{"id":"court_ctb_1985_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1985,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2023-07-07","title":"| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | | DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | | |\n|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--|\n| In Re | | * | | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n| | HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | *
*
*
* | June 29, 2023 | Bridgeport, Connecticut | |\n| | Debtor. | *
* | | | |\n| | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE | | TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS | | |\n| #1831
#1851 | INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FOR PAUL
HASTINGS LLP, TRUSTEE'S ATTORNEY FE>EXPENSES \\$348,813.54
INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FOR NEUBERT, | | | | |\n| | PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C., TRUSTEE'S ATTORNEY FEE:
\\$561,718.50; EXPENSES \\$0 | | | | |\n| #1870 | APPLICATION PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS
327(e), 328(a) and 3,(a), BANKRUPTCY RULES 2014
and 2016 and LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULES 2014-1 and
2016-1, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING RETENTION AND
EMPLOYMENT OF SAXE DOERNBERGER & VITA, P.C. AS
SPECIAL INSURANCE COVERAGE COUNSEL | | | | |\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:\n\nChapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\n\n200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: G. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue\n\n> PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510\n\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPaul Hastings\n\n- For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the U.S. Trustee 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510\n- For the Creditors Committee: IRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 3 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 10:05 a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings, LLC. THE COURT: Good morning. If we could have appearance for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee please. MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. BONGARTZ: Good morning, Your Honor. Alex Bongartz, of Paul Hastings, for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. LINSEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert Pepe & Monteith, Connecticut counsel for the Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. CLAIBORN: Good morning. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. GOLDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, for the Creditors Committee. THE COURT: Good morning. All right. So there are three matters on the calendar this morning, two are fee applications and one is an application to employ counsel.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 4 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023
4 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | How would you like to proceed, Trustee Despins? |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
I can start with the application to |\n| 3 | retain the counsel, if that's okay. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead.
Yes.
Thank you. |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor.
And good |\n| 6 | morning again.
Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 7 | And this is the application to retain the firm of |\n| 8 | Saxe Doernberger & Vita.
They're based in Connecticut.
And |\n| 9 | the fee application is at docket 1870. |\n| 10 | And they are -- they were retained to handle |\n| 11 | insurance coverage disputes relating to AIG, as Your Honor |\n| 12 | is familiar because you've interacted with them already. |\n| 13 | And we filed the application.
And we received no |\n| 14 | objections.
And, therefore, subject to any changes you may |\n| 15 | have to the order we would ask the Court to enter the order. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
The only question I have with regard |\n| 17 | to the engagement of this counsel is, and I apologize, I |\n| 18 | don't have it in front of me so I don't recall, is are they |\n| 19 | being paid on an hourly basis? |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, they are, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
All right.
And they're -- and they'll |\n| 24 | be submitting fee applications? |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 5 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023
5 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
The only reason I asked is |\n| 2 | sometimes I miss if there's some other form of compensation |\n| 3 | requested under 328 at the beginning -- |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
-- of a -- of a retention of |\n| 6 | professional, but I didn't think that was true in this case. |\n| 7 | But I didn't recall. |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
It's hourly rates, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 10 | I don't -- I do not have any questions. |\n| 11 | I understand why you would like to retain special |\n| 12 | counsel and the documents that I've seen certainly support |\n| 13 | the application. |\n| 14 | I'm looking at the proposed order.
And the only |\n| 15 | reason I asked the question was because of the reference to |\n| 16 | 328.
But it's 328(a) which is the Trustee's ability to |\n| 17 | retain counsel.
So I don't have a problem with it. |\n| 18 | But does anyone else wish to be heard on the |\n| 19 | application to employ special insurance counsel? |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Just briefly, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | The U.S. Trustee filed a statement of no objection |\n| 22 | to the application.
That's at ECF 1941. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
And just to be clear the reference |\n| 25 | to 328 in the application in no way interferes with the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 6 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 6 ability of the Court or the U.S. Trustee or creditors to opine on the reasonableness of the fees when they're sought. THE COURT: Yeah. Often, and I saw that when I looked back at the retention of Paul Hastings and Neubert and Pepe as well, often 328 isn't mentioned. It's just 327. So I just -- I like to make sure when 328 is mentioned that no one is, and no one is in this case, but insisting that there's some kind of compensation that's set from the beginning. Because as you all know there's a lot of case law that says, you know, you can't touch that once that's done or it's very limited ability. So that's fine. The only thing that I don't see, and maybe I missed it, so let's just -- let me -- oh, it is there -- it's there, I just -- effective May 11. That's what I'm asking. What was the date that they retained as of and it's May 11th. I see it now in paragraph 2 of the ordered paragraphs. So does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. GOLDMAN: Just the committee has no objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. As I stated already, I've reviewed the application. I understand why the Trustee is seeking to retain special counsel. Certainly understand under the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 7 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 7 specific facts and circumstances of the cases in the adversary proceeding involving the insurance the need for special counsel to deal with or help the Trustee deal with the insurance issues. No one has filed any written objection to the application to employ. There is no one participating in this hearing today that is objecting to the application to employ. The United States Trustee's Office has filed a statement of no objection with regard to the application to employ, which is ECF No. 1941. For all those reasons the application is granted and the proposed that was submitted with the application can enter. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. I would just point out that they are not only insurance coverage counsel, but also local Connecticut counsel -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. DESPINS: -- because Mr. Linsey's firm -- actually, we can say that it's Mr. Linsey's firm because he's now a partner at his firm -- that has a conflict and that was my way of mentioning that he made partner. THE COURT: That he did or did not? MR. DESPINS: He did. He did. Just did. THE COURT: Oh, well, congratulations, Mr. Linsey.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 8 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023
8 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
So they're also local counsel so |\n| 3 | that, you know, that covers that. |\n| 4 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
So the next matter I would move on |\n| 7 | to would be the interim application for -- to retain -- to |\n| 8 | pay Paul Hastings. |\n| 9 | And, Your Honor, so that I'm not going to take a |\n| 10 | lot of time on this, but I would -- there are two aspects I |\n| 11 | want to cover. |\n| 12 | One is I want to describe and reflect the |\n| 13 | settlements that were agreed to with the U.S. Trustee and |\n| 14 | the committee. |\n| 15 | And then I'll have very short, very short |\n| 16 | editorially comments about some aspects of the fees here. |\n| 17 | But first, on the settlements, as you can imagine, |\n| 18 | in the background there are a lot of discussions that were |\n| 19 | taking place with both the U.S. Trustee and the committee. |\n| 20 | One of the issues that was being discussed was the issue of |\n| 21 | holdbacks. |\n| 22 | And our initial position was that there should be |\n| 23 | no holdbacks during the case because there's a contingent |\n| 24 | fee deal and we haven't gotten paid.
And on top of that |\n| 25 | there was a built-in holdback because this application only |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 9 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023
9 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | covers through February.
