{"id":"court_ctb_2023_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2023,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2023-07-21","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* U.S. BANK NATIONAL \\* Adv. Proc No. 23-05012 ASSOCIATION, as escrow \\* agent, \\* \\* Plaintiff, \\* v. \\* \\* HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS \\* INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, \\* \\* Defendant. \\* \\* LUC A. DESPINS, \\* Adv. Proc. No. 22-05313 \\* Plaintiff, \\* \\* v. \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* July 11, 2023 HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., \\* et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\n| | 2 |\n|--|---|\n\n| | TRANSCRIPT OF |\n|---------|---------------------------------------------------|\n| #1749 | APPLICATION TO EMPLOY AFFILIATES ADJUSTMENT |\n| | GROUP, LTD. AS PUBLIC ADJUSTER |\n| #1805 | MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 |\n| | SUBPOENAS (SECOND OMNIBUS)(INSOFAR AS IT RELATES |\n| | TO THE HUDSON DIAMOND ENTITIES) |\n| #1903 | MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY FILED BY A. ROMNEY |\n| #
28 | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT |\n| #1936 | MOTION TO COMPROMISE CONTROVERSY W/BRIAN W. |\n| | HOFMEISTER AS ASSIGNEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF |\n| | CREDITORS OF HCHK ENTITIES UNDER NY COURT |\n| | ASSIGNMENT PROCEEDINGS |\n| #
25 | MOTION TO COMPROMISE CONTROVERSY W/BRIAN W. |\n| | HOFMEISTER AS ASSIGNEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF |\n| | CREDITORS OF HCHK ENTITIES UNDER NY COURT |\n| | ASSIGNMENT PROCEEDINGS, 3131 PRINCETON PIKE |\n| | BLDG. 5, STE 110, LAWRENCEVILLE, NJ 08648 |\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. AVRAM E. LUFT, 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 the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the U.S. Trustee 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For HK International Funds ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. Investments, LLC and JAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ. Mei Guo and Hudson Diamond AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. NY: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Plaintiff, LEE VARTAN, ESQ. HK International Funds and Chiesa Shahinian & Mei Guo: Giantomasi, PC 105 Eisenhauer Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 For the Assignee, RYAN T. JARECK, ESQ. Brian W. Hofmeister: Cole Schotz P.C. 25 Main Street Court Plaza North Hackensack, NJ 07601\n\n3\n\nAPPEARANCES (Cont'd): For Various Creditors JOSEPH M. PASTORE, III, ESQ. Of HCHK Technologies: MELISSA R. McCLAMMY, ESQ. Pastore, LLC 4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor Stamford, CT 06905 For Joshua Sherman: JOSHUA SHERMAN, ESQ. HCHK Technologies, Inc. 303 5th Avenue #1705 New York, NY 10016 For G Club News GREGORY F. ARCARO, ESQ. Operations, LLC: GRAFSTEIN & ARCARO, LLC 114 W. Main Street, Suite 105 New Britain, CT 06051 For G Club Operations, LLC: KELLIANE BARANOWSKY, ESQ. Green & Sklarz, LLC 1 Audubon Street, 3rd Floor New Haven, CT 06511 CAROLINA A. FORNOS, ESQ. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019\n\n4\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 5\n\n| 1 | (Proceedings commenced at 12:33 p.m.) |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Case Number 22-50073, Ho |\n| 3 | Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings, LLC.
Adversary Number -- |\n| 4 | excuse me, 23-5012, U.S. Bank National Association vs. HK |\n| 5 | Funds Limited.
And also, Case Number 23 -- Adversary Number |\n| 6 | 23-5013, Despins vs. HCHK Technologies, Inc. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good afternoon.
If we could |\n| 8 | have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter |\n| 9 | 11 Trustee, please. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Luc |\n| 11 | Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Nick |\n| 13 | Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 |\n| 14 | Trustee. |\n| 15 | MR. LINSEY:
Good afternoon, Patrick Linsey, |\n| 16 | Connecticut counsel for the trustee. |\n| 17 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Holley |\n| 18 | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 19 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Irve |\n| 20 | Goldman, Pullman & Comley, for the Creditors' Committee. |\n| 21 | MR. MORIARTY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
James |\n| 22 | Moriarty from Zeisler & Zeisler for the debtor and also for |\n| 23 | HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC in |\n| 24 | Docket 23-05012. |\n| 25 | MR. ROMNEY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Aaron |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 6 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 6 Romney for the same parties as well as for Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. And I'm appearing today on behalf of myself in response to the Court's order to show cause. I also want to put on the record, Attorney Vartan was stuck in very terrible traffic. He should be here any minute. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you. MR. HENZY: And Eric Henzy on behalf of the debtor and also potentially on behalf of Mr. Romney. THE COURT: The debtor, Mr. Kwok? MR. HENZY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Vartan? MR. VARTAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor Lee Vartan also on behalf of Mei Guo and HK USA. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. VARTAN: Good afternoon. THE COURT: All right. Trustee Despins, there are several matters on the calendar today. We've just gone through appearances. How would you like to proceed today? MR. DESPINS: We had promised Mr. Romney that we would start with his matter, so unless the Court has a preference, we're okay with that order.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 7 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 7 MR. ROMNEY: If I may, Your Honor, just by further way of explanation? I have a 7:00 flight out of LaGuardia for depositions in Atlanta tomorrow which I'm very much trying to make. THE COURT: Okay. Then we will proceed that way. MR. DESPINS: Actually, Your Honor, if I -- maybe take five minutes to do the public adjustor retention. Mr. Luft is also -- was also stuck in traffic. He's on his way. Should be here. MR. ROMNEY: I think he'll be here in five minutes or so. If he's not here by the time we get through this, somebody else can handle the motion to withdraw. I'll handle the motion to withdraw if Mr. Luft is not here. But this will take probably five minutes. MR. DESPINS: The public adjustor retention. THE COURT: Okay. Does any -- Mr. Romney, do you have any opposition if we -- MR. ROMNEY: No, of course not. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Then let's address the application to employ the public adjustor first which is in the main case, ECF Number 1749. MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. And you may have noticed that we filed a amended retention order at\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 8 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 8 Docket Number 1992, because we had received comments from the U.S. Trustee to -- so at 1992 you have both the clean and the marked to show changes. 1992 at pages 10 and -- of the 11 -- or, sorry, 10 of 11, yes? You can see the changes. And, basically, it was to clarify their compensation. Just to give you a little bit of background, this is regarding the fire at The Sherry Netherland. Public adjustors are often retained by companies or owners to negotiate settlements with insurance companies. And you might say, well, but there's no settlement with the insurance company. Good point. But there may come a time where there would be a settlement mode. And, here, this retention is purely on a contingency basis. So no settlement, no compensation. And this person actually has been very helpful in helping me prepare things like a proof of claim. You need to actually submit to the insurance company a claim form. And we did that with respect to -- and he did that with respect to the cleanup costs, et cetera, et cetera. So even though at one point we thought we were going to put this retention to the side for now, it's becoming clear now that we need this person to do the various -- you know, all the legwork that needs to be done with respect to the evaluation of the claim. And given\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 9 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 9 that, again, he doesn't get paid anything unless there's a recovery from the insurance company, we believe it's -- that, you know, it's appropriate to go forward, because there's no risk to Genever US, which is the entity retaining him. And just for the record, to state the compensation, basically it's 5 percent on the first 3 million or less plus 4 percent on any settlement proceeds recovered in excess of 3 million up to 15 million, plus 3 percent on any settlements recovered in excess of 15 million up to 50 million. And we also made a correction to state that the public adjustor -- the acronym is AAGL -- will not hold any settlement proceeds recovered under such insurance policies. That's a change that the U.S. Trustee wanted to make, and so we made that change. So at this point, there had been an objection filed by PAX. It was withdrawn. We have been working with PAX on this, and we're happy that they withdrew the objection. And at this point, we would -- subject to any comments Your Honor may have with respect to the order, we would like to proceed with the retention. THE COURT: I have no comments or questions at this time. Attorney Claiborn, do you wish to be heard?\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 10 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
10 |\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you, Your Honor.
The order |\n| 2 | as revised and filed at ECF 1992 resolves the U.S. Trustee's |\n| 3 | concerns. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 5 | And I note, obviously, that the application is |\n| 6 | both under 327(a) and 328 because of the setting of the |\n| 7 | compensation at this time, the schedule of compensation. |\n| 8 | Does anyone else wish to be heard on the |\n| 9 | application -- the trustee's application to employ the |\n| 10 | public adjustor, Affiliated Adjustment Group, LTD?
All |\n| 11 | right.
Hearing nothing, I have seen no written objections |\n| 12 | other than the objection of PAX, which I note for the record |\n| 13 | was withdrawn. |\n| 14 | The United States Trustee has just stated their |\n| 15 | position that they are in support of the application in |\n| 16 | connection with the revised proposed order that was filed on |\n| 17 | the docket yesterday at ECF Number 1992 which resolves any |\n| 18 | concerns that the U.S. Trustee has. |\n| 19 | I understand the reason for the retention that you |\n| 20 | are seeking, Trustee Despins, and it certainly seems to be |\n| 21 | reasonable under the circumstances of the case.
And for all |\n| 22 | those reasons, the application to employ Affiliated |\n| 23 | Adjustment Group as a public adjustor is granted, and the |\n| 24 | proposed order that is -- appears on pages 5, 6, and 7 of |\n| 25 | ECF Number 1992 can enter. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 11 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
11 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
So at this point, Your Honor, our |\n| 4 | colleague is in route, but we shouldn't hold up the hearing |\n| 5 | for him.
So we're ready to go forward. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Give me one second, please. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
All right.
The other -- the |\n| 8 | next matter -- there are many matters on the calendar.
But |\n| 9 | we -- Attorney Romney specifically requested and the trustee |\n| 10 | and the trustee's counsel agreed to proceed next with the |\n| 11 | motion to withdraw as attorney filed by Attorney Romney, |\n| 12 | 1903, on behalf of the Hudson Diamond entities from which an |\n| 13 | appearance was filed. |\n| 14 | I had indicated that the -- Attorney Romney and |\n| 15 | Attorney Vartan needed to appear today to address the motion |\n| 16 | to withdraw.
And I -- and both are in the courtroom.
So, |\n| 17 | Attorney Romney, do you wish to proceed? |\n| 18 | MR. ROMNEY:
I do, Your Honor.
One point of |\n| 19 | clarification.
Your Honor just said a moment ago that it |\n| 20 | was a motion to withdraw from representation of the Hudson |\n| 21 | Diamond entities.
It's just the Hudson Diamond New York |\n| 22 | entity, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That's true.
I did see that. |\n| 24 | I'm sorry.
But I thought originally -- originally, I |\n| 25 | thought it was all of the entities.
But you're correct. |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 12 of\n\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
12 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Thank you for noting that for the record. |\n| |\n| MR. ROMNEY:
Understood, Your Honor.
Your Honor, |\n| as more further set forth in the affidavit submitted at the |\n| request of the U.S. Trustee, this is a situation where we |\n| became aware of a subpoena directed to the -- both Hudson |\n| Diamond entities by virtue of the trustee's motion to compel |\n| filed in May.
That motion to compel identified Hudson |\n| Diamond Holdings, LLC as the sole member of Hudson Diamond |\n| New York and had documentation supporting that proposition |\n| attached to it.
The -- and sought contempt against both |\n| entities. |\n| I had been -- known as of that time that Ms. Guo |\n| was -- is the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings.
And I |\n| was under the very distinct impression for a number of |\n| reasons, including the Chapter 11 trustee's pleading but |\n| also conversations that I've had with Ms. Guo who was under |\n| the impression, that Hudson Diamond New York was a |\n| wholly-owned subsidiary of Hudson Diamond Holdings. |\n| That is why I negotiated an extension on behalf of |\n| both entities.
That is why I filed an appearance on behalf |\n| of both entities.
And that is why both Attorney Vartan and |\n| I following the negotiation of an adjournment in order to |\n| allow compliance diligently attempted to locate documents on |\n| behalf of both entities, neither of which were in the actual |\n| physical possession of the natural human being that's our |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 13 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 13 client, Ms. Guo. During the course of that investigation/process, we were told by the general counsel of Hodgson Russ, LLP that Ms. Guo was not the -- sorry, that Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC was not the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York and, at that time, identified another individual who is identified in my affidavit, the debtor's son, Mileson Guo, was the member of that entity. At that moment, as stated in my affidavit, I immediately first sought the advice of firm's general counsel who's with me today, Mr. Henzy. The next thing I did was call Attorney Luft to tell him that I had just been informed that it appeared Hudson Diamond Holdings was not the sole member and that it appeared I had made a mistake and that I intended to withdraw, because I didn't believe I had authority to represent the New York entity as distinguished from the holdings entity which, to this -- am positive that I have authority to represent. My understanding is that under the rules of professional conduct, Rule 1.16(b), I cannot represent an entity unless I've been authorized by someone with actual authority and, therefore, must withdraw. And that's why I filed a motion to withdraw, because at the time that I filed the motion to withdraw, based upon the representation of the\n\ngeneral counsel of a very reputable firm who I believe to be\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2023 | Filed 07/21/23 | Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 | Page 14 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
14 |\n| 1 | an honest person and upstanding member of the bar, led me to |\n| 2 | believe that I had made a mistake. |\n| 3 | Subsequent to filing that motion, further |\n| 4 | questions have been raised that now, as I sit here today, I |\n| 5 | do not know who the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York |\n| 6 | is.
And as set forth in my affidavit, on -- I believe it |\n| 7 | was June 25th, Attorney Luft brought a document to my |\n| 8 | attention which was attached to their motion to compel and |\n| 9 | for contempt that was consistent with our original |\n| 10 | understanding that, in fact, Hudson Diamond Holdings was the |\n| 11 | sole member of this New York entity -- of the Hudson Diamond |\n| 12 | New York entity, and that Mei Guo was the sole member of |\n| 13 | Hudson Diamond Holdings. |\n| 14 | At that point, Attorney Vartan and I reached out |\n| 15 | to Hodgson Russ that confirmed that they, in fact, had |\n| 16 | prepared that document on which the Chapter 11 trustee |\n| 17 | appears to have relied, which was entirely consistent with |\n| 18 | Ms. Guo's original understanding that the holdings entity |\n| 19 | was the parent of the New York entity.
They do not have any |\n| 20 | explanation for why they have an operating agreement that |\n| 21 | says the debtor's son or an entity he controls is the parent |\n| 22 | of that entity, but they also prepared and are in possession |\n| 23 | of a document that indicates Ms. Guo's entity is the parent |\n| 24 | of this New York entity. |\n\nBecause, as I stand here today, I have no\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 15 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
15 |\n| 1 | confidence that I have actual authority to represent the New |\n| 2 | York entity, I believe that the Rules of Professional |\n| 3 | Conduct require me to continue to pursue this motion to |\n| 4 | withdraw.
Since the day that this issue has arisen, other |\n| 5 | than what I say what I do every day, which is wake up and |\n| 6 | make sure my family is okay, this has been my number one |\n| 7 | priority to both gather documents or attempt to locate |\n| 8 | documents and attempt to answer this question so that I |\n| 9 | could come in here today and answer any questions the Court |\n| 10 | has or anyone else.
I've done my best, but that's what I |\n| 11 | have for the Court today. |\n| 12 | Everything that I did was an attempt to further |\n| 13 | this process to avoid a situation where it appeared that |\n| 14 | either me, my firm, or Ms. Guo or any entity that she |\n| 15 | controls was attempting to ignore a court order or do |\n| 16 | anything other than attempt to comply with it.
And that has |\n| 17 | at all times been my sole motivation for every action that I |\n| 18 | have undertaken in connection with this entire process. |\n| 19 | I'm prepared to answer any questions that the |\n| 20 | Court or anybody else in the room has, but with that I rest |\n| 21 | on my motion. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Well, I'm going to ask other parties |\n| 23 | to raise their issues, and then I'll see if I have any |\n| 24 | questions.
Attorney Romney, you did file a -- an affidavit, |\n| 25 | but I don't think -- and I may have missed -- Attorney |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 16 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
16 |\n| 1 | Vartan, did you file anything? |\n| 2 | MR. VARTAN:
I did not, Your Honor.
But I've |\n| 3 | obviously reviewed Attorney Romney's affidavit, and I -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Well, that doesn't -- that's fine.
I |\n| 5 | just wanted to know whether you filed anything. |\n| 6 | MR. VARTAN:
Oh.
I have not, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
And why did you not file anything? |\n| 8 | MR. VARTAN:
Because everything that Mr. Romney |\n| 9 | cited in his affidavit is consistent with the record, and I |\n| 10 | have nothing more -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
And don't you have an obligation to |\n| 12 | make a statement to the Court and not through Attorney |\n| 13 | Romney?
I mean, the issues that we've talked about in this |\n| 14 | case at different times is who represents whom, who's acting |\n| 15 | in what nature, you're local counsel, you're main counsel. |\n| 16 | We've had these discussion before. |\n| 17 | And the discussion -- what I don't understand |\n| 18 | is -- I know you're here, and I appreciate that you're here, |\n| 19 | but I don't understand why Attorney Romney is the only one |\n| 20 | that filed an affidavit.
I would think you would have filed |\n| 21 | an affidavit.
And Attorney Romney has stated, as have other |\n| 22 | members from his firm, that they got involved and were |\n| 23 | retained through discussions with you, that your -- you had |\n| 24 | the contact with the client. |\n| 25 | Attorney Romney didn't speak directly to Mei Guo. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 17 That's not what your affidavit says. You said you and Attorney Vartan -- MR. ROMNEY: We -- THE COURT: -- spoke with Mei Guo. And doesn't Attorney Vartan have the relationship with Mei Guo? Don't you, sir? MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I certainly do have a relationship with the client, as does -- THE COURT: Well, who retained you, Attorney Vartan? MR. VARTAN: Ms. Guo did. THE COURT: Okay. And who did she retain when she retained you? Did she retain you, or did she retain you and Mr. Romney? MR. VARTAN: Both of us. THE COURT: Okay. And there's -- MR. VARTAN: Well, Mr. Romney had already been retained, Your Honor. THE COURT: In connection with the motion for contempt? MR. VARTAN: So in -- I was answering questions with respect to Ms. Guo's retention of Mr. Romney and then Ms. -- with me generally. With respect to the Hudson Diamond entities, Mr. Romney and I both spoke with Ms. Guo. THE COURT: And why didn't you file an appearance Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 17 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 18 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
18 |\n| 1 | on behalf of the Hudson Diamond entities? |\n| 2 | MR. VARTAN:
I was planning on doing so, but |\n| 3 | Mr. Romney put forward in his affidavit why I did not. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Well, that's Mr. Romney's affidavit. |\n| 5 | That's not your affidavit. |\n| 6 | MR. VARTAN:
No, I understand, Your Honor.
But |\n| 7 | there was nothing that I had to add to the record beyond |\n| 8 | what Mr. Romney put forward in his affidavit.
And I'm also |\n| 9 | happy to answer any questions that Your Honor may have or |\n| 10 | anyone else may have. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Well, I just asked you a question that |\n| 12 | you didn't answer.
Why didn't you file an affidavit? |\n| 13 | MR. VARTAN:
Because, again, I didn't have |\n| 14 | anything more to add to the record.
And I didn't have an |\n| 15 | understanding that we were under court order to file. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, it says on an order entered on |\n| 17 | June 20, 2023, that you were to appear and show cause why |\n| 18 | the motion to withdraw should not be granted.
And then the |\n| 19 | United States Trustee filed a response to the motion to |\n| 20 | withdraw.
And, remember -- well, maybe you don't remember, |\n| 21 | but I do -- that there was a hearing on the motion to compel |\n| 22 | at which I was told on the record through counsel, and which |\n| 23 | included you, that you were resolving -- or attempting to |\n| 24 | resolve the motion for contempt, because you represented the |\n| 25 | Hudson Diamond entities and that you would be producing |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 19 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
19 |\n| 1 | documents in accordance with the subpoena. |\n| 2 | Immediately after -- no, that's not fair.
It's |\n| 3 | not immediately after.
But shortly after that hearing, |\n| 4 | Attorney Romney files a motion to withdraw the appearance. |\n| 5 | Now, I've asked on many occasions, is Mr. Romney |\n| 6 | taking direction from Ms. Guo, or is he taking direction |\n| 7 | from you and Ms. Guo?
I've had that discussion.
Because |\n| 8 | we've had a discussion about who's local counsel, who's main |\n| 9 | counsel. |\n| 10 | We're not going to do this where -- you're at two |\n| 11 | different firms.
Either you're both counsel where you both |\n| 12 | are bound and have to comply with court orders or you're |\n| 13 | not.
But we're not going to have, oh, I'm not going to say |\n| 14 | anything further because Attorney Romney already said it. |\n| 15 | Otherwise, why would I put you in that order?
I |\n| 16 | put you in that order, sir, because you're the person who's |\n| 17 | come in and said you have the client contact and authority |\n| 18 | with Ms. Guo.
That's what you've said on many occasions in |\n| 19 | this court.
And you've said it in -- and the pleadings that |\n| 20 | are filed are signed by you first and then Attorney Romney. |\n| 21 | So the -- you have an obligation, a professional |\n| 22 | obligation and ethical obligation, to the Court and all the |\n| 23 | parties involved in the case.
So I don't understand why -- |\n| 24 | so that's fine.
If you're telling me you're going to rely |\n| 25 | on Attorney Romney's affidavit, that's what you're telling |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 20 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
20 |\n| 1 | me.
I'm not sure that's showing cause why the motion to |\n| 2 | withdraw shouldn't be granted. |\n| 3 | But in any event, with regard to -- a couple of |\n| 4 | questions with regard to Hodgson Russ.
You talk about -- |\n| 5 | first of all, I don't see how there's been any -- maybe |\n| 6 | there has been.
But there's nothing in the record before me |\n| 7 | right now that shows that there's been any compliance with |\n| 8 | the motion for contempt even on behalf of the entity which |\n| 9 | you say you still represent, which is Hudson Diamond |\n| 10 | Holdings. |\n| 11 | Has there been any compliance with the subpoena? |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yes, there has, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
And what has that compliance been? |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:
The compliance on January -- excuse |\n| 15 | me -- June 15th, which was the deadline for compliance, |\n| 16 | Attorney Vartan sent a letter which the two of us prepared, |\n| 17 | that explained that -- what we had done at -- as of that |\n| 18 | time to attempt to locate documents.
It provided the |\n| 19 | operating agreement that showed Ms. Guo controlled Hudson |\n| 20 | Diamond Holdings, LLC.
It provided the articles of |\n| 21 | organization that showed Hudson Diamond Holdings' creation. |\n| 22 | It explained the efforts that we had undertaken to attempt |\n| 23 | to locate documents. |\n| 24 | We, as officers of the court and our client as a |\n| 25 | natural human being, only have the ability to produce |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 21 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 21 documents that we can physically possess or that are under the possession of people who we have the ability to control, in other words that we constructively control. We have attempted every which way that we could to locate documents, and we have produced what we could. But we -- and we have also identified other sources of documents where we believe to have them but will not give them to us or Ms. Guo, such as Hodgson Russ and Capital One Bank. We have done everything we could, but they will not give them to us. The other two individuals who -- THE COURT: Well, so let's slow down a little bit on that. Okay? So there's a couple of things that you said. You said that you -- but Attorney Vartan signed a letter and sent it to the trustee on June 15th saying you've done all you can to comply. Is that right? I think I -- I'm just making sure I heard what you said. MR. ROMNEY: We didn't say we've done all we can to comply. We said that. But also -- meaning, yes, that's a fair summary of what we said. And we produced the documents I just described. THE COURT: Okay. And tell me -- I apologize. What are the documents that were produced on June 15th? MR. ROMNEY: It's the Hudson Diamond Holdings operating agreement signed by Ms. Guo.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 22 THE COURT: Signed by -- so Exhibit T? MR. ROMNEY: No. THE COURT: The two -- the two-page document? MR. ROMNEY: No. THE COURT: So there's an operating agreement. MR. ROMNEY: There's a -- THE COURT: How many pages is that document? You don't need to tell me exactly. I'm saying like is it -- are you talking about a 25-page document -- MR. ROMNEY: I believe it -- THE COURT: -- a 50-page document? MR. ROMNEY: I believe it's about a five-page -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- five or six-page document. THE COURT: And that operating -- that agreement is an operating agreement of which entity? MR. ROMNEY: Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC signed by Mei Guo as the sole member. THE COURT: Okay. And you -- you're telling me, and I'm just trying to make it clear for the record, that Mei Guo retained you specifically to represent Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC in this case in connection with the motion for contempt? MR. ROMNEY: She directed me to represent Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC in connection with -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 22 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 23 THE COURT: So she didn't retain you? MR. ROMNEY: I don't understand the distinction. THE COURT: Well, I think there is a -- MR. ROMNEY: But we do not have a separate retention letter. THE COURT: You do not have a separate -- is that what you said? MR. ROMNEY: With the entity. That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. So you don't have a separate retention letter with regard to Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. And you believed at the time that she directed you to represent the Hudson Diamond entities. That included Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, correct? MR. ROMNEY: No. I know that she did. THE COURT: Okay. Yeah. MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. So then things progress. You file a notice of appearance, and you come to the Court and you say at the hearing on the motion for contempt, which I'm not saying it would have happened, okay, but the trustee's counsel was pressing for an order of contempt against both Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC. You say -- MR. ROMNEY: Yes. And that matter is on the calendar today. Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 23 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 24 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
24 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Right.
But at that original hearing, |\n| 2 | you said we have an agreement to adjourn that hearing |\n| 3 | because we're going to enter into a consent order about how |\n| 4 | we're going to comply with the subpoenas essentially, |\n| 5 | correct? |\n| 6 | MR. ROMNEY:
I think we actually entered into it |\n| 7 | on the record. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
No, you did. |\n| 9 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yeah. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I'm actually looking at it right now. |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yeah.
Yeah. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 13 | MR. ROMNEY:
Meaning we entered into it orally on |\n| 14 | the record and then submitted -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
But then you entered into an order |\n| 16 | regarding the motion for entry, holding Hudson Diamond New |\n| 17 | York, LLC, and Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC in civil |\n| 18 | contempt for failing to respond to the subpoenas.
And in |\n| 19 | that order, the Hudson entities say that they have no reason |\n| 20 | to and therefore do not dispute that they were properly |\n| 21 | served with the 2004 subpoenas directed to each of them and |\n| 22 | that they contend that the relevant individual of the Hudson |\n| 23 | entities was not actually made aware of the subpoenas until |\n| 24 | after the filing of the motion.
So who was the relevant |\n| 25 | individual at the Hudson entities that was not made -- |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 25 actually made aware of the subpoenas until after the filing of the motion for contempt? MR. ROMNEY: Ms. Guo was the individual -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- I was referring to in that statement. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: And what we meant by it was we have no reason to doubt the veracity of the returns of service that indicate that statutory service agents were signed. But what I was reporting back was that as best I could tell, Ms. Guo was learning about those subpoenas for the first time when Attorney Vartan and I -- I think it was actually me in that particular case that sent the email. And then the three of us had a phone call together. But that it appeared that we were informing her of those subpoenas. THE COURT: Why do you say it appeared that we were informing her? You know or didn't know? MR. ROMNEY: Well, I don't -- THE COURT: She's told you she'd never seen the subpoenas before? MR. ROMNEY: Without waiving privilege with respect to any other statement, yes. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't think it's waiving privilege if you want to show cause as to why you Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 25 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 26 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
26 |\n| 1 | want to be -- withdraw as an attorney, right?
Otherwise, |\n| 2 | you bring Ms. Guo in.
She can testify.
Right?
You could |\n| 3 | bring her in.
She could support everything you've said. |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
Your Honor, right now I'm the one |\n| 5 | with the target on my back, and I'm not going to throw my |\n| 6 | client under the bus. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I don't understand what that statement |\n| 8 | means, what you just said. |\n| 9 | MR. ROMNEY:
The Court is obviously upset with |\n| 10 | something I've done, and I'm here to explain my behavior. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
No, I didn't say -- I'm asking |\n| 12 | questions.
You said -- I think you ended your presentation |\n| 13 | by saying does the Court have any questions.
And, yes, I |\n| 14 | do.
So I'm asking them. |\n| 15 | MR. ROMNEY:
Understood.
And that -- and I'm here |\n| 16 | to ease your concerns.
But I understand that you're |\n| 17 | concerned.
And that's -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, I am concerned, because there |\n| 19 | was an agreement made on the record that there would be |\n| 20 | compliance with a subpoena so that the Court would not rule |\n| 21 | on the motion for contempt with regard to the Hudson Diamond |\n| 22 | entities that you filed a notice of appearance on behalf of. |\n| 23 | And in your affidavit and in your statements here -- and |\n| 24 | Mr. Vartan's not disputing it -- it's with -- in |\n| 25 | consultation with Mr. Vartan too. |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 27 So if you have a target on your back, it may be placed by somebody else other than the Court. Because you're putting yourself out there, and I'm not sure why. Because at this point, you're saying you believe that Mei Guo didn't know about the subpoenas until the motion for contempt was filed and you sent an email and then had a phone call with Attorney Vartan and Ms. Guo. MR. ROMNEY: The typical practice when there's matters of substance is for the three of us to have a phone call and discuss matters concerning her or entities that she controls. And sometimes -- I mean, we can't jointly send an email. Sometimes one of us sends it. And if there's a ministerial update, either one of us could have the call. But my point was, in this particular case, I have a recollection of going through my emails where I was the one that sent the subpoenas to her and then requested a call with her and Attorney Vartan. And then we had that call. THE COURT: Okay. So who authorized you to file the notice of appearance on behalf of Hudson Diamond, LLC and Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: Just so we have a clear record, it's Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC and Hudson Diamond New York, LLC. THE COURT: That's fine. Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond -- because the notice of appearance\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 28 was on behalf of both of those entities, correct? MR. ROMNEY: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. And who authorized you to file that notice of appearance? MR. ROMNEY: Mei Guo. THE COURT: Okay. And in what capacity? MR. ROMNEY: As counsel for those entities believing that -- THE COURT: No, I'm sorry. I didn't ask the question properly. I'm sorry. How do you believe she had authority to direct you to file an appearance on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: Well, as stated, but apparently not very clearly, the Chapter 11 trustee's motion for contempt represents that Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC is the parent of Hudson Diamond New York and that Mei Guo is the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. I knew that Mei Guo was the sole -- was the parent -- sorry, the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. I also believed based upon statements from Ms. Guo, which I believe she was subjectively -- I believe she believed she was the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings and that Hudson Diamond Holdings was the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York. I believe the basis of Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 28 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 29 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
29 |\n| 1 | her belief, among other things, is that she had been asked |\n| 2 | to sign documents on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York as |\n| 3 | the member of Hudson Diamond Holdings which was New York's |\n| 4 | sole member. |\n| 5 | And the sole reason that caused us to believe that |\n| 6 | Ms. Guo was mistaken, just like I may or may not have been |\n| 7 | mistaken based upon what we know now, is that Hodgson Russ |\n| 8 | informed Attorney Vartan and I when we called them together, |\n| 9 | Attorney Kevin Kearney stated to us that Hudson Holdings, |\n| 10 | LLC was not the sole member of Hudson Diamond -- Hudson |\n| 11 | Diamond New York and that he was -- appeared to have been |\n| 12 | reading an operating agreement that his firm had prepared |\n| 13 | that indicated that the debtor's son was the sole member of |\n| 14 | the New York entity. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? |\n| 16 | MR. ROMNEY:
Hudson Diamond New York, LLC.
Which |\n| 17 | is what prompted me to immediately consult with Attorney |\n| 18 | Henzy, immediately call Attorney Luft, and then the |\n| 19 | following morning file my motion to withdraw the appearance |\n| 20 | pursuant to what I believed I had to do under Rule 1.16(b) |\n| 21 | of the Rules of Professional Conduct. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
With regard to the operating agreement |\n| 23 | of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, you may have done this -- |\n| 24 | I'm sorry, but there are, as you know, substantial amount of |\n| 25 | documents in this case.
Have you filed that operating |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 30 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 30 agreement on the docket somewhere that indicates that the debtor's -- the individual debtor's son is the member of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: I don't have that operating agreement -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- because Hodgson -- Hodgson Russ would not provide any information concerning any of the Hudson Diamond entities to me, Ms. Guo, or Attorney Vartan. And in my affidavit -- declaration, excuse me, as well as copied into the body of the declaration as well as the email chain with the attachment evidenced that Hodgson Russ will not give us any documentation concerning those entities. So I don't have it. All I had was the word of the general counsel of what I understand to be a highly reputable firm telling me that the debtor's son was the member. THE COURT: So -- MR. ROMNEY: He then subsequently amended his statement to say that it was not the debtor's son in his individual capacity but the debtor's son as an officer and -- an officer in some other capacity of some third entity, Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc., which is a British Virgin Island company, which I have no idea who actually owns that entity, only I believe it -- I have no reason to believe it's Ms. Guo. Ms. Guo has no reason to believe it's\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 31 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
31 |\n| 1 | her.
And it appears to be the debtor's son based upon |\n| 2 | statements that Hodgson Russ has made to us, because he |\n| 3 | appears to be signing documents on behalf of that entity. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
So you filed a motion to withdraw your |\n| 5 | appearance because Hodgson Russ told you that Hudson Diamond |\n| 6 | New York, LLC's managing member is the debtor -- individual |\n| 7 | debtor's son, but you never saw a document that confirmed |\n| 8 | that? |\n| 9 | MR. ROMNEY:
He would not give it to me, so that's |\n| 10 | correct. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay. |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
Which leaves me where I am right now, |\n| 13 | because Hodgson Russ has also prepared a subsequent document |\n| 14 | that indicates that it prepared a document for Ms. Guo to |\n| 15 | sign as the member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC as the |\n| 16 | sole member of Hudson Diamond New York.
So where I stand |\n| 17 | here right now is I don't know who the sole member of Hudson |\n| 18 | Diamond New York is.
Hodgson Russ doesn't appear to know. |\n| 19 | I've asked them for information concerning why |\n| 20 | they prepared this document which is the only document they |\n| 21 | first identified to Attorney Vartan and I at the time I |\n| 22 | filed the motion to withdraw.
They have not explained to me |\n| 23 | why they produced that document that referenced the debtor's |\n| 24 | son and the debtor's -- and then subsequently prepared a |\n| 25 | document identifying the debtor's daughter as the indirect |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 32 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
32 |\n| 1 | member of the New York entity.
And, therefore, I have |\n| 2 | absolutely no idea which one it is.
And that's why I |\n| 3 | believe I'm required to pursue my motion to withdraw my |\n| 4 | appearance. |\n| 5 | I will say that to the extent I was able to |\n| 6 | determine that Ms. Guo directly or indirectly is, in fact, |\n| 7 | the member, indirect member or person with the authority to |\n| 8 | control or retain counsel for Hudson Diamond New York, I |\n| 9 | would withdraw my -- well, I would withdraw my -- I would |\n| 10 | withdraw my motion to withdraw my appearance, because I am |\n| 11 | in no way trying to hide from this situation, run from this |\n| 12 | situation, or try and pull a fast one on behalf of Hudson |\n| 13 | Diamond New York, Hudson Diamond anything or Ms. Guo.
I am |\n| 14 | simply trying to fulfill my ethical duties to this Court, my |\n| 15 | sole natural client in this situation, Ms. Guo, and everyone |\n| 16 | else in the room. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Well, she's not your client in this |\n| 18 | situation. |\n| 19 | MR. ROMNEY:
No.
But she's my client in general. |\n| 20 | I mean -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
No.
But she's not your client in this |\n| 22 | situation.
The client -- and you've been very careful, and |\n| 23 | I understand why.
The client -- the only client you |\n| 24 | represent at this point -- or that you believe you represent |\n| 25 | and had authority to represent is Hudson Diamond Holding, |\n\n| | | 180 | | |\n|--|--|-----|--|--|\n| | | | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 33\n\n| 1 | LLC. |\n|---|------|\n| | |\n\n MR. ROMNEY: Correct. But my statement, Your Honor, and maybe it wasn't precise enough, was that all I'm trying to do is my best to fulfill my ethical obligations to the Court, the Hudson Diamond entities, Ms. Guo, and everybody else in the room. I don't represent anybody else in this room, but I have ethical obligations to them just like I have ethical obligations to the Court. And that's to tell the truth and to do my best and to honor the agreements that I make to the best of my ability. And that's what I do every day in every one of my cases. And it's what I'm doing right now. THE COURT: Well, let me ask one more question. So the hearing on the motion to -- for contempt was held on June 6th. MR. ROMNEY: Correct. THE COURT: There were a number of hearings held on that day, but that was one of -- that -- the motion for contempt directed against many parties, including the Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and the Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC entities. And at that hearing, you had filed a notice of appearance before that hearing. You had prepared -- appeared at that hearing and said there was an agreement with regard to the production and that the production would be completed, not just done\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 34 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
34 |\n| 1 | but completed, by June 15th on behalf of both entities.
And |\n| 2 | then on June 8th, the consent order was filed that |\n| 3 | memorialized the agreement made on the record on June 6th. |\n| 4 | And the Court entered that order, I think.
I don't know if |\n| 5 | it was the same day or the next day.
Apparently, it looks |\n| 6 | like the same day.
And then -- which is June 8th.
And that |\n| 7 | order is ECF 1896. |\n| 8 | And so as of June 6th -- and, again, confirmed on |\n| 9 | June 8th, you represented both Hudson Diamond -- excuse |\n| 10 | me -- New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC.
And |\n| 11 | you and Attorney Vartan represented that you were going to |\n| 12 | complete the compliance with the subpoenas by June 15.
On |\n\n consent order entered but two days before the compliance was due, you filed a motion to withdraw only as to Hudson Diamond New York, LLC.\n\nJune 13, two days before -- you know, so five days after the\n\n So you're saying -- I want to just make sure that I understand. You're saying from -- you have complied with the consent order as far as Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC is concerned?\n\nMR. ROMNEY: That's correct.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. And what about Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? They haven't complied, correct?\n\n MR. ROMNEY: I'll answer that, if I may, two ways. I believe that's correct. And I am not here to oppose and\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 35 do not intend to oppose and will not oppose an entry of an order of contempt against the New York entity, because I don't have authority to argue that one way or another. Or I'm not convinced that I do. What I will say is that in the intervening period between June 6th, when I entered into the stipulated order that Your Honor just described, and the present, Attorney Vartan and I and Ms. Guo have attempted to locate documents concerning Hudson Diamond New York as well as Hudson Diamond Holdings. And we have just not been able to locate them. We believe that there are documents at Capital 1 -- THE COURT: I'm sorry. Say that again. You've been attempting to locate documents for Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: That's correct. THE COURT: Why if you don't represent them? MR. ROMNEY: Because during this intervening period, I believed that I did. THE COURT: Okay. So what did you do to try to locate the documents? MR. ROMNEY: As set forth in my declaration, the -- we did three things. We contacted Hodgson Russ, which we believed to have represented -- well, we knew formed the New York entity, because we had the articles of Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 35 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 36 organization that confirmed it formed it. So we attempted to contact -- THE COURT: That the articles of -- I'm sorry. I'm not trying to interrupt you. I just want -- MR. ROMNEY: It's -- THE COURT: -- to be very clear. The Hudson Diamond New York, LLC articles of incorporation. Is that what you're talking about? MR. ROMNEY: Yes. THE COURT: And those were signed by whom? MR. ROMNEY: They were filed by Hodgson Russ. THE COURT: Yeah. But who signed them? Who would the -- who was the Hudson Diamond New York, LLC signatory? MR. ROMNEY: I don't believe there was a signatory. THE COURT: Okay. So you have articles of incorporation that aren't signed? MR. ROMNEY: I don't believe New York law or Connecticut, for that matter, requires a signatory. But New York -- THE COURT: Well, who's the managing member? MR. ROMNEY: It's not identified in the -- there is no natural person identified -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- in the articles -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 36 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 37 THE COURT: All right. MR. ROMNEY: -- of organization other than Hodgson Russ as the \"filing party.\" THE COURT: So you got that document from Hodgson Russ? Is that what you're telling me? These articles of incorporation? MR. ROMNEY: I got that document from Ms. Guo. THE COURT: Okay. And it's not signed. But she had it? MR. ROMNEY: Correct. THE COURT: In her personal files? MR. ROMNEY: Which further -- which was further support for my belief and her belief that it was her entity. Correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Yes. THE COURT: All right. That's what I'm asking. MR. ROMNEY: Yes. THE COURT: All right. So she had it in her files, and she turned it over to you. And Mr. Vartan or just you or Mr. Vartan? MR. ROMNEY: She sent an email to Attorney Vartan and I. So she turned it -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- over to us -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 37 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 38 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 38 THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- simultaneously. THE COURT: And what other documents did she turn over with regard to Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: With regard to Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? Those were the only ones. THE COURT: Okay. And did you -- and you may have said this, okay, so I'm sorry. I need to be clear. Did you supply that document to the trustee? MR. ROMNEY: That document had been supplied to the trustee, I believe, in connection with earlier production on the part of Ms. Guo. THE COURT: But you didn't produce it to the trustee on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, even though Ms. Guo sent you an -- you and Attorney Vartan an email with that document? MR. ROMNEY: I did not. Because by the time of the production date, I didn't believe I had authority to do anything on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, because -- THE COURT: When did you get the email from Ms. Guo that had that agreement attached to it? MR. ROMNEY: I don't recall the date. It was before -- THE COURT: Was it before you filed your motion to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 39 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
39 |\n| 1 | withdraw as attorney? |\n| 2 | MR. ROMNEY:
It was before I filed -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
-- my motion to withdraw as an |\n| 5 | attorney. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
All right.
Now, with regard -- so you |\n| 7 | have no opposition, because you can't -- you have no |\n| 8 | authority to oppose an order entering against Hudson Diamond |\n| 9 | New York, LLC to hold them in contempt.
Is that correct? |\n| 10 | MR. ROMNEY:
That's correct. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
With regard to Hudson Diamond |\n| 12 | Holding, LLC, you believe -- and, Attorney Vartan, you're |\n| 13 | going to be asked the same question -- that you complied and |\n| 14 | you -- with the consent order for -- and what your terms are |\n| 15 | in this consent order is that you've completed the |\n| 16 | production to the trustee on behalf of Hudson Diamond |\n| 17 | Holdings, LLC?
You -- by June 15th.
You believe you've |\n| 18 | complied with that order? |\n| 19 | MR. ROMNEY:
I do. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Attorney Vartan, you believe |\n| 21 | you've complied with the order -- the consent order that |\n| 22 | included Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, completing its |\n| 23 | production of documents to the trustee by June 15th? |\n| 24 | MR. VARTAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
We sought to obtain |\n| 25 | all documents from all sources that we could and -- |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 40 THE COURT: What sources did you seek to obtain them from? MR. VARTAN: So we sought to obtain documents from Hodgson Russ. We sought to obtain documents from Capital One. And we obviously also sought to obtain documents from our client directly. There were a number of other individuals who could theoretically have had documents who would not speak with us. THE COURT: Well, what does that mean? I mean, I don't know what that means, who would not speak with us. MR. VARTAN: So -- THE COURT: What attempts did you make? MR. VARTAN: So we attempted to reach out through our client to both -- THE COURT: So you didn't reach out. Your client reached out? MR. VARTAN: Correct. THE COURT: So you have no knowledge as the lawyer representing the Hudson Diamond entities at that time of whether your client actually reached out to these other sources? MR. VARTAN: Well, we have knowledge that our client went to the bank, because we were on the phone with her both before and after. THE COURT: But you don't know if she was at the Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 40 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 41 bank when she was -- MR. VARTAN: We don't -- THE COURT: You don't -- MR. VARTAN: We have no reason to doubt our client in any way. THE COURT: That's not my question. You don't know. You're the lawyer, right? Aren't you supposed to know? MR. VARTAN: I know that she went to the bank based upon -- THE COURT: How do you know that? MR. VARTAN: -- based upon my conversations with her. THE COURT: So based upon what she says, you know that? MR. VARTAN: Again, I have no reason to doubt her, Judge. THE COURT: I didn't say you have a reason to doubt her. I'm saying based upon what she says to you. MR. VARTAN: If you're asking me if I went to the bank with her, I did not. THE COURT: That's -- okay. So -- MR. VARTAN: But we -- THE COURT: What other sources -- what are you -- were you there when she went through the records of these Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 41 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 42 entities to see what was -- what would be responsive to the subpoena? MR. VARTAN: I have been through Ms. Guo's records with her previously in making -- THE COURT: That wasn't my question. MR. VARTAN: -- prior productions. THE COURT: That wasn't my question. My question was a very direct question. MR. VARTAN: Not -- THE COURT: Were you there when she went through her records, reviewing documents that would be responsive to the subpoenas served on the Hudson Diamond entities? MR. VARTAN: My understanding, Judge, is she has no records beyond the records she and I had previously reviewed. THE COURT: That still didn't answer my question, Attorney Vartan. MR. VARTAN: So then -- THE COURT: Listen to the question. Were you there when your client went through her records that -- to -- that would -- to determine whether she had records that were responsive to the subpoenas issued and served, which you acknowledge were served on the Hudson Diamond entities? MR. VARTAN: I was not when she went through -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 42 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 43 THE COURT: Okay. MR. VARTAN: -- documents right prior to June 15th. Correct. THE COURT: So you were not there. You did not view, observe, or discuss what your client did with regard to the review of the documents in her possession and control that would be responsive to the subpoenas served on the Hudson Diamond entities? MR. VARTAN: We absolutely did discuss. So I didn't view or observe her. THE COURT: Well, what discussions did you have about responsive to subpoenas? That isn't protected. So you can argue it's attorney/client. It's not. MR. VARTAN: Well, I -- THE COURT: You have a subpoena. You've already acknowledged the subpoena was appropriately served. You didn't oppose the subpoena. You didn't file a motion to quash. You didn't file a protective order. So there's no opposition that you can raise right now that is in any way privileged. So what discussions did you have with regard to documents that would have been responsive to the subpoenas served on the Hudson Diamond entities? MR. VARTAN: Well, I would maintain that the communications are privileged. Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 43 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 44 THE COURT: Well, you can, but I -- you're wrong. So go ahead. What -- MR. VARTAN: So, well, I'm not going to go into privileged communications with my client, but certainly what we -- THE COURT: Well, then you're going to get held in contempt, okay? Because you have obligations, Attorney Vartan. You have obligations to the Court as an officer of the court. MR. VARTAN: No doubt. THE COURT: Okay? MR. VARTAN: And not to interrupt -- THE COURT: And you stated in a consent order and on the record through Attorney Romney that you were going to comply with these subpoenas. And you have to demonstrate, not just your client, you have to demonstrate what steps you've taken to be in compliance with the subpoenas. And I haven't heard anything. Not one thing. MR. VARTAN: Well, Your Honor, first and foremost, we had multiple conversations, both telephonic and email, with Hodgson Russ who we understood to be the attorneys for both the holdings entity -- THE COURT: And you didn't get any documents from them. They told you they wouldn't produce them. And what did you do at that? You just said, okay, they're not going Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 44 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 45 to produce them. That's what you said. I've seen it. I mean, Attorney Romney has attached to his declaration some -- one person from Hodgson Russ who said I decline to talk to you. MR. VARTAN: Correct. That was the attorney who actually worked on the file. THE COURT: Okay. And what did you do when he said I -- MR. VARTAN: So when he -- THE COURT: -- decline to talk to you. MR. VARTAN: -- when he said I decline to speak with you, we said it was incredibly important that we speak. He then directed -- THE COURT: I don't think I saw anything about that. MR. VARTAN: Well, there was email communication which -- THE COURT: Well, it's not in the record. MR. VARTAN: Well, Your Honor, if I could finish. All I was saying -- THE COURT: You can finish, Attorney Vartan, but you need to be very careful. Okay? MR. VARTAN: I'm trying to be. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. VARTAN: And after we spoke with Mr. Harmon Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 45 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 46 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
46 |\n| 1 | and he declined to speak with us, he then referred us to the |\n| 2 | general counsel at Hodgson Russ.
So that's how we got to |\n| 3 | the second attorney.
And Attorney Romney and I had multiple |\n| 4 | conversations with him where we explained that we were |\n| 5 | endeavoring to do our best to make a complete production on |\n| 6 | behalf of both Holdings and on behalf of New York. |\n| 7 | In the context of those conversations is when he |\n| 8 | told us that he did not believe that Ms. Guo had anything to |\n| 9 | do with New York.
And that is what precipitated the filing |\n| 10 | of the motion to withdraw. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Right.
But you've seen no documents |\n| 12 | or have -- |\n| 13 | MR. VARTAN:
Well -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
And your client said just the |\n| 15 | opposite. |\n| 16 | MR. VARTAN:
But can -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Wait.
Hold on.
Hold on.
You have no |\n| 18 | documents to support the statement made by the attorney from |\n| 19 | Hodgson Russ. |\n| 20 | MR. VARTAN:
That's correct. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
You have no documents. |\n| 22 | MR. VARTAN:
But can I -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
And -- hold on, please. |\n| 24 | MR. VARTAN:
I'm sorry.
I apologize. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
And your client said just the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 47 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
47 |\n| 1 | opposite, that she was the managing member of Hudson Diamond |\n| 2 | New York, LLC. |\n| 3 | MR. VARTAN:
So, Your Honor, if I could address |\n| 4 | it?
