{"id":"court_ctb_1929_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1929,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2023-06-22","title":"| | UNITED STATES B","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| In Re | *
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n| HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | *
*
*
* | |\n| Debtor. | * | |\n| HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS
INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, | *
Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003
*
* | |\n| Plaintiff, | *
* | |\n| v. | *
* | |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, | *
* | |\n| Defendant. | *
* | |\n| U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as escrow
agent, | *
Adv. Proc No. 23-05012
*
*
* | |\n| Plaintiff, | * | |\n| v.
HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS
INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, | *
*
Bridgeport, Connecticut
*
June 13, 2023
*
* | |\n| Defendant. | *
* | |\n| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | | |\n| | TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
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 | | |\n| Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992 | | |\n\n#### TRANSCRIPT OF\n\n| #1453 | MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEBTOR, MEI GUO |\n|-------|----------------------------------------------------|\n| | and HK(USA) SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF |\n| | COURT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER COMPELLING |\n| | COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS AND |\n| | SANCTIONS FOR SUCH CONTEMPT |\n| | |\n\n- #1649 MOTION FOR A LIMITED STAY OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENA\n- # 227 MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL\n- # 11 STATUS CONFERENCE\n\n2\n\nAPPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 For HK International Funds ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. Investments, LLC and JAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ. Mei Guo: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 Special Criminal Defense WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. For the Debtor: Brown Rudnick One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 For U.S. Bank National Assn, LATONIA C. WILLIAMS, ESQ. as escrow agent: Shipman & Goodwin, LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103\n\n3\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 4 (Proceedings commenced at 1:01 p.m.) THE CLERK: 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings, LLC; 22-05003, HK International Fund Investment (USA) Limited vs. Despins; 23-05012, U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow agent vs. HK International Funds (USA) Limited. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, for the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy for the debtor, Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 5 Moriarty from Zeisler & Zeisler for HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited in both adversaries, 22-05003 and 05012. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick, special criminal defense counsel to the debtor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And then we have appearance on the -- on the remote appearance of Attorney Williams. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor, and thank you so much for the opportunity to appear remotely. Latonia Williams of Shipman & Goodwin LLP, appearing on behalf of the interpleader plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow agent. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And as many of you may know, I was a partner at Shipman & Goodwin for years. I know Ms. Williams. Does any -- if anybody has a problem with me addressing these issues, I'd like you to let the Court know. Okay. Hearing nothing. Then we'll proceed. Trustee Despins, how would you like to proceed? MR. DESPINS: I think the first matter would be the stay pending appeal, Your Honor, which is the -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 5 of 100\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 6 of 100\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 6 Zeisler's motion. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. Attorney Moriarty, are you handling that matter? MR. MORIARTY: Yes, Your Honor. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I did just want to -- apologies. I did just want to note that in terms of process and presentation of our position, I don't know if the Court wants to hear oral argument at the end. But we were planning to present some evidence by having the trustee provide testimony to the Court in support of the harm to the estate and otherwise that would be suffered in the event the Court were to grant a stay. So I don't know if the Court wants to do the evidentiary portion first or -- THE COURT: Well, maybe you and Attorney Moriarty need to discuss that for a second. I mean, I can do it either way. We can have Attorney Moriarty make his presentation, and then you can make your presentation. And that could include evidence. However you'd like to proceed. MR. BASSETT: That would be fine with me, Your Honor. I just didn't want him to start without having -- THE COURT: Does that work for you, Attorney Moriarty, or do you want a moment? MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, I'd like a moment, because I was completely unaware that the trustee intended\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 7 of 100\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 7 to call a witness. THE COURT: Okay. Well, then take a moment. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you. (Counsel confer) MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, James Moriarty for HK International. So Attorney Bassett is going to present his witness first. I just want to note my objection. I was unaware that a witness would be presented today. I had no advance notice that evidence would be offered. I will note that in -- THE COURT: Well, would you like to move to continue the hearing? MR. MORIARTY: I would, Your Honor. And just to be fair, in their brief which was filed yesterday -- THE COURT: Well, that was when it was ordered to be filed. MR. MORIARTY: Correct. I agree. There was a notation in the brief that there would be some information offered that would show the amount of interest that's currently being earned on the escrow versus what could be earned if there was an investment in T-Bills. I anticipated that that would be some type of demonstrative exhibit. And if that's all that they were going to offer, I would be okay with that. But my understanding is that it will go beyond that. So I would like to have the hearing\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 8 of 100\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 8 continued for a week. THE COURT: Attorney -- well, I'm not available in a week, so. Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, as I explained to Attorney Moriarty, I would anticipate that Mr. Despins' testimony would take 10, 15 minutes top. And as I also explained, the testimony that we intend to offer is going to track almost exactly what we had stated in our papers are the categories of harm that this estate will suffer in the trustee's view if a stay were granted. So it's really just the evidentiary basis for the statements we've made. I think it was transparent from our filing that we would be offering evidentiary support for what we had said in our objection. MR. MORIARTY: It would have been transparent in the objection if they had said that they were going to be offering Trustee Despins as a witness. They could have obviously attached an affidavit also, which I believe the Court would have considered. They didn't do that. So now we're here for the hearing, oral argument, and the trustee is offering to call a witness to provide testimony with no advance notice at all. THE COURT: Well, if you'd like to continue the hearing, that's fine, but I'm not available next Tuesday or\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 9 of 100\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 9 the following Tuesday. So it'll have to be into the beginning of July. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor, on that note, the fundamental problem we have, which we've already addressed with the Court, I think, at the status conference we had last week and should be a fundamental component of the argument before the Court today, is that we have appellants who are, in our view, actively in defiance of the order of the Court. They're acting as if they are entitled to a stay pending appeal until there is a hearing on a motion -- THE COURT: There is no stay pending appeal. So they can act however they would like to act, but there's no stay pending appeal until there is a stay pending appeal, unless and until there is a stay pending appeal. They're saying they're not ready to proceed on their own motion. MR. BASSETT: But as -- THE COURT: So there's no stay pending appeal. MR. BASSETT: The issue, Your Honor, though, of course, is that their position is that these funds are in escrow, and they can't be released. THE COURT: Well, didn't we just get pleadings filed that the bank is willing to turn over the funds into the Court? MR. DESPINS: Yes.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 10 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 10 THE COURT: I think that's what I just saw within the last half an hour, right? Attorney Williams is here. I think she can respond to those issues. I mean, the -- it's still -- I understand your concern in that you want the trustee to be in control of those funds. I understand that. And I understand that the trustee wants to be in control of those funds. But I also understand that there's an interpleader action that's been filed. The plaintiff in that interpleader is willing to transfer the funds minus -- I think, I didn't read it all thoroughly yet, so -- but I would assume minus any fees that it was owed as the escrow agent to be paid into the Court's registry. And then we're going to have to have an issue -- the debtors clearly -- the debtor, HK, whomever, clearly opposed that. You're correct that if I continue this hearing I'm, in fact, giving them -- you could argue that I'm giving them a stay pending appeal. So then we'll have to have the hearing as soon as possible. But I -- right now, it is what -- where it is. And the earliest the Court could have a hearing -- continue the hearing to is the 27th of June, which is two weeks from today. But, Mr. Moriarty, you got to be ready to go. I mean, it's your motion. Otherwise, you are -- by not\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 11 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 11 turning over the -- your clients are in violation of this order already. That's clear. It said that they were to turn over the funds to the trustee. You have filed an appeal. You haven't gotten a stay pending appeal. Now you're saying -- and I understand that you want a continuance, because you didn't know that the trustee was going to testify. Okay. I'll agree to that for now. But this is not -- you're going to either get a stay or you're not going to get a stay. And right now, there is no stay. So every day that there isn't a stay and that your client is in violation of an existing order, your client is risking further -- you know, further relief could be sought against your client, even if you ultimately get a stay pending appeal, because you're in violation of that order, and you have been since June 2nd. MR. MORIARTY: I -- THE COURT: So it's up to you. Do you really want to wait another two weeks, or do you want to go forward today? MR. MORIARTY: Well, Your Honor, I -- let me -- let me confer with my -- with Mr. Henzy. But before I do that, I just want to address what the Court just said. The money is in escrow. There is an escrow agreement. The -- THE COURT: I know all about that --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 12 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 12 MR. MORIARTY: So -- THE COURT: -- Attorney Moriarty. MR. MORIARTY: My client is not in violation of a court order, because my client doesn't have the unilateral ability to get the funds to deliver them to the trustee. THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure I agree with you on that, number one. Number two, I entered an order finding that those funds are property of the estate and directed your client to turn them over. So the escrow agent doesn't have a problem. You're not going to get sued by the escrow agent. Who's going to sue you if they get turned over right now? The only people that could sue you would be the trustee or the escrow agent. Neither one of them is going to sue you. MR. MORIARTY: There is a -- THE COURT: So what's the problem? MR. MORIARTY: There's a prior order that Your Honor entered related to -- the stipulated order related to bringing the Lady May to Connecticut, which includes the escrow agreement. The escrow agreement has specific provisions as to when the money can be turned over, and it includes a final, non-appealable order which we do not have yet. So there are competing orders that this Court\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 13 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
13 |\n| 1 | entered.
There's the stipulated order which has the escrow |\n| 2 | agreement as an exhibit to it, and then there's the order |\n| 3 | that was entered on summary judgment. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
And you could agree to turn over those |\n| 5 | funds regardless of your argument about a final |\n| 6 | non-appealable order.
You could agree to do that.
You |\n| 7 | could direct it.
But you don't want to do that.
And I |\n| 8 | understand that you don't want to do that.
But you're still |\n| 9 | in violation of the order that found that the funds are |\n| 10 | property of the estate. |\n| 11 | MR. MORIARTY:
Okay. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
So that's where we are.
So you -- if |\n| 13 | you want to take a few minutes to decide whether you want to |\n| 14 | proceed today or two weeks from now, that's up to you. |\n| 15 | (Counsel confer) |\n| 16 | MR. MORIARTY:
All right.
Your Honor, we'll go |\n| 17 | forward today. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
You'll proceed today? |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
So you're withdrawing your objection |\n| 21 | with regard to -- that you've made on the record with regard |\n| 22 | to the trustee going to be submitting some evidence in |\n| 23 | response to your motion for relief from -- oh, your motion |\n| 24 | for stay pending appeal? |\n| 25 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct.
Obviously subject to |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 14 objections that I may make as he testifies. THE COURT: That's fine. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. It's your motion, though, so are you -- oh, you both agreed that you're going to proceed first? MR. MORIARTY: Yes. Well -- THE COURT: That the trustee is going to proceed with the evidence first? MR. MORIARTY: So that I can then address it in my argument. THE COURT: Fine. That's fine. That's fine. MR. BASSETT: And then he'll do his argument. Then I'll respond and -- THE COURT: That's fine. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, the trustee would -- THE COURT: Trustee Despins? MR. BASSETT: The trustee would -- or the -- THE COURT: Could you please come to the stand? MR. BASSETT: The trustee would call the trustee to the stand. THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand up. LUC DESPINS, TRUSTEE, SWORN THE CLERK: Please state your name and address for the record. Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 14 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 15 THE WITNESS: Luc Despins. Address -- work address is 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 10166. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BASSETT: Q Mr. Despins, good afternoon. Mr. Despins, as the trustee appointed in this case, you are in the process of conducting an investigation into the debtor's assets and affairs. Is that correct? A That's correct. Q And you also understand that we're here today on a motion that has been filed by HK USA and Mei Guo for a stay pending appeal of this Court's order ordering that funds sitting in escrow, approximately \\$33 million, plus funds in a reserve account are property of the estate. You understand that? A That's correct. Q Do you have a view, Mr. Despins, as to how your investigation and/or the estate more generally would be impacted if the Court were to grant the stay pending appeal -- A I do. Q -- that the HK parties are seeking? And what is that view? A That it would have a material impact on the progress and continuation of our investigation. Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 15 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 16 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
16 |\n| 1 | Q
Why is that? |\n| 2 | A
For several reasons.
The first one is, and I want to |\n| 3 | be very clear about this, you know, we intend to use the |\n| 4 | funds to pay Paul Hastings what -- well, whatever the Court |\n| 5 | will allow in terms of its professional fees.
And without |\n| 6 | that, we're going to have a material issue with the |\n| 7 | continued involvement of certain attorneys working on the |\n| 8 | case. |\n| 9 | Q
What do you mean by that?
Has -- strike that.
To |\n| 10 | date, has Paul Hastings been paid anything on account of the |\n| 11 | services it's provided to the trustee in this case? |\n| 12 | A
No, it has not. |\n| 13 | Q
And how is it that that would impact the ability of you |\n| 14 | to, I think, as you put it, retain the help of associates on |\n| 15 | the case? |\n| 16 | A
So basically we're in -- the group -- the financial |\n| 17 | restructuring group, now we're in an over-capacity position. |\n| 18 | That means that we have more work than we can handle so |\n| 19 | that -- and I'm sure Your Honor in private practice has |\n| 20 | experienced that.
We're trying -- everyone is trying to |\n| 21 | staff their cases. |\n| 22 | And, you know, we're -- as I often say jokingly, this |\n| 23 | is not Paulhastings.org.
It's Paulhastings.com.
So it's a |\n| 24 | profit-making enterprise.
And we cannot be in a position |\n| 25 | where I'm going to continue to control a number of key |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1929 | Filed 06/22/23 | Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 | Page 17 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
17 |\n| 1 | associates in the department to work on the case where we're |\n| 2 | not getting paid.
Essentially, there'll be demands made |\n| 3 | elsewhere, and I'll have to release them to other paying |\n| 4 | clients, unfortunately. |\n| 5 | And that -- and there's a huge prejudice to not only me |\n| 6 | personally but to the case, because there's some associates, |\n| 7 | and they're mid-level to senior associates, who have spent |\n| 8 | the better part of last year working on this case.
Without |\n| 9 | them, we're in a world of hurt, because they know every |\n| 10 | aspect of the case. |\n| 11 | So I know generally what's going on, and I think I know |\n| 12 | a lot about it.
But they can tell you that there's a |\n| 13 | document in this file that says XYZ, which there's no way |\n| 14 | that I or, I'd venture say, even you would be able to do |\n| 15 | that.
Because we're not, and we should not be, in the weeds |\n| 16 | the way they are.
And so if I lose these people, there's a |\n| 17 | really material impact on our work. |\n| 18 | Q
And what you're saying is that you fear losing them to |\n| 19 | work on matters with paying clients? |\n| 20 | A
Correct. |\n| 21 | Q
And is it -- I assume from what you're saying that it's |\n| 22 | atypical for Paul Hastings to take on an engagement like |\n| 23 | this where it's essentially on a contingency basis? |\n| 24 | A
I've never seen -- I've never had a receivable of this |\n| 25 | size.
I've never -- you know, we -- even at the firm, I |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1929 | Filed 06/22/23 | Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 | Page 18 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
18 |\n| 1 | mean, I got probably three or four calls from the -- |\n| 2 | essentially the CEO of the firm about this receivable.
So |\n| 3 | it's unprecedented in terms of what we -- what we have ever |\n| 4 | experienced. |\n| 5 | Q
Other than using some portion of the funds to pay fees |\n| 6 | of counsel, of course, subject to the Court's approval, is |\n| 7 | there anything else that you would do if you did have access |\n| 8 | to the \\$33 million in escrow funds if there was not a stay? |\n| 9 | A
Yes.
As I mentioned in court before during the |\n| 10 | preliminary injunction trial, the -- we're at a phase in the |\n| 11 | case where we've identified, although we get surprises all |\n| 12 | the time.
But we've identified the hard assets.
So we know |\n| 13 | there's a apartment.
We know there's a yacht, although we |\n| 14 | now know there's another smaller yacht.
And we know there's |\n| 15 | a house in Greenwich, et cetera, et cetera. |\n| 16 | But what is unknown precisely is the cash that flowed |\n| 17 | between these dozens, if not hundreds, of entities, and the |\n| 18 | tracing of those funds.
And that is where our experience as |\n| 19 | lawyers kind of ends in the sense that we know that there's |\n| 20 | millions of dollars that flowed through these various |\n| 21 | accounts, but we need a professional to do asset tracing. |\n| 22 | And that's where we are in the case in the sense that, |\n| 23 | yes, there are a lot of skirmishes regarding the hard |\n| 24 | assets, but those, I venture to say, are progressing nicely. |\n| 25 | But the -- what -- where we have not made progress yet is on |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 19 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
19 |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the tracing of the hundreds, if not thousands, of transfers |\n| 2 | and to determine which account they ended up in.
Are these |\n| 3 | accounts in the U.S.?
Are they abroad?
If they're abroad, |\n| 4 | are they in the U.K., or are they in the United Arab |\n| 5 | Emirates where our ability to recover those funds is maybe |\n| 6 | more difficult? |\n| 7 | So there's a whole panoply of issues that a financial |\n| 8 | expert, which we have not retained to date, would need to |\n\n work on. And, you know, these people will need to get paid. They're not going to do this on a contingency basis. The reason being is that the only way they would do that, they would say, okay, well, I'm first. I'm going to be first as to whatever recovery is obtained.\n\n And of course we're going to say no, because we are owed money. And Mr. Linsey's firm is owed money. And the British Virgin counsel is owed money. And the U.K. counsel is owed money. And, therefore, we don't have an asset to give to these people on a contingency basis, and we don't have cash to pay them on a regular basis unless we have access to the funds.\n\n Q And if -- and I'm not going to ask you to reveal anything that, you know, remains sort of nonpublic information that's part of your ongoing, privileged investigation. But if you were able to hire the types of professionals that you just described and pursue this type\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 20 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
20 |\n| 1 | of investigation, do you, as the trustee, have a ballpark |\n| 2 | sense of whether you'd likely be successful in obtaining |\n| 3 | recoveries for the estate? |\n| 4 | MR. MORIARTY:
Objection.
Speculation. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Overruled. |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
So let me start with the stuff -- |\n| 7 | not the stuff, the assets that have been identified.
So we |\n| 8 | know what they are -- those are, the yacht and all that and |\n| 9 | the apartment, the house in Greenwich, the \\$10-million-plus |\n| 10 | airplane proceeds.
And there's a -- you know, there's new |\n| 11 | litigation that we have commenced where, you know, there's a |\n| 12 | lot more money involved. |\n| 13 | So just on that, there's going to be a lot, you |\n| 14 | know, more money than the 33- or 37 million that's at stake. |\n| 15 | But in terms of what has not been identified precisely, it's |\n| 16 | obvious to me in my professional judgment that, you know, |\n| 17 | the family -- the debtor and his family had a game plan here |\n| 18 | which is to not disclose assets. |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
Objection, Your Honor.
It's |\n| 20 | outside the -- it's not responsive to the question. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I'll overrule that part -- I'll strike |\n| 22 | that part of the answer.
And he did -- I'll keep on the |\n| 23 | record the part of the answer that Trustee Despins talked |\n| 24 | about the hard assets, and he thinks that there's more than |\n| 25 | \\$33 million out there than other -- than -- other than the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 21 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
21 |\n| 1 | funds in the escrow.
And if Attorney Bassett wants to ask |\n| 2 | another question, he can do so. |\n| 3 | BY MR. BASSETT: |\n| 4 | Q
Okay.
Trustee Despins, I don't need
you to elaborate |\n| 5 | on all the specifics.
But in your professional judgment |\n| 6 | based on the investigation that you've conducted this far, |\n| 7 | are you optimistic that in addition to the hard assets that |\n| 8 | you've identified, there are other potential assets that the |\n| 9 | trustee may be able to recover if it conducts this type of |\n| 10 | investigation? |\n| 11 | A
Yes, I am. |\n| 12 | Q
In addition to not being able to hire these types of |\n| 13 | advisors to conduct the type of investigation that you have |\n| 14 | described, is there anything else that you would do as |\n| 15 | trustee if given access to the funds in the event there is |\n| 16 | not a stay? |\n| 17 | A
Well, we would invest the funds or the parts that's not |\n| 18 | used to pay professional fees, buying treasury bills, for |\n| 19 | example, something that is guaranteed by the United States. |\n| 20 | Q
Do you know, by the way, what interest, if any, the |\n| 21 | funds are earning in the escrow account that they're |\n| 22 | currently in? |\n| 23 | A
Yes.
They're earning half a percentage point.
So |\n| 24 | that's like .5 -- .05 percent.
I'm sorry. |\n| 25 | Q
And do you have an understanding based on publicly |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 22 of\n\n| | 100
Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 22 |\n| 1 | available information that you researched prior to the |\n| 2 | hearing what roughly a treasury bill would return? |\n| 3 | A
Yeah.
About 5 percent, 5.1 right now for -- it depends |\n| 4 | on the term.
It varies between six months and a year.
But |\n| 5 | it -- it's about in the 5 percent range. |\n| 6 | Q
And at the risk of asking you to do a little math, |\n| 7 | which I know you've done, do you know if, for example, the |\n| 8 | trustee on behalf of the estate were to invest \\$20 million |\n| 9 | worth of the escrow funds over the next six months or a |\n| 10 | year, you know, what that interest income would be? |\n| 11 | A
It would be about -- the delta would be about a million |\n| 12 | dollars over a period of a year. |\n| 13 | Q
Over a year?
Okay.
And then to go back to the prior |\n| 14 | question that I asked, I just want to make sure, is there |\n| 15 | anything else that you haven't yet said that you would do on |\n| 16 | behalf of the estate in the absence of a stay? |\n| 17 | A
Yes.
Well, there are a number of, I would call, |\n| 18 | projects that have not been fully started because of a lack |\n| 19 | of funding.
But that would involve recovering assets in |\n| 20 | certain jurisdictions -- I'm not going to say more than |\n| 21 | that -- on that -- and also other types of claims with a |\n| 22 | broader list of targets, just, you know, without elaborating |\n| 23 | on that. |\n| 24 | Q
And I think this may be the last question that I have |\n| 25 | for you.
It's one I meant to ask earlier.
But you talked |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 23 of\n\n| | 100 | | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
23 | | | | | | |\n| 1 | about the types of investigation that you would like to | | | | | | |\n| 2 | pursue if you were able to retain the right professionals to | | | | | | |\n| 3 | do that.
Is there any reason in your mind why you couldn't | | | | | | |\n| 4 | just wait?
Let's say it takes the appeal three to six | | | | | | |\n| 5 | months to run its course, conservatively.
Is there any | | | | | | |\n| 6 | reason you couldn't wait until the end of then to conduct | | | | | | |\n| 7 | this investigation, in your mind? | | | | | | |\n| 8 | A
The problem with that approach is that the information | | | | | | |\n| 9 | is getting stale.
We know that there are accounts that have | | | | | | |\n| 10 | been opened
-- dozens of accounts that have been opened | | | | | | |\n| 11 | over the last, you know, two years.
We know from -- and I'm | | | | | | |\n| 12 | sorry to mention this but that from the Zeisler disclosure | | | | | | |\n| 13 | as to whether they're getting paid, that there are new | | | | | | |\n| 14 | entities all the time that are created with new names and | | | | | | |\n| 15 | all that.
That's not speculation.
That's reality. | | | | | | |\n| 16 | And so that means that in two months from now, the | | | | | | |\n| 17 | information we have today will be completely stale.
So now | | | | | | |\n| 18 | we have to restart it and at a huge cost to the estate. | | | | | | |\n| 19 | Q
When you say the information could be stale, it's if | | | | | | |\n| 20 | there's -- you know, if the information that you have would | | | | | | |\n| 21 | show that money may exist in a particular account today, | | | | | | |\n| 22 | that money may be in a different account later?
That's what | | | | | | |\n| 23 | you're saying? | | | | | | |\n| 24 | A
Yeah. | | | | | | |\n| 25 | MR. MORIARTY:
Objection.
Leading. | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 24 of\n\n| | 100 | | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
24 | | | | | | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Could you rephrase the question, | | | | | | |\n| 2 | Attorney Bassett, please? | | | | | | |\n| 3 | BY MR. BASSETT: | | | | | | |\n| 4 | Q
Yeah.
Can you just explain what you mean by the | | | | | | |\n| 5 | information being stale? | | | | | | |\n| 6 | A
Well, we have that in a number of cases where we have | | | | | | |\n| 7 | bank accounts and at the end the account was closed.
Or the | | | | | | |\n| 8 | same thing with Golden Spring, you know, now which I had to | | | | | | |\n| 9 | find documents regarding Golden Spring.
They're closed. | | | | | | |\n| 10 | They don't exist anymore, because it went on to another | | | | | | |\n| 11 | company.
And so it went to another account. | | | | | | |\n| 12 | So we have to take the last entry in the account at | | | | | | |\n| 13 | Chase or Citibank and see where it went and then find those | | | | | | |\n| 14 | bank accounts and then hope that they're still open.
And I | | | | | | |\n| 15 | would say that they don't have a long life span.
Usually | | | | | | |\n| 16 | they don't stay open for more than six months or so. | | | | | | |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you.
I don't have any other | | | | | | |\n| 18 | questions, Your Honor. | | | | | | |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | | | | | |\n| 20 | Cross-examination, Attorney Moriarty? | | | | | | |\n| 21 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | | | |\n| 22 | CROSS-EXAMINATION | | | | | | |\n| 23 | BY MR. MORIARTY: | | | | | | |\n| 24 | Q
Good afternoon, Trustee Despins. | | | | | | |\n| 25 | A
Good afternoon. | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 25 of\n\n| | 100 | | | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
25 | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | Q
You became trustee -- the Court approved your | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | appointment on July 8, 2022? | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | A
That sounds right. | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | Q
And how much money was in the debtor's estate at the | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | time that your appointment was approved? | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | A
I forget, but de minimis.
You know, 10-, 15,000. | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | Q
Okay.
So at the time that your appointment was | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | approved, there was 10- to \\$15,000 in the estate, and there | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | was no guaranty that there was going to be additional assets | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | coming in, correct? | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | A
No guaranties.
That's correct. | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | Q
All right.
So there was a risk for you at the time | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | that you accepted this appointment that the professionals | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | you engaged could run up very high bills and not get paid, | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | right? | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | A
Yes.
Except that now we found the money. | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | Q
And at the time that you accepted the engagement and | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | even going forward months into that, there were no assets in | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | the estate, right? | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | A
I'm sorry.
Can you rephrase that? | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | Q
Sure.
So let's say August of 2022.
At that point in | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | time, had you on behalf of the debtor's estate recovered any | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | assets? | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | A
No. | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | Q
September of 2022, had you recovered any assets? | | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 26 of\n\n| | 100 | | | | | | | |\n|----|------|------------------------------------------------------------|----|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 | 26 | | | | | |\n| 1 | A | Some but not a lot. | | | | | | |\n| 2 | Q | Okay.
What was the date of the first material -- and | | | | | | |\n| 3 | | by material I'll say more than a million dollars -- asset | | | | | | |\n| 4 | | that you recovered on behalf of the estate? | | | | | | |\n| 5 | A | It would be the entry of summary judgment on the Lady | | | | | | |\n| 6 | May. | And I forget the precise date, you know, but -- | | | | | | |\n| 7 | Q | We'll agree that it was in late March of 2023? | | | | | | |\n| 8 | A | Something -- | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Q | Is that fair? | | | | | | |\n| 10 | A | Something like that. | | | | | | |\n| 11 | Q | And the fee application that Paul Hastings filed | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | recently, do you remember the date through which the | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | billings are sought? | | | | | | |\n| 14 | A | Through February. | | | | | | |\n| 15 | Q | Okay.
