{"id":"court_ctb_1980_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1980,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2023-07-05","title":"| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION","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 | *
* | |\n| | HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | * | |\n| | | * | |\n| | Debtor. | * | |\n| | U.S. BANK NATIONAL | * | Adv. Proc No. 23-05012 |\n| | ASSOCIATION, as escrow | * | |\n| agent, | | * | |\n| | | * | |\n| v. | Plaintiff, | *
* | |\n| | | * | Bridgeport, Connecticut |\n| | HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS | * | June 27, 2023 |\n| | INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, | * | |\n| | | * | |\n| | Defendant. | *
* | |\n| | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | | |\n| #1805 | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE | | SECOND OMNIBUS MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANT WITH |\n| | RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS | | |\n| #1912 | | | MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS BY HK PARTIES TO TRUSTEE |\n| | | | AND TRUSTEE'S BROKER RE LADY MAY SALE MOTION |\n| #
19 | | | MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS INTO THE REGISTRY OF |\n| | COURT AND TO DISCHARGE PLAINTIFF FROM
INTERPLEADER ACTION | | |\n| #1858 | GRANTING RELATED RELIEF | | TRUSTEE'S MOTION, PURSUANT TO BANKR. CODE SEC.
105 and 363, BANKR. RULES 2002, 6004(c) and 9014
AND LOCAL RULES 6004-1 and 6004-2 SEEKING ENTRY
OF ORDER (I) AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING SALE OF THE
LADY MAY FREE AND CLEAR OF LIENS, CLAIMS,
INTERESTS and ENCUMBRANCES, (II) AUTHORIZING AND
APPROVING PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT and (III) |\n| | Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording,
transcript produced by transcription service. | | |\n| | Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.
4 Research Drive, Suite 402
Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992 | | |\n\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 STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ. Investments, LLC and Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. Mei Guo: 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditors Committee: KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the U.S. Trustee 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510 For U.S. Bank National Assn., LATONIA C. WILLIAMS, ESQ. as escrow agent: Shipman & Goodwin, LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 For G Clubs Operations, LLC: JEFFREY M. SKLARZ, ESQ. Green & Sklarz, LLC One Audubon Street New Haven, CT 06511 CAROLINA FORNOS, ESQ. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019\n\n2\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditor, Pacific STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity O'Melveny & Myers LLP Fund L.P.: Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the buyer: ROBBIE BOONE, ESQ. Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, P.A. 340 Royal Poinciana Plaza Palm Beach, FL 33480\n\n3\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 4\n\n| 1 | (Proceedings commenced at 12:06 p.m.) |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and |\n| 3 | Genever Holdings, LLC; adversary proceeding 23-05012, U.S. |\n| 4 | Bank National Association as escrow agent versus HK |\n| 5 | International Funds Investments (USA) Limited. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good afternoon.
If we could |\n| 7 | have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 |\n| 8 | Trustee please. |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Luc |\n| 10 | Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Nick |\n| 12 | Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 |\n| 13 | Trustee. |\n| 14 | MR. LINSEY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Patrick |\n| 15 | Linsey, Connecticut counsel for the Trustee. |\n| 16 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Holley |\n| 17 | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 18 | MS. MAYHEW:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Kristen |\n| 19 | Mayhew on behalf of the Creditors Committee. |\n| 20 | MR. SKLARZ:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Jeffrey |\n| 21 | Sklarz of Green & Sklarz for G Club Operations, LLC.
I'm |\n| 22 | joined by our lead counsel, who's admitted pro hac vice, |\n| 23 | Carolina Fornos, of Pillsbury Winthrop. |\n| 24 | MS. FORNOS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 5 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 5 MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Latonia Williams of Shipman & Goodwin, LLP on behalf of the escrow agent, U.S. Bank National Association. THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. So, Trustee Despins, we have a few discovery matters on the calendar, as well as the interpleader adversary, and then of course the motion to sell, which was scheduled for noon. Are we going to take the 11 o'clock matters first? MR. DESPINS: Well, just by way of update, Your Honor, the interpleader action, I believe that for this intermediate stage that we will have a consensual order. It's being processed right now, that we're trying to file it with the Court so you'll have it. So that's good that we can adjourn that, but that should be very short once we have the final order on the docket, or final, proposed order on the docket. THE COURT: And who are the parties to the consent order? MR. DESPINS: Well, Mr. Kindseth representing Mei Guo and HK, the Trustee, and the escrow agent. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: So that's the first. And then on the sale we're also working on the consensual order. There would still be evidence required,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 6 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
6 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | but the sale motion would go forward on a much more |\n| 2 | collapsed, you know, process that resolves the HK issues |\n| 3 | basically.
But that's being drafted as well. |\n| 4 | So I think that at this point it would make sense |\n| 5 | to deal with the discovery dispute involving G Club. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
So that's fine, obviously. |\n| 7 | So the motion to quash the subpoenas -- |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
That also should be adjourned, Your |\n| 9 | Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
-- that's going to be part of the |\n| 11 | resolution?
Okay. |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
All right.
So then what you'd like |\n| 14 | the Court to address is the second omnibus motion with |\n| 15 | regard to the 2004 discovery issues, and specifically |\n| 16 | related to the G Club entity that I have to get the right |\n| 17 | name of because there are several G Club Operations, LLC. |\n| 18 | Correct, Counsel? |\n| 19 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | All right.
So how are we proceeding with that |\n| 22 | today? |\n| 23 | We were here last, we talked about some possible |\n| 24 | discussions between the parties.
I set this hearing.
I |\n| 25 | believe I set a time frame to file a response, right?
So |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 7 where -- where do things stand as of today? MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, I'm happy to address that. I think the current state of play has been summarized by the filing by G Club. I don't have the date, I apologize, or the ECF reference in front of me. I guess it was, sorry, docket 1924. And then the Trustee filed a reply to that, docket number 1934. And essentially the dispute remains unresolved. G Club is asking for a 60-day extension of time to continue producing documents. They have produced some documents. I guess approximately 300 in response to our subpoena thus far. They continue to take issue with the breadth of the subpoena and have objected to many of the requests, but we still are at a impasse in terms of -- certainly the biggest ticket item from our perspective is the, well, two things: 19 One, the time within which G Club will have to continue complying or to finish complying with the subpoena. I won't belabor my colleague, Mr. Luft's, lengthy recitation of the history here at the last hearing, but we've been at this for six months plus. And suffice it to say the Trustee is absolutely not willing to let this linger for another 60 days.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 7 of 93\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 8 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 8 The other issue that we have is some of the fundamental objections G Club has raised with respect to what they believe to be the permissible scope of discovery. I think these are issues that the Court has already covered. These are issues concerning, you know, whether or not they need to provide documents related to, you know, assets and operations of G Club, or whether we first need to prove a connection between G Club and the debtor through a final order of this court. We think that has it totally backwards. There's tons of allegations that I'm happy to run through, both in this case, findings of this court, allegations in the criminal case which are described in detail, and the reply that we filed that are very, very, very, very troubling. I'm happy to go through all of that in as much detail as the Court would like, but for all those reasons we think that the subpoena that we served is well within the scope of 2004 and we think there's no basis at all to let this linger on for another 60 days. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Counsel? MS. FORNOS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. First of all, I want to underscore that we have started that production.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 9 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 9 When I last appeared before the Court I represented to the Court that we had an independent manager, that we were working diligently, and we indeed produced documents. To be clear, those documents are corporate organization documents, loan documents, transfer documents, documents regarding assets, that they specifically requested. We're not sitting on this. We are moving to produce. And all I am asking for is the 60 days. And, Your Honor, I've discussed this with the independent manager. They're working as fast as they can to deal with the day-to-day operations, preserve data, understand assets. That 60 days is what they're asking for to continue to respond at least on a minimal weekly basis to continue to supplement the production that has already been made. On this note, Your Honor, I'd like to address and give the Court more transparency on the independent manager, as well as the Trustee, because the filings made it indicate there were some aspersions caught, alleged with respect to the independent manager. The independent manager is an organization. It's FFP. It is known to step in when a corporation loses its management, which is what we have here. And I have\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 10 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 10 documentation I can provide to the Court and to the Trustee providing more information on FFP and its experiences. They're essentially acting like an independent fiduciary. And I can represent to the Court that I've been in daily contact with them trying to deal with this, trying to address a number of issues that are facing the company when all of their managers and directors left in March. So we're working to produce documents. I agree with the Trustee. He is entitled, to be clear, to the documents he's requested regarding the debtor. We've produced those. He is entitled -- THE COURT: I just want to make sure I get everything you say accurate. MS. FORNOS: Sure. THE COURT: So all the documents that you believe that your client has regarding the debtor have been produced? MS. FORNOS: That is what we have turned over, the immediate stuff that relates to -- I don't -- we don't believe that we have extensive information of the debtor because the debtor was our consultant and our spokesperson. We have produced that agreement. We of course, to the extent there's more, we're searching for that. We're looking for that. We have no objection to provide every document that relates to the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 11 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 11 debtor. As the Court knows, one of the issues that we have flagged from the beginning with the Trustee is that there is an overbreadth in these Rule 2004. And candidly we understand why they're overly broad. Because it was the same Rule 2004 that was issued to over 100 parties. It wasn't tailored to any specific company. But the way it reads is they basically want every single document in our possession. And this is -- you know, the issue for today that we're asking is just for a reasonable amount of time so that FFP can continue to produce documents. And we're also happy to facilitate a discussion between the Trustee and FFP so that they can have more transparency on what they're actually doing and what we're trying to do to supplement the productions. The Trustee wants this in seven days. We're asking for 60. We need a reasonable time because of the amount of things that the independent manager is dealing with. Last, a separate issue, which I see slightly separate than today's issue for the Court, which is the time frame, is the scope. And at the last hearing I raised this issue. And our issue is they want, and they have requested, every\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 12 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
12 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | single document relating to the source of funding of G Club. |\n| 2 | To be clear, the source of funding of G Club, Your |\n| 3 | Honor, is thousands of member information that contains |\n| 4 | personal identifying information, banking records of third |\n| 5 | parties, of members. |\n| 6 | Our position is we'd like to have the time to give |\n| 7 | them the documents related to associated entities, to the |\n| 8 | associated individuals. |\n| 9 | The ask is that we address the issue of |\n| 10 | memberships, membership information and source of funds, |\n| 11 | which is contained in the banking records, to a later date |\n| 12 | because that is an objection that we have put forth to the |\n| 13 | Trustee. |\n| 14 | We probably need to have more discussions on this. |\n| 15 | And maybe having some discussions with the independent |\n| 16 | manager will facilitate this. |\n| 17 | But, Your Honor, and I don't want to get ahead of |\n| 18 | the Trustee or the Court's docket, but I want to also alert |\n| 19 | the Court now that this issue of membership and membership |\n| 20 | data is likely going to be an issue in the proposed |\n| 21 | settlement that was filed on Friday by the Trustee regarding |\n| 22 | HCHK. |\n| 23 | HCHK Technologies has and is in possession of G |\n| 24 | Club membership data, that is, third-party data that does |\n| 25 | not belong to HCHK. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 13 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 13 THE COURT: How are you aware of that fact? MS. FORNOS: Because we have a contract with HCHK, which we have turned over the Trustee so he is aware of that contract. And HCHK had a contract -- we're a customer of HCHK because they hosted our data on iCloud. So I don't want to get too far ahead on this issue because it's an issue for the HCHK, which we just don't want to surprise the Court, but it's an issue that is present in the Rule 2004 because we have objected to producing our member data. I'm sure that there are ways that we can structure a more narrow production to address the concerns that the Trustee has. And, again, I understand what the Trustee is seeking, but what we want is more time. And respectfully, Your Honor, those are -- those are the issues that are present at the moment. THE COURT: Have you had discussions about a protective order, confidentiality agreement? MS. FORNOS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Because there are already existing orders in this case. MS. FORNOS: Understood, Your Honor. And I have signed that order. And the Trustee was kind enough to provide me a copy of that, so I had signed it and sent it over to them. But I still have concerns over producing\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 14 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 14 thousands -- we're talking more than 8,000 member information and personal identifying information. That is the -- that is the crux of the objection. And we simply ask -- we can address it today, or this could be an issue for a separate day, or we could have more conversations with the Trustee so that we could figure out a way around it. THE COURT: Well, why wouldn't the confidentiality agreement address your concerns? MS. FORNOS: Your Honor, it's one thing to have a confidentiality agreement, but another thing is to produce the personal identifying information of members who don't -- have not consented to the release of that information. I have very serious concerns. THE COURT: You got information from members who didn't -- who signed a document with your client that said that their information couldn't be released to third parties? MS. FORNOS: Your Honor, I'd have to look at all of the underlying agreements. I don't know the answer to that question. I would have to double-check. That's an excellent point the Court's making. I apologize. I should have checked that earlier. But we do have -- every member signs a membership agreement. And --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 15 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
15 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
And does the membership agreement have |\n| 2 | a provision that says that their information can't be |\n| 3 | disclosed? |\n| 4 | MS. FORNOS:
I think it has a provision -- I need |\n| 5 | to double-check.
I don't want to state anything that I'm |\n| 6 | not clear on. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
No.
I understand.
But I think you do |\n| 8 | need to check, right, because that's relevant. |\n| 9 | MS. FORNOS:
Of course, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | But the issue that is before the Court right now, |\n| 11 | and I appreciate the Trustee's frustration, I truly do, but |\n| 12 | we zeroed in on documents, we have produced them.
We are -- |\n| 13 | we have more to produce, documents that we don't object to. |\n| 14 | And it's the bulk of the relationship that they're seeking |\n| 15 | between our entity and other entities because that's what |\n| 16 | they're trying to understand. |\n| 17 | So we're happy to continue to do that production. |\n| 18 | Again, we just need more time. |\n| 19 | As to the scope, we can address it today.
We can |\n| 20 | try to meet and confer.
We can save it for another day. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Well, you've met and conferred on a |\n| 22 | number of occasions.
I mean, that's the representations |\n| 23 | that have been made to the Court on several occasions.
Not |\n| 24 | just in court, but in documents, right, in pleadings. |\n| 25 | So I agree that there's -- you know that there's |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 16 an ongoing obligation of all counsel to act appropriately in connection with discovery requests, so I think we do need to address it. What is your -- what are your issues, and I'm happy to hear them, with regard to the scope of the subpoenas? What are -- I need your specific objections with regard to the scope please. MS. FORNOS: Gladly. It's the same that we have been saying from the beginning. The Trustee has requested every single document. I will draw the Court's attention specifically to document request number 4 -- 14 -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: -- which specifically asked -- THE COURT: Document request number 14? MS. FORNOS: Yes. It specifically asks for all sources of income of our entity. That request is not proportional to what's at issue today and what's at issue for the Trustee. The Trustee wants, rightfully so, and, again, I agree with the Trustee, the Trustee wants to understand the relationship between our entity and other entities, no objection. We get that. We will produce that. We have started that production. We have more. Case 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 16 of 93\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 17 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 17 But the line, and what we absolutely feel needs to not be the subject of this Rule 2004, at least at this time, which is not proportional, are over 8,000 member information and payment. THE COURT: Right. And we just discussed that. Okay? MS. FORNOS: Yes. THE COURT: You need to go figure out whether there's some provision in this membership agreement that says that the information can't be turned over. Okay? 11 And if it can't be turned -- if there isn't that provision in the membership agreement, then I'm not clear as to how the confidentiality agreement doesn't protect that issue. MS. FORNOS: Your Honor, I don't think that the confidentiality, the protective order, covers the personal identifying information and banking records of third parties. That's not -- we'll discuss it with the Trustee. And I'll go back and double-check the protective order. But I am concerned about -- THE COURT: Well, then it could be amended to do that. I mean, there's many ways this could be. We're not -- I'm not going to kick this, and I'm not suggesting you're saying kick, so let me just use a better word --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 18 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
18 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MS. FORNOS:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- but this -- the last hearing we |\n| 3 | had, if my memory is correct, and I believe I asked you this |\n| 4 | -- I know I asked you the question, but I might not know -- |\n| 5 | remember the exact words -- I asked you if you had any |\n| 6 | quarrel with what Attorney Bassett said about the process |\n| 7 | that had occurred with you being the counsel and Attorney |\n| 8 | Bassett regarding production under the subpoena, including |\n| 9 | going back to a period of time -- and I don't have it in |\n| 10 | front of me, but the two of you will remind me -- |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
It was Attorney Luft at that time, |\n| 12 | Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Oh, Attorney Luft.
Okay.
That's |\n| 14 | right.
It wasn't Attorney Bassett.
It was Attorney Luft. |\n| 15 | -- that you were involved in this issue with the |\n| 16 | subpoena back I believe the representation was in December |\n| 17 | of 2022, and maybe even earlier, and there was this -- there |\n| 18 | was a representation made that, you know, there will be no |\n| 19 | production made at all back as far as December. |\n| 20 | Now, I understand that for reasons that I don't |\n| 21 | think are in the record of this case yet, but maybe they |\n| 22 | are, there's quite a few things in this case, so it's not |\n| 23 | always easy to remember everything that's occurred, the |\n| 24 | officers and directors of your client departed. |\n| 25 | And now as of June 1st this FFP, which sounds like |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 19 it's, you know, a professional organization to come in and manage companies when necessary -- MS. FORNOS: It is. THE COURT: -- has produced 300 documents. That's what I've heard. And that's a good start, but that's not where we should be as of now. We had a hearing on June 6th. It's June 27th. And I'm sure you did, but I suggested to you that your client needed to understand the seriousness of this issue. And 300 documents in 21 days to me is not -- I would have expected more than that, okay, especially given the fact that there's a pending motion to compel, which could then turn into a contempt order ultimately if the motion to compel is granted, and so I expected to see more of a production than 300 documents at this point. What I'm hearing you say today, and I understand it, it seems to me that, and I'd like you to correct me for the record, that the biggest issue you see is this membership information. Okay. So if you've only -- if you've produced 300 documents, and I think you said that they were documents with regard to the corporate structure or the corporate creation assets that the corporation owns, loan documents, I would think there would be more than 300 documents with regard to just the loan documents.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 19 of 93\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 20 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 20 But if your -- if your biggest issue and your -- and it sounds like maybe, and I could be wrong, your only issue is this membership information, then I think there's absolutely ways that can be addressed. And it can be addressed now and it can be addressed in less than 60 days. I don't think your client is entitled to 60 days at this point. I already provided additional time by setting a new deadline for you to file your response, which you did and I appreciate, but I don't think 300 documents is what I was thinking we would be discussing today. MS. FORNOS: Understood, Your Honor. The Court has it correct. I think the issue here is that we have more to produce. We are working towards that production. But FFP needs time. And if the Court thinks -- THE COURT: To do what? MS. FORNOS: To review. To ensure that they understand what's being produced. Your Honor -- THE COURT: Well, you're going to tell them that. You're going to counsel them on that, Counsel. That's what you're doing, right? You're not letting them blindly go through those documents. MS. FORNOS: No. But they still need time.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 21 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 21 And if the Court will indulge me, this is not the only issue that they have on their plate. There are a lot of things they're trying to address and we just need time. We respect -- we understand the Court's position. And candidly we truly appreciate the Trustee's frustration as well. But we just need a little bit of time to continue produce what we're producing. On the -- on the issue of where we object, the membership information is also contained in our bank statements because the deposits show the membership information. What we have objected to is this wholesale you get to have everything, there's basically no limit, there's restraint to the Trustee. THE COURT: But what if they subpoena the bank? Did they subpoena the banks? MS. FORNOS: If they did, I'm not aware of it. THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: But they can certainly do that. That's their prerogative. But at -- and I'm sure they're working with other counsel to do that. But the issue we are asking for is time. And if the Court wants to, for example, adjourn the hearing so that we can come back to you and we can -- you could see the progress that's been made and the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 22 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
22 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | production, and actually whittle down what's left to really |\n| 2 | fight about, we're amenable to that as well.
We just need |\n| 3 | time.
And that's -- I'm asking that on behalf of -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
No.
I understand. |\n| 5 | MS. FORNOS:
-- the independent manager. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
And I think the only -- well, one of |\n| 7 | the thoughts or concerns I have with that request is that |\n| 8 | was what was asked on June 6th for 60 days.
Now we're at |\n| 9 | June 27th and we're asking for another 60 days, you're |\n| 10 | asking for an additional 60 days.
So we're not -- we're not |\n| 11 | progressing, we're extending. |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, could I be heard on the |\n| 13 | timing issue further, please? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 15 | MR. BASSETT:
So I just -- it's critically |\n| 16 | important that some of the information we put in our reply |\n| 17 | brief is not lost on the Court because I think it goes a |\n| 18 | long ways to explain why we are extraordinarily concerned, |\n| 19 | extraordinarily skeptical, about the suggestion that all we |\n| 20 | need is more time. |\n| 21 | And whether it's working out an issue with regard |\n| 22 | to whether certain information about membership interests is |\n| 23 | confidential and how we're going to sort through that, as |\n| 24 | you said, they've only produced 300 documents. |\n| 25 | Obviously this is an organization that's engaged |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 23 in any legitimate business. They have way more than 300 documents to produce. So there's a lot more that needs to be done. We've been at this for over six months. Counsel has been involved from the beginning. She's now saying, well, there's this new organization in place that's acting as independent manager. But we are absolutely not even close to comfortable that all of a sudden we're going to get compliance with our subpoena and that there's not going to be spoliation of materials or things happening in the background while we're trying to get discovery and that is what I wanted to briefly walk the Court through which is in our reply brief. As I think we've explained previously, the premise of so many of the objections that you're hearing from counsel is that there's really no connection between G Club and the debtor. Your Honor, in the criminal indictment, the Government alleged that G Club is quote, \"Functionally owned and controlled by Ho Wan Kwok.\" That blows their scope objection out of the water. That is way more than enough for 2004 purposes for us to get documents from G Club related to their operations, finances, source of funding, et cetera, way more than crossing that threshold. Case 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 23 of 93\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 24 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 24 But what gets really, really troubling is the fact that during this entire prolonged meet and confer process, where we were getting the runaround, we were being told at one point, as Mr. Luft described to the Court the last time we were here, that they were so offended by the suggestion that there was a connection between the debtor and G Club that they were just not going to produce documents at all. While we were getting those responses from them, what we've come to learn from information filed in the criminal case there were allegations that in January and March of 2023, this is in the memorandum that we cite at Exhibit 8 to our reply brief, January and March of 2023, two individuals affiliated with HCHK spent more than approximately six weeks in the UAE to assist moving the operations and money of G Clubs. January and March of 2023 while we were getting the runaround about getting documents in response to our subpoena. In April of 2023, while we were having our third\n\n meet and confer with counsel for G Club, according to the documents filed by the Government in the criminal case and notes from Yvette Wang that were -- that accompanied that filing in the criminal case, Ms. Wang directed a G Club employee to remove \\$7.1 million in G Club checks from a G Club P.O. box. April 2023. These are all allegations -- THE COURT: Hold on a second.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 25 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 25 MR. BASSETT: -- in the criminal indictment. THE COURT: Just tell me where -- what you just said again. Ms. Wang did what on what date? According to this brief by the Government. MR. BASSETT: Right. So what we say in our -- THE COURT: Is that what you're telling me? MR. BASSETT: So what we say in our reply brief, Your Honor, at paragraph -- at paragraph 10, and this is in the -- THE COURT: But I want to go directly to your source, right? MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: What's your source? Your source is the -- a brief? MR. BASSETT: Exhibit B to our reply brief, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Give me a moment to -- MR. BASSETT: (Indiscernible) declaration attached to? THE COURT: Give me a moment to get there, please. All right. I'm starting on the first page of Exhibit B, this Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yvette Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release. What page do you want me to go to?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 26 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
26 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
My colleague is getting my copy of |\n| 2 | the document, but it's -- according to our reply brief it's |\n| 3 | at pages 37 and 38. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Of the Government's brief, right? |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
That's right. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
All right.
