及 (II) 签订并履行《纽波特停泊协议》\n\n#1704 修订后的命令：安排在美国联邦破产法官 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下主持下举行状态会议\n\n出庭人员：\n代表第11章受托人：\nG. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ.（G. 亚历山大·邦加茨，律师）\nPaul Hastings, LLP（普衡律师事务所）\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·佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由记录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录及庭审记录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（吕克·A·德斯平斯，律师）\nPaul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\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、Mei Guo：\nERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·A·亨齐，律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, PC（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\nInternational\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债务人：\nWILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.（威廉·巴尔迪加，律师）\nBrown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\n601 13th Street NW, Suite 600\nWashington, DC 20005\n\n代表 Rui Ma、Weican Meng、Zheng Wu 及无担保债权人正式委员会：\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（郭文贵）—2023年4月27日 3\n\n（庭审于下午1时05分开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案件编号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：下午好。请先由第11章受托人作出庭记录的出庭陈述。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：下午好，法官阁下。Alex Bongartz（亚历克斯·邦加茨），Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所），代表第11章受托人。\n\nSKALKA先生：下午好，法官阁下。Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡），Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所），作为第11章受托人的当地律师。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：下午好。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。\n\nMAYHEW女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew（克里斯汀·梅休），Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所），代表债权人委员会。\n\nHENZY先生：Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐），Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所），代表债务人，也代表Mei Guo（梅国）和HK。\n\nBALDIGA先生：下午好，法官阁下。William Baldiga（威廉·巴尔迪加），Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所），债务人的特别辩护律师。\n\n法官：各位下午好。好的。今天的日程中有Kwok案及相关第11章案件的三项事项。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1754 于05/04/23提交，于05/04/23 14:02:09录入 第4页，共95页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月27日 4\n\n第一项事项是批准受托人聘用经纪人出售Lady May号和Lady May II号的申请。第二项是第11章受托人提出的动议，请求作出命令，授权将Lady May号移至罗得岛州可通航水域，并就该动议签订停泊协议。随后是一项命令，安排就此前听证中处理的问题举行状态会议；该问题涉及债务人为回应取证问题而主张其第五修正案特权，以及一项藐视法庭命令。因此，Despins受托人，我们是否首先审理批准聘用经纪人的申请？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。Bongartz先生将处理该事项。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：再次下午好。Alex Bongartz（亚历克斯·邦加茨），Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所），代表第11章受托人。我将首先就聘用Edmiston作为游艇经纪人，以出售——营销并出售Lady May号和Lady May II号的申请进行陈述。尚未有人对聘用申请提出异议，但我想指出，我们已收到美国受托人的非正式意见，并于昨日下午在案卷编号1713提交了修订后的拟议命令。我很乐意向法庭说明该修订痕迹稿，或者我们可以——我先作几点介绍性陈述。我很乐意以任一方式进行。\n\n法官：请先作几点介绍性陈述。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：好的，当然。因此，我们提出这项动议，是因为我们认为聘用一名合格且经验丰富的游艇经纪人来营销这两艘游艇以供出售至关重要。我们认为，Edmiston资质很高，在营销如Lady May号这类豪华超级游艇方面拥有丰富经验。一个值得特别指出、且使Edmiston尤其适合营销Lady May号的具体例子是：他们大约一年来一直在营销Lady May号的姊妹船，并通过该过程拥有一份广泛的意向方名单。因此，他们已非常熟悉超级游艇市场，尤其是Feadship，该公司是Lady May号的制造商。\n\n法官：我可以在这里打断一下吗？你所说的姊妹船是什么意思？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：是的。我相信，在Lady May号制造时前后，其制造商Feadship也制造了一艘几乎完全相同的船只，尺寸相同、规格相同，总体而言如此。如果您看它们的照片，它们看起来几乎完全一样。我相信那艘船名为K-I-S-S，即KISS，并且约一年来由Edmiston作为经纪人负责营销。\n\n法官：那艘已在市场上挂牌的船、那艘已挂牌销售一年的游艇，售价是多少？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：我相信挂牌价略高于$30 million。已降至29。我很抱歉。\n\n法官：好的。继续。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：好的。因此，如我们在动议中所说明的，若获本院批准，Edmiston将营销Lady May号以及Lady May II号。该过程将包括制作营销材料、联络其潜在买家数据库。当今的营销材料并不仅是印刷材料，还将包括拍摄视频。然后，他们将向其广泛的潜在买家数据库推介该游艇。\n\n我应指出，我们在委聘函中协商了若干并非标准的条款。我们特别为破产财团的利益要求加入这些条款。例如，我们要求Edmiston，而Edmiston也同意，每月向受托人提供一份日志，列明其已联络的所有各方，以及直接或通过次级挂牌经纪人联络他们的各方。我们还协商了一项条款，允许受托人在三个月后终止经纪协议；如行使该选择权，该协议将在发出该通知十日后终止。我们认为，约定的费用结构具有竞争力。简言之，如买方为内部成交，即为Edmiston内部联系人数据库中的意向方，则应支付5%的佣金；如Lady May号出售给通过次级挂牌经纪人介绍的买方，则应支付6%的佣金。就Lady May II号而言，无论是内部成交还是通过次级挂牌经纪人，佣金均为5%。我们还协商了条款，要求Edmiston如希望或认为其有权根据赔偿条款获得任何付款，须向本院提出申请。因此，该程序将通过本院进行。此外，任何赔偿请求均有排除事项。明确排除的事项包括欺诈、因虚假陈述产生的欺诈、明知或故意违法、故意不当行为等。所有这些均已在我们的申请中详细说明。\n\n因此，除非法庭对我刚才所述内容有任何问题，我将转而说明我们昨日下午提交的修订痕迹稿。\n\n法官：我确实有几个问题。\n\n那么，为什么——Edmiston为何需要与次级挂牌经纪人合作？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：嗯——\n\n法官：因为那会使佣金整整增加一个百分点。因此，我们现在讨论的是，您知道，如果他们以26 million出售，他们得到1.3 million。但如果他们必须使用另一名经纪人，对吗，那么那笔钱——他们为什么需要使用——我只是想了解。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：明白。尽管Edmiston的数据库很广泛，但可能存在一名已经与另一名经纪人合作、且不在Edmiston潜在客户范围内的买方。\n\n法官：好的。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：而且，如果该另一名经纪人向Edmiston介绍该游艇——抱歉，是通过另一名经纪人向该游艇作出介绍，那么我理解，行业惯例是次级挂牌经纪人将获得部分费用。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月27日 9\n\n法官：如何分配？因为现在，如果一名次级挂牌——如果以我的例子为例，而次级挂牌经纪人带来了该人士，那么将有额外$260,000从销售所得中支付。两者之间如何分配？\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，为作记录，Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）。这是两名经纪人之间的协商。并不限于新经纪人获得那1%。可能高于该比例。而且，如Bongartz先生所述，我们收到三名不同经纪人的报价。他们的结构均相同，只是其他人中有的，或者至少另一人，比例更高，为7.5%。因此，这是标准做法；有些经纪人掌握买方，如果您愿意这么说，他们存在业务关系，而除非保证其可从现有经纪人处获得一部分佣金，否则他们不会将买方带到谈判桌前。\n\n法官：我明白。我并非——我并非在问那个。我在问将如何分配？\n\nDESPINS先生：这是——这是两名经纪人之间的协商。从我们的角度来看，显然我们希望\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 10 尽可能低的费用，但对于该百分之六如何在两家经纪商之间分配，我们并不在意。法庭：如果发生争议怎么办？那就要由我来裁定吗？DESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：嗯，对于与Edmiston（埃德米斯顿）有关的任何争议，您拥有专属管辖权。因此，我们不会——如果发生争议，我们不会向Edmiston付款。显然，必须由本法庭解决。法庭：好的。好。这就是问题所在。好。请继续，律师。BONGARTZ先生（邦加茨先生）：好的。抱歉。我只是想确认——法庭：哦，顺便说一句，您不必逐项审阅修订稿。BONGARTZ先生：好的。法庭：我已经看过了。BONGARTZ先生：好。好。法庭：好的。BONGARTZ先生：因此，我们认为这些——我们已与U.S. Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）分享了这些意见和修订稿，并且我们认为这些意见可以接受。当然，如果律师还有其他补充，我听从她的意见。Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 10 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 11 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 11 CLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩女士）：谢谢您，法官阁下。我是代表U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。我确实想向法庭指出，原提案有一项重大变更。原提案设想Edmiston不提交任何形式的费用申请，而提交给法官阁下的修订命令中包含一种机制，即佣金报酬的支付将与受托人提交的出售动议一并请求，而不作为单独费用申请的标的。法庭：好的。谢谢。我看到了。CLAIBORN女士：除此之外，法官阁下，我还有另一项意见。我只想告诉法庭，我们同意在ECF 1713提交的新的拟议命令。法庭：好的。谢谢。关于——首先，我看到经纪商提交的时间表，对吧，我还有一个问题刚才忘记问了。好的，它未必详细说明他们将做的一切，但我明白他们将拍摄视频和照片，将内容发布到社交媒体，举办经纪商开放日等等。我明白这一切。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 12 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023\n\n但我在任何地方都没有看到，也许是我遗漏了，他们将如何推销出售这两艘游艇？\n\n身份不明者：（听不清）\n\n我不知道那是谁，也不知道他为什么在线上。\n\nDoug White（道格·怀特）是谁？\n\n哦，抱歉。\n\n我道歉。\n\n算了。\n\n无论如何，我们应当把这个改掉。\n\n好吗？\n\n我的问题是：您是否讨论过——您或Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）是否与经纪商讨论过他们将如何推销出售这些游艇？\n\n他们是否会——是否有可能有人购买两艘，或者有人购买其中一艘？\n\n然后将如何确定，我的意思是，将由受托人提出出售事宜，但是，您知道，关于出售——我认为经纪商至少需要理解，从法庭的角度看，可能存在这样一种情况：出售两艘游艇会更有利，但也可能存在这样一种情况：出售其中一艘而非另一艘会对财产更有利。\n\n对吗？\n\n我们希望能够就出售这两艘游艇取得最高且最佳报价。\n\n据我在过去一个月左右所了解，Lady May II（“梅女士二号”）根本不在Lady May（“梅女士号”）附近。\n\n它在——它在某个——我不知道它现在是否仍在那里，但它当时在一个仓库里，我想有人说是在Mamaroneck（马马罗内克）。