{"id":"court_ctb_1788_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1788,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2023-05-13","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* May 4, 2023 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF #1724 MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT #1727 MOTION TO SEAL BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE  APPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 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 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)\n\nFor the Official Committee IRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ. Of Unsecured Creditors: Pullman & Comley, LLC\n\nFor the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP\n\nP.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\nTimes Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\nANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 3 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 1:06 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case Number 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. THE COURT: Trustee's counsel? MR. LINSEY: Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURT: I can't hear you, Attorney Linsey. MR. LINSEY: I'm sorry. Can you hear me now, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. You just need to get closer to your microphone, please. MR. LINSEY: Okay. All right. That's the side effect for making my face bigger. I apologize. Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Someone's got some feedback. Is somebody on the telephone as well? If you are, if you could turn that off, because I can hear feedback? But in any event, Office of the United States Trustee? MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 4 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 4 Claiborn for the U. S. Trustee. THE COURT: Counsel for PAX. MR. SARNOFF: Stuart Sarnoff, for the creditor, PAX. THE COURT: Mr. Friedman, Ms. Smith, are you noting your appearances? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Peter Friedman, from O'Melveny, on behalf of PAX. MS. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, Robinson and Cole, on behalf of Pax. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for the committee. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman and Comley, for the creditor's committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. So there are two matters on the calendar to which there are no objections, Trustee Despins. The motion to approve the settlement agreement and the motion to seal. So how do you wish to proceed? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, we probably have to start with the motion to seal, Docket No. 1727. Basically, we sealed only two exhibits attached to the motion, which we had to because under the protective order, they can only be reviewed by counsel for the trustee, the trustee and the Zeisler firm, and this -- it's -- this is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 5 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 5 information that is -- it refers to the asylum application by Mr. Kwok. So he's been very sensitive about that and, therefore, we didn't take any chances and we filed it under seal. No objections were received and, therefore, we would ask the Court enter the order. All the other parties have seen the unredacted motion, just the exhibits --those two exhibits, we haven't seen. THE COURT: The only question I had, Trustee Despins, with regard to the order granting the motion to seal, the second paragraph says, \"The trustee is hereby authorized to file unredacted versions of the 9019 motion under seal.\" Didn't you already do that, or did you just do the exhibits? MR. DESPINS: Mr. Linsey, if I can call him -- MR. LINSEY: I have an answer on that, Your Honor. I apologize. It was originally anticipated that there was going to be content in the motion that would need to be redacted, and it was -- it turned out there was not. It was only the exhibits. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: So that's essentially a (indiscernible) provision that was left over from what we had earlier contemplated. I apologize for the confusion. But given that we didn't have to redact anything from the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 6 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 6 motion, we just filed the motion on the docket in the first instance. THE COURT: Okay. So -- MR. LINSEY: Would you like us to prepare a revised order -- THE COURT: -- Paragraph 2 can -- so Paragraph 2 can be deleted. What about Paragraph 3? It says, the trustee is further authorized to file on this Court's docket and to serve on other parties in interest, copies of the 9019 motion with the summary judgment exhibit and the motion in limine exhibit redacted. 