The reason that we don't have documents from Hodgson |\n| 5 | Russ is not for lack of effort on our part.
It's because |\n| 6 | Hodgson Russ was representing that Hudson Diamond New York |\n| 7 | had nothing to do with our client, had everything to do with |\n| 8 | her brother who we don't represent.
And so, therefore, |\n| 9 | there's a privilege between Hodgson Russ and the brother of |\n| 10 | Hodgson Russ and Hudson Diamond New York that we certainly |\n| 11 | can't abrogate.
So it's not for lack of effort on our part. |\n| 12 | And the one thing, Judge, that I just want to |\n| 13 | point out, I think it was implicit and explicit in what |\n| 14 | Mr. Romney was saying, but we're not here in any way to hide |\n| 15 | the ball from the Court or from the trustee.
The whole |\n| 16 | reason that we made an appearance on behalf of both Holdings |\n| 17 | and New York in this case was not to obfuscate in any way, |\n| 18 | but it was to make as complete a production as possible to |\n| 19 | the trustee. |\n| 20 | We did not have an interest in either entity to |\n| 21 | the extent that we believed at the time that Ms. Guo was |\n| 22 | affiliated with them to have either entity held in contempt. |\n| 23 | And I believe the trustee isn't looking to hold entities in |\n| 24 | contempt.
The trustee is looking to get documents. |\n| 25 | And so we were -- |\n| | |\n\n| 180 |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
48 |\n| THE COURT:
Well, he's got a pending motion to |\n| hold them in contempt, so I disagree with you. |\n| MR. VARTAN:
But what I was saying is I assume the |\n| trustee's preference would be to get documents -- |\n| THE COURT:
It may -- yeah, it would be his |\n| preference. |\n| MR. VARTAN:
-- as opposed to hold an entity in |\n| contempt.
And that's what we were endeavoring to do no |\n| more.
Had we continued to believe that we represented |\n| Hudson Diamond New York in addition to Holdings, then we |\n| would have made a production.
The only reason there was a |\n| motion to withdraw with respect to New York was based upon |\n| the conversations, based upon the due diligence we were |\n| doing with respect to Hodgson Russ. |\n| THE COURT:
Did you meet the Hodgson Russ lawyer |\n| in person? |\n| MR. VARTAN:
I did not, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
Did you have a video conference with |\n| the person? |\n| MR. VARTAN:
We had multiple telephone |\n| conversations. |\n| THE COURT:
So you don't even know who the person |\n| is.
You don't even know what the person looks like, right? |\n| MR. VARTAN:
From the website, I do.
But, no, I |\n| did not have -- |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 49 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
49 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 2 | MR. VARTAN:
-- a video conference. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
So you had a telephone conversation in |\n| 4 | which the person at Hodgson Russ who wouldn't produce any |\n| 5 | documents to you told you that the son is the managing |\n| 6 | member.
And based on that, you -- |\n| 7 | MR. VARTAN:
Of New York. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Right.
Of New York. |\n| 9 | MR. VARTAN:
Correct. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
And that you -- based on that, you |\n| 11 | withdrew -- you moved -- well, you didn't file an |\n| 12 | appearance, which is another whole issue.
So we're going to |\n| 13 | talk about that at a different point.
We're not doing this |\n| 14 | ping pong thing.
Okay?
I've had that conversation from the |\n| 15 | beginning of this case.
You're either both in or you're |\n| 16 | both out, or you're one in or you're one out. |\n| 17 | I need to know who represents these entities. |\n| 18 | This is not going to continue in this court.
Okay?
You |\n| 19 | need to decide how that's going to work, and you need to |\n| 20 | stick by that. |\n| 21 | Because to have you sign some documents with |\n| 22 | Attorney Romney's signature under them as -- which appears |\n| 23 | as local counsel and then have Attorney Romney be the only |\n| 24 | person that files a notice of appearance is not appropriate. |\n| 25 | And it will not continue in this case.
So you'll all have |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 50 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
50 |\n| 1 | to figure that out.
You either both represent them or one |\n| 2 | of you represents them, and that's it. |\n| 3 | MR. VARTAN:
And I just wanted to clarify that for |\n| 4 | the record.
So since I and my law firm have been involved |\n| 5 | with the case it's very much been a co-counsel relationship |\n| 6 | between CSG, my law firm, and -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Then why didn't you file a notice of |\n| 8 | appearance on behalf of both the Hudson Diamond entities? |\n| 9 | MR. VARTAN:
Your Honor, by the time that I was |\n| 10 | preparing to do that, there was an issue, obviously, which |\n| 11 | we brought to the Court. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
That's not accurate.
That's not |\n| 13 | accurate.
The motion to compel for contempt was pending. |\n| 14 | And Mr. Romney filed an appearance well before the hearing |\n| 15 | on the motion for contempt.
So, Mr. Vartan, that is not |\n| 16 | accurate.
So I don't want to hear that, because that's not |\n| 17 | accurate. |\n| 18 | You made a choice.
And, fine, you made that |\n| 19 | choice.
But you're not making that choice anymore.
You |\n| 20 | either both represent the entities or one or the other of |\n| 21 | you does. |\n| 22 | We are not doing this anymore.
You are wasting |\n| 23 | the Court's time, and I don't feel that you are being |\n| 24 | accurate in your representations to this Court.
And so you |\n| 25 | need to think long and hard about that. |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 51 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 51 Attorney Romney's the only one that filed an affidavit or a declaration in connection with this motion to compel. You're going to argue, well, I didn't have to. I never filed the notice of appearance on behalf of the Hudson Diamond entities. But what do I hear? Every conversation that has to do with the motion for contempt and the notice of appearance and the motion and the production of documents has you involved in it, Attorney Vartan, not just Attorney Romney. That's not appropriate. MR. VARTAN: Understood, Your Honor. And I am truly not trying to hide anything from this Court or any party in the courtroom. Really, what we have endeavored to do since the filing of the motion seeking to hold the Hudson Diamond entities in contempt was to do our level best to figure out which of the entities that we represent. We certainly -- THE COURT: Well, you didn't do your level best to figure out which one of the -- entities you represented when Mr. Romney filed the notice of appearance. He represented both of them. MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, but, again, it was done -- and I understand a mistake was made. But what we're saying here is it was done with the best of intentions. Meaning we were not trying to hide anything from anyone. We were just --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 52 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 52 THE COURT: Whether it's done with the best of intentions really doesn't matter, Attorney Vartan. MR. VARTAN: Well, I -- THE COURT: What matters is what are your professional obligations -- MR. VARTAN: We were trying -- THE COURT: -- under the applicable codes of conduct and as a member of the bar of the State of New York or New Jersey and practicing before this Court. And that's what your obligations are. You can have whatever intent you think. It doesn't matter. What matters is, what are your requirements? What are your obligations? What are you obligated to do? MR. VARTAN: And, Your Honor, I believe that we've met those obligations. THE COURT: Okay. That's your belief. That's fine. All right. Attorney Romney, is there anything else you'd like to add? MR. ROMNEY: Yes. Very briefly, Your Honor. My appearance on behalf of the Hudson Diamond entities -- I actually don't have that with me, but I believe it was -- THE COURT: I can -- we can put it up on the screen if you'd like. MR. ROMNEY: If it's not too much trouble, that\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 53 would be helpful. THE COURT: All right. We'll find it. Give us a minute, and we'll put it up on the screen. MR. ROMNEY: I believe it's June 1st, filed at around 10-something p.m., if I recall correctly. THE COURT: 1848 is the ECF number. And it says that you entered an appearance on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC, parties in interest. MR. ROMNEY: And I -- am I correct that it was filed at 10-something p.m.? THE COURT: 10:16 p.m. Actually -- yes. No. 8:16 p.m. MR. ROMNEY: 8:16. Okay. I thought it was around 10. But the -- perhaps it was the motion for an adjournment that was filed at 10-something. THE COURT: That may be. You want me to -- MR. ROMNEY: No, no, no. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: The point I was making, Your Honor, was that this was filed on the evening before the deadline to respond for -- or the evening of -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. ROMNEY: -- the deadline to respond. THE COURT: I understand. Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 53 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 54 MR. ROMNEY: Attorney -- THE COURT: The hearing wasn't until June 6th. MR. ROMNEY: I understand. Attorney Vartan was -- is admitted in this Court pro hac vice on behalf of HK International and Mei Guo. I recall very specifically why I am the one that filed this appearance was because there wasn't time to get another pro hac vice application. THE COURT: I understand that. But you could have done that the next day. MR. ROMNEY: It could have. And as -- THE COURT: There was -- actually, you could have done it that night, because it's all electronic filing. It's very easy. MR. ROMNEY: We -- THE COURT: You've done it very well on many other occasions, as have other people in the court. MR. ROMNEY: I actually don't know how to E-file, which is pretty sad in this day and age. But I -- but we have very good support staff, so that's a distinction without a difference. At the time that we filed this, nobody -- not me, not Attorney Vartan, not Ms. Guo and nobody else that I've had discussions with -- was expecting for anything other to happen other than us to negotiate a brief extension in exchange for our compliance. And by compliance, I define, I Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 54 of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 55 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 55
believe correctly so in connection with the case law -- but |\n| | |\n| 2 | if I'm mistaken, I apologize -- to attempt in good faith and |\n| 3 | diligently to locate every document that is within the |\n| 4 | client's control, actual and constructive.
And that is what |\n| 5 | we intended to do.
That's what we agreed to do.
And that's |\n| 6 | what we did do. |\n| 7 | And nobody, between Attorney Vartan, myself, and |\n| 8 | Ms. Guo, expected this to become anything worthy of having |\n| 9 | another attorney file a pro hac -- another pro hac vice |\n| 10 | application, another docket entry in this case, because we |\n| 11 | all intended and did act in good faith to comply and get the |\n| 12 | trustee everything that the trustee wanted concerning these |\n| 13 | entities.
And I -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Well, I don't have any declaration of |\n| 15 | Ms. Guo, so I can't make any findings with regard to that. |\n| 16 | The only thing I could make a finding with -- is with regard |\n| 17 | to what you've said in your declaration under penalty of |\n| 18 | perjury, which I appreciate that you filed.
Okay? |\n| 19 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
So I can't speak to what Ms. Guo's |\n| 21 | intentions are.
I can't speak to what Attorney Vartan's |\n| 22 | intentions are, because he hasn't filed anything.
All I can |\n| 23 | speak to is what has happened in this case and what -- where |\n| 24 | we are. |\n| 25 | And we were at a point on June 6th where there was |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 56 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
56 |\n| 1 | going to be an order possibly entered against the Hudson |\n| 2 | Diamond entities holding them in contempt.
And I was told |\n| 3 | on the docket, on the record that there was agreement that |\n| 4 | you represented both of them, that there was an agreement |\n| 5 | that they would produce and they would do so by June 15th. |\n| 6 | You've now stated, Attorney Romney, that you |\n| 7 | believe that you complied with regard to -- that you've |\n| 8 | complied on the -- with the subpoenas for the production of |\n| 9 | the documents with regard to Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC. |\n| 10 | That's your statement.
And the trustee will do with that |\n| 11 | what the trustee's going to do with that.
And we'll hear in |\n| 12 | a -- I'm sure soon. |\n| 13 | With regard to Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, there |\n| 14 | has been no compliance that I'm aware of.
And no one has |\n| 15 | shown me that there is any compliance.
So if the trustee |\n| 16 | moves for a contempt, then I'm going to consider that. |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:
And I will not oppose it. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, as you said, I don't think you |\n| 19 | have -- well, you -- |\n| 20 | MR. ROMNEY:
Correct.
That's -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
If you are consistent with your motion |\n| 22 | to withdraw your attorney, you don't have any authority to |\n| 23 | oppose it. |\n| 24 | MR. ROMNEY:
Correct. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
So in any event, is there anything |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 57 else you wanted to add? MR. ROMNEY: No. Thank you for -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- hearing us. THE COURT: All right. Then I'd like to hear from the trustee's counsel -- MR. VARTAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- and the Office of the United States Trustee as well. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, do you have a preference as to which you hear from first? THE COURT: I have no preference. MR. LUFT: Okay. Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Avi Luft, Paul Hastings, on behalf of the trustee. Your Honor, I don't have any intention to speak today as to what the intent was of counsel. I wasn't part of their conversations that they had with anyone else, whether it be their client or Hodgson Russ. And I have no way to speak to that. So what I do want to speak to, and hopefully briefly, though, is with regard to this notion that no one knows who runs Hudson Diamond New York and that all Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 57 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 58 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 58 documents that presumably exist in the world that could have been responsive to our subpoena have been produced and, thus, there has been compliance. Because I don't think either of those is quite that straightforward. Look, as I understand it, Your Honor, they made reference to the fact that we filed papers indicating that Hudson Diamond New York appeared to be -- have a sole member of Ms. Guo. We did. They're attached to my declaration which is at Exhibit 1805. And specifically, Your Honor, if you look -- THE COURT: Exhibit T. MR. LUFT: There is Exhibit T, Your Honor. There is also Exhibit U which -- THE COURT: I may not have looked at Exhibit U. Go ahead. MR. LUFT: -- as well as Exhibits G, H, and I, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUFT: And in brief, and this is why we believed it, if you look at Exhibit G, it is a document prepared by Hodgson Russ for Ms. Yvette Wang of Golden Springs which sets out an -- sets out org charts of the entities, which I can tell you from speaking to them they believed were controlled by the debtor. But be that as it may, they had listed who is named.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 59 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 59 And under the one for Hudson Diamond Holdings, you can see Ms. Guo on the top directly above Hudson Diamond Holdings, directly above Hudson Diamond New York, LLC. Consistent with that, at Exhibit H is a document for Hudson Diamond New York which lists Ms. Wang as the contact but as the sole member says Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, 100 percent. Not surprisingly, located at 162 East 64th Street in Manhattan which is where most of the debtor's entities are located.\n\n And then if we go to Exhibit I, we see who owns Hudson Diamond Holdings. The member is listed as Ms. Guo, 100 percent interest, again with the 162 East 64th Street address.\n\n As Your Honor mentioned, and there is Exhibit T in which we see Ms. Guo signing consistent in her role as the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings. And Exhibit U where we see Ms. Guo again signing, this time as the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings. Based on that documentation, that is why we understood Ms. Guo to be the person in control of Hudson Diamond Holding and Hudson Diamond New York.\n\n We are not aware of any document which indicates that anyone else is the named member. I will tell you I believe that the debtor actually controlled the entity based on discovery and our investigation. But in terms of who is\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 60 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
60 |\n| 1 | the member and who can -- should be responding to the |\n| 2 | subpoena, that is what -- who we believe is in charge. |\n| 3 | Now, I feel like I'm not sure why we have |\n| 4 | confusion at this point, because my understanding is that |\n| 5 | while there is no document anywhere that someone has seen |\n| 6 | that indicates that someone other than Ms. Guo is the |\n| 7 | member, there have been representations that there were |\n| 8 | conversations in which Mr. Kearney of Hodgson Russ indicated |\n| 9 | that the son may be the member.
That very well may have |\n| 10 | happened.
I don't know. |\n| 11 | What I do know is if we look at Mr. Romney's |\n| 12 | declaration and Exhibit A, Mr. Kearney wrote to Mr. Romney |\n| 13 | and Mr. Vartan saying that he questions whether he ever said |\n| 14 | that but then more importantly says the documents indicate |\n| 15 | that Holdings was the member, not Qiang Guo, who is the son. |\n| 16 | And he goes on to say that the engagement concerning Hudson |\n| 17 | Diamond New York was addressed to Ms. Wang. |\n| 18 | So whatever may have been said on the call, and |\n| 19 | very well there may have been a miscommunication, I think |\n| 20 | Mr. Kearney has made clear at this point that there is not a |\n| 21 | belief that Mr. -- the debtor's son, Mr. -- again, Mr. Guo |\n| 22 | is the member of Holdings, in which case there is no reason |\n| 23 | to believe that Ms. Guo, Mei Guo, is not the member of |\n| 24 | Holdings, in which case they should be able to comply. |\n| 25 | Why do I care about this, Your Honor?
Solely for |\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
61 |\n| 1 | one reason.
We need to get documents.
We need someone who |\n| 2 | we can speak to, who we can get from. |\n| 3 | And that brings me to really the second point we |\n| 4 | have here, which is you've heard today that they've said |\n| 5 | that they've gotten all documents from all sources. |\n| 6 | Mr. Romney in his declaration says I do not have any reason |\n| 7 | to believe that New York or Holdings have any assets or the |\n| 8 | ability to produce additional documents. |\n| 9 | Well, Your Honor, I don't know how that could be |\n| 10 | true.
I've had conversations with Mr. Vartan and |\n| 11 | Mr. Romney.
And I've pointed them in particular to Exhibit |\n| 12 | J of my declaration, which is an insurance agreement on |\n| 13 | behalf of Hudson Diamonds New York with AIG indicating that |\n| 14 | there's a Rolls-Royce in their name.
We don't have any |\n| 15 | documents about that.
We received two documents total in |\n| 16 | compliance from Holdings.
So J talks about a Rolls-Royce. |\n| 17 | If you look at Exhibit V, that is the deposition |\n| 18 | of Margaret Conboy. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Exhibit -- which? |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:
V as in Victor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
V?
Okay.
Hold on one second. |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:
Of course, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
All right.
So I'm looking at -- |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
So it's -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
-- Exhibit J to your declaration -- |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 61 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 62 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
62 |\n| 1 | MR. LUFT:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- which is attached to 1805 at |\n| 3 | 1805-36, page 1 of 5.
And there's a -- New York auto bill |\n| 4 | declaration page.
It says there's a policy number, name of |\n| 5 | insured, and mailing address, Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, |\n| 6 | 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York.
Name and address |\n| 7 | of issuing company, AIG Property Casualty Company. |\n| 8 | Description of your covered automobiles.
2019 Rolls-Royce |\n| 9 | with a VIN number and an agreed-upon value of \\$283,712. |\n| 10 | That's what you're referring to? |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
And the description of the drivers are |\n| 13 | two individuals who says are authorized and covered, Dean |\n| 14 | Rabideau -- I'm not sure I'm pronouncing that right -- |\n| 15 | R-A-B-I-D-E-A-U -- and I -- Cao Defeng -- and again, I |\n| 16 | probably did not pronounce that correctly -- C-A-O is the |\n| 17 | first name.
D-E-F-E-N-G is the second name. |\n| 18 | And there's a million-dollar coverage -- liability |\n| 19 | coverage per occurrence.
Medical expenses coverages of |\n| 20 | \\$50,000 person.
Uninsured motorist of a million per |\n| 21 | occurrence.
Collision coverage for your damage to your |\n| 22 | automobile up to the agreed value.
Personal injury |\n| 23 | protection with a premium of \\$5,817.
That's a four-page |\n| 24 | document, it looks like. |\n| 25 | Okay.
Go ahead.
That's Exhibit G -- J as in jam. |\n| | |\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
63 |\n| 1 | Now we need to look at V as in Victor? |\n| 2 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor, which is a transcript |\n| 3 | of a deposition of Margaret Conboy who is a lawyer at |\n| 4 | Whitman Breed who represented on behalf of Hodgson -- Hudson |\n| 5 | Diamond with regard to at least five real estate |\n| 6 | transactions that Mr. -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
What page do you want me to go to in |\n| 8 | this deposition?
I've opened up Exhibit V now. |\n| 9 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I can point you to Exhibit |\n| 10 | 21 -- page 21 where there is a discussion about Hudson |\n| 11 | Diamond.
I don't -- just so you can see what it is.
I |\n| 12 | don't intend to go through all of this. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Do you want me to pull it up on the |\n| 14 | screen, or do you just want to -- wait.
How do you want to |\n| 15 | handle that? |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I'll make reference to it. |\n| 17 | I think that'll just expedite things. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go right ahead. |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:
But, specifically, it talks about the |\n| 20 | purchase being made on behalf of an entity called Hudson |\n| 21 | Diamond.
And then it says, \"Is this the same engagement |\n| 22 | where you were told you were representing the interests of |\n| 23 | Mr. Kwok and his family, correct?
Yes.\"
And it goes on |\n| 24 | from there. |\n| 25 | I raise these, Your Honor, and I raised them with |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 63 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 64 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
64 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Mr. Vartan and Mr. Romney previously to say we know about |\n| 2 | the car, we know that there were real estate transactions, |\n| 3 | we know there seems to be transfers related to the Hudson |\n| 4 | Diamond entities, meaning there should be documents.
This |\n| 5 | isn't a shell company that did nothing or that no one ever |\n| 6 | did anything on behalf of. |\n| 7 | But all we've received is the two documents you've |\n| | |\n| 8 | heard about from Holdings, and we've received nothing from |\n| 9 | New York at this point.
And, unfortunately, it sounds like |\n| 10 | we're being told there's no one we can even talk to about |\n| 11 | that.
I really would rather much prefer to have the |\n| 12 | information about where these assets are, whether some -- a |\n| 13 | house was actually purchased. |\n| 14 | Some of these houses that I looked up were worth |\n| 15 | upwards of \\$35 million, Your Honor.
I don't know if |\n| 16 | anything was ever consummated.
But I know that they must |\n| 17 | have had funds if they were looking to buy it.
Or at least |\n| 18 | that would be a reasonable assumption. |\n| 19 | So that's what I'm trying to find out here.
And |\n| 20 | at this point, it seems to me that this seems knowable.
Not |\n| 21 | only do all the documents suggest it, but the idea that a |\n| 22 | brother and a sister and a father can't speak and understand |\n| 23 | who's the person that the debtor -- whose name the debtor |\n| 24 | put on top of the company, that seems knowable, particularly |\n| 25 | when two of the three entities are represented by the same |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 65 counsel. So, Your Honor, that's really where we are with regard to this. I understand the idea that if they -- if they say that they're not representing them then they can't -- they need to withdraw, because they're not representing them. I can only speak to in terms of what we know and we've presented to you in terms of why we believed Ms. Guo was the person in charge. That's where that is. But what I do have to take issue with is the idea that there has been compliance or we've received all the documents related to Hudson Diamond, whether from Holdings, which appears to us to wholly own New York, or from New York. I don't know which specific -- where all the assets are or whatever else. That's what the documents would tell me. But I don't believe we've had compliance. And so as to both, I would renew our motion for contempt, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. I want to circle back to something Attorney Luft pointed out, and I think that that is important to focus on, which is that based upon the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 66 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
66 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | emails between Attorney Romney and Attorney Kevin Kearney at |\n| 2 | Hodgson Russ, there appears to be a consensus that the last |\n| 3 | document that exists that anyone's seen was actually signed |\n| 4 | by Mei Guo in her capacity as the sole member of Holdings, |\n| 5 | which is the same -- it's the same sole member of New York. |\n| 6 | So that's the last document that's been before the Court and |\n| 7 | the last document that's been talked about. |\n| 8 | That document is consistent with what Attorney |\n| 9 | Kearney is saying in the emails that are attached to |\n| 10 | Attorney Romney's affidavit.
So based on that, there |\n| 11 | doesn't seem to be any confusion, at least on paper, that |\n| 12 | Mei Guo is the person in charge. |\n| 13 | So if Mei Guo is the person in charge, then |\n| 14 | Attorney Romney appears to have a direct connection to her, |\n| 15 | because he represents her in her individual capacity as |\n| 16 | well.
And then there seems to be no reason to do a |\n| 17 | withdrawal of the appearance. |\n| 18 | The other thing I wanted to say is that the |\n| 19 | withdrawal of the appearance on behalf of Hudson Diamond -- |\n| 20 | sorry, Hudson Diamond New York, LLC appears to be |\n| 21 | detrimental to the estate.
Because as Attorney Luft just |\n| 22 | pointed out, there are a number of areas of documents that |\n| 23 | should have been provided, haven't been provided, and are |\n| 24 | delinquent.
The trustee has a pending motion for contempt |\n| 25 | for the failure to comply with the subpoenas and allowing |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 67 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
67 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Attorney Romney to withdraw from representing Hudson Diamond |\n| 2 | New York, LLC would appear to be detrimental to the estate |\n| 3 | and detrimental to the investigation that the trustee is |\n| 4 | trying to pursue.
So at the end of the day, Your Honor, I |\n| 5 | don't think that Attorney Romney has met his burden to |\n| 6 | demonstrate that the withdrawal is appropriate. |\n\n The other thing I would say is that the U.S. Trustee's response to the Court's order asked both Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan to provide answers to a number of different questions. As the Court has already noted, Attorney Vartan did not file anything in response. And I would say that the response filed by Attorney Romney did not address all of the points requested by the United States Trustee. And it appears based on not only the declaration that was filed and the comments that are made today that there is more information that could have been provided to the Court about the series of events that led to the motion to withdraw. So, unfortunately, the U.S. Trustee's efforts to try to get some more information about what's happened and how we got here remain unfulfilled.\n\n But getting back to the point I made a minute ago which is that the last document anyone has that has been provided demonstrates that Mei Guo is at the heart of all of these entities and, therefore, based on that, it appears that Attorney Romney has a basis to stay in this case. Thank\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 68 you. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Romney, do you wish to respond? MR. ROMNEY: Yes, I do. On the first issue, responding to Attorney Luft, the issue is not whether there are documents in the world concerning the Hudson Diamond entities. I'm in no position to opine on that beyond what I already have. The issue is whether I or somebody I can control can locate them. The trustee has alleged in this case that the two individuals that, as far as their investigation is concerned with all of their resources, which is well beyond what I can do -- and they have all of Hodgson Russ's files. I don't. The record is clear that I requested it. I demanded it, and I was told no. That is in the record. I cannot go to Hodgson Russ' office with a gun in my hand, nor am I required to, and make them give me my files. I can ask. I can demand. But at the end of the day, I was told no. They were told yes. They got the files. I didn't. They have the information. With that information, they have alleged, consistent to what Ms. Guo has said or told us and what we have represented, is that the two individuals who were responsible for the management of these entities were Yvette Wang, who is incarcerated and I have no access to\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 69 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
69 |\n| 1 | whatsoever, and Max Krasner, who we cannot locate, has had |\n| 2 | no contact with Ms. Guo as far as we know for months.
And |\n| 3 | we are unable to locate him. |\n| 4 | So the individuals that have the information for |\n| 5 | all that we know, all that the documents that are being |\n| 6 | referred to by the trustee beyond the extent that they're |\n| 7 | with Hodgson Russ and whoever else is cooperating with them |\n| 8 | and not us are in the possession of the U.S. Department of |\n| 9 | Justice.
I don't believe -- I have not taken it upon myself |\n| 10 | to ask the U.S. Department of Justice for their files on |\n| 11 | these entities, because I've never in my entire career, even |\n| 12 | when I had clients that were cooperating with them, received |\n| 13 | a document from the U.S. Department of Justice. |\n| 14 | We have done what we can.
That's point number |\n| 15 | one.
Second, Hodgson Russ, in the most recent communication |\n| 16 | with us, is refusing under Ethical Rule 1.6 to communicate |\n| 17 | confidential information with us, because he, as the general |\n| 18 | counsel of the firm that prepared the document that the U.S. |\n| 19 | Trustee's Office and Mr. Luft are saying is now conclusive, |\n| 20 | but he, the general counsel to the firm that prepared this |\n| 21 | so-called conclusive document is unsure enough as to what |\n| 22 | that document is, why it was prepared that he won't give me |\n| 23 | as counsel to Ms. Guo and Hudson Diamond Holdings any |\n| 24 | information besides the fact that it was prepared at the |\n| 25 | rest -- at the request of Max Krasner. |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 70 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 70
So I find that far from conclusive that Ms. Guo |\n| | |\n| 2 | controls these entities.
And, you know, if Ms. Guo controls |\n| 3 | these entities, as I've said on the record, I will withdraw |\n| 4 | my motion to withdraw the appearance, because my sole basis |\n| 5 | for moving to withdraw is -- was because I do not know |\n| 6 | whether Ms. Guo has the authority to direct me to appear on |\n| 7 | behalf of it.
And the attorney who prepared the smoking gun |\n| 8 | that she does doesn't know himself or the general counsel of |\n| 9 | the firm. |\n| 10 | So I don't know how this Court can require me to |\n| 11 | stay in on behalf of this entity.
I would love to know all |\n| 12 | of these facts and be able to stay in on behalf of this |\n| 13 | entity and continue to do everything I can.
But I don't.
I |\n| 14 | do not have sufficient information that I believe under the |\n| 15 | ethical rules that I can continue to represent this entity |\n| 16 | based on the facts that are available to me. |\n| 17 | One point with respect to what Attorney Luft said |\n| 18 | with respect to Attorney Kearney and Hodgson Russ's |\n| 19 | comments.
Attorney Kearney did not say, contrary to the -- |\n| 20 | or despite the fact that in his email communication he does |\n| 21 | not recall telling us -- telling Attorney Vartan and I that |\n| 22 | it was the debtor's son.
That appears to be a distinction |\n| 23 | without a difference, because he is clearly saying that it |\n| 24 | was the debtor's son as signatory on behalf of Hudson |\n| 25 | Diamond Holdings, Inc. |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 71 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
71 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Hudson Diamond's Holding, Inc. (sic) per Hodgson |\n| 2 | Russ, is a British Virgin Islands company.
It is not Hudson |\n| 3 | Diamond Holdings, LLC.
The fact that they both have the |\n| 4 | name Hudson Diamond Holdings in them does not make them the |\n| 5 | same entity and does not make Ms. Guo the principal of the |\n| 6 | British Virgin Island company. |\n| | |\n| 7 | And as best as I recall, I don't even think the |\n| 8 | trustee has alleged in this case that Ms. Guo has anything |\n| 9 | to do with Hodgson Diamond Holdings, Inc.
So whether |\n| 10 | Attorney Kearney told us that it was Mileson Guo, the |\n| 11 | debtor's son, which I am 100 percent sure he did, or told us |\n| 12 | that it was Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc., a British Virgin |\n| 13 | Island company -- which the emails in the record do draw |\n| 14 | distinctions between those two entities towards the, you |\n| 15 | know, earlier part of the email chain, because he |\n| 16 | specifically referred to Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.
And |\n| 17 | I said Attorney Vartan and I represent Hudson Diamond |\n| 18 | Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
Is |\n| 19 | your answer that you do not represent the same with respect |\n| 20 | to the Delaware LLC as it is with the BVI Inc.?
And his |\n| 21 | response was, yes, it is. |\n| 22 | So whether it's Mileson Guo in his individual |\n| 23 | capacity or Mileson Guo as president of Hudson Diamond |\n| 24 | Holdings, Inc., a BVI company, the answer with respect to -- |\n| 25 | that it was -- that it -- there's no connection that I can |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 72 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 72 ascertain with respect to Ms. Guo is the same. And for that reason, I believe I am required to withdraw. The last thing, with respect to the U.S. Trustee's contention or belief that I have not answered her questions in response to the affidavit that she requested, was I went through her questions. I believed them to be largely redundant, at least with respect to the two entities, but -- because many of these discussions were happening, all at the same time with respect to both of them. And I gave -- I did my best to provide everything I could with respect to her questions, my knowledge, and my diligent investigation with respect to this matter. And, in fact, what I did after I drafted this declaration is I went back and I re-read the U.S. Attorney's request for information. And after I drafted, based upon having reviewed her request three times, drafting this document, I realized that the only question that I believed I have not ascertained was the question of why I and not Attorney Vartan -- or why my appearance was the only one. And that's why that -- the answer concerning why I appeared\n\n and Attorney Vartan did not. And that involved the pro hac vice motion as well as our understanding at the time that this was a very minor matter that did not strike us as prudent or efficient to involve multiple appearances in a pro hac vice motion.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 73 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
73 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Hold on one second.
With regard to |\n| 2 | what you just said, so I'm clear, you believed that the |\n| 3 | motion for contempt was a very minor matter? |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
I believed that the motion for |\n| 5 | contempt -- or the process of negotiating a brief extension |\n| 6 | and doing everything possible to comply would be a minor |\n| 7 | matter, because I did not -- I expected us to appear.
I |\n| 8 | believed I could negotiate a brief -- actually, I take that |\n| 9 | back.
By the time I appeared, I knew that Attorney Vartan |\n| 10 | and Attorney Luft had reached an agreement for a brief |\n| 11 | extension, and I knew that I was going to do everything I |\n| 12 | could in conjunction with Ms. Guo and Attorney Vartan to |\n| 13 | comply or -- and locate as many responsive documents as |\n| 14 | possible. |\n| 15 | As I've said earlier, my understanding of |\n| 16 | responding to a subpoena is providing all documents that are |\n| 17 | in the actual and constructive control of a client.
And I |\n| 18 | do not believe that if I make a demand on a former law firm |\n| 19 | or law firm that claims it never represented the client and |\n| 20 | it tells me to go pound sand, I believe that that is -- the |\n| 21 | documents in that firm's control are not under my or my |\n| 22 | client's actual or constructive control. |\n| 23 | Actual or constructive control under my |\n\n understanding is that it's under the control of somebody who is acting under the direction of me or my client and that if\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 74 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
74 |\n| 1 | I tell them they have to comply.
Not that I have to take |\n| 2 | legal action against someone to produce documents that my |\n| 3 | understanding is the Chapter 11 trustee already has, because |\n| 4 | their whole position -- notwithstanding that Hodgson Russ |\n| 5 | doesn't know whether it was the debtor's son or the debtor's |\n| 6 | daughter that owned these companies, it still produced all |\n| 7 | of its files concerning these to the Chapter 11 trustee |\n| 8 | despite the fact that it's not contending, as far as |\n| 9 | anything that's been told to me, that it was the debtor's |\n| 10 | entity. |\n| 11 | And there's no objection to that.
The Chapter 11 |\n| 12 | trustee got the documents.
They have more information than |\n\n tried again and tried again. We told them it was important. We told them why it was important. I told them I had filed a motion to withdraw based on their representation, and I needed all information. I made multiple demands in writing. I do not know what else I can do with respect to\n\nwe do. But we, as is evidence by these documents, tried and\n\n the Hodgson Russ firm. I don't know what else I can do with respect to Max Krasner. And I told -- to the extent that the Chapter 11 trustee wasn't aware of the Capital One bank accounts, I told them about them so that they can get them from Capital One. And I tried -- I would have much rather been the one to deliver them, so then I could have delivered them. But I can't.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 75 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
75 |\n| 1 | The best thing I could do is tell them these |\n| 2 | accounts exist.
And I know these accounts exist, because |\n| 3 | they told Ms. Guo that -- according to what she told me, |\n| 4 | they told her that these accounts existed, but they would |\n| 5 | not give the documents to her.
So -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
You're saying -- just so -- you mean |\n| 7 | the bank, Capital One? |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
Capital One Bank.
Yes. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
And the documents existed that are the |\n| 10 | Hudson Diamond entities accounts.
Is that what you're |\n| 11 | saying? |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
That's what I'm saying. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:
And the last thing I would like to |\n| 15 | say is that if the Chapter -- if the U.S. Trustee or anybody |\n| 16 | else in the room believes I have neglected to answer any |\n| 17 | questions under oath, I am right here and prepared to answer |\n| 18 | any questions under oath that anybody would like to ask me. |\n| 19 | Thank you. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
I just have a |\n| 21 | question, though, that I didn't ask you before, because I |\n| 22 | didn't focus on some of the exhibits that Attorney Luft |\n| 23 | focused on.
So did you ask Ms. Guo to give you any |\n| 24 | documents about this insurance policy with AIG between |\n| 25 | Hudson Diamond New York and -- covering an automobile? |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 76 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
76 |\n| 1 | MR. ROMNEY:
I was not aware of a insurance policy |\n| 2 | concerning an automobile. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Well, except the only problem with |\n| 4 | that is that exhibit was filed back with 1805, and that was |\n| 5 | filed back sometime before you filed an appearance on behalf |\n| 6 | of -- it was filed on May 18th. |\n| 7 | MR. ROMNEY:
I understand that.
And, Your Honor, |\n| 8 | as Your Honor has pointed out, there's a tremendous amount |\n| 9 | of paper in this case.
There's a tremendous amount to do. |\n| 10 | And -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Right.
But this was directed to |\n| 12 | Hudson Diamond.
This was -- remember, this is part of the |\n| 13 | motion for contempt. |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:
This -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
And the motion for contempt |\n| 16 | specifically laid out exhibits to support an assertion that |\n| 17 | certain entities -- and there were many.
There weren't just |\n| 18 | the Hudson.
I agree with you.
But they -- it had exhibits |\n| 19 | attached to it that -- with regard to the Hudson Diamond |\n| 20 | entities. |\n| 21 | And it said this is why we want the documents. |\n| 22 | Here's some exhibits that show you that, at least from what |\n| 23 | we've been shown to this point, that Hudson Diamond New |\n| 24 | York, LLC and/or Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC had assets and |\n| 25 | have assets in the present.
The policy covered a period of |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 77 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
77 |\n| 1 | time through May of 2023.
And then there was this -- the |\n| 2 | deposition transcription of a prior counsel who talked about |\n| 3 | the Hudson Diamond entities trying to purchase real estate. |\n| 4 | I mean, there's Exhibits G, E, H, U, J, and then |\n| 5 | T, which you refer to.
You refer to Exhibit T in your |\n| 6 | declaration, which is one of the reasons I looked back at |\n| 7 | it, because you refer to Exhibit T in your declaration.
And |\n| 8 | I appreciate that you referred to that exhibit. |\n| 9 | But there's other exhibits attached to that very |\n| 10 | same motion in which Exhibit T appears that directly address |\n| 11 | the existence of assets of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC or |\n| 12 | Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC.
And so my question is, did |\n| 13 | you ask your client about those exhibits and those assets? |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:
I need to answer that question in two |\n| 15 | ways.
And the -- phrased as did I ask them about those |\n| 16 | exhibits, no.
Because prior to filing the motion for |\n| 17 | adjournment -- you know, again, I didn't think there was any |\n| 18 | dispute about the ownership.
I spoke to Attorney Luft -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
The ownership of -- |\n| 20 | MR. ROMNEY:
Of the New York entity. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Who controlled the entities -- |\n| 22 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yes. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- not of specific assets? |\n| 24 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yes. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 78 MR. ROMNEY: I spoke with Attorney Luft in the conference room, as the Court directed, for purposes of reaching our agreement. He, in that meeting, mentioned a Rolls-Royce, didn't mention a -- an exhibit or anything but asked me about a Rolls-Royce. I said I'd ask about it. And I -- that was when I first mentioned the -- what I was aware of was a Capital One bank account that had been closed. I did inquire about the Rolls-Royce with Ms. Guo. I did not receive any response or any documentation concerning it. Had I done so, I would have turned it over. I didn't -- THE COURT: So she never responded to your question about the Rolls-Royce? MR. ROMNEY: She didn't neglect to respond. She responded by indicating that she did not have any documentation and -- THE COURT: About the Rolls-Royce? MR. ROMNEY: About a Rolls-Royce. And -- THE COURT: See, none of that's in the record. She didn't file any declaration. MR. ROMNEY: Well, again, she's not a party to this. It's -- THE COURT: Well, she is a party if she's the management member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, which the documents indicate she is. And you represent her. You've\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 79 clearly said -- MR. ROMNEY: I do. I represent her. THE COURT: -- you -- as the managing member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. MR. ROMNEY: I don't know that that's -- she was the -- THE COURT: Well, how else do you have authority to -- MR. ROMNEY: -- individual that directed me to -- THE COURT: How else do you have authority to act on behalf of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: That is the only way. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: But I don't believe -- THE COURT: So then -- MR. ROMNEY: -- when I -- THE COURT: So then you do represent her in her capacity as the managing member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. MR. ROMNEY: That's -- I look at it as representing the entity. But I also represent her in her individual capacity. THE COURT: Yeah. But you represent the entity. That's who the appearance -- that's who the motion for contempt is addressed against.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 79 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 80 MR. ROMNEY: That is. And I believe that we -- I don't believe -- THE COURT: But she never answered your question about the Rolls-Royce? MR. ROMNEY: I -- that's not what I said. THE COURT: Okay. And -- MR. ROMNEY: She answered my question in that she did not have any documentation, and she could not get -- THE COURT: And you specifically asked her about the Rolls-Royce? MR. ROMNEY: I specifically asked her about the Rolls-Royce. THE COURT: And you specifically asked her about the real estate transactions that Hudson Diamond were supposedly involved in? MR. ROMNEY: I don't believe I specifically asked her about the -- I don't recall, is the answer. And what I was getting into was that I did not read Attorney Luft's declaration or all of the exhibits. When Attorney Luft brought Exhibit T, I believe -- THE COURT: It wasn't a declaration. It was the actual motion. MR. ROMNEY: I thought it was the -- THE COURT: No. That's the -- well, in support of the motion. Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 80 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 81 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
81 |\n| 1 | MR. ROMNEY:
No.
Right.
The declaration -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 3 | MR. ROMNEY:
-- attached -- I did not read the |\n| 4 | declaration or the exhibits. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
In support of the motion for contempt. |\n| 6 | Yeah.
Yeah. |\n| 7 | MR. ROMNEY:
He brought the Exhibit T to my |\n| 8 | attention, which I very much appreciated and expressed that |\n| 9 | to him and called him.
I said both verbally and in writing |\n| 10 | that we were willing to do anything that we could to help |\n| 11 | the trustee locate documents on behalf of either entity. |\n| 12 | And if he had any information available to him that would |\n| 13 | assist me to locate documents for them, that I would do |\n| 14 | anything I could with that information.
And I didn't |\n| 15 | receive any additional information. |\n| 16 | Perhaps that was foolish of me, and that is on me. |\n| 17 | And I will own that.
I should have done that.
And with the |\n| 18 | many moving parts of this situation and the other moving |\n| 19 | parts of what goes on in any given day in the world that is |\n| 20 | this case and the others that we all have to manage, I did |\n| 21 | not go back to that declaration and see if there were any |\n| 22 | other documents that could have helped me. |\n| 23 | However, I was told among -- I was told and I |\n| 24 | believe this is Hodgson Russ and -- but I am not positive. |\n| 25 | And, frankly, I didn't think of it as very significant.
But |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 82 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
82 |\n| 1 | I believe I was told by Hodgson Russ's general counsel that |\n| 2 | the New York entity explored real estate transactions but to |\n| 3 | the best of their knowledge never consummated a single one. |\n| 4 | And I am virtually certain that Attorney Luft told me the |\n| 5 | exact same thing without referencing any particular |\n| 6 | documents. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
Okay.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Is there anything else you want to |\n| 10 | add? |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:
No.
Other than renewing my offer to |\n| 12 | answer any questions that anybody else has under oath. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Does anybody have any questions that |\n| 14 | they would like to place Attorney Romney under oath and ask |\n| 15 | as part of this proceeding? |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:
None from me, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, if I could take up the |\n| 18 | opportunity to ask Attorney Romney to go through the U.S. |\n| 19 | Trustee's pleading, which is ECF 1971. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
You're calling -- you'd like him to go |\n| 21 | to the stand and be sworn in? |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
If I could. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Because I -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Mr. Romney offered, so -- |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 83 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
83 |\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
There are a number of questions we |\n| 2 | had that were not answered. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Mr. Romney, come forward, please. |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yep.
Mr. Henzy will be representing |\n| 5 | me, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Well, I don't know how that works, |\n| 7 | actually. |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
I believe as a witness I have the |\n| 9 | right to counsel for the purpose of lodging objections. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I understand that.
And I'm not |\n| 11 | suggesting that.
But how are -- how is Mr. Henzy, who |\n| 12 | represents the debtor and other parties, going to be your |\n| 13 | counsel in connection with a motion to withdraw an |\n| 14 | appearance? |\n| 15 | MR. ROMNEY:
I don't believe that there's any |\n| 16 | conflict in terms of -- Attorney Henzy has been my firm's |\n| 17 | general counsel for years.
I don't believe there's any |\n| 18 | conflict between representation of me and any of my clients. |\n| 19 | I don't believe I have any adverse interest to any of my |\n| 20 | clients. |\n| 21 | I believe as a witness I'm not entitled to lodge |\n| 22 | an objection to a question.
And I believe I'm entitled to |\n| 23 | counsel to lodge an objection if there is one. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I understand that you're entitled |\n| 25 | to -- I'm not quarreling that you're entitled to counsel if |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 84 you want to have counsel and -- you offered to get on the stand. Okay? MR. ROMNEY: I did. THE COURT: You offered. MR. ROMNEY: With my general counsel present. THE COURT: Okay? But, I mean, I don't understand how Attorney Henzy can be your lawyer in this situation. You are partners in a firm together. You both have pecuniary interests in the firm. How could it not be a conflict? How could it -- because he has to worry about him as well. Because whatever happens to you happens to him. How could that not be a conflict? MR. ROMNEY: I would say that means our interests are 100 percent aligned. THE COURT: Okay. Well, guess what? We're not going to do this today until -- there is -- I mean, Trustee Despins, United States Trustee's Office, do you really believe that Attorney Henzy can represent Attorney Romney in connection with a cross-examination of documents in this case that relate to a motion for contempt that might enter against Attorney Romney in addition to the client that Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 84 of\n\nAttorney -- client or clients that Attorney Romney\n\nrepresents?\n\nAm I just on another planet here? I mean, this is\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 85 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
85 |\n| 1 | insane.
How is that not a conflict?
No -- how is that not |\n| 2 | a conflict? |\n| 3 | MR. ROMNEY:
It is solely for the purpose of |\n| 4 | lodging evidentiary objections.
I respectfully submit |\n| 5 | that -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
It is not solely for the purpose of |\n| 7 | lodging evidentiary objections.
It's Mr. Henzy is trying to |\n| 8 | protect you, which he -- any lawyer would do who represented |\n| 9 | you.
That's the point, right?
That's why you need a |\n| 10 | lawyer.
You want to be protected. |\n| 11 | How is it not a conflict?
I just -- I'm sorry.
I |\n| 12 | just don't see it.
I don't -- I'm not saying you're not |\n| 13 | entitled to counsel.
You offered to put yourself on the |\n| 14 | stand.
You now want me to allow Attorney Henzy, your |\n| 15 | partner with whom the -- all of you and your other partners |\n| 16 | all have a pecuniary interest to help each other, you all |\n| 17 | have -- you're involved in a partnership agreement.
I don't |\n| 18 | know what your obligations are to each other. |\n| 19 | And you might be found -- you could be -- I'm |\n| 20 | talking now for the analysis of the conflict.
You could be |\n| 21 | found personally held in contempt for which you'd have to |\n| 22 | pay a fine, supposedly.
Okay?
I'm talking about for the |\n| 23 | contempt purpose.
How is that not a conflict? |\n| 24 | MR. ROMNEY:
I don't believe it is. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
We got 80 lawyers in the room.
How is |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 86 this not a conflict? MR. ROMNEY: Well, if I have to pay a fine, then I have to pay a fine. If my firm has to pay a fine, my firm has to pay a fine. And I'd say my partners have the same interest as I do, which are the same as my clients. THE COURT: I don't know that that's true. Depends upon what your partnership agreement says. I don't even know what you have. I have no idea, and I don't want to know, because it's not relevant to the issue. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, I am trying to be as transparent as possible. I am -- THE COURT: I'm not suggesting otherwise, Attorney Romney. I'm not suggesting any of that. I just don't know how Attorney Henzy can be your lawyer in this situation. And I don't know why anyone else thinks that he can be. MR. HENZY: Well, I think I can be, so just -- THE COURT: Well, I don't -- MR. HENZY: -- just to be clear -- THE COURT: I'm not asking you right now. MR. HENZY: -- just to be clear, there's at least one other person in the courtroom who thinks that I can be, but -- THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's good. I'm glad you think that. MR. HENZY: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 86 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 87 THE COURT: But I'm not asking you right now. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm asking other people. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, perhaps I can propose a solution, which is that if you go back to what the U.S. Trustee filed at 1971, it is very straightforward, with the questions that are being asked. But, for example, if you just look at the first bullet point, which is little (Indiscernible), that question never actually gets answered in Attorney Romney's declaration. So my suggestion was going to be that Attorney Romney redo his declaration and actually respond to all the questions that are asked or -- THE COURT: Fine. You know what? MS. CLAIBORN: -- assert that he -- or assert that he can't. THE COURT: Actually, just get him on the stand. Let Attorney Henzy represent him. Nobody seems to think it's a problem, so go right ahead. MS. CLAIBORN: I didn't say that, Your Honor. I'm just suggesting -- THE COURT: Oh, well, I'm saying that. Attorney Romney, get on the stand. Trustee -- Attorney Claiborn, start asking your questions. Let Attorney Romney get sworn in. Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 87 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 88 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
88 |\n| 1 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Attorney Romney, please |\n| 2 | stand and raise your right hand. |\n| 3 | AARON ROMNEY, WITNESS, SWORN |\n| 4 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Can you please state your |\n| 5 | name for the record? |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
Aaron Romney. |\n| 7 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Name and address. |\n| 8 | THE WITNESS:
My business address -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
Just your business address. |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:
-- is 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor, |\n| 11 | Bridgeport, Connecticut, 0604 -- 06604.
May I be seated? |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| 13 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
If you need -- there's water.
There |\n| 15 | should be water there too. |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
All right.
Go ahead, Attorney |\n| 18 | Claiborn. |\n| 19 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you.
Holley Claiborn for the |\n| 20 | U.S. Trustee. |\n| 21 | DIRECT EXAMINATION |\n| 22 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 23 | Q
Attorney Romney, can you please tell the Court when you |\n| 24 | were first contacted by a representative of Hudson New York |\n| 25 | with respect to the subpoena issued to Hudson New York?
