{"id":"court_ctb_1907_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1907,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2023-06-14","title":"|","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In Re | *
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | * |\n| HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER | * |\n| HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | *
* |\n| Debtor. | * |\n| HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS | *
Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003 |\n| INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, | * |\n| | *
Bridgeport, Connecticut |\n| Plaintiff, | *
June 6, 2023 |\n| | * |\n| v. | *
* |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, | * |\n| | * |\n| Defendant. | * |\n| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | * |\n| #1789
AFFILIATED ENTITIES
#1805
2004 SUBPOENAS
#1806
MOTION TO SEAL
#1845
AUGUST 7, 2023
#1850
2004 SUBPOENAS
#1864
ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
# 227
ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE | TRANSCRIPT OF
FIFTH OMNIBUS MOTION FOR EXAM MOTION FOR 2004 EXAM
OF ADDITIONAL ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS AFFILIATED
WITH DEBTOR AND ENTITIES DOING BUSINESS W/DEBTOR AND
SECOND OMNIBUS MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE W/RULE
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO TRUSTEE'S MOTION
TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE W/RULE 2004 EXAM SUBPOENA TO
CONSENTED TO MOTION OF HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC AND
HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING TO ADJOURN HEARING ON MOTION
OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER HOLDING
HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC AND HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC
IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO RESPOND TO RULE |\n| | BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE |\n| Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording,
transcript produced by transcription service. | |\n| Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.
4 Research Drive, Suite 402
Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992 | |\n\n| APPEARANCES: | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Chapter 11 Trustee: | LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.
Paul Hastings
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY
10166 |\n| For the Chapter 11 Trustee: | NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ.
AVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT, ESQ.
Paul Hastings LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY
10166 |\n| | PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.
Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC
195 Church Street
New Haven, CT
06510 |\n| For the U.S. Trustee: | HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.
Office of the United States
Trustee
The Giaimo Federal Building
150 Court Street, Room 302
New Haven, CT
06510 |\n| For the Creditor, Pacific
Alliance Asia Opportunity
Fund L.P.: | STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY
10036 |\n| | TREVOR L. BRADLEY, ESQ.
Robinson & Cole
28 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT
06103 |\n| For HK International Funds
Investments, LLC and
Mei Guo: | MELISSA I. FALK WERNICK, ESQ.
Chiesa Shanhinian &
Giantomasi, P.C.
105 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ
07068 |\n| | AARON ROMNEY, ESQ.
Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.
10 Middle Street, 15th Floor
Bridgeport, CT
06604 |\n| For the Creditors Committee: | KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.
Pullman & Comley
850 Main Street
Bridgeport, CT
06601 |\n\n2\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Defendant, Hing Chi CHRISTOPHER J. MAJOR, ESQ. Ngok: Meister Seelig & Fein LLP 125 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 For G Clubs Operations, LLC: JEFFREY M. SKLARZ, ESQ. KELLIANNE BARANOWSKY, ESQ. Green & Sklarz, LLC One Audubon Street New Haven, CT 06511 CAROLINA FORNOS, ESQ. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019\n\n3\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 4 of 140\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 4 (Proceedings commenced at 1:07 p.m.) THE CLERK: 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holding, LLC, and Adversary Proceeding 22-05003, HK International Funds Investment USA Limited vs. Despins. THE COURT: Okay. Before we take appearances, I just want to note for the record that -- as I've noted in the past, that the federal government has determined that there's no longer a pandemic, and so hearings are in person unless there's cause for someone to appear remotely. And I've granted motions today for people to appear remotely when there was a reason given. And I granted one when there wasn't a reason given. Just being an out-of-state lawyer is not a reason to appear remotely. So if you are not able to appear in person, and your reason is that you're an out-of-state lawyer, your motion to appear remotely will be denied. So I just want everyone to be aware of that. So let's take appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 trustee. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee. MR. LUFT: Good morning, Your Honor. Avi Luft of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 5 of 140\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 5 Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey for the trustee. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee in the main case. MR. ROMNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Aaron Romney -- MR. SARNOFF: Stuart Sarnoff -- THE COURT: Hold on, Attorney Sarnoff. We're going to take people in the courtroom first, please. Go ahead. MR. ROMNEY: Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, on behalf of the debtor, HK International, Mei Guo, and the Hudson Diamond entities. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. ROMNEY: Good afternoon. MR. MAJOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Chris Major, Meister Seelig & Fein. We represent Ms. Ngok and Greenwich Land, LLC. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Before we take appearances of people who are appearing remotely, is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to note their appearance? MR. BRADLEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Trevor Bradley from Robinson and Cole, Connecticut counsel for\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 6 of 140\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 6 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund. Thank you. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Attorney Bradley, you may have done that, but have you filed a notice of appearance yet in the case? MR. BRADLEY: Yes, Your Honor. This morning. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I just haven't had an opportunity to see that. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew on behalf of the creditors' committee, appearing in the main case, not in the adversary proceeding. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz, Green & Sklarz, for G Club Operations, LLC, with Kelli Baranowsky from my office and Carolina Fornos of Pillsbury Winthrop who was admitted pro hac vice I believe yesterday and will be getting her appearance on file as soon as possible. MS. FORNOS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. SKLARZ: In the main case only. THE COURT: Thank you. Good afternoon. Welcome. MS. FORNOS: Good afternoon. THE COURT: All right. So I think we've taken all appearances of counsel in the courtroom. We've now taken -- obviously, I asked Trustee Despins to note his appearance\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 7 of 140\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
7 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | first.
So then I'll turn to Attorney Sarnoff and Attorney |\n| 2 | Wernick.
So go right ahead, please. |\n| 3 | MR. SARNOFF:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Stuart |\n| 4 | Sarnoff on behalf of Creditor PAX in the main case. |\n| 5 | MS. WERNICK:
And good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | Melissa Wernick of CSG Law on behalf of Ms. Guo and HK USA. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 8 | All right.
There are, as I noted, several matters |\n| 9 | on the calendar today, one in the HK International Funds |\n| 10 | Investment Adversary Proceeding, 22-5003, and then several |\n| 11 | matters in the main case of the individual debtor and the |\n| 12 | related corporate entities, which is 22-50073. |\n| 13 | There is one matter that it's on the calendar that |\n| 14 | I think is consented to, but I don't know if I'm correct, |\n| 15 | which is 1850, which is a consented-to motion of Hudson |\n| 16 | Diamond and -- LLC and -- oh, I'm sorry.
I know that's not |\n| 17 | consented to is what I should say, right?
Isn't that the |\n| 18 | situation where there was a dispute upon whether there was |\n| 19 | really consent to an adjournment of a hearing? |\n| 20 | Is that what I'm -- I'm going to ask you first, |\n| 21 | Attorney Romney, and then -- okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 22 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yes, Your Honor.
Aaron Romney for |\n| 23 | the record.
You are correctly describing the matter.
As I |\n| 24 | stated in my reply, I'm not -- I don't understand the basis |\n| 25 | of the dispute given what I understand we agree on.
I'm |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 8 certainly here to work that out. I've always understood Attorney Luft to be an extremely reasonable person, so I don't know what to say. He disagrees with something we've written. I was happy to correct it. But I don't understand it, so I'm here to work this out. THE COURT: So has it been corrected, whatever the \"it\" might be? And I'm not sure, Attorney Romney, what the \"it\" is, but I know if I -- you refresh my recollection. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, from my perspective, originally I was unable to ascertain what the \"it\" was, because I was reading back what our agreement was from the other side. And I was not understanding what the source of the contention was. As of yesterday evening, I was able to ascertain one discrepancy which was the date by which a -- the hearing would be adjourned to in the event that compliance was not satisfactory. I was able to pick up on that. I put in my reply, as well as attempted to make contact with Attorney Luft but was unsuccessful with that, that we're certainly amenable to some earlier date. It was not an intentional one-over on the trustee. So I'm here to work this out. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: I don't want to make a big issue out Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 8 of 140\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 9 of 140\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
9 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | of this.
There was no intent to be deceptive.
Had there |\n| 2 | been something I could have ascertained, I would have |\n| 3 | corrected the record myself as I informed Attorney Luft. |\n| 4 | But there appears to be a miscommunication.
Thank you. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | Attorney Luft? |\n| 7 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I'll ask you your |\n| 8 | preference.
If you'd like to address this issue now, I'm |\n| 9 | happy to do it.
I'm also happy to do it in the context of |\n| 10 | the motion to compel, whichever is the Court's preference. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Well -- |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:
But -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
-- I don't know if I have a preference |\n| 14 | at the moment.
But what I would like to determine is with |\n| 15 | regard to -- it seemed to me, anyway, so just understand |\n| 16 | that I could be incorrect, that there was some form of an |\n| 17 | agreement on continuing this hearing on the contempt.
Is |\n| 18 | that correct, or am I wrong about that? |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, there was what I thought |\n| 20 | was an agreement based on terms of a negotiation. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:
Unfortunately, what was filed with the |\n| 23 | Court on a consent motion that we were never shown does not |\n| 24 | express the terms of what was agreed to. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 10 MR. LUFT: And that's what we said. So while -- and when I've asked for that to be corrected and to -- for the filing to be fixed to match those terms, the other side has declined. So I don't know whether we have an agreement with regard to what we did. THE COURT: Well, here's what we're going to do. I'm going to have you and Attorney Romney go out and talk about it for a few minutes, and I bet you're going to come back with an agreement. MR. LUFT: I would appreciate that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? Because I think it's an issue that can be resolved. And if it can't be resolved, then I'll resolve it, and we'll move on to other things. Okay? MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: I understand both of what you're both saying, but I think we're all at a point where we can agree. And if we can't agree, then I will rule. It's just that simple. So why don't you -- I mean, with regard to the other matters on the calendar, is it going to be detrimental if the two of you step out of the courtroom right now and -- while the other matters are addressed? MR. DESPINS: Well, Your Honor, if I could? This is Luc Despins. I tried to address that, because I would really appreciate the Court's indulgence in going into the Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 10 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 11 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 11 status conference regarding the stay pending appeal. So I don't know whether that's going to be the Vartan firm or Mr. Romney who's going to handle that. THE COURT: Or Mr. Romney? Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Attorney Wernick will be handling that, so -- THE COURT: Okay. So Attorney Wernick's going to handle that issue. So I think, Mr. Romney, then it would be okay if you were -- and you and Attorney Luft were to go out and talk. MR. ROMNEY: Certainly from my perspective. THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you do that. And then we'll turn to the stay pending appeal issue. Because Attorney Wernick is going to address that with -- I don't know if you, Mr. Despins, are going to address that or Mr. Bassett -- MR. DESPINS: Yeah, I will. THE COURT: -- or Mr. Linsey are going to address that. MR. DESPINS: I will, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So why don't you two go see what you can accomplish. If you can't accomplish something, I'll just rule. But I would think -- I understand -- you know, I think we can agree that maybe things -- there wasn't a complete meeting of the mind before\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 12 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
12 |\n| 1 | things were filed and things were shown or not shown.
But |\n| 2 | we're here now, so let's just resolve it.
Okay? |\n| 3 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you very much, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 5 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, if there's any -- I will be |\n| 6 | handling the whole motion to compel which has other parts. |\n| 7 | So if that could be put to the end -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
We're not getting there yet.
Yeah. |\n| 9 | MR. LUFT:
-- I would appreciate that. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
We're not going to get to the |\n| 11 | motion to compel yet. |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay?
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Appreciate it. |\n| 16 | All right.
So with regard to 1850, we're just not |\n| 17 | going to address that at the moment.
What we are going to |\n| 18 | address is, I believe, Trustee Despins is in the adversary |\n| 19 | proceeding, the motion for stay pending appeal of the status |\n| 20 | conference request.
Is that what you're suggesting we turn |\n| 21 | to now? |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
If Your Honor will allow this, yes. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Please proceed. |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
So, Your Honor, more than two |\n| 25 | weeks ago, I believe, you entered an order that is very |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 13 of\n\n| 140 | | |\n|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
13 | |\n| 1 | clear, had various findings including the fact that the | |\n| 2 | escrowed funds were property of the estate, including | |\n| 3 | directing the debtor's daughter and old HK USA to transfer | |\n| 4 | all property of HK USA to us by June 2nd, and none of that | |\n| 5 | occurred despite the fact that we prompted the -- you know, | |\n| 6 | both the Zeisler firm and the Vartan firm to do that.
And | |\n| 7 | on Friday, they filed a motion for a stay pending appeal. | |\n| 8 | And, you know, left to their own devices, they would have | |\n| 9 | this motion heard like probably two months from now. | |\n| 10 | The point is that right now there's an enforceable | |\n| 11 | order, and you were very specific about the fact that the | |\n| 12 | order is effective immediately.
There had been a breach of | |\n| 13 | that from day from day one after entering the order. | |\n| 14 | They're still in breach of it. | |\n| 15 | And the fact that we filed a motion for a stay | |\n| 16 | pending appeal does not excuse noncompliance.
And what we | |\n| 17 | want is to schedule a hearing, because -- on the stay | |\n| 18 | pending appeal for -- obviously subject to Your Honor's | |\n| 19 | availability, for next week, because we think there needs to | |\n| 20 | be a full airing of some issues, including the issue of -- | |\n| 21 | and I'm not suggesting a stay should issue.
But Your Honor | |\n| 22 | has the ability to not only deny the stay but also to deny | |\n| 23 | the stay and say and if the stay were to be granted I would | |\n| 24 | impose a bond requirement of X dollars. | |\n| 25 | And that's what we think there should be evidence | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 14 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
14 |\n| 1 | on which is the detriment to the estate of the stay being in |\n| 2 | place with respect to that order.
And so, therefore, we |\n| 3 | would -- just the punchline is we would like to file our |\n| 4 | objection, our response to this by Monday morning at 9 a.m. |\n| 5 | and subject to Your Honor's availability next week, you |\n| 6 | know, to be heard on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week so |\n| 7 | that this stay issue can be resolved one way or another. |\n| 8 | Because there's just delay at this point and enforcement of |\n| 9 | an order that is enforceable, we believe, according to its |\n| 10 | terms. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm just taking a look at |\n| 12 | something while you're saying that. |\n| 13 | MS. WERNICK:
And, Your Honor, I'm prepared to |\n| 14 | respond whenever the Court's ready. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Yes.
I just need a |\n| 16 | minute, Attorney Wernick.
I just wanted to look at one |\n| 17 | thing, please.
Thank you. |\n| 18 | (Pause) |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay, Attorney Wernick.
Thank you. |\n| 20 | You may respond. |\n| 21 | MS. WERNICK:
Thank you, Your Honor.
So first, I |\n| 22 | would just say while we certainly disagree with the |\n| 23 | trustee's statement that there has been any delay or that |\n| 24 | this matter presents an emergent issue, you know, we |\n| 25 | certainly have no issue with the Court scheduling a hearing |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 15 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
15 |\n| 1 | in connection with the motion sometime next week at the |\n| 2 | Court's convenience.
But what I do have an issue with and |\n| 3 | which I think is really separate from the motion to stay |\n| 4 | which is pending is the notion that there hasn't been |\n| 5 | compliance with the order. |\n| 6 | As the trustee well knows, and I think the dispute |\n| 7 | really centers upon the escrow funds, because I don't think |\n| 8 | there's anything else to turn over, is that HK and Ms. Guo |\n| 9 | don't have control over the escrow funds.
They're held in |\n| 10 | escrow by the escrow agent. |\n| 11 | And both our firm, the Zeisler firm, and the |\n| 12 | trustee received correspondence by counsel for the escrow |\n| 13 | agent indicating that from the escrow agent's perspective, |\n| 14 | there has not been an identified event calling for the |\n| 15 | release of the escrow funds because the Court's summary |\n| 16 | judgment order is currently not a final non-appealable |\n| 17 | order. |\n| 18 | So by operation of that order, it certainly, you |\n| 19 | know, would be our position that the trustee has -- you |\n| 20 | know, already has to the effect -- you know, HK's rights |\n| 21 | under the escrow agreement, but the escrow agent is taking |\n| 22 | the position that it's not a final non-appealable order such |\n| 23 | that the funds can be released.
So the objection to the |\n| 24 | presentation this morning is really one of compliance. |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
So, Your Honor, this is easy. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 16 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
16 |\n| 1 | This is like the Lady May II.
They say that they've |\n| 2 | complied.
So why don't we just send a joint letter from the |\n| 3 | Vartan, Zeisler firm and from Paul Hastings to the escrow |\n| 4 | agent saying we hereby direct you to transfer the funds to |\n| 5 | the trustee account.
I assume that that's something that, |\n| 6 | obviously, if you're in compliance, you would be happy to |\n| 7 | send that letter -- that joint letter to the escrow agent, |\n| 8 | correct? |\n| 9 | MS. WERNICK:
Well, so, no.
It's a different |\n| 10 | issue, though, right?
So right now, the escrow agreement -- |\n| 11 | and by virtue of the escrow agreement, the funds are to be |\n| 12 | released on a final non-appealable order and -- |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
No, no, no -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
It doesn't say just that, Attorney |\n| 15 | Wernick. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
It does say or court order.
It |\n| 18 | doesn't say a final -- |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
Oh, but, Your Honor -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
-- non-appealable order of summary |\n| 21 | judgment on an alter ego claim.
It doesn't say that.
But |\n| 22 | with regard to -- |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
But, Your Honor -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Hold on a second, Trustee Despins. |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 17 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 17 THE COURT: With regard to Trustee Despins' suggestion, why -- first of all, where is -- do you have a letter from U.S. Bank -- aren't they the escrow agent -- saying they won't release the money? MS. WERNICK: We have a letter from counsel to the escrow agent. THE COURT: All right. Has that been filed on the docket of this case? MR. DESPINS: No. MS. WERNICK: I don't know that it has. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I would like to see that. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, this is very simple. THE COURT: I'd like to see that. Okay? I -- MR. DESPINS: But -- THE COURT: Hold on a second, Trustee Despins. So I -- I'm ordering you to file that letter on the docket of this adversary proceeding by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. Okay? That's first and foremost, number one. Number two, as you know, and Attorney -- Trustee Despins already raised the issue. But everybody knows that if you got a stay pending appeal, you may be required to post a bond. So if the \\$37 million isn't going to be turned over because of the appeal, then you may have to post a bond for 37 million or more. And HK USA asserts it has no other property. So how are you going to address the -- I mean,\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 18 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
18 |\n| 1 | the rules talk about a bond.
How are you going to address |\n| 2 | that issue while an appeal is pending? |\n| 3 | MS. WERNICK:
Yeah.
Certainly, Your Honor, in |\n| 4 | certain circumstances a bond may be directed by the Court in |\n| 5 | order to obtain a stay pending appeal.
And if that's |\n| 6 | something that the trustee intends to put forward in their |\n| 7 | opposition papers, you know, obviously we'll have to respond |\n| 8 | to it at that time. |\n| 9 | It sounds like the trustee is indicating that |\n| 10 | that's a condition that they are going to be seeking.
But I |\n| 11 | think that would be more appropriately addressed at the |\n| 12 | hearing on the motion once there is papers and that we can |\n| 13 | have to respond to. |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, if I may? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, I don't -- I -- well, okay.
I |\n| 16 | understand what you just said, except that you filed a |\n| 17 | motion under Rule 8007 for a stay pending appeal.
And it |\n| 18 | says -- initial motion in the bankruptcy court. |\n| 19 | It says, \"Ordinarily, a party must move first in |\n| 20 | the bankruptcy court for the following relief: a stay of a |\n| 21 | judgment order or decree of the bankruptcy court pending |\n| 22 | appeal, the approval of a bond or other security provided to |\n| 23 | obtain a stay of judgment.\" |\n| 24 | So I don't know that it's the trustee's burden. |\n| 25 | It's your burden.
You're the moving party.
The rule -- |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 19 of
140 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
19 |\n| 1
you're the party that's seeking the stay, not the trustee, |\n| 2
right?
So under Rule 8007, you're going to have to address |\n| 3
the issue of a bond. |\n| 4
MS. WERNICK:
Certainly.
But it's not as though a |\n| 5
bond is required in each and every case in order to obtain a |\n| 6
stay pending appeal. |\n| 7
THE COURT:
Well, in this case, though, counsel, |\n| 8
the -- what you're not turning over is \\$37 million, right? |\n| 9
So and we have no idea how long the appeal will last, right? |\n| 10
And this is a situation where the arguments have been |\n| 11
made -- and you've made them.
You've represented your |\n| 12
clients on behalf of the arguments that have been made.
And |\n| 13
those arguments have not been found to be persuasive. |\n| 14
And this -- and you argued and briefed and put |\n| 15
forth -- I don't mean you necessarily only personally, I'm |\n| 16
saying on behalf of your clients -- the arguments to attempt |\n| 17
to defeat summary judgment on the second counterclaim in |\n| 18
which the Court found after extensive briefing and arguments |\n| 19
of the parties that HK International Funds Investment USA |\n| 20
Limited is and was at all relevant times the alter ego of |\n| 21
Mr. Ho Wan Kwok and that all of the property of HK USA, |\n| 22
including the Lady May, the Lady May II, and the escrowed |\n| 23
funds, constituted and constitute as applicable property of |\n| 24
the individual bankruptcy debtor's Chapter 11 estate. |\n| 25
So that's what this Court found.
You absolutely |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 20 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
20 |\n| 1 | have the right to appeal it, and you are, and that's fine. |\n| 2 | But if you want a stay pending appeal, your stay pending |\n| 3 | appeal, absent a bond, would -- your argument is you don't |\n| 4 | have to turn over the 37 million while there's an appeal |\n| 5 | pending unless you get a stay. |\n| 6 | MS. WERNICK:
I -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Well, maybe you would get a stay, but |\n| 8 | you're going to have to -- it seems to me that if -- you're |\n| 9 | trying to -- and I don't mean trying -- you are arguing that |\n| 10 | you need a stay of that order because you don't want to turn |\n| 11 | over the escrowed funds.
That's the only thing left, right? |\n| 12 | As far as we've been told, the only assets of the Lady -- of |\n| 13 | HK USA are the Lady May, the Lady May II, and the escrowed |\n| 14 | funds. |\n| 15 | We know -- I think we generally all know where the |\n| 16 | Lady May is and what's happening with that.
We know a |\n| 17 | little bit about the Lady May II.
And your clients have |\n| 18 | stipulated that the trustee has control over the Lady May |\n| 19 | II. |\n| 20 | Now the Court has found that the escrow funds |\n| 21 | constitute and constituted properties of the individual |\n| 22 | Chapter 11 estate of the debtor and that on or before June |\n| 23 | 2nd, which was last Friday, that your client, Ms. Guo and HK |\n| 24 | USA, shall deliver all property to Mr. Despins not in his |\n| 25 | personal capacity but as the Chapter 11 trustee.
And that |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 21 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
21 |\n| 1 | hasn't been done.
And there was no stay pending appeal, and |\n| 2 | there still is no stay pending appeal, in place at this |\n| 3 | time. |\n| 4 | So your clients are already -- have not -- are |\n| 5 | already in violation of an order even if it's on appeal. |\n| 6 | MS. WERNICK:
So, again, Your Honor -- right.
So, |\n| 7 | again, Your Honor, I would just go back -- and I will, per |\n| 8 | the Court's directive, make sure that the letter from the |\n| 9 | escrow agent is, you know, immediately filed on the docket |\n| 10 | so Your Honor has the benefit of that. |\n| 11 | But second and, you know, why I would take, you |\n| 12 | know, issue with the notion of a separate bond being |\n| 13 | provided pending appeal here is the fact that -- escrow |\n| 14 | funds are there.
They're currently being held in escrow. |\n| 15 | You know, ordinarily, when you're seeking a bond pending an |\n| 16 | appeal, it's to ensure that a judgment amount is ultimately |\n| 17 | going to be available.
Here, we know that those funds are |\n| 18 | going to be available, because they're sitting in escrow. |\n| 19 | And so I think that presents, you know, a unique |\n| 20 | circumstance of litigation that would obviate the need for a |\n| 21 | bond. |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Well, they're not going to be |\n| 24 | available if you get a stay pending appeal, because you're |\n| 25 | not going to turn them over.
So they're not going to be |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 22 available. MR. DESPINS: Exactly. THE COURT: So that argument is -- I mean, I understand your argument, but I'm not sure it's persuasive. You want a stay pending appeal. And I understand this. I understand your position. You want a stay pending appeal so you don't have to have the \\$37 million turned over to Trustee Despins. I completely understand that. But then you basically have taken the order granting the motion for summary judgment, which you had every opportunity to defend, which you did, and have it have no effect unless and until the appeal is resolved, which we have no idea when that will be. No idea. And this trustee has duties under the Bankruptcy Code which he's been attempting to carry out for some time now. We're almost at a year. And so, you know, you can say they're available. So what happens if they're available and you lose your appeal? So what's the damages to the estate then for the loss of that money during that time? Doesn't the Court have to consider that? MS. WERNICK: And so perhaps -- again, you know, I would like the benefit of the trustee's position on all of this. You know, and, again, certainly there are certain circumstances where a bond may be posted pending appeal.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 23 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
23 |\n| 1 | But I would certainly take the position given that the funds |\n| 2 | are in escrow there would be no need for a bond approaching |\n| 3 | the amount of the escrow funds to address that concern. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
But that doesn't answer my |\n| 5 | question -- |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
-- right, which is doesn't the Court |\n| 8 | have to consider that if you obtain a stay pending appeal |\n| 9 | without a bond and you lose your appeal, what are the |\n| 10 | damages -- we all know why the bond has to be posted.
It |\n| 11 | has to be posted to protect against damages that the other |\n| 12 | party suffers if the stay pending appeal is not granted -- I |\n| 13 | mean, is granted. |\n| 14 | And so what happens if you get a stay pending |\n| 15 | appeal without a bond and then the trustee -- and the |\n| 16 | trustee wins on appeal, but it takes two years or three |\n| 17 | years from now for that to happen?
What are the damages |\n| 18 | then?
Doesn't the trustee and the estate have damages for |\n| 19 | the loss of the use of the \\$37 million or some other form of |\n| 20 | security while the appeal is pending? |\n| 21 | MS. WERNICK:
I don't know that the trustee does. |\n| 22 | And I -- you know, I would leave it to the trustee to make |\n| 23 | that argument. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
No.
I think you have to make that |\n| 25 | argument.
Remember, you filed the motion.
Read Rule 8007. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 24 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
24 |\n| 1 | You filed the motion.
It's your burden.
It's not the |\n| 2 | trustee's burden. |\n| 3 | You're seeking an extraordinary remedy, a stay |\n| 4 | pending appeal of a decision that states that the order goes |\n| 5 | into effect immediately.
And the compliance was required |\n| 6 | last Friday.
And there is no stay pending appeal right now. |\n| 7 | So your clients are already in violation of that order. |\n| 8 | So anyway -- |\n| 9 | MS. WERNICK:
So again, Your Honor, that -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Anyway, I hear everything you said. |\n| 11 | And I'm sure you'll consider what I've said, and we'll hear |\n| 12 | all about it.
And we'll make a determination.
Okay? |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
But, Your Honor, if I may be heard |\n| 14 | briefly? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yes.
We affirmatively opposed the |\n| 16 | release of the funds from the escrow.
There was an email |\n| 17 | from Mr. Kindseth saying the funds should not be released. |\n| 18 | That's number one.
Okay? |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Where is that?
Where is that email? |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
While there's an order saying -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Where is that email? |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
That email?
That will be produced |\n| 23 | with the other email where the bank says, well, it looks |\n| 24 | like there's a dispute here, so I'm not going to |\n| 25 | distribute -- disburse the funds.
There was an email saying |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 25 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
25 |\n| 1 | there's no final order, don't -- you know, basically, |\n| 2 | there's no requirement to disburse the money.
That's number |\n| 3 | one. |\n| 4 | Number two is there -- you're absolutely right. |\n| 5 | There's damage to the estate for the -- not being able to |\n| 6 | use the funds.
There's definitely damage to the estate for |\n| 7 | not being able to use the funds. |\n| 8 | And right now, as I said, they're in violation of |\n| 9 | a court order that's immediately effective, and they -- it's |\n| 10 | very simple how to resolve this.
They say, oh, we've |\n| 11 | complied, we've complied.
Let's send a joint letter, |\n| 12 | Zeisler, Paul Hastings, and the Vartan firm, to the escrow |\n| 13 | agent saying all three parties and the creditors' committee, |\n| 14 | we have no objection to the funds being transferred to the |\n| 15 | trustee account.
That will be compliance with the order. |\n| 16 | And so -- but, of course, not doing that is not |\n| 17 | being compliant in the sense that let's just assume for a |\n| 18 | second that the escrow was created on -- in March of last |\n| 19 | year, March 1st.
Let's assume the parties, which are HK |\n| 20 | International and the creditors' committee, agreed the next |\n| 21 | day, you know what, we don't need this escrow; U.S. Bank, |\n| 22 | turn over the money to HK USA.
You think that the bank |\n| 23 | would go, oh, I can't do that; I don't have a final order? |\n| 24 | Both parties that are parties to the agreement say turn over |\n| 25 | the money to HK USA. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 26 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 26 That's exactly what they could make happen today, but they're not, because they are interfering, and they're exercising control of the property of the estate. And that's -- Your Honor, I'm sorry to say that that's sanctionable. Violation of the automatic stay. This is an individual case. There can be multiple damages awarded on that. (Indiscernible) be awarded more than that. Because they are exercising control over property of the estate. You found it's property of the estate. And by their inaction, and more than inaction, by saying to the trustee -- to the escrow agent don't distribute, they are violating the stay, because that's exercising control of the property. And as Your Honor knows, counsel have been -- you know, and situations like this, I have been sanctioned in other cases for clear violations for less than that. Even sending a letter demanding payment can be a violation of the stay. Here, they're doing worse than that. They're telling the escrow agent don't distribute. And it's within their control. I guarantee you that if both Zeisler, Vartan, and Paul Hastings and (indiscernible) sends a letter to U.S. Bank tomorrow saying we all agree that the funds can be transferred to the trustee subject to the right of HK USA or Ms. Guo to appeal that the money would come to our account\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 27 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
27 |\n| 1 | the next day.
But they're not doing that, because they're |\n| 2 | exercising control over the property of the estate.
And |\n| 3 | that's a violation of the stay, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | So I think this is really fundamental.
I'm not |\n| 5 | asking you to rule on that now.
But I want to make sure |\n| 6 | that you are aware of all the facts.
They have the ability |\n| 7 | to undo the escrow with us, but they're not, because they |\n| 8 | are interfering -- not only not complying with your order |\n| 9 | but they're interfering with property of the estate. |\n| 10 | So I'm really upset about this.
And I'm sorry if |\n| 11 | I interrupted people, but I thought that these points are |\n| 12 | very important to be made.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 14 | Does anyone else wish to be -- |\n| 15 | MS. WERNICK:
And, Your Honor -- |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
So, Your Honor -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Oh, I'm sorry.
Go ahead -- |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
Sorry. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
-- Attorney Wernick.
Were you going |\n| 20 | to say something?
I apologize. |\n| 21 | MS. WERNICK:
Yes.
No problem, Your Honor. I just |\n| 22 | wanted to follow up.
The email that the trustee is |\n| 23 | referencing from Mr. Kindseth is appended to the letter from |\n| 24 | the escrow agent.
And I think it was, you know, somewhat |\n| 25 | mischaracterized in the trustee's presentation.
But, you |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 28 know, the Court will see it when it's filed on the docket. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Oh, that letter doesn't say we consent, right? It says the opposite of consent. THE COURT: Well, we'll -- MR. DESPINS: So -- THE COURT: Let me take a look at it. MS. WERNICK: It presents facts. THE COURT: Let me take a look at it -- MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: -- and we'll see where things go. Okay? MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, we wanted -- THE COURT: With -- MR. DESPINS: The other thing we want is to schedule a hearing -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: -- and to get a deadline -- THE COURT: I understand. I understand. Okay. I think, Attorney Sarnoff, were you going to say something? MR. SARNOFF: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I was not. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? This is a status conference only on the motion for stay pending Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 28 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 29 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
29 |\n| 1 | appeal.
Right now, the request is that -- the Chapter 11 |\n| 2 | trustee's request is that the motion for stay pending appeal |\n| 3 | be set for hearing next week subject to the Court's |\n| 4 | availability and that the trustee have -- I think you said, |\n| 5 | Trustee Despins, until 9 a.m. on Monday, July -- June 12th |\n| 6 | to file a reply to the motion for stay pending appeal.
Is |\n| 7 | that what -- was that your request? |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Does anyone else wish to be |\n| 10 | heard?
All right.
Hearing nothing, then the motion to stay |\n| 11 | pending appeal filed on behalf of Mei Guo and HK Funds -- HK |\n| 12 | International Funds Investment USA Limited, LLC, which is |\n| 13 | ECF Number 227 in Adversary Proceeding 22-00 -- I'm sorry -- |\n| 14 | 22-05003 will be set for hearing. |\n| 15 | I need to look at the calendar.
So if you'll -- |\n| 16 | you'll all have to bear with me for a moment. |\n| 17 | (Pause) |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, we already have matters |\n| 19 | scheduled at 1:00 on June 13th in this case, in the main |\n| 20 | case, and so we can -- we will schedule in this adversary |\n| 21 | proceeding the hearing on the motion for stay pending appeal |\n| 22 | for June 13th at 1 p.m. |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
And the reply of the trustee to the |\n| 25 | motion for stay pending appeal, which was filed on Friday, I |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 30 believe, June 2nd, ECF-227, will -- the trustee will have until 9 a.m. on June 12th to file the response to the motion for stay pending appeal. MS. WERNICK: Might we also have until 9 a.m. on the 13th to submit any reply? THE COURT: No. But you can have until 6 p.m. on the 12th. MS. WERNICK: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? Thank you. I'm just making a note, so please just bear with me for a moment. So that addresses the status conference on the motion for stay pending appeal in the HK International vs. Despins adversary proceeding. I see that Attorney Romney and Attorney Luft are back in the courtroom, so I'm interested to hear what progress you made with regard to the motion of Hudson Diamond to adjourn the hearing on the trustee's motion for an order holding the Hudson Diamond entities in contempt. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I'm happy to report that we have an agreement. I have language which I could read to the Court and that, if the Court wishes, we could then put into a proposed order for you to sign if that's helpful. THE COURT: We definitely need an order. But are you -- I would assume that includes a hearing date and time. Is that true? Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 30 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 31 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
31 |\n| 1 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, it does, although I think |\n| 2 | that will be contingent on -- the agreement in short, which |\n| 3 | I'll get to the details, is that we will give them two weeks |\n| 4 | to fully comply.
They have agreed to raise no objections |\n| 5 | other than as to privilege as to the subpoenas.
So my hope |\n| 6 | is that all that will go well and that, ultimately, we may |\n| 7 | not need any hearing.
But we have language which addresses |\n| 8 | that, but that is the very short version of what we're |\n| 9 | aiming for. |\n| 10 | If Your Honor would like, I could read the |\n| 11 | language which we've agreed to. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Well, let me just -- before you do |\n| 13 | that -- |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT:
Sure. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
-- let's, just for the sake of |\n| 16 | argument, assume that there is no compliance.
What hearing |\n| 17 | date -- did you -- the two of you discuss an eventual |\n| 18 | hearing date? |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:
We did, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
And what is that? |\n| 21 | MR. LUFT:
Without consulting the Court's |\n| 22 | calendar, so I apologize if it conflicts with yours, we |\n| 23 | talked about June 21st as a date with the idea being that |\n| 24 | Mr. Romney's clients would have until June 15th to complete |\n| 25 | their production.
That would allow them to do so and give |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 32 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
32 |\n| 1 | the parties a chance to see what was actually produced |\n| 2 | before having to come to the Court if necessary. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
The 21st, unfortunately, does not |\n| 4 | work. |\n| 5 | MR. LUFT:
Okay. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
So we'd have to -- we've already |\n| 7 | scheduled -- well, let's just -- we could schedule something |\n| 8 | on June 26th, but it would have to be in the afternoon. |\n| 9 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, do you mind if I check my |\n| 10 | calendar? |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
No.
Go right ahead. |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:
I have no problem with that date, Your |\n| 13 | Honor, and the afternoon is fine. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 15 | Attorney Romney, does June 26th in the |\n| 16 | afternoon -- and I'm probably talking about 2 or 3:00, |\n| 17 | because we have a contested matter on in the morning.
I |\n| 18 | don't think it's going to go until 2:00, but it could, so -- |\n| 19 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yes, Your Honor.
The short answer |\n| 20 | is -- I have a medical appointment in the morning, but I |\n| 21 | should be out by the afternoon.
And if not, I'm sure I can |\n| 22 | get either a colleague from Zeisler & Zeisler or CSG to |\n| 23 | cover that hearing. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Well, what about if we say 3 p.m. to |\n| 25 | be on the safe side. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 33 MR. ROMNEY: I think if I'm not out by 3 a.m., I have -- THE COURT: 3 p.m. MR. ROMNEY: I'm sorry, 3 p.m., I have bigger problems than this. THE COURT: Well, hopefully that is not the case, so -- MR. ROMNEY: I don't expect it to be, but thank you. THE COURT: So let's schedule -- when you -- I want you to put together this order and include in that order the hearing date -- the continued hearing date on the motion of June 26th at 3 p.m. Okay? MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Now, go ahead and tell me what your agreement is, please. MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. I'll read it in. The parties have no reason to and, therefore, do not dispute that the Hudson entities were properly served with the Rule 2004 subpoenas directed to each of them through a statutory service agent. However, the Hudson entities contend that the relevant individual at the Hudson entities was not actually made aware of the subpoenas until after the filing of the motion, a contention the trustee is in no position to admit or deny. Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 33 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 34 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
34 |\n| 1 | Having now been apprised of the subpoenas and the |\n| 2 | motion, the Hudson entities agree that they will fully |\n| 3 | comply with the subpoenas and agree to raise no objections |\n| 4 | to the subpoenas other than to issues of privilege.
The |\n| 5 | parties agree that, based on the Hudson entities' agreement |\n| 6 | to fully comply with the subpoenas, to not raise any |\n| 7 | non-privilege objections to them.
The Hudson entities will |\n| 8 | have until June 15, 2023, to complete their production to |\n| 9 | the trustee. |\n| 10 | Accordingly, the parties request that the motion |\n| 11 | hearing be adjourned until June 26, 2023.