So February of 2023? | | | | | | |\n| 16 | A | Correct. | | | | | | |\n| 17 | Q | So all the way through February 2023, Paul Hastings | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | incurred more than \\$12 million in attorney's fees, right? | | | | | | |\n| 19 | A | Correct. | | | | | | |\n| 20 | Q | And there was no guaranty that they were getting those | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | paid, right? | | | | | | |\n| 22 | A | That's correct. | | | | | | |\n| 23 | Q | Now, this -- the \\$33 million that's in escrow with U.S. | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | Bank, and there's another 3- or so that you're holding in | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | the repair reserve, correct? | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 27 of
100 | | | |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
27 | | | |\n| 1 | A | Correct. | | | |\n| 2 | Q | So let's say 36 million.
Is that fair? | | | |\n| 3 | A | Something around -- it's 35- and change or 36-.
Sure. | | | |\n| 4 | Q | And you as trustee obtained a prejudgment remedy of | | | |\n| 5 | | attachment against HK USA, correct? | | | |\n| 6 | A | Correct. | | | |\n| 7 | Q | And have you attached the funds that are in the escrow | | | |\n| 8 | account? | | | | |\n| 9 | A | I'm -- well, I'm not sure we've perfected this | | | |\n| 10 | | attachment, but certainly that was the intent. | | | |\n| 11 | Q | Okay.
Did you attach the funds that you're holding, | | | |\n| 12 | | the \\$3 million? | | | |\n| 13 | A | I'm not sure I would -- we would do that given that | | | |\n| 14 | | we're -- I'm the account holder, but -- | | | |\n| 15 | Q | Okay.
But you're not going to give anybody that money, | | | |\n| 16 | right? | I mean -- | | | |\n| 17 | A | No.
That's correct. | | | |\n| 18 | Q | All right.
So there's \\$36 million.
33 million is in | | | |\n| 19 | escrow. | You're holding 3 million.
The 33 may or may not be | | | |\n| 20 | | attached.
But we can agree that it will not be released at | | | |\n| 21 | | least subject to the terms of the escrow agreement and court | | | |\n| 22 | | order, correct? | | | |\n| 23 | A | Well, I'm not sure the escrow agreement governs, but it | | | |\n| 24 | | will not be released without the Court directing that it be | | | |\n| 25 | | released. | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1929 | Filed 06/22/23 | Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 | Page 28 of | | | |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|--|--|--|\n| | | | | | | | |\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
28 |\n| 1 | Q
Okay.
So would you agree with me that Paul Hastings |\n| 2 | invoices, the fee application through February of 2023, to |\n| 3 | the extent that you are successful on appeal of the Court's |\n| 4 | order granting you summary judgment on the second |\n| 5 | counterclaim, is secure? |\n| 6 | A
Well, that depends as to the continuing burn rate |\n| 7 | and -- for us and the other professionals in the case. |\n| 8 | Q
Well, your counsel estimated three to six months |\n| 9 | conservatively for the appeal to run its course.
From July |\n| 10 | to February -- which you would agree with me is nine months? |\n| 11 | A
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q
I mean, maybe I'm off. |\n| 13 | A
But that was before the district court.
But go ahead. |\n| 14 | Yes. |\n| 15 | Q
Actually, I am off.
It's not nine months.
It's eight |\n| 16 | months.
So it's two-thirds of a year, right? |\n| 17 | A
Okay. |\n| 18 | Q
And so there's \\$12 million -- \\$12.6 million in fees. |\n| 19 | So Paul Hastings has been incurring about \\$6.3 million every |\n| 20 | four months, right? |\n| 21 | A
I'm not sure you can do it like that, because there are |\n| 22 | peaks and valleys.
But I'm not sure what your question is |\n| 23 | precisely.
I can't tell you precisely how much would be |\n| 24 | owed -- incurred during that time.
Because if there's a |\n| 25 | trial, that's a lot more.
It depends on what's happening in |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 29 the case. Q All right. So let's just assume that this appeal takes six months for purposes of my question. Okay? A So this is the appeal before the district court or the Second Circuit? Q Correct. So it's the -- what I'm asking you now about is the appeal of the order granting summary judgment on the second counterclaim -- A Uh-huh. Q -- which found that HK is the debtor's alter ego. That's what I'm asking you about. Okay? That appeal. A Correct. Yeah. Q So if that appeal, which has already been filed, takes six months, presumably it's done in December of 2023. Okay? You agree with me from June to December is six months? A Yeah. I agree with that. Yes. Q Okay. Thank you. So if you win that appeal, there's \\$33 million, right? A Well, you're assuming that you're not going to appeal to the Second Circuit? Q Even if we do, if you win that appeal, there's \\$33 million, correct? A I'm not sure that's correct. Meaning if you appeal to the Second Circuit, that could be another year. And then God knows -- another year plus. Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 29 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 30 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
30 |\n| 1 | Q
So do you believe -- and we have \\$36 million in total, |\n| 2 | 33- plus the 3- you're holding.
Okay?
Do you believe that |\n| 3 | even if we appealed, we being HK, so HKI appeals, it loses |\n| 4 | at the district court, it appeals to the Second Circuit, the |\n| 5 | appeals take 18 months -- you currently have \\$12.6 million |\n| 6 | in fees.
Okay?
Do you believe that within the next 18 |\n| 7 | months Paul Hastings will incur another \\$25 million in fees? |\n| 8 | A
No.
But I don't agree with your premise that it's |\n| 9 | going to be that short.
The Second Circuit -- I know of |\n| 10 | cases that took a year-and-a-half to have a decision. |\n| 11 | Q
Okay.
So you do agree with me that there is a pot of |\n| 12 | money that Paul Hastings could look to, to get its fees at |\n| 13 | some point in time, if it is successful on appeal, correct? |\n| 14 | A
Again, it depends on the length of the appeal process. |\n| 15 | Q
Well, it doesn't depend on the length of the appeal |\n| 16 | process.
It just depends on you, the trustee, being |\n| 17 | successful in the appeal, correct? |\n| 18 | A
No, no.
But -- |\n| 19 | Q
I'm not asking you about the timing, Trustee Despins. |\n| 20 | I'm asking you -- there's \\$36 million that could be used to |\n| 21 | pay professional fees, assuming you win on appeal, right? |\n| 22 | A
Yes.
But that doesn't mean I don't have the exposure |\n| 23 | in the meantime, because the appeal process could last |\n| 24 | years. |\n| 25 | Q
So let's talk about the other -- you mentioned hard |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 31 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
31 |\n| 1 | assets.
So we have the Lady May, the Lady May II, correct? |\n| 2 | And you're in the process of seeking bankruptcy court |\n| 3 | approval to sell those assets, right? |\n| 4 | A
Correct. |\n| 5 | Q
And you have The Sherry-Netherland apartment.
And are |\n| 6 | you seeking a buyer for that at this point in time? |\n| 7 | A
Yes, we are. |\n| 8 | Q
And do you have an estimate as to how much you think |\n| 9 | you might be able to get for that? |\n| 10 | A
That's unclear.
It depends on the insurance coverage |\n| 11 | issue, meaning whether we prevail on that issue, it would be |\n| 12 | a major differential in terms of recovery for that asset. |\n| 13 | Q
Okay.
So the Lady May, the -- I believe the offer in |\n| 14 | the motion to -- per the sale was \\$24 million.
Does that |\n| 15 | sound right? |\n| 16 | A
That's correct. |\n| 17 | Q
Okay.
And so do you have a ballpark as to what you |\n| 18 | think you might be able to get for the apartment? |\n| 19 | A
As I said, it depends on the insurance coverage, |\n| 20 | whether you sell it as is.
Because there's no insurance |\n| 21 | coverage, or you can sell it to someone saying there is |\n| 22 | insurance to rebuild it to the way it was or to the standard |\n| 23 | that it was.
The price is -- the differential is massive. |\n| 24 | Q
Okay.
So would it ever be zero, in your mind? |\n| 25 | A
That's a complex question, because -- no, you would |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 32 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
32 |\n| 1 | never sell it for zero.
The question is, do you pocket more |\n| 2 | than zero.
That depends on insurance coverage. |\n| 3 | Q
What are the other hard assets that you're aware of? |\n| 4 | A
Well, did we mention the Greenwich house? |\n| 5 | Q
Not yet. |\n| 6 | A
Okay.
So there would be that.
There would be the |\n| 7 | claims against the daughter -- the debtor's daughter for the |\n| 8 | airplane proceeds which are north of \\$10 million. |\n| 9 | Q
Okay.
And the -- do you have an idea as to how much |\n| 10 | you believe the Greenwich house is worth? |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Just I'm going to lodge an objection |\n| 12 | only because to the extent the trustee is going to be |\n| 13 | selling these assets, I don't know in a non-confidential |\n| 14 | setting if we want the trustee telling the world what he |\n| 15 | thinks they're worth. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
First of all, Attorney Bassett, I |\n| 17 | couldn't -- could barely hear you. |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
I'm sorry. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
But I did hear you, so that -- I did |\n| 20 | hear you.
So just be -- |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
I'm sorry. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Just try to make sure that we can hear |\n| 23 | you, number one.
Number two, I'm not sure how this is -- I |\n| 24 | think this is beyond the scope of direct at this point. |\n| 25 | We're not -- we didn't have a direct examination about what |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 33 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
33 |\n| 1 | the other assets would be worth.
The direct examination was |\n| 2 | about what would the harm be that would -- what harm would |\n| 3 | be suffered by the trustee and the estate if a stay is |\n| 4 | issued.
So I think you got to wrap this up, Attorney |\n| 5 | Moriarty. |\n| 6 | MR. MORIARTY:
So, Your Honor, I agree with you. |\n| 7 | That was the line of questioning.
And what I am trying to |\n| 8 | elicit from the witness is there are a number of additional |\n| 9 | assets that he's identified that have value.
So there's -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
But that's not what he talked about. |\n| 11 | He talked about on direct examination the harm that would be |\n| 12 | suffered was that he -- that his firm would not be paid for |\n| 13 | the services that they had rendered.
This is what he |\n| 14 | testified about.
And that it would impact the ability to |\n| 15 | retain associates, because his firm is a for-profit-making |\n| 16 | business, like everyone's firm in this courtroom is.
And |\n| 17 | that he can't continue to be in control of the associates in |\n| 18 | a case where attorneys are not getting paid.
And that the |\n| 19 | associates know every aspect of the case.
And Paul Hastings |\n| 20 | does not take on cases on a contingency basis. |\n| 21 | And when Attorney Bassett asked him if there was |\n| 22 | anything else that he would do with the money other than pay |\n| 23 | the administrative expenses of the estate and possibly |\n| 24 | retain a financial expert to trace the funds, then that -- |\n| 25 | Trustee Despins talked about that there were other assets -- |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 34 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
34 |\n| 1 | he thinks there's other assets out there and what would he |\n| 2 | do with the funds if he had them after the payment of |\n| 3 | administrative expenses.
And he said he would invest them. |\n| 4 | And he would invest them in treasury bills. |\n| 5 | Because as of right now, they incur 5 percent interest.
And |\n| 6 | the -- and the funds in the escrow account right now are |\n| 7 | incurring -- are about .5 (sic) percent interest. |\n| 8 | And that's what he talked about.
He talked about |\n| 9 | going to other jurisdictions, maybe getting other assets. |\n| 10 | He didn't talk about the value of any assets.
He didn't |\n| 11 | talk about what it is that he thinks that the -- that those |\n| 12 | assets could be sold for.
He talked about what he was doing |\n| 13 | with regard to the investigation of the estate and how he |\n| 14 | needs funds to do that. |\n| 15 | So I do think you're -- I'll give you one or two |\n| 16 | more questions, but then I think you're getting beyond the |\n| 17 | scope of direct examination. |\n| 18 | MR. MORIARTY:
All right.
And, Your Honor, I |\n| 19 | heard Attorney Despins' testimony.
I give you credit for a |\n| 20 | good summary of what he testified to.
But the theme of his |\n| 21 | testimony was we need this money, because it's all we have. |\n| 22 | And my questions go to the fact that there are other |\n| 23 | potential assets.
He's in the process of selling those. |\n| 24 | They're going to create additional cash.
So this is not the |\n| 25 | only pot of money. |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 34 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 35 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 35 THE COURT: How is that relevant to your stay pending appeal? The questions were all about what's the harm. He told you what his harm is. You may disagree with his harm. But that -- how is it relevant to your getting a stay pending appeal? MR. MORIARTY: If there's other assets that can be used, Your Honor, then there's no harm. His harm is I don't have the ability to pay -- THE COURT: Well, you -- MR. MORIARTY: -- which -- THE COURT: The other assets that you're talking about, including the Lady May, you've already -- that's on appeal too, isn't it? MR. MORIARTY: It is on appeal. THE COURT: Yeah. So then your argument doesn't really make sense, because then you're going to make the same argument when you come to the Lady May. MR. MORIARTY: Well, Your Honor, I don't know that I could make the same argument continuously, because at some point in time it becomes self-defeating. But for now, it's not. But I will move on. Okay. BY MR. MORIARTY: Q So, Attorney Despins, the professionals that you haven't hired yet, those would be, for example, accountants, right?\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 36 of
100 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
36 |\n| 1 | A | Yeah.
AlixPartners is something like that. |\n| 2 | Q | Okay.
So has any professional that you have inquired |\n| 3 | | about to engage for the estate refused an engagement because |\n| 4 | | there's no cash immediately available to pay them? |\n| 5 | A | Yes. |\n| 6 | Q | Okay.
Who is that? |\n| 7 | A | AlixPartners. |\n| 8 | Q | Okay.
Anybody else? |\n| 9 | A | No.
I have not had the discussion with anybody else. |\n| 10 | Q | So was Alix -- what were you -- well, withdraw that. |\n| 11 | | Is AlixPartners the only professional firm that you've |\n| 12 | | spoken to about engagement for asset tracing? |\n| 13 | A | To date, yes. |\n| 14 | Q | Okay.
So no other firm has -- no other firm related to |\n| 15 | | asset tracing or accounting-type work has refused to perform |\n| 16 | | services because there's no cash immediately available in |\n| 17 | | the estate? |\n| 18 | A | Well, I have not talked to any other firms, so -- |\n| 19 | Q | Okay.
And you testified that information gets stale. |\n| 20 | | Do you recall that testimony? |\n| 21 | A | Correct. |\n| 22 | Q | Okay.
But you've only spoken to one firm about taking |\n| 23 | | on the type of engagement where they would be tracing funds. |\n| 24 | | Is that correct? |\n| 25 | A | Yes. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929 | Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 37 of
100 | |\n|----|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 | 37 |\n| 1 | Q
Okay. | And when you said the information gets stale, | |\n| 2 | | you were referring to the fact that you need additional | |\n| 3 | | professionals in order to avoid having that information get | |\n| 4 | stale, correct? | | |\n| 5 | A | I was referring to I need money to hire | |\n| 6 | professionals -- | | |\n| 7 | Q
Okay. | | |\n| 8 | A | -- to do that. | |\n| 9 | Q
Okay. | Mr. Linsey is your Connecticut counsel in this | |\n| 10 | case? | | |\n| 11 | A
Yes, he is. | | |\n| 12 | Q
Okay. | And has his firm refused to perform any tasks | |\n| 13 | | that you've asked them to perform because they haven't been | |\n| 14 | paid yet? | | |\n| 15 | A
No. | | |\n| 16 | Q
Okay. | Have you asked Mr. Linsey's firm to perform any | |\n| 17 | | additional services for the estate because your firm is | |\n| 18 | | apparently making a decision that associates should be doing | |\n| 19 | | other work for paying clients? | |\n| 20 | A | No, I have not had the discussion with Mr. Linsey about | |\n| 21 | that. | | |\n| 22 | Q | And the associates at Paul Hastings that have been | |\n| 23 | | working on this case, the junior mid-level associates who | |\n| 24 | | may be pulled off of it, does Paul Hastings, the firm, | |\n| 25 | | understand that you have obtained summary judgment on the | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 38 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
38 |\n| 1 | Lady May account and also on the escrow account and that |\n| 2 | between the two of those it's -- if you're successful in |\n| 3 | selling the Lady May and you're successful in getting these |\n| 4 | funds, \\$60 million to the estate? |\n| 5 | A
Well, they are aware of the progress of the case. |\n| 6 | Q
Okay.
And they're aware that there's potentially \\$60 |\n| 7 | million that could be coming into the estate at some point |\n| 8 | in time this year? |\n| 9 | A
You mean if you're not getting a stay pending appeal |\n| 10 | or -- I'm not sure I -- meaning -- the fact that it comes |\n| 11 | into the estate doesn't help us if we can't get paid. |\n| 12 | That's the issue. |\n| 13 | Q
All right.
So you haven't -- have you had discussions |\n| 14 | with anybody at Paul Hastings, a decision maker, the |\n| 15 | chairman of the firm where you said I understand why you |\n| 16 | want to move my associates off of this case -- |\n| 17 | A
By the way, I didn't say he -- let's be careful.
I |\n| 18 | didn't say that he said that he was moving associates.
I |\n| 19 | said what's going to happen if we don't get paid is |\n| 20 | something along those lines, but -- |\n| 21 | Q
Okay.
And when is that going to happen? |\n| 22 | A
Well, it's going to happen -- you know, the target was |\n| 23 | to get paid by the end of June.
And if it doesn't happen, I |\n| 24 | don't know what's -- you know, what's going to happen.
But |\n| 25 | I know for a fact that -- because I'm in management of my |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 39 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
39 |\n| 1 | department that we -- I cannot argue with other people that |\n| 2 | need associates that they should not get them when I have a |\n| 3 | case on which they are where we're not getting paid.
It's a |\n| 4 | losing argument for me to make that point. |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
But sitting here right now, you cannot put a |\n| 6 | date as to when or even if these associates will be moved if |\n| 7 | Paul Hastings doesn't get paid by the end of June, correct? |\n| 8 | A
It's a matter of weeks. |\n| 9 | MR. MORIARTY:
Okay.
I have nothing further. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | Any redirect? |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you, Trustee Despins. |\n| 14 | You can step down. |\n| 15 | Any further evidence, Mr. Bassett? |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
No, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
So then |\n| 18 | Mr. Moriarty is going to argue the motion first, and then |\n| 19 | you will respond. |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 22 | Go ahead, Attorney Moriarty. |\n| 23 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you, Your Honor.
So as Your |\n| 24 | Honor is aware, this is a motion for stay filed by HK |\n| 25 | International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC and |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 40 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
40 |\n| 1 | Ms. Guo to stay enforcement of the judgment that the Court |\n| 2 | entered on the second count of the trustee's counterclaims. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
May I just stop you for one second? |\n| 4 | And I don't mean to interrupt.
When you gave your |\n| 5 | appearance, you only gave your appearance for HK |\n| 6 | International.
Are you also appearing for Mei Guo in |\n| 7 | connection with this motion?
I just want to be clear for |\n| 8 | the record. |\n| 9 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes, Your Honor.
And if I did not |\n| 10 | do that, that is obviously my fault -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
That's fine. |\n| 12 | MR. MORIARTY:
-- and I apologize for that. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
And I could have misheard you.
But I |\n| 14 | just want to be clear for the record.
Okay? |\n| 15 | MR. MORIARTY:
I appreciate that. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 17 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you.
And so, to be really |\n| 18 | clear for the record, I announce my appearance in two |\n| 19 | adversary proceedings.
Ms. Guo I do not believe is a |\n| 20 | defendant in the U.S. Bank adversary proceeding. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 22 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes.
So the Court, as Your Honor's |\n| 23 | aware, entered a judgment on the second counterclaim finding |\n| 24 | that HK USA is the alter ego of the debtor, and the trustee |\n| 25 | is entitled to the property of HK USA.
And so what my |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 41 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
41 |\n| 1 | clients are seeking is a stay pending appeal.
The appeal |\n| 2 | has already been filed.
My clients have filed their list of |\n| 3 | the record, that's not the proper term, but as well as their |\n| 4 | issues on appeal. |\n| 5 | I believe the trustee's filing is due in about ten |\n| 6 | days or so, give or take.
And then briefing will commence |\n| 7 | within 30 days from that date.
So this appeal will probably |\n| 8 | be fully briefed sometime -- assuming no extensions, |\n| 9 | sometime in mid to late August. |\n| 10 | So as Your Honor is aware from having heard in |\n| 11 | this case and multiple other cases motions for stay pending |\n| 12 | appeal, there are four factors that courts look to in the |\n| 13 | Second Circuit in determining whether a stay should be |\n| 14 | granted pending appeal.
The first factor is the probability |\n| 15 | or possibility of success on the merits or serious legal |\n| 16 | questions going to the merits.
And so in this particular |\n| 17 | case, the crux of the decision is the debtor is the owner of |\n| 18 | the Lady May and the Lady May II.
And I understand.
I read |\n| 19 | the decision again this morning.
There are other facts in |\n| 20 | there.
But everything flows from the finding on the first |\n| 21 | counterclaim that the debtor is the owner of the Lady May |\n| 22 | and the Lady May II.
Because if he wasn't, then none of the |\n| 23 | other factors would be indicia of alter ego as it relates to |\n| 24 | the debtor.
They might be indicia of alter ego, but the |\n| 25 | debtor would have no connection to HK USA. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 42 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 42 So if we are successful, and by we I mean my clients, in convincing the district court that res judicata should not have applied, because that was the sole purpose -- or the sole basis for granting summary judgment on Count 1, res judicata as it related to Justice Ostrager's decision in New York, if res judicata was not applicable, then summary judgment should not have entered on Count 2, because there would be, at least at a minimum, issues of material fact. The second factor is irreparable injury, and it's the balances of the hardship tipping in favor of the movement or injury to the movement if the stay is denied. So in this case, we have, as you heard from Trustee Despins' testimony, \\$36 million. 33- in escrow. He's holding 3-. And we know from Trustee Despins' testimony that as soon as the trustee has access to that money, it is going to be spent, \\$12.6 million, assuming the Court grants the fee application in total. Maybe it will be less. But \\$12.6 million is what Paul Hastings has asked for. I believe Mr. Linsey's firm has asked for \\$550,000. So that's already north of 13 million. There's other professionals that, to the extent they haven't, will be submitting fee applications. So immediately upon that money being released to the trustee, without a stay, \\$13 million, plus or minus, is\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1929 | Filed 06/22/23 | Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 | Page 43 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| 100 | | | | | | | |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
43 | | | | | | |\n| 1 | going to be spent.
If HK USA is successful on appeal, that | | | | | | |\n| 2 | money was never property of the estate, and it should not | | | | | | |\n| 3 | have been spent to pay administrative fees.
So HK USA is | | | | | | |\n| 4 | then in the position of having to come back and seek | | | | | | |\n| 5 | disgorgement. | | | | | | |\n| 6 | Now, maybe Trustee Despins' law firm immediately | | | | | | |\n| 7 | pays it back.
Maybe they don't.
Maybe Mr. Linsey's firm | | | | | | |\n| 8 | does.
Maybe they don't.
Other professionals, there could | | | | | | |\n| 9 | be additional litigation, additional motion practice.
But | | | | | | |\n| 10 | HK USA is going to be in the position of having successfully | | | | | | |\n| 11 | appealed a judgment and now being able to recover, at least | | | | | | |\n| 12 | initially, maybe two-thirds of that money, maybe a little | | | | | | |\n| 13 | bit less. | | | | | | |\n| 14 | So there will be harm to HK.
If everybody agrees | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\n it can be disgorged, then maybe that harm's not irreparable. But if we start to deal with creditor claims, if we have other professionals who are coming in and they're doing one-off projects -- Trustee Despins has retained counsel down in the BVI. So they file a fee application. They get paid. Does HK then have to go to the BVI and chase them?\n\n So there's a lot of factors that go into this. And there will be harm, irreparable harm, to HK, because it is going to have to chase its own money if it's successful on appeal. If it's not successful on appeal, then no harm, no foul. But that brings me to --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 44 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 44 THE COURT: Do you have a case that says that irreparable harm exists when the remedy is money, when there's -- MR. MORIARTY: I do not, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- when there's a remedy at law? MR. MORIARTY: No, because that is not the law. And I agree with Your Honor that that's not the law, that if you can -- that if money damages can make you whole, then you haven't be -- been irreparably harmed. I will note for the Court that the trustee cited in his opposition yesterday, and this is at page 12, In Re Tribune Company, which is 477 B.R. 465. It's a Bankruptcy District of Delaware 2012. THE COURT: Yep. MR. MORIARTY: And in that case, the Court discusses the fact that other courts have held, and it wasn't the holding in this case, because it wasn't necessarily at issue, but other courts have held that if a stay is not granted, and as a result additional litigation is likely to occur if the appellant is successful, that could be irreparable harm. So in this case, if HK is successful and HK has to come back, and it has to file lawsuits, it has to engage in motion practice to get its money back which the estate should have never had in the first place, that would be\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 45 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 45 irreparable harm. The third point is substantial injury to the party opposing a stay. We just heard Attorney Despins' testimony as far as retention of other professionals. There was a lot of argument in the opposition brief that Attorney Despins was unable to hire other professionals, because there's no money in the estate. He told us that there was one firm that refused an engagement. And he hasn't sought to retain anybody else. And to the extent that evidence is really getting stale and these professionals are that important, he should be talking to others. Nobody else has said, no, there's \\$33 million in an escrow account that the Court has held is property of the estate. There's the Lady May that the Court has held is property of the estate. There's tens of millions of dollars potentially coming into this estate. I find it hard to believe that the trustee cannot find a professional firm to work with him in this bankruptcy case. And we know from his testimony that he's only spoken to one. As far as the associates at Paul Hastings, you\n\n know, maybe they're going to be taken off the case. Maybe they're not. We don't have a date. We don't know whether there's other associates that can come in and work. You know, I don't doubt Attorney Despins'\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 46 of\n\n| | 100 | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
46 | | | | | |\n| 1 | testimony that Paul Hastings would like to be able to | | | | | |\n| 2 | recover the money that its associates are billing, because | | | | | |\n| 3 | it's paying its associates.
But he didn't tell us this is a | | | | | |\n| 4 | drop-dead date.
He even said towards the end of his | | | | | |\n| 5 | testimony I don't know.
And if the Court goes back and | | | | | |\n| 6 | reads the transcript, you will see that. | | | | | |\n| 7 | Mr. Linsey's firm has not refused to do any work. | | | | | |\n| 8 | Trustee Despins has not asked Attorney Linsey's firm to take | | | | | |\n| 9 | on any additional responsibilities, even though we know from | | | | | |\n| 10 | the fee application that Attorney Linsey's fees firms (sic) | | | | | |\n| 11 | are 20 times less than the trustee's fees. | | | | | |\n| 12 | The trustee testified on direct that he's | | | | | |\n| 13 | optimistic about recovery of other assets.
Certainly he | | | | | |\n| 14 | could sell that to professionals that he's looking to hire. | | | | | |\n| 15 | As far as the amount of interest on the money that | | | | | |\n| 16 | the trustee could make if it was invested in T-Bills as | | | | | |\n| 17 | opposed to with U.S. Bank, I would have to ask my client, | | | | | |\n| 18 | but I would venture to guess that my clients would not be | | | | | |\n| 19 | opposed to that money being put into a product that was | | | | | |\n| 20 | riskless.
Because we're not defaulting on the debt anymore | | | | | |\n| 21 | and was earning 5 percent interest. | | | | | |\n| 22 | So we could address that issue by agreement.