12 Did you do that already too? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. We filed the motion and we filed the -- we filed the exhibit under seal. There is no -- you'll notice when we filed the exhibit on the public docket, there is just a placeholder page that says files under seal for the exhibits that are filed under seal. Your Honor, perhaps we could do that. Could we -- if Your Honor would be willing, perhaps Your Honor could grant the motion on the record and we could submit a revised order that cleans up that language. THE COURT: That's fine with me. Does anyone else -- MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- wish to be heard on the motion to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 7 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 7 seal? No one's filed any objections, so I don't think that there's a lot to discuss, but -- MR. LINSEY: Yeah. Your Honor, the issue is with the prior -- with all the prior things that we've filed under seal, there had been reference in the actual papers to the sealed content that had to be redacted. Here, we were able to sort of write around that, which we thought made things a little bit cleaner. So that was -- that's sort of what caused this hiccup, but we'll take care of that with a revised order. THE COURT: Okay. Then for the reasons stated on the record and in the motion itself, ECF No. 1727, the motion to seal is granted and a revised proposed order will be submitted when, Attorney Linsey? You can have as much time as you want, I'm just -- I just need a date. MR. LINSEY: Sure. Tomorrow, Your Honor? THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So the revised -- MR. LINSEY: Thank you. THE COURT: -- proposed order will be submitted by May 5th. All right. So now we can turn to the motion to approve the settlement agreement. MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. Thank you. So the motion to approve the settlement agreement under 9019,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 8 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 8 that Bankruptcy Rule of 9019 is at Docket No. 1724. We received no objections to that, but just by way of proffer, just a bit of background, this is the settlement of a litigation commenced by Mr. Kwok pre-bankruptcy and it was commenced in 2019, against a law firm named Clark Hill and one of their partners. And it was alleging malpractice, and that resulted from, among other things, a cyber attack on that firm where outsiders were able to access information on the firm's computer server, including Mr. Kwok's assylum application or documents relating thereto. And that complaint was filed in the District of Columbia Superior Court, was removed to the district court in the D.C. Circuit and, eventually, you know, there was a motion to dismiss filed by Clark Hill to narrow the types of claims that could be asserted. They were both economic claims and emotional distress claims filed by Mr. Kwok, and also they're seeking punitive damages. So as a result of the motion to dismiss, the punitive damages claims were dismissed and the -- and other claims were narrowed as well. And in the subsequent discovery, the debtor abandoned the economic damage claim -- part of their claim. Economic, you know, harm damages that they were asserting in the complaint.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 9 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 9 That's actually pretty interesting, because they start asking Mr. Kwok in the deposition, so tell us about your income. Tell us about your income. Tell us about your assets. Then he took the Fifth and the practical result of that is they couldn't pursue the economic damages types of claims, and at the end it was only pursuing emotional distress claims, and there was -- there were -- there was a motion for summary judgment filed by Clark Hill on the petition date in this case. It's by happenstance, February 15, 2022. And basically they pointed out that this type of emotional damage claims could not be recovered in D.C. with respect to the types of claims that were asserted, among other things. So that motion for summary judgment was never answered by us, because we have the benefit of the stay, and there was also a motion in limine that was filed to exclude a bunch of experts that the debtor had retained. So that's the -- that's where we took the litigation, basically, where there was a motion for summary judgment pending, no ruling on that. So what the team did is, all these things that they reviewed, all the documents -- but you will recall, Your