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 13 它现在是否仍在那里我不知道，但它当时在我想有人说的Mamaroneck一个仓库里。因此，如果Lady May II在Mamaroneck的仓库里，而Lady May将在Newport（纽波特），假定命令获准其前往Newport，那么Lady May II将如何被推销？BONGARTZ先生：让我按顺序回答这些问题。因此，根据经纪协议，我们拥有最大灵活性；这些船可以一起出售，也可以分别出售；它们将被推销——法庭：协议里这么说了吗？BONGARTZ先生：是的。法庭：好的。这就是我所说的。我可能遗漏了。我不记得看到这一点，但我想确保经纪商对此清楚。BONGARTZ先生：是的。这是Central Agency Sale Agreement（中央代理出售协议）第2节倒数第二句。法庭：好的。请让我找到那里。因此，我正在查看由受托人Despins（德斯平斯）和Dirk Johnson（德克·约翰逊）于4/18/2023签署的文件？BONGARTZ先生：是的。如果您——法庭：好。我在看哪一项条款？Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 13 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 14 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023\n\n1　BONGARTZ先生：如果您看——那是第19页，共36页，对应于——\n\n2　法庭：好的。是的。请让我找到那里。\n\n3　BONGARTZ先生：——已登记在案的文件。\n\n4　法庭：请继续。\n\n5　BONGARTZ先生：是的。是该页上方的那句话，承接上一段：除非所有人另有同意，游艇应分别推销和出售。因此，我们可以——\n\n6　法庭：它说，一号游艇将以一号游艇价格要约出售。二号游艇将以二号游艇价格要约出售。未经所有人具体授权，不得报出其他价格。\n\n7　经纪商应将任何类型的所有报价提交给所有人供其考虑。所有人同意将一号游艇出售给任何准备好、愿意且有能力购买的客户。以及二号游艇。除非所有人另有同意，游艇可以分别推销和出售。\n\n8　但它没有说游艇可以一起推销和出售。对吗？我的意思是，我只是说，两种可能性都需要摆在那里，对吗？\n\n9　DESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。再次为记录在案，我是Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 15 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 15 我们已就此与各潜在经纪商进行了广泛讨论。我从他们所有人那里得到的建议是，如果一起出售，您不会为Lady May II多得到一分钱，因为人们会说——法庭：嗯，希望如此。DESPINS先生：不，不。因此，并无禁止。法庭：我们看看他们是否正确。我们看看他们是否正确。DESPINS先生：我们会确保明确说明它们可以一起推销。但通常人们会说，好的，把它也算进去，我会支付X，但Lady May II的最高价格是以单独出售为基础的。但是我们——并无——并无禁止一起出售，我们会告知他们，也可以对此作出更正，以确保我们可以这样做。法庭：我们不知道会发生什么。有人可能进来，提出购买两艘游艇，价格与分别购买的人所给的价格相同，但可能没有任何或有条件，并且能够支付现金，或者无论具体情况如何。对吗？DESPINS先生：对。法庭：因此，我需要——因为我将不得不——法庭将不得不批准发生的任何事情，我的意思是，我想确保游艇的推销方式旨在为财产产生最高报价。那么，Lady May II现在仍在Mamaroneck的仓库里吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 16 BONGARTZ先生：它目前在一个仓库里。它需要重新调试，然后重新放入水中。该——该程序尚未开始，但我们计划很快进行，当然会在5月期间进行。随后我们也将把Lady May移至Newport，以便它能够——以便它与Lady May I处于同一地点。并且，为明确起见，我们将回到本法庭，就与Lady May II相关的任何——订立任何新合同或进行任何必要修理，请求授权。法庭：但经纪商知道该游艇——Lady May II在Mamaroneck吗？BONGARTZ先生：当然。他们知道这一点。法庭：他们将开始——BONGARTZ先生：是的。法庭：——他们将从它位于Mamaroneck的地点开始出售它？BONGARTZ先生：在其目前被包裹覆盖时，他们不能推销它。它现在在一个储存设施中，被塑料罩包覆着。Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 16 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 17 但是，无论如何，除非先重新调试，否则不能立即将其放入水中。液体需要更换或重新加满。因此，这需要一个过程，并且将在不久的将来进行。因此，我们预计Lady May II也将在5月期间移至Newport。我还应指出，经纪商实际上已访问过Lady May II，以便了解为使其准备好进行推销和看船所需要做的工作。法庭：如果经纪商，或经纪商与——次级经纪商，不管怎样，我忘记那个术语了，带来——Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 17 of 95\n\n一艘或两艘游艇的买方，并且提出向购买者出售的动议，我们——你们是否设想将对该游艇举行拍卖，还是该出售仅会通知有关人士，以便他们提出异议并可能提出反报价？\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，该事项将接受更高且更优报价，但我认为宣布将举行拍卖并非明智之举。\n\n我的意思是，我们会通知有关人士、参观过该船的人等等，以便他们——他们明白该事项在破产法院中接受更高且更优报价，但我认为我们不希望说将举行拍卖——法庭：这没问题。不过经纪商明白这一点吗？DESPINS先生：我相信他明白，即该事项接受——法庭：嗯，我们需要确保他明白，对吗？DESPINS先生：我们会这样做。法庭：经纪商应当明白，当有人前来为一艘或——一艘或两艘，即其中任一艘或两艘游艇提出报价时，该人需要明白破产法院必须批准该事项，并且可能有人会为该购买提出更高金额的报价。对吗？BONGARTZ先生：是的。法庭：我没有看到这一点。顺便说一句，我不是说他应当在——其宣誓书中说明这一点，但我没有看到任何迹象表明他知悉此事，我想确保这很明确。BONGARTZ先生：我们会确保这一点明确。法庭：好的。好。关于——在我仅与律师讨论该命令之前，还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 18 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 19 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 19 法庭：请继续，亨齐律师。亨齐律师：法官阁下，就Mei Guo（美国）和HK（香港）而言，对于该船是否可以出售，我们保留一切权利。如您所知，您的即决判决已被上诉。但是，对于本项申请，我们不持立场。法庭：你们不持立场？亨齐律师：就本项申请而言。法庭：好的。亨齐律师：但我确实希望明确的是，对于该船的任何出售，我们保留一切权利。法庭：好的。谢谢。亨齐律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好的。关于昨天提交的、载于ECF 173的命令，我现在看的只是清稿，并未看修订痕迹——邦加茨律师：好的。法庭：——所以其中有几处我希望修改。律师，请告诉我，您手头有这份文件吗？邦加茨律师：是的，有。法庭：好的。因此，在该命令第二页顶部、提及这是一项核心\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 20 程序之后，您知道，28 USC 157(b)(2)——邦加茨律师：是。法庭：——我将删除“法庭可根据《美国宪法》第3条作出终局命令”这一表述。因为复审法院可能不同意这一点，所以我不会将其写入其中。好的？邦加茨律师：好的。法庭：在同一段中，向下大约六至七行，我不需要根据328(a)——根据327(a)或328认定所请求的救济符合债务人财产的最佳利益。那是在属于327(e)申请的情况下才需要。因此，我将删除该表述。“且法庭认定，申请中所请求的救济符合债务人财产、其债权人及利害关系方的最佳利益”，我在法典或规则中看不出有任何规定要求，对于根据327(a)或328提出的申请，必须作出该项认定。好的？邦加茨律师：好的。法庭：然后，关于下一项载明已就该申请给予适当且充分通知，并且无须进一步通知的规定，您需要向我证明这一点。对吗？我没有去查看你们的送达情况。案号 22-50073 文件 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 20 页，共 95 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 21 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 21 所以，您只需要告诉我——我知道我们——人们使用“通知”一词，但你们实际指的是“送达”，即相关人员已被送达——邦加茨律师：是。法庭：——并且他们已有机会提出异议。对吗？那么，您希望在其中保留该表述吗？如果希望，您需要作出记录。邦加茨律师：我们希望保留该表述。法庭：那么请继续。邦加茨律师：我们于4月18日提交动议时，已通过ECF送达该动议。并且，在准许加速审理动议的命令作出后，我们还另外进行了送达——我们送达了该命令和动议。首先，该命令已通过ECF自动送达。但是，对于那些，嗯，那些选择不——已请求纸质副本送达的额外当事人，我们随后也向这些当事人送达了该命令和申请。我相信相应的送达证明已登记在案。遗憾的是，我手头没有具体的案卷编号。法庭：好的。没关系。我只是希望您作出该项记录。好的？邦加茨律师：好的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 22 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 22 法庭：然后是第一项命令段落，顺便说一下，这是我的最后一项修改——邦加茨律师：好的。法庭：——其中写道，申请按本命令所载予以批准。对于申请中所请求救济的一切异议，无论是否已提交，我不会这么说。我可以说，无论是否已提交或在听证期间提出，对吗？邦加茨律师：好的。法庭：那么，如果您同意，我也同意。邦加茨律师：可以。没有提交任何异议。而且我——法庭：好的。邦加茨律师：没有提出任何异议。因此，我会加上“或未提出”几个字——法庭：我们可以删掉这一部分。邦加茨律师：哦，好的。法庭：我不是——我只是向您说明，完成后将会是什么样子。好的？邦加茨律师：好的。法庭：因此，修改幅度很小，但命令的形式将会有修改——而且我并不认为这些修改——会以任何方式影响受托人聘用经纪人的能力，因此，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 23 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023\n1　受托人的申请将获批准，只是\n2　在该命令中，有些表述我不会写入\n3　该命令中。\n好的？\n4　邦加茨律师：\n明白。\n5　法庭：\n好的。因此，基于\n6　刚才已在记录中陈述的全部理由，受托人\n7　关于批准聘用经纪人以营销并\n8　尝试出售Lady May（“Lady May”号）和Lady May II（“Lady May II”号）的申请获准，\n9　律师在ECF 1713提交的拟议命令，\n10　经按记录中所述作出修改后，将予以录入。\n11　邦加茨律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n12　法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n13　现在您是否继续？\n14　德斯平斯律师：\n法官阁下。\n15　法庭：\n您将处理下一项\n16　动议吗？\n17　德斯平斯律师：\n不。我只是想就\n18　出售程序作一个简短的编辑性评论。\n19　法庭：\n当然。当然。\n20　德斯平斯律师：\n法官阁下知道这一点，因为您\n21　担任破产法官已很长时间，但有些人，\n22　潜在买家，会认为有机可乘，因为有一名\n23　受托人介入。因此他们将会——\n24　我们肯定会收到其中一些抄底者非常低的\n25　报价，而这是司空见惯的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 24 我们公开的立场是，我们并不急于出售该船。另一方面，我很清楚，拥有该船的成本是/为，抱歉，这是我的编辑性评论，荒谬至极，其中包括每月 \\$45,000 在Newport（纽波特）停泊该船。因此，这里必须取得平衡。我相信会有人感兴趣。问题是，在完全不可接受的报价与考虑所有相关成本等因素之间，我们在哪里划线，因此，您知道，事情仍有待发展。姊妹船已挂牌出售一年半。这是因为他们一年都在要价 \\$32 million。而经纪人告诉我，那显然无法实现。因此，这告诉您，这些船并非在两周、三周或两个月的通知期内就能售出。这可能是一个漫长的过程。显然，我们希望尽可能快地出售该船。因此，我想确保法庭了解这一背景。法庭：明白。谢谢。好的。那么我们进入下一项，即关于将Lady May移至Rhode Island（罗得岛州）Newport可航行水域的命令动议。律师，您也将处理该事项吗？案号 22-50073 文件 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 24 页，共 95 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 25 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 25 邦加茨律师：是，我会处理。法庭：好的。请继续。邦加茨律师：好的。那么下一事项是将Lady May移至罗得岛州纽波特，并与位于罗得岛州纽波特的Safe Harbor Newport Shipyard（Safe Harbor纽波特船厂）签订泊位协议的动议。因此，这项——这项动议最好被理解为两步程序中的第一步。我们最终——最终计划将Lady May移入罗得岛州纽波特的对外贸易区，顺便说一下，该区也位于同一船厂内。但是，作为初步步骤，我们首先需要将该船移至那里。而且，如法官阁下十分清楚，在本案早期曾作出一项经协议同意的命令，要求Lady May返回Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的可航行水域，并留在康涅狄格州的可航行水域内，因此我们需要解除该限制。现在，如法官阁下也会记得，在作出该限制时，曾担忧鉴于Lady May此前在与New York State Court（纽约州法院）诉讼有关的情况下被移出纽约法院管辖范围的记录，该船可能再次被移出康涅狄格州水域，因此，作为经协议同意命令的一部分，当时的各方以及该命令的当事人同意，Lady May将留在康涅狄格州水域内。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 26 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 26 现在，时过境迁。如您所知，并且法庭已认定，Lady May是破产财产，而非HK USA（香港美国公司）的财产——在过去一个月中——我指出本庭已批准的管理协议及其他协议，受托人已取得对Lady May的控制。因此，我们认为，已不再需要继续限制Lady May必须留在康涅狄格州水域内。