So there's March, April, May, |\n| 2 | June, plenty of money to cover a holdback. |\n| 3 | But the counter from their point was, which was a |\n| 4 | good one, which is, well, what stops you from filing an |\n| 5 | application on Friday that brings all that up and there will |\n| 6 | be no holdbacks at all? |\n| 7 | And so we agreed as part of this back and forth |\n| 8 | that any future application would be subject to a 20 percent |\n| 9 | holdback provided that we -- that we're getting paid -- and |\n| 10 | this applies to all professionals in the case -- on a more |\n| 11 | regular basis which we defined at no more than 60 days. |\n| 12 | So, for example, we're not going to file an |\n| 13 | application tomorrow, but if we did, and it is heard and |\n| 14 | paid, subject to Your Honor's decision to allow or not |\n| 15 | allow, within 60 days, then there would be 20 percent held |\n| 16 | back for the rest of the case for that application. |\n| 17 | And the concept there is if now we're getting -- |\n| 18 | we have money, we're getting into a more regular mode where |\n| 19 | -- where fee applications can be heard and can be dealt |\n| 20 | with. |\n| 21 | And so that was the agreement that was reached, |\n| 22 | which is that there will be a 20 percent holdback going |\n| 23 | forward for all future fee applications provided that we are |\n| 24 | operating in this normal mode which is defined as, you know, |\n| 25 | no more than 60 days or so. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 10 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 10 So that's -- so that's the first part on holdbacks. I wanted to mention that discussion with the U.S. Trustee and with the committee on that. The second part is the U.S. Trustee raised a number of issues with some of the time entries. And to give you some examples, too many lawyers at a hearing or vague entries. And so to be candid with you counsel for the U.S. Trustee was correct on some of the issues regarding too many lawyers at a hearing, although frankly sometimes I was alone at a hearing, but I guess that doesn't -- that doesn't counter that argument, but she was right on that issue. And on a vague entry we -- it's all subject to disagreement. We didn't agree with the bulk of her comments, but at the end of the day we agreed to a \\$550,000 reduction, Your Honor, which we think is substantial to address all these issues. And we've -- I would say we took on some comments that the U.S. Trustee had in terms of making it easier for the U.S. Trustee and for parties in interest and for the Court to ascertain the value provided with respect to adversary proceedings. So from no on the next applications that are filed will have every adversary proceeding billed separately so\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 11 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 11 that we can look at the adversary proceeding and say, wow, you know, it cost us more than we recovered, which would not be good, or hopefully it will be, no, we recovered more than we spent. But I think that it was a very good suggestion. We're going to implement that going forward so all future fee applications will have separate categories for each adversary proceeding so that the Court can see that. I would say on the reduction I don't think -- I don't want this to be precedent setting in a sense that we now know what issues were raised, we're not going to hopefully repeat these issues, so that -- so that we won't be in the same position, but clearly in order to get this resolved with the U.S. Trustee we agreed to the \\$550,000 reduction. And as I said we think it's a material reduction. So before I move on to what I call my short editorial comments, maybe the committee or the U.S. Trustee wants to address this aspect of -- or later -- it's up -- MR. GOLDMAN: Well, I did want to mention it wasn't my understanding that the future 20 percent holdbacks would be subject to any shortening of the time for filing fee applications under Section 331. We have no objection to the Court doing that 60 days or even a shorter period, but it wasn't my understanding that this agreement with the committee was\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 12 conditioned on the Court doing that. THE COURT: You can have a conversation. Go ahead. (Pause) MR. DESPINS: We want the Court to reduce the time to hear and decide fee applications to a 30-60 day period. But counsel is right that I'm taking the risk that the Court would refuse to do that and would only hear fee applications on a four-month interval which is in the statute. I'm sorry. He's correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: And there's no relief pending before the Court on that. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: We hope that Your Honor will do that, but I'm taking a risk that the Court will refuse to do that. So that covers the committee. MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, with respect to the U.S. Trustee's points on the reductions requested, we did reach a consensual number which is memorialized in the statement that I filed on the docket at ECF 1949. If the Court has any questions about that, I'm happy to answer them. THE COURT: I'm not sure I have questions per se. Case 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 12 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 13 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 13 I think that I can understand the discussions that have -- were had and Trustee Despins said about certain entries being vague or having many -- too many lawyers at a hearing or things like that. I will say that I agree with Trustee Despins that this is not some kind of precedent set in this case if and when further fee applications are filed. I think every fee application has to be reviewed separately from any fee application that's been filed previously. I think that in connection with this case and what I have observed in this case that the -- there has been -- this has been a heavily litigated case to put it mildly. And I think that the Trustee has attempted to keep costs and fees in a range that is reasonable under the very specific and detailed circumstances of this -- these cases and the numerous adversary proceedings. And so I completely understand the discussions. I think the discussions are healthy. I think they should happen. I've no issue with that. But I don't think it should be something that everyone expects on a going-forward basis. The Court, as you know, has an independent obligation to review the fees as well. Otherwise why am I here, right? I mean, there's really no point. So there are -- I mean, I think anyone could go\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 14 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023
14 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | through any fee application of any magnitude, whether it's a |\n| 2 | thousand dollars or \\$12 million, and make a determination or |\n| 3 | suggestion that time should be reduced. |\n| 4 | But I don't -- I want to be clear that I don't -- |\n| 5 | I will not -- someone will not be successful in arguing |\n| 6 | before me, well, that was done last time so you should do it |\n| 7 | again.
That will not be a successful argument. |\n| 8 | This is a very -- I mean, I don't have to tell |\n| 9 | anybody in this room this is a very unusual case that has |\n| 10 | been heavily, heavily litigated at every step.
I can't |\n| 11 | think of -- I guess today maybe is the only day we haven't |\n| 12 | had an objection which is fascinating in and of itself. |\n| 13 | But, you know, every single time something has |\n| 14 | been filed there's an objection, there's the discovery |\n| 15 | disputes, often for whatever reason we all come ready to |\n| 16 | think that there's going to be a controversy and then |\n| 17 | there's some resolution, but the Trustee had to prepare for |\n| 18 | that and be ready for that. |\n| 19 | And so all I want to say is, again, of course you |\n| 20 | should have these conversations.
They're very -- they can |\n| 21 | be very productive and they should happen. |\n| 22 | But I just want to be very clear that that does |\n| 23 | not mean that I expect that every fee application that's |\n| 24 | filed should have a voluntary reduction, number one. |\n| 25 | Number two, even if it doesn't have a voluntary |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 15 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 15 reduction, the Court may reduce it. The Court may look at something and say, you know, I don't think that is reasonable under the circumstances of the case. I do think the suggestion of billing separately or accounting separately for the time in the adversary proceedings at this point is a good suggestion given where things stand now and how they've developed. But as we all know things change in this case every day. One minute we're going down one road and the next minute we're going down another. And this is not a case that fits in my opinion into the mold of where you could draft a litigation plan of how you're going to handle this case. And so for those reasons I just wanted to be clear that this does not set any precedent in this case with regard to an expectation that any professional must reduce their fees, with the comment that doesn't mean they won't be reduced. Okay? But there's no -- I'm not -- this case is -- you know -- as you know, I've looked by the way at the fee applications and the time entries that are, you know, what, four or five inches thick and the work appears very reasonable to me under the circumstances of this case. Now, someone could say that's a lot of money, and that's true, but the Trustee did -- from my perspective with\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 16 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 16 regard to this fee application and the time frame that is covered by this fee application, the Trustee and Connecticut counsel for the Trustee have not -- I see no evidence in the fee application entries which I looked at -- Now, did I study every single entry, of course not, I can't. But I looked at the time entries. I looked at them. I looked at the categories. I looked at the breakdown of the amounts by category. But I don't -- I did not see an entry that concerned me, that made me think why did they do that? Or that seems unnecessary. Or I didn't see an entry that, you know, which happens some times, where it was mistakenly put in from another case. I mean, that's happened before. You know, somebody makes a mistake. You know, that happens. It's not a -- nobody did it on purpose. I didn't see anything that raised any concern from the Court's perspective. And I think that this is a case that required the staffing that occurred up to this point. Up to the point, you know. What's going to happen from this point forward, who knows, right? Things we don't know. That's the -- that's what happens in this case. We don't know from day to day how it's going to be. So I just -- I just want to be clear about that. I think I have been. I've probably said\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 17 it three times now. But I just think that the dollar amount, while high, appears to me to be reasonable under the very specific circumstances of this case. And the expenses as well. I mean, you know, we all know what it costs to do these things especially if you're met every step of the way with opposition. And I have no idea, but I would -- if the Court -- if it was known what was spent by counsel opposing all these things, I think we'd find that would be a high number as well. So I have no problem with the agreement that you've reached. And I think I need a new order though, don't I? MS. CLAIBORN: You do. MR. DESPINS: Yes. And I believe Mr. Bongartz sent a draft to the courtroom deputy this morning. THE COURT: Okay. I haven't seen it yet. But that's not your -- I mean, you know, we've been working so we probably just didn't know that it was there yet. But I would assume that when I look at the original proposed order the differences would say that you've agreed to a reduction. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: That is has the dollar amounts in it. Case 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 17 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 18 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 18 That you say that there was a hearing held today that -- I don't know if you said it in the -- if you need to have said it, but we can put in today's date. If that's all we need to put in, we can put it in. MR. DESPINS: But there were other changes, Your Honor, I should point out to Your Honor. They're not material but Mr. Kindseth asked that we incorporate by reference the DIP order. Remember about disgorgement and all that? And we've agreed to do that. That's in the revised order that you have. THE COURT: I was going to say not the DIP order. MR. DESPINS: No, the sale. THE COURT: There is no DIP. That was withdrawn. MS. CLAIBORN: The sale. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. DESPINS: I'm talking about another case now. THE COURT: That's okay. That's okay. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. The sale order. THE COURT: So what's the reference that he wants in there? MR. DESPINS: Remember that there was a -- the provision that you correctly pointed out that Ms. Guo should not be a party to -- it's that provision that says that if they win in the Supreme Court that they own it --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 19 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 19 THE COURT: Oh, that the monies, they could get monies back from the estate? MR. DESPINS: From the estate. And if there's no money in the estate, from the professionals that got the money. So that's us. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I understand. MR. DESPINS: So we've added that. We also added other requests of counsel for the U.S. Trustee, some language that -- because Your Honor ordered a number of parties to pay 78 or \\$73,000 in fees. We haven't collected on that yet so there's a provision -- THE COURT: In connection with the sanctions orders? MR. DESPINS: Exactly. THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: That if we ever collect that we need to give a credit in the next fee app, so we added that language. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: And I believe that's all that was added. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. That's fine. And I'm looking at what was the original proposed order and -- MR. DESPINS: And we had put the local rule --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 20 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 20 THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: -- provision -- THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: -- regarding disgorgement. THE COURT: Yeah. And it does say -- and no objection to the application having been filed, and that is accurate. You know what? I might change -- it says and no objection to the application having been filed by the Office of the United States Trustee. And in the absence of any other objection to the application. Well, that's right. So that's fine. I just want to make it clear that no one's filed an objection, which I think it is. Okay. So I -- you know, for the reasons that I've just stated, and for what the Court's obligations are with regard to a fee application, with regard Paul Hastings and the fees and expenses incurred from the period of July 8th, 2022 through February 28th, 2023, I find that the fees and expenses sought are reasonable and that they were necessary under the circumstances of the case. Now, we could argue that it's -- they were unfortunately necessary, but they were necessary. And it wasn't through -- there's been no demonstration in the fee application that I've seen that there were any tasks or time\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 21 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 21 incurred that were inappropriate under the -- under what was the charge given to the Trustee to investigate the affairs of the debtor in connection with the appointment of the Chapter 11 Trustee. And I appreciate the conversations between the U.S. Trustee and the Trustee. And I appreciate the statement filed by the Trustee, United States Trustee, regarding that they had no objection to the fee application in connection with an agreement to reduce the fees and no one else having filed any objection to the fees. Does anybody else wish to be heard before I rule? MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, just briefly. I didn't want the Court to think the committee was just rolling over on this. We did scrutinize the application, came to pretty much the same conclusion Your Honor came to after getting over the initial sticker shock of the number. But I think from our perspective on calmer reflection it was more of a function of the hourly rates, which were disclosed at the outset, so we really couldn't take issue with that. And recognizing as Your Honor has said the difficult issues that were confronted in this case, the progress that's been achieved thus far, which the committee\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 22 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023
22 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | is pleased with, and given all of the litigation activity, |\n| 2 | relatively expeditious time period in which things have |\n| 3 | flowed in the case, and recognizing really the substantial |\n| 4 | resources that Paul Hastings brought to bear on this case |\n| 5 | which started out with no assets and now it's quite a |\n| 6 | different story, so that's how we came out on it, Your |\n| 7 | Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Thank you. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Does anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 11 | (No response) |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
All right.
I am looking at the |\n| 13 | proposed order now that you did submit this morning.
The |\n| 14 | courtroom deputy sent this to me.
And just give me a |\n| 15 | moment, but it looks fine from what I've seen so far.
I'm |\n| 16 | just not -- I just need to finish it. |\n| 17 | Oh, you know what we could do with the order? |\n| 18 | Just in the second sentence of the order we'd just say after |\n| 19 | notice and a hearing held on June 29, 2023, okay? |\n| 20 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Yeah. |\n| 21 | (Pause) |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I'm looking at that additional |\n| 23 | paragraph regarding the sanctions at the moment. |\n| 24 | The only thing I might add to that, although I |\n| 25 | don't remember if the order says this so I'm looking at both |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 23 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023
23 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | of you, I can look, it won't take me long, but aren't they |\n| 2 | jointly and severally liable on those? |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
They are. |\n| 4 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yes. |\n| 5 | MR. BONGARTZ:
They are. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I don't know that it says that. |\n| 7 | I wouldn't mind if it did.
It says -- I think we can just |\n| 8 | say -- no, we can do it -- I mean, it can say are jointly |\n| 9 | and severally obligated to pay. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
That's fine. |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, we'll do that change. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
We'll do that change. |\n| 14 | I'd like -- you know, who knows if this is going |\n| 15 | to be appealed, right? |\n| 16 | So I'd like the district court to understand as |\n| 17 | clearly as possible what's happened so that they don't have |\n| 18 | to do the work if there's an appeal.
Okay? |\n| 19 | So I'm looking -- I'm turning to the courtroom |\n| 20 | deputy, do you see where I am in paragraph 4? |\n| 21 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Yes.
After the parentheses |\n| 22 | of HK? |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Right.
So it will say are jointly and |\n| 24 | severally obligated.
Okay?
You can have me look at it, |\n| 25 | whatever, you know, after, but I think that's -- I know the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 24 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023
24 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | order says that, but I'd like it to say -- I would like that |\n| 2 | same language to be in this order. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
I would just say, Your Honor, you |\n| 4 | mentioned the district court, there's a lot of activity in |\n| 5 | the district court at this point, meaning appeals, state -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I've heard. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
You know, that was part of my |\n| 8 | speech, so I'm not going to go through that, but over 36-37 |\n| 9 | years I thought I'd seen it all, but I've never seen a |\n| 10 | double stay pending appeal.
What I mean is that both courts |\n| 11 | being asked to stay at the same time.
Never seen that. |\n| 12 | Never seen a mandamus which they filed. |\n| 13 | I mean, I was telling Ms. Claiborn that I've often |\n| 14 | dreamt about filing a mandamus before a judge that ruled |\n| 15 | against me, but I've never seen, ever seen that. |\n| 16 | So there's a lot of activity in the district court |\n| 17 | at this point. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I understand both of those things that |\n| 19 | you just said and I guess we'll see what happens. |\n| 20 | I mean, it's in the district court's hands |\n| 21 | obviously.
Whatever the district court's going to do, the |\n| 22 | district court is going to do. |\n| 23 | I do know -- I did appreciate knowing that Judge |\n| 24 | Dooley did deny the motion for stay pending appeal because |\n| 25 | then I don't have to rule on that.
That helps. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 25 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 25 And I know I understand that there's a writ of mandamus out there in which the docket indicates that I'm a defendant. Although I think that's not accurate. I think that's just the way the clerk's office has to -- I don't know that though -- but I think it's the way the clerk's office to note it. And then I think it's completely up to the district court to determine what if anything will happen with that writ of mandamus, including whether or not the district court may ask some party in this case to file pleadings. So I have no idea. No, I hadn't seen one of those either actually. MR. DESPINS: As I said, I've dreamt a lot about that in other cases, but I've never actually seen it. THE COURT: Well, I've seen it in a context of a motion where there was other relief sought before the other court, but not in the commencement of an action. I hadn't seen that. But, you know, we should all go back and read *Marbury vs. Madison* so maybe we'll -- MR. DESPINS: Exactly. THE COURT: -- understand what that -- once we read that again. But that wasn't involving a judge, so we'll see. In any event, I'm looking at the proposed order\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 26 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023
26 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | that was submitted this morning.
And with the changes that |\n| 2 | I noted on the record and that are agreeable to the parties |\n| 3 | that are here today, the application for compensation of |\n| 4 | Paul Hastings, LLP for the period of July 8th, 2022 through |\n| 5 | February 28th, 2023 is granted and the proposed order with |\n| 6 | the minor changes noted on the record will enter. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 11 | MR. LINSEY:
Patrick Linsey, Connecticut counsel |\n| 12 | for the Trustee and conflicts counsel here for my firm |\n| 13 | Neubert, Pepe & Monteith.
I won't take up a lot of time. |\n| 14 | I was involved on behalf of my firm in the |\n| 15 | conversations that the Trustee discussed with the U.S. |\n| 16 | Trustee and with the committee regarding holdbacks and fee |\n| 17 | applications going forward and I understand the parameters |\n| 18 | that we're operating under. |\n| 19 | I could -- I could talk about what led to the |\n| 20 | filing of this fee application, but I feel like everyone on |\n| 21 | this courtroom has pretty much lived it together at this |\n| 22 | point. |\n| 23 | There is one thing that I'll briefly touch on, |\n| 24 | which is I think not always the shiniest and most exciting |\n| 25 | part of the case, it's sort of the ducks' feet under the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 27 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023
27 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | water if you will, but it's also sort of an apt analogy |\n| 2 | because it's in some ways what powers the case, which is the |\n| 3 | investigation that's been going on while we've been doing |\n| 4 | all this litigation. |\n| 5 | I think there have been five omnibus 2004 motions |\n| 6 | that have been granted, that's on top of three initial 2004 |\n| 7 | motions that have been granted, all of which refer -- all of |\n| 8 | which dealt with numerous examinees, dozens and dozens, into |\n| 9 | the hundreds I believe at this point, of examinees, |\n| 10 | something that my office and I have been very much involved |\n| 11 | in. |\n| 12 | And that hasn't necessarily been court work, but |\n| 13 | particularly in this case where the Trustee has not had |\n| 14 | financial advisors, forensic accountant professionals, where |\n| 15 | we've really had to have attorneys doing that work to move |\n| 16 | this investigation forward, it's taken a lot of time.