Hold on.
There's a lot of |\n| 7 | different stamps on the top of this, so it's a little hard |\n| 8 | to follow, but we'll get there. |\n| 9 | Am I supposed to be looking at the transcript of |\n| 10 | the proceeding? |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
No.
It's the memorandum that the |\n| 12 | Government filed. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
The memorandum.
Okay. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Yeah.
It's regarding the continued |\n| 15 | detention of Yvette Wang. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Right.
So I've got the memorandum. |\n| 17 | And it says it's 42 pages. |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
And it starts on page 34 of the PDF, |\n| 19 | 34 of 242. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Right.
So what page am I going to? |\n| 21 | Thirty-eight?
Thirty-seven and eight of 242, is that what |\n| 22 | you're saying? |\n| 23 | MR. BASSETT:
That's what I'm saying, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So this is the Government |\n| 25 | saying that, okay, that Wang played a key role in the |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 27 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
27 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | sprawling and complex fraud spearheaded by Ho Wan Kwok. |\n| 2 | Okay.
And then it said the fraud's relied on at least four |\n| 3 | interrelated parts, the GTV Media Group Private Placement, |\n| 4 | the Farm Loan Program, G Club Operations, LLC and Himalaya |\n| 5 | Exchange. |\n| 6 | Is that what you're talking about? |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
That's right, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | And the particular language that we referenced in |\n| 9 | our reply brief that I was referring the Court to is at the |\n| 10 | bottom of page 37 where it talks about -- it's in the middle |\n| 11 | of the second paragraph on page 37 -- for example, as shown |\n| 12 | in the images below, the task dated April 11th, 2023, and it |\n| 13 | goes on to talk about what Wang directed an unnamed |\n| 14 | participant -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Wait.
Wait.
I'm not following where |\n| 16 | the line says per the images below.
I'm on page -- |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
Page 37. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
-- of two -- of 242? |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:
Page 37 at the bottom, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | I apologize.
I can't see -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
So page 37 of the brief? |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes.
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | I guess it's 73 of 242 if you look at the PDF. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That will help because I don't |\n| 25 | have page numbers, so.
Seventy-two? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 28 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 28 MR. BASSETT: Seventy-three of 242. THE COURT: Seventy-three. MR. BASSETT: And it's the second paragraph starting with on June 13th, 2023. THE COURT: Okay. There I am. Okay. I've got you. MR. BASSETT: Right. THE COURT: So your now saying I'm looking at page 73 of 242 of your reply to the -- MR. BASSETT: To Exhibit B. To Exhibit B to our reply. THE COURT: Right. MR. BASSETT: Exhibit B -- THE COURT: Exhibit B to your reply. MR. BASSETT: -- being the memorandum filed by the Government. THE COURT: And you're pointing me to a paragraph that starts on June 15, 2023 pursuant to a judicially authorized search warrant? MR. BASSETT: That's correct. THE COURT: The Government seized documents on electronic devices from CC-1. Preliminary review of the contents of the notebook recovered from CC-1, which is in Mandarin and English, reflects that CC-1 was in communication with Wang and engaged in extensive tasks at\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 29 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 29 the direction of Kwok, Wang and other co-conspirators since Wang's arrest and detention. For example, as shown in the images below, a task dated April 11, 2023 reflects that Wang directed CC to provide her with information relating to the operations of the Kwok-controlled businesses. And then there's an image. It says checklist April 11, 2023, Yvette wants a, and then there is characters that are Mandarin I assume, CC's notebook entries similarly reflect information requested by boss and what appears to be a detailed tracking of finances and other operations of various fraud instrumentalities. MR. BASSETT: Yeah. THE COURT: And then it goes on about as to the -- as relevant to the 7.1 million G Club checks in the P.O. box, a notebook entry dated April 18, 2023 references locating Employee-1, i.e., a G Club's employee who had traveled to the UAE in 2023. See super at 25. Employee-1 was in physical -- was in possession of a physical key to the P.O. box. The notebook entry shown below in a redacted form reads in sum and substance and as in formally translated. So I'm looking at an image that has mostly Mandarin characters I believe, but in English the word mailbox, right? That's what I'm looking at?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 30 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
30 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
And then it says Employee-1 have HR, |\n| 3 | i.e., Human Resources locate.
Tell HR to locate Employee-1, |\n| 4 | get the check in the N.Y. mailbox.
HR to locate Employee-1. |\n| 5 | Cherry Blossom authorized Employee-1 to give the check to |\n| 6 | 3C, i.e., 3 Columbus Circle where HCHK offices are located. |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
That's right. |\n| 8 | And that next -- that next line is kind of the |\n| 9 | critical one that I -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
From additional evidence the |\n| 11 | Government has collected it is clear that Wang instructed |\n| 12 | CC-1 to secure the checks located in the N.Y. mailbox, i.e., |\n| 13 | the G Club's P.O. box in Manhattan. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
And the point there being, Your |\n| 15 | Honor, this is while we were in the midst of our obviously, |\n| 16 | you know, well-reasoned investigation of G Club.
Obviously |\n| 17 | we were pursuing these documents because we wanted to |\n| 18 | explore exactly this type of connection and get information |\n| 19 | regarding G Club's assets, the exact types of things that |\n| 20 | are being talked about in this indictment. |\n| 21 | To the extent that G Clubs had money in an |\n| 22 | account, checks in a mailbox, all these types of things, |\n| 23 | obviously, that's why we were not only pursuing our |\n| 24 | investigation under 2004 of G Club, but we were trying to do |\n| 25 | so as quickly as possible to make sure that information |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 31 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 31\n\nwouldn't go stale.\n\n And the entire time we are being told we're not going to give you the documents. We're so offended you would suggest that there's a connection between G Club and the debtor. We're just -- we're not going to cooperate. But now an independent manager's going to be appointed.\n\n The entire time we were getting this constant runaround and delay it now comes to light, based on the Government's very detailed allegations in the papers that it's filed in the criminal case to seek Ms. Wang's further confinement, that things were happening in the background. G Club's assets were potentially being dissipated, all while we were trying to get these documents.\n\n So I don't think I need to really explain why at this juncture the Trustee does not have an appetite for a further 60 days.\n\n THE COURT: This was the brief that was submitted by the Government at a continued bail hearing for Ms. Wang, is that correct?\n\n MR. BASSETT: Yeah. She sought to be released and the Government opposed it. This is --\n\n THE COURT: And what did the Court do? MR. BASSETT: No ruling yet. THE COURT: No ruling on whether she is -- can be released? This pretrial release. So she wants to be\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 32 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 32 released from pretrial detaining, is that right? MR. BASSETT: That's correct. As far as we understand, there has been -- there has been no ruling. And obviously we're dealing in a world of allegations. We're not -- I think that's part of the problem. It's the idea that in order to obtain discovery we first need to prove a connection or prove something. It's completely backwards. It's like saying in order to get discovery in a litigation you have to file your complaint and win and then you get discovery. That's completely backwards. I mean, there was a mountain of credible allegations pointing to G Club's being a mere instrumentality of the debtor and certainly have an extensive connection to him and the fraud he is alleged to have engaged in based on the criminal case in New York. So there's -- if there was ever an entity within this orbit of shell companies of Mr. Kwok's that was ripe for investigation of a 2004 by the Trustee, without limit to particular categories of assets or documents, its G Clubs. And that's what we've been trying to get for six months now. THE COURT: Okay. Anything further, Mr. Bassett, at the moment? MR. BASSETT: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 33 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
33 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Would you like to respond? |\n| 2 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | Because what Mr. Bassett has highlighted I don't - |\n| 4 | - want to make sure the record is perfectly clear relates to |\n| 5 | a detention matter that is presently before the Court in the |\n| 6 | Southern District.
And the Trustee candidly would not have |\n| 7 | known this, but Friday afternoon her lawyers asked for more |\n| 8 | time to address all of this because this was new information |\n| 9 | for them. |\n| 10 | So I can't comment on the allegations, the |\n| 11 | criminal allegations that are being made that relate to a |\n| 12 | defendant.
It's not my place to comment on that. |\n| 13 | We simply come back with a simple point that the |\n| 14 | independent manager which has a fiduciary duty to the |\n| 15 | company is working to produce the documents that we need. |\n| 16 | I do object to any allegation or aspersion that I |\n| 17 | somehow in part of discussing this was -- or that G Club was |\n| 18 | enabling Ms. Wang to do whatever she allegedly was supposed |\n| 19 | to be doing from -- from prison. |\n| 20 | In April the management of G Club was no longer in |\n| 21 | place, period.
FFP is now aware, and as a result of the |\n| 22 | filing which was just last week, they're going to track down |\n| 23 | and find out what's going on with the P.O. box. |\n| 24 | Candidly, Your Honor, that's a matter that G Club |\n| 25 | needs to take up with the U.S. Government and will likely do |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 34 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 34 so, but this is not an issue for the motion to compel and the time frame that we are asking to comply. We simply want a reasonable time to continue to produce documents and hopefully moot more hearings on this. THE COURT: Is there anything further you'd like to add for the record? MS. FORNOS: Just, Your Honor, that if the Court would like to issue an order for 60 days as of June 6th when I first requested the 60 days, the Court's point was clear, we are certainly amenable to 60 days from June 6th. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MS. FORNOS: Thank you. THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Bassett? MR. BASSETT: I don't believe so, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. With regard to the Trustee's motion to compel compliance with Rule 2004 subpoena ECF No. 1805 as it relates to G Club Operations, LLC, and with regard to the objection to the motion to compel and related relief filed on behalf of G Club Operations, LLC, and the reply filed by the Chapter 11 Trustee, the Court has heard argument on these -- on the underlying motion, 1805, at a prior hearing, and now has reviewed the documents filed that the Court ordered the parties to file after that hearing on June 6th, and now has looked at some of the information that was filed\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 35 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
35 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | by the Trustee on Friday, June 23rd, and -- the Court will |\n| 2 | take the matter under advisement, although it is likely that |\n| 3 | a ruling will be issued before the end of this week. |\n| 4 | Okay.
So that concludes 1805 for this afternoon. |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | MS. FORNOS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 8 | So with regard to the other matters on at 11 a.m., |\n| 9 | Trustee Despins, are we at a position to talk about a |\n| 10 | consent order or are we moving toward the sale?
How are we |\n| 11 | proceeding? |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
If we could, with your permission, |\n| 13 | proceed with the interpleader -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
-- I believe that counsel for the |\n| 16 | escrow agent has filed on the docket a proposed order.
I |\n| 17 | don't know the docket number. |\n| 18 | MS. WILLIAMS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | Latonia Williams, for the record again, of Shipman & |\n| 20 | Goodwin, LLP on behalf of U.S. Bank as escrow agent. |\n| 21 | Yes, that is correct.
So the parties have all |\n| 22 | agreed to the consent order that has been entered on the |\n| 23 | docket as docket item number 38. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I see.
I haven't opened it yet, but I |\n| 25 | see that it was filed.
Thank you.
I'll take a look at it. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 36 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 36 (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. It says it's a consent order, but I don't see anybody consenting. I mean, I want to know who's consenting to this order either by saying affirmatively that the parties consent -- oh, I'm sorry, it's at the -- it didn't say -- here it is, page 2. And with the consent of the parties to this adversary proceeding namely the escrow agent HK, the Committee and the Trustee. Now, what's HK? Who's HK? Are we talking -- it's just HK Funds Investments (USA), not Ms. Guo, correct? Oh, it's not -- I don't think that's Attorney Williams' answer -- question to answer. MR. KINDSETH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's the whole point. They're in the middle. MR. KINDSETH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stephen Kindseth, for the record, for HK USA and Ms. Guo. That is correct. It is HK that is the party to the escrow agreement that is consenting to the relief set forth in this order. THE COURT: I'm looking at some documents so that I make sure I understand this. (Pause) THE COURT: So if this stipulated order, Trustee\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 37 Despins, is -- or consent order is entered, then this adversary proceeding should be closed, correct? Why would it remain open? The funds are going to be -- going to be turned over to you to be held in a trustee account. So what would be the purpose of keeping this adversary proceeding open? MR. DESPINS: Because it is the view of the -- of Mei Guo and HK that they're doing this as an accommodation to the Trustee to invest the funds, but they're not conceding that we can have the funds, and they want to rely on the terms of the escrow agreement to argue the point. So that issue remains -- THE COURT: Well, Mei Guo isn't a party in this adversary proceeding, nor is she a party to the escrow agreement. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Well, again, it's hard for me to explain their position, but their position is that HK International, although we think we should be controlling it, but their point is that they want to maintain that the escrow agreement continues to govern -- THE COURT: Well, they've done that through an appeal of the second counterclaim, haven't they? MR. DESPINS: You know what? I shouldn't be arguing this because I agree with you. THE COURT: No. But I don't understand why this\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 37 of 93\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 38 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 38 adversary proceeding needs to be open, Mr. Kindseth. If you're agreeing to this consent order, then why does this adversary proceeding need to remain open? It's an interpleader action. It's been resolved by the -- by the monies being removed from escrow and being placed in the possession and control of the Trustee. MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor, an interpleading -- interpleader action actually has two phases. The first phase is with respect to the escrow party who seeks to complete that party's obligations by depositing those funds with the Registry of the Court. THE COURT: But that's not happening. MR. KINDSETH: Actually, correct. But the way we're trying to resolve this, and if we can't resolve it this way, so be it, we won't resolve it this way -- THE COURT: I didn't say you couldn't. I'm asking a question. MR. KINDSETH: Okay. THE COURT: Why does this adversary proceeding need to remain open? MR. KINDSETH: For the second phase, Your Honor. THE COURT: What second phase? MR. KINDSETH: All interpleader actions have two phases.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 39 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 39 The first is with -- THE COURT: Not if they're resolved, they don't. MR. KINDSETH: Actually, the first phase of the interpleader action is for the escrow agent to deposit the funds with the Registry. THE COURT: Not -- MR. KINDSETH: What this consent order does, Your Honor, if I may be heard please, what this consent -- THE COURT: You may be heard, Counsel, but I can ask questions. So you need to be respectful of the Court. So go right ahead. MR. KINDSETH: I'm trying to answer the question, Your Honor. And I apologize that I'm not doing so, but I would like to try. An interpleader action inherently has two phases. The first phase is what to do with the escrow agent. And the second is what to do with the funds. And what we're agreeing, as an accommodation to the Trustee, is to permit the Trustee to have the funds held by the estate and the Trustee and permitting those funds to be invested. And what the consent order provides is that vis-a- vis the Court in the interpleader action it will be treated as though it is in the Registry of the Court and, therefore, our rights as to the second phase of the interpleader action\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 40 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 40\n\nare not being defeated.\n\n The second phase of the interpleader is where the parties interplead, meaning assert claims against each other with respect to what happens with those funds. And, in fact, the Trustee has done that in terms of filing the -- his answer and also filing the motion for summary judgment.\n\n So the motion for summary judgment is the Trustee's argument as to phase two of the interpleader action as to what should happen with the funds.\n\n Our argument in response is going to be that the escrow agreement specifically required that although the Court could enter a judgment with respect to the property of, whether it is property of the estate, the escrow funds.\n\n The escrow agreement, which this court authorized and ordered as part of the stipulated order, specifically required that such bankruptcy order shall be final and no longer appealable.\n\n And so our argument in phase two in opposition to the Trustee's motion for summary judgment will be that the escrow agreement, as authorized by this court, governs the proceeds in escrow and requires a final and no longer appealable order in order for their disbursement, and so we're simply dealing with by agreement phase one of the interpleader action.\n\nAnd now on an expedited basis I may add the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 41 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 41 summary judgment motion can be heard. Our brief is due I believe either July 5th or 7th and the hearing is scheduled I believe for July 12th which is the second aspect of the interpleader action. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: There are many provisions in the stipulated order that relate to the escrow agreement that the HK parties have not abided by as well, Counsel. And when you say we are agreeing, who's we? MR. KINDSETH: I apologize. I meant HK. THE COURT: HK. MR. KINDSETH: You're right. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Bassett or Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. I just want to talk about paragraph 2, that's the paragraph that allows the Trustee to invest the money in treasury securities. There are ghosts, what I refer to as ghosts, in there that we need to fix. There are references to a term called custodial accounts which is -- was in the prior draft, should not be there again. And we -- because the new language should be in treasury securities and not in the custodial account, so we need to fix that. And I want to tell Your Honor about the background Case 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 42 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 42 of this. It's that we wanted to invest this in treasury securities and deposit the treasury securities in a custodial account at a financial institution. The U.S. Trustee had concerns about that approach and said that their experience is that other trustees or other debtors in possession that have a lot of cash go and buy treasury securities directly from the Treasury so we put that in that order relying on that. We hope that we can do that. And apparently you can buy it in traunches of up to \\$10 million. If we're able to do that, the order will work fine. If that doesn't work, we'll need to come back to the Court and modify this so that we, in fact, can have a broker buy the securities, transfer it to a custodial account. But hopefully we won't have to deal with that issue because we can buy the treasury securities at a high interest rate directly from the Treasury, which accomplishes our goal of maximizing returns to the estate. We're talking about potentially a million plus a year here in interest. So I wanted to mention that. So, one, we need to fix, in paragraph 2, the references to custodial account should be removed. And other than that I think that that -- so we would need to file a supplemental order to reflect those deletions. Other than that I think, Your Honor, we would be\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 43 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
43 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | done with this.
Thank you. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Attorney Williams? |\n| 3 | MS. WILLIAMS:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Again for |\n| 4 | the record, Latonia Williams of Shipman & Goodwin on behalf |\n| 5 | of U.S. Bank as escrow agent. |\n| 6 | Your Honor, thank you for indulging all of the |\n| 7 | parties.
We worked really hard to try to get a consent |\n| 8 | order together in advance of appearing before Your Honor. |\n| 9 | And I think because of that there were items that we need to |\n| 10 | address.
I think that that's something that we can do very |\n| 11 | quickly. |\n| 12 | What I would propose is that my office can |\n| 13 | circulate an amended version of the consent order to all of |\n| 14 | the parties to the interpleader action.
And hopefully this |\n| 15 | afternoon we can get any typos or items that we need to |\n| 16 | clear up cleared up and then submit it again to the Court. |\n| 17 | And we're happy to do that either in the context |\n| 18 | of filing another supplemental docket reflecting the consent |\n| 19 | order on the docket, or if the Court would prefer we can |\n| 20 | also submit it directly to chambers CC'ing all of the |\n| 21 | parties on the email, whichever one. |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
But if I may, I want to make sure |\n| 23 | that the only issue that's been identified is the use of the |\n| 24 | term custodial account that should be removed. |\n| 25 | But are there other issues other than that? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 44 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 44 MS. WILLIAMS: Not that I am aware of. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: I think that we did was we filed the document that had been circulated amongst the parties -- MR. DESPINS: Okay. MS. WILLIAMS: -- and that just was missed in the process probably. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: Yeah. Just give me one moment. I understood what you said. Thank you. I'm just -- as you noted, this document was filed while we were in court so I haven't had the opportunity to fully read it and make sure that I understand it fully which is why questions were asked. (Pause) THE COURT: So this order says that the, and I understand why, that the escrow agent is dismissed from the action. So then who's the plaintiff? We have two defendants against each other, that's what we're -- that's what this is going to be? MR. DESPINS: I think so, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Attorney Williams, if you would please do as you suggest which is submit the revised proposed order to all parties through email or however you'd\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 45 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 45 like to do that. And then since it appears that the changes are very minimal, you don't have to docket the order again. You can submit it to the courtroom deputy email box, the Bridgeport Courtroom Deputy Email Box which is kind of a generic email address. And it's on the website somewhere. I'm looking at the courtroom deputy. Just give me a little help there where it is so that it's easily -- we tried it to make it more prominent, but I don't know if it is or not. MR. DESPINS: We can provide it, Your Honor. It shouldn't be a problem. THE COURT: Okay. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. We'll take care of that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Then with regard to the motion to deposit funds into the Registry of the Court and to discharge the plaintiff from the interpleader action, ECF 19, that matter is resolved by consent order which will be substantially in the form of a consent order that was filed on the docket today at ECF No. 38 at 12:09 p.m. The parties will submit a revised consent order in the manner just discussed on the record. And once that consent order is submitted it will be signed and entered in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 46 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 46 the adversary proceeding. So that resolves the motion to deposit the funds in to the Registry of the Court, ECF No. 19. So are we now moving on to the sale, Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. I believe that there is an agreement on an amendment to the proposed order. And of course, Your Honor, you'll decide how you want to proceed. But the amendment is not too long. But you may want to -- we haven't -- we haven't docketed that order yet, so you may want to take time to review that and then we reconvene at your convenience. It would be a much shortened hearing I expect in light of that proposed amendment to the order. THE COURT: So there's no opposition to the -- there's no longer any opposition to the sale? MR. DESPINS: Well, subject to that modification being made, there would be -- there are two -- four pro se people that have filed objection, but I don't think -- I think they were confused about, you know, I think their thinking is that it's a private sale orchestrated or for the benefit of Mr. Kwok, but of course that's not what's happening. So those objections would remain outstanding, but I don't believe they would be problematic.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 47 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
47 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | But there would still be a need for short |\n| 2 | testimony to make sure we have a record of good faith, fair |\n| 3 | market value, et cetera, and that shouldn't be too long. |\n| 4 | Because it wouldn't be -- there would no longer be the issue |\n| 5 | of motion to quash a subpoena.
That issue would go away. |\n| 6 | And we understand that subject to the order being |\n| 7 | satisfactory to Your Honor that the HK parties would not |\n| 8 | cross-examine witnesses or oppose the release. |\n| 9 | I think it's probably important for you to look at |\n| 10 | the order to make sure you're comfortable with it. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
The order that you're going to file |\n| 12 | that you haven't filed yet? |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah.
Correct.