\n\n我还应指出，我们——我们坚信，并且我们已就此——就这一点与我们的——与游艇经纪人商议，在当前将Lady May置于纽波特，而不是留在Bridgeport（布里奇波特），具有重大优势。纽波特是营销和出售超级游艇的知名中心。布里奇波特不是。\n\nEdmiston（埃德米斯顿）经纪公司在纽波特设有人员齐备的办公室。而且，如我先前所述，他们希望尽快开始营销。他们需要与船员联络。他们需要拍摄照片、视频。他们需要在船周围开展工作。来回奔波并不现实。\n\n纽波特还有其他重要的经纪公司。因此，如买方是通过共同挂牌经纪人引介的，在纽波特获得这些资源具有若干——具有诸多益处。而且，就纯粹实际而言，潜在买家显然知道纽波特是买卖超级游艇的中心，因此他们更有可能经常前往该船厂。尤其是，是的，尤其是Lady May将停泊的Safe Harbor船厂。最后一点。尽管Lady May不会立即被转入对外贸易区，Edmiston将立即开始营销。这并不是——他们不会等到那时。我的理解是，我并非对外贸易区法律方面的专家，但即使它尚未进入FTZ，即对外贸易区，也可以向非美国居民进行营销。因此，基于所有这些理由，我们认为——现在将Lady May移至纽波特符合破产财产的最佳利益。我不会在这里隐瞒任何事情。我们完全明白，纽波特的停泊——泊位费用远高于布里奇波特。这只是因为纽波特是一个中心，再次强调，是像Lady May这样规模的游艇进行营销、出售和停泊的中心，\n\n而对此我们无能为力，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 28\n\n不幸的是。我们已经，并且这是我们在本动议中寻求的第二部分救济，我们已订立一项泊位协议，显然须经法庭批准。作为该协议的一部分，我们协商达成了一系列修改，类似于我们大约一个月前与Bridgeport marina（布里奇波特码头）达成的修改，但我会说，就赔偿责任而言，提供了额外保障。不过，让我们快速说明一下。Bankruptcy Court（破产法院）对可能因该协议产生的任何争议享有专属管辖权。至于赔偿责任，在船厂——我一直使用SHM这一缩写，其代表Safe Harbor Marina（安全港码头），SHM——认为其就赔偿责任提出索赔的情况下，他们必须向本院提出申请。如属惯例，其中有一系列除外情形，包括欺诈、故意不当行为、重大过失等等。因此，有几点。虽然我们已收到U.S. Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）的非正式意见，并且我们已尽力予以采纳，但那些意见——我想指出的是，第4段原本是，顺便说一下，我们已经——如果我\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 29 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 29\n\n打乱了顺序，我表示歉意，但我们确实在今天上午较早时候提交了一份经修订的拟议命令。\n\n在该拟议命令中，您会看到我们增加了第4段，以明确说明，船厂Safe Harbor Shipyard（安全港船厂）必须提前三天、即三个工作日发出通知，表明其认为因未支付泊位协议项下款项而设定了留置权。\n\n然后，如其希望行使任何权利来变现该留置权，则必须向本院申请批准。这是——这是美国受托人要求的事项。我们已就此与船厂沟通。他们已同意。我的理解是，如今日上午提交的命令所反映的措辞，为美国受托人所接受。\n\n我还应指出，这一点也反映在我们今天上午提交的命令中，我们对附件作出了一些轻微的澄清性修改。这是应船厂的要求作出的。我表示歉意。由于某种原因，我的纸质打印件没有附上该附件的修订痕迹稿，因此，如可允许，我再花一点时间拿取另一份副本。我对此表示歉意。法庭：可以。\n\n邦加茨先生：打印件只是提前一页截断了。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 30 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 30\n\n因此，我们已增加了该内容，显然这须以法庭批准本动议为条件，即受托人获授权订立该泊位协议。我们是应船厂的要求增加了该条款。任何索赔显然仅可针对受托人以其受托人身份提出。不得针对Despins先生（德斯平斯先生）以其个人身份，或针对Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）提出任何索赔。在附件第4段中，我们——这也是应船厂的要求——有一项规定，它不是一项排除条款，但其反映了这样一个事实：任何可能产生的留置权实际上受我们刚才提及并与美国受托人达成一致的新措辞规制。如有任何留置权，须经单独程序发出通知并向本院申请执行或变现任何留置权。其余只是排除条款中的措辞。但如您所见，除违反信义义务和自我交易外，其基本涵盖相同的列举事项；我们认为，这两项从一开始就不适用，因为船厂与破产财产之间不存在信义义务。我的意思是，当然存在义务和合同义务，但提及信义义务并没有多大意义，他们已要求我们删去该项。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 31 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 31\n\n以上就是对附件作出的修改。我也很乐意简要概述对拟议命令作出的修改。如果各位想看看，我带有额外副本。我显然对未能在今天上午之前更早提交表示歉意。法庭：好的。还有其他人希望就受托人的动议发表意见吗？律师，我可能也有一些问题，但我想先听取其他人的意见。邦加茨先生：好的。克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，我是代表美国受托人的Holley Claiborn（霍利·克莱伯恩）。我确有几点意见。首先，我确实想附和邦加茨律师就留置权措辞修改所作的意见。这些修改是根据美国受托人的意见作出的。该协议原有的小字条款规定，船厂可以直接设定留置权，然后通过行使其留置权权利出售游艇，因此我们已缩减了该规定。该等留置权权利原本会因未支付协议项下任何款项而产生，现已作出修订并得到妥善处理，以便破产财产有机会就可能设定的任何留置权发表意见，包括其是否可以行使该留置权。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 32 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 32\n\n至于协议第17条，这是美国受托人关注的另一个方面。该条涉及责任和赔偿责任条款。正如法官阁下在有关订立与Bridgeport marina协议的动议中听取我意见时一样，本协议中的措辞与之类似，虽不那么宽泛，但同样对诸多事项不承担责任，这使破产财产面临风险。受托人为限制赔偿程序和流程而协商达成的修改，值得赞赏。我仅想为记录说明，本协议下破产财产仍有一些尚未处理的风险暴露。我理解法庭在上次听证会上的意见和关切，并已将其纳入考虑。我只是想向法庭明确说明，我们仍然关注本协议的范围，以及船厂为自身保留、却使破产财产承担风险的保障措施。但是，美国受托人不反对订立该协议。法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发表意见吗？Henzy律师？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 33 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 33\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢，法官阁下。是的。代表Mei Guo（梅果）和HK（香港）。我们确实提交了一份权利保留，法官阁下。该文件编号为1712。对该动议不持立场，但再次保留有关任何出售以及有关受托人——抱歉，是受托人正在承担的各项义务下资金安排的权利。法庭：好的。谢谢。亨齐先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：还有其他人希望发表意见吗？（无人回应）法庭：好的。邦加茨律师，关于与Safe Harbor Newport Shipyard（安全港纽波特船厂）签订的商业船厂、泊位许可及服务协议，我有几个问题。附于1696号文件的文件，第20页，我认为那是协议，对吗？协议从那里开始？邦加茨先生：正确。法庭：那么其写道，该船舶是否有附属艇？其回答为有。但附属艇暂时不会在那里，对吗？那么，在该码头、该船厂的停泊费用，无论附属艇是否在那里，是否相同？还是附属艇到达后会增加？邦加茨先生：当我们提到附属艇时，是指Lady May（“五月夫人号”）——我假定在此情形下您指的是Lady May II（“五月夫人二号”）。是的。法庭：嗯，我被告知那就是附属艇，不是吗？邦加茨先生：还有另一艘附属艇，实际上是放在Lady May I（“五月夫人一号”）内部的那艘船。法庭：好的。邦加茨先生：我相信它目前存放在Florida（佛罗里达州）。法庭：所以那就是长度——21英尺——那是什么意思？那是放在船内的附属艇吗？邦加茨先生：是的。因为实际的Lady May II不是——它超过50——法庭：对。是50。邦加茨先生：是50英尺。法庭：是。好的。邦加茨先生：它非常大。法庭：这就是我问这个问题的原因。所以现在Lady May还有另一部分在别处。它在佛罗里达州？邦加茨先生：是的。据我了解，它在佛罗里达州的一个储存舱内。但我不知道——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 34 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 35 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023\n\n法庭：它会留在那里，还是会前往Newport（纽波特）并成为Lady May的一部分？\n\nDespins先生：它会成为其一部分。那艘艇需要与Lady May一同出售，因为它是一个安全——\n\n法庭：所以它会在船内，因此不应需要额外泊位？\n\n邦加茨先生：它放得进船内。我一直——\n\n法庭：对。但我——我所问的只是费用，对吗？我在这里试图弄清的只是费用。\n\n邦加茨先生：没有——\n\n法庭：关于附属艇，是否有额外费用？\n\n邦加茨先生：没有。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。那么，假定本动议获准，何时——也许我又遗漏了这一点，如您所知，本案有很多文件——那么Lady May何时会离开Bridgeport前往Newport，谁会把它驶过去？是这里的船员吗？还是将如何运作？\n\n邦加茨先生：时间是下周一或周二。天气情况存在一些不确定性。但我们希望将它移动——\n\n法庭：如果要依靠天气，周末的天气听起来不是很好。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 36 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 27, 2023 36\n\n巴塞特先生：但肯定会尽快。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n邦加茨先生：假定该事项获得批准。至于谁会驾驶它？将由现任船长和现任船员留在船上，他们将——船长会将Lady May航行至Newport。事实上，拟议命令包括一项具体条款，免除船长其本人将该船和Lady May留在Connecticut（康涅狄格州）水域的义务。他要求作出该澄清，我们已确保将其纳入其中。\n\n法庭：他和船员将留在船上——\n\n邦加茨先生：是的。\n\n法庭：——直至其出售？\n\n邦加茨先生：是的。\n\n法庭：游艇直至其出售？\n\n邦加茨先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。我只是试图弄清楚这整个过程如何运作。好的。好。让我看看我是否还有其他问题。（暂停。）\n\n法庭：那么，再次说明，我只是试图\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 37 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 37 要弄清楚它如何运作，对吧，以及如何保护遗产的利益。那么，在 Lady May 到达时，您是否已经为其安排了泊位或指定了位置？BONGARTZ 先生：是。法院：好的。我想应该是这样，但我并不确定。BONGARTZ 先生：我们有一个预留泊位。法院：好的。那么，这个地点，我想以前是 Newport Offshore（纽波特近海公司），对吗？您知道 Newport Offshore 是什么吗？那是一家进入 Chapter 11 程序的公司。他们过去在 Newport 制造并停放游艇。不只是游艇。我想他们也制造其他船只。但根据您向我展示的情况，我看这就是，您知道，我认为那就是该泊位。所以——在哪里——如果您看，如果您多少知道——那是在何处，那更靠近 Newport Bridge，而不是 Newport 通向海洋的另一端。因此，您用了一个我有疑问的术语。让我想一下。哦，外国、销售区。那么，如果您知道的话，它与船只实际将要停泊的位置有什么关系？BONGARTZ 先生：据我了解，这不是一个地理位置，而是一种法律指定。法院：好的。BONGARTZ 先生：现在，您必须位于 Newport，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 38 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 38 Rhode Island，才能利用这一安排。但是，二者可以同时存在——在——抱歉，在 Safe Harbor Newport Shipyard（安全港纽波特船厂）的船只可能位于外国贸易区内，而紧挨着它的另一艘船可能位于该区外。我的意思是，并不是有一条——法院：并不是说您必须处于某一特定——BONGARTZ 先生：——地面上的界线或——法院：——Newport Harbor 的某个点。我完全不知道。BONGARTZ 先生：不，不。法院：我只是在问这个问题。我的意思是，我只是在问。因为它位于这个区域内是有益处的，对吗？DESPINS 先生：是的，有益处。法院：是。BONGARTZ 先生：是。不。位于外国贸易区的主要益处是，您可以向非——抱歉，您可以向美国居民展示它。现在不能这样做，因为 Lady May 作为一艘到访船只，正位于美国水域。它尚未通过海关。另一项益处是，如发生出售，可使买方减少并有可能避免缴纳关税。法院：好的。海关费用？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 39 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 39 BONGARTZ 先生：海关。是。法院：是。对。BONGARTZ 先生：关税。是。费用。是，是。法院：好的。那就是我——我的意思是，我想那就是我曾在某个时候听到有人说的。好。那么，当经纪人——船只——游艇到达 Newport 时，它在 SHM，并停泊在其泊位上，经纪协议规定他们将做各种事情。他们将举办开放日，诸如此类的事情。但是，我想在某个时候，而且我想这必须通过受托人办理，不过我不确定是否如此，如果有人真的想购买它，他们会想把它开出去，对吗？BONGARTZ 先生：嗯。法院：进行试航。那么谁将——谁将这样做？船长和船员吗？BONGARTZ 先生：船长。船长。法院：好的。BONGARTZ 先生：现有船长和船员将把船开出去。法院：好的。但受托人是否必须获知此事，还是他们已经有权这样做？我说“他们”时，是指船长和船员。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 40 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 40 BONGARTZ 先生：我不——我不知道我们是否就此进行过具体讨论。