And |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 89 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
89 |\n| 1 | I'm using that term as defined in my pleading with respect |\n| 2 | to the subpoena issued by the trustee to Hudson New York. |\n| 3 | A
Yes.
And I interpret that question as in the capacity |\n| 4 | as somebody acting as behalf of Hudson New York.
And the |\n| 5 | only reason -- point of clarification I draw there is that |\n| 6 | obviously I've spoken to Mei Guo, the individual who was |\n| 7 | that representative.
I've spoken with her consistently |\n| 8 | since I began representing her in April of last year. |\n| 9 | But with respect to in her capacity as a representative |\n| 10 | of Hudson Diamond New York, I believe I contacted her.
And |\n| 11 | that was on, I believe -- it's stated in my declaration when |\n| 12 | I did it.
I believe it was on April -- sorry, May 30th that |\n| 13 | I sent her the subpoenas.
But we would have had to have |\n| 14 | been discussing them prior to that.
So sometime in between |\n| 15 | April 23rd and May 30th, I believe closer to May 23rd.
But |\n| 16 | it was within that time frame. |\n| 17 | Q
Do I understand your testimony correctly that Ms. Guo |\n| 18 | did not know about the subpoena issued to Hudson Diamond New |\n| 19 | York until you told her about it? |\n| 20 | A
That is my correct -- that is my understanding. |\n| 21 | Q
And what do you base that understanding from? |\n| 22 | A
Because she told me. |\n| 23 | Q
Do you know what the first point of contact was for |\n| 24 | Attorney Vartan with respect to the Hudson Diamond New York |\n| 25 | subpoena issued by the trustee? |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 90 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
90 |\n| 1 | A
I do. |\n| 2 | Q
What was that? |\n| 3 | A
It was the same as I just described.
In fact, I, on |\n| 4 | May 23rd, read the motion to compel for the first time.
I |\n| 5 | believe it was filed May 18th.
As I've mentioned several |\n| 6 | times in court today, we have very case -- we have very busy |\n| 7 | case loads right now, so I did not actually read that |\n| 8 | document until May the 23rd.
At that point, I read the |\n| 9 | portions with respect to Hudson Diamond.
I recognized the |\n| 10 | names, and I emailed Attorney Vartan, and I said something |\n| 11 | to the effect of we need to contact Ms. Guo about this |\n| 12 | immediately. |\n| 13 | Q
Who was the person on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York |\n| 14 | who engaged your representation as their counsel? |\n| 15 | A
Ms. Guo. |\n| 16 | Q
Who were the members of Hudson Diamond New York as of |\n| 17 | December 1, 2022? |\n| 18 | A
I don't know the answer to that question for the |\n| 19 | reasons stated in my declaration. |\n| 20 | Q
Who were the members of Hudson Diamond New York as of |\n| 21 | June 1, 2023? |\n| 22 | A
I don't know the answer to that -- I'm sorry.
Did |\n| 23 | you -- was that question about Hudson Diamond -- were either |\n| 24 | of those questions about Hudson Diamond New York or |\n| 25 | Holdings? |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 91 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
91 |\n| 1 | Q
They were both intended to be about Hudson Diamond New |\n| 2 | York. |\n| 3 | A
Okay.
That's what I thought, but I just -- I don't |\n| 4 | know the answer to that question. |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
And who are the members of Hudson Diamond New |\n| 6 | York as of June 13, 2023? |\n| 7 | A
I don't know the answer to that question for the |\n| 8 | reasons stated on the record today. |\n| 9 | Q
Did you ever ask Mei Guo those questions as to those |\n| 10 | memberships and those dates we just went over? |\n| 11 | A
Specifically with respect to those particular dates, I |\n| 12 | don't believe I specifically referenced those dates.
But if |\n| 13 | your question is did I ever discuss with Mei Guo whether she |\n| 14 | was -- whether Hudson Diamond Holdings was a -- was the |\n| 15 | member of Hudson Diamond New York, the answer is yes.
And |\n| 16 | her belief, as I've stated, was that Hudson Diamond Holdings |\n| 17 | controlled the New York entity, which is why she directed me |\n| 18 | to respond -- to attempt to negotiate a -- me and Attorney |\n| 19 | Vartan to attempt to negotiate an extension and then do |\n| 20 | everything that I could to provide the Chapter 11 trustee |\n| 21 | with responsive documents that we were able to locate.
And |\n| 22 | she offered to -- or she indicated, and I believe did, |\n| 23 | assist Attorney Vartan or participate in that process with |\n| 24 | us. |\n| 25 | Q
With respect to Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, do you |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 92 intend to continue to represent that entity? A Of course. MS. CLAIBORN: Okay. I have nothing further. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. You can step down, Attorney ROmney. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further on the motion for contempt, the motion to withdraw as attorney? Okay. I'll take those matters under advisement. Let's proceed to the next matter. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, I apologize. May I be excused? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. ROMNEY: I do have to catch a flight. Thank you very much, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're welcome. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, if it pleases the Court, I think the next matter we would propose to take up is the motion for summary judgment in the Adversary Proceeding 23-5012, which involves the -- it's the interpleader action with respect to the HK USA escrow funds. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. So I apologize. I think I may have started a past hearing with a Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 92 of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 93 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
93 |\n| 1 | similar remark, and it's unfortunate, but I do feel like |\n| 2 | there are several occasions in which we find ourselves |\n| 3 | before Your Honor arguing motions that, in our view, just |\n| 4 | are not necessary.
This is another one of those. |\n| 5 | I think it will be brief.
And the reason for that |\n| 6 | and the reason why this hearing is, in our view, necessary |\n| 7 | is because the issue before the Court, which is whether or |\n| 8 | not the funds sitting in escrow pursuant to the escrow |\n| 9 | agreement should be released to the trustee, has already |\n| 10 | been conclusively decided by this Court's summary judgment |\n| 11 | decision issued on May 18th finding both that HK USA is the |\n| 12 | debtor's alter ego and that all of its property, including |\n| 13 | the escrow funds, are property of the estate. |\n| 14 | And I'd like to cite to the Court the particular |\n| 15 | language of the order.
And this May 18th order is at |\n| 16 | ECF 221.
On page 36, the first two so-ordered paragraphs. |\n| 17 | The first so-ordered paragraph says that \"HK USA is and was |\n| 18 | at all relevant times the alter ego of the debtor, |\n| 19 | Mr. Kwok.\"
The very next paragraph says that \"All property |\n| 20 | of HK USA at all relevant times to the present is property |\n| 21 | of the estate.\" |\n| 22 | What this means, Your Honor, is that the |\n| 23 | definition of property of the estate under Section 541 of |\n| 24 | the Bankruptcy Code, which refers to all legal or equitable |\n\ninterests in property, extends by virtue of the May 18th\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 94 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
94 |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | summary judgment order to all of HK USA's property.
And it |\n| 2 | is not subject to any reasonable dispute.
There's been no |\n| 3 | suggestion to the contrary in the papers filed by HK USA |\n| 4 | that the definition of property of the estate under Section |\n| 5 | 541 of the Bankruptcy Code includes contractual rights and |\n| 6 | legal rights. |\n| | |\n\n So therefore, by operation of the May 18th order, any contractual right that HK USA ever could have hoped to hold and to exercise under the escrow agreement is now a right that belongs to the estate and is property of the estate under the Bankruptcy Code. So HK USA has no ability to stand before the Court today and to obstruct in the way that it has for the last several weeks or, I guess, since the issuance of the summary judgment order and prevent the funds from being released by purportedly hiding behind contractual rights that it's trying to exercise. Those rights now belong to the estate.\n\n They have no response to this point in their papers, because there is not one. This ends the analysis, and the Court need not consider anything else. Whether or not the escrow funds are property of the estate has already been decided, and it cannot be relitigated. That's res judicata.\n\n Now, HK USA in its opposition to the trustee's motion for summary judgment spends a lot of time focusing on paragraph 4 of the escrow agreement, which is attached as\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 95 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 | 95 |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | Exhibit 1 to the complaint.
They also cite case law | |\n| 2 | purportedly standing for the unremarkable proposition that, | |\n| 3 | generally speaking, contracts should be enforced and public | |\n| 4 | policy concerns related to that principle.
But all of that | |\n| 5 | is irrelevant in this situation where the Court has already | |\n| 6 | decided that any contractual rights that HK USA held or | |\n| 7 | holds under the escrow agreement are, by virtue of the May | |\n| 8 | 18th decision, property of the estate, exercisable by the | |\n| 9 | estate. | |\n\n And not surprisingly, none of the cases they cite which talk about enforcement of contractual rights generally or enforcement of rights in escrow agreements have anything to do with the finding that one entity is another's alter ego and that, therefore, the rights that a party is purportedly trying to exercise, under an escrow agreement or otherwise, are actually rights that belong to another party. They don't cite any case like that. And it's not surprising why, because it wouldn't make sense for there to be an outcome in a situation like this other than the one we are asking the Court to order.\n\n What I would also point out, while we're on the topic of looking at the language of the escrow agreement, which HK USA is so intent on doing, is that if you look at paragraph 16 of the escrow agreement, it specifically deals with revisions, amendments, modifications to, changes to the\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 96 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
96 |\n| 1 | escrow agreement.
What it says is that the escrow agreement |\n| 2 | may not be modified unless ordered by the bankruptcy court. |\n| 3 | Now, this is significant, because even assuming HK |\n| 4 | USA still had the ability to exercise its contractual rights |\n| 5 | under the escrow agreement, which it does not for the |\n| 6 | reasons I've already discussed, this paragraph 16 allows the |\n| 7 | Court to modify it.
Now, they may say, well, you know, what |\n| 8 | that really means is that if the parties agree then the |\n| 9 | Court has to so order that agreement.
But they didn't -- |\n| 10 | that language doesn't appear in paragraph 16. |\n| 11 | If it did, it would say in order to modify this |\n| 12 | agreement, the parties have to agree on it, and then the |\n| 13 | Court needs to so order it.
It doesn't say that.
It says |\n| 14 | the Court can order a change to the agreement.
If they're |\n| 15 | going to be held to the benefit of the bargain that they |\n| 16 | seem so worried about, then it needs to apply to the entire |\n| 17 | agreement. |\n| 18 | The last point that I'll make, Your Honor, is the |\n| 19 | one we make in our motion, which is with respect to the |\n| 20 | overall purpose of the escrow agreement and the related |\n| 21 | stipulation concerning the Lady May and the fact that there |\n| 22 | is no question the purpose of the agreement has run its |\n| 23 | course.
The agreement and the stipulation, and it's |\n| 24 | undisputed, were designed originally, ostensibly, to secure |\n| 25 | delivery of the Lady May yacht to the estate. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 97 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 97 The Court recognized this in its recent decision denying the HK USA or the -- I guess HK USA's motion for stay pending appeal at ECF Number 24. And there is no genuine factual dispute about this purpose. In their opposition to the motion for summary judgment, they try to erect the strawman argument that if we're talking about the intent of the agreement it must be introducing questions of fact.\n\n There is no genuine factual dispute about the very clear purpose of that agreement. You can just look at background paragraph D of the agreement which makes it very clear that the entire purpose of the escrow agreement was to complement the stipulation and secure delivery of the Lady May to the estate.\n\n Now, why is this significant? Because, obviously, that purpose has run its course. As the Court again pointed out in its decision denying the motion for stay pending appeal, the HK certification was going to be submitted so that the funds could be released to HK USA. That was postponed while the Court considered the trustee's pending motion for preliminary injunction and a prejudgment remedy.\n\n So but there's no question. I mean, the yacht's now been sold. The purpose of holding the funds in escrow has run its course and is no longer necessary. You know, in fact, if you were to ask counsel today or anytime in the\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 98 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 98 recent past whether they think that the escrowed funds should be released to HK USA, I'm sure they would tell you yes. I don't think they could say with a straight face that they don't think they should get the funds back. The problem with that argument from their perspective is the second that the funds are released to them, they're our property. Because all property of HK USA under the May 18th order is property of the estate. I say this because it just highlights the absurdity of their position. They are not using the escrow agreement and its provisions in order to fulfill its intended purpose of holding the funds in escrow while there might be a dispute resolved about whether or not the certification requirements have been satisfied. They're now using it to obtain a de facto stay pending appeal and to hold hostage this Chapter 11 case and the trustee's efforts to enforce the May 18th order. So for those reasons, Your Honor, I think there's no question in our mind. This is an open and shut motion for summary judgment. There are no disputed issues of fact. This issue has already been decided by the Court. There's no stay pending appeal. The escrow funds should be\n\ndelivered to the trustee. Thank you, Your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 99 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
99 |\n| 1 | Mr. Moriarty, you're going to respond? |\n| 2 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes.
Thank you, Your Honor.
And |\n| 3 | for the record, James Moriarty for HK International Funds |\n| 4 | Investments (USA) Limited, LLC. |\n| 5 | So I will start, Your Honor, with Attorney |\n| 6 | Bassett's point about paragraph 16 of the escrow agreement. |\n| 7 | Obviously, I agree with what he says about it, because it |\n| 8 | says what it says.
I do want to point out for the Court -- |\n| 9 | and as Your Honor remembers, the escrow agreement was for, |\n| 10 | for lack of a better term, amended back in October of 2022. |\n| 11 | At that point, \\$4 million were released from escrow to |\n| 12 | create the repair reserve for the Lady May. |\n| 13 | And the order that Your Honor entered is at Docket |\n| 14 | Entry 932.
It's dated October 7, 2022.
And even with that |\n| 15 | order, the first paragraph starting with order, that |\n| 16 | actually refers to paragraph 42 of the escrow agreement. |\n| 17 | And it says that as soon as reasonably practical after this |\n| 18 | order becomes a final non-appealable order.
So even with |\n| 19 | respect to the repair reserve, the order had to become final |\n| 20 | and non-appealable before that \\$4 million was going to be |\n| 21 | released. |\n| 22 | So can the escrow agreement be amended by court |\n| 23 | order?
Absolutely.
That's what the parties agreed to. |\n| 24 | Does that order have to become final and non-appealable |\n| 25 | before that modification of the escrow agreement would be |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 100 enforceable and applicable? Yes. And we see that in the Court's order at Docket 932. As far as the escrow agreement running its course, HK cites in its opposition the case Netherberg vs. G.V. Licensing (sic). And I will give Your Honor the citation for that in a second. So that is at 1995 US Dist. LEXIS 11725 and also 1195WL491489. And in that case, the Court was looking at an escrow agreement, and the escrow agreement had been set up in connection with the sale of some intellectual property. And the escrow was designed to protect the seller post closing for litigation that based on the decision was then ongoing. The seller settled its litigation. The party with whom it settled sought to either terminate the escrow or to have released from escrow proceeds that were not disputed. And one of the arguments that was made to the Southern District in that case was, well, this escrow agreement is now superfluous, because we've settled the litigation that the escrow funds were intended to secure. And what the court said -- and this is on PDF page 2 of 3, and it's at start 4 in my LEXIS printout -- even if the reasons for the parties' execution of the escrow agreement fail to have continued validity, that would not void the amended escrow agreement which plaintiff agreed to Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 100 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 101 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
101 |\n| 1 | in its settlement agreement with Gitano.
Plaintiff's |\n| 2 | argument that only GVTI, which was the buyer of the |\n| 3 | intellectual property, has an interest in the escrowed funds |\n| 4 | fails to state a legally recognized reason to override the |\n| 5 | negotiated terms of a binding agreement.
And in that case, |\n| 6 | the court -- it held that it was not going to alter the |\n| 7 | terms of the escrow agreement and that one of the |\n| 8 | contingencies that was required to occur before the funds |\n| 9 | would be released had to occur, and it had not happened yet. |\n| 10 | And that is our case.
We have in paragraph 4 of |\n| 11 | the escrow agreement four contingencies.
And upon the |\n| 12 | occurrence of one of those contingencies, the escrow funds |\n| 13 | would be released.
This Court entered an order, and it |\n| 14 | entered an order that HK USA is the debtor's alter ego. |\n| 15 | We are not seeking to relitigate that issue here |\n| 16 | at all.
What we are talking about here is we are talking |\n| 17 | about timing and conditions precedent.
When are these funds |\n| 18 | going to be released from escrow to the trustee, who, by the |\n| 19 | way, has the proceeds right now.
And one of those |\n| 20 | contingencies has to be satisfied. |\n| 21 | And the contingency that we're focused on is that |\n| 22 | we need a final, non-appealable order of this Court.
And |\n| 23 | the order that the Court entered on May 18th is presently |\n\n being appealed. The appeal is pending before Judge Dooley in the district court, and so that contingency has not been\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 102 of
180 | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
102 | |\n| 1 | satisfied, and the funds should not be released pursuant to | |\n| 2 | the terms of the escrow agreement. | |\n| 3 | This is a summary judgment motion.
It's a | |\n| 4 | contract issue.
The contract with respect to the | |\n| 5 | contingencies is non-ambiguous.
And as a matter of law, | |\n| 6 | those conditions -- one of those conditions has to be | |\n| 7 | satisfied before the funds can be released. | |\n| 8 | Now, Attorney Bassett did argue that this | |\n| 9 | agreement was really all about returning the Lady May and | |\n| 10 | now the Lady May has been sold.
And as I just identified to | |\n| 11 | the Court, there's the Netherberg (sic) decision.
But if | |\n| 12 | we're talking about summary judgment, and that is what we're | |\n| 13 | talking about, if we're going to get into the intent of the | |\n| 14 | parties, what did the parties intend when they drafted this | |\n| 15 | language that there has to be a final, non-appealable order | |\n| 16 | of the bankruptcy court?
Did they intend it to apply solely | |\n| 17 | with respect to issues regarding the Lady May, or did they | |\n| 18 | expect it to apply more broadly? | |\n| 19 | If you read the plain language of the agreement, | |\n| 20 | it has to be applied more broadly.
But regardless, if we're | |\n| 21 | talking about what did the parties mean by this provision, | |\n| 22 | and we're not going to give it its plain meaning from the | |\n\n agreement, then there's an issue of fact, and summary judgment has to be denied based on the fact that there is an issue of fact as to what the parties intended with the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 103 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 103 escrow agreement. And then lastly, Your Honor, with respect to property of the estate, there is no dispute that HK's right to receive the escrow proceeds is an asset of the estate. But that right is contingent on the happening of a contingency or a condition precedent, which has not happened yet. And in Your Honor's decision granting summary judgment on the trustee's second counterclaim on May 18th, Your Honor distinguished between Count 2 of the counterclaim, which was alter ego, and Count 3, which I believe was a fraudulent transfer claim, but I could be mistaken on that. But in distinguishing it, what Your Honor distinguished was with respect to the alter ego claim, it makes the assets of HK available to satisfy the claims of the creditors. If the trustee wanted to control the entity, he would have to move under Count 3. And if the trustee had moved solely under Count 3 as Your Honor discusses in the decision which is at page 25, then the trustee would control the entity. The entity would be property of the estate, an asset of the estate. But in order to get to the assets of the entity, the trustee would still have to pierce the veil. So the trustee does not control HK. HK is an independent entity whose assets have been made available to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 104 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 104 the creditors. And, Your Honor, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. THE COURT: I have no questions. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Just a few brief points in response, Your Honor. And I'll -- I guess I'll start where Attorney Moriarty ended, which is the question of the passage of property rights to the estate and what is the consequence of that under the May 18th order. The rights that it -- to the extent that what Attorney Moriarty is arguing is that the only right that passed to the estate is the right to receive the escrow funds and that any contractual rights that HK holds to prevent that from happening are not rights of the estate, that is simply not the law. The estate is now, pursuant to this Court's very clear order -- and I want to make another point, which is that when Attorney Moriarty was referencing the Court's order, he's focused on the alter ego finding and what that means. And I will get to that in a second. But he's ignoring the very clear provision saying that all property of HK USA, which includes contractual rights, is property of the estate. So to the extent -- and he's -- I don't think he's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 105 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
105 |\n| 1 | arguing that HK USA does not have this ability, because it |\n| 2 | obviously does.
To the extent that HK USA, as everybody |\n| 3 | knows it could, could go to the escrow agent and say, hey, |\n| 4 | we authorize you to release these funds, that right, that |\n| 5 | ability now belongs to the trustee. |\n| 6 | (Audio skip 2:46 p.m. to 2:49 p.m.) |\n| 7 | MR. GOLDMAN:
At the time this contract was made |\n| 8 | to which the committee was a party, no one certainly |\n| 9 | envisioned the situation we are now dealing with right now, |\n| 10 | which is that a trustee would later be appointed months |\n| 11 | after the transaction took place and would end up freezing |\n| 12 | and obtaining a PJR against the funds that were on deposit. |\n| 13 | The purpose of that deposit, as articulated by Mr. Bassett, |\n| 14 | was to secure the delivery of the Lady May. |\n| 15 | Certainly, this situation was not envisioned by |\n| 16 | any party at the time the escrow agreement was entered into. |\n| 17 | And Your Honor ought to interpret the contract in light of |\n| 18 | that purpose.
And it's specifically the situation of the |\n| 19 | parties and the circumstances connected with the transaction |\n| 20 | at the time, which means that it just simply is inapplicable |\n| 21 | to the current situation right now. |\n| 22 | And we otherwise fully support the arguments made |\n| 23 | by Mr. Bassett. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | Anyone else wish to be heard?
Okay.
The motion |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 106 for summary judgment is taken under advisement. What's the next matter that the Court needs to address this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: It's the HCHK settlements, Your Honor. And Mr. Luft is going to handle that matter. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Unless Your Honor wants to take a break. THE COURT: No. I think -- MR. DESPINS: No? Okay. THE COURT: -- we should continue. MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Please proceed. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Excuse me. Avi Luft of Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee. Your Honor, what I'm here is (sic) in connection with our 9019 motion to approve the settlement agreement between the Chapter 11 trustee and the assignee for the HCHK entities. Your Honor, the agreement we present to the Court is highly beneficial to the estate for multiple reasons. It is the product of extensive good faith negotiation. It will immediately transfer on an interim basis pending the outcome Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 106 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 107 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
107 |\n| 1 | of the adversary proceedings over \\$38 million of the HCHK |\n| 2 | entity's cash to the trustee's account. |\n| 3 | Sum and agreement will resolve all open issues |\n| 4 | between the trustee and the assignee, avoiding an expensive |\n| 5 | and time-consuming disputed preliminary injunction |\n| 6 | litigation.
It also helps pave the way for an expedited and |\n| 7 | less costly resolution of the adversary proceeding.
The |\n| 8 | assignee has agreed not to oppose the relief sought by the |\n| 9 | trustee in the adversary proceeding which we believe should |\n| 10 | clear the path. |\n| 11 | The settlement agreement provides for continued |\n| 12 | administration of the assignee, of the HCHK entities, the |\n| 13 | Columbus Circle offices, and the Columbus Circle assets, |\n| 14 | which will lessen the administrative burden on the trustee. |\n| 15 | And, Your Honor, the settlement ensures that there is -- |\n| 16 | will be due process available to all. |\n| 17 | Now, Your Honor, the 9019 standard the Court is |\n| 18 | well aware of.
But in short, the settlement need not be the |\n| 19 | best that the debtor could have obtained, but rather it must |\n| 20 | be in the range of reasonableness and make sure it falls not |\n| 21 | within the lowest point.
And one looks at the Iridium |\n| 22 | factors to determine if that's the case.
When one looks at |\n| 23 | the benefits we just discussed in light of the Iridium |\n| 24 | factors, I think it's quite clear that the -- this |\n| 25 | settlement is most assuredly in the best interests of the |\n| | |\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
108 |\n| 1 | estate. |\n| 2 | With regard to possibility of success versus |\n| 3 | future benefits, by securing the funds now, settlement |\n| 4 | eliminates the risk and cost related to the PI litigation as |\n| 5 | well as providing a more likely positive outcome with regard |\n| 6 | to the adversary proceeding. |\n| 7 | As to the second factor of the likelihood of |\n| 8 | complex and protracted litigation, this would eliminate both |\n| 9 | the PI -- the need for a PI evidentiary hearing as well as, |\n| 10 | as I said, streamline the future adversary. |\n| 11 | With regard to the interests of the creditors of |\n| 12 | the estate, Your Honor, I'll note that not one creditor of |\n| 13 | the estate has objected.
The UCC supports this.
And I'll |\n| 14 | note that this -- by making sure that the assets are within |\n| 15 | the trustee's control, it prevents the possible dissipation |\n| 16 | of substantial assets of the trustee, which he hopes to |\n| 17 | bring into the estate for the benefit of all creditors. |\n| 18 | The fourth factor under Iridium is support of |\n| 19 | other parties in interest.
As I noted, the UCC is in |\n| 20 | support.
There have been very few objections.
Notably, a |\n| 21 | number of them that have been filed in fact make clear that |\n| 22 | they do not dispute the terms of the settlement but rather |\n| 23 | seek to make sure that their own claim can be added or with |\n| 24 | regard to a very discrete issue in the case of the U.S. |\n| 25 | Trustee.
I will deal with all those.
Which really leaves |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 109 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
109 |\n| 1 | only one substantial objection which is from the Himalaya |\n| 2 | parties.
And I will deal with that shortly, but it -- I |\n| 3 | think, clearly, on balance most parties support this |\n| 4 | settlement. |\n| 5 | With regard to competency of counsel and |\n| 6 | experience of Judge, I will be modest here, but I will |\n| 7 | certainly say that this Court is by far the most up-to-date |\n| 8 | and aware of the issues related to this case and more than |\n| 9 | appropriate to judge whether this is an appropriate |\n| 10 | settlement. |\n| 11 | As to the nature and breadth of releases of the |\n| 12 | directors and officers, the former HCHK executives are not |\n| 13 | getting releases.
There is the issue of the assignees' |\n| 14 | exculpation provision, which will be addressed later.
But |\n| 15 | with regard to the directors and officers of HCHK who |\n| 16 | existed previously, they are not getting a release. |\n| 17 | And as to whether this was an arm's length, I can |\n| 18 | report to the Court that this was the product of extensive |\n| 19 | negotiations following an emergency TRO in which the parties |\n| 20 | very much were on -- had different interests at the start |\n| 21 | but were able to reach resolution. |\n| 22 | Your Honor, before I delve into the objections, |\n| 23 | though, I think it would be helpful -- and if you're -- the |\n| 24 | Court would appreciate, I would like to walk through how the |\n| 25 | settlement will work.
Because there is, as we've outlined |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 110 of
180 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
110 |\n| in our papers, sort of three phases as to the settlement. |\n| THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
So this |\n| proposed order with regard to the settlement will modify the |\n| TRO order that exists, and it does so in three phases.
The |\n| first is stage one.
As I referenced, there'll be initial |\n| transfer of the HCHK funds to the trustee.
The amount will |\n| be \\$38,835,734.27. |\n| The trustee will invest those funds in treasury |\n| securities pending a dispositive ruling.
Pending that |\n| dispositive ruling, to be clear, the trustee will not be |\n| authorized to use the HCHK funds for any purpose other than |\n| set forth in the 9019 order. |\n| Another part of the stage one will be the assignee |\n| will make available to the trustee all HCHK non-privileged |\n| corporate records and other documents in his possession. |\n| The assignee has agreed to take no position in connection |\n| with the adversary proceeding.
And I believe as indicated |\n| in their papers that they were -- would not be in a position |\n| to say otherwise.
Nor will they assist any party in |\n| opposing such relief. |\n| At the same time, Your Honor, this order would |\n| make clear that this settlement and the fund transfers are |\n| without prejudice of the rights of any party, other than the |\n| assignee who for the reasons stated above, to file pleadings |\n| |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 111 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
111 |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | and take positions subject to meeting standing requirements. |\n| 2 | And the trustee notes that, of course, he has -- reserves |\n| 3 | the right to oppose standing.
But in short, what that means |\n| 4 | is if you qualify for standing and you have it, then you'll |\n| 5 | have the opportunity.
And, of course, the trustee will have |\n| 6 | the opportunity to challenge that. |\n\n That is stage one. Stage two will be following the entry of the proposed order, should it be entered, and the occurrence of the initial HCHK fund transfer. That deals with in paragraph 9 of the order the authorized assignee actions. This allows the assignee, pursuant to the terms of the order, to take certain actions related to the Columbus Circle offices, HCHK's remaining employees, and related issues to that which are procedural and administrative, and that the trustee may advance portions of the HCHK funds for payment of those expenses. And this is the administrative relief that I referred to, which is a benefit to the estate.\n\n Paragraph 10 notes that the New York court relief is not -- will not be binding, which brings us to stage three which arises upon dispositive ruling on the alter ego and the equitable ownership claim. To the extent that there is a favorable ruling on the trustee's adversary proceeding, it does provide -- paragraph 11 of the order provides for settlement payments. It sets out the amounts.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 112 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 112 Paragraph 12 deals with a modification of the bar date where the trustee is authorized to seek the Court to modify the bar date to allow HCHK entities' creditors, to the extent there are any, to now file under the debtor's Chapter 11 case, because to the extent an alter ego or equitable ownership is granted, those creditors will now become creditors of the debtor's estate to the extent they exist. Paragraph 13 deals with the channeling injunction which we will speak about later. Paragraph 14, the exculpation provision. And then, Your Honor, I'll turn to what happens to the extent there is a final order ruling against the trustee and the adversary. Paragraph 15 explicitly provides for the return of funds to the trustee -- from the trustee to the assignee. So that is the three stages of how the order would work and what we would propose under the settlement. Your Honor, before I turn to the objections, I'll ask if you have any questions. THE COURT: I have no questions. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Okay. In which case, let me turn to the objections. So I started off by speaking about why we believe the Iridium factors have been met. I will note that, overall with regard to the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 113 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 113 objections, the Iridium factors have largely been not addressed. Rather, they seem to be a mishmash of things that people would like, attempts to jump ahead on the claims process, or in the case of Himalaya, who I will turn to, frankly, a person who is not happy with how the assignment process has worked out for them but not one who has actual basis to be objecting here.\n\n So the Himalaya parties who, as we detail in our reply brief, Your Honor, are largely made up of entities that this Court has either directly found the debtor to control -- the Himalaya farms, Himalaya -- or other entities that the debtor has been involved with, has filed an objection. And I think the heart of it is effectively saying we would have preferred to be in New York state court; we thought that's where the assignment was going to go.\n\n Everyone's entitled to their preferences, but that's not a basis to object to the settlement. And it's certainly not a basis to claim that this is not in the best interest of the debtor's estate, which is what the 9019 motion is about.\n\n Now, the Himalaya parties spend a good part of their papers contesting the alter ego and equitable ownership claims in the adversary proceeding. That's not what's before us today, Your Honor. They -- to the extent\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 114 of
180 | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
114 | |\n| 1 | they have standing, they will have an opportunity to raise | |\n| 2 | whatever objections they have to the trustee's adversary | |\n| 3 | proceeding.
But nothing about the settlement precludes them | |\n| 4 | from that. | |\n| 5 | Similarly, Your Honor, the assignee is the party | |\n| 6 | who makes the decisions.
That's what happens when he was | |\n| 7 | appointed.
None of these entities objected to the | |\n| 8 | assignment, to my knowledge.
Nor did any of them intend -- | |\n| 9 | to my knowledge intend -- file any objections to date of the | |\n| 10 | idea of -- when the assignee was considering selling these | |\n| 11 | entities to another party, a G News party. | |\n| 12 | The assignee made the decision that this was -- | |\n| 13 | this settlement is in its best interest.
It's not the place | |\n| 14 | for purported creditors or the assignee to take issue with | |\n| 15 | it. | |\n| 16 | This Court clearly has jurisdiction as set forth | |\n| 17 | in the TRO order.
And accordingly, any -- the arguments | |\n| 18 | about its jurisdiction are really just a collateral attack | |\n| 19 | on that.
I don't think they're appropriate. | |\n| 20 | Finally, Your Honor, the Himalaya entities raise | |\n| 21 | issues with regard to the channeling injunction and the | |\n| 22 | exculpation provision.
Counsel from Cole Schotz is going to | |\n| 23 | focus on those issues.
But I will say that the trustee | |\n| 24 | agreed to those provisions and supports them.
But I will | |\n| 25 | let counsel from Cole Schotz address those as they focus | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 115 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
115 |\n| 1 | more directly on their issue and their papers. |\n| 2 | Finally, Your Honor, the only other issue I |\n| 3 | believe the Himalaya parties raise is with regard to |\n| 4 | authority.
Again, counsel for Cole Schotz will focus on |\n| 5 | this.
But I will note that under the deeds of assignment, |\n| 6 | which not only weren't objected to but were entered, it is |\n| 7 | my understanding that the assignee has full authority to |\n| 8 | settle any and all claims against it.
And I would certainly |\n| 9 | think that this would fall within that. |\n| 10 | If Your Honor has any questions with regard to the |\n| 11 | Himalaya parties' objection, I'll answer them.
Otherwise, |\n| 12 | I'll move on to the next one. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I have no questions.
You may move on |\n| 14 | to the next objection. |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
The next one is |\n| 16 | the U.S. Trustee's limited objection with regard to the |\n| 17 | channeling and exculpation issues.
As I said, counsel for |\n| 18 | Cole Schotz is going to focus on that.
I will -- it's, I |\n| 19 | think, a very similar issue.
I'll leave that there. |\n| 20 | Otherwise, there's a question about the notice. |\n| 21 | The U.S. Trustee's office has indicated that they'd like |\n| 22 | three days' notice and a \\$25,000 cap.
The trustee has |\n| 23 | proposed a \\$50,000 cap just given the costs in the case in |\n| 24 | an effort to decrease administrative burden.
And it's our |\n| 25 | view that raising it to 50,000 would not harm the interests |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 116 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
116 |\n| 1 | of people interested in understanding what expenses were |\n| 2 | being made and, at the same time, would make it much more |\n| 3 | manageable for the trustee to handle to have a slightly |\n| 4 | higher cap.
So that is the only difference there to my |\n| 5 | knowledge. |\n| 6 | With regard to G News' limited objection and the |\n| 7 | objection from Attorney Sherman, both of them raise a very |\n| 8 | similar issue, which is they believe they have what I think |\n| 9 | they would term an administrative claims.
They have monies |\n| 10 | that they -- either in the case of Mr. Sherman who he |\n| 11 | believes is owed to him pursuant to a severance agreement. |\n| 12 | In the case of G News, they outlaid a limited amount of |\n| 13 | money when they thought their transaction was going to go |\n| 14 | forward for rent and other expenses. |\n| 15 | I don't believe the -- an objection to the 9019 |\n| 16 | motion is the appropriate procedural vehicle for raising |\n| 17 | these claims.
Certainly don't speak to the interests of the |\n| 18 | estate.
I don't believe moving forward with this settlement |\n| 19 | would in any way prejudice either parties' rights.
If they |\n| 20 | have -- if these claims are valid, they'll be dealt with in |\n| 21 | a number of ways.
And there'll be more than enough time to |\n| 22 | deal with them.
But there's no reason to hold up the |\n| 23 | settlement for it or to change the settlement to add other |\n| 24 | people's claims into it. |\n| 25 | I believe, Your Honor, that leaves us with the G |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 117 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
117 |\n| 1 | Club -- what it refers to as its notice and not an |\n| 2 | objection.
I should pause and say does Your Honor have any |\n| 3 | questions before I turn to that last one? |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I do not. |\n| 5 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Your Honor |\n| 6 | is -- I think we've been talking about G Club for a while |\n| 7 | recently in this Court.
This is the same G Club entity that |\n| 8 | we have been having the discovery issues with.
And this, of |\n| 9 | course, involves documents again. |\n| 10 | G Club has in its notice made clear that they are |\n| 11 | not objecting but that they claim that there is a master |\n| 12 | services agreement, which is not attached, nor is any |\n| 13 | provision cited.
But they say that there is now a master |\n| 14 | services agreement -- which there may be, I don't know -- |\n| 15 | that provides -- pursuant to which all documents and emails, |\n| 16 | in fact, for G Club, they say, in fact, were being |\n| 17 | administered by HCHK. |\n| 18 | Now, Your Honor will recall that previously we |\n| 19 | were told that there was, at best, a tangential relationship |\n| 20 | between the debtor and G Club, and that's why they couldn't |\n| 21 | produce their documents.
That, you know, he was an unpaid |\n| 22 | spokesperson.
After that, we were told that because |\n| 23 | executives left, documents couldn't be produced, because the |\n| 24 | relevant people had left. |\n| 25 | Now, we've sort of taken a 180, and now G Club is |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 118 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 118 saying not only is there a relationship with the debtor but, in fact, it's so close that it -- an entity which we believe we will show to be its alter ego had a management service agreement with it and that the emails were, in fact, sitting in Manhattan, available at HCHK this whole time. Be that as it may, they now have a new argument for why the trustee should not be able to get documents. They ask for a modification of the order to say that the trustee should only be allowed to see HCHK documents that only relate to HCHK. Now, the impact of that, Your Honor, quite likely is to create a null set of documents because, by HCHK's own papers, the -- what they did was they provided services for all the different debtor entities. So to the extent you can only talk about documents only related to HCHK, they would have carved it out such that I would -- my guess is that almost all their documents would once again be pulled out from the grasp of the trustee, and we would once\n\n The second thing that they claim is that these documents are confidential and, thus, must be returned to them. And here, Your Honor, I will note that the assignee, when he was appointed, G Club didn't come forward and say these are -- you have confidential documents; you can't be looking at them. They've certainly never argued that any of these are privileged.\n\nagain not have them.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 119 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 119 |\n| 1 | And then when the assignee was going to sell all |\n| 2 | the assets to G News, another entity which would have |\n| 3 | included these same files, again, to my knowledge, no |\n| 4 | objection to it.
It seems that G Club only has an objection |\n| 5 | when the trustee is going to gain access to the documents. |\n| 6 | I don't think there's any basis for it, Your |\n| 7 | Honor.
I think the settlement should stand as it is.
I |\n| 8 | think, to the extent there are responsive documents from G |\n| 9 | Club, we will be able to see them.
I think the agreement |\n| 10 | that the trustee be able to see HCHK's documents who also |\n| 11 | had a pending 2004 against it at the time is completely |\n| 12 | appropriate. |\n| 13 | I think, for all those reasons and what I've said |\n| 14 | before, Your Honor, G Club's objection shouldn't stand. |\n| 15 | The final thing I'll just mention, Your Honor, |\n| 16 | there are -- I did mention that fees will be paid.
To be |\n| 17 | clear, the trustee has done an initial review of the |\n| 18 | documentation.
The fees that are listed in the order appear |\n| 19 | to be reasonable in the trustee's view.
But I do note that |\n| 20 | the trustee does have an opportunity to do a further review |\n| 21 | to the extent there is any question to make sure that the -- |\n| 22 | any such fees are reasonable. |\n| 23 | Your Honor, if you have any questions, I'm happy |\n| 24 | to answer them.
Otherwise, I'll -- I have nothing further |\n| 25 | at
this time. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 120 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 120 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I have no questions. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Who wishes to be heard in response to the trustee's motion to compromise? MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I believe this is the attorney from Cole Schotz. THE COURT: Okay. Yes. Come forward, sir. So if you'd just state your name again for the record, please. MR. JARECK: For the record, Your Honor, Ryan Jareck, Cole Schotz PC, on behalf of the assignee, Mr. Hofmeister. And, Your Honor, just by way of introduction, Mr. Hofmeister is in the room. THE COURT: Okay. MR. JARECK: I just wanted to briefly introduce you to him. THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Hofmeister. MR. HOFMEISTER: Afternoon, Judge. MR. JARECK: Your Honor, I don't know if you have a preference if I address the U.S. Trustee's objection first or the Himalaya objection as it relates to the authority issue. THE COURT: You can -- you should proceed in any way you think is appropriate. Okay? MR. JARECK: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll start\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 121 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
121 |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | with the U.S. Trustee's objection.
So, Your Honor, the U.S. |\n| 2 | Trustee objects to the 9019 motion on two bases.
First, the |\n| 3 | U.S. Trustee objects to the proposed channeling injunction |\n| 4 | which is paragraph 13 of the proposed order.
And it |\n| 5 | secondly objects to the proposed exculpation provision, |\n| 6 | which is paragraph 14 of the order. |\n\n Your Honor, we put in a response on Friday to sort of put the -- put some context as to why these are critical components of the settlement for the assignee, and I would just like to hit on a couple of points. The assignee is currently enjoined under the TRO from prosecuting the assignment proceedings. If the settlement is approved, the assignment essentially will be wound down in an orderly fashion.\n\n If the trustee obtains a dispositive ruling, the HCHK estates will essentially be folded into the Kwok estates before this Court. Accordingly, as part of the settlement discussions, it was important that any and all claims arising from the assignment proceedings be decided by this Court, be channeled to this Court as opposed to having piecemeal litigation in multiple forums. And that's the reason why the assignee requested a channeling injunction.\n\n The channeling injunction is solely intended to be a forum mechanism, and it will not -- is not intended to affect any parties' rights. If Your Honor actually has\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 122 paragraph 13 of the order or can pull it up, please. THE COURT: Of the temporary restraining order? MR. JARECK: No. Of the proposed 9019 order. THE COURT: Oh, okay. Hold on a minute. MR. JARECK: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: No, I don't have that. MR. JARECK: It's Case 23-05013, Docket Entry 25. THE COURT: Just give me a moment, and I will do that. MR. JARECK: Absolutely, Your Honor. (Pause) THE COURT: Oh, good. We've just pulled it up. What page do you want me to go to? MR. JARECK: Page 24 of 28, paragraph 13. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. JARECK: So, Your Honor, you see paragraph 13, the channeling injunction? THE COURT: Yes. MR. JARECK: It says in sum and substance, in the event of a dispositive ruling -- so in other words, assuming you're -- the -- Your Honor agrees with the trustee and finds that there is an alter ego, all creditors and equity holders shall be barred and enjoined from asserting claims and causes of action. And as you continue to scroll down, it then says, \"except as raised through the appropriate Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 122 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 123 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 123 pleadings filed in this court.\" This is not, as the United States Trustee asserts, whether it's a non-consensual, non-debtor, third-party release, this is solely a forum mechanism. This is simply a mechanism to ensure that any and all claims following a dispositive ruling be filed in this court under the Court's supervision. And, in fact, we actually thought the U.S. Trustee's Office would prefer this. When speaking with Attorney Claiborn over the weekend and as most recently as yesterday, we circulated language to make it even more clear that this was a forum mechanism. And, in fact, we proposed -- after the words \"except as raised through the appropriate pleading filed in this court,\" we proposed \"(it being expressly understood that the foregoing provision is solely intended to be a forum mechanism and not affect any parties' rights)\". That proposed revision as part of more global settlement discussions, unfortunately, was rejected. Similarly, Your Honor, the exculpation provision is very important. All right? You may have the opportunity to -- excuse me. The exculpation provision is also not a release of third-party claims. The provision, which is found in paragraph 14 right below the channeling injunction provision, is contingent upon the Court issuing a dispositive ruling in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 124 of\n\n| | 180 | | | | | | | | |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
124 | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | favor of the trustee.
Once that ruling is made, the claims, | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | if any, against the assignee for purposes of the assignment | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | proceedings and the settlement agreement become estate | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | causes of action.
So any claims for mismanagement, breach | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | of fiduciary duty, to the extent they exist, they're no | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | longer direct claims of any creditor.
They are not estate | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | causes of action. | | | | | | | | |\n\n In other words, the exculpation provision is more in the nature of a debtor release, not a third-party release. The Second Circuit is very clear that a debtor is authorized to release estate causes of action under Rule 9019. And I'm happy to provide the Court with citations to the extent that the Court is interested. I think it's pretty well known that debtors and trustees can compromise claims under 9019. That's what the rule's actually for.\n\n Therefore, although it is styled as an exculpation, it's more in the nature of a limited debtor release for certain acts in favor of the assignee. This is not a Purdue Pharma third-party release issue whatsoever. And to the extent the language is not clear, we're open to any modification to make sure that the intent of the assignee is explicit in the order.\n\n Your Honor, just to put it more in perspective, if the U.S. Trustee is successful and the other creditors are successful in knocking out the exculpation provision and the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 125 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
125 |\n| 1 | channeling injunction, after a dispositive ruling, again |\n| 2 | assuming these provisions are not approved, the assignee may |\n| 3 | be subject to claims in multiple forums without any |\n| 4 | resources to defend against them.
That is simply |\n| 5 | inequitable based on the services that the assignee |\n| 6 | performed and his professionals for these estates and the |\n| 7 | value derived therefrom. |\n| 8 | Your Honor, I'll stop there and ask if you have |\n| 9 | any questions on our position as it relates to the |\n| 10 | channeling injunction and the exculpation. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I do not have any questions.
Thank |\n| 12 | you. |\n| 13 | MR. JARECK:
So, Your Honor, I'm then going to |\n| 14 | shift to the Himalaya creditors' objection and focus on the |\n| 15 | authority issue that has been raised by them, which I think |\n| 16 | is more appropriate that it be addressed by the assignee and |\n| 17 | his counsel. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 19 | MR. JARECK:
Thank you, Your Honor.
First, the |\n| 20 | objectors cite to numerous provisions of the deeds, New York |\n| 21 | debtor/creditor law.
Those provisions are simply not |\n| 22 | applicable to what we're proposing to do by way of this |\n| 23 | settlement.
And I'll just give you a few examples. |\n| 24 | First, the objectors challenge the assignee's |\n| 25 | authority to enter the settlement agreement, and they cite |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 126 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
126 |\n| 1 | to -- and, I'm sorry, in paragraphs 57 and 60.
They cite to |\n| 2 | the deeds.
They cite to New York debtor/creditor law which |\n| 3 | require the state court approval of any sale or disposition |\n| 4 | of personal property. |\n| 5 | The settlement agreement is not a sale of the |\n| 6 | assignor's assets.
The settlement agreement simply |\n| 7 | contemplates the transfer of the HCHK funds from one |\n| 8 | fiduciary to another fiduciary under the express supervision |\n| 9 | of this Court.
The funds will sit in a trustee custodial |\n| 10 | account pending this Court's decision on the trustee's alter |\n| 11 | ego claims. |\n| 12 | Similarly, the objectors in paragraph 58 cite to a |\n| 13 | provision of New York debtor/creditor law concerning the |\n| 14 | authorization of the assignee to sell, compromise, or |\n| 15 | compound any claim or debt belonging to the estate.
Again, |\n| 16 | Your Honor, the assignee is not selling or compromising any |\n| 17 | claims belonging to the assignors.
And, in fact, to the |\n| 18 | contrary. |\n| 19 | There's no release provision.
As part of the |\n| 20 | agreement, the assignee made it required that all interested |\n| 21 | parties of the estates received notice of the proposed |\n| 22 | settlement, and all parties' rights are expressly reserved |\n| 23 | and preserved pursuant to the no-prejudice paragraph in |\n| 24 | paragraph 8. |\n| 25 | In addition, in paragraph 61, the objectors |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 127 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
127 |\n| 1 | criticize the assignee for not providing notice and |\n| 2 | opportunity to be heard.
The assignee certainly provided |\n| 3 | creditors with the opportunity to be heard in this Court. |\n| 4 | Following entry of the expedited hearing order, notice to |\n| 5 | these creditors were provided and a certificate of service |\n| 6 | was filed to that effect. |\n| 7 | Lastly, Your Honor, I want to note, consistent |\n| 8 | with counsel previous brought up, that the authority issue |\n| 9 | is actually addressed in the deeds and at Section 4F which |\n| 10 | says that the assignee has the right to settle any and all |\n| 11 | disputes.
That's precisely what we're doing here, Your |\n| 12 | Honor. |\n| 13 | There's been several discussions with the trustee |\n| 14 | and his counsel following entry of the TRO.
As a result of |\n\n those discussions, the assignee determined in his business judgment to enter into this settlement as opposed to litigating the request for an injunction and the issues raised in the adversary complaint, provided that the transfer of the funds to the control of the trustee would be subject to this Court's ultimate adjudication of the issues raised in the adversary complaint.\n\n Your Honor, the assignee believes that the settlement agreement should be approved and is beneficial to creditors as the issues raised by the trustee in his complaint has to be resolved or adjudicated in one form or\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 128 another. The settlement avoids costly litigation but at the same time preserves parties' rights to contest the trustee's claims should they wish to do so. For these reasons, the assignee respectfully submits that the 9019 motion should be approved. And I'll stop there and ask if the Court has any questions about my presentation this afternoon. THE COURT: I do not have any questions. Thank you. MR. JARECK: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. PASTORE: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. PASTORE: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Could you just state your name -- MR. PASTORE: Yeah. THE COURT: -- for the record, please? MR. PASTORE: Of course. My name is Joseph Pastore from Pastore LLC. With me today is my colleague, Melissa McClammy. We also have some summer associates in the room in the back. We represent several of the creditors of the HCHK entities. And if Your Honor would like, I could read it. They're difficult to pronounce in numbers. Or if the record is fine with our brief -- THE COURT: The record is fine. Thank you. Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 128 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 129 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
129 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. PASTORE:
Great.
Thank you.
Your Honor, I |\n| | |\n| 2 | represent creditors who, despite innuendo and statements, |\n| 3 | believe that they're bona fide creditors of these entities, |\n| 4 | loaned money, and are legitimate creditors.