But I think -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
When is that going to be filed? |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
In less than ten minutes, Your |\n| 16 | Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, then -- |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
Shall we email it to the courtroom |\n| 19 | deputy, is that the best way, or -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
That will be faster. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
The proposed order that was already |\n| 23 | submitted -- |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
The one attached to the reply? |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Right.
-- has extensive findings and |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 48 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
48 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | conclusions of law, which is fine, but that record's going |\n| 2 | to need to be made in some way, shape or form. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor.
That's why there |\n| 4 | will be testimony, but we don't expect it to be the same |\n| 5 | process that if the HK parties opposed. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
So how -- I'm going to need to read |\n| 7 | this order.
So if we take a recess until 2:00 p.m. is that |\n| 8 | too long for you, Trustee Despins, or is that workable? |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
I think that's fine, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So I'm looking at you and |\n| 11 | you're saying that probably within the next 10 to 15 minutes |\n| 12 | the courtroom deputy is going to receive an order in the |\n| 13 | courtroom deputy box that you'll show me so we can look at |\n| 14 | it and come back -- before we come back out at 2 p.m.? |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah.
It should be five minutes, |\n| 16 | Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Then court is in |\n| 18 | recess until 2 p.m. |\n| 19 | (Proceedings recessed at 1:15 p.m.) |\n| 20 | (Proceedings resumed at 2:24 p.m.) |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
(Delay in start of audio) the Lady |\n| 22 | May. |\n| 23 | And then when we were about to come out, Trustee |\n| 24 | Despins, I was told there was a second order with other |\n| 25 | revisions, is that accurate? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 49 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 49 MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Did you get a chance -- THE COURT: So paragraph 9 was revised again? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's the only paragraph that was revised again? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. If I -- I can take the Court through or the intent of the changes if you -- THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. DESPINS: Okay. It was just to make clear that the HK parties rights, if they ever prevail on appeal, final and non-appealable order, will apply to the proceeds of the Lady May but also to estate assets to the extent the proceeds from the Lady May have been used. And before that it used to say that they had or that any claim, interest or encumbrances would apply to the proceeds of the sale and the debtor's estate. And we modified that to provide that that's only in the event that they get a final, non-appealable order to satisfy their claims. So, for example, if we spend the entire 22 million, I guess that will be the net proceeds we would receive, and -- but we have other estate assets, there's no\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 50 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 50 need for professionals to disgorge any funds because there's estate assets to make them whole. Again, to be clear, this only applies if they get a final, non-appealable order that says that they own the Lady May. So this was -- THE COURT: When you say they? MR. DESPINS: The HK parties. THE COURT: Well, isn't the -- MR. DESPINS: HK USA -- THE COURT: HK USA is the only party that's ever asserted that they own the Lady May in this -- in this court. Isn't it? MR. DESPINS: I think that's correct, but -- THE COURT: That's what the whole adversary proceeding -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: -- was about. MR. DESPINS: No. You're right. THE COURT: That's the complaint that started the adversary proceeding in April of 2022, a declaration. They wanted a declaratory judgment that they owned the Lady May. MR. DESPINS: That HK USA owned it. THE COURT: That HK USA, not Mei Guo. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. So, again, I'm -- THE COURT: So why is Mei Guo in there?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 51 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 51 MR. DESPINS: I'm not in a position to defend Mr. Kindseth's position so I'll let him address this. THE COURT: Well, are you agreeing to that? MR. DESPINS: I frankly -- I think Your Honor is correct that Mei Guo is not, has never -- has never argued that she owns the Lady May, so you're probably correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Kindseth? MR. KINDSETH: Yes. I don't have the adversary proceeding before me. I think that -- THE COURT: We can pull it up. MR. KINDSETH: I think that -- THE COURT: It will take us three seconds. You filed the complaint and it's a declaratory judgment. I can read you the first paragraph that HK USA owned the Lady May which was filed to stop the relief from stay motion of PAX back in March of 2022. There's no allegation in that complaint that Mei Guo owned the Lady May. So I don't understand why I would enter an order that says that if HK and/or Mei Guo are entitled to receive payment from the proceeds or the debtor, and/or the debtor's estate, to the extent such finally determined -- of such finally determined interest. The only interest that's been sought to be\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 52 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 52 determined in this court, both through your complaint and the counterclaim on which summary judgment was entered, was whether or not HK USA owned the Lady May in connection with your complaint. And in connection with the counterclaim asserted by the Trustee in the first counterclaim was whether or not collateral estoppel would apply to the finding of Justice Ostrager that Mr. Kwok was the beneficial owner of the Lady May. That's it. There's no mention of Mei Guo in the first counterclaim or in your complaint. So if you two want to talk about that I'm happy to give you a few minutes, but I don't understand why I would enter an order that says what that -- in the middle of paragraph 9 says. I don't know why the HK parties are defined as HK USA and Mei Guo, and/or Mei Guo I should say. That's what it says. And/or. Doesn't even say and. It says and/or. There's nothing in the record of this case that would support that so I'm not sure why I would enter that language in this order. Do you want a few minutes to discuss it? MR. KINDSETH: We would not need that. Thank you for confirming, Your Honor. We can take Mei Guo out of the proposed language.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 53 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 53 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Then that line will say in the event of final and no longer appealable order enters determining that the Lady May and/or its proceeds are property of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, HK USA. Take and delete together with HK USA, the HK parties, in which case HK USA shall be entitled to receive payment from the proceeds and/or the debtor's estate to the extent of such finally determined interests. And then again three lines down satisfy HK USA. Does anybody have any issue with that? MR. KINDSETH: No issue with that. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Trustee Despins, you now are going to present evidence in support of the findings of fact and conclusions of law you'd like the Court to make in connection with the sale motion? MR. DESPINS: Yes. Mr. Bassett will handle that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Please proceed. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. So, Your Honor, to preview for the Court the evidence that the Trustee intends to introduce, we have some exhibits which have been filed on the docket as part of a witness and exhibit list at ECF 1930.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 54 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 54 And then I anticipate that we will have two witnesses who will testify. We will first have Dirk Johnson from Edmiston, the broker, who was retained by the Trustee with the approval of the Court to assist with the sale. He submitted a declaration along with the sale motion which is also at Exhibit 26 in the witness and exhibit list that I mentioned at ECF 1930. We would propose to have Mr. Johnson adopt his declaration as his direct testimony, obviously subject to any objections that anyone may have. And Mr. Johnson is in the courtroom in order to answer any questions that the Court may have. I don't anticipate that there would be cross- examination, but he also would be available for that as well. And then we would have the Trustee take the stand for some relatively brief testimony as well. That's sort of the roadmap. And I'm happy to start with the -- with the exhibits if that pleases the Court. THE COURT: Well, I want to make sure that no one has any objection to your proposed process to proceed. Okay? Does anyone have any objection to Attorney\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 55 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
55 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Bassett's proposal of how he's going to proceed with |\n| 2 | evidence in this matter? |\n| 3 | (No response) |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
All right.
Hearing no objection, then |\n| 5 | go right ahead, Attorney Bassett. |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, very much, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | So as I mentioned the witness and exhibit list |\n| 8 | that we submitted is at ECF 1930.
Exhibit B to that |\n| 9 | document is the exhibit list.
I believe the exhibits |\n| 10 | themselves have also been filed on the docket.
In fact, I |\n| 11 | am confirming that they have, but -- because the copies that |\n| 12 | I'm looking at have Bates or have ECF stamps at the top. |\n| 13 | And the list consists of Exhibits 1 through 28. |\n| 14 | These exhibits I would say generally fall into three |\n| 15 | categories. |\n| 16 | Exhibits 1 through 14 are online internet listings |\n| 17 | and other documents evidencing Edmiston's marketing efforts |\n| 18 | for the Lady May demonstrating what they did to attract |\n| 19 | interest in the sale process, including, as I said, online |\n| 20 | advertising, their social media posts, et cetera.
Those are |\n| 21 | Exhibits 1 through 12.
Exhibit 13 is a sample email of the |\n| 22 | type of outreach that was made to potential bidders. |\n| 23 | Exhibit 14 is a marketing report prepared by the broker. |\n| 24 | And then after that we get into what I would call |\n| 25 | a kind of second bucket or category of documents on the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 56 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
56 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | exhibit list.
Beginning with Exhibit 15 through Exhibit 25, |\n| 2 | these are the letters of intent or bids that the Trustee |\n| 3 | received from bidders in the sale process.
We have |\n| 4 | identified them with letters to protect their |\n| 5 | confidentiality which was agreed upon with them as part of |\n| 6 | the process. |\n| 7 | After Exhibit 25, Exhibit 26, as I mentioned |\n| 8 | previously, is the declaration of Mr. Johnson. |\n| 9 | And then after that, Your Honor, Exhibits 27 -- |\n| 10 | Exhibits 27 and 28 are the purchase and sale agreement, the |\n| 11 | final purchase and sale agreement, and the addendum to that |\n| 12 | agreement respectively. |\n| 13 | I am happy to talk about any of the exhibits in |\n| 14 | more detail as the Court would like, but at this stage, |\n| 15 | absent objection, I would offer Trustee Exhibits 1 through |\n| 16 | 28 into evidence. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Does anyone have any objection to the |\n| 18 | introduction of Trustee Exhibits 1 through 28 into evidence |\n| 19 | as full exhibits in connection with the motion to sell the |\n| 20 | Lady May? |\n| 21 | (No response) |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Hearing nothing, then Exhibits 1 |\n| 23 | through 28 are admitted in full. |\n| 24 | (Trustee Exhibits 1 through 28 received in evidence as |\n| 25 | full exhibits) |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 57 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 57 THE COURT: Now, Mr. Bassett, you're going to have to point me to what you want me to read. I'm not going to read all 28 of those exhibits. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And with regard to Mr. Johnson's declaration we'll -- when we take that up we'll make sure that no one wants to cross-examine Mr. Johnson. Okay? MR. BASSETT: And with the Court's permission I would actually take that up now. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: And as I said Mr. Johnson is in the courtroom -- THE COURT: Would Mr. Johnson stand up, please. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Bassett's going to make some statements about your declaration and I'm going to ask you if you agree with whatever he's saying. Okay? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Bassett. MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, we -- I'm trying to figure out, I apologize, the most efficient and best way to proceed. We had intended on offering the entire declaration into the record which I would propose to have Mr. Johnson\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 58 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 58 adopt as his testimony. I'm happy to summarize for the Court or point the Court to particular parts of it, in addition -- THE COURT: I think you can summarize. That's fine. MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: Everyone, well, this document, this exhibit has been on the docket. I do think you can summarize. I don't think you need to go through every paragraph. MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: I understand when Mr. Johnson was retained, I mean, we went through his qualifications and his experience, and he being a broker based in Newport where the boat has been -- the yacht has been sold so I don't think we need to go through that. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Understood. So by way of quick summary, then, you're correct, Your Honor, I won't belabor the experience. But Mr. Johnson is with Edmiston. He's been there for two and a half years, 15 years of experience in the industry, as described in paragraph 3 of his declaration. He's involved in -- he has been involved in many, many sales of luxury yachts over the course of his lengthy career. As the Court is aware, he was retained in April of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 59 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 59 2023 by the Trustee to help market and sell the Lady May. The agreed-upon list price at the outset of that engagement for the Lady May was a list price of \\$26,500,000. And I would proffer that Mr. Johnson would testify that there is a strategy in setting a sale price, which is to set a price that you hope will be obviously higher than what you expect to get in order to, you know, follow the concept of if you don't ask you don't receive. Since Mr. Johnson was retained by the Trustee, he immediately embarked upon a marketing process. On the Trustee's behalf, consistent with the practices that he follows in the industry, he began reaching out to potential buyers, both within his own network of people that he knows from his extensive experience in the industry and working with people and selling yachts in the past, as well as reaching out to other brokers in the industry. And then also engaging in an online advertising and marketing campaign, as well as a print advertising and marketing campaign, and that's where I would refer the Court to those exhibits 1 through 12 on the exhibit list that were already admitted into evidence. These are examples of the types of marketing efforts that Mr. Johnson engaged in. And those marketing efforts are described in a bit more detail in narrative fashion in paragraph 7 of his declaration.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 60 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 60 In addition to those marketing efforts, as I said, he emailed many people in his industry of -- in his network of industry brokers. And ultimately the distributions that Edmiston has for marketing purposes for the yacht were sent to approximately 1850 brokers in the yacht industry. As I said it was also -- the yacht was also listed online at websites that are used to market property such as the Lady May. In terms of other marketing, Edmiston is the title sponsor of the London Heliport. He used that platform to market the Lady May to potential buyers. Also did marketing within private aviation terminals that are frequented by the people who have the means to potentially buy a yacht as the Lady May. In paragraph 11, and thereafter as Mr. Johnson would testify there was initially a good amount of interest in the Lady May. There were a handful of potential buyers who requested to be shown the property and, in fact, upon request, were shown the yacht. After that, by May 20th, that's when the Trustee and Mr. Johnson began receiving actual bids. At that time, they received five potential bids with purchase prices of -- sorry, they received at that point five offers for the Lady May with proposed purchase prices ranging from 18 million to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 61 20 million. In response to that, Edmiston at the Trustee's direction countered those bids at \\$23 million. In response to that counter, one of the initial bidders increased its bid to 20 million while the others did not increase their offer. After that what Mr. Johnson would say is that he told the Trustee that he did not think a prolonged marketing process, given the unique nature of this particular market, would be helpful and he recommended and in consultation with the Trustee decided to set a deadline of Tuesday, May 30th at 5 p.m. for interested parties to submit best and final bids. That was communicated to these potential bidders as well as other parties who did not previously make a bid but had expressed interest in the Lady May. That Tuesday, May 30th deadline came. And at that time the Trustee received five bids. I would note that, as Mr. Johnson testifies in his declaration, all of these interested bidders who were informed of the May 30th deadline were given very clear parameters about what the bids would have to look like and what, you know, what qualifications they would have to meet in order to be deemed acceptable. The minimum purchase price, for example, was \\$20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 62 million. There was -- there was a requirement with respect to a 20 percent deposit within 48 hours of the bid being selected as the winning bid. Also importantly there was a form purchase agreement that the Trustee prepared that had to be used for the basis for all the bids. And to the extent there were any modifications those had to be provided in blackline. And also importantly there was a modification to what would be a more typical requirement in the industry that would allow a buyer to walk away following a survey of the yacht after purchase. The Trustee wanted that tweaked to limit the buyer's rights in that regard. So after that email went out with all the those requirements and instructions, five bids, this is paragraph 15 of the declaration, were ultimately received. Three of these five bids exceeded the \\$20 million minimum. Two were below that. It's important to note that during this what I would call the second round of bidding two bidders that were not initial bidders submitted bids, so two other people. But then also not all bidders that participated in the initial round were still interested and submitted a further bid by the May 30th deadline so some of those initial parties had dropped off already. For example, as Mr. Johnson would testify, one of\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 62 of 93\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 63 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
63 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the prior bidders who initially had submitted a bid for 20 |\n| 2 | million said he was not interested in bidding further |\n| 3 | because he did not want to participate in a competitive |\n| 4 | bidding process. |\n| 5 | Once these bids were received on May 30th, the |\n| 6 | Trustee then himself personally engaged in further |\n| 7 | discussions with each of these bidders and employed a |\n| 8 | process that the Trustee believed was designed to leverage |\n| 9 | the most he could out of each potential bidder and hopefully |\n| 10 | generate the best possible sale price. |\n| 11 | One of the bidders who had submitted a bid by the |\n| 12 | May 30th deadline ultimately increased his bid as a result |\n| 13 | of this process deployed by the Trustee to \\$24 million |\n| 14 | thereby becoming the highest bidder.
That individual who is |\n| 15 | Mr. Chambers, the proposed buyer, was ultimately selected as |\n| 16 | the winning bidder. |\n| 17 | The other bidders who were in the process at that |\n| 18 | point, the other two second highest bidders, were notified |\n| 19 | and given an opportunity to submit a further better bid and |\n| 20 | they both declined to do so. |\n| 21 | Mr. Johnson further testifies, this gets into |\n| 22 | paragraph 17 of his declaration and thereafter, that he |\n| 23 | believes the proposed sale to the buyer is the highest -- is |\n| 24 | for the highest and best bid for the Lady May, that is the |\n| 25 | product of an arm's-length bidding and negotiation process, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 64 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
64 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | and that he believes the buyer has proceeded in good faith |\n| 2 | during the entirety of the bidding and negotiation process. |\n| 3 | He further testifies in summary that he believes |\n| 4 | the purchase price offered by the buyer pursuant to the PSA |\n| 5 | is the best available price for the Lady May. |\n| 6 | He also further testifies that he does not believe |\n| 7 | that implementing formal bidding procedures and running a |\n| 8 | public auction process would have increased the price, but |\n| 9 | rather would have risked losing the transaction with the |\n| 10 | buyer and undermining the momentum that had been established |\n| 11 | in the process to date. |\n| 12 | There's further testimony in paragraphs 19 and 20 |\n| 13 | about why he does not think a formal auction process would |\n| 14 | have been beneficial, which is consistent with the remarks |\n| 15 | that are already made in that regard. |\n| 16 | So, again, Your Honor, that is I think perhaps a |\n| 17 | more lengthy summary than you had envisioned of the |\n| 18 | testimony, but that is still indeed just a summary. |\n| 19 | And, again, we would -- we would propose to have |\n| 20 | Mr. Johnson adopt the entirety of this declaration as his |\n| 21 | direct testimony.
Again, obviously subject to questions |\n| 22 | that the Court may have and subject to any cross |\n| 23 | examination. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | Mr. Johnson, were you able to hear Attorney |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 65 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 65 Bassett? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything that Attorney Bassett said that you disagree with? Or is there anything you'd like to add? MR. JOHNSON: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You can have a seat, sir. Does anyone wish to cross-examine Mr. Johnson? (No response) THE COURT: All right. Hearing no response to cross-examination, I agree that the declaration can be adopted as Mr. Johnson's direct testimony. I have no questions with regard to Mr. Johnson's direct testimony. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. At this time, the Trustee would call his next witness which is the Trustee himself. THE COURT: Go right ahead. (The witness is sworn.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Please be seated. State your name and address for the record. THE WITNESS: Luc Despins, 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 66 of 93\n\nLuc Despins - Direct - Bassett 66 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BASSETT: Q Mr. Despins, in addition to serving as the Chapter 11 Trustee, you are a partner in the financial restructuring group of Paul Hastings, is that correct? A That's correct. Q How many years have you been practicing bankruptcy law? A 37 years. Q And during those 37 years of experience have you been involved in overseeing sale processes of Chapter 11 estates in any capacity? A Yes, I have. On dozens of occasions. Q And what kinds of assets? A All sorts of assets. Pipelines, entire companies, such as Fruit of the Loom, software companies or software products, leases for retail properties. There's many -- there are many others that I can't recall, but, you know. Q And what types of roles have you personally performed with respect to those types of asset sales? A I was either debtor's counsel or committee counsel that was working jointly with the debtor selling the asset. Q And you've reviewed the declaration of Mr. Johnson, correct? A I have. Q Is there anything in that declaration that you disagree\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 67 of 93\n\nLuc Despins - Direct - Bassett 67 with? A No. Q Is what he said about the sale and marketing process that occurred with respect to the Lady May, is that all accurate based on your involvement in the process? A It is. Q And, Mr. Despins, can you just describe for the Court what -- how would you describe your involvement in that process in terms of your coordination with Mr. Johnson? A Well, obviously I relied primarily, because I'm not a yacht expert, I rely on the expertise of Edmiston and Mr. Johnson. But when it comes to the actual bidding I wanted to be hands-on and leading that process. Q And based on that process and the way it was described in Mr. Johnson's declaration, and my summary of that, in your view, does the proposed sale to the buyer that resulted from that process maximize value for this Chapter 11 estate? A Absolutely. This really represents the fair market value of this asset. It's been tested not only in the first round, but the second round. But even after the purchase price reduction I contacted the sole remaining bidder that could have been interested, that was the runner-up, to say you understand that you can now buy this asset for more than 23,150,000 and\n\nLuc Despins - Direct - Bassett 68 they declined. So the point is that there's been several market tests. And the fact that there's nobody at the hearing here today saying I want to bid more given the marketing process that was used, you know, tells us that this is the value of this asset. Q And stated differently, would you say that in your view the proposed sale to the buyer represents the highest and best offer for the property? A Absolutely. Q Based on your interactions with the buyer and his representatives throughout the process do you believe the buyer has acted in good faith? A Yes, he has. Q Do you believe that you and your representatives throughout the process have acted in good faith? A Yes, I do. Q Are you aware of any bidding collusion or any other conduct like that that may taint the process that has occurred? A None at all. Q Do you have any understanding of whether or not the buyer is an insider, affiliative, or otherwise connected to the debtor? A He is not. But more than that, we've had him make a Case 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 68 of 93\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 69 of 93\n\n| | Luc Despins - Direct - Bassett
69 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | representation in the purchase agreement that he was not |\n| 2 | connected in any way to Mr. Kwok. |\n| 3 | Q
So as Mr. Johnson testified the buyer ultimately, after |\n| 4 | the submission of bids on May 30th, agreed to pay \\$24 |\n| 5 | million for the yacht.
But then that price was later |\n| 6 | reduced, right? |\n| 7 | A
That's correct. |\n| 8 | Q
So what happened? |\n| 9 | A
Well, the purchase agreement contemplated a survey |\n| 10 | process.
We knew this, had mentioned this to the Court in |\n| 11 | status conferences before. |\n| 12 | It's like buying a house.
When there's an |\n| 13 | inspection there's a risk involved in that. |\n| 14 | And we negotiated in the purchase and sale |\n| 15 | agreement a provision that basically the price could only be |\n| 16 | reduced if there was a certification by the surveyor that |\n| 17 | there were defects with respect to the systems or the |\n| 18 | machinery of the yacht. |\n| 19 | And, in fact, what happened is that there was a |\n| 20 | survey.
A reputable firm from Florida, you know, handled |\n| 21 | the survey. |\n| 22 | Because I did not want to take their word for it, |\n| 23 | we -- I've asked our expert, Mr. Dexter White, to shadow |\n| 24 | their work, to be there on the yacht when they did the sea |\n| 25 | trial.
But also to follow what they were doing and to |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 70 of 93\n\n| | Luc Despins - Direct - Bassett
70 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | verify whether any defects they would identify were real. |\n| 2 | And, in fact, he did, and reported all this to me. |\n| 3 | Q
So how ultimately was the issue resolved as it relates |\n| 4 | to these defects or other items that the buyer identified |\n| 5 | following the survey? |\n| 6 | A
Yeah.
The survey identified, you know, four main |\n| 7 | items, issues with the yacht. |\n| 8 | And not to get too technical but the first one was |\n| 9 | the black water processing system.