DESPINS 先生：他们有，法官阁下。而且，不管是好是坏，我每天都会收到一份关于 Lady May 所在位置的报告——当然，它总是在 Bridgeport——因此，我可以看到它去过哪里，是否移动过。因此，如果他们要把它开出去，必须事先告知我。法院：好的。我认为，不幸的是，您获得该信息或许是有意义的，因为这也将帮助您了解——我认为这可以帮助您了解事情是否正在朝出售方向推进。那么，好的。让我看看我是否还有其他问题。（暂停）法院：我目前没有其他问题。好的？BONGARTZ 先生：我有最后一点想法想要说明。法院：当然。BONGARTZ 先生：回到我一开始所说的，这是一个两步程序的初始、第一步，第二步将是实际将 Lady May 置入外国贸易区。我们将回到本法院请求\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 41 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 41 批准这样做，但我只想预先说明，这实际上伴随着一个申请程序，我们将需要提供一项名为 FTZ Indemnity Bond 的保证金。据我了解，届时还必须对靠泊协议作出一些修改。因此，我们会回来。我现在并未请求法官阁下就此批准任何事项，但我只是想确保您知道这即将发生，而且很可能在不久的将来发生。这不是我们几个月后才会做的事情。这将在接下来的几周内发生。法院：但是，一旦该协议获批准，以及您为——BONGARTZ 先生：是。法院：——被视为其中一部分而需要做的一切完成后，外国贸易区将位于船只停泊之处——BONGARTZ 先生：是，是。法院：——对吗？BONGARTZ 先生：是。法院：好的。BONGARTZ 先生：外国贸易区不会迁至其他地点。法院：好的。好。那么，我正在查看今天上午约 11:05 提交的裁定。我正在查看红线版本。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 42 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023\nBONGARTZ 先生：好的。\n\n法院：我理解，美国受托人办公室的意见是，其中某些新增内容有帮助，并解决了美国受托人办公室所关切的部分问题，但美国受托人办公室对船只——抱歉，对协议中其他一些尚未得到完全解决的条款仍有担忧。\n\n但我看到的只是，而且我可能再次遗漏了什么，与你们——与 SHM 的协议——有其标准条款，我认为不包括附加条款在内共有九页。然后将有附加条款附于该协议。对吗？\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：正确。完全正确。\n\n法院：那么，该附加条款，即修订后的附加条款，才是真正将成为裁定一部分的内容，对吗，而不是——我想起初有一项新增内容——起初有一份附加条款，但后来被修订了？\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：正确。完全正确。\n\n法院：因此，对于您提交的裁定红线版本，我没有任何修改。我将准许该动议。我希望你们提交——1714 是否有一份清洁副本？\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：有。\n\n法院：哦，有。\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：是，有。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 43 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023\n法院：它是——的第一部分。\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：是。\n\n法院：好的。好。那么我们将——我们将录入清洁版本，即未经编辑的版本，所以请稍等片刻。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：好的。那么，基于我们刚刚在庭审记录中审议过并已在庭审记录中陈述的理由，准许 Chapter 11 受托人提出的请求裁定的动议，该动议授权受托人订立——将 Lady May 移至 Rhode Island 的水域、可航行水域，并订立及履行一项 Newport 靠泊协议。\n\n并且，今天早些时候提交、我们刚刚在庭审记录中讨论的拟议裁定将予以录入。\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：我没有其他事项。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：那么，我想我将把讲台交给 Despins 先生。\n\n法院：当然。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。法官阁下，其他事项，嗯，对于拟议裁定存在一个有争议的问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 44 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 44 但在此之前，我相信 Baldiga 先生将就我提出的利益冲突问题作出陈述。我认为我们已有解决方案。法院：好的。让我在您这样做之前——没关系，这完全没关系。书记官办公室向我指出，Baldiga 先生，您现在必须提交出庭通知。我的意思是，您不再是债务人代理律师。您是代理律师——抱歉，在破产案件中，对吗？您在此是作为债务人在纽约程序中的代理律师出庭，对吗？BALDIGA 先生：是。法院：好的。因此，您目前没有在这些 Chapter 11 案件中提交出庭通知，因为您此前的出庭通知已被撤回，原因是您曾担任占有中债务人的代理律师，而该授权已被撤回。我明白这一点。因此，您必须在本案案卷中提交某种出庭通知。我想，您说您是债务人在刑事程序中的代理律师，不管具体是什么，对吗，但必须提交。书记官办公室正确地向我指出，这是——这些是我们的规则。因此，今天或明天，当您回到办公室时，需要有人为您办理此事。好的？以及其他任何将在\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 45 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 27, 2023 45 本案中出庭的人。因此，例如，如果您要提交某份书状，而您的一位同事也将出庭，他们必须提交出庭通知。好的？BALDIGA 先生：是。谢谢。法院：好的。仅此而已。我只是不想在您继续之前忘记说这件事。但是，如果您想就——Despins 受托人，您的意思是，你们二人已经就您对——DESPINS 先生：正确。法院：——Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）在刑事程序中代理债务人，即个人债务人，以及此前担任占有中债务人代理律师所引发的关切，达成协议？DESPINS 先生：正确，法官阁下。法院：好的。请继续，Baldiga 先生。请您为记录陈述您的姓名。BALDIGA 先生：当然。William Baldiga（威廉·鲍尔迪加），Brown Rudnick。并且，法官阁下，正如刚才所讨论，Brown Rudnick 是 Kwok 先生在待决刑事程序中刑事辩护的特别代理律师。我确实感谢有机会与 Despins 先生讨论我们正在做什么、我们没有做什么，以及我\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 46 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 27, 2023\n\n我认为这将会，嗯，它已经缓解了这些担忧。并且，我也认为缓解了法院可能存在的任何担忧。我就此向法院作出某些陈述，这些陈述我已经向德斯平斯先生作出。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n我们在纽约南区（Southern District of New York）审理中的刑事案件中对郭先生的辩护，该案案号为 Docket 23-CR-118，另有一宗平行的美国证券交易委员会（SEC）案件，我们预计该案将如同此类案件的惯例一样被中止，不会且将不会干扰我们持续、全面且及时地遵守第11章案件中向本所提出的证据开示要求，包括任何证言录取。\n\n您可能记得，就此而言，我在八月和九月到您面前出庭的次数，恐怕比我们任何人愿意记得的都多。我认为您已经听到并看到，我们一直非常努力地遵守要求，而且我们确已遵守。\n\n但是，如果对我们有进一步要求，我们将继续遵守向本所送达的传票。\n\n看来——我有意使用“看来”一词——存在一项独立的刑事调查，涉及可能以某种方式与郭文贵第11章案件相关的潜在破产犯罪。\n\n布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所（Brown Rudnick）和受托人均不知道该独立刑事调查的调查对象。我们不知道该调查的事项是否涵盖我们参与第11章案件终止之后发生的行为，或者是否可能在某一时点提出指控。\n\n布朗·拉德尼克已向受托人确认，我现在也向法院确认，本所接受郭先生委托的代理范围并不延伸至该独立刑事程序，无论该程序是什么。\n\n法院：\n而且，据您所知，并不存在这样一项程序。您是说可能存在？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n不。存在一项。\n\n法院：\n哦，存在一项。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n德斯平斯先生——我们得知此事——\n\n法院：\n哦，因为您出示的那份传票——好的。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n——向受托人送达的传票。并且由于本院先前作出的一项保护令，受托人有义务与我们分享该传票，以征求我们的同意，或者询问我们是否反对提交某些材料。我们表示没有异议。我们就是这样得知此事的。\n\n法院：\n那么，该程序实际上已经被提起？并不只是寻求——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n这是一项——看来是一项大陪审团程序。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 47 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 27, 2023\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n至于您是否称其为程序，我——\n\n法院：\n我明白。好的。谢谢。现在我明白您的意思了。请继续。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n这就是我们所知道的一切。可以想见，它未必是一项大陪审团程序，可能是其他什么，但我们不知道那会是什么。坦率地说，目前并不打算让我们任何人知道。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n据我们所能判断。无论如何，我们的代理范围并不延伸至该事项，无论它是什么。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n并且，为消除对潜在利益冲突的任何担忧，我们不会接受与该调查有关的任何委托。在我们于本案中代理作为占有中的债务人的郭先生期间，布朗·拉德尼克不知道存在任何针对郭先生的刑事调查。\n\n自受托人获任命以来，我们在该第11章案件中所主张的唯一程序，除我已提及的去年秋季举行的听证会外——该等听证会与我们遵守受托人向我们提出的证据开示要求有关——是有关一项有限中止请求；我们上周就此到庭，以维护郭先生的第五修正案权利。\n\n布朗·拉德尼克并非与所请求中止有关的必要证人。事实上，没有人认为需要任何证人。但是，似乎不存在有争议的重要事实。\n\n基于这些陈述，当然也基于其持续为真，受托人不寻求任何救济。但我将让德斯平斯先生就此发言。布朗·拉德尼克认为不存在利益冲突。但是，再次说明，德斯平斯先生承诺，只要这些陈述持续为真，便不寻求救济。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法院：\n谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n为记录起见，卢克·德斯平斯（Luc Despins），第11章受托人。是的，法官阁下。上述陈述准确无误。谢谢。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢二位。现在，这项命令仍有一个问题，对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n是。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n是。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么请继续。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n那么，法官阁下，Docket 1699 中，我在附件 B 中附有一份显示修改痕迹的版本。我认为那可能是最适合查看的命令。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 48 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 27, 2023\n\n法院：\n1699？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n1699，正确。由于其中有各种附件，但在第 11 页，共 30 页，那里就是——带有修改痕迹的命令。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n但请允许我简要概括一下分歧。您知道，记忆并不可靠，但我的记忆，以及我认为巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）对上次听证会所达成协议的记忆——分歧正是在这里，因为他们的记忆不同——是，他们将向司法部（Department of Justice，DOJ）和刑事法院寻求许可，使其能够将司法部在刑事案件中向他们提供的任何材料交给我们。\n\n他们的理解是，不，他们并未同意这一点。他们同意的是，我们可以——他们将向司法部和法院寻求许可，由司法部直接向我们提供文件。这根本行不通。司法部不会向我们提供文件。正如我之前在 Zoom 上所说，我们在该刑事程序中并不存在。其中有两方当事人：司法部和被告。被告是本院的债务人。我们获得这些文件的唯一途径是通过被告。\n\n并且，如我们此前所述，他们将司法部交给他们的文件交给我们，完全不存在提交行为问题，因为这些并非——您知道，这并不表示他们承认这些文件准确，或显示任何事项。他们唯一承认的是，他们从司法部获得了这些文件。仅此而已。因此，完全不存在提交行为问题。\n\n因此，关于命令条款的所有争议实际上都取决于这一问题，因为他们希望由司法部将文件交给我们。那绝不会发生。我知道这一点。并且请记住，我们承担着这样一种风险：刑事法院表示，不，我们不会允许你，被告，将你从司法部获得的文件交给受托人。命令中对此有明确规定。因此，这就是我们目前的状况。\n\n基本上，对已达成何种协议存在分歧。这是我的记忆。仅此而已。遗憾的是，我们没有笔录。或许法官阁下有笔录。我们无法找到笔录。它无法获得。\n\n法院：\n是否曾提出请求取得笔录？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n或许 PAX 提出过。