Honor, that that took a while because they didn't --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 10 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 10 the debtor did not want us to have access to that. We had to get a ruling from Your Honor allowing us access to that, which was appealed, and that appeal was dismissed as an interim appeal -- interlocutory appeal, I should say. And so that allowed us to actually review the documents. And we reviewed the various documents attached to the summary judgment motion and other relevant pleadings. We had various discussions with counsel for Mr. Kwok in that litigation, and obviously we had some in discussions with the law firm representing Clark Hill, which beginning offered us, you know, really a very -- a very small recovery. Obviously, we were at a much higher amount than what we settled for. Just for the record, we settled for \\$499,000. But at the end of the day, Your Honor, this type of litigation where the debtor is alleging emotional distress, emotional harm, that litigation would rely heavily on his testimony and the credibility of that testimony. And so we had to take into account that, and the fact that the debtor, although he had not been indicted by the time we have reached this agreement, clearly was distracted in other things and had invoked the Fifth Amendment in multiple types of proceedings and, therefore, there would be obviously a credibility issue, but also a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 11 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 11 motivation issue. What's the motivation of the debtor to spend a lot of time to help us collect on that claim given that he's not going to get a penny out of that settlement, or litigation, even if successful. And at the end of the day, we decided to settle for, you know, \\$1 less than 500,000, because that's the best amount we could recover from Clark Hill and its insurance carriers, given the -- how that litigation was teed up, the narrow claims that were remaining and the debtor's current position. And frankly, while the discussions were pending, although we have not documented the -- finally documented the settlement that Mr. Kwok was indicted, so that really sealed it from our point of view, which is that it would have been impossible if not -- it would be very difficult, if not impossible to prosecute -- to continue to prosecute that ligation. And therefore, that's how we arrived at that settlement. That is really the best settlement we could get under the circumstance, Your Honor, and we believe that it's -- given the circumstance and the limited nature of the claims, it is way above the lowest intermediate point that this (indiscernible) settle that, or even litigate it, and\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\ntherefore, we would ask the Court to approve the settlement.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 12 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 12 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to be heard? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. Hearing nothing, I have reviewed the settlement agreement and mutual release, and Trustee Despins, I generally don't approve settlement agreements. I approve the authority to enter into a settlement agreement, but in this specific case, I did review the specific settlement agreement and mutual release, and I understand its terms and conditions, and I do not have any questions or concerns about its terms and conditions. Obviously, it's a helpful settlement to the estate, and it certainly falls within the range or reasonableness that the Rule 9019 standard requires to approve a settlement agreement. As you have noted on the record, this would be a difficult matter to settle without the information that you -- that was not provided and/or subject to privilege, and so it does appear to be a reasonable settlement under the circumstances, the very specific circumstances and detailed circumstances of this case. So for all those reasons, the motion to approve the settlement agreement with Clark Hill PLC, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 is approved -- is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 13 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 13 granted, I should say. The motion is granted. And the proposed order that you submitted, which would require the Court to attach the settlement agreement and mutual release as Exhibit A can enter. So thank you. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. If I may, just a couple of things that are unrelated to this -- I'm sorry. I don't know if Your Honor has concluded her remarks, or -- THE COURT: I have. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Okay. So the first thing is the Lady May II, we were seeking a hearing on an expedited basis to get the boat fixed and in the water so it can be moved to Newport. And as I -- so I want to make sure that was on you radar screen. And then the other thing is the -- we're filing today, I would think -- and I think it's the last motion of this type, but a motion regarding the Lady May itself to -- and we had previewed this to Your Honor -- to transfer the Lady may to a tax free zone, free tax zone at the Newport Shipyard. There are costs involved in that. We have to sign the bond, provide a bond to the entity that's administering the tax-free zone, and so we're filing that motion today, and we are -- also in there we'll seek expedited consideration of that motion because the broker is telling\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 14 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 14 us that a number of people, they're all American citizens, want to visit the boat. They're interested in it, but they can't do that until the boat is in the free tax zone with American citizens and therefore -- and we could not get this resolved until today, so we're filing that motion in the next hour or two and we will seek expedited consideration of that. And I believe that that should be the last one of this nature. I know we've handled probably 3 or 4 already, and I apologize for them having being all segmented and it would be better to have all of them together, but it was impossible from a timing point of view to get that done and, therefore -- you know, we want Your Honor to know that that motion is coming today and that seeks expedited consideration as well. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: That's all we have, Your Honor. THE COURT: With regard to the -- two things. Three things, I guess. The Lady May is in Newport now? Is that correct? MR. DESPINS: Yes, it is. Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And the Lady May II is still in Mamaroneck, but this motion -- MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: -- is going to ask to do what? To\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 15 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 15 remove it from the warehouse and do what? MR. DESPINS: Well, it removes the warehouse, but before it has to -- before it can leave the warehouse, it has, you know, repairs that need to be done -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- so it can be recommissioned to be in the water. THE COURT: I see. MR. DESPINS: And that's part of that motion that we filed two days ago, and for which we're seeking an expedited hearing. THE COURT: Okay. And then what about -- we had some discussion the other day about the tender. Where is that? That's the one that's in Florida? MR. DESPINS: The tender is in -- yes, and we need to have a member of the crew go and make arrangements to get it and to bring it to Newport. But that's happening real-time in the next ten days or so. THE COURT: So you're going to need another motion on that. MR. DESPINS: No. No. THE COURT: No? Because it's -- MR. DESPINS: We're just going to -- THE COURT: -- why is that? MR. DESPINS: -- basically, it's really going to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 16 of 20\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023<br>16                                |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | -- because it's only going to get the tender and bring it      |\n| 2  | back to -- that's a smaller boat, Your Honor.<br>That's --     |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>No, I know.                                      |\n| 4  | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- what I would call a kind of a --            |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.                                            |\n| 6  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>That's the one that fits inside --               |\n| 8  | MR. DESPINS:<br>So that can be brought to --                   |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>-- the boat?                                     |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.<br>Yes.<br>Yes.                           |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So I don't need to do anything          |\n| 12 | further with regard to the tender in Florida.                  |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:<br>For the tender, no.                            |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:<br>No.<br>What's coming today is the              |\n| 16 | transferring the ship to the tax free zone.