That was defective, |\n| 10 | really defective. |\n| 11 | The second one was the electrical converter |\n| 12 | system.
This is a European made yacht, operates on a |\n| 13 | European current.
Must be converted to U.S. current.
And |\n| 14 | so there is a machinery to do that.
It's called a -- I |\n| 15 | forget the exact term, but it's a converter, and that |\n| 16 | converter apparently had been exposed to salt water and was |\n| 17 | not operating correctly.
So that was the second item. |\n| 18 | The third item were the generators.
I guess the |\n| 19 | way to look at is like a battery.
But those had been used |\n| 20 | extensively, probably because of the first problem, meaning |\n| 21 | that there was an inability to rely on current that you can |\n| 22 | use at the dock.
And the practical effect of that is that |\n| 23 | the generator had a very limited time life.
And so that's |\n| 24 | the third issue. |\n| 25 | And the fourth issue was the fact that this yacht |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 71 of 93\n\nLuc Despins - Direct - Bassett 71 was operating on Windows XP. And you might think, well, let's go to Office Depot and get a new software. But I learned that you can't just change the software. You need to change the -- a lot of the programing and that allows you to download. Because Windows XP, by the way, is very old and Microsoft does not provide updates to that, you cannot download all the maps and all the programs you need to operate this yacht along the U.S. coastline. And basically you needed to replace that. And so it was not like a 300 or \\$2,000 job. It's something like, just on that item alone, was between 25 and 50,000 to replace. Q So did the buyer make a demand for how much he thought it would cost to fix these issues and, therefore, how much he wanted to reduce the purchase price by? A Yes. The initial demand was 2.5 million. Q Did you do anything to try to get an understanding for your benefit of what -- as to what you think the, you know, appropriate cost of fixing those issues would be? A Yes. I had extensive discussions with Mr. White, our expert, who concluded that, you know, the range of costs for all these issues would be in the 750 to \\$850,000 range. But I think it's important to point out that the way this works in the purchase agreement, if the buyer identifies or if the survey identifies a defect, at that\n\nLuc Despins - Direct - Bassett 72 point the buyer can walk and that really reverses the leverage that I have. Because, you know, the brokers were very specific about this. They said if the buyer walks based on a defect in the survey this boat will be or this yacht will be considered toxic in the marketplace and it will take you months to sell it and you'll never get more than \\$20 million because the buyer is a well-known person in the industry. He owns several yachts. Good for him. And a seal of approval from him is very valuable, but a reject from him would be, in the words of the brokers, would be deadly to our process. Q You referred to this party in your answer, to Mr. White, who you I think characterized as your expert. Can you tell the Court more about who Mr. White is? A I think the Court may be familiar. He's with a company called I think EOS. We retained them to -- when there were repair -- we had established a repair reserve. Initially retained by PAX. Then he became our expert. So he has been on the yacht several times before in the context of looking at establishing a repair reserve and I decided to use him for this process because he was already very familiar with the yacht. Q So after talking to him and, you know, getting from him his estimate of what these repairs would cost, did you then\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 72 of 93\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 73 of 93\n\n| | Luc Despins - Direct - Bassett
73 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | go, try to negotiate resolution with the buyer? |\n| 2 | A
Yes, I did. |\n| 3 | Q
And what happened? |\n| 4 | A
Well, this is where he made the demand for 2.5 million |\n| 5 | and I said that's not reasonable.
So we had a back-and |\n| 6 | forth over that.
And I initially offered 750 which he |\n| 7 | rejected.
And then we resolved it at 850.
Which, you know, |\n| 8 | I, to be honest, this is like it's my own money.
I felt |\n| 9 | devastated about that.
But it -- that was the -- it was |\n| 10 | that in closing the deal or rolling the dice with other |\n| 11 | bidders that were bidding in the 16, 17 million dollar |\n| 12 | range. |\n| 13 | And also we have to remember that the cost of this |\n| 14 | toy is ridiculous.
We have to pay the crew.
We have to pay |\n| 15 | docking fees. |\n| 16 | And so the -- so it was painful to accept that |\n| 17 | reduction, but that was the best way to maximize the estate |\n| 18 | in my judgment. |\n| 19 | Q
And now this, the purchase and sale agreement with the |\n| 20 | buyer, does that have a date by which the transaction must |\n| 21 | close? |\n| 22 | A
Yeah.
June 30th. |\n| 23 | Q
What's the -- what do you understand the reason for |\n| 24 | that date is? |\n| 25 | A
Because the buyer wants to use the boat during the July |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 74 of 93\n\nLuc Despins - Direct - Bassett 74 4th holiday. I mean, he had this whole plan of bringing another yacht of his back from Italy to the U.S. but he changed that based on this purchase. And as recent as this morning I talked to his counsel and the June 30th date is a real date that they insist on. Q I think those were the specific questions that I have for you. But before I conclude is, as we're asking the Court to approve the sale today, is there anything else that I've omitted that you think the Court should know? A No. I would say generally that I think this is really the best price that could be obtained. The assessments I had gotten from other brokers and this broker about what this could sell for were in the low 20s, \\$21,000 million. And I said I'm rejecting that. Let me do our bankruptcy magic and we'll create value. And they laughed at me and said, no, it's going to sell for 21- 22. So I'm very happy with the result. But, you know, I think that this is really the best value for this. And I believe that we would have heard because the whole marketplace knows about this purchase. There are yacht publications. And actually Mr. Chambers, the buyer, told me that he was very upset that his name was mentioned. I said,\n\nLuc Despins - Direct - Bassett 75 well, it's a court process, we need to identify your name as the purchaser. But apparently his name was plastered in all these yacht publications, so everyone knows about this transaction. And so, therefore, the market knows that this is being sold today if the Court approves it for 21, sorry, 23,150. So I derive a lot of comfort from that that this is the best value out there. MR. BASSETT: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. So as part of this deal, Mr. Despins, the motion to quash is resolved as well? THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And that is because the objectors are withdrawing their objection to the sale? THE WITNESS: Subject to -- THE COURT: I'm sorry. Let me be clear about that. There were four written objections, three in the form of a letter. I'm not talking about those objections. I'm talking about objections of the HK USA party. And I don't recall right now, I'd have to look back, whether Ms. Guo also filed an objection. But the motions to quash that were also scheduled\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 75 of 93\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 76 of 93\n\nLuc Despins - Direct - Bassett 76 for hearing today, my read of that is that there was discovery served on you in connection with the sale process, that was served on you by HK USA and maybe Ms. Guo. I don't remember. You'd have to enlighten me. But those issues are resolved? The Court doesn't have to address that? THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: And the -- and so the objections that were -- the only objection I know of was, other than the letters that I just spoke about that were submitted by parties and filed on the docket, was by -- was on behalf of Ms. Guo and HK International I believe. I think it's ECF 1939. So that's resolved? That's going to be withdrawn, Mr. Kindseth, that objection? MR. KINDSETH: Based on the agreement to include the revisions to the sale order, we will withdraw our objection. And we're withdrawing the subpoenas. So those have been resolved based upon the revisions to the sale order. THE COURT: All right. So the motion to quash will become moot assuming the sale is approved. But we haven't gotten there yet, but I want to make sure I'm not -- I'm understanding this clearly. All right. I don't have any further questions,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 77 of 93\n\nLuc Despins - Direct - Bassett 77 Trustee Despins. Does anyone wish to cross-examine Trustee Despins? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. Hearing nothing, then you may step down. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. (Witness excused) THE COURT: Mr. Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, that will conclude the Trustee's presentation of evidence in support of the sale motion. At this time I'm happy to proceed with some brief closing remarks. THE COURT: Let me just make sure I don't have any other questions. I think I do not, but I'd like to take a moment to make sure. MR. BASSETT: Of course. (Pause) THE COURT: Go right ahead, Mr. Bassett. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. So just briefly by way of closing I think the evidence that has been presented, the 28 exhibits that have been moved into the record, the declaration of Mr. Johnson, the broker, and the testimony by the Trustee, as well as the, you know, the final purchase and sale agreement itself,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 78 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 78 I think all of those strongly support a finding by this court that this sale is the product of a robust process run by the Trustee, with the assistance of experienced professionals, including the broker and Mr. White, the marketing process occurred according to industry standards and consistent with the unique nature of this particular market for this particular asset as described by Mr. Johnson in his declaration based on his years of experience. Ultimately the sale process has culminated in a sale -- culminated in a sale as of May 30th for \\$24 million, which in the eyes of the broker and the Trustee is a resounding success. As Mr. Despins -- as the Trustee testified in detail that \\$24 million was of course thereafter reduced by \\$150,000, that reduction I'll submit, based on the record before the Court, was appropriate, was in the best interest of the estate. That type of negotiation post closing following a, sorry, not post closing but following a survey is something that happens routinely. And in this case the Trustee with the assistance of Mr. White resolved that situation in a way that was beneficial to the estate and preserved for the estate this value-maximizing transaction. I would like to note that I think it speaks volumes that there, other than the few pro se objections,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 79 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
79 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | which I will touch on, there are no other pending objections |\n| 2 | by any party in interest to this sale.
The sale has the |\n| 3 | full support of some of the largest constituencies with the |\n| 4 | largest economic stakes in these cases, namely PAX and the |\n| 5 | committee. |\n| 6 | So I think, Your Honor, based on the absence of |\n| 7 | any objection, based on the robust record that the Trustee |\n| 8 | has presented today, we would submit that the sale should be |\n| 9 | approved pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. |\n| 10 | And we believe that all of the findings and the |\n| 11 | provisions of the proposed order are both supported by the |\n| 12 | record that has been established based on today's evidence |\n| 13 | and are otherwise appropriate under the Bankruptcy Code and |\n| 14 | the Bankruptcy Rules, we would ask that the sale among other |\n| 15 | things be free and clear under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy |\n| 16 | Code, obviously subject to the reservation of rights |\n| 17 | language that has been included in the proposed order with |\n| 18 | respect to the proceeds of the sale that was discussed with |\n| 19 | Mr. Kindseth. |\n| 20 | We also believe the buyer should be entitled to |\n| 21 | the protections of Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code. |\n| 22 | The testimony supported a finding that the buyer acted in |\n| 23 | good faith. |\n| 24 | We also request as part of our proposed order that |\n\nthe 5 percent fee to the broker be approved. I think it is\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 80 clear from Mr. Johnson's testimony and from the Trustee's that he added substantial value and played an integral role in this process. We would further ask that -- there was some reference in some of the papers to Local Rule 6004-2. To the extent, and we put this in our motion, but to the extent that that rule could be read to suggest that there needs to be a separate formal appraisal accompanying a sale motion, we would request a waiver of that because here the process itself, as demonstrated by the testimony of the Trustee and Mr. Johnson and the other evidence demonstrates the fair market value of the yacht. Finally, Your Honor, we would request a waiver of the stay under Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h) which would ordinarily apply for 14 days. Here there has been testimony by the Trustee of the need to close by June 30th. And Mr. Johnson also touches on that in his declaration. So with that, Your Honor, we would respectfully request an order, the proposed formal order that we've submitted, we propose that that be entered approving the sale. Case 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 80 of 93\n\n Absent any questions, that's all I have by way of closing, Your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard?\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 81 MR. SARNOFF: Yes, Your Honor. May I briefly be heard? Stuart Sarnoff. THE COURT: Could you come forward please so we can hear you? MR. SARNOFF: Sure. Thank you. Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of Creditor PAX. Mr. Bassett represented that, you know, we did not object and, indeed, endorsed this. And I just wanted to put on the record that PAX has been through the sale materials and all of the exhibits and, indeed, does support this sale. And we've been waiting a long time for assets to come into the estate. And as the largest creditor do support the sale at this price. THE COURT: Thank you, Attorney Sarnoff. Does anyone else wish to be heard? MS. MAYHEW: Your Honor, Kristen Mayhew on behalf of the committee. We similarly support the sale. We've reviewed all of the materials and we believe that it does present the highest and best offer for this -- for the yacht. And we believe that the sale motion should be approved. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. MAYHEW: Thank you. Case 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 81 of 93\n\n THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. BOONE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Robbie\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 82 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 82 Boone on behalf of the buyer. I'd like to confirm that the buyer agrees with all the proposed changes to the order, and would also like to thank Your Honor for accommodating me to appear via Zoom due to the flight cancellations yesterday. THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you for appearing. Sorry your flight was cancelled due to the weather. I understand that's why you needed to appear remotely and that is fine. Attorney Bassett and I believe Trustee Despins both have stated on the record that your client is ready, willing and able to close this transaction, Attorney Boone. Is that correct? MR. BOONE: Yes, Your Honor. He is ready, willing, and very much wants to close this as quickly as possible. THE COURT: And you think it's going to close on the 30th, on June 30th? MR. BOONE: On the 30th or before if we can arrange all of the pieces that we need to arrange in terms of getting it out of the free-trade zone and all the other points that need to be checked off. But, yes, the 30th would be the absolute latest date that we would close. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 83 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 83 The only -- does anyone else wish to be heard with regard to the order? I just have a couple of things. I mean, I've looked at this for -- I've looked at this just today as you know. Okay? So if no one else wishes to be heard, the only thing I would like to do and -- Attorney Claiborn, did you wish to be heard? MS. CLAIBORN: I apologize. And I before I make my comments, I apologize to all the parties, and I neglected to raise this issue earlier. I just wanted to add to the order a provision that a closing sale statement be filed on the docket within ten days of the closing happening so that the parties -- THE COURT: That's required under our local rules. MS. CLAIBORN: It's just not part of the actual order and I -- THE COURT: No. MS. CLAIBORN: -- neglected to raise that issue. THE COURT: There's a couple of changes so, none of which are substantial or substantive in my opinion, but I would like them to be made to the order. So I hope someone's taking notes, right? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 84 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 84 THE COURT: Okay. So with regard to the order, on the second page, before the defined term the hearing, does everybody see where I am kind of the middle of the -- of the -- of page 2? All right. So after where it says and hearing on the motion having been held, do you see that, Counsel, where I am? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: On page 2? MR. DESPINS: Yes. MR. BASSETT: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. So I'd like you to add the following language: Having been held on June 27th, 2023, during which the Trustee's Exhibits 1 through 28 and the testimony of Mr. Johnson and the Trustee were admitted into evidence in support of the sale. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Yeah. MR. BASSETT: Yeah. THE COURT: Does that make sense to you? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: It does. Okay. All right. Then same page, the Court hereby finds that, footnote 4, I have no problem with the first sentence of footnote 4, but I don't want to have the last two sentences\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 85 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
85 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | of footnote 4 because sometimes the district court finds |\n| 2 | that confusing.
So that if someone were to appeal, I don't |\n| 3 | want to have the district court say we have to another |\n| 4 | hearing to tell me what our findings of fact and conclusions |\n| 5 | of law.
Okay? |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Mr. Bassett, we just were going to |\n| 8 | talk about, but I don't know, think you have, I don't think |\n| 9 | I let you let, we need to just -- I think we -- it does talk |\n| 10 | about overruling objections, but I'd like to specifically |\n| 11 | refer to the objections. |\n| 12 | You can just say the objections filed to the sale, |\n| 13 | ECF numbers.
I don't -- you don't need to recite every |\n| 14 | single person's name.
But, again -- |\n| 15 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood.
And -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
-- if this is appealed. |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
-- I want the district court to |\n| 19 | understand what we're talking about. |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
Absolutely, Your Honor.
And thank |\n| 21 | you for reminding me. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | MR. BASSETT:
Because I meant to raise that in my |\n| 24 | comments and I forgot. |\n| 25 | So as I understand it, outside of the objection |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 86 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 86 filed by HK USA, and I believe Mei Guo which has been resolved and withdrawn based on the entry of the revised proposed order, I think there are only four other objections. THE COURT: Correct. That's all that I've seen. MR. BASSETT: And I believe, I apologize, I have the name, but I may be missing the ECF docket number for one of them, but I -- THE COURT: I have them all, so. MR. BASSETT: I have 1947, 1946, 1945, and then there's one more. THE COURT: Nineteen, thirty-three. MR. BASSETT: Nineteen, thirty-three. And I believe subject to being corrected by a colleague or the Court that these objections are substantively identical, if not entirely identical, but they -- it's hard, a little bit hard for us to interpret exactly the arguments that are being put forth, but they appear to be some individual creditors who are a little bit confused about the process being run in the motion before the Court. They had taken issue with the idea of Mr. Kwok, himself, personally selling the yacht in a private sale without them first having been compensated for their claims or grievances against Mr. Kwok. Of course we actually -- the Trustee I believe\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 87 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 87 actually reached out one of them and said, look, that's not what's going on here. And I think there was just some -- it is clear that there was some confusion. But in any event those parties are not here today. I don't think the objections have any merit. Of course this is the Trustee selling the yacht for the benefit of all creditors of the estate, including these creditors to the extent that they have claims and, therefore, we would ask for those objections to be overruled. THE COURT: I have reviewed the objections that were filed in letter format. There are four as we just stated: 1933, 1945, 1946 and 1947. And they are substantially the same. They are asking the Court to not allow a sale by the individual debtor of the yacht until they are compensated for their claims. None of the parties are here in the court to prosecute their objections. Their objections, while I understand why they feel that they needed to make them, it appears they did not understand that the Trustee is selling the Lady May and not Mr. Kwok and that no funds from the Lady May are going to Mr. Kwok which is what the -- what each of the objections were concerned about. So all of those objections are overruled for the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 88 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
88 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | reasons stated on the record.
And I'd like that to -- I'd |\n| 2 | like that to be stated in the order. |\n| 3 | And I'd also like the objection filed by Mei Guo |\n| 4 | and HK International, ECF 1939, to be -- to indicate in the |\n| 5 | order that that objection is resolved by agreement because |\n| 6 | of the language added to the order as requested by counsel |\n| 7 | for HK International Funds and Mei Guo. |\n| 8 | The change I already made to paragraph 9 stands. |\n| 9 | We already went through that at the beginning of the |\n| 10 | hearing.
And I think counsel probably understood that |\n| 11 | change to paragraph 9.
There's three places in that |\n| 12 | paragraph in the -- in the redline version that was |\n| 13 | submitted around 2:10 or something along those lines where |\n| 14 | that change needs to be made. |\n| 15 | And then, Trustee Despins, I agree with the U.S. |\n| 16 | Trustee's Office that there should be a provision made in |\n| 17 | the order, and you can put it somewhere around -- it looks |\n| 18 | like paragraph -- you can do whatever -- wherever you think |\n| 19 | it's appropriate, but it might be appropriate in -- well, |\n| 20 | let me see for example.
I don't know where it's -- it might |\n| 21 | be paragraph 22, except that you say that the closing |\n| 22 | statement will be filed on the docket of the case within ten |\n| 23 | days after the closing occurs.