是。但我不认为——18 日的笔录可以获得，但 20 日的笔录无法获得。因此，我们有点处于——我们是在猜测，或者依赖我们的记忆。因此，我会让巴尔迪加先生就此说明。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 49 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 27, 2023\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n再次说明，法官阁下，巴尔迪加先生代表郭先生。再次说明，摆在您面前的拟议命令均已提交。债务人的版本在 Docket 1698，受托人的版本在 6699。随后，受托人作为 1699 的一部分作出了红线标注，但所依据的是不同版本。因此，我只想明确，债务人建议的命令载于 1698。\n\n受托人所作的红线标注与其相比差异不大，但存在几处不同。法官阁下，我们实际上对我们同意的内容有非常明确的记忆，并且我们认为法院也是如此。我们没有同意，而且我们本来也不会同意；我将解释原因。\n\n但是，无论如何，我们的出发点是，我们在此是为了就已达成协议的内容作出一项命令。我们所同意的是，并且对此进行了广泛讨论，我们将向政府提出请求，而且我们将——随后提出的要求是，不仅要向政府提出请求，还必须向法院提出请求。\n\n如果我们只是同意交出从司法部获得的任何材料，我们本不必向法院提出请求。而且，法官阁下，我们不会那样做，至少有五个理由。首先，我们没有同意，但我还要进一步说明。我们本不应进一步说明，但基于若干理由，我们也不会同意。\n\n我们完全不知道司法部可能会向我们提供什么。完全不知道。我们的客户无法就此作出知情同意，因为我们完全不知道。客户不知道司法部可能会提供什么。本所不知道司法部可能会提供什么。没有人——受托人、我们、我们的客户、本院——知道司法部告知我们将提供的内容可能涉及哪些权利；政府告知我们，预计会有数太字节的信息——我不是技术人员，我不知道太字节是什么，只知道听起来很多——数太字节的信息。\n\n重要的是，法官阁下，司法部有义务将这些材料交给辩护律师。这并不像受托人现在似乎可能希望的那样，即这些是郭先生的材料。我们所讨论的并非如此。这是司法部在调查过程中从不知何人处取得的任何材料。因此，我们现在甚至不是在讨论郭先生的材料。我们怎么可能作出承诺，而且我们从未会作出承诺，去交出我们尚未看过、并非我们客户的材料、且我们根本不知道其内容——甚至不知道应当预期什么——的东西？\n\n其次，这里可能存在第五修正案问题。存在——我将会——我将会回到这一点。\n\n然后，法官阁下，还有特权问题。我认为本院，当然还有亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy），以及几乎可以肯定受托人，都认为他们或许已经不必再就特权问题进行争论。我知道，就 Docket 856 中所谓的同意命令，即债务人对什么享有特权、以及债务人向受托人转让了什么，我坐在法庭后方参加的听证会比任何人愿意承认的都多。\n\n但是，法官阁下，该同意命令 856 中有三类债务人转让给受托人的材料。这三类是：一，债务人的资产；二，债务人的财务状况；三，申请日与受托人获任命之间有关遗产管理的文件。\n\n对于我们可能从司法部获得、或者我们应当从司法部获得的这些太字节数据，我们完全不知道其中的哪些子集可能落入这三类中的任何一类。但是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 55 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 27, 2023\n\n债务人，而且亨齐先生能够就此作进一步说明，我的意思是，我们未参与就该命令进行协商，但债务人对于该等数据的某些子集可能享有或不享有律师—委托人特权或任何其他特权。我们毫无所知。\n\n在该等数据经审查之前，其他任何人也不会知道。\n\n法庭：对。请稍等——我目前有点困惑，所以给我一点时间。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：好的。\n\n法庭：但你们——作为郭先生的特别法律顾问——除以下事项外，同意做什么？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：完全按照我们拟议命令中所载的内容，我们将——\n\n法庭：那么，你们的拟议命令称——1698是你们的拟议命令，对吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，其中称，请求——你们将立即请求被指派负责债务人刑事起诉的 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）美国受托人助理、政府，包括在必要时向 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）United States Court（美国法院）提出动议，以修改任何现有保护令，向受托人提供政府作为其向债务人披露的一部分而向债务人出示的文件和材料。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1754，于 05/04/23 提交，于 05/04/23 14:02:09 登记，第 56 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 - April 27, 2023 56 债务人。作为该等请求的一部分，债务人应将本命令通知政府和刑事法院。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是。\n\n法庭：那么——你一直在谈论 DOJ。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：那就是政府。\n\n法庭：那么，究竟是什么——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：政府在该程序中行事——\n\n法庭：——你们不同意移交，而受托人认为你们同意移交的东西是什么？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：抱歉？\n\n法庭：你说过，我绝不会同意——我想你说的是，我从未同意移交 DOJ 所持有的东西，因为我不知道他们有什么。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我们谈的是上周的听证会——\n\n法庭：对。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：——我们并未——我们达成了一项协议。我们的协议是，我们将向政府提出请求，并向法庭提出请求，要求政府向受托人移交其将向我们移交的任何材料，并由他们自行决定。你们已听到贝斯特先生详细解释，政府可以对此施加限制，也可能会这样做，也可能不会这样做。法庭也可能有限制。我们不知道。但我们不再介入。我们将通过提出该项请求，尽我们所能予以促成，然后我们退出。完全由政府决定。这就是达成的协议。我确信，当有庭审记录时，它将证明这一点。因此，我们未同意出示任何东西，包括——因为我们在此的全部原因是，债务人出示材料可能涉及其第五修正案权利。\n\n法庭：所以你是说，你所面临的问题是，这不是债务人的出示行为，而是政府的出示行为。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：正是如此。如果政府选择向受托人出示某些东西，就不会涉及第五修正案权利。\n\n法庭：那么，应该不是向受托人。难道不是——不是——它会直接给受托人，还是会给你们——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：这就是我们同意的内容。\n\n法庭：好的。所以将由政府——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：给受托人。\n\n法庭：你们将提出动议。你们至少会先同意提出请求，然后——还会在——提出一项动议。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1754，于 05/04/23 提交，于 05/04/23 14:02:09 登记，第 57 页，共 95 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1754，于 05/04/23 提交，于 05/04/23 14:02:09 登记，第 58 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 - April 27, 2023 58\n\n巴尔迪加先生：Southern District case（纽约南区案件）。对。\n\n法庭：——我们过去都谈过的刑事程序中。起诉书已经提交，而且有人在那次听证会当天的某一天向我出示了它。对吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是。\n\n法庭：就是那个案件。你已经在记录中说明了它的案号。我不记得它的案号是什么。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：对。而那是唯一的——\n\n法庭：好的。所以你是说——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：——我们在其中代理该客户的程序。\n\n法庭：——你们将要求他们把该等信息交给受托人？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是。\n\n法庭：但你们不会向——出示任何信息，即——先生——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：正是如此。正如贝斯特先生解释的那样，这使我们的第五修正案权利不再涉及其中。\n\n法庭：好的。我坐在这里不记得究竟说了什么，但我理解你们的立场。这就是我提出询问的原因。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：好的。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1754，于 05/04/23 提交，于 05/04/23 14:02:09 登记，第 59 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 - April 27, 2023\n\n法庭：你的意思是，你们——作为郭先生在刑事程序中的律师——并未同意出示任何文件，任何出示均必须——如有出示，必须通过政府向受托人作出？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：正是如此。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：而且，再次说明，原因有数个。我甚至还没有谈到——其中一个原因是，客户不知道那是什么。我们不知道那是什么。而且除了政府之外，他们——但这肯定超出客户的材料范围。因此，并非我们的客户应当已经知道其中有什么。我们不知道。那么，对于你甚至不知道是什么的东西，怎么能够达成协议？\n\n第二，其中一些材料可能涉及第五修正案权利，而在你查看之前你无法知道，但我们不会知道。\n\n第三，可能存在特权问题，也可能不存在。某些特权已转让给受托人。\n\n法庭：那么，特权问题可以处理。因此，我理解你所说的——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——但那可以得到处理。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：此外，还有国家安全限制。我们被告知——\n\n郭文贵 - April 27, 2023 60\n\n法庭：那是什么意思？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：嗯，我们律师事务所被告知，政府拟根据 CIPA，即 Classified Information Procedures Act（机密信息程序法），18 USC App 3，执行一项程序，对审阅某些材料施加极其重大的限制。例如，这将要求我们律师事务所内审阅任何材料的任何律师取得绝密国家安全许可，而这需要一段时间。对于我们自己必须取得国家安全许可才能接触的事项，我们无法就我们将如何处理作出任何承诺。我们绝不会声称能够这样做。现在，我从未做过这类事情。我是一名破产律师。但我的合伙人贝斯特先生和克鲁克先生此前做过这类事情，他们说这是一个复杂的程序。我们不能——我们自己不能移交材料。政府有一套程序，以确保审阅材料的人员具备必要的许可。我们无法管理该程序。我们的客户也无法管理该程序。因此，我们不能出示任何材料。根据联邦法律，我们不能。而且让我——此外，我认为我们不必回到实体问题，因为再次说明，我们在此是为执行20日达成的一项协议，而不是重新辩论，但受托人再次提出以下说法：\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1754，于 05/04/23 提交，于 05/04/23 14:02:09 登记，第 60 页，共 95 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1754，于 05/04/23 提交，于 05/04/23 14:02:09 登记，第 61 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 - April 27, 2023 61 对于一堆我们谁都不知道的文件，并不存在出示行为。对此，另一个原因是，受托人已向债务人发出传票。我们毫无所知。而这正是我们在此所处理的一切，对吗，即执行向债务人发出的传票。包括本法庭在内，没有任何人知道该等文件中的哪一部分可能或不可能属于受托人先前传票的范围。我们不知道。对于从未向任何人传唤索取的材料，我们怎么可能达成协议？其中一些材料也许属于传票所要求的材料。但在有人查看文件并将其与传票逐项比对之前，我们都只是在猜测。因此，如果他们想向政府发出传票，我们说尽管这样做，我们将要求政府遵从。我们将债务人排除在外。受托人援引的、我们在上次听证会上讨论过的所有案件，Harris（哈里斯案）、Baltimore（巴尔的摩案）、Ross（罗斯案）等等，都是 Section 521(4) 案件。它们涉及移交破产财产。大量判例表明，此类事项并不涉及第五修正案问题，因为你是在向受托人交付受托人所有的财产。此举不会产生第五修正案问题，因为它不具有证言性质。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1754，于 05/04/23 提交，于 05/04/23 14:02:09 登记，第 62 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 - April 27, 2023\n\n移交与交出。交出是每一个此类案件的关键，包括巴塞特先生在听证会上特别强调的罗斯案。这些是交出案件或移交案件。我们在此讨论的不是移交或交出。\n\n我可以告诉你郭先生今天有什么。什么也没有。他被羁押，并且保释已被拒绝。他不能——\n\n法庭：在该程序中，他是否已经向政府移交了任何文件？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：嗯，政府实际上并未要求他。政府扣押了它。郭先生所拥有的任何东西——\n\n法庭：好的。所以你的意思是，他们掌握了本来可能由郭先生出示的信息——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：政府？\n\n法庭：——因为他们扣押了它？