It's |\n| 17 | taken a lot of resources. |\n| 18 | But I think that the results are evident when |\n| 19 | there are adversary proceedings that are filed with initial |\n| 20 | requests for injunctive relief that are supported by |\n| 21 | voluminous evidence, discreet facts showing why that relief |\n| 22 | is appropriate.
Those facts weren't handed to us on a |\n| 23 | platter.
Those facts were really from the sweat of many |\n| 24 | brows in the form of that investigation. |\n| 25 | So particularly, I suppose for me, in addition to |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 28 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023
28 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the work you've seen here in court because of the role as |\n| 2 | conflicts counsel, obviously with a large firm like Paul |\n| 3 | Hastings there are a number of examinees where we've had to |\n| 4 | do, you know, grab the oar with respect to some of the |\n| 5 | investigating, that's been a large part of the case. |\n| 6 | And I think -- I think there have been positive |\n| 7 | developments for the estate and I'm optimistic there will be |\n| 8 | more positive developments for the estate. |\n| 9 | So with that having been said my firm did have a |\n| 10 | conversation with Attorney Claiborn for the United States |\n| 11 | Trustee.
Ms. Claiborn raised certain issues.
We didn't |\n| 12 | agree on all the issues, but we did agree that a \\$10,000 |\n| 13 | reduction to the fee application was appropriate.
That's |\n| 14 | been agreed to.
Otherwise I'm not aware of any objections |\n| 15 | to the fee application. |\n| 16 | So we would ask that the Court enter the order |\n| 17 | granting the fee application. |\n| 18 | To the extent the Court would be willing to do |\n| 19 | that, I would suggest one of two things. |\n| 20 | One, the only change to our proposed order that |\n| 21 | I'm aware of is entering the date of the hearing and -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
We can take care of that. |\n| 23 | MR. LINSEY:
-- and reducing the number in |\n| 24 | paragraphs 1 and 2 from 561,718.50 to 551,718.50.
So if the |\n| 25 | Court can -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 29 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 29 THE COURT: It's 10,000 even? MR. LINSEY: Correct. Ten thousand even, Your Honor. But beyond that I'm not aware of any other changes that are necessary unless the U.S. Trustee and the committee have any comments with respect to our application. THE COURT: The only thing I am -- I'm sorry. MS. CLAIBORN: Yeah. THE COURT: Why don't I hear from you first, Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: I was just going to state the obvious which is the U.S. Trustee is on board with the \\$10,000 reduction as evidenced by the statement that I filed on the docket at ECF 1950. And I concur with Attorney Linsey that there are no other changes that need to be made to the order other than to adjust the math. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Just so -- so the record is clear, what I -- what I've commented on the record about the application of Paul Hastings, I agree with the application, those comments are applicable to the application of Neubert, Pepe & Monteith as well. I did review the time entries. As I said did I\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 30 review every single time entry? No. But I reviewed a good amount of them. And I reviewed the categories of tasks performed, the amounts, the dollar amounts associated with those categories. It was easy for me in both situations to see where the most fees were incurred, and they were incurred in categories where I would think the most fees should have been incurred. So I, again, think the fees and expenses are reasonable and absolutely necessary under the circumstances of the very specific circumstances of these jointly administered Chapter 11 cases, and the numerous adversary proceedings, and the injunctive relief that's been sought, and the issues with regard to appeals, and all the things we've already talked about. So I have -- again, there was nothing that stood out to me as any area of concern. With regard to the voluntary reduction, again, as I've already said, I think those conversations are very good to have. And I think that, you know, you've come to an agreement. And that's fine. But, again, I don't want there to be a belief that that has to happen every time, with the understanding that I could be the one that decides that there is a need for a reduction. Okay? But I might not. You never know. You Case 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 30 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 31 just don't know. It depends upon the facts and the circumstances of the case. With regard to your proposed order, the only other change I'm going to make, and the courtroom deputy and I can do this, is I just want to cite to the statutes at the beginning of the order, like the Paul Hastings' order does, you know, pursuant to Sections 328, 330 and 331. MR. LINSEY: I'm sorry. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. LINSEY: I wasn't aware that Mr. Kindseth's ask applied to my firm, but I suppose it's fair. We're fine doing that too. THE COURT: You mean the same language that -- MR. LINSEY: The same language. Would you like us to -- THE COURT: That same paragraph 4, essentially? MR. LINSEY: Yeah. Okay. It's fine. Would you like us to submit an order? Your Honor, could -- the Court could copy and paste that language from the -- THE COURT: We can copy and paste it. MR. LINSEY: Okay. THE COURT: We'll keep the fees down for today as much as we can. Okay? MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 31 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 32 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023
32 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
But I -- you know, as I said, nothing |\n| 2 | stood out or gave me pause in connection with these |\n| 3 | applications because of the facts and circumstances that |\n| 4 | we've all encountered in these cases.