Okay? |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I have no further changes to the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 89 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 89 order. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So for all the reasons stated on the record, including in connection with the record of this case and the record of the related adversary proceedings, to the extent that they are relevant to the sale of the Lady May, the motion to sell the Lady May to the highest and best bidder as identified by the Trustee in the proposed order and in testimony and in -- and through counsel who's appeared on behalf of the highest bidder is approved. The motion is granted. The proposed order with the changes that I've noted on the record will enter. I assume, Attorney Boone, you want that order as soon as possible. So we'll need to -- I mean, I'm sure you can make these changes fairly quickly and we can try to execute the order tonight. MR. DESPINS: That would be great, Your Honor, because we need to send it to Europe for the closing and all that. So that would be great. THE COURT: Well, if you can get those -- well, you made the other changes in a short order so I would assume you can probably make these changes in less than 20 minutes.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 90 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 90 MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And then submit the order to the courtroom deputy email box again and then the order will enter. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: I know there was a lot of work that went into this. I appreciate Mr. Johnson being here today in case anyone did have questions of him. It was a -- it was necessary for you to be here, sir, because we don't know whether anybody would have questions. And I did review your marketing efforts and all of the exhibits that were submitted in general. I saw what your firm did. I saw the letters of intent that were received. I saw your declaration obviously. We talked about that. I had seen the purchase and sale agreement and then ultimately the addendum, which are all the exhibits that were introduced at today's hearing. So I appreciate the efforts of all the parties involved. And I think that it is clear, I shouldn't say I think, it is clear that the sale of the yacht is in the best interests of the debtor's estate and creditors. And the evidence submitted by the Trustee supports\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 91 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 91 the granting of the motion pursuant to Section 363 and with the protections of 363(m) and the applicable rules, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. I know the Trustee has also asked the order to enter under Section 105. And given the specific facts and circumstances of this case and the record in this case and the related adversary proceedings, the Court will include a reference to Section 105 as a way -- in order to augment the relief that is already set forth in the applicable sections of the Bankruptcy Code under which the sale of the asset has been sought and obtained. Is there anything further we need to do this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: Not on this matter, Your Honor. THE COURT: We have a 4 o'clock status conference. I know. I'm sorry. I should have said with regard to the motion to sell. MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So I'll give you the time to go do that now. We'll take a recess until 4 o'clock. And then maybe the order will even enter before the recess if the changes can be made in that time frame. Okay? So thank you, all.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 92 of 93\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023
92 | | | | | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | Court is in recess until 4:00 p.m. | | | | | |\n| 2 | (Court recessed at 3:25 p.m.) | | | | | |\n| 3 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and | | | | | |\n| 4 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that | | | | | |\n| 5 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official | | | | | |\n| 6 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above | | | | | |\n| 7 | entitled matter. | | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | | | |\n| 10 | July 5, 2023 | | | | | |\n| 11 | Christine Fiore, CERT | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 | | 93 | |\n|----|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------|------|----|--|\n| 1 | | | | | |\n| 2 | INDEX | | | | |\n| 3 | | | | | |\n| 4 | | DIRECT
CROSS | | | |\n| 5 | WITNESS FOR THE TRUSTEE: | | | | |\n| 6 | | Luc A. Despins
66 | | | |\n| 7 | | | | | |\n| 8 | EXHIBITS: | | PAGE | | |\n| 9 | 1-12 | Online internet listings of sale | 56 | | |\n| 10 | 13 | Sample email to interested parties | 56 | | |\n| 11 | 14 | Broker marketing report | 56 | | |\n| 12 | 15-25 | Letters of intent from bidders | 56 | | |\n| 13 | 26 | Dirk Johnson's declaration | 56 | | |\n| 14 | 27 | Purchase and sale agreement | 56 | | |\n| 15 | 28 | Addendum to purchase and sale agreement | 56 | | |\n| 16 | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n康涅狄格联邦地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于 * 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER *\n*\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司）， *\n*\n债务人。 *\nU.S. BANK NATIONAL * 对抗程序案号 23-05012\nASSOCIATION（美国银行全国协会），作为托管 *\n代理人， *\n*\n诉 原告， *\n*\n* 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS * June 27, 2023\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（HK 国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）， *\n*\n被告。 *\n*\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n#1805 美国破产法官 关于强制遵守\nRULE 2004 传票的第二项综合动议\n#1912 HK 各方就 LADY MAY 出售动议向受托人\n及受托人经纪人提出的撤销传票动议\n19 将资金存入法院登记处并解除原告\n在提存诉讼中责任的动议\n#1858 准许相关救济 受托人根据 BANKR. CODE SEC.\n105 and 363、BANKR. RULES 2002, 6004(c) and 9014\n以及 LOCAL RULES 6004-1 and 6004-2 提出的动议，请求作出\n命令：(I) 授权并批准无留置权、请求权、\n权益及负担地出售\nLADY MAY，(II) 授权并批准购买及出售协议，以及 (III)\n程序由电子录音记录，\n庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷庭审记录及速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：Chapter 11 受托人：LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·A·德斯平斯律师） Paul Hastings（保罗·哈斯廷斯律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 代表 Chapter 11 受托人：NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特律师） Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·哈斯廷斯有限责任合伙律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林西律师） Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙泰思专业公司） 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 代表 HK International Funds STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞斯律师） Investments, LLC（投资有限责任公司）及 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒专业公司）：Mei Guo（郭美） 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 代表债权人委员会：KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休律师） Pullman & Comley（普尔曼及科姆利律师事务所） 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 代表美国受托人：HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师） Office of the U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室） 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510 代表作为托管代理人的 U.S. Bank National Assn.：LATONIA C. WILLIAMS, ESQ.（拉托尼娅·C·威廉斯律师） Shipman & Goodwin, LLP（希普曼及古德温有限责任合伙律师事务所） One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 代表 G Clubs Operations, LLC（G 俱乐部运营有限责任公司）：JEFFREY M. SKLARZ, ESQ.（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹律师） Green & Sklarz, LLC（格林及斯克拉兹有限责任公司） One Audubon Street New Haven, CT 06511 CAROLINA FORNOS, ESQ.（卡罗琳娜·福尔诺斯律师） Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman（皮尔斯伯里·温思罗普·肖·皮特曼律师事务所） 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019\n\n出庭人员：（续）代表债权人 Pacific STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫律师） Alliance Asia Opportunity O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所） Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 代表买方：ROBBIE BOONE, ESQ.（罗比·布恩律师） Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, P.A.（艾利、马斯、罗杰斯及林赛专业协会） 340 Royal Poinciana Plaza Palm Beach, FL 33480\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 27, 2023 4\n\n1 （程序于下午 12:06 开始。）\n\n2 法庭书记员：\n22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及\n3 Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司）；对抗程序 23-05012，U.S.\n4 Bank National Association（美国银行全国协会）作为托管代理人诉 HK\n5 International Funds Investments (USA) Limited（HK 国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）。\n6 法官：\n好的。下午好。请\n7 先由 Chapter 11\n8 受托人为记录出庭。\n9 DESPINS 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Luc\n10 Despins，Chapter 11 受托人。\n11 BASSETT 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Nick\n12 Bassett，Paul Hastings 律师事务所，代表 Chapter 11\n13 受托人。\n14 LINSEY 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Patrick\n15 Linsey，受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n16 CLAIBORN 女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Holley\n17 Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n18 MAYHEW 女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Kristen\n19 Mayhew，代表债权人委员会。\n20 SKLARZ 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Jeffrey\n21 Sklarz，Green & Sklarz 律师事务所，代表 G Club Operations, LLC。我\n22 与本方已获准 pro hac vice 出庭的主办律师\n23 Pillsbury Winthrop 的 Carolina Fornos 一同出庭。\n24 FORNOS 女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n25 法官：\n下午好。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 5 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 5\n\nWILLIAMS 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Latonia Williams，Shipman & Goodwin, LLP 律师事务所，代表托管代理人 U.S. Bank National Association。法官：下午好。好的。那么，Despins 受托人，日程上有几项证据开示事项，以及提存对抗程序，当然还有原定于中午审理的出售动议。我们是否先处理上午 11 点的事项？DESPINS 先生：法官阁下，先作一个更新，我认为关于提存诉讼，在这一中间阶段，我们将会有一项合意命令。目前正在处理，我们正试图向法院提交，以便您能收到。因此，我们可以延期处理该事项，这很好；但一旦最终命令，或者最终拟议命令，列入案卷，该事项应会很快处理完毕。法官：同意命令的当事方有哪些？DESPINS 先生：Kindseth 先生代表 Mei Guo 和 HK，另有受托人和托管代理人。法官：好的。谢谢。DESPINS 先生：这是第一项。至于出售事项，我们也正在拟定同意命令。仍将需要提交证据，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 6 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023\n\n1 但出售动议将通过一个大幅简化的程序继续进行，\n2 该程序基本上解决 HK 方面的问题。\n该命令也正在起草中。\n3 因此，我认为目前处理涉及 G Club 的证据开示争议\n4 是合理的。\n5 \n6 法官：\n那显然可以。\n7 那么，撤销传票的动议——\n8 DESPINS 先生：\n该事项也应延期审理，法官\n9 阁下。\n10 法官：\n——将成为\n11 解决方案的一部分？好的。\n12 DESPINS 先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n13 法官：\n好的。那么，您希望\n14 法院审理的是关于\n15 Rule 2004 证据开示问题的第二项综合动议，具体而言\n16 涉及 G Club 实体；我必须确认正确的\n17 名称，因为有数个 G Club Operations, LLC。\n18 对吗，律师？\n19 FORNOS 女士：\n是的，法官阁下。\n20 法官：\n好的。谢谢。\n21 好的。那么，我们今天\n22 如何进行？\n23 我们上次在这里时，讨论了当事方之间进行某些\n24 可能协商的情况。我安排了本次听证。我\n25 相信我规定了提交答复的期限，对吗？那么，\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 7\n\n截至今天，情况如何？BASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我愿意说明。我认为目前的情况已由 G Club 提交的文件概述。我面前没有日期，抱歉，也没有 ECF 编号。我想是，抱歉，案卷编号 1924。随后受托人对该文件提交了答复，案卷编号 1934。实质上，争议仍未解决。G Club 请求延长 60 天，以继续提交文件。他们已提交了一些文件。我想，迄今为止大约 300 份，以回应我们的传票。他们继续对传票的范围过宽提出异议，并对许多请求提出反对意见，但我们仍处于僵局；当然，从我们的角度看，最重要的事项是两件事：第一，G Club 必须在何期限内继续遵守传票，或完成对传票的遵守。我不想重复我同事 Luft 先生在上次听证中对相关经过作出的长篇陈述，但我们已处理此事超过六个月。只需说明，受托人绝对不愿让此事再拖延 60 天。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 7 of 93\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 8 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 8\n\n我们面临的另一问题是，G Club 就其认为许可的证据开示范围提出的一些根本性异议。我认为法院已经处理过这些问题。这些问题涉及，例如，他们是否需要提供与 G Club 的资产和运营相关的文件，或者我们是否必须先通过本院的最终命令证明 G Club 与债务人之间存在关联。我们认为这完全颠倒了逻辑。无论是本案中的大量指控、本院的认定，还是刑事案件中详细描述并载于我们所提交答复中的指控，都极其、极其、极其、极其令人担忧。只要法院需要，我愿意尽可能详细地说明所有这些内容；但基于所有这些理由，我们认为我们送达的传票完全在 Rule 2004 的范围之内，也认为完全没有理由让此事再拖延 60 天。法官：好的。谢谢。律师？FORNOS 女士：下午好，法官阁下。首先，我想强调，我们已经开始提交文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 9 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 9\n\n我上次在法院出庭时曾向法院陈述，我们有一名独立管理人，我们正在勤勉工作，而且我们确已提交文件。为明确起见，这些文件包括公司组织文件、贷款文件、转让文件，以及他们特别要求的有关资产的文件。我们并非搁置不办。我们正在推动提交文件。我所请求的只是这 60 天。而且，法官阁下，我已与独立管理人讨论过此事。他们正以最快速度处理日常运营、保存数据并了解资产。为至少按每周最低频率继续答复，并继续补充已经提交的文件，他们请求这 60 天。关于这一点，法官阁下，我想就独立管理人以及受托人向法院作出更为透明的说明，因为已提交的文件似乎就独立管理人提出了一些质疑和指控。独立管理人是一个机构，即 FFP。该机构以在公司失去管理层时介入而闻名，而这正是我们这里的情况。我有文件可以向法院和受托人提供，以提供有关 FFP 及其经验的更多信息。他们本质上履行独立受托人的职能。我可以向法院陈述，我每天都与他们保持联系，试图处理此事，试图解决公司在其所有管理人员和董事于三月离职后所面临的诸多问题。因此，我们正在努力提交文件。我同意受托人的意见。为明确起见，他有权获得其所请求的有关债务人的文件。我们已经提交了那些文件。他有权——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 10 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 27, 2023 10\n\n我只想确保准确记录您所说的一切。\n\nFORNOS 女士：当然。\n\n法官：那么，您认为您的当事人持有的、有关债务人的全部文件都已提交？\n\nFORNOS 女士：我们已经移交了与此有关的即时文件——我不——我们不认为我们掌握有关债务人的广泛信息，因为债务人是我们的顾问和发言人。我们已经提交了该协议。当然，在存在更多文件的范围内，我们正在搜寻，也正在查找。我们不反对提供与该事项有关的每一份文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 27, 2023 11 债务人。正如法院所知，我们自始便向受托人指出的问题之一是，这些 Rule 2004 的范围过于宽泛。坦率地说，我们理解它们为何过于宽泛。因为同一份 Rule 2004 向100多个当事方发出。它并非针对任何特定公司量身定制。但按其表述，他们基本上要求取得我们持有的每一份文件。而且，这——您知道，今天我们请求解决的问题，只是给予合理的时间，以便 FFP 能够继续提交文件。我们也乐于促成受托人与 FFP 之间的讨论，以便他们能够更透明地了解 FFP 实际在做什么，以及我们为补充提交文件正试图做什么。受托人要求在七天内完成。我们请求60天。鉴于独立管理人正在处理的大量事项，我们需要合理的时间。最后，还有一个独立问题，我认为它与今日提交法院的问题——即时间框架——略有不同，即范围问题。在上次听证会上，我提出了这一问题。我们的问题是，他们希望并且已经要求取得每一份\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 12 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 27, 2023\n1 与 G Club（G俱乐部）的资金来源有关的文件。\n2 为明确起见，法官阁下，G Club 的资金来源是数千名会员的信息，其中包含\n3 个人身份识别信息、\n4 第三方及会员的银行记录。\n5 \n6 我们的立场是，我们希望有时间向他们提供与关联实体、\n7 关联个人有关的文件。\n8 \n9 我们的请求是，会员资格、会员信息及资金来源问题——\n10 该等信息载于银行记录中——\n11 应留待日后处理，\n12 因为这是我们已向受托人提出的异议。\n13 \n14 我们可能需要就此进行更多讨论。\n15 或许与独立管理人进行一些讨论\n16 将有助于此事。\n17 \n18 但是，法官阁下，我不想抢在受托人或法院日程之前，\n19 但我现在也想提醒法院，这一会员资格及会员\n20 数据问题，很可能会成为受托人于周五提交的、有关\n21 HCHK 的拟议和解中的一个问题。\n22 \n23 HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）拥有且占有 G\n24 Club 的会员数据，即不属于 HCHK 的\n25 第三方数据。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 13 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 27, 2023 13 法院：你如何得知这一事实？福尔诺斯女士：因为我们与 HCHK 签有合同，我们已将该合同提交给受托人，因此他知晓该合同。HCHK 曾与我们签有合同——我们是 HCHK 的客户，因为他们在 iCloud（云存储服务）上托管我们的数据。因此，我不想在这个问题上走得太远，因为这是 HCHK 的问题；我们只是不希望让法院感到意外，但这是 Rule 2004 中存在的问题，因为我们反对提交我们的会员数据。我相信我们可以通过某些方式安排范围更窄的提交，以解决受托人的关切。再说一次，我理解受托人所寻求的内容，但我们希望得到更多时间。恭敬地说，法官阁下，这些——这些是目前存在的问题。法院：你们是否讨论过保护令、保密协议？福尔诺斯女士：法官阁下——法院：因为本案中已经有现存命令。福尔诺斯女士：明白，法官阁下。我已签署该命令。受托人好心向我提供了一份副本，因此我已签署并发送给他们。但我仍然对提交\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 14 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 27, 2023 14 数千名——我们说的是超过8,000名会员的信息和个人身份识别信息，感到担忧。这——这正是异议的核心。我们只是请求——我们今天可以处理此事，或者这可以留待另一天处理，或者我们可以与受托人进行更多沟通，以便设法解决。法院：那么，保密协议为何不能解决你方的关切？福尔诺斯女士：法官阁下，有保密协议是一回事，但提交那些并未同意披露其信息的会员的个人身份识别信息，则是另一回事。我有非常严重的担忧。法院：你们从会员处获得信息，而这些会员——他们与贵方客户签署了一份文件，称其信息不得向第三方披露？福尔诺斯女士：法官阁下，我必须查阅所有基础协议。我不知道该问题的答案。我必须再次核实。法院提出的这一点非常好。我表示歉意。我本应更早核查。但我们确有——每位会员都签署会员协议。而且——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 15 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 27, 2023\n1 法院：该会员协议是否有一项条款，\n2 规定其信息不得被\n3 披露？\n4 福尔诺斯女士：我认为其中有一项条款——我需要\n5 再次核实。我不想陈述任何我\n6 不清楚的事情。\n7 法院：不，我明白。但我认为你确实\n8 需要核查，对吗，因为这具有相关性。\n9 福尔诺斯女士：当然，法官阁下。