I am | | | | | |\n| 23 | confident of that.
The last factor, Your Honor, is -- | | | | | |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Well, let me stop you right there on | | | | | |\n| 25 | that. | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 47 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 47 MR. MORIARTY: Sure. THE COURT: So you're saying your clients would agree for the money to come out of escrow and be put in some form of an investment that would earn 5 percent? MR. MORIARTY: I'm saying that my -- I'm saying that I would recommend to my clients -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: -- that subject to -- THE COURT: Have you done that yet? MR. MORIARTY: I haven't, because I haven't had a chance to have the discussion. I'm not going to tell Your Honor what the discussions were, but there were discussions between -- THE COURT: I'm not asking for you to tell me what the -- MR. MORIARTY: -- my office and the trustee this morning. THE COURT: -- the discussions were. MR. MORIARTY: So -- THE COURT: I'm asking, have you asked your client. You just made a representation on the record during your oral argument that you think you could work out an arrangement, that's what you just said, that the \\$36 million or 33 -- I don't know if you put the 3 in, whatever -- your clients would agree, that's what you just said, to put that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 48 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 48 into some form of a product that would earn 5 percent. Which you've already said you don't want the money out of escrow. Now you're saying you will do that with an agreement. So I need to understand. What's your position? MR. MORIARTY: Okay. And I will explain it, Your Honor. And if I haven't articulated it well, I apologize to the Court. THE COURT: It's okay. MR. MORIARTY: I believe I started by saying, and if I didn't, I should have said, that I haven't had this discussion with my client yet, but I would recommend to my client that subject to the terms of the escrow agreement that the money could be put into a higher-interest-rate-earning product that is safe, which is what the -- THE COURT: Well, I don't understand that, subject to the terms of the escrow agreement. It's either going to be in escrow, or it's not. MR. MORIARTY: But it could be in escrow earning a higher rate of return, or it could be with the Court. It could be with the trustee. But it could still be subject to the terms of the escrow agreement. In other words, the money is sitting somewhere other than with the escrow agent, but the terms of the escrow agreement as to when and -- when and if it comes out\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 49 would still be applicable. THE COURT: Well, that doesn't -- MR. MORIARTY: That's what I'm saying. THE COURT: I don't think that works. So you can have that conversation, but I don't see how that could possibly work. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. So the public interest is the last factor. And in this particular case, what we're talking about is do we have a stay pending appeal. The appeal is done in hopefully six months, give or take. We have an order. And the money gets disbursed, either back to HK or to the trustee. Or do we do this in a piecemeal fashion where the trustee gets access to the funds, the trustee then spends them down. HK is successful on appeal, and HK then has to come back to the Court, seek disgorgement of fees that were paid to the professionals of the trustee. So the public interest here is in finality and efficiency. Enter a stay. Let's let the appeal play out. If the trustee is successful, the trustee gets paid. If the trustee is not successful, that was never money of the estate in the first instance to pay the trustee. If the Court has any questions, I'm happy to answer them. THE COURT: I don't have any at the moment. Thank you. Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 49 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 50 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
50 |\n| 1 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Attorney Bassett? |\n| 3 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes, Your Honor.
Again, Your Honor, |\n| 4 | for the record, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of |\n| 5 | the Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 6 | Your Honor, I think it is critically important |\n| 7 | that we reorient and start from the baseline proposition |\n| 8 | that a stay pending appeal from this Court is extraordinary |\n| 9 | relief for which the appellant seeking the stay bears a |\n| 10 | heavy burden.
I think the case law is clear in that regard. |\n| 11 | We cite it in our objection. |\n| 12 | What this means is that the general rule for |\n| 13 | purposes of establishing finality and certainty in |\n| 14 | bankruptcy cases is that an order of the Bankruptcy Court is |\n| 15 | immediately enforceable, and the Court should only deviate |\n| 16 | from that rule in extraordinary circumstances. |\n| 17 | Now, I would submit that in this case the stay |\n| 18 | that the appellants are seeking of the May 18th summary |\n| 19 | judgment order is especially extraordinary given all the |\n| 20 | facts and circumstances of this bankruptcy.
We talk about |\n| 21 | this a lot when we're before the Court, and we talk about |\n| 22 | the history of these cases, where we started, how we got |\n| 23 | here. |\n| 24 | But, Your Honor, it really, in my view, cannot be |\n| 25 | emphasized enough that this is a case involving a debtor who |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 51 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
51 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | filed Chapter 11 before this Court voluntarily, I think a |\n| 2 | year and a half ago or so now, claiming, as we've been able |\n| 3 | to demonstrate falsely, that he has zero dollars to his name |\n| 4 | and essentially no assets or money to put on his schedules. |\n| 5 | Instead, what you have is the debtor, with the assistance of |\n| 6 | his associates and his family members such as the HK |\n| 7 | parties, who have been withholding property that is |\n| 8 | rightfully property of the estate and always should have |\n| 9 | been from the moment this case was commenced. |\n| 10 | So what does that mean?
It means effectively that |\n\n the HK parties and the debtor on whose behest they're acting have effectively had a stay pending appeal for the duration of this case, holding its professionals, Paul Hastings and others, hostage, because there are allegedly no assets at all in this estate. Now, despite all the odds and despite having to fight against obstruction in the investigation that we've experienced over and over again, the trustee has made progress. And that progress became tangible when the Court entered its orders on summary judgment in the HK USA adversary proceeding as to the Lady May and as to the escrow funds.\n\n So to allow at this stage, a year and a half into this case, after this case has never had a -- virtually a dollar of funding, for the HK parties to say, you know what, we want a further stay pending appeal, we want to further\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 52 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 | 52 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | deprive this estate from having any funding whatsoever to do | |\n| 2 | the types of things that Mr. Despins testified about, I | |\n| 3 | think, calls for the Court to apply extraordinarily high | |\n| 4 | scrutiny to the request that's being sought and to make | |\n| 5 | absolutely sure that before any stay is granted the | |\n| 6 | appellants have satisfied every element of their burden. | |\n\n And I want to be clear as to the factors that Mr. Moriarty went through. The appellants bear the burden on each one of those factors. I think we often talk about it and kind of reorient ourselves where it may seem like the burden all of a sudden is on the trustee. Yes, we chose to put the trustee on the witness stand to talk about the harm to the estate of a stay pending appeal, because we think that's important and because we think it's important for the Court to hear from the trustee.\n\n But make no mistake. It's still the appellant's burden even as to that element to prove that this estate and the other non-appellant parties will not be harmed by a stay pending appeal. And I submit they have not made their -- they have not met their burden on that factor, and they have not met their burden on any of the other factors.\n\n Now, to start with the likelihood of success on the merits prong. I won't belabor this point. I think the Court obviously knows its decision well. I can't remember exactly when we had the hearing on the second motion for\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 53 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
53 |\n| 1 | summary judgment and how long it took for the Court to issue |\n| 2 | its decision, but it was certainly several weeks.
And the |\n| 3 | result on May 18th was, what I would submit, a very |\n| 4 | thoroughly reasoned decision supported by the law and an |\n| 5 | abundant factual record based on undisputed facts, many of |\n| 6 | which have been admitted by the HK parties. |\n| 7 | And Mr. Moriarty in his brief remarks on |\n| 8 | likelihood of success focused on this argument, which is |\n| 9 | also the focus of their papers, that, you know, this |\n| 10 | decision is likely to be overturned on appeal, because it |\n| 11 | all rests on collateral estoppel.
Just two quick responses |\n| 12 | to that. |\n| 13 | First, that's a mischaracterization of Your |\n| 14 | Honor's decision.
I went back and pulled it as Mr. Moriarty |\n| 15 | was talking.
And on page 21 of the May 18th decision, the |\n| 16 | Court starts a lengthy, detailed paragraph with the line: |\n| 17 | \"Beyond the application of collateral estoppel, the record |\n| 18 | of this case supports the conclusion that the individual |\n| 19 | debtor beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and the |\n| 20 | Lady May II.\"
And goes on and talks about testimony that |\n| 21 | the daughter has given, other admitted facts about HK USA |\n| 22 | and its relationship to the debtor. |\n| 23 | There is a robust factual record beyond collateral |\n| 24 | estoppel.
But even as to the issue of collateral estoppel, |\n| 25 | it was more than appropriate for the Court to rely on that |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 54 of\n\n| | 100
Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
54 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | decision, because it's a critically important decision in |\n| 2 | that it established that the Lady May is, in fact, owned and |\n| 3 | controlled by the debtor, which of course is central to the |\n| 4 | question of the alter ego relationship when HK USA |\n| 5 | admittedly does nothing else other than own the Lady May. |\n| 6 | And that decision itself, which is not subject, I |\n| 7 | would note, to a parallel motion for stay pending appeal, |\n| 8 | was also itself thoroughly reasoned based on applicable law |\n| 9 | on collateral estoppel, based on the fact that Mei Guo |\n| 10 | participated extensively in the proceedings before Justice |\n| 11 | Ostrager. |\n| 12 | So I think for all of those reasons, because both |\n| 13 | decisions were thoroughly reasoned, because they're both |\n| 14 | consistent with the law, because the factual record is |\n| 15 | undisputed about the shell company nature of HK USA, the |\n| 16 | inextricable ties between HK USA and everything it has ever |\n| 17 | done, which is own the yachts, and Mr. Kwok, I think it is |\n| 18 | exceedingly unlikely for the Court to be reversed on appeal. |\n| 19 | And, again, the burden rests on the appellants to prove |\n| 20 | otherwise. |\n| 21 | As to the harm factor, Your Honor, and I'll start |\n| 22 | with the harm to the HK parties, first of all, they need to |\n| 23 | demonstrate to the Court, and the case law is clear on this |\n| 24 | if you look at the cases we cite on page 10 of our |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nobjection, paragraph 21, they need to show that the harm\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 55 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
55 |\n| 1 | that they would suffer absent a stay is irreparable and |\n| 2 | actual and imminent, not merely speculative.
You know, the |\n| 3 | mere prospect, as the case law says, of monetary loss is not |\n| 4 | sufficient for a stay pending appeal.
So I think it's |\n| 5 | important to put their arguments in the context of the |\n| 6 | standard that applies and the burden that they need to meet. |\n| 7 | And before I get to why I think their arguments |\n| 8 | about not being able to recover the \\$33 million is |\n| 9 | speculative, I want to point something out at the outset |\n| 10 | which we mentioned in our papers, because I think it's |\n| 11 | important. |\n| 12 | And this is that the HK parties -- and I'll direct |\n| 13 | the Court to a letter that Attorney Vartan, other counsel |\n| 14 | for the HK parties, had sent to the trustee and which has |\n| 15 | been previously submitted to the Court at Docket 1613.
I |\n| 16 | believe it's Exhibit A to that filing. |\n| 17 | The HK parties have taken the position, as made |\n| 18 | clear in that letter, that the escrow funds are not an asset |\n| 19 | of HK USA but a liability.
The letter states that point |\n| 20 | blank.
The escrow funds are a liability of HK USA, not an |\n| 21 | asset. |\n| 22 | And, of course, the background for that is that |\n| 23 | the HK parties had taken the position that they obtained a |\n| 24 | loan in the amount of the escrow funds from Uncle William |\n| 25 | and the Himalaya entity that he allegedly controls.
And so, |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 56 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
56 |\n| 1 | Your Honor, if it's really a liability, the party who's |\n| 2 | going to be harmed by any dissipation of the \\$33 million |\n| 3 | that may occur, if anyone, is Uncle William.
It's not HK |\n| 4 | USA. |\n| 5 | As to the arguments that the HK parties will be |\n| 6 | harmed by the absence of a stay pending appeal, because the |\n| 7 | \\$33 million and the repairs are maybe spent on compensating |\n| 8 | counsel and otherwise, again, that is speculative at best. |\n| 9 | And the requirement is not merely that they allege the |\n| 10 | possibility of harm.
They need to show that it's actual and |\n| 11 | imminent and not speculative. |\n| 12 | The reason it's speculative is because you heard |\n| 13 | the trustee testify about all the other assets that he is |\n| 14 | presently investigating. |\n| 15 | In fact, Attorney Moriarty was trying to emphasize |\n| 16 | that for purposes of making another point in his |\n| 17 | cross-examination of Mr. Despins.
And to the extent that, |\n| 18 | as the trustee, you know, hopes will be the case, he in the |\n| 19 | future is able to bring additional assets into these -- this |\n| 20 | estate, and the appeal finally runs its course, however long |\n| 21 | it might take -- it could be six months.
It could be 18 |\n| 22 | months.
It could be a very long time.
But at that point, |\n| 23 | we don't know if there won't be assets in the estate to |\n| 24 | repay the \\$33 million if that's the decision that the |\n| 25 | appellate court reaches.
And that's why their argument to |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 57 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
57 |\n| 1 | the contrary is entirely speculative and not sufficient to |\n| 2 | satisfy their burden. |\n| 3 | The next factor, Your Honor, of course is the harm |\n| 4 | and the injury to other parties in the event that the stay |\n| 5 | is granted.
On that, I will refer the Court back to the |\n| 6 | testimony of the trustee.
I won't repeat everything that he |\n| 7 | said.
But I think the testimony is un-rebutted.
And also, |\n| 8 | frankly, it's pretty obvious that any law firm that has been |\n| 9 | doing this work for as long as Paul Hastings has without |\n| 10 | being paid, there are eventually going to be issues with |\n| 11 | proceeding down that path indefinitely. |\n| 12 | And the trustee made clear he's concerned about |\n| 13 | losing talented individuals.
And it's not about, you know, |\n| 14 | if an associate is pulled off onto another case, you know, |\n| 15 | can we replace that individual with something else.
We have |\n| 16 | people on the team whose institutional knowledge cannot be |\n| 17 | replaced, people who are absolutely indispensable.
And it's |\n| 18 | critical that we continue to have them as part of the team. |\n| 19 | And that's at serious jeopardy the longer we go, operating |\n| 20 | in this world where this estate has no money with which to |\n| 21 | pay any fees of counsel. |\n| 22 | He also testified about hiring other |\n\n professionals. That's real. I think this -- it should go without saying that in a case like this where we're investigating the type of conduct that the debtor has been\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 58 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 58 accused of engaging in and the types of things that we've already even uncovered and proven to the Court, there's clearly a complex web of shell companies and associates and bank accounts. It's also clear from the criminal indictment. Those are all the kinds of things that we need additional advisors to help us do, that lawyers cannot do alone.\n\n And the trustee said, which should go without saying, you can't expect to hire those advisors without paying them money. And it's not just that they, you know, would be -- are being asked to take a flyer and not be paid right away. They'd also have to sit behind other professionals in the case. So there are real reasons why it is simply not realistic to believe that an AlixPartners or somebody else would do this without getting paid. And that's what the trustee has been told.\n\n I did want to cite to just -- on this -- on the harm to the estate point, I wanted to cite to a couple of cases that I think are helpful. One is the In Re Taub case. It's a Bankruptcy Eastern District of New York case from October 2010. The citation to it is 2010WL3911360.\n\n The reason I'm citing to that case is because it's a case where in the context of analyzing the effect of the stay being sought in that case of retention applications to employ professionals, the court acknowledged that the estate\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 59 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
59 |\n| 1 | would suffer harm by not having the access that it would |\n| 2 | otherwise have to professionals to run the operations of the |\n| 3 | estate and do the other things that those professionals |\n| 4 | would be doing.
I think that is, while a different context, |\n| 5 | a concept that is instructive here. |\n| 6 | MR. MORIARTY:
And, Your Honor, I apologize for |\n| 7 | interrupting Attorney Bassett.
Can I just ask the Court to |\n| 8 | inquire if those cases are cited in the trustee's papers? |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
I think he just said it was, but I |\n| 10 | could be wrong. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
The In Re Taub case, I don't know if |\n| 12 | that case was.
But I think it was certainly cited by cases |\n| 13 | that we had -- that we had cited.
And it's also something |\n| 14 | that I looked -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, you'll have to provide it to |\n| 16 | counsel. |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay?
It's -- |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:
I'll provide it to counsel. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
If it's not in your papers, counsel |\n| 21 | has to have it. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure.
And we -- obviously, Your |\n| 23 | Honor, we're -- in preparing for the argument today, after |\n| 24 | having the benefit of the reply brief and the briefing being |\n| 25 | concluded, we're doing some additional research.
So to the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 60 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
60 |\n| 1 | extent we found that case, I wanted to make sure to bring it |\n| 2 | to the Court's attention.
I will get a copy to |\n| 3 | Mr. Moriarty. |\n| 4 | The other -- and this is a general principle that |\n| 5 | I think is found in a lot of cases, but courts have also |\n| 6 | held that there is harm to the non-appealing parties, in |\n| 7 | particular a bankruptcy estate, where as a result of the |\n| 8 | requested stay creditors will not be paid.
I think that's a |\n| 9 | concept that is very clearly articulated in the cases that |\n| 10 | we cited in our papers, including, I believe, Tribune, |\n| 11 | Adelphia, and others. |\n| 12 | But there's another example of a case, which I'll |\n| 13 | give to Mr. Moriarty, that talks about -- this is a 2015 |\n| 14 | decision from the Eastern District of New York, 29 Brooklyn |\n| 15 | LLC vs. Chesley, 2015WL9255549.
And, again, that was a case |\n| 16 | where the argument was made that there would not be |\n| 17 | substantial harm to the estate, because there were funds |\n| 18 | being held in escrow.
The response from the court was that |\n| 19 | that argument disregards the well-settled precedent that |\n| 20 | delay cause to creditors in receiving their payments is a |\n| 21 | significant harm warranting the denial of a stay.
And, |\n| 22 | here, Paul Hastings and the other professionals are |\n| 23 | administrative creditors of this estate. |\n| 24 | Your Honor, the last factor in the analysis is the |\n| 25 | public interest.
I'd go back to the comments that I made at |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 61 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
61 |\n| 1 | the outset.
I think this case is extraordinary in a lot of |\n| 2 | ways.
And it, to me, is, I think, clear that the public |\n| 3 | interest does not support a further maintenance of the |\n| 4 | status quo in this case, which is the debtor being allowed |\n| 5 | and his associates in the HK parties being allowed to |\n| 6 | withhold from the estate, from the trustee, from the |\n| 7 | professionals of the estate that should be compensated by |\n| 8 | funds, to withhold them from the estate indefinitely when |\n| 9 | these are assets and property that really should have been |\n| 10 | listed on the debtor's schedules. |\n| 11 | And, you know, that's particularly, I think, |\n| 12 | another -- another reason why this relief is not in the |\n\n public interest is because the HK parties who, as the Court has found in HK USA is the alter ego of the debtor, and then, of course, his daughter, they are, in effect, being allowed to do the bidding of the debtor, which is to prevent the trustee from getting the funding that he needs to continue his investigation into the debtor's affairs.\n\n So when you have a relationship like we have here where the HK USA parties are so inextricably linked to the debtor and have the relationship that they have, it is entirely inequitable to allow them to prevent the trustee from continuing to move forward to investigate the debtor's assets and affairs and find the additional property that he's seeking to locate.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 62 of\n\n| 100 |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
62 |\n| The last point I would make, Your Honor, is the |\n| point about the bond which Mr. Moriarty did not address but |\n| which we addressed in our papers.
We actually talked about |\n| this a little bit at the status conference that I believe |\n| occurred last week. |\n| But under Rule 8007 and the accompanying case law |\n| in the Second Circuit, it is very clear that the ordinary |\n| requirement for any stay pending appeal is that a bond be |\n| posted.
And to the extent that there's going to be any |\n| deviation from that requirement, it is the burden of the |\n| appellant to argue why a bond is not appropriate. |\n| We cite case law in our papers, including the |\n| Tribune case and other cases, standing very clearly for the |\n| proposition that a bond is appropriate to compensate the |\n| estate for the lost opportunity cost involved in not having |\n| immediate access to the funds or the immediate ability to |\n| execute on whatever judgment has been rendered. |\n| Here, the trustee testified about what he would be |\n| able to do in terms of investing money from the escrow |\n| account if he had access to it to earn a much greater rate |\n| of return.
He also talked about using the funds to retain |\n| professionals who could conduct the type of investigation |\n| that's necessary to find additional material assets to bring |\n| into the estate.
And what the trustee said was that based |\n| on his experience to date, which involves already |\n| |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 63 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
63 |\n| 1 | identifying and pursuing tens of millions of dollars worth |\n| 2 | of hard assets that he thinks there are substantial other |\n| 3 | assets that could be located and could be brought in. |\n| 4 | The issue, however, is that that information that |\n| 5 | could lead to the recovery of those assets, in the trustee's |\n| 6 | view, will or may very likely become stale, meaning that if |\n| 7 | he waits and we're not able to conduct this type of |\n| 8 | investigation, which we need the funding to conduct, until |\n| 9 | after the appeal runs its course, all of those assets that |\n| 10 | we may otherwise have been able to recover may be gone. |\n| 11 | And we know that during this case, the debtor and |\n| 12 | his close associates are, in fact, taking steps to continue |\n| 13 | to make it more difficult for the trustee to recover assets |\n| 14 | to which he is entitled, including Ms. Yvette Wang, as the |\n| 15 | Court has been made aware, transferring her ownership in Ace |\n| 16 | Decade to an individual in Switzerland after this Court |\n| 17 | entered an order that that interest was property of the |\n| 18 | estate.
It's that type of thing that we are very fearful of |\n| 19 | continuing the longer we wait to conduct this investigation. |\n| 20 | And while there's no exact science behind putting |\n| 21 | a figure on a bond, based on everything that we know to |\n| 22 | date, based on the optimism that the trustee has in its |\n| 23 | investigation, in our papers we very, very conservatively |\n| 24 | set that bond at \\$7 million.
Obviously, it's in the |\n| 25 | discretion of the Court as to what level to set that.
But, |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 64 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
64 |\n| 1 | again, we think that particular bond would be imminently |\n| 2 | defensible and reasonable. |\n| 3 | But, again, it's only necessary if the Court were |\n| 4 | even to grant a stay.
And for all the reasons that I've |\n| 5 | articulated, I think the Court absolutely should not do |\n| 6 | that, because the HK parties have not met their burden on |\n| 7 | the four factors. |\n| 8 | I think that's all I had, Your Honor, but |\n| 9 | obviously I'm happy to answer any questions. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
I do not have any |\n| 11 | questions at this time. |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 14 | Attorney Moriarty, would you like to respond? |\n| 15 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes, Your Honor, briefly. |\n| 16 | Starting, Your Honor, on the issue of the bond, if the Court |\n| 17 | was going to condition any stay on HK or Ms. Guo posting a |\n| 18 | bond, the Court would be denying the stay, because HK does |\n| 19 | not have any assets and could not post a bond.
And |\n| 20 | Ms. Guo's assets have been enjoined, so she cannot post a |\n| 21 | bond.
So if the Court were to condition it on 7 million, 6 |\n| 22 | million with respect to HK USA \\$47.00, the Court would be |\n| 23 | effectively denying the stay. |\n| 24 | With respect to the Paul Hastings lawyers and |\n| 25 | those lawyers -- associates, mid-level associates leaving |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 65 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
65 |\n| 1 | the team to go do work for other clients, Paul Hastings was |\n| 2 | retained by the trustee.
Paul Hastings accepted that |\n| 3 | retention.
Paul Hastings understood when it accepted that |\n| 4 | retention that there was no money in the estate. |\n| 5 | Paul Hastings has a duty to represent its client. |\n| 6 | If Paul Hastings no longer wants to do that, it can |\n| 7 | withdraw.
But Paul Hastings should not be threatening the |\n| 8 | trustee with removing attorneys who have all of the |\n| 9 | institutional knowledge from the case. |\n| 10 | As far as who the loan is to, its harm to Uncle |\n| 11 | Willy, first of all, I don't have the letter that Attorney |\n| 12 | Bassett referred to.
To the extent there was a reference to |\n| 13 | the loan being a liability of HK, obviously a loan is a |\n| 14 | liability.
But on a balance sheet, you have to have a |\n| 15 | corresponding entry.
You can't just have a \\$37 million |\n| 16 | liability.
So there would have to be a corresponding entry. |\n| 17 | But the fact is, is that if this is a legitimate |\n| 18 | loan -- and until a trier of fact says it is not, it is -- |\n| 19 | there is harm to HK USA that is irreparable by this money |\n| 20 | being released and spent, because HK USA still has the |\n| 21 | obligation to pay this loan. |\n| 22 | And that is all I have, Your Honor.
If you have |\n| 23 | any questions, I'm happy to answer them. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
No, thank you, counsel.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | Attorney Bassett, any reply? |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 66 MR. BASSETT: Very briefly, Your Honor. Just very briefly on the point that Attorney Moriarty raised about the HK USA loan. And I -- so, again, this letter was filed on the docket, as I understand it, and I gave the Court the reference earlier. THE COURT: Well, we can pull it up if you'd like to. MR. BASSETT: Sure. MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, I'm not suggesting that Attorney Bassett was misrepresenting it. All I said was I didn't have it. THE COURT: I understand. But if you'd like to see it, we can see it. MR. MORIARTY: If he believes it's necessary. It's his argument. MR. BASSETT: I don't believe it's necessary to pull it up, Your Honor. I just wanted to -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: I just wanted to quote directly from it, which is the statement: \"HK USA maintains that the escrowed funds are not an asset of the company but a liability which is to be repaid.\" That was the position that they took previously, because it suited their interests at the time. That's been their argument. And, again, that argument is based on the idea that these funds were loaned Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 66 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 67 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
67 |\n| 1 | to HK USA by Uncle William. |\n| 2 | The Court has now determined that the estate owns |\n| 3 | HK USA, that HK USA is rather the alter ego of the debtor |\n| 4 | and, therefore, is property.
And, correspondingly, its |\n| 5 | liabilities are those of the estate.
So, presumably, Uncle |\n| 6 | William, if he so chooses, would assert a claim against the |\n| 7 | estate for whatever he thinks he is owed. |\n| 8 | But what that does not establish in any way is how |\n| 9 | the HK parties themselves would be harmed by the trustee |\n| 10 | being allowed to expend the escrow funds and by there not |\n| 11 | being a stay.
Mr. Moriarty said that HK USA would remain on |\n| 12 | the hook.
Again, it's the estate who would be sued.
But I |\n| 13 | guess if that order is reversed, then he would say that HK |\n| 14 | USA would. |\n| 15 | But he also just said that HK USA has no money. |\n| 16 | So it's not clear to me how there would be any harm suffered |\n| 17 | by there being a claim against it. |\n| 18 | So, Your Honor, I don't have any other remarks to |\n| 19 | add other than to just close by reminding the Court there's |\n| 20 | a four-factor test.
They have to meet each factor of the |\n| 21 | test to satisfy their burden.
And it's an extraordinary |\n| 22 | one.
We don't think this is a close call, and we think the |\n| 23 | stay should be denied.
Thank you. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 25 | All right.
We have -- I've now listened to the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 68 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
68 |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | arguments of counsel.
I reviewed the papers briefly, |\n| 2 | especially the papers that were just filed.
And now you've |\n| 3 | both made some arguments that included cases that I -- at |\n| 4 | least one case, Attorney Bassett, and possibly two that |\n| 5 | you'd need to provide to opposing counsel.