I have no |\n| 5 | personal relationship with them, no history with them, no |\n| 6 | history with the movement, no relationship to anything |\n| 7 | that's gone on here. |\n| 8 | I'm dropping into a play that I know has had many |\n| 9 | acts, and I only see a piece of it.
And I respect that and |\n| 10 | understand it.
But from our perspective, I'm here because |\n| 11 | there's creditors whose rights are being abridged by a |\n| 12 | settlement that we think is ultra vires or illegal. |\n| 13 | I think counsel for the assignee highlighted it. |\n| 14 | This is a motion to compromise.
And the New York law makes |\n| 15 | clear, we just read it, that the assignee is not free to |\n| 16 | compromise -- paragraph 58, I believe, of our objection -- |\n| 17 | without court approval under New York law. |\n| 18 | And there's a reason for that.
The assignee is |\n| 19 | not a creature unto himself.
The assignee operates under |\n| 20 | the direction of the New York court.
Very respectful of the |\n| 21 | TRO.
I understand the need to freeze the money.
I |\n| 22 | understand the need to be very careful. |\n| 23 | But someone has to supervise and legitimatize the |\n| 24 | assignee's compromise.
He does not get to unilaterally act |\n| 25 | on his own belief.
He has to seek approval in New York |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2023 | Filed 07/21/23 | Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 | Page 130 of | | | | |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
130 |\n| 1 | court.
And because of that, this settlement agreement is |\n| 2 | unlawful, because no such approval was sought. |\n| 3 | And from our perspective, someone has to validate |\n| 4 | the assignee's belief that he could disenfranchise these |\n| 5 | creditors without any investigation, any information, simply |\n| 6 | disenfranchise creditors that he has a fiduciary obligation |\n| 7 | to serve and protect under the New York law. |\n| 8 | Now, let's be clear.
When I say disenfranchise, |\n| 9 | the creditors of the HCHK entities, assuming they're bona |\n| 10 | fide -- and I have to assume it.
And I've investigated it. |\n| 11 | Best I know, they're legitimate creditors.
Good faith |\n| 12 | claims.
Good faith monies loaned.
Are being completely |\n| 13 | disenfranchised by this arrangement. |\n| 14 | And the assignee has had to report to no one as to |\n| 15 | why he's doing that.
He's getting immunized for doing it. |\n| 16 | He's getting \\$550,000 for doing it.
His counsel is getting |\n| 17 | \\$400,000 for doing it.
And under what theory can anyone |\n| 18 | suggest he's acted in the best interest of the creditors |\n| 19 | he's sworn to protect? |\n| 20 | As a result, the agreement as structured by the |\n| 21 | trustee and the assignees is illegal, ultra vires.
This |\n| 22 | Court has authority to stay the New York action.
But I |\n| 23 | don't think this Court has the authority to tell the New |\n| 24 | York court you must approve this assignment in this action |\n| 25 | by the assignee. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 131 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
131 |\n| 1 | I think that's for the New York court to |\n| 2 | determine.
And if the New York court so determines it, the |\n| 3 | settlement could proceed.
But absent that, someone has to. |\n| 4 | It can't -- the assignee is not free to do this under New |\n| 5 | York law simply on its own volition. |\n| 6 | With respect to the, you know, someday maybe we'll |\n| 7 | have a finding of alter ego, maybe we will, maybe we won't. |\n| 8 | But I don't think that's strong enough for this Court simply |\n| 9 | to ignore the plain strictures of the New York law.
There |\n| 10 | may be a finding someday of alter ego, and if that's the |\n| 11 | case, ultimately, these monies will be transferred.
But |\n| 12 | until then, it doesn't justify just ignoring the law. |\n| 13 | So our view, Your Honor, is that this settlement |\n| 14 | should not be approved as it's structured.
It's ultra |\n| 15 | vires.
It's illegal.
And that the stricture should be |\n| 16 | followed. |\n| 17 | We intend, if the case proceeds, to intervene in |\n| 18 | the case and protect our creditors' rights.
They're |\n| 19 | good-faith creditors of this entity and this money.
And we |\n| 20 | intend to try to hold the assignee to his sworn duty to |\n| 21 | protect the rights of the creditors, my clients. |\n| 22 | If you have any questions, Your Honor, I'm happy |\n| 23 | to answer them.
That's the position of the creditors that |\n| 24 | we represent. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I do not have any questions at the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 132 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 132 moment. MR. PASTORE: Okay. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on the motion to compromise? MR. SHERMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard? My name is Joshua Sherman. I filed a limited objection. THE COURT: Yes. MR. SHERMAN: I just wish to state that -- THE COURT: Why don't you come up to this podium, please -- MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- so it'll be easier. Thank you. MR. SHERMAN: Your Honor, I just wish to state that I agree with the arguments made by the Himalaya creditors. But in addition, I just wanted to state that my own claim, I believe, is administrative in nature. I described it in my letter to the Court. The trustee and the assignee have not argued otherwise. Therefore, if the Court is inclined to approve the settlement, my claim should be included among the authorized assignee actions in a proposed order. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. ARCARO: Your Honor, good afternoon. Gregory\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 133 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
133 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Arcaro appearing on behalf of G News Operations, LLC. |\n| 2 | Similar to counsel's objection, my client entered into a |\n| 3 | management agreement with the assignee and prepaid rent and |\n| 4 | other expenses pursuant to that management agreement.
The |\n| 5 | proposed order and settlement agreement provides for the |\n| 6 | termination of that management agreement but does not |\n| 7 | provide for the fallout of that, which is the recoupment of |\n| 8 | the funds outlaid by my client. |\n\n I heard trustee's counsel say that the objection to a motion to compromise is not the proper place to assert claims, but the trustee put that issue squarely before the Court when it proposed a payment of certain administrative -- what I would consider to be administrative claims as part of the settlement but does not propose a mechanism to pay my client, simply requesting that a mechanism be included so that my client can submit a claim and, if proved up, be paid along with other administrative claims and asserts that it stands on equal footing to all the other proposed payments in the settlement agreement, specifically in phase three, but could also come in phase two when the trustee is authorized to advance the assignee to pay certain expenses, could come either way in either section of the settlement agreement but should be a specific reference to how that claim is to be addressed.\n\nThank you, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 134 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
134 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 2 | MS. BARANOWSKY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | Kelliane Baranowsky with Green & Sklarz on behalf of G Club |\n| 4 | Operations, LLC.
And I'm joined with Carolina Fornos from |\n| 5 | Pillsbury Winthrop on behalf of the same entity. |\n| 6 | MS. FORNOS:
May I approach, Your Honor? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Yes, please. |\n| 8 | MS. FORNOS:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 10 | MS. FORNOS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Carolina |\n| 11 | Fornos of Pillsbury Winthrop on behalf of G Club Operations. |\n| 12 | Your Honor, we had filed a notice, and the frame -- the way |\n| 13 | that the trustee has framed that notice is all about |\n| 14 | avoiding producing documents.
To be clear, G Club |\n| 15 | Operations has produced documents, not just the 300 that we |\n| 16 | mentioned when we were last before the Court but also over |\n| 17 | 100,000 documents that we produced this morning.
And there |\n| 18 | are more that we will produce because we will comply with |\n| 19 | the Court's order prior to July 14th. |\n| 20 | The issues that we are presenting to the Court is |\n| 21 | that the trustee cannot simply walk in, assume alter ego, |\n| 22 | assume substantive consolidation, and take hold of all |\n| 23 | documents in the possession of HCHK.
To be very clear, HCHK |\n| 24 | Technologies -- and there are multiple entities.
The only |\n| 25 | issue for us is HCHK Technologies.
That had an |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 135 administrative and managerial position with respect to our IT. HCHK does not have the authority to transfer those rights and documents to the assignee. And the assignee does not have rights to just turn that over to the trustee. And the trustee can't just do an end-run around discovery and just say, oh, I'm just going to take all these documents, ignoring privilege, ignoring contractual rights. And that is the reason that we have filed the notice. We respectfully ask that the Court take notice that we will produce documents, but G Club has to have access to their documents, review them, account for privilege, and we will produce what is responsive. The trustee doesn't get to just take everything irrespective of privilege rights and responsiveness. Does the Court have any questions on this issue, Your Honor? THE COURT: I just -- the only thing I think you said that I believe I knew but I want to make sure I understand is your notice is only -- the notice that you filed on behalf of G Club Operations relates only to the HK -- HCHK Technologies entity, correct? MS. FORNOS: Yes, Your Honor. That is correct. And, Your Honor, we don't take a position -- we defer to other counsel to address the settlement. The issue is that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 136 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
136 |\n| 1 | the proposed order as currently drafted bypasses a number of |\n| 2 | rights and due process rights that affect G Club Operations. |\n| 3 | Those rights start with the concept that the settlement |\n| 4 | agreement assumes alter ego, assumes substantive |\n| 5 | consolidation, and assumes that the trustee can just take |\n| 6 | hold of all of our documents and do an end-run around the |\n| 7 | discovery process. |\n| 8 | That's the concern, and that's why we are flagging |\n| 9 | that the proposed order should be modified.
To the extent |\n| 10 | that the Court agrees with the settlement, the proposed |\n| 11 | order should be modified to protect our rights. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Let me just ask you about the HCHK |\n| 13 | Technologies, though.
HCHK Technologies executed some |\n| 14 | document that assigned all of their rights and title and |\n| 15 | interest and claims and assets to the assignee, right? |\n| 16 | We're not disputing that?
That happened? |\n| 17 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, yes. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 19 | MS. FORNOS:
But I want to clarify -- let me |\n| 20 | clarify this.
The trustee made it sound as if no one |\n| 21 | objected.
The TRO was entered before any dates would have |\n| 22 | come up in state court to file position statements.
So the |\n| 23 | TRO -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
No, no.
I understand that.
I'm |\n| 25 | talking about even before the TRO, though.
The reason the |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 137 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
137 |\n| 1 | case was commenced in New York was because somebody in |\n| 2 | control at HCHK Technologies signed a document assigning |\n| 3 | over all of its everything to the assignee.
That occurred, |\n| 4 | right? |\n| 5 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes, Your Honor.
But I don't believe |\n| 6 | that the process was finished.
But I will defer to -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
No, no.
I'm not suggesting that you |\n| 8 | believe that.
I'm just saying that's what happened, right? |\n| 9 | So the assignee comes into this case in New York and has |\n| 10 | assigned to him as the assignee all of these entities, |\n| 11 | assets and -- for the benefit of creditors, right?
So that |\n| 12 | the assignee's role would be to take everything in the -- |\n| 13 | from those entities and turn them into cash and pay |\n| 14 | creditors.
That's what was supposed to happen. |\n| 15 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, that was, I think, the |\n| 16 | intent.
But to be clear, the assignee steps into the shoes |\n| 17 | of -- if all of that is proper under New York law -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 19 | MS. FORNOS:
-- and everything was supposed to be |\n| 20 | done and everybody was afforded the opportunity to be heard |\n| 21 | with that process, assuming all of that takes place, the |\n| 22 | assignee takes the -- would arguably take the shoes of HCHK |\n| 23 | Technologies and step into the shoes of those contracts. |\n| 24 | And under those contracts, the assignee would still be bound |\n| 25 | by those agreements.
And those agreements specifically |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 138 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
138 |\n| 1 | contain confidentiality provisions and specific provisions |\n| 2 | that prevented the assignee or HCHK from just transferring |\n| 3 | all documents -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 5 | MS. FORNOS:
-- irrespective of -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Did you point out in your notice -- |\n| 7 | and I apologize if you did, and I just didn't see it -- |\n| 8 | where in the agreements between G Club Operations and HCHK |\n| 9 | Technologies there's this confidentiality provision? |\n| 10 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, we did not attach the |\n| 11 | master services agreement.
We note for the record that |\n| 12 | counsel for the trustee was provided not only with the |\n| 13 | master services agreement originally in the original |\n| 14 | production of the 300 documents, the Court may recall that |\n| 15 | the Court specifically asked me about HCHK at the last |\n| 16 | hearing and -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I asked about the confidentiality |\n| 18 | provisions, right, and whether the members had any -- I'm |\n| 19 | not talking about HCHK.
I'm talking about G Club right now. |\n| 20 | You were talking about -- I said is there any contractual |\n| 21 | basis upon which a member would have a belief that their |\n| 22 | information would remain confidential. |\n| 23 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, I will answer that. |\n| 24 | There's two different -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Sure.
Go ahead. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 139 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 139 MS. FORNOS: -- issues. There's the membership agreements and the membership rights. And the Court properly raised that issue last time, and we did look into it and determined that we do have the ability to provide it subject to the protective order, which is what we discussed with the trustee and resolved that. THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: This confidentiality issue that we're talking about is a separate issue. This is our entire IT system. This is all of our email communications. This is Microsoft 365. THE COURT: Right. MS. FORNOS: This is -- THE COURT: But you have to have some agreement with HCHK regarding that. MS. FORNOS: And that contains a confidentiality agreement with respect -- THE COURT: Okay. That's what I'm asking. MS. FORNOS: -- to all of our -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: -- all of our information. And that does exist, and we have provided a copy of that agreement to the trustee -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: -- multiple times and have copied him\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 140 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
140 |\n| 1 | on communications with HCHK demanding this information back. |\n| 2 | And accordingly, Your Honor, the way the proposed |\n| 3 | order is structured right now does not take into account -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Well, when you say this information, |\n| 5 | what information are you talking about?
Isn't it all |\n| 6 | software if they were controlling your systems? |\n| 7 | MS. FORNOS:
It's IT.
It's emails and other |\n| 8 | applications, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay. |\n| 10 | MS. FORNOS:
And we simply ask that the Court take |\n| 11 | notice that the trustee cannot just do an end-run and just |\n| 12 | step in and say I'm going to just take everything. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Well, whether or not that's what the |\n| 14 | trustee's saying, I don't know.
That's what you're saying |\n| 15 | the trustee's saying.
But my question was, what -- |\n| 16 | you're -- you are asserting on behalf of G Clubs (sic) |\n| 17 | Operations that there is an agreement between G Club |\n| 18 | Operations and HCHK Technologies in which there's a |\n| 19 | confidentiality provision with regard to the information |\n| 20 | that HCHK manages on behalf of G Club Operations?
That's |\n| 21 | what you're -- |\n| 22 | MS. FORNOS:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 24 | MS. FORNOS:
That's correct. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
And you've provided that information |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 141 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
141 |\n| 1 | to the trustee, is what you've said. |\n| 2 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
And you're saying that -- are you |\n| 4 | saying that it should never be turned over, or you need it |\n| 5 | back?
What are you saying with regard to the information |\n| 6 | that is in the agreement between G Club and HCHK aside from |\n| 7 | the members that we talked about already? |\n| 8 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes.
That all information should be |\n| 9 | returned to G Club so that G Club can perform review, |\n| 10 | determine responsiveness, produce what's responsive, and |\n| 11 | withhold privileged information. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
That's what I |\n| 13 | wanted to be clear about. |\n| 14 | MS. FORNOS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Again, Holley Claiborn for the U.S. |\n| 16 | Trustee.
I think I'm the last of the objecting parties to |\n| 17 | present to the Court today.
The U.S. Trustee filed a |\n| 18 | limited objection to the settlement.
It's at ECF 1978, and |\n| 19 | it takes issue with three things. |\n| 20 | I'm going to take the easiest of it first, and I'm |\n| 21 | going to go back into the more substantive discussion.
The |\n| 22 | easy part has to do with the trustee's use of the funds that |\n| 23 | he gets if the Court approves the settlement and what people |\n| 24 | should know about that.
And the U.S. Trustee took the |\n| 25 | position that we should have some greater transparency with |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 142 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
142 |\n| 1 | respect to that and some guard rails to know what's going to |\n| 2 | happen. |\n| 3 | The U.S. Trustee proposed that the monthly list of |\n| 4 | what gets paid be filed by the trustee.
I think the trustee |\n| 5 | is on board with that.
The U.S. Trustee also proposed that |\n| 6 | for an expense that exceeded \\$25,000 that there be given an |\n| 7 | opportunity for the U.S. Trustee and the committee to weigh |\n| 8 | in on whether or not that that was an appropriate expense. |\n| 9 | And the trustee has pushed back and asked for that be |\n| 10 | increased to \\$50,000. |\n| 11 | I don't think I heard any argument other than that |\n| 12 | it's more efficient to have a threshold of \\$50,000.
I think |\n| 13 | the problem really is, is that we don't really know what the |\n| 14 | trustee's going to be doing with the money.
And we ought to |\n| 15 | have some sort of mechanism to assure ourselves that an |\n| 16 | expense that's significant is properly before the parties to |\n| 17 | know what's happening before it happens. |\n| 18 | So the U.S. Trustee thought that the \\$25,000 |\n| 19 | marker was a better threshold for what would be a reasonable |\n| 20 | threshold for knowing what's going to happen in advance of |\n| 21 | it happening.
So the U.S. Trustee would like that to be the |\n| 22 | threshold at which the trustee has to take into |\n| 23 | consideration the opinion of the U.S. Trustee and the |\n| 24 | committee.
And to be clear, to the extent that the U.S. |\n| 25 | Trustee has a problem with the proposed expense, it's the |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 143 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
143 |\n| 1 | U.S. Trustee's burden to come back to the Court to take it |\n| 2 | up with the Court. |\n| 3 | Going back to the other two issues that the U.S. |\n| 4 | Trustee raised in the objection.
They are important issues. |\n| 5 | And they are issues of some significance right now in courts |\n| 6 | across the nation, including the Second Circuit. |\n| 7 | The proposed settlement agreement includes two |\n| 8 | provisions that work hand in hand with each other. |\n| 9 | Paragraph 13 of the proposed order provides for a channeling |\n| 10 | injunction, and paragraph 14 of the proposed order provides |\n| 11 | for an exculpation.
And they are as broad as can possibly |\n| 12 | be written.
And there is no dispute that they actually do |\n| 13 | intend to protect the assignee and his professionals from |\n| 14 | claims of others who are not the debtors, the debtor's |\n| 15 | estate, or claims by the trustee. |\n| 16 | The definition of who is protected is referred to |\n| 17 | as the assignee, but it does, for clarification -- and -- |\n| 18 | reference not only the assignee, Mr. Hofmeister, but several |\n| 19 | professionals.
So it's a group.
And it includes counsel |\n| 20 | who made the presentation today on behalf of the assignee, |\n| 21 | the firm of Cole Schotz. |\n| 22 | The exculpation that is included in the order and |\n| 23 | the settlement agreement is absolutely within the purview of |\n| 24 | this Court to decide if it's appropriate.
And it's the U.S. |\n| 25 | Trustee's position that it's not appropriate, because it's a |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 144 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
144 |\n| 1 | functional equivalent of an improper non-consensual release |\n| 2 | of a third-party claim. |\n| 3 | Stepping back from that for a minute.
If the |\n| 4 | trustee were to be proposing that the trustee wants to |\n| 5 | release the estate's claims against the assignee and his |\n| 6 | professionals, the trustee has the capacity to do that.
But |\n| 7 | that's not what the language proposed says. |\n| 8 | The language proposed goes far beyond that.
It |\n| 9 | talks about any liability to any person or entity and then |\n| 10 | goes on to talk about the various different conduct.
And |\n| 11 | included, for example, in that conduct that is not protected |\n| 12 | and reserved is criminal conduct.
So, for example, if a |\n| 13 | government agency wanted to take steps to pursue criminal |\n| 14 | charges, those would arguably be barred by the exculpation |\n| 15 | language that's in the proposed order. |\n| 16 | The U.S. Trustee doesn't believe that the proposed |\n| 17 | language for exculpation meets the standards that the Second |\n| 18 | Circuit has articulated recently in the Purdue Pharma case. |\n| 19 | None of the factors that are cited in that case, and there |\n| 20 | are seven of them, appear to have been met by the proposed |\n| 21 | motion and settlement terms.
And the Court has to evaluate |\n| 22 | whether or not it actually has the ability to approve that |\n| 23 | release, because it affects the claims of not just this |\n| 24 | estate but of third parties who are not here and are not |\n| 25 | subject to the subject matter of this Court and this |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 145 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
145 |\n| 1 | jurisdiction.
And you may have claims that have not been |\n| 2 | articulated or presented to this Court. |\n| 3 | Even to the extent that this Court determines for |\n| 4 | some reason that the Purdue Pharma factors have actually |\n| 5 | been met, the Purdue Pharma decision recently issued by the |\n| 6 | Second Circuit makes it very clear that this Court does not |\n| 7 | have the actual authority to finally approve the proposed |\n| 8 | channeling injunction and the exculpation, because any |\n| 9 | findings it would make would just be proposed findings that |\n| 10 | would have to be approved and blessed and adopted by the |\n| 11 | District Court.
And that's because this is a non-core |\n| 12 | proceeding, and it violates the opinion of the United States |\n| 13 | Supreme Court in Stern v. Marshall to the extent it's asking |\n| 14 | this Court to just bypass and adopt full jurisdiction, |\n| 15 | because it doesn't have it. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
So wait a minute.
Let me stop you on |\n| 17 | that question, because I'm not sure I follow you.
The Court |\n| 18 | doesn't have core jurisdiction to decide a motion to -- for |\n| 19 | settlement under this -- in this case because why? |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'll be more specific. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
The Court does not have |\n| 23 | jurisdiction to approve the channeling injunction and the |\n| 24 | exculpation because together they comprise a non-consensual |\n\nrelease of third-party claims that do not belong to this\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 146 estate. That -- THE COURT: So but -- MS. CLAIBORN: That determination about jurisdiction -- THE COURT: But you're taking about jurisdiction, so -- you're talking about jurisdiction, so we -- I just want to be -- MS. CLAIBORN: So my argument is -- THE COURT: I just want to make sure I understand your position clearly. MS. CLAIBORN: My argument is twofold. One, that we don't think that the factors articulated in the Purdue Pharma decision -- THE COURT: That I get. I -- MS. CLAIBORN: -- have been met. THE COURT: The Seventh Circuit -- the seven factors haven't been met. MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: But even if they have, I can't decide them anyway, because they're not core -- MS. CLAIBORN: You don't have final approval authority. THE COURT: -- they're not core proceedings, and they'd have to be referred to the district court? MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 146 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 147 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
147 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
But couldn't -- even if you're |\n| 2 | correct, which I don't know if you are or not, because I |\n| 3 | haven't studied what you just said until -- I didn't |\n| 4 | appreciate what you're saying until now, can I enter |\n| 5 | proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule |\n| 6 | 7052? |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
You can.
But the district court |\n| 8 | has to ultimately weigh in on that. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
I understand.
Okay.
All right. |\n| 10 | MS. CLAIBORN:
And that's -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I'm just asking. |\n| 12 | MS. CLAIBORN:
And that's with respect to just the |\n| 13 | issues of the exculpation provision -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yep. |\n| 15 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- and the channeling injunction. |\n| 16 | The other thing that I want to point out is that |\n| 17 | there is no statutory authority for this Court to approve a |\n| 18 | channeling injunction outside the confines of the plan. |\n| 19 | That issue is a big issue, and it stops this channeling |\n| 20 | injunction request in its tracks.
The only mechanisms -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Doesn't that -- aren't people asking |\n| 22 | for that all the time in -- I actually have -- the Chapter 7 |\n| 23 | trustee is asking for those, and no one's raising an issue |\n| 24 | about channeling injunctions and no statutory authority. |\n| 25 | And I -- and in Chapter 11 cases when there aren't plans |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 148 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 148 confirmed yet. And where does 542(g), I think, say that it has to be in connection with a plan? I'm not sure it does. There's been a lot of controversy over that, hasn't there? MS. CLAIBORN: There has been, Your Honor. And it's 524(g). THE COURT: What did I say, 42? MS. CLAIBORN: Yeah. THE COURT: I said it backwards? MS. CLAIBORN: That's okay. THE COURT: 24(g). Sorry. MS. CLAIBORN: So the point is that the authority to impose that restriction on others is found only in that section. And courts have determined that that section does authorize channeling injunctions outside the concept of the specific language that's in there that refers to asbestos cases. That said, there is no case law that we're aware of that authorizes the Court to impose this channeling injunction outside the confines of a plan. All of the case law determines the appropriateness of a channeling injunction in the confines of an actual plan. THE COURT: Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: So it's the U.S. Trustee's position that this Court does not have authority to do -- THE COURT: There's no statutory authority to --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 149 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
149 |\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Correct. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- to allow that.
Okay. |\n| 3 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Correct. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I -- that help -- that's helpful to -- |\n| 5 | for you to just articulate that.
I wasn't exactly sure. |\n| 6 | But that -- now I understand what you're saying. |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
So circling back to the proposal, |\n| 8 | if it were scaled back to the idea that the trustee wants to |\n| 9 | release the assignee and his professionals for claims that |\n| 10 | the estate may have against them, that's within the |\n| 11 | trustee's purview.
But the trustee does not have the |\n| 12 | authority to ask this Court to bless releases of claims held |\n| 13 | by third parties against the assignee and his professionals. |\n| 14 | And so we're asking the Court to deny that part of |\n| 15 | the settlement agreement with respect to the two provisions, |\n| 16 | because they have to be read in harmony with each other.
So |\n| 17 | that's 13 and 14 in the proposed order, and we would ask |\n| 18 | that those be stricken from the proposed order to the extent |\n| 19 | that the Court approves the actual settlement agreement |\n| 20 | that's before the Court. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Any response from the trustee? |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor.
The first response |\n| 25 | is would it be possible to take a ten-minute recess, so we |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 150 can discuss -- THE COURT: Yes. But actually, before we do, is there anybody else that has an objection that hasn't been heard? And who are you representing, Attorney Moriarty? MR. MORIARTY: The debtor, Your Honor. And -- THE COURT: Which debtor? MR. MORIARTY: Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Mr. Kwok? MR. MORIARTY: Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: He's -- MR. MORIARTY: I'm not objecting. THE COURT: He isn't -- MR. MORIARTY: I just want to state for the record that the debtor does not take any position on the settlement agreement or the motion. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: And that is it. Okay? THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Yes, let's take a ten-minute break -- recess. Court is in recess until 4 p.m. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. Court is in recess until 4 p.m. (Recess from 3:51 p.m. to 4:05 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 150 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 151 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
151 |\n| 1 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
All rise.
United States |\n| 2 | Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut is back -- |\n| 3 | is now in session. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Please be seated. |\n| 5 | Okay.
We took a recess a little before -- around |\n| 6 | 3:50-ish, I guess, Trustee Despins.
So where do we stand |\n| 7 | now? |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
I'm happy to report that we have |\n| 9 | reached an agreement with the assignee which I think |\n| 10 | resolves a lot of the issues that were raised regarding |\n| 11 | exculpation and channeling.
And the agreement is as |\n| 12 | follows. |\n| 13 | The trustee will release any estate cause of |\n| 14 | action against the assignee and/or his professionals.
And |\n| 15 | we obviously -- you know, I don't have to tell you this. |\n| 16 | You know it better than I do.
The trustee can do that |\n| 17 | subject to Your Honor's approval.
We believe there are no |\n| 18 | such claims, but we would be releasing them as part of the |\n| 19 | settlement. |\n| 20 | And as far as channeling, there wouldn't be a |\n| 21 | broad channeling injunction that concerned the U.S. Trustee, |\n| 22 | but rather there would be basically the Court being placed |\n| 23 | into the gatekeeper function, meaning that anyone who wants |\n| 24 | to assert a claim against the assignee or his professionals |\n| 25 | with respect to his role as assignee and the assignment for |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 152 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 152 the benefit of the creditor must first file such claim before this Court so that the Court can determine whether that cause of action was released by the trustee pursuant to the release that we would be giving.\n\n And by the way, that release would only be given if Your Honor approves, you know, the third stage of the settlement, which is if Your Honor approves the alter ego or equitable ownership claims that the trustee has brought forward. If that's not approved, all of -- all bets are off. There's no release. There's no gatekeeper function by the Court. This would all be done in the third phase of this process.\n\n But, again, the trustee would release only estate claims against the assignee and his professionals. There would be a provision and -- you know, the assignee is okay with this subject to reviewing the language, his counsel reviewing the language. But the concept would be that any claims against the assignee or his professionals must first be brought before this Court so that the Court may determine whether those claims are subject to the release.\n\n Because this -- as you know, the issue whether people have direct claims or not in this context is very murky. And we don't want people to be suing all over the place until Your Honor determines, yes, that's a direct claim not subject to the trustee release; go ahead and you\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2023 | Filed 07/21/23 | Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 | Page 153 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 153 |\n| 1 | can sue whoever you want.
We hope that will not happen. |\n| 2 | But the point is that that right is protected. |\n| 3 | But the Court would play a gatekeeper function. |\n| 4 | We believe there's plenty of support for giving the Court |\n| 5 | jurisdiction to do solely that.
Because they're not being |\n| 6 | precluded from bringing the other claims; they're just -- |\n| 7 | there's just one step, which is they need to start with this |\n| 8 | Court so the Court can protect its jurisdiction, i.e. did -- |\n| 9 | are these claims derivative claims or are they claims that |\n| 10 | are direct and not derivative.
And that determination must |\n| 11 | be made by this Court, the Court that approved -- or if Your |\n| 12 | Honor approves it, that would approve the settlement. |\n| 13 | So that's the -- I think that resolves that issue. |\n| 14 | My colleagues will address other issues raised by other |\n| 15 | claim creditors or alleged creditors.
But that issue, to |\n| 16 | me, I think that resolves a -- an issue in a way that's |\n| 17 | favorable to the estate but also that should make the Court |\n| 18 | comfortable that you have the jurisdiction and power and |\n| 19 | that it's appropriate to issue such -- that type of order. |\n| 20 | The only point -- before I cede the podium to my |\n| 21 | colleague, I would just say, Your Honor, every time people |\n| 22 | who -- whose name starts with a G -- and I don't mean a |\n| 23 | first name, but a company starts with a G appears in court |\n| 24 | here, putting themselves at -- or asking for -- the Court |\n| 25 | for protection, I would be very concerned that we need to |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 154 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
154 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | see how the dust settles on these things.
We need to see |\n| 2 | what's what, what happened.
And, you know, I would be very |\n| 3 | concerned about any attempt to derail this or for people |\n| 4 | saying, well, I want a special deal as well. |\n| 5 | First of all, it's important to understand that |\n| 6 | the relief that the assignee and his professionals are |\n| 7 | getting, they're getting that only if Your Honor determines |\n| | |\n| 8 | that this -- these entities are alter egos of the debtor. |\n| 9 | If not, they're not getting that.
And at that stage, people |\n| 10 | will be free to say, oh, I'm an admin creditor of the |\n| 11 | estate; let me explain to you why.
And we'll determine that |\n| 12 | at that time. |\n| 13 | But this is not today the proper (indiscernible) |\n| 14 | or process to have the claims of people who would like to be |\n| 15 | recognized as admin -- eventual admin claimants.
That's not |\n| 16 | the proper context. |\n| 17 | But I'll -- on that note, Your Honor, I'll cede |\n| 18 | the podium to my colleagues. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Let me ask you one question about what |\n| 20 | you just explained as a resolution of the release issues and |\n| 21 | the exculpation issues.
You're saying that you'll agree to |\n| 22 | limit the release language to say that the trustee will |\n| 23 | agree only estate claims against the assignee are released |\n| 24 | and that if any -- |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
And his professionals.
Yes. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 155 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
155 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
What? |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
And his professionals. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
And his professionals.
Okay.
And |\n| 4 | that if any party has a claim -- what they believe is a |\n| 5 | claim against the assignee and his professionals, they have |\n| 6 | to bring that claim before this Court? |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Or file a motion before the Court |\n| 8 | saying I want to be authorized to bring that claim in -- |\n| 9 | wherever they want to bring it, in New York state court, and |\n| 10 | let me explain to the Court why that claim that I have -- |\n| 11 | this is the creditor speaking now -- is not covered by the |\n| 12 | release that the trustee gave to the -- to these folks. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Then how do these creditors know that? |\n| 14 | How are they going to know that? |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
Well, in the notice that they would |\n| 16 | get -- again, this only happens in the third phase.
If Your |\n| 17 | Honor rules that these entities are alter egos of the |\n| 18 | debtor, at that point there would be a notice given that |\n| 19 | says that any -- and we can work on the language -- but that |\n| 20 | any creditor that believes that they have such a claim need |\n| 21 | to file first a motion with this Court to be authorized to |\n| 22 | bring any such claim. |\n| 23 | That's a minimum -- you know, frankly, in terms of |\n| 24 | due process, it -- it's a very light impediment to them |\n| 25 | exercising their rights and -- because, at the end of the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 156 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
156 |\n| 1 | day, it's very likely that all these claims are derivative |\n| 2 | claims and, therefore, that we own those claims.
And that's |\n| 3 | why it's important to have that gatekeeper function, Your |\n| 4 | Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
How does the proposed -- let's -- if |\n| 6 | you are successful and the motion to compromise is granted, |\n| 7 | how does the proposed order at this point address that |\n| 8 | issue -- |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
We would -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
-- that you -- |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
We need to submit new language to |\n| 12 | Your Honor.
But, basically, I would say ignore the sections |\n| 13 | that -- on exculpation on channeling that you have before |\n| 14 | you now.
We will submit one provision that says the |\n| 15 | trustee -- if the Court grants the relief, we call that |\n| 16 | the -- in the dispositive motion, meaning the summary |\n| 17 | judgment or whatever motion we bring -- the trustee will |\n| 18 | release, add that point, all claims against the assignee and |\n| 19 | his professionals. |\n| 20 | And the Court will, at that point, enter an |\n| 21 | order -- or, you know, of course, subject to Your Honor's |\n| 22 | consent, would enter an order saying that any creditor |\n| 23 | wishing to assert a claim against the assignee or his |\n| 24 | professionals must first file a motion before this Court to |\n| 25 | be authorized to do so, so that the Court can determine |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 157 whether the claims to be asserted are claims that are derivative, meaning that are still owned by the estate, or a direct claim of these creditors, something along those lines. Again, I hesitate to give too much language, because counsel for the assignee has not reviewed this language. But those are the concepts, Your Honor. So, obviously, we need to submit a new order to Your Honor. You know, there's no doubt about that. THE COURT: All right. But for right now, your proposal addresses the United States Trustee's objections? MR. DESPINS: Well, no. THE COURT: Oh, she's shaking her head. MR. DESPINS: No, I don't -- I said that we resolved this with the assignee. THE COURT: It doesn't resolve it with the U.S. Trustee. Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: It does resolve the U.S. Trustee's concerns with response to the release. The estate is authorized to propose a release of whoever it wants to release. And it's up to the Court as to whether or not that's appropriate. We're not arguing that point. What we were arguing about was whether or not you could release other claims that belong to third parties who are not the estate Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 157 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 158 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
158 |\n| 1 | and not the debtor.
So that issue, I think, can be dealt |\n| 2 | with by language and can be resolved. |\n| 3 | The issue as to the proposed mechanism for the |\n| 4 | Court to be a gatekeeper, I don't have any authority to |\n| 5 | consent to that at this point.
I need to see the language |\n| 6 | and discuss it with the U.S. Trustee and circle back to the |\n| 7 | Court and to the parties. |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
But, again, I think that we're far |\n| 9 | away from the channeling injunction where it was mandatory |\n| 10 | that any claims be brought here for -- on the merits. |\n| 11 | Basically, it's solely a gatekeeper function.
And I believe |\n| 12 | that there are precedents for courts doing that, so. |\n| 13 | But, anyway, if I could have my colleague address |\n| 14 | other -- I mean, unless you have other questions, Your |\n| 15 | Honor.
There are other objectors, and that raises -- raised |\n| 16 | issues.
And I'd like my colleague to address these points |\n| 17 | if possible. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I'm just looking to see if I have any |\n| 19 | other questions.
I don't have any other questions at the |\n| 20 | moment, but that doesn't mean I might not, depending upon |\n| 21 | what else is -- |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
So I'll -- if -- I'll ask Mr. Luft |\n| 23 | to come to the podium to address -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, may I approach? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 159 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 159 THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. DESPINS: Actually, Your Honor, there's one point I -- this is purely procedural before Mr. Luft comes up. Mr. Goldman asked me whether the committee could have a review right regarding the fees of the assignee's professionals, and that was agreed to. THE COURT: With the assignee as well? MR. DESPINS: Just the assignee's professionals. Because the assignee, there's nothing to review. It's a -- meaning the -- THE COURT: No, but you -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: But the -- MR. DESPINS: They agreed to that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. DESPINS: I apologize. I didn't understand your question. The second point is that Mr. Luft accurately described the provision saying that the funds would be invested in treasuries. That's the current version. But we need to modify that -- and, again, the assignee has agreed to this -- to provide that we can also keep it in the trustee Section 345 accounts. Because, to make a long story short, after we told the bank that we were going to take the money and invest it in treasuries, they said, well, you know, guess what, we'll\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 160 offer you 4.95 percent, which is just like a quarter point or half a point less than treasuries. And that's in a 345 account. So we decided to -- THE COURT: You mean U.S. Bank offered you that? Is that what you're saying? MR. DESPINS: No. A bank -- THE COURT: Oh. MR. DESPINS: -- but not U.S. Bank. Not this U.S. Bank. But the bank that holds the other trustee accounts in the case. THE COURT: Okay. Got it. MR. DESPINS: And they've agreed to give us -- THE COURT: The estate trustee accounts. MR. DESPINS: -- 4.95 percent, which is pretty -- it's not marketing for them, but that's a pretty high interest rate. And it's a Section 345 account. So the U.S. Trustee is happy. So the point is that we need to modify that section to allow for the money to be deposited in such accounts. But that -- those are the only two procedural points I wanted to make. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Avi Luft again from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. I will try to be brief, because I realize it is getting late. Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 160 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 161 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
161 |\n| 1 | I will go in order in which it was discussed. |\n| 2 | Your Honor, with regard to the comments made by the -- what |\n| 3 | I've referred to as the Himalaya objectors, I want to focus |\n| 4 | just on two things really.
The first is that nowhere in |\n| 5 | there was there any discussion of the Iridium factors or |\n| 6 | that, in fact, this is not in the best interest of the |\n| 7 | debtor's estate.
And that's really what we're here for on a |\n| 8 | 9019 settlement. |\n| 9 | In fact, I didn't hear that from anybody.
And to |\n| 10 | be honest, I think that really is where the analysis should |\n| 11 | be focused. |\n| 12 | Beyond that, Your Honor, I do want to just |\n| 13 | comment.
There was a lot of language thrown around about |\n| 14 | people being \"completely disenfranchised\" and suggestions |\n| 15 | that they won't be able to have claims.
That's just not how |\n| 16 | this settlement is structured, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | To the extent the trustee prevails in the |\n| 18 | adversary proceeding with regard to either alter ego and/or |\n| 19 | equitable ownership, to the extent people are valid |\n| 20 | creditors of the HCHK entities, then they will have an |\n| 21 | opportunity to bring claims in this case subject to the |\n| 22 | trustee making his application to reopen the deadline for |\n| 23 | filing claims, which is already provided for in the order. |\n| 24 | And to the extent the trustee is to lose, then the money is |\n| 25 | returned to the assignee.
In which case, they're in -- no |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 162 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 162 worse off. So all this language with regard to people being disenfranchised or losing claims just isn't true. And I think in the papers that they filed, the reality kind of is there. There's a reference to the fact that what they really think is unfair is that in the New York state court case they would have only been competing with other creditors of HCHK, but if the trustee is to prevail on his alter ego claims then they will be subject -- equal with the other creditors of the debtor. But that's actually quite fair, Your Honor. If we are right that HCHK entities are alter egos of the debtor, then creditors of one -- of one aspect of the debtor's estate is -- should be treated the exact same as creditors of other aspects of the estate. So with that, Your Honor, unless you have questions, I'll move on to the others. THE COURT: I have no questions. MR. LUFT: Thank you. With regard to Mr. Sherman's statement, he made a brief reference that we did not specifically disagree with him that his claim is an admin claim. Your Honor, what I said in my opening statement was that I thought it was premature to deal with what -- these claims. And just so we're clear, I would not take the fact\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 163 that I did not get into the details as to whether or not it is an admin claim as any type of agreement that it is. I think when the time and the place is right, it could be submitted. It could be considered. THE COURT: Well, when would the time and the place be right? I'm just asking. MR. LUFT: Yeah, Your Honor. That's completely fair. I think, should we prevail on the adversary proceeding and it is determined that we are -- that the HCHK assets are part of the debtor's estate, then I think any creditors of the debtor, whether through HCHK or otherwise, here I think Mr. Sherman or whoever else, can come forward and say I have a claim, and they can assert it. THE COURT: But what if it's an administrative claim? MR. LUFT: Your Honor, in terms of the timing, I still think that would probably be the right time just because prior -- THE COURT: Okay. I'm just asking, because there is -- MR. LUFT: No, it's completely fair. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. LUFT: Look, Mr. Sherman's free to raise it to us now. We can talk about it. I just don't think it has any bearing on the settlement. Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 163 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 164 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
164 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | As I -- the only thing I'll finish with is, to the |\n| 2 | extent we were to lose, then the money would go back to the |\n| 3 | assignee, and then he would have to make the judgments, |\n| 4 | which is why I time it to awaiting that judgment. |\n| 5 | With regard to G News, I'll simply say, look, |\n| 6 | there is no obligation because you settle a claim with one |\n| 7 | party to settle all claims that any party may have.
Again, |\n| 8 | this is a settlement that was reached -- with the assignee |\n| 9 | and the trustee.
That's whose claims are being addressed. |\n| 10 | I don't think the fact that that is happening in |\n| 11 | any way prejudices G News.
Again, we will deal with their |\n| 12 | claim at the appropriate time. |\n| 13 | Finally, with regard to G Club, I just want to |\n| 14 | make a few comments.
First of all, I'll note they're not a |\n| 15 | creditor, Your Honor.
It's not exactly clear on what |\n| 16 | grounds they are objecting to this settlement. |\n| 17 | I will note specifically there was no mention with |\n| 18 | regard to the language I highlighted which is in their |\n| 19 | proposal in paragraph 6 of their notice that we may only |\n| 20 | look at documents pertaining \"only to the HCHK entities.\" |\n| 21 | As I said, the inclusion of that language which they added |\n| 22 | and which they did not address now very likely could create |\n| 23 | a null set of what documents the trustee may see.
I don't |\n| 24 | think it's appropriate.
Nor do they seem to have a response |\n| 25 | with regard to it. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 165 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 165 With regard to this idea that HCHK controls all their emails and all their IT, I'll note that despite what is now going on seven, perhaps eight, months this -- this notice was the first time we've heard that HCHK -- or in the last weeks the first time we've heard that HCHK's emails were, in fact, all controlled by a third party and that HCHK ran it all. We've never heard that from G Club when they had -- were asked to produce their documents for months. They now raise privilege and confidentiality issues. I don't see how they can do that. They didn't object when the assignee was sent the documents. They didn't seem to have a problem with HCHK having their documents. And they didn't seem to have an objection to the idea of the assignee selling it all to G News and letting them have all their documents. You know, I think to the extent there ever was any privilege or confidentiality concerns, of which I have questions, those are -- in my view have been waived. It seems that everyone else is allowed to see these documents. It'd be appropriate for the trustee. Finally, with regard to the notion your -- the Court asked questions with regard to the MSA and what provisions you asked. It is quite possible that the MSA was produced to us along with the other documents. Certainly, no provision in the MSA was highlighted to us. No language\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 166 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
166 |\n| 1 | was shown to us.
Nor was any included in this agreement |\n| 2 | indicating what was being allegedly violated or otherwise. |\n| 3 | Again, I think the most appropriate thing is to |\n| 4 | let the trustee, just like the assignee, put them in the |\n| 5 | same position.
Let them have the documents of HCHK.
Let |\n| 6 | them use it for -- to the extent they need to review it.
If |\n| 7 | there are G Club documents included within that, then that |\n| 8 | was always the case.
It didn't seem to be a problem before. |\n| 9 | It shouldn't be a problem now. |\n| 10 | Your Honor, if you have any questions, I'm happy |\n| 11 | to answer them. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I have no questions.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 15 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Irve Goldman |\n| 16 | for the committee.
I just wanted to express our support for |\n| 17 | the settlement the trustee has proposed.
We appreciate the |\n| 18 | alacrity and aggressiveness with which the trustee has been |\n| 19 | able to halt the state court proceedings and bring the |\n| 20 | assets that were subject to those proceedings when the -- |\n| 21 | within the protective umbrella of the Chapter 11 process. |\n| 22 | And these are assets that could have been -- could have |\n| 23 | evaded the reach of the estate.
Not that they've been |\n| 24 | determined to be property of the estate yet, but at least |\n| 25 | they've come before the Court for that determination. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 167 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
167 |\n| 1 | Of course, this Court has the exclusive |\n| 2 | jurisdiction over property of the estate, and I would submit |\n| 3 | exclusive jurisdiction to determine what is property of the |\n| 4 | estate.
And that's what this settlement does.
As the |\n| 5 | assignee mentioned, this is just a forum-shifting settlement |\n| 6 | which actually channels whatever claims there were in the |\n| 7 | assignment proceedings into this Court, preserves all the |\n| 8 | claims that could be asserted.
No one is getting |\n| 9 | disenfranchised. |\n| 10 | You know, we -- as to the estate release, that's a |\n| 11 | business judgment standard.
And we are supportive of that |\n| 12 | if it means approving the entire settlement. |\n| 13 | On the gatekeeping function, I think it's a common |\n| 14 | feature for courts to apply when a direct claim is dressed |\n| 15 | up -- well, rather a derivative claim is dressed up as a |\n| 16 | direct claim.
And so this type of gatekeeping function is |\n| 17 | commonly utilized so that creditors aren't able to do that, |\n| 18 | and the Court will be the ultimate arbiter of what is a |\n| 19 | direct claim and what is a derivative claim so that those |\n| 20 | derivative claims dressed up as direct claims can't just go |\n| 21 | off in various courts filing suit until the Court at least |\n| 22 | determines that they're legitimately direct claims. |\n| 23 | So with that, the committee does support the |\n| 24 | settlement as modified in the way that has been articulated |\n| 25 | to the Court. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 168 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. PASTORE: I know it's late, so I'll be brief. I have deep respect for my good friend, Mr. Goldman, and -- but I wanted to highlight one word he just used, which is \"halt.\" THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I'm sorry. I need your name. I didn't get that name. MR. PASTORE: Oh, I'm sorry. Joseph Pastore for the -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: -- HCHK creditors. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Halt. I think that's an important word. So what we have here is we have no finding of alter ego, no finding that any of the creditors are worthy of impugnment, but we're going to halt a proceeding in New York without anyone finding that what -- the assignee was in the best interest of those creditors he was assigned to protect, which is the New York court's role, and then tell those creditors that they can't bring any lawsuits against the assignee for his actions unless it's approved by this Court. I think always a fan of the due process clause, Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 168 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 169 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
169 |\n| 1 | always a fan of, you know, findings of -- conclusions of law |\n| 2 | and findings of fact.
You have none of that here.
Yet, my |\n| 3 | clients' rights are all being disenfranchised, clearly. |\n| 4 | At a minimum -- we do appreciate the U.S. |\n| 5 | Attorney's objections to the injunction.
I think that's -- |\n| 6 | had to be said for sure.
And I think I said it.
At a |\n| 7 | minimum, we'd request the right to look at any proposed |\n| 8 | order changing that language and comment on it if necessary. |\n| 9 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | MR. JARECK:
Your Honor, one final? |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Yes.
Go right ahead. |\n| 13 | MR. JARECK:
For the record, Ryan Jareck, Cole |\n| 14 | Schotz PC, on behalf of the assignee.
Your Honor, it's |\n| 15 | actually perfect timing, because my comment deals with what |\n| 16 | Mr. Pastore said earlier in his presentation that this |\n| 17 | settlement is ultra vires and violates New York law. |\n| 18 | And when saying that, he cites to his own brief, |\n| 19 | paragraph 58, which is, again, another section from the New |\n| 20 | York debtor and creditor law.
And what that says is \"The |\n| 21 | judge may, upon application of the assignee, authorize the |\n| 22 | assignee to sell, compromise, or compound any claim or debt |\n| 23 | belonging to the estate of the debtor.\" |\n| 24 | Again, Your Honor, this is a complete mis-cite. |\n| 25 | This is not what we're doing.
We're not selling.
We're not |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 170 compromising. We are simply shifting the funds to another fiduciary under the control of this Court. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. FORNOS: Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Yes. MS. FORNOS: Just briefly, Your Honor. G Club Operations has not waived any of its rights. As the Court may recall, I specifically mentioned the issue of HCHK at the last hearing. I teed it up. I also contacted Mr. Jareck on June 19th regarding this issue and return of our confidential information. I also contacted Mr. Jareck and Mr. Lutz as well on July 5th and provided them a copy of the master services agreement. Our position is very simple. We can address the proposed order in the way that the Court feels appropriate. The issue is simply that the trustee cannot just do an end-run around discovery and step into the shoes of a company that hasn't even been determined to be an alter ego, hasn't been substantively consolidated with this estate, and all of a sudden step in and say these are all our documents now, we can -- get to have them. So we respectfully request that the Court consider our request that they -- that the trustee does not get a right to do that. Rather, they should be returned to G Club Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 170 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 171 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
171 |\n| 1 | Operations so that G Club Operations can review for |\n| 2 | responsiveness and privilege and produce accordingly.