Okay? |\n| 5 | So did the committee wish to be heard? |\n| 6 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Your Honor, no objection from the |\n| 7 | committee for largely the same reasons articulated for Paul |\n| 8 | Hastings except for the hourly rates.
But we have -- we saw |\n| 9 | it as Your Honor saw it. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Well, that's a reality of geography I |\n| 11 | suppose.
Right?
As we all know. |\n| 12 | But in any event we can take care of those |\n| 13 | changes. |\n| 14 | The Court finds that, as I said, the fees and |\n| 15 | expenses are reasonable and necessary.
No one has filed any |\n| 16 | written objection.
There's no one participating in this |\n| 17 | hearing today that's objecting to the fee application.
The |\n| 18 | United States Trustee's Office has filed a statement of no |\n| 19 | objection in connection with the agreement, further |\n| 20 | reduction of the fees by \\$10,000. |\n| 21 | For all those reasons the application is granted |\n| 22 | and the proposed order will enter. |\n| 23 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | We'll make those minor changes, Attorney Linsey, |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 33 that we talked about. We can do that. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, you know, again, I do think that all that has occurred as far as the fees and expenses have -- are reasonable and necessary and have produced results for this estate which is in a very different place than it was a year ago today. And that was -- You know, the appointment of the Trustee was designed to see if that could happen and to see if -- that was the whole point. All the -- the creditors had come in and said there needs, you know, there needs to be an investigation, there's all kinds of things going on. That was why a trustee was appointed. The investigation has yielded results in a -- in a very -- in less than a year, under very difficult circumstances. So I -- that's very much appreciated by the Court. And we'll have to see where things go from here. I think obviously the point of this is for the benefit of creditors. And so there have to be -- attorneys have to be paid in order to try to reach a result that is for the benefit of creditors. And while the amounts may seem high I -- from July 8th, 2022 to February 28th, 2023, I think they're Case 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 33 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 34 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 34 reasonable. So I don't know if anyone wishes to discuss any other matters today, otherwise I think -- I think we are -- we do not have any further hearings in these cases until July 11th, is that correct? MR. DESPINS: That's my understanding, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, have a nice 4th of July. And thank you all very much. MR. DESPINS: You as well. ALL COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: We do not have another matter on the calendar until 12 p.m., so court is in recess until 12 p.m. (Proceedings concluded at 10:51 a.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above- entitled matter. 21 July 7, 2023 22 Christine Fiore, CERT","body_zh":"美利坚合众国康涅狄格联邦破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut）\n布里奇波特分院（Bridgeport Division）\n\n关于　*　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉妮弗控股公司），　*\n*\n*\n*　June 29, 2023　康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n债务人。　*\n*\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n朱莉·A·曼宁（Julie A. Manning）阁下主持\n美利坚合众国破产法官　庭审记录\n#1831\n#1851　Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）受托人律师临时报酬申请：律师费；费用 \\$348,813.54\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙泰思专业公司）受托人律师临时报酬申请：律师费\n\\$561,718.50；费用 \\$0\n#1870　根据《破产法典》第\n327(e)、328(a)及330(a)条、《破产规则》第2014条\n及第2016条，以及《地方破产规则》第2014-1条及\n第2016-1条提出的申请，授权并批准聘任及\n雇用 Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.（萨克斯、多恩伯格及维塔专业公司）担任\n特别保险承保范围法律顾问\n庭审由电子录音记录，\n记录文本由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录及速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\n康涅狄格州谢尔顿 06484 (203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：\n\n第11章受托人：LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）, ESQ.\n\n200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 第11章受托人代理律师：G. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ（G. 亚历山大·邦加茨）, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue\n\n> PATRICK R. LINSEY（帕特里克·R·林西）, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510\n\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPaul Hastings\n\n- 美国受托人代理律师：HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩）, ESQ. Office of the U.S. Trustee 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510\n- 债权人委员会代理律师：IRVE J. GOLDMAN（欧文·J·戈德曼）, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 3 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 3 （庭审于上午10:05开始。）法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok 及 Genever Holdings, LLC（吉妮弗控股有限责任公司）。法庭：早上好。请先由第11章受托人为记录出庭。DESPINS 先生：早上好，法官阁下。卢克·德斯平斯，第11章受托人。法庭：早上好。BONGARTZ 先生：早上好，法官阁下。亚历克斯·邦加茨，Paul Hastings 律师事务所，为第11章受托人出庭。法庭：早上好。LINSEY 先生：早上好，法官阁下。帕特里克·林西，Neubert Pepe & Monteith 律师事务所，受托人的康涅狄格州律师。法庭：早上好。CLAIBORN 女士：早上好。霍莉·克莱伯恩，为美国受托人出庭。法庭：早上好。GOLDMAN 先生：早上好，法官阁下。欧文·戈德曼，Pullman & Comley 律师事务所，为债权人委员会出庭。法庭：早上好。好的。今天上午日程上有三项事项，两项为费用申请，一项为聘用律师申请。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 4 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023\n1　您希望如何进行，Despins 受托人？\n2　DESPINS 先生：\n如果可以的话，我可以先开始审理\n3　聘任律师的申请。\n4　法庭：\n请开始。\n好的。\n谢谢。\n5　DESPINS 先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n再次\n6　道早安。\n卢克·德斯平斯，第11章受托人。\n7　这是聘任\n8　Saxe Doernberger & Vita 律师事务所的申请。他们位于康涅狄格州。该\n9　费用申请载于案卷条目 1870。\n10　他们——他们受聘处理\n11　与 AIG 有关的保险承保范围争议，法官阁下对此熟悉，\n12　因为您已经与他们有过互动。\n13　我们提交了申请。\n我们未收到\n14　任何异议。因此，在不妨碍您可能\n15　对命令作出任何修改的前提下，我们请求法庭作出该命令。\n16　法庭：\n关于聘任该律师，\n17　我唯一的问题是，抱歉，我\n18　手头没有该文件，所以记不清了，他们是否\n19　按小时计费？\n20　DESPINS 先生：\n是。\n21　法庭：\n好的。\n22　DESPINS 先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n23　法庭：\n好的。他们——他们将\n24　提交费用申请？\n25　DESPINS 先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 5 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023\n1　法庭：\n好的。我之所以提问，\n2　是因为有时我会遗漏是否在一开始依据第328条\n3　请求了某种其他形式的报酬——\n4　DESPINS 先生：\n是。\n5　法庭：\n——即——即聘任\n6　专业人员时，但我认为本案并非如此。\n7　不过我记不清了。