\n10 但目前提交法院的问题，\n11 我理解受托人的沮丧，我确实理解，但\n12 我们已锁定文件，并已提交。我们——\n13 我们还有更多不持异议的文件需要提交。\n14 而这正是他们正在寻求的、我们实体与其他实体之间关系的\n15 主要部分，\n16 因为这正是他们试图了解的内容。\n17 因此，我们乐于继续进行该等提交。\n18 再说一次，我们只是需要更多时间。\n19 至于范围问题，我们今天可以处理。我们可以\n20 尝试会面协商。我们也可以留待另一天处理。\n21 法院：嗯，你们已多次会面协商。\n22 我的意思是，这是多次向法院作出的陈述，\n23 不仅在法庭上，也在文件中，对吗，在诉状中。\n24 \n25 因此，我同意存在——你知道，存在\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 27, 2023 16 所有律师均有持续义务，就与证据开示请求有关的事项作出适当行为，因此我认为我们确实需要处理此事。关于传票的范围，你方有哪些问题——我愿意听取？请说明你方对范围的具体异议。福尔诺斯女士：乐意说明。这与我们从一开始所说的相同。受托人要求取得每一份文件。我特别请法院注意文件请求第4——14项——法院：好的。福尔诺斯女士：——其具体要求——法院：文件请求第14项？福尔诺斯女士：是。它具体要求提供我们实体的全部收入来源。该请求与今日争议事项及受托人争议事项不相称。受托人理所当然地——再说一次，我同意受托人——希望了解我们实体与其他实体之间的关系，对此没有异议。我们理解。我们将予以提交。我们已经开始提交。我们还有更多文件。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 16 页，共 93 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 17 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 27, 2023 17 但是，界限在于，以及我们绝对认为不应成为本次 Rule 2004 标的、至少目前不应成为标的且不相称的，是超过8,000名会员的信息和付款情况。法院：对。我们刚才已经讨论过了。好吗？福尔诺斯女士：是。法院：你需要去查明该会员协议中是否有任何条款规定该信息不得提交。好吗？如果不能提交——如果会员协议中没有该条款，那么我不清楚保密协议如何不能保护这一问题。福尔诺斯女士：法官阁下，我认为保密协议、保护令并不涵盖第三方的个人身份识别信息和银行记录。那不是——我们会与受托人讨论。我也会回去再次核查保护令。但我担心——法院：那么可以修改以涵盖该等内容。我的意思是，可以有许多解决方式。我们不会——我不会搁置此事，我并非暗示你说过“搁置”，所以让我换一个更好的词——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 18 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 27, 2023\n1 福尔诺斯女士：明白，法官阁下。\n2 法院：——但是，在我们上次听证时，\n3 如果我记忆正确，我相信我曾问过你这个问题——\n4 我知道我问过你这个问题，但我可能不记得\n5 确切措辞——我问你是否对巴塞特律师\n6 就你作为律师与巴塞特律师之间已经发生的程序所作的陈述有任何异议，\n7 该程序涉及根据传票提交文件，\n8 包括追溯至某一期间——\n9 我手头没有，但你们二位会提醒我——\n10 \n11 巴塞特先生：当时是卢夫特律师，\n12 法官阁下。\n13 法院：哦，卢夫特律师。好的。\n14 对。不是巴塞特律师。是卢夫特律师。\n15 ——我相信，陈述称你在2022年12月，\n16 或甚至更早，就已参与这一传票问题，\n17 并且曾有这样的——\n18 曾作出陈述称，你知道，最早可追溯至12月，\n19 将完全不提交任何文件。\n20 \n21 现在，我理解，由于我认为尚未载入本案记录的理由，\n22 但也许已经载入，毕竟本案中有相当多事项，\n23 因此并非总是容易记住已发生的一切，\n24 你方客户的高级职员和董事已经离职。\n25 而现在自6月1日起，这个 FFP，听起来像是\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - June 27, 2023 19 一个在必要时介入管理公司的专业组织——福尔诺斯女士：是的。法院：——已提交300份文件。这是我所听到的。这是一个良好开端，但截至目前，我们不应仅止于此。我们于6月6日举行了听证。现在是6月27日。我相信你确实这样做了，但我向你指出，你方客户需要理解此问题的严重性。对我而言，21天内提交300份文件并非——我本会预期更多，好吗，尤其考虑到目前有一项待决的强制提交动议；若该动议获准，其最终可能转为藐视法庭命令，因此截至此时，我预期看到的提交应多于300份文件。今天我听到你所说的内容，我理解，我认为——也请你为记录而纠正我——你认为最大的一个问题似乎是该会员信息。好的。因此，如果你们仅——如果你们提交了300份文件，而我认为你说这些是有关公司结构或公司的设立、公司拥有的资产、贷款文件的文件，我认为仅就贷款文件而言，就应不止300份文件。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 19 页，共 93 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 20 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 20 但是，如果你们的——如果你们最大的争议，而且听起来也许——我可能错了——你们唯一的争议是这份会员信息，那么我认为绝对有办法可以解决。现在就可以解决，而且可以在不到60天内解决。我不认为你们的当事人在此时有权获得60天。我已经通过为你设定提交答复的新截止日期提供了额外时间；你已经提交了，我对此表示感谢，但我不认为300份文件是我原以为我们今天会讨论的内容。FORNOS 女士：明白，法官阁下。法庭理解正确。我认为这里的问题是我们还有更多材料需要提交。我们正着手进行该等提交。但FFP需要时间。如果法庭认为——法庭：做什么？FORNOS 女士：审查。确保他们理解正在提交什么材料。法官阁下——法庭：嗯，你要告诉他们这一点。律师，你要就此向他们提供法律意见。这正是你在做的事，对吧？你并没有让他们盲目地浏览那些文件。FORNOS 女士：没有。但他们仍然需要时间。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 21 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 21 如果法庭容我说明，这不是他们目前要处理的唯一问题。他们正试图解决许多事项，我们只是需要时间。我们尊重——我们理解法庭的立场。坦率地说，我们也确实理解受托人的挫败感。但我们只是需要一点时间，继续提交我们正在提交的材料。关于我们提出异议的事项，会员信息也载于我们的银行对账单中，因为存款显示了会员信息。我们提出异议的是这种一概而论地认为你们可以取得一切的做法，基本上没有限制，也没有对受托人的约束。法庭：但如果他们向银行发传票呢？他们向银行发传票了吗？FORNOS 女士：如果他们发了，我并不知情。法庭：好的。FORNOS 女士：但他们当然可以这样做。那是他们的权利。而且——我相信他们正与其他律师合作这样做。但我们所请求的是时间。例如，如果法庭希望延期举行听证会，以便我们能够再向您陈述，并且您可以看到已经取得的进展以及\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 22 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n1 已提交的材料，并实际缩小剩余真正需要争议的问题范围，我们对此也愿意接受。我们只是需要\n2 时间。这就是——我代表——提出的请求。\n3 法庭：不。我明白。\n4 FORNOS 女士：——独立管理人。\n5 法庭：而且我认为，对该请求我唯一的——嗯，其中一个\n6 想法或担忧是，\n7 这正是6月6日所请求的60天。现在是\n8 6月27日，我们又在请求60天，你们\n9 请求额外60天。因此我们并非——我们并非\n10 在推进，而是在延长。\n11 BASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我能否就\n12 时间问题进一步陈述意见？\n13 法庭：可以。\n14 BASSETT 先生：因此，我只是——至关\n15 重要的是，我们在答复状中列出的部分信息\n16 不应被法庭忽略，因为我认为它在很大\n17 程度上解释了为什么我们极为担忧，\n18 极为怀疑，仅仅需要更多时间这一\n19 说法。\n20 无论是就某些关于会员权益的信息\n21 是否保密以及我们将如何梳理该问题，\n22 如您所说，他们只提交了300份文件。\n23 显然，这是一个从事\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 23 合法业务的组织。他们需要提交的文件远不止300份。因而还有很多工作需要完成。我们已为此进行了六个多月。律师从一开始就参与其中。她现在说，嗯，有一个新的组织在运作，担任独立管理人。但我们绝对远未能放心，认为我们会突然获得对传票的遵从，也不能放心认为在我们试图进行证据开示期间不会发生材料毁损，或者不会在幕后发生其他事情；这正是我想向法庭简要说明的内容，载于我们的答复状中。正如我认为我们此前已说明的，律师所提出的如此多异议的前提是，G Club（G Club）与债务人之间实际上没有关联。法官阁下，在刑事起诉书中，政府指称G Club“实质上由Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）拥有和控制。”这彻底驳倒了他们关于范围的异议。就2004规则而言，这已远远足以使我们取得G Club与其运营、财务、资金来源等有关的文件，远远超过了该门槛。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 23 页，共 93 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 24 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 24 但真正、真正令人不安的是，在整个漫长的协商程序中，我们一直被敷衍搪塞；正如Luft 先生上次我们在此出庭时向法庭所述，我们一度被告知，他们对有人认为债务人与G Club之间存在关联的说法感到如此冒犯，以至于他们根本不会提交文件。就在我们从他们那里得到那些答复的同时，我们从刑事案件中提交的信息了解到，有指控称，在2023年1月和3月——这载于我们在答复状附件8中引用的备忘录——2023年1月和3月，两名与HCHK有关联的个人在阿联酋停留了约六周以上，以协助转移G Clubs的运营和资金。2023年1月和3月，当时我们正被就其回应我们的传票提交文件一事敷衍搪塞。2023年4月，当我们与G Club的律师进行第三次协商时，根据政府在刑事案件中提交的文件以及随该刑事案件提交文件附带的Yvette Wang（王某）的笔记，Wang 女士指示一名G Club员工从一个G Club邮政信箱中取走$7.1 million的G Club支票。2023年4月。这些均为指控——法庭：请稍等。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 25 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 25 BASSETT 先生：——载于刑事起诉书中。法庭：请再告诉我一遍——你刚才所说的是什么。根据政府的这份陈述状，Wang 女士在什么日期做了什么？BASSETT 先生：是的。因此我们在我们的——法庭：这是你告诉我的内容吗？BASSETT 先生：因此我们在答复状中所述，法官阁下，在第——第10段，这载于——法庭：但我想直接看你的来源，对吧？BASSETT 先生：当然。法庭：你的来源是什么？你的来源是一份——陈述状？BASSETT 先生：法官阁下，是我们答复状的附件B。法庭：好的。给我一点时间——BASSETT 先生：（听不清）所附的声明？法庭：请给我一点时间找到那里。好的。我从附件B的第一页开始，即《美利坚合众国反对被告Yvette Wang（王某）审前释放动议的法律备忘录》。你希望我看哪一页？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 26 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n1 BASSETT 先生：我的同事正在取来我的文件副本，\n2 但根据我们的答复状，\n3 是在第37页和第38页。\n4 法庭：政府陈述状的页码，对吧？\n5 BASSETT 先生：是的。\n6 法庭：好的。稍等。这份文件顶部有很多\n7 不同的印章，所以有点\n8 难以查找，但我们会找到。\n9 我是否应该查看\n10 庭审记录？\n11 BASSETT 先生：不是。是政府提交的\n12 备忘录。\n13 法庭：对。备忘录。好的。\n14 BASSETT 先生：对。它涉及Yvette Wang（王某）的\n15 继续羁押。\n16 法庭：对。所以我已经拿到该备忘录。\n17 上面写着共42页。\n18 BASSETT 先生：它从PDF的第34页开始，\n19 即242页中的第34页。\n20 法庭：对。那么我要看哪一页？\n21 第38页？242页中的第37页和第38页，是这个意思\n22 吗？\n23 BASSETT 先生：正是如此，法官阁下。\n24 法庭：好的。因此这是政府\n25 所说的，好的，Wang 在\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 27 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n1 由Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）主导的庞大而复杂的欺诈中发挥了关键作用。\n2 好的。随后其中称，该欺诈至少依赖四个\n3 相互关联的部分：GTV Media Group Private Placement（GTV Media Group 私募）、\n4 Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）、G Club Operations, LLC（G Club Operations, LLC）\n5 以及Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）。\n6 这就是你所说的吗？\n7 BASSETT 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n8 而我们在答复状中引用、我刚才\n9 向法庭所提及的具体措辞位于\n10 第37页底部，其中谈到——位于\n11 第37页第二段中部——例如，如下图所示，\n12 日期为2023年4月11日的任务，并继续谈及\n13 Wang 指示一名未具名\n14 参与者所做之事——\n15 法庭：等等。等等。我没有看到\n16 “如下图所示”这一行。我在第——\n17 BASSETT 先生：第37页。\n18 法庭：——242页中的第——页？\n19 BASSETT 先生：法官阁下，第37页底部。\n20 抱歉。我看不见——\n21 法庭：所以是陈述状的第37页？\n22 BASSETT 先生：是的。是的，法官阁下。\n23 我想如果您查看PDF，那是242页中的第73页。\n24 法庭：好的。这会有帮助，因为我没有\n25 页码，所以。第72页？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 28 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 28 BASSETT 先生：242页中的第73页。法庭：第73页。BASSETT 先生：这是以“2023年6月13日”开头的第二段。法庭：好的。我找到了。好的。我明白了。BASSETT 先生：对。法庭：所以你现在说的是，我正在查看你们答复状对——的第242页中的第73页？BASSETT 先生：附件B。我们答复状的附件B。法庭：对。BASSETT 先生：附件B——法庭：你们答复状的附件B。BASSETT 先生：——即政府提交的备忘录。法庭：而你指向我的段落是以“2023年6月15日，根据经司法授权的搜查令”开头？BASSETT 先生：正确。法庭：政府从CC-1的电子设备中扣押了文件。对从CC-1处收回的笔记本内容所作的初步审查显示，该笔记本以中文和英文书写，CC-1一直与Wang 通信，并从事广泛的任务，涉及\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 29 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 第29页\n\n自Wang（王女士）被逮捕和羁押以来，CC一直在Kwok、Wang及其他共同谋犯的指示下行事。例如，如下图所示，一项日期为April 11, 2023的任务显示，Wang指示CC向其提供与Kwok控制企业运营有关的信息。随后有一张图片。图片写道：“checklist April 11, 2023, Yvette wants a”，随后有我推定为普通话的汉字。CC的笔记本记录同样反映了老板要求的信息，以及对各种欺诈工具的财务和其他运营情况所作的看似详细追踪。\n\nBASSETT先生：是的。\n\n法院：接下来又谈到——与P.O. box中7.1 million G Club支票有关的是，一则日期为April 18, 2023的笔记本记录提及寻找Employee-1，即一名曾于2023年前往UAE的G Club员工。见上文第25页。Employee-1实际持有该P.O. box的实体钥匙。以下以删节形式展示的笔记本记录，其大意及正式译文如下。因此，我正在看一张我相信大多是汉字的图片，但其中有英文单词“mailbox”，对吗？这就是我所看到的？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 30 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\nBASSETT先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：然后上面写着“Employee-1 have HR”，即让人力资源部门寻找。告诉人力资源部门寻找Employee-1，在N.Y.邮箱中取得支票。人力资源部门寻找Employee-1。\n\nCherry Blossom授权Employee-1将支票交给3C，即HCHK办公室所在地3 Columbus Circle。\n\nBASSETT先生：没错。\n\n接下来的——接下来的那一行有点是我——\n\n法院：根据政府收集的其他证据，显然Wang指示CC-1取得位于N.Y.邮箱中的支票，即位于Manhattan的G Club P.O. box中的支票。\n\nBASSETT先生：法官阁下，关键在于，当时我们正处于对G Club显然经过周密论证的调查过程中。显然，我们追查这些文件，是因为我们想要探究恰恰这类联系，并取得有关G Club资产的信息，即本起诉书中所谈及的确切类型事项。\n\n就G Clubs在某个账户中有资金、在邮箱中有支票，以及所有这些类型的事项而言，显然，这就是为什么我们不仅根据2004对G Club进行调查，而且试图尽快这样做，以确保相关信息不会失效。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 31 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 第31页\n\n而在整个期间，我们一直被告知，我们不会给你们这些文件。你们竟然提出G Club与债务人之间存在关联，这让我们深感冒犯。我们只是——我们不会合作。但现在将任命一名独立管理人。\n\n在整个期间，我们不断遭遇这种推诿和拖延；现在，根据政府为在刑事案件中寻求进一步羁押Wang女士而提交的文件中所作的极为详细的指控，事情显露出来：后台一直在发生一些事情。在我们试图取得这些文件的同时，G Club的资产可能正在被耗散。\n\n因此，我认为我确实无需解释，为何在此时受托人不愿再接受60 days。\n\n法院：这是政府在Wang女士的续行保释听证会上提交的摘要，是吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：是的。她寻求获释，政府反对。这是——\n\n法院：法院作出了什么决定？\n\nBASSETT先生：尚未作出裁定。\n\n法院：对于她是否——能否获释，尚未作出裁定？这是审前释放。因此，她希望从审前羁押中获释，是吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 32 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 第32页\n\nBASSETT先生：正确。据我们所知，尚未——尚未作出裁定。显然，我们是在一个充满指控的世界中处理此事。我们并非——我认为这正是问题的一部分。其理念是，为取得证据开示，我们首先必须证明存在某种联系，或者证明某些事情。这完全颠倒了。就好比说，在诉讼中为了取得证据开示，你必须提出起诉并胜诉，然后才能取得证据开示。这完全颠倒了。我的意思是，根据纽约刑事案件，有大量可信的指控表明，G Club仅仅是债务人的工具，并且当然与他及其被指控实施的欺诈行为存在广泛联系。因此，如果Kwok先生的这一空壳公司圈层中曾有任何实体适合由受托人根据2004进行调查，且不受限于特定类别的资产或文件，那就是G Clubs。这正是我们六个月来一直试图取得的东西。\n\n法院：好的。Bassett先生，目前您还有要补充的吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 33 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\n您想作出回应吗？\n\nFORNOS女士：是的，法官阁下。\n\n因为Bassett先生强调的内容，我不——不希望确保记录绝对清楚地表明，其涉及的是目前在Southern District（纽约南区）法院审理的一项羁押事项。而且坦率地说，受托人不可能知道这一点；但在周五下午，她的律师要求更多时间来处理所有这些事项，因为这对他们而言是新信息。\n\n因此，我无法评论与某一被告有关的刑事指控。评论此事并非我的职责所在。\n\n我们只是回到一个简单的观点：对公司负有信义义务的独立管理人正在努力出具我们所需的文件。\n\n我确实反对任何指控或影射，称我在讨论此事时以某种方式——或者称G Club曾协助Wang女士从——从监狱中做她被指称要做的任何事情。\n\n在April，G Club的管理层已不再就位，就这样。FFP现在已知悉此事，并且由于上周刚刚提交的文件，他们将追查并查明P.O. box发生了什么。\n\n坦率地说，法官阁下，这是G Club需要与U.S. Government（美国政府）交涉的事项，而且很可能会这样做；但这不是强制执行动议以及我们请求履行的时间范围所涉的问题。我们只是希望有合理时间继续出具文件，并希望使就此举行更多听证会变得没有必要。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 34 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 第34页\n\n法院：您还有想要为记录补充的吗？\n\nFORNOS女士：只是，法官阁下，如果法院希望自June 6th起作出一项为期60 days的命令，即我首次请求60 days之日，法院的意思很明确，我们当然同意自June 6th起计算60 days。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nFORNOS女士：谢谢。\n\n法院：Bassett先生，您还有要补充的吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：我想没有，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。关于受托人就Rule 2004 subpoena ECF No. 1805提出的强制履行动议，涉及G Club Operations, LLC（G Club运营有限责任公司），以及关于代表G Club Operations, LLC提交的对强制执行动议及相关救济的异议，和Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）提交的答复，法院已在此前的听证会上听取了关于该——关于基础动议1805的辩论，并且现已审阅法院在June 6th听证会后命令各方提交的文件，且现已查看受托人在Friday, June 23rd提交的一些信息。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 35 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\n法院将对此事项保留裁定，尽管很可能会在本周结束前作出裁定。\n\n好的。至此，今天下午关于1805的事项结束。\n\nBASSETT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nFORNOS女士：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\n那么，关于上午11时排期的其他事项，Despins受托人，我们是否已具备讨论同意命令的条件，还是正朝着出售推进？我们如何进行？\n\nDESPINS先生：如果可以，经您许可，我们继续处理interpleader——\n\n法院：可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：——我相信托管代理人的律师已在案卷中提交了一份拟议命令。我不知道案卷编号。\n\nWILLIAMS女士：下午好，法官阁下。为再次记录在案，我是Shipman & Goodwin, LLP（希普曼和古德温律师事务所）的Latonia Williams（拉托尼娅·威廉姆斯），代表作为托管代理人的U.S. Bank（美国银行）。\n\n是的，正确。因此，各方均已同意作为案卷项目第38号录入案卷的同意命令。\n\n法院：我明白。我尚未打开它，但我看到它已提交。谢谢。我会看一下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 36 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 第36页\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：好的。它写的是同意命令，但我没有看到任何人表示同意。我的意思是，我想知道谁同意这项命令，或者通过明确表明各方同意——哦，对不起，它在——它没有写——在这里，第2页。并经本对抗程序各方的同意，即托管代理人、HK、委员会和受托人。现在，HK是什么？谁是HK？我们说的是——只是HK Funds Investments (USA)，不是Guo女士，对吗？哦，这不是——我认为这不是Williams律师应回答的——问题。\n\nKINDSETH先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法院：这正是问题所在。他们处在中间。\n\nKINDSETH先生：下午好，法官阁下。为记录在案，我是代表HK USA和Guo女士的Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞思）。正确。HK是托管协议的一方，其同意本命令中规定的救济。\n\n法院：我正在查看一些文件，以确保我理解这一点。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：因此，如果这项约定命令，Despins受托人，或者说同意命令，被录入，那么这项对抗程序应当结案，对吗？为何仍应保持未结？资金将会——将会转交给您，由您在受托人账户中持有。那么，继续保持这项对抗程序未结的目的是什么？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 第37页\n\nDESPINS先生：因为Mei Guo（郭美）和HK的立场是，他们这样做是为了便利受托人投资该等资金，但他们并未承认我们可以取得该等资金，并且他们希望依赖托管协议的条款来主张该观点。因此，该问题仍然——\n\n法院：但Mei Guo并非本对抗程序的一方，也并非托管协议的一方。\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。再说一次，我很难解释他们的立场，但他们的立场是，HK International，尽管我们认为应当由我们控制它，但他们的观点是，他们希望维持托管协议继续管辖——\n\n法院：那么，他们已通过对第二项反诉提出上诉来做到这一点，不是吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：您知道吗？我不应当就此进行辩论，因为我同意您的看法。\n\n法院：不。但我不明白为何这——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 37 of 93\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1980 Filed 07/05/23 Entered 07/05/23 17:21:35 Page 38 of 93\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 38 对立诉讼需要保持未结案状态，Kindseth先生。如果你同意这项同意命令，那么为什么这项对立诉讼需要保持未结案状态？这是一项提存诉讼。该事项已通过将款项从托管中移出并交由受托人占有和控制而得到解决。KINDSETH先生：法官阁下，提存——提存诉讼实际上有两个阶段。第一阶段涉及托管方，该方寻求通过将该等资金存入法院登记处来完成其义务。法院：但这并未发生。KINDSETH先生：实际上，没错。但这是我们试图解决问题的方式；如果我们无法以这种方式解决，那就这样，我们将不以这种方式解决——法院：我没有说你们不能。我是在问一个问题。KINDSETH先生：好的。法院：为什么这项对立诉讼需要保持未结案状态？KINDSETH先生：为了第二阶段，法官阁下。法院：什么第二阶段？KINDSETH先生：所有提存诉讼都有两个阶段。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 39 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 39 第一阶段是与——法院：如果已经解决，就没有。KINDSETH先生：实际上，提存诉讼的第一阶段是由托管代理人将资金存入法院登记处。法院：不——KINDSETH先生：法官阁下，这项同意命令所做的是，若准许我陈述，这项同意——法院：你可以陈述，律师，但我可以提问。因此，你需要尊重法院。请继续。KINDSETH先生：我正在尝试回答这个问题，法官阁下。我很抱歉我没有做到，但我希望尝试。提存诉讼本身具有两个阶段。第一阶段是如何处理托管代理人。第二阶段是如何处理该等资金。作为对受托人的迁就，我们同意允许受托人持有由财产和受托人保管的资金，并允许对该等资金进行投资。这项同意命令规定，就提存诉讼中的法院而言，该等资金将被视为如同存放于法院登记处，因此，我们关于提存诉讼第二阶段的权利\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 40 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 40\n\n不会被剥夺。\n\n提存诉讼的第二阶段是各方进行提存诉讼，即就该等资金将如何处理而相互主张权利。事实上，受托人已经这样做了，即提交了其答辩书，并且还提交了简易判决动议。\n\n因此，简易判决动议是受托人就提存诉讼第二阶段提出的主张，即该等资金应如何处理。\n\n我们拟作出的答复论点将是，托管协议明确要求，尽管法院可以就该财产作出判决，无论该财产是否属于破产财产，即托管资金。\n\n该托管协议作为约定命令的一部分，已获本法院授权并命令，明确要求该等破产法院命令必须是终局性的且不得再上诉。\n\n因此，我们在第二阶段中反对受托人简易判决动议的论点将是，经本法院授权的托管协议管辖托管收益，并要求为发放该等收益而作出终局性且不得再上诉的命令，因此，我们只是通过协议处理提存诉讼的第一阶段。\n\n我还要补充一点，现在可以在加急基础上审理该\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 41 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 41 简易判决动议。我相信我们的书面陈述到期日是7月5日或7日，听证会我相信安排在7月12日，这就是提存诉讼的第二个方面。谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：约定命令中有许多与托管协议有关的条款，HK各方同样没有遵守，律师。当你说“我们同意”时，“我们”是谁？KINDSETH先生：抱歉。我是指HK。法院：HK。KINDSETH先生：您是对的。法院：好的。谢谢。Bassett先生或Despins受托人，还有什么要补充的吗？DESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。我只想谈谈第2段，即允许受托人将资金投资于美国国债证券的那一段。其中有一些残留内容，我称之为“幽灵”，需要修正。