Thank |\n| 3 | you, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 5 | MS. FORNOS:
Any other questions from the Court? |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
No.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | MS. FORNOS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
So the motion to compromise |\n| 9 | controversy was filed both in the main case at ECF Number |\n| 10 | 1936 and in the Adversary Proceeding 23-5013 at ECF Number |\n| 11 | 25.
And our local rules of bankruptcy procedure require |\n| 12 | that any motion to compromise in an adversary proceeding |\n| 13 | also be filed in the main case so that notice and service of |\n| 14 | the motion to compromise is provided to all parties. |\n| 15 | The motion -- the notice and service of the motion |\n| 16 | and the hearing on the motion was properly made as |\n| 17 | established by the record in the main case and in the |\n| 18 | adversary proceeding and the certificate of services -- the |\n| 19 | certificates, excuse me, of service that relate to the |\n| 20 | motion in the main case and the motion in the adversary. |\n| 21 | The parties -- certain parties filed objections to |\n| 22 | the motion to compromise, all of whom have appeared at this |\n| 23 | hearing today, including the Himalaya parties represented by |\n| 24 | Attorney Pastore, Attorney Sherman representing himself with |\n| 25 | regard to a claim of -- that he is entitled to an |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 172 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 | 172 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n| 1 | administrative claim from the HCHK parties.
Counsel for G | |\n| 2 | News filed an objection again asserting that there is -- G | |\n| 3 | News has a right to an administrative claim and requests a | |\n| 4 | mechanism be implemented for administrative claims. | |\n| | | |\n\n And then counsel for G Club Operations filed notice which counsel has articulated, and the concern is that the trustee is entering into this settlement agreement in order to obtain documents through discovery that it might not be able to obtain until G Club Operations has its documents returned from the HCHK Technologies entities. And then G Club can undertake its review of those documents and determine what, if any, of those documents can be produced subject to whatever privilege G Club could try to assert.\n\n But I remind G Club and the trustee that apparently with regard to the other discovery sought against G Club -- and I'm not saying that this settlement is discovery, but that's the view of G Club Operations -- that the protective order and confidentiality provisions and orders already in place in the main case apparently have addressed the issues that the Court raised with regard to the pending motion to -- for contempt and to compel the production of documents from G Club.\n\n Also, the United States Trustee filed a limited objection. I understand the limited objections of the United States Trustee. And Mr. Kwok through his counsel,\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 173 of
180 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
173 |\n| Mr. Moriarty, has taken no position on the motion to |\n| compromise. |\n| Apparently -- it's more than apparent.
As stated |\n| on the record, the trustee has agreed to limit the releases |\n| set forth in the -- any order on the motion to compromise to |\n| estate -- an estate release.
And that release will only |\n| occur if the third stage of the settlement is reached.
And |\n| that will only happen after the Court makes a ruling on |\n| whether or not the alter ego claims and -- are decided in |\n| favor of the trustee. |\n| Because the discussions and representations and |\n| suggestions made on the record by the trustee and other |\n| counsel, including the Office of the United States Trustee |\n| and the creditors' committee and counsel for the assignee, |\n| are somewhat different than proposed before the hearing, I'm |\n| going to continue this hearing but solely for a week and |\n| only to see what the proposed order approving a settlement |\n| looks like with the changes noted on the record today.
All |\n| parties' objections have been noted for the record.
There's |\n| no need for any further objection by any of the parties who |\n| filed objections.
And the Court isn't going to consider any |\n| further objections. |\n| But I will order the trustee's counsel to revise |\n| that proposed order along the lines that were stated on the |\n| record today and serve it on all objecting parties.
And I'd |\n| |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 174 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
174 |\n| 1 | like that done by 5 p.m. on July 13th so that when we come |\n| 2 | back here to a hearing next week I know what, if any, |\n| 3 | problems there may be with regard to the provisions of a |\n| 4 | proposed order approving the settlement. |\n| 5 | I am not ruling on whether -- right at this moment |\n| 6 | on whether this motion to compromise is granted or not |\n| 7 | granted.
I am suggesting that the parties need to have some |\n| 8 | discussions about the proposed order.
I'm going to take a |\n| 9 | look at proposed order and, with it, the revisions as noted. |\n| 10 | And then next week, I will either say that the |\n| 11 | matter is ripe for decision, I will decide, or I will insist |\n| 12 | that, I suppose, other things could be included in the |\n| 13 | order.
But I'm not ruling at this time.
I will go back and |\n| 14 | review everyone's pleadings, and I will review them in the |\n| 15 | light of the arguments that were made during the hearing |\n| 16 | today. |\n| 17 | But the hearing itself with regard to the |\n| 18 | substantive motion, the relief sought in the motion and the |\n| 19 | objections, there'll be no need for any further hearing.
I |\n| 20 | want to see what this order looks like, and I want to |\n| 21 | understand it. |\n| 22 | So, Trustee Despins, when your office serves the |\n| 23 | order on everyone at 3 p.m. -- I'm sorry, 5 p.m. on the |\n| 24 | 13th, I'd like you to put it on the docket of the main case |\n| 25 | and the adversary proceeding as well.
That'll give the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 175 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
175 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Court time to review it and prior to the continued hearing, |\n| 2 | which we will schedule -- there are already other matters |\n| 3 | scheduled in the case and the adversary proceedings on July |\n| 4 | 18th starting at 12 p.m.
And I will schedule this -- I will |\n| 5 | continue the hearing solely with regard to the proposed |\n| 6 | order.
And I will schedule it for 2 p.m. |\n| 7 | And the reason I say 2 p.m. is because, right now, |\n| 8 | on next week's calendar, the original pretrial conference in |\n| | |\n| 9 | the Genever Holdings vs. AIG Property Casualty adversary |\n| 10 | proceeding is scheduled.
And given that we're going to have |\n| 11 | two days of -- or possibly two days of evidentiary hearing |\n| 12 | with the -- in the AIG adversary proceeding starting |\n| 13 | tomorrow, there's no need for a pretrial conference next |\n| 14 | week.
I'll know what's going on.
And I'm not going to |\n| 15 | bring the parties into the court on a pretrial conference |\n| 16 | when that's not necessary. |\n| 17 | So this -- so the hearings on -- in the main case |\n| 18 | on ECF 1936, the motion to compromise, and the hearing in |\n| 19 | Adversary 23-5013 on ECF 25, motion to compromise, are |\n| 20 | continued to July 18th at 2 p.m.
And I'm not going to enter |\n| 21 | a formal scheduling order with regard to the filing and |\n| 22 | service of the revised proposed order, because I'm ordering |\n| 23 | it on the record. |\n| 24 | Does anybody have any question about that? |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Just one question, Your Honor.
If |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 176 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
176 |\n| 1 | a party has a problem with the proposed order, is there a |\n| 2 | deadline by which the Court would like comments? |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
We're going to talk about it at the |\n| 4 | hearing next -- well -- |\n| 5 | MS. CLAIBORN:
No, I know.
For a written response |\n| 6 | if one is -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I would give everyone an ability to |\n| 8 | file a written response by 5 p.m. on Friday, July 14th. |\n| 9 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Now, no other party that -- the only |\n| 11 | parties that are -- I'm going to entertain any kind of |\n| 12 | written response is going to be parties that have already |\n| 13 | filed an objection.
Anybody that hasn't already filed an |\n| 14 | objection is already beyond the deadline, number one. |\n| 15 | Number two, this hearing next week is not -- we're |\n| 16 | not going to go over the same issues we've already gone |\n| 17 | over.
I've gone -- we've gone through them.
I understand |\n| 18 | the parties' respective positions, and I'll rule based -- at |\n| 19 | some point, whether it be at the hearing, after the hearing, |\n| 20 | whatever I see with regard to your revised proposed order |\n| 21 | and any responses.
But the hearing is going to be limited |\n| 22 | to those issues. |\n| 23 | Does anyone have any questions? |\n| 24 | MR. PASTORE:
Just a quick statement.
I've got a |\n| 25 | settlement conference in federal court in New Jersey at |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 177 2 p.m. that day. Ms. McClammy can handle this hearing. I just wanted the Court to know. No disrespect, but I will be -- THE COURT: That's fine. Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Yeah. THE COURT: I appreciate that. MR. PASTORE: Yeah. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, do you have any flexibility as to the time? For example, could it be later, like maybe 3:30 or 4:00? THE COURT: Sure. I mean, if that's what people want to do. But you've got to get everybody's agreement on that. MR. DESPINS: Oh, well -- THE COURT: If everybody agrees, that's fine. I mean, I'm not going to go later than 4 p.m., though. The court staff -- I have no idea what everybody's going to say. Maybe they'll be -- maybe there won't be a problem. But the court staff -- I -- you know, I -- they like to go home at night, which I can understand. MR. ARCARO: Your Honor, just one question for the Court. THE COURT: Yes. MR. ARCARO : To the extent that the revised order that's submitted to the Court -- we -- there's no -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 177 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 178 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 178 THE COURT: It's going to be docketed, so everybody that has an appearance will get it via -- I'm not sure if that was your question. But you will get it via CM/ECF. MR. ARCARO: My question is that Your Honor is giving the opportunity to file a response to that proposed order. THE COURT: By Friday at -- July 14th at 5 p.m. MR. ARCARO: If no response is filed, are objections considered waived? THE COURT: No. Your objections will still be considered. I haven't ruled yet, right? MR. ARCARO: Your Honor, thank you. Thank you. THE COURT: So sorry if that wasn't clear. I will consider everyone's objections. MR. ARCARO: Very well. Thank you. THE COURT: But I want to see how this revised proposed order is going to look given what we all talked about -- I didn't talk about it, but what you all talked about today and what your presentations were on your respective objections. MR. ARCARO: Thank you very much. THE COURT: So, no, it's not -- you're not waiving any objection that has been timely filed. They will be considered.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 179 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
179 |\n| 1 | MR. ARCARO:
Very well. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
But I want to see where we get on the |\n| 3 | revised proposed order as well. |\n| 4 | MR. ARCARO:
Very well.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay?
Thank you. |\n| 6 | All right.
So the courtroom deputy will note |\n| 7 | probably later today or -- not today, tomorrow that that |\n| 8 | pretrial conference next week in the AIG adversary will just |\n| 9 | be continued to a date to be determined. |\n| 10 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 12 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Yes. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
And I believe we're starting with the |\n| 14 | evidentiary hearing with the AIG adversary proceeding at 10 |\n| 15 | a.m. tomorrow.
Is that correct? |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Then I -- we have concluded all |\n| 18 | the matters on today's calendar.
For those reasons, court |\n| 19 | is adjourned.
Thank you, all. |\n| 20 | IN UNISON:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
All rise.
Court is |\n| 22 | adjourned. |\n| 23 | (Proceedings concluded at 4:46 p.m.) |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2023
Filed 07/21/23
Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42
Page 180 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
180 |\n| 1 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and |\n| 2 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that |\n| 3 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official |\n| 4 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the |\n| 5 | above-entitled matter. |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | July 20, 2023 |\n| 9 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司），\n\n债务人。\n\nU.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION（美国银行全国协会），作为托管代理人，\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司），\n\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n对抗程序案号：22-05313\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\nJuly 11, 2023\n\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.（HCHK科技公司）等，\n\n被告。\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官\n美国联邦破产法官面前的庭审记录\n\n庭审通过电子录音记录，庭审笔录由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录及庭审笔录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n以下事项的庭审笔录\n\n#1749 聘用 AFFILIATES ADJUSTMENT GROUP, LTD.（关联理算集团有限公司）担任公共保险理算师的申请\n\n#1805 请求强制遵守 Rule 2004 传票的动议（第二项综合动议）（限于涉及 HUDSON DIAMOND 实体的部分）\n\n#1903 由 A. ROMNEY 提交的撤任律师动议\n\n#28 简易判决动议\n\n#1936 就与 BRIAN W. HOFMEISTER（布赖恩·W·霍夫迈斯特）达成争议和解的动议；其作为 HCHK 实体债权人利益受让人，依据纽约州法院让与程序行事\n\n#25 就与 BRIAN W. HOFMEISTER（布赖恩·W·霍夫迈斯特）达成争议和解的动议；其作为 HCHK 实体债权人利益受让人，依据纽约州法院让与程序行事\n3131 PRINCETON PIKE\nBLDG. 5, STE 110\nLAWRENCEVILLE, NJ 08648\n\n出庭人员：\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nNICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ.\nAVRAM E. LUFT, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.\nOffice of the U.S. Trustee\n150 Court Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表 HK International Funds Investments, LLC、Mei Guo 及 Hudson Diamond：\nERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.\nJAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ.\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表原告 HK International Funds 及 Mei Guo：\nLEE VARTAN, ESQ.\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC\n105 Eisenhauer Pkwy\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n\n代表受让人 Brian W. Hofmeister：\nRYAN T. JARECK, ESQ.\nCole Schotz P.C.\n25 Main Street\nCourt Plaza North\nHackensack, NJ 07601\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n代表 HCHK Technologies 的多名债权人：\nJOSEPH M. PASTORE, III, ESQ.\nMELISSA R. McCLAMMY, ESQ.\nPastore, LLC\n4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor\nStamford, CT 06905\n\n代表 Joshua Sherman：\nJOSHUA SHERMAN, ESQ.\nHCHK Technologies, Inc.\n303 5th Avenue #1705\nNew York, NY 10016\n\n代表 G Club News Operations, LLC：\nGREGORY F. ARCARO, ESQ.\nGRAFSTEIN & ARCARO, LLC\n114 W. Main Street, Suite 105\nNew Britain, CT 06051\n\n代表 G Club Operations, LLC：\nKELLIANE BARANOWSKY, ESQ.\nGreen & Sklarz, LLC\n1 Audubon Street, 3rd Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n\nCAROLINA A. FORNOS, ESQ.\nPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman\n31 West 52nd Street\nNew York, NY 10019\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 5\n\n1 （庭审于下午12:33开始。）\n\n2 法庭书记员：\n案号22-50073，Ho\n3 Wan Kwok及Genever Holdings, LLC。对抗程序案号——\n4 抱歉，23-5012，U.S. Bank National Association诉HK\n5 Funds Limited。另有，案号23——对抗程序案号\n6 23-5013，Despins诉HCHK Technologies, Inc.\n\n7 法庭：\n好的。下午好。请\n8 各方为记录目的陈述出庭身份，先由第\n9 11章受托人开始。\n\n10 DESPINS先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Luc\n11 Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n12 BASSETT先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Nick\n13 Bassett，来自Paul Hastings，代表第11章\n14 受托人。\n\n15 LINSEY先生：\n下午好，Patrick Linsey，\n16 受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n17 CLAIBORN女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Holley\n18 Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\n19 GOLDMAN先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Irve\n20 Goldman，来自Pullman & Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n\n21 MORIARTY先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。James\n22 Moriarty，来自Zeisler & Zeisler，代表债务人，亦代表\n23 案卷23-05012中的HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC。\n24 \n\n25 ROMNEY先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Aaron\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n第6页，共180页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 6\n\nRomney，代表相同当事方，并代表Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC。今日我还就法庭的说明理由令，以本人身份出庭。我还想记入记录，Vartan律师因极其严重的交通拥堵受阻。他应当随时会到。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n谢谢。\n\nHENZY先生：\nEric Henzy，代表债务人，并且可能也代表Romney先生。\n\n法庭：\n债务人Kwok先生？\n\nHENZY先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nHENZY先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\nVartan律师？\n\nVARTAN先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Lee Vartan，亦代表Mei Guo和HK USA。\n\n法庭：\n下午好。\n\nVARTAN先生：\n下午好。\n\n法庭：\n好的。Despins受托人，今日日程表上有若干事项。我们刚刚完成出庭身份陈述。您希望今日如何进行？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我们曾向Romney先生承诺先处理他的事项，因此，除非法庭另有偏好，我们接受该顺序。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n第7页，共180页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 7\n\nROMNEY先生：\n法官阁下，容我作进一步说明？我有一趟晚上7:00从拉瓜迪亚机场出发的航班，明天要前往亚特兰大进行证言录取，我正非常努力地赶上该航班。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么我们将按该方式进行。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n实际上，法官阁下，如果我——或许先用五分钟处理公共保险理算师的聘用事项。Luft先生也——也因交通拥堵受阻。他正在路上。应当会到。\n\nROMNEY先生：\n我想他大约五分钟后会到。如果到我们处理完这一事项时他还未到，其他人可以处理撤任动议。如果Luft先生未到，我将处理撤任动议。但这大概需要五分钟。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n公共保险理算师的聘用事项。\n\n法庭：\n好的。是否有任何——Romney先生，如果我们——您是否反对？\n\nROMNEY先生：\n不，当然不反对。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nROMNEY先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么我们先处理主案中ECF编号1749的聘用公共保险理算师申请。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n正确，法官阁下。您可能已经注意到，我们在案卷编号1992提交了一份修订后的聘用命令，因为我们收到了美国受托人的意见，因此在1992中，您既有清洁版本，也有显示修改内容的版本。1992第10页及——第11页中的——抱歉，是第11页中的第10页，对吗？您可以看到修改内容。基本上，是为了澄清其报酬。稍作背景说明，这涉及The Sherry Netherland发生的火灾。公司或业主经常聘请公共保险理算师与保险公司协商和解。您可能会说，保险公司尚未达成和解。说得对。但是，可能会有进入和解模式的时候。在此，聘用完全以风险代理为基础。因此，没有和解，就没有报酬。而且，此人实际上在协助我准备例如债权证明等材料方面非常有帮助。您实际上需要向保险公司提交索赔表格。我们就——他就清理费用等等提交了该表格。因此，尽管我们一度认为现在要将该聘用事项暂缓，但现在越来越明显，我们需要此人完成与索赔评估相关的各项——您知道的，所有需要完成的具体工作。鉴于\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n第8页，共180页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 8\n\n这一点，再次强调，除非从保险公司获得追偿，否则他不会获得任何报酬，我们认为——您知道，继续进行是适当的，因为对聘用他的实体Genever US没有风险。并且，为记录目的说明报酬，基本上，对于首个3 million或以下部分为5 percent，另加对于超过3 million至15 million的任何收回和解款项为4 percent，另加对于超过15 million至50 million的任何收回和解款项为3 percent。我们还作出一项更正，说明公共保险理算师——其简称为AAGL——不会持有根据该等保险单收回的任何和解款项。这是美国受托人希望作出的修改，因此我们作出了该修改。目前，PAX曾提出异议，该异议已撤回。我们一直就此与PAX合作，并且很高兴其撤回异议。目前，我们希望——在不影响法官阁下就该命令可能提出任何意见的前提下——继续进行该聘用。\n\n法庭：\n目前我没有任何意见或问题。Claiborn律师，您希望陈述意见吗？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n1 CLAIBORN女士：\n谢谢，法官阁下。经修订并在ECF 1992提交的命令\n2 解决了美国受托人的\n3 关切。\n\n4 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n5 并且，我注意到，显然，该申请\n6 同时依据327(a)和328提出，因为目前已确定\n7 报酬，即报酬安排。\n8 是否还有其他人希望就\n9 该申请——受托人聘用\n10 公共保险理算师Affiliated Adjustment Group, LTD.的申请——陈述意见？好的。\n11 未听到任何意见，我未看到任何书面异议，\n12 除PAX的异议外；我为记录目的指出，\n13 该异议已撤回。\n14 美国受托人刚刚陈述其\n15 立场，即其支持该申请，\n16 并支持昨日在案卷中提交的经修订拟议命令，\n17 即ECF编号1992，该命令解决了\n18 美国受托人的所有关切。\n19 我理解您寻求该聘用的理由，\n20 Despins受托人，而且在本案情形下，这显然\n21 似乎是合理的。基于所有\n22 上述理由，准许聘用Affiliated\n23 Adjustment Group担任公共保险理算师的申请，并且\n24 载于ECF编号1992第5、6及7页的拟议\n25 命令可以生效。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n1 MR. DESPINS（德斯平斯律师）：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n2 THE COURT（法庭）：\n谢谢。\n\n3 MR. DESPINS（德斯平斯律师）：\n那么目前，法官阁下，我们的同事正在路上，但我们不应为等他而延误庭审。因此，我们已准备好继续进行。\n\n6 THE COURT（法庭）：\n好的。请给我一秒钟。\n\n7 MR. DESPINS（德斯平斯律师）：\n好的。好。下一个事项——日程上有许多事项。但是，我们——Romney律师特别请求，且受托人及受托人的律师同意，接下来审理Romney律师代表已提交出庭代理声明的Hudson Diamond实体提出的撤回律师代理动议，1903。\n\n14 THE COURT（法庭）：\n我曾表示，Romney律师和Vartan律师需要于今日出庭，就该撤回代理动议作出说明。而且——两人均在法庭内。因此，Romney律师，您是否希望继续？\n\n18 MR. ROMNEY（罗姆尼律师）：\n是的，法官阁下。作一点澄清。法官阁下刚才说，这是撤回代理Hudson Diamond实体的动议。仅涉及Hudson Diamond New York实体（哈德逊钻石纽约实体），法官阁下。\n\n23 THE COURT（法庭）：\n好的。这是正确的。我确实看到了。抱歉。但我最初——最初认为涉及所有实体。但您是正确的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 12 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n感谢您为记录指出这一点。\n\nMR. ROMNEY（罗姆尼律师）：\n明白，法官阁下。法官阁下，正如应U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）要求提交的宣誓书中进一步阐述的，这是这样一种情形：我们因受托人于5月提交的强制动议，得知一份针对两个Hudson Diamond实体的传票。该强制动议确认Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）为Hudson Diamond New York的唯一成员，并附有支持该主张的文件。该动议——并寻求对两个实体作出藐视法庭裁定。\n\n截至当时，我一直知道Guo女士——即——是Hudson Diamond Holdings的唯一成员。由于多种原因，包括Chapter 11（第11章）受托人的诉状，也包括我与Guo女士进行的谈话，我得到的非常明确的印象是——Guo女士也如此认为——Hudson Diamond New York是Hudson Diamond Holdings的全资子公司。\n\n这就是我代表两个实体协商延期的原因。这就是我代表两个实体提交出庭代理声明的原因。这也是为什么，在协商延期以允许遵从后，Vartan律师和我均勤勉地尝试代表两个实体寻找文件；而这两个实体的文件均不在作为我们客户的自然人Guo女士的实际、实体占有之中。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 13 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 13\n\n在该调查/过程中，Hodgson Russ, LLP（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的总法律顾问告知我们，Guo女士并非——抱歉——Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC并非Hudson Diamond New York的唯一成员，并且当时确认，另一名在我宣誓书中指明的个人，即债务人的儿子Mileson Guo（郭米尔森），是该实体的成员。\n\n在那一刻，如我的宣誓书所述，我立即首先寻求了本所总法律顾问Henzy先生的意见，他今天与我一同出庭。我接下来所做的是致电Luft律师，告诉他我刚刚获悉，Hudson Diamond Holdings似乎并非唯一成员，且我似乎犯了错误；我打算撤回代理，因为我认为自己无权代理纽约实体，而不同于控股实体——就后者而言，我至今确信我有代理权限。\n\n我理解，根据职业行为规则第1.16(b)条，除非我获得具有实际授权之人的授权，否则我不能代理一个实体，因此必须撤回。这就是我提交撤回代理动议的原因，因为在我提交该撤回代理动议时，基于一家我认为极具声誉的律师事务所的总法律顾问所作的陈述——我相信他是诚实且品行端正的律师协会成员——使我相信我犯了错误。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 14 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n1 诚实之人和品行端正的律师协会成员，使我相信我犯了错误。\n\n3 在提交该动议之后，出现了进一步的问题，以至于我今天坐在这里时，我不知道Hudson Diamond New York的唯一成员是谁。如我的宣誓书所述，在——我相信是6月25日，Luft律师提请我注意一份附于其强制动议及藐视法庭动议的文件，该文件与我们最初的理解一致：Hudson Diamond Holdings事实上是这个纽约实体——即Hudson Diamond New York实体——的唯一成员，而Mei Guo（郭美）是Hudson Diamond Holdings的唯一成员。\n\n14 当时，Vartan律师和我联系了Hodgson Russ，该所确认他们事实上编制了该文件，而Chapter 11受托人似乎正是依赖该文件；该文件完全符合Guo女士最初的理解，即控股实体是纽约实体的母公司。他们无法解释为何他们拥有一份经营协议，该协议称债务人的儿子或其控制的实体是该实体的母公司，但他们也编制并持有一份文件，表明Guo女士的实体是该纽约实体的母公司。\n\n因为截至今日我站在这里时，完全没有把握自己拥有代理纽约实体的实际授权，我认为职业行为规则要求我继续推进该撤回代理动议。自该问题出现之日起，除我每天所做的事情——即醒来并确认我的家人安好——之外，这一直是我的第一优先事项，即收集文件或尝试寻找文件，并尝试回答这一问题，以便我今天能来这里回答法庭或任何其他人可能提出的任何问题。我已尽力而为，但这就是我今天向法庭所能提供的一切。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 15 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n1 信心认为我拥有代理纽约实体的实际授权，我认为职业行为规则要求我继续推进该撤回代理动议。自该问题出现之日起，除我每天所做的事情——即醒来并确认我的家人安好——之外，这一直是我的第一优先事项，即收集文件或尝试寻找文件，并尝试回答这一问题，以便我今天能来这里回答法庭或任何其他人可能提出的任何问题。我已尽力而为，但这就是我今天向法庭所能提供的一切。\n\n12 我所做的一切，都是为了推动这一程序，避免出现一种情形，即似乎我、本所、Guo女士或她控制的任何实体企图无视法院命令，或作出任何不属于试图遵从该命令的行为。并且，这始终是我就整个程序所采取的每一项行动的唯一动机。\n\n19 我已准备好回答法庭或在场任何其他人的任何问题，但除此之外，我请求法庭根据我的动议作出裁定。\n\n22 THE COURT（法庭）：\n那么，我将请其他当事方提出其问题，然后再看我是否有任何问题。Romney律师，您确实提交了一份——一份宣誓书，但我认为——也许是我遗漏了——Vartan律师，您提交了任何文件吗？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n1 Vartan律师，您提交了任何文件吗？\n\n2 MR. VARTAN（瓦尔坦律师）：\n没有，法官阁下。但我显然已审阅Romney律师的宣誓书，而且我——\n\n4 THE COURT（法庭）：\n嗯，这——没关系。我只是想知道您是否提交了任何文件。\n\n6 MR. VARTAN（瓦尔坦律师）：\n哦。我没有，法官阁下。\n\n7 THE COURT（法庭）：\n您为何没有提交任何文件？\n\n8 MR. VARTAN（瓦尔坦律师）：\n因为Romney先生在其宣誓书中所述的一切均与记录一致，我没有更多——\n\n11 THE COURT（法庭）：\n您难道没有义务向法庭作出陈述，而不是通过Romney律师作出吗？我的意思是，我们曾在本案不同时间讨论过的问题，是谁代理谁、谁以何种身份行事；您是当地律师，您是主要律师。我们之前曾进行过这些讨论。\n\n17 而该讨论——我不理解的是——我知道您在这里，而且我感谢您在这里，但我不理解为什么只有Romney律师提交了一份宣誓书。我原以为您会提交一份宣誓书。Romney律师以及其律所的其他成员均已表示，他们之所以参与并受聘，是通过与您进行讨论；是您——您与客户有联系。\n\n25 Romney律师没有直接与Mei Guo交谈。这不是您的宣誓书所说的。您说您和Vartan律师——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 17\n\nMR. ROMNEY（罗姆尼律师）：\n我们——\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：\n——与Mei Guo交谈过。Vartan律师与Mei Guo有关系，不是吗？先生，您没有吗？\n\nMR. VARTAN（瓦尔坦律师）：\n法官阁下，我当然与客户有关系，如同——\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：\n那么，是谁聘请您的，Vartan律师？\n\nMR. VARTAN（瓦尔坦律师）：\nGuo女士。\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：\n好的。那么，她在聘请您时聘请了谁？她聘请的是您，还是她聘请了您和Romney先生？\n\nMR. VARTAN（瓦尔坦律师）：\n我们两人。\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：\n好的。而且——\n\nMR. VARTAN（瓦尔坦律师）：\n嗯，Romney先生已被聘请，法官阁下。\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：\n与藐视法庭动议有关？\n\nMR. VARTAN（瓦尔坦律师）：\n因此，就——我是在回答有关Guo女士聘请Romney先生以及随后——她总体上聘请我的问题。就Hudson Diamond实体而言，Romney律师和我都与Guo女士交谈过。\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：\n那您为什么没有代表Hudson Diamond实体提交出庭代理声明？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 17 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n1 代表Hudson Diamond实体提交出庭代理声明？\n\n2 MR. VARTAN（瓦尔坦律师）：\n我原计划这样做，但Romney先生在其宣誓书中说明了我为何没有这样做。\n\n4 THE COURT（法庭）：\n嗯，那是Romney先生的宣誓书。那不是您的宣誓书。\n\n6 MR. VARTAN（瓦尔坦律师）：\n不，我明白，法官阁下。但除Romney先生在其宣誓书中所述外，我没有任何内容需要补充到记录中。我也很乐意回答法官阁下或任何其他人可能提出的任何问题。\n\n11 THE COURT（法庭）：\n嗯，我刚才问了您一个问题，而您没有回答。您为什么没有提交宣誓书？\n\n13 MR. VARTAN（瓦尔坦律师）：\n因为，同样地，我没有更多内容需要补充到记录中。而且我并不了解我们受法院命令要求提交。\n\n16 THE COURT（法庭）：\n嗯，2023年6月20日作出的命令写明，您应出庭并说明理由，为何不应准许该撤回代理动议。随后，美国受托人就该撤回代理动议提交了答复。并且，请记住——嗯，也许您不记得，但我记得——曾就强制动议举行听证会，我在记录中通过律师获告知，而其中包括您，您正在解决——或试图解决——藐视法庭动议，因为您代理Hudson Diamond实体，并且您将提交\n\n1 根据传票提交文件。\n2 紧接着之后——不，这样说不公平。\n3 并非紧接着之后，而是在该次听证会后不久，\n4 Romney 律师（Attorney Romney）提交了一项撤回出庭代理的动议。\n5 现在，我已多次询问，Romney 先生\n6 是听从 Guo 女士（Ms. Guo）的指示，还是听从\n7 您和 Guo 女士的指示？我已对此进行过讨论。因为\n8 我们已讨论过谁是本地律师、谁是主要\n9 律师。\n10 我们不会这样处理——你们分别在两家\n11 不同的律所。你们要么都是律师，且双方\n12 均受拘束并须遵守法院命令，要么就不是。\n13 但我们不会出现这种情况，即，哦，我不会再说\n14 任何内容，因为 Romney 律师已经说过了。\n15 否则，我为什么会把您列入该命令？我\n16 将您列入该命令，先生，是因为您是那个前来\n17 表示您与 Guo 女士有客户联系并且拥有\n18 授权的人。这是您多次在本法院\n19 所作的陈述。您也曾在——而且所提交的书状\n20 中，首先由您签字，其后才是 Romney 律师。\n21 因此，您负有一项义务，即对本院及所有\n22 涉案当事人的职业义务和道德义务。因此我不明白为什么——\n23 所以，那也可以。如果您告诉我您将依赖\n24 Romney 律师的宣誓书，那就是您正在告诉\n25 我的内容。我不确定这是否说明了为何不应准许\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交日期 07/21/23\n录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n1 撤回动议的理由。\n2 但无论如何，关于——关于 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的几个\n3 问题。您谈到——\n4 首先，我不明白如何会有任何——也许\n5 确实有。但目前我面前的案卷中没有任何内容\n6 表明，甚至代表您称仍在代理的实体，\n7 已就藐视法庭动议作出任何遵从，该实体是 Hudson Diamond\n8 Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）。\n9 \n10 是否已遵从传票？\n11 ROMNEY 律师：是的，法官阁下，已遵从。\n12 法院：该遵从具体为何？\n13 ROMNEY 律师：在一月——请原谅\n14 我——6月15日，即遵从期限届满之日，\n15 Vartan 律师（Attorney Vartan）发出了一封由我们二人起草的信函，\n16 该信函说明了——截至当时我们为\n17 尝试查找文件所做的工作。该信函提供了\n18 经营协议，显示 Guo 女士控制 Hudson\n19 Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）。该信函提供了\n20 组织章程，显示 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的设立。\n21 该信函说明了我们为尝试\n22 查找文件所作的努力。\n23 \n24 我们作为法院官员，以及我们的客户作为\n25 一名自然人，仅有能力提交我们能够实际持有的文件，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交日期 07/21/23 录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 21 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n21 或由我们有能力控制之人持有的文件，换言之，即我们可推定控制的文件。我们已通过一切可能方式尝试查找文件，并已提交我们能够提交的文件。但我们——我们还确认了其他我们相信持有文件、但不会将其交给我们或 Guo 女士的文件来源，例如 Hodgson Russ 和 Capital One Bank（第一资本银行）。我们已竭尽所能，但他们不会将文件交给我们。另两名个人——\n法院：那么，让我们对此稍微放慢一点。好吗？您说了几件事。您说您——但 Vartan 律师签署了一封信，并于6月15日寄给受托人，称你们已尽一切所能予以遵从。是这样吗？我想我——我只是确认我听到的是您所说的内容。\nROMNEY 律师：我们并未说我们已尽一切所能予以遵从。我们说了那个。但同时——也就是说，是的，这是对我们所说内容的公平概括。而且我们提交了我刚才所描述的文件。\n法院：好的。请告诉我——抱歉。6月15日提交了哪些文件？\nROMNEY 律师：是由 Guo 女士签署的 Hudson Diamond Holdings 经营协议。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n22 法院：由谁签署——那么是证物 T？\nROMNEY 律师：不是。\n法院：那份——两页的文件？\nROMNEY 律师：不是。\n法院：那么，有一份经营协议。\nROMNEY 律师：有一份——\n法院：该文件有多少页？您不需要准确告诉我。我是说，比如，它是否——您所说的是一份25页的文件——\nROMNEY 律师：我相信它——\n法院：——一份50页的文件？\nROMNEY 律师：我相信它大约是一份五页——\n法院：好的。\nROMNEY 律师：——五页或六页的文件。\n法院：该经营——该协议是哪个实体的经营协议？\nROMNEY 律师：Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC，由 Mei Guo（郭梅）作为唯一成员签署。\n法院：好的。您——您告诉我，而且我只是试图为案卷澄清，Mei Guo 专门聘请您在本案中代表 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC，处理与藐视法庭动议有关的事项？\nROMNEY 律师：她指示我代表 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC，处理与——有关的事项\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交日期 07/21/23 录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 22 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n23 法院：所以她没有聘请您？\nROMNEY 律师：我不理解这种区别。\n法院：嗯，我认为存在一种——\nROMNEY 律师：但我们没有单独的聘用函。\n法院：您没有单独的——这是您所说的吗？\nROMNEY 律师：与该实体之间。是的。\n法院：好的。那么，就 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 而言，您没有单独的聘用函。并且当时您相信她指示您代表 Hudson Diamond 各实体。其中包括 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司），对吗？\nROMNEY 律师：不。我知道她确实如此。\n法院：好的。是的。\nROMNEY 律师：是的。\n法院：好的。然后事态发展。您提交了一份出庭代理通知，并来到法院，在关于藐视法庭动议的听证会上表示——我并不是说这本会发生，好吗——但受托人的律师正在要求对 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 作出藐视法庭命令。您表示——\nROMNEY 律师：是的。而该事项今日已列入日程。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交日期 07/21/23 录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 23 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交日期 07/21/23 录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n1 法院：对。但在最初的那次听证会上，\n2 您说，我们已同意延期该听证会，\n3 因为我们将就如何实质上遵从传票\n4 订立一项同意命令，对吗？\n5 \n6 ROMNEY 律师：我认为我们实际上是在案卷中订立了该协议。\n7 \n8 法院：不，你们确实订立了。\n9 ROMNEY 律师：是的。\n10 法院：我现在实际上正在看它。\n11 ROMNEY 律师：是的。是的。\n12 法院：好的。\n13 ROMNEY 律师：也就是说，我们在案卷中口头订立了该协议，\n14 然后提交了——\n15 法院：但随后你们就作出命令的动议订立了一项\n16 命令，认定 Hudson Diamond New\n17 York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 因未回应传票而构成民事\n18 藐视法庭。在该命令中，\n19 Hudson 各实体称，它们没有理由且因此并不争议\n20 它们已被适当送达分别针对其的 2004 传票，\n21 并且它们主张，Hudson 各实体的相关个人\n22 实际上直到该动议提交之后才获悉传票。\n23 那么，Hudson 各实体中直到\n24 该动议提交之后才实际获悉传票的相关个人\n25 是谁——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n25 实际直到藐视法庭动议提交之后才获悉传票？\nROMNEY 律师：Guo 女士是——\n法院：好的。\nROMNEY 律师：——我在该陈述中所指的个人。\n法院：好的。\nROMNEY 律师：我们所指的是，我们没有理由怀疑送达回证的真实性，该等回证显示法定送达代理人已签收。但我所报告的是，据我所能判断，Guo 女士是在 Vartan 律师和我——我认为在那个具体事项中实际是我发送了电子邮件——首次向她发送传票时，才得知这些传票。之后我们三人共同进行了一次电话通话。但看来是我们在向她告知这些传票。\n法院：您为什么说看来是我们在向她告知？您知道还是不知道？\nROMNEY 律师：嗯，我不——\n法院：她告诉过您她此前从未见过这些传票？\nROMNEY 律师：在不放弃就任何其他陈述所享有特权的前提下，是的。\n法院：好的。嗯，我认为如果您想说明为何您\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交日期 07/21/23 录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 25 页\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交日期 07/21/23\n录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n1 想要——作为律师撤回代理，这并不构成放弃特权，对吗？否则，\n2 您可以让 Guo 女士出庭。她可以作证。对吗？您可以\n3 让她出庭。她可以支持您所说的一切。\n4 ROMNEY 律师：法官阁下，目前我是被针对的那个人，我不会\n5 把我的客户推到风口浪尖。\n6 \n7 法院：我不理解您刚才所说的这句话\n8 是什么意思。\n9 ROMNEY 律师：法院显然对我所做的某事感到不满，\n10 我在此解释我的行为。\n11 法院：不，我没有说——我是在提问。\n12 您说——我认为您结束陈述时说的是，法院是否有任何问题。\n13 而且，是的，我有。\n14 所以我正在提出这些问题。\n15 ROMNEY 律师：明白。