The parties agree |\n| 12 | that should the motion hearing be deemed by the parties to |\n| 13 | no longer be necessary, the parties will promptly inform the |\n| 14 | clerk of the court. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And, actually, you wouldn't |\n| 16 | inform the clerk of the court.
You'd just inform the |\n| 17 | courtroom deputy, just so you know.
Okay? |\n| 18 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Because the clerk of the court might |\n| 20 | not see it, and the courtroom deputy will. |\n| 21 | MR. LUFT:
Okay. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
So I'd rather that be handled that |\n| 23 | way.
Okay? |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | MR. ROMNEY:
For the record, that recitation was |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 35 accurate, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you, Attorney Romney. Okay. So then you'll get that order in, in the next day or two? MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So let's just note for the record that 1850 -- we should just continue that to the June 26th at 3 p.m., but you're going to be submitting a stipulated order. And, obviously, if there's some agreement or resolution, then you'll let the courtroom deputy know, and there won't be a hearing on June 26th at 3 p.m. Okay? MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, both. All right. So let's turn to the remaining matters on today's calendar. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just want to mention that, first of all, thank you for letting me appear via Zoom. I need to go back to my trial. It starts at 2:30 again. So I may disappear. So I don't want to be rude, but I may just sign off during the next ten minutes or so. So I didn't want you to take that as I was just not interested. And I apologize. I need to run eventually. Thank you. THE COURT: I understand. Thank you. All right. So we have a few more matters on the Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 35 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 36 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
36 |\n| 1 | calendar: the fifth omnibus motion for examination, the 2004 |\n| 2 | examinations, the second omnibus motion to compel compliance |\n| 3 | with subpoenas, motion to seal, the motion to extend time to |\n| 4 | respond to the trustee's motion to compel.
Is that -- filed |\n| 5 | by G Club?
Is that an agreed-upon motion or not? |\n| 6 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
No, Your Honor, it's not. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
So before -- |\n| 8 | counsel, before we talk -- don't go away.
I just have one |\n| 9 | other question, though, while the trustee's still here with |\n| 10 | us. |\n| 11 | With regard to the main case, before we address |\n| 12 | some of the other motions, there's also a status conference |\n| 13 | in the main case scheduled for today.
Is there something |\n| 14 | else that you want to report to the Court with regard to the |\n| 15 | main case? |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
No, Your Honor.
Not at this time. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
So then we're not |\n| 18 | going to worry about anything else in the main case other |\n| 19 | than the specific matters we're going to address now.
Okay? |\n| 20 | Just give me one moment, please. |\n| 21 | All right.
So let's turn to that motion for |\n| 22 | extension of time to respond to the trustee's motion to |\n| 23 | compel that's been filed on behalf of G Club Operations, LLC |\n| 24 | in the main case, which is ECF-1845. |\n| 25 | MS. FORNOS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Carolina |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 37 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 37 Fornos of Pillsbury Winthrop, and I'm here with Kelli Baranowsky -- THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. FORNOS: -- of Green & Sklarz. MS. BARANOWSKY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz entered an appearance earlier, but he had to excuse himself due to an unmovable medical appointment this afternoon. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. FORNOS: And, Your Honor, just for the record, the notice of appearance has been filed. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. FORNOS: And we appreciate the Court's approval of the pro hac vice. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. FORNOS: With respect to the request for adjournment, as we stated in our papers, Your Honor, we have requested a 60-day adjournment of the motion to compel hearing. The reason for that adjournment is quite straightforward. G Club Operations did not have anyone to direct counsel until recently when it had an independent director appointed, an independent manager. We stated in our papers it has officially been appointed as of June 1st. I have spoken with that manager. That manager specifically requested a 60-day adjournment. The reason for\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 38 of
140 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
38 | |\n| 1 | that adjournment is the manager needs to, for obvious | |\n| 2 | reasons, understand the operations of the company, meet with | |\n| 3 | employees of the company, understand where the records are | |\n| 4 | kept. | |\n| 5 | And, as we have represented to the trustee, we | |\n| 6 | want to comply with the request.
It is not a matter of not | |\n| 7 | wanting to comply.
It is over broad, and we can address | |\n| 8 | that issue at a separate time.
But all we have wanted for | |\n| 9 | now is a 60-day adjournment of the motion to compel, because | |\n| 10 | it's premature. | |\n| 11 | Once the independent manager is able to assess, we | |\n| 12 | can have discussions.
We can certainly commence rolling | |\n| 13 | production.
But we think that the 60-day adjournment is | |\n| 14 | reasonable, Your Honor. | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I just want you to know, just so you | |\n| 16 | know, because you may not know, because you haven't been in | |\n| 17 | this case for -- you know, this is your -- the Court has | |\n| 18 | been told by parties in the past that they would produce | |\n| 19 | rolling production to the trustee, and they did not do so. | |\n| 20 | So I just want you to understand that if any party makes any | |\n| 21 | representation to the Court that rolling production is going | |\n| 22 | to be made and it isn't made, that's going to be a problem | |\n| 23 | for that party.
Okay? | |\n| 24 | MS. FORNOS:
Understood, Your Honor.
And part of | |\n| 25 | the reason for the adjournment is so that we can have the | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 39 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
39 |\n| 1 | independent manager have the time he needs to assess what |\n| 2 | documents are responsive and available.
And certainly, we |\n| 3 | hope, the trustee will be more reasonable than to ask for |\n| 4 | every single document in G Club Operation's possession. |\n| 5 | We also note, Your Honor, I had also asked for an |\n| 6 | extension, because I did have a personal conflict.
I was |\n| 7 | supposed to be in trial in the Western District of Texas. |\n| 8 | That was resolved yesterday.
I was in court yesterday.
I |\n| 9 | flew in last night to make sure that I could be here today. |\n| 10 | Thank you. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Appreciate that.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | Attorney Luft? |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, may I approach? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Avi Luft on |\n| 16 | behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee.
What you just heard is a |\n| 17 | request saying that they want to comply, that there is no |\n| 18 | one who could have answered these questions, and that they |\n| 19 | want to be reasonable.
What that does is leaves out the |\n| 20 | most important thing. |\n| 21 | This new trustee -- this new independent -- what |\n| 22 | is he referred to -- manager was appointed, we're told, on |\n| 23 | June 1st.
The subpoena and the order in connection with it |\n| 24 | was filed on December 2, 2022. |\n| 25 | Ms. Fornos contacted me on December 21st saying |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 40 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
40 |\n| 1 | that she needed a 14-day extension to respond.
Then on |\n| 2 | January 4th asked for another three days to respond.
Then |\n| 3 | on January 9th filed response and objections to the Rule |\n| 4 | 2004 subpoena with nothing but boilerplate objections |\n| 5 | indicating that they would not produce a single document in |\n| 6 | response to a Rule 2004 subpoena of G Club. |\n| 7 | We had our first meeting to confer on February |\n| 8 | 9th.
I was told what you just heard.
Well, the subpoena is |\n| 9 | a little broad.
We'd like to comply. |\n| 10 | But do you know why it's too broad?
Because the |\n| 11 | debtor really just has a very tangential relationship to G |\n| 12 | Club.
I believe the phrase told to me is he's just an |\n| 13 | unpaid spokesperson. |\n| 14 | Now, by this point, Your Honor had already entered |\n| 15 | an order in connection with the preliminary injunction |\n| 16 | hearing that G Club was one of the G Series entities, as |\n| 17 | they were referred to, which already had been found to be |\n| 18 | controlled by the debtor.
I told Ms. Fornos that based on |\n| 19 | that and other information that we had, it was not |\n| 20 | reasonable for them to contend to us that they weren't -- |\n| 21 | that the subpoena was over broad or that they shouldn't |\n| 22 | produce any documents based on the idea that they debtor |\n| 23 | really has a very tangential relationship. |\n| 24 | She told me she'd go back and look at that, and |\n| 25 | she wanted to consider it.
And we said we would see how we |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 41 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 41 could prioritize our requests. Not waive any of them but prioritize so we can get the most important information. Now, on March 7th -- now we're three months past when we served our subpoena. There was a second meet and confer. And on that meet and confer, I was not on it, but my colleagues were. I am told that Ms. Fornos responded that G Club was so offended by the idea that I said that the debtor has been found to have a connection to G Club that they were no longer interested in participating in discovery and that they would come to Your Honor to seek relief and that they would do so by March 10th, because the -- to clarify this incorrection (sic) that there was a connection between the debtor and G Club. March 10th came and went. Nothing was filed with Your Honor. And once again, we were left to reach out again to say what is going on. Where are -- we need to comply with this. By that point, the debtor had been indicated. The SEC had filed a complaint. And lo and behold, what is central to that SEC complaint as well as the indictment is that G Club is a central part of the debtor's operations and, at least according to the indictment and the SEC complaint, his fraud. What does G Club do? It sells discounted\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 42 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
42 |\n| 1 | membership in G Coin, G Fashion, unregistered securities for |\n| 2 | the debtor, all the debtor's entities.
As far as I know, |\n| 3 | G Club has no business other than the debtor. |\n| 4 | So the notion that they stalled for months based |\n| 5 | on the idea that this has nothing to really do with them or |\n| 6 | he's just an unpaid spokesperson who happens to like a |\n| 7 | company that's not really related to them wasn't true.
And |\n| 8 | shortly thereafter, we got a new story from the debtor is |\n| 9 | not really involved to, it turns out, because of these |\n| 10 | filings all senior leadership has abandoned the company.
No |\n| 11 | one can be found anymore.
Because, presumably, the debtor |\n| 12 | was so intertwined that whoever they are is in hiding. |\n| 13 | I will note I never got a name of who are these |\n| 14 | people who disappeared.
I don't know who they are.
I don't |\n| 15 | have a name of an independent manager.
I don't know if |\n| 16 | they're the same person.
What I know is now, all of a |\n| 17 | sudden, the debtor was so involved. |\n| 18 | And so this is what we were told on April 11th at |\n| 19 | the third meet and confer, that there had been resignations |\n| 20 | in light of the SEC complaint. |\n| 21 | We asked them specifically please prioritize the |\n| 22 | trustee's request for bank accounts, assets, and transfers, |\n| 23 | so we can understand what's going on with this entity which |\n| 24 | clearly is deeply involved with the debtor and that the SEC |\n| 25 | and the U.S. Attorney's office allege tens of millions of |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 43 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
43 |\n| 1 | dollars were going through to fund the debtor's personal |\n| 2 | lavish lifestyle. |\n| 3 | On April 25th, I got a message that said in an |\n| 4 | email that Ms. Fornos was optimistic that they would have an |\n| 5 | independent director in place next week.
So that's one week |\n| 6 | from April 25th. |\n| 7 | On April 29th, there was a call in which they said |\n| 8 | we think the independent director will be in place in the |\n| 9 | next couple days.
No later than May 3rd we'll get back to |\n| 10 | you. |\n| 11 | May 8th, we haven't heard anything.
We have to |\n| 12 | call again.
May 9th, we get -- receive a message from |\n| 13 | Ms. Fornos that says, \"FG Club Operations continues to |\n| 14 | actively work to engage an independent director.
Although |\n| 15 | that effort is far along, it's not yet concluded.
Once |\n| 16 | concluded, addressing the trustee's requests is a top |\n| 17 | priority.\" |\n| 18 | Now, Your Honor, that's the last communication we |\n| 19 | got until we got their objections when, lo and behold, the |\n| 20 | independent manager was appointed on the very day they had |\n| 21 | to file an objection to our motion to compel.
And now they |\n| 22 | come to you and say we're totally reasonable.
We just need |\n| 23 | two more months, accounting for eight months total, to |\n| 24 | respond to a subpoena.
And we'll make a rolling production. |\n| 25 | Your Honor, they could have started making a rolling |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 44 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
44 |\n| 1 | production to us in January. |\n| 2 | These subpoena (sic) goes to the heart of what's |\n| 3 | going on here.
This is clearly a Kwok-controlled entity. |\n| 4 | It only does business with other entities this Court has |\n| 5 | found to be controlled. |\n| 6 | I told Ms. Fornos that this Court has already made |\n| 7 | findings about this.
I've pointed to it.
To turn up now |\n| 8 | and just say we just need two more months for some unnamed |\n| 9 | independent manager to \"get up to speed\" is not reasonable. |\n| 10 | We have spent six months chasing them for what |\n| 11 | should have never been in dispute.
There is no plausible |\n| 12 | basis to argue that G Club was not alleged -- related to the |\n| 13 | debtor, to make up that they were so offended about the |\n| 14 | suggestion that they wouldn't even participate, and then |\n| 15 | later to -- what has now been three months of we'll appoint |\n| 16 | an independent manager in a day or two of just waiting on |\n| 17 | that. |\n| 18 | So, look, I know that Ms. Fornos also filed an |\n| 19 | objection to the scope of the subpoena.
I'm more than happy |\n| 20 | to address that if we're going to move ahead with that |\n| 21 | hearing when we do.
But the notion that there should be any |\n| 22 | further delay I have to strongly object to, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | G Club has wasted substantial trustee time and |\n| 24 | resources hounding them for this.
And the fact that they |\n| 25 | are so deeply involved in what is an alleged fraud that both |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 45 the SEC and the U.S. Attorney are involved in, that they have to -- that their management is either here or there or who knows about it is not a basis to deny the trustee the documents. It's, in fact, a basis to expedite this. And I -- quite frankly, I'd ask that they complete their production by the end of the week. We have chased this forever, Your Honor. THE COURT: When you say conclude the production, though, there hasn't been any production really, correct? MR. LUFT: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: I just want to be -- MR. LUFT: I mean start -- THE COURT: I just want to be clear about that. MR. LUFT: Absolutely. I have not gotten a single document from G Club. So you're right to point that out. I'd like it started and completed by the end of the week. I think the trustee owes it. And I'll note to the extent we're going to hear that's unreasonable, how could we get things done, the manager was just appointed on June 1st, they managed to get two filings -- the lawyers were able to work to get two objections on file on June 1st. They could have spent some of that time getting us the documents we were owed. Nothing stopped them from getting those documents during the time it was an obligation. The company didn't go Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 45 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 46 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
46 |\n| 1 | out of business.
The idea that no one was there, it's just |\n| 2 | a black box.
We're just told no one could do anything. |\n| 3 | They had a valid subpoena.
They didn't come to |\n| 4 | the Court and seek leave and ask for relief because of what |\n| 5 | was going on.
All they did was string us along.
Two more |\n| 6 | days, two more days, call me in a week.
Oh, I'll get back |\n| 7 | to you. |\n| 8 | It's us who continually had to make contact.
It's |\n| 9 | us who continually chased.
Your Honor knows that there's a |\n| 10 | lot going on in this case, that we are in desperate need of |\n| 11 | actual documents, because the debtor refuses to produce |\n| 12 | almost anything to us.
When we have to spend six months |\n| 13 | just to start getting the documents, it is a true damage to |\n| 14 | the creditors and the estate. |\n| 15 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 17 | Attorney Fornos, would you like to respond? |\n| 18 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes, Your Honor.
I most certainly |\n| 19 | would like to respond.
I'd like the record to reflect that |\n| 20 | this is the first time that G Club Operations is entering an |\n| 21 | appearance in this case.
It has never appeared before.
It |\n| 22 | has not had -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
And that's completely fair.
But do |\n| 24 | you disagree with anything that Attorney Luft said about |\n| 25 | your prior representations about production of documents and |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 47 when the independent director would be appointed and that it would be the independent director's -- well, he said a lot of things, actually. MS. FORNOS: Yes. I'm happy to address them, Your Honor. I -- THE COURT: Well, did anything he say -- was anything he said inaccurate? MS. FORNOS: Other than the dates, I think the characterizations of everything he said is inaccurate. First of all, the issue that we have is that the trustee -- first, he's not the SEC. He's not the Department of Justice. I do strongly recommend that the trustee carefully review those papers, because the way he's characterizing what G Club Operations is and its allegations of its relationships to the debtor are incorrect. What I specifically told the trustee is that the debtor was the ambassador -- the brand ambassador to G Club Operations. And G Club Operations is a membership organization. It operates -- sells memberships to the -- to individuals who want to participate and get benefits in the luxury lifestyle business. His characterization of G Clubs are improper, particularly when this entity has never appeared before Your Honor and had an opportunity to defend itself. Now, with respect to the dates -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 47 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 48 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
48 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Well, that's a different issue.
Okay? |\n| 2 | Hold -- just step back for a second.
I understand what |\n| 3 | you're saying.
But G Club was served with a subpoena, and |\n| 4 | they didn't respond, and they didn't move to quash, and they |\n| 5 | didn't move for a protective order.
So why do they get to |\n| 6 | do that now? |\n| 7 | MS. FORNOS:
Here's why.
When we first received |\n| 8 | the broad, overarching subpoena -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
That's not the issue.
That's not the |\n| 10 | question. |\n| 11 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes.
Understood, Your Honor.
But -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
The question is -- my question was a |\n| 13 | very direct question.
No one -- they were served with a |\n| 14 | subpoena.
They didn't respond.
They didn't move to quash. |\n| 15 | They didn't move for a protective order.
So why should you |\n| 16 | be able to do that now?
There were people -- you've |\n| 17 | admitted that there were people there -- |\n| 18 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
-- right?
That it's an operation? |\n| 20 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
So why should you now get to respond |\n| 22 | because an independent director has been appointed as of |\n| 23 | June 1st when there were already people that were in control |\n| 24 | of that entity that chose not to respond to the subpoena? |\n| 25 | MS. FORNOS:
No.
Your Honor, we did respond to |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 49 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
49 |\n| 1 | the subpoena, and we filed objections.
The hope was -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Only you did and just now. |\n| 3 | MS. FORNOS:
No.
I'm sorry, Your Honor.
We |\n| 4 | served objections and -- to the Rule 2004 to the trustee. |\n| 5 | We weren't just silent.
We responded and objected to the |\n| 6 | broad requests. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
But you didn't file a motion |\n| 8 | for a protective order under the Federal Rules of Civil |\n| 9 | Procedure. |\n| 10 | MS. FORNOS:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 12 | MS. FORNOS:
And we -- and -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
See, that's a problem. |\n| 14 | MS. FORNOS:
Understood, Your Honor.
And we would |\n| 15 | beg the Court's indulgence in this, because we were in the |\n| 16 | process of doing that when the indictments were filed and |\n| 17 | the SEC was -- complaint was filed.
And that -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
The subpoena was issued in December. |\n| 19 | Mr. Kwok wasn't indicted until March 15th. |\n| 20 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
And the only reason I know that is |\n| 22 | because we were about to start a trial that morning.
Okay? |\n| 23 | And I was told by people -- everyone in the courtroom when I |\n| 24 | thought we were going to call the first witness that that -- |\n| 25 | I believe that was the date.
I could be wrong, but I think |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 50 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 50 it was March 15th. MS. FORNOS: Your Honor is correct. THE COURT: We were scheduled for trial, right? So all I'm saying to you is I understand your argument -- MS. FORNOS: Uh-huh. THE COURT: -- but there hasn't been compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And your client -- and you may not have been involved or may have been involved, I don't know -- you know, takes that risk. MS. FORNOS: Understood, Your Honor. And we hear the Court. But we did try to negotiate the scope with the trustee. The trustee was adamant and unwavering in its position that G Club Operations is one and the same as the debtor and, therefore, they're entitled to everything, basically akin to a forensic analysis of this entity. And -- THE COURT: Well, a Rule 2004 examination, you know, you could argue that it is that. I'm sure you know what the case law says. It's akin to a fishing expedition. It's not a deposition. It's not a notice of deposition. It's a Rule 2004 examination. MS. FORNOS: Your Honor, then -- Your Honor, we do respectfully submit that there are boundaries to it. THE COURT: I'm not saying there aren't. I'm just saying when you say -- I agree that there can be boundaries\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 51 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
51 |\n| 1 | on a Rule 2004 examination.
I'm not suggesting that there |\n| 2 | can never be a boundary.
But it's not the same argument |\n| 3 | with regard to a Rule 2004 examination as it is with regard |\n| 4 | to a notice of deposition. |\n| 5 | This 2004 examination process is part of the |\n| 6 | Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that are there to |\n| 7 | allow parties to investigate.
This trustee was appointed |\n| 8 | specifically to investigate the affairs of the debtor.
You |\n| 9 | can argue and you might be right about the scope.
But you |\n| 10 | have to do that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |\n| 11 | and timely under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
And |\n| 12 | that didn't happen in this case. |\n| 13 | MS. FORNOS:
And, Your Honor, we are before the |\n| 14 | Court now asking for that adjournment.
And we do have a |\n| 15 | situation -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Seven months after the subpoena was |\n| 17 | served. |\n| 18 | MS. FORNOS:
Understood, Your Honor.
But we do |\n| 19 | now have a situation where the independent manager is not |\n| 20 | able -- he just got appointed on June 1st. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Well, he -- maybe they shouldn't have |\n| 22 | taken on the job. |\n| 23 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, respectfully, this is not |\n| 24 | your run-of-the-mill case.
This is a unique situation.
And |\n| 25 | we -- the rules are simple.
There are limits to how much |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 52 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
52 |\n| 1 | they can get.
They want everything without any boundaries. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I'm not -- we can address that. |\n| 3 | MS. FORNOS:
It is costly.
It's expensive. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I'm not worried about that, counsel. |\n| 5 | I really am not.
You know, I will listen to your issues |\n| 6 | about boundaries.
That's not the problem.
The problem is |\n| 7 | you're now seeking a motion to extend time to compel |\n| 8 | compliance with a subpoena that your clients are already in |\n| 9 | violation of. |\n| 10 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, understood.
But we did |\n| 11 | respond to the trustee.
The trustee until now has not filed |\n| 12 | a motion to compel.
This is what we're addressing now.
And |\n| 13 | the motion to compel that is presently before the Court is |\n| 14 | one that we simply ask that the Court adjourn for 60 days to |\n| 15 | enable someone who needs to get up to speed to respond to |\n| 16 | the trustee. |\n| 17 | It is fairness.
It is absolutely not feasible to |\n| 18 | comply when someone just took this position June 1st.
And |\n| 19 | it's an issue, at the end of the day, of practicality.
We |\n| 20 | would like the trustee to be more reasonable and certainly |\n| 21 | pare down their request. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Well -- |\n| 23 | MS. FORNOS:
And we would like to work with them |\n| 24 | to try to respond. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
What documents do you have right now |\n\n| 140
Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
53
that you haven't produced?
What documents do you have right |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| |\n| |\n| now? |\n| MS. FORNOS:
We have corporate formation |\n| documents.
We have email -- |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
And what's unreasonable about |\n| that request? |\n| MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, I have -- Your Honor -- |\n| THE COURT:
No, no.
I'm asking -- |\n| MS. FORNOS:
Yeah. |\n| THE COURT:
-- a question. |\n| MS. FORNOS:
As counsel -- |\n| THE COURT:
This is a 2004 examination of an |\n| entity that I'm not sure if I know exactly the proper |\n| corporate name, so -- |\n| MS. FORNOS:
Sure. |\n| THE COURT:
But of the G Club entity -- |\n| MS. FORNOS:
Operations. |\n| THE COURT:
-- that -- Operations that they're |\n| asking -- the trustee, who is appointed to investigate the |\n| affairs of the debtor -- |\n| MS. FORNOS:
Yeah. |\n| THE COURT:
-- is asking to see the corporate |\n| records of this entity, right?
And you just told me you |\n| have corporate formation documents.
So what's unreasonable? |\n| Because that's what I'd have to find, right?
Wouldn't I |\n| |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 54 have to find under the rules that -- MS. FORNOS: Yes. THE COURT: -- the request is reasonable or unreasonable? MS. FORNOS: Sure. You -- THE COURT: Whether it's scope or in time. MS. FORNOS: Yes. THE COURT: So what's unreasonable about asking about the corporate formation -- for the corporate formation documents? MS. FORNOS: Well, we can certainly turn over corporate formation documents, but that's not what he's asking. THE COURT: But why haven't you. Well, yes, you -- you just said he was asking for it. MS. FORNOS: No. He's asking for all financial records, and I do not have all financial records. And the independent manager -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: The independent manager is the person who has to authorize me. Your Honor, I as counsel cannot act unless I have a client who authorizes me to act on their behalf. THE COURT: Yeah. But you have to advise your client -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 54 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 55 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
55 |\n| 1 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- how your client should act to be in |\n| 3 | compliance with the law, right? |\n| 4 | MS. FORNOS:
And they're -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
And they might not agree with you. |\n| 6 | MS. FORNOS:
And -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
But you still have to advise them. |\n| 8 | MS. FORNOS:
Exactly, Your Honor.
And that is why |\n| 9 | the time is needed.
June 1st, there's a new person that is |\n| 10 | in charge. |\n| 11 | And I have represented to the trustee that the |\n| 12 | independent manager knows this is a priority.
I have |\n| 13 | personally made that clear.
I do have to advise our client. |\n| 14 | But at the end of the day, I can only act once our client |\n| 15 | gives me the authority. |\n| 16 | Now, here the independent manager specifically |\n| 17 | said I need to understand what records there are.
And, yes, |\n| 18 | we will work towards this production. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Who's -- I don't need to know the |\n| 20 | person's name.
I'm not -- but is the -- the independent |\n| 21 | manager, I assume, has -- is a businessperson? |\n| 22 | MS. FORNOS:
It is. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So I would think that that |\n| 24 | businessperson has a pretty good idea of what kinds of books |\n| 25 | and records and information should be included in a |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 56 corporate entity, right? MS. FORNOS: Understood. THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: And they need the time -- this is -- and, also, I should make this clear. This is an entity in Puerto Rico, Your Honor. Its office is in Puerto Rico. It's -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: Understood. I just want to make sure that the Court understands -- THE COURT: That doesn't matter, though, with a subpoena. MS. FORNOS: Yes, Your Honor. That wasn't my issue. My concern is one of logistics and practicality. We need time for the independent manager to get -- to assess what's available so that we can respond. And that's all we're asking the Court. THE COURT: Are the books and records in Puerto Rico? MS. FORNOS: Yes. Everything is in Puerto Rico. THE COURT: So he's in physical possession and control of the books and records? MS. FORNOS: Not -- shortly, yes. He has been in -- he has been appointed to make sure that he can review this. Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 56 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 57 THE COURT: Right. So as of today -- today is June 6th. MS. FORNOS: Uh-huh. THE COURT: So as of today, as we sit here right now, this independent director -- I don't know if it's a he or a she. I'm sorry. I don't know. I'm just going to say this independent director, that person -- MS. FORNOS: Yes. THE COURT: -- is in possession and control of the books and records of the G Club entity. And I apologize again. I don't know specifically. You just said it. Operations? Is that -- MS. FORNOS: Yes. THE COURT: -- correct? MS. FORNOS: Yes, Your Honor. It's G Clubs Operations. THE COURT: Oh, here it is. G Club Operations, LLC. Okay? So he's in possession and control of those documents? MS. FORNOS: He is in the process of becoming in possession and control, right? He needs to review this. And I -- we are -- THE COURT: Well, I don't -- I -- MS. FORNOS: -- assisting with this. THE COURT: That's not what I'm asking. I'm Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 57 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 58 saying if I walked over to the director, right, if I were you and I went to Puerto Rico and I walked into the director and I'd say where are the records of this company, does he know where they are? MS. FORNOS: I can't answer for him -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: -- right now, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does he have a key to a safe or a cabinet where all the records are? MS. FORNOS: Your Honor, I don't -- I cannot answer -- THE COURT: Okay. Well, I think -- MS. FORNOS: -- for the independent manager. THE COURT: I think that's the point, right? You're going to have to answer those questions. MS. FORNOS: And we need the time. Exactly. And we need those -- that time so that -- THE COURT: Well, except the problem that you have on that -- MS. FORNOS: Uh-huh. THE COURT: -- is, according to Mr. Luft anyway, which I'll give you the opportunity to refute, you've been saying for some months now that you've been having conversations about these documents. And now you want an additional 60 days to just respond to the motion. Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 58 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 59 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 59 You're not even saying you're going to produce -- well, you did say, and I cautioned you, because I had a situation in this case already about somebody telling me they were going to make a rolling production. MS. FORNOS: Uh-huh. THE COURT: And because of that representation of counsel -- MS. FORNOS: Yeah. THE COURT: -- I -- the Court acted -- ordered something to happen based upon that -- MS. FORNOS: Sure. THE COURT: -- representation which was not true and did not happen. Okay? So and, aside from all that, you and trustee's counsel as well have obligations as officers of the Court to address discovery disputes and not involve the Court unless it's absolutely necessary. Because those obligations exist independent of the Court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So, you know, if you're telling me you're going to make a rolling production of documents, I want to know when and what documents. MS. FORNOS: Your Honor, may I clarify one issue? We were asking for a 60-day adjournment of the hearing. The hope is that this hearing would be moot, because\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 60 hopefully -- THE COURT: But what if it's not? I understand the hope, and I want the parties to work together. I'm not suggesting that you don't -- that that couldn't happen. But what if it's not? What am I going to do 60 days from now? MS. FORNOS: But the idea is to have the hearing in 60 days. And if Mr. -- if the trustee stands in front of you in 60 days and says they've done nothing, Your Honor, then I think that's a different situation. But that's not what I'm envisioning in 60 days. And, again, it's adjourning the hearing for 60 days so that we can have the opportunity to hopefully moot all of this and not waste the Court's time. THE COURT: I understand what you're saying. I understand. There's just been -- unfortunately, there have been -- the Court has had to be involved in too many -- MS. FORNOS: Uh-huh. THE COURT: -- discovery disputes in this case. Okay? And here's another one where there are representations being made that the -- well, I know -- I can see from the docket and from the information filed that the subpoena was served in December of 2022. It's June of 2023. That's not -- that's a problem. MS. FORNOS: And, Your Honor, if we perhaps can ask the Court to consider that in this particular case this Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 60 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 61 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
61 |\n| 1 | entity after losing management following what most people |\n| 2 | wouldn't want to deal with -- these are directors.
These |\n| 3 | are officers.
These are general counsel of the company. |\n| 4 | This company has undertaken an independent |\n| 5 | manager.
And for the record, this is not some relative of |\n| 6 | anybody.
This is an independent company that specializes in |\n| 7 | coming in, assessing, taking stock of where the company is. |\n| 8 | That's what's happened.
And that is an effort to ensure |\n| 9 | compliance. |\n| 10 | We cannot make a better representation than the |\n| 11 | fact that an independent company has been hired to come in |\n| 12 | and do this.
And that's a good faith effort to ensure that |\n| 13 | documents are preserved and obligations are met.
And that's |\n| 14 | why we're asking the Court for the adjournment. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 16 | MS. FORNOS:
It's for the independent manager. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I understand.
I'm just somewhat |\n| 18 | concerned about the series of unfortunate events, if we want |\n| 19 | to call that -- call it that, that's led up to this, which |\n| 20 | is that, at least according to Attorney Luft -- |\n| 21 | MS. FORNOS:
Uh-huh. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
-- okay, there was a meet and confer |\n| 23 | on February 9th.
Then there was a second meet and confer on |\n| 24 | March 2nd.
And at that meet and confer, he said that you |\n| 25 | said that G Club was offended that it would be -- somehow |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 62 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
62 |\n| 1 | have connection to the debtor.
And then on the third meet |\n| 2 | and confer on April 11, which is more than two months -- |\n| 3 | almost two months ago, everyone resigned. |\n| 4 | And then there's going to be this independent |\n| 5 | director shortly thereafter, but it doesn't happen until |\n| 6 | June 1.
Those are factors that the Court -- I mean, facts, |\n| 7 | unless disputed, the Court has to take into consideration. |\n| 8 | MS. FORNOS:
Well, Your Honor, if the Court may |\n| 9 | indulge me, because the characterizations is what's |\n| 10 | troublesome here.
The issue is that we did try to negotiate |\n| 11 | to try to -- I explained to the trustee you're asking for |\n| 12 | everything.
And his position was very simple.
I'm not |\n| 13 | going to back down from everything that I'm asking, because |\n| 14 | I'm entitled to everything that I'm asking, because there's |\n| 15 | findings that apparently G Club, which has never entered an |\n| 16 | appearance, is somehow, findings, part of the debtor's |\n| 17 | network. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
No one has to enter an appearance for |\n| 19 | a Court to make findings about another party. |\n| 20 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, all we're stating is that |\n| 21 | I wanted the time to understand how it is that the trustee |\n| 22 | can take the position that he's entitled to everything down |\n| 23 | to a forensic examination of our entity and that there's |\n| 24 | allegedly findings.
All we have asked is for an |\n| 25 | opportunity -- |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 63 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
63 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Well, there are -- |\n| 2 | MS. FORNOS:
-- to narrow -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
There are -- they're not -- allegedly |\n| 4 | are findings.
There are findings.
This Court made |\n| 5 | findings -- |\n| 6 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, I -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
-- in connection with a preliminary |\n| 8 | injunction.
You can disagree with them.
And I believe |\n| 9 | that's on appeal and all those other things.
But that's |\n| 10 | what I did. |\n| 11 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, respectfully, I did |\n| 12 | review that ruling, and there is only one reference, one |\n| 13 | reference to G Club Operations.
I realize that there were a |\n| 14 | lot of other references to a lot of G entities, and I |\n| 15 | realize that the trustee's position is that anything that's |\n| 16 | a G entity is apparently a Kwok-affiliated entity. |\n| 17 | We don't need to take up that fight right now. |\n| 18 | For the record, we dispute the allegations of the trustee. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I'm sure you do. |\n| 20 | MS. FORNOS:
And we -- but the issue that's before |\n| 21 | the Court today is a request from an independent manager |\n| 22 | through counsel to please allow the independent manager to |\n| 23 | have the time to organize, understand so that they can |\n| 24 | comply and hopefully moot further appearances before the |\n| 25 | Court.
That's the representation that I'm making to the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 64 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 64 Court. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Luft? MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. I'll try to be short about this, but I did want to highlight a couple things. I think your inquiry about what documents they have and don't have is quite telling. Not only were they -- was G Club Operations served and the order entered on December 2nd, but Ms. Fornos has been their attorney since December 21st at least. That's at least when we knew. Yet seemingly no one seems to know what documents they have. Now, even if you put out to when the debtor was indicted on March 15th, that would have been three months of not examining anything. Now, what I told her is what it is. Your Honor made findings about G Club. In fact, Your Honor -- it's referenced in paragraph 2 of the order in which it is stated as part -- being part of the G series. So while the name G Club is only referenced once, G series is referenced multiple times. I don't think that changes anything. And certainly the fact that I didn't apprise the other side of a court order is not a basis to say that they won't comply. We have six months -- they had months when they could have -- management was there and could have complied. Then we've had since at least April until June\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 65 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
65 |\n| 1 | 1st of repeated references to the fact that an independent |\n| 2 | manager is about to be hired. |\n| 3 | She says we did not move prior.
That was because |\n| 4 | we were trying to work it out, each time asking, requesting, |\n| 5 | being told we're just a day away, we're going to comply. |\n| 6 | If this is the professional organization that she |\n| 7 | asserts, then they should be very up to speed on how to deal |\n| 8 | with these things.
The independent manager himself does not |\n| 9 | need to personally review any record.
He's obviously had |\n| 10 | counsel on retainer for six months working this case. |\n| 11 | They should be prepared to move ahead and proceed. |\n| 12 | I don't understand what is the issue that a manager has to |\n| 13 | get up to speed on other than being told we have a subpoena, |\n| 14 | we are out of compliance, we haven't complied for a long |\n| 15 | time, we need to comply. |\n| 16 | Ms. Fornos wants to make arguments as to what the |\n| 17 | scope of the subpoena should be.
I'm more than happy to |\n| 18 | address it.
But we certainly do not need to wait two months |\n| 19 | for the independent manager to presumably take stock of what |\n| 20 | it means to have received the subpoena. |\n| 21 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, just briefly.
The |\n| 23 | trustee acts like all they're asking for are corporate |\n| 24 | formation documents.
I want to be clear that what they're |\n| 25 | asking for is everything: membership, every money, every |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 66 dollar, every dime that came from members, all bank accounts, all financial transactions, tax, audits, et cetera. It's limitless. THE COURT: When was G Club Operations, LLC formed? MS. FORNOS: It was formed in October of 2020, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So we're talking about documents that are less than three years old, right? MS. FORNOS: Your Honor, that would be correct. But what they're asking for is a lot more than just corporate -- THE COURT: That's not my question. You're talking about -- you say they want everything. MS. FORNOS: Yeah. THE COURT: That's one thing. But you said timing. Well, the corporation was filed less than three years ago. That's not unreasonable, not from this Court's perspective. Whether or not the scope -- the -- what they're asking for, that may be something that I can review. But if the corporation was filed in October of 2020, and the trustee is conducting his investigation as he is required to do under the Bankruptcy Code, then, you know, I think that your client has got to make this more of a priority. This Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 66 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 67 is -- MS. FORNOS: Understood. THE COURT: This is not a situation -- I understand your arguments, but this is a situation where the trustee's efforts to investigate in this Chapter 11 case have been -- I mean, we've said it -- I've said it before -- have been met with resistance at almost, if not every, step in the process. And now I hear that with regard to a subpoena that was served on an entity that was created in October of 2020 and there were people there who got the subpoena and didn't do anything, even though I guess you represented them at the time, that's what the representation is, they want 60 days to figure out what they need to do. That seems to me to be not reasonable. MS. FORNOS: Your Honor, I have to reiterate the issue is the independent manager who has just been onboarded on June 1st. THE COURT: I understand all that. I understand. Hey, he takes it -- what he finds -- MS. FORNOS: He does. THE COURT: -- when he came there, right? MS. FORNOS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: So he or she or -- you know, the independent director -- I understand everything you're\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 68 saying. However, what else does the independent director have to worry about right now? MS. FORNOS: He needs to understand where these documents are and operations. THE COURT: Well, you just told me -- MS. FORNOS: But I -- THE COURT: -- everything is in Puerto Rico, and he's in Puerto Rico. MS. FORNOS: Yeah. But -- THE COURT: Or he or -- the independent director. I don't know who the person is. I'm sorry. MS. FORNOS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: But that -- so what's he -- MS. FORNOS: -- this company to understand -- THE COURT: I understand that. What's the company doing? Isn't it -- I have to -- MS. FORNOS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: I understand that the company is a company and maybe it has some business operations. I don't know what its business -- I mean, I know what has been put forth before the Court and, apparently, what's been pled by -- in case -- in the indictment and in the matter from the Securities and Exchange Commission. MS. FORNOS: Uh-huh. THE COURT: But what's before this Court is why Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 68 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 69 haven't they produced the documents. MS. FORNOS: And what we're representing to this Court is that the hope is if we have this adjourned for 60 days that will be time -- THE COURT: Yeah, but I don't -- MS. FORNOS: -- sufficient time -- THE COURT: I can't live -- we're not living on hope, right? MS. FORNOS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I don't think I've ever seen the word \"hope\" in there. MS. FORNOS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: I think there's requirements, right? MS. FORNOS: Yes, Your Honor. And part of that requirement is making sure they comply. And part of that compliance is having an independent manager who is onboarded and can do this and meet the deadlines and meet the requirements that need to be satisfied. And that is why we are requesting the time. THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Anybody -- would anyone else wish to be heard on the motion to extend time filed on behalf of G Club Operations, LLC? Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 69 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 70 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
70 |\n| 1 | I'm going to take the matter under advisement, and |\n| 2 | I will rule accordingly. |\n| 3 | MS. WERNICK:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 5 | MS. FORNOS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 7 | MS. FORNOS:
We appreciate the Court's time. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | All right.