其中提到了一个称为托管账户的术语，该术语——曾在先前的草案中出现，不应再次出现。而且我们——因为新措辞应当是投资于美国国债证券，而不是存入托管账户，所以我们需要修正这一点。我想向法官阁下说明其背景。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 42 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 42 背景是，我们原本希望将该笔资金投资于美国国债证券，并将该等美国国债证券存入一家金融机构的托管账户。美国受托人对此做法表示关切，并称根据他们的经验，其他持有大量现金的受托人或其他占有中的债务人会直接向财政部购买美国国债证券，因此我们依此将该内容写入该命令。我们希望能够这样做。显然，可以按每批最高$10 million购买。如果我们能够这样做，该命令将完全适用。如果无法做到，我们将需要回到法院并修改该命令，以便我们实际上可以让经纪人购买该等证券，并将其转入托管账户。但希望我们不必处理该问题，因为我们可以直接从财政部以高利率购买美国国债证券，从而实现我们最大化破产财产回报的目标。这里所谈的是每年潜在超过一百万的利息。因此，我想提及这一点。第一，我们需要修正第2段，应删除对托管账户的提述。除此之外，我认为——因此，我们需要提交一项补充命令以反映这些删除。除此之外，我认为，法官阁下，我们将会\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 43 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 43\n\n完成此事。\n\n谢谢。\n\n法院：\n\nWilliams律师？\n\nWILLIAMS女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。再次为记录起见，我是Shipman & Goodwin律师事务所的Latonia Williams，代表作为托管代理人的U.S. Bank（美国银行）。\n\n法官阁下，感谢您给予各方宽容。我们在出席法官阁下面前之前，已非常努力地试图共同拟定一项同意命令。\n\n我认为因此有一些事项需要我们处理。我认为我们可以非常迅速地处理。\n\n我建议我的办公室可以向提存诉讼的所有各方传阅同意命令的修订版本。希望今天下午我们可以解决任何笔误或需要澄清的事项，然后再次提交法院。\n\n我们愿意通过提交另一份补充案卷文件、在案卷中反映该同意命令的方式办理，或者如果法院愿意，我们也可以直接提交给法官办公室，并在电子邮件中抄送所有各方，两种方式均可。\n\nDESPINS先生：但若准许我说，我想确认，唯一已经发现的问题是应当删除“托管账户”这一术语。\n\n但除此之外，还有其他问题吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 44 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 44 WILLIAMS女士：据我所知，没有。DESPINS先生：好的。谢谢。WILLIAMS女士：我认为我们所做的是，我们提交了已在各方之间传阅的文件——DESPINS先生：好的。WILLIAMS女士：——而这可能只是在过程中被遗漏了。DESPINS先生：谢谢。法院：是的。请给我一点时间。我理解你所说的。谢谢。只是——正如你所指出的，该文件是在我们开庭期间提交的，因此我尚未有机会完整阅读它，并确保我完全理解它，这就是为什么提出了问题。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：因此，该命令称，我理解其原因，托管代理人被从本诉讼中解除。因此，谁是原告？我们有两个被告彼此对立，这就是——这将是怎样的情形吗？DESPINS先生：我认为是这样，法官阁下。法院：好的。Williams律师，请按你所建议的方式办理，即通过电子邮件或你希望采用的任何方式向所有各方提交修订后的拟议命令。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 45 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 45 然后，由于看来修改极少，你们无需再次将该命令登记入案。你们可以将其提交至法庭书记员电子邮箱，即Bridgeport法庭书记员电子邮箱，这是一个通用电子邮件地址。它在网站上的某处。我正在询问法庭书记员。请稍微帮我一下，告诉我它在哪里，以便它容易——我们试图使它更显眼，但我不知道是否做到了。DESPINS先生：我们可以提供该地址，法官阁下。这不应有问题。法院：好的。WILLIAMS女士：是的。我们会处理，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。那么，关于将资金存入法院登记处并解除原告在提存诉讼中责任的动议，ECF 19，该事项已由同意命令解决；该同意命令将基本采用今日12:09 p.m.提交至案卷的ECF No. 38号同意命令的形式。各方将按照刚才在记录中讨论的方式提交修订后的同意命令。该同意命令一经提交，将在\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 46 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 46 该对立诉讼中签署并录入。因此，这解决了将资金存入法院登记处的动议，即ECF No. 19。Despins受托人，那么我们现在转入出售事项吗？DESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。我相信就拟议命令的修正案已有协议。当然，法官阁下，您将决定希望如何进行。但该修正案并不长。不过，您可能希望——我们尚未——我们尚未将该命令登记入案，因此您可能希望花时间审阅，然后我们在您方便时再次开庭。鉴于对该命令提出的修正案，我预计听证会将会大为缩短。法院：那么，对该——出售事项已不再有任何反对意见了吗？DESPINS先生：嗯，前提是作出该项修改，将会——有两——四名自行诉讼人士已提出异议，但我不认为——我认为他们对此感到困惑，您知道，我认为他们认为这是由Kwok先生安排的、或为Kwok先生利益而进行的私人出售，但当然并非如此。因此，那些异议仍未解决，但我不认为它们会造成问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 提交于 07/05/23 录入于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 47 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\n但仍需作简短证言，以确保我们留有关于善意、公平市场价值等事项的记录，而且所需时间不应太长。因为届时将不再存在撤销传票动议的问题。该问题将不复存在。\n\n而且我们了解到，前提是该命令令法官阁下满意，HK各方将不会交叉询问证人或反对解除。\n\n我认为，您审阅该命令以确保您对此感到满意，可能很重要。\n\n法院：你们将要提交、但尚未提交的那份命令？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。没错。但我认为——\n\n法院：该命令何时提交？\n\nDESPINS先生：不到十分钟内，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么——\n\nDESPINS先生：我们是否应将其通过电子邮件发送给法庭书记员，这是最好的方式吗，还是——\n\n法院：是。\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。那样会更快。\n\n法院：已经提交的拟议命令——\n\nDESPINS先生：附在答复文件中的那一份？\n\n法院：对。——载有大量事实认定和法律结论，这没有问题，但无论以何种方式，该记录都需要形成。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 48 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\nDESPINS先生：是，法官阁下。这就是为什么将会有证言，但我们预计不会采用与HK各方提出反对时相同的程序。\n\n法院：那么如何——我需要阅读这份命令。如果我们休庭至下午2:00，这对您来说是否太久，Despins受托人，还是可行？\n\nDESPINS先生：我认为可以，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么，我在看着您，而您是在说，可能在接下来的10至15分钟内，法庭书记员将在法庭书记员收件箱中收到一份命令，您会向我出示它，以便我们能够审阅，并且在我们下午2点再次出庭之前回来——是吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。应该是五分钟，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。好。那么法庭休庭至下午2点。\n\n（庭审于下午1:15休庭。）\n\n（庭审于下午2:24恢复。）\n\n法院：（音频开始延迟）Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）。\n\n然后，在我们即将出庭时，Despins受托人，我被告知有第二份命令作了其他修改，准确吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 49 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\nDESPINS先生：准确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：您是否有机会——\n\n法院：那么第9段又作了修订？\n\nDESPINS先生：准确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：这是唯一再次修订的段落？\n\nDESPINS先生：准确，法官阁下。如果我——如果您愿意，我可以向法院说明这些修改的内容或意图——\n\n法院：好的，请说。\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。这只是为了明确，HK各方的权利，如果他们日后在上诉中胜诉并获得最终且不可上诉的命令，将适用于Lady May的收益，也适用于Lady May的收益已被使用的范围内的破产财产资产。在此之前，其表述为他们的，或者任何请求权、权益或负担将适用于出售收益和债务人的破产财产。我们对此作了修改，以规定仅在他们获得最终且不可上诉的命令以清偿其请求权时才如此。因此，例如，如果我们花掉全部22 million，我想那将是我们将收到的净收益，并且——但如果我们有其他破产财产资产，则无需专业人员返还任何资金，因为有破产财产资产可使他们获得完全补偿。再次明确，这仅在他们获得一项最终且不可上诉的命令，认定他们拥有Lady May时适用。所以，这就是——\n\n法院：您说“他们”时，是指谁？\n\nDESPINS先生：HK各方。\n\n法院：那么，难道不是——\n\nDESPINS先生：HK USA——\n\n法院：HK USA是唯一曾在本案——在本法院主张其拥有Lady May的一方。不是吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：我认为这没错，但是——\n\n法院：这正是整个对抗程序——\n\nDESPINS先生：是。\n\n法院：——所围绕的内容。\n\nDESPINS先生：不。您说得对。\n\n法院：那是在2022年4月提起对抗程序的起诉状，一项声明。他们要求一项确认判决，确认其拥有Lady May。\n\nDESPINS先生：确认HK USA拥有它。\n\n法院：确认HK USA，而不是Mei Guo（郭美）。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。所以，再次，我——\n\n法院：那么为什么Mei Guo会在其中？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 51 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\nDESPINS先生：我无权为Kindseth先生的立场辩护，因此我将让他对此作出说明。\n\n法院：那么，您同意吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：坦率地说——我认为法官阁下是正确的，Mei Guo并未、从未——从未主张她拥有Lady May，因此您可能是正确的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：Kindseth先生？\n\nKINDSETH先生：是。我手头没有对抗程序的材料。我认为——\n\n法院：我们可以调出来。\n\nKINDSETH先生：我认为——\n\n法院：这只需要我们三秒钟。是您提交了起诉状，而且这是确认判决。我可以为您读出第一段，其中称HK USA拥有Lady May；该起诉状的提交是为了阻止PAX（PAX）于2022年3月提出的自动停止解除动议。该起诉状中并无任何指称Mei Guo拥有Lady May的内容。因此，我不理解为何我要作出一项命令，称若HK和／或Mei Guo有权从收益或债务人和／或债务人的破产财产中收取款项，以该等最终确定——该等最终确定的权益为限。唯一在本法院寻求确定的权益，无论是通过你们的起诉状，还是通过已作出简易判决的反诉，都是就你们的起诉状而言HK USA是否拥有Lady May。而就受托人提出的反诉而言，第一项反诉是既判争点效力是否适用于Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格法官）认定Kwok先生是Lady May受益所有人的裁定。仅此而已。无论在第一项反诉中，还是在你们的起诉状中，均未提及Mei Guo。因此，如果你们二位想讨论此事，我很乐意给你们几分钟时间，但我不理解为何我要作出一项命令，其内容如第9段中间部分所述。我不知道为什么HK各方被定义为HK USA和Mei Guo，或者应该说，和／或Mei Guo。它就是这样写的。和／或。甚至没有写“和”。写的是“和／或”。本案记录中没有任何内容支持这一点，因此我不确定为何我要在本命令中采用该措辞。你们需要几分钟讨论吗？\n\nKINDSETH先生：我们不需要。感谢您的确认，法官阁下。我们可以从拟议措辞中删除Mei Guo。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 53 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。那么，该行将表述为：如作出最终且不再可上诉的命令，确定Lady May和／或其收益为HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司，HK USA）的财产。删除“与HK USA共同的HK各方”。在该情形下，HK USA应有权从收益和／或债务人的破产财产中收取款项，以该等最终确定的权益为限。然后，再往下三行，写明满足HK USA的请求。对此有人有任何异议吗？\n\nKINDSETH先生：对此没有异议。\n\n法院：好的。好。Despins受托人，您现在将提交证据，以支持您希望法院就出售动议作出的事实认定和法律结论？\n\nDESPINS先生：是。Bassett先生（巴塞特先生）将负责此事，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。请继续。\n\nBASSETT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。那么，法官阁下，为向法院预先说明受托人拟提交的证据，我们有一些证物，已作为证人及证物清单的一部分提交至案卷，载于ECF 1930。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 54 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\n然后，我预计将有两名证人作证。首先将由Edmiston（埃德米斯顿）经纪公司、受托人经法院批准聘请以协助出售事宜的Dirk Johnson（德克·约翰逊）作证。他随出售动议提交了一份声明，该声明亦为我刚才提及的ECF 1930中的证人及证物清单的第26号证物。我们拟请Johnson先生采纳其声明作为其直接证言，当然须服从任何人可能提出的异议。Johnson先生在法庭内，以回答法院可能提出的任何问题。我预计不会有交叉询问，但他也可为此接受询问。然后，受托人也将出庭作相对简短的证言。这大致是程序安排。如果法院准许，我很乐意从——从证物开始。\n\n法院：那么，我想确保没有人反对您拟议的进行程序。好的？有人反对Bassett律师拟议的在本案中如何进行举证的方式吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 提交于 07/05/23 登记于 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 55 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\n（无人回应）\n\n法院：好的。既然未听到异议，那么请继续，Bassett律师。\n\nBASSETT先生：非常感谢，法官阁下。正如我提到的，我们提交的证人及证物清单载于ECF 1930。该文件的附件B是证物清单。我相信证物本身也已提交至案卷。事实上，我正在确认它们确已提交，但是——因为我正在查看的副本顶部有Bates编号或ECF印章。\n\n该清单包括第1号至第28号证物。这些证物总体上可分为三类。\n\n第1号至第14号证物是网上互联网刊登内容及其他文件，证明Edmiston为Lady May所作的营销工作，显示其为吸引对出售程序的兴趣所做的工作，包括如我所述的在线广告、其社交媒体帖子等。这些是第1号至第12号证物。第13号证物是一份向潜在竞标人进行联系所使用的电子邮件样本。第14号证物是由经纪人编制的营销报告。\n\n然后，在此之后，我们进入我所称的第二类或第二组文件——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n证物清单。\n自证物15至证物25，\n这些是受托人在出售过程中\n从竞买人处收到的意向书或出价。\n我们\n以字母标识这些文件，以保护其\n保密性；该保密性是作为该程序的一部分与其约定的。\n证物25之后，证物26，如我先前\n所述，是Johnson先生（约翰逊）的声明。\n其后，法官阁下，证物27——\n证物27和28分别为购买和出售协议、\n最终购买和出售协议，以及该\n协议的附录。\n如法院希望，我乐意更详细地说明任何\n证物，但在现阶段，\n如无异议，我请求将受托人证物1至\n28作为证据提交。\n法庭：\n是否有人反对将受托人证物1至28\n作为与出售Lady May（梅夫人号）动议有关的\n完整证物引入证据？\n（无人回应）\n法庭：\n既然无人提出异议，则证物1\n至28全部准予作为证据。\n（受托人证物1至28作为完整证物收到并列入证据）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 登记日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第57页，共93页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 57 法庭：现在，Bassett先生（巴塞特），您得指出您希望我阅读哪些内容。我不会把那28份证物全都读一遍。明白吗？巴塞特先生：明白，法官阁下。法庭：好。至于Johnson先生的声明——等我们审理该事项时，我们将确认是否有人希望交叉询问Johnson先生。明白吗？巴塞特先生：经法院许可，我实际上想现在就审理该事项。法庭：好。巴塞特先生：并且，如我所说，Johnson先生在法庭内——法庭：请Johnson先生起立。好。下午好，Johnson先生。Bassett先生将就您的声明作出一些陈述，我将问您是否同意他所说的一切。明白吗？Johnson先生：是，法官阁下。法庭：好。谢谢。请继续，Bassett先生。巴塞特先生：那么，法官阁下，我们——我正试图确定，对此我表示歉意，最有效和最妥善的推进方式。我们原本打算将整份声明提交入案卷，我提议让Johnson先生\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 登记日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第58页，共93页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 58 将其作为其证词予以确认。我乐意为法院作摘要，或请法院注意其中的特定部分，此外——法庭：我认为您可以作摘要。这样可以。巴塞特先生：好。法庭：各位，嗯，这份文件、这份证物已经在案卷中。我确实认为您可以作摘要。我认为您无需逐段说明。巴塞特先生：当然。法庭：我了解Johnson先生何时受聘，我的意思是，我们已经审查过他的资质和经验，他是一名常驻Newport（纽波特）的经纪人，该船——该游艇已在当地出售，所以我认为我们无需再审查这些。明白吗？巴塞特先生：明白。那么，作一简要摘要，您说得对，法官阁下，我不会赘述其经验。但Johnson先生就职于Edmiston（埃德米斯顿），已在那里任职两年半，拥有15年行业经验，如其声明第3段所述。在其漫长职业生涯中，他参与过——曾参与过大量豪华游艇的出售。正如法院所知，2023年4月，受托人聘请他协助营销和出售Lady May。该聘任开始时就Lady May商定的挂牌价为$26,500,000。我提出，Johnson先生将作证称，设定售价存在一种策略，即设定一个您希望明显高于预期成交价的价格，以便，您知道，遵循“不问则不得”的理念。自受托人聘请Johnson先生以来，他立即着手开展营销程序。他代表受托人，按照其在行业中遵循的惯例，开始联系潜在买家，既通过他基于其丰富行业经验、过去与人合作并出售游艇而认识的人员所构成的自身人脉网络，也联系行业内其他经纪人。随后还开展了在线广告和营销活动，以及印刷广告和营销活动；就此，我请法院注意已被准予作为证据的证物清单中证物1至12。这些是Johnson先生开展的营销工作类型的示例。这些营销工作在其声明第7段中以叙述方式作了更详细说明。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 登记日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第59页，共93页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 59 除上述营销工作外，如我所说，他还向其行业内的许多人——其行业经纪人网络中的许多人发送电子邮件。最终，Edmiston为营销该游艇所作的推送发送给了游艇行业约1850名经纪人。如我所说，该游艇还——该游艇还在用于营销Lady May此类财产的网站上在线挂牌。就其他营销而言，Edmiston是London Heliport（伦敦直升机场）的冠名赞助商。他利用该平台向潜在买家营销Lady May。还在私人航空航站楼内开展营销，这些航站楼由有能力购买Lady May此类游艇的人士经常使用。在第11段中，随后Johnson先生将作证称，最初对Lady May存在相当大的兴趣。有少数潜在买家请求查看该财产，并且事实上，应请求，他们获准查看了该游艇。此后，截至5月20日，受托人和Johnson先生开始收到实际出价。当时，他们收到五项潜在出价，购买价格为——抱歉，当时他们收到五项对Lady May的报价，拟议购买价格范围为18 million至20 million。对此，Edmiston按照受托人指示，以$23 million对这些出价还价。针对该还价，最初竞买人之一将其出价提高至20 million，而其他人未提高其报价。此后，Johnson先生将称，他告诉受托人，鉴于这一特定市场的独特性质，他认为延长营销程序不会有帮助；他建议并在与受托人协商后决定，确定截止时间为5月30日星期二下午5时，供有意方提交最佳和最终出价。该信息已传达给这些潜在竞买人，以及此前未出价但曾对Lady May表示兴趣的其他方。该5月30日星期二的截止时间到来。当时，受托人收到五项出价。我想指出，如Johnson先生在其声明中所证实，所有获告知5月30日截止时间的有意竞买人，均被明确告知出价须具备何种形式，以及，您知道，为被视为可接受而必须符合何种资格条件。例如，最低购买价格为$20\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 61 million。针对在出价被选定为中标出价后48小时内支付20 percent保证金，存在一项要求。还有，重要的是，受托人准备了一份格式购买协议，所有出价均必须以其为基础。如有任何修改，必须以黑线标记方式提供。并且，同样重要的是，对行业中更为典型的一项要求作出了修改；该要求本会允许买家在购买后对游艇进行检验后退出交易。受托人希望对此作出调整，以限制买家在该方面的权利。因此，在载有所有这些要求和指示的电子邮件发出后，最终收到五项出价，这是声明第15段。其中五项出价中的三项超过$20 million最低价。两项低于该价格。需要指出的是，在我称为第二轮竞价的期间，两名并非初始竞买人的竞买人提交了出价，也就是另外两人。但同时，并非所有参与初始一轮的竞买人仍然有兴趣并在5月30日截止日期前提交进一步出价，因此其中一些初始当事人已经退出。例如，如Johnson先生将作证，其中一名\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 登记日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第62页，共93页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 登记日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第63页，共93页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n先前曾提交20 million出价的竞买人称，他无意进一步出价，\n因为他不希望参与竞争性\n竞价程序。\n在5月30日收到这些出价后，\n受托人随后亲自与每一名竞买人进行进一步\n讨论，并采用了受托人认为旨在\n从每一名潜在竞买人获得尽可能多利益，并希望\n产生最佳可能售价的程序。\n一名在\n5月30日截止日期前提交出价的竞买人，最终因受托人采用的该程序\n将其出价提高至$24 million，\n从而成为最高出价人。该人士即\nChambers先生（钱伯斯），拟议买家，最终被选定为\n中标竞买人。\n当时仍在该程序中的其他竞买人，\n即另外两名次高出价人，已被通知\n并获给予提交进一步更优出价的机会，\n两人均拒绝如此。\nJohnson先生进一步证实，涉及其声明\n第17段及其后内容，他认为向该买家的拟议出售系Lady May的最高——\n即最高且最佳出价的结果，该出价是独立交易\n竞价和谈判程序的产物，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 登记日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第64页，共93页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n并且他认为，该买家在整个竞价和谈判程序中均系善意行事。\n他进一步概括证实，他认为\n买家依照PSA提出的购买价格\n是Lady May可获得的最佳价格。\n他还进一步证实，他不认为\n实施正式竞价程序并进行\n公开拍卖程序会提高价格，反而会有\n失去与该买家的交易并削弱\n迄今在该程序中已建立的势头的风险。\n第19和20段中还有进一步证词，\n说明他为何不认为正式拍卖程序\n会有益，这与就此已作出的\n陈述一致。\n因此，再次，法官阁下，我认为这或许是\n比您所设想的证词摘要更长的\n摘要，但它确实仍然只是摘要。\n并且，再次，我们将——我们提议让\nJohnson先生将整份声明\n作为其直接证词予以确认。当然，\n仍须接受法院可能提出的问题，并须接受任何交叉\n询问。\n法庭：好。谢谢。\nJohnson先生，您能否听见律师\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 27, 2023 65 Bassett（巴西特）？\n\n约翰逊先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。巴西特律师所说的内容中，是否有任何一点您不同意？或者您是否有任何想补充的内容？\n\n约翰逊先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。先生，您可以坐下。是否有人希望交叉询问约翰逊先生？（无人回应）\n\n法庭：好的。鉴于无人回应要求交叉询问，我同意将该声明采纳为约翰逊先生的直接证言。对于约翰逊先生的直接证言，我没有问题。谢谢。\n\n巴西特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。此时，受托人将传唤下一位证人，即受托人本人。\n\n法庭：请进行。\n\n（证人宣誓。）\n\n法庭书记员：请坐。请为记录陈述您的姓名和地址。\n\n证人：Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘），200 Park Avenue, New York, New York。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 于 07/05/23 提交 于 07/05/23 17:21:35 录入 第 66 页，共 93 页\n\nLuc Despins（吕克·德斯潘）- 直接询问 - Bassett（巴西特） 66\n\n巴西特先生直接询问：\n\n问：德斯潘先生，除担任第 11 章受托人外，您还是 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）财务重组团队的合伙人，对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：您从事破产法律业务多少年了？\n\n答：37 年。\n\n问：在这 37 年的经验中，您是否以任何身份参与监督过第 11 章财产的出售程序？\n\n答：是的，参与过。数十次。\n\n问：涉及哪些种类的资产？\n\n答：各种资产。管道、整家公司，例如 Fruit of the Loom（水果织布机公司）、软件公司或软件产品、零售物业的租约。还有很多其他的，我记不起来了，不过，您知道。\n\n问：就该等资产出售而言，您个人曾担任哪些类型的角色？\n\n答：我曾担任债务人律师，或委员会律师，并与债务人共同处理资产出售。\n\n问：您已审阅约翰逊先生的声明，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：该声明中是否有任何内容您不同意？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 于 07/05/23 提交 于 07/05/23 17:21:35 录入 第 67 页，共 93 页\n\nLuc Despins - 直接询问 - Bassett 67\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：根据您参与该程序的情况，他就 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）所发生的出售及营销程序所说的内容是否均属准确？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：德斯潘先生，您能否向法庭说明——就您与约翰逊先生的协调而言，您会如何描述您参与该程序的情况？\n\n答：显然，我主要依赖于——因为我不是游艇专家——我依赖 Edmiston（埃德米斯顿）和约翰逊先生的专业知识。但在实际竞价方面，我希望亲自参与并领导该程序。\n\n问：基于该程序以及约翰逊先生声明中对该程序的描述，还有我对此的概述，依您看，由该程序产生的向买方进行的拟议出售，是否使该第 11 章财产的价值最大化？\n\n答：绝对如此。这确实代表了该资产的公平市场价值。它不仅在第一轮中，而且在第二轮中都经过了检验。但即使在购买价格下调之后，我仍联系了唯一可能感兴趣的剩余竞标人，即第二名竞标人，告诉其，您明白您现在可以以超过 23,150,000 的价格购买该资产，而他们拒绝了。因此，关键在于，已经进行了数次市场测试。鉴于所采用的营销程序，今天在听证会上没有人说“我愿意出更高的价”，这说明该资产的价值就是如此。\n\n问：换一种说法，您是否认为，依您看，向买方进行的拟议出售代表该财产的最高且最佳报价？\n\n答：绝对如此。\n\n问：根据您在整个程序中与买方及其代表的互动，您是否相信买方一直是善意行事？\n\n答：是，他一直是善意行事。\n\n问：您是否相信您及您的代表在整个程序中一直是善意行事？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您是否知悉任何可能污染已发生程序的串通竞价或其他类似行为？\n\n答：完全没有。\n\n问：您是否了解买方是否属于债务人的内部人士、关联方，或以其他方式与债务人存在联系？\n\n答：他不是。不仅如此，我们还要求他在购买协议中作出陈述，即他与 Kwok 先生不存在任何联系。