而且——我在这里\n16 是为了解除您的担忧。但我理解您\n17 有所担忧。那就是——\n18 法院：嗯，我确实担忧，因为案卷中达成了一项协议，\n19 即会遵从传票，以便法院无需\n20 就您代表其提交出庭代理通知的 Hudson Diamond\n21 各实体作出关于藐视法庭动议的裁决。\n22 而在您的宣誓书和您在此所作的陈述中——并且\n23 Vartan 先生并不对此提出异议——这是与\n24 Vartan 先生协商后作出的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交日期 07/21/23 录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 27 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n27 因此，如果您成了被针对的对象，可能是法院以外的其他人将您置于该位置。因为您自己站出来承担此事，而我不确定为什么。因为此时此刻，您说您相信 Mei Guo 直到藐视法庭动议提交、您发送电子邮件、随后与 Vartan 律师和 Guo 女士进行电话通话时，才得知传票。\nROMNEY 律师：通常的做法是，在涉及实质性事项时，我们三人会进行电话通话，并讨论有关她或她所控制实体的事项。有时——我的意思是，我们无法共同发送一封电子邮件。有时其中一人发送电子邮件。如果是事务性的更新，我们任何一人都可以进行该通话。但我的意思是，在这个具体案件中，我记得我查阅电子邮件时，是我向她发送了传票，然后要求与她和 Vartan 律师通话。随后我们进行了那次通话。\n法院：好的。那么，谁授权您代表 Hudson Diamond, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 提交出庭代理通知？\nROMNEY 律师：为使案卷明确，是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC。\n法院：可以。Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond——因为该出庭代理通知\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 28 是代表这两个实体提交的，对吗？\n罗姆尼律师：对。\n法庭：好的。是谁授权您提交该出庭通知的？\n罗姆尼律师：郭美。\n法庭：好的。以何种身份？\n罗姆尼律师：作为代表这些实体的律师，并且相信——\n法庭：不，抱歉。我没有恰当地提出问题，抱歉。您认为她凭什么有权指示您代表 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）和 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）提交出庭通知？\n罗姆尼律师：嗯，如所述但显然并不够清楚，第11章受托人提出的藐视法庭动议称，Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 是 Hudson Diamond New York 的母公司，而郭美是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一成员。我知道郭美是唯一的——是母公司——抱歉，是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一成员。我还基于郭女士的陈述相信，我认为她主观上——我认为她相信自己是 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的唯一成员，并且 Hudson Diamond Holdings 是 Hudson Diamond New York 的唯一成员。我认为其依据是\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 她的这一信念，除其他事项外，是她曾被要求\n2 以 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的成员身份代表 Hudson Diamond New York 签署\n3 文件，而 Hudson Diamond Holdings 是纽约实体的\n4 唯一成员。\n5 使我们相信郭女士有误的唯一原因，\n6 就如同基于我们现在所知，我可能有误也可能没有误一样，\n7 是 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）\n8 在瓦尔坦律师和我一同致电他们时告知我们，\n9 凯文·卡尼律师向我们表示，Hudson Holdings,\n10 LLC 并非 Hudson Diamond——Hudson\n11 Diamond New York 的唯一成员，并且他——似乎一直在\n12 阅读其律所起草的一份经营协议，\n13 该协议表明债务人的儿子是\n14 该纽约实体的唯一成员。\n15 法庭：\n是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的？\n16 罗姆尼律师：\nHudson Diamond New York, LLC。\n17 这正是促使我立即咨询亨齐律师、\n18 立即致电卢夫特律师，并于次日早晨\n19 根据我认为自己依《职业行为规则》第1.16(b)条\n20 必须采取的做法，提交撤回出庭的动议\n21 的原因。\n22 法庭：\n关于 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的经营协议，\n23 您可能已经这样做过——\n24 抱歉，但如您所知，本案中有大量\n25 文件。您是否已将该经营协议提交\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 30 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 30 的案卷中某处，该协议表明债务人——个人债务人的儿子是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的成员？\n罗姆尼律师：我没有那份经营协议——\n法庭：好的。\n罗姆尼律师：——因为 Hodgson——Hodgson Russ 不愿向我、郭女士或瓦尔坦律师提供任何有关任何 Hudson Diamond 实体的信息。而且在我的宣誓书——声明，抱歉——中，以及复制至该声明正文中的内容，还有带附件的电子邮件链，都证明 Hodgson Russ 不会向我们提供任何有关那些实体的文件。因此我没有它。我所拥有的只是据我了解是一家信誉极高的律所的总法律顾问的话，他告诉我债务人的儿子是该成员。\n法庭：那么——\n罗姆尼律师：他后来修改了其陈述，称不是债务人的儿子以个人身份担任成员，而是债务人的儿子作为某一第三实体 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc. 的高级职员以及——以某种其他身份担任的高级职员；该实体是一家英属维尔京群岛公司。我完全不知道究竟谁拥有该实体，只是我相信——我没有理由相信是郭女士。郭女士也没有理由相信是\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 她。根据 Hodgson Russ 向我们作出的陈述，\n2 看来是债务人的儿子，\n3 因为他似乎正在代表该实体签署文件。\n4 法庭：\n因此，您因 Hodgson Russ 告知您 Hudson Diamond\n5 New York, LLC 的管理成员是债务人——个人\n6 债务人的儿子，而提交了撤回\n7 出庭的动议，但您从未见过确认\n8 该事项的文件？\n9 罗姆尼律师：\n他不愿给我，所以是的。\n10 法庭：\n好的。好的。\n12 罗姆尼律师：\n这就使我处于目前的境地，\n13 因为 Hodgson Russ 还起草了一份后续文件，\n14 表明其起草了供郭女士\n15 以 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的成员身份、作为\n16 Hudson Diamond New York 的唯一成员签署的文件。因此，\n17 我目前所处的状况是，我不知道 Hudson\n18 Diamond New York 的唯一成员是谁。Hodgson Russ 似乎也不知道。\n19 我曾向他们询问有关他们为何\n20 起草该文件的信息；该文件是他们在我\n21 提交撤回动议时首次向瓦尔坦律师和我\n22 确认的唯一文件。他们没有向我解释\n23 为何他们制作了提及债务人\n24 儿子及债务人的文件——然后又随后起草了一份\n25 确认债务人的女儿为纽约实体间接\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 成员的文件。因此，\n2 我绝对不知道究竟是哪一个。这就是我\n3 认为我必须继续推进撤回\n4 出庭动议的原因。\n5 我将说明，如我能够确定\n6 郭女士直接或间接确实是\n7 Hudson Diamond New York 的成员、间接成员，或有权\n8 控制或聘请律师代表 Hudson Diamond New York 的人，\n9 我将撤回我的——嗯，我将撤回我的——我将\n10 撤回我的撤回出庭动议，因为我\n11 绝非试图逃避这种情况、躲避这种情况，\n12 或代表 Hudson Diamond New York、任何 Hudson Diamond 实体或郭女士\n13 耍花招。我\n14 只是试图履行我对本法庭、我在该情形中\n15 唯一的自然人客户郭女士，以及在场\n16 其他所有人的伦理义务。\n17 法庭：\n在该情形中，她不是您的客户。\n18 罗姆尼律师：\n不是。但她总体上是我的客户。\n19 我的意思是——\n21 法庭：\n不是。但在该情形中，她不是您的客户。\n22 客户——而且您一直非常谨慎，我理解原因。\n23 客户——您目前所代表的唯一客户——或者说您\n24 相信您有权代表的客户是 Hudson Diamond Holding,\n25 LLC。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 33\n\n1 LLC。\n\n罗姆尼律师：对。但是，法官阁下，我的陈述，也许表述得不够准确，是我所努力做的一切，只是尽力履行我对法庭、Hudson Diamond 各实体、郭女士以及在场其他所有人的伦理义务。我并不代表在场的任何其他人，但我对他们负有伦理义务，正如我对法庭负有伦理义务一样。那就是如实陈述、尽力而为，并尽我所能遵守我所达成的协议。这是我每天在每一个案件中所做的事。这也是我现在正在做的事。\n法庭：那么，让我再问一个问题。关于藐视法庭动议的听证会于6月6日举行。\n罗姆尼律师：对。\n法庭：当天举行了多场听证会，但那是其中之一——即针对包括 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 实体在内的多方当事人的藐视法庭动议。该听证会之前，您已经提交了出庭通知。您已准备——出席该听证会，并表示就文件提交存在一项协议，且代表两个实体，文件提交将于6月15日前完成，不仅是开始进行，而是完成\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 34 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 。随后于6月8日提交了同意命令，\n2 该命令将6月6日庭审记录中达成的协议\n3 予以书面确认。法庭作出了该命令，\n4 我认为是这样。我不知道\n5 是在同一天还是次日。显然，看起来\n6 是同一天。然后——即6月8日。该\n7 命令为 ECF 1896。\n8 因此，截至6月6日——并且再次于\n9 6月8日得到确认——您代表两个 Hudson Diamond——抱歉——\n10 New York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC。并且\n11 您和瓦尔坦律师表示，您将于6月15日前\n12 完成对传票的遵从。在\n\n同意命令作出后、距离应当遵从仅两天之前，您于6月13日仅就 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 提交了撤回代理的动议。\n\n6月13日，距离——也就是说，在\n\n因此，您是说——我只是想确认我理解正确。您是说，就 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 而言，您已经遵守了同意命令？\n\n罗姆尼律师：对。\n\n法庭：好的。那么 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 呢？他们尚未遵守，对吗？\n\n罗姆尼律师：如获准许，我将从两个方面回答。我相信这是正确的。我不在此反对，也无意反对，并且不会反对作出认定纽约实体藐视法庭的命令，因为我无权从任何一方面对此进行辩论。或者说，我不确信自己有该等权限。我想说的是，在6月6日——即我订立法官阁下刚才所述约定命令之日——至今的期间内，瓦尔坦律师、郭女士和我一直试图查找有关 Hudson Diamond New York 以及 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的文件。我们始终未能找到这些文件。我们相信 Capital 1 有文件——\n法庭：抱歉，请再说一遍。您一直试图查找 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的文件？\n罗姆尼律师：对。\n法庭：如果您不代表他们，为什么？\n罗姆尼律师：因为在该期间内，我相信自己代表他们。\n法庭：好的。那么您采取了什么措施来寻找文件？\n罗姆尼律师：如我在声明中所述，我们做了三件事。我们联系了 Hodgson Russ，我们相信其曾代理——嗯，我们知道其设立了该纽约实体，因为我们有组织\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 35 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 36 章程，证实其设立了该实体。因此，我们试图联系——\n法庭：该组织章程——抱歉。我不是想打断您。我只是想——\n罗姆尼律师：是——\n法庭：——非常明确。您指的是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的公司章程吗？\n罗姆尼律师：是。\n法庭：是谁签署了这些章程？\n罗姆尼律师：它们由 Hodgson Russ 提交。\n法庭：是，但谁签署了它们？谁是——谁是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的签署人？\n罗姆尼律师：我认为没有签署人。\n法庭：好的。所以您有未经签署的公司章程？\n罗姆尼律师：我认为纽约州法律，或者就此而言康涅狄格州法律，并不要求签署人。但是，纽约——\n法庭：那么管理成员是谁？\n罗姆尼律师：章程中未予确认——没有自然人被确认——\n法庭：好的。\n罗姆尼律师：——在章程中——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 36 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 37 法庭：好的。罗姆尼先生：——将除 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）以外的组织列为“申报方”。法庭：那么，您是从霍奇森·拉斯取得那份文件的吗？您是在这样告诉我吗？这些公司章程？罗姆尼先生：我从郭女士那里取得那份文件。法庭：好的。而且它没有签字。但她持有它？罗姆尼先生：是的。法庭：在她的个人档案中？罗姆尼先生：这进一步——这也是支持我和她相信该实体是她的实体的依据。是的。法庭：好的。罗姆尼先生：是。法庭：好的。这就是我在问的。罗姆尼先生：是。法庭：好的。所以她将其保存在她的档案中，并交给了您。是交给您和瓦尔坦先生，还是仅交给您，或者交给瓦尔坦先生？罗姆尼先生：她向瓦尔坦律师和我发送了一封电子邮件。所以她将其——法庭：好的。罗姆尼先生：——交给我们——案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 37 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 38 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 38 法庭：好的。罗姆尼先生：——同时。法庭：关于 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司），她还交出了哪些其他文件？罗姆尼先生：关于哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司？那些是唯一的文件。法庭：好的。您是否——您可能已经说过这个，好吗，所以抱歉。我需要弄清楚。您是否向受托人提供了该文件？罗姆尼先生：我相信，该文件此前已就郭女士较早进行的文件提交而提供给受托人。法庭：但您没有代表哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司向受托人提交该文件，尽管郭女士向您——向您和瓦尔坦律师发送了附有该文件的电子邮件？罗姆尼先生：我没有。因为截至文件提交日期，我不认为我有权代表哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司采取任何行动，因为——法庭：您何时收到郭女士的电子邮件，其中附有那份协议？罗姆尼先生：我不记得日期。是在——法庭：是在您提交退出代理动议之前吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 39 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n1 退出代理？\n2 罗姆尼先生：\n是在我提交——\n3 法庭：\n好的。\n4 罗姆尼先生：\n——退出代理的\n5 动议之前。\n6 法庭：\n好的。现在，关于——所以您没有异议，因为您不能——您无权反对作出命令，认定哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司藐视法庭。这样对吗？\n10 罗姆尼先生：\n对。\n11 法庭：\n好的。关于 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司），您认为——而且，瓦尔坦律师，我也会问您同样的问题——您已遵守同意命令，而且您——该同意命令中的条款是，您已代表哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司完成向受托人提交文件？您——截至 June 15th。您认为您已遵守该命令？\n19 罗姆尼先生：\n我认为是。\n20 法庭：\n好的。瓦尔坦律师，您认为您已遵守该命令——即同意命令，要求哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司在 June 15th 前完成向受托人提交文件？\n24 瓦尔坦先生：\n是的，法官阁下。我们设法从一切我们能够取得文件的来源取得所有文件，并且——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 40 法庭：您试图从哪些来源取得文件？瓦尔坦先生：因此，我们试图从霍奇森·拉斯取得文件。我们试图从 Capital One（第一资本银行）取得文件。而且我们显然也试图直接从我们的当事人取得文件。还有若干其他个人，理论上他们可能持有文件，但他们不愿与我们交谈。法庭：嗯，这是什么意思？我是说，我不知道“不愿与我们交谈”是什么意思。瓦尔坦先生：所以——法庭：您作了哪些尝试？瓦尔坦先生：因此，我们试图通过我们的当事人联系双方——法庭：所以您没有联系。是您的当事人联系的？瓦尔坦先生：是的。法庭：所以，作为当时代表哈德逊钻石各实体的律师，您并不知道您的当事人是否实际联系了这些其他来源？瓦尔坦先生：嗯，我们知道我们的当事人去了银行，因为在她去之前和之后，我们都与她通了电话。法庭：但您不知道她当时是否在——案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 40 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 41 银行，她当时——瓦尔坦先生：我们不知道——法庭：您不知道——瓦尔坦先生：我们没有任何理由以任何方式怀疑我们的当事人。法庭：那不是我的问题。您不知道。您是律师，对吗？您难道不应该知道吗？瓦尔坦先生：我根据——法庭：您如何知道？瓦尔坦先生：——根据我与她的谈话，知道她去了银行。法庭：所以您是基于她对您所说的话而知道的？瓦尔坦先生：再说一次，法官，我没有理由怀疑她。法庭：我没有说您有理由怀疑她。我是说，您是基于她对您所说的话。瓦尔坦先生：如果您问我是否和她一起去了银行，我没有。法庭：那——好的。所以——瓦尔坦先生：但是我们——法庭：还有哪些来源——您是——当她查阅这些实体的记录时，您在场吗，以查看哪些——哪些文件会对传票作出响应？案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 41 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 42 实体的记录，以查看哪些——哪些文件会对传票作出响应？瓦尔坦先生：我此前曾与郭女士一同查阅过她的记录，以进行——法庭：那不是我的问题。瓦尔坦先生：——先前的文件提交。法庭：那不是我的问题。我的问题是一个非常直接的问题。瓦尔坦先生：没有——法庭：当她查阅自己的记录，审查可能对送达给哈德逊钻石各实体的传票作出响应的文件时，您在场吗？瓦尔坦先生：法官，据我了解，她除我和她此前审查过的记录之外，没有其他记录。法庭：这仍然没有回答我的问题，瓦尔坦律师。瓦尔坦先生：所以，那么——法庭：听问题。当您的当事人查阅她的记录，以确定她是否有对已发出并送达的传票作出响应的记录时，您在场吗？您承认这些传票已送达给哈德逊钻石各实体。瓦尔坦先生：当她查阅——案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 42 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 43 法庭：好的。瓦尔坦先生：——June 15th 前的文件时，我不在场。是的。法庭：所以您不在场。对于您的当事人就其持有和控制的、可能对送达给哈德逊钻石各实体的传票作出响应的文件所进行的审查，您没有查看、观察或讨论过她做了什么？瓦尔坦先生：我们绝对讨论过。所以我没有查看或观察她。法庭：那么，您就对传票作出响应的文件进行了哪些讨论？那不受保护。因此，您可以主张这是律师—当事人关系保密特权。但并非如此。瓦尔坦先生：嗯，我——法庭：您有一份传票。您已经承认该传票已被适当送达。您没有反对该传票。您没有提交撤销传票动议。您没有申请保护令。因此，您现在无法提出任何在任何方面受特权保护的异议。那么，关于可能对送达给哈德逊钻石各实体的传票作出响应的文件，您进行了哪些讨论？瓦尔坦先生：嗯，我仍会主张这些沟通受特权保护。案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 43 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 44 法庭：嗯，您可以主张，但我——您错了。那么请继续。什么——瓦尔坦先生：所以，嗯，我不会详细谈及与当事人之间享有特权的沟通，但当然我们——法庭：那么您将被认定藐视法庭，好吗？因为您有义务，瓦尔坦律师。作为法庭官员，您对法庭负有义务。瓦尔坦先生：毫无疑问。法庭：好吗？瓦尔坦先生：而且并非要打断——法庭：而且，您已在同意命令中并通过罗姆尼律师在记录中表示，您将遵守这些传票。您必须证明，不仅是您的当事人，您必须证明您为遵守传票采取了哪些步骤。而我什么也没有听到。一件也没有。瓦尔坦先生：嗯，法官阁下，首先，我们曾与霍奇森·拉斯进行过多次电话和电子邮件沟通；我们了解到，该律所系两家控股实体的律师——法庭：而且您没有从他们那里得到任何文件。他们告诉您不会提交文件。对此您做了什么？您只是说，好吧，他们不会——案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 44 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 45 提交文件。这就是您说的。我看到了。我的意思是，罗姆尼律师在其声明中附上了一些——霍奇森·拉斯的一名人员说：“我拒绝与您交谈。”瓦尔坦先生：是的。那是实际经办该档案的律师。法庭：好的。当他说“我——”时，您做了什么？瓦尔坦先生：所以，当他——法庭：——“拒绝与您交谈。”瓦尔坦先生：——当他说“我拒绝与您交谈”时，我们说我们进行沟通极其重要。随后他指引——法庭：我想我没有看到任何关于这一点的材料。瓦尔坦先生：嗯，有电子邮件沟通，其中——法庭：嗯，它不在记录中。瓦尔坦先生：嗯，法官阁下，如果我可以说完。我刚才所说的是——法庭：您可以说完，瓦尔坦律师，但您需要非常谨慎。好吗？瓦尔坦先生：我正在尽力。法庭：好的。请继续。瓦尔坦先生：在我们与 Harmon先生（哈蒙先生）交谈之后——案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 45 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 46 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n1 而他拒绝与我们交谈后，他随后将我们转介给霍奇森·拉斯的总法律顾问。因此，我们就联系到了第二位律师。罗姆尼律师和我与他进行了多次沟通，在沟通中我们说明，我们正竭尽全力代表控股公司和纽约公司完成完整的文件提交。\n7 在这些沟通中，他告诉我们，他不认为郭女士与纽约公司有任何关系。这就是促成提交退出代理动议的原因。\n11 法庭：\n对。但是您没有看过任何文件，或者——\n13 瓦尔坦先生：\n嗯——\n14 法庭：\n而您的当事人说的恰恰相反。\n16 瓦尔坦先生：\n但是我能——\n17 法庭：\n等等。请等一下。您没有任何文件支持霍奇森·拉斯律师所作的陈述。\n20 瓦尔坦先生：\n对。\n21 法庭：\n您没有任何文件。\n22 瓦尔坦先生：\n但是我能——\n23 法庭：\n而且——请等一下。\n24 瓦尔坦先生：\n抱歉。我道歉。\n25 法庭：\n而且您的当事人刚刚说了\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2023\n提交于 07/21/23\n登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n恰恰相反，她是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）的管理成员。\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n那么，法官阁下，如允许我就此作出回应？\n我们未能取得 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的文件，并非因为我们未尽努力。原因是 Hodgson Russ 表示，Hudson Diamond New York 与我们的委托人毫无关系，而是完全与她的兄弟有关；我们并不代理其兄弟。因此，Hodgson Russ 与该兄弟之间就 Hudson Diamond New York 事项享有特权，我们当然无法予以排除。因此，这并非因为我们未尽努力。\n法官阁下，我只想指出一点，我认为 Romney 律师所说的话中既隐含也明确表达了这一点：我们绝非意图向法院或受托人隐瞒任何事实。我们在本案中代表 Holdings 和 New York 两者出庭的全部原因，并非为了以任何方式混淆视听，而是为了向受托人尽可能完整地提交文件。\n就我们当时认为 Guo 女士与该等实体有关联的范围而言，我们对任一实体均无使其被认定为藐视法庭的利益。我相信受托人并不寻求认定实体藐视法庭。受托人寻求的是取得文件。因此，我们——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n法院：\n嗯，他有一项待决动议，要求认定它们藐视法庭，因此我不同意你的说法。\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n但我想说的是，我假定受托人的偏好是取得文件——\n\n法院：\n可能——是的，那会是他的偏好。\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n——而非认定某一实体藐视法庭。这正是我们努力要做的，仅此而已。如果我们仍然认为，除 Holdings 外我们还代理 Hudson Diamond New York，那么我们本会提交文件。就 New York 提出撤回动议的唯一原因，是基于我们与 Hodgson Russ 的沟通，以及我们就 Hodgson Russ 所作的尽职调查。\n\n法院：\n你是否亲自会见过 Hodgson Russ 的律师？\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n你是否与该人进行过视频会议？\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n我们进行过多次电话交谈。\n\n法院：\n所以你甚至不知道那个人是谁。你甚至不知道那个人长什么样，对吗？\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n我从网站上知道。但不，我没有——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 49 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n——进行视频会议。\n\n法院：\n所以，你进行了一次电话交谈，其中 Hodgson Russ 那位不肯向你提供任何文件的人告诉你，儿子是管理成员。并且基于此，你——\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n是 New York 的管理成员。\n\n法院：\n对。是 New York 的。\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n正确。\n\n法院：\n并且你——基于此，你撤回了——你提出了动议——嗯，你没有提交出庭通知书，这是另一个完全不同的问题。因此，我们将在另一个时间讨论此事。我们不再搞这种乒乓球式的做法。好吗？从本案一开始，我就一直在说这个问题。你们要么都代理，要么都不代理；要么其中一人代理，要么其中一人不代理。\n我需要知道是谁代理这些实体。这种情况不会在本法院继续下去。好吗？你们需要决定如何安排，并且坚持该安排。\n因为，你在一些文件上签字，其下列有 Romney 律师的签名，显示其似乎是本地律师，而后 Romney 律师却是唯一提交出庭通知书的人，这是不恰当的。本案中不会继续如此。因此，你们都必须——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n弄清楚这一点。要么你们两人都代理他们，要么由你们其中一人代理，仅此而已。\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n我只是想为记录澄清这一点。因此，自从我和我的律师事务所参与本案以来，这一直是 CSG（CSG）、我的律师事务所与——之间的共同律师关系。\n\n法院：\n那么，为什么你没有代表这两个 Hudson Diamond 实体提交出庭通知书？\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n法官阁下，在我准备这样做时，显然出现了一个问题，我们已将其提交法院。\n\n法院：\n这不准确。这不准确。强制执行藐视法庭的动议当时尚在待决。Romney 律师在藐视法庭动议听证会之前很久便提交了出庭通知书。因此，Vartan 律师，这不准确。所以我不想听到这种说法，因为这不准确。\n你作出了一个选择。好，你作出了该选择。但你今后不能再作出该选择。你们要么都代理这些实体，要么由你们其中一人代理。\n我们不会再这样做。你们在浪费法院的时间，而且我认为你们向本法院作出的陈述并不准确。因此，你需要对此进行认真、审慎的思考。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 51 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 51\n\nRomney 律师是唯一就这项强制执行动议提交宣誓书或声明的人。你将会辩称，嗯，我不必这样做。我从未代表 Hudson Diamond 实体提交出庭通知书。但我听到了什么？每一次涉及藐视法庭动议、出庭通知书、该动议以及文件提交的谈话，都有你参与，Vartan 律师，而不仅仅是 Romney 律师。这不恰当。\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n明白，法官阁下。我绝对无意向本法院或法庭内的任何一方隐瞒任何事情。确实，自提出寻求认定 Hudson Diamond 实体藐视法庭的动议以来，我们所努力做的，是竭尽全力查明我们代理的是哪些实体。我们当然——\n\n法院：\n嗯，在 Romney 律师提交出庭通知书时，你们并未竭尽全力查明你们代理的是哪一个——实体。他代理了它们两者。\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n法官阁下，但是，再次说明，当时这样做——我明白出现了一个错误。但我们在此所说的是，作出此举是出于最善意图。也就是说，我们并未试图向任何人隐瞒任何事情。我们只是——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 52 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 52\n\n法院：\n是否出于最善意图确实并不重要，Vartan 律师。\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n嗯，我——\n\n法院：\n重要的是你们的职业义务是什么——\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n我们当时试图——\n\n法院：\n——根据适用的行为准则，以及作为纽约州或新泽西州律师协会成员并在本法院执业，你们的职业义务是什么。那才是你们的义务。你可以持有任何你认为的意图。这并不重要。重要的是，你的要求是什么？你的义务是什么？你有义务做什么？\n\nVARTAN 律师：\n法官阁下，我相信我们已经履行了这些义务。\n\n法院：\n好的。那是你的看法。很好。好吧。Romney 律师，你还有什么想补充的吗？\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n有，法官阁下。非常简要地说。我代表 Hudson Diamond 实体出庭——我实际上没有带着那份文件，但我相信是在——\n\n法院：\n如果你愿意，我可以——我们可以把它显示在屏幕上。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n如果不太麻烦的话，那会有帮助。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 53\n\n法院：\n好。我们来找一下。给我们一分钟，我们会把它显示在屏幕上。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n我相信是 June 1st，如果我没有记错，大约在晚上 10 点多提交。\n\n法院：\n1848 是 ECF 编号。上面写着，你代表利益相关方 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）提交了出庭通知书。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n那么，我说它是在晚上 10 点多提交的，是否正确？\n\n法院：\n10:16 p.m。实际上——是的。不，是 8:16 p.m。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n8:16。好的。我以为大约是 10 点。但——也许是在 10 点多提交的是延期动议。\n\n法院：\n可能是。你要我——\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n不，不，不。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n法官阁下，我想说明的是，这是在答复期限前一晚——或者在——\n\n法院：\n我明白。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n——答复期限当晚提交的。\n\n法院：\n我明白。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 53 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 54\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n律师——\n\n法院：\n听证会直到 June 6th 才举行。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n我明白。Vartan 律师曾——现在是代表 HK International（HK International）和 Mei Guo（Mei Guo）在本法院获准以特别许可方式出庭。我非常明确地记得，我之所以是提交该出庭通知书的人，是因为没有时间再取得一份特别许可出庭申请。\n\n法院：\n我明白。但你第二天本可以这样做。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n本可以。而且——\n\n法院：\n实际上，你当晚就本可以这样做，因为全都是电子提交。非常容易。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n我们——\n\n法院：\n你在许多其他场合都做得很好，本法院的其他人也是如此。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n实际上，我不知道如何电子提交，在当今这个时代这相当可悲。但我——不过我们有非常优秀的支持人员，因此这并无实质区别。在我们提交该文件时，没有任何人——不是我，不是 Vartan 律师，不是 Guo 女士，也不是我曾与之讨论过的其他任何人——预期会发生任何事情，除了我们会通过遵从义务来协商一个短暂延期。而我所说的遵从义务，我定义为，我\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 54 of\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 55 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n55\n\n相信根据判例法这是正确的——但如果我错了，我表示歉意——即本着善意并勤勉地尝试查找处于委托人实际和推定控制范围内的每一份文件。这正是我们打算做的。这正是我们同意做的。这也是我们确实做了的。\n在 Vartan 律师、我本人和 Guo 女士之间，没有人预期此事会变成需要另一位律师提交特别许可——另一份特别许可出庭申请、在本案中再作一项案卷登记的事情，因为我们都打算并且确实本着善意行事，以遵从义务，并向受托人提供受托人就这些实体所要求的一切文件。而我——\n\n法院：\n嗯，我没有 Guo 女士的任何声明，因此我无法就此作出任何认定。我唯一能够作出认定的，是你在伪证处罚下于你的声明中所述内容；我感谢你提交了该声明。好吗？\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n谢谢。\n\n法院：\n因此，我无法谈论 Guo 女士的意图。我无法谈论 Vartan 律师的意图，因为他没有提交任何文件。我所能谈论的，只有本案中已经发生的事情以及——我们目前所处的状况。\n而我们在 June 6th 时处于这样一个阶段：存在——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 56 of\n\n可能会作出一项命令，判定 Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）各实体构成藐视法庭。而我被告知，在案卷中、在庭审记录中，双方一致同意您代理这两家实体，并且一致同意它们将提交文件，且将在 June 15th 前提交。Romney（罗姆尼）律师，您现在已表示，您认为您已经就——您已经就 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）提交文件的传票履行了义务。这是您的陈述。受托人将自行处理该陈述。我们将——我相信很快——听取相关事项的意见。就 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）而言，据我所知，尚未履行义务。也没有人向我表明已履行义务。因此，如果受托人提出藐视法庭动议，我将予以考虑。\n\nROMNEY 律师：我不会反对。\n\n法庭：正如您所说，我认为您没有——嗯，您——\n\nROMNEY 律师：正确。这就是——\n\n法庭：如果您与您撤回作为代理律师的动议保持一致，您无权反对。\n\nROMNEY 律师：正确。\n\n法庭：那么无论如何，您还有其他想补充的吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 57\n\nROMNEY 律师：没有。感谢您——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nROMNEY 律师：——听取我们的意见。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我想听取受托人律师——\n\nVARTAN 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——以及 Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）的意见。\n\nLUFT 先生：法官阁下，您对先听取哪一方的意见有偏好吗？\n\n法庭：我没有偏好。\n\nLUFT 先生：好的。法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请。\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。下午好，法官阁下。我是 Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），代表受托人。法官阁下，我今天无意就律师的意图发言。我没有参与他们与任何其他人进行的谈话，无论是与其当事人还是 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）。我也无法就此发言。因此，我想谈的，而且希望简要谈的，是关于这种说法：没有人知道谁在管理 Hudson Diamond New York，而且世界上推定存在的、可能响应我们传票的所有文件都已提交，因此已经履行了义务。因为我认为这两点都并非如此直截了当。法官阁下，据我理解，他们提到了我们提交的文件表明 Hudson Diamond New York 似乎——其唯一成员是 Guo 女士。确实如此。它们附在我的声明中，作为 Exhibit 1805。具体而言，法官阁下，如果您看——\n\n法庭：Exhibit T。\n\nLUFT 先生：有 Exhibit T，法官阁下。还有 Exhibit U，其中——\n\n法庭：我可能没有看过 Exhibit U。请继续。\n\nLUFT 先生：——以及 Exhibits G、H 和 I，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLUFT 先生：简而言之，这就是我们为何如此认为：如果您看 Exhibit G，那是一份由 Hodgson Russ 为 Golden Springs（黄金泉）公司的 Yvette Wang（王伊薇特）女士编制的文件，其中列出了——列出了这些实体的组织结构图；我可以告诉您，根据我与他们的交谈，他们认为这些实体由债务人控制。但无论如何，他们列出了所列明的人员。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 57 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 58 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 58\n\n在 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股）一栏下，您可以看到 Guo 女士位于最上方，直接在 Hudson Diamond Holdings 之上，也直接在 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 之上。与此一致，Exhibit H 是一份关于 Hudson Diamond New York 的文件，其中列 Wang 女士为联系人，但在唯一成员一栏写明 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC，100 percent。不出所料，其地址为曼哈顿 162 East 64th Street，债务人的大多数实体均位于该处。\n\n随后，如果我们看 Exhibit I，我们会看到谁拥有 Hudson Diamond Holdings。成员列为 Guo 女士，持有 100 percent 权益，地址同样为 162 East 64th Street。\n\n如法官阁下所提到的，Exhibit T 中可见 Guo 女士以其作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings 唯一成员的身份一致地签署。Exhibit U 中也可见 Guo 女士再次签署，这次同样是作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的唯一成员。基于这些文件，这就是我们理解 Guo 女士是控制 Hudson Diamond Holding 和 Hudson Diamond New York 的人的原因。\n\n我们不知道有任何文件表明其他任何人是所列成员。我可以告诉您，基于证据开示和我们的调查，我相信债务人实际上控制了该实体。但就谁是成员、谁能够——应当回应传票而言，那就是我们认为负责的人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 59 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n我觉得我不确定为何此时会有混乱，因为据我理解，虽然没有任何人看过的任何文件表明 Guo 女士以外的其他人是成员，但有人陈述称，曾有谈话，其中 Hodgson Russ 的 Kearney（卡尼）先生表示儿子可能是成员。这很可能发生过。我不知道。\n\n我所知道的是，如果我们看 Romney 先生的声明和 Exhibit A，Kearney 先生曾写信给 Romney 先生和 Vartan 先生，说他质疑自己是否曾经这样说过，但更重要的是，他说文件表明 Holdings 是成员，而不是儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）。他还接着说，关于 Hudson Diamond New York 的委托是致 Wang 女士的。\n\n因此，无论通话中可能说了什么，而且很可能曾有误解，我认为 Kearney 先生此时已明确表示，并不认为债务人的儿子——Guo 先生——再次说，Guo 先生是 Holdings 的成员；在这种情况下，没有理由认为 Guo 女士，即 Mei Guo（郭梅），不是 Holdings 的成员；在这种情况下，他们应当能够履行义务。法官阁下，我为什么关心这个问题？仅仅出于一个原因。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n我们需要获得文件。我们需要能够与之交谈、能够从其处获得文件的人。\n\n这确实引出了我们的第二点，即您今天听到他们说，他们已从所有来源获得了所有文件。Romney 先生在其声明中称，我没有理由相信 New York 或 Holdings 拥有任何资产，或有能力提交额外文件。\n\n那么，法官阁下，我不知道这怎么可能是真的。我曾与 Vartan 先生和 Romney 先生交谈。我尤其向他们指出了我声明中的 Exhibit J，那是一份 Hudson Diamonds New York 与 AIG 签订的保险协议，表明其名下有一辆 Rolls-Royce。我们没有任何关于该车的文件。我们仅收到 Holdings 为履行义务而提交的两份文件。因此，J 谈到了这辆 Rolls-Royce。如果您看 Exhibit V，那是 Margaret Conboy（玛格丽特·康博伊）的证言笔录。\n\n法庭：Exhibit——哪个？\n\nLUFT 先生：V，如 Victor 中的 V。\n\n法庭：V？好的。请稍等一下。\n\nLUFT 先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我正在看——\n\nLUFT 先生：所以它是——\n\n法庭：——您声明中的 Exhibit J——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 60 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 61 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\nLUFT 先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——其附于 1805 的 1805-36，第 1 页，共 5 页。这是一份 New York auto bill declaration page。上面写有保单号码、被保险人姓名和邮寄地址，Hudson Diamond New York, LLC，162 East 64th Street, New York, New York。出单公司名称和地址，AIG Property Casualty Company（AIG财产意外保险公司）。您所承保车辆的描述。2019 Rolls-Royce，附有 VIN 号码，约定价值为 $283,712。这就是您所指的吗？\n\nROMNEY 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：而驾驶员的描述是两名据称获授权并受保的个人，Dean Rabideau（迪恩·拉比多）——我不确定我的发音是否正确——R-A-B-I-D-E-A-U——以及我——Cao Defeng（曹德丰）——再次说，我可能没有正确发音——C-A-O 是名字。D-E-F-E-N-G 是姓氏。\n\n每次事故的责任保险保额为一百万美元。医疗费用保险为每人 $50,000。每次事故的无保险驾驶人保险为一百万美元。对您汽车损坏的碰撞保险，最高为约定价值。人身伤害保护保险，保费为 $5,817。看起来这是一份四页文件。好的。请继续。这是 Exhibit G——J，如 jam 中的 J。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n现在我们需要看 V，如 Victor 中的 V？\n\nLUFT 先生：是的，法官阁下，这是一份 Margaret Conboy 的证言笔录。她是 Whitman Breed（惠特曼·布里德律师事务所）的一名律师，代表 Hodgson——Hudson Diamond，就至少五宗房地产交易提供代理。\n\n法庭：您希望我看这份证言笔录的哪一页？我现在已经打开 Exhibit V。\n\nLUFT 先生：法官阁下，我可以请您看 Exhibit 21——第 21 页，其中有关于 Hudson Diamond 的讨论。我不——只是为了让您看到它是什么。我不打算逐一讲完全部内容。\n\n法庭：您希望我将其调到屏幕上，还是您只想——等等。您想如何处理？\n\nLUFT 先生：法官阁下，我会提及它。我认为这样会加快进程。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\nLUFT 先生：但具体而言，它谈到该购买是代表一个名为 Hudson Diamond 的实体进行的。然后它说：“这是否是同一项委托，即您被告知您代表 Kwok 先生及其家人的利益，对吗？是。”之后还继续谈到其他内容。\n\n法官阁下，我提出这些，并且此前向 Vartan 先生和 Romney 先生提出这些，是为了说明我们知道这辆车，我们知道存在房地产交易，我们知道似乎存在与 Hudson Diamond 各实体有关的转让，这意味着应当有文件。这不是一家什么都没做、也从未有人代表其做过任何事情的空壳公司。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 62 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 63 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n但我们收到的只是您已经——的那两份文件。\n\n从 Holdings（控股公司）处得知的情况，而且截至目前我们未从 New York（纽约公司）收到任何材料。\n\n而且，遗憾的是，听起来对方告知我们，甚至没有任何我们可以就此交谈的人。我确实更希望获得有关这些资产所在地的信息，例如是否确实购买了某处房产。\n\n我查到的其中一些房产价值高达 $35 million 以上，法官阁下。我不知道任何交易是否曾最终完成。但我知道，如果他们正在考虑购买该房产，他们就必定拥有资金。或者至少，这是一个合理的推定。\n\n因此，这正是我试图查明的事情。而在目前看来，这些情况似乎是可以查明的。不仅所有文件都表明如此，而且一个兄弟、一个姐妹和一个父亲竟无法沟通并弄清谁是债务人——其姓名被债务人置于公司名义之上的那个人——这一点似乎是可以查明的，尤其是三家实体中有两家由同一名律师代理。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023 65\n\n因此，法官阁下，这就是我们在此事上的实际情况。我理解这样的观点：如果他们——如果他们称并未代理这些实体，那么他们就不能——他们需要退出代理，因为他们并未代理这些实体。我只能就我们所知以及我们向您提交的、说明我们为何相信 Guo 女士是负责人之人的情况发言。这就是该问题的情况。但我必须对以下观点提出异议：即已经遵从要求，或者我们已经收到与 Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）有关的全部文件，无论是来自 Holdings——在我们看来其全资拥有 New York——还是来自 New York。我不知道所有资产具体在哪里，或其他任何情况。文件本应告诉我这些情况。但我不认为我们已经获得遵从。因此，对于两者，我请求再次提出我们的藐视法庭动议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nLuft 律师：谢谢。\n\n法庭：Claiborn 律师？\n\nClaiborn 女士：谢谢，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）。我想回到 Luft 律师指出的一点，我认为该点很重要，值得重点关注，即根据 Romney 律师与 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的 Kevin Kearney（凯文·卡尼）律师之间的电子邮件，似乎已形成共识：现存且任何人见过的最后一份文件，实际上是由 Mei Guo（郭梅）以 Holdings 唯一成员的身份签署，而她也是 New York 的同一唯一成员。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2023 于 07/21/23 提交 于 07/21/23 09:54:42 录入 第 66 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n因此，这是提交给法庭的最后一份文件，也是最后被讨论的文件。\n\n该文件与 Kearney 律师在附于 Romney 律师宣誓书的电子邮件中所述内容一致。因此，至少从书面材料上看，似乎不存在任何混淆：Mei Guo 是负责人。\n\n因此，如果 Mei Guo 是负责人，那么 Romney 律师似乎与她存在直接联系，因为他也以其个人身份代理她。这样一来，似乎就没有理由撤回出庭代理声明。\n\n我还想说的是，代表 Hudson Diamond——抱歉，Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）撤回出庭代理声明，似乎会损害破产财产。因为正如 Luft 律师刚才指出的，有若干类别的文件本应提供但尚未提供，并且已逾期。受托人就未遵从传票提出的藐视法庭动议尚待裁决，而允许 Romney 律师退出对 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的代理，似乎会损害破产财产，并损害受托人正试图推进的调查。因此，归根结底，法官阁下，我认为 Romney 律师尚未完成其举证责任，证明退出代理是适当的。\n\n我还要说的是，美国受托人对法庭命令的答复要求 Romney 律师和 Vartan 律师就若干不同问题提供答复。正如法庭已经指出的，Vartan 律师未提交任何答复。我还要说，Romney 律师提交的答复并未回应美国受托人要求的全部要点。而且，根据已提交的声明以及今天发表的意见，似乎还可以向法庭提供更多关于导致退出代理动议的一系列事件的信息。因此，遗憾的是，美国受托人为获取更多关于已发生何事及我们如何走到这一步的信息所作的努力仍未得到满足。\n\n但回到我刚才提出的一点，即任何人所持有并已提交的最后一份文件表明，Mei Guo 是所有这些实体的核心，因此据此看来，Romney 律师有依据继续留在本案中。谢谢。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023 68\n\n法庭：谢谢。Romney 律师，您是否希望答复？\n\nRomney 先生：是的，我希望答复。关于第一项问题，回应 Luft 律师，问题不在于世上是否存在有关 Hudson Diamond 各实体的文件。除我已经说明的内容外，我无从对此发表意见。问题在于我或者我能够控制的任何人是否能够找到这些文件。受托人在本案中主张，就其调查而言，这两个人利用其全部资源——远超我所能做到的程度——而且他们掌握 Hodgson Russ 的全部文件。我没有。记录清楚表明，我曾请求取得这些文件。我曾要求取得，但被告知不行。这一点载于记录中。我不能手持枪支前往 Hodgson Russ 的办公室，也不被要求这样做，强迫他们把我的文件交给我。我可以请求。我可以要求。但归根结底，我被告知不行。他们被告知可以。他们取得了文件。我没有。他们掌握信息。基于该信息，他们作出的主张与 Guo 女士所说或告知我们的内容，以及我们所作的陈述一致，即负责管理这些实体的两个人是 Yvette Wang（王伊薇特），她目前被监禁，我完全无法接触她；\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 2023\n于 07/21/23 提交\n于 07/21/23 09:54:42 录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n以及 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳），我们无法找到他。据我们所知，他数月来未与 Guo 女士联系。\n\n因此，据我们所知，掌握所有相关信息的人、掌握受托人所提及的所有文件的人——除非这些文件在 Hodgson Russ 以及其他与他们合作而不与我们合作的人手中——均在 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）控制之下。我认为——我并未主动向美国司法部索取有关这些实体的文件，因为在我的整个职业生涯中，即使在我的客户曾与其合作时，我也从未从美国司法部收到过一份文件。\n\n我们已经尽力而为。这是第一点。第二，Hodgson Russ 在最近一次与我们的沟通中，以《职业道德规则》1.6 为由拒绝与我们沟通保密信息，因为他作为准备该文件的律所总法律顾问，而美国受托人办公室和 Luft 先生称该文件现已具有决定性；但他，作为准备这份所谓决定性文件的律所总法律顾问，对该文件是什么、为何准备该文件仍有足够的不确定性，以至于他除了该文件是应 Max Krasner 的请求准备之外，不会向作为 Guo 女士和 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）律师的我提供任何信息。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2023 于 07/21/23 提交 于 07/21/23 09:54:42 录入 第 70 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n因此，我认为这远不足以决定性地证明 Guo 女士控制这些实体。\n\n而且，您知道，如果 Guo 女士控制这些实体，正如我在记录中所说，我将撤回我的退出出庭代理动议，因为我提出退出动议的唯一依据是——曾经是——我不知道 Guo 女士是否有权指示我代表该实体出庭。而准备了证明她确有该等权力之决定性证据的律师本人，或者该律所的总法律顾问，也并不清楚。\n\n因此，我不知道法庭如何能够要求我继续代表该实体。我很希望了解所有这些事实，并能够继续代表该实体，并继续尽我所能。但我并不了解。我没有足够的信息，使我相信根据职业道德规则，我能够基于现有事实继续代理该实体。\n\n关于 Luft 律师就 Kearney 律师和 Hodgson Russ 的意见所说内容，我要说明一点。Kearney 律师并未说——与其在电子邮件沟通中不记得曾告诉我们——告诉 Vartan 律师和我——那是债务人的儿子这一事实相反，或者尽管如此。那似乎是没有实质区别的区分，因为他显然是在说，代表 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.（哈德逊钻石控股股份有限公司）签字的是债务人的儿子。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2023 于 07/21/23 提交 于 07/21/23 09:54:42 录入 第 71 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n据 Hodgson Russ 所述，Hudson Diamond's Holding, Inc.（原文如此）是一家英属维尔京群岛公司。它不是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）。二者名称中均包含 Hudson Diamond Holdings，这一事实并不使其成为同一实体，也不使 Guo 女士成为该英属维尔京群岛公司的主要负责人。\n\n而且，据我所能回忆，我甚至不认为受托人在本案中曾主张 Guo 女士与 Hodgson Diamond Holdings, Inc. 有任何关系。因此，无论 Kearney 律师告诉我们签字人是 Mileson Guo（郭迈臣）——债务人的儿子，我百分之百确定他曾如此告诉我们——还是告诉我们签字人是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.，一家英属维尔京群岛公司——记录中的电子邮件确实在该电子邮件链较前部分区分了这两个实体，因为他明确提及 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.。而我说，Vartan 律师和我代理 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC，一家特拉华州有限责任公司。您答复的是，就特拉华州有限责任公司而言，您并不代理与英属维尔京群岛股份公司相同的实体吗？而他的答复是，是的，情况如此。\n\n因此，无论是 Mileson Guo 以其个人身份，还是 Mileson Guo 作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.——一家英属维尔京群岛公司——的总裁，关于——即——即——不存在任何我能够\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2023 于 07/21/23 提交 于 07/21/23 09:54:42 录入 第 72 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 72 就郭女士而言，所能查明的情况是相同的。因此，我认为我必须退出代理。最后，关于美国受托人认为或相信我未就她要求的宣誓书回答其问题一事，我逐一审阅了她的问题。我认为这些问题在很大程度上是重复的，至少就这两个实体而言如此，因为其中许多讨论同时就这两个实体进行。我已尽我所能，就她的问题、我的所知以及我对此事进行的勤勉调查，提供了一切我能够提供的内容。事实上，在起草本声明后，我回过头重新阅读了美国检察官的信息请求。在根据我三次审阅其请求的结果起草本文件后，我意识到我认为唯一尚未查明的问题，是为何由我而非 Vartan 律师出庭——或者说，为何只有我提交了出庭代理。因此，这就是关于为何我出庭而 Vartan 律师未出庭的答复。\n\n该答复涉及 pro hac vice 动议，以及我们当时的理解：此事属于非常轻微的事项，我们认为让多名律师就 pro hac vice 动议提交出庭代理既不审慎，也不高效。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 73 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 法庭：\n请稍等一下。关于\n2 你刚才所说的，为了让我明确了解，你认为该\n3 藐视法庭动议是非常轻微的事项？\n4 ROMNEY 先生：\n我认为该藐视法庭动议——或者说，协商短期延期\n5 并尽一切可能遵守要求的过程\n6 会是轻微事项，因为我并未——我预期我们会出庭。我\n7 认为我可以协商一个短期——事实上，我收回这一点。\n8 在我出庭时，我知道 Vartan 律师\n9 和 Luft 律师已就短期延期达成协议，\n10 并且我知道我将与郭女士和 Vartan 律师一道，\n11 尽我所能遵守要求，并且——查找尽可能多的\n12 相关文件。\n15 如我先前所述，我对\n16 答复传票的理解，是提供一切处于\n17 客户实际控制或推定控制之下的文件。而我\n18 不认为，如果我向一家前律所\n19 或一家声称从未代理该客户的律所提出要求，\n20 而它让我滚开，我认为那就是——该律所控制的\n21 文件不处于我或我客户的实际控制\n22 或推定控制之下。\n23 依我的理解，实际控制或推定控制\n\n是指该文件处于按照我或我客户指示行事之人的控制之下，并且如果\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 74 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 我告诉他们必须遵守。并不是说我必须\n2 对某人采取法律行动，以取得文件；依我的理解，\n3 第 11 章受托人已经持有这些文件，因为\n4 他们的整体立场是——尽管 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯）不知道\n5 是债务人的儿子还是债务人的\n6 女儿拥有这些公司，但该律所仍将\n7 其有关这些事项的全部文件交给了第 11 章受托人，\n8 尽管据我被告知的任何情况来看，该律所并未主张\n9 这是债务人的\n10 实体。\n11 对此没有异议。第 11 章\n12 受托人取得了这些文件。他们掌握的信息比\n\n我们更多。但正如这些文件所证明的，我们曾努力并且\n\n一再努力。我们告诉他们这很重要。我们告诉他们为何这很重要。我告诉他们，我基于他们的陈述已经提交了退出代理动议，而我需要所有信息。我曾多次以书面形式提出要求。对于\n\nHodgson Russ 律所，我不知道还能做什么。对于 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳），我不知道还能做什么。而且，我告诉他们——如果第 11 章受托人并不知道 Capital One（第一资本）银行账户的存在，我已将此告知他们，以便他们可以从 Capital One 取得相关资料。我曾努力——我本来更希望由我来交付这些文件，这样我就可以交付它们。但我做不到。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 75 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 我能做的最好的事，就是告诉他们这些\n2 账户存在。而且我知道这些账户存在，因为\n3 据郭女士告诉我的情况，他们告诉郭女士\n4 这些账户存在，但他们\n5 不会将文件给她。因此——\n6 法庭：\n你是说——只是为了——你是指\n7 银行，即 Capital One？\n8 ROMNEY 先生：\nCapital One Bank（第一资本银行）。是的。\n9 法庭：\n并且现有的文件是关于\n10 Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）实体账户的文件。你\n11 是这个意思吗？\n12 ROMNEY 先生：\n是这个意思。\n13 法庭：\n好的。请继续。\n14 ROMNEY 先生：\n我最后想说的是，\n15 如果第——如果美国受托人或在场任何其他人\n16 认为我疏于回答任何宣誓下的问题，\n17 我就在这里，并准备好在宣誓下回答\n18 任何人想向我提出的任何问题。\n19 谢谢。\n20 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。不过，我有一个\n21 之前没有问过你的问题，因为我\n22 没有关注 Luft 律师所关注的部分证据材料。