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：嗯，政府进行了扣押，而这也是受托人提出的另一点，政府在郭先生被捕当天，在 Greenwich（格林尼治）、New Jersey（新泽西州）、New York（纽约州）进行了扣押，进行了数次扣押。郭先生在扣押期间戴着镣铐和手铐。\n\n我们有一份清单，但其中没有太多细节。他们扣押了许多物品。我们未见过他们扣押了什么。我们不知道。这远远超出郭先生所拥有的东西。并无要求他们只扣押——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1754，于 05/04/23 提交，于 05/04/23 14:02:09 登记，第 63 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 - April 27, 2023 63 郭先生所拥有的东西。因此，他们谈论所有这些设备、计算机等等。那并不限于郭先生——无论是什么——政府扣押了其所扣押的东西。但那并不是要求郭先生交出任何东西的程序。他被带走了。随后政府进行了扣押。\n\n因此，此处存在三类受托人希望法庭处理的可能材料。第一类是债务人所拥有的材料。嗯，我可以明确陈述，我所代理的这名债务人，在至少可预见的未来均被羁押且保释被拒绝，他什么也没有。好的。因此，这一点相当明确。那是（听不清）。\n\n第二类是政府从债务人——从债务人及其他人处扣押的材料。我们不知道那是什么。它远远超出债务人所拥有的东西。它可能来自数百个其他当事人。我们不知道。因此，在我们知道我们所谈论的是什么之前，我们甚至无法进行有意义的辩论，也没有人能够就此作出有意义的裁定，而只有政府能够管理该事项。\n\n第三类，而且我认为这是整个藐视法庭程序的关键，是其他人持有、但处于债务人控制之下的材料。这恰恰涉及第五修正案\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1754，于 05/04/23 提交，于 05/04/23 14:02:09 登记，第 64 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月27日 64 因为起诉书的核心在于，债务人控制第三方，而受托人在第11章案件中的主张与Kwok先生的起诉书之间存在极大的重叠。因此，受托人表示，我们——我们希望债务人行使其控制权，并移交由其他第三方持有的物品。这恰恰涉及美国宪法第五修正案，而这是他不能做、也不会做的。这具有证言性质。没有任何一个案例认为此类事项不具有证言性质。这就是——这就是问题的关键。受托人在案卷记录1670中对债务人藐视法庭答复的回应提出了六项论点。我认为逐一审视这六项论点很有启发性。第一项论点是，债务人在被捕前对刑事风险不存在合理担忧，因此不涉及第五修正案。即使这曾经是一个好论点，今天显然也不是。我的意思是，往好了说，这一点已经没有实际意义了。第二，移交破产财产不具有证言性质。我们同意。这些是——这些是移交案件，但这不是我们在这里争论的问题，因为债务人什么也没有。第三，债务人必须以具体化的方式主张第五修正案权利。我们已同意。在您看到的两项同意命令中，我们都同意了这一点，因此这不再是争议问题。受托人可以提出任意数量的问题，债务人将逐一处理每个问题，并主张或不主张其第五修正案权利。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月27日 65 法院：这将如何进行？我只是——何时以及如何进行？因此，如果你们达成协议，认为受托人需要具体化的认定，对吗，他需要能够作出判断——他需要能够提出问题，即使Kwok先生可以就这些问题主张其第五修正案特权，对吗？\n\nBALDIGA律师：对。\n\n法院：那么，这将在何时以及如何发生？\n\nBALDIGA律师：我们——我认为我们必须询问政府。政府——这正是我们在此请求暂停的全部原因，法官阁下。整件事有点——\n\n法院：你们为什么必须询问政府？\n\nBALDIGA律师：嗯，因为他——\n\n法院：我只是问问。\n\nBALDIGA律师：——他除了其法律顾问外，不能会见访客。Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 65 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 66 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月27日 66 他的法律顾问。\n\n法院：他不能会见——我完全不知道，Baldiga律师。\n\nBALDIGA律师：不能。这就是整件事——\n\n法院：我只是提出这个问题。\n\nBALDIGA律师：再说一遍，我们都在这里，作为破产律师讨论第五修正案如何适用。总得有人——\n\n法院：嗯，这不是第五修正案的问题。这是他在监狱里的问题。\n\nBALDIGA律师：他在监狱里。\n\n法院：那么是否有人能够去向他提问？我不——我的意思是——\n\nBALDIGA律师：不能。\n\n法院：好的。这就是我在问的。\n\nBALDIGA律师：不能。你们不能带书记员进去。我们几乎无法让一名口译员进去。有时，在为安保目的经过极为漫长的审查之后，情况是——而且即使我们自己接触客户的能力也极其有限。我的意思是，在这一刑事程序的背景下，认为客户应当能够，嗯，查看所有这些太字节的数据，以便其行使或不行使宪法权利，这种想法荒谬至极。我根本看不出这怎么可能发生。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月27日 67 例如，他不能上互联网。\n\n法院：嗯，我不知道——我对此完全不了解。但似乎如果你在监狱里，我可以——\n\nBALDIGA律师：嗯，我可以对此作出陈述。\n\n法院：——我可以理解这可能发生。但我所问的是，除政府以外的某一方是否可以在他被关押期间去向他提问，或者向他提交一份问题清单，他可以就此主张其第五修正案特权？因为，在某个时候，我并不是说我知道那个时间点，对吗，但在某个时候，我认为受托人有权获得该记录，对吗？即使——因为必须予以具体说明，受托人才能请求任何法院作出某种推断，所以他需要能够形成该记录。例如，你谈到了那些案件中的争点，即当你移交文件时不具有证言性质，我已经读过那些案件。\n\nBALDIGA律师：是的。\n\n法院：你知道，大约一周前。因此，受托人在何时之前请求文件——我想我上周问过这个问题，我想我是问过的，但也许我没有问清楚，我不知道——即 Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 67 of 95\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 68 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月27日 68 关于破产财产，对吗，你拥有哪些资产？除债务人的资产清单和陈述中所载内容外，这个问题从未得到回答，对吗？但是，在某个时候，你知道，你刚才提到了新泽西州的房屋——我的意思是，该房屋在第11章程序中根本从未被提及。\n\nBALDIGA律师：而我们——而我们所说的只是——那是一处不属于债务人的地点，那里——有——有财产——该房屋中有材料被扣押。\n\n法院：但债务人从未作证说明他是否拥有该财产。受托人难道没有权利——\n\nBALDIGA律师：我不知道这一点。\n\n法院：至少在本法院呢？\n\nBALDIGA律师：好的。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nBALDIGA律师：我不知道。\n\n法院：我对其他任何地方都完全不了解，对吗？我只关注本法院。受托人难道没有权利向他提出这个问题吗？即使Kwok先生主张第五修正案权利。\n\nBALDIGA律师：我承诺，我们——我们打算——我们已告诉受托人，你起草尽可能多的问题。我的充分预期是Kwok先生将就每一个问题主张第五修正案权利。我认为，我们向受托人作出的承诺隐含着，我们会尽最大努力，在不放弃宪法保护的情况下做到这一点。我们将——我们将翻译这些问题，并把它们带给Kwok先生。我们可以接触我们的客户。所以我们会这样做。\n\n法院：嗯，好的。那样岂不是就能解决问题？至少在短期内对受托人而言。\n\nBALDIGA律师：嗯，那将处理他的证言。是的。\n\n法院：我的意思是——\n\nBALDIGA律师：但受托人还进一步要求司法部（DOJ）持有的文件，对此我们已经束手无策，并且说——\n\n法院：好的。那么，为什么我们至少目前不能把这两者分开——\n\nBALDIGA律师：好的。\n\n法院：——直到我们弄清楚这一点。\n\nBALDIGA律师：我认为我们已经分开了。\n\n法院：为什么我们不能——\n\nBALDIGA律师：而且我认为——\n\n法院：好的。\n\nBALDIGA律师：——受托人与我们一直在考虑的，也就是他们起草这些 Case 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 70 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月27日\n1　问题的原因，是这不仅仅是为了好玩，我们\n2　会把这些问题带给Kwok先生，并且完全\n3　预期，但你知道，在我们逐一与客户交谈之前，\n4　仍完全预期他将就每一项\n5　主张其第五修正案权利。\n这就是我们所\n6　预期的。因此，具有证言性质的方面将会——\n7　法院：\n但我认为他们需要该记录。我\n8　认为他们有权获得记录。你知道，这正是\n9　我所建议的。我的意思是——而且你是对的。我们在\n10　破产法院。但无论是好是坏——\n11　BALDIGA律师：\n但他不能——\n12　法院：\n——无论是好是坏，我们都曾在\n13　破产程序中遇到第五修正案问题。\n14　BALDIGA律师：\n是的。\n15　法院：\n好的？在出现这些问题的每一种情形中，\n16　主张第五修正案特权的人\n17　都必须回答具体问题，\n18　即使答案是我主张反对自证其罪的第五修正案\n19　特权，从而形成一份记录，\n20　使得无论该当事人是谁，无论是\n21　受托人、债权人或任何人，均已为了\n22　该人试图证明的任何事项，\n23　在法院审理的任何程序中建立记录，对吗？\n24　因此，听起来你同意\n25　这可以发生。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 71 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月27日 71 BALDIGA律师：嗯，我们同意将努力促成此事。我认为，法官阁下，区别在于，我们现在面对的是同一法院，该法院曾准予Sam Bankman-Fried（萨姆·班克曼-弗里德）和Bernie Madoff（伯纳德·麦道夫）保释，却拒绝给予我们的客户保释；对此，我不知道——至少我的合伙人——而且我们在破产犯罪工作中为双方都处理过大量案件——我们想不起有任何案件存在无限期羁押以及如此严格的接触限制。因此，是的，存在一些破产案件，其中在询问时主张第五修正案，因为被捕本身并不必然阻止证言录取。但本案不同。在这种接触极其有限的条件下被羁押，而且这甚至还未涉及国家安全方面的顾虑，这是一项挑战，这就是为什么我们认为暂停显然是应采取的方式。我们理解破产财产必须得到管理，但我们正努力以符合第五修正案权利的方式做到这一点。不过，即使如此，我们仍努力合作。我承诺，如果这并非——我认为这隐含于两项命令之中，但除此之外我还承诺，我们会把这些问题带去，我相信我们将带回针对每一个问题主张第五修正案权利的答复，或者也许\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 72 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年4月27日\n1　对其中一些问题作出回答。但我们只是不了解。\n2　法院：\n我明白。\n3　所以我试图——所以这里有两个问题。这\n4　些问题是受托人希望\n5　获得回答的问题，即使回答是主张第五修正案\n6　特权，和/或要求提交一份文件，\n7　因为——我看过——我并不是说我研究过，\n8　好的，但我理解——今天是几号，27号，\n9　所以前几天，我想我不知道是哪一天，但是\n10　——\n11　BALDIGA律师：\n我想是一周前。\n12　法院：\n嗯，不。我想提交的\n13　命令是在星期一，即24日。\n14　BALDIGA律师：\n是。\n15　法院：\n而且它——由受托人提交。并且——\n16　BALDIGA律师：\n我认为是由我们双方提交。\n17　法院：\n哦，我不知道。是1699号，其\n18　附件A是关于2004传票中列明的\n19　关联实体和关联个人的、向债务人提出的\n20　请求。其中有202项问题和/或请求。\n21　BALDIGA律师：\n是。\n22　法院：\n所以我试图理解的是，\n23　而且我认为是，你是否在说你将提交——你\n24　将在不久后的某个时候能够接触你的客户，并且\n25　能够就所有这100——全部202项这些问题获得\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1754 Filed 05/04/23 Entered 05/04/23 14:02:09 Page 73 of 95\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月27日\n\n1　问题或请求——\n2　BALDIGA律师：\n是。\n3　法院：\n——是否载于附件A？\n好的。\n4　BALDIGA律师：\n是。\n5　法院：\n所以你是说你会这么做？\n6　BALDIGA律师：\n是。\n7　法院：\n好的。\n所以这是一个问题。\n\n8　另一个问题是提供由 United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）控制的文件。\n11　这是第二个问题，对吗？\n12　BALDIGA律师：\n是。\n13　法院：\n而你方的立场——我说“你方”时，\n14　显然是指作为 Kwok先生律师的你方——\n15　BALDIGA律师：\n明白。\n16　法院：\n——是你方将通过负责处理此事的 Assistant U.S. Attorney（助理联邦检察官）提出请求。而且，\n18　如有必要，你方将向法院提出动议。但是，\n19　你方不会提供任何文件，因为基于多项原因你方无法这样做——你方已在记录中列举了五项。\n21　BALDIGA律师：\n是。\n22　法院：\n好的。\n所以这是你方的立场。那么——\n23　BALDIGA律师：\n第三类则是由第三方控制的文件——\n25　法院：\n哦，对。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1754 提交日期 05/04/23 录入日期 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 74 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月27日\n\n1　BALDIGA律师：\n——当事人。\n2　法院：\n好的。这是公平的。\n3　BALDIGA律师：\n而且——我不认为有人会严肃地主张那并非证言性质。那正是证言性质事项的核心。\n6　因为，据我从 Henzy先生处所了解，受托人在破产案件中提出的主张——自我们离开该案以来——与刑事起诉书就破产案件的大部分内容存在极大重叠；正如本院比任何其他人都更清楚的那样，根据我的理解，破产案件似乎关乎哪些实体或另我实体，以及 Kwok先生控制或不控制什么，而起诉书坦率地说完全是关于这一点。\n14　因此，若强迫 Kwok先生通过指示他人交出某物来承认他控制该人，而这正是他被起诉所涉之事，这将构成第五修正案权利受侵犯的典型情形。\n18　法院：\n好的。我明白你的观点。我不确定当你这样说时，起诉书是否完全是关于这一点。我的意思是，不是从破产法院的角度而言。或许从刑事法院的角度而言是如此。