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 于 07/05/23 提交 于 07/05/23 17:21:35 录入 第 68 页，共 93 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 于 07/05/23 提交 于 07/05/23 17:21:35 录入 第 69 页，共 93 页\n\nLuc Despins - 直接询问 - Bassett\n\n问：如约翰逊先生所作证，在 5 月 30 日提交竞标后，买方最终同意为该游艇支付 $24 million。但后来该价格被下调了，对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：那么发生了什么？\n\n答：购买协议设想了一个检验程序。我们知道这一点，先前也曾在状态会议上向法庭提及。这就像买房一样。进行检查时，其中存在风险。\n\n我们在买卖协议中协商了一项条款，基本上只有在检验员证明游艇系统或机械存在缺陷时，价格才可以下调。\n\n事实上，后来进行了检验。一家来自 Florida（佛罗里达州）的信誉良好的公司，您知道，负责了该项检验。\n\n因为我不想仅凭他们的一面之词，我们——我要求我们的专家 Dexter White（德克斯特·怀特）监督他们的工作，在他们进行海试时在游艇上。但也要跟进他们所做的工作，并核实他们发现的任何缺陷是否真实。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 于 07/05/23 提交 于 07/05/23 17:21:35 录入 第 70 页，共 93 页\n\nLuc Despins - 直接询问 - Bassett\n\n答：事实上，他这样做了，并向我报告了所有这些情况。\n\n问：那么，就买方在检验后发现的这些缺陷或其他项目而言，该问题最终是如何解决的？\n\n答：是的。检验发现了游艇的四项主要问题。\n\n为避免过于技术化，第一项是黑水处理系统。该系统存在缺陷，确实存在严重缺陷。\n\n第二项是电力转换器系统。这是一艘欧洲制造的游艇，使用欧洲电流。必须转换为美国电流。因此，有一套机械设备用于进行该转换。它被称为——我忘了确切术语，但它是一种转换器，而该转换器显然曾暴露于盐水，无法正常运作。这是第二项。\n\n第三项是发电机。我想可以把它看作电池。但这些发电机曾被大量使用，可能是因为第一个问题，也就是说，无法依赖可在码头使用的电流。其实际后果是，发电机的使用寿命非常有限。这是第三项问题。\n\n第四项问题是该游艇使用 Windows XP。您可能会想，好吧，去 Office Depot（办公用品仓储店）买一个新软件。但我了解到，不能只更换软件。您需要更换——大量的编程，而这使您能够下载。顺便说一下，由于 Windows XP 已经非常老旧，而 Microsoft（微软）不再为其提供更新，您无法下载沿美国海岸线操作该游艇所需的所有地图和所有程序。基本上，您需要予以更换。因此，这并不是一项 $300 或 $2,000 的工作。仅该项目的更换费用就在 25 至 50,000 之间。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 于 07/05/23 提交 于 07/05/23 17:21:35 录入 第 71 页，共 93 页\n\nLuc Despins - 直接询问 - Bassett 71\n\n问：买方是否提出了其认为修复这些问题将花费多少，以及因此希望将购买价格下调多少的要求？\n\n答：是的。最初的要求是 2.5 million。\n\n问：为了您自己的判断，您是否采取任何措施，以了解——了解您认为修复这些问题的适当成本应为何？\n\n答：是的。我与我们的专家怀特先生进行了广泛讨论，他得出的结论是，您知道，所有这些问题的成本范围将在 750 至 $850,000 之间。但我认为重要的是要指出，购买协议的运作方式是，如果买方发现缺陷，或者检验发现缺陷，那么买方此时可以退出，这确实扭转了我所拥有的议价优势。因为，您知道，经纪人对此非常明确。他们说，如果买方因检验中发现的缺陷而退出，这艘船——或者说这艘游艇——将在市场上被视为有毒资产，您将需要数月才能出售它，而且您永远无法获得超过 $20 million 的价格，因为该买方是业内知名人士。他拥有数艘游艇，这对他有利。获得他的认可非常有价值，但若被他拒绝，用经纪人的话说，将对我们的程序造成致命打击。\n\n问：您在回答中提到了这个人，即怀特先生，我认为您将其称为您的专家。您能否向法庭进一步说明怀特先生是谁？\n\n答：我想法庭可能熟悉他。他所在的公司名为 EOS（EOS）。我们聘请他们——当时有修理——我们设立了一项修理准备金。最初由 PAX（PAX）聘请。后来他成为我们的专家。因此，他此前已多次登上该游艇，以确定修理准备金的背景下对游艇进行考察；我决定在此程序中使用他，因为他已经非常熟悉该游艇。\n\n问：那么，在与他交谈并且，您知道，获得他对这些修理费用的估计后，您是否随后尝试与买方协商解决？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 于 07/05/23 提交 于 07/05/23 17:21:35 录入 第 72 页，共 93 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1980 于 07/05/23 提交 于 07/05/23 17:21:35 录入 第 73 页，共 93 页\n\nLuc Despins - 直接询问 - Bassett\n\n答：是的，我这样做了。\n\n问：发生了什么？\n\n答：嗯，这就是他提出 2.5 million 要求的时候，我说这不合理。因此，我们就此来回协商。我最初提出 750，但他拒绝了。随后我们以 850 解决。说实话，这就像是我自己的钱。我对此感到非常痛心。但这——是在完成交易，还是与报价在 16、17 million dollar 区间的其他竞标人碰碰运气之间的选择。\n\n而且我们还必须记住，这个玩意儿的成本荒谬至极。我们必须支付船员费用。我们必须支付停泊费。\n\n因此——所以接受该下调是痛苦的，但依我的判断，这是使财产价值最大化的最佳方式。\n\n问：现在，您与买方订立的这份买卖协议，是否规定交易必须完成交割的日期？\n\n答：是的。June 30th。\n\n问：您了解该日期的原因是什么？\n\n答：因为买方希望在 July 期间使用该船。\n\n卢克·德斯平（Luc Despins）—巴塞特（Bassett）直接询问，第74页：7月4日假期。我的意思是，他原本计划把他的另一艘游艇从意大利开回美国，但因这次购买而改变了计划。就在今天上午，我与他的律师交谈过，6月30日这个日期是真实确定的日期，他们坚持这一日期。问：我想这些就是我想向您提出的具体问题。但在结束之前，既然我们请求法院今天批准该出售，您认为还有什么我遗漏而法院应当知悉的事项吗？答：没有。我总体上会说，我认为这确实是能够获得的最佳价格。我从其他经纪人以及这位经纪人那里获得的、关于这艘游艇可能售价的评估，是低20百万美元区间，\\$21,000 million。我说，我拒绝接受这个价格。让我施展我们的破产魔法，我们会创造价值。他们嘲笑我，说，不，它会以21-22的价格售出。因此，我对这个结果非常满意。但是，您知道，我认为这确实是它的最佳价值。而且我相信，如果有其他情况，我们本应听说，因为整个市场都知道这次购买。有游艇出版物。实际上，买方钱伯斯先生（Mr. Chambers）告诉我，他对提及他的姓名感到非常不高兴。我说，\n\n卢克·德斯平（Luc Despins）—巴塞特（Bassett）直接询问，第75页：嗯，这是法院程序，我们需要将您的姓名确定为买受人。但显然，他的名字被刊登在所有这些游艇出版物上，因此每个人都知道这笔交易。因此，如果法院批准，市场就知道今天将以21，抱歉，23,150出售。因此，这给我很大信心，认为这是现有的最佳价值。巴塞特先生（MR. BASSETT）：法官阁下，没有进一步问题。法院：谢谢。那么作为该交易的一部分，德斯平先生，撤销动议也得到解决了吗？证人：是的，法官阁下。法院：好的。这是因为异议人正在撤回其对出售的异议吗？证人：以……为前提——法院：抱歉。让我把这一点说清楚。有四项书面异议，其中三项以信函形式提出。我不是在谈论那些异议。我谈论的是HK USA（HK USA）一方的异议。我现在不记得了，我得回头查看，郭女士（Ms. Guo）是否也提出了异议。但同样排期\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 于 07/05/23 提交，于 07/05/23 17:21:35 登记，第 75 页，共 93 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 于 07/05/23 提交，于 07/05/23 17:21:35 登记，第 76 页，共 93 页\n\n卢克·德斯平（Luc Despins）—巴塞特（Bassett）直接询问，第76页：于今日举行听证的撤销动议，我的理解是，在与出售程序有关的事项中，HK USA以及可能还有郭女士向您送达了证据开示材料。我不记得了。您得向我说明。但这些问题已经解决了吗？法院无需处理这些问题？证人：是的，法官阁下。法院：而且——因此，除了我刚才谈到的由当事人提交并登记在案的信函之外，我所知的唯一异议是由——我相信是代表郭女士和HK International（HK International）提出的异议。我认为是ECF 1939。因此，这已解决了吗？金德塞思先生（Mr. Kindseth），该异议将被撤回吗？金德塞思先生：根据将修订内容纳入出售命令的协议，我们将撤回我们的异议。我们也将撤回传票。因此，这些问题已基于对出售命令的修订得到解决。法院：好的。那么，假定出售获准，撤销动议将成为无实际意义的问题。但我们尚未进行到那一步，我只是想确保我——我对此的理解是清楚的。好的，我没有进一步问题，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 于 07/05/23 提交，于 07/05/23 17:21:35 登记，第 77 页，共 93 页\n\n卢克·德斯平（Luc Despins）—巴塞特（Bassett）直接询问，第77页：德斯平受托人（Trustee Despins）。是否有人希望交叉询问德斯平受托人？（无人回应）法院：好的。既然没有听到回应，您可以退席。证人：谢谢。法院：谢谢。（证人退席）法院：巴塞特先生？巴塞特先生：法官阁下，至此受托人为支持出售动议而进行的举证陈述结束。此时，我愿继续作一些简短的结案陈词。法院：让我确认一下我是否还有其他问题。我想我没有，但我想花一点时间确认。巴塞特先生：当然。（暂停）法院：请继续，巴塞特先生。巴塞特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。因此，仅简要作结案陈词，我认为已提交的证据、已纳入证据记录的28项证物、经纪人约翰逊先生（Mr. Johnson）的声明、受托人的证言，以及，您知道，最终的买卖协议本身，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 于 07/05/23 提交，于 07/05/23 17:21:35 登记，第 78 页，共 93 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年6月27日，第78页：我认为所有这些均强有力地支持本法院作出认定，即该出售是受托人在包括经纪人和怀特先生（Mr. White）在内的经验丰富专业人士协助下所进行的充分程序的成果；营销程序依照行业标准进行，并符合约翰逊先生基于其多年经验在其声明中所述的这一特定资产的特定市场的独特性质。最终，出售程序在5月30日达成了一项出售——达成了一项\\$24 million的出售；在经纪人和受托人看来，这是一项显著成功。如德斯平先生——如受托人详细作证，\\$24 million此后当然减少了\\$150,000；我谨提交，依据法院面前的记录，该减少是适当的，符合破产财产的最佳利益。在一项检验之后进行此类谈判，抱歉，不是在成交后，而是在检验之后，是经常发生的事情。在本案中，受托人在怀特先生的协助下，以有利于破产财产的方式解决了该情况，并为破产财产保留了这一价值最大化交易。我想指出，我认为一个极有说明力的事实是，除少数自行诉讼的异议外，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 于 07/05/23 提交，于 07/05/23 17:21:35 登记，第 79 页，共 93 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年6月27日：除我将谈及的少数自行诉讼异议外，没有任何其他利害关系方对该出售提出尚待处理的异议。该出售获得了在这些案件中具有最大经济利益的一些最大利益相关群体，即PAX和委员会的完全支持。因此，法官阁下，基于不存在任何异议，基于受托人今天提交的充分记录，我们谨请求依据《破产法典》第363条批准该出售。我们认为，拟议命令中的所有认定和规定，均有依据今天证据所建立的记录支持，并且在其他方面亦符合《破产法典》和《破产程序规则》的规定；我们请求该出售除其他事项外，应根据《破产法典》第363条自由且无任何权利负担地进行，当然应受拟议命令中就与金德塞思先生讨论过的出售所得款项所载的权利保留措辞约束。我们还认为，买方应有权获得《破产法典》第363(m)条的保护。证言支持认定买方系善意行事。我们还请求，作为我们拟议命令的一部分，\n\n应批准向经纪人支付5%的费用。我认为，从约翰逊先生的证言和受托人的证言可以清楚看出，他增加了重大价值，并在该程序中发挥了不可或缺的作用。我们还请求——部分文件中提及了Local Rule 6004-2。在该规则可被理解为表明出售动议须附有单独正式评估的范围内，并且我们已在动议中提出此事，我们请求豁免该要求，因为在这里，正如受托人和约翰逊先生的证言及其他证据所证明的，程序本身已证明该游艇的公平市场价值。最后，法官阁下，我们请求豁免通常适用14日的《破产程序规则》6004(h)项下的中止。这里，受托人已就须在6月30日前完成交易作证。约翰逊先生也在其声明中提及这一点。因此，法官阁下，据此我们谨请求作出命令，即准予录入我们已提交的拟议正式命令，以批准该出售。案件 22-50073 文书 1980 于 07/05/23 提交，于 07/05/23 17:21:35 登记，第 80 页，共 93 页\n\n如无任何问题，法官阁下，这就是我的全部结案陈词。\n\n法院：还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年6月27日，第81页：萨诺夫先生（MR. SARNOFF）：是的，法官阁下。我可以简要发言吗？斯图尔特·萨诺夫（Stuart Sarnoff）。法院：请您到前面来，以便我们能听见您发言，可以吗？萨诺夫先生：当然。谢谢。斯图尔特·萨诺夫，奥美律师事务所（O'Melveny & Myers），代表债权人PAX。巴塞特先生表示，您知道，我们没有提出异议，而且确实支持该出售。我只是想在记录中说明，PAX已审阅出售材料和所有证物，并且确实支持该出售。我们一直等待资产进入破产财产很长时间。作为最大的债权人，我们支持以该价格出售。法院：谢谢，萨诺夫律师。还有其他人希望发言吗？梅休女士（MS. MAYHEW）：法官阁下，克里斯滕·梅休（Kristen Mayhew）代表委员会。我们同样支持该出售。我们已审阅所有材料，并认为该出售确实为这——为该游艇提出了最高且最佳的报价。我们认为应批准出售动议。法院：谢谢。梅休女士：谢谢。案件 22-50073 文书 1980 于 07/05/23 提交，于 07/05/23 17:21:35 登记，第 81 页，共 93 页\n\n法院：还有其他人希望发言吗？布恩先生（MR. BOONE）：下午好，法官阁下。罗比\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 于 07/05/23 提交，于 07/05/23 17:21:35 登记，第 82 页，共 93 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年6月27日，第82页：布恩（Robbie Boone）代表买方。我想确认买方同意对命令作出的全部拟议变更，并且也想感谢法官阁下因昨日航班取消而允许我通过Zoom出席。法院：谢谢。感谢您出席。很遗憾您的航班因天气原因取消。我明白这就是您需要远程出席的原因，这是可以的。巴塞特律师和我相信德斯平受托人均已在记录中表示，布恩律师，您的委托人已准备好、愿意并且能够完成该交易。对吗？布恩先生：是的，法官阁下。他已准备好、愿意，并且非常希望尽快完成该交易。法院：您认为它将在30日，即6月30日完成交易吗？布恩先生：在30日或更早，如果我们能够安排好为使其离开自由贸易区以及所有其他需要完成的事项所需安排。但是，是的，30日将是我们完成交易的绝对最晚日期。法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1980 于 07/05/23 提交，于 07/05/23 17:21:35 登记，第 83 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 83 唯一的问题是——还有其他人希望就该命令发表意见吗？我只有几件事要说。我的意思是，我已经审阅了这份文件——如你们所知，我今天才审阅这份文件。好吗？那么，如果没有其他人希望发表意见，我唯一想做的事情是——Claiborn 律师（克莱伯恩律师），您希望发表意见吗？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：抱歉。在我发表意见之前，我向所有当事人致歉，我先前疏忽了提出这个问题。我只是想在命令中增加一项规定，即在成交后十日内向案卷提交成交结算单，以便各方——\n\n法院：这是我们的地方法规所要求的。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：只是该规定并未载入实际命令中，而且我——\n\n法院：不。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：——疏忽了提出该问题。\n\n法院：有几处修改，我认为其中均不属重大或实质性修改，但我希望将其载入命令。因此，我希望有人正在做笔记，对吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生（巴塞特先生）：是，法官阁下。\n\nDESPINS 先生（卢克·A·德斯平斯先生）：是，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 录入日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 84 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 84 法院：好的。因此，关于该命令，在第二页、“the hearing”这一已定义术语之前，大家看到我所说的位置了吗？大约在第 2 页的中间——中间位置？好的。那么，在“and hearing on the motion having been held”之后，律师，你们看到我所说的位置了吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。\n\n法院：在第 2 页？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。\n\nBASSETT 先生：是。\n\n法院：好的。那么，我希望你们添加以下措辞：“Having been held on June 27th, 2023, during which the Trustee's Exhibits 1 through 28 and the testimony of Mr. Johnson and the Trustee were admitted into evidence in support of the sale.”好吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。\n\nBASSETT 先生：是。\n\n法院：这对你们来说有意义吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：有，法官阁下。\n\n法院：确实如此。好的。好。那么，同一页，“法院现作出如下认定”，脚注 4，我对脚注 4 的第一句没有意见，但我不希望保留脚注 4 的最后两句。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 录入日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 85 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\n1 脚注 4 的最后两句，因为地区法院有时会认为\n\n2 那令人困惑。因此，如果有人提起上诉，我不\n\n3 希望地区法院说，我们必须再举行一次\n\n4 听证会，以告诉我我们的事实认定和法律\n\n5 结论是什么。好吗？\n\n6 DESPINS 先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n7 法院：Bassett 先生，我们刚才正要谈论\n\n8 这个问题，但我不知道，我想你还没有，我不认为\n\n9 我让你——我们需要——我想我们——其中确实谈到\n\n10 驳回异议，但我希望明确\n\n11 提及这些异议。\n\n12 你只需写明，对出售提出的异议，\n\n13 ECF 编号。我不——你不需要列出每一个人的\n\n14 姓名。但是，再说一次——\n\n15 BASSETT 先生：明白。而且——\n\n16 法院：——如果此案被上诉。\n\n17 BASSETT 先生：是。\n\n18 法院：——我希望地区法院\n\n19 理解我们在谈论什么。\n\n20 BASSETT 先生：当然，法官阁下。并且感谢\n\n21 您提醒我。\n\n22 法院：好的。\n\n23 BASSETT 先生：因为我原本打算在我的\n\n24 意见中提出这一点，但我忘了。\n\n25 因此，据我理解，除 HK USA 提出的异议外，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 录入日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 86 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 86 以及我相信因录入修订后的拟议命令而已解决并撤回的 Mei Guo（郭美）提出的异议外，我认为仅有另外四项异议。\n\n法院：正确。这就是我所看到的全部。\n\nBASSETT 先生：而且我相信，抱歉，我有姓名，但其中一项的 ECF 案卷编号可能遗漏了，不过我——\n\n法院：我都有，所以。\n\nBASSETT 先生：我有 1947、1946、1945，然后还有一项。\n\n法院：十九，三十三。\n\nBASSETT 先生：十九，三十三。而且我认为，如同事或法院予以纠正则从其纠正，这些异议在实质上相同，即便并非完全相同；但是——我们很难，稍微有些难以准确解读所提出的论点，不过它们似乎是一些个人债权人，对法院审理的该项动议所适用的程序有些困惑。他们对由 Kwok 先生本人私下出售该游艇的想法提出异议，认为在他们就针对 Kwok 先生的债权或申诉获得赔偿之前，不应如此。实际上，我们当然——我相信受托人\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 录入日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 87 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 87 实际上联系了其中一人，并说，看，这不是这里正在发生的事情。我认为只是存在一些——显然存在一些误解。但无论如何，今天这些当事人均未到庭。我认为这些异议毫无依据。当然，这是受托人为破产财产全体债权人的利益出售该游艇，包括这些债权人，只要他们拥有债权；因此，我们请求驳回这些异议。\n\n法院：我已审阅以书信形式提交的异议。如我们刚才所述，共有四项：1933、1945、1946 和 1947。它们在实质上相同。它们请求法院在个别债务人就游艇进行出售之前，不允许出售该游艇，直至其债权获得赔偿。没有任何当事人出庭推动其异议。尽管我理解他们为何认为有必要提出异议，但看来他们并不了解，是受托人在出售 Lady May（“梅夫人号”），而非 Kwok 先生，并且 Lady May 的任何款项均不会支付给 Kwok 先生，而这正是——每一项异议所担忧之处。因此，所有这些异议均因以下\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 录入日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 88 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\n1 在记录中所述的理由而被驳回。我希望将此——我\n\n2 希望在命令中载明此项内容。\n\n3 我还希望，对于 Mei Guo（郭美）\n\n4 和 HK International（香港国际）提出的异议，ECF 1939，应当——在\n\n5 命令中表明该异议因协议而得到解决，因为\n\n6 按照 HK International Funds（香港国际基金）和 Mei Guo（郭美）的律师\n\n7 所请求而在命令中增加了措辞。\n\n8 我已对第 9 段作出的修改维持不变。\n\n9 我们已在听证会开始时讨论过该项修改。\n\n10 而且我认为律师可能理解了对第 9 段作出的\n\n11 该项修改。在该段中——在大约\n\n12 2:10 左右或类似时间提交的红线版本中，有三处\n\n13 需要作出该项修改。\n\n14 \n\n15 然后，Despins 受托人，我同意美国受托人办公室\n\n16 的意见，即命令中应作出一项规定，\n\n17 你可以将其放在——看起来是第——段附近；你可以\n\n18 按你认为适当的方式——放在你认为适当的位置，但可能适合放在——嗯，\n\n19 让我看看。例如，我不知道它在哪里——可能\n\n20 是第 22 段，只是你要写明，\n\n21 成交结算单将在成交发生后十日内提交至\n\n22 本案案卷。好吗？\n\n23 \n\n24 DESPINS 先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n25 法院：我对该命令没有进一步修改。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 录入日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 89 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 89 BASSETT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。因此，基于记录中陈述的所有理由，包括本案记录以及相关对抗程序的记录，只要其与出售 Lady May（“梅夫人号”）有关，批准将 Lady May 出售给由受托人在拟议命令、证词中以及——通过代表最高且最佳竞买人的出庭律师所确认的最高且最佳竞买人的动议。准许该动议。将录入经我在记录中指出的修改后的拟议命令。我想，Boone 律师（布恩律师），您希望尽快取得该命令。因此，我们需要——我的意思是，我相信你们可以相当快地作出这些修改，我们可以争取今晚签署该命令。\n\nDESPINS 先生：那将非常好，法官阁下，因为我们需要将其发送到欧洲以办理成交等事宜。因此，那将非常好。\n\n法院：那么，如果你们能够取得那些——嗯，你们很快就作出了其他修改，因此我想你们大概可以在不到 20 分钟内完成这些修改。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 录入日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 90 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 90 DESPINS 先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：然后再次将命令提交至法庭书记员电子邮箱，随后该命令将被录入。好吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我知道为此投入了大量工作。我感谢 Johnson 先生（德克·约翰逊先生）今天到庭，以防有人对他提出问题。先生，您到庭是必要的，因为我们不知道是否有人会向您提问。我确实审阅了你们的营销工作以及通常提交的所有证据材料。我看到了贵公司所做的工作。我看到了收到的意向书。我显然也看到了您的声明。我们谈过这一点。我曾看过购买和出售协议，随后又看过补充协议，这些均为今天听证会上作为证据提出的证据材料。因此，我感谢所有相关当事人的努力。而且我认为，或者我不应说我认为，而是很明确，出售该游艇符合债务人破产财产及债权人的最佳利益。受托人提交的证据支持\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 录入日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 91 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 91 根据第 363 条，并在 363(m) 和适用规则即《联邦破产程序规则》的保护下，准许该动议。我知道受托人还请求根据第 105 条录入该命令。鉴于本案的具体事实和情况，以及本案和相关对抗程序的记录，法院将援引第 105 条，以便——增强已在据以请求并获得该资产出售的《破产法典》适用条款中规定的救济。今天下午我们还需要做什么吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：就此事项而言，没有，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我们在 4 点有一次状态会议。我知道。抱歉。我本应说，就出售动议而言。\n\nDESPINS 先生：没有，法官阁下。谢谢您。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nBASSETT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么我现在给你们时间去做这件事。我们休庭至 4 点。并且，如果能在该时间范围内作出修改，也许命令甚至会在休庭前录入。好吗？那么，谢谢各位。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1980 提交日期 07/05/23 录入日期 07/05/23 17:21:35 第 92 页，共 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日\n\n1 法院休庭至下午 4:00。\n\n2 （法院于下午 3:25 休庭。）\n\n3 本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法院批准的记录转写员及\n\n4 认证电子法庭记录员和转写员，特此证明，\n\n5 上述内容系根据对上述\n\n6 所涉事项诉讼程序的官方电子录音制作的正确文字记录。\n\n10 2023年7月5日\n\n11 Christine Fiore（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），CERT\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年6月27日 93\n\n2 索引\n\n4 直接询问\n交叉询问\n\n5 受托人方证人：\n\n6 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n\n8 证据材料： 页码\n\n9 1-12 在线互联网出售刊登信息 56\n\n10 13 致有意向各方的示例电子邮件 56\n\n11 14 经纪人营销报告 56\n\n12 15-25 竞买人意向书 56\n\n13 26 Dirk Johnson（德克·约翰逊）的声明 56\n\n14 27 购买和出售协议 56\n\n15 28 购买和出售协议补充协议 56","key_entities":["Kwok","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Guo","Luc Despins","HCHK","CIPA","G Clubs","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se","Himalaya","GTV","Farm Loan"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":19,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":38,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1805,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1930,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1939,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":23400,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-07-05 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-07-05","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:07:34"}