Then the other matters on the calendar |\n| 10 | today relate to 2004 examination issues and a motion to |\n| 11 | seal.
So how are we proceeding? |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor? |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Yes? |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT:
Can I?
We have the other -- there |\n| 15 | are -- on the motion to compel, there are a number of |\n| 16 | parties that just didn't respond. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Oh, yes.
That's fair.
But go ahead. |\n| 18 | Sorry. |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:
So I believe that's what's left in |\n| 20 | terms of the motion to compel.
So I'll start with the happy |\n| 21 | news.
One of the entities, US Himalaya Capital, has reached |\n| 22 | out to us.
They have told us they will comply.
So at this |\n| 23 | point, Your Honor, provided that they stay true to their |\n| 24 | word and that we continue to work forward with them, I would |\n| 25 | ask that we hold off on the contempt relief that we sought |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 71 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
71 |\n| 1 | as to them, because they are seeking to comply. |\n| 2 | Otherwise, if Your Honor will indulge me, I would |\n| 3 | like to address the other parties who have chosen not to |\n| 4 | appear or say anything in our motion, if that's okay with |\n| 5 | the Court. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Just give me one second to catch up |\n| 7 | with you. |\n| 8 | MR. LUFT:
Of course, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
I'm trying to find your motion.
Are |\n| 10 | you talking about 805, you mean the omnibus -- 1805, the |\n| 11 | omnibus motion to compel compliance? |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:
Yes. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Oh. |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT:
1805.
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Go right ahead |\n| 16 | then, please. |\n| 17 | MR. LUFT:
May I approach? |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Yes, please. |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Your Honor, I |\n| 20 | will take it in two batches as to the remaining entities. |\n| 21 | The first batch is Saraca and GTV Media Group. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
They haven't complied, right? |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:
They have not complied, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | They have a somewhat unique circumstance in that they had a |\n| 25 | counsel, a man named Jeremy Tempkin at the Morvillo firm who |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 72 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
72 |\n| 1 | represented them for a few months.
They negotiated with us. |\n| 2 | They did not produce any documents, but they said that they |\n| 3 | were willing to.
They said they had a database which may |\n| 4 | produce documents based on what they had to produce to the |\n| 5 | SEC. |\n| 6 | We told them that we'd be happy to take a look at |\n| 7 | it.
But, notably, one of the people involved with it was |\n| 8 | Aaron Mitchell, who Your Honor has probably heard that name |\n| 9 | before.
He was a director of GTV.
He was not included. |\n| 10 | And we specifically told Mr. Tempkin at the time that we |\n| 11 | were happy to consider the database, but it certainly would |\n| 12 | not be sufficient, to our view, if it didn't even include |\n| 13 | the emails and the documents of one of the directors, |\n| 14 | particularly Mr. Mitchell. |\n| 15 | We hit the point where we told Mr. Tempkin, look, |\n\n we either need to reach a resolution where you're going to produce or we need to move ahead. So Mr. Tempkin informed us on late November, November 29th, abruptly right when we were saying we were going to -- either we have to produce or we have to move ahead that his firm was withdrawing, and they were not representing either of these entities prior to a single -- either one of them producing a single document. Mr. Tempkin would not -- THE COURT: So this is GTV and Saraca? MR. LUFT: And Saraca.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 73 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
73 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 2 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor.
And for some context, |\n| 3 | GTV was the media entity that ran Mr. Guo's rights.
Saraca |\n| 4 | is the parent to GTV.
It also paid at least \\$2 million |\n| 5 | towards the purchase of Mr. Kwok's home.
Saraca owns the |\n| 6 | trademark to Mr. Kwok's name and has been -- is one of the |\n| 7 | entities that Your Honor found in the preliminary injunction |\n| 8 | hearing, along with GTV Media, to be ones that Mr. Kwok |\n| 9 | controls. |\n| 10 | At that -- I asked Mr. Tempkin on what basis he |\n| 11 | was withdrawing or whether he had been fired.
He would not |\n| 12 | give me any details.
He simply wrote to me on December 14, |\n| 13 | 2022.
This is Exhibit E1 to 1805: \"I suggest you direct |\n| 14 | further inquiries regarding GTV and Saraca to Aaron |\n| 15 | Mitchell.\" |\n| 16 | Your Honor will recall that Mr. Mitchell is |\n| 17 | Mr. Kwok's consigliere and house attorney, whatever is the |\n| 18 | role he has at that moment.
We did.
We reached out to |\n| 19 | Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell has proceeded to respond to us |\n| 20 | to say I don't know why Mr. Tempkin told you that.
I have |\n| 21 | no -- I'm not representing either entity.
Nor can I tell |\n| 22 | you who -- first he -- sorry.
First he told us he would |\n| 23 | tell us who is representing them as soon as he knew.
And |\n| 24 | now he says he doesn't. |\n| 25 | And since December, we have been left with no one. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 74 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
74 |\n| 1 | No one to speak to at any -- at either entity.
No one |\n| 2 | saying anything. |\n| 3 | So we went from what I would say is a motion to |\n| 4 | compel type situation where we at least have an adversary |\n| 5 | who we're dealing with, who we're trying to get information |\n| 6 | from, to once again when it's time to produce documents, |\n| 7 | poof.
At the Kwok entities, everyone disappears.
There's |\n| 8 | no one to speak to. |\n| 9 | Now, here, Mr. Mitchell is found.
He continues to |\n| 10 | be involved in this case for Mr. Kwok.
And while he says |\n| 11 | that he is not personally involved, Mr. Tempkin specifically |\n| 12 | said that it would be Mr. Mitchell to speak to, which |\n| 13 | strongly suggests that it's Mr. Mitchell who is involved in |\n| 14 | the Morvillo firm dropping out.
And more so, Your Honor, |\n| 15 | Mr. Mitchell was also a director of GTV.
But he is not |\n| 16 | responding. |\n| 17 | We need someone to deal with.
We keep running up |\n| 18 | against the wall, as we'll get to in a minute, of entities |\n| 19 | who clearly were involved with regard to the debtor's |\n| 20 | estate.
And then when time comes, there's no one to speak |\n| 21 | to.
We've had this -- we've talked about this with Golden |\n| 22 | Spring and Lamp Capital previously on motions to compel. |\n| 23 | These entities are doing all these things, and then when the |\n| 24 | time comes, all of a sudden, no one responds anymore, and |\n| 25 | they just take a default.
And at the same time, we're told |\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
75 |\n| 1 | that each of these entities are the ones that actually have |\n| 2 | the documents. |\n| 3 | So with regard to those two entities, Your Honor, |\n| 4 | aside from the contempt finding for noncompliance, I'm here |\n| 5 | to ask for a little bit of extraordinary relief. |\n| 6 | Mr. Mitchell's involved in this case.
Mr. Tempkin clearly |\n| 7 | pointed to him as the person who would know about it.
He |\n| 8 | was previously a director if not he's currently a director. |\n| 9 | I don't know if anyone is a director of any of these |\n| 10 | entities anymore at GTV. |\n| 11 | Let him come in.
Let someone come and speak to |\n| 12 | this Court and say here's who runs these entities.
Here's |\n| 13 | where their documents are.
Because right now, I can't get |\n| 14 | information if there's no one to speak to.
And it's quite |\n| 15 | convenient that the people seem to evaporate every time it's |\n| 16 | time to produce the documents. |\n| 17 | So that's where we stand with GTV and Saraca, |\n| 18 | entities that had significant involvement with the debtor |\n| 19 | and his estate where actual funds flowed through.
Because |\n| 20 | we don't have any documents from them, I can't tell you if |\n| 21 | they still have millions of dollars in their accounts or |\n| 22 | not. |\n| 23 | But I do know that we at least have one person at |\n| 24 | those entities who seems to be able to know something about |\n| 25 | the information.
He continues to represent the debtor and |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 75 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 76 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
76 |\n| 1 | Ms. Guo, Mei Guo, to this day.
I think he should have to |\n| 2 | come forward to this Court and explain to the Court where -- |\n| 3 | who's in charge, where these documents are so that we have a |\n| 4 | chance to get some information. |\n| 5 | With regard to the remaining entities, Your Honor, |\n| 6 | there are two other G Club -- there's G Club US Operations |\n| 7 | LLC, G Club US Operations Inc.
My understanding is they are |\n| 8 | not represented by Pillsbury.
They have just defaulted on |\n| 9 | their subpoenas.
No one has responded to those. |\n| 10 | There is G Fashion and G News who obviously have |\n| 11 | been involved and seem every -- the debtor was happy with |\n| 12 | taking money from their operations until it was time for a |\n| 13 | subpoena.
And, once again, no response.
They just seem |\n| 14 | willing to take a default.
They should be in contempt. |\n| 15 | New York MOS Himalaya LLC.
No response.
Crane |\n| 16 | Advisory Group, no response.
Mei Weng Trading, LLC, no |\n| 17 | response.
And, again, this is no response both to the |\n| 18 | subpoenas and then a motion to compel which was also served |\n| 19 | upon them which we don't have any response to. |\n| 20 | So we are in a tough place, as I said, where -- in |\n| 21 | the case of Saraca and GTV where Mr. Mitchell seems to be |\n| 22 | involved and know something.
I'd ask that as an officer of |\n| 23 | the Court who's involved in this case he should come forward |\n| 24 | and help provide that information. |\n| 25 | With regard to them and the other entities, they |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 77 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 77 should be held in contempt. Look, what I'd love to do is wave a magic wand and say, great, now there's someone who we can deal with and we can actually get the documents. I don't think there's much question that they're involved with the debtor. The problem is, there's no one. They're just not responding. So I would ask that we be able to -- a contempt finding be found for them. I'd ask that if we move forward with these cases and ultimately make a motion to -- with -- an adversary proceeding or some action with regard to them that they should not be able to play games and appear when they want to appear. But and I -- otherwise, I'd ask the Court to allow us just to reserve to the extent we think we can find these documents to get further aid later. And that's where we are with the remainder of that motion, Your Honor. THE COURT: So with regard to the noncompliant respondents, G Club Operations LLC obviously seeking an extension of time to comply. GT Media -- GTV Media and Saraca Media have not complied -- MR. LUFT: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- in any way, shape, or form. MR. LUFT: Other than they originally hired counsel -- THE COURT: Originally had a lawyer who they\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 78 don't -- MR. LUFT: -- but since then -- THE COURT: So -- MR. LUFT: And we have no documents. Not one. THE COURT: So aren't they the -- aren't they defaulting respondents at this time too? MR. LUFT: In my view, they are, Your Honor, at this point. THE COURT: All right. So then with regard to the entities that you noticed as defaulting respondents, the Hudson Diamond entities you've worked out an agreement with. MR. LUFT: Yes. THE COURT: So they're not subject to any kind of an order at this time. And the -- you said the US Himalaya -- MR. LUFT: US Himalaya Capital seems to be working with us, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUFT: So we'd (indiscernible). THE COURT: But everybody else is still -- all the other parties that you've listed in your motion are still defaulting respondents. They haven't done anything? MR. LUFT: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: So your -- my read of your motion is that you want the Court to enter an order with regard to the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 79 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
79 |\n| 1 | defaulting respondents to give them an additional three days |\n| 2 | to comply or they'll be held in contempt? |\n| 3 | MR. LUFT:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
And then with regard to the |\n| 5 | noncompliant respondents, which really is only G Club at |\n| 6 | this time, but they're asked for a motion for -- they've |\n| 7 | asked for a motion for extension of time.
But you wanted |\n| 8 | those parties to comply within 14 days according to your |\n| 9 | motion? |\n| 10 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So I have to just go back and |\n| 12 | look at and see if I agree with your orders, and then I'll |\n| 13 | figure out what to do.
In the past when people have not |\n| 14 | complied with the subpoenas and there have been a motion to |\n| 15 | compel compliance, I believe that we've given them one last |\n| 16 | opportunity before being held in contempt, which is what |\n| 17 | you're saying insofar as you'd give them an additional |\n| 18 | period of time to comply, a short period of time but a |\n| 19 | period of time to comply.
And if not, they'll be held in |\n| 20 | contempt. |\n| 21 | Golden Spring and Lamp Capital, I -- were |\n| 22 | different.
I'm thinking about what we've done in other |\n| 23 | situations in this case were a little bit different, because |\n| 24 | they had had appearances in this case.
And they were |\n| 25 | represented by counsel in this case. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 80 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
80 |\n| 1 | MR. LUFT:
Previously before going dark, yes, Your |\n| 2 | Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Yes.
None of the other entities |\n| 4 | except for G Club Operations LLC today has filed any -- and |\n| 5 | the Hudson entities that Mr. Romney's filed an appearance on |\n| 6 | behalf of have filed -- there's no lawyers that I'm aware |\n| 7 | of, is that correct, that have filed an appearance on behalf |\n| 8 | of any of these parties? |\n| 9 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I'm not aware of whether |\n| 10 | they have, whether G Fashion and G News ever had -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I'm talking about in this case or |\n| 12 | any -- |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
No.
I'm saying -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Nothing in this case? |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:
Not that I'm aware of, Your Honor.
I |\n| 16 | don't remember if in the context of the PI where they were |\n| 17 | specifically at issue they had an appearance, but I'm not |\n| 18 | aware of it. |\n| 19 | Look, Your Honor, it won't come as a surprise that |\n| 20 | it is the trustee's view that these entities, particularly |\n| 21 | these G entities, all have -- Mr. Kwok's counsel is |\n| 22 | effectively, particularly through Aaron Mitchell, overseeing |\n| 23 | all of these entities.
So I think they have notice.
But |\n| 24 | have they come before you and said something?
No. |\n| 25 | That's part of the big problem we're having, which |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 81 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 81 is there seems to be shadow counsel outside the -- of this Court who makes decisions or doesn't show up, and then they hire outside counsel who, you know, does their best but isn't really aware of what is happening. So I am not aware of those entities actually having someone made an appearance. I do believe that they are all strongly linked to the debtor. And given his active involvement in every aspect of our attempts to get information about this, my gut is that they're of course aware of what's going on. But that is just gut, Your Honor. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, may I be heard briefly? THE COURT: On behalf of whom? MR. ROMNEY: On behalf of the debtor. THE COURT: For what purpose? None of these subpoenas are issued to the debtor. None of -- MR. ROMNEY: And I -- THE COURT: None of the relief that's sought is sought against the debtor. MR. ROMNEY: I understand that, and I have no objection to any of the relief sought against any of the entity -- any of these entities, none of whom I represent. I do take issue with characterizations of the debtor's relationship to these entities of which I certainly have no knowledge. And I don't believe, at least with respect to some of them, there's been any evidentiary foundation for\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 82 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
82 |\n| 1 | that.
And with respect to the rest of them, I believe those |\n| 2 | are all on appeal. |\n| 3 | So just for the record, I'm objecting to any |\n| 4 | characterization of a legal relationship between the debtor |\n| 5 | and these entities.
I also would object to the |\n| 6 | characterization of Mr. Mitchell as the debtor's |\n| 7 | \"consigliere.\"
I don't know what that means.
Again, I'm |\n| 8 | not sure that's relevant to any of the relief being |\n| 9 | requested. |\n| 10 | But to the extent the relief being requested is |\n| 11 | based on an established relationship with the debtor, I |\n| 12 | object solely on that basis.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT:
Of course, Your Honor, I don't -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
You know, every -- I'm not worried |\n| 16 | about anything that I -- people make arguments, and I give |\n| 17 | it whatever weight I think it is appropriate.
Okay? |\n| 18 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
Of course, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | All right.
So with regard to 1805, the second |\n| 22 | omnibus motion to compel compliance with Rule 2004 |\n| 23 | subpoenas, does anyone else wish to be heard?
Okay. |\n| 24 | Hearing nothing.
Then the Court will take that matter under |\n| 25 | advisement and will rule accordingly.
But I -- again, I |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 83 believe that will be a ruling that we'll issue in short order. Okay? MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor, for your time. THE COURT: Thank you. Now, with regard to -- there's, I think, two more matters. I need to -- just hold on one second. Okay? (Pause) THE COURT: There's a fifth omnibus motion for 2004 examination and a motion to seal. Before I address those, no -- I have to take a one-minute break, because I've been told I need to look at something. So I'm going to do that. And I'm going to come right back. So no one should leave the courtroom. I shouldn't be more than a minute or two. So Court will be in very short recess. THE CLERK: All rise. (Court recessed from 2:50 p.m. to 2:55 p.m.) THE CLERK: Back on the record. THE COURT: Thank you. Sorry about that. We only then have to address, I believe, and so everyone please correct me if I'm wrong, the fifth omnibus motion for 2004 examination of additional entities and the motion to seal. Is that correct? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So however you want to proceed, please proceed. Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 83 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 84 MR. LUFT: Your Honor, maybe we could just do the motion to seal, because I'm hoping it'll be very quick. THE COURT: Sure. MR. LUFT: I believe the motion to seal is in connection with our motion to compel. And, quite frankly, all it does is that there were documents produced to us with a confidentiality designation pursuant to the protective order. Accordingly, we've filed them under seal to comply with that order. We'd ask that the motion to seal just be granted for that. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the -- excuse me -- the motion to seal? And are -- I'm just looking -- I don't know if I see the proposed order on the motion to seal yet. Give me one moment, please. I think in the past -- but, again, I -- I'm not sure I can recall at the moment if under these circumstances, because you're dealing with the provisions of the protective order and the confidentiality order, that we've just entered your proposed order, I think. But I'm not sure I'm right on that. Since there are 1,800 entries on this docket, I sometimes don't remember. Okay. There is a proposed order attached to the motion to seal. It appears at pages 10 through 12 of ECF 1806. The only thing I would ask you to do is just note Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 84 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 85 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
85 |\n| 1 | today's hearing date on the top of the second page of the |\n| 2 | order which is page 11 of the ECF document.
It says, \"And |\n| 3 | good cause having thereby and otherwise been shown\" -- I |\n| 4 | would say, you know, following a hearing held on June 6, |\n| 5 | 2023, so it's clear we had a hearing.
And then the order |\n| 6 | can enter.
Okay? |\n| 7 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
All right.
So with regard to 1806, |\n| 9 | the motion is granted.
The motion to seal is granted, and |\n| 10 | the proposed order with the minor changes noted on the |\n| 11 | record will enter.
Okay? |\n| 12 | So that leaves for this afternoon the Rule 2004 |\n| 13 | examination motion which is the fifth omnibus motion for |\n| 14 | 2004 examinations of additional entities which is ECF Number |\n| 15 | 1789.
So who will be handling that matter? |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
I'll be handling that one for the |\n| 17 | trustee, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go right ahead then, Attorney |\n| 19 | Bassett. |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, may I use the podium? |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yes, please. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Again, just for the record, Nick |\n| 23 | Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee.
So, |\n| 24 | Your Honor, I think, unfortunately, there's been a bit of a |\n| 25 | theme in the matters that have been presented to the Court |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 86 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
86 |\n| 1 | today.
And, unfortunately, it's not one of parties |\n| 2 | complying with their discovery obligations under Rule 2004. |\n| 3 | Frankly, it's actually a little odd that we're even here on |\n| 4 | this one today on a contested basis.
And I'll explain that |\n| 5 | in a second. |\n| 6 | But this motion is, as you said, the fifth motion |\n| 7 | the trustee has filed to seek 2000 (discovery).
It covers, |\n| 8 | I believe, eight additional parties that the trustee has |\n| 9 | identified either through his ongoing investigation or |\n| 10 | through other recent developments as having, in the |\n| 11 | trustee's view, relevant information that is subject to |\n| 12 | examination under Rule 2004. |\n| 13 | The reason why I say it's odd that we're here |\n| 14 | today on a contested basis is that not a single one of the |\n| 15 | eight targets of the investigation has filed an objection to |\n| 16 | the motion.
The only two objections that have been filed |\n| 17 | are by the debtor and then another objection by the debtor's |\n| 18 | wife and Greenwich Land, LLC. |\n| 19 | These objections purport to object to discovery in |\n| 20 | the case of the debtor that the trustee is seeking from an |\n| 21 | entity called Nodal Partners LLC, which has been disclosed |\n| 22 | in a filing to this Court as an entity responsible for |\n| 23 | providing the source of compensation to the debtor's |\n| 24 | counsel.
Also noted in that disclosure is that this entity |\n| 25 | apparently has some relationship to the debtor's daughter, I |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1907 | Filed 06/14/23 | Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 | Page 87 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 87 believe. The objection filed by the debtor's wife in Greenwich Land is purportedly on behalf of an entity called Bento Technologies which is a spending management platform, as we understand it, which has in the past received monies from, among other sources, Greenwich Land and Golden Spring. To the extent that we get into specific issues with respect to the debtor's wife's and Greenwich Land's objection and Bento Technologies, Mr. Linsey will actually be handling that. So I'll spend the balance of my time addressing the debtor's objection that relates to Nodal Partners LLC. There are two issues that the debtor raises in that objection -- or the two issues, I guess, not that the debtor raises but two issues -- I'm sorry, Your Honor. Yes. Two issues that the debtor raises. One of them actually is separate from Nodal Partners. The first issue is, in fact, whether discovery from Nodal Partners under 2004 is appropriate. The debtor takes the view that it's not. The second issue relates to the debtor's ability to participate in 2004 examinations if\n\n they have notice of those examinations. I'll get to that in a second after I address the Nodal Partners issue.\n\n As to the Nodal Partners discovery, I think it's easy to dispense with this objection because the debtor simply does not have standing to be heard to raise an\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 88 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
88 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | objection to this discovery.
I think that's true for two |\n| 2 | separate reasons.
First, if you look at the basis for the |\n| 3 | objection -- I think this is kind of remarkable.
If you |\n| 4 | look at the objection -- and this is the first paragraph -- |\n| 5 | the debtor says he's objecting to the discovery sought from |\n| 6 | Nodal Partners on the grounds that it is \"broad, invasive, |\n| 7 | and burdensome.\" |\n\n I have no idea how the debtor is able to stand here before the Court and assert a burdensomeness objection on behalf of a party who itself has not appeared and objected and taken the position that the discovery is burdensome. The debtor simply has no basis whatsoever to make that argument.\n\n And the fact that the debtor is here objecting and making that kind of argument frankly should make it all the more apparent why there must be a reason for that and why there must be a reason that the discovery the trustee is seeking from this entity is critically important, especially when it is the source of funding of the debtor's counsel.\n\n The second reason that the debtor does not have standing is because, as Your Honor has already found, this is not a case where there is a reasonable prospect of there being a surplus. The debtor could theoretically have argued in response to our 2004 motion that he thinks some or all of the motion is unnecessary and, therefore, a cost that should\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 89 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 89 not be expended on behalf of the estate by the trustee. But the debtor has no basis to make that kind of objection, because he has no economic interest in this bankruptcy case, because there's no prospect of a surplus. So I think we can just stop there as it relates to this objection at least -- if not entirely, at least as it relates to Nodal Partners and dispense with it, because the debtor cannot possibly have standing to be heard.\n\n If we want to go further and look at, okay, let's assume the debtor does have standing to be heard, is this discovery appropriate, I think there's no question that the discovery is appropriate. Again, this is an entity that -- this is in ECF 1774 filed on May 9th. The debtor disclosed to the Court \\$256,000 in compensation from this entity.\n\n And to the extent the debtor is suggesting -- which I can't tell, frankly, because there are inconsistent statements in what the debtor has filed. But to the extent the debtor is suggesting that he's being paid by this entity but yet this entity has no relationship whatsoever to the debtor and, therefore, there's no basis under the extremely broad rubric of 2004 which allows a fishing expedition for the trustee to get the discovery, I think that is just not at all believable. It's completely incorrect on the law.\n\n As the Court well knows, entities that have funded the debtor in the past, most notably Golden Spring, have\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 90 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 90 obvious connections to the debtor. I don't think anybody is disputing that. And I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that this entity, Nodal Partners, LLC, is randomly paying the debtor's counsel's expenses out of the goodness of its heart. The trustee is entitled to discovery of the relationship that the debtor has with that entity under Rule 2004.\n\n And as it relates to what -- you know, what does this entity really do, what is its connection to the debtor, I just want to point out, because I think this is -- it's very troubling to me, and I think it should be for the Court, a couple of things. If you look at paragraph 3 of the debtor's objection, there's a line where the debtor says -- one second, Your Honor. There's a line where the debtor says, \"Publicly available information establishes that Nodal is an operating company located in Austin, Texas that is managed by established and well-educated professionals and has no apparent connection to the debtor.\"\n\n Similarly, in the fee disclosure that I mentioned earlier that was filed on May 9th, the debtor in a footnote said that upon information and belief, the -- someone affiliated with or somebody in control of this entity is a friend of the debtor's daughter. What I think is remarkable about both of these statements is that the debtor is pretending to have no knowledge of whether he has a\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 91 connection. I think more likely what it is, is it's counsel submitting papers, doing research online to try to figure out what this entity is and not actually confirming it with anybody. Zeisler & Zeisler represents Mei Guo. Why they have to allege on information and belief that there's a relationship is beyond me. There either is or there isn't, and they should know the nature of that relationship. And as it relates to the connection that this entity has to the debtor, I don't know why they would need to say it has no apparent connection to the debtor. It either does or it doesn't. And they should be able to make a representation in that regard. It's not going to change whether we need discovery, but the fact that they're not even able to get that level of information to the Court is very troubling. So for those reasons, I think it's -- there shouldn't be any doubt at all that this discovery is appropriate. But the debtor shouldn't have an opportunity to object to it in the first place. So I think that deals with the issue of discovery from Nodal Partners. The other issue that the debtor raises relates to his complaint that he has not received advance notice of all\n\nthe trustee has taken pursuant to this court's past Rule\n\nof the examinations or, more specifically, depositions that\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 92 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
92 |\n| 1 | 2004 orders.
A few responses to this argument. |\n| 2 | First of all, for arguments I'll get to, it's just |\n| 3 | wrong on the law.
But I think, up front, it's been waived. |\n| 4 | The trustee began this investigation -- I was looking back |\n| 5 | before the hearing and, remarkably, we're almost coming up |\n| 6 | to the one-year mark -- about ten months ago.
And the Court |\n| 7 | began entering 2004 orders shortly thereafter, which, as the |\n| 8 | debtor acknowledges in his objection, are -- were all the |\n| 9 | same form of order that has been entered subsequently in the |\n| 10 | additional motions that the trustee has filed. |\n| 11 | And the trustee, by the way, has been taking |\n| 12 | depositions, examinations for months.
If the debtor's |\n| 13 | position was that he all along was entitled to advanced |\n| 14 | notice of every deposition and entitled to participate, I |\n| 15 | submit that's an issue that he should have raised a long |\n| 16 | time ago and not nearly a year later or ten months later. |\n| 17 | As to the merits of the argument, the debtor |\n| 18 | relies on Local Rule 2004-1(b) as supporting his position |\n| 19 | that the debtor, along with certain other notice parties, is |\n| 20 | entitled to advance notice of every deposition and |\n| 21 | apparently entitled to participate in those depositions as |\n| 22 | well.
This is a facially wrong reading of the rule, because |\n| 23 | Section 2004-1(b) makes clear that it does not apply to this |\n| 24 | situation.
Local Rule -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Doesn't it only apply if there's some |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 93 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
93 |\n| 1 | kind of an agreement? |\n| 2 | MR. BASSETT:
Exactly, Your Honor.
Local Rule |\n| 3 | 2004-1(b) applies -- and the framework of the rule -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
If there's an agreement without a need |\n| 5 | for a motion even, right? |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
That's exactly right. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 8 | MR. BASSETT:
And the -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
That's my recollection of the rule. |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
And the framework of the rule -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
-- makes perfect sense when you read |\n| 13 | it in context.
So 2004-1(b) says if there is a private |\n| 14 | agreement between two parties for a 2004 examination which |\n| 15 | would not require the filing of a motion, and therefore |\n| 16 | inherently would not require any notice to anyone, in that |\n| 17 | situation notice must be given to the debtor, the trustee, |\n| 18 | and certain other notice parties.
I think a creditor's |\n| 19 | committee is in there.
Has to give notice to those parties. |\n| 20 | And it specifies what kind of notice.
And it does say with |\n| 21 | respect to examinations a certain number of days, et cetera. |\n| 22 | But the next part of the rule applies to |\n| 23 | situations where there has been a motion for 2004 discovery |\n| 24 | filed.
That's 2004-1(c).
And in that case, obviously, the |\n| 25 | filing of the motion itself is done pursuant to the Court's |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 1907 | Filed 06/14/23 | Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 | Page 94 of |\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 94 rules and practices that require notice to the various parties in the case. So it is already assumed for purposes of 2004-1(c) that's built into the rule that all these parties are going to get notice of the motion. And Mr. Romney would say, well, you need to imply based on 2004-1(b) that, you know, the -- whoever -- the drafters of the rules must have thought that that same additional notice requirement for examinations also applies when there's a motion. First of all, they could have said that. The rule does not say that at all. Second of all, it makes perfect sense that it was done the way it is, because once there's a 2004 motion filed, and people have been -- have had the opportunity to object to both the motion and to whatever proposed order is attached to the motion, and an order is granted, it is, of course, that order which governs what else must be done in order to carry out the investigation. And to the extent the debtor from the very beginning had wanted an order entered in response to our 2004 motions that said additional notice must be given to the debtor and other parties, that was the time to ask for it. And that's why the framework of the rule makes sense. Because when you're going by motion, you have a\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nmotion and you have an order, the order governs. You don't\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1907 | Filed 06/14/23 | Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 | Page 95 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
95 |\n| 1 | need to refer back to inapplicable notice provisions of |\n| 2 | 2004-1(b) which only apply where there's an agreement. |\n| 3 | The next point I would make, Your Honor, is even |\n| 4 | if the debtor had an argument that he should be given notice |\n| 5 | and should have the ability to at least make the case to the |\n| 6 | Court that he's entitled to participate, I think that is |\n| 7 | entirely -- with a narrow exception that I will mention, I |\n| 8 | think that is entirely not necessary and inappropriate in |\n| 9 | this case.
I don't believe the debtor has cited any case |\n| 10 | standing for the proposition that a debtor, particularly a |\n| 11 | debtor out of possession, is entitled to notice and an |\n| 12 | opportunity to participate in every deposition that a |\n| 13 | trustee would take when investigating the debtor's affairs, |\n| 14 | particularly as, here, when this is a case that's not likely |\n| 15 | to have a surplus and, therefore, the debtor can't be |\n| 16 | participating to protect an economic interest. |\n| 17 | And, in fact, I think the opposite is true in a |\n| 18 | case like this where the trustee has been appointed for the |\n| 19 | very purpose of investigating the debtor's affairs.
There |\n| 20 | have been all kinds of allegations and findings by the Court |\n| 21 | of concealment of assets.
I mean, the entire track of the |\n| | |\n\n trustee's investigation and the entire theme of this case is trying to untangle the web of entities and individuals that this debtor has used to hold his assets, to hide his funds. And the trustee is very concerned. And I think\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 96 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 96 there's examples of this kind of thing continuing while this case is proceeding. And if the debtor were able to attend every deposition that the trustee is taking of somebody trying to figure out what's happening to assets, the debtor is only going to be left with a roadmap to understand where the trustee is going with his investigation and, therefore, stay one step ahead of where the trustee is going next. It would be completely counterproductive.\n\n9 In addition to that, as Your Honor well knows based on its finding in connection with the preliminary injunction motion that was filed related to the protests at the end of last year, there are individuals who are very fearful of intimidation and retaliation, et cetera, by the debtor. And allowing these individuals -- allowing even a representative of the debtor to attend these depositions of some of these parties may, in fact, have a chilling effect on their willingness to cooperate. I think that's a real concern as well.\n\n The one exception that I had mentioned was that, and there's been one exception like this to date, we deposed Williams & Connolly, which was one of the debtor's former law firms. And Williams & Connolly had expressed a concern to us about making sure the debtor was present at that deposition for purposes of being able to assert limited privilege objections in accordance with this Court's earlier\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 97 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 97 privileges order which preserved the debtor's ability to potentially make objections based on information that, if disclosed, could result in personal harm to the debtor. In that case, understanding of that, which I thought -- which we thought was a reasonable request, the trustee did allow Mr. Romney to participate and he did, in fact, participate. And the trustee is willing to, I think, consider that in depositions of counsel on a case-by-case basis moving forward, but that is the only situation that I can think of where it would be potentially appropriate for the debtor to have representation at these examinations. So that concludes like the issues on the debtor's objections, Your Honor. If you want to hear from Mr. Linsey on the debtor's wife's and Greenwich Land's objection, I think he can address that now or potentially in response to Mr. Romney. THE COURT: Well, they're two separate pleadings, right? I mean, so why don't we just take it a pleading at a time insofar as with regard to Nodal. Or I'm not sure I'm pronouncing it right, but -- MR. BASSETT: That's how I would pronounce it, but I'm not sure either, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Romney filed that objection, correct? MR. BASSETT: That's correct.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 98 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
98 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
And then with respect to the other |\n| 2 | entities, I think it's Attorney Major that filed that |\n| 3 | objection, correct? |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So I'd rather -- if you |\n| 6 | don't -- I'd rather -- |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
-- hear from Mr. Romney first so I can |\n| 9 | address the debtor's objection first.
And then we'll go |\n| 10 | from there. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay?
And then we'll hear from |\n| 13 | Mr. Linsey and Mr. Major. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | Mr. Romney? |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you, Your Honor.
For the |\n| 18 | record, Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, on behalf of the |\n| 19 | debtor.
I'll begin by saying -- expressing my respect and |\n| 20 | admiration for the trustee and his counsels' talented |\n| 21 | advocacy and taking things entirely out of context. |\n| 22 | The basis for the debtor's motion to the 2004 exam |\n| 23 | motion with respect -- or I apologize -- the debtor's |\n| 24 | objection with respect to the trustee's motion with Nodal |\n| 25 | Partners is not based on the fact that the debtor and his |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 99 of
140 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
99 |\n| 1 | daughter have no connection with Nodal Partners.
In fact, |\n| 2 | that is the basis for our objection. |\n| 3 | The connection between the debtor and the debtor's |\n| 4 | daughter and Nodal Partners has been publicly acknowledged |\n| 5 | on this docket by my office in a disclosure of compensation. |\n| 6 | That connection is the fact that Nodal Partners has |\n| 7 | gratuitously paid some of the debtor's legal expenses to my |\n| 8 | firm.
And one of the principals of Nodal Partners is a |\n| 9 | friend of my client, Mei Guo.
And as I've stated, I |\n| 10 | believe, in the objection, they're supporters of Mr. Kwok's |\n| 11 | political causes. |\n| 12 | There is no objection on the part of the debtor |\n| 13 | certainly.
I can't speak for Nodal Partners, who I don't |\n| 14 | represent.
And it is Nodal is my understanding, for the |\n| 15 | record. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Say it again. |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:
Nodal. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Nodal? |\n| 19 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yeah. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Like D-A-L?
So emphasize the A? |\n| 21 | MR. ROMNEY:
Correct. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | MR. ROMNEY:
There is no objection to -- on the |\n| 24 | part of the debtor to the trustee inquiring or examining |\n| 25 | into the connections between Nodal Partners and the debtor, |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 100 of
140 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
100 |\n| 1 | some of which have been disclosed.
But, obviously, they do |\n| 2 | not need to take our word for it.
We do not object to a |\n| 3 | subpoena going to Nodal Partners to inquire into their |\n| 4 | affairs. |\n| 5 | What we object to based upon this subpoena is |\n| 6 | based solely on a connection to the debtor which has been |\n| 7 | publicly disclosed voluntarily -- well, I guess I shouldn't |\n| 8 | say that, because it was required by the rules.
But on our |\n| 9 | own initiative, it was disclosed by the debtor.
We further |\n| 10 | disclosed the personal relationship between Nodal's |\n| 11 | principal and Ms. Guo. |\n| 12 | The trustee is now seeking to inquire into every |\n| 13 | aspect of Nodal Partners' business without requiring a |\n| 14 | connection to the debtor.
Our issue with these subpoenas, |\n| 15 | Your Honor, is that we believe the trustee is intending to |\n| 16 | send a message that anybody who supports the debtor, anybody |\n| 17 | who has any acknowledgment of a connection to the debtor |\n| 18 | that is not adverse would be subject to a subpoena that |\n| 19 | requires Nodal Partners to disclose every asset that it has, |\n| 20 | the source of every asset that it has, and all of its use of |\n| 21 | credit without the hook that it -- that there be a |\n| 22 | connection to the debtor. |\n| 23 | In this particular case, that -- the scope of that |\n| 24 | subpoena is all the more outrageous given that it does not |\n| 25 | take a tremendous amount of effort for one with publicly |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 101 available information to look up and see what Nodal is. It is a internationally renowned mechanical engineering firm with principals that all have either PhDs or higher-level education. My understanding is that it is a government-approved contractor that does substantial business with the United States Government such that making the disclosures required by -- or purportedly required by the subpoena would certainly be very problematic and overly burdensome. THE COURT: All right. MR. ROMNEY: And so -- THE COURT: Well, let me stop you right there. Because now you're making -- you're representing Nodal. But you're not representing Nodal. So I don't want to hear that argument. MR. ROMNEY: Well -- THE COURT: But the argument I do want to hear, though, is you say that there has to be some connection to the debtor. So where in Rule 2004 does it say that? Because the first sentence of Rule 2004 says on motion of any party in interest, the Court may order the examination of any entity. That's what it says. It doesn't say anything about it has to have a connection with the debtor. MR. ROMNEY: May relate to acts, conducts, or Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 101 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 102 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
102 |\n| 1 | property or to the liabilities and financial conditions of |\n| 2 | the debtor or to -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Where are you reading?