\n23 那么，你是否要求郭女士向你提供有关\n24 Hudson Diamond New York（纽约哈德逊钻石）与 AIG（美国国际集团）之间这份保险单的任何\n25 文件，该保险单承保一辆汽车？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 ROMNEY 先生：\n我不知道有一份关于汽车的保险单。\n2 \n3 法庭：\n嗯，但其中唯一的问题是，\n4 该证据材料早在 1805 就已提交，而该材料\n5 是在你代表——提交出庭代理之前的某个时候提交的；\n6 它是在 5 月 18 日提交的。\n7 ROMNEY 先生：\n我明白这一点。而且，法官阁下，\n8 正如法官阁下所指出的，本案有大量\n9 文件。有大量工作要做。\n10 而且——\n11 法庭：\n对。但这是针对\n12 Hudson Diamond 的。这是——请记住，这是藐视法庭\n13 动议的一部分。\n14 ROMNEY 先生：\n这——\n15 法庭：\n而该藐视法庭动议\n16 明确列出证据材料，以支持如下主张：\n17 某些实体——而且有很多实体，并不只是\n18 Hudson Diamond。我同意你的说法。但该动议——附有\n19 关于 Hudson Diamond\n20 实体的证据材料。\n21 并且其中说，这就是我们为何要求提供文件。\n22 以下是一些证据材料，向你表明，至少根据\n23 截至目前向我们提交的材料，Hudson Diamond New\n24 York, LLC 和/或 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 曾拥有资产，\n25 并且目前仍拥有资产。该保险单承保的期间\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 77 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 截至 2023 年 5 月。随后还有这份——一名先前代理律师的\n2 证言记录，该律师谈到\n3 Hudson Diamond 实体试图购买房地产。\n4 我的意思是，有证据材料 G、E、H、U、J，以及\n5 T，而你提到了 T。你在你的\n6 声明中提到证据材料 T，这也是我回头审阅\n7 它的原因之一，因为你在你的声明中提到证据材料 T。而且\n8 我感谢你提到该证据材料。\n9 但在包含证据材料 T 的同一份动议中，\n10 还附有其他证据材料，直接涉及\n11 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 或\n12 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的资产存在。因此，我的问题是，\n13 你是否向你的客户询问过那些证据材料和那些资产？\n14 ROMNEY 先生：\n我需要以两种方式回答这个问题。\n15 至于——按“我是否询问过他们那些\n16 证据材料”来表述，答案是否定的。因为在提交延期\n17 动议之前——你知道，还是那句话，我并不认为对所有权\n18 存在任何争议。我与 Luft 律师交谈过——\n19 法庭：\n何种所有权——\n20 ROMNEY 先生：\n纽约实体的所有权。\n21 法庭：\n谁控制这些实体——\n22 ROMNEY 先生：\n是。\n23 法庭：\n——而非具体资产的所有权？\n24 ROMNEY 先生：\n是。\n25 法庭：\n好的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 78 ROMNEY 先生：我按照法庭指示，为达成协议之目的，在会议室与 Luft 律师交谈。他在那次会面中提到一辆劳斯莱斯，但没有提到——任何证据材料或其他事项，只是问我有关一辆劳斯莱斯的事。我说我会询问此事。而我——那是我首次提到——我所知的是一个已经关闭的 Capital One 银行账户。我确实向郭女士询问过劳斯莱斯。我没有收到关于该车的任何答复或任何文件。若我收到，我就会将其交出。我没有——法庭：那么，她从未答复你有关劳斯莱斯的问题？ROMNEY 先生：她并未疏于答复。她答复说她没有任何文件，而且——法庭：关于劳斯莱斯？ROMNEY 先生：关于一辆劳斯莱斯。而且——法庭：你看，这些都没有载入记录。她没有提交任何声明。ROMNEY 先生：嗯，还是那句话，她不是本案当事人。这——法庭：嗯，如果她是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的管理成员，她就是当事人，而文件表明她是该公司的管理成员。你代理她。你已经\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 79 明确说过——ROMNEY 先生：是的。我代理她。法庭：——你——作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的管理成员。ROMNEY 先生：我不知道那是否——她是——法庭：嗯，否则你如何有权——ROMNEY 先生：——指示我——法庭：否则你如何有权代表 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 行事？ROMNEY 先生：这是唯一的方式。法庭：好的。ROMNEY 先生：但我不认为——法庭：那么——ROMNEY 先生：——当我——法庭：那么，你确实是在她作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 管理成员的身份上代理她。ROMNEY 先生：我将此理解为代理该实体。但我也以她个人身份代理她。法庭：是的。但你代理该实体。那就是出庭代理——那就是藐视法庭动议所针对的对象。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 79 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 80 ROMNEY 先生：是的。而且我认为我们——我不认为——法庭：但她从未回答你有关劳斯莱斯的问题？ROMNEY 先生：我——那不是我所说的。法庭：好的。而且——ROMNEY 先生：她回答我的问题时说，她没有任何文件，而且她无法取得——法庭：你是否明确向她询问了劳斯莱斯？ROMNEY 先生：我明确向她询问了劳斯莱斯。法庭：你是否明确向她询问了 Hudson Diamond 据称参与的房地产交易？ROMNEY 先生：我不认为我明确向她询问过——我不记得了，这就是答案。我刚才想说的是，我没有阅读 Luft 律师的声明或全部证据材料。当 Luft 律师提出证据材料 T 时，我认为——法庭：那不是声明。那是实际提交的动议。ROMNEY 先生：我以为那是——法庭：不。那是——嗯，为支持该动议而提交的材料。Case 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 80 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n罗姆尼先生（Romney）：\n不是。\n对。\n所附的声明——我没有阅读该声明或证据附件。\n\n法庭：\n为支持藐视法庭动议。\n是。\n是。\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n他提请我注意证据附件 T，我对此非常感谢，并向他表达了这一点，还给他打了电话。我曾口头和书面表示，我们愿意尽一切所能，协助受托人为任一实体查找文件。如果他掌握任何可供我使用、能够协助我为他们查找文件的信息，我会利用该信息尽我所能。我没有收到任何额外信息。也许这是我的愚蠢之处，责任在我。我会承担这一责任。我本应这样做。鉴于此事涉及诸多变动因素，以及在这个案件和我们都必须处理的其他案件中，每一天发生的其他诸多变动因素，我没有回头查看该声明，以确定是否有其他文件可以对我有所帮助。\n\n但是，我被告知——我被告知，我认为是 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯），但我不确定。而且，坦率地说，我并未认为这非常重要。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 82 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n我相信 Hodgson Russ 的总法律顾问告诉过我，纽约实体曾探索过房地产交易，但据其所知，从未完成过任何一笔交易。我几乎可以确定，Luft 律师（Attorney Luft，卢夫特律师）在未提及任何特定文件的情况下，也告诉过我完全相同的事情。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n您还有什么想补充的吗？\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n没有。只是再次提出，我愿意在宣誓后回答其他任何人的任何问题。\n\n法庭：\n是否有人希望让罗姆尼律师（Attorney Romney，罗姆尼律师）宣誓后，作为本程序的一部分向他提问？\n\n卢夫特律师：\n我没有，法官阁下。\n\n克莱伯恩女士（MS. CLAIBORN）：\n法官阁下，如果可以的话，我想借此机会请罗姆尼律师审阅美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的诉状，即 ECF 1971。\n\n法庭：\n您的意思是——您希望他上证人席并宣誓？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n如果可以的话。\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n因为我——\n\n法庭：\n罗姆尼先生已提出此项建议，所以——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 2023\n提交于 07/21/23\n录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n我们有若干问题尚未得到回答。\n\n法庭：\n罗姆尼先生，请上前。\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n好的。亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）将代表我，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，实际上，我不知道这如何运作。\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n我相信，作为证人，我有权由律师代理，以便提出异议。\n\n法庭：\n我明白。我并非在作此建议。但是，代表债务人及其他当事人的亨齐先生，如何能够在与撤回出庭代理动议有关的事项中担任您的律师？\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n我不认为存在任何利益冲突——亨齐律师（Attorney Henzy，亨齐律师）多年来一直担任我律师事务所的总法律顾问。我不认为代理我与代理我的任何客户之间存在任何利益冲突。我不认为我对任何客户具有任何相反利益。我相信，作为证人，我无权对问题提出异议。我相信，如有异议，我有权由律师提出异议。\n\n法庭：\n我明白您有权——我并不质疑您如希望有律师代理即有权获得律师代理，而且——您提出要上证人席。好的？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 84\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n您提出了这个建议。\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n在我的总法律顾问在场的情况下。\n\n法庭：\n好的？但是，我的意思是，我不明白亨齐律师在这种情形下如何能担任您的律师。你们是同一家律师事务所的合伙人。你们双方在该律所都具有金钱利益。这怎么可能不存在利益冲突？这怎么可能——因为他也必须为自己担心。因为无论发生在您身上的事，也会发生在他身上。这怎么可能不存在利益冲突？\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n我会说，这意味着我们的利益百分之百一致。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么，您知道吗？今天我们不会继续进行，除非——我是说，德斯平斯受托人（Trustee Despins），美国受托人办公室（United States Trustee's Office），您真的认为亨齐律师能够在与本案文件有关的交叉询问中代理罗姆尼律师吗？这些文件涉及可能针对罗姆尼律师以及他所代理的客户——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 84 页，共\n\n罗姆尼律师所代理的一名或多名客户提出的藐视法庭动议？\n\n难道我是到了另一个星球吗？我的意思是，这太荒谬了。这怎么会不存在利益冲突？不——这怎么会不存在利益冲突？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 2023\n提交于 07/21/23\n录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n这仅是为了提出证据异议。我谨陈述——\n\n法庭：\n这并非仅为了提出证据异议。亨齐先生是在试图保护您，而他——任何代理您的律师都会这样做。这正是关键，对吗？这就是您需要律师的原因。您希望得到保护。这怎么会不存在利益冲突？我只是——抱歉。我就是看不出来。我并不是说您无权获得律师代理。是您提出要自己上证人席。现在您希望我允许亨齐律师——您的合伙人，与其共同的你们及其他合伙人均具有金钱利益——帮助您们彼此；你们均受一份合伙协议约束。我不知道你们彼此间的义务是什么。\n\n而且，您可能被认定——您可能被认定为个人藐视法庭，并因此应当支付罚款，据称如此。好的？我是在谈藐视法庭问题的分析。这怎么会不存在利益冲突？\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n我不认为存在利益冲突。\n\n法庭：\n房间里有 80 名律师。这怎么会不存在利益冲突？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 86\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n嗯，如果我必须支付罚款，那我就必须支付罚款。如果我的律所必须支付罚款，我的律所就必须支付罚款。而且我会说，我的合伙人与我具有相同的利益，而这些利益也与我的客户的利益相同。\n\n法庭：\n我不知道那是否属实。这取决于你们的合伙协议如何规定。我甚至不知道你们有什么协议。我毫无概念，而且我不想知道，因为这与争议问题无关。\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n法官阁下，我正尽可能保持透明。我——\n\n法庭：\n我并未作出相反的暗示，罗姆尼律师。我并未暗示任何此类事情。我只是不知道亨齐律师在这种情形下如何能够担任您的律师。我也不知道为何其他任何人认为他可以。\n\n亨齐先生：\n嗯，我认为我可以，所以——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我不——\n\n亨齐先生：\n——只是为了明确——\n\n法庭：\n我现在不是在问您。\n\n亨齐先生：\n——只是为了明确，法庭上至少还有一人认为我可以，但——\n\n法庭：\n好的。那很好。我很高兴您这样认为。\n\n亨齐先生：\n好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 86 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 87\n\n法庭：\n但我现在不是在问您。\n\n亨齐先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n我是在问其他人。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n法官阁下，或许我可以提出一个解决办法，即如果您回看美国受托人在 1971 号文件中提交的内容，其中提出的问题非常直接。举例而言，如果您只看第一个要点，即小（听不清）项，该问题实际上从未在罗姆尼律师的声明中得到回答。因此，我原本建议罗姆尼律师重新作出声明，并实际回应所提出的所有问题，或者——\n\n法庭：\n可以。您知道吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n——主张他——或者主张他无法做到。\n\n法庭：\n实际上，就让他上证人席吧。让亨齐律师代理他。似乎没有人认为这是个问题，所以请继续。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n我没有那样说，法官阁下。我只是建议——\n\n法庭：\n哦，嗯，是我这样说。罗姆尼律师，请上证人席。受托人——克莱伯恩律师，开始提问吧。让罗姆尼律师宣誓。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 87 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 88 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n法警助理：\n罗姆尼律师，请起立并举起右手。\n\nAARON ROMNEY（艾伦·罗姆尼），证人，已宣誓\n\n法警助理：\n请您陈述姓名以供记录。\n\n证人：\nAaron Romney（艾伦·罗姆尼）。\n\n法警助理：\n姓名和地址。\n\n证人：\n我的营业地址——\n\n法庭：\n是的。只需您的营业地址。\n\n证人：\n——是 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor, Bridgeport, Connecticut, 0604 -- 06604。我可以坐下吗？\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\n证人：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n如果您需要——这里有水。那里也应该有水。\n\n证人：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。请继续，克莱伯恩律师。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n谢谢。我是代表美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。\n\n直接询问\n\n由克莱伯恩女士：\n\n问 罗姆尼律师，请您告知法庭，就向 Hudson New York（哈德逊纽约）发出的传票而言，您首次何时受到 Hudson New York 的代表联系？我是在按照我的诉状中关于受托人向 Hudson New York 发出传票的定义使用该术语。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 89 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n答 是的。我将该问题理解为，以代表 Hudson New York 行事之人的身份而言。我要作出该澄清的唯一原因是，显然，我与郭梅（Mei Guo）谈过，她就是那名代表。自去年四月开始代理她以来，我一直与她保持联系。\n\n但是，就她作为 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）代表的身份而言，我相信是我联系了她。我相信——我的声明中载明了我何时这样做。我相信是在 April——抱歉，May 30th，我向她发送了传票。但在此之前，我们必定已讨论过这些传票。因此，我相信是在 April 23rd 和 May 30th 之间的某个时候，更接近 May 23rd。但就在该时间范围内。\n\n问 我是否正确理解您的证言：郭女士在您告知她之前，并不知道向 Hudson Diamond New York 发出的传票？\n\n答 这是正确的——这是我的理解。\n\n问 您该理解的依据是什么？\n\n答 因为她告诉我的。\n\n问 就受托人向 Hudson Diamond New York 发出的传票而言，您是否知道 Vartan 律师（Attorney Vartan）首次联系的时间是什么？\n\n1 答\n是的。\n2 问\n那是什么？\n3 答\n与我刚才所述相同。事实上，我于\n4 5月23日首次阅读了强制履行动议。我\n5 相信该动议于5月18日提交。如我今天在法庭上多次\n6 提到的，我们的案件——我们目前的案件\n7 工作量非常繁重，因此我实际上直到\n8 5月23日才阅读该文件。届时，我阅读了\n9 有关 Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）的部分。我认出了这些\n10 名字，随后我给 Vartan 律师（瓦尔坦）发了电子邮件，并说了大意是\n11 我们需要就此事立即联系 Guo 女士（郭女士）。\n12 \n13 问\n代表 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）聘请你担任其法律顾问的\n14 人是谁？\n15 答\nGuo 女士。\n16 问\n截至\n17 2022年12月1日，Hudson Diamond New York 的成员是谁？\n18 答\n基于我在声明中所述的理由，我不知道\n19 该问题的答案。\n20 问\n截至\n21 2023年6月1日，Hudson Diamond New York 的成员是谁？\n22 答\n我不知道该问题的答案——抱歉。你\n23 ——该问题是关于 Hudson Diamond——这两个问题中的任一个\n24 是关于 Hudson Diamond New York 还是\n25 Holdings（控股公司）？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n1 问\n两个问题均意在询问 Hudson Diamond New\n2 York。\n3 答\n好的。我也是这么认为，但我只是——我不知道\n4 该问题的答案。\n5 问\n好的。截至2023年6月13日，Hudson Diamond New\n6 York 的成员是谁？\n7 答\n基于今天在案卷中陈述的理由，我不知道\n8 该问题的答案。\n9 问\n你是否曾就我们刚刚讨论的那些成员资格及日期\n10 向 Mei Guo（郭梅）询问过这些问题？\n11 答\n具体就那些特定日期而言，我\n12 不认为我曾特别提及那些日期。但如果\n13 你的问题是，我是否曾与 Mei Guo 讨论过她是否——\n14 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）是否是——\n15 Hudson Diamond New York 的成员，答案是肯定的。而且\n16 如我所述，她认为 Hudson Diamond Holdings\n17 控制该纽约实体，这就是她指示我作出回应——指示\n18 我和 Vartan 律师尝试协商延期，并且\n19 尽我所能向 Chapter 11（第11章）受托人\n20 提供我们能够找到的回应性文件。并且\n21 她提出——或者她表示，并且我相信她确实\n22 协助 Vartan 律师，或与我们一同参与了\n23 该过程。\n24 \n25 问\n关于 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司），你是否\n\nHo Wan Kwok — 2023年7月11日 92 打算继续代理该实体？答 当然。CLAIBORN 女士（克莱伯恩）：好的。我没有其他问题了。谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好的。Romney 律师（罗姆尼），你可以退席。证人：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：关于藐视法庭动议、律师退出代理动议，还有其他事项吗？好的。我将对这些事项暂缓裁定。我们继续处理下一事项。ROMNEY 先生：法官阁下，我很抱歉。我可以告退吗？法庭：是，你可以。ROMNEY 先生：我确实得赶飞机。非常感谢您，法官阁下。法庭：不客气。BASSETT 先生（巴塞特）：法官阁下，如法庭允许，我认为我们建议接下来处理的事项是附带诉讼 23-5012 中的简易判决动议，该事项涉及——即有关 HK USA（美国HK）托管资金的利害关系人诉讼。法庭：请继续。BASSETT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。因此，我很抱歉。我想我可能在先前的一次听证会上以类似的\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交 07/21/23 录入 07/21/23 09:54:42 第92页，共\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交 07/21/23 录入 07/21/23 09:54:42 第93页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok — 2023年7月11日\n\n1 类似的话开场过，这很遗憾，但我确实觉得\n2 有若干次，我们发现自己在法官阁下面前\n3 就一些我们认为根本\n4 没有必要的动议进行辩论。这又是其中之一。\n5 我认为会很简短。之所以如此，\n6 以及我们认为本次听证会有必要的原因，\n7 是因为提交法庭的问题，即根据托管\n8 协议存放于托管中的资金是否应当\n9 发放给受托人，已经由本法庭于5月18日作出的\n10 简易判决裁定作出最终决定，该裁定认定 HK USA\n11 既是债务人的另我，且\n12 其全部财产，包括托管资金，均为破产财产。\n13 \n14 我想向法庭援引该命令的具体\n15 措辞。该5月18日命令载于\n16 ECF 221。第36页，前两段经法庭命令确认的段落。\n17 第一段经法庭命令确认的段落称：“HK USA 在\n18 所有相关期间均为债务人\n19 Kwok 先生的另我。”紧接着的一段称：“HK USA\n20 在所有相关期间直至目前的全部财产均为\n21 破产财产。”\n22 这意味着，法官阁下，\n23 《破产法》第541条规定的破产财产定义，\n24 即指对财产享有的一切法定或衡平\n\n权益，因5月18日的\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交 07/21/23 录入 07/21/23 09:54:42 第94页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok — 2023年7月11日\n1 简易判决命令而延伸至 HK USA 的全部财产。而且\n2 这不受任何合理争议的影响。HK USA 提交的\n3 书面材料中没有任何相反主张，即《破产法》第\n4 541条规定的破产财产定义包括合同权利和\n5 法定权利。\n6 \n因此，根据5月18日命令的效力，HK USA 曾希望根据托管协议持有和行使的任何合同权利，现在均为属于破产财产且依《破产法》构成破产财产的权利。因此，HK USA 无法在今天出庭，并以其在过去数周内，或者我想自作出简易判决命令以来，一直采用的方式进行阻挠，通过貌似躲在其试图行使的合同权利背后，阻止资金发放。这些权利现属于破产财产。\n\n他们在其书面材料中没有对此点作出回应，因为根本不存在这样的回应。这就结束了分析，法庭无需考虑其他任何事项。托管资金是否属于破产财产已经作出裁决，且不得再次诉讼。这是既判力。\n\n现在，HK USA 在反对受托人简易判决动议的文件中，花费大量篇幅聚焦于托管协议第4段，该协议作为附件\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交 07/21/23 录入 07/21/23 09:54:42 第95页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok — 2023年7月11日 95\n\n1 1附于起诉状。他们还援引判例法，\n2 表面上支持这样一个并无特别之处的主张，即\n3 一般而言，应执行合同，以及与该原则相关的\n4 公共政策考量。但在本案中，所有这些\n5 均无关紧要，因为法庭已经裁定，HK USA 根据托管协议\n6 曾经拥有或现有的任何合同权利，因\n7 5月18日裁决而成为破产财产，\n8 可由破产财产行使。\n9 \n毫不意外，他们所援引的关于一般合同权利执行或托管协议项下权利执行的判例中，没有任何一个涉及如下认定：一个实体是另一实体的另我，因此一方根据托管协议或其他方式表面上试图行使的权利，实际上属于另一方。他们没有援引任何此类案例。原因并不令人意外，因为在这样的情形下，除我们请求法庭下令作出的结果外，存在其他结果是不合逻辑的。\n\n我还想指出，既然我们谈到审视 HK USA 如此执意审视的托管协议措辞，如果你看托管协议第16段，它具体涉及对\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交 07/21/23 录入 07/21/23 09:54:42 第96页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok — 2023年7月11日\n\n1 托管协议作出的修订、增补、修改和变更。\n2 其规定是，除非破产法院下令，否则不得修改托管协议。\n3 现在，这一点很重要，因为即使假定 HK\n4 USA 仍有能力行使其在托管协议项下的合同权利，\n5 而基于我已经讨论的理由，它并没有这种能力，\n6 该第16段仍允许法庭对其作出修改。现在，他们可能会说，好吧，\n7 你知道，这真正的意思是，\n8 如果双方同意，那么法庭必须对此协议作出命令。但他们并没有——\n9 第16段中不存在该措辞。\n10 \n如果有，它会规定，为修改该\n11 协议，双方必须达成一致，然后\n12 法庭需要对此作出命令。它没有这样规定。它规定\n13 法庭可以下令变更该协议。如果他们要\n14 享有他们似乎如此担心的交易利益，\n15 那么该利益必须适用于整份\n16 协议。\n17 \n18 最后一点，法官阁下，是我们在动议中提出的\n19 有关托管协议及与 Lady May（“Lady May”号）相关的\n20 约定的整体目的，以及\n21 毫无疑问该协议目的已经实现这一事实。\n22 该协议和该约定，并且这无争议，最初设计，表面上，\n23 是为了确保将 Lady May 游艇交付给\n24 破产财产。\n25 \n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交 07/21/23 录入 07/21/23 09:54:42 第97页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok — 2023年7月11日 97 法庭在其近期驳回 HK USA 的——或者，我想是 HK USA 的待上诉期间暂缓执行动议的 ECF 第24号裁定中确认了这一点。对此目的不存在真正的事实争议。在其反对简易判决动议的文件中，他们试图构建一个稻草人论点，即如果我们讨论协议的意图，就必然是在引入事实问题。\n\n关于该协议非常明确的目的，不存在真正的事实争议。你只需查看该协议背景部分D段，该段非常明确地表明，托管协议的全部目的在于补充该约定，并确保将 Lady May 交付给破产财产。\n\n现在，为什么这很重要？因为显然，该目的已经实现。如法庭再次在其驳回待上诉期间暂缓执行动议的裁定中指出，HK 证明本将被提交，以便资金可以发放给 HK USA。在法庭审议受托人尚待裁定的初步禁令动议和判决前救济期间，该事项被推迟。\n\n但是，毫无疑问。我的意思是，该游艇现已出售。将资金保留在托管中的目的已经实现，且不再必要。你知道，事实上，如果你今天或在任何时候询问律师\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交 07/21/23 录入 07/21/23 09:54:42 第98页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023 98 在近期，如果你问他们是否认为托管资金应当发放给 HK USA（美国HK），我确信他们会回答是。我不认为他们能够面不改色地说，他们认为自己不应拿回资金。从他们的角度来看，该论点的问题在于，资金一经发放给他们，就成为我们的财产。因为根据 5月18日命令，HK USA 的所有财产均为遗产财产。我这样说，是因为这恰恰凸显了其立场的荒谬之处。他们并非使用托管协议及其规定来实现其预定目的，即在认证要求是否已经满足的争议可能得到解决期间，将资金置于托管之中。他们现在是在利用该协议，在上诉期间取得事实上的暂缓执行，并挟持本 Chapter 11（第11章）案件以及受托人为执行 5月18日命令所作的努力。因此，法官大人，我认为在我们看来毫无疑问。这是一项显而易见的简易判决动议。不存在有争议的事实问题。该问题已经由本院裁定。上诉期间不存在暂缓执行。托管资金应当\n\n交付给受托人。谢谢，法官大人。\n\n法 院：谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n1 莫里亚蒂先生（Moriarty），您要回应吗？\n2 莫里亚蒂律师：\n是。谢谢，法官大人。兹为记录，James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）代表 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（美国HK国际基金投资有限责任公司）。\n\n5 因此，法官大人，我将从巴塞特律师（Bassett）关于托管协议第16段的观点开始。\n\n7 显然，我同意他对此所说的内容，因为该条款的表述就是如此。我确实想向本院指出——正如法官大人记得的那样，该托管协议在 2022年10月曾经修订。彼时，从托管中释放了 $4 million，以设立 Lady May（“Lady May”号）的维修准备金。\n\n13 法官大人作出的命令载于案卷条目 932。日期为 October 7, 2022。即使在该命令中，以“命令”开始的第一段实际上也提及托管协议第42段。其规定，在该命令成为终局且不得上诉的命令后，于合理可行的最早时间。因此，即使就维修准备金而言，该命令也必须成为终局且不得上诉的命令，该 $4 million 才会被释放。\n\n22 托管协议能否通过法院命令进行修订？当然可以。这正是各方当事人同意的内容。该命令是否必须成为终局且不得上诉的命令，该托管协议的修改才能具有可执行性和适用性？是的。我们可从本院案卷条目 932 的命令中看出这一点。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023 100 至于托管协议按照其程序履行完毕，HK 在其异议中援引了 Netherberg v. G.V. Licensing（原文如此）一案。我马上会向法官大人提供该案引注。该案载于 1995 US Dist. LEXIS 11725，亦载于 1195WL491489。在该案中，法院审查了一份托管协议，该托管协议是就某些知识产权的出售而设立。根据该裁判，当时正在进行的诉讼中，该托管旨在于交割后保护卖方。卖方就其诉讼达成了和解。与其达成和解的一方寻求终止托管，或要求从托管中释放不存在争议的款项。在该案中，向 Southern District（南区）提出的论点之一是，这份托管协议现已成为多余，因为我们已就托管资金原本旨在担保的诉讼达成和解。法院所称——此处位于 PDF 第 2 页，共 3 页，且在我的 LEXIS 打印件起始页第4处——即使当事人签订托管协议的理由不再持续有效，也不会使原告在其与 Gitano（吉塔诺）达成的和解协议中同意的经修订托管协议失效。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n第100页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n第101页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n1 原告主张只有 GVTI（GVTI）——即知识产权的买方——对托管资金享有利益，该主张未能提出任何法律认可的理由，以推翻具有约束力协议中经协商达成的条款。在该案中，法院裁定其不会变更托管协议的条款，并且在资金释放之前必须发生的条件之一必须发生，而该条件尚未发生。\n\n10 这正是我们的案件。托管协议第4段中有四项条件。一旦其中一项条件发生，托管资金便会被释放。本院作出了一项命令，并裁定 HK USA 是债务人的另我（alter ego）。我们完全无意在此重新争讼该问题。\n\n16 我们在此讨论的是时间和先决条件。何时将从托管中向受托人释放这些资金——顺便说一句，受托人目前持有该等款项。必须满足其中一项条件。\n\n21 我们所关注的条件是，我们需要本院作出的终局且不得上诉的命令。本院于 5月18日作出的命令目前正在上诉。该上诉正由地区法院的 Dooley法官（杜利法官）审理，因此该条件尚未\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n1 得到满足，且根据托管协议的条款，资金不应被释放。\n\n3 这是一项简易判决动议。这是一个合同问题。就相关条件而言，合同不存在歧义。作为法律问题，在资金能够被释放之前，必须满足这些条件中的一项。\n\n8 巴塞特律师现在确实主张，该协议实际上完全是关于返还 Lady May 号，而现在 Lady May 号已经售出。如我刚刚向本院指出的，存在 Netherberg（原文如此）判决。但是，如果我们讨论的是简易判决，而这正是我们所讨论的，如果我们要探究当事人的意图，即当事人在起草要求破产法院作出终局且不得上诉命令的这一措辞时，意图为何？他们是否意图仅将其适用于有关 Lady May 号的问题，还是预期其适用范围更广？\n\n19 如果阅读协议的明文措辞，其必须适用得更广。但无论如何，如果我们要讨论当事人对该条款的含义为何，而不赋予其协议中的通常含义，那么便存在事实问题，并且基于当事人就托管协议所持意图存在事实问题，必须驳回简易判决。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n第103页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023 103 最后，法官大人，就遗产财产而言，对于 HK 收取托管款项的权利属于遗产资产这一点不存在争议。但是，该权利以某一条件或先决条件的发生为条件，而该条件尚未发生。在法官大人于 5月18日作出的准予受托人第二项反诉简易判决的裁判中，法官大人区分了反诉中的第2罪名项，即另我，与第3罪名项；我相信第3罪名项是欺诈性转让主张，但我可能对此有误。然而，在作出该区分时，法官大人所区分的是，就另我主张而言，其使 HK 的资产可用于清偿债权人的债权。若受托人希望控制该实体，则必须依据第3罪名项提出动议。如果受托人如法官大人在第25页裁判中所论述的那样，仅依据第3罪名项提出动议，那么受托人将控制该实体。该实体将成为遗产财产，即遗产资产。但是，为取得该实体的资产，受托人仍须刺破公司面纱。因此，受托人并不控制 HK。HK 是一个独立实体，其资产已可供\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n第104页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023 104 债权人使用。法官大人，如您有任何问题，我很乐意回答。\n\n法 院：我没有问题。\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：谢谢。\n\n巴塞特律师：法官大人，我仅作几点简短回应。我将——我想我将从莫里亚蒂律师结束的地方开始，即财产权利转移至遗产的问题，以及根据 5月18日命令，这将产生何种后果。其所享有的权利——如果莫里亚蒂律师所主张的是，转移至遗产的唯一权利是收取托管资金的权利，而 HK 为阻止该事项发生所持有的任何合同权利并非遗产权利——那根本不是法律规定。根据本院极其明确的命令，遗产现在——我还想提出另一点，即莫里亚蒂律师在提及本院命令时，他关注的是另我认定及其含义。我稍后会谈及这一点。但他忽略了极其明确的条款，即 HK USA 的所有财产，包括合同权利，均为遗产财产。因此，在此范围内——而且他——我不认为他在\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n第105页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n1 主张 HK USA 不具有该项能力，因为其显然具有该项能力。在 HK USA——众所周知其能够——可以前往托管代理人处并说，嘿，我们授权你们释放这些资金的范围内，该权利、该能力现属于受托人。\n\n6 （音频跳过：下午 2:46 至下午 2:49。）\n\n7 戈德曼先生（Goldman）：在委员会作为一方当事人订立该合同之时，当然没有人预见到我们现在正在处理的情形，即交易发生数月后将任命一名受托人，而该受托人最终将冻结并就存入的资金取得 PJR（判决前救济）。\n\n13 正如巴塞特先生所阐述，该笔存款的目的在于担保交付 Lady May 号。\n\n15 在订立托管协议时，任何一方当事人当然都没有预见到这种情形。法官大人应当根据该目的解释合同。具体而言，应当根据当事人当时的情况以及与该交易相关联的情形加以解释，这意味着其根本不适用于目前的情形。\n\n22 此外，我们完全支持巴塞特先生提出的论点。\n\n法 院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？好的。该动议\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日——关于简易判决的第106号动议，法院暂缓裁定。今天下午法院接下来需要处理什么事项？DESPINS先生：是HCHK和解事宜，法官阁下。LUFT先生将处理该事项。法院：好的。DESPINS先生：除非法官阁下想休庭。法院：不。我认为——DESPINS先生：不？好的。法院：——我们应当继续。GOLDMAN先生：好的。谢谢。LUFT先生：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？法院：可以。LUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：请继续。LUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。请原谅。本人Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），Paul Hastings（博钦律师事务所）律师，代表第11章受托人出庭。法官阁下，我今天到庭是就我们根据第9019条提出的动议，该动议旨在批准第11章受托人与HCHK实体的受让人之间的和解协议。法官阁下，我们向法院提交的协议因多项原因而对破产财产极为有利。该协议是经过广泛善意协商的产物。在对抗程序结果作出之前，该协议将立即以临时方式向受托人账户转移超过$38 million的HCHK实体现金。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第106页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第107页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 HCHK实体的现金将转入受托人账户。\n2 \n3 该和解协议将解决受托人与受让人之间的所有未决问题，\n4 从而避免成本高昂且耗时的、存在争议的临时禁令\n5 诉讼。\n该协议还有助于为对抗程序的加速\n6 及成本较低的解决铺平道路。\n该\n7 受让人已同意不反对受托人在\n8 对抗程序中请求的救济，我们认为这应当\n9 扫清障碍。\n10 \n11 和解协议规定，由受让人继续管理\n12 HCHK实体、Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环）办公室以及\n13 Columbus Circle资产，\n14 这将减轻受托人的行政负担。\n15 并且，法官阁下，该和解确保——\n16 所有人均将获得正当程序。\n17 现在，法官阁下，法院对第9019条标准\n18 十分熟悉。\n但简而言之，和解不必是\n19 债务人本可获得的最佳结果，而必须\n20 处于合理范围内，并确保其不处于\n21 该范围的最低点。应当考察Iridium\n22 因素以确定是否如此。结合我们刚才讨论的利益\n23 考察Iridium因素时，我认为十分清楚，\n24 该——这项\n25 和解毫无疑问符合破产财产的最佳利益。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 破产财产。\n2 关于成功可能性与\n3 未来利益，通过现在确保资金，和解\n4 消除了与临时禁令诉讼有关的风险和成本，\n5 同时也更有可能在\n6 对抗程序中取得有利结果。\n7 至于第二项因素，即复杂且\n8 旷日持久的诉讼之可能性，这将同时消除\n9 临时禁令——举行临时禁令证据听证会的必要性，并且，\n10 如我所说，简化未来的对抗程序。\n11 关于破产财产债权人的利益，\n12 法官阁下，我要指出，没有任何破产财产债权人\n13 提出异议。UCC（无担保债权人委员会）支持该和解。我还要\n14 指出，通过确保资产处于\n15 受托人的控制之下，该和解防止受托人希望\n16 为全体债权人的利益纳入破产财产的重大资产\n17 可能被耗散。\n18 Iridium项下第四项因素是\n19 其他利害关系方的支持。正如我所指出，UCC\n20 表示支持。提出的异议很少。尤其是，\n21 其中若干已提交的异议实际上明确表明，\n22 其并不争议和解条款，而是\n23 寻求确保其自身债权能够被加入，或者，就美国\n24 受托人而言，涉及案件中的一项非常具体的问题。\n25 我将处理所有这些问题。这实际上只剩下\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2023\n提交于 07/21/23\n录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 唯一一项实质性异议，即来自Himalaya\n2 各方的异议。我将很快处理该异议，但我\n3 认为，显然总体而言，大多数当事人支持这项\n4 和解。\n5 关于律师的能力和\n6 法官的经验，我在此将保持谦逊，但我\n7 当然会说，本法院对\n8 本案相关问题的掌握和了解远胜于任何其他法院，并且完全适合\n9 判断这是否为适当的\n10 和解。\n11 至于对董事和高级管理人员作出免责的性质和范围，\n12 前HCHK高管并未获得免责。\n13 存在受让人\n14 免责条款的问题，稍后将予以处理。但是，\n15 就此前存在的HCHK董事和高级管理人员而言，\n16 他们并未获得免责。\n17 至于该和解是否为公平交易，我可以\n18 向法院报告，这是在一项紧急临时限制令之后经过广泛\n19 协商的产物；在协商开始时，当事人\n20 确实具有不同利益，\n21 但最终能够达成解决方案。\n22 不过，法官阁下，在我深入讨论异议之前，\n23 我认为会有所帮助——如果法院\n24 认为合适，我希望说明\n25 该和解将如何运作。因为正如我们在书面材料中概述的，\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2023\n提交于 07/21/23\n录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n我们的书面材料中所述，该和解大致分为三个阶段。\n法院：\n请继续。\nLUFT先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。因此，这项\n拟议的和解命令将修改现有的\n临时限制令，并分三个阶段进行修改。\n第一阶段为阶段一。正如我所提及，将首先\n把HCHK资金转给受托人。\n金额将为$38,835,734.27。\n受托人将在作出终局性裁定之前，将这些资金投资于国库\n证券。\n为明确起见，在作出该\n终局性裁定之前，受托人无权将HCHK资金用于\n第9019号命令所规定以外的任何用途。\n阶段一的另一部分是，受让人将向\n受托人提供其持有的所有HCHK非特权\n公司记录及其他文件。\n受让人已同意就\n对抗程序不持任何立场。我相信，如其书面材料所示，\n他们——将无法持不同立场。\n他们也不会协助任何一方\n反对该等救济。\n同时，法官阁下，该命令将\n明确，该和解及资金转移不损害任何当事人的权利，\n但受让人除外；基于上述理由，其他当事人可提交书状\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第111页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1 并采取立场，但须满足诉讼资格要求。\n2 当然，受托人指出，他保留\n3 反对诉讼资格的权利。但简而言之，这意味着，\n4 如果你具备并符合诉讼资格，\n5 你就将有机会参与。当然，受托人也将有\n6 机会对此提出质疑。\n\n这就是阶段一。阶段二将在拟议命令获准作出（如获准作出）且HCHK资金完成首次转移之后进行。该阶段涉及命令第9段所述的获授权受让人行为。这允许受让人依照命令条款，就Columbus Circle办公室、HCHK的剩余员工及与此相关的程序性和行政性事项采取某些行动；受托人可以预付部分HCHK资金以支付该等费用。这就是我所提到的行政性救济，其对破产财产有利。\n\n第10段指出，纽约法院的救济不具有——不会具有约束力，这就引出阶段三，即在对另一个自我及衡平所有权请求作出终局性裁定时产生。若受托人的对抗程序获得有利裁定，命令第11段规定了和解付款，并列明了金额。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第112页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 112 第12段涉及申报截止日期的修改，受托人获授权请求法院修改申报截止日期，以允许HCHK实体的债权人（如有）现在在债务人的第11章案件中申报债权，因为若另一个自我或衡平所有权请求获准，该等债权人将在其存在的范围内成为债务人破产财产的债权人。第13段涉及引导禁令，我们稍后将对此进行说明。第14段是免责条款。然后，法官阁下，我将转而说明，如对抗程序中作出对受托人不利的终局命令，将会发生什么。第15段明确规定，将由受托人向受让人返还资金。因此，这就是命令将如何运作以及我们根据和解所提议的三个阶段。法官阁下，在我转入异议之前，我想询问您是否有任何问题。法院：我没有问题。谢谢。LUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。好的。既然如此，让我转而讨论异议。因此，我首先说明了我们为何认为已满足Iridium因素。我将指出，总体而言，就\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2023 提交于 07/21/23 录入于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第113页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 113 异议而言，Iridium因素在很大程度上未被讨论。相反，这些异议似乎是人们希望得到的各种事项的混杂，试图在债权程序上抢先一步，或者，就我将要讨论的Himalaya而言，坦率地说，是一个对转让程序如何对其产生结果不满的人，但其并无在此提出异议的实际依据。\n\n因此，正如我们在答复书中详述的，法官阁下，Himalaya各方主要由本法院已直接认定受债务人控制的实体——Himalaya Farms、Himalaya——或债务人曾参与的其他实体构成，其已提出异议。我认为，其核心实际是在说：我们本来更愿意在纽约州法院；我们认为转让将在那里进行。\n\n每个人都有权有其偏好，但这不是反对和解的依据。当然，这也不是主张该和解不符合债务人破产财产最佳利益的依据，而这正是第9019条动议所涉及的事项。\n\n现在，Himalaya各方在其书面材料中用了很大篇幅争议对抗程序中的另一个自我及衡平所有权请求。法官阁下，这并非今日摆在我们面前的问题。他们——在其范围内\n\n如果他们具有诉讼资格，他们将有机会在受托人的对抗程序中提出其所持有的任何异议。但和解并未在任何方面排除他们这样做。\n\n同样，法官阁下，受让人是作出决定的一方。这正是他被指定后所发生的情况。据我所知，这些实体均未对该转让提出异议。据我所知，它们迄今也没有打算就以下设想提出任何异议：当受让人考虑将这些实体出售给另一方，即 G News（G News）一方时。\n\n受让人作出了该决定，即该和解符合其最佳利益。这并非所谓债权人或受让人对此提出异议的场合。\n\n本院显然如临时限制令（TRO）中所述，对此具有管辖权。因此，任何关于其管辖权的论点，实际上都只是对该命令的附带攻击。我认为这些论点并不适当。\n\n最后，法官阁下，Himalaya entities（喜马拉雅实体）就引导性禁令和免责条款提出了问题。Cole Schotz（Cole Schotz）律师事务所的律师将重点说明这些问题。但我要说的是，受托人同意这些条款并支持这些条款。不过，我将让 Cole Schotz 的律师就这些问题作出回应，因为他们的重点更直接在于其所涉问题及其书面文件。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交日期 07/21/23\n录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n最后，法官阁下，我认为喜马拉雅各方提出的唯一其他问题涉及授权。再次说明，Cole Schotz 的律师将重点说明此事。但我要指出，根据转让契据，该等契据不仅未受到异议，而且已被登记，据我理解，受让人拥有完全授权，可以和解针对其提出的任何及所有请求。我当然认为这属于该授权范围之内。\n\n如果法官阁下对喜马拉雅各方的异议有任何问题，我将作答。否则，我将继续处理下一项。\n\n法庭：我没有问题。你可以继续处理下一项异议。\n\nLUFT 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。下一项是美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）就引导性和免责问题提出的有限异议。如我所述，Cole Schotz 的律师将重点说明此事。我认为这是非常类似的问题。我就此不再赘述。\n\n此外，尚有关于通知的问题。美国受托人办公室表示，他们希望提前三天通知，并设定 \\$25,000 的上限。鉴于本案成本，受托人提出 \\$50,000 的上限，以减轻行政负担。我们认为，将上限提高至 50,000 不会损害有意了解支出情况者的利益，同时也会使受托人以略高的上限进行处理更易于管理。据我所知，这就是其中唯一的差异。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2023 提交日期 07/21/23 录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 116 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n关于 G News 的有限异议以及 Sherman 律师的异议，两者均提出了非常类似的问题，即他们认为自己拥有我想他们会称之为行政请求权的权利。他们有款项——就 Sherman 先生而言，他认为根据一项离职协议应向其支付款项；就 G News 而言，他们在认为其交易将会推进时，为租金及其他费用支出了有限金额。\n\n我不认为，对 9019 动议提出异议是提出这些请求的适当程序工具。这些请求当然并不涉及破产财产的利益。我不认为推进该和解会以任何方式损害任一方的权利。如果这些请求有效，将通过多种方式处理，并且将有充分时间处理这些请求。但没有理由因此拖延和解，或修改和解以将他人的请求纳入其中。\n\n我认为，法官阁下，这就剩下 G Club（G Club）——其所称的通知，而非异议。我应当暂停一下，并问法官阁下，在我转向最后一项之前，您是否有任何问题？\n\n法庭：没有。\n\nLUFT 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。法官阁下，我认为我们最近在本院已谈论 G Club 一段时间了。这是我们一直在处理证据开示问题的同一 G Club 实体。当然，这再次涉及文件。\n\nG Club 在其通知中明确表示，他们并未提出异议，但其声称存在一项主服务协议，该协议未被附上，也未引用任何条款。但他们称，目前存在一项主服务协议——可能存在，我不知道——该协议规定，根据该协议，G Club 的所有文件和电子邮件实际上均由 HCHK（HCHK）管理。\n\n法官阁下会记得，我们此前被告知，债务人与 G Club 至多仅存在间接关系，这就是他们无法提交其文件的原因。也就是说，他是一名无偿发言人。此后，我们又被告知，由于高管离职，相关人员已经离开，因此无法提交文件。\n\n现在，我们某种程度上完全转变了立场，G Club 现在表示，不仅其与债务人存在关系，而且实际上，该关系密切到这样一种程度：一个我们相信将证明为其另一个自我的实体与其订有管理服务协议，而电子邮件实际上一直存放在 Manhattan（曼哈顿），并一直可在 HCHK 取得。无论如何，他们现在提出了新的论点，说明为何受托人不应能够取得文件。他们要求修改该命令，以规定受托人仅应获准查看仅与 HCHK 有关的 HCHK 文件。\n\n现在，法官阁下，其影响很可能是形成一个空集文件，因为根据 HCHK 自己的文件，其所做的是为所有不同的债务人实体提供服务。因此，如果您只能谈论仅与 HCHK 有关的文件，他们就会将范围划分得如此狭窄，以致于我猜测，他们几乎所有文件将再次脱离受托人的掌控，而我们将再次无法取得这些文件。\n\n他们声称的第二件事是，这些文件具有保密性，因此必须返还给他们。对此，法官阁下，我要指出，当受让人被指定时，G Club 并未站出来说：这些是保密文件；你不能查看它们。他们当然从未主张其中任何文件享有特权。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2023 提交日期 07/21/23 录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 119 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n随后，当受让人准备将所有资产出售给 G News——另一个将包括这些同一文件的实体——时，据我所知，他们再次未对此提出异议。似乎只有当受托人将获得查阅文件的权限时，G Club 才提出异议。\n\n我认为没有任何依据，法官阁下。我认为和解应当维持原状。我认为，在 G Club 存在任何相关文件的范围内，我们将能够查看这些文件。我认为，允许受托人查看 HCHK 的文件——该实体当时也正面临针对其提出的 2004 审查请求——是完全适当的。\n\n我认为，基于所有这些理由以及我此前所述内容，法官阁下，G Club 的异议不应成立。\n\n最后我要提及的一点，法官阁下，确实如我所述，将支付费用。为明确起见，受托人已对文件进行了初步审查。该命令中列出的费用，在受托人看来似乎是合理的。但我确实指出，受托人有机会进一步审查，以便在存在任何疑问的范围内确保任何此类费用均属合理。\n\n法官阁下，如您有任何问题，我很乐意作答。否则，我目前没有进一步陈述。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2023 提交日期 07/21/23 录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 120 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我没有问题。谢谢。\n\nLUFT 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。谁希望就受托人的和解动议发表回应意见？\n\nLUFT 律师：法官阁下，我相信这是来自 Cole Schotz 的律师。\n\n法庭：好的。是的。先生，请上前来。那么，请您再次陈述姓名以便记录。\n\nJARECK 律师：为记录在案，法官阁下，我是 Ryan Jareck（瑞安·贾雷克），Cole Schotz PC（Cole Schotz PC），代表受让人 Hofmeister 先生。而且，法官阁下，作为介绍，Hofmeister 先生在场。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nJARECK 律师：我只是想向您简要介绍一下他。\n\n法庭：下午好，Hofmeister 先生。\n\nHOFMEISTER 先生：下午好，法官。\n\nJARECK 律师：法官阁下，我不知道您是否倾向于让我先处理美国受托人的异议，还是处理与授权问题有关的喜马拉雅异议。\n\n法庭：你可以——你应当以你认为适当的任何方式进行。好吗？\n\nJARECK 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。我将开始处理美国受托人的异议。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2023 提交日期 07/21/23 录入日期 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 121 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023\n\n关于美国受托人的异议。因此，法官阁下，美国受托人基于两项理由反对 9019 动议。第一，美国受托人反对拟议引导性禁令，即拟议命令第 13 段。第二，其反对拟议免责条款，即该命令第 14 段。\n\n法官阁下，我们于周五提交了答复，以提供一些背景说明，说明为何这些条款对受让人而言是和解的关键组成部分，我只想说明几点。受让人目前根据临时限制令被禁止推进转让程序。如果和解获批准，该转让将实质上以有序方式完成清算。\n\n如果受托人获得一项具有终局效力的裁决，HCHK 破产财产将实质上并入本院审理的 Kwok（郭文贵）破产财产。因此，作为和解讨论的一部分，重要的是，由转让程序引起的任何及所有请求均由本院裁决，并被引导至本院，而不是在多个法庭进行零散诉讼。这就是受让人请求引导性禁令的原因。\n\n该引导性禁令仅旨在作为法院选择机制，且其不会——也无意影响任何一方的权利。如果法官阁下实际上已经有\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 11, 2023 122 请看该命令第 13 段，或者请调出来。法庭：临时限制令的吗？JARECK 先生（贾雷克）：不是。拟议的 9019 命令。法庭：哦，好的。请稍等片刻。JARECK 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：不，我没有那份文件。JARECK 先生：这是 Case 23-05013，Docket Entry 25。法庭：请给我一点时间，我会调出来。JARECK 先生：当然，法官阁下。（暂停）法庭：哦，很好。我们刚刚调出来了。您希望我看哪一页？JARECK 先生：共 28 页第 24 页，第 13 段。法庭：谢谢。JARECK 先生：那么，法官阁下，您看到了第 13 段，即引导禁令吗？法庭：是的。JARECK 先生：其大意是，如作出决定性裁定——换言之，假定您——法官阁下同意受托人的意见并认定存在另我关系，则所有债权人和权益持有人均应被禁止并受禁令约束，不得主张任何索赔及诉因。当您继续向下翻阅时，随后写道：“除非通过在本法院提交的适当诉状提出。”这并非如 United States Trustee（美国受托人）所主张的，是一项非合意的、非债务人的第三方免责；这纯粹是一项法院管辖机制。这仅仅是一种确保在作出决定性裁定后，任何及全部索赔均在本法院监督下向本法院提出的机制。事实上，我们原本认为 U.S. Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）会更倾向于此。在周末与 Claiborn 律师（克莱伯恩）交谈时，以及最近在昨天，我们传阅了措辞，以更明确地说明这是一项法院管辖机制。事实上，我们提议——在“除非通过在本法院提交的适当诉状提出”之后——增加“（明确理解，前述条款仅意图作为法院管辖机制，不影响任何当事人的权利）”。不幸的是，该拟议修订作为更广泛和解讨论的一部分被否决了。同样，法官阁下，免责条款非常重要。好的？您可能有机会——抱歉。免责条款也不是对第三方索赔的免责。该条款位于引导禁令条款正下方的第 14 段，其条件是本法院作出有利于受托人的决定性裁定。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 122 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 123 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 11, 2023 123 一旦作出该裁定，如有针对受让人、为让与程序及和解协议之目的提出的索赔，即成为财产诉因。因此，任何关于管理不善、违反信义义务的索赔，在其存在的范围内，不再是任何债权人的直接索赔。它们并非财产诉因。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 124 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 11, 2023\n\n换言之，免责条款的性质更接近于债务人免责，而非第三方免责。Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）已明确指出，债务人获授权可根据 Rule 9019 对财产诉因予以免责。如本法院有兴趣，我乐意向本法院提供引证。我认为，债务人和受托人可以根据 9019 对索赔作出和解，这一点众所周知。这正是该规则的用途。\n\n因此，尽管其被称为免责条款，但其性质更接近于为受让人的某些行为提供有限的债务人免责。这完全不是 Purdue Pharma（普渡制药）式第三方免责问题。如果措辞不够明确，我们愿意作出任何修改，以确保受让人的意图在命令中得到明确表达。\n\n法官阁下，为了更好地说明这一点，如果 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）成功，并且其他债权人成功地取消免责条款和引导禁令，则在作出决定性裁定后，再次假定这些条款未获批准，受让人可能会在多个法院面临索赔，却没有任何资源为自己进行抗辩。鉴于受让人及其专业人士为这些财产所提供的服务及由此产生的价值，这显然不公平。法官阁下，我就此停止，并询问您对我们有关引导禁令和免责条款的立场是否有任何问题。法庭：我没有任何问题。谢谢。JARECK 先生：那么，法官阁下，我接下来将转向 Himalaya creditors（喜马拉雅债权人）的异议，并着重讨论他们提出的授权问题；我认为，该问题更适合由受让人及其律师处理。法庭：好的。JARECK 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。首先，异议人援引了让与契据、纽约债务人与债权人法的众多条款。这些条款根本不适用于我们拟通过本和解所做的事项。我只举几个例子。首先，异议人质疑受让人签订和解协议的权限，并援引——抱歉，在其异议第 57 段和第 60 段中。他们援引让与契据。他们援引纽约债务人与债权人法，该法要求任何个人财产的出售或处分均须经州法院批准。和解协议并非出售让与人的资产。和解协议仅设想在本法院明确监督下，将 HCHK 资金从一名受信人转移给另一名受信人。在本法院就受托人关于另我关系的主张作出裁决之前，该等资金将存放于受托人的保管账户中。同样，异议人在第 58 段援引纽约债务人与债权人法的一项规定，该规定涉及授权受让人出售、和解或折衷属于财产的任何索赔或债务。再次说明，法官阁下，受让人并未出售或和解任何属于让与人的索赔。事实上，恰恰相反。不存在任何免责条款。作为协议的一部分，受让人要求所有对该等财产有利害关系的当事人均收到拟议和解的通知，并且根据第 8 段中的不损害权利条款，所有当事人的权利均被明确保留和维护。此外，在第 61 段中，异议人批评受让人没有提供通知和陈述意见的机会。受让人当然在本法院向债权人提供了陈述意见的机会。在加速审理命令作出后，已向这些债权人发出通知，并已为此提交送达证明。最后，法官阁下，我想指出，如同律师先前提出的，授权问题实际上已在让与契据第 4F 节中得到处理，该节规定受让人有权解决任何及全部争议。这正是我们在此所做之事，法官阁下。在临时限制令作出后，受让人及其律师与受托人及其律师进行了数次讨论。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 125 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 11, 2023\n\n由于这些讨论，受让人基于其商业判断，决定订立本和解，而不是就禁令请求以及对抗诉状中提出的问题进行诉讼，前提是将资金移交由受托人控制须受本法院对对抗诉状中提出问题作出的最终裁决所约束。\n\n法官阁下，受让人认为，应当批准和解协议，并且该协议有利于债权人，因为受托人在其诉状中提出的问题必须以某种方式予以解决或裁决。该和解避免了高昂的诉讼费用，同时保留了当事人如愿意对受托人的主张提出异议的权利。因此，受让人谨请批准 9019 动议。我就此停止，并询问本法院是否对我今天下午的陈述有任何问题。法庭：我没有任何问题。谢谢。JARECK 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。PASTORE 先生（帕斯托雷）：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？法庭：可以。PASTORE 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：您能否——PASTORE 先生：可以。法庭：——请为记录陈述您的姓名？PASTORE 先生：当然可以。我叫 Joseph Pastore（约瑟夫·帕斯托雷），来自 Pastore LLC（帕斯托雷有限责任公司）。