\n22　破产法院的角度是，受托人被指定调查债务人的事务、财务事务以及——查找属于债务人或由债务人控制的资产，并将其变现为\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1754 提交日期 05/04/23 录入日期 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 75 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月27日　75　现金并支付债权，对吗？这就是破产法院的角度，对吗？BALDIGA律师：是。法院：而起诉书是基于刑事法律及与受托人试图——BALDIGA律师：不，完全不是。法院：——履行其职责和——BALDIGA律师：不，恰恰相反。据我所知，本案中的大部分债权是所谓被指控犯罪受害人的债权。法院：我们甚至还没有谈到债权。BALDIGA律师：没有。但据我所知——法院：而且谁知道其中任何债权是否有效？你知道——BALDIGA律师：毫无头绪。法院：——我明白你所说的，但我不认为两者是协同运作的。BALDIGA律师：简言之，起诉书指称 Kwok先生影响或控制由非其本人所有的实体进行的证券发行或会员资格发行，并且即使他在技术上并非其中任何实体的高级职员、董事或所有人，他仍控制这些实体。这就是，据我所知——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1754 提交日期 05/04/23 录入日期 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 76 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月27日\n\n1　再者，自我离开 Chapter 11（第11章）案件以来，已有许多案卷记录。存在许多指控，\n3　包括在 202——实际上，受托人拟向 Kwok先生提出的 202 个问题，主要都是关于：你是否控制该实体？你是否控制那个实体？\n6　而刑事案件的核心是——\n7　法院：\n好的。我明白你所说的。\n8　但是我仍然认为，不论你刚才所说为何，你已向法院表示，这些问题将提供给债务人，且他将予以回答——\n11　BALDIGA律师：\n是。\n12　法院：\n——即使该主张是——即使答案是，我依据第五修正案主张不自证其罪的权利？\n15　BALDIGA律师：\n正是如此。\n16　法院：\n好的。因此，我认为如果我们必须分阶段处理，或许——我现在还不知道。我必须回去——你们各方可以继续讨论，对吗，关于你们希望如何尝试取得政府掌握的任何信息这一问题。在我看来，你们已取得了一些进展，但尚未取得完全进展。\n22　但你们确实已就这 202 个问题达成协议，所以让我们先开始处理这个问题。对吗？\n24　BALDIGA律师：\n可以。\n25　法院：\n那我们就开始处理这个问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1754 提交日期 05/04/23 录入日期 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 77 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月27日　77　那么，关于——所以另外两个问题将是：如有协议，受托人可通过何种程序、经由何种程序，尝试在刑事程序中从政府取得文件；以及与由第三方控制的文件或信息有关的问题。BALDIGA律师：是。法院：这就是我们剩下的问题？BALDIGA律师：是。法院：对吗？好的。那么，Despins受托人（Trustee Despins），什么——而且 Baldiga律师，你不必离开，以防有问题。那么我们不能先从 202 个问题开始吗？我的意思是，我得弄清楚你们双方说了什么。DESPINS受托人：是。法院：我坐在这里不知道。DESPINS受托人：正是如此。法院：我不会——我无法记住你们说的每件事。对吗？而且看来已提出了获取庭审记录的请求——抱歉，是已提交——但是，你知道，庭审是在七天前。如果没有以任何加急方式提出请求，就不会以加急方式获得庭审记录。因此，我必须\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1754 提交日期 05/04/23 录入日期 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 78 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月27日　78　弄清楚你们双方就——这一问题说了什么。我记得曾讨论过，毫无疑问，如何尝试从刑事程序中取得信息，但我不记得说了什么。我不能——我就是记不起来。BALDIGA律师：可以理解。而且我认为，正如我们所反映的，我们都——正如我们所说，Despins先生和我都说过——是在凭记忆处理此事。我们都有很好的笔记。我们都有做了笔记的优秀同事。但记录会反映这一点。法院：然后，关于第三方的问题，我再次不知道我们目前如何处理。你们的 202 个问题，我毫无头绪，我的意思是，Despins受托人，我已经看过它们。但我是否从你们寻求取得将对你们的证据开示请求作出回应的信息这一角度审阅过它们？DESPINS受托人：这当然在控制权问题上大有帮助。因此，基本上我们是直接问：你是否控制某某人、那家公司？我假定他将援引第五修正案。我们将从他们那里收到一份文件，据推定将由 Kwok先生宣誓确认，他们将说：我主张我的第五修正案权利，然后我们将从那里继续。因此，我认为——我们可以提交一项裁定，确实将\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月27日　79　此事限定在不会有争议的范围内。问题是需要多长时间？我们认为，仅为取得该文件，30 days 应当足够。我们知道他将就所有问题援引第五修正案，因此没有必要在此事上花费大量时间。所以 30 days 应当足够，以便我们可以从他们那里获得回复，即一份经宣誓的陈述，其中载有对这些问题的答案。我们都知道答案会是什么，但是。法院：嗯，我确实认为他们有权获得该记录，特别是关于这些问题。而且你对此没有异议，所以可以。DESPINS受托人：是。法院：那么你们将提交一项裁定。你知道，今天是星期几？星期四。我不知道你们是否能在明天前提交裁定。DESPINS受托人：是，我们会。法院：好的。那么你们双方可以就此讨论。关于从政府取得文件的问题，我必须回去弄清楚。我们是否有庭审——你知道，我这么说，并非轻率，也不是想要这样说，但是我们本案不是在星期二有庭审吗？我\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1754 提交日期 05/04/23 录入日期 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 79 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月27日　80　认为有。让我看一下。是的，有。DESPINS受托人：是，有。法院：其中有些是关于证据开示问题。实际上只有一项。但是，你知道，届时对于我们今天下午刚刚讨论的问题，你们要么会达成协议，要么不会达成协议；该问题是——也就是——如何从政府取得信息？是否达成协议，由债务人通过 U.S. Attorney's Office（联邦检察官办公室）和/或法院提出请求，还是将文件提供给债务人后再移交？我认为这就是问题，对吗？DESPINS受托人：这就是问题，法官阁下。BALDIGA律师：是。法院：好的。BALDIGA律师：我可以问一下吗？我在 Boston（波士顿）下午 4 点有个人安排。而且 Best先生（贝斯特先生）正在审判中，这就是他不在这里的原因。下周也会如此。DESPINS受托人：Zoom（视频会议）。法院：是的，如果这是你的请求，你可以远程出庭。BALDIGA律师：或者如果是在上午，我可以在这里。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1754 提交日期 05/04/23 录入日期 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 80 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年4月27日　81　法院：不幸的是，不是在上午。下午 1:00 p.m. 开始。BALDIGA律师：那么，如果可以的话，法官阁下，那将会——法院：不过，如果你们有协议，你就不必出庭。BALDIGA律师：我明白。但如果达成协议，那将是一件糟糕的事，因为我必须开车——法院：不过，我将这样做。我会——我会将这次——我们会将这次，也就是一次情况会议，对吗，延期至——我的意思是，下午 1:00 有四项事项，下午 2:00 有一项事项。我尽量把它们错开，因为显然讨论这些问题需要很长时间。对吗？我不知道你想在 1:00 参加，还是想在 2:00 参加。BALDIGA律师：其实无所谓。法院：好的。好。如果你们两人之间没有达成协议——而且可能不会达成协议——我想先尝试处理其他事项，因为——BALDIGA律师：当然。那么我计划在 2:00 参加。法院：是。我的意思是——BALDIGA律师：好的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1754 提交日期 05/04/23 录入日期 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 81 页，共 95 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1754 提交日期 05/04/23 录入日期 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 82 页，共 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 27, 2023\n\n1　法庭：\n——我认为我们将把本次听证会延续至\n2　2:00。\n可以吗？\n3　看一下日程安排，其中其他一些事项，\n4　就我目前所做的而言，看起来\n5　可能没有争议，也不会花费太多时间。\n\n6　BALDIGA 律师（巴尔迪加）：\n在本案中，您确实有一些\n7　没有争议的事项吗？\n\n8　法庭：\n是的，我们有。\n有些是。\n\n9　BALDIGA 律师：\n很好。\n\n10　法庭：\n但我并不确定。\n所以这就是为什么\n11　如果没有必要，我不想让你们在电话上等一个小时。\n12　\n\n13　BALDIGA 律师：\n明白。\n\n14　关于庭审记录的问题，我能否问一下，\n15　因为我认为大家都同意我们都需要一份\n16　庭审记录，您是否打算请求以加急\n17　方式取得？\n\n18　法庭：\n是债权人 PAX（PAX）订购了\n19　庭审记录。\n\n20　DESPINS 律师（德斯平斯）：\n是 PAX 提出的请求。\n\n21　BALDIGA 律师：\n哦，PAX 和债务人是好\n22　朋友。\n您拿到后我们能否取得一份副本？\n\n23　法庭：\n嗯，你们都必须自行解决这个问题。\n24　我不会介入此事。\n\n25　BALDIGA 律师：\n好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1754 提交 05/04/23 登记 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 83 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 — April 27, 2023\n\n1　法庭：\n但我不知道是否以\n2　加急方式订购。\n如果不是，那就会——\n3　你知道，我们无法控制法庭记录员。\n\n4　BALDIGA 律师：\n好的。\n我只是，你知道，我们只是\n5　不想浪费——\n\n6　法庭：\n我们无法控制，你知道。\n\n7　BALDIGA 律师：\n——但我们会自行解决。\n\n8　法庭：\n是的。\n你们可以自行解决。\n\n9　BALDIGA 律师：\n好的。\n\n10　法庭：\n好吗？\n\n11　DESPINS 律师：\n嗯，我们有18日那份。\n12　其请求方式相同，即非加急，\n13　所以。\n\n14　法庭书记员：\n那是一份更长的——20日\n15　那份更长——\n\n16　DESPINS 律师：\n20日的是一份更长的庭审记录。\n\n17　法庭：\n嗯，你们可以——我的意思是，有，你\n18　知道，你们可以联系——\n\n19　HENZY 律师（亨齐）：\n没有办法知道。\n没有\n20　办法知道。\n我们一直给记录员提供很多\n21　业务，法官大人。\n没有办法知道庭审\n22　记录是否——\n\n23　法庭：\n不，我知道。\n\n24　HENZY 律师：\n——会提供。\n\n25　法庭：\n那你们就联系记录员——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1754 提交 05/04/23 登记 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 84 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 — April 27, 2023　84\n\nHENZY 律师：是的。对。\n\n法庭：——然后看看记录员怎么说。\n\nHENZY 律师：好的。\n\n法庭：这就是你们要做的全部。\n\nDESPINS 律师：我们会这样做。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：我们会这样做，不打扰法庭。\n\n法庭：是的。你们只需联系记录员，了解目前的情况。这就是全部。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：法官大人，我们对此非常感谢。\n\n法庭：好的。因此我认为，除非我——\n\nBALDIGA 律师：并且感谢您允许我远程出庭。\n\n法庭：是的。没问题。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：我知道这不是受青睐的——\n\n法庭：嗯，这不是——\n\nBALDIGA 律师：——方式，但我很感谢。\n\n法庭：——因为我认为我们作出——\n\nBALDIGA 律师：我只是想表达我的感谢。\n\n法庭：我也感谢这一点。不受青睐的原因是，如你所知，本案中有这么多事情正在进行。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：是的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1754 提交 05/04/23 登记 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 85 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 — April 27, 2023\n\n1　法庭：\n无论任何人怎么说，\n2　隔着黑屏看着人们的脸来处理这些确实严重的问题，\n3　都非常困难。\n很抱歉，但事实就是如此。\n4　我认为这是——这是一个非常——我的意思是，你知道，\n5　你可以说每个案件都是非常重要的案件，无论当事人\n6　是谁，无论是一个试图保住汽车的债务人，\n7　还是本案这种情况。\n\n8　我们——本院自\n9　February of 2022 以来一直恢复现场开庭。\n法庭是一个场所，而且它之所以是一个场所有其原因。\n10　法庭，如同你们所有人一样，对公众以及确保\n11　法律得到适当遵守，负有严肃的\n12　义务。\n\n13　而且，无论是否是故意的，我并不\n14　认为是，我从未认为是，有些人\n15　主张是，但当我——当人们\n16　在屏幕上互相看着时，正式性和对重要性的\n17　理解就少得多。