What section? |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
I'm referring to Section 2004(b). |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
The scope of the examination? |\n| 6 | MR. ROMNEY:
That's correct. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Right.
That's the scope.
Right. |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
That's correct. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
That's the scope of the examination. |\n| 10 | MR. ROMNEY:
Correct. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
So how does this -- the -- how does -- |\n| 12 | first of all, when was the subpoena served on Nodal, before |\n| 13 | you disclosed that they were paying the attorney's fees or |\n| 14 | after? |\n| 15 | MR. ROMNEY:
After. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:
I believe after. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I don't know for sure, honestly, |\n| 19 | because I think this happened in the pretty recent past, |\n| 20 | right?
This -- |\n| 21 | MR. ROMNEY:
I -- the -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Was it before or after?
I'm asking |\n| 23 | the trustee's counsel. |\n| 24 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
There's actually no |\n| 25 | subpoena, because the motion has not been granted.
But the |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 103 motion was filed -- THE COURT: Oh, yeah. This is just the 2004 examination. I'm sorry. I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm sorry. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But the -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They are served with the motion. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. Exactly, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. They were served with the motion. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And the motion was filed on the 15th of May. So it would have -- THE COURT: Before the disclosure? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It would have been six days after. THE COURT: After the disclosure. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think the disclosure was on May 9th. THE COURT: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The motion refers to the disclosure, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. It is difficult to keep all the entities and requests in order given the -- as I've -- I mean, it's -- I'm not -- I'm just saying it's difficult. There's 1,800 docket entries. Okay? Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 103 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 104 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
104 |\n| 1 | MR. ROMNEY:
I can relate, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
And every motion is substantial, |\n| 3 | right?
I don't think I've had any -- I don't think there's |\n| 4 | been a motion under three pages, right -- |\n| 5 | MR. ROMNEY:
I -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- in a -- in more than a year.
So in |\n| 7 | any event, okay, so you're talking about the scope of the |\n| 8 | examination.
Okay? |\n| 9 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yes.
And -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
And so the scope of the examination |\n| 11 | says in (b) -- it says -- and as you know, Attorney Romney, |\n| 12 | very well -- you know this.
We all know this, that the |\n| 13 | scope of the 2004 examination can be very broad.
In fact, |\n| 14 | case law has stated all over the country that it's akin to a |\n| 15 | fishing expedition.
We've already -- we've had that |\n| 16 | discussion on many times. |\n| 17 | But it does say, \"relates to the acts, conduct, or |\n| 18 | property or to the liabilities and financial condition of |\n| 19 | the debtor or to any matter which might affect the |\n| 20 | administration of the debtor's estate or to the debtor's |\n| 21 | right to a discharge.\"
Okay? |\n| 22 | So there's a disclosure that's made that this |\n| 23 | entity, Nodal, has -- is paying -- and is it your firm's |\n| 24 | legal -- I don't recall.
I know there was a disclosure with |\n| 25 | regard to the criminal attorney's fees.
This is your |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 105 firm's? MR. ROMNEY: That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. MR. ROMNEY: It was Zeisler & Zeisler's disclosure -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- that referenced -- THE COURT: So -- MR. ROMNEY: -- Nodal Partners. THE COURT: So what you're arguing, it doesn't say 11 -- it says the examination of an entity under this rule or of the debtor -- well, we're not examining the debtor in this motion, the motion is directed to Nodal -- may relate only to the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor and to any other matter that may affect the administration of the debtor's estate. So you have disclosed properly that you're being paid by this entity. I think -- MR. ROMNEY: That we have been paid in one instance we disclosed. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Then the trustee is seeking to examine that entity, which 2004(a) allows on its face. I mean, if the Court grants it, right? It's an examination of any entity. And they're -- and the trustee Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 105 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 106 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
106 |\n| 1 | is arguing that it may affect the administration of the |\n| 2 | debtor's estate.
And it may relate to the acts, conduct, or |\n| 3 | property of -- or to the liabilities and financial |\n| 4 | conditions of the debtor.
Because, for example, I have no |\n| 5 | idea what this agreement is, but maybe Mr. Kwok is supposed |\n| 6 | to pay the -- these people back.
Has that -- |\n| 7 | MR. ROMNEY:
That -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Maybe I'm wrong.
Have you disclosed |\n| 9 | that the monies that are paid to you never have to be a |\n| 10 | liability of Mr. Kwok? |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:
We have not disclosed that.
I don't |\n| 12 | believe Attorney Kindseth did the disclosure.
But I -- as |\n| 13 | best as I can recall, I don't believe so. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So all I'm saying is, so that's |\n| 15 | a relevant area of inquiry, right -- |\n| 16 | MR. ROMNEY:
Certainly.
I -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
-- for the trustee to know whether or |\n| 18 | not Mr. Kwok has any liability -- has incurred any liability |\n| 19 | to Nodal for Nodal's agreement to pay attorney's fees of |\n| 20 | Mr. Kwok in this case.
I think that's a legitimate inquiry. |\n| 21 | MR. ROMNEY:
I agree. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | MR. ROMNEY:
I completely agree, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So then your problem is that |\n| 25 | Nodal is a big corporation, has government contracts -- and |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 107 I don't mean that -- I'm trying to understand your objection -- and that that shouldn't be allowed? MR. ROMNEY: Yes. That -- THE COURT: That's Nodal's argument, not your argument. MR. ROMNEY: Well, if I may explain why I believe it's my argument, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yeah. Go ahead. MR. ROMNEY: So the issue is, is that Nodal -- during a time when many people, as you've heard throughout this -- for many counsel today, many people are no longer around who were formerly working with various entities that at least have some connection to the debtor. It is clear that many people who once wanted something to do with him no longer do. And if anybody who expresses support for the debtor is subject to subpoenas that have limitless breadth without regard to qualifying them as a connection to the debtor, then everyone is going to refuse to have anything to do with him because of fear of persecution from the trustee. And that is the basis of our objection, which is that facially a subpoena issued because of support for the debtor should at least be tied on its face to a connection to the debtor and the estate. This one does not. And it's actually evident from Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 107 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 108 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
108 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the face of the proposed subpoena itself.
Some of the |\n| 2 | requests are properly drafted such as all documents |\n| 3 | regarding any income or asset of the debtor, the debtor's |\n| 4 | estate, or an associated entity.
Others are not, such as |\n| 5 | documents sufficient to show all of your assets and sources |\n| 6 | of income or funding.
There is no qualification connected |\n| 7 | to the debtor in that. |\n| | |\n\n And when you're talking about whether it's a natural person or an entity that is supportive of the debtor, they should not be subject to a subpoena, even on its face a subpoena that requires court approval, that doesn't have that hook of connection to the debtor. And I say that because my understanding is that complying with this subpoena or objecting to this subpoena based on the stakes that this subpoena requires, requires a massive undertaking.\n\n And to the extent my objection is not sustained, my guess is somebody else will be standing in this chair, and it will be their argument at that time. However, the point is there is a chilling effect on even allowing a court authorized Rule 2004 examine that doesn't purport to even require a connection to the debtor. And that's all that we're saying.\n\n We're not saying there's no -- that a 2004 exam shouldn't issue to Nodal. And if it gets within the scope Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 109 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 109 of reasonableness then, yes, that will be their fight to either work something out on consent or stand before Your Honor and respond to an order. I don't know how that conversation is going to go. My sole issue, Your Honor, is the chilling effect on personal relationships with the debtor and his family based upon the appearance that the Court is willing to authorize blanket examinations into all affairs of anybody who has any connection to the debtor when those examinations are not limited to connections to the debtor. That's the sole basis of my objection with respect to the scope of Nodal. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Bassett -- MR. ROMNEY: May I respond to the issue of notice, Your Honor? Or if Attorney -- THE COURT: Sure. Go ahead. MR. ROMNEY: Okay. With regard to the issue of notice, I guess a -- several things. And I guess I will start near the end of where Attorney Bassett left off, which is something that I heard for the first time today. And I'm not saying that this goes far enough but saying that, perhaps, when we're talking about the debtor's former\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 110 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
110 |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | counsel whom the debtor has a right to assert personal harm |\n| 2 | privileges with respect, that they should have notice of |\n| 3 | 2004 exams, the time and place that they're actually going |\n| 4 | to occur.
Because as has been pointed out and -- with |\n| 5 | respect to the consent privilege order, the debtor is the |\n| 6 | person who has to have the reasonable belief under the |\n| 7 | Court's interpretation of the language, which has been |\n| 8 | followed in this case, to assert the personal harm. |\n\n The debtor, through his counsel -- through his current counsel, whether myself or one of my colleagues, cannot assert a privilege argument in a 2004 examination deposition when we don't know it's happening and we're not present. So what we're then left with is a conundrum where the benefits that were negotiated before this Court -- and thank you for Your Honor's efforts in getting us here and having a consensual order on this. But the benefits that were negotiated many, many months ago are being superceded if the debtor is the one that needs to make the objection and the debtor is not aware of the time and place of that -- of when the deposition is taking place.\n\n So certainly the most important thing going forward is that -- from the debtor's perspective is that the debtor be given notice of depositions where there could be a conceivable privilege objection. In this particular Rule 2004 exam, I believe the only one of those where there could\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 111 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
111 |\n| 1 | be a potential privilege objection would be the |\n| 2 | Ernst & Young firm.
But I don't know that for a fact. |\n| 3 | Point number two is that notice of something |\n| 4 | happening, even if one assumes at face value that the debtor |\n| 5 | is not entitled to participate and -- or the debtor's |\n| 6 | counsel is not entitled to participate in every 2004 exam -- |\n| 7 | and I think it's highly unlikely that the debtor or the |\n| 8 | debtor's counsel, whether me or somebody else, would want to |\n| 9 | participate in many 2004 exams. |\n| 10 | But notice of something happening, the right to |\n| 11 | participate, and actual participation are three separate |\n| 12 | things and particularly when you're talking about a former |\n| 13 | professional of the debtor or evidence that the trustee |\n| 14 | intends to offer in a pending adversary proceeding or |\n| 15 | subsequent adversary proceeding but the party is known. |\n| 16 | There's no harm from notice.
It's not even saying that |\n| 17 | notice is the right to appear at this stage. |\n| 18 | But if we don't have notice, we can't ask Your |\n| 19 | Honor's permission to attend.
And what's the harm of notice |\n| 20 | and giving us the right to ask?
And Your Honor can say no. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Well, let me ask you a question about |\n| 22 | that.
You get every motion that's filed that lists who |\n| 23 | they're going to -- they're trying to seek an order to |\n| 24 | conduct a 2004, so why do you need advance notice?
You get |\n| 25 | notice.
Why couldn't you say -- with regard to that, why |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 112 couldn't you respond and say I want to appear at these depositions, can I? MR. ROMNEY: Well, Your Honor, I would say -- THE COURT: At these 2004 examinations, I should say. MR. ROMNEY: I would say two things to that. One, that's exactly what I'm doing right now. I'm responding to a 2004 exam that has proposed subpoenas attached to it, and I'm saying I am -- object to this to the extent that the trustee, unbeknownst to me until a few weeks ago -- and I understand this was a miscommunication. I'm not -- there's no allegation of anything here. But I'm saying in the very context that counsel just said the point should be raised which is when they get notice of these subpoenas or proposed subpoenas, they should have said something then. Well, this is now. Now is then in this context. THE COURT: Okay. So I'm listening. You're being heard. MR. ROMNEY: And what I'm saying is, their proposed order, we've never construed it to allow particularly a professional's depositions to go forward Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 112 of\n\n You know, what -- the use of those depositions that we weren't present there is a different issue that is not\n\nwithout providing notice. You know, what's done is done.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 113 of
140 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
113 |\n| 1 | before the Court.
And we haven't raised it before the |\n| 2 | Court. |\n| 3 | What I'm asking, Your Honor, is to the extent -- |\n| 4 | and I imagine Your Honor will grant these examinations at |\n| 5 | least to a large extent, because there isn't an objection |\n| 6 | with respect to many of them.
What I'm asking is that the |\n| 7 | trustee be required to provide us with notice of the actual |\n| 8 | time and place of the depositions.
And if the trustee at |\n| 9 | that time wants to object to our participation, we can deal |\n| 10 | with that at the time.
If the trustee wants to allow our |\n| 11 | participation, and we want to participate, that's great. |\n| 12 | That's what ultimately happened with the Williams |\n| 13 | & Connolly deposition, albeit at the request of Williams & |\n| 14 | Connolly and albeit on approximately six days' notice for a |\n| 15 | deposition in D.C., which was a little bit of a crunch.
So |\n| 16 | we'd like a little bit more than that. |\n| 17 | But I'm not here to worry about -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, but you can't have it that way, |\n| 19 | right?
You want notice.
You can't control their schedule, |\n| 20 | you know?
You're either available or you're not. |\n| 21 | MR. ROMNEY:
Well -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I mean, I'm not going to have them |\n| 23 | change their deposition schedule, because you or somebody |\n| 24 | else wants to attend.
I mean, that's not -- there's nowhere |\n| 25 | in the rules that require that, especially when you're not |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 114 the party to whom the subpoena is served. MR. ROMNEY: But, Your Honor, I'm not suggesting that I should be -- THE COURT: Well, you just an example that it was tight. Too bad. MR. ROMNEY: Well -- THE COURT: This isn't discovery directed to you, to your client. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, if I may clarify what I was -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- attempting to say, apparently not very artfully. My understanding is that deposition had been scheduled for considerably more than six days in advance. I was given six days' notice of it is the point that I was attempting to -- THE COURT: But where in the Code does it say that the debtor gets to know about every single 2004 examination and that you somehow have to be made aware of that? I don't think I've ever seen a case that's even come -- it certainly doesn't state it anywhere in the rules or the Code. So the only place that it would come up would be in a case. So where is a case that says that? MR. ROMNEY: Well, Your Honor, certainly it's common practice to provide other parties notice of subpoenas Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 114 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 115 of
140 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
115 |\n| 1 | served in a case.
And when a deposition is rescheduled, |\n| 2 | it's re-noticed. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
A common practice where?
How many |\n| 4 | common -- how many Chapter 11 cases is there a trustee |\n| 5 | appointed in to investigate the affairs of the debtor where |\n| 6 | the debtor gets prior notice of every deposition that the |\n| 7 | trustee's conducting to investigate his affairs?
Tell me |\n| 8 | that. |\n| 9 | MR. ROMNEY:
This is the first case I've ever been |\n| 10 | involved in with a -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
-- Chapter 11 trustee.
So I can't |\n| 13 | answer that. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
Well, I'm telling you, I |\n| 15 | just -- I mean, I hear what you're saying.
But there is |\n| 16 | some unreasonableness associated with that. |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:
Well -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
You're not going to control the |\n| 19 | trustee's investigation and schedule of examinations that |\n| 20 | the trustee is going to conduct.
You're not going to do |\n| 21 | that.
I mean, it's not going to happen. |\n| 22 | So the issue is, is there an ability to come to |\n| 23 | some kind of an agreement when you get served with a -- and |\n| 24 | you have.
You're objecting to this one.
So I assume that |\n| 25 | you're saying that you want to attend the Nodal deposition |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 116 when that occurs. Is that correct? MR. ROMNEY: I'm not even saying that -- THE COURT: I mean, the 2004? MR. ROMNEY: -- at this point in time. What I'm saying is -- THE COURT: Well, you got to say it at this point in time, or you lose, right? Otherwise -- insofar as you're not going to be able to come in and say I, Judge, want to know exactly when that deposition is going to be. You need to -- no. You have to say -- you have to show a reason why you should be able to be at that deposition -- that 2004 examination, right? MR. ROMNEY: Ultimately. Because I'm not asking for the right to attend. I'm asking for the right to have notice of something. I suppose, I mean -- THE COURT: Well, what do you -- you don't need notice of it if you're not going to attend. What do you need notice of? That's what I'm -- MR. ROMNEY: Because -- THE COURT: -- I'm struggling with your argument. Because what -- you know they're going to take their deposition. You've already gotten -- a 2004 examination. You've already -- well, assuming the order enters, right, they're going to take their 2004 examination. That's what they're going to do. So you have notice of it. Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 116 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 117 MR. ROMNEY: Right. I don't have notice of when they're going to take it -- THE COURT: And I'm telling you you're not going to get that unless you specifically ask and obtain it, because you're not going to control the trustee's discovery schedule. MR. ROMNEY: Well -- THE COURT: You're not going to do that. MR. ROMNEY: Well, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Show me a case where that's happened, Attorney Romney, please. Even in not a Chapter 11 trustee appointed case. You're not going to find one. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, I don't believe that I need to go beyond to case law. I can't -- as I sit here, I can't comprehend the reason why the parties would be entitled to notice of the time and location of an examination if that time and location is reached by agreement but not pursuant to motion. It's the same notice, time and location of examination. Presumably, if there were a motion, the time and location would come out through the order. The order's -- THE COURT: That's not how the 2004 process works. And our local rule doesn't require that. And our local rule has a two-step process. You file the motion. People can object to the motion. The motion gets granted or denied. Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 117 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 118 If the motion gets granted, the subpoenas issue, and the person to whom the subpoena is directed gets to object to that subpoena under the applicable rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and our local rules. That's the process. MR. ROMNEY: And then subpoenas are served, Your Honor, and -- THE COURT: No. I was already presuming they were served. That's my point. MR. ROMNEY: Well -- THE COURT: The other gets entered. Our local rule process is a two-step process. You don't have to object to the motion for 2004 examination if you don't want to. But that's what the rule says. The order can issue authorizing a party to conduct the Rule 2004 examination. But if that party then serves a subpoena, the party -- the person to whom the subpoena is served on or the entity still has the right under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to object to that subpoena. That's specifically what the bar of the Bankruptcy -- Commercial Law and Bankruptcy Section of the Connecticut Bar Association authored the Rule 2004 examination rules for that very purpose. That it was a two-step process. That you didn't have to object to the motion to begin with. And that your Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 118 of\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 119 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 119 rights with regard to the subpoena and to move to quash or for a protective order or anything along those lines were preserved once and only if the subpoena is served, right? So that's how it works. That's how it works in our district, which all the Connecticut Bar Association are the people and the representatives that crafted that rule that was then out for comment to the bar for quite some time and then to the public for quite some time. And there were no objections to that process. And the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut voted to approve those rules. So that's the rules. MR. ROMNEY: I understand that. I'm very familiar with many of the people who were part of that process. I wasn't. Many of them share my reading of the rule, but I suppose that's neither here nor there. Your Honor, it seems like a very light ask to have notice of when depositions are taking place -- of when 2004 examination depositions are taking place. Certainly, I mean, Rule 2004 itself expressly requires notice to all the parties when -- THE COURT: Of the motion -- MR. ROMNEY: -- when -- THE COURT: -- which you got. MR. ROMNEY: As well as of the subpoena --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 120 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
120 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Where does -- no, it doesn't.
Where |\n| 2 | does it say that you -- there's notice -- the subpoena has |\n| 3 | to be -- first of all, the subpoena isn't -- it tells you |\n| 4 | that the subpoena -- you have to review your subpoena rules, |\n| 5 | which is there's nothing in the 2004 rule that's -- of the |\n| 6 | Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
And then our local |\n| 7 | rule refers to the subpoena rule which is, what, 9016 -- |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
16. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
-- right? |\n| 10 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yeah. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
And 9016 says -- |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
It requires notice of subpoenas that |\n| 13 | require -- that request documents. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
To be served on whom? |\n| 15 | MR. ROMNEY:
On the parties. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Right.
The party.
No, the party to |\n| 17 | whom the subpoena is directed. |\n| 18 | MR. ROMNEY:
I -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
It doesn't say he's got to serve it on |\n| 20 | anybody -- what would be the point of serving it on anybody |\n| 21 | else?
They wouldn't have a right to object or move to quash |\n| 22 | or move for a protective order. |\n| 23 | MR. ROMNEY:
Well, sorry.
Federal Rule 9016 |\n| 24 | incorporates Federal Rule 45. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Yep.
It sure does. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 121 of
140 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
121 |\n| 1 | MR. ROMNEY:
Which requires notice to the parties. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Which requires notice to the party |\n| 3 | upon whom the subpoena is served. |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
It requires notice to other parties |\n| 5 | before service, though granted that the -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Where?
Tell me where you're reading |\n| 7 | that, Attorney Romney, because I'm not with you. |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
And as I was attempting to finish my |\n| 9 | sentence, that does specifically on its face just refer to |\n| 10 | the inspection of documents.
But it's Rule 45(a)(4). |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Notice to other parties before |\n| 12 | service.
\"If the subpoena commands the production of |\n| 13 | documents, electronically stored information, or tangible |\n| 14 | things or the inspection of premises before trial\" -- before |\n| 15 | trial -- \"then before it is served on the person to whom it |\n| 16 | is directed, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be |\n| 17 | served on each party.\" |\n| 18 | Well, that's already happened, because you've |\n| 19 | already gotten the motion, and you've gotten the subpoena |\n| 20 | that's going to be served on Nodal.
So that's been complied |\n| 21 | with. |\n| 22 | MR. ROMNEY:
Well, no.
The subpoena hasn't been |\n| 23 | served.
I don't think that's disputed.
And -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Well, and the rule you just recited |\n| 25 | presumes exactly what you just said, that the subpoena |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 122 hasn't been served. Then before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party. That's already occurred. They've already -- MR. ROMNEY: Right. Except -- THE COURT: They've already complied with Rule 45(a)(4). MR. ROMNEY: Except that the proposed subpoenas, as my best of recollection, and I won't recall, but is blank with respect to time of performance. So it's not the subpoena. It's a proposed subpoena that has not yet been authorized by the Court. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Keep going. MR. ROMNEY: That's what I got for you, Your Honor, at this time. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: I think fundamental principles of fairness entitle the debtor's counsel to have notice of Rule 2004 exams, particularly when we're talking about the debtor's professionals. And I think that it would be far more efficient for the trustee to just provide us notice than for us to go through this exercise each time the trustee files a motion for Rule 2004 exam. And then we could deal with it only -- if and when -- only if the debtor -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 122 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 123 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 123 THE COURT: Well, maybe you can come to some kind of agreement on that with regard to professionals. But Nodal isn't a professional. MR. ROMNEY: That's correct. Ernst & Young is. And -- THE COURT: Well, maybe you can come to an agreement on that. MR. ROMNEY: I attempted to come to an agreement as set forth affidavit. THE COURT: Well, maybe you can keep trying after today's hearing. MR. ROMNEY: I would love to. I love agreements. THE COURT: Maybe you can do that. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay? But what I'm saying to you is, right now, I believe that the trustee has complied with Rule 2004 and our Local Rule 2004-1 processes in our district. I have to rule on whether or not your objection is sustained or overruled. And I have to -- I'm going to go back and look at everything. I'm not going to rule right now, because I had to hear from you. I've heard from you. I understand your arguments. And I'm not going to rule today. I hope I'm going to rule tomorrow, Thursday, or Friday, right? Real soon. Because I -- you know, these\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 124 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
124 |\n| 1 | kind of issues have to be ruled on so the parties know where |\n| 2 | they stand and what next steps, if any, can be taken.
Okay? |\n| 3 | But I understand -- |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you very much, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I understand your argument.
Okay? |\n| 6 | MR. ROMNEY:
I appreciate it. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you for hearing me today. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 10 | All right.
So this matter is -- the motion for |\n| 11 | examination and the objection by the debtor is taken under |\n| 12 | advisement. |\n| 13 | Now, we only have the remaining issue of the |\n| 14 | deposition -- the 2004 -- excuse me, that the -- that |\n| 15 | Mr. Major's clients have objected to.
So, Mr. Linsey, you |\n| 16 | go ahead and make your argument, please, and then I'm going |\n| 17 | to hear from Attorney Major. |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:
Thanks, Your Honor.
I'm going to try |\n| 19 | to be brief, because, as I think we stated in our reply, the |\n| 20 | trustee's position is this issue has really been argued |\n| 21 | before.
The objection that was filed by Greenwich Land and |\n| 22 | by Mrs. Ngok takes issue with Rule 2004 discovery that's |\n| 23 | sought with respect to Bento Technologies. |\n| 24 | Our understanding is Bento Technologies is a -- |\n| 25 | essentially like a corporate Venmo.
It's a system for |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 125 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
125 |\n| 1 | corporations to track their transfer of funds and transfer |\n| 2 | funds to other corporations.
As we said in the 2004 exam |\n| 3 | motion, Greenwich Land is one of the entities that we |\n| 4 | believe was involved with payments that the debtor had an |\n| 5 | interest in that went through this system. |\n| 6 | We certainly don't think Greenwich Land is the |\n| 7 | only one.
You heard Mr. Bassett say that we believe Golden |\n| 8 | Spring is another one.
And the experience and the trustee's |\n| 9 | investigation to date tends to suggest that when we believe |\n| 10 | there are a couple, oftentimes there are more. |\n| 11 | Greenwich Land and Ms. Ngok filed an objection, |\n| 12 | and in their objection they cite the pending action |\n| 13 | doctrine.
If that sounds familiar, that's because six |\n| 14 | months ago an objection was filed by the debtor's daughter |\n| 15 | and by HK USA that made exactly the same legal argument with |\n| 16 | respect to discovery that was sought from a yacht company |\n| 17 | and a law firm that was involved in the sale of the Lady |\n| 18 | May. |\n| 19 | And they made the argument that there's a pending |\n| 20 | adversary proceeding concerning ownership of the Lady May |\n| 21 | and, therefore, the trustee was not entitled to get |\n| 22 | discovery -- 2004 discovery from entities that are not |\n| 23 | parties to the lawsuit because of this pending action |\n| 24 | doctrine.
They cited a number of cases. |\n| 25 | The issue was extensively briefed.
Your Honor had |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 126 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
126 |\n|---|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | a long hearing, and Your Honor entered a ruling determining |\n| 2 | that issue.
And that ruling determined that the pending |\n| 3 | action doctrine does not block the trustee's Rule 2004 |\n| 4 | investigation with respect to non-parties to any adversary |\n| 5 | proceeding.
Your Honor cited case law to that effect.
It's |\n| 6 | consistent with the case law. |\n\n Apparently, the debtor's wife and Greenwich Land do not like that decision and disagree with it and want another bite at the apple. But, Your Honor, that's law of the case at this point. You know, the law is clear that when a legal determination is made in a case, it should continue to control unless there is some manifest change in the law or factual circumstances in the case.\n\n And certainly, in a case like this where we hear affiliate after affiliate after affiliate come to court and make the same objections and the same complaints and the same -- everybody says they're trying to cooperate. Bou know, if people were cooperating, you'd think there'd be more cooperation. It's pulling teeth to get any document.\n\n We can't have the same arguments recycled over and over and over again. This issue has been dispensed with. Your Honor ruled. There's already been prejudice to the trustee from this objection, because it's delayed the issuance of the subpoena. We need to move forward. To the extent that Your Honor would even consider\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 127 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
127 |\n| 1 | and entertain the merits of the objection, I would just note |\n| 2 | that as a payment transfer and management program, to the |\n| 3 | extent that Greenwich Land was somehow involved with this -- |\n| 4 | with transfers, it ought to have had the records.
Those |\n| 5 | records ought to have already been produced to the trustee |\n| 6 | in accordance with the trustee's subpoenas to Ms. Ngok and |\n| 7 | Greenwich Land.
The notion that they're somehow prejudiced |\n| 8 | that we could get this from another source is fanciful. |\n| 9 | And to the extent that Greenwich Land legitimately |\n| 10 | believes that it needs discovery and to participate in |\n\n discovery in order to determine what its own financial conduct is, because, I mean, that seems to be the practical meaning of the argument, nothing here is stopping Greenwich Land from taking its own discovery under the Part -- Part 7 of the Bankruptcy Rules in the adversary proceeding.\n\n So unless Your Honor has any questions, that's all we have to say about the Greenwich Land objection.\n\n THE COURT: I don't have any at the moment. Thank you.\n\n MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Major, go right ahead. MR. MAJOR: Good afternoons, Your Honor. Chris Major, Meister Seelig & Fein. We represent Greenwich Land LLC and Ms. Ngok.\n\nCounsel for the trustee just indicated that they\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 128 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
128 |\n| 1 | were prejudiced by the fact that we objected to the Rule |\n| 2 | 2004 motion, which, of course, was our right.
But the only |\n| 3 | delay that was caused is because the trustee chose not to |\n| 4 | serve a subpoena under Rule 45 which he was free to do in |\n| 5 | the context of the adversary proceeding where our clients |\n| 6 | are the defendants. |\n| 7 | A Rule 2004 exam, to start from the top, the |\n| 8 | only -- relevance is not the only question.
It's up to the |\n| 9 | trustee to demonstrate first that the information that the |\n| 10 | trustee is seeking is relevant but then also, as the case we |\n| 11 | cite in our opposition establishes, the trustee must |\n| 12 | establish that either the 2004 is necessary or that without |\n| 13 | it the trustee would suffer undue hardship or injustice. |\n| | |\n\n The trustee has only identified Greenwich Land as the relevant entity for which it believes it -- he needs discovery under Rule 2004. I know that counsel for the trustee just indicated that they believe there are others.\n\n The only thing they've said in their papers, they've done a year-long investigation. We've heard about it all day. The only thing they say is in their opening Rule 2004 motion where they spend a grand total of a paragraph describing the relevance of Bento. And they say on page 5 \"potentially other affiliates of the debtor including, among others, Golden Spring.\" The trustee can't use speculation, which is all that the papers reveal, to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 129 establish that, well, we're not just seeking it in terms of Greenwich Land. In their reply, they only mention Greenwich Land, and they identify no other entities despite all of the 2004s that have been done, despite a year-long investigation. The discovery that they -- THE COURT: It's not quite a year, just to be clear for the record. MR. MAJOR: I'm sorry? THE COURT: It's not quite a year, just to be clear for the record. I don't -- MR. MAJOR: Oh, just about. THE COURT: I believe that the trustee was not appointed until July of last year. So go right ahead. MR. MAJOR: Understood, Your Honor. The discovery that the trustee wants can be had in the context of the adversary proceeding. And it's easy for the trustee to do. He just has to serve a Rule 45 subpoena. He does have to, obviously, give us a copy of the subpoena before it's served under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which unquestionably govern the adversary proceeding. And then he would have to serve us with the notice of deposition providing us with the date and time of the deposition. The Court and the trustee have both described today the nature of a 2004 exam and that courts refer to it Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 129 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 130 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
130 |\n| 1 | as being permissible to conduct a fishing expedition.
Well, |\n| 2 | that's not the case in an adversary proceeding -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 4 | MR. MAJOR:
-- which is a lawsuit. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 6 | MR. MAJOR:
And the trustee is not seeking to |\n| 7 | examine the affairs of the debtor here.
He's not seeking to |\n| 8 | see if he has a claim.
He told this Court he had a claim. |\n| 9 | He filed the lawsuit.
Not only did he do that, he obtained |\n| 10 | ex parte relief, a temporary restraining order, and |\n| 11 | certified that he had sufficient information for doing so. |\n| 12 | So he's already charted the course here, which |\n| 13 | he's suing our clients in order to take back Ms. Ngok's |\n| 14 | home.
And he's established -- or asserted to the Court that |\n| 15 | he has -- already has the evidence of that.
He's identified |\n| 16 | Bento, and the only entity that he's affirmatively connected |\n| 17 | it to is Greenwich Land which is a defendant in the |\n| 18 | adversary proceeding. |\n| 19 | There's no question that this discovery is being |\n| 20 | taken for that purpose.
And, therefore, our client is |\n| 21 | entitled to participate in that deposition and to have |\n| 22 | advanced notice of it.
The discovery cannot be taken under |\n| 23 | Rule 2004. |\n| 24 | I just refer the Court also back to last week when |\n| 25 | we were before Your Honor on the scheduling issues when |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 131 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
131 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Mr. Luft said that everything the trustee's doing in terms |\n| 2 | of his investigation is work product, which means he's going |\n| 3 | to argue -- when I serve the trustee with discovery, he's |\n| 4 | going to argue I'm not entitled to it and that he can go |\n| 5 | take discovery, which he's representing to the Court is |\n| 6 | relevant to my client in a pending adversary proceeding. |\n| 7 | He's going to take the position that I'm not entitled to see |\n| 8 | that. |\n\n And I think that that's not only improper but grossly unfair under the circumstances. He hasn't attempted a showing that he can't get this discovery through the adversary proceeding. And I think that's what he would have to do to meet the standard that he'd suffer undue hardship or injustice if he can't get the 2004.\n\n He can get this discovery. I'm not contesting the discovery. In fact, I want to participate in the discovery. But he can't get it under the -- in the context of a Rule 2004 exam.\n\n I think also it's worth pointing out that the pending action doctrine, there is no case cited by the trustee where an objecting party in an adversary proceeding was unable to participate in the discovery. The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent the lack of application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the discovery. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not limited to party\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 132 of
140 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
132 |\n| 1 | discovery.
They apply, of course, to third-party discovery |\n| 2 | which is what this is going to be. |\n| 3 | And Rule 45 is the particular rule.
That rule has |\n| 4 | to be enforced in the context of the adversary proceeding. |\n| 5 | This motion was filed long after the trustee filed the |\n| 6 | adversary proceeding and could have even without filing this |\n| 7 | motion -- they don't need the permission of this Court at |\n| 8 | this point to take the deposition testimony of Bento if they |\n| 9 | have a reasonable belief that it has some connection to |\n| 10 | Greenwich Land. |\n| 11 | They just had to serve the subpoena which could |\n| 12 | have been done long ago.
So any delay here is the cause of |\n| 13 | the trustee trying to take discovery with broader than |\n| 14 | permissible rules in the context of an adversary proceeding |\n| 15 | and outside the purview of our client participating in it |\n| 16 | and being able to enforce their rights in connection with |\n| 17 | the discovery. |\n| 18 | The last thing I'd like to address, Your Honor, is |\n| 19 | the law of the case.
The Court's ruling, which is quoted in |\n| 20 | the trustee's reply, was that \"Upon consideration of the |\n| 21 | pleadings, the arguments advanced at the hearing, the facts |\n| 22 | and circumstances of this case, and of the applicable law, |\n| 23 | the Court finds that the pending proceeding doctrine is not |\n| 24 | a bar to the examinations of Apsley Yachts Limited and DWF |\n| 25 | LLP, because they are not parties to the pending adversary, |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 133 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
133 |\n| 1 | HK International Funds Investments USA Limited v. Despins,\" |\n| 2 | and it cites the main Kwok case at that point in time. |\n| 3 | There was not a ruling as to Bento.
There was not |\n| 4 | a ruling as to our client's particular objection.
The law |\n| 5 | of the case doctrine is designed to take specific rulings |\n| 6 | and make sure that those are consistent if -- and it's on a |\n| 7 | mandatory basis if it comes from an appellate court in that |\n| 8 | case.
And it's on a discretionary basis if it's from the |\n| 9 | trial court in that particular case. |\n| 10 | Our clients obviously did not participate in |\n| 11 | whatever the prior hearing was.
The issues that are before |\n| 12 | the Court right now, which is you have a witness identified |\n| 13 | who is identified and only tied affirmatively by the trustee |\n| 14 | through allegations in a pleading, not in -- not with any |\n| 15 | proof, tied to the defendant in the adversary proceeding, I |\n| 16 | think on the facts that are now before the Court -- I don't |\n| 17 | think the law of the case doctrine bars it.
But on the |\n| 18 | facts that are now before the Court, my clients are entitled |\n| 19 | to participate in the discovery.
And it can be done in the |\n| 20 | context of the adversary proceeding with a plain vanilla |\n| 21 | Rule 45 subpoena with the federal rules governing it. |\n| 22 | If the Court finds that the law of the case is |\n| 23 | implicated here, the case law that's been cited, including |\n| 24 | by the trustee in In Re ServiCom and many, many other cases |\n| 25 | establish that the Court is not -- the law of the case |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 134 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
134 |\n| 1 | doctrine at most in this context, which I don't think it |\n| 2 | applies, but even if the Court finds that it applies, it at |\n| 3 | most should be part of the guide of the Court's discretion. |\n| 4 | Well, what I would ask the Court to do is to look |\n| 5 | at the facts and circumstances.
Look at the words that the |\n| 6 | trustee wrote in the motion papers where the only |\n| 7 | affirmative tie is to Greenwich Land and to note that not |\n| 8 | only did the trustee feel comfortable enough to file the |\n| 9 | lawsuit, he felt comfortable enough to get ex parte |\n| 10 | extraordinary relief in the form of a temporary restraining |\n| 11 | order and prejudgment attachment on the basis of his belief |\n| 12 | that he had enough to bring that lawsuit and to get that |\n| 13 | extraordinary relief. |\n| 14 | And so for all of those reasons, Your Honor, I |\n| 15 | think under the facts and circumstances of this case and the |\n| 16 | adversary proceeding that is a separate adversary proceeding |\n| 17 | from the other case, the Court should require the trustee to |\n| 18 | take the discovery under Rule 45 and not under Rule 2004, |\n| 19 | because we do have a pending lawsuit where the federal rules |\n| 20 | apply. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 22 | MR. MAJOR:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Any response, Attorney Linsey? |\n| 24 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes.
Just briefly, Your Honor.
A |\n| 25 | couple things.
First of all, Mr. Major is correct that the |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 135 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
135 |\n| 1 | scope of a Rule 2004 examination is broader than Rule 45 |\n| 2 | subpoena discovery in an adversary proceeding.
And that's |\n| 3 | important here, because the subpoena that the trustee wishes |\n| 4 | to issue to Bento addresses subject matter that is |\n| 5 | substantially broader than the existing adversary |\n| 6 | proceeding. |\n| 7 | We have seen enough of the trustee's -- rather the |\n| 8 | debtor's entities and affiliates in this case to understand |\n| 9 | how the economics of these entities work.