今天与我一同出席的是我的同事 Melissa McClammy（梅利莎·麦克拉米）。后方房间里还有几名暑期助理。我们代表 HCHK entities（HCHK 实体）的若干债权人。如法官阁下希望，我可以宣读他们的名称。它们是一些难以发音的数字。或者，如果记录中载有我们的书面陈述即可——法庭：记录即可。谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 128 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 129 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 11, 2023\n\nPASTORE 先生：很好。谢谢。法官阁下，我代表的债权人尽管面对暗示和陈述，仍认为他们是这些实体的善意债权人，曾出借资金，并且是合法债权人。我与他们没有任何私人关系，没有与他们共事的经历，没有与该运动有关的经历，也与此处发生的任何事情没有任何关系。我是突然进入一出我知道已经上演过多幕、而我只看到其中一部分的戏剧。我尊重并理解这一点。但从我们的角度看，我在此是因为有债权人的权利正受到一项我们认为越权或违法的和解所侵害。受让人的律师已经强调了这一点。这是一项和解动议。而纽约州法律明确规定——我们刚刚读过——受让人不能在未经纽约州法律规定的法院批准的情况下进行和解——我相信这是我们异议的第 58 段。这样规定是有原因的。受让人并非独立自主的主体。受让人受纽约州法院指挥行事。我非常尊重临时限制令。我理解冻结资金的必要性。我理解必须非常谨慎的必要性。但必须有人监督并使受让人的和解合法化。他不能单方面依照自己的信念行事。他必须在纽约州寻求批准。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 130 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 11, 2023\n\n法院。\n因此，该和解协议是违法的，因为并未寻求此类批准。\n从我们的角度来看，必须有人核实受让人认为其无需进行任何调查、无需获得任何信息，即可剥夺这些债权人权利的看法。\n仅仅剥夺其根据纽约州法律负有信义义务服务和保护的债权人的权利。\n现在，让我们明确一点。\n当我说剥夺权利时，\n我指的是 HCHK 实体的债权人，假定他们是善意的——而我必须作此假定。\n而且我已对此进行了调查。\n据我所知，他们是合法债权人。\n善意的\n债权。善意出借的款项。正因这一安排而被完全\n剥夺权利。\n而受让人无需向任何人报告\n其为何这样做。他因此获得豁免。\n他因此获得 $550,000。他的律师因此获得\n$400,000。任何人基于何种理论能够\n主张他是为了其宣誓要保护的债权人的最佳利益而行事？\n因此，受托人和受让人所构建的该协议违法，越权。\n本法院有权中止纽约诉讼。但我\n认为本法院无权要求纽约\n法院必须批准受让人在本案中的该项转让。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 131 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n我认为这应由纽约法院\n裁定。如果纽约法院作出此类裁定，和解\n即可继续进行。但若无此裁定，必须有人处理此事。\n受让人不能——受让人不能仅凭其自身意愿而根据纽约州法律这样做。\n关于，您知道，或许某天我们会\n作出另我分身的认定，也许会，也许不会。\n但我认为这不足以使本法院仅仅\n无视纽约州法律的明确严格规定。\n或许有一天会作出另我分身的认定，如果是这样，\n最终，这些款项将被转移。但是\n在此之前，这并不能证明无视法律是正当的。\n因此，我们的观点是，法官阁下，该和解\n不应按其现有结构获得批准。它越权。\n它违法。应当遵守\n该严格规定。\n如果案件继续进行，我们打算\n介入该案件并保护我们债权人的权利。他们是\n该实体和该笔款项的善意债权人。我们\n打算努力要求受让人履行其宣誓承担的义务，\n保护债权人即我的委托人的权利。\n如您有任何问题，法官阁下，我很乐意\n回答。这就是我们所代表的债权人的立场。\n法庭：我目前没有任何问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 132 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 132\n此刻。\nPASTORE 律师：好的。\n法庭：谢谢。\nPASTORE 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n法庭：还有其他人希望就和解动议发表意见吗？\nSHERMAN 律师：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？我叫 Joshua Sherman（约书亚·舍曼）。我提交了一份有限异议。\n法庭：可以。\nSHERMAN 律师：我只想陈述——\n法庭：请您到这个讲台前来，好吗——\nSHERMAN 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n法庭：——这样会更方便。谢谢。\nSHERMAN 律师：法官阁下，我只想陈述，我同意喜马拉雅债权人提出的论点。但此外，我还想陈述，我认为我自己的债权具有管理费用性质。我在致法院的信中对此作了说明。受托人和受让人并未作出相反主张。因此，如法院倾向于批准和解，我的债权应列入拟议命令中获授权的受让人行动之内。谢谢。\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\nARCARO 律师：法官阁下，下午好。Gregory\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 133 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\nArcaro（格雷戈里·阿卡罗），代表 G News Operations, LLC（G 新闻运营有限责任公司）出庭。\n与律师的异议类似，我的客户与受让人订立了一项\n管理协议，并根据该管理协议预付了租金和\n其他费用。\n拟议命令和和解协议规定\n终止该管理协议，但未规定\n由此产生的后果，即返还\n我的客户垫付的资金。\n\n我听到受托人的律师说，对和解动议提出异议并非主张债权的适当场所，但受托人在其提出将某些管理费用——我认为属于管理费用债权——作为和解一部分予以支付时，已将该问题明确提交法院审理，却未提出支付我的客户的机制；我们仅请求纳入一项机制，使我的客户能够提交债权，并在获得证明后，与其他管理费用债权一同获得支付；并主张其与和解协议中拟议的所有其他付款享有同等地位，具体是在第三阶段，但也可在第二阶段提出，即受托人获授权向受让人预支以支付某些费用之时；该债权可以根据和解协议的任一部分以任一方式提出，但应具体说明该债权将如何处理。\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 134 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n法庭：谢谢。\nBARANOWSKY 女士：下午好，法官阁下。\nKelliane Baranowsky（凯莉安娜·巴拉诺夫斯基），来自 Green & Sklarz（格林与斯克拉茨律师事务所），代表 G Club Operations, LLC（G Club 运营有限责任公司）。\nCarolina Fornos（卡罗莱纳·福诺斯）也与我一同出席，她来自 Pillsbury Winthrop（Pillsbury Winthrop 律师事务所），代表同一实体。\nFORNOS 女士：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n法庭：可以，请。\nFORNOS 女士：谢谢。\n法庭：下午好。\nFORNOS 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Carolina\nFornos，来自 Pillsbury Winthrop，代表 G Club Operations。\n法官阁下，我们已提交一份通知，而受托人对该通知的表述方式——即受托人对该通知的定性——完全是为了\n避免提交文件。明确地说，G Club\nOperations 已提交文件，不仅包括我们上次出庭时\n提到的 300 份文件，还包括我们今早提交的逾\n100,000 份文件。我们还将提交更多文件，因为我们将在\n7 月 14 日前遵守法院的命令。\n我们向法院提出的问题是，\n受托人不能仅仅到场，假定存在另我分身，\n假定实质合并，并控制 HCHK 持有的所有\n文件。为明确起见，HCHK\nTechnologies（HCHK 科技公司）——且存在多个实体。对我们而言，\n唯一的问题是 HCHK Technologies。该公司对于我们的信息技术具有\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 135\n行政和管理职能。HCHK 无权将这些权利和文件转让给受让人。受让人也无权仅仅将其交给受托人。受托人不能仅仅规避证据开示程序，并说，哦，我要取得所有这些文件，无视特权，无视合同权利。这就是我们提交该通知的原因。我们恭敬地请求法院注意，我们将提交文件，但 G Club 必须能够查阅其文件，对其进行审查，核查特权，我们将提交具有回应性的文件。受托人无权不顾特权权利和回应性而径直取得一切。法官阁下，法院对此问题有任何疑问吗？\n法庭：我只是——我认为您所说的唯一一件我相信我已知晓、但想确认自己理解正确的事，是您代表 G Club Operations 提交的通知仅仅——该通知仅涉及 HK——HCHK Technologies 实体，对吗？\nFORNOS 女士：是的，法官阁下。正确。而且，法官阁下，我们不持立场——我们交由其他律师处理和解问题。问题在于，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 136 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n目前起草的拟议命令绕过了若干\n影响 G Club Operations 的权利和正当程序权利。\n这些权利始于这样一个概念，即和解\n协议假定存在另我分身，假定实质\n合并，并假定受托人可以仅仅控制我们的所有文件，\n从而规避证据开示程序。\n这就是关切所在，这也是我们指出\n拟议命令应予修改的原因。在\n法院同意和解的范围内，拟议\n命令应予修改，以保护我们的权利。\n法庭：不过，请让我问您关于 HCHK\nTechnologies 的问题。HCHK Technologies 签署了某份\n文件，将其全部权利、所有权、\n权益、债权和资产转让给受让人，对吗？\n我们并不对此提出争议？这发生过？\nFORNOS 女士：是的，法官阁下。\n法庭：好的。\nFORNOS 女士：但我想澄清——让我\n澄清这一点。受托人说得好像没有人\n提出异议。临时限制令在州法院提交立场陈述的任何日期\n到来之前就已作出。因此，临时限制令——\n法庭：不，不。我明白。我\n说的是甚至在临时限制令之前。案件之所以\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n在纽约提起，是因为 HCHK Technologies 的某个\n控制人签署了一份文件，将其\n所有一切都转让给受让人。这发生了，\n对吗？\nFORNOS 女士：是的，法官阁下。但我不认为\n该程序已经完成。不过我将交由——\n法庭：不，不。我并不是暗示您\n相信那一点。我只是说这就是发生的事，对吗？\n因此，受让人进入纽约的这个案件，并且所有这些实体、\n资产和——为了债权人的利益——都已作为受让人\n转让给他，对吗？因此，\n受让人的职责是从这些实体中取得一切，\n将其变现，并支付债权人。\n这本应发生。\nFORNOS 女士：法官阁下，我认为那是\n意图。但为明确起见，受让人承继——如果根据纽约州法律\n所有这一切均属适当——\n法庭：是。\nFORNOS 女士：——并且所有事项均应完成，且每个人均获给予\n就该程序发表意见的机会，假定所有这一切发生，\n受让人将承继——可以说将承继 HCHK\nTechnologies 的地位，并承继那些合同中的地位。\n而且根据那些合同，受让人仍将受这些协议约束。\n而这些协议具体地\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 138 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n其中载有保密条款以及具体条款，禁止受让人或 HCHK 仅仅移交全部文件——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nFornos 女士（Ms. Fornos）：\n——无论——\n\n法庭：\n您是否在通知中指出——如果您指出了，而我只是没有看到，我表示歉意——\n\n在 G Club Operations（G Club 运营公司）与 HCHK Technologies（HCHK 技术公司）之间的协议中，保密条款位于何处？\n\nFornos 女士：\n法官阁下，我们没有附上主服务协议。我们在记录中说明，受托人的律师不仅在最初提交的 300 份文件中获得了主服务协议，法庭可能记得，在上一次听证会上，法庭曾专门向我询问 HCHK，并且——\n\n法庭：\n我询问的是保密条款，对吗，以及会员是否有任何——我不是在谈 HCHK。我现在谈的是 G Club。\n\n您当时在谈论——我说的是，是否存在任何合同依据，使会员相信其信息将保持保密。\n\nFornos 女士：\n法官阁下，我将回答这个问题。\n\n这是两个不同的——\n\n法庭：\n当然。请继续。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交 07/21/23 录入 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 139 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 11 日 139\n\nFornos 女士：——问题。一是会员协议和会员权利。法庭上次恰当地提出了该问题，我们确实对此进行了研究，并确定我们有能力在遵守保护令的前提下提供该等资料；这正是我们与受托人讨论并解决的事项。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nFornos 女士：\n我们正在讨论的这个保密问题是一个独立问题。这是我们的整个 IT 系统。这是我们所有的电子邮件通信。这是 Microsoft 365。\n\n法庭：\n对。\n\nFornos 女士：\n这是——\n\n法庭：\n但您必须就此与 HCHK 达成某种协议。\n\nFornos 女士：\n其中载有一项关于——的保密协议。\n\n法庭：\n好的。这正是我所问的。\n\nFornos 女士：\n——我们全部的——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nFornos 女士：\n——我们全部的信息。该协议确实存在，并且我们已向受托人提供该协议的副本——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nFornos 女士：\n——多次，并且已将他抄送至\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交 07/21/23 录入 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 140 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 11 日\n\n要求 HCHK 返还该等信息的通信中。\n\n因此，法官阁下，目前拟议命令的结构并未考虑到——\n\n法庭：\n那么，当您说“该等信息”时，您指的是什么信息？如果他们控制着你们的系统，难道不全都是软件吗？\n\nFornos 女士：\n这是 IT。是电子邮件和其他应用程序，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。好的。\n\nFornos 女士：\n我们只是请求法庭注意，受托人不能只是绕过程序，径直介入并说：“我要把一切都拿走。”\n\n法庭：\n嗯，受托人是否这样说，我不知道。是您说受托人这样说。但我的问题是，您——您代表 G Clubs（原文如此）Operations 主张，G Club Operations 与 HCHK Technologies 之间存在一项协议，其中就 HCHK 代表 G Club Operations 管理的信息载有保密条款？这就是您——\n\nFornos 女士：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nFornos 女士：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n而且，您已向受托人提供了该等信息\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 11 日\n\n正如您所说。\n\nFornos 女士：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n而且您说的是——您是说这些信息绝不应当被交付，还是说您需要将其取回？对于 G Club 与 HCHK 之间协议中所涉的信息，除我们已经谈过的会员信息之外，您主张什么？\n\nFornos 女士：\n是的。所有信息均应返还给 G Club，以便 G Club 进行审查，确定应提交的内容，提交应提交的内容，并扣留享有特权的信息。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。这正是我希望澄清的。\n\nFornos 女士：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nClaiborn 女士（Ms. Claiborn）：\n再次说明，我是代表美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。我想我是今天最后一位向法庭陈述的异议方。美国受托人对该和解提出了有限异议。该异议载于 ECF 1978，并对三项事项提出异议。\n\n我先谈其中最容易的一项，然后再回到更具实质性的讨论。容易的部分涉及，如果法庭批准该和解，受托人将如何使用其取得的资金，以及人们应当了解什么。美国受托人认为，我们应当对此具有更大的透明度，并设有某些保障措施，以了解将会发生什么。\n\n美国受托人提议，受托人应提交每月支付款项清单。我认为受托人同意这样做。美国受托人还提议，对于超过 \\$25,000 的支出，应给予美国受托人和委员会机会，以就该支出是否适当发表意见。受托人则提出异议，并要求将该金额提高至 \\$50,000。\n\n除设定 \\$50,000 的门槛效率更高之外，我认为我没有听到其他论证。我认为真正的问题是，我们实际上并不知道受托人将如何使用这笔钱。我们应当有某种机制，以确保一项重大支出在发生之前，能够适当地提交给各方，使其了解将要发生什么。\n\n因此，美国受托人认为，\\$25,000 的标记是一个更好的门槛，是了解将在其发生之前发生什么的合理门槛。因此，美国受托人希望将其作为受托人必须考虑美国受托人和委员会意见的门槛。为明确起见，如美国受托人对拟议支出有异议，\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 11 日\n\n则由美国受托人负担责任，向法庭提出该事项。\n\n回到美国受托人在异议中提出的另外两项问题。它们是重要问题。而且目前它们在全国各地法院，包括第二巡回区（Second Circuit），都具有一定的重要性。\n\n拟议和解协议包含两项相互配合的条款。拟议命令第 13 段规定了一项导流禁令，拟议命令第 14 段规定了一项免责。其措辞尽可能宽泛。毫无争议的是，它们确实意在保护受让人及其专业人士，使其免受并非债务人、债务人财产或受托人的其他人所提出的索赔。\n\n被保护者的定义称为受让人，但为澄清起见，其不仅指受让人 Hofmeister 先生（Mr. Hofmeister），还指若干专业人士。因此，这是一个群体。其中包括今日代表受让人进行陈述的律师，即 Cole Schotz（Cole Schotz 律师事务所）。\n\n命令和和解协议中包含的免责，完全属于本庭决定其是否适当的权限范围。美国受托人的立场是，其并不适当，因为它在功能上等同于对第三方索赔的不当、非经同意的豁免。\n\n暂且退一步说。如果受托人拟议要豁免财产针对受让人及其专业人士提出的索赔，受托人有能力这样做。但拟议文字并非如此。\n\n拟议文字远超出该范围。其谈及对任何个人或实体的任何责任，然后继续谈及各种不同的行为。例如，其中包括未获保护且被保留的行为，即犯罪行为。因此，例如，如果某政府机构想要采取措施追究刑事指控，这些行动可以说会受到拟议命令中免责文字的禁止。\n\n美国受托人不认为拟议的免责文字符合第二巡回区近期在 Purdue Pharma（普渡制药）案中阐明的标准。该案列举的因素共有七项，拟议动议及和解条款似乎均未满足。法庭必须评估其是否确实有权批准该豁免，因为它影响的不仅是本财产的索赔，还影响不在此处且不受本庭事项管辖权约束的第三方索赔。并且，可能存在尚未向本庭阐明或提出的索赔。\n\n即使本庭因某种原因认定 Purdue Pharma 因素实际上已经满足，第二巡回区近期作出的 Purdue Pharma 判决也非常明确地表明，本庭并无最终批准拟议导流禁令和免责的实际权限，因为其所作出的任何认定都仅是拟议认定，必须由地区法院（District Court）批准、认可并采纳。这是因为这属于非核心程序，并且在请求本庭绕过程序并行使完全管辖权的范围内，违反了美国最高法院（United States Supreme Court）在 Stern v. Marshall 一案中的意见，因为本庭并无该等管辖权。\n\n法庭：\n那么，等一下。让我就这个问题打断您，因为我不确定我理解您的意思。本庭为何对在本案中提出的和解动议不具有核心管辖权？\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n我会更具体地说明。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n本庭无权批准导流禁令和免责，因为二者共同构成对不属于本\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 11 日 146 财产的第三方索赔的非经同意的豁免。那——\n\n法庭：\n那么，但是——\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n关于管辖权的该项判断——\n\n法庭：\n但您在谈论管辖权，所以——您在谈论管辖权，所以我们——我只是想——\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n所以我的论点是——\n\n法庭：\n我只是想确保我清楚理解您的立场。\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n我的论点有两方面。第一，我们不认为 Purdue Pharma 判决中阐明的因素——\n\n法庭：\n这一点我明白。我——\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n——已经满足。\n\n法庭：\n第七巡回区——这七项因素尚未满足。\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n但即使它们已经满足，我也无论如何不能裁决，因为它们不是核心——\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n您没有最终批准权限。\n\n法庭：\n——它们不是核心程序，并且必须移送地区法院？\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n正确。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交 07/21/23 录入 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 146 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交 07/21/23 录入 07/21/23 09:54:42 第 147 页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n法庭：\n但是，即便您是正确的——我不知道您是否正确，因为我直到现在才研究您刚才所说的内容——我直到现在才明白您的意思，我能否依据规则7052作出拟议的事实认定和法律结论？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n可以。但地区法院最终必须对此作出衡量。\n\n法庭：\n我明白。好的。好吧。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n而且这——\n\n法庭：\n我只是问一下。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n而且这仅涉及免责条款——\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n——以及导流禁令。\n\n我想指出的另一点是，本法庭没有法定授权在计划范围之外批准导流禁令。该问题是一个重大问题，并且使该导流禁令请求无法继续推进。唯一的机制——\n\n法庭：\n难道不是——人们一直都在请求这个吗？实际上，我这里的第7章受托人正在请求这些，而且没有人就导流禁令及无法定授权提出异议。而且我——在尚未确认计划的第11章案件中也是如此。\n\n案件22-50073 文件2023 提交于07/21/23 录入于07/21/23 09:54:42 第148页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日 148\n\n确认之前。而且，我认为，542(g)在哪里规定其必须与一项计划相关联？我不确定它是否如此规定。对此一直存在很多争议，不是吗？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n确实如此，法官阁下。而且是524(g)。\n\n法庭：\n我说的是42吗？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n我把它说反了吗？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n没关系。\n\n法庭：\n24(g)。抱歉。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n因此，关键在于，对他人施加该限制的授权仅见于该条款。法院已认定，该条款确实授权作出超出其中涉及石棉案件的具体措辞概念之外的导流禁令。话虽如此，据我们所知，没有任何判例法授权本法庭在计划范围之外施加该导流禁令。所有判例法均是在实际计划的范围内确定导流禁令的适当性。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n因此，美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的立场是，本法庭无权——\n\n法庭：\n没有法定授权来——\n\n案件22-50073 文件2023 提交于07/21/23 录入于07/21/23 09:54:42 第149页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n——允许该事项。好的。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n我——这有助于——您这样表述很有帮助。我此前并不完全确定。但现在我明白您的意思了。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n因此，回到该提议，如果将其缩减为受托人希望就财产可能对受让人及其专业顾问享有的请求权，免除受让人及其专业顾问责任的构想，则该事项属于受托人的权限范围。但受托人无权请求本法庭认可解除第三方对受让人及其专业顾问所持请求权的责任。因此，我们请求法庭否决和解协议中关于这两项条款的该部分，因为二者必须协调一致地解读。因此，拟议命令中的第13和第14项，我们请求在法庭批准目前提交至法庭的实际和解协议的范围内，将其从拟议命令中删除。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n受托人是否有回应？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n是的，法官阁下。首先，是否可以休庭十分钟，以便我们讨论——\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日 150\n\n法庭：\n可以。但是，实际上，在此之前，还有没有尚未陈述意见的异议人？Moriarty律师（Attorney Moriarty），您代表谁？\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n债务人，法官阁下。而且——\n\n法庭：\n哪一位债务人？\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）。\n\n法庭：\nKwok先生？\n\nMORIARTY先生：\nKwok先生。\n\n法庭：\n他——\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n我并不提出异议。\n\n法庭：\n他并未——\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n我只是想记录在案，债务人对和解协议或该动议不持任何立场。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n就这些。好吗？\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。好吧。是的，我们休庭十分钟——休庭至下午4点。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭书记员：\n全体起立。法庭休庭至下午4点。\n\n（下午3时51分至下午4时05分休庭。）\n\n案件22-50073 文件2023 提交于07/21/23 录入于07/21/23 09:54:42 第150页，共\n\n案件22-50073 文件2023 提交于07/21/23 录入于07/21/23 09:54:42 第151页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n法庭书记员：\n全体起立。康涅狄格州联邦破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut）重新——现已开庭。\n\n法庭：\n请就座。\n\n好的。我们在大约下午3时50分之前不久休庭，我想是这样，Despins受托人（Trustee Despins）。那么现在情况如何？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我很高兴地报告，我们已与受让人达成协议，我认为该协议解决了就免责和导流提出的许多问题。协议内容如下。\n\n受托人将免除财产对受让人和/或其专业顾问享有的任何诉因。当然——您知道，我不必告诉您这一点。您比我更清楚。经法官阁下批准，受托人可以这样做。我们认为不存在此类请求权，但我们将把它们作为和解的一部分予以免除。\n\n至于导流，不会存在使美国受托人担忧的广泛导流禁令；相反，基本上将由法庭承担把关职能，即任何人希望就受让人作为受让人以及为债权人利益而作出的转让这一角色，对受让人或其专业顾问主张请求权时，必须首先向本法庭提出该请求，以便法庭确定该诉因是否已被受托人根据我们将作出的免责所免除。\n\n案件22-50073 文件2023 提交于07/21/23 录入于07/21/23 09:54:42 第152页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日 152\n\n顺便说一句，只有在法官阁下批准和解的第三阶段时，才会作出该免责；即，只有在法官阁下批准受托人提出的另一个自我或衡平所有权请求时，才会作出该免责。如果该事项未获批准，那么一切——一切都不作数。没有免责。法庭也没有把关职能。这一切都将在本程序的第三阶段完成。\n\n但是，再次说明，受托人将仅免除财产对受让人及其专业顾问享有的请求权。将有一项条款——而且，您知道，受让人同意这一点，但须由其律师审阅措辞。其构想是，对受让人或其专业顾问的任何请求权必须首先提交至本法庭，以便法庭确定这些请求权是否受该免责约束。\n\n因为，如您所知，在这种情况下，人们是否拥有直接请求权的问题非常模糊。我们不希望在法官阁下确定，是的，那是一项不受受托人免责约束的直接请求权；您可以继续并且——\n\n案件22-50073 文件2023 提交于07/21/23 录入于07/21/23 09:54:42 第153页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n可以起诉您希望起诉的任何人之前，人们四处提起诉讼。我们希望这不会发生。但关键是，该权利受到保护。\n\n但法庭将发挥把关职能。我们认为，有充分依据赋予法庭仅为此目的的管辖权。因为他们并未被禁止提出其他请求权；他们只是——只是多了一个步骤，即他们需要先从本法庭开始，以便法庭保护其管辖权，亦即，这些请求权是派生请求权，还是直接且非派生的请求权。该认定必须由本法庭作出，即批准——或者如果法官阁下批准，将会批准该和解的法庭作出。\n\n因此，这就是——我认为这解决了该问题。我的同事将处理其他请求权债权人或声称为债权人的人提出的其他问题。但对我而言，我认为这以一种有利于财产的方式解决了一个——一项问题，同时也应使法庭确信，您拥有管辖权和权力，并且作出该类——该类型命令是适当的。\n\n在我将讲席让给我的同事之前，我只想说一点，法官阁下，每当那些——名称以G开头的人——我指的不是名字，而是以G开头的公司——在本庭出庭，置身于——或者请求法庭提供保护时，我会非常担心，我们需要——\n\n案件22-50073 文件2023 提交于07/21/23 录入于07/21/23 09:54:42 第154页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n看看这些事情最终如何尘埃落定。我们需要看看情况究竟如何，发生了什么。而且，您知道，我会非常担心任何试图破坏此事的行为，或者有人说，好吧，我也想要一项特别安排。\n\n首先，重要的是要理解，受让人及其专业顾问获得的救济，只有在法官阁下认定这些——这些实体是债务人的另一个自我时，他们才会获得该救济。否则，他们不会获得该救济。在那个阶段，人们将可以自由地说，哦，我是财产的一名行政债权人；让我向您解释原因。我们将在那时作出该认定。\n\n但今天不是处理希望被认定为行政——潜在行政请求权人的人的请求权的适当（听不清）或程序。这不是适当的情境。\n\n不过，就此而言，法官阁下，我将讲席让给我的同事。\n\n法庭：\n让我就您刚才所解释的、作为解决免责问题和免责条款问题的方案问您一个问题。您是说，您将同意限制免责措辞，规定受托人将同意仅免除财产对受让人享有的请求权，而且如果任何——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n以及其专业顾问。是的。\n\n案件22-50073 文件2023 提交于07/21/23 录入于07/21/23 09:54:42 第155页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n法庭：\n请继续。\n抱歉。\n什么？\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：\n以及其专业人士。\n\n法庭：\n以及其专业人士。\n好的。\n并且\n\n如果任何一方就其认为对受让人及其专业人士享有的请求权提出主张，他们必须将该请求权提交本法庭审理？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n或者向法庭提出动议，\n\n请求获准在——无论他们希望在何处提出该请求，例如纽约州法院——提出该请求，并向法庭说明为什么其所主张的该请求权——\n\n现在是债权人在发言——不受管理人向这些人士作出的免责所涵盖。\n\n法庭：\n那么这些债权人如何得知这一点？\n他们将如何得知？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n嗯，在他们将会收到的通知中——再次说明，这仅发生在第三阶段。如果法官阁下裁定这些实体是债务人的另一个自我，\n\n届时将发出通知，其中载明任何——我们可以就措辞加以商定——但任何认为自己拥有此类请求权的债权人，均须首先向本法庭提出动议，以获准提出任何此类请求权。\n\n这至少是——坦率而言，就正当程序而言，这对其行使权利构成的障碍极小，而且——因为归根结底，\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n这些请求权极有可能均为派生请求权，因此，我们拥有这些请求权。\n这就是为何具有该守门人职能十分重要，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n拟议的——让我们——如果您成功且和解动议获准，\n\n拟议命令目前如何处理该问题——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我们将——\n\n法庭：\n——即您——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我们需要向法官阁下提交新的措辞。\n但基本上，我会说，请忽略您目前面前有关免责和导引的条款。\n\n我们将提交一项条款，规定管理人——如果法庭准予救济，我们称之为——在决断性动议中，即简易判决或我们提出的任何其他动议中——管理人届时将解除对受让人及其专业人士的所有请求权。\n\n届时法庭将作出一项命令——或者，当然，须经法官阁下同意，作出一项命令，规定任何希望对受让人或其专业人士主张请求权的债权人，必须首先向本法庭提出动议，以获准这样做，从而使法庭能够确定\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 157 是否拟主张的请求权属于派生请求权，即仍由破产财产拥有的请求权，还是这些债权人的直接请求权，诸如此类。再次，我不愿提供过多措辞，因为受让人的律师尚未审阅这些措辞。但这些就是相关概念，法官阁下。因此，显然，我们需要向法官阁下提交一项新的命令。您知道，这一点毫无疑问。\n\n法庭：\n好的。但就目前而言，您的提议是否回应了美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的异议？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n嗯，没有。\n\n法庭：\n哦，她在摇头。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n没有，我不——我说的是我们已经与受让人解决了这个问题。\n\n法庭：\n这并未与美国受托人解决该问题。好的。\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：\n这确实回应了美国受托人关于免责的关切。破产财产获准提议对其希望免责的任何人予以免责。是否适当则由法庭决定。我们并未就该点提出争议。我们争论的是，您是否可以解除属于并非破产财产且并非债务人的第三方的其他请求权。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2023\nFiled 07/21/23\nEntered 07/21/23 09:54:42\nPage 157 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n因此，我认为该问题可以通过措辞处理并得到解决。\n\n至于拟议由法庭担任守门人的机制问题，我目前无权同意。\n我需要看到相关措辞，与美国受托人讨论，并向法庭及各方回复。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n但再次说明，我认为这与导引禁令相去甚远；在导引禁令下，任何请求权均必须提交至此处进行实体审理。\n\n基本上，这仅仅是一项守门人职能。我相信法院采取此类做法是有先例的。\n\n但无论如何，如果可以的话，我希望让我的同事处理其他——我的意思是，除非法官阁下还有其他问题。\n还有其他异议人，这引发——提出了一些问题。\n如有可能，我希望让我的同事处理这些问题。\n\n法庭：\n我只是在看看我是否还有其他问题。\n目前我没有其他问题，但这并不意味着我可能不会有，取决于还有什么——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n那么我将——如果——我将请Luft先生（卢夫特）到讲台前处理——\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nLUFT先生：\n法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 159 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 159\n\n法庭：\n可以，请。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n实际上，法官阁下，在Luft先生上前之前，我有一点——这纯属程序性问题。Goldman先生（戈德曼）问我，委员会是否可以对受让人专业人士的费用享有审查权，对此已达成同意。\n\n法庭：\n受让人本人也包括在内吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n仅限受让人的专业人士。因为对于受让人，没有可审查的内容。这是——意思是——\n\n法庭：\n不，但您——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n但是——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n他们已同意此事，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n是的。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n抱歉，我没有理解您的问题。第二点是，Luft先生准确描述了有关资金将投资于国债的条款。这是当前版本。但我们需要修改该条款——再次说明，受让人已同意——规定我们也可以将其保留在管理人的Section 345账户中。因为，长话短说，在我们告诉银行将取出该笔资金并投资于国债后，他们说，嗯，您知道，猜怎么着，我们将\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 160 提供给您4.95 percent，这仅比国债低约四分之一个百分点或半个百分点。而且这是在一个345账户中。因此我们决定——\n\n法庭：\n您的意思是U.S. Bank（美国银行）向您提供了这个利率？这是您的意思吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n不是。一家银行——\n\n法庭：\n哦。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n——但不是U.S. Bank。不是这家U.S. Bank。而是持有本案其他管理人账户的银行。\n\n法庭：\n好的，明白了。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n而且他们已同意向我们提供——\n\n法庭：\n破产财产管理人账户。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n——4.95 percent，这相当——这不是在为他们做宣传，但这确实是一个相当高的利率。而且这是一个Section 345账户。因此，美国受托人对此满意。因此，关键是我们需要修改该条款，以允许将资金存入此类账户。但这——这些就是我想提出的仅有两点程序性问题。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nLUFT先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。我是Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），再次代表第11章管理人，来自Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）。我会尽量简短，因为我意识到时间已晚。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 160 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 161 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n我将按照讨论的顺序进行。\n法官阁下，关于我所称的Himalaya（喜马拉雅）异议人所作的评论，我实际上只想聚焦于两点。第一，其中没有任何地方讨论Iridium因素，也没有讨论事实上这并不符合债务人破产财产的最佳利益。而这正是我们就一项9019和解来到这里所要处理的问题。\n\n事实上，我没有从任何人那里听到这种说法。坦率地说，我认为分析真正应当聚焦于此。\n\n除此之外，法官阁下，我确实想评论一下。有人大量使用诸如“完全被剥夺权利”之类的措辞，并暗示他们将无法提出请求权。这并不是本和解的架构，法官阁下。\n\n如果管理人在就另一个自我和／或衡平所有权的对抗程序中胜诉，并且相关人士是HCHK实体的有效债权人，那么他们将有机会在本案中提出请求权，但须以管理人申请重新开放提交请求权的截止期限为条件，而该事项已在命令中作出规定。\n\n如果管理人败诉，则资金返还给受让人。在这种情况下，他们的处境不会更糟。因此，所有关于人们被剥夺权利或失去请求权的说法都不属实。我认为，在他们提交的文件中，实际情况已相当清楚。其中提到，他们真正认为不公平的是，在纽约州法院案件中，他们仅会与HCHK的其他债权人竞争；但如果管理人就其另一个自我请求权胜诉，他们将与债务人的其他债权人处于平等地位。\n\n但这实际上相当公平，法官阁下。如果我们关于HCHK实体是债务人另一个自我的观点正确，那么债务人破产财产某一部分的债权人——某一部分的债权人——应当与破产财产其他部分的债权人获得完全相同的对待。因此，法官阁下，除非您有问题，否则我将继续处理其他事项。\n\n法庭：\n我没有问题。\n\nLUFT先生：\n谢谢。关于Sherman先生（谢尔曼）的陈述，他简要提到，我们没有明确不同意其请求权属于行政请求权。法官阁下，我在开场陈述中所说的是，我认为现在处理这些请求权——这些请求权——尚属过早。为明确起见，我不会将我没有详细说明其是否属于行政请求权这一事实，视为任何形式的同意。我认为，在适当的时间和地点，可以提交并予以审议。\n\n法庭：\n那么，何时何地才适当？我只是问问。\n\nLUFT先生：\n是的，法官阁下。这完全合理。我认为，如果我们在对抗程序中胜诉，并确定HCHK资产属于债务人的破产财产，那么我认为债务人的任何债权人，无论是通过HCHK还是以其他方式——这里我认为是Sherman先生或其他任何人——均可上前表示我拥有请求权，并可主张该请求权。\n\n法庭：\n但如果它是一项行政请求权呢？\n\nLUFT先生：\n法官阁下，就时间而言，我仍认为届时可能是适当的时间，仅仅因为在此之前——\n\n法庭：\n好的。我只是问，因为存在——\n\nLUFT先生：\n不，这完全合理。\n\n法庭：\n好的。请继续。\n\nLUFT先生：\n您看，Sherman先生现在可以自由地向我们提出该问题。我们可以讨论此事。我只是不认为这对该和解有任何影响。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 163 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2023 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 09:54:42 Page 164 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n我——最后要说的唯一一点是，如果我们败诉，那么款项将返还给受让人，随后他将必须作出判断，这就是我将其时间安排为等待该项判决的原因。\n\n关于 G News（G新闻），我只想说，听着，并不存在因为你与一方当事人和解，就必须解决任何一方当事人可能拥有的全部请求权的义务。再次说明，这是与受让人和受托人达成的和解。所处理的是他们的请求权。\n\n我不认为正在发生的事情会以任何方式损害 G News。再次说明，我们将在适当时候处理其请求权。\n\n最后，关于 G Club（G俱乐部），我只想作几点评论。首先，我要指出，他们不是债权人，法官阁下。他们基于何种理由反对该和解，并不十分清楚。\n\n我特别指出，对于我所强调的、载于其通知第6段提案中的措辞，并未被提及；该措辞称我们只能查看“仅与 HCHK 实体有关”的文件。正如我所说，他们加入而目前并未处理的该措辞，很可能会导致受托人可查阅的文件成为空集。我认为这并不适当。他们似乎也未就此作出回应。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第165页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日 165 关于 HCHK 控制其全部电子邮件及全部信息技术系统这一观点，我要指出，尽管目前已进行了七个月、或许八个月，这份通知是我们首次听说 HCHK——或者说，在过去数周内我们首次听说 HCHK 的电子邮件实际上全部由第三方控制，并且 HCHK 负责运行这一切。在 G Club 被要求数月提交其文件时，我们从未听他们这样说过。他们现在提出特权和保密性问题。我看不出他们如何能够这样做。在文件发送给受让人时，他们并未提出异议。他们似乎并不介意 HCHK 持有其文件。而且，他们似乎也不反对受让人将全部文件出售给 G News 并让其获得全部文件这一想法。你知道，我认为，即使曾经存在任何特权或保密性方面的疑虑——对此我存有疑问——依我看来，这些疑虑也已经被放弃。看来其他所有人均获准查看这些文件。受托人查看这些文件也是适当的。最后，关于贵方——法院就 MSA 以及贵方所要求的条款提出问题这一事项，MSA 很可能已与其他文件一并提交给我们。当然，MSA 中没有任何条款被特别向我们指出。没有任何措辞——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第166页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n被向我们出示。该协议中也未载有任何内容，说明据称受到违反的事项或其他情况。\n\n再次说明，我认为最适当的做法是让受托人，如同受让人一样，处于相同地位。让他们拥有 HCHK 的文件。让他们在需要审阅这些文件的范围内使用这些文件。如果其中包含 G Club 的文件，情况一直如此。此前这似乎并非问题。现在也不应成为问题。\n\n法官阁下，如您有任何问题，我很乐意回答。\n\n法庭：我没有问题。谢谢。\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表委员会的 Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼）。我只是想表达我们对受托人所提议和解的支持。我们赞赏受托人能够迅速且积极地停止州法院程序，并将原本属于这些程序标的的资产置于第11章程序的保护伞之下。这些资产本可能逃避破产财产的追索。并非说它们已被认定为破产财产，但至少它们已提交法院作出该项认定。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第167页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n当然，本法院对破产财产享有专属管辖权，我认为，本法院亦享有认定何者构成破产财产的专属管辖权。这正是该和解所实现的。如受让人所述，这只是一个变更审理法院的和解，实际上将转让程序中存在的任何请求权引导至本法院，同时保留可主张的全部请求权。没有人被剥夺权利。\n\n你知道，关于对破产财产的豁免，这是商业判断标准。如果这意味着批准整个和解，我们支持该做法。\n\n关于把关职能，我认为，当一项派生请求权被包装成——或者说，一项派生请求权被包装成直接请求权时，法院适用这种做法是常见的。因此，这类把关职能被普遍采用，以使债权人不能这样做；法院将最终裁决何者属于直接请求权、何者属于派生请求权，从而使那些被包装成直接请求权的派生请求权，不能在法院至少认定其确属正当的直接请求权之前，径行到各个法院提起诉讼。\n\n因此，委员会支持以已向法院说明的方式修改后的和解。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日 168 法庭：好的。谢谢。GOLDMAN 先生：谢谢。PASTORE 先生：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？法庭：可以。PASTORE 先生：我知道时间已晚，所以我会简短发言。我非常尊敬我的好友 Goldman 先生，但是——我想强调他刚才使用的一个词，即“停止”。法庭书记员：抱歉。我需要您的姓名。我没有听清姓名。PASTORE 先生：哦，抱歉。我是代表——的 Joseph Pastore（约瑟夫·帕斯托雷）。法庭书记员：谢谢。PASTORE 先生：——HCHK 债权人。法庭书记员：谢谢。PASTORE 先生：停止。我认为这是一个重要的词。因此，我们目前的情况是，没有关于另一个自我的认定，没有关于任何债权人值得受到非难的认定，但我们却要停止纽约的一项程序，而没有任何人认定受让人所采取的行为是否符合其受任保护的那些债权人的最佳利益——这是纽约法院的职责——然后又告诉那些债权人，除非经本法院批准，否则他们不得就受让人的行为对其提起任何诉讼。我认为，我一贯支持正当程序条款，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第168页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交于 07/21/23\n登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n一贯支持，您知道，法律结论和事实认定。这里两者均不存在。然而，我当事人的权利显然全都被剥夺了。\n\n至少——我们确实赞赏美国检察官办公室对禁令提出的异议。我认为，这当然必须被说出来。而且我认为我已经说过了。至少，我们请求有权查阅任何拟议裁定中修改该措辞的内容，并在必要时对其发表评论。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nJARECK 先生：法官阁下，最后一点？\n\n法庭：可以。可以。请继续。\n\nJARECK 先生：为记录在案，我是代表受让人的 Ryan Jareck（瑞安·贾雷克），Cole Schotz PC（科尔·肖茨律师事务所）。法官阁下，现在时机正好，因为我的评论涉及 Pastore 先生在其先前陈述中所说的，即该和解越权并违反纽约州法律。\n\n而在作出该说法时，他援引了其自身书状的第58段，该段再次援引纽约州债务人与债权人法中的另一条规定。该规定称：“法官可应受让人的申请，授权受让人出售、和解或处理属于债务人财产的任何请求权或债务。”\n\n再次说明，法官阁下，这完全是错误引用。这并非我们正在做的事。我们并未出售。我们并未——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日 170 和解。我们只是将资金转移给受本法院控制的另一名受托人。谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。FORNOS 女士：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？法庭：可以。FORNOS 女士：简要说明，法官阁下。G Club Operations（G俱乐部运营公司）并未放弃其任何权利。如法院可能记得，我在上次听证会上特别提到了 HCHK 问题。我已提出该问题。我还于6月19日就此问题以及返还我们的保密信息联系了 Jareck 先生。我还于7月5日联系了 Jareck 先生和 Lutz 先生，并向他们提供了主服务协议的副本。我们的立场非常简单。我们可以按照法院认为适当的方式处理拟议裁定。问题仅在于，受托人不能绕过证据开示程序，并取代一家甚至尚未被认定为另一个自我、尚未与该破产财产进行实质合并的公司，然后突然介入并称这些现在全都是我们的文件，我们可以——取得它们。因此，我们恭请法院考虑我们的请求，即受托人无权这样做。相反，这些文件应返还给 G Club——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第170页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第171页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\nOperations，以便 G Club Operations 能够审查其相关性和特权，并据此提交。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nFORNOS 女士：法院还有其他问题吗？\n\n法庭：没有。谢谢。\n\nFORNOS 女士：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因此，和解争议动议既在主案中以 ECF 编号 1936 提交，也在对立程序 23-5013 中以 ECF 编号 25 提交。我们的地方法院破产程序规则要求，在对立程序中提出的任何和解动议也须在主案中提交，以便向所有当事人提供该和解动议的通知和送达。\n\n根据主案及对立程序中的记录，以及与主案动议和对立程序动议有关的送达证明——送达证明，抱歉——该动议、该动议的通知和送达以及该动议的听证均已适当作出。\n\n当事人——某些当事人对该和解动议提出了异议，他们今天均已出席本次听证，包括由 Pastore 律师代理的 Himalaya 当事人、就其主张其有权获得来自 HCHK 当事人的一项——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2023 提交于 07/21/23 登记于 07/21/23 09:54:42 第172页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日 172\n\n管理费用债权而自行代理的 Sherman 律师。G News 的律师提交了异议，再次主张 G News 有权获得管理费用债权，并请求建立一项管理费用债权机制。\n\n随后，G Club Operations（G Club 运营公司）的律师提交了通知，其律师已阐明其意见；其担忧是，受托人订立该和解协议是为了通过证据开示取得文件，而在 G Club Operations 从 HCHK Technologies（HCHK 科技）实体处取回其文件之前，受托人可能无法取得该等文件。随后，G Club 可以审阅该等文件，并确定其中哪些文件（如有）可以出示，但须受 G Club 可能主张的任何特权限制。\n\n但我提醒 G Club 和受托人，显然，就向 G Club 寻求的其他证据开示而言——我并不是说该和解属于证据开示，但这是 G Club Operations 的看法——主案中已经生效的保护令、保密条款和命令，显然已经处理了本院就尚待裁决的藐视法庭及强制 G Club 出示文件的动议所提出的问题。\n\n此外，美国受托人提交了有限异议。我理解美国受托人的有限异议。郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）通过其律师莫里亚蒂先生（Mr. Moriarty）对该和解动议未持立场。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n显然——不仅仅是显然。如庭上所述，受托人已同意将任何关于和解动议的命令中规定的免责限定为破产财产的免责。且该免责仅在达成和解的第三阶段时才会发生。只有在本院就另我主张作出有利于受托人的裁决后，才会发生该情况。\n\n由于受托人和其他律师，包括美国受托人办公室、债权人委员会以及受让人的律师，在庭上所作的讨论、陈述和建议与听证会前所提出的内容有所不同，我将仅将本次听证会延期一周，且仅为审阅附有今日庭上所述变更内容的拟议和解批准命令。各方异议均已记入记录。已提交异议的任何一方均无须再提出异议。本院不会考虑任何进一步的异议。\n\n但是，我将命令受托人的律师按照今日庭上所述内容修改该拟议命令，并向所有提出异议的当事人送达该命令。我希望在7月13日下午5时之前完成该事项，以便我们下周回到这里举行听证会时，我能够了解拟议和解批准命令的条款可能存在何种问题（如有）。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n本院此刻并未裁定该和解动议是获准还是不获准。我建议各方就拟议命令进行一些讨论。我将审阅拟议命令及其中所载的修订内容。\n\n然后，在下周，我将或者表示该事项已具备裁决条件并作出裁决，或者我将要求——我想——在该命令中加入其他事项。但我目前不会作出裁定。我将回头审阅所有人的诉状，并将结合今日听证会中提出的论点进行审阅。\n\n但是，就实体动议、动议中请求的救济及异议而言，本次听证会本身无须进一步举行听证会。我希望看到该命令的内容，并希望理解它。\n\n因此，德斯平斯受托人（Trustee Despins），当您的办公室在13日下午3时——抱歉，下午5时——向所有人送达该命令时，我希望您也将其提交至主案和对抗程序的案卷中。这将给本院时间审阅该命令，并在继续举行听证会之前——我们将安排该听证会——该案和对抗程序中已有其他事项安排于7月18日中午12时开始审理。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n第 175 页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n我将仅就拟议命令继续举行听证会，并将其安排在下午2时。\n\n我之所以说下午2时，是因为目前下周日程中已安排举行 Genever Holdings（Genever 控股公司）诉 AIG Property Casualty（AIG 财产意外保险）对抗程序的原定审前会议。鉴于我们将从明天开始在 AIG 对抗程序中举行两天——或者可能两天——的证据听证会，下周没有必要举行审前会议。我会了解进展情况。在没有必要的情况下，我不会为了审前会议而要求各方到庭。\n\n因此，主案中关于 ECF 1936 的和解动议听证会，以及对抗程序 23-5013 中关于 ECF 25 的和解动议听证会，均延期至7月18日下午2时。我不会就修订后拟议命令的提交和送达作出正式排期命令，因为我正在庭上作出该命令。\n\n有人对此有任何问题吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士（MS. CLAIBORN）：法官阁下，只有一个问题。如果一方对拟议命令有异议，本院希望在何日期限前提交意见？\n\n本院：我们将在下次听证会上讨论此事——嗯——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：不，我明白。我的意思是，如果要提交书面答复——\n\n本院：我会给予每个人在7月14日星期五下午5时之前提交书面答复的机会。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：谢谢。\n\n本院：现在，除非当事人已提交异议，否则——本院唯一会受理任何书面答复的当事人，将是已经提交异议的当事人。任何尚未提交异议的人，首先已经超过期限。\n\n第二，下周的本次听证会并非——我们不会重新讨论已经讨论过的同一问题。我们已经——已经讨论过这些问题。我理解各方各自的立场，并且我将在某个时候作出裁定，无论是在听证会上、听证会后，还是根据我对你们修订后的拟议命令及任何答复所作的审阅。但听证会将仅限于这些问题。\n\n有人有任何问题吗？\n\n帕斯托雷先生（MR. PASTORE）：只是简短说明一下。那天下午2时，我在新泽西州联邦法院有一场和解会议。麦克拉米女士（Ms. McClammy）可以处理本次听证会。我只是想让本院知悉。绝无不敬之意，但我将会——\n\n本院：没问题。谢谢。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：好的。\n\n本院：感谢您告知。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：法官阁下，关于时间安排，您是否有任何灵活性？例如，能否稍晚一些，比如下午3时30分或4时？\n\n本院：当然。我的意思是，如果这是大家希望的安排。但您必须取得所有人的同意。\n\n德斯平斯先生：哦，那么——\n\n本院：如果所有人同意，那没有问题。不过，我不会晚于下午4时。法庭工作人员——我不知道大家会说什么。也许会——也许不会有问题。但法庭工作人员——我——您知道，我——他们晚上也想回家，这一点我能理解。\n\n阿卡罗先生（MR. ARCARO）：法官阁下，我想向本院提出一个问题。\n\n本院：好的。\n\n阿卡罗先生：就向本院提交的修订命令而言——我们——没有——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n第 177 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n第 178 页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n本院：该命令将被提交至案卷，因此每一位已登记出庭的人都将通过——我不确定这是否是您的问题。但您将通过 CM/ECF 收到它。\n\n阿卡罗先生：我的问题是，法官阁下给予了就该拟议命令提交答复的机会。\n\n本院：截止时间是7月14日星期五下午5时。\n\n阿卡罗先生：如果未提交答复，异议是否视为放弃？\n\n本院：不会。仍将考虑你们的异议。我尚未作出裁定，对吗？\n\n阿卡罗先生：法官阁下，谢谢。谢谢。\n\n本院：如果此前不够明确，我很抱歉。我将考虑所有人的异议。\n\n阿卡罗先生：好的。谢谢。\n\n本院：但鉴于我们所有人所讨论的内容——不是我讨论的，而是你们今天所讨论的内容，以及你们就各自异议所作的陈述——我希望看到这份修订后的拟议命令将会是什么样子。\n\n阿卡罗先生：非常感谢。\n\n本院：所以，不会——你们不会放弃任何已及时提交的异议。所有异议都将得到考虑。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n第 179 页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n阿卡罗先生：好的。\n\n本院：但我也希望看到我们在修订后的拟议命令方面进展到何种程度。\n\n阿卡罗先生：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n本院：好的？谢谢。\n\n好的。那么，法庭书记员可能会在今天晚些时候——或者不是今天，明天——注明，AIG 对抗程序下周的审前会议将延期至待定日期。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n本院：好的？\n\n法庭书记员：是。\n\n本院：我相信我们明天上午10时开始举行 AIG 对抗程序的证据听证会。对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n本院：好的。那么我——我们已经处理完今日日程中的所有事项。基于上述原因，现休庭。谢谢各位。\n\n众人齐声：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭书记员：全体起立。现休庭。\n\n（程序于下午4时46分结束。）\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2023\n提交 07/21/23\n录入 07/21/23 09:54:42\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n本人，克里斯蒂娜·菲奥雷（CHRISTINE FIORE），经法院批准的誊录员及认证电子书记员和誊录员，证明上述内容为本案程序官方电子录音的正确誊本。\n\n2023年7月20日\nChristine Fiore，CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Guo","HCHK","Despins","Himalaya","Paul Hastings","CIPA","G Clubs"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":25,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":221,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1896,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1936,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1971,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1978,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1992,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":51058,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-07-21 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-07-21","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:13:40"}