The evidence |\n| 6 | that you've submitted, there's no -- no further evidence |\n| 7 | will be taken by the Court in connection with the motion for |\n| 8 | stay pending appeal. |\n| | |\n\n I'd like to go back and review what occurred today and look again at the cases cited in the briefs. So the matter will be taken under advisement, and the Court will rule accordingly. So that addresses the matters on the calendar with regard to the motion for stay pending appeal, which is 227.\n\n Now, the other matters that are on today's calendar relate to the pending motion for an order to show cause why the debtor, Mei Guo, and HK USA should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the 2004 orders; and the motion of the debtor for a limited stay; and then, of course, the status conference on the adversary proceeding commenced by the escrow agent.\n\n So how are we proceeding, Trustee Despins? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I think we would take the contempt motion next.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Well, we've had argument on\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 69 both of these motions previously. Attorney Baldiga, you've argued your position before, correct? And wasn't -- MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: Weren't we going to find out today what, if anything, you -- the two parties have discussed since our last hearing with regard to what could possibly be an agreed-upon order with regard to this issue? MR. BASSETT: Approach, Your Honor? May I approach? THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. BASSETT: So just by way of status update, I don't know that there is much else to report from the trustee's perspective other than I can report -- and my recollection is failing me. I'm not sure if this was filed on the docket or not. But we did receive from the debtor the response to the list of questions that was part of the order the Court issued. THE COURT: Okay. I recall that portion. MR. BASSETT: Right. And from the trustee's perspective, that was -- you know, what we received was consistent with the order. It was the debtor asserting his fifth amendment rights in response to those questions. THE COURT: To the specific questions? There were, I thought, maybe a hundred of those or -- MR. BASSETT: Maybe slightly less than that, Your Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 69 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 70 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 70 Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: But, yes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 202. THE COURT: 202. MR. BASSETT: 202. Jeez. Okay. THE COURT: Okay. There you go. MR. BASSETT: I apologize. I stand corrected. But, yes, Your Honor. So we did receive that. Otherwise, I think from the trustee's perspective we were awaiting any additional -- THE COURT: All right. MR. BASSETT: -- ruling from the Court. THE COURT: So the issue is still what, if anything, you would like the Court to do -- well, you would like the Court to have the debtor be compelled to file something in the Southern District of New York criminal proceeding to allow the production that's made to the debtor in the criminal proceeding also be made to the trustee, correct? MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And, Attorney Baldiga, I think at the last hearing you said that you would agree with most of that but not quite all of that. That if I -- if the Court were to enter an order requiring you as counsel to the\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 71 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
71 |\n| 1 | debtor defendant to ask the Southern District of New York, |\n| 2 | the United States Trustee's Office to produce that |\n| 3 | information to the debtor that you would do that.
Is that |\n| 4 | correct? |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
We would facilitate and make that |\n| 6 | request.
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And I think that's the same |\n| 8 | place we are then with regard to this issue.
The |\n| 9 | distinction being -- |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
-- the trustee would like me to order |\n| 12 | that any production made to the debtor shall also be made to |\n| 13 | the trustee.
And you, Attorney Baldiga, would agree to |\n| 14 | filing a motion.
Or, well, maybe you didn't agree to that. |\n| 15 | Maybe you just said you would facilitate. |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
No.
We went further than that to |\n| 17 | say that if that is what the Court so orders, we would both |\n| 18 | facilitate and file a motion -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 20 | MR. BALDIGA:
-- with the district court, because |\n| 21 | we do think the district court would need to weigh in on |\n| 22 | that. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, I obviously wanted |\n| 24 | to hear from both of you today as to where things stood |\n| 25 | given where we were at the last hearing.
And I -- and it |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 72 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
72 |\n| 1 | sounds -- I mean, more than sounds.
You're confirming, |\n| 2 | Attorney Bassett, that as far as the agreement that we -- |\n| 3 | that you reached last hearing about the specific questions |\n| 4 | and the invocation of the fifth amendment, you've taken -- |\n| 5 | that's been done, and the trustee is satisfied with that, |\n| 6 | correct? |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So I think the issue remains as |\n| 9 | to whether or not the trustee -- I would agree with the |\n| 10 | trustee that the Government would produce to the debtor and |\n| 11 | the debtor would then produce to the trustee versus Attorney |\n| 12 | Baldiga's argument that there be a waiver of the fifth |\n| 13 | amendment if the debtor produced directly to the trustee, |\n| 14 | correct?
That's still your position, correct? |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
All right.
So then what I have to |\n| 17 | decide is that issue. |\n| 18 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yep. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I have to decide whether or not I |\n| 20 | would enter an order that the production of whatever |\n| 21 | information in discovery the United States Attorney has that |\n| 22 | would be provided to the debtor would then require the |\n| 23 | debtor to produce that to the trustee or whether the |\n| 24 | debtor -- whether I would require the debtor to file some |\n| 25 | kind of motion asking -- and I know -- understand your |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1929 | Filed 06/22/23 | Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 | Page 73 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
73 |\n| 1 | position, Attorney Bassett, that if I enter an order asking |\n| 2 | or -- not asking, requiring the debtor to file a motion with |\n| 3 | regard to this discovery issue, your position is, well, |\n| 4 | they're just going to say I'm not going to do that. |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
Right.
We have very low confidence |\n| 6 | in getting the information through that process.
And in our |\n| 7 | view, if the debtor has access to the information, because |\n| 8 | it's been produced to him through the disclosure process by |\n| 9 | the Government in the criminal case, by far the best way for |\n| 10 | the trustee to get that information and the way, frankly, |\n| 11 | that we believe we are entitled to receive the information |\n| 12 | is simply by the debtor then producing the information to |\n| 13 | the trustee. |\n| 14 | And I won't belabor the points we had already |\n| 15 | made, but -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
No.
I understand.
I understand. |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
Yeah.
And -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
And Attorney Baldiga's argument is |\n| 19 | that if he does that, that somehow that'll be a waiver of |\n| 20 | his fifth amendment privilege. |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
We have other arguments.
I guess -- |\n| 22 | Attorney Bassett and I were speaking before the hearing as |\n| 23 | to whether today would end up being a re-argument of all the |\n| 24 | things -- |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
No. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 74 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
74 |\n| 1 | MR. BALDIGA:
-- we've already argued and -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
No.
I don't want to reargue it. |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay.
I just -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I think I understand your positions. |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
Yeah. |\n| 6 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yeah. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Right? |\n| 8 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
And is there anything else you want to |\n| 10 | tell me? |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yeah.
I think also, in terms of -- |\n| 12 | we don't know what the Government would say to that.
We |\n| 13 | think what the Government would say to the trustee's direct |\n| 14 | request is functionally the same as to what the Government |\n| 15 | would say as to our request.
So I think they get the same |\n| 16 | stuff either way.
It's just one way it does implicate fifth |\n| 17 | amendment rights, and we would not be able to do that.
The |\n| 18 | other way it doesn't.
But -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Well, what about -- it -- what -- I |\n| 20 | understand your argument. |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
So what -- to try to solve this |\n| 23 | problem, if the Court were to order -- there's -- obviously, |\n| 24 | there's a few ways this could happen.
But if the Court were |\n| 25 | to order the debtor to file the motion and then, hopefully, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 75 of\n\n| | 100
Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 75 |\n| 1 | there'd be a response to that one way or another, that if |\n| 2 | there is a production, Attorney Baldiga, you -- I think one |\n| 3 | of the things that trustee needs to know is whatever is |\n| 4 | turned over to the trustee would be the same thing turned |\n| 5 | over to the debtor.
You don't want -- there doesn't want |\n| 6 | to -- there -- you don't want to have a gap. |\n| 7 | I mean, there is a situation if -- you -- you're |\n| 8 | saying I don't want to turn over to the trustee whatever the |\n| 9 | Government turns over to us, because it's going to be a |\n| 10 | waiver of the privilege.
But you'd agree that the |\n| 11 | Government can turn it over to the trustee.
Well, how do -- |\n| 12 | how does the trustee know that whatever the Government's |\n| 13 | turning over to the trustee is everything the Government |\n| 14 | turned over to you? |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:
I guess the Government could confirm |\n| 16 | that or not.
I mean -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Or you could confirm that or not, |\n| 18 | right? |\n| 19 | MR. BALDIGA:
I don't know -- well, I guess |\n| 20 | conceivably.
I didn't think that we would be involved in |\n| 21 | the government's production. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
No, no.
I'm not saying in the |\n| 23 | production.
I'm saying in what you received and what the |\n| 24 | trustee would receive, right?
The way that -- the argument |\n| 25 | is, the trustee wants it directly.
You don't want it -- to |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 76 of
100 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
76 |\n| give it to him directly, because you're worried about |\n| waiving a fifth amendment privilege. |\n| MR. BALDIGA:
And there are other issues as well. |\n| We cannot, for example -- some of the materials that the |\n| Government has we can't even see. |\n| THE COURT:
And no one -- I don't think anybody's |\n| arguing about that.
I haven't heard the trustee -- the |\n| trustee just wants -- |\n| MR. BALDIGA:
Some the debtor cannot see. |\n| THE COURT:
-- to have whatever you have. |\n| MR. BALDIGA:
Well, but -- |\n| THE COURT:
Isn't that what you want? |\n| MR. BALDIGA:
But, Your Honor -- |\n| MR. BASSETT:
That is -- |\n| MR. BALDIGA:
-- I just want to make it very |\n| clear.
There are some things that the Government will |\n| deliver to my firm that the debtor cannot see.
There's no |\n| subpoena for those materials.
In fact, there's no subpoena |\n| for anything that we're talking about.
And we have this |\n| issue if we don't do this cooperatively, I just don't see |\n| how a subpoena gets served.
But we can -- we could deal |\n| with that down the road, because we have a long ways to go. |\n| That's why we are trying to suggest a consensual way through |\n| this. |\n| But the debtor will not see what the Government |\n| |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 77 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
77 |\n| 1 | tells us is a very substantial portion of what the |\n| 2 | Government will produce to us by way of grand jury |\n| 3 | materials.
The debtor will never see it.
So, no, there |\n| 4 | won't be a complete overlap.
I don't even think it would be |\n| 5 | close. |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
I'm not sure what Attorney Baldiga |\n| 7 | is suggesting, but I don't know why the debtor having access |\n| 8 | to the documents or not impacts whether the trustee could |\n| 9 | have access to the documents. |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
Well, because your discovery request |\n| 11 | is of the debtor. |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
But if his counsel has the |\n| 13 | documents, his agents have the documents.
So I don't think |\n| 14 | that's -- |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:
Well, that's not -- |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
I don't think -- |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:
That's a whole different issue. |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
I don't think that is a real issue, |\n| 19 | Your Honor.
But what I do think is the -- what really kind |\n| 20 | of highlights the issue is that it has never and continues |\n| 21 | to not make any sense to the trustee that he has this |\n| 22 | concern about the fifth amendment that applies if the debtor |\n| 23 | physically gives us the documents or his counsel physically |\n| 24 | gives us the documents, but that same concern is nonexistent |\n| 25 | if they are just consenting sight unseen for the Government |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 78 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
78 |\n| 1 | to provide us the exact same documents.
That's -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Well, they're not going to do that, |\n| 3 | obviously. |\n| 4 | MR. BALDIGA:
That's the height of form over |\n| 5 | substance. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
They're not going to consent, though. |\n| 7 | I mean, that's clear. |\n| 8 | MR. BASSETT:
Well, no.
I think he's saying they |\n| 9 | do consent to the Government giving us the documents, which |\n| 10 | then -- |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:
We're saying -- |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
-- which makes no sense in my mind |\n| 13 | as to the fifth amendment concern, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
No.
We are satisfied that the fifth |\n| 15 | amendment is not implicated if the Government were to |\n| 16 | provide things directly to the trustee.
There could be |\n| 17 | other issues the Government has, but we would not stand in |\n| 18 | that way.
And we would ask the Government to do that just |\n| 19 | as this Court suggested two months ago. |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
In which case I don't understand the |\n| 21 | argument.
Because if they're allowing it to happen, it's |\n| 22 | form over substance.
How could it be any different?
The |\n| 23 | fact that it's physical -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Well, now we are rearguing what -- |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yeah. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 79 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 79 MR. BASSETT: Yes. THE COURT: -- we've already argued. MR. BALDIGA: That's right. MR. BASSETT: Agreed, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? So I understand where you stand. There's no real -- there has been some progress in that the questions -- the specific questions have been presented to the debtor, and he's specifically invoked his fifth amendment privilege with regard to every one of those questions, correct? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. So that's some progress. I'll have to take the matter under advisement and rule on what I'm going to do. There is no further progress on that -- on the issues and the positions that you've taken. So I'll have to rule on it. MR. BALDIGA: I think so, Your Honor. I think that's where we are. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. BALDIGA: And I think we've had good-faith discussions about this. It's not for lack of trying. But I think it is before the Court. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you both.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 80 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
80 |\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
All right.
The only -- |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
Your Honor, may I be excused? |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 7 | So the final matter on the calendar today then is |\n| 8 | the status conference in the adversary proceeding, the |\n| 9 | interpleader action that's been brought by the escrow agent. |\n| 10 | Attorney -- Trustee Despins, do you wish to be heard? |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor.
And basically -- |\n| 12 | let me very transparent about this.
I don't want that |\n| 13 | proceeding to become a de facto stay that the HK parties |\n| 14 | get. |\n| 15 | So I know that Shipman & Goodwin just filed before |\n| 16 | the hearing a motion regarding what we call the first stage |\n| 17 | of the interpleader, as Your Honor knows, which is, is the |\n| 18 | interpleader appropriate or not.
And we -- I've looked at |\n| 19 | that order, and we're fine with it.
We may have some |\n| 20 | tweaks.
But, conceptually, we're fine with it. |\n| 21 | It basically says that they've incurred \\$45,000 or |\n| 22 | so in fees.
They want to keep that.
You know, that's the |\n| 23 | standard language.
And they're out of the case after this. |\n| 24 | So, basically, it's the first stage of any interpleader. |\n| 25 | We're okay with that.
We've told that to the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 81 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
81 |\n| 1 | Shipman & Goodwin firm from the beginning. |\n| 2 | So what I do want, though, is the next stage -- |\n| 3 | and I -- and, by the way, I would hope that the debtor is |\n| 4 | not going to oppose -- or not the debtor or -- the HK |\n| 5 | parties will not oppose that first stage, the entry of that |\n| 6 | order discharging U.S. Bank from the case and having the |\n| 7 | money come into the Court funds. |\n| 8 | So the next stage is really the -- what do we need |\n| 9 | to progress towards?
And that's where my argument about I |\n| 10 | don't want that case to become a de facto stay.
I want -- I |\n| 11 | would like that to move very quickly.
We're going to -- |\n| 12 | we're ready -- we're going to be ready tomorrow to file a |\n| 13 | motion for summary judgment on the merits. |\n| 14 | And they're not -- you know, just to telegraph it |\n| 15 | to the Court, it's not very complicated, which is Your Honor |\n| 16 | has already found that this is property of the estate and |\n| 17 | also directed the HK parties to do everything to transfer |\n| 18 | the asset.
And it's very simple.
There are two parties to |\n| 19 | that agreement other than U.S. Bank: the creditors' |\n| 20 | committee -- and Mr. Goldman is here, and he will tell you |\n| 21 | that he's prepared to send directions to anyone to give the |\n| 22 | money to the trustee.
And the other party is HK USA, and |\n| 23 | they were directed by Your Honor to do whatever is in their |\n| 24 | power to transfer the money. |\n| 25 | So they will say, oh, no, no, we have to wait for |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 82 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
82 |\n| 1 | a final order under Article 4 and all that.
But the point |\n| 2 | is, the two parties to the agreement can agree together |\n| 3 | and -- to say we don't want the escrow agreement anymore |\n| 4 | and, by the way, there's no escrow agreement anymore, |\n| 5 | because the funds are being put -- placed with the Court. |\n| 6 | And so, therefore, we want to file a motion for |\n| 7 | summary judgment to get access to the funds, and we would |\n| 8 | like -- and we want to discuss the scheduling of that, Your |\n| 9 | Honor, today. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Well, what about the motion of the -- |\n| 11 | of the
-- of U.S. Bank -- |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
U.S. Bank. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
-- by Shipman & Goodwin?
I mean, |\n| 14 | can't that just be set for a hearing with objection deadline |\n| 15 | as well? |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
Well, I would hope that we wouldn't |\n| 17 | have -- even have to do that, because the -- it's really -- |\n| 18 | the issue is only is the interpleader appropriate.
The |\n| 19 | trustee agrees with that.
I'm sure the creditors' committee |\n| 20 | agrees that the interpleader is appropriate.
The only other |\n| 21 | parties are Mei Guo and the -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Right.
But if the -- if I set a |\n| 23 | scheduling order that they have to respond to the motion, |\n| 24 | and then we have a hearing, and I decide one way or |\n| 25 | another -- |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 83 MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: -- that may or may not happen more quickly than a motion for summary judgment process. MR. DESPINS: Well, the motion for summary judgment would not be on that point. It would be on the ultimate -- THE COURT: Well, right. You're going to have to do that anyway. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: But right now, we're talking about the money being in escrow, correct? MR. DESPINS: Correct. And so I would think that first phase should not be complicated. Again, it's not opposed by the trustee. It's not opposed by the creditors' committee. I would hope that the HK parties don't oppose it. But if not, there should be a very short scheduling for -- THE COURT: Well, I'm going to require a response from the HK parties. I mean, I'm going to -- to the motion that was filed by -- everyone on -- everyone other than the -- unless the HK parties are going to stand up right now and tell me they have no opposition to the monies being deposited into the registry of the Court and to discharge the plaintiff from the interpleader action, then I'm going to require a written response. Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 83 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 84 MR. MORIARTY: So I will stand up, Your Honor, on behalf of the HK parties, and I will tell you that I cannot make that representation right now, because I do not have authority to do so. THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's fine. Then the -- there's going to be a short time frame for a response. This is an adversary proceeding. The Court can set deadlines in an adversary proceeding with or without a hearing for -- under our local rules with regard to motions. And there's a motion right now that's been filed to deposit the funds into the registry of the Court. And so that's how we'll proceed. With regard to your summary judgment, go right ahead. Do you have suggested dates? MR. DESPINS: Other than as soon as possible, Your Honor. Because, again, it becomes a de facto stay -- THE COURT: Well, you need to tell me when you're going to file the motion. MR. DESPINS: Tomorrow. We'll be ready to file it tomorrow, Your Honor. By close -- by midnight tomorrow, we'll file our summary judgment motion. THE COURT: All right. I need to look at the calendar. MR. DESPINS: Any chance we could squeeze that in for the 29th? I know we're already squeezing -- THE COURT: Well, I think I have to give Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 84 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 85 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
85 |\n| 1 | appropriate time frames for a response to summary judgment |\n| 2 | under the local district court rules and our local rules. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
But I thought we could shorten that, |\n| 4 | Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Well, you'd have to file a motion to |\n| 6 | shorten it, and you'd have to establish why it should be |\n| 7 | shortened.
And then opposing counsel will have a right to |\n| 8 | object to your motion for shortening time.
Okay? |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
We'll do that with our motion for |\n| 10 | summary judgment then. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
All right.
Counsel, so you've heard |\n| 12 | how they're going to proceed.
You'll be able to file |\n| 13 | whatever you think is appropriate in response to it. |\n| 14 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes, Your Honor.
And just a couple |\n| 15 | things.
There was some communications between Attorney |\n| 16 | Despins and Attorney Kindseth in my office this morning |\n| 17 | regarding this issue and potentially working out a |\n| 18 | consented-to order that would get us past phase one of this. |\n| 19 | And, you know, hopefully those discussions will continue. |\n| 20 | We understand this is an interpleader action, and |\n| 21 | phase one is really perfunctory.
So we are not going to |\n| 22 | stand in the way of phase one, assuming the papers are in |\n| 23 | order.
But if we can get a consented order, it would make |\n| 24 | this move more quickly. |\n| 25 | The one thing that I do want to say is I |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 86 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
86 |\n| 1 | understand Attorney Despins wants to move this, but I |\n| 2 | believe that the motion to approve the sale of the Lady May |\n| 3 | is on the 29th. |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
No.
It's the 26th. |\n| 5 | MR. MORIARTY:
The 26th? |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
That's the 26th, I believe. |\n| 7 | MR. MORIARTY:
Okay.
So between -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I'll check for you.
Hold on. |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
It's on the 26th, Your Honor.
And |\n| 10 | on the 29th is the fee application hearing. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Actually, the motion to sell the Lady |\n| 12 | May is on the 27th. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
27th and 28th.
Yeah. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
The 26th is the motion to compel a -- |\n| 15 | one of the many motions to compel.
And then the 29th is |\n| 16 | compensation hearings. |\n| 17 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yeah.
So I believe today is the |\n| 18 | 13th, but I could be mistaken.
So we're talking about a |\n| 19 | motion for summary judgment that the HK parties will then |\n| 20 | have to respond to at the same time that their counsel is |\n| 21 | addressing motions to compel the sale of HK's asset, the |\n| 22 | Lady May and the Lady May II, and the fee application are |\n| 23 | all in the same week.
And now we're going to add a summary |\n| 24 | judgment motion to the mix. |\n| 25 | I get that he wants to do this quickly, but -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 87 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
87 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Well, you don't -- |\n| 2 | MR. MORIARTY:
-- it's just too quick. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I understand what you're saying.
And |\n| 4 | we haven't seen any motions yet.
So until I see some |\n| 5 | motions, no dates are going to be set yet. |\n| 6 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay?
Thank you. |\n| 8 | So with regard -- |\n| 9 | MS. WILLIAMS:
Your Honor, may I be heard? |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Attorney Williams, I was going |\n| 11 | to ask you to be heard in one second. |\n| 12 | I just wanted to say that in the courtroom when |\n| 13 | we're discussing this adversary proceeding, there is a |\n| 14 | motion for payment, Attorney Moriarty, of -- by the |\n| 15 | interpleader of the -- and I know you said you don't have |\n| 16 | authority.
But when you said you were talking about a |\n| 17 | consensual -- I think you said -- now I apologize.
Who did |\n| 18 | you say was -- at your office was discussing this? |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
It was Attorney Kindseth. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Attorney Kindseth is discussing this |\n| 21 | with somebody at Paul Hastings?
Is that -- |\n| 22 | MR. MORIARTY:
The trustee. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And so there may be some form |\n| 24 | of a consensual order with regard to the motion that |\n| 25 | Attorney Williams has filed? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 88 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
88 |\n| 1 | MR. MORIARTY:
I will say that there have been |\n| 2 | discussions around parameters of a consensual motion.
And I |\n| 3 | expect that those discussions will continue.
I can't -- you |\n| 4 | know, I don't want to represent to the Court that it's going |\n| 5 | to happen.
As I did say, to the extent that the |\n| 6 | interpleader is in order, this is phase one, it's |\n| 7 | perfunctory, we're not going to stand in the way of it.
If |\n| 8 | we can agree to a stipulated order, it may move it more |\n| 9 | quickly. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Well, it certainly would move it more |\n| 11 | quickly if we had a stipulated order. |\n| 12 | So let me hear -- may I hear, please, from |\n| 13 | Attorney Williams? |\n| 14 | MS. WILLIAMS:
Thank you, Your Honor.
And I |\n| 15 | apologize for interrupting.
My comment actually directly |\n| 16 | went to the question regarding phase one.
So as the parties |\n| 17 | are aware, U.S. Bank as escrow agent has filed a motion to |\n| 18 | deposit the funds.
My understanding is that there are -- |\n| 19 | there may be discussions regarding a stipulated motion, |\n| 20 | which it is unclear whether that is a motion to deposit, and |\n| 21 | a potential consensual order regarding phase one. |\n| 22 | Statutorily and procedurally, the process would |\n| 23 | happen through this motion to deposit.
U.S. Bank, as the |\n| 24 | escrow agent, filed the interpleader action.
We're the |\n| 25 | interpleader plaintiff.
And, here, what we've essentially |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 89 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
89 |\n| 1 | done is filed the motion to deposit. |\n| 2 | And so to the extent that there are any |\n| 3 | discussions happening in the context of what the proposed |\n| 4 | order would be as it ties to phase one, our understanding |\n| 5 | would be that that order would tie directly to our motion to |\n| 6 | deposit.
And so I didn't know if that was something that we |\n| 7 | could clarify at this time during the status conference or |\n| 8 | whether it was something that would be appropriate for the |\n| 9 | parties to discuss otherwise.
But I just wanted to make |\n| 10 | sure that this wasn't something that was happening apart |\n| 11 | from our motion to deposit. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Well, I completely agree.
And I think |\n| 13 | I've already said that it has to be related to the motion |\n| 14 | for deposit, which his why I asked Attorney Moriarty what |\n| 15 | his client's position was.
And he says he doesn't have |\n| 16 | authority right now but that there are some discussions |\n| 17 | happening. |\n| 18 | But I completely agree that U.S. Bank has to be |\n| 19 | part of these discussions.
And whatever order, if there is |\n| 20 | a stipulated order, has to be shown to and negotiated with |\n| 21 | U.S. Bank.
So I -- if I didn't make that clear at the |\n| 22 | beginning of the status conference, then that is my fault. |\n| 23 | Because the escrow agent and the interpleader plaintiff is |\n| 24 | ready, willing, and able to pay the monies over to the Court |\n| 25 | registry. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 90 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 90 Now, you all -- do you all understand how the Court registry works? I mean, just like anything else, there's -- it's a deposit of funds into a registry where, you know, there's some component of interest. But I don't -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: But I believe that the Government retains some of that interest. I mean, I think that's what happens when you deposit funds into the registry, so -- which is another reason why if there's some agreement along the line, Attorney Moriarty, after the escrow agent -- assuming the escrow agent is out of the picture, that if there's some agreement that there -- that -- where these funds can be placed, even in the short term, that earns money differently, you need to think about that. I have no idea how you're all going to come out with your discussions. But I don't -- I would be -- it would be hard for me to understand why there wouldn't be an agreement with regard to the motion to deposit funds in the registry in the very near future. And I mean in the very near future. And then where things go from there would be between the HK parties and the trustee and not -- and the escrow agent would be removed from these issues. But I absolutely agree with Attorney Williams that whatever you're\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 91 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
91 |\n| 1 | doing right now has got to be keyed to the motion to deposit |\n| 2 | funds into the registry of the Court.
Does anyone have any |\n| 3 | questions or concerns about that? |\n| 4 | All right.
So, Trustee Despins, what else is |\n| 5 | there to address this afternoon?
I think we've addressed |\n| 6 | everything that's on the calendar. |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, I had one more item to |\n| 8 | raise kind of by way of a status update, I -- so to speak. |\n| 9 | As the Court will recall, when we were before Your Honor |\n| 10 | last Tuesday, I believe it was, one of the motions that we |\n| 11 | addressed at that time was the trustee's motion to compel |\n| 12 | 2004 discovery from certain parties.
Two of the parties who |\n| 13 | were subject to that motion were Hudson Diamond entities: |\n| 14 | Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, and then another entity, |\n| 15 | Hudson Diamond Holdings, I believe it was. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Yes.
I saw the motion to withdraw the |\n| 17 | appearance. |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes.
So -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Is that what you're -- why you're |\n| 20 | raising the issue? |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
That's why I'm raising it, Your |\n| 22 | Honor.
Because I believe the Court entered the order which |\n| 23 | we had negotiated with Attorney Romney on behalf of both of |\n| 24 | those parties, and then we learned earlier this week from |\n| 25 | Attorney Romney that apparently there was a mistake or a |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 92 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
92 |\n| 1 | miscommunication.