Assets and cash |\n| 10 | flow through these entities like water.
There are numerous |\n| 11 | transfers between these entities. |\n| 12 | Bento was the tool that was apparently used to |\n| 13 | make some of these transfers.
And so it is obvious the |\n| 14 | facts and the records that we are seeking from Bento are |\n| 15 | going to have implication far beyond this one existing |\n| 16 | adversary proceeding that's impossible to cabin the scope of |\n| 17 | the Rule 2004 subpoena that the trustee wishes to issue into |\n| 18 | 45 discovery in an adversary proceeding. |\n| 19 | The Court has looked at this specific legal issue |\n| 20 | before.
And at ECF Number 1184, the Court has ruled on it. |\n| 21 | And if every time we have a new omnibus Rule 2004 motion |\n| 22 | we're going to have to have the same arguments again and |\n| 23 | it's going to be held up every time, it just adds further |\n| 24 | expense and delay to this case. |\n| 25 | And, again, the trustee has been specifically -- |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 136 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
136 |\n| 1 | has specific knowledge through the trustee's investigation |\n| 2 | that Bento was used by entities other than Greenwich Land. |\n| 3 | So to the extent that Greenwich Land believes that it needs |\n| 4 | to obtain Rule -- rather it needs to obtain discovery from |\n| 5 | Bento, it's free to do that under the Part 7 rules.
It |\n| 6 | ought to have those records.
Because there's -- I have a |\n| 7 | Venmo account, Your Honor.
I can tell you any money that I |\n| 8 | send or is sent to me through my Venmo account.
It ought to |\n| 9 | be able to do the same thing. |\n| 10 | It should have produced those records a long, long |\n| 11 | time ago.
It's not -- it shouldn't be using procedural |\n| 12 | technicalities now to try to constrain what is a |\n| 13 | multifaceted investigation where the trustee is going to |\n| 14 | obstruct it at every turn.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, may I address one small |\n| 17 | issue? |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Avi Luft.
I |\n| 20 | just -- there was a reference made to what we had last week |\n| 21 | with regard to the Greenwich Land proceeding and the idea of |\n| 22 | work product.
I just want to touch on this for one moment. |\n| 23 | This sort of hits the nail on the head. |\n| 24 | Mr. Major is free to take whatever discovery he |\n| 25 | wants of Bento if he thinks it's pertinent to his case.
And |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1907
Filed 06/14/23
Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14
Page 137 of
140 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
137 |\n| 1 | just as the trustee would be free to take discovery in that |\n| 2 | case of Bento to the extent he thinks it's pertinent in that |\n| 3 | case.
And we'll -- and the normal rules in an adversary |\n| 4 | proceeding would apply. |\n| 5 | What I heard Mr. Major complaining about was the |\n| 6 | idea that I've indicated that he can't just call the trustee |\n| 7 | and say I'd like your work product.
I'd like to see what |\n| 8 | you're developing in your investigation.
And I worry that |\n| 9 | that's where we're heading. |\n| 10 | And I don't want to come back in front of you for |\n| 11 | no reason, so I'll be very clear.
That's right, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | I do not have any intention of handing my work product over |\n| 13 | to Mr. Major.
If he'd like to know anything about Bento, he |\n| 14 | is welcome to seek discovery from them. |\n| 15 | Now, what Mr. Linsey was just talking about was a |\n| 16 | scope -- 2004 examination, because Bento seems to be |\n| 17 | involved with multiple aspects of the debtor's case.
That's |\n| 18 | what we'll be searching for.
The admissibility and |\n| 19 | usefulness of that information will be addressed at the |\n| 20 | time.
If it's inadmissible, then we will have to go get it |\n| 21 | another way with regard to the other case. |\n| 22 | But, quite frankly, that shouldn't have any |\n| 23 | bearing on the trustee's ability to investigate.
And the |\n| 24 | fact that Mr. Major is -- doesn't get a free preview of what |\n| 25 | we're investigating through our work product should also |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 138 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
138 |\n| 1 | have no bearing, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | Mr. Major, any response? |\n| 4 | MR. MAJOR:
Your Honor, I'll just respond briefly |\n| 5 | on one point, which is the pending action doctrine exists |\n| 6 | for a reason.
And the reason for that is to make sure that |\n| 7 | the federal rules apply to the discovery in an already filed |\n| 8 | action.
And that's what we have here. |\n| 9 | We've addressed the case law.
There is no basis |\n| 10 | for the trustee here to take discovery.
Which they keep |\n| 11 | saying there are all these entities that are involved.
They |\n| 12 | haven't identified a single one beyond Greenwich Land.
They |\n| 13 | only said potentially others.
They're saying here that |\n| 14 | there are many others.
You know, the words are changing a |\n| 15 | little bit. |\n| 16 | But at the end of the day, the trustee could have |\n| 17 | very easily either today stood up and identified somebody or |\n| 18 | put something in the papers or demonstrated it otherwise |\n| 19 | very easily.
I don't think that our clients and the Court, |\n| 20 | frankly, should have to just take the trustee's word for it |\n| 21 | on all of these various issues.
He's not being deprived at |\n| 22 | all of discovery if he follows the rules, and we just ask |\n| 23 | that the Court require he do so. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | MR. MAJOR:
Thank you. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 139 of\n\n| | 140 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023
139 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
All right.
What I'm going to do with |\n| 2 | this motion is I'm going to, again, take this under |\n| 3 | advisement.
I need to think about the arguments that were |\n| 4 | made by counsel today and -- but, again, my goal is to rule |\n| 5 | on this quickly.
That's what I'm hoping to do.
There are |\n| 6 | several discovery matters today that I have to rule on, so |\n| 7 | that is what I will do. |\n| 8 | Anything further from anyone else this afternoon? |\n| 9 | Okay.
Then I believe we have addressed all of the matters |\n| 10 | on today's calendar.
And for that reason, Court is |\n| 11 | adjourned. |\n| 12 | IN UNISON:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE CLERK:
All rise.
Court is adjourned. |\n| 14 | (Proceedings concluded at 4:10 p.m.) |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n| | 140 | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 | 140 |\n| 1 | | |\n| 2 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved | |\n| 3 | transcriber and certified electronic reporter and | |\n| 4 | transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct | |\n| 5 | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of | |\n| 6 | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. | |\n| 7 | | |\n| 8 | | |\n| 9 | June 13, 2023 | |\n| 10 | Christine Fiore, CERT | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | | |\n| 13 | | |\n| 14 | | |\n| 15 | | |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | | |\n| 18 | | |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n| | | |","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n康涅狄格联邦地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于 *\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER *\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司）， *\n*\n债务人。 *\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS *\n对抗程序案号 22-05003\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）， *\n*\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n原告， *\nJune 6, 2023\n*\n诉 *\n*\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）， *\n*\n被告。 *\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n#1789\n关联实体\n#1805\n2004 传票\n#1806\n密封动议\n#1845\n2023年8月7日\n#1850\n2004 传票\n#1864\n设定状态会议命令\n\n设定状态会议命令 关于下列事项的庭审记录：\n第五项关于审查与债务人关联的额外实体及个人以及与债务人开展业务的实体的综合动议，以及第二项要求遵守规则的综合动议；关于延长答复受托人要求遵守规则 2004 审查传票之动议期限的动议；HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）及 HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING（哈德逊钻石控股公司）同意提出的延期审理第 11 章受托人所提动议的动议，该动议请求作出命令，因 HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC 及 HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）未答复规则而认定其构成民事藐视法庭\n\n于尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官阁下面前\n美国破产法院法官\n庭审程序通过电子录音记录，\n庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\n康涅狄格州谢尔顿 06484 (203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：\n\n第 11 章受托人： LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\n纽约州纽约市\n\n代表第 11 章受托人： NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特律师）\nAVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT, ESQ.（阿夫拉姆·伊曼纽尔·卢夫特律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\n纽约州纽约市\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林齐律师）\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（纽伯特·佩佩与蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\n康涅狄格州纽黑文市\n\n代表美国受托人： HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nUnited States Trustee（美国受托人）办公室\nGiaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\n康涅狄格州纽黑文市\n\n代表债权人 Pacific\nAlliance Asia Opportunity\nFund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）： STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥迈律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\n纽约州纽约市\n\nTREVOR L. BRADLEY, ESQ.（特雷弗·L·布拉德利律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\n康涅狄格州哈特福德市\n\n代表 HK International Funds\nInvestments, LLC（HK International Funds Investments有限责任公司）及\nMei Guo（郭美）： MELISSA I. FALK WERNICK, ESQ.（梅利莎·I·福尔克·韦尼克律师）\nChiesa Shanhinian &\nGiantomasi, P.C.（基耶萨·沙欣尼安与贾恩托马西律师事务所）\n105 Eisenhower Parkway\n新泽西州罗斯兰市\n\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（艾伦·罗姆尼律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特市\n\n代表债权人委员会： KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特市\n\n出庭人员：（续）代表被告 Hing Chi CHRISTOPHER J. MAJOR, ESQ.（克里斯托弗·J·梅杰律师）Ngok（吴庆莹）：Meister Seelig & Fein LLP（迈斯特·西利格与范恩律师事务所）125 Park Avenue 纽约州纽约市 10017 代表 G Clubs Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）：JEFFREY M. SKLARZ, ESQ.（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹律师）KELLIANNE BARANOWSKY, ESQ.（凯莉安·巴拉诺夫斯基律师）Green & Sklarz, LLC（格林与斯克拉兹有限责任公司）One Audubon Street 康涅狄格州纽黑文市 06511 CAROLINA FORNOS, ESQ.（卡罗琳娜·福尔诺斯律师）Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman（博钦律师事务所）31 West 52nd Street 纽约州纽约市 10019\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 4 页，共 140 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 4 （庭审于下午 1:07 开始。）书记员：22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok 及 Genever Holding, LLC，以及对抗程序 22-05003，HK International Funds Investment USA Limited 诉 Despins。法庭：好的。在记录出庭人员之前，我想先说明一下，以作记录，正如我过去所指出的，联邦政府已认定不再处于疫情状态，因此除非有人有理由远程出庭，听证会均须现场举行。今天，在提出理由的情况下，我已准许一些人远程出庭的动议。我也准许了一项未提出理由的动议。仅仅是州外律师，并不是远程出庭的理由。因此，如果您不能亲自出庭，而您的理由是您为州外律师，您远程出庭的动议将被驳回。因此，我希望所有人知悉这一点。现在请记录出庭人员，先由第 11 章受托人开始。DESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第 11 章受托人。BASSETT先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Paul Hastings 的 Nick Bassett，代表第 11 章受托人。LUFT先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是 Avi Luft，来自\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 5 页，共 140 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 5 Paul Hastings，代表第 11 章受托人。LINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表受托人的 Patrick Linsey。CLAIBORN女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表主案中美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn。ROMNEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Aaron Romney——SARNOFF先生：Stuart Sarnoff——法庭：请稍等，Sarnoff律师。请先记录在法庭内出庭的人员。请继续。ROMNEY先生：我是 Aaron Romney，来自 Zeisler & Zeisler，代表债务人、HK International、Mei Guo 以及 Hudson Diamond 实体。法庭：下午好。ROMNEY先生：下午好。MAJOR先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Chris Major，来自 Meister Seelig & Fein。我们代表 Ngok女士和 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）。法庭：下午好。在记录远程出庭人员之前，法庭内是否还有任何人希望记录其出庭？BRADLEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 Robinson and Cole 的 Trevor Bradley，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund 的康涅狄格州代理律师。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 6 页，共 140 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 6 谢谢。法庭：下午好。Bradley律师，您可能已经这样做了，但您是否已在本案提交出庭通知？BRADLEY先生：是的，法官阁下。今天上午。法庭：好的，谢谢。我只是还没有机会看到该通知。MAYHEW女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表债权人委员会的 Kristin Mayhew，在主案出庭，并非在对抗程序中出庭。法庭：下午好。SKLARZ先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Green & Sklarz 的 Jeffrey Sklarz，代表 G Club Operations, LLC；我办公室的 Kelli Baranowsky 以及 Pillsbury Winthrop 的 Carolina Fornos 与我一同出庭。我相信 Fornos女士昨天已获准以临时许可方式出庭，并将尽快提交其出庭通知。FORNOS女士：是的，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。SKLARZ先生：仅在主案中。法庭：谢谢。下午好。欢迎。FORNOS女士：下午好。法庭：好的。我认为我们已经记录了法庭内所有代理律师的出庭。现在我们已经记录了——显然，我要求 Despins受托人先记录其出庭\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 7 页，共 140 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n1 出庭。\n因此，接下来我将请 Sarnoff律师和\n2 Wernick律师发言。\n请直接开始。\n3 SARNOFF先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n我是 Stuart\n4 Sarnoff，代表主案中的债权人 PAX。\n5 WERNICK女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n6 我是 CSG Law 的 Melissa Wernick，代表 Guo女士和 HK USA。\n7 法庭：\n下午好。\n8 好的。\n如我所述，今天日程表上有数项事项，\n9 其中一项在 HK International Funds\n10 Investment 对抗程序中，案号为 22-5003，其后有数项\n11 事项属于个人债务人及相关公司实体的主案，\n12 案号为 22-50073。\n13 日程表上有一项事项，\n14 我认为该事项已获同意，但我不知道我是否正确，\n15 即 1850 号，这是一项 Hudson\n16 Diamond 及——LLC 以及——哦，抱歉。\n我应该说，那不是\n17 一项获同意的事项，对吗？\n这是否是\n18 就听证会延期是否确实已获同意存在争议的\n19 那个情形？\n20 这是否就是我——我先问您，\n21 Romney律师，然后——好的。\n请继续。\n22 ROMNEY先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n记录在案，我是 Aaron Romney。\n23 您对该事项的描述是正确的。\n正如我在答复中\n24 所述，鉴于我所理解的我们已经达成一致的内容，我不——我不理解\n25 争议的依据。\n我\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 8 当然在此愿意解决这个问题。我一直认为 Luft律师是极其通情达理的人，因此我不知道该说什么。他不同意我们所写的某些内容。我很愿意予以更正。但我不理解这一点，所以我在此解决该问题。法庭：那么，无论“它”指什么，是否已经更正？我不确定，Romney律师，“它”是什么，但我知道，如果我——您提醒我回忆一下。ROMNEY先生：法官阁下，从我的角度看，起初我无法确定“它”是什么，因为我是在回看对方所述的我们协议内容。我不理解争议的来源。截至昨天晚上，我能够确定一项不一致之处，即如果遵守情况不令人满意，听证会将延期至的日期。我能够注意到这一点。我在答复中指出，并且曾试图联系 Luft律师但未成功，我们当然同意采用某个更早的日期。这并非有意占受托人的便宜。因此，我在此解决这个问题。法庭：好的。ROMNEY先生：我不希望把这个问题闹大\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 8 页，共 140 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 9 页，共 140 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n1 。\n不存在欺骗意图。\n如果有任何我本可以确定的事项，\n2 我本会如同我告知 Luft律师的那样，自行更正记录。\n3 但似乎存在沟通误会。\n谢谢。\n4 法庭：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n5 Luft律师？\n6 LUFT先生：\n法官阁下，我想询问您的\n7 偏好。\n如果您希望现在处理这一问题，我\n8 很乐意这样做。\n我也很乐意在强制执行动议的背景下\n9 处理该问题，取决于法庭的偏好。\n10 法庭：\n那么——\n11 LUFT先生：\n但是——\n12 法庭：\n——目前我不知道我是否有偏好。\n13 但我想确定的是，关于——无论如何，在我看来，\n14 请理解我可能不正确，似乎对于继续审理这项\n15 藐视法庭听证会，已经存在某种形式的\n16 协议。\n17 这是否正确，还是我对此理解有误？\n18 LUFT先生：\n法官阁下，我认为，根据谈判\n19 条款，曾有一项协议。\n20 法庭：\n好的。\n21 LUFT先生：\n遗憾的是，向法庭提交的一项我们从未看过的\n22 同意动议，\n23 并未表达已达成协议的条款。\n24 法庭：\n好的。\n25\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 10 LUFT先生：这就是我们所说的。因此，尽管——当我要求对此作出更正，并要求修正提交文件以符合那些条款时，对方拒绝了。因此，我不知道我们就已做事项是否存在协议。法庭：那么，我们将这样做。我将让您和 Romney律师出去讨论几分钟，我相信你们回来时会达成协议。LUFT先生：法官阁下，我将不胜感激。法庭：好吗？因为我认为这是一个可以解决的问题。如果不能解决，那么我会解决它，然后我们继续处理其他事项。好吗？LUFT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：我理解你们双方所说的内容，但我认为我们都处于可以达成一致的阶段。如果不能达成一致，那么我将作出裁决。就是这么简单。那么你们为什么不——我的意思是，关于日程表上的其他事项，如果你们二人现在离开法庭，并且——在处理其他事项期间，这会造成不利影响吗？DESPINS先生：那么，法官阁下，如果可以？我是 Luc Despins。我曾试图处理该问题，因为我确实希望法庭能够宽容地进入\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 10 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 11 页，共\n\n关于上诉期间暂缓执行的状态会议。因此，我不知道将由 Vartan firm（Vartan 律师事务所）还是 Romney 先生（罗姆尼先生）处理该事项。法院：还是罗姆尼先生？好的。罗姆尼先生：韦尼克律师（Attorney Wernick）将处理该事项，所以——法院：好的。因此，韦尼克律师将处理该问题。所以我认为，罗姆尼先生，如果您——您和卢夫特律师（Attorney Luft）出去谈谈，应当可以。罗姆尼先生：就我而言，当然可以。法院：好的。你们去谈谈吧。然后我们将转入上诉期间暂缓执行的问题。因为韦尼克律师将就此与——我不知道是您，德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）将处理，还是巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）——德斯平斯先生：是的，我会处理。法院：——还是林赛先生（Mr. Linsey）将处理。德斯平斯先生：我会处理，法官阁下。法院：好的。那么你们二位去看看能达成什么。如果不能达成什么，我就直接作出裁定。但我认为——我理解——您知道，我认为我们可以同意，也许在提交文件以及出示或未出示材料之前，双方并未完全达成一致。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 提交于 06/14/23 登记于 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 12 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日\n\n既然现在我们已经在这里，就把它解决掉。好吗？\n\n罗姆尼先生：非常感谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n卢夫特律师：法官阁下，如果有任何——我将处理整项强制令动议，该动议还有其他部分。\n\n因此，如果可以把该事项放到最后——\n\n法院：我们还不会处理那个。是的。\n\n卢夫特律师：——我将不胜感激。\n\n法院：是的。我们还不会处理强制令动议。\n\n罗姆尼先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好吗？好的。谢谢。\n\n罗姆尼先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：感谢。\n\n好的。因此，关于 1850，我们暂时不处理。我们将要处理的是，我认为，受托人德斯平斯（Trustee Despins）在对抗程序中提出的、关于状态会议请求的上诉期间暂缓执行动议。您是否建议我们现在转而处理该事项？\n\n德斯平斯先生：如果法官阁下允许，是的。\n\n法院：是的。请继续。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。因此，法官阁下，我相信两个多星期前，您作出了一项非常明确的命令，其中作出了多项认定，包括托管资金属于破产财产；命令债务人的女儿和旧 HK USA（旧香港美国公司）于 June 2nd 前将 HK USA（香港美国公司）的全部财产移交给我们；尽管我们催促了——您知道——Zeisler firm（Zeisler 律师事务所）和 Vartan firm 履行，该等事项均未发生。并且，在周五，他们提交了一项上诉期间暂缓执行动议。您知道，如果任由他们自行决定，他们大概会在两个月后才让该动议得到审理。\n\n关键在于，目前存在一项可执行的命令，而且您非常明确地指出，该命令立即生效。自该命令作出后的第一天起，就一直存在对该命令的违反。他们目前仍在违反该命令。\n\n而我们提交上诉期间暂缓执行动议这一事实，并不能免除不遵守命令的责任。我们希望安排一次听证会，因为——就上诉期间暂缓执行而言——显然取决于法官阁下的时间安排——在下周举行，因为我们认为有必要充分审理若干问题，包括——我并不是说应当批准暂缓执行。但法官阁下不仅有权驳回暂缓执行，还可以驳回暂缓执行并表示，即使批准暂缓执行，我也会要求提供 X dollars 的保证金。\n\n而这正是我们认为应当就此提交证据的问题，即该暂缓执行就该命令而言对破产财产造成的损害。因此，我们——简言之——希望在 Monday 上午 9 a.m. 前提交我们对此的异议和答复，并且取决于法官阁下下周的时间安排，在下周 Tuesday 或 Wednesday 进行审理，以便以某种方式解决该暂缓执行问题。因为目前只是拖延，并且我们认为，根据其条款，该命令可以执行。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 提交于 06/14/23 登记于 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 14 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年6月6日\n\n法院：好的。在您陈述时，我正在看一些东西。\n\n韦尼克律师：而且，法官阁下，无论法院何时准备好，我都准备作出回应。\n\n法院：谢谢。是的。韦尼克律师，我只需要一分钟。我只是想看一件事，请稍候。谢谢。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：好的，韦尼克律师。谢谢。您可以回应。\n\n韦尼克律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。因此，首先我要说，尽管我们当然不同意受托人关于存在任何拖延或本案构成紧急问题的说法，但对于法院在下周某个方便的时间安排与该动议有关的听证会，我们当然没有异议。但是，我确有异议的一点，而且我认为这确实与待决的暂缓执行动议相分离，就是认为该命令未获遵守这一说法。\n\n正如受托人非常清楚的，我认为争议确实集中在托管资金上，因为我认为没有其他财产需要移交，即 HK 和郭女士（Ms. Guo）并不控制托管资金。该等资金由托管代理人持有。\n\n我们律师事务所、Zeisler 律师事务所和受托人均已收到托管代理人律师的函件，其中表明，从托管代理人的角度看，尚未出现要求释放托管资金的确定事件，因为法院的简易判决命令目前不是终局且不可上诉的命令。\n\n因此，根据该命令的效力，这当然——您知道——将是我们的立场，即受托人已经——您知道——已经取得 HK 根据托管协议享有的权利，但托管代理人的立场是，这不是一项终局且不可上诉的命令，因此资金不能被释放。因此，对今早所作陈述的异议实际上是关于是否遵守命令的问题。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。因此，法官阁下，这很简单。这就像 Lady May II（“五月夫人 II”号）。他们说他们已经遵守了。那么，我们为什么不由 Vartan 律师事务所、Zeisler 律师事务所和 Paul Hastings（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）共同向托管代理人发一封信，称我们特此指示您将资金转入受托人账户。我假定，显然，如果你们确实遵守了命令，你们会乐于向托管代理人发送那封信——那封联名信，对吗？\n\n韦尼克律师：嗯，不。这是不同的问题，对吗？因此，目前托管协议——并且根据托管协议，资金应在终局且不可上诉的命令作出后释放，而且——\n\n德斯平斯先生：不，不，不——\n\n法院：韦尼克律师，它并非仅仅如此规定。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下——\n\n法院：它还规定了“或法院命令”。它并未规定终局——\n\n德斯平斯先生：哦，但是，法官阁下——\n\n法院：——关于另我主张的简易判决的不可上诉命令。它没有这样规定。但是，关于——\n\n德斯平斯先生：但是，法官阁下——\n\n法院：等一下，受托人德斯平斯。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 提交于 06/14/23 登记于 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年6月6日\n\n法院：关于受托人德斯平斯的建议，为什么——首先，在哪里——你们是否有一封来自 U.S. Bank（美国合众银行）的信——他们不是托管代理人吗——表明他们不会释放该笔款项？\n\n韦尼克律师：我们有一封来自托管代理人律师的信。\n\n法院：好的。该信是否已提交至本案的案卷？\n\n德斯平斯先生：没有。\n\n韦尼克律师：我不知道是否已提交。\n\n法院：好的。那么，我想看一下该信。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，这很简单。\n\n法院：我想看一下该信。好吗？我——\n\n德斯平斯先生：但是——\n\n法院：等一下，受托人德斯平斯。因此，我命令你们在明天上午 9:00 a.m. 前将该信提交至本对抗程序的案卷。好吗？这是最优先的第一项。第二项，如你所知，并且——受托人德斯平斯已经提出该问题。但所有人都知道，如果你们获得上诉期间暂缓执行，可能会被要求提供保证金。因此，如果因上诉而不移交 \\$37 million，那么你们可能必须提供 37 million 或更多的保证金。并且 HK USA 主张其没有其他财产。那么你们将如何处理——我的意思是，\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交于 06/14/23\n登记于 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年6月6日\n\n规则谈到保证金。在上诉待决期间，你们将如何处理该问题？\n\n韦尼克律师：是的。当然，法官阁下，在某些情况下，法院可能会要求提供保证金，以取得上诉期间暂缓执行。如果受托人打算在其反对文件中提出该事项，那么，您知道，显然我们届时将必须作出回应。\n\n听起来受托人表示，这是他们将寻求的一个条件。但我认为，在动议听证会上，待有书面文件且我们可以对此作出回应后，再处理该问题会更为适当。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，如果我可以的话？\n\n法院：嗯，我不——我——嗯，好的。我理解您刚才所说的，然而你们根据 Rule 8007 提交了一项上诉期间暂缓执行动议。其中写道——最初向破产法院提出动议。\n\n其中写道：“通常，当事人必须首先向破产法院申请下列救济：在上诉待决期间暂缓执行破产法院的判决、命令或法令，批准为取得判决暂缓执行而提供的保证金或其他担保。”\n\n因此，我不知道这是否是受托人的负担。这是你们的负担。你们是动议方。该规则——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交于 06/14/23\n登记于 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年6月6日\n\n你们是寻求暂缓执行的一方，而不是受托人，对吗？因此，根据 Rule 8007，你们将必须处理保证金的问题。\n\n韦尼克律师：当然。但并非每一宗案件都必须提供保证金，才能取得上诉期间暂缓执行。\n\n法院：不过，在本案中，律师，你们未移交的是 \\$37 million，对吗？而且我们不知道上诉将持续多长时间，对吗？\n\n并且，这是一种已经提出论点的情形——而且是由你们提出的。你们代表客户提出了这些论点。而这些论点并未被认定具有说服力。\n\n而且这——你们曾论证、提交书面意见并提出——我并非一定仅指您个人，而是指代表你们的客户——旨在抗辩第二项反诉的简易判决的论点；法院在双方当事人进行了广泛书面陈述和辩论后认定，HK International Funds Investment USA Limited（香港国际基金投资美国有限公司）在所有相关期间均是且一直是 Ho Wan Kwok 的另我，并且 HK USA 的全部财产，包括 Lady May（“五月夫人”号）、Lady May II 和托管资金，均已构成并在适用情况下继续构成个人破产债务人的 Chapter 11 破产财产。\n\n这就是本法庭的认定。你当然\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 提交日期 06/14/23 录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 20 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日\n\n有权对此提起上诉，而且你正在上诉，这没有问题。\n\n但是，如果你希望在上诉待决期间获得暂缓执行，而没有保证金的情况下，你所主张的是，在上诉待决期间，除非你获得暂缓执行，否则你无需交出这 37 million。\n\nWernick 女士（Ms. Wernick）：\n我——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，也许你会获得暂缓执行，但你将不得不——在我看来，如果——你是在试图——我并非指“试图”——你主张你需要暂缓执行该命令，因为你不想交出托管资金。这是唯一剩下的事项，对吗？\n\n据我们所知，Lady May（“五月女士”号）、Lady May II（“五月女士二号”）以及托管资金，是 HK USA（美国HK）的唯一资产。\n\n我们知道——我认为我们大体上都知道 Lady May 在哪里，以及与其有关的情况。我们对 Lady May II 略有了解。并且，你的当事人已约定，受托人对 Lady May II 具有控制权。\n\n现在，法庭已认定，托管资金构成并且曾构成债务人个人第 11 章破产财产的财产，并且截至或不晚于 6 月 2 日，即上周五，你的当事人 Guo 女士（Ms. Guo）和 HK USA 应将所有财产交付给 Despins 先生（Mr. Despins），并非以其个人身份，而是作为第 11 章受托人。并且该事项\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日\n\n尚未完成。并且，没有上诉待决期间暂缓执行；截至目前，仍未有上诉待决期间暂缓执行生效。\n\n因此，即使该命令正在上诉中，你的当事人也已经——未曾——已经违反了一项命令。\n\nWernick 女士：\n所以，再次，法官阁下——是的。所以，再次，法官阁下，我只是想回到——并且我将依照法庭的指示，确保托管代理人的信函被立即提交至案卷，以便法官阁下能够获悉该信函。\n\n但是第二点，也是我会对在此于上诉待决期间提供单独保证金这一主张提出异议的原因，是因为——托管资金就在那里。其目前正由托管持有。\n\n通常，在上诉待决期间寻求保证金时，是为了确保判决金额最终可获得。在这里，我们知道那些资金将可获得，因为它们正存放于托管中。\n\n因此，我认为这构成了一种特殊的诉讼情形，足以免除提供保证金的必要。\n\nDespins 先生：\n法官阁下——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，如果你获得上诉待决期间暂缓执行，它们将不会可获得，因为你不会交出它们。因此，它们将不会\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日\n\n可获得。\n\nDespins 先生：\n正是如此。\n\n法庭：\n所以，该论点是——我的意思是，我理解你的论点，但我不确定它是否有说服力。你希望在上诉待决期间暂缓执行。而且我理解这一点。我理解你方的立场。你希望在上诉待决期间暂缓执行，以便你无需将 $37 million 交给 Despins 受托人。我完全理解这一点。\n\n但是，这样一来，你实际上就使得准予简易判决动议的命令——你曾有充分机会对此进行抗辩，而且你也确实进行了抗辩——在上诉得到解决之前不产生任何效力，而我们完全不知道那会在何时发生。完全不知道。\n\n这位受托人依据《破产法》负有职责，而他已试图履行这些职责一段时间了。我们已接近一年。因此，你可以说它们可获得。那么，如果它们可获得，而你上诉败诉，会怎样？