\n8　DESPINS 先生：\n按小时计费，法官阁下。\n9　法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n10　我没有——我没有任何问题。\n11　我理解您为何希望聘任特别\n12　律师，而且我所见文件当然支持\n13　该申请。\n14　我正在看拟议命令。我之所以提问，\n15　只是因为其中提及\n16　第328条。但这是第328(a)条，即受托人\n17　聘任律师的权限。因此我对此没有问题。\n18　但是否还有其他人希望就\n19　聘用特别保险法律顾问的申请发表意见？\n20　CLAIBORN 女士：\n简要说几句，法官阁下。\n21　美国受托人已就该申请提交\n22　无异议声明。该声明载于 ECF 1941。\n23　法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n24　CLAIBORN 女士：\n为明确起见，申请中\n25　对第328条的提及绝不会妨碍\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 6 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 6 法庭、美国受托人或债权人在请求费用时就其合理性发表意见的权利。法庭：是的。通常，而且我回看 Paul Hastings 以及 Neubert 和 Pepe 的聘任文件时也看到这一点，通常不会提及第328条，只提及第327条。所以我只是——在提及第328条时，我希望确认没有任何人——本案没有任何人——坚持某种从一开始就确定的报酬。因为如各位所知，有许多判例法认为，一旦作出该等安排，便不能触及该安排，或者变更权限极为有限。所以没问题。我唯一没看到的内容，也许是我遗漏了，所以我们就——让我——哦，确实在这里——在这里，我只是——自 May 11 生效。这就是我所问的。他们受聘自哪一天起生效，是 May 11th。我现在在命令条款第2段看到了。那么还有其他人希望发表意见吗？GOLDMAN 先生：只是委员会没有异议，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。如我刚才所述，我已审阅该申请。我理解受托人为甚么寻求聘任特别律师。当然，我理解在\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 7 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 7 涉及保险的对抗程序案件的具体事实与情形下，需要特别律师处理或协助受托人处理保险事项。无人就聘用申请提交任何书面异议。今日参与本次听证的任何人均未反对聘用申请。美国受托人办公室已就聘用申请提交无异议声明，即 ECF No. 1941。基于上述所有理由，该申请获准，随申请提交的拟议命令可以录入。DESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我仅指出，他们不仅是保险承保范围法律顾问，也是康涅狄格州当地律师——法庭：当然。DESPINS 先生：——因为 Linsey 先生所在律师事务所——实际上，我们可以说是 Linsey 先生的律师事务所，因为他现在是该所合伙人——存在利益冲突，而那是我提到他成为合伙人的方式。法庭：他成为了还是没有成为？DESPINS 先生：他成为了。他成为了。刚刚成为。法庭：哦，那么，恭喜您，Linsey 先生。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 8 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023\n1　LINSEY 先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n2　DESPINS 先生：\n因此，他们也是当地律师，\n3　所以，您知道，这就涵盖了该事项。\n4　谢谢您，法官阁下。\n5　法庭：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n6　DESPINS 先生：\n那么，我接下来将转而审理的事项\n7　是关于——聘任——支付 Paul Hastings 费用的临时申请。\n8　\n9　法官阁下，为不占用太多时间，\n10　我想——有两个方面\n11　我想谈及。\n12　其一，我想说明并反映\n13　与美国受托人及\n14　委员会达成的和解。\n15　然后，对于此处费用的某些方面，我将作出非常简短、非常简短的\n16　编辑性评论。\n17　但首先，关于和解，如您所能想象，\n18　在幕后，与美国受托人和委员会均进行了许多\n19　讨论。\n20　其中讨论的问题之一是\n21　暂扣款问题。\n22　我们最初的立场是，\n23　在本案期间不应有任何暂扣款，因为存在一项风险代理费安排，\n24　而我们尚未获得付款。此外，\n25　还存在一项内置的暂扣款，因为本申请仅\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 9 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023\n1　涵盖至 February。因此还有 March、April、May、\n2　June，有充足款项可用于暂扣。\n3　但他们提出的反驳是，\n4　而且是合理的，即，什么能阻止你们在周五提交一项\n5　申请，将所有这些都包括进去，从而\n6　根本不存在任何暂扣款？\n7　因此，作为此次来回协商的一部分，\n8　我们同意，任何未来申请均应暂扣 20 percent，\n9　前提是我们——我们正在获得付款——并且\n10　这适用于本案中所有专业人员——以更\n11　规律的方式获得付款，我们将其界定为不超过 60 days。\n12　因此，例如，我们不会明天提交一项\n13　申请，但如果我们提交，并且该申请获得审理和付款，\n14　在 60 days 内，是否准许由法官阁下决定，\n15　那么，对于该申请，在本案剩余期间将暂扣 20 percent。\n16　\n17　其理念是，如果现在我们正在获得——\n18　我们有资金，我们正在进入一种更规律的模式，\n19　在该模式下——费用申请可以得到审理并予以\n20　处理。\n21　因此，达成的协议是，\n22　今后所有费用申请均将有 20 percent 的暂扣款，\n23　前提是我们\n24　按此正常模式运作，该模式界定为，您知道，\n25　不超过约 60 days。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 10 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 10 因此，这——这就是关于暂扣款的第一部分。我想提及与美国受托人及委员会就此进行的讨论。第二部分是，美国受托人就部分工时记录提出了若干问题。举例而言，一次听证会出席律师过多，或者记录含糊不清。坦白说，美国受托人的律师就一次听证会出席律师过多的某些问题是正确的，尽管坦率地说，有时我独自出席听证会，但我想那并不——并不反驳该论点，但她在该问题上是正确的。关于含糊记录，我们——对此均可能存在分歧。我们不同意她的大部分意见，但最终我们同意减少 \\$550,000，法官阁下，我们认为这是一项实质性减少，足以处理所有这些问题。而且我们——我想说，我们采纳了美国受托人的一些意见，以便美国受托人、利害关系方和法庭更容易确定就对抗程序所提供的价值。因此，自今以后，提交的下一批申请将把每一项对抗程序分别计费，因此\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 11 我们可以审视对抗程序，然后说，哇，您知道，这花费比我们追回的还多，那可不好；或者希望情况会是，不，我们追回的比花费的更多。但我认为这是一个非常好的建议。我们今后将予以实施，因此所有今后的报酬申请都将针对每一项对抗程序设立单独类别，以便法院能够看到这一点。至于减额，我要说的是，我不认为——我不希望这在某种意义上成为先例，即现在我们已经知道提出了哪些问题，我们希望不会再次出现这些问题，因此——因此我们不会处于同样的境地；但显然，为了与U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）解决此事，我们同意减少 \\$550,000。如我所说，我们认为这是一次实质性的减额。因此，在我转入我所谓的简短评论之前，也许委员会或美国受托人想就此方面——或者稍后——由你们决定——戈德曼先生：嗯，我确实想提一下，我的理解并不是未来20%的暂扣款会因根据第331条提交报酬申请的期限缩短而受到影响。我们不反对法院将该期限定为60天，甚至更短，但我的理解并不是与委员会达成的这项协议是\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 12 以法院采取该措施为条件的。法院：你们可以谈一谈。请继续。（暂停）德斯平斯先生：我们希望法院将审理和裁决报酬申请的期限缩短至30至60天。但律师说得对，我承担了法院可能拒绝这样做、而仅按法定的每四个月间隔审理报酬申请的风险。抱歉。他说得对。法院：好的。德斯平斯先生：目前没有待法院裁决的相关请求。法院：对。德斯平斯先生：我们希望法官阁下会这样做，但我承担法院会拒绝这样做的风险。因此，这涵盖了委员会。戈德曼先生：是。克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，关于美国受托人就所请求减额提出的意见，我们确实达成了协商一致的数额，该数额已载入我在案卷中以 ECF 1949 提交的声明。如法院对此有任何问题，我很乐意回答。法院：我不确定我本身有什么问题。案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 12 页，共 34 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 13 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 13 我认为我能够理解已经进行的讨论，以及德斯平斯受托人所说的某些记录含糊不清、一次听证会有许多——过多律师出席，或诸如此类的问题。我想说的是，我同意德斯平斯受托人的意见，即如果以及当进一步提交报酬申请时，这并不在本案中设立任何先例。我认为，每一项报酬申请都必须与此前提交的任何报酬申请分开审查。我认为，就本案及我在本案中所观察到的情况而言，可以说——本案的诉讼程度之高，怎么说都不为过。我认为，受托人已努力将成本和费用控制在鉴于本——这些案件以及众多对抗程序的非常具体和详细的情形下属合理的范围内。因此，我完全理解这些讨论。我认为这些讨论是有益的。我认为它们应当发生。我对此没有异议。但我不认为这应当成为每个人在今后都预期会发生的事情。如各位所知，法院也有独立义务审查费用。否则我为什么在这里，对吗？我的意思是，这实际上就没有意义了。因此——我的意思是，我认为任何人都可以\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 14 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 审查任何数额的报酬申请，无论是1千美元还是 \\$12 million，并作出应当减少工时的决定或提出此类建议。但我不——我要明确的是，我不会——任何人在我面前主张，嗯，上次是这么做的，所以您这次也应当这么做，不会成功。那不会成为成功的论点。这是一个非常——我的意思是，我不必告诉在座任何人，这是一个在每一个步骤都经过了极其、极其激烈诉讼的非常不寻常案件。我想不出——我想今天也许是唯一一天我们没有收到异议，这本身就很耐人寻味。但是，您知道，每次提交某件材料，就会有异议，会有证据开示争议；往往出于某种原因，我们所有人都做好准备，认为将会有争议，随后又达成某种解决方案，但受托人必须为此作好准备并随时应对。因此，我想再次说的只是，当然，你们应当进行这些讨论。它们非常——它们可以非常富有成效，也应当发生。但我想非常明确地说明，这并不意味着我预期今后提交的每一项报酬申请都应有自愿减额，这是第一点。第二点，即使其没有自愿\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 15 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 15 减额，法院也可以予以减少。法院可以审视某项内容并说，您知道，我不认为在本案情形下这是合理的。鉴于目前的状况及其发展情况，我确实认为，在此时对对抗程序中的工时分别计费或分别核算的建议是一个好建议。但如我们都知道，本案每天都在变化。前一分钟我们沿着一条路走，下一分钟我们又沿着另一条路走。依我看，本案并不符合那种可以拟定一份诉讼计划来说明将如何处理本案的模式。因此，基于这些理由，我只是想明确说明，这并未在本案中就预期任何专业人士必须减少其费用设立任何先例；但这并不意味着其费用不会被减少。好吗？但是没有——我不是——本案是——您知道——顺便说一下，如各位所知，我已经审阅过那些报酬申请和工时记录，它们大概有四五英寸厚；在本案情形下，这些工作在我看来非常合理。当然，有人可能会说这是一大笔钱，这是真的；但从我的角度来看，就\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 16 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 16 这项报酬申请及该申请涵盖的期间而言，受托人及受托人的康涅狄格州律师并未——我在已审阅的报酬申请记录中没有看到任何证据——当然，我是否逐项研究了每一条记录，当然没有，我做不到。但我看了工时记录。我看了它们。我看了类别。我看了按类别列示的金额明细。但我不——我没有看到任何令我担忧的记录，使我想到他们为什么要这样做？或者这看起来没有必要。或者我没有看到那种——您知道，有时会发生的——被误从其他案件录入的记录。我的意思是，这以前发生过。您知道，有人会犯错。您知道，这种事会发生。这并不是——没有人是故意这样做的。我没有看到任何从法院角度引发担忧的事项。我认为，本案在截至目前的阶段需要现有的人员配置。截至目前，您知道。自此以后会发生什么，谁知道呢，对吗？有些事情我们不知道。