<br>Unfortunately,  |\n| 17 | that costs more money.<br>I think it's 11,000 or so more per   |\n| 18 | month, and we have the bonding requirements to protect that    |\n| 19 | -- the entity that's administering that to make sure that if   |\n| 20 | we do something wrong, they're protected.                      |\n| 21 | The cost of the bond is not that much. It's about              |\n| 22 | \\$5,000 but, you know, all of that needs to be approved, and   |\n| 23 | we're filing that motion in the next two hours, Your Honor.    |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So let's talk about                |\n| 25 | scheduling.<br>You want the expedited hearing on both of these |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 17 of 20\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023<br>17                                |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | motions when?<br>Did you specifically request a date?          |\n| 2  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Well, if Your Honor is available,              |\n| 3  | Wednesday the 10th would be the best possible --               |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Tuesday the 9th is --                            |\n| 5  | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- days.                                       |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>-- Tuesday the 9th in the afternoon is           |\n| 7  | too soon?                                                      |\n| 8  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Well, it's your -- leave it to your            |\n| 9  | discretion, Your Honor.<br>We're okay with the 10th, but       |\n| 10 | that's -- Tuesday the 9th also works, in the afternoon.        |\n| 11 | Sure.                                                          |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>The reason I mention that is there               |\n| 13 | were matters scheduled for that afternoon that are not going   |\n| 14 | to -- in another case, that are not going to proceed, and so   |\n| 15 | there is availability that afternoon, as opposed to            |\n| 16 | Wednesday.<br>But if you'd prefer Wednesday, that's fine.<br>I |\n| 17 | just don't know that it will be --                             |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:<br>No, but --                                     |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>-- 10:00 a.m.<br>It will be later in the         |\n| 20 | day.                                                           |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Tuesday is fine, Your Honor.                   |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Well, let us, after this           |\n| 23 | hearing, go look at what you've asked us to look at, and       |\n| 24 | we'll confirm that the matters that are scheduled for the      |\n| 25 | afternoon of the -- of Tuesday the 9th, are not going          |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 18 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 18 forward.\n\n And if they're not going forward, then we might be able to schedule this for -- schedule the matter that you've already filed and the one that you're going to file. Then that's probably what will happen. Okay? Otherwise, we'll schedule it on Tuesday -- Wednesday, but it won't be first thing in the morning. It may not be until noon or something.\n\n MR. DESPINS: Understood. And the last point I wanted to mention, Your Honor, is that I retained a -- what is called a cause and location fire expert for the Genever estates. The name of the company is called Find The Cause, appropriately named, and that is only -- the fees that that firm is charging is only \\$3,300.\n\n We've asked -- and you'll recall that we had hired an expert of some Derecktor Shipyard in the main case for, I think it was three or \\$4,000, and we had asked the U. S. Trustee in that context, whether it would be okay not to file an application.\n\n We made the same request with respect to the Find the Cause retention because, you know, it's counterproductive if we have to file papers and all that. It's going to cost, you know, some money and the amount is only \\$3,000 -- \\$3,300 and, therefore, we were -- wanted to know whether the Court would be okay, the same way you were Case 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 19 of 20\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023<br>19                               |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | -- you allowed us not to file an application with respect to  |\n| 2  | Derecktor Shipyard, because of the small amount involved.     |\n| 3  | If not, we'll file an application, but it's just              |\n| 4  | we're trying to save money whenever we can, Your Honor.<br>So |\n| 5  | that -- given the small amount involved, the U. S. Trustee    |\n| 6  | was okay with us not filing an application, but obviously     |\n| 7  | it's your decision at the end of the day.                     |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Well, if the -- is anyone else --               |\n| 9  | Attorney Claiborn, is that the U. S. Trustee's position?      |\n| 10 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Correct, Your Honor.                         |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Then I have no problem with it,        |\n| 12 | unless someone else wishes to be heard with regard to that    |\n| 13 | issue.<br>Okay?                                               |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So then, we'll go back and        |\n| 16 | look at the matter that you've already filed, which will      |\n| 17 | either be scheduled for Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday at     |\n| 18 | some point during that day, and then --                       |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:<br>The free trade motion that's coming           |\n| 20 | -- that's coming in two hours.                                |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>That's the other one that's           |\n| 22 | other one that's coming this afternoon.<br>Which will be      |\n| 23 | scheduled --                                                  |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Correct.                                      |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>-- at the same time.<br>So the soon --          |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 20 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 4, 2023 20 MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- as soon as you can get it in, that would be helpful. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. That concludes the hearings today, then, in the Kwok matter, so -- and this is the last matter on the calendar today, so court is adjourned. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you. (Proceedings concluded at 1:30 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. 19 May 12, 2023 20 Christine Fiore, CERT","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n关于 * 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER * 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION（源真控股有限公司），* 2023年5月4日\n债务人。*\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n第 #1724 号批准和解协议动议\n第 #1727 号封存动议\n庭审笔录\n在法官 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）主持下进行\n美国破产法官\n\n出庭人员：\n第 11 章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·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代表第 11 章受托人：\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林赛律师）\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱本律师）\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诉讼程序由电子录音记录，笔录由转录服务机构出具。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表官方无担保债权人委员会：\nIRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·J·高曼律师）\nPullman & Comley, LLC\nP.O. Box 7006\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）：\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\nLAURA ARONSSON, ESQ.（劳拉·阿伦森律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ.（安内卡·H·史密斯律师）\nRobinson & Cole\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 3 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 3\n（庭审程序于下午 1:06 开始）\n法庭副书记官：案号 22-50073，郭文贵案。\n法庭：下午好。请各位出庭人员按记录依次报到，首先请第 11 章受托人开始。\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，下午好。卢克·德斯平斯，第 11 章受托人。\n法庭：受托人代理律师？\n林赛先生：帕特里克·林赛代表受托人出庭。\n法庭：林赛律师，我听不清你的声音。\n林赛先生：抱歉。法官阁下，您现在能听到我说话吗？\n法庭：可以。请你离麦克风近一点就行。\n林赛先生：好的。行。把我的画面放大就带来这个副作用。非常抱歉。帕特里克·林赛代表受托人出庭。\n法庭：下午好。有人那边有回音。是否有人同时也用电话接入了？如果是的话，能否关掉，因为我能听到回音？不管怎样，美国受托人办公室？\n克莱本女士：法官阁下，下午好。霍莉\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 4 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 4\n克莱本代表美国受托人出庭。\n法庭：PAX（太盟）的代理律师。\n萨诺夫先生：斯图尔特·萨诺夫，代表债权人太盟。\n法庭：弗里德曼先生、史密斯女士，你们登记出庭吗？\n弗里德曼先生：是的，法官阁下。下午好。美迈斯律师事务所的彼得·弗里德曼，代表太盟。\n史密斯女士：谢谢法官阁下。Robinson and Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）的安内卡·史密斯，代表太盟。\n法庭：下午好。委员会的代理律师。\n高曼先生：法官阁下，下午好。Pullman and Comley（普尔曼与康姆利律师事务所）的欧文·高曼，代表债权人委员会。\n法庭：下午好。好的。日程表上有两项未收到异议的事项，德斯平斯受托人。分别是批准和解协议的动议和封存动议。请问您希望如何推进？\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我们可能需要先从封存动议开始，即 Docket No. 1727。基本上，我们仅对动议后附的两份物证申请了封存，我们必须这样做，因为根据保护令，这两份物证只能由受托人的代理律师、受托人以及 Zeisler 律师事务所查阅，而且这——这是——这是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 5 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 5\n涉及郭先生庇护申请的信息。