And Ms. Guo, they understand now, is |\n| 2 | actually not the member of -- the sole member of Hudson |\n| 3 | Diamond New York, LLC.
And, therefore, they're not her |\n| 4 | counsel or should not have appeared on her behalf and did |\n| 5 | not have the authority to enter into that stipulation. |\n| 6 | I don't know if Attorney Moriarty has more he can |\n| 7 | add to that, but that's what we understand to be the current |\n| 8 | state of things.
And based on that, I think we need to |\n| 9 | address what to do about the motion to compel. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Well, it supposed to be compliance by |\n| 11 | the 26th, right, or at least some -- or a continuation of |\n| 12 | the hearing? |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes.
It was continuation of the |\n| 14 | hearing with an agreement based on conversations between |\n| 15 | Mr. Luft and Mr. Vartan that both of these entities would, |\n| 16 | in fact, fully comply -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
-- with the subpoenas in the |\n| 19 | interim. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
And now we've lost one of the |\n| 22 | entities. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 24 | Attorney Henzy, I saw you stand up. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
Yeah.
Your Honor, my -- I guess what |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 93 I'd ask or my suggestion would be that the motion to withdraw that Attorney Romney filed be scheduled and that that be -- that whatever the issues are that they be addressed at that hearing. But I am aware that motion was filed. THE COURT: I think it was filed today. MR. HENZY: Yeah. I'm aware the motion was filed, and I'm aware that -- of the facts recited in the motion, Your Honor. But I don't think either Mr. Moriarty or I are familiar with -- THE COURT: I'm not suggesting you would. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay? I'm -- MR. HENZY: But I think I would just ask that it be -- that this be addressed when Mr. Romney is here. THE COURT: Yeah. I -- we're -- MR. HENZY: Because -- THE COURT: I think we're going to have to set it for a hearing. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm not going to grant it without understanding -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: -- what's going on and how it's impacting what was an agreed-upon order with regard to Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 93 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 94 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 94 compliance with outstanding discovery and subpoenas. MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor, from -- and that's -- obviously, we'll proceed in that manner if the Court would like to do so. The one thing I would just observe is that I believe the current state of affairs is that no one has appeared in response to our motion to compel on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC. THE COURT: Well -- MR. BASSETT: So there -- THE COURT: -- I'm not sure you can say that yet until his appearance is withdrawn. I mean, court ordered withdrawn. He's moved to withdraw his appearance. MR. BASSETT: Understood. THE COURT: I suppose I could deny that motion. MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. So we'll address it -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. And I would ask -- just ask that it be sorted out when Mr. Romney is here. Because -- THE COURT: I have to -- I -- but I understand your point. I saw the motion filed today. And I have to do something about it, obviously. MR. BASSETT: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? All right. Thank you. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. MORIARTY: The only thing, if I may, that I'll\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 95 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
95 |\n| 1 | add, Your Honor, is that the motion wasn't filed blindly.
I |\n| 2 | know I spoke with Attorney Romney this morning.
And he |\n| 3 | spoke with Attorney Luft yesterday, and he explained to |\n| 4 | Attorney Luft what had happened and that this motion was |\n| 5 | going to be filed. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I understand that.
The problem |\n| 7 | is, though, Attorney Romney entered into an agreement when |\n| 8 | we already had a hearing on a motion for contempt or a |\n| 9 | motion to -- I can't even keep it straight right now whether |\n| 10 | we were compelling production or trying to hold him in |\n| 11 | contempt at that point in time.
But in any event, he |\n| 12 | entered into an agreement that Hudson -- the Hudson entities |\n| 13 | were going to produce documents and comply with the subpoena |\n| 14 | by the continued hearing date. |\n| 15 | Well, it doesn't seem like that's going to happen |\n| 16 | now.
And this isn't the first time that -- and I'm not |\n| 17 | suggesting it's the same, but it's not the first time the |\n| 18 | Court has been told that there's going to be a rolling |\n| 19 | production or there's some agreement on production and then |\n| 20 | there's no agreement on production, and we're set back |\n| 21 | three, four, five weeks or months. |\n| 22 | That's not how things are going to work.
And |\n| 23 | that's -- unfortunately, it sounds like here we go again. |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
Well, I don't -- Your Honor, again, |\n| 25 | I'd ask that this be sorted out when Mr. Romney is here. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 96 THE COURT: I understand your request. MR. HENZY: Because I don't know that it -- THE COURT: But I've read the motion. MR. HENZY: Yeah. I don't know that it is here we go again. THE COURT: Well, the motion says -- MR. HENZY: And Mr. -- THE COURT: -- I made a mistake; I didn't really represent the person that I told you, Your Honor -- MR. HENZY: Right. THE COURT: -- and all the other counsel that I swore to as a member of the bar that I represented. MR. HENZY: Yeah. And, Your Honor, I'd ask that this be addressed when Mr. Romney is here. THE COURT: It is going to be addressed when Mr. Romney is here. I'm just making -- MR. HENZY: But, Your Honor, you're -- THE COURT: -- my comments clear. MR. HENZY: -- you're making comments when Mr. Romney is not here to defend himself, frankly. THE COURT: Well, he could be here, Attorney Henzy. MR. HENZY: His -- THE COURT: He's right across the street. MR. HENZY: His motion is not on the calendar. Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 96 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 97 THE COURT: So if he chose not to be here, that's not my problem. MR. HENZY: That's not true. That's not correct. He -- THE COURT: You can't file a motion to withdraw an appearance after you've already made an agreement that's binding in the case and then say I'm not going to show up and explain to the Court what happened. MR. HENZY: It's not on the calendar today, Your Honor. THE COURT: It doesn't have to be on the calendar. MR. HENZY: It's -- okay. THE COURT: Where does it say it has to be on the calendar in our local rules, Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, you schedule motions to withdraw sometimes at least. Sometimes you grant them without hearing. THE COURT: And sometimes I do. MR. HENZY: And sometimes you -- THE COURT: And sometimes I don't. MR. HENZY: Sometimes you don't. THE COURT: Right. MR. HENZY: But I don't know how Mr. Romney could have known that you would take this up -- THE COURT: I'm -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 97 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 98 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
98 |\n| 1 | MR. HENZY:
-- today. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I didn't take it up.
I made a |\n| 3 | comment.
I'm not taking anything up.
I'm not ruling.
I |\n| 4 | made a comment. |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay?
Thank you. |\n| 7 | All right.
Is there anything further we need to |\n| 8 | address this afternoon? |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
Not from our point of view, Your |\n| 10 | Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Anything from
your point of view? |\n| 12 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 15 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Then the matters in the Kwok case are |\n| 17 | resolved for today, and we'll turn to the 3:00 matters on |\n| 18 | the calendar. |\n| 19 | (Proceedings concluded at 3:05 p.m.) |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1929
Filed 06/22/23
Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59
Page 99 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023
99 |\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | |\n| 3 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and |\n| 4 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that |\n| 5 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official |\n| 6 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the |\n| 7 | above-entitled matter. |\n| 8 | |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | June 21, 2023 |\n| 11 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 100 INDEX WITNESS FOR THE TRUSTEE: Direct Cross Redirect Recross Luc Despins 15 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 100 of","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n康涅狄格区\n布里奇波特分部\n\n关于 *\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司）， *\n*\n*\n*\n债务人。 *\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（香港国际基金\n投资（美国）有限公司）， *\n对抗程序案号 22-05003\n*\n*\n原告， *\n*\n诉 *\n*\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A.·德斯平斯）， *\n*\n被告。 *\n*\nU.S. BANK NATIONAL\nASSOCIATION（美国合众银行全国协会），作为托管\n代理人， *\n对抗程序案号 23-05012\n*\n*\n*\n原告， *\n诉\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED， *\n*\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n*\nJune 13, 2023\n*\n*\n被告。 *\n*\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n庭审记录誊本\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A.·曼宁）法官面前\n美国破产法院法官\n庭审通过电子录音记录，\n誊本由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录及誊写服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992\n以下事项的记录誊本\n\n#1453 要求说明债务人、MEI GUO（梅国）\n\n及 HK(USA) 为何不应因未遵守要求\n遵从《规则》2004 传票的命令而被认定藐视\n法庭，以及对该等藐视行为予以制裁的\n动议\n\n- #1649 就部分准许要求遵从《规则》2004 传票之强制执行动议的命令提出有限暂缓执行的动议\n- # 227 在上诉待决期间暂缓执行的动议\n- # 11 状态会议\n出庭人员：第11章受托人：LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 代表第11章受托人：NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（纽伯特·佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所） 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 代表 HK International Funds ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. Investments, LLC 及 JAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ. Mei Guo：Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒及泽斯勒律师事务所） 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 代表债权人委员会：IRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley（普尔曼及康利律师事务所） 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 债务人的特别刑事辩护律师：WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所） One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 代表 U.S. Bank National Assn.：LATONIA C. WILLIAMS, ESQ. 作为托管代理人：Shipman & Goodwin, LLP（希普曼及古德温律师事务所） One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 4 （庭审于下午1时01分开始。）书记员：22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok 和 Genever Holdings, LLC；22-05003，HK International Fund Investment (USA) Limited 诉 Despins；23-05012，U.S. Bank National Association 作为托管代理人诉 HK International Funds (USA) Limited。法庭：下午好。请各位为记录说明出庭身份，先从第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。法庭：下午好。BASSETT先生：下午好，法官阁下。Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，代表第11章受托人。法庭：下午好。LINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，代表受托人。法庭：下午好。GOLDMAN先生：下午好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman，Pullman & Comley，代表债权人委员会。法庭：下午好。HENZY先生：Eric Henzy，代表债务人郭先生。法庭：下午好。MORIARTY先生：下午好，法官阁下。James\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 5 Moriarty，来自 Zeisler & Zeisler，代表 HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited，就两起对抗程序，即 22-05003 和 05012，出庭。法庭：谢谢。BALDIGA先生：下午好，法官阁下。William Baldiga，Brown Rudnick，债务人的特别刑事辩护律师。法庭：下午好。另有威廉姆斯律师通过远程方式出庭。WILLIAMS女士：是的。下午好，法官阁下，非常感谢您给予远程出庭的机会。Latonia Williams，Shipman & Goodwin LLP，代表提起提存之诉的原告 U.S. Bank National Association，以托管代理人身份出庭。法庭：下午好。如在座许多人可能知道的那样，我曾多年担任 Shipman & Goodwin 的合伙人。我认识威廉姆斯女士。如有任何人对我处理这些问题有异议，请告知法庭。好的。没有听到任何异议。那么我们继续。Despins受托人，您希望如何进行？DESPINS先生：我认为第一项事项应是上诉待决期间的暂缓执行，法官阁下，即——案件 22-50073 文书 1929 于 06/22/23 提交 于 06/22/23 16:11:59 登记 第 5 页，共 100 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1929 于 06/22/23 提交 于 06/22/23 16:11:59 登记 第 6 页，共 100 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 6 Zeisler律师事务所的动议。法庭：好的。请继续。Moriarty律师，您负责该事项吗？MORIARTY先生：是的，法官阁下。BASSETT先生：法官阁下，我只是想——抱歉。我只是想指出，就程序及我方立场的陈述而言，我不知道法庭是否希望在最后听取口头辩论。但我们计划通过让受托人向法庭作证，提出一些证据，以支持若法庭准许暂缓执行，财产将遭受的损害及其他损害。因此，我不知道法庭希望先进行证据部分，还是——法庭：那么，也许您和Moriarty律师需要就此讨论一下。我的意思是，我可以按任一方式进行。我们可以让Moriarty律师陈述，然后由您陈述。这可以包括证据。您希望如何进行都可以。BASSETT先生：这对我可以，法官阁下。我只是不希望他在没有——的情况下开始。法庭：Moriarty律师，这对您可行吗，还是您需要一点时间？MORIARTY先生：法官阁下，我需要一点时间，因为我完全不知道受托人打算\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1929 于 06/22/23 提交 于 06/22/23 16:11:59 登记 第 7 页，共 100 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 7 传唤一名证人。法庭：好的。那么，请用一点时间。MORIARTY先生：谢谢。（律师协商）MORIARTY先生：法官阁下，James Moriarty，代表 HK International。因此，Bassett律师将先提出其证人。我仅想说明我的异议。我不知道今天会提出一名证人。我事先没有收到将提出证据的任何通知。我将指出，在——法庭：那么，您是否希望申请延期审理？MORIARTY先生：是的，法官阁下。为公平起见，在他们昨天提交的书状中——法庭：那是法院命令提交的时间。MORIARTY先生：正确。我同意。书状中有一项说明，即将提供一些信息，以显示目前托管款项所赚取的利息金额，与若投资于国库券可赚取的金额相比的情况。我预期那将是某种说明性证据。如果那是他们将要提出的全部内容，我可以接受。但据我了解，内容将超出此范围。因此，我希望审理\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1929 于 06/22/23 提交 于 06/22/23 16:11:59 登记 第 8 页，共 100 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 8 延期一周。法庭：律师——嗯，我一周后没有时间，所以。Bassett律师？BASSETT先生：法官阁下，正如我向Moriarty律师说明的，我预期Despins先生的证言最多需要10至15分钟。而且正如我也说明的，我们拟提出的证言将几乎完全遵循我们在文件中陈述的内容，即若准许暂缓执行，依受托人的看法，该财产将遭受的损害类别。因此，这确实只是我们在异议中所作陈述的证据基础。我认为，从我们的提交文件中可以清楚看出，我们将就我们在异议中所述内容提出证据支持。MORIARTY先生：如果他们说将把Despins受托人作为证人提出，那么在异议中就会是清楚的。他们显然也可以附上宣誓书，我相信法庭会予以考虑。他们没有这样做。因此，现在我们到庭参加审理和口头辩论，而受托人提出要传唤一名证人作证，完全没有事先通知。法庭：嗯，如果您希望延期审理，这没有问题，但我下周二或再下一周的周二都没有时间。因此，必须延至7月初。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1929 于 06/22/23 提交 于 06/22/23 16:11:59 登记 第 9 页，共 100 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 9 MORIARTY先生：好的。BASSETT先生：而且，法官阁下，就此而言，我们所面临的根本问题，我们认为已在上周举行的状态会议上向法庭说明，并且应当是今天在法庭前进行辩论的一个基本组成部分，就是我们有上诉人，在我们看来，他们正在积极违抗法庭的命令。他们的行为仿佛他们有权在对一项动议举行审理之前获得上诉待决期间的暂缓执行——法庭：不存在上诉待决期间的暂缓执行。因此，他们可以按他们希望的方式行事，但在有上诉待决期间的暂缓执行之前，以及除非有上诉待决期间的暂缓执行，否则不存在上诉待决期间的暂缓执行。他们说他们尚未准备好就他们自己的动议进行审理。BASSETT先生：但是——法庭：所以不存在上诉待决期间的暂缓执行。BASSETT先生：不过，法官阁下，当然问题是，他们的立场是这些资金处于托管状态，不能被释放。法庭：嗯，我们刚刚收到诉状，说银行愿意将资金交付法庭，不是吗？DESPINS先生：是。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1929 于 06/22/23 提交 于 06/22/23 16:11:59 登记 第 10 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 13, 2023 10 法庭：我认为这是我刚刚在过去半小时内看到的内容，对吗？威廉姆斯律师在场。我认为她可以回应这些问题。我的意思是，情况仍然是——我理解您的担忧，即您希望受托人控制这些资金。我理解这一点。我也理解受托人希望控制这些资金。但我也理解已经提起了一项提存之诉。该提存之诉中的原告愿意将资金转入法庭——扣除——我认为，我尚未彻底读完，所以——但我会假定，扣除其作为托管代理人应得的任何费用后，支付至法庭登记处。然后我们将不得不处理一个问题——债务人显然——债务人、HK，不论是谁，显然反对该做法。您说得对，如果我延期本次审理，实际上我就是在给予他们——您可以主张我是在给予他们上诉待决期间的暂缓执行。因此，我们必须尽快举行审理。但我——目前，情况就是——就是这样。法庭最早可将审理延期至6月27日，即从今天起两周后。但是，Moriarty先生，您必须准备好进行。我的意思是，这是您的动议。否则，您因未\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1929 于 06/22/23 提交 于 06/22/23 16:11:59 登记 第 11 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—June 13, 2023 11 关于移交事宜——你方当事人已经违反本命令。这一点很明确。命令中写明，他们应将资金移交给受托人。你方已提起上诉。你方尚未获得上诉待决期间的中止执行。现在你方称——而我理解你方希望延期，因为你方不知道受托人将出庭作证。好的。目前我同意这一点。但这不是——你方要么会获得中止执行，要么不会获得中止执行。而目前并无中止执行。因此，在未获中止执行且你方当事人违反现有命令的每一天，你方当事人都面临进一步——你知道，可以针对你方当事人寻求进一步救济，即使你方最终获得上诉待决期间的中止执行也是如此，因为你方违反了该命令，并且自 June 2nd 起一直如此。莫里亚蒂先生：我——法院：所以这取决于你方。你方确实想再等两周，还是想今天继续进行？莫里亚蒂先生：嗯，法官阁下，我——请让我——请让我与亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）商议。但在此之前，我只想回应法院刚才所说的话。该笔款项处于第三方托管中。存在一份第三方托管协议。该——法院：我对此全都知道——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 12 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—June 13, 2023 12 莫里亚蒂先生：所以——法院：——莫里亚蒂律师。莫里亚蒂先生：我的当事人并未违反法院命令，因为我的当事人并不具备单方面取得资金并将其交付给受托人的能力。法院：嗯，第一，我不确定我是否同意你的说法。第二，我已作出命令，认定该等资金属于破产财产，并指示你方当事人将其移交。因此，第三方托管代理人没有问题。如果现在将资金移交，你方不会被第三方托管代理人起诉。若现在移交，谁会起诉你方？可能起诉你方的唯一人是受托人或第三方托管代理人。他们两者均不会起诉你方。莫里亚蒂先生：存在一项——法院：那么问题在哪里？莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下此前作出了一项与——关于将 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）带往 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的约定命令有关的命令，其中包括该第三方托管协议。该第三方托管协议对于何时可以移交款项设有具体规定，并且其要求一项最终的、不可上诉的命令，而我们尚未获得该命令。因此，法院存在相互冲突的命令。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1929\n提交于 06/22/23\n登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—June 13, 2023\n\n1 所作出的命令。有一项约定命令，其附有作为附件的第三方托管\n2 协议，此外还有一项在简易判决中作出的命令。\n3 \n4 法院：无论你方就最终、不可上诉命令提出何种论点，\n5 你方都可以同意移交该等资金。\n6 你方可以同意这样做。你方可以指示这样做。\n7 但你方不愿这样做。我理解你方不愿这样做。\n8 但你方仍在违反认定该等资金属于破产财产的命令。\n9 \n10 莫里亚蒂先生：好的。\n11 \n12 法院：所以目前情况如此。