这就是——这就是本案中发生的情况。我们不知道它每天会如何发展。因此，我只是——我只是想明确说明这一点。我想我已经明确说明了。我可能已经说了\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 17 三次了。但我只是认为，尽管金额很高，但在本案非常具体的情形下，在我看来是合理的。费用支出也是如此。我的意思是，您知道，我们都知道做这些事情要花多少钱，尤其是如果每一步都遭到反对。我完全不知道，但我会——如果法院——如果知道反对所有这些事项的律师花了多少钱，我认为我们也会发现那是一个很高的数额。因此，我对你们达成的协议没有问题。不过，我需要一份新的命令，对吗？克莱伯恩女士：是的。德斯平斯先生：是的。我相信邦加茨先生今天上午已向法庭书记员发送了一份草案。法院：好的。我还没看见。不过那不是你们的——我的意思是，您知道，我们一直在工作，所以可能只是还不知道它已经在那里。但我想，当我查看原先拟议的命令时，差异会表明你们已同意减额。德斯平斯先生：是。法院：其中列有金额。案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 17 页，共 34 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 18 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 18 其中说明今天举行了听证会——我不知道你们是否在其中写明了——是否需要写明，但我们可以写入今天的日期。如果只需要补充这些内容，我们可以补充。德斯平斯先生：但还有其他修改，法官阁下，我应当向法官阁下指出。它们并不重要，但金德塞斯先生要求我们通过援引纳入 DIP 命令。还记得返还和那些内容吗？我们已同意这样做。这就在您收到的修订命令中。法院：我正要说，不是 DIP 命令。德斯平斯先生：不，是出售。法院：没有 DIP。那已经撤回了。克莱伯恩女士：出售。德斯平斯先生：好的。法院：是的。德斯平斯先生：我现在说的是另一宗案件。法院：没关系。没关系。德斯平斯先生：是的。出售命令。法院：那么，他希望在其中加入的援引是什么？德斯平斯先生：还记得有一项——您正确指出郭女士不应成为其中一方的条款——就是那项规定，如果他们在最高法院胜诉，他们拥有它——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 19 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 19 法院：哦，那些款项，他们可以从破产财团收回款项？德斯平斯先生：从破产财团收回。如果破产财团中没有钱，则从收到该款项的专业人士处收回。所以就是我们。法院：好的。好的。我明白了。德斯平斯先生：所以我们加入了该内容。我们还加入了美国受托人律师提出的其他请求，以及一些措辞——因为法官阁下命令若干方支付78或 \\$73,000 的费用。我们尚未收取该款项，因此有一项规定——法院：与制裁命令有关？德斯平斯先生：正是。法院：是。德斯平斯先生：如果我们日后收取该款项，我们需要在下一份报酬申请中给予抵扣，因此我们加入了该措辞。法院：好的。德斯平斯先生：我相信加入的内容就是这些。法院：好的。没问题。没问题。而且我正在看原先拟议的命令，并且——德斯平斯先生：我们还加入了当地规则——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1985 提交于 07/07/23 录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25 第 20 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 20\n\n法官：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：——条款——\n\n法官：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：——关于返还不当得利。\n\n法官：是的。而且其中确实写道——尚未有人就该申请提出异议，这一点是准确的。你知道吗？我可能会修改——其中写的是，美国受托人办公室尚未就该申请提出异议。并且，在没有任何其他人就该申请提出异议的情况下。嗯，这是对的。所以这样就可以了。我只是想明确，没有人提出异议，我认为事实就是如此。好的。因此，我——你知道，基于我刚才陈述的理由，以及法院就费用申请所承担的职责，就 Paul Hastings, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）在 July 8th, 2022 至 February 28th, 2023 期间发生的费用和开支而言，我认定所请求的费用和开支是合理的，并且在本案情形下是必要的。现在，我们可以争论说，它们——不幸的是必要的，但它们是必要的。而且并非由于——我在费用申请中没有看到任何证明表明，存在任何不适当的工作或时间\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1985，提交于 07/07/23，录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25，第 21 页（共 34 页）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 21\n\n发生，这些工作或时间不符合——不符合在任命 Chapter 11 受托人时赋予受托人的、调查债务人事务的职责。我感谢美国受托人与受托人之间进行的沟通。我也感谢受托人、美国受托人提交的声明，即他们不反对费用申请，前提是就降低费用达成协议，并且没有其他人就该等费用提出任何异议。在我作出裁定之前，还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nGOLDMAN先生（戈德曼）：法官阁下，简要说几句。我不希望法院认为委员会对此只是听之任之。我们确实审查了该申请，在克服了对该数额最初的震惊之后，得出的结论与法官阁下所得出的结论大致相同。但我认为，从我们的角度来看，经过冷静思考，这更多是小时费率的结果，而该等费率一开始就已披露，因此我们实际上不能对此提出异议。并且，如法官阁下所言，考虑到本案所面临的困难问题、迄今取得的进展——委员会对此\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1985，提交于 07/07/23，录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25，第 22 页（共 34 页）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023\n\n1　感到满意——以及鉴于所有诉讼活动，\n\n2　本案进展所经历的相对迅速的期间，\n\n3　并且确实考虑到\n\n4　Paul Hastings 为本案投入的大量资源，\n\n5　本案起初没有任何资产，而现在情况已大不相同，\n\n6　因此，这就是我们对此得出的结论，法官阁下。\n\n7\n\n8　法官：谢谢。\n\n9　GOLDMAN先生：谢谢。\n\n10　法官：还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n11　（无人回应）\n\n12　法官：好的。我现在正在审阅你们今天上午提交的\n\n13　拟议命令。法庭书记员将其发送给我。\n\n14　请给我一点时间，但就我目前所见，它看起来没有问题。我\n\n15　只是尚未——我只是需要把它看完。\n\n16\n\n17　哦，你知道我们可以对该命令做什么吗？\n\n18　就在命令的第二句中，我们可以写，在通知之后以及于 June 29, 2023 举行听证之后，可以吗？\n\n19\n\n20　法庭书记员：可以。\n\n21　（暂停）\n\n22　法官：我此刻正在审阅有关制裁的\n\n23　附加段落。\n\n24　我唯一可能加入其中的内容，尽管我不记得命令是否如此表述，所以我看着你们二位，\n\n25　我可以查看，不会花很长时间，但他们难道不是\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1985，提交于 07/07/23，录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25，第 23 页（共 34 页）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023\n\n1　对此承担连带责任吗？\n\n2\n\n3　DESPINS先生：是的。\n\n4　GOLDMAN先生：是的。\n\n5　BONGARTZ先生（邦加茨）：是的。\n\n6　法官：好的。我不知道其中是否这样写。\n\n7　如果是这样，我不介意。它写的是——我想我们可以直接写——不，我们可以这样做——我的意思是，可以写成负有连带支付义务。\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10　DESPINS先生：好的。\n\n11　CLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：可以。\n\n12　DESPINS先生：法官阁下，我们会作出该项修改。\n\n13　法官：是的。我们会作出该项修改。\n\n14　我希望——你知道，谁知道这是否会被上诉，对吧？\n\n15\n\n16　所以，我希望地区法院能够尽可能清楚地了解发生了什么，\n\n17　以便如果发生上诉，他们不必再做这项工作。可以吗？\n\n18\n\n19　所以，我正在看——我转向法庭书记员，在第 4 段你看到我所指的地方了吗？\n\n20\n\n21　法庭书记员：看到了。在 HK 括号之后？\n\n22\n\n23　法官：对。因此，将写为负有连带支付义务。可以吗？之后，无论如何，你可以让我看一下，但我认为——我知道\n\n24\n\n25　该命令中有这样的表述，但我希望它写明——我希望同样的措辞也出现在本命令中。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1985，提交于 07/07/23，录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25，第 24 页（共 34 页）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023\n\n1\n\n2　DESPINS先生：我想说，法官阁下，您提到了地区法院，目前地区法院有很多活动，也就是说，上诉、暂缓——\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5　法官：我听说了。\n\n6　DESPINS先生：你知道，那是我发言的一部分，所以我不会逐一讲述，但在 36-37 年间，我原以为我什么都见过了，但我从未见过在上诉期间双重暂缓执行。我的意思是，同时请求两个法院作出暂缓执行。以前从未见过。从未见过他们提交的调卷令申请。\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12　我的意思是，我告诉 CLAIBORN女士，我经常梦想着在作出对我不利裁决的法官面前提交调卷令申请，但我从未见过，从未见过这种事。\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16　因此，目前地区法院有很多活动。\n\n17　法官：我理解你刚才所说的那两件事，我想我们就看看会发生什么。\n\n18\n\n19　我的意思是，这显然由地区法院决定。无论地区法院将要怎么做，地区法院都会去做。\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22　我确实知道——我确实很感谢得知 Dooley法官（杜利法官）已驳回上诉期间暂缓执行的动议，因为这样我就不必就此作出裁定。这很有帮助。\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1985，提交于 07/07/23，录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25，第 25 页（共 34 页）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 25\n\n而且我知道，我理解目前存在一项调卷令，其案卷显示我是被告。尽管我认为那并不准确。我认为那只是书记官办公室不得不——不过我并不确定——但我认为那是书记官办公室标注该事项的方式。然后，我认为完全由地区法院决定该调卷令将会发生什么，如有任何情况，包括地区法院是否可能要求本案某一方提交书状。因此，我毫无头绪。不，实际上我以前也没有见过这种情况。\n\nDESPINS先生：正如我所说，我在其他案件中多次梦想过这种事，但我实际上从未见过。\n\n法官：嗯，我在一项动议的情形中见过，当时在另一法院请求了其他救济，但没有在提起诉讼时见过。我没有见过那种情况。但是，你知道，我们都应当回去重新读一读 Marbury vs. Madison（马伯里诉麦迪逊案），这样也许我们会——\n\nDESPINS先生：正是。\n\n法官：——在重新阅读之后理解那是什么。但那并未涉及一名法官，所以我们拭目以待。无论如何，我正在审阅今天上午提交的拟议命令。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1985，提交于 07/07/23，录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25，第 26 页（共 34 页）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023\n\n1　并且，根据我在庭审记录中指出、且今日到庭各方均同意的修改，\n\n2　Paul Hastings, LLP 在 July 8th, 2022 至\n\n3　February 28th, 2023 期间的报酬申请获准，\n\n4　并且附有庭审记录中所述轻微修改的拟议命令将予以登记。