因此他对这一内容非常敏感，所以我们没有冒任何风险，以封存方式提交了该文件。未收到任何异议，因此我们请求法庭签署该命令。所有其他各方均已审阅未涂黑处理的动议，唯独物证——那两份物证，他们没有看到。\n法庭：德斯平斯受托人，关于准予封存动议的命令，我唯一的疑问是，第二段写道：“兹授权受托人以封存方式提交 9019 动议的未涂黑版本。”你们不是已经这样做了吗，还是说你们只提交了物证？\n德斯平斯先生：林赛先生，我是否可以请他——\n林赛先生：法官阁下，关于这一点我可以回答。抱歉。起初预计动议中会有需要涂黑遮盖的内容，后来——事实证明并没有。只有物证需要封存。\n法庭：好的。\n林赛先生：因此这基本上是我们在早期预想中遗留下来的一个（听不清）条款。对造成的混乱深表歉意。但鉴于我们无需对动议内容进行任何涂黑遮盖，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 6 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 6\n我们直接在诉讼记录中提交了该动议。\n法庭：好的。那么——\n林赛先生：您是否希望我们准备一份修改后的命令——\n法庭：——第 2 段可以——那么第 2 段可以删除。第 3 段怎么处理？上面写着，进一步授权受托人在此法庭案卷中提交并将简易判决物证及排除证据动议物证经涂黑处理后的 9019 动议副本送达其他利害关系方。12\n这项工作你们是不是也已经完成了？\n林赛先生：是的，法官阁下。我们已经提交了动议，并且我们提交了——我们以封存方式提交了物证。没有——您会注意到，当我们在公开案卷中提交物证时，对于封存提交的物证，只放了一个显示“封存文件”的占位页。法官阁下，也许我们可以这样处理。我们能否——如果法官阁下愿意，也许法官阁下可以直接在记录中准予该动议，然后我们可以提交一份清理了该措辞的修改后命令。\n法庭：我没意见。其他还有人——\n林赛先生：谢谢法官阁下。\n法庭：——希望就封存动议\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 7 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 7\n发表意见吗？没有人提出任何异议，所以我认为没有太多需要讨论的，不过——\n林赛先生：是的。法官阁下，问题在于之前的——在之前我们以封存方式提交的所有文件中，实际文书里都提到了必须涂黑的封存内容。而在本案中，我们基本上避开了那些内容，我们认为这样能让文书稍微干净利落一些。所以那——那就是导致这次小插曲的原因，但我们会通过一份修改后的命令来解决。\n法庭：好的。那么基于记录中所述的理由以及动议本身（ECF No. 1727）所述的理由，准予封存动议，林赛律师，何时提交修改后的拟定命令？你需要多少时间都可以，我只是——我只需要一个具体日期。\n林赛先生：好的。明天可以吗，法官阁下？\n法庭：好的。谢谢。那么修改后的——\n林赛先生：谢谢。\n法庭：——拟定命令将于5月5日前提交。好的。那么现在我们可以转到批准和解协议的动议。\n德斯平斯先生：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。根据第 9019 条提出的批准和解协议动议，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 8 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 8\n即 Bankruptcy Rule 9019（《破产规则》第 9019 条）动议，见 Docket No. 1724。我们未收到对此提出的任何异议，但作为事实提呈，稍作一点背景介绍，这是一起由郭先生在破产前发起的诉讼的和解，该诉讼于2019年提起，针对一家名为 Clark Hill（克拉克希尔律师事务所）的律所及其合伙人之一。诉由是主张执业过失，其起因是该律所遭遇了网络攻击，导致外部人员能够访问该律所计算机服务器上的信息，其中包括郭先生的庇护申请或与之相关的各类文件。该起诉状最初提交至 District of Columbia Superior Court（哥伦比亚特区高等法院），后被移送至哥伦比亚特区巡回区联邦地区法院，最终，如您所知，克拉克希尔律所提出了一项驳回起诉动议，以缩小可以主张的索赔类型。郭先生提出了经济索赔和精神损害索赔，并且他们还要求惩罚性赔偿。因此，由于驳回起诉动议的结果，惩罚性赔偿主张被驳回，并且——其他主张也同样被限缩。在随后的证据开示中，债务人放弃了经济损失赔偿主张——其主张中的这部分。即他们在起诉状中所主张的经济上的受损赔偿。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 9 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 9\n这其实挺有意思的，因为他们在宣誓录供中开始询问郭先生，请告诉我们你的收入。告诉我们你的收入。告诉我们你的资产。随后他援引了宪法第五修正案特权，其实际结果是他们无法继续追索经济损失类的索赔主张，最终只追索精神损害索赔，并且——克拉克希尔律所在本案破产申请日提出了简易判决动议。纯属巧合，日期是2022年2月15日。基本上他们指出，针对所主张的索赔类型，此类精神损害索赔在哥伦比亚特区是无法获得赔偿支持的，此外还指出了其他理由。因此我们从未对该简易判决动议作出答辩，因为我们享有自动中止程序的利益，而且当时还提交了一项排除证据动议，旨在排除债务人聘请的一批专家证人。所以那就是——那就是我们接手该诉讼时的状况，基本上当时有一项简易判决动议悬而未决，尚未作出裁决。因此团队所做的工作就是，审查所有这些内容，审查所有文件——但法官阁下您会记得，这耗费了一段时间，因为他们并没有——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 10 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 10\n债务人不想让我们获取这些文件。我们必须从法官阁下这里取得一项允许我们查阅的裁定，该裁定被提起上诉，而该上诉作为中期上诉——我应该说是中间上诉——被驳回了。这样我们才得以实际审查这些文件。我们审查了简易判决动议后附的各项文件以及其他相关诉状。我们与郭先生在该诉讼中的代理律师进行了多轮讨论，显然我们与代表克拉克希尔的律师事务所也进行了一些讨论，对方起初向我们提出的方案，您知道，金额其实非常——非常微薄。显然，我们最初要求的金额要比我们最终达成的和解金额高得多。仅作为记录，我们以 $499,000 的金额达成了和解。但归根结底，法官阁下，在这种债务人主张精神损害、精神伤害的诉讼中，诉讼将严重依赖于他的证词以及该证词的可信度。因此我们必须考虑到这一点，以及尽管债务人在我们达成该协议时尚未被起诉，但显然他已被其他事情分心，并且在多种程序中援引了第五修正案，因此显然不仅会存在可信度问题，而且还会存在\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 11 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年5月4日 11 动机问题。考虑到债务人即使成功也不会从该和解或诉讼中获得一分钱，他又有什么动力花费大量时间来协助我们就该主张进行追偿呢。最终，我们决定以比500,000美元少1美元的金额达成和解，因为考虑到该诉讼的准备情况、剩余的狭窄主张范围以及债务人目前的处境，这是我们能从Clark Hill（克拉克·希尔律师事务所）及其保险承保人处追回的最佳金额。坦白讲，在商讨进行期间，尽管我们尚未就和解形成最终书面文件，Kwok先生就被起诉了，因此从我们的角度来看，这实际上彻底尘埃落定，即继续推进该诉讼即便不是不可能，也会极其困难。因此，我们就是这样达成该和解的。法官阁下，这确实是我们在当前情况下所能取得的最佳和解方案，我们认为——鉴于当前情况以及这些主张的有限性质，这远高于（听不清）解决该问题或甚至提起诉讼的最低折中点，并且\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷报告与听转录服务公司）\n\n因此，我们请求法庭批准该和解。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 12 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 12 法庭：好的。非常感谢。还有其他人希望发表意见吗？（无听得见的回应）法庭：好的。既然无人提出异议，我已经审阅了和解协议和相互免责声明，Despins信托受托人，我通常不直接批准和解协议。我批准的是签署和解协议的权限，但在这起具体案件中，我确实审阅了该特定的和解协议和相互免责声明，我理解其条款和条件，并且对其条款和条件没有任何疑问或关切。显然，这对破产财产是有利的和解，并且完全符合Rule 9019（《联邦破产程序规则》第9019条）标准所要求的批准和解协议的合理性范围。正如你在记录中所指出的，在缺乏那些你——未被提供和/或受特权保护的信息的情况下，这将是一件难以解决的纠纷，因此在这些具体情况、本案非常具体且详细的情况下，这确实看似一项合理的和解。因此，基于所有这些理由，根据Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019（《联邦破产程序规则》第9019条）批准与Clark Hill PLC（克拉克·希尔有限责任合伙）的和解协议的动议获得批准——获得\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 13 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 13 准许，我应该这样说。该动议获得准许。你提交的拟定裁定——该裁定要求法庭将和解协议和相互免责声明作为附件A附上——可以签署生效。谢谢。DESPINS先生：谢谢法官阁下。如果可以的话，还有几件与此无关的事项——抱歉，我不知道法官阁下是否已经发表完意见，还是——法庭：我说完了。请讲。DESPINS先生：好的。好的。首先是Lady May II（“五月女士二号”游艇），我们正在申请紧急听证程序，以使该船完成修理并下水，以便将其移至Newport（纽波特）。正如我——所以我想确保法庭注意到了此事。然后另一件事是——我认为我们今天会提交，而且我认为这是此类动议中的最后一个，即关于Lady May（“五月女士号”游艇）本身的动议——我们之前向法官阁下预告过——将其转移至Newport Shipyard（纽波特船厂）的免税区、保税区。这其中涉及到费用。