因此，如果你方想花几分钟决定\n13 是今天继续进行，还是两周后再进行，这取决于你方。\n14 \n15 （律师商议）\n16 莫里亚蒂先生：好的。法官阁下，我们今天继续进行。\n17 \n18 法院：你方今天继续进行？\n19 莫里亚蒂先生：是。\n20 法院：那么，你方撤回了你方已在记录中提出的异议，\n21 即关于受托人将提交某些证据以回应你方的救济动议——\n22 哦，是你方的上诉待决期间中止执行动议？\n23 \n24 莫里亚蒂先生：正确。当然，以我在其作证时可能提出的\n25 异议为限。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—June 13, 2023 14 法院：可以。莫里亚蒂先生：好的。法院：好的。不过这是你方的动议，所以你方是否——哦，你们双方均同意由谁先进行？莫里亚蒂先生：是。嗯——法院：由受托人先提交证据？莫里亚蒂先生：这样我随后可以在辩论中回应。法院：可以。可以。可以。巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）：然后他进行辩论。然后我回应，并且——法院：可以。巴塞特先生：法官阁下，受托人将——法院：德斯平斯受托人（Trustee Despins）？巴塞特先生：受托人将——或者——法院：请您到证人席来好吗？巴塞特先生：受托人将传唤受托人到证人席。书记员：请举起您的右手。LUC DESPINS（吕克·德斯平斯），受托人，已宣誓。书记员：请为记录陈述您的姓名和地址。案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 14 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—June 13, 2023 15 证人：Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）。地址——工作地址为 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 10166。由巴塞特先生直接询问：问：德斯平斯先生，下午好。德斯平斯先生，作为本案指定的受托人，您正在对债务人的资产和事务进行调查。是否正确？答：正确。问：您也了解，我们今天审理的是 HK USA（HK USA）和 Mei Guo（梅国）提出的一项上诉待决期间中止执行动议，所涉为本院命令，即命令认定处于第三方托管中的约 $33 million 资金，以及准备金账户中的资金，属于破产财产。您了解吗？答：正确。问：德斯平斯先生，若法院准许上诉待决期间中止执行——答：我有。问：——即 HK 各方所寻求的中止执行，您对于这将如何影响您的调查和/或更一般而言破产财产，是否有看法？该看法是什么？答：这将对我们调查的进展和持续进行产生重大影响。案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 15 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1929\n提交于 06/22/23\n登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—June 13, 2023\n\n1 问：为什么？\n2 答：有几个原因。第一个原因是，我想对此说得非常\n3 明确，我们打算使用该等资金支付 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n4 的费用——嗯，支付法院就其专业费用所允许的任何数额。\n5 如果没有这些资金，我们在让某些负责本案的律师\n6 继续参与方面将面临重大问题。\n7 \n8 问：您这是什么意思？是否——撤回该问题。截至目前，\n9 Paul Hastings 是否因其在本案中向受托人提供的服务\n10 获得过任何付款？\n11 \n12 答：没有。\n13 问：这将如何影响您——我想，按您的说法——\n14 保留负责本案的助理律师协助的能力？\n15 \n16 答：基本上，我们所在的团队——财务重组团队——目前处于工作量\n17 超负荷状态。这意味着我们的工作多于所能处理的工作量，\n18 因此——我相信法官阁下在私人执业时也经历过这种情况。\n19 我们正在努力——每个人都在努力为其案件配备人员。\n20 \n21 而且，您知道，正如我常开玩笑说的，这不是 Paulhastings.org，\n22 而是 Paulhastings.com。因此，这是一家营利性企业。\n23 我们不能处于这样一种境地：我持续调配部门内若干关键\n24 助理律师处理本案，\n25 却没有获得报酬。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 17 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—June 13, 2023\n\n1 助理律师处理本案，却没有获得报酬。本质上，其他方面会提出\n2 需求，而我将不得不遗憾地将他们安排去服务其他付费\n3 客户。\n4 \n5 而这——这不仅对我个人，而且对本案造成巨大不利影响，\n6 因为有些助理律师，即中级至高级助理律师，已在去年大部分时间\n7 处理本案。没有他们，我们将陷入极大困境，因为他们了解本案的\n8 每一个方面。\n9 \n10 因此，我大致知道正在发生什么，我认为我对此了解很多。\n11 但他们能够告诉你，本档案中有一份文件写着 XYZ，而我——\n12 我敢说，甚至您——都不可能做到这一点。\n13 因为我们不像他们那样，也不应当像他们那样，深陷于细节之中。\n14 因此，如果我失去这些人员，这将对我们的工作产生真正重大的影响。\n15 \n16 问：您所说的是，您担心失去他们，让他们去处理付费客户的\n17 事务？\n18 \n19 答：正确。\n20 问：而且，根据您的说法，我推定 Paul Hastings 接手像这样的委托事项，\n21 即实质上按风险代理基础进行，是不寻常的？\n22 \n23 答：我从未见过——我从未有过如此规模的应收款。我从未——\n24 您知道，我们——即使在律师事务所内，我\n25 \n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 18 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—June 13, 2023\n\n1 大概也接到过该律师事务所——实质上是事务所 CEO——就该笔应收款打来的\n2 三四个电话。因此，就我们——就我们曾经经历过的情况而言，\n3 这是前所未有的。\n4 \n5 问：当然，除使用部分资金支付律师费用外，并且须经法院批准，\n6 如果不存在中止执行，若您能够获得第三方托管资金中的 $33 million，\n7 您还会做其他事情吗？\n8 \n9 答：会。如我此前在初步禁令审理期间于法庭上提到的，\n10 本案正处于这样一个阶段：我们已经识别出——尽管我们一直会遇到意外——\n11 硬资产。因此，我们知道有一套公寓。我们知道有一艘游艇，\n12 尽管我们现在知道还有另一艘较小的游艇。我们还知道 Greenwich（格林尼治）\n13 有一栋房屋，等等。\n14 \n15 但尚不确知的是，在这数十个、甚至数百个实体之间流转的现金，\n16 以及对该等资金的追踪。这就是我们作为律师的经验在某种意义上\n17 终止之处：我们知道有数百万美元流经这些不同账户，\n18 但我们需要专业人士进行资产追踪。\n19 而这就是本案目前所处的阶段：是的，围绕硬资产存在许多争议，\n20 但我敢说，那些争议正顺利推进。\n21 但我们尚未取得进展的是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 19 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—June 13, 2023\n1 对数百笔、甚至数千笔转账的追踪，以及确定它们最终进入了哪个账户。\n2 这些账户是在美国吗？还是在境外？如果在境外，\n3 是在英国，还是在 United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国），而我们在该地\n4 追回这些资金的能力可能更加困难？\n5 \n6 因此，存在一系列问题，需要一名金融专家处理，而截至目前我们尚未聘请\n7 该专家。您知道，这些人需要获得报酬。他们不会按风险代理基础\n8 从事此项工作。原因是，他们这样做的唯一方式是，他们会说：“好的，那么我优先。\n9 对于取得的任何追回款项，我都将优先受偿。”\n\n当然，我们会说不，因为我们被欠付费用。林西先生（Mr. Linsey）的律师事务所被欠付费用。British Virgin counsel（英属维尔京群岛律师）被欠付费用。U.K. counsel（英国律师）被欠付费用。因此，我们没有可以按风险代理基础给予这些人的资产，而且除非我们能够获得该等资金，否则我们没有现金定期支付他们费用。\n\n问：如果——我不会要求您披露任何仍属非公开信息、构成您正在进行且受特权保护的调查一部分的内容。但是，如果您能够聘请您刚才描述类型的专业人士，并开展此类\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 20 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—June 13, 2023\n\n就调查而言，作为受托人，您是否大致认为，您很可能成功为破产财产取得追回款项？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生（Moriarty）：\n反对。猜测。\n\n法庭：\n驳回。\n\n证人：\n那么让我先从这些东西开始——\n\n不是东西，是已经确认的资产。因此我们知道它们是什么——就是游艇及诸如此类的东西、那套公寓、位于格林尼治的房屋、价值超过 $10 million 的飞机出售所得款项。而且——您知道，我们已经提起了新的诉讼，其中涉及更多资金。\n\n所以，仅就这一点而言，涉案资金将远多于 33- 或 37 million。但就尚未被精确确认的部分而言，依我专业判断，显而易见的是，该家庭——债务人及其家属——在这里有一个计划，即不披露资产。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n反对，法官阁下。这超出了——这与问题无关。\n\n法庭：\n我驳回那部分——我将删除该部分回答。我将保留在记录中的是德斯潘受托人（Trustee Despins）关于有形资产所谈的那部分回答，以及他认为除托管资金外，外面还有超过 $33 million 的资金。如果巴塞特律师（Attorney Bassett）想再问一个问题，他可以这样做。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n问 好的。德斯潘受托人，我不需要您详述所有具体事项。但根据您迄今所进行的调查，依您专业判断，除您已经确认的有形资产外，您是否乐观地认为，如果受托人进行这类调查，还有其他潜在资产可以追回？\n\n答 是的，我是这样认为的。\n\n问 除了无法聘请这类顾问来进行您所描述的调查外，如果在不存在中止令的情况下获准动用这些资金，您作为受托人还会做其他什么事吗？\n\n答 嗯，我们会将未用于支付专业费用的资金或其中一部分进行投资，例如购买美国国库券，这类由美国担保的投资。\n\n问 顺便问一下，您是否知道，这些目前存放在托管账户中的资金是否正在产生利息，以及利率是多少？\n\n答 知道。它们的收益率为半个百分点。所以大约是 .5——.05 percent。抱歉。\n\n问 根据您在听证会前查阅的公开可得信息，您是否了解美国国库券大致会有多少回报？\n\n答 是的。现在大约是 5 percent，5.1，具体取决于期限。期限从六个月到一年不等。但——大约在 5 percent 左右。\n\n问 冒着请您做一点计算的风险——我知道您已经计算过——例如，您是否知道，如果受托人代表破产财产将 $20 million 的托管资金在未来六个月或一年内进行投资，利息收入会是多少？\n\n答 一年期间的差额大约会是 $1 million。\n\n问 一年？好的。那么回到我先前问的问题，我只是想确认一下，在不存在中止令的情况下，您代表破产财产还会做任何您尚未提到的事情吗？\n\n答 是的。嗯，有若干我称之为项目的事项，因缺乏资金而尚未完全启动。这将涉及在某些司法辖区追回资产——我不打算就此说得更多——以及针对更广泛目标清单的其他类型请求权，仅此而已，不再详述。\n\n问 我认为这可能是我要问您的最后一个问题。这是我原本打算早些时候问的问题。但您谈到，如果您能够聘请合适的专业人员来做这件事，您希望推进的调查类型。您认为是否有任何理由，说明您不能只是等待？假设上诉保守估计需要三到六个月才能走完程序。您认为，是否有任何理由说明您不能等到那时结束后再进行这项调查？\n\n答 这种做法的问题在于，信息正在过时。我们知道，有些账户已经开立——过去两年中已开立了数十个账户。我们从——很抱歉提及此事——蔡斯勒披露（Zeisler disclosure）中得知，关于他们是否获得报酬，一直有以新名称设立的新实体。这不是猜测。这是现实。\n\n因此，这意味着两个月后，我们今天掌握的信息将完全过时。届时我们必须重新开始，而这将给破产财产带来巨大的成本。\n\n问 当您说信息可能过时时，您的意思是，如果您掌握的信息显示，资金今天可能存在于某个特定账户中，那么该资金之后可能会在另一个账户中？您是这个意思吗？\n\n答 是的。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n反对。诱导性提问。\n\n法庭：\n巴塞特律师，请您重新表述问题，好吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n问 好的。您能否说明，您所说的信息过时是什么意思？\n\n答 嗯，在许多情况下，我们有银行账户，而到最后该账户已被关闭。Golden Spring（黄金之泉）也是如此，您知道，我现在不得不查找有关 Golden Spring 的文件。它们已经关闭。它们不再存在，因为它转移到了另一家公司。因此，资金转到了另一个账户。\n\n所以，我们必须查看大通银行（Chase）或花旗银行（Citibank）账户中的最后一笔记录，看看资金去了哪里，然后找到那些银行账户，并希望它们仍然开放。我会说，它们的存续期并不长。通常它们不会保持开放超过六个月左右。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n谢谢。我没有其他问题了，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。莫里亚蒂律师，交叉询问？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n交叉询问\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n问 下午好，德斯潘受托人。\n\n答 下午好。\n\n问 您成为受托人——法庭于 July 8, 2022 批准了对您的任命？\n\n答 听起来是这样。\n\n问 在您的任命获批时，债务人破产财产中有多少钱？\n\n答 我记不清了，但微不足道。您知道，10-, 15,000。\n\n问 好的。因此，在您的任命获批时，破产财产中有 10- 至 $15,000，而且不能保证还会有额外资产进入，对吗？\n\n答 没有保证。没错。\n\n问 好的。因此，在您接受该项任命时，存在这样的风险：您聘请的专业人士可能产生很高的账单却得不到支付，对吗？\n\n答 是的。但现在我们找到了钱。\n\n问 而在您接受委任时，甚至在之后数月内，破产财产中都没有资产，对吗？\n\n答 抱歉。您能重新表述吗？\n\n问 当然。假设是 August of 2022。当时，您是否代表债务人的破产财产追回了任何资产？\n\n答 没有。\n\n问 September of 2022 时，您是否追回了任何资产？\n\n答 有一些，但不多。\n\n问 好的。您代表破产财产追回的第一项重大——我所说的重大是指超过 $1 million——资产是什么日期？\n\n答 应当是就 Lady May（梅夫人号）作出简易判决之时。我不记得确切日期，您知道，但是——\n\n问 我们同意那是在 March of 2023 末？\n\n答 大概——\n\n问 这样说公平吗？\n\n答 差不多是那样。\n\n问 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）最近提交的费用申请，您是否记得所请求账单费用截至哪个日期？\n\n答 截至 February。\n\n问 好的。因此是截至 February of 2023？\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 所以，截至 February 2023，Paul Hastings 已产生超过 $12 million 的律师费，对吗？\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 并不能保证他们会获得该等费用的支付，对吗？\n\n答 没错。\n\n问 现在，这笔由 U.S. Bank（美国合众银行）托管的 $33 million，以及您在维修准备金中持有的另外约 3 million，对吗？\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 那么就说 36 million。这样公平吗？\n\n答 大约——是 35- 多或 36-。可以。\n\n问 您作为受托人对 HK USA（HK USA）取得了判决前扣押救济，对吗？\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 您是否已经扣押托管账户中的资金？\n\n答 我——嗯，我不确定我们是否已经完善了这项扣押，但这当然是意图所在。\n\n问 好的。您是否扣押了您持有的那 $3 million？\n\n答 我不确定我会——我们会这样做，因为我们——我是账户持有人，但是——\n\n问 好的。但您不会把那笔钱交给任何人，对吗？我的意思是——\n\n答 不。没错。\n\n问 好的。因此有 $36 million。33 million 在托管中。您持有 3 million。那 33 million 可能已被扣押，也可能未被扣押。但我们可以同意，至少依据托管协议和法院命令的条款，它不会被释放，对吗？\n\n答 嗯，我不确定托管协议是否适用，但除非法庭指示释放，否则它不会被释放。\n\n问 好的。因此，您是否同意，Paul Hastings 的账单，即截至 February of 2023 的费用申请，只要您在就法庭准许您就第二项反诉获得简易判决的命令所提出的上诉中胜诉，就是有保障的？\n\n答 嗯，那取决于我们及本案其他专业人士持续的支出速度。\n\n问 嗯，您的律师保守估计，上诉需要三到六个月才能走完程序。从 July 到 February——您会同意是九个月吗？\n\n答 是的。\n\n问 我的意思是，也许我算错了。\n\n答 但那是在地区法院（district court）之前。不过请继续。是的。\n\n问 实际上，我算错了。不是九个月。是八个月。因此是三分之二年，对吗？\n\n答 好的。\n\n问 因此有 $12 million——$12.6 million 的费用。所以，Paul Hastings 每四个月大约产生 $6.3 million 的费用，对吗？\n\n答 我不确定您能这样计算，因为会有高峰和低谷。但我不确定您的问题究竟是什么。我无法准确告诉您在那段时间内会欠下——产生多少费用。因为如果有审判，费用就会多得多。这取决于发生什么。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日 29 本案。问 好的。那么，为便于我提问，我们就假定本次上诉需要六个月。好吗？答 那么这是向地区法院还是向 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）提出的上诉？问 对。因此——我现在问你的是针对准予就第二项反诉作出简易判决的命令所提起的上诉——答 嗯哼。问 ——该命令认定 HK 是债务人的另一个自我。这就是我在问你的。好吗？那项上诉。答 对。是的。问 因此，如果那项已经提出的上诉需要六个月，推定会在2023年12月结束。好吗？你同意从6月到12月是六个月吗？答 是的。我同意。是的。问 好的。谢谢。因此，如果你赢得该上诉，就有$33 million，对吗？答 嗯，你假定你们不会向 Second Circuit 提起上诉？问 即使我们提起上诉，如果你赢得该上诉，就有$33 million，对吗？答 我不确定这是否正确。也就是说，如果你向 Second Circuit 提起上诉，可能还要再过一年。然后天知道——又一年多。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第29页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第30页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日\n\n问 那么你是否认为——我们总共有$36 million，33加上你所持有的3。好吗？你是否认为，即使我们提出上诉，即由 HK 提出上诉，因此 HKI 提出上诉，它在地区法院败诉，继而向 Second Circuit 提起上诉，上诉耗时18个月——你目前有$12.6 million 的费用。好吗？你是否认为在未来18个月内，Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）将再产生$25 million 的费用？\n\n答 不。但是我不同意你的前提，即这会如此短暂。Second Circuit——我知道有些案件花了一年半才作出裁决。\n\n问 好的。因此你同意我所说，即 Paul Hastings 在某个时候可以指望有一笔资金来获得其费用，如果其上诉成功，对吗？\n\n答 再次说明，这取决于上诉程序的时长。\n\n问 嗯，这并不取决于上诉程序的时长。它只取决于你，即受托人，在上诉中胜诉，对吗？\n\n答 不，不。但是——\n\n问 我不是在问你时间问题，Despins（德斯平斯）受托人。我问你的是——有$36 million 可以用来支付专业费用，假定你在上诉中胜诉，对吗？\n\n答 是。但这并不意味着我在此期间没有风险敞口，因为上诉程序可能持续数年。\n\n问 那么我们来谈谈其他的——你提到有形资产。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1929\n提交日期 06/22/23\n录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日\n\n问 有 Lady May（梅夫人号）和 Lady May II（梅夫人二号），对吗？而且你正在寻求破产法院批准出售这些资产，对吗？\n\n答 对。\n\n问 还有 The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰）公寓。你目前正在为其寻找买家吗？\n\n答 是的，我们正在这样做。\n\n问 你是否估计过你认为可能从中获得多少金额？\n\n答 这不清楚。这取决于保险覆盖范围问题，也就是说，我们是否能在该问题上胜诉；这将对该资产的回收金额造成重大差异。\n\n问 好的。那么 Lady May，据我所知，出售动议中的报价是$24 million。这听起来对吗？\n\n答 对。\n\n问 好的。那么你是否大致知道你认为可能从该公寓获得多少金额？\n\n答 如我所说，这取决于保险覆盖范围，取决于你是否按现状出售。因为没有保险覆盖，或者你可以向某人出售，并告知其有保险可将其重建至原有状况或原有标准。价格——差异极大。\n\n问 好的。那么在你看来，它是否可能为零？\n\n答 这是一个复杂的问题，因为——不，你绝不会以零出售它。问题是，你是否能实际获得超过零的金额。这取决于保险覆盖范围。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1929\n提交日期 06/22/23\n录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日\n\n问 你所知的其他有形资产是什么？\n\n答 嗯，我们提到过 Greenwich（格林尼治）房屋吗？\n\n问 还没有。\n\n答 好的。那么会有那项资产。还会有对女儿——债务人女儿就飞机出售所得提出的请求权，金额超过$10 million。\n\n问 好的。那么——你是否知道你认为 Greenwich 房屋价值多少？\n\nBASSETT（巴塞特）律师：我只是要提出异议，因为如果受托人将要出售这些资产，我不知道在非保密环境下，我们是否希望受托人向全世界说明他认为它们值多少。\n\n法庭：首先，Bassett 律师，我听不——我几乎听不见你说话。\n\nBASSETT 律师：抱歉。\n\n法庭：不过我确实听见你了，所以——我确实听见你了。因此请——\n\nBASSETT 律师：抱歉。\n\n法庭：第一，请尽量确保我们能听见你说话。第二，我不确定这如何——我认为这时已经超出直接询问的范围。我们并没有就其他资产价值多少进行直接询问。直接询问涉及的是，如果准予中止执行，受托人和破产财产将遭受何种损害。因此，我认为你需要结束这个问题，Moriarty（莫里亚蒂）律师。\n\nMORIARTY 律师：好的，法官阁下，我同意您的看法。那确实是提问的方向。我试图从证人处引出的事实是，他已确认有若干具有价值的额外资产。因此，有——\n\n法庭：但这不是他所谈的内容。他在直接询问中谈到的是将遭受的损害，即他——他的律师事务所不会获得其已经提供服务的报酬。这是他所作的证言。并且这会影响留住律师助理的能力，因为他的律师事务所是一家营利性企业，就像本法庭内每个人的律师事务所一样。而且，在律师得不到报酬的案件中，他无法继续掌控这些律师助理。并且这些律师助理了解案件的每一个方面。Paul Hastings 不承接风险代理案件。\n\n而且，当 Bassett 律师问他，除支付破产财产的管理费用以及可能聘请一名金融专家追踪资金外，他是否会将该资金用于其他用途时，Despins 受托人谈到还有其他资产——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1929\n提交日期 06/22/23\n录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日\n\n法庭：他认为还有其他资产存在；在支付管理费用后，如果他拥有该等资金，他会用它做什么。他说他会投资。他会投资于国库券。因为截至目前，国库券产生5 percent利息。而且——目前托管账户中的资金产生——大约 .5 (sic) percent 利息。\n\n这就是他谈到的内容。他谈到前往其他司法辖区，也许取得其他资产。他没有谈到任何资产的价值。他没有谈到他认为——那些资产可以以什么价格出售。他谈到的是他就破产财产调查所做的工作，以及他如何需要资金来做这件事。\n\n所以我确实认为你——我会再给你一两个问题，但之后我认为你就超出直接询问的范围了。\n\nMORIARTY 律师：好的。而且，法官阁下，我听到了 Despins 律师的证言。我赞同您对其证言所作的良好总结。但其证言的主旨是，我们需要这笔钱，因为这是我们所拥有的一切。而我的问题涉及这样一个事实，即还有其他潜在资产。他正在出售这些资产。它们将产生额外现金。因此，这不是唯一的一笔资金。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第34页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第35页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日 35 法庭：这与待上诉期间中止执行有何关联？这些问题都涉及损害是什么。他告诉了你他的损害是什么。你可能不同意他的损害。但是——这与你获得待上诉期间中止执行有何关联？MORIARTY 律师：如果有其他资产可以使用，法官阁下，那么就不存在损害。他的损害是我没有能力支付——法庭：嗯，你——MORIARTY 律师：——也就是说——法庭：你所说的其他资产，包括 Lady May，你已经——那也正在上诉中，不是吗？MORIARTY 律师：它正在上诉中。法庭：是。因此你的论点实际上没有道理，因为等你就 Lady May 再次来到法庭时，你会提出同样的论点。MORIARTY 律师：嗯，法官阁下，我不知道我是否能不断提出同样的论点，因为在某个时候它会弄巧成拙。但目前不会。不过我会继续。好的。由 MORIARTY 律师询问：问 那么，Despins 律师，你尚未聘用的专业人士，例如会计师，对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929\n提交日期 06/22/23\n录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日\n\n答 是的。AlixPartners（艾利克斯合伙人公司）就是类似的机构。\n\n问 好的。你曾就为破产财产聘请专业人士而进行询问的任何专业人士，是否曾因没有可立即用于支付其报酬的现金而拒绝接受聘请？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 好的。是谁？\n\n答 AlixPartners。\n\n问 好的。还有其他人吗？\n\n答 没有。我没有同其他任何人进行过讨论。\n\n问 那么 Alix——你当时——嗯，撤回该问题。AlixPartners 是否是你唯一曾就资产追踪聘用事宜与之交谈过的专业机构？\n\n答 截至目前，是。\n\n问 好的。因此，没有其他机构——没有其他与资产追踪或会计类工作有关的机构，因破产财产中没有可立即使用的现金而拒绝提供服务？\n\n答 嗯，我没有同其他任何机构谈过，所以——\n\n问 好的。而且你作证说，信息会失效。你记得该证言吗？\n\n答 对。\n\n问 好的。但你只同一家机构谈过接受其将追踪资金的那类聘用。对吗？\n\n答 是。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23\n录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日 37\n\n问 好的。而且当你说信息会失效时，你是指为了避免该信息失效，你需要额外的专业人士，对吗？\n\n答 我指的是我需要资金来聘请专业人士——\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 ——来做那件事。\n\n问 好的。Linsey（林赛）先生是你在本案中的康涅狄格州律师？\n\n答 是，他是。\n\n问 好的。他的律师事务所是否曾因尚未获得报酬而拒绝执行你要求他们执行的任何任务？\n\n答 没有。\n\n问 好的。由于你的律师事务所显然作出决定，律师助理应当为付费客户从事其他工作，你是否要求 Linsey 先生的律师事务所为破产财产提供任何额外服务？\n\n答 没有，我没有同 Linsey 先生就此进行讨论。\n\n问 在 Paul Hastings 从事本案工作的律师助理中，可能被调离本案的初级和中级律师助理，Paul Hastings 这家律师事务所是否知道你已经就——作出了简易判决\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第38页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日\n\n1 Lady May（“Lady May”号）账户以及托管账户，而两者合计——如果你们成功出售 Lady May，并且成功取得这些资金，是否将有 $60 million 归入破产财产？\n5 答\n嗯，他们知悉本案的进展。\n\n6 问\n好的。他们也知悉，在今年某个时候，可能会有 $60 million 归入破产财产？\n\n9 答\n你的意思是，如果你们未能获得上诉待决期间的暂缓执行，或者——我不确定我——你的意思是——资金归入破产财产这一事实对我们没有帮助，如果我们无法获得付款。这才是问题所在。\n\n13 问\n好的。那么，你是否——你是否曾与 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的任何人、任何决策者、该所主席讨论过，并表示我理解你们为什么想把我的助理律师从本案中调离——\n\n17 答\n顺便说一句，我没有说他——我们要谨慎。我没有说他表示要调离助理律师。我说的是，如果我们得不到付款，将会发生什么，大意是如此，但是——\n\n21 问\n好的。那会在什么时候发生？\n\n22 答\n嗯，这将会发生——你知道，目标是在六月底前获得付款。如果没有发生，我不知道——你知道，会发生什么。但我确知——因为我是我所在部门的管理层成员——\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 录入于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 39 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 13, 2023\n\n1 我无法向其他需要助理律师的人主张，他们不应获得助理律师，而我的案件中有助理律师参与、我们却未获得付款。对我而言，提出这一点是站不住脚的论点。\n\n5 问\n好的。但就目前而言，如果 Paul Hastings 未能在六月底前获得付款，你无法确定这些助理律师将在何时、甚至是否会被调离，对吗？\n\n8 答\n这是几周的问题。\n\n9 MORIARTY 律师（莫里亚蒂）：\n好的。我没有进一步问题。\n\n10 法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n11 有复询吗？\n\n12 BASSETT 律师（巴塞特）：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n13 法庭：\n好的。谢谢你，Despins 受托人（德斯平斯）。你可以离席。\n\n15 还有其他证据吗，Bassett 先生？\n\n16 BASSETT 律师：\n没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n17 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。那么，Moriarty 先生将首先就该动议进行辩论，然后你作出回应。\n\n20 BASSETT 律师：\n是。\n\n21 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。请开始，Moriarty 律师。\n\n23 MORIARTY 律师：\n谢谢，法官阁下。如法官阁下所知，这是由 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资〈美国〉有限公司）和 Guo 女士（郭美）提出的、请求暂缓执行法庭就受托人反诉请求第二项所作判决书的动议。\n\nCase 22-50073\n文件 1929\n提交于 06/22/23\n录入于 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok—June 13, 2023\n\n1 法庭：\n我可以打断你一下吗？我无意打断。当你作出出庭声明时，你只声明代表 HK International 出庭。你是否也就该动议代表 Mei Guo（郭美）出庭？我只是想为记录明确这一点。\n\n9 MORIARTY 律师：\n是，法官阁下。如果我没有这样做，那显然是我的过错——\n\n11 法庭：\n没关系。\n\n12 MORIARTY 律师：\n——对此我表示歉意。\n\n13 法庭：\n而且也可能是我听错了。但我只是想为记录明确这一点。好吗？\n\n15 MORIARTY 律师：\n感谢您。\n\n16 法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n17 MORIARTY 律师：\n谢谢。因此，为了使记录确实明确，我在两项对立程序中声明出庭。我认为 Guo 女士并非 U.S. Bank（美国银行）对立程序中的被告。\n\n21 法庭：\n好的。好。谢谢。\n\n22 MORIARTY 律师：\n是。因此，如法官阁下所知，法庭已就第二项反诉请求作出判决书，认定 HK USA 是债务人的另一个自我，且受托人有权取得 HK USA 的财产。因此，我的当事人所请求的是上诉待决期间的暂缓执行。上诉已经提出。我的当事人已经提交了他们的记录清单——这不是恰当的术语——以及他们的上诉争点。\n\n5 我相信受托人的提交期限大约在十天后，或多或少。随后将在该日期起 30 天内开始提交书面意见。因此，假定没有延期，本次上诉大概将在八月中下旬的某个时候完成书面辩论。\n\n10 因此，如法官阁下从审理本案及其他多起案件中的上诉待决期间暂缓执行动议所知，在第二巡回区，法院在决定是否应当准许上诉待决期间暂缓执行时，会考量四项因素。第一项因素是就实体问题取得成功的概率或可能性，或者涉及实体问题的重大法律争议。因此，在本案中，裁决的核心是债务人为 Lady May 和 Lady May II（“Lady May II”号）的所有人。我理解。我今天上午再次阅读了该裁决。裁决中还有其他事实。但一切均源于对第一项反诉请求作出的认定，即债务人为 Lady May 和 Lady May II 的所有人。因为如果他不是所有人，那么其他任何因素均不会构成与债务人有关的另一个自我的迹象。它们可能是另一个自我的迹象，但债务人与 HK USA 不会有任何关联。\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 录入于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 42 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—June 13, 2023\n\n42 因此，如果我们成功——这里的“我们”是指我的当事人——说服地区法院认定既判力不应适用，因为就第一项罪名项作出简易判决的唯一目的——或者唯一依据——是既判力，即与 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格）在纽约作出的裁决相关的既判力；如果既判力不适用，那么就不应就第二项罪名项作出简易判决，因为至少将存在重大事实争议。第二项因素是不可弥补的损害，即利益衡量是否倾向于申请人，或者在暂缓执行被驳回时申请人是否会受到损害。因此，在本案中，正如我们从 Despins 受托人的证言中听到的，有 $36 million。