\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7　DESPINS先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n8　法官：谢谢。\n\n9　LINSEY先生（帕特里克·林西）：早上好，法官阁下。\n\n10　法官：早上好。\n\n11　LINSEY先生：我是 Patrick Linsey，受托人的 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）律师，也是我所在律师事务所 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（诺伊伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂思律师事务所）在此的利益冲突律师。我不会占用太多时间。\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14　我代表本所参与了受托人与美国受托人以及委员会就扣留款项和今后的费用申请进行的沟通，我理解我们所处的参数。\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18　我可以——我可以谈谈导致提交本费用申请的缘由，但我觉得目前在座法庭中的每个人基本上都共同经历了这一切。\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22　我将简要谈及一件事，我认为那并不总是本案中最光鲜、最令人兴奋的部分，如果你愿意，可以说是水面下鸭子的脚，但这也是一个恰当的比喻，因为它在某些方面为本案提供动力，即在我们进行所有这些诉讼的同时一直在进行的调查。\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1985，提交于 07/07/23，录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25，第 27 页（共 34 页）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023\n\n1　我认为已有五项综合 2004 动议获准，这还不包括已获准的三项初始 2004 动议，所有这些——所有这些涉及众多被询问人，数十人、数十人，我相信目前已有数百名被询问人，\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5　我和我的办公室一直深度参与其中。\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11　这不一定是法庭工作，但特别是在本案中，受托人没有财务顾问、法务会计专业人员，我们确实不得不让律师从事这些工作，以推动调查向前进行，这花费了大量时间。\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16　它耗费了大量资源。\n\n17\n\n18　但我认为，结果是显而易见的：所提起的对抗诉讼中，初始禁令救济请求均有大量证据支持，并有具体事实说明为何该等救济是适当的。这些事实并非拱手交给我们的。这些事实确实来自许多人通过该项调查付出的辛劳。\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25　因此，特别是对我而言，除了\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1985，提交于 07/07/23，录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25，第 28 页（共 34 页）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023\n\n1　你们在法庭上所见的工作之外，由于担任利益冲突律师，显然，在像 Paul Hastings 这样的大型律师事务所中，有许多被询问人，我们不得不——你知道，就部分调查工作承担责任，这一直是本案的重要部分。\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6　而且我认为——我认为，破产财产已经出现积极进展，我乐观地认为，破产财产还会有更多积极进展。\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9　因此，话虽如此，我所在律师事务所确实与美国受托人的 CLAIBORN律师进行过沟通。CLAIBORN女士提出了某些问题。我们并非在所有问题上都达成一致，但我们同意，将费用申请减少 \\$10,000 是适当的。该事项已经达成一致。除此之外，我不知道有任何人反对该费用申请。\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15　因此，我们请求法院登记准许该费用申请的命令。\n\n16\n\n17　如果法院愿意这样做，我建议采取两项措施中的一项。\n\n18\n\n19　一是，据我所知，对我们拟议命令的唯一修改，是填写听证日期，并且——\n\n20\n\n21　法官：我们可以处理这一点。\n\n22　LINSEY先生：——并将第 1 段和第 2 段中的数额从 561,718.50 减至 551,718.50。因此，如果法院能够——\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1985，提交于 07/07/23，录入于 07/07/23 13:26:25，第 29 页（共 34 页）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- June 29, 2023 29 法院：正好是 10,000？林西律师（Attorney Linsey）：正确。正好一万，法官阁下。但除此之外，除非美国受托人和委员会对我们的申请有任何意见，否则据我所知，无需作出任何其他修改。法院：唯一的事情是——抱歉。克莱伯恩律师（Attorney Claiborn）：是。法院：我先听听您的意见吧，克莱伯恩律师。克莱伯恩律师：我只是要陈述显而易见的事实，即如我在案卷 ECF 1950 中提交的声明所示，美国受托人同意减少 \\$10,000。而且，我同意林西律师的意见，除调整计算外，命令无需作出任何其他修改。法院：好的。谢谢。为使记录清楚，我就 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的申请在记录中所作的评论，我同意该申请；该等评论同样适用于 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（诺伊贝特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）的申请。我确实审阅了工时记录。正如我所说，我是否审阅了每一项工时记录？没有。但我审阅了其中相当多的记录。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 30 并且我审阅了已完成任务的类别、金额以及与该等类别相关的美元金额。在两种情形下，我都很容易看出费用最多的是哪些方面，而该等费用发生在我认为最应当产生最多费用的类别中。因此，我再次认为，在这些共同管理的 Chapter 11 案件的非常具体情形下，以及鉴于众多对抗程序、所寻求的禁令救济、有关上诉的问题以及我们已经讨论过的所有事项，该等费用和开支均属合理且绝对必要。因此，我再次强调，没有任何事项令我认为存在需要关注的领域。关于自愿减免，我再次如已说过的那样，我认为进行这些讨论是非常好的。我认为，你们已经达成了协议。这没有问题。但是，我再次不希望人们认为每次都必须这样做；应当理解，我可能是决定需要减免的人。好吗？但我也可能不会。谁也不知道。你们 Case 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 30 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 31 就是不知道。这取决于案件的事实和情形。关于你们拟议的命令，我将作出的唯一其他修改是，法庭书记员和我可以处理此事，我只是想在命令开头引用法条，就像 Paul Hastings 的命令所做的那样，即依据 Sections 328, 330 and 331。林西律师：抱歉。法院：没关系。林西律师：我不知道 Kindseth 先生（金德塞思先生）的请求适用于我的律师事务所，但我想这很公平。我们也同意这样做。法院：你的意思是使用同样的措辞——林西律师：同样的措辞。您希望我们——法院：实质上是同样的第 4 段？林西律师：是。好的。没有问题。您希望我们提交一份命令吗？法官阁下，法院可以从——法院：我们可以复制粘贴。林西律师：好的。法院：今天我们会尽可能降低费用。好吗？林西律师：谢谢，法官阁下。Case 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 31 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 32 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023\n1　法院：\n但我——如我所说，鉴于\n2　我们在这些案件中都遇到的事实和情形，\n3　这些申请没有任何事项突出或令我产生疑虑。\n4　好吗？\n5　那么，委员会是否希望发言？\n6　戈德曼律师（Attorney Goldman）：\n法官阁下，委员会没有异议，\n7　主要理由与就 Paul\n8　Hastings 所阐述的理由相同，但小时费率除外。我们——我们\n9　与法官阁下的看法一致。\n10　法院：\n我想，那是地域现实。\n11　对吧？正如我们都知道的。\n12　但无论如何，我们可以处理那些\n13　修改。\n14　法院认定，正如我所说，该等费用和\n15　开支是合理且必要的。没有人提交任何\n16　书面异议。今天参加本次听证的没有人\n17　反对该费用申请。United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）已就该协议\n18　提交无异议声明，进一步\n19　将费用减少 \\$10,000。\n20　\n21　基于所有这些理由，申请获准，\n22　拟议命令将予以录入。\n23　林西律师：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n24　法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n25　我们会作出那些小修改，林西律师，\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 33 即我们讨论过的那些。我们可以处理。林西律师：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：所以，如我所说，我确实认为，就费用和开支而言，已经发生的一切都是合理且必要的，并且已为本遗产产生结果；本遗产如今所处的状况与一年前的今天截然不同。那正是——受托人的任命旨在看看这是否能够实现，并看看是否——那就是全部目的。所有——债权人都曾到庭并表示，需要进行调查，正在发生各种事情。这就是为何任命受托人。该调查在非常困难的情形下，在不到一年内已取得结果。因此，法院对此深表感谢。我们将不得不看看今后事态如何发展。我认为，显然，此事的目的在于使债权人受益。因此，为尝试达成使债权人受益的结果，必须支付律师费用。尽管金额看起来可能很高，但我——就 July 8th, 2022 至 February 28th, 2023 而言，我认为它们 Case 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 33 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1985 Filed 07/07/23 Entered 07/07/23 13:26:25 Page 34 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - June 29, 2023 34 是合理的。因此，我不知道今天是否有人希望讨论任何其他事项；否则，我认为——我认为我们在这些案件中在 July 11th 之前没有进一步的听证会，对吗？德斯平斯律师（Attorney Despins）：据我了解，是这样，法官阁下。法院：好的。好吧。祝各位 4th of July 愉快。非常感谢各位。德斯平斯律师：也祝您愉快。全体律师：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：日程表上在 12 p.m. 之前没有其他事项，因此法庭休庭至 12 p.m.。（程序于 10:51 a.m. 结束。）本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法院批准的速记员及认证电子记录员兼速记员，特此证明，上述内容系对上述题名案件程序官方电子录音的正确誊本。21 July 7, 2023 22 Christine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","CIPA","Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1941,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1949,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1950,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":8801,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-07-07 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-07-07","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:36:37"}