那么，在此期间因无法使用该笔资金，破产财产所受损失是什么？法庭难道不必须考虑这一点吗？\n\nWernick 女士：\n那么也许——再次，我希望能够听取受托人对这一切的立场。并且，再次，当然，在某些情形下，可以在上诉待决期间提供保证金。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 提交日期 06/14/23 录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 23 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日\n\n但是，鉴于资金处于托管中，我当然会主张，无需提供接近托管资金金额的保证金来解决该顾虑。\n\n法庭：\n好的。但这并未回答我的问题——\n\nDespins 先生：\n法官阁下？\n\n法庭：\n——是的，即如果你未提供保证金便获得上诉待决期间暂缓执行，而你上诉败诉，法庭难道不必须考虑损失是什么——我们都知道为什么必须提供保证金。必须提供保证金，以防止在上诉待决期间暂缓执行未获准——我是说，获准——时对方当事人遭受的损失。\n\n因此，如果你未提供保证金便获得上诉待决期间暂缓执行，之后受托人——并且受托人在上诉中获胜，但两年或三年后才发生这种情况，会怎样？那时的损失是什么？在上诉待决期间，受托人和破产财产难道不会因无法使用该 $37 million 或其他形式的担保而遭受损失吗？\n\nWernick 女士：\n我不知道受托人是否会遭受损失。并且我——我会留待受托人提出该论点。\n\n法庭：\n不。我认为你必须提出该论点。记住，是你提出了该动议。阅读 Rule 8007。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日\n\n是你提出了该动议。这是你的举证责任。这不是受托人的举证责任。\n\n你正在寻求一项非常救济，即对一项载明该命令立即生效的裁定进行上诉待决期间暂缓执行。并且，履行义务的期限是上周五。截至目前，并没有上诉待决期间暂缓执行。因此，你的当事人已经违反了该命令。\n\n所以，不管怎样——\n\nWernick 女士：\n所以再次，法官阁下，那——\n\n法庭：\n不管怎样，我听到了你所说的一切。我相信你会考虑我所说的内容，我们将听取有关此事的一切陈述。然后我们将作出决定。好吗？\n\nDespins 先生：\n但是，法官阁下，如果我可以简要陈述？\n\n法庭：\n可以。我们明确反对从托管中释放资金。Kindseth 先生（Mr. Kindseth）发过一封电子邮件，称不应释放资金。这是第一点。好吗？\n\n法庭：\n那在哪里？那封电子邮件在哪里？\n\nDespins 先生：\n在有一项命令称——\n\n法庭：\n那封电子邮件在哪里？\n\nDespins 先生：\n那封电子邮件？它将与另一封电子邮件一同提供；在另一封电子邮件中，银行称，嗯，看起来这里存在争议，因此我不会分配——支付该资金。有一封电子邮件称\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日\n\n没有最终命令，不要——基本上，没有支付该笔款项的要求。这是第一点。\n\n第二点是——你完全正确。因无法使用资金，破产财产受到损害。因无法使用资金，破产财产确实受到损害。\n\n而目前，正如我所说，他们违反了一项立即生效的法庭命令，而且他们——解决此事非常简单。他们说，哦，我们已履行，我们已履行。让 Zeisler（泽斯勒）、Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）和 Vartan firm（瓦尔坦律师事务所）向托管代理人发送一封联合信函，称我们三方及债权人委员会均不反对将资金转入受托人账户。这将构成对该命令的履行。\n\n因此——但当然，不这样做并不构成履行；我们暂且假设，托管是在去年三月，即 3 月 1 日设立。假设作为当事方的 HK International（HK国际）和债权人委员会次日达成一致，称你知道吗，我们不需要这项托管；U.S. Bank（美国合众银行），把钱交给 HK USA。你认为银行会说，哦，我不能这样做；我没有最终命令吗？协议的双方当事人都说，把钱交给 HK USA。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 提交日期 06/14/23 录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 26 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日\n\n这正是他们今天可以促成的事情，但他们没有，因为他们在干涉，并且他们正在对破产财产行使控制权。而且这——法官阁下，我很遗憾地说，这是可予制裁的。违反自动停止效力。这是一起个人案件。对此可以判处多倍损害赔偿。（听不清）可以判处超过该数额的赔偿。因为他们正在对破产财产行使控制权。\n\n您已认定这是破产财产。并且，他们通过不作为，而且不仅仅是不作为，通过对受托人——对托管代理人说不要分配，他们正在违反停止效力，因为那是在对该财产行使控制权。\n\n正如法官阁下所知，律师已经——在这种情形下，我曾在其他案件中因比这轻微的明显违反行为而受到制裁。即使发送一封要求付款的信函，也可能构成违反停止效力。在这里，他们做得更严重。他们告诉托管代理人不要分配。而且这在他们的控制范围之内。\n\n我保证，如果 Zeisler、Vartan 和 Paul Hastings 都向 U.S. Bank 发送一封信，并且（听不清）明天发送一封信，称我们都同意，资金可以转入受托人账户，但不影响 HK USA 或 Guo 女士对该款项提起上诉的权利，则该款项将进入我们的账户\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日\n\n第二天。但他们没有这样做，因为他们正在对破产财产行使控制权。而这就是违反停止效力，法官阁下。\n\n因此，我认为这是非常根本的问题。我并不请求您现在就对此作出裁定。但我希望确保您知悉全部事实。他们有能力与我们一同解除托管，但他们没有这样做，因为他们在干涉——不仅没有遵守您的命令，而且还在干涉破产财产。\n\n所以，我对此确实感到不满。如果我打断了他人，我很抱歉，但我认为提出这些要点非常重要。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。还有其他人希望——\n\nWernick 女士：\n并且，法官阁下——\n\nDespins 先生：\n那么，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：\n哦，抱歉。请继续——\n\nDespins 先生：\n抱歉。\n\n法庭：\n——Wernick 律师。你要说什么吗？我道歉。\n\nWernick 女士：\n是的。没关系，法官阁下。我只是想补充说明。受托人所援引的 Kindseth 先生的电子邮件附在托管代理人的信函之后。而且我认为，在受托人的陈述中，它被作出了一定程度的错误描述。但是，你——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023 28 如您所知，该信件一旦提交至案卷，法庭就会看到。法庭：好的。谢谢。DESPINS先生：哦，那封信并未表示我们同意，对吗？它表达的是不同意。法庭：那么，我们——DESPINS先生：所以——法庭：让我看一下。WERNICK女士：它陈述了事实。法庭：让我看一下——DESPINS先生：是。法庭：——然后我们看看情况如何发展。好吗？DESPINS先生：所以，法官阁下，我们想要——法庭：关于——DESPINS先生：我们还想安排一次听证会——法庭：我明白。DESPINS先生：——并确定一个截止日期——法庭：我明白。我明白。好的。我想，Sarnoff律师，您刚才是要说什么吗？SARNOFF先生：抱歉，法官阁下，我没有。法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？这仅是关于在上诉期间中止执行动议的状态会议。Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 28 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 29 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\n上诉。目前的请求是——Chapter 11受托人的请求是，将上诉期间中止执行动议安排于下周举行听证会，但须视法庭的时间安排而定，并且受托人——我想您刚才说的是，Despins受托人，可在星期一，即July——June 12th上午9时之前，就上诉期间中止执行动议提交答复。这是——这是您的请求吗？DESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。还有其他人希望发言吗？好。既然无人发言，那么，代表Mei Guo（郭美）及HK International Funds Investment USA Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资美国有限责任公司）提出的上诉期间中止执行动议，即对立诉讼程序22-05003中的ECF Number 227，将安排举行听证会。我需要查看日程。因此，如果您们——请各位稍候片刻。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：那么，本案主案中已安排于June 13th下午1时处理事项，因此我们可以——我们将于该对立诉讼程序中，将上诉期间中止执行动议的听证会安排在June 13th下午1时。DESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：受托人就上诉期间中止执行动议作出的答复——我相信该动议于Friday, June 2nd提交，ECF-227——受托人可在June 12th上午9时之前提交对该上诉期间中止执行动议的答复。WERNICK女士：我们是否也可以在13日上午9时之前提交任何答复？法庭：不可以。但您可以在12日下午6时之前提交。WERNICK女士：好的。谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的？谢谢。我只是做个记录，所以请各位稍候片刻。因此，这就处理了HK International诉Despins对立诉讼程序中关于上诉期间中止执行动议的状态会议。我看到Romney律师和Luft律师已回到法庭，因此我想听听，关于Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）提出延期审理受托人请求裁定Hudson Diamond各实体藐视法庭动议的动议，你们取得了什么进展。LUFT先生：法官阁下，我很高兴地报告，我们已达成协议。我有一段措辞可以向法庭宣读；如法庭愿意，我们随后可以将其写入一份供您签署的拟议命令，如此做有帮助的话。法庭：我们肯定需要一份命令。但您们——我想其中包括听证日期和时间。是这样吗？Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 30 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 31 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\nLUFT先生：法官阁下，包括，不过我认为这将取决于——简言之，该协议的内容是——我会说明细节——我们将给他们两周时间以完全遵从。他们已同意，除特权问题外，不对传票提出任何异议。因此，我希望一切都会顺利，最终我们可能不需要任何听证会。不过，我们有涉及该情形的措辞，但这就是我们所期望达成目标的极简版本。若法官阁下愿意，我可以宣读我们已达成一致的措辞。法庭：那么，在您这样做之前——LUFT先生：当然。法庭：——我们姑且假设不存在任何遵从。听证日期——您们二人是否讨论过最终的听证日期？LUFT先生：讨论过，法官阁下。法庭：日期是什么？LUFT先生：在未查阅法庭日程的情况下，如果与您的日程冲突，我深表歉意；我们谈到June 21st作为日期，考虑是Romney先生的客户可在June 15th之前完成其提交材料。这将使他们能够这样做，并让双方有机会在必要时向法庭提出之前，查看实际提交了什么材料。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1907\nFiled 06/14/23\nEntered 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\n法庭：遗憾的是，21日不合适。LUFT先生：好的。法庭：所以我们必须——我们已经安排了——那么，我们可以在June 26th安排某项事项，但必须在下午。LUFT先生：法官阁下，您介意我查看一下我的日程吗？法庭：不介意。请便。LUFT先生：法官阁下，我对该日期没有问题，下午也可以。法庭：谢谢。Romney律师，June 26th下午——我可能说的是下午2时或3时，因为我们上午有一项争议事项。我认为它不会持续到下午2时，但也有可能，因此——ROMNEY先生：是，法官阁下。简短的回答是——我上午有一个医疗预约，但我应能在下午结束前出来。即使不能，我相信可以请Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）或CSG的一位同事代理该听证会。法庭：那么，为稳妥起见，我们定在下午3时如何？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023 33 ROMNEY先生：我想如果我到凌晨3时还没有出来，我就有——法庭：下午3时。ROMNEY先生：抱歉，下午3时；如果那时我还没有出来，我的问题就比这件事严重得多。法庭：那么，希望不是这种情况，因此——ROMNEY先生：我不认为会是，但谢谢。法庭：那么，让我们安排——当您——我希望您起草该命令，并在该命令中列入听证日期——即该动议的续期听证日期为June 26th下午3时。好吗？LUFT先生：是，法官阁下。法庭：现在，请继续告诉我你们的协议内容。LUFT先生：是，法官阁下。我将宣读。双方没有理由、因此也不争议，Hudson各实体已通过法定送达代理人被适当地送达针对各实体的Rule 2004传票。然而，Hudson各实体主张，Hudson各实体的相关个人直到该动议提出后才实际得知该等传票；该主张受托人无法承认或否认。Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 33 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 34 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\n现已知悉该等传票和该动议后，Hudson各实体同意将完全遵从该等传票，并同意除特权问题外不对该等传票提出异议。双方同意，基于Hudson各实体完全遵从该等传票且不对其提出任何非特权异议的承诺，Hudson各实体可在June 15, 2023之前完成向受托人提交材料。因此，双方请求将该动议的听证会延期至June 26, 2023。双方同意，如双方认为该动议听证会已不再必要，双方将立即通知法庭书记官。法庭：好的。实际上，您们不应通知法庭书记官。您们只需通知法庭书记员，请知悉。好吗？LUFT先生：是，法官阁下。法庭：因为法庭书记官可能看不到，而法庭书记员会看到。LUFT先生：好的。法庭：所以我宁愿按这种方式处理。好吗？LUFT先生：是，法官阁下。ROMNEY先生：为记录起见，该陈述准确无误，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023 35 法庭：谢谢，Romney律师。好的。那么，您将在接下来一两天内提交该命令吗？LUFT先生：是，法官阁下。法庭：好的。好。那么，让我们为记录起见说明，1850——我们应将其续期至June 26th下午3时，但您们将提交一份协议命令。显然，如已达成某项协议或解决方案，您们将通知法庭书记员，June 26th下午3时将不举行听证会。好吗？LUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢二位。好的。那么，让我们转到今日日程上其余的事项。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，抱歉打断一下。我只想提一下，首先，感谢您允许我通过Zoom出庭。我需要回去继续参加我的审判。它下午2时30分再次开始。所以我可能会离开。我不想显得无礼，但在接下来的十分钟左右，我可能会直接退出。因此，我不希望您认为我只是不感兴趣。我很抱歉。我最终得离开。谢谢。法庭：我明白。谢谢。好的。那么，本日程上还有几项事项。Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 35 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 36 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\n第五项综合审查动议、2004审查、第二项要求遵从传票的综合强制执行动议、密封动议、延长答复受托人强制执行动议期限的动议。那是——由G Club（G俱乐部）提出的吗？那是一项经协商同意的动议吗，还是不是？身份不明的发言人：不是，法官阁下，不是。法庭：好的。好。那么，在——各位律师，在我们讨论之前——不要离开。不过，在受托人仍与我们在一起时，我还有一个问题。关于主案，在我们处理其他一些动议之前，主案今日还安排了一次状态会议。关于主案，您还有什么要向法庭报告的吗？DESPINS先生：没有，法官阁下。目前没有。法庭：好的。好。那么，除我们现在将要处理的具体事项外，我们不处理主案中的任何其他事项。好吗？请给我一点时间。好的。那么，让我们转到G Club Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）代表在主案中提出的延长答复受托人强制执行动议期限的动议，即ECF-1845。FORNOS女士：下午好，法官阁下。Carolina\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 37 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日 37 Fornos女士：我来自 Pillsbury Winthrop（Pillsbury Winthrop律师事务所），与 Green & Sklarz（Green & Sklarz律师事务所）的 Kelli Baranowsky（凯莉·巴拉诺夫斯基）女士一同出席。法院：下午好。Fornos女士：——。Baranowsky女士：下午好，法官阁下。Jeffrey Sklarz（杰弗里·斯克拉兹）先前已提交出庭代理通知，但因今日下午有无法改期的医疗预约，不得不请辞离席。法院：好的。非常感谢。Fornos女士：并且，法官阁下，为记录在案，出庭代理通知已经提交。法院：谢谢。Fornos女士：我们感谢法院批准其 pro hac vice（临时出庭代理）资格。法院：谢谢。Fornos女士：关于延期请求，如我们在书面材料中所述，法官阁下，我们请求将强制执行动议的听证会延期60天。该延期的理由十分直接。G Club Operations（G Club运营公司）直到最近才有人员向律师作出指示；该公司现已任命一名独立董事、一名独立管理人。我们在书面材料中称，该任命已于6月1日正式生效。我已与该管理人交谈。该管理人明确请求延期60天。理由是\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日\n\n该延期是因为管理人显然需要了解公司的运营情况，会见公司员工，并了解记录存放地点。\n\n并且，正如我们向受托人所陈述的，我们希望遵从该请求。这不是不愿遵从的问题。该请求范围过宽，我们可以另择时间处理该问题。但目前我们所要求的只是将强制执行动议延期60天，因为该动议尚不成熟。\n\n一旦独立管理人能够作出评估，我们便可以进行讨论。当然，我们可以开始滚动提供材料。但我们认为，延期60天是合理的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我只是想让你知道，也让你知悉，因为你可能不知道，因为你尚未参与本案——你知道，这是你的——法院过去曾被当事人告知，他们会向受托人滚动提供材料，但他们并未这样做。因此，我只是想让你明白，若任何一方向法院表示将滚动提供材料，而实际未提供，这将给该方带来问题。明白吗？\n\nFornos女士：明白，法官阁下。延期的部分理由是，使独立管理人有其所需时间评估哪些文件具有回应性且可供提供。当然，我们希望受托人不会不合理地要求取得 G Club Operations 所持有的每一份文件。\n\n此外，法官阁下，我也请求延期，因为我确实存在个人时间冲突。我原本应当在 Western District of Texas（得克萨斯州西区）参加审判。该事项昨天已得到解决。我昨天在法庭上。昨晚我乘飞机赶来，以确保今天能够出席。谢谢。\n\n法院：感谢你的努力。谢谢。Luft律师？\n\nLuft先生：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nLuft先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表第11章受托人的 Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特）。您刚才听到的是一项请求，称他们希望遵从，没有人能够回答这些问题，并且他们希望保持合理。该说法遗漏了最重要的一点。\n\n这名新的受托人——这名新的独立——他被称为什么——管理人，据称于6月1日被任命。传票及与其相关的命令于2022年12月2日提交。\n\nFornos女士于12月21日联系我，称她需要14天延期以作出答复。随后于1月4日又请求额外三天以作出答复。随后于1月9日就《规则》2004传票提交答复及异议，其中只有套话式异议，表明他们不会就针对 G Club 的《规则》2004传票提供任何一份文件。\n\n我们于2月9日举行了第一次协商会议。我被告知了您刚才听到的说法。即，传票有些范围过宽。我们希望遵从。\n\n但您知道其为何范围过宽吗？因为债务人与 G Club 实际上仅有非常间接的关系。我相信对我所说的措辞是，他仅是一名无薪发言人。\n\n此时，法官阁下已在与初步禁令听证会有关的命令中认定，G Club 是所谓 G Series（G系列）实体之一，而该等实体已被认定受债务人控制。我告诉 Fornos 女士，基于该情况及我们掌握的其他信息，他们向我们主张传票范围过宽，或主张基于债务人实际仅具有非常间接的关系而不应提供任何文件，是不合理的。\n\n她告诉我她会回去审阅该事项，并希望加以考虑。我们表示将研究如何对我们的请求进行优先排序。不放弃其中任何一项，但进行优先排序，以便我们能够获得最重要的信息。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 提交日期 06/14/23 录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14 第39页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日\n\n现在，3月7日——此时距我们送达传票已过去三个月。举行了第二次协商会议。在该协商会议上，我没有参加，但我的同事参加了。据告知，Fornos女士答复称，G Club 对于我说债务人已被认定与 G Club 有关联这一观点感到极为冒犯，以至于他们不再有兴趣参与证据开示；他们将向法官阁下寻求救济，并将在3月10日前这样做，因为——为了澄清债务人与 G Club 存在关联这一不正确之处（原文如此）。\n\n3月10日来了又过去。未向法官阁下提交任何文件。我们再次只能主动联系，询问发生了什么事。文件在哪里——我们需要遵从这一要求。到那时，债务人已被起诉。SEC 已提交诉状。果不其然，SEC诉状及起诉书的核心内容是，G Club 是债务人运营的核心部分，并且至少根据起诉书及SEC诉状，是其欺诈行为的核心部分。G Club 做什么？其销售折扣会员资格，用于购买 G Coin（G币）、G Fashion（G时尚）、未注册证券，均为债务人及债务人的所有实体所涉项目。据我所知，G Club 除与债务人有关的业务外没有其他业务。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 提交日期 06/14/23 录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14 第40页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日\n\n因此，他们基于这与他们实际上无关，或者他只是恰好喜欢一家与他们并无真正关联的公司的无薪发言人这一说法而拖延数月的观点，并不属实。此后不久，我们又从“债务人实际上未参与”听到了新的说法，即事实证明，由于这些文件的提交，所有高级管理层都已离开公司。已无人可以找到。因为推测而言，债务人如此深度交织其中，以至于无论他们是谁，都在躲藏。\n\n我需要指出的是，我从未获得那些消失之人的姓名。我不知道他们是谁。我没有独立管理人的姓名。我不知道他们是否是同一个人。我所知道的是，现在突然之间，债务人竟如此深度参与其中。\n\n因此，这是他们在4月11日第三次协商会议上告诉我们的，即鉴于SEC诉状，已有人员辞职。\n\n我们具体请求他们，请优先处理受托人关于银行账户、资产及转移的请求，以便我们能够了解该实体的情况；该实体显然与债务人深度关联，并且SEC和 U.S. Attorney's Office（美国检察官办公室）指称，有数千万美元通过该实体流转，用于资助债务人的个人奢华生活方式。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日\n\n4月25日，我收到一封电子邮件中的消息，称 Fornos 女士乐观地认为，他们将在下周任命独立董事。因此，是从4月25日起一周。\n\n4月29日，有一次通话，他们称我们认为独立董事将在接下来几天内就任。不晚于5月3日，我们将回复你。\n\n5月8日，我们没有听到任何消息。我们不得不再次致电。5月9日，我们从 Fornos 女士处收到一则消息，称：“FG Club Operations 继续积极努力聘请一名独立董事。尽管该工作已取得很大进展，但尚未完成。一旦完成，处理受托人的请求将是首要优先事项。”\n\n现在，法官阁下，这是我们最后一次收到沟通，直到我们收到他们的异议；果不其然，独立管理人恰好在他们必须就我们的强制执行动议提交异议的当天被任命。现在他们向您提出，我们完全合理。我们只是还需要两个月，使答复传票的总时长达到八个月。我们将滚动提供材料。\n\n法官阁下，他们本可在1月开始向我们滚动提供材料。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日\n\n这些传票（原文如此）直指这里正在发生之事的核心。这显然是一个受 Kwok 控制的实体。其仅与法院已认定受控制的其他实体开展业务。\n\n我曾告诉 Fornos 女士，法院已就此作出认定。我已向她指出这一点。如今出现并仅称，我们只需要再有两个月，让某个未具名的独立管理人“熟悉情况”，并不合理。\n\n我们已花费六个月追着他们处理本不应存在争议的事项。没有任何可信依据主张 G Club 未被指称——与债务人有关联；没有任何可信依据编造他们对这一建议如此冒犯，以至于甚至不参与；此后又经过现已三个月的“我们将在一两天内任命独立管理人”，而只是等待该任命的说法。\n\n所以，请看，我知道 Fornos 女士也对传票范围提交了异议。如果届时我们将继续进行该听证会，我非常乐意处理该问题。但关于还应有任何进一步延迟的观点，我必须强烈反对，法官阁下。\n\nG Club 为此追着他们，浪费了受托人大量时间和资源。而他们如此深度参与了被指称的欺诈行为，该行为两者均\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023 45\n\n美国证券交易委员会（SEC）和美国联邦检察官（U.S. Attorney）参与其中这一点，以及他们必须——无论其管理层在这里还是那里，或者谁知悉此事——均不是拒绝向受托人提供文件的理由。事实上，这恰恰是加快此事的理由。而且，我坦率地说，请求他们在本周结束前完成文件提供。法官阁下，我们对此已经追了很久。\n\n法庭：不过，当你说完成文件提供时，实际上并未有任何文件提供，对吗？\n\nLuft（卢夫特）先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我只是想——\n\nLuft先生：我的意思是开始——\n\n法庭：我只是想澄清这一点。\n\nLuft先生：当然。我没有从G Club Operations（G俱乐部运营公司）收到过一份文件。因此，您指出这一点是对的。我希望在本周结束前开始并完成。我认为受托人有权获得这些文件。我还要指出，倘若我们将听到这不合理、我们如何能完成事情、管理人刚于June 1st被任命，他们却设法提交了两份文件——律师于June 1st设法提交了两份异议。他们本可以花些时间向我们提供我们应得的文件。在其负有义务期间，没有任何事情阻止他们取得这些文件。该公司并未停业。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交 06/14/23\n登记 06/14/23 21:33:14\n第45页，共\n\n无人在那里这一说法，只是一个黑箱。我们只是被告知，没有人能做任何事。他们收到了有效传票。他们没有向法庭申请许可，并因正在发生的情况请求救济。他们所做的只是一直拖着我们。再两天，再两天，一周后给我打电话。哦，我会回复你。\n\n一直不得不主动联系的是我们。一直追着不放的也是我们。法官阁下知道，本案有很多事情在进行中，我们迫切需要实际文件，因为债务人拒绝向我们提供几乎任何东西。当我们仅仅为了开始取得文件就必须耗费六个月时，这确实损害了债权人和破产财产。\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。Fornos（福诺斯）律师，您想回应吗？\n\nFornos律师：是的，法官阁下。我当然想回应。我希望记录反映，这是G Club Operations首次在本案中出庭。其此前从未出庭。其并未——\n\n法庭：这完全公平。但是，您是否不同意Luft律师就贵方此前关于提供文件、何时任命独立董事，以及那将由独立董事——嗯，他实际上说了很多事情——所作陈述中的任何内容？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023 47\n\nFornos律师：是的。法官阁下，我乐意对此作出回应。我——\n\n法庭：那么，他所说的任何内容——他所说的任何内容是否不准确？\n\nFornos律师：除日期外，我认为他对其所说一切的描述均不准确。首先，我们面临的问题是受托人——首先，他不是SEC。他不是司法部（Department of Justice）。我强烈建议受托人仔细审阅那些文件，因为他对G Club Operations为何物及其与债务人关系之指控的描述并不正确。我具体告知受托人的是，债务人曾是G Club Operations的形象大使。G Club Operations是一个会员组织。其经营方式是——向希望参与奢华生活方式业务并获得相关福利的个人出售会员资格。他对G Clubs（G俱乐部）的描述不当，尤其是在该实体此前从未在您面前出庭并有机会为自身辩护的情况下。现在，关于日期——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交 06/14/23\n登记 06/14/23 21:33:14\n第47页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交 06/14/23\n登记 06/14/23 21:33:14\n第48页，共\n\n法庭：嗯，那是另一个问题。好吗？请——暂且退一步。我明白您所说的。但是，G Club收到了传票，他们没有回应，也没有提出撤销传票的动议，更没有提出保护令动议。那么，他们为何现在可以这么做？\n\nFornos律师：原因如下。当我们首次收到范围广泛、包罗万象的传票时——\n\n法庭：这不是问题。这不是我要问的。\n\nFornos律师：是的。明白，法官阁下。但是——\n\n法庭：问题是——我的问题是一个非常直接的问题。没有人——他们收到了传票。他们没有回应。他们没有提出撤销传票的动议。他们没有提出保护令动议。那么，您为何现在应当能够这样做？当时有人——您已承认当时有人在那里——\n\nFornos律师：是的。\n\n法庭：——对吗？那是一个运营中的机构？\n\nFornos律师：是的。\n\n法庭：那么，既然在June 1st任命独立董事之前，已经有人控制该实体并选择不回应传票，您为何现在可以作出回应？\n\nFornos律师：不。法官阁下，我们确实回应了传票，并提交了异议。我们当时希望——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交 06/14/23\n登记 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023\n\n法庭：只有您刚才才这么做。\n\nFornos律师：不。对不起，法官阁下。我们向受托人送达了对2004规则的异议，并且——我们并非只是保持沉默。我们回应了，并对宽泛的请求提出了异议。\n\n法庭：是的。但您没有根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》提出保护令动议。\n\nFornos律师：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。\n\nFornos律师：而我们——并且——\n\n法庭：您看，这就是问题。\n\nFornos律师：明白，法官阁下。我们恳请法庭在此事上予以宽容，因为在起诉书提交以及SEC——起诉状提交时，我们正在办理此事。而且——\n\n法庭：传票是在December发出的。Kwok先生直到March 15th才被起诉。\n\nFornos律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我之所以知道这一点，只是因为那天早上我们正要开庭审理。好吗？当我以为我们要传唤第一位证人时，法庭内的每个人都告诉我，那——我相信是那个日期。我可能记错了，但我认为——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交 06/14/23\n登记 06/14/23 21:33:14\n第50页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023 50\n\n是March 15th。\n\nFornos律师：法官阁下是正确的。\n\n法庭：我们当时已安排开庭审理，对吗？所以，我要对您说的只是，我理解您的论点——\n\nFornos律师：嗯哼。\n\n法庭：——但并未遵守《联邦民事诉讼规则》。而您的当事人——您可能没有参与，也可能参与了，我不知道——知道，承担了该风险。\n\nFornos律师：明白，法官阁下。我们听取了法庭的意见。但是，我们确实尝试与受托人协商范围。受托人坚持且毫不动摇地认为，G Club Operations与债务人完全是同一实体，因此，他们基本上有权获得一切，这近似于对该实体进行法证分析。而且——\n\n法庭：嗯，2004规则审查，您知道，您可以主张它就是如此。我确信您知道判例法如何表述。它近似于一场摸鱼式调查。它不是证言录取。它不是证言录取通知。它是2004规则审查。\n\nFornos律师：法官阁下，那么——法官阁下，我们恭敬地提出，对此存在界限。\n\n法庭：我不是说不存在。我只是说，当您说——我同意2004规则审查可以有界限。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交 06/14/23\n登记 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023\n\n我并非暗示永远不能有界限。但就2004规则审查而言，这与就证言录取通知而言并不是同一种论点。\n\n这一2004规则审查程序是《联邦破产程序规则》的一部分，其目的在于允许当事人进行调查。该受托人被专门任命来调查债务人的事务。您可以提出论点，而且您就范围而言可能是正确的。但您必须根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》，并在《联邦民事诉讼规则》规定的期限内这样做。而本案中并未发生这种情况。\n\nFornos律师：而且，法官阁下，我们现在来到法庭前请求该延期。我们确实有一种情况——\n\n法庭：在传票送达七个月后。\n\nFornos律师：明白，法官阁下。但我们现在确实面临一种情况，即独立管理人无法——他刚于June 1st被任命。\n\n法庭：嗯，他——或许他们本就不该接下这份工作。\n\nFornos律师：法官阁下，恭敬地说，这不是您通常遇到的案件。这是一个特殊情况。而且我们——规则很简单。对他们能够取得的内容是有限制的。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交 06/14/23\n登记 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023\n\n他们想要一切，不受任何界限约束。\n\n法庭：我不是——我们可以处理这个问题。\n\nFornos律师：这很昂贵，费用很高。\n\n法庭：律师，我并不担心这个。我确实不担心。您知道，我会听取您关于界限的问题。这不是问题所在。问题在于，您现在正在寻求一项延长要求遵从传票期限的动议，而您的当事人已经违反了该传票。\n\nFornos律师：法官阁下，明白。但是，我们确实回应了受托人。受托人至今尚未提出强制执行动议。这正是我们现在在处理的事情。而目前提交法庭审理的强制执行动议，我们只是请求法庭延期60 days，以便使需要熟悉情况的人能够回应受托人。\n\n这是公平问题。当某人刚于June 1st担任这一职务时，绝对无法遵从。归根结底，这是一个实际可行性问题。我们希望受托人更为合理，当然也缩减其请求范围。\n\n法庭：嗯——\n\nFornos律师：而且我们希望与他们合作，尝试作出回应。\n\n法庭：您现在拥有哪些尚未提供的文件？您现在拥有哪些文件？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023\n\nFornos律师：我们有公司设立文件。我们有电子邮件——\n\n法庭：好。该请求有什么不合理之处？\n\nFornos律师：法官阁下，我有——法官阁下——\n\n法庭：不，不。我在问——\n\nFornos律师：是。\n\n法庭：——一个问题。\n\nFornos律师：作为律师——\n\n法庭：这是对一个实体的2004规则审查，我不确定我是否确切知道其正确的公司名称，所以——\n\nFornos律师：当然。\n\n法庭：但对于G Club实体——\n\nFornos律师：Operations。\n\n法庭：——即Operations，受托人——其被任命来调查债务人的事务——正在请求查阅该实体的公司记录，对吗？\n\nFornos律师：是。\n\n法庭：而您刚才告诉我，您有公司设立文件。那么，有什么不合理之处？因为这是我必须作出的认定，对吗？我难道不——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 6, 2023 54 必须根据规则认定——福尔诺斯女士（MS. FORNOS）：是。法庭：——该请求是合理还是不合理？福尔诺斯女士：当然。您——法庭：无论是在范围上还是在时间上。福尔诺斯女士：是。法庭：那么，要求提供公司设立——公司设立文件，有什么不合理之处？福尔诺斯女士：嗯，我们当然可以交出公司设立文件，但那不是他所要求的。法庭：但你们为什么一直没有。嗯，是的，你——你刚才说他要求的是这个。福尔诺斯女士：不是。他要求所有财务记录，而我并不掌握所有财务记录。并且独立管理人——法庭：好的。福尔诺斯女士：独立管理人是必须授权我的人。法官阁下，作为律师，除非有客户授权我代表其行事，否则我不能采取行动。法庭：是。但你必须向你的客户提供建议——案号 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第54页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第55页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 6, 2023\n\n1 福尔诺斯女士：\n是。\n2 法庭：\n——你的客户应如何行事，才能\n3 遵守法律，对吗？\n4 福尔诺斯女士：\n而且他们——\n5 法庭：\n而且他们可能不同意你的意见。\n6 福尔诺斯女士：\n而且——\n7 法庭：\n但你仍然必须向他们提供建议。\n8 福尔诺斯女士：\n正是如此，法官阁下。这就是\n9 需要时间的原因。June 1st，有一名新人\n10 负责此事。\n11 我已向受托人表示，\n12 独立管理人知道这是优先事项。我已\n13 亲自明确说明这一点。我确实必须向我们的客户提供建议。\n14 但归根结底，只有在我们的客户\n15 授予我权限后，我才能采取行动。\n16 现在，在此，独立管理人明确\n17 表示，我需要了解有哪些记录。而且，是的，\n18 我们将努力完成此次提交。\n19 法庭：\n谁——我不需要知道该人的\n20 姓名。我不是——但我想，该独立\n21 管理人是——是一名商人？\n22 福尔诺斯女士：\n是的。\n23 法庭：\n好的。因此，我认为该\n24 商人应当相当清楚，一个公司实体应当包括哪些种类的账簿、\n25 记录和信息。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 6, 2023 56 公司实体，对吗？福尔诺斯女士：明白。法庭：好的。福尔诺斯女士：而且他们需要时间——这——另外，我应当说明清楚。这是一个在 Puerto Rico（波多黎各）的实体，法官阁下。其办公室在 Puerto Rico。它——法庭：好的。福尔诺斯女士：明白。我只是想确保法庭理解——法庭：不过，就传票而言，那无关紧要。福尔诺斯女士：是，法官阁下。那不是我的问题。我关切的是后勤和实际操作问题。我们需要时间让独立管理人——评估有哪些材料，以便我们作出回应。这就是我们请求法庭准许的全部事项。法庭：账簿和记录在 Puerto Rico 吗？福尔诺斯女士：是。所有东西都在 Puerto Rico。法庭：那么他实际占有并控制这些账簿和记录？福尔诺斯女士：不——很快会是的。他被任命——他已被任命，以确保他能够审查这些材料。案号 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第56页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 6, 2023 57 法庭：对。那么截至今天——今天是 June 6th。福尔诺斯女士：嗯。法庭：那么截至今天，就在我们现在坐在这里时，这位独立董事——我不知道是男性还是女性。抱歉，我不知道。我就称其为独立董事，该人——福尔诺斯女士：是。法庭：——占有并控制 G Club实体（G Club entity）的账簿和记录。而且我再次致歉。我不确切知道。你刚才说了。运营？是——福尔诺斯女士：是。法庭：——正确的吗？福尔诺斯女士：是，法官阁下。是 G Club运营有限责任公司（G Club Operations, LLC）。法庭：哦，在这里。G Club运营有限责任公司。好的？那么他占有并控制那些文件？福尔诺斯女士：他正在取得占有和控制，对吗？他需要审查这些材料。而我——我们正在——法庭：嗯，我不——我——福尔诺斯女士：——协助此事。法庭：那不是我在问的。我——案号 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第57页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 6, 2023 58 是说，如果我走到那位董事那里，对吗，如果我是你，我去了 Puerto Rico，走进那位董事那里，并说，这家公司的记录在哪里，他知道它们在哪里吗？福尔诺斯女士：我不能替他回答——法庭：好的。福尔诺斯女士：——目前，法官阁下。法庭：他是否有保险箱或柜子的钥匙，所有记录都在那里？福尔诺斯女士：法官阁下，我不——我不能回答——法庭：好的。嗯，我认为——福尔诺斯女士：——独立管理人的情况。法庭：我认为这正是关键所在，对吗？你们将不得不回答这些问题。福尔诺斯女士：而我们需要时间。正是如此。而且我们需要那——些时间，以便——法庭：嗯，除非你们在这方面存在的问题是——福尔诺斯女士：嗯。法庭：——无论如何，根据卢夫特先生（Mr. Luft）的说法，我会给你机会予以反驳，数月以来你一直说，你们一直在就这些文件进行沟通。而现在，你希望再延长60天，仅仅是为了回应该动议。案号 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第58页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第59页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 6, 2023 59 你甚至没有说你将提交——嗯，你确实说了，而且我警告过你，因为本案中已经发生过有人告诉我他们将分批提交材料的情况。福尔诺斯女士：嗯。法庭：而且由于律师作出该陈述——福尔诺斯女士：是。法庭：——我——法庭采取了行动——根据该——福尔诺斯女士：当然。法庭：——并不真实且未发生的陈述，下令采取某项行动。好的？因此，除此之外，你和受托人的律师作为法庭官员，也有义务处理证据开示争议，除非绝对必要，否则不要牵涉法庭。因为这些义务在《联邦民事诉讼规则》下独立于法庭而存在。因此，你知道，如果你告诉我你将分批提交文件，我想知道何时提交以及提交哪些文件。福尔诺斯女士：法官阁下，我可以澄清一个问题吗？我们请求将听证会延期60天。希望这次听证会将无实际意义，因为\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 6, 2023 60 希望——法庭：但如果不是呢？我理解这个希望，而且我希望双方共同合作。我并非暗示你们没有——并非暗示那不可能发生。但如果不是呢？60天后我该怎么办？福尔诺斯女士：但设想是在60天后举行听证会。如果卢夫特先生——如果受托人在60天后站在您面前说，他们什么也没做，法官阁下，那么我认为那将是不同的情形。但那不是我所设想的60天后的情形。而且，再次说明，是将听证会延期60天，以便我们有机会希望使所有这些问题不再具有实际意义，并且不浪费法庭的时间。法庭：我明白你的意思。我明白。只是已经——不幸的是，已经——法庭不得不介入太多——福尔诺斯女士：嗯。法庭：——本案中的证据开示争议。好的？而这里又是一起，其中有人作出陈述，即——嗯，我知道——我从案卷和已提交的信息中可以看到，传票于 December of 2022 送达。现在是 June of 2023。这不是——这是个问题。福尔诺斯女士：而且，法官阁下，如果我们或许可以请求法庭考虑，在本案这个——案号 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第60页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n于 06/14/23 提交\n于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 6, 2023\n\n1 实体在失去管理层之后，面对大多数人\n2 都不愿处理的情况——这些人是董事。这些人\n3 是高级管理人员。这些人是公司的总法律顾问。\n4 该公司已聘任了一名独立\n5 管理人。并且为记录起见，这不是任何人的亲属。\n6 这是一家独立公司，专门从事进入公司、评估并盘点公司的状况。\n7 这就是已经发生的事情。这是一项确保\n8 合规的努力。\n9 \n10 我们无法作出比以下事实更好的陈述：\n11 已聘请一家独立公司进入公司\n12 并完成此事。这是一项善意努力，以确保\n13 文件得到保存，义务得到履行。这就是\n14 我们请求法庭准许延期的原因。\n15 法庭：\n我明白。\n16 福尔诺斯女士：\n这是为了独立管理人。\n17 法庭：\n我明白。我只是对\n18 一系列不幸事件感到有些\n19 担忧，如果我们要这么称呼的话——称其为那样，即\n20 至少根据卢夫特律师（Attorney Luft）的说法——\n21 福尔诺斯女士：\n嗯。\n22 法庭：\n——好的，February 9th 举行了一次协商会议。\n23 随后 March 2nd 举行了第二次协商会议。\n24 在那次协商会议中，他说你表示\n25 G Club因其会——以某种方式\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n于 06/14/23 提交\n于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 6, 2023\n\n1 与债务人有关联而感到被冒犯。随后在 April 11 举行第三次\n2 协商会议时，那已超过两个月——\n3 接近两个月之前，所有人都辞职了。\n4 然后不久之后将有这位独立\n5 董事，但直到 June 1 才发生。这些都是法庭——我的意思是，事实，\n6 除非存在争议，否则法庭\n7 必须予以考虑。\n8 福尔诺斯女士：\n嗯，法官阁下，如果法庭允许我说明，\n9 因为这里令人困扰的是这种定性。\n10 问题在于，我们确实试图协商，试图——我向\n11 受托人解释，你要求提供一切。\n12 而他的立场非常简单。我不会放弃我所要求的任何一项，\n13 因为我有权获得我所要求的一切，因为有\n14 认定，显然从未出庭的 G Club\n15 以某种方式被认定为债务人网络的一部分。\n16 \n17 \n18 法庭：\n法庭就另一方作出认定，\n19 不要求任何人出庭。\n20 福尔诺斯女士：\n法官阁下，我们所陈述的只是，\n21 我希望有时间了解，受托人如何能够\n22 采取立场，认为他有权获得包括对我们实体进行法务审查在内的一切，\n23 以及据称存在相关认定。\n24 我们所请求的只是一个\n25 机会——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第63页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 6, 2023\n\n法庭：\n\n嗯，存在——\n\n福尔诺斯女士（Fornos）：\n\n——需要缩小范围——\n\n法庭：\n\n存在——它们并非——据称属于认定。\n\n属于认定。本庭作出了认定——\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n法官阁下，我——\n\n法庭：\n\n——与一项初步禁令有关。你可以不同意这些认定。我相信该事项正在上诉，还有所有其他那些事情。但那是我所作出的决定。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n法官阁下，恕我直言，我确实审阅了该裁定，其中仅有一处提及 G Club Operations（G Club运营有限责任公司）。我知道还有许多其他提及诸多 G 实体的地方，我也知道受托人的立场是，任何 G 实体显然都是与 Kwok（郭文贵）关联的实体。\n\n我们现在不必处理这场争议。为记录在案，我们对受托人的指称提出异议。\n\n法庭：\n\n我相信你们是这样。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n而我们——但今天提交给法庭的问题是，独立管理人通过律师请求，请允许独立管理人有时间进行组织和了解情况，以便其能够遵守要求，并希望避免今后再次出庭。