其中 $33 million 在托管账户中。他持有 $3 million。我们从 Despins 受托人的证言中得知，受托人一旦能够动用该笔资金，该笔资金就会被支出；假定法庭全额准许费用申请，金额为 $12.6 million。也许会更少。但 $12.6 million 是 Paul Hastings 所请求的金额。我相信 Linsey 先生（林赛）的律所已请求 $550,000。因此，这已经超过 $13 million。还有其他专业人士，在其尚未提交费用申请的范围内，将会提交费用申请。因此，在没有暂缓执行的情况下，该笔资金一经拨付给受托人，$13 million 上下——\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 录入于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 43 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—June 13, 2023\n\n1 将被支出。如果 HK USA 在上诉中胜诉，该笔资金从未属于破产财产，也不应被用于支付行政费用。因此，HK USA 将不得不回来请求吐还。\n\n6 现在，也许 Despins 受托人的律所会立即返还。也许不会。也许 Linsey 先生的律所会返还。也许不会。对于其他专业人士，可能会有额外诉讼和额外动议程序。但 HK USA 将处于这样的境地：其已成功上诉，而现在能够收回的，至少起初，可能是该笔资金的三分之二，也可能略少一些。\n\n14 因此，HK 将受到损害。如果所有人都同意可以吐还，那么这种损害或许不是不可弥补的。但是，如果我们开始处理债权人请求，如果有其他专业人士进来从事一次性项目——Despins 受托人在英属维尔京群岛聘请了律师。因此，他们提交费用申请。他们获得付款。那么，HK 是否必须前往英属维尔京群岛追索他们？\n\n因此，本案涉及许多因素。HK 将遭受损害、不可弥补的损害，因为如果其在上诉中胜诉，它将不得不追索自己的资金。如果其在上诉中未胜诉，则没有损害，也没有问题。但这引出了——\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 录入于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 44 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—June 13, 2023\n\n44 法庭：\n当补救方式是金钱时，在——\n\nMORIARTY 律师：\n我没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n——当存在法律上的补救方式时，你是否有案例表明存在不可弥补的损害？\n\nMORIARTY 律师：\n没有，因为那并非法律规定。我同意法官阁下的意见，那并非法律规定；如果你可以——如果金钱赔偿可以使你恢复原状，那么你就没有受到不可弥补的损害。我请法庭注意，受托人在其昨天提交的反对意见中援引了 In Re Tribune Company，该案载于 477 B.R. 465。这是 Delaware（特拉华）破产法院于 2012 年作出的裁决。\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nMORIARTY 律师：\n在该案中，法庭讨论了其他法院曾作出的认定；这并非该案中的判决要旨，因为该问题不一定是争点，但其他法院曾认定，如果不准许暂缓执行，且如果上诉人胜诉因而可能发生额外诉讼，这可能构成不可弥补的损害。因此，在本案中，如果 HK 胜诉，而 HK 必须回来，必须提起诉讼，必须参与动议程序以取回其资金——而破产财产原本就不应拥有该笔资金——那将构成——\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 录入于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 45 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—June 13, 2023\n\n45 不可弥补的损害。第三点是对反对暂缓执行一方的重大损害。我们刚刚听取了 Despins 律师就聘请其他专业人士所作的证言。反对意见书中曾有大量论述称，Despins 律师无法聘请其他专业人士，因为破产财产中没有资金。他告诉我们，有一家律所拒绝接受聘任。而他没有寻求聘请其他任何人。如果该证据确实正在变得陈旧，而这些专业人士确实如此重要，他应当与其他人沟通。没有其他人说不；有 $33 million 在一个托管账户中，法庭已认定其属于破产财产。有 Lady May，法庭已认定其属于破产财产。还有数千万美元可能归入该破产财产。我难以相信受托人无法找到一家专业律所与他合作处理本破产案件。根据他的证言，我们知道他只与一家律所交谈过。至于 Paul Hastings 的助理律师，你知道，也许他们将被从本案中调离。也许不会。我们没有日期。我们不知道是否有其他助理律师可以加入并开展工作。你知道，我不怀疑 Despins 律师的——\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 录入于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 46 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—June 13, 2023\n\n保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所（Paul Hastings）希望能够收回其律师正在计费的款项，因为该所正在支付其律师的报酬。但他没有告诉我们这是一个最后期限。他甚至在其证言接近结束时说：“我不知道。”如果法院回去查阅庭审记录，您会看到这一点。\n\n林赛先生（Mr. Linsey）的律师事务所并未拒绝从事任何工作。\n\n德斯平斯受托人（Trustee Despins）并未要求林赛律师（Attorney Linsey）的律师事务所承担任何额外职责，尽管我们从费用申请中得知，林赛律师事务所的费用比受托人的费用低20倍。\n\n受托人在直接询问中作证称，他对追回其他资产持乐观态度。当然，他可以向其拟聘请的专业人士说明这一点。\n\n至于若该笔款项投资于短期美国国债（T-Bills）而非存放在美国银行（U.S. Bank），受托人可获得的利息金额，我必须询问我的当事人，但我大胆猜测，我的当事人不会反对将该笔款项投入无风险产品。因为我们不再拖欠债务，而且该笔款项将赚取5%的利息。\n\n因此，我们可以通过协议解决该问题。我对此有信心。最后一个因素，法官阁下，是——\n\n法院：好，让我就在这一点上打断您。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 47 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日 47\n\n莫里亚蒂先生（MR. MORIARTY）：当然。\n\n法院：所以您的意思是，您的当事人会同意将款项从托管中取出，并投入某种可赚取5%收益的投资？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：我的意思是，我——我的意思是，我会向我的当事人建议——\n\n法院：好的。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：——但须以——\n\n法院：您已经这样做了吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：还没有，因为我还没有机会进行该讨论。我不会向法官阁下说明讨论内容，但今天上午在——之间确实进行了讨论。\n\n法院：我不是要求您告诉我——\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：——我的办公室和受托人。\n\n法院：——讨论内容是什么。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：所以——\n\n法院：我问的是，您是否问过您的当事人。您刚才在口头辩论中作出了一项记录在案的陈述，称您认为可以达成一项安排，这就是您刚才所说的，即那$36 million或33——我不知道您是否加上了3，随便——您的当事人会同意，这就是您刚才所说的，将该笔款项投入某种能够赚取5%收益的产品。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 48 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日 48\n\n投入某种可赚取5%收益的产品。您此前已经说过，您不希望该笔款项从托管中取出。现在您又说，您会通过协议这样做。因此，我需要理解。您的立场是什么？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：好的。我会解释，法官阁下。如果我没有表达清楚，我向法院致歉。\n\n法院：没关系。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：我相信我一开始就说过，如果我没说过，我本应说，我尚未与我的当事人讨论此事，但我会建议我的当事人，在遵守托管协议条款的前提下，可以将该笔款项投入一种收益率更高且安全的产品，这就是——\n\n法院：嗯，我不理解“在遵守托管协议条款的前提下”这句话。它要么处于托管中，要么不处于托管中。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：但它可以处于托管中并获得更高的回报率，或者可以由法院持有。也可以由受托人持有。但它仍然可以受托管协议条款约束。换言之，该笔款项存放在托管代理人以外的某个地方，但托管协议中关于何时以及——何时和是否取出的条款仍然适用。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日 49\n\n法院：嗯，这并不——\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：这就是我的意思。\n\n法院：我认为这行不通。因此，您可以进行那次谈话，但我看不出这怎么可能行得通。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：好的。那么，公共利益是最后一个因素。在本案中，我们所讨论的是是否应当在上诉期间暂停执行。上诉将会在希望大约六个月内完成，或有些许出入。我们将会有一项裁定。款项将被分配，要么返还给HK，要么支付给受托人。或者，我们是否要采取零敲碎打的方式，让受托人获得资金，受托人随后将其花掉。HK在上诉中胜诉，而HK随后必须回到法院，请求追缴已支付给受托人专业人士的费用。因此，此处的公共利益在于终局性和效率。作出暂停执行命令。让上诉程序进行下去。如果受托人胜诉，受托人便可获得报酬。如果受托人未胜诉，那么这些款项从一开始就不是破产财产的款项，不能用于支付受托人。如果法院有任何问题，我乐意回答。\n\n法院：目前我没有。谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 49 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 50 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：巴塞特律师（Attorney Bassett）？\n\n巴塞特先生（MR. BASSETT）：是，法官阁下。再次说明，法官阁下，为便于记录，我是代表第11章受托人的保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所（Paul Hastings）的尼克·巴塞特（Nick Bassett）。\n\n法官阁下，我认为，至关重要的是，我们应当重新定位，并从以下基本命题出发：针对本法院裁定而请求在上诉期间暂停执行，是一项非常救济；寻求暂停执行的上诉人负有沉重负担。我认为判例法在这一点上是明确的。我们在异议中援引了相关判例。\n\n这意味着，为了在破产案件中确立终局性和确定性，一般规则是破产法院的裁定可立即执行，法院仅应在非常情形下偏离该规则。\n\n现在，我要陈述的是，在本案中，鉴于本次破产程序的所有事实和情形，上诉人请求暂停执行5月18日简易判决裁定，尤为非常。我们在出庭陈述时经常谈到这一点，也谈到这些案件的历史、我们从何处开始以及如何走到今天。\n\n但是，法官阁下，依我之见，再怎么强调也不为过：本案涉及一名债务人，他大约一年半前自愿在本法院申请第11章破产保护，并声称——正如我们已能够证明该说法不实——其名下为零美元，且其财产清单中基本没有任何资产或资金。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 51 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日\n\n相反，债务人在其关联人士及其家庭成员，例如HK各方的协助下，一直扣留本应属于破产财产、且自本案开始之时起就始终应当属于破产财产的财产。\n\n那么，这意味着什么？实际上，这意味着HK各方及其代表行事的债务人，在本案存续期间实际上一直享有上诉期间暂停执行，挟持其专业人士、保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所及其他人士，因为据称该破产财产中根本没有任何资产。现在，尽管困难重重，尽管我们不得不应对在调查中一再遭遇的阻挠，受托人仍取得了进展。当法院就HK USA对抗程序中涉及Lady May和托管资金的事项作出简易判决裁定时，该进展变得切实可见。\n\n因此，在本案进行一年半之后，在本案几乎从未有过一美元资金支持之后，允许HK各方在此阶段称：“您知道吗，我们希望在上诉期间进一步暂停执行，我们希望进一步——”\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 52 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日 52\n\n剥夺该破产财产用于开展德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）所作证提及的各类事项的任何资金，我认为，这要求法院对所请求的救济适用极高程度的审查，并绝对确保在授予任何暂停执行之前，上诉人已满足其负担的每一项要件。\n\n我想就莫里亚蒂先生所谈及的各项因素作出明确说明。上诉人对每一项因素均负有举证负担。我认为我们经常谈到这一点，并重新厘清立场，因为似乎负担突然落在了受托人身上。是的，我们选择让受托人出庭作证，说明上诉期间暂停执行将对破产财产造成的损害，因为我们认为这很重要，也因为我们认为让法院听取受托人的陈述很重要。\n\n但不要搞错。即使就该要素而言，负担仍在上诉人身上，即证明该破产财产及其他非上诉方不会因上诉期间暂停执行而受到损害。我认为，他们并未就该因素履行其——他们并未满足其负担，也未就任何其他因素满足其负担。\n\n现在，先从胜诉可能性这一要素开始。我不会赘述这一点。我认为法院显然很了解自己的裁定。我记不清我们何时就第二项简易判决动议举行听证，也记不清法院花了多长时间作出裁定，但肯定是数周。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 53 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日\n\n而5月18日的结果，我认为，是一项推理极为周详的裁定，受法律和基于无争议事实的大量事实记录支持，其中许多事实已获HK各方承认。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生在其关于胜诉可能性的简短陈述中，聚焦于这一论点，这也是其书面文件的重点，即，该裁定很可能在上诉中被推翻，因为其完全建立在争点排除原则之上。对此我仅作两点简短回应。\n\n第一，这是对法官阁下裁定的错误描述。莫里亚蒂先生发言时，我回去调取了该裁定。在5月18日裁定的第21页，法院以如下文字开始一段冗长而详细的论述：“除适用争点排除原则外，本案记录支持以下结论：个人债务人实益拥有并控制Lady May和Lady May II。”随后又谈到该女儿所作的证言、关于HK USA及其与债务人关系的其他已获承认的事实。\n\n除争点排除原则外，还存在坚实的事实记录。但即使就争点排除原则的问题而言，法院依赖该原则也完全适当。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 54 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023\n\n裁定，因为这是一项极其重要的裁定，其确立了“Lady May”号游艇实际上由债务人所有并控制；当然，在 HK USA 明确承认除拥有“Lady May”号游艇外不从事任何其他活动的情况下，这对于替身关系的问题至关重要。\n\n而且，我要指出的是，该裁定本身并未受到一项在上诉期间暂缓执行的平行动议的约束；该裁定还基于适用于禁止反言的法律得到充分论证，依据是 Mei Guo 曾广泛参与 Ostrager 法官（Justice Ostrager）主持的诉讼程序。\n\n因此，我认为，基于所有这些理由，鉴于两项裁定均经充分论证，均符合法律，并且关于 HK USA 为空壳公司的性质、HK USA 与其曾经从事的一切活动即拥有游艇之间不可分割的联系，以及其与 Kwok 先生之间联系的事实记录均无争议，法院的裁定在上诉中被撤销的可能性极低。而且，再次强调，证明情况并非如此的举证责任在上诉人一方。\n\n关于损害因素，法官阁下，我将先谈对 HK 各方的损害。首先，他们必须向法院证明——如果您查看我们异议书第 10 页第 21 段所援引的案例法，相关案例法对此很明确——他们在未获暂缓执行的情况下将遭受的损害是不可弥补、实际且迫在眉睫的，而非仅属推测。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n异议书第 21 段，他们必须证明其在未获暂缓执行的情况下将遭受的损害是不可弥补、实际且迫在眉睫的，而非仅属推测。正如案例法所称，仅有金钱损失的可能性不足以支持在上诉期间暂缓执行。因此，我认为重要的是，应当在适用标准及其必须满足的举证责任的框架下审视其论点。\n\n在说明我为何认为其关于无法收回 $33 million 的论点具有推测性之前，我想先指出我们在书面文件中提及的一点，因为我认为这很重要。\n\n即，HK 各方——我将请法院参阅 HK 各方的另一名律师 Vartan 律师（Attorney Vartan）致受托人的一封信，该信此前已作为 Docket 1613 提交给法院。我相信该信是该提交文件的 Exhibit A——已采取如下立场：正如该信明确指出，托管资金并非 HK USA 的资产，而是一项负债。该信直截了当地说明了这一点。托管资金是 HK USA 的负债，而非资产。\n\n当然，相关背景是，HK 各方曾主张，他们从 Uncle William（威廉叔叔）以及据称由其控制的 Himalaya entity（喜马拉雅实体）取得了一笔金额等同于托管资金的贷款。因此，法官阁下，如果这确实是一项负债，那么可能因 $33 million 被耗散而受到损害的一方，即便有，也将是 Uncle William，而非 HK USA。\n\n至于 HK 各方所称，因未在上诉期间暂缓执行而受到损害，因为 $33 million 和维修款可能会被用于支付律师费用及其他用途，该主张充其量也是推测性的。要求并不只是他们主张存在损害的可能性。他们必须证明该损害是实际、迫在眉睫且非推测性的。\n\n其具有推测性的原因在于，您已听取受托人就其目前正在调查的所有其他资产所作的证言。\n\n实际上，Moriarty 律师（Attorney Moriarty）在对 Despins 先生（Mr. Despins）的交叉询问中，曾试图为提出另一观点而强调这一点。而且，如果正如受托人所希望的那样，他将来能够将额外资产纳入本破产财产，并且上诉最终走完程序——无论需要多久，可能是六个月，也可能是 18 个月，也可能很长时间——那么届时，我们并不知道破产财产中不会有资产可用于偿还 $33 million，假如上诉法院作出该等裁决。这正是其相反论点完全具有推测性且不足以满足其举证责任的原因。\n\n法官阁下，下一个因素当然是，如准予暂缓执行，对其他当事方造成的损害和不利影响。对此，我将请法院回顾受托人的证言。我不会重复他所说的一切。但我认为该证言未经反驳。而且，坦率地说，任何像 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）一样长期从事此项工作却未获报酬的律师事务所，最终都会在无限期沿此路径推进时面临问题，这一点相当明显。\n\n受托人明确表示，他担心失去有才能的人员。这并非关乎，例如，一名律师助理被调往另一案件后，我们是否能够以其他人员替代该人。我们团队中有些人的机构性知识无法替代，有些人绝对不可或缺。我们必须继续让他们留在团队中，这一点至关重要。随着时间推移，在本破产财产没有资金支付任何律师费用的这种情形下运作，他们继续留在团队中的机会正受到严重威胁。\n\n他还就聘请其他专业人员作了证言。这是真实存在的问题。我认为，在像本案这样一个案件中，我们正在调查债务人被指控从事的行为类型，以及我们已经发现并向法院证明的事项类型，不言自明，显然存在由空壳公司、关联人士和银行账户构成的复杂网络。刑事起诉书中也很清楚地表明了这一点。这些都是我们需要额外顾问协助处理的事项，律师无法独自完成。\n\n而且，受托人说，这本应不言自明，您不能指望在不支付报酬的情况下聘请这些顾问。这不仅是因为他们被要求冒险且无法立即获得报酬。他们还必须排在本案其他专业人员之后。因此，确有实际理由说明，认为 AlixPartners（艾睿铂）或其他人会在未获报酬的情况下从事此项工作，根本不现实。这正是受托人被告知的情况。\n\n我确实想援引——就此——就对破产财产造成的损害这一点，我想援引几个我认为有帮助的案例。其中之一是 In Re Taub（Taub 案）。这是 Eastern District of New York（纽约东区）破产法院于 October 2010 作出的案件。其引注为 2010WL3911360。\n\n我援引该案的原因是，在该案中，就分析所请求暂缓执行对聘用专业人员的留用申请所产生的影响而言，法院承认，破产财产因无法获得其原本可获得的专业人员来运营破产财产的业务并处理那些专业人员本应处理的其他事项而会遭受损害。我认为，尽管背景不同，这一概念对本案具有启发意义。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：法官阁下，我很抱歉打断 Bassett 律师（Attorney Bassett）。我能否请求法院询问一下，这些案件是否在受托人的书面文件中被援引？\n\n法院：我认为他刚才说已被援引，但我可能记错了。\n\nBASSETT 先生：关于 In Re Taub 案，我不知道该案是否被援引过。但我认为，我们援引的案件当然援引过它。而且，这也是我查阅过的内容——\n\n法院：那么，您必须向对方律师提供该案。\n\nBASSETT 先生：当然。\n\n法院：好的？这——\n\nBASSETT 先生：我会向对方律师提供该案。\n\n法院：如果该案不在您的书面文件中，对方律师必须拿到它。\n\nBASSETT 先生：当然。而且，显然，法官阁下，我们在为今日的辩论做准备时，在获益于答复状且书面陈述已完成后，正在进行一些额外研究。因此，如我们找到该案，我想确保将其提请法院注意。我会向 Moriarty 先生提供一份副本。\n\n另一点——这是一项我认为在许多案件中均可见的一般原则——法院还裁定，如因所请求的暂缓执行导致债权人无法获得付款，则非上诉当事方，特别是破产财产，将会受到损害。我认为，我们在书面文件中援引的案例已非常清楚地阐述这一概念，包括我相信的 Tribune（Tribune 案）、Adelphia（Adelphia 案）及其他案件。\n\n但还有另一个案例，我将向 Moriarty 先生提供，该案谈及——这是 Eastern District of New York（纽约东区）于 2015 作出的一项裁定，29 Brooklyn LLC v. Chesley（29 Brooklyn LLC 诉 Chesley 案），2015WL9255549。再次说明，在该案中，有人主张破产财产不会遭受重大损害，因为资金正被托管。法院的回应是，该论点忽视了确立已久的先例，即延迟债权人收到款项构成重大损害，足以支持驳回暂缓执行。而在本案中，Paul Hastings 和其他专业人员是本破产财产的管理债权人。\n\n法官阁下，分析中的最后一个因素是公共利益。我回到我开头所作的评论。我认为本案在许多方面都不同寻常。而且，对我而言，我认为很清楚，公共利益并不支持在本案中进一步维持现状；现状即允许债务人及其在 HK 各方中的关联人士，从破产财产、从受托人、从本应由这些资金获得报酬的破产财产专业人员处，无限期扣留这些资金，而这些本应列入债务人财产清单的资产和财产。\n\n而且，我认为，这尤其是——本救济不符合公共利益的另一个理由，因为正如法院已认定，HK USA 是债务人的替身，而后当然还有其女儿；实际上，他们正被允许按照债务人的意图行事，即阻止受托人获得其继续调查债务人事务所需的资金。\n\n因此，当存在如本案中这样的关系，即 HK USA 各方与债务人之间具有如此不可分割的联系以及他们所具有的关系时，允许他们阻止受托人继续推进对债务人资产和事务的调查，并查找其正寻求定位的额外财产，是完全不公平的。\n\n我最后想指出的一点，法官阁下，是关于保证金的问题；莫里亚蒂先生并未对此作出回应，但我们已在书面文件中加以论述。我们实际上在我相信是上周举行的状态会议上稍微谈到过这个问题。\n\n但是，根据规则 8007 及第二巡回区的相关判例法，任何上诉待决期间中止执行的一般要求都非常明确，即必须提供保证金。\n\n如对该要求作出任何偏离，则应由上诉人负担举证责任，说明为何不宜提供保证金。\n\n我们在书面文件中援引了判例法，包括 Tribune 案及其他案件，这些判例非常明确地支持以下主张：提供保证金是适当的，以补偿破产财产因未能立即取得资金或未能立即执行已作出的任何判决而产生的机会成本损失。\n\n在本案中，受托人就其如能取得托管账户资金后，可如何投资该等资金以获得高得多的回报率作了证言。\n\n他还谈到使用该等资金聘请专业人士，以开展为查找可纳入破产财产的额外重大资产所必需类型的调查。\n\n受托人所说的是，根据其迄今的经验，其中已经涉及识别和追索价值数千万美元的有形资产，他认为还可能找到并纳入其他大量资产。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 63 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023\n\n1 然而，问题在于，在受托人看来，可能导致追回该等资产的信息极有可能会变得陈旧；这意味着，如果他等待，且我们无法开展这种需要资金才能进行的调查，直到上诉程序结束，那么我们原本可能能够追回的所有资产都可能已经消失。\n\n11 而且我们知道，在本案期间，债务人及其密切关联人士实际上正在采取措施，继续使受托人更难追回其有权获得的资产，包括王雁平女士（Ms. Yvette Wang）在本院作出裁定认定其在 Ace Decade 中的权益属于破产财产后，将其在 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的所有权转让给一名在瑞士的个人。\n\n正是这种事情，使我们非常担心，等待开展这项调查的时间越长，这种情况就会持续发生。\n\n20 尽管为保证金确定一个数额并不存在精确的方法，但基于我们迄今所知的一切，以及受托人对其调查所持的乐观态度，我们在书面文件中非常、非常保守地将该保证金定为 \\$7 million。显然，确定其数额属于本院的酌处权范围。但是，\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1929\n提交于 06/22/23\n登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023\n\n1 再次强调，我们认为该特定保证金数额完全可以辩护且合理。\n\n3 但再次强调，只有在本院甚至决定准予中止执行的情况下，才有必要提供保证金。基于我所阐述的全部理由，我认为本院绝对不应这样做，因为 HK 各方未能就四项因素承担其举证责任。\n\n8 法官阁下，我想说的就是这些；当然，我很愿意回答任何问题。\n\n10 法庭：好的。谢谢。目前我没有任何问题。\n\n12 巴西特先生（Mr. Bassett）：谢谢。\n\n13 法庭：谢谢。莫里亚蒂律师（Attorney Moriarty），您想回应吗？\n\n15 莫里亚蒂先生（Mr. Moriarty）：是的，法官阁下，简要回应。\n\n16 首先，法官阁下，关于保证金问题，如果本院要以 HK 或郭女士（Ms. Guo）提供保证金作为任何中止执行的条件，本院实际上将是在驳回中止执行，因为 HK 没有任何资产，无法提供保证金。\n\n20 郭女士的资产已被禁令冻结，因此她无法提供保证金。因此，如果本院以 \\$7 million、就 HK USA 而言 \\$6 million 作为条件，本院实际上将是在驳回中止执行。\n\n24 关于 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的律师，以及那些律师——初级律师、中级律师——离开团队去为其他客户工作一事，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 65 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023\n\n1 Paul Hastings 是由受托人聘任的。Paul Hastings 接受了该项聘任。Paul Hastings 在接受该项聘任时已明白，破产财产中没有资金。\n\n5 Paul Hastings 有义务代理其客户。如果 Paul Hastings 不再愿意这样做，它可以退出代理。但是，Paul Hastings 不应以撤走掌握本案全部机构性知识的律师来威胁受托人。\n\n10 至于贷款的借款人是谁、这对威廉叔叔（Uncle Willy）造成的损害，首先，我没有巴西特律师所提到的那封信。在该信提及该贷款是 HK 的一项负债的范围内，显然，贷款就是一项负债。但在资产负债表上，必须有相应的项目。不能仅有一项 \\$37 million 的负债。因此，必须有相应的项目。\n\n17 但事实是，如果这是一笔合法贷款——在事实审判者认定其并非合法贷款之前，它就是合法贷款——那么，将该笔资金释放并花费，会对 HK USA 造成无法弥补的损害，因为 HK USA 仍负有偿还该笔贷款的义务。\n\n22 法官阁下，我要说的就是这些。如果您有任何问题，我很愿意回答。\n\n24 法庭：没有，谢谢，律师。谢谢。巴西特律师，您有任何答复吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023 66 巴西特先生（Mr. Bassett）：非常简要地说，法官阁下。仅就莫里亚蒂律师提出的有关 HK USA 贷款的问题作非常简要的说明。而且我——再次说明，据我了解，这封信已提交至案卷，我此前已向本院提供了相关编号。\n\n法庭：如果您愿意，我们可以调出来。\n\n巴西特先生：当然。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，我并不是说巴西特律师歪曲了其内容。我只是说我没有那封信。\n\n法庭：我明白。但如果您想看，我们可以看。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：如果他认为有必要。这是他的论点。\n\n巴西特先生：法官阁下，我不认为有必要调出来。我只是想要——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴西特先生：我只是想直接引用其中的内容，即该项陈述：“HK USA 坚称，托管资金不是公司的资产，而是一项应予偿还的负债。”这是他们此前采取的立场，因为这在当时符合他们的利益。这一直是他们的论点。而且，再次说明，该论点基于这样一种观点，即这些资金是由威廉叔叔（Uncle William）借给 HK USA 的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 66 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1929\n提交于 06/22/23\n登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023\n\n1 本院现已认定，破产财产拥有 HK USA，HK USA 实际上是债务人的另一个自我，因此属于财产。相应地，其负债亦属于破产财产。\n\n5 因此，推定威廉叔叔如果选择这样做，将就其认为应付给他的任何款项向破产财产提出债权。\n\n8 但这丝毫不能证明，若允许受托人支用托管资金且不予中止执行，HK 各方自身将如何受到损害。莫里亚蒂先生说 HK USA 仍将承担责任。再次说明，将被起诉的是破产财产。但我想，如果该裁定被撤销，那么他会说 HK USA 将承担责任。\n\n15 但他刚才也说 HK USA 没有钱。因此，我不清楚对其提出债权将如何造成任何损害。\n\n18 因此，法官阁下，除最后提醒本院存在一项四因素检验外，我没有其他意见补充。他们必须满足检验的每一项因素，才能履行其举证责任。这是一项严格的责任。我们认为这不是一个接近的问题，并且认为应驳回中止执行。谢谢。\n\n24 法庭：谢谢。好的。我现在已经听取了——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 68 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023\n\n1 律师的论辩。我简要审阅了书面文件，特别是刚刚提交的文件。现在你们双方都提出了一些论点，其中包括一些判例；我——至少有一个案件，巴西特律师，也可能有两个案件，您需要向对方律师提供。你们提交的证据方面，本院不会就上诉待决期间中止执行动议再接收任何进一步证据。\n\n我想回去审阅今天发生的情况，并再次查阅书状中引用的案件。因此，本事项将留待审议，本院将相应作出裁定。因此，这就处理了日程表上关于上诉待决期间中止执行动议的事项，即 227。\n\n现在，今天日程表上的其他事项涉及待决的命令说明理由动议，即为何不应因债务人、郭梅（Mei Guo）和 HK USA 未遵守 2004 命令而认定其藐视法庭；债务人提出的有限中止执行动议；以及当然，由托管代理人提起的对抗程序的状态会议。\n\n那么，德斯平斯受托人（Trustee Despins），我们将如何继续？\n\n巴西特先生：法官阁下，我认为我们接下来应处理藐视法庭动议。\n\n法庭：好的。嗯，我们此前已就这两项动议进行了辩论。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023 69 巴尔迪加律师（Attorney Baldiga），您此前已经陈述过您的立场，对吗？而且不是——\n\n巴尔迪加先生（Mr. Baldiga）：是。\n\n法庭：我们今天不是要了解一下，自上次听证以来，就这一问题你们双方讨论了什么（如有），以便了解就此问题可能达成何种双方同意的命令吗？\n\n巴西特先生：法官阁下，我可以走近法官席吗？我可以走近吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请。\n\n巴西特先生：那么，仅作状态更新，就受托人的角度而言，我不知道是否还有太多其他内容可报告；不过我可以报告——而且我的记忆有些模糊。我不确定这是否已提交至案卷。但是，我们确实从债务人处收到对本院所作命令中所附问题清单的答复。\n\n法庭：好的。我记得那一部分。\n\n巴西特先生：对。从受托人的角度看，那——您知道，我们收到的内容符合该命令，即债务人针对那些问题主张其第五修正案权利。\n\n法庭：针对具体问题吗？我记得那些问题大约有一百个，或者——\n\n巴西特先生：可能略少于这个数目，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 69 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交于 06/22/23 登记于 06/22/23 16:11:59 第 70 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴塞特律师：但是，是的。\n\n身份不明的发言人：202。\n\n法庭：202。\n\n巴塞特律师：202。天哪。好的。\n\n法庭：好的。给你。\n\n巴塞特律师：我道歉。我接受纠正。但是，是的，法官大人。因此，我们确实收到了该等材料。除此之外，我认为，从受托人的角度看，我们在等待任何进一步的——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴塞特律师：——法庭裁定。\n\n法庭：因此，问题仍然是，您希望法庭采取何种行动，如有任何行动——嗯，您希望法庭强制债务人在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的刑事诉讼中提交某种文件，以允许在该刑事诉讼中向债务人作出的材料提供也向受托人作出，对吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：正确，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。Baldiga 律师，我记得在上次听证会上，您说您会同意其中的大部分，但不是全部。即，如果我——如果法庭作出命令，要求您作为债务人被告的律师，向 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的 United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）请求将该等信息提供给债务人，您会这样做。这正确吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1929\n提交 06/22/23\n录入 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日\n\nBaldiga 律师：我们会协助并提出该请求。是的，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。我认为，就该问题而言，我们现在所处的位置也是一样。区别在于——\n\nBaldiga 律师：是的。