\n\n18　我可以给你们讲一些故事，我相信你们不想\n19　听，讲讲当人们在屏幕上并认为这没什么大不了时，\n20　发生过的一些事情。\n\n21　BALDIGA 律师：\n我的妻子是一名大学教授。\n我\n22　认为她的故事会胜过您的。\n\n23　法庭：\n我相信确实会，\n24　不幸的是。\n\n25　但话虽如此，在案件的具体\n\n郭文贵 — April 27, 2023　86\n\n情形下，包括你所提出的情况，即你的合伙人正在受审，而你必须在 Boston（波士顿），我将予以允许。但我确实认为，即使在被人们认为是例行的事项中，并非在——并非在本 Chapter 11（第11章）案件中，我只是总体而言，本地区的法官已经决定，并被鼓励作出决定，当事人应当亲自到庭。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：这样更有效。\n\n法庭：而且并不是我们三个人在没有有权人士建议我们应当亲自到庭的情况下作出的这一决定。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：明白。\n\n法庭：因此，关于这一点，我只想说这些，除此之外，我也同意法庭之所以是一个场所自有其原因，而且我认为我们不能——我们所有人都不能，我并不是说你们中任何人曾经如此，我所说的我们所有人，是指整体，都不能忽视这一点。因为一旦我们忽视这一点，我认为它就可能损害这个制度——\n\nBALDIGA 律师：感谢。\n\n法庭：——而我们不想，我们都不想这样做。因此无论如何，绕了这么大一圈，我想说的是：是的，你可以出庭。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1754 提交 05/04/23 登记 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 86 页，共 95 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1754 提交 05/04/23 登记 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 87 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 — April 27, 2023　87\n\nBALDIGA 律师：好的。并且感谢您——\n\n法庭：你必须联系——你必须让你们办公室的某个人——而且 Best 律师（贝斯特）必须提交出庭代理通知，你知道，当我谈到——\n\nBALDIGA 律师：我们会的。\n\n法庭：——某些看似行政性的事情时，但它们并非如此，它们很重要，你知道，你必须联系——我想 Calendar Connect（Calendar Connect）是否是 Baldiga 律师和 Best 律师取得该信息的地方？\n\n法庭书记员：是。\n\n法庭：以取得甚至尚未创建的信息，Baldiga 律师，因为我们尚未为下周的听证会创建任何信息——\n\nBALDIGA 律师：好的。\n\n法庭：——因为这些听证会是现场进行的。因此书记官办公室工作人员必须这样做。然后他们会——他们会把该信息提供给你。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：很好。\n\n法庭：好吗？\n\nBALDIGA 律师：非常感谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。今天我们还有什么需要处理的吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1754 提交 05/04/23 登记 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 88 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 — April 27, 2023\n\n1　DESPINS 律师：\n法官大人，能否用两分钟\n2　作个更新？\n\n3　法庭：\n当然。\n请讲。\n\n4　DESPINS 律师：\n我将——\n\n5　法庭：\n在你说任何事情之前。\n\n6　因此，为使记录明确，我们将\n7　情况会议延续至下周二，即 May 2nd，\n8　2:00 p.m.。\n并允许 Baldiga 律师\n9　远程出庭。\n\n10　BALDIGA 律师：\n谢谢。\n\n11　法庭：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n12　抱歉，Despins 受托人。\n我只是需要\n13　为记录作出该声明。\n\n14　DESPINS 律师：\n没问题，法官大人。\n\n15　我先说一个不同寻常的好消息。\n我\n16　要加一个但书，即此事尚未完成，但看起来\n17　Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）将同意免除每月 \\$87,000 的\n18　维护费，因为该公寓无法使用，免除期间的金额\n19　大约为12,000，因此差额很大。\n20　尚未达成协议，但早期迹象表明\n21　他们会这样做。\n\n22　既然我先说了好消息，我必须\n23　告诉您另一则消息，即保险公司\n24　已经取消了 Sherry-Netherland 的保险。\n\n25　法庭：\n何时生效？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1754 提交 05/04/23 登记 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 89 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 — April 27, 2023　89\n\nDESPINS 律师：五月底。\n\n法庭：是因为没有钱支付保费，还是因为火灾？\n\nDESPINS 律师：不，不，不。因为他们说情况发生了变化。是的，情况确实发生了变化。实际上，保费应当降低，因为那里没有任何活动。但我是在讽刺。不过他们——您会听到更多情况，但我们绝不能让该保险终止。而且——因此，涉及该公寓有很多事项。拥有 Sherry-Netherland 公寓的那家公司在银行账户中还剩约 \\$60,000。我们需要聘请一家专门处理保险承保范围争议的律师事务所。因此我们会再就此回来，因为——\n\n法庭：你是指 Genever USA（Genever USA）吗？你说的是这个吗？\n\nDESPINS 律师：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS 律师：Genever（Genever）。\n\n法庭：好的。当你说拥有该公寓的公司时，我只是——\n\nDESPINS 律师：是的。Genever。\n\n法庭：是的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1754 提交 05/04/23 登记 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 90 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵 — April 27, 2023　90\n\nDESPINS 律师：Genever Holdings, USA（Genever Holdings, USA）。\n\n法庭：Genever，Genever，无论如何——\n\nDESPINS 律师：我们称之为 USA。是的。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS 律师：那就是该实体。其银行账户中还剩 \\$60,000。因此存在聘请的问题，因为这确实是一个专业领域。首先，我们与 AIG（AIG）存在利益冲突。其次，处理涉及火灾的承保范围争议确实是一个专业领域，因此我——我正在完成此事。可能需要进行遗产间融资，意思是——\n\n法庭：我明白，是的。\n\nDESPINS 律师：——Kwok 遗产为 Genever 提供融资。当然，这假定 Kwok 遗产会有一些资金，但我们目前没有，所以，你知道。因此这里有许多复杂问题。有可能以我所称的清仓价格出售该公寓。但当然这未必是最佳方案。这也取决于保险承保范围问题。因此，肯定会发生保险承保范围争议。我总是开玩笑地说，保险公司并非靠赔付理赔来赚钱。\n\n郭文贵 — April 27, 2023　91\n\n他们是靠不赔付理赔来赚钱。抱歉。因此他们在这里就是这么做的。所以他们向我们发出了保留权利函。但我们一开始提出的要求相当有限，就是说，看，你们需要清理灰尘、烟灰以及对该公寓造成的损害，因为这些物质持续通过空调系统被输送到整栋——实际上是一家酒店——内的其他公寓；而他们回应说存在可疑情形，我们一分钱也不会垫付。当然，这不是拒绝承保的依据。他们必须证明是纵火。我认为他们将无法证明。因此将会——将会就那笔钱、就为该公寓取得资金发生争议。法官大人，这些天我花了很多时间处理这件事。我想确保您知道这一点，因为有时我们在最后一刻向您提出一些事情，而此前没有任何预警。因此，这个问题复杂且紧迫，我认为我们很快会带着更多情况回到法庭。\n\n法庭：销售程序是否仍然——我的意思是，我明白，我没有看到，我除了陈述以外一无所知，陈述没有问题，但销售程序是否只是因为火灾而未能推进？\n\nDESPINS 律师：以一种奇怪的方式，法官大人，我们\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1754 提交 05/04/23 登记 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 91 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年4月27日 92 我们获得的感兴趣者比过去一年里更多——法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：——但都是些捡漏者。基本上，人们会说，哦，不幸的是，这将是一个以极低价格买下它的绝佳机会。而且，您知道，只是为了让您理解其中的考虑，即我不会使用实际数字，但根据保单，如果存在承保范围，我们有能力起诉保险公司，并获得翻修该公寓的费用，即使您尚未花一分钱进行翻修。我想确保——这一点对我而言并不明显——保单规定，即使您尚未实际发生这些维修费用，您也可以从保险公司获得维修金额。因此，如果——而且我现在有一位专家在处理此事——例如，若维修费用，取个整数，可能是 \\$10 million，我并不是说这就是数字，但是——如果我能把公寓卖给我所称的捡漏者，随便举个数字，\\$17 million，那么，理论上就是 \\$27 million。我们当时以 32.5 出售该公寓。所以我不是说我要以 27 出售它，但是我——所以这就是目前正在进行的计算。案号 22-50073 文件 1754 提交于 05/04/23 录入于 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 92 页，共 95 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1754 提交于 05/04/23 录入于 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 93 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵—2023年4月27日 93 然而，如果维修费用仅为 \\$3 million，您绝不会以 17 卖给捡漏者，因为 17 加 3 会使您达到——达到 20，而该公寓当然值超过 20，若存在保险承保范围，则远远超过 20。但是，无论您是否卖给捡漏者，保险承保范围问题本来都是我们需要处理的问题。保险公司会就承保范围进行抗辩。这就是他们所做的。所以后续还有进展。出售程序尚未开始。事实上，这就是我们修改——请记得，我们修改了紧急命令，以允许潜在感兴趣方进行看房，并且已有一些人去看过该公寓。所以这是——这是一个复杂的过程。我没有讨论的最后一部分是大楼内的其他业主。其下方的公寓被水完全毁坏。他们把它拆至空壳。该公寓的保险公司与我们的保险公司相同。因此，这将是另一场有趣的间谍对间谍。所以这只是给喜欢这种事的老年人看的。因此，这将是 AIG（美国国际集团）对 AIG。但大楼上方还有其他由 CHUB（丘博保险）承保的人。因此，CHUB 可能会对 Genever（热内维耶）主张一项请求权，所以这是一场\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1754 提交于 05/04/23 录入于 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 94 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵—2023年4月27日 94 ——无穷无尽的排列组合。若存在承保范围，我们有 \\$11 million 的第三方承保。因此，您知道，最终将会向您，法官大人，对整个情况作出更全面、更完整的说明，但我想让您知道，围绕此事正在开展大量工作。而且，您知道，存在挑战。其中之一是，该财产目前显然因各种原因面临现金不足。这些他拥有的玩具花费了难以置信的大量金钱。它们就是——而且我们现在知道这一点。所以这就是我想向您报告的情况，法官大人。另外，我忘了提及放弃动议，请记得我们原先安排的，您安排了 5月2日或5日的听证会，该动议尚未提交。因此，我们将不需要该听证会。该听证会可能应当推迟 30 天。法庭：好的。我也不记得它安排在何时，但我会看一下。德斯平斯先生：是 5月2日或5日。法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生：今天就这些，法官大人。法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望就任何事项发言吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1754 提交于 05/04/23 录入于 05/04/23 14:02:09 第 95 页，共 95 页\n\n郭文贵—2023年4月27日 95 （无人回应）法庭：好的。那么，今天日程上的最后一项事项至此结束，现宣布休庭。谢谢。 （庭审程序于下午 3:08 结束。）我，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的记录转写员及经认证的电子记录员和转写员，证明前述内容系根据上述标题事项庭审程序的官方电子录音制作的正确笔录。14 2023年5月3日 15 Christine Fiore，CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","Guo","Luc Despins","CIPA","Classified Information"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":173,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1713,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":23447,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-05-04 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-05-04","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:04:56"}