这是我向法庭所作的陈述。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 64 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023 64\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。谢谢。卢夫特律师（Luft）？\n\n卢夫特先生（Luft）：\n\n是的，法官阁下。我会尽量简短，但我确实想强调几点。我认为，您关于他们有哪些文件、没有哪些文件的询问非常说明问题。不仅 G Club Operations 已被送达，且该命令于 December 2nd 登记，而且福尔诺斯女士至少自 December 21st 起就是他们的律师。至少从那时起我们就知道了。然而，表面上似乎没有人知道他们有哪些文件。即使从债务人于 March 15th 被起诉时算起，那也意味着有三个月没有审查任何文件。\n\n现在，我告诉她的情况就是事实。法官阁下对 G Club 作出了认定。事实上，法官阁下——该事项在命令第 2 段中被提及，其中称其作为 G 系列的一部分。因此，尽管 G Club 这一名称仅被提及一次，G 系列却被多次提及。我认为这不会改变任何事情。当然，我没有将一项法院命令告知对方一事，并不能成为他们不遵守该命令的依据。我们已有六个月——他们有数月时间，在此期间管理层在位且本可以遵守。此后，至少从 April 至 June\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1907\nFiled 06/14/23\nEntered 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023\n\n1st，曾反复提及即将聘任一名独立管理人。\n\n她说我们此前未提出动议。那是因为我们一直在试图解决此事，每次都在询问、请求，并被告知只差一天，我们将会遵守。\n\n如果这是她所称的专业组织，那么他们应当非常熟悉如何处理这些事情。独立管理人本人不需要亲自审查任何记录。他显然已聘有律师处理本案达六个月。他们应当准备好推进并继续办理。我不明白，除被告知我们收到一份传票、我们未遵守要求、我们长期未遵守、我们需要遵守之外，管理人还需要了解什么。\n\n福尔诺斯女士希望就传票范围应为何作出论证。我非常乐意回应。但我们当然不需要等待两个月，让独立管理人推定地弄清收到传票意味着什么。\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n法官阁下，简要说几句。受托人表现得好像他们所要求的只是公司设立文件。我想明确的是，他们要求的是一切：会员资格、每一笔钱、来自会员的每一美元、每一角钱、所有银行账户、所有财务交易、税务、审计等等。这是没有限制的。\n\n法庭：\n\nG Club Operations, LLC 是何时设立的？\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n它于 October of 2020 设立，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。那么我们谈论的是不足三年的文件，对吗？\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n法官阁下，这是正确的。但他们要求的远不止公司——\n\n法庭：\n\n那不是我的问题。你说的是——你说他们想要一切。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n\n那是一回事。但你说的是时间问题。嗯，该公司是在不足三年前登记设立的。从本庭的角度看，这并不不合理。至于范围——他们所要求的内容——那可能是我可以审查的事项。但如果该公司于 October of 2020 登记设立，而受托人正依其根据 Bankruptcy Code（破产法典）所负义务进行调查，那么，你知道，我认为你的当事人必须将此事置于更优先的位置。这\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 66 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023 67\n\n是——\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n明白。\n\n法庭：\n\n这不是一种——我理解你的论点，但这是这样一种情形，即受托人在本 Chapter 11 案件中进行调查的努力一直——我的意思是，我们已经说过——我以前已经说过——在程序的几乎每一步，即便不是每一步，都遭到了阻力。现在我听说，对于一份送达给一个于 October of 2020 设立的实体的传票，当时那里有人收到了传票，却什么也没做，尽管我想当时你代表他们，这是所作的陈述；他们希望有 60 天来弄清他们需要做什么。这在我看来并不合理。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n法官阁下，我必须重申，问题在于独立管理人刚刚于 June 1st 到任。\n\n法庭：\n\n我明白这一切。我明白。嘿，他接受——他到那里时发现的情况——\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n\n——对吗？\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n所以他或她或者——你知道，独立董事——我理解你所说的一切。然而，独立董事现在还有什么别的需要担心？\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n他需要了解这些文件在哪里以及运营情况。\n\n法庭：\n\n嗯，你刚才告诉我——\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n但我——\n\n法庭：\n\n——一切都在 Puerto Rico（波多黎各），而他在波多黎各。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n是的。但是——\n\n法庭：\n\n或者他或——独立董事。我不知道那个人是谁。抱歉。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n法官阁下——\n\n法庭：\n\n但那——所以他——\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n——需要了解这家公司——\n\n法庭：\n\n我明白。公司在做什么？难道不是——我必须——\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n法官阁下——\n\n法庭：\n\n我理解该公司是一家公司，也许有一些业务运营。我不知道其业务——我的意思是，我知道此前向法庭提出的情况，以及显然由——在案件中——在起诉书以及 Securities and Exchange Commission（证券交易委员会）事项中所主张的情况。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n嗯哼。\n\n法庭：\n\n但提交本庭的问题是，他们为何\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 68 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023 69\n\n尚未提交文件。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n而我们向本庭所作的陈述是，希望如果我们将此事延期 60 天，那将是——\n\n法庭：\n\n是的，但我不——\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n——足够的时间——\n\n法庭：\n\n我不能凭希望行事——我们不是靠希望行事，对吧？\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\nFederal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）中，我想我从未见过“希望”这个词。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n法官阁下——\n\n法庭：\n\n我认为其中有要求，对吗？\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n是的，法官阁下。而该等要求的一部分是确保他们遵守。该等遵守的一部分是有一名已到任、能够完成此事并遵守须满足的期限和要求的独立管理人。这就是我们请求给予时间的原因。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n谢谢。好的。还有人——是否还有其他人希望就代表 G Club Operations, LLC 提出的延长期限动议发表意见？\n\n好的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 69 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 70 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023\n\n我将对此事暂缓裁定，并将相应作出裁定。\n\n韦尼克女士（Wernick）：\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n谢谢。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n谢谢。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：\n\n我们感谢法庭拨冗。\n\n法庭：\n\n谢谢。\n\n好的。那么今天日程上的其他事项涉及 Rule 2004 审查问题及一项密封动议。那么我们将如何进行？\n\n卢夫特先生：\n\n法官阁下？\n\n法庭：\n\n是？\n\n卢夫特先生：\n\n我可以吗？我们还有其他——关于强制履行动议，有若干当事人根本没有回应。\n\n法庭：\n\n哦，是的。这有道理。但请继续。抱歉。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n\n所以我相信，就强制履行动议而言，剩下的就是这些。因此我将从好消息开始。其中一个实体 US Himalaya Capital（美国喜马拉雅资本）已联系我们。他们告诉我们将会遵守。因此目前，法官阁下，只要他们信守承诺并且我们继续与他们共同推进，我请求暂缓给予我们所请求的针对他们的藐视法庭救济，因为他们正在寻求遵守。\n\n否则，如果法官阁下允许，我想就其他选择不出庭或不对我们的动议作出任何回应的当事人发表意见，如果法庭认为可以的话。\n\n法庭：\n\n请给我一秒钟，以便跟上你的陈述。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n\n当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n我正在找你的动议。你说的是 805，即综合——1805，综合强制遵守动议？\n\n卢夫特先生：\n\n是。\n\n法庭：\n\n哦。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n\n1805。是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。好的。那么请继续。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n\n我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：\n\n可以，请。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。法官阁下，对于其余实体，我将分两批说明。第一批是 Saraca（萨拉卡）和 GTV Media Group（GTV媒体集团）。\n\n法庭：\n\n他们尚未遵守，对吗？\n\n卢夫特先生：\n\n他们尚未遵守，法官阁下。他们的情况有些特殊，因为他们曾有一名律师，即 Morvillo firm（莫维洛律师事务所）的一名叫 Jeremy Tempkin（杰里米·坦普金）的人，在数月内代表他们。他们与我们进行了协商。他们没有提交任何文件，但他们表示愿意这样做。他们说有一个数据库，可能会根据他们必须向 SEC 提交的内容生成文件。\n\n我们告诉他们，我们乐意查看该数据库。但值得注意的是，参与其中的一人是 Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔），法官阁下以前可能听过这个名字。他是 GTV 的一名董事。他未被包括在内。我们当时特意告诉坦普金先生，我们乐意考虑该数据库，但若其中甚至不包括其中一名董事，特别是米切尔先生的电子邮件和文件，那么在我们看来，这当然不会充分。\n\n我们到了这样一个地步，即我们告诉坦普金先生，听着，\n\n要么我们需要达成一个解决方案，让你们提交文件，要么我们就需要继续推进。因此，坦普金先生（Mr. Tempkin）于 11 月末，即 November 29th，在我们刚刚表示——要么你们必须提交文件，要么我们必须继续推进时，突然通知我们，他的律师事务所正在退出代理，并且在这两个实体中的任何一个提交哪怕一份文件之前，他们将不再代理这两个实体。坦普金先生没有——法院：那么这是 GTV（GTV）和 Saraca（萨拉卡）？卢夫特先生（MR. LUFT）：以及 Saraca。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 73 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 6, 2023\n\n法院：好的。请继续。\n\n卢夫特先生：是，法官阁下。为提供一些背景，GTV 是运营郭先生（Mr. Guo）权益的媒体实体。Saraca 是 GTV 的母公司。它还为购买郭先生住宅支付了至少 \\$2 million。Saraca 拥有郭文贵先生姓名的商标权，并且曾经——也是法官阁下在初步禁令听证中认定由郭文贵先生控制的实体之一，另一实体为 GTV Media（GTV媒体）。\n\n当时，我询问坦普金先生，他基于何种理由退出代理，或者他是否已被解聘。他不愿向我提供任何细节。他只是在 December 14, 2022 致函我。这是 Exhibit E1 to 1805：“我建议您将有关 GTV 和 Saraca 的进一步询问转给 Aaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）。”\n\n法官阁下会记得，米切尔先生是郭文贵先生的军师和内部律师，无论他当时所担任何种角色。我们确实这样做了。我们联系了米切尔先生。米切尔先生随即回复我们说，我不知道坦普金先生为何这样告诉你们。我没有——我并不代理任何一个实体。我也不能告诉你们谁——起初他——抱歉。起初他告诉我们，他一旦知道谁代理它们，就会告诉我们。现在他说他不知道。\n\n而自 December 起，我们一直没有任何人可联系。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1907\nFiled 06/14/23\nEntered 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n在这两个实体中的任何一个实体，都没有人可供联系。没有人作出任何回应。\n\n因此，我们从我所称的强制提交动议类型的情形——至少我们还有一个与之交涉、试图从其获取信息的对方——再次变成了每逢需要提交文件时，砰的一声，郭文贵相关实体中的所有人都消失了。没有人可联系。\n\n现在，在此案中，找到了米切尔先生。他持续代表郭文贵先生参与本案。尽管他说他个人并未参与，但坦普金先生明确表示应当与米切尔先生交谈，这强烈表明米切尔先生参与了 Morvillo 律师事务所退出代理一事。更有甚者，法官阁下，米切尔先生也是 GTV 的董事。但他没有作出回应。\n\n我们需要有人与我们交涉。正如我们稍后将要说明的，我们不断碰壁，这些实体显然涉及债务人遗产。而一到关键时刻，就没有人可联系。此前，在涉及强制提交动议时，我们曾就 Golden Spring（黄金泉）和 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）讨论过这个问题。这些实体做了所有这些事情，而一到关键时刻，突然之间就不再有人回应，而它们只是接受缺席。同时，我们被告知，这些实体中的每一个实际上都持有相关文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n因此，就这两个实体而言，法官阁下，除请求就不遵从作出藐视法庭认定外，我在此请求给予一些非常救济。米切尔先生参与本案。坦普金先生明确指向他，称他是会知晓此事的人。他以前是董事，即使不是，他目前也是董事。我不知道目前在 GTV 是否还有任何人担任这些实体中任何一个的董事。\n\n让他出庭。让某个人来到本法院并说明，是谁经营这些实体，文件在哪里。因为目前，如果没有人可联系，我就无法获得信息。而且，每当需要提交文件时，这些人似乎都消失不见，这实在十分方便。\n\n这就是我们与 GTV 和 Saraca 的现状；这些实体曾与债务人及其遗产有重大关联，实际资金曾流经其中。由于我们没有从它们那里取得任何文件，我无法告诉法院其账户中是否仍有数百万美元。\n\n但我确实知道，在这些实体中至少有一个人似乎能够知晓有关该信息的情况。他至今仍代理债务人及郭女士（Ms. Guo）、Mei Guo（郭梅）。我认为，他应当向本法院出庭并向法院说明——谁负责，文件在哪里，以便我们有机会获得一些信息。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 75 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1907\nFiled 06/14/23\nEntered 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n关于其余实体，法官阁下，还有另外两个 G Club——G Club US Operations LLC（G Club美国运营有限责任公司）、G Club US Operations Inc.（G Club美国运营公司）。据我了解，它们并非由 Pillsbury（皮尔斯伯里）代理。它们仅仅对传票缺席。没有人对那些传票作出回应。\n\n还有 G Fashion（G时尚）和 G News（G新闻），它们显然曾经参与其中，而且似乎债务人乐于从其经营活动中收取资金，直到收到传票时为止。并且，再次没有回应。它们似乎愿意接受缺席。应当认定其藐视法庭。New York MOS Himalaya LLC（纽约MOS喜马拉雅有限责任公司），没有回应。Crane Advisory Group（克兰咨询集团），没有回应。Mei Weng Trading, LLC（梅翁贸易有限责任公司），没有回应。同样地，这不仅是对传票没有回应，而且对已经向其送达、我们同样没有收到任何回应的强制提交动议也没有回应。\n\n因此，如我所说，我们处于困难境地——在 Saraca 和 GTV 的情形下，米切尔先生似乎参与其中并且知晓一些情况。我请求他作为参与本案的法院官员，应当出庭并协助提供该信息。\n\n至于它们和其他实体，它们应当被认定藐视法庭。听着，我最希望做的是挥一挥魔杖，然后说，太好了，现在有人可以与我们交涉，我们实际上能够取得文件。我认为，它们与债务人有关联几乎毫无疑问。问题在于，没有人。它们就是不作回应。因此，我请求能够——对它们作出藐视法庭认定。我请求，如果我们继续推进这些案件，并最终就其提起对抗程序或采取某种行动提出动议，它们不得玩弄手段，在其想出庭时才出庭。但是，并且我——否则，我请求法院允许我们保留权利，在我们认为能够找到这些文件的范围内，日后寻求进一步救济。这就是该动议其余部分的情况，法官阁下。\n\n法院：那么，关于不遵从的答辩方，G Club Operations LLC 显然是在寻求延长履行期限。GT Media——GTV Media 和 Saraca Media 尚未遵从——\n\n卢夫特先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——无论以任何方式、形式或程度。\n\n卢夫特先生：除它们最初聘请了律师之外——\n\n法院：最初有一名律师，而它们并不——\n\n卢夫特先生：——但自那以后——\n\n法院：那么——\n\n卢夫特先生：而且我们没有任何文件。一份也没有。\n\n法院：那么，它们现在不也是缺席答辩方吗？\n\n卢夫特先生：依我看，目前它们是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么，关于你们列为缺席答辩方的实体，Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）实体，你们已与其达成协议。\n\n卢夫特先生：是。\n\n法院：因此，它们目前不受任何类型命令的约束。还有——你说 US Himalaya——\n\n卢夫特先生：US Himalaya Capital（美国喜马拉雅资本）似乎正在与我们合作，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n卢夫特先生：所以我们会（听不清）。\n\n法院：但是其他所有人仍然——你们在动议中列出的所有其他当事人仍是缺席答辩方。它们什么也没有做？\n\n卢夫特先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：那么，我对你们动议的理解是，你们希望法院就缺席答辩方作出命令，给予它们额外三天履行，否则将被认定藐视法庭？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 79 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n卢夫特先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：然后，关于不遵从的答辩方，目前实际上只有 G Club，但它们请求提出一项——它们请求延长履行期限的动议。但是，根据你们的动议，你们希望那些当事人在 14 days 内履行？\n\n卢夫特先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么我必须回头审阅并看看我是否同意你们的命令，然后我会决定如何处理。过去，当有人未遵从传票，并且提出强制履行动议时，我相信我们会在认定其藐视法庭之前，给予其最后一次机会，这正是你所说的，即给予其一段额外的履行期限，期限很短，但仍是一段履行期限。如果不履行，则将被认定藐视法庭。\n\nGolden Spring 和 Lamp Capital，我——情况不同。我在考虑我们在本案其他情形中的做法略有不同，因为它们曾在本案中出庭。并且它们在本案中由律师代理。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1907\nFiled 06/14/23\nEntered 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n卢夫特先生：在失去联系之前，曾经如此，是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：是的。除今天的 G Club Operations LLC 之外，其他实体均未提交任何——而 Hudson 实体，Romney 先生（Mr. Romney）已代表其提交出庭通知的实体，也已提交——据我所知，没有任何律师代表这些当事人中的任何一方提交出庭通知，对吗？\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我不知道它们是否曾经——G Fashion 和 G News 是否曾经有过——\n\n法院：我是说在本案中或者任何——\n\n卢夫特先生：没有。我是说——\n\n法院：本案中没有任何记录？\n\n卢夫特先生：据我所知没有，法官阁下。我不记得在初步禁令的背景下，当它们是明确争点时，是否曾提交出庭通知，但据我所知没有。\n\n听着，法官阁下，受托人的观点是，这些实体，特别是这些 G 实体，全部都由——郭文贵先生的律师实际上通过 Aaron Mitchell 监督管理，这一点不会令人意外。因此，我认为它们已获得通知。但它们是否曾到您面前说过什么？没有。这正是我们面临的重大问题的一部分，亦即——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 81 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日 81 看起来，在本院之外似乎存在幕后律师，他们作出决定或不出庭，然后他们聘请外部律师，您知道，外部律师会尽力而为，但并不真正了解正在发生的事情。因此，我不知道这些实体实际上是否有人已出庭代理。我确实相信，它们都与债务人有密切关联。鉴于他积极参与我们为获取有关此事信息所作努力的每一个方面，我的直觉是，它们当然知道正在发生什么。但那只是直觉，法官大人。ROMNEY先生（罗姆尼先生）：法官大人，我可以简要陈述吗？法院：代表谁？ROMNEY先生：代表债务人。法院：出于何种目的？这些传票均非向债务人发出。没有任何——ROMNEY先生：而且我——法院：所请求的救济均非针对债务人。ROMNEY先生：我理解，我也不反对针对任何实体——这些实体中的任何一个，我均不代理——所请求的任何救济。我确实对债务人与这些实体之间关系的表述提出异议，我当然对此毫不知情。而且我认为，至少就其中一些实体而言，并无任何证据基础支持此种表述。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日\n\n1 该等表述。\n并且就其余实体而言，我认为那些事项\n2 均在上诉中。\n3 因此，仅为记录在案，我反对对债务人\n4 与这些实体之间法律关系作出的任何表述。\n我还反对\n5 将Mitchell先生（米切尔先生）表述为债务人的\n6 “consigliere”。\n我不知道这是什么意思。\n再次，\n7 我不确定这与所请求的任何救济是否相关。\n8 但在所请求的救济\n9 以与债务人已确立的关系为基础的范围内，我\n10 仅据此提出异议。谢谢。\n11 法院：谢谢。\n12 LUFT先生（卢夫特先生）：当然，法官大人，我并不——\n13 法院：您知道，每一项——我并不担心\n14 我所——当事人提出论点，而我会给予\n15 我认为适当的权重。好吗？\n16 身份不明的发言人：当然，法官大人。\n17 身份不明的发言人：谢谢您，法官大人。\n18 法院：好的。谢谢。\n19 好的。那么，关于1805，即第二项要求遵守Rule 2004传票的综合强制执行动议，\n20 还有其他人希望陈述吗？好的。\n21 未听到任何陈述。则法院将对此事项\n22 暂缓裁定，并将相应作出裁定。但我——再次，我\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日 83 相信我们将很快作出该项裁定。好吗？LUFT先生：感谢法官大人拨冗。法院：谢谢。现在，关于——我认为还有两项事项。我需要——请稍等一下。好吗？（暂停）法院：有第五项关于2004审查的综合动议以及一项密封动议。在处理这些事项之前，不——我需要休息一分钟，因为有人告诉我需要查看某些内容。所以我将去查看，并立刻回来。因此，任何人都不应离开法庭。我应当不会超过一两分钟。因此，法院将短暂休庭。书记员：全体起立。（法院于下午2:50至下午2:55休庭。）书记员：恢复庭审记录。法院：谢谢。抱歉。我们随后只需处理，我认为——如果我有误，请各位纠正我——关于其他实体的第五项2004审查综合动议以及密封动议。对吗？身份不明的发言人：是的，法官大人。法院：好的。那么，请按你们希望的方式继续。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n第83页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日 84 LUFT先生：法官大人，也许我们可以先处理密封动议，因为我希望它会很快结束。法院：当然可以。LUFT先生：我认为，该密封动议与我们的强制执行动议有关。坦率地说，原因只是根据保护令，向我们提供的文件带有保密指定。因此，为遵守该命令，我们将其密封提交。我们请求仅据此准许该密封动议。法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望就——抱歉——密封动议陈述吗？还有——我正在查看——我不知道是否已看到密封动议所附的拟议命令。请给我一点时间。我认为过去——但再次说明，我——我目前不确定是否记得，在这种情况下，由于你们处理的是保护令和保密令的规定，我们只是签发了你们的拟议命令，我想是这样。但我不确定自己是否正确。由于本案案卷中有1,800项记录，我有时记不住。好的。密封动议附有一份拟议命令。该命令载于ECF 1806第10至12页。唯一需要你们做的是，请注明\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n第84页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n第85页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日\n\n1 命令第二页顶端的今日开庭日期，\n2 即ECF文件第11页。其写道：“并且已据此及以其他方式证明存在正当理由”——我\n3 会说，您知道，在2023年6月6日举行听证会后，\n4 以明确表明我们已举行听证会。然后该命令\n5 即可签发。好吗？\n6 LUFT先生：谢谢您，法官大人。\n7 法院：好的。那么，关于1806，\n8 该动议获准。密封动议获准，\n9 经作出庭审记录中所述的轻微修改后，拟议命令\n10 将予签发。好吗？\n11 那么，今日下午剩下的是Rule 2004\n12 审查动议，即针对其他实体进行2004审查的第五项综合动议，\n13 即ECF编号\n14 1789。由谁处理该事项？\n15 BASSETT先生（巴塞特先生）：我将代表\n16 受托人处理该事项，法官大人。\n17 法院：好的。请继续，Bassett律师。\n18 BASSETT先生：法官大人，我可以使用讲台吗？\n19 法院：可以，请。\n20 BASSETT先生：再次，为记录在案，我是来自Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），代表受托人。因此，\n21 法官大人，我认为，不幸的是，今日提交法院审理的\n22 事项中似乎存在某种共同主题。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n第86页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日\n\n1 而且不幸的是，这一主题并非当事人\n2 履行其在Rule 2004下的证据开示义务。\n3 坦率地说，我们今日竟然就此项事项\n4 在存在争议的基础上出庭，实际上有些奇怪。我将在\n5 稍后解释。\n6 但是，如您所说，本动议是受托人为寻求2004审查而提交的第五项动议。\n7 它涵盖受托人\n8 通过持续调查或其他近期进展确认的八个额外当事人，\n9 受托人认为，这些当事人拥有\n10 与Rule 2004下审查有关的\n11 信息。\n12 我之所以说我们今日在存在争议的基础上出庭很奇怪，\n13 是因为八个调查对象中没有一个\n14 对该动议提出异议。已提出的仅有两项异议，\n15 一项由债务人提出，另一项由债务人的\n16 妻子和Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）提出。\n17 这些异议据称反对受托人拟从名为\n18 Nodal Partners LLC（诺达尔合伙人有限责任公司）的实体处获取有关债务人的\n19 证据开示，该实体已在提交给本院的一份文件中披露为\n20 负责提供债务人律师报酬来源的实体。\n21 该披露还指出，该实体显然与债务人的女儿存在某种\n22 关系，我相信是这样。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n第87页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日 87 债务人的妻子和Greenwich Land提出的异议，据称是代表名为Bento Technologies（本托科技公司）的实体提出；据我们了解，该实体是一个支出管理平台，过去曾从包括Greenwich Land和Golden Spring（金泉）在内的来源收到款项。如果我们具体讨论债务人妻子和Greenwich Land的异议以及Bento Technologies相关问题，Linsey先生（林赛先生）将实际处理该部分。因此，我将把余下时间用于处理债务人关于Nodal Partners LLC的异议。债务人在该异议中提出两个问题——或者说，两个问题，我想，并非债务人提出的两个问题，而是两个问题——抱歉，法官大人。是的，债务人提出的两个问题。其中一项实际上与Nodal Partners无关。第一项问题实际上是，根据2004从Nodal Partners取得证据开示是否适当。债务人认为并不适当。第二项问题涉及，在债务人收到有关审查的通知时，其参与2004审查的能力。我将在处理Nodal Partners问题后再谈这一点。\n\n关于Nodal Partners的证据开示，我认为很容易驳回这项异议，因为债务人根本不具备提出\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n第88页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月6日\n\n1 反对此项证据开示异议并就此陈述的诉讼地位。\n我认为这\n2 有两个独立理由。第一，如果您查看\n3 异议的依据——我认为这相当引人注目。如果您\n4 查看异议——这是第一段——\n5 债务人称，其反对向Nodal Partners寻求的\n6 证据开示，理由是其“范围广泛、侵扰性强、\n7 且负担沉重。”\n\n我不知道债务人如何能够站在本院面前，代表一个自身从未出庭、提出异议并主张该证据开示负担沉重的当事人，提出负担沉重的异议。债务人完全没有依据提出该论点。\n\n而且，债务人在此提出异议并作出此类论点这一事实，坦率地说，应当更加清楚地表明，这必定有其原因，也必定有理由说明受托人正在向该实体寻求的证据开示至关重要，特别是在该实体是债务人律师的资金来源时。\n\n债务人不具备诉讼地位的第二个理由是，如法官大人已认定，本案不存在出现剩余财产的合理可能性。债务人本可在回应我们的2004动议时主张，他认为该动议的部分或全部没有必要，因此不应由受托人代表破产财产支出的费用。但债务人没有依据提出此类异议，因为他在本破产案中没有经济利益，因为不存在剩余财产的可能性。因此，我认为，至少就Nodal Partners而言——即使不是完全就该异议而言——我们可以止于此并驳回该异议，因为债务人绝不可能具备就此陈述的诉讼地位。\n\n如果我们要进一步审查，好的，假定债务人具备陈述的诉讼地位，那么该证据开示是否适当，我认为毫无疑问该证据开示是适当的。再次说明，这是一个实体——该事项载于5月9日提交的ECF 1774。债务人向法院披露，他从该实体获得了$256,000的报酬。\n\n即使债务人是在主张——坦率地说，我无法确定，因为债务人提交的文件中存在相互矛盾的陈述——但即使债务人是在主张，他正由该实体支付报酬，而该实体与债务人毫无任何关系，因此，根据第2004条规则极为宽泛的范围，受托人得以进行摸底式调查并获取证据开示，毫无依据，我认为这完全不可信。这在法律上完全错误。\n\n如法院所熟知，过去曾为债务人提供资金的实体，尤其是 Golden Spring（金泉），与债务人存在明显联系。我认为无人对此提出异议。我也不认为有人会认真主张，该实体 Nodal Partners, LLC（诺达尔合伙人有限责任公司）是出于善意，随机支付债务人律师的费用。根据第2004条规则，受托人有权就债务人与该实体之间的关系进行证据开示。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 提交于 06/14/23 录入于 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 90 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日 90\n\n至于该实体究竟从事何种业务、其与债务人有何关联，我只想指出几件事，因为我认为这——这令我深感不安，我认为法院也应感到不安。如果您查看债务人异议的第3段，其中有一句债务人称——请稍等，法官阁下。其中有一句债务人称：“公开可得的信息表明，Nodal 是一家位于得克萨斯州奥斯汀的运营公司，由资深且受过良好教育的专业人士管理，并且与债务人不存在明显关联。”\n\n同样，在我先前提及的、于5月9日提交的费用披露文件中，债务人在脚注中称，基于所知及所信，与该实体有关联或控制该实体的人士是债务人女儿的一位朋友。我认为这两项陈述值得注意之处在于，债务人假装不知道自己是否存在关联。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日 91\n\n我认为，更可能的情况是，律师提交文件并在网上进行研究，试图弄清该实体是什么，却没有向任何人实际核实。Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）代理 Mei Guo（郭美）。他们为何必须基于所知及所信主张存在某种关系，我无法理解。要么存在这种关系，要么不存在，他们应当知晓该关系的性质。至于该实体与债务人的关联，我不知道他们为何需要称其与债务人不存在明显关联。要么存在关联，要么不存在。他们应当能够就此作出陈述。这不会改变我们是否需要证据开示，但他们甚至无法向法院取得该程度的信息这一事实，令人深感不安。因此，我认为毫无疑问，该证据开示是适当的。但债务人从一开始就不应有机会对此提出异议。因此，我认为这处理了关于从 Nodal Partners 获取证据开示的问题。债务人提出的另一问题涉及其抱怨称，他没有事先收到关于受托人根据本法院先前第2004条规则命令所进行的全部审查，或者更具体而言，证言录取的通知。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 提交于 06/14/23 录入于 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 92 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日\n\n第2004条规则命令。\n\n对此论点有几项回应。\n\n首先，基于我稍后将要说明的理由，这在法律上就是错误的。但我认为，首先，该权利已被放弃。\n\n受托人大约十个月前开始这项调查——我在听证会前回顾了一下，值得注意的是，我们几乎快到一周年了。此后不久，法院开始作出第2004条规则命令，正如债务人在其异议中承认的，这些命令——此前作出的命令与受托人在后续动议中所请求的命令均采用相同形式。\n\n此外，受托人已进行了数月的证言录取和审查。如果债务人的立场是，他一直有权事先获知每一次证言录取并有权参与，我认为这是他早就应当提出的问题，而不是将近一年后或十个月后才提出。\n\n至于该论点的是非曲直，债务人援引地方法规 2004-1(b)，以支持其立场，即债务人与某些其他通知对象有权事先收到每一次证言录取的通知，并显然也有权参与这些证言录取。这是对该规则从字面上即错误的解读，因为第2004-1(b)节明确表明其不适用于本案情形。地方法规——\n\n法院：它是否仅在存在某种协议时才适用？\n\n巴塞特先生：正是如此，法官阁下。地方法规 2004-1(b) 适用——而该规则的制度框架——\n\n法院：即使无需提出动议，只要存在协议，对吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：完全正确。\n\n法院：是。\n\n巴塞特先生：而且——\n\n法院：这也是我对该规则的记忆。\n\n巴塞特先生：而该规则的制度框架——\n\n法院：是。\n\n巴塞特先生：——结合上下文阅读时就非常合理。因此，2004-1(b) 规定，如果双方就第2004条规则审查达成私人协议，而该审查无需提交动议，因此本质上也无需向任何人发出通知，则在该情形下，必须向债务人、受托人及某些其他通知对象发出通知。我认为其中包括债权人委员会。必须向这些当事人发出通知。该规则还明确规定通知的种类。就审查而言，它确实规定了若干天数等等。\n\n但该规则的下一部分适用于已提交第2004条规则证据开示动议的情形，即 2004-1(c)。在该情形下，显然，动议本身是依照法院要求向案件各方发出通知的规则和惯例提出的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 提交于 06/14/23 录入于 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 提交于 06/14/23 录入于 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 94 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日 94\n\n因此，就 2004-1(c) 而言，规则已内含这样一个前提，即所有这些当事人都会收到动议通知。Romney 先生会说，基于 2004-1(b)，您需要推定——起草规则的人必定认为，当存在动议时，同样适用针对审查的额外通知要求。首先，他们本可以如此规定。该规则根本没有如此规定。其次，采用这种方式完全合理，因为一旦提交第2004条规则动议，且各方已有机会对该动议及随附于动议的任何拟议命令提出异议，并且命令获准，当然，该命令即管辖为实施调查还必须采取哪些措施。如果债务人从一开始就希望法院针对我们的第2004条规则动议作出命令，规定必须向债务人及其他当事人发出额外通知，那时便是提出该请求的时机。这就是该规则制度框架合理的原因。因为当您通过动议进行时，您有一项动议，也有一项命令，命令具有管辖效力。您无需回头援引仅在存在协议时适用的 2004-1(b) 不适用的通知规定。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥里速记与转录服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 提交于 06/14/23 录入于 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日\n\n我还要指出，法官阁下，即使债务人有理由认为应当向其发出通知，并且其至少应有机会向法院说明他有权参与，我认为，除我将提及的一项狭窄例外外，在本案中这完全没有必要且并不适当。我不认为债务人援引了任何支持如下命题的判例：债务人，特别是非占有中债务人，有权收到受托人在调查债务人事务时进行的每一次证言录取的通知，并有机会参与其中，尤其是在本案这种不太可能存在剩余财产的案件中，因此债务人不能为保护经济利益而参与。\n\n事实上，我认为在本案这类案件中，情况恰恰相反，受托人正是为调查债务人的事务而被任命。法院已就隐匿资产作出各种指控和认定。我的意思是，受托人调查的全部过程以及本案的整体主题，就是试图解开债务人为持有其资产、隐匿其资金而使用的实体和个人网络。受托人非常担忧。我认为，在本案进行期间仍有此类情形持续发生的例子。如果债务人能够出席受托人对每一位试图弄清资产状况之人士所进行的证言录取，债务人只会获得一份路线图，以了解受托人的调查方向，从而始终领先于受托人下一步的方向。这将完全适得其反。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 提交于 06/14/23 录入于 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 96 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日 96\n\n此外，正如法官阁下根据去年年底就抗议活动提出的初步禁令动议所作认定而清楚知悉，有些人非常害怕债务人的恐吓和报复等。允许这些人——即使允许债务人的代表——出席对其中某些当事人的这些证言录取，实际上可能会对其合作意愿产生寒蝉效应。我认为这也是一个真正的担忧。\n\n我刚才提到的一个例外是，截至目前已出现过一次此类例外，我们对 Williams & Connolly（威廉斯与康诺利律师事务所）进行了证言录取，该律所曾是债务人的律师事务所之一。Williams & Connolly 向我们表示关切，希望确保债务人为能够依照本法院先前的规定提出有限的特权异议而出席该次证言录取。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023 97 特权令，该命令保留了债务人可能基于相关信息提出异议的能力，因为披露该等信息可能会对债务人造成个人伤害。在该案中，鉴于我们对此的理解，我认为——我们认为这是合理的请求，受托人确实允许 Romney 先生参与，而他也确实参与了。我认为，受托人愿意在今后逐案考虑让律师参与证言录取，但这是我所能想到的唯一一种债务人在这些审查中可能适宜获得代理的情形。因此，法官阁下，这就结束了关于债务人异议的问题。如果您希望听取 Linsey 先生就债务人妻子和 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地公司）提出的异议所作的陈述，我认为他现在可以陈述，或者可能在回应 Romney 先生时陈述。法庭：嗯，这是两份不同的诉状，对吗？我是说，那么为什么我们不就 Nodal 而言一次审理一份诉状。或者我不确定我的发音是否正确，但是——BASSETT 先生：我会这么发音，但法官阁下，我也不确定。法庭：提出该异议的是 Romney 先生，对吗？BASSETT 先生：正确。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 98 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n法庭：然后，就其他实体而言，我认为提出该异议的是 Major 律师，对吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我宁愿——如果您不——我宁愿——\n\nBASSETT 先生：当然。\n\n法庭：——先听取 Romney 先生的陈述，以便我先处理债务人的异议。然后我们再继续。\n\nBASSETT 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的？然后我们将听取 Linsey 先生和 Major 先生的陈述。\n\nBASSETT 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。Romney 先生？\n\nROMNEY 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。为记录在案，Aaron Romney（阿伦·罗姆尼），Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒律师事务所），代表债务人。我先说明——表达我对受托人及其律师才华横溢的辩护以及完全断章取义的敬意和钦佩。债务人就2004审查动议提出动议的依据——或者抱歉——债务人就受托人针对 Nodal Partners（诺达尔合伙企业）提出的动议所提出的异议，并非基于债务人与其女儿同 Nodal Partners 没有联系这一事实。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1907\nFiled 06/14/23\nEntered 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n事实上，那正是我们提出异议的依据。\n\n债务人及债务人的女儿与 Nodal Partners 之间的联系，已由本所通过一份报酬披露在本案案卷中公开确认。\n\n该联系是指，Nodal Partners 无偿向本所支付了债务人的部分法律费用。Nodal Partners 的一名负责人是我的客户 Mei Guo（郭美）的朋友。而且，如我认为已在异议中说明，他们支持 Kwok 先生的政治事业。\n\n债务人当然并不提出异议。我不能代表 Nodal Partners 发言，我并不代理该方。为记录在案，我的理解是其名称为 Nodal。\n\n法庭：再说一遍。\n\nROMNEY 先生：Nodal。\n\n法庭：Nodal？\n\nROMNEY 先生：是。\n\n法庭：像 D-A-L 一样？所以重读 A？\n\nROMNEY 先生：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。谢谢。\n\nROMNEY 先生：债务人不反对受托人就 Nodal Partners 与债务人之间的联系进行调查或审查，其中部分联系已经披露。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1907\nFiled 06/14/23\nEntered 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n但是，显然，他们无需相信我们的一面之词。我们不反对向 Nodal Partners 发出传票，以调查其事务。\n\n我们基于该传票提出异议，仅仅是基于与债务人之间已被公开披露的联系——嗯，我想我不该这么说，因为该披露是规则所要求的。但债务人主动作出了披露。我们还披露了 Nodal 的负责人同 Guo 女士之间的私人关系。\n\n受托人现正寻求调查 Nodal Partners 业务的各个方面，而不要求与债务人存在联系。法官阁下，我们对这些传票的争议在于，我们认为受托人意图传递这样一种信息：任何支持债务人的人、任何承认与债务人存在并非不利联系的人，都将受到传票约束，要求 Nodal Partners 披露其拥有的每一项资产、每一项资产的来源以及其所有信贷使用情况，而无需以其与债务人之间存在联系为前提。\n\n在本案中，鉴于任何拥有公开可得信息的人无需付出太大努力即可查找并了解 Nodal 是什么，该传票的范围就更加令人无法接受。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 101 它是一家享有国际声誉的机械工程公司，其负责人均拥有博士学位或更高层次的教育背景。据我了解，它是一家经政府批准的承包商，与美国政府开展大量业务，因此作出该传票所要求——或据称要求——的披露，当然会非常棘手且负担过重。法庭：好的。ROMNEY 先生：因此——法庭：嗯，让我在这里打断您。因为您现在是在代表 Nodal 陈述。但您并不代理 Nodal。因此，我不想听取这一论点。ROMNEY 先生：嗯——法庭：不过，我确实想听取的论点是，您说必须与债务人存在某种联系。那么，《规则》2004条中哪里这样规定？因为《规则》2004条第一句规定，应任何利害关系方的动议，法院可以命令审查任何实体。这就是它所规定的。它没有说必须与债务人存在联系。ROMNEY 先生：可以涉及行为、举止或——Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 101 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 102 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n财产，或者债务人的负债和财务状况，或者——\n\n法庭：您在读哪里？