\n\n法庭：——受托人希望我命令，向债务人作出的任何材料提供也应向受托人作出。而您，Baldiga 律师，会同意提交一项动议。或者，嗯，也许您没有同意这一点。也许您只是说您会协助。\n\nBaldiga 律师：不。我们说得比那更进一步，即如果这是法庭作出的命令，我们既会协助，也会向地区法院提交一项动议——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nBaldiga 律师：——因为我们确实认为地区法院需要对此作出判断。\n\n法庭：好的。鉴于我们在上次听证会上的情况，我显然希望今天听取你们二位关于事态进展的说明。而且我——而且这听起来——我的意思是，不只是听起来。巴塞特律师，您确认，就我们——就你们在上次听证会上就具体问题及援引第五修正案所达成的协议而言，您已经采取了行动——这已经完成，而且受托人对此感到满意，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交 06/22/23 录入 06/22/23 16:11:59 第72页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日\n\n巴塞特律师：正确，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，我认为问题仍然在于，是否由政府向债务人提供材料，然后债务人再向受托人提供材料，而不是如 Baldiga 律师所主张的那样，如果债务人直接向受托人提供材料，即构成对第五修正案权利的放弃，对吗？这仍然是您的立场，对吗？\n\nBaldiga 律师：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我必须决定的就是该问题。\n\nBaldiga 律师：是。\n\n法庭：我必须决定，是否应作出命令，要求债务人将 United States Attorney（美国检察官）在证据开示中持有的、将向债务人提供的任何信息提供给受托人，还是——是否应要求债务人提交某种动议提出请求——而且我知道——我理解您的立场，巴塞特律师，即如果我作出命令，要求——或者不是请求，而是要求债务人就该证据开示问题提交动议，您的立场是，嗯，他们只会说“我不会那样做”。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交 06/22/23 录入 06/22/23 16:11:59 第73页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日\n\n巴塞特律师：对。我们对通过该程序获得信息的信心非常低。而且我们认为，如果债务人能够接触该等信息，因为政府在刑事案件中已通过披露程序向其提供该等信息，那么受托人获得该等信息的最佳方式，而且坦率地说，我们认为我们有权获得该等信息的方式，显然就是由债务人随后将该等信息提供给受托人。\n\n我不会赘述我们已经提出的观点，但是——\n\n法庭：不。我明白。我明白。\n\n巴塞特律师：是。而且——\n\n法庭：而 Baldiga 律师的论点是，如果他这样做，不知为何将构成对其第五修正案特权的放弃。\n\nBaldiga 律师：我们还有其他论点。我想——巴塞特律师和我在听证会前曾讨论，今天是否最终会成为对所有那些——\n\n巴塞特律师：不。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交 06/22/23 录入 06/22/23 16:11:59 第74页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日\n\nBaldiga 律师：——我们已经论述过的事项的重新辩论，而且——\n\n法庭：不。我不想重新辩论。\n\nBaldiga 律师：好的。我只是——\n\n法庭：我认为我明白你们的立场。\n\n巴塞特律师：是。\n\nBaldiga 律师：是。\n\n法庭：对吗？\n\nBaldiga 律师：是。\n\n法庭：还有其他任何您想告诉我的吗？\n\nBaldiga 律师：是。我认为，还有一点是——我们不知道政府对此会怎么说。我们认为，政府对受托人直接请求的答复，在实质上与政府对我们请求的答复相同。因此，我认为无论哪种方式，他们都会得到同样的材料。只是其中一种方式确实涉及第五修正案权利，而我们将无法这样做；另一种方式则不涉及。但是——\n\n法庭：那么，关于——这——什么——我理解您的论点。\n\nBaldiga 律师：好的。\n\n法庭：那么，为了解决这个问题，如果法庭作出命令——显然，这可能有几种方式。但如果法庭命令债务人提交该动议，然后，希望对此会有某种答复，那么，如果存在材料提供，Baldiga 律师，您——我认为受托人需要知道的一件事是，交给受托人的任何材料都将是交给债务人的同样材料。您不希望——不能有——您不希望存在缺口。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交 06/22/23 录入 06/22/23 16:11:59 第75页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日\n\n我的意思是，如果——您——您说，我不想将政府交给我们的任何材料交给受托人，因为那将构成对特权的放弃。但您会同意政府可以将其交给受托人。那么——受托人如何知道政府交给受托人的任何材料，就是政府交给您的一切材料？\n\nBaldiga 律师：我想政府可以确认这一点，也可以不确认。我的意思是——\n\n法庭：或者您可以确认这一点，也可以不确认，对吗？\n\nBaldiga 律师：我不知道——嗯，我想理论上可以。我原以为我们不会参与政府的材料提供。\n\n法庭：不，不。我不是说参与材料提供。我是说，关于您所收到的和受托人将收到的材料，对吗？这种方式——论点是，受托人希望直接获得。您不希望——直接交给他，因为您担心放弃第五修正案特权。\n\nBaldiga 律师：还有其他问题。例如，我们甚至无法看到政府持有的某些材料。\n\n法庭：而且没有人——我认为没有任何人在就此争论。我没有听到受托人——受托人只是想——\n\nBaldiga 律师：债务人无法看到其中一部分。\n\n法庭：——获得您所拥有的任何材料。\n\nBaldiga 律师：嗯，但是——\n\n法庭：这不正是您想要的吗？\n\nBaldiga 律师：但是，法官大人——\n\n巴塞特律师：那是——\n\nBaldiga 律师：——我只是想非常明确地说明。有些材料政府会交付给我的律所，但债务人无法看到。对于那些材料并没有传票。事实上，对于我们正在讨论的任何事项都没有传票。而且，如果我们不以合作方式处理此事，我们就会面临这个问题，我看不出传票如何能够送达。但我们——我们可以日后处理这个问题，因为我们还有很长的路要走。这就是我们试图提出一条协商一致的解决途径的原因。但是，债务人将不会看到政府告知我们将通过大陪审团材料向我们提供的非常大一部分材料。债务人永远不会看到。因此，不会存在完全重叠。我甚至不认为会接近完全重叠。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1929\n提交 06/22/23\n录入 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日\n\n巴塞特律师：我不确定 Baldiga 律师在暗示什么，但我不知道债务人是否能够接触这些文件，为何会影响受托人是否能够接触这些文件。\n\nBaldiga 律师：嗯，因为您的证据开示请求是针对债务人的。\n\n巴塞特律师：但如果其律师持有这些文件，其代理人就持有这些文件。因此，我不认为那是——\n\nBaldiga 律师：嗯，那不是——\n\n巴塞特律师：我不认为——\n\nBaldiga 律师：那是完全不同的问题。\n\n巴塞特律师：我不认为那是一个真正的问题，法官大人。但我确实认为，真正突显该问题的是，债务人实际将文件交给我们，或者其律师实际将文件交给我们时，他所担心的第五修正案问题，对受托人而言从来都没有道理，而且现在仍然没有道理；但如果他们仅仅在未见材料的情况下同意由政府向我们提供完全相同的文件，则同样的担忧就不存在。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1929\n提交 06/22/23\n录入 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年6月13日\n\n法庭：嗯，他们显然不会那样做。\n\nBaldiga 律师：那是形式重于实质的极端体现。\n\n法庭：不过，他们不会同意。我的意思是，这一点很明确。\n\n巴塞特律师：嗯，不。我认为他说的是，他们确实同意政府将文件交给我们，而这就——\n\nBaldiga 律师：我们是说——\n\n巴塞特律师：——在我看来，就第五修正案的担忧而言毫无道理，法官大人。\n\nBaldiga 律师：不。如果政府直接向受托人提供材料，我们认为第五修正案不受影响。政府可能存在其他问题，但我们不会阻碍该方式。我们会请求政府这样做，正如本法庭两个月前所建议的那样。\n\n巴塞特律师：在这种情况下，我就不理解该论点。因为如果他们允许这样发生，那就是形式重于实质。怎么可能有任何不同？这一事实是实际——\n\n法庭：嗯，现在我们正在重新辩论——\n\nBaldiga 律师：是。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交 06/22/23 录入 06/22/23 16:11:59 第79页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日 79\n\n巴塞特先生：是。\n\n法院：——我们已经就此进行了辩论。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：正是如此。\n\n巴塞特先生：同意，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的？因此，我了解你们的立场。并没有实质性的——但已有一些进展，即这些问题——具体问题已经提交给债务人，而他就每一个问题均明确援引了其第五修正案特权，对吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是。\n\n法院：好的。因此，这算是一些进展。我必须将此事留待审议，并就我将如何处理作出裁定。就此——就你们所采取的争议事项和立场而言，没有进一步进展。因此，我必须就此作出裁定。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我认为是这样，法官阁下。我认为我们目前就是这个状况。\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我认为我们已就此进行了善意讨论。并非未作努力。但我认为此事现已提交法院审理。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢二位。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 80 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。唯一的——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：法官阁下，我可以退席吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\n那么，今天日程上的最后一项事项是对抗程序中的状态会议，即由托管代理人提起的提存诉讼。\n\n德斯平斯律师——受托人德斯平斯，您希望发言吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是，法官阁下。基本上——请允许我对此完全坦率。我不希望该程序成为HK各方获得的事实上的中止。\n\n因此，我知道Shipman & Goodwin（希普曼和古德温律师事务所）刚在听证会前提交了一项关于我们所称提存程序第一阶段的动议，如法官阁下所知，该阶段即提存是否适当。我们——我已阅看该命令，我们对此没有异议。我们可能会有一些调整。但在概念上，我们对此没有异议。\n\n该命令基本上称，他们已产生约$45,000的费用。他们希望保留该笔款项。您知道，这是标准措辞。此后他们将退出本案。\n\n因此，基本上，这是任何提存程序的第一阶段。我们对此没有异议。我们从一开始就已向Shipman & Goodwin律师事务所说明这一点。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1929\nFiled 06/22/23\nEntered 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日\n\n不过，我确实希望的是下一阶段——而且，顺便说一句，我希望债务人不会反对——或者不是债务人，或者——HK各方不会反对第一阶段，即作出解除U.S. Bank（美国银行）在本案中责任并将款项存入法院资金的命令。\n\n因此，下一阶段真正是——我们需要朝什么方向推进？这就是我所说的不希望该案成为事实上的中止的原因。我希望——我希望该案能迅速推进。我们将——我们已准备好——我们明天将准备好提交关于实体问题的简易判决动议。\n\n而且，他们不会——您知道，只是向法院预先说明一下，这并不十分复杂，即法官阁下已经认定该财产属于破产财产，并且还指示HK各方尽一切努力转让该资产。这非常简单。除U.S. Bank外，该协议还有两方当事人：债权人委员会——戈德曼先生在场，他会告诉您，他已准备好向任何人发出指示，将款项交给受托人。另一方当事人是HK USA，他们已被法官阁下指示采取其权限范围内的一切措施转让该笔款项。\n\n因此，他们会说，哦，不，不，我们必须等待根据第4条作出的最终命令，诸如此类。但关键是，该协议的双方当事人可以共同同意——表示我们不再需要托管协议，而且，顺便说一句，也不再有托管协议，因为该资金正被——存入法院。\n\n因此，我们希望提交简易判决动议以取得该笔资金，并且我们希望——我们今天希望与您讨论该事项的排期，法官阁下。\n\n法院：那么，U.S. Bank的——由Shipman & Goodwin提出的——动议怎么办？\n\n德斯平斯先生：U.S. Bank。\n\n法院：——由Shipman & Goodwin提出的？我的意思是，难道不能也为该动议确定听证日期和异议截止日期吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：嗯，我希望我们甚至不必这样做，因为——问题其实只是——提存是否适当。受托人同意这一点。我相信债权人委员会也同意提存是适当的。仅有的其他当事人是Mei Guo（梅国）和——\n\n法院：对。但是，如果——如果我作出一项排期命令，要求他们对该动议作出回应，然后我们举行听证会，而我作出某种裁定——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日 83\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法院：——这可能比简易判决程序更快，也可能不会更快。\n\n德斯平斯先生：嗯，简易判决动议不会针对该点。它将针对最终——\n\n法院：嗯，对。无论如何，您都必须这样做。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法院：但现在，我们谈论的是款项正在托管中，对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：对。因此，我认为第一阶段不应复杂。再次说明，受托人不反对。债权人委员会不反对。我希望HK各方不反对。但如非如此，应当有一个非常短的排期，以便——\n\n法院：嗯，我将要求HK各方作出回应。我的意思是，我将——对于由——除非HK各方现在站起来告诉我，他们不反对将款项存入法院登记处，并解除原告在提存诉讼中的责任，否则我将要求就已提交的动议作出书面回应。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 83 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日 84\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：那么，法官阁下，我将代表HK各方站起来，并告诉您，我目前不能作出该项陈述，因为我无权这样做。\n\n法院：好的。嗯，这没关系。那么，回应将有一个较短的期限。这是一项对抗程序。根据我们关于动议的地方法规则，法院可以在对抗程序中有听证或无听证地设定期限。现已有一项动议请求将资金存入法院登记处。因此，我们将按此方式进行。至于您的简易判决动议，请继续。您有建议的日期吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：除了尽快之外，法官阁下。因为，再次说明，这会成为事实上的中止——\n\n法院：嗯，您需要告诉我您何时提交该动议。\n\n德斯平斯先生：明天。我们明天就会准备好提交，法官阁下。截至——明天午夜，我们将提交我们的简易判决动议。\n\n法院：好的。我需要查看日程。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我们有可能把它安排在29日吗？我知道我们已经在挤时间——\n\n法院：嗯，我认为我必须给予——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 84 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1929\nFiled 06/22/23\nEntered 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日\n\n根据地区法院地方法规则和我们的地方法规则，对简易判决动议作出回应的适当期限。\n\n德斯平斯先生：但我以为我们可以缩短该期限，法官阁下。\n\n法院：嗯，您必须提交缩短期限的动议，并且必须证明为何应缩短期限。然后，对方律师将有权反对您缩短期限的动议。好的？\n\n德斯平斯先生：那么，我们将与简易判决动议一并这样做。\n\n法院：好的。各位律师，因此，你们已经听到他们将如何进行。你们可以针对其提交任何你们认为适当的回应。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是，法官阁下。还有几件事。今天上午，我办公室的德斯平斯律师与金德塞斯律师就该问题进行了一些沟通，并可能就一项经同意命令达成安排，使我们能够越过第一阶段。并且，您知道，希望这些讨论能够继续。\n\n我们理解这是一项提存诉讼，而第一阶段实际上只是例行程序。因此，假定文件齐备，我们不会阻挠第一阶段。但如果我们能获得一项经同意命令，这将使本案推进得更快。\n\n我确实想说的一件事是，我理解德斯平斯律师希望推进此事，但我相信关于批准出售Lady May（Lady May号）的动议安排在29日。\n\n德斯平斯先生：不是。是26日。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：26日？\n\n法院：我相信是26日。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：好的。那么，在——\n\n法院：我为您查一下。稍等。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是26日，法官阁下。29日是费用申请听证会。\n\n法院：实际上，出售Lady May的动议在27日。\n\n德斯平斯先生：27日和28日。是。\n\n法院：26日是强制——其中一项众多强制动议。然后29日是报酬听证会。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是。因此，我相信今天是13日，但我可能弄错了。因此，我们谈论的是一项简易判决动议，HK各方届时必须作出回应，同时他们的律师还要处理强制出售HK资产Lady May和Lady May II（Lady May II号）的动议，以及费用申请，这些事项都在同一周。现在我们又要把一项简易判决动议加入其中。\n\n我理解他希望迅速办理此事，但是——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 87 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月13日\n\n法院：嗯，您不——\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：——这实在太快了。\n\n法院：我理解您的意思。而且我们尚未看到任何动议。因此，在我看到一些动议之前，尚不会确定任何日期。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：好的？谢谢。\n\n那么，关于——\n\n威廉斯女士：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n\n法院：可以。威廉斯律师，我正要在片刻后请您发言。\n\n我只是想说，在法庭上，当我们讨论这项对抗程序时，莫里亚蒂律师，有一项由提存诉讼中的——提出的付款动议，而且我知道您说您没有授权。但是，当您说你们正在讨论一项合意的——我想您是这么说的——现在请原谅。您说您办公室里的谁正在讨论此事？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是金德塞斯律师。\n\n法院：金德塞斯律师正在与Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的某人讨论此事？是这样吗——\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：受托人。\n\n法院：好的。那么，就威廉斯律师已提交的动议，是否可能会有某种形式的合意命令？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生（MORIARTY）：\n我想说的是，围绕双方同意动议的具体范围一直在进行讨论。我预计这些讨论将会继续。我不能——您知道，我不想向法庭表示这一定会发生。正如我所说，只要提存诉讼程序适当，这是第一阶段，属于例行程序，我们不会加以阻碍。如果我们能够就一项约定命令达成一致，进展可能会更快。\n\n法庭（THE COURT）：\n嗯，如果我们有一项约定命令，当然会进展得更快。那么，请允许我听取威廉斯律师（Attorney Williams）的意见，可以吗？\n\n威廉斯女士（WILLIAMS）：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。也请原谅我打断发言。我的意见实际上直接涉及有关第一阶段的问题。正如各方所知，作为托管代理人的 U.S. Bank（美国合众银行）已提交一项提存资金动议。据我了解，可能正在就一项约定动议进行讨论；目前尚不清楚该动议是否为提存动议，以及是否涉及关于第一阶段的一项可能的双方同意命令。\n\n从法定程序和程序规则上说，该程序将通过这项提存动议进行。作为托管代理人，美国合众银行提起了提存诉讼。我们是提存诉讼原告。在这里，我们实质上所做的是提交提存动议。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1929\n提交日期 06/22/23\n录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023\n\n因此，只要目前正在讨论拟议命令中与第一阶段有关的任何内容，我们的理解是，该命令将直接关联于我们的提存动议。因此，我不知道我们是否可以在此次情况会议期间对此作出澄清，或者是否适宜由各方另行讨论。但我只是想确保，这并非在脱离我们提存动议的情况下进行的事项。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我完全同意。我想我已经说过，这必须与提存动议有关；这就是我询问莫里亚蒂律师其当事人立场的原因。他表示目前没有授权，但正在进行一些讨论。\n\n但我完全同意，美国合众银行必须参与这些讨论。无论作出何种命令，如果有一项约定命令，都必须向美国合众银行出示并与其协商。因此，如果我在情况会议开始时没有说明这一点，那是我的责任。因为托管代理人和提存诉讼原告已准备好、愿意且能够将款项支付至法院登记账户。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第90页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023 90\n\n现在，各位——各位都明白法院登记账户如何运作吗？我的意思是，就像其他任何事情一样，这是将资金存入一个登记账户，其中，您知道，会有某种利息成分。但是，我不——\n\n德斯平斯先生（DESPINS）：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n但我相信政府会保留其中一部分利息。我的意思是，我认为当您将资金存入登记账户时就是如此，所以——这也是另一个原因，莫里亚蒂律师，如果在托管代理人——假定托管代理人不再参与此事之后——能够达成某种协议，使这些资金即使在短期内也能被存放在以不同方式产生收益的地方，您需要考虑这一点。\n\n我完全不知道各位的讨论将会得出什么结果。但我不——我将会——我很难理解，为什么在近期内不会就将资金提存至法院登记账户的动议达成协议。而且我的意思是，在非常近期内。然后，此后事情如何发展将由香港各方和受托人之间决定，而不是——托管代理人将从这些问题中移除。\n\n但我完全同意威廉斯律师的意见，即你们现在所做的任何事情都必须与将资金提存至法院登记账户的动议相衔接。有人对此有任何问题或疑虑吗？\n\n好的。那么，德斯平斯受托人（Trustee Despins），今天下午还有什么需要处理的？我认为我们已经处理了日程表上的所有事项。\n\n巴塞特先生（BASSETT）：\n法官阁下，我还有一项事项想提出，算是一项情况更新。法庭会记得，我相信是在上周二我们到您面前时，当时处理的一项动议是受托人要求某些当事人遵从 2004 审查取证的动议。受该动议约束的当事人中有两个 Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）实体：Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司），以及另一实体，我相信是 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）。\n\n法庭：\n是。我看到了撤回出庭代理的动议。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n是。所以——\n\n法庭：\n那就是你——你提出这个问题的原因吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n这就是我提出这个问题的原因，法官阁下。因为我相信法庭已作出命令，该命令是我们代表这两个当事人与罗姆尼律师（Attorney Romney）协商达成的；而本周早些时候，我们从罗姆尼律师处得知，显然发生了一个错误或沟通误会。并且，他们现在了解到，郭女士（Ms. Guo）实际上并非 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的成员——唯一成员。因此，他们并非她的律师，或者本不应代表她出庭，也无权订立该约定。\n\n我不知道莫里亚蒂律师是否还有更多补充，但这是我们所了解的当前情况。基于此，我认为我们需要处理如何处置该强制动议。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，应该在 26 日之前遵从，对吗？或者至少——或者继续举行听证会？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n是。是继续举行听证会，并且根据卢夫特先生（Mr. Luft）与瓦尔坦先生（Mr. Vartan）之间的谈话达成协议，认为这两个实体实际上将在此期间完全遵从——\n\n法庭：\n对。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n——传票。\n\n法庭：\n我明白。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n而现在我们失去了其中一个实体。\n\n法庭：\n我明白。亨齐律师（Attorney Henzy），我看到您站起来了。\n\n亨齐先生（HENZY）：\n是。法官阁下，我——我想我会请求或建议，对罗姆尼律师提出的撤回动议安排举行听证会，并且——无论问题为何，都在该听证会上处理。但我知道该动议已被提交。\n\n法庭：\n我认为它是今天提交的。\n\n亨齐先生：\n是。我知道该动议已被提交，也知道——法官阁下，动议中陈述的事实。但我认为莫里亚蒂先生和我都不熟悉——\n\n法庭：\n我并不是说你们会熟悉。\n\n亨齐先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n好吗？我——\n\n亨齐先生：\n但我认为我只会请求，在罗姆尼先生到场时处理此事。\n\n法庭：\n是。我——我们——\n\n亨齐先生：\n因为——\n\n法庭：\n我认为我们将不得不安排举行听证会。\n\n亨齐先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n在不了解——\n\n亨齐先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n——正在发生什么，以及这如何影响此前就未完成的取证和传票遵从所达成的命令之前，我不会批准该动议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第93页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第94页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023 94\n\n巴塞特先生：\n而且，法官阁下，从——并且那是——显然，如果法庭希望如此，我们将按这种方式进行。我只想指出一件事：我相信目前的情况是，Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 没有人代表其就我们的强制动议出庭。\n\n法庭：\n嗯——\n\n巴塞特先生：\n所以——\n\n法庭：\n——在其出庭代理被撤回之前，我不确定你现在可以这样说。我的意思是，法院命令撤回。他已申请撤回其出庭代理。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n明白。\n\n法庭：\n我想我可以驳回该动议。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n明白，法官阁下。那么我们将处理此事——\n\n亨齐先生：\n是。我会请求——只请求在罗姆尼先生到场时将此事理清。因为——\n\n法庭：\n我必须——我——但我明白您的观点。我今天看到了该动议被提交。我显然必须对此采取某些行动。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的？好的。谢谢。\n\n亨齐先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n如果可以的话，法官阁下，我唯一要补充的是，该动议并非在毫不知情的情况下提交。我知道我今天早上与罗姆尼律师谈过。他昨天与卢夫特律师（Attorney Luft）谈过，并向卢夫特律师解释了发生的情况，以及将会提交这项动议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第95页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023\n\n法庭：\n好的。我明白这一点。然而，问题在于，罗姆尼律师订立了一项协议，当时我们已经就一项藐视法庭动议或一项——我现在甚至无法理清，当时我们是在强制提交材料，还是试图在当时追究其藐视法庭责任。但无论如何，他订立了一项协议，即 Hudson——Hudson 各实体将在继续听证会日期之前提交文件并遵从传票。\n\n嗯，现在看来这不会发生。而且，这并非——我并不是说情况相同，但这并非第一次法庭被告知将会分批提交材料，或者就提交材料存在某种协议，随后却没有关于提交材料的协议，而我们又被拖延三、四、五周或数月。\n\n事情不会这样运作。而且这——不幸的是，听起来我们又要再来一次。\n\n亨齐先生：\n嗯，我不——法官阁下，再次，我请求在罗姆尼先生到场时将此事理清。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 13, 2023 96\n\n法庭：\n我明白您的请求。\n\n亨齐先生：\n因为我不知道这是否——\n\n法庭：\n但我已经读过该动议。\n\n亨齐先生：\n是。我不知道这是否又要再来一次。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，该动议说——\n\n亨齐先生：\n而且罗姆尼先生——\n\n法庭：\n——我犯了一个错误；我实际上并未代理我告诉您、法官阁下——\n\n亨齐先生：\n对。\n\n法庭：\n——以及我向其他所有律师作为律师协会成员宣誓我所代理的那个人。\n\n亨齐先生：\n是。而且，法官阁下，我请求在罗姆尼先生到场时处理此事。\n\n法庭：\n将在罗姆尼先生到场时处理此事。我只是在——\n\n亨齐先生：\n但是，法官阁下，您——\n\n法庭：\n——明确我的意见。\n\n亨齐先生：\n——坦率地说，您在罗姆尼先生不在场为自己辩护时作出评论。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，他可以在这里，亨齐律师。\n\n亨齐先生：\n他的——\n\n法庭：\n他就在街对面。\n\n亨齐先生：\n他的动议不在日程表上。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1929 提交日期 06/22/23 录入日期 06/22/23 16:11:59 第96页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 13, 2023 97 法庭：因此，如果他选择不在场，那不是我的问题。亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）：那不是真的。那不正确。他——法庭：你不能在已经达成对本案具有约束力的协议后，再提交撤回出庭代理的动议，然后说我不会出席，也不会向法庭解释发生了什么。亨齐先生：今天未列入日程，法官阁下。法庭：不必列入日程。亨齐先生：这——好。法庭：亨齐律师（Attorney Henzy），我们的地方法规中哪里规定必须列入日程？亨齐先生：法官阁下，您有时至少会安排审理撤回代理的动议。有时您无需举行听证便予以准许。法庭：有时我会。亨齐先生：有时您——法庭：有时我不会。亨齐先生：有时您不会。法庭：对。亨齐先生：但我不知道罗姆尼先生（Mr. Romney）怎么可能知道您会提出这个问题——法庭：我——Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 97 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 98 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 13, 2023\n\n1 亨齐先生：——今天。\n\n2 法庭：我没有提出这个问题。我只是发表了一条评论。我没有处理任何问题。我没有作出裁决。我只是发表了一条评论。\n\n5 亨齐先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n6 法庭：好吗？谢谢。\n\n7 好的。今天下午还有什么需要处理的吗？\n\n9 德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：从我们的角度而言，没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n11 法庭：从你们的角度而言，有什么吗？\n\n12 身份不明的发言人：没有，法官阁下。\n\n13 身份不明的发言人：没有，法官阁下。\n\n14 法庭：好的。\n\n15 身份不明的发言人：谢谢。\n\n16 法庭：那么，Kwok（郭文贵）案中的事项今天已处理完毕，我们将转而处理日程表上下午 3:00 的事项。\n\n19 （庭审于下午 3:05 结束。）\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1929\nFiled 06/22/23\nEntered 06/22/23 16:11:59\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 13, 2023\n\n3 本人，克里斯廷·菲奥雷（CHRISTINE FIORE），经法院批准的文字记录员、认证电子记录员及文字记录员，特此证明：\n\n4 上述内容系根据上述案件庭审程序的官方电子录音制作的正确文字记录。\n\n10 June 21, 2023\n\n11 Christine Fiore, CERT\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— June 13, 2023 100 索引 受托人方证人： 直接询问 交叉询问 重新直接询问 再次交叉询问 吕克·德斯平斯（Luc Despins） 15 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1929 Filed 06/22/23 Entered 06/22/23 16:11:59 Page 100 of","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings","Je","Guo","Luc Despins","CIPA","Himalaya"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":29787,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-06-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-06-22","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:29:03"}