我们必须签署保证书，向管理免税区的实体提供一份保证书，所以我们今天会提交该动议，并且我们——在其中我们也会申请对该动议进行紧急审理，因为经纪人告诉\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 14 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 14 我们，许多人——他们都是美国公民——想要登船参观。他们对这艘船感兴趣，但在该船与美国公民一同进入保税区之前，他们无法登船，因此——并且我们直到今天才能解决此事，所以我们会在接下来的一到两小时内提交该动议，并申请对其进行紧急审理。我相信这应该是此类动议中的最后一个。我知道我们可能已经处理了3到4个此类动议，对于这些动议全都被拆分开来我深表歉意，如果能将它们合并在一起会更好，但从时间安排的角度来看，这是无法做到的，因此——你知道，我们希望法官阁下知道该动议今天就会提交，并且同样申请紧急审理。法庭：好的。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，我们就这些内容。法庭：关于——有两件事。我想是三件事。Lady May现在在Newport吗？是这样吗？DESPINS先生：是的，正是。是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。而Lady May II仍在Mamaroneck（马马罗内克），但这项动议——DESPINS先生：没错。法庭：——是要请求做什么？要\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 15 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 15 把它从仓库中移出并做什么？DESPINS先生：嗯，是将它从仓库移出，但在它必须——在它能够离开仓库之前，它有，你知道，需要完成的维修——法庭：好的。DESPINS先生：——这样它才能重新调试并下水。法庭：我明白了。DESPINS先生：这是我们在两天前提交的动议的一部分，我们正就该动议申请紧急听证。法庭：好的。那么关于——我们前几天讨论过的附属艇情况如何？它在哪里？是位于Florida（佛罗里达州）的那艘吗？DESPINS先生：附属艇位于——是的，我们需要让一名船员去安排提取并将其运往Newport。但这将在接下来的十天左右实时进行。法庭：所以你就此事还需要提交另一项动议。DESPINS先生：不。不用。法庭：不用？因为这是——DESPINS先生：我们只是要——法庭：——为什么呢？DESPINS先生：——基本上，这实际上只是要\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 16 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日\n1 ——因为这只是去提取附属艇并将其带\n2 回到——法官阁下，那是一艘较小的船。\n那——\n3 法庭：\n不，我知道。\n4 DESPINS先生：\n——我称之为一种——\n5 法庭：\n是的。\n6 DESPINS先生：\n好的。\n7 法庭：\n那是可以放进内部的那艘——\n8 DESPINS先生：\n所以那可以被运到——\n9 法庭：\n——大船里面的艇？\n10 DESPINS先生：\n是的。\n是的。\n是的。\n11 法庭：\n好的。\n所以我对于位于Florida的那艘附属艇\n12 不需要再做任何进一步的处理了。\n13 DESPINS先生：\n对于附属艇，不需要了。\n14 法庭：\n好的。\n15 DESPINS先生：\n是的。\n今天将提交的是关于\n16 将船只转移至免税区的动议。\n遗憾的是，\n17 那会花费更多资金。\n我认为每月要多支出大约11,000美元左右，\n18 并且我们有保证金要求以保护该——\n19 管理该区域的实体，确保如果我们\n20 出现差错，他们能得到保障。\n21 保证书的成本并不算高。\n大约是\n22 5,000美元，但你知道，所有这些都需要获得批准，\n23 并且我们将在接下来两小时内提交该动议，法官阁下。\n24 法庭：\n好的。\n那么我们来讨论一下\n25 日程安排。\n你希望关于这两项动议的紧急听证\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 17 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日\n1 定在何时？\n你有具体申请某个日期吗？\n2 DESPINS先生：\n嗯，如果法官阁下方便的话，\n3 5月10日星期三将是最好的——\n4 法庭：\n5月9日星期二——\n5 DESPINS先生：\n——日子。\n6 法庭：\n——5月9日星期二下午是否太仓促了？\n7\n8 DESPINS先生：\n嗯，这由您——由法官阁下自行裁量。\n9 我们定在10日可以，但\n10 那——5月9日星期二下午也行。\n11 没问题。\n12 法庭：\n我之所以提到那天，是因为\n13 另一件案子中原定于那天下午审理的事项\n14 将不——将不再继续进行，所以\n15 与星期三相比，那天下午有空档。\n16 但如果你更倾向于星期三，也可以。\n我\n17 只是不确定届时是否会是——\n18 DESPINS先生：\n不会，但是——\n19 法庭：\n——上午10:00。\n那可能会在当天的\n20 更晚时候。\n21 DESPINS先生：\n星期二很好，法官阁下。\n22 法庭：\n好的。\n那么，在本次听证会结束后，\n23 让我们去查看你请求我们查看的事项，\n24 并且我们将确认原定于5月9日星期二\n25 下午进行的事项确实不会\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 18 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日 18 继续进行。\n\n如果那些事项不再进行，那么我们或许可以将此事安排在——将你已经提交的事项以及你即将提交的事项安排在该时间。那么这大概率就是后续的安排。好吗？否则，我们会将其安排在星期二——星期三，但那不会是一大早。可能要等到中午或差不多那个时间。\n\nDESPINS先生：明白。法官阁下，我想提及的最后一点是，我为Genever（热那亚）破产财产聘请了一位所谓的起火原因和起火点专家。该公司的名称是Find The Cause（查明原因公司），名字起得很贴切，并且那仅——该机构收取的费用仅为3,300美元。\n\n我们曾请求——并且您会记得，在主案中我们曾以我认为是三千或4,000美元聘请过Derecktor Shipyard（德雷克托船厂）的专家，我们在当时的情况下向U. S. Trustee（美国破产信托受托人）询问过是否可以不提交聘用申请。\n\n我们就聘请Find the Cause提出了相同的请求，因为，你知道，如果我们必须提交文书等等，这是适得其反的。这将会花费一些资金，而金额仅仅是3,000美元——3,300美元，因此，我们——想了解法庭是否同意，就像您 Case 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 19 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年5月4日\n1 ——鉴于所涉及金额较小，您允许我们就\n2 Derecktor Shipyard不提交申请一样。\n3 如果不行，我们会提交申请，但这只是因为\n4 我们在尽量节省资金，法官阁下。\n因此\n5 ——鉴于所涉金额较小，美国破产信托受托人\n6 同意我们不提交申请，但显然\n7 最终决定权在您。\n8 法庭：\n嗯，如果——还有其他人——\n9 Claiborn律师，那是美国破产信托受托人的立场吗？\n10 CLAIBORN女士：\n没错，法官阁下。\n11 法庭：\n好的。\n那么我对此没有异议，\n12 除非有人希望就该问题\n13 发表意见。\n可以吗？\n14 DESPINS先生：\n谢谢法官阁下。\n15 法庭：\n好的。\n那么，我们之后会回过头来\n16 查看你已经提交的事项，该事项\n17 要么被安排在星期二下午，要么被安排在星期三\n18 当天的某个时间，然后——\n19 DESPINS先生：\n还有即将提交的保税区动议\n20 ——在两小时内提交。\n21 法庭：\n对。\n那是今天下午要提交的\n22 另一项动议。\n那将被安排——\n23 DESPINS先生：\n是的。\n24 法庭：\n——在同一时间。\n所以最快——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1788 Filed 05/13/23 Entered 05/13/23 11:50:32 Page 20 of 20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年5月4日 20\n\n德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——你们能尽快提交上来，那就很有帮助。好吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的，法官阁下。谢谢您。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。那么今天关于郭案的听证就到此结束，所以——这也是今天日程表上的最后一项事务，现在休庭。\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：谢谢。\n\n（庭审于下午1:30结束。）\n\n本人，克里斯汀·菲奥雷（Christine Fiore），法院认可的转录员以及认证电子记录与转录员，证明上述内容是对上述案由事项庭审程序的官方电子录音的正确转录记录。\n\n19 2023年5月12日 20\n\nChristine Fiore（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），CERT（认证转录员）","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Luc Despins","Paul Hastings","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1727,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4540,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-05-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-05-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:57:09"}