哪一节？\n\nROMNEY 先生：我指的是第 2004(b) 节。\n\n法庭：审查的范围？\n\nROMNEY 先生：正确。\n\n法庭：对。那是范围。对。\n\nROMNEY 先生：正确。\n\n法庭：那是审查的范围。\n\nROMNEY 先生：正确。\n\n法庭：那么，这——这个——首先，何时向 Nodal 送达传票？是在您披露他们正在支付律师费之前，还是之后？\n\nROMNEY 先生：之后。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nROMNEY 先生：我认为是在之后。\n\n法庭：老实说，我并不确定，因为我认为这发生在相当近的过去，对吗？这——\n\nROMNEY 先生：我——这个——\n\n法庭：是在之前还是之后？我在问受托人的律师。\n\n不明身份发言人：实际上没有传票，因为该动议尚未获准。但该——\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 103 动议是在——法庭：哦，对。这只是2004审查。抱歉。我有点操之过急了。抱歉。不明身份发言人：但是——不明身份发言人：他们已被送达该动议。不明身份发言人：是的。正是如此，法官阁下。法庭：是。他们已被送达该动议。不明身份发言人：该动议于5月15日提交。因此那将会——法庭：在披露之前？不明身份发言人：那是在六天之后。法庭：在披露之后。不明身份发言人：我认为披露是在5月9日作出的。法庭：好的。不明身份发言人：该动议提及了该披露，法官阁下。法庭：好的。好的。抱歉。鉴于——正如我——我是说，这——我并不是——我只是说，在所有这些实体和请求之间理清头绪是困难的。共有1,800份案卷条目。好的？Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 103 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 104 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\nROMNEY 先生：我能理解，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：而且每一项动议都内容繁多，对吗？我认为我没有见过——我认为一年多来没有一项动议少于三页，对吗——\n\nROMNEY 先生：我——\n\n法庭：——一年多来。所以无论如何，好的，您谈论的是审查的范围。好的？\n\nROMNEY 先生：是。而且——\n\n法庭：审查范围在(b)中规定——它规定——而且如您所知，Romney 律师，您非常清楚这一点。我们都知道，2004审查的范围可以非常广泛。事实上，全国各地的判例法都表示，这类似于钓鱼式调查。我们已经——我们已多次讨论过这个问题。\n\n但它确实规定，“涉及债务人的行为、举止或财产，或债务人的负债和财务状况，或可能影响债务人财产管理的任何事项，或债务人获得免责的权利。”好的？\n\n因此，已有一项披露表明，该实体 Nodal 已经——正在支付——这是您律所的法律费用吗？我不记得了。我知道曾有一项关于刑事律师费的披露。这是您律所的？\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 105 ROMNEY 先生：正确。法庭：好的。好的。ROMNEY 先生：那是 Zeisler & Zeisler 的披露——法庭：好的。ROMNEY 先生：——其中提及——法庭：因此——ROMNEY 先生：——Nodal Partners。法庭：因此，您所主张的，它没有说11——它规定，根据本规则对实体或债务人的审查——嗯，我们在该动议中并未审查债务人，该动议是针对 Nodal 的——只能涉及债务人的行为、举止或财产，或者债务人的负债和财务状况，以及可能影响债务人财产管理的任何其他事项。因此，您已适当地披露该实体正在向您付款。我认为——ROMNEY 先生：我们在一宗已披露的事例中曾获得付款。法庭：好的。好的。然后，受托人正在寻求审查该实体，而2004(a)条文表面上允许这样做。我的意思是，如果法院批准，对吗？这是对任何实体的审查。而且他们——而受托人 Case 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 105 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 Page 106 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n主张这可能影响对债务人破产财产的管理。\n\n并且，这可能涉及债务人的行为、作为或财产，或者其负债和财务状况。举例而言，我不知道这份协议是什么，但也许Kwok先生（郭文贵）应当向这些人偿还款项。是否已经——\n\nROMNEY先生：那——\n\n法庭：也许我错了。你们是否披露过，支付给你们的款项绝不必然构成Kwok先生的负债？\n\nROMNEY先生：我们没有披露该事项。我不认为Kindseth律师（金塞思）作出了该披露。但据我所能回忆，我认为没有。\n\n法庭：好的。所以我所说的是，这是一个相关的调查领域，对吧——\n\nROMNEY先生：当然。\n\n法庭：——以便受托人了解，Nodal（诺达尔公司）同意在本案中支付Kwok先生的律师费，是否使Kwok先生承担任何负债，或者是否已经承担任何负债。我认为这是正当的调查。\n\nROMNEY先生：我同意。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nROMNEY先生：我完全同意，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，你的问题是，Nodal是一家大型公司，拥有政府合同——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 6, 2023 107\n\n我不是那个意思——我是在试图理解你的异议——而且这不应被允许？\n\nROMNEY先生：是。那——\n\n法庭：那是Nodal的主张，不是你的主张。\n\nROMNEY先生：法官阁下，如果允许的话，我能否解释为何我认为这是我的主张？\n\n法庭：可以。请讲。\n\nROMNEY先生：问题在于，正如您在今天听取多位律师陈述时所听到的那样，在许多人曾与至少和债务人存在某种关联的各种实体共事的期间，许多人如今已不在了。显然，许多曾经希望与他有所往来的人如今已不再希望如此。如果任何表示支持债务人的人，都可能受到范围无限广泛的传票约束，而不论该传票是否限定为与债务人有关，那么所有人都会因担心受到受托人的迫害而拒绝再与他有任何往来。这就是我们提出异议的依据，即表面上因支持债务人而发出的传票，至少应当在其表面上与债务人及破产财产的关联相联系。本传票并非如此。而且，从案件 22-50073 文档 1907 提交于 06/14/23，录入于 06/14/23 21:33:14，第 107 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1907 提交于 06/14/23，录入于 06/14/23 21:33:14，第 108 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n拟议传票本身的表面即可看出这一点。有些请求的起草是适当的，例如关于债务人、债务人破产财产或关联实体的任何收入或资产的所有文件。其他请求则不是如此，例如足以显示你方全部资产及收入或资金来源的文件。其中没有任何与债务人相关的限定。\n\n当你谈及支持债务人的自然人或实体时，他们不应受到传票的约束，甚至不应受到表面上需要法院批准、但不具有与债务人关联这一连接点的传票约束。我之所以这样说，是因为据我了解，根据该传票所要求的利害关系，遵从该传票或对该传票提出异议，都需要投入极大的工作量。\n\n如果我的异议未获支持，我猜届时会有其他人坐在这张椅子上，那将是他们届时的论点。然而，关键在于，甚至允许一项经法院授权、却甚至未声称要求与债务人存在关联的Rule 2004审查，也会产生寒蝉效应。这就是我们所要说的一切。\n\n我们并不是说不应向Nodal发出Rule 2004审查。如果其范围进入合理范围之内，那么，是的，他们将需要通过协商达成一致，或者站在法官阁下面前回应命令。我不知道那场对话将如何进行。法官阁下，我唯一的问题是，由于表面上法院愿意授权对任何与债务人有任何关联之人的全部事务进行全面审查，而该等审查却并未限于与债务人的关联，这会对与债务人及其家人的个人关系产生寒蝉效应。这是我就Nodal的范围提出异议的唯一依据。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nROMNEY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。Bassett先生（巴塞特）——\n\nROMNEY先生：法官阁下，我能否就通知问题作出回应？或者如果律师——\n\n法庭：当然。请讲。\n\nROMNEY先生：好的。关于通知问题，我想有几件事。我想先从Bassett律师刚才结束的地方开始，这也是我今天第一次听到的内容。我并不是说这已经足够，而是说，或许当我们谈及债务人的前任\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1907 提交于 06/14/23，录入于 06/14/23 21:33:14，第 110 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n律师，而债务人有权就其主张人身损害特权时，他们应当收到关于Rule 2004审查实际举行的时间和地点的通知。因为，正如已经指出的，并且就同意特权命令而言，按照法院对该措辞的解释——该解释已在本案中得到遵循——债务人是必须具有合理信念以主张人身损害特权的人。\n\n债务人通过其律师——通过其现任律师，无论是我还是我的同事之一——无法在Rule 2004审查证言中主张特权论点，因为我们不知道该审查正在进行，也未在场。因此，我们面临的困境是，在本法庭此前协商取得的利益——并感谢法官阁下为促成我们达成这一点以及就此作出同意命令所作的努力——如果债务人是需要提出异议的人，而债务人不知道该证言进行的时间和地点，那么数月前协商取得的利益就被取代了。\n\n因此，今后最重要的事情当然是——从债务人的角度而言——应当向债务人通知可能存在可设想的特权异议的证言。在本次Rule 2004审查中，我相信唯一可能\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1907 提交于 06/14/23，录入于 06/14/23 21:33:14，第 111 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n存在潜在特权异议的，是Ernst & Young（安永）事务所。但我并不确知这一点。\n\n第二点是，对某项事情正在发生的通知，即使表面上假定债务人无权参加、和/或债务人的律师无权参加每一项Rule 2004审查——而且我认为债务人或债务人的律师，无论是我还是其他人，都极不可能希望参加许多Rule 2004审查——通知某项事情正在发生、参加的权利以及实际参加，是三件不同的事情，尤其是在谈及债务人的前任专业人士，或者受托人拟在已提起的对抗程序或后续对抗程序中提交的证据，而该方为已知方时。通知不会造成任何损害。这甚至并不是说，在现阶段通知即意味着有出席权。\n\n但是，如果我们没有收到通知，我们就无法请求法官阁下准许我们出席。给予通知并赋予我们提出请求的权利，有什么损害？法官阁下可以说不。\n\n法庭：那么，让我就此问你一个问题。你们收到每一项已提交的动议，其中列明他们将要——他们正试图请求一项命令以进行Rule 2004审查，那么你为什么需要事先通知？你们已经收到通知。就此而言，你为何不能回应并说，我想出席这些证言，我可以吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023 112\n\nROMNEY先生：法官阁下，我会说——\n\n法庭：我是说这些Rule 2004审查。\n\nROMNEY先生：对此我会说两点。第一，这正是我现在正在做的事情。我正在回应一项附有拟议传票的Rule 2004审查，并且我说，我——对此提出异议，鉴于受托人在几周前之前我并不知情的情况下——而我理解这是一次沟通失误。我并非——这里没有任何指控。但是，我是在律师刚才所说的、应当提出该问题的具体情境中说，当他们收到这些传票或拟议传票的通知时，他们当时就应该说些什么。好，现在就是当时。在这一情境中，现在就是当时。\n\n法庭：好的。所以我在听。你正在被听取陈述。\n\nROMNEY先生：而我所说的是，他们的拟议命令，我们从未将其解释为允许，尤其是专业人士的证言在未提供通知的情况下进行。你知道，已经发生的事情已经发生。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1907\n提交 06/14/23\n录入 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 6, 2023\n\n我们未在场的那些证言的使用，是一个不同的问题，目前不在法庭审理范围之内。我们此前也未向法庭提出该问题。\n\n法官阁下，我所请求的是，在我想法官阁下将至少在很大程度上批准这些审查的范围内，因为其中许多并无异议，我请求要求受托人向我们提供证言实际时间和地点的通知。如果受托人届时希望反对我们参加，我们可以届时处理该问题。如果受托人希望允许我们参加，而我们也希望参加，那很好。\n\n这正是Williams & Connolly（威廉姆斯与康诺利律师事务所）证言最终发生的情况，尽管是应Williams & Connolly的请求，并且对于在D.C.进行的证言，约提前六天通知，时间有些紧迫。因此，我们希望获得比这更多一点的时间。\n\n但我在这里不是为了担心——\n\n法庭：但是，你不能那样要求，对吧？你想要通知。你不能控制他们的日程安排，知道吗？要么你有空，要么你没空。\n\nROMNEY先生：嗯——\n\n法庭：我是说，我不会因为你或其他人希望出席，就让他们改变证言日程安排。我是说，那不是——规则中没有任何地方要求那样做，尤其是在你不是\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日 114 向被送达传票的一方。ROMNEY 律师（罗姆尼）：但是，法官阁下，我并不是在建议我应当——法院：嗯，你刚才举的一个例子表明时间很紧。那也没办法。ROMNEY 律师：嗯——法院：这不是向你或你的当事人进行的证据开示。ROMNEY 律师：法官阁下，如果允许我澄清一下我刚才——法院：好。ROMNEY 律师：——试图表达的内容，显然表达得不太恰当。我的理解是，该证言录取已被安排在提前远超过六天的时间进行。我收到该事项的通知时仅提前六天；这就是我试图——法院：但是，《法典》的哪一处规定，债务人有权知晓每一次 Rule 2004 审查，而且你必须以某种方式获悉此事？我认为我从未见过有任何案件甚至涉及——规则或《法典》中当然没有任何地方这样规定。因此，唯一可能涉及此问题的地方就是判例。那么，哪一宗案件作出了这样的规定？ROMNEY 律师：嗯，法官阁下，当然，向其他当事人通知传票是通常做法。案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 114 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1907\n于 06/14/23 提交\n于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日\n\n1 在案件中送达的传票。\n\n当证言录取被重新安排时，\n2 会重新发出通知。\n3 法院：在哪种情形下是通常做法？有多少\n4 通常——有多少第11章案件中指定了一名受托人，\n5 以调查债务人的事务，而\n6 债务人在该受托人为调查其事务所进行的每一次证言录取前\n7 都获得事先通知？告诉我\n8 这个。\n9 ROMNEY 律师：这是我首次参与的\n10 有一名——\n11 法院：对。\n12 ROMNEY 律师：——第11章受托人的案件。因此我无法\n13 回答这个问题。\n14 法院：是的。嗯，我告诉你，我只是——我的意思是，我听到了你的说法。但是\n15 这种做法存在某种不合理性。\n16 \n17 ROMNEY 律师：嗯——\n18 法院：你不能控制受托人的调查以及\n19 受托人将要进行的审查时间安排。\n20 你不能这么做。\n21 我的意思是，这不可能发生。\n22 因此，问题在于，当你收到一份——时，是否有可能达成\n23 某种协议；而你已经收到了。\n24 你正在反对这一份。因此，我假定\n25 你的意思是，你希望在 Nodal（诺达尔）的证言录取\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日 116 进行时出席。对吗？ROMNEY 律师：我甚至不是说——法院：我的意思是，2004 审查？ROMNEY 律师：——在目前这个时候。我所说的是——法院：嗯，你必须在目前这个时候说出来，否则你就输了，对吗？不然的话——就你不能进来并说“法官，我想知道该证言录取究竟何时进行”而言。你需要——不。你必须说明——你必须表明你为何应当能够出席该证言录取——该 2004 审查，对吗？ROMNEY 律师：最终是这样。因为我并未请求出席的权利。我请求的是获得某件事情通知的权利。我想，我的意思是——法院：嗯，如果你不打算出席，你就不需要得到通知。你需要得到什么通知？这正是我——ROMNEY 律师：因为——法院：——我难以理解你的论点。因为，他们将要进行证言录取，这一点你知道。你已经获得了——一项 2004 审查。你已经——嗯，假定命令作出，对吗，他们将进行 2004 审查。这就是他们将要做的。因此，你已获通知。案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 116 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日 117 ROMNEY 律师：对。我没有获知他们何时进行——法院：我告诉你，除非你明确提出请求并获得准许，否则你不会得到该通知，因为你不能控制受托人的证据开示时间安排。ROMNEY 律师：嗯——法院：你不能这么做。ROMNEY 律师：嗯，法官阁下——法院：请向我出示一宗发生过这种情况的案件，罗姆尼律师。即使不是指定了第11章受托人的案件也是如此。你找不到这样的案件。ROMNEY 律师：法官阁下，我认为我无需进一步援引判例法。我不能——我坐在这里，无法理解为什么当事人如果通过协议确定审查的时间和地点，而不是依据动议确定，就有权获知审查的时间和地点。通知是相同的，即审查的时间和地点。可以推定，如果存在一项动议，时间和地点会通过命令体现出来。该命令——法院：这不是 2004 程序的运作方式。我们的地方法则也并不要求这样做。我们的地方法则规定了一个两步程序。你提交动议。其他人可以反对该动议。该动议获准或被驳回。案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 117 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日 118 如果动议获准，则签发传票，传票所指向的人可以根据适用的《联邦民事诉讼规则》和我们的地方法则对该传票提出异议。这就是程序。ROMNEY 律师：然后送达传票，法官阁下，并且——法院：不。我已经假定传票已被送达。这正是我的意思。ROMNEY 律师：嗯——法院：命令作出。我们地方法则规定的程序是两步程序。如果你不想，就不必反对 2004 审查动议。但规则就是这样规定的。可以作出命令，授权一方当事人进行 Rule 2004 审查。但如果该方当事人随后送达传票，该当事人——被送达传票的人或实体，仍有权根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》对该传票提出异议。康涅狄格州律师协会（Connecticut Bar Association）破产—商法与破产部门（Commercial Law and Bankruptcy Section）起草 Rule 2004 审查规则，正是为了这一目的。即，这是一个两步程序。你一开始不必反对该动议。并且你的案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 118 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 119 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日 119 与传票有关的权利，以及申请撤销传票或申请保护令或诸如此类救济的权利，在且仅在传票送达后得以保留，对吗？所以这就是其运作方式。这就是它在本地区的运作方式；康涅狄格州律师协会的所有成员和代表起草了该规则，随后该规则向律师界征求意见相当长一段时间，又向公众征求意见相当长一段时间。对此程序没有提出任何异议。康涅狄格联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Connecticut）投票批准了这些规则。因此，这就是规则。ROMNEY 律师：我明白。我非常熟悉参与该程序的许多人。我并未参与。其中许多人同意我对该规则的解读，但我想这无关紧要。法官阁下，要求获知证言录取何时进行——即 2004 审查证言录取何时进行——似乎是一个非常轻微的请求。当然，我的意思是，Rule 2004 本身明确要求在——法院：关于动议——ROMNEY 律师：——在——法院：——你已经收到了。ROMNEY 律师：以及关于传票——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 120 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日\n\n1 法院：在哪里——不，它并没有这样规定。在哪里\n2 规定你——有通知——传票必须——首先，传票并不是——它告诉你\n3 传票——你必须查阅你的传票规则，\n4 即 Rule 2004 规则中没有任何内容属于\n5 《联邦破产程序规则》。\n然后我们的地方法则\n6 援引传票规则，即什么，9016——\n7 \n8 ROMNEY 律师：16。\n9 法院：——对吗？\n10 ROMNEY 律师：对。\n11 法院：而 9016 规定——\n12 ROMNEY 律师：它要求对要求——索取文件的传票\n13 发出通知。\n14 法院：对。向谁送达？\n15 ROMNEY 律师：向当事人。\n16 法院：对。该当事人。不，是向\n17 传票所指向的当事人。\n18 ROMNEY 律师：我——\n19 法院：它没有说他必须向\n20 任何其他人送达——向其他任何人送达有什么意义？\n21 他们没有权利提出异议、申请撤销传票\n22 或申请保护令。\n23 ROMNEY 律师：嗯，抱歉。联邦规则 9016\n24 纳入了联邦规则 45。\n25 法院：对。确实如此。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1907\n于 06/14/23 提交\n于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日\n\n1 ROMNEY 律师：该规则要求向当事人发出通知。\n2 法院：该规则要求向被送达\n3 传票的当事人发出通知。\n4 ROMNEY 律师：不过，它要求在送达前向其他当事人\n5 发出通知，尽管承认——\n6 法院：在哪里？告诉我你是在哪里读到\n7 这一点的，罗姆尼律师，因为我不同意你的看法。\n8 ROMNEY 律师：正如我刚才试图说完的，\n9 它从字面上确实仅涉及\n10 文件查阅。但它是 Rule 45(a)(4)。\n11 法院：在送达前通知其他当事人。\n12 “如果传票要求在审判前提交\n13 文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，\n14 或检查场所”——在审判前——\n15 “则在向传票所指向的人送达前，必须向\n16 每一当事人送达通知和传票副本。”\n17 \n18 嗯，这已经发生了，因为你已经\n19 收到了动议，也收到了将向 Nodal 送达的传票。\n20 所以这项要求已经得到遵守。\n21 \n22 ROMNEY 律师：嗯，不。传票尚未\n23 送达。我认为这并无争议。而且——\n24 法院：嗯，而你刚才复述的规则\n25 恰恰以你刚才所说的情况为前提，即传票\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月6日 122 尚未送达。则在向传票所指向的人送达前，必须向每一当事人送达通知和传票副本。这已经发生。他们已经——ROMNEY 律师：对。除非——法院：他们已经遵守了 Rule 45(a)(4)。ROMNEY 律师：除非我记得没错，但我不敢确定，拟议传票中关于履行时间的部分是空白的。因此，这不是传票。这是一份尚未获法院授权的拟议传票。法院：好。继续。ROMNEY 律师：法官阁下，目前我能向您陈述的就是这些。法院：好。ROMNEY 律师：我认为，公平的基本原则使债务人律师有权获得 Rule 2004 审查的通知，特别是在我们谈论债务人的专业人士时。我认为，受托人直接向我们提供通知，会比每次受托人提出 Rule 2004 审查动议时我们都进行这一程序有效率得多。然后我们可以仅在——如果并且当——仅在债务人——案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 122 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1907 于 06/14/23 提交 于 06/14/23 21:33:14 登记 第 123 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023 123 法院：嗯，或许你们可以就专业人士的问题达成某种协议。但 Nodal（诺达尔）不是专业人士。ROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：确实如此。Ernst & Young（安永）才是。而且——法院：嗯，或许你们可以就此达成协议。ROMNEY 先生：我曾试图如宣誓书所述达成协议。法院：嗯，或许在今天的听证会后你们可以继续尝试。ROMNEY 先生：我非常愿意。我喜欢达成协议。法院：或许你们可以这样做。ROMNEY 先生：谢谢。法院：好吗？但我要对你说的是，目前，我认为受托人已遵守本辖区的 Rule 2004 及 Local Rule 2004-1 程序。我必须裁定你的异议是成立还是驳回。而且我必须——我要回去审阅一切。我现在不会作出裁定，因为我必须听取你的意见。我已经听取了你的意见。我理解你的论点。而且我今天不会作出裁定。我希望明天、星期四或星期五作出裁定，好吗？很快。因为我——你知道，这些\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 124 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023\n\n1 这类问题必须得到裁定，以便各方知道其所处地位，以及可以采取何种后续步骤（如有）。\n\n2 好吗？\n\n3 但我理解——\n\n4 ROMNEY 先生：非常感谢您，法官阁下。\n\n5 法院：我理解你的论点。好吗？\n\n6 ROMNEY 先生：我很感激。\n\n7 法院：好的。\n\n8 ROMNEY 先生：感谢您今天听取我的陈述。\n\n9 法院：谢谢。\n\n10 好的。因此，本事项——审查动议以及债务人提出的异议——留待裁定。\n\n13 现在，仅剩下 Major 先生（梅杰）的客户提出异议的讯问——2004 审查——抱歉，所涉的问题。\n\n15 那么，Linsey 先生（林赛），请你先陈述你的论点，然后我将听取 Major 律师的陈述。\n\n18 LINSEY 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我会尽量简短，因为正如我认为我们在答复中所述，受托人的立场是，这个问题实际上此前已经辩论过。\n\n21 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）和 Ngok 女士（诺克）提出的异议，针对的是就 Bento Technologies（本托科技）寻求的 Rule 2004 证据开示。\n\n24 我们的理解是，Bento Technologies 是一个——本质上类似于企业版 Venmo（文莫）。这是一个供公司追踪其资金转移以及向其他公司转移资金的系统。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 125 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023\n\n1 正如我们在 2004 审查动议中所述，Greenwich Land 是我们认为参与了债务人拥有权益、并经由该系统进行的付款的实体之一。\n\n6 我们当然不认为 Greenwich Land 是唯一一家。你们听到 Bassett 先生（巴塞特）说，我们认为 Golden Spring（金泉）是另一家。而经验以及受托人迄今的调查表明，当我们认为有几家时，往往还有更多家。\n\n11 Greenwich Land 和 Ngok 女士提出了异议，并在异议中援引待决诉讼原则。如果这听起来耳熟，那是因为六个月前，债务人的女儿和 HK USA（香港美国）提出了一项异议，就向一家游艇公司和一家参与出售 Lady May（梅夫人号）的律师事务所寻求的证据开示，提出了完全相同的法律论点。\n\n19 她们主张，存在一项涉及 Lady May 所有权的待决对抗程序，因此，基于该待决诉讼原则，受托人无权从并非该诉讼当事方的实体取得证据开示——2004 证据开示。她们援引了若干判例。\n\n25 该问题得到了广泛的书面陈述。法官阁下举行了长时间的听证会，并就该问题作出了裁定。该裁定认定，待决诉讼原则并不阻止受托人就任何对抗程序的非当事方进行 Rule 2004 调查。法官阁下援引了支持该结论的判例法。这与判例法一致。\n\n显然，债务人的妻子和 Greenwich Land 不喜欢该决定，也不同意该决定，并希望就同一问题再次寻求裁决。但是，法官阁下，此时这已是本案既定法则。你知道，法律很明确，当在案件中作出法律认定后，除非该案的法律或事实情形发生明显变化，否则该认定应继续具有控制力。\n\n当然，在像本案这样的案件中，我们听到一个又一个关联方来到法庭，提出同样的异议、同样的抱怨和同样的——每个人都说他们试图合作。你知道，如果人们正在合作，你会认为会有更多合作。要取得任何文件都费尽周折。\n\n我们不能让同样的论点一次又一次地被重复提出。这个问题已经处理完毕。法官阁下已经裁定。该异议已经对受托人造成不利影响，因为它延迟了传票的签发。我们需要继续推进。即使法官阁下考虑并审查该异议的实体理由，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 127 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023\n\n1 我仅指出，作为一项付款转移和管理程序，若 Greenwich Land 以某种方式参与了该等——转移，其本应持有相关记录。这些记录本应已依照受托人向 Ngok 女士和 Greenwich Land 发出的传票提交给受托人。认为我们可以从另一来源取得这些记录便会使其以某种方式受到不利影响的说法，是异想天开。\n\n9 而且，若 Greenwich Land 确实认为其需要进行证据开示并参与证据开示，以确定其自身的财务行为，因为，我的意思是，这似乎是该论点的实际含义，那么本案没有任何事项阻止 Greenwich Land 在对抗程序中依据《破产程序规则》第 7 编自行进行证据开示。\n\n因此，除非法官阁下有任何问题，这就是我们就 Greenwich Land 异议所要陈述的全部内容。\n\n法院：目前没有。谢谢。\n\nLINSEY 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：Major 律师，请继续。MAJOR 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Chris Major（克里斯·梅杰），来自 Meister Seelig & Fein（迈斯特、塞利格与范恩）。我们代理 Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）及 Ngok 女士。\n\n受托人的律师刚才表示，他们因我们对 Rule 2004 动议提出异议而受到不利影响，而这当然是我们的权利。但所造成的唯一延误，是因为受托人选择不依据 Rule 45 送达传票；在我们的客户为被告的对抗程序中，他本可自由这样做。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 128 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023\n\n1 从最开始说起，Rule 2004 审查中，相关性并不是唯一的问题。受托人首先须证明其所寻求的信息具有相关性；但同时，正如我们在异议中援引的判例所确立的，受托人必须证明 2004 审查是必要的，或者如不能进行该审查，受托人将遭受不当困难或不公正。\n\n受托人仅将 Greenwich Land 确定为其认为需要依据 Rule 2004 进行证据开示的相关实体。我知道受托人的律师刚刚表示，他们认为还有其他实体。\n\n他们在其书面材料中唯一所说的是，他们进行了为期一年的调查。我们整天都听到了这一点。他们唯一所说的是，在其最初的 Rule 2004 动议中，他们总共用一段文字说明 Bento 的相关性。他们在第 5 页说：“可能还有债务人的其他关联方，其中包括 Golden Spring。”受托人不能以推测——而书面材料所显示的只是推测——来证明，好吧，我们不仅仅是在 Greenwich Land 方面寻求这些信息。在其答复中，他们只提到 Greenwich Land，尽管已经进行了所有这些 2004 审查，尽管进行了为期一年的调查，他们仍未确定任何其他实体。他们所寻求的证据开示——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023 129 建立这一点，即，好吧，我们并非只就 Greenwich Land 寻求这些信息。在其答复中，他们只提到 Greenwich Land，尽管已经进行了所有这些 2004 审查，尽管进行了为期一年的调查，他们仍未确定任何其他实体。他们所寻求的证据开示——法院：为使记录清楚，这还不满一年。MAJOR 先生：抱歉？法院：为使记录清楚，这还不满一年。我不——MAJOR 先生：哦，差不多。法院：我相信受托人直到去年七月才被任命。因此，请继续。MAJOR 先生：明白，法官阁下。受托人所希望取得的证据开示，可以在对抗程序中取得。而且受托人很容易做到。他只需送达一份 Rule 45 传票。他显然必须在传票送达前，依照无疑适用于该对抗程序的《联邦民事诉讼规则》，向我们提供传票副本。然后，他还必须向我们送达讯问通知，载明讯问的日期和时间。法院和受托人今天都描述了 2004 审查的性质，并且法院称其允许进行钓鱼式调查。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 129 页，共\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1907 Filed 06/14/23 Entered 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 130 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 6, 2023\n\n1 嗯，但在对抗程序中并非如此——\n\n2 法院：我明白。\n\n4 MAJOR 先生：——该程序是一项诉讼。\n\n5 法院：我明白。\n\n6 MAJOR 先生：而且，受托人并非在此寻求审查债务人的事务。他并非寻求了解自己是否拥有请求权。他曾向本院表示他拥有请求权。他提起了诉讼。他不仅这样做了，还取得了单方救济、临时限制令，并证明他拥有足以这样做的信息。\n\n12 因此，他已经确定了此处的方向，即他起诉我们的客户以收回 Ngok 女士的住所。他已经向法院确立——或主张——他已经拥有该等证据。他已经确定 Bento，而他唯一明确将其与之联系的实体是 Greenwich Land，该实体是对抗程序中的被告。\n\n19 毫无疑问，该证据开示是为该目的而进行。因此，我们的客户有权参与该讯问，并获得提前通知。不得依据 Rule 2004 进行该证据开示。\n\n24 我还请法院回顾上周我们就排期问题在法官阁下面前出庭时，当时 Luft 先生（卢夫特）说，受托人就其调查所做的一切都是工作成果，这意味着他将主张——当我向受托人送达证据开示请求时——我无权取得这些材料，而他可以进行证据开示；他向法院表示，该证据开示与我在一项待决对抗程序中的客户有关。他将采取立场，认为我无权查阅这些材料。\n\n我认为，这不仅不适当，而且在此情形下极不公平。他没有试图证明他无法通过对抗程序取得该证据开示。而且我认为，为满足若不能取得 2004 审查他将遭受不当困难或不公正这一标准，他必须这样做。\n\n他可以取得该证据开示。我并不反对该证据开示。事实上，我希望参与该证据开示。但他不能在 Rule 2004 审查的框架下取得该证据开示。\n\n我还认为值得指出的是，关于未决诉讼原则，受托人未援引任何案例表明，对抗程序中的异议方无法参与证据开示。该原则的目的在于防止《联邦民事诉讼规则》不适用于证据开示。《联邦民事诉讼规则》并不限于当事人证据开示。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\n1 证据开示。\n当然，它们也适用于第三方证据开示，\n2 而这正是本案将要进行的事项。\n3 而 Rule 45 是具体适用的规则。该规则\n4 必须在对抗程序的范围内得到执行。\n5 本动议是在受托人提起\n6 对抗程序很久之后才提交的，而且即使不提交本\n7 动议——他们此时也不需要本院许可，\n8 只要他们有合理理由相信 Bento（本托）与\n9 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）存在某种关联，便可取得 Bento 的\n10 证言。\n11 他们只需送达传票，\n12 而这本可在很久以前完成。因此，此处的任何延误均是由于\n13 受托人试图依照比\n14 对抗程序范围内所允许的规则更宽泛的规则进行证据开示，\n15 且在我方当事人无法参与其中并\n16 无法行使其与\n17 证据开示有关权利的范围之外进行。\n18 法官阁下，我最后想处理的是\n19 既判案件法原则。受托人在答复中引用的本院裁定\n20 是：“经审议\n21 诉状、听证会上提出的论点、本案的事实\n22 及情形，以及适用法律，\n23 本院认定，未决程序原则并不\n24 阻碍对 Apsley Yachts Limited（阿普斯利游艇有限公司）和 DWF\n25 LLP（DWF 有限责任合伙律所）的审查，因为它们不是未决对抗程序的当事人，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 提交日期 06/14/23 录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 133 页，共 140 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\n1 HK International Funds Investments USA Limited（香港国际基金投资美国有限公司）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）案，”\n2 并且其援引了当时的 Kwok 主案。\n3 并不存在关于 Bento 的裁定。也不存在\n4 关于我方当事人具体异议的裁定。既判案件法\n5 原则旨在针对具体裁定，\n6 确保这些裁定保持一致；如果——且在该\n7 情况下，如裁定来自上诉法院，则具有强制性；\n8 而如裁定来自该具体案件的\n9 一审法院，则具有酌定性。\n10 我方当事人显然没有参与\n11 此前的任何听证会。目前本院面临的问题\n12 是，已有一名证人被确定，\n13 而受托人仅通过诉状中的指称，未通过——未通过任何\n14 证据，肯定地将其与\n15 对抗程序中的被告相联系。我认为，根据目前呈交本院的事实，\n16 ——我认为既判案件法原则并不阻碍此事。但是，根据\n17 目前呈交本院的事实，\n18 我方当事人有权参与证据开示。并且这可以在\n19 对抗程序范围内，通过一份普通的\n20 Rule 45 传票并由《联邦规则》管辖来进行。\n21 \n22 如果本院认定既判案件法在此\n23 适用，则所援引的判例法，包括\n24 受托人在 In Re ServiCom（ServiCom 破产案）中援引的判例以及许多其他案例，\n25 均表明本院不受——既判案件法\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 提交日期 06/14/23 录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 134 页，共 140 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\n1 原则在此情形下至多——我认为其并不\n2 适用，但即使本院认定其适用，\n3 其至多也应构成本院酌处权的指引之一。\n4 那么，我请求本院做的是审视\n5 事实和情形。审视受托人在动议文件中所写的文字，其中唯一的\n6 肯定关联仅指向\n7 Greenwich Land，并注意到，受托人不仅\n8 认为自己可以安心提起该诉讼，\n9 还认为自己可以安心获得单方\n10 非常救济，即临时限制令\n11 和判决前扣押，依据是他相信\n12 自己拥有足以提起该诉讼并获得该\n13 非常救济的依据。\n14 因此，基于所有这些理由，法官阁下，我\n15 认为，根据本案的事实和情形以及\n16 该对抗程序——它与另一案件是相互独立的对抗程序——\n17 本院应要求受托人依据 Rule 45 而非 Rule 2004\n18 进行证据开示，\n19 因为已有未决诉讼，《联邦规则》\n20 适用于该诉讼。\n21 法官：谢谢。\n22 梅杰律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n23 法官：林赛律师，有任何回应吗？\n24 林赛律师：有。简要回应一下，法官阁下。\n25 有几件事。首先，梅杰律师所言正确，即\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 提交日期 06/14/23 录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 135 页，共 140 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\n1 Rule 2004 审查的范围比对抗程序中 Rule 45\n2 传票证据开示的范围更广。这一点\n3 在此很重要，因为受托人希望\n4 向 Bento 发出的传票涉及的事项\n5 比现有对抗程序的范围\n6 广泛得多。\n7 我们已在本案中见到足够多受托人的——不，是\n8 债务人的实体及关联方，以了解\n9 这些实体的经济运作方式。资产和现金\n10 像水一样流经这些实体。这些实体之间存在大量\n11 转移。\n12 Bento 显然是用于进行其中部分\n13 转移的工具。因此显而易见，\n14 我们从 Bento 寻求的事实和记录\n15 将产生远超现有这一宗\n16 对抗程序的影响；不可能将受托人拟发出的\n17 Rule 2004 传票的范围限制在对抗程序中的\n18 Rule 45 证据开示范围内。\n19 本院此前已审查过这一具体法律问题。\n20 并且本院已在 ECF Number 1184 中对此作出裁定。\n21 如果每次我们提出新的综合性 Rule 2004 动议\n22 都必须再次进行同样的辩论，\n23 并且每次都被拖延，这只会给本案增加更多\n24 费用和延误。\n25 而且，再次说明，受托人已明确——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 提交日期 06/14/23 录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 136 页，共 140 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\n1 通过受托人的调查，具体知悉\n2 除 Greenwich Land 外的其他实体也曾使用 Bento。\n3 因此，如 Greenwich Land 认为其需要\n4 取得 Rule——不，是其需要从\n5 Bento 取得证据开示，它可自由依据 Part 7 规则这样做。它\n6 理应拥有这些记录。因为——我有一个\n7 Venmo 账户，法官阁下。我可以告诉您，我通过 Venmo 账户\n8 发出的或者发给我的任何款项。它理应\n9 也能够做到同样的事。\n10 它本应在很久很久以前就提交这些记录。\n11 它不应——它现在不应利用程序\n12 技术问题，试图限制一项\n13 多层面的调查，而受托人将会在每一个环节\n14 阻挠该调查。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n15 法官：谢谢。\n16 拉夫特律师：法官阁下，我可以处理一个小\n17 问题吗？\n18 法官：可以。\n19 拉夫特律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。Avi Luft（阿维·拉夫特）。我\n20 只是——有人提及我们上周\n21 就 Greenwich Land 程序以及工作成果\n22 所讨论的内容。我只想就此简要说明。\n23 这正好切中要害。\n24 如果梅杰律师认为与其案件有关，他可以就 Bento 进行任何\n25 他想要的证据开示。并且\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1907\n提交日期 06/14/23\n录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\n1 正如受托人如认为在该案中相关，也可以在\n2 该案中就 Bento 进行证据开示。并且我们将——对抗程序中的\n3 通常规则将予适用。\n4 \n5 我听到梅杰律师抱怨的是，\n6 我表示他不能只是打电话给受托人，\n7 说我想要你们的工作成果。我想看看你们在调查中\n8 正在形成什么。而我担心\n9 我们正朝着那个方向发展。\n10 我不想无缘无故再次来到您面前，因此我会非常明确地说。\n11 这是正确的，法官阁下。\n12 我无意将我的工作成果交给\n13 梅杰律师。如果他想了解任何有关 Bento 的信息，\n14 欢迎他向其寻求证据开示。\n15 林赛律师刚才所谈的是\n16 范围——2004 审查，因为 Bento 似乎涉及债务人案件的\n17 多个方面。这\n18 正是我们将要查找的内容。该信息的可采性和\n19 有用性将在适当时候处理。\n20 如果其不可采，那么对于另一案件，我们将不得不以\n21 另一种方式取得它。\n22 但是，坦率地说，这不应当\n23 影响受托人进行调查的能力。而且，梅杰律师\n24 未能通过我们的工作成果\n25 免费预览我们正在调查的内容这一事实，也不应当\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 提交日期 06/14/23 录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 138 页，共 140 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\n1 产生任何影响，法官阁下。\n2 法官：好的。谢谢。\n3 梅杰律师，有任何回应吗？\n4 梅杰律师：法官阁下，我仅就一点作简短\n5 回应，即未决诉讼原则的存在\n6 是有原因的。该原因是确保\n7 《联邦规则》适用于已经提起的\n8 诉讼中的证据开示。而这正是我们这里的情况。\n9 我们已论及判例法。\n10 受托人在此没有依据进行证据开示。他们一直说\n11 涉及所有这些实体。\n12 但他们除 Greenwich Land 外没有确定任何一个实体。\n13 他们仅称可能还有其他实体。他们现在说\n14 有许多其他实体。您知道，措辞有了一点\n15 变化。\n16 但归根结底，受托人本可以\n17 很容易地在今天站起来确认某人，或者\n18 在文件中写明某些内容，或者以其他方式很容易地加以证明。\n19 坦率地说，我认为我方当事人和本院\n20 不应仅仅在所有这些不同问题上相信受托人的一面之词。\n21 如果他遵守规则，他完全不会被剥夺\n22 证据开示；我们只请求\n23 本院要求其这样做。\n24 法官：好的。谢谢。\n25 梅杰律师：谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1907 提交日期 06/14/23 录入日期 06/14/23 21:33:14 第 139 页，共 140 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023\n\n1 法官：好的。对于\n2 本动议，我将再次暂缓裁定。\n3 我需要考虑今日律师提出的论点，但是——不过，再次说明，我的目标是\n4 尽快对此作出裁定。\n5 这正是我希望做的。今天有\n6 数项证据开示事项需要我作出裁定，\n7 因此我将这样做。\n8 今天下午还有其他人要补充吗？\n9 好的。那么我相信我们已处理今日日程上的所有事项。\n10 因此，\n11 现在休庭。\n12 全体：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n13 书记员：全体起立。现在休庭。\n14 （程序于下午 4:10 结束。）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 6, 2023 140\n\n2 本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的\n3 速记员及认证电子记录员和\n4 速记员，特此证明，上述内容系根据\n5 上述案件程序的官方电子录音制作的正确\n6 笔录。\n\n9 June 13, 2023\n10 Christine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Despins","CIPA","Guo","GTV","Saraca","Paul Hastings","RICO","Himalaya","G Clubs","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1774,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1806,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":39588,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-06-14 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-06-14","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:57:02"}